Perturbation theory wave function

As an example of the connection between perturbation theory wave function corrections and polarizability, we now calculate the linear polarizability, ax. The states are corrected to first order in H. Since the polarization operator (Zx) is field independent, polarization terms linear in the electric field arise from products of the unperturbed states and their first-order corrections from the dipole operator. The corrected states are [12]... 

The expression for the force on the nuclei, Eq. (89), has the same form as the BO force Eq. (16), but the wave function here is the time-dependent one. As can be shown by perturbation theory, in the limit that the nuclei move very slowly compared to the electrons, and if only one electronic state is involved, the two expressions for the wave function become equivalent. This can be shown by comparing the time-independent equation for the eigenfunction of H i at time t... 

Correlation can be added as a perturbation from the Hartree-Fock wave function. This is called Moller-Plesset perturbation theory. In mapping the HF wave function onto a perturbation theory formulation, HF becomes a hrst-order perturbation. Thus, a minimal amount of correlation is added by using the second-order MP2 method. Third-order (MP3) and fourth-order (MP4) calculations are also common. The accuracy of an MP4 calculation is roughly equivalent to the accuracy of a CISD calculation. MP5 and higher calculations are seldom done due to the high computational cost (A time complexity or worse). 

A second method is to use a perturbation theory expansion. This is formulated as a sum-over-states algorithm (SOS). This can be done for correlated wave functions and has only a modest CPU time requirement. The random-phase approximation is a time-dependent extension of this method. 

Up to this point we are still dealing with undetermined quantities, energy and wave funetion corrections at each order. The first-order equation is one equation with two unknowns. Since the solutions to the unperturbed Schrddinger equation generates a complete set of functions, the unknown first-order correction to the wave function can be expanded in these functions. This is known as Rayleigh-Schrddinger perturbation theory, and the equation in (4.32) becomes... 

In developing perturbation theory it was assumed that the solutions to the unpermrbed problem formed a complete set. This is general means that there must be an infinite number of functions, which is impossible in actual calculations. The lowest energy solution to the unperturbed problem is the HF wave function, additional higher energy solutions are excited Slater determinants, analogously to the Cl method. When a finite basis set is employed it is only possible to generate a finite number of excited determinants. The expansion of the many-electron wave function is therefore truncated. 

Ho is the normal electronic Hamilton operator, and the perturbations are described by the operators Pi and P2, with A determining the strength. Based on an expansion in exact wave functions, Rayleigh-Schrddinger perturbation theory (section 4.8) gives the first- and second-order energy collections. 

In such cases the expression from fii st-order perturbation theory (10.18) yields a result identical to the first derivative of the energy with respect to A. For wave functions which are not completely optimized with respect to all parameters (Cl, MP or CC), the Hellmann-Feynman theorem does not hold, and a first-order property calculated as an expectation value will not be identical to that obtained as an energy derivative. Since the Hellmann-Feynman theorem holds for an exact wave function, the difference between the two values becomes smaller as the quality of an approximate wave function increases however, for practical applications the difference is not negligible. It has been argued that the derivative technique resembles the physical experiment more, and consequently formula (10.21) should be preferred over (10.18). 

The fact that features in the total electron density are closely related to the shapes of the HOMO and LUMO provides a much better rationale of why FMO theory works as well as it does, than does the perturbation derivation. It should be noted, however, that improvements in the wave function do not necessarily lead to a better performance of the FMO method. Indeed the use of MOs from semi-empirical methods usually works better than data from ab initio wave functions. Furthermore it should be kept in mind that only the HOMO orbital converges to a specific shape and energy as the basis set is... 

All discussions of transport processes currently available in the literature are based on perturbation theory methods applied to kinetic pictures of micro-scattering processes within the macrosystem of interest. These methods do involve time-dependent hamiltonians in the sense that the interaction operates only during collisions, while the wave functions are known only before and after the collision. However these interactions are purely internal, and their time-dependence is essentially implicit the over-all hamiltonian of the entire system, such as the interaction term in Eq. (8-159) is not time-dependent, and such micro-scattering processes cannot lead to irreversible changes of thermodynamic (ensemble average) properties. 

On application of the ordinary methods of perturbation theory, it is seen that the first-order perturbed wave function for a normal hydrogen atom with perturbation function f r)T, tesseral harmonic, has the form ] ioo(r)-HKr)r(i>, tesseral harmonic as the perturbation function. The statements in the text can be verified by an extension of this argument. 

The simplified theory allows the time-dependent wave function to be calculated rapidly for any specified laser field. However, controlling the dynamics of the charge carriers requires the answer to an inverse question [18-22]. That is, given a specific target or objective, what is the laser field that best drives the system to that objective Several methods have been developed to address this question. This section sketches one method, valid in the weak response (perturbative) regime in which most experiments on semiconductors are performed. 

Details of the extended triple zeta basis set used can be found in previous papers [7,8]. It contains 86 cartesian Gaussian functions with several d- and f-type polarisation functions and s,p diffuse functions. All cartesian components of the d- and f-type polarization functions were used. Cl wave functions were obtained with the MELDF suite of programs [9]. Second order perturbation theory was employed to select the most energetically double excitations, since these are typically too numerous to otherwise handle. All single excitations, which are known to be important for describing certain one-electron properties, were automatically included. Excitations were permitted among all electrons and the full range of virtuals. 

It should be noted that, due to the effect of spin-orbit interaction the correct initial and final states are not exactly the pure spin states. The admixture with higher electronic states j/ may be ignored only if there exists a direct coupling between the initial and final pure spin states. Otherwise, the wave function for the initial state is obtained to first order of perturbation theory as ... 

The expressions (4.22)-(4.23) found in chap. 4 for the isomer shift 5 in nonrelativ-istic form may be applied to lighter elements up to iron without causing too much of an error. In heavier elements, however, the wave function j/ is subject to considerable modification by relativistic effects, particularly near the nucleus (remember that the spin-orbit coupling coefficient increases with Z ). Therefore, the electron density at the nucleus l /(o)P will be modified as well and the aforementioned equations for the isomer shift require relativistic correction. This has been considered [1] in a somewhat restricted approach by using Dirac wave functions and first-order perturbation theory in this approximation the relativistic correction simply consists of a dimensionless factor S (Z), which is introduced in the above equations for S,... 

Moreover, if the wave function + Xxp P is used as a trial function 0, then the quantity W from equation (9.2) is equal to the second-order energy determined by perturbation theory. Any trial function 0 with parameters which reduces to -h 20o for some set of parameter values yields an approximate energy W from equation (9.2) which is no less accurate than the second-order perturbation value. 

---