1: \documentclass[twocolumn, nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[preprint ,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{dcolumn}

4: \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{epsf} \usepackage{amssymb}

5: 

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: 

9: \sloppy

10: 

11: \newcommand{\prtl}{\partial}

12: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}

13: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

14: \newcommand{\dla}{\la \! \! \! \la}

15: \newcommand{\dra}{\ra \! \! \! \ra}

16: \newcommand{\we}{\widetilde}

17: %

18: \newcommand{\ws}{\we{s}}

19: \newcommand{\wF}{\we{F}}

20: \newcommand{\sins}{{\mbox{\scriptsize ins}}}

21: \newcommand{\smfp}{{\mbox{\scriptsize mfp}}}

22: \newcommand{\sfull}{{\mbox{\scriptsize full}}}

23: \newcommand{\smp}{{\mbox{\scriptsize mp}}}

24: \newcommand{\sLZ}{{\mbox{\scriptsize LZ}}}

25: \newcommand{\sph}{{\mbox{\scriptsize ph}}}

26: \newcommand{\sinhom}{{\mbox{\scriptsize inhom}}}

27: \newcommand{\sneigh}{{\mbox{\scriptsize neigh}}}

28: \newcommand{\srlxn}{{\mbox{\scriptsize rlxn}}}

29: \newcommand{\svibr}{{\mbox{\scriptsize vibr}}}

30: \newcommand{\smicro}{{\mbox{\scriptsize micro}}}

31: \newcommand{\smax}{{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}}

32: \newcommand{\seq}{{\mbox{\scriptsize eq}}}

33: \newcommand{\sstr}{{\mbox{\scriptsize str}}}

34: \newcommand{\teq}{{\mbox{\tiny eq}}}

35: \newcommand{\sinn}{{\mbox{\scriptsize in}}}

36: \newcommand{\tin}{{\mbox{\tiny in}}}

37: \newcommand{\scr}{{\mbox{\scriptsize cr}}}

38: \newcommand{\sscr}{{\mbox{\scriptsize scr}}}

39: \newcommand{\sL}{{\mbox{\scriptsize L}}}

40: \newcommand{\sTS}{{\mbox{\scriptsize TS}}}

41: \newcommand{\stheor}{{\mbox{\scriptsize theor}}}

42: \newcommand{\sGS}{{\mbox{\scriptsize GS}}}

43: \newcommand{\sNMT}{{\mbox{\scriptsize NMT}}}

44: \newcommand{\sRFOT}{{\mbox{\scriptsize RFOT}}}

45: \newcommand{\tRFOT}{{\mbox{\tiny RFOT}}}

46: \newcommand{\sbulk}{{\mbox{\scriptsize bulk}}}

47: \newcommand{\tbulk}{{\mbox{\tiny bulk}}}

48: \newcommand{\tDC}{{\mbox{\tiny DC}}}

49: \newcommand{\sauto}{{\mbox{\scriptsize auto}}}

50: \newcommand{\tauto}{{\mbox{\tiny auto}}}

51: \newcommand{\sescape}{{\mbox{\scriptsize escape}}}

52: \newcommand{\sth}{{\mbox{\scriptsize th}}}

53: \newcommand{\svib}{{\mbox{\scriptsize vib}}}

54: %

55: \newcommand{\sT}{{\mbox{\scriptsize T}}}

56: \newcommand{\sTLS}{{\mbox{\scriptsize TLS}}}

57: \newcommand{\sd}{{\mbox{\scriptsize d}}}

58: \newcommand{\sext}{{\mbox{\scriptsize ext}}}

59: \newcommand{\scav}{{\mbox{\scriptsize cav}}}

60: \newcommand{\bmu}{\bm \mu}

61: \newcommand{\bE}{\bm E}

62: \newcommand{\bD}{\bm D}

63: \newcommand{\bd}{\bm d}

64: \newcommand{\br}{\bm r}

65: \newcommand{\bj}{\bm j}

66: \newcommand{\bi}{\bm i}

67: \newcommand{\bnabla}{\bm \nabla}

68: \newcommand{\smol}{{\mbox{\scriptsize mol}}}

69: %

70: \def\Xint#1{\mathchoice

71:    {\XXint\displaystyle\textstyle{#1}}%

72:    {\XXint\textstyle\scriptstyle{#1}}%

73:    {\XXint\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle{#1}}%

74:    {\XXint\scriptscriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle{#1}}%

75:    \!\int}

76: \def\XXint#1#2#3{{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1{#2#3}{\int}$}

77:      \vcenter{\hbox{$#2#3$}}\kern-.5\wd0}}

78: \def\ddashint{\Xint=}

79: \def\dashint{\Xint-}

80: %

81: %

82: %

83: \title{Charge and momentum transfer in supercooled melts: \\ Why

84:   should their relaxation times differ?}

85: 

86: \author{Vassiliy Lubchenko} \affiliation{Department of Chemistry,

87:   University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-5003}

88: 

89: %\date{\today}

90: 

91: \begin{abstract}

92: 

93:   The steady state values of the viscosity and the intrinsic

94:   ionic-conductivity of quenched melts are computed, in terms of

95:   independently measurable quantities. The frequency dependence of the

96:   ac dielectric response is estimated.  The discrepancy between the

97:   corresponding characteristic relaxation times is only apparent; it

98:   does not imply distinct mechanisms, but stems from the intrinsic

99:   barrier distribution for $\alpha$-relaxation in supercooled fluids

100:   and glasses.  This type of intrinsic ``decoupling'' is argued not to

101:   exceed four orders in magnitude, for known glassformers. We explain

102:   the origin of the discrepancy between the stretching exponent

103:   $\beta$, as extracted from $\epsilon(\omega)$ and the dielectric

104:   modulus data.  The actual width of the barrier distribution always

105:   grows with lowering the temperature. The contrary is an artifact of

106:   the large contribution of the dc-conductivity component to the

107:   modulus data.  The methodology allows one to single out other

108:   contributions to the conductivity, as in ``superionic'' liquids or

109:   when charge carriers are delocalized, implying that in those

110:   systems, charge transfer does not require structural

111:   reconfiguration.

112: 

113: 

114: \end{abstract}

115: 

116: \date{\today}

117: 

118: \maketitle

119: 

120: \section{Introduction}

121: 

122: 

123: Molecular motions in deeply supercooled melts and glasses are

124: cooperative so that transporting a single molecule requires concurrent

125: rearrangement of up to several hundreds of surrounding molecules. Such

126: high degree of cooperativity results in high barriers even for the

127: smallest scale molecular translations. These high barriers underly the

128: slow, activated dynamics in deeply supercooled melts and the emergence

129: of a mechanically stable aperiodic lattice, if a melt is quenched

130: sufficiently rapidly.  The Random First Order Transition (RFOT)

131: methodology, developed by Wolynes and coworkers, provides a

132: constructive microscopic picture of the structural rearrangements in

133: supercooled melts and quenched glasses. The RFOT has quantitatively

134: explained or predicted the signature phenomena accompanying the glass

135: transition, including the connection between the thermodynamic and

136: kinetic anomalies \cite{KTW, XW, XWbeta}, the length scale of the

137: cooperative rearrangements \cite{XW}, deviations from Stokes-Einstein

138: hydrodynamics \cite{XWhydro}, aging \cite{LW_aging}, the low

139: temperature anomalies \cite{LW, LW_BP, LW_RMP}, and more. (See

140: \cite{LW_ARPC} for a recent review.)

141: 

142: Perhaps the most dramatic experimental signature of the glass

143: transition is the rapid super-Arrhenius growth of the relaxation times

144: with lowering the temperature, from about a picosecond, near the

145: melting point $T_m$, to as long as hours, at the glass transition

146: temperature $T_g$. These relaxation times are deduced via several

147: distinct experimental methodologies and all display an extraordinarily

148: broad dynamical range.  Nevertheless, making detailed comparisons

149: between those distinct methodologies has required additional

150: phenomenological assumptions. Mysteriously, these comparisons show a

151: significant degree of mismatch, sometimes by several orders of

152: magnitude. For example, the phenomenological ``conductivity relaxation

153: time'' $\tau_\sigma$ \cite{Macedo1972}, is consistently shorter than

154: the mechanical relaxation time $\tau_s$, especially at lower

155: temperatures. The apparent time scale separation varies wildly from

156: system to system: For instance in molten nitrates, it is about four

157: orders of magnitude at $T_g$ \cite{Howell1974}, while in silver

158: containing superionic melts, the $\tau_s/\tau_\sigma$ ratio becomes as

159: large as $10^{11}$ \cite{McLinAngell}, i.e. almost as much as the

160: whole dynamical range accessible to the melt!  This disparity

161: suggested that the mechanical relaxation and the electrical

162: conductivity in these systems were in fact due to distinct mechanisms:

163: At higher temperatures, the time scale separation is small so that the

164: two processes strongly affect each other, or ``mix'', while at lower

165: temperatures, the processes become increasingly ``decoupled''

166: \cite{Angell}. At such low temperatures, the mechanical relaxation

167: occurs via the aforementioned, activated concerted events, also called

168: the primary, or $\alpha$-relaxation.  Other processes that seem to

169: decouple from the mechanical relaxation include nuclear spin

170: relaxation, rotational diffusion, and the diffusion of small

171: probes. (For reviews, see \cite{Angell, Ngai, CiceroneEdiger})

172: 

173: Here we focus on two specific transport phenomena: low-frequency

174: momentum transfer, i.e. the viscous response, and the ionic conduction

175: in supercooled melts. Notwithstanding the complications needed to

176: analyze the electrical modulus data \cite{Elliott1994, Roling1998,

177:   ColeTombari, Sidebottom1995, Moynihan1994, Dyre1991, Doi1988}, the

178: mismatch between the typical relaxation times, corresponding to the

179: two types of transport, is clearly present. Furthermore, in the case

180: of superionic compounds, one may show (see below) that conduction

181: occurs without distorting the liquid's structure beyond the typical

182: vibrational displacements.  This is much less obvious for compounds

183: where the ionic motions are ``decoupled'' from the bulk structural

184: relaxation by four orders of magnitude or less, the latter dynamic

185: range comparable to the breadth of the $\alpha$-peaks in dielectric

186: dispersion in insulating melts near $T_g$ (see

187: e.g. \cite{LSBL}). Accounting for the distribution width is essential

188: here because the viscosity and conductivity are distinct, in fact

189: exactly reciprocal types of response: In momentum transfer, the

190: velocity gradient is the source, and the passed-on rate-of-force is

191: the response.  In charge transfer, the force on the ion is the source,

192: while the arising velocity field is the response. Consistent with this

193: general notion, in computing the viscosity, we will average the

194: relaxation time, with respect to local inhomogeneities, while the

195: intrinsic ionic conductivity will be determined by the average {\em

196:   rate} of $\alpha$-relaxation. Because of the mentioned, extremely

197: broad distribution of structural relaxation times $\tau$, the quantity

198: $ \la \tau \ra \la \tau^{-1} \ra $ may reach several orders of

199: magnitude, and so an apparent decoupling is indeed expected; no

200: additional microscopic mechanisms need to be invoked. 

201: 

202: The microscopic calculation and comparison, of the viscosity and the

203: ionic conductivity, are thus the main focus of this article. The two

204: quantities are computed, in terms of the barrier distribution and

205: other measurable material properties, in Sections \ref{visc} and

206: \ref{cond} respectively. To perform comparisons with experiment and

207: assess the upper limit on the ``inherent decoupling'' between the two

208: phenomena, we will discuss the barrier distribution in some detail, in

209: Section \ref{Barrier}. We will find that indeed, the degree of

210: decoupling should increase with the width of the barrier distribution,

211: and hence at lower temperatures, as demonstrated by the RFOT

212: methodology \cite{XWbeta}. We will assess the deviation between

213: $\alpha$-relaxation times, as deduced from viscosity, ionic

214: conductance, and the maximum in $\epsilon''(\omega)$.  Further, we

215: will exemplify potential ambiguities in using the dielectric modulus

216: formalism in estimating the relaxation time distribution. The latter

217: techique has suggested that for some substances, the distribution

218: width in fact decreases with lowering the temperature, in conflict

219: with the present results and the correlation between the stretching

220: exponent $\beta$ and temperature, predicted earlier by the RFOT theory

221: \cite{XWbeta}. We will see that the conflict is artificial and results

222: from the large contribution of the ac-component to the modulus data,

223: consistent with earlier, phenomenological arguments \cite{Johari1988,

224:   Roling1998}.

225: 

226: \section{Viscosity}

227: \label{visc} 

228: 

229: 

230: The key microscopic notion behind the RFOT methodology is that, {\em

231:   regardless of the detailed interparticle potentials}, local

232: aperiodic arrangements in classical condensates become meta{\em

233:   stable} below a certain temperature $T_A$ (or above a certain

234: density) \cite{dens_F1, dens_F2}. Chemical detail and molecular

235: structure affect the value of $T_A$, and the viscosity of the

236: fluid. If the viscosity is high enough, one may cool the liquid so

237: that it becomes locally trapped in metastable minima, while avoiding

238: the nucleation of a periodic crystal, which would have been the lowest

239: free energy state. Another system-dependent quantity is the size $a$

240: of the elemental structural unit in the metastable liquid, or

241: ``bead'': the length $a$ plays the role of the lattice spacing in the

242: aperiodic structure, and is indeed quite analogous to the size of the

243: unit cell in an oxide crystal, or it may correspond to the size of a

244: rigid monomer or side chain in a polymer. The size $a$ characterizes

245: the range of the local chemical order that sets in during a crossover,

246: at a temperature $T_\scr$, from collision dominated transport to

247: activated dynamics \cite{LW_soft}. The temperature $T_\scr$ is related

248: to the meanfield temperature $T_A$ but is always smaller. The bead

249: size $a$ may be unambiguously determined from the fusion entropy of

250: the corresponding crystal, when the latter entropy is known

251: \cite{LW_soft}, or else can be computed from the fragility $D$ using

252: the universal relationship between the latter and the heat capacity

253: jump at $T_g$: $D = 32/\Delta c_p$, as derived in RFOT \cite{XW,

254:   StevensonW}. Alternatively, if the configuration entropy can be

255: reliably estimated, one may use the RFOT-derived relation for the

256: configurational entropy per bead $s_c \sim .8 k_B$ \cite{XW}, which is

257: somewhat sensitive to the barrier-softening effects though

258: \cite{LW_soft}.

259: 

260: \begin{figure}[t]

261:   \includegraphics[width= .95 \columnwidth]{xiFN.eps}

262:   \caption{\label{xiFN} {\bf (a):} Typical nucleation profile of one

263:     aperiodic lattice, within another, in deeply supercooled liquids.

264:     $N \equiv (4\pi/3) (r/a)^3$, $N^\ddagger$ is the typical

265:     transition state size: $(dF/dN)_{N^\ddagger} = 0$. $\xi$ is the

266:     volumetrically defined cooperative length: $N^* \equiv (\xi/a)^3$,

267:     where $F(N^*) = 0$. {\bf (b):} Cartoon of a structural

268:     rearrangement. The shown magnitude of $\xi$ corresponds to a

269:     temperature near $T_g$ on 1 hour scale. The two sets of circles -

270:     solid and dashed ones - denote two alternative structural

271:     states. $d_L \simeq a/10$, or the ``Lindemann length'', is the

272:     typical bead displacement during a transition.}

273: \end{figure} 

274:   

275: Once locally metastable, the liquid may reconfigure but in an

276: activated fashion, i.e. by nucleating a new aperiodic structure within

277: the present one.  Such activated events occur, on average, once per

278: typical $\alpha$-relaxation time $\tau$, per region of size $\xi$.

279: The nucleus grows in a sequence of individual, nearly-barrierless bead

280: moves of length $d_L \simeq a/10$ \cite{dens_F1, L_Lindemann} and time

281: $\tau_\smicro \simeq 1$ ps \cite{L_Lindemann}. The overall sequence of

282: elemental moves typically corresponds to the following activation

283: profile, see Fig.\ref{xiFN}(a):

284: \begin{equation} \label{F(N)} F(N) = \gamma \sqrt{N} - T s_c N,

285: \end{equation}

286: where $N$ is the size of a reconfigured region. The ``surface term''

287: $\gamma \sqrt{N}$ is the mismatch penalty for creating one aperiodic

288: structure within another. $s_c$ is the excess, ``configurational''

289: entropy of the liquid per bead, hence the entropic, bulk term $(-T s_c

290: N)$, which drives the transition and reflects the multiplicity of

291: possible aperiodic arrangements in a region of size $N$. The maximum

292: of the profile:

293: \begin{equation} \label{Fsc} F^\ddagger = \mbox{max}\{F(N)\} =

294:   \frac{\gamma^2}{4 s_c T}

295: \end{equation}

296: is achieved at $N^\ddagger= N^*/4$, where $F(N^*)=0$, so that the

297: typical relaxation time is

298: \begin{equation} \label{tau} \tau = \tau_\smicro e^{F^\ddagger/k_B T}

299:   \equiv \tau_\smicro e^{D T_K/(T - T_K)}.

300: \end{equation}

301: This formula works well at $\tau > 1$ nsec or so.  The form on the

302: r.h.s. is the Vogel-Fulcher law, derived in the RFOT.

303: 

304: The end result of a cooperative, activated event is a reconfigured

305: region of size $\xi$, where each of the $N^* \equiv (\xi/a)^3$ beads

306: has moved the Lindemann length $d_L$, or so, see Fig.\ref{xiFN}(b).

307: Both $\xi$ and the nucleation critical size, $r^\ddagger =

308: \xi/4^{1/3}$, increase with lowering the temperature, roughly as

309: $r^\ddagger \propto \xi \propto 1/(T - T_K)^{2/3}$ \cite{KTW, XW,

310:   LW_soft}. Here, $T_K$ is the so called ideal glass transition

311: temperature, where the excess liquid entropy $s_c$, extrapolated below

312: $T_g$, would vanish \cite{Kauzmann}.  At $T_g$, $\xi$ is still quite

313: modest, only about six beads across \cite{XW, LW}.  Activated

314: transport becomes dominant below the temperature $T_\scr$, such that

315: $r^\ddagger(T_\scr) = a$, which corresponds, apparently universally,

316: to $\tau/\tau_\smicro \simeq 10^3$, or viscosities on the order of 10

317: Ps \cite{LW_soft}. At times shorter than $10^3 \tau_\smicro$, one may

318: then speak of a local aperiodic lattice on length scales of the

319: cooperativity size $\xi$, since the slow structural reconfigurations

320: have now time-scale separated from the vibrations

321: \cite{LW_soft}. Because of the local nature of structural relaxations,

322: one speaks of dynamic heterogeneity, or a ``mosaic'' of cooperative

323: rearrangments \cite{XW}. The heterogeneity is two-fold: On the one

324: hand, a {\em local} rearrangment implies that the surrounding

325: structure is static during the transition, up to vibrations. On the

326: other hand, because of the spatial and temporal variation in the local

327: density of states (and hence variations in $s_c$), local

328: reconfigurations are generally subject to somewhat different barriers

329: in different regions \cite{XW} (see Eq.(\ref{Fsc}) and also Section

330: \ref{Barrier}).

331: 

332: Computation of the viscosity in such a dynamically heterogeneous

333: environment may be done in two steps: First compute the viscosity in a

334: medium with a homogeneous relaxation time, call it $\tau'$, and then

335: average out with respect to the true distribution of the relaxation

336: times. This procedure is valid in view of the equivalence of time and

337: ensemble average.  When the relaxation rate is strictly spatially

338: homogeneous, one may formally define a diffusion constant for an

339: individual bead: $D' = d_L^2/6 \tau'$, since a bead moves the

340: Lindemann length, once per time $\tau'$, on average. Note that since a

341: bead's movements, as embodied in $d_L$ and $\tau'$, are dictated by

342: its cage, this is an example of ``slaved'' motion, to borrow

343: Frauenfelder's adjective for conformational changes of a protein

344: encased in a stiff solvent \cite{FFMP, LWF}.  One may associate, by

345: detailed balance, a low-frequency drag coefficient to that diffusion

346: constant: $\zeta' = k_B T/D'$. Such dissipative response implies

347: irreversible momentum exchange between a chosen particle and its

348: homogeneous (!)  surrounding, hence a Stokes' viscosity $\eta' =

349: \zeta'/(6 \pi a/2)$, where $a/2$ is used for the radius of the region

350: carved out in the liquid by a single bead.  Averaging with respect to

351: $\tau'$ yields for the steady state viscosity of the actual

352: heterogeneous liquid:

353: \begin{equation} \label{eta1} \eta = \frac{2 k_B T}{\pi a d_L^2} \la

354:   \tau \ra,

355: \end{equation}

356: where we have removed the prime at $\tau$, implying averaging with

357: respect to the actual barrier distribution.  The equation above can be

358: rewritten as

359: \begin{equation} \eta = (a/d_L)^2 \frac{2 k_B T}{\pi a^3} \la \tau \ra

360:   \simeq 60 \: \frac{k_B T_g}{a^3} \la \tau \ra,

361: \end{equation}

362: since the Lindemann ratio, $d_L/a \simeq 0.1$ has been argued to

363: change at most by 10\% between $T_m$ and $T_g$ \cite{L_Lindemann}.

364: 

365: Another instructive way to present Eq.(\ref{eta1}) is to note that the

366: Lindemann length is nearly equal to the typical amplitude of

367: high-frequency vibrations: $d_L \simeq d_\svibr$, within 5\% or so,

368: see Fig.3 of Ref.\cite{L_Lindemann}. The vibrational amplitude is

369: fixed by the equipartition theorem, since per bead: $K_\infty a^3

370: (d_\svibr/a)^2 = k_B T$, where $K_\infty$ is the high-frequency

371: elastic constant of the aperiodic lattice. One gets, as a result, a

372: Maxwell-type expression:

373: \begin{equation} \label{eta3} \eta \sim K_\infty \la \tau \ra.

374: \end{equation}

375: The last equation provides an easy way to see that the estimates in

376: Eqs.(\ref{eta1})-(\ref{eta3}) agree well with the experiment: Judging

377: from the sound speed in glasses \cite{FreemanAnderson,

378:   BerretMeissner}, the typical high frequency elastic modulus is about

379: $10^{9} - 10^{10}$ Pa, i.e. comparable but somewhat less than those of

380: crystals. The range of relaxation times $10^{-12} - 10^{4}$ sec,

381: implies $10^{-3} - 10^{13}$ Pa$\cdot$sec for the viscosity, as is

382: indeed observed. Alternatively, one may obtain these figures by

383: substituting a typical $a \sim 3$\AA ~(see \cite{LW_soft, StevensonW}

384: for specific estimates of bead sizes/densities).

385: 

386: Finally, the exploited equivalence between the time and ensemble

387: averages implies that crystallization has not begun during the

388: experiment, of course. The latter possibility adds uncertainty into

389: viscosity measurements, as the presence of crystallites would greatly

390: broaden the dynamic range of local relaxations owing to relatively

391: slow crystal nucleation events and the slow hydrodynamics near the

392: crystallites.  Similarly, long chain motions in polymeric melts would

393: also introduce additional long time scales into the problem. Our

394: derivation does not apply to those situations. We note that optical

395: transparency, which is often used as an indicator of no-crystallinity,

396: does not ensure that crystallites - hundreds of nanometers across or

397: smaller - are absent. Therefore a rigorous experimental study should,

398: in the least, check whether performing viscoelastic measurements has

399: enhanced the crystallization of the sample. Ideally, X-ray diffraction

400: should be monitored in the course of viscosity measurements.

401: 

402: 

403: \section{Ionic Conductivity}

404: \label{cond} 

405: 

406: In any supercooled melt, whether regarded ionic or not, the beads

407: carry an additional charge, relative to the corresponding crystal,

408: because of the lack of crystalline symmetry. As a result, each

409: structural reconfiguration is characterized by a transition-induced

410: electric dipole, see Fig.\ref{domain_dipole}.

411: \begin{figure}[t]

412: \includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{domain_dipole.eps}

413: \caption{\label{domain_dipole} Shown on the left is a fragment of the

414:   mosaic of cooperatively reconfiguring regions in the supercooled

415:   liquid.  Expanded portion shows how rotation of a bond leads to

416:   generating an elemental dipole change during a transition, where the

417:   partial charges on the two beads are $\pm \zeta q$.}

418: \end{figure} 

419: 

420: The latter was estimated to be about a Debye or so, for most molecular

421: substances \cite{LSWdipole}. This value comes about as we may break up

422: the whole domain into $N^*/2$ pairs, where is pair has an elemental

423: dipole $\bmu_i$, $i = 1 \ldots N^*/2$: $\la |\bmu_i| \ra = \zeta e

424: q$. Here $q$ is the elementary charge: $q = 10^0 e$, and $\zeta < 1$

425: characterizes the excess charge. This quantity $\zeta$ is usually

426: small reflecting small deviations from the crystalline symmetry, in

427: the case of molecular crystals, or reflecting the weak interaction in

428: Van der Waals systems.  Alternatively, the overall density of

429: charged/polar beads may be low.  Ionic melts, by the very meaning of

430: the term, are distinct from molecular/Van der Waals systems in that

431: nearly {\em all} beads are strongly charged, implying $\zeta \sim 1$.

432: To be more specific, the conclusions of this article will be

433: exemplified with an often studied mixture of 40\%

434: Ca(NO$_3$)$_2$-60\%KNO$_3$ (``CKN''), $T_g \simeq 330$K.

435:  

436: During a transition, each dipole turns by an angle $(d_L/a)$. The

437: total transition dipole: 

438: \begin{equation} \bmu_T = \sum_{j}^{N^*/2} \left[ \bmu_j^{(f)} -

439:     \bmu_j^{(in)} \right]

440: \end{equation}

441: scales as $\sqrt{N^*}$ because of the random orientation of the

442: elemental dipoles \cite{LSWdipole}:

443: \begin{equation}

444:   \mu_T \simeq \zeta (q a) [(\xi/a)^3/2]^{1/2} (d_L/a).

445: \label{mu_Tqual}

446: \end{equation} 

447: When the dipole density is uniform, every transition results in a

448: local arrangement equally representative of the liquid structure.  In

449: other words, structural transitions do not modify the overall pattern

450: of the immediate coordination shell.  Transitions lead to a local

451: ionic currents: $\bi' = \bmu_T'/\tau'$, per region of volume $\xi^3$.

452: In the presence of an electric field, the net current density:

453: \begin{equation}

454:   \bj  = \la \bj' \ra = \frac{1}{\xi^3} \la \frac{\bmu_T}{\tau} \ra,

455: \end{equation}

456: is non-zero because the dipole moment at the transition state is

457: correlated with the overall transition dipole moment.  The latter can

458: be shown using Wolynes' library construction of liquid states

459: \cite{LW_aging}.  Repeating that argument, but in the presence of

460: electric field $\bE$, yields for the typical free energy profile for

461: structural reconfiguration in steady state:

462: \begin{equation} \label{F(N)E} F(N) = \gamma \sqrt{N} - \bmu_T(N)

463:   \bE_c - T s_c N,

464: \end{equation}

465: where $N$ is the size of the rearranged region and

466: \begin{equation}

467:   \bmu_T(N) = \sum_j^{N/2} \left[ \mu_j^{(f)} - \mu_j^{(in)} \right] 

468: \end{equation}

469: is the overall dipole change in that region. The subscript ``$c$'' in

470: $\bE_c$ signifies that the latter is a cavity field. The field

471: dependent term $|\bmu_T(N) \bE_c| \ll k_B T$ is overwhelmingly smaller

472: than the other terms in Eq.(\ref{F(N)E}). As a result, the transition

473: state dipole moment is not field-induced, but, again, is ``slaved'' to

474: the lattice. More formally, one may use the argument from

475: Ref.\cite{LW} showing that the density of structural states at the

476: reconfiguration bottle-neck is of the order $1/T_g$, implying the

477: field will not affect the specific sequence of elemental moves, but

478: will affect the dynamics merely by shifting the energies along

479: structurally dictated sequences of moves. Thus in the lowest order in

480: $\bE_c$, $\tau^{-1}(\bE_c) = \tau^{-1}(\bE_c=0)(1+ \bmu_T^\ddagger

481: \bE_c/k_B T)$, yielding

482: \begin{equation} \bj = \la \frac{\bmu_T (\bmu_T^\ddagger \bE_c)}{\tau}

483:   \ra \frac{1}{k_B T},

484: \end{equation}

485: where $\bmu_T^\ddagger \equiv \bmu_T(N^\ddagger)$ is the transition

486: dipole moment at the zero-field transition state. The cavity field,

487: see e.g. \cite{TitulaerDeutch}, is related to the external field

488: $E^{(\infty)}$ by

489: \begin{equation} E_c(\omega) = E^{(\infty)}(\omega) \frac{3

490:     \epsilon_b(\omega)}{2 \epsilon_b(\omega)+1},

491: \end{equation}

492: where $\epsilon_b(\omega)$ is the dielectric constant of the

493: surrounding bulk. Since a steady current is implied in the derivation,

494: (the imaginary part of) $\epsilon_b(\omega)$ diverges at zero

495: frequency, implying $E_c = E^{(\infty)} (3/2)$.  One thus obtains for

496: the ionic conductivity tensor:

497: \begin{equation} \sigma_{ij} = \la \frac{(\bmu_T)_i

498:     (\bmu_T^\ddagger)_j}{\tau} \ra \frac{3}{2 k_B T \xi^3}.

499: \end{equation}

500: Bearing in mind that $N^\ddagger = N^*/4 = (\xi/a)^3/4$, and that the

501: liquid is isotropic, on average: $\la (\Delta \bmu)_i (\Delta \bmu)_j

502: \ra = \delta_{ij} (\Delta \mu)^2/3$, one finally has:

503: \begin{equation} \label{sij} \sigma_{ij} = \delta_{ij} \, \frac{\Delta

504:     \mu_\smol^2}{8 \, a^3 k_B T} \la \frac{1}{\tau} \ra,

505: \end{equation}

506: where

507: \begin{equation} \Delta \mu_\smol^2 \equiv \la \left[ \mu_j^{(f)} -

508:     \mu_j^{(in)} \right]^2 \ra

509: \end{equation}

510: is the average elemental dipole change squared. Finally note that in

511: covalently networked materials, where dipole assignment may be

512: ambiguous, one may still estimate local dipole changes using the known

513: piezoelectric properties of the corresponding crystal, see

514: \cite{LSWdipole} for details.

515: 

516: The derivation above does not apply to systems where the dipole

517: density is significatly non-uniform. For instance, glycerol has one

518: polar, OH group per non-polar, aliphatic group, implying the liquid is

519: non-homogeneous, dipole moment wise, on the $\alpha$-relaxation time

520: scale. In such systems, the premise that structural rearrangements

521: result in equally representative configurations of the liquid does not

522: hold. In the glycerol example, ionic conduction would imply breaking

523: OH or CH bonds. In CKN, on the other hand, the overall bond pattern,

524: around any atom, does not change significantly during a transition,

525: even though individual bonds distort by the Lindemann length, as

526: mentioned.  Eq.(\ref{sij}) thus places the absolute upper limit on the

527: {\em intrinsic} ionic conductivity of a melt. By ``intrinsic'' we mean

528: that the computed currents are always present in the fluid and result

529: from the intrinsic activated transport: Local bond pattern does not

530: change significantly in the course of an individual activated event,

531: but only in the course of many consecutive events, since during an

532: individual event, the molecular displacements barely exceed typical

533: vibrational displacements. Conversely, if a system displays a higher

534: conductivity than prescribed by Eq.(\ref{sij}), one may conclude that

535: the ion motion does not require structural reconfiguration. Here, the

536: bond pattern actually changes, however these are not scaffold bonds of

537: the aperiodic lattice comprising the fluid (or glass). (More on this

538: below.)

539: 

540: 

541: To simplify comparison of Eq.(\ref{sij}) with experiment, let us

542: express the combination of the bead charge $\zeta q$ and size $a$, in

543: Eq.(\ref{sij}), through the {\em finite} frequency dielectric

544: response, a measurable quantity in principle (see below). The latter

545: is the response of a rearranging region in the absence of bulk

546: current, i.e. with a fixed environment, up to vibrations. It is

547: convenient to choose such regions at volume $\xi^3$, so that each

548: region has two structural states available, within thermal reach from

549: each other, separated by a barrier sampled from the actual barrier

550: distribution in the liquid.  If the two states, ``1'' and ``2'' are

551: characterized by dipole moments $\bmu_1$ and $\bmu_2$ respectively,

552: the expectation value of the dipole moment of the region is $\mu =

553: (\bmu_1 + \bmu_2)/2 + \Delta \bmu (p_2 - p_1)/2$, where $\Delta \bmu

554: \equiv (\bmu_2 - \bmu_1)$; $p_1$ and $p_2 = (1 - p_1)$ are the

555: probabities to occupy state 1 and 2 respectively. The relative

556: population $(p_2 - p_1)$ depends on the field via $\delta \ln(p_2/p_1)

557: = \Delta \bmu \bE_c/k_B T$. At realistic field strengths, i.e.

558: $|\Delta \bmu \bE_c/k_B T| \ll 1$, one has for the field-induced shift

559: of the relative population: $\delta (p_2 - p_1) \simeq 2 p_1 p_2

560: (\Delta \bmu \bE_c)$. Similarly to the preceding argument, $\la

561: (\Delta \bmu)_i (\Delta \bmu)_j \ra = (N^*/2) \delta_{ij} (\Delta

562: \mu_\smol)^2/3$. Further, since we have frozen the structural

563: transitions in the surrounding region, in estimating the cavity field,

564: one must use $\epsilon(\omega)$ with the $\alpha$-relaxation

565: contribution subtracted. This does not introduce much ambiguity

566: because in most ionic substances, the dielectric constant even at very

567: high frequences is significantly larger than unity. In CKN, for

568: instance, $\epsilon'(\infty) \simeq 7$ \cite{Howell1974}, allowing us

569: to write as before: $E_c \simeq E^{(\infty)}(3/2)$. One thus obtains,

570: in a standard fashion, for the frequency dependent dielectric constant

571: in the absence of macroscopic current:

572: \begin{equation} \label{epsmu} \epsilon_\sins(\omega)-\epsilon_\infty

573:   = 4 \pi \la p_1 p_2 \ra \frac{\Delta \mu_\smol^2}{4 \, a^3 k_B T}

574:   \la \frac{1}{1 - i \omega \tau} \ra,

575: \end{equation}

576: where the label ``ins'' signifies the absence of dc conductivity. 

577: 

578: 

579: In the presence of steady current, the full response per domain is the

580: sum of the steady current from Eq.(\ref{sij}) and the ac current from

581: Eq.(\ref{epsmu}). The addition of the dc contribution, $i

582: \sigma/\omega$, to the full dielectric response will increase the

583: absolute value of $\epsilon_b(\omega)$.  This means that

584: Eq.(\ref{epsmu}) should work even better. One thus gets for the full

585: dielectric response of a conducting substance:

586: \begin{equation} \label{epsfull} \epsilon(\omega) - \epsilon_\infty =

587:   4 \pi \la p_1 p_2 \ra \frac{\Delta \mu_\smol^2}{4 \, a^3 k_B T} \la

588:   \frac{1}{1 - i \omega \tau} \ra+ i \frac{\sigma}{\omega},

589: \end{equation}

590: where $\sigma$ is the dc conductivity from Eq.(\ref{sij}).

591: 

592: One needs to know the distribution of the transition energies $E$ to

593: estimate the quantity $\la p_1 p_2 \ra \equiv \la 1/4 \cosh^2(E/2k_B

594: T) \ra$. Since $\xi$ is the smallest possible size of a rearranging

595: unit, these rearrangments correspond to the elementary excitations in

596: the system. We thus conclude, based on equipartition, that the typical

597: value of $E$ is roughly $k_B T$, implying that $\la p_1 p_2 \ra$ is

598: close to its maximum value of one quarter but is likely smaller by

599: another factor of two or so. Assuming then, for the sake of argument

600: that $\la p_1 p_2 \ra = 1/8$, one gets $\frac{\Delta \mu_\smol^2}{ a^3

601:   k_B T} \simeq 2 (\epsilon'_0-\epsilon_\infty)$, within an order of

602: magnitude. By Eq.(\ref{sij}), this implies a Maxwell-like relation

603: between the dc conductivity and the real part of the dielectric

604: response:

605: \begin{equation} \label{Maxwell_cond} \sigma \sim

606:   (\epsilon'_0-\epsilon_\infty) \la \frac{1}{\tau} \ra,

607: \end{equation}

608: with an important distinction, though, that here one averages the {\em

609:   inverse} relaxation time.  The $(\epsilon'_0-\epsilon_\infty)$

610: difference in CKN, to be concrete, is about $(20 - 7) = 13$

611: \cite{Pimenov, Howell1974}. This implies, by Eq.(\ref{epsmu}) and

612: CKN's $T_g \simeq 330$K \cite{Pimenov}, that $\zeta q \simeq 3e$, at

613: $a = 3$\AA, a reasonable value for the bead charge. Note that $a =

614: 3$\AA ~is consistent with CKN's $\Delta c_p \simeq .12$ cal/g K

615: \cite{AngellTorell} and the mentioned $D = 32/\Delta c_p$ \cite{XW}.

616: 

617: Now, substituting CKN's $(\epsilon'_0-\epsilon_\infty)$ into

618: Eq.(\ref{sij}) yields for the conductivity $\sigma \simeq 3 \cdot

619: 10^{-10} \la \tau^{-1} \ra$ (Ohm m)$^{-1}$sec.  Naively replacing $\la

620: \tau^{-1} \ra$ with $1/\la \tau \ra$ would imply, at the glass

621: transition, where $\la \tau \ra \sim 10^{2} - 10^{3}$ sec, a

622: conductivity of the order $10^{-13} - 10^{-14}$ (Ohm cm)$^{-1}$, which

623: is three to four orders of magnitude below the observed value

624: \cite{Pimenov, Howell1974}.  Note that the value $\la \tau^{-1} \ra

625: \la \tau \ra = 10^3 - 10^4$ is just the magnitude of decoupling

626: observed in CKN near $T_g$ \cite{Howell1974, Angell}, and is in fact

627: expected for a fragile substance such as CKN is, as we will argue in

628: the following.

629: 

630: 

631: 

632: \section{Barrier distribution and the Decoupling}

633: \label{Barrier}

634: 

635: Relaxation barriers in supercooled liquids are distributed because the

636: local density of states is non-uniform, leading to variations in the

637: local value of the configurational entropy and hence the RFOT-derived

638: barrier from Eq.(\ref{Fsc}). In the simplest argument, the gaussian

639: fluctuations of the entropy translate into gaussian fluctuations in

640: the barrier, where the relative deviations of the two quantities, from

641: the most probable value, are given by \cite{XWbeta}:

642: \begin{equation} \label{relf} \delta \wF \equiv \frac{\delta

643:     F}{F_\smp} = \frac{\delta s_c}{s_c} = \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{D}},

644: \end{equation}

645: where $D$ is the liquid's fragility from Eq.(\ref{tau}). The quantity

646: $1/2\sqrt{D}$ varies between 0.05 and 0.25 or so, for known

647: glassformers, the low and high limits corresponding to strong and

648: fragile substances respectively.

649: 

650: Xia and Wolynes (XW) further argued that the real barrier distribution

651: should be cut-off at the most probable value because a liquid region

652: with relatively low density of states is likely neighbors with a

653: relatively fast region \cite{XWbeta}. In addition we may recall that

654: in the library construction, the most likely liquid state is the one

655: where the liquid is {\em guaranteed} to have an escape trajectory

656: \cite{LW_aging}. This means that the most probable barrier is also the

657: maximum barrier. One may conclude then that the naive Gaussian

658: distribution is adequate at small barriers, but significantly

659: overestimates the probability of barriers larger than the typical

660: barrier.  Put another way, the trajectories corresponding to higher

661: than most probable barrier in the naive Gaussian, all contribute to

662: the $F \le F_\smp$ range. XW have implemented this notion by replacing

663: the r.h.s. of the simplest Gaussian distribution by a delta-function

664: centered at $F_\smp$ \cite{XWbeta}:

665: \begin{equation} \label{pF} p_1(\wF) = \frac{e^{-(1/\wF-1)^2/2\delta

666:       \wF^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi (\delta \wF)^2} \wF^2} +

667:   \frac{1}{2}\delta(\wF-1),

668: \end{equation}

669: where $\wF \equiv F/F_\smp < 1^+$, and we took advantage of the

670: temperature-independence of the relative width in Eq.(\ref{relf}).

671: This approximate form does not use adjustable parameters and

672: quantitatively accounts for the correlation between the fragility and

673: the stretching exponent $\beta$ \cite{XWbeta}, and the deviations from

674: the Stokes-Einstein relation.  The distribution in Eq.(\ref{pF}) is

675: shown in Fig.\ref{pFfig}.  The only difference of Eq.(\ref{pF}) with

676: the XW's form is that they used a purely gaussian form for $\wF < 1$,

677: whereas we follow their own suggestion and employ the more accurate $F

678: \propto 1/s_c$ (where $s_c$ is gaussianly distsributed of course). The

679: accurate evaluation of the left wing of the distribution is imperative

680: in estimating the average rate $\tau_\smicro^{-1} e^{-F/k_B T}$,

681: because the latter is a rapidly varying function of $F$. ($k_B T$ is

682: significantly less that $\delta F$ at low temperatures.) Note that

683: because of the rapid decay of the exponential at small $\wF$ in

684: Eq.(\ref{pF}), accounting for the lowest order, quadratic fluctuations

685: of entropy suffices. The quantity $\la \tau \ra \la \tau^{-1} \ra$,

686: that characterizes the apparent decoupling, computed with the XW's

687: distribution, is shown with the dashed line in Fig.\ref{t_tt}, at

688: $T_g$, as a function of the relative distribution width $\delta \wF$.

689: 

690: How robust is the prediction based on the simple functional form for

691: the barrier distribution from Eq.(\ref{pF})? In spite of its

692: quantitative successes, one may argue that the true barrier

693: distribution should be a smoother function, near $\wF =1$.  One way to

694: see this is to computing $\epsilon''(\omega)$ from Eq.(\ref{epsmu})

695: via the distribution in Eq.(\ref{pF}): The obtained curves are a sum

696: of two peaks, one of which is broader, one the other is narrower than

697: the experimental $\epsilon''(\omega)$.  The two peaks correspond to

698: the half-Gaussian and the delta-function in Eq.(\ref{pF})

699: respectively. Let us see that knowing the precise form of the barrier

700: distribution however is not essential in quantitative estimates of the

701: decoupling so long as we account correctly for the overall width of

702: the distribution and its decay at the low barrier side.

703: 

704: \begin{figure}[t]

705:   \includegraphics[width=.6\columnwidth]{pFfig.eps} 

706:   \caption{\label{pFfig} The barrier distributions from Eqs.(\ref{pF})

707:     and (\ref{pFm}). The $\delta$-function portion of the distribution

708:     from Eq.(\ref{pF}) is not shown. $\delta \wF = 0.25$.}

709: \end{figure}

710: 

711: It is straightforward to show that there exists a distribution that

712: (a) satisfies these requirements without introducing adjustable

713: constants, (b) reproduces the experimental $\epsilon(\omega)$ and does

714: as well as the XW form for the $\beta$ vs. $D$ correlation.  As we

715: have already discussed, the low barrier wing of the distribution in

716: Eq.(\ref{pF}) is adequate.  On the other hand, the high barrer wing

717: should include the contributions from both sides of the original

718: Gaussian peak, which are both of width $\delta F/2$. ``Stacking''

719: these two on top of each other, to the left of $F_\smp$, results in a

720: distribution of width $\delta F/4$ (see aslo Appendix).  Further,

721: based on the known $\epsilon(\omega)$ data, the barrier distribution

722: should be well approximated by an exponential, suggesting we use $p(F)

723: \propto e^{F/(\delta F/4)}$ near $F_\smp$. Indeed, this implies

724: $p(\tau) \propto \tau^{(4 k_B T/\delta F)-1}$.  At frequencies not too

725: close to the maximum of $\epsilon''(\omega)$ and the rapid drop-off at

726: small $\wF$, one has an approximate power law:

727: \begin{equation} \label{appr} \epsilon''(\omega) \simeq \int_0^\infty

728:   d\tau \, \tau^{(4 k_B T/\delta F)-1} \frac{\omega \tau}{1+(\omega

729:     \tau)^2} \propto \omega^{-4 k_B T/\delta F}.

730: \end{equation}

731: We thus arrive at the following form:

732: \begin{equation} \label{pFm} p(\wF) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

733:       \frac{c_1}{\wF^2} e^{-(1/\wF-1)^2/2\delta \wF^2}, & \wF \le \wF_e\\

734:       \frac{c_2}{\wF^2} e^{\wF/(\delta \wF/4)}, & \wF_e < \wF \le 1,

735:     \end{array}

736:   \right.

737: \end{equation}

738: where $F_e$ and the normalization constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ are chosen

739: so that the distribution is normalized, continuous, and its first

740: derivative is continuous too. The distribution from Eq.(\ref{pFm}) is

741: plotted in Fig.\ref{pFfig}. The decoupling strength $\la \tau \ra \la

742: \tau^{-1} \ra$, computed for the composite distribution from

743: Eq.(\ref{pFm}), is shown in Fig.\ref{t_tt}, as a function of the

744: relative distribution width $\delta \wF$, at $T_g$.  We therefore

745: observe that in fragile liquids, the apparent time-scale separation

746: may reach as much as four orders of magnitude near the glass

747: transition - even though only one process is present! - because the

748: inrinsic ionic conductivity is dominated by the fastest relaxing

749: regions.

750: 

751: 

752: \begin{figure}[t]

753: \includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{t_tt.eps}

754: \caption{\label{t_tt} The decoupling between the viscosity and the

755:   intrinsic ionic conductivity, as a function of the relative barrier

756:   width $\delta \wF$ from Eq.(\ref{relf}), at $T_g$. The dashed and

757:   solid line pertain to the specific barrier distributions from

758:   Eq.(\ref{pF}) and (\ref{pFm}) respectively.  }

759: \end{figure}

760:  

761: Conversely, when the apparent decoupling exceeds the intrinsic value

762: prescribed by Fig.\ref{t_tt}, we may conclude that ionic conduction

763: does not in fact require structural relaxation. This notion is of

764: significance for the mechanisms of electrical conductance in glasses

765: and will be discussed in detail in the Conclusions.

766: 

767: 

768: 

769: \begin{figure}[t]

770: \includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{t_FT.eps}

771: \caption{\label{t_FT} Different relaxation times derived from the

772:   barrier distribution in Eq.(\ref{pFm}), as functions of the most

773:   probable barrier (left) and the corresponding temperature

774:   (right). $\delta \wF = 0.25$, corresponding to fragility $D=4$.}

775: \end{figure}

776: 

777: 

778: One may also illustrate the effects of apparent decoupling for a

779: specific value of fragility, by plotting several varieties of

780: relaxation times, as functions of the most probable barrier, or the

781: corresponding temperature, see Fig.\ref{t_FT}. (Given the time scale

782: at the glass transition, say $D T_K/(T_g - T_K) = \ln(10^{16}) \simeq

783: 37$ (see Eq.(\ref{tau})), there is a one-to-one correspondence between

784: the fragility $D$ and the $T_g/T_K$ ratio.) We observe that the

785: average relaxation time and the one derived from the inverse of the

786: maximum position of $\epsilon''(\omega)$ are close, and are near the

787: most probable value of the relaxation time. (The $\epsilon''(\omega)$

788: was computed using Eqs.(\ref{epsfull}) and (\ref{pFm}), see below.)

789: The apparent conductivity relaxation time is strongly decoupled,

790: consistent with data of Howell at el. \cite{Howell1974} for CKN. Note

791: that the value of fragility used in Fig.\ref{t_FT}, $D=2$, is probably

792: smaller than in CKN. In addition, we have ignored here, for clarity,

793: the effects of barrier softening \cite{LW_soft}, that would require

794: introducing a system-specific adjustable constant $T_A$.  The latter

795: effects would change the slopes of the curves somewhat, without

796: affecting their vertical separations.

797: 

798: 

799: 

800: 

801: To test the predictions from Figs.\ref{t_tt} and \ref{t_FT}, one needs

802: to know the width of the barrier distribution for $\alpha$-relaxation.

803: As already mentioned, the gross features of this distribution have

804: been predicted by the RFOT theory, and have lead to quantitative

805: predictions of the correlation between the stretching exponent $\beta$

806: and the fragility $D$, and the deviations from the Stokes-Einstein

807: relation. The corresponding trends are as follows: more fragile

808: liquids are predicted to have broader barrier distribution leading to

809: a smaller value of $\beta$, and vice versa for stronger substances

810: \cite{XWbeta}.  A correlation with the fragility comes about by virtue

811: of Eq.(\ref{relf}). Several {\em \`{a} priori} ways to determine

812: $\beta$ and $D$ have been employed, by experimenters, that sometimes

813: produce conflicting results.  For example, the fragility extracted

814: from $\tau_\sigma$ will be consistently lower than that extracted from

815: the mechanical relaxation time $\tau_s$, because $\tau_\sigma <

816: \tau_s$. The exponent $\beta$ from the stretched exponential is

817: extracted from fits of various relaxation processes to a stretched

818: exponential profile $e^{-(t/\tau)^\beta}$.  Alternatively, one may

819: choose to fit the Fourier transform of the stretch exponential, or the

820: Cole-Davidson form, to the imaginary part of $\epsilon(\omega)$ in

821: insulators \cite{LindseyPatterson}. These usually produce comparable

822: results for the corresponding exponent $\beta$, with a notable

823: exception of ionic conductors, which happen to be the main focus of

824: this paper. In ionically conducting systems, the dc component of the

825: full dielectric response from Eq.(\ref{epsfull}) largely ``swamps''

826: the ac part so that reliable determinations of the latter are

827: complicated. The reader is reminded that dielectric measurements on

828: ion melts are difficult because electrodes generally block ionic

829: current. The effects of build-up charge are often treated

830: phenomenologically, by means of equivalent circuits \cite{Macdonald,

831:   Pimenov}. Given these complications, many have chosen to plot the

832: reciprocal of $\epsilon(\omega)$, i.e. the dielectric modulus

833: \cite{Howell1974, Macdonald}:

834: \begin{equation} \label{Mo} M(\omega) \equiv 1/\epsilon(\omega).

835: \end{equation}

836: $M(\omega)$ is well behaved and even shows a peak in the imaginary

837: component, similarly to $\epsilon(\omega)$ of a near insulator.  In

838: the absence of an {\em \`{a} priori} microscopic picture and by

839: analogy with $\epsilon(\omega)$, one might interpret this peak as as

840: the response of the electric field $\bE$ to the dielectric

841: displacement $\bD$. This in fact would be appropriate in a layered

842: dielectric \cite{Howell1974}. See also the discussions in

843: Refs.\cite{Elliott1994, Roling1998, ColeTombari, Sidebottom1995,

844:   Moynihan1994, Dyre1991, Doi1988}. Yet the resulting values of the

845: most probable relaxation time and the stretching exponent deviate from

846: those obtained with other methods \cite{Angell, Sidebottom1995,

847:   Pimenov}. In fact, the modulus-derived $\beta_M$ increases, while

848: the width of the $M''(\omega)$ peak decreases with lowering the

849: temperature, in conflict with the general trends for poor conductors,

850: and the conclusions of the RFOT theory.

851: 

852: 

853: \begin{figure}[t]

854: \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{epsM.eps}

855: \caption{\label{epsM} The top panel shows the imaginary part of the

856:   non-conductive part of the dielectric response, $\epsilon(\omega)$,

857:   Eq.(\ref{epsmu}), for four values of the most probable

858:   $\alpha$-relaxation barrier: $F_\smp/k_B T =

859:   \ln(\tau/\tau_\smicro)$, as indicated on the graph. ($\delta \wF =

860:   0.25$, $\tau_\smicro = 1$ ps.) These barrier values were chosen

861:   because for $\tau/\tau_\smicro > e^{7} \simeq 10^{3}$, the RFOT

862:   approach is quantitatively accurate, while $\tau/\tau_\smicro \simeq

863:   e^{37} \simeq 10^{16}$ is at the upper limit of the dynamical range

864:   routinely accessible in the lab. The bottom panel show the

865:   corresponding modulus, from Eq.(\ref{Mo}), that includs the dc-part,

866:   due to the intrinsic ionic current. The same four values of the

867:   barrier are used. We have used the CKN's values for $\epsilon_0$ and

868:   $\epsilon_\infty$, and assumed that $\frac{\Delta \mu_\smol^2}{ a^3

869:     k_B T} \simeq 2 (\epsilon'_0-\epsilon_\infty)$, see the discussion

870:   preceeding Eq.(\ref{Maxwell_cond}).}

871: \end{figure} 

872: 

873: 

874: The RFOT theory and the present results allow one to address these

875: difficulties, to which we devote the rest of this Section. One first

876: notes that structural reconfigurations are {\em compact}, and so the

877: layered-dielectric view of supercoold melts is not microscopically

878: justified. We next plot, in the top panel of Fig.\ref{epsM}, the

879: non-conductive $\epsilon_\sins''(\omega)$, from Eq.(\ref{epsmu})

880: averaged with respect to the barrier distribution from Eq.(\ref{pFm}).

881: We have used CKN's values for $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon_\infty$, as

882: before.  For the sake of argument, we use $\delta \wF = 0.25$,

883: corresponding to $\beta \simeq 0.4$ at $T_g$.  In Fig.\ref{epsM},

884: bottom, we show the imaginary part $M''(\omega)$, of the full modulus.

885: Clearly the two functions exhibit qualitatively different behaviors.

886: Note that the effect of the dc component on the apparent relaxation

887: profile has been discussed previously \cite{Johari1988, Roling1998},

888: including the possibility of a double peak \cite{Johari1988}. The

889: latter has been observed by Funke at el. \cite{Funke}, but has not

890: been reproduced by Pimenov at el. \cite{Pimenov}. Nevertheless, the

891: dielectric modulus obtained here is qualitatively consistent with

892: CKN's data from Ref.\cite{Pimenov}.  Finally note that for smaller

893: dc-conductivities, the modulus data would become more similar to

894: $\epsilon''(\omega)$.

895: 

896: 

897: \begin{figure}[t]

898:   \includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{w_T.eps} 

899:   \caption{\label{w_T} The widths of the peaks in the imaginary parts

900:     of the dielectric constant $\epsilon(\omega)$ and modulus

901:     $M(\omega)$, as functions of temperature

902:     (c.f. Fig.\ref{epsM}). $\delta \wF = 0.25$.}

903: \end{figure}

904: 

905: 

906: We conclude from the above analysis that if one were to use the

907: modulus data to extract the characteristics of the barrier

908: distribution, one must measure first the dc-current, add it to the

909: $\epsilon_\sins(\omega)$ from a microscopic theory, and then compare

910: the result to the measured $M(\omega)$ data. But again, because of the

911: large contribution of the dc component, the corresponding fits would

912: not discriminate well between different forms of

913: $\epsilon_\sins(\omega)$. On the other hand, treating the electric

914: field as a response to the displacement may lead to erroneous

915: conclusions on the temperature dependence of the barrier width. In

916: fact, the barrier widths derived from $\epsilon_\sins''(\omega)$ or

917: $M''(\omega)$ show the opposite trends, as we have seen already in

918: Fig.\ref{epsM}. One may further quantify this observation: In the

919: absence of a microscopic theory, one often characterizes the width of

920: the $\epsilon_\sins''(\omega)$ peak by a stretching exponent $\beta$,

921: as derived e.g. from Davidson-Cole fits. The distribution from

922: Eq.(\ref{pFm}) indeed gives rise a power law behavior, consistent with

923: Eq.(\ref{appr}), see Appendix. In contrast, the corresponding

924: $M''(\omega)$ curves do not exhibit a similar power-law behavior.  I

925: have chosen to illustrate the opposite temperature trends in the

926: widths of $\epsilon_\sins''[\ln(\omega)]$ and $M''[\ln(\omega)]$

927: peaks, by measuring the latter widths at one-third-height and plotting

928: them as functions of temperature, see Fig.\ref{w_T}.  Similar opposite

929: trends, too, would be observed for the corresponding {\em apparent}

930: barrier widths or effective $\beta$'s. Clearly, interpreting the

931: dielectric modulus of an ionic conductor as a response function may

932: lead to a significant underestimation of the actual barrier width at

933: low temperatures, and qualitatively incorrect conclusions on the

934: temperature dependence of the width.

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: 

940: \section{Conclusions}

941: 

942: We have computed, from the first principles, the viscosity and the

943: intrinsic ionic conductivity of supercooled liquids. The viscosity is

944: determined by four microscopically defined quantities: the length

945: scale of the local chemical order that sets in at temperature

946: $T_\scr$, where liquid dynamics become activated; the Lindemann

947: length, characterizing molecular displacements at the mechanical

948: stability edge; the temperature; and the average relaxation time

949: $\tau$ of the activated reconfigurations that dominate the liquid

950: dynamics below $T_\scr$. The extraordinarily long $\tau$ range is what

951: gives rise to the high viscosity of the liquid when it approaches the

952: glass transition. When the local chemically stable units (or

953: ``beads'') are charged, the fluid will also exhibit an ionic

954: conductivity, which we have called the ``intrinsic'' conductivity, to

955: constrast it with electric conduction via delocalized electronic

956: carriers or via mobile ions that are not bonded to the metastable

957: aperiodic lattice forming the supercooled liquid. Computing the

958: conductivity requires an additional microscopic characteristic, the

959: electric charge on a ``bead''. Fortunately, this additional parameter

960: may be deduced from the ac dielectric response, which we have also

961: estimated. Perhaps the main finding of this work is that in contrast

962: with the viscosity, the ionic conductivity is dominated by the fastest

963: relaxing regions in the liquid, as reflected in Eq.(\ref{sij}).

964: 

965: We have discussed ways to test the above predictions, the most

966: important aspect of which is the large separation, or ``decoupling'',

967: between the apparent time scales, suggested previously by viscosity

968: and ionic conductivity data on purely phenomenological grounds. We

969: have shown that such apparent time-scale separation is indeed expected

970: because of the very broad barrier distribution for

971: $\alpha$-relaxation, derived earlier in the Random First Order

972: Transition (RFOT) methodology. The decoupling thus stems essentially

973: from the same cause as the violation of Stokes-Einstein relation in

974: supercooled liquids \cite{XWhydro}. Now, we have seen that the value

975: of the decoupling is not very sensitive to the precise form of the

976: barrier distribution so long as one acounts for the RFOT-derived gross

977: characteristics of this.  We have thus quantified the degree of

978: ``decoupling'': The intrinsic ionic conductivity was argued to

979: decouple at most by four orders of magnitude from the low-frequency

980: momentum transport. Conversely, any conductivity exceeding this limit

981: must be due to other charge carriers that do not disturb the liquid

982: structure beyond typical vibrational displacements. Indeed, suppose

983: the apparent decoupling exceeds the value prescribed by the width of

984: the barrier distribution. This means that there will be ions that

985: travel a distance exceeding the Lindemann length in a time it takes

986: the local environment to relax. Therefore, local relaxation is not a

987: necessary condition for a non-zero current of these ions. Some

988: interaction with relaxation may still be present, however at large

989: enough decouplings, we may say that the ion (or any other carrier)

990: interacts with the liquid as if the latter were a perfectly stable,

991: albeit disordered lattice.  In such cases, one may think of the ionic

992: current in superionic conductors in terms of regular, not slaved

993: diffusion.  In regular diffusion, the total travel time is dominated

994: by the slowest step, in contrast to Eq.(\ref{sij}).

995: 

996: 

997: 

998: The intrinsic difficulty in experimental assessment of the barrier

999: distribution in moderately conductive melts is that the dc current

1000: dominates the overall dielectric response. This gives rise to

1001: ambiguities as to what the actual width of the barrier distribution

1002: is, since mechanical relaxation and dielectric {\em modulus} data

1003: disagree.  We have shown that this is expected, and argued that the

1004: mechanical relaxation offers the preferred method of estimating the

1005: actual barrier distribution.

1006: 

1007: 

1008: 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: {\em Acknowledgments:} The author thanks Peter G. Wolynes for critical

1012: comments and useful suggestions. He gratefully acknowledges the GEAR,

1013: the New Faculty Grant, and the Small Grant Programs at the University

1014: of Houston.

1015: 

1016: 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: 

1020: \section*{Appendix}

1021: 

1022: 

1023: 

1024: \begin{figure}[t]

1025:   \includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{epsom.eps} \vspace{3mm}

1026:   \caption{\label{epsom} The four thick lines are the same as in

1027:     Fig.\ref{epsM}, but in the double-log scale. The thin lines are

1028:     the Davidson-Cole forms, following from a simple approximation,

1029:     see Appendix. The dash-dotted line illustrates how the stretching

1030:     exponent $\beta$ was extracted from the curves.}

1031: \end{figure}

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \begin{figure}[t]

1035: \includegraphics[width=.85\columnwidth]{bD.eps}

1036: \caption{\label{bD} Two approximate relations of the stretching

1037:   exponent $\beta$ to the fragility $D$ from the Vogel-Fulcher form,

1038:   from Eq.(\ref{betaD}) and as derived from the slopes of the

1039:   high-frequency wing of the $\epsilon''(\omega)$ peaks, such as in

1040:   Fig.\ref{epsom}.}

1041: \end{figure} 

1042: 

1043: Let us see that the distribution in Eq.(\ref{pFm}) is qualitatively

1044: consistent with experimental $\epsilon_\sins (\omega)$ and the

1045: empirical correlation of $\beta$ and $D$.  For this, we replot the top

1046: panel of Fig.\ref{epsM} in the double-log format, in

1047: Fig.\ref{epsom}. We note the general adequacy of the barrier

1048: distribution from Eq.(\ref{pFm}): Similarly to the experimental

1049: $\epsilon(\omega)$ in poor conductors, the resulting high-frequency

1050: wing is significantly broader than the low-frequency one. Note that

1051: the actual data would also often display an {\em additional}

1052: high-frequency wing, which is ascribed to the secondary,

1053: $\beta$-processes, also called Johari-Goldstein relaxation

1054: \cite{JohariGoldstein}. (See \cite{LunkLoidl} for a review). The

1055: present results suggest that $\beta$-relaxation does not contribute to

1056: the intrinsic ionic conductivity. At any rate, the derived

1057: $\epsilon(\omega)$ show several decades of nearly power-law decay,

1058: allowing one to extract the corresponding exponent: $\epsilon(\omega)

1059: \propto \omega^{-\beta}$.  The effective $\beta$'s were deduced from

1060: the slopes of the curves at the points of maximum second derivative,

1061: as exemplified by the dash-dotted line in Fig.\ref{epsom}. The

1062: dependence of the thus obtained exponent $\beta$ on the fragility $D$,

1063: at a fixed $F_\smp/k_B T = 37$, is shown by the dashed-dotted line in

1064: Fig.\ref{bD}. This $\beta$ is, again, qualitatively consistent with

1065: experiment. Greater accuracy should not be expected here, as we have

1066: not treated the higher-frequency range associated with

1067: $\beta$-relaxation, which would affect the experimentally determined

1068: stretching exponents.

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: In addition, we verify that the informal argument in the main text

1073: that the width of the barrier distribution should be about $\delta F/4

1074: $, at the half-height or so.  Indeed, for a gaussian barrier

1075: distribution with width $\delta F/4 = F/8\sqrt{D}$ implies the

1076: following approximate expression for the stretching exponent $\beta$

1077: at $T_g$ (c.f. Eq.(9) of Ref.\cite{XWbeta}):

1078: \begin{equation} \label{betaD} \beta = \left[ 1 + \left(

1079:       \frac{F/k_BT}{8 \sqrt{D}} \right)^2 \right]^{-1/2},

1080: \end{equation}

1081: shown as the solid line in Fig.\ref{bD}. This expression is in very

1082: good agreement with experiment, see Fig.2 from Ref.\cite{XWbeta}.  (At

1083: $T_g$ on scale $\tau/\tau_\smicro = 10^{16}$, $F/k_B T \simeq 37$.)

1084: Note also Eq.(\ref{betaD}) is consistent with Eq.(\ref{relf}),

1085: assuming the Davidson-Cole \cite{CD} and William-Watts \cite{KWW}

1086: stretching exponents $\beta$ are close \cite{LindseyPatterson}.  That

1087: the latter is the case indeed I demonstrate by graphing the

1088: Davidson-Cole (DC) form $(\epsilon_{\tDC}(\omega) - \epsilon_\infty) =

1089: (\epsilon_0 - \epsilon_\infty) (1 - i \omega \tau)^{-\beta}$ \cite{CD}

1090: with $\tau = \tau_\smicro e^{F_\smp/k_B T}$ and $\beta$ from

1091: Eq.(\ref{betaD}). These are shown in Fig.\ref{epsom} as thin dashed

1092: lines.

1093: 

1094: 

1095: 

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \bibliography{/Users/vas/Documents/tex/ACP/lowT}

1100: 

1101: 

1102: \end{document}

1103: