Organic/Inorganic Dichotomy

[mississippichem]

Has anyone else noticed the "theoretical gap" between organic and inorganic chemistry? For example, the geometries of main group, and organic compounds can be approximated with the VSEPR theory. However, this breaks down in the d-block. d-block coordination chemistry requires the use of the Kepert model, Ligand Field Theory, or Crystal Field Theory [Equivalent to MO theory in the main group]. I'm quite familiar with all of this stuff, but it has always bothered me that there is not at least some "pseudo-unified" model of chemical bonding. I understand why none of these theories could work for all compounds, but I guess I just really wish they did. You guys should check out the "chemo-genesis web-book" the author is attempting to unify all chemical bonding by catagorizing all species with 24-types of Lewis acid base interactions (very systematic, quite impressive). He also points out that photo, di-radical, and excited state chemistry do not fit in to his matrix of 24-types. Check this out and give your thoughts. I doubt this is the end all to end all, in chemical pedagogy, but definitely note worthy.

 

here is the link:

[Horza2002]

There is a generalised bonding theory....it comes from orbital overlap with the fomration of bonding/antibonding orbtials. VSEPR breaks down because the d-orbitals have two different symmetry lables (t2 and e) and so it doesn't work anymore.