Derivation of LLG equation in polar coordinates

apervaiz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The torque contribution due to the uniaxial anisotropy is given by the equation below

\frac{\Gamma}{l_m K} = (2 \sin\theta \cos\theta)[\sin\phi e_x - \cos\phi e_y] (3)

This contribution can be taken in the LLG equation to derive the LLG equation in polar coordinates

\frac{\partial n_m}{\partial t} + ( n_m \times \frac{\partial n_m}{\partial t})=\frac{1}{2}\Omega_K \frac{\Gamma}{l_m K} (9)
where n_m= [r,\theta,\phi]. Since r is unity for magnetization a differential equation in the two angles should be possible which should have the form
\begin{bmatrix}<br /> \theta \ &#039; \\<br /> \phi \ &#039; \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> = \begin{bmatrix}<br /> \theta \\<br /> \phi \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br />

Now the result of this derivation is already given as

\begin{bmatrix}<br /> \theta \ &#039; \\<br /> \phi \ &#039; \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> = \begin{bmatrix}<br /> \alpha \sin \theta \cos \theta \\<br /> \cos \theta \\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br />

I'm having a hard time deriving this result from (3) using (9). Could anyone help me with this?
here is the link of this paper
http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.570
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you be more specific about where you are having a hard time? Is it the change of coordinate system?

Also, when asking a question like this, it's quite reasonable to mention that you're setting h_p=h=h_s=0. Makes it easier to relate your equations to those in the paper.
 
Thanks for the reply. You are right this equation only caters for uniaxial anisotropy. the equation has to be derived in polar angles while (3) is in cartesian. I think going from (3) to polar is not hard, but how to get a clean expression like the final one.
I'm not sure how to proceed for the derivation at all.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top