Trying to reproduce the energy levels of a molecule from a paper

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on reproducing the energy levels of a molecule, specifically BaF, as presented in a referenced paper. The user is attempting to replicate figure 1 by calculating the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, ##H = H_0 + H_Z##, using specific parameters such as ##B = 6473.9588## MHz and ##\gamma = 80.923## MHz. Despite achieving close results, discrepancies remain, particularly in the plot's details, with differences noted at the 1% level. The conversation highlights the importance of including all relevant terms in the Hamiltonian to achieve accurate results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and Hamiltonians
  • Familiarity with eigenstate calculations
  • Knowledge of magnetic field effects on molecular energy levels
  • Experience with computational tools for quantum chemistry simulations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of off-diagonal elements in Hamiltonians
  • Explore advanced quantum mechanics concepts related to molecular energy levels
  • Investigate computational methods for simulating molecular spectra
  • Examine experimental techniques for measuring CP-violation in magnetic fields
USEFUL FOR

Researchers in quantum chemistry, physicists studying molecular interactions, and experimentalists interested in CP-violation measurements will benefit from this discussion.

BillKet
Messages
311
Reaction score
30
Hello! This is quite a specific question, so if anyone knows the details I would really appreciate your help (@Twigg ?). I am trying to reproduce figure 1 from this paper (it's for the PV experiment performed on BaF). While I am getting quite close to it, the levels don't fully match (I am attaching below the plot I obtained). What I did was to get the eigenstates of ##H = H_0 + H_Z## from equations 1 and 2. I first got the diagonal element. For ##H_0## these are:

$$BN(N+1)+\gamma m_N m_S + b m_I m_S + \frac{c}{3}m_I m_S$$

where ##m_{I,S,N}## are the projections along the z axis (defined by the magnetic field) of the I, S and N operators (I am ignoring the ##DN^4## as that is negligible for the ##N=0,1## states we are interested in). For the ##H_z##, the diagonal terms are, given that B is along z:

$$-g_\perp\mu_Bm_S B - \frac{1}{3}(g_\parallel-g_\perp)\mu_Bm_SB- g_I\mu_N m_I B - g_{rot}\mu_Nm_N B$$

where I used from the cited literature: ##B = 6473.9588##, ##\gamma = 80.923##, ##b = 66.25## and ##c = 8.2233## (all in MHz). In terms of off-diagonal elements, there are none connecting ##N=1## to ##N=0##, as they have different parities. Within a given N manifold, the terms that matter are the ones connecting states with the same value of ##m_S##, as different values of ##m_S## are suppressed by about ##\frac{\gamma}{B}##. The only terms able to do that come from ##c(I\cdot n)(S \cdot n)## and are given by ##c\frac{\sqrt{2}}{10}m_S## and they are included in the plot below. All the other terms shouldn't matter as they are too small and I think I included all the relevant term. But I can't seem to reproduce their plots. Did I miss any term or miss-calculated something? Any insight would be really appreciated. Thank you!

E_levels_mag_field.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BillKet said:
But I can't seem to reproduce their plots.
Looks pretty good to me? Am I missing something? The only differences I can see are at the 1% level or so. This is consistent with ##\gamma/B \approx 0.013##.

Also, can you say which unperturbed state is which plot line?
 
Twigg said:
Looks pretty good to me? Am I missing something? The only differences I can see are at the 1% level or so. This is consistent with ##\gamma/B \approx 0.013##.

Also, can you say which unperturbed state is which plot line?
The levels in my plot should be in the same order, except for the blue-dotted one in my plot, which doesn't appear at all in theirs (not sure if they willingly decide to not plot it). Also the splitting between the continuous blue and dotted red is much bigger in my case, than in theirs.
 
BillKet said:
Also the splitting between the continuous blue and dotted red is much bigger in my case, than in theirs.
It seems different by a few 10's of MHz. Let's say 20 MHz, to be generous. 20 MHz / 6550MHz = 0.3%, consistent with the terms you omitted. I think you nailed it?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillKet
Twigg said:
It seems different by a few 10's of MHz. Let's say 20 MHz, to be generous. 20 MHz / 6550MHz = 0.3%, consistent with the terms you omitted. I think you nailed it?
I didn't realize the difference was so small 😅. Not fully related to this, but do you know of any proposed experiments that aim to measure CP-violation using large magnetic fields?
 
BillKet said:
Not fully related to this, but do you know of any proposed experiments that aim to measure CP-violation using large magnetic fields?
I don't, sorry. Sounds hard, from an experimental point of view.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K