Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
REVIEW
B
VOLUME
44, NUMBER
18
1 NOVEMRE.R 1991.Q
Nonlinear magnetization processes in the LandauGinzburg model of magnetic inhomogeneities for uniaxial ferromagnets
P. Winternitz
Centre de Recherches Mathematiques, Uniuersite de Montreal, Case Postale 6]28, Succursale A, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3/7
A.
Departement
M. Grundland
de Mathematiques et d'Informatique, Unioersite du Quebec Trois Riuieres, Quebec, Canada G9A 587
a Trois Rivieres,
J. A. Tuszyriski
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2J1 (Received 14 February 1991; revised manuscript received 27 June 1991) In this paper we apply the LandauGinzburg model to a uniaxial ferromagnet inc1uding the possibility of magnetic inhomogeneities in the sample. The effects of external magnetic fields on the various homogeneous and inhomogeneous magnetic structures that minimize the free energy are studied. Using exact methods of nonlinear analysis, spacedependent solutions of the equation of state are found, and their mean magnetizations are calculated. A combination of analytical and numerical methods is then employed in the study of their energies. Finally, the role of various magnetization patterns is investigated in the Arrott plots for magnetization processes.
I. INTRODUcnON The freeenergy density f for uniaxial ferromagnets close to their critical temperature T; can be usually written in the LandauGinzburg form Using the method of symmetry reductions partial differential equation (PDE)
(1.2)
this nonlinear
OJ)
where M is the relative magnetization with respect to the saturation magnetization, measured along the easy magnetization axis. The coefficient A is typically assumed to vary linearly with reduced temperature as A =a (T  T~) while Band D are virtually constant in the neighborhood of Te' It is also expected here that the anisotropy of the magnet in this regime is so strong that reorientation processes of the easy magnetization axis are excluded and consequently the remaining components of the magnetization vector need not be explicitly included in the model. Equation (1.1) is either postulated in a phenomenological LandauGinzburg model'v' or derived from microscopic considerations':" for spinlattice models which cover both short and longrange interactions, and where transition to continuum limit is warranted. The addition of the Ginzburg term DI V MI2 reflects the presence of inhomogeneities in the system which may be of special importance in ferromagnetic materials, and in particular in dilute and amorphous alloys.5,6 The physical origin of this term may also be found in the nearestneighbor interactions 7 so that D > 0 corresponds to ferromagnetic while D < 0 to antiferromagnetic interactions. In a recent paper" the inhomogeneous equation of state for the order parameter M(x) was derived minimizing the freeenergy functional
44
V2M=~M+_!}__M3
2D
2D
0.3)
was reduced to a number of ordinary differential equations (ODE's) corresponding to different boundary and initial conditions. In Eq. (t.3) V2 denotes the threedimensional Laplacian operator. Subsequently, numerous exact solutions to Eq, (1.3) were found together with the energies required for their formation. In the present paper we extend the results of the previous study" to a different physical situation, namely one in which an external magnetic field H applied along the easy magnetization axis interacts with the magnetization order parameter M via the Zeeman termMHo Thus, the freeenergy density is now given by
(1.4)
with f as in (1.1). The steadystate found by minimizing the functional (1.4) and is V2M=2D
equation of state is F corresponding to
H +__i_M+~M3
2D
2D
'
(1.5)
where D=I=O and B=I=O. The field H may take both positive and negative values depending on whether it is parallel or antiparallel to M, respectively. Equation (1.5) for H=I=O and B=I=O is invariant only under the Euclidean group E (3) of threedimensional real 10040
© 1991
The American
Physical Society
NONLINEAR MAGNETIZA nON PROCESSES IN THE LANDAU ... £,uclidean and three space
10041
(x 1 ,x 2 ,x
3)'
grOUP has a basis consisting
The Lie algebra of three translations
Eijkx
of this
P,
:0:::
ax;
rotations
L; ~ 
jClxk,
where
EiJk
is the
LeviCivita symbol. There are precisely three subgroups, providing reductions to ODE's. They are generated by I L 3' P 1' P 2 [. (L 3 ,P 3 J, and !L to L 2 ,L 31 and lead to the equation
dM
2
dS2
+l:. S
dM =_!!_ IM3+~Md 2D B
s
HI B
(1.6)
with k =0,1,2, respectively. Here, M =M(S) and 5 is a socalled symmetry variable which may take one of the following three forms:
SO=x3' sl=(xi+xi)I12,
or 52=(xi+x3+x~)1/2,
(1.7)
corresponding to k =0, 1, and 2, respectively. Our intention in this paper is to analyze as completely as possible the case of translationally invariant solutions, i.e., k = 0 corresponding to the case of a long sample, for which the magnetization varies negligibly. The two remaining symmetry choices, cylindrical and spherical, are much more complicated and will be investigated separately in the future. In Sec. II we obtain the general solutions of Eq. (1.6) for k =0 for all possible types of initial conditions that can be imposed on a (boundary) plane. Particular attention is paid to the dependence of these solutions on the field H. Then, in Sec. III we calculate the mean magnetizations of these solutions. Sec. IV is concerned with the energies of solutions and here we employ a combination of analytical and numerical methods of calculation. Finally, in Sec. V we focus on the form of Arrott plots produced by each of the solutions in order to elucidate the question of the experimentally observed" curvature. II. TRANSLATIONALLY INVARIANT SOLUTIONS Imposing boundary conditions for Eq. (1.5) on a plane leads to solutions given by M(sl where g=dxXQ); lei2= I so that e is a unit vector normal to the boundary plane. The ODE satisfied by M is Eq. (1.6) with k =0. This equation, for (dM Id5l*O, can be integrated once to the form
the equation of state obtained in our earlier publication' when H =0. The assumption inherent in Eq, (1.4) is that the magnetic field is relatively weak. We can thus assume that when the magnetic field is switched off (H 0), the coefficients A, B, C, and D in Eq.·(2.l) are not drastically affected, in particular, that !l== B 14D does not change its sign. The procedure adopted here will be to integrate Eq. (2.1) explicitly and exactly for H *0 in a manner compatible with the H 0 limit. We subsequently take this limit and then compare with the results found earlier" for H = O. In the following we shall restrict ourselves to a study of real nonsingular solutions. To illustrate the origin of the various. of solutions, in Fig. 1 we present the diagrams of M as a function of M. corresponding to Eq. (2.1) for H *0 which cover all possible relations between the roots of the polynomial R (M). Multiple roots are marked by open circles on the M axis. Real nonsingular solutions correspond to the solid curve sections, complex solutions to dotted sections. and singular solutions to dashed sections. Isolated circles (not connected by solid lines) correspond to constant solutions [see Figs. Hc) arid Ilhl], Circles connected to solid lines are asymp
tlres
l
c,
,
(a)
';'2
(b)
I
,
\
\
':'2
M4=M3=M2
,,
:,0.
.~~ .
, ,
M.=~
M
"'2 "',' ~.......
,
I
I
,
I
.' c.
M
(c)
':'2
(d)
M2
"'4=M3 "'2 '"
"'1
M
"'4
M3=M2
"',
M
(e)
,
I I I I
+M2
(f)
I
I
I
t
I
M.
M2
I I
I
dM
dg
12 = ». IM4+2~.M24D B =1l(M M1 =R(M) ,
4H M +C
B M))(M
I
'M4 M3 ,
:
I
M2
....... "',
,
I
I I
M,
M
M
HM M2)(M
M4) (2.1)
(g)
':'2
(h)
\ I \ \
':'2 ,
\
"'2'M,
"
where C is an integration constant, !l==B/4D, and MI, M 2' M J' and M 4 are the four roots of the quartic polynomial on the righthand side of the equation above. They depend on A, B, C, and H in an obvious way. Depending on the values of the four roots MI, M2, Ml, and M4 and the sign of 11 we find different functional forms of the solutions M(s). Our main aim in this section is to establish how the magnetic field H influences the solutions of
.'
·po·..
r
, , ,
I I
M
FIG. 1. The diagrams of ill as a function of M, corresponding to real finite solutions in the presence of a magnetic field H. The dashed parts of the curves correspond to singular solutions, the dotted ones to complex ones. Each diagram has its complement in the form of the mirror image in the M = 0 axis.
10 042
P. WINTERNITZ, A. M. GRUNDLAND,
(ii)
AND J. A. TUSZYNSKI
totic values of nonconstant solutions (for S_ ± co ). Thus, solid line sections connecting two circles are kinks (which occur for H 0), those connecting a circle and a simple root are solitary waves (bumps or wells). Solid lines connecting two simple roots correspond to periodic solutions. If the diagram has no circles (no multiple roots) solutions are obtained in terms of Jacobi elliptic functions, otherwise in terms of elementary functions. To save space we drop the diagrams that are mirror images in the M2 axis of curves that are presented. Below, each situation described by a diagram in Fig. I is discussed and exact formulas for M(S) are provided. (i) One triple root. ~ < 0, M 2 = M 3 = M 4 < M < M l' and M.=3M2; M, (1:Si:S4) are real [see Fig. Hal], or M. <M <M2 =M3 =M4• The solution here is M~M,
(a) M 4 = M} ::. ::. 2 ::. M l' s > [Fig. MM real finite solution in this case has the form M=M
One double root, two single ones.
°
l(b)].
The
+ [E 2 + (m + 1 )2][ 3
4(M~M3)E2
E
2
+ (m

I )1]
(23)
.
where we have denoted m2=(M2M3)/(M\M3) E=2exp
;
[f[~(M\M3)(M2M3)]]/2t
1
[1 14~l{;' 1 '
12.21
and it has the form of an algebraic solitary wave satisfying M __., 2 as 5 ± co and M = M I for S= O. This is a M bump for M I > and a well for M 1 < 0. In the limit H 0, we have M2O and MlO, hence also CO and A 0, Thus, M 0 as H 0 is the only possible limit and this solution approaches the disordered phase. For H=I=O,Eq. (2.2) describes a nucleation center of magnetic order.
°
with €= ± 1. This describes a "bump" for Fig. l(b) while for its mirror image in the il2 axis, the formula is the same but M represents a "well." As 5 ± =. M _ M) while for s=O, M =M2• Interestingly enough, in the limit H_O, M2M\ and M3M1, so that the solitary wave of Eq. (2.3) becomes the kink found in the previous paper," i.e., €M1 tanh(V6.M1 If, on the other hand, in the limiting procedure we also have A 0 and C ""40. then M \ 0 and the disordered phase solution M=O is approached. We conclude that Eq. (2.3) again represents a nucleation center of magnetic order. (b) M4 =M3 <M2:SM ~MI and ~<O [Fig. Hc)]. The real finite solution in this case can be written as
s).
M =M)
2 3 + :c:=
2(M.M))(M M )
M] +M22M3+(M1M2)cos[
~(MlM3)(M2M3)]1/25
(2.4)
Thus, for H=I=OM oscillates between M2 and M3• In the limit H 0. M2Ml and the magnetization profile approaches zero, i.e., M +0 as H 0, where in general we have M\*O. In conclusion, Eq. (2.4) represents either ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic spin waves depending on whether the signs of M I and M 2 are the same or different. (c) M. <M3 =M2 ::'M SM1 and ~ <0 or M4 ~M <M)=M2 <M] [Fig. ltdl]. The solution here is a solitary wave that can be written as (2.5)
where €= ± 1. For €= + I Eq. (2.5) describes a bump such that MM2 as and M=M1 >M2 for ;=0. For e= 1, on the other hand, Eq. (2.5) describes a well with M M2 as co and M =M. <M2 for 5=0. For H loO we have M 2 ~O, and M 4 ~  M I resulting in a pair of symmetric solitary waves: M €M. secht v' ~M]5), exactly in the form found earlier.' Thus, it is concluded that Eq. (2.5) again represents a nucleation center. (iii) Four distinct real roots. In this case solutions will always be periodic and may be physically interpreted as onedimensional classical analogs of ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic spin waves. There are several distinct possibilities within this category which are discussed below. (a) M.<M3::'M:SM2<M .. ~>O, Mj n:Si::'4) are real [Fig. 1(e)]. In order to be able to take the limit of H _0 in an appropriate manner, we integrate Eq. (2.1)
s±(Xl
directly applying a fractional linear transformation W= aM+fJ yM+b
s±
(2.6)
and choose the constant coefficients a, {3, r, & conveniently, so that M =(M.,M3,M2,M\) goes into W=(  R, I, I,R), respectively, with R > 1. This yields a=(2M\M2M3)R (M2M31, M1(M2 , +MJ)]R ,
I3=M1(M2
y=2M\M2
M3l+[2M2M)
M3 (M2M3)R
(2.7)
b=M\(M2M3)R
+2M2M)MI(M2+M}),
while the parameter R is found to be
NONLINEAR MAGNETIZATION
PROCESSES IN THE LANDAU ...
10043
II "",[(Ml

M4 )(M2 M3 )]1
2M2M)+(M1 +M4){M2+M3)
X 12M1M4
As a result, Eq. (2.1) reduces to a standard equation for a Jacobi elliptic function 10 and we obtain two different types of solutions. First, osn(y ~KoR5,k ){3 M (P= ===~ay sn(~R5,k)
(2.8)
(2.9)
where k = R  1 is the Jacobi modulus and
(2.10)
In the limit H +0, (2.9) becomes one of the solutions found previously in the absence of extema 1 fields," namely M2 sn(v'XM1s,M2IM.). However, if in the limit we also have M 2 +0, then M +O. If, on the other hand, we have M 2 +M I for H +0, then a tanh kink is found. (h) M4~M~M3 <M2 <M. and ~<O, or M4<M3<M2~M~Ml and ~<O [Fig.l(01. Thissolution is given by
(2.11)
where k =YIR 2, E=±l, and a, p, r, S, are those of Eq. (2.7), R is in Eq. (2.8), and K 0 in Eq. (2.10). As H +0, M EM. dn(M] v=;is,k) with k=( IMil Mi )112, in perfect agreement with one of the solutions found earlier." If M 2 +0 in addition to H +0, we obtain the sechsolitary waves. If M2 +M I we obtain the constant solutions M +EM., and for Mr+O and M1+O the disordered phase results since M +0.
(iv) Two distinct real roots and two complex conjugate ones. We put M2 <M],M3 ... =p±iq where q >0, ~<O
[Fig. 1(g)]. In this case the solution can be found directlylO as
M
=
(M2A M.B)cn(VAAB s,kHM2A +M1B I AB::::)cn(~v;==tJ.=A;;;;:B=s~, k::)+A~+:B
, (2.12)
_p)2+q2, and When HO, then and p +0 which yields M+Mlcn([~(Mi+q2J]]I2S,k), where k=M]1 (Mi +q2)1/2, in agreement with our earlier calculations." We may also have q+O as HO, whereupon M(s) tends to the sechsolitary wave solution. Alternatively, if M] +0 as H 0, then M becomes the disordered phase solution, M +0. (v) Constant solutions. In addition to the inhomogeneous solutions of (i)(iv), constant (mean field) solutions of the equation of motion are directly found which satisfy the homogeneous equation of state! I
k2=[(M1M2)2_(A M 2 ..  M] _B)2]/4AB.
where
A2=(M1
_p)2+q2;
Bl=(M2
lth) using the isolated circles. For H +0 we obviously have M+O or M+±v'AIB. With A =a(TTc) the magnetization M is a singlevalued function of H for T>Tc' For T<Tc and (A/B)]I2<M«AI B )112, M as a function of the field H exhibits a typically hysteretic behavior. The constant values of M correspond to multiple roots on the plot of M2 versus M. In particular M = 0 is a quadruple root; M = ±(  AlB) ll2 for ( AlB) > 0 are two double roots. We close this section by providing a physical interpretation of the obtained solutions. First, the constant solutions correspond to equilibrium (when A + 3BM2 ~ 0) or unstable (otherwise) mean field or homogeneous phases in the system. The nonsingular elementary solutions (algebraic or hyperbolic) represent two classes of localized order parameter structures. They describe either nucleation centers of magnetic order (algebraic or sech type) or domain walls separating energetically equivalent phases (kinks). Nonsingular periodic solutions are expressed either through trigonometric or elliptic functions. Depending on their type and specifically whether or not they oscillate crossing the M =0 point, they can be interpreted as classical analogs of either ferromagnetic (if they do not) or antiferromagnetic (if they do) spin waves. The analogy here is, of course, not complete since ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic spin waves are usually transverse, dynamical oscillations. The model presented here is static (no time dependence) and the solutions are necessarily longitudinal since the order parameter is one component. We have reason to believe, however, that similar patterns also exist in timedependent extensions of the presented model as well as in twocomponent ones where the magnetization represents a rotating vector. III. MEAN MAGNETIZATION
H=AM+BM3•
(2.13)
Note that they have been represented in Figs. ltc) and
In Sec. II we have obtained a complete list of all nonsingular rea1 translationally invariant solutions of the static LandauGinzburg equation (l.5} for arbitrary external magnetic fields H. We thus have explicit expressions of the magnetization profiles M(S,H) as a function of the spatial coordinate 5 =(e, x  llo) and parametrized by the magnetic field H. The obtained solutions were found to be constant, localized, or periodic in space. For H#=O the localized ones are always in the form of solitary waves (bumps or wells). When the field is switched off (H +0) the solitary waves either vanish. go over into
10044
P. WINTERNITZ, A. M. GRUNDLAND, AND J. A. TUSZYNSKI
kinks, or remain as solitary waves. Periodic waves may either vanish when H 0 or remain periodic and degenerate special cases may also occur. In experimental studies, the measured quantity is a mean magnetization M(H) averaged over the length of the sample. To establish a direct connection with experiment, in this section we shall calculate exactly mean magnetizations corresponding to each of the exact solutions found in Sec. II. For a solution M(5) its mean magnetization is defined through M(H)= ~ f:2M(S)ds ,
(3.1)
MoiHl=M}
[(MI M}
X
)(M2 MJ
)]1.2
In[( ImV~)( lmelIl2 ~ In[(3 m 2 + 2V2 m 2)( 1 m _)1]2
,
(3.6)
where L =S2S1 is the characteristic length. For periodic solutions we identify L with the wavelength. For localized solutions two different types of averages will be defined, namely M eo (H) corresponding to the average over the entire macroscopic sample (L _ 00) and Mo(H) calculated for L taken to be the "halfwidth" of the solitary wave. In this latter case the limits of integration SI and 52 are determined from the condition
(3.2)
where m2=(M2M)/(Ml M})< 1. The limit HO yie1dslim H _Qi\{ 0 ( H) = M I > O. Note that in this lim!t the bump corresponding to Fig. ltb) is going over into an antikink (for E= + 1) and we have 5r ......50  00 , SI_  00. We are thus averaging over O' a nonsymmetric region (half an antikink). For €= 1 We would have obtained a kink and the limit  M1 for
HO. 3. Solution (2.5)
(E= I).
0/ Fig. I(d)
In this case we have either a bump (s = + 1), or a well The two possibilities are considered separately. Calculations of the mean magnetization for the bump produce (3.7)
and
where ME =M(so) is the maximum value of M(s) for a bump and the minimum value for a_well and M", =0 1im~_±",M( In principle, both M eo (H) and Mo(H) should be observable through a measurement of scattering intensity (using, for example. neutrons) and would have to involve a very detailed scanning of the sample. Throughout this section we shall assume that D > 0 in Eqs (1.5) and (2.1). In each case considered the limit H 0 will be taken.
s).
Mo(H)=M2
+[(M1

M2)(Mz
M~)jl!2
X [ arccosh [
2( M I + 2M MI +M
2
2)
11
I
Xarccos [ 2(::1~~2)
I·
(3.8)
A. Localized solutions
For H 0 these results reduce to M", (0)=0 and Mo(O)=(M1/3)(rr/larccosh21). Second, for the well the mean magnetization is found as as
00'
solutions can all be written and we always have M ,.,(H)=M since the integral over S (S) con verges.
M(s)=M
00
The
localized
+S(5),
M",(H)=M2•
Mo(H)M2[(M1M2)(MzM4)
(3.9a)
1. Solution (2.2)
0/ Fig. l(a)
X
['«OOSh
For an arbitrary choice of S2 we find
M
=M 2
+ 2 arctan[
=( 
(  2 )iI  aM 2S2]/52 iI  6. ,
(3.3)
MIM2 X arccos [ 2(M +M )' 1 2 As H +0 this reduces to Mo(O)= (MI/3)(rr Ilarccosh21).
[M~:~'II~' I
Moo (0)=0
]112
(3.9b) and
where M2
H 12B)!/3 and hence
Mo(H)=(M2)(rrI»0.
Moo(H)=M2<0,
(3.4)
B. Periodic solutions
When H ..0, M2 0 and M (S) =0, i.e., the solution (2.2) approaches the disordered phase: Moo (0) = M 0 (0) = O.
Periodic solutions found in Sec. II include elementary ones (trigonometric) and three different types of Jacobi elliptic functions.
I. Trigonometric solution (2.4) a/Fig. J(c)
2. Solution (2.3)
0/ Fig. J(b)
The
(3.5)
Performing the required integration we obtain
period
of
this
M)l]1/2,
magnetization is
T=21l'[A(MI
M3 )(M2
solution is and its mean
(3.10)
and
NONLINEAR MAGNETIZA nON Thus, this solution oscillates between M I and M 2 satisfying 0 < AI 2 ~ AI ~ MI' For a vanishing magnetic field 80 we have Mr~MI,M3+MI and the solution tends to a constant M(~)=MI so that M(O)=MI. 2. The "snoidal" solution (2.9) o/Fig. lte) The real period of this solution is T =4K (kl/V K oaR where K (k) == ;/2( 1 k 2 sin28) 112d is the complete
PROCESSES IN THE LANDAU ...
10 045
M(H)=.§..+
Y
ayK(k)
aofJy II 4,k a
,
(3.11)
where II is the complete elliptic integral'? of the third kind. For H 400 we obtain M(H).:.....O as H ~O. 3. The "cnoidal" solution (2.12) of Fig. I (g) The real period of this solution is T = 4K (k) /1,1  A AB . After lengthy calculations the final result for its mean magnetization is expressed in terms of complete elliptic integrals as
J
e
elliptic integral of the first kind. to The average magnetization over its period is
I
I
i
(3.12)
In the limit H 0 we have 1imH+oM(H) =0. 4. The "dnoidal" Sl)lution (2.11) of Fig_ J(j} Its period is T =2K (k)/V the third type to as M(H)=
AKoR.
The final result for M(H) is obtained in terms of the normal elliptic integral of
E8R+/J +e aofJr a+ErR a2r2R2
4R2 K(l+R)
II! I+R K. R 1 erR +a 2R R +1 ey R>:«
I,
(3.13)
where we have used the definition
II(u[ta2)=
f
du 22 o ia sn u
"l
= •
Sl
F [Be] 4
/ 0 
(L L
2
I
)+s;:
F
(4.2)
When the field H is switched tion oscillates between M2 tween  M 2 and  M I for averaged over one period
off, the corresponding soluand Ml for E= + 1 and bee= 1. The magnetization of the solutions tends to
where
£MI1T/2K(k).
IV. FREE ENERGIES OF INDIVIDUAL SOLUTIONS The bulk free energy for a given solution is obtained by appropriately integrating the freeenergy density f of Eq. (1.1) in which M(~) is taken to be a solution of the steadystate LG equation (1.5). In this section we shall run through the solutions of Sec. II and calculate their energies analytically and numerically. It is assumed that the ferromagnetic sample is long and that its cross section is SL: The translationally invariant solutions found earlier depend on 5 which is along the length of the sample. Then, the free energy corresponding to a particular translationally invariant solution M(~) is (4.3) The first term on the righthand side of Eq, (4.2) describes the free energy of the constant background. For localized solutions we shan assume that the sample is infinitely long and integrate from  00 to + 00. For periodic solutions the integration will be performed over their period. Below we calculate the free energies of individual solutions and compare the results with the corresponding cases with no magnetic field (H ......... 0}.
A_ Localized solutions
F=slft2ds(fO+IAM2+tBM4HM+DM2j.
l
(4.1)
1. Solution (2.2) In this case we have
0/ Fig. l(a)
Using Eq. (2.1) we obtain
10046
P. WINTERNITZ,
A. M~ GRUNDLAND,
AND J. A. TUSZYNSKI B. Periodic solutions
(4.4)
1. Trigonometric solution (2.4) of Fig. Ite) The final result in this case is
D <0 we have B >0, H:::O 4 <0 and hence (I' IS 1):::: 0, i.e., its energy is lower than that of the homogeneous background which is understandable in view of the negative sign of D. In the limit of H ~O this bump solution disappears into the disordered phase (M =0) and consequently its free energy vanishes, too: I' IS 10 as H +0. Assuming
=(M\M2)2(Mt+M2)va.
F
51
Drr 2

(4.7)
In the limit H 0 we have M 1 M 2 and the solution goes over into a constant one (M=Ml). Consequently, the free energy contribution in (4.7) vanishes and only the background term in (4.2) survives. 2. The JlIoidal wave .so/ution (1.9) of Fig. Ite) The free energy can be expressed as
2. Solitary wave (1.3) of Fig. l(b) The result here is
F
Sl 
D(M2M3)2 I2 s
m
[a(Mj M] )(M2 M3)]
4 1
112
_F
=
Sl
v' b.KoR
X
2Da
(Mly +b)(M2y+l)(M3y+4S)(M.y
2sn2(U,k)][
+b)
(4.8)
f
4K
[R
Isn (u,
2
k)] du
X
[2m(3m 2m +3) +3(1m2)2(l
+m2)ln
[
!~:
II,
o
[ar sn(u,k))4
(4.5)
with ml=(M2M3)/(MIM3) and 1 «m < 1. Note that the H +0 limit corresponds to M 3 +  M 1 , M1+M1, and m ~ 1. This then leads to PIS1+I6DMiVA/3 as H+O. Comparing this to the kink energy found earlier, 4 E kink = 4(  A 3D) 112 /3B, we find that the result above is exactly twice the value of the single kink energy. However, in the previous article' the integration was over a semiinfinite region [0,00 l, rather than ( 00, + 00 ) as in the present paper. We therefore conclude that the bump of Eq. (2.3) transforms directly into a kink as H0.
The integral can be evaluated in terms of complete elliptic integrals, but we shall not present this here, since the result is not very illuminating. In the limit H ~O we have M3=M2, M.=M]. k=l/R =M2IM" /3=0, r=O, b/a=M2' Ko=Mi so that P IS1 reduces to precisely the integral evaluated in our earlier paper"
S1
FI
H=O
=2Dv'"XMlMi
X J4K[ 1 k2sn2( u,k)][ Isn2(
o
u,k)]du
.
(4.9)
3. Tile dnoidal
WQIJe
soildioIJ (2.11) of Fig. 1(j)
3. Solitary wave (2.5) of Fig. J(d) The integral result is required here is elementary and the final
The expression for the free energy integrated period can be expressed as
over one
I'
S1
2D(MtM~)(M2M4)2 3 [2M2
X [
X
f (M I Y + s)( 2 Y + s )(M 3 r + S)(M 4 r + s )]1/2 M
(4.10)
+€(M 1 + M 2 ) ]4

a(Ml
M2 )(M2

M, l)1J2'a
SI2(a
+ 1)2
+3)] ,
(4.6) Again, although this is doable we shall not express this integral in terms of elliptic functions since the result is very complicated in form, In the limit H 0, we have complete agreement with our previous result,' namely
X[3(a +02(a
1)arctan
v';
+a(3a2+2a
where a =[2M2 E(MI +M2 )]/[2M2 +e(M1 +M2»), with O<a < 1 for €= + 1 and 1 <a for e= 1. The limit HO corresponds to~_O, M4~M\, a~l and hence F IS1 +4DMtV 4/3 as H ..0. This agrees perfectly with the value of the free energy obtained for the corresponding bump solution in the previous paper."
51
FI
H=O
=2Dv'  aMf
fK [( Idn (u,k)]
2 K
X[dn2(u,k)k'2]du
. (4.10
NONLINEAR MAGNETIZATION PROCESSES IN THE LANDAU ... 4. The cnoida! wave solution (2.12)
10047
0/ Fig. l(g)
The contribution of the cnoidal waves to the free energY over one period is
L =2Dv
Sl
X
f4K
6,(
AB)~/2(M
I
M
2
)2
(A +B)2_(MIM2 (A +B)4(1k2)
)2
o
[(lcn2(u,k)J[k,2+k2cn2(u,k)] du [ 1 +[( A  B) I( A + B )Jcn( u, k )j 4
(4.12)
In the H +0 limit (4.12) reduces to the case integrated explicitly in our previous article"
L
Sl
I
H=O
= 2Dv'=AMi
X
v' Mj +q2
(4.13)
f
4K
0
[1cnI(u,kl][k,2+k1cn2(u,k)]du
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This paper has been concerned with a LandauGinzburg model of a uniaxial ferromagnet with inhomogeneities in the presence of an external magnetic field. Having presented the results of symmetry reduction analysis for the steadystate equation of state we have completely analyzed the most important case, trans lationally invariant solutions. This included the analytical form of all the magnetization profiles M(s), the mean magnetization values and free energies required for their
formation. A summary of all these results is given in Table I to assist the reader. It can be concluded that localized solutions which may only be in the form of bumps for H=f:O possess a finite energy and when defined over a finite domain have a nonzero magnetization above the mean field background. Periodic solutions in the form of several types of elliptic waves describe classical spin waves which may be of ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic kind. all of these waves have finite energy densities and their mean magnetizations are expressed in terms of elliptic integrals. We have also found, very much in analogy with the earlier calculations for the case with no field, that for D > 0 (ferromagnetic nearest neighbors) the spectrum of the freeenergy functional is bounded both from above and below while for D < 0 only from above. The latter case corresponds to the antiferromagnetic nearestneighbor interactions and it leads, in continuum approximation, to a structural instability of its solutions with a tendency to acquire uncontrollably high frequencies and amplitudes. It can thus be called a modulational instability. This problem, however. can be solved by imposing a lower bound on the wavelength of solutions due to the existence of lattice periodicity in the spin system. Finally, we wish to comment on a particular application to which our analysis may find use, namely to the explanation of details of the shape of the socaned Arrott plot. Many years ago, Arrott12 introduced a convenient way of analyzing experimental data concerning magnetization processes of ferromagnetic materials. He proposed to plot HIM versus M2 rather than M =M(H) in order to obtain a predominantly linear dependence and
TABLE I. Summary of the results obtained in the paper. Solution
(2.2) Type
Part of Fig. 1
(a)
Mean magnetization 0.3)
(3.4) 0.5) (3.6)
(3.10)
Energy
(4.4)
Sketch
Algebraic bump or well Hyperbolic bump or well Trigonometric wave Hyperbolic bump or
well
(2.3)
(h)
(4.5)
(2.4)
(c)
j4.7)
(2.5)
(d)
(3.7)
(3.8)
(4.6)
(2.9) (2.10 (2.12)
Elliptic waves (sn) Elliptic waves (dn) Elliptic waves (en) Constant
(e)
(3.11)
f4.8) (4.10) (4.12)
(f)
(3.13)
(3.12)
(g)
(c), (h)
(2.13)
isolated circles
10 048
P. WINTERNITZ, A. M. GRUNDLAND, AND 1. A. TUSlYNSKI Thus, mean equilibrium phases will not provide a satis. factory explanation of the said curvature. Next, consider periodic solutions found earlier in the form of elliptic functions. Their mean magnetization can usually be weU approximated by the midvalue between the two turning points M I, M 2 (especially for the lowenergy ones which should contribute the most). This then gives M:;;;;;.
avoid multivaluedness. Indeed, the thus obtained Arrott plot is usually linear. However, it was observed early on" that close to the origin of this coordinate system the curvature of the plot becomes quite pronounced and it develops a downward trend. One of the most recent sets of experimental data to conform with this characterization is concerned with Fe304 submicronic particles.P Several possible explanations of the effect have been put forward including random anisotropy" but so far no consensus on the answer to this question has emerged. Based on the results of our analysis concerning the forms of M(g) which minimize the freeenergy functional (and thus are most likely to play an important physical role) we wish to investigate the possibility of a particular effect causing the curvature of the Arrott plot. First, the homogeneous phases, M =const, satisfy the equation of state (1.5), which upon rearranging becomes

Mj+M2 2
:;;;;;.Mo'
(5.3)
where M 0 is the extremal value of the plot (dM ! 5) 2 as a d function of M, which lies between M I and M 2' Since M 0 is an extremum of FlM), it satisfies Eq. (5.1) yielding ::
o
= A +BM5
.
(5.4)
Y= H =A +Bx, M
where x=M2,
(5.1)
assuming that M~O. This is precisely the straight line behavior in the "idealized" Arrott plot. We have illustrated this graphically in Fig. 2(a). Of course, if the mean phase considered here is to be stable, it must be in addition required that =A 2
Once again, we must conclude that these solutions will very closely obey the standard Arrott plot form. In Fig. 2(b) we have demonstrated this for snoidal waves with various values of the Jacobi modulus k. A small curvature can be seen which becomes more and more pronounced as k _1, i.e., as they tend to the bump soliton [Fig. 2(c)]. Finally, consider the localized solutions in the form of bumps. We have seen in Sec. II that
a2FO
aftf
+BM2=A
+Bx ~O
'
(5.2a)
M=M_+b.M,
(5.S)
where Fo is the free energy of the mean field, i.e., (5.2b)
(Q)
where M _ is the double root of (dM /dg)2 versus M which corresponds to the higherenergy (metastable) phase when H is switched on. The small correction aM is in the direction of the stable phase M + which is oriented along the field H. Since M _ is a double root, it too satisfies Eq. (5.4) or
AM _ +BM3_ =H .
(5_6)
Substituting (5.5) into (5.6) and keeping only linear terms in M.f yields
AM+BM3(
( b)
·1,0 ..~~~, 1.1
3,0
A +3BM2)b.M=H
,
(5.7)
but the coefficient multiplying
r,
A +3BM2~
[
M 1.2
1.3 1.4
H
aM2 !M=M_
aF
2
Ii
AM is
:::0
(5.8)
0
Q.3
(c)
4
40 20
2
H M
0 ·2 4 6
M.20
40
.€(J
H
0
I.e., it represents the positive curvature of the freeenergy plot Fo(M) close to its extremum M _ and hence, it is approximately independent of the field for small values of 2 H. As H He' however, A +3BM _0 [since we approach an inflection point of Fo(M)] and the extra term in Eq, (5.7) disappears. In terms of the Arrott plot we have
A +Bx  = =y
0 04
3
.a
a
0.04
eo
FIG. 2. Arrott tions: (a) constant,
plots obtained for particular types of solu(b) snoidal waves, (c) bump solitons.
where = (A + 3BM2 )!lM ::: and x *0. This is graphi0 cally illustrated in Fig. 2(c). We may therefore conclude the following. (i) Bumps (representing nucleation centers of the metastable magnetic phase) produce a curvature of the Arrott
a
1/x
(5.9)
NONLINEAR
MAGNETIZATION
PROCESSES
IN THE LANDAU
...
10 049
plot close to the origin. (ii) The curvature produced is in the right direction since 3. 2: 0, based on thermodynamic stability. (iii) The curvature should be sensitive to temperature, i.e., diminish as T + Te' (iv) Since llM is in fact proportional to the density of bumps (their number per unit length) and the latter should increase with the number of defects, we expect the curvature to be more pronounced in polycrystalline samples than in monocrystals (exactly as shown by experiment). (v} Since A +3BM2_0 as H+Hc' starting from H = He the curvature should disappear completely. It so happens that at H = He bumps are no longer allowed either. Magnetic inhomogeneities were indeed previously linked with the curvature of the Arrott plor': 15,16 but a direct link has never before been demonstrated. In fact, comparing the results of our analysis" for H =0 with those for H=I=O, we note that the effect of applying an external magnetic field is to disallow kink solutions (domain walls) as results of minimization of the free energy and replace them by bump solutions (nucleation centers). Since the Arrott plot is basically a special way of drawing the dc susceptibility of a magnet (i.e., XI versus M2). we conclude that its curvature in the range
0:::H :5" He manifests the dynamics of localized magnetization profiles in the form of nucleation centers of the metastable phase. It should be added in closing that for large values of x (= M 2) the presence of a sixth 'Power term in the freeenergy expansion could manifest itself in another type of nonlinearity in the Arrott p10t.17 This would also lead to a very interesting possibility of double hysteries loops experimentally observed in ferroelectrics." A question that has been investigated recently'? is the stability of exact solutions of the quartic LandauGinzburg equation without an external field (H =0). Most of the solutions turn out to be unstable with respect to certain types of timedependent perturbation. The physical implications of this remain to be investigated. In any case nonstable solutions may represent transient phenomena that may be quite important.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project has been supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. P. W. also acknowledges partial support by the "Fonds FeAR du Gouvemement du Quebec."
1M. Luban, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, edited by C. Domb and M. S. Green (Academic. London, 1976), Vol.
SA.
2t, D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical PhYSics (Pergamon, London, 1980). 3W. I. Khan, J. Phys. C 19, 2969 (986). 4p. Winternitz, A. M. Grundland, and J. A. Tuszyriski, J. Phys. C 21, 4931 (1988). 5A. T. Aldred, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 10, 42 (1979). 6D, Wagner and E. P. Wohlfarth, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 1518, 1345 (980), 7p. W. Anderson, Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics (Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, 1984). sp, Olver, Applications 0/ the Lie Groups to Differential Equations (SpringerVerlag, New York, 1986). 9W, Sucksmith and J. E. Thompson, Proc. R. Soc, London 225, 362 (1954).
Handbook of Elliptic Intergrals for Engineers and Scientists (Springer, Berlin, 1971). 11M. Shimizu, J. Phys, (Paris) 43, 155 (1982). 12A. S. Arran, Phys. Rev. 108, 1394 (1957). I3S. Arajs, N. Amin, and E. E. Anderson, Phys, Rev. B 35, 4810
lOp. F. Byrd and M, D, Friedman, (1987). 14A. Aharony and E. Pytte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1583(980). 15F. P. Wohlfarth (unpublished). 16F. Acker, Z. Fisk, ], L. Smith, and C. Y. Huang, J. Magn. Magn , Mater. 22, 250 (1981). I7W. I. Khan and D. Melville, J. Magn. Magn, Mater. 36, 256
(1983),
Tuszyriski, B. Mroz, H, Kiefte, and M. J. Clouter, Ferroelectrics 77, 111 (1988). 19A. M. Grundland, E. Infeld, G. Rowlands, and p, Winternitz,
18J. A,
J. Phys, Condens. Matter 2, 7143 (990).
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.