arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 24 Jan 2019

Transcription

1 Generalization of Stokes-Einstein relation to coordinate dependent damping and diffusivity: An apparent conflict A. Bhattacharyay arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 24 Jan 2019 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, India Abstract We show that generalization of the Stokes-Einstein relation D = kt Γ for constant diffusivity D and dampingγto D(x) = kt Γ(x) for coordinate dependentdiffusivity and dampingis untenable. Correspondence between the generalized Boltzmann distribution and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at over-damped limit results in D(x) Γ(x). Equipartition of kinetic energy for a Brownian particle with coordinate dependent diffusivity and damping gets the structure D(x)Γ(x) = kt. When diffusivity and damping are coordinate dependent, that the Stokes-Einstein relation is strictly valid for constant damping and diffusivity and cannot be continued to the relation between D(x) and Γ(x) is an essential fact needed not to allow existence of temperature gradients in equilibrium. PACS numbers: Jc, 05.10,Gg, a Keywords: Diffusion, Brownian motion, Coordinate dependent damping, Equilibrium, Stokes-Einstein relation. Electronic address: a.bhattacharyay@iiserpune.ac.in 1

2 Introduction - Coordinate dependence of diffusivity and damping [1] of Brownian particle (BP) is observed in many experiments [2 4]. Position dependent diffusion is supposed to be playing major role in protein folding [5, 6] and the same is also invoked in hydrodynamic (large wave length) models of some optical systems [7, 8]. In general, BP near a wall shows coordinate dependence of diffusivity and damping. The Stokes-Einstein relation is considered to relate this diffusivity to damping in equilibrium. An over-damped BP under confinement equilibrates with heat-bath at large times. The Boltzmann distribution(bd) characterizes the position distribution of the BP in equilibrium when the damping and the diffusivity are constant. This is a well known and tested result. What happens when the diffusivity and the damping are functions of space (i.e., coordinate dependent) is a question people have pondered over a long time and there exists controversy [9]. The main theme of the approach to this problem has been to demand the BD as an irrevocable condition for equilibrium [10 16]. This necessitates generalization of the the Fick s law and the Stokes-Einstein relation by replacing D and Γ with coordinate dependent D(x) and Γ(x) (for example, in 1D). This extension is motivated by the fact that the BD results for equilibrium of a BP with constant damping and diffusion as a consequence of validity of Fick s law and Stokes-Einstein relation. However, if one derives the Smoluchowski equation using Kramers-Moyal expansion for coordinate dependent damping and diffusion, one gets the generalization of the Fick s law to its logical extension as j = (D(x)P(x)) instead of j = D(x) P(x)). The latter has the x x conventional form derived for the constant diffusivity where j is probability current density and P(x) is probability density. Note that, the Kramers-Moyal expansion is a formal procedure perfectly suited for a coordinate dependent diffusivity. The equilibrium distribution that results from the Smoluchowski equation as obtained from the Kramers-Moyal expansion is a generalized Boltzmann distribution with the diffusivity (D(x)) dependent amplitude [17]. This is an expected equilibrium distribution as compared to the conventional form of BD because the latter does not reflect the broken spatial homogeneity due to coordinate dependence of diffusivity and damping. In this paper, we consider Brownian motion in 1D with coordinate dependent diffusivity and damping. We employ here the Smoluchowski equation as follows from the Kramers- Moyal expansion and consider its equilibrium solution to be the generalized Boltzmann distribution. We show that, the over-damped limit of generalized Maxwell-Boltzmann (M-B) 2

3 distribution corresponds to the generalized BD under the necessary condition D(x) = CΓ(x) where C = D(x)2 kt = kt Γ(x) 2 is a constant. Here, D(x)2 and Γ(x) 2 areaverages of D(x) and Γ(x) respectively over the whole inhomogeneous space in which the BP has equilibrated, k is the Boltzmann constant and T is temperature of the system. The Stokes-Einstein relation D = kt Γ follows from equipartition of kinetic energy of the BP and is strictly valid for only constant D and Γ. This is exactly why the treatment of the BP motion with coordinate dependence of damping and diffusion cannot follow from a straight forward generalization of the Stokes-Einstein relation and Fick s law. However, such generalizations have been the dominant practice so far with a goal to arrive at the conventional BD for a BP over an inhomogeneous space even where the source of inhomogeneity is not only the presence of a conservative force. In our results, while the equipartition introduces the temperature of the bath on an average over the whole space the BP has equilibrated in, there exists an additional relation involving the D(x) and Γ(x) which is entirely consistent with the Stokes-Einstein relation when diffusivity and damping are constant. It is well known that, for constant diffusivity and damping, the equilibrium distribution (BD) reflects a symmetry of the system i.e., keeping the temperature the same all the systems with different diffusivity and damping have the same distribution. This is a consequence of the Stokes-Einstein relation. In the inhomogeneous case, this symmetry gets broken by the fact that the generalized Boltzmann distribution will either contain the D(x) or the Γ(x) in it to capture the additional sources of inhomogeneity of space. Let us have a systematic look at the derivation and consequence of these results. The model - Let us consider a 1D model of Brownian motion (for the sake of simplicity) as ẋ = v m v = mζ(x)v +F(x)+mζ(x) 2D(x)η(t), (1) where x is the position of the BP and v is its velocity. We have kept the mass m of the BP explicitly, mζ(x) = Γ(x) is the damping coefficient and F(x) is an external force resulting fromsomepotential F(x) = dv(x) dx. TheGaussianwhitenoiseofunitstrengthisrepresented by η(t). 3

4 At the over-damped limit of this dynamics we get the very standard form of the equation ẋ = F(x) Γ(x) + 2D(x)η(t). (2) In what follows, we will never impose any a priori relationship between the D(x) and Γ(x). The relations will follow from the over-damped limit of the generalized M-B distribution and the equipartition of kinetic energy. Let us first have a look at the Smoluchowski equation for the over-damped dynamics (eqn.(2)) using K-M expansion [17]. The Kramers-Moyal expansion gives the dynamics of probability density P(x, t) as P(x, t) t where the expansion coefficients are = n=1 ( ) n D (n) (x,t)p(x,t), (3) x D (n) (x,t) = 1 n! lim 1 τ 0 τ [ξ(t+τ) x]n (4) with ξ(t) = x and the angular brackets indicate average over noise [18]. Consistent with Pawula s theorem, there will be two terms on the r.h.s., of the Smoluchowski equation for the BP captured by the Langevin dynamics eqn.(2) as P(x, t) t = x [ F(x)P(x,t) + D(x)P(x,t) Γ(x) x ]. (5) A note on the so-called spurious current is in order here. Considering the Langevin dynamics in the absence of the diffusion term one gets to see the drift current to be j drift = F(x). However, due to non-validity of mean value theorem for stochastic integrals with Γ(x) multiplicative noise, a convention is needed to evaluate the drift coefficient D (1) (x,t) and here comes the Itô vs Stratonovich dilemma [19, 20]. Where Itô convention correctly gives the drift current in its form, the Stratonovich convention produces spurious drift current on top of it which has to be neglected in a straight forward way if one prefers Stratonovich convention to Itô to avoid modification of chain rules in calculus. Moreover, the diffusion current part does not involve any spurious contribution in any convention and, therefore, cannot be altered. This is exactly where, in the existing literature, manipulations are made. To cancel the spurious current one adds an extra current part on the r.h.s., of the Langevin dynamics that cancels not only the spurious drift current but also the part of the diffusion current appearing in the form P(x) dd(x). This is done to bring back the drift current in the dx 4

5 conventional form of the Fick s law that results in the BD. But, this cannot be done because diffusion current does not have any spurious contribution what so ever to be removed. The equilibrium distribution that results from this Smoluchowski dynamics eqn.(5) is P(x) = N D(x) exp x F(x ) D(x )Γ(x ) dx. (6) This is the modified Boltzmann distribution distribution for coordinate dependent diffusivity [ ] 1 F(x anddamping wheren = ) D(x )Γ(x ) dx isanormalizationconstant. Note dx exp x D(x) that, the temperature of the bath does not show up in this expression since we have not yet considered any relation between the diffusivity and damping as the one results from the Stokes-Einstein relation. Obviously, we do not want to use the Stokes-Einstein relation in its constant damping and diffusivity form. The way to bring in the temperature is to employ the equipartition of kinetic energy of the BP and for that we will be needing to find out the modified M-B distribution for the model involving inertial term given by eqs.(1). Model with inertial term - Considering the change of variable u = v χ(x) ζ(x) 2D(x), eqs.(1) take the form ẋ = χ(x)u where χ(x) = u = ζ(x)u χ (x)u 2 + F(x) +η(t). (7) mχ(x) In eqn.(7), the χ (x) = χ(x). The Fokker-Planck dynamics for eqn.(7) can easily be derived x to be P(x,u,t) t = x χ(x)up(x,u,t) u 2 [ ζ(x)u χ (x)u 2 + F(x) ] P(x,u,t) mχ(x) u2p(x,u,t). (8) To obtain the stationary equilibrium distribution one sets x χ(x)up(x,u,t)+ u χ (x)u 2 P(x,u,t) F(x) umχ(x) P(x,u,t) = [ ζ(x)up(x,u,t)+ 1 ] u 2 u P(x,u,t). (9) Setting the diffusion current density within the square bracket on the r.h.s., of the above equation to zero one gets the Maxwellian distribution of the velocity and the stationary probability density now assumes the shape 2 P(x,u) = P(x)M(x)e ζ(x)u2 = P(x)M(x)e ζ(x)v χ(x) 2. (10) 5

6 In the above mentioned expression for probability density the local normalization factor M(x) = 1 χ(x) ζ(x) π eqn.(9) now takes the form for the velocity (v) distribution is explicitly considered. With these, u x χ(x)p(x)m(x)e ζ(x)u2 + 2uχ (x)p(x)m(x)e ζ(x)u2 2u 3 χ (x)ζ(x)p(x)m(x)e ζ(x)u2 + 2uζ(x)F(x) P(x)M(x)e ζ(x)u2 = 0. (11) mχ(x) Removing the common factor of u from all the terms and then integrating out v while keeping in mind that v 2 local = χ(x)2 2ζ(x) we get P(x)χ (x) χ(x) x P(x)+2P(x)χ (x) P(x)χ (x)+ 2ζ(x)F(x) P(x) = 0 (12) mχ(x) Note that the terms remains on the l.h.s of the above equation are exactly the ones giving the probability current density in the Smoluchowski dynamics. Eqn.(12) now results in a distribution x P(x) = e dx 2ζ(x )F(x ) mχ 2 (x ). (13) Including all the terms, therefore, the generalized M-B distribution is m P(x,v) = N 2πΓ(x)D(x) e x dx F(x ) Γ(x )D(x ) e mv2 where N = [ dxp(x) ] 1 is an overall normalization constant. 2Γ(x)D(x) (14) So far, the temperature has not been introduced in the expressions we have got and that now can easily be obtained from the equipartition of kinetic energy. Using the general M-B distribution the equipartition results in mv 2 = N dxp(x) mχ(x)2 2ζ(x) = Γ(x)D(x) = kt (15) where the angular brackets indicate a space average over the bounded region in which the BP has equilibrated with the bath. Obviously, when the diffusivity and the damping are constant, we recover the Stokes-Einstein relation D = kt Γ from the equipartition and this relation does not hold in general for a coordinate dependent damping and diffusion. The relation between the coordinate dependent damping and diffusion can be arrived at by taking the over-damped limit m 0 and ζ(x) keeping Γ(x) finite on the generalized M-B distribution (eqn.(14)) and comparing that with the generalized BD as already obtained in eqn.(6). This limit sets the factor e mv2 2Γ(x)D(x) to unity and the resulting 6

7 limit of the normalization factor m 2πΓ(x)D(x) 0 is a consequence of the flatness of the velocity distribution and must be kept explicitly present. At this limit, correspondence between the generalized M-B distribution and the generalized BD needs D(x) = CΓ(x) where the proportionality constant comes out from the equipartition to be C = D(x)2 kt These two relations (1) D(x) = CΓ(x) and (2) D = kt Γ = kt Γ(x) 2. are completely consistent so long one takes into account the fact that the latter is valid strictly for constant diffusivity and damping. It is obvious that even at small inhomogeneity limit the conventional form of the Stokes-Einstein relation cannot approximate for the actual relation D(x) = CΓ(x). This fact can easily be checked by Taylor expanding two expressions for D(x) namely (a) D(x) = kt Γ(x) and (b) D(x) = kt dγ(x) Γ(x) for small which takes into account the limiting smallness of Γ(x) 2 dx variation of the quantities over their constant values D = D(x) and Γ = Γ(x). Taking the relation (a) into account and truncating the Taylor expansion about D(x) = D and Γ(x) = Γ at the second term we get ( ) dd(x) dγ(x) D + δx = kt dγ(x) dx D,Γ Γ kt ( ) dγ(x) δx, (16) Γ 2 dx D,Γ where the expansion is truncated at the second term due to smallness of derivatives in the weakly inhomogeneous space. This gives ( ) dd(x) dγ(x) D,Γ = kt Γ2. (17) Going by the relation (b) and the same procedure ( ) dd(x) = C = kt dγ(x) Γ2. (18) D,Γ So, the mismatch of the sign cannot be cured unless T 0 or equivalently Γ. Therefore, the relations (a) and (b) cannot be limiting cases of each other at even small inhomogeneity. This indicates the Stokes-Einstein relation cannot be generalized keeping its form intact to situations where the diffusivity and damping are coordinate dependent. At this stage, to conclude, let us have a closer lookat therelations obtained fromequipartition and correspondence between distributions. The former gives Γ(x)D(x) = kt the latter reads as D(x) = CΓ(x). While the equipartition relation indicates that one may take D(x)Γ(x) as a local temperature such that kt(x) = kt, the relation D(x) = CΓ(x) being at conflict with the local generalization of the Stokes-Einstein relation saves the equilibrium from having temperature gradients. This is so because, the energy scale W(x) = D(x)Γ(x) 7

8 cannot be kt(x) over the inhomogeneous space since the Stokes-Einstein relation cannot be generalized. W(x) determines the local width of the velocity distribution of the BP and is only equal to kt for constant diffusivity and damping. Thus, the appearance of the relation D(x) = CΓ(x) preserves the basic tenet of existence of no temperature gradients in equilibrium. The failure of the generalization of Stokes-Einstein relation plays an essential role when diffusivity and damping of a BP are coordinate dependent. However, this can have far reaching consequence on our present understanding of such systems in view of the fact that existing literature overwhelmingly goes by generalization of Stokes-Einstein relation to analyze Brownian models with coordinate dependent diffusivity and damping. Acknowledgement - I would like to acknowledge discussions with J. K. Bhattacharjee. [1] A. Berezhkovskii, A. Szabo, J. Chem. Phys. 135 (2011) [2] L.P. Faucheux, A.J. Libchaber, Phys. Rev. E 49 (1994) [3] P. Lancon, G. Batrouni, L. Lobry, N. Ostrowsky, Europhys. Lett. 54 (2001) [4] G. Volpe, L. Helden, T. Brettschneider, J. Wehr, C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) [5] R.B. Best, G. Hummer, PNAS 107 (2010) [6] G. Hummer, New J. Phys. 7 (2005) 34. [7] A.G. Yamilov, R. Sarma, B. Redding, B. Payne, H Noh, H. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) [8] P. Neupane, A.G. Yamilov, Phys. Rev. B 92 (2015) [9] I.M. Sokolov Chem. Phys. 375 (2010) [10] A.W.C. Lau, T.C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. E 76 (2007) [11] J.M. Sancho, M. San Miguel, D. Dürr, J. Stat. Phys. 28 (1982) [12] J.M. Sancho, Phys. Rev. E 84 (2011) [13] M.J. Schnitzer, Phys. Rev. E 48 (1993) [14] P.F. Tupper, X. Yang, Proc. R. Soc. A 468 (2012) [15] O. Farago, N. Grønbech-Jensen, Phys. Rev. E 89 (2014) [16] O. Farago, N. Grønbech-Jensen, J Stat. Phys. 156 (2014)

9 [17] A. Bhattacharyay, Physica A 515 (2019) [18] H. Risken, The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, (Springer- Verlag (1984)). [19] K. Itô, Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 20 (1944) [20] R.L. Stratonovich, SIAM J. Control 4 (1966) [21] J. Crank, The mathematics of Diffusion (Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975)). [22] R. Kubo, Rep. Progr. Phys. 29 (1966)