L-9: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
=Eigenstates=
= Eigenstates =
 
Without disorder, the eigenstates are delocalized plane waves.
Without disorder, the eigenstates are delocalized plane waves.


In the presence of disorder, three scenarios can arise: Delocalized eigenstates, where the wavefunction remains extended; Localized eigenstates, where the wavefunction is exponentially confined to a finite region; Multifractal eigenstates, occurring at the mobility edge, where the wavefunction exhibits a complex, scale-dependent structure.
In the presence of disorder, three scenarios can arise: delocalized eigenstates, where the wavefunction remains extended; localized eigenstates, where the wavefunction is exponentially confined to a finite region; multifractal eigenstates, occurring at the mobility edge, where the wavefunction exhibits a complex, scale-dependent structure.


To distinguish these regimes, it is useful to introduce the inverse participation ratio (IPR).
To distinguish these regimes, it is useful to introduce the inverse participation ratio (IPR).
<center><math>
<math display="block">
IPR(q)=\sum_n |\psi_n|^{2 q} \sim L^{-\tau_q}
\mathrm{IPR}(q)=\sum_n |\psi_n|^{2 q} \sim L^{-\tau_q}.
</math></center>
</math>
 
== Delocalized eigenstates ==


== Delocalized eigenstates==
In this case, <math>|\psi_n|^{2} \approx L^{-d}</math>. Hence, we expect
In this case, <math>|\psi_n|^{2} \approx L^{-d} </math>. Hence, we expect  
<math display="block">
<center><math>
\mathrm{IPR}(q)=L^{d(1-q)},
IPR(q)=L^{d(1-q)} \quad \tau_q=d(1-q)
\quad
</math></center>
\tau_q=d(1-q).
</math>


==Localized eigenstates==
== Localized eigenstates ==
In this case, <math>|\psi_n|^{2} \approx 1/\xi_{\text{loc}}^{1/d} </math> for <math>\xi_{\text{loc}}^{d}</math> sites and almost zero elsewhere. Hence, we expect
<center><math>
IPR(q)= \text{const},  \quad \tau_q=0
</math></center>


In this case, <math>|\psi_n|^{2} \approx 1/\xi_{\text{loc}}^{d}</math> on <math>\xi_{\text{loc}}^{d}</math> sites and almost zero elsewhere. Hence, we expect
<math display="block">
\mathrm{IPR}(q)=\text{const},
\quad
\tau_q=0.
</math>


== Multifractal eigenstates ==
== Multifractal eigenstates ==
Line 26: Line 32:
The exponent <math>\tau_q</math> is called the '''multifractal exponent'''. It is a non-decreasing function of <math>q</math> with some special points:
The exponent <math>\tau_q</math> is called the '''multifractal exponent'''. It is a non-decreasing function of <math>q</math> with some special points:


*   <math>\tau_0 = -d</math>, since the wavefunction is defined on all sites. In general, <math>\tau_0</math> represents the fractal dimension of the object under consideration and is purely a geometric property.
* <math>\tau_0 = -d</math>, since the wavefunction is defined on all sites. In general, <math>\tau_0</math> represents the fractal dimension of the object under consideration and is purely a geometric property.
* <math>\tau_1 = 0</math>, imposed by normalization.


*    <math>\tau_1 = 0</math>, imposed by normalization.
To observe multifractal behavior, we expect:
<math display="block">
|\psi_n|^{2} \approx L^{-\alpha}
\quad \text{for}\;
L^{f(\alpha)} \; \text{sites}.
</math>


To observe multifractal behavior, we expect:
The exponent <math>\alpha</math> is positive, and <math>f(\alpha)</math> is called the '''multifractal spectrum'''. Its maximum corresponds to the fractal dimension of the object, which in our case is <math>d</math>.
<center><math> |\psi_n|^{2} \approx L^{-\alpha} \quad \text{for}\; L^{f(\alpha)} \; \text{sites}. </math></center>


The exponent <math>\alpha</math> is positive, and <math>f(\alpha)</math> is called the '''multifractal spectrum'''. Its maximum corresponds to the fractal dimension of the object, which in our case is <math>d</math>. The relation between the multifractal spectrum <math>f(\alpha)</math> and the exponent <math>\tau_q</math> is given by:
The relation between the multifractal spectrum <math>f(\alpha)</math> and the exponent <math>\tau_q</math> is given by:
<center><math> IPR(q) = \sum_n |\psi_n|^{2q} \sim \int d\alpha \, L^{-\alpha q} L^{f(\alpha)} </math></center> for large <math>L</math>. From this, we obtain: <center><math> \tau(q) = \min_{\alpha} (\alpha q - f(\alpha)). </math></center>
<math display="block">
\mathrm{IPR}(q) = \sum_n |\psi_n|^{2q}
\sim \int d\alpha \, L^{-\alpha q} L^{f(\alpha)}
</math>
for large <math>L</math>. From this, we obtain:
<math display="block">
\tau(q) = \min_{\alpha} (\alpha q - f(\alpha)).
</math>


This implies that for <math>\alpha^*(q)</math>, which satisfies
This implies that for <math>\alpha^*(q)</math>, which satisfies
<center><math> f'(\alpha^*(q)) = q, </math></center> we have <center><math> \tau(q) = \alpha^*(q) q - f(\alpha^*(q)). </math></center>
<math display="block">f'(\alpha^*(q)) = q,</math>
we have
<math display="block">\tau(q) = \alpha^*(q) q - f(\alpha^*(q)).</math>


'''Delocalized wavefunctions''' have a simple spectrum: for <math>\alpha = d</math>, we find <math>f(\alpha = d) = d</math> and <math>f(\alpha \neq d) = -\infty</math>. This means that <math>\alpha^*(q) = d</math> is independent of <math>q</math>.
'''Delocalized wavefunctions''' have a simple spectrum: for <math>\alpha = d</math>, we find <math>f(\alpha = d) = d</math> and <math>f(\alpha \neq d) = -\infty</math>. This means that <math>\alpha^*(q) = d</math> is independent of <math>q</math>.
Line 43: Line 63:
'''Multifractal wavefunctions''' exhibit a smoother dependence, leading to a continuous spectrum with a maximum at <math>\alpha_0</math>, where <math>f(\alpha_0) = d</math>. At <math>q = 1</math>, we have <math>f'(\alpha_1) = 1</math> and <math>f(\alpha_1) = \alpha_1</math>.
'''Multifractal wavefunctions''' exhibit a smoother dependence, leading to a continuous spectrum with a maximum at <math>\alpha_0</math>, where <math>f(\alpha_0) = d</math>. At <math>q = 1</math>, we have <math>f'(\alpha_1) = 1</math> and <math>f(\alpha_1) = \alpha_1</math>.


=Larkin model=
= Larkin model =


In your homewoork you solved a toy model for the interface:
In your homework you solved a toy model for the interface:
<center><math>
<math display="block">
\partial_t h(r,t) = \nabla^2 h(r,t)   + F(r)
\partial_t h(r,t) = \nabla^2 h(r,t) + F(r).
</math></center>
</math>
For simplicity, we assume Gaussian disorder
For simplicity, we assume Gaussian disorder <math>\overline{F(r)}=0</math>, <math>\overline{F(r)F(r')}=\sigma^2 \delta^d(r-r')</math>.
<math>\overline{F(r)}=0</math>, <math> \overline{F(r)F(r')}=\sigma^2 \delta^d(r-r') </math>.  


You proved that:
You proved that:
* the roughness exponent of this model is  <math>\zeta_L=\frac{4-d}{2}</math> below dimension 4
* The force per unit length acting on the center of the interface is <math> f= \sigma/\sqrt{L^d}</math>
* at long times the  interface shape is
<center><math>
\overline{h(q)h(-q)} =  \frac{\sigma^2}{q^{d+2\zeta_L}}
</math></center>


In the real depinning model the disorder is however a non-linear function of h. The idea of Larkin is that this linearization is correct up, <math> r_f</math> the length of correlation of the disorder <Strong> along the h direction </Strong>. This defines a Larkin length. Indeed from
* the roughness exponent of this model is <math>\zeta_L=\frac{4-d}{2}</math> below dimension 4
<center><math>
* the force per unit length acting on the center of the interface is <math>f= \sigma/\sqrt{L^d}</math>
\overline{(h(r)-h(0))^2}= \int _d^dq (\overline{h(q)h(-q)}(1-\cos(q r) \sim \sigma^2 r^{2 \zeta_L}
* at long times the interface shape is
</math></center>
<math display="block">
You get
\overline{h(q)h(-q)} = \frac{\sigma^2}{q^{d+2\zeta_L}}.
<center><math>
</math>
\overline{(h(\ell_L)-h(0))^2}= r_f^2 \quad \ell_L=\left(\frac{r_f}{\sigma} \right)^{1/\zeta_L}
 
</math></center>
In the real depinning model the disorder is, however, a non-linear function of <math>h</math>. The idea of Larkin is that this linearization is correct up to <math>r_f</math>, the correlation length of the disorder <Strong>along the <math>h</math> direction</Strong>. This defines a Larkin length.
Above this scale, roguhness change and pinning starts with a crtical force
 
<center><math>
Indeed, from
f_c= \frac{\sigma}{\ell_L^{d/(2 \zeta_L)}}
<math display="block">
</math></center>
\overline{(h(r)-h(0))^2}
In <math>d=1</math> we have <math>\ell_L=\left(\frac{r_f}{\sigma} \right)^{2/3}</math>
= \int d^d q \,\overline{h(q)h(-q)}\,(1-\cos(q r))
\sim \sigma^2 r^{2\zeta_L},
</math>
you get
<math display="block">
\overline{(h(\ell_L)-h(0))^2}= r_f^2,
\qquad
\ell_L=\left(\frac{r_f}{\sigma}\right)^{1/\zeta_L}.
</math>
 
Above this scale, roughness changes and pinning starts with a critical force
<math display="block">
f_c= \frac{\sigma}{\ell_L^{d/(2 \zeta_L)}}.
</math>
 
In <math>d=1</math> we have <math>\ell_L=\left(\frac{r_f}{\sigma}\right)^{2/3}</math>.

Revision as of 18:01, 3 March 2026

Eigenstates

Without disorder, the eigenstates are delocalized plane waves.

In the presence of disorder, three scenarios can arise: delocalized eigenstates, where the wavefunction remains extended; localized eigenstates, where the wavefunction is exponentially confined to a finite region; multifractal eigenstates, occurring at the mobility edge, where the wavefunction exhibits a complex, scale-dependent structure.

To distinguish these regimes, it is useful to introduce the inverse participation ratio (IPR). IPR(q)=n|ψn|2qLτq.

Delocalized eigenstates

In this case, |ψn|2Ld. Hence, we expect IPR(q)=Ld(1q),τq=d(1q).

Localized eigenstates

In this case, |ψn|21/ξlocd on ξlocd sites and almost zero elsewhere. Hence, we expect IPR(q)=const,τq=0.

Multifractal eigenstates

The exponent τq is called the multifractal exponent. It is a non-decreasing function of q with some special points:

  • τ0=d, since the wavefunction is defined on all sites. In general, τ0 represents the fractal dimension of the object under consideration and is purely a geometric property.
  • τ1=0, imposed by normalization.

To observe multifractal behavior, we expect: |ψn|2LαforLf(α)sites.

The exponent α is positive, and f(α) is called the multifractal spectrum. Its maximum corresponds to the fractal dimension of the object, which in our case is d.

The relation between the multifractal spectrum f(α) and the exponent τq is given by: IPR(q)=n|ψn|2qdαLαqLf(α) for large L. From this, we obtain: τ(q)=minα(αqf(α)).

This implies that for α*(q), which satisfies f(α*(q))=q, we have τ(q)=α*(q)qf(α*(q)).

Delocalized wavefunctions have a simple spectrum: for α=d, we find f(α=d)=d and f(αd)=. This means that α*(q)=d is independent of q.

Multifractal wavefunctions exhibit a smoother dependence, leading to a continuous spectrum with a maximum at α0, where f(α0)=d. At q=1, we have f(α1)=1 and f(α1)=α1.

Larkin model

In your homework you solved a toy model for the interface: th(r,t)=2h(r,t)+F(r). For simplicity, we assume Gaussian disorder F(r)=0, F(r)F(r)=σ2δd(rr).

You proved that:

  • the roughness exponent of this model is ζL=4d2 below dimension 4
  • the force per unit length acting on the center of the interface is f=σ/Ld
  • at long times the interface shape is

h(q)h(q)=σ2qd+2ζL.

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

Indeed, from (h(r)h(0))2=ddqh(q)h(q)(1cos(qr))σ2r2ζL, you get (h(L)h(0))2=rf2,L=(rfσ)1/ζL.

Above this scale, roughness changes and pinning starts with a critical force fc=σLd/(2ζL).

In d=1 we have L=(rfσ)2/3.