1: \documentclass[amsmath,amssymb,widetext,10pt,a4paper]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{bm}

4: \textheight 23truecm

5: \textwidth 16truecm

6: \evensidemargin 0.5truecm

7: \oddsidemargin 0.5truecm

8: \baselineskip 6pt

9: \topmargin 0truecm

10: 

11: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

12: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

13: 

14: \def\rmd{{\rm d}}

15: \def\rmD{{\rm D}}

16: \def\fl{}

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: 

20: \title{Current-driven switching of magnetisation- theory and experiment}

21: 

22: 

23: \author{D. M.  Edwards}

24: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London SW7

25:   2BZ, U.K.}

26: \author{ F. Federici}

27: \affiliation{NEST-INFM and Classe di Scienze, Scuola Normale

28:   Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, 56126 Pisa, Italy}

29: 

30: \maketitle

31: 

32: 

33: 

34: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}

35: 

36: Recently there has been a lot of interest in magnetic nanopillars of

37: 10-100 nm in diameter. The pillar is a metallic layered structure

38: with two ferromagnetic layers, usually of cobalt, separated by a

39: non-magnetic spacer layer, normally of copper. Non-magnetic leads

40: are attached to the magnetic layers so that an electric current may

41: be passed through the structure. In the simplest case the pillar may

42: exist in two states, with the magnetisation of the two magnetic

43: layers parallel or anti-parallel. The state of a pillar can be read

44: by measuring its resistance, this being smaller in the parallel

45: state than in the anti-parallel one. This dependence of the

46: resistance on magnetic configuration is the giant magnetoresistance

47: (GMR) effect \cite{1}. A dense array of these nanopillars could form

48: a magnetic memory for a computer. Normally one of the magnetic

49: layers in a pillar is relatively thick and its magnetisation

50: direction is fixed. In order to write into the memory the

51: magnetisation direction of the second thinner layer must be

52: switched. This might be achieved by a local magnetic field of

53: suitable strength and methods have been proposed \cite{2} for

54: providing such a local field by currents in a criss-cross array of

55: conducting strips. However an alternative, and potentially more

56: efficient method, proposed by Slonczewski \cite{3} makes use of a

57: current passing up the pillar itself. Slonczewski's effect relies on

58: ``spin transfer'' and not on the magnetic field produced by the

59: current which in the nanopillar geometry is ineffective. The idea of

60: spin-transfer is as follows. In a ferromagnet there are more

61: electrons of one spin orientation than of the other so that current

62: passing through the thick magnetic layer (the polarising magnet)

63: becomes spin-polarised. In general its state of spin-polarisation

64: changes as it passes through the second (switching) magnet so that

65: spin angular momentum is transferred to the switching magnet. This

66: transfer of spin angular momentum is called spin-transfer torque

67: and, if the current exceeds a critical value, it may be sufficient

68: to switch the direction of magnetisation of the switching magnet.

69: This is called current-induced switching.

70: 

71: In the next section we show how to calculate the spin-transfer torque

72: for a simple model.

73: 

74: \section{Spin-transfer torque in a simple model}\label{due}

75: 

76: For simplicity we consider a structure of the type shown in Fig.

77: \ref{fig1}, where {\bf p} and {\bf m} are unit vectors in the

78: direction of the magnetisations. This models the layered structure

79: of the pillars used in experiments but the atomic planes shown are

80: considered to be unbounded instead of having the finite

81: cross-section of the pillar. This means that there is translational

82: symmetry in the $x$ and $z$ directions. The structure consists of a

83: thick (semi-infinite) left magnetic layer (polarising magnet), a

84: non-magnetic metallic spacer layer, a thin second magnet (switching

85: magnet) and a semi-infinite non-magnetic lead. In the simplest model

86: we assume the atoms form a simple cubic lattice, with lattice

87: constant $a$, and we adopt a one-band tight-binding model with

88: hopping Hamiltonian

89: 

90: \begin{equation}

91: H_0=t\sum_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}\sigma}

92: \sum_{n}c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel} n\sigma} c_{k_{\parallel}

93: n-1\sigma}\,\, +\,\, {\rm h. c.}. \label{hamiltonian}

94: \end{equation}

95: 

96: Here $c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel} n\sigma}$ creates an electron on

97: plane $n$ with two-dimensional wave-vector ${\bf k}_{\parallel}$ and

98: spin $\sigma$, and $t$ is the nearest-neighbour hopping integral.

99: 

100: In the tight-binding  description the operator for spin angular

101: momentum current between planes $n-1$ and $n$, which we require to

102: calculate spin-transfer torque, is given by

103: \begin{equation}

104: {\bf j}_{n-1}=-\frac{{\rm i}t}2\sum_{{\bf

105:     k}_{\parallel}}\left(c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel},n,\sigma\uparrow},

106: c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel},n,\downarrow}\right){\bm\sigma}

107: \left(c_{k_{\parallel} ,n-1,\uparrow}, c_{k_{\parallel}

108: ,n-1,\downarrow} \right)^{\dagger} +\,\, {\rm h. c.}. \label{gamma}

109: \end{equation}

110: Here ${\bm\sigma}=\left(\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z\right)$ where

111: the components are Pauli matrices. Eq. (\ref{gamma}) yields the

112: charge current $j_{n-1}^{\rm c}$ if $\frac12{\bm\sigma}$ is

113: replaced by a unit matrix multiplied by the number $e/\hbar$, where

114: $e$ is the electronic charge (negative). All currents flow in the

115: $y$ direction, perpendicular to the layers, and the components of

116: the vector ${\bf  j}$

117:  correspond to transport of $x$, $y$ and $z$ components of spin. The

118:  justification of Eq. (\ref{gamma}) for ${\bf j}_{n-1}$ relies

119:  on an equation of continuity, as pointed out in Section \ref{quattro}.

120: 

121: To define the present model completely we must supplement the

122: hopping Hamiltonian $H_0$ by specifying the on-site potentials in

123: the various layers. For simplicity we assume the on-site potential

124: for both spins in non-magnetic layers, and for majority spin in

125: ferromagnetic layers, is zero. We assume an infinite exchange

126: splitting in the ferromagnets so that the minority spin potential in

127: these layers is infinite. Thus minority spin electrons are

128: completely excluded from the ferromagnets. Clearly the definition of

129: majority and minority spin relate to spin quantisation in the

130: direction of the local magnetisation. We take $\alpha=0$, so that

131: the magnetisation of the switching magnet is in the z direction and

132:  take $\theta=\psi$, where $\psi$ is the angle

133: between the magnetisations.

134: 

135: To describe spin transport in the structure we adopt the generalised

136: Landauer approach of Waintal {\it et. al.} \cite{4}. Thus the

137: structure is placed between two reservoirs, one on the left and one

138: on the right, with electron distributions characterised by Fermi

139: functions $f(\omega-\mu_{\rm L})$, $f(\omega-\mu_{\rm R})$

140: respectively. The system is then subject to a bias voltage $V_{\rm

141: b}$ given by $eV_{\rm b}=\mu_{\rm L}-\mu_{\rm R}$, the difference

142: between the chemical potentials. We discuss the ballistic limit

143: where scattering occurs only at interfaces, the effect of impurities

144: being negligible. We label the atomic planes so that $n=0$

145: corresponds to the last atomic plane of the polarising magnet. the

146: planes of the spacer layer correspond to $n=1,2\, \cdot\cdot\,N $

147: and $n=N+1$ is the first plane of the switching magnet.

148: 

149: Consider first an electron incident from the left with wave-function

150: $|k,maj\rangle$, where $k>0$, which corresponds to a Bloch wave

151: $|k\rangle = \sum_{n}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}kna}|{\bf

152: k}_{\parallel}n\rangle$ with majority spin in the polarising magnet.

153: In this notation the label ${\bf k}_{\parallel}$ is suppressed. The

154: particle is partially reflected by the structure and finally emerges

155: as a partially transmitted wave in the lead, with spin $\uparrow$

156: corresponding to majority spin in the switching magnet. Thus the

157: wave-function is of the form

158: \begin{equation}

159: |P_k\rangle =|k,maj\rangle + B|-k,maj\rangle

160: \label{p}

161: \end{equation}

162: in the polariser and

163: \begin{equation}

164: |L_k\rangle =F|k,\uparrow\rangle

165: \label{p2}

166: \end{equation}

167: in the lead. A majority spin in either ferromagnet  enters or leaves

168: the spacer without scattering, since in our simple model there is no

169: potential step. Also the minority spin wave-function entering a

170: ferromagnet is zero. The spacer wave-function may therefore be written

171: in two ways:

172:  \begin{equation}

173: |S_k\rangle =F|k,\uparrow\rangle+E \left({\rm e}^{-{\rm

174: i}k(N+1)a}|k,\downarrow\rangle- {\rm e}^{{\rm

175: i}k(N+1)a}|-k,\downarrow\rangle \right) 

176: \label{pp}

177: \end{equation}

178: or

179:  \begin{eqnarray}\label{ppp}

180: |S_k\rangle &=& |k,maj\rangle+B|-k,maj\rangle+D\left(|k,min\rangle-

181: |-k,min\rangle\right)\nonumber\\

182: &=& \cos\left(\psi/2\right)|k,\uparrow\rangle+\sin\left(\psi/2\right)

183: |k,\downarrow\rangle

184: +B\left[\cos\left(\psi/2\right)|-k,\uparrow\rangle+\sin\left(\psi/2\right)|-k,\downarrow\rangle\right]\\

185: &&+D\left[-\sin\left(\psi/2\right)|k,\uparrow\rangle+\cos\left(\psi/2\right)

186: |k,\downarrow\rangle+\sin\left(\psi/2\right)

187: |-k,\uparrow\rangle-\cos\left(\psi/2\right)|-k,\downarrow\rangle\right].\nonumber

188: \end{eqnarray}

189: On equating coefficients of $|k,\uparrow\rangle$,

190: $|k,\downarrow\rangle$, $|-k,\uparrow\rangle$,

191: $|-k,\downarrow\rangle$ in expressions (\ref{pp}) and (\ref{ppp})

192: we have four equations which may be solved for $B$, $D$, $E$, $F$.

193: In particular the transmission coefficient $T$ is given by

194: \begin{equation}

195: \label{T}

196: T=\left|F\right|^2=\frac{4\cos^2(\psi/2)\sin^2

197:   k(N+1)a}{\sin^4(\psi/2)+

198: 4\cos^2(\psi/2)\sin^2k(N+1)a}.

199: \end{equation}

200: Similarly an electron incident from the right with wave-function

201: $|-k\uparrow\rangle$ in the lead is partially reflected and finally

202: emerges as a partially transmitted wave $F^{\prime}|-k,maj\rangle$ in

203: the polarising magnet. It is found that $F^{\prime}=F$ so that the

204: transmission coefficient is the same for particles from left or right.

205: 

206: The spin angular momentum current in a particular layer, which we

207: shall denote by S although it need not be the spacer layer, is the

208: sum of currents carried by left and right moving electrons. Thus we

209: have a Landauer-type formula \cite{5}

210: \begin{equation}

211: \label{landau}

212: {\bf j}_{\rm s}=\frac{a}{2\pi}\sum_{{\bf k }_{\parallel}}

213: \left\{\int_{k>0}{\rm d}k\left[\langle S_k|{\bf

214:   j}_{n-1}|S_k\rangle f(\omega-\mu_L)+\langle S_{-k}|{\bf

215:   j}_{n-1}|S_{-k}\rangle f(\omega-\mu_{R})\right]\right\}

216: \end{equation}

217: where $|S_k\rangle$, $|S_{-k}\rangle$ are wave-functions in the layer

218: considered corresponding to electrons incident from left and right,

219: respectively. Here $\omega$, the energy of the Bloch wave $k$, is

220: given by the tight-binding formula

221: \begin{equation}

222: \label{omega}

223: \omega=u_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}}+2t\cos ka

224: \end{equation}

225: where $u_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}}=2t(\cos k_xa+\cos k_za)$. We take

226: $t<0$ so that positive $k$ corresponds to positive velocity

227: $\hbar^{-1}\partial\omega/\partial k$ as we have assumed. The

228: current ${\bf j}_{\rm s}$ in layer $S$ calculated by Eq.

229: (\ref{landau}) does not depend on the particular planes $n-1$, $n$

230: between which it is calculated. On changing the integration variable

231: in Eq. (\ref{landau}) we find

232: \begin{equation}

233: \label{landau2} {\bf j}_{\rm s}=\frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{{\bf

234: k}_{\parallel}}\int{\rm d}\omega\left[{\bf J}_{+}f(\omega-\mu_{\rm

235:   L})+{\bf J}_{-}f(\omega-\mu_{\rm R})

236: \right]

237: \end{equation}

238: where

239: \begin{equation}

240: \label{landau3}

241: {\bf J}_{\pm}=\frac{\langle S_{\pm k}|{\bf j}_{n-1}|S_{\pm

242:     k}\rangle}{-2t\sin ka}.

243: \end{equation}

244: Here $k=k(\omega,{\bf k}_{\parallel})$ is the positive root of Eq.

245: (\ref{omega}). Eq. (\ref{landau2}) may be written as

246: \begin{equation}

247: \label{landau33}

248: {\bf j}_{\rm s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{{\bf k }_{\parallel}}

249: \int{\rm d}\omega\left\{

250: \left({\bf J}_{+}+{\bf J}_{-}\right)

251: \left[f(\omega-\mu_{\rm L})+f(\omega-\mu_{\rm R})\right]+

252: \left({\bf J}_{+}-{\bf J}_{-}\right)

253: \left[f(\omega-\mu_{\rm L})-f(\omega-\mu_{\rm  R})\right]

254: \right\}.

255: \end{equation}

256: 

257: Before discussing this spin current we briefly consider the charge

258: current $j^{\rm c}$, and we denote the analogues of ${\bf J}_{\pm}$ by

259: $J_{\pm}^{\rm c}$. Since the charge current is conserved

260: throughout the structure $J_{+}^{\rm c}$ and  $J_{-}^{\rm c}$ can be

261: calculated in different ways, {\it e.g.} in the lead for $J_{+}^{\rm c}$ and in the polariser for $J_{-}^{\rm c}$. Since

262: $T=\left|F\right|^2=\left|F^{\prime}\right|^2$ we find $J_{+}^{\rm

263:   c}+J_{-}^{\rm c}=0$ and for small bias $eV_{b}=\mu_{\rm L}-\mu_{\rm R}$

264: the charge current is given by

265: \begin{equation}

266: \label{current}

267: j^{\rm c}=\frac{2e^2V_{\rm b}}{h}\sum_{{\bf

268: k}_{\parallel}}T

269: \end{equation}

270: where the transmission coefficient $T$ is given by Eq. (\ref{T})

271: with $k=k(\mu,{\bf k}_{\parallel})$, $\mu$ being the common chemical

272: potential as $V_{\rm B}\rightarrow 0$. This is the well-known

273: Landauer formula \cite{5}.

274: 

275: The spin transfer torque on the switching magnet is given by

276: \begin{equation}

277: \label{torque}

278: {\bf T}^{\rm s-t}=\langle{\bf j}_{\rm spacer}\rangle-

279: \langle{\bf j}_{\rm lead}\rangle,

280: \end{equation}

281: where $\langle{\bf j}_{\rm spacer}\rangle$ and $\langle{\bf j}_{\rm

282: lead}\rangle$ are spin currents in the spacer and lead respectively.

283: For zero bias ($\mu_{\rm L}=\mu_{\rm

284:   R}$) there is clearly no charge current in the structure and

285: straight-forward calculation shows that all components of spin

286: current in the spacer and the lead vanish, except for a non-zero

287: $y$-spin current in the spacer. There is therefore a non-zero $y$

288: component of spin-transfer torque acting on the switching magnet for

289: zero bias, and its dependence on the angle $\psi$ between the

290: magnetisations is found to be approximately $\sin\psi$. This torque

291: is due to exchange coupling, analogous to an RKKY coupling, between

292: the two magnetic layers. This coupling oscillates as a function of

293: spacer thickness and tends to zero as the thickness tends to

294: infinity. For finite bias $V_{\rm B}$ the second term in the

295: integrand of Eq. (\ref{landau33}) comes into play. In general this

296: leads to finite $x$ and $y$ components of ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$

297: proportional to $V_{\rm b}$ (for small $V_{\rm b}$) whereas

298: $T_{z}^{\rm s-t}=0$. However for the special model considered here

299: with infinite exchange splitting in both ferromagnets it turns out

300: that $T_y^{\rm s-t}=0$. For this model the only non-zero component

301: of ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ proportional to

302:  $V_{\rm b}$ is found to be

303:  \begin{equation}

304: \label{torquex}

305: T_x^{\rm s-t}=\frac{\hbar j^{\rm c}}{2|e|}\tan\frac{\psi}{2}

306: \end{equation}

307: where $j^{\rm c}$ is the charge current given by Eq. (\ref{current}).

308: 

309: Slonczewski \cite{3} originally obtained this result for the

310: analogous parabolic band model. From Eqs. (\ref{torquex}),

311: (\ref{current}) and (\ref{T}) it follows that $T_{x}^{\rm s-t}$

312: contains an important factor $\sin\psi$ although this does not

313: represent the whole angle dependence. Clearly, from Eq.

314: (\ref{torquex}), the torque proportional to bias remains finite for

315: arbitrarily large spacer thickness, in the ballistic limit. For this

316: model, with infinite exchange splitting, the torque is independent

317: of the thickness of the switching magnet.

318: 

319: From the results of this simple model we can infer a general form of

320: the spin-transfer torque ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ which is independent of

321: the choice of coordinate axes. Thus we write

322:  \begin{equation}

323: \label{torqueperp}

324: {\bf T}^{\rm s-t}={\bf T}_{\perp}+{\bf T}_{\parallel}

325: \end{equation}

326: where

327:  \begin{eqnarray}

328: \label{torque2} {\bf T}_{\perp}&=&\left(g^{\rm ex}+g_{\perp} e

329: V_{\rm b}\right)({\bf

330:   m}\times{\bf p}) \nonumber\\

331: {\bf T}_{\parallel}&=&g_{\parallel} e V_{\rm b}{\bf m}\times({\bf

332:   p}\times{\bf m}).

333: \end{eqnarray}

334: With the choice of axes in Fig. \ref{fig1} ${\bf T}_{\parallel}$

335: corresponds to the $x$ component of torque, that is the component

336: parallel to the plane containing the magnetisation directions ${\bf

337: m}$ and ${\bf p}$. Similarly ${\bf T}_{\perp}$ corresponds to the

338: $y$ component of torque, this being perpendicular to the plane of

339: ${\bf m}$ and ${\bf p}$. The modulus of both the vectors ${\bf

340: m}\times{\bf p}$ and ${\bf m}\times({\bf p}\times{\bf m})$ is

341: $\sin\psi$, so that the factors $g^{\rm ex}$, $g_{\perp}$ and

342: $g_{\parallel}$ are functions of $\psi$ which contain deviations

343: from the simple $\sin\psi$ behaviour. The bias-independent term

344: $g^{\rm ex}$ corresponds to the interlayer exchange coupling, as

345: discussed above, and henceforth we assume that the spacer is thick

346: enough for this term to be negligible. Sometimes the $\sin\psi$

347: factor accounts for most of the angular dependence of $T_{\perp}$

348: and $T_{\parallel}$ so that $g_{\perp}$ and $g_{\parallel}$ may be

349: regarded as constant parameters for the given structure. In the next

350: section we use Eqs. (\ref{torque2}) for the spin-transfer torque in

351: a phenomenological theory of current-induced switching of

352: magnetisation. This phenomenological treatment enables us to

353: understand most of the available experimental data. It is more usual

354: in experimental works to relate spin-transfer torque to current

355: rather than bias. However in theoretical work, based on the Landauer

356: or Keldysh approach, bias is more natural. In practice the

357: resistance of the system considered is rather constant (the GMR

358: ratio is only a few percent) so that bias and current are in a

359: constant ratio.

360: 

361: 

362: 

363: \section{Phenomenological treatment of current-induced switching of

364:   magnetisation}\label{tre}

365: In this section we explore the consequences of the spin-transfer

366: torque acting on a switching magnet using a phenomenological Landau

367: Lifshitz equation with Gilbert damping (LLG equation). This is

368: essentially a generalisation of the approach used originally by

369: Slonczewski \cite{3} and Sun \cite{sun}. We assume that there is a

370: polarising magnet whose magnetisation is pinned in the $xz$-plane in

371: the direction of a unit vector ${\bf p}$, which is at general fixed

372: angle $\theta$ to the $z$-axis as shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}.

373: \begin{figure}

374: \includegraphics[width=11cm]{Fig1.eps}

375: \caption{Schematic picture of a magnetic layer structure for

376:   current-induced switching (magnetic layers are darker, non-magnetic

377:   layers lighter).}

378: \label{fig1}

379: \end{figure}

380: The pinning of the magnetisation of the polarising magnet can be due

381: to its large coercivity (thick magnet) or a strong uniaxial

382: anisotropy. The role of the polarising magnet is to produce a stream

383: of spin-polarised electrons, {\it i.e.} spin current, that is going

384: to exert a torque on the magnetisation of the switching magnet whose

385: magnetisation lies in the general direction of a unit vector ${\bf

386: m}$. The orientation of the vector ${\bf m}$ is defined by the polar

387: angles $\alpha$, $\phi$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}.

388:  There is a non-magnetic metallic layer inserted

389: between the two magnets

390: whose role is merely to separate magnetically the two magnetic  layers and

391: allow a strong charge current to pass. The total thickness of the

392: whole trilayer sandwiched between two non-magnetic leads must be

393: smaller than the spin diffusion length $l_{\rm sf}$ so that there

394: are no spin flips due to impurities or spin-orbit coupling. A

395: typical junction in which current-induced switching is studied

396: experimentally \cite{albert} is shown schematically in Fig.

397: \ref{fig2}. The thickness of the polarising magnet is 40nm, that of

398: the switching magnet 2.5nm and the non-magnetic spacer is 6nm thick.

399: The materials for the two magnets and the spacer are cobalt and

400: copper, respectively, which are those most commonly used. The

401: junction cross section is oval-shaped with dimensions

402: 60nm$\times$130nm. A small diameter is necessary so that the torque

403: due to the Oersted field generated by a charge current of

404: $10^{7}$-$10^8$ A/cm$^2$, required for current-induced switching, is

405: much smaller than the spin-transfer torque we are interested in.

406: \begin{figure}

407: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=-90]{Fig2.eps}

408: \caption{Schematic picture of a junction in which current-induced

409:   switching is studied experimentally.}

410: \label{fig2}

411: \end{figure}

412: 

413: The aim of most experiments is to determine the orientation of the

414: switching magnet moment as a function of the current (applied bias)

415: in the junction. Sudden jumps of the magnetisation direction, {\it

416: i.e.} current-induced switching, are of particular interest. The

417: orientation of the switching magnet moment ${\bf m}$ relative to

418: that of the polarising magnet ${\bf p}$, which is fixed, is

419: determined by measuring the resistance of the junction. Because of

420: the GMR effect, the resistance of the junction is higher when the

421: magnetisations of the two magnets are anti-parallel than when they

422: are parallel, In other words, what is observed are hysteresis loops

423: of resistance versus current. A typical experimental hysteresis loop

424: of this type \cite{16} is

425: reproduced in Fig. \ref{fig3}.

426: \begin{figure}

427: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3.eps}

428: \caption{Resistance vs current hysteresis loop (after Grollier {\it

429: et al.} \cite{16}). } \label{fig3}

430: \end{figure}

431: It can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig3} that, for any given current, the

432: switching magnet moment is stationary (the junction resistance has a

433: well defined value), {\it i.e.} the system is in a steady state.

434: This holds everywhere on the hysteresis loop except for the two

435: discontinuities where current-induced switching occurs. As indicated

436: by the arrows jumps from the parallel (P) to anti-parallel (AP)

437: configurations of the magnetisation, and from AP to P

438: configurations, occur at different currents. It follows that in

439: order to interpret experiments which exhibit such hysteresis

440: behaviour, the first task of the theory is to determine from the LLG

441: equation all the possible states and then investigate their

442: dynamical stability. At the point of instability the system seeks

443: out a new steady state, {\it i.e.} a discontinuous transition to a

444: new steady state with the switched magnetisation occurs. We have tacitly

445: assumed that there is always a steady state available for the system

446: to jump to. There is now experimental evidence that this is not

447: always the case. In the absence of any stable steady state the

448: switching magnet moment remains permanently in the time-dependent

449: state. This interesting case is implicit in the phenomenological LLG

450: treatment and we shall discuss it in detail later.

451: 

452: In describing the switching magnet by a unique unit vector ${\bf m}$, we

453: assume that it remains uniformly magnetised during the switching

454: process. This is only strictly true when the exchange stiffness of the

455: switching magnet is infinitely large. It is generally a good

456: approximation as long as the switching magnet is small enough to

457: remain single domain, so that the switching occurs purely by rotation

458: of the magnetisation as in the Stoner-Wohlfarth theory \cite{17} of

459: field switching. This seems to be the case in many experiments

460: \cite{albert,16,18,19}

461: 

462: Before we can apply the LLG equation to study the time evolution of

463: the unit vector ${\bf m}$ in the direction of the magnetisation of

464: the switching magnet, we need to determine all the contributions to

465: the torque acting on the switching magnet. Firstly, there is the

466: spin-transfer torque ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ which we discussed in

467: Section \ref{due}. Secondly, there is a torque due to the uniaxial

468: in-plane and easy plane (shape) anisotropies. The easy-plane shape

469: anisotropy torque arises because the switching magnet is a thin

470: layer typically only a few nanometers thick. The in-plane uniaxial

471: anisotropy is usually also a shape anisotropy arising from an

472: elongated cross section of the switching magnet \cite{albert}. We

473: take the uniaxial anisotropy axis of the switching magnet to be

474: parallel to the $z$-axis of the coordinate system shown in Fig.

475: \ref{fig1}. Since the switching magnet lies in the $xz$-plane, we

476: can write the total anisotropy field as

477: \begin{equation}

478: \label{hh}

479: {\bf H}_{\rm A}={\bf H}_{\rm u}+{\bf H}_{\rm p}

480: \end{equation}

481: where ${\bf H}_{\rm u}$ and  ${\bf H}_{\rm p}$ are given by

482: \begin{equation}

483: \label{hu}

484: {\bf H}_{\rm u}= H_{\rm u0}({\bf m}\cdot{\bf e}_{z}){\bf e}_{z},

485: \end{equation}

486: 

487: \begin{equation}

488: \label{hp}

489: {\bf H}_{\rm p}=-H_{\rm p0}({\bf m}\cdot{\bf e}_{y}){\bf e}_{y}.

490: \end{equation}

491: Here ${\bf e}_x$, ${\bf e}_y$ and ${\bf e}_z$ are unit vectors in

492: the directions of the axes shown in Fig. 1. If we write the energy

493: of the switching magnet in the anisotropy field as $-{\bf H}_{\rm

494: A}\cdot\langle{\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle$, where $\langle{\bf S}_{\rm

495: tot}\rangle$ is the total spin angular momentum of the switching

496: magnet, them $H_{\rm u0}$,$H_{\rm p0}$ which measure the strengths

497: of the uniaxial and easy-plane anisotropies have dimensions of

498: frequency. These quantities may be converted to a field in tesla by

499: multiplying by $\hbar/2\mu_{\rm

500:   B}=5.69\times 10^{-12}$.

501: 

502: We are now ready to study the time evolution of the unit vector ${\bf

503:   m}$ in the direction of the switching magnet moment. The LLG

504:   equation takes the usual form

505: \begin{equation}

506: \label{llg}

507: \frac{{\rm d}{\bf m}}{{\rm d}t}+\gamma{\bf m}\times\frac{{\rm d}{\bf m}}{{\rm d}t}={\bm\Gamma}

508: \end{equation}

509: where the reduced total torque ${\bm\Gamma}$ acting on the switching magnet

510: is given by

511: \begin{equation}

512: \label{Gamma}

513: {\bm\Gamma}=\left[-\left({\bf H}_{\rm A}+{\bf H}_{\rm

514:     ext}\right)\times\langle{\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle+{\bf

515:     T}_{\perp}+{\bf T}_{\parallel}\right]/

516: \left|\langle {\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle\right|.

517: \end{equation}

518: Here ${\bf H}_{\rm ext}$ is an external field, in the same frequency

519: units as ${\bf H}_{\rm A}$, and $\gamma$ is the Gilbert damping

520: parameter. Following Sun \cite{sun}, Eq. (\ref{llg}) may be written

521: more conveniently as

522: \begin{equation}

523: \label{Gamma2}

524: \left(1+\gamma^2\right)\frac{{\rm d}{\bf m}}{{\rm

525:     d}t}={\bm\Gamma}-\gamma{\bf m}\times{\bm\Gamma}.

526: \end{equation}

527: It is also useful to measure the strengths of all the torques in units

528: of the strength of the uniaxial anisotropy \cite{sun}. We shall,

529: therefore, write the total reduced torque ${\bm\Gamma}$ in the form

530: \begin{equation}

531: \label{Gamma3}

532: {\bm\Gamma}=H_{uo}\left\{({\bf m}\cdot{\bf e}_{z}){\bf m}\times{\bf e}_z-

533: h_{\rm p}({\bf m}\cdot{\bf e}_{y}){\bf m}\times

534: {\bf  e}_y+v_{\parallel}(\psi)

535: {\bf m}\times({\bf p}\times{\bf m})+\left[v_{\perp}(\psi)+h_{\rm ext}\right]

536: {\bf m}\times{\bf p}\right\}

537: \end{equation}

538: where the relative strength of the easy plane anisotropy $h_{\rm

539:   p}=H_{\rm p0}/H_{\rm u0}$ and

540:   $v_{\parallel}(\psi)=vg_{\parallel}(\psi)$,

541: $v_{\perp}(\psi)=vg_{\perp}(\psi)$ measure the strengths of the

542:   torques ${\bf T}_{\parallel}$ and ${\bf T}_{\perp}$. The reduced

543:   bias is defined by $v=eV_{\rm b}/(|\langle {\bf S}_{\rm

544:   tot}\rangle|H_{\rm u0})$ and has the opposite sign from the bias

545:   voltage since $e$ is negative. Thus positive $v$ implies a flow of

546:   electrons from the polarising to the switching magnet.

547: The last contribution to the torque in Eq. (\ref{Gamma3}) is due to the

548:   external field $H_{\rm ext}$ with $h_{\rm ext}=H_{\rm ext}/H_{\rm

549:   u0}$. The external field is taken in the direction of the

550:   magnetisation of the polarising magnet, as is the case in most

551:   experimental  situations.

552: 

553: It follows from Eq. (\ref{llg}) that in a steady state ${\bm\Gamma}=0$. We

554: shall first consider some cases of experimental importance where the

555: steady state solutions are trivial and the important physics is

556: concerned entirely with their stability. To discuss stability, we

557: linearise Eq. (\ref{Gamma2}), using Eq. (\ref{Gamma3}), about a steady

558: state solution ${\bf m}={\bf m}_{0}$. Thus

559: \begin{equation}

560: \label{Gamma4}

561: {\bf m}={\bf m}_0+\xi{\bf e}_{\alpha}+\eta{\bf e}_{\phi},

562: \end{equation}

563: where ${\bf e}_{\alpha}$, ${\bf e}_{\phi}$ are unit vectors in the

564: direction ${\bf m}$ moves when $\alpha$ and $\phi$ are increased

565: independently. The linearised equation may be written in the form

566: \begin{equation}

567: \label{Gamma5}

568: \frac{{\rm d}\xi}{{\rm d}\tau}=A\xi+B\eta;\quad

569: \frac{{\rm d}\eta}{{\rm d}\tau}=C\xi+D\eta.

570: \end{equation}

571: Following Sun \cite{sun}, we have introduced the natural

572: dimensionless time variable $\tau=tH_{\rm u0}/(1+\gamma^2)$. The

573: conditions for the steady state to be stable are

574: \begin{equation}

575: \label{Gamma6}

576: F=A+D\leqslant 0;\quad G=AD-BC\geqslant 0

577: \end{equation}

578: excluding $F=G=0$ \cite{20}. For simplicity we give these conditions

579: explicitly only for the case where either

580: $v_{\parallel}^{\prime}(\psi_0)=v_{\perp}^{\prime}(\psi_0)=0$, with

581: $\psi_0=\cos^{-1}({\bf p}\cdot{\bf m}_0)$, or ${\bf m}_0=\pm{\bf p}$.

582: The case ${\bf m}_0=\pm{\bf p}$ is very common experimentally as is

583: discussed below. The stability condition $G\geqslant 0$ may be written

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: \label{stab}

586: &&Q^2v_{\parallel}^2+(Qh+\cos 2\alpha_0)(Qh+\cos^2\alpha_0)+h_{\rm

587:   p}\left\{Qh(1-3\sin^2\phi_0\sin^2\alpha_0)+\cos 2\alpha_0

588: (1-2\sin^2\alpha_0\sin^2\phi_0)\right\}-\nonumber\\

589: &&h_{\rm

590:   p}^2\sin^2\alpha_0\sin^2\phi_0(1-2\sin^2\phi_0\sin^2\alpha_0)

591: \geqslant  0,

592: \end{eqnarray}

593:  where $v_{\parallel}=v_{\parallel}(\psi_0)$,

594:  $h=v_{\perp}(\psi_0)+h_{\rm ext}$ and $Q=\cos\psi_0$. The condition

595:  $F\leqslant 0$ takes the form

596: \begin{equation}

597: \label{F0}

598: -2(v_{\parallel}+\gamma h)Q-\gamma(\cos

599:  2\alpha_0+\cos^2\alpha_0)-\gamma h_{\rm

600:  p}(1-3\sin^2\phi_0\sin^2\alpha_0)

601: \leqslant 0.

602: \end{equation}

603: 

604: We now discuss several interesting examples, the first of these

605: relating to experiments of Grollier {\it et al.} \cite{18} and

606: others. In these experiments the magnetisation of the polarising

607: magnet, the uniaxial anisotropy axis and the external field are all

608: collinear (along the in-plane $z$-axis in our convention). In this

609: case the equation ${\bm\Gamma}=0$, with ${\bm\Gamma}$ given by

610: Eq. (\ref{Gamma3}), shows immediately that possible steady states are

611: given by ${\bf m}_0=\pm{\bf p}(\alpha_0=0,\pi)$, corresponding to the

612: switching magnet moment along the $z$-axis. These are the only

613: solutions when $h_{\rm p}=0$. For $h_{\rm p}\neq 0$ other steady-state

614: solutions may exist but in the parameter regime which has been

615: investigated they are always unstable \cite{13}. We shall assume this

616: is always the case and concentrate on the solutions ${\bf m}_0=\pm{\bf

617:   p}$. In the state of parallel magnetisation (P) ${\bf m}_0={\bf p}$

618: we have $v_{\parallel}=vg_{\parallel}(0)$, $h=vg_{\perp}(0)+h_{\rm

619:   ext}$, $\alpha_0=0$ and $Q=1$. The stability conditions (\ref{stab})

620: and (\ref{F0}) become

621: \begin{equation}

622: \label{stab2}

623: \left[g_{\parallel}(0)\right]^2v^2+(vg_{\perp}(0)+h_{\rm

624:   ext}+1)^2+h_{\rm p}\left[vg_{\perp}(0)+h_{\rm

625:     ext}+1\right]\geqslant 0

626: \end{equation}

627: 

628: \begin{equation}

629: \label{F0-2}

630: g_{\parallel}(0)v+\gamma\left[vg_{\perp}(0)+h_{\rm

631:   ext}+1+\frac12 h_{\rm p}\right]\geqslant 0.

632: \end{equation}

633: In the state of anti-parallel magnetisation (AP) ${\bf m}_0=-{\bf p}$ we

634: have $v_{\parallel}=vg_{\parallel}(\pi)$, $h=vg_{\perp}(\pi)+h_{\rm

635:   ext}$, $\alpha_0=\pi$ and $Q=-1$. The stability conditions for the

636: AP state are thus

637: \begin{equation}

638: \label{stab2AP}

639: \left[g_{\parallel}(\pi)\right]^2v^2+(-vg_{\perp}(\pi)-h_{\rm

640:   ext}+1)^2+h_{\rm p}\left[-vg_{\perp}(\pi)-h_{\rm

641:     ext}+1\right]\geqslant 0

642: \end{equation}

643: 

644: \begin{equation}

645: \label{F0-2AP}

646: g_{\parallel}(\pi)v+\gamma\left[vg_{\perp}(\pi)+h_{\rm

647:   ext}-1-\frac12 h_{\rm p}\right]\leqslant 0.

648: \end{equation}

649: 

650: 

651: In the regime of low external field ($h_{\rm ext}\approx 1$, {\it

652:   i.e.} $H_{\rm ext}\approx H_{u0}$) we have $H_{\rm p}>>H_{\rm ext}$

653:   ($h_{\rm p}\approx 100$). Eqs. (\ref{stab2}) and (\ref{stab2AP}) may be

654:   then approximated by

655: \begin{equation}

656: \label{stab2AP-approx}

657: vg_{\perp}(0)+h_{\rm ext}+1>0

658: \end{equation}

659: 

660: \begin{equation}

661: \label{F0-2AP-approx}

662: vg_{\perp}(\pi)+h_{\rm ext}-1<0.

663: \end{equation}

664: Equation (\ref{stab2AP-approx}) corresponds to P stability and

665: (\ref{F0-2AP-approx}) to AP stability. It is convenient to define

666: scalar quantities $T_{\perp}$, $T_{\parallel}$ by

667: $T_{\perp}=g_{\perp}(\psi)\sin\psi$,

668: $T_{\parallel}=g_{\parallel}(\psi)\sin\psi$, these being scalar

669: components of spin-transfer torque in units of $eV_{\rm b}$

670: (cf. Eq. (\ref{torque2})). Then $g_i(0)=[{\rm d}T_i/{\rm

671:     d}\psi]_{\psi=0}$ and $g_i(\pi)=-[{\rm d}T_i/{\rm

672:     d}\psi]_{\psi=\pi}$ with $i=\perp,\parallel$. Model calculations

673: \cite{13} show that both $g_{\perp}$ and $g_{\parallel}$ can be of

674: either sign, although positive values are more common. Also there is no

675: general rule about the relative magnitude of $g_i(0)$ and $g_i(\pi)$.

676: 

677: We now illustrate the consequences of the above stability conditions

678: by considering two limiting cases. We first consider the case

679: $g_{\perp}(\psi)=0$, $g_{\parallel}>0$, as assumed by Grollier {\it

680:   et. al} \cite{18} in the analysis of their data. In Fig. 4 we

681: plot the regions of P and AP stability deduced from

682: Eqs. (\ref{F0-2}),(\ref{F0-2AP})-(\ref{F0-2AP-approx}), in the

683: ($v$,$h_{\rm ext}$)-plane. Grollier {\it et al.} plot current instead

684: of bias but this should not change the form of the figure. Theirs is

685: rather more complicated, owing to a less transparent stability

686: analysis with unnecessary approximation. The only approximations made

687: above, to obtain Eqs. (\ref{stab2AP-approx}) and(\ref{F0-2AP-approx}), can

688: easily be removed, which results in the critical field lines $h_{\rm

689:   ext}=\pm1$ acquiring a very slight curvature given by $h_{\rm

690:   ext}\approx 1+[vg_{\parallel}(\pi)]^2/h_{\rm p}$ and $h_{\rm

691:   ext}\approx -1-[vg_{\parallel}(0)]^2/h_{\rm p}$. The critical biases

692: in the figure are give by

693: \begin{eqnarray}

694: \label{crbias}

695: v_{{\rm AP}\rightarrow{\rm P}}&=&\gamma \left[1+\frac12 h_{\rm p}-h_{\rm

696:   ext}\right]/g_{\parallel}(\pi)\nonumber\\

697: v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}&=&-\gamma \left[1+\frac12 h_{\rm p}+h_{\rm

698:   ext}\right]/g_{\parallel}(0).

699: \end{eqnarray}

700: A downward slope from left to right of the corresponding lines in

701: Fig. \ref{fig4} is not shown there. Since the damping parameter

702: $\gamma$ is small ($\gamma\approx 0.01$) this downward slope of the

703: critical bias lines is also small. From Fig. \ref{fig4} we can deduce

704: the behaviour of resistance versus bias in the external field

705: regimes $|h_{\rm ext}|<1$ and $|h_{\rm ext}|>1$.

706: \begin{figure}

707: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig4.eps}

708: \caption{Bias-field stability diagram for $g_{\perp}(\psi)=0$,

709:   $g_{\parallel}(\psi)>0$. A small downward slope of the lines $V_{{\rm

710:   AP}\rightarrow{\rm P}}$,$V_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}$

711:  (see Eq. (\ref{crbias})) is not shown.}

712: \label{fig4}

713: \end{figure}

714: 

715: Consider first the case $|h_{\rm ext}|<1$. Suppose we start in the AP

716: state with a bias $v=0$ which is gradually increased to $v_{{\rm

717:     AP}\rightarrow P}$. At this point the AP state becomes unstable

718: and the system switches to the P state as $v$ increases further. On

719: reducing $v$ the hysteresis loop is completed via a switch back to

720: the AP state at the negative bias $v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow AP}$. The

721: hysteresis loop is shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}(a). The increase in resistance

722: R between the P and AP states is the same as would be

723: produced by varying the applied field in a GMR experiment.

724: \begin{figure}

725: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig5.eps}

726: \caption{(a) Hysteresis loop of resistance vs bias for $|h_{\rm

727:     ext}|<1$; (b) Reversible behaviour (no hysteresis) for $|h_{\rm

728:     ext}|<-1$ (upper curve) and $h_{\rm ext}>1$ (lower curve). The

729:     dashed lines represent hypothetical behaviour of average

730:     resistance in regions of Fig. \ref{fig4} marked ``both unstable''

731:     where no steady states exist.}

732: \label{fig5}

733: \end{figure}

734: Now consider the case $h_{\rm ext}<-1$. Starting again in the AP

735: state at $v=0$ we see from Fig. \ref{fig4} that, on increasing $v$

736: to $v_{{\rm AP}\rightarrow{\rm P}}$, the AP state becomes unstable but there is

737: no stable P state to switch to. This point is marked by an asterisk

738: in Fig. \ref{fig5}(b). For $v>v_{{\rm AP}\rightarrow{\rm P}}$, 

739: the moment of the

740: switching magnet is in a persistently time-dependent state. However,

741: if $v$ is now decreased below $v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}$

742: the system homes in on the stable AP state and the overall behaviour 

743: is reversible,

744: {\it i.e.} no switching and no hysteresis occur. When $h_{\rm

745: ext}>1$ similar behaviour, now involving the P state, occurs at

746: negative bias, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}(b). The dashed curves in

747: Fig. \ref{fig5}(b) show a hypothetical time-averaged resistance in the

748: regions of time-dependent magnetisation. As discussed later

749: time-resolved measurements of resistance suggest that several

750: different types of dynamics can occur in these regions.

751: 

752: It is clear from Fig. \ref{fig5}(a) that the jump AP$\rightarrow$P

753: always occurs for positive bias $v$, which corresponds to flow of

754: electrons from the polarising to the switching magnet. This result

755: depends on the assumption that $g_{\parallel}>0$; if

756: $g_{\parallel}<0$ it is easy

757:   to see that the sense of the hysteresis loop is reversed and the

758:   jump P$\rightarrow$AP occurs for positive $v$. To our knowledge this

759:   reverse jump has never been observed, although $g_{\parallel}<0$ can

760:   occur in principle and is predicted theoretically \cite{13} for the

761:   Co/Cu/Co(111) system with a switching magnet consisting of a single

762:   atomic plane of Co. It follows from Eq. (\ref{crbias}) that

763: $|v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}/v_{{\rm AP}\rightarrow{\rm

764:     P}}|=|g_{\parallel}(\pi)/g_{\parallel}(0)|$ in zero external

765: field. Experimentally this ratio, essentially the same as the ratio of

766: critical currents, may be considerably less than 1 ({\it e.g.} $<0.5$

767: \cite{albert}), greater than 1 ({\it e.g.} $\approx 2$ \cite{19}) or

768: close to 1 \cite{16}. Usually the field dependence of the critical

769: current is found to be stronger than that predicted by Eq. (\ref{crbias})

770: \cite{albert,16}.

771: 

772: We now discuss the reversible behaviour shown in Fig. \ref{fig5}(b)

773: which occurs for $|h_{\rm ext}|>1$. The transition from hysteretic

774: to reversible behaviour at a critical external field seems to have

775: been first seen in pillar structures by Katine {\it et al.}

776: \cite{21}. Curves similar to the lower one in Fig. \ref{fig5}(b) are

777: reported with $|v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}|$ increasing with

778: increasing $h_{\rm ext}$, as expected from Eq. (\ref{crbias}). Plots

779: of the differential resistance ${\rm d}V/{\rm d}I$ show a peak near

780: the point of maximum gradient of the dashed curve. Similar

781: behaviour has been reported by several groups \cite{22,23,24}. It

782: is particularly clear in the work of Kiselev {\it at al.} \cite{22}

783: that the transition from hysteretic behaviour (as in Fig.

784: \ref{fig5}(a)) to reversible behaviour with peaks in ${\rm d}V/{\rm

785: d}I$ occurs at the coercive field 600 Oe of the switching layer

786: ($h_{\rm ext}=1$). The important point about the peaks in ${\rm

787: d}V/{\rm d}I$ is that for a given sign of $h_{\rm ext}$ they only

788: occur for one sign of the bias. This clearly shows that this effect

789: is due to spin-transfer and not to Oersted fields. Myers {\it et

790: al.} \cite{25} show a current-field stability diagram similar to the

791: bias-field one of Fig. \ref{fig4} with a critical field of 1500 Oe.

792: They examine the time dependence of the resistance at room

793: temperature with the field and current adjusted so that the system

794: is in the ``both unstable'' region in the fourth quadrant of Fig.

795: \ref{fig4} but very close to its top left-hand corner. They observe

796: telegraph-noise-type switching between approximately P and AP

797: states with slow switching times in the range 0.1-10 s. Similar

798: telegraph noise with faster switching times was observed by Urazhdin

799: {\it et al.} \cite{23} at current and field close to a peak in ${\rm

800: d}V/{\rm d}I$. In the region of P and AP instability Kiselev {\it et

801: al.} \cite{22} and Pufall {\it et al.} \cite{24} report various

802: types of dynamics of precessional type and random telegraph

803: switching type in the microwave Ghz regime. Kiselev {\it et al.}

804: \cite{22} propose that systems of the sort considered here might

805: serve as nanoscale microwave sources or oscillators, tunable by

806: current and field over a wide frequency range.

807: 

808: We now return to the stability conditions

809: (\ref{F0-2}),(\ref{F0-2AP})-(\ref{F0-2AP-approx}) and consider the case

810: of $g_{\perp}(\psi)\neq 0$ but $h_{\rm ext}=0$. These conditions of

811: stability of the P state may be written approximately, remembering

812: that $\gamma << 1$, $h_{\rm p}>> 1$, as

813: \begin{equation}

814: \label{vgperp}

815: vg_{\perp}(0)>-1, \quad vg_{\parallel}(0)>-\frac12 \gamma h_{\rm p}.

816: \end{equation}

817: The conditions for stability of the AP state are

818: \begin{equation}

819: \label{vgperpAP}

820: vg_{\perp}(\pi)<1, \quad vg_{\parallel}(\pi)<\frac12 \gamma h_{\rm p}.

821: \end{equation}

822: In Fig. \ref{fig6} we plot the regions of P and AP stability,

823: assuming $g_{\perp}(0)=g_{\perp}(\pi)=g_{\perp}$ and

824: $g_{\parallel}(0)=g_{\parallel}(\pi)=g_{\parallel}$ for simplicity.

825: We also put $r=g_{\perp}/g_{\parallel}$.

826: \begin{figure}

827: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{Fig6.eps}

828: \caption{Stability diagram for $h_{\rm ext}=0$.} \label{fig6}

829: \end{figure}

830: For $r>0$ we find the normal hysteresis loop as in Fig.

831: \ref{fig5}(a) if we plot $R$ against $vg_{\parallel}$ (valid for

832: either sign of $g_{\parallel}$). In Fig. \ref{fig7} we plot the

833: hysteresis loops for the cases $r_{\rm c}<r<0$ and $r<r_{\rm c}$,

834: where $r_{\rm c}=-2/(\gamma h_{\rm p})$ is the value of $r$ at the

835: point $X$ in Fig. \ref{fig6}.

836: \begin{figure}

837: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig7.eps}

838: \caption{Hysteresis loop for (a) $r_{\rm c}<r<0$; (b) $r<r_{\rm

839: c}$.} \label{fig7}

840: \end{figure}

841: The points labelled by asterisks have the same significance as in

842: Fig. \ref{fig5}(b). If in Fig. \ref{fig7}(a) we increase

843: $vg_{\parallel}$ beyond its value indicated by the right-hand

844: asterisk we move into the ``both-unstable'' region where the

845: magnetisation direction of the switching magnet is perpetually in a

846: time-dependent state. Thus negative $r$ introduces behaviour in zero

847: applied field which is similar to that found when the applied field

848: exceeds the coercive field of the switching magnet for $r=0$. This

849: behaviour was predicted by Edwards {\it et al.} \cite{13}, in

850: particular for a Co/Cu/Co(111) system with the switching magnet

851: consisting of a Co monolayer. Zimmler {\it et al.} \cite{26} use

852: methods similar to the ones described here to analyse their data on

853: a Co/Cu/Co nanopillar and deduce that $g_{\parallel}>0$,

854: $r=g_{\perp}/g_{\parallel}\approx -0.2$. It would be interesting to

855: carry out time-resolved resistance measurements on this system at

856: large current density (corresponding to $vg_{\perp}<-1$) and zero

857: external field. 

858: 

859: So far we have considered the low-field regime

860: ($H_{\rm ext}\approx$ coercive field of switching magnet) with both

861: magnetisations and the external field in-plane. There is another

862: class of experiments in which a high field, greater than the

863: demagnetising field ($>2T$), is applied perpendicular to the plane

864: of the layers. The magnetisation of the polarising magnet is then

865: also perpendicular to the plane. This is the situation in the early

866: experiments where a point contact was employed to inject high

867: current densities into magnetic multilayers \cite{27,28,29}. In this

868: high-field regime a peak in the differential resistance ${\rm

869: d}V/{\rm d}I$ at a critical current was interpreted as the onset of

870: current-induced excitation of spin waves in which the spin-transfer

871: torque leads to uniform precession of the magnetisation

872: \cite{6,27,28}. No hysteretic magnetisation reversal was observed

873: and it seemed that the effect of spin-polarised current on the

874: magnetisation is quite different in the low- and high-field regimes.

875: Recently, however, \"{O}zyilmaz {\it et al.} \cite{30} have studied

876: Co/Cu/Co nanopillars ($\approx 100$nm in diameter) at $T=4.2$K for

877: large applied fields perpendicular to the layers. They observe

878: hysteretic magnetisation reversal and interpret their results using

879: the Landau-Lifshitz equation. We now give a similar discussion

880: within the framework of this section.

881: 

882: Following \"Ozyilmaz {\it et al.}, we neglect the uniaxial

883: anisotropy term in Eq. (\ref{Gamma3}) for the reduced torque ${\bm\Gamma}$

884: while retaining $H_{u0}$ as a scalar factor. Hence

885: \begin{equation}

886: \label{gamma25}

887: {\bm\Gamma}=H_{u0}\left\{\left[h_{\rm

888: ext}+v_{\perp}(\psi)-h_{\rm

889: p}\cos\psi\right]{\bf m}\times{\bf p}+v_{\parallel}(\psi){\bf m}\times({\bf p}\times{\bf m})\right\}

890: \end{equation}

891: where ${\bf p}$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane. When

892: $v_{\parallel}(\psi)\neq 0$ the only possible steady-state solutions

893: of ${\bm\Gamma} =0$ are ${\bf m}_0=\pm{\bf p}$. On linearizing Eq. \ref{Gamma2}

894: about ${\bf m}_0$ as before we find that the condition $G\geqslant

895: 0$ is always satisfied. The second stability condition $F<0$ becomes

896: \begin{equation}

897: \label{stabcond} 

898: \left[v_{\parallel}(\psi_0)+\gamma(v_{\perp}(\psi_0)+h_{\rm

899: ext}-h_{\rm p})\right]\cos\psi_0>0

900: \end{equation}

901: where $\psi_0=\cos^{-1}({\bf m}_0\cdot{\bf p})$. Applying this to the P

902: state ($\psi_0=0$) and the AP state ($\psi_0=\pi$) we obtain the

903: conditions

904: \begin{equation}

905: \label{conditiona} v>\gamma(h_{\rm p}-h_{\rm ext})/g(0)

906: \end{equation}

907: \begin{equation}\label{conditionb}

908: v<-\gamma(h_{\rm p}+h_{\rm ext})/g(\pi), 

909: \end{equation}

910: where the first condition applies to the P stability and the second

911: to the AP stability. Here $g(\psi)=g_{\parallel}(\psi)+\gamma

912: g_{\perp}(\psi)$. The corresponding stability diagram is shown in

913: Fig. \ref{fig8}, where we have assumed $g(\pi)>g(0)>0$ for

914: definiteness.

915: \begin{figure}

916: \includegraphics[width=11cm]{Fig8.eps}

917: \caption{Bias-field stability diagram for large external field

918: ($h_{\rm ext}>h_{\rm p}$) perpendicular to the layers. }

919:  \label{fig8}

920: \end{figure}

921: The boundary lines cross at $h_{\rm ext}=h_{\rm c}$, where $h_{\rm

922: c}=h_{\rm p}[g(\pi)+g(0)]/[g(\pi)-g(0)]$. This analysis is only

923: valid for fields larger than the demagnetising field ($h_{\rm

924: ext}>h_{\rm p}$) and we see from the figure that for $h_{\rm

925: ext}>h_{\rm c}$ hysteretic switching occurs. This takes place for

926: only one sign of the bias (current) and the critical biases

927: (currents) increase linearly with $h_{\rm ext}$ as does the width of

928: the hysteresis loop $|v_{{\rm P}\rightarrow{\rm AP}}-v_{{\rm

929: AP}\rightarrow{\rm P}}|$. This accords with the observations of

930: \"Ozyilmaz {\it et al.} The critical currents are not larger than

931: those in the low-field or zero-field regimes (cf. Eqs.

932: (\ref{conditiona}), (\ref{conditionb}) with Eq. (\ref{crbias})) and yet the

933: magnetisation of the switching magnet can be switched against a very

934: large external field. However, in this case the AP state is only

935: stabilised by maintaining the current.

936: 

937: The experiments on spin transfer discussed above have mainly been

938: carried out at constant temperature, typically $4.2$K or room

939: temperature. The effect on current-driven switching of varying the

940: temperature has recently been studied by several groups

941: \cite{23,25,31}. The standard N\'eel-Brown theory of thermal

942: switching \cite{32} does not apply because the Slonczewski in-plane

943: torque is not derivable from an energy function. Li and Zhang

944: \cite{33} have generalised the standard stochastic Landau-Lifschitz

945: equation, which includes white noise in the effective applied field,

946: to include spin transfer torque. In this way they have successfully

947: interpreted some of the experimental data. A full discussion of this

948: work is outside the scope of the present review. However it should

949: be pointed out that in addition to the classical effect of white

950: noise there is an intrinsic temperature dependence of quantum

951: origin. This arises from the Fermi distribution functions which

952: appear in expressions for the spin-transfer torque (see Eqs.

953: (\ref{torque}) and (\ref{landau33})).

954: 

955: So far we have discussed steady-state solutions of the LLG equation

956: (\ref{Gamma2}). It is important to study the magnetisation dynamics

957: of the switching layer in the situation during the jumps

958: AP$\rightarrow$P and P$\rightarrow$AP of the hysteresis curve in

959: zero external field, and secondly under conditions where only

960: time-dependent solutions are possible, for example in the regions of

961: sufficiently strong  current and external field marked ''both

962: unstable" in Fig. \ref{fig4}. The first situation has been studied

963: by Sun \cite{sun}, assuming single-domain behaviour of the switching

964: magnet, and by Miltat {\it et al.} \cite{34} with more general

965: micromagnetic configurations. Both situations have been considered

966: by Li and Zhang \cite{35}. In the second case they find precessional

967: states, and the possibility of ''telegraph noise" at room

968: temperature, as seen experimentally in Refs. \cite{22,24}. Switching

969: times (AP$\rightarrow$P and P$\rightarrow$AP) are estimated to be of

970: the order 1ns. Micromagnetic simulations \cite{34} indicate that the

971: Oersted field cannot be completely ignored for typical pillars with

972: diameter of the order of 100nm.

973: 

974: Finally, in this section, we briefly discuss some practical

975: considerations which may ultimately decide whether current-induced

976: switching is useful in spintronics. Sharp switching, with nearly

977: rectangular hysteresis loops, is obviously desirable and this

978: demands single-domain behaviour. In experiments on nanopillars of

979: circular cross section \cite{21} multidomain behaviour was observed

980: with the switching transition spread over a range of current.

981: Subsequently the same group \cite{albert} found sharp switching in

982: pillars whose cross-section was an elongated hexagon, which

983: introduces strong uniaxial in-plane shape anisotropy. It was known

984: from earlier magnetisation studies of nanomagnet arrays \cite{36}

985: that such a shape anisotropy can result in single domain behaviour.

986: A complex switching transition need not necessarily indicate

987: multidomain behaviour. It could also arise from a marked departure

988: of $T_{\perp}(\psi)$ and/or $T_{\parallel}(\psi)$ from sinusoidal

989: behaviour, such as occurs near $\psi=\pi$ in calculations for

990: Co/Cu/Co(111) with two atomic planes of Co in the switching magnet

991: (see Fig. \ref{fig13}(b)). In the calculations of the corresponding

992: hysteresis loops (Fig. \ref{fig16}) the torques were approximated by

993: sine curves but an accurate treatment would certainly complicate the

994: AP$\rightarrow$P transition which occurs at negative bias in Fig.

995: \ref{fig16}(b). Studies of this effect are planned.

996: 

997: The critical current density for switching is clearly an important

998: parameter. From Eq. (\ref{crbias}) the critical reduced bias for the

999: P$\rightarrow$AP transition is to a good approximation given by

1000: $-\gamma h_{\rm p}/[2g_{\parallel}(0)]$. Using the definitions of

1001: reduced quantities given after Eq. (\ref{Gamma3}), we may write the

1002: actual critical bias in volts as

1003: \begin{equation} \label{VPAP}

1004: V_{P\rightarrow AP}=M\gamma M_{\rm s}H_{\rm d}/[2g_{\parallel}(0)|e|],

1005: \end{equation}

1006: where $M$ is the number of atomic planes in the switching magnet,

1007: $M_{\rm s}$ is the average moment ($J/T$) of the switching magnet

1008: per atomic plane per unit area, and $H_{\rm d}=\hbar H_{\rm

1009: p0}/(2\mu_{\rm B})$ is the easy-plane anisotropy field in tesla. As

1010: expressed earlier $g_{\parallel}(0)=({\rm d}T_{\parallel}/{\rm

1011: d}\psi)_{\psi =0}$ where the torque $T_{\parallel}$ is per unit area

1012: in units of $eV_{\rm B}$. (The calculated torques in Figs.

1013: \ref{fig13} and \ref{fig14} of Sec. \ref{cinque} are per surface

1014: atom so that if these are used to determine $g_{\parallel}(0)$ in

1015: Eq. (\ref{VPAP}) $M_{\rm s}$ must be taken per surface atom.)

1016: 

1017: An obvious way to reduce the critical bias, and hence the critical

1018: current, is to reduce $M$, the thickness of the switching magnet.

1019: Calculations show \cite{13} (see also Fig. \ref{fig14}) that

1020: $g_{\parallel}$ does not decrease with $M$ and may, in fact,

1021: increase for small values such as $M=2$. Careful design of the

1022: device might also increase $g_{\parallel}(0)$ beyond the values

1023: ($<0.01$ per surface atom) which seem to be obtainable in simple

1024: trilayers \cite{13}. Jiang {\it et al.} \cite{37,38}, have studied

1025: various structures in which the polarising magnet is pinned by an

1026: adjacent antiferromagnet (exchange biasing) and in which a thin Ru

1027: layer is incorporated between the switching layer and the lead.

1028: Critical current densities of $2\times 10^{6}$Acm$^{-2}$ have been

1029: obtained which are substantially lower than those in Co/Cu/Co

1030: trilayers. Such structures can quite easily be investigated

1031: theoretically by the methods of Section \ref{cinque}.

1032: 

1033: Decreasing the magnetisation $M_{\rm s}$, and hence the

1034: demagnetising field ($\propto H_{\rm d}$), would be favourable but

1035: $g_{\parallel}$ then tends to decrease also \cite{13}. A possible

1036: way of decreasing $H_{\rm d}$ without decreasing local magnetic

1037: moments in the system is to use a synthetic ferrimagnet as the

1038: switching magnet \cite{39}. The Gilbert damping factor $\gamma$ is

1039: another crucial parameter but it is uncertain whether this can be

1040: decreased significantly. However, the work of Capelle and Gyorffy

1041: \cite{40} is an interesting theoretical development. The search for

1042: structures with critical current densities low enough for use in

1043: spintronic devices ($10^{5}$Acm$^{-2}$ perhaps) \cite{41} is an

1044: enterprise where experiment and quantitative calculations \cite{13}

1045: should complement each other fruitfully.

1046: 

1047: \section{Quantitative theory of spin-transfer torque}\label{quattro}

1048: \subsection{General principles}

1049: 

1050: To put the phenomenological treatment of Sec. \ref{tre} on a

1051: first-principle quantitative basis we must calculate the

1052: spin-transfer torques (Eqs. (\ref{torque2}) in a steady state for

1053: real systems. For this purpose it is convenient to describe the

1054: magnetic and nonmagnetic layers of Fig. \ref{fig1} by tight-binding

1055: models, in general multiorbital with s, p, and d orbitals whose

1056: one-electron parameters are fitted to first-principle bulk band

1057: structure \cite{42}. The hamiltonian is therefore of the form

1058: \begin{equation} \label{HAM}

1059: H=H_0+H_{\rm int}+H_{\rm anis}

1060: \end{equation}

1061: where the one-electron hopping term $H_0$ is given by

1062: \begin{equation} \label{H0}

1063: H_0=\sum_{k_{\parallel}\sigma}\sum_{m\mu,n\nu}t_{m\mu,n\nu}({\bf

1064: k}_{\parallel})

1065: c^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}m\mu\sigma}

1066: c_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}n\nu\sigma},

1067: \end{equation}

1068: where $c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel}m\mu\sigma}$ creates an electron in

1069: a Bloch state, with in-plane wave vector ${\bf k}_{\parallel}$ and

1070: spin $\sigma$, formed from a given atomic orbital $\mu$ in plane

1071: $m$. Eq. \ref{H0} generalises the single orbital eq.

1072: (\ref{hamiltonian}). $H_{\rm int}$ is an on-site interaction between

1073: electrons in d orbitals which leads to an exchange splitting of the

1074: bands in the ferromagnets and is neglected in the spacer and lead.

1075: Finally, $H_{\rm anis}$ contains anisotropy fields in the switching

1076: magnet and is given by

1077: \begin{equation}

1078: \label{Hanis}

1079: H_{\rm anis}=-\sum_{n}{\bf S}_{n}\cdot{\bf H}_{\rm A},

1080: \end{equation}

1081: where ${\bf S}_n$ is the operator of the total spin angular momentum

1082: of plane $n$ and ${\bf H}_{\rm A}$ is given by Eqs. (\ref{hh})-(\ref{hp})

1083: with the unit vector ${\bf m}$ in the direction of

1084: $\sum_{n}\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle$, where $\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle$

1085: is the thermal average of ${\bf S}_n$. We assume here that the

1086: anisotropy fields $H_{\rm u0}$,$H_{\rm p}$ are uniform throughout

1087: the switching magnet but we could generalise to include, for example,

1088: a surface anisotropy.

1089: 

1090: In the tight-binding description, the spin angular momentum operator

1091: ${\bf S}_n$ is given by

1092: \begin{equation}

1093: \label{Sn}

1094: {\bf S}_{n}=\frac12\hbar\sum_{k_{\parallel\mu}}

1095: (c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel}n\mu\uparrow},

1096: c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel}n\mu\downarrow})

1097: {\bm\sigma}(c_{k_{\parallel}n\mu\uparrow},

1098: c_{k_{\parallel}n\mu\downarrow})^{\rm T}

1099: \end{equation}

1100: and the corresponding operator for the spin angular momentum current

1101: between planes $n-1$ and $n$ is

1102: \begin{equation}

1103: \label{jj}

1104: {\bf j}_{n-1}=-\frac12 \hbar\sum_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}\mu\nu}

1105: t({\bf k}_{\parallel})_{n\nu,n-1\mu}

1106: \left(c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel}n\nu\uparrow},

1107: c^{\dagger}_{k_{\parallel}n\nu\downarrow}\right)

1108: {\bm\sigma}

1109: \left(c_{k_{\parallel}n-1\mu\uparrow},

1110: c_{k_{\parallel}n-1\mu\downarrow}\right)^{\rm T}+{\rm h.c.},

1111: \end{equation}

1112: which generalises the single orbital expression (\ref{gamma}). The

1113: rate of change of ${\bf S}_n$ in the switching magnet is given by

1114: \begin{equation}\label{rate}

1115: {\rm i}\hbar\frac{{\rm d}{\bf S}_n}{{\rm d}t}=[{\bf S}_n,H_0]+[{\bf

1116: S}_n,H_{\rm anis}].

1117: \end{equation}

1118: This results holds since the spin operator commutes with the

1119: interaction hamiltonian $H_{\rm int}$.

1120: 

1121: It is straightforward to show that

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: \label{commut}

1124: [{\bf S}_n,H_0]={\rm i}\hbar({\bf j}_{n-1}-{\bf j}_{n}),

1125: \end{equation}

1126: and

1127: \begin{equation}\label{commut2}

1128: [{\bf S}_n,H_{\rm anis}]=-{\rm i}\hbar({\bf H}_{\rm A}\times{\bf

1129: S}_n).

1130: \end{equation}

1131: On taking the thermal average, Eq. (\ref{rate}) becomes

1132: \begin{equation}\label{thermal}

1133: \langle\frac{{\rm d}{\bf S}_n}{{\rm d}t}\rangle=\langle

1134: {\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle-\langle {\bf j}_n\rangle-{\bf H}_{\rm

1135:   A}\times\langle

1136: {\bf S}_{\rm tot}

1137: \rangle,

1138: \end{equation}

1139: This corresponds to an equation of continuity, stating that the rate

1140: of change of spin angular momentum on plane $n$ is equal to the

1141: difference between the rate of flow of this quantity onto and off

1142: the plane, plus the rate of change due to precession around the

1143: field ${\bf H}_{\rm A}$. When Eq. (\ref{thermal}) is summed over all

1144: planes in the switching magnet we have

1145: \begin{equation}\label{thermal2}

1146: \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t} \langle{\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle=

1147: {\bf T}^{\rm s-t}-{\bf H}_{\rm

1148: A}\times \langle {\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle,

1149: \end{equation}

1150:  where the total spin-transfer torque ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ is

1151: given by Eq. (\ref{torque}) and $\langle{\bf S}_{\rm tot}\rangle$ is

1152: the total spin angular momentum of the switching magnet. Equation

1153: (\ref{thermal2}) is equivalent to Eq. (\ref{llg}), for zero external

1154: field, in the absence of damping. Equation (\ref{torque}) shows how

1155: ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ required for the phenomenological treatment of Sec.

1156: \ref{tre} is to be determined from the calculated spin currents in

1157: the spacer and lead. As discussed in Sec. \ref{tre}, the

1158: magnetization of a single-domain sample is essentially uniform and

1159: the spin-transfer torque ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ depends on the angle $\psi$

1160: between the magnetisations of the polarising and switching magnets.

1161: 

1162: To consider time-dependent solutions of Eq. (\ref{llg}) it is

1163: necessary to calculate ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ for arbitrary angle $\psi$ and

1164: for this purpose ${\bf H}_{\rm A}$ can be neglected. To reduce the

1165: calculation of the spin-transfer torque to effectively a

1166: one-electron problem, we replace $H_{\rm int}$ by a selfconsistent

1167: exchange field term $-\sum_n{\bf S}_n\cdot{\bm\Delta}_n$, where the

1168: exchange field ${\bm\Delta}_n$ should be determined

1169: selfconsistently in the spirit of an unrestricted Hartree-Fock (HF)

1170: or local spin density (LSD), approximation. The essential

1171: selfconsistency condition in any HF or LSD calculation is that the

1172: local moment $\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle$ in a steady state is in the

1173: same direction as ${\bm\Delta}_n$. Thus we require

1174: \begin{equation}\label{delta}

1175: {\bm\Delta}_n\times\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle=0

1176: \end{equation}

1177: for each atomic plane of the switching magnet. It is useful to

1178: consider first the situation when there is no applied bias and the

1179: polarising and switching magnets are separated by a spacer which is

1180: so thick that the zero-bias oscillatory exchange coupling \cite{44}

1181: is negligible. In that case we have two independent magnets and the

1182: selfconsistent exchange field in every atomic plane of the switching

1183: magnet is parallel to its total magnetisation which is uniform and

1184: assumed to be along the $z$-axis. Referring to Fig. \ref{fig1} the

1185: selfconsistent solution therefore corresponds to uniform exchange

1186: fields in the polarising and switching magnets which are at an

1187: assumed angle $\psi=\theta$ with respect to one another.

1188: 

1189: When a bias $V_{\rm b}$ is applied , with a uniform exchange field

1190: ${\bm\Delta }=\Delta{\bf e}_z$ in the switching magnet imposed, the

1191: calculated local moments $\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle$ will deviate from

1192: the $z$-direction so that the solution is not selfconsistent. To

1193: prepare a selfconsistent state with ${\bm\Delta}$ and all

1194: $\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle=\langle {\bf S}\rangle$ in the

1195: $z$-direction it is necessary to apply fictitious constraining

1196: fields ${\bf H}_n$ of magnitude proportional to $V_{\rm b}$. The

1197: local field for plane  $n$ is thus ${\bm\Delta}+{\bf H}_n$ but to

1198: calculate the spin currents in the spacer and lead, and hence

1199: ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$ from Eq. (\ref{torque}), the fields ${\bf H}_n$, of

1200: the order of $V_{\rm b}$, may be neglected compared with ${\bf

1201: \Delta}$. Although the fictitious constraining fields ${\bf H}_n$

1202: need therefore never be calculated, it is interesting to see that

1203: they are in fact related to ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$. For the constrained

1204: self-consistent steady state ($\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle=\langle {\bf

1205: S}\rangle$, $\langle{\bf \dot{S}}_n\rangle=0$) in the presence of the

1206: constraining fields, with ${\bf H}_{\rm A}$ neglected as discussed

1207: above, it follows from Eq. (\ref{thermal}) that

1208: \begin{equation}

1209: \label{jjj} \langle{\bf j}_{\bf n-1}\rangle-\langle{\bf j}_{\bf

1210: n}\rangle=(\Delta+{\bf H}_n)\times\langle S\rangle={\bf

1211: H}_n\times\langle{\bf S}\rangle,

1212: \end{equation}

1213: where the local field ${\bm\Delta}+{\bf H}_n$ replaces ${\bf

1214: H}_{\rm A}$. On summing over all atomic planes $n$ in the switching

1215: magnet we have 

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: \label{ttt} {\bf T}^{\rm s-t}=\langle{\bf j}_{\rm

1218: spacer}\rangle-\langle{\bf j}_{\rm lead}\rangle=\sum_n{\bf

1219: H}_n\times\langle{\bf S}\rangle.

1220: \end{equation}

1221: Thus, as expected, in the prepared state with a given angle $\psi$

1222: between the magnetisations of the magnetic layers the spin-transfer

1223: torque is balanced by the total torque due to the constraining

1224: fields.

1225: 

1226: In the simple model of Section \ref{due}, with infinite exchange

1227: splitting in the magnets, the local moment is constrained to be in

1228: the direction of the exchange field so the question of

1229: selfconsistency is not raised.

1230: 

1231: The main conclusion of this Section is that the spin-transfer torque

1232: for a given angle $\psi$ between magnetisations may be calculated

1233: using uniform exchange fields making the same angle with one

1234: another. Such calculations are described in Sec. \ref{due} and

1235: \ref{cinque}. The use of this spin-transfer torque in the LLG

1236: equation of Section \ref{tre} completes what we shall call the

1237: ''standard model" (SM). It underlies the original work of

1238: Slonczewski \cite{3} and most subsequent work. The spin-transfer

1239: torque calculated in this way should be appropriate even for

1240: time-dependent solutions of the LLG equation. This is based on the

1241: reasonable assumption that the time for the electronic system to

1242: attain a ''constrained steady state" with given $\psi$ is short

1243: compared with the time-scale ($\approx$1ns) of the macroscopic

1244: motion of the switching magnet moment.

1245: 

1246: Although the SM is a satisfactory way of calculating the

1247: spin-transfer torque its lack of selfconsistency leads to some

1248: non-physical concepts. The first of these is the "transverse spin

1249: accumulation" in the switching magnet \cite{46,47}, This refers to

1250: the deviations of local moments $\langle{\bf S}_n\rangle$ from the

1251: direction of the exchange field, assumed uniform in the SM. In a

1252: self-consistent treatment such deviations do not occur because the

1253: exchange field is always in the direction of the local moment. A

1254: related non-physical concept is the ''spin decoherence length" over

1255: which the spin accumulation is supposed to decay \cite{46,47}, More

1256: detailed critiques of these concepts are given elsewhere

1257: \cite{13,em}.

1258: 

1259: \subsection{Keldysh formalism for fully realistic calculations of the 

1260: spin-transfer torque}

1261: 

1262: The wave-function approach to spin-transfer torque described in

1263: Section \ref{due} is difficult to apply to realistic multiorbital

1264: systems. For this purpose Green functions are much more convenient

1265: and Keldysh \cite{11} developed a Green function approach to the

1266: non-equilibrium problem of electron transport. In this section we

1267: apply this method to calculate spin currents in a magnetic layer

1268: structure, following Edwards {\it et al.} \cite{13}.

1269: 

1270: The structure we consider is shown schematically in Fig. \ref{fig1}.

1271: It consists of a thick (semi-infinite) left magnetic layer

1272: (polarising magnet), a nonmagnetic metallic spacer layer of $N$

1273: atomic planes, a thin switching magnet of $M$ atomic planes, and a

1274: semi-infinite lead. The broken line between the atomic planes $n-1$

1275: and $n$ represents a cleavage plane separating the system into two

1276: independent parts so that charge carriers cannot move between the

1277: two surface planes $n-1$ and $n$. It will be seen that our ability

1278: to cleave the whole system in this way is essential for the

1279: implementation of the Keldysh formalism. This can be easily done

1280: with a tight-binding parametrisation of the band structure by simply

1281: switching off the matrix of hopping integrals $t_{n\nu,n-1\mu}$

1282: between atomic orbitals $\nu$, $\mu$ localised in planes $n-1$ and

1283: $n$. We therefore adopt the tight-binding description with the

1284: Hamiltonian defined by Eqs. (\ref{HAM}-\ref{Sn}).

1285: 

1286: To use the Keldysh formalism \cite{11,12,53} to calculate the

1287: charge or spin currents flowing between the planes $n-1$ and $n$, we

1288: consider an initial state at time $\tau=-\infty$ in which the

1289: hopping integral $t_{n\nu,n-1\mu}$ between planes $n-1$ and $n$ is

1290: switched off. Then both sides of the system are in equilibrium but

1291: with different chemical potentials $\mu_{\rm L}$ on the left and

1292: $\mu_{\rm R}$ on the right, where $\mu_{\rm L}-\mu_{\rm R}=eV_{\rm

1293: b}$. The interplane hopping is then turned on adiabatically and the

1294: system evolves to a steady state. The cleavage plane, across which

1295: the hopping is initially switched off, may be taken in either the

1296: spacer or in one of the magnets or in the lead. In principle, the

1297: Keldysh method is valid for arbitrary bias $V_{\rm b}$ but here we

1298: restrict ourselves to small bias corresponding to linear response.

1299: This is always reasonable for a metallic system. For larger bias,

1300: which might occur with a semiconductor or insulator as spacer,

1301: electrons would be injected into the right part of the system far

1302: above the Fermi level and many-body processes neglected here would

1303: be important. Following Keldysh \cite{11,12}, we define a two-time

1304: matrix

1305: \begin{equation}\label{kel}

1306: G_{\rm RL}^{+}(\tau,\tau^{\prime})={\rm i}\langle c_{\rm

1307: L}^{\dagger}(\tau^{\prime})c_{\rm R}(\tau)\rangle,

1308: \end{equation}

1309: where $R\equiv(n,\nu,\sigma^{\prime})$ and

1310: $L\equiv(n-1,\mu,\sigma)$, and we suppress the $k_{\parallel}$

1311: label. The thermal average in Eq. (\ref{kel}) is calculated for the

1312: steady state of the coupled system. The matrix $G_{\rm

1313: RL}^{\dagger}$ has dimensions $2m\times 2m$ where $m$ is the number

1314: of orbitals on each atomic site, and is written so that the $m\times

1315: m$ upper diagonal block contains matrix elements between $\uparrow$

1316: spin orbitals and the $m\times m$ lower diagonal block relates to

1317: $\downarrow$ spin. $2m\times 2m$ hopping matrices $t_{\rm LR}$ and

1318: $t_{\rm RL}$ are written similarly and in this case only the

1319: diagonal blocks are nonzero. If we denote $t_{\rm LR}$ by $t$, then

1320: $t_{\rm RL}=t^{\dagger}$. We also generalise the definition of

1321: ${\bm\sigma}$ 

1322: so that its components are now direct products of the

1323: $2\times 2$ Pauli matrices $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$, $\sigma_z$, and

1324: the $m\times m$ unit matrix. The thermal average of the spin current

1325: operator, given by Eq. (\ref{rate}), may now be expressed as

1326: \begin{equation}\label{uffa}

1327: \langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle=\frac12\sum_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}}{\rm

1328: Tr}\left\{\left[G_{\rm RL}^{+}\left(\tau,\tau\right)t-G_{\rm

1329: LR}^{+}(\tau,\tau)t^{\dagger}\right]{\bm\sigma}\right\}.

1330: \end{equation}

1331: Introducing the Fourier transform $G^{+}(\omega)$ of

1332: $G^{+}(\tau,\tau^{\prime})$ , which is a function of

1333: $\tau-\tau^{\prime}$, we have

1334: \begin{equation}\label{uffa2}

1335: \langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle=\frac12\sum_{{\bf k}_{\parallel}}

1336: \int\frac{{\rm d}\omega}{2\pi}{\rm Tr}\left\{\left[G_{\rm

1337: RL}^{+}\left(\omega\right)t-G_{\rm

1338: LR}^{+}(\omega)t^{\dagger}\right]{\bm\sigma}\right\}.

1339: \end{equation}

1340: The charge current is given by Eq. (\ref{uffa2}) with

1341: $\frac12{\bm\sigma}$ replaced by the unit matrix multiplied by

1342: $e/\hbar$.

1343: 

1344: Following Keldysh \cite{11,12} we now write

1345: \begin{equation}\label{uffa3}

1346: G_{\rm AB}^{+}(\omega)=\frac12\left(F_{\rm AB}+G_{\rm AB}^{\rm

1347: a}-G_{\rm AB}^{\rm r}\right),

1348: \end{equation}

1349: where the suffices $A$ and $B$ are either $R$ or $L$. $F_{\rm

1350: AB}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of 

1351: \begin{equation}\label{uffa4}

1352: F_{\rm AB}(\tau,\tau^{\prime})=-{\rm i}\langle[c_{\rm A}(\tau),c_{\rm

1353: B}^{\dagger}(\tau^{\prime})]_{-}\rangle

1354: \end{equation}

1355: and $G^{\rm a}$, $G^{\rm r}$ are the usual advanced and retarded

1356: Green functions \cite{54}. Note that in \cite{11} and \cite{12} the definitions

1357: of $G^{\rm a}$ and $G^{\rm r}$ are interchanged and that in the

1358: Green function matrix defined by these authors $G^{+}$ and $G^{-}$

1359: should be interchanged.

1360: 

1361: Charge and spin current are related by Eqs. (\ref{uffa2}) and (\ref{uffa3}) to

1362: the quantities $G^{\rm a}$, $G^{\rm r}$ and $F_{\rm AB}$. The latter

1363: are calculated for the coupled system by starting with decoupled

1364: left and right systems, each in equilibrium, and turning on the

1365: hopping between planes L and R as a perturbation. Hence, we express

1366: $G^{\rm a}$, $G^{\rm r}$ and $F_{\rm AB}$ in terms of retarded

1367: surface Green functions $g_{L}\equiv g_{\rm LL}$, $g_{\rm R}\equiv

1368: g_{\rm RR}$ for the decoupled equilibrium system. It is then found

1369: \cite{13} that the spin current between the planes $n-1$ and $n$ can

1370: be written as the sum $\langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle=\langle{\bf

1371: j}_{n-1}\rangle_1+\langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle_2$, where the two

1372: contributions to the spin current $\langle{\bf j}_{n}\rangle_1$,

1373: $\langle{\bf j}_{n}\rangle_2$ are given by 

1374: \begin{equation}\label{nonloso1}

1375: \langle{\rm j}_{n-1}\rangle_1=\frac1{4\pi}\sum_{{\bf

1376: k}_\parallel}\int{\rm d}\omega\Re{\rm Tr}[(B-A){\bm\sigma}]

1377: [f(\omega-\mu_{\rm L})+f(\omega-\mu_{\rm R})].

1378: \end{equation}

1379: 

1380: \begin{equation}\label{nonloso2}

1381: \langle{\rm j}_{n-1}\rangle_2=\frac1{2\pi}\sum_{{\bf

1382: k}_\parallel}\int{\rm d}\omega\Re{\rm Tr}\left\{[g_{\rm L}tABg_{\rm

1383: R}^{\dagger}t^{\dagger}-AB+\frac12(A+B)]{\bm\sigma}\right\}

1384: [f(\omega-\mu_{\rm L})-f(\omega-\mu_{\rm R})].

1385: \end{equation}

1386: Here, $A=[1-g_{\rm R}t^{\dagger}g_{\rm L}t]^{-1}$,

1387: $B=[1-g^{\dagger}_{\rm R}t^{\dagger}g^{\dagger}_{\rm L}t]^{-1}$, and

1388:  as in Section \ref{due} $f(\omega-\mu)$ is the Fermi function with

1389:  chemical potential $\mu$ and $\mu_{\rm L}-\mu_{\rm R}=eV_{\rm b}$.

1390:  In the linear-response case of small bias which we are considering,

1391:  the Fermi functions in Eq. (\ref{nonloso2}) are expanded to first

1392:  order in $V_{\rm b}$. Hence the energy integral is avoided, being

1393:  equivalent to multiplying the integrand by $eV_{\rm b}$ and

1394:  evaluating it at  the common zero-bias chemical potential $\mu_0$.

1395: 

1396: It can be seen that Eqs. (\ref{nonloso1}) and (\ref{nonloso2}), which determine

1397: the spin and the charge currents, depend on just two quantities,

1398: {\it i.e.} the surface retarded one-electron Green functions for a

1399: system cleaved between two neighbouring atomic planes. The surface

1400: Green functions can be determined without any approximations by the

1401: standard adlayer method (see {\it e.g.} \cite{42,44}) for a fully

1402: realistic band structure.

1403: 

1404: We first note that there is a close correspondence between Eqs.

1405: (\ref{nonloso1}), (\ref{nonloso2}) and the generalised Landauer formula

1406: (\ref{landau33}). The first term in Eq. (\ref{landau33}) corresponds to the

1407: zero-bias spin current $\langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle_1$ given by

1408: Eq. (\ref{nonloso1}). When the cleavage plane is taken in the

1409: spacer, the spin current $\langle{\bf j}_{n-1}\rangle_1$ determines

1410: the oscillatory exchange coupling between the two magnets and it is

1411: easy to verify that the formula for the exchange coupling obtained

1412: from Eq. (\ref{nonloso1}) is equivalent to the formula used in

1413: previous total energy calculations of this effect \cite{42,44}. The

1414: contribution to the transport spin current given by Eq.

1415: (\ref{nonloso2}) clearly corresponds to the second term in the

1416: Landauer formula (\ref{landau33}) which is proportional to the bias

1417: in the linear response limit. Placing the cleavage plane first

1418: between any two neighbouring atomic planes in the spacer and then

1419: between any two neighbouring planes in the lead, we obtain from Eq.

1420: (\ref{nonloso2}) the total spin-transfer torque ${\bf T}^{\rm s-t}$

1421: of Eq. (\ref{torque}) in Section \ref{due}.

1422: 

1423: The equivalence of the Keldysh and Landauer methods has been

1424: demonstrated by calculating the currents

1425: (\ref{nonloso1}) and (\ref{nonloso2}) analytically for the simple single

1426: orbital model of Section \ref{due}. The results of that section,

1427: such as Eq. (\ref{torquex})  are reproduced \cite{13}.

1428: 

1429: \section{Quantitative results for 

1430: C\lowercase{o}/C\lowercase{u}/C\lowercase{o}(111)}\label{cinque}

1431: 

1432: We now discuss the application of the Keldysh formalism to a real

1433: system. In particular we consider a realistic multiorbital model of

1434: fcc Co/Cu/Co(111) with tight-binding parameters fitted to the

1435: results of the first-principles band structure calculations, as

1436: described previously \cite{42,44}.

1437: 

1438: Referring to Fig. \ref{fig1}, the system considered by Edwards {\it

1439: et al.} \cite{13} consists of a semi-infinite slab of Co (polarising

1440: magnet), the spacer of 20 atomic planes of Cu, the switching magnet

1441: containing $M$ atomic planes of Co, and the lead which is

1442: semi-infinite Cu. The spacer thickness of 20 atomic planes of Cu was

1443: chosen so that the contribution of the oscillatory exchange coupling

1444: term is so small that it can be neglected. The spin currents in the

1445: right lead and in the spacer were determined from Eq.

1446: (\ref{nonloso2}).

1447: Figure \ref{fig13}(a),(b) shows the angular dependences of

1448: $T_{\parallel}$, $T_{\perp}$ for the cases $M=1$ and $M=2$.

1449: respectively.

1450: \begin{figure}

1451: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig13.eps}

1452: \caption{Dependence of the spin-transfer torque $T_{\parallel}$ and

1453: $T_{\perp}$ for Co/Cu/Co(111) on the angle $\psi$. The torques per

1454: surface atom are in units of $eV_{\rm b}$. Figure (a) is for $M=1$,

1455: and (b) for $M=2$ monolayers of Co in the switching magnet. }

1456:  \label{fig13}

1457: \end{figure}

1458: For the monolayer switching magnet, the torques $T_{\parallel}$ and

1459: $T_{\perp}$ are equal in magnitude and they have opposite sign.

1460: However, for $M=2$, the torques have the same sign and $T_{\perp}$

1461: is somewhat smaller than $T_{\parallel}$. A negative sign of the

1462: ratio of the two torque components has important and unexpected

1463: consequences for hysteresis loops as already discussed in Section

1464: \ref{tre}. It can be seen that the angular dependence of both torque

1465: components is dominated by a $\sin\psi$ factor but distortions from

1466: this dependence are clearly visible. In particular, the slopes at

1467: $\psi=0$ and $\psi=\pi$ are quite different. As pointed out in

1468: Section \ref{tre}, this is important in the discussion of the

1469: stability of steady states and leads to quite different magnitudes

1470: of the critical biases $V_{\rm P}\rightarrow V_{\rm AP}$ and $V_{\rm

1471: AP}\rightarrow V_{\rm P}$.

1472: 

1473: In Fig. \ref{fig14} we reproduce the dependence of $T_{\perp}$ and

1474: $T_{\parallel}$ on the thickness of the Co switching magnet. It can

1475: be seen that the out-of-plane torque $T_{\perp}$ becomes smaller

1476: than $T_{\parallel}$ for thicker switching magnets.

1477: \begin{figure}

1478: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig14.eps}

1479: \caption{Dependence of the spin-transfer torque $T_{\parallel}$ and

1480: $T_{\perp}$ for Co/Cu/Co(111) on the thickness of the switching

1481: magnet $M$ for $\psi=\pi/3$. The torques are in units of $eV_{\rm

1482: b}$.}

1483:  \label{fig14}

1484: \end{figure}

1485: However, $T_{\perp}$ is by no means negligible (27$\%$ of

1486: $T_{\parallel}$) even for a typical experimental thickness of the

1487: switching Co layer of ten atomic planes. It is also interesting that

1488: beyond the monolayer thickness, the ratio of the two torques is

1489: positive with the exception of $M=4$.

1490: 

1491: The microscopically calculated spin-transfer torques for

1492: Co/Cu/Co(111) were used by Edwards {\it et al.} \cite{13} as an

1493: input into the phenomenological LLG equation. For simplicity the

1494: torques as functions of $\psi$ were approximated by sine curves but

1495: this is not essential. The LLG equation was first solved numerically

1496: to determine all the steady states and then the stability discussion

1497: outlined in the phenomenological section was applied to determine

1498: the critical bias for which instabilities occur. Finally, the

1499: ballistic resistance of the structure was evaluated from the

1500: real-space Kubo formula at every point of the steady state path.

1501: Such a calculation for the realistic Co/Cu system then gives

1502: hysteresis loops of the resistance versus bias which can be compared

1503: with the observed hysteresis loops. The LLG equation was solved

1504: including a strong easy-plane anisotropy with $h_{\rm p}=100$. If we

1505: take $H_{\rm u0}=1.86\times 10^9$sec$^{-1}$, corresponding to a

1506: uniaxial anisotropy field of about 0.01T, this value of $h_{\rm p}$

1507: corresponds to the shape anisotropy for a magnetisation of

1508: $1.6\times 10^6$A/m, similar to that of Co \cite{sun}. Also a

1509: realistic value \cite{sun} of the Gilbert damping parameter

1510: $\gamma=0.01$ was used. Finally, referring to the geometry of Fig.

1511: \ref{fig1}, two different values of the angle $\theta$ were employed

1512: in these calculations: $\theta=2$rad and $\theta=3$rad, the latter

1513: value being close to the value of $\pi$ which is realised in most

1514: experiments.

1515: 

1516: We first reproduce in Fig. \ref{fig16} the hysteresis loops for the

1517: case of Co switching magnet consisting of two atomic planes. We note

1518: that the ratio $r=T_{\perp}/T_{\parallel}\approx 0.65$ deduced from

1519: Fig. \ref{fig13} is positive in this case. Fig. \ref{fig16}(a) shows

1520: the hysteresis loop for $\theta=2$ and Fig. \ref{fig16}(b) that

1521: for $\theta=3$.

1522: \begin{figure}

1523: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig16.eps}

1524: \caption{Resistance of the Co/Cu/Co(111) junction as a function of

1525: the applied bias, with $M=2$ monolayers of Co in the switching

1526: magnet. (a) is for $\theta=2$rad and (b) for $\theta=3$rad.}

1527:  \label{fig16}

1528: \end{figure}

1529: The hysteresis loop for $\theta=3$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig16}(b)

1530:  is an illustration of the stability scenario in zero applied field

1531:  with $r>0$ discussed in Section \ref{tre}. As pointed out there the

1532:  hysteresis curve is that of Fig. \ref{fig5}(a) which agrees with

1533:  Fig. \ref{fig16}(b)

1534:  when we remember that the reduced bias used in Fig. \ref{fig5} has

1535:  the opposite sign from the bias in volts used in Fig. \ref{fig16}.

1536:  It is rather interesting that the critical bias for switching is $\approx

1537:  0.2$mV both for $\theta=2$ and $\theta=3$. When this bias

1538:  is converted to the current density using the calculated ballistic

1539:  resistance of the junction, it is found \cite{13} that the critical

1540:  current for switching is $\approx 10^7$A/cm$^2$, which is in very

1541:  good agreement with experiments \cite{albert}.

1542: 

1543:  The hysteresis loops for the case of the Co switching magnet

1544:  consisting of a single atomic plane are reproduced in Fig.

1545:  \ref{fig17}. The values of $h_{\rm p}$, $\gamma$, $H_{\rm u0}$, and

1546:  $\theta$ are the same as in the previous example.

1547: \begin{figure}

1548: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Fig17.eps}

1549: \caption{Resistance of the Co/Cu/Co(111) junction as a function of

1550: the applied current, with $M=1$ monolayer of Co in the switching

1551: magnet. (a) is for $\theta=2$rad and (b) for $\theta=3$rad.}

1552:  \label{fig17}

1553: \end{figure}

1554: However the ratio $r\approx -1$ is now negative and the hysteresis

1555: loops in Fig. \ref{fig17} illustrate the interesting behaviour

1556: discussed in Section \ref{tre} when the system subjected to a bias

1557: higher than a critical bias moves to the ''both unstable" region

1558: shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}. 

1559: As in Fig. \ref{fig7} the points on the hysteresis loop in

1560: Fig. \ref{fig17} corresponding to the critical bias are labelled by asterisks.

1561: Fig. \ref{fig17}(b)

1562: and Fig. \ref{fig7}(a) are in close correspondence because Fig.

1563: \ref{fig7}(a) is for $r_{\rm c}<r<0$ and in the present case $r=-1$,

1564: $r_{\rm c}=-2/(\gamma h_{\rm p})=-2$. Also, from Fig.

1565: \ref{fig13}(a), $g_{\parallel}<0$ so that $vg_{\parallel}$ in Fig.

1566: \ref{fig7}(a) has the same sign as the voltage $V$ in Fig.

1567: \ref{fig17}(b).

1568: 

1569: \section{Summary}

1570: 

1571: Spin-transfer torque is responsible for current-driven switching of

1572: magnetisation in magnetic layered structures. The simplest

1573: theoretical scheme for calculating spin-transfer torque is a

1574: generalised Landauer method and this is used in Section \ref{due} to

1575: obtain analytical results for a simple model. The general

1576: phenomenological form of spin-transfer torque is deduced in Section

1577: \ref{tre} and this is introduced into the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert

1578: equation, together with torques due to anisotropy fields. This

1579: describes the motion of the magnetisation of the switching magnet

1580: and the stability of the steady states (constant current and

1581: stationary magnetisation direction) is studied under different

1582: experimental conditions, with and without external field. This leads

1583: to hysteretic and reversible behaviour in resistance versus bias (or

1584: current) plots in agreement with a wide range of

1585: experimental observations. In Section \ref{quattro} the general

1586: principles of a self-consistent treatment of spin-transfer torque are

1587: discussed and the Keldysh formalism for quantitative calculations is

1588: introduced. This approach to the non-equilibrium problem of electron

1589: transport uses Green functions which are very convenient to

1590: calculate for a realistic multiorbital tight-binding model of the

1591: layered-structure. In Section \ref{cinque} quantitative calculations

1592: for Co/Cu/Co(111) systems are presented which yield switching

1593: currents of the observed magnitude.

1594: 

1595: This study of current-driven switching of magnetisation was carried

1596: out in collaboration with J. Mathon and A. Umerski and financial

1597: support was provided by the UK Engineering and Physical Research

1598: Council (EPSRC).

1599: 

1600: 

1601: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{1} P. Gr\"{u}nberg, R. Schreiber, Y. Pang, M. B. Brodsky, and

1604:   H. Sower, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf 57}, 2442 (1986); M. N. Baibich,

1605:   J. M. Broto, A. Fert, Van Dau Nguyen, F. Petroff, P. Etienne,

1606:   G. Creuset, A. Friederich, and J. Chazelas, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1607:   61}, 2472 (1998)

1608: \bibitem{2}S. S. P. Parkin {\it et al.}, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 85},

1609:   5828 (1999).

1610: \bibitem{3}J. C. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. {\bf 159}, L1 (1996).

1611: \bibitem{4}X. Waintal, E. B. Myers, P. W. Brouwer, and D. C. Ralph,

1612:   Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 12317 (2000)

1613: \bibitem{5}{\it e.g.} ``Transport in Nanostructures'' by D. K. Ferry

1614:   and S. M. Goodnick (Cambridge University Press 1997).

1615: \bibitem{sun} J. Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, 570 (2000).

1616: \bibitem{albert} F. J. Albert, J. A. Katine, R. A. Buhrman, and

1617:   D. C. Ralph, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3809 (2000).

1618: \bibitem{16} J. Grollier, V. Cross, A. Hamzic, J. M. George,

1619:   H. Jaffres, A. Fert, G. Faini, J. Ben Youssef, and H. Le Gall,

1620:   Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3663 (2001).

1621: \bibitem{17}E. C. Stoner and E. P. Wohlfarth, Phil, Trans. Roy. Soc. A

1622:   {\bf 240}, 599 (1948).

1623: \bibitem{18}J. Grollier, V. Cross, H. Jaffres, A. Hamzic, J. M. George,

1624:   G. Faini, J. Ben Youssef, H. Le Gall, and A. Fert,

1625:    Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67}, 174402 (2003).

1626: \bibitem{19} F. J. Albert, N. C. Emley, E. B. Myers, D. C. Ralph, and

1627:   R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 226802 (2002).

1628: \bibitem{20} D. W. Jordan and P. Smith, Nonlinear Ordinary

1629:   Differential Equations, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1977).

1630: \bibitem{13} D. M. Edwards, F. Federici, G. Mathon, and A. Umerski,

1631:   Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 134501 (2005).

1632: \bibitem{21} J.A. Katine, F. J. Albert, R. A. Buhrman, E. B. Myers, and

1633:   D. C. Ralph,  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3149 (2000).

1634: \bibitem{22} S. I. Kiselev, J. C. Sankey, I. N. Krivorotov,

1635:   N. C. Emley, R. J. Schoelkopf, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Nature {\bf 425}, 380 (2003).

1636: \bibitem{23} S. Urazhdin, N. O. Birge, W. P. Pratt, Jr., and J. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 146803 (2003)

1637: \bibitem{24} M. R. Pufall, W. H. Rippard, S. Kaka, S. E. Russek,

1638:   T. J. Silva, J. Katine, and M. Carey,  Phy. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69},

1639:   214409 (2004).

1640: \bibitem{25} E. B. Myers, F. J. Albert, J. C. Sankey, E. Bonet,

1641:   R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 196801 (2002)

1642: \bibitem{26} M. A. Zimmler, B. \"{O}zyilmaz, W. Chen, A. D. Kent,

1643:   J. Z. Sun, M. J. Rooks, and R. H. Koch,  Phy. Rev. B {\bf 70},

1644:   184438 (2004).

1645: \bibitem{27}M. Tsoi, A. G. M. Jansen, J. Bass, W. C. Chiang. M. Seck, V.Tsoi,

1646:   and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 4281 (1998).

1647: \bibitem{28}M. Tsoi, A. G. M. Jansen, J. Bass, W. C. Chiang. V. Tsoi,

1648:   and P. Wyder, Nature {\bf 406}, 46 (2000)

1649: \bibitem{29} E. B. Myers, D. C. Ralph, J. A. Katine, R. N. Louie and

1650:   R. A. Buhrman, Science {\bf 285}, 867 (1999).

1651:  \bibitem{6} J. C. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. {\bf 195}, L261 (1999);

1652:   {\bf 247}, 324 (2002).

1653: \bibitem{30}B. \"{O}zyilmaz, A. D. Kent, D. Monsma, J. Z. Sun,

1654:   M. J. Rooks, and R. H. Koch, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 067203 (2003).

1655: \bibitem{31} M. Tsoi, J. Z. Sun,

1656:   M. J. Rooks, R. H. Koch, and S. S. P. Parkin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 100406(R) (2004).

1657: \bibitem{32}W. F. Brown, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 130}, 1677 (1963).

1658: \bibitem{33}Z. Li and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 134416 (2004).

1659: \bibitem{34}J. Miltat, G. Albuquerque, A. Thiaville, and C. Vouille, J. Appl.

1660: Phys. {\bf 89}, 6982 (2001).

1661: \bibitem{35}Z. Li and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 024404 (2003).

1662: \bibitem{36} C. R. P. Cowburn, C. K. Koltsov, A. O. Adeyeye, and M.

1663: E. Welland, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1042 (1999).

1664: \bibitem{37} Y. Jiang, S. Abe, T. Ochiai, T. Nozaki, A. Hirohata, N.

1665: Tezuka, and K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 167204 (2004).

1666: \bibitem{38} Y. Jiang, T. Nozaki, S. Abe, T. Ochiai, A. Hirohata, N.

1667: Tezuka, and K. Inomata, Nature Materials {\bf 3}, 361 (2004).

1668: \bibitem{39} N. Tezuka (private communication)

1669: \bibitem{40} K. Capelle and B. L. Gyorffy, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 61},

1670: 354 (2003).

1671: \bibitem{41} J. Sun, Nature {\bf 424}, 359 (2003).

1672: \bibitem{42} J. Mathon, Murielle Villeret, A. Umerski, R. B. Muniz,

1673: J. d'Albuquerque e Castro, and D. M. Edwards, Phys. Rev B, {\bf 56},

1674: 11797 (1997).

1675: \bibitem{44} J. Mathon, Murielle Villeret, R. B. Muniz, J. 

1676: d'Albuquerque e Castro, and D. M. Edwards, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1677: 74}, 3696 (1995).

1678: \bibitem{46}S. Zhang, P. M. Levy, and A. Fert , Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1679: 88},236601 (2002).

1680: \bibitem{47} A. A. Kovalev, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys.

1681: Rev. B {\bf 66 }, 224424 (2002).

1682: \bibitem{em} D. M. Edwards and J. Mathon in ''Nanomagnetism: Multilayers,

1683: Ultrathin Films and Textured Media", eds. J. A. C. Bland and D. L.

1684: Mills (Elsevier, to be published).

1685: \bibitem{11} L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP, {\bf 20}, 1018 (1965).

1686: \bibitem{12} C. Caroli, R. Combescot, P. Nozieres, and D.

1687: Saint-James, J. Phys. C {\bf 4}, 916 (1971).

1688: \bibitem{53}D. M. Edwards in: Exotic states in quantum

1689: nanostructures, ed. by S. Sarkar, Kluwer Academic Press (2002).

1690: \bibitem{54} G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics, 2nd Ed., Plenum

1691: Press, New York (1990).

1692: \end{thebibliography}

1693: 

1694: 

1695: 

1696: 

1697: \end{document}

1698: