← Back to search

Deficiency of the scaling collapse as an indicator of a superconductor-insulator quantum phase transition

Andrey Rogachev, Benjamin Sacépé

DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.235164 · Physical Review B

T1

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

Finite-size scaling analysis is a well-accepted method for identification and characterization of quantum phase transitions (QPTs) in superconducting, magnetic, and insulating systems. We formally apply this analysis in the form suitable for QPTs in two-dimensional (2D) superconducting films to magnetic-field-driven superconductor-metal transition in one-dimensional (1D) MoGe nanowires. Despite being obviously inapplicable to nanowires, the 2D scaling equation leads to a high-quality scaling collapse of the nanowire resistance in the temperature and resistance ranges comparable or better to what is accepted in the analysis of the films. Our results suggest that the appearance and the quality of the scaling collapse by itself is not a definitive indicator of a QPT. We have also observed a sign change of the zero-bias anomaly (ZBA) in the nonlinear resistance, occurring exactly at the critical field of the accidental QPT. This behavior is often taken as an additional confirmation of the transition. We argue that in nanowires, the nonlinearity is caused by electron heating and has no relation to the critical fluctuations. Our observation suggests that similar to the scaling collapse, the sign change of ZBA can be a misleading indicator of QPT.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
Mo78Ge22

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

1.5Pressure not reportedunknown
Mo50Ge50

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

0.6Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers