Hartree Fock: A QM Undergrad Assignment Ahead of its Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin McHugh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inclusion of the Hartree-Fock method and Self-Consistent Field (SCF) theory in undergraduate quantum mechanics curricula. Participants reflect on their experiences and the evolution of quantum mechanics education over time, particularly regarding multi-electron systems and the relevance of SCF methods in different academic contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether their instructor was ahead of their time for including a four-particle system assignment, noting the absence of SCF theory in Shankar's text.
  • Another participant suggests that a lack of discussion on multi-electron atoms in a textbook likely correlates with the absence of the Hartree-Fock method.
  • Some participants argue that the Hartree-Fock method is too specialized and advanced for most undergraduate quantum texts, citing personal experiences and historical texts that include it.
  • One participant mentions their experience in a Quantum Chemistry class where SCF calculations were emphasized, contrasting it with their upper division quantum mechanics classes that did not cover such methods.
  • There is a suggestion that the focus on SCF and multi-atom quantum methods is more prevalent in chemistry curricula compared to physics curricula.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness and prevalence of SCF theory in undergraduate quantum mechanics education. There is no consensus on whether the inclusion of such topics is standard or advanced for the time.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the historical context of quantum mechanics education and the varying emphasis on SCF methods across different disciplines, highlighting potential limitations in curriculum design and focus.

Kevin McHugh
Messages
319
Reaction score
165
When I took undergrad QM, our last assignment was solving the 4 particle system as a function of inter-nuclear separation. I just read Shankar (30 years later) for a review. There was no mention of SCF theory in the book. Was my instructor ahead of the curve?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a book doesn't discuss multi electron atoms it is unlikely it would discuss the Hartree-Fock method..
 
It's too specialized and too advanced for most undergrad quantum texts, then or now. When I was a student at about that time, it was in my quantum course, but my prof used it in his research.

I see that it is in texts by Messiah (1957), and by Merzbacher (2nd edition, 1970). It is also in more recent texts by Auletta, Fortunato, and Parisi (2009), and by Konishi and Paffuti (2009).
 
Last edited:
Did you take a Quantum Chemistry class by chance? I did a class on the QM of atomic bonding in my first semester and we followed McQuarrie's Quantum Chemistry 2nd edition. If I remember correctly, that went into detailed SCF calculations for things like the Helium atom and Hydrogen molecule. In fact, one of my projects in that class was to compute the dipole moment of nitrobenzene.
I didn't really see SCF or any kind of numerical multi-atom quantum method in my 3 upper division QM classes (we followed Griffiths for the first one and Shankar for the other two). My guess would be that it's more a Physical chemistry vs Physics thing.

EDIT: I also know that the QM that chemistry majors do focuses a lot more on SCF and approximations to multi atom systems while spending less time on building the fundamentals (like straight perturbation theory, for instance)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
29K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
10K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
13K