1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: %%\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}

3: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage{epsfig,bm, graphicx, latexsym}

5: \usepackage{amsmath,epsf,psfig}

6: 

7: \begin{document}

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

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

10: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

11: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

12: 

13: \title{Theory of Aging in Structural Glasses}

14: 

15: \author{Vassiliy Lubchenko} \altaffiliation[Current Address:

16: ]{Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

17: Cambridge, MA 02139.}  \author{Peter G. Wolynes}

18: 

19: \affiliation{Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Department

20: of Physics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La

21: Jolla, CA 92093-0371}

22: 

23: \date{\today}

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: 

27: The random first order transition theory of the dynamics of

28: supercooled liquids is extended to treat aging phenomena in

29: nonequilibrium structural glasses. A reformulation of the idea of

30: ``entropic droplets'' in terms of libraries of local energy landscapes

31: is introduced which treats in a uniform way the supercooled liquid

32: (reproducing earlier results) and glassy regimes. The resulting

33: microscopic theory of aging makes contact with the

34: Nayaranaswamy-Moynihan-Tool nonlinear relaxation formalism and the

35: Hodge-Scherer extrapolation of the Adam-Gibbs formula, but deviations

36: from both approaches are predicted and shown to be consistent with

37: experiment. The nonlinearity of glassy relaxation is shown to

38: quantitatively correlate with liquid fragility. The residual

39: nonArrhenius temperature dependence of relaxation observed in quenched

40: glasses is explained. The broadening of relaxation spectra in the

41: nonequilibrium glass with decreasing temperature is quantitatively

42: predicted.  The theory leads to the prediction of spatially

43: fluctuating fictive temperatures in the long-aged glassy state, which

44: have non-Gaussian statistics. This can give rise to ``ultra-slow''

45: relaxations in systems after deep quenches.

46: 

47: \end{abstract}

48: 

49: \maketitle

50: 

51: \section{Introduction}

52: 

53: The energy landscape metaphor has turned theorists towards viewing the

54: global geometry of the phase space of complex systems. When these

55: systems are mesoscopic in size, for example, small proteins

56: \cite{OLSW} or gas phase clusters \cite{Wales}, a more or less

57: complete mathematical formulation of the idea, capable of treating

58: kinetics and thermodynamics, can be made using statistical tools to

59: characterize minima and saddle points of the entire system. Yet for

60: macroscopic systems, most transitions rearrange particles only

61: locally.  This essential aspect of the dynamics is brought home

62: forcefully by noting that a liter of liquid water will move from one

63: energy minimum to another in $10^{-39}$ sec. Such a short time scale

64: cannot be directly relevant to any laboratory measurement on this

65: system!  The necessity for using a local description is clearly

66: recognized in the modern theory of supercooled liquids and glasses

67: which is based on the statistical mechanics of random first order

68: transitions \cite{KW_PRA}-\cite{LW_soft}. In the deeply supercooled

69: liquid regime this theory explains not only the phenomenological

70: features of the dynamics \cite{KTW} but quantitatively predicts, on a

71: microscopic basis, the size of cooperative lengths, the precise

72: non-Arrhenius behavior of typical relaxation times \cite{XW,LW_soft}

73: and the non-exponentiality of relaxation \cite{XWbeta}. A quantized

74: version of the theory explains the low temperature thermodynamics of

75: amorphous substances, usually interpreted in terms of two level

76: systems \cite{LW} and the more energetic Boson peak excitations

77: \cite{LW_BP}. The crucial manifestation of the locality concept in

78: this theory (which has many mean field, global, aspects) is the notion

79: that ``entropic droplets'' drive the large-scale activated notions in

80: glass forming liquids \cite{KW_PRB,KTW,XW} and give both liquids and

81: glasses an intrinsic ``dynamical mosaic'' structure.

82: 

83: The main purpose of this paper is to describe the predictions of the

84: RFOT theory for the behavior of glasses that have fallen out of

85: equilibrium because of being rapidly cooled from the melt. Dynamics

86: does not cease in rapidly quenched liquids that become glasses; rather

87: motions persist but are frustratingly slow and hard to study

88: experimentally. This slow, far-from-equilibrium dynamics, called

89: ``aging'', is not only of fundamental interest for statistical

90: mechanics \cite{Bouchaud} but also is of great practical interest

91: since so many amorphous materials are used in everyday life for times

92: exceeding their preparation time \cite{Struik}. Sometimes even small

93: changes of properties upon aging are crucial to engineering

94: performance.

95: 

96: 

97: Like the quantum theory of the low temperature properties of glasses,

98: the description of the nonequilibrium aging regime requires the

99: explicit construction and study of the energy landscape of local

100: regions of the glass. This local energy landscape description turns

101: out to be a microcanonical ensemble reformulation of the entropic

102: droplet concept that was formulated originally in the canonical

103: ensemble. We have found this microcanonical description to be more

104: vivid and somewhat easier to communicate than the original canonical

105: formulation. After introducing this formulation we will show that it

106: indeed reproduces the results for the dynamics of equilibrated

107: supercooled liquids already obtained using the random first order

108: transition theory. More important, this local energy landscape theory

109: makes several very striking predictions about the aging regime and how

110: the aging dynamics in the nonequilibrium glass is related to the

111: kinetics and thermodynamics of the equilibrated liquid. The

112: predictions are consonant with all experiments known to us and make

113: contact with, but are formally distinct from, the phenomenological

114: approaches commonly used to describe aging in structural glasses

115: \cite{Tool,Narayanaswamy,Moynihan,Scherer,Hodge}. The present theory,

116: for example, makes a specific prediction of the so-called nonlinearity

117: parameter, $x_{NMT}$, in the Narayanaswamy-Moynihan-Tool, formalism

118: \cite{Tool,Narayanaswamy,Moynihan}. In addition, the degree of

119: nonexponentiality of relaxation characterized by a $\beta$ exponent is

120: predicted. $\beta$ turns out to be neither precisely fixed at $T_g$

121: nor does it precisely scale like the $\beta$ for an equilibrated

122: liquid with $T$, another assumption often made. The predicted

123: variation of $\beta$ with quench temperature is however modest until

124: very low temperatures are reached. Likewise the Adam-Gibbs expression

125: \cite{AdamGibbs} has been extended phenomenologically notably by Hodge

126: and Scherer into the aging regime below $T_g$ by assuming the

127: configurational entropy to be frozen at $T_g$. While above $T_g$, an

128: Adam-Gibbs like form of the temperature dependence of relaxation time

129: is found from the present theory, below $T_g$, the local energy

130: landscape approach gives a different expression for the relaxation

131: rate in an aging glass. Quantitatively this expression gives

132: relaxation rates close to the Hodge-Scherer-Adam-Gibbs (HSAG) latter

133: extrapolation but the local energy landscape theory predicts a

134: deviation from that formula. This deviation would be interpreted

135: within the HSAG framework as a quench temperature dependence of the

136: apparent configurational entropy. Such a deviation has been found by

137: Alegria et al. in their careful work on aging of polymers

138: \cite{Alegria}.

139: 

140: 

141: Our most explicit results are obtained for the idealized situation of

142: the aging initially found after a cooling history with a single rapid

143: quench of modest depth. We will also qualitatively discuss

144: modifications of the simple theory expected for very deep quenches.

145: We also discuss the behavior of systems that have significantly

146: relaxed in the quenched state. While, our analysis suggests that, to a

147: first approximation, introducing a single fictive temperature should

148: serve well to describe many quench histories, the local energy

149: landscape theory shows that using a single fictive temperature is not

150: exact. We suggest possible modifications of the usual aging kinematics

151: based on the present theory.

152: 

153: 

154: The organization of the paper is as follows: we first describe how the

155: local energy landscape view of entropic droplets can be visualized and

156: show how a library of local energy landscapes can be constructed. We

157: next show how to derive in this framework the (previously obtained)

158: Vogel-Fulcher behavior above $T_g$. We then present the results for

159: typical relaxation rate for rapidly quenched, aging glasses and

160: compare these predictions with experimental results. We then discuss

161: the predictions for the stretching exponent both above and below

162: $T_g$. Following this, the generalizations needed for very deeply

163: quenched glasses and glasses that have undergone significant

164: relaxation in the aging state are discussed. Finally we summarize our

165: theory and suggest some further experimental tests of it.

166: 

167: 

168: \section{The Local Energy Landscape Construction}

169: 

170: The energy landscape language is usually applied to a small system

171: (protein or cluster). It is also used for a thermodynamically large

172: system described by mean field theory \cite{MPV,Coluzzi}. In the first

173: situation, the barriers between states are, of course, finite because

174: the system is finite, but barriers may be formally infinite for the

175: mean field system. The ``states'' for a cluster or a protein are often

176: taken to be the basins surrounding minima of the potential energy

177: \cite{inherent}. These are well defined and no transitions can occur,

178: classically, between them at absolute zero. The ``states'' of a mean

179: field system are tied to minima of free energy and again, owing to the

180: $O(N)$ barriers, no transition can occur between them (even at finite

181: $T$).

182: 

183: 

184: In a supercooled liquid the observed plateau in the time dependent

185: neutron scattering correlation function \cite{Mezei} shows that most

186: molecules spend a great deal of time vibrating about a given

187: location. At least deep in the supercooled regime (where the plateau

188: is well developed) we can, therefore, conceptually imagine

189: constructing an average location for any particle about which it

190: vibrates (for times less than the plateau). The three dimensional

191: structure based on these average locations will be quite close to a

192: potential energy minimum found by removing kinetic energy from the

193: system with infinite speed (``steepest descent'' to an ``inherent

194: structure''). A mean field theory of the glass transition can be

195: obtained by constructing a free energy functional dependent on the

196: (plateau time averaged) density and then noting that this functional

197: has minima for density patterns localized around such inherent

198: structures \cite{SW,SSW,DasguptaValls}. In this way a vibrational

199: component of the free energy can be defined and can be added to the

200: average energy of such a state to give a free energy which determines

201: the thermal probability of being in this state through the Boltzmann

202: law.

203: 

204: 

205: Free energy functionals only have such aperiodic minima below a

206: temperature $T_A$. This temperature has been shown (within a simple

207: approximation) to be equivalent to the mode coupling dynamical

208: transition temperature \cite{KW_PRA}. The transition has the character

209: of a spinodal for a first order phase transition \cite{KW_PRB}. Above

210: $T_A$ even simple vibrational motions will take the system from one

211: minimum to another, but below $T_A$, the plateau in the time dependent

212: structure factor indicates the persistence of such states and

213: therefore their relevance to dynamics. In fact, as a first

214: approximation, the persistence of these states allows them to act as a

215: ``basis set'' for describing supercooled liquid dynamics. Thus we say

216: a free energy landscape emerges at $T_A$. $T_A$ has been evaluated

217: both for simple liquids \cite{SW,SSW} and for models of network

218: forming liquids with repulsive force \cite{HW} from first principles.

219: The physical meaning of the temperature $T_A$ is simple. When

220: supecooled below its melting temperature $T_m$, the liquid is, of

221: course, in a metastable state as a whole, and therefore must be

222: metastable {\em locally}. $T_A$ can be conveniently interpreted, for

223: example, as a temperature below which every two molecules will spend a

224: particular number (say, 300) of vibrational periods together between

225: the first encounter and the final departure.

226: 

227: As part of our programme to describe the microscopics of liquid

228: relaxations, we will show that transitions between the metastable

229: configurations of the liquid {\em as a whole} consists of transitions

230: between {\em local} metastable configurations. We will employ a

231: microcanonical procedure in which only local regions are considered

232: and will find that beyond a certain (relatively small) size $N^*$, the

233: thermal and relaxational properties of the liquid do not depend on the

234: size of the sample. Alternatively said, all liquid properties of

235: interest can be deduced by focusing on a liquid region of size $N^*$

236: and completely disregarding what the rest of the liquid is doing.

237: This is the essence of the {\em locality} of the liquid free energy

238: landscape. The microcanonical procedure is a necessary step in

239: establishing such locality; it is however rarely used, so let us first

240: train our intuition on the very familiar example of a harmonic

241: lattice. Imagine being inside an extremely large, cubic, and purely

242: harmonic lattice and being given the ability to do arbitrary

243: thermodynamic measurement locally.  You are further assigned to

244: explain, within a formal model, those thermal measurements, but are

245: allowed to visually inspect and mechanically test the {\em bonds} with

246: an arbitrarily large, but {\em finite} region, limited by how fast you

247: can perform the inspection. Upon checking that all individual bonds

248: are truly harmonic and the lattice is cubic within a certain region

249: (of size $L$), you write down a simple hamiltonian but are left with

250: the issue of the conditions at the boundary - strictly speaking, the

251: assignement is undoable!  Being an optimist, you say: let me {\em

252: assume} for today that the rest of the sample is totally rigid (fixed

253: boundary conditions) or does not exist at all (open bondary condition)

254: and diagonalize the resulting Hamiltonian; tomorrow I can expand my

255: horizon, repeat the procedure and see what happens. The first day

256: proves frustrating though, because the Hamiltonian has an energy gap

257: (proportional to $\pi/L$), while the thermal measurements clearly show

258: very low frequency excitations are present. Fortunately, since

259: (unbeknownst to you) the lattice was harmonic and periodic, your

260: consecutive inspections and diagonalizations will yield a smaller and

261: a smaller gap. Clearly, the landscape of a regular harmonic lattice is

262: non-local and the microcanonical procedure offers a definitive test of

263: non-locality. Consider yet another elementary notion: Suppose you have

264: a product of two Hilbert spaces $A \otimes B$ (possibly interacting

265: via $V_{A,B}$) with an energy $\epsilon_{i_A,j_B}$ assigned to

266: configurations $i_A$ and $j_B$ of the subspaces $A$ and $B$. Consider

267: the partition function $\sum_{i_A,j_B} e^{-\beta \epsilon_{i_A,j_B}} =

268: \sum_{i_A} e^{-\phi_{i_A}}$, where $e^{-\beta \phi_{i_A}} \equiv

269: \sum_{j_B} e^{-\beta \epsilon_{i_A,j_B}}$. If $A$ and $B$ are

270: independent: $V_{A,B}= 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon_{i_A,j_B} =

271: \epsilon_{i_A} + \epsilon_{j_B}$, - one may further simplify

272: $\phi_{i_A} = \epsilon_{i_A,j_B} - T S_B$. In either case,

273: $\phi_{i_A}$'s are {\em free} energies of the degree of freedom $B$,

274: but can still be (with advantage) regarded as an energy, as far as the

275: $A$ degree of freedom is concerned. For example, one is allowed to

276: build a {\em microcanonical} construction using $\phi_{i_A}$'s as the

277: label.  In the following, we will use a $\phi_{i_A}$-like quantity to

278: describe {\em all} the degree of freedom in the supercooled (or

279: quenched) liquid in excess of the lowest energy crystalline structure

280: corresponding to this substance (at this temperature). (For a polymer

281: that does not form a crystal our results will still apply

282: qualitatively.) While the ``integrated out'' degrees of freedom $B$

283: are clearly related to the vibrations of the corresponding crystal

284: structure, they are easy to conceptualize only in the mean field

285: limit, where they are indeed harmonic vibrations (see

286: shortly). Otherwise, the ``$B$'' motions are strongly anharmonic.

287: 

288: We are now ready construct a library of free energy minima for a very

289: large sample of a liquid (or glass). This spectrum is shown

290: schematically in the first column of Figure \ref{library} as a

291: function of the free energy of a state $i$, $\phi_i^{lib}$ which we

292: take as the sum of an energy $\epsilon_i$ and an entropic contribution

293: from vibrations within the basin $- T s_{vib,i}$.

294: \begin{figure}[tb]

295:  \includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{library.eps}

296:  \caption{\label{library} In the upper panel on the left a global

297: configuration is shown, chosen out of a global energy landscape. A

298: region of $N=5$ particles in this configuration is rearranged in the

299: center illustration. The original particle positions are indicated

300: with dashed lines. A larger rearranged region involving $N=7$

301: particles is connected dynamically to these states and is shown on the

302: right. In the lower panel, the left most figure shows the huge density

303: of states that is possible initially. The density of states found in

304: the local library originating from a given initial state with 5

305: particles being allowed to move locally is shown in the second

306: diagram. These energies are generally higher than the original state

307: owing to the mismatch at the borders. The larger density of states

308: where 7 particles are allowed to move is shown in the right most part

309: of this panel. As the library grows in size, the states as a whole are

310: still found at higher energies but the width of the distribution

311: grows.  Eventually with growing $N$, a state within thermal reach of

312: the initial state will be found.  At this value of $N^*$ we expect a

313: region to be able to equilibrate.}

314: \end{figure}

315: 

316: 

317: Because the system is very large this global library of states has an

318: exceedingly dense spectrum, whose density dramatically increases with

319: free energy. Let us imagine the system is presently in one of these

320: basins with (free) energy $\phi_i^{lib}$. We can now construct a set

321: of {\em local} libraries of states. To do this, imagine mentally

322: cutting out a region around a location ${\bf R}$ containing $N$

323: particles, where $N$ is much less than the total number of particles

324: in the sample. Call this region $D({\bf R}, N)$. Next, freeze the

325: molecules outside this region but allow molecules within $D$ to

326: move. (Unlike in the cubic crystal analogy, a supecooled structure has

327: built-in stress, so using open boundary condition is not useful.)

328: With the frozen environment one could (by quenching the potential

329: energy or a free energy functional) find a new set of inherent

330: structures that involve only reconfiguring the particles in

331: $D$. Actually such a set of structures (apart from strains near the

332: surface of $D$) will locally resemble a subset of the original global

333: library. If $N$ is small, however, we expect the subset of the states

334: so sampled to be selected on average from a higher energy part of the

335: global spectrum than where the original $\phi_i^{lib}$ was

336: found. Essentially this is because the density of states rapidly

337: increases with $\phi$ and there is less freedom to readjust particles

338: in the constrained minimization problem because of the fixed

339: environment. In absolute terms, we expect the discrepancy in energy of

340: the mean energy of the states in any local library from the starting

341: state to increase with $N$ since it is the particles at the borders

342: that must be most strained.

343: 

344: When $N$ is small the local library is sparse but it grows denser and

345: spreads out over a larger range of free energy as the size of the

346: region increases. The set of such libraries centered around ${\bf R}$

347: is shown also in Figure \ref{library} for $N=1$ up to a large value of

348: $N$. The number of states in the library at free energy $\phi_i$

349: determines the configurational entropy $\Omega_c(\phi_i^{lib}) =

350: e^{S_c(\phi_i^{lib})/k_B}$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The

351: competition between the average energy growth and the spreading of the

352: range of energies with size of the region means that there is a

353: characteristic size $N^*$ where a state will finally be found within

354: thermal energy of the starting state. $N^*$ turns out to be the size

355: of a dynamically correlated region in the liquid or glass. Since the

356: new configuration is within $k_B T$ of the starting state, a

357: transition of such a region from its original configuration to the new

358: state can occur with reasonable probability. The region after

359: reconfiguration will be characterized by a temperature $T$. Elementary

360: transitions in the liquid must leave most of the molecules near their

361: old locations - this is the dynamical essence of locality. Therefore

362: the local landscape libraries are locally connected to each other: in

363: order to re-arrange a large region, smaller regions located in the

364: same place must first be rearranged. The specific law connecting

365: states in neighboring libraries must obey detailed balance (at the

366: vibrational temperature $T$) but otherwise will depend specifically on

367: molecular details for each system. The additional activation energy,

368: for a downhill move in such a library should only be a few times the

369: energy needed to heat a particle to $T_A$, the dynamical transition

370: temperature.

371: 

372: 

373: Irrespective of the detailed motions allowed, the locality of the

374: dynamics, however, guarantees that the transitions from the initial

375: state to one of the thermally allowed states in the library for

376: $D({\bf R}, N^*)$ will nevertheless be slow: owing to the initial rise

377: of the average energy there will be a bottleneck in the probability

378: flux at an intermediate value of $N$, namely $N^\ddagger$. The

379: activation free energy for reaching this bottleneck state determines

380: the escape rate from the initial configuration by motions in the

381: vicinity of ${\bf R}$.

382: 

383: 

384: While the local libraries can be constructed explicitly given

385: sufficient computational resources, the RFOT theory suggests a useful

386: set of approximations to the statistics of these libraries when $N^*$

387: and $N^\ddagger$ are moderately large. We now describe these

388: approximations: We ascribe to each state $j$ of the library for a

389: region $D({\bf R}, N)$ a so-called bulk free energy

390: $\Phi_j^{bulk}({\bf R}, N)$. Naively this would be the sum of the

391: vibrational entropies and internal energies of each molecule in $D$

392: and the pair interactions between the molecules within $D$. (Rigor

393: here would require ensuring the appropriate finite ranges of

394: interactions and some precisely specified ways of partitioning

395: vibrational entropies: entanglement entropies of the interface are too

396: subtle for consideration at present). Note that in a system with a

397: globally correlated landscape, such as the harmonic lattice considered

398: earlier, a description in terms of local libraries will not provide

399: the full list of configurations available to the system as a whole.

400: 

401: 

402: In a similar way we would define a bulk free energy of the initial

403: state relevant to this region $\Phi_{in}^{bulk}({\bf R}, N)$. The

404: actual energy of the complete sample when the state $j$ is inserted in

405: region $D({\bf R}, N)$ will not just reflect the difference in the

406: bulk energies corresponding to the state $j$ and the initial state;

407: instead, it will be higher by an amount $\Gamma_{j,in}$:

408: \begin{equation} 

409: \phi_j^{lib} - \phi_{in}^{lib} = \Phi_j^{bulk}({\bf R}, N) -

410: \Phi_{in}^{bulk}({\bf R}, N) + \Gamma_{j,in}.

411: \label{phi_j}

412: \end{equation}

413: 

414: As mentioned earlier, the new local structure labelled by

415: $\phi_j^{lib}$, is likely to be higher in energy than the initial

416: configuration. Our construction thus suggests $\Gamma_{j,in}$ will

417: usually be positive and will at most scale with the interface area. We

418: will write $\Gamma_{j,in}=\gamma_{j,in} N^x$. As we shall see later

419: the estimate for the exponent $x=2/3$ in 3 dimensions, based solely on

420: the interface area, is probably naive near $T_g$.

421: 

422: 

423: We now wish to calculate the equilibration rate of the region $D({\bf

424: R}, N^*)$. If the environment remains frozen, this rate is the escape

425: rate from $N=0$ to $N=N^*$. The probability flux to increase $N$ falls

426: until the bottleneck value $N^\ddagger$ is reached. After

427: $N^\ddagger$, even though the average energy of states in the

428: libraries increases, the growth of the number of states with

429: increasing library size is sufficient so that a rapid path to a

430: thermally equilibrated state at size $N^*$ can be found. Let the

431: typical downhill microscopic rearrangment have a rate

432: $\tau^{-1}_{micro}$. This rate will only be weakly activated. The flux

433: to any state at a size $N$ smaller than $N^*$ will be

434: %\begin{widetext}

435: \begin{eqnarray} 

436: k & = & \tau^{-1}_{micro} \int (d \phi_j^{lib}/c_\phi)

437: e^{S_c(\Phi_j^{bulk})/k_B} e^{-(\phi_j^{lib}-\phi_{in}^{lib})/k_B T}

438: \nonumber \\ & \simeq & \tau^{-1}_{micro}

439: e^{S_c(\Phi^{bulk}_{eq})/k_B} e^{-(\phi_{eq}-\phi_{in}^{lib})/k_B T},

440: \label{k}

441: \end{eqnarray}

442: %\end{widetext}

443: where $\phi_{eq}$ maximizes the integrand and $c_\phi$ is some

444: constant of units energy. The quantities $\phi_j^{lib}$ and

445: $\Phi_j^{bulk}$ are related through Eq.(\ref{phi_j}). This

446: maximization means $\phi_{eq}$ will be the internal free energy

447: characteristic of the system at the ambient (i.e. vibrational)

448: temperature $T$. That is, $\phi_{eq}$ is the sum of the energetic and

449: vibrational entropic contributions appropriate to equilibrium at

450: $T$. In essence, the equation above is nothing more than the rate of

451: escape through a transition state with non-zero entropy, hence a

452: structure resembling the canonical ensemble. Aside from a numerical

453: factor, the integration in Eq.(\ref{k}) is indeed a canonical

454: summation in terms of $\phi_j$, which should be regarded as the

455: non-meanfield analog of the free energy of the so called ``pure''

456: state.  The concept of the pure state is well developed in the context

457: of frustrated mean-field spin systems \cite{MPV}. In the mean-field

458: limit, the pure states are separated by infinite barriers and thus the

459: vibrations around the metastable free energy minima are purely

460: harmonic.  The quantity $\phi_j^{lib}$ is non-meanfield because it can

461: be defined only locally (after paying the ``price'' of the surface

462: energy $\Gamma_{j,in}$).  It is the degrees of freedom due to

463: transitions between those (non-meanfield) ``pure'' states of the

464: liquid that give rise to the (measurable) configurational

465: entropy. Note also that owing to the intense and strongly anharmonic

466: motions in the liquid (at this finite $T$), a local liquid state

467: labelled by a particular value of $\phi$ is not a single inherent

468: structure \cite{inherent}, but rather is a weighted superposition of

469: many inherent structures, with more or less harmonic vibrations on

470: top.

471: 

472: Note, $\phi_{eq}$ is a function of $T$ and $N$. Since

473: $\Phi^{bulk}_{eq}$ is the equilibrium bulk free energy at temperature

474: $T$, one may replace $S_c(\Phi^{bulk}_{eq})$ by its equilibrium value

475: at that temperature $S_c(N,T)$. Thus we get for the escape rate to $N$

476: the result

477: \begin{equation}

478: k(N) = \tau^{-1}_{micro} \exp\left\{S_c(N,T) -

479: \frac{\phi_{eq}-\phi_{in}^{lib}}{k_B T} \right\}.

480: \end{equation}

481: The location of the bottleneck is determined by the minimum of this

482: expression over $N$.  We can thus define an activation free energy

483: \begin{equation}

484: F^\ddagger(N) = \phi_{eq} - \phi_{in}^{lib} - T S_c(N,T),

485: \label{F_phi}

486: \end{equation}

487: whose maximum defines the bottleneck location. Notice this activation

488: barrier depends on the total free energy of having any target state at

489: size $N$ and the initial nonequilibrated particular state free energy

490: $\phi_{in}^{lib}$ in which we only include a vibrational contribution

491: and no configurational entropy. This function is shown in

492: Fig.\ref{profiles}.

493: \begin{figure}[tb]

494: \includegraphics[width=.55\columnwidth]{profiles.eps}

495: \caption{\label{profiles} The free energy to reconfigure the initial

496: configuration is shown as a function of the size of the locally

497: rearranged region. There will be fluctuations in the shape owing to

498: the detailed packing found in the initial configuration but on the

499: average the profile is given by equation (\ref{F(N)fluc}) in the

500: text. The dashed curve shows the profile for an initial state which is

501: much higher than the equilibrium energy at $T$, while the solid curve

502: is the free energy profile for an initially equilibrated state.  }

503: \end{figure}

504: Introducing Eq.(\ref{phi_j}) into Eq.(\ref{F_phi})

505: yields:

506: \begin{equation}

507: F^\ddagger(N) = F_{eq}^{bulk}(N,T) -\Phi_{in}^{bulk}(N,T) + \gamma

508: N^x,

509: \label{F(N)fluc}

510: \end{equation}

511: where $F_{eq}^{bulk}(N,T) = \Phi^{bulk}_{eq} - TS_c(N,T)$ is the

512: total equilibrium free energy that includes both the configurational

513: entropy of the region of size $N$ and the internal bulk free energy

514: with its vibrational contribution.  In this expression we have

515: substituted the average mismatch energy coefficient $\gamma$, for the

516: state specific values.  For dynamically connected states

517: $F_{eq}^{bulk}(N,T)$, $\Phi_{in}^{bulk}(N,T)$, and $S_c(N,T)$ grow

518: linearly with $N$.  There will also be $\delta F$, an additional

519: fluctuation that typically scales as $N^{1/2}$. Thus we write

520: \begin{equation} 

521: F^\ddagger(N) = [f_{eq}(T) - \phi_{in}(T)] N + \gamma N^x + \delta F,

522: %\label{F(N)fluc}

523: \end{equation}

524: where $f_{eq}(T) = F_{eq}^{bulk}(N,T)/N$ is the total bulk free energy

525: per particle of the final state at temperature $T$ and $\phi_{in}(T)=

526: \Phi_{in}^{bulk}(N,T)/N$ is the internal free energy per particle of

527: the initial state. In the following, we will omit the fluctuation term

528: $\delta F$, whenever computing the most probable barrier, but will

529: consider it explicitly when estimating the degree of

530: non-exponentiality of the relaxation, which is directly related to the

531: barrier fluctuations. Note, the expression above is simply what would

532: be prescribed by a regular nucleation theory for the free energy

533: barrier of conversion from a (usually non-equilibrium) initial state

534: to the other (usually equilibrium) state. Clearly, when the initial

535: state is at equilibrium: $\Phi^{bulk}_{in} = \Phi^{bulk}$, - the

536: ``free energy'' driving force $f_{eq}(T) - \phi_{in}(T)$ is equal to

537: $-T s_c$, i.e. there is still relaxation in the supercooled liquid, as

538: driven by conversion between alternative (local) aperiodic packings of

539: the liquid. In general, the maximum of the typical $F^\ddagger$ occurs

540: at $N^\ddagger$ such that $\partial F^\ddagger/\partial

541: N|_{N=N^\ddagger}$ vanishes giving

542: \begin{equation} 

543: N^\ddagger =

544: \left(\frac{\phi_{in}-f_{eq}}{x\gamma}\right)^{\frac{1}{x-1}}

545: \label{N(x)}

546: \end{equation}

547: and a typical (most probable) rate

548: \begin{equation} 

549: k = \tau_{micro}^{-1}

550: \exp\left\{-\frac{\gamma}{T}\left(\frac{\phi_{in}-f_{eq}}{x\gamma}

551: \right)^{\frac{x}{x-1}} (1-x) \right\}.

552: \label{k(x)}

553: \end{equation}

554: 

555: We finish this Section by elaborating on why the relaxations occuring

556: with the rate from Eq.(\ref{k(x)}) can occur with a zero free energy

557: gap thus leading to a local free energy landscape. Consider first a

558: supercooled liquid at equilibrium (i.e. not quenched):

559: $f_{eq}-\phi_{in} = -Ts_c$. Clearly the size $N^*$ at which

560: $F^\ddagger (N^*)=0$ corresponds to the same liquid state, therefore a

561: region of size $N^*$ can survey {\em all} liquid configurations

562: typical of this temperature. An isoenergetic state exists because the

563: system resides in a metastable state much higher than the lowest

564: energy crystalline arrangement, as reflected in non-zero

565: configurational entropy $s_c$, and the very high density of states

566: $e^{S_c(\phi)}$. (Note, this notion underlies the existence of

567: residual structural degrees of freedom in glasses even at cryogenic

568: temperatures \cite{LW}.) If the liquid is quenched and aging, the

569: driving force $f_{eq}-\phi_{in}$ is still negative (it will be

570: computed shortly), so both quantities $N^\ddagger$ and $N^*$ exist and

571: are comparable to their equilibrium values, although $N^*$ no longer

572: signifies straightforwardly the degree of the landscape locality

573: (consistent with the system being out of equilibrium in the first

574: place). Regardless, relaxations are local during aging too.

575: 

576: \section{Relaxation in the Equilibrated Supercooled Liquid}

577: 

578: Examining the expressions for the relaxation rate for an equilibrium

579: sample makes explicit the connection to the earlier form of the

580: entropic droplet idea. In the equilibrated sample case, the internal

581: vibrational free energies of the initial and final states are the same

582: so the driving force to distinct equilibrated configurations comes

583: only from the configurational entropy contribution available at the

584: equilibrium temperature. People are sometimes confused how

585: configurational entropy, which is never made available in a strict

586: mean field scenario, can drive a transition event. This is because of

587: the locality of the landscape in the droplet analysis, which goes

588: beyond meanfield thinking. Locally, for a region of space $D({\bf R},

589: N^*)$ there is a ``funnel'' of states leading away from the initial

590: configuration to other equally equilibrated

591: configurations. Configurational entropy drives the activated motions

592: of the local regions of a glass in the same way the entropy arising

593: from the large number of denatured configurations of a protein drives

594: the unfolding of a folded native protein even though the denatured

595: states are individually higher in energy \cite{OLSW}. Any individual

596: escape path is likely to find a big barrier but this barrier is

597: partially cancelled by the growth of the number of escape routes. The

598: free energies along each path fluctuate thus increasing the likelihood

599: of finding a low energy path, when a large number of paths is

600: available. As the entropy per particle, $s_c(T)$ gets smaller the

601: driving force to re-equilibrate falls so the critically activated

602: region of the glass necessary for re-equilibration grows larger and

603: the rate falls, owing to the larger activation barrier from the

604: mismatch contribution. The precise way this happens depends on the

605: mismatch energy and its exponent $x$.

606: 

607: 

608: Therefore, before proceeding to study the nonequilibrium situation, we

609: digress to discuss aspects of the average mismatch energy $\Gamma$

610: which we have approximated as $\gamma N^x$. First it is clear that the

611: form of $\gamma N^x$ is only a crude approximation to the mismatch

612: energy when $N$ is small. In principle, recall, the mismatch energy

613: could be explicitly computed by carrying out the local library

614: construction on a computer. The only problem is obtaining initial

615: configurations equilibrated to the appropriate low

616: temperatures. Finding such equilibrated configurations deep in the

617: landscape currently requires heroic computer resources. Therefore the

618: mismatch energy must presently be inferred by analytical

619: considerations.

620: 

621: 

622: The simplest free energy functional calculations of the mismatch

623: energy gives an energy proportional to the interface area and

624: therefore gives the mismatch exponent $x=2/3$.  Such simplified

625: calculations also give an explicit value of the prefactor of the

626: scaling relation, $\gamma_0$ at the ideal glass transition

627: temperature, $T_K$. At this temperature, the lost interaction terms of

628: a sharp interface have to balance the entropy cost of localizing each

629: particle to its cage.

630: 

631: This gives, at $T_K$ \cite{XW,LW},

632: \begin{equation}

633: \gamma_0 = \frac{2\sqrt{3\pi}}{2} k_B T_K

634: \ln\left[\frac{(a/d_L)^2}{\pi e}\right],

635: \end{equation}

636: where $d_L$ is the mean square fluctuations of particles in a given

637: basin \cite{inherent} and $a$ is the interparticle spacing. The ratio

638: $d_L/a$ is about 0.1 for glassy configurations, just as it is in the

639: Lindemann criterion for melting. Calculations based on free energy

640: functional show that $\gamma$ vanishes as $T_A$ is approached from

641: below \cite{KW_PRB}. This is because $T_A$ resembles a spinodal. From

642: these estimates, $\gamma(T)$ can be obtained \cite{LW_soft}. These

643: naive mean field estimates would give an activation barrier varying as

644: $s_c^{-2}$, as first detailed by Kirkpatrick and Wolynes \cite{KW_PRB}

645: and later discussed by Parisi \cite{Parisi}.

646: 

647: Kirkpatrick, Thirumalai and Wolynes pointed out an effect left out in

648: the naive estimate of the mismatch energy \cite{KTW}: One must

649: acknowledge there are numerous solutions of the mean field equations

650: describing minima of the free energy functional, these precisely

651: correspond to our local energy landscape libraries. In principle some

652: of these other configurations can be interpolated between the internal

653: target state to which the region is relaxing and its fixed environment

654: in order to lower the mismatch energy. This interpolation is called

655: ``wetting''.

656: 

657: 

658: Such wetting only can be rigorously defined for very large

659: $N$. Wetting is a dynamical process that takes some time to

660: develop. We should therefore for greater accuracy ascribe a frequency

661: dependence to the mismatch surface tension $\gamma(T,\omega)$. The

662: mapping between the free energy functional and the random field Ising

663: model allows us to invoke an argument of Villain \cite{Villain} that

664: gives a curvature dependence to the surface tension coefficient

665: $\gamma=\gamma_0 (a/R)^{1/2}$ in three dimensions where $a$ is the

666: microscopic length where the surface tension $\gamma_0$ is established

667: ($R^d \propto N$). Accounting for this wetting correction leads to the

668: exponent $x=1/2$. When this exponent is used in Eq.(\ref{k(x)}), we

669: see that the relaxation rate in the equilibrium system has exactly the

670: Adam-Gibbs form

671: \begin{equation}

672: k=\tau_{micro}^{-1} e^{-A/s_c},

673: \label{k_AG}

674: \end{equation}

675: where $s_c$ is the configurational entropy per particle. If we assume

676: that $s_c$ vanishes linearly at an ideal glass transition temperature

677: $T_K$, this rate agrees with the Vogel-Fulcher law. Distinct from the

678: AG argument, however, in the RFOT theory the critical size

679: $N^\ddagger$ scales as $s_c^{-2}$ not $s_c^{-1}$ and the dynamical

680: correlation length is much bigger than the AG picture implies, but if

681: the simple estimate of $\gamma_0$ based on the vibrational free energy

682: cost is used, explicit values of the typical barrier height are

683: obtained in addition to the experimental scaling of rates, as found by

684: the RFOT theory \cite{XW}. The surface tension $\gamma_0/T_g$, being a

685: logarithmic function of the vibrational amplitude in the glass,

686: depends little on the atomic make up of the glass. Therefore if we use

687: the Vogel-Fulcher expression

688: \begin{equation} 

689: k=k_0 \exp\{-D T_g/(T-T_K)\},

690: \end{equation}

691: the D is predicted to depend inversely on $\Delta c_p$ - the change in

692: heat capacity upon vitrification. Specifically one finds

693: \begin{equation} 

694: D=32k_B/\Delta c_p

695: \end{equation}

696: The resulting correlation of barrier heights (measured by $D$) and

697: glass thermodynamics is excellent \cite{XW}. The softening of $\gamma$

698: near $T_A$ also explains very well the deviations from the VTF laws

699: that are observed as the temperature is raised to $T_A$ where there is

700: a crossover to collisional dynamics \cite{LW_soft}. We will use the

701: same ``wetted'' form of the surface energy term without softening in

702: the body of the paper to follow. We must note however even at $T_g$,

703: these microscopic calculations give $N^*$ only of the order of

704: hundreds of particles (consistent with experiment \cite{Ediger}), so

705: we are far from asymptopia and other ``ultimate'' scalings (closer to

706: $T_K$) are conceivable.

707: 

708: 

709: The local library and mismatch energy concepts let us discuss {\it en

710: passant} various ``defect'' pictures of glassy dynamics in landscape

711: terms. Many theories of the glassy state imagine there is a basic

712: undefected structure at the heart of the phenomenon (an

713: ``ur-structure'').  Doubtless for many systems, the periodic crystal

714: itself is one such basic ``ur-structure''. For big enough $N^*$ the

715: periodic crystal will indeed be a member of the local landscape

716: library but it will not be entropically favored and as long as the

717: surface tension between liquid and crystal remains sufficient it will

718: not be a major target state. Certainly ``devitrification'' can and

719: does occur in the laboratory but we will leave the study of this

720: transformation for future discussion. Other ur-structures have been

721: discussed as dominating glassy dynamics such as icosahedral crystals

722: \cite{Nelson} or other ``avoided crystalline phases''

723: \cite{Kivelson}. Deep in the local energy landscape, these structures

724: and their defected forms must be found. The dimension of the defects

725: supported by these ur-structures will determine the mismatch energy

726: and thus how the rate will depend on the driving entropy, in the

727: present picture. Point defects such as interstitial-vacancy pairs have

728: an energy cost independent of the region site i.e. giving an exponent

729: $x=0$ and would give a relaxation rate independent of

730: $s_c$. NonArrhenius behavior based on point defects usually must rely

731: on special kinetic constraints, which must be encoded in the

732: transition rules \cite{Andersen}. By construction, the

733: quasi-equilibrium estimate of the rate made above would fail for such

734: models. Of course if there were only a few ``dead-end'' states these

735: could be explicitly subtracted out in the estimates. Such a situation

736: may apply for entangled polymers.

737: 

738: 

739: Simple estimates of the free energies of such point defects puts their

740: energy cost near to the limit seen in ordinary laboratory glass

741: transitions \cite{Eastwood}. At low temperature they may conceivably

742: short-circuit the generic transitions proposed here. Line-like defects

743: enter prominently into the constellation of approaches based on

744: frustrated icosahedral order \cite{Nelson} and presumably should occur

745: also when other types of frustrated regular ordered systems act as

746: ur-structures. Nussinov has argued that hamiltonians for uniformly

747: frustrated systems should exhibit random first order transitions in

748: the mean field approximation \cite{Nussinov}. It is likely correct to

749: view the states accessible in the high density of states region

750: relevant for real glasses in this way even for models based on

751: frustrated order.

752: 

753: 

754: Recall, in assessing the relevance of defect based models, that the

755: measured configurational entropy per particle at the laboratory $T_g$

756: is about 1 $k_B$. This means we are usually far from the low defect

757: density regime.

758: 

759: 

760: At low defect density, nevertheless, line-like defects may either

761: traverse the correlated region directly or wander across the region

762: like a Brownian path. The line length in the first case of

763: ``ballistic'' traversal should scale like $N^{1/3}$ while in the

764: Brownian case the length is proportional to square of the traversed

765: distance so we expect the mismatch energy to scale like $N^{2/3}$,

766: resembling the mean field result without wetting. It is interesting

767: that an interpolation between the ballistic and Brownian scalings

768: would be hard to distinguish from the result we use $\Gamma \sim

769: N^{1/2}$. Even at $T_g$, $N^*$ is only about 150 so all these power

770: laws (with the exception of the point defect case) could likely be

771: fitted to a detailed mismatch construction with similar accuracy for

772: liquids in the laboratory.

773: 

774: 

775: 

776: \section{Relaxation in the Immediately Quenched Glass}

777: 

778: The microcanonical local landscape arguments allow us to estimate the

779: relaxation rates once the statistics of the energies of the local

780: regions in the initial nonequilibrium state are known. Once the system

781: has fallen out of equilibrium, in general, these statistics depend on

782: the detailed quenching history of the sample. The complete aging

783: theory should determine these statistics self-consistently. In the

784: present and following sections we will assume the quench involves

785: simple straightforward cooling and that little time has elapsed since

786: the glass transition was passed. In this case the statistics of the

787: initial energies are taken to be those of an equilibrium system at a

788: temperature $T_g$. Presumably $T_g$ will be temperature of the

789: midpoint of the dynamic heat capacity drop upon cooling.  Thus we take

790: $\phi_{in}(T)$ to be the bulk energy at $T_g$ augmented by the

791: vibrational part of the free energy at the ambient temperature

792: $T$. The fluctuations of the internal energy of regions, which

793: determine the nonexponentiality of relaxation in the glass will also

794: be taken to be the same as the equilibrium fluctuations at $T_g$, and

795: therefore to be determined by $\Delta c_p(T_g)$.

796: 

797: 

798: Using the mismatch exponent $x=1/2$ in equations (\ref{N(x)}) and

799: (\ref{k(x)}) we obtained fairly simple results for the critical

800: cluster size

801: \begin{equation} 

802: N^\ddagger = \left[\frac{2(\phi_g-f_{eq})}{x\gamma}\right]^{-2}

803: \end{equation}

804: and the typical rate

805: \begin{equation} 

806: k = \tau_{micro}^{-1} \exp\left\{-\frac{\gamma^2}{4 k_B T

807: [\phi_g-f_{eq}]} \right\}.

808: \label{k(x)g}

809: \end{equation}

810: 

811: The initial and final states are at the same vibrational temperature

812: but not at the same configurational temperature. The initial state is

813: typical of a $T_g$ configuration but the activated state is

814: ``equilibrated'' to the temperature $T$ both in vibrational terms and

815: in locally configurational terms. Because of this the driving force

816: for reconfiguration is not purely entropic in the nonequilibrated case

817: Thus there is a big conceptual difference from the usual extrapolation

818: of the Adam Gibbs formula. In addition, the rates predicted by

819: Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}) differ from the Adam-Gibbs formula extrapolated with

820: a fixed configurational entropy $s_c(T_g)$.

821: 

822: At $T_g$, clearly the rates predicted by the equilibrated formula

823: (\ref{k_AG}) and Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}) are the same. Upon further cooling

824: the nonequilibrium rate while decreasing, however, is substantially

825: higher than it would be at equilibrium. This is because the driving

826: force for reconfiguration not only includes the configurational

827: entropy at the ambient temperature but also an energy increment of the

828: initial state $\Delta \epsilon = \epsilon_g - \epsilon_{eq}(T)$. (We

829: assume vibrational free energy contributions are nearly the same in

830: inherent structures typical of $T_g$ and the ambient temperature $T$.)

831: Just such a change of slope is observed in the laboratory: the

832: apparent activation energy in the nonequilibrium glassy state is

833: smaller than the extrapolated value from the equilibrated supercooled

834: liquid. This change is usually quantified in the

835: Nayaranaswany-Moynihan-Tool framework through the expression

836: \begin{equation}

837: k_{n.e.} = k_0 \exp\left\{-x_{NMT}\frac{\Delta E^*}{k_B T} -

838: (1-x_{NMT}) \frac{\Delta E^*}{k_B T_f} \right\}. \hspace{4mm}

839: %\label{k_AG}

840: \end{equation}

841: where $E^*$ is the equilibrated apparent activation energy at $T_g$

842: and $x_{NMT}$ lies between 0 and 1. To compare with our initial quench

843: result we would take $T_f = T_g$, again noting in a realistic cooling

844: history $T_f$ would need to be self-consistently determined. We note

845: that equation (\ref{k(x)g}) gives a gradual transition to Arrhenius

846: behavior. We can find $x_{NMT}$ most easily at low temperatures (near

847: $T_K$), where the typical relaxation rate will follow an Arrhenius law

848: according to Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}). The Arrhenius behavior applies because,

849: for ordinary liquids near to $T_K$ we expect the mismatch free energy

850: to largely be energetic so we take it as a constant. By the definition

851: of the Kauzmann temperature $f_{eq}(T_K)= \phi_K$ is also mostly

852: energetic since the configurational entropy vanishes. The vibrational

853: components of $f_{eq}$ and $\phi_g$ are assumed to cancel so the

854: activation energy is in the nonequilibrium very low temperature regime

855: \begin{equation} 

856: \Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger = \frac{\gamma(T_K)^2}{4

857: (\epsilon_g-\epsilon_K)}

858: \label{EneLT}

859: \end{equation}

860: where $\epsilon_g$ is the energy per particle of the frozen glassy

861: state, as prepared, and $\epsilon_K$ is the energy per particle in the

862: putative ideal glassy ground state equilibrated at the Kauzmann

863: temperature. The energy difference $\epsilon_g-\epsilon_K$ is

864: determined by the configurational part of the heat capacity $\Delta

865: c_p(T)$ for intermediate values of $T$ such that $T_g > T > T_K$. The

866: apparent activation energy in the nonequilibrated glass at low

867: temperatures turns out to be comparable to the equilibrium activation

868: {\em free} energy, $\Delta F^\ddagger$ at $T_g$. It therefore should

869: not vary much from substance to substance but depends on the quenching

870: time scale $t_Q$ through the relation

871: \begin{equation} 

872: t_Q = \tau_{micro} \exp\left(\frac{\Delta F^\ddagger_g}{k_B T }

873: \right)

874: \label{tQ}

875: \end{equation} 

876: To obtain this result of the near equality of $\Delta F_g^\ddagger$

877: and $\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger$ let us take the configurational

878: heat capacity to have the form $\Delta c_p= \Delta c_p(T_g)T_g/T$, as

879: suggested by Angell \cite{Angell_cp1,Angell_cp2}. This form is based

880: on good laboratory estimates. We can now find by integrating and

881: insert this into Eq.(\ref{EneLT}) to give:

882: \begin{equation} 

883: \Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger = \frac{\gamma(T_K)^2}{4 \Delta c_p(T_g)

884: k_B T_g \ln(T_g/T_K)}.

885: %\label{EneLT}

886: \end{equation}

887: The activation free energy at $T_g$, on the other hand is obtained by

888: finding $s_c$ from the integration of $\Delta c_p/T$ and using this in

889: the equilibrium rate expression to give:

890: \begin{equation} 

891: \Delta F_g^\ddagger = \frac{\gamma(T_g)^2}{4 \Delta c_p(T_g) k_B T_g

892: (T_g/T_K-1)}.

893: %\label{EneLT}

894: \end{equation}

895: The ratio of the activation energy in the glass to the equilibrated

896: free energy barrier at $T_g$ is therefore

897: \begin{equation} 

898: \frac{\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger}{\Delta F_g^\ddagger} =

899: \left[\frac{\gamma(T_K)}{\gamma(T_g)} \right]^2

900: \frac{(T_g/T_K-1)}{\ln(T_g/T_K)}.

901: \label{DDratio}

902: \end{equation}

903: If $T_K$ and $T_g$ are close, as they are for ``fragile'' systems

904: expanding the logarithm gives a ratio close to one. Even for the

905: strong liquid Si0$_2$ the ratio of $T_g$ (1480K) to $T_K$ (876K) is

906: only 1.7, which gives $\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger/\Delta

907: F_g^\ddagger=0.8$, if we neglect any temperature dependence of

908: $\gamma$.  For a laboratory glass transition on the one hour time

909: scale we should find universally to a good approximation (1 hour

910: quench) ~ 32 to 39 $k_B T_g$. To compare with the NTM phenomenology we

911: note that the RFOT theory predicts universally that the activation

912: energy (not free energy!!!) in the glassy state depends on the quench

913: time

914: \begin{equation} 

915: \frac{\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger}{k_B T_g} = \alpha

916: \ln(t_Q/\tau_{micro})

917: %\label{k(x)g}

918: \end{equation} 

919: with a coefficient $\alpha$ very close to one. This is consonant with

920: many experiments.

921: 

922: The apparent equilibrium activation energy at $T_g$ in the liquid is

923: much larger than the nonequilibrium value found in the glassy state

924: (being in a sense cancelled in the rate expression by a large positive

925: entropy of activation). Again assuming $\Delta c_p$ depends on

926: temperature, we find

927: \begin{eqnarray} 

928: \Delta E_{g,app}^\ddagger &=& \left. \frac{\partial (\Delta

929: F^\ddagger/T)}{\partial (1/T)}\right|_{T_g} \nonumber \\ &=& \Delta

930: F_g^\ddagger \left\{2 \frac{\partial \ln \gamma(T)}{\partial(-\ln T)}

931: + 2 + \frac{1}{T_g/T_K-1}\right\} \hspace{5mm}.

932: %\label{k}

933: \end{eqnarray}

934: Using the condition that the configurational entropy vanishes at

935: $T_K$, this energy can also be expressed in terms of the ratio of

936: $c_p(T_g)$ to $s_c(T_g$):

937: \begin{equation} 

938: \Delta E_{g,app}^\ddagger = \Delta F_g^\ddagger \left\{2

939: \frac{\partial \ln \gamma(T)}{\partial(-\ln T)} + 2 + \frac{\Delta

940: c_p(T_g)}{s_c(T_g)} \right\}.

941: \label{DEapp}

942: \end{equation}

943: We then obtain for the inverse of the nonlinearity parameter $x_{NMT}$ at

944: low temperatures from Eqs.(\ref{DDratio}) and (\ref{DEapp}):

945: \begin{widetext}

946: \begin{equation} 

947: x_{MNT}^{-1}  = \frac{E_{g,app}^\ddagger}{\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger}

948: = \left\{2 \frac{\partial \ln \gamma(T)}{\partial(-\ln T)} + 2 +

949: \frac{\Delta c_p(T_g)}{s_c(T_g)} \right\}

950: \left[\frac{\gamma(T_g)}{\gamma(T_K)} \right]^2

951: \frac{\ln(T_g/T_K)}{(T_g/T_K-1)}.

952: %\label{DEapp}

953: \end{equation}

954: \end{widetext}

955: $\Delta c_p(T_g)/s_c(T_g)$ is a thermodynamic measure of the liquid

956: fragility. This ratio is large for very fragile liquids and small for

957: ``strong'' liquids. Thus we see ``fragile'' liquids are very nonlinear

958: while ``strong'' liquids, in general, should not be. Just such a

959: correlation has been discussed by McKenna and Angell \cite{McKenna}

960: and can be expressed as a relation between the kinetic fragility

961: parameter

962: \begin{equation} 

963: m = \left. \frac{1}{T_g} \frac{\partial \log_{10}

964: \tau}{\partial(1/T)}\right|_{T_g} = \frac{\Delta

965: E_{g,app}^\ddagger}{k_B T_g}\log_{10}e .

966: \end{equation}

967: and the nonlinearity parameter $x_{NMT}$. Using the previously derived

968: relation (\ref{DDratio}) and the equation above we find

969: %\begin{widetext}

970: \begin{eqnarray}

971: x_{MNT}^{-1} &=& \frac{E_{g,app}^\ddagger}{\Delta

972: E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger} \nonumber \\ = &m& \left\{ (\log_{10}e)

973: \frac{\Delta F_g^\ddagger}{k_B T_g}

974: \left[\frac{\gamma(T_K)}{\gamma(T_g)} \right]^2

975: \frac{(T_g/T_K-1)}{\ln(T_g/T_K)} \right\}^{-1} \hspace{5mm}

976: %\label{DEapp}

977: \end{eqnarray}

978: %\end{widetext}

979: Assuming the $\gamma$ ratio is near one and using the glass transition

980: temperature appropriate to 1 hr, so $\Delta F_g^\ddagger/k_B T_g = \ln

981: 10^{17} \simeq 39$, and a generic $T_g/T_K = 1.26$ \cite{LW_soft}, we

982: obtain

983: \begin{equation}

984: m \simeq \frac{19}{x}.

985: \end{equation}

986: This relation is plotted in Figure \ref{m_x_labelled1} along with

987: data for several systems. We see that the estimate agrees reasonably

988: well with experiment. In this estimate we have neglected the $T$

989: dependence of $\gamma$. The microscopic treatment from RFOT shows

990: however that $\gamma_0$ depends both on the proximity to $T_K$ and to

991: $T_A$, as discussed in our paper on the barrier oftening effect

992: \cite{LW_soft}. Thus we will generally have both an entropic and an

993: energetic contribution to $\gamma_0$ which may explain some of the

994: scatter in the curves. Indeed we see more fragile systems lie

995: systematically above the curve as is expected since $T_K$ and $T_A$

996: are closer leading to the longer barrier softening effect.

997: \begin{figure}[tb]

998:  \includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{m_x_labelled1.eps}

999:  \caption{\label{m_x_labelled1} The fragility parameter $m$ is plotted

1000: as a function of the NTM nonlinearity parameter $x_{NMT}$. The curve

1001: is predicted by the RFOT theory when the temperature variation of

1002: $\gamma_0$ is neglected. The data are taken from

1003: Ref. \cite{app_phys_rev}. A few substances (PVAc = polyvinyl acetate,

1004: PVC = polyvinylchloride, PS = polystyrene, B$_2$O$_3$, and

1005: As$_2$Se$_3$) are labeled. Notice some measured values are not

1006: consistent on multiple measurements; this may reflect a breakdown of

1007: phenomenology for the history dependence discussed in the text or

1008: different material preparation. The more fragile substances lie above

1009: the prediction without barrier softening, which has no adjustable

1010: parameters.  }

1011: \end{figure}

1012: 

1013: According to the RFOT theory the typical relaxation time in the

1014: nonequilibrium quenched state does {\em not} immediately become

1015: Arrhenius in temperature dependence below the laboratory glass

1016: transition. Thus there should be deviations from the NMT formalism,

1017: which might be crudely fit by allowing the nonlinearity parameter to

1018: be $T$ dependent. Indeed some of the scatter in

1019: Fig.\ref{m_x_labelled1} probably arises also from this cause.  Below

1020: $T_g$, the expected nonArrhenius behavior from RFOT theory is much

1021: weaker than the divergently nonArrhenius behavior found above

1022: $T_g$. Within the Adam-Gibbs nonequilibrium extrapolation advocated by

1023: Hodge \cite{Hodge} and Scherer \cite{Scherer}, the RFOT theory result

1024: would appear to involve a temperature dependent ``configurational

1025: entropy''. Just such a behavior has been found by Alegria et al. in

1026: polymer systems \cite{Alegria}. One way to express this connection is

1027: to compare $\Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)$ to its value at $T_g$. The

1028: inverse of this ratio would be the apparent configuration entropy in a

1029: Hodge and Scherer-Adam-Gibbs extrapolation. In view of

1030: Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}), the inverse ratio is given by:

1031: %\begin{widetext}

1032: \begin{eqnarray} 

1033: \left[\frac{\Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)}{\Delta

1034: F_g^\ddagger}\right]^{-1} = \left[\frac{\phi_g-f_{eq}(T)}{T_g

1035: s_c(T_g)} \right] \left[\frac{\gamma(T_g)}{\gamma(T)} \right]^2

1036: \hspace{10mm} \nonumber \\ \hspace{10mm} = \left\{ \frac{T-T_K [1+

1037: \ln(T/T_g)]}{T_g-T_K} \right\} \left[\frac{\gamma(T_g)}{\gamma(T)}

1038: \right]^2, \hspace{5mm}

1039: \label{nonArrh_rat}

1040: \end{eqnarray}

1041: %\end{widetext}

1042: where the second equality is found by computing $f_{eq}$ with the help

1043: of the Angell's form of $\Delta c_p(T)$ (see the Appendix).  We plot

1044: the ratio above in Fig.\ref{nonArr}. 

1045: \begin{figure}[tb]

1046:  \includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{nonArr.eps}

1047:  \caption{\label{nonArr} We plot the predicted variation of the

1048: activation free energy versus inverse temperature below the glass

1049: transition, as the ratio $(\Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)/\Delta

1050: F_g^\ddagger)^{-1}$ from Eq.(\ref{nonArrh_rat}) versus $T/T_g$. Only

1051: below $T_K$ will the ratio be strictly constant, implying strictly

1052: Arrhenius temperature dependence of the relaxation rate. The

1053: temperature dependence of $\gamma$ is neglected. The figure is plotted

1054: for a fragile material with $T_K/T_g$ (1 hr.) = 0.9, a less fragile

1055: one with $T_K/T_g$= 0.7 and a strong substance with $T_K/T_g$= 0.5.  }

1056: \end{figure}

1057: We point out that although we have

1058: highlighted the connection with more traditional treatments of aging

1059: phenomenology, neither of the earlier approaches is exactly

1060: commensurate with our theory. On the other hand we have shown the

1061: expression for the nonequilibrium rate is very explicit once the

1062: average energy of the sample is known. It therefore would not be

1063: terribly difficult to use the full expression (\ref{k(x)g}) in a

1064: dynamic treatment with the nonequilibrium energy as the indicator of

1065: the ``fictive'' temperature. We do not carry out this analysis here

1066: because it involves detailed numerical fitting for each system and the

1067: quench history of each particular experiment.

1068: 

1069: \section{Nonexponentiality of Relaxation above and below $T_g$}

1070: 

1071: Within the RFOT theory the mosaic structure of the liquid gives rise

1072: to dynamical heterogeneity and nonexponential relaxation. The driving

1073: force for re-equilibration varies from mosaic cell to cell. This leads

1074: to a range of activation barriers, $\delta F^\ddagger$. In the

1075: canonical ensemble formulation, using the usual Landau formula, these

1076: fluctuations depend on $\Delta c_p(T)$. Computing these fluctuations

1077: allowed Xia and Wolynes to predict $\beta$ for a range of substances

1078: \cite{XWbeta}. The same result can be obtained in the microcanonical

1079: formulation, however here the origin is even more transparent: there

1080: is a range of energies of the initial configurations for each mosaic

1081: cell. Since the energy fluctuations also scale with $\Delta c_p(T)$,

1082: above $T_g$ one obtains the same results as Xia and Wolynes previously

1083: derived.

1084: 

1085: 

1086: We first discuss how $\beta$ varies with temperature below $T_g$ in a

1087: somewhat simplified approximation that makes the issues clear. We will

1088: assume the energy fluctuations are small and the resulting barrier

1089: distribution is Gaussian. We will see later that the results of this

1090: analysis bound the magnitude of the {\em change} expected in $\beta$,

1091: even when a more accurate barrier distribution is used.

1092: 

1093: 

1094: Let us re-write Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}) for $\Delta F^\ddagger$ now including

1095: a fluctuation for the initial energy per particle

1096: \begin{equation} 

1097: \Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger = \frac{\gamma^2}{4 [\phi_{in} -

1098: f_{eq}+\delta \phi_{in}]}.

1099: \label{dDFne}

1100: \end{equation}

1101: If $\delta \phi_{in}$ is small, we find the fluctuations in the

1102: barrier height

1103: \begin{equation} 

1104: \delta \Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger = \frac{\gamma^2 (-\delta

1105: \phi_{in})}{4 [\phi_{in} - f_{eq}]^2} = \frac{\Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger

1106: (-\delta \phi_{in})}{\phi_{in} - \phi_{eq}+ T s_c(T)}.

1107: %\label{DDratio}

1108: \end{equation}

1109: Since the structure is frozen at $T_g$ the typical fluctuation in

1110: $\phi$ is the same as at $T_g$ and is determined by $\Delta c_p$ at

1111: $T_g$. We see the ratio of the size of the $\Delta F^\ddagger$

1112: fluctuations in the frozen, cooled state $\delta \Delta

1113: F_{n.e.}^\ddagger$ to those found at $T_g$, $\delta \Delta

1114: F_g^\ddagger$ is

1115: \begin{equation} 

1116: \frac{\delta \Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger}{\delta \Delta F_g^\ddagger} =

1117: \frac{\Delta F_{n.e.}^\ddagger}{\Delta F_g^\ddagger} \frac{T_g

1118: s_c(T_g)}{\phi_{in} - \phi_{eq}+ T s_c(T)}.

1119: \label{dFdFratio}

1120: \end{equation}

1121: Both factors in this expression increase rather slowly below $T_g$,

1122: and saturate at $T_K$.

1123: 

1124: How do these fluctuations translate into stretching exponents? Roughly

1125: speaking, the relaxation function for a Gaussian distribution of

1126: barriers is approximated by a stretched exponential with a value given

1127: by \cite{XWbeta,Castaing}:

1128: \begin{equation} 

1129: \beta \simeq \left[1+ (\delta \Delta F^\ddagger/k_B T) \right]^{-1/2}.

1130: \label{beta}

1131: \end{equation}

1132: If the liquid is ``strong'', $\Delta c_p$ is small so there are small

1133: energy fluctuations leading to small $\delta \Delta F^\ddagger$. Thus

1134: for strongly liquids $\beta$ remains near 1 until rather low

1135: temperatures. If the fluctuations in $\phi$ are large (as they are for

1136: very fragile systems) we would find instead

1137: \begin{equation} 

1138: \beta \simeq \frac{k_B T}{\delta \Delta F^\ddagger}.

1139: \label{beta_app}

1140: \end{equation}

1141: This formula should thus give an overestimate for the variation of

1142: $\beta$ with temperature. Using this estimate along with

1143: Eqs.(\ref{dDFne}) and (\ref{dFdFratio}), we find

1144: \begin{equation} 

1145: \frac{\beta_{n.e.}(T)}{\beta(T_g)} = \frac{T}{T_g} \left[ \frac{\Delta

1146: F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)}{\Delta F_g^\ddagger} \right]^{-2}

1147: \left[\frac{\gamma(T)}{\gamma(T_g)} \right]^2.

1148: \label{beta_ratio}

1149: \end{equation}

1150: A plot of this expression is shown in Fig \ref{b_T} (note the $\Delta

1151: F_{n.e.}^\ddagger/\Delta F_g^\ddagger$ ratio has already been computed

1152: in Eq.(\ref{nonArrh_rat})). 

1153: \begin{figure}[tb]

1154:  \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{b_T.eps}

1155:  \caption{\label{b_T} The variation with temperature of the

1156: nonequilibrium $\beta$ in comparison with $\beta(T_g)$ is shown as a

1157: dashed line for a substance with $T_K/T_g$ (1 hr.) = 0.8,

1158: characteristic of a fragile system and a solid line for a strong

1159: system with $T_K/T_g$=.5. The two other lines indicates how the

1160: equilibrium would vary with $T$. The approximte estimates from

1161: Eq.(\ref{beta_app}) which exaggerate the variation are plotted as the

1162: very thin lines, which nearly coincide with the more accurate

1163: exression Eq.(\ref{beta}). The inset shows a magnified view of the

1164: region near $T_g$, where only factual $\beta$'s, depicted by thick

1165: lines in the main graph, are given.}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: At $T_K$ and below the term in parenthesis saturates and so, we find a

1168: simple expression

1169: \begin{equation} 

1170: \frac{\beta_{n.e.}(T)}{\beta(T_g)} = \frac{T}{T_g} \left[ \frac{\Delta

1171: F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T_K)}{\Delta F_g^\ddagger} \right]^{-2}

1172: \left[\frac{\gamma(T_K)}{\gamma(T_g)} \right]^2.

1173: \label{beta_ratioK}

1174: \end{equation}

1175: Thus we see in general $\beta$ should fall as we cool but the effect

1176: remains modest in the range where $T$ is greater than $T_K$. This

1177: modestly cooled range is where the most detailed aging studies have

1178: been reported \cite{Alegria,Leheny}. Although $\beta$ falls, indeed,

1179: the rate of fall slows from its $T$ dependence above $T_g$ for fragile

1180: substances, since according to the simple RFOT approximation of Xia

1181: and Wolynes the equilibrium $\beta$ would vanish at $T_K$, while this

1182: (approximate) nonequilibrium vanishes only at absolute zero. In

1183: contrast, $\beta$ for strong substances, that was near unity and

1184: $T$-independent above $T_g$, is predicted to show more pronounced

1185: tempearature dependence below the glass transition (see the inset of

1186: Fig.\ref{b_T}).  Thus we see the form of the relaxation is not the

1187: same as the equilibrium relaxation at any ``fictive'' temperature. For

1188: fragile liquids $T_K/T_g \simeq .8$, so if $\gamma$ is temperature

1189: independent, a 40\% reduction is expected until $T_K$ is

1190: reached. Often relaxation data in the aging regime have been fit with

1191: the approximation $\beta = \beta(T_g)$. Alegria et al. suggest $\beta$

1192: remains constant below $T_g$. The RFOT indicates this is a reasonable

1193: zeroth order approximation. Alegria et al. have measured $\beta$ in

1194: the regime $T_g >T> T_K$. These are difficult measurements and there

1195: is scatter in the data.

1196: 

1197: 

1198: We must bear in mind that the theoretical $\beta$ assumes that

1199: measurements can scan over the complete relaxation process (even below

1200: $T_g$!) but part of the relaxation is missed in experiment. Since the

1201: glass only partly relaxes, in most experiments $\beta$ will appear to

1202: be {\em closer} to one than if the full relaxation could be

1203: followed. This effect of missing part of the distribution gives a

1204: positive increment to $\beta$ at the glass transition, as pointed out

1205: by Alegria et al. Such an increment on cooling is found.

1206: 

1207: 

1208: After this artifactual increment in $\beta$, Alegria et al. actually

1209: do find $\beta$ to slightly decrease upon cooling.  We must emphasize

1210: that the arguments leading to Eq.(\ref{beta_ratio}) generally give an

1211: overestimate of the variation of with temperature in the glass

1212: state. First and most simply the approximation made in going from

1213: Eq.(\ref{beta}) to Eq.(\ref{beta_app}) causes an overestimate. Second,

1214: but more important, as discussed by Xia and Wolynes \cite{XWbeta} the

1215: zeroth order Gaussian approximation for the barrier distribution is

1216: not quantitative because the simple argument leading to that result

1217: assumes the environment of a reconfiguring domain is temporally

1218: fixed. Clearly if the domains surrounding a region that may

1219: re-configure have themselves already changed before the

1220: reconfiguration event, the library construction's premise of having a

1221: fixed environment to the mosaic cell fails.  This change of

1222: environment effect might be called a ``facilitation''

1223: \cite{Andersen}. In any case this effect means the barrier height

1224: distribution will be cut off on the high barrier side. A simple cutoff

1225: distribution follows from the idea that domains slower than the most

1226: probable rate would actually re-configure when their environmental

1227: neighbors have changed; thus they actually will re-configure at nearly

1228: the most probable rate, which has already been predicted by the RFOT

1229: theory.  The resulting cutoff distribution for activation barrier:

1230: \begin{equation}

1231: P(\Delta F^\ddagger) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} P_f(\Delta

1232: F^\ddagger), \mbox{ for } \Delta F^\ddagger < \Delta F_0^\ddagger \\ C

1233: \delta(\Delta F^\ddagger - \Delta F_0^\ddagger)

1234: \end{array} \right. 

1235: \label{Pf}

1236: \end{equation}

1237: - has been shown to reproduce the variation of the equilibrium at

1238: $T_g$ with composition quite well \cite{XWbeta}. It also reproduces

1239: the temperature dependence of $\beta$ in the equilibrated supercooled

1240: liquid. The weight $C$ ensures the normalization of the

1241: distribution. Clearly the cutoff again acts to dampen the variation of

1242: with temperature, below $T_g$. Explicit calculations using

1243: Eqs.(\ref{Pf}) and (\ref{dFdFratio}) for the fluctuation can be used

1244: to study the detailed $T$ variation of $\beta$ in the nonequilibrium

1245: glass, which may be relevant for deep quenches.

1246: 

1247: %\vspace{-3mm}

1248: 

1249: \section{Relaxation in Quenches below $T_K$}

1250: 

1251: %\vspace{-2mm}

1252: 

1253: We have emphasized dynamics in the glassy regime just below $T_g$ and

1254: ranging down to $T_K$. In this regime dynamics is fast enough so that

1255: significant relaxation is still accessible to detailed

1256: experiments. The results we have obtained should hold to considerably

1257: lower temperatures at least before much aging has actually occured.

1258: Essentially the average rate will become Arrhenius below $T_K$ while

1259: the breadth of relaxation times will continue to increase as $T$

1260: approaches the absolute zero.  Quantitatively several effects may

1261: intervene that are worthy of further study, however.  These effects

1262: are 1) secondary relaxations, 2) fluctuations in mismatch energies and

1263: changes in the ``wetting'' mechanism, and 3) quantum effects. We

1264: comment on these in turn.

1265: 

1266: 1) As a practical matter, less and less of the range of relaxation

1267: times can be accessed on deep cooling during a typical laboratory

1268: experiment - at the lowest temperatures only the fast end of the

1269: relaxation time distribution can be accessed.  This part of the

1270: distribution is caused by regions of high energy that correspond to a

1271: small domain size. At the shorter length scale several effects that

1272: are system specific, will occur.

1273: 

1274: This region of the relaxation time spectrum is often called the

1275: $\beta$-relaxation. The term $\beta$-relaxation tends to bring to mind

1276: universal characteristics and indeed the RFOT theory does for example

1277: suggests a scale for the maximum rate corresponding to the cost of

1278: overturning a single molecular unit; essentially this is

1279: $\gamma_0$. On the other hand most glass formers have internal

1280: structure and these inner parts or side-chains of the molecule will

1281: have multiple conformations that can relax, in a specific ways as well

1282: those predictable from RFOT alone \cite{slaving}. These ``rapid''

1283: relaxations, also will slow with temperature, and might come into the

1284: measurement window. Dyre has argued that just such a ``contamination''

1285: of the main $\alpha$ aging process by a $\beta$ relaxation \cite{Dyre}

1286: may explain some of the Leheny-Nagel measurements on glycerol

1287: \cite{Leheny}.

1288: 

1289: 2) Well below $T_K$ the mismatch energies may change their scaling

1290: with size. The ``wetting'' mechanism relies on there being a

1291: multiplicity of states to interpolate through the interface. Such a

1292: multiplicity exists at $T_K$ but becomes less important with

1293: decreasing $T$. This leads to a ``hardening'' of the interface

1294: (increase in $\gamma$) or perhaps a crossover from $N^{1/2}$ scaling

1295: to $N^{2/3}$ scaling of the mismatch energy. At the same time, rare

1296: fluctuations of the barriers may allow some regions to relax more

1297: rapidly than expected. Plotkin and Wolynes have analyzed just this

1298: sort of effect in the context of ``buffing'' of energy landscapes in

1299: protein \cite{buffing} and Lubchenko and Wolynes have studied a

1300: similar effect in the quantum regime which allows a tail of resonant

1301: tunneling states to appear \cite{LW}. Also well below $T_K$ - small

1302: regions may reconfigure by crystallizing - an effect we ignore in the

1303: present paper.

1304: 

1305: 3) Eventually below $T_K$ classical barrier crossing will be

1306: supplanted by quantum tunneling. This gives rise eventually to two

1307: level systems \cite{LW} and the Boson peak \cite{LW_BP} which we have

1308: discussed in detail elsewhere.

1309: 

1310: \vspace{-5mm}

1311: 

1312: \section{Aging and History Dependence}

1313: 

1314: The local energy landscape theory put forward in this paper predicts

1315: the relaxation of a system where the statistics of the energies in the

1316: local energy landscape libraries of the sample is assumed to be known

1317: at any instant. The explicit formula for the typical relaxation rate

1318: depends on the mean bulk energy of the cooperative regions and the

1319: explicit formula for the stretching exponent $\beta$ also contains the

1320: variance of these energies. In the quenched sample we have assumed

1321: these statistics are characteristic of an equilibrium system at the

1322: temperature $T_g$ where the system ``fell out of equilibrium''.  Since

1323: the cooperative regions are large it is natural to assume these

1324: statistics are Gaussian as we have done. In simple quench histories

1325: $T_g$ can be estimated by the temperature where the apparent heat

1326: capacity most rapidly falls during cooling. But more complicated

1327: thermal histories are possible and even in a simple quench $T_g$

1328: really must be determined self-consistently by the dynamics of the

1329: system, itself. In general the statistics of the local landscape

1330: libraries for a nonequilibrium system will be determined by the

1331: system's dynamics and its detailed past thermal history.

1332: 

1333: The most general description of the nonequilibrium statistics is quite

1334: complex since the bulk energies of any region can be considered

1335: functions over the shape and size of domains. These functions might be

1336: described as a set of fluctuating bulk energy fields, but the

1337: resulting construction is complex. When the system is cooling, high

1338: energy regions of size $N^*$ will be replaced by regions equilibrated

1339: to the ambient temperature $T$.  Thus there will be a patchwork of

1340: equilibrated and nonequilibrated mosaic cells (see Figure

1341: \ref{inhomT}). 

1342: \begin{figure}[tb]

1343:  \includegraphics[width=.55\columnwidth]{inhomT.eps}

1344:  \caption{\label{inhomT} After a considerable period of aging well

1345: below $T_g$ a patchwork of equilibrated and nonequilibrated mosaic

1346: cells will be found. If the equilibrium energy at $T$ is more than a

1347: standard deviation of the configurational energies at $T_g$, the

1348: distribution of energies will be noticeably bimodal and the idea of a

1349: single fictive temperature will break down. The unimodal distribution

1350: with a single fictive temperature should be quite safe if $\Delta T =

1351: T_g -T < \sqrt{k_B T^2/\Delta c_p N^*} = \delta T^*$. For $T_g$

1352: relevant to 1 hr. quenches this gives $\delta T^*/T_g \simeq

1353: 0.07$. Most of the Alegria et al. \cite{Alegria} data lie in this

1354: modest quenching range, while ``hyperquenched'' samples (with $\Delta

1355: T \gg \delta T^*$) will often fall outside the allowed range of using

1356: a single fictive temperature. When a sample has a two peaked

1357: distribution of local energies, an ultra-slow component of relaxation

1358: will arise. Notice that an equilibrated region at the temperature

1359: $T=T_g - \delta T^*$ will relax on the tens to hundreds of hours scale

1360: (using the relation that $\Delta E_{n.e.L.T.}^\ddagger \simeq \Delta

1361: F_g^\ddagger$), if $\tau_g$ is taken to be one hour.  Percolation of

1362: the ultra slow regions will lead to the possibility of observing

1363: multiple length scales.  }

1364: \end{figure}

1365: The nature of the new statistics, after some transitions occur and

1366: substantial aging has progressed, depends on how big is the difference

1367: between the typical current energy of a region and the target

1368: equilibrium energy. If the gap is big, a two peaked structure in the

1369: distribution of local bulk energies will develop and the statistics

1370: will be far from Gaussian: some regions that are newly equilibrated

1371: will relax further at a (slower) rate characteristic of equilibrium at

1372: $T$, while the other, not yet transformed regions will still relax at

1373: the faster nonequilibrium rate discussed already. Such a situation, if

1374: it arises, might account for ``ultra-slow'' relaxations which have

1375: occasionally been reported in aging studies \cite{MillerMcPhail} (see

1376: the Figure \ref{inhomT} caption for a criterion for such

1377: behavior). The statistics in this case of very deep quenches studied

1378: for very long times is very complex kinematically. Two peaked

1379: distributions of local energies may also arise if the system is

1380: abruptly but briefly heated from a low temperature state to a much

1381: higher one. Fortunately in the more usual situation of modest

1382: monotonic quenches we can expect the distribution of local energies to

1383: remain unimodal.  In such cases, to first order then the distribution

1384: will be characterized by a mean bulk energy per particle

1385: $\bar{\epsilon}$! If the ambient temperature were to remain fixed,

1386: $\bar{\epsilon}$ should relax to $\epsilon_{eq}(T)$ since at that

1387: point detailed balance applied to the microscopic rates will replenish

1388: any states from which the system locally escapes. (We remind the

1389: reader that $\epsilon$ denotes a (library) free energy $\phi$ without

1390: the vibrational entropy contribution.) The typical escape rate at any

1391: value of $\bar{\epsilon}$ will be given by Eq.(\ref{k(x)g}) at ambient

1392: temperature $T$. Thus the equation of motion for will $\bar{\epsilon}$

1393: have the form

1394: \begin{widetext}

1395: \begin{equation}

1396: \bar{\epsilon}-\epsilon_{eq}(T) = - \int_{-\infty}^t d t_1

1397: \dot{\rho}(t-t_1; T(t), \tau[\bar{\epsilon}(t_1), T(t_1)]) \:

1398: \{\bar{\epsilon}(t_1) - \epsilon_{eq}[T(t_1)]\}.

1399: \end{equation}

1400: \end{widetext}

1401: where $\rho$ is the relaxation function when the statistics of

1402: libraries are known and fixed by $\bar{\epsilon}(t_1)$, $T(t_1)$ is

1403: the ambient temperature at time $t_1$ - we assume vibrational energies

1404: equilibrate quickly by thermal conduction. $\rho$ not only depends on

1405: $T(t_1)$ and $\bar{\epsilon}$ but contains the parameter $\beta$ which

1406: in turn depends on the variance of energies of the local region. As a

1407: first approximation the variance can be taken as that characteristic

1408: of an equilibrium system at a temperature $T^*$ such that

1409: \begin{equation}

1410: \epsilon_{eq}(T^*) = \bar{\epsilon}.

1411: \end{equation}

1412: In this approximation, we may use Eq.(\ref{beta_ratio}) for

1413: \begin{equation}

1414: \beta \equiv \beta_{in}[T(t),T(\bar{\epsilon})].

1415: \end{equation}

1416: We see that if the shape of the distribution of local libraries does

1417: not change much, the RFOT picture leads to a situation where a single

1418: parameter $\bar{\epsilon}$ suffices to characterize the

1419: system. $T^*(\bar{\epsilon})$ thus essentially fixes the ``fictive

1420: temperature'' $T_f$ in the NTM phenomenology, albeit with different

1421: expressions for $\tau(T, T_f)$ and $\beta=\beta(T, T_f)$.  The

1422: non-Gaussian statistics alluded to earlier, however suggests the use

1423: of a single fictive temperature is only approximate and that a more

1424: complete characterization of the statistics may be needed. Multiple

1425: fictive temperatures defining the higher moments could in principle be

1426: defined. In addition spatial fluctuations of fictive temperatures are

1427: needed to capture the co-existence of equilibrated and nonequilibrated

1428: domains in the mosaic structure. At least for moderate quenches it may

1429: be possible to ignore the spatial inhomogenity and merely monitor the

1430: fluctuations in energies of domains as a secondary variable.

1431: 

1432: \vspace{-5mm}

1433: 

1434: \section{Summary}

1435: 

1436: We described a local energy landscape theory of the dynamics of

1437: supercooled liquids and glasses. In the equilibrated supercooled

1438: regime this theory is just a microcanonical ensemble reformulation of

1439: the random first order transition theory and its notion of entropic

1440: droplets. New results are obtained in the aging regime of

1441: nonequilibrium quenched glasses. The key equation is (\ref{k(x)g})

1442: which shows it is the difference between the equilibrated free energy

1443: at the quench temperature and the initial free energy of the

1444: particular frozen state that drives motions. The theory approximately

1445: reproduces the phenomenology of Narayanaswamy and Moynihan and

1446: Tool. Thus the nonlinearity parameter in NMT theory can be

1447: calculated. This parameter is shown to be correlated with the

1448: supercooled liquid's fragility in agreement with experiment. This

1449: correlation is quantitatively very similar to that obtained by the

1450: Hodge-Scherer-Adam-Gibbs extrapolation that assumes configurational

1451: entropy is fixed at $T_g$. Deviations from that extrapolation which

1452: assumes Arrhenius behavior in the glassy state are predicted

1453: however. The previously puzzling, modest non-Arrhenius temperature

1454: dependence of relaxation observed within the glassy state is explained

1455: by the RFOT theory, although it is a small effect. The variations of

1456: nonexponentiality of relaxation in the glassy state are predicted but

1457: are also rather small in the moderately quenched regime. The

1458: comparison of nonexponentiality with experiment is less conclusive

1459: than the comparison of mean relaxation rates however, owing to the

1460: difficulty of accessing the complete relaxation behavior during the

1461: quench.

1462: 

1463: 

1464: One advantage of the aging theory based on RFOT theory is that in

1465: principle the behavior upon very deep quenches is predicted. Most

1466: importantly $\beta$ is predicted to continue to decrease with quench

1467: temperature. We hope that more experiments in this regime will be

1468: done. We have noted however that some non-universal effects may enter

1469: for such quenches. Also the kinematics of deep quenches may be complex

1470: owing to spatial fluctuations of fictive temperature predicted by our

1471: theory.

1472: 

1473: Although the present approach justifies to some extent the use of a

1474: single fictive temperature to characterize the glassy state the

1475: limitations of this idea have been made clear. A straightforward

1476: extension of the usual formulation to include fluctuations in the

1477: moderately cooled regime more fully was proposed. In the strongly

1478: cooled regime, the theory predicts patches of especially slowly

1479: relaxing regions will appear. This prediction may be tested by single

1480: molecule imaging approaches \cite{RussellIsraeloff,VandenBout}.

1481: 

1482: 

1483: Acknowledgement: Peter G. Wolynes would like to thank Xiaoyu Xia for

1484: early discussions on this topic. The work was supported by the

1485: National Science Foundation grant CHE0317017. Vassiliy Lubchenko is

1486: grateful for the kind support and indulgence of Robert Silbey at

1487: M.I.T.

1488: 

1489: \vspace{-5mm}

1490: 

1491: \appendix

1492: 

1493: \section*{Appendix}

1494: 

1495: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1496: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}

1497: 

1498: Several auxiliary results are derived in this Appendix (here,

1499: $k_B=1$). First, we derive formula (\ref{nonArrh_rat}) from the main

1500: text. Using $s = -\partial f/\partial T$, one has (neglecting

1501: differences in vibrational entropy)

1502: \begin{eqnarray}

1503: %\begin{equation}

1504: f_{eq}(T) &=& \phi_K - \int_{T_K}^{T} s dT \nonumber \\ &=& \phi_K -

1505:   \Delta c_p(T_g) T_g \left(\frac{T-T_K}{T_K} - \ln \frac{T}{T_K}

1506:   \right), \hspace{7mm}

1507: \label{-10} 

1508: \end{eqnarray}

1509: %\end{equation}

1510: where we have used Angell's empirical form \cite{XW} for the

1511: configurational entropy, also used in the main text: $s_c(T) = \Delta

1512: c_p(T_g) T_g(1/T_K-1/T), \mbox{ } \Delta c_p(T) = \Delta c_p(T_g)

1513: (T_g/T)$. Noting that $f_{eq}(T_g) = \phi_g - T_g s_c(T_g)$ fixes the

1514: ideal glass state energy $\phi_K$:

1515: \begin{equation}

1516: \phi_K = \phi_g - \Delta c_p(T_g) T_g \ln(T_g/T_K).

1517: \label{-9}

1518: \end{equation}

1519: Eqs.(\ref{-10}) and (\ref{-9}) immediately yield

1520: Eq.(\ref{nonArrh_rat}).

1521: 

1522: Next, we derive the more accurate expression for the

1523: $\beta_{n.e.}(T)/\beta(T_g)$, as follows from Eq.(\ref{beta}). We also

1524: provide the equilibrium value $\beta_{eq}$ of the non-exponentiality

1525: parameter $\beta$, previously obtained by Xia and Wolynes \cite{XW},

1526: in terms of experimental parameters $T_K/T_g$ and

1527: $\ln(\tau_Q/\tau_{micro})$, used throughout this paper.

1528: 

1529: First we derive $\beta_{eq}$. According to Ref.\cite{XW}, the barrier

1530: fluctuations are directly related to the local fluctuations in the

1531: configurationlal entropy at the scale $N^*$ corresponding to a local

1532: equilibrium unit, of which the global composite landscape is

1533: comprised: $\delta \Delta F^\ddagger/\Delta F^\ddagger = \delta

1534: S_c/S_c = \sqrt{\Delta c_P N^*}/s_c N^*$. This yields:

1535: \begin{equation}

1536: \frac{\delta \Delta F^\ddagger}{T} = \frac{\Delta F^\ddagger}{T}

1537: \frac{\sqrt{\Delta c_P}}{s_c \sqrt{N^*}}.

1538: \end{equation}

1539: 

1540: It directly follows from $F^\ddagger(N) = \gamma \sqrt{N} - Ts_cN$,

1541: $(dF/dN)_{N=N^\ddagger} = 0$, and $F(N^*) = 0$ that

1542: \begin{equation}

1543: \frac{\Delta F^\ddagger}{T} = \frac{(\gamma/T)^2}{4s_c}

1544: \label{1}

1545: \end{equation}

1546: and

1547: \begin{equation}

1548: \sqrt{N^*} = \frac{\gamma/T}{s_c}.

1549: \end{equation}

1550: Using Eq.(\ref{tQ}), Eq.(\ref{1}) and the temperature independence of

1551: the $\gamma/T$ ratio in equilibrium \cite{XW}, one gets

1552: \begin{equation}

1553: (\gamma/T) = (\gamma/T)_{T=T_g} = 2 \sqrt{s_c(T_g)

1554: \ln(\tau_Q/\tau_{micro})}.

1555: \end{equation}

1556: With the help of the equations above and Angell's empirical form for

1557: the configurational entropy one easily obtains that

1558: \begin{equation}

1559: \frac{\delta \Delta F^\ddagger}{T} =

1560: \frac{\sqrt{\ln(\tau_Q/\tau_{micro})}}{2}

1561: \frac{\sqrt{1/T_K-1/T_g}}{\sqrt{T}(1/T_K-1/T)}.

1562: \label{2}

1563: \end{equation}

1564: This and Eq.(\ref{beta}) can be used to compute the

1565: $\beta_{eq}(T)/\beta(T_g)$ ratio.

1566: 

1567: The non-equilibrium $\beta$ requires even less effort. Using

1568: Eq.(\ref{dFdFratio}), one gets

1569: \begin{equation}

1570: \frac{\delta \Delta F^\ddagger_{n.e.}}{\delta \Delta F^\ddagger_g} =

1571: \left[ \frac{F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)}{F_g^\ddagger} \right]^2 \left[

1572: \frac{\gamma(T_g)}{\gamma(T)} \right]^2.

1573: \end{equation}

1574: Hence,

1575: %\vspace{-10mm}

1576: \begin{equation}

1577: \beta_{n.e.}(T) = \left[ 1+ \left(\frac{\delta \Delta

1578: F^\ddagger_g}{T}\right)^2

1579: \left[\frac{F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)}{F_g^\ddagger} \right]^4 \left[

1580: \frac{\gamma(T_g)}{\gamma(T)} \right]^4 \right]^{-1/2}.

1581: \end{equation}

1582: The ratio $F_{n.e.}^\ddagger(T)/F_g^\ddagger$ was computed in the

1583: beginning of the Appendix and given in the main text as

1584: Eq.(\ref{nonArrh_rat}); $\delta \Delta F^\ddagger(T_g)$ is obtained

1585: from Eq.(\ref{2}) at $T=T_g$.

1586: 

1587: %\vspace{-5mm}

1588: 

1589: \begin{thebibliography}{99} 

1590: 

1591: %\vspace{-5mm}

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{OLSW} J.N. Onuchic, Z. Luthey-Schulten and P.G. Wolynes,

1594: Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem {\bf 48}, 545-600 (1997).

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{Wales} D.J. Wales, Energy Landscapes with application to

1597: Clusters, Biomolecules and Glasses (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge,

1598: 2003)

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{KW_PRA} T.R.Kirkpatrick and P.G.Wolynes, Phys. Rev. A {\bf

1601: 31}, 939 (1985).

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{KW_PRB} T.R.Kirkpatrick and P.G.Wolynes, Phys. Rev. B {\bf

1604: 36}, 8552 (1987).

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{KTW} T.R.Kirkpatrick, D.Thirumalai and P.G.Wolynes,

1607: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 40}, 1045 (1989).

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{XW} X.Xia and P.G.Wolynes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. {\bf 97},

1610: 2990 (2000).

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{XWbeta} X.Xia and P.G.Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5526 (2001).

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{LW_soft} V.Lubchenko and P.G.Wolynes, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf

1615: 119}, 9088 (2003).

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{LW} V.Lubchenko and P.G.Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},

1618: 195901 (2001).

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{LW_BP} V.Lubchenko and P.G.Wolynes,

1621: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 100}, 1515 (2003).

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{Bouchaud} J.P. Bouchaud, et al. in ``Spin Glasses and Random

1624: Fields,'' A.P. Young, ed. World Scientific, Singapore 1998.

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{Struik} L.C. Struik, Physical Aging in Amorphous Polymers and

1627: other materials (Elsevier, Houston, 1978).

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Tool} A.Q.Tool, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. {\bf 29}, 240 (1946).

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{Narayanaswamy} O.S.Narayanaswamy, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. {\bf

1632: 54}, 491 (1971).

1633: 

1634: \bibitem{Moynihan} C.T.Moynihan, A.J.Easteal, M.A.Debolt, and

1635: J.Tucker, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. {\bf 59}, 12 (1976).

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{Scherer} G.W. Scherer, J. Am. Chem. Soc. {\bf 67}, 504 (1984)

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{Hodge} I.M.Hodge, Macromol. {\bf 20}, 2897 (1987);

1640: J. Noncryst Solids {\bf 169}, 211 (1994).

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{AdamGibbs} G.Adam and J.H.Gibbs, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 43}, 139 (1965).

1643: 

1644: \bibitem{Alegria} A.Alegria, E.Guerrica-Echevarr\'{i}a, L.Goitiand\'{i}a,

1645:     I.Teller\'{i}a, and J.Colmenero, Macromol. {\bf 28}, 1516 (1995).

1646: 

1647: 

1648: \bibitem{MPV} M. Mezard, G.Parisi and M.Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory

1649: and Beyond (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985)

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{Coluzzi} B. Coluzzi, G. Parisi and P. Verrocchio,

1652: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 112}, 2933 (2000)

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{inherent} F.H.Stillinger and T.A.Weber, Phys. Rev. A {\bf

1655:   25}, 978 (1982).

1656: 

1657: \bibitem{Mezei} F.Mezei, in ``Liquids, Freezing and the Glass

1658: Transition'', ed. J.P.Hansma, D.Levesque and J.Zinn-Justin,

1659: North-Holland, Amsterdam, p.629, 1991.

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{SW} J.P.Stoessel and P.G.Wolynes,

1662: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 80}, 4502 (1984).

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{SSW} Y.Singh, J.P.Stoessel, and P.G.Wolynes,

1665: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 54}, 1059 (1985). 

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{DasguptaValls} C.Dasgupta and O.T.Valls, Phys. Rev. E {\bf

1668: 59}, 3123 (1999).

1669: 

1670: \bibitem{HW} R.W.Hall and P.G.Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90},

1671: 085505 (2003).

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{Parisi} G.Parisi, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 16D}, 939 (1994).

1674: 

1675: \bibitem{Villain} J.Villain, J. Physique {\bf 46}, 1843 (1985).

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{Ediger} M. Ediger, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem {\bf 51}, 99 (2000)

1678: 

1679: \bibitem{Nelson} D.R.Nelson, ``Defects and Geometry in Condensed

1680: Matter Physics'', Cambridge UniversityPress, 2002.

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{Kivelson} D.Kivelson, S.A.Kivelson, X.L.Zhao, Z.Nussinov, and

1683: G.Tarjus, Physica A {\bf 219}, 27 (1995).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{Andersen} G.H.Fredrickson and H.C.Andersen,

1686: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 83}, 5822 (1985).

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{Eastwood} M.P.Eastwood and P.G.Wolynes, Europhys. Lett. {\bf

1689: 60}, 587 (2002).

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{Nussinov} Z.Nussinov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 014208 (2004)

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Angell_cp1} C.Alba, L.E.Busse, D.J.List, and C.Angell,

1694: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 92}, 617 (1990)

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{Angell_cp2} R.Richert and C.A. Angell, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf

1697: 108}, 9016 (1998)

1698: 

1699: \bibitem{McKenna} G.B.McKenna and C.A.Angell, J. Noncryst. Solids {\bf

1700: 131-133}, 528 (1991)

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{app_phys_rev} C.A.Angell, K.L.Ngai, G.B.McKenna, P.F.Millan, and

1703: S.W.Martin, Appl. Phys. {\bf 88}, 3113 (2000)

1704: 

1705: \bibitem{Castaing} B.Castaing and J.Souletie, J de Phys I {\bf 1}, 403

1706:   (1991); C. Monthus and J. Bouchaud, J. Phys. A {\bf 29}, 3847 (1990)

1707: 

1708: \bibitem{Leheny} R.L.Leheny and S.R.Nagel, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 5154

1709: (1998).

1710: 

1711: \bibitem{slaving} H. Frauenfelder, V. Lubchenko and P.G. Wolynes,

1712: unpublished.

1713: 

1714: \bibitem{Dyre} N.B. Olsen, T. Christensen and J. Dyre,

1715: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1271 (2001).

1716: 

1717: \bibitem{buffing} S.S.Plotkin and P.G.Wolynes,

1718: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. {\bf 100}, 4417 (2003).

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{MillerMcPhail} R.S. Miller and R.A. McPhail,

1721: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 106}, 3393 (1997)

1722: 

1723: \bibitem{RussellIsraeloff} E.V.Russell and N. Israeloff, Nature {\bf

1724: 408}, 695 (2000).

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{VandenBout} L.A.Deschenes, D.A.Vanden Bout, Science {\bf 292}

1727:   255 (2001).

1728: 

1729: \end{thebibliography} \end{document}

1730: