Spin projection coefficients

Spin projection coefficients as given in (4.84) can be obtained in a general and mathematically proper manner by using the Wigner-Eckhart theorem. A detailed description of this topic is found in the textbook by Bencini and Gatteschi [106]. 

The method described above is of general validity and can be applied to transition metal clusters of arbitrary shape, size, and nucleanty. It should be noted that in the specific case of a system comprising only two interacting exchanged coupled centers, our general treatment yields the same result as that of Bencini and Gatteschi (121), which was specifically formulated for dimers. In this case, the relation between the spin-projection coefficient and the on-site spin expectation value is simply given by... 

The size of the spin-spin interaction of the [NiFe] center and the [3Fe4S] cluster (S = Vi) is within the range that can be studied by pulse ELDOR spectroscopy. This PELDOR technique allows measurement of the spin-spin interaction and a determination of the effective distance between the two electron spins. Measurements have so far only been performed for D. vulgaris Miyazaki F hydrogenase [94] on the as-isolated enzyme (30% Ni-A and 70% Ni-B). The spin delocalization over the [3Fe4S] cluster had to be included for correct data analysis. Spin projection coefficients have been determined that indicate that the largest amount of eleetron spin density is located on the iron closest to the [NiFe] center. 

The coefficient one-half at the diagonal interaction element in the above expression reflects the fact that in the HFR approximation for the closed electron shell system, only that half of the electron density residing at the a-th AO contributes to the energy shift at the same AO, which corresponds to the opposite electron spin projection. Then the expression for the renormalized mutual atomic polarizability matrix IIA can be obtained ... 

The energy matrix was diagonalized numerically. The spin distribution of the ground state is given by the projection coefficients i j k 1 eigenvector belonging to the lowest eigenvalue. 

Different schemes have been devised to remove contaminants from higher spin states from UHF wavefunctions by means of the spin projection operators, which were introduced originally by Lbwdin. Removing high-energy spin states does lower the energies of UHF wavefunctions. However, these procedures lead to projected UHF (PUHF) wavefunctions that consist of several Slater determinants whose coefficients (cf. Eq, [4]) in been optimized variationally. 

In addition, there are two methods that involve spin projection operators. The spin extended Hartree-Fock (EHF) method starts with a single determinant of unrestricted spin orbitals and applies a spin projection operator before the molecular orbital coefficients are calculated in an SCF procedure. The half projected Hartree-Fock (HPHF) method uses a two determi-nantal wavefunction composed of spin-unrestricted orbitals to represent singlet and = 0 triplet states for systems with an equal number of a and electrons. The second determinant i.s... 

In this exercise, we consider a symmetry relation that exists between the expansion coefficients of the determinants in a Cl wave function 10 with an even number of electrons 2N, total spin S. and spin projection M = 0. 

Here we enumerate the singly occupied orbitals by integers from 1 to Ai. The spin projection of each spin orbital is obtained from the corresponding element of p. To determine the coefficients of the expansion (2.6.1), it is convenient to rewrite the CSF as a tensor operator working on the closed shell of core electrons ... 

In general, both alpha and beta spin orbitals contribute to this coupling. We therefore have a sum over two (N — l)-electron states in (2.6.4), one with spin projection M — (coupled to an alpha electron) and one with projection M + (coupled to a beta electron). The total spin is Tjv-i = S — tN for each (N — l)-electron state, where tf is the last element in the genealogical vector. The coupling coefficients in (2.6.4) depend on the total and projected spins of the coupled state 5 and M and also on the spins of the creation operator a and 1 , both of which may take... 

Starting with the first doublet, we note that all three determinants contribute since the intermediate spin projections are always numerically smaller than the intermediate spins. Their expansion coefficients are determined as... 

We recall that the spin projection of the annihilation operators and is — and respectively. Evaluating the coupling coefficients, we arrive at the operator... 

The function F(l,2) is in fact the space part of the total wave function, since a non-relativistic two-electron wave function can always be represented by a product of the spin and space parts, both having opposite symmetries with respect to the electrons permutations. Thus, one may skip the spin function and use only the space part of the wave function. The only trace that spin leaves is the definite per-mutational symmetry and sign in Eq.(14) refers to singlet as "+" and to triplet as Xi and yi denote cartesian coordinates of the ith electron. A is commonly known angular projection quantum number and A is equal to 0, 1, and 2 for L, II and A symmetry of the electronic state respectively. The linear variational coefficients c, are found by solving the secular equations. The basis functions i(l,2) which possess 2 symmetry are expressed in elliptic coordinates as ... 

Another potential problem is that the wave function may be contaminated not only by state s -F 1, but also states. v - - 2, s -F 3, etc. The s -F 1 annihilation operator will reduce the weights of these states in the annihilated wave function, but it will not eliminate them. Inspection of Eq. (C.33) should make clear that the higher states will contribute to the PUHF energy if they appear on both the left and right sides of the Hamiltonian expectation values with non-zero coefficients. When such contamination is important, recourse to a more complete projection operator, that annihilates an arbitrary number of spin states is available, but the computational cost increases to essentially that of an MP4 calculation. Note that the problems of the orbitals being non-ideal for the pure lowest spin state persist in this instance. 

This projection/annihilation approach is probably more useful as an analytical tool, for annihilating the principal spin contaminants from a wave function by hand calculation, for example, than as a computational tool. There is a vast body of literature (see, for example, Pauncz [18]) on generating spin eigenfunctions as linear combinations of Slater determinants, from explicitly precomputed Sanibel coefficients to diagonalizing the matrix of S. However, there are other methods that exploit the group theoretical structure of the problem more effectively, and we shall now turn to these. 

Here the parameters ge, /rB, coz, /, Mh and rr were the g-factor of the free electron, the Bohr magneton, the microwave frequency of measurement, the nuclear spin quantum number, its projection, and the molecular rotational correlation time in solution. The anisotropic parameters, A g, A a and eQVj 1(21 — 1) were estimated from line width coefficients, K, K2 and K4, respectively. Thus the analysis of the temperature dependences of coefficients K, K2 and K4 gave the anisotropic parameters, A g, A a and eQV/1(21 — 1) for all molecules. On the other hand,... 

---