Wavefunction orthogonal

Vhen used in this context, the Kronecker delta can be taken to have a value of 1 if m equals n nd zero otherwise. Wavefunctions that are both orthogonal and normalised are said to be rthonormal. 

Tie first consideration is that the total wavefunction and the molecular properties calculated rom it should be the same when a transformed basis set is used. We have already encoun-ered this requirement in our discussion of the transformation of the Roothaan-Hall quations to an orthogonal set. To reiterate suppose a molecular orbital is written as a inear combination of atomic orbitals ... 

One widely used valence bond theory is the generalised valence bond (GVB) method of Goddard and co-workers [Bobrowicz and Goddard 1977]. In the simple Heitler-London treatment of the hydrogen molecule the two orbitals are the non-orthogonal atomic orbitals on the two hydrogen atoms. In the GVB theory the analogous wavefunction is written ... 

Another approach is spin-coupled valence bond theory, which divides the electrons into two sets core electrons, which are described by doubly occupied orthogonal orbitals, and active electrons, which occupy singly occupied non-orthogonal orbitals. Both types of orbital are expressed in the usual way as a linear combination of basis functions. The overall wavefunction is completed by two spin fimctions one that describes the coupling of the spins of the core electrons and one that deals with the active electrons. The choice of spin function for these active electrons is a key component of the theory [Gerratt ef al. 1997]. One of the distinctive features of this theory is that a considerable amount of chemically significant electronic correlation is incorporated into the wavefunction, giving an accuracy comparable to CASSCF. An additional benefit is that the orbitals tend to be... 

The fii st term is zero because I and its derivatives are orthogonal. The fourth term involves second moments and we use the coupled Hartree-Fock procedure to find the terms requiring the first derivative of the wavefunction. 

The notation is the same as in Exercise 3.45.) Confirm that the bonding and antibonding orbitals are mutually orthogonal— that is, that the integral over the product of the two wavefunctions is zero. 

Because the hydrogen wavefunctions are mutually orthogonal, this sum of integrals simplifies to... 

In the present paper, we propose the use of the HPHF approximation for the direct calculation of excited states, in which M5=0,just as Berthier [11], and Pople and Nesbet [12] did for the determination of states in which Ms 0. We give some examples of such calculations, either when the excited state wavefunction is orthogonal or not by symmetry to that of the ground state. 

A. Express the wavefunction (eigenfunction) as the sum of orthogonal, normalized wavefunctions typically the latter would be spin functions denoted by pj... 

Here are the basic rules of the game For a system with electron spin S, the known complete orthogonal set of 2,S + I wavefunctions is associated with the values ms and is written as... 

If there is a molecular symmetry group whose elements leave the hamiltonian 36 invariant, then the closed-shell wavefunction belongs to the totally symmetric representation of both the spin and symmetry groups.8 It is further true that under these symmetry operations the molecular orbitals transform among each other by means of an orthogonal transformation, such as mentioned in Eq. (5) 9) and, therefore, span a representation of the molecular symmetry group. In general, this representation is reducible. 

At this point it should be noted that, in addition to the discussed previously, the canonical Hartree-Fock equations (26) have additional solutions with higher eigenvalues e . These are called virtual orbitals, because they are unoccupied in the 2iV-electron ground state SCF wavefunction 0. They are orthogonal to the iV-dimensional orbital space associated with this wavefunction. 

However, despite their proven explanatory and predictive capabilities, all well-known MO models for the mechanisms of pericyclic reactions, including the Woodward-Hoffmann rules [1,2], Fukui s frontier orbital theory [3] and the Dewar-Zimmerman treatment [4-6] share an inherent limitation They are based on nothing more than the simplest MO wavefunction, in the form of a single Slater determinant, often under the additional oversimplifying assumptions characteristic of the Hiickel molecular orbital (HMO) approach. It is now well established that the accurate description of the potential surface for a pericyclic reaction requires a much more complicated ab initio wavefunction, of a quality comparable to, or even better than, that of an appropriate complete-active-space self-consistent field (CASSCF) expansion. A wavefunction of this type typically involves a large number of configurations built from orthogonal orbitals, the most important of which i.e. those in the active space) have fractional occupation numbers. Its complexity renders the re-introduction of qualitative ideas similar to the Woodward-Hoffmann rules virtually impossible. 

Hirao has also recently considered the transformation of CASSCF wavefunctions to valence bond form [24, 25]. An orthogonal VB orbital basis was first considered, in which case the CASSCF Cl vector may be found by re-solving the Cl problem. Later he considered also the transformation to a classical VB representation. The transformation of the CASSCF space was achieved by calculating all overlap terms, (<1)Casscf casvb and solving the subsequent linear problem, using a Davidson-like iterative scheme. 

As is the case for standard orthogonal-orbital MCSCF calculations, the optimization of VB wavefunctions can be a complicated task, and a program such as CASVB should therefore not be treated as a black box . This is tme, to a greater or lesser extent, for most procedures that involve orbital optimization (and, hence, non-linear optimization problems), but these difficulties are compounded in valence bond theory by the... 

However, although the locally scaled transformed wavefunctions preserve the orthonormality condition, they fail to comply with Hamiltonian orthogonality. Of course, one can recombine the transformed wavefunctions so as to satisfy the latter requirement, by solving once more the eigenvalue problem... 

---