* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Generalized Statistical Approach to the Study of Interatomic Interactions M. E.
Franck–Condon principle wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Hartree–Fock method wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy wikipedia , lookup
Perturbation theory (quantum mechanics) wikipedia , lookup
Molecular orbital wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
X-ray fluorescence wikipedia , lookup
Atomic theory wikipedia , lookup
Molecular Hamiltonian wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Atomic orbital wikipedia , lookup
Electron configuration wikipedia , lookup
INTERNATTONALJOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY, VOL. XXXV, 267-275 (1989) Generalized Statistical Approach to the Study of Interatomic Interactions R. SANTAMAR~A,M. BERRONDO, AND 0. NOVARO Instituto de Fi'sica, UNAM, Apdo. Postal 20-364, Mgxico, D.F. 01000, Mkxico E. S . KRYACHKO Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 252130, Kiev-130, USSR Abstract We present a simple model for calculating the interatomic interaction energies in the electron gas approximation. We use a generalization of the supermolecular electronic density which includes a density overlap term. We present numerical calculations for the He-He interaction as an illustration of the method. 1. Introduction The problem of evaluating the exact energy of interaction between two molecules is far from solved. The interatomic case also becomes too complex as the atomic number increases. As a result, a number of different approximate schemes have been suggested and developed to calculate intermolecular interactions [ 1,2]. A method which is particularly appealing because of the simple picture it provides is the statistical approach, based on the original Thomas-Fermi model which starts off with an electron gas. Although the model has evolved to different expressions of the energy as a functional of the electronic density, in the particular case of interatomic and intermolecular interactions it has been firmly established that a good starting point for the total density is to take it as a simple superposition of the isolated fragment densities [ 1-11]. For short interatomic distances, the approximation obviously fails, so in the present paper we propose to include a correction due to the density overlap. In general terms, we can say that the statistical approach is based on the idea that the total energy of a given atomic or molecular system is a functional of the total (effective) one-electron density p(r) [ 121 r In the electron gas approximation, the functional is given as the sum of the kinetic E,, Coulomb E,, exchange E,,, and correlation contributions, with the well known expressions 0 1989 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0020-7608/89/020267-09$04.00 268 SANTAMARI~ET AL. where z, is the nuclear charge of the ath nucleus, and R, is its position. Different approximations have been given for the correlation energy as a functional of the density [ I , 2, 111, but in the present paper, we shall simply neglect it. Within this framework the interaction energy of two systems A and B can be calculated by taking the difference where E[(p(r)l = Ekb(r)l + Eex[p(r)l + Ec[p(r)l (4) In the case of intermolecular interactions, further development of the statistical approach is related with introducing additional correction terms in formulas (2) for the kinetic, exchange, and correlation density functionals [ 11, 13-21]. However, in most of these developments, the main emphasis is directed to improving the form of E [ p ] in the frame of the zero-order perturbation treatment for the supermolecular density pAB(r),i.e., the supermolecular density still remains as a sum of the unperturbed oneelectron densities of the isolated subsystems A and B [22]: PAB(~) = PA(^) + P B ( ~ ) (5) where all the densities are assumed to be normalized to the corresponding number of electrons. It is evident that, as emphasized by Claverie [ 11, the dispersion and polarization interactions cannot be described in the zero-order perturbation treatment of the real supermolecular density PAB. Nevertheless, some authors [ 17,211 have attempted to take such terms into account by introducing additional effective functionals under the frame of the representation of pABgiven by Eq. (5). Some attempts to modify and improve the statistical approach for calculating intermolecular interactions have been directed to the construction of better expressions for the kinetic, exchange, and correlation energy functionals while preserving the approximation of the supermolecular density (5). KoXos and Radzio [ 181 and Radzio-Andzelm [21] have, however, established the foundations for studying corrections to p A B ( r ) . Considering the He dimer as an example, KoXos and Radzio showed that the zero-order approximation for pAB(r)given by Eq. (5) is rather unreliable. These authors used SCF calculations for the oneelectron, supermolecular density PAB. It is hence of great interest to determine the higher-order corrections to pABin terms of the corresponding one-electron densities. Other interesting corrections to the additive density hhve been given by Gordon and collaborators 123-251 and by Wood and Piper [26] and by Parr and collaborators [27,28]. INTERATOMIC INTERACTIONS 269 The present paper is devoted to calculating the supermolecular density pAB(r)taking into account the exchange of electrons between two closed-shell subsystems A and B. The study is carried out starting from a Slater determinant for each subsystem constructed from the corresponding Hartree-Fock orbitals. The paper is organized as follows. Section I1 analyzes the asymptotic representation of the one-electron density matrix y(r; r’). The corrected PAB for homonuclear and heteronuclear atoms is derived in Section 111. A generalization of the statistical approach and its application to studying rare gas interactions are included there. Discussion of the results obtained for the He dimer and comparison with similar results using the Hartree-Fock, perturbation, and Gordon-Kim methods are presented in Section IV. A general discussion is included in Section V. 11. Asymptotic Properties of the One-particle Density Matrix As is well known, the 1 matrix in terms of the natural orbitals [29,30] is represented in the following way: where i runs over all the natural orbitals $;(r), and n, is the occupation number. The corresponding one-electron density p(r) = y(r; r) is assumed to be normalized to the total number of electrons N. As a result of the exponential tail of all the natural orbitals [313, Tal and Bader [32], March and Pucci [33], and March [34] proved that, for large r and r ’ , the asymptotic behavior of y(r; r’) takes the form In the particular case of a single Slater determinant, Eq. (7) follows directly from the results obtained by Ludefia [35]. This form of y was also exploited by Alonso and Girifalco [36] and recently by Kryachko and Kryachko and Ludefia [37]. Based on the asymptotic representation of y(r; r’) given by (7), we can assume that the quantity [p(r)p(r’)]”2should be the basic one for constructing different generalizations of the statistical theory and its applications to the intermolecular interactions. In particular, the term takes into account the overlap effect of the two subsystems A and B which is of importance for evaluating the intermolecular exchange energy. This point of view is slightly different from the one proposed recently by Kim et al. and by Nyeland and Toennies [38]. 111. Corrections to the Supermolecular Density The wave function of a system with N electrons can be approximated by an antisymmetrized product of the two wave functions $, and $B of subsystems A and B with N A and NB electrons, respectively: $AB<~~>E“= I) = A ~ [ s ~ < { ~ i > ~ ~ ) $ B ( ~ . ~ i > ~ ~ ~ (8) ~~~)l where xi = (si,ri) are the spin and coordinate of the ith electron, and AN is the anti- SANTAMARIAET AL. 270 symmetrization operator for N electrons. and I,!J~ can be further assumed to be single Slater determinants constructed from the natural orbitals of A and B. In order to include corrections to the density ( 5 ) , we shall start from the particular case of two He atoms interacting with each other. This will suggest to us an ansatz for the interacting electron density in the more general case of the ground state of two closed-shell subsystems. The He atom is hence described as a Slater determinant, JIHe(X,, .2) = (b(rJ(bb-2)[a(s,)P(sz) - a ( s J P ( s J 1 (9) so that the atomic spin-free electron density is given by PHe(r) = 2[(b(r)I2 ( 10) It is obvious that, in this particular case, we can obtain the (nodeless) atomic orbital explicitly from the density. Next we consider the helium dimer for which we can obtain the supermolecular 1 matrix explicitly. For this purpose let us now distinguish the spin orbitals corresponding respectively to subsystems A and B in the following form: A, = (bAa Ap = B, = &a Bp = # B P (11) where letters A or B indicate the orbital and the subindexes ( a or P ) indicate the spin state of the subsystem with which we are dealing. Making use of this notation, the wave function associated to the total system is $.dl 9 2,334) = A,{[Ae(1)Ap(2) - Aa(2)Ap(1)1[B,(3)Bp(4> - Ba(4)Bp(3>1) (12) Applying the antisymmetrizer A , it is possible to show that one has 24 permutations of the form (13) where the set { i ,j , k, I} can be {1,2,3,4} in any order. Considering the orthononnality of the spin orbitals, the nonvanishing terms in the spinless density matrix assume, by using Eq. (10) and then Eq. (8), the following form: A,(i)Ap(j)Ba(m$3(0 where INTERATOMIC INTERACTIONS 27 1 and C is a normalization constant. The expression for pAB(r)follows directly: where C is given by ) c = -1 ( 1 - 0iB-, 2 NANB so that In the homonuclear case N A = NB, this expression reduces to Eq. (5) asymptotically, since the overlap OABgoes to zero. Equation (18) can thus be interpreted as an improved expression for the supermolecular density which includes exchange effects, which become important at small interatomic distances. For atoms larger than He, the atomic orbitals are no longer nodeless, so that the approximation (14) for the 1-density matrix, calculated from the atomic densities only, is not very good. The density pAB(r),however, is smoother because the nodal structure of the orbitals is lost in the diagonal elements of the density matrix. Hence, Eq. (18) should be a much better approximation than Eq. (14). The heteronuclear case NA # NB also has the correct asymptotic behavior and differs from the simple superposition [7- 101 by the corresponding normarization factors for each atom. This can be understood also by taking a simple Hartree product of atomic wave functions, which is appropriate for large interatomic distances: +AB = +~+g (19) and hence it follows that Before evaluating the energy terms given in Eqs. (2), we should notice that Eq. (7) provides the exact expression for a helium atom, but certainly not for a helium dimer: 272 SANTAMARIA ET AL. The approximation (22) does not even give the correct asymptotic result as R A B which is given by -+ m, IV. Results The different contributions to the statistical interaction energy given in Eqs. (2) have been calculated according to the model presented here for the helium dimer. Calculations using the correct functional form were carried out also, using the following expressions: (24) where Z, and R, mean the same in Eqs. (2). In all the calculations the 1 matrix for the system AB is given by Eq. (14). The atomic densities were obtained from the analytic Hartree-Fock wave functions given by Clementi [39], and the numerical integrations were computed using Gaussian quadratures. Table I presents the contribution of the kinetic energy to the interaction energy. It includes results from Ref. 18. A E ; , A E F , and AEL refer to results obtained from first-order perturbation theory, SCF, and statistical calculations, respectively. From Table I we can conclude that the SCF results carried out using the 1 matrix proposed here (see second column) are very close to the correct ones (see first and third columns) found by KoXos and Radzio [18]. Statistical results agree among themselves, except those computed using Gordon and Kim’s method. The proposed approximation for pAB(r)works considerably better than Eq. (5) (compare columns five and seven). Most of the statistical results are not close to the ones obtained from SCF and first-order perturbation theory. Table I1 presents the contribution of the potential energy, i.e., the contribution of the sum of the Coulomb and exchange energies to the interaction energy. It includes results from Ref. 18 for comparison. The conclusions for this Table are similar to the previous ones. The worst results are those which use Eq. (5) as the density. 213 INTERATOMIC INTERACTIONS TABLEI. Kinetic energy contribution (in a.u.) to the interaction energy in He-He. AEEcF R AE; A E ; ~ ~ ~AE; AEic AEid AE; 2.117(-2) 0.285(-3) 0.760(-4) 0.332(-5 ) 8.862(-2) 1.557(-3) 4.120(-4) 1.513(-5) 7.845(-2) 1.396(-3) 4.670(-4) 1.665(-5) ~ 3.0 5.0 5.6 7.0 7.963(-2) 1.408(-3) 3.695(-4) 1.234(-5) 9.038(-2) 1.428(-3) 3.899(-4) 1.505(-5 ) 9.224(-2) 1.451(-3) 3.753(-4) 1.289(-5) 7.915(-2) 1.539(-3) 4.167(-4) 1.424(-5) ~~~ calculations using y as in Eq. (14). = p%. ‘pABis given in Eq. (5). = pDAB (see Ref. 18). ‘Present approximation; pABis given in Eq. (18). a~~~ ‘PA6 TABLE11. Potential energy contribution (in a.u.) to the interaction energy in He-He. A R 3.0 5.0 5.6 7.0 E ~ -6.579(-2) - 1.277(-3) -3.492(-4) - 1.148(-5) aSCF Calculations using b AEya BE:, AE; -8.308(-2) - 1.450(-3) -3.885(-4) - 1.629(-5) -7.576(-2) - 1.319(- 3 ) -3.453(-4) - I . 190(- 5 ) -1.291(-2) -0.334( -3) -1.136(-4) -0.929( -5) AE;‘ -7.909(-2) - 1.495(-3) -4.180(-4) - 1.984(- 5) AE;~ -7.439(-2) - 1.404(-3) -4.126(-4) -2.095( - 5) y as in Eq. (14). . pABis given in Eq. ( 5 ) . ‘pAB= (see Ref. 18). dPresent approximation; pABis given in Eq. (18). piB TABLE 111. Interaction energy (in a x . ) in He-He. R 3.0 5.0 5.6 7.0 AE~; 1.384(-2) 1.275(-4) 0.294(-4) 0.086(-5) AEga AELT 0.730(-2) -0.220(-4) 0.014(-4) -0.124(-5) 1.515(-2) 1.324(-4) 0.308(-4) 0.098(-5) A E ~ , ~ 0.825(-2) -0.490(-4) -0.376(-4) -0.600(-5) W N T C 0.953(-2) 0.615(-4) -0.060(-4) -0.471(-5) A E ~ 0.406(-2) -0.080(-4) 0.544(-4) -0.430(-5) Note: see Table I1 for footnotes. Total interaction energies are listed in Table 111. They are obtained simply adding the kinetic and potential terms that appear in Tables I and 11, respectively. From Table I11 we can see that columns four, five, and six differ among themselves and they fail around the equilibrium distance (5.6 a.u.) of the He, system, i.e., in the region of the potential well. We also note that the results of column six [derived from Eq. (18)] are similar to those of column two, i.e., the SCF calculations derived using Eq. (14). We conclude that the model developed in this paper gives ~ ~ 274 SANTAMARIA ET AL. good results for each component of the interaction energy but not good enough for the total interaction energy in the region of the potential well. V. Discussion Statistical calculations were performed for the interaction energy of a He-He system at different interatomic distances, and comparison with calculations using the 1 matrix were also carried out. From these calculations we can conclude that the supermolecular density which includes an overlap correction yields much better results than the simple superposition of atomic densities, in particular for the separate energy contributions. As remarked by Nikulin and Tsarev [ 5 ] , for the latter case the total interaction energy improves with respect to the individual terms due to a fortuitous cancellation of errors. On the other hand the generalized statistical approximation presented in this paper yields very good results for each separate component of the interaction energy. In the region of the potential well, however, the cancellation of errors is insufficient to give the correct behavior. This is indeed a very sensitive region, and even the correlation energy contribution might be important for obtaining the correct results. The definite advantage of the present method is that the use of Hartree-Fock atomic orbitals allows for better results than the direct calculations using SCF for the dimer. Bibliography [ 11 P. Claverie, in Inrermolecular Interactions: from Diatomics to Biopolymers. B. Pullman, Ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978), pp. 69-305. [2] I. G. Kaplan, Theory of Molecular Interactions (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985). [3] V. I. Gaydaenko and V. K. Nikulin, Chem. Phys. Lett. 7, 360 (1970). [4] V. K. Nikulin, Zh. Tekhn. Fiz. 41, 41 (1970). [5] V. K. Nikulin and Yu. N. Tsarev, Chem. Phys. 10, 433 (1975). [6] V. I. Gaydaenko, Zh. Tekhn. Fiz. 46, 852 (1976). [7] R. G. Gordon and Y. S. Kim, J. Chem. Phys. 56, 3122 (1972). [8] Y. S . Kim and R. G. Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 60, 1842 (1974). [9] Y. S. Kim and R. G. Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 60, 4323 (1974). [lo] Y. S. Kim and R. G. Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 60, 4332 (1974). [ I l l M. J. Clugston, Adv. Phys. 27, 893 (1978). [12] P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. B 136, 864 (1964). [13] A. I. M. Rae, Chem. Phys. Lett. 18, 574 (1973). [I41 J. S. Cohen and R. T.Pack, J. Chem. Phys. 61, 2372 (1974). [15] G. S. Handler, J. Chem. Phys. 61, 4824 (1974). [16] A. I. M. Rae, Mol. Phys. 29, 467 (1975). [I71 G. Brual, Jr. and S. M. Rothstein, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 1177 (1978). [18] W. KoXos and E. Radzio, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 13, 627 (1978). [19] G. Brual, Jr. and S. M. Rothstein, Chem. Phys. Lett. 61, 167 (1979). [20] M. Waldman and R. G. Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 71, 1325 (1979). [21] E. Radzio-Andzelm, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 20, 601 (1981). (221 P. Gombas, Die Statistische Theorie des Atoms und Ihre AnwendungeN (Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 1949). (231 M. Waldman and R. G. Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 71, 1340 (1979). [24] M. Waldman and R. G . Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 71, 1353 (1979). [25] C. Mulhausen and R. G. Gordon, Phys. Rev. B 24, 2161 (1981). [26] C. P. Wood and N. C. Pyper, Mol. Phys. 43, 1371 (1981). INTERATOMIC INTERACTIONS 275 [27] 3. Rychlewski, and R . G . Parr, J. Chem. Phys. 84, 1696 (1986). [28] L. Li and R.G. Parr, J. Chem. Phys. 84, 1704 (1986). I291 P. 0. Lowdin, Phys. Rev. 97, 1474 (1955). [30] E. R. Davidson, Reduced Density Matrices in Quantum Chemistry (Academic Press, New York, 1976). [31] M. M. Morrell, R. G. Pam, and M. Levy, J. Chem. Phys. 62, 549 (1975). [32] Y. Tal and R. F. W. Bader, Int. J. Quantum Chem., Quantum Chem. Symp. 12, 153 (1978). [33] N. H. March and R. Pucci, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 469 (1981). [34] N. H. March, Phys. Rev. A 26, 1845 (1982). [35] E. Ludefia, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 6174 (1983). [36] J . A. Alonso and L. A. Girifalco, Phys. Rev. B 17, 3735 (1978). (371 E. S. Kryachko, in Local Density Approximation in Quantum Chemistry and Solid State Physics. J . P. Dahl and J. Avery, Eds. (Plenum Press, New York, 1984), pp. 207-228; E. S. Kryachko and E. V. Ludefia, Densiry Functional Theory in QuAntUm Chemistry (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987). [38] Y . S . Kim, S . K . Kim, and W.D. Lee, Chem. Phys. Lett. SO, 574 (1981); C. Nyeland and J.P. Toennies, Chem. Phys. Lett. U7, 172 (1986). [39] E. Clementi and C. Roetti, At. Data Nuc. Data Tables 14, 177 (1974). Received May 18, 1988 Accepted for publication July 8, 1988