Spin operator projective form

Thus, in the central field approximation the wave function of the stationary state of an electron in an atom will be the eigenfunction of the operators of total energy, angular and spin momenta squared and one of their projections. These operators will form the full set of commuting operators and the corresponding stationary state of an atomic electron will be characterized by total energy E, quantum numbers of orbital l and spin s momenta as well as by one of their projections. 

An alternative equivalent form of Hso has been proposed (40) that is more appropriate for use with a standard polyatomic integrals program that computes angular and radial integrals (41). It is derived by transforming the projection operators ljmy/ljm to a form involving only projection operators /m>spin operator s. The spin-orbit operator then becomes (40)... 

It seems that the conventional approach to the quantum mechanical master equation relies on the equilibrium correlation function. Thus the CTRW method used by the authors of Ref. 105, yielding time-convoluted forms of GME [96], can be made compatible with the GME derived from the adoption of the projection approach of Section III only when p > 2. The derivation of this form of GME, within the context of measurement processes, was discussed in Ref. 155. The authors of Ref. 155 studied the relaxation process of the measurement pointer itself, described by the 1/2-spin operator Ez. The pointer interacts with another 1/2-spin operator, called av, through the interaction Hamiltonian... 

In projective relativity the field equations contain, in addition to the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, also the relativistic wave equation of Schrodinger and, as shown by Hoffinann (1931), are consistent with Dirac s equation, although the correct projective form of the spin operator had clearly not been found. The problem of spin orientation presumably relates to the appearance of the extra term, beyond the four electromagnetic and ten gravitational potentials, in the field equations. It correlates with the time asymmetry of the magnetic field and spin. 

To achieve symmetrization, a direct product of the space operator and the spin operator was constructed as a new operator, under which the variational expression of Loucks method is kept invariant (Yamagami and Hasegawa 1990). By the projection operator technique, it is straightforward to derive a symmetrized form of the relativistic APW method, which covers both symmorphic and non-symmorphic space group. 

The two-component wave function is called a Pauli spinor. We will show in a later chapter that for this basis the Pauli matrices form a representation of the spin operators such that ha = 2s. With the conventional choice of basis, that is, the eigenfunctions of ff, the upper component represents the part of the wave function with spin projection nts = j, or a spin, and the lower component the part with rus = -, or p spin. The primitive a and p spin functions are represented by the vectors... 

More abstractly the condition Tr (p+p ) = iV implies that the part of the Hilbert space defined by the projection operator p should be fully contained in the part defined by the projection operator p+. If we now vary p slightly so that this condition is no longer fulfilled, Eq. II.GO shows that the pure spin state previously described by the Slater determinant becomes mixed up with states of higher quantum numbers S = m+1,. . . . The idea of the electron pairing in doubly occupied orbitals is therefore essential in the Hartree-Fock scheme in order to secure that the Slater determinant really represents a pure spin state. This means, however, that, in the calculation of the best spin orbitals y>k(x), there is a new auxiliary condition of the form... 

The nuclear hyperfine operators therefore have essentially the same form in the effective Hamiltonian as they do in the full Hamiltonian, certainly as far as the nuclear spin terms are concerned. Throughout our derivation, we have assumed that the electronic state r/, A) which is to be described by our effective Hamiltonian has a well-defined spin angular momentum S. It is therefore desirable to write the effective Hamiltonian in terms of the associated operator S rather than the individual spin angular momenta s,. We introduce the projection operators (P] for each electron i,... 

The reduced form of the projection operator Q is found by considering its coordinate—spin representation. 

The VBCI method can be viewed as a MRCI extension of the VBSCF approach. This method, which has been developed as a spin-free approach, starts with the calculation of a VBSCF wavefunction. The orbitals used to construct the initial wavefunction are formed as linear combinations of AOs from different subsets (or blocks ) as in eqn (3.6). The virtual orbitals needed for the additional VBCI configurations come from the orthogonal complements to the occupied orbitals for each subset from the original VBSCF wavefunction. The most convenient way of finding these virtual orbitals to diagonalise the representation of the projection onto the occupied space operator for each subset. 

It should be noted that the SO operator is nondiagonal in the diabatic spin-orbital electronic basis which usually is employed to set up the E x E JT Hamiltonian, see (28, 33). The (usually ad hoc assumed) diagonal form of H o is obtained by the unitary transformation S which mixes spatial orbitals and spin functions of the electron. In this transformed basis, the electronic spin projection is thus no longer a good quantum number. 

The advantage of the above form is that it can be fit into conventional non-rela-tivistic codes since the two-component spinor projections have been eliminated and we obtain simple Im > projections involving ordinary spherical harmonics. However, the averaging method eliminates the spin-orbit operator. Fortunately, the spin-orbit operator itself can be expressed in terms of RECPs as shown by Hafner and Schwarz (1978,1979) and Ermler et al. (1981). This form is shown below. 

This difficulty is overcome with the aid of a projection operator by projecting out from the Slater determinant the component with the desired multiplicity 25+1, annihilating all other contaminating components. This can be done either after an already performed calculation (spin projection after variation, UHF with annihilation), or, as Lowdin has pointed out, one would expect a more negative total energy if the variation is performed with an already spin-projected Slater determinant [spin projection before variation, spin-projected extended Hartree-Fock (EHF) method]. The reason is that a spin-projected Slater determinant is a given linear combination of different Slater determinants. The variation in the expectation value of the Hamiltonian formed with a spin-projected Sater determinant thus provides equations (EHF equations), whose solutions represent the solution of this particular multiconfigura-tional SCF problem. 

---