You are on page 1of 51

Center for Superconductivity Research

Department of Physics
University of Maryland
Samir Garzon
Richard Webb
Spin injection and detection in
Cu spin valve structures
Motivation-Devices
Spin transport in Cu wires
Spintronic applications:
• Magnetic reading heads
Spin valve/GMR
Fujitsu
(CIP: Current in plane)
Mainstream technology which
allows Gbyte hard drive storage
MTJ
F
1

F
2

tunnel barrier
IBM
• MRAM (nonvolatile)
(CPP: Current perpendicular to plane)
Under design
Motivation-Science
Spin transport in Cu wires
Spectroscopic tool to study:
• symmetry properties of unconventional superconductors
• excitations in the quantum Hall regime
• spin-charge separation in non-Fermi liquids
[1,2]
[3,4]
[5,6]
[1] Vas’ko et. al, PRL 78, 1134 (1997)
[2] Ngai et. al, APL 84, 1907 (2004)
[3] MacDonald et. al, PRL 83, 3262 (1999)
[4] Chan et. al, PRL 83, 3258 (1999)
[5] Si et. al, PRL 81, 3191 (1998)
[6] Balents et. al, PRL 85, 3464 (2000)
Johnson and Silsbee, PRL 55, 1790 (1985) pioneered field spin injection
 Produce and detect spin-polarized currents
Our research:
Spin transport in Cu wires
 Find spin relaxation length and understand the
mechanisms that are responsible
 Study a nonlocal geometry different from that used for
GMR and MTJ applications
 Gain understanding of interfacial spin transport
 Understand the high temperature behavior of spin
injection and detection
Outline
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Theory
• Relaxation mechanisms
• Spin relaxation time scales
• Spin transport
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Theory
• Measurements
• Switching of ferromagnetic contacts
• Spin precession: Hanle effect
• Temperature dependence of spin signal
Outline
• Sample fabrication
Outline
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Measurements
• Cross checks
• Discussion
• Analysis of temperature dependence of spin signal
• Evidence for interfacial spin-flip scattering
• Theory
• Sample fabrication
Outline
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Measurements
• Discussion
• Conclusions (overview)
• Further work
• Theory
• Sample fabrication
Time scales
Spin Transport in Cu wires
e s
t t <
Interactions that
conserve total spin
s
t
Single electron spin coherence time
(quantum computing)
e
t
Electron ensemble spin coherence time
(spintronics)
p
t
Momentum relaxation time
t e
t we will represent simply as
In metals:
*
2 2 1
T T T
e
= = = =t
t
Spin relaxation mechanisms
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Spin dependent Magnetic impurity scattering
(nonmagnetic metals)
magnetic materials: magnons
interfaces: surface magnons
enhanced magnetic scattering
Spin relaxation mechanisms
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Spin dependent Magnetic impurity scattering
high T
(293K)
low T
(4.2K)
(nonmagnetic metals)
Spin independent
due to spin orbit
coupling
+ + | ÷ | c
so
| + + ÷ + c
so
(Elliot-Yafet)
• phonons
• impurities
• boundaries
so
contribute to spin relaxation hence
p
p
a =
t
t
+ + + | | = + | H H H
so so
*
c c
hence
Transition
amplitude to
=
Spin transport: F-N junction
Spin Transport in Cu wires
No current, (M
N
=0)
Current ON, (finite M
N
)
Spin valves
Spin Transport in Cu wires
F
1:
Ferromagnet 1 F
2:
Ferromagnet 2
1
m

2
m

Insulator or
nonmagnetic
Aligned magnetizations
or
Anti-aligned magnetizations
or
Spin valves
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Aligned magnetizations
or
Anti-aligned magnetizations
or
CPP
Current perp. to plane
I I
CHANGE IN RESISTANCE BETWEEN ALIGNED
AND ANTI-ALIGNED CONFIGURATIONS
I
I
CIP
Current in-plane
I is the current
TMR vs Nonlocal Geometry
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Tunnelling Magneto Resistance
I
V
R
TMR
=
F
1
F
2

insulator
I
N
1
N
2

V
No charge current at F
2
!
Charge current at both F1 and F2
Nonlocal configuration
I
V
I
V
R
NL
=
F1 and F2 are equivalent F1 and F2 are not identical
In the absence of spin effects, 0 =
TMR
R
In the absence of spin effects, 0 =
NL
R
Electrochemical potential
Continuous electrochemical potential
(transparent interfaces)
Nonlocal Geometry
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Nonlocal configuration
I
V
1 1
2 2
N T
N T
NL
I
V V
R
÷
÷
=
||
2
T
eV
|+
2
T
eV
N
eV
As opposed to TMR,
in the absence of spin effects
0 =
NL
R
Nonlocal Geometry
Spin Transport in Cu wires
Nonlocal configuration
I
V
1 1
2 2
N T
N T
NL
I
V V
R
÷
÷
=
Electrochemical potential
||
2
T
eV
|+
2
T
eV
N
eV
As opposed to TMR,
in the absence of spin effects
0 =
NL
R
spin dependent
interface resistance
+ =|, o
( ) e I R
F N
o o o o
µ µ / ÷ =
Spin transport in Cu wires
Sample fabrication
2 levels of standard
• e-beam lithography
• ion-milling
• thermal evaporation
• lift-off
1
st
level: Co
Al
2
O
3
tunnel barrier
2
nd
level: Cu
Spin transport in Cu wires
Samples
Bonding pads
Alignment and
focusing spot

Cu
F
1
(Co)
F
2
(Co)
Al
2
O
3

Injector
Detector
100 nm
Spin transport
Spin Transport in Cu wires
• 2 current model
I
o
,

,+

for o =

current electrochemical potential
Spin transport
Spin Transport in Cu wires
• 2 current model
I
o
,

,+

for o =

• linearized T=0
Boltzmann equation
current
density
electric
field
conductivity
diffusion
constant
0
) (
o o
n r n ÷

electron
density
Spin transport
Spin Transport in Cu wires
• linearized T=0
Boltzmann equation
• 2 current model
I
o
,

,+

for o =

diffusion eqns.
o
t
scattering
time
ì
relaxation
(diffusion)
length
• modified continuity
equation
.
conserved I
o


boundary conds.
( ) e I R
F N
o o o o
µ µ / ÷ =
Spin transport in Cu wires
Spin transport in Cu wires
I
V
In the limit of R
o
>>
,
µ resistivity
ì relaxation length
A cross sectional area
resistance over a
spin relaxation length
Spin transport in Cu wires
In the limit of R
o
>>
,
Spin transport in Cu wires
I
V
where ì
N
is the spin diffusion length
can be interpreted as the single
junction spin current polarization
at interface “i” defined as:
+ |
+ |
+
÷
=
I I
I I
P
i
Outline
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Measurements
• Switching of ferromagnetic contacts
• Spin precession: Hanle effect
• Temperature dependence of spin signal
• Theory
• Sample fabrication
Spin transport in Cu wires
I
V
T=4.2 K
Characteristic switching
Spin transport in Cu wires
I
V

Larmor frequency
Hanle effect (spin precession)
T=4.2 K
Spin transport in Cu wires
Temperature dependence
should have equal magnitude
but different sign for and
|| |+
NL
R
Spin transport in Cu wires
Temperature dependence
should have equal magnitude
but different sign for and
|| |+
NL
R
Outline
Spin transport in Cu wires
• Measurements
• Cross checks
• Discussion
• Analysis of temperature dependence of spin signal
• Evidence for interfacial spin-flip scattering
• Theory
• Sample fabrication
Spin transport in Cu wires
T dependence: analysis
( ) 2
,
|+ ||
± =
NL NL A S
R R R
2 1
2
) exp(
P P
A
L
R
N
N N N
NL
ì ì µ ÷
± =
|+ ||
=
1 1
P P
A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
( ) 2
2 2 ,
|+ ||
± = P P P
A S
where
Previous experiments could only measure R
A
since R
TMR

included a large offset not related to spin injection
???
Spin transport in Cu wires
T dependence: analysis
( ) 2
,
|+ ||
± =
NL NL A S
R R R
A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
N
p
p
p
ne a
D m
a
D
D
µ
t t
1
2
*
= =
is unknown (T>>4.2K)
p
a
( )
2 / 3
0
1 T P q ÷
Magnons
(q unknown)
) 1 (
2 / 3
0
T P P
A
q ÷ =
Since R
A
is the previously observed
signal,
Fit R
A
with parameters q and
p
a
samir:
what about temp
dep of D?
Spin transport in Cu wires
T dependence: fit

A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
* Nature 410, 345 (2001)
p
K
p
a a
2 . 4
4
06 . 1 10 6 . 6 = × =
÷
4
2 . 4
10 9 . 6
÷
× =
p
K
a
Jedema et al.*:


2 / 3 5
10 4 . 8
÷ ÷
× = K q
larger than bulk, as expected due to
interface effects (Shang et al.**)
** PRB 58, R2917 (1998)
known T dep.
Spin transport in Cu wires
T dependence: P
A
, P
S
4
10 6 . 6
÷
× =
p
a
2 / 3 5
10 4 . 8
÷ ÷
× = K q
,
A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
known T dep.
1
,
,
2
) exp(
P
A
L
R
P
N
N N N
A S
A S
ì ì µ ÷
=
Spin transport in Cu wires
T dependence: P
A
, P
S
A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
4
10 6 . 6
÷
× =
p
a
2 / 3 5
10 4 . 8
÷ ÷
× = K q
,
1
,
,
2
) exp(
P
A
L
R
P
N
N N N
A S
A S
ì ì µ ÷
=
known T dep.
) 1 (
2 / 3
0
T P P
A
q ÷ =
T K
S
e
B
P
/ 1227
1+
= Thermal activation:
Spin transport in Cu wires
Can we explain this?

2 1
2
) exp(
P P
A
L
R
N
N N N
NL
ì ì µ ÷
± =
( )
( )
+ |
+ |
+
÷ ±
=
2 2
2 2
2
/ 1 / 1
/ 1 / 1
R R
R R
P
N F2
| 2
R
+ 2
R
|
+
( )
| | | |
÷ =
2
2
/ R e I
F N
µ µ
similarly for spin
+
A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
( ) 2
2 2 ,
|+ ||
± = P P P
A S
where
Spin transport in Cu wires
Can we explain this?

A S
N
N N N
A S
P P
A
L
R
, 1 ,
2
) exp( ì ì µ ÷
=
( ) 2
2 2 ,
|+ ||
± = P P P
A S
where
interface spin-flip
scattering
( )
( )
+ |
+ |
+ +
÷ +
2 2
2 2
' / 1 ' / 1
' / 1 ' / 1
R R
R R
N F2
| 2
R
+ 2
R
| 2
' R
+ 2
' R
|
+
( )
| + |
÷ +
2
2
' / R
F N
µ µ
similarly for spin
+
( )
| | | |
÷ =
2
2
/ R e I
F N
µ µ
2 1
2
) exp(
P P
A
L
R
N
N N N
NL
ì ì µ ÷
± =
( )
( )
+ |
+ |
+
÷ ±
=
2 2
2 2
2
/ 1 / 1
/ 1 / 1
R R
R R
P
Spin transport in Cu wires
Physical meaning

( )
( ) ( )
+ | + |
+ |
+ + +
÷
=
2 2 2 2
2 2
' / 1 ' / 1 / 1 / 1
/ 1 / 1
R R R R
R R
P
A
( )
( ) ( )
+ | + |
+ |
+ + +
÷
=
2 2 2 2
2 2
' / 1 ' / 1 / 1 / 1
' / 1 ' / 1
R R R R
R R
P
S
What do P
A
and P
S
mean?
P
A
: ratio of spin-polarized to
total transport into F
2
P
S
: ratio of spin-dependent
spin-flip to total transport
into F
2

Spin transport in Cu wires
Temperature dependence conclusions:

• Temperature dependent measurements reveal a new
component of the nonlocal resistance.
• Data analysis shows that the new component can be fit
well with a model related to temperature activation with
T=1227 K (surface magnons?, enhanced magnetic
scattering?).
• The existence of the new signal is explained by extending
the previous model to include interface spin-flip scattering.
• A physical interpration of the new defined quantities P
S

and P
A
is given. P
s
gives information on the differential
spin-flip scattering at the detector, while P
A
describes the
differential spin conserving transport.
• The different character of injector and detector is clear in
the nonlocal geometry.
Spin transport in Cu wires
Cross checks: temperature dependence
Co-Cu-Co
Ti-Cu-Ti
Spin transport in Cu wires
Cross checks: length dependence
Py-Cu-Py
Py-Cu-Py
Cu-Cu-Cu
Py-Cu-Cu
Cu-Cu-Py
Spin transport in Cu wires
Conclusions (overview)
• Performed comprehensive spin injection and detection
experiments in Cu-Co spin valves.
• Measured spin precession in Cu and extracted the spin
diffusion length and the current spin polarization P.
• Spin diffusion length measurements are consistent with each
other and with previous measurements.
• Found a temperature dependent symmetric component in the
nonlocal resistance R
S
that is consistent with the hypothesis of
interface spin-flip scattering.
• Made various cross checks to make sure R
S
did not come
from capacitive leakage, electrostatic geometric effects, and
heating combined with thermoelectric effect.
Spin transport in Cu wires
Further work
• Study the microscopic origin of interfacial spin-flip
scattering.

• Nonlocal measurements with MgO tunnel barriers, which has
been shown to enhance the magnetoresistance in MTJ, should
be used for comparison.
• For device applications, high frequency measurements of
spin injection and detection might be of importance.
• A direct measurement of the spin polarization and relaxation
lengths, not requiring a transport model for data interpration
can be useful (MFM).
• Use electron statistics such as shot noise to further study
interfacial spin transport, even in the absence of charge current.
Spin transport in Cu wires
Experimental setup
Lock-in
amplifier
Lock-in
amplifier
Ramp
generator
Current
amplifier
osc. out
ref. in
sig. out
in
osc. out
out
Spin transport in Cu wires
Cross checks: Geometric effects
Spin transport in Cu wires
Cross checks: heating and Seebeck effect
·
S
V
DC rejection of lock-in
<1nV
2e rejection<1nV
DC
DC
( ) O m
I
V
AC
S
Spin transport in Cu wires
Why heating and Seebeck effect?
Spin transport in Cu wires
Current leakage?
Time scales
Spin Transport in Cu wires
s
t
Single electron spin coherence time
e
t
Electron ensemble spin coherence time
*
2
T
Reversible spin
dephasing time
e s
t t <
Interactions that
conserve total spin
1
T
Spin relaxation time
spin-lattice
longitudinal
2
T
Irreversible spin
decoherence time
transverse
1
0
T
M M
dt
dM
z z
÷
÷ =
2
T
M
dt
dM
x x
÷ =
2
T
M
dt
dM
y y
÷ =
Bloch’s phenomenological equations
x
y
z
B
2 1
T T
e
= = t
B~0
isotropic system
*
2 2
T T =
conduction electrons:
p
t
Momentum relaxation time
What does small B mean?
Spin Transport in Cu wires
1 <<
c L
t e
where
 /
±
= B g
B L
µ e is the Larmor frequency
and
c
t
is the correlation time
(typical time interval between spin changing events)
Conductivity mismatch
Spin Transport in Cu wires
I I
|
I
+
I
|
R
+
R
F N
N N
o ì / 2
N N
o ì / 2
|
o ì /
F
+
o ì /
F
T

Motivation-Devices
Spintronic applications:
Spin valve/GMR

• Magnetic reading heads
(CIP: Current in plane)
Mainstream technology which allows Gbyte hard drive storage MTJ
F2

Fujitsu

(CPP: Current perpendicular to plane)
Under design

• MRAM (nonvolatile)

tunnel barrier F1

IBM

Spin transport in Cu wires

Motivation-Science
Spectroscopic tool to study:
• symmetry properties of unconventional superconductors • excitations in the quantum Hall regime [3,4] • spin-charge separation in non-Fermi liquids [5,6]
[1,2]

Johnson and Silsbee, PRL 55, 1790 (1985) pioneered field spin injection

[1] Vas’ko et. al, PRL 78, 1134 (1997) [2] Ngai et. al, APL 84, 1907 (2004) [3] MacDonald et. al, PRL 83, 3262 (1999)

[4] Chan et. al, PRL 83, 3258 (1999) [5] Si et. al, PRL 81, 3191 (1998) [6] Balents et. al, PRL 85, 3464 (2000)

Spin transport in Cu wires

Our research:
 Produce and detect spin-polarized currents  Find spin relaxation length and understand the mechanisms that are responsible  Study a nonlocal geometry different from that used for GMR and MTJ applications  Gain understanding of interfacial spin transport

 Understand the high temperature behavior of spin injection and detection
Spin transport in Cu wires

Outline
• Theory
• Spin relaxation time scales • Relaxation mechanisms • Spin transport

Spin transport in Cu wires

Outline • Theory • Sample fabrication • Measurements • Switching of ferromagnetic contacts • Spin precession: Hanle effect • Temperature dependence of spin signal Spin transport in Cu wires .

Outline • Theory • Sample fabrication • Measurements • Discussion • Analysis of temperature dependence of spin signal • Evidence for interfacial spin-flip scattering • Cross checks Spin transport in Cu wires .

Outline • Theory • Sample fabrication • Measurements • Discussion • Conclusions (overview) • Further work Spin transport in Cu wires .

p s Time scales Momentum relaxation time Single electron spin coherence time (quantum computing) Electron ensemble spin coherence time (spintronics) e Interactions that conserve total spin s e we will represent  e simply as  e In metals: Spin Transport in Cu wires    T1  T2  T * 2 .

Spin relaxation mechanisms (nonmagnetic metals) Spin dependent Magnetic impurity scattering Spin Transport in Cu wires .

Spin relaxation mechanisms (nonmagnetic metals) Spin dependent Spin independent (Elliot-Yafet) Magnetic impurity scattering due to spin orbit coupling Transition amplitude to so      so      hence    H  *  H  so high T (293K) • phonons • impurities • boundaries low T (4.2K) = so H so p contribute to spin relaxation hence  ap  magnetic materials: magnons interfaces: surface magnons enhanced magnetic scattering Spin Transport in Cu wires .

(MN=0) Current ON. (finite MN) Spin Transport in Cu wires .Spin transport: F-N junction No current.

Spin valves Aligned magnetizations F1: Ferromagnet 1 F2: Ferromagnet 2 or  m1 Insulator or nonmagnetic  m2 Anti-aligned magnetizations or Spin Transport in Cu wires .

Spin valves I CIP Current in-plane or Aligned magnetizations I is the current CPP Current perp. to plane I Anti-aligned magnetizations I I or CHANGE IN RESISTANCE BETWEEN ALIGNED AND ANTI-ALIGNED CONFIGURATIONS Spin Transport in Cu wires .

RNL  0 No charge current at F2! F1 and F2 are not identical I . RTMR  0 Charge current at both F1 and F2 F1 and F2 are equivalent Spin Transport in Cu wires In the absence of spin effects.TMR vs Nonlocal Geometry Tunnelling Magneto Resistance V I V Nonlocal configuration I N1 F1 F 2 insulator RTMR  V I RNL  V N2 In the absence of spin effects.

in the absence of spin effects RNL  0 Spin Transport in Cu wires .Nonlocal Geometry Electrochemical potential Nonlocal configuration I eVN V eVT 2 eVT 2 Continuous electrochemical potential (transparent interfaces) RNL  VT2  VN 2 I T1  N1 As opposed to TMR.

 interface resistance Spin Transport in Cu wires As opposed to TMR. in the absence of spin effects RNL  0 .Nonlocal Geometry Electrochemical potential Nonlocal configuration I V eVN eV  T2 eVT 2 R     / I  e N F   RNL  VT2  VN 2 I T1  N1 spin dependent  .

Sample fabrication 2 levels of standard • e-beam lithography • ion-milling • thermal evaporation • lift-off 1st level: Co Al2O3 tunnel barrier 2nd level: Cu Spin transport in Cu wires .

Samples Cu Injector Alignment and focusing spot Detector F1(Co) Al2O3 F2(Co) Bonding pads 100 nm Spin transport in Cu wires .

Spin transport • 2 current model I . current for  =  electrochemical potential Spin Transport in Cu wires .

Spin transport • 2 current model • linearized T=0 Boltzmann equation I . for  =   0 n ( r )  n electron density current density electric field diffusion constant conductivity Spin Transport in Cu wires .

I .   scattering time relaxation (diffusion) length conserved I boundary conds. N F R     / I  e   Spin Transport in Cu wires . for  =  .Spin transport • 2 current model • linearized T=0 Boltzmann equation • modified continuity equation diffusion eqns.

r  resistivity relaxation length A cross sectional area I V Spin transport in Cu wires .Spin transport in Cu wires In the limit of R >> resistance over a spin relaxation length .

where N is the spin diffusion length I can be interpreted as the single junction spin current polarization I  I at interface “i” defined as: Pi  I  I Spin transport in Cu wires V .Spin transport in Cu wires In the limit of R >> .

Outline • Theory • Sample fabrication • Measurements • Switching of ferromagnetic contacts • Spin precession: Hanle effect • Temperature dependence of spin signal Spin transport in Cu wires .

Characteristic switching T=4.2 K I V Spin transport in Cu wires .

2 K Larmor frequency Spin transport in Cu wires .Hanle effect (spin precession) I V T=4.

Temperature dependence R NL should have equal magnitude but different sign for  and  Spin transport in Cu wires .

Temperature dependence R NL should have equal magnitude but different sign for  and  Spin transport in Cu wires .

Outline • Theory • Sample fabrication • Measurements • Discussion • Analysis of temperature dependence of spin signal • Evidence for interfacial spin-flip scattering • Cross checks Spin transport in Cu wires .

A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P PS .T dependence: analysis Previous experiments could only measure RA since RTMR included a large offset not related to spin injection   RS . A  P2  P2   Spin transport in Cu wires . A  RNL  RNL 2   P1  P1 RNL   r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P P2 1 RS . A 1   2 where PS .

samir: what about temp dep of D? T dependence: analysis  RS . PA  P (1  T 3 / 2 ) 0 Fit RA with parameters  and a p Spin transport in Cu wires .2K) p Since RA is the previously observed signal. A r N N exp(  L N ) ???  P PS . A  RNL  RNL 2  P0 1  T 3/ 2  Magnons  unknown D m* D 1 D  p  ap a p ne2 r N a is unknown (T>>4. A 1 2 AN   RS .

2 K  6.T dependence: fit RS . R2917 (1998) Spin transport in Cu wires .6 104  1.06 a4p.*: a4p. 345 (2001) ** PRB 58. A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN known T dep.**) * Nature 410.4  10 K larger than bulk. A 1 a p  6. P PS . as expected due to interface effects (Shang et al.2 K • Jedema et al.9  10 4 5 3 / 2 •   8.

A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P PS . PS RS .T dependence: PA. A 1 PS .4 10 K RS .   8. A  r N  N exp(  L  N ) P 1 2 AN Spin transport in Cu wires .6 104 . A ap known T dep. 5 3 / 2  6.

A ap known T dep. A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P PS . PS RS . 5 3 / 2  6.T dependence: PA.   8. A  r N  N exp(  L  N ) P 1 2 AN PA  P0 (1  T 3/ 2 ) PS  B 1 e1227 K / T Thermal activation: Spin transport in Cu wires .4 10 K RS . A 1 PS .6 104 .

A  P2  P2    1 / R2  1 / R2  P2  1/ R2  1/ R2   N R2 F2 N F I  e       2 / R2    similarly for spin  R2 Spin transport in Cu wires . A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P PS . A 1   2 where PS .Can we explain this? RNL   r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P P2 1 RS .

A  r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P PS .Can we explain this? RNL   r N N exp(  L N ) 2 AN P P2 1 RS . A  P2  P2    1 / R2  1 / R2   1 / R'2 1 / R'2  P2  1/ R2  1/ R2   1 / R'2 1 / R'2   N interface spin-flip scattering R2 R '2 R '2 R2 F2 N F N F I  e       2 / R2       2 / R '2      similarly for spin  Spin transport in Cu wires . A 1   2 where PS .

Physical meaning 1 / R'2  PS  1/ R2  1/ R2   1/ R'2 1/ R'2  2  1 / R2  PA  1/ R2  1/ R2   1/ R'2 1/ R'2  2 1/ R 1/ R' What do PA and PS mean? PA : ratio of spin-polarized to total transport into F2 PS : ratio of spin-dependent spin-flip to total transport into F2 Spin transport in Cu wires .

• The different character of injector and detector is clear in the nonlocal geometry. • Data analysis shows that the new component can be fit well with a model related to temperature activation with T=1227 K (surface magnons?. enhanced magnetic scattering?). • The existence of the new signal is explained by extending the previous model to include interface spin-flip scattering. Spin transport in Cu wires . while PA describes the differential spin conserving transport. • A physical interpration of the new defined quantities PS and PA is given.Temperature dependence conclusions: • Temperature dependent measurements reveal a new component of the nonlocal resistance. Ps gives information on the differential spin-flip scattering at the detector.

Cross checks: temperature dependence Co-Cu-Co Ti-Cu-Ti Spin transport in Cu wires .

Cross checks: length dependence Py-Cu-Py Py-Cu-Py Cu-Cu-Cu Cu-Cu-Py Py-Cu-Cu Spin transport in Cu wires .

electrostatic geometric effects. • Made various cross checks to make sure RS did not come from capacitive leakage. • Found a temperature dependent symmetric component in the nonlocal resistance RS that is consistent with the hypothesis of interface spin-flip scattering.Conclusions (overview) • Performed comprehensive spin injection and detection experiments in Cu-Co spin valves. • Measured spin precession in Cu and extracted the spin diffusion length and the current spin polarization P. and heating combined with thermoelectric effect. • Spin diffusion length measurements are consistent with each other and with previous measurements. Spin transport in Cu wires .

• For device applications. not requiring a transport model for data interpration can be useful (MFM). • Use electron statistics such as shot noise to further study interfacial spin transport.Further work • Study the microscopic origin of interfacial spin-flip scattering. • A direct measurement of the spin polarization and relaxation lengths. Spin transport in Cu wires . • Nonlocal measurements with MgO tunnel barriers. high frequency measurements of spin injection and detection might be of importance. should be used for comparison. which has been shown to enhance the magnetoresistance in MTJ. even in the absence of charge current.

out ref. out in out Current amplifier Spin transport in Cu wires . out Ramp generator sig.Experimental setup Lock-in amplifier osc. in Lock-in amplifier osc.

Cross checks: Geometric effects Spin transport in Cu wires .

Cross checks: heating and Seebeck effect VS  DC rejection of lock-in <1nV DC DC 2w rejection<1nV VS m  I AC Spin transport in Cu wires .

Why heating and Seebeck effect? Spin transport in Cu wires .

Current leakage? Spin transport in Cu wires .

p s e T1 z Time scales Momentum relaxation time Single electron spin coherence time Electron ensemble spin coherence time Interactions that conserve total spin s e Spin relaxation time spin-lattice longitudinal T2 Irreversible spin decoherence time transverse yB~0 dM z M  M0 B  e  T1  T2  z isotropic system T1 x dt Spin Transport in Cu wires * dM dM x Reversible spiny M  x T2 dt dephasing time   M y T2 dt T2 conduction electrons: T2 Bloch’s phenomenological equations  T2 * .

What does small B mean? w L c  1 where w L  g B B /  and is the Larmor frequency c is the correlation time (typical time interval between spin changing events) Spin Transport in Cu wires .

Conductivity mismatch F /   R 2 N /  N I I F F /   T N 2 N /  N I I R Spin Transport in Cu wires .

398 # 8  2  05  2  I ! !    #$  8  2  05  2 ! !$       070 !$  ! I !G  I  .3005..

#  .

#G !   .

#  .

#G    .

#   .

# G  .

#   .

# G     0  3  3   .

99073 # #  # G #G    3  3 G  .. # 39071..0853 15 8.

3854793:708 . #  82.7147853 G G $5397.

20.33 !  !$   .!8..

#  .

#  .

#  .

#G  .

#G  .

#   .

# G  .

#    .

#  G  .

#G  .

#   .

70/94 949.97.385479394 !$ 7.385479 394 $5397.9441853 /0503/039 853 1594949.97. # G .3854793:708 .9/4! .3/!$20.3 ! 7.9441853 54.

03 !8 .0853 158..99030.3//090.90/94902507..9.3.397..30 ..947 0! /08.947. 8.041903083...0831472..943419030/0130/6:.73 903434.24/070.853.3438 03.3..9.99073.309..9:70.805.3.4:824/0943.%02507.0.:/039071.42543039.7-0890 /1107039..385479  W %0/1107039.7.3854793:708 .70889.4254303941903434...0..9:70/0503/03920.02.9478.9439 % 8:71.9:70/0503/03.888489.:8438 W %02507..39908!$ .0/2.990/090.30/-0903/3 90570.390757.9074130. 853 158..43.0.3/! 8.9434390/1107039.43807.0 W .99073 W 58.042097 $5397.99073 W %008903.3-019 09.8:702039870.

7488.9:70/0503/03.0 4 : 4 % : % $5397.3854793:708 .0.8902507.

0.8039/0503/03.0 ! : ! ! : ! : : : : : ! ! : : $5397.7488.3854793:708 .

4388903990.42543039390 3434.3/ 0..8942.0 00.98 ..943.420 1742.0.08:70#$ //349./0.93..70. 4907.00.0#$ 9.9:70/0503/039822097.98.9.3854793:708 .042097.43.0110.902507.08 W 0.42-30/99072400.8:70/853570..97489.0110.8:7020398 W 4:3/.9 $5397.0 W !0714720/.07.4:820.7....8:7020398.42570038.3//090.4388903999054908841 39071.74:8..3/097..085330.90/90853 /11:843039...3/90..:8438 4.99073 W .3.943! W $53/11:84303920.3/9570.5.9.7488.943 0507203983: 4853.:7703985354.088433:.97.70889.0853 158.

3.309470889.94329-04125479.20.03% 84:/ -0:80/147.99073  W 434..8:702039419085354.3.3854793:708 .041.7...8:702039841 85330.3-0:801:  W &8000.20.9.88:.70.943 .38547924/0147/.748.3//090.8 -0038439403.:790747 W $9:/902.0 W /70.3/70.88493480941:790789:/ 39071.8:70203989 9:330-.55.943.97.943 0398 349706:73..4734139071..853 15 8.3.-803.0902...943.0.974389.9438 1706:03.989.85397...390757.:77039  $5397.77078 .385479 0.7843  W 47/0....920..45.425.03390.

809:5 4. 3 . 3 .3854793:708 .5072039.25107 48. 4:9 701 3 4.25107 $5397. 4:9 #.947 8 4:9 3 4:9 :77039 .25107 48.25 0307.

98 $5397.0.8042097.7488.0110.3854793:708 .

0.0110.80.9 '$ M 700.93.9433' '$ 2   $5397.943414.7488.3/$00-0.3854793:708 . 3 3'    700.

0.9 $5397.0110.3/$00-0.3854793:708 .93.

:770390.3854793:708 ..0 $5397.

 8503420344.94300.40703.43807.9438  % .06:.943920 853 . % % 770.99..3854793:708 /   /  #0.0920 0.974303802-0853..08 :5 :8 :0 %  42039:270.83920  % % /9  .40703..40703.853 :8 :0 $5370.078-0853   /9 /05.38.%208.0920 3907..9 .9743853.0949.94389.0920 97..0780 = /     : 0  %  %  849745.078-0853 /0.97438 % 4.43/:.943920 $3000.0 439:/3.88902 %  /9 $53%7.

9/40882.   070    3  * .3  : .20..

-09003853...943920 95.9203907.4770.0398 $53%7.330. :.3854793:708 .3/ 890..  . 890.72471706:03.

43/:.9.9282. 2 .9.

9 G # 2 .

9    2 .

9   G % #G  2 .

9   $53%7.3854793:708 .