What would the universe look like if orbital hybridization wasn't

File: sorry 31634733 I stole your meme.png (90KB, 367x388px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 367x388px

>>8623952
>implying hybridization occurs in elements with Z>10

>>8623980
What about icy planets or gaseous ones and what would the hydrocarbon lakes on Titan be made of?

>>8624003

It would all be helium

>>8624011
So orbital hybridization is essential during stellar nucleosynthesis?

>>8623980
>babby doesn't understand the bonding in Al2Me6
>babby doesn't understand the bonding in SF6
>babby doesn't understand

>>8624043
>babby haven't heard of MO LCAO
highschooler get out

>>8624059
>implying hybridization (i.e., bonding with more than just a 'pure' atomic orbital) isn't just an oversimplification of LCAO

>>8624100
uh, hybridization implies that atomic orbitals even out and become equivalent, like 1 s and 3 p turn into 4 identical orbitals.
while in reality it is not always the case when d orbitals emerge (Z>10), i.e. in OP's picture axial and equatorial positions are not equivalent, bond lengths are different, and orbitals have slightly different distribution.
SF6 can be explained by bonding with p and d orbitals just fine, no need for ridiculous sp3d2 tomfoolery
tetrahedrons can also be made without hybridization

tldr: hybridization is nothing but a formal tool for geometry prediction made for brainlets

File: graphics1.jpg (176KB, 1500x2067px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1500x2067px

>>8624134
How I know you're a dipshit right off the bat: the d orbitals of sulfur are usually too high in energy to engage in bonding. That's how I know you're in high school (and a shitlord).

OK nerd, time to take you to school: first and foremost, no, hybridization is *not* the idea that atomic orbitals even out and become equivalent: it's that atomic orbitals combine to make "hybrid" orbitals which engage in bonding. This was how Linus Pauling explained why methane is tetrahedral and all of the bonds had complete symmetry. This is sometimes true, e.g. the molecular orbital for the C-H bond in methane contains about 25% character of the 2s orbital and 75% character from the various 2p orbitals. On the whole, however, this is an oversimplification and doesn't have an answer for species that exceed standard valence: how can SF6 form six "hybrid" orbitals when it only has four atomic orbitals to work with?

The reality is that MO theory (implemented by group theory) sometimes agrees with hybridization (methane) but can also explain the exotic bonding of other species. See the attached MO diagram for SF6: the reality is that the bonds all contain some admix of sulfur orbitals, but the remaining electron density is located on the fluorine atoms and thereby part of the bonding is ionic. Perhaps a better example is PCl5, wherein the chlorines in the plane are equivalent but the apical ones are not. The apical chlorines participate in 3-center 4-electron bonding wherein one can imagine that the majority of the bonding character is on the chlorines (evidenced by contribution of AOs to bonding state) and have high nonbonding character too, with the antibonding orbital being predominately composed of the pz orbital from phosphorus.

Don't talk about shit you don't know.

>>8623952
>orbital hybridization
oh boy, are you gonna be mad or what
This is 2nd or 3rd year chemistry I assume?

>>8624222
sounds reasonable
okey

>>8624043
>What are 3-centers-2-electron bonds
[email protected]

>>8624316
...and the relevant orbitals in aluminum for the bridging methyl groups contaaaaain.... s and p character!!!! Oh wow I thought you didn't get AO mixing (hybridization) there no wayyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>8623952
hybridisation theory is only used by oc plebs

>>8624222
this is how real men do it

>>8624316
Diborane is cute!!