Continuous Metal-Insulator Transitions and quantum spin liquids - MIT
Spin Transitions in Lower Mantle Minerals?
-
Upload
dana-collins -
Category
Documents
-
view
25 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Spin Transitions in Lower Mantle Minerals?
Spin Transitions in Lower Mantle Minerals?
Concentrate on ferropericlase as more likely to have a big effect
Electron configurations
• K shell 1s• L shell 2s 2p• M shell 3s 3p 3d
• s suborbitals take up to 2 electrons• p suborbitals take up to 6 electrons• d suborbitals take up to 10 electrons
• Fe2+ has 24 electrons, 2 in K, 8 in L and 14 in M with 6 in 3d
Fp
Pv
Fe(2+): 3d shell has 6 (out of 8) electrons -- prefer to be unpaired (high spin)
Note aluminous Pv can have Fe(3+) as well as Fe(2+)Volume contraction is not as great in Pv because outlying orbitals still populated
Xray emission spectroscopy
• K-shell electron absorbs an Xray photon and is ejected• A 3p electron collapses into the K-shell• The resulting 3p hole interacts with the partially filled 3d shell (the interaction is a
function of the spin state of the 3d shell)• Main peak is associated with K-beta emission -- satellite peak associated with
3d shell -- intensity of peak depends on spin polarization of 3d shell• Satellite peak disappears when all 3d is in low spin state
Summary of experimental results
• All experiments at room temperature (except Lin et al 2007)• Ferropericlase: transition range at 40--60GPa? Large weakening of elastic
moduli during transition. Experiments are for Fe rich specimens (Fe#=17--25) or for Fe#=6 corrected to larger value. LS phase seems more opaque (lower thermal conductivity). There is a clear increase in density between high and low spin states at room temperature. Enough data to estimate an EOS for high spin and low spin states
• Perovskite: some find two sharp transitions, some a continuous transition over a wide pressure band (likely in aluminous samples). Some find that LS state is more transparent (higher thermal conductivity)? Effect on elasticity may be mininal (but still important?)
• Theoretical calculations and experiment at high T suggest broad pressure transition range
Conclusions
• 1D seismic models are extremely well-known in most of the lower mantle and, along with advances in mineral physics, are useful for constraining the bulk composition of the Earth
• A limited range of compositions fit the seismic models (though the precision of the mineral physics estimates of shear velocity is a limiting factor)
• Recent results on the elastic properties of the spin crossover in ferropericlase result in bulk sound speed velocities and velocity gradients in the lower mantle which are apparently incompatible with the 1D seismic models.
• Perhaps anomalous elastic effects are diminished at high T?• Or perhaps Fe is not so strongly partitioned into ferropericlase (the
partitioning may be controlled by the presence of small amounts of aluminum, etc)
• Partitioning may also be a function of spin state -- just to make life more interesting
• Don’t need to rewrite all the text books just yet!
Future work
• Need high T experimental data on elasticity • Need better data for perovskite since this is the bulk
of the lower mantle • Need to look at seismic constraints on velocity
gradients since these may be most diagnostic