Phys. Rev. E 70, 043302 (2004) [3 pages]Reply to “Comment on ‘Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder’ ”Received 25 June 2004; published 25 October 2004 We answer the questions raised by Donev, Torquato, Stillinger, and Connelly (DTSC) in their preceding Comment on “Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder” [ Phys. Rev. E 70 043301 (2004)] We emphasize that we follow a fundamentally different approach than they have done to reinterpret random close packing in terms of the “maximally random jammed” framework. We define the “maximally random jammed packing fraction” to be where the largest number of initial states, chosen completely randomly, have relaxed final states at the jamming threshold in the thermodynamic limit. Thus, we focus on an ensemble of states at the jamming threshold, while DTSC are interested in determining the amount of order and degree of jamming for a particular configuration. We also argue that soft-particle systems are as “clean” as those using hard spheres for studying jammed packings and point out the benefits of using soft potentials. © 2004 The American Physical Society URL:
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.043302
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevE.70.043302
PACS:
81.05.Rm, 83.80.Iz, 64.70.Pf
See AlsoOriginal Article: Corey S. O’Hern, Leonardo E. Silbert, Andrea J. Liu, and Sidney R. Nagel, Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder, Phys. Rev. E 68, 011306 (2003). |
|
About | Terms and Conditions | Subscriptions | Search | Help
Use of the American Physical Society websites and journals implies that the user has read and agrees to our Terms and Conditions and any applicable Subscription Agreement. Physical Review®, Physical Review Letters®, Reviews of Modern Physics®, and Physical Review Special Topics® are trademarks of the American Physical Society.