Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Hubbard model — where it appears

A lattice of orbitals with a hopping between neighbours and a cost for two electrons on one site. It is the smallest model in which repulsion does anything, and small instances of it can be solved exactly rather than approximately.

Named by 37 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A coupling that is second order in the hopping. The singlet–triplet splitting of a two-site Hubbard model, and the same quantity multiplied by U. The product settles on −4t² — -4 at U = 64 — which is what makes the coupling a second-order effect rather than a term somebody put in.

What couples two spins

Two magnetic ions a few ångströms apart interact far too strongly to be doing it magnetically — the dipole–dipole energy is about 0.06 wavenumbers and the measured couplings run to hundreds. What couples them is hopping, which the Pauli principle allows for antiparallel spins and forbids for parallel ones, and the exact answer is −4t²/U.

applied · Magnetism How often two electrons are in the same place. Double occupancy per site in the exact ground state of a chain of 4, against the repulsion. It starts at the independent-electron quarter and falls to nearly nothing. The second curve is how the neighbouring spins line up in the same wavefunction, which is already -0.0750 at no repulsion at all — that part is exchange — and deepens as the electrons are kept apart.

The hole that is not repulsion

Two electrons in a bond keep out of each other's way, and the obvious reason is that they repel. Setting the repulsion to zero and computing the spin correlation exactly gives −0.125 rather than nothing, and the number is reproduced to nine decimal places by a determinant with no repulsion in it at all.

beyond · Correlation Two sites, two electrons, every level exactly. The four states of a two-site Hubbard model against the on-site repulsion, in units of the hopping. The left-hand edge is the one-electron answer — -2t — and the dashed line is the lowest state with the spins parallel, which cannot hop at all and so does not move with U.

The smallest many-electron calculation

A Hückel energy comes from a model with one electron in it. Add a single term — a cost for two electrons on the same site — and the problem stops being a matrix of size n and becomes a matrix over configurations. Four sites give thirty-six of them, which is small enough to solve exactly, and the answers correct two things the one-electron model got wrong.

bonding · Correlation How often two electrons are in the same place. Double occupancy per site in the exact ground state of a chain of 2, against the repulsion. It starts at the independent-electron quarter and falls to nearly nothing. The second curve is what the state actually pays in repulsion, which peaks and then falls because the electrons have stopped meeting.

Where molecular orbital theory dissociates

The molecular orbital description of a two-electron bond puts both electrons on the same atom half the time — at every bond length, including infinite. The exact answer falls from a half to 0.0039 as the atoms separate, and the point where the two standard models are equally wrong is exactly U = 4t.

bonding · Models A gap where band theory says there cannot be one. The exact charge gap of a half-filled four-site ring against the on-site repulsion, with the one-electron gap of the same ring beneath it. The one-electron answer is zero at every U — the ring's half-filled shell is degenerate — while the exact gap reaches 5.99t.

The insulator band theory cannot see

A half-filled ring of four sites has a degenerate shell and no gap at all in the one-electron picture, which is the definition of a metal at that size. Its exact charge gap is zero when the electrons do not repel and grows without limit when they do — so a material can have a half-filled band and not conduct, and here is the number.

solids · Metal How far the ground state is from being one determinant. The occupations of the two natural orbitals of the Hubbard dimer against the repulsion. At zero they are two and nothing, which is a single determinant exactly. As the repulsion grows they converge on one and one, which is a state no single determinant has — the failure is in the description rather than in the number. The entropy of the occupations rises to ln 2, one bit: the two determinants of the singlet.

Two kinds of correlation, and only one is small

Correlation energy is defined as a subtraction, and the definition hides that the thing subtracted is not one thing. In the two-site model the local power of the correlation energy in the interaction falls from two to one — and at every interaction strength it equals, exactly, the occupation of the bonding natural orbital.

beyond · Correlation The valence-bond and molecular-orbital directions in one plane. The valence-bond function and the molecular-orbital function as two directions, at the angle their overlap requires — 45.0°, since they overlap by 0.7071. The exact ground state lies in the plane they span at every repulsion, to twelve decimal places, and swings from one to the other as the repulsion grows without ever arriving. Neither picture is a special case of the other and the answer is not either of them.

Two pictures, one plane

Molecular orbital theory and valence bond theory are taught as rival descriptions of a two-electron bond. In a model small enough to solve exactly they are two vectors in a two-dimensional space, the exact answer lies in the plane they span at every repulsion, and it is neither of them at any repulsion but two.

bonding · Models The energy is the last thing a wrong wavefunction gets wrong. Two errors against the error in the wavefunction, on log axes, for a chain of 2 at U = 4t. The energy's line has slope 2.00 and the double occupancy's has slope 1.01: the first is second order in the error and the second is first order. So the two lines diverge as the wavefunction improves, and the energy stops being evidence about anything else long before it stops improving.

A better energy is not a better answer

The variational principle makes the energy a one-way test: lower is closer. It also makes the energy the least sensitive thing a wavefunction gets wrong — second order in the error where every other property is first — so the two diverge without limit as a calculation improves.

wrong · Approximation The same dimer, one, twice and three times over. Independent Hubbard dimers with nothing between them, solved exactly and solved in a space with the configurations that make more than one of them ionic thrown away. The exact energy is exactly additive; the truncated one is exact for a single dimer, because there is nothing there to throw away, and falls behind by 0.193 for two and 0.485 for three. The error per dimer grows, which is what makes a method size-inconsistent rather than merely approximate.

A method that is not additive

Put a molecule next to a copy of itself, far enough away that they do not interact, and the exact energy doubles exactly. A truncated calculation does not — because the truncation forbids both halves being excited at once, which is something the pair can do and neither half can.

bonding · Correlation Three answers to one question. The energy to remove an electron from a half-filled four-site system, computed three ways against the repulsion: exactly, by solving a self-consistent field twice — once for the molecule and once for the ion — and by reading the highest occupied orbital energy straight off the molecule, which is Koopmans' theorem. All three agree exactly at zero repulsion. The theorem always sits above the two-calculation answer, because letting the ion relax can only lower it; the exact answer sits above both, because the molecule is more correlated than its ion. The two errors have opposite signs and do not cancel: the residue grows to 6.03.

Koopmans' theorem is exact for nothing

Reading an ionisation energy off an orbital energy neglects two things that pull in opposite directions, and the cancellation between them is quoted as the reason it works. Compute all three energies in a model where the exact answer is available and the cancellation is real, partial, and gone by the time the repulsion is twice the hopping.

wrong · Photoelectron Two is the ordinary answer, and one is a different kind of correlation. The local exponent of the correlation energy in the repulsion, against the repulsion, for three systems at half filling. The two closed-shell systems tend to two as the repulsion vanishes, which is ordinary perturbation theory. The ring of four tends to one, at repulsions fifty times smaller than the hopping.

A third kind of correlation

The two-site model gave an exact identity — the power of the correlation energy in the repulsion equals the occupation of the bonding natural orbital — and asked whether anything like it survives with more orbitals. It does not, and the way it fails is better than the identity was: a ring of four gives a power of one where every closed-shell system gives two, at repulsions fifty times weaker than the hopping, because its reference was never a single state.

beyond · Correlation The same difference, at five repulsions. The charge transferred to the more electronegative of two atoms against the difference in their orbital energies, at five strengths of the repulsion between the two electrons. Only the topmost curve is the two-level result; every other one moves far less charge at the same difference.

A difference does not make a transfer

Every electronegativity scale reports one thing: how far apart two atoms are in their appetite for electrons. Put that difference into a model with repulsion in it and the charge it actually moves is not determined at all — the same difference of one moves 0.447 of an electron with no repulsion and 0.0019 with a strong one, a factor of two hundred and forty-two, and nothing on any scale distinguishes the two cases.

bonding · Electronegativity The error, against the repulsion it is an error about. The energy a mean field misses, for two electron counts on 4 sites, against the strength of the repulsion. Each is a straight line at large repulsion and the dashed line through it is not a fit: its slope is the count of coincidences a uniform density forces, computed from the electron number and the site number alone.

A mean field cannot get out of the way

The energy a mean field misses grows without limit as the repulsion rises — 27.82 at U = 32 for four electrons on four sites, against an exact energy of −0.2946, so the error is ninety-four times the answer. The rate it grows at is not an energy at all: it is n²/4N, a count of the coincidences a spread-out density cannot avoid.

beyond · Correlation One exact state, two correlation energies. The energy each of two mean fields misses, against the repulsion, for one system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below U = 2 the unrestricted search returns the restricted answer and the two definitions agree to the last bit. Above it they part: at U = 32 the restricted reference reports -27.82 and the unrestricted one -0.11, a factor of 259.43, and one is growing while the other falls.

The reference decides the correlation

The correlation energy of one exact state, measured against two references that are both called Hartree–Fock, is −27.82 and −0.107 at the same repulsion — a factor of 259, on a system whose exact energy is a single smooth curve. Below the instability at U = 2 the two agree to the last bit; above it one grows without limit while the other falls, and the reference that reports almost no correlation has ⟨S²⟩ = 1.99 where a singlet is zero.

beyond · Correlation Nearly all of the error cancels, and the answer gets worse. For each repulsion: the error a spin-paired mean field makes in the total energy of one four-site system and of two two-site ones with the same number of electrons, and the error left in the difference between them. The cancellation improves from 83 to 97 per cent along the axis. The residue as a share of the quantity being computed goes the other way, from 1 to 423 per cent, because the reaction energy shrinks faster than what survives.

Two wrong numbers and a right difference

A mean field gets the total energy of a four-site system wrong by 12.11 and of two two-site systems wrong by 12.49, and 96.9 per cent of that error cancels out of the difference between them. The residue is 0.38 — and the reaction energy it is a residue of is 0.09, so the cancellation improves and the answer gets worse at the same time. Change the pair being compared to a singlet and a triplet and nothing cancels at all: the sign goes.

wrong · Approximation Three lines, then a hundred. The exact removal spectrum of a 6-site Hubbard ring at half filling: every final state of the ion, at the energy it costs to reach and with the intensity the matrix element gives it. With no repulsion there are 3 lines and they are the occupied orbital energies. At U = 8 there are 100, on a molecule with 6 orbitals — so the spectrum cannot be read as a list of orbital energies, because there are more bands in it than there are orbitals to name.

More bands than there are orbitals

A photoelectron spectrum is read as a list of orbital energies, one band per occupied orbital. Computed exactly for a six-orbital ring, it has three bands with no repulsion and a hundred with eight — and by then fifty-three per cent of the intensity is in lines that no orbital corresponds to. The total intensity is three at every repulsion, exactly, because that is a sum rule and not a fit.

spectra · Photoelectron A correction that stops belonging to the system it is added to. The exact ground state of a four-site Hubbard ring, the unrestricted mean field's, and the composite: the mean field plus the correlation correction computed on the symmetric molecule. At ε = 0 the two systems are the same one and the composite is exact. As the sites are made unlike, the transferred correction stops being the right one — the exact correlation energy shrinks towards nothing while the transferred number does not — and the last rows are the recipe adding a correction almost as large as the error it is meant to remove.

The correction that was computed somewhere else

Every composite method rests on one assumption: that an expensive correction computed on a small case can be added to a cheap calculation on a large one. Tested on four sites where both answers are exact, it removes 99.74 per cent of the cheap method's error near the reference and −1450 per cent of it further away — at which point the recipe is fifteen times as wrong as the calculation it was improving.

wrong · Approximation The test that works until it does not. How many times stronger the weakest fundamental is than the strongest satellite, against the repulsion, on a half-filled ring of six. It starts at 23.8 and falls to 1.15 — a spectrum whose tallest satellite is as tall as its shortest band. The marked repulsion is where the other test fails as well: satellites start appearing inside the range the fundamentals span, so neither height nor position sorts the spectrum.

A hundred lines and no way to sort them

A spectrum with a hundred lines has six fundamentals in it somewhere. Sorting by height works until the tallest satellite is as tall as the shortest band, and sorting by position works until satellites start arriving between the bands — and on a ring of six both stop working at the same repulsion.

spectra · Photoelectron Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything. The opposite-spin pair distribution of a half-filled ring of 6 at six repulsions, by separation, each divided by what uncorrelated electrons of the same density would give. At no repulsion it is one everywhere; at a repulsion of 16 the chance of finding two electrons on one site is 0.0430 of that, and what is missing has turned up next door. Nothing here is a difference between two calculations.

Where the electrons are, without subtracting anything

A correlation energy is an exact energy less a mean-field one, so the answer depends on which mean field was picked — by a factor of 259. The pair distribution says the same thing with no subtraction in it, and two systems matched to the same correlation energy turn out to have electrons in visibly different places.

beyond · Correlation A cheap number that predicts an expensive failure. Thirty-two systems. Along the bottom, how far the mean field's own symmetry breaking has moved between the reference and the target — a quantity available before any exact calculation. Up the side, how wrong the transferred correction turns out to be. They rank together at 0.902, and the open marks are the systems whose broken solution has collapsed entirely, which is where the diagnostic stops being a scale and becomes a warning.

The warning a cheap calculation gives

A correlation correction computed on one system and carried to another works until it does not, and nothing in the scheme says in advance which. The mean field's own symmetry breaking says: it collapses at a definite field, and the transfer fails where it goes. Across thirty-two systems the two rank together at 0.90.

wrong · Approximation The same hole, priced three ways. The correlation hole of a ring of 6 at a repulsion of 8, weighted by three interactions. With an on-site interaction the answer is 100 per cent at separation zero — as an identity, since the interaction is zero everywhere else. With one that reaches a neighbour, the enhancement at separation one costs rather than pays, and gives back 44.0 per cent of the on-site saving; with a Coulomb tail, 46.9. Everything beyond one neighbour is worth under a twentieth of the on-site term.

Half of it is given back at one bond

The correlation hole of a ring removes 1.2653 pairs from zero separation and puts 1.1126 of them one site away. With an on-site repulsion that second number costs nothing, because the interaction is zero there — but with anything that reaches a neighbour it costs 44 per cent of what the hole saved, and with a Coulomb tail 46.9.

beyond · Correlation The boundary belongs to the gap, not to the repulsion. The repulsion at which a satellite stops being tellable from a fundamental by intensity, against the system's own one-electron gap. Four systems: ring of 6, gap 2.000, boundary 8; chain of 4, gap 1.236, boundary 4; chain of 6, gap 0.890, boundary 2; ring of 4, gap 0.000, boundary 0.25. The three with a gap order exactly with it, and the ring of four — whose half-filled ground state is degenerate and whose gap is zero — has no boundary at all: its contrast is one at every repulsion, so its satellites are never distinguishable and there is nothing for a boundary to separate.

The boundary belongs to the gap

A satellite stops being tellable from a fundamental somewhere, and it can be located on one ring at one filling. Four systems put it at repulsions of 2, 4 and 8 — ordering exactly with each one's own one-electron gap and not with its band width — and the fourth, whose gap is zero, has no boundary at all: its satellites are indistinguishable at every repulsion including none.

spectra · Photoelectron A ring of 6 as the neighbour repulsion is turned up. At an on-site repulsion of 8, three quantities against the nearest-neighbour repulsion: the alternating structure factor, the double occupancy, and the nearest-neighbour opposite-spin pair distribution. The rise is steepest at V = 4.5, which is 0.563 times the on-site repulsion. Far past it the ring is charge ordered — nearly every electron paired on alternate sites, which is what a double occupancy approaching a half means.

The give-back that turned into a saving

Take a wavefunction optimised for an on-site repulsion, weight its correlation hole with an interaction that reaches one neighbour, and the enhancement at one bond gives back forty-four per cent of the on-site saving. Putting that neighbour term into the Hamiltonian and solving exactly does not shrink the give-back. It reverses its sign.

beyond · Correlation The contrast, out to a repulsion of sixteen thousand. The ratio of the weakest fundamental to the strongest satellite, against the on-site repulsion, for eight systems with two electrons each. Both axes logarithmic. The dashed line at two is the factor the intensity test needs. Every curve flattens above it and none of them crosses, at any repulsion — including a repulsion sixteen thousand times the hopping.

A contrast with a closed form

Below half filling the satellite test flattens instead of failing, and the value it flattens at could be above or below the factor of two the test needs. It is — on all eight systems, by between 1.25 and 3.7 times. And on a ring the limit is (1 + 2cos(π/n))², to six figures, on every ring tried.

spectra · Photoelectron How much stronger a fundamental is than a satellite, against the repulsion. The weakest fundamental divided by the strongest satellite, for a six-site ring and chain at every filling from a third to a half, against the on-site repulsion. Below the line at two the two kinds of line cannot be told apart by their height. The half-filled systems cross it and the third-filled ones do not — not at any repulsion up to sixty-four times the hopping, where the third-filled ring is still at 8.3.

A satellite that never loses its place

The repulsion at which a satellite stops being tellable from a fundamental orders exactly with the one-electron gap across four systems. Changing the gap by the filling instead is the sharper test, and the ordering does not survive it: a six-site chain has a larger gap at half filling and a smaller boundary. Below half filling there is no boundary at all, at any repulsion up to sixty-four times the hopping.

wrong · Photoelectron Where the broken solution appears. The mean field's spin polarisation against the on-site repulsion, at half filling and no site-energy modulation, for three systems. Two of them are symmetric below a threshold and polarised above it — 1.672 for a chain of four and 2.355 for a ring of six. The third is polarised at every repulsion tested, because its half-filled shell is degenerate and the symmetric solution is unstable however small the repulsion is.

The half of the square a ring of four cannot show

There is a warning that says in advance whether a transferred correction will hold: the mean field's own symmetry breaking, which collapses at a definite site-energy modulation and takes the transfer with it. The other axis of the same square has a threshold too — on the other side — and the ring of four it was all measured on is the one system with no threshold to find.

wrong · Approximation One sign change is a root and the other is not. The solved give-back against the neighbour repulsion on a ring of 6 at U = 8. It crosses zero at V = 3.895, where the price of everything beyond contact really is nothing, and changes sign again at V = 4.159, where the quantity it is a fraction of has vanished instead. The curve is broken at the second because it is an asymptote and not a crossing; four of the 12 points fall outside the band drawn here.

A sign change is not always a zero

The solved give-back changes sign somewhere between a neighbour repulsion of two and one of four, and a bisection looks like the way to find the value where the structure beyond contact contributes exactly nothing. It changes sign twice. One crossing is that value; at the other the quantity the fraction is a fraction of has vanished instead, and a bisection reports the two in identical words.

beyond · Correlation The contrast at three fillings, and the floor two of them reach. The intensity contrast on a ring of 6 against the on-site repulsion, at three fillings. At two electrons it settles on a number well above the factor of two the test needs. At half filling it falls through two and lands on exactly one from U = 64 upward — and every point where it reads exactly one is a point where the cut between fundamental and satellite falls between two lines of identical weight. Those are drawn hollow.

A ratio of exactly one is a tie

Does the intensity contrast fall below two at half filling? It does — it falls to exactly one. But one is the floor of a ratio between two ranked quantities, and it is reached here because the cut between fundamental and satellite lands between two lines of identical weight. The guard installed to catch that case tests the wrong degeneracy, and the guard installed to license the extrapolation cannot tell an exact answer from a divergent one.

spectra · Photoelectron The same three fillings, on a ring and on a chain. The intensity contrast against the on-site repulsion at two, four and six electrons, for both geometries. Two of the ring's three curves flatten onto exactly one and stay there — the hollow marks, where the rank cut falls between two degenerate lines. The chain's corresponding curve approaches the same value from above without reaching it, because a chain of six has no exactly degenerate removal lines at any repulsion at all.

The number the tie got right

On a ring of six the contrast at half filling comes out exactly one, and the one is an artefact — the rank cut had landed between two lines of identical weight, so the ratio was a quantity divided by itself. The chain of six has no such pair anywhere, at any repulsion, at any filling. Its contrast at half filling converges to one anyway.

spectra · Photoelectron The second number is the first one, rearranged. The composite's error against the change in the correlation energy, at every point on both axes of the square. They lie on the diagonal because they are the same quantity: the composite is the target's mean field plus the reference's correlation energy, so its error is the reference's correlation energy minus the target's. The largest departure across 20 points is 2.2e-16, which is the arithmetic's own precision and not a measurement.

The second number is the error, rearranged

A cheap diagnostic for a composite method leaves a scatter it cannot explain, and the number that ought to close it is the change in the correlation energy, already computed at every point, so the test is arithmetic rather than a calculation. It is arithmetic, and the arithmetic is the answer. The composite's error is that change with a sign on it.

wrong · Approximation Six removal lines, each smooth, and the contrast is whichever two sit at the cut. The weight of each of the six strongest removal lines of the half-filled chain of six, followed from U = 16 upward by continuity in energy and labelled by the energy it tends to. Every line is monotone from U = 19. The contrast is the third strongest over the fourth, so it changes whenever two lines exchange those ranks: at U = 28.92 the line tending to +0.45 overtakes the one tending to −1.80 and the two weights are equal, and at U = 157 the fourth and fifth exchange. Lines at ±E, drawn in one colour, converge to one weight.

The limit of one is a parity

A half-filled chain of six has no degenerate removal lines, and its intensity contrast still goes to one — after dipping near U = 32 and rising again to U = 128. Followed line by line, every removal line is smooth and monotone; the dip is an exact tie between two lines at U = 28.916, and the rise ends where two satellites change places. At large repulsion the lines pair up at ±E with equal weights, so the contrast goes to one exactly when the cut falls inside a pair. On a chain of four it does not, and the limit is 1.3125.

wrong · Photoelectron Two contributions of opposite sign, and where they cancel. The two terms of the give-back's numerator on a six-site ring, with the interaction reaching two bonds at half the strength of one. The first term is what the correlation hole returns at one bond and the second is what it costs at two — and they have opposite signs, because penalising pairs at two bonds depletes them where a one-bond interaction enhanced them. The numerator vanishes where the two are equal and opposite, which is not where either is zero.

A cancellation between two separations

The give-back's numerator has one term in it, so its root is the repulsion at which the pair count at one bond returns to its free value. Let the interaction reach two bonds and the numerator has two terms with opposite signs, and its root becomes a cancellation between an enhancement at one separation and a depletion at the next — at a repulsion where neither is at its free value. Which side of the old zero the new root falls on reverses between a reach of a third and a half, because whether two bonds are enhanced or depleted is the interaction's own doing.

bonding · Correlation The chain of four's strongest line is a hole's standing wave read against the singlet's ends. For the half-filled chain of four at infinite repulsion, each removal line's weight is a sum over the four sites of two factors. The first is the hole's standing wave squared on each site: the inner levels at ±0.62 put more of the hole on the end sites, the outer levels at ±1.62 more on the middle ones. The second belongs to the spin chain alone: removing an up electron at an end site leaves the stronger spin doublet with weight (2 + √3)/8 = 0.4665, at a middle site 1/4. Their sums are 0.4067 and 0.3098, which are 1/4 + √3/16 ± √15/80, and the limit of the contrast is their ratio, 1.312498.

The limit was two chains at once

At infinite repulsion every removal line of a half-filled chain is a hole's standing wave read against the spin chain the hole moves through, and every hole level carries exactly half an electron. On the chain of four that makes the contrast's limit (20 + 5√3 + √15)/(20 + 5√3 − √15) = 1.3124978 — not 21/16, which it misses in the sixth figure. On chains of eight and twelve, which no exact spectrum had reached, the limit is 1.0458 and 1.0195, and an energy that vanishes in the limit decides it.

wrong · Photoelectron Repulsion puts negative spin on the middle orbital. The spin on the middle orbital of the symmetric three-orbital radical against the on-site repulsion, solved exactly. With no repulsion it is zero: the singly occupied orbital has a node there, and one determinant cannot put negative spin anywhere. With repulsion it is negative at once, and it reaches −0.20 at 8 eV. The shaded band is the allyl radical's central carbon, from its measured proton hyperfine coupling of +4.06 gauss read through McConnell's relation — which the trio meets at a repulsion between 5.5 and 6.9 eV.

Spin below zero

A three-orbital radical read from its singly occupied orbital has no spin on its middle orbital unless its ends are both unequal and coupled — and never negative spin anywhere. Solved exactly with an on-site repulsion, the middle orbital goes negative at once, reaches the allyl radical's measured −0.15 to −0.18 at a repulsion of five and a half to seven electronvolts, and responds to the end–end coupling at first order where the one-determinant leak responds at second. The two have opposite signs, so in a bent, unequal radical the middle orbital's spin falls and then rises, and the unequal ends that let the leak in drain most of the polarisation first.

bonding · Overlap The on-site repulsion allyl needs rises with the neighbour's. The on-site repulsion U at which the three-orbital radical's middle spin matches the allyl radical's, against the repulsion V₁ between each end and the middle, with the end–end repulsion in its Mataga–Nishimoto proportion. The band is the range McConnell's Q allows and the line the value the coupling ratio fixes without Q. With no neighbour repulsion U is 6.1 eV; it rises about nine tenths of an electronvolt for each one of V₁. Where V₁ is the Mataga–Nishimoto value computed from U itself, U is 10.89 eV — against Pariser's valence-state 11.13 for carbon. Ohno's formula overshoots, to 13.8.

Six electronvolts was a difference

A three-orbital radical solved with an on-site repulsion reproduced the allyl radical's negative central spin at a repulsion of about six electronvolts — six tenths of what a carbon atom's own charges cost. Add the repulsion between neighbouring sites and the repulsion allyl needs rises almost one for one with it. With the neighbour values π-electron theory uses, it lands within a quarter of an electronvolt of Pariser's 11.13 for carbon. And the band McConnell's constant left can be closed without that constant at all.

bonding · Overlap The repulsion allyl needs follows the energy the hopping is built from. With carbon's own 2pπ overlaps at allyl's geometry, the on-site repulsion that reproduces allyl's central spin of −0.164 against the magnitude of the orbital energy the Wolfsberg–Helmholz rule multiplies, for neighbour repulsions from Mataga–Nishimoto and from Ohno. At carbon's −11.4 eV they give 9.49 and 12.68 eV, either side of Pariser's 11.13; Mataga–Nishimoto reaches 11.13 only at -14.4 eV, near hydrogen's −13.6 that the trio used.

The agreement was hydrogen's energy

A three-orbital radical solved exactly with on-site and neighbour repulsion reproduced the allyl radical's central spin at an on-site repulsion of 10.89 eV, a quarter of an electronvolt from Pariser's 11.13 for carbon. Its hopping, 2.91 eV, was never allyl's: it came from a round overlap of 0.25 and hydrogen's energy of −13.6 eV. Computed from carbon, the overlap barely changes — carbon's own 2pπ overlap at 1.39 Å is 0.248 — but the energy does, and with carbon's −11.4 eV the hopping is 2.34 eV, Pariser and Parr's own β. Then the repulsion allyl needs is 9.49 eV with one standard form of the neighbour terms and 12.68 with the other. Pariser's value sits between them, not on either.

bonding · Overlap Three terms in the numerator, and one place they cancel. The three contributions to the give-back's numerator on a six-site ring whose interaction falls as one over the distance round the ring — a half at two bonds, a third at the antipode — with their sum. The sum crosses zero once, at V = 5.9198, where the one-bond and antipodal terms are negative and the two-bond term positive: the two-bond enhancement is paying for depletions on either side of it.

A root that moves when nothing else does

Give the ring of six an interaction that falls off as one over the distance and the give-back's numerator has three terms. It still has one root, and at that root every separation's pair change has the opposite sign from the two-bond case. But the root has a weakness the earlier essays never tested: lower the interaction by the same amount at every separation and not one state changes, while the root moves — by as much as the reach of the interaction did, and out of existence altogether if the zero is put at one bond.

bonding · Correlation

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Exact diagonalisationElectron correlationOn-site repulsionMany-electron wavefunctionsModel limitCorrelation energyDouble occupancyReference stateDegeneracyHartree–FockPhotoelectron spectroscopySymmetry breaking

All concepts