Abstract
In a recent article, Schmelzer and Tropin [Entropy 2018, 20, 103] presented a critique of several aspects of modern glass science, including various features of glass transition and relaxation, crystallization, and the definition of glass itself. We argue that these criticisms are at odds with well-accepted knowledge in the field from both theory and experiments. The objective of this short comment is to clarify several of these issues.
Highlights
This short letter serves as a rebuttal to a recent article by Schmelzer and Tropin [1], which was recently published in this journal
The first definition presented in our paper is meant for the general public and non-experts in the field: “Glass is a nonequilibrium, non-crystalline state of matter that appears solid on a short time scale but continuously relaxes towards the liquid state”
Regarding the concepts of broken ergodicity and the configurational entropy of glass, Schmelzer and Tropin write [1]: “Our conclusion is that the treatment of vitrification as a process of continuously breaking ergodicity with entropy loss and a residual entropy tending to zero in the limit of zero absolute temperature is in disagreement with the absolute majority of experimental and theoretical investigations of this process and the nature of the vitreous state
Summary
This short letter serves as a rebuttal to a recent article by Schmelzer and Tropin [1], which was recently published in this journal. This is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all issues in that article. It is meant to address some of their main points criticizing modern ideas in glass science
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
