Talk:Molecular orbital

message: 9/7/2004 2105 MST
I'd argue that that this is a stub. It has quite a bit of information, plenty for the casual observer, but by the standard of someone who wants to do anything with it, not enough. If I wanted to put together a FMO diagram for LiH (classic problem) I'm not sure I could after reading this page.
<P><P>
A really nice page. However a couple of things aren't transparent,
Molecular symmetries]? map [stationary states]? to stationary states, so any collection of degenerate? molecular orbitals must transform according to some representation? of the [symmetry group]?. As a result, basis orbitals that transform according to different representations don't mix. 
Could you make this a little clearer please, I can't make head nor tail of it.
Also
On the other hand consider a hypothetical molecule of H3, with the atoms labelled H, H', H". Then we would expect three low energy combinations: 
  1s + 1s" - 1s'           Symmetric
  1s - 1s"                 Antisymmetric
  1s + 1s' + 1s"           Symmetric
''
Is this correct ? The second combination has onlt 2 basis states and it's not blatenly obvious why the first is symmetric.
Theresa Knott
:I didn't see anything out of order with a brief skim of the article, though I'll have to look at it at length to be sure (it looks like you've found significant typos, at minimum). It reads like it was ripped out of an undergrad chemistry or physics text, though, and could probably be rewritten to be half the length. --Christopher Thomas 07:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is correct. See Entanglement. Actually I am confused too, even being able to think in functional space. --GS 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: This term handwaving sounds like American baloney to me.  It is imprecise.  When I was in school "hand waving" implied that mathematics failed, and the lecturer resorted to emphatic hand gestures to convince you he was right.  It seems typical of American science that such a poorly understood colloquial term would end up in an encyclopedia. Whoever wrote that ought to get a job at NASA Frizb 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Done. --Bduke 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Handwaving

message: The article might be a bit easier to read if the first sentence was split into two or three.  Too many ideas in one sentence I think.
:I think most of it wants to be moved further down. If one takes a many determinant wave function one does not have to use molecular orbitals, so this is misleading as the first sentence. Molecular orbitals are used to produce the best single deteminant function. Even that is over-complex to start off. I'll try to think about it, but I'm really on wikibreak and fly to the other side of the world in a few day. --Bduke 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the intro is too verbose; I will clean it a bit. --Sadi Carnot 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  idea 

message: I think that the Dinitrogen example in section:MO diagrams is incorrect. Isn't the sigma bond order equal to the total number of electrons in sigma orbitals minus the total number of antibonding electrons in sigma orbitals all over 2? 
Someone who knows more than me about this please make the correction.130.102.128.60 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. I've fixed it. --Bduke 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigma and Pi Bond Order incorrect? 

message: A group of chemistry undergraduates including myself have started major edits and additions as a class project in an effort to have the article upgrade to an 'A' rating or better. It will take several weeks or months for us to finish. -- 11:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest edit contains several errors, both in scientific content and in wikimedia markup. For the latter you have changed the categories so that they are merely listed and do not actually put the article in the categories. I have fixed that. You need to get up to speed with the technical issues of writing articles. For the scientific content, I need to spend more time on but the statement that the Hartree-Fock orbitals converge fast in CI to full CI is simply not true. The virtual HF MOs are not good MOs for CI. Someone said, correctly, that they are the junk left over when you have found the optimized occupied orbitals. I also think you confuse the difference between AOs and basis functions. They are not the same. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Also appears to includes major copyright violation: images scanned from a commercial textbook. What school is this? The class professor or WP:AMBASSADOR may want to review appropriate content with the students so they don't get blocked even before the project progresses further. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits underway 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:S orbital interactions.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:HF MO diagram.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:H2 MO diagram.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:AO alignment.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Diatomic MO bonding data table.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:He2 Li2 MO diagram.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:P orbital interactions.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: In the section Molecular orbital there's a reference to a figure 6, while in the whole of the lemma only three pictures apear. As on this talk page there are some notifications of pictures to be removed from the commons, I suspect the problem is (partly) in this removal.  I don't feel confident enough on the subject to correct the numbering, so please .....:-) T.vanschaik (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, they were all removed as copyvio. I rewrote the content to describe what would have been seen, and removed the "figure #" notations from the existing images precisely because it's so fragile towards future edits. DMacks (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, please, Bduke, DMacks, other experts, verify student editing mistakes mentioned above have been removed. If not, can you please edit? Please bring it back to your earlier expert status. The errors in this type of article are  even for a practicing chemist that is not an MO theory specialist to catch on a quick read. We need to know the article is reliable, so we can refer students here to learn.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.94.210 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing figure 

message: I have no reason to doubt the quality of this article.  But it's troubling that some parts have no or few refs.  Need to add refs, so sources are clear and to fulfill WP:VERIFY. It gives readers a way to go deeper in their study. It makes the content traceable, so questions that arise can be resolved starting at the ref. (Maybe the ref is not representative. Maybe it's a poor ref. Maybe it even has mistakes?) Until there are refs throughout, I can't send students here to learn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.94.210 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on citations 

message: A good choice because acetylene is a little familiar. And good because it is a simple, linear molecule. But a student or other interested reader will have no clue what they are looking at.  Maybe: Start with saying what the two-tone grey is peeking out (connect to H-C-C-H). Then explain the blue and red. Then make clear why two columns, and why multiple rows.  If a ref can be given, good too.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.94.210 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, except that I don't know the original reference. Dirac66 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acetylene figure good choice. (But) 

message: The cycling movie/cartoon has a good, clear legend. (You could move the last sentence up.) The acetylene fig leg could use this kind of expansion. 
You might consider adding a dihydrogen MO diagram.  Having the MO diagr helps connect the good, active cartoon, to more widely seen figs.  Even if deciding not to, the ordinate (energy) should be labeled, so it's clear that sigma is lower and sigma-star is higher in energy.  Here are possible figs, one including g and u:  
This would address confusion comparing double peak appearance in cartoon, and oval-of-revolution / spheres-touching-at-a-point ways of representing the MOs.  And, Walsh mention anywhere?  Thanks for work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.94.210 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 2nd fig for Homonuclear Diatomics sub-section? 

message: In the header, "on an elementary level" redirects to "dumbing down". I assume this is a troll that has gone unnoticed so far. Can someone remove it?
--2A02:8070:E284:B100:6DC0:5429:40B4:DBC0 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dumbing down"