The J₁-J₂ Model on the Anisotropic Triangular and the Square Lattice: Similarities and Differences

• Authors: B. Schmidt , P. Thalmeier
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The Heisenberg model on a triangular lattice is a prime example for a geometrically frustrated spin system. However most experimentally accessible compounds have spatially anisotropic exchange interactions. As a function of this anisotropy, ground states with different magnetic properties can be realized. On the other hand, the J₁-J₂ model on the square lattice is a well-known example for frustration induced by competing exchange. The classical phase diagrams of the two models are related in a broad range of the control parameter ϕ=^{-1}(J₂/J₁). In both cases three different types of ground states are realized, each model having a ferromagnetic and an antiferromagnetic region in the phase diagram, and a third phase with columnar magnetic order for the square lattice and an in general incommensurate spiral structure for the triangular lattice. Quantum effects lift degeneracies in the non-FM phases and lead to additional nonmagnetic regions in the phase diagrams. The contribution of zero point fluctuations to ground state energy, wave vector, and ordered moment is discussed.

Keywords

EN

75.10.Jm; 75.30.Cr; 75.30.Ds

Discipline

• 75.30.Cr: Saturation moments and magnetic susceptibilities
• 75.30.Ds: Spin waves(for spin-wave resonance, see 76.50.+g)
• 75.10.Jm: Quantized spin models, including quantum spin frustration

• Publisher: Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Acta Physica Polonica A
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 127
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 324-326

Dates

published

2015-02

Contributors

author

B. Schmidt

• Max-Planck-Institut für Chemische Physik fester Stoffe, 01187 Dresden, Germany

author

P. Thalmeier

• Max-Planck-Institut für Chemische Physik fester Stoffe, 01187 Dresden, Germany

References

• [1] T. Jolicoeur, J.C. Le Guillou, Phys. Rev. B 40, 2727 (1989), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.40.2727
• [2] A.V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, T. Senthil, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 6, 8891 (1994), doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/6/42/019
• [3] H. Kawamura, S. Miyashita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 53, 4138 (1984), doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.53.4138
• [4] B. Bernu, P. Lecheminant, C. Lhuillier, L. Pierre, Phys. Rev. B 50, 10048 (1994), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.10048
• [5] S.R. White, A.L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127004 (2007), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.127004
• [6] J. Merino, R.H. McKenzie, J.B. Marston, C.H. Chung, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 11, 2965 (1999), doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/11/14/012
• [7] A.E. Trumper, Phys. Rev. B 60, 2987 (1999), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.2987
• [8] M.Y. Veillette, J.T. Chalker, R. Coldea, Phys. Rev. B 71, 214426 (2005), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.214426
• [9] M.Y. Veillette, A.J.A. James, F.H.L. Essler, Phys. Rev. B 72, 134429 (2005), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.134429
• [10] J. Reuther, R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 83, 024402 (2011), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.024402
• [11] Z. Weihong, R.H. McKenzie, R.R.P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B 59, 14367 (1999), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.14367
• [12] M.Q. Weng, D.N. Sheng, Z.Y. Weng, R.J. Bursill, Phys. Rev. B 74, 012407 (2006), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.012407
• [13] P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. B 87, 014415 (2013), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.014415
• [14] G. Misguich, C. Lhuillier, in: Frustrated Spin Systems, Ed. H.T. Diep, World Sci., 2004
• [15] S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4558 (1998), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4558
• [16] R.R.P. Singh, W. Zheng, C.J. Hamer, J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. B 60, 7278 (1999), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.7278
• [17] H.J. Schulz, T.A.L. Ziman, D. Poilblanc, J. Phys. I (France) 6, 675 (1996), doi: 10.1051/jp1:1996236
• [18] B. Schmidt, M. Siahatgar, P. Thalmeier, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165101 (2010), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.165101
• [19] N. Shannon, B. Schmidt, K. Penc, P. Thalmeier, Eur. Phys. J. B 38, 599 (2004), doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00156-3
• [20] I. Affleck, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 31, 4573 (1998), doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/31/20/002

Identifiers

DOI

10.12693/APhysPolA.127.324