Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field I: Conservation of Total Pseudomomentum and Angular Momentum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A phase-space electronic Hamiltonian is proposed that conserves total pseudomomentum and angular momentum for molecules in a static magnetic field, and is exact for the hydrogen atom.

desk verdict A genuinely new phase-space Hamiltonian for molecules in magnetic fields with an exact hydrogen-atom check, but the conservation theorems lean on a gauge-invariance proof explicitly deferred to Paper II. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13866 v2 pith:RDEUQZR2 submitted 2024-11-21 physics.chem-ph

Mansi Bhati , Zhen Tao , Xuezhi Bian , Jonathan Rawlinson , Robert Littlejohn , Joseph E. Subotnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords phase-spaceelectronicHamiltonianpseudomomentumconservationangularmomentummagneticfieldelectrontranslationfactorsrotationscreenednuclearchargeBorn-Oppenheimerapproximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Under the standard Born-Oppenheimer approximation, electrons and nuclei in a magnetic field respond to the field on different footings, so total momentum is not conserved and the magnetic screening of nuclear charges is lost. This paper proposes a phase-space electronic Hamiltonian, parameterized by both nuclear position $X$ and momentum $P$, that reintroduces electronic momentum through an operator $\hat{\Gamma}$ built from electron translation and rotation factors and through screened nuclear charges $q^{\mathrm{eff}}$. The authors establish that single-surface dynamics along eigenstates of this Hamiltonian conserves the total pseudomomentum and the angular momentum along the field direction, independent of the magnetic gauge origin. They also show that for a hydrogen atom the Hamiltonian reduces exactly to the center-of-mass-separated exact Hamiltonian, so the phase-space eigenvalues reproduce the exact energy levels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-space electronic Hamiltonian of Eq.\ 51, whose nuclear kinetic term uses screened charges and the operator $\hat{\Gamma}_I$. $\hat{\Gamma}_I$ is split into an electron translation factor (Eq.\ 121) and an electron rotation factor (Eq.\ 130), built from a partition function $\hat{\Theta}_I$ that assigns each electron to nearby nuclei; these operators enforce the constraints in Eqs.\ 49--50, 44, and 46, which make the approximate derivative couplings transform correctly under translation and rotation. The screened nuclear charges $q_I^{\mathrm{eff}}$ of Eq.\ 136 are the bare charges minus the electronic density assigned to each nucleus, which guarantees translational and rotational invariance of the charges. The conservation proofs use the translational and rotational invariance of the phase-space energy, and those in turn rely on the gauge-invariance condition $(\partial E_{\mathrm{PS}}/\partial G)_{\Pi_{\mathrm{eff}}}=0$ asserted in Sec.\ 4.1.

What would settle it

Run single-surface phase-space dynamics for a small molecule with more than one electron, say H$_2$ in a uniform field of 1 T or 10 T, using Eqs. 51, 121, 130, and 136, and record the quantity $K_{\mathrm{mol}}^\alpha$ of Eq. 101 along the trajectory; any drift away from its initial value would disprove the pseudomomentum conservation claim. Alternatively, a direct numerical check of Eq. 73, computing $E_{\mathrm{PS}}$ for two different gauge origins $G$ with $\Pi_{\mathrm{eff}}$ held fixed and showing a nonzero difference, would falsify the load-bearing gauge-invariance premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an explicit phase-space electronic structure Hamiltonian of the form $\sum_I (\Pi_I^{\mathrm{eff}} - i\hbar \hat{\Gamma}_I)^2/(2M_I) + \hat{H}_e(X)$, where $\Pi_I^{\mathrm{eff}} = P_I - \tfrac{1}{2} q_I^{\mathrm{eff}}(B\times(X_I-G))$ and $\hat{\Gamma}_I$ is a one-electron operator approximating the derivative coupling. The paper constructs $\hat{\Gamma}_I$ as the sum of an electron translation factor and an electron rotation factor, with explicit formulas given in Eqs.\ 121 and 130, and defines the screened nuclear charges by Eq.\ 136. It proves that, along any single adiabatic surface, the classical equations of motion derived from this Hamiltonian conserve the total pseudomomentum $K_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and the total angular momentum $L_z^{\mathrm{mol}}$, and that the phase-space energy is independent of the gauge origin $G$. For a hydrogen atom, setting $q^{\mathrm{eff}}=0$ makes the Hamiltonian identical to the exact Hamiltonian after center-of-mass separation and a unitary transformation, so the approach reproduces the exact hydrogen levels in a magnetic field of arbitrary strength.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the unproved assertion that the phase-space energy is invariant under shifting the magnetic gauge origin, $(\partial E_{\mathrm{PS}}/\partial G)_{\Pi_{\mathrm{eff}}}=0$ (Eq. 73); if that condition fails, the translational-invariance argument and therefore the pseudomomentum conservation proof lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adiabatic single-surface dynamics with this Hamiltonian conserves total pseudomomentum and the z-component of angular momentum in a uniform magnetic field without computing a Berry force.
  • For the hydrogen atom, the phase-space Hamiltonian with $q^{\mathrm{eff}}=0$ gives the exact eigenlevels in a magnetic field of arbitrary strength.
  • The phase-space energy $E_{\mathrm{PS}}(X,P)$ is independent of the magnetic gauge origin $G$, so dynamics and spectra are origin-independent.
  • In the limit of no electrons, $q^{\mathrm{eff}}=q_I$ and the Hamiltonian reduces to exact nuclear dynamics in the magnetic field.
  • Because $E_{\mathrm{PS}}$ depends on $P$ as well as $X$, nuclear velocities differ from $P/M$, capturing pseudo-magnetic-field effects that Born-Oppenheimer surfaces miss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the conservation laws follow from translational and rotational symmetry rather than from the specific form of the partition function, the construction should extend naturally to spin-orbit and spin-Zeeman terms; the authors note spin is not yet incorporated, and a spin-dependent version that preserves $K_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and $L_z^{\mathrm{mol}}$ would be a direct test of this expectation.
  • The exact hydrogen result suggests the ansatz is equivalent to summing the derivative-coupling series to all orders for one-electron systems; checking H$_2^+$ in strong fields, where no exact analytic solution exists, would test whether the phase-space Hamiltonian retains quantitative accuracy beyond one electron.
  • If the gauge-invariance condition Eq.\ 73 fails when implemented in a local atomic-orbital basis, the same construction could be repaired by adding gauge-compensating phases to $\hat{\Gamma}$ rather than by abandoning the phase-space ansatz; the companion paper's proof is therefore a defining boundary condition for the approach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phase-space electronic Hamiltonian, Eq. (51), for molecules in a uniform static magnetic field, replacing the usual nuclear kinetic term with (P - q^eff(X)A(X) - i hbar Gamma(X))^2/(2M). It constructs Gamma from modified electron translation and rotation factors, Eqs. (121), (130), and (135), and a screened charge q^eff, Eq. (136). The central claims are that single-surface dynamics along eigenstates conserves the total pseudomomentum, Eq. (101), and the z-component of the canonical angular momentum, Eq. (111); that the phase-space energy is gauge-origin independent, Eq. (73); and that the Hamiltonian reduces exactly to the separated hydrogen-atom Hamiltonian, Eq. (156) versus Eq. (149). The paper also derives Hamilton's equations and argues the construction approximates the derivative-coupling sum rule in a magnetic field, Eq. (35).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the proposal provides a concrete, basis-free route to include electronic momentum in Born-Oppenheimer dynamics in a magnetic field without computing Berry forces, and it is potentially implementable with GIAOs as announced for Paper II. The strongest evidence in the manuscript is the exact hydrogen-atom reduction in Sec. 6: it is an explicit, parameter-free check that the ansatz recovers the known separated Hamiltonian. The explicit forms of Gamma and q^eff are also concrete enough to be benchmarked, and the paper correctly identifies sigma_I as the only free parameter of the partition function. However, the general polyatomic conservation theorems are conditional: they rely on several imposed constraints on Gamma and on a gauge-invariance lemma whose proof is deferred. The paper therefore establishes a plausible and testable framework rather than a fully closed derivation for general molecules.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (73)] The gauge-invariance condition (partial E_PS/partial G) at fixed Pi_eff = 0 is asserted and its proof is deferred to Paper II. This condition is load-bearing: it is used in the translational-invariance proof at Eqs. (80)-(82), and Eq. (82) is then used in the pseudomomentum conservation proof at Eqs. (104)-(107). As written, the present manuscript does not establish the central conservation claim for general polyatomic systems. Please either prove Eq. (73) in this paper, or state it as an explicit assumption and explain what follows if it fails; a reference to a companion paper is not sufficient for a premise on which the abstract's central guarantee rests.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (44) and (70)] The translational-invariance proof assumes Eq. (44), the condition that the commutator of the total canonical electronic momentum and Gamma_I vanishes. But Eq. (70) states that Gamma is a function of the electron kinetic momentum, which differs from the canonical momentum by a vector-potential term. A direct check for the one-center case of the explicit Gamma of Eq. (121) gives a nonzero commutator proportional to the magnetic field, so the step in which the sum of nuclear gradients of H_Gamma is rewritten as a single electronic gradient using Eq. (44) is not justified for the operators proposed in Sec. 5. This step is needed for Eq. (82), and Eq. (82) is used in the proof of pseudomomentum conservation. Please verify Eq. (44) directly for the operators of Eqs. (121) and (130), or replace it with the appropriate translational-covariance condition for a magnetic field, which must also account for the gauge origin as in Eq. (29).
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (130); Sec. 4.3.2, Eq. (90)] The angular-momentum conservation proof requires the rotational-covariance condition Eq. (46) for the explicit Gamma'' operator. The text states that Eq. (130) is rotationally invariant and that an elementary calculation verifies Eq. (129), but it does not demonstrate Eq. (46), and Eq. (46) is precisely what is used in the reduction leading to Eqs. (90)-(91). Since the angular-momentum conservation claim is one of the two principal results, please provide the explicit verification of Eq. (46) for the proposed Gamma'' or give a direct reference to the exact equation in a published paper where it is established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6.2, Eq. (156) and preceding line] The unitary transformation immediately before Eq. (156) is written with an exponent that looks real, because the factor i/hbar is missing. Check the definition against the unitary transform used in Eq. (148); as written, the operator is not unitary.
  2. [Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 6.2, Eqs. (121) and (152)] The relationship between Gamma'_I as defined in Eq. (121) and the Gamma_e = k_n^e used in the hydrogen-atom section should be stated explicitly; as written there is an apparent factor-of-i inconsistency between the two definitions.
  3. [Sec. 5.4, Eqs. (139)-(144)] The physical interpretation of the conserved quantities uses the approximation Psi near Psi_0 and the condition that the expectation of functions of r - X_I times Theta_I nearly vanishes for linear and quadratic functions. These are uncontrolled approximations; the abstract's phrase about conserving total pseudomomentum should be accompanied by the caveat that the model conserves the engineered quantities of Eqs. (101) and (111), whose equality with the exact molecular pseudomomentum and angular momentum is approximate.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Eqs. (90)-(97)] The operator l_z is used in the rotational-invariance proof but is never defined; define it as the total electronic angular momentum in the z direction, and state whether it includes the spin operator that appears in Eq. (135).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

General pseudomomentum/angular-momentum conservation is not fully self-contained: it hinges on the deferred gauge-invariance identity Eq. 73, whose proof is delegated to a same-author companion paper; the hydrogen-atom benchmark is independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.1, Eq. 73; used in Sec. 4.2 Eq. 82 and Sec. 4.4 Eqs. 104-107]
    "In other words, (∂E_PS/∂G)_{Π^eff} = 0. We will discuss gauge invariance in great detail in Paper II. 35"

    Eq. 73 is asserted with its proof postponed to the authors' own Paper II (Ref. 35). It is load-bearing: the translational invariance of V_PS is concluded with 'Therefore, on account of Eq. 73, the final expression is zero' (Eq. 82), and the pseudomomentum proof explicitly invokes Eq. 82 at Eq. 104 to drop the (∂V_PS/∂X_I)_{Π^eff} term before obtaining dK/dt=0 at Eq. 107. Thus the central general conservation claim is established only if the same-author companion paper supplies the missing proof; within this paper the result is imported from a self-citation rather than derived.

full rationale

Apart from the deferred Eq. 73, the derivation chain is largely non-circular. The constraints Eqs. 49-50 and 44,46 are openly imposed design conditions on Γ; using them to collapse K_mol and L_mol to nuclear expressions is a construction, not a circular prediction, and the subsequent cancellation in dK/dt and dL/dt depends on the equations of motion and on translational/rotational invariance rather than on restating the constraints. The hydrogen-atom comparison (Eq. 156 vs Eq. 149) is an independent external check, and the derivative-coupling sum rule Eq. 35 provides independent physical input. However, the manuscript itself flags the omitted proof of Eq. 73 and delegates it to Paper II by the same authors; this makes the general molecule conservation claim not self-contained and is a load-bearing self-citation, meriting a moderate score. Caveats about q^eff sensitivity and Eq. 139 are ordinary modeling assumptions, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several postulates: the phase-space Hamiltonian form, the constraints on Γhat, the Gaussian partition function, and the gauge invariance lemma with deferred proof. No new physical entities are introduced; σ_I is the only free parameter. The hydrogen atom case fixes q^eff = 0 and leaves no adjustable constants.

free parameters (1)
  • σ_I (Gaussian width in partition function Θhat_I) = not specified (chosen from atomic radii or electronegativity)
    Widths of the normalized Gaussian partition functions in Eq. 47; the model depends on this choice, though the authors note insensitivity in prior work.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Non-relativistic molecular Hamiltonian with Coulomb-gauge vector potential A(r) = (1/2) B × (r - G), Eqs. 8-16
    Accepted starting point for molecules in a uniform magnetic field.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase-space Hamiltonian ansatz, Eq. 51, with Γhat approximating derivative couplings (Eq. 42)
    Central proposal; not derived from first principles, justified by its satisfying conservation and gauge properties.
  • ad hoc to paper Constraints on Γhat: Eqs. 44, 46, 49, and 50
    Imposed so that the desired conservation laws hold; motivated by the derivative-coupling sum rule of Eq. 35.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian partition function Θhat_I, Eq. 47, with width σ_I
    Partitions electron density among nuclei; σ_I is a free model parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper Gauge invariance of E_PS: (∂E_PS/∂G)_{Π_eff} = 0, Eq. 73
    Asserted in Sec. 4.1 with proof deferred to Paper II; used in the translational invariance proof and conservation proofs.
  • standard math Rotational invariance of the electronic Hamiltonian, Eq. 92
    Standard property of H_e in a uniform field.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation |Ψ> ≈ |Ψ0> in Eq. 139
    Used only to interpret conserved quantities as physical momentum and angular momentum; accuracy is open and acknowledged in Sec. 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field I: Conservation of Total Pseudomomentum and Angular Momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDEUQZR2

@misc{pith2026241113866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field I: Conservation of Total Pseudomomentum and Angular Momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDEUQZR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13866}
}
abstract

We develop a phase-space electronic structure theory of molecules in magnetic fields. For a system of electrons in a magnetic field with vector potential $\bf{A}(\hat{\bf{r}})$, the usual Born-Oppenheimer Hamiltonian is the sum of the nuclear kinetic energy and the electronic Hamiltonian, $\frac{(\bf{P} - q\bf{A}(\bf{X}) )^2}{2M} + \hat{H}_{e}(\bf{X})$ (where $q$ is a nuclear charge). To include the effects of coupled nuclear-electron motion in the presence of magnetic field, we propose that the proper phase-space electronic structure Hamiltonian will be of the form $\frac{(\bf{P} - q^{\textit{eff}}\bf{A}(\bf{X}) - e\hat{\bf{\Gamma}})^2}{2M} + \hat{H}_{e}(\bf{X})$. Here, $q^{\textit{eff}}$ represents the {\em screened} nuclear charges and the $\hat{\bf{\Gamma}}$ term captures the local pseudomomentum of the electrons. This form reproduces exactly the energy levels for a hydrogen atom in a magnetic field; moreover, single-surface dynamics along the eigenstates is guaranteed to conserve both the total pseudomomentum as well as the total angular momentum in the direction of the magnetic field. This Hamiltonian form can be immediately implemented within modern electronic structure packages (where the electronic orbitals will now depend on nuclear position ($\bf{X}$) and nuclear momentum ($\bf{P}$)). One can expect to find novel beyond Born-Oppenheimer magnetic field effects for strong enough fields and/or nonadiabatic systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field II: Quantum Chemistry Calculations with Gauge Invariant Atomic Orbitals

    physics.chem-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A phase-space electronic Hamiltonian with GIAOs is implemented in Q-Chem, yielding gauge-, translation-, and rotation-invariant energies and predicting nonzero ground-state electronic momentum at finite magnetic fields.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Slichter, C. P. Principles of magnetic resonance; Springer Science & Business Media, 2013; Vol. 1

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    E.; Ulrich, T

    Steiner, U. E.; Ulrich, T. Magnetic field effects in chemical kinetics and related phenomena. Chemical Reviews 1989, 89, 51--147

    1989

  3. [3]

    Rodgers, C. T. Magnetic field effects in chemical systems. Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 81, 19--43

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    T.; Hore, P

    Rodgers, C. T.; Hore, P. J. Chemical magnetoreception in birds: The radical pair mechanism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009, 106, 353--360

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    J.; Hore, P

    Luo, J.; Benjamin, P.; Gerhards, L.; Hogben, H. J.; Hore, P. J. Orientation of birds in radiofrequency fields in the absence of the Earth’s magnetic field: a possible test for the radical pair mechanism of magnetoreception. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 2024, 21, 20240133

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Thompson, J. M. T.; Timmel, C. R.; Henbest, K. B. A study of spin chemistry in weak magnetic fields. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2004, 362, 2573--2589

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    K.; Tellgren, E

    Stopkowicz, S.; Gauss, J.; Lange, K. K.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Coupled-cluster theory for atoms and molecules in strong magnetic fields. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2015, 143

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S. Crossings of potential-energy surfaces in a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. A 1990, 41, 4936--4943

    work page 1990

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    R.; Wadehra, J

    Brigham, D. R.; Wadehra, J. The hydrogen molecular ion in an arbitrary homogeneous magnetic field. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 317, June 15, 1987, p. 865-876. 1987, 317, 865--876

    1987

  2. [10]

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S. Approximate constant of motion for molecular ions in a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. A 1989, 40, 3515--3523

    1989

  3. [11]

    Matter in strong magnetic fields

    Lai, D. Matter in strong magnetic fields. Reviews of Modern Physics 2001, 73, 629

    2001

  4. [12]

    S.; Meyer, H.-D

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S.; Meyer, H.-D. Electronic and nuclear motion and their couplings in the presence of a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. A 1988, 38, 6066--6079

    1988

  5. [13]

    Magnetic screening of nuclei by electrons as an effect of geometric vector potential

    Yin, L.; Alden Mead, C. Magnetic screening of nuclei by electrons as an effect of geometric vector potential. The Journal of chemical physics 1994, 100, 8125--8131

    1994

  6. [14]

    S.; Meyer, H

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S.; Meyer, H. D. On the validity of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation in magnetic fields. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 1988, 21, L445

    1988

  7. [15]

    P.; Bearpark, M

    Malhado, J. P.; Bearpark, M. J.; Hynes, J. T. Non-adiabatic dynamics close to conical intersections and the surface hopping perspective. Frontiers in Chemistry 2014, 2

    2014

  8. [16]

    Tully, J. C. Molecular dynamics with electronic transitions . The Journal of Chemical Physics 1990, 93, 1061--1071

    1990

  9. [17]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Tao, Z.; Qiu, T.; Bhati, M.; Bian, X.; Duston, T.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Practical phase-space electronic Hamiltonians for ab-initio dynamics . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160, 124101

    2024

  10. [18]

    Representation and conservation of angular momentum in the Born–Oppenheimer theory of polyatomic molecules

    Littlejohn, R.; Rawlinson, J.; Subotnik, J. Representation and conservation of angular momentum in the Born–Oppenheimer theory of polyatomic molecules. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 158, 104302

    2023

  11. [19]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Bian, X.; Tao, Z.; Wu, Y.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Total angular momentum conservation in ab initio Born-Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 108, L220304

    2023

  12. [20]

    A.; Truhlar, D

    Mead, C. A.; Truhlar, D. G. On the determination of Born--Oppenheimer nuclear motion wave functions including complications due to conical intersections and identical nuclei. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1979, 70, 2284--2296

    1979

  13. [21]

    Berry, M. V. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1984, 392, 45--57

    1984

  14. [22]

    Peters, L. D. M.; Culpitt, T.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Magnetic-translational sum rule and approximate models of the molecular Berry curvature . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2022, 157, 134108

    2022

  15. [23]

    Culpitt, T.; Peters, L. D. M.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Analytic calculation of the Berry curvature and diagonal Born–Oppenheimer correction for molecular systems in uniform magnetic fields. J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 044121

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bian, X.; Wu, Y.; Teh, H.-H.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, H.-T.; Subotnik, J. E. Modeling nonadiabatic dynamics with degenerate electronic states, intersystem crossing, and spin separation: A key goal for chemical physics . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154, 110901

    2021

  17. [25]

    As a side note, FSSH dynamics using BO states in the presence of a magnetic field is complicated by the existence of complex derivative coupling values, which makes the direction of momentum scaling ambiguous; this problem can be partially ameliorated using a phase space approach

  18. [26]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Qiu, T.; Bhati, M.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. A simple one-electron expression for electron rotational factors . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160, 124102

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tao, Z.; Qiu, T.; Bian, X.; Subotnik, J. E. A Basis-Free Phase Space Electronic Hamiltonian That Recovers Beyond Born-Oppenheimer Electronic Momentum and Current Density. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16918 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G.; Pei, Z.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J

    Duston, T.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Bhati, M.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Pei, Z.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J. E. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian For Vibrational Circular Dichroism. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024, 20, 7904--7921, PMID: 39226223

    2024

  21. [29]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Wu, Y.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Linear and angular momentum conservation in surface hopping methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160

    2024

  22. [30]

    Phase-space surface hopping: Nonadiabatic dynamics in a superadiabatic basis

    Shenvi, N. Phase-space surface hopping: Nonadiabatic dynamics in a superadiabatic basis. Journal of Chemical Physics 2009, 130, 124117

    2009

  23. [31]

    D.; Culpitt, T.; Monzel, L.; Tellgren, E

    Peters, L. D.; Culpitt, T.; Monzel, L.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Ab Initio molecular dynamics with screened Lorentz forces. II. Efficient propagators and rovibrational spectra in strong magnetic fields. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 155

    2021

  24. [32]

    T.; Gross, E

    Abedi, A.; Maitra, N. T.; Gross, E. K. U. Exact Factorization of the Time-Dependent Electron-Nuclear Wave Function. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 105, 123002

    2010

  25. [33]

    Nuclear velocity perturbation theory for vibrational circular dichroism: An approach based on the exact factorization of the electron-nuclear wave function

    Scherrer, A.; Agostini, F.; Sebastiani, D.; Gross, E.; Vuilleumier, R. Nuclear velocity perturbation theory for vibrational circular dichroism: An approach based on the exact factorization of the electron-nuclear wave function. The Journal of chemical physics 2015, 143

    2015

  26. [34]

    Li, C.; Requist, R.; Gross, E. K. U. Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum Transfer between Electrons and Nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022, 128, 113001

    2022

  27. [35]

    Bhati, M.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R.; Subotnik, J. E. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field II: Quantum Chemistry Calculations with Gauge Invariant Atomic Orbitals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13879 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Fatehi, S.; Alguire, E.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J. E. Analytic derivative couplings between configuration-interaction-singles states with built-in electron-translation factors for translational invariance . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2011, 135, 234105

    2011

  29. [37]

    B.; Russek, A

    Schneiderman, S. B.; Russek, A. Velocity-Dependent Orbitals in Proton-On-Hydrogen-Atom Collisions. Physical Review 1969, 181, 311--321

    1969

  30. [38]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Athavale, V.; Bian, X.; Tao, Z.; Wu, Y.; Qiu, T.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Surface Hopping, Electron Translation Factors, Electron Rotation Factors, Momentum Conservation, and Size Consistency. Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 159, 114120, https://dx....

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    R.; Stamps, R

    Greenshields, C. R.; Stamps, R. L.; Franke-Arnold, S.; Barnett, S. M. Is the Angular Momentum of an Electron Conserved in a Uniform Magnetic Field? Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 240404

    2014

  32. [40]

    R.; Hirschfelder, J

    Johnson, B. R.; Hirschfelder, J. O.; Yang, K.-H. Interaction of atoms, molecules, and ions with constant electric and magnetic fields. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1983, 55, 109--153

    1983

  33. [41]

    Bian, X.; Wu, Y.; Qiu, T.; Zhen, T.; Subotnik, J. E. A semiclassical non-adiabatic phase-space approach to molecular translations and rotations: A new picture of surface hopping and electronic inertial effects. 2024,

    2024

  34. [42]

    Efficient and accurate approximations to the molecular spin-orbit coupling operator and their use in molecular g-tensor calculations

    Neese, F. Efficient and accurate approximations to the molecular spin-orbit coupling operator and their use in molecular g-tensor calculations. The Journal of chemical physics 2005, 122

    2005

  35. [43]

    Tang, D.; Sun, S.; Li, X. Exact-Two-Component Complete Active Space Method with Variational Treatment of Magnetic Field and Spin--Orbit Coupling: Application to X-ray Magnetic Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024,

    2024

  36. [44]

    P.; Liberman, M

    Kravchenko, Y. P.; Liberman, M. A.; Johansson, B. Exact solution for a hydrogen atom in a magnetic field of arbitrary strength. Phys. Rev. A 1996, 54, 287--305

    1996

  37. [45]

    Regularity and chaos in the center of mass motion of the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. Regularity and chaos in the center of mass motion of the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field. Zeitschrift f \"u r Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 1992, 24, 311--323

    1992

  38. [46]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Bian, X.; Khan, C.; Duston, T.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. A phase-space view of vibrational energies without the Born-Oppenheimer framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19313 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pulay, P.; Hinton, J. F. Shielding theory: GIAO method. eMagRes 2007,

    2007

  40. [48]

    An electronic Hamiltonian for origin independent calculations of magnetic properties

    Helgaker, T.; Jo/rgensen, P. An electronic Hamiltonian for origin independent calculations of magnetic properties. The Journal of chemical physics 1991, 95, 2595--2601

    1991

  41. [49]

    Irons, T. J. P.; Zemen, J.; Teale, A. M. Efficient Calculation of Molecular Integrals over London Atomic Orbitals. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2017, 13, 3636--3649, PMID: 28692291

    2017

  42. [50]

    Hirshfeld, F. L. Bonded-atom fragments for describing molecular charge densities. Theoretica chimica acta 1977, 44, 129--138

    1977

  43. [51]

    An overview of the magnetoresistance phenomenon in molecular systems

    Gu, H.; Zhang, X.; Wei, H.; Huang, Y.; Wei, S.; Guo, Z. An overview of the magnetoresistance phenomenon in molecular systems. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 5907--5943

    2013

  44. [52]

    The rise of organic magnetoresistance: materials and challenges

    Gobbi, M.; Orgiu, E. The rise of organic magnetoresistance: materials and challenges. J. Mater. Chem. C 2017, 5, 5572--5580

    2017

  45. [53]

    Naaman, R.; Paltiel, Y.; Waldeck, D. H. Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity Gives a New Twist on Spin-Control in Chemistry. Accounts of Chemical Research 2020, 53, 2659--2667, PMID: 33044813

    2020

  46. [54]

    Naaman, R.; Waldeck, D. H. Chiral-Induced Spin Selectivity Effect. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2012, 3, 2178--2187, PMID: 26295768

    2012

  47. [55]

    Richardson, O. W. A Mechanical Effect Accompanying Magnetization. Phys. Rev. (Series I) 1908, 26, 248--253

    1908

  48. [56]

    Einstein , A.; de Haas , W. J. Experimental proof of the existence of Amp \`e re's molecular currents . Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences 1915, 18, 696--711

    1915

  49. [57]

    Quantum Einstein-de haas effect

    Ganzhorn, M.; Klyatskaya, S.; Ruben, M.; Wernsdorfer, W. Quantum Einstein-de haas effect. Nature Communications 2016, 7, 11443

    2016

  50. [58]

    Rotation of Quantum Impurities in the Presence of a Many-Body Environment

    Schmidt, R.; Lemeshko, M. Rotation of Quantum Impurities in the Presence of a Many-Body Environment. Physical Review Letters 2015, 114, 203001 mcitethebibliography paper1.tex0000664000000000000000000033714614720134322011504 0ustar rootroot [journal=jctcce,manuscript=article] a...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.