Discover
/
Article

Notes on Anderson localization

MAY 01, 2012

DOI: 10.1063/PT.3.1539

Ad Lagendijk
Bart van Tiggelen
Diederik Wiersma

Lagendijk, van Tiggelen, and Wiersma reply: In his response to our story on the history of Anderson localization, Theodore Castner classifies our statements regarding both the scaling of the conductivity with temperature and the exponent puzzle as “misleading.” He also says we “ignored” important contributions, in particular his own proposition to explain a critical exponent 0.5 in weakly compensated semiconductors by the so-called ion-impurity scattering mechanism. 1 That mechanism would lead to a Drude electronic conductivity proportional to the Fermi wavenumber.

It is true that the controversy over critical exponents around the mobility edge and the ongoing debate about the Mott minimum conductivity at the mobility edge marked the history of Anderson localization. They should be mentioned—as we did—by any review on the subject. Given length constraints, it was impossible for us to go into more detail and to discuss recent speculations, including claims on the Mott minimum conductivity. 2 We found it important to state that an exponent around 0.5 observed in uncompensated semiconductors would violate the lower limit of 2⁄3 set by the scaling theory and would thus require a scenario other than the one proposed by Philip Anderson and coworkers. Another view on compensated semiconductors is that charge carriers tunnel between impurity states, much like what is proposed in the Anderson model with diagonal disorder. That approach would lead to an exponent of 1.5.

We are very much aware that the extrapolation to zero temperature of the conductivity was a struggle in the early work at Karlsruhe University and at Bell Labs (Castner’s references 1–3). In 1996 Issai Shlimak and coworkers claimed that with a better justified extrapolation toward zero temperatures, even uncompensated germanium:arsenic, germanium:antimony, and silicon:phosphorus would exhibit a critical exponent of order one. 3

For a more extended historical overview with due credit, see our website http://www.andersonlocalization.com , which has been in operation since 2008.

References

  1. 1. T. G. Castner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1539 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1539

  2. 2. A. Möbius et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 14209 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.14209

  3. 3. I. Shlimak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1103 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1103

More about the Authors

Ad Lagendijk. FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics, Amsterdam.

Bart van Tiggelen. CNRS, Grenoble, France.

Diederik Wiersma. European Laboratory for Nonlinear Spectroscopy/INO-CNR, Florence, Italy.

This Content Appeared In
pt-cover_2012_05.jpeg

Volume 65, Number 5

Related content
/
Article
/
Article
/
Article
/
Article
/
Article
/
Article

Get PT in your inbox

Physics Today - The Week in Physics

The Week in Physics" is likely a reference to the regular updates or summaries of new physics research, such as those found in publications like Physics Today from AIP Publishing or on news aggregators like Phys.org.

Physics Today - Table of Contents
Physics Today - Whitepapers & Webinars
By signing up you agree to allow AIP to send you email newsletters. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.