magnetic field effects on the cdw and sc states in -(bedt-ttf) 2 khg(scn) 4

Magnetic field effects on the CDW and SC

states in -(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4

Dieter Andres, Sebastian Jakob, Werner Biberacher,

Karl Neumaier and Mark KartsovnikWalther-Meißner-Institut, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Garching, Germany

Ilya Sheikin

Laboratoire National des Champs Magnétiques Intenses, Grenoble, France

Harald Müller

European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, France

Natalia Kushch

Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia

c

a

-(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4: basic featuresS

CH

BEDT-TTF molecule:bis(ethylenedithio)-tetrathiafulvalene

a

b

||(300K) 10 20 m•cm /|| ~ 104 105 a/c 2

(300K) / (1.4K) ~ 102 t ||/t 670 ,coh/|| 2.210-6

T. Mori et al., Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1990;R. Rousseau et al., J. Phys. I (France) 1996;P. Foury-Leylekian et al., PRB 2010

-(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4: basic features

2D Fermi surface

CDW formation at 8 K

Nesting instability of the Fermi surface

Q

very low!!

small CDW kBTCDW high sensitivity to external conditions: pressure, magnetic field

[P. Foury-Leylekian et al., PRB 2010]

Q+

Q-

CDW in a magnetic field

Pauli paramagnetic effect: suppresses CDW [W. Dieterich & P. Fulde,

1973]

2BB/vF

B

Q- < Q+

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

TCDW/TCDW(0), exp

Phase diagram of -(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4

P. Christ, W. Biberacher, M.K., et al., JETP Lett. 2000

~ 23 T

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

TCDW/TCDW(0)

Theory: A. Buzdin & V. Tugushev, JETP 1983 D. Zanchi et al., PRB 1996; P. Grigoriev & D. Lyubshin , PRB 2005

CDWx

CDW0

NM


Orbital effect (requires an imperfectly nested FS): stimulates CDW

);2cos(2)cos(2)( yyyyFxF katkatkkv k Ftt

4( vt + t ’ ) / F

ky

c

kx

~ t’/ v F

-c

)0'(DWDW tTT



);2cos(2)cos(2)( yyyyFxF katkatkkv k Ftt

4( vt + t ’ ) / F

ky

c

kx

~ t’/ v F

-c

I n a magnetic field:

zFy Bv

e

dt

dk

;

zFyc Bvae

y ~ 1/Bz

electrons become effectively more 1D

lB = 2vF/

c

y =

ay(4

t / c

)

Real space orbit:

)0'(DWDW tTT

0 2 4 6 8 100

5

10

15

20

25

30

2.3 kbar

3.6 kbar

1.8 kbar

0 kbar

B [

T]

T [K]

D. Andres, M.K., et al., PRB 2001

-(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4



Theory:

D. Zanchi et al., PRB 1996

R

(deg)



-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90

R x 20

P = 2.8 kbarT = 0.7 K

6.5 T

9 T

4.3 T

1 T

R (

arb

. uni

ts )

(deg.)

Angle-dependent MagnetoResistance Oscillations (AMRO) in -(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4

P > Pc ambient pressure

M.K. et al., SSC 1994

normal state

CDW state

normal state

field-induced

0 2 4 6 8 100

5

10

15

20

25

30

2.3 kbar

3.6 kbar

1.8 kbar

0 kbar

B [

T]

T [K]

D. Andres, M.K., et al., PRB 2001

-(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4



Theory:

D. Zanchi et al., PRB 1996

FICDW at t’ > t’ * ???L. Gor’kov & A. Lebed, J. Phys. Lett. (Paris) 1984


Field-induced CDW (FICDW) transitions

The “slow oscillations”

appear at P Pc 2.5 kbar

approximately periodic with 1/B

SdHo

display a weak hysteresis

P = 3 kbar

Positions of the FICDW transitions can be fitted with

t 0.5 meV[A. Lebed, PRL 2010]


Field-induced CDW (FICDW) transitions

A. Kornilov et al., PRB 2002

FICDW

in -(BEDT-TTF)2KHg(SCN)4

FISDW

in (TMTSF)2PF6

A. Lebed, JETP Lett. 2003

FICDW is weaker than FISDW due to the paramagnetic effect! FICDW is weaker than FISDW due to the paramagnetic effect!

Superconductivity vs. CDW

0.05 0.10 0.150.0

0.5

1.0

3.03.5 4.0

R(

T )

/R(

16

0m

K)

T (K)

P [kbar] =

0.05 0.10 0.150.0

0.5

1.0

2 kbar1.5 kbar

0 kbar

R(

T )

/R(

30

0m

K)

T (K)

0.05 0.10 0.15

60.0

63.3

66.7

R

(Ohm

)

T (K)

P = 0 kbar; sample #1

Sample #2:zero resistancebut no Meissner!

0.05 0.10 0.150

1

2

3

R

(Ohm

)T (K)

P = 0 kbar sample #2R

(

Oh

m)

0 1 2 3 4

0.01

0.1

1

10

SC

Normal metalCDW

T (

K )

P ( kbar )

R 0 R = 0

Resistance at zero field

See also: H. Ito et al., SSC 85 1005 (1993) – inhomogeneous superconductivity at P = 0


0.1 0.2 0.3 0.435

40

45

50

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.445

50

55

60

65

P = 2 kbar0.5 A

2 A

0.05 A

3.0 kbar

R

()

T (K)

3.5 kbar

R

()

T (K)

P =

0 2 445

50

55

60

0 2 435

40

45

50

P = 2 kbar

R

()

B (mT)

180 mK 160 mK 140 mK 120 mK 100 mK

110 mK 100 mK 95 mK

B (mT)

P = 3.5 kbar

R

()

Onset of superconductivity

The SC onset temperature is 3 times higher

in the SC/CDW coexistence region!

The SC onset temperature is 3 times higher

in the SC/CDW coexistence region!


Onset of superconductivity

0 2 40.0

0.2

0.4

T (

K)

P (kbar)

CDWNormal metal

SC

CDW+SC

R = 0R 0

Superconductivity in a magnetic field; P > Pc

Critical field layers

0 20 40 60 80 1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

B (

mT

)

T (mK)

3.0 kbar 3.5 kbar 4.0 kbar

at P = 3 kbar: (0) 250 nm

cf. mean free path 1m


Critical field // layers

0 20 40 60 80 100 1200

100

200

300

400

Ma

gn

etic

fie

ld (

mT

)

Temperature (mK)

R(T)R(H)

GL: Hc2 (Tc-T )

Hp0: Chandrasekhar-Clogston paramagnetic limit

dHc2/dT 12 T/K

(0) = 1.0 nm d/2;

||(0)/ (0) 250!

1.6Hp0


-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

1

10

100

-2 -1 0 1 2

100

200

300

data thin film anisotropic GL

90°-

T = 90 mK


-4 -2 0 2 4

10

100

102 mK 90 mK 40 mK

Hc2

(,T

)/H

c2(0

,T )

90o -

Direct manifestation of the paramagnetic pair-breakingDirect manifestation of the paramagnetic pair-breaking!

Summary

0 2 40.0

0.2

0.4

T (

K)

P (kbar)

CDWNormal metal

SC

-4 -2 0 2 4

10

100

102 mK 90 mK 40 mK

Hc2

(,T

)/H

c2(0

,T )

90o -

CDW state:

•rich phase diagram due to the interplay of

competing Pauli paramagnetiPauli paramagnetic and orbital orbital

effects of magnetic field

SC state:

•at P < Pc: coexists with the CDW state; the

SC onset temperature is drastically increased

in the coexistence region;

•at P > Pc: bulk SC state with a highly

anisotropic Hc2 near Tc(0) and a clear

manifestation of paramagnetic pair-breaking paramagnetic pair-breaking

at H // layers.

magnetic field effects on the cdw and sc states in -(bedt-ttf) 2 khg(scn) 4

Documents