Developments in Localized Pseudopotential Methods

  • P. W. Anderson
  • J. D. Weeks
Conference paper
Part of the The IBM Research Symposia Series book series (IRSS)


In his recent Buckley Prize lecture, J. C. Phillips showed a slide (Fig. 1) in which he compared the actual usage of, as opposed to the purely theoretical interest in, various electronic structure methods in the band theory of solids. In this slide pseudopotentials and the APW method heavily outweighed all others, and in the upper right-hand corner was a tiny square representing LCAO. If Jim had, however, been interested in comparing the total number of electronic structure calculations without limiting himself to solids, all other methods would have paled in comparison to LCAO. At least half of all LCAO calculations are Huckel theory ones. In terms of the practical application of quantum theory to real electronic structures, then, one must submit that the Huckel theory and other rather crude LCAO concepts are by far the most successful. It is reasonable to suppose that most of this success must be accounted for by the fact that these methods really work.


Secular Equation Local Bonding Wannier Function Band Theory Electronic Structure Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. H. Adams, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 37, 2009 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. L. Gilbert, in Molecular Orbitals, a Tribute to Mulliken, ( Pullman and Lowdin, eds.) Academic Press, N.Y., (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Letters 21, 13 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev., 181, 25 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. B. Kunz, Jr., Phys. Stat. Sol. 36, 301 (1969); Phys Rev. 132, 2224; Phys. Rev. 134, 609, 1374, 4639 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. D. Weeks, P. W. Anderson and A. G. H. Davidson, to be published.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Go Dick and A. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 112, 90 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Engel and R. Gomer, J. Chem. Phys. 52, 5572 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Weaire, Phys. Rev. Letters 26, 1541 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. G. Hall, Phil. Mag. 43, 338 (1952).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. B. Kunz, Jr., J. Phys. C. 3, 1542 (1970); Phys. Rev. 132, 5015 (1970); and Ref. (57).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. M. Mueller, Phys. Rev. 151, 557 (1956).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Pettifor, J. Phys. C. 3, 366 (1970); J. Phys. C. 2, 1051 (1969).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. W. Anderson
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. D. Weeks
    • 2
  1. 1.Bell LaboratoriesMurray HillUSA
  2. 2.Cavendish LaboratoryCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations