journal article·2006-10-18

Simulation of spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy images of nanoscale non-collinear magnetic structures

S. Heinze

Applied Physics A· Volume 85· Issue 4
Publisher page

Abstract

We apply an efficient method to calculate spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy (SP-STM) images of nanostructures with complex non-collinear magnetic order. The model is based on the spin-polarized version of the Tersoff–Hamann model of STM and the independent orbital approximation for the surface electronic structure. For its application, only the knowledge of the arrangement of the magnetic moments of the surface atoms is required. In spite of its simplifications, calculated SP-STM images of periodic collinear and non-collinear magnetic spin structures are in many cases in excellent agreement with those obtained from computationally much more demanding ab initio calculations. Especially for surfaces of chemically equivalent atoms, the atomic scale SP-STM images are dominated by the magnetic structure and depend much less on the accurate electronic structure. This suggests the application of the method to more complex non-collinear magnetic structures such as domain walls in antiferromagnets, spin-spiral states, spin glasses, or disordered states. Based on the model, we predict SP-STM images of helical spin-spiral states in ultra-thin films.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Magnetic properties of thin films · Quantum and electron transport phenomena · Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. A. Kubetzka, P. Ferriani, M. Bode, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, K. von Bergmann, O. Pietzsch, S. Blügel, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 087204 (2005)10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.087204 ↗
2. J. Hunter Dunn, O. Karis, C. Andersson, D. Arvanitis, R. Carr, I.A. Abrikosov, B. Sanyal, L. Bergqvist, O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 217202 (2005)10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.217202 ↗
3. K. von Bergmann, S. Heinze, M. Bode, E.Y. Vedmedenko, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 167203 (2006)10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.167203 ↗
4. L. Diekhöner, M.A. Schneider, A.N. Baranov, V.S. Stepanyuk, P. Bruno, K. Kern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 236801 (2003)10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.236801 ↗
5. O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, M. Bode, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 057202 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.057202 ↗
6. O. Pietzsch, S. Okatov, A. Kubetzka, M. Bode, S. Heinze, A. Lichtenstein, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 237203 (2006)10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.237203 ↗
7. P. Gambardella, A. Dallmeyer, K. Maiti, M.C. Malagoli, W. Eberhardt, K. Kern, C. Carbone, Nature 416, 301 (2002)10.1038/416301a ↗
8. R. Lizárraga, L. Nordström, L. Bergqvist, A. Bergman, E. Sjöstedt, P. Mohn, O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 107205 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.107205 ↗
9. F. Nolting, A. Scholl, J. Stöhr, J.W. Seo, J. Fompeyrine, H. Siegwart, J.-P. Locquet, S. Anders, J. Lüning, E.E. Fullerton, M.F. Toney, M.R. Scheinfein, H.A. Padmore, Nature 405, 767 (2000)10.1038/35015515 ↗
10. W. Kuch, L.I. Chelaru, F. Offi, J. Wang, M. Kotsugi, J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 017201 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.017201 ↗
11. M. Bode, M. Getzlaff, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4256 (1998)10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4256 ↗
12. W. Wulfhekel, J. Kirschner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 1944 (1999)10.1063/1.124879 ↗
13. M. Bode, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 523 (2003)10.1088/0034-4885/66/4/203 ↗
14. T.K. Yamada, M.M.J. Bischoff, G.M.M. Heijnen, T. Mizoguchi, H. van Kempen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 056803 (2003)10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.056803 ↗
15. N. Berdunov, S. Murphy, G. Mariotto, I.V. Shvets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 057201 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.057201 ↗
16. O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, M. Bode, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5212 (2000)10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5212 ↗
17. O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, M. Bode, R. Wiesendanger, Science 292, 5524 (2001)10.1126/science.1060513 ↗
18. J. Prokop, A. Kukunin, H.J. Elmers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 187202 (2005)10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.187202 ↗
19. S. Heinze, M. Bode, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, X. Nie, S. Blügel, R. Wiesendanger, Science 288, 1805 (2000)10.1126/science.288.5472.1805 ↗
20. H. Yang, A.R. Smith, M. Prikhodko, W.R.L. Lambrecht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 226101 (2002)10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.226101 ↗
21. D. Wortmann, S. Heinze, P. Kurz, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4132 (2001)10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4132 ↗
22. S. Heinze, P. Kurz, D. Wortmann, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, Appl. Phys. A 75, 25 (2002)10.1007/s003390101052 ↗
23. J. Tersoff, D. Hamann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1998 (1983)10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1998 ↗
24. J. Tersoff, D. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B 31, 805 (1985)10.1103/PhysRevB.31.805 ↗
25. D. Wortmann, P. Kurz, S. Heinze, K. Hirai, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 240, 57 (2002)10.1016/S0304-8853(01)00738-7 ↗
26. P. Kurz, G. Bihlmayer, K. Hirai, S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1106 (2001)10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1106 ↗
27. P. Kurz, F. Förster, L. Nordström, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. B 69, 024415 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevB.69.024415 ↗
28. D. Hobbs, G. Kresse, J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 62, 11556 (2000)10.1103/PhysRevB.62.11556 ↗
29. R. Robles, E. Martínez, D. Stoeffler, A. Vega, Phys. Rev. B 68, 094413 (2003)10.1103/PhysRevB.68.094413 ↗
30. M. Bode, E.Y. Vedmedenko, K. von Bergmann, A. Kubetzka, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, R. Wiesendanger, Nat. Mater. 5, 477 (2006)10.1038/nmat1646 ↗
31. E.Y. Vedmedenko, U. Grimm, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 076407 (2004)10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.076407 ↗
32. C.J. Chen, Introduction to Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (Oxford University Press, 1993)10.1093/oso/9780195071504.001.0001 ↗
33. A.R. Smith, R. Yang, H. Yang, W.R.L. Lambrecht, A. Dick, J. Neugebauer, Surf. Sci. 561, 154 (2004)10.1016/j.susc.2004.05.011 ↗
34. Note that surface atoms which differ due to their magnetic moment or chemical species can be described by choosing different values of nα ↑,↓ for them. In [20] this has been done to simulate line scans for a collinear magnetic structure
35. It is well known that the calculated corrugation amplitudes for close-packed metal surfaces are by an order of magnitude too small within the Tersoff–Hamann model (see e.g. [32]). The enhanced corrugation amplitudes obtained experimentally are commonly explained based on special tip states. However, for superstructures, e.g. due to chemical or magnetic order, quantitative results of the Tersoff–Hamann model are often in good agreement with experiment, as is also observed here