2011
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.106.259702
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Onari and Kontani Reply:

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

60
790
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 328 publications
(851 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
(15 reference statements)
60
790
1
Order By: Relevance
“…If the peak is due to the coherence factor effect characterizing the superconducting condensed state with the S ± symmetry, the peak position E p is expected to be smaller than the value |∆ Γ |+|∆ M |, where ∆ Γ and ∆ M are superconducting order parameters on the Fermi surfaces around Γ and M points, respectively [15]. Here, judging from the experimental values of the ∆ values observed for various systems, the observed value of E p /k B T c (> 6) can hardly be considered to satisfy the condition E p < |∆ Γ |+|∆ M |, indicating that the peak is not due to the effect of coherence factor of the S ± symmetry, but probably due to a different effect predicted for the S ++ symmetry of ∆ by Onari et al [16]. Additionally, we have found the rather large difference of the Q-scan profile widths (δQ) of the magnetic excitation between ω = 5 meV and 7 meV from the data at T = 90 K. The δQ with ω = 5 meV is broader than one with ω = 7 meV.…”
Section: T Dependence Of the Dynamical Magnetic Susceptibility Acrossmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If the peak is due to the coherence factor effect characterizing the superconducting condensed state with the S ± symmetry, the peak position E p is expected to be smaller than the value |∆ Γ |+|∆ M |, where ∆ Γ and ∆ M are superconducting order parameters on the Fermi surfaces around Γ and M points, respectively [15]. Here, judging from the experimental values of the ∆ values observed for various systems, the observed value of E p /k B T c (> 6) can hardly be considered to satisfy the condition E p < |∆ Γ |+|∆ M |, indicating that the peak is not due to the effect of coherence factor of the S ± symmetry, but probably due to a different effect predicted for the S ++ symmetry of ∆ by Onari et al [16]. Additionally, we have found the rather large difference of the Q-scan profile widths (δQ) of the magnetic excitation between ω = 5 meV and 7 meV from the data at T = 90 K. The δQ with ω = 5 meV is broader than one with ω = 7 meV.…”
Section: T Dependence Of the Dynamical Magnetic Susceptibility Acrossmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…From the relations T N < T s < T * , we presume that the observed structural transition is related to ordering of 3d yz and 3d zx orbitals and that the C 4 symmetry breaking can be understood as a kind of precursor of this ordering, because the fluctuation (electron-occupancy fluctuation) between these orbitals or their ordering is naturally expected to couple to the orthorhombic distortion. On this point, it has been pointed out theoretically [2,3] that the orbital fluctuation is strong at around both Γ and M points of the (pseudo) tetragonal lattice in the reciprocal space, implying that evidence for the strong effects of the fluctuations on dynamical properties of lattice system can be found experimentally. Thus, we consider that in the phase diagram all the spins, orbitals, lattices, and couplings among these freedoms are involved as important ingredients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For instance, vertex correction due to Aslamazov-Larkin terms which is not included in the RPA plays an important role to stabilize the s ++ -wave state in ironpnictides. 4 Therefore, it is an important issue to investigate the role of higher order corrections.…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most of the 1111 and the 122 systems show the tetragonal-orthorhombic structural transition and the stripetype antiferromagnetic (AFM) transition. Corresponding to the structural and the AFM transitions, two distinct s-wave pairings: the s ± -wave state with sign change of the gap function ∆(k) between the hole and the electron Fermi surfaces (FSs) mediated by the antiferromagnetic fluctuation 2,3 and the s ++ -wave state without the sign change mediated by the ferro-orbital (FO) fluctuation, which is responsible for the softening of C 66 through the mode-coupling correction 4 or the electron-phonon coupling, 5 and/or the antiferro-orbital (AFO) fluctuation 6,7 were proposed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, it has been proposed that s ++ -wave order, where the two signs are the same, emerges when orbital fluctuation is responsible for superconductivity. 3,4 s +− and s ++ are possible candidates of SC symmetry in iron-based superconductors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%