Past exam of the soft condensed matter course of the University of Cambridge / 2017 / 1

Entropic elasticity. A rubber contains flexible polymer strands tied into a network by cross-links. Stretching biases the strands toward relatively extended configurations, reducing their configurational entropy. The restoring entropic force follows from the increase in Helmholtz free energy $F=U-TS$. For a Gaussian strand with $N_s$ statistical steps of length $b$, its deformation-dependent free energy is approximately $3k_{B}T{R}^2/(2N_s{b}^2)$. Its stiffness therefore increases with absolute temperature, even if the underlying bond stiffness changes little.

In the ideal affine-network model of rubber elasticity, the shear modulus iswhere ${\nu }_s$ is the number density of elastically active network strands. Thus heating increases the modulus approximately in proportion to $T$, provided the network density and rubbery state remain approximately unchanged. Thermal expansion, changing relaxation times or damage can modify that simple trend.

Examples are lightly crosslinked natural rubber, based on cis-rich polyisoprene, and crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane. The crosslinks prevent the long-time macroscopic flow of an unconnected chain solution.

Density estimate and the unspecified modulus convention. With room temperature $T\simeq 298\mathrm{K}$, the Boltzmann constant gives $k_{B}T\simeq 4.11\times 10^{-21}\mathrm{J}$. If the stated modulus is $G=2\times 10^5\mathrm{Pa}$, thenThe molar value counts moles of active strands. If “modulus” instead means Young's modulus $E$, a nearly incompressible isotropic rubber has $E\simeq 3G$, and the inferred value isThus the robust order-of-magnitude estimate is $10^{25}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. The cross-link density inferred from rubber elasticity is usually an effective strand density; the actual junction density is ${\nu }_j=2{\nu }_s/f$ for junction functionality $f$ in an ideal network without inactive loops or dangling ends. For four-functional junctions this would be half the strand density. The paper supplies neither modulus type nor junction functionality, so a unique chemical junction count cannot be extracted.

For an ideally dissociated electrolyte, the Debye–Hückel screening length isHere $n_i$ is ionic number density, $z_i$ the charge in units of the elementary charge, and $c_i$ is molar concentration. Conversion between $I$ and number density cancels in a ratio. At fixed relative permittivity, ${\lambda }_D\propto \sqrt{T/I}$.

In $0.01\mathrm{M}$ sodium chloride, $c_{\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{a}}^{+}}=c_{\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}^{-}}=0.01\mathrm{M}$, giving $I_1=0.01\mathrm{M}$. Complete dissociation of $0.1\mathrm{M}$ aluminium chloride gives $c_{\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{l}}^{3+}}=0.1\mathrm{M}$ and $c_{\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}^{-}}=0.3\mathrm{M}$, soThe factor is sixty, not ten: the squared charge and the three counterions per formula unit both matter. Using the given $5\mathrm{nm}$ reference length directly, and $T_1\simeq 298\mathrm{K}$, $T_2=323\mathrm{K}$,The modest temperature increase raises the screening length by only about $4\%$ at fixed concentration; the large increase in ionic strength shortens it by almost an order of magnitude overall.

Under charge stabilization of colloids, the electrostatic double-layer repulsion now has a much shorter range. Attractive Van der Waals forces can then dominate at closer separations, reducing the barrier to particle aggregation in DLVO theory. Thus an electrostatically stabilized colloid is likely to be destabilized, with aggregation more likely than in the original dispersion.

This is a conditional physical prediction, not a proof of instability from a length alone. No particle radius, surface potential, attractive interaction strength or steric coating is specified. Steric stabilization could preserve stability, and trivalent-ion adsorption can alter the surface charge. Moreover, ideal screening theory is only an estimate at $I\simeq 0.6\mathrm{M}$, where ion association, hydrolysis and activities can matter. The numerical result uses the supplied reference length and the stipulated unchanged permittivity, rather than replacing either with an unprovided calibration.

Write the membrane height above its mean plane as a sum of Fourier modes, $h(\mathbf{r})={\sum }_{\mathbf{q}}{h}_{\mathbf{q}}{e}^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{r}}$. The supplied average is a thermal mean-squared modal height; for complex Fourier coefficients it is understood as $⟨|h_{\mathbf{q}}{|}^2⟩$, with $h_{-\mathbf{q}}=h_{\mathbf{q}}^{\ast }$ for a real height field. The terms are:

In the small-slope approximation, Helfrich membrane energy containsThe equipartition theorem, with the independent real modes counted consistently, gives the stated membrane fluctuation spectrum under tension. Its units are length squared: $\sigma q^2$ and $\kappa q^4$ both have units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-4}$, so $k_{B}T/[A(\sigma q^2+\kappa q^4)]$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^2$.

At small length scales, $q$ is large and the bending term dominates:The fluctuation amplitude is controlled mainly by the membrane bending modulus and thermal energy, rather than tension. The crossover occurs when $\sigma q_c^2=\kappa q_c^4$, henceThe bending-dominated regime extends up to the membrane elastic length when scale means $1/q$, or up to ${\lambda }_c$ when it means wavelength. At still larger scales tension gives a $q^{-2}$ spectrum. At the opposite end, the continuum formula requires wavelengths larger than the microscopic membrane thickness or molecular cutoff. Without numerical $\kappa$ and $\sigma$, no numerical crossover scale is determined.