A All-atom simulation and coarse-grained simulations

Sat D
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
I have been studying molecular dynamics and simulation, and I want to learn and perform coarse-grained simulations. I have been reading about these, and I have a question about the math.
I am currently reading this [paper by Noid et. al.](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2938860) on the rigorous bridge between atomistic and coarse-grained simulations.

In the paper, he defined a linear map from the atomistic coordinates and momenta $$\mathbf{r}^n, \mathbf{p}^n$$ to the coarse-grained coordinates $$\mathbf{R}^N, \mathbf{P}^N$$ He then defined the Hamiltonian for both frames of reference, $$h\, (\text{all-atom}),H \,(\text{CG})$$

The part of the paper I don't understand is when they evaluate the forces on the CG model (equations 22-26).
They write,
$$ \mathbf{F}_I(\mathbf{R}^N) = -\frac{\partial U (\mathbf{R}^N)}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I} = \frac{k_BT}{z(\mathbf{R}^N)}\frac{\partial z(\mathbf{R}^n)}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I} = \frac{k_BT}{z(\mathbf{R}^N)} \int d\mathbf{r}^n \exp(-u(\mathbf{r}^n)/k_BT)\prod_{J\neq I} \delta (M_{RJ}(r^n)-\mathbf{R}_J)\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I}\delta \left( \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I } c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{R}_I\right)$$

This is the part that confuses me. I know $$\mathbf{R}_I = \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i$$
So shouldn't $$\frac{\partial X}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I} = \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} \frac{\partial X}{\partial \mathbf{r}_i} \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\mathbf{R}_I} = \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I}\frac{\partial X}{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}\frac{1}{c_{Ii}}$$
be the case?
However, equation 23 simply states that
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I} \delta \left( \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{R}_I \right) = -\frac{1}{c_{Ik}} \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{r}_k} \delta \left(\sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{R}_I\right)$$

How does this equation work?

Furthermore, I don't understand how they perform integration by parts on the higher-dimensional integral they have here, and arrive at the equation that they do. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me reach equation 26 from equation 22 in the paper.

I appreciate any advice that you may have!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sat D said:
However, equation 23 simply states that
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{R}_I} \delta \left( \sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{R}_I \right) = -\frac{1}{c_{Ik}} \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{r}_k} \delta \left(\sum _{i\in \mathcal{I}_I} c_{Ii}\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{R}_I\right)$$

How does this equation work?

I'm unfamiliar with molecular dynamics, but that equation is saying something purely mathematical. It's just saying that
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \delta \left( x-y \right) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial y} \delta \left( x-y \right)$$
to re-write it in a suggestive form, let ##z = -y##, then
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \delta \left( x+z \right) = \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \delta \left( x+z \right)$$
which should be easy to see because the delta function is symmetric in x and z
 
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top