I The “philosophical cornerstone” of the Moller-Plesset perturbation theory

Click For Summary
In quantum chemistry, the convergence behavior of Moller-Plesset perturbation theory (MP2, MP3, MP4) can vary significantly, with some cases leading to divergence, such as in the CeI4 molecule. The discussion raises a philosophical question about the foundational principles of perturbation theory and whether they can be illustrated through specific mathematical examples. Two equations were analyzed to demonstrate convergence, with differing iteration behaviors leading to debates on their relevance to perturbation theory. Some participants argue that the second example better reflects the theory's principles, while others contend that both examples may not accurately represent perturbation theory. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding convergence rates and the nature of approximations in quantum chemistry.
Spathi
Gold Member
Messages
102
Reaction score
10
TL;DR
Simple analogies as illustrations to the Moller-Plesset perturbation theory.
In quantum chemistry, the MP rows (MP2, MP3, MP4, etc) can converge both quickly and slowly, and for some cases (e.g. CeI4 molecule) they even diverge instead of converging.
My question is quite philosophic: what is the “mathematical cornerstone”, or “philosophical cornerstone” of the perturbation theory, and whether it can be shown with some simple samples. If yes, maybe this information will help us predict whether in quantum chemistry the MP rows will diverge for some molecule not yet investigated.

I have asked this question on some web forums, and got some answers. Let’s consider the salvation of two equations:

1)
x+sin(x)=3000
If we write the following:

x=3000-sin(x)

We can set x0=0 and get the following iterations:

0
3000
2999,78081002572
2999,5739029766
2999,39713977695
2999,26623684759
2999,18383222963
2999,13904100976

This series converge after 40 iterations.

2)
6000=(x−1)(x−3000)+sin(x)

We transform this equation into the following:

x=(6000-sin(x))/(x-3000)+1

Choosing x0=0 we get the following convergence:

0
-1
-0,999613952344155
-0,999614140048658
-0,999614139957402
-0,999614139957447
-0,999614139957447
-0,999614139957447

So, this series converges within 6 iterations.

Some people said that the second example illustrates the cornerstone of the perturbation theory, while the first one does not. Some other people said that both these examples are not really attributed to the perturbation theory. Can you suggest your opinion?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
"Converges within x iterations" isn't a thing. Apart from some corner cases you just get increasingly accurate approximations no matter how many iterations you take. You can study how fast that convergence is. Do you e.g. get a fixed number of additional digits per iteration? Does it grow quadratic?
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
677