Display options
Share it on

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 03;114(40):10601-10605. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1703927114. Epub 2017 Sep 19.

Disconnecting structure and dynamics in glassy thin films.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Daniel M Sussman, Samuel S Schoenholz, Ekin D Cubuk, Andrea J Liu

Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244; [email protected].
  2. Google Brain, Google, Mountain View, CA 94043.
  3. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304.
  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

PMID: 28928147 PMCID: PMC5635874 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1703927114

Abstract

Nanometrically thin glassy films depart strikingly from the behavior of their bulk counterparts. We investigate whether the dynamical differences between a bulk and thin film polymeric glass former can be understood by differences in local microscopic structure. Machine learning methods have shown that local structure can serve as the foundation for successful, predictive models of particle rearrangement dynamics in bulk systems. By contrast, in thin glassy films, we find that particles at the center of the film and those near the surface are structurally indistinguishable despite exhibiting very different dynamics. Next, we show that structure-independent processes, already present in bulk systems and demonstrably different from simple facilitated dynamics, are crucial for understanding glassy dynamics in thin films. Our analysis suggests a picture of glassy dynamics in which two dynamical processes coexist, with relative strengths that depend on the distance from an interface. One of these processes depends on local structure and is unchanged throughout most of the film, while the other is purely Arrhenius, does not depend on local structure, and is strongly enhanced near the free surface of a film.

Keywords: glass; machine learning; thin film

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Phys Rev Lett. 2011 Sep 2;107(10):108302 - PubMed
  2. Phys Rev E. 2016 Jul;94(1-1):012503 - PubMed
  3. Science. 2010 Jun 25;328(5986):1676-9 - PubMed
  4. J Chem Phys. 2010 Dec 28;133(24):244502 - PubMed
  5. J Phys Chem B. 2016 Jul 7;120(26):6139-46 - PubMed
  6. J Am Chem Soc. 2011 Jun 8;133(22):8444-7 - PubMed
  7. J Phys Chem B. 2014 Jul 31;118(30):9096-103 - PubMed
  8. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2014 May;89(5):052311 - PubMed
  9. Science. 2014 Feb 28;343(6174):994-9 - PubMed
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 May 9;114(19):4854-4856 - PubMed
  11. J Chem Phys. 2015 Jun 21;142(23):234907 - PubMed
  12. Nat Mater. 2008 Jul;7(7):556-61 - PubMed
  13. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2007 Oct;76(4 Pt 1):041509 - PubMed
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jul 7;112(27):8227-31 - PubMed
  15. Phys Rev Lett. 2015 Mar 13;114(10):108001 - PubMed
  16. Science. 2008 Feb 1;319(5863):600-4 - PubMed
  17. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 May 9;114(19):4915-4919 - PubMed
  18. Nat Commun. 2014 Jun 16;5:4163 - PubMed
  19. J Chem Phys. 2008 Dec 21;129(23):234514 - PubMed
  20. J Chem Phys. 2014 Nov 21;141(19):194505 - PubMed
  21. J Chem Phys. 2015 Dec 28;143(24):244705 - PubMed
  22. Annu Rev Phys Chem. 2010;61:191-217 - PubMed
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 10;114(2):263-267 - PubMed
  24. Phys Rev Lett. 2009 Feb 27;102(8):088001 - PubMed

Publication Types