DOCSLIB.ORG

Spin Balanced Unrestricted Kohn-Sham Formalism Artëm Masunov Theoretical Division,T-12, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B268, Los Alamos, NM 87545

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spin Balanced Unrestricted Kohn-Sham Formalism Artëm Masunov Theoretical Division,T-12, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B268, Los Alamos, NM 87545 Where Density Functional Theory Goes Wrong and How to Fix it: Spin Balanced Unrestricted Kohn-Sham Formalism Artëm Masunov Theoretical Division,T-12, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B268, Los Alamos, NM 87545. Submitted October 22, 2003; [email protected] The functional form of this XC potential remains unknown to ABSTRACT: Kohn-Sham (KS) formalism of Density the present day. However, numerous approximations had been Functional Theory is modified to include the systems with suggested,4 the remarkable accuracy of KS calculations results strong non-dynamic electron correlation. Unlike in extended from this long quest for better XC functional. One may classify KS and broken symmetry unrestricted KS formalisms, these approximations into local (depending on electron density, or cases of both singlet-triplet and aufbau instabilities are spin density), semilocal (including gradient corrections), and covered, while preserving a pure spin-state. The nonlocal (orbital dependent functionals). In this classification HF straightforward implementation is suggested, which method is just one of non-local XC functionals, treating exchange consists of placing spin constraints on complex unrestricted exactly and completely neglecting electron correlation. Hartree-Fock wave function. Alternative approximate First and the most obvious reason for RKS performance approach consists of using the perfect pairing inconsistency for the “difficult” systems, mentioned above, is implementation with the natural orbitals of unrestricted KS imperfection of the approximate XC functionals. Second, and less method and square roots of their occupation numbers as known reason is the fact that KS approach is no longer valid if configuration weights without optimization, followed by a electron density is not v-representable,5 i.e., there is no ground posteriori exchange-correlation correction. The numerical state single Slater determinant for a given XC potential. Examples results of this approximation for the barrier to the internal of such densities (obtained from high level MO calculations and rotation in ethylene are reported to be in close agreement thus essentially exact) were found by Baerends in molecules CH2 6 with experimental data. and C2. To include these important cases, Ullrich and Kohn developed extended KS (EKS) formalism, which describes non- Density Functional Theory (DFT) is becoming a widely used interacting system by an ensemble (linear combination) of several tool in theoretical chemistry. Restricted Kohn-Sham (RKS) determinants, which differ form one another with just one orbital. 1 formalism of DFT, based on single Slater determinant description Equivalent (and more convenient for practical implementations7) for noninteracting system, is implemented nowadays in most is the description which retains single determinant, but allows for standard quantum chemistry packages. For many molecular partial occupation numbers of several degenerate orbitals. systems its results are close in accuracy to those of coupled cluster Preliminary EKS calculations indicate that the result deviates method at computational cost nearly equal to the one of Hartree- from RKS only in the close vicinity of degeneracy,8 and an Fock (HF) method. This accuracy, however, is less consistent for approximate XC functional makes this range even smaller.9 “difficult” molecular systems which require several determinants Comparison of the potential curves for intramolecular twist in 2 for their description in molecular orbital (MO) theory. The ethylene8 showed that EKS curve is closer to (incorrect) RKS one, present Communication is aimed to investigate this inconsistency. but unrestricted KS (UKS) curve is closer to almost exact one, The method presently known as RKS was first introduced by obtained with CAS. The reason for this EKS failure is that it 3 Slater in 1951 as a simplification to the HF method. Two- addresses only one kind of instabilities (namely aufbau electron Fock matrix in HF formalism contains two distinct terms: instability) observed in calculations,10 and studied theoretically.11 Coulomb <ij|¹/r|ij>, originating form electron-electron repulsion, The aufbau instability is observed when the energy of the lowest and exchange <ij|¹/r|ji>, which arise from antisymmetric form of unoccupied MO (LUMO) is less then that of highest occupied HF wavefunction (Slater determinant). While Coulomb term has MO (HOMO). The attempt to replace HOMO with LUMO in classical interpretation of electrostatic interaction between single determinant description raises the energy of the former and electron density distributions on MOs >i|i<, exchange term has no lowers the energy of the latter, thus retaining aufbau instability. classic equivalent and may be interpreted as self-interaction of There is also another kind of instability of RKS determinant, transition densities >i|j< (differential overlap between two MOs). called singlet-triplet instability. It can be avoided if different Slater suggested replacing the exchange term in HF equations (the spatial orbitals are used for α and β spin subsystems (spin most computationally expensive part) with the approximate polarized or broken spin symmetry solution, BS). BS UKS expression for uniform electron gas, which nonlinearly depends description has lower total energy, but predicts unphysical spin on electron density. This approach was formalized in 1965 by polarization and nonzero spin density (ρ -ρ ) for closed shell 1 α β Kohn and Sham, who showed that it is in principle exact, if one systems. Advantages and disadvantages of UKS vs. RKS uses exact exchange-correlation (XC) potential instead of Slater approaches from the practical standpoint were recently reviewed exchange. This XC potential is defined as an external potential by Cremer.12 From the formal theory standpoint BS UKS was necessary to keep the total electron density of a hypothetical addressed by Perdew, Savin, and Burke13 in a rather paradoxal system consisting of non-interacting electrons equal to the exact manner. They postulated that UKS gives the correct total density, electron density of the real physical system. while the spin density is incorrect, and suggested considering on- top pair electron density instead. For a long time BS UHF wavefunction was known not to be an UKS calculations. Similar reasoning was applied recently17 to eigenfunction of the spin operator S2. Its value (taken as a correct the energy of mutideterminant wavefunction for dynamic measure of spin contamination) is typically intermediate between correlation. correct singlet and triplet values (or, in extreme cases, higher The existing implementations of complex UHF are not well multiplets). Geometry optimization with BS UHF usually results suited to impose SB constraint. For this reason in the present in a structure, intermediate between singlet and triplet. The reason contribution the implementation of the perfect pairing (PP) for this and other disadvantages of BS description is easy to see in scheme18 (equivalent to complex UHF) was used. To demonstrate the case of two-electron open shell system, where the electrons their equivalence, one may use natural orbitals (NOs) of UHF occupy orthogonal spatial orbitals i and a (HOMO and LUMO). approach. NOs are eigenvectors of the total density matrix. They Correct singlet wavefunction of this system requires two come in pairs φ, ψ with occupation numbers of λ2 and 2-λ2 (λ=1 determinants: (|iαaβ>-|iβaα>)/√2, while triplet can be described for open-shell orbitals, and fractional otherwise). In the following by tree wavefunctions (degenerate in the absence of external example of twisted ethylene only one pair of fractionally occupied field): (|iαaβ>+|iβaα>)/√2, |iαaα> and |iβaβ>. Thus, the single NOs is found. The rest is (nearly) doubly occupied and form 19 determinant of UHF |iαaβ> is an average between the singlet and inactive core ΦD. Detailed analysis shows that BS UHF orbitals the first one of triplet wavefunctions (50/50 spin contamination). χα, χβ can be expressed using NOs: χα=µφ+λψ and χβ=µφ-λψ, In the present contribution I propose to avoid spin where 2µ2=1+S and 2λ2=1-S, and S=<χα|χβ>. Typically overlap S contamination in UKS by adding a second determinant, where is large, so that the spin-polarization parameter λ is small and µ is spatial parts of α and β sets are interchanged. Such two- close to unity. In BS UHF description the wavefunction is α β 2 2 determinant UKS shall be called spin-balanced UKS (SB UKS). It Ψ=|ΦDχ αχ β>=µ |ΦDφαφβ>-λ |ΦDψαψβ>+√2|ΦDφψ(αβ+βα)>, is easy to see that SB UKS, similar to EKS description, is where the last term represents the triplet component (spin equivalent to RKS wherever RKS solution is stable. This is not contamination). In SB description above, the wavefunction is α β α β 2 2 the case for multiconfigurational approaches, derived from KS Ψ=(|ΦDχ αχ β>-|ΦDχ βχ α>)/√2=µ |ΦDφαφβ>-λ |ΦDψαψβ>, thus method (like CAS-DFT14 or CI-DF15). Unlike EKS, SB UKS spin contamination is cancelled, but NOs and occupation numbers approach covers both aufbau and singlet-triplet instabilities, since µ2 and λ2 remain the same. This description is readily generalized removing the latter eliminate the former as well. Thus, SB UKS is for arbitrary number of fractionally occupied NOs. Wavefunction more general than EKS. of this exact form is used in PP method, except that CI The practical implementation of SB UKS is straightforward coefficients (µ/√2 and λ/√2) and NOs (φ and ψ), are optimized. within complex UHF formalism:16
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Spin Distribution Within Large Molecular Radicals
    A QUANTUM CHEMICAL APPROACH TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE SPIN DISTRIBUTION WITHIN LARGE MOLECULAR RADICALS By MARSHALL GEORGE CORY, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY . < UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ' ' 1994 4 : ? To my beloved mother Catherine, my father Marshall Sr., his wife Jeannie and my dear wife, Genny ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is impossible to acknowledge all who have contributed to my University of Rorida experience. With intentions to slight none, I choose to mention a few who "stick out" for one reason or another. • • Dr. Michael Zemer, for his constant enthusiasm. • Dr. Charles Taylor; Charlie, the "a la personne qui a garde la porte du club au moment opportun" would not have been necessary if you and one other had not ran and hid like "wimps". • Dr. Ricardo Longo, my best friend at QTP and the best read graduate student I know of, or likely ever will know of. • Genny Cory, for putting up with this nutty endeavor over the years. Finally to all the friends I can remember at this moment, Rajiv and Priya, Ricky and Ivani, Quim, Steve and Trish, Christin, Ya-Wen, Billy Bob, Chris, Mark, Dave, Zhengy, and of course Monique. To the small multitude of others, whose friendships I have enjoyed and whose names escape me at this moment, forgive me for not remembering in time. ill TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iu LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The ESR Experiment 1 The Isotropic
    [Show full text]
  • Density Functional Theory
    Density Functional Theory Fundamentals Video V.i Density Functional Theory: New Developments Donald G. Truhlar Department of Chemistry, University of Minnesota Support: AFOSR, NSF, EMSL Why is electronic structure theory important? Most of the information we want to know about chemistry is in the electron density and electronic energy. dipole moment, Born-Oppenheimer charge distribution, approximation 1927 ... potential energy surface molecular geometry barrier heights bond energies spectra How do we calculate the electronic structure? Example: electronic structure of benzene (42 electrons) Erwin Schrödinger 1925 — wave function theory All the information is contained in the wave function, an antisymmetric function of 126 coordinates and 42 electronic spin components. Theoretical Musings! ● Ψ is complicated. ● Difficult to interpret. ● Can we simplify things? 1/2 ● Ψ has strange units: (prob. density) , ● Can we not use a physical observable? ● What particular physical observable is useful? ● Physical observable that allows us to construct the Hamiltonian a priori. How do we calculate the electronic structure? Example: electronic structure of benzene (42 electrons) Erwin Schrödinger 1925 — wave function theory All the information is contained in the wave function, an antisymmetric function of 126 coordinates and 42 electronic spin components. Pierre Hohenberg and Walter Kohn 1964 — density functional theory All the information is contained in the density, a simple function of 3 coordinates. Electronic structure (continued) Erwin Schrödinger
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18 the Single Slater Determinant Wavefunction (Properly Spin and Symmetry Adapted) Is the Starting Point of the Most Common Mean Field Potential
    Chapter 18 The single Slater determinant wavefunction (properly spin and symmetry adapted) is the starting point of the most common mean field potential. It is also the origin of the molecular orbital concept. I. Optimization of the Energy for a Multiconfiguration Wavefunction A. The Energy Expression The most straightforward way to introduce the concept of optimal molecular orbitals is to consider a trial wavefunction of the form which was introduced earlier in Chapter 9.II. The expectation value of the Hamiltonian for a wavefunction of the multiconfigurational form Y = S I CIF I , where F I is a space- and spin-adapted CSF which consists of determinental wavefunctions |f I1f I2f I3...fIN| , can be written as: E =S I,J = 1, M CICJ < F I | H | F J > . The spin- and space-symmetry of the F I determine the symmetry of the state Y whose energy is to be optimized. In this form, it is clear that E is a quadratic function of the CI amplitudes CJ ; it is a quartic functional of the spin-orbitals because the Slater-Condon rules express each < F I | H | F J > CI matrix element in terms of one- and two-electron integrals < f i | f | f j > and < f if j | g | f kf l > over these spin-orbitals. B. Application of the Variational Method The variational method can be used to optimize the above expectation value expression for the electronic energy (i.e., to make the functional stationary) as a function of the CI coefficients CJ and the LCAO-MO coefficients {Cn,i} that characterize the spin- orbitals.
    [Show full text]
  • Møller–Plesset Perturbation Theory: from Small Molecule Methods to Methods for Thousands of Atoms Dieter Cremer∗
    Advanced Review Møller–Plesset perturbation theory: from small molecule methods to methods for thousands of atoms Dieter Cremer∗ The development of Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MPPT) has seen four dif- ferent periods in almost 80 years. In the first 40 years (period 1), MPPT was largely ignored because the focus of quantum chemists was on variational methods. Af- ter the development of many-body perturbation theory by theoretical physicists in the 1950s and 1960s, a second 20-year long period started, during which MPn methods up to order n = 6 were developed and computer-programed. In the late 1980s and in the 1990s (period 3), shortcomings of MPPT became obvious, espe- cially the sometimes erratic or even divergent behavior of the MPn series. The physical usefulness of MPPT was questioned and it was suggested to abandon the theory. Since the 1990s (period 4), the focus of method development work has been almost exclusively on MP2. A wealth of techniques and approaches has been put forward to convert MP2 from a O(M5) computational problem into a low- order or linear-scaling task that can handle molecules with thousands of atoms. In addition, the accuracy of MP2 has been systematically improved by introducing spin scaling, dispersion corrections, orbital optimization, or explicit correlation. The coming years will see a continuously strong development in MPPT that will have an essential impact on other quantum chemical methods. C 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2011 1 509–530 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.58 INTRODUCTION Hylleraas2 on the description of two-electron prob- erturbation theory has been used since the early lems with the help of perturbation theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1902.07690V2 [Cond-Mat.Str-El] 12 Apr 2019
    Symmetry Projected Jastrow Mean-field Wavefunction in Variational Monte Carlo Ankit Mahajan1, ∗ and Sandeep Sharma1, y 1Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80302, USA We extend our low-scaling variational Monte Carlo (VMC) algorithm to optimize the symmetry projected Jastrow mean field (SJMF) wavefunctions. These wavefunctions consist of a symmetry- projected product of a Jastrow and a general broken-symmetry mean field reference. Examples include Jastrow antisymmetrized geminal power (JAGP), Jastrow-Pfaffians, and resonating valence bond (RVB) states among others, all of which can be treated with our algorithm. We will demon- strate using benchmark systems including the nitrogen molecule, a chain of hydrogen atoms, and 2-D Hubbard model that a significant amount of correlation can be obtained by optimizing the energy of the SJMF wavefunction. This can be achieved at a relatively small cost when multiple symmetries including spin, particle number, and complex conjugation are simultaneously broken and projected. We also show that reduced density matrices can be calculated using the optimized wavefunctions, which allows us to calculate other observables such as correlation functions and will enable us to embed the VMC algorithm in a complete active space self-consistent field (CASSCF) calculation. 1. INTRODUCTION Recently, we have demonstrated that this cost discrep- ancy can be removed by introducing three algorithmic 16 Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) is one of the most ver- improvements . The most significant of these allowed us satile methods available for obtaining the wavefunction to efficiently screen the two-electron integrals which are and energy of a system.1{7 Compared to deterministic obtained by projecting the ab-initio Hamiltonian onto variational methods, VMC allows much greater flexibil- a finite orbital basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Iia. Systems of Many Electrons
    EE5 in 2008 Lecture notes Univ. of Iceland Hannes J´onsson IIa. Systems of many electrons Exchange of particle labels Consider a system of n identical particles. By identical particles we mean that all intrinsic properties of the particles are the same, such as mass, spin, charge, etc. Figure II.1 A pairwise permutation of the labels on identical particles. In classical mechanics we can in principle follow the trajectory of each individual particle. They are, therefore, distinguishable even though they are identical. In quantum mechanics the particles are not distinguishable if they are close enough or if they interact strongly enough. The quantum mechanical wave function must reflect this fact. When the particles are indistinguishable, the act of labeling the particles is an arbi- trary operation without physical significance. Therefore, all observables must be unaffected by interchange of particle labels. The operators are said to be symmetric under interchange of labels. The Hamiltonian, for example, is symmetric, since the intrinsic properties of all the particles are the same. Let ψ(1, 2,...,n) be a solution to the Schr¨odinger equation, (Here n represents all the coordinates, both spatial and spin, of the particle labeled with n). Let Pij be an operator that permutes (or ‘exchanges’) the labels i and j: Pijψ(1, 2,...,i,...,j,...,n) = ψ(1, 2,...,j,...,i,...,n). This means that the function Pij ψ depends on the coordinates of particle j in the same way that ψ depends on the coordinates of particle i. Since H is symmetric under interchange of labels: H(Pijψ) = Pij Hψ, i.e., [Pij,H]=0.
    [Show full text]
  • Slater Decomposition of Laughlin States
    Slater Decomposition of Laughlin States∗ Gerald V. Dunne Department of Physics University of Connecticut 2152 Hillside Road Storrs, CT 06269 USA [email protected] 14 May, 1993 Abstract The second-quantized form of the Laughlin states for the fractional quantum Hall effect is discussed by decomposing the Laughlin wavefunctions into the N-particle Slater basis. A general formula is given for the expansion coefficients in terms of the characters of the symmetric group, and the expansion coefficients are shown to possess numerous interesting symmetries. For expectation values of the density operator it is possible to identify individual dominant Slater states of the correct uniform bulk density and filling fraction in the physically relevant N limit. →∞ arXiv:cond-mat/9306022v1 8 Jun 1993 1 Introduction The variational trial wavefunctions introduced by Laughlin [1] form the basis for the theo- retical understanding of the quantum Hall effect [2, 3]. The Laughlin wavefunctions describe especially stable strongly correlated states, known as incompressible quantum fluids, of a two dimensional electron gas in a strong magnetic field. They also form the foundation of the hierarchy structure of the fractional quantum Hall effect [4, 5, 6]. In the extreme low temperature and strong magnetic field limit, the single particle elec- tron states are restricted to the lowest Landau level. In the absence of interactions, this Landau level has a high degeneracy determined by the magnetic flux through the sample [7]. ∗UCONN-93-4 1 Much (but not all) of the physics of the quantum Hall effect may be understood in terms of the restriction of the dynamics to fixed Landau levels [8, 3, 9].
    [Show full text]
  • PART 1 Identical Particles, Fermions and Bosons. Pauli Exclusion
    O. P. Sushkov School of Physics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia (Dated: March 1, 2016) PART 1 Identical particles, fermions and bosons. Pauli exclusion principle. Slater determinant. Variational method. He atom. Multielectron atoms, effective potential. Exchange interaction. 2 Identical particles and quantum statistics. Consider two identical particles. 2 electrons 2 protons 2 12C nuclei 2 protons .... The wave function of the pair reads ψ = ψ(~r1, ~s1,~t1...; ~r2, ~s2,~t2...) where r1,s1, t1, ... are variables of the 1st particle. r2,s2, t2, ... are variables of the 2nd particle. r - spatial coordinate s - spin t - isospin . - other internal quantum numbers, if any. Omit isospin and other internal quantum numbers for now. The particles are identical hence the quantum state is not changed under the permutation : ψ (r2,s2; r1,s1) = Rψ(r1,s1; r2,s2) , where R is a coefficient. Double permutation returns the wave function back, R2 = 1, hence R = 1. ± The spin-statistics theorem claims: * Particles with integer spin have R =1, they are called bosons (Bose - Einstein statistics). * Particles with half-integer spins have R = 1, they are called fermions (Fermi − - Dirac statistics). 3 The spin-statistics theorem can be proven in relativistic quantum mechanics. Technically the theorem is based on the fact that due to the structure of the Lorentz transformation the wave equation for a particle with spin 1/2 is of the first order in time derivative (see discussion of the Dirac equation later in the course). At the same time the wave equation for a particle with integer spin is of the second order in time derivative.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work Title Beyond the Coulson-Fischer point: characterizing single excitation CI and TDDFT for excited states in single bond dissociations. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5gq7j5p3 Journal Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP, 21(39) ISSN 1463-9076 Authors Hait, Diptarka Rettig, Adam Head-Gordon, Martin Publication Date 2019-10-01 DOI 10.1039/c9cp04452c Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Beyond the Coulson-Fischer point: Characterizing single excitation CI and TDDFT for excited states in single bond dissociations Diptarka Hait,1, a) Adam Rettig,1, a) and Martin Head-Gordon1, 2, b) 1)Kenneth S. Pitzer Center for Theoretical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 2)Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA Linear response time dependent density functional theory (TDDFT), which builds upon configuration interaction singles (CIS) and TD-Hartree-Fock (TDHF), is the most widely used class of excited state quantum chemistry methods and is often employed to study photochemical processes. This paper studies the behavior of the resulting excited state potential energy surfaces beyond the Coulson-Fischer (CF) point in single bond dissociations, when the optimal reference determinant is spin- polarized. Many excited states exhibit sharp kinks at the CF point, and connect to different dissociation limits via a zone of unphysical concave curvature. In particular, the unrestricted MS = 0 lowest triplet T1 state changes character, and does not dissociate into ground state fragments. The unrestricted MS = ±1 T1 CIS states better approximate the physical dissociation limit, but their degeneracy is broken beyond the CF point for most single bond dissociations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Variational Wave Functions for Molecules and Solids
    2 Variational Wave Functions for Molecules and Solids W.M.C. Foulkes Department of Physics Imperial College London Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Slater determinants 4 3 The Hartree-Fock approximation 11 4 Configuration expansions 14 5 Slater-Jastrow wave functions 21 6 Beyond Slater determinants 27 E. Pavarini and E. Koch (eds.) Topology, Entanglement, and Strong Correlations Modeling and Simulation Vol. 10 Forschungszentrum Julich,¨ 2020, ISBN 978-3-95806-466-9 http://www.cond-mat.de/events/correl20 2.2 W.M.C. Foulkes 1 Introduction Chemists and condensed matter physicists are lucky to have a reliable “grand unified theory” — the many-electron Schrodinger¨ equation — capable of describing almost every phenomenon we encounter. If only we were able to solve it! Finding the exact solution is believed to be “NP hard” in general [1], implying that the computational cost almost certainly scales exponentially with N. Until we have access to a working quantum computer, the best we can do is seek good approximate solutions computable at a cost that rises less than exponentially with system size. Another problem is that our approximate solutions have to be surprisingly accurate to be useful. The energy scale of room-temperature phenomena is kBT ≈ 0.025 eV per electron, and the en- ergy differences between competing solid phases can be as small as 0.01 eV per atom [2]. Quan- tum chemists say that 1 kcal mol−1 (≈ 0.043 eV) is “chemical accuracy” and that methods with errors much larger than this are not good enough to provide quantitative predictions of room temperature chemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes (Pdf)
    Lecture notes for the course 554017 Advanced Computational Chemistry Pekka Manninen 2009 2 Contents 1 Many-electron wave functions 7 1.1 Molecular Schr¨odinger equation . ..... 7 1.1.1 Helium-likeatom ............................ 9 1.2 Molecular orbitals: the first contact . ...... 10 1.2.1 Dihydrogenion ............................. 10 1.3 Spinfunctions.................................. 12 1.4 Antisymmetry and the Slater determinant . ..... 13 1.4.1 Approximate wave functions for He as Slater determinants ..... 14 1.4.2 Remarkson“interpretation”. 15 1.4.3 Slatermethod.............................. 15 1.4.4 Helium-like atom revisited . 16 1.4.5 Slater’srules .............................. 17 1.5 Furtherreading ................................. 18 1.6 ExercisesforChapter1. .. .. 18 2 Exact and approximate wave functions 19 2.1 Characteristics of the exact wave function . ....... 19 2.2 TheCoulombcusp ............................... 21 2.2.1 HamiltonianforaHe-likeatom . 21 2.2.2 Coulomb and nuclear cusp conditions . .. 21 2.2.3 Electroncorrelation. 22 2.3 Variationprinciple .............................. 23 2.3.1 Linearansatz .............................. 23 2.3.2 Hellmann–Feynman theorem . 24 2.3.3 The molecular electronic virial theorem . ..... 25 2.4 One- and N-electronexpansions . 26 2.5 Furtherreading ................................. 28 2.6 ExercisesforChapter2. .. .. 28 3 Molecular integral evaluation 31 3.1 Atomicbasisfunctions . .. .. 31 3.1.1 TheLaguerrefunctions. 32 3.1.2 Slater-typeorbitals . 33 3 3.1.3 Gaussian-typeorbitals . 34 3.2 Gaussianbasissets ............................... 35 3.3 Integrals over Gaussian basis sets . ..... 37 3.3.1 Gaussian overlap distributions . ... 38 3.3.2 Simple one-electron integrals . ... 38 3.3.3 TheBoysfunction ........................... 39 3.3.4 Obara–Saika scheme for one-electron Coulomb integrals....... 40 3.3.5 Obara–Saika scheme for two-electron Coulomb integrals......
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1605.06002V1 [Quant-Ph] 17 May 2016
    Natural generalization of the ground-state Slater determinant to more than one dimension D. K. Sunko∗ Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Bijeniˇckacesta 32, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia. The basic question is addressed, how the space dimension d is encoded in the Hilbert space of N identical fermions. There appears a finite number N!d−1 of many-body wave functions, called shapes, which cannot be generated by trivial combinatorial extension of the one-dimensional ones. A general algorithm is given to list them all in terms of standard Slater determinants. Conversely, excitations which can be induced from the one-dimensional case are bosonised into a system of distinguishable bosons, called Euler bosons, much like the electromagnetic field is quantized in terms of photons distinguishable by their wave numbers. Their wave functions are given explicitly in terms of elementary symmetric functions, reflecting the fact that the fermion sign problem is trivial in one dimension. The shapes act as vacua for the Euler bosons. They are the natural generalization of the single-Slater-determinant form for the ground state to more than one dimension. In terms of algebraic invariant theory, the shapes are antisymmetric invariants which finitely generate the N-fermion Hilbert space as a graded algebra over the ring of symmetric polynomials. Analogous results hold for identical bosons. PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Fd, 31.15.-p I. INTRODUCTION state is just one particular linear combination of Slater determinants among many. Quantum effects are sometimes counter-intuitive be- In particular, the Kohn-Sham method [1] is a special cause physics happens in the space of wave functions, search in coefficient space, constrained by the require- not in the geometrical \laboratory" space of Newtonian ment that the final linear combination can be written as mechanics.
    [Show full text]