Why is VSEPRT even taught? It's absolute shit. Why not just teach Hamilton Functions off the bat instead of lying to chem majors until they take PChem junior year? VSEPRT needs to go into the trash alongside Rutherford and Bohr models.
That's not a very good stick man.
THANK YOUUUUUUYYY
>>7751694
Most people start off as chemistry majors with not even one semester of calculus.
It's taught because it helps you to build insight into molecular geometry without running quantum calculations. There are exceptions, but it works a good deal of the time. In general you would need to do the quantum calculation to get values for the angles and bond lengths.
>>7752217
>murica
>>7751694
Wait hold up I'm not a chem major but I took a couple gen chem and o-chem classes. What's wrong with VSEPRT?
Because it's an excellent first approximation that, for most organic molecules, will give you reasonable approximations for the geometry.
When you move to MO theory, then you can begin to discuss why you get deviations from VESPR. Namely, that the geometries are dictated by how much s/p character bonds of main-group elements contain.
Also why does everyone pronounce it "vesper"? It's clearly "vee-sepper"
>>7753535
>deviations with molecules with more than one lone electron pair
>no direct information about bond energies
>assumes electrons are localized exclusively between two atoms in a bond, but they aren't
To be fair, these are problems with the entire localized electron (LE) model VSEPR is a part of. Still, it's a good approximation.
>>7753535
It doesn't actually happen.
Yes, that's right, they were lying to you again.
>>7753656
This is why I hate chemistry
They use so many fake models, basically metaphors
>>7753660
They can't just give you the equations and MO theory, because it then becomes a black box that you don't understand.
>>7753660
>metaphors
do you even English. They're good teaching tools that have their place in high school, but I agree we should teach MO by first year uni.
>>7753660
I've got some bad news for you about science if you're putoff by models.
>>7753699
>being edgier than sulphur hexafluoride
>>7753654
I don't think any of these things are problematic for VESPR. Exceptions to VESPR can be rationalized with a few additional (and simple) guidelines. VESPR never advertises that it can predict bond energetics -- that's like saying that quantum mechanics is bad because it won't tell you the density of a bulk substance. While *individual* electrons aren't localized in bonds, *electron density* is localized within bonds so that's a very fine assumption here.
I think the real problem is that VESPR can only provide qualitative and superficial information about molecular geometries. If you need anything specific, no amount of tinkering with the rules or empiricism will yield you a 100% correct answer. To get precise geometries you need crystal structures, and to get numerical estimates you need computational chemistry (and the underlying QM).
VESPR doesn't get at the underlying physical reasons for *why* these trends hold true -- and while that might be a criticism for some, I don't think VESPR was ever pitched as a physically rigorous theory of the chemical bond and therefore shouldn't be analyzed that way.
>>7751694
>Why is VSEPRT even taught? It's absolute shit.
For the same reason that physics majors are still taught the Bohr Model of the hydrogen atom.
>>7751694
>VSEPRT needs to go into the trash alongside Rutherford and Bohr models.
Part of being a true scientist is understanding something about the history of science.
It is worth knowing and understanding how scientific theories have evolved over time.
It is a shame that you fail to see this and only care to discredit the tremendous achievements of great scientists in past times in favor of what you have learned in your little undergrad chemistry courses at the local community college.
>>7753679
>I've got some bad news for you about science if you're putoff by models.
PREACH!
>>7754733
>the tremendous achievements of great scientists in past times
Many of which thought the earth was flat, believed in alchemy, and proved the moon was made of cheese. Doesn't matter how great they were, if a model is wrong, it's wrong and has no place in rigorous science.
>>7751697
>AYY LMAO
>>7753575
>MO theory
it's garbage
>>7753660
If you want to merely know the truth you study physics. The point of chemistry is a metaphorical and paradoxical journey from which you will be able to know nothing and explain everything.
>>7753670
Isn't VESPR a black box? There's no solid explanation as to why it is correct.
ITT: undergrads taking their intro PChem series thinking they are hot shit
>>7754746
Except VSEPR is mostly accurate and is a great tool for teaching vs. your examples of a flat earth and cheese moon.
>>7752872
It is the same like that throughout the world mate.
>>7754794
Sci is dominated by undergrads thinking they're hot shit.
