1 / 44

Well Defined and Accurate Semiclassical Surface Hopping Propagators and Wave Functions

Michael F. Herman Department of Chemistry Tulane University New Orleans, LA USA. Well Defined and Accurate Semiclassical Surface Hopping Propagators and Wave Functions. IMA Workshop January 16, 2009. OUTLINE. Background Formal analysis of a surface hopping expansion

keola
Télécharger la présentation

Well Defined and Accurate Semiclassical Surface Hopping Propagators and Wave Functions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michael F. Herman Department of Chemistry Tulane University New Orleans, LA USA Well Defined and Accurate Semiclassical Surface Hopping Propagators and Wave Functions IMA Workshop January 16, 2009

  2. OUTLINE • Background • Formal analysis of a surface hopping expansion • Improved efficiency, reduced statistical error • 4. Forbidden transitions

  3. Types of Problems of Interest • Photodissociation • Collisions involving change in electronic state • Nonadiabatic transitions in liquid phase

  4. Initial wave function is a localized wave packet

  5. H-K Propagator

  6. Absorption spectra for the collinear photodissociation of carbon dioxide. The solid line shows the quantum result and the dashed line the HK-IVR

  7. Comparison of adiabatic and diabatic potentials R

  8. Can cancel nonadiabatic terms in the Schrodinger equation by adding trajectories that hop between states. Single hop terms:

  9. An (inelegant) Analysis of a Semiclassical Surface Hopping Expansion for the Multi-Surface Wave Function (or Propagator). Surface hopping: Trajectories can abruptly hop from one Vk( R) to another, where Vk( R) is the BO energy for electronic state φk. Restrict analysis here to 1-dim, 2 state case for simplicity. Same analysis has been performed for general case with any number of states and any number of degrees of freedom. Conclusion: The surface hopping expansion formally satisfies the Schrodinger equation. Because of singularities in semiclassical prefactor, generally not convergent at all points.

  10. ηij = < φi | 𝜵Rφj >r = nonadiabatic coupling vector < f | g >r = ∫ f * g dr < φi | φj >r = 𝜹ij 𝜵R< φi | φj >r = < 𝜵R φi | φj >r + < φi | 𝜵R φj >r = ηji + ηij = 0 Assume the φi are real. Then, ηji = - ηij and ηii = 0.

  11. In numerical calculations: Ignore momentum changes without hop. Use only T-type hops in allowed regions.

  12. Comparison of adiabatic and diabatic potentials R

  13. Comparison of quantum and semiclassical transition probabilities for E > Ec E PQ PS1(x > xt1) PS2(x > xt2) 0.38 0.618 0.440 0.576 0.40 0.951 0.819 0.918 0.45 0.142 0.179 0.143 0.50 0.835 0.761 0.838 0.60 0.543 0.508 0.544 0.75 0.356 0.348 0.356 0.90 0.118 0.120 0.118 1.20 1.87x10-2 1.77x10-2 1.86x10-2 1.40 0.184 0.182 0.184

  14. CONCLUSIONS • Surface Hopping Expansion Formally Satisfies SE. In General Not Convergent at All Points. • The Surface Hopping Semiclassical IVR Methods are Capable of Providing Very Accurate Results for Many Surface Nonadiabatic Problems • Recent Advances Show That It is Possible To Significantly Reduce The Statistical Errors in Monte Carlo Surface Hopping IVR Methods

  15. Adventures in the Forbidden Zone • Surface hopping expansion “formally exact” in classically forbidden region. • Wave function fails at turning points and caustics • Transition amplitudes have turning point singularities

  16. Comparison of quantum and semiclassical transition probabilities of for E < Ec E PQ PS2 PS2(FO) 0.36 0.275 0.261 0.288 0.34 8.65x10-2 8.54x10-2 8.89x10-2 0.32 1.93x10-2 1.94x10-2 1.97x10-2 0.30 3.00x10-3 3.03x10-3 3.05x10-3 0.28 3.16x10-4 3.19x10-4 3.20x10-4 0.26 2.14x10-5 2.16x10-5 2.15x10-5 0.24 8.54x10-7 8.55x10-7 8.56x10-7 0.22 1.77x10-8 1.76x10-8 1.81x10-8 0.20 1.49x10-10 1.74x10-10 1.42x10-10 0.19 8.50x10-12 7.07x10-12 7.10x10-12 0.18 3.06x10-13 1.3x10-13 3.4x10-13 0.17 5.33x10-15 2.4x10-15 8.5x10-15

  17. For transitions in forbidden zone Wave function on upper surface (Ψu) decays rapidly when moving into the forbidden zone from turning point. Nonadiabatic coupling (η) sharply peaked around crossing point and is decaying when moving from crossing point toward turning point. Product of Ψu and η is peaked in forbidden zone near turning point. Suggests approximation based on behavior near turning point may yield good results.

  18. For details see: M. F. Herman, J. Phys. Chem. B 112, 15966 (2008). and P.-T. Dang and M. F. Herman, J. Chem. Phys., accepted for publication. Probability of quantum state change in model collision system for forbidden transitions. . . . . exact quantum results, _____ semiclassical results, ----- results using “simple” approximation to semiclassical calculation.

  19. Why is this approximation for for-bidden transitions exciting (to me)? • Curve crossing models use information from crossing point (where trajectory does not go). • Local model (just uses information at turning point). • Momentum change due to hop occurs in direction of nonadiabatic coupling vector, so hop is basically one dimensional in many dimensions. • Since model is local and hop is one dimensional, should be possible to use model (or a generalization of it) for many dimensional problems.

  20. Conclusions • Surface Hopping Expansion provides very good transition probabilities even for strongly forbidden transitions. • Cancellation between contributions from allowed and forbidden regions must be accurately accounted for. • Good approximation obtained using only information evaluated at turning point.

  21. Acknowledgements: Funding: The National Science Foundation (USA) Edward Kluk, Heidi Davis, J. Rudra, Julio Arce, Brianna Guerin, Guangcan Yang, Ouafae El Akramine, Michael Moody, Yinghua Wu, Xun Huang , Thanh Dang

  22. NumericalProblems • Different trajectories have different phases • Leadsto interference • Add many terms, get result that is smaller than individual terms • When integrations done by Monte Carlo, large relative statistical errors • Need ways to reduce cancellation due to interference

  23. Higher order (in size of hopping step) transition amplitudes for trajectory step • - Accounts for multiple hops in a single hopping step • - Accounts for phase difference between hopping trajectories • - Allows for use of much larger hopping steps • - Fewer hops along each trajectory • - Much of the phase cancellation is accounted for within hopping step

  24. Numerical test of surface hopping using “optimal” representation and higher order transition amplitudes.Monte Carlo procedure for hop or no-hop choice for each hopping step. M.F Herman and M. P. Moody, JCP 122, 094104 (2005).

  25. New Orleans The Mississippi River, 3,779 km (2,348 mi) long, is the second longest river, after the Missouri, in the United States. Jackson Square is a historic park in the French Quarter and is in the heart of the French Quarter

  26. Semiclassical Results for Double Crossing Problems E = 2.8 Quantum Transition Probability is 0.640 PMM = matrix multiplication semiclassical transition probability PMC = Monte Carlo semiclassical transition probability, 10000 trajectories Representation Amplitude Δx PMM PMCσ <hops> Adiabatic Simple 0.005125 0.640 0.475 0.235 2.97 Adiabatic Simple 0.05125 0.645 0.745 0.213 2.65 Adiabatic Simple 0.1025 0.659 0.605 0.103 2.47 Adiabatic Phase Corrected 0.1025 0.641 0.569 0.086 2.36 Adiabatic Phase Corrected 0.205 0.651 0.619 0.045 1.95 App. Optimal Simple 0.1025 0.638 0.649 0.031 1.43 App. Optimal Phase Corrected 0.1025 0.636 0.644 0.029 1.36 App. Optimal Phase Corrected 0.205 0.635 0.661 0.022 1.13

More Related