Separation and fractionation of order and disorder in highly polydisperse systems

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Fernandez L A ^a,b   Martin Mayor V ^a,b   Seoane, B ^a,b   Verrocchio, P ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMORPHOUS STATE; BIG PARTICLES; COMPLEX PATTERN; CRYSTAL-AMORPHOUS; DYNAMIC GLASS TRANSITION; FINITE-SIZE SCALING ANALYSIS; FLUID-SOLID TRANSITION; MONTE CARLO SIMULATION; ORDER AND DISORDER; POLYDISPERSE SYSTEMS; POLYDISPERSES; THERMODYNAMIC LIMITS; THERMODYNAMICALLY STABLE; TWO PHASIS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; GLASS TRANSITION; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS; PHASE SEPARATION; POLYDISPERSITY; SIZE SEPARATION;

FRACTIONATION;

EID: 77955576656     PISSN: 15393755     EISSN: 15502376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.021501     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. P. N. Pusey and W. van Megen, Nature (London) 320, 340 (1986). 10.1038/320340a0
2. P. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 10970 (1998). 10.1063/1.477753
3. D. A. Kofke and P. G. Bolhuis, Phys. Rev. E 59, 618 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevE.59.618
4. S. Auer and D. Frenkel, Nature (London) 413, 711 (2001). 10.1038/35099513
5. M. Fasolo and P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. E 70, 041410 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.041410
6. R. P. A. Dullens and W. K. Kegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 195702 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.195702
7. P. Chaudhuri, S. Karmakar, C. Dasgupta, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and A. K. Sood, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 248301 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.248301
8. L. A. Fernández, V. Martín-Mayor, and P. Verrocchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 085702 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.085702
9. G. Brambilla, D. El Masri, M. Pierno, L. Berthier, L. Cipelletti, G. Petekidis, and A. B. Schofield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 085703 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.085703
10. E. Zaccarelli, C. Valeriani, E. Sanz, W. C. K. Poon, M. E. Cates, and P. N. Pusey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 135704 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.135704
11. L. A. Fernández, V. Martín-Mayor, and P. Verrocchio, The Xth International Workshop on Disordered Systems (Taylor & Francis, New York, 2007), Vol. 87, pp. 581-586.
12. Q. Yan and J. J. de Pablo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 035701 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.035701
13. J. P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids (Academic Press, San Diego, 1986).
14. L. Santen and W. Krauth, e-print arXiv:cond-mat/0107459.
15. L. Berthier and W. Kob, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19, 205130 (2007). 10.1088/0953-8984/19/20/205130
16. N. B. Simeonova and W. K. Kegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 035701 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.035701
17. W. Gotze and L. Sjogren, Rep. Prog. Phys. 55, 241 (1992). 10.1088/0034-4885/55/3/001
18. V. N. Novikov and A. P. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E 67, 031507 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.031507
19. R. Lustig, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 8816 (1998). 10.1063/1.477552
20. V. Martin-Mayor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 137207 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 98.137207
21. P. J. Steinhardt, D. R. Nelson, and M. Ronchetti, Phys. Rev. B 28, 784 (1983). 10.1103/PhysRevB.28.784
22. P. Rein ten Wolde, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, and D. Frenkel, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 9932 (1996). 10.1063/1.471721
23. L. A. Fernández, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, V. Martín-Mayor, and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 057201 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 100.057201
24. K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 1604 (1996). 10.1143/JPSJ.65.1604
25. E. Marinari, in Advances in Computer Simulation, edited by, J. Kerstész, and, I. Kondor, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998).
26. T. S. Grigera and G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. E 63, 045102 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevE.63.045102
27. Q. Yan, T. S. Jain, and J. J. de Pablo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 235701 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.235701
28. L. A. Fernandez, V. Martin-Mayor, S. Perez-Gaviro, A. Tarancon, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B 80, 024422 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.024422
29. D. P. Landau and K. Binder, A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulations in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
30. P. Sollich and N. B. Wilding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 118302 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.118302
31. B. Bernu, J. P. Hansen, Y. Hiwatari, and G. Pastore, Phys. Rev. A 36, 4891 (1987). 10.1103/PhysRevA.36.4891
32. C. C. Yu and H. M. Carruzzo, Phys. Rev. E 69, 051201 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051201
33. L. A. Fernández, V. Martín-Mayor, and P. Verrocchio, Phys. Rev. E 73, 020501 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.020501
34. Strictly speaking, the long distance cutoff spoils scale invariance, so that one could question that Γ is the controlling thermodynamic parameter. In practice, the cutoff is chosen to balance two mutually contradicting goals. On the one hand, the larger the cutoff distance, the lesser is the disturbance to the system. On the other hand, the computational cost significantly diminishes when one decreases the cutoff. Furthermore, the functional form of the cutoff is formulated to eliminate discontinuities, and thereby reduce its artificial effects. In fact, the Mode Coupling transition has been located with a variety of cutoff choices and polydispersities (see and present work). In all cases, when temperatures are expressed in terms of Γ, the location of the Mode Coupling transition Γ g agreed to an accuracy of at least 1%.
35. This is doing by following the random walk of each copy of the system in energy space. One easily realizes that, along the simulation, the system switches between trapped and ergodic phases. During a trapped phase, one or more copies of the system remains confined at the lowest energies and displays larger values of F. In fact, the characteristic time τ S S corresponds to the average duration of the trapped phase. The statistical analysis can be done either considering the full simulation or only the ergodic pieces of it. The Maxwell construction comes out compatible within statistical errors.