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

Comparing trunk/mattDisertation/Introduction.tex (file contents):
Revision 978 by mmeineke, Fri Jan 23 02:14:04 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1008 by mmeineke, Tue Feb 3 17:41:56 2004 UTC

# Line 3 | Line 3
3   \chapter{\label{chapt:intro}Introduction and Theoretical Background}
4  
5  
6
7 \section{\label{introSec:theory}Theoretical Background}
8
6   The techniques used in the course of this research fall under the two
7   main classes of molecular simulation: Molecular Dynamics and Monte
8   Carlo. Molecular Dynamic simulations integrate the equations of motion
9 < for a given system of particles, allowing the researher to gain
9 > for a given system of particles, allowing the researcher to gain
10   insight into the time dependent evolution of a system. Diffusion
11   phenomena are readily studied with this simulation technique, making
12   Molecular Dynamics the main simulation technique used in this
13   research. Other aspects of the research fall under the Monte Carlo
14   class of simulations. In Monte Carlo, the configuration space
15 < available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastichally,
15 > available to the collection of particles is sampled stochastically,
16   or randomly. Each configuration is chosen with a given probability
17 < based on the Maxwell Boltzman distribution. These types of simulations
17 > based on the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution. These types of simulations
18   are best used to probe properties of a system that are only dependent
19   only on the state of the system. Structural information about a system
20   is most readily obtained through these types of methods.
# Line 30 | Line 27 | which method best suits that objective.
27   thermodynamic properties of the system are being probed, then chose
28   which method best suits that objective.
29  
30 < \subsection{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Thermodynamics}
30 > \section{\label{introSec:statThermo}Statistical Mechanics}
31  
32 < ergodic hypothesis
32 > The following section serves as a brief introduction to some of the
33 > Statistical Mechanics concepts present in this dissertation.  What
34 > follows is a brief derivation of Boltzmann weighted statistics, and an
35 > explanation of how one can use the information to calculate an
36 > observable for a system.  This section then concludes with a brief
37 > discussion of the ergodic hypothesis and its relevance to this
38 > research.
39  
40 < enesemble averages
40 > \subsection{\label{introSec:boltzman}Boltzmann weighted statistics}
41  
42 < \subsection{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
42 > Consider a system, $\gamma$, with some total energy,, $E_{\gamma}$.
43 > Let $\Omega(E_{\gamma})$ represent the number of degenerate ways
44 > $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$, the collection of positions and conjugate
45 > momenta of system $\gamma$, can be configured to give
46 > $E_{\gamma}$. Further, if $\gamma$ is in contact with a bath system
47 > where energy is exchanged between the two systems, $\Omega(E)$, where
48 > $E$ is the total energy of both systems, can be represented as
49 > \begin{equation}
50 > \Omega(E) = \Omega(E_{\gamma}) \times \Omega(E - E_{\gamma})
51 > \label{introEq:SM1}
52 > \end{equation}
53 > Or additively as
54 > \begin{equation}
55 > \ln \Omega(E) = \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma}) + \ln \Omega(E - E_{\gamma})
56 > \label{introEq:SM2}
57 > \end{equation}
58 >
59 > The solution to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM2} maximizes the number of
60 > degenerative configurations in $E$. \cite{Frenkel1996}
61 > This gives
62 > \begin{equation}
63 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E)}{\partial E_{\gamma}} = 0 =
64 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
65 >         +
66 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}
67 >        \frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
68 > \label{introEq:SM3}
69 > \end{equation}
70 > Where $E_{\text{bath}}$ is $E-E_{\gamma}$, and
71 > $\frac{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}{\partial E_{\gamma}}$ is
72 > $-1$. Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} becomes
73 > \begin{equation}
74 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}} =
75 > \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\text{bath}})}{\partial E_{\text{bath}}}
76 > \label{introEq:SM4}
77 > \end{equation}
78 >
79 > At this point, one can draw a relationship between the maximization of
80 > degeneracy in Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM3} and the second law of
81 > thermodynamics.  Namely, that for a closed system, entropy will
82 > increase for an irreversible process.\cite{chandler:1987} Here the
83 > process is the partitioning of energy among the two systems.  This
84 > allows the following definition of entropy:
85 > \begin{equation}
86 > S = k_B \ln \Omega(E)
87 > \label{introEq:SM5}
88 > \end{equation}
89 > Where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.  Having defined entropy, one can
90 > also define the temperature of the system using the relation
91 > \begin{equation}
92 > \frac{1}{T} = \biggl ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial E} \biggr )_{N,V}
93 > \label{introEq:SM6}
94 > \end{equation}
95 > The temperature in the system $\gamma$ is then
96 > \begin{equation}
97 > \beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \frac{1}{k_B T} =
98 >        \frac{\partial \ln \Omega(E_{\gamma})}{\partial E_{\gamma}}
99 > \label{introEq:SM7}
100 > \end{equation}
101 > Applying this to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM4} gives the following
102 > \begin{equation}
103 > \beta( E_{\gamma} ) = \beta( E_{\text{bath}} )
104 > \label{introEq:SM8}
105 > \end{equation}
106 > Showing that the partitioning of energy between the two systems is
107 > actually a process of thermal equilibration.\cite{Frenkel1996}
108 >
109 > An application of these results is to formulate the form of an
110 > expectation value of an observable, $A$, in the canonical ensemble. In
111 > the canonical ensemble, the number of particles, $N$, the volume, $V$,
112 > and the temperature, $T$, are all held constant while the energy, $E$,
113 > is allowed to fluctuate. Returning to the previous example, the bath
114 > system is now an infinitely large thermal bath, whose exchange of
115 > energy with the system $\gamma$ holds the temperature constant.  The
116 > partitioning of energy in the bath system is then related to the total
117 > energy of both systems and the fluctuations in $E_{\gamma}$:
118 > \begin{equation}
119 > \Omega( E_{\gamma} ) = \Omega( E - E_{\gamma} )
120 > \label{introEq:SM9}
121 > \end{equation}
122 > As for the expectation value, it can be defined
123 > \begin{equation}
124 > \langle A \rangle =
125 >        \int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}
126 >        P_{\gamma} A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma})
127 > \label{introEq:SM10}
128 > \end{equation}
129 > Where $\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ denotes
130 > an integration over all accessible phase space, $P_{\gamma}$ is the
131 > probability of being in a given phase state and
132 > $A(\boldsymbol{\Gamma})$ is some observable that is a function of the
133 > phase state.
134 >
135 > Because entropy seeks to maximize the number of degenerate states at a
136 > given energy, the probability of being in a particular state in
137 > $\gamma$ will be directly proportional to the number of allowable
138 > states the coupled system is able to assume. Namely,
139 > \begin{equation}
140 > P_{\gamma} \propto \Omega( E_{\text{bath}} ) =
141 >        e^{\ln \Omega( E - E_{\gamma})}
142 > \label{introEq:SM11}
143 > \end{equation}
144 > With $E_{\gamma} \ll E$, $\ln \Omega$ can be expanded in a Taylor series:
145 > \begin{equation}
146 > \ln \Omega ( E - E_{\gamma}) =
147 >        \ln \Omega (E) -
148 >        E_{\gamma}  \frac{\partial \ln \Omega }{\partial E}
149 >        + \ldots
150 > \label{introEq:SM12}
151 > \end{equation}
152 > Higher order terms are omitted as $E$ is an infinite thermal
153 > bath. Further, using Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM7}, Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM11} can
154 > be rewritten:
155 > \begin{equation}
156 > P_{\gamma} \propto e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}
157 > \label{introEq:SM13}
158 > \end{equation}
159 > Where $\ln \Omega(E)$ has been factored out of the proportionality as a
160 > constant.  Normalizing the probability ($\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}
161 > d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} P_{\gamma} = 1$) gives
162 > \begin{equation}
163 > P_{\gamma} = \frac{e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
164 > {\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
165 > \label{introEq:SM14}
166 > \end{equation}
167 > This result is the standard Boltzmann statistical distribution.
168 > Applying it to Eq.~\ref{introEq:SM10} one can obtain the following relation for ensemble averages:
169 > \begin{equation}
170 > \langle A \rangle =
171 > \frac{\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma}
172 >        A( \boldsymbol{\Gamma} ) e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
173 > {\int\limits_{\boldsymbol{\Gamma}} d\boldsymbol{\Gamma} e^{-\beta E_{\gamma}}}
174 > \label{introEq:SM15}
175 > \end{equation}
176  
177 + \subsection{\label{introSec:ergodic}The Ergodic Hypothesis}
178 +
179 + One last important consideration is that of ergodicity. Ergodicity is
180 + the assumption that given an infinite amount of time, a system will
181 + visit every available point in phase space.\cite{Frenkel1996} For most
182 + systems, this is a valid assumption, except in cases where the system
183 + may be trapped in a local feature (\emph{e.g.}~glasses). When valid,
184 + ergodicity allows the unification of a time averaged observation and
185 + an ensemble averaged one. If an observation is averaged over a
186 + sufficiently long time, the system is assumed to visit all
187 + appropriately available points in phase space, giving a properly
188 + weighted statistical average. This allows the researcher freedom of
189 + choice when deciding how best to measure a given observable.  When an
190 + ensemble averaged approach seems most logical, the Monte Carlo
191 + techniques described in Sec.~\ref{introSec:monteCarlo} can be utilized.
192 + Conversely, if a problem lends itself to a time averaging approach,
193 + the Molecular Dynamics techniques in Sec.~\ref{introSec:MD} can be
194 + employed.
195 +
196 + \section{\label{introSec:monteCarlo}Monte Carlo Simulations}
197 +
198   The Monte Carlo method was developed by Metropolis and Ulam for their
199   work in fissionable material.\cite{metropolis:1949} The method is so
200   named, because it heavily uses random numbers in its
# Line 60 | Line 217 | approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials i
217   $[a,b]$. The calculation of the integral could then be solved by
218   randomly choosing points along the interval $[a,b]$ and calculating
219   the value of $f(x)$ at each point. The accumulated average would then
220 < approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infintely
220 > approach $I$ in the limit where the number of trials is infinitely
221   large.
222  
223   However, in Statistical Mechanics, one is typically interested in
# Line 72 | Line 229 | and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on
229   \label{eq:mcEnsAvg}
230   \end{equation}
231   Where $\mathbf{r}^N$ stands for the coordinates of all $N$ particles
232 < and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on
233 < position. $\langle A \rangle$ is the ensemble average of $A$ as
234 < presented in Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}. Because $A$ is
235 < independent of momentum, the momenta contribution of the integral can
236 < be factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of
237 < the brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
238 < results. Due to the Boltzman weighting of this integral, most random
232 > and $A$ is some observable that is only dependent on position. This is
233 > the ensemble average of $A$ as presented in
234 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:statThermo}, except here $A$ is independent of
235 > momentum. Therefore the momenta contribution of the integral can be
236 > factored out, leaving the configurational integral. Application of the
237 > brute force method to this system would yield highly inefficient
238 > results. Due to the Boltzmann weighting of this integral, most random
239   configurations will have a near zero contribution to the ensemble
240 < average. This is where a importance sampling comes into
240 > average. This is where importance sampling comes into
241   play.\cite{allen87:csl}
242  
243   Importance Sampling is a method where one selects a distribution from
# Line 106 | Line 263 | Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the boltzman distribution.  The e
263          {\int d^N \mathbf{r}~e^{-\beta V(\mathbf{r}^N)}}
264   \label{introEq:MCboltzman}
265   \end{equation}
266 < Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the boltzman distribution.  The ensemble average
266 > Where $\rho_{kT}$ is the Boltzmann distribution.  The ensemble average
267   can be rewritten as
268   \begin{equation}
269   \langle A \rangle = \int d^N \mathbf{r}~A(\mathbf{r}^N)
# Line 132 | Line 289 | $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.
289   the use of a Markov chain whose limiting distribution was
290   $\rho_{kT}(\mathbf{r}^N)$.
291  
292 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
292 > \subsection{\label{introSec:markovChains}Markov Chains}
293  
294   A Markov chain is a chain of states satisfying the following
295   conditions:\cite{leach01:mm}
# Line 140 | Line 297 | If given two configuartions, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\ma
297   \item The outcome of each trial depends only on the outcome of the previous trial.
298   \item Each trial belongs to a finite set of outcomes called the state space.
299   \end{enumerate}
300 < If given two configuartions, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
301 < $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probablilities of being in state
300 > If given two configurations, $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$,
301 > $\rho_m$ and $\rho_n$ are the probabilities of being in state
302   $\mathbf{r}^N_m$ and $\mathbf{r}^N_n$ respectively.  Further, the two
303   states are linked by a transition probability, $\pi_{mn}$, which is the
304   probability of going from state $m$ to state $n$.
# Line 182 | Line 339 | will only yield the limiting distribution again.
339   \label{introEq:MCmarkovEquil}
340   \end{equation}
341  
342 < \subsubsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
342 > \subsection{\label{introSec:metropolisMethod}The Metropolis Method}
343  
344   In the Metropolis method\cite{metropolis:1953}
345   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmarkovEquil} is solved such that
346 < $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzman distribution
346 > $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\text{limit}}$ matches the Boltzmann distribution
347   of states.  The method accomplishes this by imposing the strong
348   condition of microscopic reversibility on the equilibrium
349   distribution.  Meaning, that at equilibrium the probability of going
# Line 195 | Line 352 | Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symet
352   \rho_m\pi_{mn} = \rho_n\pi_{nm}
353   \label{introEq:MCmicroReverse}
354   \end{equation}
355 < Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symetric matrix in
355 > Further, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is chosen to be a symmetric matrix in
356   the Metropolis method.  Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCpi},
357   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MCmicroReverse} becomes
358   \begin{equation}
# Line 203 | Line 360 | For a Boltxman limiting distribution,
360          \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m}
361   \label{introEq:MCmicro2}
362   \end{equation}
363 < For a Boltxman limiting distribution,
363 > For a Boltzmann limiting distribution,
364   \begin{equation}
365   \frac{\rho_n}{\rho_m} = e^{-\beta[\mathcal{U}(n) - \mathcal{U}(m)]}
366          = e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}
# Line 211 | Line 368 | EQ Here
368   \end{equation}
369   This allows for the following set of acceptance rules be defined:
370   \begin{equation}
371 < EQ Here
371 > \accMe( m \rightarrow n ) =
372 >        \begin{cases}
373 >        1& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} \leq 0$,} \\
374 >        e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}& \text{if $\Delta \mathcal{U} > 0$.}
375 >        \end{cases}
376 > \label{introEq:accRules}
377   \end{equation}
378  
379 < Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{fix} the Metropolis method
380 < proceeds as follows
381 < \begin{itemize}
382 < \item Generate an initial configuration $fix$ which has some finite probability in $fix$.
383 < \item Modify $fix$, to generate configuratioon $fix$.
384 < \item If configuration $n$ lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($fix$ becomes $fix$).  Otherwise accept with probability $fix$.
385 < \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of intereest.
386 < \item Repeat from step 2 until average converges.
387 < \end{itemize}
379 > Using the acceptance criteria from Eq.~\ref{introEq:accRules} the
380 > Metropolis method proceeds as follows
381 > \begin{enumerate}
382 > \item Generate an initial configuration $\mathbf{r}^N$ which has some finite probability in $\rho_{kT}$.
383 > \item Modify $\mathbf{r}^N$, to generate configuration $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$.
384 > \item If the new configuration lowers the energy of the system, accept the move with unity ($\mathbf{r}^N$ becomes $\mathbf{r^{\prime}}^N$).  Otherwise accept with probability $e^{-\beta \Delta \mathcal{U}}$.
385 > \item Accumulate the average for the configurational observable of interest.
386 > \item Repeat from step 2 until the average converges.
387 > \end{enumerate}
388   One important note is that the average is accumulated whether the move
389   is accepted or not, this ensures proper weighting of the average.
390 < Using Eq.~\ref{fix} it becomes clear that the accumulated averages are
391 < the ensemble averages, as this method ensures that the limiting
392 < distribution is the Boltzman distribution.
390 > Using Eq.~\ref{introEq:Importance4} it becomes clear that the
391 > accumulated averages are the ensemble averages, as this method ensures
392 > that the limiting distribution is the Boltzmann distribution.
393  
394 < \subsection{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
394 > \section{\label{introSec:MD}Molecular Dynamics Simulations}
395  
396   The main simulation tool used in this research is Molecular Dynamics.
397   Molecular Dynamics is when the equations of motion for a system are
# Line 237 | Line 399 | events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~
399   momentum of a system, allowing the calculation of not only
400   configurational observables, but momenta dependent ones as well:
401   diffusion constants, velocity auto correlations, folding/unfolding
402 < events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity, Eq.~\ref{fix}, the
403 < average of these observables over the time period of the simulation
404 < are taken to be the ensemble averages for the system.
402 > events, etc.  Due to the principle of ergodicity,
403 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:ergodic}, the average of these observables over the
404 > time period of the simulation are taken to be the ensemble averages
405 > for the system.
406  
407   The choice of when to use molecular dynamics over Monte Carlo
408   techniques, is normally decided by the observables in which the
409 < researcher is interested.  If the observabvles depend on momenta in
409 > researcher is interested.  If the observables depend on momenta in
410   any fashion, then the only choice is molecular dynamics in some form.
411   However, when the observable is dependent only on the configuration,
412 < then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficent.
412 > then most of the time Monte Carlo techniques will be more efficient.
413  
414   The focus of research in the second half of this dissertation is
415   centered around the dynamic properties of phospholipid bilayers,
416   making molecular dynamics key in the simulation of those properties.
417  
418 < \subsubsection{Molecular dynamics Algorithm}
418 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdAlgorithm}The Molecular Dynamics Algorithm}
419  
420   To illustrate how the molecular dynamics technique is applied, the
421   following sections will describe the sequence involved in a
422 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} deals with the initialization of a
423 < simulation.  Sec.~\ref{fix} discusses issues involved with the
424 < calculation of the forces.  Sec.~\ref{fix} concludes the algorithm
425 < discussion with the integration of the equations of motion. \cite{fix}
422 > simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdInit} deals with the initialization
423 > of a simulation.  Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdForce} discusses issues
424 > involved with the calculation of the forces.
425 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:mdIntegrate} concludes the algorithm discussion
426 > with the integration of the equations of motion.\cite{Frenkel1996}
427  
428 < \subsubsection{initialization}
428 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdInit}Initialization}
429  
430   When selecting the initial configuration for the simulation it is
431   important to consider what dynamics one is hoping to observe.
432 < Ch.~\ref{fix} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
432 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} deals with the formation and equilibrium dynamics of
433   phospholipid membranes.  Therefore in these simulations initial
434   positions were selected that in some cases dispersed the lipids in
435 < water, and in other cases structured the lipids into preformed
435 > water, and in other cases structured the lipids into performed
436   bilayers.  Important considerations at this stage of the simulation are:
437   \begin{itemize}
438   \item There are no major overlaps of molecular or atomic orbitals
439 < \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not gie the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
440 < \item It is also sometimes desireable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
439 > \item Velocities are chosen in such a way as to not give the system a non=zero total momentum or angular momentum.
440 > \item It is also sometimes desirable to select the velocities to correctly sample the target temperature.
441   \end{itemize}
442  
443   The first point is important due to the amount of potential energy
444   generated by having two particles too close together.  If overlap
445   occurs, the first evaluation of forces will return numbers so large as
446 < to render the numerical integration of teh motion meaningless.  The
446 > to render the numerical integration of the motion meaningless.  The
447   second consideration keeps the system from drifting or rotating as a
448   whole.  This arises from the fact that most simulations are of systems
449   in equilibrium in the absence of outside forces.  Therefore any net
450   movement would be unphysical and an artifact of the simulation method
451 < used.  The final point addresses teh selection of the magnitude of the
452 < initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convienient to use
451 > used.  The final point addresses the selection of the magnitude of the
452 > initial velocities.  For many simulations it is convenient to use
453   this opportunity to scale the amount of kinetic energy to reflect the
454   desired thermal distribution of the system.  However, it must be noted
455   that most systems will require further velocity rescaling after the
456   first few initial simulation steps due to either loss or gain of
457   kinetic energy from energy stored in potential degrees of freedom.
458  
459 < \subsubsection{Force Evaluation}
459 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdForce}Force Evaluation}
460  
461   The evaluation of forces is the most computationally expensive portion
462   of a given molecular dynamics simulation.  This is due entirely to the
463   evaluation of long range forces in a simulation, typically pair-wise.
464   These forces are most commonly the Van der Waals force, and sometimes
465 < Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $fix$
466 < pairs to be evaluated, where $n$ is the number of particles in the
467 < system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $fix$, making large
465 > Coulombic forces as well.  For a pair-wise force, there are $N(N-1)/ 2$
466 > pairs to be evaluated, where $N$ is the number of particles in the
467 > system.  This leads to the calculations scaling as $N^2$, making large
468   simulations prohibitive in the absence of any computation saving
469   techniques.
470  
471   Another consideration one must resolve, is that in a given simulation
472   a disproportionate number of the particles will feel the effects of
473 < the surface. \cite{fix} For a cubic system of 1000 particles arranged
474 < in a $10x10x10$ cube, 488 particles will be exposed to the surface.
475 < Unless one is simulating an isolated particle group in a vacuum, the
476 < behavior of the system will be far from the desired bulk
477 < charecteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the use of
478 < periodic boundary images. \cite{fix}
473 > the surface.\cite{allen87:csl} For a cubic system of 1000 particles
474 > arranged in a $10 \times 10 \times 10$ cube, 488 particles will be
475 > exposed to the surface.  Unless one is simulating an isolated particle
476 > group in a vacuum, the behavior of the system will be far from the
477 > desired bulk characteristics.  To offset this, simulations employ the
478 > use of periodic boundary images.\cite{born:1912}
479  
480   The technique involves the use of an algorithm that replicates the
481 < simulation box on an infinite lattice in cartesian space.  Any given
481 > simulation box on an infinite lattice in Cartesian space.  Any given
482   particle leaving the simulation box on one side will have an image of
483 < itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{fix}).
484 < \begin{equation}
485 < EQ Here
486 < \end{equation}
487 < In addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real
324 < or periodic, within $fix$ of each other.  A discussion of the method
325 < used to calculate the periodic image can be found in Sec.\ref{fix}.
483 > itself enter on the opposite side (see Fig.~\ref{introFig:pbc}).  In
484 > addition, this sets that any given particle pair has an image, real or
485 > periodic, within $fix$ of each other.  A discussion of the method used
486 > to calculate the periodic image can be found in
487 > Sec.\ref{oopseSec:pbc}.
488  
489 + \begin{figure}
490 + \centering
491 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbcFig.eps}
492 + \caption[An illustration of periodic boundary conditions]{A 2-D illustration of periodic boundary conditions. As one particle leaves the right of the simulation box, an image of it enters the left.}
493 + \label{introFig:pbc}
494 + \end{figure}
495 +
496   Returning to the topic of the computational scale of the force
497   evaluation, the use of periodic boundary conditions requires that a
498   cutoff radius be employed.  Using a cutoff radius improves the
499   efficiency of the force evaluation, as particles farther than a
500 < predetermined distance, $fix$, are not included in the
501 < calculation. \cite{fix} In a simultation with periodic images, $fix$
502 < has a maximum value of $fix$.  Fig.~\ref{fix} illustrates how using an
503 < $fix$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no $fix$ at
504 < all, the corners of the simulation box are unequally weighted due to
505 < the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$, or $z$ directions past a
506 < disance of $fix$.
500 > predetermined distance, $r_{\text{cut}}$, are not included in the
501 > calculation.\cite{Frenkel1996} In a simulation with periodic images,
502 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ has a maximum value of $\text{box}/2$.
503 > Fig.~\ref{introFig:rMax} illustrates how when using an
504 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ larger than this value, or in the extreme limit of no
505 > $r_{\text{cut}}$ at all, the corners of the simulation box are
506 > unequally weighted due to the lack of particle images in the $x$, $y$,
507 > or $z$ directions past a distance of $\text{box} / 2$.
508  
509 < With the use of an $fix$, however, comes a discontinuity in the
510 < potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{fix}). To fix this discontinuity,
511 < one calculates the potential energy at the $r_{\text{cut}}$, and add
512 < that value to the potential.  This causes the function to go smoothly
513 < to zero at the cutoff radius.  This ensures conservation of energy
514 < when integrating the Newtonian equations of motion.
509 > \begin{figure}
510 > \centering
511 > \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rCutMaxFig.eps}
512 > \caption[An explanation of $r_{\text{cut}}$]{The yellow atom has all other images wrapped to itself as the center. If $r_{\text{cut}}=\text{box}/2$, then the distribution is uniform (blue atoms). However, when $r_{\text{cut}}>\text{box}/2$ the corners are disproportionately weighted (green atoms) vs the axial directions (shaded regions).}
513 > \label{introFig:rMax}
514 > \end{figure}
515  
516 + With the use of an $r_{\text{cut}}$, however, comes a discontinuity in
517 + the potential energy curve (Fig.~\ref{introFig:shiftPot}). To fix this
518 + discontinuity, one calculates the potential energy at the
519 + $r_{\text{cut}}$, and adds that value to the potential, causing
520 + the function to go smoothly to zero at the cutoff radius.  This
521 + shifted potential ensures conservation of energy when integrating the
522 + Newtonian equations of motion.
523 +
524 + \begin{figure}
525 + \centering
526 + \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{shiftedPot.eps}
527 + \caption[Shifting the Lennard-Jones Potential]{The Lennard-Jones potential (blue line) is shifted (red line) to remove the discontinuity at $r_{\text{cut}}$.}
528 + \label{introFig:shiftPot}
529 + \end{figure}
530 +
531   The second main simplification used in this research is the Verlet
532   neighbor list. \cite{allen87:csl} In the Verlet method, one generates
533   a list of all neighbor atoms, $j$, surrounding atom $i$ within some
# Line 354 | Line 539 | neighbor list.
539   giving rise to the possibility that a particle has left or joined a
540   neighbor list.
541  
542 < \subsection{\label{introSec:MDintegrate} Integration of the equations of motion}
542 > \subsection{\label{introSec:mdIntegrate} Integration of the equations of motion}
543  
544   A starting point for the discussion of molecular dynamics integrators
545 < is the Verlet algorithm. \cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor
545 > is the Verlet algorithm.\cite{Frenkel1996} It begins with a Taylor
546   expansion of position in time:
547   \begin{equation}
548 < eq here
548 > q(t+\Delta t)= q(t) + v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 +
549 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
550 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
551   \label{introEq:verletForward}
552   \end{equation}
553   As well as,
554   \begin{equation}
555 < eq here
555 > q(t-\Delta t)= q(t) - v(t)\Delta t + \frac{F(t)}{2m}\Delta t^2 -
556 >        \frac{\Delta t^3}{3!}\frac{\partial q(t)}{\partial t} +
557 >        \mathcal{O}(\Delta t^4)
558   \label{introEq:verletBack}
559   \end{equation}
560   Adding together Eq.~\ref{introEq:verletForward} and
# Line 383 | Line 572 | with a velocity reformulation of teh Verlet method. \c
572   order of $\Delta t^4$.
573  
574   In practice, however, the simulations in this research were integrated
575 < with a velocity reformulation of teh Verlet method. \cite{allen87:csl}
575 > with a velocity reformulation of the Verlet method.\cite{allen87:csl}
576   \begin{equation}
577   eq here
578   \label{introEq:MDvelVerletPos}
# Line 398 | Line 587 | importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is f
587   very little long term drift in energy conservation.  Energy
588   conservation in a molecular dynamics simulation is of extreme
589   importance, as it is a measure of how closely one is following the
590 < ``true'' trajectory wtih the finite integration scheme.  An exact
590 > ``true'' trajectory with the finite integration scheme.  An exact
591   solution to the integration will conserve area in phase space, as well
592   as be reversible in time, that is, the trajectory integrated forward
593   or backwards will exactly match itself.  Having a finite algorithm
# Line 406 | Line 595 | It can be shown, \cite{Frenkel1996} that although the
595   therefore increases, but does not guarantee the ``correctness'' or the
596   integrated trajectory.
597  
598 < It can be shown, \cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm
598 > It can be shown,\cite{Frenkel1996} that although the Verlet algorithm
599   does not rigorously preserve the actual Hamiltonian, it does preserve
600   a pseudo-Hamiltonian which shadows the real one in phase space.  This
601 < pseudo-Hamiltonian is proveably area-conserving as well as time
601 > pseudo-Hamiltonian is provably area-conserving as well as time
602   reversible.  The fact that it shadows the true Hamiltonian in phase
603   space is acceptable in actual simulations as one is interested in the
604   ensemble average of the observable being measured.  From the ergodic
# Line 417 | Line 606 | trajectories in phase space should give matching stati
606   average will match the ensemble average, therefore two similar
607   trajectories in phase space should give matching statistical averages.
608  
609 < \subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurtheeeeer}Further Considerations}
609 > \subsection{\label{introSec:MDfurther}Further Considerations}
610   In the simulations presented in this research, a few additional
611   parameters are needed to describe the motions.  The simulations
612 < involving water and phospholipids in Chapt.~\ref{chaptLipids} are
612 > involving water and phospholipids in Ch.~\ref{chaptLipids} are
613   required to integrate the equations of motions for dipoles on atoms.
614   This involves an additional three parameters be specified for each
615   dipole atom: $\phi$, $\theta$, and $\psi$.  These three angles are
# Line 428 | Line 617 | accumulated into a single $3\time3$ matrix $\underline
617   $z$-axis, and $\theta$ is a rotation about the new $x$-axis, and
618   $\psi$ is a final rotation about the new $z$-axis (see
619   Fig.~\ref{introFig:euleerAngles}).  This sequence of rotations can be
620 < accumulated into a single $3\time3$ matrix $\underline{\mathbf{A}}$
620 > accumulated into a single $3 \times 3$ matrix $\mathbf{A}$
621   defined as follows:
622   \begin{equation}
623   eq here
# Line 442 | Line 631 | along cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty
631   \label{introEq:MDeuleeerPsi}
632   \end{equation}
633   Where $\omega^s_i$ is the angular velocity in the lab space frame
634 < along cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when
635 < attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeuleerPhi} and
634 > along Cartesian coordinate $i$.  However, a difficulty arises when
635 > attempting to integrate Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPhi} and
636   Eq.~\ref{introEq:MDeulerPsi}. The $\frac{1}{\sin \theta}$ present in
637   both equations means there is a non-physical instability present when
638   $\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$.
639  
640   To correct for this, the simulations integrate the rotation matrix,
641 < $\underline{\mathbf{A}}$, directly, thus avoiding the instability.
641 > $\mathbf{A}$, directly, thus avoiding the instability.
642   This method was proposed by Dullwebber
643   \emph{et. al.}\cite{Dullwebber:1997}, and is presented in
644   Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDsymplecticRot}.
645  
646   \subsubsection{\label{introSec:MDliouville}Liouville Propagator}
647  
648 + Before discussing the integration of the rotation matrix, it is
649 + necessary to understand the construction of a ``good'' integration
650 + scheme.  It has been previously
651 + discussed(Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDintegrate}) how it is desirable for an
652 + integrator to be symplectic, or time reversible.  The following is an
653 + outline of the Trotter factorization of the Liouville Propagator as a
654 + scheme for generating symplectic integrators. \cite{Tuckerman:1992}
655  
656 < \section{\label{introSec:chapterLayout}Chapter Layout}
656 > For a system with $f$ degrees of freedom the Liouville operator can be
657 > defined as,
658 > \begin{equation}
659 > eq here
660 > \label{introEq:LiouvilleOperator}
661 > \end{equation}
662 > Here, $r_j$ and $p_j$ are the position and conjugate momenta of a
663 > degree of freedom, and $f_j$ is the force on that degree of freedom.
664 > $\Gamma$ is defined as the set of all positions and conjugate momenta,
665 > $\{r_j,p_j\}$, and the propagator, $U(t)$, is defined
666 > \begin {equation}
667 > eq here
668 > \label{introEq:Lpropagator}
669 > \end{equation}
670 > This allows the specification of $\Gamma$ at any time $t$ as
671 > \begin{equation}
672 > eq here
673 > \label{introEq:Lp2}
674 > \end{equation}
675 > It is important to note, $U(t)$ is a unitary operator meaning
676 > \begin{equation}
677 > U(-t)=U^{-1}(t)
678 > \label{introEq:Lp3}
679 > \end{equation}
680  
681 < \subsection{\label{introSec:RSA}Random Sequential Adsorption}
681 > Decomposing $L$ into two parts, $iL_1$ and $iL_2$, one can use the
682 > Trotter theorem to yield
683 > \begin{equation}
684 > eq here
685 > \label{introEq:Lp4}
686 > \end{equation}
687 > Where $\Delta t = \frac{t}{P}$.
688 > With this, a discrete time operator $G(\Delta t)$ can be defined:
689 > \begin{equation}
690 > eq here
691 > \label{introEq:Lp5}
692 > \end{equation}
693 > Because $U_1(t)$ and $U_2(t)$ are unitary, $G|\Delta t)$ is also
694 > unitary.  Meaning an integrator based on this factorization will be
695 > reversible in time.
696  
697 < \subsection{\label{introSec:OOPSE}The OOPSE Simulation Package}
697 > As an example, consider the following decomposition of $L$:
698 > \begin{equation}
699 > eq here
700 > \label{introEq:Lp6}
701 > \end{equation}
702 > Operating $G(\Delta t)$ on $\Gamma)0)$, and utilizing the operator property
703 > \begin{equation}
704 > eq here
705 > \label{introEq:Lp8}
706 > \end{equation}
707 > Where $c$ is independent of $q$.  One obtains the following:  
708 > \begin{equation}
709 > eq here
710 > \label{introEq:Lp8}
711 > \end{equation}
712 > Or written another way,
713 > \begin{equation}
714 > eq here
715 > \label{intorEq:Lp9}
716 > \end{equation}
717 > This is the velocity Verlet formulation presented in
718 > Sec.~\ref{introSec:MDintegrate}.  Because this integration scheme is
719 > comprised of unitary propagators, it is symplectic, and therefore area
720 > preserving in phase space.  From the preceding factorization, one can
721 > see that the integration of the equations of motion would follow:
722 > \begin{enumerate}
723 > \item calculate the velocities at the half step, $\frac{\Delta t}{2}$, from the forces calculated at the initial position.
724  
725 < \subsection{\label{introSec:bilayers}A Mesoscale Model for
726 < Phospholipid Bilayers}
725 > \item Use the half step velocities to move positions one whole step, $\Delta t$.
726 >
727 > \item Evaluate the forces at the new positions, $\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)$, and use the new forces to complete the velocity move.
728 >
729 > \item Repeat from step 1 with the new position, velocities, and forces assuming the roles of the initial values.
730 > \end{enumerate}
731 >
732 > \subsubsection{\label{introSec:MDsymplecticRot} Symplectic Propagation of the Rotation Matrix}
733 >
734 > Based on the factorization from the previous section,
735 > Dullweber\emph{et al.}\cite{Dullweber:1997}~ proposed a scheme for the
736 > symplectic propagation of the rotation matrix, $\mathbf{A}$, as an
737 > alternative method for the integration of orientational degrees of
738 > freedom. The method starts with a straightforward splitting of the
739 > Liouville operator:
740 > \begin{equation}
741 > eq here
742 > \label{introEq:SR1}
743 > \end{equation}
744 > Where $\boldsymbol{\tau}(\mathbf{A})$ are the torques of the system
745 > due to the configuration, and $\boldsymbol{/pi}$ are the conjugate
746 > angular momenta of the system. The propagator, $G(\Delta t)$, becomes
747 > \begin{equation}
748 > eq here
749 > \label{introEq:SR2}
750 > \end{equation}
751 > Propagation of the linear and angular momenta follows as in the Verlet
752 > scheme.  The propagation of positions also follows the Verlet scheme
753 > with the addition of a further symplectic splitting of the rotation
754 > matrix propagation, $\mathcal{G}_{\text{rot}}(\Delta t)$.
755 > \begin{equation}
756 > eq here
757 > \label{introEq:SR3}
758 > \end{equation}
759 > Where $\mathcal{G}_j$ is a unitary rotation of $\mathbf{A}$ and
760 > $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ about each axis $j$.  As all propagations are now
761 > unitary and symplectic, the entire integration scheme is also
762 > symplectic and time reversible.
763 >
764 > \section{\label{introSec:layout}Dissertation Layout}
765 >
766 > This dissertation is divided as follows:Chapt.~\ref{chapt:RSA}
767 > presents the random sequential adsorption simulations of related
768 > pthalocyanines on a gold (111) surface. Ch.~\ref{chapt:OOPSE}
769 > is about the writing of the molecular dynamics simulation package
770 > {\sc oopse}, Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid} regards the simulations of
771 > phospholipid bilayers using a mesoscale model, and lastly,
772 > Ch.~\ref{chapt:conclusion} concludes this dissertation with a
773 > summary of all results. The chapters are arranged in chronological
774 > order, and reflect the progression of techniques I employed during my
775 > research.  
776 >
777 > The chapter concerning random sequential adsorption
778 > simulations is a study in applying the principles of theoretical
779 > research in order to obtain a simple model capable of explaining the
780 > results.  My advisor, Dr. Gezelter, and I were approached by a
781 > colleague, Dr. Lieberman, about possible explanations for partial
782 > coverage of a gold surface by a particular compound of hers. We
783 > suggested it might be due to the statistical packing fraction of disks
784 > on a plane, and set about to simulate this system.  As the events in
785 > our model were not dynamic in nature, a Monte Carlo method was
786 > employed.  Here, if a molecule landed on the surface without
787 > overlapping another, then its landing was accepted.  However, if there
788 > was overlap, the landing we rejected and a new random landing location
789 > was chosen.  This defined our acceptance rules and allowed us to
790 > construct a Markov chain whose limiting distribution was the surface
791 > coverage in which we were interested.
792 >
793 > The following chapter, about the simulation package {\sc oopse},
794 > describes in detail the large body of scientific code that had to be
795 > written in order to study phospholipid bilayer.  Although there are
796 > pre-existing molecular dynamic simulation packages available, none
797 > were capable of implementing the models we were developing.{\sc oopse}
798 > is a unique package capable of not only integrating the equations of
799 > motion in Cartesian space, but is also able to integrate the
800 > rotational motion of rigid bodies and dipoles.  Add to this the
801 > ability to perform calculations across parallel processors and a
802 > flexible script syntax for creating systems, and {\sc oopse} becomes a
803 > very powerful scientific instrument for the exploration of our model.
804 >
805 > Bringing us to Ch.~\ref{chapt:lipid}. Using {\sc oopse}, I have been
806 > able to parameterize a mesoscale model for phospholipid simulations.
807 > This model retains information about solvent ordering about the
808 > bilayer, as well as information regarding the interaction of the
809 > phospholipid head groups' dipole with each other and the surrounding
810 > solvent.  These simulations give us insight into the dynamic events
811 > that lead to the formation of phospholipid bilayers, as well as
812 > provide the foundation for future exploration of bilayer phase
813 > behavior with this model.  
814 >
815 > Which leads into the last chapter, where I discuss future directions
816 > for both{\sc oopse} and this mesoscale model.  Additionally, I will
817 > give a summary of results for this dissertation.
818 >
819 >

Diff Legend

Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines