Model-free analyses limitations

In any book, there are relevant issues that are not covered. The most obvious in this book is probably a lack of in-depth statistical analysis of the results of model-based and model-free analyses. Data fitting does produce standard deviations for the fitted parameters, but translation into confidence limits is much more difficult for reasonably complex models. Also, the effects of the separation of linear and non-linear parameters are, to our knowledge, not well investigated. Very little is known about errors and confidence limits in the area of model-free analysis. 

This approach offers a detailed and model-free description of the distribution of jump-angles, and can cover an enormous range of timescales only limited by relaxation [1, 4, 61-64]. In the following section, both ID and 2D NMR lineshape analysis will be described. 

Although long-time Debye relaxation proceeds exponentially, short-time deviations are detectable which represent inertial effects (free rotation between collisions) as well as interparticle interaction during collisions. In Debye s limit the spectra have already collapsed and their Lorentzian centre has a width proportional to the rotational diffusion coefficient. In fact this result is model-independent. Only shape analysis of the far wings can discriminate between different models of molecular reorientation and explain the high-frequency pecularities of IR and FIR spectra (like Poley absorption). In the conclusion of Chapter 2 we attract the readers attention to the solution of the inverse problem which is the extraction of the angular momentum correlation function from optical spectra of liquids. 

This is an indication of the collective nature of the effect. Although collisions between hard spheres are instantaneous the model itself is not binary. Very careful analysis of the free-path distribution has been undertaken in an excellent old work [74], It showed quite definite although small deviations from Poissonian statistics not only in solids, but also in a liquid hard-sphere system. The mean free-path X is used as a scaling length to make a dimensionless free-path distribution, Xp, as a function of a free-path length r/X. In the zero-density limit this is an ideal exponential function (Ap)o- In a one-dimensional system this is an exact result, i.e., Xp/(Xp)0 = 1 at any density. In two dimensions the dense-fluid scaled free-path distributions agree quite well with each other, but not so well with the zero-density scaled distribution, which is represented by a horizontal line (Fig. 1.21(a)). The maximum deviation is about... 

What level of inaccuracy can be expected for a simulation with a certain sample size N1 This question can be transformed to another one what is the effective limit-perturbation Xf or xg in the inaccuracy model [(6.22) or (6.23)] To assess the error in a free energy calculation using the model, one may histogram / and g using the perturbations collected in the simulations, and plot x in the tail of the distribution. However, if Xf is taken too small the accuracy is overestimated, and the assessed reliability of the free energy is therefore not ideal. In the following, we discuss the most-likely analysis, which provides a more systematic way to estimate the accuracy of free energy calculations. 

A subtext of this analysis is an attempt to address some of the limitations of the reproduction schema. Two main limitations of the schema, as modelled in Chapters 2-6, are the absence of free competition, based on the mobility of capital, and the lack of any room for technical progress. Chapter 7 examines the Grossmann model of how technical progress drives the tendency of the falling rate of profit. And in Chapter 8, free competition is considered by turning to Marx s famous transformation problem a problem that has dominated discussions in Marxian economics. 

The allowance for polarization in the DH model obviates the need for separation of long-range and short-range attractive forces and for inclusion of additional repulsive interactions. Belief in the necessity to include some kind of covolume term stems from the confused analysis of Onsager (13), and is compounded by a misunderstanding of the standard state concept. Reference to a solvated standard state in which there are no interionic effects can in principle be made at any arbitrary concentration, and the only repulsive or exclusion term required is that described by the DH theory which puts limits on the ionic atmosphere size and hence on the lowering of electrical free energy. The present work therefore supports the view of Stokes (34) that the covolume term should not be included in the comparison of statistical-mechanical results with experimental ones. 

---