Advertisement

Critical Phenomena in Glasses

  • Tommaso RizzoEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Supercooled liquids become increasingly sluggish upon cooling down to the glass temperature Tg where they can no longer be studied in equilibrium on the laboratory scale and behave as off-equilibrium amorphous solids, i.e., glasses. Simple activated dynamics account for the behavior of so-called strong liquids, but deviations from Arrhenius behavior are observed in fragile ones and have defied explanation for decades. Technical advances in experiments have steadily unveiled more facets of the puzzling phenomenology of fragile liquids including notably two-step relaxation, stretched exponentials, superposition principles, and dynamical heterogeneities. Theoretical efforts have developed mainly around the idea that some sort of finite-temperature critical phenomenon is at play, the key role in the discussion being played by two different critical points. The first is thought to occur above Tg, and therefore it is not really a phase transition but rather a dynamical crossover. Numerical studies have shed much light on its nature, and nowadays it is largely believed to be the outcome of the smoothing of a sharp singularity spuriously predicted by mode-coupling theory. The existence of a dynamical crossover is largely accepted, and what is disputed is whether that is the end of the story.

Those who believe this is not the case typically put forward the classic hypothesis of a true thermodynamic phase transition to an amorphous glass state at some finite temperature below Tg. Originally suggested by elementary extrapolations of experimental data, this putative critical point is nowadays supposed to be a complex and fascinating object, notably the locus of a configurational entropy crisis accompanied by a divergent static correlation length. The quest to establish its existence, reinvigorated by the discovery of the glass/spin-glass analogy, is very much open but has produced nonetheless significant advances both at the theoretical and numerical level. Opponents of the thermodynamic transition scenario include notably those who advocate for dynamic facilitation, as realized in kinetically constrained models, to explain physics solely in terms of a dynamical crossover. Understanding dynamics between the crossover temperature and Tg would help assess both the range of validity of a description in terms of the crossover and whether something qualitatively different must be invoked close to Tg and below. Here the essential missing piece of information is the nature and spatial extent of the activated processes that should rule the dynamics: at the theoretical level, a consistent, beyond phenomenological, theory of these dynamical processes has still to be developed; at the experimental level, current techniques do not have enough spatial resolution; finally numerical simulations have been typically confined to higher temperatures due to hardware speed limitations but are beginning to access the crossover region and may provide some guidance in the coming years.

References

  1. Ackerson BJ (1993) When order is disordered. Nature 365:11–12ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam G, Gibbs JH (1965) On the temperature dependence of cooperative relaxation properties in glass-forming liquids. J Chem Phys 43(1):139–146ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert S, Bauer T, Michl M, Biroli G, Bouchaud J-P, Loidl A, Lunkenheimer P, Tourbot R, Wiertel-Gasquet C, Ladieu F (2016) Fifth-order susceptibility unveils growth of thermodynamic amorphous order in glass-formers. Science 352:1308ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angell CA (1995) Formation of glasses from liquids and biopolymers. Science 267:1924ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berthier L, Biroli G (2011) Theoretical perspective on the glass transition and amorphous materials. Rev Mod Phys 83:587ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berthier L, Biroli G, Bouchaud J-P, Cipelletti L, van Saarloos W (eds) (2011) Dynamical heterogeneities in glasses, colloids, and granular media. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Berthier L, Charbonneau P, Coslovich D, Ninarello A, Ozawa M, Yaida S (2017) Configurational entropy measurements in extremely supercooled liquids that break the glass ceiling. PNAS 114:11356–11361ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavagna A (2009) Supercooled liquids for pedestrians. Phys Rep 476(4–6):51–124ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler D, Garrahan JP (2010) Dynamics on the way to forming glass: bubbles in space-time. Annu Rev Phys Chem 61:191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charbonneau P, Kurchan J, Parisi G, Urbani P, Zamponi F (2016) Glass and Jamming transitions: from exact results to finite-dimensional descriptions. Annu Rev Condens Matter Phys 8: 265–288ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ediger MD (2000) Spatially heterogeneous dynamics in supercooled liquids. Annu Rev Phys Chem 51:99ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ediger MD, Angell CA, Nagel SR (1996) Supercooled liquids and glasses. J Phys Chem 100(31):13200–13212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flenner E, Szamel G (2013) Dynamic heterogeneities above and below the mode-coupling temperature: evidence of a dynamic crossover J Chem Phys 138:12A523Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein M (1969) Viscous liquids and the glass transition: a potential energy barrier picture. J Chem Phys 51:3728–3739ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Götze W (2009) Complex dynamics of glass-forming liquids: a mode-coupling theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrowell P (2011) The length scales of dynamic heterogeneity: results from molecular dynamics simulations. In: Berthier L, Biroli G, Bouchaud J-P, Cipelletti L, van Saarloos W (eds) (2011) Dynamical heterogeneities in glasses, colloids, and granular media. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kauzmann AW (1948) The nature of the glassy state and the behavior of liquids at low temperatures. Chem Rev 43:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirkpatrick TR, Thirumalai D (1987) Dynamics of the structural glass transition and the -Spin—Interaction Spin-Glass Model. Phys Rev Lett 58:2091ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirkpatrick TR, Wolynes PG (1987) Connections between some kinetic and equilibrium theories of the glass transition. Phys Rev A 35:3072ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kob W (1999) Computer simulations of supercooled liquids and glasses. J-Ref: J Phys Condens Matter 11:R85ADSGoogle Scholar
  21. Li G, Du MN, Chen XC, Cummins HZ, Tao NJ (1992) Testing mode-coupling predictions for α and β relaxation in Ca 0.4 K 0.6 (NO 3) 1.4 near the liquid-glass transition by light scattering. Phys Rev A 45(6):3867Google Scholar
  22. Lunkenheimer P, Kohler M, Kastner S, Loidl A (2012) Dielectric spectroscopy of glassy dynamics. In: Wolynes PG, Lubchenko V (eds) Structural glasses and supercooled liquids: theory, experiment, and applications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  23. Mezard M, Parisi G (2012) Glasses and replicas. In: Wolynes PG, Lubchenko V (eds) (2012) Structural glasses and supercooled liquids: theory, experiment, and applications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  24. Mezard M, Parisi G, Virasoro M (1988) Spin glass theory and beyond. World Scientific, SingaporezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Richert R (2012) Supercooled liquid dynamics: advances and challenges. In: Wolynes PG, Lubchenko V (eds) Structural glasses and supercooled liquids: theory, experiment, and applications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  26. Ritort F, Sollich P (2003) Glassy dynamics of kinetically constrained models. Adv Phys 52: 219–342ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rizzo T (2014) Long-wavelength fluctuations lead to a model of the glass crossover. EPL 106:56003; Rizzo T (2016) Dynamical Landau theory of the glass crossover. Phys Rev B 94:014202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rizzo T, Voigtmann T (2015) Qualitative features at the glass crossover. EPL 111:56008ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolynes PG, Lubchenko V (eds) (2012) Structural glasses and supercooled liquids: theory, experiment, and applications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institue for Complex Systems, Rome UnitNational Research Council of ItalyRomeItaly
  2. 2.Physics DepartmentSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Roberto Car
    • 1
  • Biswajit Santra
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations