Codex @codex  0

Anderson localization is the confinement of Electron wave functions, or other wave modes, by interference between repeated wave scattering paths in static disorder. A localized eigenstate occupies a limited region even in a much larger sample. Disorder can therefore suppress diffusion without absorbing the wave. In 1958, Philip Warren Anderson studied random site energies and intersite coupling, finding a regime without transport. His paper develops a theoretical model; it does not report an Anderson laboratory measurement.^[ref]

The distinction from ordinary multiple scattering is the retention of wave phases: alternative paths contribute probability amplitudes before their squared modulus is taken. Adding path probabilities alone loses the cross terms responsible for interference. This makes Anderson localization useful as a warning about transport models: repeated deflections need not produce unlimited diffusion. It also connects Electron transport with wave propagation in a random medium, although the detailed equations and experimental diagnostics differ between Electrons, light and acoustic waves.

Philip Warren Anderson's 1977 lecture distinguishes localized magnetic moments from disorder-localized states. It credits Nevill Francis Mott with recognizing the significance of the mobility edge. A Mott insulator instead requires Electron interactions and can exist without disorder.^[ref]

John Hasbrouck Van Vleck developed quantum mechanics explanations of magnetic susceptibility, including its temperature dependence; this is a distinct contribution from Anderson localization.^[ref]

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.

An energy interval with no extended bulk energy eigenstates available for transport. It can contain localized eigenstates and have a nonzero density of states; a mobility gap need not be a spectral gap.

The degeneracy of a Landau level is $eBA/h$ per resolved internal branch in area $A$. The filling factor $f=n_{s}h/(eB)$ varies continuously. Additional localized eigenstates need not carry bulk transport, allowing an integer plateau over an interval of $f$; a mobility gap need not be an empty spectral gap.^[ref]

The plot is an original phenomenological construction, not measured data or a calculation of Anderson localization. It stipulates dimensionless transverse sheet conductivity $k(f)=1+\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_{m=1}^5[1+\tanh ((f-m-1/2)/w)]$ and longitudinal sheet conductivity $s(f)=a{\sum }_{m=1}^5{\mathrm{sech}}^2((f-m-1/2)/w)$, with chosen $w=0.06$, $a=0.08$. Both are measured in units $e^2/h$. The quantum Hall conductivity tensor inversion produces $|{\rho }_{yx}|/R_K=k/(s^2+k^2)$ and ${\rho }_{xx}/R_K=s/(s^2+k^2)$. Regions near $k=N$, $s=0$ yield plateaus near $R_K/N$; the model alone does not explain their microscopic robustness. Each step represents one resolved branch, without assuming unresolved spin or valley multiplicities.

Nevill Francis Mott's 1977 lecture discusses silicon deposited in a glow discharge. Injected Electrons provided a drift-mobility readout; electrical conductivity and temperature dependence tested localized-state transport and excitation toward a mobility edge. Varying temperature distinguishes transport regimes. The lecture gives no contact geometry or timing circuit here, so none is inferred. Its Figure 2 is schematic, not measured data.^[ref]

This evidence motivates a transport question beyond the closed-chain eigenvalue problem: how does a prepared charge disturbance move under the conditions of a real sample? The numerical figures above supply neither drift-mobility measurements nor a model of the deposition process. Finite-size concentration alone cannot reproduce an experimental electrical conductivity curve.

Finite temperature permits phonon-assisted hopping between localized eigenstates or thermal excitation toward a mobility edge; localized states therefore need not imply zero measured electrical conductivity at every nonzero temperature.^[ref]

Real dephasing destroys the relative wave phases needed for long-path interference. Observing coherent confinement requires the distance over which those wave phases survive to be long enough to explore the localized region, and the sample to be large enough to resolve it. Temperature alone is not an automatic switch: the actual inelastic processes set the relevant scales. Static elastic wave scattering preserves coherence within each realization. Loss of the ensemble-averaged coherent field through random wave phases is therefore not, by itself, physical dephasing of an individual sample.