Electron correlation effects on the electronic properties of clusters
The Hubbard model is applied to icosahedral, face-centered cubic (FCC), hexagonal close-packed (HCP), and body-centered cubic (BCC) clusters having N = 13 atoms. Exact ground-state results are given as a function of the Coulomb repulsion strength U/t, number of electrons v, and total spin S. Electron correlation effects on magnetic behavior and structural changes are discussed.
PACS36.40.Cg Electronic and magnetic properties of clusters 75.10.Lp Band and itinerant models 71.24+q Electronic structure of clusters and nanoparticles
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- S.E. Apsel, JAY. Emert, J. Deng, L.A. Bloomfield: Phys, Rev. Lett. 76, 1441 (1996) and references thereinGoogle Scholar
- 3.J. Hubbard: Proc. R. Soc. London A 276, 238 (1963); A 281, 401 (1964);Google Scholar
- 6.A structure is called bipartite if two distinct subsets of lattice sites A and B can be defined such that every lattice site belongs to either A or B,and that there is no pair of NN belonging to the same subset. All NN bonds (or hoppings) Connect a site in A with a site in B Google Scholar
- B.N. Parlett: The Symmetric Eigerivalue Problem ( Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs 1980 );Google Scholar
- J.K. Collum, R.A. Willoughby: Lanczos Algorithms for Large Symmetric Eigenvalue Computations (Birkhâuser, Boston 1985 ) Vol. I.Google Scholar
- 10.The electron-hole transformation htia cia-leaves the Hamiltonian formally unchanged, except for an additive constant and a change of sign in the hopping integrals, which amounts to an inversion of the SP spectrumGoogle Scholar
- 11.Notice that in BCC clusters, electron-hole symmetry implies S(v) = S(2N — v), since the sign of the hopping integral t is irrelevant in bipartite structures (see )Google Scholar
- 12.For u = N, all spin values are degenerate at U/t = d-oo. The results for v = 13 refer then to very large but finite values of U/t, e.g., U/t = 256 as shown in Table 1Google Scholar
- 14.Y. Nagaoka: Solid State Commun. 3, 409(1965);Google Scholar