1: % This document should help to prepare your paper for the SCES'05
2: \documentclass{elsart41}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \begin{frontmatter}
11:
12: % Title, authors and addresses
13:
14: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;
15: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;
16: % use the ead command for the email address,
17: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
18: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}
19: % \thanks[label1]{}
20: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}
21: % \ead{email address}
22: % \ead[url]{home page}
23: % \thanks[label2]{}
24: % \corauth[cor1]{}
25: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
26: % \thanks[label3]{}
27:
28: \title{Quasiparticles near quantum phase transition
29: in heavy fermion metals}
30: %---- Don't remove this comment line! ----
31: %
32: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:
33: % \author[label1,label2]{}
34: % \address[label1]{}
35: % \address[label2]{}
36:
37: \author[*]{V.R. Shaginyan},
38: \ead{vrshag@thd.pnpi.spb.ru}
39:
40:
41: \address{Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, RAS, Gatchina 188300, Russia}
42:
43: \corauth[V.R. Shaginyan]{Corresponding author}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46:
47: We have shown that the Landau paradigm based upon both the
48: quasiparticle concept and the notion of the order parameter
49: can be used to explain the anomalous behavior of
50: heavy fermion metals. Exploiting this
51: paradigm and the fermion condensation quantum phase transition (FCQPT)
52: we show that this anomalous behavior is universal
53: and can be used to capture the essential aspects of recent
54: experiments on the heavy-fermion metals at low temperatures.
55: Behind FCQPT a tunneling conductivity between a heavy fermion metal and a simple metallic
56: point can be noticeably dissymmetrical with respect to the change of
57: voltage bias. We show that at $T=0$ and beyond FCQPT the Hall coefficient undergoes a jump
58: upon magnetic-field tuning HF metals.
59:
60:
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \begin{keyword}
64: quantum phase transitions \sep heavy fermions \sep universal behavior \sep dissymmetrical tunneling \sep Hall coefficient
65: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
66: % PACS codes here, in the form:
67: \PACS 71.10.Hf; 71.27.+a; 75.30Cr
68: \end{keyword}
69: \end{frontmatter}
70:
71: % main text
72:
73: Experiments on heavy-fermion (HF) metals explore
74: mainly their thermodynamic properties which proved to be quite
75: different from that of ordinary metals described by the Landau
76: Fermi liquid (LFL) theory. In the LFL theory, considered as the
77: main instrument when investigating quantum many electron physics,
78: the effective mass $M^*$ of quasiparticle excitations controlling
79: the density of states determines the thermodynamic properties of
80: electronic systems. It is possible to explain many of the observed
81: properties of the HF metals on the basis of FCQPT which is in harmony with
82: the Landau paradigm resting upon both
83: the quasiparticle concept and the notion of the order parameter.
84: In contrast to the conventional Landau quasiparticles, these are
85: characterized by the effective mass
86: which strongly depends on temperature $T$, applied magnetic field
87: $B$ and the number density $x$ of the heavy electron liquid of HF
88: metal.
89:
90: To study the universal behavior of the HF metals at low temperatures
91: we use a heavy electron liquid model in order to get rid of the specific peculiarities of HF metals. Since we consider processes related to the power-low divergency of the effective mass, this divergency is determined by small momenta transferred as compared to momenta of the order of the reciprocal lattice, and the contribution coming from the lattice can be ignored.
92: We start with the well-known Landau
93: equation determining $M^*(T,B)$
94: \beq \frac{1}{M^*(T,B)}=
95: \frac{1}{M}
96: +\int {\bf Y}
97: F({\bf p_F},{\bf p}_1) \frac{\partial
98: n({\bf p}_1)}{\partial {p}_1} \frac{d{\bf
99: p}_1}{(2\pi)^3}. \eeq For brevity, we omit spin variables.
100: Here ${\bf Y}=({\bf p}_F{\bf p_1})/{p_F^3}$,\,
101: $F({\bf p_F},{\bf p}_1)$ is the Landau amplitude depending on
102: the momenta $p$, $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum, $M$ is the bare mass
103: of an electron, and $n({\bf p}_1,T,B)$ is the quasiparticle
104: distribution function. Applying Eq. (1) at $T=0$ and $B=0$, we obtain the
105: standard result
106: $ M^*(x)=M/(1-N_0F^1(p_F,p_F)/3).$
107: Here $N_0$ is the density of states of the free Fermi gas and
108: $F^1(p_F,p_F)$ is the $p$-wave component of the Landau
109: interaction. Since in the LFL theory $x=p_F^3/3\pi^2$, the Landau
110: amplitude can be written as $F^1(p_F,p_F)=F^1(x)$. Assume that at
111: some critical point $x_{FC}$ the denominator
112: $(1-N_0F^1(x)/3)$ tends to zero, and one obtains
113: that $M^*(x)$ behaves as
114: $M^*(x)/M\propto1/r$.
115: Here $r=(x-x_{FC})$ is the ``distance'' from the QCP of FCQPT
116: taking place at $x_{FC}$.
117:
118: At $r\to 0$ and $T<T^*(B-B_{c0})\propto (B-B_{c0})$, the system has the LFL behavior
119: and a qualitative analysis of Eq. (1) shows that
120: $M^*(B)\propto (B-B_{c0})^{-2/3}.$ Here,
121: $B_{c0}$ is the critical magnetic field which drives both a HF
122: metal to its magnetic field tuned QCP and the corresponding N\'eel
123: temperature $T_N\to 0$ \cite{shag4}. At elevated temperatures the system demonstrates two types of the non-Fermi liquid behavior (NFL): at $T\sim T^*(B)$
124: $M^*(T)\propto T^{-2/3},$ and $T> T^*(B)$
125: $M^*(T)\propto 1/\sqrt{T}.$ These mentioned regimes can
126: be observed in measurements of the resistivity,
127: $\rho(T)=\rho_0+\Delta\rho$. Here, $\rho_0$
128: is the residual resistivity, $\Delta\rho=A(B)T^2$, and
129: $A(B)\propto (M^*)^2$. The first LFL
130: regime is represented by
131: $\Delta\rho_1\propto T^2/(B-B_{c0})^{4/3}\propto T^2$; the second NFL
132: one is characterized by
133: $\Delta\rho_2\propto T^2/(T^{2/3})^2\propto T^{2/3}$; and the third
134: NFL one is represented by
135: $\Delta\rho_3\propto T^2/(\sqrt{T})^2\propto T$. All these regimes were
136: observed in recent measurements on the HF metals, see e.g. \cite{pag}.
137: Considering the ratio
138: $\Delta\rho_2/\Delta\rho_1\propto ((B-B_{c0})/T)^{4/3}$, we conclude
139: that the ratio is a function of
140: only the variable $(B-B_{c0})/T$ representing the scaling
141: behavior. This result is in excellent agreement with experimental
142: facts \cite{pag}.
143:
144: Beyond the critical point $x_{FC}$ the distance $r$ becomes negative making
145: the effective mass negative. To escape the
146: possibility of being in unstable and meaningless states with the
147: negative effective mass, the system is to undergo FCQPT
148: quantum phase transition at the critical point $x=x_{FC}$ \cite{shag4}.
149: At $x<x_{FC}$ the
150: quasiparticle distribution is determined by the standard equation
151: to search the minimum of a functional
152: ${\delta E[n({\bf p})]}/{\delta n({\bf
153: p},T=0)}=\varepsilon({\bf p})=\mu; \,p_i\leq p\leq p_f.$
154: This equation determines the quasiparticle distribution function
155: $n_0({\bf p})$ which delivers the minimum value to the ground
156: state energy $E$. $n_0({\bf p})$ does not coincide with the step function in the
157: region $(p_f-p_i)$, so that $0<n_0({\bf p})<1$,while $p_i<p_F<p_f$.
158: This special behavior of $n_0({\bf p})$
159: determines the behavior of system at $T<T_f$, with $T_f$ being the temperature at which he influence FCQPT vanishes. At $T=0$,
160: the relevant order parameter is the superconducting-like, $\kappa({\bf
161: p})=\sqrt{n_0({\bf p})(1-n_0({\bf p}))}$, with the entropy $S=0$ \cite{shag4}. At $0<T<T_f$,
162: the entropy can be approximated as
163: $S(T) \simeq S_0+a\sqrt{T/T_f}$, $a$ is a constant. This temperature independent term $S_0$ determines the specific NFL behavior of the system. For example, the thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha(T)$ determined by the contribution coming from $S_0$ becomes constant at $T\to0$ while the specific heat $C\sim a\sqrt{T/T_f}$. As a result, the
164: Gr\"uneisen ratio $\Gamma$ diverges $\Gamma=\alpha/C\propto 1/\sqrt{T}$. Then, at $T<T_f$, a tunneling conductivity between a heavy fermion metal and a
165: simple metallic point can be noticeably dissymmetrical
166: with respect to the change of voltage bias \cite{tun}. At $T<T^*(B-B_{c0})\propto \sqrt{B-B_{c0}}$, the application of magnetic field $B$
167: restores the LFL behavior, the effective mass becomes
168: $M^*(B)\propto 1/\sqrt{B-B_{c0}}$, and the coefficient $A\propto1/(B-B_{c0})$ \cite{shag4}.
169: At $T=0$, the application of the critical magnetic field $B_{c0}$ suppressing the antiferromagnetic state (AF)(with the Fermi momentum $p_{AF}\simeq p_F$) restores the LFL with the Fermi momentum $p_f>p_F$. Both AF and LFL have the same ground state energy being degenerated at $B=B_{c0}$. Thus, at $T=0$ and $B=B_{c0}$, the infinitesimal change in the magnetic field $B$ leads to the finite jump in the Fermi momentum. In response the Hall coefficient $R_H\propto 1/x$ undergoes the corresponding sudden jump.
170:
171: As an illustration of the above consider the $T-B$ phase digram for YbRh$_2$Si$_{2}$ \cite{geg} (Fig. 1). Taking into account that the behavior of YbRh$_2$Si$_{2}$ strongly resembles the behavior of YbRh$_2$(Si$_{0.95}$Ge$_{0.05}$)$_2$ \cite{geg1}, we can conclude that both the above described $T-B$ diagram and the behavior of the Hall coefficient $R_H$ are in good agreement with experimental facts \cite{geg,geg1}.
172:
173: This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant No 05-02-16085.
174:
175: \begin{figure}[!ht]
176: \begin{center}
177: \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig1}
178: \end{center}
179: \caption{Line separating AF and the NFL state is a guide to the eye, line separating the NFL and the LFL phases $T^*(B-B_{c0})\propto \sqrt{B-B_{c0}}$ \cite{shag4}.}
180: \label{fig1}
181: \end{figure}
182:
183: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
184: \bibitem{shag4} V.R. Shaginyan, JETP Lett. 79 (2004) 286; V.R. Shaginyan, A.Z. Msezane,
185: M.Ya. Amusia, Phys. Lett. A 338 (2005) 393.
186: \bibitem{pag} J. Paglione et al., cond-mat/0405157.
187: \bibitem{tun} V.R. Shaginyan, JETP Lett. 81 (2005) 222.
188: \bibitem{geg} P. Gegenwart et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
189: 89 (2002) 056402.
190: \bibitem{geg1} R. K\"uchler et al.,
191: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 066405; J. Custers et al., Nature 424 (2003) 524; S Paschen et al., Nature 432 (2004) 881.
192:
193:
194:
195: \end{thebibliography}
196:
197:
198:
199:
200: \end{document}
201:
202: