Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T14:33:06.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Heterogeneity by Higher Moments of a Relaxing Quantity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

R. Richert
R. Richert*
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut fur Polymerforschung, Ackermannweg 10, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
Get access

Abstract

A relaxation experiment usually acquires a measure for the mean energetic distance of the system from the thermodynamic equilibrium and its temporal evolution. For sufficiently small perturbations necessary to assure linear responses such data is bound to remain undecisive as regards the spatial nature of the relaxation process, heterogeneous or homogeneous. The technique of solvation dynamics near the glass transition can probe the entire distribution of site specific energies and its approach towards equilibrium, so that apart from the mean solvation energy v(t) also higher moments in terms of the inhomogeneous optical linewidth σinh(t) become accessible. While v(t) maps the dielectric relaxation behaviour of the liquid, σinh(t) is found to be sensitive to the spatial nature of the underlying process. Contrasting experiment and simulation leads to the conclusion, that the relaxation time is a site specific quantity, i.e. the heterogeneous nature is found to dominate.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 455: Symposium T – Glasses and Glass Formers–Current Issues , 1996 , 127
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ediger, M.D., Angell, C.A., and Nagel, S.R., J. Phys. Chem. 100, 13200 (1996).Google Scholar
2. Disorder Effects on Relaxational Processes, edited by Richert, R. and Blumen, A. (Springer, Berlin, 1994).Google Scholar
3. Heuer, A., J. Chem. Phys. (submitted).Google Scholar
4. Schmidt-Rohr, K. and Spiess, H.W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3020 (1991);Google Scholar
Heuer, A., Wilhelm, M., Zimmermann, H., and Spiess, H.W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2851 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Maroncelli, M., J. Mol. Liquids 57, 1 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Richert, R., Chem. Phys. Lett. 199, 355 (1992).Google Scholar
7. Richert, R., Stickel, F., Fee, R.S., and Maroncelli, M., Chem. Phys. Lett. 229, 302 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Richert, R. and Wagener, A., J. Phys. Chem. 97, 3146 (1993); 95, 10115 (1991).Google Scholar
9. Richert, R., Phys. Rev. Lett, (submitted).Google Scholar
10. Burger, C., Ph.D. thesis, Marburg University (1994).Google Scholar
11. Böhmer, R., Hinze, G., Diezemann, G., Geil, B., and Sillescu, H., Europhys. Lett, (to be published).Google Scholar
12. Schiener, B., Böhmer, R., Loidl, A., and Chamberlin, R.V., Science 274, 752 (1996).Google Scholar
13. Cicerone, M.T., Blackburn, F.R., and Ediger, M.D., Macromol. 28, 8224 (1995).Google Scholar
14. Cicerone, M.T. and Ediger, M.D., J. Chem. Phys. 104, 7210 (1996).Google Scholar