Molecular electronic structure in strong magnetic …folk.uio.no/helgaker/talks/Jackson_2011.pdf ·...

Molecular electronic structure in strong magnetic fields

Trygve Helgaker1, Mark Hoffmann1,2 Kai Lange1, Alessandro Soncini1,3, and Erik Tellgren1

1CTCC, Department of Chemistry, University of Oslo, Norway2Department of Chemistry, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA

3School of Chemistry, University of Melbourne, Australia

20th Conference on Current Trends in Computational Chemistry (CCTCC),Hilton Jackson Hotel and Conference Center,

Jackson, Mississippi, USA, October 27–29, 2011

Trygve Helgaker1, Mark Hoffmann1,2 Kai Lange1, Alessandro Soncini1,3, and Erik Tellgren1(CTCC, University of Oslo)Molecules in strong magnetic fields CCTCC Jackson 2011 1 / 23

Introductionperturbative vs. nonperturbative studies

I Molecular magnetism is usually studied perturbatively

I such an approach is highly successful and widely used in quantum chemistryI molecular magnetic properties are accurately described by perturbation theoryI example: 200 MHz NMR spectra of vinyllithium

0 100 200

MCSCF

0 100 200 0 100 200

B3LYP

0 100 200

0 100 200

experiment

0 100 200 0 100 200

RHF

0 100 200

I We have undertaken a nonperturbative study of molecular magnetism

I gives new insight into molecular electronic structureI describes atoms and molecules observed in astrophysics (stellar atmospheres)I provides a framework for studying the current dependence of the universal density functionalI enables evaluation of many properties by finite-difference techniques

Helgaker et al. (CTCC, University of Oslo) Molecules in strong magnetic fields CCTCC Jackson 2011 2 / 23

Introductionthe electronic Hamiltonian

I The non-relativistic electronic Hamiltonian (a.u.) in a magnetic field B along the z axis:

H = H0 + 12BLz + Bsz + 1

8B2(x2 + y2) ← linear and quadratic B terms

I H0 is the field-free operator and L and s the orbital and spin angular momentum operatorsI one atomic unit of B corresponds to 2.35× 105 T = 2.35× 109 G

I Coulomb regime: B ≈ 0 a.u.

I earth-like conditions: Coulomb interactions dominateI magnetic interactions are treated perturbativelyI earth magnetism 10−10, NMR 10−4; pulsed laboratory field 10−3 a.u.

I Intermediate regime: B ≈ 1 a.u.

I the Coulomb and magnetic interactions are equally importantI complicated behaviour resulting from an interplay of linear and quadratic termsI white dwarves: up to about 1 a.u.

I Landau regime: B � 1 a.u.

I astrophysical conditions: magnetic interactions dominateI Landau levels: harmonic-oscillator Hamiltonian with force constant B2/4I Coulomb interactions are treated perturbativelyI relativity becomes important for B ≈ α−2 ≈ 104 a.u.I neutron stars 103–104 a.u.

I We here consider the weak and intermediate regimes (B < 10 a.u.)

I For a review, see D. Lai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 629 (2001)


IntroductionLondon orbitals and size extensivity

I The non-relativistic electronic Hamiltonian in a magnetic field:

H = H0 + 12BLz + Bsz + 1


I The orbital-angular momentum operator is imaginary and gauge-origin dependent

L = −i (r −O)×∇, AO = 12

B× (r −O)

I we must optimize a complex wave function and also ensure gauge-origin invariance

I Gauge-origin invariance is ensured by using London atomic orbitals (LAOs)

ωlm(rK ,B) = exp[

12iB× (O− K) · r

]χlm(rK ) ← special integral code needed

I London orbitals are necessary to ensure size extensivity and correct dissociation

I H2 dissociation

I FCI/un-aug-cc-pVTZ

I 0 ≤ B⊥ ≤ 2.5

I diamagnetic system

I full lines: with LAOs

I dashed lines: AOs withmid-bond gauge origin


Introductionthe London program and overview

I We have developed the London code for calculations in finite magnetic fields

I complex wave functions and London atomic orbitalsI Hartree–Fock theory (RHF, UHF, GHF), FCI theory, and Kohn–Sham theoryI energy, gradients, excitation energiesI London atomic orbitals require a generalized integral code

Fn(z) =

∫ 1

0

exp(−zt2)t2ndt ← complex argument z

I C++ code written by Erik Tellgren, Kai Lange, and Alessandro SonciniI C20 is a “large” system

I Overview:

I closed-shell paramagnetic molecules: transition to diamagnetismI helium atom in strong fields: atomic distortion and electron correlationI H2 and He2 in strong magnetic fields: bonding, structure and orientationI molecular structure in strong magnetic fieldsI conclusion

I Previous work in this area:

I much work has been done on small atomsI FCI on two-electron molecules H2 and H− but without London orbitalsI Nakatsuji’s free complement methodI no general molecular code with London orbitals


Closed-shell paramagnetic moleculesmolecular diamagnetism and paramagnetism

I The Hamiltonian has paramagnetic and diamagnetic parts:

H = H0 + 12BLz + Bsz + 1


I Most closed-shell molecules are diamagneticI their energy increases in an applied magnetic fieldI induced currents oppose the field according to Lenz’s law

I Some closed-shell systems are paramagneticI their energy decreases in a magnetic fieldI relaxation of the wave function lowers the energy

I RHF calculations of the field-dependence for two closed-shell systems:

linear magnetizability are in fact positive and large enough tomake even the average magnetizability positive !paramag-netic". It is therefore interesting to verify via our finite-fieldLondon-orbital approach whether this very small system isindeed characterized by a particularly large nonlinear mag-netic response. The geometry used for the calculations is thatoptimized at the multiconfigurational SCF level in Ref. 51,corresponding to a bond length of rBH=1.2352 Å.

For the parallel components of the magnetizability andhypermagnetizability, we are able to obtain robust estimatesusing the fitting described above, leading to the values !# =!2.51 a.u. and X# =35.25 a.u., respectively, from aug-cc-pVTZ calculations. The same values are obtained both withLondon orbitals and any common-origin calculation that em-ploys a gauge origin on the line passing through the B and Hatoms since in this case, due to the cylindrical symmetry, theLondon orbitals make no difference.

For the perpendicular components, the estimates of thehypermagnetizability we obtain using the above mentionedfitting procedure are not robust, varying with the number ofdata points included in the least-squares fitting and the de-gree of the polynomial. Using 41 uniformly spaced field val-ues in the range !0.1–0.1 a.u. and a fitting polynomial oforder 16, we arrive at reasonably converged values of !!

=7.1 a.u. and X!=!8"103 a.u. for the magnetizability andhypermagnetizability, respectively, at the aug-cc-pVTZ level.In Fig. 1!c", we report a plot of the aug-cc-pVTZ energy asfunction of field !triangles". For comparison, we report inFig. 1!a" the corresponding benzene plot. As the linear re-sponse for BH is paramagnetic, the curvature of the magneticfield energy dependence is clearly reversed. More impor-tantly, whereas it is evident from Fig. 1!a" that the curve forbenzene is to a very good approximation parabolic so thatthe nonlinearities arise from small corrections that are not

a)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.10

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

b)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.10

2

4

6

8

10

12

14x 10

!3

c)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.1

!0.02

!0.018

!0.016

!0.014

!0.012

!0.01

!0.008

!0.006

!0.004

!0.002

0

d)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

!0.03

!0.02

!0.01

0

0.01

0.02

FIG. 1. Energy as a function of the magnetic field for different systems. Triangles represent results from finite-field calculations and solid lines are quarticfitting polynomials. !a" Benzene !with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis" illustrates the typical case of diamagnetic quadratic dependence in response to an out-of-planefield. !b" Cyclobutadiene !aug-cc-pVDZ" deviates from the typical case by exhibiting a nonquadratic dependence on an out-of-plane field. !c" Boronmonohydride !aug-cc-pVTZ" is an interesting case of positive magnetizability for a perpendicular field, exhibiting nonquadratic behavior. !d" Boronmono-hydride !aug-cc-pVTZ" in a larger range of perpendicular fields, exhibiting a clearly nonperturbative behavior.

154114-8 Tellgren, Soncini, and Helgaker J. Chem. Phys. 129, 154114 !2008"

Downloaded 28 Oct 2008 to 129.240.80.34. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jcp.aip.org/jcp/copyright.jsp

linear magnetizability are in fact positive and large enough tomake even the average magnetizability positive !paramag-netic". It is therefore interesting to verify via our finite-fieldLondon-orbital approach whether this very small system isindeed characterized by a particularly large nonlinear mag-netic response. The geometry used for the calculations is thatoptimized at the multiconfigurational SCF level in Ref. 51,corresponding to a bond length of rBH=1.2352 Å.

For the parallel components of the magnetizability andhypermagnetizability, we are able to obtain robust estimatesusing the fitting described above, leading to the values !# =!2.51 a.u. and X# =35.25 a.u., respectively, from aug-cc-pVTZ calculations. The same values are obtained both withLondon orbitals and any common-origin calculation that em-ploys a gauge origin on the line passing through the B and Hatoms since in this case, due to the cylindrical symmetry, theLondon orbitals make no difference.

For the perpendicular components, the estimates of thehypermagnetizability we obtain using the above mentionedfitting procedure are not robust, varying with the number ofdata points included in the least-squares fitting and the de-gree of the polynomial. Using 41 uniformly spaced field val-ues in the range !0.1–0.1 a.u. and a fitting polynomial oforder 16, we arrive at reasonably converged values of !!

=7.1 a.u. and X!=!8"103 a.u. for the magnetizability andhypermagnetizability, respectively, at the aug-cc-pVTZ level.In Fig. 1!c", we report a plot of the aug-cc-pVTZ energy asfunction of field !triangles". For comparison, we report inFig. 1!a" the corresponding benzene plot. As the linear re-sponse for BH is paramagnetic, the curvature of the magneticfield energy dependence is clearly reversed. More impor-tantly, whereas it is evident from Fig. 1!a" that the curve forbenzene is to a very good approximation parabolic so thatthe nonlinearities arise from small corrections that are not

a)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.10

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

b)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.10

2

4

6

8

10

12

14x 10

!3

c)

!0.1 !0.05 0 0.05 0.1

!0.02

!0.018

!0.016

!0.014

!0.012

!0.01

!0.008

!0.006

!0.004

!0.002

0

d)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

!0.03

!0.02

!0.01

0

0.01

0.02

FIG. 1. Energy as a function of the magnetic field for different systems. Triangles represent results from finite-field calculations and solid lines are quarticfitting polynomials. !a" Benzene !with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis" illustrates the typical case of diamagnetic quadratic dependence in response to an out-of-planefield. !b" Cyclobutadiene !aug-cc-pVDZ" deviates from the typical case by exhibiting a nonquadratic dependence on an out-of-plane field. !c" Boronmonohydride !aug-cc-pVTZ" is an interesting case of positive magnetizability for a perpendicular field, exhibiting nonquadratic behavior. !d" Boronmono-hydride !aug-cc-pVTZ" in a larger range of perpendicular fields, exhibiting a clearly nonperturbative behavior.

154114-8 Tellgren, Soncini, and Helgaker J. Chem. Phys. 129, 154114 !2008"

Downloaded 28 Oct 2008 to 129.240.80.34. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://jcp.aip.org/jcp/copyright.jsp

I left: benzene: diamagnetic dependence on an out-of-plane field, χ < 0I right: BH: paramagnetic dependence on a perpendicular field, χ > 0


Closed-shell paramagnetic moleculesdiamagnetic transition at stabilizing field strength Bc

I However, all systems become diamagnetic in sufficiently strong fields:

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

ææ

ææææææææææææææ

ææ

æææææ

ææææææææææææææ

ææ

æææææææææææ

æææ

ææ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

-0.04 -0.02 0.02 0.04

-756.710

-756.705

-756.700

-756.695

-756.690

-756.685

-756.680

I The transition occurs at a characteristic stabilizing critical field strength BcI Bc ≈ 0.01 for C20 (ring conformation) above

I Bc is inversely proportional to the area of the molecule normal to the fieldI we estimate that Bc should be observable for C72H72

I We may in principle separate such molecules by applying a field gradient


Closed-shell paramagnetic moleculesparamagnetism and double minimum explained

I Ground and (singlet) excited states of BH along the z axis

|zz〉 = |1s2B2σ2

BH2p2z |, |zx〉 = |1s2

B2σ2BH2pz2px |, |zy〉 = |1s2

B2σ2BH2pz2py |

I All expectation values increase quadratically in a perpendicular field in the y direction:⟨0∣∣H0 + 1

2BLy + 1

8B2(x2 + z2)

∣∣ 0⟩

= E0 + 18

⟨0∣∣x2 + z2

∣∣ 0⟩B2 = E0 − 1

2χ0B

2

I The |zz〉 ground state is coupled to the low-lying |zx〉 excited state by this field:⟨zz∣∣H0 + 1

2BLy + 1

8B2(x2 + z2)

∣∣ xz⟩ = 12〈zz |Ly | xz〉B 6= 0

-0.1 0.1

-0.03

0.03

0.06

0.09

-0.1 0.1

-0.03

0.03

0.06

0.09

-0.1 0.1

-0.03

0.03

0.06

0.09

-0.1 0.1

-0.03

0.03

0.06

0.09

I A paramagnetic ground-state with a double minimum is generated by strong couplingI Tellgren et al., PCCP 11, 5489 (2009)


Closed-shell paramagnetic moleculesinduced electron rotation

I The magnetic field induces a rotation of the electrons about the field direction:I the amount of rotation is the expectation value of the kinetic angular-momentum operator

〈0|Λ|0〉 = 2E ′(B), Λ = r × π, π = p + A

I Paramagnetic closed-shell molecules (here BH):

Example 2: Non-perturbative phenomena

BH properties (aug-cc-pVDZ) as function of perpendicular field:

0 0.2 0.4

!25.16

!25.15

!25.14

!25.13

!25.12

!25.11

E(B

x)

Energy

0 0.2 0.4

!0.5

0

0.5

1

Lx(B

x)

Angular momentum

0 0.2 0.4

!0.2

0

0.2

0.4

Lx /

|r !

Cnuc|

Nuclear shielding integral

BoronHydrogen

0 0.2 0.4

!0.3

!0.2

!0.1

0

0.1

!(B

x)

Orbital energies

LUMOHOMO

0 0.2 0.4

0.38

0.4

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

! gap(B

x)

HOMO!LUMO gap

0 0.2 0.40.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

"(B

x)

Singlet excitation energies

Example 2: Non-perturbative phenomena

BH properties (aug-cc-pVDZ) as function of perpendicular field:

0 0.2 0.4

!25.16

!25.15

!25.14

!25.13

!25.12

!25.11

E(B

x)Energy

0 0.2 0.4

!0.5

0

0.5

1

Lx(B

x)

Angular momentum

0 0.2 0.4

!0.2

0

0.2

0.4

Lx /

|r !

Cnuc|

Nuclear shielding integral

BoronHydrogen

0 0.2 0.4

!0.3

!0.2

!0.1

0

0.1

!(B

x)

Orbital energies

LUMOHOMO

0 0.2 0.4

0.38

0.4

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

! gap(B

x)

HOMO!LUMO gap

0 0.2 0.40.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

"(B

x)

Singlet excitation energies

I no rotation at B = 0I paramagnetic rotation against the field reduces the energy for 0 < B < BcI maximum paramagnetic rotation at the inflection point E ′′(B) = 0I no rotation and lowest energy at B = BcI diamagnetic rotation with the field increases the energy for B > Bc

I Diamagnetic closed-shell molecules:I diamagnetic rotation always increases the energy according to Lenz’s law


The helium atomtotal energy and orbital energies

I The helium energy behaves in simple manner in magnetic fields (left)

I an initial quadratic diamagnetic behaviour is followed by a linear increase in BI this is expected from the Landau levels (harmonic potential increases as B2)

I The orbital energies behave in a more complicated manner (right)

I the initial behaviour is determined by the angular momentumI beyond B ≈ 1, all energies increase with increasing fieldI HOMO–LUMO gap increases, suggesting a decreasing importance of electron correlation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 93

2

1

0

1

2

3

Field, B [au]

Ener

gy, E

[Har

tree]

Helium atom, RHF/aug cc pVTZ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102

0

2

4

6

8

10

Field, B [au]

Orb

ital e

nerg

y,

[Har

tree]

Helium atom, RHF/aug cc pVTZ


The helium atomnatural occupation numbers and electron correlation

I The FCI occupation numbers approach 2 and 0 strong fieldsI diminishing importance of dynamical correlation in magnetic fieldsI the two electrons rotate in the same direction about the field direction


The helium atomatomic size and atomic distortion

I Atoms become squeezed and distorted in magnetic fieldsI Helium 1s2 1S (left) becomes squeezed and prolateI Helium 1s2p 3P (right) is oblate in weak fields and prolate in strong fields

I transversal size proportional to 1/√B, longitudinal size proportional to 1/ log B

I Atomic distortion affects chemical bonding

I which orientation will be favored?


The H2 moleculepotential-energy curves of the 1Σ+

g (1σ2g) and 3Σ+

u (1σg1σ∗u ) states (MS = 0)

I FCI/un-aug-cc-pVTZ curves in parallel (full) and perpendicular (dashed) orientations

1 2 3 4

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 0.

1 2 3 4

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 0.75

1 2 3 4

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 1.5

1 2 3 4

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 2.25

I The energy increases diamagnetically for both states in all orientations

I The singlet–triplet separation is greatest in the parallel orientation (stronger overlap)I the singlet state favors a parallel orientation (red full line)I the triplet state favors a perpendicular orientation (blue dashed line) and becomes boundI parallel orientation studied by Schmelcher et al., PRA 61, 043411 (2000); 64, 023410 (2001)


The H2 moleculelowest singlet and triplet potential-energy surfaces E(R,Θ)

I Polar plots of the singlet (left) and triplet (right) energy E(R,Θ) at B = 1 a.u.

0°

45°

90°

135°

180°

225°

270°

315°

1

2

3

4

5

0°

45°

90°

135°

180°

225°

270°

315°

1

2

3

4

5

I Bond distance Re (pm), orientation Θe (◦), diss. energy D0, and rot. barrier ∆E0 (kJ/mol)

singlet tripletB Re θe D0 ∆E0 Re θe D0 ∆E0

0.0 74 – 459 0 ∞ – 0 01.0 66 0 594 83 136 90 12 12


The H2 moleculeZeeman splitting of the lowest triplet state

I The spin Zeeman interaction contributes BMs to the energy, splitting the tripletI lowest singlet (red) and triplet (blue) energy of H2:

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 0.

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 0.75

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 1.5

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

1.0

B = 2.25

I The ββ triplet component becomes the ground state at B ≈ 0.25 a.u.

I eventually, all triplet components will be pushed up in energy diamagnetically


The H2 moleculeevolution of lowest three triplet states

I We often observe a complicated evolution of electronic statesI a weakly bound 3Σ+

u (1σg1σ∗u ) ground state in intermediate fieldsI a covalently bound 3Πu(1σg2πu) ground state in strong fields

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8R (bohr)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5E (

Ha)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50


The H2 moleculeelectron rotation and correlation

I The field induces a rotation of the electrons 〈0|Λz |0〉 about the molecular axis

I increased rotation increases kinetic energy, raising the energyI concerted rotation reduces the chance of near encountersI natural occupation numbers indicate reduced importance of dynamical correlation


The helium dimerthe 1Σ+

g (1σ2g1σ∗u

2) singlet state

I The field-free He2 is bound by dispersion in the ground stateI our FCI/un-aug-cc-pVTZ calculations give D0 = 0.08 kJ/mol at Re = 303 pm (too short)

I In a magnetic field, He2 becomes smaller and more strongly boundI this effect is particularly strong in the perpendicular orientation (dashed lines)I for B = 2.5, D0 = 31 kJ/mol at Re = 94 pm and Θe = 90◦

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-5.5

-5.0

-4.5

-4.0

B = 0.0

B = 0.5

B = 1.0

B = 1.5

B = 2.0


The helium dimerthe 3Σ+

u (1σ2g1σ∗u 2σg) triplet state

I He2 in the covalently bound triplet state becomes further stabilized in a magnetic field

I D0 = 178 kJ/mol at Re = 104 pm at B = 0I D0 = 655 kJ/mol at Re = 80 pm at B = 2.25 (parallel orientation)I D0 = 379 kJ/mol at Re = 72 pm at B = 2.25 (perpendicular orientation)

I The molecule begins a transition to diamagnetism at B ≈ 2

0 1 2 3 4 5

-5.8

-5.6

-5.4

-5.2

-5.0

-4.8

B = 2.5

B = 1.0

B = 0.5

B = 0.0

I In strong magnetic fields, He2 has a quintet ground state


The helium dimerthe lowest singlet, triplet and quintet states

I We have considered the lowest singlet, triplet and quintet statesI in the absence of a field, only the triplet state is covalently boundI however, in sufficiently strong fields, the ground state is a bound quintet stateI at B = 2.5, it has a perpendicular minimum of D0 = 100 kJ/mol at Re = 118 pm

I Below, we have plotted singlet (left), triplet (middle) and quintet (right) statesI bound states contract with shrinking size of the atoms and become more strongly boundI non-covalently bound molecules energy minimum in perpendicular orientation

I In strong fields, anisotropic Gaussians are needed for a compact description for B � 1I without such basis sets, calculations become speculative


Molecular structureFCI calculations on the H+

3 ion

I We are investigating H+3 in a magnetic field

I Warke and Dutta, PRA 16, 1747 (1977)I equilateral triangle for B < 1; linear chain for B > 1I ground state singlet for B < 0.5; triplet for B > 0.5I the triplet state does not become bound until fields B > 1

I Potential energy curves for lowest singlet (left) and triplet (right) states

I electronic energy as function of bond distances for equilateral triangles

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5R (bohr)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

E (

Ha)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5R (bohr)

3

2

1

0

1

2

3

E (

Ha)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50


Molecular structureHartree–Fock calculations on larger molecules

I Ammonia in a field of 0.15 along the symmetry axis

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.1699.65

99.7

99.75

99.8

99.85

99.9

99.95

100

100.05

100.1

100.15

B [au]

d(N

−H

) [p

m]

NH3, HF/6−31G**

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16107.5

107.6

107.7

107.8

107.9

108

108.1

108.2

108.3

B [au]

H−

N−

H a

ngle

[deg

rees

]

NH3, HF/6−31G**

I it shrinks: bonds contract by 0.3 pmI it becomes more planar—from shrinking lone pair?

I Benzene in a field of 0.16 along two CC bonds ,I it becomes 6.1 pm narrower and 3.5 pm longer in the field directionI agrees with perturbational estimates by Caputo and Lazzeretti, IJQC 111, 772 (2011)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16138.3

138.35

138.4

138.45

138.5

138.55

138.6

138.65

138.7

138.75

B [au]

d(C

−C

) [p

m]

C6H

6, HF/6−31G*

C−C other (c)C−C || B (d)


ConclusionsSummary and outlook

I We have developed the LONDON program for molecules in magnetic field

I We have studied closed-shell paramagnetic molecules in strong fields

I all paramagnetic molecules attain a global minimum at a characteristic field BcI Bc decreases with system size and should be observable for C72H72

I We have studied He, H2 and He2 in magnetic fields

I atoms and molecules shrinkI molecules are stabilized by magnetic fieldsI preferred orientation in the field varies from system to system

I We have studied molecular structure in magnetic fields

I bond distances are typically shortened in magnetic fields

I We have not studied molecules in the Landau regime B � 1 a.u.

I all molecules become linear with singly occupied orbitals of β spin

I An important goal is to study the universal density functional in magnetic fields

F [ρ, j] = supu,A

(E [u,A]−

∫ρ(r)u(r) dr −

∫j(r) · A(r)dr

)I Support: The Norwegian Research Council and the European Research Council

I Postdoc position is available in my group

Helgaker et al. (CTCC, University of Oslo) Conclusions CCTCC Jackson 2011 23 / 23

Molecular electronic structure in strong magnetic …folk.uio.no/helgaker/talks/Jackson_2011.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Molecular electronic structure in strong magnetic …folk.uio.no/helgaker/talks/Jackson_2011.pdf ·...