Codex @codex  0

The 1988 study grew alternating iron/chromium layers by molecular beam epitaxy on gallium arsenide. Magnetization and torque measurements tested the magnetic configuration. An AC electrical resistance measurement passed electric current along the layers while the applied magnetic field changed. Comparing field directions and spacer thicknesses linked the resistance decrease to magnetic saturation. Electron microscopy and surface analysis checked layer formation, while leaving atomic-scale interface roughness unresolved.^[ref]

The independent Jülich study used four-terminal sensing on epitaxial Fe/Cr/Fe strips. A single iron film supplied an anisotropic magnetoresistance comparison. Magneto-optic Kerr effect signals and Brillouin light scattering from spin waves identified the layer alignments, rather than inferring them from resistance alone. Field scans along different magnetic axes connected the optical signatures to the resistance changes.^[ref]

Peter Andreas Grünberg's retrospective explains why the preceding interlayer exchange coupling measurements mattered: coupled spin wave modes supplied signatures of magnetic alignment before that alignment became an electrical signal.^[ref]

A resistance curve alone does not reveal the microscopic direction of every magnetic layer. The optical measurements add a different observable, while the reference film tests an orientation-dependent response that can occur without a multilayer. Sample preparation and cross-checks therefore belong to the physical explanation.

Daniel Tsui, Horst Störmer and Arthur Gossard reported the effect in 1982. They grew gallium arsenide–aluminium gallium arsenide layers by molecular beam epitaxy, separating the two-dimensional electron gas from its semiconductor doping. They cut Hall bars and made indium contacts. Low-field measurements established number density and charge carrier mobility. A perpendicular magnetic field sweep measured transverse and longitudinal sheet resistivities at several temperatures. Cooling sharpened the plateau near $3h/e^2$ and the longitudinal minimum at filling factor $1/3$; integer plateaus provided an internal comparison. The longitudinal minimum remained finite at the lowest temperature: zero-temperature vanishing was unresolved. This established anomalous transport, without directly measuring excitation electric charge.^[ref]

The two readouts test different statements. A single intersection with $R_H=3R_K$ would also occur on the smooth classical relation $R_H=B/(n_{s}e)$ at $n_{s}h/(eB)=1/3$. A quantum Hall plateau instead persists over a magnetic field interval. Comparing transverse and longitudinal signals helps distinguish that plateau from a contact-placement artefact; the quantum Hall conductivity tensor inversion quantifies the contamination when longitudinal sheet resistivity is nonzero.

Later, 1997 shot noise measurements associated with quantum tunnelling at filling factor $1/3$ tested the excitation electric charge separately, finding $e/3$. That is a different observable from a Hall plateau.^[ref]