L-6: Difference between revisions
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Our goal is thus to determine their distribution <math>P_w(x)</math>, given their intial distribution, <math>P_0(x)</math>, and a value of <math> w </math>. | Our goal is thus to determine their distribution <math>P_w(x)</math>, given their intial distribution, <math>P_0(x)</math>, and a value of <math> w </math>. | ||
=== Dynamics === | |||
Let's rewrite the dynamics with the new variables | |||
* <Strong> Drive:</Strong> Increasing <math>w \to w + \dd w</math> each point decreases its distance to threshold | |||
<center><math> x_i \to x_i - m^2 \dd w </math></center>. | |||
As a consequence | |||
<center> <math>P_{w+dw}(x) = P_w(x+dw) \sim P_w(x) + m^2 dw \partial_x P_w(x)</math></center> | |||
* <Strong> Instability 1: Stress drop </Strong> The instability occurs when a point is at <math> x_i =0 </math>. Then, the point is stabilized (stress drop): | |||
<center> <math> x_i =0 \to x_i = \Delta </math></center> | |||
Increasing <math>w \to w + \dd w</math>, a fraction <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) </math> of the points of the interface is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to instability will be <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) g(x) </math>. Hence, one writes | |||
<center> <math> \partial_w P_{w}(x) \sim m^2 \left[\partial_x P_w(x) + P_w(0) g(x) \right] </math> </center> | |||
<center><math> | |||
\begin{cases} | |||
\sigma_i=\sigma_i -\Delta \quad \text{stress drop}\\ | |||
\\ | |||
\sigma_{i\pm 1}=\sigma_{i\pm 1} +\frac{1}{2} \frac{\Delta}{1+m^2} \quad \text{stress redistribution}\\ | |||
\end{cases} | |||
</math></center> | |||
Note that <math> \Delta</math> is a positive random variable drwan from <math> g(\Delta)</math>. | |||
Hence, an unstable point, <math>x_i<0 </math>, is stabilized to a value <math>x>0 </math> drawn from <math>g(x) </math>. | Hence, an unstable point, <math>x_i<0 </math>, is stabilized to a value <math>x>0 </math> drawn from <math>g(x) </math>. | ||
Line 28: | Line 50: | ||
we define and write its evolution equation. | we define and write its evolution equation. | ||
* Drive: Changing <math>w\to w+dw</math> gives | * Drive: Changing <math>w\to w+dw</math> gives | ||
* Instability: This shift is stable far from the origin, however for a fraction <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) </math> of the points of the interface is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to instability will be <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) g(x) </math>. Hence, one writes | * Instability: This shift is stable far from the origin, however for a fraction <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) </math> of the points of the interface is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to instability will be <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) g(x) </math>. Hence, one writes | ||
<center> <math> \partial_w P_{w}(x) \sim m^2 \left[\partial_x P_w(x) + P_w(0) g(x) \right] </math> </center> | <center> <math> \partial_w P_{w}(x) \sim m^2 \left[\partial_x P_w(x) + P_w(0) g(x) \right] </math> </center> |
Revision as of 17:52, 29 February 2024
Avalanches and Bienaymé-Galton-Watson process
Goal: We solve the mean field version of the cellular automaton, derive its avalanche statistics and make a connection with the Bienaymé-Galton-Watson process used to describe an epidemic outbreak.
Fully connected (mean field) model for the cellular automaton
Let's study the mean field version of the cellular automata introduced in the previous lecture. We introduce two approximations:
- Replace the Laplacian, which is short range, with a mean field fully connected interction
.
- The local threshold are all equal. In particular we set
.
As a consequence, in the limit , the statistical properties of the system are described by the distribution of the local stresses . For simplicity, instead of the stresses, we study the distance from threshold
Our goal is thus to determine their distribution , given their intial distribution, , and a value of .
Dynamics
Let's rewrite the dynamics with the new variables
- Drive: Increasing Failed to parse (unknown function "\dd"): {\displaystyle w \to w + \dd w} each point decreases its distance to threshold
.
As a consequence
- Instability 1: Stress drop The instability occurs when a point is at . Then, the point is stabilized (stress drop):
Increasing Failed to parse (unknown function "\dd"): {\displaystyle w \to w + \dd w} , a fraction of the points of the interface is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to instability will be . Hence, one writes
Note that is a positive random variable drwan from .
Hence, an unstable point, , is stabilized to a value drawn from . The stress redistribution induced on each bloch is
we define and write its evolution equation.
- Drive: Changing gives
- Instability: This shift is stable far from the origin, however for a fraction of the points of the interface is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to instability will be . Hence, one writes
- Stress redistribution: as a consequence all points move to the origin of
where
- Avalanche: Let us call we can write
and finally:
Stationary solution
Increasing the drive the distribution converge to the fixed point:
- Determne using
- Show