Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Series

Approximation — the series

13 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. Orbitals at the 90 per cent contour. Several orbitals drawn at the same enclosed fraction and, unless stated otherwise, at the same scale — so the sizes on the page are the sizes. Each contour was solved for separately by integrating that orbital's own density. Contours drawn: 1s at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 3.94e-2; 2s at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 7.40e-3; 2pz at 90% of its density, |ψ| = 9.48e-3.

    Orbitals are not where the electron is

    A many-electron atom has no exact orbitals at all. The orbital picture is a basis for an approximation — an extremely good one — and treating it as a description of reality is the source of most of the confusion in this subject.

    part 1 · wrong
  2. 4s and 3d from K to Zn. The mean radius of the 4s and 3d orbitals across the elements K to Zn, at the nuclear charge each shell actually feels. The screening is Slater's, which is fitted; the radius that follows from it is the closed form for a hydrogen-like orbital, which is not.

    The aufbau order is not a property of the atom

    Iron's 3d orbital is more than four times smaller than its 4s and, by every one-electron estimate available, far lower in energy. The 4s fills first anyway, and it empties first too — which is not a paradox but a sign that the filling order was never a list of orbital energies.

    part 2 · wrong
  3. 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.

    part 3 · wrong
  4. water, drawn with its nuclei the size they are. The molecule with a disc round each nucleus whose radius is the computed root-mean-square displacement of that nucleus in the vibrational ground state. The hydrogens' discs are a substantial fraction of the bond length, and this is at no temperature at all.

    The atoms are not at the points

    Every structure in this collection is a set of points, and every bond angle it argues about is a property of that set. Computed from the fitted force fields it already has, water's hydrogens are 0.094 Å from where they are drawn and its bond angle has a spread of 8.9 degrees — larger than the difference between 104.5 and the tetrahedral value that half the essays here are about. This is at no temperature at all.

    part 4 · shape
  5. H³⁵Cl: the well, its states and their averages. The Morse potential built from H³⁵Cl's measured vibrational constants, with the lowest four states drawn at their computed energies and the average separation of each marked. Every average lies to the right of the minimum, because the well is not symmetric — and they move outward as the state rises.

    The bond length that depends on the isotope

    Hydrogen chloride and deuterium chloride have the same potential energy curve, and their measured equilibrium lengths agree to three hundredths of a milliångström. Their average bond lengths differ by 4.34 mÅ — a hundred times more — because a lighter atom explores more of a well that is not symmetric.

    part 5 · wrong
  6. 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.

    part 6 · wrong
  7. 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.

    part 7 · wrong
  8. 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.

    part 8 · wrong
  9. 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.

    part 9 · wrong
  10. 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.

    part 10 · wrong
  11. Five candidates, five failures, five different places. Every point of the square, with each cheap diagnostic's failing pair joined by a line. The five tested candidates fail on five different pairs involving 10 different points — no line shares an end with another. Had they all failed on one corner the lines would have converged on it, and the honest conclusion would have been that composites are safe away from that corner.

    Five failures in five different places

    Seven quantities a mean field produces for nothing have been tried as diagnostics, and none of them is usable. The question left is whether that is one finding or seven — whether the same awkward corner of the square breaks every candidate, or each is broken somewhere else. Each is broken somewhere else. Five candidates, five failing pairs, ten systems, and not one of them appearing twice.

    part 11 · wrong
  12. Eighty systems, and only sixteen of them on an arm. The composite's error at every combination of repulsion and staggered site energy for a four-site ring, with the correction transferred from one reference — the point at the top left, where it is exact by construction. The area of each mark is the error. Every system the diagnostics have previously been tested on lies along the top edge or the middle column; everything else is new, and it is most of the square.

    The arms were the kindest part of the square

    Seven cheap quantities have been tried as diagnostics for when a transferred correlation correction will fail, and every one of them was tested on systems lying along one of two arms — a repulsion swept at zero site energy, or a site energy swept at one repulsion. Filling in the square makes every one of them worse, by up to a factor of twelve, so the diagonal is not a region where they might work but the region where they fail hardest. And a grid asks a question a cross cannot: whether a candidate even sorts the systems the way the error does. One of them does not.

    part 12 · wrong
  13. A ratio is not a score until the gap it was taken at is beside it. Each candidate placed by how far its nearest comparison on the other axis is — the median gap in diagnostic value — and by the worst error ratio it produces. The bottom left is where a working diagnostic sits: close comparisons and ratios near one, which is where the control sits. The two candidates the banded rule could not score at all sit far to the right, so they were blank because they separate the two families rather than because they are good.

    A blank is not a pass

    Two of the seven cheap diagnostics for a transferred correlation correction could not be scored at all, because a scoring rule that only compares systems whose diagnostic values agree to fifteen per cent finds no such pair for them. The census reported them as blanks, which is correct and reads as the best entry in the table. Dropping the band and reporting the gap beside the ratio scores both — and the two turn out to be unscoreable for opposite reasons, one because it separates the two families as a monotone function of something that already failed, and one because it is unrelated to anything.

    part 13 · wrong

All series