 |
 |
 |
 |

Quantum Phase Transitions
Week 13
4th -8th April, 2005
Bloggers: Dirk Morr & Piers Coleman
The thirteenth week! Quantum mayonnaise, and spin-eating
superconductors were amongst the fascinating topics that came to light
during this week. For the informal theory discussion on Monday,
Joerg Schmalian (Iowa State University) discussed the concept of
"quantum Mayonnaise" that he has invented, in collaboration with Peter
Wolynes of UCSD. Making mayonaise quantum mechanical turns
out to be of great interest to materials where glassy, nano-scale
phase separation occurs close to a quantum critical point. It may also
be of great importance to a new metallic state of matter that has been
recently discovered in the material MnSi.
Joe Thompson from Los Alamos was the experimentalist of the week.
He discussed some of the cutting edge properties of a class of
heavy electron materials, where superconductivity, magnetism
and heavy electron behavior compete for the f-spins. As
part of his discussion he announced some fascinating new dHvA data by
Onuki's group in Japan, which has observed a divergence in the dHvA
masses at the pressure-induced
antiferromagnetic phase transition (in finite fields) in CeRhIn5. Such
a divergence has been infered from transport and specific heat
measurements in the past, but these new dHvA measurents are the
first direct observation of the divergence of heavy electron
masses at a quantum critical point.
On Thursday, the group took up the whole issue of the interplay between
superconductivity and antiferromagnetism -
discussing the field-induced magnetism in CeRhIn5 and the nature of the
field-induced non-Fermi liquid behavior that appears to be pinned to
the upper critical field of CeCoIn5. Is this an example of a
superconducting quantum critical point? Joe Thompson thought not
- but others were not so sure....
Participants
Blackboard Seminar
Experimental
Seminar
Thursday Discussion
Participants
present.
Click on participant to read questions that they have posed.
Chubukov, Andrey
Coleman, Piers
Eshrig, Mathias
Hanke, Werner
Ho, Andrew
Khodel, Victor
Krotkov, Pavel
Le Hur, Karyn
Morr, Dirk
Pepin,
Catherine
Posazhennikova, Anna
|
Ramazashvili, Revaz
Schofield, Andrew
Schmalian, Joerg
Si, Qimiao
Vekhter, Ilya
von Lohneysen, Hilbert
Weng, Zheng-Yu
Yakovenko,Victor
Zhu, Lijun
|
Top
|
Monday Blackboard
Discussion. 10:00am Monday, April 4, 2005
Quantum
Mayonnaise [Aud][Cam]
Dr. Joerg Schmalian, Iowa
State University and Ameslab
Joerg Schmalian started his
talk with a description of classical mayonnaise: when one mixes oil and
vinegar, one obtains a rapid phase separation. However, when egg yolk
is added, it acts as an emulsifier, and creates new phase boundaries.
Joerg then discussed the experimental motivation for his study of
quantum mayonnaise: the glassiness observed in the underdoped region of
the cuprate superconductors, as observed by NMR (Borsa, Curro + Hammel,
Imai) and muSR (Panagopoulos) experiments, and the non-Fermi-liquid
behavior observed above a critical pressure in MnSi by Pfleiderer+
Lohneysen and Lonzarich. The question is thus what is the quantum
emulsifier that gives rise to possible phase separation and glassiness,
and non-Fermi liquid behavior associated with them.
Joerg introduced the model he considered in order to study phase
separation and glassiness in strongly correlated electron system. One
introduces a scalar order parameter which is positive (negative) in
phase A (B). The Hamiltonian of the system is given by a phi^4-theory
with the constraint that the spatial average of the order parameter
vanishes. Joerg considered a long-range interaction that decays
algebraically in space as x^(-alpha) with alpha being smaller or equal
to the dimension of the system. Assuming that alpha=d-2, one finds that
the propagator is isotropic and peaked at some characteristic momentum
q0. This model is similar to one developed by Brazovskii, which
exhibits a fluctuation-induced first order phase transition into a
density-wave state.
Joerg then discussed the role of disorder. For disorder given by a
random mass term, Joerg argued that a critical disorder strength is
required before the first order phase transition is replaced by a
transition into a glassy state. He therefore considered random field
disorder, for which a glassy state survives even in the limit of
vanishing disorder strength. The glass transition is a random first
order transition. Joerg studied this transition using three different
theoretical approaches: (i) the replica method, (ii) the
Schwinger-Keldysh formalism, and (iii) the cloned replicas approach
developed By Remi Monnason. Joerg then briefly discussed the cloned
replica approach which addresses the issue of self generated
randomness. A test, or bias field is added to a system and selects
certain metastable configurations. The averaged free energy of such
configuration is then averaged over a Boltzmann weigted distribution
governed by an effective temperature. All this becomes practicable
since this average can again be formulated using replicas. It turns out
that non-ergodic solutions occur even in the limit of
infinitesimal coupling to the test field.
Finally, Joerg discussed the role of quantum fluctuations on the
transition into the glassy state and showed that the glassy state melts
due to quantum fluctuations. For z<3, the random first order
transition into the glass state becomes a (regular) first order
transition (with a non-zero latent heat) above a critical fluctuation
strength. Joerg derived the RG-flow equations in the limit z->3
which possess an unstable fixed point that corresponds to a tricritical
point with new scaling properties. Close to the fixed point the system
is in a new non-Fermi liquid state. C/T scales as 1/T^[(z-1)/z] and the
imaginary part of the self-energy scales as omega^[(z-1)/z]. This model
is therefore one example to obtain hyperscaling and non-fermi liquid
physics in 3 space dimensions without deviating from the standard
spin-boson coupling.
Top
|
|
Experimental Seminar,
12.30pm Tuesday, April 5th.
Quantum
Phase Transitions and New Results in Heavy Electron Actinide and Rare
Earth Systems [Aud][Cam][Slides]
Dr. Joe Thompson, LANL

|
Joe introduced us to the fascinating phase diagram of CeRhIn5, where
superconductivity competes with antiferromagnetism.
At ambient pressure, CeRhIn5 is an incommensurate
antiferromagnet, but pressure is increased, the Neel temperature drops,
suggesting that there may be a quantum critical point where TN goes to
zero around 25kbar.
However! around 9 kbar, superconductivity appears, and
its
transition temperature rises quickly above the Neel temperature,
masking the antiferromagnetism. How can one reveal the magnetism,
and is there a hidden quantum critical point? These were central
issues in this talk.
|
This raises several fascinating questions:
- Does antiferromagnetism co-exist with the
superconductivity in the ground-state beyond 10kbar?
- Is there an antiferromagnetic
quantum critical point that is masked by the superconductivity?
Extrapolation of the antiferromagnetic phase boundary might suggest a
magnetic QCP around 25 kbar.
- What happens when the superconductivity
is suppressed by a field- does antiferromagnetism reappear?
- Is the physics of CeRhIn5 relevant to the
superconductivity seen in CeCoIn5? Some have suggested that CeCoIn5 is
the "high pressure" analog of CeRhIn5.
|

S. Kawasaki et al, PRL 91, 137001, (2003) and T. Mito et al, PRB, 63,
225007 (2001).

|
The nature of the zero field phase diagram.
The Joe Reviewed NMR 1/T1 measurements, which show two
glitches at 16kbar, the first from AFM, the second from SC. However, by
21kbar, the AFM can not be seen, and if it is there, has slipped below
200mK. This suggests that the afm phase boundary drops to zero at
a rate that is much faster than the simple extrapolation shown above,
and might even be vertical! One of the unsolved mysteries, is that NQR
shows the vanishing of internal fields by 15 kbar. The resistive
transition temperaute is higher than the NMR sc glitch, suggesting
inhomogenious superconductivity. See the phase diagram to the left.
Specific heat seems to support this view. A double bump is seen in Cv
at 18kbar, which has certainly disappeared by 20kbar.
|

|
Re-emergence of AFM at finite fields. The
next question - is what happens when you extend the phase diagram to
finite magnetic fields? At 17kB, the three temperatures of
interest for the development of superconductivity, the resistive onset
temperature, the temperature where resistivity vanishes and the
thermodynamic transition temperature, are all different, suggesting
inhomogenious superconductivity. However, by a pressure of 18-19
kbar, these three temperatures have come together - suggesting
homogenious superconductivity has finally established itself.
What happens in a field at these higher pressures? - well - above
about 2T, a second feature emerges in the specific heat -
indicating the re-emergence of magnetism as superconductivity is
suppressed by the field.
|
 
(A) Divergence of the qp mass at the QCP
(B)
Jump in the Fermi surface at the QCP. (Onuki unpublished).
|
Onuki's dHvA exposes the break-up of the
Fermi Surface. At high enough pressures, the superconductivity
is fully suppressed to reveal the antiferromagnetism.
What happens to the antiferromagnetism as a function of pressure?
Joe told us that once the AFM is fully exposed, one is in a field range
where de Haas van Alphen (dHvA) measurements can be carried out to
examine the mass and the topology of the Fermi surfaces. Hot dHvA data
from Joe'c collaborators - Onuki's group in Japan (see above) now
reveal the pressure induced antiferromagnetic QCP. The dHvA data
from Onuki's group show that the masses of the heavy electrons diverge
at this QCP (A), showing also, that the
frequencies jump through the
transition(B), suggesting a discontinous evolution
of the Fermi surface as
the system is driven through the QCP. This is really hot and
exciting
stuff, providing some of the first direct evidence that
- Quasiparticle masses diverge over the
Fermi surface.
- The topology of the Fermi surface changes
suddenly at the QCP.
|

Bauer Ronning et al, (unpublished, 2005).
|
Probing the magnetic QCP using Sn
substitution. What other way is there to suppress the
superconductivity and reveal the magnetic QCP ? Joe told us that
the Los Alamos group, have thought hard about this, and have discovered
that chmical substitution with tin (Sn) works very well. Sn goes
in preferentially into the Ce-In plane. Joe desribed the recent results
of an experiment by Bauer, Ronning et al. Tin substitution drives the
Neel temperature to zero
at a concentraion of x =0.35. At this point, Bauer et al observe
- A Logarithmic (Lohneysian?) rise in
C/T
for x=0.4
- A possible linear resistivity at x = 0.48
It is interesting that the log C/T and linear resistivity appear to
develop after TN has apparently gone to zero.
|
T-0.3 upturn in the specific
heat coefficient C/T of Sn doped CeRhIn5. Joe
then shared some of their newest data with us. In the quantum
critical material YbRh2Si2, the Dresden group discovered a few years
ago that the C/T~log(T0/T) behavior becomes a C/T~T-0.3
divergence at
lower temperatures that was tentatively ascribed to the development of
"more localized" spin excitations. Well- it seems that Bauer,
Ronning et al have now
observed the same behavior in the Sn doped CeRhIn5. If this
is a
signature of the true quantum critical regime, then what kind of
cross-over gives the Lohneysian C/T dependence?
Joe also reported that when a field is introduced, they observe T^2/3/H
scaling in the
|
 |

E. D. Bauer et al, PRL 94, 047001 (2005)
|
CeCoIn5-xSnx:
to end his talk, Joe gave us a brief discussion of the remarkable
quantum critical behavior that appears to develop at the upper critical
field of CeCoIn5. Remarkably, as tin is doped into the material,
Tc and Hc2 go down, but the quantum critical behavior remains
pinned to Hc2. Is this a superconducting quantum critical point -
or - is it as Schofield has suggested - a non-Fermi liquid phase that
is protected by superconductivity. (What is the difference in
practice, anyway?)
Clearly - tremendous new experimental grist for the theorists.
Time for us to get to work!
|
|
| Top |
|
Discussion:
4:30 pm Thursday, April 7th Founders Room.
Superconducting
and Antiferromagnetic quantum critical points
|
Composite order and
Superconducting quantum critical points.
Piers Coleman started the discussion, arguing that heavy electron
superconductors involve composite pairing between the conduction
electrons and localized moments. Conventional superconductors involve
Cooper pair formation between well-developed quasiparticles. In several
heavy fermion systems
such as
- UBe13 - here the resistance is very
large and incoherent at the point where the superconductivity develops
- CeCoIn5- here the resistance is
linear in the normal state.
- PuCoGa5- here the superconductor
develops directly out of a local moment, Curie-Weiss paramagnet, and
the moments seem to vanish in the superconducting state.
In each of these cases, the superconducting state develops before a
Fermi liquid has had chance to form, and the entropy of condensation is
derived from the local moments. These are then prime candidates for
composite pairing.
|
Direct transition from
Curie paramagnet to Superconductor
in PuCoGa5 after Sarrao et al, Nature, 420, 297 (2002)
|
Piers gave two examples of composite pairing -
- Odd-frequency superconductivity, which in one
realization gives rise to a bound-state between singlet cooper pairs
and spins.
- Two-channel Kondo lattice, where the
interference between the
Kondo effect in the two channels leads to composite order - a singlet
bound-state between triplet pairs and spins.
If this kind of pairing is present in heavy electron superconductors,
he argued - then the competition between composite pairing and the
formation of somposite heavy electrons- both of which compete for the
f-spin - could lead to a superconducting quantum critical point.
Piers pointed out certain similarities between the phase diagram of
UBe_13, CeCu_2Si_2 and CeCoIn_5 that might be interpreted in this
language- in each case there is a region of the H-T phase diagram with
T1.5 resistivity. Could this be due to the vicinity of a
superconducting quantum critical point? |
The discussion then
turned to the nature of the field induced phase diagram in
CeRhIn5. Qimiao Si and Joe Thompson attemped to sketch the 3D
phase diagram. Here is the figure that they came up with:

|
|
Here the idea is that in the ground-state (T=0), the data are
consistent with two second order lines- one magnetic, which has been
crossed in the pressure tuned dHvA experiment, one superconducting,
which is largely conjectured. These two lines must meet at
multicritical point, which is also the end of two first order lines
that define a region of co-existence. Full lines mean second
order, dashed, first order. Thick lines - basically established,
thin lines - conjectured. The red point shows the point where
dHvA has
shown a mass divergence and a jump in Fermi surface.
|
|
In closing the
discussion, Catherine Pepin gave a brief resume of some of the work she
has been doing during the workshop. Catherine cited three pieces of work
- A calculation of the interplay between
ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic fluctuations in a field-induced
quantum critical point. With Indranil Paul, they have noticed
that in a field, cubic terms that couple AFM and FM order parameters
are allowed by symmetry, and these terms are relevant.
- A calculation, with Maxim Dzero, of the
physics of a single Kondo spin in an antiferromagnetic environment
using the scheme of Parcollet and Georges. Since this method can
deal with both overscreening and perfect screening, it should be the
ideal method to test recent proposals that two-channel physics develops
when a spin is in a critical antiferromagnetic environment.
- A calculation with Jeorg Schmalian, Mike Norman
and others, on a new scenario for the quantum critical behavior of
YbRh_2Si_2. This work is still under wraps and she wouldn't say
more about it!
|
Top |
Return to
main page.
|
 |
|