1:
2:
3: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4: % Article T1 2001,
5: % Revtex format
6: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7: \documentclass[twocolumn,a4paper,aps,amssymb,dvipdfm]{revtex4}
8: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
10: %\usepackage{dcolumn}
11: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12: %
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{ The longitudinal spin relaxation of 2d electrons in Si/SiGe
16: quantum wells in a magnetic field}
17:
18: \author{Z. Wilamowski$^{1,2}$, W. Jantsch$^1$ }
19: \address{$^1$Institut f\"{u}r Halbleiterphysik, Johannes Kepler Universit\"{a}t, A-4040 Linz,
20: Austria.}
21: \address{$^2$Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Lotnikow 32/46, PL 0668 Warsaw, Poland}
22:
23: \date{\today}
24: \begin{abstract}
25: The longitudinal spin relaxation time, $T_1$, in a Si/SiGe quantum well is determined
26: from the saturation of the ESR signal. We find values of a few
27: microseconds. Investigations of $T_1$ as a function of Fermi
28: energy, concentration of scattering centers and of the momentum
29: scattering time, $\tau_k$, lead to the conclusion that for high
30: electron mobility the spin relaxation is ruled by the
31: Dyakonov-Perel (DP) mechanism while for low mobility the
32: Elliott-Yaffet mechanism dominates. The DP relaxation is caused by
33: Bychkov-Rashba coupling. Evaluation of the DP mechanism shows that
34: $T_1^{-1}$ for high electron mobility can be effectively reduced
35: by an external magnetic field. The effect of the degenerate
36: Fermi-Dirac statistics on the DP process is discussed.
37:
38:
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41: \pacs{PACS Numbers:71.18.+y, 71.20.Mq, 71.70.-d, 72.15.Lh,
42: 72.25.-b}
43:
44: \maketitle
45:
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: Looking for spin systems suitable for spintronics or
50: quantum computing devices, the longitudinal spin relaxation time,
51: $T_1$, is of basic importance. $T_1$ is ruled by spin-flip
52: processes and it corresponds to the characteristic spin memory
53: time. In this paper we investigate $T_1$ in the high mobility 2d
54: electron gas in a Si/SiGe quantum well, where electrons can be
55: easily manipulated by illumination with light and by an electric
56: field \cite{R1,R2}. We show that for this material system, which
57: magnetically is one of the cleanest, $T_1$ is of the order of
58: microseconds whereas the time needed for a spin manipulation by a
59: microwave magnetic field is by more than two orders of magnitude
60: shorter.
61:
62: We also investigate the mechanism for spin relaxation. Analyzing
63: the spin relaxation rate as a function of the momentum scattering
64: rate, $\tau_k^{-1}$, allows to distinguish the Elliott-Yaffet (EY)
65: mechanism \cite{R3} and the D'yakonov-Perel (DP) mechanism
66: \cite{R4,R5}. The EY mechanism describes the probability of a
67: spin-flip in a momentum scattering event. This probability is
68: ruled by spin-orbit coupling and the resulting admixture of a
69: state with opposite spin projection \cite{R3,R10}:
70:
71: \begin{equation}\label{1}
72: (T_1^{-1})_{EY}=\alpha_{EY}\tau_k^{-1}
73: \end{equation}
74:
75: The DP relaxation, in contrast, originates from a zero field spin
76: splitting of the conduction band states \cite{R4,R5,R10}. For a
77: Si quantum well the zero field splitting is described by the
78: Bychkov-Rashba (BR) term \cite{R3,R10}:
79: \begin{equation}\label{2}
80: {\cal H}_{BR}=\alpha_{BR}(\bf k\times \bf{\sigma})\cdot
81: \hat{\bf{e}}_z
82: \end{equation}
83: which was shown to exist also for single sided modulation doped Si
84: quantum wells \cite {R7}.
85:
86:
87: Here $\sigma$ stands for the vector of a Pauli spin-matrix of a
88: conduction electron \cite{R8}, $\bf k$ is the k-vector
89: proportional to the electron momentum, $\hat{\bf{e}}_z$ is a
90: unit vector perpendicular to the 2d layer and $\alpha _{BR}$ is
91: the Rashba parameter that depends on the spin-orbit coupling and
92: details of the interface \cite{R9}. Momentum scattering causes
93: also a time dependent modulation of the BR interaction. As a
94: consequence, the probability for spin-flips becomes finite. For
95: non-quantizing magnetic field, the DP mechanism \cite{R5,R10} is
96: expected to be proportional to the momentum scattering time:
97: \begin{equation}\label{3}
98: (T_1^{-1})_{DP}=\Omega_{BR}^2\tau_k
99: \end{equation}
100: where the frequency $\Omega _{BR}$ is proportional to the
101: k-vector and the BR parameter $\alpha_{BR}$:
102: \begin{equation}\label{4}
103: {\bf\Omega_{BR}}^2=\alpha _{BR}{\bf k}/2\hbar
104: \end{equation}
105:
106:
107: In this paper we present results obtained from conduction electron
108: spin resonance (CESR) spectroscopy. Simultaneous measurements of
109: CESR, which allows to evaluate $T_1$, and cyclotron resonance
110: (CR), which allows \cite{R1,R2} to estimate $\tau_k$, permit the
111: evaluation of $T_1$ as a function of $\tau_k$. Such data are
112: obtained from samples with different donor and electron
113: concentrations.
114:
115:
116: \section{Samples and experimental results}
117:
118: Samples were grown by molecular beam epitaxy on 1000 $\Omega$cm
119: Si(001) substrates, which show complete carrier freeze-out below
120: 30 K. A 20 nm thick Si channel with tensile in- plane strain was
121: deposited on a strain-relaxed Si$_{0.75}$Ge$_{0.25}$ buffer layer,
122: which consists of a 0.5 $\mu$m thick Si$_{0.75}$Ge$_{0.25}$ layer
123: on top of a 2 $\mu$m thick Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$ layer with
124: compositional grading. The upper Si$_{0.75}$Ge$_{0.25}$ barrier
125: was modulation doped with a 12.5 nm thick, nominally undoped
126: spacer layer, and capped with 5 nm of Si. Three modulation doped
127: Si/SiGe structures with different donor concentrations were
128: examined. The electron concentration was changed by the light
129: illumination.
130:
131:
132: All measurements were performed with a the standard X-band ESR spectrometer, at a
133: microwave frequency 9.4 GHz. The sample were situated in the
134: center of the rectangular TM$_{201}$ cavity, at the maximum of the
135: magnetic component of microwave field (which is perpendicular to
136: the applied magnetic field). The sample layer was oriented to be
137: perpendicular to the applied magnetic field (and to electric
138: component of microwave field).
139:
140:
141: \begin{figure}[t]
142: \begin{center}
143: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{Fig1.eps}
144: \end{center}
145: \caption{ (a) Longitudinal spin relaxation time of the
146: 2d electron gas in a Si/SiGe quantum well
147: as a function of the sheet electron concentration, $n_s$. (b)
148: Concentration dependence of the momentum scattering rate,
149: $\tau_k^{-1}$, as evaluated from the cyclotron resonance
150: linewidth. Different symbols stand for samples with different
151: donor concentrations in the doping layer.}
152:
153: \label{fig1}
154: \end{figure}
155:
156:
157:
158: The spin resonance has an exceedingly narrow linewidth in the
159: range $3 \div 10 \mu$T. In spite of the fact that the sample was
160: situated in the minimum of the electric microwave field and
161: perpendicular to it, the strong absorption due to CR was well
162: observed allowing for to monitor the carrier density from the
163: integral absorption and the momentum scattering rate from the CR
164: linewidth \cite{R2}.
165:
166:
167: In Fig. 1 the longitudinal spin relaxation time, $T_1$, and the
168: momentum relaxation rate, $\tau_k^{-1}$, are plotted as a function
169: of the electron concentration, $n_s$. The parameter $T_1$ has
170: been evaluated from the saturation of the ESR signal amplitude and
171: the ESR line broadening at high microwave power \cite{R12,R13}.
172: Estimating the quality factor of the loaded cavity from the
173: resonance dip width, we obtain the amplitude of the magnetic
174: component of the microwave field of 1.1 G at a microwave power of
175: 200 mW. The data for different samples are marked by different
176: symbols. The results for the spin relaxation time, $T_1$, vary in
177: the range of 1 to 5 $\mu$s. For different samples $T_1$ is
178: different and it depends on the electron concentration. The
179: momentum scattering rate varies with $n_s$ by an order of
180: magnitude. The increase of the momentum scattering is related to
181: the screening breakdown and an increase of the potential
182: fluctuations at low Fermi energy \cite {R1}. Samples with a
183: higher doping level show also a higher $\tau_k^{-1}$.
184:
185:
186:
187: The dependence of $T_1$ on $n_s$ is governed by the complex
188: dependence of the relaxation rate on the Fermi k-vector and of the
189: dependence of $\tau_k^{-1}$ on the electron concentration. In
190: order to follow the dependence of the spin relaxation rate,
191: $T_1^{-1}$, on the momentum relaxation, $\tau_k^{-1}$, our data
192: are plotted in Figs. 2a and 2b in two different ways. In Fig. 2a
193: the spin relaxation rate, $T_1^{-1}$, is given as a function of
194: the momentum scattering rate, $\tau_k^{-1}$. In Fig. 2b, the spin
195: relaxation rate, $T_1^{-1}$, is normalized by the electron
196: concentration, $n_s$. This normalization allows to account for the
197: dependence of $T_1^{-1}$ on the BR parameter, $\alpha_{BR}$, and
198: to study the dependence of the DP rate $T_1^{-1}$ on
199: $\tau_k^{-1}$.
200:
201:
202:
203: \begin{figure}[t]
204: \begin{center}
205: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{Fig2.eps}
206: \end{center}
207: \caption{ (a) Spin relaxation rate, $T_1^{-1}$, as a function of
208: momentum scattering rate,$\tau_k^{-1}$. It shows that for the
209: strong scattering the EY process dominates the spin relaxation.
210: The spin relaxation normalized by the electron concentration,
211: $n_s$, is shown in Fig (b). It shows that the spin relaxation for
212: the high electron mobility, $\tau_k^{-1}<3 \cdot 10^{11}$
213: s$^{-1}$, is dominated by the DP mechanism. Solid line: DP
214: relaxation rate for a BR parameter of $\alpha_{BR}= 1.1 \cdot
215: 10^{11}$ eV·cm \cite{R7} and degenerate statistics (Eqs.(7-8)).
216: Dash-dotted line: non-degenerate statistics (Eqs. (6-7)). Dashed
217: straight line: from Eq. (2) which describes the DP relaxation for
218: non-degenerate statistics in the absence of an external magnetic
219: field.} \label{fig2}
220: \end{figure}
221:
222:
223:
224: \section{The spin relaxation caused by the Elliott-Yafet mechanism}
225:
226: Comparison of the data in the two figures demonstrates the
227: existence of two different ranges with different spin relaxation
228: behavior. For high scattering rate, $\tau_k^{-1}>3\cdot10^{11}$
229: s$^{-1}$, the spin relaxation is simply proportional to the
230: momentum scattering rate indicating the EY process as the
231: dominating one. The EY coefficient is independent both of the
232: electron concentration and the doping level within the
233: experimental error. The solid line in Fig. 2a corresponds to
234: $\alpha_{EY} = 1.0\cdot 10^{-6}$.
235:
236:
237:
238: For low momentum scattering rate, $\tau_k^{-1} < 3\cdot10^{11}$
239: s$^{-1}$, the spin relaxation rate is bigger than expected from
240: the EY mechanism. Moreover, $T_1^{-1}$ depends on the electron
241: concentration in the high electron mobility range. On the other
242: hand, the normalized spin relaxation (see Fig. 2b) is
243: characterized by a systematic dependence, common for all
244: investigated samples. As we argue below the observed dependence
245: in the high mobility range is well described by the DP mechanism.
246:
247:
248:
249: \section{The D'yakonov-Perel mechanism of the relaxation}
250:
251:
252: The prediction of the DP scattering rate, as described by Eqs. (3)
253: and (4) is marked by the dashed line in Fig. 2. For the BR
254: parameter we took the value $\alpha_{BR} = 0.55\cdot 10^{-12}$ eV
255: cm evaluated earlier from the analysis of the linewidth and
256: g-factor anisotropy in the same samples \cite{R7}. No
257: correlation between the dashed line and the experimental data is
258: recognizable. Eq. (3) stands, however, for the case of a weak
259: external magnetic field, when the momentum scattering rate is much
260: smaller as compared to the Zeeman frequency, and it does not
261: consider cyclotron motion and Landau quantization. In an external
262: magnetic field, because of the cyclotron motion, the electron
263: velocity changes its direction all the time. The time correlation
264: function of the k-vector, and consequently the correlation
265: function of the effective BR field seen by an electron, is
266: describes by:
267: \begin{equation}\label{5}
268: \langle {\bf k} \cdot {\bf k}(t)\rangle \propto \langle {\bf
269: \Omega}_{BR} \cdot {\bf \Omega}_{BR}(t)\rangle=\Omega_{BR}^2
270: e^{i\omega t-\tau_k^{-1}t}
271: \end{equation}
272:
273:
274: The corresponding probabilities of spin-up and down flips are
275: obtained by the Fourier component of the correlation function
276: (Eq.(5)) at the Zeeman frequency $\omega_o$:
277: \begin{equation}\label{6}
278: W_{\pm}=\frac{\Omega_{BR}^2}{2} \frac{\tau_k}{1+(\omega_c \pm
279: \omega_o)^2 \tau_k^2}
280: \end{equation}
281:
282:
283: The longitudinal spin relaxation time for a single electron is
284: equal to:
285: \begin{equation}\label{7}
286: (T_1^{-1})_{DP}=W_{+}+W_{-}
287: \end{equation}
288:
289:
290: Eqs. (6) and (7) describe the DP relaxation in an external
291: magnetic field. For a short momentum relaxation time, Eq.(7)
292: becomes equivalent to Eq.(3). But for quantizing magnetic field,
293: where $\omega_c \tau_k>1$ , the DP relaxation rate is expected to
294: be reduced by the denominator in Eq. (6). The dependence
295: corresponding to Eqs. (6-7) is shown in Fig. 2 by the dash-dotted
296: line. The reduction of the spin relaxation caused by the external
297: magnetic field is well visible. Moreover, for low scattering
298: rate, $\omega_c \tau_k \gg 1$ , the DP relaxation rate is expected
299: to be proportional to the momentum scattering.
300:
301:
302: For an electron gas, in which the final states to which electron
303: can be scattered, are partially occupied the evaluation of the
304: mean spin relaxation rate of the whole electron system requires
305: thermodynamic averaging. The scattering probability and the
306: momentum relaxation rate depend on energy. These quantities are
307: proportional to the population of empty states:
308: $\tau_k^{-1}(\varepsilon)=\tau_{ko}^{-1} [1-f_{FD}(\varepsilon)]$
309: where $\tau_{ko}^{-1}$ is the momentum relaxation rate (as used in
310: the Boltzmann equation approach) and $f_{FD}(\varepsilon)$ is the
311: Fermi-Dirac distribution function. For moderate magnetic field,
312: where $\hbar \omega_c<k_BT<E_F$ the dependence of the BR frequency
313: on energy can be neglected and the mean value of the transition
314: probability, $\langle W_{\pm}\rangle$, weighted by the derivative
315: of the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, is described by:
316: \begin{equation}\label{8}
317: \langle W_{\pm}\rangle=\frac{\Omega_{BR}^2}{2}\int
318: f'_{FD}(\varepsilon)\frac{\tau_k(\varepsilon)}{1+(\omega_c \pm
319: \omega_o)^2\tau_k^2(\varepsilon)} d\varepsilon
320: \end{equation}
321:
322:
323: The solid line in Fig. 2b corresponds to the DP scattering rate as
324: described by Eqs. (7) and (8). For the BR parameter again a value
325: of $0.55\cdot 10^{-12}$ eV cm has been taken. The theoretical
326: curve, without any other fitting parameter, fits well to the
327: experimental points for high electron mobility. For the highest
328: mobility the effect of a moderate magnetic field (B=0.34 T) is the
329: reduction of the DP mechanism by about two orders of magnitude.
330: In the limit of very high electron mobility, the DP relaxation
331: rate for degenerate statistics (Eq. (7-8)) is by a factor 2
332: smaller as compared to the non-degenerate case described by Eqs.
333: (6-7)
334:
335:
336: For the high momentum scattering rate the DP relaxation rate is
337: expected to tend to the solution for weak magnetic field. But for
338: degenerate statistics (solid line), where the final states are
339: partially occupied, the spin relaxation rate is by a factor 2
340: bigger as compared to the non-degenerate case (dashed and
341: dash-dotted lines) for a given momentum relaxation rate.
342:
343: \section{Conclusions}
344:
345: In conclusion, we have shown that:
346: \begin{itemize}
347: \item the DP mechanism dominates for high mobility structures but the
348: quantization due to the applied magnetic field leads to a
349: considerable reduction of the DP relaxation rate. In Eq. (3) a
350: reduction factor of about $1+\tau_k^2\omega_c^2$ must be
351: introduced, where $\omega_c$ is the cyclotron frequency (compare
352: Eq. (3) and Eqs. (6-7)). As a consequence, for weak momentum
353: scattering the reduced DP spin relaxation rate is proportional to
354: $\tau_k^{-1}$, in contrast to Eq. (3).
355:
356: \item the value of the BR parameter, $\alpha_{BR}$,
357: as determined from $T_1$ turns out to be the same within the
358: experimental accuracy as previously evaluated from the anisotropy
359: of the CESR linewidth (dephasing time, $T_2$) and the g-factor
360: \cite{R7}.
361:
362: \item for low mobility samples the spin relaxation is dominated by the EY mechanism. We find
363: an EY coefficient of: $\alpha_{EY}= 1.0 \cdot 10^{-6}$, which is
364: common for all samples and, for the investigated range of
365: parameters (the Fermi energy does not exceed 2.5 meV),
366: $\alpha_{EY}$ does not depend on the electron concentration.
367:
368: \end{itemize}
369:
370:
371: \acknowledgments
372:
373: We thank F. Sch\"{a}ffler (JKU)
374: for generously providing samples and for
375: helpful discussions. Work supported within the KBN grant 2 P03B
376: 007 16 in Poland and in Austria by the Fonds zur F\"{o}rderung der
377: Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, and \"{O}AD, both Vienna.
378:
379:
380:
381:
382: \begin{thebibliography}{}
383:
384:
385: \bibitem{R1}
386: Z. Wilamowski, N. Sandersfeld, W. Jantsch, D.T\"{o}bben, F. Sch\"{a}ffler,
387: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},026401 (2001)
388:
389:
390: \bibitem{R2}
391: W. Jantsch, Z. Wilamowski, N. Sandersfeld and F. Sch\"{a}ffler,
392: Phys. stat. sol. (b) {\bf 210}, 643 (1998), and:
393: Z. Wilamowski and W. Jantsch, Physica
394: E 10, 17-21(2001)
395:
396:
397: \bibitem{R3}
398: R.J. Elliott,
399: Phys. Rev. 96, 266 (1954) and
400: Y. Yafet,
401: Sol. St. Phys. {\bf 14}, 1 (1963)
402:
403:
404: \bibitem{R4}
405: F.G. Pikus and G.E. Pikus, Phys. Rev. B51, 16928 (1995)
406:
407:
408: \bibitem{R5}
409: W. Knap, C. Skierbiszewski, A. Zduniak, E. Litwin-Staszewska, D. Bertho, F. Kobbi, J.L.
410: Robert, G.E. Pikus, F.G. Pikus, S.V. Iordanskii, V. Mosser, K.
411: Zekentes, Yu. B. Lyanda-Geller,
412: Phys. Rev. B{\bf 53}, 3912 (2001)
413:
414:
415: \bibitem{R10}
416: F.G. Pikus and G.E. Pikus, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 51}, 16928 (1995)
417:
418:
419: \bibitem{R6}
420: E. I. Rashba, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) {\bf 2}, 1224 (1969) [Sov. Phys. Solid State {\bf 2}, 1109
421: (1960)]
422:
423:
424: \bibitem{R7}
425: Z. Wilamowski, W. Jantsch and U. R\"{o}ssler, unpublished and: cond-mat/0110342
426:
427:
428: \bibitem{R8}
429: The coefficient $\alpha_{BR}$, as defined by Equ. (3), is half as big as compared to the case when
430: $\sigma$ stands for the spin operator.
431:
432:
433: \bibitem{R9}
434: J.A. Majewski, P. Vogl and P. Lugli,
435: Proc. 25th Int conf Phys. Semic. Osaka 2000, (Eds. N. Miura and T. Ando), p791 (Springer, Berlin2001)
436:
437:
438: \bibitem{R12}
439: C.P. Poole: Electron Spin Resonance (J. Wiley, N.Y. 1983 (2nd. Ed.))
440:
441:
442: \bibitem{R13}
443: Z. Wilamowski and W. Jantsch,
444: Physica E {\bf 10}, 17-21 (2001)
445:
446:
447: \end{thebibliography}
448:
449: \end{document}
450: