limitations of valence bond theory
In valence bond theory this is how bonds are assumed to form. In MO theory thsi si not the case!.
Superior is a difficult term. The latest versions valence bond theory and molecular orbital theories give similar answers. The simple old versions work from different premises- valence bond assumes localised pair bonds molecular orbital theory is better ate predicting spectroscopic properties. VSEPR is different again and focuses on the geometry around a central atom- and as such is better than both the simple versions of the other theories.
Molecular orbital theory is more recent than Valence bond theory. Both theories have their adherents and recently VB theory has had a renaissance. They both have their strengths. Chemists use both and mix/match. Some very familiar concepts used every day by chemists spring originally from VB theory, electronegativity, hybridisation of atomic orbitals. MO theory has its advocates, an early triumph was the prediction of the paramagnetism of O2 whereas valence bond theory predicted O2 to be diamagnetic. One criticism of VB theory is that it starts from a description of bonds as localised pairs of electrons, whereas in MO all bonds are potentially delocalised.
Liquid oxygen exhibits paramagnetism and a relatively low boiling point, characteristics that contradict predictions from the valence bond theory. Valence bond theory suggests that all electrons in O2 should be paired, leading to diamagnetism; however, molecular orbital theory accounts for the presence of unpaired electrons in the antibonding π* orbitals, resulting in paramagnetism. Additionally, the molecular orbital theory explains the lower boiling point of liquid oxygen compared to other diatomic molecules by considering the weaker intermolecular forces due to its electronic configuration.
Covalent bond :)
In valence bond theory this is how bonds are assumed to form. In MO theory thsi si not the case!.
Gilbert Lewis followed by Linus Pauling who is credited with the quantum mechanical approach, called valence bond theory (distinguishing it from the more recent molecular orbital theory), which is based on Lewis's electron pair bonding theory now taught as Lewis "dot" diagrams.
Superior is a difficult term. The latest versions valence bond theory and molecular orbital theories give similar answers. The simple old versions work from different premises- valence bond assumes localised pair bonds molecular orbital theory is better ate predicting spectroscopic properties. VSEPR is different again and focuses on the geometry around a central atom- and as such is better than both the simple versions of the other theories.
Molecular orbital theory is more recent than Valence bond theory. Both theories have their adherents and recently VB theory has had a renaissance. They both have their strengths. Chemists use both and mix/match. Some very familiar concepts used every day by chemists spring originally from VB theory, electronegativity, hybridisation of atomic orbitals. MO theory has its advocates, an early triumph was the prediction of the paramagnetism of O2 whereas valence bond theory predicted O2 to be diamagnetic. One criticism of VB theory is that it starts from a description of bonds as localised pairs of electrons, whereas in MO all bonds are potentially delocalised.
If I understand the theory correctly, then it is safe to assume that any molecular bond is based on the valence system. Valence bonding occurs when orbitals of electrons are slightly overlapped. Your question should rather be 'what kind of valence bond occured in the bond. There are 2 types namely sigma and pi. Sigma bonds occur when the orbitals of two shared electrons overlap head-to-head. Pi bonds occur when two orbitals overlap when they are parallel (wikipedia). So it is safe to assume that any bond that is covalent can be described using valence theory.
Lewis structures: Do not account for molecular geometry and resonance. VSEPR theory: Only predicts molecular shape and does not explain bond strength. Valence bond theory: Simplifies bonding by considering overlapping atomic orbitals, but can be limited in explaining complex molecules. Molecular orbital theory: Provides a more accurate description of bonding but can be complex and computationally expensive for large molecules.
Hybridisation is a mathematical technique in valence bond theory used "create" new (higher energy) orbitals from base atomic orbitals so that the new orbitals point along bond axes. Valence bond theory as its name suggests focuses on the localised electron pair. Other bonding theories such as molecular orbital theory do not hybridise the base atomic orbitals. Both theories have their merits.
Valence bond theory focuses on the overlap of atomic orbitals to form bonds between atoms, emphasizing the localized nature of bonding. Molecular orbital theory considers the entire molecule as a whole, with electrons delocalized over the entire molecule, leading to the formation of molecular orbitals.
Liquid oxygen exhibits paramagnetism and a relatively low boiling point, characteristics that contradict predictions from the valence bond theory. Valence bond theory suggests that all electrons in O2 should be paired, leading to diamagnetism; however, molecular orbital theory accounts for the presence of unpaired electrons in the antibonding π* orbitals, resulting in paramagnetism. Additionally, the molecular orbital theory explains the lower boiling point of liquid oxygen compared to other diatomic molecules by considering the weaker intermolecular forces due to its electronic configuration.
Covalent bond :)
The answer is c. Valence electrons are shared between oxygen atoms & D. Four valence eletrons are shared
In a covalent bond, the electrons used are typically the valence electrons of the atoms involved. These are the outermost electrons. Each atom contributes one or more valence electrons to form a shared pair in the bond.