Table Of ContentSchro¨dinger equation solved for the hydrogen molecule with unprecedented accuracy
Krzysztof Pachucki∗
Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Pasteura 5, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland
Jacek Komasa†
Faculty of Chemistry, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 89b, 61-614 Poznan´, Poland
(Dated: January 15, 2016)
The hydrogen molecule can be used for determination of physical constants and for improved
tests of the hypothetical long range force between hadrons, which requires a sufficiently accurate
knowledge of the molecular levels. For this reason, we have undertaken a project of significant
improvements in theoretical predictions of H and perform the first step, which is the solution of
2
the nonrelativistic Schro¨dinger equation to the unprecedented accuracy of 10−12. This will inspire,
we hope, a parallel progress in the spectroscopy of the molecular hydrogen.
6
1 INTRODUCTION [8], James and Coolidge [9], Kol(cid:32)os and Wolniewicz [10],
0 andmanyothershavemadetheirmarksonthehistoryof
2 research on H . Every breakthrough in the precision of
2
n The spectroscopy of simple atomic systems like hy- theoreticalpredictionshasbeenrelatedtotheprogressin
drogen [1, 2], hydrogenic ions [3], muonic hydrogen [4],
a computational techniques. Fig. 1 illustrates the progress
J muonium, positronium has been used to determine fun- made over many decades in the precision of the dissocia-
4 damental physical constants and to test the quantum tion energy D for H .
0 2
1 electrodynamic theory. Although experiments for more
complicated atomic systems like helium or lithium can
h] be as accurate as for hydrogen, the precision of theo- 104
p retical predictions, at the moment, is not sufficient to 103
- determine physical constants, such as the fine structure 102
m
constant α, the Rydberg constant (Ry), or the absolute -1m 101 [2]
he valueofthenuclearchargeradius. Incontrast,thehydro- /c0 100
c gen molecule, thanks to its simplicity, has already been δD 10-1 [4]
[6]
s. usedforthemostaccuratedeterminationofthedeuteron 10-2 [8]
c magnetic moment from NMR measurements [5], and for
i thestudiesoftheunknownhypotheticalfifthforceatthe 10-3 [10]
s 10-4
y atomicscale[6]. Theprecisionachievedrecentlyfortran- 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
h sition frequencies, of an order of 10−4cm−1, has been
Year
p
verified by a series of measurements, which resulted in
[
strong bounds on the fifth force. We will argue in this FIG. 1. The accuracy of theoretical predictions of dissocia-
1 work, that it is possible to achieve 10−6cm−1 accuracy tion energy D of H versus time, with the linear fit on the
0 2
v for energy levels of the hydrogen molecule, which not logarithmic scale.
5
only will improve tests of quantum electrodynamics the-
8
ory and will put stronger bounds on the fifth force, but
6 Not always the results of calculations have been in
3 also will allow a resolution of the proton charge radius agreement with measured values, which has questioned
0 puzzle,whichstandsasaviolationoftheStandardModel
the validity of the theoretical approach. For example,
1. of fundamental interactions [7]. in 1964 Kol(cid:32)os and Wolniewicz [11] solved variationally
0
Theimprovementintheoreticalpredictionsforthehy- the nonadiabatic Schr¨odinger equation for the hydrogen
6
1 drogen molecule can be achieved by the calculation of molecule. Thecalculateddissociationenergyappearedto
: the yet unknown higher order α4Ry quantum electrody- be higher than the measured one [12], which was in con-
v
namicscorrectionandbyamoreaccuratesolutionofthe tradictionwiththevariationalprinciple. Fiveyearslater,
i
X nonrelativistic Schr¨odinger equation. This second im- HerzbergmeasuredD0 againwiththeaccuracyincreased
r provement is performed in this work, while the calcula- to a few tenths of reciprocal centimeter and obtained a
a tion of the QED effects is in progress. The solution of valuehigherthanpreviouslyby5cm−1inagreementwith
the Schr¨odinger equation for the hydrogen molecule has the Kol(cid:32)os and Wolniewicz predictions.
beenpursuedsincealmostthebeginningofthequantum Further progress in theoretical predictions was related
mechanicstheory. Overtime,therehavebeenmanycon- to the calculations of the leading relativistic corrections
tributionstothedevelopmentofmethodswithincreased and to approximate QED effects [13–17]. Later on, due
precision of theoretical predictions. Heitler and London to rapid development of computer power, the methods
2
basedonexponentiallycorrelatedGaussian(ECG)func- the recursions, can be expressed in the following form
tionshavebeendevelopedbothintheBorn-Oppenheimer
approximation [18] and in the direct nonadiabatic ap- (cid:90) dV e−trABe−u(r1A+r1B)e−w(r2A+r2B)
proach [19, 20]. Very recently, we have introduced a (4π)3 r r r r r r
AB 12 1A 1B 2A 2B
nonadiabatic perturbation theory (NAPT), which al- (cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:16) (cid:17)
(cid:34) ln 2u ln 2w
lowed the accuracy of about 10−3cm−1 to be achieved 1 t+u+w t+u+w
= − −
foralltherovibrationallevelsofH andisotopomers[18]. 4uw t−u+w t+u−w
2
However, the complexity of NAPT in the higher order of (cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:16) (cid:17)
ln 2uw ln 2(u+w) (cid:35)
electron-nucleus mass ratio [21] makes further improve- (u+w)(t+u+w) t+u+w
+ + . (4)
ments in accuracy quite complicated. For this reason, t+u+w t−u−w
we propose another approach to the direct solution of
the Schr¨odinger equation by the use of the special in- Theintegralswithadditionalpositivepowersofinterpar-
tegration technique for explicitly correlated exponential ticle distances are obtained by straightforward algebraic
functionsandpresentitsfirstresultsinthisLetter. Over recursionrelations,whichneverthelessaretwolongtobe
fifty years after Kol(cid:32)os and Wolniewicz, we approach the written explicitly here. All of them can be derived from
problem of solving the four-body Schr¨odinger equation, a single fourth-order differential equation [25], which is
with the precision aim for D0 at the level of 10−7cm−1. satisfied by the general four-body integral, and are ex-
pressed in terms of logarithmic and rational functions.
Details of this recursion method will be described else-
THEORY where.
The main purpose of this work is to solve accurately
the stationary Schr¨odinger equation HˆΨ=EΨ for a di- NUMERICAL RESULTS
atomic molecule with the nuclei of charge Z and Z
A B
and finite masses M and M Results of our calculations for H are presented in
A B 2
Tab. I in the form a sequence of energies resulting from
1 1 1 1
Hˆ =− ∇2 − ∇2 − ∇2− ∇2 increasing length (K) of expansion (2). The selection of
2MA A 2MB B 2me 1 2me 2 K was made on the basis of the saturation of consecu-
+ ZAZB + 1 − ZA − ZA − ZB − ZB , (1) tive ’shells’ limited by (cid:80)5k=1ki ≤ Ω with k0 fixed at 30.
r r r r r r The observed regular convergence, obeying the inverse
AB 12 1A 2A 1B 2B
power low, permits a firm extrapolation to the complete
using the variational approach. The trial wave function
basissetaswellasanestimationoftheuncertainty. The
final value agrees well with the previous estimation of
K
Ψ((cid:126)r ,(cid:126)r ,R(cid:126) ,R(cid:126) )=(cid:88)c Sˆψ ((cid:126)r ,(cid:126)r ,R(cid:126) ,R(cid:126) ) (2) −1.16402503084(6) a.u. obtained by Bubin et al. [20]
1 2 A B k {k} 1 2 A B
but has a significantly smaller uncertainty.
k=1
is expanded in properly symmetrized (Sˆ), four-particle
TABLE I. Convergence of the Schr¨odinger equation eigen-
basis of exponential functions
valueE(ina.u.) andofthecorrespondingdissociationenergy
D (in cm−1) for H with the size of the basis set.
0 2
ψ =exp[−αr −β(ζ +ζ )]rk0 rk1ηk2ηk3ζk4ζk5,
{k} AB 1 2 AB 12 1 2 1 2
Ω K E D
(3) 0
10 36642 −1.1640250308214 36118.79773257
where ζ =r +r and η =r −r are coordinates 11 53599 −1.1640250308709 36118.79774343
i iA iB i iA iB
12 76601 −1.1640250308804 36118.79774552
closely related to the prolate spheroidal coordinates of
13 106764 −1.1640250308825 36118.79774597
i-th electron, r are interparticle distances, α and β are
ij ∞ ∞ −1.164025030884(1) 36118.7977463(2)
nonlinearvariationalparameters,andk arenon-negative
i
integers collectively denoted as {k}. For its resemblance
to the electronic James-Coolidge function, we call this Further increase in the accuracy of eigenvalue of the
basis function the nonadiabatic James-Coolidge (naJC) four-bodySchr¨odingerequationisfeasible,buttheprob-
function. lem we face is the lack of the parallel code in multi-
Application of the naJC function for evaluation of the precision arithmetics for the LDLT matrix decomposi-
matrix elements leads to a certain class of integrals. Ef- tion with pivoting, which results in a long computation
ficient evaluation of these integrals has become feasible time. However, current uncertainties in the electron-
since the discovery of the analytic formulas [22, 23] and proton (proton-deuteron) mass ratio and in the Rydberg
the corresponding recursive relations [24, 25]. For exam- constantaremuchmoresignificantthanthoseduetonu-
ple, the master integral, which is the starting point for merical uncertainties. For example, the CODATA 2014
3
[26]electron-protonmassratiohasarelativeuncertainty ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of 9.5·10−11, which affects the eigenvalue of H at the
2
level of 4.3·10−12 a.u. and the corresponding dissoci-
ation energy at 8.5·10−7cm−1. Similarly, the current
This research was supported by the National Sci-
uncertainty in the Rydberg constant affects the conver-
enceCenter(Poland)GrantsNo. 2012/04/A/ST2/00105
sionofD valuefroma.u. toreciprocalcentimetersatthe
0
level of 2.1·10−7cm−1. This indicates, that one cannot (K.P.)and2014/13/B/ST4/04598(J.K.),aswellasbya
computing grant from the Poznan Supercomputing and
exclude the possibility, to determine the electron-proton
Networking Center, and by PL-Grid Infrastructure.
mass ratio from future high precision studies of H .
2
∗ [email protected]
† [email protected]
CONCLUSIONS [1] C. G. Parthey, A. Matveev, J. Alnis, B. Bernhardt,
A. Beyer, R. Holzwarth, A. Maistrou, R. Pohl, K. Pre-
dehl, T. Udem, T. Wilken, N. Kolachevsky, M. Abgrall,
The approach based on explicitly correlated exponen- D. Rovera, C. Salomon, P. Laurent, and T. W. Ha¨nsch,
tial functions and the obtained results pave the way Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 203001 (2011).
to a significant progress in the theory of the hydrogen [2] C. Schwob, L. Jozefowski, B. de Beauvoir, L. Hilico,
molecule. A similar precision for nonrelativistic energies F.Nez,L.Julien,F.Biraben,O.Acef,J.-J.Zondy, and
A. Clairon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4960 (1999).
can be achieved for any other molecular level of H , D ,
2 2 [3] S.Sturm,F.Kohler,J.Zatorski,A.Wagner,Z.Harman,
HD, and HeH+. Considering the leading relativistic cor-
G.Werth,W.Quint,C.H.Keitel, andK.Blaum,Nature
rections, they can be expressed in terms of an expecta-
506, 467 (2014).
tionvaluewiththenonrelativisticwavefunction,sotheir [4] R.Pohl,A.Antognini,F.Nez,F.D.Amaro,F.Biraben,
evaluation does not pose a significant problem, and they J. M. R. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, S. Dhawan,
have already been calculated in the BO approximation. L. M. P. Fernandes, A. Giesen, T. Graf, T. W. H¨ansch,
The leading quantum electrodynamics effects are more P. Indelicato, L. Julien, C.-Y. Kao, P. Knowles, E.-
O. Le Bigot, Y.-W. Liu, J. A. M. Lopes, L. Ludhova,
complicated due to Bethe logarithm contribution, which
C. M. B. Monteiro, F. Mulhauser, T. Nebel, P. Rabi-
involvesthelogarithmofthenonrelativisticHamiltonian.
nowitz, J. M. F. dos Santos, L. A. Schaller, K. Schuh-
Its calculation beyond the BO approximation might be
mann, C. Schwob, D. Taqqu, J. a. F. C. A. Veloso, and
problematic. However,muchmorechallengingisthecal- F. Kottmann, Nature 466, 213 (2010).
culation of the higher order α4Ry contribution, which [5] M. Puchalski, J. Komasa, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev.
apart from hydrogen, was calculated only for He atom. A 92, 020501 (2015).
Its magnitude canbe estimatedby2α2 times theknown [6] W. Ubachs, W. Vassen, E. J. Salumbides, and K. S. E.
Eikema, Annalen der Physik 525, A113 (2013).
leading relativistic correction to D of 0.5 cm−1, which
0 [7] R. Pohl, R. Gilman, G. A. Miller, and K. Pachucki,
gives 5·10−5cm−1. It would be probably necessary to
Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 175 (2013).
approximatelyevaluatealso α5Rycorrections toachieve
[8] W. Heitler and F. London, Z. Phys. 44, 455 (1927).
10−6 accuracy,asitisenhancedbythepresenceoflnα−2 [9] H. M. James and A. S. Coolidge, J. Chem. Phys. 1, 825
factors. (1933).
[10] W. Kol(cid:32)os and L. Wolniewicz, J. Chem. Phys. 41, 3663
At the level of accuracy of 10−6cm−1, the proton (1964).
charge radius, which contributes about 1.2·10−4 cm−1 [11] W. Kol(cid:32)os and L. Wolniewicz, J. Chem. Phys. 41, 3674
tothe dissociation energyofH , canbedeterminedwith (1964).
2
0.5% precision, provided that equally accurate measure- [12] G. Herzberg and A. Monfils, J. Mol. Spectrosc. 5, 482
(1960).
mentisperformed. Thiscertainlywillresolvetheproton
[13] W. Kol(cid:32)os and L. Wolniewicz, J. Mol. Spectrosc. 54, 303
charge radius discrepancy, which is at the level of 4%,
(1975).
and will open a new era in precision quantum chemistry.
[14] L. Wolniewicz, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 6173 (1983).
Regarding the tests of hypothetical forces, which are be- [15] W.Ko(cid:32)los,K.Szalewicz, andH.J.Monkhorst,J.Chem.
yondthoseintheStandardModel,theatomicscaleisthe Phys. 84, 3278 (1986).
natural region for the long range hadronic interactions. [16] L. Wolniewicz, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 1851 (1993).
Moreover, it has recently been shown that vibrational [17] L. Wolniewicz, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 1792 (1995).
[18] K.PachuckiandJ.Komasa,J.Chem.Phys.130,164113
levels of the hydrogen molecule [27] are particularly sen-
(2009).
sitive to the interactions beyond the Coulomb repulsion
[19] S. Bubin and L. Adamowicz, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 3079
between nuclei. So any deviation between hopefully im-
(2003).
proved theoretical predictions and the experiment may [20] S. Bubin, F. Leonarski, M. Stanke, and L. Adamowicz,
signal a new physics. Chem. Phys. Lett. 477, 12 (2009).
4
[21] K.PachuckiandJ.Komasa,J.Chem.Phys.143,034111 [25] K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052514 (2012).
(2015). [26] P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, ArXiv e-
[22] D. M. Fromm and R. N. Hill, Phys. Rev. A 36, 1013 prints (2015), arXiv:1507.07956 [physics.atom-ph].
(1987). [27] E. J. Salumbides, J. C. J. Koelemeij, J. Komasa,
[23] F. E. Harris, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1820 (1997). K. Pachucki, K. S. E. Eikema, and W. Ubachs, Phys.
[24] K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032520 (2009). Rev. D 87, 112008 (2013).
