text:
# Domain Wall Resistance based on Landauer’s Formula

## I Introduction

The electronic transport properties in nano-size ferromagnetic structures has been drawing growing interest recently. Of most interest would be the magnetoresistance effect, namely, the change of the resistance by application of a magnetic field. The magnetoresistance in nano-structures is due to the rearrangement of the magnetization, namely the creation and motion of domain walls, driven by the external field. Recently high-sensitivity measurements on magnetic nano-structures such as wires and contacts has become possible and intensive experimental studies of the magnetoresistance due to a single domain wall have begun . These recent experiments have evoked a renewal of interest in theories of the scattering of the electron by a domain wall , although the first theoretical study of this problem goes back to more than 25 years ago.

The scattering mechanism is due to the non-adiabatic deviation of the electron spin from the local magnetization as the electron goes through the wall. In the case of a wall with thickness $`\lambda k_F^1`$ ($`k_F`$ being the Fermi wave length), the electron spin can adiabatically follow the spatial rotation of the magnetization, resulting in a negligiblly small reflection. This is the reason the wall contributes very little in the magnetoresistance in the 3$`d`$ metals in the bulk.

The situation changes in nano-magnets, where the profile of the wall can be different from that in the bulk magnets. The extreme case would be an atomic size contact. There the wall is believed to be constrained in a small contact region of an atomic scale due to a rapid change of the contact shape, and thus the adiabaticity does not hold resulting in a strong scattering. Indeed an experiment on Ni contact revealed a magnetoresistance of about 300% at room temperature, which is significantly large compared with other giant magnetoresistive materials such as multilayers. The result has been interpreted as due to a strong electron scattering by a domain wall, which is trapped in the narrow contact region in the absence of the magnetic field, and which is expelled by applying a magnetic field.

In this paper the domain wall resistance in nano-wires or contacts is calculated by use of Landauer’s formula. The advantage of this formalism is that we can see how the density of states of the sample and the lead appears in the resistance, which is not possible in he linear response calculation as carried out in ref. . The system is treated as in one dimension and the calculation is at zero temperature. The transmission coefficients are calculated in section 2, and the resistance is calculated in the case of four- and two-terminals in section 3. The result is shown to agree with the result of the Mori formula of the linear response theory in the case of the equilibrium flow in a four-terminal case.

Throughout the paper we consider only channels which contribute to the transport and so do not discuss the quantized behavior of the conductance.

The phase of the transmission coefficient contains important information on the stability of the electron system. This has been considered elsewhere.

## II Scattering Properties

We consider the exchange interaction between the electron spin and the local spin. The Hamiltonian is

$$H=\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_kc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }g𝑑x𝐒(x)(c^{}𝝈c),$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_k\mathrm{}^2k^2/2mϵ_F`$ ($`ϵ_F`$ being the Fermi energy). The spin index is denoted by $`\sigma =\pm `$ and $`𝝈`$ is the Pauli matrix (spin indices are suppressed in the second term). The local spin $`𝐒`$ has a spatial dependence of a domain wall. In terms of a polar coordinate $`\left(S_zS\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$ the wall is represented as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 1`$ for $`x\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 1`$ for $`x\lambda `$, $`\lambda `$ being the thickness of the wall. We consider two typical profiles of the wall;

bulk wall $`:`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{tanh}(x/\lambda )`$ (2)
linear wall $`:`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\{\begin{array}{cc}1& (x>\lambda )\\ x/\lambda & (\lambda x\lambda )\\ 1& (x<\lambda )\end{array},`$ (6)
where the first case corresponds to the wall determined by the uniaxial anisotropy energy, which would be the case of bulk magnets, and the second linear profile would be realized in small contacts.

To proceed we carry out a local gauge transformation in the electron spin space so that the $`z`$-axis is chosen to be along the local direction of spin $`\stackrel{}{S}`$. The transformation is written as $`a_\sigma =(Uc)_\sigma `$, where $`U`$ is a position-dependent matrix defined as $`U\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)\sigma _z+\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\theta }{2}\right)\sigma _y`$ and the electron in the new frame is denoted by $`a_\sigma `$. The Hamiltonian is transformed to be $`H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ where $`H_0\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_{k\sigma }a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }`$ and $`ϵ_{k\sigma }ϵ_k\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$is the energy of uniformly polarised electron with the exchange splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }g\left|𝐒\right|`$. The term $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ describes the interaction between the electron and the wall and is given by

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{1}{L}\underset{kq}{}\left[\left(k+\frac{q}{2}\right)A_qa_{k+q}^{}\sigma _xa_k+\frac{1}{4L}\underset{p}{}A_pA_{p+q}a_{k+q}^{}a_k\right],$$
(7)
where

$$A_q𝑑xe^{iqx}\theta ,$$
(8)
is a domain-wall form factor. Note that $`\theta 0`$ for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ and so the interaction is localized near the wall. The spin-conserving process in the rotated frame as the electron goes through the wall corresponds to the adiabatic process, where the electron spin follows the rotation of the magnetization, and the spin flip corresponds to the deviation from the adiabaticity.

The interaction $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ leads to a scattering of the electron and thus contributes to a resistivity due to the wall as has been discussed before based on a linear response theory. Here we take a different approach of calculating the $`T`$-matrix perturbatively with respect to $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$. The solution of the Schrödinger equation with the energy of $`E`$, which we denote by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_E>`$ (two component vector corresponding to two spin state), is given as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_E>=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>+G_E^0T_E|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>,$$
(9)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>`$ is the incoming wave, $`G_E^0\frac{1}{H_0Ei0}`$ is the free Green function with energy $`E`$ and $`T`$-operator is defined as $`T_EH_{\mathrm{int}}\frac{1}{1G_E^0H_{\mathrm{int}}}`$. The small imaginary part in $`G_E^0`$ is to choose the correct boundary condition of outgoing wave. We consider the incoming wave with energy $`E`$ and spin $`\sigma `$. They are explicitly written as

$`<x|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{ik_+x}\\ 0\end{array}\right),<x|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}>=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ e^{ik_{}x}\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
where $`k_\sigma \sqrt{2m(E+\sigma \mathrm{\Delta })}`$ is the wave vector of the spin $`\sigma `$ component. The spin $`\sigma ^{}`$ component of the full wave function for the incident wave $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\sigma >`$ is then obtained from eq. (9) as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_E^{\sigma ^{}\sigma }(x)=\delta _{\sigma ^{},\sigma }e^{ik_\sigma x}+𝑑x^{}G_{E\sigma ^{}}^0(xx^{})\underset{k^{}}{}e^{ik^{}x^{}}T_{k^{}\sigma ^{},k_\sigma \sigma },$$
(15)
where $`G_{E\sigma ^{}}^0(xx^{})<x\sigma ^{}|G_E^0|x^{}\sigma ^{}>=i\frac{m}{|k_\sigma ^{}|}e^{ik_\sigma ^{}|xx^{}|}`$ and $`T_{k^{}\sigma ^{},k_\sigma \sigma }<k^{}\sigma ^{}|T_E|k_\sigma \sigma >`$.

The transmission and reflection coefficients are defined from the asymptotic behavior as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_E^{\sigma ^{}\sigma }(x)`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }e^{ik_\sigma x}+r_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }e^{ik_\sigma ^{}x}& (x\mathrm{})\\ t_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }e^{ik_\sigma ^{}x}& (x+\mathrm{})\end{array}.`$ (18)
The result is

$`t_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }i{\displaystyle \frac{mL}{|k_\sigma ^{}|}}T_{k_\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{},k_\sigma \sigma }`$ (19)
$`r_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{mL}{|k_\sigma ^{}|}}T_{k_\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{},k_\sigma \sigma }.`$ (20)
The diagonal (in spin) component of the $`T`$-matrix for the incoming wave vector of $`k_\sigma `$ is calculated as

$`T_{k_\sigma \sigma ,k_\sigma \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`<k_\sigma ,\sigma |H_{\mathrm{int}}|k_\sigma ,\sigma >+{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}}{}}<k_\sigma ,\sigma |H_{\mathrm{int}}|k^{},\sigma ><k^{},\sigma |G_E^0|k^{},\sigma ><k^{},\sigma |H_{\mathrm{int}}|k_\sigma ,\sigma >`$ (22)
$`+O(A^4)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8mL^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}|A_q|^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(2k_\sigma +q)^2}{(q+k_\sigma )^2k_\sigma ^2i0}}\right]+O(A^4).`$ (23)
Off-diagonal components are given by

$$T_{\pm k_\sigma ,\sigma ,k_\sigma \sigma }=\frac{(k_\sigma \pm k_\sigma )}{4mL}A_{\pm k_\sigma k_\sigma }+O(A^3).$$
(24)
The result of the transmission and reflection coefficients are

$`t_{\sigma \sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`1+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k_\sigma L}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}|A_q|^2{\displaystyle \frac{3k_\sigma ^2+k_\sigma ^2+2k_\sigma q}{(q+k_\sigma )^2k_\sigma ^2i0}}`$ (25)
$`t_{\sigma ,\sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(k_\sigma +k_\sigma )}{4k_\sigma }}A_{k_\sigma +k_\sigma }`$ (26)
$`r_{\sigma ,\sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(k_\sigma k_\sigma )}{4k_\sigma }}A_{k_\sigma k_\sigma }`$ (27)
$`r_{\sigma ,\sigma }(k_\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`O(A^2).`$ (28)
The scattering probabilities are defined as $`T_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }|t_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }|^2`$ and $`R_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }|r_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }|^2`$. These probabilities for the electron at Fermi level (i.e., $`k_\sigma =k_{F\sigma }`$) are obtained to the second order in $`A`$ as

$`T_{\sigma \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1\zeta ^2)}}(\zeta ^2|A_+|^2+|A_{}|^2)`$ (29)
$`T_{\sigma ,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1\sigma \zeta )^2}}|A_{}|^2`$ (30)
$`R_{\sigma ,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1\sigma \zeta )^2}}|A_+|^2,`$ (31)
and $`R_{\sigma \sigma }=O(A^4)`$, where $`A_+A_{k_{F+}+k_F}(=A_{2k_F})`$ and $`A_{}A_{k_{F+}k_F}(=A_{2k_F\zeta })`$ describes a backward and forward scattering with spin flip, respectively ( $`k_F(k_{F+}+k_F)/2`$ and $`\zeta (k_{F+}k_F)/(k_{F+}+k_F)`$). The conservation of the current,

$$k_{F\sigma }=k_{F\sigma }T_{\sigma \sigma }+k_{F,\sigma }T_{\sigma ,\sigma }+k_{F,\sigma }R_{\sigma ,\sigma },$$
(32)
is satisfied.

## III Wall Resistance

To relate these quantities to resistance, we consider a four-terminal case where the system is coupled with two leads, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ and two terminals, $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$ (Fig. 3). (The gauge transformation does not affect the resistance, since the shift of the current due to the transformation vanishes far away from the wall.) $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are connected with a reserver (current source) and $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$ are to measure the voltage difference across the sample. The argument goes similarly to the non-magnetic case described in refs.  but taking account of spin dependence. The chemical potential of $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are fixed to be $`\mu _1ϵ_F+eV_0`$ and $`\mu _2ϵ_F`$ ($`V_0`$ is the applied voltage), respectively. The chemical potential of $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$, $`\mu _A`$ and $`\mu _B`$ are determined below by the condition of vanishing current flow through each terminal. The true voltage difference across the sample is different from $`V_0`$ and is given as $`V(\mu _A\mu _B)/e`$. The resistance of the system is written as $`R_\mathrm{w}V/I`$, $`I`$ being the current through the sample.

We first consider the case where the leads are ferromagnets with density of states for the spin state $`\sigma `$ given by $`N_\sigma `$. The case of non-magnetic leads is discussed at the end of this section. The number of the electron with spin $`\sigma `$ injected from $`L_1`$ is $`N_\sigma eV_0`$, and thus the electric current is written by use of transmission probability as

$$I=eV\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}N_\sigma \frac{e\mathrm{}}{mL}k_{F\sigma ^{}}T_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }.$$
(33)
The voltage $`\mu _A`$ and $`\mu _B`$ are determined by the balance between the terminal and lead. In $`L_1`$, the density (per energy) of spin $`\sigma `$ electron is written as

$$n_{1\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(N_\sigma (1+R_{\sigma \sigma })+N_\sigma R_{\sigma ,\sigma }).$$
(34)
Here a factor of $`1/2`$ comes from choosing right moving electron. The density at the other lead is given by

$$n_{2\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(N_\sigma T_{\sigma \sigma }+N_\sigma T_{\sigma ,\sigma }).$$
(35)
The condition of vanishing flow between $`L_1`$ and $`T_A`$ and $`L_2`$ and $`T_B`$ are given as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{1\sigma }(\mu _1\mu _A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(N_\sigma n_{1\sigma })(\mu _A\mu _2)`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{2\sigma }(\mu _1\mu _B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(N_\sigma n_{2\sigma })(\mu _B\mu _2),`$ (37)
respectively. This leads to the voltage difference across the sample of

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(n_{1\sigma }n_{2\sigma })(\mu _1\mu _2)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_++N_{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}N_\sigma (1+R_{\sigma \sigma }T_{\sigma \sigma }+R_{\sigma ,\sigma }T_{\sigma ,\sigma }).`$ (39)
By use of eq. (31) the resistance to the lowest order in domain wall scattering is obtained as

$$R_\mathrm{w}=\frac{mL}{2e^2\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{_\sigma N_\sigma k_{F\sigma }}\frac{1}{(1\zeta ^2)^2}[\zeta ^2(1+\zeta \delta )|A_+|^2(\zeta ^2+\zeta \delta )|A_{}|^2],$$
(40)
where $`\delta (N_+N_{})/(N_++N_{})`$. Naively it appears correct to choose $`N_\sigma =\frac{Lm}{\pi \mathrm{}^2k_{F\sigma }}D_\sigma `$, equal to the one-dimensional density of state. This is wrong if the equilibrium situation with a steady current flow is considered. In fact, the electron with down spin, which has a smaller velocity of $`k_F`$, cannot leave the scattering region quickly after the scattering and thus the density becomes higher by a factor proportional to $`1/k_F`$ (see Fig. 3). Therefore under a steady flow, the effective density of states becomes proportional to $`D_\sigma /k_{F\sigma }`$, namely, $`N_\sigma =D_\sigma \frac{(1\zeta ^2)}{(1+\zeta ^2)}\frac{1}{(1+\sigma \zeta )}`$, where a prefactor is chosen to conserve the total density, i.e., $`N_++N_{}=D_++D_{}`$. This point has not been discussed in the multi-channel case carried out so far. Then $`\delta =\frac{2\zeta }{1+\zeta ^2}`$ and we obtain

$$R_\mathrm{w}=\frac{h}{e^2}\frac{\zeta ^2}{8(1\zeta ^2)}[|A_+|^2+|A_{}|^2].$$
(41)
This result is the same as that obtained based on a linear response theory, where the equilibrium is assumed.

In the case of two-terminals, the system is out of equilibrium and the resistance is modified. The conductance in this case is given as the transmitted current, eq. (33) with $`N_\sigma =D_\sigma `$, divided by the applied voltage, $`V`$. Thus

$$G=\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{\sigma }{}\left(T_{\sigma \sigma }+\frac{k_{F,\sigma }}{k_{F\sigma }}T_{\sigma ,\sigma }\right).$$
(42)
The wall resistance is written as $`R_\mathrm{w}^{(2\mathrm{t})}G^1G_0^1`$, where $`G_0\frac{2e^2}{h}`$ is the conductance without the wall. Thus to the lowest order in the wall scattering,

$$R_\mathrm{w}^{(2\mathrm{t})}=\frac{h}{e^2}\frac{\zeta ^2}{4(1\zeta ^2)}|A_+|^2.$$
(43)
This resistance contains only backward scattering $`k_{F\sigma }k_{F,\sigma }`$. This result is obtained from the four terminal case, eq. (40), by putting $`N_\sigma =D_\sigma `$.

Two resistances, (41) and (43) (dashed and solid lines, respectively), are plotted in Fig. 3 for the two profiles, (2) and (6). In the bulk case, (2), $`A_q`$ is given by

$$A_q=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{cosh}(\pi q\lambda /2)},$$
(44)
and so resistance decays rapidly for $`|q|\underset{}{>}\lambda ^1`$. In the case of a linear wall, (6), decay is slower (Fig. 3);

$$A_q=\pi \frac{\mathrm{sin}q\lambda }{q\lambda }.$$
(45)
This difference in the form factor leads to a slightly different resistance, but strong suppression of the resistance for $`k_F\lambda 1`$ is universal. The difference between the two- and four-terminal cases is small if the Zeeman splitting is large but becomes manifest when $`\zeta `$ is small.

Let us mention the case where the leads connected to the sample are non-magnetic metals. If we write the hopping probability between the lead and the sample as $`T_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{L})}`$, the balance of the density of states requires $`DT_\sigma ^{(\mathrm{L})}=N_\sigma `$, where $`D`$ is the density of states in the lead. Thus the voltage across the sample is determined by the same eqs. as (34)-(39), and so the resistance is equal to that for the ferromagnetic lead discussed above.

## IV Summary

The scattering of the electron by a domain wall is studied theoretically. By use of a local gauge transformation, the interaction between the electron and the wall is treated perturbatively to the lowest order. The transmission coefficients are obtained and the resistance was calculated using the Laundauer’s formula with four-terminals. The comparison with the result of linear response theory was made.

## Acknowledgments

The author thanks H. Matsukawa and Y. Tokura for stimulating discussion. He also thanks Max Planck Institut fur Mikrostrukturphysik for its hospitality during his stay at the early stage of this work and Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung for financial support. This work is supported by a Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.


format: text

text:
# Giant Magnetoresistance at the Interface of Iron Thin Films

## Abstract

Ag/Fe/Ag and Cr/Fe/Cr trilayers with a single $`25nm`$ thick ferromagnetic layer exhibit giant magnetoresistance (GMR) type behavior. The resistance decreases for parallel and transversal magnetic field alignements with a Langevin-type magnetic field dependence up to $`B=12`$ T. The phenomenon is explained by a granular interface structure. Results on Fe/Ag multilayers are also interpreted in terms of a granular interface magnetoresistance.

Magnetoresistance arising from a nanoscale magnetic structure was first discovered in antiferromagnetically coupled multilayers prepared by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) . It is generally referred to as giant magnetoresistance (GMR) due to the large resistance change as compared to the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) of bulk ferromagnetic materials. The large effect gives great potential for technological applications, however, as concerning the underlying physics the absence of anisotropy in case of the GMR effect  is more important. This means that $`[R(H)R(0)]/R(0)`$ is negative irrespectively of the direction of the measuring current and the applied magnetic field when both lie in the sample plane. Since the first reports on GMR it turned out to be a more complex phenomenon, as it was observed in polycrystalline multilayers , granular materials , magnetic domain walls  or supersaturated alloys , as well. The criteria for observing GMR can be put more generally: the characteristic length scales of the magnetic inhomogenities should be in the order of the electronic mean free path. However, the respective role of different bulk and interface scattering processes  is not yet clear even in case of multilayers. Many recent experimental  and theoretical  works addressed this question, but the role of the interface was examined only in conjunction with the multilayer structure.

In this letter we show that by studying the magnetoresistance of trilayers containing only one magnetic layer it is possible to separate the contribution of a single interface. The interface magnetoresistance has GMR characteristics and is attributed to a granular interface structure. The existance of a granular interface magnetoresistance raises the question how this term is related to the magnetoresistance arising from interlayer coupling in case of multilayers. Our study demonstrates that the granular interface contribution is dominant in Fe/Ag multilayers. By investigating Cr/Fe/Cr trilayers it is also shown that the granular interface magnetoresistance is not restricted to immiscible elements.

The trilayer and multilayer samples were prepared on Si single crystal substrate at room temperature by vacuum evaporation in a base pressure of $`10^7`$ Pa. The layer thickness was controlled by a quartz oscillator during sample deposition. The magnetoresistance was measured by four contact method on $`2`$ mm thick and $`10`$ mm long samples with current in the plane geometry. The magnetic field was applied in three geometries: i., in the sample plane parallel to the current ii., in the sample plane perpendicular to the current and iii., perpendicular to the sample plane. Magnetoresistance measured in the above geometries are usually called parallel ($`R_{}`$), transversal ($`R_{}`$) and perpendicular ($`R_{perp}`$), respectively. The layer thickness range of the trilayers ($`8nm`$ for Ag and Cr and $`25nm`$ for Fe) was small enough that the interface magnetoresistance was not shunted by the resistance of the layers, however it was thick enough that the Fe layer shows magnetic properties (saturation magnetization, Curie temperature, demagnetization field) similar to bulk layers.

Magnetoresistance curve of the as deposited $`8nm`$Ag/$`25nm`$Fe/$`8nm`$Ag trilayer measured in parallel, transversal and perpendicular geometries up to $`B=12`$ T magnetic field at $`T=4.2`$ K is shown in Fig. 1a. $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ show similar magnetic field dependence in the high field region, but the two curves are shifted relative to each other because of a small AMR below $`0.2`$ T. The lower value of $`R_{}`$ is consistent with thin film measurements on Fe  indicating a crossover in the signe of the parallel and the transversal magnetoresistance around this layer thickness. However, the high field behavior is rather unusual. The equal decrease of the parallel and the transversal magnetoresistance and the absence of saturation up to $`12`$ T magnetic field have not yet been observed on a single ferromagnetic Fe layer. On the other hand the cusp like shape of the magnetoresistance curves and the extremely high saturation field is typical of granular systems .

Magnetoresistance of a Fe-Ag sample which has a \[$`0.2nm`$ Fe + $`2.6nm`$ Ag\]75 nominal multilayer structure is shown in Fig. 1b. The thin Fe layers are not continuous in this sample and this speciman shows characteristics of a granular system, e.g. it is superparamagnetic with a blocking temperature around $`40K`$ . The magnetic field dependence of $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ also shows the characteristic features observed on granular samples prepared by co-deposition of the constituents . A distinct feature of our granular sample prepared by sequential deposition is the anisotropy observed when the magnetic field is perpendicular to the sample plane. In co-deposited granular materials  there are only minor differences between $`R_{}`$, $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{perp}`$. The layered growth seems to strongly affect the sample morphology and probably the shape of the granules. Note that $`R_{perp}`$ of the trilayer sample also shows distinct behavior (see Fig. 1a).

In granular materials the GMR phenomenon is attributed to spin dependent scattering on single domain ferromagnetic particles and is shown to scale with the reduced magnetization  as:

$$\frac{R(H)R(0)}{R(0)}=A\left(\frac{M}{M_s}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the global magnetization of the sample and $`M_s`$ is the saturation magnetization. The prefactor $`A`$ depends on the number and the size of the single domain particles. According to the classical theory of superparamagnetism the reduced magnetization can be described by the Langevin function, therefore

$$\frac{R(H)R(0)}{R(0)}=AL^2(mH/kT),$$
(2)
where $`L(x)=cth(x)1/x`$ and $`m`$ is the magnetic moment of the superparamagnetic particles. Equation (2) was extended in order to be applicable for the trilayer and the multilayers, as well:

$$\frac{R(H)R(0)}{R(0)}=A_1L^2(mH/kT)A_2H^2+A_3.$$
(3)
To account for possible scattering on single Fe impurities in the nonmagnetic matrix a term proportional to $`H^2`$ was included . The constant $`A_3`$ describes the shift in the high field magnetoresistance due to the AMR contribution of ferromagnetic particles. All the experimental curves could be satisfactorily fitted with Eq. (3) in the $`B>0.25`$ T range.

Figure 2 shows the fit results for three representative samples of different morphology. The first one is a granular sample, the same as in Fig. 1b, prepared by sequential deposition. The second one is a multilayer with continuous ferromagnetic layers of \[$`1.4nm`$ Fe + $`2nm`$ Ag\]60 nominal sequence. For this thickness range a RKKY-type magnetic coupling is expected between the Fe layers . The last one is a trilayer sample, the same as in Fig. 1a, containing one magnetic layer.

For the above three samples $`m=19`$, $`7`$, and $`11\mu _B`$ cluster moments are obtained, respectively. The magnetic moment of Fe atoms belonging to different size Fe clusters in the Ag matrix  is about $`3\mu _B`$. According to the above analysis the magnetoresistance is determined by clusters containig a few (3-7) Fe atoms. We found that for all the samples the Langevin term is the dominant one ($`A_1=5.3\times 10^1`$, $`1.3\times 10^1`$ and $`4.4\times 10^2`$, respectively). The AMR shift is zero for the granular sample, however it is non negligible for the multilayer and the trilayer ($`A_3=0.01`$ and $`0.003`$, respectively) due to the continous ferromagnetic layers. The quadratice term is relatively small in the granular sample ($`A_2=5\times 10^5`$), however it is non-negligible as compared to $`A_1`$ for the multilayer and the trilayer ($`A_2=6\times 10^5`$ and $`5\times 10^6`$, respectively). The above $`A_2`$ amplitudes can be associated with Fe impurities in the nonmagnetic matrix in the order of a few hundred ppm .

According to the above analysis the unusual high field magnetoresistance of the trilayer sample is attributed to mixing of the Fe and Ag atoms at the interface and the formation of a granular-like interface alloy. Fe and Ag are immiscible at equilibrium but the substantially smaller surface free energy of silver makes an Ag covered surface energetically favourable. It has been shown that this acts as a driving force for Ag diffusion through ultra thin Fe layers, either during sample deposition  on substrates at or above room temperature or during a heat treatment  at low temperature ($`200300^{}C`$). However, if interface mixing can occur in case of inmiscible elements it is even more likely for constituents with a limited solubility and the question can be put forward, if an interface magnetoresistance is to be observed, as well. To answer this question the Fe-Cr system was studied. The phase diagram of the Fe-Cr system shows solubility above 1094 K in the entire concentration range and at room temperature the solubility limit is a few at% on each side.

Magnetoresistance measured on the $`8nm`$ Cr/$`25nm`$ Fe/$`8nm`$ Cr trilayer is shown in Fig. 3.

The granular type magnetoresistance can also be observed and could also be fitted according to Eq. (3) ($`m=9\mu _B`$, $`A_2=3\times 10^6`$ and $`A_3=0.001`$) as shown in Fig. 3. Non-equilibrium alloying at the interface can also be an adequate explanation, since similar behavior was observed in supersaturated bulk Fe-Cr alloys  and in co-sputtered alloy films .

In case of the relatively large layer thickness of our Ag/Fe/Ag trilayer a demixing of the interface alloy can be achieved by annealing without basically destroying the layered geometry.

Magnetoresistance of the sample heat treated in vacuum at $`500^{}C`$ for one hour is shown in Fig. 4. The unusual high field magnetoresistance cannot be observed after the heat treatment but the resistance increases as $`[R(H)R(0)]/R(0)H^{1.5}`$ in accordance with former results on Fe . The equality of $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ has already made evident that the negative and non-saturating high field magnetoresistance is not a thin film effect. The disappearance of the high field anomaly after the heat treatment further supports the idea that it arises from the granular nature of the interface in the as-deposited sample. As it can be seen in Fig. 4 the same heat treatment removes the high field anomaly of the Cr/Fe/Cr trilayer, as well. This is in accordance with the results on bulk supersaturated alloys  where the recovery of the usual field dependence of the magnetoresistance was attributed to the precipitation of large Fe clusters.

On the basis of the interface magnetoresistance observed in trilayers it is tempting to estimate the magnitude of this effect in multilayers. If the mean free path of the electrons is less than the layer thickness a parallel resistor network can approximate the interface magnetoresistance of a multilayer. Supposing that the interface conductivity is negligible in zero field but it gives a significant contribution at the highest field applied, one obtains a value around 7.7 kOhm and 5.4 kOhm for the high field resistance a single interface in the trilayer and the \[$`1.4nm`$ Fe + $`2nm`$ Ag\]60 multilayer, respectively. The order of magnitude agreement in this simplified model and the good fit of the field dependence according to Eq. (3) suggest that the magnetoresistance of Fe-Ag multilayers mainly arise from the interface.

In conclusion it is demonstrated for the first time that the non-equilibrium structure of the interface in magnetic multilayers is the source of a granular-type GMR behavior, which gives a contribution to the magnetoresistance independently from the nature of coupling between the layers. Separation of this interface magnetoresistance was possible by studying a single magnetic layer sandwiched between nonmagnetic layers. To establish how the interface structure depends on the layer thickness and on the different parameters of the deposition technique need further studies. However, the granular interface magnetoresistance was shown to be dominant in policrystalline Fe/Ag multilayers. The observed magnitude of this effect in Cr/Fe/Cr trilayer indicates that the granular interface magnetoresistance can be non-negligible in Fe/Cr multilayers, as well.

We thank M. Csontos and F. Zámborszky for technical assistance and L. Bujdosó for sample preparation. This work was supported by Hungarian Research Funds OTKA T030753 and T026327.


text:
# LRG J0239-0134: A RING GALAXY OR A PAIR OF SUPERBUBBLES AT z=1 ?

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The greatest observational capability of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been providing us a lot of invaluable information on the evolution of galaxies (e.g., Williams et al. 1996; Lanzetta, Fernández-Soto, & Yahil 1996; van den Bergh et al. 1996; Cowie, Hu, & Songaila 1995; van Dokkum et al. 1999). In addition, massive and clusters of galaxies have been also used as natural gravitational telescopes to investigate properties of high-$`z`$ galaxies \[Smail et al. 1996; Colley, Tyson, & Turner 1996, Franx et al. 1997; Soucail et al. 1999 (hereafter S99); Péllo et al. 1999; Bézecourt et al. 1999\].

Since optical observations of high-$`z`$ galaxies probe their redshifted ultraviolet radiation, we must be careful in interpreting the data because active star-forming regions may be selectively shown up, making often galaxy morphology knotty or irregular (Bohlin et al. 1990; Giavalisco et al. 1996; Hibbard & Vacca 1997). However, on one hand, it seems likely that young galaxies have more chaotic morphological properties because they are dynamically younger than present-day galaxies. For example, galaxies with chain-like morphology have been found in HST deep images (Cowie et al. 1995; van den Bergh et al. 1996; Abraham 1997; Bunker et al. 2000; Taniguchi & Shioya 2001). It is also mentioned that more frequent collisions between/among galaxies (or subgalactic building blocks) result in peculiar morphology of high-$`z`$ galaxies (e.g., van den Bergh et al. 1996).

Among galaxies with peculiar morphologies, one interesting object is a ring-like galaxy at $`z=1.062`$ (LRG J0239$``$0134) found as an optical counterpart of the 850 $`\mu `$m source, SMM J02399$``$0134 (Smail et al. 1998: S99). Such ring galaxies are not so rare in the local universe and their formation mechanism is now well known; the axial penetration of a smaller companion galaxy to a disk galaxy (Theys & Spiegel 1976, 1977; Lynds & Toomre 1976; Appleton & Marston 1997 and references therein). Therefore, if LRG J0239$``$0134 is a ring galaxy, it would have a less-luminous companion galaxy. Although two galaxies are close to LRG J0239$``$0134 (see Figure 1), one of them, #32 in Mellier et al. (1998), belongs to the cluster of galaxies Abell 370 ($`z=0.37`$) and the other galaxy A in S99, or L4 in Barger et al. (1999), has a redshift of 0.42. Thus, these two galaxies have no relation to LRG J0239$``$0134. Although another two very faint objects (B and C in Figure 1) are also seen to the south of LRG J0239$``$0134, they appear too faint to be a colliding partner. The most probable candidate for the colliding partner seems an object seen just to the north of the main body of LRG J0239$``$0134 (D in Figure 1) although we cannot rule out the possibility that this object might not be separate from the main body of LRG J0239-1034. However, there is no spectroscopic confirmation. Hence it seems still uncertain whether or not LRG J0239$``$0134 is a usual ring galaxy made by the axial penetration of a companion galaxy. In this Letter, we propose an alternative idea that the ring-like morphology is attributed to a pair of superbubbles driven by the intense starburst in the central region of this galaxy.

## 2. SUPERBUBBLE MODEL FOR LRG J0239$``$0134

### 2.1. Observational Properties of LRG J0239$``$0134

S99 reported the detailed observational properties of LRG J0239$``$0134. Since this galaxy is magnified and distorted by the gravitational shear induced by the cluster Abell 370 and the nearby elliptical galaxy #32, they made source reconstruction of LRG J0239$``$0134. In their model, the magnification factor is derived as $`2.5\pm 0.2`$ but it varies from 2.1 to 3.6 depending on the distance to the galaxy #32. Following S99, we adopt a Hubble constant $`H_0=50h_{50}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, a deceleration $`q_0=0.5`$, and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

The intrinsic $`B`$-band absolute luminosity is $`L_\mathrm{B}=1.3\times 10^{12}h_{50}^2L_{\mathrm{B},}6.0\times 10^{11}h_{50}^2L_{}`$. The ring-like feature has an intrinsic radius of $`r_{\mathrm{ring}}=7.7\pm 0.4h_{50}^1`$ kpc. Its major-to-minor axis ratio is $`a/b=0.76`$. If the ring is a circular one, the axial ratio suggests that the inclination angle is $`i=40^{}`$. The mid-infrared (MIR) luminosity at $`\lambda _{\mathrm{rest}}=3.3\mu `$m is $`L_{3.3\mu \mathrm{m}}4\times 10^{10}L_{}`$, being ten times as luminous as that of the Cartwheel galaxy which is one of well-known ring galaxies in the local universe (Charmandaris et al. 1999).

S99 made optical spectroscopy and detected two emission lines, \[O ii\]$`\lambda `$3727 and \[Ne v\]$`\lambda `$3426. Another emission feature is marginally identified as \[Ne iii\]$`\lambda `$3869. These emission-line properties suggest that LRG J0239$``$0134 has an active galactic nucleus. Recently, X ray (0.3 – 7 keV) emission has been detected by Chandra from this galaxy (Bautz et al. 2000). Bautz et al. (2000) estimated the unobscured X-ray luminosity, $`L_\mathrm{X}5\times 10^{11}h_{50}^2L_{}`$ and found that the X-ray to submm flux ratio is similar to that of NGC 6240 which is one of luminous infrared galaxies harboring an active galactic nucleus (e.g., Iwasawa 1999 and references therein).

Stellar continuum emission is dominated by the central body of LRG J0239$``$0134. Since Balmer lines (H$`\delta `$, H$`ϵ`$, H8, and H9) and Mg ii are observed as absorption, it is suggested that A and/or B type stars are dominant stellar sources in the central body. They are often interpreted as evidence for poststarburst (e.g., Taniguchi et al. 1996; Brotherton et al. 1999; Taniguchi, Shioya, & Murayama 2000). S99 noted that \[O ii\]$`\lambda `$3727 emission is spatially extended, suggesting that a part of the ring-like feature is also an emission-line region. There is no significant velocity difference between the extended emission and the central body emission ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v700`$ km s-1). Since \[Ne v\]$`\lambda `$3426 does not show such an extended feature, the extended \[O ii\] emission-line region is perhaps photoionized by newly formed massive stars in the ring. Finally we mention that there is an evident dark lane along the major axis of the central body; however, we would like to note that the dark-lane hypothesis may be weakened if object D belongs to the main body of LRG J0239$``$0134.

### 2.2. Superbubble Model for LRG J0239$``$0134

First we give a summary of supporting evidence for a superbubble model. 1) The poststarburst nature in the central body suggests that a burst of supernova explosions could occur at least $`10^7`$ yr ago. 2) The dark lane seen in the central body suggests that we observe this object from a nearly edge-on view. Note that we would see this object from a nearly face-on view if the ring-like feature is a really ring. And, 3) the ring-like morphology in the raw image of S99 is not inconsistent with an idea that it is a pair of superbubbles. Indeed, the figure 8-shaped morphology in the raw image of S99 looks quite similar to that of Arp 220 (see Heckman, Armus, & Miley 1987).

Now we apply the superbubble model (McCray & Snow 1979; Koo & McKee 1992a, 1992b; Heckman et al. 1996; Shull 1995; see also for a review on observational properties of nearby superwinds, Heckman, Armus, & Miley 1990) to the case of LRG J0239$``$0134. Here it is noted that we ignore the effect of gravity for simplicity. The radius of the superbubble (i.e., shocked shells) at time $`t`$ (in units of $`10^7`$ yr) is then

$$r_{\mathrm{shell}}2.8L_{\mathrm{mech},43}^{1/5}n_{\mathrm{H},0}^{1/5}t_7^{3/5}\mathrm{kpc},$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{mech}}`$ is the mechanical luminosity released collectively from the supernovae in the central starburst in units of $`10^{43}`$ ergs s-1 and $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the average hydrogen number density of the ISM, assumed constant in units of 1 cm-3; this average density is obtained by assuming that the hydrogen gas with a mass of $`10^{11}M_{}`$ is distributed uniformly in a sphere with a radius of 10 kpc. The inferred infrared luminosity of LRG J0239$``$0134 \[a few times $`10^{12}L_{}`$ under $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0`$ (Sanders & Mirabel 1996): see section 3.1\] is nearly comparable to those of ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIGs) such as Arp 220. For Arp 220, one of the well-known superwind galaxies, Heckman et al. (1996) derived $`L_{\mathrm{mech}}10^{43}`$ ergs s-1. Therefore, we have adopted this value as a fiducial one111 For a forming elliptical galaxy with a stellar mass $`M_{\mathrm{stars}}=10^{11}M_{}`$, radius $`r`$ 10 kpc and $`n_\mathrm{H}1`$ cm-3 (see Saito 1979; Arimoto & Yoshii 1987), we expect $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}3\times 10^9`$ stars that explode as supernovae. Since most of these massive stars might be formed during the first 0.5 Gyr (= $`t_{\mathrm{GW}}`$), we obtain $`L_{\mathrm{mech}}\eta E_{\mathrm{SN}}N_{\mathrm{SN}}/t_{\mathrm{GW}}10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ where $`E_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is the total energy of a single supernova ($`10^{51}`$ erg) and $`\eta `$ is the efficiency of the kinetic energy deposited to the ambient gas ($``$ 0.1; Dyson & Williams 1980).. It is also noted that the luminosity dependence is fairly weak; i.e., $`r_{\mathrm{shell}}L_{\mathrm{mech}}^{1/5}`$.

Using the observed ring radius, $`r_{\mathrm{ring}}=7.7\pm 0.4h_{50}^1`$ kpc, we estimate the age of the superbubble is $`5.4\times 10^7`$ yr. Since the elapsed time from the onset of the starburst exceeds $`1\times 10^7`$ yr, Balmer absorption dominates over Balmer emission and thus the Balmer lines are observed as absorption lines (e.g., Taniguchi et al. 2000). This appears consistent with the observation.

The expansion velocity of the superbubble at time $`t`$ (in units of $`10^7`$ yr) is

$$v_{\mathrm{shell}}164L_{\mathrm{mech},43}^{1/5}n_{\mathrm{H},0}^{1/5}t_7^{2/5}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(2)
Using $`t_7=5.4`$, we obtain $`v_{\mathrm{shell}}84`$ km s-1. Since we assume that the ring-like feature is a pair of superbubbles, we see mostly the tangential section of the superbubbles. Therefore, their velocity may be nearly the same as that of the systemic velocity of the central body. Even if we observe some expanding blobs along the line of sight, the above shock velocity seems too slow to be detected in low-resolution spectroscopy.

The superbubble model discussed here treats the spherical symmetric case for simplicity. However, actual galaxies may have oblate spheroidal isopotential surfaces to some extent even when they are in a forming phase. In such a case, the superbubble will blow out along the minor axis of the galaxy (Tomisaka & Ikeuchi 1988; De Young & Heckman 1994). Therefore, it is likely that a pair of superbubbles can be formed toward the two polar directions. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 2.

In the context of the superbubble model, the ring-like feature could originally consist of gas clouds. However, as described in Taniguchi, Trentham, & Ikeuchi (1999), star clusters may form as pressure-confined condensations in a shell (or a bubble). Therefore, the ring-like feature can be seen in the optical continuum emission as well as in the line emission arising from nebulae photoionized by newly formed massive stars. Star formation in young galaxies (e.g., an initial starburst) is expected to be much more intense than typical nuclear starbursts in the local universe. Further, the central starburst region in young galaxies may still be surrounded by a lot of gas. Hence, any effects of superbubbles must be much more serious in such young galaxies than in galaxies in the local universe.

## 3. DISCUSSION

### 3.1. LRG J0239$``$0134 as an Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxy

Photometric data from rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) to MIR of LRG J0239$``$0134 were obtained by S99. In addition to these data, Barger et al. (1999) reported its 850 $`\mu `$m flux, 11 mJy. Using these data, we investigate the overall spectral energy distribution (SED) of LRG J0239$``$0134. The SED is shown in Figure 3 together with those of NGC 6240 (Griffith et al. 1995; Lisenfeld et al. 1996, 2000; Klaas et al. 1997; Spinoglio et al. 1995; White & Becker 1992) and Arp 220 (Rigopoulou, Lawrence, & Rowan-Robinson 1996; Klaas et al. 1997). As shown in Figure 3, the SED of LRG J0239$``$0134 is much similar to that of NGC 6240 than to that of Arp 220. This makes sense because NGC 6240 harbors a luminous active galactic nucleus while Arp 220 may not. Fitting the two SEDs of NGC 6240 and Arp 220 to the observed SED of LRG J0239$``$0134, we obtain the total IR luminosity between 8 $`\mu `$m and 1000 $`\mu `$m, $`L`$(8-1000$`\mu `$m) $`7.9\times 10^{12}h_{50}^2L_{}`$ and $`8.6\times 10^{12}h_{50}^2L_{}`$, respectively; in the case of $`h_{50}=1.5`$, $`L`$(8-1000$`\mu `$m) $`3.5\times 10^{12}L_{}`$ and $`3.8\times 10^{12}L_{}`$, respectively.

For nearby starburst galaxies including some local ULIGs, Mouri et al. (1990) found a relation of $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}10^3L_{3.3\mu \mathrm{m}}`$ where $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ is the FIR luminosity derived from rest-frame 60 $`\mu `$m and 100 $`\mu `$m fluxes (e.g., Sanders et al. 1988; Sanders & Mirabel 1996). Using the observed $`L_{3.3\mu \mathrm{m}}`$ (S99), we would obtain $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}4\times 10^{13}L_{}`$. However, from the SED fitting, we obtain $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}8\times 10^{12}h_{50}^2L_{}`$ at most, being lower by a factor of five than the above expected value. Although the SED concordance between high-$`z`$ submm sources and local ULIGs has been claimed (Ivison et al. 1998; see also Trentham 2000), it is suggested that LRG J0239$``$0134 is a different population from local starburst-dominated ULIGs though its IR luminosity is comparable to those of the ULIGs222 Typical ring galaxies in the local universe have FIR luminosities of $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}4\times 10^{10}h_{50}^2L_{}`$ (Appleton & Struck-Marcell 1987), being much fainter than that of LRG J0239$``$0134. On the other hand, they have ring radii of 20 - 40 kpc (Appleton & Struck-Marcell 1987), being significantly larger than that of LRG J0239$``$0134..

### 3.2. Concluding Remarks

We have presented our superbubble model for the unusual ring-like galaxy LRG J0239$``$0134 at $`z=1.062`$. All pieces of supporting evidence for the superbubble model seem circumstantial. However, if this is the case, this galaxy provides an important example of the superwind activity at high redshift.

Similar examples may be the extended Ly$`\alpha `$ blobs (LABs) at $`z3.1`$ found by Steidel et al. (2000) because their observational properties are also interpreted in terms of superwind activities (Taniguchi & Shioya 2000; cf. Haiman, Spaans, & Quataert 2000; Fardal et al. 2000). Taniguchi & Shioya (2000) proposed an evolutionary connection from dust-enshrouded (or dusty) submm sources (hereafter DSSs; e.g., Hughes et al. 1998; Barger et al. 1998; Barger et al. 1999; Ivison et al. 2000 and references therein) to the LABs. It is interesting to note that LRG J0239$``$0134 can be considered as a link between the DSSs and the LABs. UV imaging of LRG J0239$``$0134 will be important to probe its extended Ly$`\alpha `$ emission.

Our model predicts that the central body of LRG J0239$``$0134 is rotating along the minor axis. Further, the ring-like regions are affected by shock heating to some extent. High-resolution optical spectroscopy will be useful in examining these predictions.

We would like to thank Kazushi Iwasawa and Yasuhiro Shioya for useful discussion and comments. We would also like to thank an anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions. YT thanks Rolf-Peter Kudritzki, Bob McLaren, and Dave Sanders at Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii for their warm hospitality. This work was financially supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan (grants 10044052, and 10304013).