Spin-space states

According to the symmetrization postulate of quantum mechanics, the spin-space state function of a system of N nondifferentiable nuclei must be invariant under any of the A /2 even permutations IV W performed simultaneously on the space (7 ) and spin (S) particles coordinates. Under odd permutations, the state function of N fermions changes sign while that of N bosons remains invariant. 

Now, the set of N spin-space states spanning the interesting vibrational manifold will include the Slater determinants (or, for bosons, permanents) l ) defined according to... 

Spin waves, 753 Spin wave states, 757 Spin zero particles, 498 "Spinor space, 428 Spinors, 394,428, 524 column, 524 Dirac... 

Among the many ways to go beyond the usual Restricted Hartree-Fock model in order to introduce some electronic correlation effects into the ground state of an electronic system, the Half-Projected Hartree-Fock scheme, (HPHF) proposed by Smeyers [1,2], has the merit of preserving a conceptual simplicity together with a relatively straigthforward determination. The wave-function is written as a DODS Slater determinant projected on the spin space with S quantum number even or odd. As a result, it takes the form of two DODS Slater determinants, in which all the spin functions are interchanged. The spinorbitals have complete flexibility, and should be determined from applying the variational principle to the projected determinant. 

Second, the mapping approach to nonadiabatic quantum dynamics is reviewed in Sections VI-VII. Based on an exact quantum-mechanical formulation, this approach allows us in several aspects to go beyond the scope of standard mixed quantum-classical methods. In particular, we study the classical phase space of a nonadiabatic system (including the discussion of vibronic periodic orbits) and the semiclassical description of nonadiabatic quantum mechanics via initial-value representations of the semiclassical propagator. The semiclassical spin-coherent state method and its close relation to the mapping approach is discussed in Section IX. Section X summarizes our results and concludes with some general remarks. 

For a two-electron system in 2m-dimensional spin-space orbital, with and denoting the fermionic annihilation and creation operators of single-particle states and 0) representing the vacuum state, a pure two-electron state ) can be written [57]... 

For the given orbital occupations (configurations) of the following systems, determine all possible states (all possible allowed combinations of spin and space states). There is no need to form the determinental wavefunctions simply label each state with its proper term symbol. One method commonly used is Harry Grays "box method" found in Electrons and Chemical Bonding. 

Recall from Section 10.4 that if an observer undergoes a rotation of g (with g e 50(3), the spin-1/2 state space (C ) transforms via the linear operator Pi(g), while the spin-1 state space P(C ) transforms via pi(g). Hence the corresponding transformation of a vector v 0 w in 0 is... 

Such localized states as under discussion here may arise in a system with local permutational symmetries [Aa] and [AB], If [Aa] + [S] and [Ab] = [5], the outer direct product [Aa] 0 [AB] gives rise to a number of different Pauli-allowed [A], If the A and B subsystems interact only weakly, these different spin-free [A] levels will be closely spaced in energy. The extent of mixing of these closely spaced spin-free states under the full Hamiltonian, H = HSF + f2, may then be large. Thus, systems which admit a description in terms of local permutational symmetries may in some cases readily undergo spin-forbidden processes, such as intersystem crossing. 

It has been shown earlier (see Chapters 15 and 16) that the technique relying on the tensorial properties of operators and wave functions in quasispin, orbital and spin spaces is an alternative but more convenient one than the method of higher-rank groups. It is more convenient not only for classification of states, but also for theoretical studies of interactions in equivalent electron configurations. The results of this chapter show that the above is true of more complex configurations as well. 

The primitive VB model is defined in terms of overlap and Hamiltonian matrix elements over the basis states of eqn. (2.1.3). For fixed there are 2N possible spin-product functions so that this gives the dimension of the model s space. Indeed (though not originally formulated in this manner) the model may be mathematically represented entirely in spin space, despite the fundamental spin-free nature of the interactions. One may introduce a spin-space overlap operator by integrating out the spin-free coordinates... 

We derive from the earlier relations the results of Table 3 for Hermitian conjugation of the operators (in the ordinary sense this Hermitian conjugation action does not conjugate elements of the quasispin matrices), time reversal and their combination. It is necessary where time reversal is involved to assume one-particle spin-orbital states with yl = — 1, so as to use anticommutation relations to reorder the operators this case is taken for the whole table. This shows that for a one-particle state Q(X)a is Hermitian, while time reversal performs a nt rotation about the y-axis of quasispin space. 

We write creation and annihilation operators for a state 1/1) as a and aA, so that ) = a lO). We use the spin-orbital 2jm symbols of the relevant spin-orbital group G as the metric components to raise and lower indices gAA = (AA) and gAA = (/Li)3. If the group G is the symmetry group of an ion whose levels are split by ligand fields, the relevant irrep A of G (the main label within A) will contain precisely the states in the subshell, the degenerate set of partners. For example, in Ref. [10] G = O and A = f2. In the triple tensor notation X of Judd our notation corresponds to X = x( )k if G is a product spin-space group if spin-orbit interaction is included to couple these spaces, A will be an irrep appearing in the appropriate Kronecker decomposition of x( )k. 

The simplest procedure is to take the origin of a global I-frame so that P = 0 and linear momentum conservation forces kj = —k2. At the antipodes, kd = k2 so that the common I-frame is restricted now. The particle model in this frame becomes strongly correlated. If spin quantum state for I-frame, one corresponds to the linear superposition (a /S)[CiC2]i and the other I-frame system should display the state (a P)[c, — Ci]2, namely, an orthogonal quantum state. The quantization of three axes is fixed. Spin and space are correlated in this manner. Now, the label states (a P)[c2 — cji and (a )[C C2]2 present another set of possibilities. This is because quantum states concern possibilities. All of them must be incorporated in a base state set. At this point, classical and quantum-physical descriptions differ radically. The former case handles objects that are characterized by properties, whereas the latter handle objects that are characterized by quantum states sustained by specific materiality. 

The difference with respect to the standard approach lies in the nature of the quantum state. Spin is not taken as a property of a particle. Spin quantum state is sustained by material systems but otherwise a Hilbert space element. A quantum state can be probed with devices located in laboratory (real) space thereby selecting one outcome from among all possible events embodied in the quantum state. The presence of the material system is transformed into the localization of the two elements incorporated in the EPR experiment. If you focus on the localization aspect from the beginning, one is bound to miss the quantum-physical edge. 

The three quark color states are restricted to the color singlet, 1=1, which together with the fermion antisymmetry principle leads to requirement that the flavor-ordinary spin space must be totally symmetric i. e., I I I I This, in turn, leads to the following relationships between the flavor space and the ordinary spin space ... 

---