When does the Hartree-Fock approximation fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iibewegung
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation
iibewegung
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I've read from Wikipedia that in the Hartree-Fock approximation, "Each energy eigenfunction is assumed to be describable by a single Slater determinant".

My question is... if the approximation fails and the system has to be described by linear combinations of more than one type of Slater determinants, what type of wave functions would they be determinants of? (besides the one-electron wave functions)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't have Hartee Fock if the potential the particles move is is not the mean field. To answer the question "when does the Hartree-Fock approximation fail? "
 
Thanks for the answer.
actually... i decided to change the question to the one you see now (edited) on the first msg, a few minutes after writing it the first time...

i was able to change the body of the msg but not the title of the thread.
can this new question be answered here as well?

.. or is it a better idea to start a new thread with the right title?
 
just to ask - when would a mean field approximation fail?
Non-adiabatic processes?
 
Well I come from nuclear physics point of view, and the MFA fails when one takes into account the hard repulsive core of the Nuclear force at short distances.

But what it is called in general, I have no clue :)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top