As someone who has long been interested in the glass transition and glassy-state kinetics, I would like to comment on some of the issues raised by James Langer in his Reference Frame column.I affirm Langer’s statement about healthy contentiousness. Whether or not the glass transition has thermodynamic roots definitely makes for exciting science. The reason some of us think thermodynamics is important is that we find it difficult to dismiss as co-incidences the similarities in the values of the kinetic temperature T 0 and the thermodynamic Kauzmann temperature T K. One common objection to the Kauzmann analysis, that an amorphous solid should not have zero entropy, can be assuaged by noting that the entropy at T K does not have to be zero, just very small.Langer briefly mentions the success of the simplistic Adam–Gibbs (AG) model in describing the dynamics of supercooled liquids. Its nonlinear extension into the glass-transition region and glassy state (NLAG) is also surprisingly successful. 1 1. G. W. Scherer,J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 67, 504 (1984); I. M. Hodge, Macromolecules 20, 2897 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00177a044 That extension is based on concepts introduced by several researchers over several decades: Simon Rekhson in 1994, George Scherer in 1984, Cornelius Moynihan in 1976, O. S. Narayanaswamy in 1971, and others. The successes of the NLAG model go far beyond expectations, and raise issues of their own. The resolution of these issues might provide important clues to a theoretical understanding of the glass transition. ▸As noted by Langer, the experimentally observed effective activation energy E(T) increases rapidly with decreasing temperature down to the glass-transition temperature T g, but it then decreases through the T g range until it reaches a constant value E(T g), so that glassy-state relaxation exhibits Arrhenius behavior. The singularity at T 0 noted by Langer only occurs in the equilibrium supercooled liquid state and not in the experimentally observed nonequilibrium glassy state. The change from non-Arrhenius to Arrhenius behavior at T g is well described by the NLAG model and its precursor, the Tool-Narayanaswamy-Moynihan model. ▸NLAG predicts a simple relation between the ratio T K/T g and an empirical constant that parameterizes the nonlinearity of the glass transition and glassy-state kinetics. This intriguing prediction needs to be independently confirmed or unambiguously refuted.▸The NLAG model, together with the plausible assumption that smaller localized activation energies Δµ enable the kinetic T g to get closer to the thermodynamic T K, generates many of the correlations captured by Angell’s fragility. In fact, the ratio T K/T g is an excellent metric that allows fragility to be applied to the glassy state.▸Estimated values of Δµ for canonical glasses are often comparable with rotational energy barriers in polymers, and ionic, covalent, and hydrogen bond strengths. In these cases the NLAG model is almost quantitatively accurate.▸Incorporation of a distribution in Δµ yields a respectable account 2,3 2. G. Sartor, E. Mayer, G. P. Johari, Biophys. J. 66, 249 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80774-X 3. I. M. Hodge, Biophys. J. 91, 993 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.080796 of thermal manifestations of motions in hydrated proteins and B-DNA. 2,4 2. G. Sartor, E. Mayer, G. P. Johari, Biophys. J. 66, 249 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80774-X 4. J. L. Green, J. Fan, C. A. Angell, J. Phys. Chem. 98, 13780 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1021/j100102a052 The mean value for Δµ is comparable with hydrogen bond strengths, albeit with a large uncertainty, and the large standard deviation—30% of the average—is consistent with the insightful but qualitative analysis of Jennifer Green and coworkers. 4 4. J. L. Green, J. Fan, C. A. Angell, J. Phys. Chem. 98, 13780 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1021/j100102a052 The fact that NLAG gives a decent account of annealing in hydrated proteins and B-DNA strongly supports Austen Angell’s suggestion that the glass transition and protein dynamics have much in common. 5 5. C. A. Angell, Science 267, 1924 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5206.1924 I share Langer’s belief that short-range interactions are probably the key. Since the current models accommodate a wide range of interactions, such as covalent, hydrogen, and ionic bonding, the glass-transition phenomenon is evidently insensitive to the details of those interactions. This generality is missing from too many theoretical attempts at explaining the problem. Perhaps the averaging of details is why the simplistic NLAG model is so successful.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. G. W. Scherer,J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 67, 504 (1984); Google Scholar I. M. Hodge, Macromolecules 20, 2897 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00177a044 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI, CAS2. G. Sartor, E. Mayer, G. P. Johari, Biophys. J. 66, 249 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80774-X , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS3. I. M. Hodge, Biophys. J. 91, 993 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.080796 , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS4. J. L. Green, J. Fan, C. A. Angell, J. Phys. Chem. 98, 13780 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1021/j100102a052 , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS5. C. A. Angell, Science 267, 1924 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5206.1924 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI, CAS© 2008 American Institute of Physics.