1: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,floats,aps,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: 

4: 

5: \def\kx{\left( {p k_x \over 2} \right)}

6: \def\ky{\left( {p k_y \over 2} \right)}

7: \def\8{\infty}

8: \def\oh{\frac{1}{2}}

9: \def\ot{\frac{1}{3}}

10: \def\oq{\frac{1}{4}}

11: \def\tt{\frac{2}{3}}

12: \def\ft{\frac{4}{3}}

13: \def\tq{\frac{3}{4}}

14: \def\d{\partial}

15: \def\i{\imath\,}

16: \def\ih{\frac{\imath}{2}\,}

17: \def\undertext#1{\vtop{\hbox{#1}\kern 1pt \hrule}}

18: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

19: \def\lfa{\leftarrow}

20: \def\Ra{\Rightarrow}

21: \def\lra{\longrightarrow}

22: \def\ler{\leftrightarrow}

23: \def\lrb#1{\left(#1\right)}

24: \def\O#1{O\left(#1\right)}

25: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle\,#1\,\right\rangle}

26: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}\,}

27: \def\trb#1{\tr\lrb{#1}}

28: \def\dd#1{\frac{d}{d#1}}

29: \def\dbyd#1#2{\frac{d#1}{d#2}}

30: \def\pp#1{\frac{\partial}{\partial#1}}

31: \def\pbyp#1#2{\frac{\partial#1}{\partial#2}}

32: \def\ff#1{\frac{\delta}{\delta#1}}

33: \def\fbyf#1#2{\frac{\delta#1}{\delta#2}}

34: \def\pd#1{\partial_{#1}}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: 

39: 

40: 

41: \def\br{\\ \nonumber & &}

42: %%\def\brr{\right. \\ \nonumber & &\left.}

43: %%\def\inv#1{\frac{1}{#1}}

44: 

45: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

46: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

47: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray} & &}

48: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

49: \def\ct#1{\cite{#1}}

50: \def\rf#1{(\ref{#1})}

51: \def\EXP#1{\exp\left(#1\right)}

52: \def\TEXP#1{\hat{T}\exp\left(#1\right)}

53: \def\INT#1#2{\int_{#1}^{#2}}

54: \def\MAT{{\it Mathematica }}

55: \def\LHS{left-hand side }

56: \def\RHS{right-hand side }

57: \def\COM#1#2{\left\lbrack #1\,,\,#2\right\rbrack}

58: \def\AC#1#2{\left\lbrace #1\,,\,#2\right\rbrace}

59: %LOCAL

60: \def \PDF{probability distribution function }

61: \def\t{\tilde}

62: \def\ad{a^\dagger}

63: \def\cH{{\cal H}}

64: \def\Kinp{ \partial^2 \Pi\left(\phi_{i}-\phi_{i-1}\right)}

65: \def\E{{\cal E}}

66: \def\rfs#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

67: %

68: 

69: 

70: 

71: \begin{document}

72: 

73: \title{Bosonic Excitations in Random Media}

74: 

75: \author {V. Gurarie and J.T. Chalker }

76: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics, Oxford University, 1 Keble Rd,

77: Oxford OX1 3NP, United Kingdom}

78: 

79: %\date{}

80: \date{\today}

81: 

82: %\begin {document}

83: %\draft

84: %\maketitle

85: 

86: \begin{abstract}

87: We consider classical normal modes and non-interacting

88: bosonic excitations in disordered systems. We emphasise generic

89: aspects of such problems and parallels with

90: disordered, non-interacting systems of fermions, and

91: discuss in particular the relevance for bosonic excitations of

92: symmetry classes known in the fermionic context. We

93: also stress important differences between bosonic and fermionic

94: problems. One of these follows from the fact that

95: ground state stability of a system requires all

96: bosonic excitation energy levels to be positive,

97: while stability in systems of non-interacting fermions

98: is ensured  by the exclusion principle,

99: whatever the single-particle energies.

100: As a consequence, simple models of uncorrelated disorder

101: are less useful for bosonic systems

102: than for fermionic ones, and it is generally important to

103: study the excitation spectrum in conjunction with the

104: problem of constructing a disorder-dependent ground state:

105: we show how a mapping to an operator with chiral symmetry

106: provides a useful tool for doing this.

107: A second difference involves the distinction for bosonic systems

108: between excitations which are Goldstone modes and those which are not.

109: In the case of Goldstone modes we review established results illustrating

110: the fact that disorder decouples from excitations in the low frequency limit,

111: above a critical dimension $d_c$, which in different circumstances

112: takes the values $d_c=2$ and $d_c=0$. For bosonic excitations which

113: are not Goldstone modes, we argue that an excitation density varying with

114: frequency as $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$ is a universal feature

115: in systems with ground states that depend on the disorder realisation.

116: We illustrate our conclusions with extensive analytical and some numerical

117: calculations for a variety of models in one dimension.

118: 

119: \end{abstract}

120: 

121: \pacs{73.20.Fz, 63.50.+x, 75.30.Ds}

122: 

123: \maketitle

124: 

125: 

126: \section{Introduction}

127: 

128: Excitations in condensed matter systems with quenched disorder

129: have been a subject of intense study during the last several decades.

130: Historically, it has been fermionic excitations in random systems that

131: have received most attention. The reason for this lies in part

132: with the rapid development of experiments and theory

133: involving mesoscopic conductors, where the effects of disorder

134: in phase-coherent electron systems have been studied in

135: great detail.\cite{Imry}

136: 

137: It is, however, also of considerable interest to study

138: random systems with bosonic excitations, and

139: there is an extensive literature treating problems of this

140: type, too. For instance, the propagation of phonons

141: in glasses and of electromagnetic waves in media with random

142: refractive index has long been a subject of active

143: research,\cite{SJS,PS} and trapping of light via scattering from

144: disorder is a principle on which

145: random lasers are based.\cite{Lasers} Other examples of

146: bosonic excitations in random systems include vibrations of pinned elastic

147: structures such as charge density waves,\cite{GL}

148: magnons in diluted antiferromagnets and spin

149: glasses,\cite{Harris,WW,HS,AM,Ginzburg,Wan,Chernyshev}

150: and quasiparticles in superfluid

151: liquid helium permeating a porous medium.\cite{Helium}

152: To some extent, work on these problems

153: has focussed on specific features of individual examples,

154: and given less emphasis to a generic aspects than has

155: been the case for disordered fermionic problems.

156: 

157: In this paper we emphasise just these generic aspects. In

158: particular, we examine the relationship between universality

159: classes identified for fermionic problems and models

160: for bosonic excitations, as well as features that are

161: specific to bosonic problems. In addition, we develop a

162: framework for treating bosonic excitations which we use

163: to calculate the density of states and localization

164: properties of one dimensional, randomly pinned systems.

165: Some of our results have been presented in short form

166: elsewhere.\cite{GC}

167: 

168: Our discussion is organised as follows. In

169: Sec.\,\ref{symmetries} we review the symmetry classes established

170: within random matrix theory for disordered fermionic systems.

171: We recall in Sec.\,\ref{bosonic} the general form for a quadratic bosonic

172: Hamiltonian and the Bogoliubov transformation required to diagonalise it,

173: and show how it is useful to introduce an auxilliary problem with

174: structure similar to that in the chiral symmetry class.

175: In Sec.\,\ref{examples} we discuss how various examples

176: of systems with bosonic excitations fit into this general framework.

177: Here we emphasise the distinction between excitations that are

178: Goldstone modes and those that are not, and outline an established

179: argument that leads in the latter case to the result

180: $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$. Then, as an illustrative example, we consider

181: the random field $XY$ spin chain, using our formalism as the basis

182: for a numerical study of the discrete system,

183: presented in Sec.\,\ref{discrete}, and

184: giving an analytical treatment of the continuum limit in

185: Sec.\,\ref{continuum}, recovering in both cases the behavior

186: $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$.

187: In Sec.\,\ref{heisenberg} we consider the random field Heisenberg spin chain

188: and some related but simpler models, which are of interest because

189: disorder enters them in a more general way than for the $XY$ model.

190: Finally, we summarise the relevant experimental situation

191: in Sec.\,\ref{experiment} and end with concluding remarks in

192: Sec.\,\ref{concluding}

193: 

194: 

195: 

196: 

197: \section {Symmetries and Disorder}

198: \label{symmetries}

199: 

200: To provide a context for our discussion of bosonic systems,

201: we begin by setting out the symmetry classes that are

202: recognized within random matrix theory for fermionic

203: systems.\cite{Mehta,Efetov}

204: Models of non-interacting quasiparticles play an important role in

205: the study of fermionic excitations in disordered conductors,

206: insulators and superconductors.

207: It has long been appreciated that the properties of these models

208: are controlled by

209: the discrete symmetries of the single particle

210: Hamiltonians. Originally

211: three symmetry classes for random Hamiltonians were

212: identified.\cite{Wigner,Dyson0}

213: One class consists of random Hamiltonians that have time-reversal

214: invariance but no Kramers degeneracy. In an appropriate basis

215: the Hamiltonian $H$ is real, so that

216: \be

217: \label{WD1}

218: H=H^*.

219: \ee

220: Random Hamiltonians which obey Eq.~\rf{WD1} appear,

221: for example, when studying

222: disordered conductors without applied magnetic field.

223: A second symmetry class consists of time-reversal

224: invariant random Hamiltonians for particles with half-integer spin and

225: hence Kramers degeneracy. In this case the time-reveral operation

226: includes spin inversion, and invariance requires

227: \be

228: \label{WD2}

229: H=\sigma_2 H^* \sigma_2\,.

230: \ee

231: (Here and in the following, $\sigma_i$

232: for $i=1,2$ or $3$ represent the conventional Pauli matrices,

233: acting on a subspace identified by the context.)

234: In order for Eq.~\rf{WD2} to

235: be different in an essential way from Eq.~\rf{WD1},

236: spin rotation invariance must be broken. Thus

237: this case is of relevance for disordered conductors

238: with spin-orbit coupling. A third symmetry class arises

239: when the Hamiltonian has no discrete symmetries.

240: Examples of these symmetry classes are provided by the three

241: Wigner-Dyson random matrix ensembles.\cite{Wigner,Dyson0}

242: 

243: More recently, it has been recognized \cite{NS,VZ,Gade,AZ}

244: that there are seven additional classes of disordered

245: fermionic Hamiltonians. These arise where there exists

246: a special reference energy (taken to be zero in the following) for the system,

247: and a symmetry operation which relates eigenstates

248: in pairs.

249: Three of these seven are referred to as chiral symmatery

250: classes.\cite{NS,VZ,Gade}

251: Hamiltonians for these classes can be put into the form

252: \be

253: \label{Z1}

254: H = \left( \matrix {0 & Q \cr Q^\dagger & 0 } \right)

255: \ee

256: where $Q$ is itself a matrix or an operator.

257: They obey the symmetry condition

258: \be

259: \label{Z1c}

260: H = - \sigma_3 H \sigma_3\,.

261: % \ \sigma_3 = \left( \matrix { 1 & 0 \cr 0 & -1 } \right).

262: \ee

263: This ensures that energy levels

264: of such Hamiltonians appear in pairs $\pm E$,

265: since if $\psi$ is an eigenfunction with

266: energy $E$, then $\sigma_3 \psi$  is an eigenfunction with

267: energy $-E$. The symmetry condition of Eq.~\rf{Z1c},

268: when combined with either Eq.~\rf{WD1}, or

269: Eq.~\rf{WD2}, or neither, leads altogether to three chiral

270: symmetry classes. Chiral Hamiltonians appear as tight-binding models

271: with only off-diagonal

272: disorder\cite{OE,Eggarter,Ziman,Gade,Brouwer} and in the problem of classical

273: diffusion in a random medium.\cite{GB,CW}

274: 

275: The remaining four symmetry classes arise in the study of

276: disordered superconductors with pairing treated in the mean field approximation.

277: The Hamiltonian for such a problem has the Bogoliubov-de Gennes structure

278: \be

279: \label{Z2}

280: H = \left( \matrix { h & \Delta \cr \Delta^\dagger & -h^T } \right),

281: \ee

282: where the kinetic term $h$ is Hermitian,

283: while the gap function $\Delta$ is antisymmetric.

284: This structure leads to another defining symmetry condition,

285: \be

286: \label{Z2c}

287: H= -\sigma_1 H^* \sigma_1\,.

288: % \ \sigma_1=\left( \matrix{ 0 & 1 \cr 1 & 0 } \right)

289: \ee

290: As for chiral Hamiltonians, the symmetry displayed in

291: \rfs{Z2c} ensures that energy levels of

292: Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonians appear in pairs, $\pm E$.

293: There are four symmetry classes of such Hamiltonians,

294: according to whether or not the system has time-reversal

295: and spin-rotation symmetry, making the total count ten.

296: 

297: A consequence of the conditions

298: specified in Eqns.~\rf{Z1c} and \rf{Z2c} is that

299: statistical properties of energy levels and, in

300: spatially extended systems, the associated eigenfunctions,

301: are quite different in these additional symmetry

302: classes near zero energy, compared to properties far from

303: zero energy, or in the

304: Wigner-Dyson symmetry classes.\cite{AZ}

305: 

306: It is natural to ask whether this classification

307: can be extended to problems involving non-interacting

308: bosonic excitations or, equivalently, classical normal

309: modes.

310: At first sight, it might seem that quasiparticle statistics are

311: unimportant in a non-interacting system. In one crucial

312: respect, however, this is untrue, since stability of a system

313: requires bosonic excitation energies to be positive,

314: while for fermionic excitations stability is guaranteed by the Pauli

315: exclusion principle, whatever the single-particle energy levels.

316: This has two implications. First, energy zero emerges as a special point in

317: the spectrum of bosonic systems, as it does

318: for the additional fermionic symmetry

319: classes discussed above. And second, one anticipates that

320: matrix elements of bosonic Hamiltonians for random systems

321: will have specific correlations, which ensure positivity of the

322: spectrum. Thus, while the most general form for a

323: quadratic bosonic Hamiltonian (see \rfs{osc} below)

324: is superficially similar to the Bogoliubov-de Gennes

325: Hamiltonian, and while normal mode

326: frequencies, like the eigenvalues of Eq.~\rf{Z2}, appear in

327: pairs $\pm \omega$, matrix elements must satisfy constraints

328: in order that frequencies are real.

329: Such a requirement is in stark contrast with the

330: assumptions of statistical independence used in the

331: construction of random matrix ensembles for fermionic systems.

332: To stress the significance of this point, imagine a

333: treatment of a disordered, interacting system which proceeds

334: in two stages, by first finding the ground state and then

335: calculating excitation energies within a harmonic approximation. The spirit

336: of random matrix theory for fermionic systems is to divorce these two

337: stages and approach the second one phenomenologically, choosing statistically

338: independent matrix elements. By contrast, for bosonic systems it is clear that the two

339: stages cannot be completely separated. Indeed, whereas

340: for random matrix theory universal spectral properties

341: follow largely from symmetry and are independent

342: of the details of the matrix element distribution,

343: we argue here that for bosonic excitations

344: which are not Goldsone modes it is the

345: requirements of stability and the ensuing correlations

346: in the Hamiltonian for excitations that give rise to

347: universal spectral properties.

348: 

349: 

350: 

351: \section{Bosonic Hamiltonians}

352: \label{bosonic}

353: 

354: In this section we discuss the most general form for bosonic Hamiltonians

355: and summarise the diagonalisation procedure, following standard lines

356: (see, for example, Ref.\,\onlinecite{Blaizot}).

357: We also emphasise the distinction between oscillator frequencies

358: and stiffnesses. Finally, we show for oscillations about a

359: stable ground state that it is natural to rewrite the

360: Hamiltonian in terms of a chiral matrix.

361: 

362: \subsection{Stiffnesses and frequencies}

363: The most general bosonic Hamiltonian can be written in the equivalent

364: forms

365: \begin{eqnarray}

366: \label{osc}

367: H &=& \oh \sum_{i,j=1}^N

368: \left[ M_{ij} p_i p_j + K_{ij} q_i q_j + 2 C_{ij} q_i p_j

369: \right]

370: \nonumber \\

371: &\equiv&

372: \oh \left( \matrix { {\bf p} & {\bf q} } \right)

373: \left( \matrix { M & C \cr C^T & K }

374: \right) \left( \matrix{{\bf p} \cr {\bf q}} \right)

375: \nonumber \\

376: &\equiv&

377: \oh \left( \matrix{{\bf a^\dagger} & {\bf a}} \right) \left(

378: \matrix { \Gamma & \Delta \cr \Delta^\dagger & \Gamma^T} \right) \left(

379: \matrix {{\bf a} \cr {\bf a^\dagger}} \right)

380: \end{eqnarray}

381: Here, $q_i$ and $p_i$ are the coordinates and momenta of the oscillators,

382: %${\bf q}$, ${\bf p}$ denote vectors whose entries are coordinates and momenta,

383: and $a^\dagger_i, a_i= \left( q_i \pm i p_i \right)/\sqrt{2}$ are

384: bosonic creation and annihilation operators.

385: The matrices $M$ and $K$ are real and symmetric,

386: while $C$ is an arbitrary real matrix. Equivalently, $\Gamma$ is hermitian, while

387: $\Delta$ is symmetric.  Physically, $M$ is the inverse mass matrix of

388: the oscillators, $K$ is the matrix of spring constants, and

389: couplings of the type represented by $C$ occur, for example,

390: in spin systems. It is convenient to

391: define the $2N \times 2N$ symmetric matrix

392: \be

393: \cH = \left( \matrix { M & C \cr C^T & K} \right).

394: \ee

395: 

396: We are interested in frequencies of oscillators decribed by Eq.~\rf{osc}.

397: From Hamilton's equations of motion

398: %\be

399: %\dbyd{q_i}{t} = \pbyp{H}{p_i}, \ \dbyd{p_i}{t} = -\pbyp{H}{q_i}.

400: %\ee

401: it follows that

402: these frequencies are eigenvalues of the

403: non-Hermitian matrix

404: \be

405: \label{freq1}

406: \cH' = \left( \matrix {- i C^T & -i K \cr i M & i C } \right)

407: % \equiv \left(\matrix {0 & -i \cr i & 0 } \right) \cH

408: \equiv \sigma_2 \cH\,,

409: \ee

410: They are real if the system is stable, in which case

411: $H$ is bounded from below,

412: the eigenvalues of $\cH$ are positive, and we can write

413: $\cH=Q^T Q$ with $Q$ real.

414: In thse terms, to find frequencies we need to diagonalize the

415: matrix $\sigma_2 Q^T Q$, but its eigenvalues coincide with those

416: of another matrix

417: \begin{equation}

418: \label{Omegaconstraint} \Omega=Q \sigma_2 Q^T,

419: \end{equation}

420: which is explicitly Hermitian

421: and, moreover, antisymmetric, so that frequencies come in pairs $\pm

422: \omega_i$, with $i=1 \ldots N$.

423: 

424: If $\Omega$ is interpreted as a random Hamiltonian, then according

425: to the classification scheme discussed in Sec.~\ref{symmetries}

426: it belongs to one of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes

427: classes (more precisely, to class D, see Ref.~\onlinecite{AZ}). While

428: this is indeed an indication that random oscillators behave in

429: many ways like random fermionic Hamiltonians from one of the additional

430: symmetry classes (having frequencies in pairs,

431: with $\omega=0$ as a special point in the spectrum),

432: the identification of $\Omega$ as class D operator is not

433: by itself necessarily helpful since $\Omega$ does not have statistically

434: independent matrix elements, but rather

435: is constrained to have the form given in \rfs{Omegaconstraint}.

436: Instead, we shall see that a link to matrices wih chiral symmetry

437: proves more useful.

438: 

439: The computation of oscillator frequencies

440: can equivalently be described as a Bogoliubov

441: transformation for coordinates and momenta, specified by real

442: matrices $g$ which obey

443: \begin{equation}

444: \label{bog} \sigma_2  = g \sigma_2 g^T

445: \end{equation}

446: and tranform $\cH$ to $g \cH g^T$.

447: Diagonalizing $\cH$ using this transformation,

448: the Hamiltonian $H$ of Eq.~\rf{osc} takes the form

449: \begin{equation}

450: H = \sum_i |\omega_i| a_i^\dagger a_i\,.

451: \end{equation}

452: 

453: In addition to the frequencies, obtained as eigenvalues

454: of $\Omega$ or by Bogoliubov transformation

455: of $\cH$, the eigenvalues of $\cH$

456: also have physical significance, for example as inverse static

457: susceptibilities. We refer to them as

458: {\sl stiffnesses}, denoting them by $\kappa_i$, $i=1,\ldots 2N$.

459: In general, there is no simple relationship between

460: stiffnesses and frequencies, but several special cases

461: provide important exceptions, as follows.

462: Consider first $\cH$ with $C=0$ and $M=\openone$,

463: representing oscillations of particles, all with unit mass, connected by springs

464: with spring constants $K_{ij}$.

465: In this example, half of all the stiffnesses are equal to $1$,

466: while the other half are the eigenvalues $\kappa_i$ of the matrix $K$;

467: the frequencies and stiffnesses are related by

468: \be \label{squarerelation}

469: \omega_i = \pm \sqrt{\kappa_i}\,.

470: \ee

471: A second special case arises for magnon excitations in weakly

472: disordered ferromagnets, which have a Hamiltonian of

473: the form of Eq.~\rf{osc} with $M=K$ and $C=0$. In that case,

474: the stiffnesses are the eigenvalues of $M$ and $K$, and come in

475: identical pairs. The frequencies are simply

476: \begin{equation}

477: \omega_i= \pm \kappa_i\,.

478: \end{equation}

479: A final and important special case occurs when one stiffness, say

480: $\kappa_1$, is much smaller than all others. In

481: this regime, an approximate relation exists between the

482: smallest frequency and the smallest stiffness:

483: \begin{equation}

484: \omega_1 \propto \pm \sqrt{\kappa_1}\,.

485: \label{kap}

486: \end{equation}

487: 

488: To derive this relation, a more detailed analysis of the structure of $\cH$

489: and $\Omega$ is required. Since $\cH$ is a real symmetric matrix with positive

490: eigenvalues, it can in general be represented as

491: \be

492: \cH = U \Lambda^2 U^T

493: \ee

494: where $U$ is an orthogonal matrix and

495: $\Lambda_{ij}=\lambda_i \delta_{ij}$ is the diagonal matrix whose

496: eigenvalues are square roots of the eigenvalues of $\cH$. The

497: corresponding matrix $\Omega$ can be written as

498: \begin{equation}

499: \Omega = \Lambda U^T {\sigma_2} U \Lambda\,.

500: \end{equation}

501: Introducing an antisymmetric matrix $A = U^T \sigma_2 U$, we have

502: \begin{equation}

503: \label{freqproof} \Omega_{ij}=\lambda_i A_{ij} \lambda_j\,.

504: \end{equation}

505: Suppose initially that one of the stiffnesses vanishes, so that $\lambda_1=0$. Then at

506: least one frequency must vanish as well, since $\det \, \Omega =

507: \det \cH$. In fact, because $\Omega$ is antisymmetric and its frequencies come

508: in opposite pairs, two frequencies are zero. The mathematical

509: mechanism for this is clear from Eq.~\rf{freqproof}. First, since $\Omega_{1

510: i} = \Omega_{i 1} = 0$ for all $i$, one of the

511: eigenvalues of $\Omega$ is $\omega_1=0$, with an eigenvector

512: $\psi^{(1)}_{i} = \delta_{1i}$. Second, all other eigenvalues can be found

513: by diagonalizing a smaller matrix, $\Omega'_{ij}$ where $2 \le i, j

514: \le 2N$. But $\Omega'$ is an odd-dimensional antisymmetric matrix,

515: and therefore has at least one zero eigenvalue, $\omega_2$,

516: with an associated normalised eigenvector which we write as

517: $\psi^{(2)}_{i}$, where $\psi^{(2)}_1 = 0$.

518: Now treat small non-zero $\lambda_1$ using perturbation theory

519: about this limit, with $\lambda_1\equiv\epsilon$.

520: The change in $\Omega$ is

521: \bea \delta \Omega_{ij} =  \epsilon \left( \delta_{1 i}

522: A_{ij} \lambda_j  + \lambda_i A_{ij} \delta_{1j} \right)(1-\delta_{1i}\delta_{1j})\,.

523: % , \ \ i>1 \, {\rm or} \, j>1, \br \delta \Omega_{11} = 0.

524: \eea

525: Under this perturbation,

526: the doubly degenerate eigenvalue $\omega=0$ of $\Omega$ splits

527: into $\pm \omega_1$, determined by diagonalizing

528: the $2\times 2$ matrix

529: \begin{equation}

530: \epsilon \left( \matrix { 0 & \sum_{i=2}^{2N} A_{1i} \lambda_i

531: \psi^{(2)}_i \cr - \sum_{i=2}^{2N} A_{1 i} \lambda_i \psi^{(2)}_i

532: & 0 } \right).

533: \end{equation}

534: Hence \begin{equation} \omega_1 = \pm \lambda_1 \left|

535: \sum_{i=2}^{2N} A_{1 i} \lambda_i \psi^{(2)}_i \right| \propto \pm

536: \sqrt{\kappa_1}

537: \end{equation}

538: barring an accidental vanishing of the matrix element

539: $\sum_{i=2}^{2N} A_{1 i} \lambda_i \psi^{(2)}_i$.

540: 

541: The usefulness of this result lies in the following.

542: Consider a random system with bosonic

543: excitations that are localized with a finite localization length

544: at low frequency, and let the density of stiffnesses be $d(\kappa)$.

545: We expect that each localization volume can be treated as an independent system,

546: and that each low frequency excitation will have a frequency much smaller

547: than that of other excitations in its own localization volume, and will therefore

548: be associated with a single small stiffness.

549: Applying Eq.~\rf{kap}, the density of excitation frequencies $\rho(\omega)$

550: for small $\omega$ is

551: \be

552: \label{ffr}

553: \rho(\omega) = d(\omega^2) \omega\,.

554: \ee

555: 

556: One interesting check of these conclusions is provided by random

557: matrix theory. Consider an ensemble of real random

558: matrices $Q$, with size $N\gg 1$ and

559: probability distribution $P \propto \exp \left( -

560: Q^T Q \right)$. Let $\Delta$ be the typical magnitude of the

561: eigenvalue of $\cH=Q^TQ$ closest to zero.

562: For $\cH$ generated in this way, one finds $d(\kappa) \propto

563: \kappa^{-1/2}$ at both $\kappa \ll \Delta$ and $\kappa \gg \Delta$.

564: Computing the eigenvalue density of $\Omega=Q \sigma_2 Q^T$ using superintegrals,

565: one finds that\cite{MZ} $\rho(\omega)$ is independent of $\omega$ for

566: $\omega \ll \Delta$, while $ \rho(\omega) \propto  \omega^{-1/3}$ for $\omega \gg \Delta$.

567: It is clear that in the

568: regime $\omega \ll \Delta$, \rfs{ffr} is indeed applicable, while in

569: the opposite regime it breaks down.

570: 

571: \subsection{Chiral Symmetry}

572: \label{chiral-symmetry}

573: 

574: To study stiffnesses of bosonic oscillators with $\cH=Q^T Q$, it  is advantageous to introduce

575: $\t \cH$, an auxiliary matrix in which $Q$ and $Q^T$ enter linearly.

576: \be

577: \label{chi}

578: \t \cH = \left( \matrix { 0 & Q \cr Q^T & 0 } \right)\,.

579: \ee

580: Obviously, the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of $\t \cH$ are square roots of the stiffnesses $\kappa_i$

581: of $\cH$, and the matrix $\t \cH$

582: plays the role of the square root of the original bosonic Hamiltonian $\cH$.

583: On the other hand, the off-diagonal structure of $\t \cH$ is the defining feature

584: of the chiral symmetry class, discussed in Sec.~\ref{symmetries}.

585: While the direct implications of this connection are limited, because

586: the elements of $Q$ are not independent random variables as would be the

587: case in a random matrix ensemble,

588: techniques originally developed for systems in this symmetry class will prove

589: useful in our treatment of one-dimensional systems, as we describe in

590: Sec.~\ref{discrete} and Sec.~\ref{continuum}.

591: 

592: To study the frequencies of the oscillators, as opposed to

593: their stiffnesses, a second auxiliary matrix

594: \begin{equation}

595: \label{chiboson} \t \cH' =  \left( \matrix { 0 & Q \cr \sigma_2

596: Q^T & 0 } \right)

597: \end{equation}

598: is helpful. We shall call

599: matrices with this structure {\it chiral bosonic

600: matrices}. The eigenvalue

601: equation for $\t \cH'$ can be written in the form

602: \be \left( \matrix { 0 & Q \cr

603: Q^T & 0 } \right) \psi = \left( \matrix {1 & 0 \cr 0 & \sigma_2}

604: \right) \sqrt{\omega}~\psi\,, \ee

605: which of course inherits its structure from Hamilton's equations.

606: 

607: The main difficulty in making use of these ideas is that, in practice,

608: only $\cH$ is known initially and a method must be developed to find $Q$.

609: Moreover, $Q$ is defined only up to a left multiplication by an

610: arbitrary orthogonal matrix. For the introduction of $Q$

611: to be helpful, it will be important that it can be chosen to have a simple form,

612: with, for example, only short range couplings. We shall show that this is indeed

613: possible for a variety of problems.

614: 

615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

616: 

617: \section{Bosonic Excitations: General Aspects}

618: \label{examples}

619: 

620: It is a feature of models for disordered fermionic systems from

621: the chiral and Bogoliubov-de Gennes symmetry classes that their

622: characteristic behavior appears only close to the reference energy,

623: identified by the discrete symmetry of the Hamiltonian, while

624: spectral properties at energies far from this are indistinguishable from

625: those of the Wigner-Dyson classes. In a similar way,

626: for bosonic excitations in disordered systems we expect it to be properties at low frequency that

627: that are of particular interest. Examples of such excitations

628: can be divided into two categories, according to whether or not they are

629: Goldstone modes, associated with a broken continuous symmetry.

630: In this section we summarize for each of these categories some of the

631: previously established results. We also illustrate the introduction

632: of a chiral Hamiltonian $\t \cH$ for a one-dimensional phonon model.

633: 

634: \subsection{Goldstone Modes}

635: 

636: Important instances of Goldstone modes in disordered systems include acoustic phonons

637: in glasses and alloys,\cite{SJS,PS}

638:  and spin waves in isotropic, dilute ferromagnets and antiferromagnets,

639: and isotropic spin glasses.\cite{Harris,WW,HS,AM,Ginzburg,Wan,Chernyshev}

640: In disorder-free versions of these systems, low frequency

641: excitations have long wavelength and are described by equations of motion that involve

642: macroscopic properties of the system: density, elastic constants, magnetic susceptibility and

643: spin stiffness. Disorder introduces local fluctuations in the values of these quantities, but one expects

644: excitations to couple only to fluctuations averaged over a volume with linear

645: dimensions set by a wavelength. Because of this, randomness only weakly affects

646: low-frequency Goldstone modes, especially in higher dimensions

647: for which the averaging is most effective. Such averaging is demonstrated by the low-frequency behavior of the

648: excitation density $\rho(\omega)$, which above a critical dimension $d_c$ varies with the same

649: power of $\omega$ as in the disorder-free system.

650: It is also shown by localization properties of excitations: in one and two-dimensional systems,

651: the localization length $\xi(\omega)$ diverges as $\omega$ approaches zero,

652: while in higher-dimensional systems, all low-frequency states are extended.

653: In this subsection we review the behavior of $\rho(\omega)$ and $\xi(\omega)$

654: for phonons in alloys and for spin waves in diluted antiferromagnets and spin glasses, considering

655: the effect of weak disorder included in the relevant equation of motion.

656: We also use the Hamiltonian for phonons in a one-dimensional disordered system as an illustration of

657: the general mapping to chiral models, introduced in Sec.~\ref{chiral-symmetry}.

658: 

659: Consider first a scalar version of a model for acoustic phonons, in which a mode

660: with frequency $\omega$ has coordinate $q({\bf r})$ satisfying

661: \be\label{phonons}

662: \omega^2 q({\bf r}) = - c^2 \nabla^2 q({\bf r})\,.

663: \ee

664: Suppose that the speed of sound, $c$ has random fluctuations in space,

665: about an average value $c_0$, with only short-range correlations.

666: Work on this and related problems is reviewed in Ref.~\onlinecite{PS},

667: and an early treatment of localization in this context was given in Ref.~\onlinecite{SJS}.

668: The essentials for our purposes are as follows. First, the fluctuations

669: in $c$, averaged over a $d$-dimensional volume of size set by the wavelength in

670: the disorder-free system, decrease compared to $c_0$ with

671: decreasing frequency as $\omega^{d/2}$. Thus in this case the critical dimension

672: is $d_c=0$, and for any $d>d_c$ the excitation density approaches the form found

673: without disorder at low frequency. Moreover, from a calculation using the

674: Born approximation, the Rayleigh scattering rate $\tau^{-1}$ varies as $\tau^{-1} \propto \omega^{d+1}$.

675: (This dependence combines a factor of $\omega^2$ from the frequency-dependence of coupling to disorder, and a factor of

676: $\omega^{d-1}$ from the density of final states for scattering processes).

677: In one dimension, disorder localizes with a localization length proportional to the mean free

678: path, which here is $c_0\tau$, and so\cite{SJS}

679: \be

680: \xi(\omega) \propto \omega^{-2}\,.

681: \ee

682: In two dimensions it is a familiar feature of electronic

683: systems that the localization length is exponentially large in

684: $k_{\rm F}l$ (where $k_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi wavevector and $l$ is the

685: mean free path): the equivalent parameter for the phonon problem is

686: $\omega \tau$, so that\cite{SJS}

687: \be

688: \xi(\omega) \propto \exp([\omega_0/\omega]^2)\,,

689: \ee

690: where $\omega_0$ is a disorder-strength dependent constant.

691: 

692: These results contrast interestingly with those for an antiferromagnet

693: which has randomness generated either by site dilution (taken small enough that the system is above the percolation

694: threshold) or by substitution of impurity spins with

695: a magnetic moment different from that of the host spins.\cite{Harris,Wan}

696: In a discussion of the random antiferromagnet, it is useful to begin from the dispersion relation for spin waves in

697: a two-sublattice {\it ferrimagnet} without disorder. At small wavevector $k$, this has the form

698: \be\label{ferrimagnet}

699: \omega^2 + (M_a-M_b)\omega = c^2 k^2\,,

700: \ee

701: where $M_a - M_b$ is proportional to the difference between the two sublattice magnetic moments,

702: which are taken to be oppositely aligned. Setting $M_a=M_b$, one recovers the usual dispersion

703: relation in an antiferromagnet, with spin-wave speed $c$.

704: For the random antiferromagnet, independent disorder on the

705: two sublattices generates random fluctuations in the local value of $M_a-M_b$ about a mean value

706: of zero. Averaging these fluctuations over a volume of size set by the wavelength in the undiluted

707: system gives a random variable with an amplitude that scales as $\omega^{d/2}$.

708: Because of this, disorder appears in \rfs{ferrimagnet} via the term $(M_a-M_b)\omega$, which scales as

709: $\omega^{d/2+1}$. Above the critical dimension $d_c=2$, disorder is irrelevant in the sense that

710: this term may be be neglected for small $\omega$ compared to

711: $\omega^2$.

712: The value of the critical dimension is also apparent from a Born approximation calculation of the

713: rate for scattering of spin waves by disorder,\cite{Wan} which yields

714: $\tau^{-1} \propto \omega^{d-1}$.

715: Because of this, spin waves have a well-defined wavevector

716: in the low frequency limit for $d>d_c$, since

717: $\omega \tau \to \infty$ as $\omega \to 0$.

718: Applying this approach below the critical dimension, for $d=1$ we see that \rfs{ferrimagnet}

719: determines a relation between the lengthscale of an excitation, which we denote by $1/k$, and its frequency:

720: \be

721: k^{d/2}\omega \propto k^2

722: \ee

723: at small $\omega$. This implies

724: \be\label{rho}

725: \rho(\omega) \propto \omega^{-1/3}

726: \ee

727: and

728: \be\label{xi}

729: \xi(\omega) \propto  \omega^{-2/3}\,.

730: \ee

731: 

732: We expect all these results for low-frequency behavior to be characteristic not only

733: of disordered antiferromagnets, but also of spin glasses, since the two systems have in

734: common the crucial feature of a magnetization density that is locally non-zero and random,

735: but has zero average. A detailed treatment of excitations in spin glasses, however, is

736: much more difficult than in weakly disordered antiferromagnets, because for spin glasses

737: the ground state is generally disorder-dependent and unknown. Instead, the established approach is

738: a hydrodynamic one,\cite{HS,Ginzburg} which leads to linearly dispersing modes with a speed

739: determined by the macroscopic spin-stiffness and susceptibility.

740: In the light of our discussion, we expect these hydrodynamic results to be correct for $d>d_c$.

741: By contrast, for one-dimensional systems, microscopic calculations are possible since

742: frustration is absent and ground states can be determined. Results from computations\cite{Stinch}

743: in one-dimensional models

744: of $\rho(\omega)$ and $\xi(\omega)$ coincide with Eqns.~\rf{rho} and \rf{xi}, above.

745: Similar calculations are also possible in higher dimensions for the Mattis model,

746: which shares with one-dimensional models the features that frustration is absent and

747: the ground state is known for each disorder configuration. In $d=2$ these yield $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega|\log(\omega)|$,

748: where the logarithm is characteristic of behavior at a critical dimension, and in $d=3$ they give

749: $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^2$, in agreement with hydrodynamic theory.\cite{Sher}

750: A discussion of excitations in the Mattis model, building on the methods described in this paper,

751: will be presented elsewhere.\cite{AG}

752: 

753: Spin waves have also been investigated\cite{BM} in the infinite-range Heisenberg spin glass:

754: one of the main findings is a density of states that varies with frequency as

755: $ \rho(\omega) \propto \omega^{3 \over 2}$. We have not been able to make contact between this result

756: and the approaches described here.

757: 

758: As a next step, it is interesting to return to acoustic phonons in

759: disordered systems and use the one-dimensional version of this problem

760: to illustrate some of the methods set out in Sec.~\ref{bosonic}. In fact, in this context

761: the mapping to a chiral problem was exploited in celebrated early work

762: by Dyson,\cite{Dyson} and also in calculations by Ziman.\cite{Ziman}

763: Consider a one dimensional chain of particles with masses $m_i$, connected by nearest-neighbor springs with spring

764: constants $k_i$, where $m_i$ and $k_i$ are random and positive.

765: Let $p_i$ and $q_i$ be the momentum and displacement of the $i$-th particle

766: The Hamiltonian is

767: \be \label{Dyson1}

768: H = \sum_i

769: \left[ {p^2_i \over 2m_i} + {k_i \over 2} { \left( q_i-q_{i-1}

770: \right)^2 } \right]\,,

771: \ee

772: It is convenient to make the canonical transformation

773: $p_i \rightarrow \sqrt{m_i} p_i$ and $q_i

774: \rightarrow q_i/\sqrt{m_i}$, giving

775: \begin{equation}

776: \label{Dyson2} H = \sum_i \left[ {p^2_i \over 2} + {k_i \over 2} {

777: \left( {q_i \over \sqrt{m_i}} -{q_{i-1} \over \sqrt{m_{i-1}} }

778: \right)^2  } \right]\,,

779: \end{equation}

780: which is a particular case of the general

781: bosonic Hamiltonian \rfs{osc}, in which $M=\openone$ and $C=0$,

782: so that eigenfrequencies are related to stiffnesses $\kappa$ that are eigenvalues of the

783: matrix $K$, as in \rfs{squarerelation}.

784: Further discussion is easier in the continuum limit: replacing the index $i$ with a

785: continuous coordinate $x$, the Hamiltonian becomes

786: \be \label{phonon-chain}

787: H = \int dx~\left[

788: {p^2(x) \over 2} + {k(x) \over 2} \left(\dd{x} \left[ {q(x) \over

789: \sqrt{m(x)}} \right] \right)^2 \right]\,.

790: \ee

791: To find the stiffnesses, one must solve the eigenvalue equation $Kq(x)=\kappa q(x)$ with

792: \be \label{ex1}

793: Kq(x) = -{1 \over \sqrt{m(x)}} \dd{x} k(x) \dd{x} {q(x) \over\sqrt{m(x)}}\,.

794: \ee

795: Note that the operator $K$ must be positive definite, in order that the chain is stable.

796: And indeed, defining $a(x) = \sqrt{k(x)}$ and $b(x)=1/\sqrt{m(x)}$, it may be

797: expressed as a square, in the form $K=Q^T Q$ with $Q= a(x) (d/d{x}) b(x)$.

798: Introducing a chiral Hamiltonian, as in \rfs{chi}, we then have

799: \be\label{ex2}

800: \left( \matrix{ 0 & a(x) \dd{x} b(x) \cr -b(x) \dd{x}

801: a(x) & 0} \right) \psi = \omega \psi\,.

802: \ee

803: 

804: At the equivalent point in his treatment, Dyson distinguishes

805: between different possible choices for the form of disorder.

806: In one case, termed {\it type I}, \rfs{ex2} is effectively replaced by

807: \rfs{chi2} below (with $\langle V(x) \rangle = 0$), leading to the singularity

808: of \rfs{dyson} in $\rho(\omega)$. An alternative, termed {\it type II},

809: retains instead \rfs{ex2} with only short-range

810: correlations in $a(x)$ and $b(x)$, representing disorder that couples only weakly

811: at small $\kappa$, because it is multiplied by spatial derivatives. This yields\cite{Ziman}

812: a constant $\rho(\omega)$ at small $\omega$,

813: in agreement with the general arguments set out following

814: \rfs{phonons}.

815: Ziman\cite{Ziman} has given a detailed discussion in this context of

816: the consequences of different types of disorder.\cite{Comment}

817: 

818: 

819: \subsection{Non-Goldstone Low Energy Excitations}

820: \label{bosonic-non-goldstone}

821: 

822: Without Goldstone modes, the very existence of the low-lying

823: excitations on which we have focussed our attention is not guaranteed.

824: In fact, as seems first to have been appreciated in the context of atomic

825: vibrations in glasses,\cite{IK} disorder itself may provide

826: a route to a gapless spectrum. The essential

827: ingredients are that the ground state should depend on the disorder realization,

828: and that excitations at low frequency should be localized by disorder.

829: Then it is reasonable to consider excitations within each localization

830: volume separately, and to expect disorder configurations that support

831: low frequency excitations to occur with finite probability.

832: Roughly speaking, these excitations occur in regions where the ground state

833: configuration is unusally sensitive to small changes in the disorder.

834: In this section we summarise an established approach to this phenomenon

835: of disorder-generated low frequency excitations, which concentrates on

836: a single coordinate and its conjugate momentum.

837: In subsequent sections we apply the formalism developed in this paper to study

838: the phenomenon more generally.

839: 

840: Following Il'in and Karpov,\cite{IK} consider a one-dimensional anharmonic oscillator

841: with momentum $p$, mass $m$, coordinate $q$ and potential $U(q)$.

842: The Hamiltonian is

843: \begin{equation}

844: \label{particle} H = {p^2 \over 2 m} + U(q)\,.

845: \end{equation}

846: Choosing $U(q)$ to be a smooth random function, we wish

847: to study the frequency of small-amplitude oscillations about the absolute minimum

848: in $U(q)$ and, specifically, the probability distribution of this frequency.

849: To give a more precise meaning to the notion of a smooth random function, we expand it in

850: Taylor series

851: \begin{equation}

852: \label{taylor1} U(q) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n {q^n \over n!}\,,

853: \end{equation}

854: where, to fix the zero of energy,  we set $U(0)=0$.

855: We take the $a_n$ to be random with joint probability distribution $P(a_1, a_2, \dots)$.

856: We shall assume that $P(a_1,a_2,\ldots)$ is free of zeros and divergences, but its

857: detailed form will not be important.

858: 

859: Suppose that $U(q)$ has a minimum at $q=q_0$.

860: In order to discuss excitations of the oscillator,

861: we first Taylor expand $U(q)$ around $q=q_0$, writing

862: \begin{equation}

863: \label{taylor2} U(q) = \sum_{n=2}^\infty b_n \left( {(q-q_0)^n

864: \over n!}-{(-q_0)^n \over n!}\right)\,.

865: \end{equation}

866: The probability distribution of the coefficients $b_n$ is related to that for the $a_n$ by

867: \[

868: P(q_0,b_2,b_3, \dots) = \left| \det {\partial \left(a_1, a_2,

869: a_3,\dots \right) \over \partial \left(q_0, b_2, b_3, \dots

870: \right)} \right| P(a_1, a_2, a_3, \dots )\,.

871: \]

872: Evaluating the Jacobian, we find

873: \be P(q_0,b_2, b_3, \dots) =  |b_2| P(a_1, a_2, a_3, \dots)\,. \ee

874: The probability distribution of $b_2$, the curvature of the potential $U(q)$

875: at a turning point, is hence

876: \be \label{prb2} P(b_2) = |b_2|\int dq_0

877: db_3 db_4 \dots P(a_1,a_2,a_3,\dots)\,. \ee

878: Under the assumption that $P(a_1,a_2,\ldots)$ is free of zeros and divergences,

879: this integral remains finite as $b_2 \to 0$, and so for small $b_2$

880: we have $P(b_2) \propto b_2$.

881: 

882: Small amplitude oscillations about $q_0$ have a frequency

883: $\omega \propto \sqrt{b_2}$, and it then follows

884: that the probability distribution of these oscillation frequencies varies for

885: small $\omega$ as

886: \begin{equation}

887: \label{dens01} \rho(\omega) \propto \omega^3\,.

888: \end{equation}

889: 

890: It is a further restriction to demand that a minimum at $q_0$ is the

891: {\it global} minimum of $U(q)$. A full treatment of this constraint

892: would be difficult but is fortunately not necessary: the crucial

893: condition is that $U(q)$ should have no nearby minima deeper than

894: the one at $q_0$. For that it is sufficient to truncate the expansion

895: \begin{eqnarray}

896: \label{taylor3} U(q) = &U(q_0)+ {b_2 \over 2} (q-q_0)^2+ {b_3 \over 6}

897: (q-q_0)^3\nonumber \\& + {b_4 \over 24} (q-q_0)^4 + \dots

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: at ${\cal O}(q-q_0)^4$. After truncation, we require

900: $|b_3| < \sqrt{3 b_2 b_4}$ in order that $U(q_0) \leq U(q)$ for all $q$.

901: This further suppresses the probability density for small curvatures, giving

902: \[ %\label{dens00}

903: P(b_2) = b_2 \int dq_0  db_4  \dots \int_{-\sqrt{3 b_2

904: b_4}}^{\sqrt{3 b_2 b_4}} db_3~

905:  P(a_1,a_2,\dots) \propto b_2^{3 \over 2}.

906: \]

907: In turn, this brings the frequency distribution at small $\omega$ to the form

908: \be

909: \label{dens0}

910: \rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4\,.

911: \ee

912: One expects that the result of including higher order terms in Eq.~\rf{taylor3},

913: and of ensuring that no more distant minima are lower than the one at $q_0$,

914: will be to change the constant of proportionality but not the power in Eq.~\rf{dens0}.

915: 

916: Clearly, a serious limitation of this discussion it that

917: it is limited to a system with a single coordinate and conjugate

918: momentum. As with our closely-related discussion of random matrices,

919: preceding \rfs{ffr}, we expect the result to apply quite generally,

920: provided excitations are localized with a finite localization length

921: at low frequency. In these circumstances, the coordinate $q$ is interpreted

922: as being the relevant degree of freedom for a low-frequency

923: excitation within a localization volume.

924: One of our objectives in Sec.~\ref{discrete} and Sec.~\ref{continuum}

925: is to provide detailed evidence for the more general

926: relevance of \rfs{dens0}.

927: 

928: \section {Discrete 1D Random Field XY model}

929: \label{discrete}

930: 

931: In this section and Sec.\ref{continuum} we study the excitations of the

932: one-dimensional, classical $XY$ spin chain in a random field.

933: This model provides a simple but non-trivial example of a system

934: with bosonic excitations which are not Goldstone modes, and

935: has been discussed previously in Refs.~\onlinecite{AR} and \onlinecite{Fogler}.

936: In what follows we apply the general approach described in Sec.~\ref{bosonic}.

937: First, we set out definitions and write down the

938: Hamiltonian  $\cH$ for small amplitude excitations. Second, we find

939: a local $Q$ which satisfies $\cH=Q^T Q$. As a result, we map our problem

940: onto a well-known one, involving a one-dimensional chiral Hamiltonian.

941: We next review established results for such one-dimensional chiral Hamiltonians,

942: which can be in one of two regimes, depending on the details of their

943: disorder distribution. We use the mapping to obtain $\rho(\omega)$

944: both numerically, and (in Sec.~\ref{continuum}) analytically.

945: 

946: \subsection{Definitions}

947: 

948: The Hamiltonian for the random field $XY$ spin chain is

949: \be \label{ham}

950: H = \oh \sum_{i=1}^N \Pi_i^2 -\sum_i \cos(\phi_i-\phi_{i+1}) - \sum_i h_i \cos(\phi_i-\chi_i)

951: \ee

952: Here $\Pi_i$ are momenta conjugate to the spin angles $\phi_i$,

953: exchange energy is represented by $-\cos(\phi_i - \phi_{i+1})$, and

954: $h_i$ and $\chi_i$ are the amplitude and phase of a

955: random field. It is convenient to introduce the notation

956: $I(\phi)\equiv-\cos(\phi)$ and $h_i(\phi) \equiv - h_i \cos (\phi - \chi_i ) $.

957: 

958: While the kinetic energy is quadratic in the momenta $\Pi_i$, the potential energy

959: %$\sum_i \left[I(\phi_{i}-\phi_{i-1}) +h_i(\phi_i)\right]$

960: is strongly anharmonic in the coordinates $\phi_i$.

961: We want to find the ground state spin configuration $\phi^0_i$

962: and the frequencies of oscillations about that ground state.

963: The ground state configuration satisfies

964: \be

965: \label{minim}\left. \pbyp{H}{\phi_i}\right|_{\phi=\phi^0}

966: %=  \partial_\phi I(\phi_i-\phi_{i-1}) - \partial_\phi I(\phi_{i+1} -

967: %\phi_{i}) +\partial_\phi h_i(\phi_i)

968: = 0\,.

969: \ee

970: Expanding $H$ about $\phi_i^0$ to quadratic order, Eq.~\rf{ham} reduces to

971: an expression of the general form given in Eq.~\rf{osc},

972: and specified by the matrices $C$, $M$ and $K$. In this case, $C=0$ and

973: $M=\openone$. The symmetric matrix of spring constants,

974: $K_{ij}= \left. {\partial^2 H / \partial \phi_i \partial \phi_j}\right|_{\phi=\phi^0}$

975: is tridiagonal, with no-zero entries

976: \be

977: \label{def} K_{ii} = \partial^2_\phi I (\phi^0_i-\phi^0_{i-1}) +

978: \partial^2_\phi I (\phi^0_i - \phi^0_{i+1}) + \partial^2_\phi

979: h_i(\phi_i)

980: \ee

981: and

982: \be

983: \label{def'}

984: K_{i, i+1} = K_{i+1,i}= -\partial_{\phi}^2 I (\phi^0_i-\phi^0_{i+1})\,.

985: \ee

986: As discussed in Sec.~\ref{bosonic}, with $M$, $C$ and $K$ of this form, the

987: excitation frequencies of the system are $\omega_i=\pm \sqrt{\kappa_i}$, where

988: the stiffnesses $\kappa_i$ are the eigenvalues of $K$.

989: Our tasks, then, are the linked ones of determining $\phi_i^0$ and diagonalizing $K$.

990: 

991: \subsection{Mapping onto a chiral problem}

992: Since $K_{ij}$ is a real positive matrix, it can be written as the

993: square of another real matrix $Q$, in the form $K=Q^T Q$. Our strategy is

994: to find $Q$ and then study the related chiral Hamiltonian

995: \begin{equation}

996: \label{chiral} \t \cH = \left( \matrix {0 & Q \cr Q^T & 0}

997: \right)\,.

998: \end{equation}

999: %whose eigenvalues are square roots of the eigenvalues of $K$.

1000: As the frequencies coincide with the square roots of the eigenvalues of $K$, we will

1001: use $\omega$ to denote the eigenvalues of $\t \cH$ in this and the following

1002: section.

1003: %Moreover, for the sake of an analogy with the

1004: %Scr\"odinger equation (see \rfs{Schr} below),

1005: %we will use the notation $E\equiv\omega^2$.

1006: 

1007: Because $K$ is tridiagonal,

1008: the matrix $Q$ can be chosen bidiagonal, with non-zero elements

1009: $Q_{ii} \equiv A_i$ and $ Q_{i,i-1} \equiv -B_{i-1}$

1010: which satisfy

1011: \begin{equation}

1012: \label{square} K_{ii} = A_i^2 + B_{i}^2, \ K_{i,i+1} =

1013: -A_{i+1} B_{i}\,.

1014: \end{equation}

1015: To show this and find $A_i$ and $B_i$, it is helpful to use the idea of a partial

1016: energy, first introduced in this context by Feigelman: \cite{Fei}

1017: $\E_i(\phi_i)$ is defined to be the ground state energy of a subsystem

1018: which consists of sites $j\leq i$, considered as a function of the orientation of the

1019: boundary spin, $\phi_i$. Formally

1020: \begin{equation}

1021: \label{parte} \E_i(\phi_i) = \min_{\phi_j, j<i} \sum_{j<i} \left[

1022: I (\phi_j-\phi_{j+1}) + h_j(\phi_j) \right] + h_i(\phi_i)\,.

1023: \end{equation}

1024: It satisfies the recursion relation

1025: \begin{equation} \label{eqde} \E_i(\phi) = \min_{\psi}\left[ I \left( \phi -

1026: \psi \right) + \E_{i-1}(\psi) \right] + h_i(\phi)\,.

1027: \end{equation}

1028: Now let the value of $\psi$ which results from the minimization in \rfs{eqde}

1029: be $\psi_0(\phi)$, and define $\phi_{i-1}$ as a function of $\phi_i$

1030: by $\phi_{i-1}(\phi_i)\equiv \psi_0(\phi_i)$. With this notation,

1031: the condition that the right side of \rfs{eqde} is at a minimum

1032: takes the form

1033: \begin{equation}

1034: \label{eqla} -\partial_\phi

1035: I(\phi_{i}-\phi_{i-1})+\partial_\phi \E_{i-1}(\phi_{i-1}) =0\,.

1036: \end{equation}

1037: By differentiating Eq.~\rf{eqla} with respect to $\phi_{i}$,

1038: remembering that $\phi_{i-1}$ is a function of $\phi_i$ in the

1039: sense described above, we find

1040: \begin{equation}

1041: \dbyd{\phi_{i-1}}{\phi_i}=\frac{\partial^2_\phi I

1042: (\phi_i-\phi_{i-1})}{ \partial^2_\phi I(\phi_i-\phi_{i-1}) +

1043: \partial^2 \E_{i-1}(\phi_{i-1}) }\,.

1044: \end{equation}

1045: In addition, we differentiate \rf{eqde} twice with respect to

1046: $\phi_{i}$, again remembering that $\phi_{i-1}$ is a function of

1047: $\phi_{i}$, to find

1048: \begin{eqnarray}

1049: \label{landis}

1050: \partial^2_\phi h_i(\phi_i) = \partial^2_\phi \E_i(\phi_i)&& \\ - \partial^2_\phi I

1051: (\phi_i-\phi_{i-1})&& \frac{\partial^2_\phi \E_{i-1}(\phi_{i-1})}

1052: {\partial^2_\phi I(\phi_i-\phi_{i-1}) + \partial^2

1053: \E_{i-1}(\phi_{i-1})}\,\nonumber.

1054: \end{eqnarray}

1055: This allows us to solve Eqns.~\rf{def}, \rf{def'} and \rf{square}, obtaining

1056: \begin{eqnarray}

1057: \label{ch1} A_i^2 = \frac{ \left[

1058: \partial^2_\phi I(\phi^0_i-\phi^0_{i-1}) \right]^2 }

1059: {\partial^2_\phi I(\phi^0_i-\phi^0_{i-1}) + \partial^2_\phi

1060: \E_{i-1} (\phi^0_{i-1})}

1061: \end{eqnarray}

1062: and

1063: \begin{eqnarray}

1064: \label{ch1'}

1065: B_{i}^2 = \partial^2_\phi

1066: I(\phi^0_{i+1}-\phi^0_{i}) + \partial^2_\phi \E_{i}(\phi^0_{i})\,,

1067: \end{eqnarray}

1068: which completes the derivation of $Q$.

1069: 

1070: Let us examine the chiral Hamiltonian $\t \cH$, \rfs{chiral}.

1071: By rearranging its rows and columns it can

1072: be put into the form

1073: \begin{equation}

1074: \label{hopping}

1075: \t \cH = \left( \matrix {0      & B_1   & 0     &  0  &   0  &\dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1076:               B_1   & 0 & A_2   &   0  & 0   &\dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1077:               0     & A_2   & 0     &   B_2 & 0  & \dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1078:                       0          & 0    & B_2   &   0   & A_3  &\dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1079:                       0          & 0    &  0    &  A_3  & 0    & \dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1080: %            0   & 0 & 0 &  0    & B_3  & \dots & 0 & 0 \cr

1081:                       \dots      & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \cr

1082:             0       & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & B_N \cr

1083:             0         & 0   & 0     &  0  & 0 & \dots     & B_{N} & 0 }

1084: \right)

1085: \end{equation}

1086: which is familiar as a one-dimensional tight binding model with only

1087: off-diagonal disorder,\cite{Eggarter,Brouwer} and is also referred to as

1088: a random chiral one-dimensional Hamiltonian.

1089: 

1090: \subsection{Established results for one-dimensional chiral problems

1091: and implications for $XY$ model}

1092: \label{chiral-properties}

1093: 

1094: There has been extensive previous work on one dimensional models of the type represented by Eq~\rf{hopping},

1095: with disorder in the $A_i$ and $B_i$ which is uncorrelated

1096: and chosen to have a simple, known distribution. The results serve as a

1097: guide for our calculations, and we summarise them here. Parameterise the matrix elements $A_i$ and $B_i$ as

1098: \be

1099: A_i = 1 + a + \delta A_i, \ B_i = 1 - a + \delta B_i

1100: \ee

1101: and take $\delta A_i$ and $\delta B_i$ to be independent Gaussian random

1102: variables with zero mean and standard deviation $\sigma$. Behavior at small $\omega$

1103: is very different according to whether or not  $a$ is zero.

1104: 

1105: For $a=0$ and $\omega \ll \sigma$, the density of states has a singularity\cite{Eggarter} at $\omega=0$

1106: of a type first obtained in a related problem by Dyson,

1107: \begin{equation}

1108: \label{dyson} \rho(\omega) \propto {1 \over \omega \left| \log^3 \omega

1109: \right| }\,,

1110: \end{equation}

1111: and the localization length of these states diverges for $\omega \to 0$ as

1112: \be \label{dysonloc} \xi(\omega) = |\log(\omega)|\,. \ee

1113: 

1114: By contrast, for $a \not =0$ (sometimes referred to as the staggered regime \cite{Brouwer})

1115: the density of states varies as\cite{OE}

1116: \begin{equation}

1117: \label{power} \rho(\omega) \propto \omega^\beta, \ \omega \ll a,

1118: \end{equation}

1119: with a power $\beta$ that depends on $a$ and $\sigma$.

1120: The localization length is finite in the small $\omega$ limit, and varies for small $a$ as

1121: $\xi \propto |a|^{-1}$.

1122: 

1123: 

1124: While the $A_i$ and $B_i$ which arise in our treatment of the $XY$ model have specific correlations not

1125: present in the chiral problems studied previously, some comparisons are useful. In particular, considering for

1126: simplicity weak disorder, $h_i \ll 1$, the system arising from the $XY$ model turns out to be

1127: in the staggered regime. To see this, note that for weak disorder, $|\phi^0_i- \phi^0_{i-1}| \ll

1128: 1$, so that $\partial^2_\phi I(\phi^0_i-\phi^0_{i-1}) \simeq 1 $,

1129: \begin{equation}

1130: A_i \approx 1 - \oh

1131: \partial^2_\phi \E_{i-1} (\phi^0_{i-1}), \ B_i \approx 1 + \oh

1132: \partial^2_\phi \E_i(\phi^0_i)

1133: \end{equation}

1134: and hence  $a = \langle{\partial^2_\phi \E}\rangle/2$.

1135: We argue in Sec.~\ref{continuum} that  $\langle{\partial^2_\phi\E}\rangle>0$.

1136: We therefore expect low frequency states to be localized with localization length

1137: $\xi \propto \langle{\partial^2_\phi \E}\rangle^{-1}$, and with a power law density,

1138: as in Eq.~\rf{power}. Quite separately, if states are localized, the assumptions that led

1139: to result $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$ in Sec.~\ref{examples} are justified,

1140: and so we expect the exponent $\beta=4$. We postpone further analytical work to

1141: Sec.~\ref{continuum}, and first treat the problem numerically.

1142: 

1143: \subsection{Numerical study of the one-dimensional random field $XY$ model}

1144: 

1145: Our numerical procedure involves several steps. First, for a system of length $L$,

1146: we construct the function $\E_i(\phi)$ for each $i$ by iterating \rfs{eqde}

1147: from $i=1$ to $i=L$. Then we determine $\phi^0_i$, iterating from $i=L$ to $i=1$ and using

1148: the fact that for each $\phi^0_i$, $\phi^0_{i-1}$ minimises the right-hand side of \rfs{eqde}.

1149: Knowing the ground state spin configuration, we compute the matrix elements appearing in the

1150: chiral Hamiltonian \rfs{hopping}, using Eqns.~\rf{ch1} and \rf{ch1'}. Finally, we employ the transfer matrix

1151: technique developed specifically for such Hamiltonians in Ref.~\onlinecite{Eggarter}

1152: to find the integrated density of states. For the random

1153: field we choose a uniform distribution of $\left[h_i\cos(\chi_i),h_i\sin(\chi_i)\right]$

1154: over a disc of radius $D$, independently for each $i$. We find that it is sufficient

1155: for each disorder strength $D$ to study a single realization in a system of length $L=10^6$.

1156: 

1157: %

1158: %

1159: %

1160: 

1161: 

1162: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1163: %\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{plot1.eps}

1164: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.0in \epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{plot1f.eps}

1165: } \caption{The integrated density $N(\omega)$ plotted as a

1166: function of frequency $\omega$ using logarithmic scales. Dashed,

1167: dotted and dot-dashed lines represent disorder strengths $D= 0.3$,

1168: 0.1 and 0.01, respectively. For all three cases, the integrated

1169: density converges at large $\omega$ to that of the disorder-free

1170: system, represented by the full line which has gradient 1.}

1171: \end{figure}

1172: %

1173: 

1174: Our results for the integrated density of stiffnesses, $N(\omega) = \int_0^{\omega} d\omega' \rho(\omega')$, \

1175: are shown in Fig 1. Behavior at large $\omega$ approaches that in the disorder-free system, as indicated.

1176: At small $\omega$ we expect the power law

1177: \be

1178: N(\omega) \propto \omega^{{(\beta+1)}}\,.

1179: \ee

1180: This form and also the value $\beta=4$ are both  already apparent in

1181: Fig 1,

1182: as was also the case, at lower precision, in earlier numerical results of Fogler\cite{Fogler} for

1183: much shorter chains.

1184: It is more instructive, however,

1185: to observe that for a power-law density, dimensional analysis fixes the dependence on disorder strength $D$

1186: to be $\rho(\omega) \propto D^{-2 \beta/3} \omega^\beta$.

1187: In Fig. 2 we plot $D^{8/3} N(\omega)$ as a function of $\omega$, showing collapse

1188: of data at small $\omega$ for three different disorder strengths, and power-law

1189: behavior with $\beta=4$.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1193: %\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{plot1.eps}

1194: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.0in \epsfxsize=3.0in \epsfbox{plot2f.eps}

1195: } \caption{$D^{8 /3} N(\omega)$ vs $\omega$, for disorder strength

1196: $D=0.3$, 0.1 and 0.01, shown with dashed, dotted and dash-dotted

1197: lines, respectively. The straight line has a slope $(\beta+1)=5$.}

1198: \end{figure}

1199: 

1200: 

1201: 

1202: We conclude that, while the exponent $\beta$ appearing in the density of states

1203: is, for a generic chiral problem, disorder-dependent and hence non-universal, the

1204: particular disorder generated in the mapping from the random spin chain, following

1205: Eqns.~\rf{eqde}, \rf{ch1} and \rf{ch1'}, has a specific distribution and the correlations

1206: necessary to produce a universal density of states, $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$.

1207: In the next section we present the analytic derivation of this result.

1208: 

1209: 

1210: 

1211: 

1212: %

1213: %

1214: %

1215: %

1216: 

1217: 

1218: 

1219: 

1220: 

1221: 

1222: 

1223: 

1224: 

1225: 

1226: \section{Analytic treatment of the random field $XY$ model in the continuum limit}

1227: \label{continuum}

1228: 

1229: In this section we continue our examination of excitations in the one-dimensional random field

1230: $XY$ model, using the continuum limit to make analytic progress. We find

1231: both the localization length as a function of disorder strength and

1232: the density of states as a function of frequency, confirming heuristic arguments

1233: and numerical results given above.

1234: 

1235: \subsection{Mapping to a chiral problem}

1236: The continuum limit of the random field $XY$ spin chain is reached at

1237: weak disorder, $h_i\ll 1$. In this limit it is

1238: possible to replace the discrete index $i$ with  a continuous variable $x$, and the Hamiltonian

1239: of Eq.~\rf{ham} becomes

1240: \begin{equation}

1241: \label{ham1} H = \int dx \, \left[ \oh \Pi^2 + \oh \left(

1242: \partial_x \phi \right) + h (\phi(x),x) \right]\,,

1243: \end{equation}

1244: with $h(\phi(x),x) = - h(x) \cos \left( \phi(x) - \chi(x) \right)$.

1245: As in the discrete case, we are interested in the

1246: configuration of spins $\phi_0(x)$ that minimizes the potential

1247: energy. This configuration satisfies

1248: \begin{equation}

1249: \label{mimimi} -\partial^2_x \phi_0 (x) + \partial_\phi

1250: h(\phi_0(x),x) =0

1251: \end{equation}

1252: and the amplitudes of normal mode excitations about the

1253: ground-state $\phi_0$ obey

1254: \begin{equation} \label{Schr} \left[ -

1255: \partial^2_x + \partial^2_\phi h(\phi_0(x),x) \right] \psi = \omega^2

1256: \psi\,.

1257: \end{equation}

1258: Just as in the discrete case, because this equation describes deviations

1259: from a minimum, all normal modes have positive stiffness $\kappa = \omega^2$. As a result, the

1260: operator appearing in Eq.~\rf{Schr} can be written as a square. We set

1261: \begin{equation}\label{chi3}

1262: \left[ - \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \partial^2_\phi h(\phi_0(x),x) \right] =

1263: %\left[ \dd{x} + V(x) \right] \left[-\dd{x} + V(x) \right] \equiv

1264: Q^T Q\,,

1265: \ee

1266: where $Q=-d/dx +V(x)$. In other words, we require a function $V(x)$,

1267: which we term the chiral potential, that satisfies

1268: \be

1269: \label{chidef}

1270: \dbyd{V(x)}{x} + V^2(x) = \partial^2_\phi h(\phi_0(x),x)\,.

1271: \end{equation}

1272: 

1273: In order to understand properties of the chiral potential,

1274: it is useful to introduce $\E(\phi,x)$, a continuum

1275: version of the partial energy,\cite{Fei} defined following Eq.~\rf{parte} by

1276: \begin{equation}

1277: \label{partec} \E(\varphi,x) = \min_{\phi(x)=\varphi} \int_0^x dy

1278: \,\left[ (\partial_y \phi)^2 + h(\phi(y),y)\right]\,.

1279: \end{equation}

1280: Similarly, the continuum version of Eq.~\rf{eqde} is

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: \label{KPZ}

1283: \partial_x \E + \oh \left( \partial_\phi \E \right)^2 = h(\phi,x)\,,

1284: \end{equation}

1285: which can be thought of as a Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the

1286: action $\E$ of a particle with coordinate $\phi$ moving as a function of time $x$

1287: in the time-dependent potential $h(\phi(x),x)$. In addition, the continuum

1288: version of Eq.~\rf{eqla} relates the ground state configuration to this action, via

1289: \begin{equation}

1290: \label{velo} \dbyd{\phi_0(x)}{x} = \partial_\phi \E (\phi_0(x),x)\,.

1291: \end{equation}

1292: It is easy to check that by writing

1293: \begin{equation}

1294: \label{partialE}

1295: V(x) \equiv \partial^2_\phi \E(\phi_0(x),x)

1296: \end{equation}

1297: we solve Eq.~\rf{chidef}. Thus the chiral potential $V(x)$ may be expressed simply in

1298: terms of the dependence of the ground state energy of a half-system on the boundary spin, $\phi(x)$:

1299: the half-system has coordinate $y$ taking values in the range $0\leq y \leq x$.

1300: With $V(x)$ in hand, we wish to study the continuum

1301: version of Eq.~\rf{hopping}: the chiral operator

1302: \begin{equation}

1303: \label{chi2} \t \cH =\left( \matrix {0 & Q \cr Q^T & 0 } \right) =

1304: \left( \matrix { 0 & -\dd{x}+V(x) \cr \dd{x} +V(x) & 0 }\right)\,,

1305: \end{equation}

1306: which has eigenvalues $\pm \omega$ that are the square roots of those

1307: appearing in Eq.~\rf{Schr}.

1308: 

1309: \subsection{Treatment of one-dimensional chiral problems}

1310: \label{treatment}

1311: 

1312: As with the lattice version, discussed in Sec.\ref{chiral-properties},

1313: the spectral properties of $\t \cH$, Eq.~\rf{chi2}, have been studied extensively with

1314: simple choices for the probability distribution of $V(x)$. Behavior is as summarised

1315: for the lattice version in Sec.\ref{chiral-properties}; a particularly detailed study

1316: is given in Ref.~\onlinecite{Comtet}. Here, for completeness we sketch the derivation

1317: of the result that is of most importance for our work: the density of states at low frequency

1318: in the staggered regime, where $\langle V(x)\rangle >0$

1319: for the continuum system plays the same role as

1320: $a>0$ for the lattice model.

1321: 

1322: Following Ref.~\onlinecite{Comtet}, consider the coupled first-order differential

1323: equations

1324: \begin{equation}

1325: \label{shr1D} \left( \matrix { 0 &- \dd{x} +V(x) \cr  \dd{x} +V(x)

1326: & 0} \right) \left( \matrix{ \psi_1(x) \cr \psi_2(x) } \right) =

1327: \omega \left( \matrix{ \psi_1(x) \cr \psi_2(x) } \right)

1328: \end{equation}

1329: for $x>0$, with boundary conditions $\psi_1(0)=0$, $\psi_2(0)=1$.

1330: From the node counting theorem, the integrated density of states

1331: is given by the density of zeros of $\psi_1(x)$ per unit length.

1332: Introducing the parametrization $\psi_1(x)=\rho(x) \sin

1333: \theta(x), \psi_2(x) = \rho(x) \cos \theta(x)$, one has

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: \label{lang} \dbyd{\theta(x)}{x} = \omega - V(x) \sin \left( 2 \theta(x)

1336: \right)\,.

1337: \end{equation}

1338: Thus we require the average rate of increase in phase with length,  $d\theta(x)/dx$. To find this at small $\omega$,

1339: note that, by assumption, $V(x)$ is mainly positive, and for positive $V(x)$ Eq.~\rf{lang}

1340: has stable fixed points close to $\theta = n \pi$, with $n$ integer.

1341: Rare fluctuations of $V(x)$ which are negative for a long interval in $x$

1342: allow $\theta(x)$ to grow, evolving with increasing $x$ from one such fixed point to the next.

1343: Suppose $\theta(x)$ leaves the vicinity of one fixed point at $x=x_1$

1344: and arrives in the vicinity of the next at $x=x_2$. For $x_1 < x < x_2$

1345: we neglect $\omega$ in Eq.~\rf{lang} and obtain

1346: %\rfs{lang} in that interval by

1347: %\begin{equation}

1348: %\dbyd{\theta}{x} = - V(x) \sin \left( 2 \theta \right)\,.

1349: %\end{equation}

1350: %The solution to that reads

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: \label{detin} \int { d\theta \over  \sin \left(2 \theta \right)} =

1353: - \int dx~V(x)\,.

1354: \end{equation}

1355: We estimate the integral on the left hand side by noting that the

1356: most important contribution comes from the end points, where

1357: $\theta(x_1) \approx n\pi $, $\theta(x_2) \approx (n+1) \pi $ and

1358: $\sin\left( 2 \theta \right) \sim \omega$. For $\theta$ to increase by $\pi$

1359: we therefore require a fluctuation in $V(x)$ which is sufficiently

1360: negative and extends over a sufficiently large interval in $x$ that

1361: \begin{equation}

1362: \label{fluc} \log \left(\omega\right) > \int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx~

1363: V(x)\,.

1364: \end{equation}

1365: Let $P(\omega)$ be the probability per unit length for such a fluctuation to occur:

1366: the integrated density of states, $\int_0^{\omega}\rho(\omega)d\omega$, is simply $P(\omega)$.

1367: It is natural to expect this probability to be exponentially small in $\log(\omega)$

1368: for small $\omega$, so that, introducing a constant $\alpha$,

1369: \be

1370: \label{P}

1371: P(\omega)\sim \exp(\alpha \log(\omega)) = \omega^\alpha

1372: \ee

1373: and hence

1374: \be

1375: \rho(\omega) \sim \omega^\beta

1376: \ee

1377: with $\beta= \alpha -1$. From an extension of this approach,

1378: one also finds\cite{Comtet} that the localisation length $\xi$

1379: at low frequency varies with the staggering $\langle V(x) \rangle$ as

1380: $\xi \sim \langle V(x) \rangle^{-1}$.

1381: 

1382: 

1383: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1384: 

1385: \subsection{Calculation of the density of states}

1386: \label{density-of-states}

1387: 

1388: A central difficulty of our problem, of course, is that $V(x)$ does not have a simple, given distribution.

1389: Instead, it should be determined by solving \rfs{chidef}, or calculated from the partial energy

1390: using \rfs{partialE}, after in either case first finding the ground

1391: state configuration $\phi_0(x)$, using \rfs{mimimi} or \rfs{velo}.

1392: Our detailed calculations are based on Eqns.~\rf{chidef} and \rf{mimimi}.

1393: Before presenting these calculations, it is useful to develop some qualitative

1394: understanding by an alternative route, using the partial energy, $\E(x,\phi)$,

1395: and its connection to Burgers turbulence.

1396: %What follows is a detailed version of arguments which appeared in outline in Ref.~\onlinecite{GC}.

1397: 

1398: The evolution of $\E(x,\phi)$ with $x$ is described by Eq.~\rf{KPZ}, which is similar in form

1399: to the much-studied KPZ equation.\cite{KPZ} In this correspondence, $x$ and $\phi$ play the roles of

1400: time and space coordinates, respectively. The stochastic KPZ equation, however, which reads

1401: \begin{equation}

1402: \label{KPZD}

1403: \partial_x \E + \oh \left( \partial_\phi \E \right)^2 - D \partial^2_\phi \E= h(\phi,x)\,,

1404: \end{equation}

1405: differs from \rfs{KPZ} in two respects. One is in the absence of the dissipation term, with coefficient $D$;

1406: the other is in the correlations of the force, $h(\phi,x)$. The absence of

1407: dissipation is of limited importance, because the relationship between the solutions of

1408: \rfs{KPZD} in the small $D$ limit and those of \rfs{KPZ} is well-understood: while \rfs{KPZ}

1409: generally has solutions with many branches, corresponding to local

1410: minima in the energy of the spin chain, by taking the solution of \rfs{KPZD} for $D\to 0$

1411: one finds the envelope of absolute ground states as a function of the boundary spin $\phi(x)$.

1412: For this reason, it is rather natural to study \rfs{KPZD} in our context.

1413: 

1414: By contrast, the nature of force correlations is more significant: while in standard form

1415: the KPZ equation has a random force $h(\phi,x)$ that is white noise in both $x$ and $\phi$,

1416: our interest lies with correlations that are long-ranged in $\phi$, and have the form

1417: \begin{equation} \label{forcecorr}

1418: \VEV{h(\phi_1,x_1) h(\phi_2,x_2)} = \t h \cos(\phi_1-\phi_2)

1419: \delta(x_1-x_2)\,.

1420: \end{equation}

1421: Such correlations have been studied previously, in the context of Burgers turbulence.

1422: where the Burgers equation, \rfs{Burgers}, (equivalent to \rfs{KPZD} with $D\to 0$) together with

1423: the correlator \rfs{forcecorr}, describes motion of a one-dimensional

1424: fluid.

1425: 

1426: In this analogy, we view $\phi(x)$ as the coordinate of a particle

1427: as a function of time, $x$, and interpret Eq.~\rf{mimimi} as the equation of motion for the particle.

1428: Imagine a fluid of such particles, without pressure and stirred randomly

1429: with force correlations derived from \rfs{forcecorr}.  Let $u(\phi,x) = d\phi/dx$ be the velocity,

1430: which satisfies the Burgers equation

1431: \begin{equation}

1432: \label{Burgers}

1433: \partial_x u + u \, \partial_\phi u = \partial_\phi h(\phi,x)\,,

1434: \end{equation}

1435: where comparison with Eq.~\rf{KPZ} shows that  $u=\partial_\phi

1436: \E$. The chiral potential is therefore given by $V(x) = \partial_\phi u(\phi_0(x),x)$, the velocity gradient

1437: in a one-dimensional fluid flowing in a time-dependent potential

1438: $h(\phi,x)$, calculated at a point that moves with the

1439: fluid.

1440: 

1441: From literature on the Burgers equation (see Refs.~\onlinecite{Burgers,Pol,Sinai}),

1442: or alternatively by thinking about the ground state of a spin chain as the boundary

1443: spin $\phi(x)$ is varied,\cite{Fogler} one arrives at the following picture for $\E(\phi,x)$.

1444: As a function of $\phi$ it typically consists of a few piecewise smooth sections,

1445: which meet at cusps that are local maxima of $\E(\phi,x)$. These cusps in $\E(\phi,x)$ are

1446: negative discontinuities

1447: or {\it shocks} of the Burgers velocity field, $u(\phi,x)$, at which

1448: \be

1449: \label{shockwaves}

1450: \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \left[u(\phi+\epsilon,x) - u(\phi,x)\right] < 0\,.

1451: \ee

1452: They occur at the points where the ground-state spin configuration of the half-chain changes

1453: discontinuously as $\phi$ varies. With increasing system length $x$, they undergo an evolution

1454: in which existing cusps merge and new cusps are born, at matching average rates.

1455: If the trajectory of a particle moving with the Burgers fluid should meet a shock,

1456: the particle remains trapped by the shock for all subsequent $x$. From these statements

1457: it is clear that (for almost all boundary conditions $\phi(L)$) the ground

1458: state trajectory $\phi_0(x)$ does not intersect any shocks. As a next step,

1459: from this we expect that $\langle \partial^2_{\phi}\E(\phi_0(x),x)\rangle > 0$,

1460: on the basis that, first, an average of $\partial^2_{\phi}\E(\phi,x)\equiv \partial_\phi u(\phi,x)$

1461: over $\it all$ $\phi$ must be zero, since $u(\phi,x)$ is periodic in $\phi$, while, second,

1462: an average restricted to $\phi_0$ avoids negative discontinuities of $u(\phi,x)$.

1463: Finally, returning to excitations of the spin chain viewed as a chiral problem,

1464: we conclude that this is in the staggered regime and expect a finite

1465: localization length $\xi \sim \langle

1466: \partial^2_{\phi}\E(\phi_0(x),x)\rangle > 0$;

1467: from dimensional analysis, we expect $\xi \sim {\t h}^{-1/3}$.

1468: 

1469: Two weaknesses of the argument we have given are clear: first, a

1470: more detailed treatment of averages over ground states $\phi_0(x)$ would be desirable;

1471: and second, it is not certain that behavior known for chiral problems with

1472: disorder uncorrelated in $x$ will necessarily be present in our system,

1473: with correlations of $V(x)$ determined from ground-state properties.

1474: Nevertheless, results of the detailed calculations below are

1475: consistent with the foregoing conclusions.

1476: 

1477: To make further progress, we need to study statistical properties of $V(x)$.

1478: We find that a direct attack on this problem using the boundary conditions that are physically

1479: appropriate (in which the values of $\phi_0(x)$ are specified at $x=0$ and $x=L$)

1480: is too difficult mathematically. Instead, we approach it indirectly, by relating it

1481: to a version of the problem with simpler boundary

1482: conditions, in which $\phi_0(x)$ and $\partial_x\phi_0(x)$  are specified at $x=0$.

1483: With the latter boundary conditions, we solve jointly \rfs{mimimi} for $\phi_0(x)$

1484: and \rfs{chidef} for $V(x)$. To discuss the connection

1485: between the two alternative sets of boundary conditions,

1486: consider \rfs{chidef} with an arbitrary forcing term, written as $f(x)$:

1487: \be \label{langev}

1488: \dbyd{V(x)}{x} +

1489: V^2(x) = f(x)\,.

1490: \ee

1491: This equation should be integrated from $x=0$ towards $x=L$, with initial condition $V(x)\to \infty$ for

1492: $x \to 0$ since this is the behavior of $\partial_\phi^2\E(\phi_0(x),x)$ at small $x$

1493: and $V(x)$ is related to the partial energy by \rfs{partialE}. Crucially, \rfs{langev}

1494: is unstable in the sense that, if $V(x)$ reaches sufficiently large negative values

1495: for $V^2(x)$ to dominate over $f(x)$, the solution escapes to towards $V(x) = - \infty$,

1496: with the form $V(x) \propto (x-x_0)^{-1}$ as $x$ approaches $x_0$, the position of the instability, from below.

1497: If such an instability is reached, it signals the fact that the trajectory $\phi_0(x)$

1498: no longer represents the absolute ground state of the spin chain but is instead a local maximum

1499: in the energy as a functional of configuration. If the forcing term is derived from the

1500: ground state configuration using $f(x)=\partial^2_{\phi}h(\phi_0(x),x)$, it will have correlations

1501: that ensure this instability is never reached. But if we treat \rfs{langev} as

1502: a Markov process in the way we set out below, some realizations will prove unstable

1503: in this sense. Such trajectories should be discarded, and this can be arranged by

1504: supplementing \rfs{langev} with absorbing boundary conditions at $V(x) = - \infty$.

1505: The surviving trajectories must be weighted in order to sample ground states appropriately,

1506: and we return to this aspect in due course.

1507: 

1508: First we check that, specifying $\phi_0(x)$ and $\partial_x\phi_0(x)$ at $x=0$

1509: and integrating Eqns.~\rf{mimimi} and \rf{chidef} together, we indeed have a Markov process.

1510: This is seen most clearly by returning to the discrete equations, taking

1511: \rfs{landis} in place of \rfs{chidef} and setting  $\partial^2_\phi I \approx 1$

1512: to obtain

1513: \begin{equation}

1514: V_i = {V_{i-1} \over 1+V_{i-1}} + \d^2_{\phi}h_i (\phi_i)\,.

1515: \end{equation}

1516: Similarly, in place of \rfs{velo}, \rfs{eqla} can be written as

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: \phi_i = \phi_{i-1} + \d_\phi \E_{i-1}(\phi_{i-1})\,.

1519: \end{equation}

1520: It is now clear that, since $\phi_i$ is determined by $h_j$ for $j<i$, it is independent of

1521: the function $h_i(\phi)$. Moreover, by construction, each $h_j(\phi)$ is an independent

1522: random function. Returning to the continuum limit and noting the correlator for

1523: $h(\phi,x)$ given in \rfs{forcecorr}, we see that in \rfs{langev} we should take

1524: $f(x)$ Gaussian distributed, with zero mean and correlator

1525: \begin{equation}

1526: \langle {f(x) f(y)} \rangle = \t h \delta(x-y).

1527: \end{equation}

1528: 

1529: In light of the discussion given in Sec.~\ref{treatment}, our next step is to

1530: find the probability of an unusually large negative fluctuation in $V(x)$, integrated

1531: over an interval of length $l=x_2 - x_1$.

1532: To this end, it is helpful first to define $S(\alpha)$ by the equation

1533: \be \label{defi}

1534: \VEV{ \exp \left( -\alpha \int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx~V(x) \right)} = \exp \left(

1535: - l S(\alpha) \right)

1536: \ee

1537: where the angular brackets indicate averaging over $V$, and we will find that $S(\alpha)$ is

1538: independent of $l$ when $l$ is large.

1539: We denote this probability (which appeared previously in \rfs{P}) by $P_0(\omega)$ below,

1540: and calculate it using

1541: \be

1542: P_0(\omega) = \max_{l} \int_{-i \infty}^{i\infty} d\alpha\,

1543: \exp\left(-lS(\alpha) + \alpha \log(\omega) \right)\,.

1544: \ee

1545: At small $\omega$ we can approximate the integral by its value at the saddle-point, determined from

1546: \be

1547: -l \pbyp{S}{\alpha} + \log(\omega) =0\,.

1548: \ee

1549: In turn, the maximization on $l$

1550: (remembering that the value of $\alpha$ at the saddle-point is itself a function of $l$) gives

1551: \begin{equation}\label{sadeq}

1552: S(\alpha) = 0.

1553: \end{equation}

1554: Therefore

1555: \begin{equation} P_0(\omega) \propto  \omega^{\alpha_0},

1556: \end{equation}

1557: where $\alpha_0$ is the solution to the Eq.~\rf{sadeq}.

1558: 

1559: Now we must compute $S(\alpha)$.

1560: A convenient method is to derive from the Langevin equation \rfs{langev} a Fokker-Planck equation,

1561: make a similarity transformation of the latter to obtain a Schr\"odinger equation,

1562: %(in which $x$ plays the role of imaginary time and $V(x)$ the role of a coordinate),

1563: and express this as a path integral. The absorbing boundary

1564: condition at $V=-\infty$ is built in automatically in this approach.

1565: These methods are described, for example in Ref.~\onlinecite{ZinnJustin}.

1566: In this way we find

1567: \begin{widetext}

1568: \begin{equation}

1569: \label{msr} \exp\left( - l S(\alpha) \right) = { \int {\cal D} V

1570: \exp \left[ - \int_0^l dx~\left\{ {1 \over 2 \t h} \left(

1571: \left(\dbyd{V}{x} \right)^2 + V^4  \right) - V \left(1 - \alpha

1572: \right) \right\} \right] \over \int {\cal D} V \exp \left[ -

1573: \int_0^l dx~\left\{ {1 \over 2 \t h} \left( \left(\dbyd{V}{x}

1574: \right)^2 + V^4 \right) - V \right\} \right] }.

1575: \end{equation}

1576: \end{widetext}

1577: The path integrals in this expression are propagators in imaginary

1578: time $x$ for a particle moving with coordinate $V(x)$ in a polynomial potential, which is $V^4 -V(1-\alpha)$

1579: in the case of the numerator and $V^4-V$ in the case of the denominator. For large $l$, both path integrals are

1580: dominated by ground-state contributions, justifying the $l$-dependence displayed in \rfs{defi}.

1581: In this limit, moreover, $S(\alpha)$ is given by the difference in ground-state energies

1582: for the two potentials. It is clear  that $S(\alpha)=S(2-\alpha)$ and that $S(0)=0$.

1583: Hence $\alpha_0=2$ and

1584: \begin{equation}

1585: P_0(\omega) \propto \omega^2.

1586: \end{equation}

1587: It is incidentally also apparent that $\langle V \rangle >0$, confirming our earlier argument that

1588: the chiral description of spin-chain excitations is in the staggered regime.

1589: 

1590: To complete our calculation of the density of excitations in frequency, a further step

1591: is necessary. We have so far considered spin configurations $\phi_0(x)$ that are

1592: generated in the ensemble of disorder realizations using

1593: fixed values for $\phi_0(x)$ and $\partial_x\phi_0(x)$ at $x=0$, and are local

1594: minima of the energy

1595: but not necessarily the absolute minimum.

1596: We should weight these configurations by a factor $P_1(\omega)$, according to the probability that they appear

1597: in an ensemble with physically appropriate boundary conditions, in which $\phi_0(x)$ is

1598: fixed at $x=0$ and $x=L$. In addition, to obtain properties of excitations about the ground state, we

1599: require a further weighting factor $P_2(\omega)$, involving the probability that a configuration

1600: is the absolute minimum in energy. This is in principle a difficult quantity to determine,\cite{note}

1601: because it involves global features of the system, and we content ourselves

1602: with a heuristic approach which is in a similar spirit to our discussion of

1603: an anharmonic oscillator in Sec.~\ref{bosonic-non-goldstone}. Specifically, we discard all

1604: configurations that have a nearby maximum of the energy. In this way we correctly exclude

1605: local minima that are separated from the ground state by the nearby maximum, but we make errors of two kinds.

1606: First, we fail to exclude local minima that have no nearby maximum

1607: and are separated by a large distance in configuration

1608: space from the true ground state: we assume (as in Sec.~\ref{bosonic-non-goldstone}) that excitations

1609: about such local minima have the same statistical properties as those about the true ground state.

1610: Second, we wrongly exclude true ground states that have nearby maxima: we assume that

1611: those ground states which remain are characteristic of the whole set.

1612: We remark finally that if the factor $P_2(\omega)$ is omitted, we obtain an

1613: excitation density averaged over all configurations that are local energy minima.

1614: 

1615: To find the $\omega$-dependence of these two weighting factors, we consider a family of

1616: nearby configurations $\phi(s,x)=\phi_0(x)+\eta(s,x)$ for $x_1\le

1617: x \le x_2$, parameterized by $s$. The corresponding family of chiral potentials is

1618: $V(s,x) = V(x) + W(s,x)$, and we restrict attention to small $\eta(s,x)$ and $W(s,x)$.

1619: The weight $P_1(\omega)$ appears because, in disorder realizations which generate negative fluctuations of

1620: $V(x)$, trajectories of $\phi(s,x)$ as a function of $x$ are compressed by an amount which

1621: increases with the size of the integrated potential fluctuation. It is therefore determined by comparing

1622: $\eta(s,x_2)$ with $\eta(s,x_1)$. The weight $P_2(\omega)$ is determined by finding the

1623: probability for escape of $W(s,x)$ to negative infinity, signaling the occurrence of an energy maximum.

1624: 

1625: We find the evolution of $\eta(s,x)$ and $W(s,x)$ in terms of $V(x)$ by linearizing Eqns. \rf{mimimi} and \rf{chidef}

1626: respectively, obtaining

1627: \begin{equation}

1628: \dbyd{\eta}{x} = V(x) \eta(s,x)

1629: \ee

1630: and

1631: \begin{equation}

1632: \dbyd{W}{x}+ 2 V(x) W(s,x) = \d^3_\phi h(\phi,x) \eta(s,x)\,.

1633: \ee

1634: These equations have the solutions

1635: \begin{equation}

1636: \eta(s,x) = \exp \left[ \int_{x_1}^x dy~V(y) \right] \eta(s,x_1)

1637: \ee

1638: and

1639: \begin{widetext}

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: \label{workW}

1642: W(s,x) = \exp\left({-2 \int_{x_1}^x dy~V(y)}\right) \left( W(s,x_1) +

1643: \eta(s,x_1) \int_{x_1}^{x} dy~

1644: \left[

1645: \exp \left(3 \int_{x_1}^{z} dz~V(z) \right) \d^3_\phi h(\phi_0(y),y) \right] \right).

1646: \ee

1647: \end{widetext}

1648: 

1649: Let us choose the parametrization $s$ in such a way that at $s=0$,

1650: $\eta(s,x_1)=0$ and $V(s,x_1)$ has a minimum. Then for small $s$,

1651: $\eta(s,x_1) \propto s$ and $W(s,x_1) \propto s^2$. We find

1652: $P_1(\omega)$ as follows. For the integrated value of $V(s,x)$

1653: along a trajectory from the family to have a value similar to that

1654: at $s=0$, the integral of $W(s,x_2)$ must not be too large. We

1655: hence select those values of $s$ for which $\int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx

1656: W(s,x) \lesssim 1$. Using \rfs{workW} and that fact that

1657: $\int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx V(0,x) =\log(\omega)$, this requires $|s|

1658: \lesssim \omega$, which in turn implies that $|\eta(s,x_1)|

1659: \lesssim \omega$ and $|\eta(s,x_2)| \lesssim \omega^2$. Since the

1660: physically relevant boundary conditions for the spin chain fix the

1661: value of $\phi(x)$ at $x=L$ (that is, at larger $x$), we weight

1662: configurations uniformly in $\eta(s,x_2)$ and conclude that

1663: $P_1(\omega) \propto \omega^2$. Turning to $P_2(\omega)$, we

1664: require that $W(s,x_2)$ calculated using our linearization should

1665: not be large and negative for any $s$, since otherwise a full

1666: treatment, including non-linearities, would with high probability

1667: result in escape. Minimizing $W(s,x_2)$ with respect to $s$, using

1668: Eq.~\rf{workW}, we require

1669: \begin{equation}

1670: \min_s W(s,x_2)

1671: \propto - \omega^{-2} I^2 \gtrsim -1\,,

1672: \end{equation}

1673: where

1674: \begin{equation} I=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} dx~\left[ \exp \left( 3

1675: \int_{x_1}^x dy~V(y) \right)

1676: \partial^3_\phi h(\phi_0(x),x) \right]\,.

1677: \end{equation}

1678: For small $\omega$ and large $|x_2-x_1|$, $I$ is a random variable whose distribution

1679: is independent of $\omega$, and hence the

1680: probability that $\min_s W(s,x_2) \gtrsim -1$ is $P_2(\omega) \propto \omega$.

1681: 

1682: Combining these results with the form derived for $P_0(\omega)$,

1683: we find an integrated density of states for excitations, averaging over all

1684: local minima of \rfs{ham}, which varies as

1685: \begin{equation}

1686: N(\omega) \propto  P_0(\omega) P_1(\omega) = \omega^4\,,

1687: \end{equation}

1688: while for the global minimum we find

1689: \begin{equation}

1690: N(\omega) \propto P_0(\omega) P_1(\omega) P_2(\omega) = \omega^5\,.

1691: \end{equation}

1692: Hence $\beta=3$ or $\beta=4$, in agreement with Eqs.~\rf{dens01}

1693: and \rf{dens0}. Strikingly, the behavior derived here for the random field $XY$ chain

1694: matches that expected from the simple discussion of an anharmonic oscillator,

1695: given in Sec.~\ref{bosonic-non-goldstone}.

1696: 

1697: 

1698: 

1699: 

1700: 

1701: 

1702: \section{Other systems without Goldstone modes}

1703: \label{heisenberg}

1704: 

1705: In this section we discuss the extent to which the approach we have set out for the

1706: random field $XY$ spin chain can be extended to treat excitations in other models for disordered

1707: systems without a broken continuous symmetry. The $XY$ spin chain has two obvious and important

1708: simplifying features: disorder couples only to one of the dynamical variables ($\phi$ but not $\Pi$),

1709: so that frequencies are simply related to stiffnesses; and the system is one-dimensional.

1710: The calculations we have described involved several steps: mapping to a chiral formulation;

1711: analytic determination of the excitation density in frequency via a study of statistical

1712: properties of disorder within this chiral formulation; and, for an efficient numerical treatment,

1713: the use of a partial energy. As we broaden the range of models under consideration, fewer of these

1714: steps remain possible. We consider, first, a generic one-dimensional continuum system,

1715: with a pair of conjugate dynamical variables at each point and disorder that couples

1716: to both, and second,  a specific example of such a problem, the random field Heisenberg spin chain.

1717: In these cases we find a chiral description and introduce a partial energy, but are not

1718: able to determine statistical properties of the disorder appearing in this description. Instead, we

1719: derive for such problems the general relation between densities of stiffnesses and of excitation

1720: frequencies, suggested from an analysis of random matrix theory in \rfs{ffr} above.

1721: Third, for the random field $XY$ model in two dimensions we show how to introduce a chiral

1722: description, but leave applications of this for future work. For all

1723: these

1724: problems, we expect $\rho(\omega)\propto \omega^4$ at small $\omega$,

1725: on the general grounds discussed in Sec.~\ref{bosonic}.

1726: 

1727: \subsection{Generic one-dimensional problem}

1728: \label{generic}

1729: 

1730: Consider a one-dimensional system with conjugate dynamical variables $\phi_1(x)$ and $\phi_2(x)$,

1731: and the Hamiltonian

1732: \be \label{flat}

1733: H = \int dx~\left[ \oh \left\{ \left(\dbyd{\phi_1}{x}\right)^2 + \left(\dbyd{\phi_2}{x}\right)^2 \right\}

1734:  + h (\phi_1, \phi_2,x) \right]\,.

1735: \ee

1736: We wish to study harmonic excitations about the ground state: for $i=1,2$, let

1737: $\phi^0_i$ be the configuration that minimises the energy, \rfs{flat},

1738: and write $\phi_i = \phi^0_i+\psi_i$. Expanding to quadratic order in $\psi_i$,

1739: \be \label{warmup}

1740: \cH = \left( \matrix { -\partial_x^2 +

1741: \d^2_{\phi_1} h & \d_{\phi_1} \d_{\phi_2}h \cr \d_{\phi_1}

1742: \d_{\phi_2}h & - \d_x^2 + \d^2_{\phi_2} h } \right)\,.

1743: \ee

1744: To write this as $\cH = Q^T Q$ and find $Q$, we essentially repeat the sequence of arguments which led

1745: from \rfs{ham1} to \rfs{chi2}. We introduce a partial energy

1746: $\E(\phi_1, \phi_2, x)$ which satisfies

1747: \be \d_x \E + \oh \left\{

1748: \left( \pbyp{\E}{\phi_1} \right)^2 + \left( \pbyp{\E}{\phi_2}

1749: \right)^2 \right\} = h(\phi_1,\phi_2,x)

1750: \ee

1751: and may be used to find the ground state configuration via the analog

1752: of \rfs{velo},

1753: \be

1754: \dbyd{\phi^0_i}{x} = \d_{\phi_i} E(\phi_1^0, \phi_2^0,x)\,.

1755: %\ \dbyd{\phi^0_2}{x} = \d_{\phi_2} E(\phi_1^0, \phi_2^0,x)

1756: \ee

1757: Then we define a $2\times 2$ matrix version of the chiral potential, via

1758: \begin{equation}

1759: \label{2chv} V_{ij} =

1760: \partial_{\phi_i} \d_{\phi_j} \E(\phi_1^0, \phi_2^0,x)\,.

1761: \end{equation}

1762: It satisfies

1763: \be \dd{x} V_{ij} + \sum_{k=1}^2 V_{ik} V_{kj} = \d_{\phi_i}

1764: \d_{\phi_j} h(\phi_1,\phi_2,x)

1765: \ee

1766: and therefore $Q$ can be chosen to have elements

1767: \be \label{Q}

1768: \ Q_{ij}  = - \dd{x} \delta_{ij} + V_{ij}\,.

1769: \ee

1770: In this way, we have written \rfs{warmup}

1771: as a type of chiral problem, which we term {\it two-channel}

1772: because $V$ is a $2\times2$ matrix.

1773: 

1774: Further analysis can be

1775: divided into two stages. One stage, given $V$, is to find

1776: $d(\kappa)$ and $\rho(\omega)$, as was done for the single-channel problem

1777: in Sec.~\ref{treatment}. The other stage

1778: is to determine the distribution

1779: for $V$, as was done for the single-channel problem in

1780: Sec.~\ref{density-of-states}.

1781: General one-dimensional multichannel chiral problems of the type that

1782: arise in our calculation

1783: of stiffnesses have been studied in Refs.~\onlinecite{Brouwer} and

1784: \onlinecite{Brouwer2}, with $V$ chosen Gaussian distributed and

1785: uncorrelated in $x$. However, as far as we are aware, there has been no

1786: previous work on multichannel chiral problems of the type that

1787: give frequencies. For the two-channel problem,

1788: while we have not been able to make

1789: progress in obtaining the distribution of $V$, we have been able to

1790: find a general relation between

1791: calculations of stiffnesses and frequencies. This

1792: connects $d(\kappa)$ and $\rho(\omega)$ in the way given

1793: by \rfs{ffr}.

1794: We present these arguments next.

1795: 

1796: 

1797: 

1798: \subsection{Two-channel Bosonic Chiral Problems}

1799: 

1800: In this subsection we compare the calculation of

1801: stiffnesses $\kappa\equiv \lambda^2$, determined from the eigenvalue problem

1802: \begin{equation}

1803: \label{2cheqm} \left( \matrix { 0 & -\dd{x} + V \cr \dd{x}+ V^T &

1804: 0 } \right) \left( \matrix {\psi_1 \cr \psi_2} \right) = \lambda

1805: \left( \matrix{ \psi_1 \cr \psi_2} \right)\,,

1806: \end{equation}

1807: with the calculation of frequencies $\omega\equiv \epsilon^2$,

1808: determined from

1809: \begin{equation}

1810: \label{2cheqmb} \left( \matrix { 0 & -\dd{x} + V \cr \dd{x}+ V^T &

1811: 0 } \right) \left( \matrix{ \psi_1 \cr \psi_2} \right) = \epsilon

1812: \left( \matrix{ \psi_1 \cr \sigma_2 \psi_2 } \right)\,.

1813: \end{equation}

1814: We do this following the technique set out for the single-channel

1815: problem after \rfs{shr1D}, and described for multichannel problems

1816: in Ref.~\onlinecite{Brouwer2}. For both stiffnesses and frequencies,

1817: we write

1818: $\psi_1 = a \psi_2$, where $a$ is an $x$-dependent $2 \times 2$ matrix.

1819: The eigenvalue density, $d(\kappa)$ or $\rho(\omega)$,

1820: is then determined from the evolution of $a$ with $x$,

1821: via a node-counting theorem.

1822: The evolution equation for $a$ is, in the case of stiffnesses, from \rfs{2cheqm},

1823: \begin{equation}

1824: \label{langs} \dbyd{a_s}{x} = \lambda \left( \openone + a_s^2\right) -

1825: a_s V - V^T a_s\,,

1826: \end{equation}

1827: and in the case of frequencies, from \rfs{2cheqmb},

1828: \begin{equation}

1829: \label{langf} \dbyd{a_f}{x} = \epsilon \left( \sigma_2 +

1830: a_f^2\right) - a_f V - V^T a_f\,.

1831: \end{equation}

1832: 

1833: These equations are the equivalent for the two-channel problem of

1834: \rfs{lang}

1835: for the single-channel problem.

1836: Following Ref.~\onlinecite{Brouwer2}, the density of states is given

1837: by the rate at which the eigenvalues of $a_s$ or $a_f$ move

1838: with increasing $x$ along the real

1839: axis.

1840: % in close analogy to the analysis of \rfs{lang} presented above.

1841: Our aim is to compare this rate in the two cases, taking $\kappa$

1842: and $\omega$ small, in a way that does not require detailed knowledge

1843: of the distribution of $V$. We assume only that (as for single-channel

1844: problem) $V$ fluctuates about a non-zero mean,

1845: %which we take proportional to the unit matrix

1846: %so that $\langle V \rangle = v\openone$,

1847: and that both

1848: the fluctuations and the mean of $V$ have comparable

1849: importance in the evolution of $a_{s}$ and $a_f$ with $x$.

1850: 

1851: In outline, this evolution is as follows. If

1852: fluctuations in $V$ are omitted, $a_s$ and $a_f$ have stable fixed points

1853: at which both their eigenvalues are small in $\kappa$

1854: and $\omega$ respectively. In both cases, the stable

1855: fixed point has a basin of attraction with a boundary that is reached

1856: when an eigenvalue of $a_s$ or $a_f$ is large and positive

1857: (${\cal O}(\lambda^{-1})$ or ${\cal O}(\epsilon^{-1})$ respectively).

1858: Restoring fluctuations in $V$, with increasing $x$ we find

1859: (partly on the basis of simulations, not presented

1860: here) that $a_s$ or $a_f$ fluctuates in the vicinity of its fixed point for intervals that

1861: are long if $\kappa$ or $\omega$ are small. Each such interval ends

1862: when fluctuations take the matrix to the boundary of the basin of attraction.

1863: One eigenvalue of $a_s$ or $a_f$ then runs off to positive infinity, reappears from

1864: negative infinity and returns to the vicinity of the fixed point.

1865: %signalling a unit increase in the integrated density of states.

1866: This

1867: %evolution gives the integrated density of states

1868: %via a node-counting theorem and

1869: is entirely analogous to the

1870: evolution in the single-channel problem of

1871: $\tan(\theta)$ as $\theta$ increases from $\theta \approx n\pi$ to

1872: $\theta \approx (n+1)\pi$,

1873: which is described in Sec.~\ref{treatment}.

1874: 

1875: To develop the picture further, we consider separately

1876: the regions close to the fixed points, which are different for

1877: $a_s$ and $a_f$, and the region far from the fixed points,

1878: which is essentially the same in both cases.

1879: It is useful to introduce an explicit

1880: coordinate system. We write

1881: \begin{equation}

1882: V=\oh( \openone +\xi_0 \openone + \xi_1 \sigma_1 + \xi_3 \sigma_3)\,,

1883: \end{equation}

1884: where $\xi_0$, $\xi_1$ and $\xi_3$ are random with mean zero, and

1885: $\langle V \rangle$ is taken proportional to the unit matrix,

1886: %for isotropy under rotations in the space of channels,

1887: with a proportionality

1888: constant that can be changed by a rescaling of the length

1889: coordinate $x$. We also set

1890: \begin{equation}

1891: a_{s,f} = s \openone + z_1 \sigma_1 + z_2 \sigma_2 + z_3 \sigma_3\,.

1892: \end{equation}

1893: 

1894: For calculation of stiffnesses using this coordinate system,

1895: one has $z_2=0$ and \rfs{langs} becomes

1896: \bea

1897: \dbyd{z_1}{x} = 2 \lambda s z_1 -z_1 + \xi_0 z_1 +\xi_1 s\,, \br

1898: \dbyd{z_3}{x} = 2 \lambda s z_3 - z_3 + \xi_0 z_3 + \xi_3 s\,, \br

1899: \dbyd{s}{x} = \lambda \left( s^2 +

1900: z_1^2 + z_3^2 \right) +\lambda - s + \xi_0 s + \xi_1 z_1+ \xi_3 z_3\,.

1901: \eea

1902: If fluctuations in $V$ are omitted (by setting $\xi_i=0$ for $i=0,1$ and $3$),

1903: these equations have a stable fixed point at $s \approx \lambda$,

1904: $z_1=z_3=0$. Including fluctuations in $V$, the typical magnitudes of

1905: $s$, $z_1$ and $z_3$ are ${\cal O}(\lambda)$.

1906: 

1907: By contrast, for calculation of frequencies \rfs{langf} gives

1908: \bea \label{a-f}

1909: \dbyd{z_1}{x} = 2 \epsilon s z_1 -  z_1 +\xi_0 z_1 + \xi_1 s\,, \br

1910: \dbyd{z_2}{x} = 2 \epsilon s z_2 + \epsilon-  z_2 + \xi_0 z_2\,, \br

1911: \dbyd{z_3}{x} = 2 \epsilon s z_3 -  z_3 + \xi_0 z_3 + \xi_3 s\,,\br

1912: \dbyd{s}{x} = \epsilon \left( s^2 + z_1^2 + z_2^2 + z_3^2 \right)

1913: -s + \xi_0 s + \xi_1 z_1 + \xi_3 z_3\,.

1914: \eea

1915: In this case, if fluctuations in $V$ are omitted there is a fixed point

1916: at $s\approx \epsilon^3$, $z_2\approx \epsilon$, $z_1=z_3=0$.

1917: Including fluctuations, the typical magnitudes of $s$, $z_1$ and

1918: $z_3$ are ${\cal O}(\epsilon^3)$,

1919: while $z_2$ remains ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$.

1920: 

1921: Now consider escape of $a_s$ or $a_f$ from the vicinity of the

1922: relevant fixed point, which requires $s \gg \lambda$ in the case

1923: of stiffnesses and $s \gg \epsilon^3$ in the case of frequencies.

1924: In these regimes we argue that the evolution equations in the two

1925: instances are essentially equivalent. More specifically, we make

1926: two approximations. First, we take $z_2=0$ in both cases, even

1927: though this is exact only in the first case. We do so because in

1928: the second case it is clear from \rfs{a-f} that $z_2 \sim

1929: \epsilon$ provided $s<(2\epsilon)^{-1}$, and hence that non-zero

1930: $z_2$ has no important effect on the evolution of $z_1$, $z_3$ and

1931: $s$. Second, for $a_s$ or $a_f$ far from its fixed point, we omit

1932: the terms independent of $a_{s}$ or $a_f$ (and small in $\kappa$

1933: or $\omega$) from the right-hand sides of Eqns. \rf{langs} and

1934: \rf{langf}. With these approximations, and making the rescalings

1935: $a=\lambda a_s$ and $a=\epsilon a_f$, the two equations both

1936: become \be \label{asymptotics} \dbyd{a}{t} = a^2 - aV - V^Ta\,.

1937: \ee This stochastic process results in a stationary probability

1938: distribution for $a$ if absorbing boundary conditions are imposed

1939: at infinity and probability flux is injected near $a=0$. In the

1940: stationary state there is an eigenvalue flux along the positive

1941: real axis, with a rate that is determined by the probability

1942: density in a region near $a=0$. The size of this region, and

1943: therefore the probability density within it, follows in each case

1944: from our discussion of the fixed points and their neighborhoods.

1945: Characterizing $a$ by the value of its trace, and combining the

1946: fixed-point coordinates with the rescalings used to arrive at

1947: \rfs{asymptotics}, the value of ${\rm Tr}\, a$ in this region is

1948: ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$ in the first instance and ${\cal

1949: O}(\epsilon^4)$ in the second. From this, we conclude that the

1950: integrated densities of stiffnesses and frequencies are equal for

1951: $\lambda^2 \sim \epsilon^4$. We hence recover from this discussion

1952: of one-dimensional systems the result given in \rfs{ffr}, which

1953: was reached in Sec.~\ref{bosonic} by a very different route.

1954: 

1955: %%%%%%%

1956: 

1957: For completeness, we remark that the derivation presented here

1958: crucially depends on $\VEV{V(x)} \not = 0$, and assumes that

1959: $\xi_0$, $\xi_1$, and $\xi_3$ become comparable to 1 only during

1960: their rare large fluctuations. And indeed, for $\VEV{V(x)}=0$ it

1961: has been conjectured and checked numerically\cite{GAunp} that in

1962: that case $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^{-1/3}$ even though it is

1963: well known\cite{Brouwer2} that $d(\kappa) \propto \log(\kappa)$.

1964: 

1965: %%%%%%%

1966: 

1967: 

1968: 

1969: 

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \subsection{The random field Heisenberg spin chain}

1973: 

1974: The random field Heisenberg spin chain is perhaps the most obvious example

1975: of the generic one-dimensional problems discussed above. The conjugate dynamical variables are,

1976: of course, the two components for displacement of a spin from its orientation in the ground state,

1977: and  phase space is made up of spheres for each point on the chain. The curvature of phase space

1978: is responsible for some changes in formuls derived in Sec.~\ref{generic}, which we now set out.

1979: 

1980: The continuum version of the random field Heisenberg spin chain, parameterizing

1981: spin orientations using the angles $\theta(x)$ and $\phi(x)$, is

1982: \[

1983: \label{Hei}

1984: H = \int dx~\left[\oh \left\{ \left( \dbyd{\theta}{x} \right)^2 + \sin^2\left(\theta \right)

1985: \left( \dbyd{\phi}{x} \right)^2 \right\} + h (\phi, \theta, x) \right]\,.

1986: \]

1987: The evolution equation for the partial energy is

1988: \[

1989: \label{2DKPZ}

1990: \pbyp{\E}{x} + \oh \left\{ \left( \pbyp{\E}{\theta} \right)^2 + {1 \over

1991: \sin^2(\theta)} \left(

1992: \pbyp{\E}{\phi} \right)^2 \right\} = h(\phi,\theta,x)

1993: \]

1994: and, given $\E$, the ground state configuration can be calculated using

1995: \[

1996: \dbyd{\phi_0}{x} = {1 \over \sin^2(\theta)} \d_{\phi} \E, \ \

1997: \dbyd{\theta_0}{x} = \d_\theta \E\,.

1998: \]

1999: Introducing coordinates for deviations from the ground-state configuration,

2000: $\theta = \theta_0 + \psi_\theta$ and $\phi = \phi_0+\psi_\phi$, we take as canonical variables

2001: $\psi_\theta$  and $\psi_\phi \sin \left( \theta_0 \right)$. The quadratic Hamiltonian

2002: can be written $\cH = Q^TQ$, with $Q$ given by \rfs{Q} in terms of the $2 \times 2$ matrix $V$,

2003: which can be computed from $\E$ using

2004: \[

2005: \label{Qhei}

2006: V = \left[ \matrix {  \cot(\theta_0)

2007: + {1\over \sin^2(\theta_0)} \partial^2_\phi \E &

2008: {1 \over \sin^2(\theta_0) } \partial_\theta

2009: \partial_\phi \E  -2 {\cos(\theta_0) \over \sin^3(\theta_0) } \partial_\phi \E

2010: \cr

2011: {1 \over \sin(\theta_0)}

2012: \partial_\phi \partial_\theta \E &  \partial^2_\theta \E } \right]\,.

2013: \]

2014: This formalism would provide the starting point for a treatment of the

2015: one-dimensional random field Heisenberg model similar to that presented for the

2016: $XY$ model in Sec.~\ref{discrete}.

2017: 

2018: \subsection{Two-dimensional random field $XY$ model}

2019: 

2020: The two-dimensional random field $XY$ model provides an example for which

2021: our formulation of excitation problems using chiral Hamiltonians

2022: can be carried through in more than one dimension. The two-dimensional version of \rfs{ham1} is

2023: \[

2024: K = \int  \left\{\oh \left[\Pi^2+ \left( \partial_x \phi \right)^2 + \left( \partial_y \phi \right)^2

2025: \right] + h(\phi,x,y) \right\}dx dy

2026: \]

2027: and the ground state $\phi_0$ satisfies

2028: \be

2029: \label{eqm}

2030: -\left[\frac{\partial^2} {\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2} {\partial y^2} \right]

2031: \phi_0 + \partial_\phi h(\phi_0,x,y) = 0\,.

2032: \ee

2033: The amplitudes of normal mode excitations obey

2034: \be

2035: \label{Schr2D}

2036: \left[ - \frac{\partial^2} {\partial x^2}

2037: - \frac{\partial^2} {\partial y^2} + \partial^2_\phi h(\phi,x,y) \right] \psi = E \psi\,.

2038: \ee

2039: We introduce a chiral potential $V(x,y)$, defined as the solution to

2040: \be\label{2dV}

2041: \partial^2_x V + (\partial_x V)^2 + \partial^2_y V + (\partial_y V)^2 = \partial_{\phi}^2 h(\phi_0,x,y)\,,

2042: \ee

2043: and the matrix $Q$, given by

2044: \be

2045: \label{ferm}

2046: Q = \left( \matrix {

2047: -\partial_x + \partial_x V & -\partial_y -\partial_y V \cr

2048: -\partial_y +\partial_y V & \partial_x + \partial_x V } \right)\,.

2049: \ee

2050: Then the matrix $\cH \equiv Q^TQ$ is diagonal, with the operator of \rfs{eqm} as diagonal elements.

2051: The construction of a chiral matrix $\t \cH$ is therefore complete for

2052: this problem, too: $\t \cH$ in fact has the form of a random Dirac

2053: Hamiltonian, studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{LGL}. While

2054: we have not been able to find a quantity for the two-dimensional system that plays the role

2055: of the partial energy in one dimension, we have formulated a generalization of the

2056: Burgers equation, which is sufficient to show that a solution to

2057: \rfs{2dV} exists. The practical determination of the chiral potential,

2058: however, remains an

2059: open problem in this case.

2060: 

2061: 

2062: \section{Relation to experiment}

2063: \label{experiment}

2064: 

2065: The range of physical systems to which the ideas we have set out may

2066: apply is potentially very wide. The essential requirements are:

2067: quenched disorder; a ground state

2068: that can be considered classically;

2069: and excitations that can be treated as weakly interacting normal

2070: modes. These requirements may be met for vibrational modes, either in

2071: glasses, or in randomly pinned phases with broken translational

2072: symmetry such as charge density wave states. They may also

2073: be satisfied for magnetic excitations in disordered ferromagnets

2074: or antiferromagnets, or in spin glasses, either with or

2075: without significant magnetic anisotropy.

2076: The most specific feature for which one would like experimental

2077: evidence is probably the frequency dependence

2078: $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$ of the density for excitations

2079: that are not Goldstone modes.  Alternatively, for excitations

2080: that {\it are} Goldstone modes, interest focusses on

2081: the frequency dependence of the mean free path at small $\omega$,

2082: or, in the case of Heisenberg antiferromagnets and

2083: spin glasses which are quasi one-dimensional,

2084: the low-frequency form of the density of states.

2085: 

2086: Before summarising the experimental situation,

2087: it is useful to outline ways in which excitations in a disordered

2088: system may fall outside the framework we have used.

2089: Large quantum fluctuations are the obvious route to

2090: different physics, and may be important in at least two ways.

2091: First, it can happen that a ground state is very far from being a classical

2092: configuration dressed with small zero-point fluctuations: random

2093: singlet phases \cite{SH} in disordered quantum spin

2094: chains constitute a well-studied example. Second, it

2095: may be that even low-lying quantized excitations are unlike weakly

2096: interacting bosonic modes. To have a concrete example, consider

2097: the single mode problem for an anharmonic oscillator with potential

2098: $U(q)$, as reviewed in Sec.\,\ref{bosonic-non-goldstone}. Typically, this potential energy

2099: will have local minima separated by barriers from the absolute

2100: minimum, and the importance of quantum

2101: motion through or over the barrier will

2102: depend on the size of the mass $m$ appearing in Eq.\,\rf{particle}.

2103: Thus, for a given $U(q)$, in the semi-classical

2104: limit the low-lying quantum states will

2105: be close to harmonic oscillator levels with the classical

2106: normal mode frequency, while if quantum fluctuations

2107: are large, tunneling through

2108: barriers may hybridise levels associated with different classical

2109: minima, generating two-level systems, or the low-lying levels may be

2110: determined by the form of $U(q)$ in regions too far from its

2111: absolute minimum for the classical normal mode frequency to be

2112: relevant. In the ensemble, this crossover takes place as a function

2113: of frequency, as discussed in Ref.\,\onlinecite{IK}.

2114: As a result, one expects harmonic excitations with a density

2115: $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$

2116: at higher frequencies, and two-level systems

2117: with a constant density at lower frequencies.

2118: 

2119: Turning to experiments,

2120: somewhat surprisingly, the best evidence that we are aware

2121: of for an excitation density with an $\omega^4$

2122: dependence is from studies of vibrational excitations in

2123: glasses. Here, inelastic neutron scattering

2124: and other measurements \cite{BuchenauPRL}  indicate an excess

2125: density of harmonic modes, compared to what is expected

2126: from Debye theory and the measured speed of sound.

2127: Analysis of the temperature dependence of the heat capacity

2128: \cite{Buchenau} separates two contributions that

2129: are additional to the Debye value. One is

2130: approximately linear in temperature $T$, dominates at low

2131: $T$, and is attributed to two-level systems. The other

2132: varies as $T^5$, dominates at higher $T$, and is attributed to

2133: harmonic modes with the stated frequency dependence for

2134: their density. From a theoretical viewpoint, such

2135: excitations differ in an important way from the one we have discussed,

2136: because they coexist with propagating phonon modes.

2137: The consequences of coupling between the two sets of modes

2138: remain to be investigated, although

2139: coupling between localised {\it anharmonic} vibrational modes

2140: and phonons has been studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{Yu}.

2141: 

2142: A context in which localised vibrational modes

2143: are expected without any coexisting propagating

2144: phonons is provided by pinned charge density waves,

2145: represented in one dimension by the model studied in Sec.\,\ref{continuum}.

2146: Indeed, it was in this framework that Aleiner and Ruzin \cite{AR}

2147: and Fogler \cite{Fogler} argued for a density of harmonic

2148: proportional to $\omega^4$, with a crossover at low frequency

2149: \cite{Fogler} to a constant density of two-level systems.

2150: As reviewed by Fogler \cite{Fogler},

2151: existing measurements of frequency-dependent

2152: conductivity  \cite{Wu} do not show the response expected from

2153: such harmonic modes, possibly because the low-temperature limit is not

2154: accessed.

2155: 

2156: Studies of spin waves in disordered magnetic systems

2157: present opportunities to examine both Goldstone

2158: and non-Goldstone modes. In particular, inelastic neutron

2159: scattering measurements of spin dynamics in a dilute

2160: near-Heisenberg antiferromagnet \cite{Uemura} show

2161: the expected broadening in wavevector of excitations

2162: with increasing frequency.

2163: In contrast, magnetic neutron scattering measurements

2164: on amorphous magnetic alloys in which there is

2165: local magnetic anisotropy \cite{Cowley} find

2166: modes which are broad in wavevector at all

2167: frequencies. In this case the density of excitations

2168: is approximately constant in frequency over the measured range.

2169: From our results, we expect a decrease in this density at

2170: low frequency, and

2171: a more detailed examination of low-frequency behavior

2172: would be of considerable interest.

2173: 

2174: \section{Concluding remarks}

2175: \label{concluding}

2176: Since we have investigated a variety of different

2177: directions in this paper, it is perhaps useful to close

2178: with a short summary of our main points.

2179: 

2180: Considering the general quadratic Hamiltonian for bosonic

2181: excitations, \rfs{osc}, we have noted a formal similarity between

2182: it and fermionic random matrix Hamiltonians from the additional

2183: symmetry classes (e.g. \rfs{Z2}). We have argued that this has

2184: limited direct consequences, because stability of the ground state

2185: requires correlations between matrix elements of the bosonic

2186: Hamiltonian which invalidate a random matrix approach. Instead we

2187: have shown that there is a useful mapping to an auxiliary problem

2188: with the structure of the chiral symmetry class, which we have set

2189: out explicitly for a range of models.

2190: 

2191: Examples of bosonic excitations in disordered

2192: media separate into those that are Goldstone modes, and those that

2193: are not. For the former, we

2194: have reviewed established results, which demonstrate that

2195: low frequency excitations decouple from disorder

2196: except for some systems in and below a marginal dimension $d_c=2$.

2197: For excitations that are not Goldstone modes,

2198: we have underlined the way in which disorder itself

2199: generates low frequency excitations, and the universal form

2200: expected for their density, $\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^4$.

2201: Taking as an example the one-dimensional $XY$ model in a

2202: random field, we have used our techniques in detailed analytical and

2203: numerical calculations, obtaining results that illustrate this

2204: behavior of $\rho(\omega)$.

2205: 

2206: 

2207: A further application of the techniques we have developed here is

2208: to Mattis models. These model spin glasses lack frustration, and

2209: their statistical mechanical properties are equivalent under a

2210: gauge transformation to those of ferromagnets. They have a ground

2211: state spin configurations which are known for each disorder

2212: configuration, but excitations are nevertheless affected in a

2213: non-trivial way by disorder.\cite{Sher} Because the ground state

2214: is known explicitly, the magnons in Mattis glasses are much easier

2215: to study than in a real spin glass. Being Goldstone modes, these

2216: magnons fall into the same category as those in weakly disordered

2217: antiferromagnets, discussed in this paper. In particular, their

2218: critical dimension is $d_c=2$. In future work \cite{AG} by one of

2219: the present authors and A. Altland, the localization and transport

2220: properties of magnons in two and three dimensional Mattis glasses

2221: will be explored.

2222: 

2223: 

2224: 

2225: 

2226: 

2227: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2228: 

2229: We thank A. Altland and M. Zirnbauer for valuable discussions.

2230: The work was supported by

2231: EPSRC under Grant No. GR/J78327, and in part by the National Science Foundation under

2232: Grant No. PHY99-07949.

2233: 

2234: 

2235: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2236: 

2237: \bibitem{Imry} For a review, see Y. Imry, {\sl Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics} (Oxford University Press, 1997).

2238: 

2239: \bibitem{SJS} S. John, H. Sompolinsky, and M. J. Stephen,

2240: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27}, 5592 (1983).

2241: 

2242: \bibitem{PS} For a review, see:

2243: {\sl Scattering and Localization of Classical Waves in Random Media},

2244: edited by P. Sheng (World Scientific, 1990).

2245: 

2246: \bibitem{Lasers} A.Z. Genack and J.M. Drake, Nature {\bf 368}, 400

2247: (1994).

2248: 

2249: \bibitem{GL} H. Fukuyama and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 17}, 535

2250: (1978); T. Giamarchi and H.J. Shultz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 325

2251: (1988).

2252: 

2253: \bibitem{Harris} A. B. Harris and S. Kirkpatrick,

2254: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 16}, 542 (1977).

2255: 

2256: \bibitem{WW} L. R. Walker and R. E. Walstedt,

2257: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 38}, 514 (1977).

2258: 

2259: \bibitem{HS} B. I. Halperin and W. M. Saslow, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 16},

2260: 2154 (1977).

2261: 

2262: \bibitem{AM} A. F. Andreev,

2263: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 47}, 411 (1978).

2264: [Zh. Eks. Theor. Phys. {\bf 74}, 787 (1978)].

2265: 

2266: \bibitem{Ginzburg} S. L. Ginzburg, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 48},

2267: 756 (1978) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 75}, 1497 (1978)].

2268: 

2269: \bibitem{Wan} C. C. Wan, A. B. Harris, and D. Kumar,

2270: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 1036 (1993).

2271: 

2272: \bibitem{Chernyshev} A. L. Chernyshev, Y. C. Chen, and A. H. Castro

2273: Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 067209 (2001);

2274: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 104407 (2002).

2275: 

2276: \bibitem{Helium} B. C. Crooker, B. Herbal, E. N. Smith, Y. Takano,

2277: and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 666 (1983).

2278: 

2279: \bibitem{GC} V. Gurarie and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89},

2280: 136801 (2002).

2281: 

2282: \bibitem{Mehta} M.  L. Mehta, {\it Random Matrices} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1991).

2283: 

2284: \bibitem{Efetov} K. Efetov, {\sl Superymmetry in Disorder and Chaos}

2285: (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

2286: 

2287: \bibitem{Wigner} E. P. Wigner, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. {\bf

2288: 47}, 790 (1951); Ann. Math. {\bf 67}, 325 (1958).

2289: 

2290: \bibitem{Dyson0} F. J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 3}, 140, 1199 (1962).

2291: 

2292: \bibitem{NS} K. Slevin and T. Nagao, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70},

2293: 635 (1993).

2294: 

2295: \bibitem{VZ} J. J. M. Verbaarschot and I Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2296: {\bf 70}, 3853 (1993); J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72},

2297: 2531 (1994).

2298: 

2299: \bibitem{Gade} R. Gade, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 398}, 499 (1993).

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{AZ} A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 1142

2302: (1997).

2303: 

2304: \bibitem{OE} A. A. Ovchinnikov and N. S. Erikhman, Sov. Phys.

2305: JETP {\bf 46}, 340 (1977) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 73}, 650 (1977)].

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{Eggarter}

2308: T. P. Eggarter and R. Riedinger, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 18}, 569 (1978).

2309: 

2310: \bibitem{Ziman}

2311: T. A. L. Ziman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 337 (1982).

2312: 

2313: \bibitem{Brouwer}

2314: P. W. Brouwer, C. Mudry, B. D. Simons, and A. Altland, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2315: {\bf 81}, 862 (1998).

2316: 

2317: \bibitem{GB} J. P. Bouchaud, A. Comtet, A. Georges, P. Le Doussal,

2318: Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 201}, 285 (1990).

2319: 

2320: \bibitem{CW} J. T. Chalker and Z. J. Wang,

2321: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} 1797 (1997).

2322: 

2323: \bibitem{Blaizot} J.-P. Blaizot and G. Ripka, {\it Quantum Theory of Finite Systems}

2324: (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986).

2325: 

2326: \bibitem{MZ} M. R. Zirnbauer, private communication.

2327: 

2328: \bibitem{Stinch} R. B. Stinchcombe and I. R. Pimentel, Phys. Rev. B

2329: {\bf 38}, 4980 (1988).

2330: 

2331: \bibitem{Sher} D. Sherrington, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. {\bf 12}, 5171 (1979);

2332: Sherrington, in {\sl Les Houches, Session XXXI, Ill-Condensed Matter}

2333: (North Holland Publishing Company, 1979); R. Johnston, D.

2334: Sherrington, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. {\bf 15}, 3757 (1982).

2335: 

2336: \bibitem{AG} A. Altland and V. Gurarie, in preparation.

2337: 

2338: \bibitem{BM} A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.,

2339: {\bf 14}, 2629 (1981).

2340: 

2341: \bibitem{Dyson} F.J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 92}, 1331 (1953).

2342: 

2343: \bibitem{Comment}

2344: As discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Ziman}, a probability distribution

2345: which assigns a large enough value to the probability that $k_i=0$

2346: leads to nonuniversal behavior. This can be understood if one

2347: notices that $k_i=0$ effectively breaks the chain of \rfs{Dyson1}

2348: into noninteracting pieces. It only affects strictly one

2349: dimensional systems and has no equivalent in higher dimensions.

2350: 

2351: \bibitem{IK} M. A. Il'in and V. G. Karpov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 65},

2352: 165 (1987); Yu. M. Galperin, V. G. Karpov, and V. I. Kozub, Adv. Phys.

2353: {\bf 38}, 669 (1989).

2354: 

2355: \bibitem{AR} I. L. Aleiner and I. M. Ruzin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72},

2356: 1056 (1994).

2357: 

2358: \bibitem{Fogler} M. Fogler, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 186402

2359: (2002).

2360: 

2361: \bibitem{Fei} M. V. Feigelman, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 52}(3), 555

2362: (1980).

2363: 

2364: \bibitem{Comtet}

2365: A. Comtet, J. Desbois, and C. Monthus, Ann. Phys. {\bf 239}, 312

2366: (1995).

2367: 

2368: \bibitem{KPZ}

2369: M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 889

2370: (1986).

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{Burgers} A. Chekhlov and V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52},

2373: R2739 (1995).

2374: 

2375: \bibitem{Pol} A. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 6183 (1995);

2376: V. Gurarie and A. Migdal, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54}, 4908 (1996).

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{Sinai} W. E, K. Khanin, A. Mazel, and Y. Sinai, Phys. Rev.

2379: Lett. {\bf 78}, 1904 (1997).

2380: 

2381: \bibitem{note} In fact, the process of discarding such configurations

2382: represents one of the main difficulties in constructing a theory of Burgers turbulence:

2383: see Ref.~\onlinecite{Pol}.

2384: 

2385: \bibitem{ZinnJustin} Zinn-Justin, {\sl Field Theory and Critical

2386: Phenomena}

2387: 

2388: 

2389: 

2390: \bibitem{Brouwer2} P. W. Brouwer, C. Mudry, A. Furusaki,

2391: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2913 (1998); M. Titov, P. W. Brouwer,

2392: A. Furusaki, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 235318 (2001).

2393: 

2394: \bibitem{GAunp} V. Gurarie, A. Altland, unpublished.

2395: 

2396: \bibitem{LGL} S. Guruswamy, A. LeClair, and A. W. W. Ludwig,

2397: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 583}, 475 (2000).

2398: 

2399: \bibitem{SH} D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 50}, 3799 (1994).

2400: 

2401: \bibitem{BuchenauPRL} U. Buchenau, H. M. Zhou,

2402: N. Nucker, K. S. Gilroy, and W. A. Phillips,

2403: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 1318 (1988), and references therein.

2404: 

2405: \bibitem{Buchenau} U. Buchenau, Yu. M. Galperin, V. L. Gurevich, and

2406: H.R. Schober, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 5039 (1991).

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{Yu} C. C. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 1160 (1989);

2409: C. C. Yu and J. J. Freeman, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 7624 (1987).

2410: 

2411: \bibitem{Wu} W-Y Wu, L. Mihlay, G. Mozurkevich, and G. Gruner,

2412: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 2444 (1986).

2413: 

2414: \bibitem{Uemura} Y. J. Uemura and R. J. Birgeneau,

2415: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 1947 (1986);

2416: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 7024 (1987).

2417: 

2418: \bibitem{Cowley} R. A. Cowley, C. Patterson, N. Cowlam, P. K. Ivison,

2419: J. Martinez, and L. D. Cussen, J. Phys. Cond. Matter {\bf 3}, 9521

2420: (1991).

2421: 

2422: 

2423: 

2424: \end{thebibliography}

2425: 

2426: \end{document}

2427: