text:
# Propagation of nonlinear waves in disordered media

## I Introduction

In this article we consider the propagation of a stationary coherent wave described by a field $`\varphi (𝐫)`$, in a nonlinear elastically scattering medium. Though we believe that our results are of a general character, for the sake of concreteness we consider the situation where the wave is described by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$$\{\frac{1}{2m}\frac{^2}{𝐫^2}ϵ+u(𝐫)+\beta n(𝐫)\}\varphi (𝐫)=0$$
(1)
Here $`n(𝐫)=|\varphi (𝐫)|^2`$ is the density, $`m`$ is the wave mass, $`ϵ`$ is the wave energy, $`\beta `$ is a constant and $`u(𝐫)`$ is a scattering potential, which is a random function of the coordinates. Eq.1 appears, for example, in the theory of electromagnetic waves propagating in nonlinear media , in the theory of hydrodynamic turbulence , and in the theory of turbulent plasma .

We will assume that $`u(𝐫)`$ obays the white noise statistics: $`u(𝐫)=0`$ , $`u(𝐫)u(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏})=\frac{\pi }{lm^2}\delta (𝐫𝐫_1)`$. Here brackets $``$ correspond to averaging over realizations of $`u(𝐫)`$, and $`l`$ is the elastic mean free path ($`lk^1=(2ϵm)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$). In the presence of the scattering potential $`u(𝐫)`$, the spatial dependence of the $`n(𝐫)`$ exhibits random sample-specific fluctuations, which are called speckles. In the case of elastically scattering diffusive linear media this problem was considered in . Below we will be interested in the statistics of $`n(𝐫)`$ in the case of nonlinear diffusive media. In particular, we will show that, for given boundary conditions, the number of solutions of Eq.1 increases exponentially with sample size. A brief summary of some of the results has been published in .

## II Nonlinear speckles.

Let us consider the case where a coherent wave $`\varphi _0(𝐫)=\sqrt{n_0}e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}`$ with momentum $`𝐤`$ is incident on a disordered sample of size $`Ll`$ (See the insert in Fig.1a).

The $`𝐫`$-dependence of the average density $`n(𝐫)`$ can be described by the diffusion equation,

$`𝐣(𝐫)=D{\displaystyle \frac{n(𝐫)}{𝐫}}`$ (2)
$`div𝐣(𝐫)=0`$ (3)
which is equivalent the to calculation of the diagrams shown in Fig.2.a. Here $`𝐣(𝐫)`$ is the current density. In the limit $`k^1lL`$ the expression for the diffusion coefficient $`D=\frac{lk}{3m}`$ has a classical form. In the case of the geometry shown in Fig.1, the total flux through the sample is zero, and the average density $`n(𝐫)=n_0`$ is spatially uniform.

The term $`\beta |\varphi (𝐫)|^2`$ in Eq.1 plays the role of an additional scattering potential. It will be shown that its contribution to the diffusion coefficient $`D`$ can be neglected at small enough intensities of the incident beam, when

$$|\beta n_0|^2\frac{ϵk}{lm}.$$
(4)
At $`\beta >0`$ the propagation of a uniform wave in an infinite medium described by Eq.1 is unstable at arbitrarily small $`n_0`$ due to the effect of nonlinear self focusing. The characteristic length at which the self-focusing takes place is of order $`r_{(sf)}ϵk/(\beta n_0)^2m`$ . Thus the inequality Eq.3 is equivalent to $`r_{(sf)}l`$. One can say that the regime Eq.3 corresponds to a system of randomly distributed weak concave and convex lenses.

The diffusion equation approximation completely neglects interference effects, which lead to the existence of speckles. To describe them one should solve Eq.1 before averaging over the realizations of $`u(𝐫)`$. It is convenient to expand the density

$$\beta n(𝐫)=\frac{D}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^{1/3}\overline{u}_in_i(𝐫)$$
(5)
in a complete set of orthonormal eigenstates $`n_i(𝐫)`$ of the diffusion equation $`(𝑑𝐫n_i^2(𝐫)=1)`$:

$$D\frac{^2}{^2𝐫}n_i(𝐫)=E_in_i(𝐫)$$
(6)
where $`E_i\frac{D}{L^2}i^{2/3}`$ are the eigenvalues of Eq.5, and $`i=1,2\mathrm{}`$ labels the eigenstates. We will show below why the expansion Eq.4 is convenient. We assume boundary conditions corresponding to zero current through a closed boundary, and $`n(𝐫)=0`$ at the open boundary.

Let us first substitute Eq.4 into the nonlinear term of Eq.1, and regard the $`\{\overline{u}_i\}=\overline{u}_1,\mathrm{}\overline{u}_j,\mathrm{}`$ as independent parameters. This gives a linear equation for $`\varphi (𝐫)`$

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}\frac{^2}{𝐫^2}ϵ+u(𝐫)+\beta \frac{D}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^{1/3}\overline{u}_in_i(𝐫)\right)\varphi (𝐫)=0$$
(7)
Denoting a solution of Eq.6 at a given set of parameters $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$, as $`\varphi (𝐫,\{u(𝐫)\},\{\overline{u}_m\})`$ and constructing $`n(𝐫,\{u(𝐫\}),\{\overline{u}_i\})=|\varphi (𝐫,\{u(𝐫)\},\{\overline{u}_i\})|^2`$, we can write the self-consistency equations for $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$:

$$\frac{i^{2/3}\overline{u}_i}{\gamma }=F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\}).$$
(8)
Here

$$\gamma =|\frac{3n_0\beta }{2ϵ}|(\frac{L}{l})^{3/2}$$
(9)
and

$$F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})=\frac{ki^{1/3}l^{1/2}}{n_0L}𝑑𝐫n(𝐫,\{u(𝐫)\},\{\overline{u}_i\})n_i(𝐫)$$
(10)
are dimensionless random functions of $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$, the form of which depends on $`u(𝐫)`$.

To investigate the properties of the solutions of Eq.7, we have to know the statistical properties of the random functions $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$. We can infer these properties from values of different correlation functions of $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ obtained by averaging over realizations of $`u(𝐫)`$. It is important that the statistical analysis of the random functions $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ is equivalent to the analysis of linear speckles, which has been done in . To characterize $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ we calculate the following correlation functions

$$\delta F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})\delta F_j(\{\overline{u}_i\})=\delta _{ij},$$
(11)
$$[F_i(\{\overline{u}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i\})F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})]^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_n)^2at\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i1.$$
(12)
$$\frac{F_i}{\overline{u}_r}\times \frac{F_j}{\overline{u}_s}((r/s)^{1/3}+(s/r)^{1/3})\frac{1}{(|ij|+|rs|)^{2/3}}$$
(13)
Here $`\delta F_i=F_iF_i`$ and $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})=const`$ which is independent of $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$. We present the derivation of Eqs.10-12 in the next section. The simple form of Eqs.10-12 is a consequency of the choice of $`n_i(𝐫)`$ in Eqs.4,5. Eq.10 indicates that mesoscopic fluctuations of different functions $`F_i`$ are uncorrelated. According to Eq.12, the correlation of derivatives of $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ over different $`\overline{u}_r`$ is small for $`|rs|>1`$. It will be shown in the next section that these facts are consequences of the choice of $`n_i(𝐫)`$ in Eq.4 as eigenfunctions of Eq.5. The introduction of the coefficients $`i^{1/3}D/\sqrt{L}`$ in Eq.4 ensures Eqs.10,11 appears as above.

Thus we arrive at the following picture: the $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ fluctuate randomly as functions of $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$ near their average, which is independent of $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$. According to Eq.11, the characteristic period of the fluctuations is of order one. The fluctuations both of different functions, and the same functions with respect to different $`\overline{u}_i`$ are uncorrelated.

Using this information about the $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ we can estimate the number of solutions of Eq.7 (or Eq.1). If $`\gamma 1`$, Eq.7 has a unique solution while for $`\gamma 1`$ Eq.7 has many solutions. Let us consider the $`i^{th}`$ equation in Eq.7 and fix all variables $`\overline{u}_j`$ other than $`\overline{u}_i`$. Then, at $`i^{2/3}\gamma ^11`$ the equation has a unique solution, while at $`i^{2/3}\gamma ^11`$ the number of the solutions is of order $`\gamma i^{2/3}`$. In Fig.1a we show a qualitative graphical solution of Eq.7, which corresponds to the intersection of two functions: $`F_i(\mathrm{}.,\overline{u}_i,\mathrm{}.)`$ and $`\gamma ^1i^{2/3}\overline{u}_i`$. The solutions are distributed in an interval of order $`\gamma i^{2/3}`$.

Therefore, to estimate number of solutions of Eqs.7 at $`\gamma 1`$, we have to take into account only a subset of Eqs.7 with $`i<I=\gamma ^{3/2}`$. Since both the amplitude of fluctuations and the periods in the $`i^{th}`$ direction of randomly rippled hypersurfaces $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ are of order unity, the number of solutions N of Eqs.1,7 is proportional to the volume of an $`I`$-dimensional hyperparallelepiped with sides of order $`\gamma i^{2/3}`$, $`i<I`$. As a result we have

$$\text{N}\gamma ^I\underset{1}{\overset{I}{}}i^{2/3}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2}{3}\gamma ^{3/2})$$
(14)
Thus the number of the solutions N of Eq.1 increases exponentially with the sample size $`L`$.

To illustrate Eq.13 we consider the case $`I=2`$ ($`\gamma 1`$). Then Eqs.7 can be viewed as two surfaces $`z=F_1(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$ and $`z=F_2(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$, which are intersected by two planes $`z=\gamma ^1\overline{u}_1`$ and $`z=\gamma ^12^{2/3}\overline{u}_2`$ respectively. A result of these intersections is two systems of lines in the plane $`\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2`$ shown in Fig.1b. The solid lines correspond to intersections between $`z=F_1(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$ and $`z=\gamma ^1\overline{u}_1`$, and are located within a strip in the $`\overline{u}_1`$ direction of width of order $`\gamma `$. The dashed lines correspond to the intersection of the surfaces $`z=F_2(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$ and $`z=\gamma ^12^{2/3}\overline{u}_2`$, and are located within a strip of width $`\gamma 2^{2/3}`$ in $`\overline{u}_2`$ direction. The intersections of solid and dashed lines in Fig.1b correspond to solutions of the system of Eqs.7. According to Eqs.10-12, the dashed and the solid lines in Fig.1b are uncorrelated. The typical distance between, say, solid lines is of order one. As a result, the number of solutions $`N_{I=2}`$ of Eqs.7 in this case is of the order of the area of a parallelogram with sides $`\gamma `$ and $`2^{2/3}\gamma `$

$$N_{I=2}\gamma \times 2^{2/3}\gamma .$$
(15)
Now let us estimate the corrections to the diffusion coefficients originating from scattering from the potential $`\beta n(𝐫)`$. In the case $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|<l`$ we have ($`D=3`$)

$$n(𝐫)n(𝐫^{})=\frac{n_0^2m^2}{k^2|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2},$$
(16)
independently of the values of the parameters $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$. In the Born approximation, the nonlinear mean free path corresponding to scattering from the potential $`\beta n(𝐫)`$ is:

$$l_{(nl)}=\frac{ϵk^2}{(\beta n_0)^2m}$$
(17)
Thus the criterion Eq.3 is equivalent to $`l_{(nl)}=r_{(sf)}l`$.

In the opposite limit $`l_{(nl)}l`$, the scattering mean free path is determined by the scattering from the potential $`\beta n(𝐫)`$, and one can neglect the random potential $`u(𝐫)`$ in Eq.1. In this case one can estimate the number of solutions of Eq.1 by substituting $`l_{(nl)}`$ instead of $`l`$ into Eqs.8, or by substituting $`\gamma _{(nl)}`$ into Eq.13 instead of $`\gamma `$, where

$$\gamma _{(nl)}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{(n_0\beta )^4}{ϵ}(\frac{Lm}{ϵk})^{3/2}$$
(18)
In the conclusion of this section we would like to discuss the condition $`\gamma >1`$ for the existence of multiple solutions of Eq.1. In the absence of the nonlinear term $`\beta n(𝐫)`$ the solution of Eq.1 corresponds to particles traveling along diffusion trajectories. In the presence of the nonlinear term $`\beta n(𝐫)`$, the probability amplitude for traveling along a diffusive trajectory acquires an additional phase of order $`\delta \chi _{(nl)}=\frac{\beta k}{2}𝑑s\delta n(𝐫)1`$, where the integration is taken along a diffusive trajectory. To estimate the value of the additional phase let us calculate the integral

$$\left(\delta \chi _{(nl)}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\beta k}{2}\right)^2𝑑s𝑑s^{}\delta n(𝐫)\delta n(𝐫^{})$$
(19)
The correlation function of densities is given by Eq.15 and the estimate for Eq.18 is $`(\beta k)^2\frac{L^3}{l^2}`$. Thus the criterion $`\gamma >1`$ corresponds to $`(\delta \chi _{(nl)})^2>1`$. Another interpretation is that at $`\gamma >1`$ the sensitivity of the solutions of Eq.1 to a change of $`u(𝐫)`$ increases significantly as compared to its single particle value .

## III Calculation of correlation functions of Eqs.11-13

Now we turn to the calculation of correlation functions Eqs.10-12. According to the definition Eq.9 we get

$$F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})F_j(\{\overline{u}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i\})=\frac{i^{1/3}j^{1/3}lk^2}{L^2n_0^2}𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}n_i(𝐫)n_j(𝐫^{})n(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})n(𝐫_1,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})$$
(20)
In the approximation Eq.3, the value of $`n(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})n(𝐫_1,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})`$ is independent of $`\{\overline{u}_l\}`$ and has the same form as in the linear case . Therefore, one can use the standard diagram technique for averaging over $`u(𝐫)`$ . The diagrams describing the correlation functions $`n(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})n(𝐫^{},\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})`$ are shown in Fig.2b,c. Alternatively, one can solve the Langevin equation , valid at $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|l`$

$$div\delta 𝐣(𝐫)=0$$
(21)
$$\delta 𝐣(𝐫)=D\frac{}{𝐫}\delta n(𝐫)+𝐉^L(𝐫,\{u(𝐫)\},\{\overline{u}_i\}).$$
(22)
The correlation function of random Langevin forces $`𝐉^L(𝐫)`$ is given by the diagram shown in Fig.2b. It can be written as

$`J_i^L(𝐫,\{u(𝐫\},\{\overline{u}_i\})J_j^L(𝐫^{},\{u(𝐫)\},\{\overline{u}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i\})=`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l}{3m^2}}|\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})|^2\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ (24)
The expression for $`\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})`$ is given by the ladder diagrams shown in Fig.2b, where the inner Green function correspond to $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$, while the outer Green functions correspond to $`\{\overline{u}_m+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_m\}`$. Eq.22 is a generalization of corresponding equations introduced in . Namely, in the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l=0`$ one has to substitute $`n^2=n_0^2`$ in Eq.22 instead of $`|\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})|^2`$.

Using Eqs.20-22 we get

$`n(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})n(𝐫^{},\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})=`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l}{3m^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫_1)}{d𝐫_1}\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫^{},𝐫_1)}{d𝐫_1}|\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})|^2}.`$ (26)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\underset{l}{}\frac{n_l(𝐫)n_l(𝐫^{})}{E_l}$$
(27)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is the Green’s function of Eq.5.

At $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i=0`$, doing the integral over $`𝐫_1`$ in Eq.23 by parts, using Eq.22 and taking into account the orthogonality of the functions $`n_i(𝐫)`$, we get Eq.10. The diagrams in Fig.2.b for $`\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})`$ are equivalent to the equation

$$\left(D\frac{^2}{^2𝐫}+i\frac{D}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{i}{}i^{1/3}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_in_i(𝐫)\right)\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})=0$$
(28)
The existence of the term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i`$ in Eq.25 reflects the fact that the inner lines in the diagrams shown in Fig.2b correspond to the Green’s functions in the scattering potential characterized by $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$ while the outer lines correspond to those of $`\{\overline{u}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i\}`$. Note that as long as Eq.3 holds Eq.25 is independent of $`\{\overline{u}_i\}`$.

Solving Eq.25 by perturbation theory with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l`$ we get

$`\varphi (𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l\})\varphi ^{}(𝐫,\{\overline{u}_l+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_l\})=`$ (29)
$`n_0\left(1+i{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\sqrt{L}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}i^{1/3}{\displaystyle \frac{n_i(𝐫)}{E_i}}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{L}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})\underset{i}{}\frac{i^{2/3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_in_i(𝐫^{}))^2}{E_i^2}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (30)
We can neglect the second term in brackets in Eq.26 because it is of order $`(i^{1/3}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i)`$ (and its contribution to Eq.22 is of order $`i^{2/3}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i)^2`$), while the contribution to Eq.22 from the third term is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}_i)^2`$. To get the latter estimate we took into account that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})(DL)^1`$ at $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|L`$. Substituting Eq.26 into Eq.19,22,23, we get Eqs.11,12.

## IV Discussion

The estimate Eq.14 was made for the case of a typical realization of the scattering potential. On the other hand, even at $`\gamma <1`$, there are rare realizations of $`u(𝐫)`$, which correspond to several solutions of Eq.1.

The results presented above hold for arbitrary sign of $`\beta `$. This is quite different from the situation in the pure case ($`u(𝐫)=0`$)  where at $`\beta >0`$ self-focusing takes place.

At $`\gamma 1`$, the solutions of Eq.1 exhibit exponentially large sensitivity to changes of parameters of the system . Consider, for example, the case where the incident angle $`\theta `$ of the wave is changing, and suppose that a solution of Eq.1 follows this change adiabatically. Then an exponentially small change

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{exp}(\frac{2}{3}\gamma ^{3/2})$$
(31)
will lead to disappearance of the solution, and the system will jump to another solution.

Similar phenomenon may occur in the system of interacting electrons is disordered metals: it can be unstable with respect to the creation of random magnetic moments. This would correspond to Finkelshtain’s scenario . However, in this case in order to get a self-consistency equation, which would be an analog of Eq.7, we have to integrate over electron energies, which decreases the amplitude of mesoscopic fluctuations. As a result, the situation with many solutions may occur only in the D=2 case and the characteristic spatial scale will be of the order of the electron localization length in the linear problem. Thus the problem of interacting electrons in disordered metals remains unsolved.

We would like to mention a similarity of the problem considered above to the problem of spin glasses. To illustrate this point let us consider a model in which the coefficient $`\beta (𝐫)`$ in Eq.1 is nonzero only at points $`𝐫=𝐫_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2\mathrm{}..`$

$$\beta (𝐫)=\beta _0\underset{\alpha }{}U(𝐫𝐫_\alpha ),$$
(32)
where $`U(|𝐫|)`$ is a short range function decaying on characteristic distance $`R<1/k`$, and of a maximum height $`U_0`$ , and $`𝐫_i`$ are randomly distributed in space with given density. Then Eq.1 can be rewritten only in terms of values of $`\varphi _\alpha =\varphi (𝐫=𝐫_\alpha )`$

$$\varphi _\alpha =\beta _0U_0R^3\underset{\beta }{}G(𝐫_\alpha ,𝐫_\beta )|\varphi _\beta |^2\varphi _\beta ,$$
(33)
$$G(𝐫_\alpha ,𝐫_\beta )\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ik|𝐫_\alpha 𝐫_\beta |+i\delta (𝐫_\alpha ,𝐫_\beta )}{|𝐫_\alpha 𝐫_\beta |^{1/2}}|𝐫_\alpha 𝐫_\beta |l$$
(34)
where $`G(𝐫_\alpha ,𝐫_\beta )`$ is the Green function of the linear Schrödinger equation, and the phase $`\delta (𝐫_\alpha ,𝐫_\beta )`$ is a random quantity at $`|𝐫_\alpha 𝐫_\beta |l`$. The major difference between Eq.30 and the spin glass problem is that in the former case one is interested in the minimum of the free energy, while in the case of Eq.30 the boundary conditions are given. Thus there are no thermodynamic criteria on how to choose between multiple solutions of the stationary Eq.1. One of the possibilities is that the state of the system is determined by its history.

We may question how many of these stationary states are stable. The time-dependent non-linear Schrödinger equation may be obtained from Eq.1 by substituting $`ϵ`$ for $`i_t`$. Equivalently, we can write equations for $`\overline{u}_i(t)`$. We still assume the same stationary boundary conditions. In the absence of a complete solution we present a qualitative picture.

The characteristic time of change of the $`i^{}th`$ harmonic $`\overline{u}_i`$ is $`\tau _iE_i^1`$. Thus we have

$$\tau _i\left(1+\gamma g_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})\right)_t\overline{u}_i(t)=\gamma i^{\frac{2}{3}}F(\{\overline{u}_i\})\overline{u}_i$$
(35)
Here $`g_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})1`$ is a dimensionless random function. The statistical properties of the function $`g_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ are roughly the same as those for $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$. Namely, the amplitude and sign randomly oscillate with a characteristic periods of order one. Strictly speaking, Eq.31 holds if $`|\tau _i_t\overline{u}_i|1`$ and the characteristic time of establishing stationary distributions $`n(𝐫)`$ at given $`\overline{u}_i(t)`$ is much shorter than the characteristic time of change of $`\overline{u}_i(t)`$. In other words, Eqs.31 represent a sort of hydrodynamics. This takes place, for example, near the critical instability points (see, for example, the point $`\mathrm{"}a\mathrm{"}`$ on Fig1.a.). Generally, $`\tau _i_t\overline{u}_i(t)1`$, so we have to keep not only the first but also several higher time derivatives in Eqs.31. We believe, however, that the model Eqs.31 captures the qualitative features of the system’s dynamics correctly even in this case.

Linearizing Eqs.31 near the stationary solutions, we arrive at the conclusion that the fraction of solutions of Eq.7 which are stable is of order $`2^I`$. Thus, at $`\gamma 1`$ the number of stable stationary solutions is still exponentially large.

In principle, Eqs.31 can also have nonstationary solutions as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Obviously, the characteristic amplitudes of the solutions are given by Eq.7, ($`|\delta \overline{u}_i(t)|<\gamma i^{2/3}`$). A complete investigation of $`\{\overline{u}_i(t)\}`$ is a complicated and still unsolved problem. For example, for $`I=1`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$ only stable stationary solutions are relevant. For $`I=2`$, and $`t\mathrm{}`$, depending on the properties of the realizations of the random sample specific functions $`F_1(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$ and $`F_2(\overline{u}_1,\overline{u}_2)`$, one can, additionally, have periodic, quasiperiodic, and chaoric in time solutions. If $`I=3`$, one can also, have strange (or stochastic) attractors as solutions of three differential equations.

In this respect we would like to mention papers , where an attempt to describe temporal nonlinear speckles was done. We believe that these results are incorrect. To estimate the instability threshold it is sufficient to expand the nonlinear Langevin equations in powers of $`\beta `$ (see diagrams shown in Fig.2 in , or in Fig.4 in ). This is why the authors of  were able to reproduce the instability criterion $`\gamma >1`$ obtained in . Strictly speaking, this approach holds only in the case when $`\gamma 1`$. For $`\gamma >1`$ this approach describes the system incorrectly. In the absence of solid mathematical procedure the authors of  made assumptions about the nature of solutions of Eq.1 beyond the instability point $`\gamma >1`$. Namely, they made assumptions that at $`t\mathrm{}`$ the finction $`n(𝐫,t)`$ must exhibit oscillations in time and they assumed some form of time correlations of $`n(𝐫,t)`$. Both assumptions are incorrect. This can be seen, for example, from the fact that their approach cannot reproduce the existence of an exponentially big (for $`\gamma 1`$) number of multiple stationary solutions of Eqs.7, which are singular points of Eqs.31.

The simplest situation where the deficiency of the approach of  is most evident takes place near the first instability point $`\gamma =\gamma _c1`$. This is schematically shown by the dashed line in Fig.1a. The critical value $`\gamma _c`$ is sample specific. In this case, say, the first equation $`(i=1)`$ in the system of Eqs.7 has three solutions. Two of them are close to each other (see the point ”a” in Fig.1a.). Let us start with a discussion of the system dynamics near this point. We would like to stress that in this case $`(\tau _1_t\overline{u}_1(t))/\overline{u}_11`$ and our analysis is rigorous. This is exactly the regime considered in . Since $`_t\overline{u}_i/\overline{u}_iE_i(\gamma \gamma _c)E_1`$ for $`i>1`$, we can neglect the time derivatives in all equations of the system Eqs.31, except the one with $`i=1`$. Moreover, since this point of instability is a rare one, all equations in Eqs.7 with $`i>1`$ have unique solutions. Thus, the system’s dynamics is described by just one first order differential equation for $`\overline{u}_1`$. Near the point $`\mathrm{"}a\mathrm{"}`$ in Fig.1a the functions $`g_i(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ and $`F_{i>1}(\{\overline{u}_i\})`$ change slowly. Thus, one stationary solution is stable and the other is unstable. The solution indicated by the letter ”b” in Fig.1a is also stable because it is related adiabatically to the unique stable solution for $`\gamma <\gamma _c`$. At $`t\mathrm{}`$ the system approaches one of the stable stationary solutions, described by Eqs.7 . Thus the assumption made in  about existence of oscillating in time solutions near the critical point is wrong.

Far from the critical point, when $`I1`$ and the number of relevant equations of the system of Eqs.31 is larger than one, depending on initial conditions and the form of random functions $`F_i(\{\overline{u}_i\}`$, Eqs.31 can have periodic, chaotic solutions and strange attractors, in addition to stationary points. The fractions of the phase space which at $`t\mathrm{}`$ are attracted to these types of motion are currently not known. In any case, the solutions of the time-dependent nonlinear Schrödinger equation, or Eqs.31, have a very complicated non-Gaussian character, which is very different from that assumed in .

Finally, we would like to mention that in reality, in the case of very large N, the time dependent fluctuations of external sources become important. They are not described by Eq.1 and the problem remains unsolved.

This work was supported by the Division of Material Sciences, U.S.National Science Foundation under Contract No. DMR-o228104, and by grant No. 01-02-17794 of Russian Science Foundation. We would like to thank L. Levitov for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# References

Generalized Lagrangian symmetries depending on higher order
derivatives. Conservation laws and the characteristic equation

Giovanni Giachetta1, Luigi Mangiarotti1 and Gennadi Sardanashvily2

1 Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino (MC), Italy

2 Department of Theoretical Physics, Physics Faculty, Moscow State University, 117234 Moscow, Russia

E-mail: giovanni.giachetta@unicam.it, luigi.mangiarotti@unicam.it and sard@grav.phys.msu.su

Abstract.

Given a finite order Lagrangian $`L`$ on a fibre bundle, its global generalized symmetries depending on higher order derivatives of dynamic variables are considered. The first variational formula is obtained. It leads both to the corresponding Lagrangian conservation laws and the characteristic equation for generalized symmetries of $`L`$.

Symmetries of differential equations under transformations of dynamic variables depending on their derivatives have been intensively investigated (see, e.g.,  for a survey). Following , we agree to call them the generalized symmetries. In , generalized symmetries of Lagrangian systems and the corresponding conservation laws on a local coordinate chart are described in detail. The recent work  turns to the global analysis of first order Lagrangian systems and conservation laws under generalized symmetries depending on first order derivatives, but the symmetry condition is imposed on the Poincaré–Cartan form of a Lagrangian. In analytical mechanics, generalized symmetries and the corresponding conserved quantities (e.g., the Runge–Lenz vector in the Kepler problem) are well known . In application to field theory, let us mention the Lie derivative (the Kosmann lift) of Dirac spinor fields , the Poisson sigma model , and BRST transformations . The latter however involve the notion of jets of functions on graded manifolds  which is beyond the scope of this work. Our goal here is to study the conservation laws in higher order Lagrangian systems on fibre bundles under generalized symmetries depending on derivatives of any finite order.

There are different approaches to the study of Lagrangian conservation laws. We are based on the first variational formula (see  for a survey).

Let $`YX`$ be a smooth fibre bundle coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i)`$. In Lagrangian formalism on $`YX`$, an $`r`$-order Lagrangian is defined as a horizontal density

$$L=\omega ,\omega =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n,n=\mathrm{dim}X,$$
(1)
on the $`r`$-order jet manifold $`J^rX`$ of sections of $`YX`$. This manifold is equipped with the adapted coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i)`$, $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }r`$, where a multi-index $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=k`$, denotes a collection of numbers $`(\lambda _k\mathrm{}\lambda _1)`$ modulo permutations. By $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is meant the collection $`(\lambda _k\mathrm{}\lambda _1\sigma _s\mathrm{}\sigma _1)`$ modulo permutations. We use the notation

$$d_\lambda =_\lambda +\underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|0}{}y_{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }}^i_i^\mathrm{\Lambda },d_\mathrm{\Lambda }=d_{\lambda _r}\mathrm{}d_{\lambda _1},\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _r\mathrm{}\lambda _1).$$
(2)
In order to obtain Noether conservation laws, one considers vector fields

$$u=u^\lambda (x^\mu )_\lambda +u^i(x^\mu ,y^j)_i$$
(3)
on $`Y`$ projected onto $`X`$. They are infinitesimal generators of local one-parameter groups of bundle automorphisms of $`YX`$. Their jet prolongation onto $`J^rY`$ read

$$J^ru=u^\lambda _\lambda +u^i_i+\underset{0<|\mathrm{\Lambda }|r}{}u_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i_i^\mathrm{\Lambda },u_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=d_\mathrm{\Lambda }(u^iy_\mu ^iu^\mu )+y_{\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }}^iu^\mu .$$
(4)
One says that $`u`$ (3) is a (variational) symmetry of a Lagrangian $`L`$ (1) if the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^ru}L`$ of $`L`$ along $`J^ru`$ vanishes. The first variational formula provides the canonical decomposition of this Lie derivative

$$𝐋_{J^ru}L=u_V\delta L+d_H(h_0(J^{2r1}u\mathrm{\Xi }_L)),$$
(5)
where $`\delta L`$ is the Euler–Lagrange operator of $`L`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_L`$ is a Poincaré–Cartan form of $`L`$, $`u_V`$ is a vertical part of $`u`$, $`d_H`$ is the total (horizontal) differential, and $`h_0`$ is the horizontal projection (see the definitions below). If $`u`$ is a symmetry of $`L`$, the first variational formula (5) restricted to the kernel of the Euler–Lagrange operator $`\delta L`$ leads to the Noether conservation law

$`0d_H(h_0(J^ru\mathrm{\Xi }_L)).`$
A vector field $`u`$ (3) is said to be a divergence symmetry of $`L`$ if the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^ru}L`$ is a total differential $`d_H\sigma `$. Then, the first variational formula (5) on Ker$`\delta L`$ provides the generalized Noether conservation law

$$0d_H(h_0(J^ru\mathrm{\Xi }_L)\sigma ).$$
(6)
Note that any divergence symmetry of $`L`$ is a symmetry of the Euler–Lagrange operator (i.e., $`𝐋_{J^{2r}u}\delta L=0`$) as it follows from the master identity

$$\delta (𝐋_{J^ru}L)=𝐋_{J^{2r}u}\delta L$$
(7)
and the equality

$$\delta (𝐋_{J^ru}L)=\delta (d_H\sigma )=0.$$
(8)
We aim at extending the first variational formula (5) to the above mentioned generalized symmetries (see the formula (26) below) and obtaining the corresponding conservation laws (29). Herewith, the equality (31), similar to (8), gives an equation for divergence symmetries of a Lagrangian $`L`$.

It should be emphasized the following.

(i) Infinitesimal generalized symmetries, called generalized vector fields, take the local coordinate form

$$u=u^\lambda (x^\mu ,y^j,y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^j)_\lambda +u^i(x^\mu ,y^j,y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^j)_i,$$
(9)
where $`u^\lambda `$, $`u^i`$ are local functions on some finite order jet manifold $`J^kY`$. Their $`r`$-order jet prolongation $`J^ru`$ is given by the formula (4). However, the generalized vector fields (9) fail to be vector fields on a finite order jet manifold. Namely, $`J^ru`$ is a derivation of the ring $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^rY`$) of smooth real functions on the jet manifold $`J^rY`$ which takes its values in the ring of smooth real functions on the $`(r+k)`$-order jet manifold $`J^{r+k}Y`$. In , generalized vector fields (9) are locally introduced as formal differential operators. In , they are associated to sections of the pull-back bundle $`TY\times _YJ^kYJ^kY`$. We describe generalized symmetries in the framework of infinite order jet formalism.

(ii) The invariance of a Lagrangian under the transformations (9) imposes rather strong conditions on these transformations. Therefore, one allows generalized symmetries to be the divergence symmetries of a Lagrangian.

Infinite order jet formalism provides a convenient tool for studying Lagrangian systems of unspecified finite order .

Finite order jet manifolds make up the inverse system

$$X\stackrel{\pi }{}Y\stackrel{\pi _0^1}{}J^1Y\mathrm{}J^{r1}Y\stackrel{\pi _{r1}^r}{}J^rY\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
Its projective limit $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$, called the infinite order jet space, is endowed with the weakest topology such that surjections $`\pi _r^{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}YJ^rY`$ are continuous. This topology makes $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ into a paracompact Fréchet manifold . A bundle coordinate atlas $`\{U_Y,(x^\lambda ,y^i)\}`$ of $`YX`$ yields the manifold coordinate atlas

$$\{(\pi _0^{\mathrm{}})^1(U_Y),(x^\lambda ,y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i)\},y_{}^{}{}_{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{i}=\frac{x^\mu }{x^\lambda }d_\mu y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i,0|\mathrm{\Lambda }|,$$
(11)
of $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$, where $`d_\lambda `$ are the total derivatives (2).

Let $`𝒪_r^{}`$ denote the graded differential algebra of exterior forms on the jet manifold $`J^rY`$. With the inverse system (10), we have the direct system of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$-modules

$$𝒪^{}(X)\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}𝒪^{}(Y)\stackrel{\pi _0^1^{}}{}𝒪_1^{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\pi _{r1}^r^{}}{}𝒪_r^{}\mathrm{}$$
(12)
where $`\pi _r^{r+1}^{}`$ are the pull-back monomorphisms. Its direct limit $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is a graded differential algebra, whose $`d`$-cohomology is proved to be isomorphic to the de Rham cohomology $`H^{}(Y)`$ of a fibre bundle $`Y`$ .

Though $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ is not a smooth manifold, one can think of elements of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ as being objects on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ as follows. Let $`𝔒_r^{}`$ be the sheaf of germs of exterior forms on the $`r`$-order jet manifold $`J^rY`$, and let $`\overline{𝔒}_r^{}`$ be its canonical presheaf. There is the direct system of presheaves

$`\overline{𝔒}_X^{}\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}\overline{𝔒}_0^{}\stackrel{\pi _0^1^{}}{}\overline{𝔒}_1^{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\pi _{r1}^r^{}}{}\overline{𝔒}_r^{}\mathrm{}.`$
Its direct limit $`\overline{𝔒}_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is a presheaf of graded differential algebras on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$. Let $`𝔗_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ be a sheaf constructed from $`\overline{𝔒}_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. The algebra $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ of sections of $`𝔗_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is a graded differential algebra whose elements $`\varphi `$ possess the following property. For any point $`qJ^{\mathrm{}}Y`$, there exist an open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`q`$ and an exterior form $`\varphi ^{(k)}`$ on some finite order jet manifold $`J^kY`$ such that $`\varphi |_U=\varphi ^{(k)}\pi _k^{\mathrm{}}|_U`$. We agree to call elements of $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ the exterior forms of locally finite jet order on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$. There is the natural monomorphism $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ whose image consists of the pull-back onto $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ of exterior forms on finite order jet manifolds.

Restricted to a coordinate chart (11), elements of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ can be written in a coordinate form, where horizontal forms $`\{dx^\lambda \}`$ and contact 1-forms $`\{\theta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=dy_\mathrm{\Lambda }^iy_{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }}^idx^\lambda \}`$ make up local generators of the algebra $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. There is the canonical decomposition

$`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}=\underset{k,s}{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{k,s},0k,0sn,`$
of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ into $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$-modules $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{k,s}`$ of $`k`$-contact and $`s`$-horizontal forms together with the corresponding projections

$`h_k:𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{k,},0k,h^s:𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{,s},0sn.`$
Accordingly, the exterior differential on $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is split into the sum $`d=d_H+d_V`$ of horizontal and vertical differentials

$`d_Hh_k=h_kdh_k,d_H(\varphi )=dx^\lambda d_\lambda (\varphi ),`$
$`d_Vh^s=h^sdh^s,d_V(\varphi )=\theta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ,\varphi 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}.`$
In particular, we have the relations

$`d_Hh_0=h_0d,d_H(dx^\mu )=0,d_H(\theta _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i)=dx^\lambda \theta _{\lambda +\mathrm{\Lambda }}^i.`$
Furthermore, one defines the projection $`R`$-module endomorphism

$$\varrho =\underset{k>0}{}\frac{1}{k}\overline{\varrho }h_kh^n,\overline{\varrho }(\varphi )=\underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|0}{}(1)^\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta ^i[d_\mathrm{\Lambda }(_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi )],\varphi 𝒪^{>0,n}_{\mathrm{}},$$
(13)
of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ such that $`\varrho d_H=0`$ and $`\varrho d\varrho \varrho d=0`$ (e.g., ). Put $`E_k=\varrho (𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{k,n})`$, $`k>0`$. Then, the variational operator on $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{,n}`$ is defined as the morphism $`\delta =\varrho d`$. It is nilpotent, and obeys the relation $`\delta \varrho \varrho d=0`$. As a consequence, the graded differential algebra $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is split into the so called variational bicomplex. Here, we are concerned only with its subcomplexes

$`0R𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0\stackrel{d_H}{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,1}\stackrel{d_H}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_H}{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n}\stackrel{\delta }{}E_1\stackrel{\delta }{}E_2\mathrm{},`$ (14)
$`0𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,0}\stackrel{d_H}{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,1}\stackrel{d_H}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_H}{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n}\stackrel{\varrho }{}E_10.`$ (15)
The first one, called the variational complex, provides the algebraic approach to the calculus of variations in the class of exterior forms of finite jet order. Namely, one can think of an element $`L𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n}`$ as being a finite order Lagrangian, while the variational operator $`\delta `$ acting on $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n}`$ is the Euler–Lagrange operator

$$\delta L=\delta _i\theta ^i\omega =\underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|0}{}(1)^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}d_\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta ^i\omega .$$
(16)
The key point is that the paracompact space $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ admits a partition of unity by functions $`f𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ of locally finite jet order . It follows that the sheaves of $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^0`$-modules on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ are fine and acyclic. Therefore, the abstract de Rham theorem on cohomology of a sheaf resolution enables one to obtain the cohomology of the graded differential algebra $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ . Furthermore, the $`d`$-, $`d_H`$\- and $`\delta `$-cohomology of its subalgebra $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is proved to coincide with that of $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ . As a consequence, one can show that cohomology of the variational complex (14) is isomorphic to the de Rham cohomology of a fibre bundle $`Y`$, i.e.,

$`H^{k<n}(d_H;𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{})=H^{k<n}(Y),H^{kn}(\delta ;𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{})=H^{kn}(Y)`$
. It follows that, in particular, any $`\delta `$-closed form $`L𝒪^{0,n}`$ is split into the sum

$$L=h_0\phi +d_H\xi ,\xi 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n1},$$
(17)
where $`\phi `$ is a closed $`n`$-form on $`Y`$. In other words, a finite order Lagrangian $`L`$ is variationally trivial iff it takes the form (17).

Similarly, one can show that the complex (15) is exact . Its exactness at the term $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n}`$ implies that, if $`\varrho (\varphi )=0`$, $`\varphi 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n}`$, then $`\varphi =d_H\xi `$, $`\xi 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n1}`$. Since $`\varrho `$ is a projection operator, there is the $`R`$-module decomposition

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n}=E_1d_H(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n1}).$$
(18)
Given a Lagrangian $`L𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n}`$, the decomposition (18) provides its splitting

$$dL=\varrho (dL)+(\mathrm{Id}\varrho )(dL)=\delta Ld_H(\mathrm{\Xi }),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{1,n1}`$. This splitting leads to the first variational formula as follows.

Let us consider derivations $`\upsilon 𝔡𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ of the ring $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ of smooth functions of finite jet order on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$. With respect to the atlas (11), they are given by the coordinate expression

$$\upsilon =\upsilon ^\lambda _\lambda +\upsilon ^i_i+\underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|>0}{}\upsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i_i^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(20)
where components $`\upsilon ^\lambda `$, $`\upsilon ^i`$, $`\upsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$ are local smooth functions of finite jet order on $`J^{\mathrm{}}Y`$ which obey the transformation law

$`\upsilon ^\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{x^\lambda }{x^\mu }}\upsilon ^\mu ,\upsilon ^i={\displaystyle \frac{y^i}{y^j}}\upsilon ^j+{\displaystyle \frac{y^i}{x^\mu }}\upsilon ^\mu ,\upsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i={\displaystyle \underset{|\mathrm{\Sigma }||\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i}{y_\mathrm{\Sigma }^j}}\upsilon _\mathrm{\Sigma }^j+{\displaystyle \frac{y_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i}{x^\mu }}\upsilon ^\mu .`$
The interior product $`\upsilon \varphi `$, and the Lie derivative $`𝐋_\upsilon \varphi `$, $`\varphi 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ are defined in a standard way. An element $`\upsilon 𝔡𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is said to be a generalized symmetry if the Lie derivative of any contact one-form $`\theta 𝒪^{1,0}`$ along $`\upsilon `$ again is a contact form. One can easily justify that $`\upsilon 𝔡𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is a generalized symmetry iff it is given by the coordinate expression (20) where

$$\upsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=d_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\upsilon ^iy_\mu ^i\upsilon ^\mu )+y_{\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }}^i\upsilon ^\mu ,0<|\mathrm{\Lambda }|.$$
(21)
For instance, let $`\tau `$ be a vector field on $`X`$. Then, the derivation $`\tau (d_Hf)`$, $`f𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$, of the ring $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ is a generalized symmetry

$$J^{\mathrm{}}\tau =\tau ^\mu d_\mu .$$
(22)
Moreover, any generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ is brought into the form

$$\upsilon =\upsilon _H+\upsilon _V=\upsilon ^\lambda d_\lambda +(\overline{\upsilon }^i_i+\overline{\upsilon }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }),\overline{\upsilon }^i=\upsilon ^iy_\mu ^i\upsilon ^\mu ,\overline{\upsilon }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=d_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\upsilon }^i.$$
(23)
This is the horizontal splitting of $`\upsilon `$ with respect to the canonical connection $`=dx^\lambda d_\lambda `$ on the $`C^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$-ring $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ . In particular, if $`\upsilon ^\lambda =0`$, we have the relation

$$\upsilon d_H\varphi =d_H(\upsilon \varphi ),\varphi 𝒪^{}_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(24)
Let us consider the Lie derivative

$$𝐋_\upsilon L=\upsilon dL+d(\upsilon L)=\upsilon _VdL+d_H(\upsilon _HL)+d_V(\upsilon _H\omega )$$
(25)
of a Lagrangian $`L𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n}`$ along a generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ (23). Using the splitting (19) and the equality (24), we come to the desired first variational formula

$`𝐋_\upsilon L=\upsilon _V\delta L\upsilon _Vd_H\mathrm{\Xi }+d_H(\upsilon _HL)+d_V(\upsilon _H\omega )=`$
$`\upsilon _V\delta L+d_H(\upsilon _V\mathrm{\Xi }+\upsilon _HL)+d_V(\upsilon _H\omega )=`$
$`\upsilon _V\delta L+d_H(h_0(\upsilon \mathrm{\Xi }_L))+d_V(\upsilon _H\omega ),`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }_L`$ is some Poincaré–Cartan form of a finite order Lagrangian $`L`$.

Let a generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ (23) be a divergence symmetry of a Lagrangian $`L`$, i.e.,

$$𝐋_\upsilon L=d_H\sigma ,\sigma 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^{0,n1}.$$
(27)
By virtue of the expression (25), this condition implies that a generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ is projected onto $`X`$, i.e., its components $`\upsilon ^\lambda `$ depend only on coordinates on $`X`$. Then, the first variational formula (26) takes the form

$$d_H\sigma =\upsilon _V\delta L+d_H(h_0(\upsilon \mathrm{\Xi }_L)).$$
(28)
Restricted to Ker$`\delta L`$, it leads to the generalized Noether conservation law

$$0d_H(h_0(\upsilon \mathrm{\Xi }_L)\sigma ).$$
(29)
A glance at the expression (25) shows that a generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ (23) projected onto $`X`$ is a divergence symmetry of a Lagrangian $`L`$ iff its vertical part $`\upsilon _V`$ is so. Moreover, $`\upsilon `$ and $`\upsilon _V`$ lead to the same generalized Noether conservation law (29). For instance, if $`\upsilon =J^{\mathrm{}}\tau `$ (22), the first variational formula (26) and the conservation law (29) become tautological.

Note that a Poincaré–Cartan form $`\mathrm{\Xi }_L`$ of an $`r`$-order Lagrangian $`L=\omega `$ fails to be uniquely defined unless $`r=1`$ or $`\mathrm{dim}X=1`$. It is given by the coordinate expression

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_L=\omega +{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}F_i^{\lambda \mu _s\mathrm{}\mu _1}\theta _{\mu _s\mathrm{}\mu _1}^i\omega _\lambda ,\omega _\lambda =_\lambda \omega ,`$ (30)
$`F_i^{\nu _r\mathrm{}\nu _1}=_i^{\nu _r\mathrm{}\nu _1},F_i^{\nu _k\mathrm{}\nu _1}=_i^{\nu _k\mathrm{}\nu _1}d_\lambda F_i^{\lambda \nu _k\mathrm{}\nu _1}+c_i^{\nu _k\mathrm{}\nu _1},1k<r,`$
where the functions $`c_i^{\nu _k\mathrm{}\nu _1}`$, of jet order at most $`2rk1`$, satisfy the condition $`c_i^{(\nu _k\nu _{k1})\mathrm{}\nu _1}=0`$ and $`c_i^\nu =0`$ . Any Poincaré–Cartan form (30) can be locally brought into the form where all the functions $`c_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ equal zero. This local expression is used in . It is globally valid if either $`L`$ is of first order (see ) or $`\mathrm{dim}X=1`$, i.e., in the higher order mechanics.

One can obtain the characteristic equation for divergence symmetries of a Lagrangian $`L`$ as follows. Let a generalized symmetry $`\upsilon `$ (23) be projected onto $`X`$. Then, the Lie derivative $`𝐋_\upsilon L`$ (25) is a horizontal density. Let us require that it is a $`\delta `$-closed form, i.e.,

$$\delta (𝐋_\upsilon L)=0.$$
(31)
In accordance with the equality (17), this condition is fulfilled iff

$`𝐋_\upsilon L=h_0\phi +d_H\sigma ,`$
where $`\phi `$ is a closed form on $`Y`$. It follows that $`\upsilon `$ is a divergence symmetry of $`L`$ at least locally. Thus, the equation (31) enables one to find all divergence symmetries of a given Lagrangian $`L`$. Note that the master identity (7) fails to be true for generalized symmetries. There is the local relation

$`\delta (𝐋_\upsilon L)=𝐋_\upsilon \delta L+{\displaystyle \underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|>0}{}}(1)^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}d_\mathrm{\Lambda }(_k^\mathrm{\Lambda }\upsilon ^i\delta _idy^k)\omega `$
used in .


text:
# REFERENCES

Spin Relaxation in the Quantized Hall Regime

in the Presence of Disorder

S. Dickmann

Institute for Solid State Physics of RAS, Chernogolovka, 142432 Moscow District, Russia

and Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel

##

We study the spin relaxation (SR) of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in the quantized Hall regime and discuss the role of spatial inhomogeneity effects on the relaxation. The results are obtained for small filling factors ($`\nu 1`$) or when the filling factor is close to an integer. In either case SR times are essentially determined by a smooth random potential. For small $`\nu `$ we predict a “magneto-confinement” resonance manifested in the enhancement of the SR rate when the Zeeman energy is close to the spacing of confinement sublevels in the low-energy wing of the disorder-broadened Landau level. In the resonant region the $`B`$-dependence of the SR time has a peculiar non-monotonic shape. If $`\nu 2n+1`$, the SR is going non-exponentially. Under typical conditions the calculated SR times range from $`10^8`$ to $`10^6`$s. PACS numbers: 73.43.Cd, 72.25.Rb, 75.30.Ds

1. For the relaxation of electron spins to occur, two conditions have to be fulfilled: the first one is the presence of an interaction mixing different spin states in the system studied; the second is the availability of a mechanism which makes the relaxation process irreversible. Both conditions can be realized in a rich variety of ways, and even in the case of two-dimensional (2D) electrons one finds a wide scatter of experimental data  and theoretical results  devoted to SR problems. Besides, in the magnetic field the SR process is actually the relaxation of the Zeeman energy $`|g\mu _BB\mathrm{\Delta }S_z|`$ ($`\stackrel{}{B}\widehat{z}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z=S_zS_0`$ is the spin deviation of the $`S_z`$ component from the equilibrium value $`S_0`$).

Theoretically, the relaxation problem of a flipped spin in a semiconductor heterostructure in high perpendicular magnetic field seems to be first formulated by D. Frenkel , who considered the relativistic part of the phonon field acting directly on the electron spin as the interaction mixing the electron spin states. One could estimate that in the case of another mechanism, exactly due to the spin-orbit (SO) coupling reformulated for the 2D case , the relevant spin-flip transition matrix element is at least by an order of magnitude greater. However, the work of Ref.  caused some misunderstandings even almost a decade after its publication. (See the comment  and references therein).

Any properties of a 2DEG in the quantum Hall regime crucially depend on the filling factor $`\nu =N/N_\varphi `$, where $`N`$ and $`N_\varphi =L^2/2\pi l_B^2`$ are the numbers of electrons and magnetic flux quanta, respectively ($`L\times L`$ is the 2DEG area, $`l_B`$ is the magnetic length). In this Letter we consider the SR problem in two formulations.

First, we solve the problem of one-electron spin-flip in the presence of a random potential, and in so doing we study the SR in a lateral quantum dot in high magnetic field, where the effects of interplay between the localization and the Zeeman coupling are essential. We emphasize that we deal with a weak confinement but in the presence of strong $`B`$. Therefore well smaller energies are relevant ($`1`$K) than, e.g., in the case of usual interplay of Fock-Darwin states . (The latter is based on competition of confinement and cyclotron energies which are $`>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$K). The most striking manifestation of the “magneto-confinement” effect occurs when the Zeeman energy is close to the spacing of lowest-energy levels in a quantum dot or in a potential minimum. This results in strong enhancement of the SR rate. The studied one-electron problem is actual for small filling factors, $`\nu 1`$, but in strong magnetic fields it may also be extended in terms of the Hartree-Fock approach to a vicinity of an even filling factor, when $`\nu 2n`$.

Second, we report on the results for the SR in a strongly correlated 2DEG when it presents a quantum Hall ferromagnet (QHF), i.e. when the filling factor $`\nu `$ is close to an odd integer ($`\nu 2n+1`$). In this case we study a new mechanism of relaxation of the total 2DEG spin, where the cause of irreversibility is neither electron-phonon interaction  nor inter-spin-wave scattering  but a disorder. We will see that in real experimental regimes this disorder relaxation channel has significantly to prevail over the phonon one.

In both SR problems the temperature is assumed to be equal to zero which actually means that it is lower than the Zeeman energy.

2. We consider a smooth random potential (SRP) as the disorder. The total single-electron Hamiltonian is thereby as follows: $`=\mathrm{}^2\widehat{𝐪}^2/2m_e^{}ϵ_Z\widehat{\sigma }_z/2+u(𝐫)+H_{SO}+U_{\text{e-ph}},`$ where $`ϵ_Z=|g|\mu _BB`$, $`\widehat{𝐪}=i+e𝐀/c`$ and $`𝐫=(x,y)`$ are 2D vectors, $`u(𝐫)`$ is the SRP field, the $`H_{SO}`$ and $`U_{\text{e-ph}}`$ terms respond to the SO and electron-phonon interactions (see below). If the SRP is assumed to be Gaussian, then it is defined by the correlator $`K(𝐫)=u(𝐫)u(0)`$. We choose also $`u(𝐫)=0`$ which means that the SRP energy is measured from the center of the Landau level. In terms of the correlation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and Landau level width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the correlator is

$$K(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}(r^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2).$$
$`(1)`$
In the realistic case $`\mathrm{\Delta }10`$K, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }3050`$nm, therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{}^2/m_e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. We study the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ ($`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }l_B`$. In the SRP field the electron drifts quasiclassically along an equipotential line. However before the spin-flip it relaxes to a SRP minimum. Estimates for this relaxation time (due to phonon emission without any spin-flip) yield the values not exceeding $`1`$ns.

For simplicity, we model the SRP in the vicinity of a minimum by a parabolic confinement potential $`u=m_e^{}\omega ^2r^2/2`$, and to describe the electron states we use the symmetric gauge basis ($`𝐀=𝐫\times 𝐁/2`$):

$$|n,m,\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{n!}{(n+m)!}}\frac{e^{im\phi r^2/4a^2}}{a\sqrt{2\pi }}\left(\frac{ir}{\sqrt{2}a}\right)^mL_n^m(r^2/2a^2)|\sigma .$$
$`(2)`$
($`L_n^m`$ is a Laguerre polynomial; note also that only the states with $`n+m0`$ are considered in the following.) For the length $`a`$ it should be substituted $`a=(\mathrm{}/2m_e^{}\mathrm{\Omega })^{1/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\omega ^2+\omega _c^2/4}`$. The system thus becomes equivalent to a lateral quantum dot , and we deal with the Fock-Darwin states  with energies $`E_{n,m}=\mathrm{}(2n+m+1)\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}\omega _cm/2`$. The appropriate quantity is also the level spacing $`\delta =\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _c/2)\mathrm{}\omega ^2/\omega _c`$, concerning the $`m0`$ states which belong to the same number $`n`$. We calculate the total rate of the transition of an electron initially occupying the upper spin sublevel to any final state of the lower spin sublevel. At first sight we should consider the spin-flipped state $`|0,0,`$ as the initial one. However, a correction of the states due to the SO coupling has to be taken into account. We use the SO Hamiltonian specified for the (001) GaAs plane: $`H_{SO}=\alpha \left(\widehat{𝐪}\times \widehat{𝝈}\right)_z+\beta \left(q_y\widehat{\sigma }_yq_x\widehat{\sigma }_x\right)`$. This expression is a combination of the Rashba term  (with the coefficient $`\alpha `$) and the crystalline anisotropy term  ($`\widehat{\sigma }_{x,y,z}`$ are the Pauli matrices). Assuming that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are small ($`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}\omega _cl_B`$) we find after perturbative treatment the spin-orbitally corrected states before and after the spin flip:

$$|i=C_{1,1}|0,0,+C_{2,1}|0,1,+\frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{2}a}|1,1,\text{and}$$
$`(3)`$
$$|f_m=C_{1,m}|0,m,+C_{2,m}|0,m1,\frac{i\alpha }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{2}a}|1,m1,+\frac{\beta \delta \sqrt{m+1}}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{2}a(\delta +ϵ_Z)}|1,m+1,,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`0m<ϵ_Z/\delta `$ (the Zeeman energy $`ϵ_Z`$ has been neglected as compared to $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$). The coefficients $`C_{i,m}`$ are defined as follows: let $`T=\alpha \delta \sqrt{2}/a\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ_Z\delta )`$ and $`P_m=2\sqrt{1+T^2m}`$, then $`C_{1,m}=\sqrt{1/2+1/P_m}`$, and $`C_{2,m}=isign(\delta ϵ_Z)\sqrt{1/21/P_m}`$. Here the resonance mixing of the “spin-up” and “spin-down” states (if $`ϵ_Z\delta `$) has been properly taken into account. Note that the behaviour of the states (3)-(4) in the vicinity of the resonance (namely in the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }B/B\alpha \sqrt{m_e^{}/\mathrm{}^3\omega _c}0.1`$) is governed only by the Rashba SO mechanism.

In the resonance region $`C_{1,1}|C_{2,1}|`$, and $`|i`$ is thereby a well hybridized spin state. The $`|i|f_0`$ transition then is not due to the SO coupling, and this should lead to the SR enhancement. The final state $`|f_0`$ is the almost “pure” spin-state. In fact we may always set $`C_{1,m}=1`$ and $`C_{2,m}=0`$ in the expression for $`|f_m`$. Indeed, though the spin hybridization of the $`|f_1`$ state is significant, it plays negligible role in the SR process because of vanishing of the relevant phonon momentum $`(ϵ_Z\delta )/c_s`$. Then we find the matrix element $`f_m|U_{\text{e-ph}}|i`$ and, using the Fermi golden rule, obtain the SR rate within a certain SRP minimum, $`1/\tau _\omega =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}_{m,𝐤}\left|f_m\left|U_{\text{e-ph}}\right|i\right|^2\delta (\mathrm{}c_skϵ_Z).`$ Here $`U_{\text{e-ph}}(𝐫)=(\mathrm{}/V)^{1/2}_s\stackrel{~}{U}_s(𝐪,k_z)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}`$, where the index $`s`$ labels phonon polarization, $`V`$ is the sample volume, and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_s`$ is the renormalized (in the 2D layer) vertex which includes the deformation and piezoelectric fields created by the phonon . The summation over $`s`$ involves averaging over directions of the polarization unit vector for both components of the electron-phonon interaction, and this may be reduced to $`\left|_sU_s\right|^2=\pi \mathrm{}c_sk/p_0^3\tau _A(𝐤)`$, where $`\tau _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\tau _D^1+5\tau _p^1p_0^2(q^2k_z^2+q_x^2q_y^2)/k^6`$ (see Ref. ). The nominal times for the deformation and piezoelectric interactions in GaAs are $`\tau _D0.8`$ps, and $`\tau _P35`$ps . The nominal momentum is $`p_0=2.5210^6/`$cm . (We also refer to Refs.  for details concerning the meaning of these quantities and their expressions in terms of the GaAs material parameters.) Finally, in the general expression for $`1/\tau _\omega `$ we perform the summation and after a routine treatment arrive at the result

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\omega }=\frac{1}{8ap_0\tau _p}_0^1\frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{1\xi }}\underset{0m<ϵ_Z/\delta }{}\frac{b_m}{m!}\left[𝒜_m^2(\xi )+_m^2(\xi )\right](S_m+5\xi 35\xi ^2/8)e^{\xi b_m^2}\left(\frac{\xi b_m^2}{2}\right)^m,$$
$`(5)`$
$$\text{where}b_m=a\frac{ϵ_Zm\delta }{\mathrm{}c_s},S_m=\frac{b_m^2\tau _p}{(ap_0)^2\tau _d},𝒜_m=\left(\frac{2m}{b_m\sqrt{\xi }}\sqrt{\xi }b_m\right)|C_{2,1}|+\frac{\alpha b_m}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }a}\sqrt{\frac{\xi }{2}}sign(\delta ϵ_Z),$$

and $`_m={\displaystyle \frac{\beta b_m}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }a}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}}\left(1C_{1,1}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta +ϵ_Z}}\right)`$. The estimate for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depends on the effective layer width . The rate $`1/\tau _\omega `$ as a function of $`B`$ at $`\omega =5`$K is shown in the inset of Fig.1 for realistic parameters indicated in the capture.

At $`\omega =0`$ (i.e. in the “clean” limit), the summation in the formula (5) is carried out over all numbers $`m=0,1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, and the expression (5) is reduced to

$$\frac{1}{\tau _0}=𝒱_0^1\frac{\xi d\xi }{\sqrt{1\xi }}e^{b^2\xi /2}(S+5\xi 35\xi ^2/8),$$
$`(6)`$
where $`𝒱={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{Z}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)}{4p_0\mathrm{}^5\omega _c^2c_s^3\tau _p}}B,`$ $`b={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_Zl_B}{\mathrm{}c_s}}\sqrt{B},`$ $`S={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _pϵ_Z^2}{\tau _D(\mathrm{}c_sp_0)^2}}B^2`$. The bold curves in the inset and in the main picture of Fig. 1 show the corresponding $`B`$-dependencies.

Note that if $`ϵ_Z=0`$, then at any $`𝐫_0`$ the projection $`𝒫(𝐫_0)=f_m|\delta (𝐫𝐫_0)|i`$ vanishes when calculated at a finite $`\omega `$ in the leading order in the SO constants. \[It does not occur for the “clean” states, i.e. if in Eqs. (3) and (4) we pass to the $`\omega 0`$ limit before equating $`ϵ_Z`$ to zero.\] Such a vanishing is a manifestation of the general feature : at zero Zeeman energy the effects of the SO coupling in the leading order and of the orbital magnetic field are similar. In particular, in a quantum dot (where $`\delta >ϵ_Z`$!), the first order SO approximation in the $`ϵ_Z0`$ limit results only in a small rotation of eigen states in the spin space. With decreasing $`B`$ we get $`𝒫B^{3/2}`$ (if $`ϵ_Z\delta \omega _c`$) and obtain a sharper fall of the relaxation rate as compared to the “clean” case (6).

In the presence of the SRP we have to carry out averaging $`1/\tau _{\text{eff}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega F(\omega )/\tau _\omega `$, where the distribution function $`F(\omega )`$ is the probability for the confinement frequency to take a certain value $`\omega `$. One may prove that in the case of a Gaussian potential $`u(𝐫)`$ it should be chosen in the form $`F(\omega )=\frac{2\omega }{\sqrt{\pi }\omega _0}\mathrm{exp}(\omega ^4/4\omega _0^4)`$. \[The value $`\omega ^2`$ is proportional to the curvature $`^2u`$, and a routine analysis yields $`\omega _0=6^{1/4}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_e^{})^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.\] Calculating $`1/\tau _{\text{eff}}`$ with this function, we obtain the final result (see Fig.1). As it has to be, in comparison with $`\tau _\omega `$ the resonant behaviour of $`1/\tau _{\text{eff}}`$ is smoothed, but at actual values of $`\omega _0`$ it results in non-monotonic $`B`$-dependence of $`\tau _{\text{eff}}`$. Beyond the resonance region the behaviour is as follows: (i) at small magnetic fields (when $`ϵ_Z\mathrm{}\omega _0^2/\omega _c\omega _c`$) only one final state $`|f_0`$ participates in the SR, and we find that $`\tau _{\text{eff}}B^5`$; (ii) at high fields (when $`ϵ_Z\delta _0`$) there is a large but finite number of possible states $`|f_m`$ into which the confined spin-flipped electrons could relax, and the SR time is always longer than $`\tau _0`$ but approaches this with increasing magnetic field. Note that exactly in this high-field regime the one-electron model becomes relevant for fillings $`\nu 2n`$. Then the total 2DEG spin is determined only by a small amount $`|\nu 2n|N_\varphi `$ of effectively “free” electrons/holes belonging to the $`(n+1)`$-st/$`n`$-th Landau level.

3. So, the problem has been solved when the total 2DEG spin is well smaller than $`N_\varphi `$. Now we study the opposite case: in the ground QHF state the spin numbers attain maximum, $`S=S_z=N_\varphi /2`$. This case is also remarkable, since to the first order in the ratio $`r_c=(e^2/\epsilon l_B)/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ the low-lying excitation are again exactly known: these are 2D spin waves or spin excitons (SEs). The most adequate description of the SE states is realized by spin-exciton creation $`Q_𝐪^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_\mathrm{\Phi }}}_pe^{ipq_xl_B^2}a_{p+\frac{q_y}{2}}^{}a_{p\frac{q_y}{2}}`$ and annihilation $`Q_𝐪=\left(Q_𝐪^{}\right)^{}`$ operators . In this definition $`a_{\sigma p}`$ stands for the Fermi annihilation operator corresponding to the $`|n,p,\sigma =L^{1/2}e^{ipy}\phi _n(x+pl_B^2)`$ state in the Landau gauge ($`\phi _n`$ is the $`n`$th harmonic oscilatory function). So the one-exciton state is $`Q_𝐪^{}|0`$, where $`|0`$ stands for the ground state. At small 2D momentum ($`ql_B1`$) the one-exciton state has the energy $`_q=ϵ_Z+(qł_B)^2/2M_n`$ (now we need only this small momenta approximation, see also general expressions for the 2D magneto-excitons at integer filling factors in Refs. ). $`M_n`$ is the SE mass at $`\nu =2n+1`$, namely in the $`r_c\mathrm{}`$ limit: $`1/M_0=(e^2/\epsilon l_B)\sqrt{\pi /8}`$, $`1/M_1=7/4M_0`$,… Note that the sum $`S_{}=_i\sigma _{}^{(i)}`$ lowering the spin number $`S_z`$ by 1 ($`i`$ labels the electrons), when considered to be projected onto the $`n`$th Landau level, is simply proportional to the “zero” exciton creation operator $`Q_0^{}`$. When the SO coupling is ignored, any state $`\left(S_{}\right)^N|0`$ is the eigenstate independently of the $`r_c`$ magnitude and of the presence of a disorder.

The SO interaction $`H_{SO}`$ and the SRP field $`u(𝐫)`$ may be accounted perturbatively as usual. Meanwhile, now the unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian involves the Coulomb interaction. For present purposes the approximation in the context of the projection onto a single Landau level is quite sufficient (c.f. Ref. ). We note also that the QHF state $`|0`$ is resistant to the SRP disorder. Such a stability is determined by the exchange energy ($`e^2/\kappa l_B`$) which is much larger than the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

There are two fundamentally different alternatives to provide the initial perturbation of spins. The first one is the perturbation of the spin system as a whole when the $`S`$ number is not changed: $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$, but $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_z0`$. This is a Goldstone mode which presents a quantum precession of the vector $`𝐒`$ around the $`𝐁`$ direction. In terms of the SE representation $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S_z|=N_\varphi /2S_z`$ is the number of “zero” SEs excited in a 2DEG. Let $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S_z|=N`$; the corresponding state is $`\left(S_{}\right)^N|0\left(Q_0^{}\right)^N|0`$, and it has the energy $`Nϵ_Z`$. \[Note that “zero” SEs do not interact among themselves; besides, the stability of the $`\left(S_{}\right)^N|0`$ state with respect to the disorder is identical to that for the $`|0`$ state because of $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`S_{}`$ commuting.\] The second case of the perturbation is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }S_z`$ type of the deviation. This does not change the symmetry and involves the excitation of “nonzero” SEs, where each SE changes the spin numbers by 1: $`SS1`$, $`S_zS_z1`$. In contrast to “zero” SEs, the “nonzero” ones interact. This interaction  or/and the direct exciton-phonon coupling  govern the “nonzero” SE annihilation which should go faster than for “nonzero” SE annihilation process.

The SRP inhomogeneity does not essentially affect the SE energy and the “nonzero” annihilation. Indeed, the exciton is neutral, and the interaction with the SRP incorporates the energy $`U_{\text{x-SRP}}ql_B^2\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (the “nonzero” SE possesses the dipole momentum $`el_B^2[𝐪\times \widehat{z}]`$, see Ref. ). The latter may be negative but is always smaller than the “nonzero” SE energy $`_q`$. If the SE would annihilate, the energy conservation condition $`_q+U_{\text{x-SRP}}=0`$ is not satisfied except of negligibly rare points, where the gradient $`u`$ is accidentally large. Therefore, the SRP leads only to small corrections (of the order of $`U_{\text{x-SRP}}/_q`$) to the other mechanisms of the “nonzero” SE relaxation .

A distinctly different process contributes to the SR in the case of the first type of the spin perturbation. This is an effective interaction of “zero” SEs among themselves arising due to the SO coupling . Such an interaction does not preserve the total number of excitons $`N`$: at elementary event two “zero” excitons merge into one “nonzero” (the spin momenta change following the rule $`S_zS_z+1`$, $`SS1`$). In other words, the SO coupling and the SRP field mix the initial $`|i=\left(Q_0^{}\right)^N|0`$ and the final $`|f_q=Q_𝐪^{}\left(Q_0^{}\right)^{N2}|0`$ states. These “many-exciton” states have to be normalized (see the normalization factors in Refs. ). So, the SRP plays the same role as the phonon field studied previously . Now the energy conservation condition takes the form: $`2ϵ_Z_q`$, where the interaction of “nonzero” SE with the SRP is ignored as compared to other members of this equation. If solving this for $`q`$, we obtain $`q=q_0\sqrt{2M_nϵ_Z}/l_B`$.

The detailed calculation of the SR rate is truly similar to that performed in Ref. . Indeed, the Fourier expansion $`u(𝐫)=_𝐪\overline{u}(q)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}`$ looks like the phonon field created by “frozen” (of zero frequency) phonons. Then this SRP field and the SO Hamiltonian are treated perturbatively. In so doing, it is convenient to present them in terms of the excitonic operators. We calculate the relevant matrix element between the $`|i`$ and $`|f_q`$ normalized states and obtain $`\left|_{if_q}\right|^2=N^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)|q\overline{u}(q)|^2/(\mathrm{}\omega _c)^2N_\varphi `$. Finally, again with the use of the Fermi golden rule, we find after summation over all states $`|f_q`$ that the SR rate takes the same form as in the case of the phonon mechanism , $`dS_z/dt=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_z\right)^2/\tau _{\text{SRP}}N_\varphi `$, but incorporates a different time constant:

$$\tau _{\text{SRP}}^1=\frac{16\pi ^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)M_n^2ϵ_Z\overline{K}(q_0)}{\mathrm{}^3\omega _c^2l_B^4}.$$

Here $`\overline{K}`$ stands for the Fourier component of the correlator \[the equivalence $`\overline{K}(q)=L^2\left|\overline{u}(q)\right|^2/4\pi ^2`$ has been employed\]. The SR follows the low

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_z(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S_z(0)}{1+t\left|\mathrm{\Delta }S_z(0)\right|/\tau _{\text{sr}}N_\varphi },$$

where $`\tau _{\text{sr}}^1=\tau _{\text{ph}}^1+\tau _{\text{SRP}}^1`$, because the relaxations of both types proceed in parallel. A natural question is: what is the ratio of the times $`\tau _{\text{ph}}`$ and $`\tau _{\text{SRP}}`$? If $`T\mathrm{}c_sq_0`$ (in fact, this means that $`T1`$K) and $`B<15`$, then the SR time $`\tau _{\text{ph}}`$ depends weakly on $`T`$ and $`B`$. In particular, at $`\nu =1`$ we find that $`\tau _{\text{ph}}10\mu `$s . The ratio of interest is determined only by the Fourier component $`\overline{K}(q_0)`$: $`\tau _{\text{ph}}/\tau _{\text{SRP}}=0.24\pi \tau _pp_0\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2q_0^2/4}/\mathrm{}^2c_s`$ \[for $`\overline{K}`$ we have substituted the value calculated with help of Eq. (1)\]. So, for the actual parameters $`\tau _{\text{ph}}/\tau _{\text{SRP}}1001000`$, i.e. exactly the “disorder” time ($`\tau _{\text{SRP}}10^810^7`$s) governs the breakdown of this Goldstone mode. In conclusion, we remind that the relaxation is going non-exponentially and the actual time is increased by a factor of $`N_\varphi /\mathrm{\Delta }S_z(0)`$.

4. I thank Y.B. Levinson for helpful discussion and acknowledge support by the MINERVA Foundation and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. I thank also the Weizmann Institute of Science (Rehovot) for hospitality.