What's the big deal about twisted bilayer graphene?

 Twisted bilayer graphene seems to be the hottest topic in condensed matter physics right now. I tend to not follow fashion, both in clothing and science, for a multitude of reasons. However, I recently tried to catch up and read several of the nice perspectives on the topic at the Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics.

Electronic bands of twisted graphene layers by Francisco Guinea

New correlated phenomena in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene/s by Michael Zaletel.

What drives superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene? by T. Senthil

Here are just a few big picture comments. I welcome feedback. I am just dipping into the subject.

Why is this attracting so much interest?

It is a playground for both experimentalists and theorists. There is some beautiful mathematics, even at the level of Moire patterns, large unit cells for the crystal structure (7204 carbon atoms!), and electronic band structure. For experimentalists, it presents a tuneable system with a rich phase diagram.

The band structure is unique in having topological features (Chern numbers), Wannier orbitals with subtle features, and non-abelian gauge fields.

The discovery of superconductivity and ferromagnetism was unexpected (I think).

There is a subtle competition between many different strongly correlated phases: Mott insulators, ferromagnetism, superconductivity, Dirac metals, ...

The possibility that superconductivity is associated with (i.e. in close proximity in the phase diagram) a Mott insulator suggests some possible similarities to cuprate superconductors.

What are some outstanding issues?

All the theory has a precise and uniform twist angle between the two sheets of graphene. However, there will inevitably be some spatial inhomogeneity in the twist angle across any real laboratory sample. How much does this inhomogeneity matter in the experiments that have been reported so far?

What is the role of the substrate that the twisted bilayer sits on?

Is the superconductivity always "derived" from a Mott insulator?

Is the superconductivity unconventional in being non-phononic and/or having non-s-wave pairing?

Can we achieve consensus on a model effective Hamiltonian and what its phase diagram is?

Will this interest last?

Interest may fade if further and more careful experiments on better samples can never definitely answer the questions above OR if the experiments do find some of the following to be true.

The sample inhomogeneity matters and some of the exciting results reported do not survive in better samples.

The superconductivity is not intimately connected to the Mott insulator.

The superconductivity is conventional.

Some caution and skepticism are in order. Many results published in luxury journals do not stand the test of time. Furthermore, condensed matter physics is a field that rapidly goes through fashions that attract a crowd that quickly moves onto to the next ``big thing,'' i.e. exotic phenomena.

I welcome comments and corrections. I do want to learn more about this fascinating subject.

Comments

  1. MattSeptember 10, 2020 at 5:35 PM

    I went to an online colloquium that covered this recently. The sensitivity to the angle of bilayer graphene was mentioned, and the fact that it was difficult to control. However, they went on to talk about bilayers of WSe2/WS2 moiré superlattices as being much more robust - less sensitivity to angle. It was Kin Fai Mak from this group: https://sites.google.com/site/makshangroup/

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2020 at 5:35 PM

    I think there is growing consensus that the connection to the Mott insulator in TBLGZ is limited. And there is only a superficial resemblance to cuprate superconductivity. TBLG is really its own beast. The recent work by A. Young from UCSB gives evidence for this.

    I think there might be some exciting practical applications though in terms of single photon detection down in the THz regime due to how low the carrier density is compared to Tc.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Herzberg-Teller coupling?

Image
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thrown around. Google scholar yields more than 3000 hits. But I have found its precise meaning and the relevant physics hard to pin down. Quantum mechanics in chemistry by Schatz and Ratner is an excellent book , but the discussion on page 204 did not help me. "Herzberg-Teller" never appears in Atkins' Molecular quantum mechanics. So here is my limited understanding. Herzberg and Teller wanted to understand why one observed certain vibronic (combined electronic and vibrational) transitions that were not expected, particularly some that were expected to be forbidden on symmetry grounds. " Intensity borrowing " occurred. Herzberg and Teller pointed out that his could be understood if the dipole transition moment for the electronic transition depended on the nuclear co-ordinate associated with the vibration. In the Franck-Condo
Read more

Is it an Unidentified Superconducting Object (USO)?

If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO.   These have caused g
Read more

What should be the order of authors on a conference poster or talk?

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 regard to paper authorship my general rule is that the person who does the bulk of the work, including actually writing the paper should be the first author. Doug Natelson has a good post on co-authorship , that I largely agree with. My only difference is that I am not really convinced that good practice prevails in the majority of circumstances. I fear there are increasing numbers of co-authors, particularly senior ones, with marginal contributions. But, what about conference talks and posters? Many of these are based on work that is already or about to be published. Should the author order be identical as the associated papers? I am not sure it should necessarily be. My tentative view is that the person who writes and submits the abstract and actually prepares and presents the post/talk should be the first author. Perhaps they should also highlig
Read more