NMR evidence for a 'generalized spin-Peierls transition' in the high-magnetic-field phase of the spin ladder Cu2(C5H12N2)2Cl4

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 85, Issue 22, 2000, Pages 4795-4798

  Mayaffre, H ^a   Horvatic M ^b   Berthier, C ^a,b   Julien, M H ^a   Segransan P ^a   Levy L ^b,c   Piovesana, O ^d  

^a UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE DE FRANCE   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIFERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS; ANTIFERROMAGNETISM; ENERGY GAP; GROUND STATE; MAGNETIC COUPLINGS; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; MAGNETIZATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PHASE DIAGRAMS; PHASE TRANSITIONS; QUANTUM THEORY;

ANTIFERROMAGNETICALLY COUPLED HEISENBERG SPIN CHAIN; EXCITED STATE; GENERALIZED SPIN PEIERLS TRANSITION; HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD PHASE TRANSITION; MAGNETOELASTIC; NUCLEAR SPIN LATTICE RELAXATION RATE;

COPPER COMPOUNDS;

EID: 0034316258     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4795     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. For a review, see E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science 271, 618 (1996); E. Dagotto, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 1525 (1999).
2. For a review, see E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science 271, 618 (1996); E. Dagotto, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 1525 (1999).
3. G. Chaboussant et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 925 (1997).
4. G. Chaboussant et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2713 (1998).
5. G. Chaboussant et al., Eur. Phys. J. B 6, 167 (1998).
6. B. Chiari, O. Piovesana, T. Tarantelli, and P. F. Zanazzi, Inorg. Chem. 29, 1172 (1990).
7. G. Chaboussant et al., Phys. Rev. B 55, 3046 (1997).
8. P. R. Hammar, D. H. Reich, C. Broholm, and F. Trouw, Phys. Rev. B 57, 7846 (1998).
9. R. Calemczuk et al., Eur. Phys. J. B 7, 171 (1999).
10. M. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, 1051 (2000).
11. T. Giamarchi and A. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B 59, 11398 (1999).
12. N. Nagaosa and S. Murakami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1876 (1998).
13. F. Mila, Eur. Phys. J. B 6, 201 (1999).
14. S. Wessel and S. Haas, Phys. Rev. B 62, 316 (2000).
15. For those protons which are the closest to the Cu atoms, a supertransferred hyperfine interaction is very likely too.
16. Note that the line at the left of the spectra shown in Fig. 1 looks already slightly splitted in the normal phase. This splitting, which is T independent likely corresponds to a slight deviation from the orientation H ∥ b, which doubles from 24 to 48 the number of inequivalent sites, and is clearly distinct from the "splitting" occurring in the 3D ordered phase, which is strongly T dependent.
17. -3. A supertransferred hyperfine field, through the path Cu-N-H, should vary exponentially with the N-H distance.
18. 1 measurements, the duration of the π/2 (π) pulses were adjusted to 4 μs (8 μs), respectively.
19. 1 decreases by 5 orders of magnitude, this occurs over only one decade in T so that an activated behavior below 250 mK cannot be fully excluded.
20. R. Chitra and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B 55, 5816 (1997).
21. J. W. Bray, L. V. Interrante, I. S. Jacobs, and J. C. Bonner, in Extended Linear Chain Compounds, edited by J. S. Miller (Plenum Press, New York, 1982), p. 253.
22. Considering the structure of the ladder, it is much easier to modify the exchange along the hydrogen bond than to modulate the Cu-Cl-Cu bridges.
23. c2 in the ladder case correspond to a field range close to the saturation of the magnetization in the case of a regular SP system.
24. R. Blinc, Phys. Rep. 79, 331 (1981).
25. M. Horvatić et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 420 (1999).
26. Y. Fagot-Revurat, Ph.D. thesis, University of Grenoble, 1998.