text:
# GLASS TRANSITION IN SYSTEMS WITHOUT STATIC CORRELATIONS: A MICROSCOPIC THEORY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades huge theoretical efforts were made in order to describe the glass transition on a microscopic level in systems without quenched disorder. Microscopic means that, *e.g.*, the glass transition temperature and the dynamical properties in its vicinity can be calculated from equations which use as an input the knowledge of the interactions between microscopic constituents of the system (atoms or molecules; hereafter we use the term particles). Most of this activity has been devoted to structural glasses . Although experiments  have demonstrated that plastic crystals can exhibit an orientational glass transition which has many features in common with the structural glass transition there seems to be no analytical theory for such systems. 111The microscopic theory developed by Michel and coworkers  is valid for the orientational glass transition of mixed crystals, *i.e.* crystals with quenched disorder. On the other hand Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations  have confirmed the similarity between glassy behavior of plastic crystals and that of supercooled liquids.

The first successful microscopic theoretical approach to glassy dynamics in supercooled liquids came from so-called mode coupling theory (MCT) . This theory was first suggested and mainly worked out in details by Götze and his coworkers. For reviews the reader may consult refs. . MCT derives a closed set of equations for time-dependent correlators, like the intermediate scattering function $`S(q,t)`$. This set uses as an input the corresponding static correlations, *e.g.* $`S(q)`$, which depend only on thermodynamic variables like temperature $`T`$, density $`n`$, etc. The static correlations can be calculated from the microscopic interactions by use of either analytical or numerical tools . By decreasing $`T`$ (or increasing $`n`$) the peaks of $`S(q)`$ grow. If their magnitude becomes large enough a transition from an ergodic to a non-ergodic phase occurs at a critical temperature $`T_c`$ (or density $`n_c`$). This dynamic transition is interpreted as an ideal glass transition. MCT makes several nontrivial predictions for, *e.g.*, time dependence of correlators  which have been successfully tested (see  for reviews).

The second microscopic theory of the glass transition has been developed by Mézard and Parisi . Their first principle theory combines the use of the replica idea known from the spin glass theory and of the liquid state theory techniques. It is related to an earlier density functional approach . Mézard and Parisi’s theory starts from the microscopic Hamiltonian for $`m`$ identical replicas of the system to which a symmetry breaking field is added. The free energy of the replicated system is then calculated and the configurational entropy of the original system is extracted from it. The theory predicts the existence of a critical temperature $`T_f`$ (which is below $`T_c`$ of MCT) at which the configurational entropy vanishes. This is then interpreted as an ideal static glass transition.

Besides these two microscopic theories, let us mention one other attempt to describe the glass transition that does not resort to microscopic potentials: based on several qualitative assumptions Edwards and Vilgis  obtained the dependence of the self-diffusion constant $`D`$ for a system of hard rods on physical control parameter $`x`$, like, *e.g.*, concentration, diameter, or length of the rods. A dynamical glass transition occurs when $`D`$ becomes zero. A mean field treatment results in $`Dx_cx`$ and an improved approach leads to the Vogel-Fulcher law $`D\mathrm{exp}[A/(x_cx)]`$. Close to the critical point $`x_c`$ a power law dependence of $`D`$ on $`(x_cx)`$ is found with a non-trivial exponent $`\gamma =7/6`$.

Both above described microscopic theories have at least one feature in common: non-trivial equilibrium correlations. These correlations are of primary importance for both theories. For example, MCT requires that the vertices which enter into the self-consistent equations for the correlation functions must depend on at least one control parameter. Recently, it has been shown that a colloidal suspension with hard-core plus attractive Yukawa potential can undergo a gel transition  in a special limit: $`\varphi 0`$ and $`K\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=K^2\varphi /b=\text{const}`$. Here $`\varphi `$ is the volume fraction, $`K`$ the interaction strength and $`b`$ a measure of the inverse range of interaction. In that limit the direct correlation function $`c(q)`$ is proportional to $`K`$ and becomes independent of $`\varphi `$ . This implies that the static correlations vanish, *i.e.* $`S(q)1`$. But since the vertices are proportional to $`\varphi `$ and involve a bilinear product of $`c(q)`$ they become proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Accordingly, despite the vanishing of the static correlations there is still an ergodicity breaking transition driven by the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Of course, this type of behavior is not generic in the $`\varphi K`$ phase space. In addition, whether the mode coupling approximation remains reasonable must be still checked.

One may now ask the following question: Can there be a generic glass transition if and only if there exist nontrivial static correlations? To find an answer let us consider a liquid of hard rods. This system was used as a paradigm in ref. . If the rods thickness $`d`$ is finite the static correlations are non-trivial and a glass transition will be predicted by either theory. However, in the limit of infinitely thin hard rods, i. e. $`d=0`$, with finite length $`L`$ and finite concentration $`c`$, the static properties become trivial. Note that in this limit there is no transition to a nematic phase. Also, according to either of the two microscopic theories there is no glass transition! In the case of MCT the vertices vanish. The absence of a glass transition is also consistent with a microscopic theory worked out by one of the authors and his coworkers . There, it has been shown that for infinitely thin hard rods with randomly frozen orientations translational diffusion never ceases if the diffusion constant along the rod’s direction is nonzero.

Now suppose we fix the infinitely thin hard rods with their centers on the sites of a three-dimensional periodic lattice. Such a model has already been suggested earlier . It can be used to describe the steric hindrance of the orientational degrees of freedom in plastic crystals . Again, both MCT and the replica theory exclude a glass transition, due to the lack of static correlations. The fact that MCT in its present form does not predict a glass transition was already stressed in ref. . Nevertheless, computer simulations  showed glassy behavior and suggested a dynamical ergodicity-breaking transition at a critical length $`L_c`$. 111Not that different cubic lattices were used in refs.  and ; moreover the authors of ref.  fixed the rods with one of their endpoints at the lattice sites. This simple example makes clear that non-trivial static behavior is not necessary for a glass transition. It is the main goal of our paper to present a microscopic approach to the glass transition for systems without static correlations.

A short account of our approach for the case of a simple cubic lattice was given in ref. . In the present paper we will discuss our model and the theoretical framework in more detail and will extend the results to bcc and fcc lattices. Furthermore, we will investigate the type of glass transition and the long time dynamics in its vicinity.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In the next section we will present and discuss the model. The third section contains the analytical theory used to describe the glass transition. The results are given in the fourth section and the final section includes a summary and some conclusions.

## 2 MODEL

We consider $`N`$ hard, infinitely thin rods (*i.e.* diameter $`d=0`$) with length $`L`$ and with their centers fixed at the lattice sites of a periodic lattice with lattice constant $`a`$. The dimensionless control parameter is the reduced rod length, $`l=L/a`$. In the following we will restrict ourselves to a simple cubic lattice. Its unit cell is depicted in Fig. 1. All qualitative conclusions which will be drawn in this paper remain valid for all periodic lattices.

It is obvious that for $`l1`$ each rod can rotate freely: there is no steric hindrance. For $`l`$ above one, collisions between a rod and adjacent ones appear. If $`1l\sqrt{3}`$ a given rod interacts only with the six nearest neighbors. Further increase of $`l`$ will introduce collisions between next-, third-, fourth-, etc. nearest neighbors, generating a strong increase of steric hindrance. Since we have chosen infinitely thin rods there is no equilibrium transition to an orientationally ordered phase. On the other hand, due to the rise of steric hindrance with $`l`$ we expect an orientational glass transition as detected in ref.  and . Although steric hindrance already exists for $`l>1`$, it seems that no ergodicity-breaking transition can occur for $`l<2`$. Let us consider the following simple argument. If $`l>2`$ then the nearest neighbor rods of a tagged rod (rod 1) can “overlap” with, *e.g.*, the top of the tagged rod (see Fig. 2). This induces a “cage” for the tagged rod. Note that this argument is not rigorous, because for $`l<2`$ there might exist other configurations similar to the one shown in Fig. 2 which could block the tagged rod’s rotation. But the value $`l=2`$ also plays a role from a different point of view. Consider two neighboring rods with their centers along the $`z`$-axis. Their orientations can be described by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=(\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j=(\theta _j,\varphi _j)`$. At a collision it is either $`\varphi _j=\varphi _i^\pm `$ (see Fig. 3 a) or $`\varphi _j=\varphi _i^\pm +\pi `$ (see Fig. 3 b), for fixed $`\theta _i`$, $`\theta _j`$ and $`\varphi _i`$. The notation $`\varphi _i^+`$ and $`\varphi _i^{}`$ means that rod $`j`$ is behind and in front of rod $`i`$, respectively (see Figure 3). Now, it is easy to prove that for arbitrary $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j`$ there exists only one contact (either at $`\varphi _i^\pm `$ or at $`\varphi _i^\pm +\pi `$) for $`l<2`$ (see Fig. 3 a,b). In that case $`\varphi _j`$ can be varied freely by $`2\pi `$. But for $`l>2`$ there is a finite range for both angles $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j`$ such that two contacts (at $`\varphi _i^\pm `$ and $`\varphi _i^\pm +\pi )`$ exist (see Fig. 3 c). Therefore the “phase space” $`[0,2\pi ]`$ for $`\varphi _j\varphi _i`$ is decomposed into two “ergodic” components $`[0,\pi ]`$ and $`[\pi ,2\pi ]`$ for $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j`$ kept fixed. Transitions between both components are forbidden. If the rods were fixed at the lattice sites with one of their end points (like in ref. ) then there is only one contact, for all $`l>1`$.

The condition for a collision can be quantified as follows . Let $`𝐮_i`$ and $`𝐮_j`$ be the unit vectors along rod $`i`$ and $`j`$ and $`𝐫_{ij}`$ the vector connecting the center of rod $`j`$ with that of rod $`i`$ (see Fig. 4). $`𝐮_i`$ and $`𝐮_j`$ define a plane. Let $`𝐫_{ij}^{}`$ be the component of $`𝐫_{ij}`$ perpendicular to that plane and $`r_{ij}^{}=|𝐫_{ij}^{}|`$. Denote the distance of the point of contact to the center of rod $`i`$ and $`j`$ by, respectively, $`s_{ij}`$ and $`s_{ji}`$ (Fig. 4). Then a collision occurs if:

$$r_{ij}^{}=0^+,|s_{ij}|<L/2,|s_{ji}|<L/2$$
(1)
where $`0^+`$ stands for limit $`d0`$. Simple algebra yields:

$$s_{ij}=[(𝐮_i𝐫_{ij})(𝐮_i𝐮_j)(𝐮_j𝐫_{ij})]/[1(𝐮_i𝐮_j)^2]$$
(2)
$$s_{ji}=[(𝐮_j𝐫_{ij})(𝐮_i𝐮_j)(𝐮_i𝐫_{ij})]/[1(𝐮_i𝐮_j)^2]$$
(3)
Note (i) that $`s_{ij}`$ and $`s_{ji}`$ can be negative; in that case the contact points into the direction of $`𝐮_i`$ and $`𝐮_j`$, respectively and (ii) that $`𝐫_{ij}`$ is time-independent and is always equal to a lattice vector $`𝐑_{ij}=𝐑_i𝐑_j`$.

The configurational part of the partition function is given by

$$Z_c(T,N;l)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_ie^{\beta V(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N)}=(4\pi )^N,\beta =(k_BT)^1$$
(4)
since the hard rod interaction potential $`V(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N)`$ vanishes almost everywhere. The corresponding contribution $`k_BTN\mathrm{ln}4\pi `$ to the free energy is analytic in temperature $`T`$ and does not depend on $`l`$. Hence, there is no equilibrium phase transition. The equilibrium pair distribution function $`g_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)`$ is related to the probability to find a rod at $`𝐑_i`$ and $`𝐑_j(𝐑_i)`$ with orientations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$, respectively. It is given by:

$$g_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=1\theta \left(0^+r_{ij}^{}\right)\theta \left(\frac{L}{2}|s_{ij}|\right)\theta \left(\frac{L}{2}|s_{ji}|\right)$$
(5)
where the Heaviside functions are nonzero at a collision, which happens if conditions Eq. (1) are fulfilled. Since a collision is non-generic, $`g_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=1`$ for almost all $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$. Hence there are no static correlations, except on a set of measure zero.

## 3 KINETIC THEORY

In this section we will describe the dynamics for our model and the approximations leading to a closed set of equations. We assume that the microscopic $`N`$-rod dynamics of the system is Brownian rather than Newtonian. Previous studies of systems with nontrivial static correlations indicated that glassy dynamics should not depend on that choice .

The starting point of the theory is the so-called generalized Smoluchowski equation for the $`N`$-rod probability density $`P_N(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N;t)`$

$$\frac{}{t}P_N(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N;t)=D_0\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}_n[_n𝐓_n(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N)]P_N(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N;t)$$
(6)
where $`D_0`$ is the bare rotational diffusion constant, $`_n_{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}𝐮_n\times _{𝐮_n}`$, and

$$𝐓_n(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N)=\underset{jn}{}𝐓_{jn}(\mathrm{\Omega }_j,\mathrm{\Omega }_n).$$
(7)
$`𝐓_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)`$ describes the singular torque when two rods at sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ with vector distance $`𝐫_{ij}`$ collide:

$$𝐓_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=s_{ij}\left(𝐮_i\times \widehat{𝐫}_{ij}^{}\right)\delta (r_{ij}^{}0^+)\theta \left(\frac{L}{2}|s_{ij}|\right)\theta \left(\frac{L}{2}|s_{ji}|\right)$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}_{ij}^{}=𝐫_{ij}^{}/r_{ij}^{}`$. Using Eq. (5) it is easy to prove that

$$_ig_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=𝐓_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)g_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j).$$
(9)
Eq. (9) describes the noncrossability condition. Note that $`𝐓_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)`$ differs slightly from $`𝐓_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_j)`$ used in ref.  since there $`_{u_i}`$ was used instead of $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}`$. Also, a similar generalized Smoluchowski equation had been used before to describe a liquid of infinitely thin hard rods with randomly frozen orientations .

In a next step we present equations of motion for the reduced $`k`$-rod density

$$\rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;t)=\underset{nn_1,\mathrm{},n_k}{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_nP_N(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N;t).$$
(10)
These equations form an infinite, coupled hierarchy  of the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;t)=^{(k)}\rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;t)`$
$`D_0{\displaystyle \underset{nI_k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_{k+1}I_k}{}}_n{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+1}𝐓_{nn_{k+1}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_n,\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+1})}`$
$`\times \rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_{k+1}}^{(k+1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_{k+1};t)`$ (11)
with the $`k`$-rod Smoluchowski operator,

$$^{(k)}=D_0\underset{nI_k}{}_n[_n\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n^{}I_k}{n^{}(n)}}{}𝐓_{nn^{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_n,\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{})].$$
(12)
and $`I_k=\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k\}`$. As initial conditions we choose:

$$\rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;0)=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{k1}}\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_0)g_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k),$$
(13)
where $`\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta (\theta \theta ^{})\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})`$. Here, $`g_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k)`$ is the equilibrium $`k`$-rod distribution function which is equal to one almost everywhere.

To proceed we introduce the fluctuations of the $`k`$-rod density for $`k2`$

$`\delta \rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;t)=\rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k;t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{k1}}}g_{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k)\rho _{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t).`$ (14)
These fluctuations vanish in equilibrium and for $`t=0`$.

Substituting $`\rho ^{(k)}`$ from Eq. (3) into Eq. (3) and taking into account that the equilibrium $`k`$-rod rotational current density vanishes we obtain the following equation

$$\frac{}{t}\rho _{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t)+_1𝐣_{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t)=0$$
(15)
where the 1-rod rotational current density reads

$`𝐣_{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t)=D_0\{_1\rho _{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2n_1}{}}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_2𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)\}.`$ (16)
At the next level, $`k=2`$, it follows by use of Eq. (9)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐓_{n_1,n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)g_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)𝐣_{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;t)+`$
$`+D_0\{_1[_1𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]+(12)\}\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)+`$
$`+A_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)`$ (17)
where

$`A_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)=`$
$`D_0_1\left[g_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2){\displaystyle \underset{n_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝐓_{n_1n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)\delta \rho _{n_1n_3}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3;t)}\right]`$
$`D_0{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_\nu {\displaystyle \underset{n_3}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝐓_{n_\nu n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)\delta \rho _{n_1n_2n_3}^{(3)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3;t)}.`$ (18)
Let us interpret these equations: Eq. (15) is the continuity equation. The corresponding 1-rod current density (Eq. (3)) consists of two parts. The first describes the contribution from the free Brownian dynamics of a tagged rod at site $`n_1`$ and the second is due to the interaction of the tagged rod with a second rod at side $`n_2`$. The first line on the r.h.s. of Eq. (3) originates from the last term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (3), its second line describes Brownian dynamics of an isolated pair of rods at sites $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, and the last line contains the influence of a third rod at $`n_3`$ on the rods at $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. In order to close this set of equations we follow the strategy of refs.  and approximate the influence of a third rod by introducing an effective, nonlocal (in angular space and time) diffusion tensor $`𝐃^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{};t)`$ and simultaneously neglecting $`A_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}`$:

$`\{D_0_1[_1𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]+(12)\}\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)`$
$`\{_1{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}dt^{}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}𝐃^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{};tt^{})[_1^{}𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)+`$
$`+_2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}dt^{}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}𝐃^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{};tt^{})[_2^{}𝐓_{n_2n_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_1)]\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{};t)\}`$
$`=:(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}\delta \rho ^{(2)})_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t),`$ (19)
$$A_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t)0.$$
(20)
The generalized rotational diffusion tensor $`𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{};t)`$ is defined through a constitutive equation relating the 1-rod current density and the (angular) gradient of the 1-rod density

$$𝐣_{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega };t)=\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{};tt^{})_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\rho _{n_1}^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{};t).$$
(21)
As the final approximation we impose a self-consistency condition,

$$𝐃^{\mathrm{eff}}=𝐃.$$
(22)
Eqs. (153), (322) form a closed set of equations for $`\rho ^{(1)}`$, $`\delta \rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`𝐃`$. Taking their Laplace transform 222Here we use the definition $`\widehat{f}(z)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑tf(t)\mathrm{exp}(zt)`$, Re $`z>0`$ and take $`\delta \rho _{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;t=0)=0`$ into account. it is straightforward to (formally) eliminate $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ and $`\delta \rho ^{(2)}`$ which results in:

$`D_0^1\widehat{𝐣}_{n_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1;z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n_3}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝐓_{n_1n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)[(z\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)})^1(𝐓_{n_1n_3}g_{n_1n_3}^{(2)}\widehat{𝐣}_{n_1}^{(1)})]_{n_1n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3;z)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3\widehat{𝐃}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3;z)\widehat{𝐣}_{n_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_3;z)}`$ (23)
where $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the Laplace transformed quantities. From Eq. (3) we find immediately the self-consistent equation for $`\widehat{𝐃}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;z)`$:

$`\widehat{𝐃}^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;z)=𝐃_0^1\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n_3}{}}𝐓_{n_1n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)[(z\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)})^1(𝐓_{n_1n_3}^tg_{n_1n_3}^{(2)})]_{n_1n_3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;z)`$ (24)
Taking the limit $`z0`$ in Eq. (3) and operating with $`(1/4\pi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ on both sides of the resulting equation yields the following for the diffusion tensor $`𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)\widehat{𝐃}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;z=0)`$:

$$4\pi 𝐃^1=𝐃_0^1\underset{n_3}{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)})^1𝐓)_{n_1n_3}𝐓_{n_1n_3}^t$$
(25)
with

$`f_{n_1n_2}h_{n_1n_2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)f_{n_1n_2}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)h_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)},`$ (26)
and

$$(𝐃_0)^{\alpha \beta }=D_0\delta ^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(27)
$`𝐓^t`$ is the transpose of $`𝐓`$ and for the adjoint 2-rod operator we find from Eq. (3):

$`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}f)_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$
$`=[_1+𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)_3f_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)}`$
$`+[_2+𝐓_{n_2n_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1)]{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)_3f_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)}.`$ (28)
The reader should note that (i) $`g_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ in Eq. (3) can be skipped, because it is equal to one almost everywhere; of course, it must not be dropped if $`_1`$ or $`_2`$ act on it, like in Eq. (3); in that case one can use Eq. (9); (ii) $`𝐃^1`$ does not depend on $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ and (iii) the tensor $`((\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)})^1𝐓)_{n_1n_3}𝐓_{n_1n_3}^t`$ in Eq. (25) depends only on $`𝐑_{n_3}𝐑_{n_1}`$ because of the lattice translational invariance. Accordingly $`\underset{n_3}{}\mathrm{}`$ does not depend on $`n_1`$. Eq. (25) can also be rewritten as follows

$$4\pi 𝐃^1=𝐃_0^1+\underset{n_3}{}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t(e^{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}t}𝐓)_{n_1n_3}𝐓_{n_1n_3}^t.$$
(29)
Let us discuss Eq. (29). It is a functional equation for the rotational diffusion tensor $`𝐃`$, since $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}`$ also involves $`𝐃`$. It $`l1`$ then $`𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)0`$ and therefore Eq. (29) implies that

$$𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=𝐃_0\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_2)$$
(30)
as it should be. Increasing $`l`$ beyond one leads to an “increase” of the friction tensor $`𝐃^1`$, due to the positive definite, time-dependent torque-torque correlation tensor $`(\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}t)𝐓)_{n_1n_3}𝐓_{n_1n_3}^t`$ which determines the second term in Eq. (29). This “increase” of the “renormalized” friction tensor $`𝐃^1`$ implies a decrease of the “renormalized” diffusion tensor $`𝐃`$. Since this one enters into the exponent of $`\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}t)`$ the relaxation of the torque-torque correlation will slow down. This in turn leads to an “increase” of the second term of Eq. (29) leading to a further “increase” of $`𝐃^1`$ and so on. This feedback mechanism, which is different from but still resembles that of MCT , finally may lead to the vanishing of diffusion and therefore to a glass transition.

Although the functional equation possesses a rather clear structure it probably cannot be solved exactly. For this one would have to determine the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(2)}`$. Due to the singular character of $`𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ (cf. Eq. (8)) on the three-dimensional contact-hypersurface defined by Eq. (1) this does not seem to be feasible. In order to make progress and to get explicit results for $`𝐃`$ we will use the following additional approximation:

$$(𝐃(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2))^{\alpha \beta }D(l)\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_2).$$
(31)
Substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (29) and acting with $`\frac{1}{3}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}`$ on both sides yields:

$$D(l)=D_0[1\upsilon (l)].$$
(32)
The l-dependent coupling function $`\upsilon (l)`$ follows from the second term of Eq. (29) by use of Eqs. (3) and (31):

$$\upsilon (l)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{n_3}{}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t𝐓_{n_1n_3}e^{^{(2)}t}𝐓_{n_1n_3}$$
(33)
with the adjoint of the 2-rod Smoluchowski operator (cf. Eq. (12)):

$$^{(2)}=[_1+𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]_1+(12)$$
(34)
where $`D_0`$ is replaced by one. The calculation of the relevant quantity $`\upsilon (l)`$ and the determination of a critical length $`l_c`$ at which $`D(l)`$ vanishes will be presented in the next section.

## 4 RESULTS

### 4.1 Glass transition singularity

Using the local approximation Eq. (31), we obtained Eq. (32) which constitutes a rather simple result. Before we calculate $`\upsilon (l)`$ let us discuss $`D(l)`$ and $`\upsilon (l)`$ on a qualitative level. Since $`𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)0`$ for $`l1`$ it follows that $`\upsilon (l)=0`$ and therefore $`D(l)=D_0`$ for $`l1`$, as it should be. Next, we introduce:

$$\upsilon _0(l/r_n)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}e^{^{(2)}t}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}$$
(35)
where $`r_n=|𝐑_n|/a`$. This is related to the torque-torque correlator of one rod at the origin and another one at site $`n`$. Note that the r.h.s. of Eq. (35) depends on $`|𝐑_n|`$, but not on the direction of $`𝐑_n`$. $`\upsilon _0(x)`$, of course, vanishes for $`x1`$, is positive for $`x>1`$ (see below) and we expect it to converge to a finite limit $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$. $`\upsilon (l)`$ is completely determined by $`\upsilon _0(x)`$:

$$\upsilon (l)=\underset{n}{}\upsilon _0(l/r_n)$$
(36)
where the sum is restricted to such $`n`$ for which $`r_n<l`$. This relation can be used to determine the asymptotic behavior of $`\upsilon (l)`$ for $`l\mathrm{}`$. Approximating the sum by an integral which becomes more and more accurate with increasing $`r_n`$ we get:

$`\upsilon (l){\displaystyle \underset{1rl}{}}d^3r\upsilon _0(l/r)=4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{l}{}}}𝑑rr^2\upsilon _0(l/r)`$
$`=4\pi \left({\displaystyle \underset{l^1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑xx^2\upsilon _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)\right)l^3`$
which gives

$$\upsilon (l)cl^3+O(l^2),l\mathrm{}$$
(37)
with

$$c=4\pi \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx^2\upsilon _0\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)>0.$$
(38)
That $`\upsilon (l)l^3`$ for $`l\mathrm{}`$ is obvious since all rods within a sphere of radius of order $`l`$ will collide with the central one. Their number, of course, is proportional to $`l^3`$. Because $`\upsilon (l)=0`$ for $`l1`$ and $`\upsilon (l)`$ increases linearly with $`l^3`$ for large $`l`$ there must exist a critical length $`l_c`$ for which $`\upsilon (l_c)=1`$ and therefore $`D(l_c)=0`$. To determine $`l_c`$ at which a dynamical glass transition takes place we have to calculate $`\upsilon _0(x)`$. Although this quantity is much simpler than the second term in Eq. (29), it cannot be determined exactly analytically (see below). Therefore the exact evaluation can only be done numerically. For such a numerically exact calculation we performed a simulation of the Brownian dynamics (defined by $`^{(2)})`$ of an isolated pair of rods with distance $`r_n`$. The time-dependent torque-torque correlator resulting from this simulation is shown in Fig. 5 for several values of $`l/r_n`$. For $`t0`$ we find a power law divergence $`t^{1/2}`$ as expected and already proven for the force-force correlator of hard spheres . Since only two rods are considered, the system is ergodic and therefore the torque-correlations relax to zero. Figure 5 shows that the relaxational behavior changes qualitatively around $`l/r_n=2`$ from a fast decay like for free Brownian dynamics to a rather slow relaxation. This crossover at $`l/r_n2`$ is related to the properties discussed in section 2. Whether the long time decay of the torque-torque correlation is purely exponential, proportional to $`t^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$ or even a single power law $`t^\alpha `$ (as it is true for two hard spheres ) cannot be decided from our numerical data. Although the log-linear representation in Figure 5 exhibits a bending for large $`t`$ (which would indicate deviation from a pure exponential) the exponential behavior could appear on a much larger time scale on which the statistical fluctuations of the numerical data prevent the determination of the precise long time decay. The numerical evaluation of the time integral in Eq. (35) leads to $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{num}}(x)`$ presented in Figure 6. The reader should note the strong increase starting at $`x=l/r_n2`$.

Now let us turn to the analytical calculation of $`\upsilon _0(x)`$. For this we rewrite $`\upsilon _0(x)`$ as

$$\upsilon _0(x)=\frac{1}{3}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}(^{(2)})^1𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}.$$
(39)
which is (up to the factor $`1/3`$) the Laplace transformed torque-torque correlator at $`z=0`$.

Analogous to refs.  we introduce a vector function $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ such that:

$$^{(2)}𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2).$$
(40)
Eq. (40) can be decomposed into a regular part

$$[_1^2+_2^2]𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=0,$$
(41)
and a singular one:

$$[s_{12}(𝐮_1\times \widehat{𝐫}_{12}^{})_1+s_{21}(𝐮_2\times \widehat{𝐫}_{21}^{})_2]𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=s_{12}(𝐮_1\times \widehat{𝐫}_{12}^{}).$$
(42)
Eq. (42) is to be satisfied for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ located on the three-dimensional contact hypersurface. Accordingly, Eqs. (41-42) describe a boundary value problem with boundary value on the three-dimensional hypersurface embedded in the four-dimensional space built by the surface of two unit spheres. This is a difficult mathematical problem which seems to resist a rigorous solution. If it could be solved then the calculation of $`\upsilon _0(x)`$ is reduced to the calculation of an integral over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$:

$$\upsilon _0(x)=\frac{1}{3}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}𝐟_{0\mathrm{n}}.$$
(43)
Therefore, we resort to an alternative. It is easy to prove (by the use of Eq. (9)) that Eq. (40) is the variational equation of the functional:

$$[𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]=\frac{1}{3}[𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}𝐟_{n_1n_2}2𝐓_{n_1n_2}𝐟_{n_1n_2}].$$
(44)
For a similar discussion see ref. . It can be easily shown by partial integration that:

$`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}𝐟_{n_1n_2}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_1{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_2g_{n_1n_2}^{(2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}[(_1f_{n_1n_2}^\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2))^2`$
$`+(_2f_{n_1n_2}^\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2))^2]`$ (45)
which is negative for all $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}\mathrm{const}`$, i.e. $`^{(2)}`$ is a negative operator. Therefore one can follow ref.  and prove that the solution $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{sol}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ of Eq. (40) is the non-degenerate maximum of $``$. From Eqs. (40), (43) and (44) we then find that

$$\upsilon _0(x)=[𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{sol}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)],$$
(46)
i.e. the maximum value of $``$ is just $`\upsilon _0(x)`$. Since the maximum is non-degenerate the following inequality is true for any trial function $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$

$$\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)[𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]\upsilon _0(x).$$
(47)
Choosing an appropriate trial function offers the possibility to determine a lower bound for $`\upsilon _0(x)`$ and therefore an upper bound for the critical length $`l_c`$.

The boundary value problem described above is similar to those arising from electrodynamics or hydrodynamics. Its singular part implies that $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ is discontinuous at the contact surface. This is similar to the behavior of the electric field at a dipolar layer. Without restricting generality, we can choose $`𝐑_{n_2}𝐑_{n_1}`$ along the $`z`$-axis. Then the relevant coordinate is $`\varphi =\varphi _2\varphi _1`$ and contacts can occur at $`\varphi =0^\pm `$ or $`\varphi =\pi ^\pm `$ (see discussion in section 2), *i.e.* $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_1},\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_2})𝐟_{n_1n_2}(\theta _1,\theta _2,\varphi _1,\varphi )`$ must be discontinuous at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$. Next, Eq. (43) makes it obvious that $`|𝐓_{n_1n_2}𝐟_{n_1n_2}|`$ should be made as large as possible. This can be done by choosing $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}𝐓_{n_1n_2}𝐮_1\times \widehat{𝐫}_{12}^{}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1,\mathrm{sin}\theta _1).`$ Finally, the calculation of $``$ from Eq. (44) requires the calculation of the r.h.s. of Eq. (4.1). Since $`_if_{n_1n_2}^\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ involves $`1/\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ for $`x`$ and $`y`$ component of the gradient, the integrals in Eq. (4.1) will not exist unless $`f_{n_1n_2}^\alpha (\mathrm{sin}\theta _1)^{\nu _1}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)^{\nu _2}`$ with $`\nu _11`$ and $`\nu _21`$. These considerations suggest to use the following trial function:

$`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ $``$ $`\lambda 𝐡_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)=\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1& & \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1& & \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1& & \end{array}\right)`$ (54)
$`\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\pi }{2}(\varphi _2\varphi _1),\hfill & 0<\varphi _2\varphi _1<\pi \hfill \\ \frac{3\pi }{2}(\varphi _2\varphi _1),\hfill & \pi <\varphi _2\varphi _1<2\pi \hfill \end{array}`$
with $`\lambda `$ being a variational parameter. For the $`(\varphi _2\varphi _1)`$-dependence we have made the simplest choice taking a linear variation with discontinuities at $`0`$ and $`\pi `$. Note also that $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ does not depend on either $`𝐑_{n_2}𝐑_{n_1}`$ or $`x=l/r_n`$, which will be not true for the true, exact solution $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{sol}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$. Substituting $`𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ into Eq. (44), where the first term is evaluated by Eq. (4.1), one obtains:

$$[𝐟_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)]=F(\lambda )=\lambda ^2I_22\lambda I_1(x)$$
(55)
with

$$I_1(x)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2𝐡_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)𝐓_{n_1n_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2)$$
(56)
$`I_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_1{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }_2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}[(_1h_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var},\alpha }(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2))^2+(_2h_{n_1n_2}^{\mathrm{var},\alpha }(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2))^2].`$ (57)
Note that $`I_2`$ does not depend on $`x`$. $`F(\lambda )`$ is easily maximized. As a result one obtains:

$$\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)=F(\lambda _{\mathrm{max}})=\frac{(I_1(x))^2}{(I_2)}.$$
(58)
$`I_2`$ can be calculated analytically:

$$I_2=\frac{2}{81}(27+2\pi ^2)1.154$$
(59)
whereas $`I_1(x)`$ must be calculated by numerical integration, due to the nontrivial contact hypersurface. The result $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$ following from this approach is shown in Fig. 6. It is interesting that $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$ reproduces the crossover behavior found for $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{num}}(x)`$ close to $`x=2`$ from $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)0`$ for $`x<2`$ to $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)>0`$ for $`x>2`$. Comparison of $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{num}}(x)`$ with $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$ confirms that $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{var}}(x)`$ is a lower bound for $`\upsilon _0^{\mathrm{num}}(x)`$, as it should be. Introducing $`\upsilon _0(x)`$ from both approaches into Eq. (36) leads to $`\upsilon (l)`$ represented in Fig. 7 for an sc-lattice. From this figure we get:

$$l_c^{\mathrm{num}}3.45,l_c^{\mathrm{var}}5.68:\mathrm{sc}\mathrm{lattice}.$$

$`\upsilon (l)`$ can be calculated for any periodic lattice. For the other cubic lattices we obtained

$`l_c^{\mathrm{num}}\{\begin{array}{cc}2.78\hfill & \\ 2.20\hfill & \end{array},l_c^{\mathrm{var}}\{\begin{array}{cc}4.84\hfill & \mathrm{bcc}\mathrm{lattice}\hfill \\ 3.96\hfill & \mathrm{fcc}\mathrm{lattice}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Since $`\upsilon ^{\mathrm{var}}(l)\upsilon ^{\mathrm{num}}(l)\upsilon (l)`$, it follows that $`l_c^{\mathrm{var}}l_c^{\mathrm{num}}l_c`$. The critical length decreases when going from sc to bcc to fcc lattice. This decrease is related to (i) the increase of the coordination number $`z`$ from 6 to 8 to 12 and (ii) a decrease of the nearest neighbor distances $`r_1`$ from 1 to $`\sqrt{3}/2`$ to $`\sqrt{2}/2`$ (in units of the lattice constant $`a`$). Since an increase of $`z`$ and a decrease of $`r_1`$ results in an increase of the steric hindrance, $`l_c`$ must decrease. As the increase of steric hindrance is equivalent to an increase of collisions, i. e. of contacts, our result has some similarity to that found in ref. . These authors have used a probabilistic approach in order to derive a criterion for the mechanical stability of an off-lattice system of infinitely thin hard rods in its randomly closed-packed glassy state. It has been found that a mechanically stable amorphous phase occurs if the average contact point per rod becomes 5. However, such an arrangement of hard rods with $`d=0`$ is dynamically unstable, as discussed in the Introduction. In the simulation performed in ref.  it was found $`l_c^{\mathrm{sim}}2.7`$ for an fcc lattice. On the other hand ref.  found $`l_c^{\mathrm{sim}}4.5`$ for an sc lattice. Note that in ref.  the rods were fixed with one of their endpoints, and not with their centers. Our result for $`l_c^{\mathrm{num}}`$ and $`l_c^{\mathrm{var}}`$ agree satisfactorily to the simulational result of ref. . The difference between our result and that of ref.  may be due to the different way of fixing rods on the lattice that was mentioned above.

The authors of ref.  have also studied the $`l`$dependence of the rotational diffusion constant $`D(l)`$ defined by:

$$D(l)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{1}{2t}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐮_n(t)𝐮_n(0)\right]\right).$$
(61)
The variation of $`D`$ over about two orders in magnitude follows a power law $`D(l)(l_cl)^{\gamma ^{MD}}`$ with $`\gamma ^{MD}4.2`$. Since $`\upsilon (l)`$ is analytical for $`l>1`$ it follows that $`1\upsilon (l)l_cl`$ and therefore $`D(l)(l_cl)`$. Hence our analytical theory yields $`\gamma =1`$ which differs significantly from $`\gamma ^{MD}`$. This deviation may have two reasons. First, our result $`\gamma =1`$ is mean-field-like (see, *e.g.*, ref. ). Note that in ref.  going beyond mean field approximation it has been found $`\gamma 7/6`$  which is still close to one. Second, $`\gamma ^{MD}4.2`$ is unusually high. Simulations and experiments of supercooled liquids usually yield $`\gamma 2`$ consistent with most MCT-analyses .

### 4.2 Nonergodicity parameter and dynamics close to $`l_c`$

The analysis in subsection 4.1 has proven that our theory predicts a dynamical glass transition at a critical length $`l_c`$. There are two important questions remaining. First, does the nonergodicity parameter change at $`l_c`$ in a continuous (type-A transition ) or discontinuous (type-B transition ) way? Second, what is the time– or frequency-dependence of the 1-rod density $`\rho _n^{(1)}`$ close to $`l_c`$? The present subsection will give answers to both questions.

Let us expand $`\widehat{\rho }_n^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega };z)`$ and $`\widehat{𝐣}_n^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega };z)`$ into spherical harmonics:

$$\widehat{\rho }_n^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega };z)=\underset{\lambda }{}\widehat{\rho }_{n,\lambda }^{(1)}(z)Y_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(62)
$$\widehat{𝐣}_n^{(1)}(\mathrm{\Omega };z)=\underset{\lambda }{}\widehat{𝐣}_{n,\lambda }^{(1)}(z)Y_\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(63)
where $`\lambda =(j,m)`$, $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{};`$ $`jmj`$. Furthermore, let us extend approximation (31) to finite $`z`$:

$$(\widehat{𝐃}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2;z))^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{D}(z)\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_1|\mathrm{\Omega }_2).$$
(64)
It is easy to prove then that the Laplace transform of Eqs. (15) and (21) leads to

$$\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda (z)\widehat{\rho }_\lambda ^{(1)}(z)/\rho _\lambda ^{(1)}(t=0)=1/[z+j(j+1)\widehat{D}(z)],$$
(65)
where we skipped the index $`n`$.

The nonergodicity parameter $`f_\lambda `$ is defined as follows:

$$f_\lambda =\underset{z0}{lim}z\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda (z).$$
(66)
Taking into account approximation Eq. (64) we get from Eq. (3) after operating with (1/4 $`\pi `$) $`𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ on both sides the self-consistency equation for $`\widehat{D}(z)`$:

$$\frac{1}{\widehat{D}(z)}=\frac{1}{D_0}+\frac{1}{\widehat{D}(z)}\widehat{\upsilon }(\zeta ;l),\zeta =z/\widehat{D}(z),$$
(67)
with

$$\widehat{\upsilon }(\zeta ;l)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{n}{}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}[\zeta ^{(2)}]^1𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}.$$
(68)
Inverse Laplace transform of Eq. (68) yields

$$\upsilon (t;l)=\frac{1}{3}\underset{n}{}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}e^{^{(2)}t}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}.$$
(69)
Note that $`\upsilon (t;l)`$ is the time-dependent analogue of $`\upsilon (l)`$ defined in Eq. (33).

Eq. (67) has a similar mathematical structure as the corresponding equation for a Lorentz gas obtained from a mode coupling approximation . Assuming that $`F(t)`$ does not decay slower than $`t^{5/2}`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$  it follows from the Tauberian theorems  that

$$\widehat{\upsilon }(\zeta ;l)=\widehat{\upsilon }(0;l)+\widehat{\upsilon }^{}(0;l)\zeta +O(\zeta ^{3/2})$$
(70)
where

$`\widehat{\upsilon }(0;l)\upsilon (l)`$
$`\widehat{\upsilon }^{}(0;l)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}(^{(2)})^2𝐓_{0\mathrm{n}}:=a(l)<0.`$ (71)
Substituting Eq. (70-4.2) into (67) and neglecting $`O(\zeta ^{3/2})`$ we get a quadratic equation for $`z/\widehat{D}(z)`$, the physical solution of which is

$$z/\widehat{D}(z)=\frac{1}{2}[ϵ(l)+\sqrt{ϵ^2(l)+zt_0}]$$
(72)
with

$`ϵ(l)={\displaystyle \frac{\upsilon (l)1}{a(l_c)}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}<0,l<l_c\text{(ergodic phase)}\hfill & \\ 0,ll_c(\text{glass phase})\hfill & \end{array}`$ (75)
and $`t_0=4/(a(l_c)D_0)`$ being a microscopic time scale. Note that Eq. (72) is identical to the corresponding equation obtained for the so-called $`F_1`$-model . Accordingly, all results for the $`F_1`$-model  hold here as well. This implies (i) that the glass transition is of type A, i.e. the nonergodicity parameters (obtained from Eqs. (65) and (66))

$`f_\lambda (l)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,l=l_c\hfill & \\ {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(l)}{j(j+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\upsilon ^{}(l_c)}{a(l_c)j(j+1)}}(ll_c),ll_c^+\hfill & \end{array}`$ (78)
vary continuously at $`l_c`$, (ii) at the critical point $`l=l_c`$ and for $`z0`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$

$$\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda (z)\frac{1}{2}(zt_0)^{1/2},\varphi _\lambda (t)\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi }}(t/t_0)^{1/2}$$
(79)
and (iii) for $`|ll_c|1`$ and for $`z0`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$

$$\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda (z,ϵ)=(|ϵ|/\omega _ϵ)\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda (z/\omega _ϵ),\varphi _\lambda (t,ϵ)=|ϵ|\varphi _\lambda (t/t_ϵ)$$
(80)
with $`\omega _ϵ=t_ϵ^1=ϵ^2/t_0`$. In other words, the $`(z,ϵ)`$– and $`(t,ϵ)`$–dependence follows from the master function $`\widehat{\varphi }_\lambda `$ and $`\varphi _\lambda `$ (Eq. (79)), respectively, by use of the scaled frequency $`z/\omega _ϵ`$ and time $`t/t_ϵ`$. The time scale $`t_ϵ`$ diverges as $`ϵ^2`$ when approaching the glass transition independent on the sign of $`ϵ`$.

## 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our main motivation has been the microscopic description of the glass transition for systems with trivial statics, *i.e.* systems which do not undergo an equilibrium phase transition to an ordered phase and do not have static correlations. For such systems, present microscopic theories like MCT and replica theory for structural glasses predict neither a dynamical nor a static glass transition. As a model we have chosen $`N`$ infinitely thin hard rods with length $`L`$ fixed with their centers on a periodic lattice with lattice constant $`a`$. The only relevant physical parameter is the dimensionless length $`l=L/a`$. Simulations for an fcc  and an sc lattice  strongly suggested that a dynamical glass transition occurs at a critical length $`l_c^{\mathrm{sim}}2.7`$  and $`l_c^{\mathrm{sim}}4.5`$ . Note that the rods in ref.  were fixed at the lattice sites with one of their end points.

To describe the dynamics of our model we have used the generalized $`N`$-rod Smoluchowski equation from which we derived a hierarchy of coupled equations for $`\delta \rho _{n_1\mathrm{}n_k}^{(k)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_k)`$, the fluctuations of the reduced $`k`$-rod densities. Truncating at the second level and approximating the influence of surrounding rods on a pair of rods by the introduction of an effective diffusion tensor $`𝐃`$ we finally obtained a self-consistency equation for $`𝐃`$ (Eq. (25)). This equation describes a feedback mechanism (as MCT also does) which leads to a slowing down of the dynamics and ultimately to an orientational glass transition, similar to that occuring in plastic crystals . The model studied in the present paper may be applied to real plastic crystals as has been shown in ref. .

One of the essential features of present MCT for the glass transition is the cage effect . For low temperature or high density an extended particle, *e.g.* a hard sphere, is captured in a cage. The occurrence of this cage is accompanied by the growth of static correlations. Particularly, the main peak of the static structure factor grows and this leads to an increase of the static vertices entering the MCT-equations. If the vertices reach a critical strength the system will undergo a dynamical glass transition, provided ordering is prevented. In this sense the cage effect entering into MCT through the static correlations is of static nature. The model studied here does not have any static correlations, yet there is a cage effect. If the rods are long enough the tagged rod’s motion can be strongly restricted to an “orientational” cage (cf. Figure 2). This cage, however, is of pure dynamical nature and leads to a glass transition as well.

Comparing the results for the fcc lattice obtained from our theoretical framework with the additional approximation Eq. (31) with those from simulations  one can say that both values $`l_c^{\mathrm{num}}2.20`$ and $`l_c^{\mathrm{var}}3.96`$ are in a reasonable range of $`l_c^{\mathrm{sim}}2.7`$ . Taking into account that our approach involves uncontrollable approximations (Eqs. (3) and (20)) this is a satisfactory result. The tendency of $`l_c`$ to decrease when going from the sc lattice to the bcc to the fcc lattice is consistent with our expectation that $`l_c`$ decreases with increase of the coordination number and decrease of the nearest neighbor distances. Of course, second-, third-, etc. nearest neighbors play also a role, but with minor influence. Less satisfactory is the exponent, $`\gamma `$ of the power law, $`D(l)(l_cl)^\gamma `$, which is $`\gamma =1`$, in contrast to $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{sim}}4.2`$ . Even if the simulated result turns out too high, the type-A transition result, $`\gamma =1`$, cannot be the correct value. This requires an improvement of our microscopic approach. It is not obvious whether the approach presented in ref.  which is based on rather qualitative arguments can serve as a guide.

It seems that the “dynamical cage effect” leads to a discontinuous variation of the nonergodicity parameter at $`l_c`$ and is accompanied close to $`l_c`$ by a two-step relaxation process, as can be seen from the orientational correlator studied in ref. . Such a two-step relaxation was first predicted by MCT  and within this theory it is related to the cage effect. The present theoretical approach predicts a continuous transition for the glass order parameters $`f_\lambda `$. Therefore it does not yield a two-step relaxation. This fact demands for an improvement of our theory, based on the hierarchy of equations for the $`k`$-rod densities. But on the other hand it is, of course, a big challenge to extend the present MCT such that it includes the “dynamical cage effect” described above and that a discontinuous glass transition occurs. If this turns out to be possible, it seems that the vertices must be generalized. Besides static correlations, *i.e.* correlators at time $`t=0`$, they also must contain dynamical ones. These dynamical correlations may enter through a time-dependent force-force correlator $`\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t𝐅(t)𝐅(0)`$, *i.e.* as a Laplace transformed correlator at frequency $`z=0`$ (as found in the present approach). For systems with vanishing static correlations, like for our model, the vertices would be of purely dynamical nature. Now, increasing $`d`$ to finite values will generate static correlations. For small thickness the “dynamical cage” will be still dominant, but at a crossover value $`d_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}`$ the static cage effect would become comparable with the dynamical one and for $`d>d_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}`$ it would be the dominant one.

Let us come back to the choice of Brownian vs. Newtonian dynamics. We have found that the glass transition is driven by the increase of the Laplace transform at $`z=0`$ of the time dependent torque-torque correlator of an isolated pair of rods. This correlator is be different for Brownian and Newtonian dynamics. Therefore the critical length $`l_c`$ will be not the same for both dynamics. At present, it is not clear whether this is only a small effect. This is different from what has been found for liquids with nontrivial static correlations . However, the linear dependence of the nonergodicity parameters and of the diffusion constant on $`ϵ`$, the quadratic dependence of the frequency scale $`\omega _ϵ`$ on $`ϵ`$ and the $`t^{1/2}`$ dependence of the correlator at the critical length $`l_c`$ should be independent of the type of dynamics.

It would be interesting to re-investigate the lattice model with infinitely thin hard rods by computer simulations. With present computers it should be possible to cover a larger time range and to study the dynamics close to $`l_c`$ in greater detail. This would allow to check whether the two scaling laws and other predictions of MCT are consistent with simulations. If the outcome of such a test proves consistency it would encourage theoretical efforts to extend the microscopic theory within the framework of MCT.

Besides rods on a lattice one could also investigate liquid systems of “particles” built by crossing infinitely thin hard rods. If the number of “legs” (rods) of a “particle” becomes large they may exhibit quite similar dynamical behavior to hard spheres, although there are no static correlations. The time scale on which these “particles” realize that they are not hard spheres could be much larger than a typical time scale for structural relaxation.

To conclude, we have discussed a purely dynamical mechanism which also drives a glass transition and which up to now has received almost no attention. Its further investigation by computer simulations and analytical work seems to us a challenging task for the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We gratefully acknowledge a very fruitful and stimulating discussion with W. Götze during the “3rd Workshop on Non-Equilibrium Phenomena in Supercooled Fluids, Glasses, and Amorphous Materials” in Pisa and his comments on the present manuscript. Helpful comments by M. Fuchs and the preparation of most of the figures by D. Garanin and M. Ricker are gratefully acknowledged as well. G. S. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation through grant No. CHE 0111152 and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Seven Principles of Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Hilbert space

To a physical system one assigns a Hilbert space $``$. The observables correspond to the self-adjoint operators in $`.`$ The pure states correspond to the one-dimensional subspaces of $`.`$ An arbitrary state is described by the density operator, i.e. a positive operator with the unit trace. For the expectation value $`<A>_\rho `$ of the observable $`A`$ in the state described by the density operator $`\rho `$, we have the Born-von Neumann formula

$$<A>_\rho =Tr(\rho A)$$

## 2 Measurements

Measurement is an external intervention which changes the state of the system. These state changes are described by the concept of state transformer or instrument. Let $`\{\mathrm{\Omega },\}`$ be a measured space where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a set and $``$ is a $`\sigma `$-algebra its subsets. A state transformer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a state transformation valued measure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_B,B\}`$ on the measured space. A state transformation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B`$ is a linear, positive, trace-norm contractive map on the set of trace class operators in $``$.

An ideal state transformer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,i=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ associated with discrete observable $`A=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_iE_i`$ is given by the Dirac-von Neumann formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(\rho )=E_i\rho E_i$$

if it is known that the measurement outcome is a real number $`a_i.`$ Here $`E_i`$ is the orthogonal projection operator. Similar formulae hold for the positive operator valued measure (POVM).

## 3 Time

The dynamics of the density operator $`\rho `$ and of a state $`\psi `$ in the Hilbert space which occurs with passage of time is given by

$$\rho (t)=U(t)\rho U(t)^{},$$

$$\psi (t)=U(t)\psi $$

Here $`t`$ is a real parameter (time), $`U(t)`$ is a unitary operator satisfying the abstract Schrodinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}U(t)=H(t)U(t)$$

where $`H(t)`$ is the (possibly time dependent) self-adjoint energy operator (Hamiltonian) and $`\mathrm{}`$ the Planck constant.

## 4 Space

There exists the three-dimensional Euclidean space $`𝐑^3`$. Its group of motion is formed by the translation group $`T^3`$ and the rotation group $`O(3)`$. One supposes that in the Hilbert space $``$ there is a unitary representation $`U(a)`$ of the translation by the three-vector $`a.`$ If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ is a measured space and $`\{E_B,B\}`$ is the associated POVM then one has

$$U(a)E_BU(a)^{}=E_{\alpha _a(B)}$$

where $`\alpha _a:`$ is the group of automorphisms.

One has also a projective representation of the rotation group $`SO(3)`$ which can be made into a unitary representation $`U(R)`$ of the covering group $`SU(2)`$, here $`RSU(2).`$ Hopefully the distinction by the type of argument of $`U`$ will be sufficient to avoid confusion. The irreducible representations of $`SU(2)`$ describes systems with integer and half-integer spins.

## 5 Composite systems

If there are two different systems with assigned Hilbert spaces $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ then the composite system is described by the tensor product

$$=_1_2.$$

## 6 Bose-Fermi alternative

The Hilbert space of an $`N`$-particle system is the $`N`$-fold tensor product of the single particle Hilbert spaces provided that the particles are not of the same species. For identical particles with integer spin (bosons) one uses the symmetrized $`N`$-fold tensor product $`(^N)_S`$ of the Hilbert space $`.`$ For identical particles with half integer spin (fermions) one uses the anti-symmetrized $`N`$-fold tensor product $`(^N)_A`$.

## 7 Internal symmetries

There is a compact Lie group $`G_{int}`$ of internal symmetries and its unitary representation $`U(\tau ),\tau G_{int}`$ in the Hilbert space $``$ which commutes with representations of the translation group $`U(a)`$ and the rotation group $`U(R).`$ For instance one could have the gauge group $`G_{int}=U(1)`$ which describes the electric charge. The group generates the superselection sectors.

SUMMARY

Axiomatic quantum mechanics described by the presented seven axioms can be briefly formulated as follows. There is space and time $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, the symmetry group $`G=T^1\times T^3\times SU(2)\times G_{int}`$, the Hilbert space $``$ and the unitary representation $`U(g)`$ of $`G`$, here $`gG.`$ Axiomatic quantum mechanics is given by the following data:

$$\{,U(g),\rho ,(\mathrm{\Omega },,\alpha _g),\{E_B,\mathrm{\Gamma }_B,B\}\}$$

Here $`\rho `$ is the density operator, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },)`$ is the measured space , $`\alpha _g`$ is the group of automorphisms of the $`\sigma `$-algebra $``$, $`\{E_B\}`$ is POVM, and $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\}`$ the state transformer.

Example. An example of quantum system satisfying the all seven axioms is given by the non-relativistic spin one half particle with the Hilbert space $`=𝐂^2L^2(𝐑^3)`$ and the Schr$`\ddot{0}`$dinger-Pauli Hamiltonian and also by its multi-particle generalization.

COMMENTS
We can add more axioms, of course. In particular we did not postulate yet the covariance under the Poincare or Galilei group (for the Galilei group one has a projective representation) but only invariance under spatial translations and rotations which we have in the non-relativistic theory as well as in the relativistic theory. We could add also the condition of the positivity of energy. Finally, we could postulate the standard non-relativistic Schr$`\ddot{o}`$dinger equation for $`N`$ bodies as a fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics. Note also that in relativistic quantum field theory all the axioms are valid (in fact we have to add more axioms to get quantum field theory) except the second axiom on measurements which requires a special discussion.

Note in the conclusion that the spatial approach to quantum mechanics explicitly formulated in this note was used for the investigation of quantum non-locality. It was shown in , that quantum non-locality in the sense of Bell there exists only because the spatial properties of quantum system were neglected. If we take the spatial degrees of freedom into account then local realism might be consistent with quantum mechanics and with performed experiments. If somebody wants to depart from local realism then he/she has to change quantum mechanics. The local realist representation in quantum mechanics was formulated in  as follows:

$$Tr(\rho A_m(x)B_n(y))=E\xi _m(x)\eta _n(y)$$

Here $`A`$ and $`B`$ are observables depending on the space points $`x`$ and $`y`$ and on parameters $`m`$ and $`n`$ while $`E`$ is the expectation of two random fields $`\xi _m(x)`$ and $`\eta _n(y)`$. The representation was proved in  under some rather restrictive assumptions. It would be important to prove the representation under more general assumptions. The non-commutative spectral theory related with the local realist representation is discussed in , definitions of local realism in the sense of Bell and in the sense of Einstein and its relations with the contextual approach are considered in .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Andrei Khrennikov and Richard Gill for numerous discussions on axiomatics of quantum mechanics and critical remarks on the manuscript. The paper was supported by the grant of The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences on collaboration with scientists of former Soviet Union, EU-network on quantum probability and applications and RFFI-0201-01084, INTAS-990590.