| Literature DB >> 35910592 |
Mathieu Taupin1, Silke Paschen1.
Abstract
Strange metal behavior refers to a linear temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity that is not due to electron-phonon scattering. It is seen in numerous strongly correlated electron systems, from the heavy fermion compounds, via transition metal oxides and iron pnictides, to magic angle twisted bi-layer graphene, frequently in connection with unconventional or "high temperature" superconductivity. To achieve a unified understanding of these phenomena across the different materials classes is a central open problem in condensed matter physics. Tests whether the linear-in-temperature law might be dictated by Planckian dissipation-scattering with the rate ∼ k B T / ℏ -are receiving considerable attention. Here we assess the situation for strange metal heavy fermion compounds. They allow to probe the regime of extreme correlation strength, with effective mass or Fermi velocity renormalizations in excess of three orders of magnitude. Adopting the same procedure as done in previous studies, i.e., assuming a simple Drude conductivity with the above scattering rate, we find that for these strongly renormalized quasiparticles, scattering is much weaker than Planckian, implying that the linear temperature dependence should be due to other effects. We discuss implications of this finding and point to directions for further work.Entities:
Keywords: Kondo destruction; Planckian dissipation; heavy fermion compounds; quantum criticality; strange metals
Year: 2022 PMID: 35910592 PMCID: PMC8979306 DOI: 10.3390/cryst12020251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crystals (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4352 Impact factor: 2.670
Figure 1Color-coded phase diagrams featuring strange metal behavior in various materials platforms. (a) YbRhSi (left) and YbRh(SiGe) (right), from [40]. (b) CeRuSi, from [41]. (c) CeRhIn, from [42]. (d) CePdSi, from [43]. (e) SrRuO. Note that the temperature scale is cut at 4.5 K. At lower temperatures, deviations from linear behavior towards larger powers are observed; from [44]. (f) LaSrCuO, from [45]. (g) BaFe(AsP), from [46]. (h) Magic-angle twisted bi-layer graphene, adapted from [47].
Figure 2Variation of the A coefficient of the Fermi liquid form of the electrical resistivity, , across QCPs in various heavy fermion compounds. (a) YbRhSi, from [40]. (b) CeRuSi, from [56]. (c) CeCoIn, from [51]. (d) CePdSi, from [43].
Figure 3Planckian dissipation plot of [10] revisited. Double-logarithmic plot of Fermi velocity vs. with data from [10] (black points) and data of the heavy fermion compounds listed in Table 1 and analyzed here. The red squares result from the largest measured A coefficient (or value) for each compound near the strange metal regime, the shaded red lines from the published ranges of A coefficient (or value), and the error bars from uncertainties in the determination of the charge carrier concentration n and sometimes other parameters (see Table 1). The full, dashed, and dotted line represent , 0.1, and 0.01, respectively.
Parameters used for Figure 3 and Figure 4. The red (or blue) square represents the largest A coefficient (measured closest to the QCP), the shaded red (or blue) lines the range of A coefficient measured upon moving away from the QCP. The Sommerfeld coefficient is estimated from A via the Kadowaki–Wood ratio, unless A data are unavailable. The charge carrier concentrations n and their error bars (where applicable) are taken from Table 2. For CeCoIn, several values are listed because the A coefficient is different for in-plane () and out-of-plane () field, and the coefficient is different for in-plane () and out-of-plane () currents. For YbAgGe, the coefficient changes with field; the two extreme values are denoted by the two red squares. For CeCoIn (), Figure 3 shows the range cm/K from [74]. Data for CePdSi refer to the second QCP (near 2 T, see Figure 1d) because for the lower field QCP no full data set on single crystals is published [43,75].
| Compound |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ce | – | 0.65 [ | 183 | 2.5 | 8.8 [ |
| Ce | 5–120 [ | 0.707–3.46 | 136–665 | 1.7 | 18.3 [ |
| CeCoIn | 12.4–28.3 [ | 1.11–1.68 | 310–470 | 12.4 | 0.8 [ |
| CeCoIn | 1.72–11.5 [ | 0.414–1.07 | 116–300 | 12.4 | 0.8 [ |
| CeCoIn | 1.72–11.5 [ | 0.414–1.07 | 116–300 | 12.4 | 2.475 [ |
| CeRu | 0.1–3.4 [ | 0.1–0.583 | 53–310 | 11.6 | 0.91 [ |
| UPt | – | 0.425–0.625 [ | 223–329 | 21.4 | 1.1 [ |
| YbAgGe ( | – | 0.87–1.4 [ | 1300–2100 | 1.6 | 27–59 [ |
| YbRh | 1.7–33.8 [ | 0.41–1.85 | 250–1100 | 10 | 1.83 [ |
Charge carrier concentrations (in nm) determined as follows: (i) from the superconducting coherence length , the superconducting transition temperature , and the normal-state Sommerfeld coefficient , all in zero field, via (20); (ii) from the Hall coefficient at the lowest temperatures, where anomalous contributions are minimal, via ; (iii) from quantum oscillation experiments reviewed in [10], by summing up the carrier concentrations from all detected bands. For CeCoIn, the coefficient is taken at 2.5 K, without taking into account the logarithmic divergence. The error bar in n used for CeCoIn () in Figure 3 reflects the range of the parameters given in [74]. YbRhSi is close to being a compensated metal, resulting in a strong sensitivity of n to small differences in the residual resistivity. The largest reported value, which corresponds to [71], has the lowest compensation and is thus most accurate. Nevertheless, the value of LuRhSi is even larger, corresponding to nm[70], suggesting that there is still some degree of compensation in the sample of [71]. We list the average of both values, 18.8 nm, as best estimate. For the plots, we use the approximate average of and , i.e., 10 nm, with an asymmetric error bar nm and nm (see Table 1). Similar compensation effects are also encountered in UPt[81]. Bold fonts indicate the values used for the estimates (see Table 1).
| Compound |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ce | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Ce | - | - | - | - | - | |
| CeCoIn | 5.6 [ | 2.3 [ | 290 [ | 10.8 | 10.1 [ | |
| CeRu | - | - | - | - | 3.1 [ | |
| UPt | 12 [ | 0.52 [ | 0.43 [ | 22.4 | 9 [ | |
| YbAgGe | - | - | - | - | - | |
| YbRh | 97 [ | 0.0079 [ | 1.42 [ | 4.86 | 18.8 [ | - |
Figure 4No Planckian dissipation from heavy quasiparticles in heavy fermion compounds. Double-logarithmic plot of vs. for various strange metal heavy fermion compounds, as given in Table 1. Red squares and shaded lines have the same meaning as in Figure 3. The dashed lines are to help reading off the values of for which the linear-in-temperature electrical resistivity in these compounds could be governed by Planckian dissipation. Note that in all cases the “Planckian dissipation” effective masses obtained in this way are sizeably smaller than even the smallest values experimentally accessed by tuning the systems away from the strange metal regime (top end of full shaded lines).
Figure 5Fermi surface jumps as evidenced by Hall effect measurements in several strange metals. (a) YbRhSi, from [32,96]. (b) CePdSi, from [75]. (c) Substitution series of three high- cuprates, from [99]. (d) MATBG, from [100].