Hamiltonian operator electronic structure calculations

Abstract. Investigation of P,T-parity nonconservation (PNC) phenomena is of fundamental importance for physics. Experiments to search for PNC effects have been performed on TIE and YbF molecules and are in progress for PbO and PbF molecules. For interpretation of molecular PNC experiments it is necessary to calculate those needed molecular properties which cannot be measured. In particular, electronic densities in heavy-atom cores are required for interpretation of the measured data in terms of the P,T-odd properties of elementary particles or P,T-odd interactions between them. Reliable calculations of the core properties (PNC effect, hyperfine structure etc., which are described by the operators heavily concentrated in atomic cores or on nuclei) usually require accurate accounting for both relativistic and correlation effects in heavy-atom systems. In this paper, some basic aspects of the experimental search for PNC effects in heavy-atom molecules and the computational methods used in their electronic structure calculations are discussed. The latter include the generalized relativistic effective core potential (GRECP) approach and the methods of nonvariational and variational one-center restoration of correct shapes of four-component spinors in atomic cores after a two-component GRECP calculation of a molecule. Their efficiency is illustrated with calculations of parameters of the effective P,T-odd spin-rotational Hamiltonians in the molecules PbF, HgF, YbF, BaF, TIF, and PbO. 

The three curves shown in Fig. 3 are the ones calculated by using this Hamiltonian. Here, f J1 is the electronic transfer T between the fiu orbital a of the mth C60 molecule and the fiu orbital b of the nth C o molecule, where a and b denote x, y, and z f is chosen so as to reproduce the result of the electronic structure calculations. We also use spin electron in the flu orbital a of the mth C60 molecule. Furthermore, is the band energy of the flu electron of the band index a (a = 1,2, and 3) and the wavenumber k the band energies are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian H0 and we use ak(J(akli) to denote the corresponding creation (annihilation) operators. 

The method discussed here for the inclusion of relativistic effects in molecular electronic structure calculations is grounded in the Dirac-Fock approximation for atomic wave functions (29). The premise is that the major relativistic effects of the Dirac Hamiltonian are manifested in the core region, involving the core electrons, and that these effects propagate to the valence electrons. In addition, there are direct relativistic effects on valence electrons penetrating into the core region. Insofar as this is true, the valence electrons can be treated using a nonrelativistic Hamiltonian to which is added an operator, the relativistic effective core potential (REP). The REP formally, incorporates relativistic effects due to core electrons and to interactions of valence electrons with core electrons in an internally consistent way. 

In principle problems of relativistic electronic structure calculations arise from the fact that the Dirac-Hamiltonian is not bounded from below and an energy-variation without additional precautions could lead to a variational collapse of the desired electronic solution into the positronic states. In addition, at the many-electron level an infinite number of unbound states with one electron in the positive and one in the negative continuuum are degenerate with the desired bound solution. A mixing-in of these unphysical states is possible without changing the energy and might lead to the so-called continuum dissolution or Brown-Ravenhall disease. Both problems are avoided if the Hamiltonian is, at least formally, projected onto the electronic states by means of suitable operators (no-pair Hamiltonian) ... 

Equation 3 still presents problems. First, it is an operator equation. Most of the expertise that has been developed in electronic structure calculations has centered on equations involving matrix elements of operators, rather than the operators themselves. Second, and also important, the vast majority of the solutions of (3) are ones in which we have no interest. Within the limited orbital basis set approximation, there are only a finite number n of linearly independent -electron states, or configuration functions, that can be formed. Within this basis, the exact -electron energies Eq, Ef,..., E i and the corresponding exact -electron states, 0>,..., I n — 1), are, respectively, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the n X n Hamiltonian matrix (i.e., the solutions of the complete Cl problem for... 

The Kohn-Sham-Dirac equation (27) introduced in the last section is the basis of most relativistic electronic structure calculations in solid state theory. There are certain aspects which make the numerical solution of this four-component equation more involved than its non-relativistic coimterpart The Hamiltonian of the Kohn-Sham-Dirac equation is, unlike its Schrodinger equivalent and unlike the field-theoretical Hamiltonian (7) with the properly chosen normal order, not bounded below. In the limit of free, non-interacting particles the solutions of the Kohn-Sham-Dirac equation are plane waves with energies e(k) = cVk -I- c, where positive energies correspond to electrons and states with negative energy can be interpreted as positrons. For numerical procedures, which preferably use variational techniques to find electronic solutions, this property of the Dirac operator causes a severe problem, which can be circumvented by certain techniques like the application of a squared Dirac operator or a projection onto the properly chosen electronic states according to their above definition after Eq. (19). 

A regular alternative to the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation was given by Douglas and Kroll and later developed for its use in electronic structure calculations by Hess et al. The Douglas-Kroll (DK) transformation defines a transformation of the external-field Dirac Hamiltonian Hq of equation (11) to two-component form which leads, in contrast to the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation, to operators which are bounded from below and can be used variationally, similarly to those of the regular approximations discussed above. As in the FW transformation, it is not possible in the DK formalism to give the transformation in closed form. Rather, it is... 

Kohn-Sham DFT is widely used in electronic structure calculations of the ground state properties of atoms, molecules, and solids. DFT was introduced by Hohenberg and Kohn (1964). Based on the Thomas-Fermi model (Fermi, 1927 Thomas, 1927), they laid out the fundamental theorem which stated that the electron density determines the external potential and as a result, immediately, it also uniquely determines the Hamiltonian operator (Hohenberg and Kohn, 1964). One year later, in 1965, Kohn and Sham declared another theorem resembling the variational principle which stated that the true ground state density would deliver the ground state energy of the system (Kohn and Sham, 1965). 

So far we have assumed that the electronic structure of the crystal consists of one band derived, in our approximation, from a single atomic state. In general, this will not be a realistic picture. The metals, for example, have a complicated system of overlapping bands derived, in our approximation, from several atomic states. This means that more than one atomic orbital has to be associated with each crystal atom. When this is done, it turns out that even the equations for the one-dimensional crystal cannot be solved directly. However, the mathematical technique developed by Baldock (2) and Koster and Slater (S) can be applied (8) and a formal solution obtained. Even so, the question of the existence of otherwise of surface states in real crystals is diflBcult to answer from theoretical considerations. For the simplest metals, i.e., the alkali metals, for which a one-band model is a fair approximation, the problem is still difficult. The nature of the difficulty can be seen within the framework of our simple model. In the first place, the effective one-electron Hamiltonian operator is really different for each electron. If we overlook this complication and use some sort of mean value for this operator, the operator still contains terms representing the interaction of the considered electron with all other electrons in the crystal. The Coulomb part of this interaction acts in such a way as to reduce the effect of the perturbation introduced by the existence of a free surface. A self-consistent calculation is therefore essential, and the various parameters in our theory would have to be chosen in conformity with the results of such a calculation. 

On the other hand, ab initio (meaning from the beginning in Latin) methods use a correct Hamiltonian operator, which includes kinetic energy of the electrons, attractions between electrons and nuclei, and repulsions between electrons and those between nuclei, to calculate all integrals without making use of any experimental data other than the values of the fundamental constants. An example of these methods is the self-consistent field (SCF) method first introduced by D. R. Hartree and V. Fock in the 1920s. This method was briefly described in Chapter 2, in connection with the atomic structure calculations. Before proceeding further, it should be mentioned that ab initio does not mean exact or totally correct. This is because, as we have seen in the SCF treatment, approximations are still made in ab initio methods. 

In the frame of the target hybrid QM/MM procedure, only the electronic structure of the R-system is calculated explicitly. For this reason, we consider its effective Hamiltonian eq. (1.235) in more detail. It contains the operator terms coming from (1) the Coulomb interaction of the effective charges in the M-system with electrons in the R-system 5VM and (2) from the resonance interaction of the R- and M-systems. 

Averaging the interaction operators in eq. (1.246) - they are both two-electronic ones - over the ground states of each subsystem does not touch the fermi-operators of the other subsystem. The averaging of the two-electron operators PWCP and PwrrP yields the one-electron corrections to the bare subsystem Hamiltonians. The wave functions and d, )7 are calculated in the presence of each other. The effective operator iTff describes the electronic structure of the R-system in the presence of the medium, whereas HIf describes the medium in the presence of the R-system. 

Although the proper point of departure for relativistic atomic structure calculations is quantum electrodynamics (QED), very few atomic structure calculations have been carried out entirely within the QED framework. Indeed, almost all relativistic calculations of the structure of many-electron atoms are based on some variant of the Hamiltonian introduced a half century ago by Brown and Ravenhall [1] to understand the helium fine structure. By decoupling the electron and radiation fields in QED to order a (the fine-structure constant) using a contact transformation. Brown and Ravenhall obtained a relativistic momentum-space Hamiltonian in which the electron-electron Coulomb interaction was surrounded by positive-energy projection operators. Owing to the fact that contributions from virtual electron-positron pairs are automatically projected out of... 

---