Secdocument 9877

Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron
Scattering: A Probe for Mesoscale

Magnetism Analysis (Oxford Series on
Neutron Scattering in Condensed
Matter) 1st Edition Andreas Michels
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/magnetic-small-angle-neutron-scattering-a-probe-for-
mesoscale-magnetism-analysis-oxford-series-on-neutron-scattering-in-condensed-ma
tter-1st-edition-andreas-michels/
Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron
Scattering
OXFORD SERIES ON NEUTRON SCATTERING IN
CONDENSED MATTER
1. W.G. Williams: Polarized neutrons

2. E. Balcar and S.W. Lovesey: Theory of magnetic neutron
and photon scattering
3. V.F. Sears: Neutron optics
4. M.F. Collins: Magnetic critical scattering
5. V.K. Ignatovich: The physics of ultracold neutrons
6. Yu. A. Alexandrov: Fundamental properties of the neutron
7. P.A. Egelstaff: An introduction to the liquid state
8. J.S. Higgins and H.C. Benoı̂t: Polymers and neutron scattering
9. H. Glyde: Excitations in liquid and solid helium
10. V. Balucani and M. Zoppi: Dynamics of the liquid state
11. T.J. Hicks: Magnetism in disorder
12. H. Rauch and S. Werner: Neutron interferometry
13. R. Hempelmann: Quasielastic neutron scattering and solid state diffusion
14. V.M. Nield and D.A. Kean: Diffuse neutron scattering
from crystalline materials
15. E.H. Kisi and C.J. Howard: Applications of neutron powder diffraction
Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron Scattering
A Probe for Mesoscale Magnetism Analysis
Andreas Michels
University of Luxembourg
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

c Andreas Michels 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932525
ISBN 978–0–19–885517–0
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198855170.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
This book is dedicated to the memory of my parents, and to Anna and Niki.
Preface
One of the very first publications on magnetic small-angle neutron scattering (SANS)
is “Depolarisation und Kleinwinkelstreuung von Neutronen durch Gitterfehler in ferro-
magnetischen Kristallen” by Helmut Kronmüller, Alfred Seeger, and Manfred Wilkens
from 1963 [1]. The paper is written in German (English translation: “Depolarization
and small-angle scattering of neutrons by lattice imperfections in ferromagnetic crys-
tals”) and was dedicated to Max Born on the occasion of his 80th birthday. In their
theoretical study, the authors have pioneered the use of the continuum theory of mi-
cromagnetics for calculating the magnetic SANS cross section of magnetic materials.
Specifically, Kronmüller, Seeger, and Wilkens studied the spin disorder that is related
to the strain fields of dislocations: in mechanically deformed metals, the magnetization
is highly inhomogeneous in the vicinity of dislocations, which is due to the presence of
magnetoelastic coupling. The associated static long-wavelength magnetization fluctu-
ations represent a contrast for elastic magnetic SANS, and the scattering cross section
can be computed by means of micromagnetic theory for samples close to magnetic
saturation. This type of magnetic SANS, denoted as spin-misalignment scattering,
is related to spatial variations in the orientation and magnitude of the magnetiza-
tion. It has been predicted to be about 10−100 times larger than the nuclear SANS
that is related to the volume dilatations of dislocations. With the advent of nuclear
research reactors and the concomitant construction and development of the first ded-
icated SANS instruments, e.g., at Jülich [2] and Grenoble [3], started the exploration
of magnetism and superconductivity on a mesoscopic length scale using neutrons as
a probe. The main ideas of [1] were then verified and extended only later in SANS
experiments on cold-worked single crystals, as summarized in [2, 4–6].
Besides being a pioneering study that is full of insights regarding the complex-
ity of the interaction between lattice imperfections and spin structure, the work by
Kronmüller, Seeger, and Wilkens has undoubtly demonstrated the fact that magnetic
SANS is in many respects different than the (nonmagnetic) small-angle scattering by
structural and chemical inhomogeneities. The latter statement may be considered as
the paradigm for this book. It certainly served as the central motivation for the au-
thor to write it. Nuclear SANS and small-angle x-ray scattering are largely based on
the particle-matrix concept, with particle form factors and structure factors being the
basic quantities. Magnetic SANS is about the magnetization distribution. The particle
form factor is obtained as the solution of a volume integral, while the structure-factor
problem, related to the arrangement of and the interaction between the particles,
may be solved by using the methods of statistical mechanics. On the other hand,
the continuous vectorial magnetization distribution of a magnetic material is obtained
by solving a set of nonlinear partial differential equations (known as Brown’s equa-
tions [7]), which in the context of magnetic SANS—and despite the early work [1]—is
viii Preface
an often overlooked fact. Still, many magnetic SANS studies analyze their data based
on the particle-matrix concept, with the underlying shortcoming assumption of homo-
geneously magnetized domains, and neglect the important and often even dominant
magnetic scattering contribution due to misaligned magnetic moments.
As one may anticipate from the previous considerations, the origin of magnetic
SANS is very closely related to the presence of lattice defects in the microstructure of
magnetic materials (e.g., vacancies, dislocations, grain boundaries, pores). This view-
point has also been emphasized in the early SANS review by Springer and Schmatz [8].
On the mesoscopic length scale that is probed by conventional SANS (∼1−300 nm),
the defects are locally decorated by nanoscale spin disorder, which is generated by
(i) spatial variations in the magnetic anisotropy field, and by (ii) spatial variations in
the magnetic materials parameters, most notably the local saturation magnetization.
To be more specific, forces due to the distortion of the crystal lattice in the vicinity of
a microstructural defect tend to rotate the local magnetization vector field along the
main axes of the system of internal stresses (magnetoelastic coupling), while magne-
tocrystalline anisotropy tries to pull the magnetic moments along the principal axes of
the crystal [7]. Likewise, nanoscale spatial variations of the saturation magnetization,
exchange, or anisotropy constants (e.g., at internal interfaces in a magnetic nanocom-
posite or in a nanoporous ferromagnet) give rise to inhomogeneous magnetization
states, which represent a contrast for magnetic SANS. It is of decisive importance to
emphasize that the adjustment of the magnetization along the respective local easy
axes does not occur abruptly, i.e., on a scale of the interatomic spacing, but takes
place over a more extended range. This is a consequence of the quantum-mechanical
exchange interaction, which spreads local perturbations in the magnetization over
larger distances. The size of such spin inhomogeneities is characterized by the mi-
cromagnetic exchange length lH , which varies continuously with the applied field and
takes on values between about 1−100 nm. The ensuing magnetic neutron scattering
appears at scattering angles ψ ∼ = λ/lH (with λ the neutron wavelength), a regime
which is routinely accessible by the SANS technique. We also emphasize that the
observation that lattice-defect-induced magnetization nonuniformities are continuous
functions of the position does not imply the absence of sharp features in the nuclear
grain microstructure; for instance, there may well exist sharp particle-matrix interfaces
(e.g., in the chemical composition) in a magnetic material, but the corresponding spin
distribution (which decorates these interfaces) is continuous over the defects. This is
nothing more than saying that the magnetic microstructure in real space corresponds
to the convolution of the nuclear grain microstructure with micromagnetic response
functions which vary with position and field. Therefore, particle form factors may also
appear within the micromagnetic description of magnetic SANS, but they naturally
emerge in the course of a calculation, by specifying the geometry of the defect.
The richness and the complex character of magnetic SANS can be grasped by
looking at the figure at the end of this preface, which depicts a selection of computed
spin structures and experimental magnetic SANS cross sections of various polycrys-
talline magnetic materials. While the angular anisotropies which are visible in some of
the cross-section images are exclusively related to the saturated magnetization state,
other patterns have their origin in the nonuniform magnetization distribution of the
Preface ix
material, which depends on the magnetic interactions and on the characteristics of the
underlying microstructure. The displayed anisotropies obviously go beyond the well-
known sin2 α dependency of magnetic neutron scattering, which epitomizes the homo-
geneously magnetized single-domain state. They can only be understood by analyzing
the spin distribution of the material, i.e., by carrying out micromagnetic calculations of
the SANS cross section. Since the standard textbooks on small-angle scattering [9–13]
do not cover the subject of magnetic SANS in sufficient depth, we believe that there
is the necessity to fill this gap with the present book.
The central aim of the book is to provide an introduction into the theoretical
background that is required to compute SANS cross sections and correlation functions
related to long-wavelength magnetization structures; and to scrutinize these concepts
based on the discussion of experimental unpolarized and polarized neutron data. The
book is primarily about the technique of magnetic SANS, not about materials. Its writ-
ing style and diction may be described as a mixture between monograph, textbook, and
review article (in particular Chapter 5). Regarding prior background knowledge, some
familiarity with the basic magnetic interactions and phenomena as well as scattering
theory is desired. The target audience consists of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral and
senior researchers working in the field of magnetism and magnetic materials who wish
to make efficient use of the magnetic SANS method. The principles and methods that
are laid out in this book will hopefully enable them to analyze and interpret their
SANS experiments.
Besides exposing the different origins of magnetic SANS (Chapter 1), and furnish-
ing the basics of the magnetic SANS technique (Chapter 2), a large part of the book
is devoted to a comprehensive treatment of the continuum theory of micromagnetics
(Chapter 3), as it is relevant for the study of the elastic magnetic SANS cross sec-
tion. Analytical expressions for the magnetization Fourier components allow one to
highlight the essential features of magnetic SANS and to analyze experimental data
both in reciprocal (Chapter 4) as well as in real space (Chapter 6). Chapter 5 provides
an overview on the magnetic SANS of nanoparticles and so-called complex systems
(e.g., ferrofluids, magnetic steels, spin glasses and amorphous magnets). It is this sub-
field where we expect a major progress to be made in the coming years, mainly via
the increased usage of numerical micromagnetic simulations (Chapter 7), which is a
very promising approach for the understanding of the magnetic SANS from systems
exhibiting nanoscale spin inhomogeneity.
Being the result of more than two decades of research, the book contains the
contributions of many people in one or other form. I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to my former and present master and Ph.D. students, postdocs, and to the
many collaborators and colleagues worldwide. Very special thanks are due to: Michael
Adams, Natalie Baddour, Philipp Bender, Frank Bergner, Dmitry Berkov, Salvino
Ciccariello, Sergey Erokhin, Artem Feoktystov, Luis Fernández Barquı́n, Arsen
Goukassov, Sergey Grigoriev, Patrick Hautle, Dirk Honecker, Joachim Kohlbrecher,
Artem Malyeyev, José Luis Martı́nez, Konstantin Metlov, Denis Mettus, Sebastian
Mühlbauer, Yojiro Oba, Ivan Titov, and Andrew Wildes. These researchers took over
the most important task of critically reading various parts of the book, and their
most valuable comments and suggestions have without doubt improved the final
x Preface
result. Stephen Lovesey is thanked for his help in establishing the initial contact
to Oxford University Press and for his continuous interest in the progression of the
book. It is also a pleasure to acknowledge the contribution of Rainer Birringer, who
has relentlessly supported me throughout my scientific career. Last, but not least, I
would like to thank my Ph.D. adviser, Jörg Weißmüller, who introduced me to the
magnetic SANS technique.
Luxembourg Andreas Michels

February 2021
Selection of computed spin structures and experimental magnetic SANS cross sections.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the following colleagues for providing original data and figures of their
own research, which have formed the basis for many illustrations in the book: Diego
Alba Venero, Frank Bergner, Dmitry Berkov, Sabrina Disch, Sergey Erokhin, Patrick
Hautle, André Heinemann, Dirk Honecker, Joachim Kohlbrecher, Christian Kübel,
Dina Mergia, Sebastian Mühlbauer, Feodor Ogrin, Roger Pynn, Kiyonori Suzuki,
Dmitri Svergun, Laura Vivas, and Albrecht Wiedenmann. I am also grateful to the
following publishers, organizations, and learned societies for permission to reuse many
figures in the book: EDP Sciences, Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Amer-
ican Institute of Physics, IEEE Magnetics Society, Institute of Physics Publishing,
American Physical Society, Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, and the International
Union of Crystallography. The University of Luxembourg, the National Research Fund
of Luxembourg, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are acknowledged for pro-
viding the financial means to carry out large parts of this research.
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Outline of the book

Small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) is a powerful and unique technique, which al-
lows one to investigate microstructural (density and compositional fluctuations) as well
as magnetic inhomogeneities in the volume of materials and on a mesoscopic length
scale between a few and a few hundred nanometers. A further advantage of SANS,
compared e.g., to electron-microscopy-based imaging methods, is that it provides sta-
tistically averaged information about a large number of scattering objects. Figure 1.1
gives an overview on the microstructural size regimes which are accessible by various
observational methods. When conventional SANS is supplemented by ultra or very
small-angle neutron scattering (USANS or VSANS) the spatial resolution can be ex-
tended up to the micrometer range [14, 15]. This is an important size regime in which
many macroscopic material properties are realized. Since SANS and its x-ray counter-
part, small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS), are utilized in diverse fields of science such
as materials science, physics, chemistry, biology, and in the derived interdisciplinary
research areas, there exists an enormous body of research literature. The standard ref-
erences for nuclear (i.e., nonmagnetic) SANS and SAXS are the well-known textbooks
by Guinier and Fournet [9], Glatter and Kratky [10], Feigin and Svergun [11], Svergun,
Koch, Timmins, and May [12], and by Gille [13]. For a selection of reviews on vari-
ous materials classes and aspects of small-angle scattering, for instance, on biological
structures, polymers, ferrofluids, magnetic materials, superconductors, disordered and
porous materials such as coal, fractal systems, colloidal suspensions, ceramics, steels,
precipitates in metallic alloys and composites, defect clusters, or dislocations we refer
the reader to [2,5,16–68]. The proceedings of the International Small Angle Scattering
Conference, which are usually published in the Journal of Applied Crystallography, are
also an excellent source for following the latest trends and developments in the field.
From the historical point of view, experimental and theoretical progress in the do-
main of small-angle scattering is closely connected to the development of laboratory
SAXS methods [9]. Perhaps related to this historical perspective is the fact that the
theoretical concepts and foundations of nuclear SANS and SAXS are relatively well
developed—in contrast to magnetic SANS—and widely acknowledged and applied in
experimental studies [9–13]. This book is devoted to “diffuse” magnetic SANS, i.e.,
magnetic neutron scattering at small scattering angles around the forward direction
arising from quasi-non-periodic, continuous long-wavelength magnetization fluctua-
tions [compare panel (A1) in Fig. 1.2]. The term diffuse magnetic SANS is used here
to distinguish it from magnetic small-angle diffraction, which is the method of choice
for investigating long-range-ordered periodic structures such as helical spin systems,
Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron Scattering: A Probe for Mesoscale Magnetism Analysis. Andreas Michels,
Oxford University Press (2021). © Andreas Michels. DOI: 10.1093/oso/ 9780198855170.003.0001
2 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.1: Microstructural size regimes accessible by different observational methods.

The techniques range from neutron diffraction, which is used to investigate atomic
structures, to optical microscopy, which can be employed to image macroscopic objects
such as bacteria or crystalline grain structures. Image courtesy of Roger Pynn, Indiana
University, Bloomington, USA. After [69].
spin-density waves, flux-line lattices in superconductors, or the recently discovered

skyrmion crystals [compare panel (A2) in Fig. 1.2]. Many of the latter problems can
be dealt with by making use of the well-known cross-section expressions derived in the
context of magnetic single-crystal neutron diffraction; for instance, SANS studies of
Outline of the book 3
Fig. 1.2: Schematic illustration of the transformation from real space to reciprocal
space for a smooth texture (A1), a discrete lattice with lattice spacing a (A2), and a
smooth incommensurate modulation on top of a discrete lattice (A3). After [64].
the vortex lattice can be considered as crystallography of a two-dimensional system of

lines (vortices), providing information about the lattice structure and correlations, as
well as the internal structure of the individual scatterers [64]. Therefore, these topics
will not be covered in this book, and likewise subjects such as neutron instrumentation,
data treatment, or multiple scattering.
The book is organized as follows. In Chapter 1 we introduce the basic expressions
for the neutron scattering cross sections and, in particular, for the elastic magnetic
differential SANS cross section. Special emphasis is put on the discussion of the ori-
gins of magnetic SANS and on its distinctness from conventional particle scattering.
Chapter 2 is concerned with general aspects of SANS such as the experimental setup,
instrumental resolution, the influence of inelastic contributions due to phonon and
magnon scattering to the elastic SANS cross section, the basics of nuclear SANS, the
magnetic SANS cross sections for the two most often used scattering geometries, and
their relation to the particle-matrix model. Chapter 3 introduces the continuum ex-
pressions for the magnetic energy contributions, which are employed for describing
the mesoscale magnetic microstructure of magnetic materials. It is then shown how
the static equations of micromagnetics, the so-called Brown’s equations, can be solved
in the high-field regime and how the Fourier components of the magnetization are
related to the magnetic SANS cross section. In Chapter 4 we use the results for the
Fourier components to compute the unpolarized and spin-polarized SANS cross sec-
tions. These expressions serve to highlight certain features of magnetic SANS such
as the role of the magnetodipolar and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction, and are
then applied to analyze experimental SANS data on various bulk magnetic materi-
als such as soft and hard magnetic nanocomposites. Furthermore, Chapter 4 contains
discussions on the magnetic Guinier law and on the asymptotic power-law exponents
found in magnetic SANS experiments, as well as two sections summarizing magnetic
SANS results on nanocrystalline rare-earth metals in the paramagnetic temperature
4 INTRODUCTION
regime and on dislocations. Chapter 5 provides an overview on the magnetic SANS

of nanoparticles and complex systems, which include ferrofluids, magnetic steels, and
spin glasses and amorphous magnets. We discuss the underlying assumptions of the
conventional particle-matrix-based model of magnetic SANS, which assumes uniformly
magnetized domains, characteristic e.g., for superparamagnets, and we provide a com-
plete specification of the micromagnetic boundary-value problem. First attempts to
provide analytical expressions for the vortex-state-related magnetic SANS of thin cir-
cular discs are considered. Spin-misalignment correlations in real space are the subject
of Chapter 6. The correlation function and correlation length of the spin-misalignment
SANS cross section are introduced, their properties are discussed within the context
of micromagnetic theory, and selected experimental data on Nd–Fe–B-based perma-
nent magnets and nanocrystalline elemental soft (Co and Ni) and hard (Gd and Tb)
magnets are reviewed. Finally, in Chapter 7 we report on the progress made in us-
ing full-scale micromagnetic simulations for the understanding of the fundamentals of
magnetic SANS. These studies take into account the nonlinearity of Brown’s static
equations of micromagnetics. We discuss prototypical sample microstructures, the im-
plementation of the different energy contributions, and the state-of-the-art regarding
simulations on multiphase nanocomposites and nanoparticle assemblies.
1.2 Basic properties of the neutron and numerical relations

The neutron is an elementary particle, which was discovered by James Chadwick in
1932 [70]. The basic properties of the neutron are its mass of mn = 1.675×10−27 kg, its
zero net electrical charge, and its spin angular momentum of S = ± 12 ~ and associated
magnetic dipole moment of µn = −1.913µN (~ is the Planck constant h divided by 2π
and µN is the nuclear magneton). These properties, together with the fact that the
average lifetime of a free neutron is ∼886 s [71], render neutrons extremely attractive
for research purposes; in particular, for investigating the structure and dynamics of
matter on a wide range of length and timescales; more specifically:
• The value of the neutron mass results in a de Broglie wavelength of research neu-
trons which is of the order of interatomic distances in many crystalline and liquid
materials. This allows one to access the structure of matter. Likewise, since the
typical energy of cold and thermal neutrons is of the order of the elementary exci-
tations in solids, dynamic features can also be explored by studying the inelastic
scattering of neutrons.
• The zero net electrical charge implies that neutrons interact only very weakly with
matter, in contrast to e.g., electrons, which are subject to a Coulomb barrier. As
a consequence, neutrons are able to penetrate deeply into materials and they
interact with the atomic nuclei of the material. From a theoretical point of view,
this entails that the neutron-nucleus scattering process can be analyzed within
first-order perturbation theory, which in the context of scattering formalism is
known as the Born approximation [72]. Multiple-scattering effects can usually be
ignored. This circumstance facilitates the analysis of neutron scattering data, since
well-known expressions for the nuclear (and magnetic) scattering cross sections
have been derived for this case.
Basic properties of the neutron and numerical relations 5
• The scattering length for the neutron-nucleus interaction varies in a non-

systematic manner from one element to the other across the periodic table of
elements, and even between the isotopes of the same element (see Fig. 2.11). This
brings with it an important advantage of neutron scattering over x-ray scatter-
ing: light elements such as hydrogen or oxygen strongly scatter neutrons, whereas
they only weakly scatter x-rays, which is a consequence of the fact that the x-
ray scattering length is proportional to the atomic number. The non-systematic
variation of the nuclear scattering length between isotopes of the same element
creates the possibility to tune the neutron scattering cross section by varying the
isotopic concentration; for instance, light water, H2 O, has a theoretical macro-
scopic coherent scattering cross section per molecule of Σcoh = 3.92 × 10−3 cm−1 ,
whereas for heavy water, D2 O, one finds Σcoh = 0.512 cm−1 (see, e.g., chapter 9
in [73]). The related so-called contrast-variation technique is of great importance
in soft matter science, where compounds containing many hydrogen molecules are
usually studied.
• The magnetic moment of the neutron interacts with unpaired electrons of atoms.
Hence, magnetic structure and dynamics can be investigated by means of this
interaction. Magnetic neutron scattering may be as strong as nuclear scattering.
In fact, we will see in this book that magnetic SANS due to long-wavelength
spin-misalignment fluctuations can be several orders of magnitude larger than
the nuclear SANS.
Highly energetic neutrons are produced by either nuclear fission of heavy nuclei or
by spallation of heavy metal targets [74]. By means of a moderator (e.g., light water,
heavy water, graphite), the neutrons are slowed down to the energy of the moderator,
where the neutron-velocity spectrum is to a very good approximation described by a
Maxwellian distribution [75]. The following equations summarize the basic relations
for the de Broglie wavelength λ, wave vector k0 , momentum pn , and kinetic energy
E0 of a neutron moving with velocity vn :
h
λ= , (1.1)
mn vn
2π
k0 = |k0 | = , (1.2)
λ
pn = mn vn = ~k0 , (1.3)
1 ~2 k02 h2
E0 = kT = mn vn2 = = . (1.4)
2 2mn 2mn λ2
By comparing the kinetic energy E0 of the moderated neutrons to the thermal energy
kT , neutrons for research purposes are commonly classified as hot, thermal, and cold
neutrons (see Table 1.1). Using the values for the physical constants mn , h, and k (see
6 INTRODUCTION
Table 1.1 Classification scheme for ranges of energy, temperature, wavelength, and velocity
of research neutrons. The indicated values correspond to the cold, thermal, and hot spectrum
of the ILL (taken from [77]).
E0 (meV) T (K) λ (Å) vn (km/s)
cold neutrons 0.1−10 1−120 3−30 0.13−1.3

thermal neutrons 10−100 120−1200 1−3 1.3−4
hot neutrons 100−500 1200−6000 0.4−1 4−10
Appendix G), eqns (1.1)−(1.4) suggest the following numerical relations between the
involved quantities [76]:
p √
λ = 6.283/k0 = 3.956/vn = 9.045/ E0 = 30.811/ T ; (1.5)
E0 = 0.08618 T = 5.227 vn2 = 81.805/λ2 = 2.072 k02 , (1.6)
where λ is expressed in units of Å, k0 in 1010 m−1 , vn in km/s, E0 in meV, and T is
in degrees of Kelvin.
1.3 Definitions of scattering cross sections

The neutron scattering cross sections are defined with reference to Fig. 1.3, which
depicts a sketch of the general scattering geometry. In the following considerations the
spin degree of freedom of the neutron is ignored. The incoming neutrons are character-
ized by the wave vector k0 and the energy E0 . The sample (in a crystalline, amorphous,
liquid, or gaseous state) is composed of N scattering atoms in the sample volume V . It
is positioned such that the origin of the coordinate system is at some arbitrary point
within the sample, e.g., at the center of mass of the system. The neutrons are scattered
into a direction which is specified by the angles ψ and θ. Moreover, one commonly as-
sumes that the characteristic size of the sample is much smaller than the distance
between it and the detector. After interaction with the sample, the wave vector and
energy of the neutrons are, respectively, given by k1 and E1 = ~2 k12 /(2mn ). The change
in the wave vector of the neutrons defines the momentum-transfer or scattering vector
q = k0 − k1 , (1.7)
whereas the neutron-energy change is given by
~2
k02 − k12 .

∆E = E0 − E1 = (1.8)
2mn
The momentum which is transferred to the target in the scattering event equals ~q.
With reference to Fig. 1.3 one easily finds that [74]
2mn p
q 2 = 2 E0 + E1 − 2 E0 E1 cos ψ . (1.9)
~
Definitions of scattering cross sections 7
Fig. 1.3: Sketch of the general neutron scattering geometry.
For elastic scattering (k0 = k1 = 2π λ and ∆E = 0), the case which is most relevant in
this book, it is readily verified that the magnitude of q is given by:
4π
q = |q| = 2k0 sin(ψ/2) = sin(ψ/2) ∼
= k0 ψ, (1.10)
λ
where the last approximation becomes valid in the small-angle regime (ψ 1). The
relation q ∼= k0 ψ for small-angle scattering can be connected to a well-known result
from classical optics [78]: an object with a linear dimension of Z gives rise to a Fraun-
hofer diffraction peak along the forward direction with an angular width of ψ ∼ = λ/Z;
in other words, most of the diffracted intensity is concentrated at scattering angles
ψ . λ/Z, which translates into q . 2π/Z. For typical values of λ = 0.6 nm and
Z = 10 nm, we find ψ ∼ = 3.4◦ .
d2 σ
The partial or double differential neutron scattering cross section dΩdE 1
is defined
as:
d2 σ n1
= , (1.11)
dΩdE1 ΦdΩdE1
where n1 denotes the number of neutrons which are scattered per second into the
element of solid angle dΩ = sin ψdθdψ and which have a final energy between E1 and
E1 + dE1 , and Φ denotes the incident beam flux, i.e., the number of neutrons per
second through a unit area, where the area is assumed to be perpendicular to the
direction of the incident neutron beam. The dimensions of n1 and Φ are, respectively,
d2 σ
time−1 and time−1 area−1 , so that dΩdE 1
is commonly expressed in units of barn eV−1 ,
d2 σ
where 1 barn = 10−24 cm2 and 1 eV = 1.602 × 10−19 J. Integrating dΩdE1 over all final
energies, one obtains the differential scattering cross section:
8 INTRODUCTION
Z∞
dσ n2 d2 σ
= = dE1 , (1.12)
dΩ ΦdΩ dΩdE1
0
where n2 equals the total number of neutrons which are scattered per second into dΩ.
The total scattering cross section
Z
n3 dσ
σ= = dΩ (1.13)
Φ 4π dΩ
is obtained from dσ/dΩ by integration over all directions, where n3 denotes the total
number of neutrons scattered per second at all energies and in all directions. In many
experimental situations—however, generally not in magnetic SANS—dσ/dΩ depends
only on the angle ψ, so that
Zπ
dσ
σ = 2π sin ψdψ. (1.14)
dΩ
0
Both dσ/dΩ and σ are given in the unit of the barn. In addition to elastic and inelastic
scattering, neutrons may be removed from the incident beam by absorption within the
nuclei of the material under study. This process is characterized by an absorption cross
section σa , so that the total collision or extinction cross section (taking into account
scattering and absorption) is given by
σtot = σ + σa . (1.15)
The quantity σtot is related via the optical theorem, also known as the Bohr–Peierls–
Placzek relation, to the imaginary part of the nuclear scattering amplitude fN (ψ) along
the forward direction (ψ = 0) [72, 79, 80]:
4π
σtot = Im[fN (0)]. (1.16)
k0
The optical theorem embodies the conservation of particle number, i.e., the number
of incoming neutrons equals the number of outgoing neutrons plus those which are
captured [75].∗
The total collision cross section also determines the neutron transmission. As-
suming perpendicular neutron incidence on a planar slab-shaped sample, the sample
transmission T is related to the atomic number density ρa = N/V (number N of
nuclei in the sample volume V ), σtot , and the sample thickness t by the well-known
Lambert–Beer law [82]:
T = exp (−ρa σtot t) = exp (−µt) , (1.17)
where µ = ρa σtot denotes the attenuation coefficient (in cm−1 ). The mean free path
of the neutron between collisions is given by Lmfp = µ−1 . For Lmfp t one has
∗ In this context we refer to Toperverg et al. [81] for an interesting polarized SANS study on a
ferrofluid, which utilizes the optical theorem for analyzing the whole range of the scattering pattern
including the zone of the interference between scattered and transmitted neutron waves.
Elastic differential SANS cross section 9
T∼= 1 and the sample is transparent to neutrons with a particular energy, while T ∼ =0
for Lmfp t and the medium is opaque. Values for Lmfp depend on the neutron
wavelength and, for not-too-strongly absorbing and scattering materials, are typically
in the 0.1−10 cm regime (see table 12.3 in [83]). As a rule of thumb, in order to avoid
multiple scattering one should aim for T & 90% [84, 85] (neglecting absorption).
Finally, we remark that in the domain of small-angle scattering it is customary to
display the macroscopic differential SANS cross section dΣ/dΩ per unit volume (in
cm−1 ), which is related to the microscopic dσ/dΩ per nucleus [2] via
dΣ N dσ
= . (1.18)
dΩ V dΩ
1.4 Elastic differential SANS cross section
In a SANS experiment, the energy of the scattered neutrons is usually not analyzed
and one measures an energy-integrated cross section, i.e., the detector counts neutrons
that have been scattered elastically as well as inelastically. However, it can be shown
that inelastic coherent scattering contributions (e.g., due to phonons and/or magnons)
play only a minor role in the small-angle regime, so that it is justified in many cases
to consider SANS as elastic scattering (see Section 2.3). The assumption of elasticity
implies that the internal states of the sample are not changed by the scattering event.
Following Lovesey [86] and Squires [76] and ignoring the spin of the neutron, the elastic
differential cross section can be computed by summing up all scattering processes in
which the state of the neutron changes from k0 to k1 , according to:
dΣ 1 1 1 X
= Wk0 →k1 , (1.19)
dΩ V Φ dΩ
k1 in dΩ
where Wk0 →k1 denotes the number of transitions per second from the state k0 to the
state k1 . The sum in eqn (1.19) runs over all values of the final wave vector k1 that lie
within the element of solid angle dΩ, keeping the values of k0 constant. The transition
rate can be evaluated by using Fermi’s golden rule [72, 77]:
X 2π 2
Wk0 →k1 = ρk |hk1 |Vint |k0 i| , (1.20)
~ 1
k1 in dΩ
where ρk1 is the number of final momentum states in dΩ per unit energy range, and Vint
denotes the interaction potential between the neutron and the scatterer (inducing the
transition from k0 to k1 ). By assuming that the incoming and outgoing neutron waves
are in a plane-wave state, respectively, Ain ∝ exp (ik0 · r) and Aout ∝ exp (ik1 · r), the
matrix element eqn (1.20) can be evaluated. Within this so-called Born approximation,
and using the definition of the scattering vector q [eqn (1.7)], the transition rate
Wk0 →k1 is then proportional to the magnitude square of the Fourier transform of
the neutron-matter interaction potential. The derivation of the elastic nuclear and
magnetic neutron scattering cross sections can be found in many textbooks on neutron
scattering (e.g., [76,86]) and it is therefore not repeated in detail here. Two interactions
are most relevant for the scattering of thermal neutrons from matter, the nuclear and
the magnetic interaction, which are briefly discussed in the following.
10 INTRODUCTION
1.4.1 Nuclear SANS cross section

The short-range and isotropic neutron-nucleus interaction is modeled by Fermi’s
pseudopotential [87]:
nuc 2π~2
Vint (r) = b δ(r), (1.21)
mn
where b is the atomic scattering length of a strongly bound nucleus sitting at the
origin r = 0, and δ(r) is Dirac’s delta function. It should be emphasized that Fermi’s
pseudopotential does not reflect the actual nuclear interaction potential and that the
assumptions underlying the Born approximation, in particular, the approximation of
the incoming neutron wave function as a plane wave within the interaction range of the
nuclear potential (∼1 fm; 1 fm = 10−15 m), are not valid for the very strong nuclear
potential (see the article by Schober [77] for a discussion of this point). However,
eqn (1.21) is the only potential which, in the Born approximation, yields the required
isotropic (s-wave) scattering behavior [76, 86].
The scattering length is generally a complex quantity which can be written as [88]:
b = b0 − ib00 , (1.22)
where the real part b0 takes on positive as well as negative values and is of the order
of a few fm (see Fig. 2.11). The imaginary part b00 > 0 describes the absorption of
neutrons. In fact, it can be shown that for all practical purposes the absorption cross
section is given by [82]
4π 00
σa = b . (1.23)
k0
Note that σa is inversely proportional to k0 and, hence, to the neutron velocity vn .
Equation (1.23) is called Fermi’s 1/vn -law. Nuclear scattering lengths are usually taken
from experiment. They can be measured with a range of techniques; for instance by
means of mirror reflection [89–93], with a gravity refractometer [94–97], or by neutron
interferometry [98–100] (see the article by Rauch and Waschkowski [101] and the book
by Sears [82] for further details). Absorption is negligible for most elements and their
isotopes (b00 |b0 |), however, there exist a few isotopes (e.g., 3 He, 10 B, 113 Cd, 157 Gd)
which do possess a strong neutron capture cross section. Values for b and for the
coherent σcoh , incoherent σinc , and absorption σa cross sections can be found in [102].
By inserting the interaction potential eqn (1.21) into the eqns (1.19) and (1.20) it
can be shown that the elastic nuclear differential scattering cross section of a collection
of N nuclei at positions rk equals [76, 103]:
N 2
dΣnuc 1 X 1 X
(q) = bk exp (−iq · rk ) = bk b∗l exp (−iq · [rk − rl ]) , (1.24)
dΩ V V
k=1 k,l
where the bk denote the nuclear atomic scattering lengths, i2 = −1, the asterisk (∗)
marks the complex-conjugated quantity, and it is understood that dΣnuc /dΩ repre-
sents an ensemble-averaged quantity; more specifically, an average over the atomic
configuration as well as an average over both the isotope distribution and the nuclear-
spin orientations, which are random for not-too-large fields and low temperatures (see
Section 2.4 for further details).
At this point it is important to realize that for small-angle scattering the discrete
atomic structure of many crystalline materials is generally of no importance. Often,
the probing neutron wavelength is larger than twice the maximum lattice-plane dis-
tance for allowed reflections from the crystal structure (so-called Bragg cutoff). The
resolution range of the conventional SANS technique ranges between a few and a
few hundred nanometers. SANS can therefore be described within a coarse-grained
picture of the actual discrete atomic structure of matter. For nuclear SANS, the rele-
vant coarse-grained variable is the scalar scattering-length density N (r) (in m−2 , and
not to be confused with the number N of nuclei or magnetic moments in a sample).
This quantity is assumed to be a smooth and continuous function of the position
r = {x, y, z} inside the material. It is therefore permissible to replace the discrete sum
in eqn (1.24) by an integral over N (r). The final result for the macroscopic nuclear
SANS cross section then reads (e.g., [2]):
2
8π 3 e
Z
dΣnuc 1
(q) = N (r) exp (−iq · r) d3 r = |N (q)|2 , (1.25)
dΩ V V V
where Ne (q) denotes the Fourier transform of N (r), and the integral is taken over the
volume V of the sample. In Section 2.4.3, we will see how dΣnuc /dΩ can be related to
the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function of N (r).
Nuclear SANS (and SAXS) is not further considered here, and we refer the reader
to Section 2.4 for a summary of the basics. Before moving on to the discussion of the
magnetic SANS cross section, and with respect to polarized neutron scattering, we
emphasize that the nuclear SANS contribution which is related to the spins of the
atomic nuclei gives rise to a q-independent incoherent background contribution. It is
ignored in this book, simply because the related scattering signal is usually small when
compared to the magnetic SANS that is due to the electronic spins of nonhydrogenated
magnetic materials.
1.4.2 Magnetic SANS cross section

Magnetic neutron scattering originates from the interaction between the magnetic
moment of the neutron and the magnetic field that is created by the spin and the
orbital motion of atomic electrons. In contrast to the nuclear interaction [eqn (1.21)],
magnetic scattering is anisotropic. The interaction potential for magnetic neutron
scattering is given by [76]:
mag
Vint (r) = −µn · B(r), (1.26)
where
µn = −γn µN σ P (1.27)
denotes the magnetic dipole moment of the neutron, γn = 1.913 is the magnetic
moment of the neutron expressed in units of the nuclear magneton [104], and σ P is
the Pauli spin operator for the neutron. The quantity
12 INTRODUCTION

µ0 µe × r 2µB p × r
B = BS + BL = ∇× − (1.28)
4π r3 ~ r3
is the magnetic field at the position r that is produced by the spin (BS ) and the
orbital (BL ) motion of an electron possessing a magnetic moment µe = −2µB S and a
linear momentum p (µ0 : permeability of free space; µB : Bohr magneton; S: electron-
spin operator in units of ~). Note that eqn (1.26) represents only the leading term in
an expansion of the electromagnetic neutron-sample interaction potential in powers
of me /mn , where me denotes the electron mass [76]. Higher-order contributions, e.g.,
due to the scattering by the atomic electric field [105], are several orders of magnitude
smaller than the −µn · B term and can be ignored for the purpose of this book [75].
Based on the work by Bloch [106,107], Schwinger [108], and in particular by Halpern
and Johnson [109], the theory of polarized thermal neutron scattering on condensed
matter has been largely developed by Maleev et al. [110–112] and Blume [113] in the
early 1960s. These so-called Blume–Maleev equations are commonly formulated in
terms of discrete atomic spins rather than in the continuum picture, as is appropriate
for magnetic SANS. We therefore write down first the general expression for the elastic
magnetic differential scattering cross section and discuss subsequently the approxima-
tions necessary in order to obtain the magnetic SANS cross section. In addition to the
standard references [76, 86, 103], we recommend the papers by Izyumov, de Gennes,
and Maleev [114–116] for detailed accounts of polarized magnetic neutron scattering.
For an unpolarized incident neutron beam, the macroscopic elastic magnetic dif-
ferential scattering cross section at scattering vector q due to an arrangement of N
atomic magnetic moments µa at positions rk is given by [76, 104, 117]:
N 2
dΣM 1 X
(q) = bm,k Qk exp (−iq · rk )
dΩ V
k=1
1 X
= bm,k bm,l Qk Q∗l exp (−iq · [rk − rl ]) , (1.29)
V
k,l
where bm is the atomic magnetic scattering length, which is sometimes denoted with
the symbol p [104, 117], and
Qk = q̂ × (q̂ × m̂k ) = q̂(q̂ · m̂k ) − m̂k (1.30)
is the Halpern–Johnson vector [109] (also denoted as the magnetic interaction or

magnetic scattering vector). This quantity depends on the unit scattering vector
q̂ = q/q = {q̂x , q̂y , q̂z } and on the unit vector m̂k = µa,k /µa,k in the direction of
a magnetic moment. The special dependency of Qk on q̂ and on m̂k implies that for
magnetic neutron scattering only the component of the magnetization which is per-
pendicular to the scattering vector is of relevance (compare Fig. 2.17). This reflects the
dipolar nature of the neutron-magnetic interaction. The atomic magnetic scattering
length is given by [117, 118]:
γn re µa µa
bm = f (q) ∼
= 2.70 × 10−15 m f (q) ∼
= bH µa , (1.31)
2 µB µB
Table 1.2 Atomic magnetic scattering lengths bm in the SANS regime (computed using
eqn (1.31) with f (q) = 1), Curie temperatures TC , and atomic magnetic moments of various
elements exhibiting ferromagnetism in bulk form. TC and µa /µB -values taken from [119,120].
Element Crystal Structure (at RT) TC (K) µa /µB bm (10−15 m)
Fe bcc 1043 2.217 5.98

Co hcp 1403 1.721 4.64
Ni fcc 627 0.616 1.66
Gd hcp 293 7.63 20.57
Tb hcp 220 9.34 25.18
Dy hcp 89 10.33 27.84
Ho hcp 20 10.34 27.87
Er hcp 20 9.1 24.53
Tm hcp 32 7.14 19.25
where re = 2.818 × 10−15 m denotes the classical radius of the electron, and f (q) is
the normalized atomic magnetic form factor. Note that
f (q) ∼
=1 (1.32)
in the small-angle region, which is the approximation which we will adopt throughout
this book. Table 1.2 provides the bm -values of some of the most important elemental
magnetic materials. As can be seen, bm has the same order of magnitude as the nuclear
scattering length and can be quite large for the heavy rare-earth metals (see also
Fig. 2.11). Equation (1.31) also defines the constant [104]
bH = 2.70 × 10−15 m µ−1 8 −1 −1

B = 2.91 × 10 A m . (1.33)
The magnitude of Qk for a single magnetic moment equals

2
|Qk | = sin2 αk , (1.34)
where αk is the angle enlosed between m̂k and q̂. This simple result highlights the
anisotropic character of magnetic neutron scattering and demonstrates that, for a
single uniformly magnetized domain, the magnetic scattering vanishes for q̂ k m̂k and
is at maximum for q̂ ⊥ m̂k [see Fig. 1.12(b)].
As with nuclear SANS, eqn (1.29) needs to be transformed into a continuum pic-
ture. The quantity of interest for magnetic SANS is the magnetization vector field of
the sample, M = M(r), which, similarly to N (r), is assumed to be a smooth and
continuous function of r. The definition of M (see Section 3.1) entails that this quan-
tity represents an average over the thermal fluctuations of many individual atomic
14 INTRODUCTION
magnetic moments µa within a domain. Moreover, since the magnetic moment of an

atom is due to the spin and the orbital motions of the electrons, these contributions are
included in the definition of the magnetization. The magnitude of M is called the satu-
ration magnetization Ms = |M|, which is assumed to be only a function of temperature,
i.e., Ms = Ms (T ). Inserting eqns (1.30)−(1.33) into eqn (1.29), replacing the sum by an
integral over the sample volume and the discrete terms µa,k Qk = q̂(q̂ · µa,k ) − µa,k by
the corresponding continuum expression Q(r) = q̂[q̂ · M(r)] − M(r), the unpolarized
elastic magnetic differential SANS cross section reads [76]:
Z 2
dΣM 1
(q) = b2H Q(r) exp (−iq · r) d3 r
dΩ V V
8π 3 2 e 2
= b |Q|
V H
8π 3 2 2
= bH q̂ × q̂ × M(q)
f
V
8π 3 2 X
= b (δαβ − q̂α q̂β ) M
fα M
fβ , (1.35)
V H
α,β
where α and β stand for the Cartesian coordinates x, y, z, and δαβ is the Kronecker
delta function. The three-dimensional Fourier-transform pair of the magnetization is
given by:
n o
M(q)
f = M fx (q), M
fy (q), M
fz (q)
+∞ Z
Z +∞ Z
+∞
1
= M(r) exp (−iq · r) d3 r, (1.36)
(2π)3/2
−∞ −∞ −∞
M(r) = {Mx (r), My (r), Mz (r)}

+∞ Z
Z +∞ Z+∞
1
= M(q)
f exp (iq · r) d3 q, (1.37)
(2π)3/2
−∞ −∞ −∞
where i2 = −1, and q = {qx , qy , qz } is the wave vector.† Q

e = q̂ × (q̂ × M)
f is a linear
vector function of M. Both Q(q) and M(q) are in general complex vectors. Regarding
f e f
the dimensions of the involved quantities in eqn (1.35): M(r) and Q(r) have dimensions
† The Fourier transform of the magnetization is a function of the wave vector q, whereas the
magnetic SANS cross section dΣM /dΩ is a function of the scattering vector, say q0 , which is the
difference between the incident and scattered wave vectors of the neutron (compare Fig. 2.1). Contrary
to q, the quantity q0 is not a wave vector, since its magnitude for elastic scattering is not given by
2π/λ. However, dΣM /dΩ at scattering vector q0 depends exclusively on the Fourier components of
the magnetization at wave vector q = q0 , and a consistent separate handling of the symbols q and
q0 would unnecessarily encumber the discussion. In agreement with common usage in the neutron
scattering literature, we ignore the distinction between the two quantities and use the symbol q to
denote both the wave vector and the scattering vector.
of A/m, so that M(q)

f and Q(q)
e are in Am2 , with the consequence that dΣM /dΩ has
−1
dimensions of m . We also mention that in a small-angle scattering experiment only
correlations in the plane perpendicular to the incident neutron beam (with wave vector
k0 ) are probed. This implies that the component of the scattering vector q̂ along k0 is
ignored, i.e., the three-dimensional q̂ is approximated by a two-dimensional one (see
Section 2.1).
Unpolarized SANS cross section. The nuclear SANS cross section [eqn (1.25)] adds
to dΣM /dΩ, so that the total (nuclear and magnetic) unpolarized SANS cross section
is given by:
dΣ dΣnuc dΣM 8π 3 e 2
(q) = (q) + (q) = |N | + b2H |Q|
e 2 . (1.38)
dΩ dΩ dΩ V
With reference to eqn (1.34) one can then see that for a saturated single-domain mag-
netic microstructure (|Q|e 2 ∝ sin2 α), the unpolarized scattering along the direction
of magnetization (q k M) is exclusively nuclear in origin, while dΣ/dΩ for q ⊥ M
contains both the nuclear and magnetic scattering. Therefore, if it becomes possible
by the application of a strong external magnetic field H0 perpendicular to the beam
to completely saturate a magnetic material, then this provides a means to separate
nuclear and magnetic scattering. However, we emphasize that when H0 is not large
enough to completely saturate the sample, then the scattering of unpolarized neutrons
for q k H0 does not represent the pure nuclear SANS, but also contains the magnetic
SANS due to the misaligned transversal spins [121]. This is a very delicate issue and
we recommend to carry out experiments with increasing values of the “supposed” sat-
uration field (see Appendix A). The mere visual inspection of a measured hysteresis
loop and the assertion that the horizontal saturation regime has been reached might be
misleading in this context (see also the discussion in [122]). We also refer the reader to
Section 6.5.2, where the field-dependent unpolarized SANS of nanocrystalline cobalt
is discussed. In Fig. 6.16, the field-dependent SANS is compared to the magnetiza-
tion curve and one can see that, even in the saturation regime, dΣ/dΩ exhibits an
extraordinarily large field variation.
Polarized SANS cross section. When the incident neutron beam is polarized, addi-
tional nuclear-magnetic and magnetic-magnetic interference terms may appear in the
SANS cross section. We refer to Fig. 2.1 in Section 2.1, which depicts the typical setup
of a polarized SANS experiment. The polarization P of a neutron beam containing
Ns spins can be defined as the average over the individual polarizations Pj of the
neutrons as [104]:
Ns
1 X
P= Pj , (1.39)
Ns j=1
where 0 ≤ |P| ≤ 1. In experimental SANS studies the beam is usually partially

polarized along a certain guide-field direction (quantization axis), which we take here,
unless otherwise stated, as the z-direction. Assuming that the expectation values of
16 INTRODUCTION
the perpendicular polarization components vanish, i.e., Px = Py = 0, and that Pz = P ,

one can then introduce the fractions
1 1
p+ = (1 + P ) and p− = (1 − P ) (1.40)
2 2
of neutrons in the spin-up (+) and spin-down (−) state, with
p+ + p− = 1 and p+ − p− = P. (1.41)
Obviously, for an unpolarized beam p+ = p− = 0.5 and P = 0, while P = +1 (p+ = 1)

and P = −1 (p− = 1) for a fully polarized beam.
When there is an additional analyzer behind the sample, configured such that it
selects only neutrons with spins either parallel or antiparallel to the initial polarization,
then one can distinguish four scattering cross sections (scattering processes) [104, 113,
117]: two of which conserve the neutron-spin direction (++ and −−), the so-called
non-spin-flip cross sections
dΣ++ 8π 3 2 h −2 e 2 i
= bH bH |N | + b−1 e e∗ e∗ e
H (N Qz + N Qz ) + |Qz |
e 2 ,
dΩ V
dΣ−− 8π 3 2 h −2 e 2 i
= bH bH |N | − b−1
H (NeQe ∗z + N
e ∗Q e z |2 ,
e z ) + |Q (1.42)
dΩ V
and two cross sections which reverse the neutron spin (+− and −+), the so-called
spin-flip cross sections
dΣ+− 8π 3 2 h e 2 e y |2 − iez · (Q
i
e ∗) ,
= bH |Qx | + |Q e ×Q
dΩ V
dΣ−+ 8π 3 2 h e 2 e y |2 + iez · (Q
i
e ∗) .
= bH |Qx | + |Q e ×Q (1.43)
dΩ V
These expressions, written here in terms of the Cartesian components of Q, e will be dis-
cussed in more detail in Section 2.5, where they are explicitly displayed in terms of the
Cartesian components of M. f The latter representation is more intuitive for comparing
the cross sections to experimental data and to the outcome of micromagnetic computa-
tions of the real-space spin structure. We also emphasize that nuclear-spin-dependent
SANS is not taken into account in this book, so that the corresponding scattering
contributions do not show up in eqns (1.42) and (1.43). The particular experimental
arrangement when the neutrons are polarized and analyzed along the same guide-field
direction is denoted as uniaxial (sometimes also as one-dimensional or longitudinal)
polarization analysis. As emphasized by Moon, Riste, and Koehler [117], in uniaxial
polarization-analysis experiments, one measures these four scattering cross sections
which connect the two neutron-spin states. From these measurements the polarization
of the scattered beam may be obtained. Three-dimensional polarization analysis on a
SANS instrument, which generally demands for a zero magnetic field environment, has
been demonstrated a long time ago (e.g., [123–126]). The technique has been used to
characterize the magnetic domain structure and to study the critical spin dynamics in
ferromagnets. However, the state-of-the-art in “routine” SANS polarization-analysis
experiments is the above-sketched uniaxial case, where a large field can be applied to
the sample. The progress made with the development of efficient 3 He spin filters [127]
has decisively contributed to this (see Section 2.5 for further details).
The total SANS cross section dΣ/dΩ can be expressed in terms of the initial spin
populations p± as [104, 113, 117]
−−
dΣ−+
++
dΣ+−

dΣ dΣ dΣ
= p+ + + p− + . (1.44)
dΩ dΩ dΩ dΩ dΩ
Inserting the above expressions for p+ and p− [eqns (1.40) and (1.41)] and for the par-
tial SANS cross sections dΣ±± /dΩ and dΣ±∓ /dΩ [eqns (1.42) and (1.43)], eqn (1.44)
evaluates to:
dΣ 8π 3 2 h −2 e 2 e 2 + P · b−1 (N e∗ + Ne ∗ Q)
i
e ∗ ) , (1.45)
= bH bH |N | + |Q| H
eQ e − iP · (Q
e ×Q
dΩ V
which, using P = {0, 0, Pz = ±P }, can be rewritten as:
dΣ± 8π 3 2 h −2 e 2 e 2 ± P b−1 (N e ∗z + N
e ∗Q
i
e ∗ ) . (1.46)
= bH bH |N | + |Q| H
eQ e z ) ∓ iP ez · (Q
e ×Q
dΩ V
Since the cross section is a scalar quantity and the polarization is an axial vector
(or pseudovector), eqn (1.45) shows that the system under study must itself contain
an axial vector. As emphasized by Maleev [116], examples for such built-in pseudo-
vectors are related to the interaction of a polycrystalline sample with an external
magnetic field (inducing an average magnetization directed along the applied field),
the existence of a spontaneous magnetization in a ferromagnetic single crystal, the
antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction, mechanical (torsional) deformation,
or the presence of spin spirals. If on the other hand there is no preferred axis in the
system, then dΣ/dΩ is independent of P. Examples include a collection of randomly
oriented non-interacting nuclear (electronic) spins, which describe the general case of
nuclear (paramagnetic) scattering at not-too-low temperatures and large applied fields,
or a multi-domain ferromagnet with a random distribution of the domains. The same
condition—existence of an axial system vector—applies for neutrons to be polarized
in the scattering process [compare the last two terms in eqn (1.50)]. We also refer
to Section 2.8.3, where spin-polarized SANS data on a ferromagnetic nanocrystalline
alloy are discussed.
In the domain of magnetic SANS it is customary to denote experiments with a
polarized incident beam only, and no spin analysis of the scattered neutrons, with the
acronym SANSPOL. For spin-resolved SANS experiments (uniaxial polarization anal-
ysis) the term POLARIS is commonly used. The two SANSPOL cross sections dΣ+ /dΩ
and dΣ− /dΩ (also sometimes denoted as the half-polarized SANS cross sections) com-
bine non-spin-flip and spin-flip scattering contributions, according to (p± = 1):
dΣ+ dΣ++ dΣ+−

= + , (1.47)
dΩ dΩ dΩ
dΣ− dΣ−− dΣ−+
= + . (1.48)
dΩ dΩ dΩ
18 INTRODUCTION
Finally, noting that an unpolarized beam can be viewed as consisting of 50% spin-up
and 50% spin-down neutrons [compare eqns (1.40) and (1.41)], the unpolarized SANS
cross section is obtained as [compare eqn (1.44) and see Section 2.6]:
1 dΣ++ dΣ+− dΣ−− dΣ−+ 1 dΣ+ dΣ−

dΣ
= + + + = + . (1.49)
dΩ 2 dΩ dΩ dΩ dΩ 2 dΩ dΩ
Polarization of the scattered beam. Although not further used in this book, we dis-
play for completeness also the equation for the polarization of the scattered neutrons
(uniaxial case). The polarization P 0 of the scattered beam along the direction of the
incident neutron polarization P is obtained from the following relation [104, 113, 117]:
dΣ dΣ++ dΣ−+ dΣ−− dΣ+−
P0 = p+ + p− − p− − p+
dΩ dΩ dΩ dΩ dΩ
8π 3 2 h −2 e 2 e z |2 − |Q
e x |2 − |Q
e y |2
i
= bH P bH |N | + |Q
V
8π 3 2 h −1 e e ∗ e ∗Qe z ) + iez · (Q
e ×Q
i
e ∗) ,
+ bH bH (N Qz + N (1.50)
V
where dΣ/dΩ is given by eqn (1.44), and the polarization fractions and partial cross
sections are again expressed using eqns (1.40)−(1.43). The first four terms in the
second line on the right-hand side of eqn (1.50) demonstrate that nuclear scattering
(to be more precise, the nuclear coherent scattering, the isotopic disorder scattering,
and 1/3 of the nuclear-spin-dependent scattering) and scattering due to the longitu-
dinal component Q e z of the magnetic scattering vector Q e do not reverse the initial
polarization, while the two transversal components Q e x and Q e y give rise to spin-flip
scattering. The last two terms in eqn (1.50) do create polarization: these are the
familiar nuclear-magnetic interference terms (N e∗ + N
eQ e ∗Q
e z ), which are commonly
z
used to polarize beams, and the chiral term iez · (Q × Q∗ ), which is of relevance
e e
in spin-wave scattering, in elastic scattering on spiral structures, or in the presence
of the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction in microstructural-defect-rich magnets (see
Section 4.3.3). We remind that nuclear-spin-dependent scattering is not taken into ac-
count in the expressions for the magnetic SANS cross sections, although Section 2.4.2
features some basic results combining SANS with the technique of dynamic nuclear
polarization. In the general expression for the polarization of the scattered neutrons,
a term iP × (N eQe∗ − N e ∗ Q)
e appears [104], which is ignored in eqn (1.50). This term
rotates the polarization perpendicular to the initial polarization and cannot be ob-
served in the uniaxial setup. We emphasize that in linear neutron polarimetry it is not
possible to distinguish between a rotation of the polarization vector and a change of
its length [116, 117].
1.5 Diffraction versus refraction

In the context of the validity of the Born approximation for SANS studies it is worth
referring to the early investigation of Weiss [128], who computed the differential and
the total scattering cross section for the scattering of slow neutrons on a single spher-
ical particle with a diameter very much larger than the neutron wavelength. Weiss’s
Diffraction versus refraction 19
treatment reveals that for φps 1 the result for the cross section agrees with the solu-
tion obtained using the Born approximation (diffraction regime), while for φps 1 the
result agrees with the one obtained using the methods of geometrical optics (refraction
regime). The parameter φps denotes the difference between the neutron phase shift in
traversing the particle diameter D and the phase shift in traversing the same distance
in vacuum. For normal neutron incidence, it is given by the following relation:
φps = kD (n − 1) , (1.51)
where k = 2π/λ is the neutron wave vector outside the sample (vacuum), K = nk is
the wave vector inside the medium, and
2
K λ2
n2 = = 1 − ρa b (1.52)
k π
is the square of the index of refraction, with ρa the number density of nuclei and b the
mean-bound coherent scattering length [82]; hN i = ρa b is also denoted as the mean
nuclear scattering-length density. As discussed in the paper by Weiss [128], van de
Hulst [129] has shown that the cases φps 1 and φps 1 correspond to different
limiting forms of the same scattering problem: φps 1 corresponds to the Rayleigh–
Gans theory of diffraction [130, 131], while φps 1 corresponds to the refraction
theory of von Nardroff [132]. For most materials b is real and positive, so that n < 1,
suggesting that the phenomenon of total reflection can occur if the neutrons enter the
medium from vacuum. The deviation of n from unity, |n − 1|, is for thermal and cold
neutrons of the order of 10−5 −10−6 [118]. Figure 1.4 displays φps (D) for λ = 6 Å and
for several values of 1 − n. It is seen that for particle sizes below a few 100 nm the
condition φps 1 is fulfilled for cold neutrons.
For ferromagnetic materials the index of refraction is double-valued (birefringant).
As shown e.g., by Sears [82], it can be obtained by replacing b in eqn (1.52) with b±bm ,
i.e.,
λ2
n2± = 1 −

ρa b ± bm , (1.53)
π
where bm denotes the atomic magnetic scattering length [eqn (1.31)], and the “+”
and “−” signs refer, respectively, to neutrons with spin parallel or antiparallel to the
magnetization. Equation (1.53) is the basis for the production of polarized neutron
beams and for the experimental determination of scattering lengths; see, e.g., [76,
103, 118] for a further discussion of this aspect of eqn (1.53). We also refer to the
treatment by Schaerpf [133], who has analyzed two ways for solving the problem
of the dependence of the refractive index on the direction of magnetization on both
sides of the refractive boundary, one employing the Halpern–Johnson vector, the other
by applying the dynamical theory of diffraction. Since bm is of the same order of
magnitude as b for many magnetic materials, similar conclusions as in the nuclear case
are expected to hold [128]: as a rule of thumb, for magnetic domain sizes D = Dds
below a few 100 nm, diffraction is generally the dominant process (φps 1), while for
micron-sized domains refraction may occur (φps 1).
20 INTRODUCTION
10
1 n -4
= 10
1 n -5
= 10
1 1 n -6
= 10
ps 0.1
0.01
0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000
D (nm)
Fig. 1.4: The parameter φps [eqn (1.51)] as a function of D for cold neutrons (λ = 6 Å)
and for several values of 1 − n (see inset) (log-log scale).
The question which remains to be discussed is the meaning of Dds for a ferromag-
netic material. This depends e.g., on the specific microstructure (single crystalline,
polycrystalline coarse-grained, or nanocrystalline), on the magnetic interactions and
the anisotropy energy (hard or soft magnetic), and on the value of the applied mag-
netic field. It is well known that many ferromagnets at small applied fields exhibit
a multi-domain structure with domain sizes in the µm–mm range (see Fig. 1.5). In
an idealized picture the domains are uniformly
p magnetized to saturation and domain
walls with a thickness of the order of lK = A/K separate the domains (A: exchange-
stiffness constant; K: anisotropy constant). For nickel lK ∼ = 40 nm, while lK ∼
= 1 nm
for Nd2 Fe14 B [134]. On top of the above two length scales, the domain size Dds and
the domain-wall width lK , there is at least the average crystallite (grain) or particle
size Dgs in a polycrystalline material. This quantity decorates random spatial varia-
tions in the magnetic anisotropy field due to spatial variations in the set of crystal-
lographic easy axes at internal interfaces (e.g., grain boundaries). Such variations in
the anisotropy field may give rise to deviations of the magnetization from the mean
magnetization direction within a domain; in other words, and more generally speaking,
due to the inevitable presence of microstructural defects (e.g., vacancies, dislocations,
grain boundaries, pores) in polycrystalline magnets, the individual domains may not
be uniformly magnetized (see the discussion in Section 1.6). The size of the associated
spin-misaligned regions is characterized by the exchange length lH , which is a function
of the applied field; typically, lH ∼ 1−100 nm [compare Fig. 1.7 and Fig. 3.5(a)].
When a finely collimated neutron beam is scattered off a macroscopic domain struc-
ture at not-too-large applied fields, multiple refraction at the magnetic domain bound-
aries occurs and one observes a concomitant broadening of the incident neutron beam.
This feature, along with probably the first experimental observation of magnetic SANS,
Diffraction versus refraction 21
Fig. 1.5: Kerr microscopy images illustrating the magnetization process in soft mag-
netic transverse-field-annealed alloys on a 100 µm length scale: (a) an amorphous ma-
terial with an induced magnetic anisotropy of Ku ≈ 0.6 J/m3 ; (b) a nanocrystalline
material with a high induced anisotropy (Ku ≈ 30 J/m3 ); (c) a nanocrystalline alloy
with a low induced anisotropy (Ku ≈ 3 J/m3 ). Arrows indicate the magnetization
direction, which is estimated from inductive magnetization measurements in the de-
pendence of the applied magnetic field. The magnetization is given in fractions of the
respective saturation polarization Js = µ0 Ms . After [135].
has been discovered early on in neutron research by Hughes et al. [136, 137]. These
authors have performed neutron experiments at small scattering angles on an unmag-
netized and a magnetized polycrystalline iron block and demonstrated the presence of
two indices of refraction for neutrons. It was suggested that the magnetic refraction of
neutrons at domain boundaries may be used to investigate the magnetic domain struc-
ture.‡ Along with refraction, the intra-domain nanoscale spin disorder may result in a
magnetic neutron scattering signal along the forward direction, i.e., the conventional
diffuse magnetic SANS. Increasing the external field gradually transforms the multi-
domain structure into a quasi-single-domain state. Within the approach-to-saturation
regime one then considers small spin deviations (caused e.g., by defects) relative to
the applied-field direction with a characteristic wavelength given by lH ∼1−100 nm.
The dominant scattering process in this case is magnetic small-angle scattering. We
will now proceed to the discussion of the origins of magnetic SANS.
‡ Nowadays, neutron depolarization is the standard technique for determining the average domain
size and domain magnetization, and the mean-square-direction cosines of the domains. When a po-
larized neutron beam is traversing a magnetic material, then the beam may be depolarized due to the
Larmor precession of the neutron spin in the changing magnetic induction field of the domain struc-
ture. Three-dimensional neutron depolarization is an important method for studying the static and
dynamic properties of magnetic structures in the micrometer and submicrometer regime, including
superconductors and critical phenomena (e.g., [103, 123, 124, 138–151]).
22 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.6: Simplified sketches of the magnetization distribution. (a) A homogeneous and
uniformly magnetized ferromagnet; (b) an inhomogeneous and uniformly magnetized
material; (c) an inhomogeneous and nonuniformly magnetized magnet. The external
magnetic field H0 is applied along the ez -direction of a Cartesian laboratory coordinate
system. Effects due the external sample surface are ignored. Note that in (b) the
magnetization vectors of the particle and matrix phase have a different length but
the same orientation. Case (c) reduces to (b)-type for complete magnetic saturation
(infinite applied field H0 ).
1.6 Origin of magnetic SANS: relation to magnetic microstructure

The magnetization vector field M is the quantity which is most relevant for magnetic
SANS. The central part of this book deals with the computation and the experimental
investigation of the elastic magnetic SANS cross section, eqn (1.35), which in the Born
approximation exclusively depends on the Fourier components of M. These functions
carry the information on the underlying physics of the problem, since they depend on
the relevant parameters such as the momentum-transfer vector q, the applied magnetic
field H0 , the magnetic interactions [symmetric (A) and antisymmetric (D) exchange,
magnetocrystalline (K) and magnetoelastic (σ) anisotropy, magnetostatics Ms ], the
particle-size or crystallite-size distribution f (R), or the crystallographic texture; in
other words,
Mfx,y,z = M fx,y,z (q; H0 , A, D, K, σ, Ms , f (R), . . .). (1.54)
In the following, we discuss the various origins of magnetic SANS and we highlight some
important differences between magnetic SANS and conventional particle scattering.
Some of the ideas which are presented in this section require some basic knowledge
about magnetism as well as about nuclear SANS. We refer the reader to Sections 2.4
and 3.1 for a quick reference, or to the standard magnetism (e.g., [152–155]) and small-
angle scattering [9–13] textbooks for more detailed information. We aim to keep the
discussion on a qualitative level and guided by physical intuition.
Magnetic SANS has its origin in nanometer-scale variations in both the orientation
and/or magnitude of the magnetization vector M(r). Figure 1.6 illustrates this state-
ment for several magnetic microstructures. The simplest case is the homogeneous and
uniformly magnetized ferromagnet [Fig. 1.6(a)]. Here, both the magnitude Ms = |M|
and the direction of M k H0 k ez are the same at each point r inside the material.
Origin of magnetic SANS: relation to magnetic microstructure 23
The magnetization distribution is given by M = {0, 0, Ms }. Consequently, there ex-

ists no nanometer-scale contrast for magnetic SANS (no deviation from a mean value
regarding both magnitude and direction of M) and the magnetic SANS cross section
reduces to a delta function at the origin of reciprocal space,
dΣM
(q) ∝ |δ(q)|2 . (1.55)
dΩ
For a fully saturated but inhomogeneous system, such as the two-phase structure which
is sketched in Fig. 1.6(b), we have M = {0, 0, Mz = Ms (r)}, and the magnetic SANS is
exclusively due to spatial variations in the saturation magnetization. Hence, dΣM /dΩ
is determined by the Fourier transform M fs (q) of Ms (r) [compare eqn (1.35)],
dΣM fs (q)|2 .
(q) ∝ |M (1.56)
dΩ
Prototypical microstructures for this scenario are e.g., a distribution of saturated or
single-domain nanoparticles in a nonmagnetic or saturated matrix (of different mag-
netization), or pores in a saturated matrix. Analysis of dΣM /dΩ then provides in-
formation on the size and shape of the particles, on the magnetic contrast between
particle and matrix (difference in Ms ), and on the arrangement and interaction poten-
tial between the particles. Figure 1.6(c) depicts the most general case of an inhomo-
geneous and nonuniformly magnetized magnetic material: the magnetization exhibits
spatial variations in the magnitude and direction, and the magnetic SANS cross sec-
tion is given by eqn (1.35). Examples for such materials are polycrystalline elemental
magnets with a nanometer crystallite size, heavily deformed (cold-worked) metals,
nanoporous ferromagnets, or multiphase magnetic nanocomposites, including mag-
netic steels, shape-memory alloys, and permanent magnets. Only in the completely
saturated state is the dΣM /dΩ of these materials described by eqn (1.56).
As far as the analysis procedure is concerned, there is an important difference
between the cases (b) and (c). As we will see in Chapter 3 and in Section 5.1.3, the
problem of finding the vectorial magnetization distribution
 
 Mx (x, y, z) 
M(r) = My (x, y, z) , (1.57)
Mz (x, y, z)
 
which is subject to the constraint of constant magnitude |M| = Ms , consists of the

solution of a set of nonlinear partial differential equations with complex boundary
conditions. By contrast, the problem which is embodied in case (b) amounts to find-
ing the scalar function Ms (r) [eqn (1.56)], which is determined by the geometry of
the microstructure; for instance, for a dilute scattering system consisting of saturated
nanoparticles in a homogeneous nonmagnetic matrix or in a homogeneous magnet-
ically saturated matrix, dΣM /dΩ is determined by the form factor of the particle.
Problem (b) is therefore fully analogous to the usual problem, encountered in nuclear
SANS and SAXS, of determining the scalar scattering-length density distribution (see
Section 2.4.3); in other words, the well-known procedures of nuclear SANS can be
applied in order to analyze the idealized situation of a saturated microstructure.
24 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.7: Magnetization distributions around (a) a vacancy-type defect, (b) an iso-
lated quasi-dislocation, and (c) a quasi-dislocation dipole. At a particular value of the
externally applied magnetic field H0 , the micromagnetic exchange length lH specifies
the range or size of the perturbed region around the defect core. Ldef in (c) denotes
the spatial separation between defect cores. Image courtesy of Dagmar Goll, Aalen
University, Aalen, Germany. After [156].
1.6.1 Origins of inhomogeneous magnetization states
After these elementary considerations we would like to briefly discuss in the following
the origins of inhomogeneous magnetization states which appear on the length scale
that is probed by conventional SANS. In fact, this is a complicated and challenging
subject and a large part of this book is devoted to the discussion of this issue. Many
of the magnetic materials which are studied using the SANS technique are polycrys-
talline in nature, implying that their macroscopic properties, as well as their magnetic
SANS signal, are largely determined by crystalline lattice imperfections (e.g., pores,
grain or phase boundaries, dislocations, point defects). The local magnetization M(r)
in the material is linked to the defect via the magnetoelastic coupling energy (see
Section 3.1.4): the stress field related to the defect couples to M, which results in a
deviation from the mean magnetization and, hence, in a contrast for magnetic SANS.
As an example for this mechanism, Fig. 1.7 displays the inhomogeneous spin distribu-
tion in the vicinity of point and line defects. The spatial extension of the perturbed
region around a defect is quantified by the magnetic exchange length lH , which de-
pends on the value of the external field H0 and on the exchange interaction. Increasing
H0 results in a decrease of lH , i.e., in a suppression of fluctuations. The ferromagnetic
exchange interaction (see Section 3.1.1) plays a special role here, since this energy con-
tribution aims to avoid gradients in M(r) and, therefore, a perturbed magnetization
state spreads over many lattice sites into the surrounding crystal lattice.
Figure 1.7 nicely serves to highlight one of the central aspects of this book. The
magnetic microstructure of many materials is characterized by the continuous “flow”
of magnetization around defects, and a picture in terms of uniform and discontinuous
domains is not adequate for the description of magnetic SANS. Naively, one may argue
that replacing sharp discontinuous changes in the magnetization by a smooth profile,
Fig. 1.8: Result of a micromagnetic simulation for the magnetization distribution

around a spherical pore (diameter: 10 nm) in a ferromagnetic iron matrix (µ0 H0 =
0.6 T). Shown is a two-dimensional projection of the spin structure out of a three-
dimensional simulation. The jump of the magnetization magnitude at the pore-matrix
interface is µ0 Ms = 2.2 T. The left image shows the magnetization distribution (ar-
rows) in the iron matrix. In order to highlight the spin misalignment in the iron phase,
the right image displays the magnetization component M⊥ perpendicular to H0 k ez .
Size of arrows is proportional to the magnitude of M⊥ . After [59].
i.e., going from →↑→ to , is only a mathematical detail which does not affect the
main physics of a problem. However, as we will see in the course of this book and as
is already well known from nuclear small-angle scattering theory (see the chapter by
Porod in [10]), this change of paradigm has important consequences for the magnetic
SANS cross section and correlation function.
On top of the magnetoelastic defect-related mechanism one has to take into account
that at a defect site (e.g., at an internal interphase in a magnetic nanocomposite) the
values of the magnetic materials parameters (saturation magnetization, exchange, or
anisotropy constants) may change, in this way giving rise to inhomogeneous magneti-
zation states, which contribute significantly to the magnetic SANS signal. Figure 1.8
depicts the numerically computed magnetization distribution M(r) around a spherical
pore in a ferromagnetic iron matrix; see the papers by Kronmüller [157] and by Dietze
and Schröder [158–160] for analytical calculations. The jump of the magnetization
magnitude at the pore-matrix interface amounts to µ0 Ms = 2.2 T. This discontinuity
in Ms and the related magnetic surface charges give rise to an inhomogeneous mag-
netic stray field Hpore pore
stray (r), which in turn exerts a torque Hstray × M on the magnetic
moments of the iron matrix [134]. The perpendicular (canted) moments which are
produced by Hporestray represent a contrast for magnetic SANS (right image in Fig. 1.8).
The discussion can be made more quantitative by considering the closely related
problem of a uniformly magnetized spherical particle of radius R and magnetization
Msp , which is embedded in a saturated matrix of magnetization Msm . For this situation
(see also Section 3.1.6), the Cartesian components of the stray field (outside of the
particle at r ≥ R) equal [161]:
26 INTRODUCTION
 
3  sin ϑ cos ϑ cos ζ 
R
Hstray (r, ϑ, ζ) = ∆M sin ϑ cos ϑ sin ζ , (1.58)
r
cos2 ϑ − 31
 
where ∆M = Msp − Msm is the jump of the magnetization magnitude, the polar angle
ϑ is measured between the magnetization axis (k ez ) and the position vector r with
|r| = r, and ζ denotes the azimuthal angle. As one can see [Fig. 1.9(a)], the dipole field
eqn (1.58) is highly anisotropic and decays as r−3 with the distance from the surface of
the particle. The components of Hstray which are perpendicular to the magnetization
of the matrix (initially assumed to be saturated along ez ) give rise to a torque and
produce spin disorder. The orientation average of the square of the normal component
of Hstray can be computed as follows:
Z4π 6
1 2 R
hH2stray,⊥ iΩ = H2stray,⊥ sin ϑdϑdζ = (∆M )2 . (1.59)
4π 15 r
0
The square root of hH2stray,⊥ iΩ is plotted in Fig. 1.9(b) as a function of the reduced
distance parameter r̂ = R/r. It is seen that the magnitude of the average dipole field
can take on quite large values in the immediate vicinity of the particle/pore-matrix
interface (e.g., 154 mT at r̂ = 0.75 and for µ0 ∆M = 1.0 T). This field also competes
with the externally applied magnetic field H0 , and it implies that—under realistic
experimental conditions, where µ0 H0max ∼ 1−10 T—the related torques do result in a
significant spin canting of the matrix magnetic moments; in other words, for strongly
inhomogeneous microstructures (large ∆M ) and for not-too-large applied fields, it may
be a too-idealized assumption to consider the matrix as being uniformly magnetized.
Besides vacancies, dislocations, pores, and second-phase particles, grain bound-
aries may also give rise to significant spin disorder, so that, even for a nearly defect-
free and homogeneous polycrystalline ferromagnet, the magnetic SANS signal may
be quite strong and dominate over the nuclear contribution; compare, e.g., the field-
dependent SANS cross section of nanocrystalline Co (Fig. 6.16). Consider a polycrys-
talline single-phase elemental ferromagnet with a nanometer-sized average crystallite
size Dgs , with uniform exchange interaction, saturation magnetization, and magnitude
of the magnetic anisotropy, and with atomically sharp grain boundaries. For such an
idealized system, the crystallographic set of easy axes for the magnetization changes
randomly at each grain boundary, giving rise to nanometer-scale spatial variations in
the orientation of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy field HK (see Section 3.1.3). The
magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy tries to pull the magnetic moments along cer-
tain crystallographic axes within each single-crystalline nanocrystal. Therefore, if HK
varies randomly on a scale of Dgs ∼ 10−20 nm, the magnetization is being perturbed
by means of the related torques HK × M, which results in a strong magnetic SANS
response.
Up to this point we have implicitly based the discussion on infinitely extended bulk
ferromagnets, where all the phases of the material are magnetic. However, the above-
described mechanisms giving rise to a magnetic SANS contrast are also of relevance
for isolated finite-sized magnetic nanoparticles, which are embedded in a nonmagnetic
Fig. 1.9: (a) Sketch illustrating the geometry of the dipole field [eqn (1.58)]. Shown
is the projection of the normal component of Hstray (r, ϑ) into a plane containing the
magnetization M of the particle (∆M > 0). Note that this projected field changes sign
at the border between quadrants. (b) Root-mean-square dipolar stray field around a
spherical particle as a function of r̂ = R/r [eqn (1.59)] (log-log scale).
matrix. For nanoparticles, vacancies or the presence of surface anisotropy are potential
sources of inhomogeneous magnetization states. Moreover, it is important to realize
that, even if the nanoparticles are defect-free and homogeneous, it is the competition
between the magnetic energy contributions which decides on the spin configuration,
irrespective of whether the shape of the particle is ellipsoidal (e.g., a sphere) or not
(see Section 1.6.2). Following Aharoni [154], the main difference between a homoge-
neously magnetized ellipsoid and any other homogeneously magnetized body is that
the demagnetizing field Hd inside an ellipsoid is uniform, i.e., it is the same at ev-
ery point inside the ellipsoid, which is not true for any non-ellipsoidal shape, where
Hd = Hd (r) (see Section 3.1.6 for a more-thorough discussion of magnetostatics). As a
result, deviations from ellipsoidal particle shape may result in an inhomogeneous spin
texture due to the associated nonuniformity of the individual particle’s demagnetizing
field, which is due to the magnetodipolar interaction.
This is illustrated in Fig. 1.10, where the results of micromagnetic simulations for
the remanent spin structures of a long cobalt cylinder (Lcyl = 500 nm) are presented
for diameters Dcyl ranging between 30−90 nm [162, 163]. The uniaxial magnetocrys-
talline anisotropy Ku of Co was neglected in these simulations. We refer to [162] for
results with a nonzero Ku directed along the cylinder’s diameter (see also Fig. 7.15 in
Section 7.4.2). The data in Fig. 1.10 reflect the competition between the exchange inter-
action, which tries to keep the ferromagnetic spin alignment, and the magnetodipolar
interaction, which aims to avoid surface and volume charges (trying to align the mag-
netic moments parallel to the surface of the nanorod’s ends). While the Dcyl = 30 nm
cylinder is in a quasi-single-domain state (magnetized along the long x-axis), local-
ized transversal spin inhomogeneities at the end faces of the rod, caused by torques
28 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.10: Color-coded maps of the computed real-space spin structures of a Co nanorod
with a length of Lcyl = 500 nm and diameters of (a) Dcyl = 30 nm, (b) Dcyl = 60 nm,
and (c) Dcyl = 90 nm (Ku = 0) (remanent state). The cylinders were first saturated
by an external field H0 k ez applied perpendicular to the wire axis (along the diam-
eter). The magnetization distributions m(x, y, z) are identical in all three images in
(a)−(c), respectively. The color scale encodes the different Cartesian components of
m. After [162].
Hd × M, appear when the diameter is increased. The growing internal spin disorder
results in a magnetic SANS cross section that is different from the uniform particle
case (see Section 7.4.2), as described by the Stoner–Wohlfarth model [164].
The preceding considerations have clearly emphasized the pivotal role of mi-
crostructural defects and the related spatial variations of the magnetic materials
parameters (e.g., saturation magnetization, direction and/or magnitude of magnetic
anisotropy, exchange constant) for the understanding of the magnetic microstructure
and the ensuing magnetic SANS cross section dΣM /dΩ. In the following, we find it
instructive to continue the discussion by comparing the dΣM /dΩ which are related to
a uniformly and to a nonuniformly magnetized defect-free spherical nanoparticle.
1.6.2 Example: uniform versus nonuniform sphere

The discussion in this section may be perceived as a bit premature, since we already
rely on some of the basic concepts of SANS. We emphasize, however, that the focus
here is on grasping the differences between conventional particle scattering (assuming
uniformly magnetized domains) and the magnetic scattering from nonuniform mag-
netization textures. Therefore, it is advisable that the reader returns to this section,
once some of the other chapters have been worked through.
On a length scale of the interatomic spacing, strong quantum-mechanical exchange
forces hold all atomic spins in parallel, which is true for many ferromagnetic materi-
als [154]. Therefore, very small magnetic particles may be assumed to be uniformly
Fig. 1.11: Numerically computed magnetization distributions (using the software pack-
age MuMax3 [166, 167]) of a defect-free iron sphere with a diameter of (a) D = 10 nm
and (b) D = 40 nm. Shown are the spin structures in the remanent state after prior
saturation along the z-direction. After [163].
magnetized and are said to be in a single-domain state. Increasing the size of nanopar-
ticles leads to an increase of the magnetostatic stray-field energy (see Section 3.1.6),
and eventually it may become energetically advantageous to introduce a domain wall
into the particle. The critical single-domain size Dc marks the transition between the
single-domain and the two-domain state. For a single spherical particle, Dc is approx-
imately given by [119, 165]:
√
∼ 72 AK1
Dc = , (1.60)
µ0 Ms2
where A denotes the exchange-stiffness constant, and K1 is the first-order magne-

tocrystalline anisotropy constant; see Table B.1 in Appendix B for Dc -values of some
selected magnetic materials.
Figure 1.11 depicts the remanent spin structures of defect-free iron spheres with
diameters of D = 10 nm and D = 40 nm. Note that the critical single-domain size for
iron is Dc ∼
= 10 nm (see Table B.1). As one can see, the magnetization distribution of
the D = 10 nm sphere is quasi-uniform, while the one of the D = 40 nm sphere is highly
inhomogeneous [i.e., M = M(x, y, z)] and exhibits a vortex-type spin configuration.
Before proceeding with the discussion of the magnetic SANS of the iron sphere,
we will briefly furnish some technical information regarding the micromagnetic simu-
lations. For the computation of the spin structures of the iron sphere, the GPU-based
open-source software package MuMax3 [166, 167] was employed, which uses a finite-
difference discretization scheme of space. MuMax3 can take into account all the stan-
dard contributions to the total magnetic Gibbs free energy, i.e., energy in the external
magnetic field, magnetodipolar interaction energy, energy of the magnetocrystalline
30 INTRODUCTION
anisotropy, antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction, as well as the symmet-

ric and isotropic Heisenberg exchange energy. For the examples shown in Fig. 1.11,
the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction was ignored, and likewise thermal fluctuations,
which may become relevant for small nanoparticles. The following materials parame-
ters were used: saturation magnetization Ms = 1700 kA/m; first-order cubic anisotropy
constant K1 = 4.7 × 104 J/m3 ; exchange-stiffness constant A = 1.0 × 10−11 J/m.
We will now compare the magnetic SANS cross section of the D = 40 nm particle
to the one of a uniformly magnetized sphere of the same size. The general question
of what is the actual ground-state spin configuration of a nanoparticle depends on
the microstructure and on the related magnetic energy contributions which are taken
into account. As discussed in the previous Section 1.6.1, lattice defects (e.g., vacancies
in nanoparticles), surface anisotropy, or strong deviations from ellipsoidal particle
shape in otherwise perfect particles may give rise to a nonuniform magnetization (see,
e.g., [162, 163, 168–179] and references therein).
When the incident neutron beam is along the x-direction and the scattering vector
varies within the y-z-plane, we have q̂ ∼= {0, sin θ, cos θ} in small-angle approximation
(q̂x ∼
= 0), where θ denotes the angle between q and the z-direction (parallel to H0 ).
The elastic magnetic SANS cross section [eqn (1.35)] is then explicitly given in terms
of the Cartesian magnetization Fourier components as:
dΣM
e x |2 + |m
∼ |m e z |2 sin2 θ − (m
e y |2 cos2 θ + |m e ∗z + m
e ym e ∗y m
e z ) sin θ cos θ, (1.61)
dΩ
where the m e x,y,z represent the Fourier transforms of the mx,y,z . Note that m = M/Ms
denotes the unit magnetization vector field. In the most-general case, mx,y,z =
mx,y,z (x, y, z) so that the m e x,y,z depend on the three Cartesian components of the
wave vector q = {qx , qy , qz }, i.e.,
Z
m
e x,y,z (qx , qy , qz ) = mx,y,z (x, y, z) exp (−iq · r) dxdydz. (1.62)
V
The integration in eqn (1.62) generally extends over the sample volume V , but in the
present case, where we consider only a single particle, it equals the particle volume Vp .
Equation (1.62) can in most cases only be solved numerically, since the magnetization
is—within the continuum theory of micromagnetics—the solution of a set of nonlin-
ear partial differential equations (see Section 5.1.3), i.e., no closed-form expression
for mx,y,z exists. Moreover, since the magnetic SANS cross section is experimentally
accessible only in the plane perpendicular to the incoming neutron beam, it becomes
necessary to project the m e x,y,z into the detector plane. For the above-described scat-
tering geometry, this implies that m e x,y,z = m
e x,y,z (qx = 0, qy , qz ).
The uniformly magnetized sphere is assumed to have its atomic magnetic moments
all aligned along the ez -direction of a Cartesian laboratory coordinate system, so that
in a continuum description the magnetization vector field is given by:
   
mx   0 
M 
m= = my = 0 . (1.63)
Ms
mz 1
   
2
Note that the above magnetization distribution has a constant length, |m| = m2x +
m2y + m2z = 1, which in physical terms means that the spontaneous magnetization is
constant and only a function of temperature, i.e., Ms = Ms (T ). As we will discuss in
Chapter 3, this constraint implies that only two components of m are independent.
Note that the mx,y,z are here dimensionless, so that the m e x,y,z and dΣM /dΩ have,
respectively, dimensions of m3 and m6 [compare eqns (1.61) and (1.62)]. Inserting
eqn (1.63) into eqn (1.62) yields the well-known sphere form factor
j1 (qR)
m
e z (qx , qy , qz ) = 3Vp , (1.64)
qR
where j1 (z = qR) is the spherical Bessel function of the first order, and Vp = 4π 3
3 R .
The zeros (z0 ) and maxima (zmax ) of the function (3j1 (z)/z)2 are approximately found
for:
z0 = π × (1.43; 2.46; 3.47; 4.48; 5.48; 6.48; . . .),

zmax = π × (1.83; 2.90; 3.92; 4.94; 5.95; 6.96; . . .). (1.65)
The magnetic SANS cross section of a uniformly magnetized particle reduces to [com-
pare eqn (1.61)]:
dΣM
e z |2 sin2 θ.
(q) = |m (1.66)
dΩ
Figure 1.12 depicts the results for |m e z |2 , dΣM /dΩ, as well as for the azimuthally
averaged dΣM /dΩ. The thin solid line in Fig. 1.12(c) is the analytical result, based
on eqns (1.64) and (1.66), while the data points are the result of the micromagnetic
simulation. As expected for a saturated sphere, |m e z |2 [Fig. 1.12(a)] is isotropic and
dΣM /dΩ [Fig. 1.12(b)] is highly anisotropic in the detector plane (qx = 0), exhibiting
two maxima along the directions perpendicular (θ = 90◦ and θ = 270◦ ) to the hori-
zontal saturation direction. The azimuthally averaged data [Fig. 1.12(c)] exhibit some
of the characteristic and well-known features of particle scattering (see Section 2.4.3
or [9–13] for further details); namely, at low q, the SANS cross section of the uniformly
magnetized particle exhibits the so-called Guinier behavior [compare Fig. 1.12(c)], i.e.,
2 2
dΣM ∼ dΣM q RG
= (q = 0) exp − , (1.67)
dΩ dΩ 3
2
where RG denotes the radius of gyration of the particle. For a uniform sphere, RG =
3 2
5 R . As shown by Feigin and Svergun [11], for a homogeneous particle, the Guinier
law is valid for q < 1.3/RG . At the larger q, dΣM /dΩ follows the Porod law, i.e.,
dΣM ∼ S 1
= 2π(∆ρ)2mag , (1.68)
dΩ V q4
2
where (∆ρ)2mag = b2H (∆M ) is the magnetic scattering-length density contrast, the
squared difference between the saturation magnetizations of the iron particle and vac-
uum, and S/V denotes the surface-to-volume ratio. The Porod q −4 -law is a direct
32 INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.12: Magnetic SANS results for a homogeneously magnetized sphere of diameter
D = 40 nm. (a) |m e z |2 [square of eqn (1.64)]; (b) |m e z |2 sin2 θ [eqn (1.66)]; (c) (solid
R 2π
1
line) azimuthally averaged dΣM /dΩ = 2π 0 |m e z | sin2 θdθ = 92 [j1 (qR)/(qR)]2 (log-
2
log scale). (•) Result of the micromagnetic simulation. The vertically shifted data
points in (c) at small and large momentum transfers represent, respectively, the Guinier
and the Porod approximation (see text). Saturation direction in (a) and (b) is hori-
zontal in the plane. Note that all expressions have been normalized by Vp2 [compare
eqn (1.64)], so that dΣ 1
dΩ (q = 0) = 2 . After [163].
M
consequence of the discontinuous jump of the magnetization at the surface of the

spherical particle.
When the particle’s internal spin distribution is inhomogeneous [see Fig. 1.11(b)]
e z |2 as in the homogeneous case (Fig. 1.12),
all the Fourier components, and not just |m
contribute to dΣM /dΩ. This is demonstrated in Fig. 1.13, where dΣM /dΩ is decrypted
into its individual Fourier contributions according to eqn (1.61). The Fourier com-
ponents are now also dependent on the angle θ in the detector plane. It is also seen
that dΣM /dΩ is for the particular case of the D = 40 nm iron sphere dominated by
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
pared estaba edificado un castillo,
assimesmo de las mesmas
piedras, entretexidas con otras
verdes y azules, enlazadas con
unos remates de oro que hacían
una tan excelente obra que más
divina que humana parecía,
porque con los rayos del sol que
en él daban, resplandeciendo,
apenas de mis ojos mirarse
consentía. Estaba tan bien
torreado y fortalecido con tantos
cubos y barbacanas, que
cualquiera que lo viera, demás de
su gran riqueza, lo juzgara por un
castillo de fortaleza inespugnable.
Tenía encima del arco de la
puerta principal una letra que
decía: «Morada de la Fortuna, á
quien por permissión divina
muchas de las cosas corporales
son subjetas».
La otra pared del otro ángulo que
cabe éste estaba era toda hecha
de una piedra tan negra y escura,
que ninguna lo podía ser más en
el mundo; y de la mesma manera
en el medio della estaba
edeficado un castillo, que en
mirarlo ponía gran tristeza y
temor. Tenía también unas letras
blancas que claramente se
dexaban leer, las cuales decían:
«Reposo de la Muerte, de adonde
executaba sus poderosas fuerzas
contra todos los mortales».
La otra pared era de un christalino
muro transparente, en que como
en un espejo muy claro todas las
cosas que había en el mundo, así
las pasadas como las presentes,
se podían mirar y ver, con una
noticia confusa de las venideras.
Tenía en el medio otro castillo de
tan claro cristal que, con
reverberar en él los rayos
resplandecientes del sol, quitaban
la luz á mis ojos, que
contemplando estaban una obra
de tan gran perfición; pero no
tanto que por ello dexase el ver
unas letras que de un muy fino
rosicler estaban en la mesma
puerta esculpidas, que decían:
«Aquí habita el Tiempo, que todas
las cosas que se hacen en sí las
acaba y consume».
En el medio deste circuito estaba
edificado otro castillo, que era en
el hermoso y verde prado cerca
de adonde yo me hallaba, el cual
me puso en mayor admiración y
espanto que todo lo que había
visto, porque demás de la gran
fortaleza de su edificio era
cercado de una muy ancha y tan
honda cava, que casi parecía
llegar á los abismos. Las paredes
eran hechas de unas piedras
amarillas, y todas pintadas de
pincel, y otras de talla con figuras
que gran lástima ponían en mi
corazón, que contemplándolas
estaba, porque allí se vían
muchas bestias fieras, que con
gran crueldad despedazaban los
cuerpos humanos de muchos
hombres y mujeres; otras que
después de despedazados,
satisfaciendo su rabiosa hambre,
á bocados los estaban comiendo.
Había también muchos hombres
que por casos desastrados
mataban á otros, y otros que sin
ocasión ninguna, por sólo su
voluntad, eran causa de muchas
muertes; allí se mostraban
muchos padres que dieron la
muerte á sus hijos y muchos hijos
que mataron á sus padres. Había
también muchas maneras y
invenciones de tormentos con que
muchas personas morían, que
contarlos particularmente sería
para no acabar tan presto de
decirlos. Tenía unas letras
entretalladas de color leonado
que decían: «Aposento de la
Crueldad, que toda compasión,
amor y lástima aborrece como la
mayor enemiga suya».
Tan maravillado me tenía la
novedad destas cosas que
mirando estaba, que juzgando
aquel circuito por otro nuevo
mundo, y con voluntad de salirme
dél si pudiesse, tendí la vista por
todas partes para ver si hallaría
alguna salida adonde mi camino
enderezase, que sin temer el
trabajo á la hora lo comenzara,
porque todas las cosas que allí
había para dar contentamiento,
con la soledad me causaban
tristeza, deseando verme con mi
ganado en libertad de poderlo
menear de unos pastos buenos
en otros mejores y volverme con
él á la aldea cuando á la voluntad
me viniera; y no hallando remedio
para que mi deseo se cumpliese,
tomando á la paciencia y
sufrimiento por escudo y
compañía para todo lo que
sucederme pudiese, me fuí á una
fuente que cerca de mí había
visto, la cual estando cubierta de
un cielo azul, relevado todo con
muy hermosas labores de oro,
que cuatro pilares de pórfido,
labrados con follajes al romano,
sostenían, despedía de sí un gran
chorro de agua que, discurriendo
por las limpias y blancas piedras y
menuda arena, pusieran sed á
cualquiera que no la tuviera,
convidando para que della
bebiesen con hacer compañía á
las ninfas que de aquella hermosa
fuente debían gozar el mayor
tiempo del año; y assí, lavando
mis manos y gesto, limpiándolo
del polvo y sudor que en el
camino tan largo había cogido,
echado de bruces y otras veces
juntando mis manos y tomando
con ellas el agua, por no tener
otra vasija, no hacía sino beber;
pero cuantas más veces bebía,
tanto la sed en mayor grado me
fatigaba, creciéndome más cada
hora con cuidado de la mi Belisia,
que el agua me parecía
convertirse en llamas de fuego
dentro de mi abrasado y
encendido pecho, y maravillado
desta novedad me acordaba de la
fuente del olivo, donde agora
estamos, deseando poder beber
desta dulce agua y sabrosa con
que el ardor matar pudiese que
tanta fatiga me daba; y estando
con este deseo muy congojado,
comencé á oír un estruendo y
ruido tan grande, que atronando
mis oídos me tenían casi fuera de
mi juicio, y volviendo los ojos para
ver lo que podía causarlo, vi que
el castillo de la Fortuna se había
abierto por medio, dexando un
gran trecho descubierto, del que
salía un carro tan grande, que
mayor que el mesmo castillo
parecía; de los pretiles y almenas
comenzaron á disparar grandes
truenos de artillería, y tras ellos
una música tan acordada de
menestriles altos con otros
muchos y diversos instrumentos,
que más parecía cosa del cielo
que no que en la tierra pudiese
oirse; y aunque no me faltaba
atención para escucharla, mis
ojos se empleaban en mirar aquel
poderoso carro, con las maravillas
que en él vía que venían, que no
sé si seré bastante para poder
contar algunas dellas, pues que
todo sería imposible á mi
pequeño juicio hacerlo. El carro
era todo de muy fino oro, con
muchas labores extremadas
hechas de piedras preciosas, en
las cuales había grande
abundancia de diamantes,
esmeraldas y rubís y carbunclos,
sin otras de más baxa suerte. Las
ruedas eran doce, todas de un
blanco marfil, asimesmo con
muchas labores de oro y piedras
preciosas, labradas con una arte
tan sutil y delicada que no hubiera
pintor en el mundo que así
supiera hacerlo. Venían uncidos
veinte y cuatro unicornios blancos
y muy grandes y poderosos, que
lo traían; encima del carro estaba
hecho un trono muy alto con doce
gradas, que por cada parte lo
cercaban, todas cubiertas con un
muy rico brocado bandeado con
una tela de plata, con unas
lazadas de perlas, que lo uno con
lo otro entretexía; encima del
trono estaba una silla toda de fino
diamante, con los remates de
unos carbunclos que daban de sí
tan gran claridad y resplandor que
no hiciera falta la luz con que el
día les ayudaba, porque en medio
de la noche pudiera todo muy
claramente verse. En esta silla
venía sentada una mujer, cuya
majestad sobrepuja á la de todas
las cosas visibles; sus vestidos
eran de inestimable valor y de
manera que sería imposible poder
contar la manera y riqueza dellos;
traía en su compañía cuatro
doncellas; las dos que de una
excelente hermosura eran
dotadas venían muy pobremente
aderezadas, los vestidos todos
rotos, que por muchas partes sus
carnes se parecían; estaban
echadas en el suelo. Y aquella
mujer, á quien ya yo por las
señales había conocido ser la
Fortuna, tenía sus pies encima de
sus cervices, fatigándolas, sin que
pudiesen hacer otra cosa sino
mostrar con muchas lágrimas y
sospiros el agravio que padecían;
traían consigo sus nombres
escritos, que decían: el de la una,
«Razón», y el de la otra,
«Justicia». Las otras dos
doncellas, vestidas de la mesma
librea de la Fortuna, como
privadas suyas, tenían los gestos
muy feos y aborrecibles para
quien bien los entendiesse,
conociendo el daño de sus obras;
traían en las manos dos estoques
desnudos, con que á la Razón y á
la Justicia amenazaban, y en
medio de sus pechos dos rótulos
que decían: el de la una,
«Antojo», y el de la otra, «Libre
voluntad». Con grande espanto
me tenían estas cosas; pero
mayor me lo ponía el gesto de la
Fortuna, que algunas veces muy
risueño y halagüeño se mostraba
y otras tan espantable y medroso
que apenas mirarse consentía.
Estaba en esto con tan poca
firmeza, que en una hora mill
veces se mudaba; pero lo que en
mayor admiración me puso fué
ver una rueda que la Fortuna
traía, volviendo sin cesar con sus
manos el exe della; y
comenzando los unicornios á
mover el carro hacia adonde yo
estaba tendido junto á la fuente,
cuanto más á mí se acercaba
tanto mayor me iba pareciendo la
rueda, en la cual se mostraban
tan grandes y admirables
misterios, que ningún juicio
humano sin haberlos visto es
bastante á comprenderlos en su
entendimiento; porque en ella se
vían subir y baxar tan gran
número de gentes, assí hombres
como mujeres, con tantos trajes y
atavíos diferentes los unos de los
otros, que ningún estado grande
ni pequeño desde el principio del
mundo en él ha habido que allí no
se conociese, con las personas
que dél próspera ó
desdichadamente habían gozado,
y como cuerpos fantásticos y
incorpóreos los unos baxaban y
los otros subían sin hacerse
impedimiento ninguno; muchos
dellos estaban en la cumbre más
alta desta rueda, y por más
veloce que el curso della
anduviese, jamás se mudaban,
aunque éstos eran muy pocos;
otros iban subiendo poniendo
todas sus fuerzas, pero hallaban
la rueda tan deleznable que
ninguna cosa le aprovechaba su
diligencia, y otros venían cabeza
abaxo, agraviándose de la súpita
caída, con que vían derrocarse;
pero la Fortuna, dándose poco
por ello, no dexaba de proseguir
en su comenzado officio. Yo que
estaba mirando con grande
atención lo que en la rueda se me
mostraba, vime á mí mesmo que
debaxo della estaba tendido,
gemiendo por la grande caída con
que Fortuna me había derribado;
y con dolor de verme tan mal
tratado, comencé á mirar la
Fortuna con unos ojos piadosos y
llenos de lágrimas, queriéndole
mover con ellas á que de mis
trabajos se compadeciese. Y á
este tiempo, cesando la música
del castillo y parando los
unicornios el carro, la Fortuna,
mirándome con el gesto algo
airado y con una voz para mí
desabrida, por lo que sus
palabras mostraron, con una gran
majestad me comenzó á decir
desta manera:
La Fortuna contra Torcato.
«Mayor razón hubieras, Torcato,

de tener para agraviarte de mí,
como ha poco hacías, tratándome
tan desenfrenadamente con tu
descomedida lengua, que fuera
mejor darte yo el pago que
merecías con mis obras que no
satisfacerte con mis palabras;
aunque si quisieres quitar de ti la
pasión con que has querido
juzgarme no será pequeño el
castigo tuyo haciéndote venir en
conocimiento de que tú solo
tienes la culpa que á mí has
querido ponerme sin tenerla, pues
no podrás decir ni mostrar causa
ninguna de tus agravios que no
sea testigo contra ti mesmo para
condenarte justamente; y si no
dime: ¿De qué te quejas, de qué
te agravias, por qué das voces,
por qué procuras infamarme con
denuestos y injurias tan
desatinadas? ¿Por ventura has
recibido de mí hasta agora, en el
estado que estás, sino muy
grandes beneficios, muy grandes
favores y muy buenas obras, las
cuales por no hacer al propósito
de la causa de tus quexas quiero
excusar de decirlas? Veniendo á
lo principal, que es la congoxa y
tormento que agora te aflige y
tiene tan desatinado que estando
fuera de ti quieres culparme del
mal que nunca te hice, antes todo
el bien que pude hacerte
conforme á tu desseo, que era de
que Belisia te quisiese y amasse
como tú á ella hacías, lo cual viste
por experiencia manifiesta, y
muchos días estando firme en su
propósito, de manera que por ello
me loabas y mill bienes de mi
decías, dándome gracias por el
estado en que te tenía, que para ti
era el más dichoso y
bienaventurado que poseía
ninguno de tus iguales, es verdad
que yo volví la rueda, abaxando
tu felicidad, trocando tu
contentamiento y consentiendo en
tu caida; pero no fué tanto por mi
voluntad como por tu descuido,
pues dexaste de tomar prendas
con que tu gozo se conservara y
el Amor venciera de la libertad
que en la tu Belisia has
conoscido.
Bien sabes tú que mi propio officio
es no ser constante ni firme en
ninguna cosa, como poco ha lo
manifestabas. Si lo sabías, ¿por
qué no te armabas contra mí?
¿por qué no tomabas defensa
contra mi condición? Tenías en
las manos el escudo para recibir
mis golpes y perdístelo,
consentiéndolo tú mesmo en ello;
pues quéxate de ti y no de mí,
que ninguna culpa te tengo, y
quéxate de tu Belisia, que por su
voluntad y no forzada se metió en
essa fortaleza de la Crueldad, de
la cual te hacen ambas la guerra
para destruirte, que aunque yo
soy parte para tu remedio,
menester es su consentimiento, el
cual habrías tu de procurar lo
mejor que pudiesses, y no estarte
haciendo exclamaciones sin
provecho ninguno para el alivio de
tu pena. No te desesperes, pues
sabes que todas las cosas se
truecan y mudan, y cuando no
hallares piedad en la tu Belisia,
por ventura hallarás mudanza en
tus deseos, paresciéndote que,
aunque los hayas tan bien
empleado, te estará mejor verte y
hallarte después sin ellos. Y
porque lo dicho basta para
satisfacerte del engaño que en
agraviarte de mí recebías, no
quiero decirte más de que no te
ensalces con la prosperidad ni
con la adversidad dexes abatirte;
siempre osadía y esfuerzo, que
son las armas con que yo puedo
ser vencida, y si usare de mis
acostumbradas mañas haciendo
mi officio, no te maravilles, ni me
culpes, ni me maltrates con
palabras tan ásperas y enojosas,
que al fin soy mandada y tengo
superior á quien obedezco, y por
su voluntad me rijo y gobierno. De
Belisia te agravia, que si ella
quiere bien puede forzarme para
que no te falte mi favor, aunque
yo no quiera, pues tu ventura está
en su voluntad, la cual está al
presente más libre que ésta que
vees venir en mi compañía».
Acabando de decir esto, los
unicornios con la mesma
solemnidad y aparato que habían
traído el carro comienzan á dar la
vuelta con tanta presteza, que
aunque á mí no me faltaban
palabras y razones para poder
responder á lo que la Fortuna me
había dicho, no tuve lugar para
hacerlo como quisiera, porque
antes que yo pudiese abrir mi
boca para comenzarlas, ya
estaba dentro en su castillo,
siendo recebida con aquella dulce
armonía de música que al salir la
había acompañado; y siendo
cerrado el castillo de la manera
que antes estaba, el sol comenzó
á escurecerse, y el día, con
muchos nublados escuros que
sobrevenieron, perdía gran parte
de su claridad. Comenzaron luego
á sonar de las nubes grandes
truenos, y á mostrarse muchos y
muy espesos relámpagos que en
medio de la escuridad con el
resplandor de su luz fatigaban á
mis temerosos ojos, de manera
que en cualquiera corazón es
forzado miedo. Y así, estando no
poco medroso con lo que se me
representaba, vi que el castillo
que en el muro negro estaba
edificado se abría de la mesma
suerte que el de la Fortuna había
hecho, quedando en el medio dél
muy grande espacio descubierto,
en el cual se me mostró una tan
fiera y espantable visión, que aun
agora en pensarlo los cabellos
tengo erizados y el cuerpo
respeluzado; y porque sepáis si
tengo razón para encarecerlo de
esta manera, quiero deciros
particularmente la forma de su
venida. Estaba un carro tan
grande y mayor que aquel en que
había venido la Fortuna, aunque
en el parecer harto diferentes el
uno del otro; porque éste era
hecho de una madera muy negra,
sin otra pintura ninguna, con doce
ruedas grandes de la mesma
suerte, á las cuales estaban
uncidos veinte y cuatro elefantes,
cuya grandeza jamás fué vista en
el mundo, estando por su compás
dos de ellos entre cada rueda de
un lado y de otro, que todo el
carro rodeaban, y en el medio dél
estaba un trono hecho, cercado
de gradas por todas partes, y
encima una tumba grande como
las que se ponen en las
sepolturas; lo uno y lo otro
cubierto todo de un paño negro
de luto. En la delantera de este
carro venían tres mujeres muy
desemejadas, flacas y amarillas,
los ojos sumidos, los dientes
cubiertos de tierra, tanto que más
muertas que vivas parecían;
traían en sus manos sendas
trompas, con que venían
haciendo un son tan triste y
doloroso, que atronando mis
oídos parecía oir aquel de las
trompetas con que los muertos
serán llamados el día del juicio; y
estándolas mirando no con
pequeño temor, vi que traían sus
nombres escritos, que decían:
«Vejez», «Dolor», «Enfermedad».
Tras éstas venían otras tres,
sentadas junto á la tumba, de las
cuales la una tenía una rueca y la
otra con un huso estaba hilando,
y la tercera con unas tijeras
muchas y diversas veces cortaba
el hilo, sin cesar jamás ninguna
de ellas de proseguir en su officio,
por el cual y por lo que ya yo
muchas veces había oído conocí
ser las tres Parcas: Atropos, Cloto
y Lachesis; y después que bien
las hube mirado, puse los ojos en
una figura que encima de la
tumba venía sentada, tan terrible
y espantable de mirar que
muchas veces se me cerraban los
ojos por no verla; porque con muy
gran miedo y temor de ver una
fantasma tan temerosa y
aborrescible, comenzó á temblar
todo mi cuerpo y los sentidos á
desfallecerme y dexarme casi sin
vida. Tomóme un sudor muy frío y
congoxoso, como suelen tomar
aquellos que están muy cerca de
las sepolturas para ser metidos
en ellas; pero tomando algún
esfuerzo para que el desmayo del
todo no me venciese, alzando
algunas veces y no con pequeña
fuerza la vista, vi que era toda
compuesta de huesos sin carne
ninguna; por entre todos ellos
andaban bullendo muy gran
cantidad de gusanos; en lugar de
los ojos no traía sino unos hondos
agujeros; venía con un arco y una
flecha en la una mano y con una
arma que llaman guadaña en la
otra. Cuando se meneaba, todos
los huesos se le descomponían, y
cuando los elefantes andando con
el carro más hacia mí se
acercaban, mayor espanto me
ponía; ninguna cosa viva de las
que en el campo y en el aire poco
antes se mostraban dexó de
desaparecer en el miedo de su
presencia, y cierto si yo pudiera
huir fuera de aquel circuito de
buen grado lo hiciera; pero así
esperando muy espantado hasta
que el carro estuvo cerca de mí y
los elefantes se hubieron parado,
vi que aquella fiera y temerosa
voz me comenzó á decir de esta
manera:
La Muerte contra Torcato.
«Si no me conoces, Torcato, yo

soy aquella Muerte que poco ha
en tus exclamaciones con muy
grande afición llamabas y pedías;
y no temas que vengo para
matarte, sino para que por mis
razones conozcas la poca razón
que tienes en mostrarte agraviado
con la vida, pues que con ella
estás en la pena que tu cobardía
y descuido merecieron, para
ponerte en la desventura y
miseria con que agora vives tan
penado; y por la culpa que en
esto tuviste en la vida estás
condenado á que viviendo
padezcas la pena que tan
justamente has merecido, lo cual
es justo que sufras con mayor
paciencia de la que muestras. Y si
te parece que de mí recibes
agravio en no matarte, ¿para qué
te quexas de la vida que tienes,
llamándola verdadera muerte?
Porque hallándote muerto por mi
mano habrías de decir que te
daba más verdadera vida, y no
puedo yo dexarte de confessar
que tú viviendo estás muerto, y
que es mayor y más cruda la
muerte que recibes que la que yo
con todo mi poder darte podría;
pero la vida desta muerte y la
muerte de tu vida están en las
manos de tu Belisia, de la cual te
quexa y agravia más que de mí,
pues que entrando en este
circuito de nuestra morada, y
dexando la compañía de los que
estamos en ella, se ha entrado en
el castillo de la Crueldad y hecho
en él su aposento, de adonde te
persigue y fatiga y te hace tan
cruel guerra como ya la Fortuna
estando contigo te dixo; y allí se
ha hecho tan fuerte y poderosa
que, temiendo mi poder, se ha
puesto en competencia conmigo
para contigo, paresciéndole que
es en su mano darte la muerte ó
la vida, y que en esto por agora
yo tengo obligación forzosa á
seguir su voluntad, aunque yo no
sigo sino la mía, dexándote vivo
para que procures el remedio con
vencerla ó con ponerte en la
libertad sin que agora vives, que
no es pequeño género de muerte
para los que sin ella passan la
vida; y pues que la razón está por
mi parte y tú no tienes causa
bastante para poder estar de mí
quexoso, no te aflixas ni
congoxes pediéndome ayuda y
socorro hasta que yo por mi
voluntad quiera dártelo, el cual
jamás te será tan agradable como
te ha parescido, porque si agora
con sólo visitarte puse tan gran
espanto y temor como en tu
descolorido gesto se parece, y si
hallaras aparejo para huir no me
vieras ni me esperaras, ¿qué
hicieras si en mi compañía
quisiera luego llevarte? Créeme,
Torcato, que ninguno me llama
con tan gran voluntad, aunque
mayores adversidades y trabajos
le persigan, que no se espante y
le pese muy de veras cuando
siente mi venida, y que no
quisiesse huir cien mill leguas de
mí si pudiesse. Y pues que con lo
que te he dicho quedo contigo
desculpada, no quiero decirte
más sino que sufras
pacientemente el vivir hasta que
sea cumplido el curso de la vida
que por el soberano Hacedor de
todas las cosas te está
prometido».
Acabando la Muerte de decir
estas cosas, sin esperar la
respuesta dellas, de que á mí no
me pesó, por verla fuera de mi
presencia, se volvieron los
elefantes con el carro, yendo
aquellas mujeres proseguiendo
aquella infernal y temerosa
música de las trompetas, que por
no oirla puse mis manos encima
de mis oídos, y siendo entrado el
carro en el castillo, se tornó á
cerrar de la manera que de antes
estaba, dexándome á mí tal que
apenas ninguno de mis sentidos
me acompañaba; y huyendo los
ñublados y cesando la tempestad,
el día tornó tan claro y sereno
como de antes había estado; las
aves y animales que con espanto
y temor estuvieron ascondidos,
volviendo á regocijarse,
mostraban muy grande alegría
por hallarse fuera de aquel
temeroso peligro. Y yo, tornando
poco á poco á cobrar las fuerzas
y aliento que perdido tenía,
comencé á oir una música de
voces tan dulce y apacible que
me paresció ser imposible que
fuesse cosa de la tierra, sino que
los ángeles hubiessen venido de
los altos cielos á mostrarme en
ella parte de la gloria que los
bienaventurados poseían.
Salían estas voces del castillo del
Tiempo, el cual luego se abrió
como los passados, y del medio
dél salió otro carro bien diferente
de los otros que había visto,
porque era muy menor que ellos,
y hecho todo de una piedra
transparente, que como un espejo
christalino por todas partes
relucía. Estaban uncidos á él seis
griffos con unas alas muy
grandes, que con muy gran
velocidad lo levantaban tan alto,
que en un instante paresció
sobrepujar á las altas nubes; y
batiéndolas con tan gran ímpetu y
furor que el aire que con ellas

Secdocument 9877

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secdocument 9877

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron

Scattering: A Probe for Mesoscale

1. W.G. Williams: Polarized neutrons

Luxembourg Andreas Michels

1.1 Outline of the book

Fig. 1.1: Microstructural size regimes accessible by different observational methods.

spin-density waves, flux-line lattices in superconductors, or the recently discovered

the vortex lattice can be considered as crystallography of a two-dimensional system of

regime and on dislocations. Chapter 5 provides an overview on the magnetic SANS

1.2 Basic properties of the neutron and numerical relations

• The scattering length for the neutron-nucleus interaction varies in a non-

E0 (meV) T (K) λ (Å) vn (km/s)

cold neutrons 0.1−10 1−120 3−30 0.13−1.3

1.3 Definitions of scattering cross sections

Fig. 1.3: Sketch of the general neutron scattering geometry.

1.4.1 Nuclear SANS cross section

1.4.2 Magnetic SANS cross section

Qk = q̂ × (q̂ × m̂k ) = q̂(q̂ · m̂k ) − m̂k (1.30)

is the Halpern–Johnson vector [109] (also denoted as the magnetic interaction or

Element Crystal Structure (at RT) TC (K) µa /µB bm (10−15 m)

Fe bcc 1043 2.217 5.98

bH = 2.70 × 10−15 m µ−1 8 −1 −1

The magnitude of Qk for a single magnetic moment equals

magnetic moments µa within a domain. Moreover, since the magnetic moment of an

M(r) = {Mx (r), My (r), Mz (r)}

where i2 = −1, and q = {qx , qy , qz } is the wave vector.† Q

of A/m, so that M(q)

where 0 ≤ |P| ≤ 1. In experimental SANS studies the beam is usually partially

the perpendicular polarization components vanish, i.e., Px = Py = 0, and that Pz = P ,

Obviously, for an unpolarized beam p+ = p− = 0.5 and P = 0, while P = +1 (p+ = 1)

dΣ+ dΣ++ dΣ+−

1.5 Diffraction versus refraction

1 10 100 1000 10000

1.6 Origin of magnetic SANS: relation to magnetic microstructure

The magnetization distribution is given by M = {0, 0, Ms }. Consequently, there ex-

which is subject to the constraint of constant magnitude |M| = Ms , consists of the

1.6.1 Origins of inhomogeneous magnetization states

Fig. 1.8: Result of a micromagnetic simulation for the magnetization distribution

1.6.2 Example: uniform versus nonuniform sphere

where A denotes the exchange-stiffness constant, and K1 is the first-order magne-

anisotropy, antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction, as well as the symmet-

z0 = π × (1.43; 2.46; 3.47; 4.48; 5.48; 6.48; . . .),

consequence of the discontinuous jump of the magnetization at the surface of the

La Fortuna contra Torcato.

«Mayor razón hubieras, Torcato,

La Muerte contra Torcato.

«Si no me conoces, Torcato, yo

You might also like