Reply to "Comment on `Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder' "

TL;DR

This paper clarifies the authors' approach to defining the maximally random jammed packing fraction, emphasizing differences from prior work and defending the use of soft particles in jammed packing studies.

Contribution

It introduces a new ensemble-based definition of the maximally random jammed packing fraction and contrasts it with previous configuration-specific measures.

Findings

The ensemble approach provides a different perspective on jamming.

Soft particles are as suitable as hard spheres for studying jammed packings.

The new definition clarifies the concept of maximal randomness at jamming.

Abstract

We answer the questions raised by Donev, Torquato, Stillinger, and Connelly in their "Comment on "Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder.' " We emphasize that we follow a fundamentally different approach than they have done to reinterpret random close packing in terms of the "maximally random jammed" framework. We define the "maximally random jammed packing fraction" to be where the largest number of initial states, chosen completely randomly, have relaxed final states at the jamming threshold in the thermodynamic limit. Thus, we focus on an ensemble of states at the jamming threshold, while DTSC are interested in determining the amount of order and degree of jamming for a particular configuration. We also argue that soft-particle systems are as "clean" as those using hard spheres for studying jammed packings and point out the benefits of using soft potentials.