The microscopic origins of stretched exponential relaxation in two model glass-forming liquids as probed by simulations in the isoconfigurational ensemble

Abstract

The origin of stretched exponential relaxation in supercooled glass-forming liquids is one of the central questions regarding the anomalous dynamics of these fluids. The dominant explanation for this phenomenon has long been the proposition that spatial averaging over a heterogeneous distribution of locally exponential relaxation processes leads to stretching. Here, we perform simulations of model polymeric and small-molecule glass-formers in the isoconfigurational ensemble to show that stretching instead emerges from a combination of spatial averaging and locally nonexponential relaxation. The results indicate that localities in the fluid exhibiting faster-than-average relaxation tend to exhibit locally stretched relaxation, whereas slower-than-average relaxing domains exhibit more compressed relaxation. We show that local stretching is predicted by loose local caging, as measured by the Debye–Waller factor, and vice versa. This phenomenology in the local relaxation of in-equilibrium glasses parallels the dynamics of out of equilibrium under-dense and over-dense glasses, which likewise exhibit an asymmetry in their degree of stretching vs compression. On the basis of these results, we hypothesize that local stretching and compression in equilibrium glass-forming liquids results from evolution of particle mobilities over a single local relaxation time, with slower particles tending toward acceleration and vice versa. In addition to providing new insight into the origins of stretched relaxation, these results have implications for the interpretation of stretching exponents as measured via metrologies such as dielectric spectroscopy: measured stretching exponents cannot universally be interpreted as a direct measure of the breadth of an underlying distribution of relaxation times.

Structural Relaxation and Vitrification in Dense Cross-Linked Polymer Networks: Simulation, Theory, and Experiment

“…The alternative way to determine T g is a “dynamic” method, which defines T g with respect to a characteristic segmental relaxation time. At each temperature, we calculate the temporal autocorrelation function of a Kuhn monomer vector in the spirit of our dielectric spectroscopy measurements as C λ ( t̃ ) = ⟨ P 2 ( r̃ 3 ( t̃ )· r̃ 3 (0))⟩, − where P 2 is the second Legendre polynomial and r̃ 3 is a vector between two beads that are three bonds apart. Given the chosen length scale σ, the Kuhn segment is roughly 3 times the bond length.…”

Glass formation and dynamics of model polymer films with one versus two active interfaces

“…The most commonly employed metric for the ‘breadth’ of the relaxation time spectrum in bulk and thin films is the relaxation stretching exponent β (although there are some complexities with this interpretation 57 ). This quantity can be obtained from a stretched exponential fit to real-time relaxation data (typically in simulation) or from (for example) a Havrilak–Nagami fit to relaxation spectrum data obtained from frequency-domain methods such as dielectric spectroscopy.…”

Dynamic Heterogeneity and Kovacs’ Memory Effects in Supercooled Water

“…In other words, the model assumes that the dynamic heterogeneity associated with each configuration persists as the system evolves. It is important to note, however, that some glassy systems exhibit a time-dependent evolution to the structural aging process, and the functional form thus involves a convolution of a distribution of relaxation times across the individual configurations in which each configuration displays non-exponential relaxation. , …”

“…It is important to note, however, that some glassy systems exhibit a time-dependent evolution to the structural aging process, and the functional form thus involves a convolution of a distribution of relaxation times across the individual configurations in which each configuration displays non-exponential relaxation. 99,100 In applying the RDW model to the temperature jump experiments, we assumed perfect correlation in the distribution of activation barriers (i.e., ρ = 1). Therefore, "reactions" that were fast (low activation barrier) during T 1 remained fast during T 2 , likewise, "reactions" that were slow (high activation barrier) remained slow upon changing the temperature.…”