There are many examples in theoretical physics where a fundamental quantity can be considered a quadratic form ρ=∑iρi=∣Ψ∣2 and the corresponding linear form Ψ=∑iψi is highly relevant for the physical problem under study. This, in particular, is the case of the density and the wave function in quantum mechanics. In the study of N-identical-fermion systems we have the additional feature that Ψ is a function of the 3N configuration space coordinates and ρ is defined in three-dimensional real space. For many-electron systems in the ground state the wave function and the Hamiltonian are to be expressed in terms of the configuration space (CS), a replica of real space for each electron. Here we present a geometric formulation of the CS, of the wave function, of the density, and of the Hamiltonian to compute the electronic structure of the system. Then, using the new geometric notation and the indistinguishability and equivalence of the electrons, we obtain an alternative computational method for the ground state of the system. We present the method and discuss its usefulness and relation to other approaches.
There are many examples in theoretical physics where a fundamental quantity can be considered a quadratic form ρ=∑iρi=∣Ψ∣2 and the corresponding linear form Ψ=∑iψi is highly relevant for the physical problem under study. This, in particular, is the case of the density and the wave function in quantum mechanics. In the study of N-identical-fermion systems we have the additional feature that Ψ is a function of the 3N configuration space coordinates and ρ is defined in three-dimensional real space. For many-electron systems in the ground state the wave function and the Hamiltonian are to be expressed in terms of the configuration space (CS), a replica of real space for each electron. Here we present a geometric formulation of the CS, of the wave function, of the density, and of the Hamiltonian to compute the electronic structure of the system. Then, using the new geometric notation and the indistinguishability and equivalence of the electrons, we obtain an alternative computational method for the ground state of the system. We present the method and discuss its usefulness and relation to other approaches.
We present a systematic analysis of the introduction of correlation in the many-electron time-dependent problem with an accurate formulation based on geometric algebra notation. This provides a systematic definition of the configuration space, of the external potentials, of the one-electron operators for a many-electron system, and of the electron–electron interaction terms. We arrive both at a formal equation for the total energy and at the equation for the time-evolution of the wavefunction. From this, using the new geometric notation and the indistinguishability and equivalence of the electrons and the fact that we are interested either in the ground state or in states near the ground state, we formulate a variational problem from which a set of tractable equations, which self-consistently define the many-electron wavefunction and density, is obtained. The main emphasis is on the electron–electron correlation.
Abstract The spin-independent properties of an electronic system are completely determined by spinless density functions, P1(1; 1') and P 2( 1,2; 1',2 '), derived from the 1-and 2-electron density matrices, p1(1; 1') and p2(1,2 ; 1',2'). These functions, and their physical inter-pretation, have been dealt with in part I: the present paper contains the generalizations necessary when the Hamiltonian contains spin terms (as in discussions of electron and nuclear spin resonance). The density matrices, and more generally the transition density matrices p1(kλ|1; 1') and p2(kλ|l,2; 1',2') associated with states and Φkand Φλ are resolved into spinless components associated with different spin situations: p1 has four such components (one giving the density of a-spin electrons, a second the density of β-spin electrons, and two with less direct physical significance), while p2 has sixteen components. It is shown that all components, for states k=(S, M),λ= (S',M') of given S, S', are determined by three 2-electron functions.For k=λ these reduce to p2, the spinless pair function, from which the electron density p1 may be derived by integration; Q2a ‘conditional' spin density, from which the (1-electron) spin density Q1 may be derived (as in the case of p1 and P2); Q c. a., a ‘coupling anisotropy function', which describes the anisotropy of spin-spin coupling associated with quantization of the spin z-component. It is also useful to introduce (though it is not an independent function). Qc, a ‘coupling density function', which measures the coupling between the spins of two electrons at different points in space. All spin-dependent effects, including the usual spin-spin and spin-orbit couplings and also (indirect) nuclear and electron-nuclear spin-spin couplings, may be related to the many- electron wave function through the above density functions. All the densities have a physical interpretation, independent of the precise nature of the wave functions (which may, for example, be the exact eigenfunctions of a spinless Hamiltonian or merely approximations of orbital form). The derivation of the density functions from approximate wave functions is considered in some detail. For functions describing weakly coupled electron groups (e. g. inner-shell and valence electrons) the densities may be expressed in terms of those of the separate groups. This reduction may be followed by an orbital description of each group; and subsequently, by a linear-combination-of-atomic-orbitals (l. c. a. o.) approximation. In the simpler approximations, all the coupling effects discussed are determined by electron and spin ‘populations'. Preliminary calculations suggest that such approximations may in many cases be adequate.
A methodology is introduced for the systematic treatment of electron-electron correlations in solids and other interacting quantum N-particle systems. The method is developed within the framework of electronic structure theory (band theory) but, in contrast to conventional approaches, which are based on the single-particle picture, it is formulated within a many-particle picture in which n particles in d-dimensional phase space are treated as a single particle in a phase space of nd dimensions. In this phase space, interparticle interactions appear as external potentials allowing the treatment of the system of particles through the use of single-particle methods, while at the same time allowing a systematic, direct, and nonperturbative treatment of interparticle interactions. The method makes use of the invariance of the Hamiltonian describing an interacting-particle system under partitioning into subsystems of n particles. This treatment leads to exact results in the limit $n\ensuremath{\rightarrow}N$. Based on such partitioning, we propose a generalization of density functional theory and an appropriately defined local density approximation to treat the interactions between the n-particle units in a system of N>n particles. This approach yields n-particle correlated densities and n-particle states which can be used in an analysis of the electronic properties of materials, such as total energy, phase stability, electronic transport, and others. We use the formal construct of multiple-scattering theory to develop the method for the calculation of the two-particle electronic structure of a solid and the corresponding total energy of the ground state. We also illustrate some of the properties of the method in terms of a Hubbard model Hamiltonian on a linear ring. Various features of the method and further possible applications are presented in a discussion section.
For systems which obey quantum mechanics, the formulation of the problem of treating large numbers of particles is, of course, somewhat different than it is for classical systems. The microscopic description of the system is provided by a wave function which (in the absence of spin) is a function of the classical coordinates { q i }. The mathematical model is provided by a Hamiltonian operator H which is often obtained from the corresponding classical Hamiltonian by the replacement p i → ( ħ /i)(∂/∂ q i ). In other cases the form of the Hamiltonian operator is simply postulated. The microscopic dynamics are provided by the Schrödinger equation i ħ (∂Ψ/∂ t ) = H Ψ which requires as initial condition the knowledge of the wave function Ψ({ q i }, t ) at some initial time t 0 . (Boundary conditions on Ψ({ q i }, t ) must be specified as part of the description of the model as well.) The results of experiments in quantum mechanics are characterized by operators, usually obtained, like the Hamiltonian, from their classical forms and termed observables. Operators associated with observables must be Hermitian. In general, the various operators corresponding to observables do not commute with one another. It is possible to find sets of commuting operators whose mutual eigenstates span the Hilbert space in which the wave function is confined by the Schrödinger equation and the boundary conditions. A set of such (time independent) eigenstates, termed ψ ν ( q ), is a basis for the Hilbert space.
If we consider ( ) 2,kr tΨ G to be the probability density for finding, at time t, particle 1 at particle k at and particle N at ,,1 … Gr …G ,kr ,Nr G a normalization condition analogous to Eq.(29.2) holds as (35.2) 1V* =ΨΨ∫ d The integral is defined in a space with 3N dimensions called the configuration space of the system, where a configuration point is given by 3N position coordinates 1 1 1, , , , , , , , , ,k k k N N N ,x y z x y z x y z… … and the volume element is NNNkkkNk dzdydxdzdydxdzdydxdddd ………… 1111 VVVV == Physical observables of the system will be represented by Hermitian operators, obtained from the classical representation in terms of the position and momentum variables as indicated by Postulate 2. Thus the many-particle Hamiltonian results from Eq.(2.32) as ( ) (∑ ∑ = ≠ ⎥⎥⎦ ⎤ ⎢⎢⎣ ⎡ ++∇−= k rrUtrU m H ,, 2 ˆ GGG= ) ) (35.3) where only acts on the coordinates of the kth particle, of mass The one-particle potential energy is due to external fields where this particle moves and k∇ .km( trU kk ,G( )jkkj rrU GG , gives the mutual interaction between the particles k and j. It is assumed that the position and momentum operators of different particles commute, and so do all the operators describing single-particle observables if they refer to different particles. The evolution of a many-particle system will be then formulated as a generalization of Eq.(30.6) in terms of given by Eqs.(35.1) and (35.3) HˆandΨ Ψ=∂ Ψ∂ H t i ˆ= (35.4) If the Hamiltonian (35.3) does not depend explicitly on the time, it is usual to express the time dependence of the many-particle state function by means of the evolution operator defined as ( )tUˆ ( ) ( ) ( )NkNk rrrtUtrrr G…G…GG…G…G ,,,,ˆ,,,,, 11 αΨ=Ψ (35.5) which is formally derived from Eq.(35.4) as ( ) ( ) ( )ˆˆ ˆU ti U t i HU t t t ˆα α α ∂∂ ⎡ ⎤Ψ = Ψ =⎣ ⎦∂ ∂= = Ψ It follows that (35.6) ( ) =/ˆˆ tHietU −= which is the analogue of Eq.(30.12). The evolution operator is unitary, Eq.(II.22), since ( ) ( )†ˆ ˆU t U t Iˆ= (35.7) Substituting Eq.(35.5), one obtains from Eq.(35.4) that the stationary states of the Nparticle systems are given by the energy eigenvalue equation ( ) ( )1 1ˆ , , , , , , , ,k N k NH r r r E r r rα α αΨ = ΨG G G G G G… … … … (35.8) The solution to the N-particle problem is facilitated if we take into account the symmetries of many systems of physical interest, which allow us to define constants of motion and criteria for simplifying the form (35.3) of the Hamiltonian operator. An alternative to complex explicit calculations is to associate with specific symmetries time independent unitary operators which transform the state functions into so that Eq.(35.4) gives ˆ ,U Ψ ˆ ,U Ψ ( ) ( )†ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆi U i U UH UHU Ut t∂ ∂ΨΨ = = Ψ = Ψ∂ ∂= = ˆ This is again a Schrödinger equation for the state Uˆ Ψ with the new Hamiltonian †ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆH UHU′ = If the Hamiltonian remains unchanged by the transformation, we have (35.9) †ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆor , 0H UHU U H⎡ ⎤= ⎣ ⎦ = According to the evolution equation (29.43), this implies that so that U is a constant of motion. If the unitary transformation which leaves the Hamiltonian invariant, is a function of an observable, its constancy implies that the given observable is a constant in any state of the system.
The electronic-structure theory of solids is presently dominated by density-functional methods which avoid calculations of the many-body wavefunction, and instead compute directly properties of the ground state. We argue that methods which determine the many-electron wavefunctions should receive particular attention in the future. A survey is given of our present knowledge of how to calculate these wavefunctions for a solid. The accuracy we envisage compares with the one obtainable for small molecules when applying quantum-chemical methods.