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 1063 by mmeineke, Mon Feb 23 19:16:22 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 > degenerate 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 > In the case of a Molecular Dynamics simulation, rather than
201 > calculating an ensemble average integral over phase space as in
202 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM15}, it becomes easier to caclulate the time
203 > average of an observable. Namely,
204 > \begin{equation}
205 > \langle A \rangle_t = \frac{1}{\tau}
206 >        \int_0^{\tau} A[\boldsymbol{\Gamma}(t)]\,dt
207 > \label{introEq:SM16}
208 > \end{equation}
209 > Where the value of an observable is averaged over the length of time
210 > that the simulation is run. This type of measurement mirrors the
211 > experimental measurement of an observable. In an experiment, the
212 > instrument analyzing the system must average its observation of the
213 > finite time of the measurement. What is required then, is a principle
214 > to relate the time average to the ensemble average. This is the
215 > ergodic hypothesis.
216 >
217 > Ergodicity is the assumption that given an infinite amount of time, a
218 > system will visit every available point in phase
219 > space.\cite{Frenkel1996} For most systems, this is a valid assumption,
220 > except in cases where the system may be trapped in a local feature
221 > (\emph{e.g.}~glasses). When valid, ergodicity allows the unification
222 > of a time averaged observation and an ensemble averaged one. If an
223 > observation is averaged over a sufficiently long time, the system is
224 > assumed to visit all appropriately available points in phase space,
225 > giving a properly weighted statistical average. This allows the
226 > researcher freedom of choice when deciding how best to measure a given
227 > observable.  When an ensemble averaged approach seems most logical,
228 > the Monte Carlo techniques described in Sec.~\ref{introSec:monteCarlo}
229 > can be utilized.  Conversely, if a problem lends itself to a time
230 > averaging approach, the Molecular Dynamics techniques in
231 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:MD} can be employed.
232  
233 + \section{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
234 +
235   The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
236   work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
237   named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its
# Line 53 | Line 247 | The equation can be recast as:
247   \end{equation}
248   The equation can be recast as:
249   \begin{equation}
250 < I = (b-a)\langle f(x) \rangle
250 > I = \int^b_a \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \rho(x) dx
251 > \label{introEq:Importance1}
252 > \end{equation}
253 > Where $\rho(x)$ is an arbitrary probability distribution in $x$.  If
254 > one conducts $\tau$ trials selecting a random number, $\zeta_\tau$,
255 > from the distribution $\rho(x)$ on the interval $[a,b]$, then
256 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance1} becomes
257 > \begin{equation}
258 > I= \lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty}\biggl \langle \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \biggr \rangle_{\text{trials}[a,b]}
259 > \label{introEq:Importance2}
260 > \end{equation}
261 > If $\rho(x)$ is uniformly distributed over the interval $[a,b]$,
262 > \begin{equation}
263 > \rho(x) = \frac{1}{b-a}
264 > \label{introEq:importance2b}
265 > \end{equation}
266 > then the integral can be rewritten as
267 > \begin{equation}
268 > I = (b-a)\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty}
269 >        \langle f(x) \rangle_{\text{trials}[a,b]}
270   \label{eq:MCex2}
271   \end{equation}
59 Where $\langle f(x) \rangle$ is the unweighted average over the interval
60 $[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by
61 randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating
62 the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then
63 approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely
64 large.
272  
273   However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
274   integrals of the form:
# Line 72 | Line 279 | Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all
279   \label{eq:mcEnsAvg}
280   \end{equation}
281   Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles
282 < and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on
283 < position. $\langle A \rangle$ is the ensemble average of $A$ as
284 < presented in Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is
285 < independent of momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can
286 < be factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of
287 < the brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
288 < results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random
282 > and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on position. This is
283 > the ensemble average of $A$ as presented in
284 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}, except here $A$ is independent of
285 > momentum. Therefore the momenta contribution of the integral can be
286 > factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the
287 > brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
288 > results. Due to the Boltzmann weighting of this integral, most random
289   configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble
290 < average. This is where a importance sampling comes into
290 > average. This is where importance sampling comes into
291   play.\cite{allen87:csl}
292  
293 < Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from
294 < which the random configurations are chosen in order to more
295 < efficiently calculate the integral.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider again
296 < Eq.~\ref{eq:MCex1} rewritten to be:
90 < \begin{equation}
91 < I = \int^b_a \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \rho(x) dx
92 < \label{introEq:Importance1}
93 < \end{equation}
94 < Where $\rho(x)$ is an arbitrary probability distribution in $x$.  If
95 < one conducts $\tau$ trials selecting a random number, $\zeta_\tau$,
96 < from the distribution $\rho(x)$ on the interval $[a,b]$, then
97 < Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance1} becomes
98 < \begin{equation}
99 < I= \biggl \langle \frac{f(x)}{\rho(x)} \biggr \rangle_{\text{trials}}
100 < \label{introEq:Importance2}
101 < \end{equation}
102 < Looking at Eq.~\ref{eq:mcEnsAvg}, and realizing
293 > Importance sampling is a method where the distribution, from which the
294 > random configurations are chosen, is selected in such a way as to
295 > efficiently sample the integral in question.  Looking at
296 > Eq.~\ref{eq:mcEnsAvg}, and realizing
297   \begin {equation}
298   \rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N) =
299          \frac{e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}
300          {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}
301   \label{introEq:MCboltzman}
302   \end{equation}
303 < Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the boltzman distribution.  The ensemble average
303 > Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the Boltzmann distribution.  The ensemble average
304   can be rewritten as
305   \begin{equation}
306   \langle A \rangle = \int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)
# Line 123 | Line 317 | Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} becomes
317   By selecting $\rho(\mathbf{r}^N)$ to be $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$
318   Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} becomes
319   \begin{equation}
320 < \langle A \rangle = \langle A(\mathbf{r}^N) \rangle_{\text{trials}}
320 > \langle A \rangle = \langle A(\mathbf{r}^N) \rangle_{kT}
321   \label{introEq:Importance5}
322   \end{equation}
323   The difficulty is selecting points $\mathbf{r}^N$ such that they are
324   sampled from the distribution $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.  A solution
325 < was proposed by Metropolis et al.\cite{metropolis:1953} which involved
325 > was proposed by Metropolis \emph{et al}.\cite{metropolis:1953} which involved
326   the use of a Markov chain whose limiting distribution was
327   $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.
328  
329 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
329 > \subsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
330  
331   A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
332   conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
# Line 140 | Line 334 | conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
334   \item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial.
335   \item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space.
336   \end{enumerate}
337 < If given two configuartions, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
338 < $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probablilities of being in state
337 > If given two configurations, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
338 > $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probabilities of being in state
339   $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$ respectively.  Further, the two
340   states are linked by a transition probability, $\pi_{mn}$, which is the
341   probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$.
# Line 182 | Line 376 | will only yield the limiting distribution again.
376   \label{introEq:MCmarkovEquil}
377   \end{equation}
378  
379 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
379 > \subsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
380  
381   In the Metropolis method\cite{metropolis:1953}
382   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmarkovEquil} is solved such that
383 < $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzman distribution
383 > $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzmann distribution
384   of states.  The method accomplishes this by imposing the strong
385   condition of microscopic reversibility on the equilibrium
386   distribution.  Meaning, that at equilibrium the probability of going
# Line 195 | Line 389 | from $m$ to $n$ is the same as going from $n$ to $m$.
389   \rho_m\pi_{mn} = \rho_n\pi_{nm}
390   \label{introEq:MCmicroReverse}
391   \end{equation}
392 < Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symetric matrix in
392 > Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symmetric matrix in
393   the Metropolis method.  Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCpi},
394   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
395   \begin{equation}
# Line 203 | Line 397 | Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
397          \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m}
398   \label{introEq:MCmicro2}
399   \end{equation}
400 < For a Boltxman limiting distribution,
400 > For a Boltzmann limiting distribution,
401   \begin{equation}
402   \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m} = e^{-\beta[\mathcal{U}(n) - \mathcal{U}(m)]}
403          = e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}
# Line 211 | Line 405 | This allows for the following set of acceptance rules
405   \end{equation}
406   This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
407   \begin{equation}
408 < EQ Here
408 > \accMe( m \rightarrow n ) =
409 >        \begin{cases}
410 >        1& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} \leq 0$,} \\
411 >        e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} > 0$.}
412 >        \end{cases}
413 > \label{introEq:accRules}
414   \end{equation}
415  
416 < Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{fix} the Metropolis method
417 < proceeds as follows
418 < \begin{itemize}
419 < \item Generate an initial configuration $fix$ which has some finite probability in $fix$.
420 < \item Modify $fix$, to generate configuratioon $fix$.
421 < \item If configuration $n$ lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($fix$ becomes $fix$).  Otherwise accept with probability $fix$.
422 < \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of intereest.
423 < \item Repeat from step 2 until average converges.
424 < \end{itemize}
416 > Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{introEq:accRules} the
417 > Metropolis method proceeds as follows
418 > \begin{enumerate}
419 > \item Generate an initial configuration $\mathbf{r}^N$ which has some finite probability in $\rho_{kT}$.
420 > \item Modify $\mathbf{r}^N$, to generate configuration $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$.
421 > \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 $e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}$.
422 > \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of interest.
423 > \item Repeat from step 2 until the average converges.
424 > \end{enumerate}
425   One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move
426   is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average.
427 < Using Eq.~\ref{fix} it becomes clear that the accumulated averages are
428 < the ensemble averages, as this method ensures that the limiting
429 < distribution is the Boltzman distribution.
427 > Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} it becomes clear that the
428 > accumulated averages are the ensemble averages, as this method ensures
429 > that the limiting distribution is the Boltzmann distribution.
430  
431 < \subsection{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
431 > \section{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
432  
433   The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics.
434   Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are
435   integrated in order to obtain information about both the positions and
436   momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only
437   configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well:
438 < diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding
439 < events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~\ref{fix}, the
440 < average of these observables over the time period of the simulation
441 < are taken to be the ensemble averages for the system.
438 > diffusion constants, relaxation events, folding/unfolding
439 > events, etc. With the time dependent information gained from a
440 > Molecular Dynamics simulation, one can also calculate time correlation
441 > functions of the form\cite{Hansen86}
442 > \begin{equation}
443 > \langle A(t)\,A(0)\rangle = \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
444 >        \int_0^{\tau} A(t+t^{\prime})\,A(t^{\prime})\,dt^{\prime}
445 > \label{introEq:timeCorr}
446 > \end{equation}
447 > These correlations can be used to measure fundamental time constants
448 > of a system, such as diffusion constants from the velocity
449 > autocorrelation or dipole relaxation times from the dipole
450 > autocorrelation.  Due to the principle of ergodicity,
451 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:ergodic}, the average of these observables over the
452 > time period of the simulation are taken to be the ensemble averages
453 > for the system.
454  
455   The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo
456   techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the
457 < researcher is interested.  If the observabvles depend on momenta in
457 > researcher is interested.  If the observables depend on time in
458   any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form.
459   However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration,
460 < then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficent.
460 > then for most small systems, Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficient.
461  
462   The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is
463   centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers,
464   making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties.
465  
466 < \subsubsection{Molecular dynamics Algorithm}
466 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdAlgorithm}The Molecular Dynamics Algorithm}
467  
468   To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the
469   following sections will describe the sequence involved in a
470 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} deals with the initialization of a
471 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} discusses issues involved with the
472 < calculation of the forces.  Sec.~\ref{fix} concludes the algorithm
473 < discussion with the integration of the equations of motion. \cite{fix}
470 > simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdInit} deals with the initialization
471 > of a simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdForce} discusses issues
472 > involved with the calculation of the forces.
473 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate} concludes the algorithm discussion
474 > with the integration of the equations of motion.\cite{Frenkel1996}
475  
476 < \subsubsection{initialization}
476 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdInit}Initialization}
477  
478   When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is
479   important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe.
480 < Ch.~\ref{fix} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
480 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
481   phospholipid membranes.  Therefore in these simulations initial
482   positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in
483 < water, and in other cases structured the lipids into preformed
483 > water, and in other cases structured the lipids into performed
484   bilayers.  Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are:
485   \begin{itemize}
486   \item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals
487 < \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not gie the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
488 < \item It is also sometimes desireable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
487 > \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not give the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
488 > \item It is also sometimes desirable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
489   \end{itemize}
490  
491   The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy
492   generated by having two particles too close together.  If overlap
493   occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as
494 < to render the numerical integration of teh motion meaningless.  The
494 > to render the numerical integration of the motion meaningless.  The
495   second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a
496   whole.  This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems
497   in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces.  Therefore any net
498   movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method
499 < used.  The final point addresses teh selection of the magnitude of the
500 < initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convienient to use
499 > used.  The final point addresses the selection of the magnitude of the
500 > initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convenient to use
501   this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the
502   desired thermal distribution of the system.  However, it must be noted
503   that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the
504   first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of
505   kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom.
506  
507 < \subsubsection{Force Evaluation}
507 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdForce}Force Evaluation}
508  
509   The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion
510   of a given molecular dynamics simulation.  This is due entirely to the
511   evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise.
512   These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes
513 < Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $fix$
514 < pairs to be evaluated, where $n$ is the number of particles in the
515 < system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $fix$, making large
513 > Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $N(N-1)/ 2$
514 > pairs to be evaluated, where $N$ is the number of particles in the
515 > system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $N^2$, making large
516   simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving
517   techniques.
518  
519   Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation
520   a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of
521 < the surface. \cite{fix} For a cubic system of 1000 particles arranged
522 < in a $10x10x10$ cube, 488 particles will be exposed to the surface.
523 < Unless one is simulating an isolated particle group in a vacuum, the
524 < behavior of the system will be far from the desired bulk
525 < charecteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the use of
526 < periodic boundary images. \cite{fix}
521 > the surface.\cite{allen87:csl} For a cubic system of 1000 particles
522 > arranged in a $10 \times 10 \times 10$ cube, 488 particles will be
523 > exposed to the surface.  Unless one is simulating an isolated particle
524 > group in a vacuum, the behavior of the system will be far from the
525 > desired bulk characteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the
526 > use of periodic boundary images.\cite{born:1912}
527  
528   The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the
529 < simulation box on an infinite lattice in cartesian space.  Any given
529 > simulation box on an infinite lattice in Cartesian space.  Any given
530   particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
531 < itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fix}).
532 < \begin{equation}
533 < EQ Here
534 < \end{equation}
535 < In addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real
536 < or periodic, within $fix$ of each other.  A discussion of the method
537 < used to calculate the periodic image can be found in Sec.\ref{fix}.
531 > itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{introFig:pbc}).  In
532 > addition, this sets that any two particles have an image, real or
533 > periodic, within $\text{box}/2$ of each other.  A discussion of the
534 > method used to calculate the periodic image can be found in
535 > Sec.\ref{oopseSec:pbc}.
536 >
537 > \begin{figure}
538 > \centering
539 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbcFig.eps}
540 > \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.}
541 > \label{introFig:pbc}
542 > \end{figure}
543  
544   Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force
545   evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a
546   cutoff radius be employed.  Using a cutoff radius improves the
547   efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a
548 < predetermined distance, $fix$, are not included in the
549 < calculation. \cite{fix} In a simultation with periodic images, $fix$
550 < has a maximum value of $fix$.  Fig.~\ref{fix} illustrates how using an
551 < $fix$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no $fix$ at
552 < all, the corners of the simulation box are unequally weighted due to
553 < the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, or $z$ directions past a
554 < disance of $fix$.
548 > predetermined distance, $r_{\text{cut}}$, are not included in the
549 > calculation.\cite{Frenkel1996} In a simulation with periodic images,
550 > there are two methods to choose from, both with their own cutoff
551 > limits. In the minimum image convention, $r_{\text{cut}}$ has a
552 > maximum value of $\text{box}/2$. This is because each atom has only
553 > one image that is seen by another atom, and further the image used is
554 > the one that minimizes the distance between the two atoms. A system of
555 > wrapped images about a central atom therefore has a maximum length
556 > scale of box on a side (Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMaxMin}). The second
557 > convention, multiple image convention, has a maximum $r_{\text{cut}}$
558 > of box. Here multiple images of each atom are replicated in the
559 > periodic cells surrounding the central atom, this causes the atom to
560 > see multiple copies of several atoms. If the cutoff radius is larger
561 > than box, however, then the atom will see an image of itself, and
562 > attempt to calculate an unphysical self-self force interaction
563 > (Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMaxMult}). Due to the increased complexity and
564 > commputaional ineffeciency of the multiple image method, the minimum
565 > image method is the periodic method used throughout this research.
566  
567 < With the use of an $fix$, however, comes a discontinuity in the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{fix}).
567 > \begin{figure}
568 > \centering
569 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxFig.eps}
570 > \caption[An explanation of minimum image convention]{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).}
571 > \label{introFig:rMaxMin}
572 > \end{figure}
573  
574 + \begin{figure}
575 + \centering
576 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxMultFig.eps}
577 + \caption[An explanation of multiple image convention]{The yellow atom is the central wrapping point. The blue atoms are the minimum images of the system about the central atom. The boxes with the green atoms are multiple images of the central box. If $r_{\text{cut}} \geq \{text{box}$ then the central atom sees multiple images of itself (red atom), creating a self-self force evaluation.}
578 + \label{introFig:rMaxMult}
579 + \end{figure}
580  
581 < \section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}
581 > With the use of an $r_{\text{cut}}$, however, comes a discontinuity in
582 > the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). To fix this
583 > discontinuity, one calculates the potential energy at the
584 > $r_{\text{cut}}$, and adds that value to the potential, causing
585 > the function to go smoothly to zero at the cutoff radius.  This
586 > shifted potential ensures conservation of energy when integrating the
587 > Newtonian equations of motion.
588  
589 < \subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}
589 > \begin{figure}
590 > \centering
591 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shiftedPot.eps}
592 > \caption[Shifting the Lennard-Jones Potential]{The Lennard-Jones potential (blue line) is shifted (red line) to remove the discontinuity at $r_{\text{cut}}$.}
593 > \label{introFig:shiftPot}
594 > \end{figure}
595  
596 < \subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}
596 > The second main simplification used in this research is the Verlet
597 > neighbor list. \cite{allen87:csl} In the Verlet method, one generates
598 > a list of all neighbor atoms, $j$, surrounding atom $i$ within some
599 > cutoff $r_{\text{list}}$, where $r_{\text{list}}>r_{\text{cut}}$.
600 > This list is created the first time forces are evaluated, then on
601 > subsequent force evaluations, pair calculations are only calculated
602 > from the neighbor lists.  The lists are updated if any given particle
603 > in the system moves farther than $r_{\text{list}}-r_{\text{cut}}$,
604 > giving rise to the possibility that a particle has left or joined a
605 > neighbor list.
606  
607 < \subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers}
607 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdIntegrate} Integration of the equations of motion}
608 >
609 > A starting point for the discussion of molecular dynamics integrators
610 > is the Verlet algorithm.\cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor
611 > expansion of position in time:
612 > \begin{equation}
613 > q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
614 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
615 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
616 > \label{introEq:verletForward}
617 > \end{equation}
618 > As well as,
619 > \begin{equation}
620 > q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
621 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
622 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
623 > \label{introEq:verletBack}
624 > \end{equation}
625 > Where $m$ is the mass of the particle, $q(t)$ is the position at time
626 > $t$, $v(t)$ the velocity, and $F(t)$ the force acting on the
627 > particle. Adding together Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletForward} and
628 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletBack} results in,
629 > \begin{equation}
630 > q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =
631 >        2q(t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
632 > \label{introEq:verletSum}
633 > \end{equation}
634 > Or equivalently,
635 > \begin{equation}
636 > q(t+\Delta t) \approx
637 >        2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2
638 > \label{introEq:verletFinal}
639 > \end{equation}
640 > Which contains an error in the estimate of the new positions on the
641 > order of $\Delta t^4$.
642 >
643 > In practice, however, the simulations in this research were integrated
644 > with a velocity reformulation of the Verlet method.\cite{allen87:csl}
645 > \begin{align}
646 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 %
647 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletPos} \\%
648 > %
649 > v(t+\Delta t) &= v(t) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}[F(t) + F(t+\Delta t)] %
650 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletVel}
651 > \end{align}
652 > The original Verlet algorithm can be regained by substituting the
653 > velocity back into Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDvelVerletPos}.  The Verlet
654 > formulations are chosen in this research because the algorithms have
655 > very little long term drift in energy conservation.  Energy
656 > conservation in a molecular dynamics simulation is of extreme
657 > importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is following the
658 > ``true'' trajectory with the finite integration scheme.  An exact
659 > solution to the integration will conserve area in phase space, as well
660 > as be reversible in time, that is, the trajectory integrated forward
661 > or backwards will exactly match itself.  Having a finite algorithm
662 > that both conserves area in phase space and is time reversible,
663 > therefore increases, but does not guarantee the ``correctness'' or the
664 > integrated trajectory.
665 >
666 > It can be shown,\cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm
667 > does not rigorously preserve the actual Hamiltonian, it does preserve
668 > a pseudo-Hamiltonian which shadows the real one in phase space.  This
669 > pseudo-Hamiltonian is provably area-conserving as well as time
670 > reversible.  The fact that it shadows the true Hamiltonian in phase
671 > space is acceptable in actual simulations as one is interested in the
672 > ensemble average of the observable being measured.  From the ergodic
673 > hypothesis (Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}), it is known that the time
674 > average will match the ensemble average, therefore two similar
675 > trajectories in phase space should give matching statistical averages.
676 >
677 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurther}Further Considerations}
678 >
679 > In the simulations presented in this research, a few additional
680 > parameters are needed to describe the motions.  The simulations
681 > involving water and phospholipids in Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} are
682 > required to integrate the equations of motions for dipoles on atoms.
683 > This involves an additional three parameters be specified for each
684 > dipole atom: $\phi$, $\theta$, and $\psi$.  These three angles are
685 > taken to be the Euler angles, where $\phi$ is a rotation about the
686 > $z$-axis, and $\theta$ is a rotation about the new $x$-axis, and
687 > $\psi$ is a final rotation about the new $z$-axis (see
688 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:eulerAngles}).  This sequence of rotations can be
689 > accumulated into a single $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{A}$,
690 > defined as follows:
691 > \begin{equation}
692 > \mathbf{A} =
693 > \begin{bmatrix}
694 >        \cos\phi\cos\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
695 >        \sin\phi\cos\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
696 >        \sin\theta\sin\psi \\%
697 >        %
698 >        -\cos\phi\sin\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
699 >        -\sin\phi\sin\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
700 >        \sin\theta\cos\psi \\%
701 >        %
702 >        \sin\phi\sin\theta &%
703 >        -\cos\phi\sin\theta &%
704 >        \cos\theta
705 > \end{bmatrix}
706 > \label{introEq:EulerRotMat}
707 > \end{equation}
708 >
709 > \begin{figure}
710 > \centering
711 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{eulerRotFig.eps}
712 > \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).}
713 > \label{introFig:eulerAngles}
714 > \end{figure}
715 >
716 > The equations of motion for Euler angles can be written down
717 > as\cite{allen87:csl}
718 > \begin{align}
719 > \dot{\phi} &= -\omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
720 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
721 >        \omega^s_z
722 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPhi} \\%
723 > %
724 > \dot{\theta} &= \omega^s_x \cos\phi + \omega^s_y \sin\phi
725 > \label{introEq:MDeulerTheta} \\%
726 > %
727 > \dot{\psi} &= \omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi}{\sin\theta} -
728 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi}{\sin\theta}
729 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPsi}
730 > \end{align}
731 > Where $\omega^s_i$ is the angular velocity in the lab space frame
732 > along Cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when
733 > attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPhi} and
734 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPsi}. The $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ present in
735 > both equations means there is a non-physical instability present when
736 > $\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$. To correct for this, the simulations integrate
737 > the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, directly, thus avoiding the
738 > instability.  This method was proposed by Dullweber
739 > \emph{et. al.}\cite{Dullweber1997}, and is presented in
740 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDsymplecticRot}.
741 >
742 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDliouville}Liouville Propagator}
743 >
744 > Before discussing the integration of the rotation matrix, it is
745 > necessary to understand the construction of a ``good'' integration
746 > scheme.  It has been previously
747 > discussed(Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}) how it is desirable for an
748 > integrator to be symplectic, or time reversible.  The following is an
749 > outline of the Trotter factorization of the Liouville Propagator as a
750 > scheme for generating symplectic integrators.\cite{Tuckerman92}
751 >
752 > For a system with $f$ degrees of freedom the Liouville operator can be
753 > defined as,
754 > \begin{equation}
755 > iL=\sum^f_{j=1} \biggl [\dot{q}_j\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} +
756 >        F_j\frac{\partial}{\partial p_j} \biggr ]
757 > \label{introEq:LiouvilleOperator}
758 > \end{equation}
759 > Here, $q_j$ and $p_j$ are the position and conjugate momenta of a
760 > degree of freedom, and $F_j$ is the force on that degree of freedom.
761 > $\Gamma$ is defined as the set of all positions and conjugate momenta,
762 > $\{q_j,p_j\}$, and the propagator, $U(t)$, is defined
763 > \begin {equation}
764 > U(t) = e^{iLt}
765 > \label{introEq:Lpropagator}
766 > \end{equation}
767 > This allows the specification of $\Gamma$ at any time $t$ as
768 > \begin{equation}
769 > \Gamma(t) = U(t)\Gamma(0)
770 > \label{introEq:Lp2}
771 > \end{equation}
772 > It is important to note, $U(t)$ is a unitary operator meaning
773 > \begin{equation}
774 > U(-t)=U^{-1}(t)
775 > \label{introEq:Lp3}
776 > \end{equation}
777 >
778 > Decomposing $L$ into two parts, $iL_1$ and $iL_2$, one can use the
779 > Trotter theorem to yield
780 > \begin{align}
781 > e^{iLt} &= e^{i(L_1 + L_2)t} \notag \\%
782 > %
783 >        &= \biggl [ e^{i(L_1 +L_2)\frac{t}{P}} \biggr]^P \notag \\%
784 > %
785 >        &= \biggl [ e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
786 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \biggr ]^P +
787 >        \mathcal{O}\biggl (\frac{t^3}{P^2} \biggr ) \label{introEq:Lp4}
788 > \end{align}
789 > Where $\Delta t = t/P$.
790 > With this, a discrete time operator $G(\Delta t)$ can be defined:
791 > \begin{align}
792 > G(\Delta t) &= e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
793 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \notag \\%
794 > %
795 >        &= U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )\, U_2 ( \Delta t )\,
796 >        U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )
797 > \label{introEq:Lp5}
798 > \end{align}
799 > Because $U_1(t)$ and $U_2(t)$ are unitary, $G(\Delta t)$ is also
800 > unitary.  Meaning an integrator based on this factorization will be
801 > reversible in time.
802 >
803 > As an example, consider the following decomposition of $L$:
804 > \begin{align}
805 > iL_1 &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}%
806 > \label{introEq:Lp6a} \\%
807 > %
808 > iL_2 &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}%
809 > \label{introEq:Lp6b}
810 > \end{align}
811 > This leads to propagator $G( \Delta t )$ as,
812 > \begin{equation}
813 > G(\Delta t) =  e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
814 >        e^{\Delta t\,\dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}} \,
815 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
816 > \label{introEq:Lp7}
817 > \end{equation}
818 > Operating $G(\Delta t)$ on $\Gamma(0)$, and utilizing the operator property
819 > \begin{equation}
820 > e^{c\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}\, f(x) = f(x+c)
821 > \label{introEq:Lp8}
822 > \end{equation}
823 > Where $c$ is independent of $x$.  One obtains the following:  
824 > \begin{align}
825 > \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) &=
826 >        \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9a}\\%
827 > %
828 > q(\Delta t) &= q(0) + \Delta t\, \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr )%
829 >        \label{introEq:Lp9b}\\%
830 > %
831 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) +
832 >        \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9c}
833 > \end{align}
834 > Or written another way,
835 > \begin{align}
836 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(0) + \dot{q}(0)\Delta t +
837 >        \frac{F[q(0)]}{m}\frac{\Delta t^2}{2} %
838 > \label{introEq:Lp10a} \\%
839 > %
840 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}
841 >        \biggl [F[q(0)] + F[q(\Delta t)] \biggr] %
842 > \label{introEq:Lp10b}
843 > \end{align}
844 > This is the velocity Verlet formulation presented in
845 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}.  Because this integration scheme is
846 > comprised of unitary propagators, it is symplectic, and therefore area
847 > preserving in phase space.  From the preceding factorization, one can
848 > see that the integration of the equations of motion would follow:
849 > \begin{enumerate}
850 > \item calculate the velocities at the half step, $\frac{\Delta t}{2}$, from the forces calculated at the initial position.
851 >
852 > \item Use the half step velocities to move positions one whole step, $\Delta t$.
853 >
854 > \item Evaluate the forces at the new positions, $\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)$, and use the new forces to complete the velocity move.
855 >
856 > \item Repeat from step 1 with the new position, velocities, and forces assuming the roles of the initial values.
857 > \end{enumerate}
858 >
859 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDsymplecticRot} Symplectic Propagation of the Rotation Matrix}
860 >
861 > Based on the factorization from the previous section,
862 > Dullweber\emph{et al}.\cite{Dullweber1997}~ proposed a scheme for the
863 > symplectic propagation of the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, as an
864 > alternative method for the integration of orientational degrees of
865 > freedom. The method starts with a straightforward splitting of the
866 > Liouville operator:
867 > \begin{align}
868 > iL_{\text{pos}} &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q} +
869 >        \mathbf{\dot{A}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{A}}
870 > \label{introEq:SR1a} \\%
871 > %
872 > iL_F &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
873 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
874 > iL_{\tau} &= \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}
875 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
876 > \end{align}
877 > Where $\tau(\mathbf{A})$ is the torque of the system
878 > due to the configuration, and $\pi$ is the conjugate
879 > angular momenta of the system. The propagator, $G(\Delta t)$, becomes
880 > \begin{equation}
881 > G(\Delta t) = e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
882 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
883 >        e^{\Delta t\,iL_{\text{pos}}} \,
884 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
885 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
886 > \label{introEq:SR2}
887 > \end{equation}
888 > Propagation of the linear and angular momenta follows as in the Verlet
889 > scheme.  The propagation of positions also follows the Verlet scheme
890 > with the addition of a further symplectic splitting of the rotation
891 > matrix propagation, $\mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t)$, within
892 > $U_{\text{pos}}(\Delta t)$.
893 > \begin{equation}
894 > \mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t) =
895 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
896 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
897 >        \mathcal{U}_z (\Delta t)\,
898 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
899 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
900 > \label{introEq:SR3}
901 > \end{equation}
902 > Where $\mathcal{U}_j$ is a unitary rotation of $\mathbf{A}$ and
903 > $\pi$ about each axis $j$.  As all propagations are now
904 > unitary and symplectic, the entire integration scheme is also
905 > symplectic and time reversible.
906 >
907 > \section{\label{introSec:layout}Dissertation Layout}
908 >
909 > This dissertation is divided as follows:Ch.~\ref{chapt:RSA}
910 > presents the random sequential adsorption simulations of related
911 > pthalocyanines on a gold (111) surface. Ch.~\ref{chapt:OOPSE}
912 > is about the writing of the molecular dynamics simulation package
913 > {\sc oopse}. Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} regards the simulations of
914 > phospholipid bilayers using a mesoscale model. And lastly,
915 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:conclusion} concludes this dissertation with a
916 > summary of all results. The chapters are arranged in chronological
917 > order, and reflect the progression of techniques I employed during my
918 > research.  
919 >
920 > The chapter concerning random sequential adsorption simulations is a
921 > study in applying Statistical Mechanics simulation techniques in order
922 > to obtain a simple model capable of explaining the results.  My
923 > advisor, Dr. Gezelter, and I were approached by a colleague,
924 > Dr. Lieberman, about possible explanations for the  partial coverage of a
925 > gold surface by a particular compound of hers. We suggested it might
926 > be due to the statistical packing fraction of disks on a plane, and
927 > set about to simulate this system.  As the events in our model were
928 > not dynamic in nature, a Monte Carlo method was employed.  Here, if a
929 > molecule landed on the surface without overlapping another, then its
930 > landing was accepted.  However, if there was overlap, the landing we
931 > rejected and a new random landing location was chosen.  This defined
932 > our acceptance rules and allowed us to construct a Markov chain whose
933 > limiting distribution was the surface coverage in which we were
934 > interested.
935 >
936 > The following chapter, about the simulation package {\sc oopse},
937 > describes in detail the large body of scientific code that had to be
938 > written in order to study phospholipid bilayers.  Although there are
939 > pre-existing molecular dynamic simulation packages available, none
940 > were capable of implementing the models we were developing.{\sc oopse}
941 > is a unique package capable of not only integrating the equations of
942 > motion in Cartesian space, but is also able to integrate the
943 > rotational motion of rigid bodies and dipoles.  Add to this the
944 > ability to perform calculations across parallel processors and a
945 > flexible script syntax for creating systems, and {\sc oopse} becomes a
946 > very powerful scientific instrument for the exploration of our model.
947 >
948 > Bringing us to Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid}. Using {\sc oopse}, I have been
949 > able to parameterize a mesoscale model for phospholipid simulations.
950 > This model retains information about solvent ordering around the
951 > bilayer, as well as information regarding the interaction of the
952 > phospholipid head groups' dipoles with each other and the surrounding
953 > solvent.  These simulations give us insight into the dynamic events
954 > that lead to the formation of phospholipid bilayers, as well as
955 > provide the foundation for future exploration of bilayer phase
956 > behavior with this model.  
957 >
958 > Which leads into the last chapter, where I discuss future directions
959 > for both{\sc oopse} and this mesoscale model.  Additionally, I will
960 > give a summary of results for this dissertation.
961 >
962 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines