Magnetic Susceptibility Scaling in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">La</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Sr</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cu</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathv

Johnston, D. C.

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.957

Cited by 390 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Signatures of antiferromagnetic (AF) ordering in the SC state had been found earlier by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments [8]. Subsequently, µSR experiments [9,10] detected magnetic ordering as a wedge-shaped extension of the 'spin glass' phase into the SC dome of the temperature versus doping phase diagram ( figure 1(a)).…”

mentioning

confidence: 69%

d-Wave superconductivity as a catalyst for antiferromagnetism in underdoped cuprates

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In underdoped high-T c cuprates, d-wave superconductivity competes with antiferromagnetism. It has generally been accepted that suppressing superconductivity leads to the nucleation of spin-density wave (SDW) order with wavevector near (π, π). We show theoretically, for a d-wave superconductor in an applied magnetic field including disorder and electronic correlations, that the creation of SDW order is in fact not simply due to suppression of superconductivity, but rather due to a correlation-induced splitting of an electronic bound state arising from the sign change of the order parameter along quasiparticle trajectories. The induced SDW order is therefore a direct consequence of the d-wave symmetry. The formation of anti-phase domain walls proves to be crucial for explaining the heretofore puzzling temperature dependence of the induced magnetism as measured by neutron diffraction.A superconductor is characterized by a Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) order parameter k (R), where R is the center-of-mass coordinate of a Cooper pair of electrons with momenta (k, −k). The bulk ground state of such a system is homogeneous, but a spatial perturbation that breaks pairs, e.g. a magnetic impurity, may cause the suppression of k (R) locally. What is revealed when superconductivity is suppressed is the electronic phase in the absence of k , a normal Fermi liquid. Thus the low-energy excitations near magnetic impurities and in the vortex 4 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. [9,10] detected magnetic ordering as a wedge-shaped extension of the 'spin glass' phase into the SC dome of the temperature versus doping phase diagram ( figure 1(a)). Lake et al [2] reported that an incommensurate magnetic order similar to the field-induced state was also observed in zero field. Although it also vanished at T c , the ordered magnetic moment in zero field had a T dependence, which was qualitatively different from the field-induced signal. The zero-field signal was attributed to disorder, but the relation between impurities and magnetic ordering remained unclear. Because strong magnetic fluctuations with similar wavevectors are reported at low but nonzero energies in inelastic neutron scattering experiments on these materials, e.g. on optimally doped LSCO samples exhibiting no spin-glass phase in zero field, it is frequently argued that impurities or vortices simply 'freeze' this fluctuating order [11].Describing such a phenomenon theoretically at the microscopic level is difficult due to the inhomogeneity of the interacting system, but it is important if one wishes to explore situations with strong disorder, where the correlations may no longer reflect the intrinsic spin dynamics of the pure system. Such an approach was proposed in a model calculation for an inhomogeneous d-wave superconductor with Hubbard-type correlations treated in the mean field [12]. In this model, a single impurity creates, at sufficiently large Hubbard interaction U and impurity potential strength V imp , a droplet of staggered magn...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 69%

d-Wave superconductivity as a catalyst for antiferromagnetism in underdoped cuprates

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and the electron g-factor is assumed to be 2. [11,[13][14][15]. Figure 3(b) shows the powder spin susceptibilities χ s in emu/mol-f.u.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 is nearly the same as the reported χ s = 1.4 − 1.7 × 10 −4 emu/mole-f.u. of La 2−x Sr x CuO 4 near the optimally doped level [11,[13][14][15]. Figure 2 shows the spin susceptibility χ s /N A µ 2 B of an optimally doped Hg1201, where N A is the Avogardro's number and µ B is the Bohr magneton.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Magnetic susceptibility of optimally doped HgBa2CuO4+δ

Itoh¹,

Machi²,

Yamamoto³

2017

Phys. Rev. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude of the powder spin susceptibility of an optimally doped superconductor HgBa2CuO 4+δ (Hg1201) in the normal state is found to be nearly the same as that of La2−xSrxCuO4 near the optimally doped level. The Stoner enhancement factor of Hg1201 is larger than that of La2−xSrxCuO4. The magnitude correlation of the Stoner enhancement factor is inconsistent with the effect of the recent theoretical Coulomb repulsion between 3d electrons and that of the superexchange intereraction of a charge transfer type.

show abstract

“…In fact, for the proof of single component physics 1,2 , the copper shifts were measured with B 0 in the CuO 2 plane, while for oxygen B 0 was perpendicular to it (the shift in the other directions are too small or not well defined for powder samples). While there were doubts from susceptibility measurements about the single component view early on 3,4 , the isotropic response was questioned only more recently 5,6 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic spin susceptibilities and superconductivity inHgBa2CuO4+δfrom nuclear magnetic resonance

Rybicki¹,

Kohlrautz²,

Haase³

et al. 2015

Phys. Rev. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments on single crystals of HgBa2CuO 4+δ are presented that identify two distinct temperature-dependent spin susceptibilities: one is due to a spin component that is temperature-dependent above the critical temperature for superconductivity (Tc) and reflects pseudogap behavior; the other is Fermi-liquid-like in that it is temperature independent above Tc and vanishes rapidly below Tc. In addition, we demonstrate the existence of a third, hitherto undetected spin susceptibility: it is temperature independent at higher temperatures, vanishes at lower temperatures (below T0 ≠ Tc), and changes sign near optimal doping. This susceptibility either arises from the coupling between the two spin components, or it could be given by a distinct third spin component.

show abstract

Magnetic Susceptibility Scaling inLa2−xSrxCu

Cited by 390 publications

References 25 publications

d-Wave superconductivity as a catalyst for antiferromagnetism in underdoped cuprates

d-Wave superconductivity as a catalyst for antiferromagnetism in underdoped cuprates

Magnetic susceptibility of optimally doped HgBa2CuO4+δ

Electronic spin susceptibilities and superconductivity inHgBa2CuO4+δfrom nuclear magnetic resonance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About