4.6 Article

Bond Paths Are Not Chemical Bonds

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
Volume 113, Issue 38, Pages 10391-10396

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp906341r

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This account takes to task papers that criticize the definition of a bond path as a criterion for the bonding between the atoms it links by mistakenly identifying it with a chemical bond. It is argued that the notion of a chemical bond is too restrictive to account for the physics underlying the broad spectrum of interactions between atoms and molecules that determine the properties of matter. A bond path on the other hand, as well as being accessible to experimental verification and subject to the theorems of quantum mechanics, is applicable to any and all of the interactions that account for the properties of matter. It is shown that one may define a bond path operator as a Dirac observable, making the bond path the measurable expectation value of a quantum mechanical operator. Particular attention is given to van der Waals interactions that traditionally are assumed to represent attractive interactions that are distinct from chemical bonding. They are assumed by some to act in concert with Pauli repulsions to account for the existence of condensed states of molecules. It is such dichotomies of interpretation that are resolved by the experimental detection of bond paths and the delineation of their properties in molecular crystals. Specific criticisms of the stabilization afforded by the presence of bond paths derived from spectroscopic measurements performed on dideuteriophenanthrene are shown to be physically unsound. The concept of a bond path as a bridge of density linking bonded atoms was introduced by London in 1928 following the definition of the electron density by Schrodinger in 1926. These papers marked the beginning of the theory of atoms in molecules linked by bond paths.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available