Low-temperature specific heat study of SrCu2(BO3)2 with an exactly solvable ground state
Abstract
The specific heat of a two-dimensional spin gap system SrCu 2 (BO 3 ) 2 realizing the Shastry-Suther-land model was measured between 1.3 and 25 K under various magnetic fields up to 12 T. The analysis based on an isolated dimer model in a low temperature region revealed that the value of the spin gap at zero field is Δ = 34.4 K. It turned out that Δ decreases in proportion to H due to the Zeeman splitting of the excited triplet levels. This simplest model, however, fails to reproduce the result in a high-temperature region, suggesting rather strong spin-spin correlation of the system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The peak structure in heat capacity is caused by spin-gap formation and is quantitatively consistent with the previous study.
“The peak structure, which is caused by the spin-gap formation, is quantitatively consistent with the previous study as shown by the blue dashed curve in Fig. 5(b).36”
From Simultaneous measurement of specific heat and thermal conductivity in pulsed magnetic fields (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Except for the high-temperature structure at 24.8 T, the C/T curves in zero and finite magnetic fields are in good agreement with reported data, both in absolute value and relative temperature dependence.
“Except for the high-temperature structure at 24.8 T, the C/T curves in zero and finite magnetic fields are in good agreement with the reported data, 36,42 both in absolute value and in the relative temperature dependence.”
From Simultaneous measurement of specific heat and thermal conductivity in pulsed magnetic fields (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Simultaneous measurement of specific heat and thermal conductivity in pulsed magnetic fields
Nomoto, T., Zhong, C., Kageyama, H., Suzuki, Y., Jaime, M., Hashimoto, Y., Katsumoto, S., Matsuyama, N., Dong, C., Matsuo, A., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.01627 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kageyama, H., Onizuka, K., Ueda, Y., Nohara, M., Suzuki, H., & Takagi, H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kageyama, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics
- Publisher
- Pleiades Publishing Ltd
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 129-132
- ISSN
- 0038-5646 (ISSN-L)
- 1063-7761
- 1090-6509
- OpenAlex
- W2328690472
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Advanced Condensed Matter Physics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Keywords
- SrCu2(BO3)2, Shastry-Sutherland model, spin gap, specific heat, low-temperature thermodynamics, Zeeman splitting, triplet state, spin-spin correlations, frustrated quantum spin systems, magnetic field dependence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
