in search for unusual magnetic ground states and spin dynamics , frustrated systems have been the main focus of both theoretical and experimental investigations in recent years.@xcite in frustrated magnetic systems,@xcite the energies of the various spin interactions compete and therefore they can not be simultaneously minimized . this competition can be induced by the geometry of the lattice on which the spins are arranged , in which case the phenomenon is called _ geometrical frustration _ and it often leads to quite unusual low temperature spin structures and dynamics .
the nearest neighbor ( nn ) heisenberg antiferromagnet ( af ) on the corner - sharing kagom lattice is one of the most studied systems since it has all the ingredients such as low dimensionality , strong frustration , and low coordination number , required for a disordered `` spin liquid '' ground state.@xcite     ( color online ) three possible nel states of the kagom lattice nn af : ( a ) * q*=0 with positive chirality , ( b ) * q*=0 with negative chirality , and ( c ) @xmath3 structure . the plus / minus signs indicate the chirality of spins on the elemental triangles .
the shaded ( yellow ) areas indicate the magnetic unit cells .
note that the nel sates shown above have continuous degeneracy as the spins on a line ( a - b ) and on a hexagon ( c ) can be rotated out of the plane as shown by ellipses without changing the classical ground state energy .
, width=302 ]    figure  [ kagome ] shows three possible nel states of the kagom lattice nn antiferromagnet . in the classical limit ,
all ground states satisfy the  120@xmath4 structure " , in which the angle between each nn pair of spins is 120@xmath4 .
[ kagome]a - b shows * q*=0 type ordering with respectively positive and negative chirality . for positive ( negative )
chirality the direction in which the spins rotate as one traverses clockwise the triangle of sites is clockwise ( counterclockwise ) .
[ kagome]c shows the @xmath5 spin structure which has triangles with both positive and negative chirality . from the spin configurations shown in fig .
[ kagome ] , it is clear the the classical ground state has a continuous degeneracy due to the  weathervane " rotation of the spins@xcite and therefore no long range magnetic order is expected even at zero temperature .
however , in real systems , there are small perturbations such as next nearest neighbor ( nnn ) interactions,@xcite anisotropies or defects .
it has been also shown that thermal or quantum fluctuations could also lift some of the continuous degeneracy known as  order by disorder , " yielding coplanar spin structures.@xcite    despite the extensive theoretical studies that suggest many possible fascinating frustrated ground states for the kagom nn af , few experimental realizations exist for the system .
the initial experimental studies were focused on the layered garnet , srcr@xmath6ga@xmath7o@xmath8.@xcite however the interpretation of the magnetic properties of this system were complicated by the presence of an additional triangular lattice interposed between kagom layers and by the inherent configurational randomness associated with the random alloying . in recent years , it has been shown that the jarosite family of minerals @xmath9,@xcite ( where a is monovalent ion such as k@xmath10 , and m is trivalent cation such as fe@xmath11 , cr@xmath11 , or v@xmath11 ) form much better realization of the two dimensional ( 2d ) kagom lattice .
as shown in fig .
[ alunite ] for m = fe jarosite , the magnetic ion @xmath12 is centered in a slightly distorted and tilted oxygen octahedra , and it forms a kagom lattice in the @xmath13-plane .
the kagom planes are widely separated by nonmagnetic @xmath14 and @xmath15 ions . with an exception of the hydronium jarosite @xmath16 , all members of jarosite family are found to exhibit long range magnetic order ( lro ) at finite temperatures with varying ground state spin configurations and exchange interaction strengths depending on the magnetic ion m. the strength of exchange interaction is the greatest for the parent m = fe@xmath11 ( @xmath17 ) jarosite with curie - weiss temperature @xmath18 k and @xmath19 k. replacement of the fe@xmath11 centers by cr@xmath11 ( @xmath20 also affords an antiferromanetically ordered material but with a significant reduced @xmath21 k and @xmath22 k. interestingly , when the magnetic ion is replaced by v@xmath11 , the ground state is changed to ferromagnetic kagom layers which are coupled antiferromanetically.@xcite as we will discuss detail below , such a ferromagnetic ordering on the kagom lattice is allowed by the representation theory in contrast to a previous analysis.@xcite    among the members of the jarosite family , @xmath23 ( fej ) is probably the most studied one .
the magnetic ground state of fej was first investigated by townsend _
_ using neutron diffraction.@xcite however , later it became clear that the proposed spin configuration in ref .
was not quite correct.@xcite inami _
et al_@xcite presented a detailed neutron scattering study and determined that the fej has 2d kagom planes with the * q*=0 spin - structure with positive chirality as shown in fig .
[ kagome]a .
they observed that the unit cell along the @xmath24-axis is doubled in the magnetic phase , suggesting the the kagom planes are antiferromagnetically coupled .
field - dependent magnetization measurements@xcite have suggested that each kagom plane has a small ferromagnetic component due to the canting of the spins in the * q*=0 structure with positive chirality ( this is the so called `` umbrella '' configuration ) .
however to the best of our knowledge , there is no experimental data which indicates the direction of this spin - canting whose determination would allow one to deduce the sign of some of the anisotropic terms in the hamiltonian , as we will discuss in detail later .
( color online ) conventional unit cell of fej . for clarity only fe , big spheres ( blue ) and the octahedral oxygens , small spheres ( red ) are shown .
the tilting angle , @xmath25 of the feo@xmath26 octahedra is also shown.,width=188 ]    the fact that fej exhibits lro at finite temperature indicates that there are interactions other than nn isotropic af superexchange , such as nnn interactions , anisotropies , etc .
et al._@xcite have pointed out that in fej , the oxygen - octahedra are significantly tilted ( see fig .
[ alunite ] ) , thereby inducing a strong single - ion crystal field ( cf ) anisotropy .
they used this cf term in the hamiltonian to explain the observed spin configuration and to calculate the spin - wave spectrum . however in their spin - wave calculations , they neglected the canting of the spins out of the kagom plane . as we will discuss in detail below , this neglect leads to qualitatively wrong results for the spin - wave energy gaps at the high symmetry points in the brillouin zone .
elhajal _ et al._@xcite have pointed out that cf terms in fej should be fairly small because they are second order in the spin - orbit coupling and fe@xmath11 has a spherical charge distribution ( _ i .
@xmath27 ) .
hence as an alternative source of anisotropy , they suggested that the dzyaloshinskii - moriya ( dm ) interaction of the form:@xcite @xmath28 could stabilize the experimentally observed spin structure .
indeed , the @xmath29-component of the dm vector ( the definition of its components is given below ) forces the spins to lie in the @xmath30plane and therefore effectively acts like an easy - plane anisotropy .
the sign of @xmath31 can distinguish between the @xmath32=0 states with negative and positive chirality .
since the @xmath33 state has triangles with both positive and negative chirality , the @xmath31 term alone will not affect the energy of this state .
furthermore if we introduce a @xmath34 component , we break the rotational symmetry around the @xmath24-axis and create a small anisotropy with respect to in - plane orientations .
the effect of @xmath34 is also to ca nt the spins ( so that they have a small out - of - plane component ) into the observed  umbrella " spin configuration .
finally , since the dm interaction occurs at first - order in the spin - orbit coupling , it is expected to be larger than the cf terms of inami _
et al._@xcite    in order to identify the origin of the magnetic interactions that are responsible for the lro in fej compounds , clearly we need more experimental data such as the observed spin - wave spectrum .
fortunately , thanks to the very recent progress in the synthesis of high - quality single crystals of fej compounds,@xcite such spin - wave data has been recently become available.@xcite here we present a detailed theory for the spin - wave spectrum in fej compound for generic nn and nnn superexchange interactions including the cf and dm terms discussed above . as we shall see below , the dm term along with the nn and nnn isotropic interactions can explain quite well not only the observed spin configuration but also the observed spin - wave spectrum .
briefly this paper is organized as follows . in the next section
we first discuss the symmetry of the fej structure in the paramagnetic phase and then present a brief representation analysis of the allowed magnetic structures .
in doing so , we discovered that in wills s analysis,@xcite some of the ferromagnetic wavefunctions were missing .
indeed such a structure consisting of ferromagnetic easy - plane kagom planes has been observed for a nav - jarosite.@xcite in this section , we also argue that characterization by irreducible representations is more fundamental than by the chirality of the * q*=0 state . in sec .
iii we discuss the generic magnetic hamiltonian that we use in our calculations . in this section
, we first discuss the symmetry of the hamiltonian matrix and then its representation in a coordinate system in which the local @xmath29-axis coincides with the local direction of the spin moments . here
we also treat the canting of the spin orientations . in sec .
iv , we derive analytic results for the spin - wave energy gaps at the @xmath35 , @xmath36 and @xmath37-points of the brillouin zone . in sec .
v , we present spin - wave spectra from numerical calculations and compare the results with the recent spin - wave data of matan _ et al_.@xcite here we consider several models with increasing complexity .
we find that the dm terms combined with nn and nnn isotropic exchange interactions give an excellent fit to the data .
our conclusions are summarized in sec .
the details of the diagonalization of the spin hamiltonian were given in appendices . in appendix
a , we describe the transformation to the boson representations of the spins . in appendix b ,
we discuss how to obtain the normal mode energies and eigenvectors .
appendix c describes the actual calculations of the matrix elements and appendix d gives the results for the dynamical structure factor in terms of the normal mode energies and eigenvectors .
we first discuss the symmetry of the paramagnetic phase . in fig .
[ alunite ] we show the conventional unit cell which contains three formula units of fej . the primitive unit cell ( which contains one formula unit of fej ) is rhombohedral , with basis lattice vectors    @xmath38    where @xmath24 denotes the height of the conventional unit cell of fig .
[ alunite ] .
the space group of fej is r@xmath39 m , which is # 166 in the international tables of crystallography.@xcite in order to understand the magnetic properties of fej we show in fig .
[ kplane ] only the fe @xmath40 spins .
their locations within the primitive unit cell , denoted @xmath41 , are @xmath42 where the components are given with respect to the orthogonal axes of fig .
[ kplane ] .
notice that each plane ( e. g. the filled circles ) forms a kagom plane lattice .
as one moves from one plane to the adjacent plane at more positive @xmath29 , the kagom lattice is translated by @xmath43 , or , equivalently by either @xmath44 or @xmath45 .
( color online . )
kagom planes .
the filled circles are @xmath46-@xmath47 planes at @xmath48 , the filled squares are @xmath46-@xmath47 planes at @xmath49 , and the filled triangles are @xmath46-@xmath47 planes at @xmath50 .
the positive @xmath29-axis is out of the plane .
representative sublattice numbers @xmath51 are given.,height=188 ]    apart from translations the generators of the space group may be taken to be @xmath52 , spatial inversion about the center of a hexagon , @xmath53 , a two - fold rotation about an axis parallel to the @xmath46-axis and passing through the center of the hexagon , and @xmath54 , a three - fold rotation about an axis passing through the center of the hexagon perpendicular to the kagom plane .
since the center of a hexagon in one plane lies just above a triangle in an adjacent plane , the three - fold axis can be taken at the center of a triangle .
the above operations imply the existence of mirror planes perpendicular to the kagom plane and bisecting the sides of the hexagons .
the reciprocal lattice basis vectors @xmath55 , which satisfy @xmath56 , where @xmath57 is the kronecker delta , are @xmath58 since interactions between adjacent kagom planes are very small , we may approximately describe the structure in terms of a two - dimensional hexagonal lattice with basis vectors , @xmath59 , given by @xmath60 the associated reciprocal lattice of this hexagonal lattice has basis vectors @xmath61 in contrast the three - dimensional reciprocal lattice vectors in the @xmath48 plane for fej are @xmath62 as shown in fig .
[ fejfig ] , the vectors of eq .
( [ hexeq ] ) define the hexagonal brillouin zones and those of eq .
( [ fejeq ] ) define the boundaries of the fej brillouin zone in the @xmath48 plane .
( color online . )
reciprocal lattices for the fej system ( blue squares ) and for the two - dimensional hexagonal lattice ( red circles ) . the first brillouin zone for the two - dimensional hexagonal system
is indicated by heavy solid lines in red and that ( in the @xmath48 plane ) for the fej system by heavy dashed lines in blue .
the light solid lines in red mark the boundaries of neighboring hexagonal zones .
the fej brillouin zone is three times as large as the hexagonal zone.,height=188 ]    the first brillouin zone of the fej system in the hexagonal plane has an area three times that of the two - dimensional hexagonal system .
if there were absolutely no interactions between kagom planes , the spin - wave dispersion relation in the region in the first brillouin zone of the fej system but outside that of thetwo - dimensional hexagonal system could be mapped into the dispersion relation inside the first brillouin zone of the two - dimensional system and in this paper we adopt this picture . for the two dimensional system , spin - wave energies at points just outside the hexagonal brillouin zone near point y are exactly the same as at the corresponding point just inside the zone near y. for the three dimensional fej system this is only approximately true .
the spectra of these two points will differ due to interplanar interactions .
similarly , for the two - dimensional system the spin - wave energies at point z are identical to those at @xmath35 , whereas for the fej system they will differ due to interplanar interactions .
we will show the spin - wave spectrum observed by matan et al.@xcite along the line @xmath63 , where @xmath64 is equivalent to @xmath37 if interplanar interactions are neglected .
a continuous phase transition may be described by a landau expansion in powers of @xmath65 , the fourier components of the spin order parameters which are defined as @xmath66 where @xmath67 is the spin at site @xmath51 in the unit cell at @xmath68 , @xmath69 denotes a thermal average , and @xmath32 is the wavevector of the ordering . at quadratic order
the landau expansion for the free energy , @xmath70 , assumes the form @xmath71 where @xmath72 labels cartesian components and @xmath73 .
the ordering that actually occurs corresponds to the eigenvector associated with that eigenvalue of the quadratic form of eq .
( [ feq2 ] ) which first becomes negative ( unstable ) as the temperature is lowered starting from the paramagnetic phase . in view of the invariance of @xmath70 with respect to the symmetry operations of the crystal
, one can say that the eigenvectors give rise to an irreducible representation ( irrep ) of the space group of the crystal.@xcite this analysis is straightforward and has been given previously,@xcite although the results we present below seem to contradict that reference .
because spin is a pseudovector , spatial inversion takes a spin into its spatially inverted location but does not reorient the spin .
since all spins are located at centers of inversion symmetry , we only need to consider irreps which are invariant under spatial inversion , and we denote these by @xmath74 , where the label @xmath75 assumes the values @xmath76 and the superscript indicates invariance under spatial inversion .
for the one dimensional irreps ( @xmath77 and @xmath78 ) the situation is quite simple : each eigenvector of @xmath70 is also an eigenvector of each operation of the space group .
thus we show in fig .
[ g1g2 ] the possible spin configurations which correspond to one dimensional irreps .
the actual spin configuration associated with irrep @xmath78 is a linearcombination of the two configurations shown .
spin configurations which transform according to one dimensional irreps .
solid circles indicate spins pointing out of the page .
top : a configuration of @xmath77 for which the eigenvalue of @xmath53 is @xmath79 and @xmath54 is @xmath79 .
bottom : two configurations for @xmath78 for which the eigenvalue of @xmath53 is @xmath80 and @xmath54 is @xmath79.,height=226 ]    for the two dimensional irrep @xmath81 the situation is more complicated . here
one has @xmath82 wavefunctions @xmath83 , for @xmath84 which transform as the first row of the matrix representation of @xmath81 and their @xmath82 partners @xmath85 which transform as the second row of the matrix representation of @xmath81 , where for fej @xmath86.@xcite we show these wavefunctions in fig .
[ g3 ] . to be specific , if @xmath87 is a symmetry operation and @xmath88 is a matrix representation of it according to @xmath81 , then we have     spin configurations which transform according to two dimensional irrep @xmath81 . in the left ( right )
column we give the wavefunctions which transform according to the first ( second ) row of the matrices of the irrep .
arrows represent spins of unit length .
solid ( open ) circles indicate spins pointing perpendicularly into ( out of ) the kagom plane . for @xmath89
the magnitudes of the inward spins are both equal to half that of the outward spin which is set to be @xmath90 . for @xmath91 the nonzero magnitudes of the spins are both @xmath92.,height=321 ]    @xmath93    these wavefunctions of @xmath81 correspond to the choice @xmath94 \ , \ \ \ \   { \cal m}(r ) = \left [ \begin{array } { c c } -1/2 & - \sqrt 3 /2 \\   \sqrt 3 /2 & -1/2 \\
\end{array } \right ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] one can check that the wavefunctions shown in fig .
[ g3 ] actually do satisfy eq .
( [ trans ] ) .
of course , all the wavefunctions shown here are orthogonal to one another and span the original subspace of spin components .
( that appears not to be the case with the results of ref . .
in addition , his states do not seem to allow the net moment for a single kagom layer to lie in the kagom plane .
since this does happens for a na jarosite,@xcite the statement that the structure of the chromate jarosite must be the umbrella structure is not justified . )
we now discuss the implications of the above results .
the above results hold for two separate cases : in the ferromagnetic case , all kagom planes have the same spin structure ( apart from a translation ) , whereas in the antiferromagnetic case successive kagom plane have their spins inverted .
the ferromagnetic case corresponds to wavevector @xmath95 , whereas the antiferromagnetic case corresponds to @xmath96.@xcite note that irrep @xmath78 has two wavefunctions .
this means that any such structure generically consists of a linear combination of a ferromagnetic state ( in a layer ) with spins perpendicular to the plane and some in - plane ordering as well .
this is the so - called `` umbrella '' state .
the implication is that if one has an easy axis ferromagnet with spins perpendicular to the kagom plane , one unavoidably will have some in - plane order .
conversely , in the case of fej one has order of irrep @xmath81 in each plane which must be accompanied by a net out - of plane moment .
note that the irreps @xmath77 and @xmath78 are ising - like in that within these representations one can not uniformly rotate the spins .
thus the excitation spectrum must have a significant energy gap .
in contrast irrep @xmath81 is @xmath46-@xmath47-like .
one spin structure is some linear combination of the wavefunctions of the left column of fig .
alternatively , the free energy is unchanged if one instead takes the _ same _ linear combination of the wavefunctions of the right column of fig .
the actual wavefunction is therefore characterized by four constants , @xmath72 , @xmath97 , @xmath98 and @xmath99 : @xmath100 \nonumber \\ & & \ + \sin \theta \left [ \alpha \psi^{(3,2)}_a + \beta \psi^{(3,2)}_b + \gamma \psi^{(3,2)}_c \right ] \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] which can not be fixed by symmetry .
at quadratic level in the landau expansion , the free energy does not depend on @xmath99 and one would expect a goldstone ( gapless ) mode .
however , due to the discrete symmetry of the kagom plane , the anisotropy energy , @xmath101 , which at lowest order is @xmath102 will lead to a gap . if @xmath103 , the system will favor @xmath104 ( or equivalent angles ) whereas if @xmath105 the system will favor angles equivalent to @xmath106 .
quadratic energies , such as the dipolar energy , will not lead to a gap .
accordingly , it is not surprising that we found that for @xmath107 the dipolar energy of the system was independent of @xmath99 .
it is interesting to note that if one assumes isotropic nearest neighbor ( nn ) and next - nearest neighbor ( nnn ) interactions , then spin configurations @xmath108 and @xmath109 have the same energy .
however , in general irrep @xmath110 will have lower energy because it can accommodate a distortion into the configuration @xmath111 . in principle
, local single - ion anisotropy@xcite and/or dm interactions@xcite can select a ground state from among these functions .    in the literature , there are frequent references to `` chirality . '' configurations have positive chirality , if when one traverses a triangle of spins clockwise , the spins rotate clockwise by @xmath112 , whereas for negative chirality @xmath113 . in our opinion ,
the characterization by irreps is more fundamental .
one sees that the wavefunction of irrep @xmath77 and one of those of @xmath114 correspond to positive chirality and two of the wavefunctions for @xmath81 correspond to negative chirality .
however , the sign of the chirality , of itself , does not indicate the presence or not of a gap in the excitation spectrum . nor does the sign of the chirality correlate in an obvious way with the nature of other wavefunctions which may be admixed .
spin structure of fej as determined in refs .
, , and .,height=188 ]    the actual magnetic structure@xcite of fej is that shown in fig .
[ spin ] associated with the wavevector @xmath115 .
this means that successive kagom planes are translated ( as they would be in the paramagnetic phase ) , but then in successive planes the spin orientations are reversed .
this causes a doubling of the unit cell because after three translations , the sites are back to their original positions , but the spin orientations are reversed .
thus the magnetic unit cell contains twice as many layers as in the paramagnetic phase .
although each layer individually has a small ferromagnetic moment perpendicular to the kagom plane , the sign of this moment alternates in sign from one kagom net to the next , so that the sample exhibits no overall net moment .
however , as in la@xmath116cuo@xmath117,@xcite one has a spin - flop transition@xcite when a magnetic field perpendicular to the kagom plane rearranges the planes so that their ferromagnetic moments are parallel .
( color online ) spin structure of fej .
the squares ( blue ) are sites in the kagom plane at @xmath49 , the triangles ( yellow ) are sites in the plane at @xmath118 and the circles ( red ) are sites in the plane at @xmath48 . the two symmetry related choices for spin orientations in the ordered phase are shown in the two panels.,height=132 ]    here we discuss some aspects of broken symmetry .
one could ask whether the direction of the net moment of a kagom plane is fixed by interactions within the plane or is accidentally selected .
first , we should note that if we had a single isolated kagom plane , then the two orientations or the net moment perpendicular to the plane would have identical free energy .
as we will see , the direction of the net moment is fixed by the sign of the dm interaction .
if we had a single kagom plane , such an interaction would not be allowed .
so , the uniqueness of the direction of the moment perpendicular to the plane , must depend on the details of the three - dimensional structure and , because @xmath119 and @xmath120 are equivalent in the paramagnetic crystal , on the in - plane magnetic ordering . to see how this is possible consider fig .
the actual spin structure is shown in the two panels of fig .
the selection of one of these states is arbitrary and represents an example of broken symmetry .
let us see how the direction of the net moment perpendicular to the plane is fixed relative to the in - plane ordering .
suppose we have the broken symmetry selection of the structure shown in the left panel .
there one sees that the in - plane spin moments point away from sites in the @xmath118 plane and towards sites in the @xmath49 plane .
this indicates that positive and negative @xmath29 are not equivalent _ due to the presence of long - range magnetic order in the three - dimensional crystal structure_. this means that when the spin order is as in the left panel , the free energy will select the direction of the perpendicular moment .
when the spin order is as in the right panel , the perpendicular moment will be reversed relative to what it was in the left panel .
as we will see , when the in - plane order is selected , the direction of the out - of plane moment is determined by the sign of the @xmath47-component of the dm vector .
it is interesting to note that the direction of the perpendicular moment can not be related to chirality .
the structures shown in fig .
[ lro ] have positive chirality whether seen by a viewer from in front of the page or behind the page .
so associating a direction with chirality can not distinguish between directions into or out of the page .
we neglect interactions between adjacent kagom planes .
accordingly , we now discuss the hamiltonian of a single kagom plane .
we first parameterize the nn interaction between spins # 1 and # 2 in fig .
[ bonds ] , which we write as @xmath121 where the greek superscripts label cartesian components .
the effect of the mirror plane perpendicularly bisecting the 1 - 2 bond is to change the sign of the @xmath47- and @xmath29-components of spin and simultaneously interchange spin labels . thus taking the transpose of the matrix and changing the signs of the @xmath47- and @xmath29-components must leave the matrix invariant .
so the interaction matrix must be of the form @xmath122 \ , \label{nn } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the superscript indicates an nn interaction and we introduce symmetric anisotropic exchange tensor @xmath123 and antisymmetric dm interactions,@xcite characterized by a dm vector @xmath124 .
note that the definition of eq .
( [ defeq ] ) implies that @xmath125 independent of what the local symmetry may be , where tilde indicates a transposed matrix .
numbering of sites used to define nn and nnn interactions .
the axes fixed in the crystal are shown.,height=188 ]    we next characterize the nnn interaction between sites # 5 and # 2 in fig . [ bonds ] .
this interaction has to be invariant under the two - fold rotation about the @xmath46-axis passing through the center of the bond .
so the interaction matrix in cartesian coordinates must be of the form @xmath126 \ , \label{nnn } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath127 is the nnn dm interaction and @xmath128 is the symmetric nnn interaction .
we also include a single - ion anisotropy energy @xmath129 for site @xmath130 of the form @xmath131_i^{\alpha \beta } [ s_i^\alpha s_i^\beta + s_i^\beta s_i^\alpha ] \
.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the mirror @xmath46-plane through site # 3 implies that the single - ion anisotropy matrix for this site is @xmath132 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      a direct , but inefficient , procedure would be to use the symmetry of the crystal to express all the other nn and nnn interactions in terms of the matrices of eqs .
( [ nn ] ) and ( [ nnn ] ) , respectively . instead
, we proceed as follows .
we express the nn and nnn interactions in terms of local axes which facilitate a spin - wave expansion .
these local axes are defined so that the local positive @xmath29 axis coincides with the projection of the local spin moment onto the kagom plane .
these axes are illustrated in fig .
[ local ] .
the rotation matrices to transform to these local axes are @xmath133 \ , \nonumber \\ { \cal r}(\tau_2 ) & = & \left [ \begin{array } { c c
c } { 1 \over 2 } & 0 & { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } \\   { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } & 0 & - { 1\over 2 } \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \end{array } \right ] \ , \nonumber \\ { \cal r}(\tau_3 ) & = & \left [ \begin{array } { c c c } -1 & 0 & 0 \\   0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \end{array } \right ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]
the transformed interaction matrices , denoted @xmath52 , are such that @xmath134 and @xmath135 where now the spin components are taken in the local axes of fig .
[ local ] so that @xmath136 here @xmath137 \ , \label{effsw } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath138 where @xmath139 so that @xmath140 is the isotropic part of the @xmath75th neighbor interaction and we will only keep the anisotropic nn interactions , so that henceforth @xmath141 and @xmath142 .
we define @xmath143 with a sign so that the interactions appear ferromagnetic in the local frame .
the matrix elements @xmath144 lead to a canted spin structure exhibiting weak ferromagnetism , as we will see in the next subsection .
the single - ion anisotropy in the local frame can be written as @xmath145 \ . \label{cparam } \end{aligned}\ ] ]
a big advantage of expressing the interactions in terms of local axes is that all single - ion anisotropies and all nn interaction matrices are identical ( apart from transposing if site indices are interchanged ) . using the three - fold axis and inversion symmetry
we find that @xmath146 where the sites are numbered as in fig .
[ local ] .
local axes of various sites . the local @xmath29-axis ( indicated by the full line with arrow )
is along the projection of the direction of the local magnetization onto the kagom plane .
the local @xmath47-axis is perpendicularly out of the kagom plane .
the local @xmath46-axis is in the kagom plane and is indicated by the dashed line with arrow.,height=188 ]    just as for nearest neighbors , all the next nearest neighbor interaction matrices are the same , providing we take the indices in the correct order .      up to now
we have taken the local @xmath29-axes to lie in the kagom plane . however , the matrix elements @xmath144 for @xmath147 or @xmath148 gives rise to a field which induces a uniform @xmath47 component of spin .
for the spin - wave calculation it is convenient to define `` canted local axes '' such that the canted @xmath29-axes lie along the direction of the canted spins .
this direction is found by minimizing the energy .
we write the ground state energy per site , @xmath149 , for @xmath150 and @xmath151 as @xmath152 \cos^2 \theta \nonumber \\ & & \ + [ c_{yy } - 2 e_y^{(1)}-2e_y^{(2 ) } ] \sin^2 \theta \nonumber \\ & & \ + 2 [ c_{yz } + 2 e_{yz}^{(1)}+2e_{yz}^{(2 ) } ] \sin \theta \cos \theta \nonumber \\ & \equiv & - a_{cc } \cos^2 \theta - a_{ss } \sin^2 \theta   + 2 a_{cs } \sin \theta \cos \theta \nonumber \\ & = & - { 1 \over 2 } [ a_{cc}+a_{ss } ] - h_z \cos ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & & \ - h_y \sin ( 2 \theta ) \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath153/2 \ , \ \ \ \ h_y =   - a_{cs } \ . \end{aligned}\ ] ] the energy is minimized by setting @xmath154 where @xmath155 . if we neglect the effect of anisotropic nnn interactions on the canting angle , we have @xmath156 = -c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y + j_{yz } \nonumber \\ h_z & = & e_z^{(1 ) } - e_y^{(1 ) } - { 1 \over 2 } c_{zz } + { 1 \over 2 } c_{yy } \nonumber \\ & & \   + e_z^{(2 ) } - e_y^{(2 ) } \nonumber \\   & = & { 3 \over 2 } j_1 - { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z + { c_{y - z } \over 2 } + { 3 \over 2 } j_2 + { 3 \delta_j - \eta_j \over 8 }   \ , \label{hyzeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath157 . here and below the superscript `` 1 '' for nn s is implied in the anisotropic interactions .     the ` initial ' and ` final ' local @xmath47 and @xmath29 axes .
initially the @xmath29 axis is in the kagom plane .
the sign of @xmath99 is the same that of @xmath158 , which is the negative of @xmath159 , i .e .
the negative of @xmath34 . ]
this means that we want to transform the initial local coordinates with moments in the kagom plane into the canted local coordinates via @xmath160 as illustrated in fig .
[ axes ] , where @xmath161 and @xmath162 .
then , if we include this transformation we finally arrive at the local anisotropy matrix as @xmath163 \ , \label{cdef } \end{aligned}\ ] ] and the transformed local interaction matrices are @xmath164 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and similarly for @xmath165 , where @xmath166 \sin ( 2 \theta ) \ , \nonumber \\ \overline e_{yz}^{(n ) } & = & e_{yz}^{(n ) } \cos ( 2 \theta ) + { 1 \over 2 } [ e_z^{(n ) } - e_y^{(n ) } ] \sin(2 \theta ) \nonumber \\
\overline d_z^{(n ) } & = & c d_z^{(n ) } + s d_y^{(n ) } \nonumber \\
\overline d_y^{(n ) } & = & c d_y^{(n ) } - s d_z^{(n ) } \ . \label{tilde } \end{aligned}\ ] ] an equivalent condition for equilibrium is that @xmath167 when the @xmath46-@xmath29 elements are summed over all neighbors they give a vanishing effective field .
indeed , group theory guarantees that this is the case for general interactions .
in appendix [ boson ] we write the hamiltonian in terms of boson operators and in appendix [ modes ] we obtain the wavevector dependent spin - wave dynamical matrix ( swdm ) @xmath168 whose eigenvalues are the spin - wave energies at wavevector @xmath32 and which is written as @xmath169 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      the matrices @xmath170 and @xmath171 are given in eqs .
( [ adef ] ) and ( [ bdef ] ) , respectively . we write them as @xmath172 and @xmath173 where @xmath174
, @xmath175 is the unit matrix , and for @xmath147 or 2 @xmath176 is    @xmath177 \gamma_{1,2}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & + 2 i \overline d_z^{(n ) } ] \gamma_{1,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) \\ \hline [ -e_x^{(n ) } - \overline e_y^{(n ) } & 4\overline e_z^{(n ) }   & [ -e_x^{(n ) } - \overline e_y^{(n ) } \\ + 2 i \overline d_z^{(n ) } ] \gamma_{1,2}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) &   & -2 i \overline d_z^{(n ) } ] \gamma_{2,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) \\ \hline [ -e_x^{(n ) } - \overline e_y^{(n ) } & [ -e_x^{(n ) } - \overline e_y^{(n ) } & 4\overline e_z^{(n ) } \\ -2
i \overline d_z^{(n ) } ] \gamma_{1,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & + 2 i \overline d_z^{(n ) } ] \gamma_{2,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & \\ \hline \end{array } \right ] \ , \label{mataeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    and @xmath178 is    @xmath179 & [ - e_x^{(n ) } + \overline e_y^{(n ) } ] \\ & \times \gamma_{1,2}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & \times \gamma_{1,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) \\ \hline [ - e_x^{(n ) } + \overline e_y^{(n ) } ] & 0 & [ - e_x^{(n ) } + \overline e_y^{(n ) } ] \\
\times \gamma_{1,2}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & & \times \gamma_{2,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) \\ \hline [ - e_x^{(n ) } + \overline e_y^{(n ) } ] & [ - e_x^{(n ) } + \overline e_y^{(n ) } ] & 0 \\ \times \gamma_{1,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & \times \gamma_{2,3}^{(n)}({\bf q } ) & \\ \hline \end{array } \right ] \ , \label{matbeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath180 is the normalized form factor for the @xmath75th shell of neighbors . here
we we will only treat @xmath181 . for in - plane interactions we have @xmath182 \ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{23}^{(1)}({\bf q } ) & = & \cos [ a ( q_x - \sqrt 3 q_y)/4 ] \ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{12}^{(2)}({\bf q } ) & = & \cos ( a q_y \sqrt 3 /2 ) \ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{13}^{(2)}({\bf q } ) & = & \cos [ a ( 3 q_x - \sqrt 3 q_y)/4 ] \ , \nonumber \\
\gamma_{23}^{(2)}({\bf q } ) & = & \cos [ a ( 3 q_x + \sqrt 3 q_y)/4 ] \
.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in eqs .
( [ mataeq ] ) and ( [ matbeq ] ) one one uses eq .
( [ tilde ] ) to relate the overlined coefficients to the bare coefficients , which are defined in eqs .
( [ cdef ] ) and ( [ param ] ) .    to simplify the expressions
we will now specialize to the case when the nnn interactions are isotropic and all interactions further than nnn are ignored .
then we write the matrix @xmath170 in the form    @xmath183 \ , \label{nmataeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath184 denotes @xmath185 .
the matrix @xmath171 is of the form    @xmath186 \ .
\label{nmatbeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    in appendix [ evaluate ] we evaluate of the constants in the matrices for the general hamiltonian introduced above . in the interest of simplicity we now limit consideration to the following generic hamiltonian :    @xmath187 \nonumber \\ & & \
+ \sum_{k < l \in nnn } j_2 s_k \cdot s_l \nonumber \\ & + & d \sum_{i } ( s_i^{y'})^2 - e \sum_{i } [ ( s_i^{z'})^2 -(s_i^{x'})^2 ] \label{model_h}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath188 ( @xmath189 ) indicates that the sum is over nn s ( nnn s ) , @xmath190 is the dzyaloskinskii - moriya vector for bond @xmath191 as shown in fig .
[ bonds ] and the single - ion anisotropy terms are those used by nishiyama
_ et al._@xcite in their treatment of the spin - wave spectrum in jarosites .
here the prime - spin components refer to the local axis associated with the rotated oxygen octahedra shown in fig . 1 ( see ref .
for details ) .
the @xmath192 and @xmath193 are all expressible in terms of the parameters @xmath34 and @xmath31 as discussed in sec .
the single - ion anisotropy constants @xmath194 and @xmath195 used in ref . are related to our generic single - ion matrix @xmath196 defined in the uncanted - local frame given in eq .
( [ cparam ] ) as @xmath197 where @xmath198 is the rotation angle of the octahedra around fe - ion ( see fig .
[ alunite ] ) and is @xmath199.@xcite    in what follows we will often have recourse to two simple models . in the first of these , which we call the `` dm '' model , we neglect the single ion anisotropy and the exchange anisotropy , so that the only nonzero parameters are @xmath1 , @xmath2 , @xmath34 , and @xmath31 . in the second model , which we call the `` cf '' model ,
all the anisotropy is incorporated by the single - ion crystal field , so that the only nonzero parameters are @xmath1 , @xmath2 , and @xmath200 . in either case , we assume @xmath1 to be the dominant interaction .
accordingly we give here the expressions for the matrix elements of the swdm which pertain to these two cases : @xmath201 \
, \nonumber \\ a_1 & = & { 1 \over 2 } j_1 + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z + { 1 \over 6j_1 } \biggl [ 3d_y^2-c_{yz}^2 \biggr ] \ , \nonumber \\ b_0 & = & c_{xx}-c_{yy }   - { 2c_{yz}^2 \over 3j_1 } \ , \nonumber
\\   b_1 & = & - { 3 \over 2 } j_1 + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z   + { c_{yz}^2 - 3 d_y^2 \over 6j_1 } \ , \nonumber \\ \alpha_1 & = & { 1 \over \sqrt 3 } c_{yz } + { 2 \sqrt 3   d_y d_z \over 3j_1 } - { d_y j_2 \over j_1 } \ , \nonumber \\ \alpha_2 & = & { d_y j_2 \over j_1 } \ .
\label{eq47}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath202 .      at zero wavevector the swdm , @xmath203 , whose eigenvalues give @xmath204 , is     | c | c | c || + & dm model & cf model + @xmath205 & @xmath206 & @xmath207^{1/2 } + { \cal o}(c^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] + @xmath208 & @xmath209 & @xmath210^{1/2 } + { \cal o}(c^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] + @xmath211 & @xmath212 & @xmath213 +   + & dm model & cf model + @xmath205 & @xmath214 & @xmath215^{1/2}$ ] + @xmath216 & @xmath217 & @xmath218^{1/2}$ ] + @xmath219 & @xmath220 & @xmath214 +    @xmath221 \ , \nonumber \\ & &   \label{gmeq}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath222 and we include the effects of @xmath2 by replacing @xmath1 in eq .
( [ eq47 ] ) everywhere by @xmath223 .
take @xmath224 to have components @xmath225 and @xmath226 to have components @xmath227 .
then @xmath228 from this we find the spin - wave energy @xmath205 to be @xmath229    now take @xmath230 to have components @xmath231 , @xmath232 to have components @xmath233 , @xmath234 to have components @xmath235 , and @xmath236 to have components @xmath237 . in this subspace @xmath238 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath239 , @xmath240 , and @xmath222 . thereby we find that the other two spin - wave energies , @xmath241 , are given by @xmath242 thus for zero wavevector we find the frequencies @xmath243 for the dm and cf models to be those given in table [ omega ] ( under the heading `` with canting '' ) .    when @xmath72 is nonzero , we split the degeneracy between the two heretofore degenerate frequencies
. this splitting is linear in @xmath72 .
in contrast , when @xmath244 , the splitting between this two - fold degenerate mode and the other mode will be found to be of order @xmath245 , where @xmath246 involves anisotropic exchange or dm interactions .
note that for @xmath247 , we have stability for @xmath248 , where @xmath249\ , \label{stable } \end{aligned}\ ] ] which is similar to elhajal et al@xcite who give @xmath250 . for @xmath251 , we have stability ( in the large @xmath252 limit ) if both @xmath253 and @xmath254 are positive , so that the @xmath29-axis is really the easiest axis .
the x point is at @xmath255 \ , \ \ \ \ q_y = q_z=0 \\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the form factors are @xmath256 and @xmath257     | c | c | c || + & dm model & cf model + @xmath205 & @xmath258 & @xmath259 + & @xmath260^{1/2 } + { \cal o } ( d^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] & @xmath261^{1/2 } + { \cal o}(c^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] + @xmath208 & @xmath262- { 5 \sqrt 6 \over 4}d_z + { \cal o}(d^2/j)$ ] & @xmath262+{\sqrt 2 \over 2 } ( 2c_{x - z}+c_{y - z } ) + { \cal o}(c^2/j)$ ] + @xmath211 & @xmath263 & @xmath264 +   + & dm model & cf model + @xmath205 & @xmath265^{1/2}$ ] & @xmath266^{1/2}$ ] + @xmath216 & @xmath262- { 5 \sqrt 6 \over 4}d_z + { \cal o}(d^2/j)$ ] & @xmath262 + { \sqrt 2 \over 2 } ( 2c_{x - z}+c_{y - z } ) + { \cal o}(c^2/j)$ ] + @xmath219 & @xmath267 & @xmath214 +    thus the swdm is of the form    @xmath268 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where , to the same accuracy as before @xmath269
@xmath270/2 + j_2/2 - i \alpha_2 \ , \nonumber \\ & = & -{1 \over 4 } j_1 + { 1 \over 2 } j_2 - { \sqrt 3 \over 4 } d_z - { d_y^2 \over 4j_1 } \nonumber \\ & & \ - c_{yz}^2 /(12j_1 )   - { 3i \over 2 } { d_y j_2 \over j_1 } \nonumber \\ & & \
+   i \sqrt 3 [ c_{yz } + 2(d_yd_z / j_1)]/6 \nonumber \\ & \equiv & a_{12}^\prime + i a_{12}^{\prime \prime}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath271 and @xmath272 where we have neglected symmetric anisotropic exchange and only kept terms that seem to be most relevant .
now we diagonalize the submatrices @xmath273 , @xmath274 , and @xmath275 .
the eigenvectors of these 3 @xmath276 3 matrices are @xmath277 \ , \label{eigvec } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath278 , so that @xmath279 , @xmath280 , and @xmath281 .
one can show that the vector given in eq .
( [ eigvec ] ) is an eigenvector of @xmath273 with the associated eigenvalue @xmath282 and is simultaneously an eigenvector of @xmath275 with eigenvalue @xmath283 the three spin - wave energies are given by @xmath284^{1/2 } \nonumber \\ & & \
+ \left ( { a(\lambda ) - a(\lambda^ * ) \over 2 } \right ) \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] so that @xmath285^{1/2 } \ ,
\tilde \omega_{\pm } & = &   [ ( a_{11 } - a_{12}^\prime ) ^2 - ( b_{11 } - b_{12})^2]^{1/2 }   \pm \sqrt 3 a_{12}^{\prime \prime } \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we thus find the spin - wave energies to be those given in table [ omegax ] .
the y point is at @xmath286 , @xmath287 , so that @xmath288 , @xmath289 , @xmath290 , and @xmath291
. therefore the swdm at the y point is of the form @xmath292 \   , \end{aligned}\ ] ]     | c | c | c || + & dm model & cf model + @xmath293 & @xmath294 & @xmath295 + & @xmath296^{1/2 } + { \cal o } ( d^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] & @xmath297^{1/2 } + { \cal o}(c^{5/2}/j^{3/2})$ ] + @xmath298 & @xmath299 & @xmath300 + @xmath301 & @xmath302 & @xmath303 +   + & dm model & cf model + @xmath293 & @xmath304^{1/2}$ ] & @xmath305 + & & @xmath306^{1/2}$ ] + @xmath307 & @xmath299 & @xmath308 + @xmath301 & @xmath302 & @xmath303 +    where @xmath309 @xmath310 - j_2/2 + i \alpha_2 \ , \nonumber \\ & = & ( j_1 - j_2)/2 + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z + { d_y^2 \over 2j_1 } - { c_{yz}^2 \over 6j_1 } \nonumber \\ & & \ -   i \sqrt 3 [ c_{yz } + 2(d_yd_z / j_1 ) - 2d_yj_2/j_1 ] /3 \nonumber \\ & \equiv & a_{12}^\prime + i a_{12}^{\prime \prime}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath311 and @xmath312    one root for @xmath313 ( coming from rows and columns # 3 and # 6 ) is @xmath314 and the remaining eigenvalues come from the projection of the swdm , @xmath203 , into the remaining subspace : @xmath315 \ .
\label{remain } \end{aligned}\ ] ] as usual , in our analytic work , we work to second order in the anisotropies , in the absence of which @xmath316 is real . in that case
we have the unperturbed mode energies @xmath317 the perturbed ( i. e. for @xmath318 ) secular equation is @xmath319 [ \tilde \omega^2 - ( \tilde \omega_+^{(0)})^2 ] + ( a_{12}^{\prime \prime})^4 \nonumber \\ & & \
-2(a_{12}^{\prime \prime})^2 [ \tilde \omega^2 + a_{11}^2 - ( a_{12}^\prime)^2 -b_{11}^2 + b_{12}^2 ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] thereby we find the approximate solutions @xmath320 } \nonumber \\ & & \
\times \biggl [ ( \tilde \omega_\pm^{(0)})^2 + a_{11}^2 - ( a_{12}^\prime)^2 - b_{11}^2 + b_{12}^2 \biggr ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] in table [ omegay ] we give analytical results correct only to leading order in the anisotropies , in which case @xmath321 .
recently matan _ et al._@xcite have measured spin - wave spectrum in fej using inelastic neutron scattering and here we discuss the comparison of our calculations with their results . the experimental spectrum@xcite shown in fig .
[ spinwave_exp ] clearly indicates three spin - bands .
one of these bands is quite dispersionless and it is therefore identified to be the  zero - energy " mode , which is lifted to about 8 mev due to anisotropic magnetic interactions which we wish to identify .
in addition to this  lifted zero - energy mode " , the spectrum shows two additional gaps at 1.7 mev ( an in - plane mode ) and around 7 mev ( an out - of - plane mode ) .
the spin - wave spectrum extends up to 20 mev at the x - point .
it is of interest to develop a model hamiltonian which reproduces the observed spectrum .
in particular , we will see that the observed energy splittings at the various high symmetry points provide sensitive constraints on the interaction parameters .        in order to identify magnetic interactions in fej , in this section
, we will present numerical calculations of the spin - wave spectrum for a large number of models and compare the results with the experimental data shown in fig .
[ spinwave_exp ] . for a quantitative comparison
we define an error - factor @xmath54 ( i.e. the goodness - of - fit ) as follows : @xmath322 where @xmath323 is the number of experimental data points , and @xmath324 and @xmath325 are respectively the experimental and calculated spin wave energies at wave - vector @xmath326 .
one should recognize that @xmath54 describes the percentage error averaged over the entire spectrum .
it is important to reproduce the splittings at the high symmetry points even though this only weakly affects the value of @xmath54 .     model . in these and succeeding figures
the values of the parameters of the fit are given in mev.,width=264 ]    we start by comparing the experimental spectrum to a simple model where we consider only the isotropic nearest neighbor interaction @xmath1 and a non - zero @xmath31 in dm interaction vector ( i.e. @xmath327 ) . the best fit from this simple two - parameter model is shown in fig .
the dm interaction with only the @xmath31 term lifts the zero - energy mode to the dispersionless energy @xmath328 , as observed experimentally .
however this term alone can not give the experimentally observed small dispersion of this mode . without @xmath34
, we do not get any canting of spins either .
the effect of the @xmath31 term is almost identical to an easy plane anisotropy .
the  lifted zero - energy mode " is found to be degenerate with the other spin gap ( _ i.e. _ the out - of - plane spin - gap ) at the @xmath35 point .
however , we do not get the in - plane gap as experimentally observed at 1.7 mev .
( analytic results are given in table [ omega ] . )    the agreement between calculations and experiment can be improved significantly by turning on @xmath34 in the dm - vector as shown in fig .
[ j1dydz ] .
the main effect of @xmath34 term is to create a small in - plane anisotropy and therefore it can be adjusted to give an in - plane gap of 1.7 mev , as experimentally observed .
this model gives three gaps at @xmath35 point , for which the analytic results are given in table [ omega ] . from these analytic results
, one sees that the in - plane gap is proportional to @xmath329 and the small splitting between the flat - mode and the out - of - plane gap is equal to @xmath330 , which is quite small .    although the experiment does not give clear results for the splittings of the high - energy modes at the x and y points , we see from table [ omegax ] that the splitting , @xmath246 , at the x point is expected to be quite small ( it is second order in the perturbations ) . table [ omegay ] indicates that the splitting of the high frequency modes at the y point is expected to be larger than at the x point .
the @xmath34 term also causes the spins to be canted with a canting angle of about 2.5@xmath4 . however despite a significant improvement with the addition of @xmath34 term , we still do not get any dispersion to the flat mode in contradiction to the experimental finding .
we also studied the single ion term @xmath194 and @xmath195 as given in eq .
( [ de_relation ] ) with only @xmath1 and obtained similar results .
with only dm or single ion anisotropy without further neighbor interactions , it was not possible to obtain the small dispersion of the flat mode as experimentally observed .     model . ,
width=264 ]    in order to get the experimentally observed dispersion along with the correct average energy of the nearly flat mode , one needs to consider next - nearest neighbor interactions . in fig .
[ j1j2 ] , we show the best fit from a simple isotropic nn ( @xmath1 ) and nnn ( @xmath2 ) interactions , which is in good agreement with the previous work.@xcite we note that the nnn @xmath2 interaction gives the zero - energy mode a significant dispersion .
however in order to correctly reproduce the flat - mode energy requires a @xmath2 which gives too strong a dispersion .
since the hamiltonian with isotropic @xmath1 and @xmath2 is rotationally invariant , we do not get any gap at the @xmath35 point , in contrast to experimentally observed three gaps .     and @xmath2.,width=264 ]    from above discussion ,
it is clear that one needs both a nnn @xmath2 interaction and either a dm or a single ion anisotropy . in fig .
[ j1j2dydz ] , we show the best fit from a model which has the isotropic nn @xmath1 , nnn @xmath2 interactions and the dm vector @xmath331 .
the fit to the data is very good .
we reproduce not only the three gaps but also the small dispersion of the flat - mode .
the spin gaps at the @xmath35 , x , and y points obtained numerically are in good agreement with the analytic results given in tables [ omega ] , [ omegax ] , and [ omegay ] .
the spin - canting angle is about 2.1@xmath4 , in reasonable agreement with the experimentally estimated value of 1.5@xmath4.@xcite    \(a )   and @xmath2 and ( a ) dm - vector @xmath331 and ( b ) single ion anisotropy terms @xmath194 and @xmath195 .
, title="fig:",width=264 ] + ( b )   and @xmath2 and ( a ) dm - vector @xmath331 and ( b ) single ion anisotropy terms @xmath194 and @xmath195 . , title="fig:",width=264 ]    as an alternative to dm interactions , one can also try to explain the experimental data based on a model which considers only the single ion anisotropies @xmath194 and @xmath195 as given in eq .
( [ de_relation]).@xcite in fig .
[ j1j2dydz]b , we show the best fit from such a model which has an isotropic nn @xmath1 and nnn @xmath2 and the @xmath332 single ion anisotropy instead of the dm interactions .
the r - factor for this fit is slightly larger than the r - factor obtained from dm interaction .
the main differences are the larger splittings of the optical modes at the @xmath35 and x points and the smaller canting angle for the cf model in comparison to the dm model .
the canting angle from the cf model is only 0.8@xmath4 , which is smaller than the experimental value@xcite of 1.5@xmath4 .
the biggest problem with the cf model is the large gaps at the @xmath35 and x - points as shown in fig .
[ j1j2dydz]b .
the experimental splitting of the modes at these points are much smaller .
numerical results give a splitting of about 0.75 mev at the @xmath35 point and 0.4 mev at the x - point .
the splitting at the y - point is quite small .
these results are in good agreement with the analytical results given in tables [ omegax ] and [ omegay ] .    in conclusion ,
the observed spin - wave spectrum can be explained by a simple model which has only nearest and next - nearest isotropic interactions .
the dm interaction gives the best fit to explain the observed gaps and the spin canting .
even though the single ion terms also fit the data well , the quality of the fit is not as good as the one from dm term at the @xmath35 and x points .
for the fe ion , the single ion anisotropy is expected to be smaller than the dm term ( because the single - ion term is second order in the spin - orbit coupling while the dm term appears in first order ) . for these reasons
, we think that dm term is a natural source of anisotropy in fej compound , which not only stabilizes the observed experimental spin structure but also gives the right spin - wave spectrum with the proper gaps and dispersion .      here
we give results when the transformation to the canted structure is omitted , i.e. @xmath99 is forced to be zero .
one purpose of giving these results is to show the importance of making this transformation when calculating the gaps in the spectrum which depend on small perturbations .
also , we could check our calculations by comparing these results to those of nishiyama et al@xcite who omitted this transformation .
when one distorts a collinear spin structure by the application of a small transverse field , the effects on the spectrum are second order in the distortion angle . here , however , the situation is different because the spins before distortion are noncollinear . as a result of this noncollinearity the matrix element @xmath333 in eq .
( [ effsw ] ) ( which would be zero for a collinear system ) is of order @xmath252 .
thus the matrix element @xmath334 in eq.([tilde ] ) has a contribution , @xmath335 , induced by canting of the same order as that , @xmath336 , which existed before canting .
this fact indicates that canting should not be ignored in the calculation of the spin - wave spectrum .    to obtain results when canting
is ignored we replace quantities with overbars in eq .
( [ tilde ] ) by the corresponding quantities without overbars .      here
( where @xmath252 denotes @xmath223 ) @xmath337 @xmath338 @xmath339 @xmath340 @xmath341 then , when the anisotropy in @xmath140 is neglected , we find the frequencies listed in table [ omega ] under the heading `` neglecting canting . ''
the treatment including canting is now modified so that @xmath342/2 + j_2/2 - i \alpha_2
\nonumber \\ & = & -j_1/4 + j_2/2 - \sqrt 3 d_z/4 -i d_y/2 \ , \nonumber \\
b_{11 } & = & c_{xx}-c_{yy } \
, \nonumber \\ b_{12}&= & -b_1/2 - 3j_2/2 \nonumber \\ & = & 3j_1/4 -3j_2/2 - \sqrt 3 d_z/4 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] then we find the spin - wave frequencies as listed in table [ omegax ] .
now we have @xmath343 so that the frequencies are those given in table [ omegay ] . unless the only anisotropy is due to @xmath34 , these results are the same as those given in table [ omegay ] with canting , so that , except for this case , the effect of canting at the y point is very small .
the effect of canting can be deduced from the epxressions for the matrix elemets given in appendix c. one sees that the rotation to the canted spin structure induces terms of the form @xmath344 into the swdm matrix elements .
also the quantity @xmath345 is transformed ( by the rotation to the canted system of coordinates ) from the value @xmath34 ( neglecting the anisotropy in @xmath140 ) to @xmath346 .
suprprisingly perhaps , this rotation through an angle of order @xmath347 also introduces a contribution to @xmath348 of order @xmath349 .
a qualitative understanding of what is going on here is obtained by noting that the coefficient @xmath350 is associated with an interaction proportional to @xmath351 , where the components are taken in the `` final '' _ i. e. _ canted coordinate system .
this term directly affects the spin - wave energies .
this term arises from rotating an interaction in the local uncanted coordinate system of the form @xmath352 , a term which for collinear systems is zero , but for this noncollinear system is of order @xmath1 , as given in eq .
( [ param ] ) .
since these quantities control several of the splittings , it is clear that neglecting canting can have a major impact on these splittings , as shown in fig .
[ no_canting ] and the tables . from fig .
[ j1j2dydz](a ) , it is clear that the quality of the fit is significantly degraded for the dm term , in particular at the @xmath35 and @xmath36-points where big gaps are opened .
\(a )   + ( b )     the effect of neglecting canting is opposite for the cf term .
the quality of the fit is improved because the large splitting at @xmath35 ( see fig .  [ j1j2dydz](b ) ) is now zero ( fig .
[ no_canting](b ) ) .
for instance , for zero wavevector the splitting @xmath353 ( given by @xmath354 ) is linear in @xmath34 when canting is neglected , whereas when the canting was taken into account the splitting was found to be proportional to @xmath355 . to calculate this splitting
it is therefore not qualitatively correct to ignore the canting .
in addition , when canting is ignored and single - ion anisotropy is not present , neglecting canting leads to @xmath356 , even when @xmath124 is nonzero .    at the x
point the effects of canting are similar .
for the low energy mode the transformation to the canted structure introduces a term proportional to @xmath357 which is only important if all the other anisotropies are very small or vanishing .
however , as table [ omegax ] indicates , the splitting between @xmath358 is proportional to @xmath34 when canting is neglected , but is proportional to @xmath359 when canting is taken into account .    at the y point
the effects of canting are less important .
indeed @xmath360 and @xmath361 are insensitive to canting and only in @xmath362 does one see that canting introduces a term of order @xmath357 .    in conclusion , it is important that one should not ignore the spin - canting when spin - wave spectrum is calculated . even though the cf single ion term gives much better fit when the canting is ignored ( see figs .
[ j1j2dydz ] and [ no_canting ] ) , it is not an appropriate approximation , as we have shown .
when the cf single ion term is properly treated , it actually gives a worse fit to the data and therefore it is more logical to conclude that the dominant source of the anisotropy in fej compound is the dm term .
we have presented a detailed study of the magnetic structure and spin - wave spectrum in fej for the most generic nn and nnn exchange interactions including dzyaloshinskii - moriya and the single ion anisotropy terms of inami _
et al._@xcite our conclusions can be summarized as follows .
* we first discuss the allowed magnetic structures from a representations analysis .
the experimentally observed  umbrella " structure of * q*=0 with positive chirality arises from a one dimensional representation which exhibits three - fold symmetry .
our analysis and discussion of broken symmetry suggests that the characterization by irreducible representations is more fundamental than that by chirality , even though chirality has been widely invoked in the literature .
* representation analysis reveals the existence of an @xmath46-@xmath47-like two dimensional representation which has sixth order in - plane anisotropy . in this representation
one can have kagom layers with a net in - plane moment which can be stacked either ferromagnetically or antiferromagnetically .
the analysis of ref . did not find wavefunctions of this type .
however , the observed magnetic ground state of a nav - jarosite@xcite consists of such ferromagnetic kagom planes which are coupled antiferromagnetically . * we presented detailed spin - wave calculations for the most generic spin hamiltonian allowed by symmetry .
we derived analytic expressions for the spin - wave energies at the @xmath35 , @xmath36 , and @xmath37 points in the brillouin zone .
the agreement between our analytic and numerical results tends to support the correctness of both approaches . since , the spectrum is invariant under a change of sign of @xmath34 , the sign of this parameter remains undetermined by experiment .
* we obtained the spin - wave spectrum numerically throughout the brillouin zone for a large number of models with increasing complexity and compared the results with the recent experimental data.@xcite we obtained a nn exchange constant of @xmath363 mev , which is in good agreement with previous measurements.@xcite we found that the observed small dispersion can be explained by a nnn isotropic interaction of @xmath364 .
the observed gaps at the @xmath35 , @xmath36 , and @xmath37 points are best explained by considering only the dm interaction with @xmath365 mev and @xmath366 mev together with nn and nnn interactions .
the d@xmath367 term is adjusted to lift the zero - energy mode to about 8 mev with a small dispersion due to @xmath2 interaction .
a fit of similar quality can also be obtained using the crystal field ( cf ) model of ref .
but the resulting anisotropy is about 10% of @xmath1 , too large a value for the s state fe@xmath11 ion which is supposed to be quite isotropic .
the calculated canting angle is 2.07@xmath4 and 0.77@xmath4 for dm and cf models , respectively , compared to the experimentally deduced value@xcite of @xmath368 . *
finally we discuss the effect of the canting on the spin - wave quantization axis which was neglected by inami _
et al._@xcite we found that neglecting canting is not a good approximation for calculating the spin - wave energy gaps at the high symmetry points in the brillouin zone .
when the cf is treated properly , it gives larger gaps at the @xmath35 point than those from dm interaction .
the experiment does not indicate significant splitting at the @xmath35 point and therefore it suggests that the dm term works better to explain the data .
* acknowledgement : * we thank k. matan and y. s. lee for many fruitful discussions and for sharing their spin - wave data prior to publication .
to construct the boson hamiltonian it is convenient to introduce spherical components ( @xmath369 , @xmath370 ) for interactions between site @xmath51 in unit cell @xmath130 located at @xmath371 and site @xmath372 in unit cell @xmath373 located at @xmath374 . if these sites are @xmath75th nearest neighbors , then we write @xmath375 \nonumber \\
\overline{\cal i}^{\pm \mp}_{\tau \tau'}(i , j ) & = & { 1 \over 4 } [ \overline { \cal i}_{xx}^{(n ) }   \pm
i \overline { \cal i}_{xy}^{(n ) } \mp \overline { \cal i}_{yx}^{(n ) }   + \overline { \cal i}_{yy}^{(n ) } ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] and similarly for the single - ion anisotropy matrix @xmath376 .
now we invoke the holstein - primakoff transformation in the form @xmath377 then apart from a constant the hamiltonian in terms of bose operators is @xmath378 \nonumber \\ & & \ + s { \sum_{i \tau , j \tau'}}^\prime   \biggl [ - { 1 \over 2 } \overline { \cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{zz}(i , j ) ( a_{i \tau}^\dagger a_{i \tau } + a_{j \tau'}^\dagger a_{j \tau ' } ) \nonumber \\ & & \ + \overline{\cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{++ } ( i , j ) a_{i \tau } a_{j\tau ' } + \overline{\cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{-- } ( i , j ) a_{i \tau}^\dagger a_{j\tau'}^\dagger \nonumber \\ & & \   + \overline{\cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{+- } ( i , j ) a_{i \tau } a_{j\tau'}^\dagger + \overline{\cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{-+ } ( i , j ) a_{i \tau}^\dagger a_{j\tau ' } \biggr ] \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the prime on the summation excludes the term with @xmath379 .
now write @xmath380 so that @xmath381 where @xmath382 is the ground state energy and @xmath383 where @xmath384 \delta_{\tau , \tau ' } + \overline { \cal i}^{+-}_{\tau ' \tau}({\bf q } ) + \overline { \cal i}^{-+}_{\tau \tau'}(-{\bf q } ) \biggr ) \nonumber \\ & = & \biggl ( [ c_{xx } + \overline c_{yy } - 2\overline c_{zz } - \sum_{\tau '' } \overline { \cal i}_{\tau,\tau''}^{zz } ( q=0 ) ] \delta_{\tau , \tau ' } \nonumber \\ & & \ + \overline { \cal i}^{+-}_{\tau ' \tau}({\bf q } ) + \overline { \cal i}^{-+}_{\tau \tau'}(-{\bf q } ) \biggr ) \nonumber \\ \label{adef } \end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath385 \delta_{\tau,\tau ' } + 2 \overline { \cal i}_{\tau \tau'}^{--}(-{\bf q } ) \ , \label{bdef } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath386 where @xmath387 and the superscripts assume the values @xmath388 , @xmath389 , and @xmath29 . since each site is a center of inversion symmetry , the exponential factor in the sum over @xmath130 in eq .
( [ gammaeq ] ) can be replaced by a cosine : @xmath390 \label{coseq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath391 is an even function of @xmath32 . if @xmath392 is a vector of the reciprocal lattice ( such that @xmath393 is a multiple of @xmath394 ) , then @xmath395 \nonumber \\ b_{\tau \tau'}({\bf q } + { \bf g } ) & = & b_{\tau \tau'}({\bf q } ) e^{i { \bf g } \cdot ( \tauv'-\tauv)}\nonumber \\ & = & b_{\tau \tau'}({\bf q } ) \cos [ { \bf g } \cdot ( \tauv'-\tau ) ]   \ .
\label{gvec } \end{aligned}\ ] ] here we used the fact that for the kagom lattice , the @xmath396 s are half a lattice vector , so that @xmath397= \pm 1 $ ] .
we write the normal mode operators as @xmath398 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and these are determined by @xmath399 = \omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) x^\dagger_\mu({\bf q } ) \ . \label{modeeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] if there are @xmath82 spins per unit cell , then we expect that @xmath82 of the @xmath400 will be nonnegative and @xmath82 will be nonpositive .
equation ( [ modeeq ] ) gives @xmath401 \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{\alpha , \beta } \biggl [ c_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q } )   a_{\beta , \alpha}({\bf q } )   a_\beta^\dagger ( { \bf q } ) + c_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q } ) b_{\alpha , \beta}^*({\bf q } ) a_\beta(-{\bf q } ) \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & \ \   - \sum_{\alpha ,
\beta } \biggl [ d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q } ) a_{\alpha , \beta}(-{\bf q } ) a_\beta(-{\bf q } ) \nonumber \\ & & \ + d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q } ) b_{\alpha , \beta}(-{\bf q } ) a_\beta^\dagger({\bf q } ) \biggr ] \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where again @xmath402 .
this leads to the eigenvalue problem @xmath403 \nonumber \\
\tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q } ) & = & \sum_\beta [ b_{\beta , \alpha}({\bf q})^ * c_\beta^\mu ( { \bf q } ) - a_{\beta , \alpha } ( -{\bf q } ) d_\beta^\mu ( { \bf q } ) ] \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] which can be written as    @xmath404 \left [ \begin{array } { c } { \bf c}^\mu ( { \bf q } ) \\ { \bf d}^\mu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] & = & \tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) \left [ \begin{array } { c } { \bf c}^\mu({\bf q } ) \\ { \bf d}^\mu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] \   , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath405 is a column vector with components @xmath406 , @xmath407 , @xmath408 , @xmath409 , where @xmath86 is the number of spins in the unit cell .
we now note that because the hamiltonian is hermitian and taking account of inversion symmetry , we have @xmath410 similarly we write @xmath411    thus the eigenvalue problem is @xmath412 \left [ \begin{array } { c } { \bf c}^\mu ( { \bf q } )
\\ { \bf d}^\mu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] & = & \tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) \left [ \begin{array } { c } { \bf c}^\mu({\bf q } ) \\ { \bf d}^\mu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] \   .
\label{meq } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    we now show that the roots come in pairs with opposite signs . equation ( [ meq ] ) is @xmath413 take the complex conjugate of these equations , change the signs of both sides of each equations , and reorder the equations to get @xmath414^ * - { \bf b } [ { \bf c}^\mu]^ * & = & - \tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } [ { \bf d}^\mu]^ * \nonumber \\   { \bf b}^ * [ { \bf d}^\mu]^ * - { \bf a}^ * [ { \bf c}^\mu]^ * & = & - \tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } [ { \bf c}^\mu]^ * \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we used the fact that the @xmath243 s are real .
this shows that from an eigenvector with eigenvalue @xmath415 we can construct a related eigenvector with eigenvalue @xmath416 .
one can show that the eigenvalues at wavevector @xmath32 are identical to those at wavevector @xmath417 , as expected in view of the inversion symmetry of the lattice .
thus we may write @xmath418 \left [ \begin{array } { c c } { \bf c}({\bf q } ) & { \bf d}({\bf q})^ * \\ { \bf d}({\bf q } ) & { \bf c}({\bf q})^ * \\ \end{array } \right ] \nonumber \\ & = & \left [ \begin{array } { c c } { \bf c}({\bf q } ) & { \bf d}({\bf q})^ * \\ { \bf d}({\bf q } ) & { \bf c}({\bf q})^ * \\ \end{array } \right ] \left [ \begin{array } { c c } \tilde \omegav ( { \bf q } ) & 0 \\ 0 & - \tilde \omegav ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] \ , \label{54eq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath419 and @xmath420 are matrices whose columns are the column vectors @xmath421 and @xmath422 , respectively , and @xmath423 is a diagonal matrix with entries @xmath424 .
recall the dependence of the matrices on the reciprocal lattice vector as recorded in eq .
( [ gvec ] )
. then the eigenvalue problem at wavevector @xmath425 may be written in the form @xmath426 e^{i{\bf g } \cdot ( \tauv_\beta - \tauv_\alpha ) } \nonumber \\   & & \tilde \omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q}+{\bf g } ) d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q}+{\bf g } ) = \sum_\beta [ b_{\beta , \alpha}({\bf q})^ * c_\beta^\mu ( { \bf q}+{\bf g } ) \nonumber \\ & & \ - a_{\beta , \alpha } ( -{\bf q } ) d_\beta^\mu ( { \bf q}+{\bf g } ) ] e^{i{\bf g } \cdot ( \tauv_\beta - \tauv_\alpha ) } \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] set @xmath427 and @xmath428 then we recover the previous equations .
so we conclude that under addition of @xmath392 , the eigenvalues remain invariant , but the wavefunctions change according to eq .
( [ gtrans ] ) .      taking the hermitian conjugate of eigenvalue equations , we get @xmath429 so that @xmath430 \left [ \begin{array } { c c } { \bf a}({\bf q } ) & - { \bf b}({\bf q } ) \\ { \bf b}({\bf q})^ * & -{\bf a } ( { \bf q})^ * \\ \end{array } \right ] \nonumber \\ & & \   = \tilde
\omega^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) \left [ \begin{array } { c } { \bf c}^\mu({\bf q})^\dagger \
, - { \bf d}^\mu ( { \bf q})^\dagger \end{array } \right ] \   .\end{aligned}\ ] ] thus from any right solution we have constructed the associated left solution . now consider @xmath431 \left [ \begin{array } { c c } { \bf a}({\bf q } ) & - { \bf b}({\bf q } ) \\
{ \bf b}({\bf q})^ * & -{\bf a } ( { \bf q})^ * \\ \end{array } \right ] \nonumber \\ & & \
\times \left [ \begin{array } { c } c^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ d^\nu ( { \bf q } )
\\ \end{array } \right ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] using the fact that the left and right vectors are eigenvectors , we have @xmath432 \left [ \begin{array } { c } c^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ d^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] \nonumber \\ & = & \tilde \omega^{(\nu ) } ( { \bf q } ) \left [ \begin{array } { c }   { \bf c}^\mu({\bf q})^\dagger \ , - { \bf d}^\mu({\bf q})^\dagger \end{array } \right ] \left [ \begin{array } { c } c^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ d^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] if @xmath433 this shows that @xmath434 is real . also @xmath435 \left [ \begin{array } { c } c^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ d^\nu ( { \bf q } ) \\ \end{array } \right ] = 0 , \ \
\mu \not= \nu \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] ( if we have degenerate eigenvalues , we can choose the wavefunctions to preserve this orthogonality . )
a more general orthogonality is @xmath436   \left [ \begin{array } { c c } { \bf c}({\bf q } ) & { \bf d}({\bf q})^ * \\ { \bf d}({\bf q } ) & { \bf c}({\bf q})^ * \\ \end{array } \right ] & = & { \cal i } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath437 is the @xmath438 unit matrix .
we have the transformation to normal modes as @xmath398 \ , \label{nego } \end{aligned}\ ] ] and also @xmath439 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath440 is restricted so that @xmath441 .
we require that @xmath442 obey bose commutation relations : @xmath443 = \delta_{\mu,\nu } \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] this gives @xmath444 the inverse transformation is @xmath445 \ ,
\nonumber \\ a_\alpha ( { \bf q } ) & = & \sum_\mu [ c_\alpha^\mu({\bf q } ) x_\mu({\bf q } ) - d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q})^ * x_\mu ( -{\bf q})^\dagger ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we record here the dependence on reciprocal lattice vector : @xmath446 e^{i{\bf g } \cdot \tauv_\alpha } \ , \nonumber \\ a_\alpha ( { \bf q}+{\bf g } ) & = & \sum_\mu [ c_\alpha^\mu({\bf q } ) x_\mu({\bf q } ) - d_\alpha^\mu ( { \bf q})^ * x_\mu ( -{\bf q})^\dagger ] e^{-i{\bf g } \cdot \tauv_\alpha } \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] to use this we would assume that @xmath32 is in the first brillouin zone and @xmath392 is the vector needed to bring the actual wavevector back into the first brillouin zone .
we now develop explicit expressions for the constants appearing in these matrices .
we use eq .
( [ tilde ] ) to relate the overlined coefficients to the bare coefficients , which are defined in eqs .
( [ cdef ] ) and ( [ param ] ) .
we will work to second order in the perturbations from isotropic exchange . to this order @xmath447 and @xmath448 where @xmath158 and @xmath449 are given in eq .
( [ hyzeq ] ) , so that @xmath450 } \ , \label{zeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath451 then @xmath452 equation ( [ tilde ] ) gives @xmath453    then , keeping only relevant anisotropy corrections , we find that the constants in eq .
( [ nmataeq ] ) and ( [ nmatbeq ] ) are @xmath454 \cos ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & & \ - [ 4e_{yz}^{(1)}+3c_{yz } ] \sin ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & = & \delta   + { 3 \over 2 } j_{xx } - { 1 \over 2 } j_{yy } -   2 j_{zz } - \sqrt 3 d_z \nonumber \\ & &
\   + \biggl [ { 3 \over 2 } j_{xx } - { 1 \over 2 } j_{yy } + 2 j_{zz } - \sqrt 3 d_z \biggr]\nonumber \\ & & \
\times   \biggl [ 1 - { 2[j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y]^2 \over 9j_1 ^ 2 } \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & - { 1 \over 3j_1 } \biggl [ 4\sqrt 3 d_y - 4j_{yz } + 6 c_{yz } \biggr ] \biggl [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & = & 2j + \delta + { 5 \over 6 } \delta_j + { 3 \over 2 } \eta_j   - 2 \sqrt 3 d_z \nonumber \\ & & \ + { 2   \over 3j_1 } [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y][j_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y - 2 c_{yz } ] \
,   \nonumber \\ % % a_1 & = & - e_x^{(1 ) } - \overline e_y^{(1)}\nonumber \\ & = & - e_x^{(1 ) } - [ e_z^{(1 ) } + e_y^{(1)}]/2\nonumber \\ & & \   - { 1 \over 2 } [ e_y^{(1 ) } - e_z^{(1 ) } ] \cos ( 2 \theta )   - e_{yz}^{(1 ) } \sin ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & = &   { 1 \over 4 } j_{xx } - { 3 \over 4 } j_{yy } + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z - { 3 \over 8 } j_{xx}\nonumber \\ & & \
+ { 1 \over 8 } j_{yy } + { 1 \over 2 } j_{zz } + { \sqrt 3 \over 4 } d_z   \nonumber \\ & & \   + \biggl [ { 1 \over 2 } j_{zz } + { 3 \over 8 } j_{xx } - { 1 \over 8 } j_{yy } - { \sqrt 3 \over 4 } d_z \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & \
\times \biggl [   1 - { 2[j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y]^2 \over 9j_1 ^ 2 } \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & \ - { 1 \over 3j_1 } [ \sqrt 3 d_y - j_{yz } ] [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y ] \nonumber \\   & = & { 1 \over 2 } j_1 - { 3 \over 8 } \eta_j + { 11 \over 24 } \delta_j + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z   \nonumber \\ & &
\ + { 1 \over 6j_1 } \biggl [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y \biggr ] \biggl [ - \sqrt 3 d_y + j_{yz } + c_{yz } \biggr ] \ , \nonumber \\ % % b_0 & = & c_{xx}- \overline c_{yy } \ , \nonumber \\   & = & c_{xx } - { 1 \over 2 } \biggl [ c_{yy } + c_{zz } \biggr ] + { 1 \over 2 } \biggl [ c_{zz}-c_{yy } \biggr ] \cos ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & & \ + c_{yz } \sin ( 2\theta ) \nonumber \\ & = & c_{xx}-c_{yy } + { 2c_{yz } \over 3j_1 } [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y ] \ ,   % % \nonumber \\ b_1 & = & - e_x^{(1 ) } + \overline e_y^{(1 ) } \nonumber \\ & = & -e_x^{(1 ) } + { 1 \over 2 } \biggl [ e_y^{(1 ) } + e_z^{(1 ) } \biggr ]   + e_{yz}^{(1 ) } \sin ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & & \ + { 1 \over 2 } \biggl [ e_y^{(1)}-e_z^{(1 ) } \biggr ] \cos ( 2 \theta )   \nonumber \\ & = & { 5 \over 8 } j_{xx } - { 7 \over 8 } j_{yy } - { 1 \over 2 } j_{zz } + { \sqrt 3 \over 4 } d_z \nonumber \\ & & \   - { 1 \over 2 } \biggl [ j_{zz } + { 3 \over 4 } j_{xx } - { 1 \over 4 } j_{yy } - { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & \ \times \biggl [   1 - { 2[j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y]^2 \over 9j_1 ^ 2 } \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & & \ + { 1 \over 3j_1 } [ \sqrt 3 d_y - j_{yz } ] [ j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y ] \nonumber \\   & = & - { 3 \over 2 } j_1 + { 5 \over 8 } \eta_j + { 1 \over 8 } \delta_j + { \sqrt 3 \over 2 } d_z\nonumber \\ & & \
+ { [ j_{yz}-c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y ] \over 6j } [ \sqrt 3 d_y - j_{yz } - c_{yz } ] \ , \nonumber \\ % % \alpha^{(1 ) } & = & 2 \overline d_z^{(1 ) } = 2d_z^{(1 ) } \cos \theta + 2d_y^{(1 ) } \sin \theta \nonumber \\ & = & 2d_z^{(1 ) } + d_y^{(1 ) } \sin ( 2 \theta ) \nonumber \\ & = & -(d_y + \sqrt 3 j_{yz } ) \cos \theta \nonumber \\ & + & \left(- \sqrt 3 j_1 - d_z + { \sqrt 3 \delta_j \over 12 } - { \sqrt 3 \eta_j \over 4 } \right ) \sin \theta \
.\end{aligned}\ ] ] but using eq .
( [ zeq ] ) this gives @xmath455 \left [ - \sqrt 3 j_1 - d_z + { \sqrt 3 \delta_j \over 12 } - { \sqrt 3 \eta_j \over 4 } \right ] \nonumber \\ & = & - { 4 \sqrt 3 \over 3 } j_{yz } + { c_{yz } \over \sqrt 3 } + { j_{yz } - c_{yz } - \sqrt 3 d_y \over 3 \sqrt 3 j_1 } \nonumber \\ & & \ \times \left [ \delta_j - \eta_j - 2 \sqrt 3 d_z + c_{y - x } + 3j_2 \right ] \ .
\label{alphaeq } \end{aligned}\ ] ] also @xmath456 \ .
\label{alphaeq2 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]
we first define the green s function @xmath457 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] then we will need the frequency and wave vector dependent susceptibility given by @xmath458 in terms of which the dynamical structure factor is @xmath459 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath460^{-1}$ ] .
we have that @xmath461 n(\omega ) \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{m , n } \biggl\ { p_n \delta(\omega - e_m + e_n ) \langle n|{\cal s}^{\alpha } ( { \bf q } ) |m \rangle \langle m| { \cal s}^{\beta } ( -{\bf q})|n \rangle \nonumber \\ & & \ \ - p_m \delta(\omega + e_n - e_m ) \langle
m|{\cal s}^{\beta } ( -{\bf q } ) |n \rangle \langle n| { \cal s}^{\alpha } ( { \bf q})|m \rangle \biggr\ } n(\omega ) \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{m , n } p_n \delta(\omega - e_m + e_n ) [ 1 - e^{-\beta(e_m - e_n ) } ] n(\omega ) \nonumber \\ & & \ \
\times \langle n|{\cal s}^{\alpha } ( { \bf q } ) |m \rangle \langle m| { \cal s}^{\beta } ( -{\bf q})|n \rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{m , n } p_n \delta(\omega - e_m + e_n ) { 1 - e^{-\beta(e_m - e_n ) } ] \over e^{\beta(e_m - e_n ) } -1 } \nonumber \\ & & \ \
\times \langle n|{\cal s}^{\alpha } ( { \bf q } ) |m \rangle \langle m| { \cal s}^{\beta } ( -{\bf q})|n \rangle \nonumber \\ & = & \sum_{m , n } p_m \delta(\omega - e_m + e_n ) \langle n|{\cal s}^{\alpha } ( { \bf q } ) |m \rangle \langle m| { \cal s}^{\beta } ( -{\bf q})|n \rangle \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we write @xmath462 where the subscript @xmath463 indicates a component with respect to the local canted axes . then , to linear order in the bose operators we have @xmath464 \nonumber \\ & = & \sqrt { s \over 2 n } \sum_{\tauv , { \bf r } } e^{i { \bf q } \cdot ( \tauv + { \bf r } ) } \nonumber \\ & &
\ \times \biggl ( { \cal r}_{\alpha x } ( \tau ) [ a({\bf r } , \tauv ) + a^\dagger({\bf r } , \tauv ) ] \nonumber \\ & & \
\   -i { \cal r}_{\alpha y } ( \tau ) [ a({\bf r } , \tauv ) - a^\dagger({\bf r } , \tauv ) ] \biggr ) \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] now set @xmath465 then    @xmath466 \nonumber \\ & = & \sqrt{s \over 2 } \sum_\tauv \biggl [   \gamma_\alpha ( \tau ) a^\dagger_\tau ( { \bf q } ) + \gamma_\alpha ( \tau)^ * a_\tau ( -{\bf q } ) \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & = & \sqrt{s \over 2 } \sum_{\tauv \mu } \biggl [ \gamma_\alpha ( \tau ) \biggl ( c^{(\mu)}_\tau ( { \bf q})^ * x_\mu^\dagger ( { \bf q } ) - d_\tau^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) x_\mu(-{\bf q})\biggr ) \nonumber \\ & & \ \ + \gamma_\alpha ( \tau)^ * \biggl ( c_\tau^{(\mu)}(-{\bf q } ) x_\mu(-{\bf q } ) - d_\tau^{(\mu ) } ( -{\bf q})^ * x_\mu^\dagger ( { \bf q})\biggr ) \biggr ] \nonumber \\ & = & \sqrt{s \over 2 } \sum_{\tauv \mu } \biggl [ \biggl ( \gamma_\alpha ( \tau ) c_\tau^{(\mu)}({\bf q})^ * - \gamma_\alpha(\tau)^ * d_\tau^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q})^ * \biggr ) x_\mu^\dagger ( { \bf q } ) \nonumber \\ & & \ \ + \biggl ( \gamma_\alpha ( \tau)^ * c_\tau^{(\mu)}({\bf q } ) - \gamma_\alpha(\tau ) d_\tau^{(\mu ) } ( { \bf q } ) \biggr ) x_\mu(-{\bf q } ) \biggr ] \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]