| 3 | 
  | 
\chapter{\label{chapt:intro}Introduction and Theoretical Background} | 
| 4 | 
  | 
 | 
| 5 | 
  | 
 | 
| 6 | 
– | 
 | 
| 7 | 
– | 
\section{\label{introSec:theory}Theoretical Background} | 
| 8 | 
– | 
 | 
| 6 | 
  | 
The techniques used in the course of this research fall under the two | 
| 7 | 
  | 
main classes of molecular simulation: Molecular Dynamics and Monte | 
| 8 | 
  | 
Carlo. Molecular Dynamic simulations integrate the equations of motion | 
| 9 | 
< | 
for a given system of particles, allowing the researher to gain | 
| 9 | 
> | 
for a given system of particles, allowing the researcher to gain | 
| 10 | 
  | 
insight into the time dependent evolution of a system. Diffusion | 
| 11 | 
  | 
phenomena are readily studied with this simulation technique, making | 
| 12 | 
  | 
Molecular Dynamics the main simulation technique used in this | 
| 13 | 
  | 
research. Other aspects of the research fall under the Monte Carlo | 
| 14 | 
  | 
class of simulations. In Monte Carlo, the configuration space | 
| 15 | 
< | 
available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastichally, | 
| 15 | 
> | 
available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastically, | 
| 16 | 
  | 
or randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability | 
| 17 | 
< | 
based on the Maxwell Boltzman distribution. These types of simulations | 
| 17 | 
> | 
based on the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution. These types of simulations | 
| 18 | 
  | 
are best used to probe properties of a system that are only dependent | 
| 19 | 
  | 
only on the state of the system. Structural information about a system | 
| 20 | 
  | 
is most readily obtained through these types of methods. | 
| 27 | 
  | 
thermodynamic properties of the system are being probed, then chose | 
| 28 | 
  | 
which method best suits that objective. | 
| 29 | 
  | 
 | 
| 30 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Thermodynamics} | 
| 30 | 
> | 
\section{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Mechanics} | 
| 31 | 
  | 
 | 
| 32 | 
< | 
ergodic hypothesis | 
| 32 | 
> | 
The following section serves as a brief introduction to some of the | 
| 33 | 
> | 
Statistical Mechanics concepts present in this dissertation.  What | 
| 34 | 
> | 
follows is a brief derivation of Boltzmann weighted statistics, and an | 
| 35 | 
> | 
explanation of how one can use the information to calculate an | 
| 36 | 
> | 
observable for a system.  This section then concludes with a brief | 
| 37 | 
> | 
discussion of the ergodic hypothesis and its relevance to this | 
| 38 | 
> | 
research. | 
| 39 | 
  | 
 | 
| 40 | 
< | 
enesemble averages | 
| 40 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:boltzman}Boltzmann weighted statistics} | 
| 41 | 
  | 
 | 
| 42 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations} | 
| 42 | 
> | 
Consider a system, $\gamma$, with some total energy,, $E_{\gamma}$. | 
| 43 | 
> | 
Let $\Omega(E_{\gamma})$ represent the number of degenerate ways | 
| 44 | 
> | 
$\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$, the collection of positions and conjugate | 
| 45 | 
> | 
momenta of system $\gamma$, can be configured to give | 
| 46 | 
> | 
$E_{\gamma}$. Further, if $\gamma$ is in contact with a bath system | 
| 47 | 
> | 
where energy is exchanged between the two systems, $\Omega(E)$, where | 
| 48 | 
> | 
$E$ is the total energy of both systems, can be represented as | 
| 49 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 50 | 
> | 
\Omega(E) = \Omega(E_{\gamma}) \times \Omega(E - E_{\gamma}) | 
| 51 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SM1} | 
| 52 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 53 | 
> | 
Or additively as  | 
| 54 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 55 | 
> | 
\ln \Omega(E) = \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma}) + \ln \Omega(E - E_{\gamma}) | 
| 56 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SM2} | 
| 57 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 58 | 
  | 
 | 
| 59 | 
+ | 
The solution to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM2} maximizes the number of | 
| 60 | 
+ | 
degenerative configurations in $E$. \cite{Frenkel1996}  | 
| 61 | 
+ | 
This gives | 
| 62 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 63 | 
+ | 
\frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E)}{\partial E_{\gamma}} = 0 = | 
| 64 | 
+ | 
        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}} | 
| 65 | 
+ | 
         +  | 
| 66 | 
+ | 
        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}} | 
| 67 | 
+ | 
        \frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}} | 
| 68 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM3} | 
| 69 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 70 | 
+ | 
Where $E_{\text{bath}}$ is $E-E_{\gamma}$, and | 
| 71 | 
+ | 
$\frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}}$ is | 
| 72 | 
+ | 
$-1$. Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} becomes | 
| 73 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 74 | 
+ | 
\frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}} =  | 
| 75 | 
+ | 
\frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}} | 
| 76 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM4} | 
| 77 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 78 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 79 | 
+ | 
At this point, one can draw a relationship between the maximization of | 
| 80 | 
+ | 
degeneracy in Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} and the second law of | 
| 81 | 
+ | 
thermodynamics.  Namely, that for a closed system, entropy will | 
| 82 | 
+ | 
increase for an irreversible process.\cite{chandler:1987} Here the | 
| 83 | 
+ | 
process is the partitioning of energy among the two systems.  This | 
| 84 | 
+ | 
allows the following definition of entropy: | 
| 85 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 86 | 
+ | 
S = k_B \ln \Omega(E) | 
| 87 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM5} | 
| 88 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 89 | 
+ | 
Where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.  Having defined entropy, one can | 
| 90 | 
+ | 
also define the temperature of the system using the relation | 
| 91 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 92 | 
+ | 
\frac{1}{T} = \biggl ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial E} \biggr )_{N,V} | 
| 93 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM6} | 
| 94 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 95 | 
+ | 
The temperature in the system $\gamma$ is then | 
| 96 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 97 | 
+ | 
\beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \frac{1}{k_B T} =  | 
| 98 | 
+ | 
        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}} | 
| 99 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM7} | 
| 100 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 101 | 
+ | 
Applying this to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM4} gives the following | 
| 102 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 103 | 
+ | 
\beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \beta( E_{\text{bath}} ) | 
| 104 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM8} | 
| 105 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 106 | 
+ | 
Showing that the partitioning of energy between the two systems is | 
| 107 | 
+ | 
actually a process of thermal equilibration.\cite{Frenkel1996} | 
| 108 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 109 | 
+ | 
An application of these results is to formulate the form of an | 
| 110 | 
+ | 
expectation value of an observable, $A$, in the canonical ensemble. In | 
| 111 | 
+ | 
the canonical ensemble, the number of particles, $N$, the volume, $V$, | 
| 112 | 
+ | 
and the temperature, $T$, are all held constant while the energy, $E$, | 
| 113 | 
+ | 
is allowed to fluctuate. Returning to the previous example, the bath | 
| 114 | 
+ | 
system is now an infinitely large thermal bath, whose exchange of | 
| 115 | 
+ | 
energy with the system $\gamma$ holds the temperature constant.  The | 
| 116 | 
+ | 
partitioning of energy in the bath system is then related to the total | 
| 117 | 
+ | 
energy of both systems and the fluctuations in $E_{\gamma}$: | 
| 118 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 119 | 
+ | 
\Omega( E_{\gamma} ) = \Omega( E - E_{\gamma} ) | 
| 120 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM9} | 
| 121 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 122 | 
+ | 
As for the expectation value, it can be defined | 
| 123 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 124 | 
+ | 
\langle A \rangle =  | 
| 125 | 
+ | 
        \int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}  | 
| 126 | 
+ | 
        P_{\gamma} A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma}) | 
| 127 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM10} | 
| 128 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 129 | 
+ | 
Where $\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ denotes | 
| 130 | 
+ | 
an integration over all accessible phase space, $P_{\gamma}$ is the | 
| 131 | 
+ | 
probability of being in a given phase state and | 
| 132 | 
+ | 
$A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma})$ is some observable that is a function of the | 
| 133 | 
+ | 
phase state. | 
| 134 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 135 | 
+ | 
Because entropy seeks to maximize the number of degenerate states at a | 
| 136 | 
+ | 
given energy, the probability of being in a particular state in | 
| 137 | 
+ | 
$\gamma$ will be directly proportional to the number of allowable | 
| 138 | 
+ | 
states the coupled system is able to assume. Namely, | 
| 139 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 140 | 
+ | 
P_{\gamma} \propto \Omega( E_{\text{bath}} ) =  | 
| 141 | 
+ | 
        e^{\ln \Omega( E - E_{\gamma})} | 
| 142 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM11} | 
| 143 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 144 | 
+ | 
With $E_{\gamma} \ll E$, $\ln \Omega$ can be expanded in a Taylor series: | 
| 145 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 146 | 
+ | 
\ln \Omega ( E - E_{\gamma}) =  | 
| 147 | 
+ | 
        \ln \Omega (E) - | 
| 148 | 
+ | 
        E_{\gamma}  \frac{\partial \ln \Omega }{\partial E} | 
| 149 | 
+ | 
        + \ldots | 
| 150 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM12} | 
| 151 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 152 | 
+ | 
Higher order terms are omitted as $E$ is an infinite thermal | 
| 153 | 
+ | 
bath. Further, using Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM7}, Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM11} can | 
| 154 | 
+ | 
be rewritten: | 
| 155 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 156 | 
+ | 
P_{\gamma} \propto e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}} | 
| 157 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM13} | 
| 158 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 159 | 
+ | 
Where $\ln \Omega(E)$ has been factored out of the proportionality as a | 
| 160 | 
+ | 
constant.  Normalizing the probability ($\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} | 
| 161 | 
+ | 
d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} P_{\gamma} = 1$) gives  | 
| 162 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 163 | 
+ | 
P_{\gamma} = \frac{e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}} | 
| 164 | 
+ | 
{\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}} | 
| 165 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM14} | 
| 166 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 167 | 
+ | 
This result is the standard Boltzmann statistical distribution. | 
| 168 | 
+ | 
Applying it to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM10} one can obtain the following relation for ensemble averages: | 
| 169 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 170 | 
+ | 
\langle A \rangle =  | 
| 171 | 
+ | 
\frac{\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}  | 
| 172 | 
+ | 
        A( \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ) e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}} | 
| 173 | 
+ | 
{\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}} | 
| 174 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:SM15} | 
| 175 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 176 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 177 | 
+ | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:ergodic}The Ergodic Hypothesis} | 
| 178 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 179 | 
+ | 
One last important consideration is that of ergodicity. Ergodicity is | 
| 180 | 
+ | 
the assumption that given an infinite amount of time, a system will | 
| 181 | 
+ | 
visit every available point in phase space.\cite{Frenkel1996} For most | 
| 182 | 
+ | 
systems, this is a valid assumption, except in cases where the system | 
| 183 | 
+ | 
may be trapped in a local feature (\emph{e.g.}~glasses). When valid, | 
| 184 | 
+ | 
ergodicity allows the unification of a time averaged observation and | 
| 185 | 
+ | 
an ensemble averaged one. If an observation is averaged over a | 
| 186 | 
+ | 
sufficiently long time, the system is assumed to visit all | 
| 187 | 
+ | 
appropriately available points in phase space, giving a properly | 
| 188 | 
+ | 
weighted statistical average. This allows the researcher freedom of | 
| 189 | 
+ | 
choice when deciding how best to measure a given observable.  When an | 
| 190 | 
+ | 
ensemble averaged approach seems most logical, the Monte Carlo | 
| 191 | 
+ | 
techniques described in Sec.~\ref{introSec:monteCarlo} can be utilized. | 
| 192 | 
+ | 
Conversely, if a problem lends itself to a time averaging approach, | 
| 193 | 
+ | 
the Molecular Dynamics techniques in Sec.~\ref{introSec:MD} can be | 
| 194 | 
+ | 
employed. | 
| 195 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 196 | 
+ | 
\section{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations} | 
| 197 | 
+ | 
 | 
| 198 | 
  | 
The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their | 
| 199 | 
  | 
work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so | 
| 200 | 
  | 
named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its | 
| 210 | 
  | 
\end{equation} | 
| 211 | 
  | 
The equation can be recast as: | 
| 212 | 
  | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 213 | 
< | 
I = (b-a)<f(x)> | 
| 213 | 
> | 
I = (b-a)\langle f(x) \rangle | 
| 214 | 
  | 
\label{eq:MCex2} | 
| 215 | 
  | 
\end{equation} | 
| 216 | 
< | 
Where $<f(x)>$ is the unweighted average over the interval | 
| 216 | 
> | 
Where $\langle f(x) \rangle$ is the unweighted average over the interval | 
| 217 | 
  | 
$[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by | 
| 218 | 
  | 
randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating | 
| 219 | 
  | 
the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then | 
| 220 | 
< | 
approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely | 
| 220 | 
> | 
approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infinitely | 
| 221 | 
  | 
large. | 
| 222 | 
  | 
 | 
| 223 | 
  | 
However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in | 
| 224 | 
  | 
integrals of the form: | 
| 225 | 
  | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 226 | 
< | 
<A> = \frac{A}{exp^{-\beta}} | 
| 226 | 
> | 
\langle A \rangle = \frac{\int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)%  | 
| 227 | 
> | 
        e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}% | 
| 228 | 
> | 
        {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}} | 
| 229 | 
  | 
\label{eq:mcEnsAvg} | 
| 230 | 
  | 
\end{equation} | 
| 231 | 
< | 
Where $r^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles and $A$ is | 
| 232 | 
< | 
some observable that is only dependent on position. $<A>$ is the | 
| 233 | 
< | 
ensemble average of $A$ as presented in | 
| 234 | 
< | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is independent of | 
| 235 | 
< | 
momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can be factored | 
| 236 | 
< | 
out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the brute | 
| 237 | 
< | 
force method to this system would yield highly inefficient | 
| 238 | 
< | 
results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random | 
| 231 | 
> | 
Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles | 
| 232 | 
> | 
and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on position. This is | 
| 233 | 
> | 
the ensemble average of $A$ as presented in | 
| 234 | 
> | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}, except here $A$ is independent of | 
| 235 | 
> | 
momentum. Therefore the momenta contribution of the integral can be | 
| 236 | 
> | 
factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the | 
| 237 | 
> | 
brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient | 
| 238 | 
> | 
results. Due to the Boltzmann weighting of this integral, most random | 
| 239 | 
  | 
configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble | 
| 240 | 
< | 
average. This is where a importance sampling comes into | 
| 240 | 
> | 
average. This is where importance sampling comes into | 
| 241 | 
  | 
play.\cite{allen87:csl} | 
| 242 | 
  | 
 | 
| 243 | 
  | 
Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from | 
| 244 | 
  | 
which the random configurations are chosen in order to more | 
| 245 | 
  | 
efficiently calculate the integral.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider again | 
| 246 | 
  | 
Eq.~\ref{eq:MCex1} rewritten to be: | 
| 247 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 248 | 
+ | 
I = \int^b_a \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \rho(x) dx | 
| 249 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:Importance1} | 
| 250 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 251 | 
+ | 
Where $\rho(x)$ is an arbitrary probability distribution in $x$.  If | 
| 252 | 
+ | 
one conducts $\tau$ trials selecting a random number, $\zeta_\tau$, | 
| 253 | 
+ | 
from the distribution $\rho(x)$ on the interval $[a,b]$, then | 
| 254 | 
+ | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance1} becomes | 
| 255 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 256 | 
+ | 
I= \biggl \langle \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \biggr \rangle_{\text{trials}} | 
| 257 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:Importance2} | 
| 258 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 259 | 
+ | 
Looking at Eq.~\ref{eq:mcEnsAvg}, and realizing | 
| 260 | 
+ | 
\begin {equation} | 
| 261 | 
+ | 
\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N) =  | 
| 262 | 
+ | 
        \frac{e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}} | 
| 263 | 
+ | 
        {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}} | 
| 264 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:MCboltzman} | 
| 265 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 266 | 
+ | 
Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the Boltzmann distribution.  The ensemble average | 
| 267 | 
+ | 
can be rewritten as | 
| 268 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 269 | 
+ | 
\langle A \rangle = \int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)  | 
| 270 | 
+ | 
        \rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N) | 
| 271 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:Importance3} | 
| 272 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 273 | 
+ | 
Applying Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance1} one obtains | 
| 274 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 275 | 
+ | 
\langle A \rangle = \biggl \langle | 
| 276 | 
+ | 
        \frac{ A \rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N) } | 
| 277 | 
+ | 
        {\rho(\mathbf{r}^N)} \biggr \rangle_{\text{trials}} | 
| 278 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:Importance4} | 
| 279 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 280 | 
+ | 
By selecting $\rho(\mathbf{r}^N)$ to be $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$ | 
| 281 | 
+ | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} becomes | 
| 282 | 
+ | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 283 | 
+ | 
\langle A \rangle = \langle A(\mathbf{r}^N) \rangle_{\text{trials}} | 
| 284 | 
+ | 
\label{introEq:Importance5} | 
| 285 | 
+ | 
\end{equation} | 
| 286 | 
+ | 
The difficulty is selecting points $\mathbf{r}^N$ such that they are | 
| 287 | 
+ | 
sampled from the distribution $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.  A solution | 
| 288 | 
+ | 
was proposed by Metropolis \emph{et al}.\cite{metropolis:1953} which involved | 
| 289 | 
+ | 
the use of a Markov chain whose limiting distribution was | 
| 290 | 
+ | 
$\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$. | 
| 291 | 
  | 
 | 
| 292 | 
+ | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains} | 
| 293 | 
  | 
 | 
| 294 | 
+ | 
A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following | 
| 295 | 
+ | 
conditions:\cite{leach01:mm} | 
| 296 | 
+ | 
\begin{enumerate} | 
| 297 | 
+ | 
\item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial. | 
| 298 | 
+ | 
\item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space. | 
| 299 | 
+ | 
\end{enumerate} | 
| 300 | 
+ | 
If given two configurations, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$, | 
| 301 | 
+ | 
$\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probabilities of being in state | 
| 302 | 
+ | 
$\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$ respectively.  Further, the two | 
| 303 | 
+ | 
states are linked by a transition probability, $\pi_{mn}$, which is the | 
| 304 | 
+ | 
probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$. | 
| 305 | 
  | 
 | 
| 306 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:md}Molecular Dynamics Simulations} | 
| 306 | 
> | 
\newcommand{\accMe}{\operatorname{acc}} | 
| 307 | 
  | 
 | 
| 308 | 
< | 
time averages | 
| 308 | 
> | 
The transition probability is given by the following: | 
| 309 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 310 | 
> | 
\pi_{mn} = \alpha_{mn} \times \accMe(m \rightarrow n) | 
| 311 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCpi} | 
| 312 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 313 | 
> | 
Where $\alpha_{mn}$ is the probability of attempting the move $m | 
| 314 | 
> | 
\rightarrow n$, and $\accMe$ is the probability of accepting the move | 
| 315 | 
> | 
$m \rightarrow n$.  Defining a probability vector, | 
| 316 | 
> | 
$\boldsymbol{\rho}$, such that | 
| 317 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 318 | 
> | 
\boldsymbol{\rho} = \{\rho_1, \rho_2, \ldots \rho_m, \rho_n,  | 
| 319 | 
> | 
        \ldots \rho_N \} | 
| 320 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCrhoVector} | 
| 321 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 322 | 
> | 
a transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ can be defined, | 
| 323 | 
> | 
whose elements are $\pi_{mn}$, for each given transition.  The | 
| 324 | 
> | 
limiting distribution of the Markov chain can then be found by | 
| 325 | 
> | 
applying the transition matrix an infinite number of times to the | 
| 326 | 
> | 
distribution vector. | 
| 327 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 328 | 
> | 
\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}} =  | 
| 329 | 
> | 
        \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{initial}} | 
| 330 | 
> | 
        \boldsymbol{\Pi}^N | 
| 331 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCmarkovLimit} | 
| 332 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 333 | 
> | 
The limiting distribution of the chain is independent of the starting | 
| 334 | 
> | 
distribution, and successive applications of the transition matrix | 
| 335 | 
> | 
will only yield the limiting distribution again. | 
| 336 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 337 | 
> | 
\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}} = \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{initial}} | 
| 338 | 
> | 
        \boldsymbol{\Pi} | 
| 339 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCmarkovEquil} | 
| 340 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 341 | 
  | 
 | 
| 342 | 
< | 
time integrating schemes | 
| 342 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method} | 
| 343 | 
  | 
 | 
| 344 | 
< | 
time reversible | 
| 344 | 
> | 
In the Metropolis method\cite{metropolis:1953} | 
| 345 | 
> | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmarkovEquil} is solved such that | 
| 346 | 
> | 
$\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzmann distribution | 
| 347 | 
> | 
of states.  The method accomplishes this by imposing the strong | 
| 348 | 
> | 
condition of microscopic reversibility on the equilibrium | 
| 349 | 
> | 
distribution.  Meaning, that at equilibrium the probability of going | 
| 350 | 
> | 
from $m$ to $n$ is the same as going from $n$ to $m$. | 
| 351 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 352 | 
> | 
\rho_m\pi_{mn} = \rho_n\pi_{nm} | 
| 353 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCmicroReverse} | 
| 354 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 355 | 
> | 
Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symmetric matrix in | 
| 356 | 
> | 
the Metropolis method.  Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCpi}, | 
| 357 | 
> | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes | 
| 358 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 359 | 
> | 
\frac{\accMe(m \rightarrow n)}{\accMe(n \rightarrow m)} = | 
| 360 | 
> | 
        \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m} | 
| 361 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCmicro2} | 
| 362 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 363 | 
> | 
For a Boltzmann limiting distribution, | 
| 364 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 365 | 
> | 
\frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m} = e^{-\beta[\mathcal{U}(n) - \mathcal{U}(m)]} | 
| 366 | 
> | 
        = e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}} | 
| 367 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MCmicro3} | 
| 368 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 369 | 
> | 
This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined: | 
| 370 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 371 | 
> | 
\accMe( m \rightarrow n ) =  | 
| 372 | 
> | 
        \begin{cases} | 
| 373 | 
> | 
        1& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} \leq 0$,} \\ | 
| 374 | 
> | 
        e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} > 0$.} | 
| 375 | 
> | 
        \end{cases} | 
| 376 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:accRules} | 
| 377 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 378 | 
  | 
 | 
| 379 | 
< | 
symplectic methods | 
| 379 | 
> | 
Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{introEq:accRules} the | 
| 380 | 
> | 
Metropolis method proceeds as follows | 
| 381 | 
> | 
\begin{enumerate} | 
| 382 | 
> | 
\item Generate an initial configuration $\mathbf{r}^N$ which has some finite probability in $\rho_{kT}$. | 
| 383 | 
> | 
\item Modify $\mathbf{r}^N$, to generate configuration $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$. | 
| 384 | 
> | 
\item If the new configuration lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($\mathbf{r}^N$ becomes $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$).  Otherwise accept with probability $e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}$. | 
| 385 | 
> | 
\item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of interest. | 
| 386 | 
> | 
\item Repeat from step 2 until the average converges. | 
| 387 | 
> | 
\end{enumerate} | 
| 388 | 
> | 
One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move | 
| 389 | 
> | 
is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average. | 
| 390 | 
> | 
Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} it becomes clear that the | 
| 391 | 
> | 
accumulated averages are the ensemble averages, as this method ensures | 
| 392 | 
> | 
that the limiting distribution is the Boltzmann distribution. | 
| 393 | 
  | 
 | 
| 394 | 
< | 
Extended ensembles (NVT NPT) | 
| 394 | 
> | 
\section{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations} | 
| 395 | 
  | 
 | 
| 396 | 
< | 
constrained dynamics | 
| 396 | 
> | 
The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics. | 
| 397 | 
> | 
Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are | 
| 398 | 
> | 
integrated in order to obtain information about both the positions and | 
| 399 | 
> | 
momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only | 
| 400 | 
> | 
configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well: | 
| 401 | 
> | 
diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding | 
| 402 | 
> | 
events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, | 
| 403 | 
> | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:ergodic}, the average of these observables over the | 
| 404 | 
> | 
time period of the simulation are taken to be the ensemble averages | 
| 405 | 
> | 
for the system. | 
| 406 | 
  | 
 | 
| 407 | 
< | 
\section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout} | 
| 407 | 
> | 
The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo | 
| 408 | 
> | 
techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the | 
| 409 | 
> | 
researcher is interested.  If the observables depend on momenta in | 
| 410 | 
> | 
any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form. | 
| 411 | 
> | 
However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration, | 
| 412 | 
> | 
then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficient. | 
| 413 | 
  | 
 | 
| 414 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption} | 
| 414 | 
> | 
The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is | 
| 415 | 
> | 
centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers, | 
| 416 | 
> | 
making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties. | 
| 417 | 
  | 
 | 
| 418 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package} | 
| 418 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:mdAlgorithm}The Molecular Dynamics Algorithm} | 
| 419 | 
  | 
 | 
| 420 | 
< | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers} | 
| 420 | 
> | 
To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the | 
| 421 | 
> | 
following sections will describe the sequence involved in a | 
| 422 | 
> | 
simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdInit} deals with the initialization | 
| 423 | 
> | 
of a simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdForce} discusses issues | 
| 424 | 
> | 
involved with the calculation of the forces. | 
| 425 | 
> | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate} concludes the algorithm discussion | 
| 426 | 
> | 
with the integration of the equations of motion.\cite{Frenkel1996} | 
| 427 | 
> | 
 | 
| 428 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:mdInit}Initialization} | 
| 429 | 
> | 
 | 
| 430 | 
> | 
When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is | 
| 431 | 
> | 
important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe. | 
| 432 | 
> | 
Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of | 
| 433 | 
> | 
phospholipid membranes.  Therefore in these simulations initial | 
| 434 | 
> | 
positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in | 
| 435 | 
> | 
water, and in other cases structured the lipids into performed | 
| 436 | 
> | 
bilayers.  Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are: | 
| 437 | 
> | 
\begin{itemize} | 
| 438 | 
> | 
\item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals | 
| 439 | 
> | 
\item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not give the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum. | 
| 440 | 
> | 
\item It is also sometimes desirable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature. | 
| 441 | 
> | 
\end{itemize} | 
| 442 | 
> | 
 | 
| 443 | 
> | 
The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy | 
| 444 | 
> | 
generated by having two particles too close together.  If overlap | 
| 445 | 
> | 
occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as | 
| 446 | 
> | 
to render the numerical integration of the motion meaningless.  The | 
| 447 | 
> | 
second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a | 
| 448 | 
> | 
whole.  This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems | 
| 449 | 
> | 
in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces.  Therefore any net | 
| 450 | 
> | 
movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method | 
| 451 | 
> | 
used.  The final point addresses the selection of the magnitude of the | 
| 452 | 
> | 
initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convenient to use | 
| 453 | 
> | 
this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the | 
| 454 | 
> | 
desired thermal distribution of the system.  However, it must be noted | 
| 455 | 
> | 
that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the | 
| 456 | 
> | 
first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of | 
| 457 | 
> | 
kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom. | 
| 458 | 
> | 
 | 
| 459 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:mdForce}Force Evaluation} | 
| 460 | 
> | 
 | 
| 461 | 
> | 
The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion | 
| 462 | 
> | 
of a given molecular dynamics simulation.  This is due entirely to the | 
| 463 | 
> | 
evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise. | 
| 464 | 
> | 
These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes | 
| 465 | 
> | 
Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $N(N-1)/ 2$ | 
| 466 | 
> | 
pairs to be evaluated, where $N$ is the number of particles in the | 
| 467 | 
> | 
system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $N^2$, making large | 
| 468 | 
> | 
simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving | 
| 469 | 
> | 
techniques. | 
| 470 | 
> | 
 | 
| 471 | 
> | 
Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation | 
| 472 | 
> | 
a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of | 
| 473 | 
> | 
the surface.\cite{allen87:csl} For a cubic system of 1000 particles | 
| 474 | 
> | 
arranged in a $10 \times 10 \times 10$ cube, 488 particles will be | 
| 475 | 
> | 
exposed to the surface.  Unless one is simulating an isolated particle | 
| 476 | 
> | 
group in a vacuum, the behavior of the system will be far from the | 
| 477 | 
> | 
desired bulk characteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the | 
| 478 | 
> | 
use of periodic boundary images.\cite{born:1912} | 
| 479 | 
> | 
 | 
| 480 | 
> | 
The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the | 
| 481 | 
> | 
simulation box on an infinite lattice in Cartesian space.  Any given | 
| 482 | 
> | 
particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of | 
| 483 | 
> | 
itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{introFig:pbc}).  In | 
| 484 | 
> | 
addition, this sets that any two particles have an image, real or | 
| 485 | 
> | 
periodic, within $\text{box}/2$ of each other.  A discussion of the | 
| 486 | 
> | 
method used to calculate the periodic image can be found in | 
| 487 | 
> | 
Sec.\ref{oopseSec:pbc}. | 
| 488 | 
> | 
 | 
| 489 | 
> | 
\begin{figure} | 
| 490 | 
> | 
\centering | 
| 491 | 
> | 
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbcFig.eps} | 
| 492 | 
> | 
\caption[An illustration of periodic boundary conditions]{A 2-D illustration of periodic boundary conditions. As one particle leaves the right of the simulation box, an image of it enters the left.} | 
| 493 | 
> | 
\label{introFig:pbc} | 
| 494 | 
> | 
\end{figure} | 
| 495 | 
> | 
 | 
| 496 | 
> | 
Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force | 
| 497 | 
> | 
evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a | 
| 498 | 
> | 
cutoff radius be employed.  Using a cutoff radius improves the | 
| 499 | 
> | 
efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a | 
| 500 | 
> | 
predetermined distance, $r_{\text{cut}}$, are not included in the | 
| 501 | 
> | 
calculation.\cite{Frenkel1996} In a simulation with periodic images, | 
| 502 | 
> | 
$r_{\text{cut}}$ has a maximum value of $\text{box}/2$. | 
| 503 | 
> | 
Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMax} illustrates how when using an | 
| 504 | 
> | 
$r_{\text{cut}}$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no | 
| 505 | 
> | 
$r_{\text{cut}}$ at all, the corners of the simulation box are | 
| 506 | 
> | 
unequally weighted due to the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, | 
| 507 | 
> | 
or $z$ directions past a distance of $\text{box} / 2$. | 
| 508 | 
> | 
 | 
| 509 | 
> | 
\begin{figure} | 
| 510 | 
> | 
\centering | 
| 511 | 
> | 
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxFig.eps} | 
| 512 | 
> | 
\caption[An explanation of $r_{\text{cut}}$]{The yellow atom has all other images wrapped to itself as the center. If $r_{\text{cut}}=\text{box}/2$, then the distribution is uniform (blue atoms). However, when $r_{\text{cut}}>\text{box}/2$ the corners are disproportionately weighted (green atoms) vs the axial directions (shaded regions).} | 
| 513 | 
> | 
\label{introFig:rMax} | 
| 514 | 
> | 
\end{figure} | 
| 515 | 
> | 
 | 
| 516 | 
> | 
With the use of an $r_{\text{cut}}$, however, comes a discontinuity in | 
| 517 | 
> | 
the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). To fix this | 
| 518 | 
> | 
discontinuity, one calculates the potential energy at the | 
| 519 | 
> | 
$r_{\text{cut}}$, and adds that value to the potential, causing | 
| 520 | 
> | 
the function to go smoothly to zero at the cutoff radius.  This | 
| 521 | 
> | 
shifted potential ensures conservation of energy when integrating the | 
| 522 | 
> | 
Newtonian equations of motion. | 
| 523 | 
> | 
 | 
| 524 | 
> | 
\begin{figure} | 
| 525 | 
> | 
\centering | 
| 526 | 
> | 
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shiftedPot.eps} | 
| 527 | 
> | 
\caption[Shifting the Lennard-Jones Potential]{The Lennard-Jones potential (blue line) is shifted (red line) to remove the discontinuity at $r_{\text{cut}}$.} | 
| 528 | 
> | 
\label{introFig:shiftPot} | 
| 529 | 
> | 
\end{figure} | 
| 530 | 
> | 
 | 
| 531 | 
> | 
The second main simplification used in this research is the Verlet | 
| 532 | 
> | 
neighbor list. \cite{allen87:csl} In the Verlet method, one generates | 
| 533 | 
> | 
a list of all neighbor atoms, $j$, surrounding atom $i$ within some | 
| 534 | 
> | 
cutoff $r_{\text{list}}$, where $r_{\text{list}}>r_{\text{cut}}$. | 
| 535 | 
> | 
This list is created the first time forces are evaluated, then on | 
| 536 | 
> | 
subsequent force evaluations, pair calculations are only calculated | 
| 537 | 
> | 
from the neighbor lists.  The lists are updated if any given particle | 
| 538 | 
> | 
in the system moves farther than $r_{\text{list}}-r_{\text{cut}}$, | 
| 539 | 
> | 
giving rise to the possibility that a particle has left or joined a | 
| 540 | 
> | 
neighbor list. | 
| 541 | 
> | 
 | 
| 542 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:mdIntegrate} Integration of the equations of motion} | 
| 543 | 
> | 
 | 
| 544 | 
> | 
A starting point for the discussion of molecular dynamics integrators | 
| 545 | 
> | 
is the Verlet algorithm.\cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor | 
| 546 | 
> | 
expansion of position in time: | 
| 547 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 548 | 
> | 
q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 + | 
| 549 | 
> | 
        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} + | 
| 550 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)  | 
| 551 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:verletForward} | 
| 552 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 553 | 
> | 
As well as, | 
| 554 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 555 | 
> | 
q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 - | 
| 556 | 
> | 
        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} + | 
| 557 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)  | 
| 558 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:verletBack} | 
| 559 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 560 | 
> | 
Where $m$ is the mass of the particle, $q(t)$ is the position at time | 
| 561 | 
> | 
$t$, $v(t)$ the velocity, and $F(t)$ the force acting on the | 
| 562 | 
> | 
particle. Adding together Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletForward} and | 
| 563 | 
> | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletBack} results in, | 
| 564 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 565 | 
> | 
q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =  | 
| 566 | 
> | 
        2q(t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)  | 
| 567 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:verletSum} | 
| 568 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 569 | 
> | 
Or equivalently, | 
| 570 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 571 | 
> | 
q(t+\Delta t) \approx  | 
| 572 | 
> | 
        2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 | 
| 573 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:verletFinal} | 
| 574 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 575 | 
> | 
Which contains an error in the estimate of the new positions on the | 
| 576 | 
> | 
order of $\Delta t^4$. | 
| 577 | 
> | 
 | 
| 578 | 
> | 
In practice, however, the simulations in this research were integrated | 
| 579 | 
> | 
with a velocity reformulation of the Verlet method.\cite{allen87:csl} | 
| 580 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 581 | 
> | 
q(t+\Delta t) &= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 % | 
| 582 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MDvelVerletPos} \\% | 
| 583 | 
> | 
% | 
| 584 | 
> | 
v(t+\Delta t) &= v(t) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}[F(t) + F(t+\Delta t)] % | 
| 585 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MDvelVerletVel} | 
| 586 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 587 | 
> | 
The original Verlet algorithm can be regained by substituting the | 
| 588 | 
> | 
velocity back into Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDvelVerletPos}.  The Verlet | 
| 589 | 
> | 
formulations are chosen in this research because the algorithms have | 
| 590 | 
> | 
very little long term drift in energy conservation.  Energy | 
| 591 | 
> | 
conservation in a molecular dynamics simulation is of extreme | 
| 592 | 
> | 
importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is following the | 
| 593 | 
> | 
``true'' trajectory with the finite integration scheme.  An exact | 
| 594 | 
> | 
solution to the integration will conserve area in phase space, as well | 
| 595 | 
> | 
as be reversible in time, that is, the trajectory integrated forward | 
| 596 | 
> | 
or backwards will exactly match itself.  Having a finite algorithm | 
| 597 | 
> | 
that both conserves area in phase space and is time reversible, | 
| 598 | 
> | 
therefore increases, but does not guarantee the ``correctness'' or the | 
| 599 | 
> | 
integrated trajectory. | 
| 600 | 
> | 
 | 
| 601 | 
> | 
It can be shown,\cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm | 
| 602 | 
> | 
does not rigorously preserve the actual Hamiltonian, it does preserve | 
| 603 | 
> | 
a pseudo-Hamiltonian which shadows the real one in phase space.  This | 
| 604 | 
> | 
pseudo-Hamiltonian is provably area-conserving as well as time | 
| 605 | 
> | 
reversible.  The fact that it shadows the true Hamiltonian in phase | 
| 606 | 
> | 
space is acceptable in actual simulations as one is interested in the | 
| 607 | 
> | 
ensemble average of the observable being measured.  From the ergodic | 
| 608 | 
> | 
hypothesis (Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}), it is known that the time | 
| 609 | 
> | 
average will match the ensemble average, therefore two similar | 
| 610 | 
> | 
trajectories in phase space should give matching statistical averages. | 
| 611 | 
> | 
 | 
| 612 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurther}Further Considerations} | 
| 613 | 
> | 
 | 
| 614 | 
> | 
In the simulations presented in this research, a few additional | 
| 615 | 
> | 
parameters are needed to describe the motions.  The simulations | 
| 616 | 
> | 
involving water and phospholipids in Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} are | 
| 617 | 
> | 
required to integrate the equations of motions for dipoles on atoms. | 
| 618 | 
> | 
This involves an additional three parameters be specified for each | 
| 619 | 
> | 
dipole atom: $\phi$, $\theta$, and $\psi$.  These three angles are | 
| 620 | 
> | 
taken to be the Euler angles, where $\phi$ is a rotation about the | 
| 621 | 
> | 
$z$-axis, and $\theta$ is a rotation about the new $x$-axis, and | 
| 622 | 
> | 
$\psi$ is a final rotation about the new $z$-axis (see | 
| 623 | 
> | 
Fig.~\ref{introFig:eulerAngles}).  This sequence of rotations can be | 
| 624 | 
> | 
accumulated into a single $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, | 
| 625 | 
> | 
defined as follows: | 
| 626 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 627 | 
> | 
\mathbf{A} =  | 
| 628 | 
> | 
\begin{bmatrix} | 
| 629 | 
> | 
        \cos\phi\cos\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &% | 
| 630 | 
> | 
        \sin\phi\cos\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &% | 
| 631 | 
> | 
        \sin\theta\sin\psi \\% | 
| 632 | 
> | 
        % | 
| 633 | 
> | 
        -\cos\phi\sin\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &% | 
| 634 | 
> | 
        -\sin\phi\sin\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &% | 
| 635 | 
> | 
        \sin\theta\cos\psi \\% | 
| 636 | 
> | 
        % | 
| 637 | 
> | 
        \sin\phi\sin\theta &% | 
| 638 | 
> | 
        -\cos\phi\sin\theta &% | 
| 639 | 
> | 
        \cos\theta | 
| 640 | 
> | 
\end{bmatrix} | 
| 641 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:EulerRotMat} | 
| 642 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 643 | 
> | 
 | 
| 644 | 
> | 
The equations of motion for Euler angles can be written down | 
| 645 | 
> | 
as\cite{allen87:csl} | 
| 646 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 647 | 
> | 
\dot{\phi} &= -\omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} + | 
| 648 | 
> | 
        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} + | 
| 649 | 
> | 
        \omega^s_z | 
| 650 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MDeulerPhi} \\% | 
| 651 | 
> | 
% | 
| 652 | 
> | 
\dot{\theta} &= \omega^s_x \cos\phi + \omega^s_y \sin\phi | 
| 653 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MDeulerTheta} \\% | 
| 654 | 
> | 
% | 
| 655 | 
> | 
\dot{\psi} &= \omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi}{\sin\theta} -  | 
| 656 | 
> | 
        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi}{\sin\theta} | 
| 657 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:MDeulerPsi} | 
| 658 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 659 | 
> | 
Where $\omega^s_i$ is the angular velocity in the lab space frame | 
| 660 | 
> | 
along Cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when | 
| 661 | 
> | 
attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPhi} and | 
| 662 | 
> | 
Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPsi}. The $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ present in | 
| 663 | 
> | 
both equations means there is a non-physical instability present when | 
| 664 | 
> | 
$\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$. To correct for this, the simulations integrate | 
| 665 | 
> | 
the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, directly, thus avoiding the | 
| 666 | 
> | 
instability.  This method was proposed by Dullweber | 
| 667 | 
> | 
\emph{et. al.}\cite{Dullweber1997}, and is presented in | 
| 668 | 
> | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDsymplecticRot}. | 
| 669 | 
> | 
 | 
| 670 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:MDliouville}Liouville Propagator} | 
| 671 | 
> | 
 | 
| 672 | 
> | 
Before discussing the integration of the rotation matrix, it is | 
| 673 | 
> | 
necessary to understand the construction of a ``good'' integration | 
| 674 | 
> | 
scheme.  It has been previously | 
| 675 | 
> | 
discussed(Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}) how it is desirable for an | 
| 676 | 
> | 
integrator to be symplectic, or time reversible.  The following is an | 
| 677 | 
> | 
outline of the Trotter factorization of the Liouville Propagator as a | 
| 678 | 
> | 
scheme for generating symplectic integrators.\cite{Tuckerman92} | 
| 679 | 
> | 
 | 
| 680 | 
> | 
For a system with $f$ degrees of freedom the Liouville operator can be | 
| 681 | 
> | 
defined as, | 
| 682 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 683 | 
> | 
iL=\sum^f_{j=1} \biggl [\dot{q}_j\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} + | 
| 684 | 
> | 
        F_j\frac{\partial}{\partial p_j} \biggr ] | 
| 685 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:LiouvilleOperator} | 
| 686 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 687 | 
> | 
Here, $q_j$ and $p_j$ are the position and conjugate momenta of a | 
| 688 | 
> | 
degree of freedom, and $F_j$ is the force on that degree of freedom. | 
| 689 | 
> | 
$\Gamma$ is defined as the set of all positions and conjugate momenta, | 
| 690 | 
> | 
$\{q_j,p_j\}$, and the propagator, $U(t)$, is defined | 
| 691 | 
> | 
\begin {equation} | 
| 692 | 
> | 
U(t) = e^{iLt} | 
| 693 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lpropagator} | 
| 694 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 695 | 
> | 
This allows the specification of $\Gamma$ at any time $t$ as  | 
| 696 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 697 | 
> | 
\Gamma(t) = U(t)\Gamma(0) | 
| 698 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp2} | 
| 699 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 700 | 
> | 
It is important to note, $U(t)$ is a unitary operator meaning | 
| 701 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 702 | 
> | 
U(-t)=U^{-1}(t) | 
| 703 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp3} | 
| 704 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 705 | 
> | 
 | 
| 706 | 
> | 
Decomposing $L$ into two parts, $iL_1$ and $iL_2$, one can use the | 
| 707 | 
> | 
Trotter theorem to yield | 
| 708 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 709 | 
> | 
e^{iLt} &= e^{i(L_1 + L_2)t} \notag \\% | 
| 710 | 
> | 
% | 
| 711 | 
> | 
        &= \biggl [ e^{i(L_1 +L_2)\frac{t}{P}} \biggr]^P \notag \\% | 
| 712 | 
> | 
% | 
| 713 | 
> | 
        &= \biggl [ e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\, | 
| 714 | 
> | 
        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \biggr ]^P + | 
| 715 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{O}\biggl (\frac{t^3}{P^2} \biggr ) \label{introEq:Lp4} | 
| 716 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 717 | 
> | 
Where $\Delta t = t/P$. | 
| 718 | 
> | 
With this, a discrete time operator $G(\Delta t)$ can be defined: | 
| 719 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 720 | 
> | 
G(\Delta t) &= e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\, | 
| 721 | 
> | 
        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \notag \\% | 
| 722 | 
> | 
% | 
| 723 | 
> | 
        &= U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )\, U_2 ( \Delta t )\, | 
| 724 | 
> | 
        U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr ) | 
| 725 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp5} | 
| 726 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 727 | 
> | 
Because $U_1(t)$ and $U_2(t)$ are unitary, $G(\Delta t)$ is also | 
| 728 | 
> | 
unitary.  Meaning an integrator based on this factorization will be | 
| 729 | 
> | 
reversible in time. | 
| 730 | 
> | 
 | 
| 731 | 
> | 
As an example, consider the following decomposition of $L$: | 
| 732 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 733 | 
> | 
iL_1 &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}% | 
| 734 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp6a} \\% | 
| 735 | 
> | 
% | 
| 736 | 
> | 
iL_2 &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}% | 
| 737 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp6b} | 
| 738 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 739 | 
> | 
This leads to propagator $G( \Delta t )$ as, | 
| 740 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 741 | 
> | 
G(\Delta t) =  e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \, | 
| 742 | 
> | 
        e^{\Delta t\,\dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}} \, | 
| 743 | 
> | 
        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} | 
| 744 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp7} | 
| 745 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 746 | 
> | 
Operating $G(\Delta t)$ on $\Gamma(0)$, and utilizing the operator property | 
| 747 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 748 | 
> | 
e^{c\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}\, f(x) = f(x+c) | 
| 749 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp8} | 
| 750 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 751 | 
> | 
Where $c$ is independent of $x$.  One obtains the following:   | 
| 752 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 753 | 
> | 
\dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) &= | 
| 754 | 
> | 
        \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9a}\\% | 
| 755 | 
> | 
% | 
| 756 | 
> | 
q(\Delta t) &= q(0) + \Delta t\, \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr )% | 
| 757 | 
> | 
        \label{introEq:Lp9b}\\% | 
| 758 | 
> | 
% | 
| 759 | 
> | 
\dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) + | 
| 760 | 
> | 
        \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9c} | 
| 761 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 762 | 
> | 
Or written another way, | 
| 763 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 764 | 
> | 
q(t+\Delta t) &= q(0) + \dot{q}(0)\Delta t +  | 
| 765 | 
> | 
        \frac{F[q(0)]}{m}\frac{\Delta t^2}{2} % | 
| 766 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp10a} \\% | 
| 767 | 
> | 
% | 
| 768 | 
> | 
\dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m} | 
| 769 | 
> | 
        \biggl [F[q(0)] + F[q(\Delta t)] \biggr] % | 
| 770 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:Lp10b} | 
| 771 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 772 | 
> | 
This is the velocity Verlet formulation presented in | 
| 773 | 
> | 
Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}.  Because this integration scheme is | 
| 774 | 
> | 
comprised of unitary propagators, it is symplectic, and therefore area | 
| 775 | 
> | 
preserving in phase space.  From the preceding factorization, one can | 
| 776 | 
> | 
see that the integration of the equations of motion would follow: | 
| 777 | 
> | 
\begin{enumerate} | 
| 778 | 
> | 
\item calculate the velocities at the half step, $\frac{\Delta t}{2}$, from the forces calculated at the initial position. | 
| 779 | 
> | 
 | 
| 780 | 
> | 
\item Use the half step velocities to move positions one whole step, $\Delta t$. | 
| 781 | 
> | 
 | 
| 782 | 
> | 
\item Evaluate the forces at the new positions, $\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)$, and use the new forces to complete the velocity move. | 
| 783 | 
> | 
 | 
| 784 | 
> | 
\item Repeat from step 1 with the new position, velocities, and forces assuming the roles of the initial values. | 
| 785 | 
> | 
\end{enumerate} | 
| 786 | 
> | 
 | 
| 787 | 
> | 
\subsection{\label{introSec:MDsymplecticRot} Symplectic Propagation of the Rotation Matrix} | 
| 788 | 
> | 
 | 
| 789 | 
> | 
Based on the factorization from the previous section, | 
| 790 | 
> | 
Dullweber\emph{et al}.\cite{Dullweber1997}~ proposed a scheme for the | 
| 791 | 
> | 
symplectic propagation of the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, as an | 
| 792 | 
> | 
alternative method for the integration of orientational degrees of | 
| 793 | 
> | 
freedom. The method starts with a straightforward splitting of the | 
| 794 | 
> | 
Liouville operator: | 
| 795 | 
> | 
\begin{align} | 
| 796 | 
> | 
iL_{\text{pos}} &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q} + | 
| 797 | 
> | 
        \mathbf{\dot{A}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{A}}  | 
| 798 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SR1a} \\% | 
| 799 | 
> | 
% | 
| 800 | 
> | 
iL_F &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p} | 
| 801 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SR1b} \\% | 
| 802 | 
> | 
iL_{\tau} &= \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi} | 
| 803 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SR1b} \\% | 
| 804 | 
> | 
\end{align} | 
| 805 | 
> | 
Where $\tau(\mathbf{A})$ is the torque of the system | 
| 806 | 
> | 
due to the configuration, and $\pi$ is the conjugate | 
| 807 | 
> | 
angular momenta of the system. The propagator, $G(\Delta t)$, becomes | 
| 808 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 809 | 
> | 
G(\Delta t) = e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \, | 
| 810 | 
> | 
        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \, | 
| 811 | 
> | 
        e^{\Delta t\,iL_{\text{pos}}} \, | 
| 812 | 
> | 
        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \, | 
| 813 | 
> | 
        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} | 
| 814 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SR2} | 
| 815 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 816 | 
> | 
Propagation of the linear and angular momenta follows as in the Verlet | 
| 817 | 
> | 
scheme.  The propagation of positions also follows the Verlet scheme | 
| 818 | 
> | 
with the addition of a further symplectic splitting of the rotation | 
| 819 | 
> | 
matrix propagation, $\mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t)$, within | 
| 820 | 
> | 
$U_{\text{pos}}(\Delta t)$. | 
| 821 | 
> | 
\begin{equation} | 
| 822 | 
> | 
\mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t) =  | 
| 823 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\, | 
| 824 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\, | 
| 825 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{U}_z (\Delta t)\, | 
| 826 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\, | 
| 827 | 
> | 
        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\, | 
| 828 | 
> | 
\label{introEq:SR3} | 
| 829 | 
> | 
\end{equation} | 
| 830 | 
> | 
Where $\mathcal{U}_j$ is a unitary rotation of $\mathbf{A}$ and | 
| 831 | 
> | 
$\pi$ about each axis $j$.  As all propagations are now | 
| 832 | 
> | 
unitary and symplectic, the entire integration scheme is also | 
| 833 | 
> | 
symplectic and time reversible. | 
| 834 | 
> | 
 | 
| 835 | 
> | 
\section{\label{introSec:layout}Dissertation Layout} | 
| 836 | 
> | 
 | 
| 837 | 
> | 
This dissertation is divided as follows:Ch.~\ref{chapt:RSA} | 
| 838 | 
> | 
presents the random sequential adsorption simulations of related | 
| 839 | 
> | 
pthalocyanines on a gold (111) surface. Ch.~\ref{chapt:OOPSE} | 
| 840 | 
> | 
is about the writing of the molecular dynamics simulation package | 
| 841 | 
> | 
{\sc oopse}. Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} regards the simulations of | 
| 842 | 
> | 
phospholipid bilayers using a mesoscale model. And lastly, | 
| 843 | 
> | 
Ch.~\ref{chapt:conclusion} concludes this dissertation with a | 
| 844 | 
> | 
summary of all results. The chapters are arranged in chronological | 
| 845 | 
> | 
order, and reflect the progression of techniques I employed during my | 
| 846 | 
> | 
research.   | 
| 847 | 
> | 
 | 
| 848 | 
> | 
The chapter concerning random sequential adsorption simulations is a | 
| 849 | 
> | 
study in applying Statistical Mechanics simulation techniques in order | 
| 850 | 
> | 
to obtain a simple model capable of explaining the results.  My | 
| 851 | 
> | 
advisor, Dr. Gezelter, and I were approached by a colleague, | 
| 852 | 
> | 
Dr. Lieberman, about possible explanations for the  partial coverage of a | 
| 853 | 
> | 
gold surface by a particular compound of hers. We suggested it might | 
| 854 | 
> | 
be due to the statistical packing fraction of disks on a plane, and | 
| 855 | 
> | 
set about to simulate this system.  As the events in our model were | 
| 856 | 
> | 
not dynamic in nature, a Monte Carlo method was employed.  Here, if a | 
| 857 | 
> | 
molecule landed on the surface without overlapping another, then its | 
| 858 | 
> | 
landing was accepted.  However, if there was overlap, the landing we | 
| 859 | 
> | 
rejected and a new random landing location was chosen.  This defined | 
| 860 | 
> | 
our acceptance rules and allowed us to construct a Markov chain whose | 
| 861 | 
> | 
limiting distribution was the surface coverage in which we were | 
| 862 | 
> | 
interested. | 
| 863 | 
> | 
 | 
| 864 | 
> | 
The following chapter, about the simulation package {\sc oopse}, | 
| 865 | 
> | 
describes in detail the large body of scientific code that had to be | 
| 866 | 
> | 
written in order to study phospholipid bilayers.  Although there are | 
| 867 | 
> | 
pre-existing molecular dynamic simulation packages available, none | 
| 868 | 
> | 
were capable of implementing the models we were developing.{\sc oopse} | 
| 869 | 
> | 
is a unique package capable of not only integrating the equations of | 
| 870 | 
> | 
motion in Cartesian space, but is also able to integrate the | 
| 871 | 
> | 
rotational motion of rigid bodies and dipoles.  Add to this the | 
| 872 | 
> | 
ability to perform calculations across parallel processors and a | 
| 873 | 
> | 
flexible script syntax for creating systems, and {\sc oopse} becomes a | 
| 874 | 
> | 
very powerful scientific instrument for the exploration of our model. | 
| 875 | 
> | 
 | 
| 876 | 
> | 
Bringing us to Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid}. Using {\sc oopse}, I have been | 
| 877 | 
> | 
able to parameterize a mesoscale model for phospholipid simulations. | 
| 878 | 
> | 
This model retains information about solvent ordering around the | 
| 879 | 
> | 
bilayer, as well as information regarding the interaction of the | 
| 880 | 
> | 
phospholipid head groups' dipoles with each other and the surrounding | 
| 881 | 
> | 
solvent.  These simulations give us insight into the dynamic events | 
| 882 | 
> | 
that lead to the formation of phospholipid bilayers, as well as | 
| 883 | 
> | 
provide the foundation for future exploration of bilayer phase | 
| 884 | 
> | 
behavior with this model.   | 
| 885 | 
> | 
 | 
| 886 | 
> | 
Which leads into the last chapter, where I discuss future directions | 
| 887 | 
> | 
for both{\sc oopse} and this mesoscale model.  Additionally, I will | 
| 888 | 
> | 
give a summary of results for this dissertation. | 
| 889 | 
> | 
 | 
| 890 | 
> | 
 |