Arxiv:2106.00879V1 [Cond-Mat.Stat-Mech] 2 Jun 2021 Have Been Reported That Validated Eqn
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Estimation of the equilibrium free energy for glasses using the Jarzynski equality H. A. Vinutha1, 2, 3, a) and Daan Frenkel3, b) 1)Department of Physics, Institute for Soft Matter Synthesis and Metrology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA 2)Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 3)Yusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK The free energy of glasses cannot be estimated using thermodynamic integration, as glasses are intrinsically not in equilibrium. We present numerical simulations showing that, in contrast, plausible free-energy estimates of a Kob-Andersen glass can be obtained using the Jarzynski relation. Using the Jarzynski relation, we also compute the chemical potential difference of the two components of this system, and find that, in the glassy regime, the Jarzynski estimate matches well with the extrapolated value of the supercooled liquid. Our findings are of broader interest as they show that the Jarzynski method can be used under conditions where the thermodynamic integration approach, which is normally more accurate, breaks down completely. Systems where such an approach might be useful are gels and jammed, glassy structures formed by compres- sion. The Helmholtz free energy is one of the most widely than the standard, reversible thermodynamic integration used thermodynamic state functions because, for a sys- methods9–12, in situations where such methods can be tem of N particles in a fixed volume V at a temperature used. T , the Helmholtz free energy F must be at a minimum Here we focus on a problem where thermodynamic in- when the system has reached equilibrium. tegration cannot be used, namely estimating the free en- Computing free energies is therefore important: it al- ergy of a glass. Glasses are non-equilibrium systems that lows us to predict the relative stabilities of different states do not relax on experimentally accessible time-scales (see (e.g. phases) of a system. In thermodynamics, the free- e.g.13,14). It is for this reason that the free energy of a energy difference between two states of a system is re- glass cannot be determined by thermodynamic integra- lated to the reversible work required to bring the system tion: one might even argue that the equilibrium free en- from one state (say A) to the other (B). The work ex- ergy of a glass is an oxymoron. However, as has been pended during an irreversible transformation from A to demonstrated for instance in simulations of polydisperse B is larger than the reversible work, and is therefore not glasses, it is sometimes possible to equilibrate glassy a good measure for the free-energy change. 15 1,2 structures numerically, using so-called “swap” moves . It was therefore a great surprise when Jarzynski Such an approach will only work for systems where the showed that the free-energy difference between two sys- acceptance of such moves is sufficiently high16. Here we tems can be related to the non-equilibrium work (W ) consider the free energy of a glass for which swap moves required to transform one system into the other in an are inefficient and the approach of ref 15 will not work. arbitrarily short time In this Communication, we show that for glasses where 15 exp( β∆F ) = exp( βW (ts)) , (1) the approach of ref. will not work, the Jarzynski − − method yields much lower estimates for the free energy of where β = 1 , and the bar over exp( βW (t )) denotes a glass than the thermodynamic integration method, and kB T s averaging over a “sufficiently large” number− of indepen- thereby provides an interesting method for estimating the dent simulations: the term “sufficiently large” is neces- free energy of systems that cannot relax to equilibrium. sarily vague because we do not know a priori how much Knowledge of the equilibrium free energy of a glass can averaging will be needed for eqn. 1 to hold. be of practical use, for instance for estimating a lower Jarzynski’s result stimulated much theoretical work, bound to the solubility of a glass. in particular by Crooks3–5, who generalized Jarzynski’s approach. Moreover, many experiments and simulations There is, however, a problem: validating our approach arXiv:2106.00879v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 2 Jun 2021 have been reported that validated Eqn. 1 6–8. against exact free energies is not possible for the widely 17 However, in spite of its great conceptual value, it used Kob-Andersen glass model system that we study . seems that Jarzynski method is not a more accurate or Hence, as a proxy, we will test which approach yields the more efficient method to compute free-energy differences lower free-energy estimate, and we will also compare our results with a naive extrapolation of the free energy of a supercooled liquid. For equilibrium systems, the free-energy change of a a) Corresponding author; Electronic mail: [email protected] system upon cooling from a temperature (TH ) to a lower b)Electronic mail: [email protected] temperature TL can be obtained by thermodynamic in- 2 tegration (TI): AB = 1.5, BB = 0.5. r denotes the distance be- tween the two particles within in the cutoff distance20. βL c0 = 0.01626656, c2 = 0.001949974 are fixed by the con- βLF (TL) βH F (TH ) = dβ U(β) (2) − − h i dition that the potential and force go to zero continuously ZβH at the cutoff-distance rc. We prepare glassy structures by quenching equilibrium In what follows, all the thermodynamic quantities are liquid configurations from a temperature TH with cool- expressed in reduced units: σAA is our unit of length, the ing rate Cr. We obtain the free energy of glasses by unit of energy is AA, mA = mB = 1 is defined as the computing the average work done during the process. unit of mass, and the reduced temperature is expressed The relation between cooling and work is discussed in in units AA , where k is Boltzmann’s constant. Below, kB B the Supplementary Material (SM). We can then rewrite we report the excess free energy of the system, as the the Eqn. 2 as follows: ideal gas part can be computed analytically. We performed NVT MC simulations at different cool- n n [βLf (TL) βH f (TH )] βLF (TL) = βH F (TH ) ln e− − ing rates. Starting with the equilibrium liquid configura- − Cr tions at T = 0.5 for N = 256, we performed a stepwise D E (3) cooling runs to a final temperature of T =0.1, in steps The difference of ∆T = 0.1. The “duration” of a single cooling step f n ∆t is the number of Monte-Carlo cycles that the system β f n(T ) β f n(T ) ∆ (4) L L − H H ≡ T spends at any given temperature. We define the cool- 6 ing rate Cr as ∆T/∆t. For instance, for Cr = 10− we denotes the non-equilibrium work required to change the perform ∆t = 105 MC cycles at a given temperature. state of the system within a finite switching time or, Each MC cycle comprises N trial displacement moves. equivalently, cooling rate, in a single cooling run. In To obtain good statistics, we performed 1000 indepen- n Eq. 4, n stands for the nth cooling run. ∆ f is evalu- dent simulation runs for N = 256 and used a cooling T rate C = 10 6. ated by computing the potential energy En as a function r − For each cooling run, we use a quadratic fit form of the inverse temperature β: 2 (U = a0 + a1T + a2T ) to fit the T - dependence of The βL values of a0, a1 and a2 are different for all cooling runs. n n n βLf (TL) = βH f (TH ) + dβ E (β) (5) We then use the TI expression, Eq. 5, to compute the n βH f Z difference ∆ T for each run and, using Eq. 3 and av- As explained in the SM, we can recast Eq. 3 as the effect eraging over different runs, we obtain the JR estimates of of scaling the potential energy U rather than the effect FJR, the free energy of the low-temperature glass, down of changing the temperature. That is, βF (T ) for the to a temperature T =0.1. For the sake of comparison, we original temperature but with potential energy function also use the TI method (Eq. 2) to estimate the free ener- λU has the same value as β0F (T 0) for the original po- gies of the glasses (FTI) at temperatures down to T =0.1. tential energy function, but temperature T 0 = T/λ. In Note that we use exactly the same simulation data for our calculations, we compute the variation of βF , as we the JR and TI estimates (see the SM for more details). change the potential energy at constant β for U to λU. In Fig. 1, we show the difference in the free energy per To estimate the free energy difference for the Jarzynsky particle in units of kBT obtained using TI and JR, for Relation (JR), we compute glasses, starting at TH = 0.5. We note that, as the sys- tem is cooled slowly, a cooling run that is started at a λ β dλ0 U β[F (T ; λU) F (T ; U)] = ln e− 1 λ0 , (6) higher temperature will traverse all lower temperatures − − h R i and will therefore, if anything, equilibrate better than where ... denotes averaging over all independent slow- a cooling run started a lower temperature. We observe h i cooling runs, whereas U λ0 denotes the average of Uλ0 dur- that at T = 0.1, the TI estimate of the free energy per ing a single cooling run.