| Literature DB >> 27034989 |
Carsten Putzke1, Liam Malone1, Sven Badoux2, Baptiste Vignolle2, David Vignolles2, Wojciech Tabis3, Philip Walmsley1, Matthew Bird1, Nigel E Hussey4, Cyril Proust2, Antony Carrington1.
Abstract
Close to a zero-temperature transition between ordered and disordered electronic phases, quantum fluctuations can lead to a strong enhancement of electron mass and to the emergence of competing phases such as superconductivity. A correlation between the existence of such a quantum phase transition and superconductivity is quite well established in some heavy fermion and iron-based superconductors, and there have been suggestions that high-temperature superconductivity in copper-oxide materials (cuprates) may also be driven by the same mechanism. Close to optimal doping, where the superconducting transition temperature T c is maximal in cuprates, two different phases are known to compete with superconductivity: a poorly understood pseudogap phase and a charge-ordered phase. Recent experiments have shown a strong increase in quasiparticle mass m* in the cuprate YBa2Cu3O7-δ as optimal doping is approached, suggesting that quantum fluctuations of the charge-ordered phase may be responsible for the high-T c superconductivity. We have tested the robustness of this correlation between m* and T c by performing quantum oscillation studies on the stoichiometric compound YBa2Cu4O8 under hydrostatic pressure. In contrast to the results for YBa2Cu3O7-δ, we find that in YBa2Cu4O8, the mass decreases as T c increases under pressure. This inverse correlation between m* and T c suggests that quantum fluctuations of the charge order enhance m* but do not enhance T c.Entities:
Keywords: Cuprate superconductors; high pressure; quantum oscillations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27034989 PMCID: PMC4803492 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501657
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Temperature-dependent magnetoresistance of Y124.
(A) c-axis resistivity at different temperatures, measured up to μ0H = 67 T. The inset shows the derivative dρ/dH to emphasize the Shubnikov–de Haas QOs. (B) Temperature dependence of the QO amplitude. The red line shows a fit to the Lifshitz-Kosevich expression (see Materials and Methods) giving a quasiparticle mass m* = (1.80 ± 0.05) me (where me is the free electron mass).
Fig. 2Magnetoresistance of Y124 at various pressures at T = 2.5 K.
Data for p = 0 are shown both before the pressure was applied and after it was removed.
Fig. 3Oscillatory part of resistance versus field for different pressures at T = 2.5 K.
(A) Three curves for p = 0 GPa. (a) and (b) were measured outside the pressure cell: (a) in a 70-T coil and (b) in the same 60-T coil as the pressure cell measurements. The third curve is the result at p = 0 after depressurizing the cell. The arrows mark the position of a local maximum Bmax in Δρ/ρ. The curves have been offset vertically for clarity. (B) Evolution of the QO frequency with pressure. For p = 0 (before pressurization), the frequency was taken from a direct fit to sin(2πF/B + φ), then the changes in the frequency as p is varied are inferred from Bmax. Similar changes in F were also found by fitting each curve (as for p = 0) but at a higher noise level.
Fig. 4Quasiparticle effective mass in Y124 under hydrostatic pressure.
(A) Amplitude of QOs as a function of temperature. The curves have been offset vertically for clarity. The solid lines are fits to the Lifshitz-Kosevich formula. The field windows used are given in table S1. (B) Variation of quasiparticle mass with pressure extracted from the fits. The dashed line is a guide to the eye. a.u., arbitrary units.
Fig. 5Quasiparticle mass of Y124 compared to Y123 plotted versus Tc.
The top scale shows the hole doping level for Y123 (). Data for Y123 are taken from Ramshaw et al. () and the references therein. The dashed line is a guide to the eye.