to index              2012.09.25 previous lecture note             LECTURE NOTE   2012.10.09           2012.10.11 next lecture note

Many-electron atoms - Hartree -  Selfconsistent Field -  SCF
We start by looking at the experimental ionization potentials.
This term is another name for the binding energy of the 'last electron', i.e. the
energy needed to ionize the atom (remove one electron).

We have seen the nature of this in the case of helium, in a sort of dramatic fashion.
To remove one electron about 29 eV are needed. To remove the remaining electron,
the hydrogen-like value, Z2 13.6 eV = 54.4 eV are needed.

The diagram shows the experimental values of  ionization potentials.  It shows increased values for
Z = 2, 10, 18, 36, 54 .......

Simple consideration will show that the binding should be (somewhat) increasing, but drop when a new
n number is started. SO the build-up principle should have "sudden falls" of the potentials for values
Z = 2, 10, 28, ......
(each n has 2n2 orbitals, as one can simply show by summing the (2 l + 1) up to (n-1) and 2 spins )

For hydrogen-like potential all these have same energy.

Why does it fail?
The atractive atomic field is simply not hydrogen-like.
We shall explain why
      1_ionization-potentials-Build-up-principle-fails.png


       1_ionization-potentials-Build-up-principle-fails.png

This is made by this matlab file binding2.m.txt
(the last model is quite complicated .... and "made up")

In the lecture we tried to explain the "drops".
Below is a little "game" using a simple quadratic increase of hydrogen-like binding
(why not realistic? - the repulsion energies are not taken into account)

In the third picture "filled shells" are included, but still no repulsion ....

(These models are not really realistic, just meant to show "the drops")

Last case is made up by trying to simulate continuously increasing "screening"
(the observed "magic numbers" are used, not the hydrogen-based)
      1.modelling.the_ionization_potentials.png

       1.modelling.the_ionization_potentials.png

Below we will address the question why does the 4s dive below 3d, or rather why is the 3d pushed above 4s.

Now we start to explain the Hartree model of Self-consistent Field ( SCF)

First - the electrons move in a potential made by the nucleus and the "cloud" of other electrons
Cloud -> Charge density

      2_electr_inter_with_cloud_of_charge.png

       2_electr_inter_with_cloud_of_charge.png

Hartree model: independent electrons, each in "its orbital". Product wave function
(we have discussed this in helium case ... )
Hartree did not know about the antisymmetry. Just used the "Pauli principle" as in "buil-up principle".

( antisymmetry will come later; Slater determinants, Hartree-Fock method )
Historical: Hartree worked on these models since about 1926; published numerical calculations
made on a mechanical calculator together with his father (Hartree and Hartree) )

      3__Hartree_model_iteration_self_consistent.png

       3__Hartree_model_iteration_self_consistent.png
Here we have shown the iteration; Chain of approximations

Repeating this chain until it produces SELF-CONSISTENCY

How do we know that it will converge?
1. Allways takes N (or rather Z) lowest energy orbitals.
2. The approach to the "real minimum" as the theorem we used in variational method
3. We must not start "too far" - so the hydrogen-like start is not really recommended
    (what could happen? Mainly "jumping" over the minimum )

The practical procedure used was to start with Z=2, use the resulting potentil as start
for Z=3, use the resulting Z=3 pot. as start for Z=4 (i.e. starting point - use the potential
to generate the orbitals.
(we have seen "jumping" in some cases, i.e. oscillation back and forth .... )

      4_Self-consistence-and modelling-the-potential.png

       4_Self-consistence-and modelling-the-potential.png
A screened model potential which should in principle model the effect of electron screening.
The over-all attractive field felt by all electrons - when they are closed to the nucleus, it is
the nuclear charge.
When far away, it only "feels" the charge one, all the other electrons screen the nuclear Z


 And here is the explanation of the s-states (and p-states) lying lower than the d-states
      5_model_potential_with_centrifug_barrier_explains_4s.png

       5_model_potential_with_centrifug_barrier_explains_4s.png

Next time - also exercise with computing - see ../2010.10.14/



to index              2012.09.25 previous lecture note             LECTURE NOTE   2012.10.09           2012.10.11 next lecture note