**Hückel Theory in the 21st Century**

### Principal Author[]

Martin Grayson MartinY 09:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

### Preface[]

This topic is suitable for a wiki journal because it is a summary of the usefulness of a scientific backwater which modern computation might have rendered into a teaching only tool and the mathematical skills required to practice this basic theory are perceived as difficult by some students. However it is believed that there is a future for these kind of small expansion models both for teaching linear algebra and rationalizing phenomena.

Opinions and contributions are solicited.

### Introduction[]

*A one-pound theory can no more produce a ten-pound theorem than a one-hundred-pound pregnant woman can give birth to a two-hundred pound child*, Gregory J. Chaitlin
^{[1]}.

Hückel theory is a minimalist theory of molecular quantum mechanics which requires so little computation and has so few degrees of freedom in its parameter space that one view is that it is a totally obsolete model, belonging to the pre-computer days of pencil and paper. However this simplicity gives the method strengths as both a tool for modelling molecular electronic structure and for pedagogical purposes by providing an inexhaustible supply of degree level pen, paper and computer problems.

(There is another even more basic theory of conjugated systems, the Free-Electron
Molecular-Orbital method (FEMO) whose applications
are very elegantly described in *Introduction to Applied Quantum Chemistry*
^{[2]}
chapter 5 and the original references therein.
However this method involves mathematics more familiar to physicists than chemists, and so is less suited to a chemistry course where the correspondence with the language
of organic chemistry is stronger in Hückel theory.)

Though many Hückel calculations are way beyond pen and paper analysis there is little which cannot be computed with this model and it might be regarded as the zeroth order approximation of any kind of molecular orbital methodology. Hückel theory has been used to investigate the magnetic properties of large carbon sp^{2} structures potentially as large as nanotubes,
^{[3]}
and the polarizabilities of similarly large structures can be calculated
^{[4]}

In the 1960s Hückel theory was used by Hameka
^{[5]}
to investigate
the polarization properties of polyacetylene.
There can surprisingly be some
advantages in using a theory with the minimal degrees of freedom. If a
phenomenon should appear at this level it means you have
a basic model of the physics behind the property and at least it cannot an
be an artifact of the basis set or computational methodology.
One might suggest that there are three levels of calculation which are really
useful models:

- A low level which gives largely conceptual ideas such as Hückel theory or FEMO.
- A higher level method such as SCF or semiempirical calculations which give semi-quantitative answers and are subject to improvement to a limit by increasing the basis functions.
- The probably unobtainable, definitive
*ab initio*model having most of the electron correlation such as a CCSD(T) calculation with a large basis.

### Hückel Theory and Education[]

Hückel theory was invented in the 1930s
^{[6]},
before the advent of
computers but well into
the era of linear algebra which was later to be brought to
prominence in applied science by the invention of computers.
Since the development of SCF programs Hückel theory has long been
regarded as only a research curiosity.
It is taught in all undergraduate courses because it is such a good exemplar
of both molecular orbital theory and linear algebra and mathematical methods using
*characteristic polynomials*, determinants and matrices
can all be demonstrated as applied to familiar organic chemistry.
Also the Hückel orbitals almost always have the same node structure
as the SCF -orbitals and so do not lead to misleading models.
This means the method is very useful as pre-generator of molecular orbitals for appliying Woodward-Hoffmann rules
^{[7]}

Some quite complex applications of molecular orbital theory can be rationalized
essentially by Hückel theory, as when you form a
parameterized phenomenological Hamiltonian
in a small visualizable basis you get a set of equations
identical to Hückel theory.
In situations where there is fuzzy
translational or spatial symmetry a small basis expansion with parameterization
can give an effective model to rationalize experimental and complex calculation
data
^{[8]}
^{[9]}

A model Hamiltonian for a system where there is perturbation which mixes an s-orbital with only the p_{z} orbital would look like this:

The solution to this system immediately collapses to a quadratic equation.

### Hückel Theory and Graph Theory[]

Hückel theory has only one basis function per atom site (node) and so there is very close correspondence between Hückel theory and graph theory
^{[10]}
^{[11]}.
(However a minimal number of degrees of freedom is not confined to Hückel theory or Graph Theory.
A small basis SCF calculation on a highly symmetric molecule such as benzene can have remarkably few free coefficients unconstrained by symmetry
^{[12]}.)

### Hückel Theory and Electrical Properties[]

The first literature example found of Hückel theory with a
parameterization of dipole integrals
was due to Hameka^{[5]}
who used it to investigate
the polarization properties of polyacetylene.

Champagne and André
^{[13]}
have revisited this polyacetylene problem using the modern computational
MP2 method ^{[14]}
thereby gaining a little more insight
and methodological confidence than was possible using Hückel theory.
However Hameka was able to use Hückel theory for the special case of infinite systems to give *analytical*
expressions which have
uses in rationalizing the optical behaviour of crystals.

As the polarizability scales with, and sometimes is given in
units of, molecular volume
the spatial representaion of a Hückel calculation might be
expected to give some sort of valid representation of the
polarizablity tensor. The elements for the
part of the system should have the
right shape and approximate magnitude as the accurate tensor
^{[4]}
shows this to be the case.

The expression for the dipole moment integrals in Hückel Theory is:

where are the AOs on the atoms i and j respectively. is the atomic coordinates which will usually but need not be be two dimensional.

As shown there Hückel calculations produce results
which are certainly not realistic for the higher polarizabilities
and . However these calculations
represent the nonlinear responses of an abstract geometric model
which still retains qualitative analogies with reality.
There are examples of basic two and three state
model systems being applied to practical optical problems in
references
^{[15]}
^{[16]}.

#### Hückel Theory and Dipole Moments[]

HT predicts that non-alternant hydrocarbons have a permanent dipole moment which is caused only by conjugation effects, not by electronegativity as all the atoms are sp^{2} carbons.
Azulene is a very good example as it has a five membered ring fused to a seven membered ring. Seven membered rings like to get a positive charge , this way getting 6 electrons. Five membered rings similarly
take a negative charge getting 6 electrons that way. Azulene
does indeed behave like that giving a value for
of 21.48 Cm x by HT but the value for a minimal basis SCF is a more realistic 5.90.

The other way a HT model of a molecule can have a dipole is via the heterocyclic atom parameters which have been added to HT.

#### Hückel Theory and Linear and Nonlinear Polarizabilities[]

The excited states which are formed in HT are not good states in that they are just a one-electron function which progressively has one more node than the state below. There is no optimization. Hoewever it is possible to choose to be -1 so that the perturbations from analytical theory correspond to the perturbations from a finite field so that the excited states have some meaning. HT tends to exaggerate the polarization caused by perturbations. The same reservation applies to using the single electron swap to generate a model of the excited state. (This is not however different to what is done in text book molecular orbital diagrams and occupations.)

#### Hückel Theory, Excitations and Intensities[]

Using the paradigm explained in reference
^{[4]}
and molecular mechanics
geometries from MACROMODEL
^{[17]}
with the MM2^{*} force field several
transition matrix elements were calculated.
is the matrix elements between the ground
state and the first excited state, (in the case of benzene this is doubly degenerate).
In benzene = 1.3194 au. (intensity 1.7408.)
In planar biphenyl = 2.3918 au. (intensity 3.28625 x benzene.)
and are zero.
(Remember that the intensity comes out as a function of the *square* of the matrix element in the derivation of Fermi's Golden Rule.)
In 5-member jointed biphenyl, (a biphenyl forced to be planar by adding two -CH_{2}- groups at the ring connection,
= 2.2528 au. (intensity 2.9154.)
and are zero.
These zero matrix elements are provable by simple group theory * i.e.*
the triple direct product contains no representations.
The reduction in intensity on linking with -CH_{2}- groups is entirely due to the slight contracting of the
molecular geometry as only the integrals change!

The experimental angle between the rings in biphenyl
as quoted in reference
^{[18]}
is 44.4.
(This reference also contains analytical torsonal potentials for substituted
biphenyls. They do not change much on * meta* and *para* substitution.)
*Ab initio* calculations of this energy surface have also been done
^{[19]}.
(A proper *ab initio* treatment of this molecular excitation has been done using the highly correlated method CASPT2
^{[20]}. The calculations here seem rather ridiculous by comparision.)

In HT only if you change the representing the inter-ring bond by multiplying by will the intensity change! Here is the excitation energy and matrix element as a function of angle:

90 5.6000 1.3194 80 5.2798 1.5048 70 4.9794 1.6843 60 4.7094 1.8496 50 4.4766 1.9947 40 4.2850 2.1156 30 4.1361 2.2103 20 4.0302 2.2779 10 3.9669 2.3184 0 3.9459 2.3319

When functionalizing polyphenylenes at the end group, HT predicts
that push / pull groups affect the dipole and first hyperpolarizability at 1st order
but the polarizability and at 2nd order
^{[4]}.

It would be nice to examine the experimental grounds for this hypothesis.

The derivative of the dipole moment as a function of the Coulomb Integral
at the * ortho, meta* and *para* positions is respectively,
0.812518, 0.855764 and 1.244874.
Not surprisingly this suggests the para position causes the most functionalization.
Rather more surprisingly the * ortho* and *meta* positions
are almost equally effective.

#### Hückel Theory, Semi-empirical Methods and QM/MM[]

The current development of super-computers has brought
calculations at the SCF level of *ab initio* theory
into possibility for all systems being considered as possible NLO
molecules and complexes.
However there is still the issue of electron correlation and
the convergence of the basis set.
Semi-empirical methods can be applied to *very large* molecules
but these molecules are also accessible to methods employing a hierarchical mix of molecular mechanics
and *ab initio* which the author believes is the method of choice
as it retains the limits and convergence properties of *ab initio*
theory with the huge extensibility of semiempirical and
molecular mechanics theories.
Because of this it is currently unclear what the future use of AM1
style methods will be in modelling NLO molecules.

### Hückel Theory and the SCF Method[]

HT's first relation to the SCF method is that the phenomenological Hamiltonian can be taken to be the Fock operator, not the kinetic energy and the attraction term, therefore HT includes the SCF in its parameterization.

The modification to HT, the -technique of Wheland and Mann
^{[21]}
^{[22]}
includes iteration and so can be regarded as a
kind of *proto-*SCF where one is iterating Hückel theory to optimise a parameter, , which describes electron-electron repulsion. Wheland / Mann calculations are almost never performed now and it is an open question of whether the methodology is of any value as a progamming exercise in iteration for graduate students as a small SCF program for helium might be a better use of time. The method does however damp down some of the excessive charge separation generated by the basic HT method.

The Wheland-Mann method modifies the Hückel theory
parameter ths:

Where *q* is the value of at each atom, *i.e.* for an sp^{2} carbon atom in an alternant hydrocarbon it is 1. is conventionally 1.4 to give agreement with experiment.

The Hückel problem is then solved and the system is iterated until the valus of stop changing, so here is the analogy with the SCF procedure. is an optimisable electron repulsion parameter which has the effect of reducing the electron grabbing power of atoms with a charge and increasing the electronegativity of the atoms.

### References[]

- ↑ Chaitlin G. J. (1994). "Randomness and complexity in pure mathematics".
.*International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos*, Volume 4, pp. 3-15 - ↑ S. P. McGlynn, L. G. Vanquickenborne, M. Kinoshita and D. G. Carroll (1972). "{{{title}}}".
*Introduction to Applied Quantum Chemistry*, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. - ↑ Acocella A., Havenith R.W.A., Steiner E., Fowler P.W., Jenneskens L.W. (2002). "{{{title}}}".
*Chemical Physics Letters, Volume 363, Number 1, 2 pp. 64-72*. - ↑
^{4.0}^{4.1}^{4.2}^{4.3}M. Grayson (1997). "Substitution Effects by SCF and Huckel Theory".. Cite error: Invalid*Int. J. Quantum Chem.*,**61**, 919-927.`<ref>`

tag; name "HuckPol" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid`<ref>`

tag; name "HuckPol" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid`<ref>`

tag; name "HuckPol" defined multiple times with different content - ↑
^{5.0}^{5.1}H. F. Hameka (1977). "{{{title}}}".*J. chem. Phys.,*.**67**, 2935 - ↑ E. Hückel (1931). "{{{title}}}".
*Z. Phys.*.**70**, 204 - ↑ R. B. Woodward and R. Hoffmann (1970). "{{{title}}}".
*The Conservation of Orbital Symmetry*, Academic Press, New York. - ↑ M. Deleuze, J. Delhalle and B. T. Pickup (1994). "{{{title}}}".
*J. Phys. Chem.,*.**98**, 2382 - ↑ M. Deleuze, J. Delhalle, B. T. Pickup and S. Svenson (1994). "{{{title}}}".
*J. Am. Chem. Soc,*.**116**, 10715 - ↑ Nenad Trinajstic (1983). "{{{title}}}".
*Chemical Graph Theory*, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida). - ↑ A. T. Balaban (editor) (1976). "{{{title}}}".
*Chemical Applications of Graph Theory*, Academic Press, London. - ↑ D. B. Cook P. W. Fowler and B. T. Pickup (1993). "Variational freedom in self-consistent field calculations with basis sets".
.*Molec. Phys.***80**213-218 - ↑ B. Champagne and J. M. André (1990). "{{{title}}}".
*IJQC Symposium,*.**24**, 859 - ↑ Jacquemin D, Champagne B, Perpete EA, Luis JM and Kirtman B (2001). "{{{title}}}".
*J. Chem. Phys. A,*.**105**, 9748 - ↑ J. M. André, J. Delhalle and J. L. Brédas, (1991). "{{{title}}}".
*Quantum Chemistry Aided Design of Organic Polymers*, (World Scientific, Singapore. - ↑ P. N. Prasad and D. J. Williams (1991). "{{{title}}}".
*Introduction to Nonlinear Effects in Molecules and Polymers*, Wiley, New York. - ↑ Mohamadi, F., Richards, N. G. J., Guida, W. C., Liskamp, R., Lipton, M., (1990). "{{{title}}}".
.*J. Comput. Chem.*,**11**, 440 - ↑ O. Bastiansen and S. Samdal (1985). "{{{title}}}".
.*J. Mol. Struct.*,**128**, 115 - ↑ S. Tsuzuki and K. Tanabe (1991). "{{{title}}}".
.*J. Phys. Chem.*,**95**, 139 - ↑ Rubio M., Merchan M., Orti E. and Roos B. O. (1995). "A Theoretical Study of the Electronic Spectrum of Biphenyl".
.*Chemical Physics Letters*,**234**, 373-381 - ↑ Wheland, G. W.; Mann D. E. (1949). "{{{title}}}".
*J. Chem. Phys.,*.**17**, 264 - ↑ Streitwieser, A. (1960). "{{{title}}}".
*J. Am. Chem. Soc.,*.**82**, 4123