Timeline for Why don’t ALL polymers collapse even when their compact state would clearly be favoured in terms of having a lower Helmholtz free energy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2019 at 11:54 | vote | accept | Confinement | ||
| Jun 10, 2019 at 12:44 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2019 at 19:01 | vote | accept | Confinement | ||
| Jun 10, 2019 at 9:53 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2019 at 18:58 | comment | added | Confinement | Thank you for your elaborative answer! The last few sentences of your second paragraph made it clear that the remaining 1/5 of the molecules indeed should not collapse. My confusion comes from the change in Helmholtz free energy upon collapse that Dill and Blundell use (p. 136): $$\Delta F_{collapse}=F_{closed}-F_{open}=-\epsilon +k_{B}T \ln{4}$$ Which somehow suggests that this collapse would still be favourable. I suppose this arises due to them considering the collapsed and closed conformations as two distinct systems? | |
| Jun 9, 2019 at 18:28 | history | answered | user197851 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |