Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

Pyrochlore spin ice

Roderich Moessner CNRS and LPT-ENS

2 Π
0 0
2 Π Π
3
2
1
0
2 Π
2 Π
0 0

2 Π

Overview

The history of (nearest-neighbour) spin ice

Pauling’s entropy

Anderson’s mapping

Experimental discovery of Ho 2 Ti 2 O 7 by Bramwell+Harris

Ramirez’ entropy experiment

Spin ice: the real Hamiltonian

Dipolar spin ice (Bangalore group)

Self-screening (Waterloo group)

Why spin ice obeys the ice rules

projective equivalence and the model dipoles

emergent vs. intrinsic gauge structure

dipolar spins are ice because ice is dipolar

From a tetrahedron to the Pauling entropy S 0

Consider Ising spins σ i = ± 1 with antiferromagnetic J > 0:

H tet = J

ij

2

σ i σ j = J

4

i

=1

σ

i 2

+ const

Number of ground states: N gs = 4 = 6 for one tetrahedron

2

H pyro = tet

H tet = J

2

tet

i tet σ i 2

Pauling estimate: ground-state constraints independent

N gs = 2 n (6/16) n/2 = (3/2) n/2 S 0 = 2 ln 3

1

2

Spin ice Anderson 1956

Ho 2 Ti 2 O 7 (and Dy 2 Ti 2 O 7 ) are pyrochlore Ising magnets which do not order at T Θ W Bramwell+Harris

Residual low- T entropy: Pauling entropy for water ice S 0 = (1/2) ln(3/2) Ramirez et al.:

Spin ice and the ice rules

H

= E d κ( i ) · S i 2 + J S i · S j = ( J/3)

ˆ

i

ij

ij

σ i σ j

Spins, S i , are forced to point along local [111] axes,

ˆ

d

κ( i )

anisotropy, E , generates Ising pseudospins: S i = σ i

ˆ

d

κ( i )

ˆ ˆ

there are four sublattices, κ, with d κ · d κ = 1/3

J for pseudospins changes sign!

Ground σ i

 states have = 0 for each

tetrahedron

These are the two-in two-out states (Bernal- Fowler ice rules)

Dipolar spin ice: the real Hamiltonian

The ice model is not the correct microscopic starting point

Real interactions, D , are mainly dipolar: long-ranged!

D ij = S i · S j 3( S i · ˆr ij )( S i · ˆr ij )

r

3

ij

Question: Why is Pauling entropy (from nearest-neighbour model) measured in dipolar spin ice??? Siddharthan+Shastry

Simulations including truncated Bangalore group and especially Ewald-summed Waterloo group dipolar interactions give reasonable agreement with experimental data.

‘Self-screening’ of dipolar interaction Gingras et al.

Crucial observation: Spectra of n.n. and dipolar interactions are very similar in mean-ﬁeld

2 Π
0 0
2 Π
Π
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
2 Π
2 Π
0 0

2 Π

2 Π
0 0
2 Π
Π
0
-5
2
2 Π
Π
0 0

2 Π

“In other words, there must be an almost exact symmetry fulﬁlled in this system when long-range dipolar interactions are taken into account. However, the same long-range nature of these interactions renders it difﬁcult to construct a simple and ”

intuitive picutre of their effects

den Hertog+Gingras, PRL 2000

Enforcing the ice rules by projection: P

Degeneracy local zero-energy modes ﬂat bands

2 Π
0 0
2 Π Π
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
2 Π
2 Π
0 0

2 Π

2 Π
0 0
2 Π
Π
3
2
1
0
2
2 Π
Π
0 0

2 Π

At low T , only modes in ﬂat bands are populated

deforming ﬁnite-energy bands without consequence

can replace J by a projector, P =all non-zero modes cost the same energy

must keep eigenvectors the same!

Our model dipolar interaction: P

D = 8π P + ∆
with ∆ ∼ O (1/r 5 )
3
• Ice rules imply conservation law for S i
=⇒ ‘Emergent gauge structure’
σ i = 0 ⇔ ∇ · S = 0 =⇒ S = ∇ × A
i
∈ tet

Ground states differ by reversing spins around closed loop, for which average S = 0

upon coarse-graining: low avera- ge S preferred E ( ∇× A ) 2 =artiﬁcial magnetostatics

Intrinsic vs. emergent gauge structure

Magnetostatic interaction, D , between real dipoles also

∇ · B = 0 and E ( ∇ × A ) 2

Nonetheless: geometric coincidence that D ∝ P (only Ising)

almost ﬂat lines for Gd 2 Ti 2 O 7 probably similar origin

Ising ground states of J and P the same Ramirez expt!

|0 =

µ=1, 2

q

a µ ( q ) |v µ ( q )

only made out of modes |v µ ( q ) in ﬂat bands µ = 1, 2

|S | = 1=nonlinear constraints on amplitudes a µ ( q ) , which need not be resolved (we know the ground states!)

D and P differ at lowest T ; J and P at any T > 0

Reconstructing D = 8π P + ∆: note the gap
3
2
Π
2
Π
0
0
0
0
2 Π
Π
2 Π
Π
3
0
-1
2
-2
1
-3
spectra of
-4
0
2
2
Π
Π
2
2
Π
Π
0
0
0
0
2
Π
2
Π
2
Π
2
Π
P
P + ∆ nn
0
0
0
0
2 Π
Π
2 Π
Π
J
P + ∆ nn
+∆ fn
0
0
-5
-5
2 Π
2
Π
2 Π
2
Π
0
0
0
0
2
Π
2
Π

How to distinguish D , P and J

 D vs. P : • ∆ gives weak dispersion to ﬂat bands =⇒ ordering expected at low T Bangalore+Waterloo groups • ordering not observed experimentally J vs. P :
3.85
3.8
3.75
2
Π Π
0
0 0
2 Π 2 Π

2 Π

Long-range P – long-range correlations even at high T :

S i S j ∝ − P ij 1

T

T r 3

Short-range J – short-range correlations at any T > 0:

ξ exp(2J/3T )

Why spin ice obeys the ice rules

Projective equivalence of emergent and intrinsic gauge structure

Ground states of n.n. J and model dipole P identical

Real dipole D deviates from P only at short distances

Finite- T properties differ

Dipolar spins are ice because ice is dipolar

Collaborators:

K. Gregor (Princeton)

S. V. Isakov (Toronto)

S. L. Sondhi (Princeton)

Some other issues in spin ice

Liquid-gas transition in magnetic ﬁeld

Decoupled 1d chains in magnetic ﬁeld

Magnetisation plateau in [111] ﬁeld

dimensional reduction to kagome ice with S kag > 0

giant entropy peak near saturation

Dynamics: how spin ice freezes

Artiﬁcial electrodynamics

bow-tie correlations: algebraic but not critical

quantum problem: pyrochlore photons

Real (water) ice: emergent, not intrinsic, gauge structure