SciPost Submission Page
The two critical temperatures conundrum in La1.83Sr0.17CuO4
by Abhisek Samanta, Itay Mangel, Amit Keren, Daniel P. Arovas, Assa Auerbach
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Assa Auerbach |
Submission information | |
---|---|
Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15540v5 (pdf) |
Date submitted: | April 16, 2024, 7:25 a.m. |
Submitted by: | Auerbach, Assa |
Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
Ontological classification | |
---|---|
Academic field: | Physics |
Specialties: |
|
Approaches: | Theoretical, Experimental, Computational, Phenomenological |
Abstract
The in-plane and out-of-plane superconducting stiffness of LSCO rings appear to vanish at different transition temperatures, which contradicts thermodynamical expectation. In addition, we observe a surprisingly strong dependence of the out-of-plane stiffness transition on sample width. With evidence from Monte Carlo simulations, this effect is explained by very small ratio α of interplane over intraplane superconducting stiffnesses. For three dimensional rings of millimeter dimensions, a crossover from layered three dimensional to quasi one dimensional behavior occurs at temperatures near the thermodynamic transition temperature Tc, and the out of-plane stiffness appears to vanish below Tc by a temperature shift of order αLa/ξ∥, where La/ξ∥ is the sample's width over coherence length. Including the effects of layer-correlated disorder, the measured temperature shifts can be fit by α=4.1×10−5 near Tc, which is significantly lower than its previously measured value near zero temperature.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2024-4-28 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2308.15540v5, delivered 2024-04-28, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.8944
Report
The only concern I have is how the authors present the details of the sample preparation and characterisation. In particular, could the authors provide information (or a reference) on the growth temperature and time and how doping was determined? Also, throughout the paper, the same short name of the sample, "LSCO", is used to refer to the samples with different doping levels as well as to the system as a whole. To avoid possible confusion, I would recommend using a bit of an extended sample name for a specific sample, for example, LSCO_0.17.
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision
Report
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision
Author: Assa Auerbach on 2024-04-18 [id 4429]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2024-04-18)Thank you for alerting us to the problematic acronym LSCO.
We will make sure to return to the longer notation : La_{1-x}Sr_xCuO_4 for various values of x, and distinguish between samples of different Sr concentrations.