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 3365 by xsun, Mon Mar 10 21:52:50 2008 UTC vs.
Revision 3375 by xsun, Mon Mar 24 20:12:52 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 a head
7 > group with a large dipole moment which is due to the large charge
8 > separation between phosphate and amino alcohol, and a nonpolar tail
9 > that contains fatty acid chains. Depending on the specific alcohol
10 > which the phosphate and fatty acid chains are esterified to, the
11 > phospholipids are divided into glycerophospholipids and
12 > sphingophospholipids.~\cite{Cevc80} The chemical structures are shown
13 > in figure~\ref{Infig:lipid}.
14 > \begin{figure}
15 > \centering
16 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inLipid.pdf}
17 > \caption{The chemical structure of glycerophospholipids (left) and
18 > sphingophospholipids (right).\cite{Cevc80}}
19 > \label{Infig:lipid}
20 > \end{figure}
21 > Glycerophospholipids are the dominant phospholipids in biological
22 > membranes. The type of glycerophospholipid depends on the identity of
23 > the X group, and the chains. For example, if X is choline
24 > [(CH$_3$)$_3$N$^+$CH$_2$CH$_2$OH], the lipids are known as
25 > phosphatidylcholine (PC), or if X is ethanolamine
26 > [H$_3$N$^+$CH$_2$CH$_2$OH], the lipids are known as
27 > phosphatidyethanolamine (PE). Table~\ref{Intab:pc} listed a number
28 > types of phosphatidycholine with different fatty acids as the lipid
29 > chains.
30 > \begin{table*}
31 > \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
32 > \begin{center}
33 > \caption{A number types of phosphatidycholine.}
34 > \begin{tabular}{lll}
35 > \hline
36 >  & Fatty acid & Generic Name \\
37 > \hline
38 > \textcolor{red}{DMPC} & Myristic: CH$_3$(CH$_2$)$_{12}$COOH &
39 > \textcolor{red}{D}i\textcolor{red}{M}yristoyl\textcolor{red}{P}hosphatidyl\textcolor{red}{C}holine \\
40 > \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
41 > \\
42 > \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 \\
43 > \end{tabular}
44 > \label{Intab:pc}
45 > \end{center}
46 > \end{minipage}
47 > \end{table*}
48 > When dispersed in water, lipids self assemble into a mumber of
49 > topologically distinct bilayer structures. The phase behavior of lipid
50 > bilayers has been explored experimentally~\cite{Cevc80}, however, a
51 > complete understanding of the mechanism and driving forces behind the
52 > various phases has not been achieved.
53  
54 < \subsection{Ripple Phase\label{In:ssec:ripple}}
54 > \subsection{The Ripple Phase\label{In:ssec:ripple}}
55   The $P_{\beta'}$ {\it ripple phase} of lipid bilayers, named from the
56   periodic buckling of the membrane, is an intermediate phase which is
57   developed either from heating the gel phase $L_{\beta'}$ or cooling
58 < the fluid phase $L_\alpha$. Although the ripple phase has been
59 < observed in several
60 < experiments~\cite{Sun96,Katsaras00,Copeland80,Meyer96,Kaasgaard03},
61 < the physical mechanism for the formation of the ripple phase has never been
62 < explained and the microscopic structure of the ripple phase has never
63 < been elucidated by experiments. Computational simulation is a perfect
64 < tool to study the microscopic properties for a system. However, the
65 < large length scale the ripple structure and the long time scale
66 < of the formation of the ripples are crucial obstacles to performing
67 < the actual work. The principal ideas explored in this dissertation are
68 < attempts to break the computational task up by
58 > the fluid phase $L_\alpha$. A sketch of the phases is shown in
59 > figure~\ref{Infig:phaseDiagram}.~\cite{Cevc80}
60 > \begin{figure}
61 > \centering
62 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inPhaseDiagram.pdf}
63 > \caption{Phases of PC lipid bilayers. With increasing
64 > temperature, phosphotidylcholine (PC) bilayers can go through
65 > $L_{\beta'} \rightarrow P_{\beta'}$ (gel $\rightarrow$ ripple) and
66 > $P_{\beta'} \rightarrow L_\alpha$ (ripple $\rightarrow$ fluid) phase
67 > transitions.~\cite{Cevc80}}
68 > \label{Infig:phaseDiagram}
69 > \end{figure}
70 > Most structural information about the ripple phase has been obtained
71 > by X-ray diffraction~\cite{Sun96,Katsaras00} and freeze-fracture
72 > electron microscopy (FFEM).~\cite{Copeland80,Meyer96} The X-ray
73 > diffraction work by Katsaras {\it et al.} showed that a rich phase
74 > diagram exhibiting both {\it asymmetric} and {\it symmetric} ripples
75 > is possible for lecithin bilayers.\cite{Katsaras00} Recently,
76 > Kaasgaard {\it et al.} used atomic force microscopy (AFM) to observe
77 > ripple phase morphology in bilayers supported on
78 > mica.~\cite{Kaasgaard03}
79 > \begin{figure}
80 > \centering
81 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inRipple.pdf}
82 > \caption{Experimental observations of the riple phase. The top image
83 > is an electrostatic density map obtained by Sun {\it et al.} using
84 > X-ray diffraction~\cite{Sun96}.  The lower figures are the surface
85 > topology of various ripple domains in bilayers supported in mica. The
86 > AFM images were observed by Kaasgaard {\it et
87 > al.}.~\cite{Kaasgaard03}}
88 > \label{Infig:ripple}
89 > \end{figure}
90 > Figure~\ref{Infig:ripple} shows the ripple phase oberved by both X-ray
91 > diffraction and AFM. The experimental results provide strong support
92 > for a 2-dimensional triangular packing lattice of the lipid molecules
93 > within the ripple phase.  This is a notable change from the observed
94 > lipid packing within the gel phase,~\cite{Cevc80} although Tenchov
95 > {\it et al.} have recently observed near-triangular packing in some
96 > phosphatidylcholine (PC) gel phases.~\cite{Tenchov2001} However, the
97 > physical mechanism for the formation of the ripple phase has never
98 > been explained and the microscopic structure of the ripple phase has
99 > never been elucidated by experiments. Computational simulation is a
100 > perfect tool to study the microscopic properties for a
101 > system. However, the large length scale of the ripple structures and
102 > the long time required for the formation of the ripples are crucial
103 > obstacles to performing the actual work. The principal ideas explored
104 > in this dissertation are attempts to break the computational task up
105 > by
106   \begin{itemize}
107   \item Simplifying the lipid model.
108 < \item Improving algorithm for integrating the equations of motion.
108 > \item Improving the algorithm for integrating the equations of motion.
109   \end{itemize}
110   In chapters~\ref{chap:mc} and~\ref{chap:md}, we use a simple point
111 < dipole model and a coarse-grained model to perform the Monte Carlo and
112 < Molecular Dynamics simulations respectively, and in
113 < chapter~\ref{chap:ld}, we develop a Langevin Dynamics algorithm which
114 < excludes the explicit solvent to improve the efficiency of the
115 < simulations.
111 > dipole spin model and a coarse-grained molecular scale model to
112 > perform the Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations
113 > respectively, and in chapter~\ref{chap:ld}, we develop a Langevin
114 > Dynamics algorithm which excludes the explicit solvent to improve the
115 > efficiency of the simulations.
116  
117 < \subsection{Lattice Model\label{In:ssec:model}}
118 < The gel-like characteristic of the ripple phase makes it feasible to
119 < apply a lattice model to study the system. It is claimed that the
120 < packing of the lipid molecules in ripple phase is
121 < hexagonal~\cite{Cevc87}. The popular $2$ dimensional lattice models,
122 < {\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
117 > \subsection{Lattice Models\label{In:ssec:model}}
118 > The gel-like characteristic (laterally immobile molecules) exhibited
119 > by the ripple phase makes it feasible to apply a lattice model to
120 > study the system. The popular $2$ dimensional lattice models, {\it
121 > i.e.}, the Ising, $X-Y$, and Heisenberg models, show {\it frustration}
122 > on triangular lattices. The Hamiltonians of these systems are given by
123   \begin{equation}
124   H =
125    \begin{cases}
# Line 51 | Line 129 | where $J$ has non zero value only when spins $s_n$ ($\
129    \end{cases}
130   \end{equation}
131   where $J$ has non zero value only when spins $s_n$ ($\vec s_n$) and
132 < $s_{n'}$ ($\vec s_{n'}$) are the nearest neighbours.
132 > $s_{n'}$ ($\vec s_{n'}$) are nearest neighbors. When $J > 0$, spins
133 > prefer an aligned structure, and if $J < 0$, spins prefer an
134 > anti-aligned structure.
135 >
136   \begin{figure}
137   \centering
138 < \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/inFrustration.pdf}
139 < \caption{Frustration on a triangular lattice, the spins are
140 < represented by arrows. No matter which direction the spin on the top
141 < of triangle points to, the Hamiltonain of the system goes up.}
138 > \includegraphics[width=3in]{./figures/inFrustration.pdf}
139 > \caption{Frustration on triangular lattice, the spins and dipoles are
140 > represented by arrows. The multiple local minima of energy states
141 > induce frustration for spins and dipoles resulting in disordered
142 > low-temperature phases.}
143   \label{Infig:frustration}
144   \end{figure}
145 < Figure~\ref{Infig:frustration} shows an illustration of the
146 < frustration on a triangular lattice. When $J < 0$, the spins want to
147 < be anti-aligned, The direction of the spin on top of the triangle will
148 < make the energy go up no matter which direction it picks, therefore
149 < infinite possibilities for the packing of spins induce what is known
150 < as ``complete regular frustration'' which leads to disordered low
151 < temperature phases.
145 > The spins in figure~\ref{Infig:frustration} illustrate frustration for
146 > $J < 0$ on a triangular lattice. There are multiple local minima
147 > energy states which are independent of the direction of the spin on
148 > top of the triangle, therefore infinite possibilities for orienting
149 > large numbers spins. This induces what is known as ``complete regular
150 > frustration'' which leads to disordered low temperature phases. This
151 > behavior extends to dipoles on a triangular lattices, which are shown
152 > in the lower portion of figure~\ref{Infig:frustration}. In this case,
153 > dipole-aligned structures are energetically favorable, however, at low
154 > temperature, vortices are easily formed, and, this results in multiple
155 > local minima of energy states for a central dipole. The dipole on the
156 > center of the hexagonal lattice is therefore frustrated.
157  
158 < The lack of translational degree of freedom in lattice models prevents
159 < their utilization in models for surface buckling which would
160 < correspond to ripple formation. In chapter~\ref{chap:mc}, a modified
161 < lattice model is introduced to tackle this specific situation.
158 > The lack of translational degrees of freedom in lattice models
159 > prevents their utilization in models for surface buckling. In
160 > chapter~\ref{chap:mc}, a modified lattice model is introduced to
161 > tackle this specific situation.
162  
163   \section{Overview of Classical Statistical Mechanics\label{In:sec:SM}}
164   Statistical mechanics provides a way to calculate the macroscopic
# Line 79 | Line 166 | this dissertation. Tolman gives an excellent introduct
166   computational simulations. This section serves as a brief introduction
167   to key concepts of classical statistical mechanics that we used in
168   this dissertation. Tolman gives an excellent introduction to the
169 < principles of statistical mechanics~\cite{Tolman1979}. A large part of
170 < section~\ref{In:sec:SM} will follow Tolman's notation.
169 > principles of statistical mechanics.~\cite{Tolman1979} A large part of
170 > section~\ref{In:sec:SM} follows Tolman's notation.
171  
172   \subsection{Ensembles\label{In:ssec:ensemble}}
173   In classical mechanics, the state of the system is completely
174   described by the positions and momenta of all particles. If we have an
175 < $N$ particle system, there are $6N$ coordinates ($3N$ position $(q_1,
175 > $N$ particle system, there are $6N$ coordinates ($3N$ positions $(q_1,
176   q_2, \ldots, q_{3N})$ and $3N$ momenta $(p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_{3N})$)
177   to define the instantaneous state of the system. Each single set of
178   the $6N$ coordinates can be considered as a unique point in a $6N$
# Line 110 | Line 197 | then the value of $\rho$ gives the probability of find
197   \label{Ineq:normalized}
198   \end{equation}
199   then the value of $\rho$ gives the probability of finding the system
200 < in a unit volume in the phase space.
200 > in a unit volume in phase space.
201  
202   Liouville's theorem describes the change in density $\rho$ with
203 < time. The number of representive points at a given volume in the phase
203 > time. The number of representative points at a given volume in phase
204   space at any instant can be written as:
205   \begin{equation}
206   \label{Ineq:deltaN}
207   \delta N = \rho~\delta q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N.
208   \end{equation}
209 < To calculate the change in the number of representive points in this
209 > To calculate the change in the number of representative points in this
210   volume, let us consider a simple condition: the change in the number
211 < of representive points in $q_1$ axis. The rate of the number of the
212 < representive points entering the volume at $q_1$ per unit time is:
211 > of representative points along the $q_1$ axis. The rate of the number
212 > of the representative points entering the volume at $q_1$ per unit time
213 > is:
214   \begin{equation}
215   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1}
216   \rho~\dot q_1 \delta q_2 \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N,
217   \end{equation}
218 < and the rate of the number of representive points leaving the volume
218 > and the rate of the number of representative points leaving the volume
219   at another position $q_1 + \delta q_1$ is:
220   \begin{equation}
221   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1}
222   \left( \rho + \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial q_1} \delta q_1 \right)\left(\dot q_1 +
223   \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.
224   \end{equation}
225 < Here the higher order differentials are neglected. So the change of
226 < the number of the representive points is the difference of
227 < eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1} and eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1}, which
228 < gives us:
225 > Here the higher order differentials are neglected. So the change in
226 > the number of representative points is the difference between
227 > eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1} and eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatq1plusdeltaq1},
228 > which gives us:
229   \begin{equation}
230   \label{Ineq:deltaNatq1axis}
231   -\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,
232   \end{equation}
233   where, higher order differetials are neglected. If we sum over all the
234 < axes in the phase space, we can get the change of the number of
235 < representive points in a given volume with time:
234 > axes in the phase space, we can get the change in the number of
235 > representative points in a given volume with time:
236   \begin{equation}
237   \label{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume}
238   \frac{d(\delta N)}{dt} = -\sum_{i=1}^N \left[\rho \left(\frac{\partial
# Line 152 | Line 240 | q_i} \dot q_i + \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial p_i} \
240   {\dot p_i}}{\partial p_i}\right) + \left( \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial
241   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.
242   \end{equation}
243 < From Hamilton's equation of motion,
243 > From Hamilton's equations of motion,
244   \begin{equation}
245   \frac{\partial {\dot q_i}}{\partial q_i} = - \frac{\partial
246   {\dot p_i}}{\partial p_i},
# Line 162 | Line 250 | eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume} are divided by $\de
250   eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume}. If both sides of
251   eq.~\ref{Ineq:deltaNatGivenVolume} are divided by $\delta q_1 \delta q_2
252   \ldots \delta q_N \delta p_1 \delta p_2 \ldots \delta p_N$, then we
253 < can derive Liouville's theorem:
253 > arrive at Liouville's theorem:
254   \begin{equation}
255   \left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \right)_{q, p} = -\sum_{i} \left(
256   \frac{\partial {\rho}}{\partial
# Line 181 | Line 269 | equation~\ref{Ineq:anotherFormofLiouville} is the tota
269   \end{equation}
270   It is easy to note that the left side of
271   equation~\ref{Ineq:anotherFormofLiouville} is the total derivative of
272 < $\rho$ with respect of $t$, which means
272 > $\rho$ with respect to $t$, which means
273   \begin{equation}
274   \frac{d \rho}{dt} = 0,
275   \label{Ineq:conservationofRho}
276   \end{equation}
277   and the rate of density change is zero in the neighborhood of any
278 < selected moving representive points in the phase space.
278 > selected moving representative points in the phase space.
279  
280 < The condition of the ensemble is determined by the density
280 > The type of thermodynamic ensemble is determined by the density
281   distribution. If we consider the density distribution as only a
282   function of $q$ and $p$, which means the rate of change of the phase
283 < space density in the neighborhood of all representive points in the
283 > space density in the neighborhood of all representative points in the
284   phase space is zero,
285   \begin{equation}
286   \left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \right)_{q, p} = 0.
287   \label{Ineq:statEquilibrium}
288   \end{equation}
289   We may conclude the ensemble is in {\it statistical equilibrium}. An
290 < ensemble in statistical equilibrium often means the system is also in
290 > ensemble in statistical equilibrium means the system is also in
291   macroscopic equilibrium. If $\left( \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}
292   \right)_{q, p} = 0$, then
293   \begin{equation}
# Line 211 | Line 299 | independent of time. For a conservative system, the en
299   \end{equation}
300   If $\rho$ is a function only of some constant of the motion, $\rho$ is
301   independent of time. For a conservative system, the energy of the
302 < system is one of the constants of the motion. Here are several
303 < examples: when the density distribution is constant everywhere in the
304 < phase space,
302 > system is one of the constants of the motion. There are many
303 > thermodynamically relevant ensembles: when the density distribution is
304 > constant everywhere in the phase space,
305   \begin{equation}
306   \rho = \mathrm{const.}
307   \label{Ineq:uniformEnsemble}
308   \end{equation}
309 < the ensemble is called {\it uniform ensemble}.  Another useful
310 < ensemble is called {\it microcanonical ensemble}, for which:
309 > the ensemble is called {\it uniform ensemble}, but this ensemble has
310 > little relevance for physical chemistry. It is an ensemble with
311 > essentially infinite temperature.
312 >
313 > \subsubsection{The Microcanonical Ensemble\label{In:sssec:microcanonical}}
314 > The most useful ensemble for Molecular Dynamics is the {\it
315 > microcanonical ensemble}, for which:
316   \begin{equation}
317   \rho = \delta \left( H(q^N, p^N) - E \right) \frac{1}{\Sigma (N, V, E)}
318   \label{Ineq:microcanonicalEnsemble}
# Line 235 | Line 328 | where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $C^N$ is a n
328   \label{Ineq:gibbsEntropy}
329   \end{equation}
330   where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $C^N$ is a number which
331 < makes the argument of $\ln$ dimensionless, in this case, it is the
332 < total phase space volume of one state. The entropy in microcanonical
333 < ensemble is given by
331 > makes the argument of $\ln$ dimensionless. In this case, $C^N$ is the
332 > total phase space volume of one state which has the same units as
333 > $\Sigma(N, V, E)$. The entropy of a microcanonical ensemble is given
334 > by
335   \begin{equation}
336   S = k_B \ln \left(\frac{\Sigma(N, V, E)}{C^N}\right).
337   \label{Ineq:entropy}
338   \end{equation}
339 +
340 + \subsubsection{The Canonical Ensemble\label{In:sssec:canonical}}
341   If the density distribution $\rho$ is given by
342   \begin{equation}
343   \rho = \frac{1}{Z_N}e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T},
# Line 252 | Line 348 | Z_N = \int d \vec q~^N \int_\Gamma d \vec p~^N  e^{-H(
348   Z_N = \int d \vec q~^N \int_\Gamma d \vec p~^N  e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T},
349   \label{Ineq:partitionFunction}
350   \end{equation}
351 < which is also known as {\it partition function}. $\Gamma$ indicates
352 < that the integral is over all the phase space. In the canonical
353 < ensemble, $N$, the total number of particles, $V$, total volume, and
354 < $T$, the temperature are constants. The systems with the lowest
355 < energies hold the largest population. According to maximum principle,
356 < the thermodynamics maximizes the entropy $S$,
351 > which is also known as the canonical {\it partition
352 > function}. $\Gamma$ indicates that the integral is over all phase
353 > space. In the canonical ensemble, $N$, the total number of particles,
354 > $V$, total volume, and $T$, the temperature, are constants. The
355 > systems with the lowest energies hold the largest
356 > population. Thermodynamics maximizes the entropy, $S$, implying that
357   \begin{equation}
358   \begin{array}{ccc}
359   \delta S = 0 & \mathrm{and} & \delta^2 S < 0.
360   \end{array}
361   \label{Ineq:maximumPrinciple}
362   \end{equation}
363 < From Eq.~\ref{Ineq:maximumPrinciple} and two constrains of the canonical
364 < ensemble, {\it i.e.}, total probability and average energy conserved,
365 < the partition function is calculated as
363 > From Eq.~\ref{Ineq:maximumPrinciple} and two constrains on the
364 > canonical ensemble, {\it i.e.}, total probability and average energy
365 > must be conserved, the partition function can be shown to be
366 > equivalent to
367   \begin{equation}
368   Z_N = e^{-A/k_B T},
369   \label{Ineq:partitionFunctionWithFreeEnergy}
# Line 274 | Line 371 | that they serve as a connection between macroscopic pr
371   where $A$ is the Helmholtz free energy. The significance of
372   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:entropy} and~\ref{Ineq:partitionFunctionWithFreeEnergy} is
373   that they serve as a connection between macroscopic properties of the
374 < system and the distribution of the microscopic states.
374 > system and the distribution of microscopic states.
375  
376   There is an implicit assumption that our arguments are based on so
377 < far. A representive point in the phase space is equally to be found in
378 < any same extent of the regions. In other words, all energetically
379 < accessible states are represented equally, the probabilities to find
380 < the system in any of the accessible states is equal. This is called
381 < equal a {\it priori} probabilities.
377 > far. Tow representative points in phase space are equally likely to be
378 > found if they have the same energy. In other words, all energetically
379 > accessible states are represented , and the probabilities to find the
380 > system in any of the accessible states is equal to that states
381 > Boltzmann weight. This is called the principle of equal a {\it priori}
382 > probabilities.
383  
384 < \subsection{Statistical Average\label{In:ssec:average}}
385 < Given the density distribution $\rho$ in the phase space, the average
384 > \subsection{Statistical Averages\label{In:ssec:average}}
385 > Given a density distribution $\rho$ in phase space, the average
386   of any quantity ($F(q^N, p^N$)) which depends on the coordinates
387   ($q^N$) and the momenta ($p^N$) for all the systems in the ensemble
388   can be calculated based on the definition shown by
389   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:statAverage1}
390   \begin{equation}
391 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
392 < F(q^N, p^N, t) \rho}{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N \rho}.
391 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \frac{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
392 > F(q^N, p^N) \rho}{\int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N \rho}.
393   \label{Ineq:statAverage1}
394   \end{equation}
395   Since the density distribution $\rho$ is normalized to unity, the mean
396   value of $F(q^N, p^N)$ is simplified to
397   \begin{equation}
398 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N F(q^N,
399 < p^N, t) \rho,
398 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N F(q^N,
399 > p^N) \rho,
400   \label{Ineq:statAverage2}
401   \end{equation}
402 < called {\it ensemble average}. However, the quantity is often averaged
403 < for a finite time in real experiments,
402 > called the {\it ensemble average}. However, the quantity is often
403 > averaged for a finite time in real experiments,
404   \begin{equation}
405   \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
406 < \frac{1}{T} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} F(q^N, p^N, t) dt.
406 > \frac{1}{T} \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} F[q^N(t), p^N(t)] dt.
407   \label{Ineq:timeAverage1}
408   \end{equation}
409   Usually this time average is independent of $t_0$ in statistical
410   mechanics, so Eq.~\ref{Ineq:timeAverage1} becomes
411   \begin{equation}
412   \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
413 < \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} F(q^N, p^N, t) dt
413 > \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} F[q^N(t), p^N(t)] dt
414   \label{Ineq:timeAverage2}
415   \end{equation}
416 < for an infinite time interval.
416 > for an finite time interval, $T$.
417  
418 < {\it ergodic hypothesis}, an important hypothesis from the statistical
419 < mechanics point of view, states that the system will eventually pass
418 > \subsubsection{Ergodicity\label{In:sssec:ergodicity}}
419 > The {\it ergodic hypothesis}, an important hypothesis governing modern
420 > computer simulations states that the system will eventually pass
421   arbitrarily close to any point that is energetically accessible in
422   phase space. Mathematically, this leads to
423   \begin{equation}
424 < \langle F(q^N, p^N, t) \rangle = \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t.
424 > \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle = \langle F(q^N, p^N) \rangle_t.
425   \label{Ineq:ergodicity}
426   \end{equation}
427 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity} validates the Monte Carlo method which we will
428 < discuss in section~\ref{In:ssec:mc}. An ensemble average of a quantity
429 < can be related to the time average measured in the experiments.
427 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity} validates Molecular Dynamics as a form of
428 > averaging for sufficiently ergodic systems. Also Monte Carlo may be
429 > used to obtain ensemble averages of a quantity which are related to
430 > time averages measured in experiments.
431  
432 < \subsection{Correlation Function\label{In:ssec:corr}}
433 < Thermodynamic properties can be computed by equillibrium statistical
434 < mechanics. On the other hand, {\it Time correlation function} is a
435 < powerful method to understand the evolution of a dynamic system in
436 < non-equillibrium statistical mechanics. Imagine a property $A(q^N,
437 < p^N, t)$ as a function of coordinates $q^N$ and momenta $p^N$ has an
438 < intial value at $t_0$, at a later time $t_0 + \tau$ this value is
439 < changed. If $\tau$ is very small, the change of the value is minor,
440 < and the later value of $A(q^N, p^N, t_0 +
441 < \tau)$ is correlated to its initial value. Howere, when $\tau$ is large,
442 < this correlation is lost. The correlation function is a measurement of
443 < this relationship and is defined by~\cite{Berne90}
432 > \subsection{Correlation Functions\label{In:ssec:corr}}
433 > Thermodynamic properties can be computed by equilibrium statistical
434 > mechanics. On the other hand, {\it Time correlation functions} are a
435 > powerful tool to understand the evolution of a dynamical
436 > systems. Imagine that property $A(q^N, p^N, t)$ as a function of
437 > coordinates $q^N$ and momenta $p^N$ has an intial value at $t_0$, and
438 > at a later time $t_0 + \tau$ this value has changed. If $\tau$ is very
439 > small, the change of the value is minor, and the later value of
440 > $A(q^N, p^N, t_0 + \tau)$ is correlated to its initial value. However,
441 > when $\tau$ is large, this correlation is lost. A time correlation
442 > function measures this relationship and is defined
443 > by~\cite{Berne90}
444   \begin{equation}
445 < C(t) = \langle A(0)A(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
445 > C_{AA}(\tau) = \langle A(0)A(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow
446 > \infty}
447   \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt A(t) A(t + \tau).
448   \label{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction}
449   \end{equation}
450 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction} is the correlation function of a
451 < single variable, called {\it autocorrelation function}. The defination
452 < of the correlation function for two different variables is similar to
453 < that of autocorrelation function, which is
450 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:autocorrelationFunction} is the correlation function of
451 > a single variable, called an {\it autocorrelation function}. The
452 > definition of the correlation function for two different variables is
453 > similar to that of autocorrelation function, which is
454   \begin{equation}
455 < C(t) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
455 > C_{AB}(\tau) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
456   \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} dt A(t) B(t + \tau),
457   \label{Ineq:crosscorrelationFunction}
458   \end{equation}
459 < and called {\it cross correlation function}.
459 > and is called a {\it cross correlation function}.
460  
461 < In section~\ref{In:ssec:average} we know from Eq.~\ref{Ineq:ergodicity}
462 < the relationship between time average and ensemble average. We can put
463 < the correlation function in a classical mechanics form,
461 > We know from the ergodic hypothesis that there is a relationship
462 > between time average and ensemble average. We can put the correlation
463 > function in a classical mechanical form,
464   \begin{equation}
465 < 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)
465 > C_{AA}(\tau) = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A[(q^N, p^N]
466 > A[q^N(\tau), p^N(\tau)] \rho(q^N, p^N)
467   \label{Ineq:autocorrelationFunctionCM}
468   \end{equation}
469 < and
469 > where $q^N(\tau)$, $p^N(\tau)$ is the phase space point that follows
470 > classical evolution of the point $q^N$, $p^N$ after a tme $\tau$ has
471 > elapsed, and
472   \begin{equation}
473 < C(t) = \langle A(0)B(\tau) \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A(t) B(t + \tau)
474 < \rho(q, p)
473 > C_{AB}(\tau) = \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N A[(q^N, p^N]
474 > B[q^N(\tau), p^N(\tau)] \rho(q^N, p^N)
475   \label{Ineq:crosscorrelationFunctionCM}
476   \end{equation}
477 < as autocorrelation function and cross correlation function
477 > as the autocorrelation function and cross correlation functions
478   respectively. $\rho(q, p)$ is the density distribution at equillibrium
479 < in phase space. In many cases, the correlation function decay is a
480 < single exponential
479 > in phase space. In many cases, correlation functions decay as a
480 > single exponential in time
481   \begin{equation}
482   C(t) \sim e^{-t / \tau_r},
483   \label{Ineq:relaxation}
484   \end{equation}
485 < where $\tau_r$ is known as relaxation time which discribes the rate of
485 > where $\tau_r$ is known as relaxation time which describes the rate of
486   the decay.
487  
488 < \section{Methodolody\label{In:sec:method}}
489 < The simulations performed in this dissertation are branched into two
490 < main catalog, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics. There are two main
491 < difference between Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations. One
492 < is that the Monte Carlo simulation is time independent, and Molecular
493 < Dynamics simulation is time involved. Another dissimilar is that the
494 < Monte Carlo is a stochastic process, the configuration of the system
495 < is not determinated by its past, however, using Moleuclar Dynamics,
496 < the system is propagated by Newton's equation of motion, the
497 < trajectory of the system evolved in the phase space is determined. A
498 < brief introduction of the two algorithms are given in
499 < section~\ref{In:ssec:mc} and~\ref{In:ssec:md}. An extension of the
500 < Molecular Dynamics, Langevin Dynamics, is introduced by
488 > \section{Methodology\label{In:sec:method}}
489 > The simulations performed in this dissertation branch into two main
490 > categories, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics. There are two main
491 > differences between Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics
492 > simulations. One is that the Monte Carlo simulations are time
493 > independent methods of sampling structural features of an ensemble,
494 > while Molecular Dynamics simulations provide dynamic
495 > information. Additionally, Monte Carlo methods are stochastic
496 > processes; the future configurations of the system are not determined
497 > by its past. However, in Molecular Dynamics, the system is propagated
498 > by Hamilton's equations of motion, and the trajectory of the system
499 > evolving in phase space is deterministic. Brief introductions of the
500 > two algorithms are given in section~\ref{In:ssec:mc}
501 > and~\ref{In:ssec:md}. Langevin Dynamics, an extension of the Molecular
502 > Dynamics that includes implicit solvent effects, is introduced by
503   section~\ref{In:ssec:ld}.
504  
505   \subsection{Monte Carlo\label{In:ssec:mc}}
506 < Monte Carlo algorithm was first introduced by Metropolis {\it et
507 < al.}.~\cite{Metropolis53} Basic Monte Carlo algorithm is usually
508 < applied to the canonical ensemble, a Boltzmann-weighted ensemble, in
509 < which the $N$, the total number of particles, $V$, total volume, $T$,
510 < temperature are constants. The average energy is given by substituding
511 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:canonicalEnsemble} into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:statAverage2},
506 > A Monte Carlo integration algorithm was first introduced by Metropolis
507 > {\it et al.}~\cite{Metropolis53} The basic Metropolis Monte Carlo
508 > algorithm is usually applied to the canonical ensemble, a
509 > Boltzmann-weighted ensemble, in which $N$, the total number of
510 > particles, $V$, the total volume, and $T$, the temperature are
511 > constants. An average in this ensemble is given
512   \begin{equation}
513 < \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}.
513 > \langle A \rangle = \frac{1}{Z_N} \int d \vec q~^N \int d \vec p~^N
514 > A(q^N, p^N) e^{-H(q^N, p^N) / k_B T}.
515   \label{Ineq:energyofCanonicalEnsemble}
516   \end{equation}
517 < So are the other properties of the system. The Hamiltonian is the
518 < summation of Kinetic energy $K(p^N)$ as a function of momenta and
519 < Potential energy $U(q^N)$ as a function of positions,
517 > The Hamiltonian is the sum of the kinetic energy, $K(p^N)$, a function
518 > of momenta and the potential energy, $U(q^N)$, a function of
519 > positions,
520   \begin{equation}
521   H(q^N, p^N) = K(p^N) + U(q^N).
522   \label{Ineq:hamiltonian}
523   \end{equation}
524 < If the property $A$ is only a function of position ($ A = A(q^N)$),
525 < the mean value of $A$ is reduced to
524 > If the property $A$ is a function only of position ($ A = A(q^N)$),
525 > the mean value of $A$ can be reduced to
526   \begin{equation}
527 < \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}},
527 > \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}},
528   \label{Ineq:configurationIntegral}
529   \end{equation}
530   The kinetic energy $K(p^N)$ is factored out in
531   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:configurationIntegral}. $\langle A
532 < \rangle$ is a configuration integral now, and the
532 > \rangle$ is now a configuration integral, and
533   Eq.~\ref{Ineq:configurationIntegral} is equivalent to
534   \begin{equation}
535 < \langle A \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N A \rho(q^N).
535 > \langle A \rangle = \int d \vec q~^N A \rho(q^N),
536   \label{Ineq:configurationAve}
537   \end{equation}
538 + where $\rho(q^N)$ is a configurational probability
539 + \begin{equation}
540 + \rho(q^N) = \frac{e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}}{\int d \vec q~^N e^{-U(q^N) / k_B T}}.
541 + \label{Ineq:configurationProb}
542 + \end{equation}
543  
544 < In a Monte Carlo simulation of canonical ensemble, the probability of
545 < the system being in a state $s$ is $\rho_s$, the change of this
546 < probability with time is given by
544 > In a Monte Carlo simulation of a system in the canonical ensemble, the
545 > probability of the system being in a state $s$ is $\rho_s$, the change
546 > of this probability with time is given by
547   \begin{equation}
548   \frac{d \rho_s}{dt} = \sum_{s'} [ -w_{ss'}\rho_s + w_{s's}\rho_{s'} ],
549   \label{Ineq:timeChangeofProb}
# Line 442 | Line 554 | to state $s'$. Since $\rho_s$ is independent of time a
554   \frac{d \rho_{s}^{equilibrium}}{dt} = 0,
555   \label{Ineq:equiProb}
556   \end{equation}
557 < which means $\sum_{s'} [ -w_{ss'}\rho_s + w_{s's}\rho_{s'} ]$ is $0$
558 < for all $s'$. So
557 > the sum of transition probabilities $\sum_{s'} [ -w_{ss'}\rho_s +
558 > w_{s's}\rho_{s'} ]$ is $0$ for all $s'$. So
559   \begin{equation}
560   \frac{\rho_s^{equilibrium}}{\rho_{s'}^{equilibrium}} = \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}}.
561   \label{Ineq:relationshipofRhoandW}
562   \end{equation}
563 < If
563 > If the ratio of state populations
564   \begin{equation}
453 \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T},
454 \label{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}
455 \end{equation}
456 then
457 \begin{equation}
565   \frac{\rho_s^{equilibrium}}{\rho_{s'}^{equilibrium}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T}.
566   \label{Ineq:satisfyofBoltzmannStatistics}
567   \end{equation}
568 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:satisfyofBoltzmannStatistics} implies that
569 < $\rho^{equilibrium}$ satisfies Boltzmann statistics. An algorithm,
570 < shows how Monte Carlo simulation generates a transition probability
571 < governed by \ref{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}, is schemed as
568 > then the ratio of transition probabilities,
569 > \begin{equation}
570 > \frac{w_{s's}}{w_{ss'}} = e^{-(U_s - U_{s'}) / k_B T},
571 > \label{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}
572 > \end{equation}
573 > An algorithm that indicates how a Monte Carlo simulation generates a
574 > transition probability governed by
575 > \ref{Ineq:conditionforBoltzmannStatistics}, is given schematically as,
576   \begin{enumerate}
577 < \item\label{Initm:oldEnergy} Choose an particle randomly, calculate the energy.
578 < \item\label{Initm:newEnergy} Make a random displacement for particle,
579 < calculate the new energy.
577 > \item\label{Initm:oldEnergy} Choose a particle randomly, and calculate
578 > the energy of the rest of the system due to the current location of
579 > the particle.
580 > \item\label{Initm:newEnergy} Make a random displacement of the particle,
581 > calculate the new energy taking the movement of the particle into account.
582    \begin{itemize}
583 <     \item Keep the new configuration and return to step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if energy
584 < goes down.
472 <     \item Pick a random number between $[0,1]$ if energy goes up.
583 >     \item If the energy goes down, keep the new configuration.
584 >     \item If the energy goes up, pick a random number between $[0,1]$.
585          \begin{itemize}
586 <           \item Keep the new configuration and return to
587 < step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if the random number smaller than
588 < $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$.
589 <           \item Keep the old configuration and return to
478 < step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy} if the random number larger than
479 < $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$.
586 >           \item If the random number smaller than
587 > $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$, keep the new configuration.
588 >           \item If the random number is larger than
589 > $e^{-(U_{new} - U_{old})} / k_B T$, keep the old configuration.
590          \end{itemize}
591    \end{itemize}
592 < \item\label{Initm:accumulateAvg} Accumulate the average after it converges.
592 > \item\label{Initm:accumulateAvg} Accumulate the averages based on the
593 > current configuration.
594 > \item Go to step~\ref{Initm:oldEnergy}.
595   \end{enumerate}
596 < It is important to notice that the old configuration has to be sampled
597 < again if it is kept.
596 > It is important for sampling accuracy that the old configuration is
597 > sampled again if it is kept.
598  
599   \subsection{Molecular Dynamics\label{In:ssec:md}}
600   Although some of properites of the system can be calculated from the
601 < ensemble average in Monte Carlo simulations, due to the nature of
602 < lacking in the time dependence, it is impossible to gain information
603 < of those dynamic properties from Monte Carlo simulations. Molecular
604 < Dynamics is a measurement of the evolution of the positions and
605 < momenta of the particles in the system. The evolution of the system
606 < obeys laws of classical mechanics, in most situations, there is no
607 < need for the count of the quantum effects. For a real experiment, the
608 < instantaneous positions and momenta of the particles in the system are
609 < neither important nor measurable, the observable quantities are
610 < usually a average value for a finite time interval. These quantities
611 < are expressed as a function of positions and momenta in Melecular
612 < Dynamics simulations. Like the thermal temperature of the system is
501 < defined by
601 > ensemble average in Monte Carlo simulations, due to the absence of the
602 > time dependence, it is impossible to gain information on dynamic
603 > properties from Monte Carlo simulations. Molecular Dynamics evolves
604 > the positions and momenta of the particles in the system. The
605 > evolution of the system obeys the laws of classical mechanics, and in
606 > most situations, there is no need to account for quantum effects. In a
607 > real experiment, the instantaneous positions and momenta of the
608 > particles in the system are ofter neither important nor measurable,
609 > the observable quantities are usually an average value for a finite
610 > time interval. These quantities are expressed as a function of
611 > positions and momenta in Molecular Dynamics simulations. For example,
612 > temperature of the system is defined by
613   \begin{equation}
614 < \frac{1}{2} k_B T = \langle \frac{1}{2} m v_\alpha \rangle,
614 > \frac{3}{2} N k_B T = \langle \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2} m_i v_i \rangle,
615   \label{Ineq:temperature}
616   \end{equation}
617 < here $m$ is the mass of the particle and $v_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$
618 < component of the velocity of the particle. The right side of
619 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature} is the average kinetic energy of the
509 < system. A simple Molecular Dynamics simulation scheme
510 < is:~\cite{Frenkel1996}
511 < \begin{enumerate}
512 < \item\label{Initm:initialize} Assign the initial positions and momenta
513 < for the particles in the system.
514 < \item\label{Initm:calcForce} Calculate the forces.
515 < \item\label{Initm:equationofMotion} Integrate the equation of motion.
516 <  \begin{itemize}
517 <     \item Return to step~\ref{Initm:calcForce} if the equillibrium is
518 < not achieved.
519 <     \item Go to step~\ref{Initm:calcAvg} if the equillibrium is
520 < achieved.
521 <  \end{itemize}
522 < \item\label{Initm:calcAvg} Compute the quantities we are interested in.
523 < \end{enumerate}
524 < The initial positions of the particles are chosen as that there is no
525 < overlap for the particles. The initial velocities at first are
526 < distributed randomly to the particles, and then shifted to make the
527 < momentum of the system $0$, at last scaled to the desired temperature
528 < of the simulation according Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature}.
617 > here $m_i$ is the mass of particle $i$ and $v_i$ is the velocity of
618 > particle $i$. The right side of Eq.~\ref{Ineq:temperature} is the
619 > average kinetic energy of the system.
620  
621 < The core of Molecular Dynamics simulations is step~\ref{Initm:calcForce}
622 < and~\ref{Initm:equationofMotion}. The calculation of the forces are
623 < often involved numerous effort, this is the most time consuming step
624 < in the Molecular Dynamics scheme. The evaluation of the forces is
625 < followed by
621 > The initial positions of the particles are chosen so that there is no
622 > overlap of the particles. The initial velocities at first are
623 > distributed randomly to the particles using a Maxwell-Boltzmann
624 > distribution, and then shifted to make the total linear momentum of
625 > the system $0$.
626 >
627 > The core of Molecular Dynamics simulations is the calculation of
628 > forces and the integration algorithm. Calculation of the forces often
629 > involves enormous effort. This is the most time consuming step in the
630 > Molecular Dynamics scheme. Evaluation of the forces is mathematically
631 > simple,
632   \begin{equation}
633   f(q) = - \frac{\partial U(q)}{\partial q},
634   \label{Ineq:force}
635   \end{equation}
636 < $U(q)$ is the potential of the system. Once the forces computed, are
637 < the positions and velocities updated by integrating Newton's equation
638 < of motion,
639 < \begin{equation}
640 < f(q) = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{m dv}{dt}.
636 > where $U(q)$ is the potential of the system. However, the numerical
637 > details of this computation are often quite complex. Once the forces
638 > computed, the positions and velocities are updated by integrating
639 > Hamilton's equations of motion,
640 > \begin{eqnarray}
641 > \dot p_i & = & -\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i} = -\frac{\partial
642 > U(q_i)}{\partial q_i} = f(q_i) \\
643 > \dot q_i & = & p_i
644   \label{Ineq:newton}
645 < \end{equation}
646 < Here is an example of integrating algorithms, Verlet algorithm, which
647 < is one of the best algorithms to integrate Newton's equation of
648 < motion. The Taylor expension of the position at time $t$ is
645 > \end{eqnarray}
646 > The classic example of an integrating algorithm is the Verlet
647 > algorithm, which is one of the simplest algorithms for integrating the
648 > equations of motion. The Taylor expansion of the position at time $t$
649 > is
650   \begin{equation}
651 < q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t) \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
651 > q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + \frac{p(t)}{m} \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
652          \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial^3 q(t)}{\partial t^3} +
653          \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
654   \label{Ineq:verletFuture}
655   \end{equation}
656   for a later time $t+\Delta t$, and
657   \begin{equation}
658 < q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t) \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
658 > q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - \frac{p(t)}{m} \Delta t + \frac{f(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
659          \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial^3 q(t)}{\partial t^3} +
660          \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4) ,
661   \label{Ineq:verletPrevious}
662   \end{equation}
663 < for a previous time $t-\Delta t$. The summation of the
664 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:verletFuture} and~\ref{Ineq:verletPrevious} gives
663 > for a previous time $t-\Delta t$. Adding Eq.~\ref{Ineq:verletFuture}
664 > and~\ref{Ineq:verletPrevious} gives
665   \begin{equation}
666   q(t+\Delta t)+q(t-\Delta t) =
667          2q(t) + \frac{f(t)}{m}\Delta t^2 + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4),
# Line 572 | Line 673 | q(t+\Delta t) \approx
673          2q(t) - q(t-\Delta t) + \frac{f(t)}{m}\Delta t^2.
674   \label{Ineq:newPosition}
675   \end{equation}
676 < The higher order of the $\Delta t$ is omitted.
676 > The higher order terms in $\Delta t$ are omitted.
677  
678 < Numerous technics and tricks are applied to Molecular Dynamics
679 < simulation to gain more efficiency or more accuracy. The simulation
680 < engine used in this dissertation for the Molecular Dynamics
681 < simulations is {\sc oopse}, more details of the algorithms and
682 < technics can be found in~\cite{Meineke2005}.
678 > Numerous techniques and tricks have been applied to Molecular Dynamics
679 > simulations to gain greater efficiency or accuracy. The engine used in
680 > this dissertation for the Molecular Dynamics simulations is {\sc
681 > oopse}. More details of the algorithms and techniques used in this
682 > code can be found in Ref.~\cite{Meineke2005}.
683  
684   \subsection{Langevin Dynamics\label{In:ssec:ld}}
685 < In many cases, the properites of the solvent in a system, like the
686 < lipid-water system studied in this dissertation, are less important to
687 < the researchers. However, the major computational expense is spent on
688 < the solvent in the Molecular Dynamics simulations because of the large
689 < number of the solvent molecules compared to that of solute molecules,
690 < the ratio of the number of lipid molecules to the number of water
691 < molecules is $1:25$ in our lipid-water system. The efficiency of the
692 < Molecular Dynamics simulations is greatly reduced.
685 > In many cases, the properites of the solvent (like the water in the
686 > lipid-water system studied in this dissertation) are less interesting
687 > to the researchers than the behavior of the solute. However, the major
688 > computational expense is ofter the solvent-solvent interactions, this
689 > is due to the large number of the solvent molecules when compared to
690 > the number of solute molecules. The ratio of the number of lipid
691 > molecules to the number of water molecules is $1:25$ in our
692 > lipid-water system. The efficiency of the Molecular Dynamics
693 > simulations is greatly reduced, with up to 85\% of CPU time spent
694 > calculating only water-water interactions.
695  
696 < As an extension of the Molecular Dynamics simulations, the Langevin
697 < Dynamics seeks a way to avoid integrating equation of motion for
698 < solvent particles without losing the Brownian properites of solute
699 < particles. A common approximation is that the coupling of the solute
700 < and solvent is expressed as a set of harmonic oscillators. So the
701 < Hamiltonian of such a system is written as
696 > As an extension of the Molecular Dynamics methodologies, Langevin
697 > Dynamics seeks a way to avoid integrating the equations of motion for
698 > solvent particles without losing the solvent effects on the solute
699 > particles. One common approximation is to express the coupling of the
700 > solute and solvent as a set of harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian
701 > of such a system is written as
702   \begin{equation}
703   H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + U(q) + H_B + \Delta U(q),
704   \label{Ineq:hamiltonianofCoupling}
705   \end{equation}
706 < where $H_B$ is the Hamiltonian of the bath which equals to
706 > where $H_B$ is the Hamiltonian of the bath which  is a set of N
707 > harmonic oscillators
708   \begin{equation}
709   H_B = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{N} \left\{ \frac{p_\alpha^2}{2m_\alpha} +
710   \frac{1}{2} m_\alpha \omega_\alpha^2 q_\alpha^2\right\},
711   \label{Ineq:hamiltonianofBath}
712   \end{equation}
713 < $\alpha$ is all the degree of freedoms of the bath, $\omega$ is the
714 < bath frequency, and $\Delta U(q)$ is the bilinear coupling given by
713 > $\alpha$ runs over all the degree of freedoms of the bath,
714 > $\omega_\alpha$ is the bath frequency of oscillator $\alpha$, and
715 > $\Delta U(q)$ is the bilinear coupling given by
716   \begin{equation}
717   \Delta U = -\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{N} g_\alpha q_\alpha q,
718   \label{Ineq:systemBathCoupling}
719   \end{equation}
720 < where $g$ is the coupling constant. By solving the Hamilton's equation
721 < of motion, the {\it Generalized Langevin Equation} for this system is
722 < derived to
720 > where $g_\alpha$ is the coupling constant for oscillator $\alpha$. By
721 > solving the Hamilton's equations of motion, the {\it Generalized
722 > Langevin Equation} for this system is derived as
723   \begin{equation}
724   m \ddot q = -\frac{\partial W(q)}{\partial q} - \int_0^t \xi(t) \dot q(t-t')dt' + R(t),
725   \label{Ineq:gle}
# Line 622 | Line 727 | W(q) = U(q) - \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{g_\alpha^2}{2m
727   with mean force,
728   \begin{equation}
729   W(q) = U(q) - \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{g_\alpha^2}{2m_\alpha
730 < \omega_\alpha^2}q^2,
730 > \omega_\alpha^2}q^2.
731   \label{Ineq:meanForce}
732   \end{equation}
733 < being only a dependence of coordinates of the solute particles, {\it
734 < friction kernel},
733 > The {\it friction kernel}, $\xi(t)$, depends only on the coordinates
734 > of the solute particles,
735   \begin{equation}
736   \xi(t) = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \frac{-g_\alpha}{m_\alpha
737   \omega_\alpha} \cos(\omega_\alpha t),
738   \label{Ineq:xiforGLE}
739   \end{equation}
740 < and the random force,
740 > and a ``random'' force,
741   \begin{equation}
742   R(t) = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^N \left( g_\alpha q_\alpha(0)-\frac{g_\alpha}{m_\alpha
743   \omega_\alpha^2}q(0)\right) \cos(\omega_\alpha t) + \frac{\dot
744   q_\alpha(0)}{\omega_\alpha} \sin(\omega_\alpha t),
745   \label{Ineq:randomForceforGLE}
746   \end{equation}
747 < as only a dependence of the initial conditions. The relationship of
748 < friction kernel $\xi(t)$ and random force $R(t)$ is given by
747 > that depends only on the initial conditions. The relationship of
748 > friction kernel $\xi(t)$ and random force $R(t)$ is given by the
749 > second fluctuation dissipation theorem,
750   \begin{equation}
751 < \xi(t) = \frac{1}{k_B T} \langle R(t)R(0) \rangle
751 > \xi(t) = \frac{1}{k_B T} \langle R(t)R(0) \rangle.
752   \label{Ineq:relationshipofXiandR}
753   \end{equation}
754 < from their definitions. In Langevin limit, the friction is treated
755 < static, which means
754 > In the harmonic bath this relation is exact and provable from the
755 > definitions of these quantities. In the limit of static friction,
756   \begin{equation}
757   \xi(t) = 2 \xi_0 \delta(t).
758   \label{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}
759   \end{equation}
760 < After substitude $\xi(t)$ into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:gle} with
761 < Eq.~\ref{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}, {\it Langevin Equation} is extracted
762 < to
760 > After substituting $\xi(t)$ into Eq.~\ref{Ineq:gle} with
761 > Eq.~\ref{Ineq:xiofStaticFriction}, the {\it Langevin Equation} is
762 > extracted,
763   \begin{equation}
764   m \ddot q = -\frac{\partial U(q)}{\partial q} - \xi \dot q(t) + R(t).
765   \label{Ineq:langevinEquation}
766   \end{equation}
767 < The applying of Langevin Equation to dynamic simulations is discussed
768 < in Ch.~\ref{chap:ld}.
767 > Application of the Langevin Equation to dynamic simulations is
768 > discussed in Ch.~\ref{chap:ld}.

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines