1: %\documentclass[preprint,prb,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,prb,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{Why do ultrasoft repulsive particles cluster and crystallize?\\

8: Analytical results from density functional theory}

9: 

10: \author{Christos N.\ Likos}

11: \email{likos@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de}

12: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik II: Weiche Materie,

13: Heinrich-Heine-Universit\"at D{\"u}sseldorf,

14: Universit{\"a}tsstra{\ss}e 1, D-40225 D\"{u}sseldorf,

15: Germany}

16: 

17: \author{Bianca M.\ Mladek}

18: \affiliation{Center for Computational Materials Science and Institut f\"ur

19:   Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit\"at Wien, Wiedner Hauptstra{\ss}e

20:   8-10, A-1040 Wien, Austria}

21: 

22: \author{Dieter Gottwald} 

23: \affiliation{Center for Computational Materials Science and Institut f\"ur

24:   Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit\"at Wien, Wiedner Hauptstra{\ss}e

25:   8-10, A-1040 Wien, Austria}

26: 

27: \author{Gerhard Kahl}

28: \affiliation{Center for Computational Materials Science and Institut f\"ur

29:   Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit\"at Wien, Wiedner Hauptstra{\ss}e

30:   8-10, A-1040 Wien, Austria}

31: 

32: \date{\today}

33: 

34: \begin{abstract}

35: We demonstrate the accuracy of the hypernetted chain closure and of

36: the mean-field approximation for the calculation of the

37: fluid-state properties of systems interacting by means of bounded

38: and positive-definite pair potentials with oscillating Fourier

39: transforms. Subsequently, we prove the validity of a bilinear,

40: random-phase density functional for arbitrary inhomogeneous phases

41: of the same systems. On the basis of this functional, we calculate

42: analytically the freezing parameters of the latter. We demonstrate

43: explicitly that the stable crystals feature a lattice constant that

44: is independent of density and 

45: whose value is dictated by the position of the negative minimum of

46: the Fourier transform of the pair potential.

47: This property is equivalent with the

48: existence of clusters, whose population scales proportionally to

49: the density. We establish that

50: regardless of the form of the interaction

51: potential and of the location on the freezing line, all 

52: cluster crystals have a universal Lindemann ratio $L_{\rm f} =

53: 0.189$ at freezing. 

54: We further make an explicit link between the 

55: aforementioned density functional and the harmonic theory of crystals.

56: This allows us to establish an equivalence between the 

57: emergence of clusters and the existence of negative

58: Fourier components of the interaction potential.

59: Finally, we make a connection between the 

60: class of models at hand and the system of infinite-dimensional

61: hard spheres, when the limits of interaction steepness and

62: space dimension are both taken to infinity in a particularly

63: described fashion.

64: \end{abstract}

65: 

66: \pacs{61.20.-p, 64.70.Dv, 82.70.-y, 61.46.Bc}

67: 

68: \maketitle

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: \label{intro:sec}

72: 

73: Cluster formation in complex fluids is a topic that has

74: attracted considerable attention 

75: recently.\cite{sear,fs1,fs2,bartlett1,bartlett2,lr1,lr2,jpcm,epl}

76: The general belief is that a short-range attraction in the

77: pair interaction potential is necessary to initiate 

78: aggregation and a long-range repulsive tail in order to

79: limit cluster growth and prevent phase separation. 

80: An alternative scenario for cluster formation pertains to systems whose 

81: constituent particles interact by means of 

82: purely repulsive potentials. Cluster formation in this case

83: is counterintuitive at first sight: why should particles form clusters

84: if there is no attraction acting between them? The answer lies

85: in an additional property of the effective repulsion, namely

86: that of being {\it bounded}, thus allowing full particle overlaps.

87: Though surprising and seemingly unphysical at first, bounded

88: interactions are fully legitimate and natural as effective

89: potentials\cite{likos:pr:01}

90: between polymeric macromolecular aggregates of low internal 

91: monomer concentration, such as 

92: polymers,\cite{krueger:89, hall:94, louis:prl:00}

93: dendrimers,\cite{ingo:jcp:04,ballik:ac:04} 

94: microgels,\cite{denton:03,gottwald:04,gottwald:05}

95: or coarse-grained block copolymers.\cite{pierleoni:prl:06,hansen:molphys:06} 

96: The growing

97: interest in this type of effective interactions is also underlined

98: by the recent mathematical proof of the existence of crystalline

99: ground states for such systems.\cite{suto:prl:05,suto:prb:06}

100: 

101: Cluster formation in the fluid {\it and} in the crystal phases

102: was explicitly seen in the system of penetrable spheres, 

103: following

104: early simulation results\cite{klein:94} and 

105: subsequent cell-model calculations.\cite{pensph:98} 

106: Cluster formation was

107: attributed there to the tendency of particles to 

108: create free space by 

109: forming full overlaps. The conditions under which ultrasoft

110: and purely repulsive particles form clusters have been conjectured

111: a few years ago\cite{criterion} and explicitly confirmed

112: by computer simulation very recently.\cite{bianca:prl:06}

113: The key lies in the behavior of

114: the Fourier transform of the effective interaction potential:

115: for clusters to form, it must contain negative parts, forming

116: thus the class of $Q^{\pm}$-interactions. The complementary

117: class of potentials with purely nonnegative Fourier transforms,

118: $Q^{+}$, does not lead to clustering but to remelting at high

119: densities.\cite{stillinger:physica,likos:gauss,saija1, saija2, saija3, archer}  

120: An intriguing feature of the crystals

121: formed by $Q^{\pm}$-systems is the independence of the 

122: lattice constant on density,\cite{criterion,bianca:prl:06}

123: a feature that reflects the flexibility of soft matter

124: systems in achieving forms of self-organization unknown

125: to atomic ones.\cite{daan:nature,daan:web}

126: The same characteristic has recently been seen also

127: in slightly modified models that contain a short-range 

128: hard core.\cite{primoz:07} 

129: In this work, we provide an analytical

130: solution of the crystallization problem and of the properties

131: of the ensuing solids within the framework of an accurate

132: density functional approach. We explicitly demonstrate the 

133: persistence of a single length scale at all densities and

134: for all members of the $Q^{\pm}$-class and offer thus broad

135: physical insight into the mechanisms driving the stability

136: of the clustered crystals. We further establish some universal

137: structural properties of all $Q^{\pm}$-systems both in the

138: fluid and in the solid state, justifying the use of the 

139: mean-field density functional on which this work rests.

140: We make a connection between our results and the harmonic

141: theory of solids in the Einstein-approximation. 

142: Finally, we establish a connection with suitably-defined

143: infinite dimensional models of hard spheres.

144: 

145: The rest of this paper is organized as follows:

146: in Sec.\ \ref{dft:sec} we derive an accurate density

147: functional by starting with the uniform phase and establishing

148: the behavior of the direct correlation functions of the fluid

149: with density and temperature. Based on this density functional,

150: we perform an analytical calculation

151: of the freezing characteristics of the $Q^{\pm}$-systems by

152: employing a weak approximation in Sec.\ \ref{analytical:sec}.

153: The accuracy of this approximation is successfully tested against full

154: numerical minimization of the functional in Sec.\ \ref{compare:sec}.

155: In Sec.\ \ref{harmonic:sec} the equivalence between the density

156: functional and the theory of harmonic crystals is demonstrated,

157: whereas in Sec.\ \ref{invpower:sec} a connection is made with

158: inverse-power potentials. Finally, in Sec.\ \ref{summary:sec}

159: we summarize and draw our conclusions. Some intermediate, technical

160: results that would interrupt the flow of the text are relegated

161: in the Appendix. 

162: 

163: \section{Density functional theory}

164: \label{dft:sec}

165: 

166: \subsection{Definition of the model}

167: \label{model:sec}

168: 

169: In this work, we focus our interest on systems of spherosymmetric

170: particles

171: interacting by means of {\it bounded} 

172: pair interactions $v(r)$ of the form:

173: \begin{equation}

174: v(r) = \epsilon\phi(r/\sigma),

175: \label{gen_poten:eq}

176: \end{equation}

177: with an energy scale $\epsilon$ and a length scale $\sigma$,

178: and which fulfill the Ruelle conditions for stability.\cite{Ruelle:book} In

179: Eq.\ (\ref{gen_poten:eq}) above, $\phi(x)$ is some dimensionless function 

180: of a dimensionless variable and $r$ denotes the distance between

181: the spherosymmetric particles. In the context of soft matter physics,

182: $v(r)$ is an effective potential between, e.g., the centers of

183: mass of macromolecular entities, such as polymer chains or

184: dendrimers.\cite{ballik:ac:04} As the centers of mass 

185: of the aggregates can fully overlap without this

186: incurring an infinitely prohibitive cost in (free) energy, the

187: condition of boundedness is fulfilled:

188: \begin{equation}

189: 0 \leq v(r) < K,

190: \label{bounded:eq}

191: \end{equation}

192: with some constant $K$.

193: 

194: The interaction range is set by 

195: $\sigma$, typically the physical size 

196: (e.g., the gyration radius) of the macromolecular 

197: aggregates that feature $v(r)$ as their effective interaction.

198: In addition to being bounded, the second requirement to be

199: fulfilled by the function $\phi(x)$ is that it decay sufficiently

200: fast to zero as $x \to \infty$, so that its Fourier transform 

201: $\tilde\phi(y)$ exists. In three spatial dimensions, we have

202: \begin{equation}

203: \tilde\phi(y) = 4\pi

204: \int_0^{\infty}{\rm d}x\,\frac{\sin(y x)}{yx} x^2 \phi(x)

205: \label{ftphi:eq}

206: \end{equation}

207: and, correspondingly,

208: \begin{equation}

209: \tilde v(k) = \epsilon\sigma^3\tilde\phi(k\sigma)

210: \label{ftv:eq} 

211: \end{equation}

212: for the Fourier transform $\tilde v(k)$ of the potential, evaluated

213: at wavenumber $k$. Our focus in this work is on systems for which

214: $\tilde v(k)$ is oscillatory, i.e., $v(r)$ features positive

215: and negative Fourier components, classifying it as a

216: $Q^{\pm}$-potential.\cite{criterion} Though this work is general,

217: for the purposes of demonstration of our results, we consider

218: a particular realization of $Q^{\pm}$-potentials, namely the

219: generalized exponential model of exponent $m$, (GEM-$m$): 

220: \begin{equation}

221: v(r) = \epsilon\exp[-(r/\sigma)^m],

222: \label{gemn:eq}

223: \end{equation}

224: with $m=4$. It can be shown that all members of the GEM-$m$ family

225: with $m > 2$ belong to the $Q^{\pm}$-class, see Appendix A.

226:  

227: A short account

228: of the freezing and clustering behavior of the GEM-4 model has been

229: recently published.\cite{bianca:prl:06}

230: Another prominent member of the family

231: is the $m=\infty$ model, which corresponds to 

232: penetrable spheres\cite{klein:94,pensph:98,fernaud}

233: with a finite overlap energy penalty 

234: $\epsilon$. Indeed, the explicitly

235: calculated phase behavior of these two show strong resemblances,

236: with the phase diagram of both being dominated by the phenomenon

237: of formation of clusters of overlapping particles 

238: and the subsequent ordering of the same in

239: periodic crystalline arrangements.\cite{pensph:98,fernaud}

240: In this work, we provide a generic,

241: accurate, and analytically tractable theory of 

242: inhomogeneous phases of $Q^{\pm}$-systems.

243: 

244: \subsection{The uniform fluid}

245: \label{uniform:sec}

246: 

247: Let us start from the simpler system of a homogeneous fluid,

248: consisting of $N$ spherosymmetric particles enclosed in a 

249: macroscopic volume $V$. 

250: The structure and thermodynamics of the system are determined by the

251: density $\rho = N/V$ and the absolute temperature $T$ or, better,

252: their dimensionless counterparts:

253: \begin{eqnarray}

254: \nonumber

255: \rho^{*} \equiv \rho\sigma^3

256: \end{eqnarray}

257: and

258: \begin{eqnarray}

259: \nonumber

260: T^{*} \equiv \frac{k_{\rm B}T}{\epsilon},

261: \end{eqnarray}

262: with Boltzmann's constant $k_{\rm B}$. As usual, we also introduce

263: for future convenience the inverse temperature $\beta = (k_{\rm B}T)^{-1}$.

264: We seek for appropriate and accurate closures to the Ornstein-Zernike

265: relation\cite{hansen:book} 

266: \begin{equation}

267: h(r) = c(r) + \rho\int{\rm d}^3r'c(|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}|)h(r'),

268: \label{oz:eq}

269: \end{equation}

270: connecting the total correlation function $h(r)$ to the direct

271: correlation function $c(r)$ of the uniform fluid. One possibility

272: is offered by the hypernetted chain closure (HNC) that reads 

273: as\cite{hansen:book}

274: \begin{equation}

275: h(r) = \exp\left[-\beta v(r) + h(r) - c(r)\right] - 1.

276: \label{hnc:eq}

277: \end{equation}

278: An additional closure, the mean-field approximation (MFA), 

279: was also employed and will be discussed later.

280: 

281: Our solution by means of approximate closures was accompanied

282: by extensive $NVT$-Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. We measured the radial

283: distribution function $g(r) \equiv h(r) + 1$ as well as the

284: structure factor $S(k) = 1 + \rho {\tilde h}(k)$, 

285: where ${\tilde h}(k)$ is the Fourier transform of $h(r)$, to provide an assessment

286: of the accuracy of the approximate theories. We typically simulated

287: ensembles of up to $3\,000$ particles for a total of $150\,000$

288: Monte Carlo steps. Measurements were taken

289: in every tenth step after equilibration.

290: 

291: \begin{figure}%[hbt]

292:       \begin{center}

293:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

294:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

295:         {./gofr.t0.5.eps}

296:       \end{minipage}

297:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

298:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

299:         {./gofr.t1.eps}

300:       \end{minipage}

301:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

302:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

303:         {./gofr.t2.eps}

304:       \end{minipage}

305:       \end{center}

306: \caption{Radial distribution functions $g(r)$ of the GEM-4 model

307: as obtained by Monte Carlo simulation (points), the HNC-closure

308: (solid lines) and the MFA (dashed lines), at various temperatures

309: and densities. For clarity, the curves on every panel have been

310: shifted upwards by certain amounts, which are given below in

311: square brackets, following

312: the value indicating the density $\rho^{*}$.

313: (a) $T^{*} = 0.5$ and densities, from bottom to top:

314: $\rho^{*} = 0.5$ [0]; $\rho^{*} = 1.0$ [0.2]; $\rho^{*} = 1.5$ [0.4];

315: $\rho^{*} = 2.0$ [0.6]; $\rho^{*} = 2.5$ [0.8].

316: (b) $T^{*} = 1.0$ and densities, from bottom to top:

317: $\rho^{*} = 1.0$ [0]; $\rho^{*} = 2.0$ [0.2]; $\rho^{*} = 3.0$ [0.4];

318: $\rho^{*} = 4.0$ [0.6]; $\rho^{*} = 5.0$ [0.8].

319: (c) $T^{*} = 2.0$ and densities, from bottom to top:

320: $\rho^{*} = 2.0$ [0]; $\rho^{*} = 4.0$ [0.2]; $\rho^{*} = 6.0$ [0.4];

321: $\rho^{*} = 8.0$ [0.6]; $\rho^{*} = 10.0$ [0.8].}

322: \label{gofr:fig}

323: \end{figure}

324: 

325: In Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig} we show comparisons for the function 

326: $g(r)$ as obtained from the MC simulations and from the HNC closure

327: for a variety of temperatures and densities. It can be seen that

328: agreement between the two is obtained, to a degree of

329: quality that is excellent. Tiny deviations

330: between the HNC and MC results appear only at the highest density

331: and for a small region around $r = 0$ for 

332: low temperatures, $T^{*} = 0.5$. 

333: Otherwise, the system at hand

334: is described by the HNC with an extremely high accuracy  

335: and for a very broad range of temperatures and densities. 

336: We note that, although in Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig} we restrict ourselves

337: to temperatures $T^{*} \leq 2.0$, the quality of the HNC remains

338: unaffected also at higher temperatures.\cite{criterion} 

339: 

340: In attempting to gain some insight into the remarkable ability of

341: the HNC to describe the fluid structure at such a high level of

342: accuracy,

343: it is useful to recast this

344: closure in density-functional language. Following the famous

345: Percus idea,\cite{hansen:book,percus:62,percus:64,denton:pra:91,yethiraj:jcp:01} 

346: the quantity $\rho g(r)$ can be identified

347: with the nonuniform density $\rho(r)$ of an inhomogeneous fluid that

348: results when a single particle is kept fixed at the origin, exerting

349: an `external' potential $V_{\rm ext}(r) = v(r)$ on the rest of the

350: system. Following standard procedures from density functional 

351: theory, we find that the sought-for density profile $\rho(r)$ 

352: is given by

353: \begin{equation}

354: \rho(r) = \Lambda^{-3}

355: \exp\left\{\beta\mu - \beta v(r) 

356: - \frac{\delta \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho]}{\delta \rho(r)}\right\}, 

357: \label{profile_dft:eq}

358: \end{equation}

359: where $\Lambda$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength and $\mu$

360: the chemical potential associated with average density $\rho$

361: and temperature $T$. Moreover, $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$ is the

362: intrinsic excess free energy, a {\it unique} functional of the

363: density $\rho(r)$. As such, $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$ can be expanded

364: in a functional Taylor series around its value for a uniform liquid

365: of some (arbitrary) reference density $\rho_0$. For the problem

366: at hand, $\rho_0 = \rho$ is a natural choice and we obtain\cite{singh}

367: %\begin{widetext}

368: \begin{eqnarray}

369: \nonumber

370: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho] = \beta F_{\rm ex}(\rho) 

371: & - & \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\int\int\cdots\int

372: {\rm d}^3r_1{\rm d}^3r_2\ldots{\rm d}^3r_n

373: \\

374: \nonumber

375: &\times&

376: c_0^{(n)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,\ldots,{\bf r}_n;\rho)

377: \\

378: &\times&

379: \Delta\rho({\bf r}_1)\Delta\rho({\bf r}_2)\ldots\Delta\rho({\bf r}_n), 

380: \label{taylor_expand:eq}

381: \end{eqnarray}

382: %\end{widetext}

383: where $F_{\rm ex}(\rho)$ denotes the excess free energy of the 

384: {\it homogeneous} fluid, as opposed to that of the inhomogeneous

385: fluid, $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$, and

386: \begin{equation}

387: \Delta\rho({\bf x}) \equiv \rho({\bf x}) - \rho.

388: \label{deltarho:eq}

389: \end{equation} 

390: The basis of the expansion given by Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}) above is

391: the fact that $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$ is the generating functional for

392: the hierarchy of the direct correlation functions (dcf's) $c_0^{(n)}$.

393: In particular, $-\beta^{-1}c_0^{(n)}$ 

394: is the $n$-th functional derivative of the excess

395: free energy with respect to the density field, evaluated at the

396: uniform density $\rho$:\cite{singh,evans:78}

397: \begin{equation}

398: c_0^{(n)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,\ldots,{\bf r}_n;\rho) =

399: -\frac{\delta^n \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho]}

400: {\delta\rho({\bf r}_1)\delta\rho({\bf r}_2)\ldots

401: \delta\rho({\bf r}_n)}\Bigg|_{\rho(.) = \rho}.

402: \label{cofrn:eq}

403: \end{equation}

404: As the functional derivatives are evaluated for a uniform system,

405: translational and rotational invariance reduce the number of variables

406: on which the $n$-th order 

407: dcf's $c_0^{(n)}$ depend; in fact,

408: $c_0^{(1)}({\bf r}_1;\rho)$ is a position-independent constant and 

409: equals $-\beta\mu_{\rm ex}$, where $\mu_{\rm ex}$ is the excess 

410: chemical potential.\cite{evans:78} 

411: Similarly, $c_0^{(2)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2;\rho)$

412: is simply the 

413: Ornstein-Zernike direct correlation function $c(|{\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2|)$ 

414: entering in Eqs.\ (\ref{oz:eq}) and (\ref{hnc:eq}) above. The HNC

415: closure

416: is equivalent to jointly solving Eqs.\ 

417: (\ref{oz:eq}) and (\ref{profile_dft:eq}) by employing

418: an approximate excess free energy functional $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$,

419: arising by a truncation of the expansion of Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}) 

420: at $n = 2$, i.e., discarding all terms with $n \geq 3$; this

421: is the famous Ramakrishnan-Yussouff second-order 

422: approximation.\cite{ry:79,haymet:81}

423: Indeed,

424: the so-called bridge function $b(r)$ can be written as an

425: expansion over integrals involving as kernels all the

426: $c_0^{(n)}$ with $n \geq 3$ and the HNC amounts to setting

427: the bridge function equal to zero.\cite{hansen:book,denton:pra:91,denton:pra:90} 

428: 

429: Whereas in many cases, such as the

430: one-component plasma,\cite{ocp1,ocp2} 

431: and other systems with long-range interactions, 

432: the

433: HNC is simply an adequate or, at best, a very good approximation,

434: for the case at hand the degree of agreement between the HNC and

435: simulation is indeed extremely high.

436: What is particularly important is that the accuracy of the HNC persists

437: for a very wide range of densities, at all temperatures considered.

438: This fact has far-reaching consequences, because it means that the

439: corresponding profiles $\rho({\bf x})$ that enter the 

440: multiple integrals in Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}) vary enormously

441: depending on the uniform density considered. 

442: Thus, it is tempting to conjecture that for the systems under

443: consideration (soft, penetrable particles at $T^{*} \gtrsim 1$),

444: not simply the integrals with $n \geq 3$ vanish but rather the

445: kernels themselves. In other words,

446: \begin{equation}

447: c_0^{(n)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,\ldots,{\bf r}_n;\rho) \cong 0,

448: \qquad (n \geq 3).

449: \label{approx:eq}

450: \end{equation} 

451: 

452: \begin{figure}%[hbt]

453:       \begin{center}

454:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

455:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

456:         {./cofr.t0.5.eps}

457:       \end{minipage}

458:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

459:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

460:         {./cofr.t1.eps}

461:       \end{minipage}

462:       \begin{minipage}[t]{8.3cm}

463:       \includegraphics[width=8.2cm, clip]

464:         {./cofr.t2.eps}

465:       \end{minipage}

466:       \end{center}

467: \caption{The main plots show the difference between the 

468: direct correlation function $c(r)$ calculated in the HNC and its

469: MFA-approximation, $c(r) = -\beta v(r)$, for a GEM-4 model,

470: at various densities indicated in the legends.

471: The insets show the MFA approximation for the same quantity,

472: which is density-independent. Each panel 

473: corresponds to a different temperature: (a) $T^{*} = 0.5$;

474: (b) $T^{*} = 1.0$; (c) $T^{*} = 2.0$. These are exactly

475: the same parameter combinations as the ones for which

476: $g(r)$ is shown in Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig}.}

477: \label{cofr:fig}

478: \end{figure}

479: 

480: The behavior of the higher-order dcf's

481: is related to the density-derivative of lower-order ones through

482: certain sum rules, to be discussed below. Hence, it is pertinent

483: to examine the density dependence of the dcf $c(r)$

484: of the HNC.

485: In Fig.\ \ref{cofr:fig} we show the difference between

486: the dcf $c_{\rm HNC}(r)$ and the 

487: mean-field approximation (MFA) to the same quantity:

488: \begin{equation}

489: c_{\rm MFA}(r) = -\beta v(r).

490: \label{cmfa:eq}

491: \end{equation} 

492: Eq.\ (\ref{cmfa:eq}) above is {\it meaningless} if the pair potential

493: $v(r)$ diverges as $r \to 0$, because $c(r)$ has to remain finite

494: at all $r$, as follows from exact diagrammatic expansions of the

495: same.\cite{hansen:book} In fact, the form $c(r) \sim -\beta v(r)$ denotes

496: the large-$r$ asymptotic behavior of $c(r)$. 

497: In our case, however, where

498: $v(r)$ lacks a hard core, the MFA-form for $c(r)$ cannot be 

499: a priori rejected on fundamental grounds; 

500: the quantity $-\beta v(r)$ remains bounded as $r \to0$. In fact, as can be seen

501: in Fig.\ \ref{cofr:fig}, the deviations between the MFA 

502: and the HNC-closure are very small for $T^* \gtrsim 1$.

503: In addition, the differences between $c_{\rm HNC}(r)$ and

504: $c_{\rm MFA}(r)$ drop,

505: both in absolute and in 

506: relative terms, as temperature grows, see the trend in 

507: Figs.\ \ref{cofr:fig}(a)-(c). At fixed temperature, the evolution

508: of the difference with density is nonmonotonic: it first drops

509: as density grows and then it starts growing again at the highest

510: densities shown in the three panels of Fig.\ \ref{cofr:fig}. 

511: 

512: Motivated by these findings, we

513: employ now a second closure, namely the above-mentioned

514: MFA, Eq.\ (\ref{cmfa:eq}). Introducing the latter into the

515: Ornstein-Zernike relation, Eq.\ (\ref{oz:eq}), we obtain the

516: MFA-results for the radial distribution function $g(r)$ that

517: are also shown in Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig} with dashed lines. Before

518: proceeding to a critical comparison between the $g(r)$ obtained

519: from the two closures, it is useful to make a clear connection

520: between the MFA and the HNC.

521: 

522: As mentioned above,

523: the members of the sequence of the $n$-th order direct correlation functions 

524: are not independent from one another; rather, they are constrained 

525: to satisfy a corresponding hierarchy of sum rules, 

526: namely:\cite{denton:pra:91,barrat:prl:87,barrat:molphys:88,denton:pra:89}

527: \begin{eqnarray}

528: \nonumber

529: \int{\rm d}^3r_k c_0^{(n+1)}({\bf r}_1,\ldots,{\bf r}_{k-1},{\bf r}_{k},

530: {\bf r}_{k+1},\ldots,{\bf r}_{n+1};\rho) =

531: \\

532: \frac{\partial c_0^{(n)}({\bf r}_1,\ldots,{\bf r}_{k-1},

533: {\bf r}_{k+1},\ldots,{\bf r}_{n+1};\rho)}{\partial\rho}.

534: \label{inductive:eq}

535: \end{eqnarray}

536: In particular, for $n=2$, we have

537: \begin{eqnarray}

538: \nonumber

539: \int{\rm d}^3r' c_0^{(3)}(r,r',|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|;\rho) & = &

540: \\

541: \nonumber

542: \int{\rm d}^3r' c_0^{(3)}(r',r,|{\bf r'} - {\bf r}|;\rho) & = &

543: \\

544: \frac{\partial c(r;\rho)}{\partial \rho},

545: \label{sumrule:eq}

546: \end{eqnarray}

547: where we have used the translational and

548: rotational invariance of the fluid phase to reduce the

549: number of arguments of the dcf's and we

550: show explicitly the generic dependence of $c(r)$ on $\rho$.

551: In the 

552: MFA, one assumes $c(r) = -\beta v(r)$, with the immediate consequence

553: \begin{equation}

554: \frac{\partial c(r)}{\partial \rho} = 0.

555: \label{deriv:eq}

556: \end{equation}

557: Eqs.\ (\ref{sumrule:eq}) and (\ref{deriv:eq}) imply that the integral

558: of $c_0^{(3)}$ with respect to any of its arguments must {\it vanish}

559: for {\it arbitrary} density. As $c_0^{(3)}$ has a complex dependence on

560: its arguments, this is a strong indication that $c_0^{(3)}$ itself

561: vanishes. In fact, both for the Barrat-Hansen-Pastore factorization

562: approximation for this quantity\cite{barrat:prl:87,barrat:molphys:88} 

563: and for the alternative,

564: Denton-Ashcroft $k$-space factorization 

565: of the same,\cite{denton:pra:89} the

566: vanishing of the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{sumrule:eq}) implies that 

567: $c_0^{(3)} = 0$. Now, if $c_0^{(3)}$ vanishes, so does also its

568: density derivative and use of sum rule (\ref{inductive:eq}) for

569: $n=3$ implies $c_0^{(4)} = 0$. Successive use of the same for

570: higher $n$-values leads then to the conclusion that in the MFA:

571: \begin{equation}

572: c_0^{(n)}({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,\ldots,{\bf r}_n;\rho) = 0,\qquad (n\geq 3).

573: \label{kill:eq}

574: \end{equation} 

575: 

576: We can now see that the accuracy of the HNC stems from the fact

577: that for these systems we can write

578: \begin{equation}

579: c(r) = -\beta v(r) + \varepsilon(r;\rho),

580: \label{epsilon:eq}

581: \end{equation}

582: where $\varepsilon(r;\rho)$ is a small function at all densities $\rho$,

583: offering concomitantly a very small, and {\it the only}, contribution

584: to the quantity $\partial c(r)/\partial\rho$. This implies that

585: $c_0^{(3)}$ itself is negligible by means of Eq.\ (\ref{sumrule:eq}).

586: Repeated use of Eq.\ (\ref{inductive:eq}) leads then to 

587: Eqs.\ (\ref{approx:eq}) and shows that the contributions from the

588: $n > 2$ terms, that are ignored in the HNC, are indeed negligible.

589: The HNC is, thus, very

590: accurate, due to the strong mean-field character

591: of the fluids at hand.\cite{likos:pusey} The deviations between the HNC and the MFA

592: come through the function $\varepsilon(r;\rho)$ above.

593: 

594: Let us now return to the discussion of the results for $g(r)$ and

595: $c(r)$ and the relative quality of the two closures at various

596: thermodynamic points. Referring first to Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig}(c), we

597: see that at $T^{*} = 2.0$ both the HNC and the MFA perform 

598: equally well.

599: The agreement between the two (and between the MFA and MC)

600: worsens somewhat at $T^{*} = 1.0$ and even more at $T^{*} = 0.5$. The

601: MFA is, thus, an approximation valid for $T^{*} \gtrsim 1$, in agreement with

602: previous results.\cite{criterion} The reason lies in the

603: accuracy of the low-density limit of the MFA. In general, as

604: $\rho\to 0$, $c(r)$ tends to the Mayer

605: function $f(r) = \exp[-\beta v(r)] - 1$. If $T^{*} \gtrsim 1$, one

606: may expand the exponential to linear order and obtain

607: $f(r) \cong -\beta v(r)$, so that the MFA can be fulfilled.

608: 

609: In the HNC, it is implicitly assumed that all dcf's

610: with $n \geq 3$ vanish. In the MFA, this is also the case. The two

611: closures differ in one important point, though: in the HNC, the

612: second-order direct correlation function is {\it not} prescribed

613: but rather {\it determined}, so that both the `test-particle equation',

614: Eq.\ (\ref{profile_dft:eq}), and the Ornstein-Zernike relation, 

615: Eq.\ (\ref{oz:eq}),

616: are fulfilled. In the MFA, it is a priori assumed that 

617: $c(r) = -\beta v(r)$, which is introduced into the Ornstein-Zernike

618: relation and thus $h(r)$ is determined. This is one particular

619: way of obtaining $g(r)$ in the MFA, called the 

620: Ornstein-Zernike route. Alternatively, one could follow the

621: test-particle route in solving Eq.\ (\ref{profile_dft:eq}) in conjunction

622: with Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}) and the MFA-approximation,

623: Eq.\ (\ref{cmfa:eq}). In this case, the resulting expression for

624: the total correlation function $h(r)$ in the MFA 

625: reads as

626: \begin{equation}

627: h(r) = \exp[-\beta v(r) -\beta\rho(h*v)(r)] - 1,

628: \label{testpart:eq}

629: \end{equation}

630: with $*$ denoting the convolution. Previous studies

631: with ultrasoft systems have shown that the test-particle

632: $h(r)$ from the MFA is closer to the HNC-result than the 

633: MFA result obtained from the Ornstein-Zernike route.\cite{ingo:06} 

634: The discrepancy

635: between the two is a measure of the approximate character of the MFA;

636: were the theory to be exact, all routes would give the same result.

637: As a way to quantify the approximations involved in the MFA,

638: let us attempt to {\it impose} consistency between the test-particle

639: and Ornstein-Zernike routes. Since $c(r) = -\beta v(r)$ in this

640: closure, the exponent in Eq.\ (\ref{testpart:eq}) 

641: above is just the right-hand side

642: of the Ornstein-Zernike relation, Eq.\ (\ref{oz:eq}). Thus, if we

643: insist that the latter is fulfilled, we obtain the constraint

644: \begin{equation}

645: h(r) = \exp[h(r)] - 1,

646: \label{hofr:eq}

647: \end{equation}

648: which is strictly satisfied only for $h(r) = 0$. However, as long

649: as $|h(r)| < 1$, one can linearize the exponential and an identity

650: follows; the internal inconsistency of the MFA is of quadratic

651: order in $h(r)$ and it follows that 

652: the MFA provides an accurate closure for the

653: systems at hand, as long as $|h(r)|$ remains small. This explains

654: the deviations between MFA and MC seen at small $r$ for the

655: highest density at $T^{*} = 2.0$, Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig}(c). The same 

656: effect 

657: can also be seen in Fig.\ \ref{cofr:fig}(c) as a growth of the

658: discrepancy between $c_{\rm HNC}(r)$ and $c_{\rm MFA}(r)$ at small

659: $r$-values for the highest density shown. In absolute terms,

660: however, this discrepancy remains very small. Note also that 

661: discrepancies at small $r$-values become strongly suppressed

662: upon taking a Fourier transform, due to the additional geometrical

663: $r^2$-factor involved in the three-dimensional integration.

664: 

665: It can therefore be seen that the MFA and the HNC are closely related

666: to one another: the HNC is so successful due to the strong mean-field

667: character of the systems under consideration. This fact has also

668: been established and extensively discussed for the case of the

669: Gaussian model,\cite{likos:gauss,louis:mfa} i.e., the $m=2$ member of the

670: GEM-$m$ class. Once more, the HNC and the MFA there are very accurate for

671: high densities and/or temperatures, where $h(r) \cong 0$ and the

672: system's behavior develops similarities with an `incompressible ideal gas',\cite{likos:gauss} 

673: in

674: full agreement with the remarks presented above. Subsequently,

675: the MFA and HNC closures have been also successfully applied to the

676: study of structure and thermodynamics of 

677: binary soft mixtures.\cite{louis:mfa,archer1,archer2,archer3,archer4,finken}

678: 

679: \begin{figure}

680:  \begin{center}

681:  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, clip]

682:         {./sofk.t1.eps}

683:  \end{center}

684: \caption{The structure factor $S(k)$ of the GEM-4 model at

685: temperature $T^{*} = 1.0$ and various densities, indicated

686: below. For clarity, the curves have been shifted vertically by

687: amounts shown in the square brackets, following the numbers

688: that indicate the values of the density $\rho^{*}$.

689: From bottom to top: $\rho^{*} = 1.0$ [0]; $\rho^{*} = 2.0$ [0.5];

690: $\rho^{*} = 3.0$ [1.0]; $\rho^{*} = 4.0$ [1.5]; $\rho^{*} = 5.0$ [2.0].

691: The points are results from Monte Carlo simulations and the

692: dashed lines from the HNC. As the HNC- and MFA-curves run very

693: close to each other, we show the MFA-result by the solid curve

694: only for the highest density, $\rho^{*} = 5.0$.}

695: \label{sofk:fig}

696: \end{figure}

697: 

698: A crucial

699: difference between the Gaussian model, which belongs to the

700: $Q^{+}$-class, and members of the $Q^{\pm}$-class, which are

701: the subject of the present work, lies in the consequences of the

702: MFA-closure on the structure factor $S(k)$ of the system. Since

703: $c(r) = -\beta v(r)$, the Ornstein-Zernike relation leads to

704: the expression

705: \begin{equation}

706: S(k) = \frac{1}{1+\beta\rho\tilde v(k)}.

707: \label{sofk:eq}

708: \end{equation}

709: Whereas for $Q^{+}$-potentials $S(k)$ is devoid of pronounced

710: peaks that exceed the asymptotic value $S(k\to\infty) = 1$, 

711: for $Q^{\pm}$-systems a local maximum of $S(k)$ appears at the value

712: $k_*$ for which $\tilde v(k)$ attains its negative minimum.

713: In Fig.\ \ref{sofk:fig} we show representative results for

714: the system at hand, where it can also be seen that the 

715: HNC and the MFA yield practically indistinguishable results.

716: In full agreement with the MC simulations, the location of the main peak of

717: $S(k)$ is {\it density-independent}, a feature unknown for

718: usual fluids, having its origin in the fact that $c(r)$ itself

719: is density independent.

720: 

721: Associated with this is the development of 

722: a $\lambda$-line,\cite{archer4,finken,stell,ciach}

723: also known as {\it Kirkwood instability},\cite{kirkwood:51}

724: on which the denominator 

725: in Eq.\ (\ref{sofk:eq}) vanishes at $k_*$ and 

726: thus $S(k_*) \to \infty$. The locus

727: of points $(\rho_{\lambda},T_{\lambda})$ on the 

728: density-temperature plane for

729: which this divergence takes place is, evidently, 

730: given by

731: \begin{equation}

732: \frac{T^*_{\lambda}}{\rho^*_{\lambda}} = -{\tilde \phi(k_*\sigma)}.  

733: \label{lambda:eq}

734: \end{equation}

735: In the region $\rho \geq \rho_{\lambda}$ 

736: (equivalently: $T \leq T_{\lambda}$) on the $(\rho,T)$-plane,

737: the MFA predicts that the fluid is absolutely unstable, since

738: the structure factor there has multiple divergences and also develops

739: negative parts. This holds {\it only} for $Q^{\pm}$-systems; for

740: $Q^{+}$-ones the very same line of argumentation leads to the

741: opposite conclusion, namely that the fluid is the phase of stability

742: at high densities and/or temperatures. The latter conclusion has already

743: been reached by Stillinger and

744: coworkers\cite{still1,still2,still3,still4,still5} 

745: in their pioneering work of the

746: Gaussian model in the mid-1970's, and explicitly

747: confirmed by extensive theory and computer simulations many

748: years later.\cite{stillinger:physica,likos:gauss,saija1, saija2, saija3, archer}

749: However, Stillinger's original argument was based on duality relations

750: that are strictly fulfilled only for the Gaussian model, whereas

751: the MFA-arguments are quite general.

752: 

753: \subsection{Nonuniform fluids}

754: 

755: Having established the validity of the MFA for vast domains in the

756: phase diagram of the systems under consideration as far as the

757: {\it uniform} fluids are concerned, we now turn our attention

758: to nonuniform ones. Apart from an obvious general interest in the

759: properties of nonuniform fluids, the necessity to consider 

760: deviations from homogeneity in the density for $Q^{\pm}$-models

761: is dictated by the $\lambda$-instability mentioned above: the

762: theory of the uniform fluid

763: contains its own breakdown, thus the system

764: has to undergo a phase transformation to a phase with a 

765: spontaneously broken translational symmetry. Whether this

766: transformation takes place {\it exactly} on the instability line

767: or already at densities $\rho < \rho_{\lambda}$ 

768: (or temperatures $T > T_{\lambda}$) and which is

769: the stable phase are some of the questions that have to be 

770: addressed. Density-functional theory of inhomogeneous systems

771: is the appropriate theoretical tool in this direction.

772: 

773: Let us consider a path $\rho_{\chi}({\bf r})$ in the space 

774: of density functions, which is characterized

775: by a single parameter $\chi$; this path starts at some reference

776: density $\rho_{\rm r}({\bf r})$ and terminates at another

777: density $\rho({\bf r})$. 

778: The uniqueness of the excess free energy functional and its

779: dependence on the inhomogeneous density field $\rho({\bf r})$

780: allow us to 

781: integrate 

782: $\partial F_{\rm ex}[\rho]/\partial\chi$

783: along this path,

784: obtaining $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$, provided that

785: $F_{\rm ex}[\rho_{\rm r}]$ is known. A convenient

786: parametrization reads as

787: $\rho_{\chi}({\bf r}) = \rho_{\rm r}({\bf r})

788: +\chi[\rho({\bf r})-\rho_{\rm r}({\bf r})]$,

789: with $\chi = 0$ corresponding to

790: $\rho_{\rm r}({\bf r})$ and $\chi = 1$ to $\rho({\bf r})$.

791: The excess free energy of the final

792: state can be expressed as\cite{evans:78} 

793: \begin{eqnarray}

794: \nonumber

795: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho]  & = & 

796: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho_{\rm r}] 

797: \\

798:  & - &  \int_0^{1} {\rm d}\chi

799: \int{\rm d}^3r c^{(1)}({\bf r};[\rho_{\chi}])

800: \Delta\rho({\bf r}),

801: \label{chi_path:eq}

802: \end{eqnarray}

803: where $c^{(1)}({\bf r};[\rho_{\chi}])$ denotes the first 

804: functional derivative of the quantity $-\beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$

805: evaluated at the inhomogeneous density $\rho_{\chi}({\bf r})$,

806: and $\Delta\rho({\bf r}) = \rho({\bf r})-\rho_{\rm r}({\bf r})$.

807: Since $c^{(1)}({\bf r};[\rho_{\chi}])$

808: is in its own turn a unique functional of the density profile,

809: repeated use of the same argument leads to a functional Taylor

810: expansion of the excess free energy around that of a reference

811: system,

812: an expansion that extends to infinite order.

813: For the {\it particular} choice of a {\it uniform} reference system,

814: $\rho_{\rm r}({\bf r}) = \rho$,

815: we obtain then the Taylor series of Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}).

816: In general, however, the reference system does not have to have

817: the same average density as the final one, hence the uniform

818: density $\rho$ there must be replaced by a more general quantity

819: $\rho_0$. 

820: 

821: The usefulness of Eq.\ (\ref{taylor_expand:eq}) in calculating

822: the free energies of extremely nonuniform phases, such as crystals,

823: is limited both on principal and on practical grounds. Fundamentally,

824: there is {\it no small parameter} guiding such an expansion,

825: since the differences between the nonuniform density of a crystal

826: and that of a fluid are enormous; the former has extreme variations

827: between lattice- and interstitial regions. Hence, the very

828: convergence of the series is in doubt.\cite{singh} 

829: In practice, 

830: the direct correlation functions for $n = 3$ are very cumbersome to

831: calculate\cite{gerhard:00} and those for $n \geq 4$ are practically 

832: unknown.\cite{denton:pra:91} The solution is either to arbitrarily

833: terminate the series at second order\cite{ry:79} or to seek for

834: nonperturbative functionals.\cite{singh,likos:prl:92,likos:jcp:93,wda1,wda2,mwda,henderson}

835: In our case, however, things are

836: different because, for the systems we consider,

837: we have given evidence that the dcf's

838: of order $n > 2$ are extremely small and we take them

839: at this point as vanishing. Then,  

840: the functional Taylor

841: expansion of the free energy $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$ terminates

842: (to the extent that the approximation holds) at second order.

843: The Taylor series becomes a finite sum and 

844: convergence is not an issue any more.

845: 

846: Let us, accordingly, expand $F_{\rm ex}[\rho]$

847: around an {\it arbitrary}, homogeneous reference fluid of density $\rho_0 = N_0/V$,

848: taking into account that the volume $V$ is fixed but the system

849: with density $\rho({\bf r})$ contains $N$ particles, whereas

850: the reference fluid contains $N_0$ particles and, in general,

851: $N \neq N_0$:

852: \begin{eqnarray}

853: \nonumber

854: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho]  & = &  \beta F_{\rm ex}(\rho_0) 

855: - c_0^{(1)}(\rho_0)\int{\rm d}^3r[\rho({\bf r}) - \rho_0] 

856: \\

857: \nonumber

858: & - &  

859: \frac{1}{2}\int\int{\rm d}^3r{\rm d}^3r' c_0^{(2)}(|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}|;\rho_0)

860: \\

861: & \times &

862: [\rho({\bf r}) - \rho_0][\rho({\bf r'}) - \rho_0].

863: \label{taylor:eq}

864: \end{eqnarray}

865: 

866: Using $c_0^{(2)}(r; \rho_0) =

867:   c_0^{(2)}(r) \equiv c(r) = -\beta v(r)$ and the

868: sum rule (\ref{inductive:eq}) for $n=1$ together with the vanishing

869: of the excess chemical potential at zero density, we readily obtain

870: \begin{equation}

871: c_0^{(1)}(\rho_0)  =  -\beta {\tilde v}(0) \rho_0.

872: \label{c1:eq}

873: \end{equation}

874: Formally substituting in Eq.\ (\ref{taylor:eq}),

875: $\rho_0 \to 0$ and $\rho({\bf r}) \to \rho_0$ and making use of

876: the fact that the excess free energy of a system vanishes with the density,

877: we also obtain the dependence

878: of the fluid excess free energy on the density:

879: \begin{equation}

880: \beta F_{\rm ex}(\rho_0)  =  \frac{N_0}{2}\beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0,

881: \label{frex_liq:eq}  

882: \end{equation}

883: with the particle number $N_0$ {\it of the reference fluid} and

884: the Fourier transform ${\tilde v}(k)$ of the interaction potential.

885: Introducing Eqs.\ (\ref{c1:eq}) and (\ref{frex_liq:eq})

886: into the Taylor expansion, Eq.\ (\ref{taylor:eq})

887: above, we obtain:

888: \begin{eqnarray}

889: \nonumber

890: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho] & = & \frac{N_0}{2}\beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0

891: \\

892: \nonumber 

893: & + & \beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0

894: (N - N_0) 

895: \\

896: \nonumber

897: & + & \frac{\beta}{2}\int\int{\rm d}^3r{\rm d}^3r'v(|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|)

898: \rho({\bf r})\rho({\bf r'})

899: \\

900: \nonumber

901: & - & \beta\rho_0\int\int{\rm d}^3r{\rm d}^3r'v(|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|)

902: \rho({\bf r})

903: \\

904: & + & \frac{N_0}{2}\beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0.

905: \label{expand:eq}

906: \end{eqnarray}

907: Introducing

908: ${\bf x} \equiv {\bf r}-{\bf r'}$ the

909: fourth term above becomes:

910: \begin{equation}

911: - \beta\rho_0\int{\rm d}^3r\,\rho({\bf r})\int{\rm d}^3x\,v(|{\bf x}|)

912:  = -\beta N \rho_0 {\tilde v}(0).

913: \label{third:eq}

914: \end{equation}

915: Now the sum of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th term in Eq.\ (\ref{expand:eq}) yields:

916: \begin{eqnarray}

917: \nonumber

918: \frac{N_0}{2}\beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0 + \beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0(N-N_0)

919: \\

920: \nonumber

921: -\beta N \rho_0 {\tilde v}(0) + \frac{N_0}{2}\beta{\tilde v}(0)\rho_0

922: \\

923: \nonumber

924: = \beta{\tilde v}(0)\left[\frac{N_0}{2}\rho_0 + \rho_0(N-N_0)

925: -N\rho_0 + \frac{N_0}{2}\rho_0\right]

926: \\

927: = \beta{\tilde v}(0)\left[N_0\rho_0 + \rho_0(N-N_0) - N\rho_0\right] = 0.

928: \end{eqnarray}

929: This is a remarkable cancelation because then only the 3rd term in

930: Eq. (\ref{expand:eq}) survives and we obtain:

931: \begin{equation}

932: F_{\rm ex}[\rho] = \frac{1}{2}\int\int{\rm d}^3r{\rm d}^3r'

933: v(|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|)\rho({\bf r})\rho({\bf r'}),

934: \label{dftmfa:eq}

935: \end{equation}

936: which is our desired result.\cite{criterion,likos:gauss,louis:mfa} 

937: 

938: The derivation above 

939: demonstrates that the excess free energy

940: of {\it any} inhomogeneous phase 

941: for our ultrasoft fluids is given by Eq.\ (\ref{dftmfa:eq}),

942: irrespectively of the density of the reference fluid $\rho_0$.

943: This is particularly important because, usually, functional Taylor

944: expansions are carried out around a reference fluid whose density lies

945: close to the average density of the inhomogeneous system (crystal,

946: in our case). However, in our systems this is impossible. The

947: crystals occur predominantly in domains of the phase diagram in which the reference

948: fluid is meaningless, because they are on the high density 

949: side of the

950: $\lambda$-line. It is therefore important to be able to

951: justify the use of the functional and to avoid the inherent 

952: contradiction of expanding around an unstable fluid. 

953: In practice, of course, the higher-order dcf's do not 

954: exactly vanish,

955: hence deviations from result (\ref{dftmfa:eq}) are expected to occur,

956: in particular at low temperatures and densities. Nevertheless,

957: the comparisons with simulations, e.g., in  

958: Refs.\ [\onlinecite{criterion}], [\onlinecite{bianca:prl:06}] and [\onlinecite{archer4}] fully

959: justify our approximation.

960: 

961: A mathematical proof of the mean-field character for fluids

962: with infinitely long-range and infinitesimally strong

963: repulsions

964: has existed since the late 1970's, see

965: Refs.\ [\onlinecite{grewe1}] and [\onlinecite{grewe2}]. However, even far away

966: from fulfillment of this limit, and for conditions that are

967: quite realistic for soft matter systems, the mean-field 

968: behavior continues to be valid.\cite{criterion,likos:gauss,louis:mfa}

969: The mean-field result of Eq.\ (\ref{dftmfa:eq}) has been put

970: forward for the Gaussian model at high densities,\cite{likos:gauss}

971: on the basis of physical argumentation: in the absence of 

972: diverging excluded-volume interactions, at sufficiently high

973: densities any given particle sees an ocean of others -- the

974: classical mean-field picture. The mean-field character of the

975: Gaussian model for moderate to high temperatures was  

976: demonstrated independently in Ref.\ [\onlinecite{louis:mfa}].

977: Here, we have provided a more

978: rigorous justification of its validity, based on the vanishing

979: of high-order direct correlation functions in the fluid. 

980: It must also be noted that the mean-field approximation has

981: recently been applied to a system with a broad shoulder and

982: a much shorter hard-core interaction, providing good agreement

983: with simulation results\cite{primoz:07} and allowing for the

984: formulation of a generalized clustering criterion for 

985: the inhomogeneous phases. 

986: 

987: An astonishing similarity 

988: exists between the mean-field functional of Eq.\ (\ref{dftmfa:eq})

989: and an exact result derived for 

990: infinite-dimensional hard spheres. Indeed, for

991: this case Frisch 

992: {\it et al.}\cite{frisch:prl:85,frisch:jcp:86,frisch:pra:87,frisch:pre:99} as

993: well as Bagchi and Rice\cite{bagchi:jcp:88} have shown that

994: \begin{equation}

995: \beta F_{\rm ex}[\rho] = -\frac{1}{2}\int\int{\rm d}^D r{\rm d}^D r'

996: f(|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|)\rho({\bf r})\rho({\bf r'}),

997: \label{mayer:eq}

998: \end{equation}

999: where $D \to \infty$ and $f(|{\bf r} - {\bf r'}|)$ is the Mayer function

1000: of the infinite dimensional hard spheres. Again, one has a bilinear

1001: excess functional whose integration kernel does not depend on the

1002: density; in this case, this is minus the (bounded) Mayer function whereas for

1003: mean-field fluids, it is the interaction potential itself,

1004: divided by the thermal energy $k_{\rm B}T$. In fact, the Mayer function

1005: and the direct correlation function coincide for infinite-dimensional

1006: systems and higher-order contributions vanish there as 

1007: well,\cite{bagchi:jcp:88} making the analogy with our three-dimensional,

1008: ultrasoft systems complete. Accordingly, infinite dimensional

1009: hard spheres have an instability at some finite $k$

1010: at the density

1011: $\rho_{\star}$, given by $\rho_{\star}{\tilde f}(k) = 1$. This so-called

1012: {\it Kirkwood instability}\cite{kirkwood:51} 

1013: is of the same nature as our $\lambda$-line

1014: but hard hyperspheres are athermal, so it occurs at a single

1015: point on the density axis and not a line on the density-temperature

1016: plane. 

1017: Following Kirkwood's work,\cite{kirkwood:51} it was

1018: therefore argued\cite{frisch:pra:87,bagchi:jcp:88} that hard hyperspheres

1019: might have a second-order freezing transition at the

1020: density $\rho_{\star}$ expressed as

1021: \begin{equation}

1022: \rho_{\star} = 0.239(e/8)^{D/2}\exp[z_0(D/2)^{1/3}]D^{1/6},

1023: \label{rhostar:eq}

1024: \end{equation}

1025: where the limit $D \to \infty$ must be taken and $z_0 = 1.8558$ is the

1026: value of the minimum of the Bessel function $J_{D/2}(z)$ as $D \to \infty$.

1027: Note that $\rho_{\star} \to 0$ as $D \to \infty$.

1028: Later on, Frisch and Percus argued that

1029: most likely the Kirkwood instability is never encountered

1030: because it is preempted by a first-order freezing

1031: transition.\cite{frisch:pre:99} 

1032: In what follows, we will show analytically that this 

1033: is also the case for our systems, which might provide a finite-dimensional

1034: realization of the above-mentioned mathematical limit. 

1035: 

1036: \section{Analytical calculation of the freezing properties}

1037: \label{analytical:sec}

1038: 

1039: As mentioned above, an obvious candidate for a spatially modulated 

1040: phase is a periodic crystal. The purpose of this section is

1041: to employ density functional theory in order to calculate the

1042: freezing properties. Under some weak, simplifying assumptions,

1043: the problem can be solved analytically. 

1044: 

1045: Adding the ideal contribution to the

1046: excess functional of Eq.\ (\ref{dftmfa:eq}),

1047: the free energy of any spatially modulated phase is obtained as

1048: %\begin{widetext}

1049: \begin{eqnarray}

1050: \nonumber

1051: F[\rho] & = & F_{\rm id}[\rho] + F_{\rm ex}[\rho]

1052: \\

1053: \nonumber

1054: & = &  k_{\rm B}T\int{\rm d}^3r\left[\ln\left[\rho({\bf r})\Lambda^3\right]

1055: -1\right] 

1056: \\

1057: & + & \frac{1}{2}\int\int{\rm d}^3r{\rm d}^3r'

1058: v(|{\bf r}-{\bf r'}|)\rho({\bf r})\rho({\bf r'}).

1059: \label{totalfren:eq}

1060: \end{eqnarray} 

1061: %\end{widetext}

1062: As we are interested in crystalline phases, we parametrize the

1063: density profile as a sum of Gaussians centered around the lattice

1064: sites $\{{\bf R}\}$, forming a Bravais lattice. In sharp contrast

1065: with systems interacting by hard, diverging potentials, however,

1066: the assumption of one particle per lattice site has to be dropped.

1067: Indeed, it will be seen that $Q^{\pm}$ systems employ the strategy

1068: of optimizing their lattice constant by adjusting the number

1069: of particles per lattice site, $n_c$, at any given density 

1070: $\rho$ and temperature $T$. Accordingly, we normalize the

1071: profiles to $n_c$ and write

1072: \begin{eqnarray}

1073: \nonumber

1074: \rho({\bf r}) & = &  n_c\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}

1075: \sum_{{\bf R}}e^{-\alpha\left({\bf r}-{\bf R}\right)^2}

1076: \\

1077: & = & \sum_{{\bf R}}\rho_l({\bf r}-{\bf R}),

1078: \label{gaussian_real:eq}

1079: \end{eqnarray}

1080: where the occupation variable $n_c$ and the 

1081: localization parameter $\alpha$ have to be determined variationally,

1082: and the lattice site density $\rho_l({\bf r})$ is expressed as

1083: \begin{equation}

1084: \rho_l({\bf r}) = n_c\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}

1085: e^{-\alpha r^2}.

1086: \label{orbital:eq}

1087: \end{equation}

1088: Contrary to crystals of single occupancy, thus, the number of

1089: particles $N$ and the number of sites $N_s$ of the Bravais lattice

1090: do not coincide. In particular, it holds

1091: \begin{equation}

1092: \frac{N}{N_s} = n_c,

1093: \label{nc:eq}

1094: \end{equation}

1095: and we are interested in multiple site occupancies, i.e., $n_c > 1$ or

1096: even $n_c \gg 1$; it will be shown that this clustering scenario indeed

1097: minimizes the crystal's free energy.

1098: 

1099: It is advantageous, at this point, to express the periodic

1100: density profile of Eq.\ (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}) as a Fourier series,

1101: introducing the Fourier components $\rho_{\bf K}$ of the same:

1102: \begin{equation}

1103: \rho({\bf r}) = \sum_{{\bf K}}

1104: e^{{\rm i}{\bf K}\cdot{\bf r}}\rho_{\bf K},

1105: \label{denfour:eq}

1106: \end{equation}

1107: where the set $\{{\bf K}\}$ contains all reciprocal lattice vectors 

1108: (RLVs) of the Bravais lattice formed by the set $\{{\bf R}\}$.

1109: Accordingly, the inverse of (\ref{denfour:eq}) reads as:\cite{ashcroft}

1110: \begin{eqnarray}

1111: \nonumber

1112: \rho_{\bf K} & = &  \frac{1}{v_c}\int_{{\mathcal C}}

1113: {\rm d}^3r e^{{\rm i}{\bf K}\cdot{\bf r}}\rho({\bf r})

1114: \\

1115: & = & \frac{1}{v_c}

1116: \int {\rm d}^3r e^{{\rm i}{\bf K}\cdot{\bf r}}\rho_l({\bf r}),

1117: \label{deninfour:eq}

1118: \end{eqnarray}

1119: where the first integral extends over the elementary

1120: unit cell ${\mathcal C}$ of the crystal and $v_c = V/N_s$ is the 

1121: volume of ${\mathcal C}$, containing a single lattice site.

1122: The second integral extends over all space, where 

1123: use of the periodicity of $\rho({\bf r})$ and

1124: its expression as a sum over lattice site densities, 

1125: Eq.\ (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}), has been made. Using 

1126: Eq.\ (\ref{orbital:eq}) we obtain

1127: \begin{eqnarray}

1128: \nonumber

1129: \rho_{\bf K} & = & \frac{n_c}{v_c}e^{-K^2/(4\alpha)}

1130: \\

1131: & = & \rho e^{-K^2/(4\alpha)}.

1132: \label{rhok:eq}

1133: \end{eqnarray}

1134: Note that the site occupancy $n_c$ does not appear explicitly

1135: in the functional form of the Fourier components of $\rho({\bf r})$,

1136: a feature that may seem paradoxical at first sight. However, for

1137: fixed density $\rho$ and any crystal type, the lattice constant

1138: and thus also the reciprocal lattice vectors ${\bf K}$ are affected

1139: by the possibility of clustering, thus the dependence on $n_c$ 

1140: remains, albeit in an implicit fashion. With the density being

1141: expressed in reciprocal space, the excess free energy takes a

1142: simple form that reads as

1143: \begin{equation}

1144: \frac{F_{\rm ex}}{N} = \frac{\rho}{2}\sum_{{\bf K}}\tilde v(K) 

1145: e^{-K^2/(2\alpha)}.

1146: \label{fexk:eq}

1147: \end{equation}

1148: 

1149: The ideal term, $F_{\rm id}[\rho]$, can also be approximated

1150: analytically, provided that the Gaussians centered

1151: at different lattice sites do not overlap. Let $a$ denote the

1152: lattice constant of any particular crystal. Then, for 

1153: $\alpha a^2 \gg 1$, the ideal free energy of the crystal takes

1154: the form

1155: \begin{equation}

1156: \frac{\beta F_{\rm id}}{N} = 

1157: \ln n_c + \frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{\alpha\sigma^2}{\pi}\right)

1158: -\frac{5}{2} + 3\ln\left(\frac{\Lambda}{\sigma}\right),

1159: \label{fida:eq}

1160: \end{equation}

1161: where the trivial last term will be dropped in what follows, since

1162: is also appears in the expression of the free energy of the fluid

1163: and does not affect any phase boundaries. Putting together 

1164: Eqs.\ (\ref{fexk:eq}) and (\ref{fida:eq}), we obtain a variational

1165: free energy per particle, $\tilde f$, for the crystal, that reads as

1166: %\begin{widetext}

1167: \begin{eqnarray}

1168: \nonumber

1169: \frac{F_{\rm id}+F_{\rm ex}}{N\epsilon} & \equiv &

1170: \tilde f(n_c,\alpha^*;T^*,\rho^*) 

1171: \\

1172: \nonumber

1173: & = &  

1174: T^*\left[\ln n_c + \frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{\alpha^*}{\pi}\right)

1175: -\frac{5}{2}\right] 

1176: \\

1177: & + & \frac{\rho^*}{2}\sum_{\bf Y}\tilde\phi(Y)

1178:  e^{-Y^2/(2\alpha^*)},

1179: \label{fren_var:eq}

1180: \end{eqnarray}

1181: %\end{widetext}

1182: where $\alpha^* \equiv \alpha\sigma^2$ and ${\bf Y} \equiv {\bf K}\sigma$.

1183: In the list of arguments of $\tilde f$ the first two are

1184: variational parameters whereas the last two denote simply its

1185: dependence on temperature and density. The free energy per particle,

1186: $f_{\rm sol}(T^*,\rho^*) \equiv F/(N\epsilon)$ of the crystal is obtained

1187: by minimization of $\tilde f$, i.e.,

1188: \begin{equation}

1189: f_{\rm sol}(T^*,\rho^*) = \min_{\{n_c,\alpha^*\}}

1190: \tilde f(n_c,\alpha^*;T^*,\rho^*).

1191: \label{minimize:eq}

1192: \end{equation}

1193: 

1194: In carrying out the minimization, it proves

1195: useful to measure the localization length of the Gaussian

1196: profile, $\ell \equiv 1/\sqrt{\alpha}$, in units of the

1197: lattice constant $a$ instead of units of $\sigma$.

1198: To perform this change, we first express the average 

1199: density $\rho$ of the crystal in terms of $n_c$ and $a$ as

1200: \begin{equation}

1201: \rho = \frac{z n_c}{a^3},

1202: \label{den_a:eq}

1203: \end{equation}

1204: where $z$ is a lattice-dependent numerical coefficient of order

1205: unity. Introduce now the quantity 

1206: $\alpha a^2 = \gamma^{-1}$. Using Eq.\ (\ref{den_a:eq}) above, 

1207: we obtain

1208: \begin{equation}

1209: \alpha^* 

1210: = \gamma^{-1}\left(\frac{\rho^*}{zn_c}\right)^{2/3}.

1211: \label{amin_nc:eq}

1212: \end{equation}

1213: This change of variables is just a mathematical transformation that

1214: simplifies the mathematics to follow; all results to be derived

1215: maintain their validity also in the original representation.

1216: For a further discussion of this point, see also Appendix B.

1217: 

1218: Next we make the simplifying approximation to

1219: ignore in the sum over reciprocal lattice vectors on the right-hand-side

1220: of Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}) above all the RLVs beyond the first

1221: shell, whose length is $Y_1 = K_1\sigma$. This is justified

1222: already because of the

1223: exponentially damping factors

1224: $\exp[-Y^2/(2\alpha^*)]$ in the sum. In addition, the 

1225: coefficients

1226: $|\tilde\phi(Y)|$ themselves decay to

1227: zero as $Y \to \infty$, with an asymptotic behavior that

1228: depends on the form of $\phi(x)$ in real space. The 

1229: length of the first

1230: shell of RLVs of any Bravais lattice of lattice constant $a$

1231: scales as $K_1 = \zeta/a$, with some positive, lattice-dependent

1232: numerical constant $\zeta$ of order unity. Together with 

1233: Eqs.\ (\ref{den_a:eq}) this implies that the length of the 

1234: first RLV depends on the aggregation number $n_c$ as

1235: \begin{equation}

1236: Y_1(n_c) = \zeta\left(\frac{\rho^*}{z n_c}\right)^{1/3},

1237: \label{y1nc:eq}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: and using Eq.\ (\ref{amin_nc:eq}), we see that the ratio $Y_1^2/(2\alpha^*)$

1240: takes a form that depends {\it solely} on the parameter $\gamma$,

1241: namely

1242: \begin{equation}

1243: \frac{Y_1^2(n_c)}{2\alpha^*} = \frac{\gamma\zeta^2}{2}.

1244: \label{d:eq}

1245: \end{equation}

1246: 

1247: Introducing Eqs.\ (\ref{amin_nc:eq}) and ({\ref{d:eq}}) into

1248: (\ref{fren_var:eq}), we obtain another

1249: functional form for the variational free energy,

1250: $\bar f(n_c,\gamma;T^*,\rho^*)$, expressed

1251: in the new variables. It can be seen that 

1252: upon making the transformation

1253: (\ref{amin_nc:eq}), 

1254: the term 

1255: $3/2\ln[(\alpha^*/\pi)]$ 

1256: delivers a contribution {\it minus} $\ln n_c$

1257: that exactly cancels the same term with a positive sign on

1258: the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}). 

1259: Accordingly, the

1260: {\it only} remaining quantity of the variational free energy

1261: that still depends on $n_c$ is the length of the first 

1262: nonvanishing RLV, $Y_1$, whose $n_c$ dependence is expressed

1263: by Eq.\ (\ref{y1nc:eq}) above. 

1264: Putting everything together,

1265: we obtain  

1266: %\begin{widetext}

1267: \begin{eqnarray}

1268: \nonumber

1269: \bar f(n_c,\gamma;T^*,\rho^*) & = & T^*

1270: \left[\ln \rho^* - 1 - \frac{3}{2}\left[\ln(\gamma\pi) - 1\right] - \ln z

1271: \right] 

1272: \\

1273: \nonumber

1274: & + &  \frac{1}{2}\rho^*\tilde\phi(0) 

1275: \\

1276: & + & \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi\left(Y_1(n_c)\right)e^{-\gamma\zeta^2/2},

1277: \label{fbar:eq}

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: %\end{widetext}

1280: where $\xi_1$ is the coordination number of the {\it reciprocal} lattice.

1281: Minimizing $\bar f$ with respect to $n_c$ is trivial and using

1282: Eq.\ (\ref{d:eq}) we obtain

1283: \begin{equation}

1284: \frac{\partial {\bar f}}{\partial n_c} = 0

1285: \Rightarrow \tilde \phi'(Y_1)Y_1^4 = 0,

1286: \label{partialnc:eq}

1287: \end{equation}

1288: where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the argument.

1289: Evidently, $Y_1$ coincides with $y_*\equiv k_*\sigma$, the 

1290: dimensionless wavenumber for which

1291: the dimensionless Fourier transform of the interaction potential

1292: attains its negative minimum. The other mathematical solution

1293: of (\ref{partialnc:eq}), $Y_1 = 0$, can 

1294: be rejected because it yields nonpositive second derivatives or,

1295: on physical grounds, because it corresponds to a crystal with

1296: $n_c \to \infty$,

1297: whose occurrence would violate the thermodynamic stability

1298: of the system.    

1299: Regarding second derivatives,  

1300: it can be easily shown that

1301: \begin{equation}

1302: \frac{\partial^2 \bar f}{\partial n_c^2}\Bigg|_{Y_1 = y_*} > 0, 

1303: \label{second_nc:eq}

1304: \end{equation}

1305: and

1306: \begin{equation}

1307: \frac{\partial^2 \bar f}{\partial\gamma\partial n_c}\Bigg|_{Y_1 = y_*} = 0,

1308: \label{second_ncgamma:eq}

1309: \end{equation}

1310: irrespective of $\gamma$. 

1311: 

1312: Having shown the coincidence of $Y_1$ with $y_*$, we set

1313: $\tilde\phi(Y_1) = \tilde\phi(y_*) < 0$ in Eq.\ (\ref{fbar:eq})

1314: above. Further, we notice that the term $T^*[\ln\rho^*-1]$ on the

1315: right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{fbar:eq}) gives the

1316: ideal free energy of a uniform fluid of density

1317: $\rho^*$ and the term $\rho^*\tilde\phi(0)/2$ the excess part

1318: of the same, see

1319: Eq.\ (\ref{frex_liq:eq}). 

1320: Subtracting, thus, the total fluid free

1321: energy per particle, $f_{\rm fl}(T^*,\rho^*)$, we introduce

1322: the difference $\Delta {\bar f} \equiv \bar f - f_{\rm fl}$,

1323: which reads as

1324: \begin{eqnarray}

1325: \nonumber

1326: \Delta \bar f(n_c(y_*),\gamma;T^*,\rho^*) = 

1327: & - & \frac{3T^*}{2}\left[\ln(\gamma\pi) + 1 + \frac{2\ln z}{3}\right]

1328: \\

1329: & + & \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi(y_*)e^{-\gamma\zeta^2/2}. 

1330: \label{deltaf:eq}

1331: \end{eqnarray}

1332: 

1333: The requirement of no overlap between Gaussians

1334: centered on different lattice sites restricts $\gamma$ to be small;

1335: a very generous upper limit is $\gamma \leq 0.05$. For such

1336: small values of $\gamma$, 

1337: the first term on the right-hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{deltaf:eq}) above

1338: is positive. 

1339: This positivity

1340: expresses the entropic cost

1341: of localization that a crystal pays, compared to the fluid in which

1342: the delocalized

1343: particles possess translational entropy. This cost must be compensated

1344: by a gain in the excess term, which is only possible if $\tilde\phi(y_*) < 0$.

1345: An additional degree of freedom is offered by the candidate crystal

1346: structures. 

1347: The excess free energy is minimized by the

1348: direct Bravais lattice whose reciprocal lattice has 

1349: the maximum possible coordination number $\xi_1$.

1350: The most highly coordinated periodic arrangement 

1351: of sites is fcc, for which $\xi_1 = 12$. Therefore, 

1352: in the framework of this approximation, the stable lattice

1353: is bcc. It must be emphasized, though, that these results hold

1354: as long as only the first shell of RLVs is kept in the excess

1355: free energy. Inclusion of higher-order shells can, under

1356: suitable thermodynamic conditions, stabilize fcc in favor of bcc.

1357: We will return to this point later.

1358: 

1359: Choosing now $a$ as the edge-length of the {\it conventional}

1360: lattice cell of the bcc-lattice, we have $z=2$ and

1361: $\zeta = 2\sqrt{2}\pi$. Evidently,  

1362: the lattice constant of the crystal is

1363: density-independent, 

1364: $a/\sigma = (2\sqrt{2}\pi)/y_*$, contrary to the case

1365: of usual crystals, for which $a \propto \rho^{-1/3}$. 

1366: The density-independence of $a$ is achieved

1367: by the creation of clusters that consist of $n_c$ particles,

1368: each of them occupying a  

1369: lattice site. The proportionality

1370: relation connecting $n_c$ and $\rho^*$ follows from

1371: Eq.\ (\ref{y1nc:eq}) and reads as

1372: \begin{equation}

1373: n_c = \frac{8\sqrt{2}\pi^3}{y_*^3}\rho^*.

1374: \label{proport:eq}

1375: \end{equation}

1376: 

1377: It remains to minimize $\bar f$ (equivalently, $\Delta\bar f$)

1378: with respect to $\gamma$ to determine the free energy of the crystal.

1379: We are interested, in particular, in estimating the `freezing

1380: line', determined by the equality of free energies of the fluid

1381: and the solid.\cite{foot1}

1382: Accordingly,

1383: we search for the simultaneous solution of the equations

1384: \begin{eqnarray}

1385: \frac{\partial {\bar f}}{\partial \gamma} & = & 0,

1386: \\

1387: \Delta {\bar f} & = & 0,

1388: \end{eqnarray}

1389: resulting into

1390: \begin{equation}

1391: \frac{3T^*}{2\gamma} + 

1392: \frac{\xi_1\zeta^2\rho^*}{4}\tilde\phi(y_*)e^{-\gamma\zeta^2/2}=0,

1393: \label{dfdg:eq}

1394: \end{equation}

1395: and

1396: \begin{equation}

1397: \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi(y_*)e^{-\gamma\zeta^2/2}=

1398: \frac{3T^*}{2}\left[\ln(\gamma\pi)+1+\frac{2\ln z}{3}\right].

1399: \label{dfzero:eq}

1400: \end{equation}

1401: Substituting (\ref{dfzero:eq}) into (\ref{dfdg:eq}) and using $z = 2$ and

1402: $\zeta = 2\sqrt{2}\pi$, we obtain an implicit equation for $\gamma$

1403: that reads as

1404: \begin{equation}

1405: \gamma^{-1} = -4\pi^2

1406: \left[\ln\left(\gamma\pi\right)+1+\frac{2\ln 2}{3}\right],

1407: \label{gamma:eq}

1408: \end{equation}

1409: and has two solutions, $\gamma_1 \cong 0.018$ and $\gamma_2 \cong 0.038$.

1410: Due to (\ref{second_nc:eq}) and (\ref{second_ncgamma:eq}),

1411: the sign of the determinant of the Hessian matrix at the extremum

1412: is set by the sign of $\partial^2{\bar f}/\partial \gamma^2$;

1413: Using Eqs.\ (\ref{dfdg:eq}), (\ref{dfzero:eq}),

1414: and (\ref{gamma:eq}) we obtain

1415: \begin{equation}

1416: \frac{\partial^2{\bar f}}{\partial \gamma^2} = 

1417: \frac{3T^*}{2\gamma}\left(\gamma^{-1}-4\pi^2\right),

1418: \label{second_gamma:eq}

1419: \end{equation}

1420: which is positive for $\gamma = \gamma_1$ but negative for

1421: $\gamma = \gamma_2$. Only the first solution corresponds to 

1422: a minimum and thus to freezing,

1423: whereas the second is a saddle point. 

1424: Within the limits of the first-RLV-shell approximation,

1425: the crystals formed by $Q^{\pm}$-potentials feature thus a

1426: {\it universal localization parameter} at freezing: irrespective

1427: of the location on the freezing line and 

1428: even {\it of the interaction potential itself}, the localization

1429: length $\ell$ at freezing is a fixed fraction of the lattice constant

1430: and the parameter $\gamma = (\alpha a^2)^{-1}$ attains along the

1431: entire crystallization line the value

1432: \begin{equation}

1433: \gamma_{\rm f} \cong 0.018.

1434: \label{gammaf:eq}

1435: \end{equation}

1436: 

1437: We can

1438: understand the physics behind the 

1439: constancy of the ratio $\ell/a$ by examining anew the 

1440: variational form of the free energy, Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}).

1441: Suppose we have a fixed density $\rho^*$ and we vary $n_c$, seeking

1442: to achieve a minimum of $\tilde f$. An increase in $n_c$ implies

1443: an increase in the lattice constant $a$ by virtue of Eq.\ (\ref{den_a:eq}).

1444: The density profile takes advantage of the additional space 

1445: created between neighboring sites and becomes more delocalized. This

1446: increase of the spreading of the profile brings with it an

1447: entropic gain which exactly compensates the corresponding loss

1448: from the accumulation of particles on a single site, expressed

1449: by the term $\ln n_c$ in Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}). Expressing

1450: $\ell$ in units of $a$, i.e., working with the variable $\gamma$

1451: instead with the original one, $\alpha^*$, brings the additional

1452: advantage that $\gamma_{\rm f}$ becomes independent of the 

1453: pair potential. The corresponding value of $\alpha^*$ at freezing,

1454: $\alpha^*_{\rm f}$, can be obtained from Eqs.\ (\ref{den_a:eq}) 

1455: and (\ref{proport:eq}),

1456: and reads for the bcc-lattice as

1457: \begin{equation}

1458: \alpha^*_{\rm f} = \frac{y_*^2}{8\pi^2\gamma_{\rm f}}.

1459: \label{alphaf:eq}

1460: \end{equation}

1461: Here, a dependence on the pair interaction appears through 

1462: the value of $y_*$.

1463: 

1464: Complementary to the localization parameter,

1465: we can consider the Lindemann ratio $L$ at freezing,\cite{lindemann}

1466: taking into account that for the bcc lattice the nearest neighbor

1467: distance is $d = a\sqrt{3}/2$. Employing 

1468: the Gaussian density parametrization,

1469: we find $\langle r^2 \rangle = 3/(2\alpha)$ and thus 

1470: $L \equiv \sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle}/d  = \sqrt{2\gamma}$. 

1471: Using (\ref{gammaf:eq}), the

1472: Lindemann ratio at freezing, $L_{\rm f}$, is determined as

1473: \begin{equation}

1474: L_{\rm f} \cong 0.189.

1475: \label{lind:eq}

1476: \end{equation}

1477: This value is considerably larger than the typical value of $0.10$ usually

1478: quoted for systems with harshly repulsive particles, such as,

1479: e.g., the bcc alcali metals and the fcc metals Al, Cu, Ag, and 

1480: Au [\onlinecite{shapiro}], but close to the value 0.160 found

1481: by Stillinger and Weber\cite{still3} for the Gaussian core model.

1482: The particles in the cluster crystal are quite more delocalized

1483: than the ones for singly-occupied solids. The clustering strategy

1484: enhances the stability of the crystal with respect to oscillations

1485: about the equilibrium lattice positions. 

1486: 

1487: The locus of freezing points $(T^*_{\rm f}, \rho^*_{\rm f})$

1488: is easily obtained by Eqs.\ (\ref{dfzero:eq}) 

1489: and (\ref{gamma:eq}) and

1490: takes the form of of a straight line:

1491: \begin{equation}

1492: \frac{T^*_{\rm f}}{\rho^*_{\rm f}} = 16\pi^2\gamma_{\rm f}

1493:                                 |\tilde\phi(y_*)|e^{-4\pi^2\gamma_{\rm f}}

1494: \cong  1.393\, |\tilde\phi(y_*)|. 

1495: \label{freeze:eq}

1496: \end{equation}

1497: Contrary to the Lindemann ratio, which is independent of 

1498: the pair potential, the freezing line does depend on the interaction

1499: potential between the particles. Yet, this dependence is a 

1500: particular one, as it rests exclusively on the absolute 

1501: value of the Fourier transform at the minimum,

1502: $|\tilde\phi(y_*)|$ and is simply proportional to it.

1503: Comparing with the location of the $\lambda$-line from

1504: Eq.\ (\ref{lambda:eq}),

1505: $T^*_{\lambda}/\rho^*_{\lambda} = |\tilde\phi(y_*)|$, 

1506: we find that crystallization

1507: {\it preempts} the occurrence

1508: of the instability: indeed, at fixed $T^*$, $\rho^*_{\rm f}

1509: < \rho^*_{\lambda}$ or, equivalently, at fixed $\rho^*$,

1510: $T^*_{\rm f} > T^*_{\lambda}$; see also Fig.\ \ref{phdg:fig}.

1511: The transition is first-order, as witnessed by the jumps

1512: of the values of $\alpha$ and $\rho_{\bf K}$ at the

1513: transition, which

1514: are nonzero for the crystal but vanish in the fluid.

1515: This is analogous to the conjectured preemption of the Kirkwood instability

1516: for infinite-dimensional hard spheres by a first-order freezing

1517: transition.\cite{frisch:pre:99}

1518: 

1519: The freezing properties of $Q^{\pm}$-potentials are, thus,

1520: quite unusual and at the same time quite simple: the lattice

1521: constant is fixed due to a clustering mechanism that drives

1522: the aggregation number $n_c$ proportional to the density.

1523: The constant of proportionality depends solely on the wavenumber

1524: $y_*$ for which the Fourier transform of the pair interaction

1525: has a negative minimum, Eq.\ (\ref{proport:eq}).

1526: The freezing line is a straight line

1527: whose slope depends only on the value of the Fourier transform

1528: of the potential at the minimum, Eq.\ (\ref{freeze:eq}). The Lindemann ratio

1529: at freezing is a universal number, independent of interaction

1530: potential and thermodynamic state. 

1531: 

1532: Whereas the Lindemann ratio is employed as a measure of the

1533: propensity of a crystal to melt, the height of the peak of the structure

1534: factor of the fluid is looked upon as a measure of the tendency

1535: of the fluid to crystallize. The Hansen-Verlet 

1536: criterion\cite{hv1,hv2}

1537: states

1538: that crystallization takes place when this quantity exceeds

1539: the value 2.85. For the systems at hand, the maximum of $S(y)$

1540: lies at $y_*$, as is clear from Eq.\ (\ref{sofk:eq}). 

1541: Using Eq.\ (\ref{freeze:eq})

1542: for the location of the freezing line, we obtain the value

1543: $S_{\rm f}(y_*)$ on the freezing line as

1544: \begin{equation}

1545: S_{\rm f}(y_*) = \left[1 + \frac{\tilde\phi(y_*)}{1.393\,|\tilde\phi(y_*)|}

1546: \right]^{-1} \cong 3.542.

1547: \end{equation}

1548: This value is considerably larger than the Hansen-Verlet threshold.\cite{hv1,hv2}

1549: In the fluid phase,

1550: $Q^{\pm}$-systems can therefore sustain a higher

1551: degree of spatial correlation before they crystallize

1552: than particles with diverging interactions do. This 

1553: property lies in the fact that some contribution to

1554: the peak height comes from correlations from {\it within} the clusters

1555: that form in the fluid; the formation of clusters already in 

1556: the uniform phase is witnessed by the maxima of $g(r)$ at $r=0$

1557: seen in Fig.\ \ref{gofr:fig} and also explicitly

1558: visualized in our previous simulations of the model.\cite{bianca:prl:06} 

1559: These, however,

1560: do not contribute to intercluster ordering that leads to 

1561: crystallization. 

1562: At any rate, 

1563: the Hansen-Verlet peak height is also a 

1564: universal quantity for all $Q^{\pm}$ systems, in the

1565: framework of the current approximation. Moreover, both for the Lindemann

1566: and for the Hansen-Verlet 

1567: criteria, the $Q^{\pm}$ systems are more robust than usual ones,

1568: since they allow for stable fluids with peak heights that exceed

1569: $2.85$ by 25\% 

1570: and for stable crystals with Lindemann ratios that

1571: exceed $0.10$ by almost 90\%.

1572: 

1573: \section{Comparison with numerical minimization}

1574: \label{compare:sec}

1575: 

1576: The density functional of Eq.\ (\ref{totalfren:eq}) is very accurate

1577: for the bounded ultrasoft potentials 

1578: at hand.\cite{criterion,likos:gauss,louis:mfa,archer1,archer2,archer3,archer4,finken} The modeling of

1579: the inhomogeneous density as a sum of Gaussians is

1580: an approximation but, again, an accurate one, as has been shown

1581: by comparing with simulation results,\cite{bianca:prl:06}

1582: see also section

1583: \ref{harmonic:sec} of this work. The analytical results

1584: derived in the preceding section rest on one additional approximation,

1585: namely on ignoring the RLVs beyond the first shell. Here, we

1586: want to compare with a full minimization of the functional

1587: (\ref{totalfren:eq}) under the modeling of the density via

1588: (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}), so as to test the accuracy of the

1589: hitherto drawn conclusions on clustering and crystallization.

1590: 

1591: \begin{figure}

1592:  \begin{center}

1593:  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, clip]

1594:         {./phdg.eps}

1595:  \end{center}

1596: \caption{The phase diagram of the GEM-4 model, obtained by full

1597: minimization of the density functional (\ref{totalfren:eq}), under

1598: the Gaussian parametrization of the density, Eq.\ (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}),

1599: redrawn from Ref.\ [\onlinecite{bianca:prl:06}]. On the same plot, we show by the

1600: dotted line the 

1601: approximate analytical result

1602: for the freezing line, Eq.\ (\ref{freeze:eq}), as well as the

1603: $\lambda$-line of the system, Eq.\ (\ref{lambda:eq}).}

1604: \label{phdg:fig}

1605: \end{figure}

1606: 

1607: We work with the concrete GEM-4 system, for which the minimization

1608: of the density functional has been carried out

1609: and the phase diagram has been calculated in Ref.\ [\onlinecite{bianca:prl:06}].

1610: In Fig.\ \ref{phdg:fig} we show the phase diagram obtained by the

1611: full minimization, compared with the freezing line from the 

1612: analytical approximation, Eq.\ (\ref{freeze:eq}), for this system.

1613: It can be seen that the latter is a very good approximation

1614: to the full result, its quality improving 

1615: slowly as the temperature grows; the analytical approximation

1616: consistently overestimates the region of stability of the crystal.

1617: Moreover, whereas the approximation only predicts a stable bcc

1618: crystal, the high-density phase of the system is fcc. Although

1619: bcc indeed is, above the triple temperature, the stable crystal

1620: immediately post-freezing, it is succeeded at higher densities by

1621: a fcc lattice, which our analytical theory fails to predict. 

1622: 

1623: \begin{figure}

1624:  \begin{center}

1625:  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, clip]

1626:         {./phiofq.eps}

1627:  \end{center}

1628: \caption{Inset: the Fourier transform $\tilde\phi(y)$ of the GEM-4

1629: potential. Main plot: a zoom at the region of $\tilde\phi(y)$ in which

1630: the first few nonvanishing RLV shells of the cluster-crystals of Fig.\ \ref{phdg:fig}

1631: lie. The arrows denote the positions of the shells and the numbers

1632: in square brackets the numbers of distinct RLVs within each shell.

1633: These positions are the result of the full minimization of the

1634: density functional. Downwards pointing arrows pertain to the direct bcc

1635: lattice and upwards pointing arrows to the direct fcc one. In agreement

1636: with clustering predictions, the positions of the RLVs are

1637: density-independent.}

1638: \label{phiofq:fig}

1639: \end{figure}

1640: 

1641: All these discrepancies can be easily understood by looking at the

1642: effects of ignoring the higher RLV shells from the summation

1643: in the excess free energy, Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}). 

1644: Consider first exclusively the bcc

1645: lattice. In Fig.\ \ref{phiofq:fig} we show the locations of 

1646: the bcc-RLVs, as obtained from the full minimization, by the

1647: downwards pointing arrows. It can be seen that the first shell

1648: is indeed located very closely to $y_*$, as the analytical 

1649: solution predicts. However, the next two RLV shells do have

1650: contributions and, due to their location on the hump of

1651: $\tilde\phi(y)$, the latter is positive. By ignoring them

1652: in performing the analytical solution, we are artificially lowering the

1653: free energy of the crystal, increasing thereby its domain

1654: of stability. 

1655: 

1656: The occurrence of a fcc-lattice that beats the bcc at high 

1657: densities is only slightly more complicated to understand. 

1658: A first remark is that the parameter $\alpha^*$ 

1659: increases proportionally to $\rho^*/T^*$, see the following

1660: section. Hence, the Gaussian factors 

1661: from RLVs beyond the first shell, $\exp[-Y_i^2/(2\alpha^*)]$, $i \geq 2$,

1662: gain weight in the sum as density grows. The cutoff for the RLV-sum is

1663: now provided rather by the short-range nature of 

1664: $\tilde\phi(y)$ than by the exponential factors.

1665: Due to the increased importance of the contributions from the $i \geq 2$-terms

1666: in the excess free energy sum, the relative location of higher RLVs

1667: becomes crucial and can

1668: tip the balance in favor of fcc, although the bcc-lattice

1669: has a {\it higher} number of RLVs in its first shell than the fcc.

1670: In Fig.\ \ref{phiofq:fig} we see that this is precisely what

1671: happens: the second RLV shell of the fcc is located fairly

1672: close to the first. In the full minimization, both of them

1673: arrange their positions so as to lie close enough to 

1674: $y_*$. Now, a total of fourteen 1st- and 2nd-shell RLVs

1675: of the fcc can beat the twelve 1st-shell RLVs of the bcc

1676: and bring about a structural phase transformation from the 

1677: latter to the former. 

1678: 

1679: The relative importance of the first and second

1680: neighbors is quantified by the ratio

1681: \begin{equation}

1682: \Delta = \frac{\xi_2}{\xi_1}\frac{|\tilde\phi(Y_2)|}{|\tilde\phi(Y_1)|}

1683: \exp[-(Y_2^2-Y_1^2)/(2\alpha^*)],

1684: \label{ratio:eq}

1685: \end{equation}

1686: where $\xi_2$ is the number of RLVs in the second shell.

1687: If $\tilde\phi (y)$

1688: does not decay sufficiently fast to zero as $y$ grows,

1689: then the fcc lattice might even win over the bcc everywhere,

1690: since then $\Delta$ could be considerable even for values of

1691: $\alpha^*$ close to freezing, which are not terribly high.

1692: In fact, the penetrable sphere model (GEM-$m$ with $m \to \infty$)

1693: does not possess, on these grounds, 

1694: a stable bcc phase at all.\cite{pensph:98}

1695: The prediction of the analytical theory

1696: on bcc stability has to be taken with care and is conditional

1697: to $\Delta$ being sufficiently small. A quantitative criterion

1698: on the smallness of $\Delta$ is model specific and cannot be

1699: given in general. 

1700: The determination of the stable phases of the GEM-$m$ family

1701: and their dependence on $m$ can be achieved by employing

1702: genetic algorithms\cite{dieter:jcp:05} and will be presented

1703: elsewhere.\cite{bianca:long}

1704: 

1705: Notwithstanding the quantitative discrepancies between

1706: the simplified, analytically tractable version of DFT and the

1707: full one, which are small in the first place,

1708: the central conclusion of the former remains intact:

1709: the RLVs of the crystals are density-independent. Whereas 

1710: the analytical approximation predicts that the 

1711: length of the first RLV shell 

1712: coincides with $y_*$, the numerical minimization brings about

1713: small deviations from this prediction. However, by reading off

1714: the relevant values from Fig.\ \ref{phiofq:fig}, we obtain

1715: $Y_1 = 5.625$ for the bcc and $Y_1 = 5.441$ for the fcc-lattice

1716: of the GEM-4 model.

1717: Comparing with the ideal value

1718: $y_* = 5.573$, we find that the deviation between them is only 

1719: a few percent. Clustering takes place, so that the lattice

1720: constants of both lattices remain fixed, a characteristic 

1721: that was also explicitly confirmed by computer simulations

1722: of the model.\cite{bianca:prl:06}

1723: 

1724: \section{Connection to harmonic theory of crystals}

1725: \label{harmonic:sec}

1726: 

1727: The use of a Gaussian parametrization for the 

1728: one-particle density profiles, Eq.\ (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}),

1729: is a standard modeling of the latter for periodic crystals.

1730: This functional form is closely related to the harmonic theory of

1731: crystals.\cite{ashcroft} Each particle performs 

1732: oscillations around its lattice site, experiencing thereby

1733: an effective, one-particle site potential, $V_{\rm site}({\bf s})$

1734: that is quadratic in the displacement $s$, for small values

1735: $s/a$ [\onlinecite{foot2}].

1736: Here, we will explicitly demonstrate that the Gaussian form

1737: with the localization parameter predicted from density functional

1738: theory coincides with the results obtained by performing 

1739: a harmonic expansion of the said site potential.

1740: 

1741: The formation of clustered crystals is a generic property

1742: of all $Q^{\pm}$-systems, since the $\lambda$-instability

1743: is common to all of them; the form of the clusters that

1744: occupy the lattice sites, however, can be quite complex,

1745: depending on the details of the interaction. The Gaussian

1746: parametrization (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}) implies that for

1747: each of the $n_c$ particles of the cluster, the lattice 

1748: site ${\bf R}$ is an equilibrium position. In other words,

1749: the particular clusters we consider here are internally

1750: structureless. Clusters with a well-defined internal order

1751: have been found when an additional hard core of small extent is

1752: introduced.\cite{primoz:07}  

1753: A necessary 

1754: requirement for the lack of internal order is that the Laplacian

1755: of the interaction potential $v(r)$ be finite at 

1756: $r=0$, as will be shown shortly.

1757: On these grounds, we impose 

1758: from the outset on the interaction potential

1759: the additional requirement:

1760: \begin{equation}

1761: \nabla^2 v(r) = \frac{1}{r^2}\left(r^2 v'(r)\right)' 

1762: < \infty\;\;{\rm for}\;\; r \to 0,

1763: \label{condition1:eq}

1764: \end{equation} 

1765: where the primes denote the derivative with respect to $r$. 

1766: Eq.\ (\ref{condition1:eq}) implies that $v'(r)$ must be

1767: {\it at least} linear in $r$ as $r \to 0$. Concomitantly,

1768: $v''(r)$ must be at least $O(1)$ as $r \to 0$. As a

1769: consequence, we have

1770: \begin{equation}

1771: v''(r) - \frac{v'(r)}{r} \to 0\;\;{\rm for}\;\; r \to 0.

1772: \label{condition:eq}

1773: \end{equation}

1774: It can be easily checked that (\ref{condition:eq}) is satisfied by

1775: all members of the GEM-$m$ class for $m > 2$. It is also satisfied

1776: by the $m=2$ member, i.e., the Gaussian model, which does

1777: {\it not} display clustering because it belongs to the $Q^{+}$-class.

1778: This is, however, no contradiction. As mentioned above, 

1779: the condition (\ref{condition:eq}) is {\it necessary} for the

1780: formation of structureless clusters and not a sufficient one.

1781: For $Q^{\pm}$-potentials for which (\ref{condition:eq}) is not

1782: fulfilled (such as the Fermi distribution models of 

1783: Ref.\ [\onlinecite{criterion}]), this does not mean that 

1784: clusters do not form; it rather points to the fact that

1785: they possess some degree of internal order.

1786: 

1787: The clustered crystals can be considered as Bravais lattices with

1788: a $n_c$-point basis. Accordingly, their phonon spectrum will 

1789: feature 3 acoustic modes and $3(n_c - 1)$ optical modes, for which

1790: the oscillation frequency $\omega(k)$ remains finite as $k \to 0$.

1791: We are interested in the case $n_c \gg 1$, i.e., deep in the

1792: region of stability of the crystal, where the clusters have 

1793: a very high occupation number. Consequently, the phonon spectra

1794: and the particle displacements will be dominated by the optical

1795: branches. Further, we simplify the problem by choosing, in the

1796: spirit of the Einstein model of the crystal,\cite{ashcroft} one 

1797: specific optical phonon with $k = 0$

1798: as a representative for the whole spectrum. This mode corresponds

1799: to the relative partial displacement of two sublattices:

1800: one with $n_c - 1$ particles on each site and one with just

1801: the remaining one particle per site. The two sublattices

1802: coincide at the equilibrium position and maintain their

1803: shape throughout the oscillation mode, consistent with the

1804: fact of an infinite-wavelength mode, $k=0$. Accordingly, the

1805: site potential felt by any one of the particles of the 

1806: single-occupied sublattice, $V_{\rm site}({\bf s})$, can

1807: be expressed as

1808: \begin{equation}

1809: V_{\rm site}({\bf s}) = (n_c - 1)\left[v(s) + \sum_{{\bf R} \ne 0}

1810: v(|{\bf s} - {\bf R}|)

1811: \right],

1812: \label{vsite:eq}

1813: \end{equation}

1814: where ${\bf s}$ is the relative displacement of the two sublattices.

1815: For brevity, we also define 

1816: \begin{equation}

1817: W_{\rm site}({\bf s}) \equiv \frac{V_{\rm site}({\bf s})}{n_c-1}.

1818: \label{wsite:eq}

1819: \end{equation}

1820: 

1821: The Taylor expansion of a scalar function $f$

1822: around a reference point ${\bf r}$ reads as

1823: \begin{equation}

1824: f({\bf r} + {\bf s}) = f({\bf r}) +

1825: {\bf s}\cdot\nabla f({\bf r}) +

1826: \frac{1}{2}\left({\bf s}\cdot\nabla\right)^2 f({\bf r}) + \cdots 

1827: \label{taylor3:eq}

1828: \end{equation}  

1829: Setting ${\bf r} \to 0$ and $f \to W_{\rm site}$, we obtain the

1830: quadratic expansion of the site potential; the constant $V_{\rm site}(0)$

1831: is unimportant. For the linear term, we have

1832: \begin{equation}

1833: \nabla W_{\rm site}({\bf r}=0) = v'(r){\bf {\hat r}}\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0} 

1834: + \sum_{{\bf R} \ne 0} v'(R){\bf {\hat R}},

1835: \label{linear:eq}

1836: \end{equation}

1837: where ${\bf {\hat r}}$ and ${\bf {\hat R}}$ are unit vectors. 

1838: The sum in (\ref{linear:eq}) vanishes due to lattice inversion

1839: symmetry; the first term also, since $v'(0) = 0$. Thus, the term

1840: linear in ${\bf s}$ in the expansion of $V_{\rm site}({\bf s})$

1841: vanishes, consistently with the fact that ${\bf s} = 0$ is 

1842: an equilibrium position. 

1843: 

1844: We now introduce

1845: Cartesian coordinates and write 

1846: ${\bf r} = (x,y,z)$, ${\bf s} = (s_x,s_y,s_z)$, and

1847: ${\bf R} = (R_x, R_y, R_z)$. The quadratic term in 

1848: (\ref{taylor3:eq}) takes the explicit form

1849: \begin{eqnarray}

1850: \nonumber

1851: \frac{1}{2}\left({\bf s}\cdot\nabla\right)^2 & = &

1852:       s_xs_y\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\partial y} +

1853:       s_ys_z\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y\partial z} +

1854:       s_zs_x\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z\partial x}

1855: \\

1856: & + &

1857: \frac{1}{2}\left(s_x^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} +

1858:                  s_y^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} +

1859:                  s_z^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}\right).

1860: \label{explicit:eq}

1861: \end{eqnarray}

1862: Let us consider first the mixed derivative acting on $W_{\rm site}({\bf r})$,

1863: evaluated at ${\bf r} = 0$. Using Eqs.\ (\ref{wsite:eq}) 

1864: and (\ref{vsite:eq}), we obtain

1865: \begin{eqnarray}

1866: \nonumber

1867: \frac{\partial^2 W_{\rm site}({\bf r})}{\partial x\partial y}\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0}

1868: & = &  

1869: \left[\frac{xy}{r^2}\left(v''(r)-\frac{v'(r)}{r}\right)\right]_{{\bf r} = 0}

1870: \\

1871: & + & \sum_{{\bf R}\ne 0}\frac{R_xR_y}{R^2}

1872: \left[v''(R)-\frac{v'(R)}{R}\right].

1873: \label{mixed:eq}

1874: \end{eqnarray}

1875: The first term on the right-hand side of (\ref{mixed:eq}) vanishes by

1876: virtue of (\ref{condition:eq}). The second one also vanishes due to

1877: the cubic symmetry of the lattice. Clearly, the other two terms in

1878: (\ref{explicit:eq}) 

1879: with mixed derivatives vanish as well. For the remaining terms,

1880: the cubic symmetry of

1881: the lattice implies that all three 

1882: second partial derivatives of $W_{\rm site}$ at ${\bf r} = 0$

1883: are equal:

1884: \begin{eqnarray}

1885: \nonumber

1886: \frac{\partial^2 W_{\rm site}({\bf r})}{\partial x^2}\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0}

1887: & = & 

1888: \frac{\partial^2 W_{\rm site}({\bf r})}{\partial y^2}\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0}

1889: =

1890: \frac{\partial^2 W_{\rm site}({\bf r})}{\partial z^2}\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0}

1891: \\

1892: & = &  \frac{1}{3}\nabla^2W_{\rm site}({\bf r})\Big|_{{\bf r} = 0}.

1893: \label{laplace:eq}

1894: \end{eqnarray}

1895: 

1896: Gathering the results, we obtain the expansion of $V_{\rm site}({\bf s})$

1897: to quadratic order in $s$ as

1898: \begin{equation}

1899: V_{\rm site}({\bf s}) = V_{\rm site}(0) + \left[\frac{(n_c - 1)}{6}

1900: \sum_{\bf R}\nabla^2v(R)\right]s^2,

1901: \label{isotropic:eq}

1902: \end{equation}

1903: which is isotropic in $s$, as should for a crystal of cubic symmetry.

1904: The one-particle motion is therefore harmonic; as we consider

1905: $n_c \gg 1$, we set $n_c - 1 \cong n_c$ in (\ref{isotropic:eq})

1906: and we obtain the effective, one-particle Hamiltonian 

1907: ${\mathcal H}_1$ in the form:

1908: \begin{equation}

1909: {\mathcal H}_1 = \frac{p^2}{2m} + \kappa s^2,

1910: \label{hamilton:eq}

1911: \end{equation}

1912: with

1913: \begin{equation}

1914: \kappa = \frac{n_c}{6}\sum_{\bf R}\nabla^2 v(R)

1915: \label{kappa:eq}

1916: \end{equation}

1917: and the momentum $p$ and mass $m$ of the particle. The density

1918: profile $\rho_1({\bf r})$ of this single-particle problem is

1919: easily calculated as 

1920: $\langle \delta({\bf r} - {\bf s})\rangle_{{\mathcal H}_1}$, yielding

1921: \begin{equation}

1922: \rho_1({\bf r}) = \left(\frac{\beta\kappa}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}

1923: e^{-\beta\kappa r^2}.

1924: \label{rho1:eq}

1925: \end{equation}

1926: This is indeed a Gaussian of a single

1927: particle, with a localization parameter

1928: $\alpha_{\rm h} = \beta\kappa$; the total density on a given

1929: site will be then just $n_c\rho_1({\bf r})$, in agreement with the

1930: functional form put forward in Eq.\ (\ref{gaussian_real:eq}).

1931: 

1932: It is useful to consider in detail the form of the

1933: localization parameter $\alpha_{\rm h}$ predicted by the 

1934: harmonic theory. The parameter $\kappa$ is expressed as

1935: a sum of the values of $\psi(r) = \nabla^2 v(r)$ over 

1936: the periodic set $\{{\bf R}\}$. For every function 

1937: $\psi(r)$ that possesses a Fourier transform

1938: $\tilde\psi(k)$, it holds\cite{ashcroft}

1939: \begin{equation}

1940: \sum_{{\bf R}} \psi(R) = \rho_s\sum_{{\bf K}} 

1941: \tilde\psi(K),

1942: \label{parseval:eq}

1943: \end{equation}

1944: where $\{{\bf K}\}$ is the set of RLVs of $\{{\bf R}\}$ and

1945: $\rho_s = N_s/V$ is the density of {\it lattice sites} of $\{{\bf R}\}$.

1946: From (\ref{nc:eq}),

1947: $\rho_s n_c = \rho$. 

1948: Taking into account that the Fourier transform of $\nabla^2 v(r)$

1949: is $-k^2\tilde v(k)$, we obtain for the localization parameter

1950: of the harmonic theory the result

1951: \begin{equation}

1952: \alpha_{\rm h} = -\frac{\rho}{6k_{\rm B}T}\sum_{{\bf K}}K^2\tilde v(K).

1953: \label{alphah:eq}

1954: \end{equation}

1955: The localization parameter must be, evidently, positive.

1956: Eq.\ (\ref{alphah:eq}) manifests the impossibility for cluster

1957: formation if the Fourier transform of the pair potential is

1958: nonnegative, i.e., for $Q^{+}$ interactions. In the 

1959: preceding section, we showed within the DFT formalism that if

1960: the potential is $Q^{\pm}$, this implies the formation of

1961: cluster crystals. Harmonic theory allows us to make the

1962: opposite statement as well: if the potential is {\it not}

1963: $Q^{\pm}$, then there can be {\it no clustered crystals}.

1964: Therefore, an {\it equivalence} between the $Q^{\pm}$ 

1965: character of the interaction and the formation of clustered

1966: crystals can be established. Moreover, Eq.\ (\ref{alphah:eq})

1967: offers an additional indication as to why the RLV where

1968: $\tilde v(K)$ is most negative is selected as the shortest

1969: nonvanishing one by the clustered

1970: crystals: this is the best strategy in order to keep the localization

1971: parameter positive. 

1972: 

1973: Harmonic theory provides, therefore, 

1974: an insight into the necessity of locating the first shell 

1975: of the RLVs at $k_*$ from a different point of view than

1976: density functional theory does.

1977: The choice $K_1 = k_*$ guarantees that the particles

1978: inhabiting neighboring clusters provide the restoring forces that

1979: push any given particle back towards its equilibrium position.

1980: The density functional treatment of the preceding sections

1981: establishes that 

1982: the lattice constant is chosen by $Q^{\pm}$-systems in such 

1983: a way that the sum of {\it intracluster} and

1984: {\it intercluster} interactions, together with the entropic

1985: penalty for the aggregation of $n_c$ particles is optimized.\cite{bianca:long}

1986: The unlimited growth of $n_c$ is avoided by the requirement of

1987: mechanical stability of the crystal. Indeed, for too high 

1988: $n_c$-values, the lattice constant would concomitantly grow,

1989: so that the resulting

1990: restoring forces working against the thermal fluctuations,

1991: would become too weak to sustain the particles at their

1992: equilibrium positions.

1993: 

1994: Let us, finally, compare the result (\ref{alphah:eq}) for

1995: the localization parameter with the prediction from DFT.

1996: We consider the high-density crystal phase, for which

1997: $\alpha^*$ is very large, so that the simplification that only

1998: the first shell of RLVs can be kept in (\ref{fren_var:eq}) must be dropped.

1999: Setting $\partial\tilde f/\partial\alpha^* = 0$ there, we

2000: obtain

2001: \begin{equation}

2002: \frac{3T^*}{2\alpha^*} + \frac{\rho^*}{\left(2\alpha^*\right)^2}

2003: \sum_{{\bf Y}}Y^2\tilde\phi(Y)e^{-Y^2/(2\alpha^*)} = 0.

2004: \label{dftall:eq}

2005: \end{equation}

2006: The function $\tilde\phi(y)$ is short-ranged in

2007: reciprocal space, thus the sum in (\ref{dftall:eq}) 

2008: can be effectively truncated at some finite upper cutoff

2009: $Y_c$. Then, there exists a sufficiently large 

2010: density $\rho^*$ beyond which the 

2011: parameter $\alpha^*$ is so large that

2012: $Y^2/(2\alpha^*) \ll 1$ for all $Y \leq Y_c$ included in

2013: the summation. Accordingly, we can approximate all exponential factors

2014: with uniti in (\ref{dftall:eq}), obtaining an algebraic equation

2015: for $\alpha^*$. Reverting back to dimensional quantities, its

2016: solution reads as 

2017: \begin{equation}

2018: \alpha = -\frac{\rho}{6k_{\rm B}T}\sum_{{\bf K}}

2019: K^2\tilde v(K),

2020: \label{alphasdft:eq}

2021: \end{equation}

2022: and is {\it identical} with the result from the harmonic theory,

2023: Eq.\ (\ref{alphah:eq}). Thus, density functional theory and

2024: harmonic theory become identical to each other at the limit of

2025: high localization. This finding completes and generalizes the result of

2026: Archer,\cite{archer} who established a close relationship between

2027: the mean-field DFT and the Einstein model for the form of the

2028: variational free energy functional of the system.

2029: 

2030: Consistently with our assumptions, 

2031: $\alpha$ indeed grows with density. In fact, since the set of

2032: RLVs in the sum of (\ref{alphasdft:eq}) is fixed, it can be

2033: seen that $\alpha$ is simply proportional to $\rho/T$. 

2034: This peculiar feature of 

2035: the class of systems we consider 

2036: is not limited to the localization parameter, and its significance

2037: is discussed in the following section. 

2038: 

2039: \section{Connection with inverse-power potentials}

2040: \label{invpower:sec}

2041: 

2042: As can be easily confirmed by the form of the density functional

2043: of Eq.\ (\ref{totalfren:eq}),

2044: the mean-field nature of the class of ultrasoft systems considered

2045: here (both $Q^{+}$- and $Q^{\pm}$-potentials) implies that 

2046: the structure and thermodynamics of the systems is fully determined

2047: by the ratio $\rho^{*}/T^{*}$ between density and temperature and

2048: not separately by $\rho^{*}$ and $T^{*}$. This is a particular

2049: type of scaling between the two relevant thermodynamic variables,

2050: reminiscent of the situation for systems interacting by means of

2051: inverse-power-law potentials $v(r)$ having the form:

2052: \begin{equation}

2053: v(r) = \epsilon\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^n.

2054: \label{powerlaw:eq}

2055: \end{equation}

2056: For such systems, it can be shown that their

2057: statistical mechanics is governed by a 

2058: a single coupling constant $\Gamma_D(n)$ expressed as\cite{weeks:prb:81}

2059: \begin{equation}

2060: \Gamma_D(n) = 

2061: \frac{\rho^{*}}{\left({T^{*}}\right)^{D/n}},

2062: \label{gamman:eq}

2063: \end{equation}

2064: where $D$ is the space dimension. It would appear that inverse-powers

2065: $n=D$ satisfy precisely the same scaling as mean-field systems do

2066: but there is a condition to be 

2067: fulfilled: inverse-power systems are stable against

2068: explosion, {\it provided} that $n > D$; this can be most easily seen

2069: by considering the expression for the excess internal energy

2070: per particle, $u(\rho,T)$, given by\cite{hansen:book}

2071: \begin{equation}

2072: u(\rho,T) = \frac{2\pi^{D/2}\rho\epsilon\sigma^n}{[(D/2)-1]!}

2073: \int_0^{\infty}r^{D-1-n}g(r;\rho,T){\rm d}r.

2074: \label{inten:eq}

2075: \end{equation}

2076: As $g(r) \to 1$ for $r \to \infty$, we see that the integral 

2077: in (\ref{inten:eq}) converges only if $n > D$; a logarithmic

2078: divergence results for $n=D$. A `uniform neutralizing background'

2079: has to be formally introduced for $n \leq D$,

2080: to obtain stable 

2081: pseudo one-component systems, such as 

2082: the one-component plasma.\cite{ocp1,ocp2,lieb}

2083: Since we aim at staying with genuine one-component systems

2084: throughout, we must strictly maintain $n > D$.  

2085: 

2086: Instead of taking the limit $n \to D$, we consider therefore a 

2087: different procedure by setting

2088: \begin{equation}

2089: n = D + \delta 

2090: \end{equation}

2091: with some arbitrary, finite $\delta > 0$. Then the coupling constant

2092: $\Gamma_D(n)$ becomes

2093: \begin{equation}

2094: \Gamma_D(D+\delta) = \rho^*\left(T^{*}\right)^{-\left(1+\delta/D\right)^{-1}}.

2095: \label{gammam:eq}

2096: \end{equation}  

2097: Now take $D \to \infty$ in this prescribed fashion, obtaining:

2098: \begin{equation}

2099: \lim_{D\to\infty}\Gamma_D(D+\delta) = \frac{{\rho^{*}}}{{T^{*}}},

2100: \label{gammainf:eq}

2101: \end{equation}

2102: which has precisely the same form as the coupling constant of 

2103: our systems. In taking the 

2104: limit $D \to \infty$, the exponent $n = D + \delta$ of the

2105: inverse-power potential diverges as well. It can be easily

2106: seen that in this case, the interaction $v(r)$ of 

2107: Eq.\ (\ref{powerlaw:eq}) becomes a hard-sphere potential of

2108: diameter $\sigma$. In other words, the procedure

2109: prescribed above brings us once more to infinite-dimensional

2110: hard spheres, because also the inverse-power interaction becomes

2111: arbitrarily steep.

2112: This is a very different way of taking the limit

2113: than in Refs.\ [\onlinecite{frisch:pra:87,frisch:pre:99,bagchi:jcp:88}]: 

2114: there, the interaction is hard 

2115: in the first place and subsequently the limit

2116: $D \to \infty$ is taken, 

2117: whereas here, interaction and dimension of space change

2118: together, in a well-prescribed fashion. 

2119: 

2120: The fact that the

2121: statistical mechanics of ultrasoft fluids in three dimensions

2122: is determined by the same dimensionless parameter as that

2123: of a particular realization of hard spheres in infinite 

2124: dimensions is intriguing. In a sense, ultrasoft systems

2125: are effectively high-dimensional, since they allow for

2126: extremely high densities, for which every particle interacts

2127: with an exceedingly high number of neighbors. They might,

2128: in this sense, provide for three-dimensional approximate

2129: realizations of infinite-dimensional models. 

2130: This is yet another relation to infinite-dimensional

2131: systems, in addition to the one discussed at the end 

2132: of Sec.\ \ref{dft:sec}.

2133: Whether there

2134: exists a deeper mathematical connection between the two classes,

2135: remains a problem for the future. 

2136: 

2137: \section{Summary and concluding remarks}

2138: \label{summary:sec}

2139: 

2140: We have provided a detailed analysis of the properties of 

2141: bounded, ultrasoft systems, with emphasis on the $Q^{\pm}$-class

2142: of interaction potentials. After having demonstrated the 

2143: suppression of the contributions from the high-order direct correlation

2144: functions of the fluid phases (of order 3 and higher), we

2145: established as a consequence the accurate mean-field density

2146: functional for arbitrary inhomogeneous phases. Though this

2147: functional has been introduced and successfully used

2148: in the recent past both in 

2149: statics\cite{criterion,bianca:prl:06,likos:gauss,louis:mfa,archer1,archer2,

2150: archer3,archer4,finken} 

2151: and in dynamics,\cite{rex:molphys:06}

2152: a sound justification of its basis on the properties of the

2153: uniform phase was still lacking. 

2154: 

2155: The persistence of a {\it single}, finite length scale

2156: for the lattice constants of the ensuing 

2157: solids of $Q^{\pm}$-systems has been understood by a detailed

2158: analysis of the structure of the free energy functional. 

2159: In the fluid, the same length scale appears since the position

2160: of maximum of the liquid structure factor is independent of 

2161: density.

2162: The negative minimum of the interaction potential in Fourier 

2163: space sets this unique scale and forces in the crystal the

2164: formation of clusters, whose population scales proportionally

2165: with density. The analytical solution of an approximation of

2166: the density functional is checked to be accurate when 

2167: confronted with the full numerical minimization of the latter.

2168: Universal Lindemann ratios and Hansen-Verlet values at crystallization

2169: are predicted to hold for all these systems, which

2170: differ substantially from those for hard matter systems.

2171: The analytical 

2172: derivation of these results provides useful insight into the

2173: robustness of these structural values for an enormous variety

2174: of interactions.

2175: 

2176: Though the assumption of bounded interactions has been made

2177: throughout, recent results\cite{primoz:07}

2178: indicate that both cluster formation and the persistence of

2179: the length scale survive when a short-range diverging core is

2180: superimposed on the ultrasoft potential, provided the range of

2181: the hard core does not exceed, roughly, 20\% of the overall

2182: interaction range.\cite{primoz:07} The morphology of the resulting

2183: clusters is more complex, as full overlaps are explicitly

2184: forbidden; even the macroscopic phases are affected, with

2185: crystals, lamellae, inverted lamellae and `inverted crystals'

2186: showing up at increasing densities. The generalization of our

2187: density functional theory to such situations and the modeling

2188: of the nontrivial, internal cluster morphology is a challenge

2189: for the future. Here, a mixed density functional, employing

2190: a hard-sphere and a mean-field part of the direct correlation

2191: function seems to be a promising way to proceed.\cite{sear,lr1}

2192: Finally, the study of the vitrification, dynamical arrest and

2193: hopping processes in concentrated $Q^{\pm}$-systems is another

2194: problem of current interest. The recent `computer synthesis' 

2195: of model, amphiphilic dendrimers that do display precisely 

2196: the form of $Q^{\pm}$-interactions discussed in this work,\cite{bianca:dendris}

2197: offers concrete suggestions for the experimental realization

2198: of the hitherto theoretically predicted phenomena.

2199: 

2200: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

2201: We are grateful to Andrew Archer for helpful discussions and 

2202: a critical reading of the manuscript and to Andras S{\"u}t{\H o}

2203: for helpful comments.

2204: This work has been supported by 

2205: the {\"O}sterreichische Forschungsfond under

2206: Project No.\ P17823-N08, as well as by the 

2207: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the

2208: Collaborative Research Center SFB-TR6,

2209: ``Physics of Colloidal Dispersions in External Fields'', 

2210: Project Section C3.

2211: 

2212: \appendix

2213: \section{Proof that the GEM-$m$ models with $m > 2$ are 

2214: $Q^{\pm}$-potentials}

2215: 

2216: Consider the inverse Fourier transform of the 

2217: spherically symmetric, bounded pair

2218: potential $v(r)$, reading as

2219: \begin{equation}

2220: v(r) = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_0^{\infty}k^2\tilde v(k)\frac{\sin kr}{kr}{\rm d}k

2221: \label{invft:eq}

2222: \end{equation}

2223: From (\ref{invft:eq}), it is straightforward to

2224: show that the second derivative of $v(r)$ at $r=0$ takes

2225: the form

2226: \begin{equation}

2227: v''(r=0) = -\frac{1}{6\pi^2}\int_0^{\infty}k^4\tilde v(k){\rm d}k.

2228: \label{vpp:eq}

2229: \end{equation}

2230: Evidently, 

2231: if $v''(r=0) \geq 0$, then $\tilde v(k)$ {\it must}

2232: have negative parts and hence $v(r)$ is $Q^{\pm}$. For the 

2233: GEM-$m$ family, it is easy to show that $v''(r=0) = 0$ for

2234: $m > 2$, thus these members are indeed $Q^{\pm}$, as stated in the

2235: main text. Double-Gaussian potentials of the form

2236: \begin{equation}

2237: v(r) = |\epsilon_1|e^{-(r/\sigma_1)^2} - |\epsilon_2|e^{-(r/\sigma_2)^2},

2238: \label{dgauss:eq}

2239: \end{equation}

2240: with $|\epsilon_1| > |\epsilon_2|$, $\sigma_1 > \sigma_2$,

2241: which feature a local {\it minimum}

2242: at $r = 0$ are also $Q^{\pm}$, for the same reason. Notice,

2243: however, that $v''(r=0) \geq 0$ is a sufficient, not a necessary

2244: condition for membership in the $Q^{\pm}$-class. Thus, there exist

2245: $Q^{\pm}$-potentials for which $v''(r=0) < 0$.

2246: 

2247: \section{Proof of the equivalence between the variational

2248: free energies $\tilde f$ and $\bar f$.} 

2249: 

2250: The introduction of the new variable $\gamma$ instead of

2251: $\alpha^*$, Eq.\ (\ref{amin_nc:eq}), and the subsequent new

2252: form $\bar f$ of the variational free energy, Eq.\ (\ref{fbar:eq}),

2253: are just a matter of convenience, which makes the minimization

2254: procedure more transparent. A free gift of the

2255: variable transformation is also the ensuing diagonal 

2256: form of the Hessian matrix at the extremum. Fully equivalent

2257: results are obtained, of course, by working with the original

2258: variational free energy, $\tilde f$, Eq.\ (\ref{fren_var:eq}).

2259: Here we explicitly demonstrate this equivalence.

2260: 

2261: Keeping, consistently, only the first shell of RLVs with length

2262: $Y_1$, $\tilde f$ takes the form:

2263: \begin{eqnarray}

2264: \nonumber

2265: \tilde f(n_c,\alpha^*;T^*,\rho^*)

2266: & = &

2267: T^*\left[\ln n_c + \frac{3}{2}\ln\left(\frac{\alpha^*}{\pi}\right)

2268: - \frac{5}{2}\right] 

2269: \\

2270: \nonumber

2271: & + &  \frac{\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi(0) 

2272: \\

2273: & + &

2274:  \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi(Y_1)

2275:  e^{-Y_1^2/(2\alpha^*)},

2276: \label{fren_new:eq}

2277: \end{eqnarray}

2278: where $Y_1$ and $n_c$ are related via Eq.\ (\ref{d:eq}). Minimizations

2279: of $\tilde f$ with respect to $n_c$ and $\alpha^*$ yield,

2280: respectively:

2281: \begin{equation}

2282: T^* -\frac{\xi_1\rho^*Y_1}{6}\left[\frac{\partial\tilde\phi(Y_1)}{\partial Y_1}

2283: -\frac{Y_1}{\alpha^*}\tilde\phi(Y_1)\right]e^{-Y_1^2/(2\alpha^*)} = 0,

2284: \label{delnc:eq}

2285: \end{equation}

2286: and

2287: \begin{equation}

2288: T^* + \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{6\alpha^*}

2289: \tilde\phi(Y_1)Y_1^2e^{-Y_1^2/(2\alpha^*)} = 0.

2290: \label{dela:eq}

2291: \end{equation}

2292: Subtracting the last two equations from one another we obtain

2293: \begin{equation}

2294: \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{6}\tilde\phi'(Y_1)Y_1

2295: e^{-Y_1^2/(2\alpha^*)} = 0,

2296: \end{equation}

2297: implying $Y_1 = y_*$, as in the main text (once more, $Y_1 = 0$

2298: is a formal solution that must

2299: be rejected on the same grounds mentioned in the text.) From this property, 

2300: Eq.\ (\ref{proport:eq})

2301: immediately follows. Introducing 

2302: $\Delta \tilde f \equiv \tilde f - f_{\rm liq}$, we can 

2303: determine $\alpha^*_{\rm f}$

2304: on the freezing line by requiring the simultaneous satisfaction of 

2305: the minimization conditions above and of $\Delta\tilde f = 0$. The latter

2306: equation yields

2307: \begin{eqnarray}

2308: \nonumber

2309: T^*\left[\ln\left(\frac{n_c}{\rho^*}\right) 

2310: + \frac{3}{2}\left[\ln\left(\frac{\alpha^*_{\rm f}}{\pi}\right) - 1\right]\right]

2311: \\

2312:  =  - \frac{\xi_1\rho^*}{2}\tilde\phi(y_*)e^{-y_*^2/(2\alpha^*_{\rm f})},

2313: \label{delftildezero:eq}

2314: \end{eqnarray}

2315: which, together with Eq.\ (\ref{dela:eq}), yields, after some

2316: algebra

2317: \begin{equation}

2318: \ln\left[

2319: \left(\frac{\alpha^*_{\rm f}}{\pi}\right)

2320: \left(\frac{n_c}{\rho^*}\right)^{2/3}\right] - 1

2321: = \frac{2\alpha^*_{\rm f}}{y_*^2}.

2322: \label{onemore:eq}

2323: \end{equation}

2324: Using Eqs.\ (\ref{amin_nc:eq}) and (\ref{y1nc:eq}), we 

2325: obtain the equation for the $\gamma_{\rm f}$-parameter at freezing as

2326: \begin{equation}

2327: -\left[

2328: \ln\left(z^{2/3}\gamma_{\rm f}\pi \right) + 1\right] = 

2329: \frac{2}{\gamma_{\rm f}\zeta^2},

2330: \label{gamma_new:eq}

2331: \end{equation}

2332: which, upon setting $z=2$ and $\zeta = 2\sqrt{2}\pi$, yields

2333: Eq.\ (\ref{gamma:eq}) of the main text. Alternatively, we can

2334: introduce the 

2335: variable $t \equiv \alpha^*_{\rm f}/y_*^2$ and rewrite Eq.\ (\ref{onemore:eq}) 

2336: as

2337: \begin{equation}

2338: \ln\left[\left(8\sqrt{2}\right)^{2/3}\pi t\right] - 1 = 2t,

2339: \label{omega:eq}

2340: \end{equation}

2341: which delivers $t \cong 0.704$ as a 

2342: solution or, equivalently, $t = (8\pi^2\gamma_{\rm f})^{-1}$,

2343: in agreement with Eqs.\ (\ref{gammaf:eq}) and (\ref{alphaf:eq}) of the main text.

2344: 

2345: 

2346: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2347: 

2348: \bibitem{sear} R. Sear and W. M. Gelbart, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 110},

2349: 4582 (1999).

2350: 

2351: \bibitem{fs1} F. Sciortino, S. Mossa, E. Zaccarelli, and 

2352: P. Tartaglia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 055701 (2004).

2353: 

2354: \bibitem{fs2} S. Mossa, F. Sciortino, P. Tartaglia,

2355: and E. Zaccarelli, Langmuir {\bf 20}, 10756 (2004).

2356: 

2357: \bibitem{bartlett1} A. I. Campbell, V. J. Anderson, J. S. van Duijneveldt,

2358: and P. Bartlett, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 208301 (2005).

2359: 

2360: \bibitem{bartlett2} R. Sanchez and P. Bartlett, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter

2361: {\bf 17}, S3351 (2005).

2362: 

2363: \bibitem{lr1} A. Imperio and L. Reatto, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter

2364: {\bf 16}, S3769 (2004).

2365: 

2366: \bibitem{lr2} A. Imperio and L. Reatto, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 124},

2367: 164712 (2006).

2368: 

2369: \bibitem{jpcm} C. N. Likos, C. Mayer, E. Stiakakis, and G. Petekidis,

2370: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 17}, S3363 (2005).

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{epl} E. Stiakakis, G. Petekidis, D. Vlassopoulos, 

2373: C. N. Likos, H. Iatrou, N. Hadjichristidis, and J. Roovers, 

2374: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 72}, 664 (2005).

2375: 

2376: \bibitem{likos:pr:01} C. N. Likos, Phys. Rep. {\bf 348}, 267 (2001).

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{krueger:89} B. Kr{\"u}ger, L. Sch{\"a}fer, and

2379: A. Baumg{\"a}rtner, J. Phys. (France) {\bf 50}, 319 (1989).

2380: 

2381: \bibitem{hall:94} J. Dautenhahn and C. K. Hall, Macromolecules {\bf 27},

2382: 5399 (1994).

2383: 

2384: \bibitem{louis:prl:00} A. A. Louis, P. G. Bolhuis, J.-P. Hansen,

2385: and E. J. Meijer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2522 (2000).

2386: 

2387: \bibitem{ingo:jcp:04} I. O. G{\"o}tze, H. M. Harreis, and 

2388: C. N. Likos, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 120}, 7761 (2004).

2389: 

2390: \bibitem{ballik:ac:04} M. Ballauff and C. N. Likos, Angew. Chemie

2391: Intl. English Ed. {\bf 43}, 2998 (2004).

2392: 

2393: \bibitem{denton:03} A. R. Denton, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 011804 (2003);

2394: Erratum, ibid.\ {\bf 68}, 049904 (2003).

2395: 

2396: \bibitem{gottwald:04} D. Gottwald, C. N. Likos, G. Kahl, and H. L{\"o}wen,

2397: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 068301 (2004).

2398: 

2399: \bibitem{gottwald:05} D. Gottwald, C. N. Likos, G. Kahl, and H. L{\"o}wen,

2400: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 122}, 074903 (2005).

2401: 

2402: \bibitem{pierleoni:prl:06} C. Pierleoni, C. Addison, J.-P. Hansen,

2403: and V. Krakoviack, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 128302 (2006).

2404: 

2405: \bibitem{hansen:molphys:06} J.-P. Hansen and C. Pearson, Mol. Phys. {\bf 104},

2406: 3389 (2006).

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{suto:prl:05} A. S{\"u}t{\H o}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 265501 

2409: (2005).

2410: 

2411: \bibitem{suto:prb:06} A. S{\"u}t{\H o}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 74}, 104117 (2006).

2412: 

2413: \bibitem{klein:94} W. Klein, H. Gould, R. A. Ramos, I. Clejan,

2414: and A. I. Melcuk, Physica (Amsterdam) {\bf 205A}, 738 (1994).

2415: 

2416: \bibitem{pensph:98} C. N. Likos, M. Watzlawek, and H. L{\"o}wen,

2417: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 3135 (1998).

2418: 

2419: \bibitem{criterion} C. N. Likos, A. Lang, M. Watzlawek, and H. L{\"o}wen,

2420: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 031206 (2001).

2421: 

2422: \bibitem{bianca:prl:06} B. M. Mladek, D. Gottwald, G. Kahl, M. Neumann,

2423: and C. N. Likos, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 045701 (2006); Erratum,

2424: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 97}, 019901 (2006).

2425: 

2426: \bibitem{stillinger:physica} F. H. Stillinger and D. K. Stillinger,

2427: Physica (Amsterdam) {\bf 244A}, 358 (1997).

2428: 

2429: \bibitem{likos:gauss} A. Lang, C. N. Likos, M. Watzlawek, and H. L{\"o}wen,

2430: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 12}, 5087 (2000).

2431: 

2432: \bibitem{saija1} S. Prestipino, F. Saija, and P. V. Giaquinta,

2433: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 050102 (2005),

2434: 

2435: \bibitem{saija2} F. Saija and P. V. Giaquinta, Chem. Phys. Chem. {\bf 6},

2436: 1768 (2005)

2437: 

2438: \bibitem{saija3} S. Prestipino, F. Saija, and P. V. Giaquinta,

2439: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 123}, 144110 (2005).

2440: 

2441: \bibitem{archer} A. J. Archer, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72}, 051501 (2006).

2442: 

2443: \bibitem{daan:nature} D. Frenkel, Nature (London) {\bf 440}, 4-5 (02 March 2006).

2444: 

2445: \bibitem{daan:web} See the extensive commentary by D. Frenkel in:

2446: Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics, selection of March 2006,

2447: link

2448: http://www.bell-labs.com/jc-cond-mat/march/march\_2006.html.

2449: 

2450: \bibitem{primoz:07} M.~A.~Glaser, G.~M.~Grason, R.~D.~Kamien,

2451: A.~Ko{\v s}mrlj, C.~D.~Santagelo, and P.~Ziherl, preprint,

2452: cond-mat/0609570. 

2453: 

2454: \bibitem{Ruelle:book} D. Ruelle, {\it Statistical Mechanics}

2455: (Benjamin, New York, 1969).

2456: 

2457: \bibitem{fernaud} M.-J. Fernaud, E. Lomba, and L. L. Lee,

2458: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 112}, 810 (2000).

2459: 

2460: \bibitem{hansen:book} J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald,

2461: {\it Theory of Simple Liquids}, 3rd ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006).

2462: 

2463: \bibitem{percus:62} J. K. Percus, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 8}, 462 (1962).

2464: 

2465: \bibitem{percus:64} J. K. Percus, in {\it The Equilibrium Theory of

2466: Classical Fluids}, edited by H. L. Fritsch and J. L. Lebowitz

2467: (Benjamin, New York, 1964).

2468: 

2469: \bibitem{denton:pra:91} A. R. Denton and N. W. Aschroft,

2470: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 44}, 1219 (1991).

2471: 

2472: \bibitem{yethiraj:jcp:01} A. Yethiraj, H. Fynewever, and

2473: C.-Y. Shew, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 114}, 4323 (2001).

2474: 

2475: \bibitem{singh} Y. Singh, Phys. Rep. {\bf 207}, 351 (1991).

2476: 

2477: \bibitem{evans:78} R. Evans, Adv. Phys. {\bf 28}, 143 (1979).

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{ry:79} T. V. Ramakrishnan and M. Yussouff, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 19},

2480: 2775 (1979).

2481: 

2482: \bibitem{haymet:81} A. D. J. Haymet and D. W. Oxtoby, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 74},

2483: 2559 (1981).

2484: 

2485: \bibitem{denton:pra:90} A. R. Denton and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 41},

2486: 2224 (1990).

2487: 

2488: \bibitem{ocp1} M. Baus and J.-P. Hansen, Phys. Rep. {\bf 59}, 1 (1980).

2489: 

2490: \bibitem{ocp2} S. Ichimaru, H. Iyetomi, and S. Tanaka, 

2491: Phys. Rep. {\bf 149}, 91 (1987).

2492: 

2493: \bibitem{barrat:prl:87} J.-L. Barrat, J.-P. Hansen, and G. Pastore,

2494: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 2075 (1987).

2495: 

2496: \bibitem{barrat:molphys:88} J.-L. Barrat, J.-P. Hansen, and G. Pastore,

2497: Mol. Phys. {\bf 63}, 747 (1988).

2498: 

2499: \bibitem{denton:pra:89} A. R. Denton and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39},

2500: 426 (1989).

2501: 

2502: \bibitem{likos:pusey} C. N. Likos, N. Hoffmann, H. L{\"o}wen, and

2503: A. A. Louis, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 14}, 7681 (2002). 

2504: 

2505: \bibitem{ingo:06} I. O. G{\"o}tze, A. J. Archer, and C. N. Likos,

2506: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 124}, 084901 (2006).

2507: 

2508: \bibitem{louis:mfa} A. A. Louis, P. G. Bolhuis, and J.-P. Hansen,

2509: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, 7961 (2000).

2510: 

2511: \bibitem{archer1} A. J. Archer and R. Evans, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64},

2512: 041501 (2001).

2513: 

2514: \bibitem{archer2} A. J. Archer and R. Evans, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter

2515: {\bf 14}, 1131 (2002).

2516: 

2517: \bibitem{archer3} A. J. Archer, C. N. Likos, and R. Evans,

2518: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 14}, 12031 (2002).

2519: 

2520: \bibitem{archer4} A. J. Archer, C. N. Likos, and R. Evans,

2521: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 16}, L297 (2004).

2522: 

2523: \bibitem{finken} R. Finken, J.-P. Hansen, and A. A. Louis,

2524: J. Phys. A {\bf 37}, 577 (2004). 

2525: 

2526: \bibitem{stell} G. Stell, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 78}, 197 (1995).

2527: 

2528: \bibitem{ciach} A. Ciach, W. T. G{\' o}{\' z}d{\' z}, and R. Evans,

2529: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 118}, 9726 (2003).

2530: 

2531: \bibitem{kirkwood:51} J. G. Kirkwood, in {\it Phase Transitions in Solids},

2532: ed. by R. Smoluchowski, J. E. Meyer, and A. Weyl (Wiley, New York, 1951).

2533: 

2534: \bibitem{still1} F. H. Stillinger, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 65}, 3968 (1976).

2535: 

2536: \bibitem{still2} F. H. Stillinger and T. A. Weber, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 68},

2537: 3837 (1978).

2538: 

2539: \bibitem{still3} F. H. Stillinger and T. A. Weber, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 22},

2540: 3790 (1980).

2541: 

2542: \bibitem{still4} F. H. Stillinger, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 70}, 4067 (1979).

2543: 

2544: \bibitem{still5} F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 20}, 299 (1979).

2545: 

2546: \bibitem{gerhard:00} S. Jorge, G. Kahl, E. Lomba, and J.~L.~F.~Abascal, 

2547: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 113}, 3302 (2000).

2548: 

2549: \bibitem{likos:prl:92} C. N. Likos and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69},

2550: 316 (1992); Erratum, ibid., {\bf 69}, 3134 (1992).

2551: 

2552: \bibitem{likos:jcp:93} C. N. Likos and N. W. Ashcroft, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 99},

2553: 9090 (1993).

2554: 

2555: \bibitem{wda1} W. A. Curtin and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 32}, 2909 

2556: (1985).

2557: 

2558: \bibitem{wda2} W. A. Curtin and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56},

2559: 2775 (1986); Erratum, ibid., {\bf 57}, 1192 (1986).

2560: 

2561: \bibitem{mwda} A. R. Denton and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39}, 4701

2562: (1989).

2563: 

2564: \bibitem{henderson} R. Evans, in {\it Fundamentals of Inhomogeneous Fluids},

2565: ed. by D. Henderson (Marcel Dekker, New York 1992).

2566: 

2567: \bibitem{grewe1} N. Grewe and W. Klein, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 18}, 1729 (1977).

2568: 

2569: \bibitem{grewe2} N. Grewe and W. Klein, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 18}, 1735 (1977).

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{frisch:prl:85} H. L. Frisch, N. Rivier, and D. Wyler, 

2572: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 2061 (1985).

2573: 

2574: \bibitem{frisch:jcp:86} W. Klein and H. L. Frisch, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 84},

2575: 968 (1986).

2576: 

2577: \bibitem{frisch:pra:87} H. L. Frisch and J. K. Percus, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 35},

2578: 4696 (1987).

2579: 

2580: \bibitem{frisch:pre:99} H. L. Frisch and J. K. Percus, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60},

2581: 2942 (1999).

2582: 

2583: \bibitem{bagchi:jcp:88} B. Bagchi and S. A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 88},

2584: 1177 (1987).

2585: 

2586: \bibitem{ashcroft} N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, {\it Solid State

2587: Physics} (Holt Saunders, Philadelphia, 1976).

2588: 

2589: \bibitem{foot1} 

2590: Strictly speaking, there is no freezing

2591: {\it line} on the density-temperature plane but rather a domain

2592: of coexistence, since it is equality of the grand potentials that

2593: determines phase coexistence. Nevertheless, the condition of

2594: equality of the Helmholtz free energies determines a line that

2595: runs between the melting- and crystallization lines and therefore

2596: serves as a reliable locator of the freezing transition.

2597: 

2598: \bibitem{lindemann} F. A. Lindemann, Phys. Z. {\bf 11}, 609 (1910).

2599: 

2600: \bibitem{shapiro} J. N. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 1}, 3982 (1970).

2601: 

2602: \bibitem{hv1} J.-P. Hansen and L. Verlet, Phys. Rev. {\bf 184}, 151 (1969).

2603: 

2604: \bibitem{hv2} J.-P. Hansen and D. Schiff, Mol. Phys. {\bf 25}, 1281 (1973).

2605: 

2606: \bibitem{dieter:jcp:05} D. Gottwald, G. Kahl, and C. N. Likos,

2607: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 122}, 204503 (2005).

2608: 

2609: \bibitem{bianca:long} B. M. Mladek, D. Gottwald, G. Kahl, M. Neumann,

2610: and C. N. Likos, in preparation (2007).

2611: 

2612: \bibitem{foot2}

2613: A very important exception

2614: is the hard-sphere potential, for which no harmonic expansion

2615: can be made. The fact that hard-sphere crystals do still

2616: have density profiles that are very well modeled by Gaussians,

2617: calls for a different explanation there. It can be argued that

2618: the huge number of uncorrelated collisions with the neighbors,

2619: together with the central limit theorem, are responsible for

2620: the Gaussianity of density profiles in hard-sphere solids.

2621: 

2622: \bibitem{weeks:prb:81} J.~D.\ Weeks, Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 24}, 1530 (1981).

2623: 

2624: \bibitem{lieb} E. Lieb, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 48}, 553 (1976).

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{rex:molphys:06} M. Rex, C. N. Likos, H. L{\"o}wen, and 

2627: J. Dzubiella, Mol. Phys. {\bf 104}, 527 (2006) and references therein.

2628: 

2629: \bibitem{bianca:dendris} B. M. Mladek, G. Kahl, and C. N. Likos,

2630: in preparation (2007).

2631: 

2632: \end{thebibliography}

2633: \end{document}

2634: 

2635: 

2636: