T-9: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 54: Line 54:
<br>
<br>


== References ==
== Check out: key concepts of this TD ==
* Anderson.  [https://hal.science/jpa-00246652/document]
 
* The model is solved in Abou-Chacra, Thouless, Anderson. A selfconsistent theory of localization. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6.10 (1973)




<!--<strong>Goal:</strong>  in this final set of problems, we discuss the interplay between localization and glassiness, by connecting the solution to the Anderson problem on the Bethe lattice with the statistical physics problem of a directed polymer in random media on trees.
<br>
<strong>Techniques: </strong> 
<br>


the directed polymer treatment:  
== References ==
KPP (es 1)
* Abou-Chacra, Thouless, Anderson. A selfconsistent theory of localization. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6.10 (1973)
es 2: The connection to directed polymer: linearisation and stability.
Glassiness vs localization

Revision as of 12:41, 13 March 2024

Goal: the goal of this problem is to determine when the solution of the distributional equations corresponding to localization is unstable, providing an estimate of thee mobility edge on the Bethe lattice.
Techniques: stability analysis, Laplace transforms.


Problems

We now focus on the self energies, since the criterion for localization is given in terms of these quantities. In this Problem we will determine for which values of parameters localization is stable, estimating the critical value of disorder where the transition to a delocalised phase occurs.


Problem 9: an estimate of the mobility edge

  1. Imaginary approximation and distributional equation. We consider the equations for Γa and neglect the terms Rb in the denominators, which couple the equations to those for the real parts of the self energies (“imaginary” approximation). Moreover, we assume to be in the localized phase, where Γaη1. Finally, we set tabt and E=0 for simplicity. Show that under these assumptions the probability density for the imaginary part, PΓ(Γ), satisfies

    PΓ(Γ)=b=1kdϵbp(ϵb)c=1kdΓbPΓ(Γb)δ(Γt2baΓb+ηϵb2)

    Show that the Laplace transform of this distribution, Φ(s)=0dΓesΓPΓ(Γ), satisfies

    Φ(s)=[dϵp(ϵ)est2ηϵ2Φ(st2ϵ2)]k


  2. The stability analysis. We now wish to check the stability of our assumption to be in the localized phase, Γaη1, which led to the identity above for Φ(s). Our assumption is that the typical value of Γa is small, except for cases in which one of the descendants b is such that ϵb is very small, in which case Γa1/ϵb2.
    • Show that if Γ1/ϵ2 and p(ϵ) is not gapped around zero, then PΓ(Γ)Γ3/2, i.e. the distribution has tails contributed by these events in which the local fields happen to be very small.
    • Assume more generally that PΓ(Γ)Γα for large Γ and α[1,3/2]. Show that this corresponds to Φ(s)1A|s|β for s small, with β=α1[0,1/2].
    • Show that the equation for Φ(s) gives for s small 1Asβ=1Akdϵp(ϵ)sβt2βϵ2β+o(sβ), and therefore this is consistent provided that there exists a β[0,1/2] solving

      1=kdϵp(ϵ)(tϵ)2βkI(β).


  3. The critical disorder. Consider now local fields ϵ taken from a uniform distribution in [W/2,W/2]. Compute I(β) and show that it is non monotonic, with a local minimum β* in the interval [0,1/2]. Show that I(β*) increases as the disorder is made weaker and weaker, and thus the transition to delocalisation occurs at the critical value of disorder when I(β*)=k1. Show that this gives

    Wc=t2kelog(Wc2t)t2kelog(k)

    Why the critical disorder increases with k?


Check out: key concepts of this TD

References

  • Abou-Chacra, Thouless, Anderson. A selfconsistent theory of localization. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6.10 (1973)