[179.1.1] Consider the random walk of a single particle of type A
in a percolating network on a regular lattice.
[179.1.2] We will always take the lattice constant of the
underlying lattice to be unity.
[179.1.3] For simplicity we consider the case of bond percolation
instead of site percolation.
[179.1.4] That is, the bonds of the regular lattice
are assumed to be blocked be B-particles (blockers) with probability .
[179.1.5] If a bond is blocked by a B-particle
it cannot be crossed by the A-particle (walker).
[179.1.6] We assume that the walker has a memory of its previous step.
[179.1.7] It returns with a transition rate
, to the previously visited site,
and jumps with a rate
to any other of the nearest neighbour sites.
[179.1.8] The ratio
is a measure of the strength of the memory correlations.
[179.1.9] For
the walker returns preferentially to its previously visited site,
and we will refer to this case as “enhanced reversals”.
[179.1.10] In the case
the walker tends to avoid the previously visited site
and this will be termed “reduced reversals”.
[179.1.11] As usual, we are interested in the autocorrelation function
,
i. e. the probability density to find the walker at site
at time
if it started from site
at time
.
[179.1.12] We will show below that the problem can be formulated
as a system of second order equations for the
which reads
![]() |
(2.1a) |
where and
is the coordination number of site
.
[179.1.13] The symmetric quantities
represent the bond disorder and are defined as
![]() |
(2.2a) |
[page 180, §0]
[180.0.1] The summation in eq. (2.1a)
runs over the nearest neighbour sites of site
.
[180.0.2] Note that in the uncorrelated case,
, eq. (2.1)
reduces to the usual master equation for a random walk
on a bond percolation network if one replaces
by the sum of
and its derivative.
[180.1.1] Equation (2.1) has to be supplemented by initial conditions
for and its derivative.
[180.1.2] Special attention has to be paid
to the condition on
and its derivative.
[180.1.3] The correct choice is
![]() |
![]() |
(2.3a) | |
![]() |
![]() |
(2.3b) |
where the symbol stands for the limit
from above.
[180.1.4] Note that
is the average transition rate
out of the starting point.
[180.2.1] We now derive eq. (2.1) as the equations of motion
for our correlated random walk.
[180.2.2] This will be done by a suitable reformulation of the equations
for the correlated random walk on the regular lattice[19],
and subsequent generalization to the disordered case.
[180.2.3] Consider therefore the random walker on a regular lattice.
[180.2.4] The random walker has a memory of its previous step
and as a consequence its walk is not markovian,
i. e. the transition probabilities are not completely determined
by the currently occupied site.
[180.2.5] However a markovian description can be obtained
by introducing an enlarged state space with internal states
which correspond to the previously occupied sites[21].
[180.2.6] Therefore the central quantity is the probability density
to find the walker at site
at time
given that it arrived at
via a direct transition from site
.
[180.2.7] Thus
labels the previously occupied site or history.
[page 181, §0]
[181.0.1] Then the symmetric probablity density
is obtained from
by a summation over all possible histories
![]() |
(2.4) |
where the sum runs over all nearest neighbour sites of site
.
[181.0.2] The conditional probability densities
obey the master equation
![]() |
(2.5) |
where the sum runs over all nearest neighbours of site
except for site
on the regular lattice.
[181.0.3] This is the starting point for deriving eq. (2.1).
[181.1.1] Equation (2.5) can now be reformulated by first writing it in a more symmetric form. [181.1.2] Using eq. (2.4) we can rewrite eq. (2.5) as
![]() |
(2.6) |
where , and
denotes the coordination number of the lattice.
[181.1.3] Note that eq. (2.6) reduces to the master equation
for a random walk on a regular lattice if one sets
and sums over all sites
which are nearest neighbours of site
.
[181.1.4] Next we differentiate eq. (2.6) and sum over
.
[181.1.5] We then employ it for
and
interchanged
to eliminate the term
and find
![]() |
(2.7) |
[181.1.6] Solving eq. (2.6) for
and inserting the result into eq. (2.7)
one obtains a closed second order equation for
![]() |
(2.8) |
where the summations, as before,
run over all nearest neighbour sites of site
.
[page 182, §0]
[182.0.1] Eq. (2.8) contains the same information as eq. (2.5)
but no longer involves the directional quantities
.
[182.0.2] This form can now be used to introduce disorder
and it leads directly to eq. (2.1).
[182.0.3] We now turn to the introduction of a time dependent network.
[182.1.1] Consider a system where the configuration of accessible sites fluctuates in time.
[182.1.2] We are interested in the case where the B-particles perform a random walk.
[182.1.3] Because we are dealing with bond percolation
this random walk occurs on the dual lattice.
[182.1.4] In an elementary step a blocking bond swings around either one of its end points
through an angle where
is the coordination number of the underlying lattice.
[182.1.5] It then occupies the new bond position if it is vacant.
[182.1.6] This process is repeated on the average after a time
which is the characteristic time scale for the blocker motion.
[182.1.7] In Figure 1 we depict the possible rotations
of a B-particle for the case of a hexagonal lattice.
[182.1.8] This model has been termed “dynamic bond percolation” model[22].
[182.1.9] The characteristic hopping time for a single B-particle is called
.
[182.1.10] The ratio
between the typical hopping time
of the blockers and the walker
will be the main variable characterizing the dynamics of the environment.
[182.2.1] Equation (2.1) must be generalized to allow for time dependent transition rates. [182.2.2] Therefore we have to consider an equation of the form
![]() |
(2.9a) |
where now the coefficients are time dependent,
![]() |
(2.10a) |
[page 183, §0] [183.0.1] The time dependence of these coefficients could in principle be determined from the many particle master equation for all blockers. [183.0.2] However, because that equation is much too complicated we will approximate the true time dependence by a simple renewal model in Section 4. [183.0.3] Equation (2.9) completes the formulation of the model. [183.0.4] We remark here that other forms of a two step memory are possible and may be useful for applications. [183.0.5] For example one can consider enhanced or reduced transitions continuing in the same direction as the last step. [183.0.6] Such correlations lead to more complicated equations, but they can be treated by the same general approach presented here.
[183.1.1] We conclude this section with the formulas that will be used to calculate
the frequency dependent conductivity from
.
[183.1.2] This is done via a generalized Einstein relation which reads
![]() |
(2.11a) |
where is the carrier density,
their electric charge,
, the Boltzmann constant,
the absolute tempreature, and
the generalized frequency dependent diffusion coefficient.
[page 184, §0]
[184.0.1]
will be calculated in standard fashion from[23]
![]() |
(2.12a) |
where is the solution
to eq. (2.9) or eq. (2.1) for the frozen case.
[184.0.2] The latter will be determined in the next section.