Quantum Phase Transitions


  Week 4. Jan 31-Feb 4, 2005.

  Blogger(s):   Piers Coleman and  Michael Norman.



    Mike Norman arrived this week, and we now have a slow leadership transfer!   Since neither Mike nor I were present on Monday, our black-board discussion moved to Wednesday.  It was a very lively week -
I was sorry to miss the Directors Lunch by John Kogut on Monday, where I gather he suggested that much of the language in the lattice gauge theory and QPT programs is similiar - and that interesting links might be found.  On Wednesday, Brian Maple gave us a marvellous overview of the impurity and spin-glass route to non Fermi liquid behavior in the heavy electron systems including the work on Uranium Paladium 3 that started the interest in the early nineties. 

On Wednesday,  we continued our discussion of new zero modes at the heavy electron quantum critical point. Catherine Pepin offered the first bet of the meeting (see below!). Coleman and Pepin offered two views about how spinless, charged fermion modes might play a very important role a the heavy electron quantum critical point. There seem to be three related ideas here -

- A new phase with  Fermi surface of spinless fermions that becomes almost gapless at the QCP.
- Deconfinement of holons and spinons at the QCP, with free holons developing above a gap energy  that goes to zero at the QCP.
-  Development of a zero energy fermi surface of excitations at the QCP, forming something I don't yet understand, called a "Fermion condensate". 

These are ideas in their infancy - and it was great to see the community discussing the new ideas in an friendly, yet critical mode.

Participants
Blackboard Seminar
Directors Lunch
Main Seminar
Thursday Discussion

Participants present. Click on participant to read questions that they have posed
Belitz, Dietrich
Coleman, Piers
Dzero, Maxim
Ingersent, Kevin
Mydosh John
Maple, Brian
Norman, Michael
Paul, Indranil
Pepin, Catherine
Shaginyan Vasily
Sushkov, Oleg
Tewari, Sumanta
Vojta, Thomas
Young, Peter
Zwicknagl, Gertrude

Top
Seminar, 12.30 Tuesday, February 3rd.

Dr. M. Brian Maple UCSD Non-Fermi Liquid Behavior Near Magnetic Quantum Critical Points in Uranium-Based Systems[Aud][Cam]

E/T scaling in ScUPd3

E/T scaling in Sc1-xUxPd3 after cond_mat/0501004
This talk came in two parts - the first about non-Fermi liquid behavior in Scandium doped UPd_3, the second about the induction of ferromagnetism in Rhenium-doped
URu2Si2.

Brian began with a historical overview of non-Fermi liquid behavior. He reminded us that there are probably two routes to non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy electron behavior:

  • Single ion mechanisms
  • Lattice mechanisms.
He took us back to the  early nineties, when work on Yttrium doped UPd_3 led to the first papers on non-Fermi liquid behavior in heavy electron systems. The first experiments on this material at that time showed that as Y was doped in on the U site, the Kondo temperature dropped dramatically and non-Fermi liquid behavior, characterized by a logarithmic temperature dependence

  •    Cv/T ~  b  R/T0 ln (T0/T)  with a low temperature upturn that is consistent with a zero-point entropy.
  •    Chi ~ Chi0 ( 1 - c (T/T0)1/2 )
These properties appear to accompany the approach to a spin glass phase, which nestles between a full fledged antiferromagnet, for dopings of about x = 0.3 to x=0.55.

These two observations led to two famous papers -
  • Seaman et al, PRL 67, 2882 1991 proposing that two channel physics was the origin
  • Andraka and Tsvelik, PRL 67,2886 1991 proposing that there was a quantum critical point.
At the time, there were material difficulties with the Y doping. Brian now introduced us to th e sister compound, Sc1-xUxPd3 where the  Scandium enters the material in a far more homogenious fashion.  Its properties are basically identical with the Y material. The two properties mentioned above  - are consistent with the original two-channel scenario - but the resistivity in the range x=0.1 - 0.3 is inconsistent, and follows the behavior

       rho(T) ~ (1 - a (T/T0))      a ~ 0.23 (exponent 1.1 essentially unity)

whereas T3/2 is expected in the two-channel physics. Brian also showed a set of fascinating thermopower measurements, which showed that  when the spin glass develops around x=0.3, the thermopower switches from a large positive value, consistent with Kondo behavior, to a negative value suggesting that the kondo effect dies in the spin glass.

What was new however, is that at the critical doping xc=0.3, the resistivity does develop the square root behavior expected for a two channel Kondo problem.  The neutron measurements also show that the spin-correlations obey E/T scaling. Summarizing - at the spin glass quantum critical point of the Scandium doped UPd3,

  • rho ~ (1 - a (T/T0)1/2)
  • chi'' (E,T)~ T-1/5f(E/T)

I find this very curious. It raises the fascinating question:

  • Does the approach to a QCP into a spin glass phase produce a local quantum critical point with properties that are strongly reminscent (zero point entropy, log in Cv/T, square root in chi, square root component to resistivity) of the two-channel physics?
The last part of the talk discused Rhenium doped URu2Si2. The Maple group find that when the Rhenium doping exceeds 0.3, a spin glass develops as a precursor to full fledged ferromagnetism. At small doping, the resistivity has a quadratic temperature dependence, whereas at x=0.3, the temperature dependence depends linearly on the temperature.  Clearly - a lot more work is needed to understand the heavy electron- spin glass quantum phase transition.


Top
Blackboard Discussion. 10am Wednesday, 2nd February.  (The blackboard seminars took place on Wednesday this week. )

Dr. Catherine Pepin Fractionization and Fermi Surface Volume in Heavy Electron
Dr Catherine Pepin     
         Dr Catherine Pepin         
Catherine Pepin's talk discussed the conjecture that the zero modes of a heavy electron quantum critical point involve massless fermion excitations.  After writing down her proposed Lagrangian, she made an open bet - to quote

"I'm offering a bottle of (French?) Champagne for anyone who can reproduce the experimental data of YbRh_2Si_2 without invoking a massless fermion a the QCP."

After an extensive review of the experiments - Dr Pepin described her phenomenological Lagrangian. One of the important aspects of the data that motivates her work is the

Cv/T ~ max(B,T)-1/3

seen in the data of Custers et al.. The form of the Pepin  Lagrangian is motivated by a Schwinger boson decoupling of the Kondo -Heisenberg lattice model.  This model contains two features:

  • Mobile spin 1/2 boson excitations that become critical at the QCP
  • A Fermi surface of charged, spinless fermions that can not admix with the heavy electron Fermi surface in the paramagnetic state.

Dr Pepin explained how the data, together with her RG procedure suggest that the Fermi surface of spinless fermions must have a vanishing velocity, with an energy that depends as the cube power of the deviation in momentum space from the Fermi surface.

E(k) ~ (k-kF)3
 
This is an idea that is in someways, quite close to the idea of "fermion condensation" due to Khodel and Shaginyan, that will be discussed  by Shaginyan next week.  Pepin recognized that the massless fermi surface was extremely finely tuned - but advocated that it was strongly implicated by the  power laws and that it might have a hitherto undiscovered symmetry origin.

  This prompted a very lively discussion. Here are some of the questions that arose:

  1. (Mathew Fisher) Surely, there are gauge fluctuations of the bond variables associated with the Schwinger Bosons that are important for the non-Fermi liquid behavior.  Pepin expressed the view that the most important properties can be extracted without recourse to examining these fluctuations
  2. (Coleman) What is the origin of the finely tuned Fermi surface? 
  3. Is the state with the charged spinless fermions a phase of matter - and does it form via a
     quantum phase transition.
Dr Piers Coleman

Towards a Large N Description of the Magnetic and Paramagnetic Phases of the Kondo Lattice[Aud][Cam]
Dr. Piers Coleman

Dr Piers Coleman

Specific heat for the Kondo model

Specific heat - Schwinger boson
approach to Kondo model.

Coleman discussed the technical difficulties associated with the Schwinger boson approach to the Kondo model, outlining recent work carried out in collaboration with Jerome Rech, Olivier Parcollet and Gergely Zarand.

He began by emphasizing that perhaps our failure to understand quantum criticality in the heavy electrons stems from our inability to construct a mean field theory that spans the magnetic quantum critical point, from the
local moment antiferromagnet, to the heavy electron paramagnet.

There are two kinds of large N approaches for spins - bosonic, based on the Schwinger boson, and fermionic, based on the Abrikosov pseudo-fermion.  The latter is well suited to the paramagnet, and ill-suited to antiferromagnetism. The former is well suited to describing low dimensional and fluctuating magnets, but ill-suited to the Kondo problem.

Coleman described how the Parcollet Georges approach can be adapted to the Kondo lattice. How the problem of a small phase shift can be solved by using a Ward Identity.  This approach permits the Arovas Auerbach method to be unified with the Kondo problem.

Results were presented for the single impurity, where the bosons develop a confinement gap at low temperatures and the two-impurity, where the development of a singlet bond between the spins gives rise to a magnetically correlated Fermi liquid, which at large Heisenberg coupling, gives rise to the Varma Jones fixed point.

Various points  were raised:

(1) whether the phase where the chi fermions are mobile has a fermi surface in the lattice, and whether this is a  "new phase of matter".

(2) whether in  the overscreened two impurity Kondo problem
one sees that J_H is always relevant.

(3) whether one can really examine the Fermi surface expansion
if the change in Fermi surface volume is a 1/N effect?



Top



Discussion: 4.30pm Thursday, February 3rd, Founders Room.

Discussion Session – 4:30 pm, Thursday, February 3, Founders Room


Participants – Dietrich Belitz, Maxim Dzero, John Mydosh, Mike Norman, Indranil Paul, Catherine Pepin, Jerome Rech, Oleg Suskov, Sumanta Tewari, Thomas Vojta, PeterYoung, Gertrud Zwicknagl


Topic – Nature of the Quantum Phase Transition in Heavy Fermion Antiferromagnets

This discussion session focussed on one of the key questions that was raised in the blog from week one.

The discussion was started by Dietrich Belitz, who asked whether there were any known examples for heavy fermions where the behavior near an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point was described by the Hertz-Millis theory. Although there was a claim for CeNi2Ge2, it seems that in the cases best studied and of most interest, such as CeCu6-xAux and YbRh2Si2, the answer was no. Unknown was the situation for CeIn3, which has a simple cubic structure, and whose experimental facts will be discussed next week when Neal Harrison gives the experimental talk.


A number of questions were raised by various participants during the discussion in connection with this topic.


  1. Is the nature of the antiferromagnetic phase understood? Although this is often assumed to be a local moment state, in reality it seems that in many cases, the nature of this state is poorly understood. Oftentimes, the moment value is very small (like for YbRh2Si2), and the specific heat coefficient is very large, which would argue against a local moment state. Catherine Pepin claims that partial Kondo screening could explain why the moment value is so small and the effective mass is high, even if one uses a “local moment” description for this state. And she argued that this could even be consistent with the large Hall number changed observed at the quantum critical point by the Dresden group.


  1. What does the small moment in materials like YbRh2Si2 mean? In URu2Si2, for instance, the moment is small, but the specific heat anomaly at the transition is large, arguing for the presence of a hidden order parameter (as presented earlier in the workshop by John Mydosh). On the other hand, the entropy involved in the specific heat anomaly in YbRh2Si2 does seem to be consistent with the small moment. Although this elastic component gets quenched at the quantum critical point, there is evidence, as remarked by Catherine Pepin, that the fluctuating moment remains sizable.


  1. Is locality necessary to invoke to understand the dynamic susceptibility and the observed E/T scaling? Such scaling is easiest to invoke for d=0, and this is a key component as well of the marginal Fermi liquid conjecture for high Tc cuprates. As Catherine Pepin reiterated, available evidence in Au doped CeCu6 points to the same scaling behavior for all q points, and as Mike Norman pointed out, a similar behavior has been advocated for UCu5-xPdx by Osborn and Aronson.


  1. What is the significance of the sublinear exponents observed in the dynamic susceptibility? That is, the susceptibility has the form X-1 = f(q)+Taf(E/T) where a=3/4 for Au doped CeCu6, a=1/3 for UCu5-xPdx, and a=1/5 for Sc1-xUxPd3. John Mydosh raised the question of the influence of disorder on these exponents. Catherine Pepin raised the question of logarithmic corrections that may not have been identified yet by the experimentalists.


  1. Are there corrections to scaling in the quantum critical regime? Peter Young argued that although corrections to scaling have been heavily investigated for classical phase transitions, much less attention has been paid to this for quantum phase transitions. Even for the antiferromagnetic side of the critical point, the nature of the classical critical regime has not been studied in detail for any of the heavy fermion cases, at least to the participants’ knowledge.


  1. And, finally, what is the role of spin glass formation? In many of these systems, one observes a spin glass behavior once the antiferromagnetism is suppressed, as discussed by Brian Maple during his talk this week. This has also been seen by Panagapolous in cuprates as he reported at the conference. Is this important for some of the strange behavior observed near the quantum critical point?


The overall conclusion of the discussion was that more experimental data on well characterized systems would be needed to answer these questions. On a final note, several of us indicated that in principle, close enough to the quantum critical point, one would expect the long wave length modes associated with the order parameter to eventually dominate the singular behavior. The question is why this has not been seen in many systems of interest. Does this mean that one has not gotten close enough to the critical point with tuning parameter, or gone to low enough temperature?




Top