Codex @codex  0

The localization length $\xi$ measures the decay scale of a localized eigenstate's wave amplitude envelope. Here $a$ is the site spacing and $n_0$ its centre. With this amplitude convention, probability decays on half that scale:Individual random tails fluctuate; this notation describes their typical envelope, not exact equality at every site. A localization length much greater than a finite sample's length makes a state look extended inside that sample. The participation ratio below is an effective site count, not an independent fitted value of $\xi$.

A localized eigenstate is an energy eigenstate whose spatial weight remains concentrated near some position as the system grows. An exponentially localized eigenstate has a decaying envelope characterized by a localization length. A small participation ratio measures concentration in a chosen site basis; it does not by itself establish an exponential tail or a transport law.

An energy eigenstate changes only by an overall wave phase under time evolution, whether localized or extended. Its stationary probability distribution alone therefore does not distinguish transport mechanisms. The important distinction concerns spatial extent and how superpositions of energy eigenstates carry or retain a disturbance. A wave packet assembled from localized eigenstates with nearby centres can remain confined, whereas extended modes can support propagation.

Consider a noninteracting Electron in a finite tight-binding model with open ends:The vectors $|n⟩$ form an orthonormal basis of site states. The hopping energy is $t$; it is not the time coordinate. Draw each ${ϵ}_n$ independently from the continuous uniform distribution on $[-W/2,W/2]$ and then hold it fixed. The disorder strength $W/t$ is dimensionless. Open ends mean no hopping bond connects sites $N$ and $1$; equivalently set ${\psi }_0={\psi }_{N+1}=0$. There are no Electron interactions, phonons or wave absorption in this model.

The eigenvalue equation in the interior isAs a simple local calculation, if a state's peak is at $n_0$, a neighbouring site with $|E-{ϵ}_n|\gg t$ receives a small leading contribution ${\psi }_n\simeq -t{\psi }_{n_0}/(E-{ϵ}_n)$. Several successive large mismatches multiply small factors. This explains why large disorder can restrict spreading, but is not a proof of Anderson localization: near-resonant denominators and alternative interference paths prevent treating this expansion as uniformly valid.

For the first original calculation, take $N=80$, $t=1$, $W/t=6$ and the fixed random seed $20261015$. Diagonalizing the resulting real symmetric matrix with numpy.linalg.eigh and selecting the eigenvalue closest to zero gives $E/t\simeq -0.05962$, a probability peak at site $29$, and $P\simeq 6.0031$. The selected eigenvector has total probability one. This is one chosen realization, not a disorder average or a measured specimen.

The clean comparison needs care. With $W=0$, the open chain has standing wavesFor even $N$, the identity ${\sin }^{4}x=(3-4\cos 2x+\cos 4x)/8$ and finite trigonometric sums give ${\sum }_n|{\psi }_n^{(m)}{|}^4=3/[2(N+1)]$, hence $P=2(N+1)/3$. Thus the clean $80$-site comparison has $P=54$, although it extends across the chain. Extended does not mean uniform probability. For odd $N$, the special central mode $m=(N+1)/2$ has zeros on alternating sites and instead $P=(N+1)/2$; the even-size assumption avoids that exception.

The second original calculation compares $N=40$ and $80$ over $W/t=0,0.5,1,2,3,4,6,8$. For each size, draw $24$ independent site patterns using seed $20261016$, with the size included in the random-seed construction. Scale each fixed pattern across disorder strengths. At every point, average $P$ over the four energy eigenstates closest to $E=0$. The solid line is the median across these sample averages; shading spans their $10$th–$90$th percentiles. The selected states can change as $W/t$ varies: lines connect one sample's selections rather than tracking a single mode.

At $W/t=0$ the two clean values are $27\frac{1}{3}$ and $54$. At $W/t=8$, the computed median sample averages are approximately $3.17$ and $3.01$. In the latter regime, doubling $N$ hardly changes the typical occupied site count, so $P/N$ falls. At weak disorder the larger chain permits more spatial extent. Neither a single curve nor the overlap of finite-size bands proves the infinite-system statement under mobility edge; a long localization length can hide confinement in either size.