- #1
DDTea
- 133
- 0
I'm working my way through The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms by Robert B. Grossman (excellent book, by the way), but the way he describes resonance is confusing me. I feel like the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets.
Consider a carbon-carbon double bond: C=C. He says that there are a few different ways that the pi electrons can be distributed in this bond:
C=C
(-)C--C(+)
(+)C--C(-)
.C--C.
Where the last structure is a radical. Although some of those structures are theoretically possible, they would offer a poor description of the behavior of the C=C . So, he develops a set of rules for which theoretical contributing structures are higher in energy and thus poorer descriptions of the chemical behavior.
So my question is, is this definition of "higher energy" a literal definition? Or am I misunderstanding the definition of resonance: degenerate solutions for the energy term in the Schrodinger equation--i.e., of equal energy!
Consider a carbon-carbon double bond: C=C. He says that there are a few different ways that the pi electrons can be distributed in this bond:
C=C
(-)C--C(+)
(+)C--C(-)
.C--C.
Where the last structure is a radical. Although some of those structures are theoretically possible, they would offer a poor description of the behavior of the C=C . So, he develops a set of rules for which theoretical contributing structures are higher in energy and thus poorer descriptions of the chemical behavior.
So my question is, is this definition of "higher energy" a literal definition? Or am I misunderstanding the definition of resonance: degenerate solutions for the energy term in the Schrodinger equation--i.e., of equal energy!