| Literature DB >> 28327622 |
N Khan1, P Sarkar2, A Midya1, P Mandal1, P K Mohanty1.
Abstract
Renormalization group theory does not restrict the form of continuous variation of critical exponents which occurs in presence of a marginal operator. However, the continuous variation of critical exponents, observed in different contexts, usually follows a weak universality scenario where some of the exponents (e.g., β, γ, ν) vary keeping others (e.g., δ, η) fixed. Here we report ferromagnetic phase transition in (Sm1-yNdy)0.52Sr0.48MnO3 (0.5 ≤ y ≤ 1) single crystals where all three exponents β, γ, δ vary with Nd concentration y. Such a variation clearly violates both universality and weak universality hypothesis. We propose a new scaling theory that explains the present experimental results, reduces to the weak universality as a special case, and provides a generic route leading to continuous variation of critical exponents and multi-criticality.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28327622 PMCID: PMC5361157 DOI: 10.1038/srep45004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Modified Arrott plot [M1/ vs ] isotherms (185 K ≤ T ≤ 199 K in 1 K interval) of (Sm1−Ndy)0.52Sr0.48MnO3 (y = 0.5) single crystal. Solid lines are the high-field linear fit to the isotherms. The isotherm (at T = 192 K) closest to the Curie temperature (T = 192.3 K) almost passes through the origin in this plot. (b) Temperature dependence of spontaneous magnetization, M (square) and inverse initial susceptibility, (circle). Solid lines are the best-fit curves. (c) Kouvel-Fisher plots of M and . Inset shows log scale plot of M(H) isotherm at T = T (d) Scaling collapse of M − H curves following Eq. (2), indicating two universal curves below and above T.
Critical exponents of (Sm1−Nd )0.52Sr0.48MnO3.
| 0.5 | 192.3 ± 0.3 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 1.27 ± 0.03 | 9.30 ± 0.2 |
| 0.6 | 222.5 ± 0.3 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 1.30 ± 0.02 | 6.31 ± 0.1 |
| 0.8 | 241.3 ± 0.2 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 1.32 ± 0.01 | 5.14 ± 0.03 |
| 1.0 | 265.3 ± 0.2 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 1.38 ± 0.01 | 4.72 ± 0.01 |
| HM3d | − | 0.365 | 1.386 | 4.82 |
Error bars are derived from the least squares fitting analysis.
Figure 2(a) Scaling collapse of M − H curves for y = 0.6, 0.8 and 1 following Eq. (3). Although they appear different, the scaling functions for y = 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1 can be collapsed onto each other (shown in (b)) by rescaling of axis. The values of (A, B) are (1080, 2.8), (7.2, 1.6) and (1, 1) for y = 0.6, 0.8 and 1, respectively.
Figure 3(a) Critical temperature T for heating cycle (red circle) and the thermal hysteresis width ΔT (blue triangle) for different Nd concentration y. The values for y < 0.5 are taken from ref. 44. (b) The proposed scaling hypothesis has one free parameter λ that maps to y -the best choice gives (solid line). (c) Critical exponents for different y from experiments (symbol) are compared with Eq. (8) (solid lines). Since at , one expects a discontinuous transition for y ≲ 0.37 (also observed in (a)).