Perturbations kernel

Complete formal analysis of the recoil corrections in the framework of the relativistic two-particle equations, with derivation of all relevant kernels, perturbation theory contributions, and necessary subtraction terms may be performed along the same lines as was done for hyperfine splitting in [3]. However, these results may also be understood without a cumbersome formalism by starting with the simple scattering approximation. We will discuss recoil corrections below using this less rigorous but more physically transparent approach. 

System perturbations can usually be expressed as perturbations in the macroscopic cross sections. The operators of the perturbation integrals of the different formulations depend on these cross-section perturbations the functional dependence varies with the formulation. The simplest dependence is found in the integrodifferential formulation in which the perturbation operators are the cross-section perturbations. Conversely, the integral transport theory formulations include kernel perturbations that do not depend linearly on cross-section perturbations. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the perturbation in the kernels before applying integral pertur-... 

This equation is exact, and its kernel is expanded into the series (2.82). The decoupling procedure resulting in (2.24) is equivalent to retention of the first term in this series. Using Eq. (2.86), one may develop a consistent perturbation theory which will take into consideration higher orders of... 

The width of this Lorentzian line is half as large as that found in (3.37). This, however, is not a surprise because the perturbation theory equation (3.23) predicted exactly this difference in the width of the line narrowed by strong and weak collisions. This is the maximal difference expected within the framework of impact theory when the Keilson-Storer kernel is used and 0 < y < 1. 

Then, in the perturbative regime, a control kernel can be constructed as [23,24],... 

Even though the total kernel in (1.23) is unambiguously defined, we still have freedom to choose the zero-order kernel Kq at our convenience, in order to obtain a solvable lowest order approximation. It is not difficult to obtain a regular perturbation theory series for the corrections to the zero-order ap>-proximation corresponding to the difference between the zero-order kernel Kq and the exact kernel Kq + 6K... 

The only apparent difference of the EDE (1.23) from the regular Dirac equation is connected with the dependence of the interaction kernels on energy. Respectively the perturbation theory series in (1.25) contain, unlike the regular nonrelativistic perturbation series, derivatives of the interaction kernels over energy. The presence of these derivatives is crucial for cancellation of the ultraviolet divergences in the expressions for the energy eigenvalues. 

The logarithmic contribution is induced only by the Uehling potential in Fig. 3.10, and may easily be calculated exactly in the same way as the logarithmic contribution induced by the radiative photon in (3.97). The only difference is that now the role of the perturbation potential is played by the kernel which corresponds to the polarization contribution to the Lamb shift of order a(Za) m... 

Much like the derivatives of integrals over the electric dipole operator, finding derivatives of the elements of the elements requires the orbital derivatives. We assume that the functional and thus the kernel fxc do not change in the presence of a magnetic field. This is a reasonable assumption for functionals that do not depend on the current density. If the basis set is not dependent on the perturbation the resulting expressions for 1 and are... 

The philosophy of perturbation theory is to consider the whole group of reactants undergoing a given reaction as variations on a central theme. We have seen how this principle is applied to heteroatomic systems by regarding them as perturbed forms of the isoconjugate hydrocarbons likewise it is convenient to treat as many such molecules as possible in terms of a fixed kernel with varying substituents attached to it. This is indeed the procedure commonly followed in chemistry, confirming the view that chemistry is in effect an exercise in perturbation theory. Our next problem then is to consider how substituents may influence reactivity. 

Thus far we have considered only the quantities f(r) and s(r) as indices of chemical reactivity. These quantities, however, are local responses to the global perturbations dJf and dfi, respectively. Chemical reactions proreed by nonlocal responses of one reactant to nonlocal perturbations generated in chemical attack by another reactant. Thus, a fifth issue emerges, how to define nonlocal reactivity indices. Berkowitz and Parr (BP) [15] addressed this issue by introducing the softness kernel,... 

The softness kernels are relevant to the remaining cases of two or more interacting systems. However, they do not by themselves provide sufficient information to constitute a basis for a theory of chemical reactivity. Clearly, the chemical stimulus to one molecule in a bimolecular reaction is provided by the other. That being the case, an eighth issue arises. Both the perturbing system and the responding system have internal dynamics, yet the softness kernel is a static response function. Dynamic reactivities need to be defined. 

Nalewajski [19-21] formulated a theory of static reactivity kernels prior to but closely related to that of Berkowitz and Parr [15] which started out from a second-order perturbative treatment of the total energy. He identified an external static potential of unspecified origin with the chemical stimulus and made the first connection between softness kernels and the total energy. His result is, in our notation,... 

This condition means Anderson noise of large intensity, and, as we have seen, W is a weak perturbation. Note that on the extreme left and extreme right of the second term of Eq. (41) we have IIL... = — iII[W,...] and (1 — II)L... = — /(I — II) [W,...]. This means that the second term of Eq. (39) is of second order. We aim at illustrating the consequence of making a second-order approximation. To keep our treatment at the second perturbation order, we neglect the perturbation appearing in the exponential of Eq. (41). This makes the calculation of the memory kernel very easy. Using the Cauchy distribution of Eq. (33), we obtain... 

It is immediately apparent that (248) will give the correct zero-frequency xc potential value for Harmonic Potential Theorem motion. For this motion, the gas moves rigidly implying X is independent of r so that the compressive part, Hia, of the density perturbation from (245) is zero. Equally, for perturbations to a uniform electron gas, Vn and hence nn, is zero, so that (248) gives the uniform-gas xc kernel fxc([Pg.126]

Since kernel K(G,A) is a subgroup of epikernel E(G,A), kernel extrema (if they exist) will be more numerous than epikernel extrema of a given type. In order to be stationary at all these equivalent points, the JT PES must be of considerable complexity. Only higher order term in the perturbation expansion (7) are able to generate non-symmetrical extrema. However - from a perturbational point of view -the dominance of higher order terms over the first (and second) order contributions is (extremely) unlikely. This rationalizes the epikernel principle as well. 

---