Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to the Comment by S. Wirth et al. on Tuning low-energy scales in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ by non-isoelectronic substitution and pressure
116
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Previously, we reported that the doping and pressure dependence of the $T^ast(B)$ crossover in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ is incompatible with its interpretation as signature of a Kondo breakdown [M.-H. Schubert et al., Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032004(R) (2019)]. The comment by S. Wirth et al. [arXiv:1910.04108] refers to Hall measurements on undoped YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ and criticizes our study as incomplete and inconclusive. We thoroughly inspect these data and rebut the arguments of the comment.
rate research
Read More
In Ref. 1, Schubert et al. [Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032004 (2019)] reported measurements of the isothermal magnetoresistance of Fe- and Ni-substituted YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, based on which they raised questions about the Kondo destruction description for the magnetic field-induced quantum critical point (QCP) of pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. Here we make three points. Firstly, as shown by studies on pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ in Paschen et al. and Friedemann et al., isothermal crossed-field and single-field Hall effect measurements are necessary to ascertain the evolution of the Fermi surface across this QCP. Because Schubert et al. did not carry out such measurements, their results on Fe- and Ni-substituted YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ cannot be used to assess the validity of the Kondo destruction picture neither for substituted nor for pristine YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. Secondly, when referring to the data of Friedemann et al. on the isothermal crossover of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, they did not recognize the implications of the crossover width, quantified by the full width at half maximum (FWHM), being linear in temperature, with zero offset, over about $1.5$ decades in temperature, from 30 mK to 1 K. Finally, in claiming deviations of Hall crossover FWHM data of Friedemann et al. from the above linear-in-$T$ dependence they neglected the error bars of these measurements and discarded some of the data points. The claims of Schubert et al. are thus not supported by data, neither previously published nor new (Ref. 1). As such they cannot invalidate the evidence that has been reported for Kondo destruction quantum criticality in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$.
The heavy-fermion metal YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ realizes a field-induced quantum critical point with multiple vanishing energy scales $T_{rm N}(B)$ and $T^ast(B)$. We investigate their change with partial non-isoelectronic substitutions, chemical and hydrostatic pressure. Low-temperature electrical resistivity, specific heat and magnetic susceptibility of Yb(Rh$_{1-x}$T$_x$)$_2$Si$_2$ with T=Fe or Ni for $xleq 0.1$, magnetic fields $Bleq 0.3$~T (applied perpendicular to the c-axis) and hydrostatic pressure $pleq 1.5$~GPa are reported. The data allow to disentangle the combined influences of hydrostatic and chemical pressure, as well as non-isoelectronic substitution. In contrast to Ni- and Co-substitution, which enhance magnetic order, Fe-substitution acts oppositely. For $x=0.1$ it also completely suppresses the $T^ast$ crossover and eliminates ferromagnetic fluctuations. The pressure, magnetic field and temperature dependences of $T^ast$ are incompatible with its interpretation as Kondo breakdown signature.
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v1, Drechsler et al. present new band-structure calculations suggesting that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous calculations. In our reply, we show that their new results are at odds with the observed magnetic structure, that their analysis of the static susceptibility neglects important contributions, and that their criticism of the spin-wave analysis of the bound-state dispersion is unfounded. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
In a comment on arXiv:1006.5070v2, Drechsler et al. claim that the frustrated ferromagnetic spin-1/2 chain LiCuVO4 should be described by a strong rather than weak ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interaction, in contradiction with their previous work. Their comment is based on DMRG and ED calculations of the magnetization curve and the magnetic excitations. We show that their parameters are at odds with the magnetic susceptibility and the magnetic excitation spectrum, once intensities are taken into account, and that the magnetization curve cannot discriminate between largely different parameter sets within experimental uncertainties. We further show that their new exact diagonalization results support the validity of the RPA-approach, and strongly reinforce our conclusion on the existence of a four-spinon continuum in LiCuVO4, see Enderle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 237207.
We have used specific heat and neutron diffraction measurements on single crystals of URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ for Fe concentrations $x$ $leq$ 0.7 to establish that chemical substitution of Ru with Fe acts as chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ as previously proposed by Kanchanavatee et al. [Phys. Rev. B {bf 84}, 245122 (2011)] based on bulk measurements on polycrystalline samples. Notably, neutron diffraction reveals a sharp increase of the uranium magnetic moment at $x=0.1$, reminiscent of the behavior at the hidden order (HO) to large moment antiferromagnetic (LMAFM) phase transition observed at a pressure $P_xapprox$ 0.5-0.7~GPa in URu$_2$Si$_2$. Using the unit cell volume determined from our measurements and an isothermal compressibility $kappa_{T} = 5.2 times 10^{-3}$ GPa$^{-1}$ for URu$_2$Si$_2$, we determine the chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ in URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ as a function of $x$. The resulting temperature $T$-chemical pressure $P_{ch}$ phase diagram for URu$_{2-x}$Fe$_x$Si$_2$ is in agreement with the established temperature $T$-external pressure $P$ phase diagram of URu$_2$Si$_2$.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
