Spin fluctuations inLa2−xSrxCuO4: NMR versus inelastic neutron scattering

1994 ◽  
Vol 50 (21) ◽  
pp. 16052-16059 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Barzykin ◽  
D. Pines ◽  
D. Thelen
2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (29n31) ◽  
pp. 3451-3456
Author(s):  
I. EREMIN ◽  
D. MANSKE ◽  
C. JOAS ◽  
K. H. BENNEMANN

Assuming the exchange of antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations as the Cooper pairing mechanism we calculate the doping dependence of the resonance peak seen in inelastic neutron scattering and the magnetic coherence effect. We find that the resonance peak in the magnetic susceptibility, Im χ(q,ω), appears only in the superconducting state at ωres and that it scales with Tc. Magnetic coherence is a result of an interplay between a d-wave order parameter and the kinematic gap ω0. We analyze the structure of Im χ below Tc, the doping dependence of ω0 and ωres, and the consequences for the optical conductivity.


1993 ◽  
Vol 07 (01n03) ◽  
pp. 670-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.F. WASSERMANN ◽  
G. DUMPICH ◽  
U. KIRSCHBAUM ◽  
J. LIANG

From a comparison of the thermal expansion and magnetization behavior of uhv evaporated fcc FeNi films with the respective bulk we will show that neither the deviation of the moment from the Slater-Pauling curve nor the weak magnetic behavior (small spin wave stiffness) are relevant for the occurence of the Invar effect. Reason is that in the freshly evaporated films the premartensitic transition is prevented, which in the bulk (and 900K annealed films) leads to non propagating longitudinal spin fluctuations, not sensed in inelastic neutron scattering (“hidden excitation”) but contributing in a Bloch like form (T3/2 dependence) to the magnetization.


1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (10) ◽  
pp. 1929-1939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariette Barthes ◽  
Juegen Eckert ◽  
Susanna W. Johnson ◽  
Jacques Moret ◽  
Basil I. Swanson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document