Orbital spin-free

The complete Hamiltonian of the molecular system can be wrihen as H +H or H =H +H for the commutator being linear, where is the Hamiltonian corresponding to the spin contribution(s) such as, Fermi contact term, dipolar term, spin-orbit coupling, etc. (5). As a result, H ° would correspond to the spin free part of the Hamiltonian, which is usually employed in the electron propagator implementation. Accordingly, the k -th pole associated with the complete Hamiltonian H is , so that El is the A -th pole of the electron propagator for the spin free Hamiltonian H . 

The above operators apply only to primitive basis functions that have the spin degree of freedom included. In the current work we follow the work of Matsen and use a spin-free Hamiltonian and spin-free basis functions. This approach is valid for systems wherein spin-orbit type perturbations are not considered. In this case we must come up with a different way of obtaining the Young tableaux, and thus the correct projection operators. 

On matrix form the non-unitary transformations (27) and (30) of the previous section are easily extended to the complete Hamiltonian and have therefore allowed relativistic and non-relativistic spin-free calculations of spectroscopic constants and first-order properties at the four-component level (see, for instance. Refs. [45 7]). In this section, we consider the elimination of spin-orbit interaction in four-component calculations of second-order electric and magnetic properties. Formulas are restricted to the Hartree-Fock [48] or Kohn-Sham [49] level of theory, but are straightforwardly generalized. 

The arguments just described for the construction of the 2-RDM were extended without difficulty to the higher-order RDMs. The algorithms for these high-order RDMs were originally reported by Colmenero et al. [20] in a spin-free basis and Valdemoro et al. [46] obtained later on the algorithms in a spin-orbital basis. For the 3-RDM, the algorithm in a spin-orbital basis is... 

Most Hamiltonians of physical interest are spin-free. Then the matrix elements in Eq. (9) depend only on the space part of the spin orbitals and vanish for different spin by integration over the spin part. Then it is recommended to eliminate the spin and to deal with spin-free operators only. We start with a basis of spin-free orbitals cpp, from which we construct the spin orbitals excitation operators carry orbital labels (capital letters) and spin labels... 

Greek letters). We define spin-free excitation operators carrying only orbital labels, by summation over spin... 

It would be in the spirit of a systematic formulation with lowercase letters for spin-orbital labels and capital letters for labels of spin-free orbitals, to choose... 

The spin-free one-particle density matrix Fi = F is diagonal in the basis of the (spin-free) natural orbitals (NOs)... 

Note that E f and F usually do not vanish for P = Q and/or R = S. Two electrons can be in the same spin-free orbital. One can define operators and density... 

The diagrams just discussed—with antisymmetrized vertices at spin-orbital level — are of Hugenholtz type [32]. One can alternatively define [30] diagrams of Goldstone type [33] with spin-free vertices. 

Divalent nickel forms two main types of complexes. The first consists of complexes of the spin-free ( ionic or outer orbital) octahedral type (see also Ligand for their discussion) in which the ligands are principally H2O, NH3, and various amines such as ethylenediamine and its derivates, e.g., Ni(H20>62+. Ni(NH3)e2+, Ni(en)62+. These complexes usually have colors toward the high-frequency side of the spectrum, i.e., violet, blue, and green. The other class consists of tetracovalent square complexes with ligands such as CN, the dioximes and their derivatives, and other chelates, which usually have colors on the low frequency side of the spectrum, i.e., red. orange, and yellow. The structure of the nickel-climethylglyoxime complex is... 

The quantum content of current theories of chemical cohesion is, in reality, close to nil. The conceptual model of covalent bonding still amounts to one or more pairs of electrons, situated between two atomic nuclei, with paired spins, and confined to the region in which hybrid orbitals of the two atoms overlap. The bond strength depends on the degree of overlap. This model is simply a paraphrase of the 19th century concept of atomic valencies, with the incorporation of the electron-pair conjectures of Lewis and Langmuir. Hybrid orbitals came to be introduced to substitute for spatially oriented elliptic orbits, but in fact, these one-electron orbits are spin-free. The orbitals are next interpreted as if they were atomic wave functions with non-radial nodes at the nuclear position. Both assumptions are misleading. 

Various approaches can be pursued to compute spin-orbit effects. Four-component ab initio methods automatically include scalar and magnetic relativistic corrections, but they put high demands on computer resources. (For reviews on this subject, see, e.g., Refs. 18,19,81,82.) The following discussion focuses on two-component methods treating SOC either perturbationally or variationally. Most of these procedures start off with orbitals optimized for a spin-free Hamiltonian. Spin-orbit coupling is added then at a later stage. The latter approaches can be divided again into so-called one-step or two-step procedures as explained below. 

In compounds containing heavy main group elements, electron correlation depends on the particular spin-orbit component. The jj coupled 6p j2 and 6/73/2 orbitals of thallium, for example, exhibit very different radial amplitudes (Figure 13). As a consequence, electron correlation in the p shell, which has been computed at the spin-free level, is not transferable to the spin-orbit coupled case. This feature is named spin-polarization. It is best recovered in spin-orbit Cl procedures where electron correlation and spin-orbit interaction can be treated on the same footing—in principle at least. As illustrated below, complications arise when configuration selection is necessary to reduce the size of the Cl space. The relativistic contraction of the thallium 6s orbital, on the other hand, is mainly covered by scalar relativistic effects. 

As in all perturbational approaches, the Hamiltonian is divided into an unperturbed part and a perturbation V. The operator is a spin-free, one-component Hamiltonian and the spin-orbit coupling operator takes the role of the perturbation. There is no natural perturbation parameter X in this particular case. Instead, J4 so is assumed to represent a first-order perturbation The perturbational treatment of fine structure is an inherent two-step approach. It starts with the computation of correlated wave functions and energies for pure spin states—mostly at the Cl level. In a second step, spin-orbit perturbed energies and wavefunctions are determined. 

Hess et al.119 utilized a Hamiltonian matrix approach to determine the spin-orbit coupling between a spin-free correlated wave function and the configuration state functions (CSFs) of the perturbing symmetries. Havriliak and Yarkony120 proposed to solve the matrix equation... 

---