Revealing the consequences and errors of substance arising from the inverse confusion between the crystal (ligand) field quantities and the zero-field splitting ones

Abstract

Survey of recent literature has revealed a doubly-worrying tendency concerning the treatment of the two distinct types of Hamiltonians, namely, the physical crystal field (CF), or equivalently ligand field (LF), Hamiltonians and the zero-field splitting (ZFS) Hamiltonians, which appear in the effective spin Hamiltonians (SH). The nature and properties of the CF (LF) Hamiltonians have been mixed up in various ways with those of the ZFS Hamiltonians. Such cases have been identified in a rapidly growing number of studies of the transition-ion based systems using electron magnetic resonance (EMR), optical spectroscopy, and magnetic measurements. These findings have far ranging implications since these Hamiltonians are cornerstones for interpretation of magnetic and spectroscopic properties of the single transition ions in various crystals or molecules as well as the exchange coupled systems (ECS) of transition ions, e.g. single molecule magnets (SMM) or single ion magnets (SIM). The seriousness of the consequences of such conceptual problems and related terminological confusions has reached a level that goes far beyond simple semantic issues or misleading keyword classifications of papers in journals and scientific databases. The prevailing confusion, denoted as the CF=ZFS confusion, pertains to the cases of labeling the true ZFS quantities as purportedly the CF (LF) quantities. Here we consider the inverse confusion between the CF (LF) quantities and the SH (ZFS) ones, denoted the ZFS=CF confusion, which consists in referring to the parameters (or Hamiltonians), which are the true CF (LF) quantities, as purportedly the ZFS (or SH) quantities. Specific cases of the ZFS=CF confusion identified in recent textbooks, reviews and papers, especially SMM- and SIM-related ones, are surveyed and the pertinent misconceptions are clarified. The serious consequences of the terminological confusions include misinterpretation of data from a wide range of experimental techniques and, most recently, have lead to pitfalls and errors of substance bearing on understanding of physical properties. Clarification of the incorrect terminology is timely in order to bring about better understanding of the physical principles and prevent further proliferation of the confusion.