Phase separation in two-dimensional binary fluids: A molecular dynamics study

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

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 605-610

  Velasco, E ^a   Toxvaerd, S ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243121290     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/physreve.54.605     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sanhi, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, New York, 1983), Vol. 8.
2. A. J. Bray, Adv. Phys. 43, 357 (1994).
3. N. Wong and C. Knobler, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 725 (1978); Y. C. Choi and W. Goldburg, Phys. Rev. A 20, 2105 (1979).
4. N. Wong and C. Knobler, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 725 (1978); Y. C. Choi and W. Goldburg, Phys. Rev. A 20, 2105 (1979).
5. E. Velasco and S. Toxvaerd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 388 (1993).
6. E. Velasco and S. Toxvaerd, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 6, A205 (1994).
7. P. Ossadnik, M. F. Gyure, H. Eugene Stanley, and S. C. Glotzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2498 (1994).
8. S. Toxvaerd and E. Velasco, Mol. Phys. 86, 845 (1995).
9. G. Leptoukh, B. Strickland, and C. Roland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3636 (1995).
10. S. Toxvaerd, Phys. Rev. E 53, 3710 (1996).
11. H. Furukawa, Phys. Rev. A 31, 1103 (1985).
12. We are indebted to M. Laradji for pointing out this argument to us.
13. The assumption is made that the shear viscosity of our two-dimensional mixture is numerically similar to that of a two-dimensional Lennard-Jones fluid.
14. J. E. Farrell and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B 40, 7027 (1989); 42, 2353 (1990); 43, 630 (1991).
15. J. E. Farrell and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B 40, 7027 (1989); 42, 2353 (1990); 43, 630 (1991).
16. J. E. Farrell and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B 40, 7027 (1989); 42, 2353 (1990); 43, 630 (1991).
17. F. J. Alexander, S. Chen, and D. W. Grunau, Phys. Rev. B 48, 634 (1993).
18. W. R. Osborn, E. Orlandini, M. R. Swift, J. M. Yeomans, and J. R. Banavar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4031 (1995).
19. S. Bastea and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. E 52, 3821 (1995); Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3776 (1995).
20. S. Bastea and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. E 52, 3821 (1995); Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3776 (1995).
21. J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids (Academic Press, London, 1986).
22. B. J. Alder and T. E. Wainwright, Phys. Rev. A 1, 18 (1970).
23. The speedup of the growth with increasing τ is probably only temporary, and occurs until R(t) reaches a size of the order of that typical of the vortices which are destroyed by the random velocity field.
24. Y. Wu, F. J. Alexander, T. Lookman, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3852 (1995).
25. eff(t) introduced by Huse [Phys. Rev. B 34, 7845 (1986)] and long simulation runs, J. G. Amar et al. [Phys. Rev. B 37, 196 (1988)] managed to extrapolate to infinite times to obtain the 1/3 exponent, attributing the previously reported 1/4 to long-persistent transients. Much the same story can be told for the continuum model B. Nowadays there is wide consensus that both these models are in the same universality class and that their late-time exponent is 1/3. Note that the 1/3 exponent we obtain disagrees with that reported in [4]; as advanced in the latter reference, we believe that the difference can be attributed to the model potential used in [4] for the AB interaction, which might penalize evaporation-condensation events, thus suppressing the 1/3 exponent and favoring diffusion along interfaces, which leads to 1/4. The model for the AB interaction used here might more easily allow for such events.
26. eff(t) introduced by Huse [Phys. Rev. B 34, 7845 (1986)] and long simulation runs, J. G. Amar et al. [Phys. Rev. B 37, 196 (1988)] managed to extrapolate to infinite times to obtain the 1/3 exponent, attributing the previously reported 1/4 to long-persistent transients. Much the same story can be told for the continuum model B. Nowadays there is wide consensus that both these models are in the same universality class and that their late-time exponent is 1/3. Note that the 1/3 exponent we obtain disagrees with that reported in [4]; as advanced in the latter reference, we believe that the difference can be attributed to the model potential used in [4] for the AB interaction, which might penalize evaporation-condensation events, thus suppressing the 1/3 exponent and favoring diffusion along interfaces, which leads to 1/4. The model for the AB interaction used here might more easily allow for such events.