1: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{bm}
4: \bibstyle{apsrev.bib}
5: \newcommand{\ave}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Magnetophoresis in the Rubinstein -- Duke model}
9: \author{A. Drzewi\'nski}
10: \affiliation{Institute of Low Temperature and Structure Research,
11: Polish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 1410, Wroc\l aw 2, Poland}
12: \author{E. Carlon}
13: \affiliation{Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at des Saarlandes,
14: D-66041 Saarbr\"ucken, Germany}
15: \affiliation{Interdisciplinary Research Institute c/o IEMN,
16: Cit\'e Scientifique BP 69, F-59652 Villeneuve d'Ascq, France}
17: \author{J.M.J. van Leeuwen}
18: \affiliation{Instituut-Lorentz, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9506,
19: 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands}
20:
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: We consider the magnetophoresis problem within the Rubinstein -- Duke
26: model, i.e. a reptating polymer pulled by a constant field applied
27: to a single repton at the edge of a chain. Extensive density matrix
28: renormalization calculations are presented of the drift velocity and
29: the profile of the chain for various strengths of the driving field and
30: chain lengths. We show that the velocities and the average densities
31: of stored length are well described by simple interpolating crossover
32: formulae, derived under the assumption that the difference between
33: the drift and curvilinear velocities vanishes for sufficiently long
34: chains. The profiles, which describe the average shape of the reptating
35: chain, also show interesting features as some non-monotonic behavior of
36: the links densities for sufficiently strong pulling fields. We develop
37: a description in which a distinction is made between links entering at the
38: pulled head and at the unpulled tail. At weak fields the separation between
39: the head zone and the tail zone meanders through the whole chain, while the
40: probability of finding it close to the edges drops off. At strong fields
41: the tail zone is confined to a small region close to the unpulled edge
42: of the polymer.
43:
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{47.50.+d, 05.10.-a, 83.10.Ka}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: The magnetophoresis problems is a member of the class of reptation problems
53: in which a long polymer is driven through a gel. The reptative motion of the
54: polymer can be succesfully modeled by a lattice version using sections of
55: the polymer (the reptons) as the mobile units, which hop stochastically
56: from cell to cell.
57: The driving field is incorporated as a
58: bias in the hopping rates, favoring the motion in the field direction. A
59: simple and adequate model is the Rubistein - Duke model \cite{RD}, which
60: represents the polymer as a chain of $N$ independently moving reptons,
61: with the restriction that the integrity of the chain is preserved.
62: The reptons trace out a connected string of cells in space, each cell
63: containing at least one repton. The cells, which can be multiply occupied,
64: carry the extra reptons as units of stored length. In order to preserve
65: the integrity of the chain, only those reptons which are located in cells
66: with stored length can hop.
67:
68: Usually one considers the case of polyelectrolytes in which the reptons
69: are uniformly charged. Thus the driving field pulls equally on all reptons
70: and the bias is the same for the hopping rates all along the chain.
71: A practical situation where this occurs is in DNA electrophoresis
72: \cite{viovy}. The DNA molecules, being acid, get charged in solution
73: and when they are placed in a gel subject to an external electric field
74: they perform a biased reptative motion along the field direction.
75: Electrophoresis is a technique of great importance in molecular biology
76: and sequence analysis, as it allows to separate DNA strands according
77: to their length \cite{viovy}.
78:
79: In nature the charge distribution is of course
80: not always uniform. The extreme alternative is the case where all reptons
81: are neutral except one end repton, which is charged. A possible realization
82: of such a situation is a magnetic bead, attached at one end of the polymer,
83: which is driven by a magnetic field. Therefore this case can be referred
84: to as the magnetophoresis (MP) problem \cite{bark96}.
85: It is the subject of this paper. As we will frequently compare our findings
86: with the more common case of the uniformly charged polymer, we will, for
87: briefness, refer to the latter as the electrophoresis (EP) problem and to
88: the present one as the MP problem, although the distinction between the two
89: is not electromagnetic, but only in the forces exerted on the reptons
90: (see Fig. \ref{RD}).
91:
92: %%%%%%%% FIG 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93: \begin{figure}[t]
94: \includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{fig1.eps}
95: \caption{Examples of configurations of reptating polymers in the
96: Rubistein -- Duke model in the case of (a) Electrophoresis and (b)
97: Magnetophoresis. Black reptons perform a biased motion along the
98: direction of the applied field while white reptons are unbiased.
99: The configuration for a chain with $N$ reptons is given by a set of
100: $N-1$ integers $(y_1, y_2 \ldots y_{N-1})$
101: measuring the distance of two neighboring reptons along the field
102: direction (thus $y_i = 0, \pm 1$). For the two examples shown the
103: coordinates are $(1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1)$ for (a) and
104: $(1,1,1,0,-1,1,1,1,0,1,0)$ for (b).
105: }
106: \label{RD}
107: \end{figure}
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109:
110: The MP problem, within the framework of the Rubinstein--Duke model, has
111: so far been studied by means of Monte Carlo simulations \cite{bark96},
112: and the calculations were mostly restricted to the drift velocity as
113: function of the applied field and chain length.
114: In this paper we analyze the MP problem by means of density-matrix
115: renormalization-group (DMRG) techniques, which allow us to perform
116: a detailed analysis of both global quantities as drift and curvilinear
117: velocities and diffusion coefficient, but also on local average shapes
118: of the polymer.
119:
120: The dynamics of the reptating chain is governed by the Master Equation
121: which we put in the form
122: \begin{equation}
123: {\partial P ({\bf y}, t) \over \partial t} =
124: \sum_{\bf y'} H({\bf y}, {\bf y'}) P ({\bf y'}, t)
125: \label{aa1}
126: \end{equation}
127: Here ${\bf y}$ stands for the set of links $y_1, \cdots ,y_{N-1}$, where
128: $y_j$ measures the distance between the repton $j$ and $j+1$, along
129: the direction of the applied field. In our lattice representation the
130: $y_j$ can take the values $\pm 1$ and $0$. The value $y_j=0$ corresponds
131: to the case that the reptons $j$ and $j+1$ occupy the same cell. Thus
132: each zero is a unit of stored length. The non--zero values represent
133: the cases where $j+1$ occupies a cell ``higher'' (1) or ``lower'' (-1)
134: than $j$. Higher and lower refer to a position in the direction of the
135: field. ${\bf y}$ represents a complete configuration of the chain (see
136: Fig. \ref{RD}). $P ({\bf y}, t)$ is the probability distribution of
137: the configuration at time $t$ and the matrix $H({\bf y, y'})$ contains
138: the gain and loss transitions from ${\bf y'}$ to ${\bf y}$. The bias in
139: the hopping rate is contained in the matrix elements of $H$. Generally
140: we have for the bias factor
141: \begin{equation}
142: B_j = \exp (aq_j E/k_B T)
143: \label{aa2}
144: \end{equation}
145: with $q_j$ the charge of repton $j$, $E$ the driving field, $a$ the
146: distance between adjacent cells (measured along the field direction)
147: and $k_B T$ the standard combination of Boltzmann's constant and the
148: absolute temperature. In the MP problem all $q_j = 0$ except for $j=N$.
149: We put
150: \begin{equation}
151: B_{N} \equiv B = \exp (\varepsilon/2)
152: \label{aa3}
153: \end{equation}
154: and use $\varepsilon$ as the parameter for the driving field. The other
155: parameter of the model is the number of reptons N.
156:
157: We have chosen this ``hamiltonian form'' of the Master Equation in
158: order to stress the formal correspondence with a quantum mechanical model
159: governed by a hamiltonian matrix. The DMRG method exploits this analogy
160: and indeed its success in one-dimensional quantum problems carries over to
161: reptation problems \cite{paper1,paper2,paes02}. We are interested in the
162: stationary state of the probability distribution. In the quantum language
163: this corresponds to finding the right eigenvector of $H$ belonging to
164: the eigenvalue zero. The adaptation of the DMRG method to the MP problem
165: is straightforward and the data presented in this paper are obtained
166: by the DMRG method. An important difference with the Master Equation
167: is that in quantum mechanical problems the hamiltonian is hermitian,
168: whereas in the reptation problem the matrix $H$ is non--hermitian, due
169: to the influence of the driving field. This restricts the applicability
170: of the DMRG--method to moderately long chains and/or small driving fields.
171:
172: The physics of the EP and MP problems is qualitatively different. As
173: illustration consider the weak field case ($\varepsilon$ small), where
174: the Nernst--Einstein relation $v = F D$ relates the drift velocity
175: $v$ to the total applied force $F$ and the diffusion coefficient $D$.
176: The force $F$, equals $N \varepsilon$ in the EP case, since one pulls at
177: each repton. It is well known that $v$ scales as $v \sim \varepsilon /N$,
178: yielding for the diffusion the non--trivial result $D \sim N^{-2}$. In
179: the MP problem $D$ will be essentially the same, as hopping is limited
180: by the availability of stored length. In both cases the motion can be
181: considered as diffusion of stored length. Since $F=\varepsilon$ in the
182: MP problem, we expect the drift velocity to scale as $v \sim \varepsilon
183: N^{-2}$, a feature which is born out by our calculations.
184:
185: In the Sec. \ref{sec:moments} we discuss some moment equations derived
186: from the Master Equation which are more helpful then in the EP problem
187: in analyzing the drift-- and curvilinear velocity.
188: They are expressed in terms of the
189: probabilities $n^k_j$ that the link $j$ has the value $y_j=k$. The sum
190: of the $n^k_j$ adds up to 1
191: \begin{equation}
192: n^0_j + n^+_j + n^-_j = 1
193: \label{aa4}
194: \end{equation}
195: So it suffices to consider the two quantities $n^0_j$ and $m_j$ defined by
196: \begin{equation}
197: n^0_j = \langle \, 1 - y^2_j \, \rangle \quad \quad \quad
198: m_j = \langle \, y_j \, \rangle = n^+_j - n^-_j
199: \label{a5}
200: \end{equation}
201: $n^0_j$ can be called the local density of stored length. $m_j$ is a
202: measure for the local orientation and will be referred to as the
203: profile of the chain.
204:
205: In the Sections \ref{sec:global} and \ref{sec:profiles} we present
206: our data for the velocities and the profiles. The analysis is most
207: transparent in the strong field limit where we can make an ansatz which
208: almost perfectly represents the data. In section \ref{sec:profiles} we
209: discuss the behavior of the profile for weak and strong pulling fields.
210:
211: \section{Moments of the Master Equation}
212: \label{sec:moments}
213:
214: The DMRG method deals with the whole probability distribution $P({\bf
215: y})$. In the MP problem it is fruitful to consider moments of the Master
216: Equation. One set of moments is obtained by multiplying Eq. (\ref{aa1})
217: with $y_j$ and then summing over all ${\bf y}$. This leads to $N-1$
218: relations which can be seen as an expression of the fact that the drift
219: velocity $v$ across all the $N-1$ links of the chain must be the same
220: on the average. An even more useful set of relations is obtained by
221: multiplying the Master Equation by $y^2_j$ and summing over all ${\bf
222: y}$. The resulting $N-1$ relations are an expression of the fact that the
223: curvilinear velocity $J$ is the same across all links. These relations
224: obtain the form
225: \begin{equation}
226: J = n^0_{j-1} - n^0_j \quad \quad \quad 1 < j < N
227: \label{bb1}
228: \end{equation}
229: which can be viewed as the familiar law that the current $J$ equals
230: minus the gradient of the density of the stored length. In addition to
231: Eq. (\ref{bb1}) one has two relations \cite{footnote} concerning the
232: traffic in and out both ends of the chain. They read
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: J &=& 1 - 3 n^0_1, \nonumber\\
235: J &=& (n^0_{N-1} - n^-_{N-1}) B + (n^0_{N-1} - n^+_{N-1}) B^{-1}
236: \label{bb2}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238:
239: The expression for the drift velocity involves correlations between
240: neighboring links
241: \begin{equation}
242: v = \langle \, (1- y^2_{j-1}) y_j - (1 - y^2_j ) y_{j-1} \, \rangle
243: \label{bb3}
244: \end{equation}
245: and it is therefore not as informative as Eq. (\ref{bb1}).
246: As one sees Eq. (\ref{bb2}) involves only averages
247: over the first (last) link. This holds also for the expressions for the
248: drift velocity in terms of the averages of the first and last link.
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: v &=& m_1, \nonumber \\ %\quad \quad \quad
251: v &=& (n^0_{N-1} + n^-_{N-1}) B - (n^0_{N-1} + n^+_{N-1}) B^{-1}
252: \label{bb4}
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: These equations have been derived by Barkema and Sch\"utz \cite{bark96}
255: using balance arguments.
256:
257: Equation (\ref{bb1}) is a powerful relation since it allows to express
258: the density of stored length in terms of the curvilinear velocity
259: \begin{equation}
260: n^0_j = n^0_1 - (j-1) J
261: \label{bb5}
262: \end{equation}
263: showing that the density profile is linear in the position of the cell.
264: In particular (\ref{bb5}) implies a relation between the densities of
265: the first and last cell
266: \begin{equation}
267: n^0_{N-1} = n^0_1 - (N-2) J
268: \label{bb6}
269: \end{equation}
270: We have used the linearity of the density $n^0_j$ as a check of
271: the numerical calculations.
272:
273: Counting the number of unknowns ($v$, $J$, $n^0_1$, $n^0_{N-1}$,
274: $m_1$, $m_{N-1}$) and the number of equations (\ref{bb2}), (\ref{bb4})
275: and (\ref{bb6}) we see that we have one more unknown than equations.
276: This situation is similar to the EP problem. There the expression for the
277: curvilinear velocity does not obtain the simple form (\ref{bb1}), due to
278: the bias on the internal reptons. So one misses relation (\ref{bb6}).
279: On the other hand $J=0$ for EP, due to the symmetry of the polymer on
280: exchanging head and tail. Thus in both cases the moment equations are
281: not sufficient to determine the velocities. Higher moments do not lead
282: to additional information since again higher order correlations appear.
283:
284: \section{Global quantities}
285: \label{sec:global}
286:
287: We discuss first the behavior of global quantities as the drift and curvilinear
288: velocities and the diffusion constant.
289:
290: \subsection{The Weak Field Limit}
291:
292: In the weak field limit the polymer assumes mostly a random configuration
293: and all the densities $n^k_j$ are close to 1/3. The overal behavior of the
294: drift velocity $v$ as function of $\varepsilon$ and $N$ is given in
295: Fig. \ref{fig02}. Note that the drift velocity becomes proportional to
296: $\varepsilon$ for small $\varepsilon$, as expected on the basis of the
297: Nernst -- Einstein relation discussed above. For stronger fields, the
298: velocity saturates to a finite values, as discussed in the next paragraph.
299: A similar dependence of $v$ on $\varepsilon$ and $N$ was observed in
300: the Monte Carlo study of Ref. \cite{bark96}.
301: The limiting behavior for small $\varepsilon$ and large $N$ is thus:
302: \begin{equation} \label{c1}
303: v(N) \sim \varepsilon D(N) \sim \frac{\varepsilon}{N^2},
304: \end{equation}
305: with $D(N)$ the zero field diffusion coefficient.
306: The scaling behavior of $D(N)$ as function of the length $N$ has been
307: studied quite intensively \cite{wido91,bark97,bark98,fris00}. Reptation
308: theory predicts that $D(N) \sim 1/N^2$, while conflicting results appeared
309: on experimental measurements, for which both $1/N^2$ and, more recently,
310: $1/N^{2.3}$ \cite{lodge} have been reported.
311:
312: %%%%%%%% FIG 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313: \begin{figure}[t]
314: \centering
315: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps}
316: \caption{ Plot of $\log v$ vs. $\log \varepsilon$ for various $N$.}
317: \label{fig02}
318: \end{figure}
319: %%%%%%%% FIG 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320:
321: A detailed study of the scaling of $D(N)$, within the Rubinstein--Duke
322: model by means of DMRG method was recently performed \cite{paper1,paper2},
323: for various end-point stretching rates. In that case the diffusion
324: coefficient was calculated from the limiting value of the drift velocity
325: for $\varepsilon \to 0$, with the field acting on all reptons (the EP problem).
326: Here we repeat the same analysis only for a single case (using a stretching
327: rate $d=1$ following the definition of $d$ of Refs. \cite{paper1,paper2}).
328: The advantage of calculating $D(N)$ with a small field acting only on an
329: end repton is that the DMRG procedure is much more stable in this case and
330: one can compute longer chains. This is due to the fact that in the MP
331: problem non-hermiticity is restricted only to the repton where the field
332: is applied. As mentioned in the introduction non-hermiticity hampers the
333: efficiency of the DMRG method.
334:
335: In order to calculate the diffusion coefficient from the Nernst-Einstein
336: relation $D = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} v/\varepsilon$ in practice,
337: we used a small field ($\varepsilon = 10^{-3}$) and checked
338: explicitely that results do not change for smaller fields. The scaling
339: behavior of the diffusion coefficient is expected to be:
340: \begin{equation} \label{c3}
341: D(N) N^2 = A + \frac{A'}{\sqrt{N}} + \ldots
342: \end{equation}
343: with $A$ and $A'$ some constants. The form of the subleading correction to $D(N)$
344: has been debated for a while \cite{bark,prah} and recent DMRG results
345: suggest that it is of the type $1/\sqrt{N}$ \cite{paper1}, supporting
346: Eq. (\ref{c3}). The coefficient was determined exactly \cite{vLK,prah, Al-L}:
347: $A = 1/3$.
348:
349: To analyze the scaling behavior of $D(N)$ it is most convenient to use the
350: logarithmic derivative of the DMRG data:
351: \begin{equation} \label{c2}
352: \alpha (N) = - \frac{ \ln \left[ D (N) \right]
353: - \ln \left[ D (N+2) \right]}{\ln N-\ln (N+2)} ,
354: \end{equation}
355: which is shown for $N =9$, $11$, \ldots, $51$ in Fig. \ref{diff}.
356: Plugging
357: Eq. (\ref{c3}) in Eq. (\ref{c2}) one finds for the effective exponent
358: $\alpha (N) = 2 + A'/(2 A \sqrt{N})$, a behavior which is accurately
359: reproduced by our numerical data of Fig. \ref{diff}. The present
360: results corroborate previous claims \cite{paper1} about the scaling form
361: of $D(N)$.
362:
363: %%%%%%%% FIG 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
364: \begin{figure}[t]
365: \centering
366: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig3.eps}
367: \caption{Plot of the effective exponent $\alpha(N)$ calculated for
368: $\varepsilon=10^{-3}$ up to $N=51$ from the decay of the
369: diffusion coefficient $D(N)$ and plotted as a function of
370: $1/\sqrt{N}$. The fact that $\alpha(N)$ approaches linearly
371: the limiting value $2$ supports the scaling form for the
372: diffusion coefficient given in Eq.(13).}
373: \label{diff}
374: \end{figure}
375: %%%%%%%% FIG 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
376:
377: \subsection{The Strong Field Limit}
378:
379: %%%%%%%% FIG 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
380: \begin{figure}[t]
381: \centering
382: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig4.eps}
383: \caption{Difference between the drift $v$ and curvilinear $J$ velocities
384: as function of the applied field and for various chain lengths.}
385: \label{diffvJN}
386: \end{figure}
387: %%%%%%%% FIG 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
388:
389: %%%%%%%% FIG 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
390: \begin{figure}[b]
391: \centering
392: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig5.eps}
393: \caption{Comparison between the DMRG data (symbols) and the crossover
394: formula (solid lines) of Eq. (\ref{d5}) for the curvilinear velocity $J$.}
395: \label{JNcrov}
396: \end{figure}
397: %%%%%%%% FIG 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398:
399: In the strong field limit the polymer assumes an oriented configuration,
400: with the '+' links dominating at the pulled end. At the other end we still
401: have a substantial amount of links '0', since the polymer can only move by
402: the diffusion of stored length from the tail to the head. Eliminating $n^0_1$
403: from Eq. (\ref{bb5}) with the use of Eq. (\ref{bb2}) we get
404: \begin{equation} \label{d1}
405: n^0_{N-1} = {1 \over 3} (1 - K J),
406: \end{equation}
407: where $K = 3N - 5$.
408: In order that $n^0_{N-1}$ stays finite for $N \rightarrow \infty$, the
409: curvilinear velocity must vanish as
410: \begin{equation} \label{d2}
411: J \sim K^{-1} \quad \quad \quad N \rightarrow \infty
412: \end{equation}
413: As one sees from (\ref{d1}) this limiting value is not sufficient to
414: determine the limiting value of density $n^0_{N-1}$, which is sensitive
415: to the corrections to (\ref{d2}). For the strong field limit it is useful
416: to relate the drift velocity to the curvilinear velocity. With (\ref{bb2})
417: and (\ref{bb3}) we get
418: \begin{equation} \label{d3}
419: v=J+2(n_{N-1}^{-} B - n_{N-1}^{0} B^{-1}),
420: \end{equation}
421: Now, if the polymer is fully stretched, $v$ and $J$ become the same.
422: In Fig. \ref{diffvJN} we have plotted the difference $v-J$ as calculated by
423: DMRG for various fields and chain lengths. We note that it is small for all
424: values of $\varepsilon$ and $N$, in particular for strong fields and that
425: this tendency is enforced for long polymers. That it also is small in the
426: small field limit is a consequence of the fact that both quantities vanish
427: in that limit.
428: In order for the difference to vanish we must have
429: \begin{equation} \label{d4}
430: n^0_{N-1} \simeq B^2 n^-_{N-1}
431: \end{equation}
432: Now we may use this relation as the 6th relation, which enables us to make all the desired
433: quantities explicit functions of $\varepsilon$ and $N$. We find for instance
434: \begin{eqnarray} \label{d5}
435: J(B)=v(B)=\frac{B^4-2 B^2 +1}{K(B^4+B^2+1)+3 B^3},\\
436: n_{N-1}^{0}(B)=\frac{1+B/K}{B^2+1 + 3B/K+1/B^2}.
437: \label{d5b}
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: This explicit field dependence is compared to the data in Fig. \ref{JNcrov}
440: and Fig. \ref{n0Ncrov}.
441: The agreement is excellent in both cases. Note also that Eq. (\ref{d5}) is consistent
442: with Eq. (\ref{d2}) and that it provides the proportionality coefficient.
443:
444: However, the crossover formulae (\ref{d5})-(\ref{d5b}) do not describe the
445: subtile dependencies in the limit of small fields $B =
446: \exp(\varepsilon/2) \to 1$. In this limit the drift
447: velocity vanishes as $v \sim \varepsilon$, while one observes from (\ref{d5}),
448: that the curvilinear velocity vanishes as $J \sim \varepsilon^2$.
449: For this reason, in the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$, the
450: crossover formula (\ref{d5}) predicts $v \sim \varepsilon^2/(3 N - 5)$,
451: in disagreement with the correct scaling behavior of Eq. (\ref{c1}).
452: The strong field limit does not suffer from this problem. We note, for
453: instance, that in the limit $N \to \infty$ the saturation value of the
454: velocity for $B \to \infty$ is in agreement with the exact expression
455: given in Ref. \cite{bark96}: $v = 1/(3 N - 5)$.
456:
457: %%%%%%%% FIG 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \begin{figure}[t]
459: \centering
460: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig6.eps}
461: \caption{Comparison between the DMRG data (symbols) and the crossover
462: formula (solid lines) of Eq. (\ref{d5b}) for $n^0_{N-1}$.}
463: \label{n0Ncrov}
464: \end{figure}
465: %%%%%%%% FIG 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
466:
467: \section{Profiles}
468: \label{sec:profiles}
469:
470: Next we discuss some profiles, {\bf i.e.} the local orientation
471: $m_i \equiv \langle y_i \rangle$ as function of the segment position
472: along the chain. We consider $N-1$ segments, thus $N$-reptons with the
473: charged one at head position $N$. Fig. \ref{profE0-001} shows a plot
474: of $m_i/\epsilon $ as function of the scaled variable $(i-1)/(N-2)$ for
475: chains of various lengths and at fixed field $\varepsilon = 0.001$. This
476: profile corresponds to the linear regime where the drift velocity scales
477: as $v \sim \varepsilon$. The notable feature is a symmetry
478: between head and tail with
479: respect to the center of the chain, although the magnetophoresis problem
480: is clearly asymmetric. This symmetry can be shown \cite{next} to be strict in the weak field limit.
481: It disappears for stronger values of
482: the field as Fig. \ref{profE1} shows, where profiles are plotted for
483: $\epsilon = 1$ and various lengths N.
484:
485: %%%%%%%% FIG 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
486: \begin{figure}[t]
487: \centering
488: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig7.eps}
489: \caption{Average profiles $\langle y_i \rangle / \varepsilon$ for various
490: lengths and for $\varepsilon = 10^{-3}$.}
491: \label{profE0-001}
492: \end{figure}
493: %%%%%%%% FIG 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494:
495: %%%%%%%% FIG 8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496: \begin{figure}[b]
497: \centering
498: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig8.eps}
499: \caption{As in Fig. \protect\ref{profE0-001} for $\varepsilon = 1$.}
500: \label{profE1}
501: \end{figure}
502: %%%%%%%% FIG 8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
503:
504: In order to analyze the data further we also plot the individual
505: probabilities $n^k_i$ for having a $+, 0$ or $-$ at the site $i$
506: of the chain. For small values of $\epsilon$ (not shown here) the curves
507: are all near
508: $1/3$, with a slight excess of $+$ links at the head and a depletion
509: of $-$ links. The densities of $+$ and $-$ links are monotonically
510: increasing and decreasing functions of the position $i$.
511: For intermediate fields $\epsilon = 1$, the densities are more interesting
512: and in Fig. \ref{nk_inter} we plot the values of $n^0_i$, $n^+_i$ and
513: $n^-_i$ for $N=51$. The linear behavior for $n^0_i$
514: is consistent with Eq. (\ref{bb5}).
515: The curve for $n^+_i$ is monotonically increasing, but that for
516: $n^-_i$ is {\it not} monotonically decreasing.
517:
518: %%%%%%%% FIG 9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
519: \begin{figure}[t]
520: \centering
521: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig9.eps}
522: \caption{Plot of the average densities $\langle n^+_i \rangle$,
523: $\langle n^0_i \rangle$ and $\langle n^-_i \rangle$ for $\varepsilon
524: = 1$ and $N=51$. Inset: Blow up of the density $n^-_i$, showing
525: a non-monotonic behavior with a linear increase as function of $i$
526: by approaching the pulled edge.}
527: \label{nk_inter}
528: \end{figure}
529: %%%%%%%% FIG 9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530:
531: The qualitative behavior of the orientation profile can be understood
532: by considering the ``origin'' of the non-zero links ($y_i = \pm 1$)
533: as has been introduced by Barkema and Newman \cite{bark97}. In the MP
534: problem more links are created at the pulled head than at the tail.
535: They stream gradually down to the tail. We can keep track for every link
536: $y_i = \pm 1$, whether it is formed at the head or at the tail. After
537: sufficient time the chain is divided into two zones: a head zone and a
538: tail zone. They are separated by a small intermediate region with zeroes
539: (we do not follow the origin of the zeroes). The zones remain separated
540: because the $y_i = \pm 1$, created at the head cannot cross the $y_i =
541: \pm 1$ created at the tail. The division between the two zones fluctuates
542: in time and occasionally the tail zone disappears, while very rarely
543: (particularly at large fields) the head zone vanishes. The larger
544: the force on the head, the larger the asymmetry between the head and
545: tail zones. We supplement these speculations by making an assumption
546: on the ratios
547:
548: \begin{equation}
549: \label{a3}
550: r_i (j) = p^+_i (j) / p^-_i (j)
551: \end{equation}
552: where $ p^\pm_i (j)$ is the probability of finding a $\pm$ at $i$ when
553: the division is at $j$. We put
554: \begin{eqnarray}
555: r_i (j) = r_h & \quad {\rm for} \quad j < i \\
556: r_i (j) = 1 & \quad {\rm for} \quad j \geq i
557: \label{a4}
558: \end{eqnarray}
559: Since in the tail zone there is no distinction between $+$ and $-$ we
560: have set the ratio equal to 1. The idea, underlying this assumption,
561: is that the $+$ and $-$ links are interlocked. So while moving in their
562: zone their ratio can not change.
563:
564: At position $i$ the average number of nonzero links ($+$ and $-$)
565: is equal to $1-n^0_i$. We introduce $f_i$ as the fraction of such nonzero
566: links which are in the head zone.
567: One can express the densities $n^\pm_i$ in terms of $f_i$ as
568:
569: \begin{equation}
570: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
571: n^+_i & = & \displaystyle \left(f_i \, {r_h \over r_h +1} +
572: (1-f_i) \,{1 \over 2} \right) [1 - n^0_i ] \\*[4mm]
573: n^-_i & = & \displaystyle \left( f_i \,{1 \over r_h +1} \, +
574: (1-f_i) \, {1 \over 2} \right) [1 - n^0_i ]
575: \end{array} \right.
576: \label{b4}
577: \end{equation}
578: In both equations the terms proportional to $f_i$ are the contributions that
579: $i$ is in the head zone while the terms proportional to $1-f_i$ are the
580: contributions from the case in which $i$ is in the tail zone.
581: We see that in the magnetophoresis
582: problem the situation simplifies, since we do not have to worry about
583: the tail zone. It drops out when we consider the profile
584: \begin{equation}
585: m_i = n^+_i - n^-_i = {r_h -1 \over r_h +1} f_i \, [1- n^0_i]
586: \label{b5}
587: \end{equation}
588: Thus the profile $m_i$ is, apart from the known factor $1- n^0_i$,
589: directly related to the fraction $f_i$. The latter has a simpler
590: interpretation. It starts out at $i=1$ with a value nearly zero, since the
591: head zone will only seldomly extend over the whole chain. It ends at $i=N-1$
592: at a value very close to 1, since the tail zone will hardly ever extend over the whole
593: zone. We can use this fact to tie the ratio $r_h$ to the end point values,
594: discussed earlier, by considering (\ref{b5}) for $i=N-1$
595: \begin{equation}
596: \label{b9}
597: \langle \, y_{N-1} \, \rangle = {r_h - 1 \over r_h +1} [1 - n^0_{N-1}]
598: \end{equation}
599: and solving for $r_h$. It leads to
600: \begin{equation}
601: \label{b10}
602: \langle \, y_i \, \rangle =
603: \langle \, y_{N-1} \, \rangle f_j \,{1 - n^0_i \over 1 - n^0_{N-1}}
604: \end{equation}
605: This form contains only $f_i$ as unknown. We can
606: draw some conclusions from Eqs. (\ref{b5}) and (\ref{b10}) for weak fields, as well
607: as for long chains at stronger fields.
608:
609: \subsection{Weak Fields}
610:
611: For $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ we may put
612: \begin{equation} \label{b6}
613: r_h = 1 + a_h \epsilon
614: \end{equation}
615: The function $1-n^0_i$ will approach the limit $2/3$, so (\ref{b5}) becomes
616: \begin{equation}
617: \langle \,y_i \,\rangle = \epsilon {a_h \over 3} f_i
618: \label{b7}
619: \end{equation}
620: For the zero field limit of the profile we can take the zero field limit
621: of $f_i$. It has the property that head and tail become equivalent or
622: \begin{equation} \label{b8}
623: f_i = 1 - f_{N+1-i} \quad \quad \quad {\rm or} \quad \quad \quad f_i + f_{N+1-i} = 1
624: \end{equation}
625: The zero field limit of $f_i$ has been determined in \cite{bark97} by Monte Carlo simulations.
626: We note that (\ref{b8}) is consistent with the mentioned \cite{next} symmetry
627: in $\langle y_i \rangle$.
628: One should have $a_h=2$ in order that the profile becomes $2 \epsilon /
629: 3$ at the head, as is observed (see Fig. \ref{profE0-001}). This is
630: perfectly in agreement with the value $r_h = B^4 \sim 1 + 2 \varepsilon$
631: for small $\varepsilon$. Combining (\ref{b7}) and the first Eq. (\ref{bb4})
632: we find that $f_1 $ is a measure for the drift velocity $v$. According to (\ref{c1}) $f_1$ should
633: vanish as $1/3N^2$. This result has been derived in \cite{bark97}.
634:
635: Another feature of Fig. \ref{profE0-001} seems to be the collapse of the data
636: on a single curve. Further data on longer chains show that the flattening--off at the ends
637: of the chain shrinks with the size of the system and that the slope in the middle slowly decreases.
638: This is another manifestation of the slow approach towards the asymptotic behavior \cite{next}
639: for large $N$.
640:
641:
642: Note that if the division between the head and tail region were located
643: with equal probability on all sites of the chain then one would have
644: simply $f_i = i/N$, which from Eq. (\ref{b7}) implies a linear profile.
645: The profile of Fig. \ref{profE0-001} is linear only at the center of the
646: chain, while it strongly deviates from linearity close to the edges.
647: This implies that the probability of finding the division between the
648: head and tail regions is flat in the center of the chain and drops off
649: at the chain edges.
650:
651: \subsection{Long Chains and stronger Fields}
652:
653: In this case the head zone will be dominant beyond a certain point
654: (i.e. $f_i = 1$ for $i > i_0$ ) in
655: the chain, thus the division between the head and tail zones is expected
656: to become localized close to the end of the chain which is not pulled.
657: The curves in Fig. \ref{nk_inter}
658: convincingly show this behavior. It is interesting to note that when
659: $f_i \to 1$, Eq. (\ref{b4}) becomes:
660: \begin{equation}
661: \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
662: n^+_i & = & \displaystyle [1 - n^0_i ] {r_h \over r_h +1}
663: \\*[4mm]
664: n^-_i & = & \displaystyle [1 - n^0_i ]{1 \over r_h +1}
665: \end{array} \right.
666: \label{l1}
667: \end{equation}
668: It immediately implies that both $n^+_i$ and $n^-_i$ are linearly
669: increasing functions of $i$ in the head zone, being $n^0_i$ a linearly
670: decreasing function of $i$ (see Eq. (\ref{bb5})). This explains the
671: monotonic increase of $n^-_i$ close to the pulled end shown in the inset
672: of Fig. \ref{nk_inter}. Note that using Eq. (\ref{l1}) one can estimate
673: $r_h$ from the ratio of the slopes of $n^+_i$ and $n^-_i$ in the head
674: region. We find a ratio $r_h \simeq B^4$ in agreement with our
675: crossover formulae.
676:
677: \section{Discussion}
678: \label{sec:discussion}
679:
680: We have presented a series of numerical and analytical results for the
681: MP problem in the Rubinstein - Duke model, where a single reptating
682: polymer is pulled by a constant driving field applied to one polymer
683: end. We have shown that the numerical data for the drift- and curvilinear
684: velocities can be quite well reproduced by simple interpolating formulas
685: following from the assumption that both velocities are equal in the limit
686: of long chains. Indeed the
687: measured differences are small which shows that the polymer is fairly
688: stretched by the pulling force.
689:
690: We studied also local quantities, as the profiles, which provide
691: information on the shape of the reptating chain. These are quite
692: well understood using a representation in which the polymer is divided
693: into a head and tail region, with different ratios of $+$ and $-$ links.
694: At small fields the division between the two regions meanders trough the
695: whole chain, and the probability of finding it close to the edges drops off.
696: At strong fields the division gets localized close to the free
697: end of the chain. Moreover some profiles show an unexpected non-monotonic
698: behavior which has a simple interpretation in the interface picture.
699: The precise shape of the profiles at weak fields close to the polymer
700: edges, both at finite $N$ and in the asymptotic limit $N \to \infty$,
701: will be discussed in details elsewhere \cite{next}.
702:
703: {\bf Acknowledgements:} This work has been supported by the Polish
704: Science Committee (KBN) under grant in years 2003-2005. A.D. acknowledges
705: a grant from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science (KNAW) enabling him
706: to stay at the Leiden University where part of this investigation were
707: carried out.
708:
709: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
710:
711: \bibitem{RD}
712: M. Rubinstein, \prl {\bf 59}, 1946 (1987);
713: T. A. J. Duke, \prl {\bf 62}, 2877 (1989).
714:
715: \bibitem{viovy}
716: J.-L. Viovy,
717: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 72}, 813 (2000);
718: G. W. Slater {\it et al.}, Electrophoresis
719: {\bf 23} 3791 (2002).
720:
721: \bibitem{bark96}
722: G.T. Barkema and G.M. Sch\"utz,
723: {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 35}, 139 (1996).
724:
725: \bibitem{paper1}
726: E. Carlon, A. Drzewi\'nski, and J. M. J. van Leeuwen,
727: \pre {\bf 64}, R010801 (2001).
728:
729: \bibitem{paper2}
730: E. Carlon, A. Drzewi\'nski, and J. M. J. van Leeuwen,
731: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 117}, 2435 (2002).
732:
733: \bibitem{paes02}
734: M. Paessens and G. M. Sch\"utz,
735: \pre {\bf 66}, 021806 (2002).
736:
737: \bibitem{wido91}
738: B. Widom, J.-L. Viovy and A. D. Defontaines,
739: J. Phys I France {\bf 1} , 1759 (1991).
740:
741: \bibitem{bark97}
742: G. T. Barkema and M. E. J. Newman,
743: Physica A {\bf 244}, 25 (1997).
744:
745: \bibitem{bark98}
746: G. T. Barkema and M. H. Krentzlin,
747: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 109}, 6486 (1998).
748:
749: \bibitem{fris00}
750: A. L. Frischknecht and S. T. Milner,
751: Macromolecules {\bf 33}, 5273 (2000);
752:
753: \bibitem{lodge}
754: T. P. Lodge, \prl {\bf 83}, 3218 (1999).
755:
756: \bibitem{footnote}
757: Elimination of $J$ from the equations (\ref{bb1})-(\ref{bb2})
758: gives the $N-1$ moment equations.
759:
760: \bibitem{bark}
761: G. T. Barkema, J. F. Marko and B. Widom,
762: \pre {\bf 49}, 5303 (1994).
763:
764: \bibitem{vLK}
765: J. M. J. van Leeuwen and A. Kooiman,
766: Physica A {\bf 184}, 79 (1992).
767:
768: \bibitem{prah}
769: M. Pr\"ahofer and H. Spohn,
770: Physica A {\bf 233}, 191 (1996).
771:
772: \bibitem{Al-L}
773: Michael Widom and I. Al-Lehyani,
774: Physica A {\bf 244}, 510 (1997).
775:
776: \bibitem{review_exclusion}
777: B. Derrida and M. R. Evans
778: in {\it Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics in One dimension},
779: edited by V. Privman
780: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997);
781: G. Sch\"utz
782: in {\it Phase transitions and critical phenomena}
783: edited by C. Domb and J. Lebowitz
784: (Academic, London 2000), vol. 19.
785:
786: \bibitem{next}
787: Shown in a forthcoming paper.
788: \end{thebibliography}
789: \end{document}