Advertisement

Nuclear Resonance and Magnetic Ordering an a Random Spin System: (LaGd) Al2

  • D. E. MacLaughlin
  • M. Daugherty

Abstract

The results of Al27 zero-field nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) and spin-lattice relaxation measurements in the (LaGd)Al2 magnetic alloy system are examined for features dependent on the spatial disorder of the Gd impurity spin system. Persistence of the NQR signal. well below the magnetic ordering temperature TO indicates that the Al27 static hyperfine field is zero at an appreciable fraction of Al sites. This result is attributed to inhomogeneity in the Gd spontaneous magnetization. No clear evidence was obtained for critical-point behavior of the relaxation time near TO. The rapid relaxation observed below TO indicates the presence of a large fluctuating A127 hyperfine field. Thus the observed nuclei must be near regions of large Gd spin correlation, which in turn suggests that the Gd magnetization in-homogeneities are microscopic in size. For T >> TO the relaxation times, appropriately scaled, are comparable to those observed in the intermetallic compound PrA12 in both magnitude and temperature dependence. Hence any major effect of spatial disorder on the spin system dynamics disappears in this temperature range, and the temperature-dependent contribution to relaxation in both random and periodic spin systems is dominated by short-range interspin correlation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Footnotes

  1. 1.
    See, for example, M. W. Klein, Phys. Rev. 136, A1156 (1964), and references cited therein.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. R. Coles, in Proc. of the Symposium on Amorphous Magnetism, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. H. Liu, Phys. Rev. 157, 411 (1967); K. H. Bennemann, J. W. Garland, and F. M. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Letters 23, 1503 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    See D. E. MacLaughlin and M. Daugherty, Phys. Rev. B (to be published) for a preliminary account of this work.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. R. McHenry, B. G. Silbernagel, and J. H. Wernick, Phys. Rev. Letters 27, 426 (1971); Phys. Rev. B 5, 2958 (1972).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. B. Maple, thesis. University of California, San Diego, 1969 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Marshall, Phys. Rev. 118, 1519 (1960).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. W. Klein and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. 132, 2412 (1963).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Gonser, R. W. Grant, C. J. Meechan. A. H. Muir, and H. Wiedersich, J. Appl. Phys. 36, 2124 (1965).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. G. Silbernagel, V. Jaccarino, P. Pincus. and J. H. Wernick, Phys. Rev. Letters 20, 1091 (1968). See also F. Y. Fradin, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 31, 2715 (1970) for a related theoretical treatment.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Moriya, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 28, 371 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The nearly perfect agreement between data for PrA12 and La0.95Gd0.05A12 surely fortuitious for two reasons: first, no such agreement is found between the PrA12 and La0.98Gd0.02A12 data; second, the numerical factor which relates T1 and τ1 is unknown but probably not unity.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. E. MacLaughlin
    • 1
  • M. Daugherty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations