Schmiedeberg Michael
Institut für Theoretische Physik 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
J Chem Phys. 2022 Jul 14;157(2):027101. doi: 10.1063/5.0078912.
In their Communication [J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241101 (2018)], Richard et al. state that in the work of Kohl et al. [Nat. Commun. 7, 11817 (2016)], a mechanism for dynamical arrest in temporal networks has been proposed that actually has never been proposed (and would be obviously wrong) in this context. The actual findings of Kohl et al. are not tested nor affected by the communication. The work of Richard et al. rests on simulations in a regime of the phase diagram that significantly differs from the one that Kohl et al. consider. In this Comment, it is shown that both the effective density and the rescaled second virial coefficient indicate that the comparison presented by Richard et al. is invalid. Therefore, the implications that are based on this comparison are incorrect. There is no indication for a disagreement between the simulations of Richard et al. and those of Kohl et al., and I am confident that upon consistent comparison and interpretation of the results, both works can contribute to a more comprehensive picture of gel-forming systems.
理查德等人在其通讯文章[《化学物理杂志》148, 241101 (2018)]中指出,在科尔等人的工作[《自然通讯》7, 11817 (2016)]里,提出了一种时间网络中动态停滞的机制,而在这种情况下该机制实际上从未被提出过(并且显然是错误的)。科尔等人的实际研究结果并未受到该通讯文章的检验或影响。理查德等人的工作基于相图中一个与科尔等人所考虑的区域显著不同的区域的模拟。在本评论中,表明有效密度和重新标度的第二维里系数都表明理查德等人所做的比较是无效的。因此,基于该比较得出的结论是不正确的。没有迹象表明理查德等人的模拟与科尔等人的模拟存在分歧,并且我相信在对结果进行一致的比较和解释后,这两项工作都能为形成凝胶的系统提供更全面的认识。