1: \documentstyle[aps,pre,twocolumn,graphicx,psfig]{revtex}

2: 

3: \def\lessgtr{\raise2.5pt\hbox{$<$}\llap{\lower2.5pt\hbox{$>$}}}

4: \def\gtrless{\raise2.5pt\hbox{$>$}\llap{\lower2.5pt\hbox{$<$}}}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

8: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

9: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \draft

14: 

15: \title{A mode-coupling theory for the glassy dynamics of 

16: a diatomic probe molecule immersed in a simple liquid}

17: \author{S.-H. Chong, W.~G{\"o}tze, and A.P. Singh}

18: \address{Physik-Department, Technische Universit{\"a}t M{\"u}nchen,

19: 85747 Garching, Germany}

20: \date{Phys. Rev. E, in print}

21: \maketitle

22: 

23: \begin{abstract}

24: 

25: Generalizing the mode-coupling theory for ideal

26: liquid-glass transitions, equations of motion are derived for the

27: correlation functions describing the glassy dynamics of a diatomic

28: probe molecule immersed in a simple glass-forming system. The

29: molecule is described in the interaction-site representation and

30: the equations are solved for a dumbbell molecule

31: consisting of two fused hard spheres in a hard-sphere system. The

32: results for the molecule's arrested position in the glass state

33: and the reorientational correlators for angular-momentum index

34: $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = 2$ near the glass transition are compared

35: with those obtained previously within a

36: theory based on a tensor-density description of the molecule in

37: order to demonstrate that the two approaches yield

38: equivalent results. 

39: For strongly hindered reorientational motion, the dipole-relaxation

40: spectra for the $\alpha$-process can be mapped on the dielectric-loss

41: spectra of glycerol if a rescaling is performed according to 

42: a suggestion by Dixon {\it et al.} 

43: [Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 65}, 1108 (1990)].

44: It is demonstrated that the glassy dynamics is

45: independent of the molecule's inertia parameters.

46: 

47: \bigskip

48: 

49: \noindent PACS numbers: 64.70.Pf, 61.25.Em, 61.20.Lc

50: \end{abstract}

51: 

52: \section{INTRODUCTION}

53: 

54: The mode-coupling theory (MCT) for the evolution of structural

55: relaxation in glass-forming liquids was originally developed

56: for atomic systems and for mixtures of atoms or ions. Detailed

57: tests of the theory have been provided by comparisons of the 

58: predictions for the hard-sphere system (HSS) with 

59: dynamic-light-scattering data for

60: hard-sphere colloids, as can be inferred from Ref.~\cite{Megen95}

61: and the papers quoted there. Quantitative tests have also been

62: made by comparing molecular-dynamics-simulation data for a

63: binary mixture with the MCT results for the model

64: \cite{Nauroth97,Gleim98,Gleim00}. A series of general 

65: implications of the MCT equations were derived like

66: scaling laws and relations between anomalous exponents describing

67: power-law spectra and relaxation-time scales which

68: establish some universal features of the dynamics~\cite{Goetze92}.

69: It was conjectured that these 

70: results also apply to molecular liquids. Indeed, there is a large

71: body of literature, which is reviewed in Ref.~\cite{Goetze99},

72: dealing with the analysis of data from experiments or

73: from molecular-dynamics simulations for complicated systems in

74: terms of the universal MCT formulas. These studies

75: suggest that MCT describes some essential features of the glassy

76: dynamics for molecular liquids. Therefore, it seems desirable

77: to develop a detailed microscopic theory also for systems of

78: non-spherical constituents.

79: 

80: A mode-coupling theory for molecular systems has been studied in

81: Refs.~\cite{Schilling97,Theis98,Fabbian99b,Winkler00,Theis00,Letz00} where

82: the structure is described by tensor-density

83: fluctuations. The basic concepts of the MCT for simple systems

84: like density correlators and relaxation kernels have been

85: generalized to infinite matrices. The equations for the non-ergodicity

86: parameters and critical amplitudes were solved. These

87: quantities generalize the Debye-Waller factors of the arrested

88: glass structure and characterize its changes with temperature.

89: Comparison of the theoretical findings with

90: molecular-dynamics-simulation data for 

91: water~\cite{Fabbian99b,Theis00}

92: and for a system of linear molecules \cite{Winkler00} demonstrates

93: that the theory can cope with microscopic details.

94: However, the derived equations 

95: are so involved that further simplifications would be

96: required before correlators or spectra

97: could actually be calculated.

98: 

99: The simplest question of glassy dynamics of the rotational

100: degrees of freedom concerns the motion of a single linear molecule in a

101: simple liquid. This problem is equivalent to the study of a dilute

102: solution of linear molecules in an atomic liquid as solvent. For

103: this system, a MCT has been developed, generalizing the

104: equation for a tagged particle in a simple liquid to an 

105: infinite-matrix equation for a tagged molecule \cite{Franosch97c}. 

106: The equations were solved for a molecule

107: consisting of two fused hard spheres immersed in a HSS

108: \cite{Franosch97c,Goetze00c}. The validity of the

109: universal laws for the reorientational dynamics was

110: demonstrated. Characteristic differences for the

111: $\alpha$-process of the relaxation for angular-momentum index

112: $\ell = 1$ and $\ell = 2$ were identified 

113: which explain the differences of

114: spectra measured for $\ell = 1$ by dielectric-loss spectroscopy

115: and for $\ell = 2$ by depolarized-light-scattering spectroscopy.

116: The experimentally established large ratio of the

117: $\alpha$-relaxation times for the $\ell = 2$--reorientational

118: process and the 

119: longitudinal elastic modulus was also obtained \cite{Goetze00c}.

120: These examples show that MCT can provide general insight into the

121: glassy dynamics of rotational degrees of freedom which goes beyond

122: the contents of the universal formulas. 

123: 

124: Within the basic version of MCT, 

125: the tagged-particle-density-fluctuation correlator

126: for wave number $q$ considered as function of time $t$, 

127: $\phi_q^s (t)$, or the dynamical structure

128: factor for frequency $\omega$, $S_{q}(\omega)$, can be written as:

129: $\phi_q^s (t) = \phi_{q}^{s \, *} (t/t_0)$ and 

130: $S_{q}(\omega) = S_{q}^{*} (\omega t_0)$. 

131: Here the functions $\phi_{q}^{s \, *} (\tilde t)$ and 

132: $S_{q}^{*} (\tilde \omega)$ are completely

133: determined by the equilibrium structure. 

134: This holds for times outside the transient regime, $t /

135: t_0 \gg 1$, or for frequencies below the band of microscopic

136: excitations, $\omega t_0 \ll 1$. The subtleties of the transient

137: dynamics like the dependence of oscillation frequencies on mass

138: ratios enter the long-time dynamics and the low-frequency

139: spectra via a common time scale $t_0$ only. This means that the

140: statistical information on the long-time dynamics is 

141: determined up to a scale $t_0$ by the statistics of the system's

142: orbits in configuration space rather than 

143: by the orbits in phase space. The glassy

144: dynamics as described by functions like $\phi_q^{s} (t)$ or 

145: $S_{q}(\omega)$ deals with the probabilities of paths through the

146: high-dimensional potential-energy landscape. The complicated dynamics on

147: microscopic time scales is irrelevant in the

148: long-time regime; it merely determines the scale $t_0$ for the

149: exploration of the configuration space. 

150: The cited results of the MCT for simple systems and mixtures

151: \cite{Goetze92,Franosch98,Fuchs99b} are not valid for the

152: mentioned theories for molecular systems

153: \cite{Schilling97,Theis98,Fabbian99b,Winkler00,Theis00,Franosch97c,Goetze00c},

154: which imply isotope effects for the glassy dynamics.

155: A change of the mass ratio of the molecule's constituents shifts

156: the center of gravity, and thereby the mode-coupling coefficients

157: are altered. This leads to shifts of the glass-transition

158: temperature, the particle's localization lengths, and the like. 

159: In this respect a system of A-B

160: molecules would behave qualitatively different than an A-B

161: mixture. There are no experimental observations

162: demanding that the long-time dynamics is independent of the

163: inertia parameters of the molecules. But we

164: consider the specified isotope effects as artifacts of the

165: approximations underlying the so far studied extensions of MCT.

166: This critique and the formidable complexity of the theories based on the

167: tensor-density descriptions appear as a motivation to search for

168: an alternative approach towards the glassy dynamics of molecular

169: systems. An alternative MCT was proposed by 

170: Kawasaki \cite{Kawasaki97}. But so far, nothing is known about the

171: solutions of his equations nor on the results concerning

172: the inertia-parameter issue. In this paper the

173: suggestion of Chong and Hirata \cite{Chong98b} will be

174: followed, and the MCT will be based on the interaction-site

175: representation of the system \cite{Chandler72,Hansen86}.

176: 

177: The description of a molecular liquid by interaction-site

178: densities is inferior to the one by tensor densities. The

179: correlators of tensor densities can be used to express

180: the ones of interaction-site densities but not vice

181: versa. Interaction-site theories have also difficulties to handle

182: reorientational correlators. Therefore, it is a major issue of

183: this paper to show, that the indicated ad hoc objections against a

184: MCT based on an interaction-site representation do not fully

185: apply if the theory is restricted to a parameter regime where the

186: cage effect is the dominant mechanism for the dynamics. To proceed,

187: the same dumbbell-molecule problem shall be studied, which was

188: analyzed previously \cite{Franosch97c,Goetze00c}. 

189: 

190: The paper is organized as follows. 

191: The basic equations for the model are introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}.

192: Then, the MCT for a diatomic molecule

193: in a simple liquid is formulated in Sec.~\ref{sec:3}. The major problem is

194: the derivation of formulas for the mode-coupling coefficients.

195: This will be done within the Mori-Fujisaka formalism, and the

196: details are presented in Appendix~\ref{appen:B}. 

197: In Sec.~\ref{sec:4}, the results of

198: the theory for the dumbbell in a HSS are discussed.

199: The findings are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:5}.

200: 

201: \section{THE MODEL}

202: \label{sec:2}

203: 

204: A system of $N$ identical atoms distributed with density $\rho$ at

205: positions $\vec r_\kappa, \, \kappa = 1, \cdots , N$, is

206: considered as solvent. The structure can be described by the

207: density fluctuations for wave vectors $\vec q$: 

208: $\rho_ {\vec q} = \sum_\kappa \exp (i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec r}_\kappa)$. 

209: The structure factor 

210: $S_q = \langle \mid \rho_{\vec q} \mid^2 \rangle / N$

211: provides the simplest information on the equilibrium distribution

212: of these particles. Here $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes canonical

213: averaging for temperature $T$. Because of isotropy, $S_q$ only

214: depends on the wave-number $q = \mid \vec q \mid$. The

215: Ornstein-Zernike equation, $S_q = 1 / [1 - \rho c_q]$, relates

216: $S_q$ to the direct correlation function $c_q$. 

217: The structural dynamics is described in a statistical

218: manner by the normalized density correlators 

219: $\phi_q (t) = \langle \rho_{\vec q} (t)^*  \rho_{\vec q} \rangle / N S_q$. 

220: They are real even functions of time $t$ and exhibit the initial

221: behavior: $\phi_q (t) = 1 - \frac{1}{2} (\Omega_q t)^2 + O (|t|^3)$.

222: Here $\Omega_q = q v / \sqrt{S_q}$ is the bare phonon dispersion;

223: $v = \sqrt{k_B T/m}$ denotes the thermal velocity of the particles

224: with mass $m$ \cite{Hansen86}.

225: 

226: A rigid molecule of two atoms $A$ and $B$ shall be considered as

227: solute. Let $\vec r_a, \, a = A$ or $B$, denote the position vectors

228: of the atoms, so that $L = | \vec r_A - \vec r_B |$ denotes

229: the distance between the two interaction sites. Vector $\vec e =

230: (\vec r_A - \vec r_B) / L$ abbreviates the axis of the 

231: molecule. If $m_a$ denotes the mass of atom $a$, the total mass $M

232: = m_A + m_B$ and the moment of inertia $I = m_A m_B L^2 / M$

233: determine the thermal velocities $v_T = \sqrt{k_B T / M}$ and $v_R

234: = \sqrt{k_B T / I}$ for the molecule's translation and rotation,

235: respectively. Let us introduce also the center-of-mass position

236: $\vec r_C = (m_A \vec r_A + m_B \vec r_B) / M$ and the coordinates

237: $z_{a}$ of the atoms along the molecule axis: $z_A = L (m_B /

238: M), \, z_B = - L (m_A / M)$. The position of the molecule shall be

239: characterized by the two interaction-site-density fluctuations

240: \begin{equation}

241: \rho^{a}_{\vec q} = \exp ( i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec r_{a}} ),

242: \quad a = A \mbox{ or } B.

243: \label{eq:rho-def}

244: \end{equation}

245: The two-by-two matrix ${\bf w}_q$ of static fluctuation correlations

246: $w_q^{ab} = \langle \rho_{\vec q}^{a*} \rho_{\vec q}^b \rangle$ is

247: given by

248: \begin{equation}

249: w^{ab}_{q} = \delta^{ab} + (1 - \delta^{ab}) \, j_{0}(qL),

250: \label{eq:w-def}

251: \end{equation}

252: where here and in the following $j_\ell (x)$ denotes the spherical

253: Bessel function of index $\ell$. 

254: The solute-solvent interaction is described 

255: by the pair-correlation function 

256: $h_q^a = \langle \rho_{\vec q}^{*} \, \rho_{\vec q}^a \rangle / \rho$, 

257: which is expressed by a

258: direct correlation function $c_q^a$ \cite{Chandler72}

259: \begin{equation}

260: h^{a}_{q} = S_{q} \sum_{b} w^{ab}_{q} \, c^{b}_{q}.

261: \label{eq:huv-def}

262: \end{equation}

263: 

264: The dynamics of the molecule shall be characterized by the 

265: interaction-site-density correlators 

266: \begin{equation}

267: F^{ab}_{q}(t) = \langle \rho^{a}_{\vec q}(t)^{*} \rho^{b}_{\vec q} \rangle.

268: \label{eq:Fab-def}

269: \end{equation}

270: These are real even functions of time obeying $F_q^{ab} (t)

271: = F_q^{ba} (t)$. They shall be combined to a two-by-two-matrix

272: correlator ${\bf F}_q (t)$. Its short-time expansion can be noted

273: as

274: \begin{equation}

275: {\bf F}_{q}(t) = {\bf w}_{q} - 

276: {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} \, q^{2} \, {\bf J}_{q} \, t^{2} +

277: {\bf O}(|t|^{3}).

278: \label{eq:Fab-short-time}

279: \end{equation}

280: The continuity equation reads 

281: $\dot \rho_{\vec q}^a = i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec j}_{\vec q}^a$, 

282: where the current fluctuation is 

283: $\vec j_{\vec q}^a = \vec v^a \rho_{\vec q}^a$ with $\vec v^a$ denoting the

284: velocity of atom $a$. Therefore, one gets 

285: $J_q^{ab} = 

286: \langle 

287: ({\vec q} \cdot {\vec j}_{\vec q}^a)^* ({\vec q} \cdot {\vec j}_{\vec q}^b) 

288: \rangle / q^2$. 

289: The result splits in a translational and rotational part, 

290: ${\bf J}_q = {\bf J}^{\rm T}_{q} + {\bf J}^{\rm R}_{q}$, 

291: where~\cite{Chong98}:

292: \begin{mathletters}

293: \label{eq:J-TR}

294: \bea

295: J^{{\rm T} \, ab}_{q} &=& v_{\rm T}^{2} \, w^{ab}_{q},

296: \label{eq:J-TR-a}

297: \\

298: J^{{\rm R} \, ab}_{q} &=& v_{\rm R}^{2} \, 

299: ( {\textstyle \frac{2}{3}} z_{a} z_{b} ) \,

300: [ \delta^{ab} + 

301: \nonumber \\

302: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad

303: (1-\delta^{ab}) \, (j_{0}(qL) + j_{2}(qL)) ].

304: \label{eq:J-TR-b}

305: \eea

306: 

307: Let us note the small-$q$ expansion of the density correlators in

308: the form

309: \end{mathletters}

310: \begin{equation}

311: F^{ab}_{q}(t) = 1 - {\textstyle \frac{1}{6}} \, q^{2} \, C^{ab}(t) + O(q^{4}). 

312: \label{eq:Fab-small-q}

313: \end{equation}

314: The diagonal elements of the symmetric matrix ${\bf C}(t)$ are the

315: mean-squared displacements

316: \begin{mathletters}

317: \label{eq:Cab-mat}

318: \begin{equation}

319: \delta r_{a}^{2}(t) = 

320: \langle ( {\vec r}_{a}(t) - {\vec r}_{a}(0) )^{2} \rangle =

321: C^{aa}(t),

322: \label{eq:Cab-mat-a}

323: \end{equation}

324: while the off-diagonal elements can be related to the

325: dipole correlator

326: \bea

327: C_{1}(t) &=& \langle {\vec e}(t) \cdot {\vec e} \, \rangle

328: \nonumber \\

329: &=&

330: [ C^{AB}(t) - {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} ( C^{AA}(t) + C^{BB}(t) ) ] \, / \, L^{2}.

331: \label{eq:Cab-mat-b}

332: \eea

333: The mean-squared displacement of the center of mass can be

334: expressed as 

335: \bea

336: \delta r_{C}^{2}(t) &=& 

337: \langle ( {\vec r}_{C}(t) - {\vec r}_{C}(0) )^{2} \rangle

338: \nonumber \\

339: &=&

340: [ m_{A} \delta r_{A}^{2}(t) + m_{B} \delta r_{B}^{2}(t)] / M 

341: \nonumber \\

342: & &

343: \qquad \qquad \qquad 

344: + \, 

345: (2 I / M) \, [ C_{1}(t) - 1].

346: \label{eq:Cab-mat-c}

347: \eea

348: Expanding Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-short-time}) in $q$ yields the initial decay

349: \end{mathletters}

350: \begin{equation}

351: {\bf C}(t) = {\bf C}_{0} + 3 \, {\bf J}_{0} \, t^{2} + {\bf O}(|t|^{3}).

352: \label{eq:Cab-short-time}

353: \end{equation}

354: Here the initial value ${\bf C}_{0}$ is due to the expansion of 

355: Eq.~(\ref{eq:w-def}), 

356: while the prefactor of the $t^2$-term is due to the

357: zero-wave-number limit of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:J-TR}):

358: \begin{equation}

359: C^{ab}_{0} = L^{2} \, (1 - \delta^{ab}), \quad

360: J^{ab}_{0} = v_{\rm T}^{2} + {\textstyle \frac{2}{3}} \, 

361: v_{\rm R}^{2} \, z_{a} \, z_{b}.

362: \label{eq:Cab0-Jab0}

363: \end{equation}

364: 

365: For symmetric molecules one gets $m_{A} = m_{B} = M/2$,

366: $I = ML^{2}/4$, and $z_{A} = - z_{B} = L/2$.

367: In this case, there are only two independent density correlators,

368: since $F^{AA}_{q}(t) = F^{BB}_{q}(t)$.

369: It is convenient to perform an orthogonal transformation to fluctuations

370: of total number-densities $\rho_{N}({\vec q} \,)$ and 

371: ``charge'' densities $\rho_{Z}({\vec q} \,)$:

372: \begin{mathletters}

373: \label{eq:rho-NZ}

374: \begin{equation}

375: \rho_{x}({\vec q} \,) = 

376: ( \rho^{A}_{\vec q} \pm \rho^{B}_{\vec q} ) \, / \, \sqrt{2}, \quad

377: x = N \mbox{ or } Z.

378: \label{eq:rho-NZ-a}

379: \end{equation}

380: The transformation matrix ${\bf P} = {\bf P}^{-1}$ reads

381: \begin{equation}

382: {\bf P} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

383: \left(

384: \begin{array}{rr}

385: 1 &  1 \\

386: 1 & -1 

387: \end{array}

388: \right).

389: \label{eq:rho-NZ-b}

390: \end{equation}

391: It diagonalizes the matrices ${\bf w}_{q}$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:w-def})

392: and ${\bf J}_{q}$ from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:J-TR}):

393: \bea

394: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf w}_{q} \, {\bf P} )^{xy} &=& 

395: \delta^{xy} \, w_{x}(q), \quad

396: w_{x}(q) = 1 \pm j_{0}(qL),

397: \label{eq:rho-NZ-c}

398: \\

399: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf J}^{\rm T}_{q} \, {\bf P} )^{xy} &=& 

400: \delta^{xy} \, v_{\rm T}^{2} \, w_{x}(q),

401: \label{eq:rho-NZ-d}

402: \\

403: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf J}^{\rm R}_{q} \, {\bf P} )^{xy} &=& 

404: \delta^{xy} \, {\textstyle \frac{1}{6}} \, v_{\rm R}^{2} \, L^{2} \,

405: [1 \mp (j_{0}(qL) + j_{2}(qL))],

406: \label{eq:rho-NZ-e}

407: \eea

408: where $x,y = N$ or $Z$.

409: \end{mathletters}

410: Also the matrix of density correlators is diagonalized.

411: Introducing the normalized correlators

412: $\phi_{q}^{x}(t)$, one gets

413: \begin{mathletters}

414: \label{eq:phi-NZ}

415: \bea

416: & &

417: \phi^{x}_{q}(t) =

418: \langle \rho_{x}({\vec q},t)^{*} \rho_{x}({\vec q}) \rangle \, / \, w_{x}(q), 

419: \\

420: & &

421: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf F}_{q}(t) \, {\bf P} )^{xy} =

422: \delta^{xy} \, \phi^{x}_{q}(t) \, w_{x}(q).

423: \eea

424: The mean-squared displacements are equal and shall be denoted by

425: $\delta r^{2}(t) = \delta r_{A}^{2}(t) = \delta r_{B}^{2}(t)$,

426: so that Eq.~(\ref{eq:Cab-mat-c}) reads

427: $\delta r^{2}(t) = \delta r_{C}^{2}(t) + 

428: (1/2) L^{2} [1 - C_{1}(t)]$.

429: \end{mathletters} 

430: The matrix ${\bf C}(t)$ is diagonalized 

431: \begin{mathletters}

432: \label{eq:Cmat-symm}

433: \bea

434: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf C}(t) \, {\bf P} )^{NN} &=&

435: 2 \delta r_{C}^{2}(t) + L^{2}, 

436: \\

437: ( {\bf P} \, {\bf C}(t) \, {\bf P} )^{ZZ} &=&

438: - L^{2} C_{1}(t). 

439: \eea

440: 

441: In Appendix A it is shown how the correlation functions in the

442: interaction-site representation can be expressed in terms of the

443: ones in the tensor-density representation.

444: \end{mathletters}

445: 

446: \section{APPROXIMATIONS}

447: \label{sec:3}

448: 

449: \subsection{The solvent-density correlator}

450: \label{subsec:MCT-v}

451: 

452: The density correlator of the solvent is needed to formulate the

453: equations for the probe molecule. This quantity is discussed

454: comprehensively in the preceding literature on the MCT for simple

455: systems~\cite{Franosch97}. 

456: Let us note here only those equations which have to

457: be solved in order to obtain the input information for

458: the calculations of the present paper. First, there is the exact

459: Zwanzig-Mori equation of motion \cite{Hansen86} relating the

460: correlator for density fluctuations $\phi_q (t)$ to the correlator

461: $m_q (t)$ for the force fluctuations:

462: \begin{equation}

463: \partial_{t}^{2} \phi_{q}(t) + \Omega_{q}^{2} \, \phi_{q}(t) +

464: \Omega_{q}^{2} \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, m_{q}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} \phi_{q}(t') = 0.

465: \label{eq:GLE-v}

466: \end{equation}

467: Second, there is the approximate expression for kernel $m_q (t)$

468: as mode-coupling functional

469: \begin{mathletters}

470: \label{eq:MCT-v}

471: \begin{equation}

472: m_{q}(t) = {\cal F}_{q}[\phi(t)].

473: \label{eq:MCT-v-a}

474: \end{equation}

475: The functional ${\cal F}_q$ is rederived as Eq.~(\ref{eq:BXX-1}) in 

476: Appendix~\ref{appen:B}. 

477: The wave numbers are discretized to $M$ values with spacing

478: $h$: $q/h = 1/2, \, 3/2, \cdots, M-1/2$. Then $\phi (t)$

479: and similar quantities are to be viewed as vectors of $M$

480: components $\phi_q (t)$, $q=1,\cdots, M$, and the functional is 

481: \begin{equation}

482: {\cal F}_{q}[\tilde{f}] = \sum_{kp} V_{q,kp} \, \tilde{f}_{k} \, \tilde{f}_{p}.

483: \label{eq:MCT-v-b}

484: \end{equation}

485: Third, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-v}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-v-a}) imply the equation for

486: the long-time limit ${f_q = \phi_q (t \to \infty)}$:

487: \end{mathletters}

488: \begin{equation}

489: f_{q} = {\cal F}_{q}[f] \, / \, \{ 1 + {\cal F}_{q}[f] \}.

490: \label{eq:DW-v}

491: \end{equation}

492: For the liquid state, there is only the trivial solution $f_q =

493: 0$. The glass is characterized by a non-ergodicity

494: parameter $0 < f_q < 1$, which has the meaning of the Debye-Waller factor of the

495: arrested structure. At the liquid-glass transition, the long-time

496: limit of the correlator changes discontinuously from zero to the

497: critical value $f_q^c > 0$.

498: 

499: \subsection{The solute-interaction-site-density correlators}

500: \label{subsec:MCT-u}

501: 

502: For matrices of correlation functions as defined in 

503: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-def}),

504: the Zwanzig-Mori formalism also leads to an exact equation of motion

505: \cite{Hansen86}:

506: \begin{mathletters}

507: \label{eq:GLE-u}

508: \begin{equation}

509: \partial_{t}^{2} {\bf F}_{q}(t) + {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{2} \, {\bf F}_{q}(t) +

510: {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{2} 

511: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, {\bf m}_{q}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} {\bf F}_{q}(t') = {\bf 0}.

512: \label{eq:GLE-u-a}

513: \end{equation}

514: From the short-time expansion together with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-short-time}), 

515: one gets

516: \begin{equation}

517: {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{2} = q^{2} \, {\bf J}_{q} \, {\bf w}^{-1}_{q}.

518: \label{eq:GLE-u-b}

519: \end{equation}

520: The r.h.s. of this equation is a product of two symmetric positive

521: definite matrices. 

522: \end{mathletters}

523: Hence it can be written as square of a matrix

524: ${\bf \Omega}_q$.

525: Splitting off this matrix in front of the

526: convolution integral is done for later convenience.

527: 

528: The difficult problem is the derivation of an approximation for

529: the matrix ${\bf m}_{q}(t)$ of fluctuating-force correlations, so that the

530: cage effect is treated reasonably. 

531: The result, Eq.~(\ref{eq:BXX-2}) from 

532: Appendix~\ref{appen:B}, can be formulated as mode-coupling

533: functional 

534: $\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}_{q}$:

535: \begin{mathletters}

536: \label{eq:MCT-u}

537: \begin{equation}

538: m^{ab}_{q}(t) = {\cal F}^{ab}_{q}[{\bf F}(t), \phi(t)]. 

539: \label{eq:MCT-u-a}

540: \end{equation}

541: After the discretization of the wave numbers as explained above,

542: $\mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}_{q}$ reads

543: \begin{equation}

544: {\cal F}^{ab}_{q}[\tilde{\textit{\textbf f}}, \tilde{f}] = q^{-2} 

545: \sum_{c} w^{ac}_{q} \, \sum_{kp} V^{cb}_{q,kp} \, 

546: \tilde{f}^{cb}_{k} \, \tilde{f}_{p}. 

547: \label{eq:MCT-u-b}

548: \end{equation}

549: The preceding equations are matrix generalizations of the MCT

550: equations for the tagged-particle-density correlator $\phi_q^s

551: (t)$ in a simple liquid \cite{Fuchs98}. 

552: \end{mathletters}

553: 

554: The equation for the non-ergodicity parameters of the molecule,

555: $F_q^{ab \, \infty} = F_q^{ab} (t \to \infty)$, can be obtained from

556: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-a}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-u-a}). 

557: It is a matrix generalization of Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-v}):

558: \begin{equation}

559: {\bf F}^{\infty}_{q} = 

560: \mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}_{q}[{\bf F}^{\infty},f] \,

561: \{ {\bf 1} + \mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}_{q}[{\bf F}^{\infty},f] \}^{-1} \, 

562: {\bf w}_{q}.

563: \label{eq:DW-u}

564: \end{equation}

565: If the solvent is a liquid, i.e., if $f_q = 0$, one gets

566: ${\bf F}_q^\infty = {\bf 0}$. If the solvent is a glass, 

567: the long-time limits $F_q^{ab \, \infty}$ can be non trivial. In

568: this case, the solvent properties enter via the Debye-Waller

569: factors $f_q$, which renormalize the coupling coefficients 

570: $V_{q,kp}^{cb}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MCT-u-b}).

571: 

572: Let us specialize to symmetric molecules. 

573: Multiplying Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u}) to (\ref{eq:DW-u}) from left and right with 

574: $\bf P$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-NZ-b}) and inserting ${\bf 1} = {\bf P P}$ 

575: between every pair of matrices, all equations are

576: transformed to diagonal ones. Thus, there are two equations of

577: motion

578: \bea

579: & &

580: \partial_{t}^{2} \phi^{x}_{q}(t) + \Omega^{x \, 2}_{q} \, \phi^{x}_{q}(t) 

581: \nonumber \\

582: & & 

583: \qquad \qquad \qquad

584: + \,

585: \Omega^{x \, 2}_{q} 

586: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, m^{x}_{q}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} \phi^{x}_{q}(t') = 0, 

587: \label{eq:GLE-NZ}

588: \eea

589: for $x=N$ or $Z$. 

590: The two characteristic frequencies $\Omega_q^x$, which specify the

591: initial decay of the correlators by $\phi_q^x (t) = 1 -

592: \frac{1}{2} (\Omega_q^x t)^2 + O (|t|^3)$, read:

593: \begin{mathletters}

594: \label{eq:Omega-NZ}

595: \bea

596: \Omega^{N \, 2}_{q} &=& (v_{\rm T} q)^{2} + 

597: {\textstyle \frac{1}{6}} 

598: (v_{\rm R} L q)^{2} [1 - j_{0}(qL) - j_{2}(qL)] 

599: \nonumber \\

600: & &

601: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

602: / \, 

603: [1 + j_{0}(qL)],

604: \label{eq:Omega-NZ-a}

605: \\

606: \Omega^{Z \, 2}_{q} &=& (v_{\rm T} q)^{2} +

607: {\textstyle \frac{1}{6}} 

608: v_{\rm R}^{2} [1 + j_{0}(qL) + j_{2}(qL)] (qL)^{2} 

609: \nonumber \\

610: & &

611: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

612: / \, 

613: [1 - j_{0}(qL)].

614: \label{eq:Omega-NZ-b}

615: \eea

616: The relaxation kernels can be written as $m_q^x (t) = {\cal F}_q^x

617: [\phi^x (t), \phi (t)]$, where Eq.~(\ref{eq:BXX-2}) gives 

618: \end{mathletters}

619: \begin{mathletters}

620: \label{eq:MCT-NZ}

621: \bea

622: {\cal F}^{x}_{q}[\tilde{f}^{x}, \tilde{f}] &=& [w_{x}(q)/q^{2}] \,

623: \int \frac{d{\vec k}}{2 (2\pi)^{3}} \,

624: ({\vec q} \cdot {\vec p} / q)^{2} 

625: \nonumber \\

626: & &

627: \qquad \qquad

628: \times \,

629: w_{x}(k) \, \rho S_{p} \, c^{N}(p)^{2} \,

630: \tilde{f}^{x}_{k} \, {\tilde f}_{p}. 

631: \label{eq:MCT-NZ-a}

632: \eea

633: Here ${\vec p} = {\vec q} - {\vec k}$, and 

634: $c^N (p) = \sqrt{2} c^A_p = \sqrt{2} c^B_p$.

635: The above specified discretization of the wave numbers yields

636: ${\cal F}_q^x$ as polynomial

637: \begin{equation}

638: {\cal F}^{x}_{q}[\tilde{f}^{x}, \tilde{f}] = 

639: [w_{x}(q)/q^{2}] \,

640: \sum_{kp} V^{x}_{q, kp} \, \tilde{f}^{x}_{k} \, \tilde{f}_{p}.

641: \label{eq:MCT-NZ-b}

642: \end{equation}

643: One gets for the non-ergodicity parameters $f_q^x = \phi_q^x

644: (t \to \infty) = (F_q^{AA \, \infty} \pm F_q^{AB \, \infty}) / w_x (q)$

645: \end{mathletters}

646: \begin{equation}

647: f^{x}_{q} = {\cal F}^{x}_{q}[f^x, f] \, / \, 

648: \{ 1 + {\cal F}^{x}_{q}[f^x, f] \}.

649: \label{eq:DW-NZ}

650: \end{equation}

651: 

652: There is no coupling between the fluctuations of the total density

653: and the ones of the ``charge'' density. The mathematical structure

654: of the two sets of equations for $x = N$ and $x = Z$, respectively,

655: is the same as the one studied previously for the density correlator

656: $\phi_q^s (t)$ of a tagged particle in a simple liquid

657: \cite{Fuchs98}. For the density dynamics one also finds the

658: small-$q$ asymptote for the frequency

659: $\Omega_q^{N \, 2} = (v_{\rm T} q)^2 + O (q^4)$, 

660: reflecting free translation of the probe molecule.

661: There also is the $q^{-2}$-divergency of the mode-coupling

662: coefficients in ${\cal F}_q^N$, which implies the approach towards

663: unity of the Lamb-M\"ossbauer factor for vanishing wave number:

664: $f_{q \to 0}^N = 1$. For the ``charge'' dynamics, one gets 

665: a non-zero small-$q$ limit for the frequency 

666: characterizing free rotation 

667: $\Omega_{q \to 0}^{Z \, 2} = 2 v_{\rm R}^2 + O(q^2)$. 

668: The mode-coupling coefficients do not diverge for $q \to 0$, 

669: since $6 w_Z (q) / (L q )^2 \to 1$. 

670: Therefore, the non-ergodicity parameter for the variable 

671: $\rho_Z ({\vec q},t)$ approaches a limit smaller than unity:

672: $f^{Z}_{q \to 0} < 1$.

673: 

674: \subsection{The dipole correlator and the mean-squared displacements}

675: \label{subsec:MCT-C1-MSD}

676: 

677: According to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Cab-mat}), the knowledge of the dipole correlator 

678: $C_1(t)$ and two of the mean-squared displacements $\delta r_a^2 (t)$ for $a

679: = A, B$, or $C$ is equivalent to the knowledge of the three

680: independent elements of the symmetric matrix ${\bf C} (t)$. Using

681: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-small-q}) and expanding 

682: Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-a}) for small wave numbers one gets

683: \begin{equation}

684: \partial_{t}^{2} {\bf C}(t) - {\bf D} + {\bf \Omega}^{2}_{0} {\bf C}(t) +

685: {\bf J}_{0} 

686: \int_{0}^{t} dt' {\bf m}(t-t') \partial_{t'} {\bf C}(t') = {\bf 0}.

687: \label{eq:GLE-Cmat}

688: \end{equation}

689: This exact equation of motion for ${\bf C} (t)$ has to be solved

690: with the initial condition from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Cab-short-time}). 

691: The frequency matrix is obtained as zero-wave-number limit from 

692: Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-b}):

693: \begin{equation}

694: {\bf \Omega}^{2}_{0} = (2 v_{\rm R}^{2} / L) \, 

695: \left(

696: \begin{array}{rr}

697: z_{A} & - z_{A} \\

698: z_{B} & - z_{B} 

699: \end{array}

700: \right).

701: \label{eq:Omega-Cmat}

702: \end{equation}

703: Equation~(\ref{eq:GLE-Cmat}) implies 

704: $\ddot{\bf C}(0) - {\bf D} + {\bf \Omega}_0^2 {\bf C} (0) = {\bf 0}$. 

705: Thus, one gets from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Cab-short-time}): 

706: ${\bf D} = 6 {\bf J}_0 + {\bf \Omega}_0^2 {\bf C}_0$, i.e., 

707: $D^{ab} = 6 \, v_{\rm T}^{2} + 2 \, v_{\rm R}^{2} \, (z_{A} + z_{B}) \, z_{a}$.

708: 

709: The MCT approximation for the kernel ${\bf m}(t)$ is obtained by combining

710: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-b}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-u-b}) and 

711: taking the zero-wave-vector limit. 

712: With Eq.~(\ref{eq:BXX-2}), one finds

713: \begin{mathletters}

714: \label{eq:MCT-Cmat}

715: \bea

716: {\bf m}(t) &=& \mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}[{\bf F}(t), \phi(t)],

717: \label{eq:MCT-Cmat-a}

718: \\

719: {\cal F}^{ab}[\tilde{\textit{\textbf f}}, \tilde{f}] &=& \frac{1}{6 \pi^{2}}

720: \int_{0}^{\infty} dk \, k^{4} \, \rho S_{k} \, c^{a}_{k} \, c^{b}_k \, 

721: \tilde{f}^{ab}_{k} \, \tilde{f}_{k}.

722: \label{eq:MCT-Cmat-b}

723: \eea

724: 

725: Again, the theory simplifies considerably for symmetric molecules.

726: In this case, one can transform Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-Cmat}) as explained in

727: connection with the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-NZ}). 

728: \end{mathletters}

729: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Cmat-symm}) one

730: gets the exact equation of motion for the mean-squared

731: displacement 

732: \begin{equation}

733: \partial_{t}^{2} \delta r^{2}_{C}(t) - 6 v_{\rm T}^{2} + v_{\rm T}^{2}

734: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, m_{N}(t-t') \, 

735: \partial_{t'} \delta r^{2}_{C}(t') = 0,

736: \label{eq:GLE-MSD}

737: \end{equation}

738: to be solved with the initial behavior 

739: $\delta r_{C}^{2} (t) = 3 (v_{\rm T} t)^2 + O (|t|^3)$. 

740: Similarly, one obtains for the dipole correlator

741: \bea

742: & &

743: \partial_{t}^{2} C_{1}(t) + 2 v_{\rm R}^{2} \, C_{1}(t) 

744: \nonumber \\

745: & & 

746: \qquad \qquad

747: + \, 

748: 2 v_{\rm R}^{2}

749: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, m_{Z}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} C_{1}(t') = 0,

750: \label{eq:GLE-C1}

751: \eea

752: to be solved with the initial decay 

753: $C_1 (t) = 1 - (v_{\rm R} t)^2 + O(|t|^3)$. 

754: The MCT approximation for the kernels is obtained from 

755: Eq.~(\ref{eq:MCT-Cmat-b}):

756: \begin{mathletters}

757: \label{eq:MCT-MSD-C1}

758: \bea

759: m_{x}(t) &=& {\cal F}_{x}[\phi^{x}(t),\phi(t)], \quad

760: x = N \mbox{ or } Z,

761: \label{eq:MCT-MSD-C1-a}

762: \\

763: {\cal F}_{x}[\tilde{f}^{x}, \tilde{f}] &=& \alpha_{x} 

764: \int_{0}^{\infty} dk \,

765: k^{4} \, \rho S_{k} \, c^{N}(k)^{2} \, w_{x}(k) \, \tilde{f}^{x}_{k} \, \tilde{f}_{k},

766: \label{eq:MCT-MSD-C1-b}

767: \eea

768: where $\alpha_N = 1 / (6 \pi^2)$ and $\alpha_Z = L^2 / (72\pi^2)$. 

769: \end{mathletters}

770: Equations~(\ref{eq:GLE-C1}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-MSD-C1}) for the dipole correlator

771: have the standard form of the MCT equation. If $\phi_q^Z (t)$

772: approaches zero for large times, the same approach towards

773: equilibrium is exhibited by $C_1 (t)$. If the solvent is a glass,

774: $f_q > 0$, and if the ``charge''-density fluctuations

775: $\phi_q^Z (t)$ exhibit non-ergodic behavior, $f_q^Z > 0$, also the

776: $\ell = 1$--reorientational correlator exhibits non-ergodic

777: dynamics:

778: \bea

779: C_{1}(t \to \infty) = f_{1} = 

780: {\cal F}_{Z}[f^{Z}, f] \, / \, \{ 1 + {\cal F}_{Z}[f^{Z}, f] \}.

781: \label{eq:f1-symm}

782: \eea

783: Parameter $f_{1}$ is the long-wave-length limit of $f_{q}^{Z}$

784: discussed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-NZ}):

785: $f^{Z}_{q \to 0} = f_{1}$.

786: 

787: \subsection{The quadrupole correlator}

788: \label{subsec:MCT-C2}

789: 

790: The quadrupole correlator 

791: $C_2 (t) = \langle 3 [{\vec e}(t) \cdot {\vec e}\,]^{2} - 1 \rangle / 2$ 

792: cannot be extracted from the correlators $F_q^{a b} (t)$ with $a, b

793: = A$ or $B$. But let us consider a linear symmetric triatomic

794: molecule. 

795: The third atom, labeled $C$, has its position in the

796: center $\vec r_C$. The preceding theory can be extended by

797: adding as third variable the fluctuations $\rho_{\vec q}^C = \exp

798: (i \vec q \cdot \vec r_C)$. The basic quantities are now the 

799: elements of the 3-by-3 matrix correlator, defined as in 

800: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-def}) with $a,b = A, B$ or $C$. 

801: The correlator formed with

802: $\rho_{Q}({\vec q}) = 

803: \rho_{\vec q}^A + \rho_{\vec q}^B - 2 \rho_{\vec q}^C$ 

804: is a linear combination of the nine functions $F_q^{ab} (t)$. 

805: An expansion for small $q$ yields

806: \begin{equation}

807: \langle \rho_{Q}({\vec q},t)^{*} \rho_{Q}({\vec q}) \rangle =

808: {\textstyle \frac{1}{180}} \, (qL)^{4} \, 

809: [C_{2}(t) + {\textstyle \frac{5}{4}}] + O(q^{6}).

810: \label{eq:C2-ABC}

811: \end{equation}

812: In this case, $C_2 (t)$ can be obtained in a similar manner as

813: discussed above for $C_1 (t)$. A diatomic molecule can be

814: considered as a special mathematical limit of a triatomic one.

815: Hence, there is no problem in principle to obtain $C_2 (t)$

816: within a theory based on an interaction-site description.

817: Motivated by  this observation, an auxiliary site $C$ shall be

818: introduced \cite{Hoye77,Sullivan81} 

819: and $\rho_{\vec q}^C$ will be used as third

820: basic variable. 

821: However, a complete theory with 3-by-3 matrices shall not

822: be developed. Rather some additional approximations will be

823: introduced so that $C_2 (t)$ is obtained

824: as corollary of the above formulated closed theory.

825: 

826: The quadrupole correlator can be written as small-$q$ limit of a

827: correlation function formed with tensor-density fluctuations

828: defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-tensor-def}) for 

829: ${\vec q}_{0}=(0,0,q)$:

830: $C_2 (t) = \lim_{q \to 0} 

831: \langle \rho_2^0 ({\vec q}_0, t)^* \rho_2^0 ({\vec q}_0) \rangle$.

832: Therefore, an exact Zwanzig-Mori equation can be derived as usual:

833: \bea

834: & &

835: \partial_{t}^{2} C_{2}(t) + 6 v_{\rm R}^{2} \, C_{2}(t) 

836: \nonumber \\

837: & & 

838: \qquad \qquad

839: + \, 

840: 6 v_{\rm R}^{2}

841: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, m_{2}^{\rm R}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} C_{2}(t') = 0.

842: \label{eq:GLE-C2}

843: \eea

844: The relaxation kernel $m_2^{\rm R} (t)$ is a correlator for fluctuating

845: forces $F_{{\rm R} 2} (q 0, t)$ referring to angular-momentum index

846: $\ell = 2$ and helicity $m = 0$:

847: \begin{equation}

848: m_{2}^{\rm R}(t) = \lim_{q \to 0} 

849: \langle F_{{\rm R} 2}(q0,t)^{*} F_{{\rm R} 2}(q0) \rangle.

850: \label{eq:m2-def}

851: \end{equation}

852: The time evolution of the fluctuating force is generated by the

853: reduced Liouvillian ${\cal L}^\prime = {\cal Q L Q}$, where $\cal

854: Q$ projects perpendicular to $\rho_2^0 (\vec q_0)$ and ${\cal L}

855: \rho_2^0 (\vec q_0)$, and the Liouvillian ${\cal L}$ is

856: defined by $i {\cal L} A (t) = \partial_t A (t)$.

857: The involved notation has been chosen in order to get the formulas

858: in agreement with the ones of the more general theory in 

859: Ref.~\cite{Franosch97c}. The procedure used for the theory of simple

860: liquids \cite{Goetze91b} shall be applied to derive an approximation for

861: the kernel. First, the forces will be approximated by the

862: projection onto the space of the simplest modes contributing 

863: $F_{{\rm R} 2} \to {\cal P}' F_{{\rm R} 2}$. 

864: Here ${\cal P}'$ projects onto the space

865: spanned by the pair modes

866: \begin{mathletters}

867: \label{eq:m2-MCT}

868: \begin{equation}

869: A^{a}({\vec k}, {\vec p}) = \rho^{a}_{\vec k} \, \rho_{\vec p} \, / 

870: \sqrt{N S_{p}}, \quad

871: a = A, B \mbox{ or } C.

872: \label{eq:m2-MCT-a}

873: \end{equation}

874: The essential step is the second one, where correlations of the

875: pairs are replaced by products of correlations: 

876: $\langle A^{a} ({\vec k}, {\vec p}, t)^* A^{a'} ({\vec k}', {\vec p} \, ') \rangle \to 

877: \delta_{{\vec k} {\vec k}'} \delta_{{\vec p} {\vec p} \, '}

878: \langle \rho_{\vec k}^a (t)^{*} \rho_{\vec k}^{a'} \rangle \, 

879: \langle \rho_{\vec p}(t)^{*}    \rho_{\vec p} \rangle / NS_{p}$. 

880: This approximation is

881: done in particular for $t = 0$, thereby getting for the

882: normalization matrix for the pair modes: 

883: $\langle A^{a} ({\vec k}, {\vec p})^* A^{b} ({\vec k}', {\vec p} \, ') \rangle \to 

884: \delta_{{\vec k} {\vec k}'} \, \delta_{{\vec p} {\vec p} \, '} \, 

885: w_k^{ab}$. 

886: Here $w^{ab} (k) = j_0 (k (z_a - z_b))$ 

887: generalizes Eq.~(\ref{eq:w-def}) to a 3-by-3 matrix.

888: As a result, one gets

889: \bea

890: m^{\rm R}_{2}(t) &=& \lim_{q \to 0} \sum_{{\vec k} {\vec p}}

891: \sum_{abcd} \langle F_{{\rm R} 2}(q0)^{*} A^{a}({\vec k},{\vec p} \, ) \rangle \,

892: ({\bf w}_{k}^{-1})^{ab} 

893: \nonumber \\

894: &\times&

895: F_{k}^{bc}(t) \, \phi_{p}(t) \,

896: ({\bf w}_{k}^{-1})^{cd} \, 

897: \langle A^{d}({\vec k},{\vec p} \, )^{*} F_{{\rm R} 2}(q0) \rangle.

898: \label{eq:m2-MCT-b}

899: \eea

900: The $q \to 0$ limit is carried out easily, reducing the sum over

901: $\vec k$ and $\vec p$ to the one over $\vec k$ with ${\vec k} = - {\vec p}$.

902: \end{mathletters}

903: One obtains the kernel as mode-coupling functional

904: \begin{equation}

905: m^{\rm R}_{2}(t) = \int_{0}^{\infty} dk 

906: \sum_{ab \in \{A, B, C\}} 

907: V_{2}^{ab}(k) \, F^{ab}_{k}(t) \, \phi_{k}(t). 

908: \label{eq:m2-final}

909: \end{equation}

910: Let us restrict the discussion to symmetric molecules.

911: For this case, an explicit expression for $V_2^{a b} (k)$ is noted as 

912: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:m2-exp}) in Appendix~\ref{appen:A}. 

913: 

914: The correlators $\phi_k (t)$ and $F_k^{a b} (t)$ with $a, b = A$

915: or $B$ are taken from Sec.~\ref{subsec:MCT-v} and Sec.~\ref{subsec:MCT-u}, 

916: respectively.

917: The theory of Sec.~\ref{subsec:MCT-C1-MSD} provides the

918: results for the mean-squared displacement $\delta r_C^2 (t)$. The

919: Gaussian approximation shall be used to evaluate 

920: $F_k^{C C} (t) \approx \exp [- \frac{1}{6} k^2 \delta r_C^2 (t)]$. 

921: The two remaining functions can be expressed in terms of tensor-density

922: fluctuations according to Eq.~({\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor}): 

923: $F_k^{a C} (t) = \sum_\ell

924: \sqrt{(2 \ell + 1)} j_\ell (k z_a) \phi_{\ell 0} (k 0, t)$

925: for $a = A$ or $B$. 

926: As in the previous work \cite{Goetze00c}, only the diagonal correlators

927: shall be taken in the sum, i.e., 

928: the approximation will be used: 

929: $F_k^{a C} (t) \approx j_{0} (k z_{a}) F_k^{C C} (t)$. 

930: 

931: \section{RESULTS}

932: \label{sec:4}

933: 

934: A few concepts shall be mentioned

935: which were introduced \cite{Goetze91b} to describe the

936: MCT-liquid-glass-transition dynamics. In the space of control

937: parameters, a smooth function $\sigma$ is defined near the

938: transition points, called the separation parameter. Glass states

939: are characterized by $\sigma > 0$, liquid states by $\sigma < 0$,

940: and $\sigma = 0$ defines the transition hypersurface.

941: Suppose, only one control parameter, say the density $\rho$, is

942: varied near the transition point. Then one can write for small

943: distance parameters $\epsilon = (\rho - \rho_c) /\rho_c : \sigma =

944: C \epsilon$, $C > 0$. In addition to $C$, the transition point is

945: characterized by a time scale $t_0$ and by a number $\lambda$, 

946: $0 < \lambda < 1$.

947: The scale $t_0$ specifies properties of the transient dynamics,

948: and $\lambda$ is called the exponent parameter. 

949: The latter determines a certain

950: number $B > 0$, the critical exponent $a, \, 0 < a \leq 1/2$, and

951: the von-Schweidler exponent $b, \, 0 < b \leq 1$. There are two

952: critical time scales governing the 

953: bifurcation dynamics close to the transition:

954: \begin{equation}

955: t_{\sigma} = t_{0} \, / \, | \sigma |^{\delta}, \quad

956: t'_{\sigma} = t_{0} \, B^{-1/b} \, / \, | \sigma |^{\gamma}.

957: \label{eq:t-sigma}

958: \end{equation}

959: The anomalous exponents of the scales read: $\delta = 1/2 a, \,

960: \gamma = 1/2a + 1/2 b$. The hard-sphere-system (HSS) shall be

961: used as solvent. There is only one control parameter for the

962: equilibrium structure, which shall be chosen as the packing

963: fraction $\varphi$ of the particles with diameter $d, \, \varphi =

964: \pi \rho d^3/6$. The distance parameter shall be given by the

965: logarithm $x$ of $\mid \epsilon \mid$:

966: \begin{equation}

967: \epsilon = (\varphi - \varphi_{c}) \, / \, \varphi_{c} = \pm 10^{-x}.

968: \label{eq:epsilon-def}

969: \end{equation}

970: The structure factor $S_q$ is calculated within the Percus-Yevick

971: theory \cite{Hansen86}. The wave numbers are discretized to $M =

972: 100$ values with spacing $hd = 0.4$. For this solvent model,

973: results for the density correlators and their

974: spectra can be found in Ref.~\cite{Goetze00}. The glassy dynamics

975: is analyzed in Ref.~\cite{Franosch97}, from which one infers: $\varphi_c =

976: 0.516, \, C = 1.54, \, \lambda = 0.735,\, a = 0.312, \, b= 0.583$

977: and $B = 0.836$. 

978: Furthermore,  $t_0 = 0.0236 (d/v)$~\cite{Franosch98}.

979: 

980: Dumbbells of two fused hard spheres of diameters $d_A = d_B = d$

981: shall be used as solute. The elongation parameter 

982: $\zeta = L / d$ quantifies the bond length. The 

983: solute-solvent-direct-correlation functions are also

984: calculated within the Percus-Yevick theory. Within the

985: tensor-density description, the direct correlation functions

986: $c_\ell (q)$ have been determined in Ref.~\cite{Franosch97b}.

987: These results are substituted in the formulas of Appendix A, to

988: evaluate the equilibrium structure in the site representation. In all

989: summations over contributions due to various angular-momentum

990: indices $\ell$, a cutoff $\ell_{co} = 8$ is chosen. It was checked

991: for representative cases, that increasing the cutoff to $\ell_{co}

992: = 16$ does not significantly change the results to be discussed.

993: The discretization of the various wave-vector integrals is done

994: as specified above for the solvent. 

995: The results in Secs.~\ref{subsec:result-form-factors} and 

996: \ref{subsec:result-correlators} deal with a symmetric dumbbell

997: with $m_A = m_B = m$, and in Sec.~\ref{subsec:result-inertia}, 

998: the molecule

999: with $m_A = 10 m$, $m_B = m$ is considered. 

1000: 

1001: Throughout the rest of this paper, the particle diameter is chosen

1002: as unit of length, $d = 1$, and the unit of time is chosen so that

1003: the thermal velocity of the solvent is $v = 1$.

1004: 

1005: \subsection{Structural arrest}

1006: \label{subsec:result-form-factors}

1007: 

1008: There are two control parameters for the system, 

1009: namely the packing fraction $\varphi$ of the solvent and the

1010: elongation $\zeta$ of the solute molecule. Figure~\ref{fig:phase} 

1011: exhibits the phase diagram. 

1012: Phase I deals with states where $\varphi$ is

1013: below the critical value $\varphi_c$, i.e., the solvent is a liquid.

1014: In this case, the long-time limits of the mode-coupling

1015: kernels in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:MCT-u}) vanish. 

1016: All solute correlators relax to zero for long times, 

1017: and the molecule diffuses through the solvent.

1018: For $\varphi \geq \varphi_c$, the solvent is a glass. 

1019: Structural fluctuations behave nonergodically. In particular, a

1020: tagged solvent particle does not diffuse; rather it is localized.

1021: Since the atoms of the molecule with $d_{A} = d_{B} = d$ 

1022: experience the same interaction

1023: with the solvent as the solvent particles among each other, one

1024: expects the molecule to be localized as well. Indeed, Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-NZ}) 

1025: yields for $\varphi \geq \varphi_c : f_q^N > 0$. If $\varphi$

1026: increases from below $\varphi_c$ to above $\varphi_c$, the

1027: long-time limit $\phi_q^N (t \to \infty)$ increases

1028: discontinuously at $\varphi_c$ from zero to $f_q^{Nc} > 0$. 

1029: Also, the quadrupole correlator exhibits

1030: nonergodic dynamics: $C_2 (t \to \infty) = f_2 > 0$. The cages

1031: surrounding the molecule cause such strong steric hindrance, that

1032: quadrupole fluctuations of the orientational vector $\vec e$

1033: cannot relax to zero. In this sense, the states $\varphi \geq

1034: \varphi_c$ are ideal glasses. 

1035: 

1036: There are two alternatives for the glass. Phase II deals

1037: with states for sufficiently small $\zeta$. There is

1038: such small steric hindrance for a flip of the molecule's axis

1039: between the two energetically equivalent positions 

1040: $\vec e$ and $- \vec e$ that Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-NZ}) yields 

1041: $f_q^Z = 0$. The dynamics of the ``charge'' fluctuations is ergodic. In

1042: particular, the dipole correlator relaxes to zero: $C_1 (t \to

1043: \infty) = 0$. Phase II is an amorphous counterpart of a

1044: plastic crystal.

1045: For sufficiently large $\zeta$, steric

1046: hindrance for dipole reorientations is so effective, that also the

1047: ``charge'' fluctuations behave nonergodically. In this case, 

1048: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-NZ}) yields a positive long-time limit 

1049: $0 < f_q^Z = \phi_q^Z (t \to \infty)$. 

1050: In particular, dipole-disturbances do not relax to

1051: zero: $C_1 (t \to \infty) = f_1 > 0$. This phase III is a glass

1052: with all structural disturbances exhibiting nonergodic motion. 

1053: The two phases II and III are separated by transitions at 

1054: $\zeta = \zeta_c (\varphi)$, $\varphi \geq \varphi_c$. 

1055: With decreasing density,

1056: the steric hindrance for reorientations decreases. Thus, $\zeta_c

1057: (\varphi)$ increases with decreasing $\varphi$, as shown by the

1058: full line in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}. The transition curve terminates with

1059: horizontal slope at the largest critical elongation  $\zeta_c =

1060: \zeta (\varphi_c) = 0.380$. 

1061: Function $\zeta_{c}(\varphi)$ was

1062: calculated before within the MCT based on the tensor-density

1063: description \cite{Franosch98b}, and the

1064: transition curve of this theory is added as dashed line in 

1065: Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}.

1066: The results of the two theories are in qualitative agreement.

1067: It would be interesting if molecular-dynamics studies would

1068: decide, which of the two theories leads closer to reality.

1069: The asymptotic laws for the transition from phase II to phase III

1070: have earlier been described as type-$A$ transition as

1071: can be inferred from Ref.~\cite{Franosch94} and the papers quoted

1072: there. At this transition, $C_1 (t \to \infty)$

1073: increases continuously with increasing $\zeta$.

1074: 

1075: The heavy full lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-strong} exhibit critical nonergodicity

1076: parameters $f_q^{x \, c}$ for $\zeta = 0.80$, calculated from 

1077: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-NZ})

1078: for the liquid-glass transition point $\varphi = \varphi_c$.

1079: These quantities are Lamb-M\"ossbauer factors of

1080: the molecule. The function $f_{q}^{Nc}$ 

1081: can be measured, in principle, as cross section for incoherent

1082: neutron scattering from the solute, provided both centers $A$ and

1083: $B$ are identical atoms without spin. As expected for a localized

1084: probability-distribution Fourier transform, the

1085: $f_q^{x \, c}$--versus--$q$ curves decrease with increasing $q$. Most

1086: remarkable are the kinks exhibited by $f_q^{Nc}$ for wave numbers $q$

1087: near 5, 12.5 and 20, and by $f_q^{Zc}$ for $q$ near 10 and 17.5.

1088: The light full lines exhibit $f_{q}^{x \, c}$ calculated with 

1089: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}) from

1090: the critical nonergodicity parameters $f^c (q \ell 0)$~\cite{Franosch97c}. 

1091: The results of both approximation theories are in semi-quantitative agreement,

1092: in particular concerning the position and size of the kinks. The

1093: $f^c (q \ell 0)$--versus--$q$ curves are bell shaped, close to

1094: Gaussians \cite{Franosch97c}. They enter Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}) 

1095: with prefactors $j_\ell (q \zeta /2)^2 = O (q^{2 \ell})$, so that the maximum of

1096: the contribution from angular-momentum-index $\ell$ occurs at some 

1097: $q^{\max}_{\ell}$ which increases with $\ell$. The separate contributions

1098: for different $\ell$ are shown as dotted lines in 

1099: Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-strong}. Thus,

1100: the kinks are due to interference effects of the  $f^c (q \ell 0)$

1101: with the intramolecular form factors $j_\ell (q \zeta / 2)$. 

1102: Let us add, that also the Lamb-M\"ossbauer factors of the atoms,

1103: $f_{q}^{a \, c}$, are well described by Gaussians for $q<10$;

1104: in particular these functions do not exhibit kinks.

1105: Figure~\ref{fig:fq-strong} demonstrates for a case of strong steric hindrance for

1106: reorientational motion that angular-momentum variables for $\ell$

1107: up to 6 are relevant to describe the arrested structure, and

1108: that the description of the molecule by site-density

1109: fluctuations properly accounts for the contributions with 

1110: $\ell \geq 2$.

1111: 

1112: Figure~\ref{fig:fq-weak} exhibits $f_{q}^{x \, c}$

1113: representative for weak

1114: steric hindrance for the reorientational dynamics. Naturally, the

1115: contributions due to the arrest of fluctuations of tensor densities

1116: with large $\ell$ are suppressed. The contributions for $\ell = 0$

1117: and $\ell = 2$ are sufficient to explain $f_q^{Nc}$, in particular

1118: its kink for $q$ near 12.5. Similarly, the contributions for $\ell

1119: = 1$ and $\ell = 3$ are necessary and sufficient to explain

1120: $f_q^{Zc}$ with its kink for $q$ near 17.5. 

1121: The dynamics is strongly influenced by precursor phenomena of the

1122: transition from phase II to phase III. This is demonstrated, for

1123: example, by the strong decrease of $f_1^c = f_{q \to 0}^{Zc}$ for

1124: the result shown in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-weak} in comparison to the

1125: one shown in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-strong}. The two

1126: approximation theories under discussion yield different numbers

1127: for the value $\zeta_c$ for the transition point.

1128: It is meaningless to compare different

1129: approximations for results near a singularity $\zeta_c$, referring

1130: to the same value $\zeta$. 

1131: It is more meaningful to compare results for

1132: the same relative distance from the critical point, 

1133: $(\zeta - \zeta_c) /\zeta_c$, as is done in Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-weak}. 

1134: Let us mention that $f_{q}^{Zc}$ shown by the heavy and light full lines would be

1135: somewhat closer, if one had compared elongations yielding the same

1136: value for $f_1^c$.

1137: 

1138: Figure~\ref{fig:fq-vs-zeta} exhibits critical Lamb-M\"ossbauer factors 

1139: $f_q^{x \, c}$ as function of the

1140: elongation. The lower panel demonstrates the transition from phase

1141: II for $\zeta < \zeta_c$ to phase III for $\zeta > \zeta_c$. 

1142: For strong steric

1143: hindrance, say $\zeta \geq 0.8$, $f_q^{Nc}$ is rather close to

1144: $f_q^{Zc}$ provided $q$ is not too small, say $q > 3$. 

1145: For $\zeta$ approaching $\zeta_c$, the $f_q^{Zc}$ fall below

1146: $f_q^{Nc}$. Most remarkable are the wiggles or even minima of the curves.

1147: These are the analogues of the kinks, discussed above in connection with 

1148: Figs.~\ref{fig:fq-strong} and \ref{fig:fq-weak}. 

1149: Again, these anomalies can be explained as interference

1150: effects between the geometric structure factors 

1151: $j_\ell (q \zeta /2)^2$ and the nonergodicity parameters $f^c (q \ell 0)$ 

1152: according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}). 

1153: Let us consider $f_q^{Nc}$ for

1154: an intermediate wave vector as shown for curves $b$ or $c$ in the

1155: upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-vs-zeta}. For small $\zeta$, say $\zeta \leq 0.4$,

1156: the $\ell = 0$ contribution dominates the sum in 

1157: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}), as

1158: can be inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-weak}. Function $f^c (q 0 0)$ reflects the

1159: isotropic part of the arrested fluctuations, and hence it is

1160: practically $\zeta$-independent 

1161: (as shown in Fig.~5 of Ref.~\cite{Franosch97c}). 

1162: Since $j_0 (q \zeta /2)^2 = 1 - \frac{1}{12}

1163: (q \zeta)^2 + O ((q \zeta)^4)$ decreases with increasing $\zeta$,

1164: the $f_q^{Nc}$--versus--$\zeta$ curve decreases too; and the

1165: decrease is stronger for larger $q$. The $f^c (q 2 0)$

1166: increase from 0 for $\zeta = 0$ to values near 0.5 for 

1167: $\zeta = 1$ 

1168: (as shown in Fig.~5 of Ref.~\cite{Franosch97c}). 

1169: Also, the geometric

1170: structure factor increases strongly with $\zeta: j_2 (q \zeta

1171: /2)^2 = ((q \zeta)^2 /60)^2 + O ((q \zeta)^6)$. The combined

1172: effect of both increases causes the increase of the

1173: $f_q^{Nc}$--versus--$\zeta$ curve for larger $\zeta$. The

1174: resulting minimum occurs for smaller $\zeta$ if $q$ is larger, 

1175: and this explains the difference between 

1176: the two curves $b$ and $c$.

1177: The theory produces the minima since it 

1178: accounts for the arrest of tensor-density fluctuations for $\ell

1179: \geq 2$.

1180: 

1181: \subsection{Correlation functions and spectra near the glass transition}

1182: \label{subsec:result-correlators}

1183: 

1184: Figure~\ref{fig:NN-ZZ-t} demonstrates the evolution of the dynamics for the

1185: correlators $\phi_q^N (t)$ and $\phi_q^Z (t)$

1186: for intermediate wave numbers $q$ near the transition from phase I

1187: to phase III. The oscillatory transient dynamics occurs within the

1188: short-time window $t < 1$. The control-parameter sensitive

1189: glassy dynamics occurs for longer times for packing

1190: fractions $\varphi$ near $\varphi_c$. At the

1191: transition point $\varphi = \varphi_c$, the correlators decrease

1192: in a stretched manner towards the plateau values $f_{q}^{x \, c}$ 

1193: as shown by the dotted lines. Increasing $\varphi$

1194: above $\varphi_c$, the long-time limits increase, as shown for

1195: $\phi_q^Z (t)$ for $q = 7.4$ and $\zeta = 0.80$. Decreasing

1196: $\varphi$ below $\varphi_c$, the correlators cross the plateau at

1197: some time $\tau_\beta$, and then decay towards zero. The

1198: decay from the plateau $f_q^{x \, c}$ to zero is the $\alpha$-process

1199: for $\phi_q^x (t)$. It is characterized by a time scale

1200: $\tau_\alpha$, which can be defined, e.g., by 

1201: $\phi_q^x (\tau_\alpha) = f_q^{x \, c} / 2$. 

1202: Upon decreasing $\varphi_c - \varphi$ towards zero, 

1203: the time scales $\tau_\beta$ and

1204: $\tau_\alpha$ increase towards infinity proportional to $t_\sigma$

1205: and $t_\sigma^\prime$, respectively, cited in 

1206: Eq.~(\ref{eq:t-sigma}). The figure

1207: exemplifies the standard MCT-bifurcation scenario. For small

1208: $\mid \varphi - \varphi_c \mid$, the results can be described

1209: in terms of scaling laws. This was explained in

1210: Refs.~\cite{Franosch97,Fuchs98} for the HSS, 

1211: and the discussion shall not be

1212: repeated here. 

1213: 

1214: One can deduce from Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-strong} 

1215: that for $\zeta = 0.80$ and $q \geq 5$

1216: the plateaus for both types of density fluctuations are very close

1217: to each other: $f_q^{Nc} \approx f_q^{Zc}$. The upper two panels

1218: of Fig.~\ref{fig:NN-ZZ-t} demonstrate that also the dynamics is nearly the same,

1219: $\phi_q^{N} (t) \approx \phi_q^{Z} (t)$. This means that

1220: for $q \zeta > 4$ and for strong steric hindrance, 

1221: the cross correlations $F_q^{AB} (t)$ are

1222: very small. The reason is that the

1223: intramolecular correlation factors $j_\ell (q \zeta /2)$ are

1224: small, and thus interference effects between the density

1225: fluctuations of the two interaction sites are suppressed.

1226: Coherence effects can be expected only for smaller wave vectors.

1227: For this case, the functions can be understood in terms of

1228: their small-$q$ asymptotes, 

1229: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-small-q}). 

1230: 

1231: The lower two panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:NN-ZZ-t} deal with weak steric hindrance.

1232: In this case, the ``charge''-density

1233: fluctuations behave quite differently from the number-density

1234: fluctuations. The most important origin of this difference is the

1235: reduction of the mode-coupling vertices $V_{q,kp}^Z$ relative to

1236: $V_{q,kp}^N$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MCT-NZ-b}). For small elongations of the molecule,

1237: the effective solute-solvent potentials for reorientations are

1238: small. Therefore, the $f_q^{Zc}$ decrease strongly relative to

1239: $f_q^{Nc}$ for $\zeta$ decreasing towards $\zeta_c$, as is shown

1240: in Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-vs-zeta}. 

1241: Upon approaching $\zeta_{c}$, 

1242: the $\alpha$-peak strength of $\phi_q^Z (t)$ gets suppressed

1243: relative to the one of $\phi_q^N (t)$. Within phase II, 

1244: the ``charge''-density fluctuations

1245: relax to zero as in a normal liquid.

1246: This implies as precursor phenomenon, that

1247: the time scale $\tau_\alpha^Z$ of the

1248: ``charge''-density-fluctuation $\alpha$-process 

1249: shortens relative to the scale $\tau_\alpha^N$ for the

1250: number-density fluctuations. 

1251: Thus, the small-$\zeta$ behavior shown in the lower two panels

1252: of Fig.~\ref{fig:NN-ZZ-t} is due to disturbances of the standard MCT-transition

1253: scenario by the nearby type-$A$ transition.

1254: 

1255: The correlators $C_1 (t)$ and $C_2 (t)$ are

1256: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:C1-C2} for the critical point $\varphi = \varphi_c$ and

1257: for two liquid states near the transition from phase I to phase

1258: III. For $\zeta = 0.80$, the anisotropic

1259: distribution of the solvent particles around the molecule leads to

1260: a stronger coupling to the dipole reorientations than to the

1261: reorientations for the quadrupole, and therefore the plateau for

1262: the former is higher than for the latter, $f_1^c > f_2^c$. A

1263: leading order expansion of the solutions of the equations of

1264: motion (\ref{eq:GLE-C1}) and (\ref{eq:GLE-C2}) 

1265: in terms of the small parameter $C_\ell (t) - f_\ell^c$ 

1266: leads to the factorization in the critical amplitude

1267: $h_\ell$ and a function $G (t)$ called the $\beta$-correlator,

1268: $C_{\ell}(t) - f_{\ell}^{c} = h_{\ell} G(t)$.

1269: The latter is the same for all correlation functions. It obeys the

1270: first scaling law of MCT,

1271: $G(t) = \sqrt{| \sigma |} \, g_{\pm} (t / t_{\sigma})$ for

1272: $\sigma \gtrless 0$.

1273: The master functions $g_{\pm} (\hat t)$ are determined 

1274: by $\lambda$. 

1275: They also describe the dynamics of the

1276: solvent in the window where 

1277: $\mid \phi_q (t) - f_q^c \mid \ll 1$~\cite{Franosch97}. In particular

1278: there holds $g_- (\hat t_-) = 0, \, \hat t_- = 0.704$, so that

1279: both correlators $C_\ell (t)$ cross their plateau at the same time

1280: $\tau_\beta = \hat t_- t_\sigma$. The non-linear mode-coupling

1281: effects request, that the correlators approach zero roughly at the

1282: same time. Thus one understands the general differences between the

1283: $\alpha$-processes, which were mentioned in the introduction:

1284: the $\alpha$-process for dipole relaxation is stronger, slower,

1285: and less stretched than the one for quadrupole relaxation. This

1286: finding is in qualitative agreement with the ones of

1287: the theory based on tensor-density representation of the

1288: structure \cite{Goetze00c}. There are, however, quantitative

1289: differences between the two approximation schemes. The plateaus

1290: $f_1^c = 0.905$ and $f_2^c = 0.674$ are smaller

1291: than the corresponding values 0.943 and 0.835 found in 

1292: Ref.~\cite{Goetze00c} and the amplitudes $h_1 = 0.19$ and $h_2 = 0.40$

1293: are bigger than the corresponding values 0.13 and 0.35 calculated

1294: previously \cite{Goetze00c}. The times $\tau_\alpha^\ell$

1295: characterizing the $\alpha$-process shall be defined by $C_\ell

1296: (\tau_\alpha^\ell) = f_\ell^c / 2$. They are marked by open

1297: squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:C1-C2}. 

1298: The values $\tau_{\alpha}^{1}=5.21 \times 10^{5}$, 

1299: $\tau_{\alpha}^{2}=1.64 \times 10^{5}$ for $x=3$ and $\zeta=0.80$

1300: are smaller than the ones

1301: reported in Ref.~\cite{Goetze00c}. 

1302: The present theory implies a somewhat weaker coupling of the

1303: reorientational degrees of freedom of the molecule to the

1304: dynamics of the solvent, than found earlier \cite{Goetze00c}. 

1305: This holds also for the small elongation $\zeta = 0.43$. The

1306: approach towards the transition from phase III to phase II, leads

1307: to a suppression of $f_1^c$, as discussed for the $f_q^{Zc}$ in

1308: Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-vs-zeta}. 

1309: The dipole relaxation speeds up for $\zeta \to \zeta_c$,

1310: as discussed for the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:NN-ZZ-t}.

1311: This is reflected by an enhancement of $h_1 = 1.60$ relative to the

1312: amplitudes cited for $\zeta = 0.80$ but also relative to 

1313: $h_2 = 0.49$. 

1314: 

1315: One can perform 

1316: $\lim_{\sigma \to 0-} \phi_q (\tilde{t} t_\sigma^\prime) = 

1317: \tilde{\phi}_q (\tilde{t})$

1318: for the solutions of Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-v}), 

1319: where $\tilde{\phi}_q (\tilde{t})$ can be evaluated from 

1320: the mode-coupling functional at the critical point. It obeys the

1321: initial condition 

1322: $\tilde \phi_q (\tilde t) = f_q^c - h_q \tilde{t}^b + O (\tilde t^{2b})$. 

1323: Function $\tilde \phi_q (\tilde t)$ can

1324: be considered as shape function of the $\alpha$-process, and the

1325: result implies the second scaling law of MCT, also referred to as

1326: superposition principle: $\phi_q (t) = \tilde \phi_q (t /

1327: t_\sigma^\prime)$ for $\sigma \to 0-$ \cite{Goetze91b}.

1328: Corresponding laws hold for all functions, as is demonstrated in

1329: detail for the HSS in Refs.~\cite{Franosch97,Fuchs98}. 

1330: In particular, one gets for the reorientational correlators

1331: for $\sigma \to 0-$:

1332: \begin{mathletters}

1333: \label{eq:alpha}

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: C_{\ell}(t) = \tilde{C}_{\ell}(\tilde{t}), \quad

1336: \tilde{t} = t / t'_{\sigma}, \quad

1337: t_{\sigma} \ll t,

1338: \label{eq:alpha-a}

1339: \end{equation}

1340: and this corresponds to the $\alpha$-scaling law for the susceptibility

1341: spectra

1342: \begin{equation}

1343: \chi''_{\ell}(\omega) = \tilde{\chi}''_{\ell}(\tilde{\omega}), \quad

1344: \tilde{\omega} = \omega t'_{\sigma}, \quad

1345: \omega \ll 1/t_{\sigma}. 

1346: \label{eq:alpha-b}

1347: \end{equation}

1348: The initial decay of the master function $\tilde{C}_{\ell}(\tilde{t})$ 

1349: is described by von

1350: Schweidler's law

1351: \end{mathletters}

1352: \begin{mathletters}

1353: \label{eq:von}

1354: \begin{equation}

1355: \tilde{C}_{\ell}(\tilde{t}) = f_{\ell}^{c} - h_{\ell} \, \tilde{t}^{b}, \quad

1356: \tilde{t} \to 0,

1357: \label{eq:von-a} 

1358: \end{equation}

1359: which is equivalent to a power-law tail of the master spectrum

1360: $\tilde{\chi}''_{\ell}(\tilde{\omega})$:

1361: \begin{equation}

1362: \tilde{\chi}''_{\ell}(\tilde{\omega}) = 

1363: h_{\ell} \, \sin (\pi b / 2) \, \Gamma(1+b) \, / \, \tilde{\omega}^{b}, \quad

1364: \tilde{\omega} \to \infty. 

1365: \label{eq:von-b}

1366: \end{equation}

1367: The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha-spectra} 

1368: exhibits the $\alpha$-process master spectra for the

1369: reorientational processes for $\zeta = 0.80$ and 

1370: for the dimensionless longitudinal 

1371: elastic modulus $m_{q=0}(t)$ of the solvent.

1372: The latter can be measured by Brillouin-scattering spectroscopy.

1373: It probes a tensor-density fluctuation for 

1374: $\ell = 0$. 

1375: \end{mathletters}

1376: The von-Schweidler-law tails describe the spectra

1377: for frequencies exceeding the position $\tilde \omega_{\max}$

1378: of the susceptibility maximum by a factor of about 100, as shown

1379: by the dashed lines. Since $f_1^c > f_2^c$ and both plateau values are rather

1380: large, one understands from the theory for the leading corrections

1381: to Eq.~(\ref{eq:von-b}) \cite{Franosch97} that for decreasing $\tilde \omega$

1382: the von-Schweidler asymptote underestimates the spectrum, and this

1383: by larger values for $\ell = 1$ than for $\ell = 2$. 

1384: For smaller plateau values, the von-Schweidler asymptote may

1385: overestimate the spectrum, as is exemplified for the modulus.

1386: The lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha-spectra}

1387: demonstrates that the $\alpha$-processes speed up if steric

1388: hindrance is decreased. As precursor of the transition to phase II,

1389: the spectrum for the dipole response is located at much higher frequencies

1390: than that for the quadrupole response. 

1391: Traditionally, dielectric-loss spectra have been fitted by the

1392: ones of the Kohlrausch-law 

1393: $\phi_K (\tilde{t}) = A \exp[ - (\tilde{t} B)^\beta]$. 

1394: Such fits also describe a major part of the

1395: spectra in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha-spectra}, as shown by the dotted lines. The parameters

1396: $A$ and $B$ are adjusted to match the susceptibility maximum. The

1397: stretching exponent $\beta$ is chosen so that the spectrum is

1398: fitted at half maximum $\tilde\chi_{\ell}^{\prime \prime} (\tilde

1399: \omega_{\max}) / 2$. If one denotes the width in $\log_{10}

1400: \omega$ at half maximum by $W$, stretching means that this

1401: parameter is larger than the value $W_D = 1.14$ characterizing a

1402: Debye process, $\phi_D (\tilde t) = \exp( - \tilde{t})$. 

1403: The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha-spectra}

1404: quantifies the general results of the theory for strong steric

1405: hindrance: $\tilde \chi_1^{\prime \prime} (\tilde \omega_{\max}^1)

1406: > \tilde \chi_2^{\prime \prime} (\tilde \omega_{\max}^2)$,

1407: $\tilde \omega_{\max}^1 < \tilde \omega_{\max}^2$ and $\beta_1 >

1408: \beta_2$. It quantifies also the forth property cited in the

1409: introduction $\tilde \omega_{\max}^2 < \tilde \omega_{\max}^0$. 

1410: A further general property is $\beta_2 > \beta_0$.

1411: 

1412: The discussion of power-law spectra is done more

1413: conveniently in a double logarithmic diagram

1414: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Nagel-plot} for normalized

1415: dipole-fluctuation-$\alpha$-process spectra 

1416: $\tilde{C}_{1}^{\prime \prime} (\tilde{\omega}) \tilde{\omega}_{\max} / f_{1}^{c} =

1417: \tilde{\chi}_1^{\prime \prime} (\tilde{\omega}) \tilde{\omega}_{\max} /

1418: f_{1}^{c} \tilde{\omega}$ as function of 

1419: $\tilde{\omega} / \tilde{\omega}_{\max}$.

1420: One notices, that there is a

1421: white-noise spectrum for $\tilde{\omega}$ below 

1422: $\tilde{\omega}_{\max}$. The high-frequency

1423: wing of the Kohlrausch-law fit decreases proportional to

1424: $\tilde{\omega}^{- \beta}$ and underestimates the

1425: spectrum $\tilde\chi_1^{\prime \prime}(\tilde{\omega})$ considerably. Because of

1426: the von-Schweidler asymptote, which is shown as dashed straight

1427: line, the spectrum exhibits an enhanced high-frequency wing.

1428: Dixon {\it et al.} \cite{Dixon90} made the remarkable observation that 

1429: their dielectric spectra could be

1430: collapsed on one master curve, if the vertical axis is rescaled by

1431: $w^{-1}$ and the horizontal axis by $w^{-1} (1 + w^{-1})$, where 

1432: $w = W / W_D$.

1433: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Nagel-plot} this scaling is used and the data for

1434: glycerol from Ref.~\cite{Dixon90} are included. The spectra 

1435: for molecules with $\zeta = 0.80$ and $\zeta=0.60$,

1436: which are relevant for the description of van der Waals 

1437: systems~\cite{Goetze00c}, follow the

1438: mentioned scaling surprisingly well.

1439: This finding appears non-trivial, since the scaling is not reproduced

1440: by the MCT results of the basic quantities $\phi_{q}(t)$~\cite{Fuchs92b}.

1441: The rescaled spectrum for $\zeta=0.43$ deviates from the scaling law

1442: for $w^{-1}(1+w^{-1}) \log_{10} (\tilde{\omega}/\tilde{\omega}_{max}) \geq 5$.

1443: 

1444: It might appear problematic that the dipole correlator was

1445: calculated within a different approximation scheme than the

1446: quadrupole correlator. But, there is no difficulty to also

1447: evaluate $C_1 (t)$ within the scheme explained in 

1448: Sec.~\ref{subsec:MCT-C2} for

1449: the evaluation of $C_2 (t)$. Figure~\ref{fig:compare-C1} 

1450: presents a comparison of 

1451: $C_1 (t)$ obtained along the two specified routes. 

1452: The two results for the small elongation $\zeta =

1453: 0.43$ are close to each other. The discrepancies are mainly due to the

1454: 7\% difference between the two plateau values $f_1^c$.

1455: With increasing $\zeta$, the discrepancies

1456: decrease. For the large elongation $\zeta = 0.80$, the results are

1457: practically undistinguishable.

1458: 

1459: \subsection{Structural relaxation versus transient dynamics}

1460: \label{subsec:result-inertia}

1461: 

1462: Let us introduce Fourier-Laplace transforms of functions of time,

1463: say $f (t)$, to functions of frequency, say $f (\omega)$, with the

1464: convention $f (\omega) = i \int_0^\infty dt \exp (izt) f (t)$, 

1465: $z = \omega + i0$. 

1466: The equations of motion (\ref{eq:GLE-u}) with the

1467: initial conditions from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-short-time}) are transformed to

1468: \begin{equation}

1469: [\omega \, {\bf 1} + {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{2} \, {\bf m}_{q}(\omega)] \,

1470: [\omega \, {\bf F}_{q}(\omega) + {\bf w}_{q}] -

1471: {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{2} \, {\bf F}_{q}(\omega) = {\bf 0}.

1472: \label{eq:str-1}

1473: \end{equation}

1474: Within the glass, the long-time limits of ${\bf F}_q (t)$ and

1475: ${\bf m}_{q}(t)$ do not vanish, i.e., the transformed quantities exhibit

1476: zero-frequency poles. One gets, for example, $\omega {\bf F}_q

1477: (\omega) \to - {\bf F}_q^\infty$ for $\omega \to 0$, where the

1478: strength $- {\bf F}_q^\infty$ 

1479: of the poles follow from Eq.~(\ref{eq:DW-u}). Continuity of the

1480: solutions of the MCT-equation of motion implies that for vanishing

1481: frequencies and for vanishing distances from the transition points,

1482: ${\bf m}_q (\omega)$ becomes arbitrarily large. Hence, combinations like 

1483: $\omega + i \xi_q$ with constants $\xi_{q}$

1484: can be neglected compared to ${\bf m}_q (\omega)$.

1485: Therefore, in the region of glassy dynamics, Eq.~(\ref{eq:str-1}) can be

1486: modified to

1487: \begin{equation}

1488: {\bf F}_{q}(\omega) - {\bf m}_{q}(\omega) \, {\bf w}_{q} =

1489: i \,\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_{q} +

1490: \omega \, {\bf m}_{q}(\omega) \, {\bf F}_{q}(\omega).

1491: \label{eq:str-2}

1492: \end{equation}

1493: Let us assume, that this equation has a solution, to be denoted by

1494: ${\bf F}_q^{*} (\omega)$, which is defined for all frequencies,

1495: so that it can be back

1496: transformed to a function ${\bf F}_q^{*} (t)$, defined for all $t > 0$. 

1497: Choosing $\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_{q}$

1498: properly, Eq.~(\ref{eq:str-2}) can

1499: be written as 

1500: \begin{mathletters}

1501: \label{eq:str-3}

1502: \begin{equation}

1503: {\bf F}_{q}^{*}(t) - {\bf m}_{q}^{*}(t) \, {\bf w}_{q} =

1504: - (d/dt) \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, {\bf m}_{q}^{*}(t-t') \, {\bf F}_{q}^{*}(t').

1505: \label{eq:str-3-a}

1506: \end{equation}

1507: Similar reasoning leads from Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-v}) to

1508: \begin{equation}

1509: \phi_{q}^{*}(t) - m_{q}^{*}(t) = - (d/dt) \int_{0}^{t} dt' \,

1510: m_{q}^{*}(t-t') \, \phi_{q}^{*}(t').

1511: \label{eq:str-3-b}

1512: \end{equation}

1513: These formulas have to be supplemented with the MCT expressions

1514: for the kernels

1515: \begin{equation}

1516: {\bf m}_{q}^{*}(t) = \mbox{\boldmath ${\cal F}$}_{q}

1517: [ {\bf F}^{*}(t), \phi^{*}(t) ], \quad

1518: m_{q}^{*}(t) = {\cal F}_{q}[\phi^{*}(t)].

1519: \label{eq:str-3-c}

1520: \end{equation}

1521: Equations (\ref{eq:str-3}) for the glassy dynamics are scale

1522: invariant. 

1523: \end{mathletters}

1524: With one set of solutions $\phi_q^{*} (t)$ and ${\bf

1525: F}_q^{*} (t)$, also the set 

1526: $\phi_q^{* \, u} (t) = \phi_q^{*} (ut)$ and 

1527: ${\bf F}_q^{* \, u} (t) = {\bf F}_q^{*} (ut)$

1528: provides a solution for arbitrary $u > 0$. 

1529: To fix the solution uniquely, one can 

1530: introduce positive numbers $y_q$ and positive definite matrices

1531: ${\bf y}_q$ to specify the initial condition as

1532: power-law asymptotes~\cite{Fuchs99b}

1533: \begin{equation}

1534: {\bf F}_{q}^{*}(t) \, (t/t_{0})^{1/3} \to {\bf y}_{q}, \,\,

1535: \phi_{q}^{*}(t) \, (t/t_{0})^{1/3} \to y_{q}, \,\,

1536: (t/t_{0}) \to 0.

1537: \label{eq:str-4}

1538: \end{equation}

1539: 

1540: The theory of the asymptotic solution of the MCT equations for

1541: simple systems had been built on the analogue of Eq.~(\ref{eq:str-2}) with

1542: $\xi_q$ neglected \cite{Franosch97}. The present theory extends

1543: the previous one by the introduction of matrices. It seems obvious

1544: that the previous results for asymptotic expansions hold in a

1545: properly extended version. Let us only note 

1546: the formula for the long-time decay of the correlators at

1547: the critical point $\varphi = \varphi_c$

1548: \cite{Franosch97,Fuchs98}:

1549: \begin{equation}

1550: {\bf F}_{q}(t) = {\bf F}_{q}^{\infty \, c} +

1551: {\bf H}_{q} (t_{0}/t)^{a}

1552: [{\bf 1} + {\bf K}_{q} (t_{0}/t)^{a} + {\bf O}( (t_{0}/t)^{2a} )].

1553: \label{eq:str-5}

1554: \end{equation}

1555: The exponent $a$, mentioned above, can be calculated from

1556: the mode-coupling functional at the critical point. The same is

1557: true for the plateau values ${\bf F}_q^{\infty \, c}$, and the 

1558: amplitudes ${\bf H}_q$ and ${\bf K}_q$. 

1559: The dependence of the solution from the transient

1560: dynamics is given by the single number $t_0$. 

1561: Let us anticipate that

1562: Eq.~(\ref{eq:str-5}) and similar results can be extended to a complete

1563: solution. One concludes that the glassy dynamics is determined, up

1564: to a scale $t_0$, by the mode-coupling functionals in 

1565: Eq.~(\ref{eq:str-3-c}).

1566: 

1567: Equations (\ref{eq:BXX-1}) and (\ref{eq:BXX-2}) show, that the mode-coupling

1568: functionals ${\cal F}_q$ and ${\cal F}_{q}^{ab}$ 

1569: are specified by the

1570: density $\rho$, the static structure factor $S_q$, the direct

1571: correlation function $c_q$ of the solvent, and the

1572: solute-solvent direct correlation functions $c_q^a$,

1573: i.e., by equilibrium quantities. They are the same for

1574: systems with a Newtonian dynamics, as considered in this paper,

1575: and for a model with a Brownian dynamics, as is to be used for the

1576: description of colloidal suspensions. In particular, the 

1577: mode-coupling functionals are independent of the particle masses $m,

1578: m_A$ and $m_B$. Thus, the glassy dynamics of the

1579: molecule in the simple liquid does not depend on the 

1580: inertia parameters specifying the microscopic equations of motion.

1581: The same conclusions on the glassy dynamics, which were cited in

1582: the introduction for the basic version of MCT, hold for the model

1583: studied in this paper. Let us add, that neither the temperature

1584: $T$, nor the interparticle-interaction potentials $V$ of the

1585: solvent, nor the solute-solvent-interaction potentials $V^a$

1586: enter explicitly the mode-coupling functionals. These quantities

1587: only enter implicitly via $S_{q}$, $c_{q}$, 

1588: $c_{q}^{A}$ and $c_{q}^{B}$.

1589: 

1590: The independence of the glassy dynamics on the

1591: inertia parameters is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:C1-inertia} 

1592: for four states of

1593: the liquid. It is shown that the reorientational dynamics of the

1594: dipole does not change for $t > 1$ even if the mass ratio of the atoms

1595: $m_A /m_B$ is altered by a factor 10. The transient

1596: dynamics, which deals with overdamped librations, 

1597: exhibits an isotope effect. There is

1598: no fitting parameter involved in the shown diagram. The 

1599: scale $t_0$ neither depends on the density of the

1600: solvent nor on the elongation parameter, 

1601: and Eqs.~(\ref{eq:str-3}) describe the complete 

1602: control-parameter dependence of the glassy dynamics.

1603: 

1604: \section{SUMMARY}

1605: \label{sec:5}

1606: 

1607: The MCT for simple systems with a dilute solute

1608: of atoms has been generalized to the one with a dilute solute of

1609: diatomic molecules. The derived equations of motion generalize

1610: the ones for atoms in the sense that scalar functions

1611: are replaced by 2-by-2 matrix functions. 

1612: These generalizations result

1613: from the description of the position of the molecule in

1614: terms of interaction-site-density fluctuations. The numerical

1615: effort required for a solution of the equations is not seriously

1616: larger than the one needed to solve the corresponding equations

1617: for atomic solutes. This holds in particular for symmetric

1618: molecules where the matrix equations can be diagonalized

1619: by a linear transformation to number-density and

1620: ``charge''-density fluctuations. 

1621: The theory implies

1622: that the dynamics outside the transient regime is determined, up

1623: to an overall time scale $t_0$, by the equilibrium structure. In

1624: particular, it is independent of the inertia

1625: parameters of the system.

1626: 

1627: It was shown that the present theory reproduces all qualitative

1628: results obtained within the preceding much more involved theory based

1629: on a description of the solute by tensor-density fluctuations.

1630: Both theories yield a similar phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}. 

1631: The characteristic differences of the reorientational correlators

1632: exhibited for strong steric hindrance of rotations as opposed to

1633: weak steric hindrance are obtained here, Fig.~\ref{fig:C1-C2}, 

1634: as previously.

1635: There are systematic quantitative differences between the two

1636: approximation approaches in the sense, that the implications of

1637: the cage effect are weaker in the present theory than in the

1638: preceding work \cite{Franosch97c,Goetze00c}. The earlier findings

1639: on the differences of the spectra referring to

1640: responses with angular-momentum index $\ell = 0$, 1 and 2 have

1641: been corroborated by separating the $\alpha$-peaks from

1642: the complete spectra with the aid of the $\alpha$-scaling law,

1643: Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha-spectra}. 

1644: 

1645: The critical non-ergodicity parameters $f_q^{x \, c}$ have been

1646: calculated, which determine the form factors of

1647: quasi-elastic scattering from the liquid near the glass transition.

1648: Contrary to what one finds for atomic solutes, these are not

1649: bell-shaped functions of wave numbers $q$, rather they exhibit

1650: kinks, Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-strong}. The form factors for some 

1651: wave numbers $q$ 

1652: vary non-monotonically with changes of the elongation of the molecule, 

1653: Fig.~\ref{fig:fq-vs-zeta}.

1654: Analyzing these findings in terms of form factors defined for

1655: fixed angular-momentum index $\ell$, one can explain the

1656: results as due to intra-molecular interference effects 

1657: demonstrating that the theory accounts for reorientational

1658: correlations with angular-momentum index $\ell \geq 2$.

1659: 

1660: It was shown that the $\alpha$-relaxation spectra for dipole

1661: reorientations with strong steric hindrance obey the scaling law

1662: proposed by Dixon {\it et al.} \cite{Dixon90} within the window and

1663: within the accuracy level considered by these authors. There is no

1664: fitting parameter involved in the construction of 

1665: Fig.~\ref{fig:Nagel-plot}, which

1666: demonstrates this finding for the two elongation parameters

1667: $\zeta=0.60$ and 0.80. Thus, it is not

1668: justified to use the cited empirical scaling as an argument against the

1669: applicability of MCT for a discussion of dielectric-loss spectra.

1670: 

1671: \acknowledgments

1672: 

1673: We thank M.~Fuchs, M.~Sperl and Th.~Voigtmann for many

1674: helpful discussions and suggestions. 

1675: We are grateful to A.~Latz and R.~Schilling for constructive

1676: critique of our manuscript.

1677: S.-H.~C. acknowledges financial support from

1678: JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. 

1679: This work was supported by 

1680: Verbundprojekt BMBF 03-G05TUM.

1681: 

1682: \appendix

1683: 

1684: \section{TENSOR-DENSITY REPRESENTATIONS}

1685: \label{appen:A}

1686: 

1687: Following the conventions of Refs.~\cite{Franosch97c} and

1688: \cite{Goetze00c}, normalized tensor-density fluctuations shall be used by

1689: decomposing the molecule's position variable in plane waves 

1690: $\exp( i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec r}_{C})$ for the center of mass $\vec r_C$ 

1691: and in spherical harmonics $Y_{\ell}^{m}({\vec e} \,)$ for the 

1692: orientation vector $\vec e$:

1693: \begin{equation}

1694: \rho_{\ell}^{m}({\vec q}) = i^{\ell} \, \sqrt{4 \pi} \, 

1695: \exp ( i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec r}_{\rm C}) \,

1696: Y_{\ell}^{m}({\vec e}).

1697: \label{eq:rho-tensor-def}

1698: \end{equation}

1699: The molecule-solvent interactions are specified by a set of

1700: direct correlation functions

1701: \begin{equation}

1702: c_{\ell}(q) = 

1703: \langle \rho_{{\vec q}_{0}}^{*} \, \rho_{\ell}^{0}({\vec q}_{0}) \rangle \, / \, 

1704: (\rho S_{q}); \quad

1705: {\vec q}_{0} = (0,0,q).

1706: \label{eq:cuv-tensor-def}

1707: \end{equation}

1708: The structure dynamics is described by the matrix of correlators,

1709: defined by

1710: \begin{equation}

1711: \phi_{\ell k}(qm,t) = \langle \rho_{\ell}^{m}({\vec q}_{0},t)^{*} 

1712: \rho_{k}^{m}({\vec q}_{0}) \rangle.

1713: \label{eq:tensor-correlator}

1714: \end{equation}

1715: 

1716: Since the position vectors of the interaction sites can be written as 

1717: $\vec r_a = \vec r_C + z_a \vec e$, 

1718: the Rayleigh expansion of the exponential in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-def}) 

1719: yields the formula

1720: \begin{equation}

1721: \rho^{a}_{{\vec q}_{0}} = \sum_{\ell} \sqrt{2 \ell + 1} \, 

1722: j_{\ell}(q z_{a}) \, \rho_{\ell}^{0}({\vec q}_{0}).

1723: \label{eq:rho-site-tensor}

1724: \end{equation}

1725: Substitution of this expression into Eq.~(\ref{eq:huv-def}) leads with 

1726: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cuv-tensor-def})

1727: to an expression connecting the direct correlation functions

1728: $c_q^a$ with $c_{\ell}(q)$:

1729: \begin{equation}

1730: \sum_{b} w^{ab}_{q} \, c^{b}_{q} = 

1731: \sum_{\ell} \sqrt{2 \ell + 1} \, j_{\ell}(q z_{a}) \, c_{\ell}(q).

1732: \label{eq:cuv-site-tensor}

1733: \end{equation}

1734: Substitution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-site-tensor}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-def}) 

1735: leads with Eq.~(\ref{eq:tensor-correlator}) to the

1736: expression of the site-density correlators in terms of the

1737: tensor-density correlators:

1738: \begin{equation}

1739: F^{ab}_{q}(t) = \sum_{\ell k} \sqrt{(2 \ell + 1)(2 k + 1)} \, 

1740: j_{\ell}(qz_{a}) \, j_{k}(qz_{b}) \,

1741: \phi_{\ell k}(q0,t).

1742: \label{eq:Fab-site-tensor}

1743: \end{equation}

1744: For the long-time limits of the correlators $F_q^{ab}(t)$ one gets a

1745: combination of the non-ergodicity parameters $f_{\ell k} (q m) =

1746: \phi_{\ell k} (q m, t \to \infty)$. If one uses the diagonal

1747: approximation $f_{\ell k} (q, m) = \delta_{\ell k} f(q \ell m)$,

1748: one can write

1749: \begin{equation}

1750: F^{ab}_{q}(t \to \infty) = \sum_{\ell} ( 2 \ell + 1) \, 

1751: j_{\ell}(qz_{a}) \, j_{\ell}(qz_{b}) \,

1752: f(q \ell 0).

1753: \label{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}

1754: \end{equation}

1755: 

1756: Substituting the Rayleigh expansion of Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho-def}) into 

1757: Eq.~(\ref{eq:m2-MCT-a}),

1758: one can express the pair modes in terms of those formed with

1759: tensor-density fluctuations:

1760: \begin{equation}

1761: A^{a}({\vec k}, {\vec p} \, ) = \sqrt{4 \pi} \sum_{\ell m}

1762: j_{\ell}(k z_{a}) \, Y_{\ell}^{m}({\vec k}) \,

1763: [\, \rho_{\ell}^{m}({\vec k}) \, \rho_{\vec p} \, / \sqrt{N S_{p}} \, ].

1764: \end{equation}

1765: Therefore, the overlaps of the forces with the pair modes can be

1766: expressed as sums of the corresponding quantities calculated in

1767: Ref. \cite{Franosch97c}. One finds for the mode-coupling

1768: coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{eq:m2-final}):

1769: \begin{mathletters}

1770: \label{eq:m2-exp}

1771: \begin{equation}

1772: V_{2}^{ab}(k) = [ k^{2} \rho S_{k} / 2 \pi^{2}] 

1773: \sum_{c d} ({\bf w}_{k}^{-1})^{ac} \, D_{c}(k) \, D_{d}(k) \,

1774: ({\bf w}_{k}^{-1})^{db}.

1775: \label{eq:m2-exp-a}

1776: \end{equation}

1777: Here one gets for $a = A, B$ or $C$

1778: \bea

1779: D_{a}(k) &=& 

1780: {\textstyle \frac{1}{12}} \sum_{\ell J}

1781: (-1)^{\frac{1}{2} (\ell + J)} \, (2 \ell + 1) \, \sqrt{2J + 1} \,

1782: j_{\ell}(k z_{a}) \, c_{J}(k) 

1783: \nonumber \\

1784: &\times&

1785: [ \, J ( J + 1 ) + 6 - \ell ( \ell + 1 ) \, ]

1786: \left(

1787: \begin{array}{ccc}

1788: 2 & \ell & J \\

1789: 0 & 0    & 0 

1790: \end{array}

1791: \right)^{2},

1792: \label{eq:m2-exp-b}

1793: \eea

1794: where the last factor denotes Wigner's 3-$j$ symbol. 

1795: \end{mathletters}

1796: 

1797: \section{Mode-Coupling Coefficients}

1798: \label{appen:B}

1799: 

1800: Mode-coupling equations based on a description of the molecules

1801: by site-density fluctuations have been derived in Ref.

1802: \cite{Chong98b} by extending the procedure used originally for

1803: atomic systems \cite{Goetze91b}. But the reported formulas

1804: \cite{Chong98b} do not seem appropriate, since they do not reduce

1805: to the ones for tagged particle motion if the limit of a vanishing

1806: elongation parameter $\zeta$ is considered. Therefore, an

1807: alternative derivation will be presented which starts from the

1808: theory developed by Mori and Fujisaka \cite{Mori73} for an

1809: approximate treatment of nonlinear fluctuations. The application

1810: of this theory will be explained by rederiving the equations for

1811: the solvent before the ones for the solute are worked out.

1812: 

1813: \subsection{The Mori-Fujisaka equations}

1814: \label{subsec:B1}

1815: 

1816: Let us consider a set of distinguished dynamical variables

1817: $A_\alpha, \alpha = 1,2, \cdots$, defined as functions on the

1818: system's phase space. The time evolution is generated by the

1819: Liouvillian, $A_\alpha (t) = \exp (i {\cal L} t) A_\alpha$. Using

1820: the canonical averaging to define scalar products in the space of

1821: variables, $(A, B) = \langle A^* B \rangle$, the Liouvillian is

1822: Hermitian. It is the goal to derive equations of motion for the

1823: matrix of correlators $C_{\alpha\beta} (t) = (A_\alpha (t),

1824: A_\beta)$. The initial condition is given by the positive definite

1825: matrix $g_{\alpha\beta} = (A_\alpha, A_\beta)$. The theory starts

1826: with a generalized Fokker-Planck equation for the distribution

1827: function $g_a = \Pi_\alpha \, \delta (A_\alpha - a_\alpha), \, a =

1828: (a_1, a_2, \cdots)$. It is assumed that the time scales for the

1829: fluctuations of the $A_\alpha$ and their products is larger than

1830: the ones for the Langevin fluctuating forces. The spectra of the

1831: latter can then be approximated by a constant matrix

1832: $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}$. It is assumed furthermore, that the

1833: $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ are independent of the distinguished

1834: variables, and that the equilibrium distribution of the latter is

1835: Gaussian:

1836: \begin{equation}

1837: \langle g_{a} \rangle = C \,

1838: \exp \biggl( - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta}

1839: a_{\alpha} \, g_{\alpha \beta}^{-1} \, a_{\beta}^{*} \biggr).

1840: \label{eq:B1}

1841: \end{equation}

1842: In the cited Fokker-Planck equation there occurs the 

1843: streaming velocity $v_\alpha (a)$ given by

1844: \begin{equation}

1845: v_{\alpha}(a) \, \langle g_{a} \rangle = 

1846: \langle \dot{A}_{\alpha}^{*} \, g_{a} \rangle =

1847: k_{B}T \sum_{\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial a_{\beta}}

1848: \langle \{ A_{\alpha}^{*}, A_{\beta} \} \, g_{a} \rangle.

1849: \label{eq:B2}

1850: \end{equation}

1851: 

1852: The Fokker-Planck equation is now reduced by projecting out the subspace

1853: of distinguished variables. There appears the frequency matrix

1854: specifying the linear contribution to the streaming term,

1855: \begin{equation}

1856: \Omega_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{\gamma}

1857: (A_{\alpha}, {\cal L} A_{\gamma}) \, g_{\gamma \beta}^{-1}.

1858: \label{eq:B3}

1859: \end{equation}

1860: The nonlinear contributions enter as combination

1861: \begin{equation}

1862: f_{\alpha} = \int da \, v_{\alpha}(a) \, g_{a} -

1863: i \sum_{\beta} \Omega_{\alpha \beta} A_{\beta}.

1864: \label{eq:B4}

1865: \end{equation}

1866: They determine the relaxation kernel as

1867: \begin{equation}

1868: M_{\alpha \beta}(t) = \sum_{\gamma} (f_{\alpha}(t), f_{\gamma}) \,

1869: g_{\gamma \beta}^{-1}.

1870: \label{eq:B5}

1871: \end{equation}

1872: The time evolution is generated by the reduced Liouvillian ${\cal

1873: L}^\prime = {\cal Q L Q}, \, f_\alpha (t) = \exp (i {\cal

1874: L}^\prime t) f_\alpha$, where $\cal Q$ is the projector on the

1875: space perpendicular to the one spanned by the distinguished

1876: variables. The result, which is equivalent to 

1877: Eq.~(2.15) in Ref.~\cite{Mori73}, reads

1878: \bea

1879: \partial_{t} C_{\alpha \beta}(t) &=& 

1880: - \sum_{\gamma} [ 

1881: (i \Omega_{\alpha \gamma} + \Gamma_{\alpha \gamma}) \, C_{\gamma \beta}(t) 

1882: \nonumber \\

1883: & &

1884: \quad \quad

1885: + \,

1886: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, M_{\alpha \gamma}(t-t') \, C_{\gamma \beta}(t')].

1887: \label{eq:B6}

1888: \eea

1889: 

1890: \subsection{MCT equations for simple systems}

1891: 

1892: To get a description of slowly varying structural fluctuations, the

1893: original reasoning of MCT shall be adopted, and as distinguished

1894: variables the density fluctuations $\rho_{\vec q}$ and the

1895: longitudinal current fluctuations 

1896: $j_{\vec q} = \sum_{\kappa} v_{\kappa,z} \exp(i {\vec q} \cdot {\vec r}_{\kappa})$

1897: will be chosen. The variable label of the

1898: preceding subsection consists of two bits, 

1899: $\alpha = (\lambda, \vec q \,)$, $\lambda = 1,2$, so that 

1900: $A_{1 \vec q} = \rho_{\vec q}$, 

1901: $A_{2 \vec q} = j_{\vec q}$. 

1902: Notations follow the ones of

1903: the first paragraph of Sec.~\ref{sec:2}. 

1904: One gets $g_{1 {\vec q} \, 1 {\vec q}} = NS_q$,

1905: $g_{2 {\vec q} \,  2 {\vec q}} = Nv^2$,

1906: $\Omega_{1 {\vec q} \, 2 {\vec q}} = q$,

1907: $\Omega_{2 {\vec q} \, 1 {\vec q}} = \Omega_q^2 / q$, and all the

1908: other elements of the matrices $g$ and $\Omega$ are zero. Because

1909: of translational invariance, one gets 

1910: $C_{\lambda {\vec q} \, \mu {\vec k}}(t) = 0$ unless $\vec q = \vec k$, and rotational

1911: invariance implies that $C_{\lambda {\vec q} \, \mu {\vec q}} (t)$

1912: depends on the modulus $q$ only. The same holds for the matrices

1913: $\Gamma$ and $M$, so that Eq.~(\ref{eq:B6}) reduces to a two-by-two matrix

1914: equation with $q$ appearing as a parameter. 

1915: Since ${\cal L} \rho_{\vec q}$ 

1916: is an element of the distinguished set of

1917: variables, the kernels $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ and $M_{\alpha\beta}

1918: (t)$ vanish unless $\alpha = \beta = (2, {\vec q} \,)$. The latter

1919: shall be denoted by $\Gamma_q$ and $M_q (t)$, respectively.

1920: Equation (\ref{eq:B6}) can then be reduced to the equation of motion for the

1921: normalized density correlator 

1922: $\phi_q (t) = C_{1 {\vec q} \, 1 {\vec q}} (t) / NS_q$:

1923: \bea

1924: & &

1925: \partial_{t}^{2} \phi_{q}(t) + \Gamma_{q} \, \partial_{t} \phi_{q}(t) 

1926: \nonumber \\

1927: & &

1928: \qquad

1929: + \,

1930: \Omega_{q}^{2} \, \phi_{q}(t) +

1931: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, M_{q}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} \phi_{q}(t') = 0.

1932: \label{eq:B7}

1933: \eea

1934: The application of the Mori-Fujisaka formalism can be summarized

1935: as follows. The relaxation kernel $\Omega_q^2 m_q (t)$ of the

1936: exact Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-v}) is approximately split into a white noise

1937: contribution $2 \Gamma_q \delta (t)$ and a remainder $M_q (t)$,

1938: where well defined formulas for the two contributions are

1939: available. In this paper, the kernel $\Gamma_q$ is neglected and 

1940: Eq.~(\ref{eq:B5}) for the kernel,

1941: \begin{equation}

1942: M_{q}(t) = (f_{\vec q}(t), f_{\vec q}) \, / \, N v^{2}, \quad

1943: f_{\vec q} = f_{2 {\vec q}}, 

1944: \label{eq:B8}

1945: \end{equation}

1946: shall be approximated further.

1947: 

1948: If one writes $a_{1 \vec q} = \tilde\rho_{\vec q}$ and $a_{2 \vec

1949: q} = \tilde j_{\vec q}$, one can denote the equilibrium distribution

1950: $w (a) = \langle g_a \rangle$ for the solvent variables as

1951: \bea

1952: w(a) &=& C \, \exp

1953: \biggl\{

1954: - (1/2N) \sum_{\vec q} [

1955: (1 - \rho c_{q}) \, \tilde{\rho}_{\vec q} \, \tilde{\rho_{\vec q}}^{*} 

1956: \nonumber \\

1957: & &

1958: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

1959: + \,

1960: (1/v^{2}) \, \tilde{j}_{\vec q} \, \tilde{j}_{\vec q}^{*}]

1961: \biggr\}.

1962: \label{eq:B9}

1963: \eea

1964: This is used to derive from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:B2}) and (\ref{eq:B4}):

1965: \begin{equation}

1966: f_{\vec q} = - i (\rho v^{2}/ N) \sum_{\vec k} ({\vec k} \cdot {\vec q}/q) \,

1967: c_{k} \, \rho_{\vec k} \, \rho_{{\vec q}-{\vec k}} + \delta f_{\vec q},

1968: \label{eq:B10}

1969: \end{equation}

1970: where $\delta f_{\vec q}$ denotes a term whose contribution to the memory

1971: kernel turns out to be irrelevant

1972: for the structural relaxation processes, and therefore shall be neglected.

1973: The remaining task is the evaluation of averages

1974: $(\rho_{\vec k}(t) \rho_{\vec p} (t), 

1975: \rho_{\vec k^\prime} \rho_{\vec p^\prime})$, 

1976: where the time evolution is generated by

1977: the reduced Liouvillian. Here the original MCT ansatz is used:

1978: $(\rho_{\vec k} (t) \rho_{\vec k^\prime}) 

1979: (\rho_{\vec p} (t) \rho_{\vec p^\prime}) + (k \leftrightarrow p)$. 

1980: As a result, one

1981: gets $M_q (t) = \Omega_q^2 m_q (t)$ with the well known expression

1982: for the mode-coupling functional in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:MCT-v}):

1983: \bea

1984: {\cal F}_{q}[\tilde{f}] &=& (\rho / 16 \pi^{3} q^{4})

1985: \int d{\vec k} \, S_{q} S_{k} S_{p} 

1986: \nonumber \\

1987: & &

1988: \qquad \qquad \qquad

1989: \times \,

1990: [{\vec q} \cdot {\vec k} \, c_{k} + {\vec q} \cdot {\vec p} \, c_{p}]^{2} \,

1991: \tilde{f_{k}} \, \tilde{f_{p}}, 

1992: \label{eq:BXX-1}

1993: \eea

1994: with $\vec p = \vec q - \vec k$.

1995: 

1996: \subsection{MCT equations for the solute molecule}

1997: 

1998: It is straightforward to generalize the preceding derivation to

1999: systems with a diatomic solute molecule provided the latter is

2000: considered as flexible. Therefore, let us use this modification of

2001: the problem. It will be assumed that the kinetic energy of the

2002: molecule is $\Sigma_a (m_a /2) \vec v_{a}^{\, 2}$ and that there is a

2003: binding potential $V^{f \ell} (\mid \vec r_A - \vec r_B \mid)$

2004: between the two interaction sites. The exact Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-a}) remains

2005: valid with the frequency matrix replaced by that of the flexible

2006: molecule $\Omega_q^{f \ell \, 2}$. It is defined via Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-b}) with

2007: the simple velocity correlator $J_{q}^{f \ell \, a b} = \delta^{a b} (k_B

2008: T /m_a)$.

2009: 

2010: The formulas of Sec.~\ref{subsec:B1} shall be applied with the extended set

2011: of densities $(\rho_{\vec q}, \rho_{\vec q}^A, \rho_{\vec q}^B)$

2012: and the corresponding longitudinal currents $(j_{\vec q}, j_{\vec

2013: q}^A, j_{\vec q}^B)$. Thus the index consists of three bits

2014: $\alpha = (\tau, \lambda, \vec q)$, where $\lambda = 1,2$

2015: discriminates between densities and currents, and $\tau = O, A, B$

2016: indicates solvent, atom $A$ and atom $B$, respectively. In

2017: the infinite dilution limit $N \to \infty$, the equations for the

2018: solute do not directly couple to those for the solvent. Therefore,

2019: Eq.~(\ref{eq:B7}) remains valid and one gets a modification of 

2020: Eq.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u-a}) for the solute:

2021: \bea

2022: & &

2023: \partial_{t}^{2} {\bf F}_{q}(t) + {\bf \Gamma}_{q} \, \partial_{t} {\bf F}_{q}(t) +

2024: {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{f \ell \, 2} \, {\bf F}_{q}(t) 

2025: \nonumber \\

2026: & &

2027: \qquad \qquad

2028: + \,

2029: \int_{0}^{t} dt' \, {\bf M}_{q}(t-t') \, \partial_{t'} {\bf F}_{q}(t') = {\bf 0}.

2030: \label{eq:B12}

2031: \eea

2032: The relaxation kernel reads

2033: \begin{equation}

2034: M_{q}^{ab}(t) = (f_{\vec q}^{a}(t), f_{\vec q}^{b}) \, (m_{b} / k_{B}T), \quad

2035: f_{\vec q}^{a} = f_{a 2 {\vec q}}.

2036: \label{eq:B13}

2037: \end{equation}

2038: 

2039: The determination of the Gaussian distribution of the extended

2040: distinguished variables requires the inversion of the

2041: three-by-three matrix $(A_{\tau 1 \vec q}, A_{\sigma 1 \vec

2042: q})$. Making use of the infinite dilution limit $N \to \infty$,

2043: one gets

2044: \bea

2045: \langle g_{a} \rangle &=& w^{O}(a) \,

2046: \exp \biggl\{

2047: (1/2) \sum_{\vec q} \sum_{ab} 

2048: [(2 \rho / N) \, \delta^{ab} \, 

2049: c_{q}^{a} \, \tilde{\rho}_{\vec q} \, \tilde{\rho}_{\vec q}^{a *} 

2050: \nonumber \\

2051: & &

2052: - \,

2053: ({\bf w}_{q}^{-1})^{ab} \, \tilde{\rho}_{\vec q}^{a} \, \tilde{\rho}_{\vec q}^{b *} -

2054: (m_{a}/k_{B}T) \, \delta^{ab} \, \tilde{j}_{\vec q}^{a} \, \tilde{j}_{\vec q}^{b *}]

2055: \biggr\},

2056: \label{eq:B14}

2057: \eea

2058: where $w^{O}(a)$ is the distribution for the solvent variables

2059: given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:B9}). This expression is used to work

2060: out the fluctuating force as explained in connection with 

2061: Eq.~(\ref{eq:B10}):

2062: \bea

2063: f_{\vec q}^{a} &=& - i (\rho/N) (k_{B}T/m_{a}) \sum_{\vec k}

2064: [({\vec q}-{\vec k}) \cdot {\vec q}/q] \, c_{k}^{a} \,

2065: \rho_{\vec k}^{a} \, \rho_{{\vec q}-{\vec k}} 

2066: \nonumber \\

2067: & &

2068: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

2069: + \,

2070: \delta f_{\vec q}^{a}.

2071: \label{eq:B15}

2072: \eea

2073: As above, the contributions due to $\delta f_{\vec q}^a$ are

2074: neglected and the remaining pair correlations are factorized. This

2075: leads to

2076: \begin{equation}

2077: {\bf M}_{q}(t) = {\bf \Omega}_{q}^{f \ell \, 2} \, {\bf m}_{q}(t),

2078: \label{eq:B16}

2079: \end{equation}

2080: where the functional for the kernel in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MCT-u-a}) reads

2081: \bea

2082: {\cal F}^{ab}_{q}[\tilde{\textit{\textbf f}}, \tilde{f}] &=& q^{-2} 

2083: \sum_{c} w^{ac}_{q} \, (\rho / 8 \pi^{3})

2084: \int d{\vec k} \, ({\vec q} \cdot {\vec p} / q)^{2} 

2085: \nonumber \\

2086: & &

2087: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad

2088: \times \,

2089: S_{p} \, c_{p}^{c} \, c_{p}^{b} \, \tilde{f}_{k}^{cb} \, \tilde{f}_{p},

2090: \label{eq:BXX-2}

2091: \eea

2092: with $\vec p$ abbreviating $\vec q - \vec k$. Neglecting the

2093: friction term ${\bf \Gamma}_{q}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:B12}), 

2094: the MCT equations (\ref{eq:GLE-u}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-u}) 

2095: are derived for the flexible molecule.

2096: 

2097: Obviously, a theory for a rigid molecule can be obtained from one

2098: for a flexible molecule only within a quantum-mechanical

2099: approach. One has to consider the case where excitation energies

2100: for translational and rotational motion are small compared to the

2101: thermal energy, while the energies for

2102: vibrational excitations are large. Let

2103: us assume, that the formulas can be obtained by replacing all

2104: equilibrium averages in the preceding equations by the correct

2105: quantum mechanical ones, where the latter can be evaluated for the

2106: classical molecule model with five degrees of freedom. This

2107: amounts to replacing structure functions by the classical

2108: quantities, in particular the replacement of ${\bf \Omega}_q^{f

2109: \ell}$ by ${\bf \Omega}_q$. Thereby Eq.~(\ref{eq:B12}) produces 

2110: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-u}).

2111: 

2112: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2113: 

2114: \bibitem{Megen95}

2115: W. van Megen, Transp. Theory Stat. Phys. {\bf 24},  1017  (1995).

2116: 

2117: \bibitem{Nauroth97}

2118: M. Nauroth and W. Kob, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55},  657  (1997).

2119: 

2120: \bibitem{Gleim98}

2121: T. Gleim, W. Kob, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},  4404  (1998).

2122: 

2123: \bibitem{Gleim00}

2124: T. Gleim and W. Kob, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B {\bf 13},  83  (2000).

2125: 

2126: \bibitem{Goetze92}

2127: W. G{\"o}tze and L. Sj{\"o}gren, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 55},  241  (1992).

2128: 

2129: \bibitem{Goetze99}

2130: W. G{\"o}tze, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter {\bf 11},  A1  (1999).

2131: 

2132: \bibitem{Schilling97}

2133: R. Schilling and T. Scheidsteger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56},  2932  (1997).

2134: 

2135: \bibitem{Theis98}

2136: C. Theis and R. Schilling, J. Non-Cryst. Solids {\bf 235--237},  106  (1998).

2137: 

2138: \bibitem{Fabbian99b}

2139: L. Fabbian, A. Latz, R. Schilling, F. Sciortino, P. Tartaglia, and C. Theis,

2140: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60},  5768  (1999).

2141: 

2142: \bibitem{Winkler00}

2143: A. Winkler, A. Latz, R. Schilling, and C. Theis, cond-mat/0007276.

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{Theis00}

2146: C. Theis, F. Sciortino, A. Latz, R. Schilling, and P. Tartaglia,

2147: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},  1856  (2000).

2148: 

2149: \bibitem{Letz00}

2150: M. Letz, R. Schilling, and A. Latz, Phys. Rev. E  , in print.

2151: 

2152: \bibitem{Franosch97c}

2153: T. Franosch, M. Fuchs, W. G{\"o}tze, M.~R. Mayr, and A.~P. Singh,

2154: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56},  5659  (1997).

2155: 

2156: \bibitem{Goetze00c}

2157: W. G{\"o}tze, A.~P. Singh, and $\mbox{Th}$. Voigtmann, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},

2158:   6934  (2000).

2159: 

2160: \bibitem{Franosch98}

2161: T. Franosch, W. G{\"o}tze, M.~R. Mayr, and A.~P. Singh, J. Non-Cryst. Solids

2162:   {\bf 235--237},  71  (1998).

2163: 

2164: \bibitem{Fuchs99b}

2165: M. Fuchs and $\mbox{Th}$. Voigtmann, Philos.\ Mag.\ B {\bf 79},  1799  (1999).

2166: 

2167: \bibitem{Kawasaki97}

2168: K. Kawasaki, Physica A {\bf 243},  25  (1997).

2169: 

2170: \bibitem{Chong98b}

2171: S.-H. Chong and F. Hirata, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58},  6188  (1998).

2172: 

2173: \bibitem{Chandler72}

2174: D. Chandler and H.~C. Andersen, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 57},  1930  (1972).

2175: 

2176: \bibitem{Hansen86}

2177: J.-P. Hansen and I.~R. McDonald, {\em Theory of Simple Liquids}, 2nd ed.

2178:   (Academic Press, London, 1986).

2179: 

2180: \bibitem{Chong98}

2181: S.-H. Chong and F. Hirata, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57},  1691  (1998).

2182: 

2183: \bibitem{Franosch97}

2184: T. Franosch, M. Fuchs, W. G{\"o}tze, M.~R. Mayr, and A.~P. Singh,

2185: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55},  7153  (1997).

2186: 

2187: \bibitem{Fuchs98}

2188: M. Fuchs, W. G{\"o}tze, and M.~R. Mayr, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58},  3384  (1998).

2189: 

2190: \bibitem{Hoye77}

2191: J.~S. H{\o}ye and G. Stell, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 66},  795  (1977).

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{Sullivan81}

2194: D.~E. Sullivan and C.~G. Gray, Mol. Phys. {\bf 42},  443  (1981).

2195: 

2196: \bibitem{Goetze91b}

2197: W. G{\"o}tze,  in {\em Liquids, Freezing and Glass Transition}, edited by J.-P.

2198:   Hansen, D. Levesque, and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991), p.\

2199:   287.

2200: 

2201: \bibitem{Goetze00}

2202: W. G{\"o}tze and M.~R. Mayr, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  587  (2000).

2203: 

2204: \bibitem{Franosch97b}

2205: T. Franosch and A.~P. Singh, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 107},  5524  (1997).

2206: 

2207: \bibitem{Franosch98b}

2208: T. Franosch and A.~P. Singh, J. Non-Cryst. Solids {\bf 235--237},  153  (1998).

2209: 

2210: \bibitem{Franosch94}

2211: T. Franosch and W. G{\"o}tze, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 6},  4807  (1994).

2212: 

2213: \bibitem{Dixon90}

2214: P.~K. Dixon, L. Wu, S.~R. Nagel, B.~D. Williams, and J.~P. Carini,

2215: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},  1108  (1990).

2216: 

2217: \bibitem{Fuchs92b}

2218: M. Fuchs, I. Hofacker, and A. Latz, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 45},  898  (1992).

2219: 

2220: \bibitem{Mori73}

2221: H. Mori and H. Fujisaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49},  764  (1973).

2222: 

2223: \end{thebibliography}

2224: 

2225: 

2226: \begin{figure}

2227: \centerline{\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{figure1.ps}}}

2228: \caption{Phase diagram of a dilute solute of symmetric dumbbell

2229: molecules with elongation $\zeta$ consisting of two fused hard spheres

2230: which are immersed in a hard-sphere system (HSS) with packing

2231: fraction $\varphi$. The horizontal line marks the liquid-glass

2232: transition at the critical packing fraction

2233: $\varphi_c = 0.516$. The other full line is the curve $\zeta_c

2234: (\varphi)$ of critical elongations for a type-$A$ transition

2235: between phases II and III. In phase II dipole fluctuations of the

2236: solute relax to zero for long times, while they are frozen in

2237: phase III. The value $\zeta_c = \zeta_c (\varphi_c) = 0.380$ 

2238: is marked by an arrow. The dashed

2239: line is the corresponding transition curve calculated 

2240: in Ref.~\protect\cite{Franosch98b}; 

2241: it terminates at $\zeta_c^t = 0.297$.}

2242: \label{fig:phase}

2243: \end{figure}

2244: 

2245: 

2246: \newpage\noindent

2247: 

2248: 

2249: \begin{figure}

2250: \centerline{\scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{figure2.ps}}}

2251: \caption{

2252: Nonergodicity parameters $f_q^{x \,c}$ (heavy full lines)

2253: for the molecule's arrested number-density

2254: fluctuations $(x = N)$ and 

2255: ``charge''-density fluctuations $(x = Z)$ 

2256: for the critical packing fraction

2257: $\varphi = \varphi_c$.

2258: The elongation parameter $\zeta = 0.80$ is

2259: representative for strong steric hindrance for reorientational

2260: motion. The light full lines are evaluated with 

2261: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}) with the

2262: nonergodicity parameters $f^c (q \ell 0)$ obtained in 

2263: Ref.~\protect\cite{Franosch97c} from a theory based on a

2264: tensor-density description. The dotted lines show the

2265: contributions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fab-site-tensor-2}) 

2266: from different angular-momentum index

2267: $\ell$. Here and in the following figures the diameter of the

2268: spheres is used as unit of length, $d = 1$. }

2269: \label{fig:fq-strong}

2270: \end{figure}

2271: 

2272: 

2273: \newpage\noindent

2274: 

2275: 

2276: \begin{figure}

2277: \centerline{\scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{figure3.ps}}}

2278: \caption{Results as in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:fq-strong} 

2279: but for small elongations which are

2280: representative for weak steric hindrance for reorientational

2281: motion. The relative distance from the transition point between

2282: phases II and III is $(\zeta - \zeta_c) / \zeta_c = 0.347$. The

2283: heavy full line shows the result of the present theory for 

2284: $\zeta = 0.512$. The light full line

2285: shows the result for $\zeta=0.400$ based on 

2286: Ref.~\protect\cite{Franosch97c}.}

2287: \label{fig:fq-weak}

2288: \end{figure}

2289: 

2290: 

2291: \newpage\noindent

2292: 

2293: 

2294: \begin{figure}

2295: \centerline{\scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{figure4.ps}}}

2296: \caption{Critical nonergodicity parameters $f_q^{x \, c}$ for the solute

2297: as function of the elongation parameter $\zeta$ for the 

2298: wave numbers $q = 3.4 (a), \, 7.0 (b), \, 10.6

2299: (c), \, 14.2 (d)$, and 17.4 $(e)$. The arrow 

2300: marks the transition point from phase II to phase III at $\zeta_c

2301: = 0.380$. }

2302: \label{fig:fq-vs-zeta}

2303: \end{figure}

2304: 

2305: 

2306: \newpage\noindent

2307: 

2308: 

2309: \begin{figure}

2310: \centerline{\scalebox{0.65}{\includegraphics{figure5.ps}}}

2311: \caption{Correlators $\phi_q^N (t)$ (solid lines)

2312: and $\phi_q^Z (t)$ (dashed lines)

2313: for two intermediate wave numbers $q$ as function of the

2314: logarithm of time $t$. The decay curves at the

2315: critical packing fraction $\varphi_c$ for number-density and

2316: ``charge''-density correlators are shown as dotted lines and marked

2317: by $N$ and $Z$, respectively. Only a few solutions of glass states

2318: are shown for $\phi_q^Z (t)$ in order to avoid overcrowding of the

2319: figure. The distance parameter is 

2320: $\epsilon = (\varphi - \varphi_c) / \varphi_c = \pm 10^{-x}$.

2321: The full circles and squares mark the characteristic

2322: times $t_{\sigma}$ and $t'_{\sigma}$, respectively, according to

2323: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:t-sigma}) 

2324: for $x = 1$, 2, 3 and 4.

2325: The unit of time is chosen here and in the

2326: following figures such that the thermal velocity of the solvent

2327: reads $v = 1$.} 

2328: \label{fig:NN-ZZ-t}

2329: \end{figure}

2330: 

2331: 

2332: \newpage\noindent

2333: 

2334: 

2335: \begin{figure}

2336: \centerline{\scalebox{0.80}{\includegraphics{figure6.ps}}}

2337: \caption{Reorientational correlators $C_\ell(t)$ for $\ell = 1$

2338: (dashed lines) and $\ell = 2$ (full lines) 

2339: for two elongations $\zeta$. The correlators for the

2340: critical packing fraction $\varphi = \varphi_c$ are shown as

2341: dotted lines marked with $c_\ell$. The distance parameters

2342: $\epsilon = (\varphi - \varphi_c) / \varphi_c$ are -0.01 (faster

2343: decay) and -0.001 (slower decay). 

2344: The full circles and squares mark the

2345: corresponding time scales $t_\sigma$ and $t_\sigma^\prime$,

2346: respectively, from Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:t-sigma}). 

2347: The open circles and squares on the curves mark the characteristic

2348: time scales $\tau_{\beta}^{\ell}$ and $\tau_{\alpha}^{\ell}$,

2349: respectively, 

2350: defined by $C_{\ell}(\tau_{\beta}^{\ell}) = f_{\ell}^{c}$ and

2351: $C_\ell (\tau_\alpha^\ell) = f_\ell^c / 2$. }

2352: \label{fig:C1-C2}

2353: \end{figure}

2354: 

2355: 

2356: \newpage\noindent

2357: 

2358: 

2359: \begin{figure}

2360: \centerline{\scalebox{0.80}{\includegraphics{figure7.ps}}}

2361: \caption{Susceptibility master spectra 

2362: $\tilde{\chi}^{\prime \prime} (\tilde{\omega})$ of

2363: the $\alpha$-process as function of the logarithm of the rescaled

2364: frequency $\tilde \omega = \omega t_\sigma^\prime$ (see text). 

2365: Upper panel: 

2366: the curves $\ell = 1$ and 2 refer to the response for the dipole

2367: and quadrupole, respectively, for elongation $\zeta = 0.80$. The

2368: curve $\ell = 0$ refers to the susceptibility master spectrum of 

2369: the dimensionless longitudinal elastic modulus $m_{q=0} (t)$ of the HSS.

2370: The dashed lines exhibit the von Schweidler tails, Eq.~(\ref{eq:von-b}). 

2371: The dotted lines are fits by Kohlrausch spectra 

2372: $\tilde \chi_K^{\prime \prime}(\tilde{\omega})$ 

2373: with stretching exponents $\beta = 0.97$, 0.88 and 0.63

2374: chosen for $\ell = 1, 2$ and 0, respectively, so that 

2375: the maximum and the full width

2376: at the half maximum $W$ in decades of 

2377: $\tilde \chi_K^{\prime \prime}(\tilde{\omega})$ agree

2378: with those of $\tilde \chi^{\prime \prime}(\tilde{\omega})$. 

2379: The position of the susceptibility maximum is $\tilde \omega_{\max} = 0.337$ (0.927,

2380: 2.69) and the width is $W = 1.17$ (1.28, 1.76) for $\ell = 1$ (2, 0).

2381: Lower panel: corresponding results for $\zeta = 0.43$.

2382: The stretching exponent $\beta$, the maximum position

2383: $\tilde \omega_{\max}$ and the width $W$ for $\ell=1$ ($\ell=2$) are

2384: $\beta = 0.79$ (0.71), 

2385: $\tilde \omega_{\max} = 17.5$ (2.11)

2386: and

2387: $W = 1.42$ (1.57), respectively.}

2388: \label{fig:alpha-spectra}

2389: \end{figure}

2390: 

2391: 

2392: \newpage\noindent

2393: 

2394: 

2395: \begin{figure}

2396: \centerline{\scalebox{0.70}{\includegraphics{figure8.ps}}}

2397: \caption{Double logarithmic presentation of the normalized

2398: fluctuation spectra of

2399: the dipole-reorientation $\alpha$-processes, 

2400: $\tilde{\chi}^{\prime \prime}_{1} (\tilde{\omega})

2401: \tilde{\omega}_{\max} / f_{1}^{c} \tilde{\omega}$, as function of 

2402: $\tilde{\omega} / \tilde{\omega}_{\max}$.

2403: Here $\tilde{\omega}_{\max}$ denotes the position of the susceptibility

2404: maximum. Following Dixon {\it et al.} \protect\cite{Dixon90} the vertical axis

2405: is rescaled by $w^{-1}$ and the horizontal one by $w^{-1} (1 +

2406: w^{-1})$, where $w = W / W_D$ is the ratio of the logarithmic full width

2407: at half maximum $W$ of the susceptibility peak to the same quantity $W_D$ of

2408: a Debye-peak. The open circles reproduce some of the dielectric-loss

2409: results for glycerol \protect\cite{Dixon90}. 

2410: The three full lines from the top

2411: are the results for $\zeta = 0.80$, 0.60 and 0.43,

2412: successively,

2413: although the upper two curves cannot be distinguished within the 

2414: resolution of the figure.

2415: The dotted and the dashed lines exhibit 

2416: the Kohlrausch fit with the stretching exponent

2417: $\beta = 0.97$ and the von-Schweidler-law tail, respectively,

2418: for the $\zeta = 0.80$--spectrum.}

2419: \label{fig:Nagel-plot}

2420: \end{figure}

2421: 

2422: 

2423: \newpage\noindent

2424: 

2425: 

2426: \begin{figure}

2427: \centerline{\scalebox{0.80}{\includegraphics{figure9.ps}}}

2428: \caption{Dipole correlators $C_1$(t) for the distance parameter

2429: $\epsilon = - 10^{-4}$ for three elongations $\zeta$. The full circle

2430: and square indicate the times $t_\sigma$ and $t_\sigma^\prime$,

2431: respectively, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:t-sigma}).

2432: The dashed lines are calculated from 

2433: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-C1}) and (\ref{eq:MCT-MSD-C1}). 

2434: The plateaus $f_1^c = 0.905$ (0.769, 0.376) for

2435: $\zeta = 0.80$ (0.60, 0.43) are shown by dashed horizontal lines. The

2436: full lines exhibit $C_1(t)$ for the same states, but evaluated from

2437: equations derived in analogy to 

2438: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:GLE-C2})--(\ref{eq:m2-final}),

2439: and their plateaus 

2440: $f_1^c = 0.907$ (0.782, 0.402) are indicated by full horizontal lines. }

2441: \label{fig:compare-C1}

2442: \end{figure}

2443: 

2444: 

2445: \newpage\noindent

2446: 

2447: 

2448: \begin{figure}

2449: \centerline{\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{figure10.ps}}}

2450: \caption{Dipole correlators $C_1 (t)$ for a dumbbell of two fused

2451: hard spheres of diameters $d$ and distance $\zeta d$ between the

2452: centers moving in a liquid of hard spheres with diameter $d$

2453: for a distance parameter

2454: $(\varphi-\varphi_{c})/\varphi_{c} = - 10^{-x}$.

2455: The dashed lines reproduce the results from Fig.~\ref{fig:C1-C2} and 

2456: refer to a symmetric molecule with masses of the two atoms being 

2457: equal to the mass $m$ of the solvent particles $m_A = m_B = m$. 

2458: The full lines

2459: exhibit the results for an asymmetric dumbbell with 

2460: $m_A = 10 m$, $m_B = m$. 

2461: In the main frame the results for different states

2462: are successively shifted horizontally by 2 decades in order

2463: to avoid overcrowding.

2464: The inset shows the transient dynamics 

2465: on a linear time axis. }

2466: \label{fig:C1-inertia}

2467: \end{figure}

2468: 

2469: \end{document}

2470: