4.7 Article

Induced cooperative motions in a medium driven at the nanoscale: Searching for an optimum excitation period

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.012303

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent results have shown the appearance of induced cooperative motions called dynamic heterogeneity during the isomerization of diluted azobenzene molecules in a host glass-former. In this paper, we raise the issue of the coupling between these artificial heterogeneities and the isomerization period. How do these induced heterogeneities differ in the saturation regime and in the linear response regime? Is there a maximum of the heterogeneous motion versus the isomerization rate, and why? Is the heterogeneity evolution with the isomerization rate connected with the diffusion or relaxation time evolution? We use out-of-equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations to answer these questions. We find that the heterogeneity increases in the linear response regime for large isomerization periods and small perturbations. In contrast, the heterogeneity decreases in the saturation regime, i.e., when the isomerization half-period (tau(p)/2) is smaller than the relaxation time of the material (tau(alpha)). This result enables a test of the effect of cooperative motions on the dynamics using the chromophores as Maxwell demons that destroy or stimulate the cooperative motions. Because the heterogeneities increase in the linear regime and then decrease in the saturation regime, we find a maximum for tau(p)/2 approximate to tau(alpha). The induced excitation concentration follows a power-law evolution versus the isomerization rate and then saturates. As a consequence, the alpha relaxation time is related to the excitation concentration with a power law, a result in qualitative agreement with recent findings in constrained models. This result supports a common origin for the heterogeneities with constrained models and a similar relation to the excitation concentration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据