Effective mass suppression upon complete spin-polarization in an isotropic two-dimensional electron system

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 79, Issue 19, 2009, Pages

  Gokmen, T ^a   Padmanabhan, Medini ^a   Vakili, K ^a   Tutuc, E ^a   Shayegan, M ^a  

^a Princeton University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67049155746     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.195311     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. B. Tanatar and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B 39, 5005 (1989). 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.5005
2. Y. Kwon, D. M. Ceperley, and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 50, 1684 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.1684
3. C. Attaccalite, S. Moroni, P. Gori-Giorgi, and G. B. Bachelet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 256601 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.256601
4. R. Asgari, B. Davoudi, and B. Tanatar, Solid State Commun. 130, 13 (2004). 10.1016/j.ssc.2004.01.018
5. S. De Palo, M. Botti, S. Moroni, and G. Senatore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 226405 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.226405
6. Y. Zhang and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 72, 075308 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075308
7. S. Gangadharaiah and D. L. Maslov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 186801 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.186801
8. Y. Zhang and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 256603 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.256603
9. R. Asgari and B. Tanatar, Phys. Rev. B 74, 075301 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.075301
10. T. Gokmen, M. Padmanabhan, E. Tutuc, M. Shayegan, S. De Palo, S. Moroni, and G. Senatore, Phys. Rev. B 76, 233301 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.233301
11. F. F. Fang and P. J. Stiles, Phys. Rev. 174, 823 (1968). 10.1103/PhysRev.174.823
12. J. L. Smith and P. J. Stiles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 102 (1972). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.102
13. T. Okamoto, K. Hosoya, S. Kawaji, and A. Yagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3875 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3875
14. W. Pan, D. C. Tsui, and B. L. Draper, Phys. Rev. B 59, 10208 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.10208
15. S. A. Vitkalov, H. Zheng, K. M. Mertes, M. P. Sarachik, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 086401 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.086401
16. A. A. Shashkin, S. V. Kravchenko, V. T. Dolgopolov, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 086801 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.086801
17. A. A. Shashkin, S. V. Kravchenko, V. T. Dolgopolov, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B 66, 073303 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.073303
18. V. M. Pudalov, M. E. Gershenson, H. Kojima, N. Butch, E. M. Dizhur, G. Brunthaler, A. Prinz, and G. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 196404 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.196404
19. A. A. Shashkin, Maryam Rahimi, S. Anissimova, S. V. Kravchenko, V. T. Dolgopolov, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 046403 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.046403
20. J. Zhu, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 056805 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.056805
21. O. Prus, Y. Yaish, M. Reznikov, U. Sivan, and V. Pudalov, Phys. Rev. B 67, 205407 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.205407
22. E. Tutuc, S. Melinte, E. P. De Poortere, M. Shayegan, and R. Winkler, Phys. Rev. B 67, 241309 (R) (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.241309
23. K. Vakili, Y. P. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, E. P. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 226401 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.226401
24. Y.-W. Tan, J. Zhu, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 016405 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.016405
25. Y.-W. Tan, J. Zhu, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. B 73, 045334 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.045334
26. M. Padmanabhan, T. Gokmen, N. C. Bishop, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026402 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.026402
27. T. Gokmen, M. Padmanabhan, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 146405 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.146405
28. M. Shayegan, E. P. De Poortere, O. Gunawan, Y. P. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, and K. Vakili, Phys. Status Solidi B 243, 3629 (2006). 10.1002/pssb.200642212
29. T. S. Lay, J. J. Heremans, Y. W. Suen, M. B. Santos, K. Hirakawa, M. Shayegan, and A. Zrenner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 3120 (1993). 10.1063/1.109128
30. H. Momose, N. Moria, C. Hamaguchia, T. Ikaidab, H. Arimotob, and N. Miura, Physica E 4, 286 (1999). 10.1016/S1386-9477(99)00018-1
31. O. Gunawan, E. P. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. B 75, 081304 (R) (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.081304
32. We use mb = mt =0.205±0.005 for the out-of-plane valley, based on values reported in different studies of either the cyclotron resonance or the ballistic transport measurements (Refs.).
33. In a 2DES with finite electron layer thickness, parallel magnetic couples to the orbital motion of the electrons and leads to an increase in m□ [T. Gokmen, M. Padmanabhan, O. Gunawan, Y. P. Shkolnikov, K. Vakili, E. P. DePoortere, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. B 78, 233306 (2008)]. However because of the very small electron layer thickness in our narrow quantum well, we expect that the mass enhancement is less than 5% even at B□ =30□T. 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.233306
34. K. Vakili, Y. P. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, E. P. De Poortere, M. Padmanabhan, and M. Shayegan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 172118 (2006). 10.1063/1.2370504
35. R. B. Dingle, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 211, 517 (1952). 10.1098/rspa.1952.0056
36. Y. Adamov, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 73, 045426 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.045426
37. S. Das Sarma (unpublished).
38. We emphasize that in all cases our data can be fit reasonably well to the Dingle expression in the whole temperature and magnetic field range by assuming two constants τq and m□ (see, e.g., Fig. 6). However, this does not justify that τq is independent of T; indeed a given data set can be fit equally well to the Dingle expression with a different, fixed m□, and a τq that has some T dependence. Since m□ and the T dependence of τq cannot be determined independently, in our second analysis method we use the T dependence of the background resistance to estimate the T dependence of 1/ τq and deduce m□.
39. Although the T dependence of Ro and τq tend to cancel each other in the fitting of m□, it is the T dependence of τq that dominates since τq appears inside the exponential term.
40. The partially spin-polarized masses are also reported in Ref. However those masses are not deduced at the coincidence condition. Setting the coincidence condition is important because when the spin-up and spin-down levels do not overlap, the gap is smaller than the cyclotron energy and one may get artificially larger values for m□.
41. V. T. Dolgopolov and A. Gold, JETP Lett. 71, 27 (2000) 10.1134/1.568270
42. I. F. Herbut, Phys. Rev. B 63, 113102 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.113102
43. E. P. De Poortere, E. Tutuc, S. J. Papadakis, and M. Shayegan, Science 290, 1546 (2000). 10.1126/science.290.5496.1546
44. In our study, the "partially-spin-polarized" regime corresponds to spin-polarization ranging from 4% to 20%.
45. In 2D systems the nonuniversal correction arising from the finite layer thickness is a conceptually simple form factor that modifies the bare Coulomb interaction. Similarly, the Fermi contour anisotropy can be incorporated in Coulomb interaction by making a coordinate transformation that makes the Fermi surface isotropic but the interactions anisotropic.