Yet, for a given class of materials, one would like to find an effective Hamiltonian involving as few degrees of freedom and parameters as possible.
Following Kino and Fukuyama, twenty years ago I argued that the simplest possible effective Hamiltonian for a large class of superconducting organic charge transfer salts was a one-band Hubbard model on an anisotropic triangular lattice at half filling.
It seemed natural to then argue that the relevant model for the spin degrees of freedom in the Mott insulating phase is the corresponding frustrated Heisenberg model with spatial anisotropy determined by the anisotropy in the tight-binding model.
However, it turns out this is not the case.
There are some subtle quantum interference effects that I overlooked in the "derivation" of these effective models, leading to a different spatial anisotropy.
This is shown by some of my colleagues in a nice recent paper, accepted for PRL.
Dynamical reduction of the dimensionality of exchange interactions and the "spin-liquid" phase of κ-(BEDT-TTF)2X
B. J. Powell, E. P. Kenny, J. Merino
This raises questions about what the relevant effective Hamiltonian is for the metallic, superconducting, and (possibly) ferroelectric phases.
The paper's significance goes beyond organic charge transfer salts to the general problem of finding effective Hamiltonians in complex materials.
Similar interference effects have been found to arise in quite a different class of materials.
Heisenberg and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions controlled by molecular packing in trinuclear organometallic clusters
B. J. Powell, J. Merino, A. L. Khosla, and A. C. Jacko
This also reminds me of subtleties (and debates) that occur in the Zhang-Rice "derivation" of the t-J model from a three-band Hubbard model.
No comments:
Post a Comment