1 / 27

Dario Bressanini

Universita’ dell’Insubria, Como, Italy. Boundary-condition-determined wave functions (and their nodal structure) for few-electron atomic systems. Dario Bressanini. http://scienze-como.uninsubria.it/ bressanini. Critical stability V ( Erice ) 2008 . Numbers and insight.

chul
Download Presentation

Dario Bressanini

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Universita’ dell’Insubria, Como, Italy Boundary-condition-determined wave functions (and their nodal structure) for few-electron atomic systems Dario Bressanini http://scienze-como.uninsubria.it/bressanini Critical stability V (Erice) 2008

  2. Numbers and insight • There is no shortage of accurate calculations for few-electron systems • −2.90372437703411959831115924519440444669690537a.u.Helium atom (Nakashima and Nakatsuji JCP 2007) • However… “The more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air “(Robert Mulliken)

  3. The curse of YT • Currently Quantum Monte Carlo (and quantum chemistry in general) uses moderatly large to extremely large expansions for Y • Can we ask for both accurate and compact wave functions?

  4. VMC: Variational Monte Carlo • Use the Variational Principle • Use Monte Carlo to estimate the integrals • Complete freedom in the choice of the trial wave function • Can use interparticle distances into Y • But It depends critically on our skill to invent a good Y

  5. + - QMC: Quantum Monte Carlo • Analogy with diffusion equation • Wave functions for fermions have nodes • If we knew the exact nodes of Y, we could exactly simulate the system by QMC • The exact nodes are unknown. Use approximate nodes from a trial Y as boundary conditions

  6. Long term motivations • In QMC we only need the zeros of the wave function, not what is in between! • A stochastic process of diffusing points is set up using the nodes as boundary conditions • The exact wave function (for that boundary conditions) is sampled • We need ways to build good approximate nodes • We need to study their mathematical properties (poorly understood)

  7. Convergence to the exact Y We must include the correct analytical structure Cusps: QMC OK QMC OK 3-body coalescence and logarithmic terms: Usually neglected Tails and fragments:

  8. Asymptotic behavior of Y • Example with 2-e atoms is the solution of the 1 electron problem

  9. Asymptotic behavior of Y • The usual form does not satisfy the asymptotic conditions A closed shell determinant has the wrong structure

  10. Asymptotic behavior of Y • In general Recursively, fixing the cusps, and setting the right symmetry… Each electron has its own orbital, Multideterminant (GVB) Structure!

  11. PsH – Positronium Hydride • A wave function with the correct asymptotic conditions: Bressanini and Morosi: JCP 119, 7037 (2003)

  12. Basis In order to build compact wave functions we used orbital functions where the cusp and the asymptotic behavior are decoupled

  13. 2-electron atoms Tails OK Cusps OK – 3 parameters Fragments OK – 2 parameters (coalescence wave function)

  14. Z dependence • Best values around for compact wave functions • D. Bressanini and G. Morosi J. Phys. B 41, 145001 (2008) • We can write a general wave function, with Z as a parameter and fixed constants ki • Tested for Z=30 • Can we use this approach to larger systems? Nodes for QMC become crucial

  15. For larger atoms ?

  16. GVB Monte Carlo for Atoms

  17. Nodes does not improve • The wave function can be improved by incorporating the known analytical structure… with a small number of parameters • … but the nodes do not seem to improve • Was able to prove it mathematically up to N=7 (Nitrogen atom), but it seems a general feature • EVMC(YRHF) > EVMC(YGVB) • EDMC(YRHF) = EDMC(YGVB)

  18. Is there anything “critical” about the nodes of critical wave functions?

  19. Critical charge Zc • 2 electrons: • Critical Z for binding Zc=0.91103 • Yc is square integrable • l<1 : infinitely many discrete bound states • 1≤l≤lc: only one bound state • All discrete excited state are absorbed in the continuum exactly at l=1 • Their Y become more and more diffuse

  20. Critical charge Zc • N electrons atom • l < 1/(N-1) infinite number of discrete eigenvalues • l ≥ 1/(N-1) finite number of discrete eigenvalues • N-2 ≤ Zc ≤ N-1 • N=3 “Lithium” atom Zc  2. As Z→ Zc • N=4 “Beryllium” atom Zc 2.85 As Z→ Zc

  21. Spin  r13 Spin  r1 r12 r3 r2 Spin  r2 r1 r3 Lithium atom Is r1 = r2 the exact node of Lithium ? • Even the exaxt node seems to be r1 = r2, taking different cuts (using a very accurate Hylleraas expansion)

  22. Varying Z: QMC versus Hylleraas preliminary results The node r1=r2 seems to be valid over a wide range of l Up to lc =1/2 ?

  23. r1+r2 r1+r2 r3-r4 r3-r4 r1-r2 r1-r2 Be Nodal Topology

  24. N=3 N=4 lc N=4 critical charge

  25. N=3 N=4 N=4 critical charge lc 0.3502 Zc  2.855 Zc (Hogreve)  2.85

  26. - N=4 critical charge node preliminary results very close to lc=0.3502 Critical Node very close to

  27. The End Take a look at your nodes

More Related