SciPost Submission Page
Hall anomaly and moving vortex charge in layered superconductors
by Assa Auerbach, Daniel P. Arovas
|As Contributors:||Assa Auerbach|
|Submitted by:||Auerbach, Assa|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics|
|Subject area:||Condensed Matter Physics - Theory|
Magnetotransport theory of layered superconductors in the flux flow steady state is revisited. Longstanding controversies concerning observed Hall sign reversals are resolved. The conductivity separates into a Bardeen-Stephen vortex core contribution, and a Hall conductivity due to moving vortex charge. This charge, which is responsible for Hall anomaly, diverges logarithmically at weak magnetic field. Its values can be extracted from magetoresistivity data by extrapolation of vortex core Hall angle from the normal phase. Hall anomalies in YBCO, BSCCO, andNCCO data are consistent with theoretical estimates based on doping dependence of London penetration depths.
Submission & Refereeing History
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2020-2-16 Invited Report
The manuscript is written in а clear enthralling language and endowed with nice figures hence will constitute a fascinating reading.
The manuscript presents a fascinating phenomenological consideration of the vortex-related Hall effects in superconductors. Although not new, the topic remains alive and attracts a lot of interest since measurements of the Hall effect is an irreplaceable tool for inferring material properties. Thus, an attempt claiming to resolve longstanding controversies of the one of the central phenomenon of the subject, the Hall sign reversal, most certainly worth attention. The clear language and nice pictures will make absorbing reading, so the manuscript may be considered for publication after a couple of minor technical issues will be resolved.
1. The Hall sign reversal phenomenon includes also a double sign change, i.e. the return to the positive sign (if one takes the sign in a normal state as positive) upon further cooling. In particular, this double sign change was observed in Ref.  of the manuscript. Can the proposed phenomenological consideration reveal the reason for that and explain this double change?
2. According to the beautiful sketch of Figure 1 of the manuscript, the sign change is expected to occur below Bc2. However, the are many works (including, again, Ref.  of the manuscript, which is indeed one of the most recent sign reversal measurements) reporting that the sign change starts already above Bc2. How should the sketch of Figure 1 reconcile with these observations?
3. Reference  of the manuscript not only reports measurements of the Hall sign reversal but also presents a quantitative description of the experimental data in the framework of vortex dynamics (Reference  of the manuscript). Based on the fair agreement between the theory and experiment, Reference  claims that the theory developed in  completely explains the phenomenon of the Hall sign change. One could then conclude that Ref.  of the manuscript together with the subsequent extension by Geshkenbein, Ioffe, and Larkin, Superconductivity in a system with preformed pairs, PRB 55, 3173 (1997), have already resolved all the controversies existing before. It would be useful for a reader to learn which deficiencies of these (Ref  and PRB of 1997) works were resolved in the present manuscript.
4. In calculating the screening effect, the authors apply the theory of the vortex screening by Khomskii and Freimuth (Ref.  of the manuscript). However, this theory gives the extra charge of the opposite sign than that obtained by other authors. How does this discrepancy may influence the conclusions of the manuscript?
After these issues are resolved, the paper may be considered for publication.