ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/mattDisertation/Introduction.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/mattDisertation/Introduction.tex (file contents):
Revision 977 by mmeineke, Thu Jan 22 21:13:55 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1037 by mmeineke, Fri Feb 6 21:51:01 2004 UTC

# Line 1 | Line 1
1  
2  
3 < \chapter{\label{chapt:intro}Introduction and Theoretical Background}
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
10 < insight into the time dependent evolution of a system. Diffusion
8 > Carlo. Molecular Dynamics simulations integrate the equations of
9 > motion for a given system of particles, allowing the researcher to
10 > gain 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,
16 < or randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability
17 < based on the Maxwell Boltzman 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.
15 > available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastically, or
16 > randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability based
17 > on the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution. These types of simulations are
18 > best used to probe properties of a system that are dependent only on
19 > the state of the system. Structural information about a system is most
20 > readily obtained through these types of methods.
21  
22   Although the two techniques employed seem dissimilar, they are both
23   linked by the overarching principles of Statistical
24 < Thermodynamics. Statistical Thermodynamics governs the behavior of
24 > Mechanics. Statistical Meachanics governs the behavior of
25   both classes of simulations and dictates what each method can and
26   cannot do. When investigating a system, one most first analyze what
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 total energy $E_{\gamma}$.  Let
43 > $\Omega(E_{\gamma})$ represent the number of degenerate ways
44 > $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}\{r_1,r_2,\ldots r_n,p_1,p_2,\ldots p_n\}$, the
45 > collection of positions and conjugate momenta of system $\gamma$, can
46 > be configured to give $E_{\gamma}$. Further, if $\gamma$ is a subset
47 > of a larger system, $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\{E_1,E_2,\ldots
48 > E_{\gamma},\ldots E_n\}$, the total degeneracy of the system can be
49 > expressed as,
50 > \begin{equation}
51 > \Omega(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}) = \Omega(E_1) \times \Omega(E_2) \times \ldots
52 >        \Omega(E_{\gamma}) \times \ldots \Omega(E_n)
53 > \label{introEq:SM0.1}
54 > \end{equation}
55 > This multiplicative combination of degeneracies is illustrated in
56 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:degenProd}.
57 >
58 > \begin{figure}
59 > \centering
60 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{omegaFig.eps}
61 > \caption[An explanation of the combination of degeneracies]{Systems A and B both have three energy levels and two indistinguishable particles. When the total energy is 2, there are two ways for each system to disperse the energy. However, for system C, the superset of A and B, the total degeneracy is the product of the degeneracy of each system. In this case $\Omega(\text{C})$ is 4.}
62 > \label{introFig:degenProd}
63 > \end{figure}
64 >
65 > Next, consider the specific case of $\gamma$ in contact with a
66 > bath. Exchange of energy is allowed between the bath and the system,
67 > subject to the constraint that the total energy
68 > ($E_{\text{bath}}+E_{\gamma}$) remain constant. $\Omega(E)$, where $E$
69 > is the total energy of both systems, can be represented as
70 > \begin{equation}
71 > \Omega(E) = \Omega(E_{\gamma}) \times \Omega(E - E_{\gamma})
72 > \label{introEq:SM1}
73 > \end{equation}
74 > Or additively as
75 > \begin{equation}
76 > \ln \Omega(E) = \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma}) + \ln \Omega(E - E_{\gamma})
77 > \label{introEq:SM2}
78 > \end{equation}
79 >
80 > The solution to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM2} maximizes the number of
81 > degenerative configurations in $E$. \cite{Frenkel1996}
82 > This gives
83 > \begin{equation}
84 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E)}{\partial E_{\gamma}} = 0 =
85 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
86 >         +
87 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}
88 >        \frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
89 > \label{introEq:SM3}
90 > \end{equation}
91 > Where $E_{\text{bath}}$ is $E-E_{\gamma}$, and
92 > $\frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}}$ is
93 > $-1$. Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} becomes
94 > \begin{equation}
95 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}} =
96 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}
97 > \label{introEq:SM4}
98 > \end{equation}
99 >
100 > At this point, one can draw a relationship between the maximization of
101 > degeneracy in Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} and the second law of
102 > thermodynamics.  Namely, that for a closed system, entropy will
103 > increase for an irreversible process.\cite{chandler:1987} Here the
104 > process is the partitioning of energy among the two systems.  This
105 > allows the following definition of entropy:
106 > \begin{equation}
107 > S = k_B \ln \Omega(E)
108 > \label{introEq:SM5}
109 > \end{equation}
110 > Where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.  Having defined entropy, one can
111 > also define the temperature of the system using the relation
112 > \begin{equation}
113 > \frac{1}{T} = \biggl ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial E} \biggr )_{N,V}
114 > \label{introEq:SM6}
115 > \end{equation}
116 > The temperature in the system $\gamma$ is then
117 > \begin{equation}
118 > \beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \frac{1}{k_B T} =
119 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
120 > \label{introEq:SM7}
121 > \end{equation}
122 > Applying this to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM4} gives the following
123 > \begin{equation}
124 > \beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \beta( E_{\text{bath}} )
125 > \label{introEq:SM8}
126 > \end{equation}
127 > Showing that the partitioning of energy between the two systems is
128 > actually a process of thermal equilibration.\cite{Frenkel1996}
129 >
130 > An application of these results is to formulate the form of an
131 > expectation value of an observable, $A$, in the canonical ensemble. In
132 > the canonical ensemble, the number of particles, $N$, the volume, $V$,
133 > and the temperature, $T$, are all held constant while the energy, $E$,
134 > is allowed to fluctuate. Returning to the previous example, the bath
135 > system is now an infinitely large thermal bath, whose exchange of
136 > energy with the system $\gamma$ holds the temperature constant.  The
137 > partitioning of energy in the bath system is then related to the total
138 > energy of both systems and the fluctuations in $E_{\gamma}$:
139 > \begin{equation}
140 > \Omega( E_{\gamma} ) = \Omega( E - E_{\gamma} )
141 > \label{introEq:SM9}
142 > \end{equation}
143 > As for the expectation value, it can be defined
144 > \begin{equation}
145 > \langle A \rangle =
146 >        \int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}
147 >        P_{\gamma} A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma})
148 > \label{introEq:SM10}
149 > \end{equation}
150 > Where $\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ denotes
151 > an integration over all accessible phase space, $P_{\gamma}$ is the
152 > probability of being in a given phase state and
153 > $A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma})$ is some observable that is a function of the
154 > phase state.
155 >
156 > Because entropy seeks to maximize the number of degenerate states at a
157 > given energy, the probability of being in a particular state in
158 > $\gamma$ will be directly proportional to the number of allowable
159 > states the coupled system is able to assume. Namely,
160 > \begin{equation}
161 > P_{\gamma} \propto \Omega( E_{\text{bath}} ) =
162 >        e^{\ln \Omega( E - E_{\gamma})}
163 > \label{introEq:SM11}
164 > \end{equation}
165 > With $E_{\gamma} \ll E$, $\ln \Omega$ can be expanded in a Taylor series:
166 > \begin{equation}
167 > \ln \Omega ( E - E_{\gamma}) =
168 >        \ln \Omega (E) -
169 >        E_{\gamma}  \frac{\partial \ln \Omega }{\partial E}
170 >        + \ldots
171 > \label{introEq:SM12}
172 > \end{equation}
173 > Higher order terms are omitted as $E$ is an infinite thermal
174 > bath. Further, using Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM7}, Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM11} can
175 > be rewritten:
176 > \begin{equation}
177 > P_{\gamma} \propto e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}
178 > \label{introEq:SM13}
179 > \end{equation}
180 > Where $\ln \Omega(E)$ has been factored out of the proportionality as a
181 > constant.  Normalizing the probability ($\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}
182 > d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} P_{\gamma} = 1$) gives
183 > \begin{equation}
184 > P_{\gamma} = \frac{e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
185 > {\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
186 > \label{introEq:SM14}
187 > \end{equation}
188 > This result is the standard Boltzmann statistical distribution.
189 > Applying it to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM10} one can obtain the following relation for ensemble averages:
190 > \begin{equation}
191 > \langle A \rangle =
192 > \frac{\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}
193 >        A( \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ) e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
194 > {\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
195 > \label{introEq:SM15}
196 > \end{equation}
197 >
198 > \subsection{\label{introSec:ergodic}The Ergodic Hypothesis}
199 >
200 > One last important consideration is that of ergodicity. Ergodicity is
201 > the assumption that given an infinite amount of time, a system will
202 > visit every available point in phase space.\cite{Frenkel1996} For most
203 > systems, this is a valid assumption, except in cases where the system
204 > may be trapped in a local feature (\emph{e.g.}~glasses). When valid,
205 > ergodicity allows the unification of a time averaged observation and
206 > an ensemble averaged one. If an observation is averaged over a
207 > sufficiently long time, the system is assumed to visit all
208 > appropriately available points in phase space, giving a properly
209 > weighted statistical average. This allows the researcher freedom of
210 > choice when deciding how best to measure a given observable.  When an
211 > ensemble averaged approach seems most logical, the Monte Carlo
212 > techniques described in Sec.~\ref{introSec:monteCarlo} can be utilized.
213 > Conversely, if a problem lends itself to a time averaging approach,
214 > the Molecular Dynamics techniques in Sec.~\ref{introSec:MD} can be
215 > employed.
216  
217 + \section{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
218 +
219   The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
220   work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
221   named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its
# Line 60 | Line 238 | the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated ave
238   $[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by
239   randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating
240   the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then
241 < approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely
241 > approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infinitely
242   large.
243  
244   However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
# Line 72 | Line 250 | Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all
250   \label{eq:mcEnsAvg}
251   \end{equation}
252   Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles
253 < and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on
254 < position. $\langle A \rangle$ is the ensemble average of $A$ as
255 < presented in Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is
256 < independent of momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can
257 < be factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of
258 < the brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
259 < results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random
253 > and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on position. This is
254 > the ensemble average of $A$ as presented in
255 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}, except here $A$ is independent of
256 > momentum. Therefore the momenta contribution of the integral can be
257 > factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the
258 > brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
259 > results. Due to the Boltzmann weighting of this integral, most random
260   configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble
261 < average. This is where a importance sampling comes into
261 > average. This is where importance sampling comes into
262   play.\cite{allen87:csl}
263  
264   Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from
# Line 106 | Line 284 | Looking at Eq.~\ref{eq:mcEnsAvg}, and realizing
284          {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}
285   \label{introEq:MCboltzman}
286   \end{equation}
287 < Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the boltzman distribution.  The ensemble average
287 > Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the Boltzmann distribution.  The ensemble average
288   can be rewritten as
289   \begin{equation}
290   \langle A \rangle = \int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)
# Line 128 | Line 306 | sampled from the distribution $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)
306   \end{equation}
307   The difficulty is selecting points $\mathbf{r}^N$ such that they are
308   sampled from the distribution $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.  A solution
309 < was proposed by Metropolis et al.\cite{metropolis:1953} which involved
309 > was proposed by Metropolis \emph{et al}.\cite{metropolis:1953} which involved
310   the use of a Markov chain whose limiting distribution was
311   $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.
312  
313 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
313 > \subsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
314  
315   A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
316   conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
# Line 140 | Line 318 | conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
318   \item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial.
319   \item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space.
320   \end{enumerate}
321 < If given two configuartions, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
322 < $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probablilities of being in state
321 > If given two configurations, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
322 > $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probabilities of being in state
323   $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$ respectively.  Further, the two
324   states are linked by a transition probability, $\pi_{mn}$, which is the
325   probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$.
# Line 182 | Line 360 | will only yield the limiting distribution again.
360   \label{introEq:MCmarkovEquil}
361   \end{equation}
362  
363 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
363 > \subsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
364  
365   In the Metropolis method\cite{metropolis:1953}
366   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmarkovEquil} is solved such that
367 < $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzman distribution
367 > $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzmann distribution
368   of states.  The method accomplishes this by imposing the strong
369   condition of microscopic reversibility on the equilibrium
370   distribution.  Meaning, that at equilibrium the probability of going
# Line 195 | Line 373 | from $m$ to $n$ is the same as going from $n$ to $m$.
373   \rho_m\pi_{mn} = \rho_n\pi_{nm}
374   \label{introEq:MCmicroReverse}
375   \end{equation}
376 < Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symetric matrix in
376 > Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symmetric matrix in
377   the Metropolis method.  Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCpi},
378   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
379   \begin{equation}
# Line 203 | Line 381 | Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
381          \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m}
382   \label{introEq:MCmicro2}
383   \end{equation}
384 < For a Boltxman limiting distribution,
384 > For a Boltzmann limiting distribution,
385   \begin{equation}
386   \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m} = e^{-\beta[\mathcal{U}(n) - \mathcal{U}(m)]}
387          = e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}
# Line 211 | Line 389 | This allows for the following set of acceptance rules
389   \end{equation}
390   This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
391   \begin{equation}
392 < EQ Here
392 > \accMe( m \rightarrow n ) =
393 >        \begin{cases}
394 >        1& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} \leq 0$,} \\
395 >        e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} > 0$.}
396 >        \end{cases}
397 > \label{introEq:accRules}
398   \end{equation}
399  
400 < Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{fix} the Metropolis method
401 < proceeds as follows
402 < \begin{itemize}
403 < \item Generate an initial configuration $fix$ which has some finite probability in $fix$.
404 < \item Modify $fix$, to generate configuratioon $fix$.
405 < \item If configuration $n$ lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($fix$ becomes $fix$).  Otherwise accept with probability $fix$.
406 < \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of intereest.
407 < \item Repeat from step 2 until average converges.
408 < \end{itemize}
400 > Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{introEq:accRules} the
401 > Metropolis method proceeds as follows
402 > \begin{enumerate}
403 > \item Generate an initial configuration $\mathbf{r}^N$ which has some finite probability in $\rho_{kT}$.
404 > \item Modify $\mathbf{r}^N$, to generate configuration $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$.
405 > \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 $e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}$.
406 > \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of interest.
407 > \item Repeat from step 2 until the average converges.
408 > \end{enumerate}
409   One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move
410   is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average.
411 < Using Eq.~\ref{fix} it becomes clear that the accumulated averages are
412 < the ensemble averages, as this method ensures that the limiting
413 < distribution is the Boltzman distribution.
411 > Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} it becomes clear that the
412 > accumulated averages are the ensemble averages, as this method ensures
413 > that the limiting distribution is the Boltzmann distribution.
414  
415 < \subsection{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
415 > \section{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
416  
417   The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics.
418   Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are
# Line 237 | Line 420 | diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, foldi
420   momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only
421   configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well:
422   diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding
423 < events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~\ref{fix}, the
424 < average of these observables over the time period of the simulation
425 < are taken to be the ensemble averages for the system.
423 > events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity,
424 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:ergodic}, the average of these observables over the
425 > time period of the simulation are taken to be the ensemble averages
426 > for the system.
427  
428   The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo
429   techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the
430 < researcher is interested.  If the observabvles depend on momenta in
430 > researcher is interested.  If the observables depend on momenta in
431   any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form.
432   However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration,
433 < then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficent.
433 > then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficient.
434  
435   The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is
436   centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers,
437   making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties.
438  
439 < \subsubsection{Molecular dynamics Algorithm}
439 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdAlgorithm}The Molecular Dynamics Algorithm}
440  
441   To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the
442   following sections will describe the sequence involved in a
443 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} deals with the initialization of a
444 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} discusses issues involved with the
445 < calculation of the forces.  Sec.~\ref{fix} concludes the algorithm
446 < discussion with the integration of the equations of motion. \cite{fix}
443 > simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdInit} deals with the initialization
444 > of a simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdForce} discusses issues
445 > involved with the calculation of the forces.
446 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate} concludes the algorithm discussion
447 > with the integration of the equations of motion.\cite{Frenkel1996}
448  
449 < \subsubsection{initialization}
449 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdInit}Initialization}
450  
451   When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is
452   important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe.
453 < Ch.~\ref{fix} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
453 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
454   phospholipid membranes.  Therefore in these simulations initial
455   positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in
456 < water, and in other cases structured the lipids into preformed
456 > water, and in other cases structured the lipids into performed
457   bilayers.  Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are:
458   \begin{itemize}
459   \item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals
460 < \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not gie the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
461 < \item It is also sometimes desireable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
460 > \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not give the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
461 > \item It is also sometimes desirable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
462   \end{itemize}
463  
464   The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy
465   generated by having two particles too close together.  If overlap
466   occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as
467 < to render the numerical integration of teh motion meaningless.  The
467 > to render the numerical integration of the motion meaningless.  The
468   second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a
469   whole.  This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems
470   in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces.  Therefore any net
471   movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method
472 < used.  The final point addresses teh selection of the magnitude of the
473 < initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convienient to use
472 > used.  The final point addresses the selection of the magnitude of the
473 > initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convenient to use
474   this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the
475   desired thermal distribution of the system.  However, it must be noted
476   that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the
477   first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of
478   kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom.
479  
480 < \subsubsection{Force Evaluation}
480 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdForce}Force Evaluation}
481  
482   The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion
483   of a given molecular dynamics simulation.  This is due entirely to the
484   evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise.
485   These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes
486 < Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $fix$
487 < pairs to be evaluated, where $n$ is the number of particles in the
488 < system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $fix$, making large
486 > Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $N(N-1)/ 2$
487 > pairs to be evaluated, where $N$ is the number of particles in the
488 > system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $N^2$, making large
489   simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving
490   techniques.
491  
492   Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation
493   a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of
494 < the surface. \cite{fix} For a cubic system of 1000 particles arranged
495 < in a $10x10x10$ cube, 488 particles will be exposed to the surface.
496 < Unless one is simulating an isolated particle group in a vacuum, the
497 < behavior of the system will be far from the desired bulk
498 < charecteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the use of
499 < periodic boundary images. \cite{fix}
494 > the surface.\cite{allen87:csl} For a cubic system of 1000 particles
495 > arranged in a $10 \times 10 \times 10$ cube, 488 particles will be
496 > exposed to the surface.  Unless one is simulating an isolated particle
497 > group in a vacuum, the behavior of the system will be far from the
498 > desired bulk characteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the
499 > use of periodic boundary images.\cite{born:1912}
500  
501   The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the
502 < simulation box on an infinite lattice in cartesian space.  Any given
502 > simulation box on an infinite lattice in Cartesian space.  Any given
503   particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
504 < itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fix}).
505 < \begin{equation}
506 < EQ Here
507 < \end{equation}
508 < In addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real
324 < or periodic, within $fix$ of each other.  A discussion of the method
325 < used to calculate the periodic image can be found in Sec.\ref{fix}.
504 > itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{introFig:pbc}).  In
505 > addition, this sets that any two particles have an image, real or
506 > periodic, within $\text{box}/2$ of each other.  A discussion of the
507 > method used to calculate the periodic image can be found in
508 > Sec.\ref{oopseSec:pbc}.
509  
510 + \begin{figure}
511 + \centering
512 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbcFig.eps}
513 + \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.}
514 + \label{introFig:pbc}
515 + \end{figure}
516 +
517   Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force
518   evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a
519   cutoff radius be employed.  Using a cutoff radius improves the
520   efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a
521 < predetermined distance, $fix$, are not included in the
522 < calculation. \cite{fix} In a simultation with periodic images, $fix$
523 < has a maximum value of $fix$.  Fig.~\ref{fix} illustrates how using an
524 < $fix$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no $fix$ at
525 < all, the corners of the simulation box are unequally weighted due to
526 < the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, or $z$ directions past a
527 < disance of $fix$.
521 > predetermined distance, $r_{\text{cut}}$, are not included in the
522 > calculation.\cite{Frenkel1996} In a simulation with periodic images,
523 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ has a maximum value of $\text{box}/2$.
524 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMax} illustrates how when using an
525 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no
526 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ at all, the corners of the simulation box are
527 > unequally weighted due to the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$,
528 > or $z$ directions past a distance of $\text{box} / 2$.
529  
530 < With the use of an $fix$, however, comes a discontinuity in the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{fix}).
530 > \begin{figure}
531 > \centering
532 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxFig.eps}
533 > \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).}
534 > \label{introFig:rMax}
535 > \end{figure}
536 >
537 > With the use of an $r_{\text{cut}}$, however, comes a discontinuity in
538 > the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). To fix this
539 > discontinuity, one calculates the potential energy at the
540 > $r_{\text{cut}}$, and adds that value to the potential, causing
541 > the function to go smoothly to zero at the cutoff radius.  This
542 > shifted potential ensures conservation of energy when integrating the
543 > Newtonian equations of motion.
544  
545 + \begin{figure}
546 + \centering
547 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shiftedPot.eps}
548 + \caption[Shifting the Lennard-Jones Potential]{The Lennard-Jones potential (blue line) is shifted (red line) to remove the discontinuity at $r_{\text{cut}}$.}
549 + \label{introFig:shiftPot}
550 + \end{figure}
551  
552 < \section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}
552 > The second main simplification used in this research is the Verlet
553 > neighbor list. \cite{allen87:csl} In the Verlet method, one generates
554 > a list of all neighbor atoms, $j$, surrounding atom $i$ within some
555 > cutoff $r_{\text{list}}$, where $r_{\text{list}}>r_{\text{cut}}$.
556 > This list is created the first time forces are evaluated, then on
557 > subsequent force evaluations, pair calculations are only calculated
558 > from the neighbor lists.  The lists are updated if any given particle
559 > in the system moves farther than $r_{\text{list}}-r_{\text{cut}}$,
560 > giving rise to the possibility that a particle has left or joined a
561 > neighbor list.
562  
563 < \subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}
563 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdIntegrate} Integration of the equations of motion}
564  
565 < \subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}
565 > A starting point for the discussion of molecular dynamics integrators
566 > is the Verlet algorithm.\cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor
567 > expansion of position in time:
568 > \begin{equation}
569 > q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
570 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
571 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
572 > \label{introEq:verletForward}
573 > \end{equation}
574 > As well as,
575 > \begin{equation}
576 > q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
577 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
578 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
579 > \label{introEq:verletBack}
580 > \end{equation}
581 > Where $m$ is the mass of the particle, $q(t)$ is the position at time
582 > $t$, $v(t)$ the velocity, and $F(t)$ the force acting on the
583 > particle. Adding together Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletForward} and
584 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletBack} results in,
585 > \begin{equation}
586 > q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =
587 >        2q(t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
588 > \label{introEq:verletSum}
589 > \end{equation}
590 > Or equivalently,
591 > \begin{equation}
592 > q(t+\Delta t) \approx
593 >        2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2
594 > \label{introEq:verletFinal}
595 > \end{equation}
596 > Which contains an error in the estimate of the new positions on the
597 > order of $\Delta t^4$.
598  
599 < \subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers}
599 > In practice, however, the simulations in this research were integrated
600 > with a velocity reformulation of the Verlet method.\cite{allen87:csl}
601 > \begin{align}
602 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 %
603 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletPos} \\%
604 > %
605 > v(t+\Delta t) &= v(t) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}[F(t) + F(t+\Delta t)] %
606 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletVel}
607 > \end{align}
608 > The original Verlet algorithm can be regained by substituting the
609 > velocity back into Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDvelVerletPos}.  The Verlet
610 > formulations are chosen in this research because the algorithms have
611 > very little long term drift in energy conservation.  Energy
612 > conservation in a molecular dynamics simulation is of extreme
613 > importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is following the
614 > ``true'' trajectory with the finite integration scheme.  An exact
615 > solution to the integration will conserve area in phase space, as well
616 > as be reversible in time, that is, the trajectory integrated forward
617 > or backwards will exactly match itself.  Having a finite algorithm
618 > that both conserves area in phase space and is time reversible,
619 > therefore increases, but does not guarantee the ``correctness'' or the
620 > integrated trajectory.
621 >
622 > It can be shown,\cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm
623 > does not rigorously preserve the actual Hamiltonian, it does preserve
624 > a pseudo-Hamiltonian which shadows the real one in phase space.  This
625 > pseudo-Hamiltonian is provably area-conserving as well as time
626 > reversible.  The fact that it shadows the true Hamiltonian in phase
627 > space is acceptable in actual simulations as one is interested in the
628 > ensemble average of the observable being measured.  From the ergodic
629 > hypothesis (Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}), it is known that the time
630 > average will match the ensemble average, therefore two similar
631 > trajectories in phase space should give matching statistical averages.
632 >
633 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurther}Further Considerations}
634 >
635 > In the simulations presented in this research, a few additional
636 > parameters are needed to describe the motions.  The simulations
637 > involving water and phospholipids in Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} are
638 > required to integrate the equations of motions for dipoles on atoms.
639 > This involves an additional three parameters be specified for each
640 > dipole atom: $\phi$, $\theta$, and $\psi$.  These three angles are
641 > taken to be the Euler angles, where $\phi$ is a rotation about the
642 > $z$-axis, and $\theta$ is a rotation about the new $x$-axis, and
643 > $\psi$ is a final rotation about the new $z$-axis (see
644 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:eulerAngles}).  This sequence of rotations can be
645 > accumulated into a single $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{A}$,
646 > defined as follows:
647 > \begin{equation}
648 > \mathbf{A} =
649 > \begin{bmatrix}
650 >        \cos\phi\cos\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
651 >        \sin\phi\cos\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
652 >        \sin\theta\sin\psi \\%
653 >        %
654 >        -\cos\phi\sin\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
655 >        -\sin\phi\sin\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
656 >        \sin\theta\cos\psi \\%
657 >        %
658 >        \sin\phi\sin\theta &%
659 >        -\cos\phi\sin\theta &%
660 >        \cos\theta
661 > \end{bmatrix}
662 > \label{introEq:EulerRotMat}
663 > \end{equation}
664 >
665 > \begin{figure}
666 > \centering
667 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{eulerRotFig.eps}
668 > \caption[Euler rotation of Cartesian coordinates]{The rotation scheme for Euler angles. First is a rotation of $\phi$ about the $z$ axis (blue rotation). Next is a rotation of $\theta$ about the new $x$ axis (green rotation). Lastly is a final rotation of $\psi$ about the new $z$ axis (red rotation).}
669 > \label{introFig:eulerAngles}
670 > \end{figure}
671 >
672 > The equations of motion for Euler angles can be written down
673 > as\cite{allen87:csl}
674 > \begin{align}
675 > \dot{\phi} &= -\omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
676 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
677 >        \omega^s_z
678 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPhi} \\%
679 > %
680 > \dot{\theta} &= \omega^s_x \cos\phi + \omega^s_y \sin\phi
681 > \label{introEq:MDeulerTheta} \\%
682 > %
683 > \dot{\psi} &= \omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi}{\sin\theta} -
684 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi}{\sin\theta}
685 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPsi}
686 > \end{align}
687 > Where $\omega^s_i$ is the angular velocity in the lab space frame
688 > along Cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when
689 > attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPhi} and
690 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPsi}. The $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ present in
691 > both equations means there is a non-physical instability present when
692 > $\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$. To correct for this, the simulations integrate
693 > the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, directly, thus avoiding the
694 > instability.  This method was proposed by Dullweber
695 > \emph{et. al.}\cite{Dullweber1997}, and is presented in
696 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDsymplecticRot}.
697 >
698 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDliouville}Liouville Propagator}
699 >
700 > Before discussing the integration of the rotation matrix, it is
701 > necessary to understand the construction of a ``good'' integration
702 > scheme.  It has been previously
703 > discussed(Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}) how it is desirable for an
704 > integrator to be symplectic, or time reversible.  The following is an
705 > outline of the Trotter factorization of the Liouville Propagator as a
706 > scheme for generating symplectic integrators.\cite{Tuckerman92}
707 >
708 > For a system with $f$ degrees of freedom the Liouville operator can be
709 > defined as,
710 > \begin{equation}
711 > iL=\sum^f_{j=1} \biggl [\dot{q}_j\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} +
712 >        F_j\frac{\partial}{\partial p_j} \biggr ]
713 > \label{introEq:LiouvilleOperator}
714 > \end{equation}
715 > Here, $q_j$ and $p_j$ are the position and conjugate momenta of a
716 > degree of freedom, and $F_j$ is the force on that degree of freedom.
717 > $\Gamma$ is defined as the set of all positions and conjugate momenta,
718 > $\{q_j,p_j\}$, and the propagator, $U(t)$, is defined
719 > \begin {equation}
720 > U(t) = e^{iLt}
721 > \label{introEq:Lpropagator}
722 > \end{equation}
723 > This allows the specification of $\Gamma$ at any time $t$ as
724 > \begin{equation}
725 > \Gamma(t) = U(t)\Gamma(0)
726 > \label{introEq:Lp2}
727 > \end{equation}
728 > It is important to note, $U(t)$ is a unitary operator meaning
729 > \begin{equation}
730 > U(-t)=U^{-1}(t)
731 > \label{introEq:Lp3}
732 > \end{equation}
733 >
734 > Decomposing $L$ into two parts, $iL_1$ and $iL_2$, one can use the
735 > Trotter theorem to yield
736 > \begin{align}
737 > e^{iLt} &= e^{i(L_1 + L_2)t} \notag \\%
738 > %
739 >        &= \biggl [ e^{i(L_1 +L_2)\frac{t}{P}} \biggr]^P \notag \\%
740 > %
741 >        &= \biggl [ e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
742 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \biggr ]^P +
743 >        \mathcal{O}\biggl (\frac{t^3}{P^2} \biggr ) \label{introEq:Lp4}
744 > \end{align}
745 > Where $\Delta t = t/P$.
746 > With this, a discrete time operator $G(\Delta t)$ can be defined:
747 > \begin{align}
748 > G(\Delta t) &= e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
749 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \notag \\%
750 > %
751 >        &= U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )\, U_2 ( \Delta t )\,
752 >        U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )
753 > \label{introEq:Lp5}
754 > \end{align}
755 > Because $U_1(t)$ and $U_2(t)$ are unitary, $G(\Delta t)$ is also
756 > unitary.  Meaning an integrator based on this factorization will be
757 > reversible in time.
758 >
759 > As an example, consider the following decomposition of $L$:
760 > \begin{align}
761 > iL_1 &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}%
762 > \label{introEq:Lp6a} \\%
763 > %
764 > iL_2 &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}%
765 > \label{introEq:Lp6b}
766 > \end{align}
767 > This leads to propagator $G( \Delta t )$ as,
768 > \begin{equation}
769 > G(\Delta t) =  e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
770 >        e^{\Delta t\,\dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}} \,
771 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
772 > \label{introEq:Lp7}
773 > \end{equation}
774 > Operating $G(\Delta t)$ on $\Gamma(0)$, and utilizing the operator property
775 > \begin{equation}
776 > e^{c\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}\, f(x) = f(x+c)
777 > \label{introEq:Lp8}
778 > \end{equation}
779 > Where $c$ is independent of $x$.  One obtains the following:  
780 > \begin{align}
781 > \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) &=
782 >        \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9a}\\%
783 > %
784 > q(\Delta t) &= q(0) + \Delta t\, \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr )%
785 >        \label{introEq:Lp9b}\\%
786 > %
787 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) +
788 >        \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9c}
789 > \end{align}
790 > Or written another way,
791 > \begin{align}
792 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(0) + \dot{q}(0)\Delta t +
793 >        \frac{F[q(0)]}{m}\frac{\Delta t^2}{2} %
794 > \label{introEq:Lp10a} \\%
795 > %
796 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}
797 >        \biggl [F[q(0)] + F[q(\Delta t)] \biggr] %
798 > \label{introEq:Lp10b}
799 > \end{align}
800 > This is the velocity Verlet formulation presented in
801 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}.  Because this integration scheme is
802 > comprised of unitary propagators, it is symplectic, and therefore area
803 > preserving in phase space.  From the preceding factorization, one can
804 > see that the integration of the equations of motion would follow:
805 > \begin{enumerate}
806 > \item calculate the velocities at the half step, $\frac{\Delta t}{2}$, from the forces calculated at the initial position.
807 >
808 > \item Use the half step velocities to move positions one whole step, $\Delta t$.
809 >
810 > \item Evaluate the forces at the new positions, $\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)$, and use the new forces to complete the velocity move.
811 >
812 > \item Repeat from step 1 with the new position, velocities, and forces assuming the roles of the initial values.
813 > \end{enumerate}
814 >
815 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDsymplecticRot} Symplectic Propagation of the Rotation Matrix}
816 >
817 > Based on the factorization from the previous section,
818 > Dullweber\emph{et al}.\cite{Dullweber1997}~ proposed a scheme for the
819 > symplectic propagation of the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, as an
820 > alternative method for the integration of orientational degrees of
821 > freedom. The method starts with a straightforward splitting of the
822 > Liouville operator:
823 > \begin{align}
824 > iL_{\text{pos}} &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q} +
825 >        \mathbf{\dot{A}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{A}}
826 > \label{introEq:SR1a} \\%
827 > %
828 > iL_F &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
829 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
830 > iL_{\tau} &= \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}
831 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
832 > \end{align}
833 > Where $\tau(\mathbf{A})$ is the torque of the system
834 > due to the configuration, and $\pi$ is the conjugate
835 > angular momenta of the system. The propagator, $G(\Delta t)$, becomes
836 > \begin{equation}
837 > G(\Delta t) = e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
838 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
839 >        e^{\Delta t\,iL_{\text{pos}}} \,
840 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
841 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
842 > \label{introEq:SR2}
843 > \end{equation}
844 > Propagation of the linear and angular momenta follows as in the Verlet
845 > scheme.  The propagation of positions also follows the Verlet scheme
846 > with the addition of a further symplectic splitting of the rotation
847 > matrix propagation, $\mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t)$, within
848 > $U_{\text{pos}}(\Delta t)$.
849 > \begin{equation}
850 > \mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t) =
851 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
852 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
853 >        \mathcal{U}_z (\Delta t)\,
854 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
855 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
856 > \label{introEq:SR3}
857 > \end{equation}
858 > Where $\mathcal{U}_j$ is a unitary rotation of $\mathbf{A}$ and
859 > $\pi$ about each axis $j$.  As all propagations are now
860 > unitary and symplectic, the entire integration scheme is also
861 > symplectic and time reversible.
862 >
863 > \section{\label{introSec:layout}Dissertation Layout}
864 >
865 > This dissertation is divided as follows:Ch.~\ref{chapt:RSA}
866 > presents the random sequential adsorption simulations of related
867 > pthalocyanines on a gold (111) surface. Ch.~\ref{chapt:OOPSE}
868 > is about the writing of the molecular dynamics simulation package
869 > {\sc oopse}. Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} regards the simulations of
870 > phospholipid bilayers using a mesoscale model. And lastly,
871 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:conclusion} concludes this dissertation with a
872 > summary of all results. The chapters are arranged in chronological
873 > order, and reflect the progression of techniques I employed during my
874 > research.  
875 >
876 > The chapter concerning random sequential adsorption simulations is a
877 > study in applying Statistical Mechanics simulation techniques in order
878 > to obtain a simple model capable of explaining the results.  My
879 > advisor, Dr. Gezelter, and I were approached by a colleague,
880 > Dr. Lieberman, about possible explanations for the  partial coverage of a
881 > gold surface by a particular compound of hers. We suggested it might
882 > be due to the statistical packing fraction of disks on a plane, and
883 > set about to simulate this system.  As the events in our model were
884 > not dynamic in nature, a Monte Carlo method was employed.  Here, if a
885 > molecule landed on the surface without overlapping another, then its
886 > landing was accepted.  However, if there was overlap, the landing we
887 > rejected and a new random landing location was chosen.  This defined
888 > our acceptance rules and allowed us to construct a Markov chain whose
889 > limiting distribution was the surface coverage in which we were
890 > interested.
891 >
892 > The following chapter, about the simulation package {\sc oopse},
893 > describes in detail the large body of scientific code that had to be
894 > written in order to study phospholipid bilayers.  Although there are
895 > pre-existing molecular dynamic simulation packages available, none
896 > were capable of implementing the models we were developing.{\sc oopse}
897 > is a unique package capable of not only integrating the equations of
898 > motion in Cartesian space, but is also able to integrate the
899 > rotational motion of rigid bodies and dipoles.  Add to this the
900 > ability to perform calculations across parallel processors and a
901 > flexible script syntax for creating systems, and {\sc oopse} becomes a
902 > very powerful scientific instrument for the exploration of our model.
903 >
904 > Bringing us to Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid}. Using {\sc oopse}, I have been
905 > able to parameterize a mesoscale model for phospholipid simulations.
906 > This model retains information about solvent ordering around the
907 > bilayer, as well as information regarding the interaction of the
908 > phospholipid head groups' dipoles with each other and the surrounding
909 > solvent.  These simulations give us insight into the dynamic events
910 > that lead to the formation of phospholipid bilayers, as well as
911 > provide the foundation for future exploration of bilayer phase
912 > behavior with this model.  
913 >
914 > Which leads into the last chapter, where I discuss future directions
915 > for both{\sc oopse} and this mesoscale model.  Additionally, I will
916 > give a summary of results for this dissertation.
917 >
918 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines