Dependence of spin susceptibility of a two-dimensional electron system on the valley degree of freedom

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 24, 2004, Pages

  Shkolnikov, Y P ^a   Vakili, K ^a   De Poortere, E P ^a   Shayegan, M ^a  

^a Princeton University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM COMPOUNDS; COULOMB BLOCKADE; DEFORMATION; DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); FERMI LEVEL; GALLIUM COMPOUNDS; MAGNETIC FIELDS; MOLECULAR BEAM EPITAXY; SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM WELLS;

COULOMB ENERGY; SPIN SUSCEPTIBILITY; TWO-DIMENSIONAL ELECTRON SYSTEM (2DES); UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION;

ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS;

EID: 3242689941     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.246804     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. C. Attaccalite et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 256601 (2002); also, see references therein.
2. Tohru Okamoto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3875 (1998).
3. A. A. Shashkin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 086801 (2001).
4. V. M. Pudalov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 196404 (2002).
5. J. Zhu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 056805 (2003).
6. E. Abrahams et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 251 (2001).
7. A. A. Shashkin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 046403 (2003).
8. M. W. C. Dharma-wardana and F. Perrot, cond-mat/0402253, 2004.
9. E. P. De Poortere et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 1583 (2002).
10. K. Maezawa et al., J. Appl. Phys. 71, 296 (1992).
11. M. Shayegan et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 5235 (2003).
12. y are the sample dimensions along [100] and [010], respectively. The splitting between the 〈100〉 valleys is proportional to this strain.
13. F. F. Fang and P. J. Stiles, Phys. Rev. 174, 823 (1968).
14. ⊥ is at its minimum value.
15. 1/2 = 0.46 [T. S. Lay et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 3120 (1993)].
16. 1/2 = 0.46 [T. S. Lay et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 3120 (1993)].
17. One source of g*m* nonlinearity is an increase of m* when a 2DES with finite-layer thickness is placed in a large parallel B [E, Tutuc et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 241309 (2003)]. Given the small layer thickness of our 2DES, we expect this increase to be unimportant in our system. This expectation is corroborated by our measurements: Since m* enhancement due to finite-layer thickness depends on the band mass perpendicular to the orientation of B, a different g*m* value would be expected when the in-plane field is applied along the major axis of the Fermi contour as opposed to its minor axis; this is contrary to our observation of an isotropic g*m* (Fig. 3).
18. F.
19. s > 6.3.
20. v = 1. This is not because of larger disorder, but rather is a consequence of the geometry of our measurement. When all the electrons are in the [100] valley, transport mass along [100] (the measurement direction) is just the longitudinal effective mass, whose larger value leads to the smaller observed mobility.
21. R. Asgari et al., cond-mat/0401289, 2004.