4.0 Article

Pseudogap from ARPES experiment: Three gaps in cuprates and topological superconductivity

期刊

LOW TEMPERATURE PHYSICS
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 319-341

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4919371

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [73-02-14]
  2. State Fund for Fundamental Research [F50/052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A term first coined by Mott back in 1968 a pseudogap is the depletion of the electronic density of states at the Fermi level, and pseudogaps have been observed in many systems. However, since the discovery of the high-temperature superconductors (HTSC) in 1986, the central role attributed to the pseudogap in these systems has meant that by many researchers now associate the term pseudogap exclusively with the HTSC phenomenon. Recently, the problem has got a lot of new attention with the rediscovery of two distinct energy scales (two-gap scenario) and charge density waves patterns in the cuprates. Despite many excellent reviews on the pseudogap phenomenon in HTSC, published from its very discovery up to now, the mechanism of the pseudogap and its relation to superconductivity are still open questions. The present review represents a contribution dealing with the pseudogap, focusing on results from angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and ends up with the conclusion that the pseudogap in cuprates is a complex phenomenon which includes at least three different intertwined orders: spin and charge density waves and preformed pairs, which appears in different parts of the phase diagram. The density waves in cuprates are competing to superconductivity for the electronic states but, on the other hand, should drive the electronic structure to vicinity of Lifshitz transition, that could be a key similarity between the superconducting cuprates and iron-based superconductors. One may also note that since the pseudogap in cuprates has multiple origins there is no need to recoin the term suggested by Mott. (C) 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据