We report simultaneous measurements of the distribution of lattice constants
and the antiferromagnetic moment in high-purity URu2Si2, using both Larmor and
conventional neutron diffraction, as a function of temperature and pressure up
to 18 kbar. We establish that the tiny moment in the hidden order (HO) state is
purely parasitic and quantitatively originates from the distribution of lattice
constants. Moreover, the HO and large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF) at high
pressure are separated by a line of first-order phase transitions, which ends
in a bicritical point. Thus the HO and LMAF are coupled non-linearly and must
have different symmetry, as expected of the HO being, e.g., incommensurate
orbital currents, helicity order, or multipolar order.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figure

Huang, Y. -K.

Keller, T.

Mydosh, J. A.

Niklowitz, P. G.

Pfleiderer, C.

Vojta, M.

English

arXiv

We report for the first time simultaneous microscopic measurements of the lattice constants, the distribution of the lattice constants, and the antiferromagnetic moment in high-purity URu2Si2, combining Larmor and conventional neutron diffraction at low temperatures and pressures up to 18 kbar. Our data demonstrate quantitatively that the small moment in the hidden order (HO) of URu2Si2 is purely parasitic. The excellent experimental conditions we achieve allow us to resolve that the transition line between HO and large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF), which stabilizes under pressure, is intrinsically first order and ends in a bicritical point. Therefore, the HO and LMAF must have different symmetry, which supports exotic scenarios of the HO such as orbital currents, helicity order, or multipolar order

Huang, Y.K.

Royal Holloway Research Online

Parasitic Small-Moment Antiferromagnetism and Nonlinear Coupling of Hidden Order and Antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 Observed by Larmor Diffraction

Parasitic Small-Moment Antiferromagnetism and Nonlinear Coupling of Hidden Orderand Antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 Observed by Larmor DiffractionP.G. Niklowitz,1,2 C. Pfleiderer,1 T. Keller,3,4 M. Vojta,5 Y.-K. Huang,6 and J. A. Mydosh71Physik Department E21, Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, 85748 Garching, Germany2Department of Physics, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, United Kingdom3ZWE FRM II, Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, 85748 Garching, Germany4Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Festko¨rperforschung, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany5Institute for Theoretical Physics Universita¨t zu Ko¨ln, Zu¨lpicher Strasse 77, 50937 Ko¨ln, Germany6Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, 1018XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands7Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden University, 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands(Received 10 September 2009; published 12 March 2010)We report for the first time simultaneous microscopic measurements of the lattice constants, thedistribution of the lattice constants, and the antiferromagnetic moment in high-purity URu2Si2, combiningLarmor and conventional neutron diffraction at low temperatures and pressures up to 18 kbar. Our datademonstrate quantitatively that the small moment in the hidden order (HO) of URu2Si2 is purely parasitic.The excellent experimental conditions we achieve allow us to resolve that the transition line between HOand large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF), which stabilizes under pressure, is intrinsically first orderand ends in a bicritical point. Therefore, the HO and LMAF must have different symmetry, which supportsexotic scenarios of the HO such as orbital currents, helicity order, or multipolar order.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.106406 PACS numbers: 71.27.+a, 61.05.F, 62.50.p, 75.30.KzFor over 20 years one of the most prominent unex-plained properties of f-electron materials has been a phasetransition in URu2Si2 at T0  17:5 K into a state known as‘‘hidden order’’ (HO) [1–3]. The discovery of the HO wassoon followed by the observation of a small antiferromag-netic moment (SMAF),ms  0:01–0:04B per U atom [4]then believed to be an intrinsic property of the HO. Thediscovery of large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF) ofms  0:4B per U atom [5] under pressure consequentlyprompted intense theoretical efforts to connect the LMAFwith the SMAF and the HO. In particular, models havebeen proposed that are based on competing order parame-ters of the same symmetry and hence linearly coupled in aLandau theory; such models assume that the SMAF isintrinsic to the HO [6–9]. This is contrasted by proposalsfor the HO parameter such as incommensurate orbitalcurrents [10], multipolar order [11], or helicity order[12], where HO and LMAF break different symmetries.The relationship of the symmetry of HO and LMAF,which clearly yields the key to the HO [8,9], has not beenresolved. While some neutron scattering studies of thetemperature-pressure phase diagram suggest that theHO–LMAF phase boundary ends in a critical end point[13,14], other studies concluded that it meets the bounda-ries of HO and LMAF in a bicritical point [15–18]. Thisdistinction is crucial, as a critical end point (bicriticalpoint) implies that HO and LMAF have the same (differ-ent) symmetries, respectively [9]. Moreover, there is asubstantial disagreement with respect to the location andshape of the HO–LMAF phase boundary (see, e.g.,Refs. [14,19]). This lack of consistency is, finally, accom-panied by considerable variations of the size and pressuredependence of the moment reported for the SMAF [19],where NMR and SR studies suggested the SMAF to beparasitic [20,21]. Accordingly, to identify the HO inURu2Si2 it is essential to resolve the nature of the SMAFand the symmetry relationship of HO and LMAF.It was long suspected that the conflicting results are dueto a distribution of lattice distortions arising from defects.Notably, uniaxial stress studies showed that LMAF isstabilized if the c=a ratio  of the tetragonal crystal isincreased by the small amount c=  5 104 [22].Hence, the SMAF may in principle result from a distribu-tion of  across the sample, with its magnitude dependingon sample quality and experimental conditions. In particu-lar, differences of compressibility of wires, sample sup-ports, or strain gauges that are welded, glued, or soldered tothe samples will forcibly generate uncontrolled localstrains that strongly affect any conclusions about theSMAF signal (see, e.g., Refs. [15–18]).In this Letter we report for the first time simultaneousmicroscopic measurements of the lattice constants, thedistribution of the lattice constants, and the antiferromag-netic moment of URu2Si2 as a function of temperature forpressures up to 18 kbar. To obtain these data we used forthe first time a novel neutron scattering technique calledLarmor diffraction (LD) to establish parasitic phases, addi-tionally combining it with conventional diffraction. Thisallows us to study samples that are completely free to floatin the pressure transmitting medium, thereby experiencingessentially ideal hydrostatic pressure conditions. Our dataof the distribution of lattices constants fð=Þ estab-lishes quantitatively that the SMAF must be purely para-sitic. In addition, we find a rather abrupt transition fromPRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 20100031-9007=10=104(10)=106406(4) 106406-1  2010 The American Physical SocietyHO to LMAF which extends from T ¼ 0 up to a bicriticalpoint (preliminary data of TNðpÞ were reported in [23]).Our study demonstrates that the transition from HO toLMAF is intrinsically first order; i.e., the HO and LMAFmust have different symmetry.Larmor diffraction permits high-intensity measurementsof lattice constants with an unprecedented high resolutionof a=a  106 [24,25]. As shown in Fig. 1(a) in LD thesample is illuminated by a polarized neutron beam (arrowsindicate the polarization). The radio frequency spin flippercoils, denoted as C1 through C4, continuously change thepolarization direction of the beam as a function of time.Coils C1 and C3 are set up such that they generate a timedependence of the polarization as if the polarization wouldprecess in the scattering plane at twice the radio frequency! of the coils. Coils C2 and C4 are then tuned to terminatethis time dependence of the polarization; at any givenlocation in the gray shaded regime the beam polarizationhence appears to precess even though there is no appliedmagnetic field. Coils C1 through C4 are aligned parallel tothe lattice planes, because this way changes of the latticespacing a sensitively affect the total time of travel ttot alongL ¼ L1 þ L2 (ttot is purely determined by the velocitycomponent vp of the neutrons parallel to ~G). The totalphase of precession  along L1 plus L2 depends linearlyon the lattice constant a:  ¼ 2!Lma=ð@Þ (m is themass of the neutron [24–26]). Changes of a affect hencethe angle  and thus the intensity recorded by the polar-ization analyzer and detector AD.Our LD measurements were carried out at the spec-trometer TRISP at FRM II (Munich). The temperatureand pressure dependence of the lattice constants was in-ferred from the (400) Bragg peak for the a axis and the(008) Bragg peak for the c axis, where high resolution dataat (200) and (004) could only be taken at p ¼ 0 due to theabsorption by the pressure cell. The magnetic orderedmoment was monitored with the same setup using conven-tional diffraction. For our studies a Cu:Be clamp cell wasused with a Fluorinert mixture [27]. The pressure wasinferred at low temperatures from the (002) reflection ofgraphite as well as absolute changes of the lattice constantsof URu2Si2 taking into account published values of thecompressibility. The potential of LD in high-pressure stud-ies was first demonstrated in Ref. [26].The single crystal studied was grown by means of anoptical floating-zone technique at the Amsterdam/LeidenCenter. High sample quality was confirmed via x-ray dif-fraction and detailed electron probe microanalysis.Samples cut off from the ingot showed good resistanceratios (20 for the c axis and 10 for the a axis) and a highsuperconducting transition temperature Tc  1:5 K. Themagnetization of the large single crystal agreed very wellwith data shown in Ref. [28] and confirmed the absence offerromagnetic inclusions. Most importantly, in our neutronscattering measurements we found an antiferromagneticmoment ms  0:012B per U atom, which matches thesmallest moment reported so far [19].As the Larmor phase  is proportional to the latticeconstant a, the dependence of the polarization P on reflects the distribution of lattice constants across the entiresample volume [25]. We have therefore measured PðÞover a wide range to establish if the distribution of the c=aratios of the lattice constants may be responsible for AForder in parts of the sample. Note that this aspect of Larmordiffraction has so far only been exploited in proof ofprinciple studies in Al alloys [24].As shown in Fig. 1(b) PðÞ at p ¼ 0 decreases as afunction of , where depolarizing effects by the instru-ment were corrected by means of a calibration with a highquality Ge single crystal. Note that the wavelength depen-dence of the polarizer causes a well-understood overcor-rection by a constant value [P> 1 in Fig. 1(b)], that leavesthe measured decrease of P with  and hence the value of unchanged. Assuming a Gaussian distribution of bothlattice constants, we find a full width at half-maximum offð=ÞFWHM  6:4 104. Recalling that the tail of theGaussian distribution beyond c=  5 104 repre-sents the sample’s volume fraction in which LMAF forms[22], an average magnetic moment of 0:013ð5ÞB is ex-pected in our sample. This is in excellent quantitativeagreement with the experimental value and identifies theSMAF as being purely parasitic.As a function of pressure the distribution of latticeconstants, remains essentially unchanged [Fig. 1(c)].Thus the HO to LMAF transition is not accompanied bychanges of the distribution of lattice constants. In addition00.20.40.60.811.20 2 4 6 8 10Φ (103 rad)(004)(200)(b) (c)(a)02460 5 10 15 20c axisa axisp (kbar)FIG. 1 (color online). (a) Schematic of Larmor diffraction[24,25]; C1 through C4 are radio frequency spin flipper coils,~G is the reciprocal lattice vector; B is the Bragg angle; AD isthe polarization analyzer and detector. See text for details.(b) Typical variation of the polarization P as a function of thetotal Larmor phase . (c) Pressure dependence of the distribu-tion of lattice-constants for the a and c axis. With increasingpressure the width is essentially unchanged.PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-2the size ofms, which remained unchanged tiny after releas-ing the pressure in different sections of the single crystalunderscores excellent pressure conditions.We turn to the temperature dependence of the latticeconstants and its change with pressure. At p ¼ 0 in a widetemperature range below room temperature (not shown)the thermal expansion is positive for both axes [29].However, for the c axis, the lattice constant shows aminimum close to 40 K and turns negative at lower tem-peratures. This general behavior is unchanged under pres-sure. Shown in Fig. 2 are typical low-temperature data forthe a and c axis. At ambient pressure T0 can be barelyresolved. However, when crossing pc  4:5 kbar a pro-nounced additional signature emerges rapidly and mergeswith T0. Measurements of the antiferromagnetic moment(see below), identify this anomaly as the onset of theLMAF order below its TN . At the transition the latticeconstants for the a and c axes show a pronounced contrac-tion and expansion, respectively.The pressure and temperature dependence of ms deter-mined at (100) is shown in Fig. 3(a). Close to pc 4:5 kbar, where TN is near base temperature, we observefirst evidence of the LMAF magnetic signal, which risessteeply and already reaches almost its high-pressure limitat 5 kbar Fig. 3(b). The pressure dependence was deter-mined by assuming the widely reported high-pressurevalue of ms ¼ 0:4B and comparing the magnetic (100)and nuclear (004) peak intensity.The temperature-pressure phase diagram shown inFig. 3(c) displays T0 and TN taken from the magneticBragg peak [Fig. 3(a)] and from the Larmor diffractiondata (Fig. 2), respectively. The different data sets showexcellent agreement. The main results shown in Fig. 3 are(i) the very small value of 0:012B of the average low-temperature ordered moment at zero pressure, (ii) a par-ticularly abrupt increase of the low-temperature moment atpc  4:5 kbar (as compared to previous studies [15–19]),(iii) the steep slope of the HO–LMAF phase boundary, and(iv) the merging of the HO–LMAF phase boundary withthe T0 transition lines at approximately 9 kbar. Figure 2(b)shows that we can follow this phase boundary from low Tup to T0.Most importantly, (iv) implies that HO and LMAF areintrinsically separated by a phase boundary which has to beof first order with a bicritical point at 9 kbar and 18 K, sincethree second-order phase transition lines cannot meet inone point. (The phase boundaries from the HO and LMAFto the disordered high-temperature phase are alreadyknown to be of second order from qualitative heat capacitymeasurements [1,17].) This conclusion is perfectly consis-tent with (ii) and (iii) and excludes a linear couplingbetween the HO and LMAF [9].FIG. 2 (color online). Temperature dependence of the latticeconstants and thermal expansion at various pressures. The HOand LMAF transitions are indicated by empty and filled arrows,respectively. (a) Data for the a axis; (b) thermal expansion of thea axis derived from the data in (a). (c) Data for the c axis;(d) thermal expansion of the c axis derived from the data in (c).FIG. 3 (color online). Key features and pressure versus tem-perature phase diagram of URu2Si2. (a) Temperature depen-dence of the magnetic peak height at various pressures. (b) Pres-sure dependence of the low-temperature magnetic moment ms.(c) Phase diagram based on Larmor diffraction and conventionalmagnetic diffraction data. The onset of LMAF and HO in ourdata is marked by full and empty symbols, respectively (x marksa transition near base temperature). For better comparison dataof TN and T0 from Refs. [15,17–19] are shown, where symbolswith bright contours refer to TN and symbols with dark contoursto T0. (d) Specific-heat jump derived from thermal-expansiondata via the Ehrenfest relation (full circles). Heat capacity data istaken from Refs. [1] (square) and [17] (empty circle).PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-3Although our results show that the HO and LMAF musthave different symmetry, they also suggest that both typesof order may have a common origin. Using the Ehrenfestrelation, we have converted our thermal-expansion datainto a background-free estimate of the specific-heat jump,C, at the PM to LMAF transition. Figure 3(d) shows acontinuous evolution with pressure of the specific-heatjumps at the LMAF to PM and corresponding HO to PMtransitions. The common origin of both phases may in factbe related to results of recent inelastic neutron scatteringstudies as discussed in the context of recent band structurecalculations [30]. Notably, excitations at (1,0,0) appearonly in the HO phase and may be its salient characteristic[31]. However, excitations at (1.4,0,0) in the PM statebecome gapped in both the HO and LMAF state andhave been quantitatively linked to the specific-heat jumpat p ¼ 0 [32].Our study finally allows us to speculate on a new route tothe HO illustrated in Fig. 4, which summarizes the pressuredependence of features in the resistivity and magnetization,usually denoted as Kondo or coherence temperature Tcoh.Remarkably, these features all seem to extrapolate to thesame negative critical pressure, suggesting the possibleexistence of an AF quantum critical point (QCP). Thusthe HO in URu2Si2 may emerge from quantum criticality,possibly even masking an AF QCP (case I in Fig. 4).Alternatively, both HO and LMAF might only exist belowTcoh (case II), with pressure tipping the balance betweenthe two. The latter has been suggested in a recent proposal,where HO and LMAF are believed to be different variantsof the same underlying complex order parameter [33]. Thepressure dependence of C thereby sets constraints on anytheory of the HO involving quantum criticality.In conclusion, we demonstrate quantitatively that theSMAF in URu2Si2 is purely parasitic. The excellent ex-perimental conditions allow us to resolve that the HO andLMAF are intrinsically separated by a line of first-ordertransitions ending in a bicritical point. Hence the HO andLMAF cannot have the same symmetry. This supportsexotic scenarios of the HO such as incommensurate orbitalcurrents, helicity order, or multipolar order.We are grateful to P. Bo¨ni, A. Rosch, A. de Visser, K.Buchner, F.M. Grosche, and G.G. Lonzarich for supportand stimulating discussions. We thank FRM II for generalsupport. C. P. and M.V. acknowledge support through DFGFOR 960 (quantum phase transitions) and M.V. also ac-knowledges support through DFG SFB 608.[1] T. T.M. Palstra et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2727 (1985).[2] M. B. Maple et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 185 (1986).[3] W. Schlabitz et al., Z. Phys. B 62, 171 (1986).[4] C. Broholm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1467 (1987).[5] H. Amitsuka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5114 (1999).[6] L. P. Gor’kov and A. Sokol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2586(1992).[7] D. F. Agterberg and M.B. Walker, Phys. Rev. B 50, 563(1994).[8] N. Shah et al., Phys. Rev. B 61, 564 (2000).[9] V. P. Mineev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Phys. Rev. B 72,014432 (2005).[10] P. Chandra et al., Nature (London) 417, 831 (2002).[11] A. Kiss and P. Fazekas, Phys. Rev. B 71, 054415 (2005).[12] C.M. Varma and L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 036405(2006).[13] F. Bourdarot et al., Physica (Amsterdam) 359B–361B, 986(2005).[14] J. R. Jeffries et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 095225(2008).[15] G. Motoyama, T. Nishioka, and N.K. Sato, Phys. Rev.Lett. 90, 166402 (2003).[16] S. Uemura et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 2667 (2005).[17] E. Hassinger et al., Phys. Rev. B 77, 115117 (2008).[18] G. Motoyama et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 123710 (2008).[19] H.Amitsuka et al., J.Magn.Magn.Mater. 310, 214 (2007).[20] K. Matsuda et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, 2363(2003).[21] A.Amato et al., J. Phys.Condens.Matter16, S4403 (2004).[22] M. Yokoyama et al., Phys. Rev. B 72, 214419 (2005).[23] P. G. Niklowitz et al., Physica (Amsterdam) 404B, 2955(2009).[24] M. T. Rekveldt et al., Europhys. Lett. 54, 342 (2001).[25] T. Keller et al., Appl. Phys. A Suppl. 74, s332 (2002).[26] C. Pfleiderer et al., Science 316, 1871 (2007).[27] C. Pfleiderer et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 17, S3111(2005).[28] C. Pfleiderer, J. A. Mydosh, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 74,104412 (2006).[29] A. de Visser et al., Phys. Rev. B 34, 8168 (1986).[30] S. Elgazzar et al., Nature Mater. 8, 337 (2009).[31] A. Villaume et al., Phys. Rev. B 78, 012504 (2008).[32] C. R. Wiebe et al., Nature Phys. 3, 96 (2007).[33] K. Haule and G. Kotliar, arXiv:0907.3889;arXiv:0907.3892.[34] T. Kagayama et al., J. Alloys Compd. 213–214, 387(1994).FIG. 4 (color online). Extended phase diagram of URu2Si2based on the data presented here (diamonds) and signatures inresistivity (bright [34] and dark [17] circles along the PM-LMAFboundary). Tmax; and Tmax;Mc denote coherence maxima in theresistivity [34] and magnetization [28], respectively. The HOmight either mask a QCP (I) or replace LMAF (II) near quantumcriticality.PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-4

Royal Holloway - Pure

Niklowitz, P.G.

Mydosh, J.A.

NARCIS 

Parasitic small-moment antiferromagnetism and nonlinear coupling of hidden order and antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 observed by Larmor diffraction

Pfeiderer, C.

Leiden University Scholary Publications

Parasitic Small-Moment Antiferromagnetism and Nonlinear Coupling of Hidden Orderand Antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 Observed by Larmor DiffractionP.G. Niklowitz,1,2 C. Pfleiderer,1 T. Keller,3,4 M. Vojta,5 Y.-K. Huang,6 and J. A. Mydosh71Physik Department E21, Technische Universität München, 85748 Garching, Germany2Department of Physics, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, United Kingdom3ZWE FRM II, Technische Universität München, 85748 Garching, Germany4Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany5Institute for Theoretical Physics Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Strasse 77, 50937 Köln, Germany6Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, 1018XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands7Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden University, 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands(Received 10 September 2009; published 12 March 2010)We report for the first time simultaneous microscopic measurements of the lattice constants, thedistribution of the lattice constants, and the antiferromagnetic moment in high-purity URu2Si2, combiningLarmor and conventional neutron diffraction at low temperatures and pressures up to 18 kbar. Our datademonstrate quantitatively that the small moment in the hidden order (HO) of URu2Si2 is purely parasitic.The excellent experimental conditions we achieve allow us to resolve that the transition line between HOand large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF), which stabilizes under pressure, is intrinsically first orderand ends in a bicritical point. Therefore, the HO and LMAF must have different symmetry, which supportsexotic scenarios of the HO such as orbital currents, helicity order, or multipolar order.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.106406 PACS numbers: 71.27.+a, 61.05.F, 62.50.p, 75.30.KzFor over 20 years one of the most prominent unex-plained properties of f-electron materials has been a phasetransition in URu2Si2 at T0  17:5 K into a state known as‘‘hidden order’’ (HO) [1–3]. The discovery of the HO wassoon followed by the observation of a small antiferromag-netic moment (SMAF),ms  0:01–0:04B per U atom [4]then believed to be an intrinsic property of the HO. Thediscovery of large-moment antiferromagnetism (LMAF) ofms  0:4B per U atom [5] under pressure consequentlyprompted intense theoretical efforts to connect the LMAFwith the SMAF and the HO. In particular, models havebeen proposed that are based on competing order parame-ters of the same symmetry and hence linearly coupled in aLandau theory; such models assume that the SMAF isintrinsic to the HO [6–9]. This is contrasted by proposalsfor the HO parameter such as incommensurate orbitalcurrents [10], multipolar order [11], or helicity order[12], where HO and LMAF break different symmetries.The relationship of the symmetry of HO and LMAF,which clearly yields the key to the HO [8,9], has not beenresolved. While some neutron scattering studies of thetemperature-pressure phase diagram suggest that theHO–LMAF phase boundary ends in a critical end point[13,14], other studies concluded that it meets the bounda-ries of HO and LMAF in a bicritical point [15–18]. Thisdistinction is crucial, as a critical end point (bicriticalpoint) implies that HO and LMAF have the same (differ-ent) symmetries, respectively [9]. Moreover, there is asubstantial disagreement with respect to the location andshape of the HO–LMAF phase boundary (see, e.g.,Refs. [14,19]). This lack of consistency is, finally, accom-panied by considerable variations of the size and pressuredependence of the moment reported for the SMAF [19],where NMR and SR studies suggested the SMAF to beparasitic [20,21]. Accordingly, to identify the HO inURu2Si2 it is essential to resolve the nature of the SMAFand the symmetry relationship of HO and LMAF.It was long suspected that the conflicting results are dueto a distribution of lattice distortions arising from defects.Notably, uniaxial stress studies showed that LMAF isstabilized if the c=a ratio  of the tetragonal crystal isincreased by the small amount c=  5 104 [22].Hence, the SMAF may in principle result from a distribu-tion of  across the sample, with its magnitude dependingon sample quality and experimental conditions. In particu-lar, differences of compressibility of wires, sample sup-ports, or strain gauges that are welded, glued, or soldered tothe samples will forcibly generate uncontrolled localstrains that strongly affect any conclusions about theSMAF signal (see, e.g., Refs. [15–18]).In this Letter we report for the first time simultaneousmicroscopic measurements of the lattice constants, thedistribution of the lattice constants, and the antiferromag-netic moment of URu2Si2 as a function of temperature forpressures up to 18 kbar. To obtain these data we used forthe first time a novel neutron scattering technique calledLarmor diffraction (LD) to establish parasitic phases, addi-tionally combining it with conventional diffraction. Thisallows us to study samples that are completely free to floatin the pressure transmitting medium, thereby experiencingessentially ideal hydrostatic pressure conditions. Our dataof the distribution of lattices constants fð=Þ estab-lishes quantitatively that the SMAF must be purely para-sitic. In addition, we find a rather abrupt transition fromPRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 20100031-9007=10=104(10)=106406(4) 106406-1  2010 The American Physical SocietyHO to LMAF which extends from T ¼ 0 up to a bicriticalpoint (preliminary data of TNðpÞ were reported in [23]).Our study demonstrates that the transition from HO toLMAF is intrinsically first order; i.e., the HO and LMAFmust have different symmetry.Larmor diffraction permits high-intensity measurementsof lattice constants with an unprecedented high resolutionof a=a  106 [24,25]. As shown in Fig. 1(a) in LD thesample is illuminated by a polarized neutron beam (arrowsindicate the polarization). The radio frequency spin flippercoils, denoted as C1 through C4, continuously change thepolarization direction of the beam as a function of time.Coils C1 and C3 are set up such that they generate a timedependence of the polarization as if the polarization wouldprecess in the scattering plane at twice the radio frequency! of the coils. Coils C2 and C4 are then tuned to terminatethis time dependence of the polarization; at any givenlocation in the gray shaded regime the beam polarizationhence appears to precess even though there is no appliedmagnetic field. Coils C1 through C4 are aligned parallel tothe lattice planes, because this way changes of the latticespacing a sensitively affect the total time of travel ttot alongL ¼ L1 þ L2 (ttot is purely determined by the velocitycomponent vp of the neutrons parallel to ~G). The totalphase of precession  along L1 plus L2 depends linearlyon the lattice constant a:  ¼ 2!Lma=ð@Þ (m is themass of the neutron [24–26]). Changes of a affect hencethe angle  and thus the intensity recorded by the polar-ization analyzer and detector AD.Our LD measurements were carried out at the spec-trometer TRISP at FRM II (Munich). The temperatureand pressure dependence of the lattice constants was in-ferred from the (400) Bragg peak for the a axis and the(008) Bragg peak for the c axis, where high resolution dataat (200) and (004) could only be taken at p ¼ 0 due to theabsorption by the pressure cell. The magnetic orderedmoment was monitored with the same setup using conven-tional diffraction. For our studies a Cu:Be clamp cell wasused with a Fluorinert mixture [27]. The pressure wasinferred at low temperatures from the (002) reflection ofgraphite as well as absolute changes of the lattice constantsof URu2Si2 taking into account published values of thecompressibility. The potential of LD in high-pressure stud-ies was first demonstrated in Ref. [26].The single crystal studied was grown by means of anoptical floating-zone technique at the Amsterdam/LeidenCenter. High sample quality was confirmed via x-ray dif-fraction and detailed electron probe microanalysis.Samples cut off from the ingot showed good resistanceratios (20 for the c axis and 10 for the a axis) and a highsuperconducting transition temperature Tc  1:5 K. Themagnetization of the large single crystal agreed very wellwith data shown in Ref. [28] and confirmed the absence offerromagnetic inclusions. Most importantly, in our neutronscattering measurements we found an antiferromagneticmoment ms  0:012B per U atom, which matches thesmallest moment reported so far [19].As the Larmor phase  is proportional to the latticeconstant a, the dependence of the polarization P on reflects the distribution of lattice constants across the entiresample volume [25]. We have therefore measured PðÞover a wide range to establish if the distribution of the c=aratios of the lattice constants may be responsible for AForder in parts of the sample. Note that this aspect of Larmordiffraction has so far only been exploited in proof ofprinciple studies in Al alloys [24].As shown in Fig. 1(b) PðÞ at p ¼ 0 decreases as afunction of , where depolarizing effects by the instru-ment were corrected by means of a calibration with a highquality Ge single crystal. Note that the wavelength depen-dence of the polarizer causes a well-understood overcor-rection by a constant value [P> 1 in Fig. 1(b)], that leavesthe measured decrease of P with  and hence the value of unchanged. Assuming a Gaussian distribution of bothlattice constants, we find a full width at half-maximum offð=ÞFWHM  6:4 104. Recalling that the tail of theGaussian distribution beyond c=  5 104 repre-sents the sample’s volume fraction in which LMAF forms[22], an average magnetic moment of 0:013ð5ÞB is ex-pected in our sample. This is in excellent quantitativeagreement with the experimental value and identifies theSMAF as being purely parasitic.As a function of pressure the distribution of latticeconstants, remains essentially unchanged [Fig. 1(c)].Thus the HO to LMAF transition is not accompanied bychanges of the distribution of lattice constants. In addition00.20.40.60.811.20 2 4 6 8 10Φ (103 rad)(004)(200)(b) (c)(a)02460 5 10 15 20c axisa axisp (kbar)FIG. 1 (color online). (a) Schematic of Larmor diffraction[24,25]; C1 through C4 are radio frequency spin flipper coils,~G is the reciprocal lattice vector; B is the Bragg angle; AD isthe polarization analyzer and detector. See text for details.(b) Typical variation of the polarization P as a function of thetotal Larmor phase . (c) Pressure dependence of the distribu-tion of lattice-constants for the a and c axis. With increasingpressure the width is essentially unchanged.PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-2the size ofms, which remained unchanged tiny after releas-ing the pressure in different sections of the single crystalunderscores excellent pressure conditions.We turn to the temperature dependence of the latticeconstants and its change with pressure. At p ¼ 0 in a widetemperature range below room temperature (not shown)the thermal expansion is positive for both axes [29].However, for the c axis, the lattice constant shows aminimum close to 40 K and turns negative at lower tem-peratures. This general behavior is unchanged under pres-sure. Shown in Fig. 2 are typical low-temperature data forthe a and c axis. At ambient pressure T0 can be barelyresolved. However, when crossing pc  4:5 kbar a pro-nounced additional signature emerges rapidly and mergeswith T0. Measurements of the antiferromagnetic moment(see below), identify this anomaly as the onset of theLMAF order below its TN . At the transition the latticeconstants for the a and c axes show a pronounced contrac-tion and expansion, respectively.The pressure and temperature dependence of ms deter-mined at (100) is shown in Fig. 3(a). Close to pc 4:5 kbar, where TN is near base temperature, we observefirst evidence of the LMAF magnetic signal, which risessteeply and already reaches almost its high-pressure limitat 5 kbar Fig. 3(b). The pressure dependence was deter-mined by assuming the widely reported high-pressurevalue of ms ¼ 0:4B and comparing the magnetic (100)and nuclear (004) peak intensity.The temperature-pressure phase diagram shown inFig. 3(c) displays T0 and TN taken from the magneticBragg peak [Fig. 3(a)] and from the Larmor diffractiondata (Fig. 2), respectively. The different data sets showexcellent agreement. The main results shown in Fig. 3 are(i) the very small value of 0:012B of the average low-temperature ordered moment at zero pressure, (ii) a par-ticularly abrupt increase of the low-temperature moment atpc  4:5 kbar (as compared to previous studies [15–19]),(iii) the steep slope of the HO–LMAF phase boundary, and(iv) the merging of the HO–LMAF phase boundary withthe T0 transition lines at approximately 9 kbar. Figure 2(b)shows that we can follow this phase boundary from low Tup to T0.Most importantly, (iv) implies that HO and LMAF areintrinsically separated by a phase boundary which has to beof first order with a bicritical point at 9 kbar and 18 K, sincethree second-order phase transition lines cannot meet inone point. (The phase boundaries from the HO and LMAFto the disordered high-temperature phase are alreadyknown to be of second order from qualitative heat capacitymeasurements [1,17].) This conclusion is perfectly consis-tent with (ii) and (iii) and excludes a linear couplingbetween the HO and LMAF [9].FIG. 2 (color online). Temperature dependence of the latticeconstants and thermal expansion at various pressures. The HOand LMAF transitions are indicated by empty and filled arrows,respectively. (a) Data for the a axis; (b) thermal expansion of thea axis derived from the data in (a). (c) Data for the c axis;(d) thermal expansion of the c axis derived from the data in (c).FIG. 3 (color online). Key features and pressure versus tem-perature phase diagram of URu2Si2. (a) Temperature depen-dence of the magnetic peak height at various pressures. (b) Pres-sure dependence of the low-temperature magnetic moment ms.(c) Phase diagram based on Larmor diffraction and conventionalmagnetic diffraction data. The onset of LMAF and HO in ourdata is marked by full and empty symbols, respectively (x marksa transition near base temperature). For better comparison dataof TN and T0 from Refs. [15,17–19] are shown, where symbolswith bright contours refer to TN and symbols with dark contoursto T0. (d) Specific-heat jump derived from thermal-expansiondata via the Ehrenfest relation (full circles). Heat capacity data istaken from Refs. [1] (square) and [17] (empty circle).PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-3Although our results show that the HO and LMAF musthave different symmetry, they also suggest that both typesof order may have a common origin. Using the Ehrenfestrelation, we have converted our thermal-expansion datainto a background-free estimate of the specific-heat jump,C, at the PM to LMAF transition. Figure 3(d) shows acontinuous evolution with pressure of the specific-heatjumps at the LMAF to PM and corresponding HO to PMtransitions. The common origin of both phases may in factbe related to results of recent inelastic neutron scatteringstudies as discussed in the context of recent band structurecalculations [30]. Notably, excitations at (1,0,0) appearonly in the HO phase and may be its salient characteristic[31]. However, excitations at (1.4,0,0) in the PM statebecome gapped in both the HO and LMAF state andhave been quantitatively linked to the specific-heat jumpat p ¼ 0 [32].Our study finally allows us to speculate on a new route tothe HO illustrated in Fig. 4, which summarizes the pressuredependence of features in the resistivity and magnetization,usually denoted as Kondo or coherence temperature Tcoh.Remarkably, these features all seem to extrapolate to thesame negative critical pressure, suggesting the possibleexistence of an AF quantum critical point (QCP). Thusthe HO in URu2Si2 may emerge from quantum criticality,possibly even masking an AF QCP (case I in Fig. 4).Alternatively, both HO and LMAF might only exist belowTcoh (case II), with pressure tipping the balance betweenthe two. The latter has been suggested in a recent proposal,where HO and LMAF are believed to be different variantsof the same underlying complex order parameter [33]. Thepressure dependence of C thereby sets constraints on anytheory of the HO involving quantum criticality.In conclusion, we demonstrate quantitatively that theSMAF in URu2Si2 is purely parasitic. The excellent ex-perimental conditions allow us to resolve that the HO andLMAF are intrinsically separated by a line of first-ordertransitions ending in a bicritical point. Hence the HO andLMAF cannot have the same symmetry. This supportsexotic scenarios of the HO such as incommensurate orbitalcurrents, helicity order, or multipolar order.We are grateful to P. Böni, A. Rosch, A. de Visser, K.Buchner, F.M. Grosche, and G.G. Lonzarich for supportand stimulating discussions. We thank FRM II for generalsupport. C. P. and M.V. acknowledge support through DFGFOR 960 (quantum phase transitions) and M.V. also ac-knowledges support through DFG SFB 608.[1] T. T.M. Palstra et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2727 (1985).[2] M. B. Maple et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 185 (1986).[3] W. Schlabitz et al., Z. Phys. B 62, 171 (1986).[4] C. Broholm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1467 (1987).[5] H. Amitsuka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5114 (1999).[6] L. P. Gor’kov and A. Sokol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2586(1992).[7] D. F. Agterberg and M.B. Walker, Phys. Rev. B 50, 563(1994).[8] N. Shah et al., Phys. Rev. B 61, 564 (2000).[9] V. P. Mineev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Phys. Rev. B 72,014432 (2005).[10] P. Chandra et al., Nature (London) 417, 831 (2002).[11] A. Kiss and P. Fazekas, Phys. Rev. B 71, 054415 (2005).[12] C.M. Varma and L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 036405(2006).[13] F. Bourdarot et al., Physica (Amsterdam) 359B–361B, 986(2005).[14] J. R. Jeffries et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 095225(2008).[15] G. Motoyama, T. Nishioka, and N.K. Sato, Phys. Rev.Lett. 90, 166402 (2003).[16] S. Uemura et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 2667 (2005).[17] E. Hassinger et al., Phys. Rev. B 77, 115117 (2008).[18] G. Motoyama et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 123710 (2008).[19] H.Amitsuka et al., J.Magn.Magn.Mater. 310, 214 (2007).[20] K. Matsuda et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, 2363(2003).[21] A.Amato et al., J. Phys.Condens.Matter16, S4403 (2004).[22] M. Yokoyama et al., Phys. Rev. B 72, 214419 (2005).[23] P. G. Niklowitz et al., Physica (Amsterdam) 404B, 2955(2009).[24] M. T. Rekveldt et al., Europhys. Lett. 54, 342 (2001).[25] T. Keller et al., Appl. Phys. A Suppl. 74, s332 (2002).[26] C. Pfleiderer et al., Science 316, 1871 (2007).[27] C. Pfleiderer et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 17, S3111(2005).[28] C. Pfleiderer, J. A. Mydosh, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 74,104412 (2006).[29] A. de Visser et al., Phys. Rev. B 34, 8168 (1986).[30] S. Elgazzar et al., Nature Mater. 8, 337 (2009).[31] A. Villaume et al., Phys. Rev. B 78, 012504 (2008).[32] C. R. Wiebe et al., Nature Phys. 3, 96 (2007).[33] K. Haule and G. Kotliar, arXiv:0907.3889;arXiv:0907.3892.[34] T. Kagayama et al., J. Alloys Compd. 213–214, 387(1994).FIG. 4 (color online). Extended phase diagram of URu2Si2based on the data presented here (diamonds) and signatures inresistivity (bright [34] and dark [17] circles along the PM-LMAFboundary). Tmax; and Tmax;Mc denote coherence maxima in theresistivity [34] and magnetization [28], respectively. The HOmight either mask a QCP (I) or replace LMAF (II) near quantumcriticality.PRL 104, 106406 (2010) P HY S I CA L R EV I EW LE T T E R Sweek ending12 MARCH 2010106406-4

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

P. G. Niklowitz

C. Pfleiderer

T. Keller

M. Vojta

Y.-K. Huang

J. A. Mydosh

Crossref

Parasitic Small-Moment Antiferromagnetism and Nonlinear Coupling of Hidden Order and Antiferromagnetism in
                    
                      
                        URu

https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/files/4738998/PhysRevLett.104.106406.pdf

Parasitic small-moment-antiferromagnetism and non-linear coupling of
  hidden order and antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 observed by Larmor diffraction

Parasitic small-moment-antiferromagnetism and non-linear coupling of hidden order and antiferromagnetism in URu2Si2 observed by Larmor diffraction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Royal Holloway Research Online

Royal Holloway Research Online

Royal Holloway - Pure

NARCIS

Leiden University Scholary Publications

Royal Holloway Research Online

Royal Holloway Research Online

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

Crossref