SciPost Submission Page
Doping-dependent competition between superconductivity and polycrystalline charge density waves
by S. Caprara, M. Grilli, J. Lorenzana, B. Leridon
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Brigitte Leridon |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03408v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2019-10-07 02:00 |
| Submitted by: | Leridon, Brigitte |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
From systematic analysis of the high pulsed magnetic field resistance data of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_{4}$ thin films, we extract an experimental phase diagram for several doping values ranging from the very underdoped to the very overdoped regimes. Our analysis highlights a competition between charge density waves and superconductivity which is ubiquitous between x=0.08 and x=0.19 and produces the previously observed double step transition. When suppressed by a strong magnetic field, superconductivity is resilient for two specific doping ranges centered around respectively $x\approx 0.09$ and $x\approx 0.19$ and the characteristic temperature for the onset of the competing charge density wave phase is found to vanish above $x = 0.19$. At $x=1/8$ the two phases are found to coexist exactly at zero magnetic field.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2019-10-16 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1908.03408v2, delivered 2019-10-16, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1235
Strengths
A very good experiment ensured by the application of high magnetic fields.
Weaknesses
Missed the previous publications by J. C. Phillips.
Report
The article describes very informative experiments on LSCO carried out in high magnetic fields. These magnetic fields helped to reveal hidden charge order (possibly more or less conventional CDWs) in certain areas of the LSCO phase diagram. The results are impressive and I recommend the article for publication. Nevertheless, the article would become better if the authors follow the remarks given below.
Requested changes
1. When the experimental data are discussed in the Introduction, the specific materials should be indicated since the behavior of various superconductors is not universal and should not be universal.
2. The sentence “Of course spin fluctuations from the antiferromagnetic phase nearby can also play a role [29]” should be explained because antiferromagnetism dies out for dopings corresponding to the superconducting dome.
3. Measurements were carried out for LSCO. How to reconcile it directly with the data obtained for other cuprates? It would be interesting if authors briefly describe the distinctions and common features of the CDW-superconductivity relationship between the materials concerned.
4. The idea of the filamentary superconductivity in cuprates belongs to J. Phillips and his works must be cited. [see, e.g., J. C. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B, 43, 11415 (1991)].