[Wien] zigzag potential interpretation
Peter Blaha
pblaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at
Wed Jan 3 11:48:44 CET 2018
Run x lapwdm -so -up
and look at the spin and orbital moments (vectorial) of the atoms there.
Peter
On 01/03/2018 09:22 AM, Stefaan Cottenier wrote:
> Good morning Xavier,
>
> These are the partial charges for the two different surface atoms, with
> spin-orbit:
>
> :CHA001: TOTAL VALENCE CHARGE INSIDE SPHERE 1 = 5.7094 (RMT=
> 2.2200 )
>
> :PCS001: PARTIAL CHARGES SPHERE = 1
> S,P,D,F,PZ,PXY,,D-Z2,D-XY,D-X2Y2,D-XZ,YZ
>
> :QTL001: 1.1585 3.0936 1.4519 0.0044 1.0202 2.0734 0.0000 0.2461 0.3659
> 0.2540 0.5857 0.0000
>
> :CHA002: TOTAL VALENCE CHARGE INSIDE SPHERE 2 = 5.7094 (RMT=
> 2.2200 )
>
> :PCS002: PARTIAL CHARGES SPHERE = 2
> S,P,D,F,PZ,PXY,,D-Z2,D-XY,D-X2Y2,D-XZ,YZ
>
> :QTL002: 1.1585 3.0936 1.4519 0.0044 1.0202 2.0734 0.0000 0.2461 0.3659
> 0.2540 0.5857 0.0000
>
> And these are the partial charges for a cell suggested by sgroup, where
> the two surface layers are equivalent:
>
> :CHA001: TOTAL VALENCE CHARGE INSIDE SPHERE 1 = 5.7094 (RMT=
> 2.2200 )
>
> :PCS001: PARTIAL CHARGES SPHERE = 1
> S,P,D,F,PZ,PXY,,D-Z2,D-XY,D-X2Y2,D-XZ,YZ
>
> :QTL001: 1.1585 3.0936 1.4519 0.0044 1.0202 2.0734 0.0000 0.2461 0.3659
> 0.2540 0.5857 0.0000
>
> As you see, there are no differences at all.
>
> I’m confident that this result is correct, only I’m in doubt why. I
> would understand your reasoning for a free atom: spin-orbit along 001 or
> 00-1 would result in the same orbital occupations. No problem for a bulk
> solid either: if you flip the moment 180 degrees, the ‘tip of the arrow’
> ‘sees’ the same environment in both cases. Yet I miss something for
> these bulk slabs: in one case, the tip of the arrow sees vacuum, in the
> other case it sees the underlying bulk. Why does that necessarily result
> into exactly the same orbital occupations? As sgroup/initso make these
> two surface layers equivalent, there must be a symmetry argument. And
> it’s that one which I don’t get.
>
> Best,
>
> Stefaan
>
> *Van:*Wien [mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at] *Namens
> *Xavier Rocquefelte
> *Verzonden:* dinsdag 2 januari 2018 21:31
> *Aan:* wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> <mailto:wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Wien] zigzag potential interpretation
>
> A piece of paper will be useful to discuss this point ;)
>
> To my point of you, the picture is correct: Fe moment point inward and
> outward. However, I think that for a given direction (c direction) the
> 001 and 00-1 orientation will lead to inward and outward respectively,
> which will give the same spin moment and orbital moment. It is due to
> the fact that the SO-effect will split the 3d orbitals similarly for the
> 001 and 00-1 orientations. Doing two calculations with 001 and 00-1
> magnetization direction will lead to reverse the Fe moment for a given
> surface, and thus you will have inward and outward, respectively.
>
> In your calculations, you have both (inward and outward) for one
> magnetization direction due to the surface termination.
>
> The only limitation I see here is related to the definition of the Fermi
> level which can lead to difficulties to properly distinguish the two
> surfaces. Would it be possible that here is the problem? Are the partial
> DOS exactly the same?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wien mailing list
> Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at
> http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
> SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at: http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
>
--
P.Blaha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter BLAHA, Inst.f. Materials Chemistry, TU Vienna, A-1060 Vienna
Phone: +43-1-58801-165300 FAX: +43-1-58801-165982
Email: blaha at theochem.tuwien.ac.at WIEN2k: http://www.wien2k.at
WWW: http://www.imc.tuwien.ac.at/TC_Blaha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Wien
mailing list