Spin accumulation in forward-biased MnAs/GaAs Schottky diodes

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 9, 2004, Pages

  Stephens, J ^a   Berezovsky, J ^a   McGuire, J P ^b   Sham, L J ^b   Gossard, A C ^a   Awschalom, D D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRON TRANSITIONS; ELECTRON TUNNELING; FERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS; LASER PULSES; MAGNETIZATION; MAGNETOMETERS; MANGANESE COMPOUNDS; OHMIC CONTACTS; OPTICAL KERR EFFECT; PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY; SEMICONDUCTING GALLIUM ARSENIDE; SEMICONDUCTING MANGANESE COMPOUNDS; SEMICONDUCTOR METAL BOUNDARIES;

FERROMAGNETIC PROXIMITY POLARIZATION (FPP); LARMOR PRECESSION; SPIN ACCUMULATION; SPIN-DEPENDENT REFLECTION;

SCHOTTKY BARRIER DIODES;

EID: 19544377973     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.097602     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. S. A. Wolf et al., Science 294, 1488 (2001).
2. H. J. Zhu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 016601 (2001).
3. M. Ramsteiner et al., Phys. Rev. B 66, 081304(R) (2002).
4. V. F. Motsnyi et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 81, 265 (2002).
5. X. Jiang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 256603 (2003).
6. R. K. Kawakami et al., Science 294, 131 (2001).
7. R. J. Epstein et al., Phys. Rev. B 65, 121202(R) (2002); 68, 041305(R) (2003).
8. R. J. Epstein et al., Phys. Rev. B 65, 121202(R) (2002); 68, 041305(R) (2003).
9. We did not observe reverse bias spin injection, probably due to the small tunneling current through the wide Schottky barrier present in the lightly doped GaAs.
10. C. Ciuti, J. P. McGuire, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 156601 (2002).
11. J. P. McGuire, C. Ciuti, and L.J. Sham, cond-mat/0302088 vl.
12. M. Tanaka, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 17, 327 (2002).
13. -3 showed greatly reduced transverse spin lifetime and negligible nuclear spin polarization.
14. J. Stephens et al., Phys. Rev. B 68, 041307(R) (2003).
15. Optical Orientation, edited by F. Meier and B. P. Zakharchenya (North-Holland Physics Publishers, New York, 1984).
16. J. Strand et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 036602 (2003).
17. S. A. Crooker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2814 (1996).
18. The pump/probe intensity is sufficiently small to not substantially alter the nuclear polarization.
19. D. Paget, G. Lampel, B. Sapoval and V. I. Safarov, Phys. Rev. B 15, 5780 (1977).
20. We note that in some cases for the Hanle-MOKE measurements, we observe some asymmetry in the magnitude of the positive and negative peaks of the measured curves. This could be an artifact due the Hall effect, or to a small deviation of the initial direction of the spin from the sample plane. Nevertheless, we use Eq. (1) to fit the measured curves, effectively averaging out the asymmetry.
21. A. Abragam, Principles of Nuclear Magnetism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1961).
22. This simplified model is meant to mimic the spin dependence in the ferromagnet; the spin dependence in the reflection and transmission coefficients and the magnitude of the polarization should be similar to what the model predicts if realistic band structure were used.
23. b = 0.8 eV.