Molecular hydrodynamic theory of supercooled liquids and colloidal suspensions under shear

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 66, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 4-

  Miyazaki, Kunimasa ^a   Reichman, David R ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLLOIDAL SUSPENSION; MODE-COUPLING THEORY; MOLECULAR HYDRODYNAMIC THEORY; SUPERCOOLED LIQUIDS;

COLLOIDS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDRODYNAMICS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NONLINEAR EQUATIONS; RELAXATION PROCESSES; SHEAR FLOW; SUPERCOOLING;

SUSPENSIONS (FLUIDS);

ARTICLE;

EID: 41349101089     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.050501     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. A.J. Liu and S.R. Nagel, Nature (London) 396, 21 (1998).
2. R. Yamamoto and A. Onuki, Phys. Rev. E 58, 3515 (1998);
3. R. YamamotoA. OnukiJ. Chem. Phys. 117, 2359 (2002).
4. L. Berthier and J.-L. Barrat, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 6228 (2002).
5. L. Berthier, J.-L. Barrat, and J. Kurchan, Phys. Rev. E 61, 5464 (2000).
6. T.R. Kirkpatrick and J.C. Nieuwoudt, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2651 (1986).
7. A.V. Indrani and S. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rev. E 52, 6492 (1995). In their paper, the convection term in the momentum equation is neglected.
8. A. Onuki and K. Kawasaki, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 121, 456 (1979);
9. A. Onuki, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 6119 (1997).
10. D. Ronis, Phys. Rev. A 34, 1472 (1986).
11. R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).
12. W. Götze and L. Sjögren, Rep. Prog. Phys. 55, 241 (1992).
13. As this paper was being written for publication, we became aware of a parallel effort by Fuchs and Cates, e-print cond-mat/0204628;
14. FuchsCatese-print cond-mat/0207530. While the omission of several details in their calculation make a detailed comparison between the two approaches impossible at this time, there are many similarities in the final expressions, and the physical picture is also quite similar. Differences do exist in the expressions, which most likely lead to different estimates of the exponent (Formula presented) It will be most useful in the future to make a detailed comparison of the two theories since the differences in approach (fluctuating hydrodynamics versus the projection operator formalism) and the final results may lead to a better understanding of the limitations of several assumptions used here and by Fuchs and Cates to describe how an external flow disrupts jamming.