Loading…

Reply to Correspondence on “Core Electron Topologies in Chemical Compounds: Case Study of Carbon versus Silicon”

In their Correspondence, von Szentpály, Schwarz, Stoll, and Werner claim that the main conclusions of our Communication previously published in this journal are based on computational artifacts and oversimplified models. We clarify the justification of our simple one‐electron model to describe one‐e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2019-07, Vol.58 (31), p.10408-10409
Main Authors: Yoshida, Daisuke, Raebiger, Hannes, Shudo, Ken‐ichi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In their Correspondence, von Szentpály, Schwarz, Stoll, and Werner claim that the main conclusions of our Communication previously published in this journal are based on computational artifacts and oversimplified models. We clarify the justification of our simple one‐electron model to describe one‐electron physics, and refute their criticism based on what they call “computational artifacts.” We remind that our main conclusion on the crucial role of qualitative changes in core electron wavefunctions is evidenced not only by wavefunction topologies the complainants cling to, but also by several other physical observables, which remain unrefuted. Hence, the conclusions of our original Communication stand. In their Correspondence, von Szentpály, Schwarz, Stoll, and Werner claim that the main conclusions of our Communication previously published in this journal are based on computational artifacts and oversimplified models. We clarify the justification of our simple one‐electron model to describe one‐electron physics, and refute the criticism.
ISSN:1433-7851
1521-3773
DOI:10.1002/anie.201906346