Hamiltonian expression quantum mechanics

Unfortunately, the Schrodinger equation for multi-electron atoms and, for that matter, all molecules cannot be solved exactly and does not lead to an analogous expression to Equation 4.5 for the quantised energy levels. Even for simple atoms such as sodium the number of interactions between the particles increases rapidly. Sodium contains 11 electrons and so the correct quantum mechanical description of the atom has to include 11 nucleus-electron interactions, 55 electron-electron repulsion interactions and the correct description of the kinetic energy of the nucleus and the electrons - a further 12 terms in the Hamiltonian. The analysis of many-electron atomic spectra is complicated and beyond the scope of this book, but it was one such analysis performed by Sir Norman Lockyer that led to the discovery of helium on the Sun before it was discovered on the Earth. 

For a derivation of the above Hamiltonian, please see, for example, the book by Schatz and Ratner [71]. We may also express the total quantum-mechanical... 

An approximate quantum mechanical expressions- that allows one to calculate the electrostatic surface potential around atoms, radicals, ions, and molecules by assuming that the ground-state electron density uniquely specifies the Hamiltonian of the system and thereby all the properties of the ground state. This approach greatly facilitates computational schemes for exact calculation of the ground-state energy and electron density of orbitals. 

Here is the wave function, is the value of the energy and 7i is the Hamiltonian operator. The Hamiltonian is the sum of the quantum-mechanical expressions for the kinetic and potential energies of the system. 

The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics relies on the basic idea that the evolution operator of a particle is expressed in terms of the time-independent Hamiltonian, H(x, p)= p2/2 + V(x) [Feynman and Hibbs, 1965] ... 

In the following we present the axioms or basic postulates of quantum mechanics and accompany them by their classical counterparts in the Hamiltonian formalism. We begin the presentation with a brief summary of some of the mathematical background essential for the developments in the following. It is by no means a comprehensive presentation, and the reader is supposed to have some basic knowledge about quantum mechanics that may be obtained from any of the many introductory textbooks in quantum mechanics. The focus here is on results of particular relevance to the subjects of this book. We consider, for example, a derivation of a formal expression for the flux density operator in quantum mechanics and its coordinate representation. A systematic way of generating any representation of any combination of operators is set up, and is of immediate usage for the time autocorrelation function of the flux operator used to determine the rate constants of a chemical process. 

Each quantum mechanical operator is related to one physical property. The Hamiltonian operator is associated with energy and allows the energy of an electron occupying orbital cp to be calculated [Equation (2.3)]. We will never need to perform such a calculation. In fact, in perturbation theory and the Hiickel method, the mathematical expressions of the various operators are never given and calculations cannot be done. Any expression containing an operator is treated merely as an empirical parameter. 

The next and necessary step is to account for the interactions between the quantum subsystem and the classical subsystem. This is achieved by the utilization of a classical expression of the interactions between charges and/or induced charges and a van der Waals term [45-61] and we are able to represent the coupling to the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian by interaction operators. These interaction operators enable us to include effectively these operators in the quantum mechanical equations for calculating the MCSCF electronic wavefunction along with the response of the MCSCF wavefunction to externally applied time-dependent electromagnetic fields when the molecule is exposed to a structured environment [14,45-56,58-60,62,67,69-74],... 

We now have a formula for constructing the density matrix for any system in terms of a set of basis functions, and from Eq. 11.6 we can determine the expectation value of any dynamical variable. However, the real value of the density matrix approach lies in its ability to describe coherent time-dependent processes, something that we could not do with steady-state quantum mechanics. We thus need an expression for the time evolution of the density matrix in terms of the Hamiltonian applicable to the spin system. 

Successful model building is at the very heart of modern science. It has been most successful in physics but, with the advent of quantum mechanics, great inroads have been made in the modelling of various chemical properties and phenomena as well, even though it may be difficult, if not impossible, to provide a precise definition of certain qualitative chemical concepts, often very useful ones, such as electronegativity, aromaticity and the like. Nonetheless, all successful models are invariably based on the atomic hypothesis and quantum mechanics. The majority, be they of the ah initio or semiempirical type, is defined via an appropriate non-relativistic, Born-Oppenheimer electronic Hamiltonian on some finite-dimensional subspace of the pertinent Hilbert or Fock space. Consequently, they are most appropriately expressed in terms of the second quantization formalism, or even unitary group formalism (see, e.g. [33]). 

The state of a classical system is specified in terms of the values of a set of coordinates q and conjugate momenta p at some time t, the coordinates and momenta satisfying Hamilton s equations of motion. It is possible to perform a coordinate transformation to a new set of ps and qs which again satisfy Hamilton s equation of motion with respect to a Hamiltonian expressed in the new coordinates. Such a coordinate transformation is called a canonical transformation and, while changing the functional form of the Hamiltonian and of the expressions for other properties, it leaves all of the numerical values of the properties unchanged. Thus, a canonical transformation offers an alternative but equivalent description of a classical system. One may ask whether the same freedom of choosing equivalent descriptions of a system exists in quantum mechanics. The answer is in the affirmative and it is a unitary transformation which is the quantum analogue of the classical canonical transformation. 

Because H is dynamically dependent on spin and space variables, the expression in parentheses in the r.h.s. of Eq. (3) involving integration over the latter defines a spin operator. This is just the effective Hamiltonian of interest to us. By virtue of point (iii), when the integrations are to be performed for the H" term in the Hamiltonian, only the unit operator in A need to be retained. The resulting expression will thus have the form (Ap H"l ). If one takes into account that the space state 1 ) is a product (or a combination of products, see above) of localized, one-particle states, one can immediately see that upon integrating over the spatial variables r , n= 1,2,...,AI, the spatial parts of the individual spin-dependent terms will be replaced by the corresponding quantum mechanical averages. Thus, for the entire expression in Eq. (3) is none other than one of the matrix element of the standard NMR Hamiltonian, Wnmr, between two spin-product basis states,... 

The precise mathematical form of the Hamiltonian is found by first writing down an expression for the energy of the system using classical mechanics and then "translating" this into quantum mechanical form according to a set of rules. In this chapter the form of the relevant Hamiltonians will simply be stated rather than derived. 

In a paper in 1979, Carl Ballhausen [1] expressed the belief that today we realize that the whole of chemistry is one huge manifestation of quantum phenomena, but he was perfectly well aware of the care that had to be taken to express the relevant quantum theory appropriately. So in an earlier review [2] that he had undertaken with Aage Hansen, he scorned the usual habit of chemists in naming an experimental observation as if it was caused by the theory that was used to account for it. Thus in the review they remark that a particular phenomenon observed in molecular vibration spectra is presently refered to as the Duchinsky effect. The effect is, of course, just as fictitious as the Jahn-Teller effect. Their aim in the review was to make a start towards rationalization of the nomenclature and to specify the form of the molecular Hamiltonian implicit in any nomenclature. In an article that Jonathan Tennyson and I published in the festschrift to celebrate his sixtieth birthday in 1987 [3], we tried to present a clear account of a molecular Hamiltonian suitable for treating the vibration rotation spectrum of a triatomic molecule. In an article that I wrote that appeared in 1990 [4], I discussed the difficulty of deciding just how far the basic chemical idea of molecular structure could really be fitted into quantum mechanics. 

---