1: \documentclass[a4paper,aps,floatfix,twocolumn,prb]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[aps,floatfix,preprint,prb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass [aps,prb,preprint,endfloats]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

5: \usepackage[OT1]{fontenc}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{amssymb,amsfonts}

8: \usepackage{pifont}

9: \usepackage{graphicx}

10: \usepackage{color}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\Eqref}[1]{Eq.~\eqref{#1}}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

15: \renewcommand{\u}{\vect{u}}

16: \newcommand{\m}{\vect{m}}

17: \newcommand{\n}{\vect{n}}

18: \newcommand{\p}{\vect{p}}

19: \newcommand{\q}{\vect{q}}

20: \renewcommand{\j}{\vect{j}}

21: \newcommand{\jlo}{\j_\parallel}

22: \newcommand{\jtr}{\j_\perp}

23: \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}}

24: \newcommand{\E}{\vect{E}}

25: \newcommand{\G}{\vect{G}}

26: \newcommand{\bE}{\bar{\E}}

27: \newcommand{\Elo}{\E_\parallel}

28: \newcommand{\Etr}{\E_\perp}

29: \renewcommand{\P}{\vect{P}}

30: \newcommand{\R}{\vect{r}}

31: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon_0}

32: \newcommand{\C}{\mathcal{C}}

33: \newcommand{\DD}{\mathcal{D}}

34: \newcommand{\Z}{{Z}}

35: \newcommand{\dV}{\;{d^3r}\;}

36: \newcommand{\Zfl}{\Z_\text{fluct}}

37: \newcommand{\Zcoul}{\Z_\text{Coulomb}}

38: 

39: \newcommand{\Pe}{\phi^\text{(ext)}}

40: \newcommand{\lo}{_\parallel}

41: \newcommand{\latt}{{\scriptscriptstyle\boxplus}}

42: \newcommand{\qlatt}{\vect{q}^{\scriptscriptstyle\boxplus}}

43: \newcommand{\qnormlatt}{q^{\scriptscriptstyle\boxplus}}

44: \newcommand{\Qnormlatt}{Q^{\scriptscriptstyle\boxplus}}

45: 

46: \def\D{\mathrm{d}}

47: \newcommand{\DR}{\ensuremath{\:\D³r}}

48: \newcommand{\DRj}{\ensuremath{\prod_j\DR_j}}

49: \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

50: \renewcommand{\div}{\nabla \cdot}

51: \newcommand{\curl}{\nabla \times}

52: 

53: \begin{document}

54: 

55: \title{Boundary conditions in local electrostatics algorithms}

56: \author{L.  Levrel}

57: \affiliation{Physique des Liquides et Milieux Complexes, Facult\'e

58: des Sciences et Technologie, Universit\'e Paris Est (Cr\'eteil), 61 avenue du

59: G\'en\'eral-de-Gaulle, F-94010 Cr\'eteil Cedex, France}

60: \affiliation{IUFM de l'Acad\'emie de Cr\'eteil, Rue Jean Mac\'e, F-94861 Bonneuil-sur-Marne

61: Cedex, France}

62: \author{A. C. Maggs}

63: \affiliation{Physico-Chimie Th\'eorique, Gulliver-CNRS, ESPCI,

64: 10 rue Vauquelin, Paris  75005, France.}

65: \date{\today}

66: \begin{abstract}

67:   We study the simulation of charged systems in the presence of general

68:   boundary conditions in a local Monte Carlo algorithm based on a constrained

69:   electric field.  We firstly show how to implement constant-potential,

70:   Dirichlet, boundary conditions by introducing extra Monte Carlo moves to the

71:   algorithm.  Secondly, we show the interest of the algorithm for studying

72:   systems which require anisotropic electrostatic boundary conditions for

73:   simulating planar geometries such as membranes.

74: \end{abstract}

75: \maketitle

76: \section{Introduction}

77: 

78: In the simulation of condensed matter one very often imposes periodic boundary

79: conditions in order to minimize surface artefacts which give rise to slow

80: convergence of energies to their bulk values. While such boundary conditions

81: are simple to understand for short-ranged potentials they lead to many

82: subtleties when working with charged systems \cite{deleeuw,fraser}.  Attempts

83: at simplifying the problem by using truncated potentials lead to violations of

84: basic sum rules on the structure factor \cite{stillinger}, incorrect number

85: fluctuations in finite systems \cite{lebowitz} or even loss of electrical

86: conductivity \cite{marchetti}.  The correct treatment of charged media

87: requires a full treatment of the long-ranged Coulomb interaction.

88: 

89: Classical methods of treating the Coulomb interaction use careful mathematical

90: analysis to convert the conditionally convergent Coulomb sum into a well

91: defined mathematical object such as the Ewald sum \cite{deleeuw}.  Recently we

92: introduced an alternative treatment of the Coulomb problem that allows one to

93: replace the \textsl{global}\/ calculation of the interaction energy by a local

94: dynamic process \cite{PRL88, JCP117, StatPhys}. The main interest in this

95: transformation is that it enables one to perform a local Monte Carlo

96: simulation in the presence of charges and dielectrics, without ever solving

97: the Poisson equation.  The algorithm works by evolving the electric field in

98: time (in a manner similar to Maxwell's equations) while eliminating

99: ``uninteresting'' degrees of freedom such as the magnetic field.  The

100: algorithm uses the energy

101: \begin{equation}

102:   U =   \int \frac {\epsilon_0 \E^2}{2}  \DR \label{energy}

103: \end{equation}

104: where $\E$ is the electric field while implementing Gauss' law

105: \begin{equation}

106:   \epsilon_0 \div \E - \rho=0 \label{constraint}

107: \end{equation}

108: as a dynamic constraint.  We showed \cite{JCP120} that the algorithm can be

109: used to generate \textsl{tin-foil}\/ or \textsl{vacuum}\/ boundary conditions if one

110: chooses appropriate dynamics for the $\q=0$ component of the electric field.

111: Until now applications have been to the properties of bulk, three dimensional

112: media \cite{igor,PRL93} in periodic systems.

113: 

114: This paper generalizes the method to a broader class of physical systems and

115: boundary conditions.  Firstly we consider the case, particularly important in

116: devices and electrodes, of imposition of an external potential on a metallic

117: surface; a case which requires the use of Dirichlet boundary conditions for

118: the potential. Again we find that the locality of the formulation allows the

119: simulation of a broader class of geometries, including those for which the use

120: of fast Fourier techniques is difficult.

121: 

122: A second generalization of the method is required to treat \textsl{anisotropic}\/

123: systems, in particular membranes. The simulation of thin, quasi

124: two-dimensional systems in three-dimensional space is surprisingly difficult

125: \cite{berkoslab, holm53, holmslab}.

126: The use of a purely local algorithm requires only small modifications in order

127: to minimize finite size effects; we argue that it will also give rather

128: favorable complexity in the limit of large number of particles, $N$.

129: 

130: Our paper contains two, independent, self-contained theoretical

131: sections. Firstly in II we treat the problem of metallic boundary conditions

132: including certain subtleties as to how a true metal behaves. Secondly in III

133: we consider electrostatics in anisotropic $2+1$ dimensional geometries.

134: Implementation of the ideas has been performed by Thompson and Rottler

135: \cite{comp} using off lattice techniques suitable for atomistic simulation.

136: In their paper they compare detailed simulations with available theories.

137: 

138: \section{Metallic boundary conditions}

139: 

140: We begin by emphasizing the difference between idealized metallic boundaries

141: and true physical systems in which screening occurs over a small but finite

142: Debye length. We then show how to impose Dirichlet conditions on the

143: potential, $\phi$ while still keeping $\E$ as the main dynamic variable.

144: 

145: \subsection*{The nature of metallic boundary conditions}

146: 

147: There are two different, self-consistent ways of calculating the energy of

148: charges in the presence of a dielectric or conducting interfaces. In the first

149: treatment we calculate the potential energy arising from the solution of the

150: Poisson equation

151: \[

152: \div (\epsilon \grad \phi) = - \rho

153: \]

154: with $\rho$ the density of free charges, with the appropriate boundary

155: conditions for each configuration.  The boundary condition at a metallic

156: surface is that the tangential electric field vanishes, while the normal field

157: at the surface satisfies

158: \begin{equation} \vect{D} \cdot \n =\epsilon \E \cdot \n=-\sigma \label{bc}

159: \end{equation}

160: where $\sigma$ is the surface charge density. The field is identically zero

161: within a conductor \cite{landau}. The internal energy is then

162: \begin{equation}

163:   U = \frac{1}{2}\int \phi \rho \DR. \label{U0}

164: \end{equation}

165: In this case the longitudinal electric field is static, and is given by $\E =

166: -\grad \phi$. We note that in this treatment thermal fluctuations play no role

167: so that certain fluctuation phenomena such as thermal Casimir interactions are

168: neglected.

169: 

170: A physical system at a non-zero temperature always presents polarization or

171: charge fluctuations; superposed on the interaction energy \Eqref{U0}

172: is an effective potential coming from these fluctuations.  We now work in the

173: Debye--H{\"u}ckel limit to calculate an approximate correlation function for

174: the electric field in a conducting system at finite temperatures. This

175: illustrative calculation shows that transverse field fluctuations become

176: important as soon as the temperature $T>0$.

177: 

178: We consider a one component plasma, with neutralizing background. We

179: approximate the free energy of a conductor as a sum of the electric field

180: energy \Eqref{energy} and the configurational entropy of the charges with

181: the functional \cite{JCP120}

182: \begin{equation}

183:   F = \int \left \{ 

184:     \frac{\epsilon_0 \E^2 }{2} + k_BT \; c\ln{c}

185:   \right \}\DR

186:   \label{debye}

187: \end{equation}

188: where $c(\vect{r})=\rho(\vect{r})/e$ is the number density of mobile ions and

189: $e$ the charge of the particles. In the limit of small fluctuations of density

190: $\delta c(\vect{r})$ we expand to second order and use charge conservation so

191: that $\int \delta c \DR=0 $. Then

192: \[

193: F(\delta c, \E) = \int \left \{ \frac{\epsilon_0 \E^2 }{2} + k_BT \; \frac

194:   {( \delta c)^2 }{2 c_0} \right \}\DR

195: \]

196: where $c_0$ is the mean background density of the ions. We now eliminate the

197: charge fluctuation with the help of Gauss' law and find an effective action

198: for the electric field

199: \begin{equation}

200:   F_E= \int 

201:   \epsilon_0 \left \{

202:     \frac {\E^2 }{2} + \frac{(\div \E)^2 }{2\kappa^2}

203:   \right \} \DR

204:   \label{fieldenergy}

205: \end{equation}

206: with $\kappa$ the inverse Debye length. From \Eqref{fieldenergy} we read

207: off the longitudinal and transverse correlations of the electric field,

208: \begin{align*}

209:   \epsilon_0 \langle \E(q) \E(q) \rangle_{long}

210:   &= \frac {k_B T }{ 1 + q^2/\kappa^2},  \\

211:   \epsilon_0 \langle \E(q) \E(q) \rangle_{tran}&=k_B T.

212: \end{align*}

213: On wavelengths large compared with the screening length ($q/\kappa <<1$) all

214: longitudinal and transverse electric modes fluctuate with the same amplitude.

215: 

216: It is instructive to compare with similar calculations for an explicit model of

217: dielectric in terms of polarization fluctuations \cite{polardiel}. We find

218: that

219: \begin{align*}

220:   \epsilon_0 \langle \E(q) \E(q) \rangle_{long}

221:   &= k_B T \; \frac{\epsilon -\epsilon_0 }{ \epsilon },  \\

222:   \epsilon_0 \langle \E(q) \E(q) \rangle_{tran}&=k_B T.

223: \end{align*}

224: Again transverse field correlations are unchanged in the presence of

225: a dielectric or classical charged fluid, longitudinal fluctuations depend on

226: the material properties. In the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$ the

227: fluctuations of a dielectric

228: are the same as those of a metal for $q \ll\kappa$.

229: 

230: From these expressions in Fourier space we calculate the correlations of the

231: electric field in real space. For a dielectric (with $\epsilon < \infty$) we

232: find that the field displays dipolar correlations so that

233: \[

234: \langle E_i(\vect{r}) E_j(\vect{r}') \rangle \sim \frac {1}{ |\vect{r}-\vect{r}'|^3 },

235: \] field correlations are long-ranged. This dipolar correlation in the fields

236: leads to long-ranged Casimir/Lifshitz interactions between dielectrics.  For a

237: conducting system field correlations decay exponentially with characteristic

238: length the Debye length,

239: \[

240: \langle E_i(\vect{r}) E_j(\vect{r}') \rangle \sim e^{-\kappa |\vect{r}-\vect{r}'|}.

241: \]

242: 

243: From these considerations we see that different strategies are needed to

244: simulate the idealized classical metallic boundary condition \Eqref{bc} or a

245: true fluctuating charged fluid.  In the first situation one only needs

246: information on the fields in the nonconducting regions.  In the second case

247: the surface field is influenced by fluctuations that occur within a few Debye

248: lengths of the surface. The surface must then be simulated explicitly with an

249: expression such as \Eqref{debye} in order to obtain results including

250: Casimir/Lifshitz type interactions. We note that such interactions are very

251: weak on the macroscopic scale. Between two plates of area $A$ separated by a

252: distance $H$ the thermal interactions are given by \cite {kardar}

253: \[

254: {U}=-A k_BT \frac{\zeta(3) }{ 16 \pi H^2}

255: \]

256: with $\zeta(3) \approx 1.20$

257: 

258: In this paper we will only consider the case of imposing the first type of

259: metallic boundary conditions in which fluctuation forces are neglected.

260: 

261: \subsection*{Fixed-potential boundary conditions}

262: 

263: \subsubsection*{Minimization principle}

264: 

265: We now apply our local simulation algorithm to fixed-potential boundary

266: conditions of the type \Eqref{bc}. The method of attack is a generalization of

267: the methods of Ref.~\onlinecite{PRL88}. Firstly we seek a variational principle for the

268: electric field for which the energy is a \textsl{true minimum}\/ for the geometry

269: of interest.  We then promote the constraints of the minimization principle to

270: $\delta$-functions in a partition function.  This partition function is then

271: shown to generate the same relative statistical weights as the original

272: variational energy, but is much more convenient for the purposes of simulation

273: since it allows the local update of fields in a Monte Carlo algorithm.

274: 

275: As noted in the introduction electrostatic interaction is calculated by

276: minimizing the electric field energy \Eqref{energy} in the presence of the

277: constraint of Gauss' law, \Eqref{constraint}, using the functional

278: \begin{equation*}

279:   A[\E]=\int\left[\frac{\eps \E^2}{2}+\lambda(\eps\div\E-\rho)\right]\DR,

280: \end{equation*}

281: where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier. We now generalize Ref.~\onlinecite{schwinger}

282: and consider a system with both free charges and conductors, $i$. These

283: conductors are maintained by external sources at fixed potentials $\Pe_i$.

284: This is most conveniently done by performing Legendre transform \cite{landau}

285: in order to eliminate for the unknown surface charge densities $\sigma

286: =\{\sigma_i\}$ on the surfaces $S=\{S_i\}$ in order to replace them by the

287: potentials $\Pe=\{\Pe_i\}$:

288: \begin{equation}\label{foncpotfix}

289:   U_2[\E,\sigma]= U[\E]- \oint \sigma\Pe \D S.

290: \end{equation}

291: We now impose the boundary condition \Eqref{bc} with a further Lagrange

292: multiplier $\mu$ living on each surface and consider the functional

293: \begin{equation}

294:   A_2 = U_2 + \int \lambda(\eps\div\E-\rho)\DR

295:   + \oint \mu(\eps\n\cdot\E+\sigma)\;\D S. \label{a2}

296: \end{equation}

297: In order to find the stationary point of $A_2$ we vary all the fields,

298: %\setlength{\multlinegap}{0pt}

299: %\begin{multline*}

300: %  \delta A_2=\int[\eps \;\delta\E\;\cdot\E+\;\delta\lambda\;(\eps\div\E-\rho)

301: %  +\lambda\eps\delta(\div\E)]\DR\\

302: %  -  \oint\,[\delta\sigma\; \Pe

303: %  +\;\delta\mu\;(\eps\n\cdot\E+\sigma)+\mu\;\delta(\eps\n\cdot\E+\sigma)]\D S.

304: %\end{multline*}

305: and integrate by parts using $\lambda\div\delta\E=\div(\lambda\delta\E)

306: -(\grad\lambda)\cdot\delta\E$ and find

307: \begin{multline*}

308:   \delta A_2=\int[\eps\;\delta\E\cdot(\E-\grad\lambda)

309:   +\delta\lambda\;(\eps\div\E-\rho)]\DR\\

310:   -

311:   \oint[\delta\sigma(\Pe+\mu)

312:   +\delta\mu(\eps\n\cdot\E+\sigma)

313:   -\eps(\lambda-\mu)\delta\E\cdot\n]\;\D S.

314: \end{multline*}

315: At the stationary point we find

316: \begin{alignat*}{2}

317:   \delta\E &:\quad \left\{\begin{aligned}

318:       &\E-\grad\lambda=0\\

319:       &\lambda-\mu=0 \end{aligned}\right.

320:   &\quad&\begin{aligned} & \text{in $V$,}\\

321:     &\text{on  $S$,} \end{aligned} \\

322:   \delta\sigma &:\quad \Pe +\mu =0 &&\text{\,on  $S$,}  \\

323:   \delta\lambda &: \quad \eps\div\E -\rho =0 &&\text{\,in $V$,} \\

324:   \delta\mu &: \quad \eps\n\cdot\E +\sigma =0 &&\text{\,on $S$.}

325: \end{alignat*}

326: 

327: The first equation implies that $\E$ is the gradient of a potential,

328: $\phi=-\lambda$. The next two imply that $\phi=\Pe$ on $S$ so that we

329: indeed generate Dirichlet conditions.  Finally the last two equations impose

330: Gauss' law.  At the stationary point thus we have

331: $\E=\E_p=-\grad\phi_p$ and $\sigma=\sigma_p$, where the

332: index $p$ signals the solution to Poisson's equation with Dirichlet boundary

333: conditions.

334: 

335: \subsubsection*{Partition function}

336: We now generalize the stationary principle to finite temperatures and replace

337: the Lagrange multipliers of \Eqref{a2} by $\delta$-functions in a

338: functional integral.  Let us define a partial partition function,

339: where the bulk charge distribution $\rho$ is given, as

340: \begin{equation}

341:   Z_\rho=\int\DD\E\ \DD\sigma\;

342:   \delta(\eps\div\E-\rho)\:\delta(\eps\n\cdot\E+\sigma)

343:   \:\mathrm{e}^{-\beta U_2[\E,\sigma]}.

344:   \label{zrho}

345: \end{equation}

346: We integrate over the electric field, constrained by Gauss' law and also

347: all values of the surface charge $\sigma$ compatible with the flux

348: condition at the surface of the conductors.

349: 

350: The full partition function is calculated by integrating over the position of

351: all mobile charges.  In order to find the interaction in terms of the minimum

352: of the functional it is convenient to change integration variables so that

353: $\E=\E_p+\vect{e}$ and $\sigma=\sigma_p+s$.  After noting that

354: $\sigma_p=-\epsilon_0 \n\cdot\E_p$ we find

355: \begin{align*}

356:   Z_\rho

357:   &=\int\DD\vect{e}\ \DD s\;\delta(\div\vect{e})\:\delta(\eps\n\cdot\vect{e}+s)\\

358:   &\times \qquad \e^{-\beta\left[\int \frac{\eps}{2}(\E_p+\vect{e})^2\DR

359:       -\oint (\sigma_p+s)\Pe\: \D S \right]}.

360: \end{align*}

361: With the help of the constraint equations we find

362: \begin{eqnarray*}

363:   Z_\rho &=&\e^{-\beta U_2[\E_p,\sigma_p]}  \\

364:  &\times& \int\DD\vect{e}\ \DD s\;\delta(\div \vect{e})\:\delta(\eps\n\cdot\vect{e}+s)

365:   \:\mathrm{e}^{-\beta U_2[\vect{e},s]}

366: \end{eqnarray*}

367: so that

368: \begin{equation}

369:   Z_\rho=\mathrm{e}^{-\beta U_2[\E_p,\sigma_p]}\: \Zfl \label{zfl},

370: \end{equation}

371: with $\Zfl$ independent of positions of the mobile charges.  This results in a

372: complete factorization of the statistical weights of charge configurations

373:  and of field and surface charge fluctuations

374: \begin{equation*}

375:   Z=\biggl[\int\Bigl(\DRj\Bigr)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta U_2[\E_p,\sigma_p]}\biggr]\Zfl

376:   =\Zcoul \Zfl.

377: \end{equation*}

378: We note, however, that following the discussion of Section II, this

379: fluctuation partition function is not necessarily the true physical

380: fluctuation partition function that one would calculate for a true physical

381: metal. Thus sampling with the partition function \Eqref{zrho} will not

382: necessarily give the correct fluctuation forces acting on electrodes even if,

383: by construction, it generates the correct relative weight for configurations

384: of free charges.

385: 

386: \subsubsection*{Algorithm}

387: The result \Eqref{zfl} is the analytical basis for an algorithm that

388: simulates fixed-potential surfaces. Sampling the partition function requires

389: updates generating fluctuations of the variables, $\{\R_j\}$, $\E$ and

390: $\sigma$. We refer the reader to previous work \cite{PRL88,StatPhys,PRE} for

391: particle updates and bulk field updates.  We note that the demonstration

392: requires an integral over the surface charge $\sigma$; thus even if charges in

393: the volume are discrete those on surfaces should be sampled continuously.

394: 

395: In order to sample the partition function \Eqref{zrho} two new moves need to

396: be introduced. Firstly, fluctuation in the charge density in the surface of a

397: given conductor that \textsl{conserve}\/ its total charge. This move is

398: implemented by a variation of the simplest update for volume charges.  A

399: random charge amplitude $\delta$ is generated to make a charge pair of

400: $+\delta$ at one site and $-\delta$ at a second site. Since field lines must

401: lie outside the conductor, Fig.~\ref{surf-local}, we update the field on three

402: links connecting the modified sites. To sample the integral \Eqref{zrho} the

403: charges should be chosen from a continuum distribution.  Secondly, each

404: conductor $i$ bears a net charge $\int_{S_i}\sigma_i$ which should also

405: fluctuate.  This is achieved by transferring charges between pairs of

406: conductors.  Gauss' law then requires modifying the total electric flux

407: between the two surfaces.

408: 

409: \begin{figure}

410:   \includegraphics[scale=.5]{surf_fluct0}

411:   \caption{Local update for integrating surface charge fluctuations. Grey

412:     region represents the conductor volume (where $\E=0$); the white region is

413:     the dielectric.} \label{surf-local}

414: \end{figure}

415: 

416: \begin{figure}%[t]

417:   \centering

418:   \includegraphics{surf_charge0}

419:   \caption{Updating the total charge of conductors implies updating the field

420:     along a line connecting them. This update is not local.}

421: \label{surf-global}

422: \end{figure}

423: 

424: We now demonstrate that despite the need to transfer charge large distances

425: between conductors this does not dominate the time need to simulate the

426: system.  We start by noting that  fluctuations on a conductor can be

427: estimated using an argument based on the capacitance of an isolated conductor

428: \cite{jancovici}.  In three dimensions the capacitance of an object of size

429: $d$ scales as $C=\eps d$. If we equate the charging energy to the thermal

430: energy scale we find

431: \[

432:   k_BT= \frac {Q^2} {2 C} \sim \frac {Q^2}{\eps d}

433: \]

434: so that the amplitude of charge fluctuation of a conductor is $Q^2 \sim k_B T

435: \eps d$.  Consider a Monte Carlo trial in which a charge $\delta$ is sent

436: along a path of length $\ell$, Fig.~\ref{surf-global}. Then \cite{PRE} we

437: estimate the energy change as $\ell \delta^2/\epsilon_0 a^2$, with $a$ the

438: mesh spacing.  For this trial to be successful we again require that this

439: energy is matched to the thermal fluctuations giving $\delta^2 \sim \epsilon_0 a^2 k_B T

440: / \ell$. Thus the amplitude of the charge transfer over large distances must

441: be small.

442: 

443: We now consider $M$ such exchanges. Since charges are transferred in each

444: direction we require that $M \delta^2 = Q^2$, or $M\sim \ell d/a^2$.  Each

445: transfer requires a numerical effort that is also $O(\ell/a)$ to update the

446: links so that a total computational effort ${\eta}=\ell^2 d/a^3$ is needed to

447: equilibrate the charge fluctuations between the conductors. In any practical

448: simulation in a box of dimension $L$ we expect that ${\eta}<L^3/a^3$, so

449: that the effort need to equilibrate charges between conductors is less than

450: that required to perform a single sweep of the bulk of the simulation.

451: 

452: 

453: We thus have the basis for the generalization of a local Monte Carlo algorithm

454: for simulating charges in the presence of Dirichlet boundary conditions.

455: Conventional methods for treating this problem use fast Fourier techniques in

456: simple separable geometries, such as regular simulation cells. The use of a

457: local formulation of the electrostatics allows one to implement such boundary

458: conditions in arbitrary geometries --- including rough surfaces or irregular

459: electrodes where Fourier analysis does not work.

460: 

461: \section{Simulating systems with slab geometries}\label{sec-slab}

462: 

463: We now pass to consideration of a second important class of boundary

464: conditions that should be imposed in the study of systems with planar

465: geometries.  Examples include thin quasi two-dimensional slabs isolated in

466: three-dimensional space, or in the biophysical field simulation of proteins in

467: a lipid membrane with an implicit solvent. In order to generate the correct

468: Coulomb interactions between particles with grid based methods the thin sample

469: must be embedded in a thick three-dimensional simulation box. This box

470: then contains many more degrees of freedom than the original particle

471: system. For reasons of efficiency one  wishes to make the repeat distance

472: perpendicular to the thin sample as small as possible, however if this repeat

473: distance is too small multiple copies of the sheet ``see'' each other and

474: introduce artefacts in the simulation.

475: 

476: Imposition of tin-foil or vacuum boundary conditions gives rise to simulations

477: that converge very slowly as the system size is increased.  The crucial

478: insight into how to accelerate this convergence was provided in

479: Ref.~\onlinecite{berkoslab} and efficient implementations are now available that

480: translate these ideas \cite{holmslab,holmslab2} in molecular dynamics. Our aim

481: here is to reproduce this rapid convergence in a local formulation of

482: electrostatics, and to argue that the asymptotic complexity is at least as

483: good as $N^{3/2}$ and in many systems $N^{1}$.

484: 

485: In standard approaches to the electrostatic energy all the complexity comes

486: from the transformation from an ambiguous, conditionally convergent sum (a sum

487: whose answer depends on the order of evaluation) into a rapidly converging,

488: unambiguous expression, such as the Ewald formula \cite{deleeuw}.  In local

489: formulations there is \textsl{no equivalent to the conditional convergence}.

490: Instead one is left with different, inequivalent, choices for the treatment of

491: the zero wavevector component of the electric field $\E(q =0)$ \cite{JCP120}. Let

492: us first review the origin of these different choices.

493: 

494: \subsection*{Periodic boundary conditions in local algorithms}

495: 

496: In periodic boundary conditions an arbitrary vector field can be decomposed

497: into three terms

498: \[

499: \E = - \grad \phi + \curl \G + \bar \E

500: \]

501: where the potential $\phi$ is periodic, as is $\G$. $\bar \E$ is a constant;

502: it is the zero wavevector component of the electric field, $\E(q=0)$.  With

503: this decomposition the energy is given by the sum of three independent terms

504: \[

505: U= \frac {\epsilon_0 }{2} \left\{ \int (\grad \phi)^2 \DR + \int (\curl \G)^2

506:   \DR + V\: \bar \E^2 \right \}

507: \]

508: with $V$ the volume of the simulation cell.  Cross-terms are shown to be zero

509: on integration by parts.  The simplest version of the local Monte Carlo

510: algorithm uses two updates \cite{PRL88}.

511: \begin{itemize}

512: \item Motion of charges $q$ along links $l$ together with a slaved update of

513:   the electric field on the link according to

514:   \begin{math}

515:     E_l \rightarrow E_l - q/ \epsilon_0

516:   \end{math}.  Both the longitudinal and transverse components of the field

517:   are modified, as well as the $q=0$ component, $\bar \E$.

518: \item A plaquette update which leaves unchanged both $\bar \E$ and the

519:   longitudinal field $-\grad \phi$, modifying only $\G$.

520: \end{itemize}

521: This pair of updates are respectively a discretized analog of the two terms on

522: the right hand side of the Maxwell equation

523: \[

524: \epsilon_0 \frac {\partial \E}{\partial t} = -\vect{J} + \curl \vect{H}.

525: \]

526: Integrating the Maxwell equation over both time and the simulation volume we

527: see that the $q=0$ component of the field and the dipole moment of the

528: system of charges $\vect{d}= \int\!\!\D t \int\!\!\DR \vect{J}$ are linked by

529: $\epsilon_0 V \bar \E + \vect{d}= \mathrm{const}$, a conservation law which remains

530: valid for the discretized equations.

531: 

532: Thus the simplest form of the algorithm samples the partition function

533: \begin{equation}

534:   Z = \int\DD \E \;\delta (\div \E - \rho) \: \delta(\epsilon_0 V \bar \E + \vect{d})

535:   \: e^{-\beta \int  \epsilon_0 \E^2/2 \DR }. \label{nowind}

536: \end{equation}

537: If we introduce the solution to the Poisson equation in periodic boundary

538: conditions $\phi_p$ then we see that this partition function samples

539: configurations with the effective energy

540: \begin{equation}

541:   U_\mathit{eff} = \int   \frac{\epsilon_0 (\grad \phi_p)^2}{2} \DR + \frac{\vect{d}^2}

542:   {2 \epsilon_0 V}. \label{ueff}

543: \end{equation}

544: This result is very similar to that found using careful evaluation of the

545: Coulomb sum \cite{deleeuw} which gives

546: \[

547: U_{lps} =\int \frac {\epsilon_0 (\grad \phi_p)^2 }{2} \DR + \frac{\p^2

548: }{2(1+ 2 \epsilon_s) \epsilon_0 V}

549: \]

550: where $\p$ is the cell dipole moment and $\epsilon_s$ the relative

551: dielectric constant of an ``exterior'' reference medium, two common choices

552: being $\epsilon_s=1$ for \textsl{vacuum}\/ boundary conditions and

553: $\epsilon_s=\infty$ for metallic or \textsl{tin-foil}\/ boundary conditions. The

554: expression resulting from the local algorithm is very similar to that found in

555: the summation method if we take $\epsilon_s=0$ and we notice that $\vect{d}$ and

556: $\p$ are \textsl{almost}\/ identical.

557: $\p$ is the dipole moment of the charge images inside the Bravais cell being

558: used in the simulation; when a particle crosses the boundary of the cell it is

559: replaced by that of its periodic images which enters the cell so that $\p$ is

560: discontinuous. $\vect{d}$ is a dipole moment which is continuous on crossing

561: Bravais cell boundaries, thus it keeps track of how many times the particles

562: wind around the simulation box:

563: \[

564: \p = \vect{d} - \sum_i \vect{a}_i q_i

565: \]

566: where $q_i$ is the charge of each particle in the simulation cell and

567: $\vect{a}_i$ is a Bravais lattice vector.

568: 

569: The authors of Ref.~\onlinecite{StatPhys} introduced another update scheme for the

570: electric field based on a \textsl{worm}\/ algorithm widely used in the simulation

571: of quantum spins \cite{alet}. The algorithm nucleates a pair of virtual

572: charges $\pm q_v$. One of these charges diffuses until it returns to its

573: companion where the two charges annihilate. If the mobile charge is confined

574: to the periodic cell then during the move only the transverse field $\curl \G$

575: is updated. If the particle is allowed to wind around the cell it breaks the

576: conservation law on $\epsilon_0 V\bar \E + \vect{d}$, removing the second

577: $\delta$-function in \Eqref{nowind}. We then find that the effective energy

578: \Eqref{ueff} is independent of $\vect{d}$; we have effectively periodic, that

579: is tin-foil, boundary conditions. A similar result is found by including $\bar

580: \E$ as a single extra dynamic variable which must be updated with a third,

581: independent Monte Carlo move \cite{PRL88, JCP120b}.

582: 

583: \subsection*{Finite size effects in slab geometries}

584: 

585: We now give a short argument for the slow convergence of the interaction

586: energy for systems which are simulated in slab geometries. Rigorous

587: calculations which provide the full justification are to be found in the

588: literature \cite{fraser, berkoslab,holmslab}. Consider a thin, quasi

589: two-dimensional system embedded in a simulation box of dimensions $L^2 \times

590: L_z$; usually one is interested in the case $L_z/L >1$ so that successive

591: periodic images do not interact too strongly.

592: 

593: The slow convergence of the energy can be understood by considering the

594: electrostatic potential in a mixed real-space/Fourier representation, $\hat

595: \phi(\q_\parallel,z)$ where $\q_\parallel$ denotes the transverse

596: wavevector in the $(x,y)$ plane. Using the fact that polarization of a sample

597: is equivalent to a space charge $\rho=-\div \P$ %ACM

598: the mean %LL since sheets are uniform

599: polarization of the thin

600: sample in the $z$ direction is equivalent to two charge sheets of strength

601: $\sigma= \pm p_z/L^2 h$ where $p_z$ is the $z$ component of the dipole moment

602: and $h$ the sample thickness. The interesting physics occurs in the equation

603: for $q_\parallel=0$. We consider a single cell in the $z$ direction, placing

604: the source $-\sigma$ at $z=0$ and the second $+ \sigma$ at $z=h$. Then

605: \[

606:   \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial ^2 \hat \phi(0, z) }{\partial z^2} = \sigma

607:   \left [ \delta(z) - \delta(z-h) \right ].

608: \]

609: This has as a solution

610: \begin{align*}

611:   \hat \phi(0,z) &=(-e_0+\sigma/\epsilon_0 )z  &0&<z<h  \\

612:   &=(-e_0+\sigma/\epsilon_0 )h -e_0(z-h) &h&<z<L_z

613: \end{align*}

614: where we have used continuity, but not periodicity, of the potential.

615: $e_0$ is

616: a yet to be determined integration constant; it corresponds to the electric

617: field flowing between two copies of the simulation cell, Fig.~\ref{periodpot}.

618: The $z$ component of the electric field is

619: \begin{align*}

620:   E_z&= E^{int}=e_0- \sigma/\epsilon_0 \quad &0&<z<h \nonumber \\

621:   &=E^{ext}=e_0 \quad &h&<z<L.

622: \end{align*}

623: The energy of this simulation cell is the integral of $\epsilon_0 E_z^2/2$,

624: \[

625:   U_\mathit{Coulomb} = \frac {\epsilon_0 L^2 }{2}

626:   \left \{

627:     (e_0-\sigma/\epsilon_0)^2 h + (L_z-h)e_0^2

628:   \right\}.

629: \]

630: The classical tin-foil solution is recovered by setting $e_0= \sigma

631: h/\epsilon_0 L_z$ so that the potential is periodic, $\phi(0)=\phi(L_z)$,

632: Fig.~\ref{periodpot}, and

633: the average field $\bar E_z=\frac{1}{L_z}\int \D z\, E_z(z)=0$. But the energy

634: then depends on $L_z$,

635: \begin{equation}

636:   U_\mathit{Coulomb} = U_\infty - \frac {p_z^2 }{2 \epsilon_0 L^2 L_z} \label{Ustack}

637: \end{equation}

638: where $U_\infty$ is the energy in the limit of large $L_z$. If one

639: considers a series of slabs with identical dipole moment and transverse

640: dimensions and vary $L_z$ then the energy converges as

641: only $1/L_z$; very large, and mostly empty boxes must be simulated in order to

642: reduce finite size artefacts.

643: 

644: 

645: \begin{figure}

646:   \centering

647:   \includegraphics{potslabper1}

648:   \caption{Plot of $\hat \phi(0,z)$ in the presence of a double

649:     layer. $E^{int}= e_0-\sigma/\epsilon_0$, $E^{ext} = e_0$, with $e_0=\sigma

650:     h/\eps L_z$. Potential

651:     plotted over several simulation cells. The non-zero $E^{ext}$ couples

652:     successive periodic images.}

653: \label{periodpot}

654: \end{figure}

655: 

656: 

657: \begin{figure}

658: \centering

659: \includegraphics{potslab1}

660: \caption{Plot of $\hat \phi$ with $e_0=0$. The field between

661:   slabs, $E^{ext}$, is zero.

662:  There is no dipolar interaction between the slabs.}\label{stack1}

663: \end{figure}

664: 

665: There is no such convergence problem when using anisotropic electrostatic

666: boundary conditions in which the exterior field is always zero: $e_0=0$,

667: Fig.~\ref{stack1}. The energy is $U_\mathit{Coulomb} = U_\infty$, independent of

668: $L_z$. The local algorithm automatically gives $e_0=0$, as do Maxwell's

669: equations; in order to still have $\bar E_x=\bar E_y=0$ we require tin-foil

670: boundary conditions in the $(x,y)$ plane. Our method implicitly includes the

671: $+p_z^2/2\eps V$ correction that potential-based algorithms need to add to the

672: tin-foil energy. Since the particles remain confined to a single lattice cell

673: in the $z$ direction there is no distinction between $d_z$ and $p_z$.

674: 

675: Let us now consider the effect of density fluctuations with the plane, by

676: studying the Poisson equation for wavevectors $\q_\parallel \ne 0$:

677: \[

678:   -q\lo{}^2\hat{\phi}+\frac{\partial^2\hat{\phi}}{\partial z^2}=

679: -\frac{{\hat \rho(\q_\parallel,z)}}{\eps}.

680: \]

681: Outside of the slab where $\hat \rho=0$ we conclude that

682: \[

683:   \hat{\phi}(\q_\parallel\ne 0, z>h) \sim \e^{ \pm q_\parallel  z}

684: \]

685: where $\q_\parallel=0$ corresponds to the special case treated above. The

686: next longest-ranged component to the interaction must come from modes of the

687: form $( 2 \pi /L,0,0) $ and lead to interactions decaying as $\e^{-2\pi

688:   L_z/L}$. Already when $L_z/L=3$ one finds a reduction in the interaction by

689: a factor $7\times 10^{-9}$.

690: 

691: \subsection*{Numerical tests}

692: To test these ideas we simulated a lattice gas with a slab geometry using the

693: local algorithm. The lattice spacing $a$ is set to unity. We start a

694: simulation with all positive and negative charges superposed at $z=0$ and

695: $\E=0$ in the whole simulation volume. We then displaced positive charges to

696: $z=1$, creating a dipolar sheet, updating the fields according to the

697: constrained algorithm.  We simulated the fields using several different

698: temperatures, $T$ and cell heights, $L_z$.  The total energy can be decomposed

699: into a static, electrostatic contribution plus a thermal energy $N_{pl} k_B

700: T/2$ coming from equipartition in the $N_{pl}$ degrees of freedom associated

701: with the transverse excitations. On fitting the total energy to the

702: form $$\langle U\rangle =U_\mathit{Coulomb}(L_z) +\frac{ k_BT N_{pl}}{2}$$ we

703: extracted an estimate of the electrostatic energy as a function of the cell

704: dimensions.

705: 

706: \begin{figure}

707:   \centering

708:   \includegraphics{slabenergy_00wind}

709:   \caption{Electrostatic energy of the slab system when all

710:     three components of $\bar \E$ are sampled independently, corresponding to

711:     tin-foil boundary conditions. Simulation results (+) follow

712:     \Eqref{Ustack}.  $L=15$, $\eps=1$. Five values of $k_BT$ from $0.1$ to

713:     $0.5$ for each $L_z$.}\label{slab00wind}

714: \end{figure}

715: 

716: In a first series of simulations we imposed the equivalent of tin-foil

717: boundary conditions by including the three components of $\bar \E$ in the set

718: of dynamic fields.  The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{slab00wind}; as a guide

719: to the eye we added the continuous curve which corresponds to a correction in

720: the energy varying as $1/L_z$ (with the analytically determined prefactor). In

721: a second series of simulations updates to $\bar{E}_z$ are

722: dropped. Fig.~\ref{slab00} shows that the electrostatic energy is now

723: independent of $L_z$ to within the precision of the measurements and equal to

724: $U_{\infty}$. The natural coupling between $\vect{d}$ and $\bE$ introduced by

725: our local method removes the dipolar interaction between replicas of the slab.

726: 

727: \begin{figure}

728:   \centering

729:   \includegraphics{slabenergy_00}

730:   \caption{Coulomb energy of the slab system when $\bar{E}_z$

731:     is not updated independently of charges. Simulation results (+) are

732:     independent of $L_z$. $L=15$, $\eps=1$. Five values of $k_BT$ from $0.1$

733:     to $0.5$ for each $L_z$.}\label{slab00}

734: \end{figure}

735: 

736: 

737: \subsection*{Discussion}

738: In a local Monte Carlo simulation the most obvious implementation would use a

739: mixture of local updates of the particles together with the \textsl{worm}\/

740: algorithm \cite{StatPhys, alet} in order to integrate over the transverse

741: degrees of freedom in the empty bulk of the simulation. This worm algorithm

742: re-equilibrates the transverse field with an effort which is $O(1)$ per

743: updated degree of freedom (which corresponds to plaquettes). If one were to use

744: just a single worm update per sweep of the particles then we find a complexity

745: per sweep which varies as $O(N)$ for the particle motion, and $O(N^{3/2})$ for

746: the worm dynamics.  In practice launching a worm which simulates the entire

747: simulation box for every particle sweep results in an oversampling of the

748: uninteresting transverse degrees of freedom. If one simulates a set of

749: particles for a time $\tau$ then diffusion motion in the plane will give a

750: typical displacement $\ell_t\sim \sqrt{\tau}$.  A worm which updates

751: plaquettes a distance more than $\ell_t$ from the slab is doing unnecessary

752: work.

753: 

754: This suggests the following hierarchical scheme: every sweep we launch a worm

755: confined to the simulation slab thickness $h$, then every $4$ sweeps we launch

756: a worm confined to a distance $2h$. Similarly every $2^{2n}$ sweeps we allow

757: the worm to propagate $2^nh$ in the $z$ direction. In such a scheme the

758: longest wavelength modes of the electric field are re-equilibrated on the same

759: timescale as is needed for particles to diffuse across the simulation

760: box. The worm then spends most of its time updating at the scale of the slab

761: so that the total algorithm has a complexity scaling as $N^1$.

762: 

763: \section{Conclusion}

764: 

765: We have considered the formulation of generalized boundary conditions in a

766: form useful for local electrostatic simulation algorithms. We have shown how

767: to treat metallic boundaries for which one imposes a constant potential at a

768: surface. An additional Monte Carlo move which transfers charge between

769: conductors performs the Legendre transformation from a constant-charge to a

770: constant-potential ensemble.

771: 

772: The local algorithm (like Maxwell's equations) naturally generates a dipolar

773: contribution to the solution to the Poisson equation in a periodic simulation

774: cell. By choosing an anisotropic integration over the $q=0$ components of the

775: electric field we reduce the spurious interaction between different copies of

776: a planar system.

777: 

778: Molecular dynamics implementations of both problems are potentially possible

779: \cite{joerglong}.  For the first problem of constant-potential simulation one

780: could alternate between a symplectic integrator (e.g. velocity Verlet) for the

781: particles and a Monte Carlo step for charge transfer between conductors, or

782: introduce a kinetic degree of freedom for the charges on each conductor. In

783: the second problem of slab geometries one would need to follow the evolution

784: of the electric field at each time step throughout the simulation cell,

785: loosing the possibility of multiscale updates.

786: Implementation of these ideas has been performed in Ref.~\onlinecite{comp}.

787: 

788: Work financed in part by Volkswagenstiftung.

789: \bibliography{coulomb}

790: \end{document}

791: