Talk:Hartree–Fock method

message: Could someone acquanted in the field give a list of the original and also some of the convenient references in scientific literature on this subject? This can be found in the density functional theory page, for example, and such references make wikipedia really a good starting point for actual research.  -- Mipmip 04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I had several discussions with colleagues on just what constitutes a fundamental physics concept. What we decided was that a fundamental physics concept was one that any physicist would need to be familiar with before embarking on a specialized experimental or theoretical track. By "familiar" we meant being able to solve problems at the end of the chapter on that topic. I am not sure, by this criterion, that "Fundamental physics concepts" should have been removed as a category, but maybe I am wrong. What is the opinion out there?Complexica 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental physics concept

message: Anything? no results, failed method? V8rik (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual results and correlation with experimental data 

message: I've always seen this written as "Hartree–Fock method" - just "Hartree–Fock" on its own looks strange.  Is this actually the normal style in other fields, or should we move the article to "Hartree–Fock method"?  Djr32 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support moving it to Hartree–Fock method.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Djr32 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Where is the 2 in front of the Coulomb Operator coming from? I thought about it a lot and many sources miss the 2. Is this a mistake?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.145.226 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One source which does include the 2 is I.N.Levine, Quantum Chemistry (4th ed 1991) p.403. He explains that the factor 2 occurs because there are two electrons in each spatial orbital. So j is summed over spatial orbitals, as implied by the n/2 over the summation sign. Sources which omit the 2 are summing over spin-orbitals, of which there are twice as many in a closed-shell state. So we can retain the factor 2, but we should specify that this form is for a closed-shell state. And for consistency we should replace the phrase "the Coulomb operator, defining the electron-electron repulsion energy due to the orbital of the jth electron" by "the Coulomb operator, defining the electron-electron repulsion energy due to the jth doubly occupied orbital".  Dirac66 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulomb Operator 

message: In part brief history, Fock´s and Slater contribution, some citations may be missing. "FOCK, V. Näherungsmethode zur Lösung des quantenmechanischen Mehrkörperproblems. Zeitschrift für Physik, 1930, 61.1-2: 126-148." and "SLATER, John C. Note on Hartree's method. Physical Review, 1930, 35.2: 210."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.235.30 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: Let's say I want to use Hartree Fock to calculate some parameter of a simple system which has been measured to high accuracy, like the electron affinity of a particular atom. How well does the Hartree Fock method compare to reality? Nanite (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really not the place to discuss this, as the talk page is for discussing the article. You need to get a a good book that covers computational quantum chemistry. However, as a quick summary, if you want high accuracy you do not use Hartree-Fock, and electron affinities are particularly difficult to calculate to high accuracy. --Bduke  (Discussion) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How bad are the approximations, is there a rough quantitative guide?