>>13497394As to your second question, it depends on the molecule. By definition, weakly correlated systems are well-approximated by a mean-field state, such as Hartree-Fock, so their ground state looks more or less like a couple of Gaussians centered on each atom, with varying sizes depending on the atomic element.
On the other hand, strongly correlated systems entirely evade such a description. Like I mentioned in the previous post, their ground-state wavefunctions can look quite exotic, nothing at all like a mean-field state.
Quite frankly no one really bothers with trying to visualize such complicated system, for a number of reasons.
>the dimensionality of the systems is too large, making proper visualization highly nontrivial>the methods used to solve such models rarely ever treat the wavefunction directly, but instead use some computational algorithm like Monte Carlo or DMRG to calculate observable quantities such as energy without ever computing a wavefunction or orbital>additionally, real-space representations of molecules is actually rarely used by such algorithms. People rather prefer momentum-space or second-quantized representationsBasically, working physicists and chemists don't really give a rat's ass about the nature of orbitals or the wavefunction. It's just a tool we use to compute real observables that have bearing on experimental outcomes, like energy, or charge density, or entropy. And since the wavefunction is a computationally intractable object to work with in the first place, the more we can avoid it, the better.
