* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Estimation of Exchange Interaction Strength of
Electrical resistivity and conductivity wikipedia , lookup
Casimir effect wikipedia , lookup
Aharonov–Bohm effect wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Temperature wikipedia , lookup
Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Nordström's theory of gravitation wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnet wikipedia , lookup
Time in physics wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnetism wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Field (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Yang–Mills theory wikipedia , lookup
Condensed matter physics wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Cation–pi interaction wikipedia , lookup
Superconductivity wikipedia , lookup
Estimation of Exchange Interaction Strength of Nd3 Ga5 SiO14 from Mean-Field Analysis (Dated: September 7, 2009) We carried out the estimation of exchange interaction using mean-field theory using the low temperature magnetization data from Bordet et al [1]. The upper limit of the interaction energy is found to be on the order of 0.01 meV. INTRODUCTION There has been the controversy in estimating the magnitude of the exchange interaction from the magnetic behavior of Nd3 Ga5 SiO14 . At first, the high temperature Curie-Weiss behavior gives |θCW | >50 K, suggesting significant exchange interaction, although the crystal field effect was already a concern [2, 3]. Recently the crystal field issued was investigated by different groups and it turned out that the model of isolated Nd3+ sites with crystal field levels can quantitative explain the magnetization experiments, both high temperature and low temperature [4, 5]. However, so far the crystal field study can not rule out the possibility of hidden exchange interaction that has a lower energy scale, say ∼1 K, due to the experimental uncertainty. This possibility plus evidence of slower spin fluctuation at low temperature is so tempting that Zorko et al [6] still chose to use the Curie-Weiss temperature and mean field theory to estimate exchange couple strength Je ∼1.4 K. One can have several argument against this estimation: 1) the CurieWeiss behavior has its most contribution from crystal field levels, 2) even pure Nd has only |θCW |= 11 K and the superexchange is normally not much higher than the RKKY interaction. Still, the question is if this estimation is not valid, what is the valid way? Below, we will try to make a better estimation of exchange interaction from low temperature magnetization using mean field theory. REVIEW OF MEAN FIELD THEORY The Curie-Weiss mean field theory is also called molecular field theory, for it assumes a so called molecule field which is proportional to the magnetization M : Bm = γM. where {µi } and {Ei } are the set of magnetic moments and energy levels, N is the number density of magnetic sites. Note that Eq. (1) is written for a general case. If there is no crystal field splitting, one has {Ei = 0}, and {µi = gJzi µB }, where J is the angular moment quantum number. Next, we discuss this case. One can also find the discussion in most text books. Although Eq. (1) can not be solved analytically, in principle, as long as γ is known one can solve Eq. (1) numerically to get M as a function of T and Bext . Following is an approach that helps understand the physics of Eq. (1). Defining µ = gµB J µB , x = kB T Eq. (1) becomes M = N µBJ (x), where BJ (x) is the Brillouin function. If the external field Bext is zero, one has the equations: M = N µBJ (x) kB T x M = γµ Both functions in Eq. (2) is plotted in Fig. 1. One can see that at low temperature, there are two solutions of Eq. (2) including one with M 6= 0, indicating ferromagnetism, while at high temperature, there is only one solution with M = 0. The critical temperature θ can be found when the slope of the two functions in Eq. (2) are the same, giving kB θ = Plus the external field Bext , the microscopic field is B = Bext + Bm = Bext + γM. X µi e−(σµi B+Ei )/kB T / i,σ=−1,1 X 1 γN J(J + 1)g 2 µ2B . 3 (3) The high temperature behavior can also be explained by this model. At high temperature, x ≪ 1. Then With this assumption, one has the self consistent equation: M= N (2) e−(σµi B+Ei )/kB T i,σ=−1,1 (1) BJ (x) = (J + 1) x. 3J Therefore M= N J(J + 1)g 2 µ2B (B + γM ) 3kB T 2 measurements [4]), which seems too low to be compatible with the observed slower fluctuation at ∼1 K. In fact, there is another way to estimate the exchange interaction from the ”ferromagnetic” state of Nd3 Ga5 SiO14 at low temperature, which is at least more valid than using Eq. (4). This second way of estimation has to do again with the solution of Eqs. (2). In principle, one can predict the dependence of M on T and Bext , if γ is known by solving the Eqs. (2) at least numerically. If the experimental dependence of M on T and Bext is known, one can find γ. Next, we will use the magnetization data reported by Bordet et al [1] to estimate γ. 2.0 M=N B (x) J M=xk T/ , (T> ) M=xk T/ , (T< ) B 1.5 M B 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 FIG. 1: Relation between M and x. and N J(J + 1)g 2 µ2B . 3kB (T − θ) Now we can see that the parameter γ is really the key. It is a microscopic parameter that can be estimated from the macroscopic parameter, e.g. θ. One can related the molecular field to the exchange interaction by comparing the interaction energy: 1 2 γµ N ≈ zJe J(J + 1), 2 where Je is the exchange interaction strength, z is the number of nearest neighbors. One can also relate macroscopic parameter θ with Je using Eq. (3) : kB θ ≈ 2z Je J(J + 1). 3 (4) Maagnetization per Nd ( x M= 1.6 B ) 0.0 Experiment 1.2 Fit, U=2.7e-4 meV U=0.1 meV U=0.01 meV 0.8 0.4 0.0 0 1 2 4 Magnetic Field (T) FIG. 2: Fit of low temperature 1.6 K experimental magnetization data using Mean-Field theory. Two curves with of U = 0.01 meV and U = 0.1 meV are also plotted for comparison. Figure 2 shows the estimation, where the experimental data digitized from Bordet et al [1] is plotted as dots. Here we assume only the ground state doublet is participating at T ∼1 K. Then the magnetization follows: APPLICATION OF MEAN FIELD THEORY M = N µg For Nd3 Ga5 SiO14 , it is more or less a consensus that the materials does not exhibit long range order at even T ≈50 mK. The open question is what the magnitude of the exchange interaction is. Although the interaction is believed to be antiferromagnetic type (otherwise there is no frustration), the observation of ”exotic” field induced ferromagnetism at low temperature is intriguing. This may be the reason that Zorko et al [6] used the Eq. (4) to estimate the exchange interaction. Given the crystal field splitting information we know [4], this estimation is unlikely to be valid. On the other hand, all the other estimations show a much lower energy scale, say ∼0.01 meV (from possible doublet splitting [5] and PL lifetime 3 eµg B/kB T − e−µg B/kB T , eµg B/kB T + e−µg B/kB T where µg is the ground state magnetic moment. Note that here B = Bext + γM is the microscopic magnetic field. Fitting the experimental curve, one get µg = 1.63µB γN = 1.7 × 10−3 T/µB , which is pretty small. One can estimate the energy scale of the exchange interaction as U ≈ γN µg µg = 2.7 × 10−4 meV 3 This is even smaller than any other estimation so far. To see how much uncertainty this fit has, two curves corresponding to U =0.01 and 0.1 meV are plotted too. One can see that U =0.1 meV is too much off from the experimental observation and U =0.01 meV is much closer. Therefore, we can conclude pretty conservatively that from this estimation, the upper limit of the exchange interaction energy should be on the order of 0.01 meV. CONCLUSION We carried out the estimation of exchange interaction with mean-field theory using the low temperature magnetization data from Bordet et al. The upper limit of the interaction energy is found to be on the order of 0.01 meV, which is consistent with the result from the sudies on photophysical properties. [1] P. Bordet et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, 5147 (2006). [2] J. Robert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 197205 (2006). [3] H. D. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236401 (2007). [4] X. S. Xu et al., submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. [5] V. Simonet et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 237204 (2008). [6] A. Zorko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026405 (2008).