9
$\begingroup$

In the presence of a 2D crystal and spin-orbit coupling, the SU(2) spin axial vector (Sx,Sy,Sz) decouples into an in-plane (Sx,Sy) and out-of-plane part Sz. For Quantum ESPRESSO, is there a way to turn on only the out-of-plane component of spin-orbit coupling?

I happen to know that the effect of the in-plane spin-orbit is marginal for the bands near the Fermi level (as observed by photo-emission experiments). Therefore, I imagine turning off the in-plane part would not only be computationally easier, but also more accurate to my material.

I don't see why this shouldn't be possible, seeing that it amounts to a constraint that the up/down spin should be conserved (i.e not mixed at the level of the Hamiltonian). I believe we would say the spins should remain "collinear". However, I can't seem to find anything on this; and when I choose the following parameters

  lspinorb = .true.
  noncolin = .false.

then Quantum ESPRESSO (pw.x) immediately crashes with the following complaint (written in CRASH file):

spin orbit requires a non collinear calculation

🤔

Compared to a non-spin-orbit scf calculation, the only other thing I'm doing differently is use fully relativistic pseudopotentials:

Fe.rel-pbesol-spn-kjpaw_psl.1.0.0.UPF
Se.rel-pbesol-dn-rrkjus_psl.1.0.0.UPF

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I believe this is just a polarized calculation, see here for the input flags: How to do spin polarization calculations using Quantum ESPRESSO?

I think in the case where they are separated, as you say, then spin-orbit does not play a role. Otherwise you are looking at spin-constrained calculations. I don't know if QE does this.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the response. I don't want to physically polarize the spins, so much as treat up/down spin as separately conserved quantum numbers, i.e the spin symmetry reduces from SU(2) to U(1). This way time-reversal symmetry is preserved, and the net magnetization is zero. This sort of spin-orbit can lead to gaps experimentally. (After some trial and error, I've come to the conclusion that vanilla QEsp doesn't allow for this. Though I suspect some clever hackers could make this work without too much difficulty, as I don't see anything about DFT itself preventing this type of calculation.) $\endgroup$ Mar 1 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I don't think this will be computationally more easy since just zeroing non-z components may end up in non-physical results. This was why spin-constrained calculations originated, as far as I know. All-in-all, I think it will be safe to conduct them as implemented in QE. $\endgroup$
    – nickpapior
    Mar 2 at 8:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.