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 953 by mmeineke, Sun Jan 18 03:07:59 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1042 by mmeineke, Mon Feb 9 19:37:45 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 < The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
59 < work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
60 < named, because it heavily uses random numbers in the solution of the
61 < problem.
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 < \subsection{\label{introSec:md}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
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 < time averages
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 < time integrating schemes
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 < time reversible
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 < symplectic methods
198 > \subsection{\label{introSec:ergodic}The Ergodic Hypothesis}
199  
200 < Extended ensembles (NVT NPT)
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 < constrained dynamics
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:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}
233 > \section{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
234  
235 < \subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}
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
238 > solution.\cite{allen87:csl} The Monte Carlo method allows for the
239 > solution of integrals through the stochastic sampling of the values
240 > within the integral. In the simplest case, the evaluation of an
241 > integral would follow a brute force method of
242 > sampling.\cite{Frenkel1996} Consider the following single dimensional
243 > integral:
244 > \begin{equation}
245 > I = f(x)dx
246 > \label{eq:MCex1}
247 > \end{equation}
248 > The equation can be recast as:
249 > \begin{equation}
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}
272  
273 < \subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}
273 > However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
274 > integrals of the form:
275 > \begin{equation}
276 > \langle A \rangle = \frac{\int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)%
277 >        e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}%
278 >        {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}
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 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 importance sampling comes into
291 > play.\cite{allen87:csl}
292  
293 < \subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for Phospholipid Bilayers}
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 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)
307 >        \rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)
308 > \label{introEq:Importance3}
309 > \end{equation}
310 > Applying Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance1} one obtains
311 > \begin{equation}
312 > \langle A \rangle = \biggl \langle
313 >        \frac{ A \rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N) }
314 >        {\rho(\mathbf{r}^N)} \biggr \rangle_{\text{trials}}
315 > \label{introEq:Importance4}
316 > \end{equation}
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_{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 \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 > \subsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
330 >
331 > A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
332 > conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
333 > \begin{enumerate}
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 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 $n$.
342 >
343 > \newcommand{\accMe}{\operatorname{acc}}
344 >
345 > The transition probability is given by the following:
346 > \begin{equation}
347 > \pi_{mn} = \alpha_{mn} \times \accMe(m \rightarrow n)
348 > \label{introEq:MCpi}
349 > \end{equation}
350 > Where $\alpha_{mn}$ is the probability of attempting the move $m
351 > \rightarrow n$, and $\accMe$ is the probability of accepting the move
352 > $m \rightarrow n$.  Defining a probability vector,
353 > $\boldsymbol{\rho}$, such that
354 > \begin{equation}
355 > \boldsymbol{\rho} = \{\rho_1, \rho_2, \ldots \rho_m, \rho_n,
356 >        \ldots \rho_N \}
357 > \label{introEq:MCrhoVector}
358 > \end{equation}
359 > a transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ can be defined,
360 > whose elements are $\pi_{mn}$, for each given transition.  The
361 > limiting distribution of the Markov chain can then be found by
362 > applying the transition matrix an infinite number of times to the
363 > distribution vector.
364 > \begin{equation}
365 > \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}} =
366 >        \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{initial}}
367 >        \boldsymbol{\Pi}^N
368 > \label{introEq:MCmarkovLimit}
369 > \end{equation}
370 > The limiting distribution of the chain is independent of the starting
371 > distribution, and successive applications of the transition matrix
372 > will only yield the limiting distribution again.
373 > \begin{equation}
374 > \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}} = \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{initial}}
375 >        \boldsymbol{\Pi}
376 > \label{introEq:MCmarkovEquil}
377 > \end{equation}
378 >
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 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
387 > from $m$ to $n$ is the same as going from $n$ to $m$.
388 > \begin{equation}
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 symmetric matrix in
393 > the Metropolis method.  Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCpi},
394 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
395 > \begin{equation}
396 > \frac{\accMe(m \rightarrow n)}{\accMe(n \rightarrow m)} =
397 >        \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m}
398 > \label{introEq:MCmicro2}
399 > \end{equation}
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}}
404 > \label{introEq:MCmicro3}
405 > \end{equation}
406 > This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
407 > \begin{equation}
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{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{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 > \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, 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 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 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 > \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{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 > \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{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 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 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 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 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 > \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 $N(N-1)/ 2$
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{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
530 > particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
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, $r_{\text{cut}}$, are not included in the
549 > calculation.\cite{Frenkel1996} In a simulation with periodic images,
550 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ has a maximum value of $\text{box}/2$.
551 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMax} illustrates how when using an
552 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no
553 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ at all, the corners of the simulation box are
554 > unequally weighted due to the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$,
555 > or $z$ directions past a distance of $\text{box} / 2$.
556 >
557 > \begin{figure}
558 > \centering
559 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxFig.eps}
560 > \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).}
561 > \label{introFig:rMax}
562 > \end{figure}
563 >
564 > With the use of an $r_{\text{cut}}$, however, comes a discontinuity in
565 > the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). To fix this
566 > discontinuity, one calculates the potential energy at the
567 > $r_{\text{cut}}$, and adds that value to the potential, causing
568 > the function to go smoothly to zero at the cutoff radius.  This
569 > shifted potential ensures conservation of energy when integrating the
570 > Newtonian equations of motion.
571 >
572 > \begin{figure}
573 > \centering
574 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shiftedPot.eps}
575 > \caption[Shifting the Lennard-Jones Potential]{The Lennard-Jones potential (blue line) is shifted (red line) to remove the discontinuity at $r_{\text{cut}}$.}
576 > \label{introFig:shiftPot}
577 > \end{figure}
578 >
579 > The second main simplification used in this research is the Verlet
580 > neighbor list. \cite{allen87:csl} In the Verlet method, one generates
581 > a list of all neighbor atoms, $j$, surrounding atom $i$ within some
582 > cutoff $r_{\text{list}}$, where $r_{\text{list}}>r_{\text{cut}}$.
583 > This list is created the first time forces are evaluated, then on
584 > subsequent force evaluations, pair calculations are only calculated
585 > from the neighbor lists.  The lists are updated if any given particle
586 > in the system moves farther than $r_{\text{list}}-r_{\text{cut}}$,
587 > giving rise to the possibility that a particle has left or joined a
588 > neighbor list.
589 >
590 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdIntegrate} Integration of the equations of motion}
591 >
592 > A starting point for the discussion of molecular dynamics integrators
593 > is the Verlet algorithm.\cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor
594 > expansion of position in time:
595 > \begin{equation}
596 > q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
597 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
598 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
599 > \label{introEq:verletForward}
600 > \end{equation}
601 > As well as,
602 > \begin{equation}
603 > q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
604 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
605 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
606 > \label{introEq:verletBack}
607 > \end{equation}
608 > Where $m$ is the mass of the particle, $q(t)$ is the position at time
609 > $t$, $v(t)$ the velocity, and $F(t)$ the force acting on the
610 > particle. Adding together Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletForward} and
611 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletBack} results in,
612 > \begin{equation}
613 > q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =
614 >        2q(t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
615 > \label{introEq:verletSum}
616 > \end{equation}
617 > Or equivalently,
618 > \begin{equation}
619 > q(t+\Delta t) \approx
620 >        2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{F(t)}{m}\Delta t^2
621 > \label{introEq:verletFinal}
622 > \end{equation}
623 > Which contains an error in the estimate of the new positions on the
624 > order of $\Delta t^4$.
625 >
626 > In practice, however, the simulations in this research were integrated
627 > with a velocity reformulation of the Verlet method.\cite{allen87:csl}
628 > \begin{align}
629 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 %
630 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletPos} \\%
631 > %
632 > v(t+\Delta t) &= v(t) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}[F(t) + F(t+\Delta t)] %
633 > \label{introEq:MDvelVerletVel}
634 > \end{align}
635 > The original Verlet algorithm can be regained by substituting the
636 > velocity back into Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDvelVerletPos}.  The Verlet
637 > formulations are chosen in this research because the algorithms have
638 > very little long term drift in energy conservation.  Energy
639 > conservation in a molecular dynamics simulation is of extreme
640 > importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is following the
641 > ``true'' trajectory with the finite integration scheme.  An exact
642 > solution to the integration will conserve area in phase space, as well
643 > as be reversible in time, that is, the trajectory integrated forward
644 > or backwards will exactly match itself.  Having a finite algorithm
645 > that both conserves area in phase space and is time reversible,
646 > therefore increases, but does not guarantee the ``correctness'' or the
647 > integrated trajectory.
648 >
649 > It can be shown,\cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm
650 > does not rigorously preserve the actual Hamiltonian, it does preserve
651 > a pseudo-Hamiltonian which shadows the real one in phase space.  This
652 > pseudo-Hamiltonian is provably area-conserving as well as time
653 > reversible.  The fact that it shadows the true Hamiltonian in phase
654 > space is acceptable in actual simulations as one is interested in the
655 > ensemble average of the observable being measured.  From the ergodic
656 > hypothesis (Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}), it is known that the time
657 > average will match the ensemble average, therefore two similar
658 > trajectories in phase space should give matching statistical averages.
659 >
660 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurther}Further Considerations}
661 >
662 > In the simulations presented in this research, a few additional
663 > parameters are needed to describe the motions.  The simulations
664 > involving water and phospholipids in Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} are
665 > required to integrate the equations of motions for dipoles on atoms.
666 > This involves an additional three parameters be specified for each
667 > dipole atom: $\phi$, $\theta$, and $\psi$.  These three angles are
668 > taken to be the Euler angles, where $\phi$ is a rotation about the
669 > $z$-axis, and $\theta$ is a rotation about the new $x$-axis, and
670 > $\psi$ is a final rotation about the new $z$-axis (see
671 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:eulerAngles}).  This sequence of rotations can be
672 > accumulated into a single $3 \times 3$ matrix, $\mathbf{A}$,
673 > defined as follows:
674 > \begin{equation}
675 > \mathbf{A} =
676 > \begin{bmatrix}
677 >        \cos\phi\cos\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
678 >        \sin\phi\cos\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\sin\psi &%
679 >        \sin\theta\sin\psi \\%
680 >        %
681 >        -\cos\phi\sin\psi-\sin\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
682 >        -\sin\phi\sin\psi+\cos\phi\cos\theta\cos\psi &%
683 >        \sin\theta\cos\psi \\%
684 >        %
685 >        \sin\phi\sin\theta &%
686 >        -\cos\phi\sin\theta &%
687 >        \cos\theta
688 > \end{bmatrix}
689 > \label{introEq:EulerRotMat}
690 > \end{equation}
691 >
692 > \begin{figure}
693 > \centering
694 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{eulerRotFig.eps}
695 > \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).}
696 > \label{introFig:eulerAngles}
697 > \end{figure}
698 >
699 > The equations of motion for Euler angles can be written down
700 > as\cite{allen87:csl}
701 > \begin{align}
702 > \dot{\phi} &= -\omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
703 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi\cos\theta}{\sin\theta} +
704 >        \omega^s_z
705 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPhi} \\%
706 > %
707 > \dot{\theta} &= \omega^s_x \cos\phi + \omega^s_y \sin\phi
708 > \label{introEq:MDeulerTheta} \\%
709 > %
710 > \dot{\psi} &= \omega^s_x \frac{\sin\phi}{\sin\theta} -
711 >        \omega^s_y \frac{\cos\phi}{\sin\theta}
712 > \label{introEq:MDeulerPsi}
713 > \end{align}
714 > Where $\omega^s_i$ is the angular velocity in the lab space frame
715 > along Cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when
716 > attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPhi} and
717 > Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPsi}. The $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ present in
718 > both equations means there is a non-physical instability present when
719 > $\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$. To correct for this, the simulations integrate
720 > the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, directly, thus avoiding the
721 > instability.  This method was proposed by Dullweber
722 > \emph{et. al.}\cite{Dullweber1997}, and is presented in
723 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDsymplecticRot}.
724 >
725 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDliouville}Liouville Propagator}
726 >
727 > Before discussing the integration of the rotation matrix, it is
728 > necessary to understand the construction of a ``good'' integration
729 > scheme.  It has been previously
730 > discussed(Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}) how it is desirable for an
731 > integrator to be symplectic, or time reversible.  The following is an
732 > outline of the Trotter factorization of the Liouville Propagator as a
733 > scheme for generating symplectic integrators.\cite{Tuckerman92}
734 >
735 > For a system with $f$ degrees of freedom the Liouville operator can be
736 > defined as,
737 > \begin{equation}
738 > iL=\sum^f_{j=1} \biggl [\dot{q}_j\frac{\partial}{\partial q_j} +
739 >        F_j\frac{\partial}{\partial p_j} \biggr ]
740 > \label{introEq:LiouvilleOperator}
741 > \end{equation}
742 > Here, $q_j$ and $p_j$ are the position and conjugate momenta of a
743 > degree of freedom, and $F_j$ is the force on that degree of freedom.
744 > $\Gamma$ is defined as the set of all positions and conjugate momenta,
745 > $\{q_j,p_j\}$, and the propagator, $U(t)$, is defined
746 > \begin {equation}
747 > U(t) = e^{iLt}
748 > \label{introEq:Lpropagator}
749 > \end{equation}
750 > This allows the specification of $\Gamma$ at any time $t$ as
751 > \begin{equation}
752 > \Gamma(t) = U(t)\Gamma(0)
753 > \label{introEq:Lp2}
754 > \end{equation}
755 > It is important to note, $U(t)$ is a unitary operator meaning
756 > \begin{equation}
757 > U(-t)=U^{-1}(t)
758 > \label{introEq:Lp3}
759 > \end{equation}
760 >
761 > Decomposing $L$ into two parts, $iL_1$ and $iL_2$, one can use the
762 > Trotter theorem to yield
763 > \begin{align}
764 > e^{iLt} &= e^{i(L_1 + L_2)t} \notag \\%
765 > %
766 >        &= \biggl [ e^{i(L_1 +L_2)\frac{t}{P}} \biggr]^P \notag \\%
767 > %
768 >        &= \biggl [ e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
769 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \biggr ]^P +
770 >        \mathcal{O}\biggl (\frac{t^3}{P^2} \biggr ) \label{introEq:Lp4}
771 > \end{align}
772 > Where $\Delta t = t/P$.
773 > With this, a discrete time operator $G(\Delta t)$ can be defined:
774 > \begin{align}
775 > G(\Delta t) &= e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}}\, e^{iL_2\Delta t}\,
776 >        e^{iL_1\frac{\Delta t}{2}} \notag \\%
777 > %
778 >        &= U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )\, U_2 ( \Delta t )\,
779 >        U_1 \biggl ( \frac{\Delta t}{2} \biggr )
780 > \label{introEq:Lp5}
781 > \end{align}
782 > Because $U_1(t)$ and $U_2(t)$ are unitary, $G(\Delta t)$ is also
783 > unitary.  Meaning an integrator based on this factorization will be
784 > reversible in time.
785 >
786 > As an example, consider the following decomposition of $L$:
787 > \begin{align}
788 > iL_1 &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}%
789 > \label{introEq:Lp6a} \\%
790 > %
791 > iL_2 &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}%
792 > \label{introEq:Lp6b}
793 > \end{align}
794 > This leads to propagator $G( \Delta t )$ as,
795 > \begin{equation}
796 > G(\Delta t) =  e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
797 >        e^{\Delta t\,\dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q}} \,
798 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
799 > \label{introEq:Lp7}
800 > \end{equation}
801 > Operating $G(\Delta t)$ on $\Gamma(0)$, and utilizing the operator property
802 > \begin{equation}
803 > e^{c\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}\, f(x) = f(x+c)
804 > \label{introEq:Lp8}
805 > \end{equation}
806 > Where $c$ is independent of $x$.  One obtains the following:  
807 > \begin{align}
808 > \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) &=
809 >        \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9a}\\%
810 > %
811 > q(\Delta t) &= q(0) + \Delta t\, \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr )%
812 >        \label{introEq:Lp9b}\\%
813 > %
814 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}\biggl (\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr ) +
815 >        \frac{\Delta t}{2m}\, F[q(0)] \label{introEq:Lp9c}
816 > \end{align}
817 > Or written another way,
818 > \begin{align}
819 > q(t+\Delta t) &= q(0) + \dot{q}(0)\Delta t +
820 >        \frac{F[q(0)]}{m}\frac{\Delta t^2}{2} %
821 > \label{introEq:Lp10a} \\%
822 > %
823 > \dot{q}(\Delta t) &= \dot{q}(0) + \frac{\Delta t}{2m}
824 >        \biggl [F[q(0)] + F[q(\Delta t)] \biggr] %
825 > \label{introEq:Lp10b}
826 > \end{align}
827 > This is the velocity Verlet formulation presented in
828 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate}.  Because this integration scheme is
829 > comprised of unitary propagators, it is symplectic, and therefore area
830 > preserving in phase space.  From the preceding factorization, one can
831 > see that the integration of the equations of motion would follow:
832 > \begin{enumerate}
833 > \item calculate the velocities at the half step, $\frac{\Delta t}{2}$, from the forces calculated at the initial position.
834 >
835 > \item Use the half step velocities to move positions one whole step, $\Delta t$.
836 >
837 > \item Evaluate the forces at the new positions, $\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)$, and use the new forces to complete the velocity move.
838 >
839 > \item Repeat from step 1 with the new position, velocities, and forces assuming the roles of the initial values.
840 > \end{enumerate}
841 >
842 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDsymplecticRot} Symplectic Propagation of the Rotation Matrix}
843 >
844 > Based on the factorization from the previous section,
845 > Dullweber\emph{et al}.\cite{Dullweber1997}~ proposed a scheme for the
846 > symplectic propagation of the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, as an
847 > alternative method for the integration of orientational degrees of
848 > freedom. The method starts with a straightforward splitting of the
849 > Liouville operator:
850 > \begin{align}
851 > iL_{\text{pos}} &= \dot{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial q} +
852 >        \mathbf{\dot{A}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{A}}
853 > \label{introEq:SR1a} \\%
854 > %
855 > iL_F &= F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
856 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
857 > iL_{\tau} &= \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}
858 > \label{introEq:SR1b} \\%
859 > \end{align}
860 > Where $\tau(\mathbf{A})$ is the torque of the system
861 > due to the configuration, and $\pi$ is the conjugate
862 > angular momenta of the system. The propagator, $G(\Delta t)$, becomes
863 > \begin{equation}
864 > G(\Delta t) = e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}} \,
865 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
866 >        e^{\Delta t\,iL_{\text{pos}}} \,
867 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} \tau(\mathbf{A})\frac{\partial}{\partial \pi}} \,
868 >        e^{\frac{\Delta t}{2} F(q)\frac{\partial}{\partial p}}
869 > \label{introEq:SR2}
870 > \end{equation}
871 > Propagation of the linear and angular momenta follows as in the Verlet
872 > scheme.  The propagation of positions also follows the Verlet scheme
873 > with the addition of a further symplectic splitting of the rotation
874 > matrix propagation, $\mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t)$, within
875 > $U_{\text{pos}}(\Delta t)$.
876 > \begin{equation}
877 > \mathcal{U}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t) =
878 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
879 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
880 >        \mathcal{U}_z (\Delta t)\,
881 >        \mathcal{U}_y \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
882 >        \mathcal{U}_x \biggl(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\biggr)\,
883 > \label{introEq:SR3}
884 > \end{equation}
885 > Where $\mathcal{U}_j$ is a unitary rotation of $\mathbf{A}$ and
886 > $\pi$ about each axis $j$.  As all propagations are now
887 > unitary and symplectic, the entire integration scheme is also
888 > symplectic and time reversible.
889 >
890 > \section{\label{introSec:layout}Dissertation Layout}
891 >
892 > This dissertation is divided as follows:Ch.~\ref{chapt:RSA}
893 > presents the random sequential adsorption simulations of related
894 > pthalocyanines on a gold (111) surface. Ch.~\ref{chapt:OOPSE}
895 > is about the writing of the molecular dynamics simulation package
896 > {\sc oopse}. Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} regards the simulations of
897 > phospholipid bilayers using a mesoscale model. And lastly,
898 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:conclusion} concludes this dissertation with a
899 > summary of all results. The chapters are arranged in chronological
900 > order, and reflect the progression of techniques I employed during my
901 > research.  
902 >
903 > The chapter concerning random sequential adsorption simulations is a
904 > study in applying Statistical Mechanics simulation techniques in order
905 > to obtain a simple model capable of explaining the results.  My
906 > advisor, Dr. Gezelter, and I were approached by a colleague,
907 > Dr. Lieberman, about possible explanations for the  partial coverage of a
908 > gold surface by a particular compound of hers. We suggested it might
909 > be due to the statistical packing fraction of disks on a plane, and
910 > set about to simulate this system.  As the events in our model were
911 > not dynamic in nature, a Monte Carlo method was employed.  Here, if a
912 > molecule landed on the surface without overlapping another, then its
913 > landing was accepted.  However, if there was overlap, the landing we
914 > rejected and a new random landing location was chosen.  This defined
915 > our acceptance rules and allowed us to construct a Markov chain whose
916 > limiting distribution was the surface coverage in which we were
917 > interested.
918 >
919 > The following chapter, about the simulation package {\sc oopse},
920 > describes in detail the large body of scientific code that had to be
921 > written in order to study phospholipid bilayers.  Although there are
922 > pre-existing molecular dynamic simulation packages available, none
923 > were capable of implementing the models we were developing.{\sc oopse}
924 > is a unique package capable of not only integrating the equations of
925 > motion in Cartesian space, but is also able to integrate the
926 > rotational motion of rigid bodies and dipoles.  Add to this the
927 > ability to perform calculations across parallel processors and a
928 > flexible script syntax for creating systems, and {\sc oopse} becomes a
929 > very powerful scientific instrument for the exploration of our model.
930 >
931 > Bringing us to Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid}. Using {\sc oopse}, I have been
932 > able to parameterize a mesoscale model for phospholipid simulations.
933 > This model retains information about solvent ordering around the
934 > bilayer, as well as information regarding the interaction of the
935 > phospholipid head groups' dipoles with each other and the surrounding
936 > solvent.  These simulations give us insight into the dynamic events
937 > that lead to the formation of phospholipid bilayers, as well as
938 > provide the foundation for future exploration of bilayer phase
939 > behavior with this model.  
940 >
941 > Which leads into the last chapter, where I discuss future directions
942 > for both{\sc oopse} and this mesoscale model.  Additionally, I will
943 > give a summary of results for this dissertation.
944 >
945 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines