Spin polarization definition

Then it resides on the chiral circle with modulus p and phase , , any point on which is equivalent with each other in the chiral limit, mc = 0, and moved to another point by a chiral transformation. We conventionally choose a definite point, (vac p vac) = /,T (Jn the pion decay constant) and (vac Oi vac) = 0, for the vacuum, which is flavor singlet and parity eigenstate. In the following we shall see that the phase degree of freedom is related to spin polarization that is, the phase condensation with a non-vanishing value of Oi leads to FM [20]. 

When the cores are approached, the sub-bands split, acquiring a bandwidth, and decreasing the gap between them (Fig. 14 a). At a definite inter-core distance, the subbands cross and merge into the non-polarized narrow band. At this critical distance a, the narrow band has a metallic behaviour. At the system transits from insulator to metallic (Mott-Hubbard transition). Since some electrons may acquire the energies of the higher sub-band, in the solid there will be excessively filled cores containing two antiparallel spins and excessively depleted cores without any spins (polar states). 

Figure 1.5 Components of the spin polarization vector P of ejected photoelectrons. The direction of the photoelectron is given by the polar and azimuthal angles and O (see Fig. 1.4). For an ensemble of electrons emitted in this direction, the polarization vector P then points in a certain direction in space, and one possibility for representing this vector using three orthogonal components is shown in the figure Plong in the direction of the photoelectron and P,ransX and P,ranS both perpendicular to this direction (for the definition and measurement of these components see Section 9.2.1).

From the formulas listed, the components Px., Pr and Pz. of the photoelectron s spin-polarization vector P defined in the /, z detector frame can be calculated (for the definition of P see Fig. 1.5 and equ. (9.15)). If tr stands for transverse, long for longitudinal, and if the subscripts and 1 indicate the component within or perpendicular to the scattering plane, respectively, one gets1"... 

The Q values in these tensors represent the Stokes parameters for the spin sensitivity of the detector in its x", y", z" frame. For example, Qx- describes the detector efficiency for measuring spin projections along +x" and —x", respectively (for the definition of the spin polarization vector see Section 9.2.1). 

One can dissociate the NO dimer simply by increasing the N-N bond distance to infinity. One can also require that during that process the molecule remain on the singlet surface, which by definition has a wavefunction and thus density that has equal spin-up and spin-down components everywhere in space. We are not interested in spin-restricted dynamics. We are interested in the much more balanced chemical dynamics that treats each half of the dissociated dimer correctly in DFT via a spin-polarized calculation. This decision must be made independent of whether or not one wants to use spatial symmetry to reduce the cost of the calculation. Spin-unrestricted DFT chemical dynamics will be called balanced in the following. 

Table II presents the first excitation energies obtained from spin- polarized calculations [24]. As ground-state exchange-correlation potentials were used the extra term in Eq.(20) does not appear. This is, certainly, one of the reasons for the difference between the calculated and the experimental excitation energies. There is a definite improvement comparing with the nonspin-polarized results [13]. Still, in most cases the calculated excitation energies are highly overestimated. The results provided by the different local density approximations are quite close to each other. The best one seems to be the Gunnarson-Lundqvist-Wilkins approximation. (In non-spin-polarized case the Perdew-Zunger parametrization gives results closest to the experimental data[30].)...

We have already mentioned that the choice of an appropriate independent-particle model is a problem in itself, espedally for open-shell systems. One of the effects which are correlation only in the frame of a particular definition is spin polarization. This remark is connected with the question of the role of correlation in spin densities and hyperfine splitting constants in free radicals. 

As mentioned in Section 33.2, the many-body expansion cannot be expected to work for metals. One reason is that most atoms forming metals have open-shell ground states of symmetry other than S, therefore it is difficult to determine quantum states of the subsystems needed in the definition of the expansion, cf. Section 33.10. The second reason is that the complete delocalization of the conduction electrons results in the electronic structure of a metal that is very far from that of monomers. The first problem does not occur for alkaline-earth metals or for high-spin alkali-metal clusters, and the many-body expansion can be defined for such clusters. However, this expansion appears to be very slowly convergent [106-108]. For some specific information about the spin-polarized sodium trimer, see Section 33.10.2. 

In the latter case, one has to be aware of solutions with broken spatial symmetry. This problem arises also in NCSDFT the (initial) symmetry of a system, as described by a scalar Hamiltonian, is destroyed by the vector field term proportional to as, which, similarly to an external magnetic field, reduces the spatial symmetry of the one-electron Hamiltonian. In spin-polarized calculations including SO interaction, the conventional collinear approach, where only one component of the spin-density s = Tr a p) is used in the definition of the xc energy functional, has the major drawback of breaking the spatial symmetry of the energy functional [18,64]. 

Here, Q%g> i is the orbital dependent expression (76), which was introduced for the calculation of matrix elements. If spin polarization is present, we again use the approximation for the large components, equation (82). The overlap densities have valence-valence and core-valence contributions. Corecore contributions to the overlap densities do not appear, since, by definition, core states between different sites have no overlap. 

This appealing model implies however the search of different interpolation schemes at each side of the E vi. N curve. An exploration of some approximate models to both electrophilic and nucleophilic reactivities has been explored in the context of a comparison with experimental scales. Within the spin polarized version of DFT the minimization procedure searching for the analog of electrophilicity can be performed both for charge transfer as well as for spin polarization. " As it has been emphasized, the mathematical expressions in any of the representations of spin-polarized DFT have exactly the same form as the spin-free definition of electrophilicity. We therefore obtain, ... 

The original definition of ELF was based on the same-spin pair density, i.e., considering the electron localization with respect to another electron of identical spin. The ELF formulation of Savin opened not only the possibility to apply ELF to the DFT using KS orbitals but also to take into account the total electron density. Savin did not express the equations explicitly for separate spin contributions (as this was obvious). Possibly this was the reason for Madsen et al. [58] and later also Melin and Fuentealba [42] to propose in 1999 and 2003, respectively, to use ELF and ELF for free radical systems and to state that it is possible to evaluate ELF separately for the and p densities (which of course is already given by the original ELF). Melin and Fuentealba correctly mentioned that the sum of the spin-dependent functions does not yield the total ELF (the possibilities on how to include both spins within total ELF for spin-polarized systems were analyzed in 1996 by Kohout and Savin [16]). 

The polarized-Iight and spin examples have shown that, even though a quantum system may be in a definite state, as established by an exhaustive measurement, a subsequent observation does not necessarily yield a definite result. Knowing the result of an observation therefore does not reveal the state, the system was in at the time of the measurement, and neither does knowing the state of a system predict the exact outcome of any observation. Quantum theory only predicts the statistical outcome of many measurements of some property. To achieve this, a physical state is represented by a column vector or (equivalently) by the Hermitian conjugate row vector ... 

The relationship between different components of orbital angular momentum such as Lz and Lx can be investigated by multiple SG experiments as discussed for electron spin and photon polarization before. The results are in fact no different. This is a consequence of the noncommutativity of the operators Lx and Lz. The two observables cannot be measured simultaneously. While total angular momentum is conserved, the components vary as the applied analyzing field changes. As in the case of spin or polarization, measurement of Lx, for instance, disturbs any previously known value of Lz. The structure of the wave function does not allow Lx to be made definite when Lz has an eigenvalue, and vice versa. 

Since the spin operator commutes with the momentum operator, it is possible to speak of states of definite momentum p and spin component /x. The components of the polarization vector may be chosen in such a way that e = XP- The two possible polarizations correspond to only two values of the component of spin angular momentum y,. The third value is excluded by the condition of tranversality. If the z-axis is directed along p, then x0 s excluded. The two vectors Xi and X2> corresponding to circular polarization are equivalent, respectively to Xi and X-i- Thus, the value17 of the spin component y = 1 corresponds to right circular polarization, while /z = — 1 corresponds to left circular polarization. 

---