%**************************************************************** \section{Universality of correlation effects} %**************************************************************** Understanding and calculating the electronic correlation energy is one of the most important and difficult problems in theoretical chemistry. In this pursuit, the study of high-density correlation energy using perturbation theory has been particularly profitable, shedding light on the physically relevant density regime and providing {\em exact} results for key systems, such as the uniform electron gas \cite{GellMann57} and two-electron systems \cite{BetheSalpeter}. The former is the cornerstone of the most popular density functional paradigm (the local-density approximation) in solid-state physics \cite{ParrYang}; the latter provide important test cases in the development of new explicitly-correlated methods \cite{Kutzelnigg85,Nakashima07} for electronic structure calculations \cite{Helgaker}. %**************************************************************** \subsection{High-density correlation energy} %**************************************************************** The high-density correlation energy of the helium-like ions is obtained by expanding both the exact \cite{Hylleraas30} and HF \cite{Linderberg61} energies as series in $1/Z$, yielding \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \label{eq:Eex} E(Z,D,V) & = E^{(0)}(D,V) Z^2 + E^{(1)}(D,V) Z + E^{(2)}(D,V) + \frac{E^{(3)}(D,V)}{Z} + \ldots, \\ \label{eq:EHF} E_{\rm HF}(Z,D,V) & = E^{(0)}(D,V) Z^2 + E^{(1)}(D,V) Z + E_{\rm HF}^{(2)}(D,V) + \frac{E_{\rm HF}^{(3)}(D,V)}{Z} + \ldots, \end{align} \end{subequations} where $Z$ is the nuclear charge, $D$ is the dimension of the space and $V$ is the external Coulomb potential. Equations \eqref{eq:Eex} and \eqref{eq:EHF} share the same zeroth- and first-order energies because the exact and the HF treatment have the same zeroth-order Hamiltonian. Thus, in the high-density (large-$Z$) limit, the correlation energy is \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Ec^{(2)}(D,V) & = \lim_{Z\to\infty} \Ec(Z,D,V) \\ & = \lim_{Z\to\infty} \qty[ E(Z,D,V)-E_{\rm HF}(Z,D,V) ] \\ & = E^{(2)}(D,V) - E_{\rm HF}^{(2)}(D,V). \end{split} \end{equation} Despite intensive study \cite{Schwartz62, Baker90}, the coefficient $E^{(2)}(D,V)$ has not yet been reported in closed form. However, the accurate numerical estimate \begin{equation} \label{eq:E2-He-3D} E^{(2)} = -0.157\;666\;429\;469\;14 \end{equation} has been determined for the important $D=3$ case \cite{Baker90}. Combining \eqref{eq:E2-He-3D} with the exact result \cite{Linderberg61} \begin{equation} \label{eq:E2HF-He-3D} E_{\rm HF}^{(2)} = \frac{9}{32} \ln \frac{3}{4} - \frac{13}{432} \end{equation} yields a value of \begin{equation} \Ec^{(2)} = -0.046\;663\;253\;999\;48 \end{equation} for the helium-like ions in a three-dimensional space. In the large-$D$ limit, the quantum world reduces to a simpler semi-classical one \cite{Yaffe82} and problems that defy solution in $D=3$ sometimes become exactly solvable. In favorable cases, such solutions provide useful insight into the $D=3$ case and this strategy has been successfully applied in many fields of physics \cite{Witten80, Yaffe83}. Indeed, just as one learns something about interacting systems by studying non-interacting ones and introducing the interaction perturbatively, one learns something about $D = 3$ by studying the large-$D$ case and introducing dimension-reduction perturbatively. Singularity analysis \cite{Doren87} reveals that the energies of two-electron atoms possess first- and second-order poles at $D=1$, and that the Kato cusp \cite{Kato57, Morgan93} is directly responsible for the second-order pole. In our previous work \cite{EcLimit09, Ballium10}, we have expanded the correlation energy as a series in $1/(D-1)$ but, although this is formally correct if summed to infinite order, such expansions falsely imply higher-order poles at $D=1$. For this reason, we now follow Herschbach and Goodson \cite{Herschbach86, Goodson87}, and expand both the exact and HF energies as series in $1/D$. Although various possibilities exist for this dimensional expansion \cite{Doren86, Doren87, Goodson92, Goodson93}, it is convenient to write \begin{subequations} \begin{align} E^{(2)}(D,V) & = \frac{E^{(2,0)}(V)}{D^2} + \frac{E^{(2,1)}(V)}{D^3} + \ldots, \label{eq:E2DV} \\ E_{\rm HF}^{(2)}(D,V) & = \frac{E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}(V)}{D^2} + \frac{E_{\rm HF}^{(2,1)}(V)}{D^3} + \ldots, \label{eq:EHF2DV} \\ \Ec^{(2)}(D,V) & = \frac{\Ec^{(2,0)}(V)}{D^2} + \frac{\Ec^{(2,1)}(V)}{D^3} + \ldots, \label{eq:Ec2DV} \end{align} \end{subequations} where \begin{subequations} \begin{align} \Ec^{(2,0)}(V) & = E^{(2,0)}(V) - E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}(V), \\ \Ec^{(2,1)}(V) & = E^{(2,1)}(V) - E_{\rm HF}^{(2,1)}(V). \end{align} \end{subequations} Such double expansions of the correlation energy were originally introduced for the helium-like ions, and have lead to accurate estimations of correlation \cite{Loeser87a, Loeser87b} and atomic energies \cite{Loeser87c, Kais93} {\em via} interpolation and renormalisation techniques. Equations \eqref{eq:E2DV}, \eqref{eq:EHF2DV} and \eqref{eq:Ec2DV} apply equally to the $^1S$ ground state of any two-electron system confined by a spherical potential $V(r)$. %**************************************************************** \subsection{The conjecture} %**************************************************************** For the helium-like ions, it is known \cite{Mlodinow81, Herschbach86, Goodson87} that \begin{align} \Ec^{(2,0)}(V) & = - \frac{1}{8}, & \Ec^{(2,1)}(V) & = - \frac{163}{384}, \end{align} and we have recently found \cite{EcLimit09} that $\Ec^{(2,0)}(V)$ takes the same value in hookium (two electrons in a parabolic well \cite{Kestner62, White70, Kais89, Taut93}), spherium (two electrons on a sphere \cite{Ezra82, Seidl07b, TEOAS09, QuasiExact09}) and ballium (two electrons in a ball \cite{Thompson02, Thompson05, Ballium10}). In contrast, we found that $\Ec^{(2,1)}(V)$ is $V$-dependent. The fact that the term $\Ec^{(2,0)}$ is invariant, while $\Ec^{(2,1)}$ varies with the confinement potential allowed us to explain why the high-density correlation energy of the previous two-electron systems are similar, but not identical, for $D=3$ \cite{EcLimit09, Ballium10}. On this basis, we conjectured \cite{EcLimit09} that \begin{equation} \label{eq:conjecture} \Ec^{(2)}(D,V) \sim - \frac{1}{8D^2} - \frac{C(V)}{D^3} \end{equation} holds for \emph{any} spherical confining potential, where the coefficient $C(V)$ varies slowly with $V(r)$. % BEGIN TABLE 1 \begin{table} \centering \caption{ \label{tab:Ec} $E^{(2,0)}$, $E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}$, $\Ec^{(2,0)}$ and $\Ec^{(2,1)}$ coefficients for various systems and $v(r) = 1$.} \begin{tabular}{lrcccc} \hline System & $m$ & $-E^{(2,0)}$ & $-E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}$ & $-\Ec^{(2,0)}$ & $-\Ec^{(2,1)}$ \\ \hline Helium & $-1$ & $5/8$ & $1/2$ & $1/8$ & $0.424479$ \\ Airium & $1$ & $7/24$ & $1/6$ & $1/8$ & $0.412767$ \\ Hookium & $2$ & $1/4$ & $1/8$ & $1/8$ & $0.433594$ \\ Quartium & $4$ & $5/24$ & $1/12$ & $1/8$ & $0.465028$ \\ Sextium & $6$ & $3/16$ & $1/16$ & $1/8$ & $0.486771$ \\ Ballium & $\infty$ & $1/8$ & $0$ & $1/8$ & $0.664063$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table} % END TABLE 1 %**************************************************************** \subsection{The proof} %**************************************************************** Here, we will summarise our proof of the conjecture \eqref{eq:conjecture}. More details can be found in Ref.~\cite{EcProof10}. We prove that $\Ec^{(2,0)}$ is universal, and that, for large $D$, the high-density correlation energy of the $^1S$ ground state of two electrons is given by \eqref{eq:conjecture} for any confining potential of the form \begin{equation} \label{eq:V-proof} V(r) = \text{sgn}(m) r^m v(r), \end{equation} where $v(r)$ possesses a Maclaurin series expansion \begin{equation} v(r) = v_0 + v_1 r + v_2 \frac{r^2}{2} + \ldots. \end{equation} After transforming both the dependent and independent variables \cite{EcProof10}, the Schr\"odinger equation can be brought to the simple form \begin{equation} \label{eq:Hersch-trans} \qty( \frac{1}{\Lambda} \Hat{\mathcal{T}} + \Hat{\mathcal{U}} + \Hat{\mathcal{V}} + \frac{1}{Z} \Hat{\mathcal{W}} ) \Phi_D = \mathcal{E}_D \Phi_D, \end{equation} in which, for $S$ states, the kinetic, centrifugal, external potential and Coulomb operators are, respectively, \begin{gather} -2 \Hat{\mathcal{T}} = \qty( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r_2^2} ) + \qty( \frac{1}{r_1^2} + \frac{1}{r_1^2} ) \qty( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2} + \frac{1}{4} ), \\ \Hat{\mathcal{U}} = \frac{1}{2 \sin^2 \theta} \qty( \frac{1}{r_1^2} + \frac{1}{r_1^2} ), \\ \Hat{\mathcal{V}} = V(r_1) + V(r_2), \\ \Hat{\mathcal{W}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{r_1^2 + r_2^2 -2 r_1 r_2 \cos \theta}}, \end{gather} and the dimensional perturbation parameter is \begin{equation} \Lambda = \frac{(D-2)(D-4)}{4}. \end{equation} In this form, double perturbation theory can be used to expand the energy in terms of both $1/Z$ and $1/\Lambda$. For $D=\infty$, the kinetic term vanishes and the electrons settle into a fixed (``Lewis'') structure \cite{Herschbach86} that minimises the effective potential \begin{equation} \label{eq:X} \Hat{\mathcal{X}} = \Hat{\mathcal{U}} + \Hat{\mathcal{V}} + \frac{1}{Z} \Hat{\mathcal{W}}. \end{equation} The minimization conditions are \begin{gather} \frac{\partial \Hat{\mathcal{X}}(r_1,r_2,\theta)}{\partial r_1} = \frac{\partial \Hat{\mathcal{X}}(r_1,r_2,\theta)}{\partial r_2} = 0, \label{eq:dW-r} \\ \frac{\partial \Hat{\mathcal{X}}(r_1,r_2,\theta)}{\partial \theta} = 0, \label{eq:dW-theta} \end{gather} and the stability condition implies $m > -2$. Assuming that the two electrons are equivalent, the resulting exact energy is \begin{equation} \label{eq:Einf} \mathcal{E}_{\infty} = \Hat{\mathcal{X}} (r_{\infty},r_{\infty},\theta_{\infty}). \end{equation} It is easy to show that \begin{gather} r_{\infty} = \alpha + \frac{\alpha^2}{m+2} \qty(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} - \Lambda \frac{m+1}{m} \frac{v_1}{v_0} ) \frac{1}{Z} + \ldots, \label{eq:r-eq} \\ \cos \theta_{\infty} = - \frac{\alpha}{4\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{Z} + \ldots, \label{eq:tetha-eq} \end{gather} where $\alpha^{-(m+2)} = \text{sgn}(m) m v_0$. For the HF treatment, we have $\theta_{\infty}^{\rm HF} = \pi/2$. Indeed, the HF wave function itself is independent of $\theta$, and the only $\theta$ dependence comes from the $D$-dimensional Jacobian, which becomes a Dirac delta function centred at $\pi/2$ as $D\to\infty$. Solving \eqref{eq:dW-r}, one finds that $r_{\infty}^{\rm HF}$ and $r_{\infty}$ are equal to second-order in $1/Z$. Thus, in the large-$D$ limit, the HF energy is \begin{equation} \label{eq:EinfHF} \mathcal{E}_{\infty}^{\rm HF} = \Hat{\mathcal{X}} \qty(r_{\infty}^{\rm HF},r_{\infty}^{\rm HF},\frac{\pi}{2}), \end{equation} and correlation effects originate entirely from the fact that $\theta_\infty$ is slightly greater than $\pi/2$ for finite $Z$. Expanding \eqref{eq:Einf} and \eqref{eq:EinfHF} in terms of $Z$ and $D$ yields \begin{align} E^{(2,0)}(V) & = - \frac{1}{8} - \frac{1}{2(m+2)}, \\ E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}(V) & = - \frac{1}{2(m+2)}, \label{eqEHF20} \end{align} thus showing that both $E^{(2,0)}$ and $E_{\rm HF}^{(2,0)}$ depend on the leading power $m$ of the external potential but not on $v(r)$. Subtracting these energies yields \begin{equation} \label{eq:Ec00} \Ec^{(2,0)}(V) = - \frac{1}{8}, \end{equation} and this completes the proof that, in the high-density limit, the leading coefficient $\Ec^{(2,0)}$ of the large-$D$ expansion of the correlation energy is universal, {\em i.e.} it does not depend on the external potential $V(r)$. The result \eqref{eq:Ec00} is related to the cusp condition \cite{Kato57, Morgan93, Pan03} \begin{equation} \label{eq:cusp} \left. \pdv{\Psi_D}{\ree}\right|_{\ree=0} = \frac{1}{D-1} \Psi_D(\ree=0), \end{equation} which arises from the cancellation of the Coulomb operator singularity by the $D$-dependent angular part of the kinetic operator \cite{Helgaker}. The $E^{(2,1)}$ and $\EHF^{(2,1)}$ coefficients can be found by considering the Langmuir vibrations of the electrons around their equilibrium positions \cite{Herschbach86, Goodson87}. The general expressions depend on $v_0$ and $v_1$, but are not reported here. However, for $v(r)=1$, which includes many of the most common external potentials, we find \begin{equation} \Ec^{(2,1)}(V) = - \frac{85}{128} - \frac{9/32}{(m+2)^{3/2}} + \frac{1/2}{(m+2)^{1/2}} + \frac{1/16}{(m+2)^{1/2}+2}, \end{equation} showing that $\Ec^{(2,1)}$, unlike $\Ec^{(2,0)}$, is potential-dependent. Numerical values of $\Ec^{(2,1)}$ are reported in Table \ref{tab:Ec} for various systems.