Pyromagnetic Test of Spin Wave Theory in Metallic Nickel

  • Emerson W. Pugh
  • Bernell E. Argyle
Conference paper

Abstract

The temperature dependence of the spontaneous magnetization of metallic nickel has been studied between 4.2° and 120°K by a pyromagnetic technique developed by the authors. Fractional changes in magnetization as small as a few parts per million could be detected near 4.2°K. The resultant data were fitted by the method of least squares to a theoretical equation containing terms descriptive of thermal excitation of spin waves in the presence of an effective magnetic field plus a T 2 term descriptive of collective electron behavior. The best fit of the data to this equation is obtained using the spin wave terms alone, provided an intrinsic energy gap is assumed in the spin wave dispersion law of 2.7°K for magnetization parallel to the [111] axis and 1.9°K parallel to the [100] axis. Enhancement of this gap by an externally applied field follows theoretical predictions. It is noted that the measured difference between the gap temperature along the two principal axes has the value theoretically predicted from previous measurements of magnetic anisotropy energy, however the isotropic contribution observed in this experiment has not been theoretically anticipated. A possible origin for the isotropic gap is proposed in terms of interaction of polarized s and d electrons. It is also pointed out, however, that the “isotropic effective field” may be a spurious result, originating in thermal expansion effects not included in the theoretical equation to which the data were fitted. Finally, a new type of pyromagnetic measurement is described which can be used to determine the temperature dependence of the magnetic anisotropy.

Keywords

Spin Wave Spontaneous Magnetization Metallic Nickel Pickup Coil Effective Magnetic Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 102, 1217 and 1230 (1956).MathSciNetADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. H. Charap, Phys. Rev. 119, 1538 (1960).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Herring and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 31, 869 (1951).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. M. Edwards and E. P. Wohlfarth, J. phys. radium 20, 136 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. W. Pugh and B. E. Argyle, J. Appl. Phys. 32, 334S (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Foner and E. D. Thompson, J. Appl. Phys. 30, 229S (1959).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. L. Powell, M. D. Bunch, and R. J. Curruccini, Cryogenics 1, 139 (March, 1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. E. Ruark and M. F. Peters, J. Opt. Soc. Am. and Rev. Sci. Instr. 13, 205 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heat treated to remove any trace of temperature dependent magnetic properties in a manner previously described by E. W. Pugh, Rev. Sci. Instr. 29, 1118 (1958).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. P. Cioffi, Rev. Sci. Instr. 21, 624 (1950).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Oguchi, Phys. Rev. 117, 117 (1960).ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940).ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Keffer and R. Loudon, J. Appl. Phys. 32, 2S (1961).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. E. Robinson, Phys. Rev. 83, 678 (1951).ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Patrick, Phys. Rev. 93, 384 (1954).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. C. Nix and D. MacNair, Phys. Rev. 60, 597 (1941).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. J. Standley and K. H. Reich, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) 68B, 713 (1955).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. C. Stoner, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A165, 372 (1938).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. P. Wohlfarth, Phil. Mag. 42, 374 (1951).MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A similar least squares fitting to the spin wave equation has been used recently to analyze NMR results in CrBr3 by A. C. Gossard, V. Jaccarino, and J. P. Remeika, Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 122 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 22.
    M. Fallot, Ann. phys. 6, 305 (1936).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    K 10=7.5×105 ergs/cc by H. J. Williams and R. M. Bozorth, Phys. Rev. 55, 673 (1939)Google Scholar
  23. K 10 = 8.3×105 ergs/cc by K. H. Reich, Phys. Rev. 101, 1647 (1956).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 25.
    J. H. Van Vleck, J. phys. radium 20, 124 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emerson W. Pugh
    • 1
  • Bernell E. Argyle
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations