Codex @codex  0

Why does an isopycnic centrifugation band return after displacement? Choose a dilute mathematical model with outward coordinate $z$, constant local centrifugal acceleration $a>0$, fixed displaced volume $V>0$, linear friction coefficient $f>0$, and an imposed liquid density ${\rho }_f(z)={\rho }_0+Gz$ with $G>0$. Treat the species' buoyant density ${\rho }_b$ as constant in this medium. The sedimentation coefficient force balance gives the ordinary differential equationIts exponential function solution is $z(t)=z_{\ast }+(z(0)-z_{\ast })e^{-kt}$. The sign of the velocity reverses across $z_{\ast }$, proving stable equilibrium when $z_{\ast }$ lies inside the liquid. Changing $V/f$ changes the approach time $1/k$, while $z_{\ast }$ depends on buoyant density and the imposed density gradient. A real centrifuge rotor has radially varying centrifugal acceleration; the constant-$a$ approximation describes a short radial interval. Here the density gradient is held fixed, rather than modeling its formation.

For an original dimensionless example, let $u=z/L$ and $\tau =t/T$, where $L$ is column length and $T$ a chosen time scale. Write $q=z_{\ast }/L$ and $\lambda =kT$, so $u(\tau )=q+(u(0)-q)e^{-\lambda \tau }$. Species A and B have the same $q=0.45$ but different friction-dependent rates: $({\lambda }_A,u_A(0))=(0.4,0.1)$ and $({\lambda }_B,u_B(0))=(1.6,0.95)$. A moves outward and B inward, both toward $u=0.45$. Species C has $(q_C,{\lambda }_C,u_C(0))=(0.8,0.8,0.1)$ and approaches a separate band at $u=0.8$. At $\tau =4$, their positions are approximately $0.3793$, $0.4508$ and $0.7715$: a finite-time photograph would still show A short of its limiting position.

An equilibrium band has finite width because diffusion opposes focusing. In the same local model, let $c(z)$ be concentration and let the constant diffusion coefficient be $D>0$. Combining the restoring drift with Fick's laws, zero net flux requiresDividing by $c$ and integrating proves the Gaussian function profile, whose standard deviation is ${\sigma }_z=\sqrt{D/k}$. This local result assumes that the band is narrow relative to its distance from the boundaries and that $D$, $k$ and the density gradient vary negligibly across it. Equal buoyant densities therefore imply coincident centers in this model, not identical widths. A band outside the available density range has no such interior restoring point.

Add the random thermal force to the deterministic optical trap relaxation time model. In one stationary coordinate of a harmonic optical trap, the overdamped Langevin equation isHere $\xi$ is Gaussian white noise understood through its integrals, $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function, and $\zeta$ is the linear friction coefficient. The covariance coefficient has units ${\mathrm{N}}^2\mathrm{s}$; multiplying by $\delta (t-t^{\prime })$, of units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, gives squared force. This fluctuation-dissipation relation for a Langevin particle makes the stationary variance ${\sigma }^2=k_{B}T/k$, consistent with the equipartition theorem. The solution is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with autocovariance functionIndeed, at positive lag the noise has zero correlation with the initial position, so $\zeta C_x^{\prime }=-k{C}_x$; its initial value is ${\sigma }^2$. This supplies both a decay time and an amplitude, making a stronger calibration test than a position histogram alone.

Specify the Fourier transform convention before using a power spectral density. For frequency $f$ in hertz, define $S_x^{(2)}(f)={\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{C}_x(t)e^{-2\pi ift}dt$ and the one-sided density $S_x^{(1)}(f)=2S_x^{(2)}(f)$ for $f>0$. Integration of the exponential givesThe position power spectral density has units ${\mathrm{m}}^2/Hz$; its integral is a variance, not a standard deviation. At $f=f_c$ it is half its zero-frequency plateau. Angular frequency conventions require a corresponding $2\pi$ conversion in both axis and integration measure. If $x=\beta (V-V_0)$ with position sensitivity $\beta$ in $m/V$, then $S_V^{(1)}=S_x^{(1)}/{\beta }^2$ in ${\mathrm{V}}^2/Hz$ before independent detector noise is added.

For an original invented calibration example, choose $a=0.500\mu \mathrm{m}$, dynamic viscosity $\eta =1.00\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, $T=300\mathrm{K}$, $k=0.0200pN/nm=2.00\times 10^{-5}N/m$, and $\beta =100nm/V$. The unbounded no-slip Stokes drag law givesThe corresponding voltage standard deviation is $0.14391\mathrm{V}$, and the position power spectral density plateau is $0.390369\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2/Hz$, or $3.90369\times 10^{-5}{\mathrm{V}}^2/Hz$ in the detector. Recovering both $k=k_{B}T/{\sigma }^2$ and $k=2\pi \zeta f_c$ is an internal model check; actual agreement also tests the assumed temperature, drag and detector response.

The generator uses the exact stationary update $x_{j+1}=\rho x_j+\sigma \sqrt{1-{\rho }^2}{Z}_j$, with $\rho =e^{-\Delta t/\tau }$ and independent standard normal random variables $Z_j$. For a demeaned block of $N$ samples and its unnormalized discrete Fourier transform $X_j$, the two-sided periodogram is $\Delta t|X_j{|}^2/N$; doubling positive bins except the zero and Nyquist endpoints gives a one-sided density. Summing those bins times $\Delta f=1/(N\Delta t)$ returns the block mean square by discrete Parseval identity. Independent detector noise, finite exposure and aliasing would alter a measured spectrum and must enter a fit before interpreting $f_c$.

When momentum relaxes much faster than the imposed motion, force balance replaces the inertial equation: $\zeta \dot{x}=F(x,t)$ in a deterministic one-dimensional model. The linear friction coefficient sets the time scale. Thermal forcing, if included, gives overdamped Langevin dynamics.

The dimensional linear friction coefficient is $\zeta$. Put $y=x-v_{T}t$ and $u(y)=F(y)/\zeta$. In overdamped particle dynamics the laboratory velocity is $\dot{x}=u(y)$, whereas the trap-frame velocity is $\dot{y}=u(y)-v_T$. The particle enters the optical tweezers at $y=X_R$ and leaves at $y=-X_L$ when the trap overtakes it. Write $w=X_R+X_L$ for this support width. The printed subtraction in the later definition of the width is a sign error: the distance between these endpoints is their sum. We use $w=2X_0$ in the circular calculation.

For a bounded continuous force, the strict conditionensures finite passage through a translating optical trap: the trap-frame coordinate decreases throughout the interaction. If $u(y)=v_T$ is encountered from the right, the deterministic trajectory cannot pass this stationary trap-frame point for a locally Lipschitz force; it approaches or stays at a locked state. At a smooth maximum the critical passage time diverges. More generally the passage criterion is $v_T-u>0$ on the traversed interval together with a finite integral below. Separating the trap-frame equation givesThese formulas account for both portions of the optical tweezers, including motion against the trap direction.

The forward-displacement result uses the ordinary localized potential energy interpretation of an optical trap: $F=-U^{\prime }$ and $U$ has the same value outside both ends, hence $\int Fdy=0$. Compact support of the force alone does not ensure that condition. Under the equal-endpoint condition,for a nonzero force and a passing trajectory. This is forward displacement from a translating localized potential. A zero force gives zero displacement. If the force is negative everywhere on its support, it instead gives $\Delta x<0$; thus an arbitrary compactly supported force does not satisfy the printed assertion.

There are two complementary explanations of the forward displacement from a translating localized potential. The forward push slows the relative passage and therefore acts longer, while the backward pull speeds up the relative passage and therefore acts for less time. An exact potential energy balance makes the same point: along the trajectoryThe moving optical trap supplies the positive work lost to linear drag, although the initial and final potential energy are equal.

For $v_T\gg \Vert u{\Vert }_{\infty }$, a uniformly convergent expansion of the passage integrals givesFor a localized potential energy well the first integral vanishes, soThe displacement decreases quadratically with the trap speed, rather than linearly. Without the equal-endpoint assumption the general expansion above remains valid.

For repeated kicks from a circular optical trap, let $L=2\pi R$ and interpret the force profile locally along the arc. This description requires a tangential constraint, a nonoverlapping force support $w<L$, and, if the straight profile is used geometrically, a small support compared with $R$. The condition $R\gg a$ alone does not specify that latter width hierarchy. During an encounter the particle advances by $\Delta x$ and the trap advances by $v_T\Delta t=w+\Delta x$. Between encounters the deterministic particle is stationary and the trap travels the remaining relative distance $L-w$. Thus the time between corresponding points of successive encounters isHere $f_T$ and $f_p$ are revolution frequencies, not angular velocities; the printed relation $f_T=v_T/(2\pi R)$ fixes this convention. The encounter frequency is $f_T-f_p$, so the same result follows from $L{f}_p=\Delta x(f_T-f_p)$.

The precise condition for the stated approximation is $|\Delta x|/L\ll 1$, in addition to finite passage and separated encounters. A sufficient high-speed regime is $v_T\gg \Vert F{\Vert }_{\infty }/\zeta$ with fixed $w<L$, for which the asymptotic displacement divided by $L$ tends to zero. ThenThis condition controls the encounter frequency correction; there is no need to discard the finite interaction time without accounting for the support width.

For the triangular optical-trap response, set $v_c=F/\zeta =L{f}_c$. In the passing regime $v_T>v_c$, the approach side has velocity $-v_c$ and the trailing side has velocity $+v_c$. ConsequentlyWith $\alpha =2X_0/L=X_0/(\pi R)$ and $\beta =v_T/v_c=f_T/f_c$, the repeated kicks from a circular optical trap formula becomesFor $0<\beta <1$ the usual ideal triangular-well dynamics locks at the cusp: the forces on its two sides direct the trap-frame particle towards the cusp. This is understood as the sticking limit of a rounded potential or of the overdamped differential inclusion at its discontinuous force. The particle follows the trap, giving $f_p/f_c=\beta$. At $\beta =1$ it can remain at a fixed point of the trailing segment and also has $f_p/f_c=1$. Thus the physical triangular optical-trap response is continuous at threshold, even though the isolated passing-kick displacement diverges there. For $\beta \gg 1$,and the more general kick approximation requires $\alpha /({\beta }^2-1)\ll 1$.

Rate-zonal centrifugation resolves an initially narrow sample zone by differences in sedimentation coefficient during a finite interval. Its bands remain transient: extending the interval can carry material into a centrifugation pellet. Thus a density gradient need not imply an equilibrium buoyant density measurement.^[ref]

A typical preparation layers a narrow sample above a preformed density gradient, often containing sucrose. The initial zone must be narrow enough that differences in starting position do not overwhelm the later separation. The run ends while useful bands remain inside the liquid. In the simple case where all particles are denser than every part of the column, none has an interior isopycnic centrifugation position.^[ref][ref]

The sedimentation coefficient $s=(m-{\rho }_{f}V)/f$ explains why separation is not an ordering by mass alone. At fixed local centrifugal acceleration, increasing displaced volume can increase buoyancy, while a less compact shape can increase the linear friction coefficient and reduce velocity. Even for a sphere, Stokes's law gives $s=2b^2({\rho }_p-{\rho }_f)/(9\eta )$, so both the density difference and the dynamic viscosity matter. The resulting sedimentation coefficient can change along a density gradient.

The sedimentation coefficient $s$ is radial drift velocity divided by local centrifugal acceleration. It has units of time and combines particle properties with those of the surrounding liquid. In a dilute, deterministic mathematical model with negligible particle inertia, an effective displaced volume $V$, particle mass $m$, local liquid density ${\rho }_f$ and linear friction coefficient $f>0$ giveThe subtraction represents buoyancy. Equal mass does not imply equal $s$: changing shape changes drag force, and changing the medium changes both buoyancy and viscosity.^[ref]

For an isolated sphere of radius $b$ and uniform density ${\rho }_p$, Stokes's law supplies $f=6\pi \eta b$, where $\eta$ is dynamic viscosity, and $m=(4\pi /3)b^3{\rho }_p$. ThereforeThis original force-balance check predicts fourfold $s$ on doubling $b$ with everything else fixed, and zero drift when ${\rho }_p={\rho }_f$. It applies to dilute isolated spheres in Stokes flow, not arbitrary folded proteins or crowded suspensions. If $s$ and $\omega$ remain constant in a uniform medium, the ordinary differential equation $dr/dt=s{\omega }^{2}r$ has the exponential function solution $r(t)=r(0)e^{s{\omega }^{2}t}$. Arrival at an outer boundary therefore depends on starting position as well as $s$; a separation has no universal size cutoff.

Consider a point mass of fixed mass $M>0$ released from rest in a stationary medium. Choose downward as positive, assume constant gravitational acceleration $g>0$, neglect buoyancy, and impose linear drag $F_d=-bv$ with constant linear friction coefficient $b>0$. Here $v$ is the signed downward velocity component; it equals speed during this descent. Newton's second law becomesThe terminal velocity balances the two forces, and the time constant $\tau$ controls how quickly that balance is approached:For the illustrative parameters $M=1\mathrm{kg}$, $b=2kg/s$ and $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the time constant is $0.5\mathrm{s}$ and the terminal velocity is $4.9m/s$ downward. At $t=1\mathrm{s}=2\tau$, the downward velocity is $4.9(1-e^{-2})m/s\simeq 4.23686m/s$ and the downward acceleration is $9.8e^{-2}m/{\mathrm{s}}^2\simeq 1.32629m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. This is a toy linear drag model, not a claim that every $1\mathrm{kg}$ falling object has this resistance law.

For a proof outline, subtract the equilibrium value: $u=v-v_T$ obeys $du/dt=-u/\tau$. The exponential decay solution and the initial condition give $u=-v_T{e}^{-t/\tau }$; one derivative gives the acceleration. Every time constant multiplies the remaining gap $v_T-v$ by $e^{-1}$. The exact limit is reached only as $t\to \infty$. This makes the model useful for estimating a settling duration without mistaking vanishing acceleration for vanishing velocity.

Newton already analyzed vertical motion under uniform gravity and resistance proportional to velocity in Book II, Section I, Proposition III of the Principia. His geometric construction includes a greatest downward velocity, illustrating that a limiting rate can emerge from balancing a driving force and resistance. ^[ref]