Effect of spin-orbit interaction

Si P or Si As to the Z dependence. Their results are illustrated in Fig. 5.12. Kaveh and Mott introduce the spin-orbit scattering time and a new length scale Lso=(Dtso)1/2, and the Kawabata equation (9) becomes 

The effects of a magnetic field are discussed by Kaveh and Mott (1987). 

12 Evidence that the transition ties in an impurity band, and that the two Hubbard bands have merged 

The assumption that the transition takes place in an impurity band does not necessarily mean that there is a gap between it and the conduction band. It means that the wave functions are such that, at the Fermi energy, p 2 is much greater in the dopant atoms than elsewhere. No sharp transition between the two situations is envisaged. 

A further argument against a transition in the conduction band is given by the present author (Mott 1983), who maintains that in the conduction band it is impossible that the random situation of the donors should give disorder strong enough to produce Anderson localization. 

---

It should be noted that, due to the effect of spin-orbit interaction the correct initial and final states are not exactly the pure spin states. The admixture with higher electronic states j/ may be ignored only if there exists a direct coupling between the initial and final pure spin states. Otherwise, the wave function for the initial state is obtained to first order of perturbation theory as ... 

We have optimized the structures and calculated the vibrational frequencies of both (U02 )aq and (U02 )aq with and withont spin-orbit effects. We also abstained the electron affinity of (U02 " )aq with and without spin-orbit interactions. The effects of the spin-orbit interaction on the structures and frequencies of these two complexes are discussed. The effect of the spin-orbit effects on the calculated energetics of molecular orbitals, in general good qualitative indicators of chemical reactivities and excited state properties, is discussed. We also carried out calculations for Th2, and the effects of spin-orbit interactions on the low-lying electronic states, bond lengths, vibrational frequencies, dissociation energies and electronic configurations wiU be discussed in detail. 

In relativistic calculations, the spinors are not necessarily so well separated, due to the spin-orbit interaction. As an example of the effect of spin-orbit interaction, we choose the atoms of group 14—C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb—which in a nonrelativistic picture have the valence configuration np, and the ground state is np i P) in LS coupling. In a relativistic model the np manifold splits into the nondegenerate sets of npi/2 and np3/2 spinors. If we apply a simple Aufbau principle, we would end up with the state 2p i22py2 J = 0) for the relativistic ground state of C. If we expand the 2p /2 spinor into spin-orbitals, we find that this state is % and / 2p ( S), which we know... 

The simple bonding picture based on spinors and relativistic or spin-orbit hybridization is an appealing explanation of the effect of spin-orbit interaction on bonding, but it is by no means the only one. It is the natural explanation when spinors are the starting point, but it is also possible (and common) to start from a spin-free model and introduce spin-orbit effects at the post-SCF stage of the calculation. Now the bonding picture is a multi-electron picture that involves the interaction of states of different spin and symmetry. 

Fig.3.3. The effect of spin-orbit interaction in a one-electron atom.

We now consider how to eliminate the spin-orbit interaction, but not scalar relativistic effects, from the Dirac equation (25). The straightforward elimination of spin-dependent terms, taken to be terms involving the Pauli spin matrices, certainly does not work as it eliminates all kinetic energy as well. A minimum requirement for a correct procedure for the elimination of spin-orbit interaction is that the remaining operator should go to the correct non-relativistic limit. However, this check does not guarantee that some scalar relativistic effects are eliminated as well, as pointed out by Visscher and van Lenthe [44]. Dyall [12] suggested the elimination of the spin-orbit interaction by the non-unitary transformation... 

In a single-configurational non-relativistic approach, the integrals of electrostatic interactions and the constant of spin-orbit interactions compose the minimal set of semi-empirical parameters. Then for pN and dN shells we have two and three parameters, respectively. However, calculations show that such numbers of parameters are insufficient to achieve high accuracy of the theoretical energy levels. Therefore, we have to look for extra parameters, which would be in charge of the relativistic and correlation effects not yet described. 

For pN shells the effective Hamiltonian Heff contains two parameters F2 and 4>i, as well as the constant of spin-orbit interaction. The term with k = 0 causes a general shift of all levels, which is usually taken from experimental data in semi-empirical calculations, and can therefore be neglected. The coefficient at 01 is proportional to L(L + 1). Therefore, to find the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian it is enough to add the term aL(L + 1) to the matrix elements of the energy of electrostatic and spin-orbit interactions. Here a stands for the extra semi-empirical parameter. 

An interesting aspect of this problem is that posed by the Jahn-Teller effect in the benzene anion. These ions, together with the cations and anions of coronene (Bolton and Carrington, 1961c de Boer and Weissman, 1958), have spectra consisting of unusually broad lines which are very hard to saturate. Theoretical studies (McConnell, 1961 McConnell and McLachlan, 1961) suggest that the broadening is a result of spin-orbit interaction but the relaxation is linked to the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect. 

Relative effects of spin-orbit coupbng and octahedral crystal field interaction on the electronic state 4D. 

Before we leave OH, it is instructive to use the same semi-empirical model to estimate the value of y(2) for the A 2 + state. In this case, we find that the combined effect of spin-orbit and rotational coupling with the X2 n state gives a value for y(2> whichhas the opposite sign (because of the change in sign of the energy denominator) and which is twice as big, that is, 0.344 cm. The latter difference occurs because the A = 0) orbital of the 21 state interacts with both A = +1) and A = —1) components of the2n state. The experimental value of y for Oil in the A2Y 1 state is 0.201 cm-1. 

---