Can Energy Be Calculated from a Single Point in Full CI Calculations?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of energy in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of Full Configuration Interaction (CI) and Hartree-Fock (HF) methods. Participants explore the idea of calculating energy from a single point rather than using the expectation value integral traditionally employed in these calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why energy cannot be calculated at a single point using the Hamiltonian and the wavefunction, suggesting that this might simplify the process compared to the expectation value integral.
  • Another participant emphasizes that energy is defined over all space as the expectation value of the Hamiltonian, challenging the idea of pointwise energy calculation.
  • A later reply discusses the time-independent Schrödinger equation and its implications for energy being constant across the wavefunction, supporting the expectation value approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the uniqueness of solutions when calculating energy at a single point, with a participant noting that operators must act on functions rather than points.
  • References to Density Functional Theory (DFT) and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo are made as examples of alternative approaches that might relate to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and validity of calculating energy at a single point versus using the expectation value. There is no consensus on the proposed method's effectiveness or correctness.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of quantum mechanics and the implications of operator actions on wavefunctions, indicating that the discussion is nuanced and dependent on the definitions and assumptions used in quantum theory.

reddorange
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
energy from single point rather than expectation integral in Full CI calculation??

Hi, i guess this is kind of a stupid line of thought...

if you get a wavefunction, say from a Hartree-Fock calculation, you can find your energy by calculating the expectation value of the hamiltonian.

well actually for any operator, observables are the eigenvalues of the operator. my question is, if you have a wavefunction (or any eigenvector), why don't you just calculate the operator at a single point, then divide out the eigenvector part to get E?

For instance, if you have Psi, why solve the integral <Psi | H | Psi >? Why not do something like H(x=0)Psi(x=0) = E Psi(x=0), and solve for E at some convenient point?

I guess in CI you just get E from a diagonalization, maybe it's a moot point there?

But in in Hartree Fock you have your orbitals, and you go through this business of calculating an expectation value and get overcount terms and such.

in general, a molecule is a system of particles (electrons). but you are solving a wave equation for them. it also seems weird that whatever the position of the electrons, the hamiltonian operating on those electrons (parameterized with positions of nuclei, or whatever) gives the exact same energy...if your electrons are all bunched up beside each other, shouldn't the energy be really high at that point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i mean, it's a WAVE-function, but it's a function of the positions of the electrons!
 
ok, slow down. first of all, what you are asking has nothing to do with CI or HF, but QM in general.

the energy is not defined at a point, but rather over all of space as the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. what makes you think otherwise?

as far as the energy being a function of the electronic coordinates, consider the following. it was proven by Hohenberg and Kohn that is you define an electron density function as

[tex]\phi(r_1) = \int dr_2 \int dr_3 ...\int dr_N \psi^*(r_1, r_2, r_3,...,r_N) \psi(r_1, r_2, r_3, ..., r_N)[/tex]

then there exists a unique functional of [tex]\phi[/tex] that yields the ground state energy, i.e.:

[tex]E[\phi] = E_0[/tex]

this leads to DFT (since you seem to be interested in numerical solutions).
 
thanks, quetzal.

but if you look at just the time-independent equation, HPsi = EPsi, doesn't this hold for every point along Psi? This is why you can write the expectation value as <Psi|H|Psi> = E<Psi|Psi>, ie E is constant for every volume element.

good point about dft.
 
because that would not be a unique solution, ie.

Why not do something like H(x=0)Psi(x=0) = E Psi(x=0)

what exactly is H(x=0)? remember what you are doing, you are acting an operator (which maps a function onto another function) on an eigenfunction.

for example, consider the free-particle hamiltonian - you cannot act the derivative operator on a point (you agree that Psi(x=0) would be a point?), it must act on a function.

perhaps what you mean (and what i was trying to get at with the DFT example) is some sort of fictious local energy function that is useful for the computation. another example is via diffusion quantum monte carlo (see equation 2.58):

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~ajw29/thesis/node27.html#SECTION00551000000000000000
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K