Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of the electronic binding energy in a C60 molecule

Fei Lin, Jurij Šmakov, Erik S. Sørensen, Catherine Kallin, and A. John Berlinsky
Phys. Rev. B 71, 165436 – Published 27 April 2005

Abstract

Electronic energies are calculated for a Hubbard model on the C60 molecule using projector quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods. The calculations are performed to an accuracy high enough to determine the pair-binding energy for two electrons added to neutral C60. The method itself is checked against a variety of other quantum Monte Carlo methods as well as the exact diagonalization for smaller molecules. The conclusion is that the ground state with two extra electrons on one C60 molecule is a triplet, and, over the range of parameters where QMC is reliable, it has a slightly higher energy than the state with electrons on two separate molecules, so that the pair is unbound.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 16 November 2004

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.165436

©2005 American Physical Society

Authors & Affiliations

Fei Lin, Jurij Šmakov, Erik S. Sørensen, Catherine Kallin, and A. John Berlinsky

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 71, Iss. 16 — 15 April 2005

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1
    Comparison of electronic pair binding energies Δb(61)t, defined in Eq. (2), obtained from perturbation theory in different spin sectors (solid and dash-dot lines)[4, 5, 20] and PQMC calculations on a C60 molecule. PQMC finds S=1 for ground states with 62 electrons.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2
    Grand canonical simulation of a C60 molecule at various chemical potentials. Simulation parameters: U=4t, β=10t, Δτ=0.1t, Nt=103, Nm=105. We are interested only in the qualitative behavior of the system around half filling, so the statistical errors are not estimated. (a) Energy per site vs chemical potential. (b) Electron density vs chemical potential. (c) Average sign as a function of chemical potential. (d) Average sign as a function of electron density. Curves connecting the points are guides to the eye.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3
    Huckel energy-level diagram for the neutral C60 molecule. The lowest 30 levels are doubly occupied. The energy level scale is drawn according to the exact diagonalization of the noninteracting on-site Hubbard Hamiltonian, i.e., U=0. The energy level labels are from those of the icosahedral group, which is the symmetry group of a C60 molecule. The LUMO band is labelled by t1u, and HOMO by hu. We will consider the doping of LUMO and HOMO for a discussion of Hund’s rule.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4
    Comparison of the PQMC spin configuration of a C60 molecule at various dopings with Hund’s rule. ΔE is defined as the energy difference between two total spin z component sectors, e.g., ΔE(60)=E60(Sz=1)E60(Sz=0) for the neutral molecule and ΔE(61)=E61(Sz=32)E61(Sz=12) for one-electron doping. A positive ΔE at fillings n=59, 60, 61 can be understood in the noninteracting picture in Fig. 3, and a negative ΔE at fillings n=57, 58, 62, 63, 64 is in agreement with Hund’s rule. n=65, 66 can again be explained with Fig. 3. See the text for discussions. The dotted lines connecting the MC points are only guides to the eye.Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review B

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×