26 |
|
% reprint,% |
27 |
|
%author-year,% |
28 |
|
%author-numerical,% |
29 |
< |
]{revtex4-1} |
29 |
> |
jcp]{revtex4-1} |
30 |
|
|
31 |
|
\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files |
32 |
|
\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point |
34 |
|
\usepackage{times} |
35 |
|
\usepackage[version=3]{mhchem} % this is a great package for formatting chemical reactions |
36 |
|
\usepackage{url} |
37 |
+ |
\usepackage{rotating} |
38 |
|
|
39 |
|
%\usepackage[mathlines]{lineno}% Enable numbering of text and display math |
40 |
|
%\linenumbers\relax % Commence numbering lines |
41 |
|
|
42 |
|
\begin{document} |
43 |
|
|
44 |
< |
\preprint{AIP/123-QED} |
44 |
> |
%\preprint{AIP/123-QED} |
45 |
|
|
46 |
< |
\title[Taylor-shifted and Gradient-shifted electrostatics for multipoles] |
46 |
< |
{Real space alternatives to the Ewald |
46 |
> |
\title{Real space alternatives to the Ewald |
47 |
|
Sum. I. Taylor-shifted and Gradient-shifted electrostatics for multipoles} |
48 |
|
|
49 |
|
\author{Madan Lamichhane} |
76 |
|
results for ordered arrays of multipoles. |
77 |
|
\end{abstract} |
78 |
|
|
79 |
< |
\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy |
79 |
> |
%\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy |
80 |
|
% Classification Scheme. |
81 |
< |
\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword |
81 |
> |
%\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword |
82 |
|
%display desired |
83 |
|
\maketitle |
84 |
|
|
98 |
|
The computational efficiency and the accuracy of the DSF method are |
99 |
|
surprisingly good, particularly for systems with uniform charge |
100 |
|
density. Additionally, dielectric constants obtained using DSF and |
101 |
< |
similar methods where the force vanishes at $R_\textrm{c}$ are |
101 |
> |
similar methods where the force vanishes at $r_{c}$ are |
102 |
|
essentially quantitative.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo} The DSF and other |
103 |
|
related methods have now been widely investigated,\cite{Hansen:2012uq} |
104 |
< |
and DSF is now used routinely in simulations of ionic |
105 |
< |
liquids,\cite{doi:10.1021/la400226g,McCann:2013fk} flow in carbon |
106 |
< |
nanotubes,\cite{kannam:094701} gas sorption in metal-organic framework |
107 |
< |
materials,\cite{Forrest:2012ly} thermal conductivity of methane |
108 |
< |
hydrates,\cite{English:2008kx} condensation coefficients of |
109 |
< |
water,\cite{Louden:2013ve} and in tribology at solid-liquid-solid |
110 |
< |
interfaces.\cite{Tokumasu:2013zr} DSF electrostatics provides a |
111 |
< |
compromise between the computational speed of real-space cutoffs and |
112 |
< |
the accuracy of fully-periodic Ewald treatments. |
104 |
> |
and DSF is now used routinely in a diverse set of chemical |
105 |
> |
environments.\cite{doi:10.1021/la400226g,McCann:2013fk,kannam:094701,Forrest:2012ly,English:2008kx,Louden:2013ve,Tokumasu:2013zr} |
106 |
> |
DSF electrostatics provides a compromise between the computational |
107 |
> |
speed of real-space cutoffs and the accuracy of fully-periodic Ewald |
108 |
> |
treatments. |
109 |
|
|
114 |
– |
\subsection{Coarse Graining using Point Multipoles} |
110 |
|
One common feature of many coarse-graining approaches, which treat |
111 |
|
entire molecular subsystems as a single rigid body, is simplification |
112 |
|
of the electrostatic interactions between these bodies so that fewer |
113 |
|
site-site interactions are required to compute configurational |
114 |
< |
energies. Notably, the force matching approaches of Voth and coworkers |
115 |
< |
are an exciting development in their ability to represent realistic |
116 |
< |
(and {\it reactive}) chemical systems for very large length scales and |
122 |
< |
long times. This approach utilized a coarse-graining in interaction |
123 |
< |
space (CGIS) which fits an effective force for the coarse grained |
124 |
< |
system using a variational force-matching method to a fine-grained |
125 |
< |
simulation.\cite{Izvekov:2008wo} |
114 |
> |
energies. To do this, the interactions between coarse-grained sites |
115 |
> |
are typically taken to be point |
116 |
> |
multipoles.\cite{Golubkov06,ISI:000276097500009,ISI:000298664400012} |
117 |
|
|
118 |
< |
The coarse-graining approaches of Ren \& coworkers,\cite{Golubkov06} |
119 |
< |
and Essex \& |
120 |
< |
coworkers,\cite{ISI:000276097500009,ISI:000298664400012} |
121 |
< |
both utilize Gay-Berne |
122 |
< |
ellipsoids~\cite{Berne72,Gay81,Luckhurst90,Cleaver96,Berardi98,Ravichandran:1999fk,Berardi99,Pasterny00} |
123 |
< |
to model dispersive interactions and point multipoles to model |
124 |
< |
electrostatics for entire molecules or functional groups. |
125 |
< |
|
135 |
< |
Ichiye and coworkers have recently introduced a number of very fast |
136 |
< |
water models based on a ``sticky'' multipole model which are |
137 |
< |
qualitatively better at reproducing the behavior of real water than |
138 |
< |
the more common point-charge models (SPC/E, TIPnP). The point charge |
139 |
< |
models are also substantially more computationally demanding than the |
140 |
< |
sticky multipole |
141 |
< |
approach.\cite{Chowdhuri:2006lr,Te:2010rt,Te:2010ys,Te:2010vn} The |
142 |
< |
SSDQO model requires the use of an approximate multipole expansion |
143 |
< |
(AME) as the exact multipole expansion is quite expensive |
144 |
< |
(particularly when handled via the Ewald sum).\cite{Ichiye:2006qy} |
145 |
< |
Another particularly important use of point multipoles (and multipole |
146 |
< |
polarizability) is in the very high-quality AMOEBA water model and |
118 |
> |
Water, in particular, has been modeled recently with point multipoles |
119 |
> |
up to octupolar |
120 |
> |
order.\cite{Chowdhuri:2006lr,Te:2010rt,Te:2010ys,Te:2010vn} For |
121 |
> |
maximum efficiency, these models require the use of an approximate |
122 |
> |
multipole expansion as the exact multipole expansion can become quite |
123 |
> |
expensive (particularly when handled via the Ewald |
124 |
> |
sum).\cite{Ichiye:2006qy} Point multipoles and multipole |
125 |
> |
polarizability have also been utilized in the AMOEBA water model and |
126 |
|
related force fields.\cite{Ponder:2010fk,schnieders:124114,Ren:2011uq} |
127 |
|
|
128 |
|
Higher-order multipoles present a peculiar issue for molecular |
133 |
|
a different orientation can cause energy discontinuities. |
134 |
|
|
135 |
|
This paper outlines an extension of the original DSF electrostatic |
136 |
< |
kernel to point multipoles. We have developed two distinct real-space |
136 |
> |
kernel to point multipoles. We describe two distinct real-space |
137 |
|
interaction models for higher-order multipoles based on two truncated |
138 |
|
Taylor expansions that are carried out at the cutoff radius. We are |
139 |
|
calling these models {\bf Taylor-shifted} and {\bf Gradient-shifted} |
140 |
|
electrostatics. Because of differences in the initial assumptions, |
141 |
< |
the two methods yield related, but different expressions for energies, |
142 |
< |
forces, and torques. |
141 |
> |
the two methods yield related, but somewhat different expressions for |
142 |
> |
energies, forces, and torques. |
143 |
|
|
144 |
|
In this paper we outline the new methodology and give functional forms |
145 |
|
for the energies, forces, and torques up to quadrupole-quadrupole |
146 |
|
order. We also compare the new methods to analytic energy constants |
147 |
< |
for periodic arrays of point multipoles. In the following paper, we |
148 |
< |
provide extensive numerical comparisons to Ewald-based electrostatics |
149 |
< |
in common simulation enviornments. |
147 |
> |
for periodic arrays of point multipoles. In the following paper, we |
148 |
> |
provide numerical comparisons to Ewald-based electrostatics in common |
149 |
> |
simulation enviornments. |
150 |
|
|
151 |
|
\section{Methodology} |
152 |
+ |
An efficient real-space electrostatic method involves the use of a |
153 |
+ |
pair-wise functional form, |
154 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
155 |
+ |
V = \sum_i \sum_{j>i} V_\mathrm{pair}(r_{ij}, \Omega_i, \Omega_j) + |
156 |
+ |
\sum_i V_i^\mathrm{self} |
157 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
158 |
+ |
that is short-ranged and easily truncated at a cutoff radius, |
159 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
160 |
+ |
V_\mathrm{pair}(r_{ij},\Omega_i, \Omega_j) = \left\{ |
161 |
+ |
\begin{array}{ll} |
162 |
+ |
V_\mathrm{approx} (r_{ij}, \Omega_i, \Omega_j) & \quad r \le r_c \\ |
163 |
+ |
0 & \quad r > r_c , |
164 |
+ |
\end{array} |
165 |
+ |
\right. |
166 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
167 |
+ |
along with an easily computed self-interaction term ($\sum_i |
168 |
+ |
V_i^\mathrm{self}$) which has linear-scaling with the number of |
169 |
+ |
particles. Here $\Omega_i$ and $\Omega_j$ represent orientational |
170 |
+ |
coordinates of the two sites. The computational efficiency, energy |
171 |
+ |
conservation, and even some physical properties of a simulation can |
172 |
+ |
depend dramatically on how the $V_\mathrm{approx}$ function behaves at |
173 |
+ |
the cutoff radius. The goal of any approximation method should be to |
174 |
+ |
mimic the real behavior of the electrostatic interactions as closely |
175 |
+ |
as possible without sacrificing the near-linear scaling of a cutoff |
176 |
+ |
method. |
177 |
|
|
178 |
|
\subsection{Self-neutralization, damping, and force-shifting} |
179 |
|
The DSF and Wolf methods operate by neutralizing the total charge |
180 |
|
contained within the cutoff sphere surrounding each particle. This is |
181 |
|
accomplished by shifting the potential functions to generate image |
182 |
|
charges on the surface of the cutoff sphere for each pair interaction |
183 |
< |
computed within $R_\textrm{c}$. Damping using a complementary error |
183 |
> |
computed within $r_c$. Damping using a complementary error |
184 |
|
function is applied to the potential to accelerate convergence. The |
185 |
|
potential for the DSF method, where $\alpha$ is the adjustable damping |
186 |
|
parameter, is given by |
187 |
|
\begin{equation*} |
188 |
< |
V_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = C_a C_b \Biggr{[} |
188 |
> |
V_\mathrm{DSF}(r) = C_i C_j \Biggr{[} |
189 |
|
\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}} |
190 |
< |
- \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} + \left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha R_\mathrm{c}\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}^2} |
190 |
> |
- \frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_c\right)}{r_c} + \left(\frac{\mathrm{erfc}\left(\alpha r_c\right)}{r_c^2} |
191 |
|
+ \frac{2\alpha}{\pi^{1/2}} |
192 |
< |
\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2R_\mathrm{c}^2\right)}{R_\mathrm{c}} |
193 |
< |
\right)\left(r_{ij}-R_\mathrm{c}\right)\ \Biggr{]} |
192 |
> |
\frac{\exp\left(-\alpha^2r_c^2\right)}{r_c} |
193 |
> |
\right)\left(r_{ij}-r_c\right)\ \Biggr{]} |
194 |
|
\label{eq:DSFPot} |
195 |
|
\end{equation*} |
196 |
+ |
Note that in this potential and in all electrostatic quantities that |
197 |
+ |
follow, the standard $1/4 \pi \epsilon_{0}$ has been omitted for |
198 |
+ |
clarity. |
199 |
|
|
200 |
|
To insure net charge neutrality within each cutoff sphere, an |
201 |
|
additional ``self'' term is added to the potential. This term is |
206 |
|
over the surface of the cutoff sphere. A portion of the self term is |
207 |
|
identical to the self term in the Ewald summation, and comes from the |
208 |
|
utilization of the complimentary error function for electrostatic |
209 |
< |
damping.\cite{deLeeuw80,Wolf99} |
209 |
> |
damping.\cite{deLeeuw80,Wolf99} There have also been recent efforts to |
210 |
> |
extend the Wolf self-neutralization method to zero out the dipole and |
211 |
> |
higher order multipoles contained within the cutoff |
212 |
> |
sphere.\cite{Fukuda:2011jk,Fukuda:2012yu,Fukuda:2013qv} |
213 |
|
|
214 |
< |
There have been recent efforts to extend the Wolf self-neutralization |
215 |
< |
method to zero out the dipole and higher order multipoles contained |
216 |
< |
within the cutoff |
217 |
< |
sphere.\cite{Fukuda:2011jk,Fukuda:2012yu,Fukuda:2013qv} |
218 |
< |
|
219 |
< |
In this work, we will be extending the idea of self-neutralization for |
220 |
< |
the point multipoles in a similar way. In Figure |
221 |
< |
\ref{fig:shiftedMultipoles}, the central dipolar site $\mathbf{D}_i$ |
222 |
< |
is interacting with point dipole $\mathbf{D}_j$ and point quadrupole, |
213 |
< |
$\mathbf{Q}_k$. The self-neutralization scheme for point multipoles |
214 |
< |
involves projecting opposing multipoles for sites $j$ and $k$ on the |
215 |
< |
surface of the cutoff sphere. |
214 |
> |
In this work, we extend the idea of self-neutralization for the point |
215 |
> |
multipoles by insuring net charge-neutrality and net-zero moments |
216 |
> |
within each cutoff sphere. In Figure \ref{fig:shiftedMultipoles}, the |
217 |
> |
central dipolar site $\mathbf{D}_i$ is interacting with point dipole |
218 |
> |
$\mathbf{D}_j$ and point quadrupole, $\mathbf{Q}_k$. The |
219 |
> |
self-neutralization scheme for point multipoles involves projecting |
220 |
> |
opposing multipoles for sites $j$ and $k$ on the surface of the cutoff |
221 |
> |
sphere. There are also significant modifications made to make the |
222 |
> |
forces and torques go smoothly to zero at the cutoff distance. |
223 |
|
|
224 |
|
\begin{figure} |
225 |
|
\includegraphics[width=3in]{SM} |
229 |
|
\label{fig:shiftedMultipoles} |
230 |
|
\end{figure} |
231 |
|
|
232 |
< |
As in the point-charge approach, there is a contribution from |
233 |
< |
self-neutralization of site $i$. The self term for multipoles is |
232 |
> |
As in the point-charge approach, there is an additional contribution |
233 |
> |
from self-neutralization of site $i$. The self term for multipoles is |
234 |
|
described in section \ref{sec:selfTerm}. |
235 |
|
|
236 |
|
\subsection{The multipole expansion} |
244 |
|
a$. Then the electrostatic potential of object $\bf a$ at |
245 |
|
$\mathbf{r}$ is given by |
246 |
|
\begin{equation} |
247 |
< |
V_a(\mathbf r) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} |
247 |
> |
V_a(\mathbf r) = |
248 |
|
\sum_{k \, \text{in \bf a}} \frac{q_k}{\lvert \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_k \rvert}. |
249 |
|
\end{equation} |
250 |
|
The Taylor expansion in $r$ can be written using an implied summation |
263 |
|
can then be used to express the electrostatic potential on $\bf a$ in |
264 |
|
terms of multipole operators, |
265 |
|
\begin{equation} |
266 |
< |
V_{\bf a}(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\hat{M}_{\bf a} \frac{1}{r} |
266 |
> |
V_{\bf a}(\mathbf{r}) =\hat{M}_{\bf a} \frac{1}{r} |
267 |
|
\end{equation} |
268 |
|
where |
269 |
|
\begin{equation} |
288 |
|
$\bf a$ to $\bf b$ ($\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_b - \mathbf{r}_b $), the interaction energy is given by |
289 |
|
\begin{equation} |
290 |
|
U_{\bf{ab}}(r) |
291 |
< |
= \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \hat{M}_a \sum_{j \, \text{in \bf b}} \frac {q_j}{\vert \bf{r}+\bf{r}_j \vert} . |
291 |
> |
= \hat{M}_a \sum_{j \, \text{in \bf b}} \frac {q_j}{\vert \bf{r}+\bf{r}_j \vert} . |
292 |
|
\end{equation} |
293 |
|
This can also be expanded as a Taylor series in $r$. Using a notation |
294 |
|
similar to before to define the multipoles on object {\bf b}, |
299 |
|
\end{equation} |
300 |
|
we arrive at the multipole expression for the total interaction energy. |
301 |
|
\begin{equation} |
302 |
< |
U_{\bf{ab}}(r)=\frac{\hat{M}_{\bf a} \hat{M}_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{1}{r} \label{kernel}. |
302 |
> |
U_{\bf{ab}}(r)=\hat{M}_{\bf a} \hat{M}_{\bf b} \frac{1}{r} \label{kernel}. |
303 |
|
\end{equation} |
304 |
|
This form has the benefit of separating out the energies of |
305 |
|
interaction into contributions from the charge, dipole, and quadrupole |
306 |
< |
of $\bf a$ interacting with the same multipoles $\bf b$. |
306 |
> |
of $\bf a$ interacting with the same multipoles on $\bf b$. |
307 |
|
|
308 |
|
\subsection{Damped Coulomb interactions} |
309 |
|
In the standard multipole expansion, one typically uses the bare |
318 |
|
\int_{\alpha r}^{\infty} \text{e}^{-s^2} ds . |
319 |
|
\end{equation} |
320 |
|
We develop equations below using the function $f(r)$ to represent |
321 |
< |
either $1/r$ or $B_0(r)$, and all of the techniques can be applied |
322 |
< |
either to bare or damped Coulomb kernels as long as derivatives of |
323 |
< |
these functions are known. Smith's convenient functions $B_l(r)$ are |
324 |
< |
summarized in Appendix A. |
321 |
> |
either $1/r$ or $B_0(r)$, and all of the techniques can be applied to |
322 |
> |
bare or damped Coulomb kernels (or any other function) as long as |
323 |
> |
derivatives of these functions are known. Smith's convenient |
324 |
> |
functions $B_l(r)$ are summarized in Appendix A. |
325 |
|
|
319 |
– |
\subsection{Taylor-shifted force (TSF) electrostatics} |
320 |
– |
|
326 |
|
The main goal of this work is to smoothly cut off the interaction |
327 |
|
energy as well as forces and torques as $r\rightarrow r_c$. To |
328 |
|
describe how this goal may be met, we use two examples, charge-charge |
329 |
< |
and charge-dipole, using the bare Coulomb kernel $f(r)=1/r$ to explain |
330 |
< |
the idea. |
329 |
> |
and charge-dipole, using the bare Coulomb kernel, $f(r)=1/r$, to |
330 |
> |
explain the idea. |
331 |
|
|
332 |
+ |
\subsection{Shifted-force methods} |
333 |
|
In the shifted-force approximation, the interaction energy for two |
334 |
|
charges $C_{\bf a}$ and $C_{\bf b}$ separated by a distance $r$ is |
335 |
|
written: |
336 |
|
\begin{equation} |
337 |
< |
U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b} |
337 |
> |
U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)= C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b} |
338 |
|
\left({ \frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{r_c} + (r - r_c) \frac{1}{r_c^2} } |
339 |
|
\right) . |
340 |
|
\end{equation} |
341 |
|
Two shifting terms appear in this equations, one from the |
342 |
< |
neutralization procedure ($-1/r_c$), and one that will make the first |
343 |
< |
derivative also vanish at the cutoff radius. |
342 |
> |
neutralization procedure ($-1/r_c$), and one that causes the first |
343 |
> |
derivative to vanish at the cutoff radius. |
344 |
|
|
345 |
|
Since one derivative of the interaction energy is needed for the |
346 |
|
force, the minimal perturbation is a term linear in $(r-r_c)$ in the |
351 |
|
\right) = \left(- \frac{1}{r^2} + \frac{1}{r_c^2} |
352 |
|
\right) . |
353 |
|
\end{equation} |
354 |
< |
There are a number of ways to generalize this derivative shift for |
355 |
< |
higher-order multipoles. |
354 |
> |
which clearly vanishes as the $r$ approaches the cutoff radius. There |
355 |
> |
are a number of ways to generalize this derivative shift for |
356 |
> |
higher-order multipoles. Below, we present two methods, one based on |
357 |
> |
higher-order Taylor series for $r$ near $r_c$, and the other based on |
358 |
> |
linear shift of the kernel gradients at the cutoff itself. |
359 |
|
|
360 |
+ |
\subsection{Taylor-shifted force (TSF) electrostatics} |
361 |
|
In the Taylor-shifted force (TSF) method, the procedure that we follow |
362 |
|
is based on a Taylor expansion containing the same number of |
363 |
|
derivatives required for each force term to vanish at the cutoff. For |
364 |
|
example, the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction energy requires four |
365 |
|
derivatives of the kernel, and the force requires one additional |
366 |
< |
derivative. We therefore require shifted energy expressions that |
367 |
< |
include enough terms so that all energies, forces, and torques are |
368 |
< |
zero as $r \rightarrow r_c$. In each case, we will subtract off a |
369 |
< |
function $f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$ from the kernel $f(r)=1/r$. The |
370 |
< |
index $n$ indicates the number of derivatives to be taken when |
371 |
< |
deriving a given multipole energy. We choose a function with |
372 |
< |
guaranteed smooth derivatives --- a truncated Taylor series of the |
373 |
< |
function $f(r)$, e.g., |
366 |
> |
derivative. For quadrupole-quadrupole interactions, we therefore |
367 |
> |
require shifted energy expressions that include up to $(r-r_c)^5$ so |
368 |
> |
that all energies, forces, and torques are zero as $r \rightarrow |
369 |
> |
r_c$. In each case, we subtract off a function $f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$ |
370 |
> |
from the kernel $f(r)=1/r$. The subscript $n$ indicates the number of |
371 |
> |
derivatives to be taken when deriving a given multipole energy. We |
372 |
> |
choose a function with guaranteed smooth derivatives -- a truncated |
373 |
> |
Taylor series of the function $f(r)$, e.g., |
374 |
|
% |
375 |
|
\begin{equation} |
376 |
< |
f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} . |
376 |
> |
f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} f^{(m)}(r_c) . |
377 |
|
\end{equation} |
378 |
|
% |
379 |
|
The combination of $f(r)$ with the shifted function is denoted $f_n(r)=f(r)-f_n^{\text{shift}}(r)$. |
388 |
|
% |
389 |
|
\begin{equation} |
390 |
|
U_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)= |
391 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac {\partial f_1(r) }{\partial r_\alpha} |
392 |
< |
=\frac{ C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
391 |
> |
C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha} \frac {\partial f_1(r) }{\partial r_\alpha} |
392 |
> |
= C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha} |
393 |
|
\frac {r_\alpha}{r} \frac {\partial f_1(r)}{\partial r} . |
394 |
|
\end{equation} |
395 |
|
% |
396 |
< |
The force that dipole $\bf b$ puts on charge $\bf a$ is |
396 |
> |
The force that dipole $\bf b$ exerts on charge $\bf a$ is |
397 |
|
% |
398 |
|
\begin{equation} |
399 |
< |
F_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}\beta} =\frac{ C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
399 |
> |
F_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}\beta} = C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha} |
400 |
|
\left[ \frac{\delta_{\alpha\beta}}{r} \frac {\partial}{\partial r} + |
401 |
|
\frac{r_\alpha r_\beta}{r^2} |
402 |
|
\left( -\frac{1}{r} \frac {\partial} {\partial r} |
403 |
|
+ \frac {\partial ^2} {\partial r^2} \right) \right] f_1(r) . |
404 |
|
\end{equation} |
405 |
|
% |
406 |
< |
For $f(r)=1/r$, we find |
406 |
> |
For undamped coulombic interactions, $f(r)=1/r$, we find |
407 |
|
% |
408 |
|
\begin{equation} |
409 |
|
F_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}\beta} = |
410 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\beta} }{4\pi \epsilon_0r} |
410 |
> |
\frac{C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\beta}}{r} |
411 |
|
\left[ -\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r_c^2}-\frac{2(r-r_c)}{r_c^3} \right] |
412 |
< |
+\frac{C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha}r_\alpha r_\beta }{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
412 |
> |
+C_{\bf a} D_{{\bf b}\alpha}r_\alpha r_\beta |
413 |
|
\left[ \frac{3}{r^5}-\frac{3}{r^3r_c^2} \right] . |
414 |
|
\end{equation} |
415 |
|
% |
416 |
|
This expansion shows the expected $1/r^3$ dependence of the force. |
417 |
|
|
418 |
< |
In general, we write |
418 |
> |
In general, we can write |
419 |
|
% |
420 |
|
\begin{equation} |
421 |
< |
U=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r) |
421 |
> |
U= (\text{prefactor}) (\text{derivatives}) f_n(r) |
422 |
|
\label{generic} |
423 |
|
\end{equation} |
424 |
|
% |
425 |
< |
where $n=0$ for charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for charge-quadrupole |
426 |
< |
and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and $n=4$ for quadrupole-quadrupole. |
427 |
< |
An example is the case of quadrupole-quadrupole for which the $\text{prefactor}$ is |
428 |
< |
$Q_{{\bf a}\alpha\beta}Q_{{\bf b}\gamma\delta}$ and the derivatives are |
429 |
< |
$\partial^4/\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta \partial r_\gamma \partial r_\delta$, with |
430 |
< |
implied summation combining the space indices. |
425 |
> |
with $n=0$ for charge-charge, $n=1$ for charge-dipole, $n=2$ for |
426 |
> |
charge-quadrupole and dipole-dipole, $n=3$ for dipole-quadrupole, and |
427 |
> |
$n=4$ for quadrupole-quadrupole. For example, in |
428 |
> |
quadrupole-quadrupole interactions for which the $\text{prefactor}$ is |
429 |
> |
$Q_{{\bf a}\alpha\beta}Q_{{\bf b}\gamma\delta}$, the derivatives are |
430 |
> |
$\partial^4/\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta \partial |
431 |
> |
r_\gamma \partial r_\delta$, with implied summation combining the |
432 |
> |
space indices. |
433 |
|
|
434 |
< |
To apply this method to the smeared-charge approach, |
435 |
< |
we write $f(r)=\text{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$. By using one function $f(r)$ for both |
436 |
< |
approaches, we simplify the tabulation of equations used. Because |
437 |
< |
of the many derivatives that are taken, the algebra is tedious and are summarized |
438 |
< |
in Appendices A and B. |
434 |
> |
In the formulas presented in the tables below, the placeholder |
435 |
> |
function $f(r)$ is used to represent the electrostatic kernel (either |
436 |
> |
damped or undamped). The main functions that go into the force and |
437 |
> |
torque terms, $g_n(r), h_n(r), s_n(r), \mathrm{~and~} t_n(r)$ are |
438 |
> |
successive derivatives of the shifted electrostatic kernel, $f_n(r)$ |
439 |
> |
of the same index $n$. The algebra required to evaluate energies, |
440 |
> |
forces and torques is somewhat tedious, so only the final forms are |
441 |
> |
presented in tables \ref{tab:tableenergy} and \ref{tab:tableFORCE}. |
442 |
|
|
443 |
|
\subsection{Gradient-shifted force (GSF) electrostatics} |
444 |
< |
|
445 |
< |
Note the method used in the previous subsection to shift a force is basically that of using |
446 |
< |
a truncated Taylor Series in the radius $r$. An alternate method exists, best explained by |
447 |
< |
writing one shifted formula for all interaction energies $U(r)$: |
444 |
> |
The second, and conceptually simpler approach to force-shifting |
445 |
> |
maintains only the linear $(r-r_c)$ term in the truncated Taylor |
446 |
> |
expansion, and has a similar interaction energy for all multipole |
447 |
> |
orders: |
448 |
|
\begin{equation} |
449 |
< |
U^{\text{shift}}(r)=U(r)-U(r_c)-(r-r_c)\hat{r}\cdot \nabla U(r) \Big \lvert _{r_c} . |
449 |
> |
U^{\text{GSF}} = |
450 |
> |
U(\mathbf{r}, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - |
451 |
> |
U(\mathbf{r}_c,\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - (r-r_c) \hat{r} |
452 |
> |
\cdot \nabla U(\mathbf{r},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) \Big \lvert _{r_c} . |
453 |
> |
\label{generic2} |
454 |
|
\end{equation} |
455 |
< |
Note that this method uses only the linear term, $(r-r_c)$ in the Taylor series, no higher order terms |
456 |
< |
$(r-r_c)^n$ appear. The primary difference between methods 1 and 2 originates |
457 |
< |
with the stage in the derivation where the Taylor Series is applied; in method 1, it is applied to the |
458 |
< |
kernel. In method 2, it is applied to individual interaction energies of the multipole expansion. |
459 |
< |
Terms from this method thus have the general form: |
455 |
> |
Both the potential and the gradient for force shifting are evaluated |
456 |
> |
for an image multipole projected onto the surface of the cutoff sphere |
457 |
> |
(see fig \ref{fig:shiftedMultipoles}). The image multipole retains |
458 |
> |
the orientation ($\hat{\mathbf{b}}$) of the interacting multipole. No |
459 |
> |
higher order terms $(r-r_c)^n$ appear. The primary difference between |
460 |
> |
the TSF and GSF methods is the stage at which the Taylor Series is |
461 |
> |
applied; in the Taylor-shifted approach, it is applied to the kernel |
462 |
> |
itself. In the Gradient-shifted approach, it is applied to individual |
463 |
> |
radial interactions terms in the multipole expansion. Energies from |
464 |
> |
this method thus have the general form: |
465 |
|
\begin{equation} |
466 |
< |
U=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\sum (\text{angular factor}) (\text{radial factor}). |
467 |
< |
\label{generic2} |
466 |
> |
U= \sum (\text{angular factor}) (\text{radial factor}). |
467 |
> |
\label{generic3} |
468 |
|
\end{equation} |
469 |
|
|
470 |
< |
Results for both methods can be summarized using the form of Eq.~(\ref{generic2}) |
471 |
< |
and are listed in Table I below. |
470 |
> |
Functional forms for both methods (TSF and GSF) can both be summarized |
471 |
> |
using the form of Eq.~(\ref{generic3}). The basic forms for the |
472 |
> |
energy, force, and torque expressions are tabulated for both shifting |
473 |
> |
approaches below -- for each separate orientational contribution, only |
474 |
> |
the radial factors differ between the two methods. |
475 |
|
|
476 |
|
\subsection{\label{sec:level2}Body and space axes} |
477 |
+ |
Although objects $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ rotate during a molecular |
478 |
+ |
dynamics (MD) simulation, their multipole tensors remain fixed in |
479 |
+ |
body-frame coordinates. While deriving force and torque expressions, |
480 |
+ |
it is therefore convenient to write the energies, forces, and torques |
481 |
+ |
in intermediate forms involving the vectors of the rotation matrices. |
482 |
+ |
We denote body axes for objects $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ using unit vectors |
483 |
+ |
$\hat{a}_m$ and $\hat{b}_m$, respectively, with the index $m=(123)$. |
484 |
+ |
In a typical simulation , the initial axes are obtained by |
485 |
+ |
diagonalizing the moment of inertia tensors for the objects. (N.B., |
486 |
+ |
the body axes are generally {\it not} the same as those for which the |
487 |
+ |
quadrupole moment is diagonal.) The rotation matrices are then |
488 |
+ |
propagated during the simulation. |
489 |
|
|
490 |
< |
Up to this point, all energies and forces have been written in terms of fixed space |
491 |
< |
coordinates $x$, $y$, $z$. Interaction energies are computed from the generic formulas Eq.~(\ref{generic}) and ~(\ref{generic2}) which |
453 |
< |
combine prefactors with radial functions. But because objects |
454 |
< |
$\bf a$ and $\bf b$ both translate and rotate as part of a MD simulation, |
455 |
< |
it is desirable to contract all $r$-dependent terms with dipole and quadrupole |
456 |
< |
moments expressed in terms of their body axes. |
457 |
< |
Since the interaction energy expressions will be used to derive both forces and torques, |
458 |
< |
we follow here the development of Allen and Germano, which was itself based on an |
459 |
< |
earlier paper by Price \em et al.\em |
460 |
< |
|
461 |
< |
Denote body axes for objects $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ by unit vectors |
462 |
< |
$\hat{a}_m$ and $\hat{b}_m$, respectively, with the index $m=(123)$ referring to a convenient |
463 |
< |
set of inertial body axes. (Note, these body axes are generally not the same as those for which the |
464 |
< |
quadrupole moment is diagonal.) Then, |
465 |
< |
% |
490 |
> |
The rotation matrices $\hat{\mathbf {a}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf {b}}$ can be |
491 |
> |
expressed using these unit vectors: |
492 |
|
\begin{eqnarray} |
467 |
– |
\hat{a}_m= a_{mx}\hat{x} + a_{my}\hat{y} + a_{mz}\hat{z} \\ |
468 |
– |
\hat{b}_m= b_{mx}\hat{x} + b_{my}\hat{y} + b_{mz}\hat{z} . |
469 |
– |
\end{eqnarray} |
470 |
– |
Allen and Germano define matrices $\hat{\mathbf {a}}$ |
471 |
– |
and $\hat{\mathbf {b}}$ using these unit vectors: |
472 |
– |
\begin{eqnarray} |
493 |
|
\hat{\mathbf {a}} = |
494 |
|
\begin{pmatrix} |
495 |
|
\hat{a}_1 \\ |
496 |
|
\hat{a}_2 \\ |
497 |
|
\hat{a}_3 |
498 |
< |
\end{pmatrix} |
479 |
< |
= |
480 |
< |
\begin{pmatrix} |
481 |
< |
a_{1x} \quad a_{1y} \quad a_{1z} \\ |
482 |
< |
a_{2x} \quad a_{2y} \quad a_{2z} \\ |
483 |
< |
a_{3x} \quad a_{3y} \quad a_{3z} |
484 |
< |
\end{pmatrix}\\ |
498 |
> |
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad |
499 |
|
\hat{\mathbf {b}} = |
500 |
|
\begin{pmatrix} |
501 |
|
\hat{b}_1 \\ |
502 |
|
\hat{b}_2 \\ |
503 |
|
\hat{b}_3 |
504 |
|
\end{pmatrix} |
491 |
– |
= |
492 |
– |
\begin{pmatrix} |
493 |
– |
b_{1x}\quad b_{1y} \quad b_{1z} \\ |
494 |
– |
b_{2x} \quad b_{2y} \quad b_{2z} \\ |
495 |
– |
b_{3x} \quad b_{3y} \quad b_{3z} |
496 |
– |
\end{pmatrix} . |
505 |
|
\end{eqnarray} |
506 |
|
% |
507 |
< |
These matrices convert from space-fixed $(xyz)$ to object-fixed $(123)$ coordinates. |
508 |
< |
All contractions of prefactors with derivatives of functions can be written in terms of these matrices. |
509 |
< |
It proves to be equally convenient to just write any contraction in terms of unit vectors |
510 |
< |
$\hat{r}$, $\hat{a}_m$, and $\hat{b}_n$. |
511 |
< |
We have found it useful to write angular-dependent terms in three different fashions, |
512 |
< |
illustrated by the following |
513 |
< |
three examples from the interaction-energy expressions: |
507 |
> |
These matrices convert from space-fixed $(xyz)$ to body-fixed $(123)$ |
508 |
> |
coordinates. |
509 |
> |
|
510 |
> |
Allen and Germano,\cite{Allen:2006fk} following earlier work by Price |
511 |
> |
{\em et al.},\cite{Price:1984fk} showed that if the interaction |
512 |
> |
energies are written explicitly in terms of $\hat{r}$ and the body |
513 |
> |
axes ($\hat{a}_m$, $\hat{b}_n$) : |
514 |
|
% |
515 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
516 |
+ |
U(r, \{\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r} \}, |
517 |
+ |
\{\hat{b}_n\cdot \hat{r} \}, |
518 |
+ |
\{\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n \}) . |
519 |
+ |
\label{ugeneral} |
520 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
521 |
+ |
% |
522 |
+ |
the forces come out relatively cleanly, |
523 |
+ |
% |
524 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
525 |
+ |
\mathbf{F}_{\bf a}=-\mathbf{F}_{\bf b} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
526 |
+ |
= \frac{\partial U}{\partial r} \hat{r} |
527 |
+ |
+ \sum_m \left[ |
528 |
+ |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
529 |
+ |
\frac { \partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
530 |
+ |
+ \frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
531 |
+ |
\frac { \partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
532 |
+ |
\right] \label{forceequation}. |
533 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
534 |
+ |
|
535 |
+ |
The torques can also be found in a relatively similar |
536 |
+ |
manner, |
537 |
+ |
% |
538 |
|
\begin{eqnarray} |
539 |
< |
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
540 |
< |
=D_{\bf {a}\alpha} D_{\bf {b}\alpha}= |
541 |
< |
\sum_{mn} {D_{\mathbf{a}m} \hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n D_{\mathbf{b}n}} \\ |
542 |
< |
r^2 \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right)= |
543 |
< |
r_\alpha Q_{\bf b \alpha \beta} r_\beta = r^2 |
544 |
< |
\sum_{mn}(\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) \\ |
545 |
< |
r ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot |
546 |
< |
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r})= |
547 |
< |
D_{\bf {a}\alpha} Q_{\bf b \alpha \beta} r_\beta |
548 |
< |
=r \sum_{lmn} D_{\mathbf{a}l} (\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_m ) Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} |
549 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) . |
539 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{\bf a} = |
540 |
> |
\sum_m |
541 |
> |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
542 |
> |
( \hat{r} \times \hat{a}_m ) |
543 |
> |
-\sum_{mn} |
544 |
> |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n)} |
545 |
> |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) \\ |
546 |
> |
% |
547 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{\bf b} = |
548 |
> |
\sum_m |
549 |
> |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
550 |
> |
( \hat{r} \times \hat{b}_m) |
551 |
> |
+\sum_{mn} |
552 |
> |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n)} |
553 |
> |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) . |
554 |
|
\end{eqnarray} |
555 |
+ |
|
556 |
+ |
Note that our definition of $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_b - \mathbf{r}_b $ |
557 |
+ |
is opposite in sign to that of Allen and Germano.\cite{Allen:2006fk} |
558 |
+ |
We also made use of the identities, |
559 |
|
% |
560 |
< |
[Dan, perhaps there are better examples to show here.] |
560 |
> |
\begin{align} |
561 |
> |
\frac { \partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
562 |
> |
=& \frac{1}{r} \left( \hat{a}_m - (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} |
563 |
> |
\right) \\ |
564 |
> |
\frac { \partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
565 |
> |
=& \frac{1}{r} \left( \hat{b}_m - (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} |
566 |
> |
\right) . |
567 |
> |
\end{align} |
568 |
|
|
569 |
< |
In each line, the first two terms are written using space coordinates. The first form is standard |
570 |
< |
in the chemistry literature, and the second is ``physicist style'' using implied summation notation. The third |
571 |
< |
form shows explicitly sums over body indices and the dot products now indicate contractions using space indices. |
572 |
< |
We find the first form to be useful in writing equations prior to converting to computer code. The second form is helpful |
573 |
< |
in derivations of the interaction energy expressions. The third one is specifically helpful when deriving forces and torques, as will |
574 |
< |
be discussed below. |
569 |
> |
Many of the multipole contractions required can be written in one of |
570 |
> |
three equivalent forms using the unit vectors $\hat{r}$, $\hat{a}_m$, |
571 |
> |
and $\hat{b}_n$. In the torque expressions, it is useful to have the |
572 |
> |
angular-dependent terms available in all three fashions, e.g. for the |
573 |
> |
dipole-dipole contraction: |
574 |
> |
% |
575 |
> |
\begin{equation} |
576 |
> |
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
577 |
> |
= D_{\bf {a}\alpha} D_{\bf {b}\alpha} = |
578 |
> |
\sum_{mn} {D_{\mathbf{a}m} \hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n D_{\mathbf{b}n}} |
579 |
> |
\end{equation} |
580 |
> |
% |
581 |
> |
The first two forms are written using space coordinates. The first |
582 |
> |
form is standard in the chemistry literature, while the second is |
583 |
> |
expressed using implied summation notation. The third form shows |
584 |
> |
explicit sums over body indices and the dot products now indicate |
585 |
> |
contractions using space indices. |
586 |
|
|
587 |
+ |
In computing our force and torque expressions, we carried out most of |
588 |
+ |
the work in body coordinates, and have transformed the expressions |
589 |
+ |
back to space-frame coordinates, which are reported below. Interested |
590 |
+ |
readers may consult the supplemental information for this paper for |
591 |
+ |
the intermediate body-frame expressions. |
592 |
|
|
593 |
|
\subsection{The Self-Interaction \label{sec:selfTerm}} |
594 |
|
|
595 |
< |
The Wolf summation~\cite{Wolf99} and the later damped shifted force |
596 |
< |
(DSF) extension~\cite{Fennell06} included self-interactions that are |
597 |
< |
handled separately from the pairwise interactions between sites. The |
598 |
< |
self-term is normally calculated via a single loop over all sites in |
599 |
< |
the system, and is relatively cheap to evaluate. The self-interaction |
600 |
< |
has contributions from two sources: |
601 |
< |
\begin{itemize} |
602 |
< |
\item The neutralization procedure within the cutoff radius requires a |
603 |
< |
contribution from a charge opposite in sign, but equal in magnitude, |
604 |
< |
to the central charge, which has been spread out over the surface of |
605 |
< |
the cutoff sphere. For a system of undamped charges, the total |
606 |
< |
self-term is |
595 |
> |
In addition to cutoff-sphere neutralization, the Wolf |
596 |
> |
summation~\cite{Wolf99} and the damped shifted force (DSF) |
597 |
> |
extension~\cite{Fennell:2006zl} also included self-interactions that |
598 |
> |
are handled separately from the pairwise interactions between |
599 |
> |
sites. The self-term is normally calculated via a single loop over all |
600 |
> |
sites in the system, and is relatively cheap to evaluate. The |
601 |
> |
self-interaction has contributions from two sources. |
602 |
> |
|
603 |
> |
First, the neutralization procedure within the cutoff radius requires |
604 |
> |
a contribution from a charge opposite in sign, but equal in magnitude, |
605 |
> |
to the central charge, which has been spread out over the surface of |
606 |
> |
the cutoff sphere. For a system of undamped charges, the total |
607 |
> |
self-term is |
608 |
|
\begin{equation} |
609 |
|
V_\textrm{self} = - \frac{1}{r_c} \sum_{{\bf a}=1}^N C_{\bf a}^{2} |
610 |
|
\label{eq:selfTerm} |
611 |
|
\end{equation} |
612 |
< |
Note that in this potential and in all electrostatic quantities that |
613 |
< |
follow, the standard $4 \pi \epsilon_{0}$ has been omitted for |
614 |
< |
clarity. |
615 |
< |
\item Charge damping with the complementary error function is a |
616 |
< |
partial analogy to the Ewald procedure which splits the interaction |
617 |
< |
into real and reciprocal space sums. The real space sum is retained |
618 |
< |
in the Wolf and DSF methods. The reciprocal space sum is first |
619 |
< |
minimized by folding the largest contribution (the self-interaction) |
620 |
< |
into the self-interaction from charge neutralization of the damped |
621 |
< |
potential. The remainder of the reciprocal space portion is then |
622 |
< |
discarded (as this contributes the largest computational cost and |
560 |
< |
complexity to the Ewald sum). For a system containing only damped |
561 |
< |
charges, the complete self-interaction can be written as |
612 |
> |
|
613 |
> |
Second, charge damping with the complementary error function is a |
614 |
> |
partial analogy to the Ewald procedure which splits the interaction |
615 |
> |
into real and reciprocal space sums. The real space sum is retained |
616 |
> |
in the Wolf and DSF methods. The reciprocal space sum is first |
617 |
> |
minimized by folding the largest contribution (the self-interaction) |
618 |
> |
into the self-interaction from charge neutralization of the damped |
619 |
> |
potential. The remainder of the reciprocal space portion is then |
620 |
> |
discarded (as this contributes the largest computational cost and |
621 |
> |
complexity to the Ewald sum). For a system containing only damped |
622 |
> |
charges, the complete self-interaction can be written as |
623 |
|
\begin{equation} |
624 |
|
V_\textrm{self} = - \left(\frac{\textrm{erfc}(\alpha r_c)}{r_c} + |
625 |
|
\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\pi}} \right) \sum_{{\bf a}=1}^N |
626 |
|
C_{\bf a}^{2}. |
627 |
|
\label{eq:dampSelfTerm} |
628 |
|
\end{equation} |
568 |
– |
\end{itemize} |
629 |
|
|
630 |
|
The extension of DSF electrostatics to point multipoles requires |
631 |
|
treatment of {\it both} the self-neutralization and reciprocal |
654 |
|
Charge & $C_{\bf a}^2$ & $-f(r_c)$ & $-\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{\pi}}$ \\ |
655 |
|
Dipole & $|\mathbf{D}_{\bf a}|^2$ & $\frac{1}{3} \left( h(r_c) + |
656 |
|
\frac{2 g(r_c)}{r_c} \right)$ & $-\frac{2 \alpha^3}{3 \sqrt{\pi}}$\\ |
657 |
< |
Quadrupole & $2 \text{Tr}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a}^2) + \text{Tr}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a})^2$ & |
657 |
> |
Quadrupole & $2 \mathbf{Q}_{\bf a}:\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a} + \text{Tr}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a})^2$ & |
658 |
|
$- \frac{1}{15} \left( t(r_c)+ \frac{4 s(r_c)}{r_c} \right)$ & |
659 |
|
$-\frac{4 \alpha^5}{5 \sqrt{\pi}}$ \\ |
660 |
|
Charge-Quadrupole & $-2 C_{\bf a} \text{Tr}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a})$ & $\frac{1}{3} \left( |
668 |
|
multipole orders. Symmetry prevents the charge-dipole and |
669 |
|
dipole-quadrupole interactions from contributing to the |
670 |
|
self-interaction. The functions that go into the self-neutralization |
671 |
< |
terms, $f(r), g(r), h(r), s(r), \mathrm{~and~} t(r)$ are successive |
672 |
< |
derivatives of the electrostatic kernel (either the undamped $1/r$ or |
673 |
< |
the damped $B_0(r)=\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ function) that are |
674 |
< |
evaluated at the cutoff distance. For undamped interactions, $f(r_c) |
675 |
< |
= 1/r_c$, $g(r_c) = -1/r_c^{2}$, and so on. For damped interactions, |
676 |
< |
$f(r_c) = B_0(r_c)$, $g(r_c) = B_0'(r_c)$, and so on. Appendix XX |
677 |
< |
contains recursion relations that allow rapid evaluation of these |
678 |
< |
derivatives. |
671 |
> |
terms, $g(r), h(r), s(r), \mathrm{~and~} t(r)$ are successive |
672 |
> |
derivatives of the electrostatic kernel, $f(r)$ (either the undamped |
673 |
> |
$1/r$ or the damped $B_0(r)=\mathrm{erfc}(\alpha r)/r$ function) that |
674 |
> |
have been evaluated at the cutoff distance. For undamped |
675 |
> |
interactions, $f(r_c) = 1/r_c$, $g(r_c) = -1/r_c^{2}$, and so on. For |
676 |
> |
damped interactions, $f(r_c) = B_0(r_c)$, $g(r_c) = B_0'(r_c)$, and so |
677 |
> |
on. Appendix \ref{SmithFunc} contains recursion relations that allow |
678 |
> |
rapid evaluation of these derivatives. |
679 |
|
|
680 |
< |
\section{Energies, forces, and torques} |
681 |
< |
\subsection{Interaction energies} |
682 |
< |
|
683 |
< |
We now list multipole interaction energies using a set of generic |
684 |
< |
radial functions. Table \ref{tab:tableenergy} maps between the |
685 |
< |
generic functions and the radial functions derived for both the |
686 |
< |
Taylor-shifted and Gradient-shifted methods. This set of equations is |
687 |
< |
written in terms of space coordinates: |
680 |
> |
\section{Interaction energies, forces, and torques} |
681 |
> |
The main result of this paper is a set of expressions for the |
682 |
> |
energies, forces and torques (up to quadrupole-quadrupole order) that |
683 |
> |
work for both the Taylor-shifted and Gradient-shifted approximations. |
684 |
> |
These expressions were derived using a set of generic radial |
685 |
> |
functions. Without using the shifting approximations mentioned above, |
686 |
> |
some of these radial functions would be identical, and the expressions |
687 |
> |
coalesce into the familiar forms for unmodified multipole-multipole |
688 |
> |
interactions. Table \ref{tab:tableenergy} maps between the generic |
689 |
> |
functions and the radial functions derived for both the Taylor-shifted |
690 |
> |
and Gradient-shifted methods. The energy equations are written in |
691 |
> |
terms of lab-frame representations of the dipoles, quadrupoles, and |
692 |
> |
the unit vector connecting the two objects, |
693 |
|
|
694 |
|
% Energy in space coordinate form ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
695 |
|
% |
698 |
|
% |
699 |
|
\begin{align} |
700 |
|
U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)=& |
701 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} v_{01}(r) \label{uchch} |
701 |
> |
C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b} v_{01}(r) \label{uchch} |
702 |
|
\\ |
703 |
|
% |
704 |
|
% u ca db |
705 |
|
% |
706 |
|
U_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)=& |
707 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{11}(r) |
707 |
> |
C_{\bf a} \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{11}(r) |
708 |
|
\label{uchdip} |
709 |
|
\\ |
710 |
|
% |
711 |
|
% u ca qb |
712 |
|
% |
713 |
< |
U_{C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)=& |
714 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a }}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \text{Tr}Q_{\bf b} v_{21}(r) |
715 |
< |
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{22}(r) \Bigr] |
713 |
> |
U_{C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)=& C_{\bf a } \Bigl[ \text{Tr}Q_{\bf b} |
714 |
> |
v_{21}(r) + \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot |
715 |
> |
\hat{r} \right) v_{22}(r) \Bigr] |
716 |
|
\label{uchquad} |
717 |
|
\\ |
718 |
|
% |
726 |
|
% u da db |
727 |
|
% |
728 |
|
U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)=& |
729 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigr[ \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot |
729 |
> |
-\Bigr[ \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot |
730 |
|
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \right) v_{21}(r) |
731 |
|
+\left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
732 |
|
\left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
739 |
|
\begin{split} |
740 |
|
% 1 |
741 |
|
U_{D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r) =& |
742 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
742 |
> |
-\Bigl[ |
743 |
|
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
744 |
|
\left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
745 |
|
+2 ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot |
746 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r} ) \Bigr] v_{31}(r) \\ |
747 |
|
% 2 |
748 |
< |
&-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
748 |
> |
&- \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
749 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{32}(r) |
750 |
|
\label{udipquad} |
751 |
|
\end{split} |
782 |
|
\begin{split} |
783 |
|
%1 |
784 |
|
U_{Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)=& |
785 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
785 |
> |
\Bigl[ |
786 |
|
\text{Tr} \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \text{Tr} \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
787 |
< |
+2 \text{Tr} \left( |
788 |
< |
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \right) \Bigr] v_{41}(r) |
787 |
> |
+2 |
788 |
> |
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} : \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \Bigr] v_{41}(r) |
789 |
|
\\ |
790 |
|
% 2 |
791 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
791 |
> |
&+\Bigl[ \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
792 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot |
793 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
794 |
|
+\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
798 |
|
\Bigr] v_{42}(r) |
799 |
|
\\ |
800 |
|
% 4 |
801 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
801 |
> |
&+ |
802 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
803 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) v_{43}(r). |
804 |
|
\label{uquadquad} |
805 |
|
\end{split} |
806 |
|
\end{align} |
807 |
< |
|
807 |
> |
% |
808 |
|
Note that the energies of multipoles on site $\mathbf{b}$ interacting |
809 |
|
with those on site $\mathbf{a}$ can be obtained by swapping indices |
810 |
|
along with the sign of the intersite vector, $\hat{r}$. |
814 |
|
% TABLE of radial functions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
815 |
|
% |
816 |
|
|
817 |
< |
\begin{table*} |
818 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:tableenergy}Radial functions used in the energy and torque equations. Functions |
819 |
< |
used in this table are defined in Appendices B and C.} |
820 |
< |
\begin{ruledtabular} |
821 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|l|l} |
822 |
< |
Generic&Coulomb&Taylor-Shifted&Gradient-Shifted |
817 |
> |
\begin{sidewaystable} |
818 |
> |
\caption{\label{tab:tableenergy}Radial functions used in the energy |
819 |
> |
and torque equations. The $f, g, h, s, t, \mathrm{and} u$ |
820 |
> |
functions used in this table are defined in Appendices B and C.} |
821 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|l|} \hline |
822 |
> |
Generic&Bare Coulomb&Taylor-Shifted&Gradient-Shifted |
823 |
|
\\ \hline |
824 |
|
% |
825 |
|
% |
851 |
|
$\frac{3}{r^3} $ & |
852 |
|
$\left(-\frac{g_2(r)}{r} + h_2(r) \right)$ & |
853 |
|
$\left(-\frac{g(r)}{r}+h(r) \right) |
854 |
< |
-\left(-\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c}+h(r_c) \right) $ \\ |
855 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c) \left( \frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{h(r_c)}{r_c}+s(r_c) \right)$ |
854 |
> |
-\left(-\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c}+h(r_c) \right)$ \\ |
855 |
> |
&&& $ ~~~-(r-r_c) \left( \frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{h(r_c)}{r_c}+s(r_c) \right)$ |
856 |
|
\\ |
857 |
|
% |
858 |
|
% |
863 |
|
$\left(-\frac{g_3(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h_3(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
864 |
|
$\left( -\frac{g(r)}{r^2}+\frac{h(r)}{r} \right) |
865 |
|
-\left(-\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2}+\frac{h(r_c)}{r_c} \right) $\\ |
866 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c) \left(\frac{2g(r_c)}{r_c^3}-\frac{2h(r_c)}{r_c^2}+\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c} \right)$ |
866 |
> |
&&&$ ~~~ -(r-r_c) \left(\frac{2g(r_c)}{r_c^3}-\frac{2h(r_c)}{r_c^2}+\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c} \right)$ |
867 |
|
\\ |
868 |
|
% |
869 |
|
$v_{32}(r)$ & |
871 |
|
$\left( \frac{3g_3(r)}{r^2} - \frac{3h_3(r)}{r} + s_3(r) \right)$ & |
872 |
|
$\left( \frac{3g(r)}{r^2} - \frac{3h(r)}{r} + s(r) \right) |
873 |
|
- \left( \frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^2} - \frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c} + s(r_c) \right)$ \\ |
874 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c) \left( \frac{-6g(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{6h(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{3s(r_c)}{r_c}+t(r_c) \right)$ |
874 |
> |
&&&$ ~~~ -(r-r_c) \left( \frac{-6g(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{6h(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{3s(r_c)}{r_c}+t(r_c) \right)$ |
875 |
|
\\ |
876 |
|
% |
877 |
|
% |
882 |
|
$\left(-\frac{g_4(r)}{r^3} +\frac{h_4(r)}{r^2} \right) $ & |
883 |
|
$\left( -\frac{g(r)}{r^3} + \frac{h(r)}{r^2} \right) |
884 |
|
- \left( -\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^3} + \frac{h(r_c)}{r_c^2} \right)$ \\ |
885 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c) \left( \frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^4}-\frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c^2} \right)$ |
885 |
> |
&&&$ ~~~ -(r-r_c) \left( \frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^4}-\frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c^2} \right)$ |
886 |
|
\\ |
887 |
|
% 2 |
888 |
|
$v_{42}(r)$ & |
890 |
|
$\left( \frac{3g_4(r)}{r^3} - \frac{3h_4(r)}{r^2}+\frac{s_4(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
891 |
|
$\left( \frac{3g(r)}{r^3} - \frac{3h(r)}{r^2}+\frac{s(r)}{r} \right) |
892 |
|
-\left( \frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^3} - \frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c^2}+\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c} \right)$ \\ |
893 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c) \left(- \frac{9g(r_c)}{r_c^4}+\frac{9h(r_c)}{r_c^3} |
893 |
> |
&&&$ ~~~ -(r-r_c) \left(- \frac{9g(r_c)}{r_c^4}+\frac{9h(r_c)}{r_c^3} |
894 |
|
-\frac{4s(r_c)}{r_c^2} + \frac{t(r_c)}{r_c}\right)$ |
895 |
|
\\ |
896 |
|
% 3 |
898 |
|
$ \frac{105}{r^5} $ & |
899 |
|
$\left(-\frac{15g_4(r)}{r^3}+\frac{15h_4(r)}{r^2}-\frac{6s_4(r)}{r} + t_4(r)\right) $ & |
900 |
|
$\left(-\frac{15g(r)}{r^3}+\frac{15h(r)}{r^2}-\frac{6s(r)}{r} + t(r)\right)$ \\ |
901 |
< |
&&&$ -\left(-\frac{15g(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{15h(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{6s(r_c)}{r_c} + t(r_c)\right)$ \\ |
902 |
< |
&&&$ -(r-r_c)\left(\frac{45g(r_c)}{r_c^4}-\frac{45h(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{21s(r_c)}{r_c^2} |
903 |
< |
-\frac{6t(r_c)}{r_c}+u(r_c) \right)$ \\ |
901 |
> |
&&&$~~~ -\left(-\frac{15g(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{15h(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{6s(r_c)}{r_c} + t(r_c)\right)$ \\ |
902 |
> |
&&&$~~~ -(r-r_c)\left(\frac{45g(r_c)}{r_c^4}-\frac{45h(r_c)}{r_c^3}+\frac{21s(r_c)}{r_c^2} |
903 |
> |
-\frac{6t(r_c)}{r_c}+u(r_c) \right)$ \\ \hline |
904 |
|
\end{tabular} |
905 |
< |
\end{ruledtabular} |
841 |
< |
\end{table*} |
905 |
> |
\end{sidewaystable} |
906 |
|
% |
907 |
|
% |
908 |
|
% FORCE TABLE of radial functions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
909 |
|
% |
910 |
|
|
911 |
< |
\begin{table} |
911 |
> |
\begin{sidewaystable} |
912 |
|
\caption{\label{tab:tableFORCE}Radial functions used in the force equations.} |
913 |
< |
\begin{ruledtabular} |
914 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{cc} |
851 |
< |
Generic&Method 1 or Method 2 |
913 |
> |
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|l|} \hline |
914 |
> |
Function&Definition&Taylor-Shifted&Gradient-Shifted |
915 |
|
\\ \hline |
916 |
|
% |
917 |
|
% |
918 |
|
% |
919 |
|
$w_a(r)$& |
920 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{01}}{dr}$ \\ |
920 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{01}}{dr}$& |
921 |
> |
$g_0(r)$& |
922 |
> |
$g(r)-g(r_c)$ \\ |
923 |
|
% |
924 |
|
% |
925 |
|
$w_b(r)$ & |
926 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{11}}{dr} - \frac{v_{11}(r)}{r} $ \\ |
926 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{11}}{dr} - \frac{v_{11}(r)}{r} $& |
927 |
> |
$\left( -\frac{g_1(r)}{r}+h_1(r) \right)$ & |
928 |
> |
$h(r)- h(r_c) - \frac{v_{11}(r)}{r} $ \\ |
929 |
|
% |
930 |
|
$w_c(r)$ & |
931 |
< |
$\frac{v_{11}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
931 |
> |
$\frac{v_{11}(r)}{r}$ & |
932 |
> |
$\frac{g_1(r)}{r} $ & |
933 |
> |
$\frac{v_{11}(r)}{r}$\\ |
934 |
|
% |
935 |
|
% |
936 |
|
$w_d(r)$& |
937 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{21}}{dr}$ \\ |
937 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{21}}{dr}$& |
938 |
> |
$\left( -\frac{g_2(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h_2(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
939 |
> |
$\left( -\frac{g(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h(r)}{r} \right) |
940 |
> |
-\left( -\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2} + \frac{h(r_c)}{r_c} \right) $ \\ |
941 |
|
% |
942 |
|
$w_e(r)$ & |
943 |
+ |
$\left(-\frac{g_2(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h_2(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
944 |
+ |
$\frac{v_{22}(r)}{r}$ & |
945 |
|
$\frac{v_{22}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
946 |
|
% |
947 |
|
% |
948 |
|
$w_f(r)$& |
949 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{22}}{dr} - \frac{2v_{22}(r)}{r}$\\ |
949 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{22}}{dr} - \frac{2v_{22}(r)}{r}$& |
950 |
> |
$\left( \frac{3g_2(r)}{r^2}-\frac{3h_2(r)}{r}+s_2(r) \right)$ & |
951 |
> |
$ \left( \frac{g(r)}{r^2}-\frac{h(r)}{r}+s(r) \right) $ \\ |
952 |
> |
&&& $ ~~~- \left( \frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{h(r_c)}{r_c}+s(r_c) |
953 |
> |
\right)-\frac{2v_{22}(r)}{r}$\\ |
954 |
|
% |
955 |
|
$w_g(r)$& |
956 |
+ |
$\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$& |
957 |
+ |
$ \left( -\frac{g_3(r)}{r^3}+\frac{h_3(r)}{r^2} \right)$& |
958 |
|
$\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$\\ |
959 |
|
% |
960 |
|
$w_h(r)$ & |
961 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{31}}{dr} -\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$\\ |
961 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{31}}{dr} -\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$& |
962 |
> |
$\left(\frac{3g_3(r)}{r^3} -\frac{3h_3(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s_3(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
963 |
> |
$ \left(\frac{2g(r)}{r^3} -\frac{2h(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s(r)}{r} \right) - \left(\frac{2g(r_c)}{r_c^3} -\frac{2h(r_c)}{r_c^2} +\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c} \right) $ \\ |
964 |
> |
&&& $ ~~~ -\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
965 |
|
% 2 |
966 |
|
$w_i(r)$ & |
967 |
< |
$\frac{v_{32}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
967 |
> |
$\frac{v_{32}(r)}{r}$ & |
968 |
> |
$\left(\frac{3g_3(r)}{r^3} -\frac{3h_3(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s_3(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
969 |
> |
$\frac{v_{32}(r)}{r}$\\ |
970 |
|
% |
971 |
|
$w_j(r)$ & |
972 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{32}}{dr} - \frac{3v_{32}}{r}$ \\ |
972 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{32}}{dr} - \frac{3v_{32}}{r}$& |
973 |
> |
$\left(\frac{-15g_3(r)}{r^3} + \frac{15h_3(r)}{r^2} - \frac{6s_3(r)}{r} + t_3(r) \right) $ & |
974 |
> |
$\left(\frac{-6g(r)}{r^3} +\frac{6h(r)}{r^2} -\frac{3s(r)}{r} +t(r) \right)$ \\ |
975 |
> |
&&& $~~~-\left(\frac{-6g(_cr)}{r_c^3} +\frac{6h(r_c)}{r_c^2} |
976 |
> |
-\frac{3s(r_c)}{r_c} +t(r_c) \right) -\frac{3v_{32}}{r}$ \\ |
977 |
|
% |
978 |
|
$w_k(r)$ & |
979 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{41}}{dr} $ \\ |
979 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{41}}{dr} $ & |
980 |
> |
$\left(\frac{3g_4(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h_4(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s_4(r)}{r^2} \right)$ & |
981 |
> |
$\left(\frac{3g(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s(r)}{r^2} \right) |
982 |
> |
-\left(\frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^4} -\frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c^3} +\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c^2} \right)$ \\ |
983 |
|
% |
984 |
|
$w_l(r)$ & |
985 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{42}}{dr} -\frac{2v_{42}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
985 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{42}}{dr} -\frac{2v_{42}(r)}{r}$ & |
986 |
> |
$\left(-\frac{15g_4(r)}{r^4} +\frac{15h_4(r)}{r^3} -\frac{6s_4(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t_4(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
987 |
> |
$\left(-\frac{9g(r)}{r^4} +\frac{9h(r)}{r^3} -\frac{4s(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t(r)}{r} \right)$ \\ |
988 |
> |
&&& $~~~ -\left(-\frac{9g(r_c)}{r_c^4} +\frac{9h(r_c)}{r_c^3} -\frac{4s(r_c)}{r_c^2} +\frac{t(r_c)}{r_c} \right) |
989 |
> |
-\frac{2v_{42}(r)}{r}$\\ |
990 |
|
% |
991 |
|
$w_m(r)$ & |
992 |
< |
$\frac{d v_{43}}{dr} -\frac{4v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
992 |
> |
$\frac{d v_{43}}{dr} -\frac{4v_{43}(r)}{r}$& |
993 |
> |
$\left(\frac{105g_4(r)}{r^4} - \frac{105h_4(r)}{r^3} + \frac{45s_4(r)}{r^2} - \frac{10t_4(r)}{r} +u_4(r) \right)$ & |
994 |
> |
$\left(\frac{45g(r)}{r^4} -\frac{45h(r)}{r^3} +\frac{21s(r)}{r^2} -\frac{6t(r)}{r} +u(r) \right)$\\ |
995 |
> |
&&& $~~~- \left(\frac{45g(r_c)}{r_c^4} -\frac{45h(r_c)}{r_c^3} |
996 |
> |
+\frac{21s(r_c)}{r_c^2} -\frac{6t(r_c)}{r_c} +u(r_c) \right) $\\ |
997 |
> |
&&& $~~~-\frac{4v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
998 |
|
% |
999 |
|
$w_n(r)$ & |
1000 |
< |
$\frac{v_{42}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
1000 |
> |
$\frac{v_{42}(r)}{r}$ & |
1001 |
> |
$\left(\frac{3g_4(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h_4(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s_4(r)}{r^2} \right)$ & |
1002 |
> |
$\frac{v_{42}(r)}{r}$\\ |
1003 |
|
% |
1004 |
|
$w_o(r)$ & |
1005 |
< |
$\frac{v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
1005 |
> |
$\frac{v_{43}(r)}{r}$& |
1006 |
> |
$\left(-\frac{15g_4(r)}{r^4} +\frac{15h_4(r)}{r^3} -\frac{6s_4(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t_4(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
1007 |
> |
$\frac{v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ \hline |
1008 |
|
% |
1009 |
|
|
1010 |
|
\end{tabular} |
1011 |
< |
\end{ruledtabular} |
907 |
< |
\end{table} |
1011 |
> |
\end{sidewaystable} |
1012 |
|
% |
1013 |
|
% |
1014 |
|
% |
1015 |
|
|
1016 |
|
\subsection{Forces} |
1017 |
< |
|
1018 |
< |
The force $\mathbf{F}_{\bf a}$ on $\bf{a}$ due to $\bf{b}$ is the negative of |
1019 |
< |
the force $\mathbf{F}_{\bf b}$ on $\bf{b}$ due to $\bf{a}$. For a simple charge-charge |
1020 |
< |
interaction, these forces will point along the $\pm \hat{r}$ directions, where |
1021 |
< |
$\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_b - \mathbf{r}_a $. Thus |
1017 |
> |
The force on object $\bf{a}$, $\mathbf{F}_{\bf a}$, due to object |
1018 |
> |
$\bf{b}$ is the negative of the force on $\bf{b}$ due to $\bf{a}$. For |
1019 |
> |
a simple charge-charge interaction, these forces will point along the |
1020 |
> |
$\pm \hat{r}$ directions, where $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_b - |
1021 |
> |
\mathbf{r}_a $. Thus |
1022 |
|
% |
1023 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1024 |
|
F_{\bf a \alpha} = \hat{r}_\alpha \frac{\partial U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}}{\partial r} |
1026 |
|
= - \hat{r}_\alpha \frac{\partial U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}} {\partial r} . |
1027 |
|
\end{equation} |
1028 |
|
% |
1029 |
< |
The concept of obtaining a force from an energy by taking a gradient is the same for |
1030 |
< |
higher-order multipole interactions, the trick is to make sure that all |
1031 |
< |
$r$-dependent derivatives are considered. |
928 |
< |
As is pointed out by Allen and Germano, this is straightforward if the |
929 |
< |
interaction energies are written recognizing explicit |
930 |
< |
$\hat{r}$ and body axes ($\hat{a}_m$, $\hat{b}_n$) dependences: |
1029 |
> |
We list below the force equations written in terms of lab-frame |
1030 |
> |
coordinates. The radial functions used in the two methods are listed |
1031 |
> |
in Table \ref{tab:tableFORCE} |
1032 |
|
% |
1033 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
933 |
< |
U(r,\{\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r} \}, |
934 |
< |
\{\hat{b}_n\cdot \hat{r} \} |
935 |
< |
\{\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n \}) . |
936 |
< |
\label{ugeneral} |
937 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1033 |
> |
%SPACE COORDINATES FORCE EQUATIONS |
1034 |
|
% |
939 |
– |
Then, |
940 |
– |
% |
941 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
942 |
– |
\mathbf{F}_{\bf a}=-\mathbf{F}_{\bf b} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
943 |
– |
= \frac{\partial U}{\partial r} \hat{r} |
944 |
– |
+ \sum_m \left[ |
945 |
– |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
946 |
– |
\frac { \partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
947 |
– |
+ \frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
948 |
– |
\frac { \partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
949 |
– |
\right] \label{forceequation}. |
950 |
– |
\end{equation} |
951 |
– |
% |
952 |
– |
Note our definition of $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_b - \mathbf{r}_b $ is opposite |
953 |
– |
that of Allen and Germano. In simplifying the algebra, we also use: |
954 |
– |
% |
955 |
– |
\begin{eqnarray} |
956 |
– |
\frac { \partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
957 |
– |
= \frac{1}{r} \left( \hat{a}_m - (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} |
958 |
– |
\right) \\ |
959 |
– |
\frac { \partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})}{\partial \mathbf{r}} |
960 |
– |
= \frac{1}{r} \left( \hat{b}_m - (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})\hat{r} |
961 |
– |
\right) . |
962 |
– |
\end{eqnarray} |
963 |
– |
% |
964 |
– |
We list below the force equations written in terms of space coordinates. The |
965 |
– |
radial functions used in the two methods are listed in Table II. |
966 |
– |
% |
967 |
– |
%SPACE COORDINATES FORCE EQUTIONS |
968 |
– |
% |
1035 |
|
% ************************************************************************** |
1036 |
|
% f ca cb |
1037 |
|
% |
1038 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1039 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1040 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} w_a(r) \hat{r} |
975 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1038 |
> |
\begin{align} |
1039 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} =& |
1040 |
> |
C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b} w_a(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1041 |
|
% |
1042 |
|
% |
1043 |
|
% |
1044 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1045 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
981 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1044 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} =& |
1045 |
> |
C_{\bf a} \Bigl[ |
1046 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \right) |
1047 |
|
w_b(r) \hat{r} |
1048 |
< |
+ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} w_c(r) \Bigr] |
985 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1048 |
> |
+ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} w_c(r) \Bigr] \\ |
1049 |
|
% |
1050 |
|
% |
1051 |
|
% |
1052 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1053 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
991 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a }}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigr[ |
1052 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1053 |
> |
C_{\bf a } \Bigr[ |
1054 |
|
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\bf b} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1055 |
|
+ 2 \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} w_e(r) |
1056 |
< |
+ \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) w_f(r) \hat{r} \Bigr] |
1057 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1056 |
> |
+ \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} |
1057 |
> |
\right) w_f(r) \hat{r} \Bigr] \\ |
1058 |
|
% |
1059 |
|
% |
1060 |
|
% |
1061 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1062 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1063 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf{b}}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1064 |
< |
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \right) w_b(r) \hat{r} |
1065 |
< |
+ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} w_c(r) \Bigr] |
1066 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1061 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1062 |
> |
% \mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1063 |
> |
% -C_{\bf{b}} \Bigl[ |
1064 |
> |
% \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \right) w_b(r) \hat{r} |
1065 |
> |
% + \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} w_c(r) \Bigr] |
1066 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1067 |
|
% |
1068 |
|
% |
1069 |
|
% |
1070 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1071 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1010 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1070 |
> |
\begin{split} |
1071 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} =& |
1072 |
|
- \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1073 |
|
+ \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} |
1074 |
|
\left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) |
1075 |
< |
+ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) \right) w_e(r) |
1075 |
> |
+ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} \left( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) \right) w_e(r)\\ |
1076 |
|
% 2 |
1077 |
< |
- \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \right) |
1078 |
< |
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} \right) w_f(r) \hat{r} \Bigr] |
1079 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1077 |
> |
& - \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \right) |
1078 |
> |
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} \right) w_f(r) \hat{r} |
1079 |
> |
\end{split}\\ |
1080 |
|
% |
1081 |
|
% |
1082 |
|
% |
1022 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1083 |
|
\begin{split} |
1084 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1025 |
< |
& - \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1084 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& - \Bigl[ |
1085 |
|
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \mathbf{ D}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1086 |
|
+2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot |
1087 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \Bigr] w_g(r) |
1088 |
< |
- \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1088 |
> |
- \Bigl[ |
1089 |
|
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1090 |
|
\left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \right) |
1091 |
|
+2 ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot |
1092 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_h(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1093 |
|
% 3 |
1094 |
< |
& - \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[\mathbf{ D}_{\mathbf{a}} (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1094 |
> |
& - \Bigl[\mathbf{ D}_{\mathbf{a}} (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1095 |
|
+2 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} ) (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} ) \Bigr] |
1096 |
|
w_i(r) |
1097 |
|
% 4 |
1098 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1098 |
> |
- |
1099 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1100 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} |
1042 |
< |
\end{split} |
1043 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1100 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} \end{split} \\ |
1101 |
|
% |
1102 |
|
% |
1103 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1104 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1105 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf b }}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigr[ |
1106 |
< |
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1107 |
< |
+ 2 \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r} w_e(r) |
1108 |
< |
+ \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) w_f(r) \hat{r} \Bigr] |
1109 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1103 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1104 |
> |
% \mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1105 |
> |
% \frac{C_{\bf b }}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigr[ |
1106 |
> |
% \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\bf a} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1107 |
> |
% + 2 \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r} w_e(r) |
1108 |
> |
% + \left( \hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r} \right) w_f(r) \hat{r} \Bigr] |
1109 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1110 |
> |
% % |
1111 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1112 |
> |
% \begin{split} |
1113 |
> |
% \mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1114 |
> |
% &\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1115 |
> |
% \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1116 |
> |
% +2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \Bigr] w_g(r) |
1117 |
> |
% % 2 |
1118 |
> |
% + \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1119 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1120 |
> |
% +2 (\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot |
1121 |
> |
% \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_h(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1122 |
> |
% % 3 |
1123 |
> |
% &+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1124 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1125 |
> |
% +2 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1126 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} ) \Bigr] w_i(r) |
1127 |
> |
% % 4 |
1128 |
> |
% +\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1129 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1130 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} |
1131 |
> |
% \end{split} |
1132 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1133 |
|
% |
1054 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1055 |
– |
\begin{split} |
1056 |
– |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1057 |
– |
&\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1058 |
– |
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1059 |
– |
+2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \Bigr] w_g(r) |
1060 |
– |
% 2 |
1061 |
– |
+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1062 |
– |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1063 |
– |
+2 (\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot |
1064 |
– |
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_h(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1065 |
– |
% 3 |
1066 |
– |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1067 |
– |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1068 |
– |
+2 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1069 |
– |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} ) \Bigr] w_i(r) |
1070 |
– |
% 4 |
1071 |
– |
+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1072 |
– |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) |
1073 |
– |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} |
1074 |
– |
\end{split} |
1075 |
– |
\end{equation} |
1134 |
|
% |
1135 |
|
% |
1078 |
– |
% |
1079 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1136 |
|
\begin{split} |
1137 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1138 |
< |
+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1139 |
< |
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \hat{r} |
1140 |
< |
+ 2 \text{Tr} ( \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} ) \Bigr] w_k(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1137 |
> |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1138 |
> |
\Bigl[ |
1139 |
> |
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1140 |
> |
+ 2 \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} : \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \Bigr] w_k(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1141 |
|
% 2 |
1142 |
< |
+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1142 |
> |
&+ \Bigl[ |
1143 |
|
2\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1144 |
|
+ 2\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1145 |
|
% 3 |
1146 |
|
+4 (\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1147 |
|
+ 4(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}}) \Bigr] w_n(r) \\ |
1148 |
|
% 4 |
1149 |
< |
+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1149 |
> |
&+ \Bigl[ |
1150 |
|
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1151 |
|
+ \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1152 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1154 |
|
+4 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot |
1155 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_l(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1156 |
|
% |
1157 |
< |
+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1157 |
> |
&+ \Bigl[ |
1158 |
|
+ 2 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1159 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1160 |
|
%6 |
1161 |
|
+2 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1162 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} ) \Bigr] w_o(r) \\ |
1163 |
|
% 7 |
1164 |
< |
+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1164 |
> |
&+ |
1165 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1166 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_m(r) \hat{r} |
1167 |
< |
\end{split} |
1168 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1166 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) w_m(r) \hat{r} \end{split} |
1167 |
> |
\end{align} |
1168 |
> |
Note that the forces for higher multipoles on site $\mathbf{a}$ |
1169 |
> |
interacting with those of lower order on site $\mathbf{b}$ can be |
1170 |
> |
obtained by swapping indices in the expressions above. |
1171 |
> |
|
1172 |
|
% |
1173 |
+ |
% Torques SECTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
1174 |
|
% |
1115 |
– |
% TORQUES SECTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
1116 |
– |
% |
1175 |
|
\subsection{Torques} |
1176 |
|
|
1119 |
– |
Following again Allen and Germano, when energies are written in the form |
1120 |
– |
of Eq.~({\ref{ugeneral}), then torques can be expressed as: |
1177 |
|
% |
1178 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1179 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{\bf a} = |
1124 |
< |
\sum_m |
1125 |
< |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
1126 |
< |
( \hat{r} \times \hat{a}_m ) |
1127 |
< |
-\sum_{mn} |
1128 |
< |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n)} |
1129 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) \\ |
1178 |
> |
The torques for both the Taylor-Shifted as well as Gradient-Shifted |
1179 |
> |
methods are given in space-frame coordinates: |
1180 |
|
% |
1131 |
– |
\mathbf{\tau}_{\bf b} = |
1132 |
– |
\sum_m |
1133 |
– |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r})} |
1134 |
– |
( \hat{r} \times \hat{b}_m) |
1135 |
– |
+\sum_{mn} |
1136 |
– |
\frac{\partial U}{\partial (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n)} |
1137 |
– |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) . |
1138 |
– |
\end{eqnarray} |
1181 |
|
% |
1182 |
+ |
\begin{align} |
1183 |
+ |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} =& |
1184 |
+ |
C_{\bf a} (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) v_{11}(r) \\ |
1185 |
|
% |
1141 |
– |
Here we list the torque equations written in terms of space coordinates. |
1186 |
|
% |
1187 |
|
% |
1188 |
+ |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1189 |
+ |
2C_{\bf a} |
1190 |
+ |
\hat{r} \times ( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{22}(r) \\ |
1191 |
|
% |
1145 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1146 |
– |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1147 |
– |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}}) v_{11}(r) |
1148 |
– |
\end{equation} |
1192 |
|
% |
1193 |
|
% |
1194 |
+ |
% \begin{equation} |
1195 |
+ |
% \mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1196 |
+ |
% -\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1197 |
+ |
% (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}}) v_{11}(r) |
1198 |
+ |
% \end{equation} |
1199 |
|
% |
1152 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1153 |
– |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1154 |
– |
\frac{2C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1155 |
– |
\hat{r} \times ( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{22}(r) |
1156 |
– |
\end{equation} |
1200 |
|
% |
1201 |
|
% |
1202 |
< |
% |
1203 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1161 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1162 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1163 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}}) v_{11}(r) |
1164 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1165 |
< |
% |
1166 |
< |
% |
1167 |
< |
% |
1168 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1169 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1170 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} v_{21}(r) |
1202 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} =& |
1203 |
> |
\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} v_{21}(r) |
1204 |
|
% 2 |
1205 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1205 |
> |
- |
1206 |
|
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} ) |
1207 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} ) v_{22}(r) |
1175 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1207 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} ) v_{22}(r)\\ |
1208 |
|
% |
1209 |
|
% |
1210 |
|
% |
1211 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1212 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1213 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} v_{21}(r) |
1214 |
< |
% 2 |
1215 |
< |
+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1216 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} ) |
1217 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} ) v_{22}(r) |
1218 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1211 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1212 |
> |
% \mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1213 |
> |
% -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} v_{21}(r) |
1214 |
> |
% % 2 |
1215 |
> |
% +\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1216 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {a}} ) |
1217 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf {b}} ) v_{22}(r) |
1218 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1219 |
|
% |
1220 |
|
% |
1221 |
|
% |
1222 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1223 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1192 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1222 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1223 |
> |
\Bigl[ |
1224 |
|
-\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1225 |
|
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1226 |
|
+2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \times |
1227 |
|
(\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1228 |
|
\Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1229 |
|
% 3 |
1230 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1231 |
< |
\ (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1201 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
1202 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1230 |
> |
- (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} ) |
1231 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r)\\ |
1232 |
|
% |
1233 |
|
% |
1234 |
|
% |
1235 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1236 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1208 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1235 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1236 |
> |
\Bigl[ |
1237 |
|
+2 ( \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} ) \times |
1238 |
|
\hat{r} |
1239 |
|
-2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}} \times |
1240 |
|
(\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1241 |
|
\Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1242 |
|
% 2 |
1243 |
< |
+\frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1243 |
> |
+ |
1244 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{a}}) |
1245 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}}) \times \hat{r} v_{32}(r) |
1218 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1245 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}}) \times \hat{r} v_{32}(r)\\ |
1246 |
|
% |
1247 |
|
% |
1248 |
|
% |
1249 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1250 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1251 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1252 |
< |
-2 (\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} ) \times \hat{r} |
1253 |
< |
+2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \times |
1254 |
< |
(\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1255 |
< |
\Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1256 |
< |
% 3 |
1257 |
< |
- \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1258 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1259 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}}) \times \hat{r} v_{32}(r) |
1260 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1249 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1250 |
> |
% \mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1251 |
> |
% \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1252 |
> |
% -2 (\mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} ) \times \hat{r} |
1253 |
> |
% +2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \times |
1254 |
> |
% (\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1255 |
> |
% \Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1256 |
> |
% % 3 |
1257 |
> |
% - \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1258 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1259 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf |
1260 |
> |
% {Q}_{{\mathbf a}}) \times \hat{r} v_{32}(r) |
1261 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1262 |
|
% |
1263 |
|
% |
1264 |
|
% |
1265 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1266 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1267 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1268 |
< |
\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1269 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1270 |
< |
+2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \times |
1271 |
< |
( \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1272 |
< |
% 2 |
1273 |
< |
+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1274 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1275 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
1276 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1265 |
> |
% \begin{equation} |
1266 |
> |
% \mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1267 |
> |
% \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1268 |
> |
% \text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1269 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1270 |
> |
% +2 \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} \times |
1271 |
> |
% ( \mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] v_{31}(r) |
1272 |
> |
% % 2 |
1273 |
> |
% +\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1274 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \times \mathbf{D}_{\mathbf{b}} ) |
1275 |
> |
% (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
1276 |
> |
% \end{equation} |
1277 |
|
% |
1278 |
|
% |
1279 |
|
% |
1252 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1280 |
|
\begin{split} |
1281 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1282 |
< |
&-\frac{4}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1281 |
> |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} =& |
1282 |
> |
-4 |
1283 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \times \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} |
1284 |
|
v_{41}(r) \\ |
1285 |
|
% 2 |
1286 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1286 |
> |
&+ |
1287 |
|
\Bigl[-2\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{b}} |
1288 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} ) \times \hat{r} |
1289 |
|
+4 \hat{r} \times |
1292 |
|
-4 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} )\times |
1293 |
|
( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r} ) \Bigr] v_{42}(r) \\ |
1294 |
|
% 4 |
1295 |
< |
&+ \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1295 |
> |
&+ 2 |
1296 |
|
\hat{r} \times ( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1297 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r) |
1271 |
< |
\end{split} |
1272 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1297 |
> |
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r) \end{split}\\ |
1298 |
|
% |
1299 |
|
% |
1300 |
|
% |
1276 |
– |
\begin{equation} |
1301 |
|
\begin{split} |
1302 |
|
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1303 |
< |
&\frac{4}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1303 |
> |
&4 |
1304 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \times \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} v_{41}(r) \\ |
1305 |
|
% 2 |
1306 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[- 2\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1306 |
> |
&+ \Bigl[- 2\text{Tr}\mathbf{Q}_{\mathbf{a}} |
1307 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} ) \times \hat{r} |
1308 |
|
-4 (\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot |
1309 |
|
\mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} ) \times |
1312 |
|
( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1313 |
|
\Bigr] v_{42}(r) \\ |
1314 |
|
% 4 |
1315 |
< |
&+ \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1315 |
> |
&+2 |
1316 |
|
(\hat{r} \cdot \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf a}} \cdot \hat{r}) |
1317 |
< |
\hat{r} \times ( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r) |
1318 |
< |
\end{split} |
1295 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1317 |
> |
\hat{r} \times ( \mathbf{Q}_{{\mathbf b}} \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r)\end{split} |
1318 |
> |
\end{align} |
1319 |
|
% |
1320 |
+ |
Here, we have defined the matrix cross product in an identical form |
1321 |
+ |
as in Ref. \onlinecite{Smith98}: |
1322 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
1323 |
+ |
\left[\mathbf{A} \times \mathbf{B}\right]_\alpha = \sum_\beta |
1324 |
+ |
\left[\mathbf{A}_{\alpha+1,\beta} \mathbf{B}_{\alpha+2,\beta} |
1325 |
+ |
-\mathbf{A}_{\alpha+2,\beta} \mathbf{B}_{\alpha+2,\beta} |
1326 |
+ |
\right] |
1327 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
1328 |
+ |
where $\alpha+1$ and $\alpha+2$ are regarded as cyclic |
1329 |
+ |
permuations of the matrix indices. |
1330 |
|
|
1331 |
+ |
All of the radial functions required for torques are identical with |
1332 |
+ |
the radial functions previously computed for the interaction energies. |
1333 |
+ |
These are tabulated for both shifted force methods in table |
1334 |
+ |
\ref{tab:tableenergy}. The torques for higher multipoles on site |
1335 |
+ |
$\mathbf{a}$ interacting with those of lower order on site |
1336 |
+ |
$\mathbf{b}$ can be obtained by swapping indices in the expressions |
1337 |
+ |
above. |
1338 |
+ |
|
1339 |
+ |
\section{Related real-space methods} |
1340 |
+ |
One can also formulate a shifted potential, |
1341 |
+ |
\begin{equation} |
1342 |
+ |
U^{\text{SP}} = U(\mathbf{r},\hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}) - |
1343 |
+ |
U(\mathbf{r}_c, \hat{\mathbf{a}}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}), |
1344 |
+ |
\label{eq:SP} |
1345 |
+ |
\end{equation} |
1346 |
+ |
obtained by projecting the image multipole onto the surface of the |
1347 |
+ |
cutoff sphere. The shifted potential (SP) can be thought of as a |
1348 |
+ |
simple extension to the original Wolf method. The energies and |
1349 |
+ |
torques for the SP can be easily obtained by zeroing out the $(r-r_c)$ |
1350 |
+ |
terms in the final column of table \ref{tab:tableenergy}. SP forces |
1351 |
+ |
(which retain discontinuities at the cutoff sphere) can be obtained by |
1352 |
+ |
eliminating all functions that depend on $r_c$ in the last column of |
1353 |
+ |
table \ref{tab:tableFORCE}. The self-energy contributions to the SP |
1354 |
+ |
potential are identical to both the GSF and TSF methods. |
1355 |
+ |
|
1356 |
|
\section{Comparison to known multipolar energies} |
1357 |
|
|
1358 |
|
To understand how these new real-space multipole methods behave in |
1359 |
|
computer simulations, it is vital to test against established methods |
1360 |
|
for computing electrostatic interactions in periodic systems, and to |
1361 |
|
evaluate the size and sources of any errors that arise from the |
1362 |
< |
real-space cutoffs. In this paper we test Taylor-shifted and |
1363 |
< |
Gradient-shifted electrostatics against analytical methods for |
1364 |
< |
computing the energies of ordered multipolar arrays. In the following |
1365 |
< |
paper, we test the new methods against the multipolar Ewald sum for |
1366 |
< |
computing the energies, forces and torques for a wide range of typical |
1367 |
< |
condensed-phase (disordered) systems. |
1362 |
> |
real-space cutoffs. In this paper we test both TSF and GSF |
1363 |
> |
electrostatics against analytical methods for computing the energies |
1364 |
> |
of ordered multipolar arrays. In the following paper, we test the new |
1365 |
> |
methods against the multipolar Ewald sum for computing the energies, |
1366 |
> |
forces and torques for a wide range of typical condensed-phase |
1367 |
> |
(disordered) systems. |
1368 |
|
|
1369 |
|
Because long-range electrostatic effects can be significant in |
1370 |
|
crystalline materials, ordered multipolar arrays present one of the |
1373 |
|
who computed the energies of ordered dipole arrays of zero |
1374 |
|
magnetization and obtained a number of these constants.\cite{Sauer} |
1375 |
|
This theory was developed more completely by Luttinger and |
1376 |
< |
Tisza\cite{LT,LT2} who tabulated energy constants for the Sauer arrays and |
1377 |
< |
other periodic structures. We have repeated the Luttinger \& Tisza |
1320 |
< |
series summations to much higher order and obtained the following |
1321 |
< |
energy constants (converged to one part in $10^9$): |
1322 |
< |
\begin{table*} |
1323 |
< |
\centering{ |
1324 |
< |
\caption{Luttinger \& Tisza arrays and their associated |
1325 |
< |
energy constants. Type "A" arrays have nearest neighbor strings of |
1326 |
< |
antiparallel dipoles. Type "B" arrays have nearest neighbor |
1327 |
< |
strings of antiparallel dipoles if the dipoles are contained in a |
1328 |
< |
plane perpendicular to the dipole direction that passes through |
1329 |
< |
the dipole.} |
1330 |
< |
} |
1331 |
< |
\label{tab:LT} |
1332 |
< |
\begin{ruledtabular} |
1333 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{cccc} |
1334 |
< |
Array Type & Lattice & Dipole Direction & Energy constants \\ \hline |
1335 |
< |
A & SC & 001 & -2.676788684 \\ |
1336 |
< |
A & BCC & 001 & 0 \\ |
1337 |
< |
A & BCC & 111 & -1.770078733 \\ |
1338 |
< |
A & FCC & 001 & 2.166932835 \\ |
1339 |
< |
A & FCC & 011 & -1.083466417 \\ |
1376 |
> |
Tisza\cite{LT,LT2} who tabulated energy constants for the Sauer arrays |
1377 |
> |
and other periodic structures. |
1378 |
|
|
1379 |
< |
* & BCC & minimum & -1.985920929 \\ |
1380 |
< |
|
1381 |
< |
B & SC & 001 & -2.676788684 \\ |
1382 |
< |
B & BCC & 001 & -1.338394342 \\ |
1383 |
< |
B & BCC & 111 & -1.770078733 \\ |
1384 |
< |
B & FCC & 001 & -1.083466417 \\ |
1385 |
< |
B & FCC & 011 & -1.807573634 |
1348 |
< |
\end{tabular} |
1349 |
< |
\end{ruledtabular} |
1350 |
< |
\end{table*} |
1351 |
< |
|
1352 |
< |
In addition to the A and B arrays, there is an additional minimum |
1379 |
> |
To test the new electrostatic methods, we have constructed very large, |
1380 |
> |
$N=$ 16,000~(bcc) arrays of dipoles in the orientations described in |
1381 |
> |
Ref. \onlinecite{LT}. These structures include ``A'' lattices with |
1382 |
> |
nearest neighbor chains of antiparallel dipoles, as well as ``B'' |
1383 |
> |
lattices with nearest neighbor strings of antiparallel dipoles if the |
1384 |
> |
dipoles are contained in a plane perpendicular to the dipole direction |
1385 |
> |
that passes through the dipole. We have also studied the minimum |
1386 |
|
energy structure for the BCC lattice that was found by Luttinger \& |
1387 |
< |
Tisza. The total electrostatic energy for an array is given by: |
1387 |
> |
Tisza. The total electrostatic energy for any of the arrays is given |
1388 |
> |
by: |
1389 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1390 |
|
E = C N^2 \mu^2 |
1391 |
|
\end{equation} |
1392 |
< |
where $C$ is the energy constant given above, $N$ is the number of |
1393 |
< |
dipoles per unit volume, and $\mu$ is the strength of the dipole. |
1392 |
> |
where $C$ is the energy constant (equivalent to the Madelung |
1393 |
> |
constant), $N$ is the number of dipoles per unit volume, and $\mu$ is |
1394 |
> |
the strength of the dipole. Energy constants (converged to 1 part in |
1395 |
> |
$10^9$) are given in the supplemental information. |
1396 |
|
|
1397 |
< |
{\it Quadrupolar} analogues to the Madelung constants were first worked out by Nagai and Nakamura who |
1398 |
< |
computed the energies of selected quadrupole arrays based on |
1399 |
< |
extensions to the Luttinger and Tisza |
1400 |
< |
approach.\cite{Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} We have compared the |
1401 |
< |
energy constants for the lowest energy configurations for linear |
1402 |
< |
quadrupoles shown in table \ref{tab:NNQ} |
1397 |
> |
For the purposes of testing the energy expressions and the |
1398 |
> |
self-neutralization schemes, the primary quantity of interest is the |
1399 |
> |
analytic energy constant for the perfect arrays. Convergence to these |
1400 |
> |
constants are shown as a function of both the cutoff radius, $r_c$, |
1401 |
> |
and the damping parameter, $\alpha$ in Figs. |
1402 |
> |
\ref{fig:energyConstVsCutoff} and XXX. We have simultaneously tested a |
1403 |
> |
hard cutoff (where the kernel is simply truncated at the cutoff |
1404 |
> |
radius), as well as a shifted potential (SP) form which includes a |
1405 |
> |
potential-shifting and self-interaction term, but does not shift the |
1406 |
> |
forces and torques smoothly at the cutoff radius. The SP method is |
1407 |
> |
essentially an extension of the original Wolf method for multipoles. |
1408 |
|
|
1409 |
< |
\begin{table*} |
1410 |
< |
\centering{ |
1411 |
< |
\caption{Nagai and Nakamura Quadurpolar arrays}} |
1412 |
< |
\label{tab:NNQ} |
1413 |
< |
\begin{ruledtabular} |
1414 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{ccc} |
1415 |
< |
Lattice & Quadrupole Direction & Energy constants \\ \hline |
1416 |
< |
SC & 111 & -8.3 \\ |
1417 |
< |
BCC & 011 & -21.7 \\ |
1418 |
< |
FCC & 111 & -80.5 |
1419 |
< |
\end{tabular} |
1420 |
< |
\end{ruledtabular} |
1380 |
< |
\end{table*} |
1409 |
> |
\begin{figure}[!htbp] |
1410 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{energyConstVsCutoff} |
1411 |
> |
\caption{Convergence to the analytic energy constants as a function of |
1412 |
> |
cutoff radius (normalized by the lattice constant) for the different |
1413 |
> |
real-space methods. The two crystals shown here are the ``B'' array |
1414 |
> |
for bcc crystals with the dipoles along the 001 direction (upper), |
1415 |
> |
as well as the minimum energy bcc lattice (lower). The analytic |
1416 |
> |
energy constants are shown as a grey dashed line. The left panel |
1417 |
> |
shows results for the undamped kernel ($1/r$), while the damped |
1418 |
> |
error function kernel, $B_0(r)$ was used in the right panel. } |
1419 |
> |
\label{fig:energyConstVsCutoff} |
1420 |
> |
\end{figure} |
1421 |
|
|
1422 |
+ |
The Hard cutoff exhibits oscillations around the analytic energy |
1423 |
+ |
constants, and converges to incorrect energies when the complementary |
1424 |
+ |
error function damping kernel is used. The shifted potential (SP) and |
1425 |
+ |
gradient-shifted force (GSF) approximations converge to the correct |
1426 |
+ |
energy smoothly by $r_c / 6 a$ even for the undamped case. This |
1427 |
+ |
indicates that the correction provided by the self term is required |
1428 |
+ |
for obtaining accurate energies. The Taylor-shifted force (TSF) |
1429 |
+ |
approximation appears to perturb the potential too much inside the |
1430 |
+ |
cutoff region to provide accurate measures of the energy constants. |
1431 |
+ |
|
1432 |
+ |
{\it Quadrupolar} analogues to the Madelung constants were first |
1433 |
+ |
worked out by Nagai and Nakamura who computed the energies of selected |
1434 |
+ |
quadrupole arrays based on extensions to the Luttinger and Tisza |
1435 |
+ |
approach.\cite{Nagai01081960,Nagai01091963} We have compared the |
1436 |
+ |
energy constants for the lowest energy configurations for linear |
1437 |
+ |
quadrupoles. |
1438 |
+ |
|
1439 |
|
In analogy to the dipolar arrays, the total electrostatic energy for |
1440 |
|
the quadrupolar arrays is: |
1441 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1442 |
|
E = C \frac{3}{4} N^2 Q^2 |
1443 |
|
\end{equation} |
1444 |
< |
where $Q$ is the quadrupole moment. |
1444 |
> |
where $Q$ is the quadrupole moment. The lowest energy |
1445 |
|
|
1446 |
+ |
\section{Conclusion} |
1447 |
+ |
We have presented two efficient real-space methods for computing the |
1448 |
+ |
interactions between point multipoles. These methods have the benefit |
1449 |
+ |
of smoothly truncating the energies, forces, and torques at the cutoff |
1450 |
+ |
radius, making them attractive for both molecular dynamics (MD) and |
1451 |
+ |
Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. We find that the Gradient-Shifted Force |
1452 |
+ |
(GSF) and the Shifted-Potential (SP) methods converge rapidly to the |
1453 |
+ |
correct lattice energies for ordered dipolar and quadrupolar arrays, |
1454 |
+ |
while the Taylor-Shifted Force (TSF) is too severe an approximation to |
1455 |
+ |
provide accurate convergence to lattice energies. |
1456 |
|
|
1457 |
+ |
In most cases, GSF can obtain nearly quantitative agreement with the |
1458 |
+ |
lattice energy constants with reasonably small cutoff radii. The only |
1459 |
+ |
exception we have observed is for crystals which exhibit a bulk |
1460 |
+ |
macroscopic dipole moment (e.g. Luttinger \& Tisza's $Z_1$ lattice). |
1461 |
+ |
In this particular case, the multipole neutralization scheme can |
1462 |
+ |
interfere with the correct computation of the energies. We note that |
1463 |
+ |
the energies for these arrangements are typically much larger than for |
1464 |
+ |
crystals with net-zero moments, so this is not expected to be an issue |
1465 |
+ |
in most simulations. |
1466 |
|
|
1467 |
+ |
In large systems, these new methods can be made to scale approximately |
1468 |
+ |
linearly with system size, and detailed comparisons with the Ewald sum |
1469 |
+ |
for a wide range of chemical environments follows in the second paper. |
1470 |
|
|
1392 |
– |
|
1393 |
– |
|
1394 |
– |
|
1395 |
– |
|
1471 |
|
\begin{acknowledgments} |
1472 |
< |
Support for this project was provided by the National Science |
1473 |
< |
Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was provided by |
1474 |
< |
the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the University of Notre |
1475 |
< |
Dame. |
1472 |
> |
JDG acknowledges helpful discussions with Christopher |
1473 |
> |
Fennell. Support for this project was provided by the National |
1474 |
> |
Science Foundation under grant CHE-0848243. Computational time was |
1475 |
> |
provided by the Center for Research Computing (CRC) at the |
1476 |
> |
University of Notre Dame. |
1477 |
|
\end{acknowledgments} |
1478 |
|
|
1479 |
+ |
\newpage |
1480 |
|
\appendix |
1481 |
|
|
1482 |
< |
\section{Smith's $B_l(r)$ functions for smeared-charge distributions} |
1483 |
< |
|
1484 |
< |
The following summarizes Smith's $B_l(r)$ functions and |
1485 |
< |
includes formulas given in his appendix. |
1486 |
< |
|
1410 |
< |
The first function $B_0(r)$ is defined by |
1482 |
> |
\section{Smith's $B_l(r)$ functions for damped-charge distributions} |
1483 |
> |
\label{SmithFunc} |
1484 |
> |
The following summarizes Smith's $B_l(r)$ functions and includes |
1485 |
> |
formulas given in his appendix.\cite{Smith98} The first function |
1486 |
> |
$B_0(r)$ is defined by |
1487 |
|
% |
1488 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1489 |
|
B_0(r)=\frac{\text{erfc}(\alpha r)}{r} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}r}= |
1497 |
|
-\frac{2\alpha}{r\sqrt{\pi}}\text{e}^{-{\alpha}^2r^2} |
1498 |
|
\end{equation} |
1499 |
|
% |
1500 |
< |
and can be rewritten in terms of a function $B_1(r)$: |
1500 |
> |
which can be used to define a function $B_1(r)$: |
1501 |
|
% |
1502 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1503 |
|
B_1(r)=-\frac{1}{r}\frac{dB_0(r)}{dr} |
1504 |
|
\end{equation} |
1505 |
|
% |
1506 |
< |
In general, |
1506 |
> |
In general, the recurrence relation, |
1507 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1508 |
|
B_l(r)=-\frac{1}{r}\frac{dB_{l-1}(r)}{dr} |
1509 |
|
= \frac{1}{r^2} \left[ (2l-1)B_{l-1}(r) + \frac {(2\alpha^2)^l}{\alpha \sqrt{\pi}} |
1510 |
|
\text{e}^{-{\alpha}^2r^2} |
1511 |
< |
\right] . |
1511 |
> |
\right] , |
1512 |
|
\end{equation} |
1513 |
+ |
is very useful for building up higher derivatives. Using these |
1514 |
+ |
formulas, we find: |
1515 |
|
% |
1516 |
< |
Using these formulas, we find |
1516 |
> |
\begin{align} |
1517 |
> |
\frac{dB_0}{dr}=&-rB_1(r) \\ |
1518 |
> |
\frac{d^2B_0}{dr^2}=& - B_1(r) + r^2 B_2(r) \\ |
1519 |
> |
\frac{d^3B_0}{dr^3}=& 3 r B_2(r) - r^3 B_3(r) \\ |
1520 |
> |
\frac{d^4B_0}{dr^4}=& 3 B_2(r) - 6 r^2 B_3(r) + r^4 B_4(r) \\ |
1521 |
> |
\frac{d^5B_0}{dr^5}=& - 15 r B_3(r) + 10 r^3 B_4(r) - r^5 B_5(r) . |
1522 |
> |
\end{align} |
1523 |
|
% |
1524 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1525 |
< |
\frac{dB_0}{dr}=-rB_1(r) \\ |
1442 |
< |
\frac{d^2B_0}{dr^2}=-B_1(r) + r^2B_2(r) \\ |
1443 |
< |
\frac{d^3B_0}{dr^3}=3rB_2(r) - r^3B_3(r) \\ |
1444 |
< |
\frac{d^4B_0}{dr^4}=3B_2(r) - 6r^2B_3(r)+r^4B_4(r) \\ |
1445 |
< |
\frac{d^5B_0}{dr^5}=-15rB_3(r) + 10r^3B_4(r) -r^5B_5(r) . |
1446 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1524 |
> |
As noted by Smith, it is possible to approximate the $B_l(r)$ |
1525 |
> |
functions, |
1526 |
|
% |
1448 |
– |
As noted by Smith, |
1449 |
– |
% |
1527 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1528 |
|
B_l(r)=\frac{(2l)!}{l!2^lr^{2l+1}} - \frac {(2\alpha^2)^{l+1}}{(2l+1)\alpha \sqrt{\pi}} |
1529 |
|
+\text{O}(r) . |
1530 |
|
\end{equation} |
1531 |
+ |
\newpage |
1532 |
+ |
\section{The $r$-dependent factors for TSF electrostatics} |
1533 |
|
|
1455 |
– |
\section{Method 1, the $r$-dependent factors} |
1456 |
– |
|
1534 |
|
Using the shifted damped functions $f_n(r)$ defined by: |
1535 |
|
% |
1536 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1537 |
< |
f_n(r)= B_0 \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} , |
1537 |
> |
f_n(r)= B_0(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n+1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m)}(r_c) , |
1538 |
|
\end{equation} |
1539 |
|
% |
1540 |
< |
we first provide formulas for successive derivatives of this function. (If there is |
1541 |
< |
no damping, then $B_0(r)$ is replaced by $1/r$, as discussed in Section~\ref{damped???}.) First, we find: |
1540 |
> |
where the superscript $(m)$ denotes the $m^\mathrm{th}$ derivative. In |
1541 |
> |
this Appendix, we provide formulas for successive derivatives of this |
1542 |
> |
function. (If there is no damping, then $B_0(r)$ is replaced by |
1543 |
> |
$1/r$.) First, we find: |
1544 |
|
% |
1545 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1546 |
|
\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial r_\alpha}=\hat{r}_\alpha \frac{d f_n}{d r} . |
1547 |
|
\end{equation} |
1548 |
|
% |
1549 |
< |
This formula clearly brings in derivatives of Smith's $B_0(r)$ function, motivating us to |
1550 |
< |
define higher-order derivatives as follows: |
1549 |
> |
This formula clearly brings in derivatives of Smith's $B_0(r)$ |
1550 |
> |
function, and we define higher-order derivatives as follows: |
1551 |
|
% |
1552 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1553 |
< |
g_n(r)= \frac{d f_n}{d r} = |
1554 |
< |
B_0^{(1)} \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+1)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} \\ |
1555 |
< |
h_n(r)= \frac{d^2f_n}{d r^2} = |
1556 |
< |
B_0^{(2)} \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+2)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} \\ |
1557 |
< |
s_n(r)= \frac{d^3f_n}{d r^3} = |
1558 |
< |
B_0^{(3)} \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n-2} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+3)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} \\ |
1559 |
< |
t_n(r)= \frac{d^4f_n}{d r^4} = |
1560 |
< |
B_0^{(4)} \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n-3} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+4)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} \\ |
1561 |
< |
u_n(r)= \frac{d^5f_n}{d r^5} = |
1562 |
< |
B_0^{(5)} \Big \lvert _r -\sum_{m=0}^{n-4} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+5)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} . |
1563 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1552 |
> |
\begin{align} |
1553 |
> |
g_n(r)=& \frac{d f_n}{d r} = |
1554 |
> |
B_0^{(1)}(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+1)}(r_c) \\ |
1555 |
> |
h_n(r)=& \frac{d^2f_n}{d r^2} = |
1556 |
> |
B_0^{(2)}(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+2)}(r_c) \\ |
1557 |
> |
s_n(r)=& \frac{d^3f_n}{d r^3} = |
1558 |
> |
B_0^{(3)}(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n-2} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+3)}(r_c) \\ |
1559 |
> |
t_n(r)=& \frac{d^4f_n}{d r^4} = |
1560 |
> |
B_0^{(4)}(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n-3} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+4)}(r_c) \\ |
1561 |
> |
u_n(r)=& \frac{d^5f_n}{d r^5} = |
1562 |
> |
B_0^{(5)}(r) -\sum_{m=0}^{n-4} \frac {(r-r_c)^m}{m!} B_0^{(m+5)}(r_c) . |
1563 |
> |
\end{align} |
1564 |
|
% |
1565 |
< |
We note that the last function needed (for quadrupole-quadrupole) is |
1565 |
> |
We note that the last function needed (for quadrupole-quadrupole interactions) is |
1566 |
|
% |
1567 |
|
\begin{equation} |
1568 |
< |
u_4(r)=B_0^{(5)} \Big \lvert _r - B_0^{(5)} \Big \lvert _{r_c} . |
1568 |
> |
u_4(r)=B_0^{(5)}(r) - B_0^{(5)}(r_c) . |
1569 |
|
\end{equation} |
1570 |
< |
|
1571 |
< |
The functions $f_n(r)$ to $u_n(r)$ are recursively computed and stored for values of $r$ |
1572 |
< |
from $0$ to $r_c$. The functions needed are listed schematically below: |
1570 |
> |
% The functions |
1571 |
> |
% needed are listed schematically below: |
1572 |
> |
% % |
1573 |
> |
% \begin{eqnarray} |
1574 |
> |
% f_0 \quad f_1 \qquad \qquad \quad & \nonumber \\ |
1575 |
> |
% g_0 \quad g_1 \quad g_2 \quad g_3 \quad &g_4 \nonumber \\ |
1576 |
> |
% h_1 \quad h_2 \quad h_3 \quad &h_4 \nonumber \\ |
1577 |
> |
% s_2 \quad s_3 \quad &s_4 \nonumber \\ |
1578 |
> |
% t_3 \quad &t_4 \nonumber \\ |
1579 |
> |
% &u_4 \nonumber . |
1580 |
> |
% \end{eqnarray} |
1581 |
> |
The functions $f_n(r)$ to $u_n(r)$ can be computed recursively and |
1582 |
> |
stored on a grid for values of $r$ from $0$ to $r_c$. Using these |
1583 |
> |
functions, we find |
1584 |
|
% |
1585 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1586 |
< |
f_0 \quad f_1 \qquad \qquad \quad & \nonumber \\ |
1587 |
< |
g_0 \quad g_1 \quad g_2 \quad g_3 \quad &g_4 \nonumber \\ |
1588 |
< |
h_1 \quad h_2 \quad h_3 \quad &h_4 \nonumber \\ |
1589 |
< |
s_2 \quad s_3 \quad &s_4 \nonumber \\ |
1500 |
< |
t_3 \quad &t_4 \nonumber \\ |
1501 |
< |
&u_4 \nonumber . |
1502 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1503 |
< |
|
1504 |
< |
Using these functions, we find |
1505 |
< |
% |
1506 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1507 |
< |
\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial r_\alpha} =r_\alpha \frac {g_n}{r} |
1508 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1509 |
< |
% |
1510 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1511 |
< |
\frac{\partial^2 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta} =\delta_{\alpha \beta}\frac {g_n}{r} |
1512 |
< |
+r_\alpha r_\beta \left( -\frac{g_n}{r^3} +\frac{h_n}{r^2}\right) |
1513 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1514 |
< |
% |
1515 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1516 |
< |
\frac{\partial^3 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta r_\gamma} = |
1585 |
> |
\begin{align} |
1586 |
> |
\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial r_\alpha} =&r_\alpha \frac {g_n}{r} \label{eq:b9}\\ |
1587 |
> |
\frac{\partial^2 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta} =&\delta_{\alpha \beta}\frac {g_n}{r} |
1588 |
> |
+r_\alpha r_\beta \left( -\frac{g_n}{r^3} +\frac{h_n}{r^2}\right) \\ |
1589 |
> |
\frac{\partial^3 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta \partial r_\gamma} =& |
1590 |
|
\left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} r_\gamma + \delta_{\alpha \gamma} r_\beta + |
1591 |
|
\delta_{ \beta \gamma} r_\alpha \right) |
1592 |
< |
\left( -\frac{g_n}{r^3} +\frac{h_n}{r^2} \right) |
1593 |
< |
+ r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma |
1594 |
< |
\left( \frac{3g_n}{r^5}-\frac{3h_n}{r^4} +\frac{s_n}{r^3} \right) |
1595 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1596 |
< |
% |
1524 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1525 |
< |
\frac{\partial^4 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta} = |
1592 |
> |
\left( -\frac{g_n}{r^3} +\frac{h_n}{r^2} \right) \nonumber \\ |
1593 |
> |
& + r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma |
1594 |
> |
\left( \frac{3g_n}{r^5}-\frac{3h_n}{r^4} +\frac{s_n}{r^3} \right) \\ |
1595 |
> |
\frac{\partial^4 f_n}{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta \partial |
1596 |
> |
r_\gamma \partial r_\delta} =& |
1597 |
|
\left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} \delta_{\gamma \delta} |
1598 |
|
+ \delta_{\alpha \gamma} \delta_{\beta \delta} |
1599 |
|
+\delta_{ \beta \gamma} \delta_{\alpha \delta} \right) |
1600 |
|
\left( - \frac{g_n}{r^3} + \frac{h_n}{r^2} \right) \nonumber \\ |
1601 |
< |
+ \left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} r_\gamma r_\delta |
1602 |
< |
+ \text{5 perm} |
1601 |
> |
&+ \left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} r_\gamma r_\delta |
1602 |
> |
+ \text{5 permutations} |
1603 |
|
\right) \left( \frac{3 g_n}{r^5} - \frac{3h_n}{r^4} + \frac{s_n}{r^3} |
1604 |
|
\right) \nonumber \\ |
1605 |
< |
+ r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta |
1605 |
> |
&+ r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta |
1606 |
|
\left( -\frac{15g_n}{r^7} + \frac{15h_n}{r^6} - \frac{6s_n}{r^5} |
1607 |
< |
+ \frac{t_n}{r^4} \right) |
1537 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1538 |
< |
% |
1539 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1607 |
> |
+ \frac{t_n}{r^4} \right)\\ |
1608 |
|
\frac{\partial^5 f_n} |
1609 |
< |
{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta r_\epsilon} = |
1609 |
> |
{\partial r_\alpha \partial r_\beta \partial r_\gamma \partial |
1610 |
> |
r_\delta \partial r_\epsilon} =& |
1611 |
|
\left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} \delta_{\gamma \delta} r_\epsilon |
1612 |
< |
+ \text{14 perm} \right) |
1612 |
> |
+ \text{14 permutations} \right) |
1613 |
|
\left( \frac{3g_n}{r^5}-\frac{3h_n}{r^4} +\frac{s_n}{r^3} \right) \nonumber \\ |
1614 |
< |
+ \left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} r_\gamma r_\delta r_\epsilon |
1615 |
< |
+ \text{9 perm} |
1614 |
> |
&+ \left( \delta_{\alpha \beta} r_\gamma r_\delta r_\epsilon |
1615 |
> |
+ \text{9 permutations} |
1616 |
|
\right) \left(- \frac{15g_n}{r^7}+\frac{15h_n}{r^7} -\frac{6s_n}{r^5} +\frac{t_n}{r^4} |
1617 |
|
\right) \nonumber \\ |
1618 |
< |
+ r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta r_\epsilon |
1618 |
> |
&+ r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma r_\delta r_\epsilon |
1619 |
|
\left( \frac{105g_n}{r^9} - \frac{105h_n}{r^8} + \frac{45s_n}{r^7} |
1620 |
< |
- \frac{10t_n}{r^6} +\frac{u_n}{r^5} \right) |
1621 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1620 |
> |
- \frac{10t_n}{r^6} +\frac{u_n}{r^5} \right) \label{eq:b13} |
1621 |
> |
\end{align} |
1622 |
|
% |
1623 |
|
% |
1624 |
|
% |
1625 |
< |
\section{Method 2, the $r$-dependent factors} |
1625 |
> |
\newpage |
1626 |
> |
\section{The $r$-dependent factors for GSF electrostatics} |
1627 |
|
|
1628 |
< |
In method 2, the kernel is not expanded, rather the individual terms in the multipole interaction energies, |
1629 |
< |
see Eq. (20?). For a smeared-charge distribution, this still brings into the algebra multiple derivatives |
1630 |
< |
of the kernel $B_0(r)$. To denote these terms, we generalize the notation of the previous appendix. |
1631 |
< |
For $f(r)=1/r$ (bare Coulomb) or $f(r)=B_0(r)$ (smeared charge) |
1628 |
> |
In Gradient-shifted force electrostatics, the kernel is not expanded, |
1629 |
> |
rather the individual terms in the multipole interaction energies. |
1630 |
> |
For damped charges , this still brings into the algebra multiple |
1631 |
> |
derivatives of the Smith's $B_0(r)$ function. To denote these terms, |
1632 |
> |
we generalize the notation of the previous appendix. For either |
1633 |
> |
$f(r)=1/r$ (undamped) or $f(r)=B_0(r)$ (damped), |
1634 |
|
% |
1635 |
< |
\begin{eqnarray} |
1636 |
< |
g(r)= \frac{df}{d r}\\ |
1637 |
< |
h(r)= \frac{dg}{d r} = \frac{d^2f}{d r^2} \\ |
1638 |
< |
s(r)= \frac{dh}{d r} = \frac{d^3f}{d r^3} \\ |
1639 |
< |
t(r)= \frac{ds}{d r} = \frac{d^4f}{d r^4} \\ |
1640 |
< |
u(r)= \frac{dt}{d r} =\frac{d^5f}{d r^5} . |
1641 |
< |
\end{eqnarray} |
1635 |
> |
\begin{align} |
1636 |
> |
g(r)=& \frac{df}{d r}\\ |
1637 |
> |
h(r)=& \frac{dg}{d r} = \frac{d^2f}{d r^2} \\ |
1638 |
> |
s(r)=& \frac{dh}{d r} = \frac{d^3f}{d r^3} \\ |
1639 |
> |
t(r)=& \frac{ds}{d r} = \frac{d^4f}{d r^4} \\ |
1640 |
> |
u(r)=& \frac{dt}{d r} = \frac{d^5f}{d r^5} . |
1641 |
> |
\end{align} |
1642 |
|
% |
1643 |
< |
For $f(r)=1/r$, Table I lists these derivatives under the column ``Bare Coulomb.'' Checks of algebra can be made by using limiting forms |
1644 |
< |
of equations, e.g., the leading term in the function $g_n(r)$ has $r$ dependence given by $g(r)$. Equations (B9) to B(13) |
1645 |
< |
are correct for method 2 if one just eliminates the subscript $n$. |
1574 |
< |
|
1575 |
< |
\section{Extra Material} |
1576 |
< |
% |
1577 |
< |
% |
1578 |
< |
%Energy in body coordinate form --------------------------------------------------------------- |
1579 |
< |
% |
1580 |
< |
Here are the interaction energies written in terms of the body coordinates: |
1581 |
< |
|
1582 |
< |
% |
1583 |
< |
% u ca cb |
1584 |
< |
% |
1585 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1586 |
< |
U_{C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)= |
1587 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} v_{01}(r) |
1588 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1589 |
< |
% |
1590 |
< |
% u ca db |
1591 |
< |
% |
1592 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1593 |
< |
U_{C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)= |
1594 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1595 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} \, v_{11}(r) |
1596 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1597 |
< |
% |
1598 |
< |
% u ca qb |
1599 |
< |
% |
1600 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1601 |
< |
U_{C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)= |
1602 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a }\text{Tr}Q_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1603 |
< |
v_{21}(r) \nonumber \\ |
1604 |
< |
+\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1605 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
1606 |
< |
v_{22}(r) |
1607 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1608 |
< |
% |
1609 |
< |
% u da cb |
1610 |
< |
% |
1611 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1612 |
< |
U_{D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)= |
1613 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1614 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} \, v_{11}(r) |
1615 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1616 |
< |
% |
1617 |
< |
% u da db |
1618 |
< |
% |
1619 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1620 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1621 |
< |
% 1 |
1622 |
< |
U_{D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)&= |
1623 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \sum_{mn} D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1624 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
1625 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{b}n} v_{21}(r) \\ |
1626 |
< |
% 2 |
1627 |
< |
&-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1628 |
< |
\sum_m (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1629 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf {b}n} |
1630 |
< |
v_{22}(r) |
1631 |
< |
\end{split} |
1632 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1633 |
< |
% |
1634 |
< |
% u da qb |
1635 |
< |
% |
1636 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1637 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1638 |
< |
% 1 |
1639 |
< |
U_{D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)&= |
1640 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
1641 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1642 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} |
1643 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1644 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1645 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
1646 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r) \\ |
1647 |
< |
% 2 |
1648 |
< |
&-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1649 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1650 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1651 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} |
1652 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
1653 |
< |
\end{split} |
1654 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1655 |
< |
% |
1656 |
< |
% u qa cb |
1657 |
< |
% |
1658 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1659 |
< |
U_{Q_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}}(r)= |
1660 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf b }\text{Tr}Q_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} v_{21}(r) |
1661 |
< |
+\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1662 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) v_{22}(r) |
1663 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1664 |
< |
% |
1665 |
< |
% u qa db |
1666 |
< |
% |
1667 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1668 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1669 |
< |
%1 |
1670 |
< |
U_{Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}}(r)&= |
1671 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
1672 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
1673 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} |
1674 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1675 |
< |
(\hat{b}_l \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1676 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
1677 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r) \\ |
1678 |
< |
% 2 |
1679 |
< |
&+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1680 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1681 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1682 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} |
1683 |
< |
(\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
1684 |
< |
\end{split} |
1685 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1686 |
< |
% |
1687 |
< |
% u qa qb |
1688 |
< |
% |
1689 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1690 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1691 |
< |
%1 |
1692 |
< |
U_{Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}}(r)&= |
1693 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1694 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} \text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1695 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmnp} (\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_p) |
1696 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} Q_{\mathbf{b}np} |
1697 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) \Bigr] |
1698 |
< |
v_{41}(r) \\ |
1699 |
< |
% 2 |
1700 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1701 |
< |
\Bigl[ \text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
1702 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l ) |
1703 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}lm} |
1704 |
< |
(\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
1705 |
< |
+\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1706 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
1707 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
1708 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) \\ |
1709 |
< |
% 3 |
1710 |
< |
&+4 \sum_{lmnp} |
1711 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
1712 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
1713 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
1714 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
1715 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) |
1716 |
< |
\Bigr] v_{42}(r) \\ |
1717 |
< |
% 4 |
1718 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1719 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) |
1720 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
1721 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
1722 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
1723 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
1724 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r). |
1725 |
< |
\end{split} |
1726 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1727 |
< |
% |
1728 |
< |
|
1729 |
< |
|
1730 |
< |
% BODY coordinates force equations -------------------------------------------- |
1731 |
< |
% |
1732 |
< |
% |
1733 |
< |
Here are the force equations written in terms of body coordinates. |
1734 |
< |
% |
1735 |
< |
% f ca cb |
1736 |
< |
% |
1737 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1738 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1739 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a} C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} w_a(r) \hat{r} |
1740 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1741 |
< |
% |
1742 |
< |
% f ca db |
1743 |
< |
% |
1744 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1745 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1746 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1747 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} w_b(r) \hat{r} |
1748 |
< |
+\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1749 |
< |
\sum_n D_{\mathbf{b}n} \hat{b}_n w_c(r) |
1750 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1751 |
< |
% |
1752 |
< |
% f ca qb |
1753 |
< |
% |
1754 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1755 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1756 |
< |
% 1 |
1757 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1758 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1759 |
< |
C_{\bf a }\text{Tr}Q_{\bf b} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1760 |
< |
+ 2C_{\bf a } \sum_l \hat{b}_l Q_{{\mathbf b}ln} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_e(r) \\ |
1761 |
< |
% 2 |
1762 |
< |
+\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1763 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_f(r) \hat{r} |
1764 |
< |
\end{split} |
1765 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1766 |
< |
% |
1767 |
< |
% f da cb |
1768 |
< |
% |
1769 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1770 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1771 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf{b}}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1772 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} w_b(r) \hat{r} |
1773 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf{b}}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1774 |
< |
\sum_n D_{\mathbf{a}n} \hat{a}_n w_c(r) |
1775 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1776 |
< |
% |
1777 |
< |
% f da db |
1778 |
< |
% |
1779 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1780 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1781 |
< |
% 1 |
1782 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} &= |
1783 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1784 |
< |
\sum_{mn} D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1785 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
1786 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{b}n} w_d(r) \hat{r} |
1787 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1788 |
< |
\sum_m (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1789 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf {b}n} w_f(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1790 |
< |
% 2 |
1791 |
< |
& \quad + \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1792 |
< |
\Bigl[ \sum_m D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1793 |
< |
\hat{a}_m \sum_n D_{\mathbf{b}n} |
1794 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
1795 |
< |
+ \sum_m D_{\mathbf {b}m} |
1796 |
< |
\hat{b}_m \sum_n D_{\mathbf{a}n} |
1797 |
< |
(\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_e(r) \\ |
1798 |
< |
\end{split} |
1799 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1800 |
< |
% |
1801 |
< |
% f da qb |
1802 |
< |
% |
1803 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1804 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1805 |
< |
% 1 |
1806 |
< |
&\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1807 |
< |
- \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1808 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1809 |
< |
\sum_l D_{\mathbf{a}l} \hat{a}_l |
1810 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn} D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1811 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1812 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} \hat{b}_n \Bigr] w_g(r) \\ |
1813 |
< |
% 3 |
1814 |
< |
& - \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1815 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1816 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} |
1817 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1818 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1819 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_h(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1820 |
< |
% 4 |
1821 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1822 |
< |
\Bigl[\sum_l D_{\mathbf{a}l} \hat{a}_l |
1823 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1824 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} |
1825 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) +2 \sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) |
1826 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1827 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1828 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} \hat{b}_n \Bigr] w_i(r)\\ |
1829 |
< |
% 6 |
1830 |
< |
& -\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1831 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1832 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
1833 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} |
1834 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} |
1835 |
< |
\end{split} |
1836 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1837 |
< |
% |
1838 |
< |
% force qa cb |
1839 |
< |
% |
1840 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1841 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1842 |
< |
% 1 |
1843 |
< |
\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} &= |
1844 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1845 |
< |
C_{\bf b }\text{Tr}Q_{\bf a} \hat{r} w_d(r) |
1846 |
< |
+ \frac{2C_{\bf b }}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \sum_l \hat{a}_l Q_{{\mathbf a}ln} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_e(r) \\ |
1847 |
< |
% 2 |
1848 |
< |
& +\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1849 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_f(r) \hat{r} |
1850 |
< |
\end{split} |
1851 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1852 |
< |
% |
1853 |
< |
% f qa db |
1854 |
< |
% |
1855 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1856 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1857 |
< |
% 1 |
1858 |
< |
&\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1859 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1860 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
1861 |
< |
\sum_l D_{\mathbf{b}l} \hat{b}_l |
1862 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn} D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1863 |
< |
(\hat{b}_l \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1864 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} \hat{a}_n \Bigr] |
1865 |
< |
w_g(r)\\ |
1866 |
< |
% 3 |
1867 |
< |
& + \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1868 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
1869 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} |
1870 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1871 |
< |
(\hat{b}_l \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1872 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_h(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1873 |
< |
% 4 |
1874 |
< |
& + \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ \sum_l D_{\mathbf{b}l} \hat{b}_l |
1875 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1876 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} |
1877 |
< |
(\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) +2 \sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) |
1878 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1879 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1880 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} \hat{a}_n \Bigr] w_i(r) \\ |
1881 |
< |
% 6 |
1882 |
< |
& +\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1883 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
1884 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
1885 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} |
1886 |
< |
(\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) w_j(r) \hat{r} |
1887 |
< |
\end{split} |
1888 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1889 |
< |
% |
1890 |
< |
% f qa qb |
1891 |
< |
% |
1892 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1893 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1894 |
< |
&\mathbf{F}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1895 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1896 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} \text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1897 |
< |
+ 2 \sum_{lmnp} (\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_p) |
1898 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} Q_{\mathbf{b}np} |
1899 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) \Bigr] w_k(r) \hat{r}\\ |
1900 |
< |
&+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1901 |
< |
2\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} \sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} \hat{a}_m |
1902 |
< |
+ 2\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} \sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) Q_{\mathbf{b}lm} \hat{b}_m \\ |
1903 |
< |
&+ 4\sum_{lmnp} \hat{a}_l Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) Q_{\mathbf{b}np} (\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) |
1904 |
< |
+ 4\sum_{lmnp} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) Q_{\mathbf{b}np} \hat{b}_p |
1905 |
< |
\Bigr] w_n(r) \\ |
1906 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1907 |
< |
\Bigl[ \text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
1908 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) Q_{\mathbf{b}lm} (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
1909 |
< |
+ \text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1910 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) \\ |
1911 |
< |
&+4\sum_{lmnp} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
1912 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}np} (\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) \Bigr] w_l(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1913 |
< |
% |
1914 |
< |
&+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \Bigl[ |
1915 |
< |
2\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} \hat{a}_m |
1916 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) Q_{\mathbf{b}np} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) \\ |
1917 |
< |
&+2 \sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
1918 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) Q_{\mathbf{b}np} \hat{b}_n \Bigr] w_o(r) \hat{r} \\ |
1919 |
< |
& + \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1920 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} (\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
1921 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) Q_{\mathbf{b}np} (\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) w_m(r) \hat{r} |
1922 |
< |
\end{split} |
1923 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1924 |
< |
% |
1925 |
< |
Here we list the form of the non-zero damped shifted multipole torques showing |
1926 |
< |
explicitly dependences on body axes: |
1927 |
< |
% |
1928 |
< |
% t ca db |
1929 |
< |
% |
1930 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1931 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} = |
1932 |
< |
\frac{C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1933 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} \, v_{11}(r) |
1934 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1935 |
< |
% |
1936 |
< |
% t ca qb |
1937 |
< |
% |
1938 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1939 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}C_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} = |
1940 |
< |
\frac{2C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1941 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_l) Q_{{\mathbf b}lm} (\hat{b}_m \cdot \hat{r}) v_{22}(r) |
1942 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1943 |
< |
% |
1944 |
< |
% t da cb |
1945 |
< |
% |
1946 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1947 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
1948 |
< |
-\frac{C_{\bf b}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1949 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} \, v_{11}(r) |
1950 |
< |
\end{equation}% |
1951 |
< |
% |
1952 |
< |
% |
1953 |
< |
% ta da db |
1954 |
< |
% |
1955 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1956 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1957 |
< |
% 1 |
1958 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} &= |
1959 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \sum_{mn} D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1960 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) |
1961 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{b}n} v_{21}(r) \\ |
1962 |
< |
% 2 |
1963 |
< |
&-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1964 |
< |
\sum_m (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_m) D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1965 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf {b}n} v_{22}(r) |
1966 |
< |
\end{split} |
1967 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1968 |
< |
% |
1969 |
< |
% tb da db |
1970 |
< |
% |
1971 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1972 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1973 |
< |
% 1 |
1974 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} &= |
1975 |
< |
-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \sum_{mn} D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1976 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) |
1977 |
< |
D_{\mathbf{b}n} v_{21}(r) \\ |
1978 |
< |
% 2 |
1979 |
< |
&+\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
1980 |
< |
\sum_m (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) D_{\mathbf {a}m} |
1981 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf {b}n} v_{22}(r) |
1982 |
< |
\end{split} |
1983 |
< |
\end{equation} |
1984 |
< |
% |
1985 |
< |
% ta da qb |
1986 |
< |
% |
1987 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
1988 |
< |
\begin{split} |
1989 |
< |
% 1 |
1990 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} &= |
1991 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
1992 |
< |
-\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
1993 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_n) D_{\mathbf{a}n} |
1994 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
1995 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \times \hat{b}_m) |
1996 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
1997 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r)\\ |
1998 |
< |
% 2 |
1999 |
< |
&-\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2000 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_l) D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
2001 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
2002 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} |
2003 |
< |
(\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
2004 |
< |
\end{split} |
2005 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2006 |
< |
% |
2007 |
< |
% tb da qb |
2008 |
< |
% |
2009 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2010 |
< |
\begin{split} |
2011 |
< |
% 1 |
2012 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}D_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} &= |
2013 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
2014 |
< |
-2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
2015 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
2016 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_n) |
2017 |
< |
-2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
2018 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \times \hat{b}_m) |
2019 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{b}mn} (\hat{b}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
2020 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r) \\ |
2021 |
< |
% 2 |
2022 |
< |
&-\frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2023 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) D_{\mathbf{a}l} |
2024 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_m) |
2025 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}mn} |
2026 |
< |
(\hat{r}\times \hat{b}_n) v_{32}(r) |
2027 |
< |
\end{split} |
2028 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2029 |
< |
% |
2030 |
< |
% ta qa cb |
2031 |
< |
% |
2032 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2033 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}C_{\bf b}} = |
2034 |
< |
\frac{2C_{\bf a}}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2035 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_m) v_{22}(r) |
2036 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2037 |
< |
% |
2038 |
< |
% ta qa db |
2039 |
< |
% |
2040 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2041 |
< |
\begin{split} |
2042 |
< |
% 1 |
2043 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} &= |
2044 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
2045 |
< |
2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
2046 |
< |
(\hat{b}_l \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
2047 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_n) |
2048 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
2049 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \times \hat{b}_m) |
2050 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
2051 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r) \\ |
2052 |
< |
% 2 |
2053 |
< |
&+\frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2054 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l) D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
2055 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
2056 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} |
2057 |
< |
(\hat{r}\times \hat{a}_n) v_{32}(r) |
2058 |
< |
\end{split} |
2059 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2060 |
< |
% |
2061 |
< |
% tb qa db |
2062 |
< |
% |
2063 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2064 |
< |
\begin{split} |
2065 |
< |
% 1 |
2066 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}Q_{\bf a}D_{\bf b}} &= |
2067 |
< |
\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \left( |
2068 |
< |
\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
2069 |
< |
\sum_n (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_n) D_{\mathbf{b}n} |
2070 |
< |
+2\sum_{lmn}D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
2071 |
< |
(\hat{a}_l \times \hat{b}_m) |
2072 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}mn} (\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) |
2073 |
< |
\right) v_{31}(r)\\ |
2074 |
< |
% 2 |
2075 |
< |
&\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2076 |
< |
\sum_l (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_l) D_{\mathbf{b}l} |
2077 |
< |
\sum_{mn} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_m) |
2078 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}mn} |
2079 |
< |
(\hat{a}_n \cdot \hat{r}) v_{32}(r) |
2080 |
< |
\end{split} |
2081 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2082 |
< |
% |
2083 |
< |
% ta qa qb |
2084 |
< |
% |
2085 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2086 |
< |
\begin{split} |
2087 |
< |
% 1 |
2088 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf a}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} &= |
2089 |
< |
-\frac{4}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2090 |
< |
\sum_{lmnp} (\hat{a}_l \times \hat{b}_p) |
2091 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} Q_{\mathbf{b}np} |
2092 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) v_{41}(r) \\ |
2093 |
< |
% 2 |
2094 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2095 |
< |
\Bigl[ |
2096 |
< |
2\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{b}} |
2097 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
2098 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2099 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_m) |
2100 |
< |
+4 \sum_{lmnp} |
2101 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_l ) |
2102 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2103 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
2104 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2105 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) \\ |
2106 |
< |
% 3 |
2107 |
< |
&-4 \sum_{lmnp} |
2108 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
2109 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2110 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) |
2111 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2112 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) |
2113 |
< |
\Bigr] v_{42}(r) \\ |
2114 |
< |
% 4 |
2115 |
< |
&+ \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2116 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \times \hat{a}_l) |
2117 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2118 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
2119 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
2120 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2121 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r)\\ |
2122 |
< |
\end{split} |
2123 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2124 |
< |
% |
2125 |
< |
% tb qa qb |
2126 |
< |
% |
2127 |
< |
\begin{equation} |
2128 |
< |
\begin{split} |
2129 |
< |
% 1 |
2130 |
< |
\mathbf{\tau}_{{\bf b}Q_{\bf a}Q_{\bf b}} &= |
2131 |
< |
\frac{4}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2132 |
< |
\sum_{lmnp} (\hat{a}_l \cdot \hat{b}_p) |
2133 |
< |
Q_{\mathbf{a}lm} Q_{\mathbf{b}np} |
2134 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) v_{41}(r) \\ |
2135 |
< |
% 2 |
2136 |
< |
&+ \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2137 |
< |
\Bigl[ |
2138 |
< |
2\text{Tr}Q_{\mathbf{a}} |
2139 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{b}_l ) |
2140 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}lm} |
2141 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_m) |
2142 |
< |
+4 \sum_{lmnp} |
2143 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
2144 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2145 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{b}_n) |
2146 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2147 |
< |
(\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_p) \\ |
2148 |
< |
% 3 |
2149 |
< |
&+4 \sum_{lmnp} |
2150 |
< |
(\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l ) |
2151 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2152 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \times \hat{b}_n) |
2153 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2154 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) |
2155 |
< |
\Bigr] v_{42}(r) \\ |
2156 |
< |
% 4 |
2157 |
< |
&+ \frac{2}{4\pi \epsilon_0} |
2158 |
< |
\sum_{lm} (\hat{r} \cdot \hat{a}_l) |
2159 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf a}lm} |
2160 |
< |
(\hat{a}_m \cdot \hat{r}) |
2161 |
< |
\sum_{np} (\hat{r} \times \hat{b}_n) |
2162 |
< |
Q_{{\mathbf b}np} |
2163 |
< |
(\hat{b}_p \cdot \hat{r}) v_{43}(r). \\ |
2164 |
< |
\end{split} |
2165 |
< |
\end{equation} |
2166 |
< |
% |
2167 |
< |
\begin{table*} |
2168 |
< |
\caption{\label{tab:tableFORCE2}Radial functions used in the force equations.} |
2169 |
< |
\begin{ruledtabular} |
2170 |
< |
\begin{tabular}{ccc} |
2171 |
< |
Generic&Method 1&Method 2 |
2172 |
< |
\\ \hline |
2173 |
< |
% |
2174 |
< |
% |
2175 |
< |
% |
2176 |
< |
$w_a(r)$& |
2177 |
< |
$g_0(r)$& |
2178 |
< |
$g(r)-g(r_c)$ \\ |
2179 |
< |
% |
2180 |
< |
% |
2181 |
< |
$w_b(r)$ & |
2182 |
< |
$\left( -\frac{g_1(r)}{r}+h_1(r) \right)$ & |
2183 |
< |
$h(r)- h(r_c) - \frac{v_{11}(r)}{r} $ \\ |
2184 |
< |
% |
2185 |
< |
$w_c(r)$ & |
2186 |
< |
$\frac{g_1(r)}{r} $ & |
2187 |
< |
$\frac{v_{11}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2188 |
< |
% |
2189 |
< |
% |
2190 |
< |
$w_d(r)$& |
2191 |
< |
$\left( -\frac{g_2(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h_2(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
2192 |
< |
$\left( -\frac{g(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h(r)}{r} \right) |
2193 |
< |
-\left( -\frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2} + \frac{h(r_c)}{r_c} \right) $\\ |
2194 |
< |
% |
2195 |
< |
$w_e(r)$ & |
2196 |
< |
$\left(-\frac{g_2(r)}{r^2} + \frac{h_2(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
2197 |
< |
$\frac{v_{22}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2198 |
< |
% |
2199 |
< |
% |
2200 |
< |
$w_f(r)$& |
2201 |
< |
$\left( \frac{3g_2(r)}{r^2}-\frac{3h_2(r)}{r}+s_2(r) \right)$ & |
2202 |
< |
$\left( \frac{g(r)}{r^2}-\frac{h(r)}{r}+s(r) \right) - $ \\ |
2203 |
< |
&&$\left( \frac{g(r_c)}{r_c^2}-\frac{h(r_c)}{r_c}+s(r_c) \right)-\frac{2v_{22}(r)}{r}$\\ |
2204 |
< |
% |
2205 |
< |
$w_g(r)$& $ \left( -\frac{g_3(r)}{r^3}+\frac{h_3(r)}{r^2} \right)$& |
2206 |
< |
$\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$\\ |
2207 |
< |
% |
2208 |
< |
$w_h(r)$ & |
2209 |
< |
$\left(\frac{3g_3(r)}{r^3} -\frac{3h_3(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s_3(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
2210 |
< |
$\left(\frac{2g(r)}{r^3} -\frac{2h(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s(r)}{r} \right) - $\\ |
2211 |
< |
&&$\left(\frac{2g(r_c)}{r_c^3} -\frac{2h(r_c)}{r_c^2} +\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c} \right) $ \\ |
2212 |
< |
&&$-\frac{v_{31}(r)}{r}$\\ |
2213 |
< |
% 2 |
2214 |
< |
$w_i(r)$ & |
2215 |
< |
$\left(\frac{3g_3(r)}{r^3} -\frac{3h_3(r)}{r^2} +\frac{s_3(r)}{r} \right) $ & |
2216 |
< |
$\frac{v_{32}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2217 |
< |
% |
2218 |
< |
$w_j(r)$ & |
2219 |
< |
$\left(\frac{-15g_3(r)}{r^3} + \frac{15h_3(r)}{r^2} - \frac{6s_3(r)}{r} + t_3(r) \right) $ & |
2220 |
< |
$\left(\frac{-6g(r)}{r^3} +\frac{6h(r)}{r^2} -\frac{3s(r)}{r} +t(r) \right) $ \\ |
2221 |
< |
&&$\left(\frac{-6g(_cr)}{r_c^3} +\frac{6h(r_c)}{r_c^2} -\frac{3s(r_c)}{r_c} +t(r_c) \right) -\frac{3v_{32}}{r}$ \\ |
2222 |
< |
% |
2223 |
< |
$w_k(r)$ & |
2224 |
< |
$\left(\frac{3g_4(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h_4(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s_4(r)}{r^2} \right)$ & |
2225 |
< |
$\left(\frac{3g(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s(r)}{r^2} \right)$ \\ |
2226 |
< |
&&$\left(\frac{3g(r_c)}{r_c^4} -\frac{3h(r_c)}{r_c^3} +\frac{s(r_c)}{r_c^2} \right)$ \\ |
2227 |
< |
% |
2228 |
< |
$w_l(r)$ & |
2229 |
< |
$\left(-\frac{15g_4(r)}{r^4} +\frac{15h_4(r)}{r^3} -\frac{6s_4(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t_4(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
2230 |
< |
$\left(-\frac{9g(r)}{r^4} +\frac{9h(r)}{r^3} -\frac{4s(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t(r)}{r} \right)$ \\ |
2231 |
< |
&&$\left(-\frac{9g(r)}{r^4} +\frac{9h(r)}{r^3} -\frac{4s(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t(r)}{r} \right) |
2232 |
< |
-\frac{2v_{42}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2233 |
< |
% |
2234 |
< |
$w_m(r)$ & |
2235 |
< |
$\left(\frac{105g_4(r)}{r^4} - \frac{105h_4(r)}{r^3} + \frac{45s_4(r)}{r^2} - \frac{10t_4(r)}{r} +u_4(r) \right)$ & |
2236 |
< |
$\left(\frac{45g(r)}{r^4} -\frac{45h(r)}{r^3} +\frac{21s(r)}{r^2} -\frac{6t(r)}{r} +u(r) \right)$ \\ |
2237 |
< |
&&$\left(\frac{45g(r_c)}{r_c^4} -\frac{45h(r_c)}{r_c^3} |
2238 |
< |
+\frac{21s(r_c)}{r_c^2} -\frac{6t(r_c)}{r_c} +u(r_c) \right) $ \\ |
2239 |
< |
&&$-\frac{4v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2240 |
< |
% |
2241 |
< |
$w_n(r)$ & |
2242 |
< |
$\left(\frac{3g_4(r)}{r^4} -\frac{3h_4(r)}{r^3} +\frac{s_4(r)}{r^2} \right)$ & |
2243 |
< |
$\frac{v_{42}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2244 |
< |
% |
2245 |
< |
$w_o(r)$ & |
2246 |
< |
$\left(-\frac{15g_4(r)}{r^4} +\frac{15h_4(r)}{r^3} -\frac{6s_4(r)}{r^2} +\frac{t_4(r)}{r} \right)$ & |
2247 |
< |
$\frac{v_{43}(r)}{r}$ \\ |
2248 |
< |
% |
2249 |
< |
\end{tabular} |
2250 |
< |
\end{ruledtabular} |
2251 |
< |
\end{table*} |
1643 |
> |
For undamped charges Table I lists these derivatives under the column |
1644 |
> |
``Bare Coulomb.'' Equations \ref{eq:b9} to \ref{eq:b13} are still |
1645 |
> |
correct for GSF electrostatics if the subscript $n$ is eliminated. |
1646 |
|
|
1647 |
|
\newpage |
1648 |
|
|