1962
DOI: 10.1080/00268976200100061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spin density and spin correlation in triplet states

Abstract: In the lowest triplet states of naphthalene, pyrene and chrysene certain ring carbon atoms should carry a negative spin density because the exchange field of the excited electron and ' hole ' polarizes the spins of the remaining paired ~r electrons. Extended Hartree-Fock and configurational mL~ing theories give almost equivalent descriptions, and both predict that the negative spin densities in the triplet state are nearly the same as in the positive or negative ion radicals of the hydrocarbon. Similar exchang… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1964
1964
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(39 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that this approximation is based strictly on distance and positive spin densities; spin-orbit coupling and negative spin densities have not been taken into account. The neglect of negative spin densities, 10 which are significant in both MPH and TMM, might account for the large deviation observed in the calculated D values. Although this method is strictly empirical and limited in its scope for predicting reasonable D values to non-disjoint biradicals (without an empirical factor) and disjoint biradicals (with an empirical factor), it does represent an improvement for calculating D values for the biradicals that do fall into these categories.…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It should be noted that this approximation is based strictly on distance and positive spin densities; spin-orbit coupling and negative spin densities have not been taken into account. The neglect of negative spin densities, 10 which are significant in both MPH and TMM, might account for the large deviation observed in the calculated D values. Although this method is strictly empirical and limited in its scope for predicting reasonable D values to non-disjoint biradicals (without an empirical factor) and disjoint biradicals (with an empirical factor), it does represent an improvement for calculating D values for the biradicals that do fall into these categories.…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Figure 1 is a plot of the calculated D values using Eqn (1) (D nonav ) (where, again, i and j refer to the non-disjoint SOMOs), and Eqn (2) (D av ) versus the experimental D values for biradicals 1-8. We included less stable carbon-based biradicals and other biradicals that are not bisphenoxy-or bisnitroxy-based (hereafter referred to as non-bisoxy biradicals) (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) in this investigation to see how applicable the approximation method was for other delocalized non-disjoint biradicals. Figure 2 is a plot of all of the compounds given in Scheme 1.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If we retain the Du nuclear geometry, but require the individual orbitals to transform according to the lower symmetry point group C2", we now have three electron configurations. la/ 2a,2 lb22 3a,2 4a,2 5a,22b22 6a,2 7a,2 3b/ 4b/ 8a,2 5b/ lb,2 la2 2b, « 'B, (5) (2)-V<la/ 2a/ lb/ 3a/ 4a/ 5a/ 2b/ 6a/ 7a/ 3b/ 4b/ 8a/ 5b/ lb/ la/) ± (2)-V<la/ 2a/ lb/ 3a/ 4a/ 5a/ 2b/ 6a/ 7a/ 3b/ 4b/ 8a/ 5b/ lb/ 2b/) 'A, (6) The correspondence between Dih and C2" electronic…”
Section: Theoretical Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This resuh has been independently confirmed by Van der Waals [12] and underlines the fact that a wave function which gives a significant improvement in the calculated energy may give poor values for the expectation values of other operators, especially two electron operators [12]. The occurrence of negative spin densities in triplet states [4,19] also shows that configuration is necessary even with open shell type wave functions. Nevertheless, it is perhaps surprising that this type of wave function gives the poorest agreement with experiment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%