Total energy of N+1 electron system compared to N

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the total energy comparison between N+1 electron systems and N electron systems within solids, particularly in the context of density functional theory (DFT) simulations. Participants explore the implications of electron affinity, localized states, and the effects of different DFT approximations on energy calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references a paper indicating that the total energy of a solid with N+1 electrons is less than that with N electrons, questioning whether this can be proven analytically.
  • Another participant notes that the choice of DFT method affects results, mentioning that LDA may not yield correct energy gaps due to its approximation of exchange energy.
  • A participant using GGA argues that the sign of the energy difference E(N)-E(N+1) should not change with different DFT methods, although it may affect the second derivative of E(N).
  • Discussion includes the importance of localized states, suggesting that the additional electron in the N+1 system fills a localized state, which may influence energy calculations.
  • One participant points out that electron affinity is generally positive in most materials, implying that the N+1 system typically has lower energy than the N system.
  • Concerns are raised about self-interaction errors in DFT potentially affecting the energy of the N+1 system, with a suggestion to use Hartree-Fock methods for comparison.
  • A participant confirms that for atoms, their results align with the expectation that the N+1 system is more negative in energy, but expresses uncertainty regarding solids with lattice distortions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the energy relationships between N and N+1 electron systems, with some supporting the notion that N+1 systems should have lower energy, while others question this in specific contexts, particularly in solids with lattice distortions. No consensus is reached on the overall validity of the claims.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their DFT calculations, including the choice of functional and the presence of self-interaction errors, which may influence the results. The discussion also acknowledges that the schematic representations in referenced articles may not fully capture the complexities involved.

Useful nucleus
Messages
374
Reaction score
62
According to the schematic (FIG 1) in this paper (http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.085202) the total energy of a solid with N+1 electrons is less (more negative) than the same solid (the same positions of ions) with N electrons. This was explicitly shown for the single fluorine atom (http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.040501).

My question is that something which can be proven analytically? When I try to simulate this using DFT on a couple of semiconductors , I get the opposite, that this the N system has less energy (more negative) compared to the N+1 system. Any hints are appreciated.

EDIT: The two articles I cited above are available on arxiv as well, and these are liks:

(1) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0018.pdf
(2) http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0702283v2.pdf
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Which kind of DFT? It is well known that e.g. LDA does not give correct results for the energy gap (i.e. the difference between an N and an N+1 electron system). This is due to the incorrect approximation of the exchange energy. DFT with exact exchange gives correct energy gaps.

Edit: That is also stated in the second article you cited.
 
I'm using GGA, but according to the two articles above, the usage of LDA or GGA should not change the sign of E(N)-E(N+1), instead it has an impact on the sign of the 2nd derivative of E(N) when N is regarded as a continuous variable.
 
Also I should mention that the emphasis here is on localized states. That is the extra one electron in the N+1 system is filling a localized empty electronic state in a solid or an empty orbital in an atom as the in the Fluorine example of the second article of my original post.

Also when I did the test using GGA (or even GGA+U), I made sure that I have localized states in the semiconductors I examined.
 
The property in question is the electron affinity, which is indeed positive in most materials (indicating that the energy of the N+1 electron system is less than that of the N electron system). For example, all atoms (except the noble gases) exhibit a positive electron affinity.

Regarding your DFT calculations, my guess is that the self-interaction error of DFT is what incorrectly raises the energy of the N+1 electron system. If possible, try repeating them with HF (which can be carried out in DFT codes as a limit of hybrid functionals) and see if you at least get the correct sign. For one discussion of this in terms of atoms, see this paper from Kieron Burke's group: http://dft.uci.edu/pubs/LFB10.pdf
 
Thank you for your reply and sharing Burke's article, t!m. Indeed for atoms I do get that the energy of the N+1 system is more negative than that of the N system. I got this result on the Fluorine atom using GGA which is in accordance to the second article I posted above.

However, for a solid that has a lattice distortion (in order to trap a polaron) , I'm not sure why the N+1 system has to have lower energy. I feel that the schematic shown in the first article I posted is for illustration purpose only and it is possible for the N+1 system to have higher energy. But I still need to search more to confirm this.
 

Similar threads

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