Comparing QM/MM and QM/MD: What's the Difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter greisen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the differences between QM/MM (Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Mechanics) and QM/MD (Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Dynamics). QM/MM focuses on converging to a structure based on quantum mechanical calculations, while QM/MD allows for structural deformation towards a transition state using molecular mechanics. The QM/MD approach involves simulating molecular motion and calculating energy distributions, often incorporating Monte Carlo methods for generating conformations. It emphasizes the application of Newton's laws within a molecular mechanics framework, with quantum methods applied to specific system parts. Overall, the conversation highlights the distinct roles and methodologies of these computational chemistry techniques.
greisen
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I have a general questions on which is the difference between these two methods QM/MM and QM/MD?
Any hints appreciated - thanks in advance
Best
 
Physics news on Phys.org
QM = quantum mechanical?
MM = molecular mechanics?
MD = molecular dynamics?

Is this what you are talking about?
 
Yes - that is my question.

I would presume that in a QM/MM one would converge to structure when the QM part would converge due to some gradient tolerance but I am not quite sure about the QM/MD.

Any advise appreciated - thanks
 
Perhaps in the MD system, the structure is allowed to deform to an energy minimized trasition state (by MM) rather than to a ground state energy minimized structure. The path to that transition state will contain multiple energy minimized geometries. Those structures leading to the transition state could be calculated with MM resulting in the eventual geometry of the transition state. Perhaps the overall process using MM calculations for ground state, intermediate and transition state structures would collectively be referred to as molecular dynamics? A quote from "Computational Chemistry" by Errol Lewars:

Programs like those in AMBER are used not only for calculating geometries and energies, but also for simulating molecular motion, i.e. for molecular dynamics, and for calculating the relative populations of various conformations or other geometric arrrangements (e.g. solvent molecule distribution around a macromolecule in Monte Carlo simulations. In molecular dynamics Newton's laws of motion are applied to molecules moving in a MM forcefield, although relatively small parts of the system (system: with biological molecules in particular modelling is often done not on an isolated molecule but on a molecule and its environment of solvent and ions) may be simulated with quantum mechanical methods. In Monte Carlo methods random numbers decide how atoms or molecules are moved to generate new conformations or geometric arrangements (states) which are then accepted or rejected according to some filter. Tens of thousands (or more) of states are generated, and the energy of each is calculated by MM, generating a Boltzmann distrubution.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top