Talk:Molecular Hamiltonian

Definitions

Hmm...Merge with Electronic Hamiltonian? --HappyCamper 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They describe the same things, and a merge with the Born-Oppenheimer_approximation and expandning the merged article to include parts about the vibronic and rotational Hamiltonian would make the articles much more usefull--Martin Hedegaard 22.19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, these articles on Wikipedia are a mess right now, and really need some major cleanup. Maybe in a few days we can merge? --HappyCamper 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I be happy to help to expand the resulting article and I have quite good references on the subject, but I am still a little shaky in the workings of wikipedia so a little help in this merge project would be appreciated. I my opinion the best would be to expand Electronic Hamiltonian to include the information given in Molecular Hamiltonian and the Born-Oppenheimer_approximation and expand the subject first Martin Hedegaard 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there is some information at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which you might find useful. I agree with your approach too. Is everything on this page in Electronic Hamiltonian now? If so, we can blank this page and make it into a redirect. I also see you have a sandbox set up. I can merge that with the existing electronic Hamiltonian article once its done if you like. --HappyCamper 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that the article on Electronic Hamiltonian is covering the concept of Molecular Hamiltonian very well right now, but I am working on it in my sandbox right now. When it is finished it would probably replace both Molecular Hamiltonian and Born-Oppenheimer_approximation, and add information about the rotational and vibrational Hamiltonian it just need a bit more work and a new intro part -- Martin Hedegaard 09:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Made a big rework on the article in my sandbox that should cover most of the Molecular Hamiltonian, and Electronic Hamiltonian and Molecular Hamiltonian should probably be merged under the name of Molecular Hamiltonian. The article Born-Oppenheimer_approximation should probably go there too, but at proper explanation of the concept involves description of the splitting of the wavefunction, and the crude born oppenheimer approximation Martin Hedegaard 11:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that :-) In that case, we can simply move the sandbox contents over to the main article. Don't cut and paste it though, because it's important that we keep the edit histories which accompany the articles. --HappyCamper 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like a breif review of the sandbox before moving it, I am not a native english speaker, and its a long time since I wrote anything english. If its okay just go ahead and move the content. The Electronic Hamiltonian should just be a redirect to this page, the new article covers exactly the same things as the old article-- Martin Hedegaard 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well here is the result after some swapping around. If it turns out this is problematic, we can fix it. --HappyCamper 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Born-Oppenheimer

I would like to separate off the BO lemma again. I have seen the criticisms, especially by the anonymous from the University of Stockholm (130.237.179.166). I understand what (s)he is saying and I can write an article that will not offend him/her too much. Anybody has any objections? --P.wormer 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, feel free to edit as you see fit. --HappyCamper 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unusual notation

The notation used in this article:

${\frac {\partial }{\partial R_{i}}}$

is unusual for differentiation with respect to a vector. More common is either $\nabla _{i}$ or introduction of components

${\frac {\partial }{\partial R_{i\alpha }}}$

with $\alpha =x,y,z$. Is this notation on purpose, or just by mistake?--P.wormer 10:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that kind of notation before, but I think that we should go with the $\nabla$ notation because its more consistent with the rest of the article, and maybe give a link to a page like Nabla_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates. The part you are reffering to is one of the last parts of the orginal article thats why the notation is inconsistent, anyway its because of any special reason. Martin Hedegaard 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I was not very satisfied with this lemma, so I give it a new try. I started today, but will continue.

Question: why is the article by Handy et al. included in the reference list? In my view it is just one of the many research papers written about different terms in the Hamiltonian. This one is about a specific computational method for the BO diagonal correction and continues similar work by others, e.g. by David Yarkoni. Several of the review papers by Brian Sutcliffe would be more appropriate for the reference list, I would think.--P.wormer 14:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Its there because it was a part of the old aticles, when I rewrote it the first time and I just let i be, if you have better references or some good review papers then go ahead and fill it in. I actually thought the same thing about the paper from Handy et al., but it was not wrong as far as i could see, and referes to the last part of the article, that I dident write.

If you have any specific references in mind, please post them so we can find the best possible references for this lemma. Martin Hedegaard 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many bold letters?

I wonder if it would be better to replace our bold letters with vector notation instead? The presentation comes across as a bit heavy, I think. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean with arrows on top? I heard that an SI committee advised sans serif letters for matrices and vectors, would that be an idea? --P.wormer 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, really? That's news to me. Okay, we'll not use the arrows and keep what we have already. --HappyCamper 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Finished overhaul

Basically I finished the overhaul of the article. I thought I knew this stuff, but writing it I'm amazed how many holes there are in this theory. So I had to skim along WP:NOR. See also Talk:GF_method. I commented out the last part of the original text, so if somebody feels that (some of) it must be restituted, please uncomment it. --P.wormer 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by skimming along WP:NOR? --HappyCamper 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, some sentences reasonings are not copied straight from a book, but thought up by me and I hope I didn't make mistakes. I'm still thinking and reading. --P.wormer 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we need something like the introduction in H. Köppel, W. Domcke, and L. Cederbaum, Multimode Molecular Dynamics Beyond the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation, Adv. Chem. Phys., vol. 57, 1984. I don't have this with me right now, but I vaguely remember there is a nice concise way of summarizing things there. --HappyCamper 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)