electrons are characterized by their quantized spin and charge . in conventional electronic devices ,
only the charge degree of freedom has been employed for the control of the electron transport .
a new field of spintronics @xcite was born from both experimental and theoretical efforts to harness the electron s spin degree of freedom in order to control the electric current in the devices .
one of typical spintronic devices is the spin valve which is a hybrid structure of ferromagnetic ( fm ) metal / nonmagnetic ( nm ) material / fm metal .
the current passing through the spin valve depends on the magnetization configuration of two fm metals . in the collinear case , usually more current flows through the spin valve in the parallel configuration than in the antiparallel configuration .
difference in resistance between the two is called magnetoresistance . in the noncollinear case or when
two magnetization orientations are neither parallel nor antiparallel , the spin polarized current from one fm electrode exerts the spin torque @xcite on the other fm electrode , and induces the magnetization dynamics .
examples of a spin valve are giant magnetoresistance ( gmr ) devices,@xcite magnetic tunnel junctions,@xcite nanopillars,@xcite etc .
in contrast with vertical spin valves , lateral spin valves are characterized by their multi terminal functionalities and so are more favorable for integration into semiconductor electronics .
due to increased spacing between terminals , efficient spin injection and detection have been a very hot issue .
the spin injection and detection experiments in the two - terminal geometry are obscured by other effects like anisotropic magnetoresistance , hall effect , etc .
this defect was overcome by adopting the nonlocal spin valve geometry @xcite similar to the schematic device structure in fig.[3fmlead ] .
the original spin valve devices contain two fm electrodes ( vs. three fm electrodes in fig .
[ 3fmlead ] ) contacting the nonmagnetic base electrode . in this lateral spin valve system ,
the spin transport was clearly observed with al wires @xcite by spatially separating the spin current path from the charge current path and thereby removing other undesirable effects .
the spin polarized current flows from the left of n ( base electrode ) into f1 . that is , spin polarized electrons are injected from f1 into base electrode n and
is drained to the left of n. due to asymmetry of two spin states in fm , the number of injected spin - up and spin - down electrons is different .
flowing from the left end of n into f1 .
the electrode f1 is called the spin - injecting probe , while f@xmath0 with @xmath1 will be called the nonlocal ( voltage ) probe in this paper .
( b ) the one - dimensional model geometry of the spin valve system in ( a ) . [ 3fmlead],width=264 ]    in addition to charge current in the left of n ( @xmath2 ) , diffusion of injected spins generates spin current flowing to left and right of n symmetrically .
pure spin current to the right of n was detected @xcite with another fm electrode by measuring the spin - dependent nonlocal voltage drop .
the nonlocal spin injection and detection technique was also used to observe @xcite the ( inverse ) spin hall effect in diffusive nonmagnetic metallic strips . in these experiments , the spatial separation of charge and spin currents as well as the efficient spin injection are essential to observing the charge hall voltage induced by the spin current .
recently experimental groups @xcite studied the spin transport in the lateral spin valves with the three fm electrodes as shown in fig .
[ 3fmlead ] .
f1 is the spin - injection electrode ( f@xmath3 ) as usual , while f2 and f3 are the nonlocal voltage probes located outside the charge current path .
while the spin polarized electrons are injected from f1 into n and are drained into the left of n , the transresistance is measured between f1 and f2 or between f1 and f3 . in the former case , f2 is the spin - detecting electrode f@xmath4 and f3 is the additional electrode f@xmath5 . in the latter case , the roles of f2 and f3 are switched .
the important issue is how sensitively the transresistance is affected by f@xmath5 .
one experimental group @xcite found that f@xmath5 can drain the spin current and thereby significantly suppress the transresistance .
they concluded that such additional fm electrode is relevant to the spin injection and accumulation in the multi terminal lateral spin valves . on the other hand
, another group @xcite found that the transresistance is weakly affected by f@xmath5 even when the contact resistance between f@xmath5 and n is ohmic .
moreover the transresistance was observed @xcite to be independent of the magnetization orientation of f@xmath5 ( parallel or antiparallel to that of f@xmath3 ) .
they concluded that such additional fm electrodes are irrelevant to the spin injection and accumulation in the multi terminal lateral spin valves .
the existing experimental results seem to be contradictory to each other .
motivated by this experimental situation , we study theoretically the spin transport in the lateral spin valve with three ferromagnetic electrodes as schematically shown in fig .
[ 3fmlead ] .
we adopt the semiclassical spin drift - diffusion ( sdd ) equation @xcite for the one - dimensional device structure and study the mutual effect of fm electrodes on their nonlocal spin signals such as nonlocal voltage drop and leakage spin current .
we find that the efficiency of the spin current leakage into fm electrodes depends on the relative magnitude of junction resistance and the bulk resistance ( defined over spin diffusion length ) in fm and n electrodes .
the voltage drop in @xmath6 is proportional to its leakage spin current with the proportionality constant given by the _ effective _ spin resistance which depends on the magnetization orientation of f@xmath4 .
nonlocal spin signals are sensitive to the position of f@xmath5 relative to the positions of f@xmath3 and f@xmath4 .
when f@xmath5 is located in between f@xmath3 and f@xmath4 , the transresistance can be either significantly or weakly affected by f@xmath5 depending on the relative magnitude of junction resistance and spin resistance .
the effect of f@xmath5 is weak when f@xmath5 is located outside the region between f@xmath3 and f@xmath4 .
even though the magnitude of the spin current and nonlocal spin signals may be modified by f@xmath5 , the flow direction of the spin current in the whole device is set by the magnetization orientation of f@xmath3 and so the nonlocal spin signals are independent of the magnetization orientation of f@xmath5 .
this surprising result is already observed @xcite in experiments and is the direct consequence of no charge current in f@xmath5 .
based on decoupling of charge and spin modes in the sdd equation and the kirchhoff rules at the junction , we also show that the relationship between nonlocal spin signals and magnetization holds true even in realistic three - dimensional samples .
these interesting properties in fact originate from zero charge current in nonlocal voltage electrodes .
irrelevance of magnetization orientation of additional fm electrode to nonlocal spin signals implies that even additional _
nonmagnetic _ electrode can modify nonlocal spin signals in the spin - detecting probe .
our theoretical study may be useful for clarifying the conflicting roles @xcite of an additional fm electrode in the lateral spin valve devices .
in addition , our study is relevant to device applications , because the multi terminal functionality is essential for device applications of lateral spin valves .
the rest of this paper is organized as follows . in sec .
ii , the spin drift - diffusion equation is briefly introduced and the detailed algebras for the lateral spin valve with three fm electrodes are included .
the results of our work for spin valves relevant to experiments are presented in sec .
iii . in sec .
iv , our work is summarized and its relevance to experiments is discussed . some algebraic details and interesting results are included in three appendices .
from now on we are going to confine our discussion to the collinear magnetizations of three fm electrodes in spin valves and so we consider the spin polarized transport in a steady state .
the noncollinear magnetizations go beyond the scope of our paper since the current flow in the noncollinear magnetizations generates the spin transfer torque and induces the magnetization dynamics . in the collinear and diffusive transport ,
the spin drift - diffusion equations @xcite have been very useful for understanding phenomenologically the spin polarized transport in the spin valve systems . later the sdd equations were derived @xcite from the semiclassical boltzmann equation under the assumption that the spin diffusion length ( sdl ) is larger than the mean free path ( mfp ) . using the numerical solution of the spin dependent boltzmann equation , the validity of the sdd equations
was further extended @xcite to the case when the sdl is comparable to the mfp .
the sdd equations have been widely used for analyzing the spin injection experiments in various device geometries .
the sdd formalism was also applied to the study of spin transfer torque @xcite in the case of noncollinear magnetizations .
the sdd equations in the collinear magnetizations are written down for the spin - dependent electrochemical potential @xmath7 and electric current density @xmath8 . here
@xmath9 represents the spin - up ( @xmath10 ) and spin - down ( @xmath11 ) states , respectively .
the presence of the spin flip scattering in bulk mixes two spin states and the sdd equations can be written down in a matrix form .
@xmath12 here @xmath13 is the diffusion constant for spin direction @xmath9 and @xmath14 is the average spin - flip time for an electron from the spin direction @xmath10 to @xmath11 .
@xmath15 is the conductivity for electrons with spin @xmath16 and @xmath17 is the absolute value of electron charge .
the matrix differential equation for the electrochemical potential can be solved @xcite by analyzing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix in the sdd equation .
one eigenvalue is @xmath18 and the corresponding eigenvector is @xmath19 .
the other eigenvalue defines the spin diffusion length @xmath20 and is given by the expression @xmath21 and its eigenvector is @xmath22 . to find this form of the eigenvector , the einstein relation as well as the detailed balance relation
are already invoked .
obviously the first eigenvector ( charge mode ) does not discriminate between two spin states , while the second one ( spin mode ) does .    in this section
we analyze the spin polarized transport in the spin valve system based on the one - dimensional sdd equations .
the device structure is displayed in fig .
[ 3fmlead](a ) , where the base electrode is contacted to three ferromagnetic ( fm ) electrodes .
our primary goal is to understand the mutual influence of the ferromagnetic electrodes on the nonlocal spin signals such as the voltage drops and the leakage spin currents .
fm leads are labeled as f@xmath0 with @xmath23 from left to right . the one - dimensional geometry , corresponding to the device structure
, is displayed in fig .
[ 3fmlead](b ) , where the junctions between the base electrode and the fm leads are labeled as @xmath24 ( @xmath23 ) .    in experiments , the base electrode is nonmagnetic , but we are going to consider the case of magnetic base electrode with its nonzero bulk spin polarization @xmath25 .
nonmagnetic case is recovered by a simple replacement @xmath26 . the spin polarization ( sp ) in each fm lead
is denoted as @xmath27 which is defined by the spin asymmetry in the spin dependent conductivity @xmath28 . @xmath29 with the total conductivity @xmath30 , the spin - up and spin - down conductivities can be written as @xmath31 for the base electrode , the spin polarization ( @xmath25 ) in conductivity and the spin - dependent conductivities ( @xmath32 ) are defined in a similar manner .    when the spin polarized electrons are injected from f1 into the base electrode n and
is drained to left , the electrochemical potential in the fm leads can be written as @xmath33 \begin{pmatrix } 1 \cr 1 \end{pmatrix }      \nonumber\\    & & - i_i { \cal r}_i e^{-y/\lambda_i } \begin{pmatrix } ( 1+\beta_i)^{-1 } \cr - ( 1-\beta_i)^{-1 } \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath34 is the kronecker delta function .
the spin dependent current is determined by the equation @xmath35 the charge current is given by the expression @xmath36 and flows only in f1 but not in f@xmath0 with @xmath1 .
the @xmath0-th fm lead is contacted to the base electrode at @xmath24 .
@xmath37 , @xmath38 , @xmath39 , and @xmath27 are the cross sectional area , the spin diffusion length , conductivity , and bulk spin polarization in conductivity of the @xmath0-th fm lead , respectively .
@xmath40 , defined by the relation @xmath41 is the resistance of the fm electrode over the spin diffusion length . due to an exponential decay of spin
current , this definition of resistance makes sense physically when discussing the spin current .
@xmath42 is the voltage drop at each ferromagnetic electrode far away from the junction with the base electrode and is induced by the nonequilibrium spin injection and diffusion .
note that the common fermi energy is dropped in writing the electrochemical potentials in this paper , because the overall constant energy shift does not change physics .
the spin current in f@xmath0 @xmath43 is given by the expression @xmath44 the first term is the spin - polarized driving current , while the second comes from the spin accumulation and diffusion .
though no charge current flows in the region @xmath45 , the spin current is induced in the base electrode due to the spin injection , accumulation and diffusion .
the spin current decays exponentially over the spin diffusion length and in turn leaks into the other fm electrodes .
@xmath46 measures the magnitude of this leakage spin current at the interface between the base electrode and f@xmath0 .
the leakage spin current also decays exponentially over the sdl in the fm electrodes .
the set of six unknown parameters @xmath47 are to be determined by the kirchhoff rules at the junctions .
note that @xmath42 and @xmath46 are null for @xmath1 , when the injected current is not spin polarized .
@xmath48 can be nonzero for the tunneling barrier even when the injected current is not spin polarized .
hence we may call @xmath47 for @xmath1 as the _ nonlocal spin signals_.    in the common base electrode , we have the electrochemical potential for spin - up(@xmath10 ) and spin - down(@xmath11 ) electrons @xmath49 here @xmath50 is the step function and the spin dependent current is computed from @xmath51 @xmath52 , @xmath20 , @xmath53 , and @xmath25 are the cross sectional area , the spin diffusion length , conductivity , and bulk spin polarization in conductivity of the base electrode , respectively .
@xmath54 , defined by the relation @xmath55 is the resistance over the spin diffusion length in the base electrode .
the charge current @xmath56 flows only at the section @xmath57 and the spin current @xmath58 is given by the equation @xmath59 the additional three unknown parameters @xmath60 are introduced for the base electrode .
@xmath61 represents the redistribution of spin current in the base electrode due to its leakage into the voltage probes ( fm electrodes with @xmath62 ) .
the electrochemical potentials are constructed such that the charge current is conserved at any junction in the device ( charge continuity equation ) .
no net charge current flows to the right of @xmath63 and the currents for spin - up and spin - down electrons are equal in their magnitude and opposite in their sign or flowing direction .
this symmetry in spin current is strictly obeyed in the nonlocal spin valve geometry even in the presence of the multiple ferromagnetic electrodes to the right of the spin - injecting fm electrode f1 .
obviously the spin currents @xmath46 and @xmath61 are modified by the presence of other fm electrodes , which is our main research interest in this work .
there are nine unknown parameters @xmath64 ( @xmath23 ) , which should be determined by the boundary conditions or kirchhoff rules at the junctions .
as already mentioned in the above , the electrochemical potentials are constructed such that the charge current is conserved . in our work ,
the spin flip scattering is neglected at the interface , but is taken into account in bulks . in this case , the spin current is conserved at each junction and the following relations are obtained @xmath65 we consider the case of dirty interface between the ferromagnetic electrodes and the base electrode . due to a finite value of resistance at the interface , the electrochemical potential across the junction is not continuous and should be determined by the ohm s law .
@xcite @xmath66 here @xmath67 is the difference of the electrochemical potentials at @xmath24 between the base electrode and the f@xmath0 electrode .
@xmath68 is the spin dependent junction resistance between the base electrode and f@xmath0 , and is defined in terms of the spin polarization @xmath69 of junction resistance .
@xmath71 is the total junction resistance or @xmath72 .
the clean or transparent contact can be recovered by a simple replacement @xmath73 .
for the sign of @xmath25 s ( spin polarization ) , we are going to adopt the following convention .
when the spin - up(-down ) electrons belong to the majority(minority ) channel at the fermi level , the sign of @xmath25 s is positive . on the other hand ,
the sign of @xmath25 s is negative when the spin - up(-down ) electrons belong to the minority(majority ) channel .
according to our convention , the sign of @xmath25 s is reversed under the magnetization reversal .
the same convention applies to the sign of @xmath74 s which are introduced to define the spin polarization in the resistance of the interface .
after some algebra as detailed in appendix [ dalgebra ] , we find the expressions for @xmath75 and @xmath42 , which contain all the information about the spin polarized transport in the one - dimensional spin valve .
@xmath76 ,   \\ \frac{j_i}{i }    & = & - \frac{1}{2 } g_{i1 } [ ( \beta_1 -\beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1 } ] ,   \\
\label{drop_v } \frac{v_i}{i }    & = & - [ ( \beta - \beta_1)^2 r_1 + ( \beta^2 - 2\beta \gamma_1 + 1 ) r_{t1 } ] \delta_{i,1 } \nonumber\\      & & + [ ( \beta_i - \beta ) r_i + ( \gamma_i-\beta ) r_{ti } ] g_{i1 }   \nonumber\\      & & \times   [ ( \beta_1 - \beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath77 is the element of the matrix @xmath78 defined in eq .
( [ cond_matrix ] ) of appendix [ dalgebra ] and has the dimension of conductance .
the other set of material parameters , @xmath79 and @xmath80 , are introduced in appendix [ dalgebra ] and their definitions are repeated here for readers . @xmath81
these new material parameters need our special attention .
they have the dimension of resistance and deserve their own terminology .
they are already called the _ spin resistance _ in the literature .
first of all , the spin resistance is introduced to simplify the algebra as shown in appendix [ dalgebra ] .
as the above equations show , this spin resistance determines the nonlocal spin signals such as the voltage drops and the leakage spin currents in the voltage probes .
more physical insights on the spin resistance are elaborated on in appendix  [ s_resist ] .    since we are interested in the nonlocal transport measurements , we focus on the leakage spin currents and voltage drops in the voltage probes ( f@xmath0 with @xmath1 ) .
the leakage spin current in the nonlocal voltage probes is given by the expression [ eq .
( [ spin_i ] ) ] @xmath82 i.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this relation for the nonlocal spin current @xmath46 suggests that the conductance matrix @xmath78 contains all the information about the mutual effect of nonlocal voltage probes . since the conductance @xmath83 does not depend on the magnetization configuration of the fm electrodes ,
the leaking spin current does not depend on the magnetization orientation of voltage probes , but instead depends on the magnetization orientation of the spin - injecting fm electrode ( f1 ) and the base electrode ( if ferromagnetic , @xmath84 ) .
this important observation can be understood as follows .
the flow direction of spin current ( the sign of @xmath46 ) , in the base electrode as well as in the fm electrodes , is obviously determined by the magnetization configuration in the spin - injecting electrode .
this means the flow direction of spin current can not be altered by the change of magnetic configurations in nonlocal voltage probes .
this is due to the fact that the nonequilibrium spin current is generated by the spin - injecting electrode , but not by nonlocal voltage probes .
another important observation is that the magnitude of spin current or @xmath46 is not modified under the magnetization reversal of nonlocal voltage probes , which in fact derives from the symmetry in the sdd equations .
this property of @xmath46 derives from decoupling of spin and charge modes in sdd equations as well as the zero charge current in nonlocal voltage probes .
detailed analysis can be found in appendix  [ 3d - case ] .
the relation @xmath85 simply reflects the conservation of spin current at the interface between the voltage probe and the base electrode .
@xmath86 defined below is ubiquitous in the expressions of @xmath46 and @xmath42 . @xmath87
i.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we may call @xmath86 as the _ spin potential _ which is the source from the spin - injecting electrode and drives the spin current in the spin valve . the leakage spin current in nonlocal probes can be written as @xmath88 the spin current in the spin valve device can be expressed in terms of the spin potential @xmath86 and the conductance matrix @xmath78 as @xmath89 e^{-y/\lambda_1 } ,   \\
i_i^{s } & = & g_{i1 } v_1^{s } e^{-y/\lambda_i } , i \neq 1.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the voltage drop in the nonlocal voltage probes is given by the expression [ eq .
( [ drop_v ] ) ] @xmath90 g_{i1 }   \nonumber\\      & & \times [ ( \beta_1 - \beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1 } ] i.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the voltage drop can be written as the product of spin current and some sort of spin resistance as @xmath91 i_i.\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath42 is the effective measure of weighted averaging the spin - up and spin - down electrochemical potentials in f@xmath0 and so depends on the magnetization configuration of f@xmath0 .
in addition , @xmath42 can be understood as a shift in the fermi level in order to satisfy the condition of zero charge current in the nonlocal voltage probes .
look at appendix [ s_resist ] for details .
though the leakage spin current @xmath46 in f@xmath0 is independent of the magnetization orientations of all nonlocal voltage probes ( parallel or antiparallel to that of spin - injecting probe ) , the voltage drop @xmath42 depends on the magnetization orientation of f@xmath0 , the spin - injecting probe and the base electrode , but not on that of other voltage probes .
in this section our discussion is confined to the spin valve system with three ferromagnetic electrodes and _ nonmagnetic _ ( @xmath92 ) base electrode .
the current @xmath93 is injected from the left of nonmagnetic base electrode and is drained to f1 ( see fig .
[ 3fmlead ] ) .
though the charge current is null to the right of the contact between f1 and the base electrode , the finite spin current is induced everywhere by the spin injection , accumulation and diffusion . with two nonlocal fm electrodes ( labeled as f2 and f3 ) contacted with the nonmagnetic base electrode to the right of f1
, we want to study the mutual influence of two nonlocal fm electrodes on their voltage drops and leakage spin currents or non - local spin signals .    with three fm electrodes ,
the dimension of conductance matrix @xmath78 is @xmath94 .
@xmath95 here @xmath96 for @xmath23 and @xmath97 , @xmath98 , and @xmath99 , where @xmath100 is the distance between the contacts of the @xmath0-th and @xmath101-th fm electrodes with the base electrode . after inserting the explicit expressions of @xmath83 into eq .
( [ nonlocal_i ] ) with @xmath26 or @xmath102 we find the leakage spin currents @xmath103 and @xmath104 in the nonlocal electrodes to be given by the expressions @xmath105 ,   \\
\label{3lead_i3 } i_3 & = & - \frac{ir}{2d } e^{-l_{13}/\lambda } ~      ( \beta_1 r_1 + \gamma_1 r_{t1 } ) ( r_2 + r_{t2 } ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath106 is the determinant of the matrix @xmath107 and is given by the expression @xmath108 obviously the exponentially decaying factor can be extracted out as @xmath109 ( @xmath62 ) , where @xmath110 is negative . as mentioned in the previous section , the leaking spin current ( @xmath103 and @xmath104 )
does not depend on the magnetization configuration of the nonlocal voltage probes ( f2 and f3 ) , but only on the magnetization configuration of the spin - injecting electrode ( f1 ) .
this is clearly explained by the fact that the spin current is generated by the spin - injecting electrode .    the nonlocal voltage drops @xmath111 and @xmath112 are related to their leakage spin currents as @xmath113 this relation suggests that the nonlocal voltage drop @xmath42 is proportional to the corresponding nonlocal spin current @xmath46 and the proportionality constant is the effective spin resistance which depends on the magnetization orientation of f@xmath0 .
this resistance is the intrinsic material properties of the relevant fm electrode so that the effect of the other fm electrode is completely embedded into the nonlocal spin current .
this means that we can discuss the effect of multiple fm electrodes on transresistance in terms of the leakage spin current .    from eqs .
( [ 3lead_i2 ] ) , ( [ 3lead_i3 ] ) and ( [ 3lead_v ] ) , transresistance ( @xmath114 and @xmath115 ) in f2 and f3 electrodes are reduced to the following forms .
@xmath116 ,   \\
\label{3lead_tr3 } r_{s3 } & = & -\frac{r}{2d } e^{-l_{13}/\lambda } ~      ( \beta_1 r_1 + \gamma_1 r_{t1 } ) ( r_2 + r_{t2 } )   \nonumber\\    & & \times ( \beta_3 r_3 + \gamma_3 r_{t3 } ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] we denote the transresistance in the absence of an additional fm electrode using the superscript as @xmath117 and @xmath118 .
the same notations with superscript will be used for nonlocal voltage drop and spin current .
the effect of other nonlocal fm electrode on the transresistance can be quantified by computing the ratio : @xmath119 with @xmath62 .
it follows from eq .
( [ 3lead_i ] ) and ( [ 3lead_v ] ) that @xmath120 the effect of an additional fm electrode on the transresistance can be measured by how much the nonlocal spin current is reduced or by the change of the conductance matrix @xmath78 under the other fm electrode .
two important facts can be read off from eqs .
( [ 3lead_tr2 ] ) and ( [ 3lead_tr3 ] ) .
( i ) the transresistance of one fm electrode ( say , f3 ) does not depend on magnetization orientation of the other electrode ( say , f2 ) .
that is , the transresistance @xmath121 in f3 does not depend on the spin polarization , @xmath122 and @xmath123 , of f2 . in ref .
, the transresistance was observed to be independent of the magnetization orientation ( parallel or antiparallel to f3 ) of the intervening fm electrode f2 , which is supported by our theoretical results .
however this fact does not necessarily mean @xcite that the observed transresistance is not influenced by the additional fm electrode .
the transresistance can be either significantly changed or weakly influenced by the presence of the additional intervening fm electrode , depending on sample and material parameters as we shall show below .
( ii ) the transresistance can be modified @xcite even when the additional contacting electrode is nonmagnetic .
the relative magnitude of the interface and bulk resistance ( defined over the sdl ) plays an important role in determining the transresistance .
irrespective of the magnetic or nonmagnetic nature of the intervening electrode , the transresistance will be influenced only by spin resistance and the interface quality .    according to eq .
( [ ratio0 ] ) , the effect of an additional fm electrode on the transresistance is equivalent to its effect on the nonlocal leakage spin current .
after the spin current is injected from f1 electrode , it will flow into both directions in n and will leak into nonlocal probes . from this perspective
we can expect that the effect will be much stronger when an additional fm electrode lies in between two ( spin - injecting and spin - detecting ) fm electrodes than when it lies outside two electrodes . in the former case
, the nonlocal spin current in spin - detecting probe will be reduced proportionally by the amount of spin current drained into an intervening electrode . in the latter case , the injected spin current leaks into the spin - detecting probe first and then into an additional fm electrode , so that the effect will be weaker .
mathematically this difference between two cases comes from the asymmetry between eq .
( [ 3lead_i2 ] ) and eq .
( [ 3lead_i3 ] ) . under the index exchange @xmath124 , @xmath103 and @xmath104
are inequivalent due to the additional term @xmath125 in @xmath103 .    to be more quantitative ,
let us consider @xmath103 when @xmath126 s in eq .
( [ d ] ) are all much less than a unity .
this is a good approximation in all - metallic lateral spin valve systems since the spacing between the electrodes is comparable to the sdl which is of the order of few hundred nanometers . under this approximation
, we can readily show that @xmath127 therefore , @xmath128 is very weakly influenced by the fm electrode f3 and the transresistance is almost the same as that in the absence of the electrode f3 .
that is , the transresistance is not much changed by the additional electrode ( f3 ) when it is contacted to the outside of f1 ( spin current injected ) and f2 ( spin current detected ) .
however , the effect of an additional fm electrode f3 can not be neglected if f2 and f3 are closer to each other than the sdl .
so much for this case .
we now focus on the case when an additional fm electrode lies in between the spin - injecting and spin - detecting electrodes .
that is , we study the effect of f2 on the nonlocal spin signals for f3 . in the absence of the intervening fm electrode f2
, @xmath118 is @xcite @xmath129 note also that @xmath118 can be obtained from @xmath121 by taking the limit @xmath130 or when the second intervening f2 is effectively decoupled from the nonmagnetic base electrode .
the effect of the second intervening electrode f2 on the transresistance @xmath121 can be quantified by computing the ratio @xmath131 , @xmath132 below this general relation will be reduced to the simple forms case by case .    in order to provide some physical insights ,
let us consider the case when @xmath133 .
we find the simple form of @xmath131 @xmath134 the reduction of @xmath121 stems from the leakage of spin current into the intervening electrode f2 .
the efficiency of spin leakage into f2 is quantified by the relative magnitude of the serial resistance @xmath135 in f2 and the resistance @xmath136 in base electrode over the spin diffusion length .
we can understand qualitatively the results of eq .
( [ ratio2 ] ) as follows .
spins are injected from f1 into the base electrode n and in turn diffuse into left and right of n. that is , the spin current flows in n and leaks into nonlocal probes . just like charge transport
, the spin current at the junction with f2 will continue to flow in n and also leak into f2 .
if the effective spin resistance @xmath135 of f2 is much larger than the spin resistance @xmath136 of n , the leakage into f2 will be negligible and the spin current will mostly continue to flow in n. the leakage spin current @xmath103 is larger ( smaller ) if the effective spin resistance @xmath135 of f2 is smaller ( larger ) , compared to the spin resistance @xmath136 of n. obviously the leakage into f2 reduces the spin current in n and in turn reduces the leakage spin current @xmath104 .
the larger ( smaller ) @xmath135 is , the larger ( smaller ) is @xmath104 .
the spin diffusion length ( sdl ) is of the order of a few hundred nanometers ( nm ) in nonmagnetic metals and the sdl in fm metals is of the order of a few nm to a few tens of nm .
the resistivity depends on the sample quality such as the impurities , defects , etc .
though sdl is two orders of magnitude different between fm and nm , the relative magnitude of resistance ( @xmath137 : ferromagnetic metal , @xmath138 : nonmagnetic metal ) defined over the sdl can be varied from device to device .
roughly @xmath139 in the spin valve devices .
usually the interface between the fm electrodes and the nonmagnetic base electrode is ohmic ( @xmath140 ) , but not in the tunneling regime . in real materials , we have the following order in resistance : @xmath141 . for our theoretical study
, we will consider both cases of ohmic and tunneling interfaces as well as other parameter regimes .
we consider the clean interface between the base electrode and the fm electrodes : @xmath142 .
to get the simple expression of @xmath121 , we take the limit @xmath143 .
suppose that the fm electrodes are the same material with roughly the same @xmath144 for @xmath23 .
if the exponentially decaying factors ( @xmath126 ) are negligible , we find the simple form of the transresistance ratio @xmath145 when @xmath146 , the transresistance will be strongly suppressed by the additional intervening fm electrode . on the other hand , the transresistance will be fractionally reduced when @xmath137 is comparable to @xmath136 . in the other extreme case of @xmath147 ,
the transresistance wo nt be affected by the intervening fm electrode .
as noted in the above , the transresistance can be affected by the nonmagnetic electrode , @xmath148 and @xmath149 .
let us study this case in detail . in the clean limit of interface , @xmath150 since @xmath151 with @xmath148 , we obtain the similar result as in the previous paragraph depending on the relative magnitude of @xmath152 .    if the contacts between the base electrode and f1 , f3 are clean , but the contact with the intervening electrode f2 is in the tunneling regime , the effect of an additional electrode on the transresistance is negligible .      when the junction resistance is dominant compared to the resistance over the spin - diffusion length in the fm lead and the base electrode , or when @xmath153 , the expressions of the voltage drop , eqs .  ( [ 3lead_tr2 ] ) and ( [ 3lead_tr3 ] ) , are simplified as @xmath154 the voltage drop at each junction is not influenced by the presence of the other fm leads , when the junctions lie in the tunneling regime . in general , the expression of @xmath112 is not affected by the presence of the second fm lead ( additional fm lead ) as far as the contact is in the tunneling regime . when @xmath155 , @xmath156 so that the second fm lead is effectively disconnected from the base electrode .
when the accumulated spin is diffused efficiently into the second intervening fm lead , its effect may not be negligible .
we still assume that the contacts with f1 and f3 lie in the tunneling regime .
let us see the extreme case of a transparent contact of f2 electrode to the base electrode .
in this case , we may set @xmath157 and the desired voltage drop is given by the expression @xmath158 that is , the transresistance can be changed by the second intervening electrode f2 if f2 is in clean contact with the base electrode or if spin leakage into f2 is efficient .
using the one - dimensional spin drift - diffusion equations , we studied theoretically the mutual effect of ferromagnetic electrodes on non - local spin signals ( the leakage spin currents and the voltage drops ) in the lateral spin valve with three ferromagnetic electrodes .
we found the generic expression of the leakage spin current , eq .  ( [ nonlocal_i ] ) , and also a very simple relation , eq .  ( [ nonlocal_v2 ] ) , between the nonlocal voltage drop and the leakage spin current .
( [ ratio0 ] ) tells us that the effect of an additional electrode on the transresistance can be discussed in terms of the leakage spin current and in turn in terms of the conductance matrix .
the measured non - local spin signals depend on the position of an additional fm electrode relative to the spin - injecting and spin - detecting electrodes .
when the additional electrode lies outside of the two fm electrodes , non - local spin signals are found to be weakly influenced due to the exponentially decaying spin coherence over the sdl . on the other hand , when it is located in between the two fm electrodes , the non - local spin signals can be strongly modified provided the junction resistance is lower than or comparable to the spin resistance defined over the spin diffusion length in the fm electrodes and the nonmagnetic base electrode .
if the junction resistance is high , the non - local spin signals are weakly modified even when the additional fm electrode is located in between the two fm electrodes the most general expression for the transresistance ratio is given by eq .
( [ ratio ] ) . in general , the non - local spin signal is not much modified when the additional electrode is in tunneling contact with the base electrode , but is fractionally reduced when the contact is ohmic .
we also found that the non - local spin signals are independent of the magnetization orientation of the additional fm electrode , which agrees with the experimental observation.@xcite this result suggests that even the intervening _ nonmagnetic _ electrode can change non - local spin signals , which was already observed @xcite experimentally .
since our theoretical study is based on the one - dimensional device structure , some care is needed when we try to apply our theoretical results to interpretation of experimental data .
strictly speaking , the experimental spin valve structure is not one - dimensional in terms of the current distribution .
et al . _ numerically showed @xcite that the nonlocal voltage drop depends strongly on the spatial distribution of the spin - polarized current .
the one - dimensional approximation is valid when the current is uniformly distributed through the contact .
when the contact is clean between the fm electrode and the base nonmagnetic electrode , the current flow may well not be uniform through the interface @xcite and may be short circuited . in this case
, the nonlocal spin signals may deviate from its theoretical estimate based on one - dimensional sdd equations .
keeping these restrictions in mind , let us apply our theoretical results to two experimental works .
@xcite    for numerical estimation ( @xmath159 in this section ) , we take examples of co / cu / co and py / cu / py lateral spin valves and use the following sample size and material parameters . the thickness and width of the nonmagnetic base electrode
are taken as 80 nm and 300 nm , respectively .
the width of all the ferromagnetic layers is assumed to be the same as 100 nm .
the separation between nearest ferromagnetic layers is taken as 200 nm , which gives 300 nm of center - to - center distance .
we use material parameters measured at low temperatures .
the parameters for cu are @xmath160m@xcite and @xmath161m.@xcite for co , we use @xmath162,@xcite @xmath163,@xcite @xmath164m,@xcite @xmath165 nm,@xcite and @xmath166m@xmath167.@xcite for py , we take @xmath168,@xcite @xmath169,@xcite @xmath170m,@xcite @xmath171 nm,@xcite and @xmath172m@xmath167.@xcite    for the co / cu / co spin valve , @xmath173 m@xmath174 , @xmath175 m@xmath174 , and @xmath176 m@xmath174 are obtained .
the estimated spin signal is reduced to the value @xmath177 by the intervening f2 electrode .
@xmath178 is also reduced by the factor 0.87 due to f3 electrode . for the py / cu / py spin valve , we have @xmath173 m@xmath174 , @xmath179 m@xmath174 , and @xmath180 m@xmath174 . the reduced spin signal @xmath181 by the f2 electrode is @xmath182 .
@xmath178 is reduced by the factor 0.87 due to f3 electrode .    since the sdl of co is rather long
, @xmath183 is comparable to @xmath184 in the co / cu / co case and @xmath185 is large . since , in the py / cu , @xmath184 is bigger than @xmath183 and @xmath186 , @xmath185 is small .
the rather significant reduction of estimated @xmath178 in both cases stems from our choice of the long sdl of cu at low temperatures .
the long sdl means that the chemical potential splitting between opposite spin directions , though exponentially decaying , remains significant up to the position of the f3 electrode .
the significant leakage of spin currents into f3 results in reduction of the spin signal . at room temperature ,
the sdl of the base electrode ( nonmagnetic metal ) is a few hundreds nanometers such that the reduction of @xmath178 by the f3 electrode is only a few percents . for the experimental conditions in refs . and
, @xmath184 is comparable to @xmath135 and we can estimate theoretical value of @xmath185 , eq .
( [ ratio2 ] ) : @xmath187 although the observed @xmath185 is smaller for ref . and
is close to a unity for ref . .
as pointed out in ref .  , the contact between the permalloy electrode and the base ag wire is very clean and the point injection and detection of current is suggested . in this case , the current distribution in the devices may well be nonuniform so that our one - dimensional theory can not be straightforwardly applied .
we believe that the nonuniform current distribution is the main reason why some of our theoretical estimates are in poor agreement with the results of ref .  .
we may discuss the relevance of the device dimensionality based on the effective spin resistance . according to our theoretical analysis ,
nonlocal spin signals are determined by the relative magnitude of junction resistance and spin resistance in fm and nm electrodes .
this relevant resistance is defined under the assumption that the current distribution is uniform in the device .
when the current distribution is not uniform as in real devices , we may still be able to define the spin resistance using the effective cross sectional area which is smaller than the geometrical cross section of the sample .
nonuniform current distribution tends to increase junction resistance as well as spin resistance , and will modify the magnitude of nonlocal spin signals
. this may be one of the reasons for the discrepancy between two experimental results.@xcite    nonlocal spin signals ( the leakage spin current and the voltage drop ) in one nonlocal fm electrode are shown not to depend on the magnetization orientation ( parallel or antiparallel ) of the other nonlocal fm electrode .
we believe this symmetry of nonlocal spin signals are robust against the sample dimensionality , though their magnitude is sensitive to samples .
the spin current is generated by the spin - injecting fm electrode and so its flow direction can not be changed by the magnetization orientation of nonlocal fm electrodes . in addition , the magnitude of spin current does not depend on the magnetization orientation of nonlocal fm electrodes .
this property derives from both decoupling of spin and charge modes in the sdd equations and zero charge current in nonlocal voltage probes .
hence our conclusion about the relationship between nonlocal spin signals and magnetization in nonlocal voltage probes wo nt depend on the sample dimensionality and qualities .
this point is demonstrated more explicitly in appendix  [ 3d - case ] .
finally , we would like to discuss the properties of transresistance ( tr ) and ( longitudinal ) magnetoresistance ( mr ) in spin valves under magnetization reversal .
obviously , both tr and mr are modified under magnetization reversal of two probing fm electrodes . under magnetization reversal , tr changes its sign while mr changes its value .
note that mr , in general , consists of the two contributions : one part ( background ) remains the same but the other changes its sign under magnetization reversal .
let us consider the effect of an additional fm electrode ( f@xmath5 ) on tr and mr .
for the vertical spin valves , it wo nt be easy to implement f@xmath5 .
so we consider tr and mr in the lateral spin valves with f@xmath5 .
usually mr is obscured by other effects in the lateral spin valves as mentioned before .
however , with increased sdl , mr was successfully measured @xcite in the carbon nanotube and graphenes . to measure mr in the lateral spin valves of fig .
[ 3fmlead ] , f1 and f3 are both current and voltage probes .
based on the results of appendix  [ 3d - case ] , we can argue that mr should be independent of the magnetization orientation of f2 , @xcite because there is no charge current in f2 ( an additional electrode ) .
explicit calculation , @xcite using the sdd equations , confirms this claim .
that is , both tr and mr are independent of the magnetization orientation of f@xmath5 . on the other hand , tr and
mr depend on the magnetization orientation of ferromagnetic electrodes through which the charge current flows .
this work was supported by the korea science and engineering foundation ( kosef ) grant funded by the korea government ( most ) ( no .
r01 - 2005 - 000 - 10303 - 0 ) , by the src / erc program of most / kosef ( r11 - 2000 - 071 ) and by postech core research program .
in this appendix we show that the algebraic manipulation can be highly simplified by a proper definition of material parameters and by the vector and matrix notations .
kirchhoff rules lead to the constraints given by eqs .
( [ rule_i ] ) and ( [ rule_v ] ) .
( [ rule_v ] ) can be written down explicitly leading to the following six relations ( @xmath23 ) @xmath188 \nonumber\\    & & = \left [ ( 1 \pm \beta_1 ) i ~ \delta_{i,1 } \pm i_i \right ] \times        \frac{{\cal r}_{ti}}{1 \pm \gamma_i}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] for algebraic convenience , we introduce new material parameters @xmath189 and @xmath190 .
these new material parameters highly simplify the complicated algebra as well as determine the spin currents in the nonlocal voltage probes .
then the voltage drop @xmath42 can be written as @xmath191.\end{aligned}\ ] ] addition and difference of two @xmath42 s lead to @xmath192 and @xmath193 it is much more convenient to introduce the matrix notation for the algebraic manipulation .
@xmath194 , @xmath195 , @xmath196 , and @xmath197 . here
the superscript @xmath198 represents the transpose of row vectors so that its effect is to change them into column vectors . with these notations
, kirchhoff rules can be written in compact forms as @xmath199 ~ |i \rangle   \nonumber\\      & &   - \beta r { \bf a } |j \rangle , \\    0 & = & ( { \bf r } + { \bf r}_t ) |i
\rangle   - r { \bf a } |j \rangle    \nonumber\\    & & + ( \beta_1 - \gamma_1 ) r_{t1 } i ~ |1 \rangle .\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath200 and @xmath201 are diagonal matrices with diagonal elements @xmath79 and @xmath80 , respectively . similarly , @xmath202 and @xmath203 are diagonal matrices with diagonal elements representing the spin polarization of each fm electrode and the junction resistance , respectively .
@xmath204 is the matrix with its elements given by @xmath205 .
formally , the unknown parameters can be written in a more compact matrix form as @xmath206 i { \bf g } |1 \rangle ,   \\         & & + [ ( \beta_1 - \beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1 } ]   \nonumber\\      & & \times [ ( \hat{\beta } - \beta ) { \bf r } + ( \hat{\gamma } - \beta ) { \bf r}_t ] i ~ { \bf g } |1 \rangle .\end{aligned}\ ] ] here the matrix @xmath78 is defined by the expression @xmath207^{-1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the matrix @xmath78 , with the dimension of conductance , is independent of magnetization configurations ( parallel or antiparallel to the spin - injecting electrode f1 ) of the fm electrodes . the set of parameters , @xmath75 and @xmath42 , contains all the information about the spin polarized transport in nonlocal spin valves . in components
, we have the spin currents @xmath208 ,   \\
\frac{j_i}{i }    & = & -\frac{1}{2 } g_{i1 } [ ( \beta_1 - \beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1 } ] , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and the voltage drops in the fm electrodes @xmath209 \delta_{i,1 } \nonumber\\      & & + [ ( \beta_i - \beta ) r_i + ( \gamma_i - \beta ) r_{ti } ] \nonumber\\      & & \times   g_{i1 }           [ ( \beta_1 - \beta ) r_1 + ( \gamma_1 - \beta ) r_{t1}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the final results are written down in a very compact form , using new material parameters as well as the conductance matrix .
spin resistance was defined in order to simplify the algebra . in this section
we are going to infuse some physical meaning into spin resistance .
let us recast eq .
( [ spin_r ] ) for @xmath1 ( nonlocal voltage probes ) into a more illuminating form as @xmath210 where @xmath211 acts as the effective electric potential of the base electrode at the junction with f@xmath0 and is defined by @xmath212 for electrons with negative charge , @xmath42 is the electric potential for both spin directions far into f@xmath0 , and @xmath213 is the electric potential for spin - up and spin - down electrons , respectively , of the base electrode at the junction with f@xmath0 . refer to eqs .
( [ ecp_fm ] ) and ( [ ecp_n ] ) .
we can deduce that the current @xmath214 at the interface flows into ( out of ) f@xmath0 for spin - up ( spin - down ) electrons .    the left hand side ( lhs ) of eq .
( [ spin_r2 ] ) represents the electric potential difference for both spin directions between the base electrode and f@xmath0 at the deep inside .
the right hand side ( rhs ) is the product of the current @xmath214 and the effective spin - dependent resistance .
the sign in front represents correctly the flowing direction of the spin - up and spin - down current , respectively .
the first term in the parenthesis is the spin - dependent tunnel resistance as defined in eq .
( [ r_ts ] ) .
the second term is none other than the spin resistance , which was introduced in the main text . with this spin resistance , eq .
( [ spin_r2 ] ) is the effective ohm s law for the leakage spin - up and spin - down currents .    when @xmath211 is eliminated from eq .
( [ spin_r2 ] ) , the relation between the nonlocal voltage drop @xmath42 and the leakage spin current @xmath46 or eq .
( [ nonlocal_v2 ] ) is obtained . from eq .
( [ spin_r2 ] ) , we can deduce the physical meaning of @xmath42 .
no charge current flows in the nonlocal fm electrodes .
@xmath42 represents the shift of the electrochemical potential in f@xmath0 to satisfy the constraint of no charge current flow . if we eliminate @xmath42 from eq .
( [ spin_r2 ] ) , we find the following relation @xmath215 the material parameters are defined in appendix [ dalgebra ] .
how do we interpret this relation ?
this relation can be considered as the ohm s law for the leakage spin current .
the lhs is the product of the spin current @xmath46 and the effective resistance . from the standpoint of f@xmath0 , the spin current @xmath46 flows from both sides of the base electrode ( @xmath136 ) through the junction ( @xmath80 ) and into f@xmath0 ( @xmath79 ) .
hence the effective resistance is @xmath216 as in the above equation .
the rhs is the effective spin potential which combines the source term from f1 and the sink terms from other nonlocal fm electrodes .
one of key results of our paper is the independence of the spin accumulation , the spin current , and the nonlocal voltage on the magnetization directions of electrodes .
this appendix is aimed to provide an insight into the origin of this independence in three - dimensional situations .
we again consider the geometry in fig .  1 .
similar notations will be used .
the three - dimensional sdd equation is given by eq .
( [ sdde_3d ] ) and the associated charge and spin current densities @xmath217 , @xmath218 are given by @xmath219 similar relations hold for @xmath220 , @xmath221 , and @xmath222 in the f@xmath0 electrode . the system is subject to the following boundary conditions . from the condition of no leakage current to air or insulating substrate ,
@xmath223 should hold at the sample boundaries facing air or insulating substrate . here
@xmath224 and @xmath225 denote normal vectors perpendicular to the boundaries . from the constraint of the current continuity applied to the interface between the base electrode and the electrode f@xmath0
, one finds that the following relation should hold at the interface , @xmath226 the ohm s law provides another boundary condition for the interface , @xmath227 when combined with these boundary conditions , the sdd equation completely fixes the spin - dependent electrochemical potentials . here
we remark that the current density @xmath228 , instead of the current @xmath229 , appears in eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law ] ) and thus @xmath230 in eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law ] ) amounts to the spin - dependent junction resistance _ per unit area _ , instead of the junction resistance .
we also remark that the tunneling barrier at a junction may not be uniform in realistic experimental situations and such non - uniformity can be taken into account by simply regarding @xmath231 as a position - dependent quantity since eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law ] ) remains still valid even for the nonuniform barrier as long as the tunnelling current remains perpendicular to the interface .    in order to examine the dependence of the spin accumulation on the magnetization directions , we reexpress the involved equations in terms of the spin accumulation @xmath232 and the charge potential @xmath233 .
the sdd equation  ( [ sdde_3d ] ) is again decomposed into the following two decoupled equations ( spin mode and charge mode ) , @xcite @xmath234 the boundary conditions for the spin accumulation can be derived from eq .
( [ 3d - no - leakage - current ] ) and one obtains @xmath235 from eq .
( [ 3d - current - continuity ] ) , one obtains @xmath236 and from eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law ] ) , one obtains @xmath237    now we are ready to discuss the magnetization direction dependence of the spin accumulation , which is completely fixed from its sdd equation ( [ 3d - sdd - equation - spin - accumulation ] ) and boundary conditions  ( [ 3d - no - leakage - current - spin - accumulation ] ) , ( [ 3d - current - continuity - spin - accumulation ] ) , and ( [ 3d - ohms - law - spin - accumulation ] ) . note that in these equations , all terms that depend on the magnetization directions are multiplied by the charge current density .
thus the spin accumulation should be independent of the magnetization directions of electrodes in which the charge current density vanishes .
next we discuss the magnetization direction dependence of the spin current .
the spin current can be obtained from the spin accumulation as follows , @xmath238 then from the properties of the spin accumulation , it is evident that the spin current density should be independent of the magnetization directions of electrodes in which the charge current density vanishes .
finally we discuss the charge potential , which is subject to the sdd equation ( [ 3d - sdd - equation - charge - potential ] ) .
the boundary conditions for the charge potential can be derived from eqs .
( [ 3d - no - leakage - current ] ) , and one obtains @xmath239 from eq .
( [ 3d - current - continuity ] ) , one obtains @xmath240 and from eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law ] ) , one obtains @xmath241 \nonumber \\ & & \,\,\,\,\,\ , \times \hat{\bf n}\cdot \nabla ( \mu_{i+}-\mu_{i- } ) \nonumber \\ & & + { { \cal r}_{ti } \over 8}\left [ ( 1+\beta_i)^2(1+\gamma_i)+(1-\beta_i)^2(1-\gamma_i)\right ] \hat{\bf n}\cdot { \bf j}^{\rm c}_i . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the sdd equation  ( [ 3d - sdd - equation - charge - potential ] ) and the boundary conditions  ( [ 3d - no - leakage - current - charge - potential ] ) , ( [ 3d - current - continuity - charge - potential ] ) are not dependent on the magnetization directions of any electrodes .
thus the magnetization direction dependence can arise only from the boundary condition  ( [ 3d - ohms - law - charge - potential ] ) . from eq .
( [ 3d - ohms - law - charge - potential ] ) and from the properties of the spin accumulation , one then finds that the charge potential at the electrode f@xmath0 is independent of the magnetization direction of other non - current - carrying electrodes .
this in turn implies that the nonlocal voltage measured between the electrode f@xmath0 and the base electrode ( @xmath242 ) should be independent of the magnetization directions of other non - current - carrying electrodes f@xmath101 @xmath243 .
l. berger , phys .
b * 54 * , 9353 ( 1996 ) .
j. slonczewski , j. magn .
magn . mater . *
159 * , l1 ( 1996 ) . for a recent review ,
see a. bratass , g. e. w. bauer , and p. j. kelly , phys .
rep . * 427 * , 157 ( 2006 ) ; y. tserkovnyak , a. brataas , g. e. w. bauer , and b. i. halperin , rev .
phys . * 77 * , 1375 ( 2005 ) .
m. n. baibich , j. m. broto , a. fert , f. nguyen van dau , f. petroff , p. etienne , g. creuzet , a. friederich , and j. chazelas , phys .
lett . * 61 * , 2472 ( 1988 ) .
g. binasch , p. grnberg , f. saurenbach , and w. zinn , phys .
b * 39 * , 4828 ( 1989 ) .
f. j. jedema , h. b. heersche , a. t. filip , j. j. a. baselmans , and b. j. van wees , nature ( london ) * 416 * , 713 ( 2002 ) ; f. j. jedema , m. s. nijboer , a. t. filip , and b. j. van wees , phys .
b * 67 * , 085319 ( 2003 ) .