Hartree-Fock exchange operator

cire
I'm trying to understand the Hartree-Fock mathematical formulation I understand the Coulomb operator, but I don't understand the exchange operator:
<br /> \hat{K_{j}}[\Psi](\textbf{x})=\Phi_{j}(\textbf{x})\int<br /> d\textbf{x}&#039;\frac{\Phi_{j}^{*}(\textbf{x}&#039;)\Psi(\textbf{x}&#039;)}{|\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}&#039;|}
Can anyone explain me why this operator is like this. I understand that it is the interaction of the j-th electron with the electrons' cloud but... how it come to be like that

thanks in advance :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know anything about that formulation, but this book on Google Print might help:

http://print.google.com/print?id=b8AzpUPopqQC&lpg=PA16&dq=Hartree-Fock+exchange+operator&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3DHartree-Fock%2Bexchange%2Boperator%26btnG%3DSearch%2BPrint&pg=PA15&sig=Q_plYtBA58CUSQi5a6NQc5AExnY

You can't see all the relevant information, but I think it might help you understand where the ideas headed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess the integral on the rhs is simply the matrix element <j|K|phi> of the electrostatic potential. Therefore K|phi> is indeed given by |j><j|K|ph> .
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top