13

Recently I was watching a video on Valence Bond Theory, on the MIT Open-Course youtube channel. The teacher there said that

For hybridization to occur, electron promotion from fully filled orbitals to empty ones is a must.

But here in a book it is specifically mentioned that

Electron promotion, though common, but is not 'a must' for hybridization.

Also, it is clearly written that sometimes even the filled orbitals take part in hybridization.

I tried finding some examples of such a case on the web, but could not. It would be a great help if someone tells me even one example where the fully filled orbitals also take part in hybridization, with an explanation why it is so.

The link for the 41 min long video is here.

M.A.R.
  • 10,576
  • 19
  • 71
  • 93
  • 3
    I tried to watch that... $\ce{PH3}$ cannot be described in terms of VSEPR or hybridisation. The bond angle is about $93^\circ$. I could not watch any more after that. – Martin - マーチン Jul 24 '14 at 07:36
  • @Martin I never said anything about PH3 and she DID NOT explain PH3 by VSEPR theory. If you had watched the video full you would have got my point. I think since you did not watch the video and neither you bothered even reading my question , so you should not comment anything that is not related to it. –  Jul 24 '14 at 09:40
  • I have carefully read and edited your question, and as I just saw I have to do this again since you changed the tags to the topic that they aren't. I really wanted to answer this question, but now I am more than only annoyed by your suggestive tone. – Martin - マーチン Jul 24 '14 at 11:11
  • I can understand Martin's first comment; the lecturer does imply VSEPR and hybridization for $\ce{PH3}$ (a molecule relevant to the question) when she says "the lone pair pushes down the bonds below 109.5°". This is not true; the lone pair is in an orbital which is essentially the same as the phosphorous $3s$ atomic orbital, and hence has quasi-spherical symmetry about the phosphorous nucleus. Such high symmetry cannot induce directional repulsion. Martin's view (shared by many others) is that hybridization doesn't exist in the first place. This is fair as a type of answer. – Nicolau Saker Neto Jul 24 '14 at 12:21
  • @NicolauSakerNeto She said that just in a casual way, though she was just trying to explain that the bond angle will be decreased due to the replulsion from lone pair. She is teaching to first year students, she need to specify such detail, that too on open course. But still I dont understand why am I commenting this PH3 thing again and again. I want to know an example where filled orbitals hybridize, nothing more. –  Jul 24 '14 at 14:26
  • @Martin I don't care about the tags. I want an answer to my question, which I don't think you can give ( I am not being rude ). You can go on editing if you like. I am sorry if you found me rude, but I still think there was no need of your comment. –  Jul 24 '14 at 14:28
  • @NicolauSakerNeto how do yo know the lone pair which is "essentially" the same as the phosphorous 3s orbital? – Dissenter Jul 24 '14 at 15:34
  • 2
    @NicolauSakerNeto I am not opposing hybridisation. Just the concept in which it is usually treated, as a rigid theory that is required to form certain bonds. Since the bonding angle is $93^\circ$ it would be wrong to neglect the influence of the s orbital. || Dear Hardik, after studying five years of chemistry, a doctorate and currently a postdoc in computational/ theoretical chemistry, I think I would be able to answer your question. Maybe my comment was a bit impulsive, and I apologize that I have offended you with it, I just wanted to point out an obvious flaw of the lecture. – Martin - マーチン Jul 24 '14 at 17:16
  • @Dissenter Look at ron's answer, explaining Coulson's theorem. You can calculate the hybridisation at the phosphorus centre based on the bonding angle and you will see, that the only place the lone pair can go is the (mostly) s orbital. – Martin - マーチン Jul 24 '14 at 17:24
  • @Martin I don't doubt your knowledge at all. You have a large reputation, it indicated you know much more chemistry than me. Just the point was I needed an example, which LDC3 has given. –  Jul 25 '14 at 04:31
  • 1
    Whatever you were trying to say, I clearly understood it wrong, I apologize for any inconvenience. I would like to add one last thing, your book mentioned electron promotion, this concept is outdated by at least twenty years now. I highly recommend to switch to a different book, e.g. Chemistry of the Elements, by N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw; Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity, by James E. Huheey et. al. ... – Martin - マーチン Jul 25 '14 at 06:48
  • 2
    @Martin Yes you are right, this concept is outdated. The book although mentioned it as a separate small note. And the teacher in the video too, thats why i got confused. I will sure try to read the book you recommended. –  Jul 25 '14 at 17:51

3 Answers3

11

First off, hybridization is a concept chemists developed to help explain reality (their observations). Just like resonance theory and Huckel MO theory, it is often (but not always) a useful way to explain the world around us. A "rule" on hybridization: hybridization occurs in response to a bonding interaction. Further, hybridization involves the mixing of filled (or partially filled) atomic orbitals to produce new atomic orbitals that can be used to form "directed" bonds (molecular orbitals) that produce more stable molecular systems than an unhybridized atom might produce. Finally, energetically speaking, hybridization is a net neutral process. When low energy AOs are mixed with higher energy AOs, the resultant new AOs have the average energy of the initial AOs. So if some electrons are "promoted", then some are lowered in energy as well

For example, in the formation of methane, carbon mixes the electrons in the 2s and three 2p atomic orbitals to produce 4 $\ce{sp^3}$ hybridized atomic orbitals. The energy of these 4 equivalent $\ce{sp^3}$ orbitals is in between that of the starting 2s and 2p orbitals. In the case of methane this use of $\ce{sp^3}$ orbitals to produce a tetrahedrally shaped molecule, produces a molecule that is lower in energy than the alternative molecule formed from unhybridized s and p orbitals on carbon. In the case of phosphine ($\ce{PH_3}$) the situation is reversed. The $\ce{P-H}$ bonds in phosphine are directed along the x, y and z-axes. The central phosphorous atom remains unhybridized. In the case of phosphine, hybridization does not produce a lower energy molecule, so the central phosphorous atom in phosphine remains unhybridized.

Personally, I like the concept of hybridization and find it quite useful. But you have to be careful where to apply it. Hybridization is best when it is used to explain reality after the fact.

ron
  • 84,691
  • 13
  • 231
  • 320
  • Not sure what you're getting at, but I thought my answer might help the OP have a better understanding of the subject. If you feel the answer isn't helpful, you are free to down-vote and\or constructively criticize it. – ron Jul 25 '14 at 02:45
  • 1
    It does help, I was just pointing out that you could also include an example that the OP requests. It's easy to veer from the requested answer when there is so much to explain. – LDC3 Jul 25 '14 at 02:52
  • I agree with almost everything you say, but not the part where the new resultant AOs have an average energy. It is just not possible to assign energy values to hybrid orbitals, as these are no eigenfunction of the Hamilton operator (They do not produce the correct quantum numbers). – Martin - マーチン Jul 27 '14 at 17:45
  • @Martin 2 questions, 1) if I theoretically mix 50% carbon 2s AO and 50% carbon 2p AO to create an sp orbital, why wouldn't its theoretical or estimated energy be 0.5E(s) + 0.5E(p); 2) if I mix two carbon sp AOs to form an sp-sp MO I can experimentally determine its energy (PES spectrum of acetylene) and see if it is halfway between the 2s and 2p energy levels for atomic carbon, right? – ron Jul 27 '14 at 17:56
  • Theoretically you could do that, but the value you obtain would be a number without a physical meaning. One has to be very careful in using this number even as an estimate, since it is not an observable state. Hybrid orbitals are directionalized (localised) orbitals, that would violate the spherical symmetry of an atom and also the quantum numbers. The concept of hybridisation is very useful, in describing a general bonding pattern. It will give you wrong results for (excitation) energies, since if you distort the molecule (in any way) bonding and therefore also hybridisation changes.
  • – Martin - マーチン Jul 28 '14 at 02:41
  • You will always measure the MO, which would be the linear combination of two sp AO, or in MO theory terms 22s + 22p. I am pretty certain that the contributions of these orbitals are not equal, since the hydrogen cannot polarise the orbital as well as the carbon. And then there is this nasty thing called electron-electron repulsion. This affects filled molecular orbitals, resulting in bonding orbitals less bonding than virtual orbitals are antibonding. So I am pretty sure, that the energy you measure for this MO is nowhere near the energy halfway between 2s and 2p.
  • – Martin - マーチン Jul 28 '14 at 02:49
  • @Martin I should have been more clear, I was referring to the sp-sp C-C sigma bond in acetylene, not the C-H bond – ron Jul 28 '14 at 03:08
  • Your point was very clear. But both bonds will not involve an idealised sp orbital. The second carbon has a much larger effect on the polarisation on the carbon atomic orbital, than the hydrogen on the other side. In a very idealised theory, the hybrid AO for the CH and CC Bond would be the same. Since these are subject to a different external field (of the nuclei) they cannot be the same any more. Therefore the hybridisation will also change, because as you stated, this is only a response to bonding. – Martin - マーチン Jul 28 '14 at 03:41
  • @Martin Yes, of course! Thank you for reminding me. – ron Jul 28 '14 at 15:19