SciPost Submission Page
The two critical temperatures conundrum in La$_{1.83}$Sr$_{0.17}$CuO$_4$
by Abhisek Samanta, Itay Mangel, Amit Keren, Daniel P. Arovas, Assa Auerbach
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Assa Auerbach |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15540v5 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2024-04-16 07:25 |
| Submitted by: | Auerbach, Assa |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Experimental, Computational, Phenomenological |
Abstract
The in-plane and out-of-plane superconducting stiffness of LSCO rings appear to vanish at different transition temperatures, which contradicts thermodynamical expectation. In addition, we observe a surprisingly strong dependence of the out-of-plane stiffness transition on sample width. With evidence from Monte Carlo simulations, this effect is explained by very small ratio $\alpha$ of interplane over intraplane superconducting stiffnesses. For three dimensional rings of millimeter dimensions, a crossover from layered three dimensional to quasi one dimensional behavior occurs at temperatures near the thermodynamic transition temperature $T_{\rm c}$, and the out of-plane stiffness appears to vanish below $T_{\rm c}$ by a temperature shift of order $\alpha L_a/\xi^\parallel$, where $L_a/\xi^\parallel$ is the sample's width over coherence length. Including the effects of layer-correlated disorder, the measured temperature shifts can be fit by $\alpha=4.1\times 10^{-5}$ near $T_{\rm c}$, which is significantly lower than its previously measured value near zero temperature.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report
I am generally satisfied with the authors' replies to my questions.
The only concern I have is how the authors present the details of the sample preparation and characterisation. In particular, could the authors provide information (or a reference) on the growth temperature and time and how doping was determined? Also, throughout the paper, the same short name of the sample, "LSCO", is used to refer to the samples with different doping levels as well as to the system as a whole. To avoid possible confusion, I would recommend using a bit of an extended sample name for a specific sample, for example, LSCO_0.17.
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision
Report
The current version could be published, but there is a new, subtle problem with sample notation. In title and abstract it is clear that this paper is only on a particular doping, while the authors go and denote this sample, probably out of convenience, with LSCO, which denotes the whole family. Now, later in the text LSCO is also used for other doping levels. So I suggest that the authors introduce a special name for their sample if they do not want to write out the longer version La_{1-x}Sr_xCuO_4.
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision
Author: Assa Auerbach on 2024-04-18 [id 4429]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2024-04-18)Thank you for alerting us to the problematic acronym LSCO.
We will make sure to return to the longer notation : La_{1-x}Sr_xCuO_4 for various values of x, and distinguish between samples of different Sr concentrations.