Paper detail

Testing "microscopic" theories of glass-forming liquids

We assess the validity of "microscopic" approaches of glass-forming liquids based on the sole k nowledge of the static pair density correlations. To do so we apply them to a benchmark provided by two liquid models that share very similar static pair density correlation functions while disp laying distinct temperature evolutions of their relaxation times. We find that the approaches are unsuccessful in describing the difference in the dynamical behavior of the two models. Our study is not exhausti ve, and we have not tested the effect of adding corrections by including for instance three-body density correlations. Yet, our results appear strong enough to challenge the claim that the slowd own of relaxation in glass-forming liquids, for which it is well established that the changes of the static structure factor with temperature are small, can be explained by "microscopic" appr oaches only requiring the static pair density correlations as nontrivial input.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.