Mike Smith and I have just finished a paper where we consider the charge and thermal transport of the different pseudogap models. One thing we encountered was that defining the charge current operator is a rather confusing and ambiguous problem. This has significant effects on the results, particularly the doping and disorder dependence of the conductivity and Lorenz ratio. Consequently, it may be possible to rule out some of the models using transport measurements.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Distinguishing pseudogap models
Understanding and describing the pseudogap state in the cuprate superconductors continues to be a major unsolved problem. There are several physically distinct models for this state of matter (fluctuating d-wave superconductor, density wave state, nodal metal, ...). A key problem to explain are the "arcs" seen in ARPES experiments. A nice comparison of the different models has been given by Mike Norman and collaborators in this PRB paper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nobel Prize Predictions for 2026
This week Nobel Prizes will be announced. Predicting the awardees is a fun annual exercise. It is also good to reflect on what has been achi...
-
This week Nobel Prizes will be announced. I have not done predictions since 2020 . This is a fun exercise. It is also good to reflect on w...
-
Two years ago, I wrote a post about a paper by Wei et al, Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models Then last year, I posted about a pap...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
No comments:
Post a Comment