Hartree fock derivation problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter georg gill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the algebraic derivation related to the Hartree-Fock method, specifically focusing on the Roothaan method as presented in a 1972 paper by Snow and Bills. Participants are seeking clarification on the steps involved in rewriting certain expressions within this derivation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests assistance with the algebra leading to a specific rewriting in the derivation.
  • Another participant suggests grouping the Hamiltonian's terms into three parts, indicating how to handle the integrals involving different wave functions and their interactions.
  • A further contribution explains how to break down integrals based on the Hamiltonian's structure, noting that some parts only involve specific wave functions while others involve interactions between them.
  • A participant expresses satisfaction with the explanations provided, indicating that they found the information helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion appears to be collaborative, with participants providing explanations and clarifications without any evident disagreement. However, the complexity of the derivation suggests that multiple interpretations or approaches may exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical manipulations and properties of integrals related to the Hamiltonian, but the discussion does not resolve all potential ambiguities or assumptions inherent in the derivation process.

georg gill
Messages
151
Reaction score
6
Can anyone show the algebra that leads to the rewriting that I have underlined in the attachment. It is a derivation

upload_2016-4-3_15-8-17.png

upload_2016-4-3_15-8-34.png

It is taken from the start of a derivation of the roothans method of hartree fock from 1972 with the authors Snow and Bills.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Plugging in the Hamiltonian, you can group its terms into three parts:
One involving only ##\phi_1##-related terms, one only involving ##\phi_2##-related terms, and one with ##r_{12}##. In the first two, you can take the other field out of the integral, where it then cancels the corresponding expression in the denominator.
Then use the symmetry (1<->2) to combine both simplified fractions. The third fraction from the original expansion just stays as it is.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: georg gill
write down your Hamiltonian... some part of it is going to see only the \phi_1's and some other part will only see the \phi_2's (that's the reason of the 2* integral)...
So you can break the integral \int \int f(x_1,x_2) dx_1 dx_2 = \int \int f(x_1) f(x_2) dx_1 dx_2 = \int f(x_1) dx_1 \int f(x_2) dx_2...that's the first integral in your orange... The second integral in your orange comes from the Hamiltonian's part that mixes r_{1},r_2 \text{ into } r_{12} and so your double integral remains : \int \int f(x_1,x_2) dx_1 dx_2 which you cannot separate.

I'm pretty sure this should go to quantum physics XD
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: georg gill
Thanks I did get it from your explanation!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K