1: %\documentstyle[aps,pre,array,epsfig,eqsecnum]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,pre,array,epsfig,eqsecnum]{revtex}
3: \documentstyle[aps,pre,array,multicol,epsfig,eqsecnum]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[macromol,preprint,osa,eqsecnum]{revtex}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \draft
8:
9: \title{The coherent scattering function of the
10: reptation model:\\ simulations compared to theory.}
11: \author{Artur Baumg\"artner$^1$, Ute Ebert$^2$, Lothar Sch\"afer$^3$}
12: \address{$^1$ Institut f\"ur Festk\"orperforschung,
13: Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, 52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
14: \address{$^2$ Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica,
15: P.O.\ Box 94079, 1090 GB Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
16: \address{$^3$ Universit\"at Essen, Universit\"atsstr.\ 5, 45117 Essen,
17: Germany}
18: \date{slighty revised version from June 06, 2003 ---
19: first submitted on March 11, 2002}
20: \maketitle
21:
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: We present results of Monte Carlo simulations measuring the coherent
26: structure function of a chain moving through an ordered lattice of
27: fixed topological obstacles. Our computer experiments use chains up
28: to 320 beads and cover a large range of wave vectors and a time range
29: exceeding the reptation time. For additional information we also measured
30: the coherent structure function of internal pieces of the chain.
31:
32: We compare our results $(i)$ to the predictions of the primitive chain model,
33: $(ii)$ to an approximate form resulting from Rouse motion in a coiled tube,
34: and $(iii)$ to our recent evaluation of the full reptation model.
35: $(i)$ The primitive chain model can fit the data for times $t \agt 20 T_2$,
36: where $T_2$ is the Rouse time of the chain. Besides some phenomenological
37: amplitude factor this fit involves the reptation time $T_3$ as a second fit
38: parameter. For the chain lengths measured, the asymptotic behavior
39: $T_3 \sim N^3$
40: is not attained. $(ii)$ The model of Rouse motion in a tube, which we
41: have criticized before on theoretical grounds, is shown to fail also
42: on the purely phenomenological level. $(iii)$ Our evaluation of the full
43: reptation model yields an excellent fit to the data for both total
44: chains and internal pieces and for all wave vectors and all times,
45: provided specific micro-structure effects of the MC-dynamics are
46: negligible. Such micro-structure effects show up for wave vectors
47: of the order of the inverse segment size and enforce the introduction
48: of some phenomenological, wave vector dependent prefactor. For the
49: dynamics of the total chain our data analysis based on the full
50: reptation model shows the importance of tube length fluctuations.
51: Universal (Rouse-type) internal relaxation, however, is unimportant.
52: It can be observed only in the form of the diffusive
53: motion of a short central subchain in the tube.
54:
55: Finally we present a fit formula which in a large range of wave vectors
56: and chain lengths reproduces the numerical results of our theory
57: for the scattering from the total chain.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: %\newpage
61:
62: \begin{multicols}{2}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66: Dynamical properties of dense polymer systems like melts or dense
67: solutions often are analyzed within the framework of the reptation
68: model \cite{Z1,Z2}. Reptation is a specific mechanism for the motion
69: of a single tagged chain through an environment of other chains.
70: It is based on the idea that the background chains act as impenetrable
71: obstacles which confine the motion of the tagged chain to a tube roughly
72: defined by its present configuration. The local motion of the inner parts
73: of the chain is restricted to the diffusion of little wiggles of
74: 'spared length' along the tube. Globally the motion is driven by
75: the chain ends, where wiggles are created or destroyed. Creation of
76: a wiggle shortens the tube by its spared length, destruction prolongs
77: the tube in some randomly choosen direction. In the long run this motion
78: of the chain ends leads to the complete destruction of the original tube
79: and to large scale diffusion of the chain.
80:
81: Formulated in more precise terms, the reptation model deals with the
82: stochastic motion of a flexible chain embedded in a fixed environment
83: of obstacles which form the edges of a regular lattice in three dimensional
84: space. In this work we present results for the coherent structure function
85: measured in an extensive simulation of this model. The measured coherent
86: structure functions of the total chain and of internal subchains are
87: compared to the results of our recent analytical evaluation \cite{Z3}
88: of the model. For the total chain there exist previous approximate
89: theories based on reptation \cite{Z4,Z5}, which are included in the
90: comparison. These theories do not treat the full dynamics of the model,
91: but neglect so called `tube length fluctuations'. For typical chain
92: lengths used in (computer- or physical-) experiments these fluctuations
93: are known to yield important contributions, as has first been pointed
94: out in Ref.\ \cite{Z6} in the context of an analysis of the viscosity.
95:
96: As mentioned above, results of the reptation model generally are used
97: to analyze data for systems like polymer melts \cite{Z7}, where the
98: surrounding of a given chain certainly is far from forming an ordered
99: time independent lattice of obstacles. Clearly the surrounding chains
100: slowly move away, which leads to `constraint release' \cite{Z8},
101: an effect that becomes important \cite{Z7} outside the limit of
102: asymptotically long chains. Also disorder in the distribution of obstacles
103: might lead to fluctuations in the local tube diameter, thus affecting
104: the local mobility of spared length. In this work we omit all such
105: effects of the environment and study the coherent structure function
106: of the pure reptation model, as described above. This is a necessary
107: prerequisite for an analysis aiming at the separation of the different
108: effects present in a real melt.
109:
110: To illustrate the problem we now briefly recall some typical results
111: \cite{Z1,Z2} of reptation, as established for very long chains.
112: We concentrate on the motion of an internal segment, which from
113: a theoretical point of view is the simplest quantity to discuss.
114:
115: Simple as it is, the reptation scenario involves several time scales
116: and leads to a rich phenomenology. It needs a microscopic time $T_{0}$
117: before the chain feels the existence of constraints due to its surrounding.
118: Generally $T_{0}$ is taken as the Rouse time of a short subchain of $N_{e}$
119: segments: $T_{0} \sim N_{e}^{2}$, where the 'entanglement length' $N_{e}$
120: is choosen such that the coil diameter of the subchain is of the order of
121: the diameter of the tube, which substitutes the surrounding chains.
122: The second time scale $T_{2}$ is the relaxation time of the total chain
123: in a fixed tube, i.e. the time a wiggle needs to diffuse over the whole
124: chain. It depends on chain length $N$ as
125: $T_{2} \sim T_{0} (N/N_{e})^{2} \sim N^{2}$ and thus behaves
126: as the relaxation time of a free chain in the Rouse model.
127: The longest scale $T_{3}$ is the 'reptation time'. It measures the
128: time which the motion of the chain ends needs to completely destroy
129: the initial tube. In the limit of long chains the reptation model
130: predicts \cite{Z1} $T_{3} \sim (N/N_{e})^{3} T_{0}$.
131:
132: For observables like the motion of individual segments the model
133: yields asymptotic power laws, where the exponent depends on the time
134: range. We here quote the results for the motion of the central segment
135: $j = N/2$:
136: \begin{equation}
137: \left\langle
138: \overline{\left(
139: {\bf r}_{N/2}(t) - {\bf r}_{N/2}(0)
140: \right)^{2}}
141: \right\rangle
142: \sim
143: \left\{
144: \begin{array}{l@{\quad;\quad}l}
145: t^{1/4} & T_{0} \ll t \ll T_{2}\\
146: (t/N)^{1/2} & T_{2} \ll t \ll T_{3}\\
147: t/N^{2} & T_{3} \ll t
148: \end{array}
149: \right.
150: \end{equation}
151:
152: We use the bar to denote the dynamic average, i.e. the average over
153: the motion of spared length. The pointed brackets stand for the average
154: over all initial configurations.
155:
156: Considerable effort has been invested to check these predictions in
157: simulations of melts, but the outcome to date is not conclusive
158: \cite{Z7,Z9,Z10}. The $t^{1/2}$-regime has never been properly
159: identified. (Note that crossover from a region
160: $\langle \overline{({\bf r}_j(t) - {\bf r}_j(0))^2}\rangle
161: \sim t^\alpha, \: \alpha < \frac{1}{2}$, to free diffusion easily
162: can pretend the existence of a $t^{1/2}$-regime. What has to be
163: demonstrated is the stability of this regime for a larger range
164: of time and chain lengths.) Slowing down of segment motion in the range
165: $T_0 < t < T_2$ is observed \cite{Z9}, with an effective exponent
166: somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2. Only for some related observable,
167: measuring the motion of a central segment relative to the center of mass,
168: a $t^{1/4}$-behavior seems to be established \cite{Z10}.
169: Real experiments do not measure $\langle \overline{({\bf r}_j(t) -
170: {\bf r}_j(0))^2}\rangle$. However, a related quantity,
171: the return-to-origin probability of a segment averaged over
172: all segments, is measured in NMR-experiments. Here the equi\-valent
173: to $t^{1/4}$-behavior has been found in Ref.\ \cite{Z11},
174: but Ref.\ \cite{Z12} reports equi\-valent results only for motion
175: through a crosslinked gel, where constraint release is suppressed.
176: The corresponding melt shows quite different behavior.
177:
178: Invoking tube length fluctuations and constraint release we qualitatively
179: may interpret the observed deviations from the asymptotic reptation
180: results as crossover behavior outside the region of asymptotic chain
181: lengths. However, there exist other theories of melt dynamics, which
182: are not based on the tube concept and describe many experiments as well
183: \cite{Z13,Z14}. (See also the review \cite{Z7}.) It thus is conceivable
184: that the basic assumptions of the reptation scenario do not hold.
185: To get more insight into these problems, we clearly have to quantitatively
186: evaluate the consequences of the pure reptation model, beyond asymptotic
187: power laws.
188:
189: In previous analytical work \cite{Z15,Z16} we determined the motion of
190: individual segments of the chain. Since our theory involves some
191: approximations, we compared the results to simulations \cite{Z17}
192: of the Evans-Edwards model \cite{Z18}, which is an accurate implementation
193: of the pure reptation model. In essence, both theory and simulations
194: agreed in showing that the crossover among various asymptotic power
195: law regions is very slow. The crossover regions are so broad that
196: the asymptotic power laws can be identified only for very long chains.
197: For example, using the Evans-Edwards model with the smallest possible
198: tube diameter we could identify the $t^{1/4}$-law for the motion of
199: the central segment only for chain lengths $N \agt 160$. This law is
200: the easiest to observe, and our evaluation of the theory predicts that
201: other asymptotic laws unambiguously can be identified only for much
202: longer chains. This result is in line with the known slow crossover
203: behavior of the reptation time \cite{Z6}, which is predicted to reach
204: the asymptotic law $T_3 \sim N^3$ only for chain lengths far beyond
205: present day experimental feasibilities. Still, for the motion of
206: individual segments, the full crossover functions can be calculated,
207: and our analytical results very well agree with our simulations.
208: Furthermore, for shorter chains all our analytical and simulational
209: results qualitatively are very similar to results of simulations of
210: melts \cite{Z9,Z10}. In later work \cite{Z19} we considered chain
211: motion in a time independent, but disordered environment, where
212: the disorder affects only the chain mobility but leaves
213: the equilibrium distribution of chain configurations unchanged.
214: We found that with such 'kinematic' disorder reptation prevails,
215: an observation which recently has been supported \cite{Z20} by
216: rigorous bounds on the diffusion coefficient. Since such kinematic
217: disorder certainly is present in a melt, these results again support
218: reptation as adequate theory of melt dynamics.
219:
220: In contrast to the motion of individual segments the coherent structure
221: function $S_{c}(q,t;N), \: (q = |{\bf q}|$ : scattering vector, $t$ : time),
222: is well accessible in real experiments. It can be measured, for instance,
223: by neutron scattering from a mixture of deuterated and hydrogenated chains.
224: As mentioned above, approximate asymptotic forms for $S_{c}(q,t;N)$,
225: based on reptation type theories, can be found in the literature \cite{Z4,Z5}.
226: However, as for the motion of individual segments we can evaluate the full
227: reptation theory for $S_{c}(q,t;N)$ also outside the asymptotic regime.
228: As for individual segments, we then expect to see important preasymptotic
229: or crossover effects. The evaluation of $S_{c}(q,t;N)$ including full
230: reptational dynamics is somewhat complicated, and our theory in detail
231: has been presented in Ref. \cite{Z3}. Here we compare the results to
232: simulations of the Evans-Edwards model. We consider both the scattering
233: from the total chain and from interior subchains. The latter is important
234: to estimate the reliability of the theory, which can treat end-effects
235: only in some approximation.
236:
237: In Section 2 we discuss our simulations. Section 3 is devoted to a
238: comparison with the expressions for $S_{c}(q,t;N)$ given by Doi and
239: Edwards \cite{Z4,Z2} or by de Gennes \cite{Z5}, respectively.
240: In Section 4 we qualitatively describe our theory and give an empirical
241: fit formula which reasonably well describes our quantitative results.
242: The comparison between our theory and our Monte Carlo data is presented
243: in Sect.\ 5. Section 6 contains our conclusions.
244:
245: \section{Simulations}\label{kap2}
246:
247: \subsection{The Evans-Edwards model}
248:
249: A very simple model for simulating reptation has been introduced by
250: Evans and Edwards \cite{Z18}. The configuration
251: $\{{\bf r}_{1},\ldots,{\bf r}_{N}\}$ of the chain is taken as
252: a random walk of $N - 1$ steps $|{\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1}| = \ell_{0}$
253: on a cubic lattice. The lattice spacing $\ell_{0}$ henceforth defines
254: the unit of length. The obstacles are taken as the edges of the dual
255: lattice. In the interior of the chain, the obstacles suppress any motion
256: except for the motion of `hairpins', i.e., configurations of three
257: subsequent beads of type
258: $\{{\bf r}_{j-1},{\bf r}_{j},{\bf r}_{j+1} = {\bf r}_{j-1}\}$.
259: In an elementary move the tip ${\bf r}_{j}$ of the hairpin with
260: equal probability hops to any of the six neighbors of the site
261: ${\bf r}_{j-1} = {\bf r}_{j+1}$. The chain ends ${\bf r}_{1},{\bf r}_{N}$
262: are free to hop between all neighbors of ${\bf r}_{2},{\bf r}_{N - 1}$,
263: respectively. Fig.~1 shows a sequence of internal configurations resulting
264: from this dynamics. In our simulations we used the same implementation of
265: the model as in our previous work \cite{Z17}, and we measured the coherent
266: structure function defined as
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N)
269: &=& \sum_{j_{1},j_{2}=1}^{N}
270: \left\langle \overline{e^{i {\bf q}
271: \left({\bf r}_{j_{1}}(t^{(MC)}) - {\bf r}_{j_{2}}^{(0)}\right)}}\right\rangle
272: \nonumber \\
273: &=& \left\langle \overline{{\cal C} ({\bf q},t^{(MC)}) {\cal C} ({\bf q},0)
274: + {\cal S} ({\bf q},t^{(MC)}) {\cal S} ({\bf q},0)} \right\rangle
275: \nonumber\\
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: where
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: {\cal C}({\bf q},t) &=& \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \cos ({\bf q} {\bf r}_{j}(t))
280: \nonumber \\
281: {\cal S}({\bf q},t) &=& \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \sin ({\bf q} {\bf r}_{j}(t))~.
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: (The imaginary part ${\cal S}({\bf q},t) {\cal C}({\bf q},0) -
284: {\cal C}({\bf q},t) {\cal S}({\bf q},0)$ of $S_{c}$ is zero on average,
285: of course.) To get more information on the internal motion, we also
286: measured the coherent structure function $S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};M,N)$ of
287: the central subchain of length $M$, defined by restricting the summations
288: in Eqs.\ (2.1), (2.2) to the interval $[(N - M)/2 + 1, (N + M)/2]$.
289: >From our previous work, we expect to see features characteristic of
290: reptation for $N \agt 100$, and we therefore used chain lengths
291: $N = 80,\;160,\;320$. Since for our model, the entanglement length
292: is estimated as $N_{e} \approx 3.7$ (see Sect.\ 4.B), this yields values
293: $22 \alt N/N_{e} \alt 87$. Similar values are extracted from many
294: simulations or experiments on melts, so that our results should be
295: relevant also for the interpretation of such data.
296: Monte Carlo time $t^{(MC)}$ is measured in units of one attempted move
297: per bead on average. We performed runs up to
298: $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} = 5 \cdot 10^{10}$, and we measured the structure
299: function up to $t^{(MC)} = 4.5 \cdot 10^{9}$ using a moving time average.
300:
301: \subsection{Statistical accuracy}
302:
303: During a run, the longer chains do not diffuse very far, and data of
304: a single run therefore are strongly correlated. To get reasonably
305: accurate results we have to average over many independent runs. A priori,
306: this poses a problem for larger momenta, $q R_{g} \agt 1$, where $R_{g}$
307: is the radius of gyration of the chain. It is easily checked that the
308: reduced width of the distribution of the static structure function
309: with increasing $q R_{g}$ rapidly tends to $1$. Indeed, in the limit
310: $N \rightarrow \infty, q > 0$ fixed, the distribution of $S_{c}(q,0;N)$
311: approaches the exponential distribution. This suggests that $10^{4}$
312: runs are needed to reduce the statistical uncertainty to a few percent. This would pose no problems, if we just were interested in static properties. However, for the longer chains a single run extending to times well beyond the reptation time takes several hours on a standard work station. In measuring {\em dynamic} quantities the number of runs therefore inevitably is much smaller than needed for a precise determination of {\em static} quantities.
313:
314: Fortunately it turns out that the dynamics essentially is decoupled from the static configuration. This is illustrated in Fig.~2, which shows results for
315: $S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N), q \ell_{0} = 0.5, N = 320$, normalized to the
316: exact static structure function $S_{0}(q,N)$ of the model, which easily
317: is calculated analytically (see Sect.\ 2.D). Each curve in Fig.~2~a
318: is averaged over $10^{3}$ independent short runs $(t^{(MC)} \leq 10^{5})$,
319: including the moving time average for each run. Clearly the scatter of
320: $S_{c}(q,0;N)$ is consistent with the above discussion. It is larger
321: than the temporal variation of the curves. However, plotting in Fig.~2~b
322: the normalized time dependence
323: $[S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N) - S_{c}(q,0;N)]/S_{0}(q,N)$, we find
324: that all curves nearly coincide. The global dynamics measured
325: by the structure function, is not correlated with the static
326: configuration, an observation which supports one of the basic
327: assumptions of the reptation model. The reason behind that observation
328: is easily understood. The mobility of the chain is governed by the number
329: of hairpins which essentially is Gaussian distributed and fluctuates much
330: less than the static structure function. Furthermore, except for rare
331: events, viz. extremely stretched or extremely compact configurations,
332: the number of hairpins is independent of the overall (tube-) conformation
333: of the chain. With this insight, we take as basic data the difference
334: $S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N) - S_{c}(q,0;N)$ for each run. The error bars in
335: our plots give twice the standard deviation of this difference.
336: We always plot the normalized dynamic structure function defined as
337: \begin{eqnarray}
338: \lefteqn{\bar{S}_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N)= 1 + \frac{1}{S_{0}(q,N)}\;\cdot}\\
339: && \quad\Big(S_{c}
340: \left(q,t^{(MC)};N\right) - S_{c} (q,0;N)\Big)_{\mbox{averaged~over~runs}}~,
341: \nonumber
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: where $S_{0}(q,N)$ is the exact static structure function, not the
344: measured average value of $S_{c}(q,0;N)$. Depending on the number of
345: independent runs, these two quantities differ by $0.1 - 6 \%$.
346:
347: For reasons of computer memory, we performed runs with three different
348: values of the maximal time $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max}$.
349: To observe the small initial effects we for each value of chain length
350: $N$ and wave vector $|{\bf q}|$ averaged over $10^{4}$ short runs with
351: $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} = 10^{5}$, taking data up to
352: $t^{(MC)} = 1.4 \cdot 10^{4}$. These data are denoted by small dots
353: in the later figures. In the intermediate time range,
354: $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} = 10^{8}$, we measured the structure function
355: for $10^{4} \leq t^{(MC)} \leq 10^{7}$ and always performed 50 runs
356: (big dots in the figures). In the long time range,
357: $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} = 5 \cdot 10^{10}$, we took data for
358: $10^{5} \leq t^{(MC)} \leq 4.5 \cdot 10^{9}$, averaging over
359: 30 to 100 runs (circles in the figures). For each set of runs with
360: given maximal time, we also measured the average of $S_{c}(q,0;N)$.
361:
362: For additional information on the statistical accuracy of our data,
363: we measured the imaginary part of $S_{c}(q,t^{(MC)};N)$, which
364: rigorously vanishes for $t^{(MC)} = 0$, but fluctuates about zero
365: for $t^{(MC)} > 0$ in a finite sample. For longer times we typically
366: found average values of order $\pm 0.01 S_{0}(q,N)$, again smaller
367: than the uncertainty of $S_{c}(q,0;N)$ in long-time runs.
368:
369: \subsection{Momentum range}
370:
371: First considerations suggest to restrict the analysis to the momentum
372: range $R_{g}^{-2} \ll q^{2} \ll \ell_{0}^{-2}$. Momenta of order
373: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \alt 1$ do not resolve the tube but rather see a
374: cloud of beads. For momenta $q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} \agt 1$ the
375: micro-structure of the chain might play a role. In our simulations
376: the above condition can only poorly be satisfied. For our longest
377: chain $(N = 320)$ it reads $0.02 \ll q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} \ll 1$,
378: leaving at best a small window close to $q \ell_{0} \approx 0.4$.
379:
380: However, a closer inspection reveals that these considerations do not
381: seriously restrict dynamic measurements. To check the relevance of the
382: condition $q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} \ll 1$ we analyzed the dynamics of a free
383: chain. As is well known, asymptotically the standard Rouse dynamics is
384: found if for a lattice chain `kink jumps':
385: $\{{\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1} = {\bf s}_{1}, \;
386: {\bf r}_{j+1} - {\bf r}_{j} = {\bf s}_{2}\} \Rightarrow
387: \{{\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1} = {\bf s}_{2},\;
388: {\bf r}_{j+1} - {\bf r}_{j} = {\bf s}_{1}\},~
389: {\bf s}_{1} \cdot {\bf s}_{2} = 0 $ are allowed besides hairpin-moves.
390: We found that with this modified dynamics, the normalized coherent
391: structure function is in excellent agreement with the relaxation function
392: calculated from the continuous chain Rouse model, even for $q \ell_{0} = 1$.
393: Micro-structure effects arising from the finite segment size die out
394: very rapidly on the scale of about 10 $MC$-steps and therefore should
395: be negligible also for reptation dynamics. Of course this does not exclude
396: the possibility of dynamical micro-structure effects which might influence
397: the short time regime and are not accounted for by the reptation model.
398: In particular, reptation does not properly treat the dynamics of
399: fluctuations perpendicular to the tube axis.
400:
401: Concerning the condition $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \gg 1$, we note that smaller
402: wave vectors, of course, provide little information on the details of
403: the internal motion of the chain, but at least they measure the global
404: motion of the coil. However, the slowness of this motion asks for extremely
405: large time ranges $t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} \gg T_{3}$.
406: We therefore performed only one series of simulations for
407: $|{\bf q}| \ell_{0} = 0.1,\; N = 160$, corresponding to
408: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 0.267$. Most of our simulations use values
409: $3 \alt q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \alt 50$, with a maximal value of
410: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \approx 53$ reached for $|{\bf q}| \ell_{0} = 1, N = 320$.
411:
412: \subsection{Normalization}
413:
414: In our simulations we choose ${\bf q}$ to point into one of the three lattice directions.
415: For that choice, the static correlations between segments $j$ and $k$
416: take the form
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \left\langle e^{i {\bf q} ({\bf r}_{j}(0) - {\bf r}_{k}(0))}\right\rangle
419: &=& \left(\frac{2}{3} + \frac{1}{3}\:\cos\:|{\bf q}|\right)^{|k-j|}
420: \nonumber \\
421: &=& \exp (- \bar{q}^{2} |k - j|) \: \: \:,
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: where
424: \begin{equation}
425: \bar{q}^{2} = - \ln \left(\frac{2}{3} + \frac{1}{3}\:\cos\:|{\bf q}|\right)~.
426: \end{equation}
427: Recall that the lattice constant $\ell_{0}$ defines the unit of length.
428: Summing the segment indices over the chain, we find the static structure
429: function which is used in normalizing our results:
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: S_{0} (q,N) &=& \sum^{N}_{j,k = 1}\:\exp (- \bar{q}^{2} |k-j|)
432: \\
433: &=& N + \frac{2}{(e^{\bar{q}^{2}} - 1)^{2}}
434: \left[e^{- \bar{q}^{2} (N - 1)} - N + (N - 1)\; e^{\bar{q}^{2}} \right]~.
435: \nonumber
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: In our simulations, we for each run averaged over all three lattice directions.
438:
439: \section{Comparison of data and simplified reptation type theories}\label{kap3}
440:
441: \subsection{Asymptotic form of $S_{c}(q,t;N)$ derived by Doi and Edwards}
442:
443: A simplified version of the reptation model concentrates on the dynamics
444: of the `primitive chain' \cite{Z2,Z4}, which is a reduced form of the chain,
445: lying stretched in the tube. In the Evans-Edwards model the primitive chain
446: can be viewed as the non-reversal random walk derived from the random walk
447: configuration of the physical chain by cutting off all hairpins.
448: All internal degrees of freedom are neglected so that within time
449: interval $\Delta t$, all parts of the primitive chain move the same
450: distance $\Delta s$ along the tube. The length of the primitive chain
451: is taken to be fixed. (This model often is addressed as
452: `the reptation model'. We will use the term `primitive chain model' to
453: distinguish it from the full reptation model which deals with the
454: dynamics of spared length as the elementary process.)
455:
456: With its simplifications, the primitive chain model treats only
457: the destruction of the initial tube, as resulting from the global
458: motion of the chain. It neglects tube length fluctuations which are
459: due to the uncorrelated motion of the chain ends as well as relaxation
460: in the interior of the tube. Since both these additional effects are
461: governed by the equilibration time $T_{2}$ of the chain, the primitive
462: chain model is restricted to times $t \gg T_{2}$. Furthermore,
463: the segment indices are taken as continuous variables, and this
464: `continuous chain limit' restricts the theory to long chains: $N \gg 1$.
465:
466: Within this model the time dependent correlation function of two beads:
467: \begin{equation}
468: S (q,t;j,k,N) = \left\langle \overline{\exp \left[ i {\bf q} ({\bf r}_{j}(t) - {\bf r}_{k}(0))\right]}\right\rangle\: \: \:,
469: \end{equation}
470: obeys a diffusion equation. Solving this equation and integrating $j,\;k$
471: over the chain, Doi and Edwards arrive at the following result for
472: the normalized coherent structure function
473: (see Ref.~\cite{Z2}, chapter 6.3.):
474: \begin{equation}
475: \bar{S}_{c} (q,t;N) = \frac{S_{c}(q,t;N)}{S_{c}(q,0;N)}
476: = \bar{S}_{DE} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2}, t/T_{3})
477: \end{equation}
478: \begin{equation}
479: \bar{S}_{DE} (Q,\tau) = \frac{1}{D(Q)} \sum^{\infty}_{p=1}
480: \frac{Q \sin^{2} \alpha_{p}}{\alpha_{p}^{2} (Q^{2}/4 + Q/2
481: + \alpha_{p}^{2})} \exp \left( - \alpha_{p}^{2} \tau \right) \: \: \:.
482: \end{equation}
483: Here the $\alpha_{p}$ are the positive solutions of
484: \begin{equation}
485: \alpha_{p} \tan \alpha_{p} = \frac{1}{2} Q = \frac{1}{2} q^{2} R_{g}^{2}~,
486: \end{equation}
487: and
488: \begin{equation}
489: D (Q) = \frac{2}{Q^{2}} (e^{-Q} - 1 + Q)
490: \end{equation}
491: is the Debye function. With the assumptions of the theory, the reptation
492: time attains its asymptotic behavior $T_{3} \sim N^{3}$. Note that
493: $T_{3}$ is related to the time scale $\tau_{d}$ introduced in
494: Ref.~\cite{Z2} by $T_{3} = \frac{\pi^{2}}{4} \tau_{d}$.
495:
496: The result (3.2),(3.3) for $\bar{S}_{c} (q,t;N)$ depends only on
497: $Q = q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \sim \bar{q}^{2} N$ and $\tau = t/T_{3} \sim t/N^{3}$,
498: but not on $N$ separately. To test this feature, we carried through
499: simulations for $N = 320, q = 0.25$ and $N = 80, q = 0.5024$, both
500: parameter sets resulting in $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \approx 3.3$. Fig.~3
501: compares our simulation results to $\bar{S}_{DE}$, plotted as function
502: of $\log_{10}(t/T_{3})$. The Monte Carlo time has been scaled so that
503: in the region $t/T_{3} \agt 1$, the data for $N = 320$ fit to the
504: theoretical curve. In view of $T_{3}\sim N^{3}$, for $N = 80$ an
505: additional factor $4^{3}$ has been included in the time scale.
506: With this scaling, the deviation between the two sets of data shown
507: in Fig.~3 proves that we have not yet reached chain lengths large
508: enough for the primitive chain model to hold.
509:
510: Still, for larger times, $\bar{S}_{DE}$ and the data for $N = 320$
511: agree quite well. This suggests to treat $T_{3} = T_{3} (N)$ as a
512: fit parameter in adjusting the data to
513: $\bar{S}_{DE} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2}, t/T_{3})$, giving up the strict
514: proportionality $T_{3} \sim N^{3}$. However, a closer inspection
515: of Fig.~3 reveals that the data initially decrease faster than
516: $\bar{S}_{DE}$. This is a systematic effect, observed for all chain
517: lengths and wave vectors. It points to the influence of relaxation modes
518: neglected in the primitive chain model. According to a suggestion of
519: de Gennes \cite{Z5}, internal relaxation, in particular, yields an
520: initial decrease of $\bar{S}_{c} (q,t;N)$ which saturates at some
521: $q$-dependent plateau value. We thus should fit the data to
522: $B_{DE} \bar{S}_{DE} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2}, t/T_{3})$, with $B_{DE}$
523: as another free parameter.
524:
525: A detailed analysis of the reptation model points to tube length
526: fluctuations as the origin of the initial decrease, rather than
527: internal relaxation. (See Sect.\ 4.C and Ref.~\cite{Z3}.) Still we
528: may fit our data to $B_{DE} \bar{S}_{DE}$, where $B_{DE} = B_{DE}(q,N)$,
529: $T_{3} = T_{3} (N)$. Fig.~4 shows the results for $N = 320$.
530: We clearly find very good agreement among theory and data in the
531: time region $t \agt 20 T_{2}$. (The estimate for $T_{2}$ has been
532: taken from our theory, see Sect.\ 4.B.) Deviations occur for smaller times,
533: which is consistent with the approximations inherent in the primitive
534: chain model. Within the realm of that model the central segment moves
535: according to $\left\langle \overline{(r_{N/2}(t) - r_{N/2}(0))^{2}}
536: \right\rangle \sim (t/N)^{1/2}, T_{2} \ll t \ll T_{3}$ (cf.\ Eq.\ (1.1)),
537: and from our previous work \cite{Z17} we know that this law certainly is
538: not attained before $t \agt 20 T_{2}$. The results shown in Fig.~4 are
539: typical also for other chain lengths.
540:
541: Since $T_{3}$ now plays the role of an effective fit parameter,
542: it a priori could depend both on $N$ and $q$. Parameters
543: $T_{3} = T_{3} (q,N)$, $B_{DE} = B_{DE} (q,N)$ extracted by fitting
544: our data are collected in Table 1. Any $q$-dependence of $T_{3}$ is
545: found to be weak, if significant at all. $B_{DE}$ depends on $q$, but is essentially
546: independent of $N$.
547:
548: Ignoring any $q$-dependence, we in Fig.~5 have plotted the values
549: of $T_{3}(N)$ normalized to the asymptotic behavior $T^{\infty}_3$
550: resulting from Eqs.\ (4.5), (4.7), (4.12) below. It must be stressed
551: that we here {\em define} a reptation time in terms of the large time
552: behavior of the scattering function (and the Doi-Edwards form
553: $\bar{S}_{DE}$). Other definitions based on other observables
554: (or other theoretical expressions) may yield somewhat different results.
555: In previous work \cite{Z17}, we defined a reptation time $\tilde{T}_{3}$
556: by the criterion that the mean squared distance moved by a chain end
557: equals the equilibrium mean squared end-to-end distance:
558: $\left\langle \overline{({\bf r}_{0}(\tilde{T}_{3}) -
559: {\bf r}_{0}(0))^{2}}\right\rangle = R_{e}^{2}$. The previous data
560: are included in Fig.~5 (open circles). The two definitions yield
561: somewhat different results for the corrections to the asymptotic
562: behavior. In the range of $N$ measured here, $\tilde{T}_3$ is about 30 \% below $T_3$ as taken from the scattering function. It, however, must be noted that the values extracted from
563: the scattering functions depend somewhat on the time range included
564: in the fit. We estimate this uncertainty to be of the order of 5 \%.
565: In Fig.~5 we included lines corresponding to effective power laws
566: $T_3 \sim N^z$. The effective powers are consistent with expectations
567: based on previous work \cite{Z6}.
568:
569: To summarize, our results show that the coherent structure function
570: of the primitive chain model may well be used to fit data for large
571: times, $t \agt 20 T_{2}$, provided we allow for some phenomenological
572: prefactor $B_{DE}$ and take the reptation time $T_{3}$ as an effective
573: parameter defined by the fit. For smaller times, deviations are seen,
574: that increase with increasing $q$.
575:
576: \subsection{Comparison to Gennes' theory}
577:
578: In his work \cite{Z5}, de Gennes considers only intermediate values
579: of $q$: $\ell_{0}^{-2} \gg q^{2} \gg R_{g}^{-2}$ and constructs the
580: scattering function as a sum of two terms. For $t \gg T_{2}$ the
581: `creep' term dominates. This term is just the limiting form of
582: $\bar{S}_{DE}$ (Eq.\ (3.3)) for $Q \rightarrow \infty$:
583: \begin{equation}
584: \bar{S}^{(c)} (t,N) = \frac{8}{\pi^{2}} \sum^{\infty}_{p=0}
585: (2 p + 1)^{-2} \exp \left[ - (2 p + 1)^{2} \frac{\pi^{2}}{4}
586: \frac{t}{T_{3}} \right] \: \: \:.
587: \end{equation}
588: It tends to $1$ for $t/T_{3} \rightarrow 0$. It is combined with
589: some contribution of local relaxation, which is calculated in two steps.
590: First the interior relaxation of a Rouse chain in one dimensional space
591: is calculated, where the chain is stretched so that the end-to-end
592: distance equals the tube length. In the second step this one dimensional
593: motion is embedded into the three dimensional random walk configuration
594: of the tube. Tube length fluctuations are neglected. With some additional
595: approximation, this model of a Rouse chain in a coiled tube yields a
596: `local' contribution
597: \begin{equation}
598: \bar{S}^{(\ell)} (q,t) = e^{t_{1}}\:\mbox{erfc}\: \sqrt{t_{1}} \: \: \:,
599: \end{equation}
600: where
601: \begin{equation}
602: t_{1} = \frac{3}{4} \frac{N}{N_{e}} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2})^{2} \frac{t}{T_{3}} \: \: \:.
603: \end{equation}
604: Since again the validity of the asymptotic law $T_{3} \sim N^{3}/N_{e}$
605: is assumed, the chain length $N$ and the entanglement length $N_{e}$ drop
606: out in Eq.\ (3.8), as expected for a contribution resulting from strict
607: one dimensional internal relaxation. $\bar{S}^{(\ell)} (q,t)$ describes
608: internal relaxation on length and time scales exclusively determined by $q$.
609: The total result for the normalized coherent scattering function reads
610: \begin{eqnarray}
611: \lefteqn{\bar{S}_{c} (q,t;N) = \bar{S}_{dG} (q,t;N) =}\\
612: &&\quad
613: (1 - B_{dG}) \bar{S}^{(\ell)}(q,t) + B_{dG} \bar{S}^{(c)}(t,N) \: \: \:,
614: \nonumber
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: where according to de Gennes
617: \begin{equation}
618: B_{dG} = B_{dG}(q) = 1 - \frac{N_{e}}{36}\:q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2}
619: \end{equation}
620: is independent of $N$.
621:
622: In an attempt to extend the range of wave vectors to $q \ell_{0} \agt 1$,
623: Schleger et al \cite{Z21} used $B_{dG}(q)
624: = \exp (- q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} N_{e}/36)$. With this choice it was
625: found \cite{Z21,Z22,Z23} that $\bar{S}_{dG} (q,t;N)$ over a large
626: range of wave vectors and for several chain lengths yields a good fit
627: to neutron scattering data from melts of Polyethylene. However,
628: P\"utz et al \cite{Z10}, using the same form of $\bar{S}_{dG} (q,t;N)$
629: to analyze simulation data for melts of very long chains, found only
630: poor agreement. In later work \cite{Z24} they argued that this was due
631: to some ambiguity in the relation between entanglement length $N_{e}$
632: and tube diameter.
633:
634: In our recent work \cite{Z3} we reconsidered the model of a Rouse chain
635: in a tube. Our analysis reveals some serious deficiency of this model:
636: it does not start from equilibrium initial conditions. An ensemble of
637: stretched one dimensional random walk chains folded into the three
638: dimensional random walk configuration of the tube is not identical
639: to the equilibrium ensemble of three dimensional random walk chains.
640: The local structure of the chains differs on the scale of the tube
641: diameter. For the static structure function, this yields a correction
642: of relative order $N_{e}/N$ that vanishes in the limit $q^{2} R_{g}^{2}
643: = \mbox{const}, N \rightarrow \infty$. For the time dependence, however,
644: the effect is serious since the non-equilibrium initial conditions relax
645: only on scale $T_{2}$. Our analysis shows that this unphysical relaxation
646: indeed dominates the time dependence of the `local' contribution
647: $\bar{S}^{(\ell)}(q,t)$, as calculated from this model (see Fig.~3
648: of Ref.~\cite{Z3}). Data analysis based on Eq.\ (3.9) with
649: $\bar{S}^{(\ell)}(q,t)$ taken from the model of a Rouse chain
650: in a tube therefore is not particularly meaningful.
651:
652: Still, in view of the experimental findings cited above, we may ask
653: whether Eqs.\ (3.6) - (3.9) can be used as heuristic modeling of
654: the coherent structure function resulting from reptation. Fig.~6
655: shows the result for the longest chain $(N = 320)$ and largest
656: wave-vector $(q = 1.0)$ measured. The resulting value
657: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \approx 53.3$ is large enough for a reasonable
658: test of the form (3.9), which assumes $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \gg 1$.
659: Replacing in Eq.\ (3.9) $\bar{S}_{c}$ by the full result $\bar{S}_{DE}$
660: of the primitive chain model does not seriously change the picture.
661: The reptation time is fixed by the long-time tail and is taken from
662: Table 1. For $B_{dG}$, we used the form suggested by Schleger et al:
663: $B_{dG} = \exp (- q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} N_{e}/36)$. $N_{e}$ in principle
664: is known from our previous analysis of segment motion: $N_{e} = 3.69$
665: (see Sect.\ 4.B). Thus all parameters are fixed, and the result for
666: $\bar{S}_{dG}$ (full curve in Fig.~6) strongly deviates from the data,
667: except for the extreme long-time tail. This is no surprise since the value $B_{dG} \approx 0.9$, resulting for $N_{e} = 3.69$, considerably exceeds the value $B_{DE} \approx 0.78$ extracted from fitting with the Doi-Edwards form. (See Table 1.) If we treat $B_{dG}$ as a free parameter, we clearly in the range $t \agt 20 T_2$ can enforce agreement among theory and data, (see Fig.~4), at the expense of considerably underestimating $\bar{S}_{c}$ for $t \alt T_2$. The situation can be improved only, if we also change the scale of $t_{1}$, dividing $t_1$, (Eq.~3.8), by a factor of order 200. Quite similar
668: results are found for $N = 160$, where $t_{1}$ has to be divided by
669: a factor of order 50 to reproduce the average trend of the data for
670: $t \alt T_{2}$.
671:
672: We conclude that also from a purely phenomenological point of view,
673: the form (3.9) of $\bar{S}_{c}$ is not justified. The large and chain
674: length dependent rescaling required for $t_{1}$ suggests that tube
675: length fluctuations governed by time scale $T_{2}$ might be much more
676: important than internal relaxation processes governed by an
677: $N$-independent scale.
678:
679: We finally note that in Ref.\ \cite{Z23} a modified form of Eq.\ (3.9)
680: has been proposed, in which the creep term $\bar{S}^{(c)}$ is calculated
681: from tube length fluctuations, but the form (3.7) of the local contribution
682: is retained. The analysis is restricted to the time range $t \ll T_2$,
683: which is the relevant range for neutron scattering experiments.
684: From Fig.~6 it is clear that with the proper parameter values
685: $N_e = 3.69, \: t_1$ as given in Eq.\ (3.8), this modification cannot
686: improve the fit for $t \ll T_2$, since tube length fluctuations only
687: decrease the contribution $\bar{S}^{(c)}$. Again a reasonable fit can be reached only if we take both $B_{dG}$ and the scale of $t_1$ as free parameters.
688:
689: \section{Results of the full reptation model}
690:
691: \subsection{Basic ideas of our approach}
692:
693: The primitive chain model neglects all internal degrees of freedom,
694: and an attempt to model internal relaxation as one dimensional Rouse
695: motion leads to unphysical initial conditions, which seriously affect
696: the results up to times of the order of the internal relaxation time
697: $T_{2}$. However, the simplifying assumptions underlying these approaches are
698: no essential part of the original reptation model. As recalled in the
699: introduction, reptation as single elementary process involves the
700: diffusion of spared length along the chain, together with its decay
701: and creation at the chain ends. The separation of the dynamics into
702: internal relaxation, tube length fluctuations and motion of the
703: primitive chain therefore is somewhat artificial. In particular,
704: tube length fluctuations cannot properly be separated from the motion
705: of the primitive chain, as will be discussed in Sect.\ 4.C. Furthermore,
706: from our analysis of segment motion we know that for typical experimental
707: chain lengths we are in a crossover region where all dynamic effects must
708: be treated on the same level by evaluating the consequences of full
709: reptational dynamics.
710:
711: In our analytical work \cite{Z16,Z3} we use a very simple
712: implementation of the reptation idea, in which the wiggles
713: of spared length are represented by particles which hop along
714: the chain, with hopping probability $p$ per time step. The particles
715: do not interact, and a given particle sees the others just as part
716: of the chain. If a particle passes a bead, it shifts the position
717: of this bead in the tube by the spared length $\ell_{S}$. The chain
718: ends are coupled to large particle reservoirs, which absorb and emit
719: particles at such a rate that the equilibrium density $\rho_{0}$ of
720: spared length on the chain is maintained on the average. Absorption or
721: emission of a particle prolongs or shortens the tube at the corresponding
722: chain end by the spared length $\ell_{S}$. Keeping track of the change
723: in the occupation number of the reservoirs, we therefore control the
724: tube length fluctuations as well as the destruction of the original tube.
725: In particular, within time interval $[0,t]$ an end piece of length
726: $\ell_{S} n_{\rm max}(t)$ of the original tube has been destroyed,
727: where $n_{\rm max}(t)$ is the largest negative fluctuation of the
728: occupation number of the corresponding reservoir during this time interval.
729:
730: All moments of the stochastic processes which determine the motion
731: of internal segments or the occupation of the reservoirs, can be
732: evaluated rigorously, but the determination of the maximal fluctuation
733: $n_{\rm max}(t)$ poses a serious problem. The occupation number of a
734: reservoir carries out a {\em correlated} random process, since a particle
735: emitted can be reabsorbed by the same reservoir later. This correlation
736: dies out only on scale of the internal equilibrium time $T_{2}$ of
737: the chain. It does not prevent the evaluation of arbitrary moments,
738: but the maximal fluctuation cannot be calculated rigorously.
739: Such a calculation is possible \cite{Z25} only for an {\em uncorrelated}
740: random process. To determine the degree of tube destruction, we therefore
741: have to resort to some approximation. In our method, we basically for each
742: final time $t$ replace the correlated random process by that uncorrelated
743: random walk which for this time yields the correct moments. The effective
744: hopping rate of this random walk depends on the final time $t$. It changes
745: from the microscopic rate $\rho_{0} \cdot p$ for $t \ll T_{2}$ to the
746: mobility $\rho_{0} \cdot p/N$ of the primitive chain for $t \gg T_{2}$,
747: which is a physically most reasonable behavior.
748:
749: In essence, this `mean hopping rate' approximation for the coherent
750: structure function smoothly interpolates between two rigorously
751: accessible limits. For $t \ll T_{2}$, tube renewal does not influence
752: the motion of an interior piece of the chain, and the coherent structure
753: function of such pieces can be calculated rigorously. For $t \gg T_{2}$
754: the correlations of the stochastic processes are negligible and
755: the mean hopping rate approximation should become exact. Indeed,
756: we find that in this limit the motion of all chain segments is
757: tightly bound to the motion of the chain ends. As a result,
758: the problem reduces to the uncorrelated motion of a single
759: stochastic variable, as in the primitive chain model.
760: The details of our approximation are discussed extensively in
761: Refs.\ \cite{Z3,Z16}, and will not be repeated here.
762:
763: The coherent scattering function can be determined by summing
764: the contribution of two beads
765: \begin{equation}
766: S (q,t;j,k,N) = \left\langle \overline{e^{i {\bf q}
767: ({\bf r}_{j}(t) - {\bf r}_{k}(0))}}\right\rangle
768: \end{equation}
769: over the bead indices $j,k$. For this function we in Ref.~\cite{Z3},
770: Sect.\ 6.A, have derived an integral equation of the form
771: \end{multicols}
772: \begin{eqnarray}
773: S (q,t;j,k,N) &=& S^{(T)}(q,t;j,k,N)
774: \nonumber \\
775: &+& \int_{0}^{t}\:d t_{0} \sum^{N}_{j_{0} = 0}
776: \Big\{{\cal P}^{*}(j_{0},t_{0}|0) \exp ( - \bar{q}^{2} |j_{0} - k|)
777: S (q, t-t_{0};j,0,N)
778: \nonumber \\
779: &+& {\cal P}^{*} (j_{0},t_{0}|N) \exp ( - \bar{q}^{2} |j_{0} - k|)
780: S (q, t-t_{0};j,N,N)\Big\}\: \: \:.
781: \end{eqnarray}
782: \begin{multicols}{2}
783: Here $d t_{0} {\cal P}^{*}(j_{0},t_{0}|m), m = 0,N$, is the probability
784: that the initial tube is finally destroyed within time interval
785: $[t_{0},t_{0} + d t_{0}]$, its last piece being the initial position
786: of segment $j_{0}$, which at time $t_{0}$ is occupied by chain end $0$
787: or $N$, respectively. The exponential factors result from the random walk
788: configuration of the tube, cf.\ Eqs.\ (2.4), (2.5). The inhomogeneity
789: $S^{(T)}(q,t;j,k,N)$ is the contribution to $S (q,t;j,k,N)$ of all those
790: stochastic processes, which do not completely destroy the original tube.
791:
792: Summing Eq.\ (4.2) over the segments $j,k$ we find a system of
793: two equations which have to be solved numerically. The kernel
794: ${\cal P}^{*}$ and the inhomogeneity $S^{(T)}$ are determined
795: within the mean hopping rate approximation. The results are lengthy
796: and will not be reproduced here. We rather in Subsect.\ D give an
797: analytical expression, which in the range of wave vectors and chain
798: lengths considered in the present work, reasonably well reproduces
799: the numerical results of our theory.
800:
801: We finally note that we analytically can prove (Ref.~\cite{Z3}, Sect.\ 7)
802: that our theory in the limit of infinite chain length $N \rightarrow \infty$,
803: with $t/T_{3}$ and $q^{2} R_{g}^{2}$ kept fixed, reproduces the result
804: of the primitive chain model. Also the relation to the model of a Rouse
805: chain in a tube can be analyzed in precise terms, if we consider
806: an interior piece of length $M$ in an infinitely long chain.
807: We find (Ref.~\cite{Z3}, Sect.\ 5) that this model reproduces the
808: results of reptation only for $t/T_{2}(M) \rightarrow \infty$,
809: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2}(M)$ fixed, where $T_{2}(M)$ or $R_{g}(M)$ are
810: the equilibration time and the radius of gyration of the subchain
811: considered. For $t/T_{2}(M) \alt 1$ the non-equilibrium initial
812: condition seriously affect the scattering function, as has been discussed in Sect.\ 3.B.
813:
814: \subsection{Microscopic parameters of the reptation model}
815:
816: The microscopic parameters of the model are the segment size
817: $\ell_{0} = |{\bf r}_{j} - {\bf r}_{j-1}|$, the average density
818: $\rho_{0}$ of mobile particles on the chain, the spared length per
819: particle $\ell_{S}$, and the hopping rate $p$. Measuring all lengths
820: in units of $\ell_{0}$, we introduce the dimensionless spared length
821: \begin{equation}
822: \bar{\ell}_{S} = \frac{\ell_{S}}{\ell_{0}} \: \: \:.
823: \end{equation}
824:
825: It turns out that for all times beyond truly microscopic times $t \alt 2/p$,
826: the hopping rate $p$ combines with $t$ to yield the time variable
827: \begin{equation}
828: \hat{t} = p t \: \: \:,
829: \end{equation}
830: which we will use in the sequel. The relation of $\hat{t}$ to
831: the Monte Carlo time $t^{(MC)}$ introduces the fit parameter $\tau_{0}$:
832: \begin{equation}
833: \hat{t} = \tau_{0} t^{(MC)} \: \: \:.
834: \end{equation}
835: Also $\rho_{0}$ and $\bar{\ell}_{S}$ combine into a single important
836: parameter. The number of particles that passed over a bead on average
837: increases with time, and if it is sufficiently large, the discreteness
838: of the individual hopping processes becomes irrelevant. The results then
839: depend only on the combination $\bar{\ell}_{S}^{2} \rho_{0}$.
840: In our previous work on the motion of individual segments
841: \cite{Z15,Z16,Z17}, we found that $\bar{\ell}_{S}$ and $\rho_{0}$
842: separately enter the results only for $\hat{t} \alt 10^{3}$.
843: In this time region, a segment on average has moved less than 10 steps
844: in the tube and still feels the discreteness of the process.
845: For the structure function we find that not even this small time
846: region is seriously affected. If we ignore the discreteness of
847: the hopping process, the results for all $\hat{t} > 1$ change by less
848: than 0.5 \%, which coincides with the accuracy of our numerical evaluation.
849: Thus the only microscopic parameters relevant for the coherent structure
850: function are the combination $\bar{\ell}_{S}^{2} \rho_{0}$ and the time
851: scale $\tau_{0}$. The reason behind this empirically observed suppression
852: of initial discreteness effects will be discussed in Subsect.\ 4.C.
853:
854: We furthermore note that also the discreteness of the underlying chain
855: turns out to be unimportant. Provided we normalize the coherent structure
856: function by the static structure function calculated for the same
857: micro-structure, we for $N \agt 50$ and wave vectors $q \ell_{0} \alt 2$
858: within the above quoted accuracy find the same results for a continuous
859: chain as for the model where we sum over discrete bead indices $j,k$.
860: This observation is consistent with the independence of statics and
861: dynamics discussed in Sect.\ 2.B and illustrates that our calculation
862: indeed yields universal results.
863:
864: Since in our simulations we use the same model as in our previous work
865: on segment motion \cite{Z17}, we can take the numerical values of
866: the microscopic parameters from there. In analyzing the Monte Carlo data,
867: we thus use the value
868: \begin{equation}
869: \bar{\ell}_{S}^{2} \rho_{0} = 1.23 \: \: \:.
870: \end{equation}
871: Having a much larger set of data available than previously,
872: we somewhat readjust the time scale. We use
873: \begin{equation}
874: \tau_{0} = 6.8 \cdot 10^{-2} \: \: \:,
875: \end{equation}
876: rather than the previous value $\tau_{0} = 6.092 \cdot 10^{-2}$.
877: For the logarithmic scale $\log_{10} \hat{t}$ of the figures in
878: Ref.~\cite{Z17}, this amounts to a shift by $- 0.048$, which does
879: not change the good agreement among theory an experiment which in
880: Ref.~\cite{Z17} is shown to hold over about 6 decades of time.
881:
882: In our formulation of the reptation model, the entanglement length
883: $N_{e}$, or the tube diameter $\ell_{0} N_{e}^{1/2}$, equi\-valently,
884: do not show up explicitly. They are hidden in the spared length and
885: the density of the particles, i.e., in the overall mobility of the chain.
886: In contrast, the previous approaches explicitly involve these parameters.
887: As discussed at the end of the last subsection, our theory in appropriate
888: limits reproduces the previous results, which allows us \cite{Z3}
889: to relate our parameters $\bar{\ell}_{S},\rho_{0},p$ to those of these
890: other models. Specifically, we find a relation for the entanglement length:
891: \begin{equation}
892: N_{e} = 3 \bar{\ell}_{S}^{2} \rho_{0} \: \: \:.
893: \end{equation}
894: With the numerical value (4.6) this yields $N_{e} = 3.69$ and implies
895: that for the Evans-Edwards model with the smallest possible obstacle
896: spacing it needs about 4 steps before the obstacles come into play seriously.
897:
898: We note that $\bar{\ell}_{S} \rho_{0}$ and thus $N_{e}$ have been determined \cite{Z17} by fitting data for the motion of individual segments in the time range $\hat{t} > 10^{3}$. $N_{e}$ is thus not influenced by the deviations from the full reptation model occuring in the initial range $\hat{t} \alt 10^{3}$, as discussed below, (Sect.\ 5). Thus consistency of the analysis clearly enforces use of the same value $N_{e}$ for all observables. We estimate the uncertainty of this value to be in the range of 5 \%.
899:
900: We now also can give a quantitative definition of the time scales.
901: Identifying the equilibration time $T_{2}$ with the Rouse time of a
902: free chain of $N$ segments we from the asymptotic relations among
903: the models find
904: \begin{equation}
905: \hat{T}_{2} = p T_{2} = \frac{(N+1)^{2}}{\pi^{2}} \: \: \:.
906: \end{equation}
907: The reptation time can be defined as the average life time of the original tube
908: \begin{equation}
909: \hat{T}_{3} = p \int_{0}^{\infty}\:d t_{0} t_{0} {\cal P}^{*} (t_{0})~.
910: \end{equation}
911: Here $d t_{0} {\cal P}^{*} (t_{0})$ is the probability that the tube
912: is finally destroyed within time interval $[t_{0},t_{0} + d t_{0}]$.
913: It is related to the distribution ${\cal P}^{*}(j_{0},t_{0}|m)$
914: introduced in Eq.\ (4.2) via
915: \begin{equation}
916: {\cal P}^{*} (t_{0}) =
917: \sum^{N}_{j_{0} = 0} \left[ {\cal P}^{*}(j_{0},t_{0}|0)
918: + {\cal P}^{*}(j_{0},t_{0}|N)\right] \: \: \:.
919: \end{equation}
920: Evaluation in the asymptotic limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ yields
921: \begin{equation}
922: \hat{T}_{3}^{(\infty)} = \frac{N^{3}}{4 \bar{\ell}_{S}^{2} \rho_{0}}
923: = \frac{3}{4} \frac{N^{3}}{N_{e}} \: \: \:.
924: \end{equation}
925: In this limit, $\hat{T}_{3}$ is related to the reptation time
926: $\tau_{d}$ introduced for the primitive chain model \cite{Z2} as
927: \begin{equation}
928: \hat{T}_{3}^{(\infty)} = \frac{\pi^{2}}{4}\:p \tau_{d} \: \: \:,
929: \end{equation}
930: which is the relation used in Sect.\ 3 in our analysis
931: of the primitive chain model.
932:
933: \subsection{Qualitative discussion of the coherent structure function}
934:
935: Tube destruction, tube length fluctuations, and internal relaxation
936: are different facets of the same microscopic dynamics.
937: Therefore any separation of these processes is to some extent artificial.
938: Yet some rough discussion based on these concepts is useful with regard
939: to the interpretation of the data presented in Sect.\ 5.
940:
941: We first consider tube length fluctuations $\Delta L$. Here a precise
942: definition is possible by identifying $\Delta L$ with the fluctuations
943: of the total spared length. On average the spared length equals
944: $\ell_{S} \rho_{0} N$, where $\rho_{0} N$ is the average number of
945: particles on the chain. Since the fluctuations of the particle number
946: essentially are Gaussian distributed we find
947: \begin{equation}
948: \frac{\Delta L}{\ell_{0}} \approx \bar{\ell}_{S} \sqrt{\rho_{0} N}
949: = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3} N_{e} N} \: \: \:,
950: \end{equation}
951: where $N_{e}$ is introduced via Eq.\ (4.8). Within the equilibration
952: time $T_{2}$ tube length fluctuations on average on both chain ends
953: replace a piece of length $\Delta L/2$ of the original tube by a new
954: piece. In real three dimensional space, this new piece has an average
955: extension of $\sqrt{\ell_{0} \Delta L/2}$, and to observe the effect,
956: the scattering vector must obey $q^{2} \ell_{0} \Delta L/2 \agt 1$, or
957: \begin{equation}
958: q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} \agt \sqrt{\frac{12}{N_{e} N}} \: \: \:,
959: \end{equation}
960: equi\-valently. For large wave vectors, the coherent structure function
961: $S_{c}(q,t;N)$ is determined by the part of the original tube that
962: still exists at time $t$. Taking only tube length fluctuations into
963: account, we therefore find for $t \approx T_{2}$:
964: \begin{eqnarray}
965: \bar{S}_{c} (q,T_{2};N) &=& \frac{S_{c}(q,t;N)}{S_{c}(q,0;N)}
966: \approx \frac{N - \Delta L/\ell_{0}}{N}
967: \nonumber \\
968: &\approx& 1 - \sqrt{\frac{N_{e}}{3 N}} \: \: \:,
969: \end{eqnarray}
970: provided $q$ is large compared to the bound (4.15). This estimate
971: yields the effect of fully developed tube length fluctuations.
972: With increasing chain lengths it clearly is suppressed, but it should
973: be well visible up to fairly long chains $N/N_{e} \approx 10^{2}$.
974:
975: Tube destruction in the sense of the primitive chain model is
976: responsible for the main part of the decay of the coherent structure
977: function. According to Eq.\ (4.16), it is the dominant effect as soon
978: as $1 - \bar{S}_{c}(q,t,N) \gg \sqrt{N_{e}/3 N}$.
979: For $t \rightarrow T_{2}$, it is strongly correlated with tube
980: length fluctuations which, seen from a microscopic point of view,
981: drive the tube destruction. It therefore is no surprise that evaluating
982: the coherent structure function of the primitive chain model,
983: $\bar{S}_{DE} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2},t/T_{3})$, for $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \gg 1$
984: and time $t = T_{2}$, we find a decrease of the same order of magnitude
985: as that due to tube length fluctuations.
986: \begin{eqnarray}
987: \lefteqn{
988: 1 - \bar{S}_{DE} \left(q^{2} R_{g}^{2},\frac{T_{2}}{T_{3}}\right)
989: \stackrel{ q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \gg 1} {=} 1 - \bar{S}^{(c)} (T_{2},N)}
990: \nonumber \\
991: & & = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi} \frac{T_{2}}{T_{3}}} + O
992: (e^{-\mbox{\footnotesize const}\:T_{3}/T_{2}}) \approx
993: \sqrt{\frac{8}{3\pi^{3}} \frac{N_{e}}{N}}
994: + O (e^{- \mbox{\footnotesize const}\:N}) \:.
995: \nonumber\\
996: \end{eqnarray}
997: Recall that $\bar{S}^{(c)}(t,N)$ (Eq.\ (3.6)) is the limit of
998: $\bar{S}_{DE}$ for $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \gg 1$. Comparison of Eqs.\ (4.16),
999: (4.17) illustrates that tube length fluctuations cannot properly be
1000: separated from tube destruction. Being of the same order of magnitude
1001: for $t \approx T_{2}$, they strongly interfere in the full theory.
1002:
1003: We finally note that the use of $T_{3}$ as fit parameter, necessary
1004: to fit the results of the primitive chain model to our data, illustrates
1005: that tube length fluctuations influence the efficiency of tube destruction
1006: for all times \cite{Z6}, even for chains of lengths $N/N_{e} \approx 100$.
1007:
1008: Internal relaxation can be analyzed by considering a subchain of length
1009: $M$ in the center of an infinitely long chain. We thus consider
1010: the coherent structure function
1011: \begin{equation}
1012: S_{c}(q,t;M,\infty) = \sum^{M}_{j,k=1} \left\langle
1013: \overline{e^{i {\bf q}({\bf r}_{j}(t) - {\bf r}_{k}(0))}}
1014: \right\rangle^{\infty} \: \: \:.
1015: \end{equation}
1016: Within time $t$, segment $j$ is displaced along the tube by
1017: $\bar{\ell}_{s} n$ steps, and since the tube has a random walk
1018: conformation, the average over the paths of segment $j$ yields
1019: \begin{eqnarray*}
1020: \left\langle e^{i {\bf q}({\bf r}_{j}(t) - {\bf r}_{k}(0))}
1021: \right\rangle^{\infty} = e^{- \bar{q}^{2} |j + \bar{\ell}_{s} n - k|}~.
1022: \end{eqnarray*}
1023: This expression is to be averaged over the distribution
1024: ${\cal P}_{1}(n,t)$ of the number $n$ of particles that diffused
1025: over bead $j$. We note that in the situation considered here
1026: ${\cal P}_{1}(n,t)$ is independent of $j$, since the process
1027: is translationally invariant along an infinitely long chain. We thus find
1028: \begin{equation}
1029: S_{c}(q,t;M,\infty) = \sum^{+ \infty}_{n = - \infty}\:{\cal P}_{1} (n,t)
1030: \sum^{M}_{j,k=1} e^{- \bar{q}^{2} |j + \bar{\ell}_{s} n - k|}
1031: \: \: \:.
1032: \end{equation}
1033: Now shifting $j + \bar{\ell}_{S} n \rightarrow j$,
1034: we can rewrite this expression as
1035: \begin{eqnarray}
1036: S_{c}(q,t;M,\infty) &=& \sum^{+ \infty}_{n = - \infty}\:{\cal P}_{1} (n,t)
1037: \Bigg\{ \sum^{M}_{j,k=1} e^{- \bar{q}^{2} |j - k|}
1038: \nonumber \\
1039: &+& \sum^{M}_{k=1} \left[ \sum^{M+\bar{\ell}_{s} n}_{j = M+1}\:
1040: e^{- \bar{q}^{2} |j-k|} - \sum^{\bar{\ell}_{s} n}_{j=1}\:
1041: e^{- \bar{q}^{2} |j-k|}\right] \Bigg\}
1042: \nonumber\\
1043: \end{eqnarray}
1044: Since ${\cal P}_{1} (n,t)$ is normalized to $1$, the first term
1045: in Eq.\ (4.20) yields the static structure function of the subchain.
1046: All time dependence results from the motion of the end pieces of the
1047: subchain and thus is due to the length fluctuations and the shift of
1048: the subchain in the tube. Proper interior relaxation within the subchain
1049: has no effects on the coherent structure function.
1050:
1051: We want to stress that this does {\em not} imply that our theory
1052: {\em neglects} interior relaxation. The basic relation (4.19) only
1053: exploits the fact that the segment $j$ has carried out a random walk
1054: of $\bar{\ell}_{S} n$ steps. It does not imply that this walk is along
1055: the precise original configuration of the chain. Rather the path will
1056: have changed by the motion of other segments, i.e., internal relaxation.
1057: What our result shows is that the effects of interior relaxation
1058: {\em average out} in the structure function as calculated within
1059: the reptation model. This also explains the observation in
1060: Subsect.\ 4.B that the discreteness of the individual steps
1061: is unimportant numerically. It yields only a correction to the
1062: second term in Eq.\ (4.20), which by itself is very small in the
1063: time range $\hat{t} \alt 10^{3}$ where discreteness corrections
1064: might show up. Deviations among theory and data which we will find
1065: for short times and wave vectors of the order of the inverse segment
1066: size therefore must originate from effects not taken into account
1067: in the reptation model.
1068:
1069: In this context some further remark on the model of Rouse motion
1070: in a coiled tube seems appropriate. Concerning the {\em dynamics}
1071: along the tube, our hopping model is essentially equi\-valent to Rouse
1072: motion. Specifically, beyond microscopic times the motion of individual
1073: segments approaches Rouse type motion, as has been shown in Ref.~\cite{Z16},
1074: Sect.\ 3. The difference found for the structure function results from
1075: the imposed initial conditions, only. It reflects the fact that
1076: the structure function measures
1077: correlations between two segments $j,\;k$ and thus is influenced
1078: by the initial configuration of the subchain connecting $j$ with $k$.
1079:
1080: To summarize, we have seen that in the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$
1081: with $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \sim q^{2} N$ kept fixed, the coherent structure
1082: function of the total chain varies only on scale $T_{3}$. In this limit,
1083: $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t;N)$ is given by the primitive chain model.
1084: For shorter chains, tube length fluctuations come into play.
1085: They change the effective reptation time and lead to an initial
1086: decrease of $\bar{S}_{c}$ on time scale $T_{2}$. Both effects are
1087: important for chains up to lengths $N/N_{e} \approx 10^{2}$, at least.
1088: Proper internal relaxation, however, averages out.
1089:
1090: With regard to the data presented in Sect.\ 5, we want to close
1091: this subsection with a brief discussion of the scattering
1092: $S_{c}(q,t;M,N)$ from the central subchain of length $M \ll N$
1093: in a chain of finite length $N$. For small times (and sufficiently
1094: large wave vectors), we expect to see small fluctuations of the length
1095: of the part of the tube occupied by the subchain. Since, however, these
1096: fluctuations do not lead out of the original tube, they are much less
1097: efficient in reducing the scattering function than the tube length
1098: fluctuations relevant for the total chain: on average, up to times
1099: of the order of the relaxation time $T_{2}(M)$ of the subchain,
1100: its position in the tube has not changed seriously. A definite
1101: decrease of $S_{c}(q,t;M,N)$ sets in for times large enough for
1102: the subchain to leave its original part of the tube. For very large
1103: chain lengths $N$, this may occur for times $t \ll T_{2} (N)$.
1104: $S_{c}$ then decreases like $t^{-1/4}$, this law reflecting the
1105: $t^{1/4}$-law (Eq.\ (1.1)) for the motion of an internal segment.
1106: For $T_{2}(N) \ll t \ll T_{3}(N)$, the motion of the subchain is
1107: driven by particles created by the chain ends which leads to a decrease
1108: like $t^{-1/2}$ (cf.\ Eq.\ (1.1)). Finally, of course, this behavior is
1109: cut off by tube destruction reaching the position of the subchain.
1110: On the quantitative level this behavior can be extracted from our theory.
1111: In the discussion of our data we in some figures will include curves
1112: which show the effect of relaxation of the (sub-) chain moving in
1113: an infinitely long tube, i.e., neglecting all tube renewal effects.
1114:
1115: \subsection{Approximate analytical parameterization of our results
1116: for the total chain}
1117:
1118: The integral equations which yield the normalized coherent structure
1119: function $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t;N)$ of the full reptation model, can be solved
1120: only numerically. Furthermore, also the kernel and the inhomogeneity
1121: in these equations do not take a simple form \cite{Z3}. In particular,
1122: the inhomogeneity is given by some integral with a lengthy integrand.
1123: Thus, to present the results in a more easily tractable form some more
1124: or less heuristic analytical parameterization might be useful.
1125:
1126: It should be clear that such a parameterization cannot be very simple.
1127: The coherent scattering function involves two time scales: $T_{2}$ and
1128: $T_{3}$. Furthermore also wave vector and chain length combine into
1129: two relevant variables: $q^{2} R_{g}^{2}$ and
1130: $q^{2} \ell_{0}^{2} \sqrt{N_{e} N} \sim q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \sqrt{N_{e}/N}$.
1131: The latter variable should govern the contribution of tube length
1132: fluctuations (cf.\ Eq.\ (4.15)). In searching for a reasonable
1133: parameterization we exploit the fact that for very long chains
1134: our results reduce to those of the primitive chain model. Furthermore,
1135: as shown in Sect.\ 3.A, the functional form of $\bar{S}_{c}$, given by
1136: this model, can be used to fit the long-time tail also for non-asymptotic
1137: chain lengths. This suggests to use an ansatz similar to de Gennes' form (3.9):
1138: \begin{equation}
1139: \bar{S}_{\scriptsize \mbox{Fit}} (q,t;N)
1140: = (1 - B) H (q,t;N) + B \bar{S}_{DE}
1141: \left(q^{2} R_{g}^{2},\frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{T}_{3, \scriptsize \mbox{Fit}}}
1142: \right)
1143: \end{equation}
1144: The function $\bar{S}_{DE} (Q,\tau)$ is given by Eqs.\ (3.2)-(3.5).
1145: Analyzing the numerical results of our theory in a large range of
1146: wave vectors and chain lengths which exceeds that used in the simulations,
1147: we find that the effective reptation time weakly depends on $q$.
1148: We use the expression
1149: \begin{eqnarray}
1150: \lefteqn{\hat{T}_{3, \scriptsize \mbox{Fit}} = \frac{3}{4} N_{e}^{2}
1151: \left(\frac{N}{N_{e}}\right)^{3}\;\cdot}
1152: \\
1153: &&\left\{ 1 - \left[ \frac{2.1}{(9 + N/N_{e})^{0.5}}
1154: - - \frac{2.5}{9 + N/N_{e}}\right] \cdot
1155: \left( 1 + \frac{0.25}{(1 + 0.3 q^{2} R_{g}^{2})^{2}}\right)\right\}.
1156: \nonumber
1157: \end{eqnarray}
1158: The leading term gives the asymptotic law (4.12), the first correction
1159: is of order $\sqrt{N_{e}/N}$, in agreement with a result by Doi \cite{Z6}. The prefactor of this correction differs somewhat from Doi's result. However it must be noted that eqs. (4.21) - (4.25) are meant to reproduce the scattering function in a wide parameter range. Thus eq. (4.22) should not literally be compared to Doi's result.
1160:
1161: We now turn to the coefficient $B$, which is taken as
1162:
1163: \begin{equation}
1164: B = \exp \left\{ - \left( \frac{q^{2} R_{g}^{2}
1165: \sqrt{\frac{N_{e}}{N}}}{1 + q^{2} R_{g}^{2}
1166: \sqrt{\frac{N_{e}}{N}}}\right)^{0.6} \frac{2.8}{2.4
1167: + \sqrt{N/N_{e}}}\right\} \: \: \:.
1168: \end{equation}
1169: This form is consistent with the discussion of the influence of
1170: tube length fluctuations given in the previous subsection.
1171: $B$ tends to 1 for $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \sqrt{N_{e}/N} \ll 1$ and
1172: yields $B \approx 1 - O (\sqrt{N_{e}/N})$ in the limit
1173: $N \rightarrow \infty$, $q$ fixed.
1174:
1175: The initial decrease of the scattering function over a sizeable range
1176: of time is approximated by a stretched exponential with an effective
1177: exponent which strongly decreases with increasing $q^{2} R_{g}^{2}$. We take
1178: \begin{equation}
1179: H (q,t,N) = \exp \left\{ - \left( \frac{\hat{T}_{2}}{\hat{T}_{3,
1180: \scriptsize \mbox{Fit}}}\right)^{x_{1}} \left[ 3.2 \left(
1181: \frac{q^{2} R_{G}^{2}}{0.7 + q^{2} R_{g}^{2}}\right)^{2}
1182: \frac{\hat{t}}{\hat{T}_{2}}\right]^{x_{2}} \right\}
1183: \end{equation}
1184: \begin{eqnarray}
1185: x_{1} &=& 0.1 + \frac{0.9}{1 + 0.2 q^{2} R_{g}^{2}}
1186: \nonumber \\
1187: x_{2} &=& 0.25 + \frac{0.75}{1 + 0.1 q^{2} R_{g}^{2}} \: \: \:.
1188: \end{eqnarray}
1189: We recall Eq.\ (4.9): $\hat{T}_{2} = (N + 1)^{2}/\pi^{2}$.
1190:
1191: The parameterization (4.21)-(4.25) is fitted to the numerical evaluation
1192: of our theory in the range $0.1 \leq q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \alt 50$;
1193: $10 \alt N/N_{e} \alt 340$; $0 \leq \hat{t} < \infty$. In most of
1194: that range it reproduces our full results within deviations less
1195: than $0.015$ in absolute value. It becomes worse for shorter chains
1196: $(N/N_{e} \alt 30)$ and larger wave vectors $(q \ell_{0} \agt 2)$
1197: in the large time regime $(\hat{t} \agt 0.1 \hat{T}_{3})$. In this
1198: region the large-time tail predicted by the full theory deviates
1199: somewhat from the functional form given by the primitive chain model,
1200: and also small differences between the continuous and the discrete version
1201: of the model start to show up. For $N/N_{e} \alt 10$ our theory breaks down, mainly due to the fact that tube length fluctuations become important even for $\hat{t} \approx \hat{T}_{3}$. They thus affect the kernel
1202: ${\cal P}^{*}(j_{0} t_{0}|m)$ of the integral equation (4.2),
1203: and this effect has not been considered in our theory.
1204:
1205: In the sequel we compare our Monte Carlo data to the results of the
1206: numerical evaluation of our full theory. It should be noted, however,
1207: that on the scale of the plots shown the difference between the results
1208: of the full theory and the effective parameterization (4.21)-(4.25)
1209: would be almost invisible.
1210:
1211: \section{Comparison of Monte Carlo data to full reptation theory}
1212:
1213: The reptation model in full detail treats the motion along the tube axis,
1214: but it does not account for all relaxation processes in a realistic chain.
1215: In particular, motions `perpendicular to the tube', like the creation and
1216: decay of larger side branches, will be present for the Monte Carlo chain
1217: but are not treated properly in the reptation model. Since larger side
1218: branches emerge by fusion of hairpins, they in the framework of our
1219: model would introduce some kind of interaction of the particles.
1220: Scattering vectors of magnitude $q \approx 1$ certainly resolve such
1221: effects which result in some additional relaxation on a microscopic
1222: time scale. In fitting the data to the theory we therefore allow for
1223: a phenomenological amplitude $A \leq 1$, multiplying the normalized
1224: structure function $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t;N)$ calculated for pure reptation.
1225: We typically find values $A \approx 0.9$ for $q = 1$, $A \approx 0.98$
1226: for $q = 0.5$, and $A \approx 1$ for all smaller $q$ measured.
1227: Thus the deviations among theory and data which are found for small times,
1228: rapidly decrease with decreasing $q$.
1229:
1230: For a first illustration, we in Fig.~7 show our results for
1231: $N = 80,\; q = 0.5024\; (q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 3.32)$.
1232: Data points result from runs extending to $10^{5}$ or $10^{8}$
1233: Monte Carlo steps. The full curve gives the result of our theory,
1234: with the amplitude adjusted to $A = 0.985$. Long dashes represent a
1235: fit to the primitive chain model, with $B_{DE}$ and $\hat{T}_{3} =
1236: \tau_{0} T_{3}^{(MC)}$ taken from Table 1. The short dashed curve
1237: results by neglecting tube destruction and is calculated as the
1238: structure function of a chain of length $N$ in an infinitely long tube.
1239: Since the primitive chain model takes care only of tube destruction,
1240: the difference among the two dashed curves is due to tube length
1241: fluctuations. Thus Fig.~7 demonstrates that the tube length
1242: fluctuations strongly influence the structure function up to
1243: times $t \approx T_{2}$. For much larger times tube destruction
1244: is the dominant process.
1245:
1246: These results are typical for all chain lengths and wave vectors.
1247: Figs.\ 8 and 9 show our results for $N = 160$ and $320$, respectively.
1248: Beyond some short time regime, we find excellent agreement between theory
1249: and data, with only the amplitude $A = A (q,N)$ taken as adjustable
1250: parameter. Comparing Fig.~9 to Fig.~4, (note the difference of times
1251: scales: $\log_{10} \hat{t} = \log_{10} t^{(MC)} - 1.167)$, we again see
1252: the effect of tube length fluctuations: for $N = 320$, the primitive chain
1253: model can fit the data only for $t \agt 20 T_{2}$. For smaller times,
1254: tube length fluctuations become relevant, their effect increasing with
1255: increasing $q$, as expected.
1256: For $N = 160, q = 0.1\: (q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \approx 0.267)$, scattering
1257: cannot resolve the structure of the tube and the effect of tube length
1258: fluctuations is suppressed. The corresponding curve shown in Fig.~8
1259: essentially coincides with the result of the primitive chain model,
1260: provided we adjust the effective time scale $T_{3}$.
1261:
1262: To gain additional information on the chain dynamics, we also measured
1263: and calculated the structure function of the central piece of length
1264: $M$ in a chain of length $N$. Fig.~10 shows our results for
1265: $M = 80,\; N = 320,\; q = 0.5$. With these parameter values
1266: it is directly comparable to Fig.~7, where $M = N = 80,\; q = 0.5024$.
1267: The central piece evidently is not influenced by tube length fluctuations.
1268: In contrast to Fig.~7, the decrease of $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t;M,N)$,
1269: in Fig.~10 must be due to relaxation within the initial tube,
1270: up to times where tube destruction reaches the subchain measured.
1271: Indeed, in Fig.~10 the structure function calculated neglecting
1272: tube destruction (broken line) over a large time range coincides
1273: with the results of our full theory and simulations. The time
1274: $T_{R}(M,N)$ it needs for tube destruction to reach the subchain,
1275: can be estimated from the relation
1276: \begin{equation}
1277: \bar{\ell}_{S} n_{\rm max} (T_{R} {\scriptstyle(M,N)})
1278: = \frac{1}{2} (N - M)\: \: \:.
1279: \end{equation}
1280: This time is indicated in Fig.~10 and is close to the time where
1281: the dashed line starts to deviate from our full result. Recall from
1282: Sect.\ 4.A that $\ell_{S} \overline{n_{\rm max}(t)}$ gives
1283: the average length of the end-piece of the tube that has been
1284: destroyed up to time $t$.
1285:
1286: As pointed out in Sect.\ 4.C, the decrease of $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t;M,N)$
1287: seen in Fig.~10 in the range $t < T_{R} (M,N)$ is not due to relaxation
1288: within the subchain $M$ considered, but results from the internal
1289: dynamics of the total chain which leads to fluctuations of the position
1290: of the subchain in the original tube. This is illustrated in Fig.~11,
1291: which for given $N = 320$ and $q = 1.0$ compares the scattering from
1292: central subchains of lengths $M = 40,\;80,\;160,\;320$.
1293: We note some peculiar behavior: as function of time,
1294: the normalized scattering function of the total chain
1295: $M = N = 320$ initially decreases faster and eventually crosses results for internal pieces.
1296: This shows the efficiency of tube length fluctuations in comparison
1297: to the internal dynamics of the chain. According to the discussion of Sect.\ 4.C, subchains
1298: $M \alt N - \sqrt{\frac{1}{3} N_{e} N} \approx 300$ (for $N = 320)$
1299: are not influenced by tube length fluctuations, and for a large time
1300: range scattering from such subchains is determined by the diffusive
1301: motion of the total subchain in the initial tube. Since the diffusion
1302: coefficient of this motion scales as $1/M$, the diffusion of the longer
1303: subchains is very slow. Taking place in the initial tube, it is also less
1304: efficient in reducing $\bar{S}_{c}$ than tube length fluctuations or
1305: the tube destructing shift of the total chain. For these reasons,
1306: the normalized coherent scattering for $M = 160$ stays above the result
1307: for the total chain up to times $t \approx T_{3}\left(N\right)$. For larger times the theory predicts that as for the shorter subchains the normalized scattering from subchain $M = 160$ falls below the scattering from the total chain, but the effect is too small to be visible in Fig.~11, and it clearly is not resolved by the accuracy of the data. We also note that tube destruction reaches the initial position of the subchain $M = 160$ only for $p T_{R} (160,320)\approx 10^{5.8}$.
1308: With decreasing $M$, diffusion in the tube becomes faster, and for the
1309: shortest subchain, $M = 40$, we see indications of a new regime:
1310: the slope of the curve seems to change near $\hat{t} = 10^{5.4}$.
1311: A doubly logarithmic plot reveals that in the range
1312: $10^{5.4} \leq \hat{t} \leq 10^{6.1}$ the data approach a
1313: $\hat{t}^{-1/2}$-law, and the upper bound of this interval is close
1314: to the time $p T_{R} (40,320) \approx 10^{6.4}$. These observations
1315: are consistent with the discussion of Sect.\ 4.C.
1316:
1317: Finally we consider the deviations between theory and data present
1318: for $\hat{t} \alt 10^{3}$ and large wave vectors. A first important
1319: observation is that these deviations roughly are of the same size
1320: for interior pieces of the chain as for the total chain, see Fig.~11.
1321: Therefore their dominant source cannot be searched in our treatment of
1322: tube length fluctuations in the mean hopping rate approximation.
1323: To show this in more detail, we in Fig.~12 have plotted the deviation
1324: between data and theory for wave vector $q = 1.0$ and all chains and
1325: subchains measured. We note some end-effect: for the total chain
1326: $N = 160 = M$ the deviation is about 20 \% larger than for the
1327: central piece $M = 160$ in the chain $N = 320$. However, the bulk
1328: of the effect is independent of $N > M$, as illustrated by the curves
1329: for $M = 40$ and $M = 80$, which each in fact combine data for
1330: $N = 160$ and $N = 320$. For these internal pieces, tube length
1331: fluctuations are irrelevant, and in the time range shown, our evaluation
1332: of the reptation model is exact within the accuracy (0.5 \%) of our
1333: numerics. Consequently the initial deviations must be dominated by some
1334: relaxation in the interior of the subchain $M$ which is not taken into
1335: account by the reptation model. We note that the amplitude $A$ of
1336: the effect depends on $M$ only weakly, but strongly increases with $q$,
1337: as is illustrated by Figs.\ 8 and 9. It roughly is proportional to $q^{2}$.
1338: These observations are consistent with an interpretation as
1339: micro-structure effects, which clearly increase strongly with the resolving power of the experiment and are expected to show a weak dependence $\sim 1/M$ on (sub-)chain length.
1340:
1341: In our previous work on the motion of individual segments, we found
1342: initial transients which also decayed on a time scale
1343: $\hat{t} \alt 10^{3}$. These could be traced back to the discreteness
1344: of both the hopping process and the underlying chain and could be
1345: largely explained by a fully discrete analysis of our model.
1346: As mentioned in Sect.\ 4.A, it turns out that for $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t,M,N)$
1347: this discreteness numerically is irrelevant. In the light of
1348: the discussion of Sect.\ 4.C, this is quite understandable:
1349: the internal dynamics of the subchain averages out. We thus have
1350: to search for effects going beyond our implementation of the reptation
1351: model. One source of discrepancy immediately comes into mind.
1352: A particle sitting on a bead is no exact representation of a hairpin.
1353: It, for instance, is not clear whether the bead sits in the tip or in
1354: the base of the hairpin. Simple estimates of such effects easily yield
1355: a correction amplitude $1-A$ of the desired order of magnitude. However,
1356: the dynamics of single hairpins cannot explain a time scale of order
1357: $10^{3}$ since it essentially relaxes within one Monte Carlo step.
1358: Slower relaxation occurs for larger side branches. Already a structure
1359: created by fusion of two hairpins shows a relaxation time of the order
1360: of $10 MC$ steps. Indeed, the fusion of hairpins destroys mobile units
1361: of the Monte Carlo chain. In the language of our model this induces some
1362: dynamical interaction of the particles. We therefore believe that the
1363: observed initial transients are due to the interference of reptation
1364: with the dynamics of larger side branches.
1365:
1366: \section{Conclusions}
1367:
1368: In this paper, we presented results of simulations of the Evans-Edwards model, measuring the coherent structure function of a reptating chain in a large range of time and wave vector. This model contains the full reptational dynamics of a single chain, including internal relaxation, tube length fluctuations, and tube renewal, but omits all the dynamics of the environment. In particular, it ignores constraint release. We compared the data to two simplified versions of the reptation model as well as to our recent evaluation of the full theory. We found that the primitive chain model proposed by Doi and Edwards \cite{Z4,Z2} yields a good fit to the data for times large compared to the Rouse time $T_{2}$, provided we allow for a phenomenological amplitude factor and treat the reptation time $T_{3}$ as a second adjustable parameter. De Gennes' approach \cite{Z5} which adds a contribution meant to take one dimensional internal relaxation along the tube into account, cannot explain the data consistently. So the success of this approach in fitting neutron scattering data on polymer melts \cite{Z21,Z22,Z23} indicates that the local contribution $S^{(\ell)}(q,t)$ to De Gennes' structure function phenomenologically accounts for some dynamics not contained in the reptation model. In view of our findings for the Evans-Edwards model we would search the origin of the observed initial decay in a coupling of reptation to motion perpendicular to the tube. Since in the experimental time range the initial decay accounts for most of the variation of the experimental curves \cite{Z23}, we have not tried to fit these curves with our theory.
1369:
1370: Provided we allow for a single adjustable amplitude factor we, beyond the short time range influenced by microstructure relaxation, find quantitative agreement between our simulation data and our analytical evaluation \cite{Z3} of full reptation theory. The theory in all details explains not only the scattering function of the total chain but also the scattering from interior subchains. Except for the phenomenological amplitude, which notably differs from $1$ only for wave vectors of the order of the inverse segment size, all parameters of the theory essentially are fixed by our previous analysis \cite{Z16,Z17} of the motion of internal segments. Thus our version of the reptation model consistently explains both details of the internal motion and global features like the scattering function.
1371:
1372: Our analysis shows that the effects of internal relaxation contained in the reptation model and seen, for instance, in the motion of internal segments, for the scattering functions average out. In the reptation model, the time dependence of the scattering functions is determined solely by the interplay of tube destruction and tube length fluctuations. The latter not only determine the scattering function up to times of order $T_{2}$, but also for intermediate chain lengths lead to the decrease \cite{Z6} of the reptation time $T_{3}$ in comparison to the asymptotic law, clearly seen also in the scattering function. Numerically evaluating our theory, we found these effects to be well visible up to chain lengths of the order of 300 entanglement lengths. This is obvious from the numerical parameterization of our results, given in Section 4~D.
1373:
1374: Our theory deviates from the results of the simulation in the initial time region $\hat{t} \alt 10^3$. We stress that this is not due to the approximations inherent in our treatment of tube destruction. Deviations of the same order of magnitude occur for the total chain and for internal subchains, and the coherent structure function of internal subchains in the initial time region is not affected by our approximations. Thus the need to introduce some phenomenological parameter to take short time relaxation into account illustrates that even for the Evans-Edwards model, which is the most accurate computer-experimental implementation of the reptation model we can think of, some relaxation 'perpendicular' to the tube shows up. Clearly, for a melt, such effects must be much larger. However, our analysis suggests some way to suppress these contributions. The scattering from a chain of length $N=M$ should be compared to the scattering from the central piece of length $M$ in a chain of length $N \approx 2 M$. Up to small end effects, the difference of the two coherent scattering functions should be due to reptation alone, and can be calculated from our theory. To observe an effect, the experiments must cover a time range extending at least up to the Rouse time, with chain length being of the order $N/N_{e} \agt 20$. Unfortunately, for physical experiments, this seems to be out of reach. As shown by the work of Ref. \cite{Z10} it might be feasible in simulations.
1375: \\ \\
1376: {\bf Acknowledgment:}
1377: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 237.
1378:
1379: %\newpage
1380:
1381: \begin{thebibliography}{88}
1382: \bibitem{Z1} P.G. De Gennes, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 55}, 572 (1971).
1383: \bibitem{Z2} M. Doi, S.F. Edwards, {\it The Theory of Polymer Dynamics}
1384: (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
1385: \bibitem{Z3} L. Sch\"afer, U. Ebert, A. Baumg\"artner, Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 65},
1386: 061505 (2002).
1387: \bibitem{Z4} M. Doi, S.F. Edwards, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 2,
1388: {\bf 74}, 1789 (1978).
1389: \bibitem{Z5} P.G. de Gennes, J. Physique {\bf 42}, 735 (1981).
1390:
1391: \bibitem{Z6} M. Doi, J. Polymer Sci: Polymer Phys. Ed. {\bf 21}, 667 (1983).
1392: \bibitem{Z7} T.P. Lodge, N.A. Rotstein, S. Prager, Advances Chem. Phys. LXXIX,
1393: ed: Prigogine and Rice (Wiley 1990).
1394: \bibitem{Z8} P.G. De Gennes, J. Physique {\bf 36}, 1199 (1975).
1395: \bibitem{Z9} T. Kreer, J. Baschnagel, M. M\"uller, K. Binder, Macromol.
1396: {\bf 34}, 1105 (2001).
1397: \bibitem{Z10} M. P\"utz, K. Kremer, G.S. Grest, Europhys. Lett.
1398: {\bf 49}, 735 (2000).
1399: \bibitem{Z11} R. Graf, A. Heuer, H.W. Spiess, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5738 (
1400: 1998).
1401: \bibitem{Z12} R. Kimmich, R.-O. Seitter, U. Beginn, M. M\"oller, N. Fatkullin,
1402: Chem. Phys. Lett.
1403: {\bf 307}, 147 (1999).
1404: \bibitem{Z13} W. Hess, Macromol. {\bf 19}, 1395 (1986).
1405: \bibitem{Z14} K.S. Schweizer, M. Fuchs, G. Szamel, M. Guenza, H. Tang,
1406: Macromol. Theory Simul. {\bf 6}, 1037 (1997).
1407: \bibitem{Z15} U. Ebert, A. Baumg\"artner, L. Sch\"afer,
1408: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 1592 (1997).
1409: \bibitem{Z16} U. Ebert, L. Sch\"afer, A. Baumg\"artner, J. Stat. Phys.
1410: {\bf 90}, 1325 (1998).
1411: \bibitem{Z17} A. Baumg\"artner, U. Ebert, L. Sch\"afer, J. Stat. Phys.
1412: {\bf 90}, 1375 (1998).
1413: \bibitem{Z18} K.E. Evans, S.F. Edwards, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday
1414: Trans. 2, {\bf 77}, 1891 (1981).
1415: \bibitem{Z19} L. Sch\"afer, A. Baumg\"artner, U. Ebert,
1416: Europhys. J.B {\bf 10}, 105 (1999).
1417:
1418: \bibitem{Z20} R.D. Willmann, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 116}, 2688 (2002).
1419: \bibitem{Z21} P. Schleger, B. Farago, C. Lartigue, A. Kollmar, D. Richter,
1420: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},
1421: 124 (1998).
1422: \bibitem{Z22} A. Wischnewski, D. Richter, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 52}, 719
1423: (2000).
1424: \bibitem{Z23} A. Wischnewski, M. Monkenbusch, L. Willner, D. Richter,
1425: A.E. Likhtman, T.C.B. McLeish, B. Farago, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1426: {\bf 88}, 058301 (2002).
1427: \bibitem{Z24} M. P\"utz, K. Kremer, G.S. Grest, Europhys. Lett.
1428: {\bf 52}, 721 (2000).
1429: \bibitem{Z25} F. Spitzer, Principles of Random Walk (Springer, Heidelberg,
1430: 1976).
1431: \end{thebibliography}
1432:
1433: \end{multicols}
1434:
1435: \newpage
1436:
1437: \begin{table}[H]
1438: \begin{center}
1439: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|cc}
1440: $N^{(MC)}$ & $q$ & $\log_{10} T_{3}^{(MC)}(q,N)$ & $B_{DE} (q,N)$\\ \hline
1441: 80 & 0.5024 & 5.90 & 0.91\\ \hline
1442: 160 & 0.10 & 6.91 & 0.997 \\
1443: & 0.50 & 6.87 & 0.89\\
1444: & 1.00 & 6.82 & 0.76\\ \hline
1445: 320 & 0.25 & 7.85 & 0.965 \\
1446: & 0.50 & 7.82 & 0.88 \\
1447: & 1.00 & 7.80 & 0.78 \\ \hline
1448: \end{tabular}
1449: \end{center}
1450: \caption[]{Parameter values for the fit of
1451: $B_{DE} \bar{S}_{DE} (q^{2} R_{g}^{2},t/T_{3})$ to the data.
1452: Reptation time $T_{3}^{(MC)}$ is measured in Monte Carlo steps.}
1453: \end{table}
1454:
1455: %\newpage
1456:
1457: \begin{figure}
1458: \label{fig1}
1459: \begin{center}
1460: \epsfig{figure=sim01.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1461: \caption[]{A series of subsequent chain configurations, illustrating
1462: the microscopic dynamics of the Evans-Edwards model
1463: (in its two-dimensional version).
1464: The crosses represent impenetrable obstacles.}
1465: \end{center}
1466: \end{figure}
1467:
1468: \begin{figure}
1469: \label{fig2}
1470: \begin{center}
1471: \epsfig{figure=sim02.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1472: \caption[]{Data for the coherent structure function $(N = 320,~q = 0.5)$
1473: as function of $\log_{10} t^{(MC)}$ in the short time regime.
1474: $\bar{S}_{c} (q,t^{(MC)};N)$ is normalized to the exact static
1475: structure function $S_{0}(q,N)$ (Eq.\ (2.6)). ~
1476: a) 10 sets of data, each averaged over $10^{3}$ independent runs.
1477: The lines serve to guide the eye. ~
1478: b) The same sets of data as in a), but with $\bar{S}_{c}(q,0;N)$ subtracted.}
1479: \end{center}
1480: \end{figure}
1481:
1482: \begin{figure}
1483: \label{fig3}
1484: \begin{center}
1485: \epsfig{figure=sim03.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1486: \caption[]{$\bar{S}_{c}$ measured for $q^{2} R_{g}^{2} \approx 3.3$
1487: as function of $t/T_{3}$ in the long time regime.
1488: Heavy dots: $N = 320$; small dots: $N = 80$.
1489: Full curve: primitive chain result (3.3). $T_{3} (N = 320)$ has been
1490: adjusted to bring the long-time tail of the data for $N = 320$ on top
1491: of the theoretical curve. $T_{3} (80) = T_{3} (320)/4^{3}$.
1492: Some typical error bars (two standard deviations) are shown
1493: for $N = 320$. The statistical error rapidly decreases with
1494: decreasing $t/T_{3}$. For $t/T_{3} < 10^{-0.5}$ it is smaller
1495: than the size of the dots.}
1496: \end{center}
1497: \end{figure}
1498: \newpage
1499:
1500: \begin{figure}
1501: \label{fig4}
1502: \begin{center}
1503: \epsfig{figure=sim04.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1504: \caption[]{Data for $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t,N)$ for chain length $N = 320$,
1505: wave vectors $|{\bf q}| = 0.25,~ 0.5, ~1.0$, as function of the Monte Carlo
1506: time; dots: medium time runs $(t_{\rm max}^{(MC)} = 10^{8})$;
1507: circles: long time runs $(t_{\rm max}^{(MC)} = 4.5 \cdot 10^{9})$.
1508: The curves give the results of the primitive chain model, fitted to
1509: the data as explained in the text. The arrow points to the equilibration
1510: time $T_{2}^{(MC)}(320)$, the heavy bar gives
1511: $T_{3}^{(MC)}(320) = 10^{7.82}$. Some typical error bars
1512: (two standard deviations) are shown for $q = 1.0, ~0.25$.}
1513: \end{center}
1514: \end{figure}
1515: \newpage
1516:
1517: \begin{figure}
1518: \label{fig5}
1519: \begin{center}
1520: \epsfig{figure=sim05.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1521: \caption[]{Results for the reptation time defined in terms of the long time behavior of $\bar{S}_{c}$ (dots) or in terms of the motion of the endsegment (circles). The asymptotic behavior $T_3 \sim N^3$ has been divided out. The lines correspond to power laws $T_{3} \sim N^{3.2}$ (full line) or $T_{3} \sim N^{3.5}$ (broken line). The short dashed line gives the asymptotic limit.}
1522: \end{center}
1523: \end{figure}
1524: \newpage
1525:
1526: \begin{figure}
1527: \label{fig6}
1528: \begin{center}
1529: \epsfig{figure=sim06.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1530: \caption[]{Fit of $\bar{S}_{dG}$ (Eq.\ (3.9)) to data for
1531: $N = 320,~ q = 1.0$. Solid line: $N_{e} = 3.69$, corresponding to $B_{dG} = 0.903$; dashes: $B_{dG} = 0.82,~ t_{1}$ (Eq.\ (3.8)) divided
1532: by $200$. The arrow points to the equilibration time $T_{2}^{(MC)}$.
1533: Data, small dots: short time runs $(t_{\rm max}^{(MC)} = 10^{5})$;
1534: heavy dots: medium time runs $(t_{\rm max}^{(MC)} = 10^{8})$, circles: long time runs $(t^{(MC)}_{\rm max} = 5 \cdot 10^{10})$ .}
1535: \end{center}
1536: \end{figure}
1537: \newpage
1538:
1539: \begin{figure}
1540: \label{fig7}
1541: \begin{center}
1542: \epsfig{figure=sim07.ps,width=0.45\linewidth}
1543: \caption[]{Monte Carlo data for $\bar{S}_{c}(q,t,N)$ compared to
1544: reptation theory (full line), as function of $\log_{10} \hat{t}$.
1545: Chain length $N = 80$; wave vector $q = 0.5024~ (q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 3.32)$.
1546: Long dashed line: best fit to the primitive chain model $(\bar{S}_{DE})$.
1547: Short dashed line: $\bar{S}_{c}$ calculated neglecting tube destruction.
1548: The arrow points to $\hat{T}_{2}$, the heavy slash gives $\hat{T}_{3}$.
1549: Data, small dots: average over $10^{4}$ short time runs; heavy dots:
1550: averages over 50 medium time runs.}
1551: \end{center}
1552: \end{figure}
1553: \newpage
1554:
1555: \begin{figure}
1556: \label{fig8}
1557: \begin{center}
1558: \epsfig{figure=sim08.ps,width=0.45\linewidth}
1559: \caption[]{Data compared to reptation theory. $N = 160$;
1560: $q = 0.1 ~(q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 0.267)$; $q = 0.5 ~(q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 6.665)$;
1561: $q = 1.0 ~(q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 26.61)$. Arrow: $\hat{T}_{2}$;
1562: slash: $\hat{T}_{3}$. Small dots: short time runs; heavy dots:
1563: runs for intermediate time; circles: long time runs. The time regimes
1564: overlap. Some error bars (two standard deviations) are also given.}
1565: \end{center}
1566: \end{figure}
1567:
1568: \begin{figure}
1569: \label{fig9}
1570: \begin{center}
1571: \epsfig{figure=sim09.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1572: \caption[]{Same as Fig.~8, but for $N = 320$;
1573: $q = 0.25 ~(q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 3.33)$; $q = 0.5~ (q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 13.33)$;
1574: $q = 1.0~ (q^{2} R_{g}^{2} = 53.22)$.}
1575: \end{center}
1576: \end{figure}
1577:
1578: \begin{figure}
1579: \label{fig0}
1580: \begin{center}
1581: \epsfig{figure=sim10.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1582: \caption[]{Coherent structure function of the central piece of length
1583: $M = 80$ in a chain of length $N = 320$, normalized to the static
1584: structure function of a chain of length $M$. Wave vector $q = 0.5$.
1585: Full line: full result of the theory; broken line: result neglecting
1586: tube destruction. The long slash through the curve at
1587: $\log_{10} \hat{t} \approx 6.27$ gives the time where tube destruction
1588: on average reaches the subchain $M = 80$, as derived from our theory.
1589: Other symbols as in Figs.\ 8 and 9.
1590: }
1591: \end{center}
1592: \end{figure}
1593: \newpage
1594:
1595: \begin{figure}
1596: \label{fig11}
1597: \begin{center}
1598: \epsfig{figure=sim11.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1599: \caption[]{Normalized coherent structure functions of central subchains
1600: of lengths $M$ in a chain of length $N = 320$. Wave vector $q = 1.0$.
1601: $M = 320$ represents scattering from the total chain.
1602: Symbols are as in Figs.\ 8, 9.}
1603: \end{center}
1604: \end{figure}
1605:
1606: \begin{figure}
1607: \label{fig12}
1608: \begin{center}
1609: \epsfig{figure=sim12.ps,width=0.5\linewidth}
1610: \caption[]{Deviation between theory and experiment:
1611: $\delta S = \bar{S}\mbox{(Monte Carlo)} - A \cdot \bar{S}~\mbox{(theory)}$,
1612: for $q = 1.0$. Connected data points: results for $M = 40~ (N = 160,~320)$,
1613: $M = 80~ (N = 160,~320)$, $M = 160~(N = 320)$, (from below).
1614: For $M = 40,~80$ the results for the two different lengths $N$
1615: of the total chain fall right on top of each other.
1616: Disconnected points: $M = N = 160$.}
1617: \end{center}
1618: \end{figure}
1619:
1620: \end{document}
1621:
1622: