0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 7.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory
Advertisements

Quantum Mechanics Calculations II Apr 2010 Postgrad course on Comp Chem Noel M. O’Boyle.
Post Hartree-Fock Methods (Lecture 2)
Modelling of Defects DFT and complementary methods
Statistical Mechanics and Multi- Scale Simulation Methods ChBE Prof. C. Heath Turner Lecture 03 Some materials adapted from Prof. Keith E. Gubbins:
Molecular Quantum Mechanics
Introduction to Molecular Orbitals
Chapter 3 Electronic Structures
Quantum Mechanics and Force Fields Hartree-Fock revisited Semi-Empirical Methods Basis sets Post Hartree-Fock Methods Atomic Charges and Multipoles QM.
Introduction to ab initio methods I Kirill Gokhberg.
Basic Quantum Chemistry: how to represent molecular electronic states
Molecular Orbitals.
20_01fig_PChem.jpg Hydrogen Atom M m r Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy R C.
Chemistry 6440 / 7440 Electron Correlation Effects.
Computational Spectroscopy II. ab initio Methods Multi-configuration Self-Consistent Field Theory Chemistry 713 Trocia Clasp.
Response approach to the effective Hamiltonian multi- reference coupled cluster theory Sourav Pal Physical Chemistry Division National Chemical Laboratory.
Electronic Structure for Excited States (multiconfigurational methods) Spiridoula Matsika.
Hartree-Fock Theory Patrick Tamukong North Dakota State University
Physical Chemistry 2 nd Edition Thomas Engel, Philip Reid Chapter 21 Many-Electrons Atom.
CHEM 580 Week 1: From Schrodinger to Hartree-Fock
Statistical Mechanics and Multi- Scale Simulation Methods ChBE Prof. C. Heath Turner Lecture 02 Some materials adapted from Prof. Keith E. Gubbins:
Norm Conserving Pseudopotentials and The Hartree Fock Method Eric Neuscamman Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering 715 May 7, 2007.
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 3.
ChE 551 Lecture 23 Quantum Methods For Activation Barriers 1.
Electron Correlation Methods HF method: electron-electron interaction is replaced by an average interaction E 0 – exact ground state energy E HF – HF energy.
Molecular Orbital Theory. Model Our model of an atom is layers of atomic orbitals (AOs): 1s1s 2s2s 3s3s 2p2p 3p3p 3d3d As atoms approach each other their.
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Lecture Schedule 1.
1 MODELING MATTER AT NANOSCALES 6. The theory of molecular orbitals for the description of nanosystems (part II) The Hartree-Fock method applied.
1 MODELING MATTER AT NANOSCALES 6. The theory of molecular orbitals for the description of nanosystems (part II) Variational methods for dealing.
Lecture 26 Molecular orbital theory II
Chemistry 700 Lectures. Resources Grant and Richards, Foresman and Frisch, Exploring Chemistry with Electronic Structure Methods (Gaussian Inc., 1996)
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory TSTC Session 7 1. Born-Oppenheimer.
Last hour: Electron Spin Triplet electrons “avoid each other”, the WF of the system goes to zero if the two electrons approach each other. Consequence:
Electron Correlation Methods
Quantum Methods For Adsorption
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 8.
1 MODELING MATTER AT NANOSCALES 6. The theory of molecular orbitals for the description of nanosystems (part II) Perturbational methods for dealing.
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 5.
Lecture 5. Many-Electron Atoms. Pt
4. One – and many electronic wave functions (multplicty) 5. The Hartree-Fock method and its limitations (Correlation Energy) 6. Post Hartree-Fock methods.
Lecture 8. Chemical Bonding
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 6.
1 + S 12 1 E 1 =   1 = c 1  1 + c 1  S 12 1 E 2 = -   2 = c 1  1 - c 1  2 bonding antibonding.
Molecular quantum mechanics - electron has cartesian and spin coordinates one electron functions one electron functions - no spin operator in electronic.
MODELING MATTER AT NANOSCALES 4. Introduction to quantum treatments Eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a matrix.
Restricted and Unrestricted Hartree-Fock method Sudarshan Dhungana Phys790 Seminar (Feb15,2007)
Dissociation of H 2 Do HF calculations for different values of the H-H internuclear distance (this distance is fixed since we are in the Born- Oppenheimer.
©2011, Jordan, Schmidt & Kable Lecture 13 Lecture 13 Self-consistent field theory This is how we do it.
0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 12.
Lecture 9. Many-Electron Atoms
Ch.1. Elementary Quantum Chemistry
New Developments in Molecular Orbital Theory 김대겸.
Electronic Structure Theory
Lecture 25 Molecular orbital theory I
PHY 752 Solid State Physics
Statistical Mechanics and Multi-Scale Simulation Methods ChBE
Stationary Perturbation Theory And Its Applications
Electronic Structure Theory
Electronic Structure Theory
Electronic Structure Theory
Electronic Structure Theory
Quantized Electron Orbits
Electronic Structure Theory
Electronic Structure Theory
Electronic Structure Theory
Atomic Orbitals.
Hartree Self Consistent Field Method
PHY 752 Solid State Physics
Multireference Spin-Orbit Configuration Interaction with Columbus; Application to the Electronic Spectrum of UO2+ Russell M. Pitzer The Ohio State University.
Quantum One.
Presentation transcript:

0 Jack SimonsJack Simons, Henry Eyring Scientist and Professor Chemistry Department University of Utah Electronic Structure Theory Session 7

1 Multiconfigurational self-consistent field (MCSCF): the expectation value /, with  =  L C L1,L2,...LN |  L1  L2  L  ...  LN | is treated variationally and made stationary with respect to variations in both the C I and the C,i coefficients giving a matrix eigenvalue problem of dimension N C  J H I,J C J = E C I : with H I,J = and a set of HF-like equations for the C,I (but with more complicated Coulomb and exchange terms). Slater-Condon rules are used to evaluate the Hamiltonian matrix elements H I,J between pairs of Slater determinants. Iterative SCF-like equations are solved to determine the C J,  coefficients of all the spin-orbitals appearing in any Slater determinant.

2 You must specify what determinants to include in the MCSCF wave function. Generally, one includes all determinants needed to form a proper spin- and spatial- symmetry correct configuration state function (CSF) or to allow for qualitatively correct bond dissociation: recall the 1 S function for carbon atom and the need for  2 and  * 2 determinants in olefins. This set of determinants form what is called a “reference space”. One then usually adds determinants that are doubly excited relative to any of the determinants in the reference space. The doubly excited determinants we know will be the most crucial for handling dynamical electron correlation. One can then add determinants that are singly, triply, etc. excited relative to those in the reference space. Given M orbitals and N electrons, there are of the order of N(M-N) singly excited, N 2 (M-N) 2 doubly excited, etc. determinants. So, the number of determinants can quickly get out of hand.

3 The table below shows how many determinants can be formed when one distributes 2k electrons among 2k orbitals (4k spin-orbitals). Clearly, it is not feasible or wise to try to include in the MCSCF expansion all Slater determinants that can possibly be formed. Instead, one usually includes only determinants that are doubly or singly excited relative to any of the reference function’s determinants.

4 The H I,J matrix elements and the elements of the Fock-like matrix are expressed in terms of two-electron integrals that are more general than the Coulomb and exchange integrals. These integrals must be generated by “transforming” the AO-based integrals using  j =   C j,    four times: =  l C m,l =  k C n,k =  j C a,j =  i C b,i This integral transformation step requires of the order of 4 M 5 steps and disk space to store the.

5 Advantages: MCSCF can adequately describe bond cleavage, can give compact description of , can be size extensive (give E(AB) = E(A) + E(B) when A and B are far apart) if CSF list is properly chosen, and gives upper bound to energy because it is variational. Disadvantages: coupled orbital (C i,  ) and C I optimization is a very large dimensional (iterative) optimization with many local minima, so convergence is often a problem; unless the CSF list is large, not much dynamical correlation is included. The solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem  J H I,J C J = E C I of dimension N C requires of the order of N C 2 operations for each eigenvalue (i.e., state whose energy one wants). The solution of the Fock-like SCF equations of dimension M requires of the order of M 3 operations because one needs to obtain most, if not all, orbitals and orbital energies.

6 Configuration interaction (CI): the LCAO-MO coefficients of all the spin-orbitals are determined first via a single-configuration SCF calculation or an MCSCF calculation using a small number of CSFs. The C I coefficients are subsequently determined by making stationary the energy expectation value / which gives a matrix eigenvalue problem:  J H I,J C J = E C I of dimension N C. Advantages: Energies give upper bounds because they are variational, one can obtain excited states from the CI matrix eigenvalue problem. Disadvantages: Must choose “ important ” determinants, not size extensive, scaling grows rapidly as the level of “ excitations ” in CSFs increases (M 5 for integral transformation; N C 2 per electronic state), N C must be larger than in MCSCF because the orbitals are optimized for the SCF (or small MCSCF) function not for the CI function.