1: \documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex}
2: \parskip=5pt
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \title{Random Heteropolymer Dynamics}
6: \author{Z. Konkoli$^{1}$, J. Hertz$^{1}$ and S. Franz$^{2}$}
7: \address{
8: $^1${NORDITA, Blegdamsvej 17, DK 2100 K\o benhavn, Denmark}\\
9: $^2${The Abdus Salam ICTP,
10: Strada Costiera 11,
11: P.O. Box 563,
12: 34100 Trieste, Italy }}
13:
14: \date{\today}
15: \maketitle
16: \begin{abstract}
17:
18: We study the Langevin dynamics of the standard random heteropolymer
19: model by mapping the problem to a supersymmetric field theory using
20: the Martin-Siggia-Rose formalism. The resulting model is solved
21: non-perturbatively employing a Gaussian variational approach. In
22: constructing the solution, we assume that the chain is very long and
23: impose the translational invariance which is expected to be present in
24: the bulk of the globule by averaging over the center the of mass
25: coordinate. In this way we derive equations of motion for the
26: correlation and response functions $C(t,t')$ and $R(t,t')$. The order
27: parameters are extracted from the asymptotic behavior of these
28: functions. We find a dynamical phase diagram with frozen (glassy) and
29: melted (ergodic) phases. In the glassy phase the system fails to
30: reach equilibrium and exhibits aging of the type found in p-spin
31: glasses. Within the approximations used in this study, the random
32: heteropolymer model can be mapped to the problem of a manifold in a
33: random potential with power law correlations.
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36: \pacs{}
37:
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40:
41: Disordered systems can be extremely hard to solve, as the example of
42: spin glasses shows \cite{SpGl}. It took enormous effort to understand
43: the physics of infinite-dimensional spin glasses, while the fate of
44: finite-dimensional spin glasses is still debated. Certainly, the
45: complexity of the spin glass energy landscape is the major obstacle
46: one has to deal with, and there are other systems sharing this
47: feature: standard examples are proteins \cite{WE} and manifolds in
48: random potentials \cite{NR}.
49:
50: The study of simplified random heteropolymer models may provide a
51: useful first step toward understanding the physics of proteins. Here,
52: a central question is whether the trapping of the protein in a valley
53: of the rough energy landscape can hinder, or perhaps even prevent,
54: folding into its native state. Something related to this scenario has
55: actually been observed in some real proteins: the protein can be
56: heated and then, upon re-cooling, misfold and never be able to find
57: its native state \cite{Wol1,Wol2}.
58:
59: Here, we analyze the kind of dynamical trapping that can occur in the
60: standard model of random heteropolymer \cite{garel,SG1}.
61:
62: So far, in addition to numerical simulations, two analytic approaches
63: have been used to solve such models: equilibrium analysis employing
64: the replica technique (see, e.g., refs.
65: \cite{SG1,SG2,GHLO,SW,GLO,TW,GOP}) and dynamical studies using
66: Langevin dynamics \cite{RS,TAB,TPW,Olem1,Pit,LT,Olem2,PS}.
67:
68: In the equilibrium approach, one studies the properties of Gibbs
69: equilibrium. Even the simplest kind of random heteropolymer model can
70: only be approached analytically in approximated ways. In
71: ref. \cite{SG1,SG2,GHLO,SW,GLO,TW,GOP} the model was analyzed with
72: replica variational approximations, which predict ergodicity breaking
73: at low temperature, giving one-step replica symmetry breaking (1RSB)
74: for $d>2$ and continuous replica symmetry breaking for $d<2$. Thus, in
75: 3D, below the freezing temperature, the ergodic components lie far
76: apart from each other, and the same interstate overlap $q_0$. Given
77: the intrinsic one dimensional nature of the polymer, it has been
78: argued that RSB could be an artifact of the variational
79: approximation.\cite{elba} We believe however, that even in this
80: eventuality, implying that a single native state dominate the
81: thermodynamics, RSB in the variational approximation is a signal of a
82: complex energy landscape, which can lead to slow dynamics, with
83: off-equilibrium behavior on long time scales.
84:
85: Models exhibiting 1RSB (such as the simple random heteropolymer
86: mentioned above, the p-spin glass, or a manifold in a random
87: potential) have been found to have different dynamic and static phase
88: diagrams, with a dynamical energy density higher then the one found at
89: equilibrium. This raises the intriguing possibility that, for a
90: suitable range of temperatures and times, a heteropolymer might find
91: itself dynamically trapped in a local state (as in the scenario
92: described above), while the equilibrium statistical mechanics might
93: give no clue that this was happening. Such trapping would thus be an
94: intrinsically non-equilibrium effect, and a dynamical theory is
95: required to describe it.
96:
97: For the models with this feature, the solutions exhibit a breakdown of
98: time-translation invariance (the correlation functions depend on the
99: time since the system was quenched into the glassy state) and a
100: breakdown of the fluctuation-dissipation relation (which is a
101: fundamental characteristic of Gibbs equilibrium). Together, these
102: properties of the dynamical glassy phase go under the name ``aging'',
103: and it is one of our goals here to examine the possibility of aging in
104: heteropolymers.
105:
106: In this paper we consider the simple random heteropolymer model with
107: Langevin dynamics (as in ref. \cite{TPW,PS}). The equations of motion
108: are constructed in such a way that the Gibbs distribution is the
109: stationary solution of the dynamics. This type of dynamical approach
110: was used successfully in spin glass models.
111:
112: To derive closed equations of motion for correlation and response
113: functions we resort to a Gaussian variational ansatz similar to the
114: one used at equilibrium. The same approach has been used to study the
115: problem of a manifold in a random potential, for both statics
116: \cite{MP1,MP2} and dynamics \cite{CD,CKD}. In related dynamical work
117: on random heteropolymer model \cite{TPW} and \cite{PS}, the slightly
118: different approach of Mode Coupling Theory is used. Our approach gives
119: results fully coherent with the ones obtained there, although the
120: detailed form of the phase diagram differs, due to the different
121: nature of the approximation.
122:
123: The analysis of the variational equations indicates that, as expected
124: from static treatments, the random heteropolymer model exhibits
125: spontaneous breaking of ergodicity in a glassy phase. All these
126: states are equally distant from each other; they have same interstate
127: overlap (naturally, the self overlap is different). We also discuss
128: the nature of the transition from the frozen (glassy) to the melted
129: (ergodic) phase. Furthermore, we find that, within the Gaussian
130: variational approximation that we employ, the random heteropolymer
131: model can be mapped onto the the problem of a manifold in a random
132: potential with power law correlations.
133:
134:
135: The paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly describes the
136: Langevin model. In section III a mapping to a supersymmetric (SUSY)
137: field theory is made. The resulting action can be simplified by
138: assuming a very long chain. This is discussed in section IV.
139: Dynamical equations in SUSY notation, given in section VII, are
140: obtained via the variational ansatz discussed in section V and
141: VI. Also, in section VII, the connection of the random heteropolymer
142: model to the problem of a manifold in a random potential will be
143: commented upon. After disentangling the SUSY notation, one obtains
144: dynamical equations for correlation and response functions (section
145: VIII). An analytical ansatz for solving these equations is introduced
146: in section IX, and the solution is obtained in section X. Section XI
147: discusses the ergodic phase, while in section XII the spin glass phase
148: is analyzed. Technicalities needed to construct the full phase diagram
149: are given in section XIII.
150:
151:
152:
153: \section{The Model}
154:
155: The model is defined as follows. The Langevin dynamics is assumed to
156: be governed by the Hamiltonian $H[x]$,
157: %
158: \begin{equation}
159: \partial x(s,t)/\partial t = - \partial H[x] / \partial x(s,t) + \eta(s,t),
160: \label{eq:dxdt}
161: \end{equation}
162: %
163: where $x(s,t)$ is the position of chain bead $s$ at time $t$. Beads
164: are numbered continuously from $s=0$ to $s=N$. $\eta(s,t)$ is Gaussian
165: noise:
166: %
167: \begin{equation}
168: \langle \eta(s,t)\eta(s',t') \rangle_T = 2\delta(s-s')\delta(t-t') T
169: \label{eq:etas}
170: \end{equation}
171: due to contact with a heat bath at temperature $T$.
172: %
173: The Hamiltonian $H[x]=H_0[x]+H_{rand}[x]$ contains a deterministic
174: part $H_0[x]$ and a random part $H_{rand}[x]$. The $H_0[x]$ is defined
175: as
176: %
177: \begin{equation}
178: H_0[x]= \frac{T}{2} \int_{0}^{N} ds
179: [(\partial x(s,t)/\partial s)^2+\mu x(s,t)^2]
180: \label{eq:H0}
181: \end{equation}
182: %
183: and describes the elastic properties of the chain and a confinement
184: potential which fixes the density of the protein. The random part
185: $H_{rand}$ describes heterogeneity of the interactions between the
186: beads,
187: %
188: \begin{equation}
189: H_{rand}[x]= \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{N} ds ds'
190: B_{s,s'} V(x(s,t)-x(s',t)).
191: \label{eq:Hrand}
192: \end{equation}
193: %
194: $B_{s,s'}$ is quenched Gaussian noise with variance $B^2$:
195: %
196: \begin{equation}
197: \langle B_{s,s'}^2 \rangle_B = B^2 , \ \ s>s' .
198: \end{equation}
199: %
200: $V(\Delta x)$ is a short-range potential, and for simplicity we
201: take it to have a Gaussian form, as in ref. \cite{TPW}:
202: %
203: \begin{equation}
204: V(\Delta x)=(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma})^{d/2}e^{-(\Delta x)^2/2\sigma}.
205: \label{eq:V}
206: \end{equation}
207: %
208: $d$ is the dimensionality of the system, and $\sigma$ parameterizes
209: the range of the potential. Large (small) $\sigma$ results in a long-
210: (short-) range potential. In particular, for $\sigma\rightarrow 0$,
211: $V(\Delta x)\rightarrow\delta(\Delta x)$, and we recover the potential
212: used in \cite{PS}. Here and in the following $\Delta x$ denotes the
213: bead-to-bead distance: $\Delta x=x(s,t)-x(s',t)$ for a pair of beads
214: $s$, $s'$.
215:
216: This model admits a stationary solution characterized by a Gibbs
217: distribution. The equilibrium partition function for this solution is
218: given by
219: \begin{equation}
220: {\cal Z} = \int Dx
221: e^{
222: - \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{N} ds
223: [(\partial x(s)/\partial s)^2+\mu x(s)^2]
224: - \frac{\beta}{2} \int_{0}^{N} ds ds'
225: B_{s,s'} V(x(s)-x(s'))
226: }.
227: \label{eq:Z}
228: \end{equation}
229: $T$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:H0}) ensures that the chain constraint and
230: quadratic confinement are temperature-independent. (That is, the
231: elasticity is purely entropic in origin.) The same convention was
232: used in ref. \cite{TPW}. This differs slightly from the work in ref
233: \cite{PS}, where the elastic term had a factor $\beta$ in front of it.
234: Our choice ensures that for high temperatures the random heteropolymer
235: behaves as a Gaussian random coil. Also, for very low temperatures,
236: the random part of interaction with $\beta$ in front dominates
237: ($\beta\rightarrow\infty$; the elastic and confinement terms become
238: negligible). Thus, in principle, for $\beta=\infty$, ${\cal Z}$ in
239: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z}) is dominated by minima of $\int ds ds' B_{s,s'}
240: V(x(s)-x(s'))$. Furthermore, in this limit there is nothing that would
241: control the spatial spread of those minima, and $\langle x^2(s,t)
242: \rangle_T$ diverges for very low temperatures. (This only happens when
243: $\mu$ is held fixed. If it it adjusted appropriately, one can keep
244: $\langle x^2(s,t) \rangle_T$ fixed instead. In this paper, however,
245: we will be concerned with finite-$T$ phase transitions, not the
246: low-$T$ limit, so we will work with fixed $\mu$.)
247:
248:
249:
250:
251:
252:
253:
254: \section{Mapping to the Field Theory}
255:
256:
257: Using the standard Martin-Siggia-Rose formalism \cite{MSR}, the
258: dynamical average of any observable can be calculated as
259: %
260: \begin{equation}
261: \langle {\cal O}[x,\tilde x] \rangle_T =\int Dx D\tilde x D D\xi D\bar\xi
262: {\cal O}(x,\tilde x) e^{-S[x,\tilde x,\xi,\bar\xi] },
263: \label{eq:average}
264: \end{equation}
265: %
266: with the following dynamical action:
267: %
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: S[x,\tilde x,\xi,\bar\xi] = &&
270: \int dt ds
271: \left[
272: - T \tilde x(s,t)^2
273: + \tilde x(s,t) \left(
274: \frac{\partial}{\partial t} x(s,t)
275: + \frac{\partial H[x]}{\partial x(s,t)}
276: \right)
277: \right] \cr
278: && - \int dt ds \bar\xi(s,t)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\xi(s,t)
279: + \int dt ds ds' \bar\xi(s,t)
280: \frac{\partial^2 H[x]}{\partial x(s,t) \partial x(s',t)} \xi(s',t)
281: \label{eq:S}
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: %
284: $\tilde x$, $\xi$, $\bar\xi$ are auxiliary fields which appear in the
285: formalism. To compactify the notation we introduce the superfield $\Phi$:
286: %
287: \begin{equation}
288: \Phi(s,t_1,\theta_1,\bar\theta_1)=x(s,t_1)+\bar\xi(s,t_1)\theta_1
289: + \bar\theta_1\xi(s,t_1) + \bar\theta_1\theta_1\tilde x(s,t_1),
290: \label{eq:Phi}
291: \end{equation}
292: %
293: where $\theta$ and $\bar\theta$ are Grassmann (anti-commuting)
294: variables. For $X,X' \in \{\theta, \bar\theta,\theta',\bar\theta'\}$,
295: $\{X,X'\}=0$ and $\int dX X=1$, the rest of the integrals being
296: zero. In the following, for practical reasons, the more compact
297: notation $\Phi(s,1)\equiv\Phi(s,t_1,\theta_1,\bar\theta_1)$ will be
298: used. Also, the integral symbol $\int d\theta_1 d\bar\theta_1 dt_1$
299: will be denoted by $\int d1$.
300:
301: In supersymmetric (SUSY) notation Eqs.~(\ref{eq:average}) and (\ref{eq:S})
302: translate into (\ref{eq:avSUSY}) and (\ref{eq:SSUSY}):
303: %
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: && \langle {\cal O}[\Phi] \rangle_T =\int D\Phi
306: {\cal O}[\Phi] e^{-S[\Phi] }, \label{eq:avSUSY} \\
307: && S[\Phi] = S_0[\Phi]+S_{rand}[\Phi], \label{eq:SSUSY}
308: \end{eqnarray}
309: %
310: where
311: %
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: && S_0[\Phi]= 1/2 \int ds d1 ds' d2 \Phi(s,1) K_{12}^{ss'} \Phi(s'2),
314: \label{eq:S0} \\
315: && S_{rand}[\Phi]= 1/2 \int d1 ds ds' B_{s,s'} V(\Phi(s,1)-\Phi(s',1)),
316: \label{eq:Srand}
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: %
319: and
320: %
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: K_{12}^{ss'} && \equiv \delta_{12} \delta_{ss'} K_1^s \ , \ \
323: K_1^s = T \left[ \mu-(\partial/\partial s)^2 \right] - D_1^{(2)}, \\
324: D_1^{(2)} && =2 T \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_1\partial\bar\theta_1} +
325: 2 \theta_1 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_1\partial t_1} -
326: \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1},
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: %
329: As noticed by De Dominicis \cite{Dom} the expression in
330: Eq.(\ref{eq:avSUSY}) is already normalized, so the average over the
331: quenched random interactions $B_{s,s'}$ can be done directly on
332: (\ref{eq:avSUSY}):
333: %
334: \begin{equation}
335: \langle\langle A[\Phi] \rangle_T\rangle_B = \int D\Phi
336: A[\Phi] e^{-(S_0[\Phi]+S_1[\Phi])},
337: \label{eq:avA}
338: \end{equation}
339: %
340: where $\exp(-S_1[\Phi])\equiv\langle\exp(-S_{rand}[\Phi])\rangle_B$.
341: The average over $B_{s,s'}$ can be done easily, leading to
342: %
343: \begin{equation}
344: S_1[\Phi] = -B^2/4 \int ds ds'
345: \left[
346: \int d1 V(\Phi(s,1)-\Phi(s',1))
347: \right]^2.
348: \end{equation}
349: %
350: The dynamical action $S=S_0+S_1$ closely resembles the effective
351: Hamiltonian obtained in the static replica approach of
352: ref. \cite{SG1,SG2}. (This rather general similarity between replica
353: and SUSY treatments has been discussed in ref. \cite{Kur}.) Instead
354: of summation over replica indices in \cite{SG1,SG2} we have $\int
355: d1$. Our expressions are not identical to those in \cite{SG1,SG2},
356: since we use a quadratic well potential instead of two- and three-body
357: interaction terms to confine the polymer. Also, we use a Gaussian
358: $V(\Delta x)$ instead of $\delta(\Delta x)$.
359:
360:
361: \section{Long Chain approximation}
362:
363: The $S_1$ part of the action can be further simplified. It can be
364: rewritten in the form
365: %
366: \begin{equation}
367: S_1 = -\frac{B^2}{4} A^{(V)} * A^{(\delta)}.
368: \end{equation}
369: %
370: with the notation
371: %
372: \begin{equation}
373: A^{(V)} * A^{(\delta)} = \int d1 d2 dx dy
374: A^{(V)}_{1,2}(x,y) A^{(\delta)}_{1,2}(x,y),
375: \label{av*ad}
376: \end{equation}
377: %
378: where $A^{(V)}$ and $A^{(\delta)}$ are given by
379: %
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: && A^{(V)}_{1,2}(x,y) =
382: \int ds V(\Phi(s,1)-x) V(\Phi(s,2)-y) \label{av} \\
383: && A^{(\delta)}_{1,2}(x,y) =
384: \int ds' \delta(\Phi(s',1)-x)
385: \delta(\Phi(s',2)-y). \label{ad}
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: %
388: It is useful to transform $\exp(-S_1)$ as
389: %
390: \begin{eqnarray}
391: && \exp\left[
392: \frac{B^2}{4} A^{(V)} * A^{(\delta)}
393: \right]
394: = \exp
395: \left[
396: \frac{B^2}{16}
397: \left[
398: (A^{(V)}+A^{(\delta)})*(A^{(V)}+A^{(\delta)})
399: -(A^{(V)}-A^{(\delta)})*(A^{(V)}-A^{(\delta)})
400: \right]
401: \right] \nonumber \\
402: && = \int DQ_1 DQ_2 \exp\left[ \frac{B^2}{4}
403: \left[-(Q_1*Q_1+Q_2*Q_2)+Q_1 * (A^{(V)}+A^{(\delta)})
404: + i Q_2 * (A^{(V)}-A^{(\delta)})\right] \right].
405: \label{eq:expS1}
406: \end{eqnarray}
407: %
408: Then, the dynamical generating functional $F$
409: defined by
410: %
411: \begin{equation}
412: e^{-F}=\int D\Phi e^{-S[\Phi]+J*\Phi},
413: \end{equation}
414: %
415: with $J*\Phi=\int ds d1 J(s,1) \Phi(s,1)$, can be written as
416: %
417: \begin{equation}
418: e^{-F} = \int DQ_1 DQ_2 e^{- \frac{B^2}{4} ( Q_1*Q_1 + Q_2*Q_2)}
419: \int D \Phi e^{L[Q_1,Q_2,\Phi]},
420: \label{eq:FJ}
421: \end{equation}
422: %
423: with $L$ given by
424: %
425: \begin{equation}
426: L = \frac{B^2}{4} [Q_1 * (A^{(V)}+A^{(\delta)})
427: + i Q_2 * (A^{(V)}-A^{(\delta)})]
428: - S_0[\Phi] + J*\Phi .
429: \label{eq:L}
430: \end{equation}
431: %
432: So far everything was exact. $A^{(V)}$ and $A^{(\delta)}$ are both of
433: order $N$ and for very long chains one can calculate integrals over
434: $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ in (\ref{eq:FJ}) using a saddle point
435: approximation. The saddle point equations read
436: %
437: \begin{eqnarray}
438: && Q_1^{s.p.} = \frac{1}{2} \langle A^{(V)}+A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{L'} \\
439: && Q_2^{s.p.} = \frac{i}{2} \langle A^{(V)}-A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{L'},
440: \label{eq:Q12}
441: \end{eqnarray}
442: %
443: where $\langle \rangle_{L'}$ denotes the average with $L$ taking
444: $Q_1$, $Q_2 \rightarrow Q_1^{s.p.}, Q_2^{s.p.}$. This leads to
445: self-consistent equations for $Q_1^{s.p.}$ and $Q_2^{s.p.}$.
446:
447: Thus, Eq.(\ref{eq:FJ}) can be approximated as
448: %
449: \begin{equation}
450: e^{-F} \approx \int D\Phi e^{-S'[\Phi]+J*\Phi}
451: \label{eq:FJ'},
452: \end{equation}
453: %
454: with $S'[\Phi]=S_1'[\Phi]+S_0[\Phi]$ and
455: %
456: \begin{equation}
457: S_1'[\Phi] = \frac{B^2}{4}
458: \left[
459: \langle A^{(V)} \rangle_{S'} * \langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{S'}
460: - A^{(V)} * \langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{S'}
461: - A^{(\delta)} * \langle A^{(V)} \rangle_{S'}
462: \right].
463: \label{eq:S'}
464: \end{equation}
465: %
466: $\langle A^{(V)} \rangle_{S'}$ and $\langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{S'}$
467: have to be calculated self consistently with $S'$:
468: %
469: \begin{equation}
470: \langle A^{(V,\delta)} \rangle_{S'} =
471: \frac{\int D\Phi A^{(V,\delta)}
472: e^{-S'+J*\Phi}}{\int D\Phi e^{-S'+J*\Phi}},
473: \label{eq:Avd} \\
474: \end{equation}
475: %
476: In the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$
477: Eq.s(\ref{eq:FJ'},\ref{eq:S'},\ref{eq:Avd}) provide an exact
478: description of random heteropolymer dynamics.
479:
480:
481:
482: \section{Variational ansatz}
483:
484: To solve the model we proceed by using a variational ansatz, assuming
485: that fields $\Phi$ are approximately described by a Gaussian action
486: %
487: \begin{equation}
488: S_{var}=\frac{1}{2} \int d1 ds d2 ds'
489: \Phi(s,1) G(s,1;s',2)^{-1} \Phi(s',2).
490: \end{equation}
491: %
492: This approach has been widely used in statics. Here we apply it to a
493: dynamic calculation. The goal is to calculate $F$ given by
494: Eq.(\ref{eq:FJ'}). Since the variational parameter $G(s,1;s',2)$ is
495: the only quantity we are interested in, there is no need to keep the
496: source $J$. It is convenient to write Eq.~(\ref{eq:FJ'}), with $J=0$,
497: formally as
498: %
499: \begin{equation}
500: e^{-F} = \langle e^{-(S'-S_{var})}
501: \rangle_{var} e^{-F_{var}}
502: \label{eq:FJvar},
503: \end{equation}
504: %
505: where
506: %
507: \begin{equation}
508: e^{-F_{var}}=\int D\Phi e^{-S_{var}}$\ ,\ \ \ \ $\langle
509: . \rangle_{var}=e^{F_{var}}\int D\Phi ( . ) e^{-S_{var}}.
510: \end{equation}
511: %
512: In usual statics, for problems without disorder, the variational
513: approach is related to a maximum principle. The equivalent of
514: Eq.(\ref{eq:FJvar}) leads to the inequality
515: %
516: \begin{equation}
517: e^{-F} \ge e^{ - \langle (S'-S_{var}) \rangle_{var} }
518: e^{ -F_{var} }.
519: \label{eq:FJFdyn}
520: \end{equation}
521: %
522: In the present dynamical problem, as well as in the static problem
523: with replicas, unfortunately such a maximum principle is not known,
524: and the variational free-energy cannot be claimed to be an upper bound
525: to the true one. Despite that, the variational approach has been
526: argued to give exact results in some limiting cases \cite{MP1,MP2},
527: giving a justification for its use in general.
528:
529: The dynamical variational free-energy $F_{dyn}=\langle (S'-S_{var})
530: \rangle_{var}+F_{var} $ is given by
531: %
532: \begin{equation}
533: F_{dyn} = F_{dyn}^{(1)} + F_{dyn}^{(2)} + F_{dyn}^{(3)},
534: \label{eq:Fdyn}
535: \end{equation}
536: %
537: with
538: %
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: && F_{dyn}^{(1)} = \frac{d}{2} \int ds d1 ds' d2
541: K_{12}^{ss'} G_{12}^{ss'} \label{eq:Fdyn1} \\
542: && F_{dyn}^{(2)} = - \frac{d}{2} Tr \ln G \label{eq:Fdyn2} \\
543: && F_{dyn}^{(3)} = - \frac{B^2}{4} \langle A^{(V)} \rangle_{var} *
544: \langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{var}. \label{eq:Fdyn3}
545: \end{eqnarray}
546: %
547: Note that in calculating $F_{dyn}^{(3)}$, the average $\langle\
548: \rangle_{S'}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:S'}) is performed over the trial
549: distribution (and therefore denoted $\langle\ \rangle_{var}$).
550:
551:
552:
553: \section{ Calculating
554: $\langle A^{(V)} \rangle * \langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle$}
555:
556:
557: The term $\langle A^{(V)} \rangle_{var} * \langle A^{(\delta)}
558: \rangle_{var}$ is the only non-trivial term in $F_{dyn}$. Before
559: calculating it we simplify each of the factors in product further
560: %
561: \begin{equation}
562: A^{(V,\delta)}_{1,2}(x,y) \approx A^{(V,\delta)}_{1,2}(u)
563: \equiv 1/v \int d^dR \, A^{(V,\delta)}_{1,2}(u,R),
564: \label{eq:Avd_av}
565: \end{equation}
566: %
567: where $v$ is the volume of the protein and a new coordinate system has
568: been introduced:
569: %
570: \begin{equation}
571: R=(x+y)/2, u=(x-y)/2.
572: \end{equation}
573: %
574: $R$ is the center of mass and $u$ a relative distance coordinate.
575: Thus, translational invariance is introduced by hand via
576: Eq.(\ref{eq:Avd_av}). This approximation is not necessary; the model
577: could be solved without it. However, as we shall see later on, this
578: approximation leads to dynamical equations which are identical to
579: those for the random manifold model studied in \cite{CD,CKD,FM}.
580:
581: Changing integration variables from $d^dx\, d^dy$ to $d^dR\, d^du$
582: (the Jacobian is $2^d$) gives
583: %
584: \begin{equation}
585: \int d1\, d2\, d^dx\, d^dy
586: \langle A^{(V)}_{1,2}(x,y) \rangle_{var}
587: \langle A^{(\delta)}_{1,2}(x,y) \rangle_{var}
588: \approx
589: \frac{2^d}{v}
590: \int d1\, d2\, d^du
591: \int d^dR' A^{(V)}_{1,2}(u,R')
592: \int d^dR'' A^{(\delta)}_{1,2}(u,R'')
593: \end{equation}
594: %
595: The integrals over $R'$ and $R''$ can be easily performed and one gets
596: %
597: \begin{equation}
598: \frac{2^d}{v}
599: \int d1\, d2\, d^du\, ds\, ds'\, d^d\alpha \, d^d\beta \,
600: V(\alpha) \, V(\beta)
601: \langle
602: \delta \left[ 2 u - \alpha + \beta - \Phi(s,1) + \Phi(s,2) \right]
603: \rangle_{var}
604: \langle
605: \delta \left[ 2 u - \Phi(s,1) + \Phi(s,2) \right]
606: \rangle_{var},
607: \end{equation}
608: %
609: which can be further written as
610: %
611: \begin{equation}
612: \frac{2^d}{v}
613: \int d1\, d2\, d^du\, ds\, ds'\, d^d\alpha\, d^d\beta \,
614: V(\alpha) \, V(\beta)
615: \int \frac{d^d p}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{d^d q}{(2\pi)^d}
616: e^{i(p+q)2u} e^{ip(\beta-\alpha)}
617: e^{-\frac{1}{2}p^2 B_{12}^s}
618: e^{-\frac{1}{2} q^2 B_{12}^{s'}},
619: \label{eq:Avd_av1}
620: \end{equation}
621: %
622: where averages over $S_{var}$ have been evaluated as
623: %
624: \begin{equation}
625: \langle e^{ip(\Phi(s,1)-\Phi(s,2))} \rangle_{var} =
626: e^{-\frac{1}{2}p^2 B_{12}^s},
627: \end{equation}
628: %
629: with $B_{1,2}^s$ is given by
630: %
631: \begin{equation}
632: B_{1,2}^s = \langle \left[\Phi(s,1)-\Phi(s,2)\right]^2 \rangle_{var}
633: = G(s,1;s,1) + G(s,2;s,2) - 2 G(s,1;s,2)
634: \end{equation}
635: %
636: Integrating Eq.(\ref{eq:Avd_av1}) first over $u$,
637: and then over $q$ and $p$ finally gives
638: %
639: \begin{equation}
640: \frac{1}{v}
641: (2\pi)^{-d/2} \int d1 d2 ds ds' d^d\alpha d^d\beta
642: V(\alpha) V(\beta) (B_{12}^s+B_{12}^{s'})^{-d/2}
643: \exp{- \frac{
644: (\alpha-\beta)^2
645: }{
646: 2 (B_{12}^s+B_{12}^{s'})
647: }
648: }.
649: \label{eq:AvdCM}
650: \end{equation}
651: %
652: Eq.(\ref{eq:AvdCM}) holds for any $V(\Delta x)$. However, technically,
653: it is of little use unless the integrals over $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can
654: be performed explicitly. For the Gaussian form for $V(\Delta x)$ (see
655: Eq.\ref{eq:V}) it is possible to perform the integrals, and one gets
656: %
657: \begin{equation}
658: \langle A^{(V)}\rangle_{var} * \langle A^{(\delta)} \rangle_{var}
659: \approx
660: \frac{1}{v} (4\pi)^{-d/2} \int d1 d2 ds ds'
661: \left[ (B_{12}^s+B_{12}^{s'})/2 + \sigma \right]^{-d/2}
662: \label{eq:V2}
663: \end{equation}
664: %
665: and finally
666: %
667: \begin{equation}
668: F_{dyn}^{(3)} \approx \frac{d}{2N} \int d1 d2 ds ds'
669: {\cal V} \left[ (B_{12}^s+B_{12}^{s'})/2 \right]
670: \label{eq:Fdyn3V}
671: \end{equation}
672: %
673: with
674: %
675: \begin{equation}
676: {\cal V}(z) = - \frac{\tilde B^2}{d} (z+\sigma)^{-d/2}\ ,\ \
677: \tilde B^2 = \frac{B^2}{2} \frac{N}{v} (4\pi)^{-d/2}.
678: \label{eq:Vz}
679: \end{equation}
680: %
681: Eq.s (\ref{eq:Fdyn},\ref{eq:Fdyn1},\ref{eq:Fdyn2},\ref{eq:Fdyn3}) and
682: (\ref{eq:Fdyn3V}) fully determine $F_{dyn}$.
683:
684:
685:
686: \section{Equations of motion in SUSY notation}
687:
688:
689: Given the $F_{dyn}$, one can derive the equations of motion
690: from the stationarity condition
691: %
692: \begin{equation}
693: \frac{\delta}{\delta G_{12}^{ss'}} F_{dyn} = 0.
694: \label{eq:dFdyn}
695: \end{equation}
696: %
697: The most complicated term is $\frac{\delta}{\delta
698: G_{12}^{ss'}} F_{dyn}^{(3)}$. From (\ref{eq:Fdyn3V}), it is
699: %
700: \begin{equation}
701: \frac{d}{2N}
702: \int d3 d4 du dv
703: {\cal V}' \left[ ( B_{34}^u+B_{34}^v )/2 \right]
704: \delta_{ss'} \frac{\delta_{us}+\delta_{vs}}{2}
705: ( \delta_{13}\delta_{23} + \delta_{14}\delta_{24} -
706: \delta_{13}\delta_{24} - \delta_{14}\delta_{23} ).
707: \label{eq:dFdyn3V}
708: \end{equation}
709: %
710: Due to translational invariance in $s$, $B_{12}^s$ is independent of
711: $s$. After dropping the index $s$ Eq.(\ref{eq:dFdyn3V}) simplifies to
712: %
713: \begin{equation}
714: \frac{\delta}{\delta G_{12}^{ss'}} F_{dyn}^{(3)} =
715: d \, \delta_{ss'}
716: \left[
717: \delta_{12} \int d3 {\cal V}'(B_{13}) - {\cal V}'(B_{12})
718: \right].
719: \end{equation}
720: %
721: The variations of $F_{dyn}^{(1)}$ and $F_{dyn}^{(2)}$ are trivial.
722: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:dFdyn}) and (\ref{eq:Fdyn}) leads to
723: %
724: \begin{equation}
725: K_{12}^{ss'} - ( G_{12}^{ss'} )^{-1}
726: + 2 \, \delta_{ss'}
727: \left[
728: \delta_{12} \int d3 {\cal V}(B_{13}) - {\cal V}(B_{12})
729: \right] = 0,
730: \label{eq:KGinv}
731: \end{equation}
732: %
733: which can be written as
734: %
735: \begin{equation}
736: K_1^s G_{12}^{ss'} = \delta_{12} \delta_{ss'}
737: + 2 \int d3 {\cal V}'(B_{13})(G_{32}^{ss'}-G_{12}^{ss'}).
738: \label{eq:emSUSY}
739: \end{equation}
740: %
741: Due to translational invariance in the variable $s$ it is useful to
742: define following Fourier transforms
743: %
744: \begin{equation}
745: G_{12}^{ss'} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dk}{2\pi}
746: e^{ik(s-s')} G_{12}^k.
747: \end{equation}
748: %
749: Then Eq.(\ref{eq:emSUSY}) translates into
750: %
751: \begin{equation}
752: \left[ T(\mu+k^2)-D^{(2)}_1 \right] G_{12}^k = \delta_{12}
753: + 2 \int d3 {\cal V}'(B_{13})(G_{32}^k-G_{12}^k).
754: \label{eq:emSUSYk}
755: \end{equation}
756: %
757: Eq.~(\ref{eq:emSUSYk}) is identical to the one obtained in
758: ref. \cite{CKD} for a $D$-dimensional manifold $\varphi(\omega)$
759: ($\omega\in R^D$, $\varphi\in R^d$) in a random potential
760: $V(\varphi(\omega),\omega)$, where the correlations of the potential
761: are described by
762: %
763: \begin{equation}
764: \langle V(\varphi,\omega)V(\varphi',\omega') \rangle = -
765: d\delta^D(\omega-\omega') \hat{\cal V}\left[(\varphi-\varphi')/d\right].
766: \end{equation}
767: %
768: These equations of motion were derived using the Gaussian Variational
769: Approximation (GVA), which is exact for the random manifold problem in
770: $d=\infty$. We expect the same behavior for the random
771: heteropolymer. However, in this study we work at finite $d$, so the
772: equations of motion are approximate.
773:
774: There have been several studies of random manifolds where $\hat{\cal
775: V}$ describes power law correlations as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Vhat}),
776: employing static \cite{MP1,MP2,Eng}, and dynamical \cite{FM,KH1,KH2}
777: approaches:
778: %
779: \begin{equation}
780: \hat{\cal V}(z)=(z+\sigma)^{1-\gamma}/2(1-\gamma).
781: \label{eq:Vhat}
782: \end{equation}
783: %
784: By comparing Eq.s~(\ref{eq:Vz}) and (\ref{eq:Vhat}) one notices that
785: ${\cal V}(z)$ is identical to $\hat{\cal V}(z)$ (up to a
786: proportionality factor $\tilde B^2$) if one identifies $\gamma=1+d/2$.
787: Accordingly, we conclude that, within the Gaussian variational
788: approximation used in this study, random heteropolymer dynamics is
789: identical to the dynamics of the manifold in a random potential with
790: power law correlations. (We can not say anything rigorous outside the
791: framework of the Gaussian variational approximation scheme, of
792: course.)
793:
794: Furthermore, correlations of the random manifold potential are
795: classified as short range for $\gamma > 2/(2-D)$, and long range for
796: $\gamma < 2/(2-D)$ \cite{MP1,MP2}. This classification of random
797: manifolds helps to classify random heteropolymer model in the same
798: way. Using $\gamma=1+d/2$, the random heteropolymer has $D=1$, and
799: short range correlations for $d>2$ and long range correlations for
800: $d<2$. (Again, this all makes sense only within the Gaussian
801: variational approximation).
802:
803:
804: \section{Disentangling SUSY}
805:
806:
807: $G_{12}^{ss'}$ encodes 16 correlation functions, out of which only
808: two, correlation and response function, are independent and nonzero:
809: %
810: \begin{eqnarray}
811: && \langle \langle x(s,t_1) x(s',t_2) \rangle \rangle
812: \equiv C(s,t_1;s',t_2) =
813: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} e^{ik(s-s')}C_k(t_1,t_2) \label{eq:C} \\
814: && \langle \langle x(s,t_1) \tilde x(s',t_2) \rangle \rangle
815: \equiv R(s,t_1;s',t_2) =
816: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} e^{ik(s-s')} R_k(t_1,t_2). \label{eq:R}
817: \end{eqnarray}
818: %
819: Also, by adding an external field term to the original Hamiltonian $H[x]
820: \rightarrow H[x]+\int ds dt x(s,t) h(s,t)$ one gets
821: %
822: \begin{equation}
823: \langle\langle x(s,t_1) \tilde x(s',t_2) \rangle\rangle =
824: \frac{\delta}{\delta h(s',t_2)} \langle\langle x(s,t_1)\rangle\rangle.
825: \end{equation}
826: %
827: i.e. $R(s,t_1;s',t_2)$ describes the response to an infinitesimal
828: field applied at time $t_2$ and bead $s'$. Thus, $G_{12}^k$ reduces to
829: %
830: \begin{equation}
831: G_{12}^k = C_k(t_1,t_2) +
832: (\bar\theta_1-\bar\theta_2) \left[ \theta_1 R_k(t_2,t_1) -
833: \theta_2 R_k(t_1,t_2) \right],
834: \label{eq:G12k}
835: \end{equation}
836: %
837: and, accordingly, with $G_{11}^{ss}=C(s,t_1;s,t_1)$,
838: $G_{22}^{ss}=C(s,t_2;s,t_2)$, and Eqs.~(\ref{eq:C},\ref{eq:R}), one
839: gets
840: %
841: \begin{equation}
842: B_{12} = B(t_1,t_2) - 2 (\bar\theta_1-\bar\theta_2)
843: \left[ \theta_1 r(t_2,t_1) - \theta_2 r(t_1,t_2) \right],
844: \end{equation}
845: %
846: with
847: %
848: \begin{equation}
849: B(t_1,t_2) = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi}
850: \left[
851: C_k(t_1,t_1)+C_k(t_2,t_2)-2 C_k(t_1,t_2)
852: \right]
853: \end{equation}
854: %
855: and
856: %
857: \begin{equation}
858: r(t_1,t_2) = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} R_k(t_1,t_2).
859: \label{eq:r12}
860: \end{equation}
861: %
862: After disentangling the equations of motion in SUSY notation (see
863: Eq.~\ref{eq:emSUSYk}) by using (\ref{eq:G12k}-\ref{eq:r12}) gives
864: %
865: \begin{eqnarray}
866: & [T(\mu+k^2)+\partial/\partial t] C_k(t,t') = &
867: 2 T R_k(t',t) +
868: 2 \int_{0}^{t} ds {\cal V}'\left[B(t,s)\right] R_k(t',s) + \nonumber \\
869: & & + 4 \int_{0}^{t} ds {\cal V}''\left[B(t,s)\right] r(t,s) \left[
870: C_k(t,t')-C_k(s,t') \right], \label{eq:emC} \\
871: & [T(\mu+k^2)+\partial/\partial t] R_k(t,t') = & \delta(t-t') +
872: 4 \int_{0}^{t} ds {\cal V}''\left[B(t,s)\right] r(t,s) \left[
873: R_k(t,t')-R_k(s,t') \right]. \label{eq:emR}
874: \end{eqnarray}
875: %
876: The equations of motion (\ref{eq:emC}) and (\ref{eq:emR}) are almost
877: identical to the ones found in ref. \cite{CD} (here $D=1$, while in
878: \cite{CD} $D=0$).
879:
880:
881:
882: \section{Ansatz for $C_k(t,t')$ and $R_k(t,t')$ }
883: \label{sec:ansatz}
884:
885: These equations of motion are coupled integro-differential equations
886: which in principle can be solved; the initial conditions are given by
887: $C_k(0,0)$ and we use Ito's convention $R(t+\epsilon,t)\rightarrow 1$
888: as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. It is well known that asymptotic solutions
889: of such equations can be characterized by few parameters and it is
890: possible to solve those equations
891: analytically. \cite{CD,CKD,FM,CK1,BCKP,CK2}
892:
893: For $t,t'\rightarrow\infty$, $\frac{\tau}{t'}<<1$ and $\tau=t-t'$, time
894: translational invariance (TTI) holds
895: %
896: \begin{eqnarray}
897: && \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} C_k(t,t) = \tilde q_k, \\
898: && \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} C_k(t+\tau,t) = C_k(\tau), \\
899: && \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty} C_k(\tau) = q_k,
900: \end{eqnarray}
901: %
902: and
903: %
904: \begin{equation}
905: \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} R_k(t+\tau,t) = R_k(\tau) .
906: \end{equation}
907: %
908: In addition to the TTI regime, there is another long time non trivial
909: regime, characterized by $t,t'\rightarrow\infty$, fixing
910: $\lambda=h(t')/h(t)$ and $0<\lambda<1$, where the function $h(t)$ is
911: an increasing function of $t$ which the asymptotic analysis performed
912: here is not able to determine.
913: %
914: In this aging regime one has
915: \begin{eqnarray}
916: && \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} C_k(t,h^{-1}
917: (\lambda h(t))) = q_k \hat C_k(\lambda), \\
918: && \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} q_k \hat C_k(\lambda) = q_{0,k}, \\
919: && \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 1} \hat C_k(\lambda) = 1,
920: \end{eqnarray}
921: %
922: and
923: %
924: \begin{equation}
925: \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} R_k(t,\lambda t) = \frac{1}{t}\hat R_k(\lambda).
926: \end{equation}
927: %
928: Also, for future convenience,
929: it is useful to introduce the following order
930: parameters:
931: \begin{eqnarray}
932: && \tilde q \equiv \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}
933: \langle\langle x(s,t)x(s,t) \rangle\rangle
934: = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \ \tilde q_k, \\
935: && q \equiv \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty} \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}
936: \langle\langle x(s,t+\tau)x(s,t) \rangle\rangle =
937: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \ q_k, \\
938: && q_0 \equiv \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}
939: \langle\langle x(s,t)x(s,\lambda t) \rangle\rangle =
940: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \ q_{0,k},
941: \end{eqnarray}
942: %
943: together with
944: %
945: \begin{equation}
946: b = 2 ( \tilde q - q ) \ , \ \ b_0 = 2 ( \tilde q - q_0 ).
947: \end{equation}
948:
949:
950:
951: \section{Equations relating asymptotic values of correlation
952: and response functions}
953: \label{sec:qs}
954:
955: Using the ansatz discussed in section \ref{sec:ansatz} one can derive
956: the following equations for $C_k(t,t')$ in the TTI regime:
957: %
958: \begin{eqnarray}
959: & \left[ T(\mu+k^2)+\partial/\partial\tau \right] C_k(\tau) = &
960: 2 T R_k(-\tau)
961: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) \left[ C_k(\tau) - q_k \right]
962: - \frac{2}{T} \int_{0}^{\tau} d\tau' {\cal V}'(B(\tau-\tau'))
963: \frac{\partial C_k(\tau')}{\partial\tau'}
964: \nonumber \\
965: & & + 2 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}'(\hat B(\rho)) \hat R_k(\rho)
966: + 4 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
967: \left[ C_k(\tau) - q_k \hat C_k(\rho) \right]
968: \label{eq:CkTTI}
969: \end{eqnarray}
970: %
971: It is also possible to derive similar equations for $R_k(\tau)$ which,
972: due to the Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem (FDT)
973: %
974: \begin{equation}
975: R_k(\tau) = - \frac{1}{T} \frac{d\,C_k(\tau)}{d\,\tau}
976: \label{eq:FDT},
977: \end{equation}
978: %
979: are completely equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq:CkTTI}).
980:
981: In the aging regime one gets the following equation for $q_k\hat
982: C(\lambda)$:
983: %
984: \begin{eqnarray}
985: & \left[ T(\mu+k^2) \right. &
986: \left. - 4 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
987: \right] q_k \hat C_k(\lambda) =
988: 2 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}'(\hat B(\rho)) \hat R_k(\rho)
989: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(\hat B(\lambda)) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
990: \nonumber \\
991: && - 4 \int_{0}^{\lambda} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
992: q_k \hat C_k(\rho/\lambda)
993: - 4 \int_{\lambda}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
994: q_k \hat C_k(\lambda/\rho).
995: \label{eq:CkAG}
996: \end{eqnarray}
997: %
998: For $\hat R_k(\lambda)$ we obtain,
999: %
1000: \begin{eqnarray}
1001: \left[
1002: T(\mu+k^2)
1003: - 4 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
1004: \right] \hat R_k(\lambda) =
1005: - \frac{4}{T} {\cal V}''(\hat B(\lambda)) \hat r(\lambda)
1006: ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1007: - 4 \int_{\lambda}^{1} \frac{d\rho}{\rho} {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho))
1008: \hat r(\rho) \hat R_k(\lambda/\rho) .
1009: \label{eq:RkAG}
1010: \end{eqnarray}
1011: %
1012: Again, one can see that both Eq.~(\ref{eq:CkAG}) and
1013: Eq.~(\ref{eq:RkAG}) can be solved by the ansatz
1014: %
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: \hat R_k(\lambda) = \frac{x}{T} q_k \frac{d\,\hat C_k(\lambda)}{d\,\lambda}.
1017: \label{eq:GFDT}
1018: \end{equation}
1019: %
1020: Eq.~(\ref{eq:GFDT}) is commonly referred to as a generalized FDT
1021: (GFDT). In principle, Eq.~(\ref{eq:GFDT}) could have been written as
1022: %
1023: \begin{equation}
1024: \hat R_k(\lambda) = \frac{ x_k(q_k\hat C_k(\lambda)) }{ T } \,
1025: q_k \frac{ d\hat C_k(\lambda) }{ d\lambda },
1026: \end{equation}
1027: %
1028: which could be applied to a many-step RSB scheme. However, as
1029: previously discussed, the present random heteropolymer model can be
1030: identified with the random manifold problem with short range potential
1031: correlations. As such, it has one step RSB, and it is sufficient to
1032: use the simpler ansatz given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:GFDT}).
1033:
1034: For $t=t'$ and $t\rightarrow\infty$ Eq.(\ref{eq:emC}) gives
1035: %
1036: \begin{eqnarray}
1037: T(\mu+k^2) \tilde q_k =
1038: T + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1039: + 2 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}'(\hat B(\rho)) \hat R_k(\rho)
1040: + 4 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
1041: \left[ \tilde q_k - q_k C_k(\rho) \right] .
1042: \label{eq:qtk1}
1043: \end{eqnarray}
1044: %
1045: Eq.~(\ref{eq:CkTTI}) for $t\rightarrow\infty$ and then
1046: $\tau\rightarrow\infty$ results in
1047: %
1048: \begin{eqnarray}
1049: T(\mu+k^2) q_k =
1050: \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1051: + 2 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}'(\hat B(\rho)) \hat R_k(\rho)
1052: + 4 \int_{0}^{1} d\rho {\cal V}''(\hat B(\rho)) \hat r(\rho)
1053: q_k \left[ 1 - C_k(\rho) \right] .
1054: \label{eq:qk1}
1055: \end{eqnarray}
1056: %
1057: Also, Eq.(\ref{eq:CkAG}) for $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ gives
1058: %
1059: \begin{eqnarray}
1060: T(\mu+k^2) q_{0,k} =
1061: 2 {\cal V}'(b_0) \int_{0}^{1} d\rho \hat R_k(\rho) +
1062: \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) ( \tilde q_k - q_k ) .
1063: \label{eq:q0k1}
1064: \end{eqnarray}
1065: %
1066:
1067:
1068: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qtk1}), (\ref{eq:qk1}) and (\ref{eq:q0k1}) (and,
1069: equivalently, \ref{eq:CkTTI}, \ref{eq:CkAG} and \ref{eq:RkAG}) contain
1070: TTI and aging parts. Thus, in principle, there are two ansätze for
1071: solving them, leading to two phases: an ergodic one (without aging)
1072: and a glassy one (with aging).
1073:
1074:
1075: \section{Ergodic Phase}
1076:
1077:
1078: Technically, assuming that aging is absent amounts to setting $\hat
1079: R_k(\lambda)=0$ and $\hat C_k(\lambda)=1$ in (\ref{eq:qtk1}),
1080: (\ref{eq:qk1}) and (\ref{eq:q0k1}). (Equivalently, one could start
1081: from (\ref{eq:emC}) and (\ref{eq:emR}) and exclude the aging part from
1082: the beginning, leading to the same equations.) Thus, in the ergodic
1083: phase, equations (\ref{eq:qtk1}), (\ref{eq:qk1}) and (\ref{eq:q0k1})
1084: reduce to
1085: %
1086: \begin{eqnarray}
1087: && T(\mu+k^2) \tilde q_k =
1088: T + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) (\tilde q_k - q_k),
1089: \label{eq:qter} \\
1090: && T(\mu+k^2) q_k =
1091: \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) (\tilde q_k - q_k) ,
1092: \label{eq:qker} \\
1093: && T(\mu+k^2) q_{0,k} =
1094: \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) (\tilde q_k - q_k) .
1095: \label{eq:q0ker}
1096: \end{eqnarray}
1097: %
1098: Note that (\ref{eq:qker}) and (\ref{eq:q0ker}) enforce $q_k=q_{0,k}$
1099: which is just equivalent to $\hat C_k(\lambda)=1$, so one gets only
1100: two equations. Solving them for $\tilde q_k$ and $q_k$ gives
1101: %
1102: \begin{eqnarray}
1103: && \tilde q_k - q_k = \frac{1}{\mu+k^2} \label{eq:bker} \\
1104: && \tilde q_k = \frac{1}{\mu+k^2} + \frac{2}{T^2} {\cal V}'(b)
1105: \frac{1}{(\mu+k^2)^2}.
1106: \end{eqnarray}
1107: %
1108: After integrating over $k$ and using
1109: %
1110: %
1111: \begin{equation}
1112: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \frac{1}{\mu+k^2}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu}} \ , \ \
1113: \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \frac{1}{(\mu+k^2)^2}=\frac{1}{4\mu^{3/2}},
1114: \label{eq:intk}
1115: \end{equation}
1116: %
1117: we obtain
1118: %
1119: \begin{eqnarray}
1120: && q = \frac{1}{2\mu^{3/2}T^2} {\cal V}'(1/\sqrt{\mu}) ,
1121: \label{eq:qerg} \\
1122: && \tilde q = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu}} +
1123: \frac{1}{2\mu^{3/2}T^2} {\cal V}'(1/\sqrt{\mu}).
1124: \label{eq:qterg}
1125: \end{eqnarray}
1126: %
1127: For $T$ very small $q$ and $\tilde q$ blow up since the confinement
1128: term $\mu x(s,t)^2$ term becomes ineffective (see Eq.~\ref{eq:Z}).
1129: For very large temperature $q$ approaches zero but is never exactly
1130: equal to zero.
1131:
1132:
1133: \section{Spin glass phase}
1134:
1135: Keeping the aging parts and using the GFDT, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qtk1}),
1136: (\ref{eq:qk1}) and (\ref{eq:q0k1}) can be transformed into
1137: %
1138: \begin{eqnarray}
1139: && T(\mu+k^2) \tilde q_k = T
1140: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b) (1-x) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1141: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) x ( \tilde q_k - q_{0,k} ) ,
1142: \label{eq:qtk2} \\
1143: && T(\mu+k^2) q_k =
1144: \frac{2}{T} ( {\cal V}'(b) - x {\cal V}'(b_0) ) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1145: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) x ( \tilde q_k - q_{0,k} ) ,
1146: \label{eq:qk2} \\
1147: && T(\mu+k^2) q_{0,k} =
1148: \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) (1-x) ( \tilde q_k - q_k )
1149: + \frac{2}{T} {\cal V}'(b_0) x ( \tilde q_k - q_{0,k} ) .
1150: \label{eq:q0k2}
1151: \end{eqnarray}
1152: %
1153: Solving Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qtk2}), (\ref{eq:qk2}) and (\ref{eq:q0k2}) for
1154: $\tilde q_k$, $q_k$ and $q_{0,k}$ gives
1155: %
1156: \begin{eqnarray}
1157: && \tilde q_k - q_k = \frac{ 1 }{ \mu + k^2 + \Sigma }, \label{eq:bk} \\
1158: && \tilde q_k - q_{0,k} =
1159: \frac{1}{x} \frac{1}{\mu+k^2}
1160: - \frac{1-x}{x} \frac{1}{\mu+k^2+\Sigma}, \\
1161: && \tilde q_k = ( \tilde q_k - q_{0,k} )
1162: + \frac{2}{T^2} {\cal V}'(b_0) \frac{1}{(\mu+k^2)^2},
1163: \end{eqnarray}
1164: %
1165: where
1166: %
1167: \begin{equation}
1168: \Sigma = x \frac{2}{T^2} ( {\cal V}'(b) - {\cal V}'(b_0) ).
1169: \end{equation}
1170: %
1171: Integration over $k$ and using (\ref{eq:intk})
1172: gives
1173: %
1174: \begin{eqnarray}
1175: && b = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu+\Sigma}},
1176: \label{eq:b} \\
1177: && b_0 = \frac{1}{x} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}
1178: - \frac{1-x}{x} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu+\Sigma}} ,
1179: \label{eq:b0} \\
1180: && \tilde q = b_0 + \frac{1}{2\mu^{3/2}T^2} {\cal V}'(b_0) .
1181: \label{eq:qt}
1182: \end{eqnarray}
1183: %
1184: Furthermore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:RkAG}) with $\lambda=1$ gives
1185: %
1186: \begin{equation}
1187: \hat R_k(1) (\mu+k^2+\Sigma) = - (\tilde q_k - q_k )
1188: \frac{4{\cal V}''(b)}{T^2} \hat r(1),
1189: \end{equation}
1190: %
1191: and after using Eq.~(\ref{eq:bk}), integrating over $k$ and using
1192: $\mu+\Sigma=b^{-2}$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:b}) one gets
1193: %
1194: \begin{equation}
1195: 0 = \hat r(1) \left[ T^2 + b^3 {\cal V}''(b) \right].
1196: \label{eq:hatr}
1197: \end{equation}
1198: %
1199: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hatr}) with $\hat r(1)\ne 0$ implies
1200: marginal stability condition
1201: %
1202: \begin{equation}
1203: - T^2 = b^3 {\cal V}''(b).
1204: \label{eq:bT}
1205: \end{equation}
1206: %
1207: Also, equations (\ref{eq:b}) and (\ref{eq:b0}) can be rewritten as
1208: %
1209: \begin{eqnarray}
1210: && \frac{ {\cal V}'(b) - {\cal V}'(b_0) }{ b_0 - b } = \frac{T^2}{2}
1211: \frac{\sqrt\mu}{b} \left( \frac{1}{b} + \sqrt{\mu} \right),
1212: \label{eq:b0b} \\
1213: && b_0 - b = \frac{1}{x} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}} - b \right).
1214: \label{eq:xbb0}
1215: \end{eqnarray}
1216: %
1217: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bT}), (\ref{eq:b0b}) and (\ref{eq:xbb0}) fully solve the
1218: model: (\ref{eq:bT}) gives $b$ as function of $T$, (\ref{eq:b0b})
1219: determines $b_0$ as function of $T$ and $\mu$, (\ref{eq:xbb0})
1220: determines $x(T,\mu)$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:qt}) gives $\tilde
1221: q(T,\mu)$. Knowing $b(T)$, $b_0(T,\mu)$ and $\tilde q(T,\mu)$
1222: determines $q(T,\mu)$ and $q_0(T,\mu)$. Were we to impose the
1223: spherical constraint $\tilde q=const$, Eq.~{\ref{eq:qt}} could be used
1224: to relate $\mu$ and $T$, and all order parameters could be expressed
1225: as functions of $T$ only ($\tilde q$ being fixed). However, in this
1226: study we work with fixed $T$ and $\mu$ allowing $\tilde q$ to change.
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232:
1233: \section{Solving the equations (Phase Diagram)}
1234:
1235: The procedure of solving equations similar to the ones given in
1236: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bT}), (\ref{eq:b0b}) and (\ref{eq:xbb0}) has been
1237: discussed in ref. \cite{CD}. We apply a similar analysis to the
1238: random heteropolymer problem. In principle, three are three critical
1239: lines in the $T,\mu$ plane separating them (as shown in figure 1).
1240:
1241: {\bf Critical line (1):} $T=T_{max}$ is the uppermost critical line
1242: (denoted in figure 1 by (1)); above this line Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}) has no
1243: solution. The value of $T_{max}$ can be determined from the graphical
1244: solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}) depicted in figure 2. Once $T$ has been
1245: chosen (horizontal line labeled $(T/T_{max})^2$) $b$ is found from the
1246: intercept of $(T/T_{max})^2$ line with $-b^3{\cal V}''(b)$ curve.
1247: From figure 2 it is clear that at $b=b_{max}$ the right hand side of
1248: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}) reaches a maximum; requiring $\frac{d}{db}\left[
1249: b^3{\cal V}''(b) \right]=0$ gives $3{\cal V}''(b) + b{\cal V}'''(b)=0$
1250: and $b_{max}=\frac{3\sigma}{\gamma-2}$. Accordingly, $T_{max}=\left[
1251: -b_{max}^3{\cal V}''(b_{max}) \right]^{1/2}$.
1252:
1253: Also, note that for fixed $T$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}) has two solutions for
1254: $b$ (denoted by $b_I$ and $b_{II}$ in figure 2). The first, physical
1255: solution ($b_{I}\rightarrow 0$ for $T\rightarrow 0$), in the interval
1256: $[0,b_{max}]$ and second, unphysical solution
1257: ($b_{II}\rightarrow\infty$ for $T\rightarrow 0$), in the interval
1258: $[b_{max},\infty)$. Accordingly, a model with $\sigma=0$ (i.e.\
1259: $V(\Delta x)=\delta(\Delta x)$) leads to an unphysical phase diagram,
1260: since for $\sigma\rightarrow 0$ physical branch $[0,b_{max}]$
1261: disappears ($b_{max}\rightarrow 0$).
1262:
1263: Clearly, the form of ${\cal V}(b)$ for small $b$ has to be modeled
1264: carefully and the choice $V(\Delta x)=\delta(\Delta x)$ simply fails
1265: in that respect, giving ${\cal V}(0)=\infty$. Thus when formulating
1266: the problem, if there is to be a possibility of freezing at low
1267: temperatures ($b\rightarrow 0$ as $T\rightarrow 0$), the bead-bead
1268: interaction $V(\Delta x)$ has to be regular for small $\Delta
1269: x$. Similar small distance regularization problem of bead-bead
1270: interaction was encountered in ref \cite{PS}.
1271:
1272: {\bf Critical line (2):} corresponds to $b=b_0$. From
1273: Eq.~(\ref{eq:xbb0}) it follows that $b=b_0=1/\sqrt{\mu}$. The equation
1274: of the critical line is obtained by inserting $b=1/\sqrt{\mu}$ into
1275: (\ref{eq:bT}):
1276: %
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: (T/\tilde B)^2 =
1279: \frac{\gamma}{2} \mu^{-3/2} (\mu^{-1/2}+\sigma )^{-(\gamma+1)}.
1280: \label{eq:cl2}
1281: \end{equation}
1282: %
1283: $\mu\in[\mu_{max},\infty)$, where $\mu_{max}$ solves Eq.~(\ref{eq:cl2})
1284: with $T=T_{max}$.
1285:
1286: The value of $x_c$ at the critical line can not be directly obtained
1287: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:xbb0}). Instead, one has to approach the critical
1288: line and obtain the limiting value of x: for example, first, one
1289: assumes that point ($T_c$,$\mu_c$) is at the critical line ($T_c$ and
1290: $\mu_c$ satisfy Eq.~\ref{eq:cl2}) and, then, $T(\epsilon)$,
1291: $\mu(\epsilon)$, $b(\epsilon)$, $b_0(\epsilon)$, $x(\epsilon)$
1292: approach their values at the critical line for $\epsilon\rightarrow
1293: 0$. Naturally, the dependence on $\epsilon$ has to be chosen
1294: consistently with Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bT}), (\ref{eq:b0b}) and
1295: (\ref{eq:xbb0}). Since one has five variables and three equations
1296: which relate them, two variables have to be specified as, e.g.,
1297: $b_0(\epsilon)=b_c+\epsilon$, with $b_c=1/\sqrt{\mu_c}$, and
1298: $T(\epsilon)=T_c$. The other three variables $b(\epsilon)$,
1299: $\mu(\epsilon)$ and $x(\epsilon)$ have to be determined from
1300: (\ref{eq:bT}), (\ref{eq:b0b}) and (\ref{eq:xbb0}):
1301: %
1302: \begin{eqnarray}
1303: && \frac{ {\cal V}'(b_c) - {\cal V}'(b_c+\epsilon) }{ \epsilon }
1304: = \frac{T_c^2}{2}
1305: \frac{\sqrt{\mu(\epsilon)}}{b_c}
1306: \left( \frac{1}{b_c} + \sqrt{\mu(\epsilon)} \right),
1307: \label{eq:b0bcl} \\
1308: && \epsilon = \frac{1}{x(\epsilon)}
1309: \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu(\epsilon)}} - b_c \right).
1310: \label{eq:xbb0cl}
1311: \end{eqnarray}
1312: %
1313: Equation (\ref{eq:bT}) is trivially satisfied and does not enter the
1314: analysis. At first order in $\epsilon$ Eqs.~(\ref{eq:xbb0cl}) and
1315: (\ref{eq:b0bcl}) give
1316: %
1317: \begin{equation}
1318: x(0) = - \frac{1}{2\mu_c^{3/2}} \mu'(0) \ , \ \
1319: \mu'(0) = - \frac{2}{3} \frac{{\cal V}'''(b_c)}{T_c^2\sqrt{\mu_c}},
1320: \end{equation}
1321: %
1322: which, together with $T_c^2=-\mu_c^{-3/2}{\cal V}''(b_c)$, gives the
1323: value for x at the critical line (2),
1324: %
1325: \begin{equation}
1326: x_c = - \frac{1}{3} \frac{{\cal V}'''(b_c)}{{\cal V}''(b_c)}.
1327: \end{equation}
1328: %
1329: Using the explicit form for ${\cal V}$ gives
1330: %
1331: \begin{equation}
1332: x_c = \frac{\gamma+1}{3} \frac{b_c}{b_c+\sigma}.
1333: \end{equation}
1334: %
1335: with $b_c$ on the critical line. $b_c=b_{max}$ gives
1336: $x_c=1$ while for $b_c=0$ one gets $x_c=0$.
1337:
1338: Thus, at the critical line (2), close to $T_{max}$, $x_c$ is very
1339: close to $1$ and as $T$ ($\mu$) decreases (increases) $x_c$ drops to
1340: zero. Also, at the critical line (2), the transition to the ergodic
1341: phase is continuous in $b$ and $b_0$ and discontinuous in $x$.
1342:
1343: {\bf Critical line (3):} at this line $x=1$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:xbb0})
1344: gives $b_0=1/\sqrt{\mu}>b$. The equation for this critical line is
1345: given by (\ref{eq:b0bcl3}).
1346: %
1347: \begin{equation}
1348: \frac{ {\cal V}'(b) - {\cal V}'(1/\sqrt{\mu}) }{ 1/\sqrt{\mu} - b }
1349: = \frac{T^2}{2} \frac{\sqrt\mu}{b} \left( \frac{1}{b} + \sqrt{\mu} \right).
1350: \label{eq:b0bcl3}
1351: \end{equation}
1352: %
1353: Once $T$ is chosen, $b$ is determined from (\ref{eq:bT}) and upon
1354: solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:b0bcl3}) one obtains $\mu$ as function of $T$.
1355: Critical line (3) is depicted in figure 1, where it was obtained by
1356: solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:b0bcl3}) numerically. The line starts from
1357: $(\mu_{max},T_{max})$ and then drops to $(0,T^*)$ where $T^*$ is given
1358: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}) with $b=b^*$ and
1359: $b^*=\frac{2\sigma}{\gamma-2}$. Thus, as $b\rightarrow b^*$,
1360: $b_0\rightarrow\infty$, as can easily be checked by inserting those
1361: assumptions in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b0bcl3}). Also, $b_0\rightarrow b$ as
1362: $\mu\rightarrow\mu_{max}$. Thus, contrary to (2), on line (3) the
1363: transition to the ergodic phase is discontinuous in $b$ and $b_0$
1364: while continuous in $x$.
1365:
1366: Also, for arbitrary $\mu$, when $T$ gets close to zero $b$ approaches
1367: $0$ and $b_0$ grows to infinity. This simply means that for low
1368: temperatures the heteropolymer freezes completely:
1369: $x(s,t+\tau)=x(s,t)$ for arbitrary $\tau$ and $t$ sufficiently
1370: large. On the other hand, for fixed $T$ and vanishing $\mu$,
1371: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b0b}) gives $b_0\rightarrow\infty$, while $b$ stays fixed
1372: by Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}).
1373:
1374: For small $\mu$ Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qerg},\ref{eq:qterg}) give $q/\tilde
1375: q\propto \mu^{(d-2)/4}$. Thus, for $\mu=0$ one gets $q/\tilde q=0$.
1376: Also, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, in the glass phase for
1377: $\mu \rightarrow 0$ one has $b_0\rightarrow\infty$ and $b= {\rm
1378: const}$, which gives $q/\tilde q=1$. Thus contrary to the ergodic
1379: phase, where vanishing $\mu$ lead to paramagnetic-like behavior, in
1380: the glass phase the system gets trapped in one of many states
1381: separated by diverging barriers. Interestingly enough, adjusting
1382: $\mu$ so that the radius of gyration $R_g$ scales according to
1383: $R_g^d\sim N$ and using the relation $R_g^2 \sim 1/\sqrt{\mu}$ (which
1384: is exact for the Gaussian coil) \cite{TPW} gives $\mu\propto N^{-4/d}$
1385: and $q/\tilde q\propto N^{-(d-2)/d}$. Thus, in the thermodynamic limit
1386: $q/\tilde q \rightarrow 0$.
1387:
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394:
1395: \section{Discussion}
1396:
1397: We have presented a detailed derivation of the equations of motion of
1398: a random heteropolymer using SUSY formalism and a Gaussian variational
1399: ansatz. In deriving these equations, we have used a long-chain
1400: approximation, considerably simplifying the dynamical
1401: action. Furthermore, imposing translational invariance, we have shown
1402: that, as happens in statics, within the Gaussian variational ansatz
1403: the equations of motion become identical to those for a manifold in a
1404: random potential with power law correlations.
1405:
1406: Clearly, this result is strongly related to the particular variational
1407: ansatz employed here, and its generality beyond this framework remains
1408: an open question. Nevertheless, the existence of this mapping at the
1409: level of the GVA is rather intriguing. It connects the random
1410: heteropolymer model with many physical systems, such as a manifold
1411: pinned by impurities, interfaces in a random field, the glassy phase
1412: of vortices in high-$T_c$ superconductors, directed polymers in a
1413: random potential, and surface growth on disordered substrates. It
1414: would be interesting to understand to what extent the mappings to
1415: these problems extends beyond the GVA.
1416:
1417: By making the standards 1RSB aging ansatz for response and correlation
1418: functions we found the asymptotic solution of the dynamical
1419: equation. The validity of this ansatz has been carefully checked
1420: elsewhere: in the context of random manifold problem it was shown that
1421: one step replica symmetry breaking ansatz can be used to describe
1422: random manifold with short range correlations, and we have applied
1423: this results to the random heteropolymer.
1424:
1425: The analytic solutions show that, as expected, the random
1426: heteropolymer has characteristic properties of spin glass systems:
1427: aging and ergodicity breaking. Furthermore, the dynamical phase
1428: diagram is different from that for statics. In dynamics starting from
1429: a random condition, the polymer get stuck at energies higher then the
1430: ones of the native state.
1431:
1432: In a more realistic approach to heteropolymers, we expect that finite
1433: dimensional, and finite length chain effects will be responsible for
1434: ultimate restoring of ergodicity. Our study should be taken as an
1435: indication of a time regime where trapping effect and aging could be
1436: observed.
1437:
1438: One of the motivations for this paper, mentioned at the beginning of
1439: the introduction, was the hope that it might provide some insight into
1440: the dynamics of proteins, including their folding. However, it is
1441: fairly well understood by now that protein dynamics are influenced
1442: strongly by the existence of an energetically favored native state, a
1443: feature absent from the random heteropolymer model we have studied
1444: here. In work currently in progress, we are extending the analysis
1445: presented here to models in which the two-body interactions $B_{s,s'}$
1446: are systematically biased, with a tunable strength, to favor
1447: particular ``native'' states. Such models provide an opportunity to
1448: study the competition between the attraction to a native state and the
1449: glassiness produced by the randomness and frustration.
1450: (Refs.~\cite{RamShak,WildShak,PGTbiophysj,PGTRMP} treat equilibrium
1451: aspects of this competition.)
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457: \acknowledgements
1458:
1459:
1460: It is a pleasure to thank S. Solla for useful interactions at an early
1461: stage of this work.
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465: \begin{thebibliography}{19}
1466:
1467:
1468: \bibitem{SpGl} M. Mezard, G. Parisi and M.A. Virasoro, {\em Spin Glass
1469: Theory and Beyond} (World Scientific, 1987).
1470:
1471: \bibitem{WE} P.G. Wolynes and W.A. Eaton, Physics World {\bf 9}, 39
1472: (1999).
1473:
1474: \bibitem{NR} T. Nattermann and P. Rujan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf B 3},
1475: 1597 (1989).
1476:
1477: \bibitem{Wol1} P.G. Wolynes, H. Frauenfelder and R.H. Austin,
1478: {\em More things in heaven and earth. A celebration of physics at
1479: the millennium}, (Springer, 1999), page 706-725.
1480:
1481:
1482: %%%% Minimal frustration %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1483:
1484: \bibitem{Wol2} J.D. Bryngelson and P.G. Wolynes,
1485: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 84}, 7524 (1987).
1486:
1487:
1488: %%%% RHP statics %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1489:
1490: \bibitem{garel} T. Garel and H. Orland, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 6}, 307 (1988)
1491:
1492: \bibitem{SG1} E. I. Shakhnovich and A. M. Gutin,
1493: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 8}, 327 (1989).
1494:
1495: \bibitem{SG2} E. I. Shakhnovich and A. M. Gutin,
1496: J. Phys. A {\bf 22}, 1647 (1989).
1497:
1498: \bibitem{GHLO} T. Garel, D.A. Huse, L. Leibler, H. Orland,
1499: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 8}, 9 (1989).
1500:
1501: \bibitem{SW} M. Sasai and P.G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},
1502: 2740 (1990).
1503:
1504: \bibitem{GLO} T. Garel, L. Leibler and H. Orland, J. Phys. II (France)
1505: {\bf 4}, 2139 (1994).
1506:
1507: \bibitem{TW} S. Takada and P.G. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55}, 4562
1508: (1997).
1509:
1510: \bibitem{GOP} T. Garel, H. Orland and E. Pitard, cond-mat/9706125
1511:
1512:
1513:
1514: %%%% RHP Dynamics %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1515:
1516: \bibitem{RS} J.R. Roan and E.I. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54},
1517: 5340 (1996).
1518:
1519: \bibitem{TAB} D. Thirumalai, V. Ashwin and J.K. Bhattacharjee,
1520: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 5385-5388 (1996).
1521:
1522: \bibitem{TPW} S. Takada, J.J. Portman and P.G. Wolynes,
1523: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 94}, 2318 (1997).
1524:
1525: \bibitem{Olem1} A.I.Olemskoi, Physica A {\bf 270}, 444-452 (1999).
1526:
1527: \bibitem{Pit} E. Pitard, Eur. Phys. J B {\bf 7}, 665-673 (1999).
1528:
1529: \bibitem{LT} N. Lee and D. Thirumalai, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 113},
1530: 5126-5129 (2000).
1531:
1532: \bibitem{Olem2} A.I.Olemskoi, V.A.Brazhnyi, Physics of the Solid State
1533: {\bf 43}, 386-396 (2001).
1534:
1535: \bibitem{PS} E. Pitard and E.I. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63},
1536: 041501 (2001).
1537:
1538:
1539:
1540:
1541: %%%%%%%%%%
1542:
1543: \bibitem{elba} S. Franz, M. Mezard and G. Parisi Int. J. Neural Systems,
1544: {\bf 3}, 195 (Supp. 1992)
1545:
1546:
1547: %%% Random manifolds statics %%%%%%%%
1548:
1549: \bibitem{MP1} M. M\'{e}zard and G. Parisi, J. Phys. I {\bf 1}, 809 (1991).
1550:
1551: \bibitem{MP2} M. M\'{e}zard and G. Parisi, J. Phys. I {\bf 2}, 2231
1552: (1992).
1553:
1554:
1555: %%%% Random manifolds dynamics %%%%%%
1556:
1557: \bibitem{CD} L.F. Cugliandolo and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. E {\bf
1558: 53}, 1525 (1996).
1559:
1560: \bibitem{CKD} L.F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and P. Le Doussal,
1561: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 2390 (1996).
1562:
1563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1564:
1565: \bibitem{MSR} P.C. Martin, E.D. Siggia and H.A. Rose, Phys. Rev. A
1566: {\bf 8}, 423 (1973);
1567:
1568: \bibitem{Dom} C. De Dominicis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 18}, 4913 (1978).
1569:
1570: \bibitem{Kur} J. Kurchan, J. Phys. I (France) {\bf 2}, 1333 (1992).
1571:
1572: \bibitem{FM} S. Franz, M.~M\'ezard, { Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 26} (3)
1573: (1994) 209 and { Physica A } {\bf 210} (1994) 48.
1574:
1575: \bibitem{Eng} A. Engel, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 410}, 617 (1993).
1576:
1577: \bibitem{KH1} H. Kinzelbach and H. Horner, J. Phys. I (France) {\bf
1578: 3}, 1329 (1993).
1579:
1580: \bibitem{KH2} H. Kinzelbach and H. Horner, J. Phys. I (France) {\bf
1581: 3}, 1329 (1993).
1582:
1583:
1584: \bibitem{CK1} L.F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, J. Phys. A {\bf 27},
1585: 5749 (1994)
1586:
1587: \bibitem{BCKP} A. Baldassarri, L.F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and
1588: G. Parisi, J. Phys. A {\bf 27}, 5749 (1994)
1589:
1590: \bibitem{CK2} L.F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, Phil. Mag. B {\bf
1591: 71}, 501 (1995).
1592:
1593: %%% RHP + native state
1594:
1595: \bibitem{RamShak} S. Ramanathan and E. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. E
1596: {\bf 50}, 1303 (1994).
1597:
1598: \bibitem{WildShak} J. Wilder and E. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},
1599: 7100 (2000).
1600:
1601: \bibitem{PGTbiophysj} V.S. Pande, A.Yu. Grosberg and T. Tanaka,
1602: Biophys. J. {\bf 73}, 3192 (1997)
1603:
1604: \bibitem{PGTRMP} V.S. Pande, A.Yu. Grosberg and T. Tanaka,
1605: Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 259 (2000).
1606:
1607:
1608: \end{thebibliography}
1609:
1610: \begin{figure}
1611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1612: \epsfxsize=9cm
1613: \epsfysize=8cm
1614: \epsfbox{fig1.ps}
1615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1616: \caption{Phase diagram of dynamic random heteropolymer model in $\mu$,
1617: $T$ plane. Critical lines are denoted by (1) $T=T_{max}$; (2)
1618: $b=b_0=\mu^{-1/2}$ ($x$ ranges from 1 to 0); (3) $x=1$,
1619: $b_0=\mu^{-1/2}>b$. Below (2) and (3) lies glassy phase and above
1620: ergodic phase}
1621: \end{figure}
1622:
1623: \begin{figure}
1624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later BEGIN %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1625: \epsfxsize=9cm
1626: \epsfysize=8cm
1627: \epsfbox{fig2.ps}
1628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% will be taken away later END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1629: \caption{Graphical solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bT}). Equation has two
1630: solutions for $T<T_{max}$ denoted by ``I'' and ``II''. For $T=T_{max}$
1631: there is only one solution $b=b_{bmax}$. Solution I is physical and
1632: solution II is unphysical.}
1633: \end{figure}
1634:
1635:
1636:
1637: \end{document}
1638:
1639: