1: \input{macros.tex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,epsfig]{iopart}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \parskip 0.2cm
5: \begin{document}
6: \setcounter{page}{1}
7: \title{Study of a pair of coupled continuum equations modeling surface growth}
8: \author{Ain-ul Huda\footnote{email : huda@bose.res.in}}
9: \address{S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City,
10: Kolkata 700098, India}
11: \author{Omjyoti Dutta\footnote{email : omjyoti@rediffmail.com}}
12: \address{Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India}
13: \author{Abhijit Mookerjee\footnote{email : abhijit@bose.res.in}}
14: \address{S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City,
15: Kolkata 700098, India}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: In this communication we introduce a pair of coupled continuum equations to model
19: overlayer growth with evaporation-accretion due to thermal or mechanical agitations of the
20: substrate. We gain insight into the dynamics of growth via one-loop perturbative techniques.
21: This allows us to analyze our numerical data. We conclude that there is a crossover behaviour
22: from a roughening regime to a very long-time, large length scale smoothening regime.
23: \end{abstract}
24:
25: \pacs{71.20, 71.20c}
26:
27: \section{Introduction}
28: The dynamics of surface growth by atomic deposition have been the focus of interest
29: over recent years (\cite{intro1}-\cite{intro8}).
30: Several theoretical attempts (\cite{kn:st}) at the understanding of kinetic roughening
31: have been made, through discrete and continuum models, motivated by
32: experiments. Roughening is often an inevitable part of surface formation,
33: so that an understanding of the surface morphologies has a crucial part to play in the many
34: vital applications of this field. However, not much attention has been paid to the phenomenon
35: of smoothening by thermal effects like evaporation. The physical picture is clear :
36: the vibration of the substrate, of thermal or mechanical origin may smoothen the overlayer
37: surface by transferring weakly bonded atoms on its bumps or mounds to available surface grooves. The
38: picture is similar, but certainly not equivalent, to smoothening of granular surfaces
39: by avalanches. This is in contrast to the {\sl surface diffusion} term in continuum
40: models, which arises because of the internal rearrangement of the {\sl bonded atoms} in
41: order to minimize the chemical potential. Avalanche smoothening has been recently studied
42: in some detail using coupled continuum equations by Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb}).
43:
44: The notion that we shall borrow and adapt from the work of Biswas \etal is that the dynamics of atoms in
45: surface growth with evaporation-accretion is well described by the competition between the collective
46: dynamics or relaxation of bonded atoms (in order to minimize the chemical potential) and the dynamics
47: of free atoms diffusing on the surface. The bare surface of bonded, and therefore relatively
48: immobile atoms, will be described by the local height $h(\un{r},t)$ above the substrate. Across
49: this surface the {\sl gas} of unbonded evaporated atoms diffuse until they are {\sl captured}
50: in an available groove. This {\sl gas} of atoms will be characterized by its density $\rho(\un{r},t)$ just above
51: the bare surface. A similar model has been discussed by Sanyal \etal \cite{smm}. However, the
52: transfer term in the equations was rather different from ours and the
53: possibility of smoothening was not addressed in that work.
54:
55: The usual practice for probing temporal or spatial roughness is to study the asymptotic behaviour of
56: correlation functions like $\langle h(\un{r},t)h(\un{r'},t')\rangle$ in space or time via a single
57: Fourier transform. Only one of the variables : space or time, is integrated over in Fourier space and the
58: relevant scaling relations are used to determine the critical exponents that govern this behaviour. However,
59: as pointed out by Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb}), this leads to ambiguities for those problems where there may
60: be more than one scaling lengths. In such cases, the double Fourier transform provides a much deeper
61: insight. To clarify this point, let us introduce the salient features of such a study :
62:
63: \n The connected two point self-correlation function of the local variable $A(\un{r},t)$, which can either be
64: $h(\un{r},t)$ or $\rho(\un{r},t)$ is defined as :
65:
66: \be
67: S(\un{r}-\un{r}', t-t') \eq \langle A(\un{r},t) A(\un{r}',t')\rangle \mns \langle A(\un{r},t)\rangle\langle
68: A(\un{r}',t')\rangle
69: \ee
70:
71: \n The scaling hypothesis implies that we have, in the absence of spatial anisotropy,
72:
73: \[ S(\un{R},0)\ \simeq\ \vert \un{R}\vert ^{2\alpha} \quad\quad \un{R}=\un{r}-\un{r}',
74: \quad R=\vert\un{R}\vert\quad \quad \mbox{and} \quad R \rightarrow\infty\]
75:
76: \n for the saturated surface with $t>t_s$, where $t_s$ is the saturation time, and
77:
78: \[ S(0,\tau)\ \simeq\ \tau^{2\beta}\quad\quad \tau =\vert t-t'\vert \quad\quad \tau\rightarrow\infty\]
79:
80: \n In general,
81:
82: \[ S(\un{R},\tau)\ \simeq\ R^{2\alpha}\ \Phi\left(\frac{\tau}{R^z}\right)\quad\quad \mbox{for both } R,\tau\rightarrow\infty\]
83:
84: \n The scaling function $\Phi$ is universal, $\alpha$ is the roughness and $z=\alpha/\beta$ the dynamical exponent.
85: For the single Fourier transforms,
86:
87: \[ S(\un{k},\tau=0)\ \simeq\ k^{-1-2\alpha} \quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad k\rightarrow 0 \]
88:
89: \n and
90:
91: \be S(\un{R}=0,\omega)\ \simeq\ \omega^{-1-2\beta} \quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad \omega\rightarrow 0 \label{sf}\ee
92:
93: \n For the double Fourier transform, in case we assume {\sl strong scaling}. That is, existence of
94: single length and time scales, consequently a single dynamical exponent $z$.
95:
96: \[ S(\un{k},\omega) \simeq \omega^{-1} k^{-1-2\alpha}\ \Psi\left(\frac{\omega}{k^z}\right) \quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad
97: k,\omega\rightarrow 0\]
98:
99: \n which gives,
100:
101: \[ S(k,\omega=0)\ \simeq\ k^{-1-2\alpha-z}\quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad k\rightarrow 0 \]
102: \n and
103: \be S(k=0,\omega)\ \simeq\ \omega^{-1-2\beta-1/z} \quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad \omega\rightarrow 0 \label{df}\ee
104:
105: It is important to examine the single Fourier transforms in equations (\ref{sf}). For the calculation of $S(k,\tau=0)$
106: we need to take the {\sl saturated} surface after a long time, but for $S(R=0,\omega)$ we need to take the entire
107: growing surface but {\sl locally}. Thus $\alpha$ is related to the saturated and $\beta$ to the growing surface. However,
108: the double Fourier transform requires information of {\sl both} the growing and saturated surfaces, both
109: {\sl locally} and at large length scales. Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb})
110: correctly argue that, in case there are more than one length or time scales associated with the process, the double
111: Fourier transform should provide a much clearer picture.
112:
113: \section{The Statistical Model}
114:
115: \section{The statistical model for atomic deposition}
116:
117: Atomic deposition has many features in common with granular deposition.
118: The added feature is atomic binding.
119: In the usual deposition geometry, a randomly fluctuating flux of atoms
120: is incident on a substrate. Atoms deposit on the surface of the substrate
121: and diffuse along it to minimize the energy. A cloud of unbonded atoms
122: envelope this deposit and continuously exchange atoms with it through
123: evaporation and re-deposition.
124:
125: While non-equilibrium growth has been extensively studied by
126: coarse-grained classical stochastic equations (\cite{mln}), it is not
127: obvious {\it a priori} that the microscopic energetic constraints relevant to
128: atomic surfaces would automatically be satisfied by largely heuristic
129: classical terms. In an earlier communication (\cite{smm}) we had presented electronic
130: energy calculations in support of our model of surface growth.
131:
132:
133: Among various physical processes which have been taken into account
134: in models of growing interfaces, {\it surface diffusion} has been
135: considered as the most important process involved. One
136: such model involves the linear fourth-order Mullins-Herring continuum
137: equation (\cite{kn:mh,kn:mul}) supported by the discrete model of Wolf and
138: Villain (WV) (\cite{kn:wv})
139:
140: \begin{equation}
141: {\partial h(\un{r},t)} / {\partial t} = - D\
142: \nabla^{4}h(\un{r},t) + \eta(\un{r},t)
143: \end{equation}
144:
145: \noindent where $h(\un{r},t)$ is the height of the interface from
146: some mean height $\langle h(\un{r},t)\rangle$ and $\eta(\un{r},t)$
147: represents Gaussian white noise as usual. This equation yields a
148: large roughness exponent $\alpha$ = 1.5 in $d$=1.
149:
150: In an earlier communication (\cite{smm}) we had presented a model
151: to look at the effect of desorption or evaporation on
152: relatively immobile atoms which
153: are bonded to the surface. A cloud of mobile
154: atoms above the surface arise both from the impinging atomic beam
155: and from evaporation caused by atoms knocked out of the surface by
156: thermal or mechanical
157: disturbances. These are described by their local density
158: $\rho(\x,t)$.
159: We propose a new class of growth equations with an explicit coupling
160: between the profile of ``bonded'' atoms represented by the local height
161: of the surface $h({\bf x},t)$, and ``mobile'' atoms on the surface
162: represented by their
163: local density $\rho(\x,t)$. Our equations read:
164:
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: {\partial h(\x,t) }/{\partial t} & = & - D_{h}
167: \nabla^{4} h(\x,t) - {\cal T} + \eta_{h}(\x,t)\nonumber \label{eq:one} \\
168: {\partial\rho(\x,t)}/{\partial t} & = & \phantom{-} D_{\rho}\nabla^{2} \rho(\x,t) + {\cal T}
169: \label{eq:two}
170: \end{eqnarray}
171:
172: \n where the transfer term $\cal{T}$ is given by :
173:
174: \begin{equation}
175: \fl {\cal T} = \nu \left\vert \nabla^2 h(\r,t) \right\vert \left[1-\Theta(\nabla^2 h(\r,t))\right] \mns
176: \mu \rho(\r,t) \left\vert \nabla^2 h(\r,t) \right\vert \ \Theta(\nabla^2 h(\r,t))
177: \label{eq:three}
178: \end{equation}
179:
180: \n where $\Theta(x)$ is 1 for $x>0$ and 0 otherwise.
181: We describe in what follows the meaning of the above terms.
182:
183: \begin{description}
184: \item[(i)] The fourth-order term in the equation(\ref{eq:one}) describes
185: surface diffusion of bonded atoms; this is the usual
186: WV (\cite{kn:wv}) term where $D_{h}$ represents a diffusivity. In the continuum
187: picture surface diffusion is a manifestation of the collective motion of the bonded
188: atoms leading to a shape rearrangement in order to minimize the chemical potential.
189: The leading to this term is the gradient of the local chemical potential, which is
190: assumed to be proportional to the local curvature. This assumption was shown to be valid
191: provided we invoke the {\sl Locality Principle} of Heine (\cite{heine}).
192:
193: \item[(ii)] The flowing atoms are neither bonded to one another nor to
194: atoms on the surface. The first term in equation (\ref{eq:two})
195: describes normal, as opposed to surface diffusion of these mobile atoms, where the
196: corresponding current is the gradient of the density.
197:
198:
199: \item[(iii)] The first term in the transfer term $\cal{T}$, equation (\ref{eq:three}), describes
200: spontaneous
201: generation of mobile atoms on the surface through {\sl evaporation} or {\sl desorption}. This
202: could be due, for example, to thermal disturbances.
203: We have assumed that it is easier to
204: eject atoms weakly bonded at spiky mounds on the surface. For thermal ejection, for example,
205: $\nu$ is a measure of the substrate temperature. The Theta function ensures that it is easier to thermally
206: eject atoms bonded on negative curvatures, i.e. on bumps or mounds on the surface. We have
207: assumed that the rate of evaporation is proportional to the negative curvature on a mound.
208:
209: \item[(iv)] The second term in $\cal{T}$, equation (\ref{eq:three}), represents
210: {\sl condensation}, whereby mobile atoms accumulate and accrete preferentially at points
211: of positive curvature, i.e. at the bottom of deep grooves where atomic coordination is large and
212: hence bonding is strong. This term is obviously also proportional to the local density of mobile atoms.
213:
214: \item[(v)] Finally the last term is a
215: Gaussian white noise characterized by its width $\Delta_{h}$
216:
217: \[
218: \langle\eta_{h}(\x,t)\eta_{h}(\x',t')\rangle =
219: \Delta^{2}_{h}\ \delta(\x-\x')\delta(t-t')
220: \]
221:
222: \end{description}
223:
224: \n We assume that growth occurs on a flat substrate; this and the absence of
225: a preferred direction leads to the absence of anisotropy in space. In this model we have ignored
226: the effects of Sch\"owbel barriers.
227:
228:
229: We can visualize the following sequence of processes: first, the
230: mobile atoms diffuse ($\nabla^2 \rho$) in the cloud above the surface.
231: This
232: is followed by the preferential conversion of these atoms into the
233: bonded species at points of high positive curvature ($\rho |\nabla^2 h|$) on the
234: surface such as mounds and grooves. The term $\nu |\nabla^2 h|$ models the effect
235: of evaporation, leading to a dynamical
236: exchange, at regions of high negative curvature, between bonded and unbonded atoms.
237: However, the action of the $\nabla^4 h$ term is to stabilize the
238: formation of mounds and grooves, so ultimately the overwhelming effect is a
239: competition between roughening and smoothening of the surface.
240: Figure \ref{fig1} illustrates the effect of the terms in our model.
241:
242: \begin{figure}[ht]
243: \begin{center}
244: \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfysize=3.5in
245: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
246: \caption{A pictorial depiction of the model}
247: \label{fig1}
248: \end{center}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251: \section{Numerical and theoretical analysis}
252:
253: To start with we shall analyze a model in (1+1) dimension. The substrate is one-dimensional, so that the position
254: of the overlayer on the substrate is located by a single position variable $x$. The coupled equations become :
255:
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: \fl \frac{\partial h(x,t)}{\partial t} \eq -\ D_h\ \frac{d^4 h(x,t)}{dx^4}\ -\ \nu\ \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\ +\ \mu\ \rho(x,t)\frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\pls \eta_h(x,t)\nonumber \\
258: \fl\phantom{x} \nonumber\\
259: \fl \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t} \eq \phantom{-}\ D_\rho\ \frac{d^2 \rho(x,t)}{dx^2}\ +\ \nu\ \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\ -\ \mu\ \rho(x,t)\frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2} \label{req}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: \vskip 0.2cm
262:
263: \n The Heaviside step functions in equation (\ref{eq:three}) introduces a complexity in our
264: equations as far as analytic investigations are concerned. We shall follow the remarks of
265: Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb}) and invoke a suitable representation of the Heaviside function as
266: an infinite series. In that case, the equation (\ref{eq:three}) can be thought of as :
267:
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: {\cal T} = \nu \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2} \mns
270: \mu\ \rho(x,t) \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\pls\ldots\nonumber\\
271: \ldots\pls \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \nu_n \left( \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\right)^n
272: \mns \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu_n\ \rho(x,t) \left(\frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\right)^n
273: \end{eqnarray}
274:
275: \begin{figure}[t]
276: \begin{center}
277: \epsfxsize=4in \epsfysize=4.5in
278: \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig2.ps}}
279: \caption{A part of the rough height profile at different times (bottom to top) t\ =\ 10$^3$ - 10$^8$ time
280: steps . Here $D_h$=$D_\rho = 1$ and $\mu = 1$, $\nu = 0.01$ }
281: \label{height}
282: \end{center}
283: \end{figure}
284:
285:
286:
287: \n We should note that the above expansion is not well-defined, as the coefficients of the
288: expansion may themselves be large or divergent. As in \cite{bmb}, we shall still go forward
289: in the spirit of self-consistency, $i.e.$ subject to numerical verification. The Heaviside
290: function introduces non-linearities. One way to gain some insight is to carry out a Hartree
291: type mean-field approximation and replace the non-linearities by their expectation values.
292: This leads to equations :
293:
294:
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: \fl \frac{\partial h(x,t)}{\partial t} \eq -\ D_h\ \frac{d^4 h(x,t)}{dx^4}\ -\ \hat{\nu}\ \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\ +\ \hat{\mu}\ \rho(x,t)\frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\pls \eta_h(x,t)\nonumber \\
297: \fl\phantom{x} \nonumber\\
298: \fl \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t} \eq \phantom{-}\ D_\rho\ \frac{d^2 \rho(x,t)}{dx^2}\ +\ \hat{\nu}\ \frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2}\ -\ \hat{\mu}\ \rho(x,t)\frac{d^2 h(x,t)}{dx^2} \label{hartree}
299: \end{eqnarray}
300:
301: \n where, $\hat{\mu}= c\mu$ and $\hat{\nu}= (1-c)\nu$. Similar approximations have been studied
302: by Bouchaud \etal (\cite{bou}). We expect that in some regime our equations (\ref{req}) will
303: reproduce the mean field results suggested by equations (\ref{hartree}).
304:
305: \n Figure \ref{height} shows a part of the growing rough height profile for $D_h = D_\rho = 1$, $\mu = 1$ and
306: $\nu = 0.01$. The heights have been scaled in order to bring out the detailed features for comparison.
307: We note that with increasing time short length-scale features slowly die out and mounds and grooves spanning
308: longer lengths are formed. Figure \ref{auto} shows the variation of the root-mean square height deviation
309: and density as a function of time. Both quantities show saturation with time. The full dynamical description
310: then involves {\sl both} the growing and the saturated profiles.
311:
312:
313: \begin{figure}[t]
314: \begin{center}
315: \epsfxsize=2.5in \epsfysize=3.in
316: \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig3a.ps}}
317: \rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig3b.ps}}
318: \caption{The height(left) and density (right) root mean square deviations as functions of time, showing saturation}
319: \label{auto}
320: \end{center}
321: \end{figure}
322:
323: \noindent The double Fourier transform is defined as :
324:
325: \[ h(k,\omega) \eq \int dx\ \int dt\ \exp \{-i\ (kx-\omega t)\}\ h(x,t) \]
326:
327: \noindent The Green functions of the linear part of the equations are :
328:
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: \left\langle \frac{\delta \tilde{h}(k,\omega)}{\delta\eta(k',\omega')}\right\rangle \eq G_h(k,\omega)\ \delta(k+k')\ \delta(\omega+\omega') \nonumber\\
331: \phantom{x}\nonumber\\
332: \left\langle \frac{\delta \tilde{\rho}(k,\omega)}{\delta\eta(k',\omega')}\right\rangle \eq G_\rho(k,\omega)\ \delta(k+k')\ \delta(\omega+\omega')
333: \end{eqnarray}
334:
335: \noindent The correlation functions are given by :
336:
337: \begin{eqnarray}
338: S_h(k,\omega) \eq \langle h(k,\omega)\ h(-k,-\omega)\rangle\nonumber\\
339: S_\rho(k,\omega) \eq \langle \rho(k,\omega)\ \rho(-k,-\omega)\rangle
340: \end{eqnarray}
341:
342: Now from equations (\ref{req}), retaining only the linear terms,
343: we obtain the two Green functions for $h$ and $\rho$,
344:
345: \begin{eqnarray}
346: g_h(k,\omega) \eq \left(-i\ \omega\pls D_h k^4\mns\nu k^2\right)^{-1} \nonumber\\
347: g_\rho(k,\omega) \eq \left( -i\ \omega\pls D_\rho k^2\right)^{-1}
348: \end{eqnarray}
349:
350: In order to describe the scaling behaviour of the deposition process, we usually define the
351: following scaling indeces, from the correlation functions :
352:
353: \begin{eqnarray*}
354: S_h(x-x',t-t') \eq \langle h(x,t)h(x',t')\rangle \mns \langle h(x,t)\rangle\langle h(x',t')\rangle \\
355: S_\rho(x-x',t-t') \eq \langle \rho(x,t)\rho(x',t')\rangle \mns \langle \rho(x,t)\rangle\langle \rho(x',t')\rangle
356: \end{eqnarray*}
357:
358: \begin{eqnarray*}
359: S_h(x,0) \sim \vert x\vert^{2\alpha_h} \quad\quad
360: S_\rho(x,0) \sim \vert x\vert^{2\alpha_\rho} \quad\quad\mbox{ as $\vert x\vert \rightarrow \infty$} \\
361: S_h(0,t) \sim\ \vert t\vert^{2\beta_h}\quad\quad
362: \ S_\rho(0,t) \sim\ \vert t\vert^{2\beta_h}\quad\quad\mbox{ as $\vert t\vert \rightarrow \infty$}
363: \end{eqnarray*}
364:
365: \n In general :
366:
367: \begin{eqnarray*}
368: S_h(x,t) \simeq \ \vert x\vert^{2\alpha_h}\ F_h\left({\vert t\vert}/{\vert x\vert^{z_h}}\right)\\
369: S_\rho(x,t) \simeq \ \vert x\vert^{2\alpha_\rho}\ F_\rho\left({\vert t\vert}/{\vert x\vert^{z_\rho}}\right)
370: \end{eqnarray*}
371:
372: \n The scaling functions $F_h(\xi)$ and $F_\rho(\xi)$ are assumed to be universal and the indeces $\alpha_h,\alpha_\rho$
373: and $z_h$ = $\alpha_h/\beta_h,\ z_\rho\ =\ \alpha_\rho/\beta_\rho$ are the roughness and dynamical exponents.
374: Within the strong scaling hypothesis $z_h=z_\rho$ and there exists a single time scale and a
375: distance scale.
376:
377:
378: \n In the presence of two time scales, there is only a weak scaling \cite{bmb} hypothesis available to us :
379:
380:
381: \begin{eqnarray*}
382: G_h(k,\omega) \eq k^{-z_{h}}\ \Phi_h\left( \frac{\omega}{k^{z_h}}, \frac{\omega}{k^{z_\rho}}\right) \\
383: G_\rho(k,\omega) \eq k^{-z_{\rho}}\ \Phi_\rho\left( \frac{\omega}{k^{z_h}}, \frac{\omega}{k^{z_\rho}}\right) \\
384: \end{eqnarray*}
385:
386: \n Here, $z_h\ \ne\ z_{\rho}$. Absence of strong scaling means that the exponents $\alpha_h$ and $\alpha_\rho$
387: may become functions of k.
388:
389: \subsection{Scaling analysis for the height-height correlations}
390: \begin{figure}
391: \centering
392: \epsfxsize=5in\epsfysize=5in\rotatebox{0}{\epsfbox{fig4.eps}}
393: \caption{One loop scattering diagrams for the self-energy for the Green functions.
394: The scattering vertices are shown at the bottom of the figure}
395: \label{self}
396: \end{figure}
397:
398: Let us look at the one loop diagram for the self-energy \cite{bmb} :
399:
400: \begin{eqnarray}\fl
401: \Sigma_h(k,\omega) \eq \mu^2\ \int\frac{dq}{2\pi}\ \int\frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ G_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')\ k^2(k-q)^2\ S_\rho(q,\omega') \nonumber\\
402: \fl \simeq \mu^2\int\frac{dq}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\left[
403: \frac{1}{-i\ (\omega -\omega')+(k-q)^4-\nu(k-q)^2+\Sigma_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')}\right]\ldots\nonumber\\
404: \phantom{xxxx}\ldots\frac{k^2(k-q)^2}{q^{1+2\alpha_\rho}} \left[ \frac{\Sigma_\rho(q,\omega')}{\omega'^2 + \Sigma_\rho^2(q,\omega')}\right]
405: \nonumber\\
406: \end{eqnarray}
407:
408: The integrand over the internal momentum $q$ has a factor $q^{-(1+2\alpha_\rho)}$, which causes an infra-red
409: divergence in the integral.
410: As discussed by \cite{bmb}, we take care of the infra-red divergence
411: by introducing a lower cut-off $k_0 \ll 1$. When we talk about ``small values of momenta", we have to
412: mean $k\sim k_0$. The argument for smaller values of $k$ will have follow a different track.
413:
414: \begin{figure}[t]
415: \centering
416: \epsfxsize=4.5in\epsfysize=4.5in\rotatebox{0}{\epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
417: \caption{Vertex renormalization}
418: \label{vertex}
419: \end{figure}
420:
421:
422: Note also that because of the term $q^{-(1+2\alpha_\rho)}$ in the integrand, the main contribution
423: of the integral comes from small values of $q$. Now, for ``small" internal momenta
424: $k\gg q\sim k_0\ ;\ \omega'\sim q^{z_h}$, we can replace $G_h(k-q,\omega-\omega') \simeq
425: \left( i\ \omega + k^4 -\nu k^2+ \Sigma_h(k,\omega)\right)^{-1}$. We now look at $\omega = 0$, and
426: noting that $\Sigma(k,0)\sim k^{z_h}$, we note immediately that if $z_h<4$, then the
427: inverse Green function is dominated by the self-energy :
428:
429: \[ G^{-1}_h(k,0) \sim \Sigma_h(k,0) \]
430:
431: \n Substituting this back in the equation for the self-energy :
432:
433: \[ \Sigma_h(k,0) \simeq \frac{\mu^2k^4}{\Sigma(k,0)} \ A_\rho
434: \int_{k_0}^{\infty}\frac{dq}{2\pi}\ \int\frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ \frac{1}{q^{1+2\alpha_\rho}}
435: \]
436:
437: This gives :
438:
439: \[ \Sigma_h^2(k,0) \simeq \frac{\mu^2k_0^{-2\alpha_\rho}}{8\pi\alpha_\rho}\ k^4 \]
440:
441: \n Since, by definition $\Sigma_h(k,0)\sim k^{z_h}$, it follows immediately that $z_h\ =\ 2$
442: \vskip 0.1cm
443:
444: \n Here we have considered only the bare one-loop diagram. In general, the scattering terms
445: leads to a renormalization of the $\mu$ vertex through the introduction
446: of vertex functions $\mu(k,q,k-q)$ for $\omega =0$. The renormalization is
447: illustrated in figure \ref{vertex}.
448: For $q\rightarrow 0$, we may assume $\mu(k,0,k) \sim k^{x_\mu}$ .
449: Putting these back into the equation for the self-energy, we note that $z_h$ is renormalized
450: to $z_h + \delta$ where $\delta = x_\mu/2$. The exact numerical values for
451: $z_h$ may then differ from 2.
452:
453: \vskip 0.2cm
454:
455: The one-loop correction to the height-height correlation function is shown in figure (\ref{hh}). We may immediately
456: write :
457:
458:
459: \begin{eqnarray*}
460: \fl S_h(k,\omega) \eq \frac{1}{\omega^2+\vert\Sigma_h(k,\omega)\vert^2}\ \left[ 1 + \mu^2\ \int \frac{dq}{2\pi}\int
461: \frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ (k-q)^4 \ S_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')\ S_\rho(q,\omega')\right]
462: \end{eqnarray*}
463:
464: \n Let us first examine the terms on the right-hand side :
465:
466: \begin{eqnarray*}
467: \fl\eq \frac{1}{\omega^2+\vert\Sigma_h(k,\omega)\vert^2}\left[ 1 +\mu^2 \ \int \frac{dq}{2\pi}\int
468: \frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ \frac{(k-q)^4}{(k-q)^{1+2\alpha_h}}\ \left(\frac{1}{q^{1+2\alpha_\rho}}\right)\ \ldots\right.\\
469: \fl \left.\ldots\phantom{xxxxxx}\left(\frac{\Sigma_\rho(q,\omega')}{\omega^2+\vert\Sigma_\rho(q,\omega')\vert^2}\right)
470: \left(\frac{\Sigma_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')}{(\omega-\omega')^2+\vert\Sigma_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')\vert^2}\right)\right]
471: \end{eqnarray*}
472:
473:
474: \begin{figure}[t]
475: \centering
476: \epsfxsize=3.0in\epsfysize=2.5in\rotatebox{0}{\epsfbox{fig6.eps}}
477: \caption{One-loop diagrams for the height-height and density-density correlation functions}
478: \label{hh}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481:
482: \vskip 0.4cm
483: \n Going back to the expression for the self-energy, we see that :
484:
485: \[ \Sigma_h(k,\omega) \simeq \frac{\Gamma_0^2k^4}{-i\ \omega+\Gamma_0k^2}\]
486:
487: \n where
488:
489: \[ \Gamma_0^2 \eq \frac{\mu^2k_0^{-\alpha_\rho}}{8\pi\alpha_\rho} \]
490:
491: \n Substituting this in the expression for the correlation,
492:
493: \be S_h(k,\omega) \eq \left(\omega^2+\frac{\Gamma_0^4k^8}{\omega^2+\Gamma_0^2k^4}\right)^{-1}\left(1+\frac{\Gamma_0 k^2}{\omega^2+
494: \Gamma_0^2k^4}\right)\label{dft}\ee
495:
496:
497: \n This is our main result from which various limits may be obtained. For instance,
498: putting $\omega$ = 0 :
499:
500: \begin{eqnarray*}
501: S_h(k,\omega=0) \sim \frac{1}{\Gamma_0^2k^4}\left( 1+\frac{1}{\Gamma_0k^2}\right)\\
502: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxx} \sim k^{-6} \quad\quad\mbox{for small } k
503: \end{eqnarray*}
504:
505: \n The numerical results are shown in figure \ref{h1}. The best fit slope was
506: found to be 6.75. Now, using the expression
507:
508: \begin{figure}[t]
509: \centering
510: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4.5in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig7.ps}}
511: \caption{The Log-log plot of the double Fourier transformation $S_h(k,\omega=0)$ $vs$ k.
512: For small k the slope is $-1-2\alpha_h-z_h$ $\simeq$ --6.75}
513: \label{h1}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: \[ S_h(k,\omega=0) \sim k^{-(1+2\alpha_h+z_h)} \]
517:
518: \n we obtain an equation :
519:
520: \be 1\pls 2\ \alpha_h\pls z_h \eq 6.75 \label{ind1} \ee
521:
522:
523: \begin{figure}[b]
524: \centering
525: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4.5in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig8.ps}}
526: \caption{The Log-log plot of the double Fourier transformation $S_h(k=0,\omega)$ $vs$ $\omega$.
527: For small $\omega$ the slope is $-1-2\beta_h-1/z_h$ $\simeq$ -1.996}
528: \label{h2}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531: \n Again, putting k=0 and referring to figure \ref{h2} we get :
532:
533: \[ S_h(0,\omega) \sim \omega^{-2} \]
534:
535: \n Numerically this has been found to be 1.996. Using the expression,
536:
537: \[ S_h(k=0,\omega) \sim \omega^{-(1+2\beta_h+1/z_h)} \]
538:
539: \n we get another equation,
540:
541: \be 1\pls 2\ \beta_h\pls 1/z_h \eq 1.996 \label{ind2} \ee
542:
543: \n Using the equations (\ref{ind1}) and (\ref{ind2}) and $z_h\eq \alpha_h/\beta_h $ we
544: estimate :
545:
546: \be \alpha_h \eq 1.2 \quad\quad \beta_h\eq 0.36 \quad \mbox{and}\quad z_h\eq 3.38\ee
547:
548: \n Note that numerical estimate of $z_h$ is greater than the one-loop estimate of 2.
549: As discussed earlier, the one-loop estimate is perturbative and
550: may be considerably modified by vertex renormalization,
551: as well as higher order diagrams.
552: \begin{figure}[b]
553: \centering
554: \epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig9a.ps}}
555: \epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig9b.ps}}
556: \caption{The Log-log plot of the double Fourier transformation $S_h(k,\omega)$ $vs$ (top)
557: $\omega$ for different values of k and (bottom) $vs$ k for different values of $\omega$ .
558: }
559: \label{h3}
560: \end{figure}
561:
562: We get further information from the
563: full double Fourier transform. For example, for sufficiently small k, but $\omega\ \ne\ $0 we get,
564:
565: \[ S_h(k,\omega) \sim A(\omega) + B(\omega)\ k^2 \]
566:
567: \n As $k \rightarrow 0$ this leads to a flattening of the curve to a $\omega$-dependent
568: constant $A(\omega)$. The value of $k$ at which the flattening occurs goes on decreasing
569: as $\omega$ decreases.
570: Similarly, for $k\ \ne\ $0 , for sufficiently small $\omega$ :
571:
572: \[ S_h(k,\omega) \sim C(k) + D(k)\ \omega^2 \]
573:
574: \n As before, the value of $\omega$ at which the flattening occurs decreases as we decrease
575: k. This crossover behaviour is seen in our numerical results. It is easy to observe that we
576: would not have gleaned this information from single Fourier transforms, a point emphasized
577: earlier in the work of Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb}). We may interpret this as a long-time,
578: smoothening of the growing surface and is a characteristic of the evaporation-accretion process.
579:
580: \begin{figure}
581: \centering
582: \epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig10a.ps}}
583: \epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig10b.ps}}
584: \caption{The Log-log plot of the single Fourier transformation (top) $S_h(k,t=0)$ $vs$ $k$, fitted to the slope $-1-2\alpha_h\eq -3.746$
585: and (bottom) $S_h(x=0,\omega)$ $vs$ $\omega$ fitted to the slope $-1-2\beta_h\eq -1.763$
586: }
587: \label{sft1}
588: \end{figure}
589:
590: \n In the range of $k$ prior to flattening, we may derive :
591:
592: \begin{eqnarray*}
593: S_h(k,t=0) &\eq &\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\ S_h(k,\omega) \\
594: &\simeq & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\ \frac{d\omega}{\omega^2+k^{2z_h}} \ +\ \mu^2\ k^{3-2\alpha_h+z_h}\int\
595: \frac{d\omega}{(\omega^2+k^{2z_h})^2} \\
596: &\sim & A\ k^{-z_h} + B\ k^{3-2\alpha_h-2z_h}
597: \end{eqnarray*}
598:
599: \n Estimates of $\alpha_h$ and $\beta_h$ are 1.37 and 0.38 respectively, consequently
600: $z_h \eq $ 3.61. Note that
601: there is no reason why the estimates from single Fourier transforms and the
602: double Fourier transform should agree exactly. For the single Fourier transforms
603: we need information only about the saturated surface for $S_h(k,t=0)$ and the
604: growing surface for $S_h(x=0,\omega)$. For the double Fourier transform, we
605: need information for both the saturated and growing surfaces for the same
606: function. In case there are multiple length scales in the problem that information
607: will be reflected in the double Fourier transform \cite{bmb}.
608:
609:
610: \n From figure \ref{sft1} in the $k\ll k_0$ region, flattening suggests that :
611:
612: \[ S_h(k,t=0)\sim const \sim k^0 \]
613:
614: \n Since $S_h(k,t=0)\sim k^{-(1+2\alpha_h)}$, the numerical results suggest that in this regime
615: $\alpha_h = -0.5$ and $z_h = 0$. In this regime, we have $S_h(k,\omega=0) \sim k^{-(1+2\alpha_h+z_h)}$
616: $\sim$ $k^0$. This crossover to a flattened regime for very small $k$ is also seen in the numerical
617: results of figure \ref{h1}.
618:
619: \subsection{Scaling relations for density-density correlations}
620:
621: Again referring back to figure (\ref{self}), we can write an expression for the self-energy for the density Green function :
622:
623: \begin{eqnarray*}
624: \fl \Sigma_\rho(k,\omega)\eq \mu^2\int\frac{dq}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ G_\rho(k-q,\omega -\omega')\ S_h(q,\omega')k^2(k-q)^2 +
625: \nu^2k^4 S_h(k,\omega)\\
626: \fl\eq \mu^2\int\frac{dq}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\
627: \left(\frac{1}{-i\ (\omega-\omega')+\Sigma_\rho(k-q,\omega-\omega')} \right)\
628: \frac{1}{q^{1+\alpha_h}}\ldots\\
629: \ldots \left(\frac{1}{\omega'^2+\vert\Sigma_h(q,\omega')\vert^2} k^2(k-q)^2\right)
630: + \nu^2k^4 S_h(k,\omega)
631: \end{eqnarray*}
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \centering
635: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig11.ps}}
636: \caption{Log-log plot of the double Fourier transform $S_\rho(k,\omega=0)$ $vs$ k.
637: The best fit slope is : $-1-2\alpha_\rho-z_\rho$\eq --6.49.}
638: \label{rho1}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641:
642: \n We may now carry out the integral over $\omega'$ and use the fact that the integrand over $q$ has a
643: factor $q^{-(1+\alpha_h)}$ which ensures that only small $q$ values contribute to the integral. This,
644: combined with a lower cut-off for $q$, $k_0$ allows us to evaluate the $q$ integral approximately. The
645: procedure is almost exactly like the case of height-height correlations :
646:
647: \begin{eqnarray*}
648: \Sigma_\rho(k,\omega) \simeq \frac{\Gamma_1^2 k^4}{-i\ \omega + \Gamma_1k^2}\\
649: \end{eqnarray*}
650:
651:
652: \n For small $k$, we know that $\Sigma_\rho(k,\omega=0)\ \sim\ k^{z_\rho}$, and
653: from above equation :
654:
655: \[ \Sigma_\rho(k,\omega=0) \simeq A\ k^2 \pls B\ k^{3-2\alpha_h-z_h} \]
656:
657: \n With $\alpha_h = 1.5$ and $z_h = 2$, we obtain $z_\rho = 2$
658:
659: For the density-density correlation function we get (again from figure (\ref{hh})) :
660:
661: \begin{eqnarray*}
662: \fl S_\rho(k,\omega)\eq \frac{1}{\omega^2+\vert\Sigma_\rho(k,\omega)\vert^2}\left[ 1+\mu^2
663: \int\frac{dq}{2\pi}\int \frac{d\omega'}{2\pi}\ S_h(k-q,\omega-\omega')S_{\rho}(q,\omega')\vert k-q\vert^4\
664: \right]\ldots\\
665: \phantom{xxxxxxxxxxx}+\ \frac{\nu^2k^4}{\omega^2+k^{2z_\rho}}\ S_h(k,\omega)
666: \end{eqnarray*}
667:
668: \begin{figure}
669: \centering
670: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig12.ps}}
671: \caption{Log-log plot of the double Fourier transform $S_\rho(k=0,\omega)$ $vs$ $\omega$.
672: The best fit slope is : $-1-2\beta_\rho-1/z_\rho$\eq -2.48.}
673: \label{rho2}
674: \end{figure}
675:
676:
677:
678: \n The first integral over $q$ has a integrand with a factor $q^{-(1+\alpha_\rho)}$, which makes sure that the
679: main contribution to the integral comes only from small values of $q$. So in the integrand, we can replace
680: $k-q$ by $q$ and carry out the $\omega'$ integral, to obtain :
681:
682: \be S_\rho(k,\omega) \simeq A\ \left(\omega^2+\frac{\Gamma_1^4k^8}{\omega^2+\Gamma_1^2k^4}\right)^{-1}\
683: \left(1 + \frac{\Gamma_0k^2}{\omega^2+k^4}\right) \ee
684:
685:
686: \n Given $z_h=2$, $z_\rho = 2$ and $\alpha_h = 1.5$.
687:
688: \[ S_\rho(k,\omega=0)\sim k^{-6}\]
689:
690: \n From figure \ref{rho1}, numerically we get an index of $6.49$.
691:
692: \vskip 0.2cm
693: \n In the cross-over regime when $z_h = 0$ , $\alpha_h = -0.5$ and
694: $z_\rho = 2$:
695:
696: \[S_\rho(k,\omega=0) \sim \frac{k^{(3-2\alpha_h+z_h)}}{k^{(2z_h+2z_\rho)}}\sim k^0 \]
697:
698: \n This is seen numerically as a flattening in the very low $k$ regime in figure \ref{rho1}.
699:
700:
701: Again, integrating over the variable $\omega$ we get :
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \centering
705: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig13a.ps}}
706: \epsfxsize=3in\epsfysize=4in\rotatebox{270}{\epsfbox{fig13b.ps}}
707: \caption{Log-log plot of the single Fourier transform (top) $S_\rho(k,t=0)$ $vs$ k. The
708: best fit slope is -3.868 (bottom) $S_\rho(x=0,\omega)$ $vs$ $\omega$. The best fit
709: slope is -2.050}
710: \label{rho3}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713:
714:
715: \begin{eqnarray*}
716: S_{\rho}(k,t=0) &\eq & \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\ S(k,\omega) \\
717: & \eq & (\Gamma_0^2/2)\ \frac{1}{k^{z_\rho}(k^{z_h}+k^{z_\rho})} \\
718: & \sim & k^{-4} \\
719: \end{eqnarray*}
720:
721: \n Numerically we find the index to be 3.868.
722:
723: From the expression for $S_\rho(k,\omega)$ we note that :
724:
725: \[ S_\rho(k=0,\omega) \sim w^{-2} \]
726:
727: \n Numerically we obtain an index of 2.488. We may also carry out the integral over $k$ to get :
728:
729: \begin{eqnarray*}
730: S_\rho(x=0,\omega) &\eq & \int\frac{k}{2\pi}\ S_\rho(k,\omega) \\
731: &\simeq & A + B\omega^{-2}
732: \end{eqnarray*}
733:
734: The numerical prediction for the index is 2.05. The accompanying table summarizes our results.
735:
736: \begin{table}[t]
737: \centering
738: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||c|c|c||}\hline\hline
739: Expression & Analytical & Numerical &Expression & Analytical & Numerical \\
740: & Index & Index & & Index & Index \\
741: & (Single Loop) & & & (Single Loop) & \\ \hline
742: \phantom{x} & & & & & \\
743: $\Sigma_h(k,\omega=0)\ vs\ k$ & 2.00 & 3.74 & $\Sigma_\rho(k,\omega=0)\ vs \ k$ & 2.00 & 2.87 \\
744: $S_h(k,t=0)\ vs\ k$ & 4.00 & 3.75 & $S_\rho(k,t=0)\ vs\ k$ & 4.00 & 3.89 \\
745: $S_h(k=0,\omega)\ vs\ \omega$ & 2.00 & 1.996 & $S_\rho(k=0,\omega)\ vs\ \omega$ & 2.00 & 2.48 \\
746: $S_h(k,\omega=0)\ vs\ k$ & 6.00 & 6.65 & $S_\rho(k,\omega=0)\ vs\ k$ & 6.00 & 6.49 \\
747: \phantom{x} & & & & & \\ \hline\hline
748: \end{tabular}
749: \end{table}
750:
751:
752:
753: \section{Conclusion}
754:
755: We have studied the scaling behaviour of a set of coupled continuum equations describing
756: surface growth in the presence of evaporation-accretion both numerically and within a
757: one-loop perturbative approach. We notice a crossover from a roughening regime to
758: smoothening at very large time, large length scale regimes. The one-loop estimates
759: gives us an insight into our numerical results. We also notice that in order to study
760: problems with more than one length-time scales, i.e. if we have weak scaling, it is
761: essential to study the double Fourier transforms which probe both the growing and the
762: saturated profiles together. This is in confirmation of the ideas set forward earlier by
763: Biswas \etal (\cite{bmb}).
764:
765: \ack
766: We would like to thank Dr. Anita Mehta for introducing us to the idea of coupled
767: continuum equations and many discussions about the model we
768: study in this communication.
769:
770: \section*{References}
771: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
772: \bibitem{intro1} Bak P., Tang C. and Wiesenfeld, \PRL {\bf 59} 381 (1987)
773: \bibitem{intro2} Jaeger H.M. and Nagel S.R., {\it Science} {\bf 255} 1523 (1992)
774: \bibitem{intro3} Mehta A. and Barker G.C., {\it Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 57} 383 (1994)
775: \bibitem{intro5} Mehta A. and Barker G.C., {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 27} 501 (1994)
776: \bibitem{intro6} Das Sarma S. and Kotliar R., \PR {\bf R50} R4275 (1994)
777: \bibitem{intro4} Jaeger H.M., Nagel S.R. and Behringer R.P., \RMP {\bf 68} 1259 (1996)
778: \bibitem{mln} Mehta A., Luck J.M. and Needs R.J., \PR {\bf E53} 92 (1996)
779: \bibitem{intro8} Mehta A., Barker G.C., Luck J.M. and Needs R.J., {\it Physica} {\bf A 224} 48 (1996)
780: \bibitem{kn:st} Barabasi A. L. and Stanley H. E. {\it Fractal concepts in surfa
781: ce growth} (Cambridge University Press) (1995)
782: \bibitem{bmb} Biswas P., Majumdar A., Mehta A. and Bhattacharkee J.K., \PR {\bf E58} 1266 (1998)
783: \bibitem{smm} Sanyal B., Mehta A. and Mookerjee A.,\JPCM {\bf 11} 4367 (1999)
784: \bibitem{kn:mh} Herring C. {\it Physics of powder metallutgy} edited by Kingston W E
785: (McGraw-Hill, New York) (1951)
786: \bibitem{kn:mul} Mullins W. W. {\it J. Appl. Phys.} {\bf 28} 333 (1959); {\bf 30} 77 (1959)
787: \bibitem{kn:wv} Wolf D.E. and Villain J. {\it Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 13} 389 (1990)
788: \bibitem{heine} Heine V., {\it Solid State Physics} (Academic Press, U.K.) {\bf 25} (1982)
789: \bibitem{bou} Bouchaud J.P., Cates M.E., Ravi Prakash J. and Edwards S.F., \PRL {\bf 74} 1982 (1995)
790: \end{thebibliography}
791: \end{document}
792: