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

Comparing trunk/xDissertation/Introduction.tex (file contents):
Revision 3371 by xsun, Fri Mar 14 23:16:11 2008 UTC vs.
Revision 3374 by xsun, Thu Mar 20 22:21:43 2008 UTC

# Line 3 | Line 3 | because of their critical role as the foundation of bi
3   \section{Background on the Problem\label{In:sec:pro}}
4   Phospholipid molecules are the primary topic of this dissertation
5   because of their critical role as the foundation of biological
6 < membranes. Lipids, when dispersed in water, self assemble into bilayer
7 < structures. The phase behavior of lipid bilayers have been explored
8 < experimentally~\cite{Cevc87}, however, a complete understanding of the
9 < mechanism for self-assembly has not been achieved.
6 > membranes. The chemical structure of phospholipids includes the polar
7 > head group which is due to a large charge separation between phosphate
8 > and amino alcohol, and the nonpolar tails that contains fatty acid
9 > chains. Depending on the alcohol which phosphate and fatty acid chains
10 > are esterified to, the phospholipids are divided into
11 > glycerophospholipids and sphingophospholipids.~\cite{Cevc80} The
12 > chemical structures are shown in figure~\ref{Infig:lipid}.
13 > \begin{figure}
14 > \centering
15 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inLipid.pdf}
16 > \caption{The chemical structure of glycerophospholipids (left) and
17 > sphingophospholipids (right).\cite{Cevc80}}
18 > \label{Infig:lipid}
19 > \end{figure}
20 > The glycerophospholipid is the dominant phospholipid in membranes. The
21 > types of glycerophospholipids depend on the X group, and the
22 > chains. For example, if X is choline, the lipids are known as
23 > phosphatidylcholine (PC), or if X is ethanolamine, the lipids are
24 > known as phosphatidyethanolamine (PE). Table~\ref{Intab:pc} listed a
25 > number types of phosphatidycholine with different fatty acids as the
26 > lipid chains.
27 > \begin{table*}
28 > \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
29 > \begin{center}
30 > \caption{A number types of phosphatidycholine.}
31 > \begin{tabular}{lll}
32 > \hline
33 >  & Fatty acid & Generic Name \\
34 > \hline
35 > \textcolor{red}{DMPC} & Myristic: CH$_3$(CH$_2$)$_{12}$COOH &
36 > \textcolor{red}{D}i\textcolor{red}{M}yristoyl\textcolor{red}{P}hosphatidyl\textcolor{red}{C}holine \\
37 > \textcolor{red}{DPPC} & Palmitic: CH$_3$(CH$_2$)$_{14}$COOH & \textcolor{red}{D}i\textcolor{red}{P}almtoyl\textcolor{red}{P}hosphatidyl\textcolor{red}{C}holine
38 > \\
39 > \textcolor{red}{DSPC} & Stearic: CH$_3$(CH$_2$)$_{16}$COOH & \textcolor{red}{D}i\textcolor{red}{S}tearoyl\textcolor{red}{P}hosphatidyl\textcolor{red}{C}holine \\
40 > \end{tabular}
41 > \label{Intab:pc}
42 > \end{center}
43 > \end{minipage}
44 > \end{table*}
45 > When dispersed in water, lipids self assemble into a mumber of
46 > topologically distinct bilayer structures. The phase behavior of lipid
47 > bilayers has been explored experimentally~\cite{Cevc80}, however, a
48 > complete understanding of the mechanism and driving forces behind the
49 > various phases has not been achieved.
50  
51   \subsection{Ripple Phase\label{In:ssec:ripple}}
52   The $P_{\beta'}$ {\it ripple phase} of lipid bilayers, named from the
53   periodic buckling of the membrane, is an intermediate phase which is
54   developed either from heating the gel phase $L_{\beta'}$ or cooling
55 < the fluid phase $L_\alpha$. Although the ripple phase has been
56 < observed in several
57 < experiments~\cite{Sun96,Katsaras00,Copeland80,Meyer96,Kaasgaard03},
58 < the physical mechanism for the formation of the ripple phase has never been
59 < explained and the microscopic structure of the ripple phase has never
60 < been elucidated by experiments. Computational simulation is a perfect
61 < tool to study the microscopic properties for a system. However, the
62 < large length scale the ripple structure and the long time scale
63 < of the formation of the ripples are crucial obstacles to performing
64 < the actual work. The principal ideas explored in this dissertation are
65 < attempts to break the computational task up by
55 > the fluid phase $L_\alpha$. A Sketch is shown in
56 > figure~\ref{Infig:phaseDiagram}.~\cite{Cevc80}
57 > \begin{figure}
58 > \centering
59 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inPhaseDiagram.pdf}
60 > \caption{A phase diagram of lipid bilayer. With increasing the
61 > temperature, the bilayer can go through a gel ($L_{\beta'}$), ripple
62 > ($P_{\beta'}$) to fluid ($L_\alpha$) phase transition.~\cite{Cevc80}}
63 > \label{Infig:phaseDiagram}
64 > \end{figure}
65 > Most structural information of the ripple phase has been obtained by
66 > the X-ray diffraction~\cite{Sun96,Katsaras00} and freeze-fracture
67 > electron microscopy (FFEM).~\cite{Copeland80,Meyer96} The X-ray
68 > diffraction work by Katsaras {\it et al.} showed that a rich phase
69 > diagram exhibiting both {\it asymmetric} and {\it symmetric} ripples
70 > is possible for lecithin bilayers.\cite{Katsaras00} Recently,
71 > Kaasgaard {\it et al.} used atomic force microscopy (AFM) to observe
72 > ripple phase morphology in bilayers supported on
73 > mica.~\cite{Kaasgaard03}
74 > \begin{figure}
75 > \centering
76 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inRipple.pdf}
77 > \caption{The experimental observed ripple phase. The top image is
78 > obtained by Sun {\it et al.} using X-ray diffraction~\cite{Sun96},
79 > and the bottom one is observed by Kaasgaard {\it et al.} using
80 > AFM.~\cite{Kaasgaard03}}
81 > \label{Infig:ripple}
82 > \end{figure}
83 > Figure~\ref{Infig:ripple} shows the ripple phase oberved by X-ray
84 > diffraction and AFM. The experimental results provide strong support
85 > for a 2-dimensional triangular packing lattice of the lipid molecules
86 > within the ripple phase.  This is a notable change from the observed
87 > lipid packing within the gel phase,~\cite{Cevc80} although Tenchov
88 > {\it et al.} have recently observed near-hexagonal packing in some
89 > phosphatidylcholine (PC) gel phases.~\cite{Tenchov2001} However, the
90 > physical mechanism for the formation of the ripple phase has never
91 > been explained and the microscopic structure of the ripple phase has
92 > never been elucidated by experiments. Computational simulation is a
93 > perfect tool to study the microscopic properties for a
94 > system. However, the large length scale the ripple structure and the
95 > long time scale of the formation of the ripples are crucial obstacles
96 > to performing the actual work. The principal ideas explored in this
97 > dissertation are attempts to break the computational task up by
98   \begin{itemize}
99   \item Simplifying the lipid model.
100   \item Improving algorithm for integrating the equations of motion.
101   \end{itemize}
102   In chapters~\ref{chap:mc} and~\ref{chap:md}, we use a simple point
103 < dipole model and a coarse-grained model to perform the Monte Carlo and
104 < Molecular Dynamics simulations respectively, and in
105 < chapter~\ref{chap:ld}, we develop a Langevin Dynamics algorithm which
106 < excludes the explicit solvent to improve the efficiency of the
107 < simulations.
103 > dipole spin model and a coarse-grained molecualr scale model to
104 > perform the Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations
105 > respectively, and in chapter~\ref{chap:ld}, we develop a Langevin
106 > Dynamics algorithm which excludes the explicit solvent to improve the
107 > efficiency of the simulations.
108  
109   \subsection{Lattice Model\label{In:ssec:model}}
110 < The gel-like characteristic of the ripple phase makes it feasible to
111 < apply a lattice model to study the system. It is claimed that the
112 < packing of the lipid molecules in ripple phase is
113 < hexagonal~\cite{Cevc87}. The popular $2$ dimensional lattice models,
114 < {\it i.e.}, the Ising, $X-Y$, and Heisenberg models, show {\it
43 < frustration} on triangular lattices. The Hamiltonian of the systems
44 < are given by
110 > The gel-like characteristic (relatively immobile molecules) exhibited
111 > by the ripple phase makes it feasible to apply a lattice model to
112 > study the system. The popular $2$ dimensional lattice models, {\it
113 > i.e.}, the Ising, $X-Y$, and Heisenberg models, show {\it frustration}
114 > on triangular lattices. The Hamiltonians of these systems are given by
115   \begin{equation}
116   H =
117    \begin{cases}
# Line 51 | Line 121 | where $J$ has non zero value only when spins $s_n$ ($\
121    \end{cases}
122   \end{equation}
123   where $J$ has non zero value only when spins $s_n$ ($\vec s_n$) and
124 < $s_{n'}$ ($\vec s_{n'}$) are the nearest neighbours. When $J > 0$, the
125 < spins prefer aligned with each other, and if $J < 0$, the spins want
126 < to be anti-aligned.
124 > $s_{n'}$ ($\vec s_{n'}$) are nearest neighbors. When $J > 0$, spins
125 > prefer an aligned structure, and if $J < 0$, spins prefer an
126 > anti-aligned structure.
127  
128   \begin{figure}
129   \centering
# Line 67 | Line 137 | direction of the spin on top of the triangle, therefor
137   the frustration for $J < 0$ on a triangular lattice. There are
138   multiple local minima energy states which are independent of the
139   direction of the spin on top of the triangle, therefore infinite
140 < possibilities for the packing of spins induce what is known as
140 > possibilities for the packing of spins which induces what is known as
141   ``complete regular frustration'' which leads to disordered low
142   temperature phases. The similarity goes to the dipoles on a hexagonal
143   lattice, which are shown by the dipoles in
# Line 77 | Line 147 | center of the hexagonal lattice is frustrated.
147   results in multiple local minima of energy states. The dipole on the
148   center of the hexagonal lattice is frustrated.
149  
150 < The lack of translational degree of freedom in lattice models prevents
151 < their utilization in models for surface buckling which would
152 < correspond to ripple formation. In chapter~\ref{chap:mc}, a modified
153 < lattice model is introduced to tackle this specific situation.
150 > The lack of translational degrees of freedom in lattice models
151 > prevents their utilization in models for surface buckling. In
152 > chapter~\ref{chap:mc}, a modified lattice model is introduced to
153 > tackle this specific situation.
154  
155   \section{Overview of Classical Statistical Mechanics\label{In:sec:SM}}
156   Statistical mechanics provides a way to calculate the macroscopic
# Line 88 | Line 158 | this dissertation. Tolman gives an excellent introduct
158   computational simulations. This section serves as a brief introduction
159   to key concepts of classical statistical mechanics that we used in
160   this dissertation. Tolman gives an excellent introduction to the
161 < principles of statistical mechanics~\cite{Tolman1979}. A large part of
161 > principles of statistical mechanics.~\cite{Tolman1979} A large part of
162   section~\ref{In:sec:SM} will follow Tolman's notation.
163  
164   \subsection{Ensembles\label{In:ssec:ensemble}}
165   In classical mechanics, the state of the system is completely
166   described by the positions and momenta of all particles. If we have an
167 < $N$ particle system, there are $6N$ coordinates ($3N$ position $(q_1,
167 > $N$ particle system, there are $6N$ coordinates ($3N$ positions $(q_1,
168   q_2, \ldots, q_{3N})$ and $3N$ momenta $(p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_{3N})$)
169   to define the instantaneous state of the system. Each single set of
170   the $6N$ coordinates can be considered as a unique point in a $6N$
# Line 119 | Line 189 | then the value of $\rho$ gives the probability of find
189   \label{Ineq:normalized}
190   \end{equation}
191   then the value of $\rho$ gives the probability of finding the system
192 < in a unit volume in the phase space.
192 > in a unit volume in phase space.
193  
194   Liouville's theorem describes the change in density $\rho$ with
195 < time. The number of representive points at a given volume in the phase
195 > time. The number of representative points at a given volume in phase
196   space at any instant can be written as:
197   \begin{equation}
198   \label{Ineq:deltaN}
199   \delta N = \rho~\delta q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N.
200   \end{equation}
201 < To calculate the change in the number of representive points in this
201 > To calculate the change in the number of representative points in this
202   volume, let us consider a simple condition: the change in the number
203 < of representive points in $q_1$ axis. The rate of the number of the
204 < representive points entering the volume at $q_1$ per unit time is:
203 > of representative points along the $q_1$ axis. The rate of the number
204 > of the representative points entering the volume at $q_1$ per unit time
205 > is:
206   \begin{equation}
207   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1}
208   \rho~\dot q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N,
209   \end{equation}
210 < and the rate of the number of representive points leaving the volume
210 > and the rate of the number of representative points leaving the volume
211   at another position $q_1 + \delta q_1$ is:
212   \begin{equation}
213   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1}
214   \left( \rho + \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial q_1} \delta q_1 \right)\left(\dot q_1 +
215   \frac{\partial \dot q_1}{\partial q_1} \delta q_1 \right)\delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N.
216   \end{equation}
217 < Here the higher order differentials are neglected. So the change of
218 < the number of the representive points is the difference of
219 < eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1} and eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1}, which
220 < gives us:
217 > Here the higher order differentials are neglected. So the change in
218 > the number of representative points is the difference between
219 > eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1} and eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1},
220 > which gives us:
221   \begin{equation}
222   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1axis}
223   -\left(\rho \frac{\partial {\dot q_1}}{\partial q_1} + \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial q_1} \dot q_1 \right)\delta q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N,
224   \end{equation}
225   where, higher order differetials are neglected. If we sum over all the
226 < axes in the phase space, we can get the change of the number of
227 < representive points in a given volume with time:
226 > axes in the phase space, we can get the change in the number of
227 > representative points in a given volume with time:
228   \begin{equation}
229   \label{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume}
230   \frac{d(\delta N)}{dt} = -\sum_{i=1}^N \left[\rho \left(\frac{\partial
# Line 161 | Line 232 | q_i} \dot q_i + \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial p_i} \
232   {\dot p_i}}{\partial p_i}\right) + \left( \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial
233   q_i} \dot q_i + \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial p_i} \dot p_i\right)\right]\delta q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N.
234   \end{equation}
235 < From Hamilton's equation of motion,
235 > From Hamilton's equations of motion,
236   \begin{equation}
237   \frac{\partial {\dot q_i}}{\partial q_i} = - \frac{\partial
238   {\dot p_i}}{\partial p_i},
# Line 171 | Line 242 | eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume} are divided by $\de
242   eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume}. If both sides of
243   eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume} are divided by $\delta q_1 \delta q_2
244   \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N$, then we
245 < can derive Liouville's theorem:
245 > arrive at Liouville's theorem:
246   \begin{equation}
247   \left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \right)_{q, p} = -\sum_{i} \left(
248   \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial
# Line 190 | Line 261 | equation~\ref{Ineq:anotherFormofLiouville} is the tota
261   \end{equation}
262   It is easy to note that the left side of
263   equation~\ref{Ineq:anotherFormofLiouville} is the total derivative of
264 < $\rho$ with respect of $t$, which means
264 > $\rho$ with respect to $t$, which means
265   \begin{equation}
266   \frac{d \rho}{dt} = 0,
267   \label{Ineq:conservationofRho}
268   \end{equation}
269   and the rate of density change is zero in the neighborhood of any
270 < selected moving representive points in the phase space.
270 > selected moving representative points in the phase space.
271  
272   The condition of the ensemble is determined by the density
273   distribution. If we consider the density distribution as only a
274   function of $q$ and $p$, which means the rate of change of the phase
275 < space density in the neighborhood of all representive points in the
275 > space density in the neighborhood of all representative points in the
276   phase space is zero,
277   \begin{equation}
278   \left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \right)_{q, p} = 0.
279   \label{Ineq:statEquilibrium}
280   \end{equation}
281   We may conclude the ensemble is in {\it statistical equilibrium}. An
282 < ensemble in statistical equilibrium often means the system is also in
282 > ensemble in statistical equilibrium means the system is also in
283   macroscopic equilibrium. If $\left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}
284   \right)_{q, p} = 0$, then
285   \begin{equation}
# Line 220 | Line 291 | independent of time. For a conservative system, the en
291   \end{equation}
292   If $\rho$ is a function only of some constant of the motion, $\rho$ is
293   independent of time. For a conservative system, the energy of the
294 < system is one of the constants of the motion. Here are several
295 < examples: when the density distribution is constant everywhere in the
296 < phase space,
294 > system is one of the constants of the motion. There are many
295 > thermodynamically relevant ensembles: when the density distribution is
296 > constant everywhere in the phase space,
297   \begin{equation}
298   \rho = \mathrm{const.}
299   \label{Ineq:uniformEnsemble}
300   \end{equation}
301 < the ensemble is called {\it uniform ensemble}.  Another useful
302 < ensemble is called {\it microcanonical ensemble}, for which:
301 > the ensemble is called {\it uniform ensemble}.
302 >
303 > \subsubsection{The Microcanonical Ensemble\label{In:sssec:microcanonical}}
304 > Another useful ensemble is the {\it microcanonical ensemble}, for
305 > which:
306   \begin{equation}
307   \rho = \delta \left( H(q^N, p^N) - E \right) \frac{1}{\Sigma (N, V, E)}
308   \label{Ineq:microcanonicalEnsemble}
# Line 244 | Line 318 | where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $C^N$ is a n
318   \label{Ineq:gibbsEntropy}
319   \end{equation}
320   where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $C^N$ is a number which
321 < makes the argument of $\ln$ dimensionless, in this case, it is the
322 < total phase space volume of one state. The entropy in microcanonical
321 > makes the argument of $\ln$ dimensionless. In this case, $C^N$ is the
322 > total phase space volume of one state. The entropy of a microcanonical
323   ensemble is given by
324   \begin{equation}
325   S = k_B \ln \left(\frac{\Sigma(N, V, E)}{C^N}\right).
326   \label{Ineq:entropy}
327   \end{equation}
328 +
329 + \subsubsection{The Canonical Ensemble\label{In:sssec:canonical}}
330   If the density distribution $\rho$ is given by
331   \begin{equation}
332   \rho = \frac{1}{Z_N}e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T},
# Line 261 | Line 337 | Z_N = \int d \vec q~^N \int_\Gamma d \vec p~^N  e^{-H(
337   Z_N = \int d \vec q~^N \int_\Gamma d \vec p~^N  e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T},
338   \label{Ineq:partitionFunction}
339   \end{equation}
340 < which is also known as {\it partition function}. $\Gamma$ indicates
341 < that the integral is over all the phase space. In the canonical
340 > which is also known as the canonical{\it partition function}. $\Gamma$
341 > indicates that the integral is over all phase space. In the canonical
342   ensemble, $N$, the total number of particles, $V$, total volume, and
343 < $T$, the temperature are constants. The systems with the lowest
343 > $T$, the temperature, are constants. The systems with the lowest
344   energies hold the largest population. According to maximum principle,
345 < the thermodynamics maximizes the entropy $S$,
345 > thermodynamics maximizes the entropy $S$, implying that
346   \begin{equation}
347   \begin{array}{ccc}
348   \delta S = 0 & \mathrm{and} & \delta^2 S < 0.
349   \end{array}
350   \label{Ineq:maximumPrinciple}
351   \end{equation}
352 < From Eq.~\ref{Ineq:maximumPrinciple} and two constrains of the canonical
353 < ensemble, {\it i.e.}, total probability and average energy conserved,
354 < the partition function is calculated as
352 > From Eq.~\ref{Ineq:maximumPrinciple} and two constrains on the
353 > canonical ensemble, {\it i.e.}, total probability and average energy
354 > must be conserved, the partition function can be shown to be
355 > equivalent to
356   \begin{equation}
357   Z_N = e^{-A/k_B T},
358   \label{Ineq:partitionFunctionWithFreeEnergy}
# Line 283 | Line 360 | that they serve as a connection between macroscopic pr
360   where $A$ is the Helmholtz free energy. The significance of
361   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:entropy} and~\ref{Ineq:partitionFunctionWithFreeEnergy} is
362   that they serve as a connection between macroscopic properties of the
363 < system and the distribution of the microscopic states.
363 > system and the distribution of microscopic states.
364  
365   There is an implicit assumption that our arguments are based on so
366 < far. A representive point in the phase space is equally to be found in
367 < any same extent of the regions. In other words, all energetically
368 < accessible states are represented equally, the probabilities to find
369 < the system in any of the accessible states is equal. This is called
370 < equal a {\it priori} probabilities.
366 > far. A representative point in the phase space is equally likely to be
367 > found in any energetically allowed region. In other words, all
368 > energetically accessible states are represented equally, the
369 > probabilities to find the system in any of the accessible states is
370 > equal. This is called the principle of equal a {\it priori}
371 > probabilities.
372  
373 < \subsection{Statistical Average\label{In:ssec:average}}
374 < Given the density distribution $\rho$ in the phase space, the average
373 > \subsection{Statistical Averages\label{In:ssec:average}}
374 > Given a density distribution $\rho$ in phase space, the average
375   of any quantity ($F(q^N, p^N$)) which depends on the coordinates
376   ($q^N$) and the momenta ($p^N$) for all the systems in the ensemble
377   can be calculated based on the definition shown by
378   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:statAverage1}
379   \begin{equation}
380 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
381 < F(q^N, p^N, t) \rho}{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N \rho}.
380 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
381 > F(q^N, p^N) \rho}{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N \rho}.
382   \label{Ineq:statAverage1}
383   \end{equation}
384   Since the density distribution $\rho$ is normalized to unity, the mean
385   value of $F(q^N, p^N)$ is simplified to
386   \begin{equation}
387 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N F(q^N,
388 < p^N, t) \rho,
387 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N F(q^N,
388 > p^N) \rho,
389   \label{Ineq:statAverage2}
390   \end{equation}
391 < called {\it ensemble average}. However, the quantity is often averaged
392 < for a finite time in real experiments,
391 > called the {\it ensemble average}. However, the quantity is often
392 > averaged for a finite time in real experiments,
393   \begin{equation}
394   \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
395 < \frac{1}{T} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} F(q^N, p^N, t) dt.
395 > \frac{1}{T} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} F[q^N(t), p^N(t)] dt.
396   \label{Ineq:timeAverage1}
397   \end{equation}
398   Usually this time average is independent of $t_0$ in statistical
399   mechanics, so Eq.~\ref{Ineq:timeAverage1} becomes
400   \begin{equation}
401   \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
402 < \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} F(q^N, p^N, t) dt
402 > \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} F[q^N(t), p^N(t)] dt
403   \label{Ineq:timeAverage2}
404   \end{equation}
405   for an infinite time interval.
406  
407 < {\it ergodic hypothesis}, an important hypothesis from the statistical
408 < mechanics point of view, states that the system will eventually pass
407 > \subsubsection{Ergodicity\label{In:sssec:ergodicity}}
408 > The {\it ergodic hypothesis}, an important hypothesis governing modern
409 > computer simulations states that the system will eventually pass
410   arbitrarily close to any point that is energetically accessible in
411   phase space. Mathematically, this leads to
412   \begin{equation}
413 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t.
413 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t.
414   \label{Ineq:ergodicity}
415   \end{equation}
416 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity} validates the Monte Carlo method which we will
417 < discuss in section~\ref{In:ssec:mc}. An ensemble average of a quantity
418 < can be related to the time average measured in the experiments.
416 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity} validates Molecular Dynamics as a form of
417 > averaging for sufficiently ergodic systems. Also Monte Carlo may be
418 > used to obtain ensemble averages of a quantity which are related to
419 > time averages measured in experiments.
420  
421 < \subsection{Correlation Function\label{In:ssec:corr}}
422 < Thermodynamic properties can be computed by equillibrium statistical
423 < mechanics. On the other hand, {\it Time correlation function} is a
424 < powerful method to understand the evolution of a dynamic system in
425 < non-equillibrium statistical mechanics. Imagine a property $A(q^N,
426 < p^N, t)$ as a function of coordinates $q^N$ and momenta $p^N$ has an
427 < intial value at $t_0$, at a later time $t_0 + \tau$ this value is
428 < changed. If $\tau$ is very small, the change of the value is minor,
429 < and the later value of $A(q^N, p^N, t_0 +
430 < \tau)$ is correlated to its initial value. Howere, when $\tau$ is large,
431 < this correlation is lost. The correlation function is a measurement of
432 < this relationship and is defined by~\cite{Berne90}
421 > \subsection{Correlation Functions\label{In:ssec:corr}}
422 > Thermodynamic properties can be computed by equilibrium statistical
423 > mechanics. On the other hand, {\it Time correlation functions} are a
424 > powerful tool to understand the evolution of a dynamical
425 > systems. Imagine that property $A(q^N, p^N, t)$ as a function of
426 > coordinates $q^N$ and momenta $p^N$ has an intial value at $t_0$, and
427 > at a later time $t_0 + \tau$ this value has changed. If $\tau$ is very
428 > small, the change of the value is minor, and the later value of
429 > $A(q^N, p^N, t_0 + \tau)$ is correlated to its initial value. However,
430 > when $\tau$ is large, this correlation is lost. A time correlation
431 > function measures this relationship and is defined
432 > by~\cite{Berne90}
433   \begin{equation}
434 < C(t) = \langle A(0)A(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
434 > C_{AA}(\tau) = \langle A(0)A(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow
435 > \infty}
436   \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt A(t) A(t + \tau).
437   \label{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction}
438   \end{equation}
439 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction} is the correlation function of a
440 < single variable, called {\it autocorrelation function}. The defination
441 < of the correlation function for two different variables is similar to
442 < that of autocorrelation function, which is
439 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction} is the correlation function of
440 > a single variable, called an {\it autocorrelation function}. The
441 > definition of the correlation function for two different variables is
442 > similar to that of autocorrelation function, which is
443   \begin{equation}
444 < C(t) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
444 > C_{AB}(\tau) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
445   \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt A(t) B(t + \tau),
446   \label{Ineq:crosscorrelationFunction}
447   \end{equation}
448   and called {\it cross correlation function}.
449  
450 < In section~\ref{In:ssec:average} we know from Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity}
451 < the relationship between time average and ensemble average. We can put
452 < the correlation function in a classical mechanics form,
450 > We know from the ergodic hypothesis that there is a relationship
451 > between time average and ensemble average. We can put the correlation
452 > function in a classical mechanics form,
453   \begin{equation}
454 < C(t) = \langle A(0)A(\tau) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A(t) A(t + \tau) \rho(q, p)
454 > C_{AA}(\tau) = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A[(q^N(t), p^N(t)]
455 > A[q^N(t+\tau), p^N(t+\tau)] \rho(q, p)
456   \label{Ineq:autocorrelationFunctionCM}
457   \end{equation}
458   and
459   \begin{equation}
460 < C(t) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A(t) B(t + \tau)
461 < \rho(q, p)
460 > C_{AB}(\tau) = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A[(q^N(t), p^N(t)]
461 > B[q^N(t+\tau), p^N(t+\tau)] \rho(q, p)
462   \label{Ineq:crosscorrelationFunctionCM}
463   \end{equation}
464 < as autocorrelation function and cross correlation function
464 > as the autocorrelation function and cross correlation functions
465   respectively. $\rho(q, p)$ is the density distribution at equillibrium
466 < in phase space. In many cases, the correlation function decay is a
467 < single exponential
466 > in phase space. In many cases, correlation functions decay as a
467 > single exponential in time
468   \begin{equation}
469   C(t) \sim e^{-t / \tau_r},
470   \label{Ineq:relaxation}
471   \end{equation}
472 < where $\tau_r$ is known as relaxation time which discribes the rate of
472 > where $\tau_r$ is known as relaxation time which describes the rate of
473   the decay.
474  
475 < \section{Methodolody\label{In:sec:method}}
476 < The simulations performed in this dissertation are branched into two
477 < main catalog, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics. There are two main
478 < difference between Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations. One
479 < is that the Monte Carlo simulation is time independent, and Molecular
480 < Dynamics simulation is time involved. Another dissimilar is that the
481 < Monte Carlo is a stochastic process, the configuration of the system
482 < is not determinated by its past, however, using Moleuclar Dynamics,
483 < the system is propagated by Newton's equation of motion, the
484 < trajectory of the system evolved in the phase space is determined. A
485 < brief introduction of the two algorithms are given in
486 < section~\ref{In:ssec:mc} and~\ref{In:ssec:md}. An extension of the
487 < Molecular Dynamics, Langevin Dynamics, is introduced by
475 > \section{Methodology\label{In:sec:method}}
476 > The simulations performed in this dissertation branch into two main
477 > categories, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics. There are two main
478 > differences between Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics
479 > simulations. One is that the Monte Carlo simulations are time
480 > independent methods of sampling structural features of an ensemble,
481 > while Molecular Dynamics simulations provide dynamic
482 > information. Additionally, Monte Carlo methods are a stochastic
483 > processes, the future configurations of the system are not determined
484 > by its past. However, in Molecular Dynamics, the system is propagated
485 > by Newton's equation of motion, and the trajectory of the system
486 > evolving in phase space is deterministic. Brief introductions of the
487 > two algorithms are given in section~\ref{In:ssec:mc}
488 > and~\ref{In:ssec:md}. Langevin Dynamics, an extension of the Molecular
489 > Dynamics that includes implicit solvent effects, is introduced by
490   section~\ref{In:ssec:ld}.
491  
492   \subsection{Monte Carlo\label{In:ssec:mc}}
493 < Monte Carlo algorithm was first introduced by Metropolis {\it et
494 < al.}.~\cite{Metropolis53} Basic Monte Carlo algorithm is usually
495 < applied to the canonical ensemble, a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble, in
496 < which the $N$, the total number of particles, $V$, total volume, $T$,
497 < temperature are constants. The average energy is given by substituding
498 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:canonicalEnsemble} into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:statAverage2},
493 > A Monte Carlo integration algorithm was first introduced by Metropolis
494 > {\it et al.}~\cite{Metropolis53} The basic Metropolis Monte Carlo
495 > algorithm is usually applied to the canonical ensemble, a
496 > Boltzmann-weighted ensemble, in which the $N$, the total number of
497 > particles, $V$, total volume, $T$, temperature are constants. An
498 > average in this ensemble is given
499   \begin{equation}
500 < \langle E \rangle = \frac{1}{Z_N} \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N E e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T}.
500 > \langle A \rangle = \frac{1}{Z_N} \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
501 > A(q^N, p^N) e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T}.
502   \label{Ineq:energyofCanonicalEnsemble}
503   \end{equation}
504 < So are the other properties of the system. The Hamiltonian is the
505 < summation of Kinetic energy $K(p^N)$ as a function of momenta and
506 < Potential energy $U(q^N)$ as a function of positions,
504 > The Hamiltonian is the sum of the kinetic energy, $K(p^N)$, a function
505 > of momenta and the potential energy, $U(q^N)$, a function of
506 > positions,
507   \begin{equation}
508   H(q^N, p^N) = K(p^N) + U(q^N).
509   \label{Ineq:hamiltonian}
510   \end{equation}
511 < If the property $A$ is only a function of position ($ A = A(q^N)$),
512 < the mean value of $A$ is reduced to
511 > If the property $A$ is a function only of position ($ A = A(q^N)$),
512 > the mean value of $A$ can be reduced to
513   \begin{equation}
514 < \langle A \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}}{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}},
514 > \langle A \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N A e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}}{\int d \vec q~^N e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}},
515   \label{Ineq:configurationIntegral}
516   \end{equation}
517   The kinetic energy $K(p^N)$ is factored out in
518   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:configurationIntegral}. $\langle A
519 < \rangle$ is a configuration integral now, and the
519 > \rangle$ is now a configuration integral, and
520   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:configurationIntegral} is equivalent to
521   \begin{equation}
522   \langle A \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N A \rho(q^N).
523   \label{Ineq:configurationAve}
524   \end{equation}
525  
526 < In a Monte Carlo simulation of canonical ensemble, the probability of
527 < the system being in a state $s$ is $\rho_s$, the change of this
528 < probability with time is given by
526 > In a Monte Carlo simulation of a system in the canonical ensemble, the
527 > probability of the system being in a state $s$ is $\rho_s$, the change
528 > of this probability with time is given by
529   \begin{equation}
530   \frac{d \rho_s}{dt} = \sum_{s'} [ -w_{ss'}\rho_s + w_{s's}\rho_{s'} ],
531   \label{Ineq:timeChangeofProb}
# Line 457 | Line 542 | for all $s'$. So
542   \frac{\rho_s^{equilibrium}}{\rho_{s'}^{equilibrium}} = \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}}.
543   \label{Ineq:relationshipofRhoandW}
544   \end{equation}
545 < If
545 > If the ratio of state populations
546   \begin{equation}
462 \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T},
463 \label{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}
464 \end{equation}
465 then
466 \begin{equation}
547   \frac{\rho_s^{equilibrium}}{\rho_{s'}^{equilibrium}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T}.
548   \label{Ineq:satisfyofBoltzmannStatistics}
549   \end{equation}
550 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:satisfyofBoltzmannStatistics} implies that
551 < $\rho^{equilibrium}$ satisfies Boltzmann statistics. An algorithm,
552 < shows how Monte Carlo simulation generates a transition probability
553 < governed by \ref{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}, is schemed as
550 > then the ratio of transition probabilities,
551 > \begin{equation}
552 > \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T},
553 > \label{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}
554 > \end{equation}
555 > An algorithm that shows how Monte Carlo simulation generates a
556 > transition probability governed by
557 > \ref{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}, is given schematically as,
558   \begin{enumerate}
559 < \item\label{Initm:oldEnergy} Choose an particle randomly, calculate the energy.
560 < \item\label{Initm:newEnergy} Make a random displacement for particle,
561 < calculate the new energy.
559 > \item\label{Initm:oldEnergy} Choose a particle randomly, and calculate
560 > the energy of the rest of the system due to the location of the particle.
561 > \item\label{Initm:newEnergy} Make a random displacement of the particle,
562 > calculate the new energy taking the movement of the particle into account.
563    \begin{itemize}
564 <     \item Keep the new configuration and return to step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if energy
565 < goes down.
566 <     \item Pick a random number between $[0,1]$ if energy goes up.
564 >     \item If the energy goes down, keep the new configuration and return to
565 > step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy}.
566 >     \item If the energy goes up, pick a random number between $[0,1]$.
567          \begin{itemize}
568 <           \item Keep the new configuration and return to
569 < step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if the random number smaller than
570 < $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$.
571 <           \item Keep the old configuration and return to
572 < step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if the random number larger than
573 < $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$.
568 >           \item If the random number smaller than
569 > $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$, keep the new configuration and return to
570 > step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy}.
571 >           \item If the random number is larger than
572 > $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$, keep the old configuration and return to
573 > step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy}.
574          \end{itemize}
575    \end{itemize}
576 < \item\label{Initm:accumulateAvg} Accumulate the average after it converges.
576 > \item\label{Initm:accumulateAvg} Accumulate the averages based on the
577 > current configuartion.
578 > \item Go to step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy}.
579   \end{enumerate}
580 < It is important to notice that the old configuration has to be sampled
581 < again if it is kept.
580 > It is important for sampling accurately that the old configuration is
581 > sampled again if it is kept.
582  
583   \subsection{Molecular Dynamics\label{In:ssec:md}}
584   Although some of properites of the system can be calculated from the
585 < ensemble average in Monte Carlo simulations, due to the nature of
586 < lacking in the time dependence, it is impossible to gain information
587 < of those dynamic properties from Monte Carlo simulations. Molecular
588 < Dynamics is a measurement of the evolution of the positions and
589 < momenta of the particles in the system. The evolution of the system
590 < obeys laws of classical mechanics, in most situations, there is no
591 < need for the count of the quantum effects. For a real experiment, the
592 < instantaneous positions and momenta of the particles in the system are
593 < neither important nor measurable, the observable quantities are
594 < usually a average value for a finite time interval. These quantities
595 < are expressed as a function of positions and momenta in Melecular
596 < Dynamics simulations. Like the thermal temperature of the system is
510 < defined by
585 > ensemble average in Monte Carlo simulations, due to the absence of the
586 > time dependence, it is impossible to gain information on dynamic
587 > properties from Monte Carlo simulations. Molecular Dynamics evolves
588 > the positions and momenta of the particles in the system. The
589 > evolution of the system obeys the laws of classical mechanics, and in
590 > most situations, there is no need to account for quantum effects. In a
591 > real experiment, the instantaneous positions and momenta of the
592 > particles in the system are neither important nor measurable, the
593 > observable quantities are usually an average value for a finite time
594 > interval. These quantities are expressed as a function of positions
595 > and momenta in Molecular Dynamics simulations. For example,
596 > temperature of the system is defined by
597   \begin{equation}
598 < \frac{1}{2} k_B T = \langle \frac{1}{2} m v_\alpha \rangle,
598 > \frac{3}{2} N k_B T = \langle \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2} m_i v_i \rangle,
599   \label{Ineq:temperature}
600   \end{equation}
601 < here $m$ is the mass of the particle and $v_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$
602 < component of the velocity of the particle. The right side of
603 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature} is the average kinetic energy of the
518 < system. A simple Molecular Dynamics simulation scheme
519 < is:~\cite{Frenkel1996}
520 < \begin{enumerate}
521 < \item\label{Initm:initialize} Assign the initial positions and momenta
522 < for the particles in the system.
523 < \item\label{Initm:calcForce} Calculate the forces.
524 < \item\label{Initm:equationofMotion} Integrate the equation of motion.
525 <  \begin{itemize}
526 <     \item Return to step~\ref{Initm:calcForce} if the equillibrium is
527 < not achieved.
528 <     \item Go to step~\ref{Initm:calcAvg} if the equillibrium is
529 < achieved.
530 <  \end{itemize}
531 < \item\label{Initm:calcAvg} Compute the quantities we are interested in.
532 < \end{enumerate}
533 < The initial positions of the particles are chosen as that there is no
534 < overlap for the particles. The initial velocities at first are
535 < distributed randomly to the particles, and then shifted to make the
536 < momentum of the system $0$, at last scaled to the desired temperature
537 < of the simulation according Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature}.
601 > here $m_i$ is the mass of particle $i$ and $v_i$ is the velocity of
602 > particle $i$. The right side of Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature} is the
603 > average kinetic energy of the system.
604  
605 < The core of Molecular Dynamics simulations is step~\ref{Initm:calcForce}
606 < and~\ref{Initm:equationofMotion}. The calculation of the forces are
607 < often involved numerous effort, this is the most time consuming step
608 < in the Molecular Dynamics scheme. The evaluation of the forces is
609 < followed by
605 > The initial positions of the particles are chosen so that there is no
606 > overlap of the particles. The initial velocities at first are
607 > distributed randomly to the particles using a Maxwell-Boltzmann
608 > ditribution, and then shifted to make the total linear momentum of the
609 > system $0$.
610 >
611 > The core of Molecular Dynamics simulations is the calculation of
612 > forces and the integration algorithm. Calculation of the forces often
613 > involves enormous effort. This is the most time consuming step in the
614 > Molecular Dynamics scheme. Evaluation of the forces is mathematically
615 > simple,
616   \begin{equation}
617   f(q) = - \frac{\partial U(q)}{\partial q},
618   \label{Ineq:force}
619   \end{equation}
620 < $U(q)$ is the potential of the system. Once the forces computed, are
621 < the positions and velocities updated by integrating Newton's equation
622 < of motion,
623 < \begin{equation}
624 < f(q) = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{m dv}{dt}.
620 > where $U(q)$ is the potential of the system. However, the numerical
621 > details of this computation are often quite complex. Once the forces
622 > computed, the positions and velocities are updated by integrating
623 > Hamilton's equations of motion,
624 > \begin{eqnarray}
625 > \dot p_i & = & -\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i} = -\frac{\partial
626 > U(q_i)}{\partial q_i} = f(q_i) \\
627 > \dot q_i & = & p_i
628   \label{Ineq:newton}
629 < \end{equation}
630 < Here is an example of integrating algorithms, Verlet algorithm, which
631 < is one of the best algorithms to integrate Newton's equation of
632 < motion. The Taylor expension of the position at time $t$ is
629 > \end{eqnarray}
630 > The classic example of an integrating algorithm is the Verlet
631 > algorithm, which is one of the simplest algorithms for integrating the
632 > equations of motion. The Taylor expansion of the position at time $t$
633 > is
634   \begin{equation}
635   q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t) \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
636          \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial^3 q(t)}{\partial t^3} +
# Line 568 | Line 644 | q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t) \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\
644          \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4) ,
645   \label{Ineq:verletPrevious}
646   \end{equation}
647 < for a previous time $t-\Delta t$. The summation of the
648 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:verletFuture} and~\ref{Ineq:verletPrevious} gives
647 > for a previous time $t-\Delta t$. Adding Eq.~\ref{Ineq:verletFuture}
648 > and~\ref{Ineq:verletPrevious} gives
649   \begin{equation}
650   q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =
651          2q(t) + \frac{f(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4),
# Line 581 | Line 657 | q(t+\Delta t) \approx
657          2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{f(t)}{m}\Delta t^2.
658   \label{Ineq:newPosition}
659   \end{equation}
660 < The higher order of the $\Delta t$ is omitted.
660 > The higher order terms in $\Delta t$ are omitted.
661  
662 < Numerous technics and tricks are applied to Molecular Dynamics
663 < simulation to gain more efficiency or more accuracy. The simulation
664 < engine used in this dissertation for the Molecular Dynamics
665 < simulations is {\sc oopse}, more details of the algorithms and
666 < technics can be found in~\cite{Meineke2005}.
662 > Numerous techniques and tricks have been applied to Molecular Dynamics
663 > simulations to gain greater efficiency or accuracy. The engine used in
664 > this dissertation for the Molecular Dynamics simulations is {\sc
665 > oopse}. More details of the algorithms and techniques used in this
666 > code can be found in Ref.~\cite{Meineke2005}.
667  
668   \subsection{Langevin Dynamics\label{In:ssec:ld}}
669   In many cases, the properites of the solvent in a system, like the
670 < lipid-water system studied in this dissertation, are less important to
671 < the researchers. However, the major computational expense is spent on
672 < the solvent in the Molecular Dynamics simulations because of the large
673 < number of the solvent molecules compared to that of solute molecules,
674 < the ratio of the number of lipid molecules to the number of water
670 > water in the lipid-water system studied in this dissertation, are less
671 > interesting to the researchers than the behavior of the
672 > solute. However, the major computational expense is ofter the
673 > solvent-solvent interation, this is due to the large number of the
674 > solvent molecules when compared to the number of solute molecules, the
675 > ratio of the number of lipid molecules to the number of water
676   molecules is $1:25$ in our lipid-water system. The efficiency of the
677 < Molecular Dynamics simulations is greatly reduced.
677 > Molecular Dynamics simulations is greatly reduced, with up to 85\% of
678 > CPU time spent calculating only water-water interactions.
679  
680 < As an extension of the Molecular Dynamics simulations, the Langevin
681 < Dynamics seeks a way to avoid integrating equation of motion for
682 < solvent particles without losing the Brownian properites of solute
683 < particles. A common approximation is that the coupling of the solute
684 < and solvent is expressed as a set of harmonic oscillators. So the
685 < Hamiltonian of such a system is written as
680 > As an extension of the Molecular Dynamics methodologies, Langevin
681 > Dynamics seeks a way to avoid integrating the equations of motion for
682 > solvent particles without losing the solvent effects on the solute
683 > particles. One common approximation is to express the coupling of the
684 > solute and solvent as a set of harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian
685 > of such a system is written as
686   \begin{equation}
687   H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + U(q) + H_B + \Delta U(q),
688   \label{Ineq:hamiltonianofCoupling}
689   \end{equation}
690 < where $H_B$ is the Hamiltonian of the bath which equals to
690 > where $H_B$ is the Hamiltonian of the bath which  is a set of N
691 > harmonic oscillators
692   \begin{equation}
693   H_B = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{N} \left\{ \frac{p_\alpha^2}{2m_\alpha} +
694   \frac{1}{2} m_\alpha \omega_\alpha^2 q_\alpha^2\right\},
695   \label{Ineq:hamiltonianofBath}
696   \end{equation}
697 < $\alpha$ is all the degree of freedoms of the bath, $\omega$ is the
698 < bath frequency, and $\Delta U(q)$ is the bilinear coupling given by
697 > $\alpha$ runs over all the degree of freedoms of the bath,
698 > $\omega_\alpha$ is the bath frequency of oscillator $\alpha$, and
699 > $\Delta U(q)$ is the bilinear coupling given by
700   \begin{equation}
701   \Delta U = -\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{N} g_\alpha q_\alpha q,
702   \label{Ineq:systemBathCoupling}
703   \end{equation}
704 < where $g$ is the coupling constant. By solving the Hamilton's equation
705 < of motion, the {\it Generalized Langevin Equation} for this system is
706 < derived to
704 > where $g_\alpha$ is the coupling constant for oscillator $\alpha$. By
705 > solving the Hamilton's equations of motion, the {\it Generalized
706 > Langevin Equation} for this system is derived as
707   \begin{equation}
708   m \ddot q = -\frac{\partial W(q)}{\partial q} - \int_0^t \xi(t) \dot q(t-t')dt' + R(t),
709   \label{Ineq:gle}
# Line 631 | Line 711 | W(q) = U(q) - \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{g_\alpha^2}{2m
711   with mean force,
712   \begin{equation}
713   W(q) = U(q) - \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{g_\alpha^2}{2m_\alpha
714 < \omega_\alpha^2}q^2,
714 > \omega_\alpha^2}q^2.
715   \label{Ineq:meanForce}
716   \end{equation}
717 < being only a dependence of coordinates of the solute particles, {\it
718 < friction kernel},
717 > The {\it friction kernel}, $\xi(t)$, depends only on the coordinates
718 > of the solute particles,
719   \begin{equation}
720   \xi(t) = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{-g_\alpha}{m_\alpha
721   \omega_\alpha} \cos(\omega_\alpha t),
722   \label{Ineq:xiforGLE}
723   \end{equation}
724 < and the random force,
724 > and a ``random'' force,
725   \begin{equation}
726   R(t) = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \left( g_\alpha q_\alpha(0)-\frac{g_\alpha}{m_\alpha
727   \omega_\alpha^2}q(0)\right) \cos(\omega_\alpha t) + \frac{\dot
728   q_\alpha(0)}{\omega_\alpha} \sin(\omega_\alpha t),
729   \label{Ineq:randomForceforGLE}
730   \end{equation}
731 < as only a dependence of the initial conditions. The relationship of
732 < friction kernel $\xi(t)$ and random force $R(t)$ is given by
731 > depends only on the initial conditions. The relationship of friction
732 > kernel $\xi(t)$ and random force $R(t)$ is given by the second
733 > fluctuation dissipation theorem,
734   \begin{equation}
735 < \xi(t) = \frac{1}{k_B T} \langle R(t)R(0) \rangle
735 > \xi(t) = \frac{1}{k_B T} \langle R(t)R(0) \rangle.
736   \label{Ineq:relationshipofXiandR}
737   \end{equation}
738 < from their definitions. In Langevin limit, the friction is treated
739 < static, which means
738 > In the harmonic bath this relation is exact and provable from the
739 > definitions of these quantities. In the limit of static friction,
740   \begin{equation}
741   \xi(t) = 2 \xi_0 \delta(t).
742   \label{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}
743   \end{equation}
744 < After substitude $\xi(t)$ into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:gle} with
745 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}, {\it Langevin Equation} is extracted
746 < to
744 > After substituting $\xi(t)$ into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:gle} with
745 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}, the {\it Langevin Equation} is
746 > extracted,
747   \begin{equation}
748   m \ddot q = -\frac{\partial U(q)}{\partial q} - \xi \dot q(t) + R(t).
749   \label{Ineq:langevinEquation}
750   \end{equation}
751 < The applying of Langevin Equation to dynamic simulations is discussed
752 < in Ch.~\ref{chap:ld}.
751 > Application of the Langevin Equation to dynamic simulations is
752 > discussed in Ch.~\ref{chap:ld}.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines