Wave function force

In order to understand the significance of second quantization in the validity of the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, the following points have to be considered. As it was first emphasized by Pulay (1969), in the case of approximate wave functions which volate the Hellmann-Feynman theorem for some reason, the so-called wave function forces may give considerable contributions to the total variance of the energy ... 

The appearance of wave-function forces in the expression of 8E is a big change. Consider, for instance, the variation of the energy as a function of a nuclear coordinate. Using the first quantized Hamiltonian and the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, it is clear that only the electron-nuclear attraction operator has a contribution ... 

In this section we have presented a new derivation scheme for gradient formulae for all types of variational wave functions which violate the Hellmann-Feynman theorem only as a consequence of using an incomplete basis set. We have pointed out that if the second quantized Hamiltonian is applied, the Hellmann-Feynman theorem formally holds even in a finite basis, and the first derivatives of the energy can be obtained without considering wave function forces explicitly. On this ground, we derived a unified gradient formula from which the known results can be recovered in every special case. This has been demonstrated for the case of the Hartree-Fock wave function. 

The role of second quantization in this field is neither to contribute directly to practical gradient evaluations nor to give gradient formulae which cannot be derived by another means. The significance of this presentation is rather to offer an alternative and unifying view of energy derivatives, eliminating the concept of the wave function force for a rather wide class of variational functions used in quantum chemistry. The effects which lead to the wave function forces in the usual approach are included in the second quantized Hamiltonian. The two approaches are, therefore, completely equivalent and represent alternative possibilities to treat the problem. 

The quantum phase factor is the exponential of an imaginary quantity (i times the phase), which multiplies into a wave function. Historically, a natural extension of this was proposed in the fonn of a gauge transformation, which both multiplies into and admixes different components of a multicomponent wave function [103]. The resulting gauge theories have become an essential tool of quantum field theories and provide (as already noted in the discussion of the YM field) the modem rationale of basic forces between elementary particles [67-70]. It has already been noted that gauge theories have also made notable impact on molecular properties, especially under conditions that the electronic... 

The topological (or Berry) phase [9,11,78] has been discussed in previous sections. The physical picture for it is that when a periodic force, slowly (adiabatically) varying in time, is applied to the system then, upon a full periodic evolution, the phase of the wave function may have a part that is independent of the amplitude of the force. This part exists in addition to that part of the phase that depends on the amplitude of the force and that contributes to the usual, dynamic phase. We shall now discuss whether a relativistic electron can have a Berry phase when this is absent in the framework of the Schrddinger equation, and vice versa. (We restrict the present discussion to the nearly nonrelativistic limit, when particle velocities are much smaller than c.)... 

The gradient of the PES (force) can in principle be calculated by finite difference methods. This is, however, extremely inefficient, requiring many evaluations of the wave function. Gradient methods in quantum chemistiy are fortunately now very advanced, and analytic gradients are available for a wide variety of ab initio methods [123-127]. Note that if the wave function depends on a set of parameters X], for example, the expansion coefficients of the basis functions used to build the orbitals in molecular orbital (MO) theory. 

Both the BO dynamics and Gaussian wavepacket methods described above in Section n separate the nuclear and electronic motion at the outset, and use the concept of potential energy surfaces. In what is generally known as the Ehrenfest dynamics method, the picture is still of semiclassical nuclei and quantum mechanical electrons, but in a fundamentally different approach the electronic wave function is propagated at the same time as the pseudoparticles. These are driven by standard classical equations of motion, with the force provided by an instantaneous potential energy function... 

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... 

Importantly for direct dynamics calculations, analytic gradients for MCSCF methods [124-126] are available in many standard quantum chemistiy packages. This is a big advantage as numerical gradients require many evaluations of the wave function. The evaluation of the non-Hellmann-Feynman forces is the major effort, and requires the solution of what are termed the coupled-perturbed MCSCF (CP-MCSCF) equations. The large memory requirements of these equations can be bypassed if a direct method is used [233]. Modem computer architectures and codes then make the evaluation of first and second derivatives relatively straightforward in this theoretical framework. 

Electrostatics is the study of interactions between charged objects. Electrostatics alone will not described molecular systems, but it is very important to the understanding of interactions of electrons, which is described by a wave function or electron density. The central pillar of electrostatics is Coulombs law, which is the mathematical description of how like charges repel and unlike charges attract. The Coulombs law equations for energy and the force of interaction between two particles with charges q and q2 at a distance rn are... 

Use a forced convergence method. Give the calculation an extra thousand iterations or more along with this. The wave function obtained by these methods should be tested to make sure it is a minimum and not just a stationary point. This is called a stability test. 

Computations done in imaginary time can yield an excited-state energy by a transformation of the energy decay curve. If an accurate description of the ground state is already available, an excited-state description can be obtained by forcing the wave function to be orthogonal to the ground-state wave function. 

The setup of these calculations is very similar for both quantum and molecular mechanics. In practice, molecular dynamics calculation s using the nl) initio and semi-empirical quantum mechanical SCFmethods are limited to relatively small systems. Each time step requires a complete calculation of the wave function and the forces. 

Decay Schemes. Eor nuclear cases it is more useful to show energy levels that represent the state of the whole nucleus, rather than energy levels for individual atomic electrons (see Eig. 2). This different approach is necessary because in the atomic case the forces are known precisely, so that the computed wave functions are quite accurate for each particle. Eor the nucleus, the forces are much more complex and it is not reasonable to expect to be able to calculate the wave functions accurately for each particle. Thus, the nuclear decay schemes show the experimental levels rather than calculated ones. This is illustrated in Eigure 4, which gives the decay scheme for Co. Here the lowest level represents the ground state of the whole nucleus and each level above that represents a different excited state of the nucleus. 

So far there have not been any restrictions on the MOs used to build the determinantal trial wave function. The Slater determinant has been written in terms of spinorbitals, eq. (3.20), being products of a spatial orbital times a spin function (a or /3). If there are no restrictions on the form of the spatial orbitals, the trial function is an Unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) wave function. The term Different Orbitals for Different Spins (DODS) is also sometimes used. If the interest is in systems with an even number of electrons and a singlet type of wave function (a closed shell system), the restriction that each spatial orbital should have two electrons, one with a and one with /3 spin, is normally made. Such wave functions are known as Restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF). Open-shell systems may also be described by restricted type wave functions, where the spatial part of the doubly occupied orbitals is forced to be the same this is known as Restricted Open-shell Hartree-Fock (ROHF). For open-shell species a UHF treatment leads to well-defined orbital energies, which may be interpreted as ionization potentials. Section 3.4. For an ROHF wave function it is not possible to chose a unitary transformation which makes the matrix of Lagrange multipliers in eq. (3.40) diagonal, and orbital energies from an ROHF wave function are consequently not uniquely defined, and cannot be equated to ionization potentials by a Koopman type argument. 

One area where the concept of atomic charges is deeply rooted is force field methods (Chapter 2). A significant part of the non-bonded interaction between polar molecules is described in terms of electrostatic interactions between fragments having an internal asymmetry in the electron distribution. The fundamental interaction is between the Electrostatic Potential (ESP) generated by one molecule (or fraction of) and the charged particles of another. The electrostatic potential at position r is given as a sum of contributions from the nuclei and the electronic wave function. 

---