Dataset Information

Fundamental differences between glassy dynamics in two and three dimensions.

ABSTRACT: The two-dimensional freezing transition is very different from its three-dimensional counterpart. In contrast, the glass transition is usually assumed to have similar characteristics in two and three dimensions. Using computer simulations, here we show that glassy dynamics in supercooled two- and three-dimensional fluids are fundamentally different. Specifically, transient localization of particles on approaching the glass transition is absent in two dimensions, whereas it is very pronounced in three dimensions. Moreover, the temperature dependence of the relaxation time of orientational correlations is decoupled from that of the translational relaxation time in two dimensions but not in three dimensions. Last, the relationships between the characteristic size of dynamically heterogeneous regions and the relaxation time are very different in two and three dimensions. These results strongly suggest that the glass transition in two dimensions is different than in three dimensions.

SUBMITTER: Flenner E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4490572 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fundamental differences between glassy dynamics in two and three dimensions.

Flenner Elijah E Szamel Grzegorz G

Nature communications 20150612

The two-dimensional freezing transition is very different from its three-dimensional counterpart. In contrast, the glass transition is usually assumed to have similar characteristics in two and three dimensions. Using computer simulations, here we show that glassy dynamics in supercooled two- and three-dimensional fluids are fundamentally different. Specifically, transient localization of particles on approaching the glass transition is absent in two dimensions, whereas it is very pronounced in ...[more]

PMID: 26067877

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Leaves grown at different light intensities exhibit considerable differences in physiology, morphology and anatomy. Because plant leaves develop over three dimensions, analyses of the leaf structure should account for differences in lengths, surfaces, as well as volumes. In this manuscript, we set out to disentangle the mesophyll surface area available for diffusion per leaf area (Sm,LA) into underlying one-, two- and three-dimensional components. This allowed us to estimate the contribution of each component to Sm,LA, a whole-leaf trait known to link structure and function. We introduce the novel concept of a ‘stomatal vaporshed,’ i.e. the intercellular airspace unit most closely connected to a single stoma, and use it to describe the stomata-to-diffusive-surface pathway. To illustrate our new theoretical framework, we grew two cultivars of Vitis vinifera L. under high and low light, imaged 3D leaf anatomy using microcomputed tomography (microCT) and measured leaf gas exchange. Leaves grown under high light were less porous and thicker. Our analysis showed that these two traits and the lower Sm per mesophyll cell volume (Sm,Vcl) in sun leaves could almost completely explain the difference in Sm,LA. Further, the studied cultivars exhibited different responses in carbon assimilation per photosynthesizing cell volume (AVcl). While Cabernet Sauvignon maintained AVcl constant between sun and shade leaves, it was lower in Blaufränkisch sun leaves. This difference may be related to genotype-specific strategies in building the stomata-to-diffusive-surface pathway. Leaves developing in bright sunlight are markedly different from those developing in shade. Using 3D imaging techniques and a new approach for anatomical analysis, we studied sun and shade leaves of grapevine cultivars in detail. We found that cell shape, size and density work in tandem to increase the internal surface area of sun leaves relative to that of shade leaves, allowing for more efficient CO2diffusion inside the leaves and higher photosynthetic rates under high light. We also describe modular structures that we name ‘vaporsheds’, connecting the pores on the leaf surface (stomata) to the nearest photosynthesizing cells.

Dataset Information

Fundamental differences between glassy dynamics in two and three dimensions.

Publications

Fundamental differences between glassy dynamics in two and three dimensions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets