Model electronic Hamiltonian

Figure 3. Born Oppenheimer surfaces generated by the model electronic Hamiltonian in Equation (5) as the hydrogen is displaced from the origin in the -direction. The inset at the right schematically shows the model which electron is harmonically bound to a point at the origin of coordinates while the electron and proton interact via a Coulomb potential. The wave function is expanded as a linear combination of three basis functions, hydrogen Is, 2s and 2pz eigenstates.

A variety of methodologies have been implemented for the reaction field. The basic equation for the dielectric continuum model is the Poisson-Laplace equation, by which the electrostatic field in a cavity with an arbitrary shape and size is calculated, although some methods do not satisfy the equation. Because the solute s electronic strucmre and the reaction field depend on each other, a nonlinear equation (modified Schrddinger equation) has to be solved in an iterative manner. In practice this is achieved by modifying the electronic Hamiltonian or Fock operator, which is defined through the shape and size of the cavity and the description of the solute s electronic distribution. If one takes a dipole moment approximation for the solute s electronic distribution and a spherical cavity (Onsager s reaction field), the interaction can be derived rather easily and an analytical expression of theFock operator is obtained. However, such an expression is not feasible for an arbitrary electronic distribution in an arbitrary cavity fitted to the molecular shape. In this case the Fock operator is very complicated and has to be prepared by a numerical procedure. 

In the weak-coupling limit unit cell a (, 0 7a for fra/u-polyacetylene) and the Peierls gap has a strong effect only on the electron states close to the Fermi energy eF-0, i.e., stales with wave vectors close to . The interaction of these electronic states with the lattice may then be described by a continuum, model [5, 6]. In this description, the electron Hamiltonian (Eq. (3.3)) takes the form ... 

With the localized basis set—that is, xe) = et) gm) where ee) ( gm)) is the electronically excited (ground) state of the Bchl Be (Bm)—the total electronic Hamiltonian for the model system is given by [56]... 

If we fix the cores and assume that each electron moves in the average potential generated by the cores and other electrons, this is the so-called Hartree or one-electron approximation. For this model we arrive at a relatively simple expression for the Hamiltonian for determining the electronic band structure and wave functions. The one-electron Hamiltonian is... 

The indices are all defined in terms of the Hiickel molecular orbital method. This has been described on many occasions, and need not be discussed in detail here, but a brief statement of the basic equations is a necessary foundation for later sections. The method utilizes a one-electron model in which each tt electron moves in a effective field due partly to the a-bonded framework and partly to its averaged interaction with the other tt electrons. This corresponds conceptually to the Hartree-Fock approach (Section IX) but at this level no attempt is made to define more precisely the one-electron Hamiltonian h which contains the effective field. Instead, each 7r-type molecular orbital (MO) is approxi-... 

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. 

The Holstein model was preceded by the Pekar model [34] and in chemistry by the Marcus model [6]. In chemistry donor-acceptor systems are more frequent objects of study than conducting wires but the coupling between electronic and nuclear motion of similar nature. For example if the coupling is large a small nuclear displacement is sufficient to change the wave function much and in a way which corresponds to ET or EET. We use the effective, many-electron Hamiltonian H of eq.(4) and assume that it is solved for donor and acceptor, giving the energies Haa and Hdd, respectively. We use the new nuclear coordinates ... 

The development of design guidelines for molecules with large second hyperpolarizability, 7, is more difficult because of uncertainty in whether few or many state models are appropriate [24-28]. Some effects, such as saturation of 7 with chain length, can be addressed with one-electron hamiltonians, but more reliable many-electron calculations (already available for (3) are just beginning to access large 7 materials [24,35-38]. Theoretical and experimental work in this area should hold some interesting surprises. 

The standard quantum chemical model for the molecular hamiltonian Hm contains, besides purely electronic terms, the Coulomb repulsion among the nuclei Vnn and the kinetic energy operator K]. The electronic terms are the electron kinetic energy operator Ke and the electron-electron Coulomb repulsion interaction Vee and interactions of electrons with the nuclei, these latter acting as sources of external (to the electrons) potential designated as Ve]q. The electronic hamiltonian He includes and is defined as... 

In order to illustrate electronic transitions we discuss the simple two-dimensional model of a linear triatomic molecule ABC as depicted in Figure 2.1. R and r are the appropriate Jacobi coordinates to describe the nuclear motion and the vector q comprises all electronic coordinates. The total molecular Hamiltonian Hmoi, including all nuclear and electronic degrees of freedom, is given by Equation (2.28) with Hei and Tnu being the electronic Hamiltonian and the kinetic energy of the nuclei, respectively. 

In our discussion the usual Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation will be employed. This means that we assume a standard partition of the effective Hamiltonian into an electronic and a nuclear part, as well as the factorization of the solute wavefunction into an electronic and a nuclear component. As will be clear soon, the corresponding electronic problem is the main source of specificities of QM continuum models, due to the nonlinearity of the effective electronic Hamiltonian of the solute. The QM nuclear problem, whose solution gives information on solvent effects on the nuclear structure (geometry) and properties, has less specific aspects, with respect the case of the isolated molecules. In fact, once the proper potential energy surfaces are obtained from the solution of the electronic problem, such a problem can be solved using the standard methods and approximations (mechanical harmonicity, and anharmonicity of various order) used for isolated molecules. The QM nuclear problem is mainly connected with the vibrational properties of the nuclei and the corresponding spectroscopic observables, and it will be considered in more detail in the contributions in the book dedicated to the vibrational spectroscopies (IR/Raman). This contribution will be focused on the QM electronic problem. 

The approximation techniques described in the earlier sections apply to any (non-relativistic) quantum system and can be universally used. On the other hand, the specific methods necessary for modeling molecular PES that refer explicitly to electronic wave function (or other possible tools mentioned above adjusted to describe electronic structure) are united under the name of quantum chemistry (QC).15 Quantum chemistry is different from other branches of theoretical physics in that it deals with systems of intermediate numbers of fermions - electrons, which preclude on the one hand the use of the infinite number limit - the number of electrons in a system is a sensitive parameter. This brings one to the position where it is necessary to consider wave functions dependent on spatial r and spin s variables of all N electrons entering the system. In other words, the wave functions sought by either version of the variational method or meant in the frame of either perturbational technique - the eigenfunctions of the electronic Hamiltonian in eq. (1.27) are the functions D(xi,..., xN) where. r, stands for the pair of the spatial radius vector of i-th electron and its spin projection s to a fixed axis. These latter, along with the... 

---