L-9: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 43: Line 43:
<Strong> A metal</Strong>  has a simple spectrum. Indeed, all sites have  <math>\alpha=d</math>, hence  <math>f(\alpha=d)=d</math> and <math>f(\alpha\ne d ) =-\infty</math>. Then <math>\alpha^*(q)=d </math> becomes <math>q</math> independent.
<Strong> A metal</Strong>  has a simple spectrum. Indeed, all sites have  <math>\alpha=d</math>, hence  <math>f(\alpha=d)=d</math> and <math>f(\alpha\ne d ) =-\infty</math>. Then <math>\alpha^*(q)=d </math> becomes <math>q</math> independent.
<Strong> A multifractal </Strong> has a smooth spectrum with a maximum at <math>\alpha_0</math> with <math>f(\alpha_0)=d</math>. At <math>q=1</math>, <math>f'(\alpha_1)=1</math> and <math>f(\alpha_1)=\alpha_1</math>.
<Strong> A multifractal </Strong> has a smooth spectrum with a maximum at <math>\alpha_0</math> with <math>f(\alpha_0)=d</math>. At <math>q=1</math>, <math>f'(\alpha_1)=1</math> and <math>f(\alpha_1)=\alpha_1</math>.
=Tails=
=Larkin model=
 
In your homewoork you solved a toy model for the interface. Consider  a collection of L monomers  <math>h_1,h_2,\ldots, h_L </math> in 1d with periodic boundary condition:
<center><math>
\partial_t h_i(t) =  h_{i+1}(t)+h_{i-1}(t) -2 h_i(t)  + F_i
</math></center>
For simplicity, we assume $F_i$ iid Gaussian numbers with zero mean a variance D: 
<math>\overline{F_i}=0, \quad \overline{F_i^2}=\sigma^2 </math>. You proved that the roughness exponent of this model is  <math>\zeta_L=(4-d)/2=3/2</math> and the force per unit length acting of the interface is <math> f= \sigma/\sqrt{L}</math>
 
In the real model for depinning the disorder is however a non-linear function of h. The idea of Larkin is that linearization is correct only up, <math> r_f</math> the  length of correlation of the disorder <Strong> along the h direction </Strong>.

Revision as of 18:57, 24 March 2024

Multifractality

In the last lecture we discussed that the eigenstates of the Anderson model can be localized, delocalized or multifractal. The idea is to look at the (generalized) IPR

The exponent is called multifractal exponent . Normalization imposes and the fact that the wave fuction is defined everywhere that . In general is the fractal dimension of the object we are considering and it is simply a geometrical property.

  • Delocalized eigenstates

In this case, for all the sites. This gives


  • Multifractal eigenstates.

This case correspond to more complex wave function for which we expect

The exponent is positive and is called multifractal spectrum . It is a convex function and its maximum is the fractal dimension of the object, in our case d. We can determine the relation between multifractal spectrum and exponent

for large L

This means that for that verifies we have


A metal has a simple spectrum. Indeed, all sites have , hence and . Then becomes independent. A multifractal has a smooth spectrum with a maximum at with . At , and .

Larkin model

In your homewoork you solved a toy model for the interface. Consider a collection of L monomers in 1d with periodic boundary condition:

For simplicity, we assume $F_i$ iid Gaussian numbers with zero mean a variance D: . You proved that the roughness exponent of this model is and the force per unit length acting of the interface is

In the real model for depinning the disorder is however a non-linear function of h. The idea of Larkin is that linearization is correct only up, the length of correlation of the disorder along the h direction .