The Qualitative Rationalization and Prediction of “Correlation Effects” in “Complex” Ground State Molecules

  • Nicolaos Demetrios Epiotis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Chemistry book series (LNC, volume 34)


One of the great advantages of MOVB theory is that it forms the basis for a logical and coherent interpretation of chemical phenomena. The situation is quite different in the case of MO theory: Within this framework, one typically solves the problem at the SCF-MO level and then corrects the solution by re-solving it at the SCF-MO-CI level. In the process, one generates two apparently distinct conceptual frameworks with the result that the appearance is created that there are “MO effects” and “CI effects”. This is quite inappropriate since the “CI effects” are nothing else but consequences of the solution of the SCF-MO equations, unless by “CI effects” one implies the chemical consequences of nonvalence orbitals which are not included in the monodeterminantal calculation. Perusal of the vast theoretical literature reveals that this point has not been properly appreciated. We believe that this is due to the fact that there has been no conceptual tool capable of revealing the nature of error involved at the Single Determinant (SD) MO level and how it is linked to fundamental electronic mechanisms which are grossly reproduced by SD MO theory. With MOVB theory as our weapon, we now attempt to answer the following question: What is the meaning of the term, “valence correlation effect”, or, more briefly, “correlation effect”?


Correlation Effect MOVS Theory Ground State Molecule Couple Electron Pair Approximation Lower Energy Singlet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Monodeterminantal SCF-MO theory is unsuccessful in treating weak homopolar bonds but relatively successful in dealing with “ionic” bonds which can be qualitatively described by one “ionic” resonance structure. For review of pertinent computational data, see: Schaefer, III, H.F., “The Electronic Structure of Atoms and Molecules”; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1972, p. 153–160.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The manner in which CI corrects the deficiency of the monodeterminantal MO wavefunction is often illustrated by reference to the simple example of a two electron-two orbital system, e.g., H2, pi ethylene, etc. Elementary discussions of this type can be found in a number of elementary texts. See, inter alia: Borden, W.T., “Modern Molecular Orbital Theory for Organic Chemists”; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1975. The following are some of the methodologies used for obtaining correlated wavefunctions:Google Scholar
  3. (a).
    Many Body Perturbation Theory: Paldus, J.: Cizek, J. Advan. uant. Chem. 1975,9, 105 and references therein. Pople, J.A.; Binkley, J.S.; Seeger, R. Int. J. uant. Chem. 1976, 510, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (b).
    Cluster Expansions: Sinanoglou, 0. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 36, 706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (c).
    Second Order Bethe-Goldstone Method: Nesbet, R.K. Adv. Chem. Phys. 1969, 14, l.Google Scholar
  6. (d).
    Independent Electron Pair Approximation: Ahlrichs, R., Lischka, H., Staemmler, V., Kutzelnigg, W., J. Chem. Phys. 1975, 12, 1225 and references therein [Note: This method is related to those of (b) and (c) above].Google Scholar
  7. (e).
    Coupled Electron Pair Approximation: Meyer, W. Int. J. uant. Chem. 1971, 55, 341.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    The near cancellation of “correlation effects” in some chemical processes has been noted early in the following works:Google Scholar
  9. (a).
    Nesbet, R.K. J. Chem, Phys. 1962, 36, 1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (b).
    McLean, A.D. J. Chem. Pas. 1963, 39, 2653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (c).
    Nesbet, R.K. Advan. Chem. Phys. 1965, 9, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. In this work, we have outlined a methodology for identifying the molecular isomer which is differentially favoredby “correlation effects”. This type of information is useful particularly when the SCF-MO energy differences are smaller.Google Scholar
  13. 4. (a)
    Pipano, A.; Gilman, R.D.; Bender, C.F.; Shavitt, I. Chem. Phys. Letters 1970, 4, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (b).
    Pipano, A.; Gilman, R.D.; Shavitt, I. Chem. Phys. Letters 1970, 5, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 5. (a)
    Body, R.G.; McClure, D.S.; Clementi, E. J. Chem. PhTs. 1968, 49, 4916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. (b).
    Rauk, A.; Allen, L.C.; Clementi, E. J. Chem. Pas. 1970, 52, 4133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (c).
    Stevens, R.M. J. Chem. Pas. 1971, 55, 1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 6.
    Cremer, D. Chem. Phys. Letters 1981, 81, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 7.
    Epiotis, N.D., Larson, J.R., Eaton, H., “Unified Valence Bond Theory of Electronic Structure” in Lecture Notes in Chemistry, Vol. 29; Springer-Verlag: New York and Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 8.
    a) Läppert, M.F., in “Inorganic Compounds with Unusual Properties”; King, R.B., Ed.; Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 150; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. b) Davidson, P.J.; Harris, D.H.; Lappert, M.F. J. Chem. Soc. Daltoh 1976 2268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolaos Demetrios Epiotis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations