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)
A very effective Hamiltonian in nuclear physics
Atomic nuclei are complex quantum many-body systems. Effective theories have helped provide a better understanding of them. The best-known a...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
No comments:
Post a Comment