4.5 Article

Tests of an approximate scaling principle for dynamics of classical fluids

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 109, 期 7, 页码 2985-2994

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp0454927

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used molecular dynamics computer simulations to test an approximate scaling principle that conjectures that two equilibrium atomic liquids have very similar dynamical properties if they have the same density and similar static pair correlation functions when the length scales of the two liquids are adjusted appropriately, even if they have different interatomic potentials and different temperatures. The simulations were performed on two types of model atomic liquids at various temperatures at the same density. In the first type, the interatomic potential is the Lennard-Jones potential (U). In the second type, the interatomic potential is the repulsive part of the Lennard-Jones potential (RLJ). We identified pairs of systems that have very similar p air correlation functions despite the fact that they had different potentials. Each pair consisted of an LJ liquid at a specific temperature and a corresponding RLJ liquid at a lower temperature. We compared various time correlation functions and transport coefficients of the two systems in each pair. Many dynamical properties are very similar in each pair, in accordance with the approximate scaling principle, whereas others are significantly different. The results indicate that certain dynamical properties are very insensitive to large changes in the interatomic potential that leave the pair correlation function largely unchanged, whereas other dynamical properties are much more sensitive to such changes in the potential. The transport coefficients for diffusion and viscosity are among the dynamical properties that are insensitive to such changes in the potential, and this may be part of the reason transport properties of many fluids have been calculated or rationalized in terms of a simple hard sphere model of liquids.

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

4.5
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