Response to the comment on ‘Time-dependent paths, fictive temperatures and residual entropy of glass’

Abstract

We recall the text from our original paper and show that the views expressed in the Comment have no merit.

Keywords:

• glass transition
• thermodynamics

Notes

Note

1. To cite from our original paper (Ref. 3 here): “Goldstein [14] has argued that the notion of a zero value for S _res violates the second law of thermodynamics and he and others [14–17] have proposed methods for testing the reality of S _res. Since Goldstein, several authors [15–19] have discussed the configurational entropy, S _conf, of a liquid and glass, by reviewing the evolution of the third law [15,18], discussing theoretical aspects of the entropy of a non-equilibrium state [15], describing experiments on the solubility and other properties of a glass [14–16], and determining the lower limit of S _res resulting from the use of Clausius limit and the upper limit given by S _conf of an equilibrium liquid with the same T _f [19], all concluding that S _conf does not vanish on vitrification.” Contrary to the statement in the Comment, “there has been some opposition of the entropy loss view [11,12]”, the citations, including [24] in Ref. 3, provide a much longer list of those who reject the entropy loss view on justifiable grounds, some providing experimental evidence against the entropy loss view and broken ergodicity.