Heisenberg’s explanation of how two coupled oscillators exchange energy represented a dramatic success for his new matrix mechanics. As matrix mechanics transmuted into wave mechanics, resulting in what Heisenberg himself described as “…an extraordinary broadening and enrichment of the formalism of the quantum theory”, the term resonance also experienced a corresponding evolution. Heitler and London’s seminal application of wave mechanics to explain the quantum origins of the covalent bond, combined with Pauling’s characterization of the effect, introduced resonance into the chemical lexicon. As the Valence Bond approach gave way to a soon-to-be dominant Molecular Orbital method, our understanding of the term resonance, as it might apply to our understanding the chemical bond, has also changed.
Resonance Chemical bond Valence bond Molecular orbital Quantum chemistry
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The author is grateful to the Educational Advancement Foundation (EAF) and the W. M. Keck Foundation grant for their generous support, and also the Welch Foundation (Grant # BH-0018) for its continuing support of the Chemistry Department at St. Edward’s University. The author also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Brian Healy, whose commitment to the intellectual process served as a catalyst for this formulation.
Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)Google Scholar
Bloch, F.: Heisenberg and the early days of quantum mechanics. Phys. Today 29, 23–27 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696–702 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S.G.: Dynamics of theory change in chemistry: part 2. Benxene and molecular orbitals, 1945–1980. Stud Hist Phil Sci 30, 263–302 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, M.J.S., Longuet-Higgins, H.C.: The correspondance between the resonance and molecular orbital theories. Proc Roy Soc 214, 482–493 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirac, P.: The physical interpretation of the quantum dynamics. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A113, 621–641 (1927)Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankland, E.: Contributions to the notation of organic and inorganic compounds. J. Chem. Soc. 19, 372–395 (1866)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavroglu, K.: Fritz London: A Scientific Biography, p. 85. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, E.F.: In defense of a heuristic interpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Chem. Educ. 87, 559–563 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W.: Multi-body problem and resonance in the quantum mechanics. Zeitschrift für Physik 38, 411–426 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitler, W., London, F.: Interaction between neutral atoms and homopolar bonding. Zeitschrift für Physik44, 455 (1927) English translation in Hettema, H. “Quantum Chemistry, Classic Scientific Papers”, World Scientific, Singapore (2000)Google Scholar
Huckel, E.: Quantum-theoretical contributions to the benzene problem. I. The electron configuration of benzene and related compounds. Zeitschrift für Physik 70, 204–286 (1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennard-Jones, J.E.: The electronic structure of some diatomic molecules. Trans. Faraday Soc. 25, 668–686 (1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, F.: On the quantum theory of homo-polar valence numbers. Zeitschrift für Physik46, 455 (1928) English translation in Hettema, H. “Quantum Chemistry, Classic Scientific Papers”, World Scientific, Singapore (2000)Google Scholar
Malrieu, J.-P., Guihery, N., Calzado, C.J., Angeli, C.: Bond electron pair: its relevance and analysis from the quantum chemistry point of view. J. Comput. Chem. 28, 35–50 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulliken, R.S.: The assignment of quantum numbers for electrons in molecule. Phys. Rev. 32, 186–228 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulliken, R.S.: Selected Papers, ed. D.A. Ramsay, J. Hinze (University of Chicago Press), p. 8 (1975)Google Scholar