← Back to search

Electron-Spin Excitation Coupling in an Electron Doped Copper Oxide Superconductor

Jun Zhao, F. C. Niestemski, Shankar Kunwar, Shiliang Li, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, H. J. Kang, Stephen D. Wilson, Ziqiang Wang, Pengcheng Dai, V. Madhavan

arXiv:1105.3987 · DOI 10.1038/NPHYS2006 · 2011-05-19 · Bulletin of the American Physical Society

T1experimental22 citations

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

High-temperature (high-Tc) superconductivity in the copper oxides arises from electron or hole doping of their antiferromagnetic (AF) insulating parent compounds. The evolution of the AF phase with doping and its spatial coexistence with superconductivity are governed by the nature of charge and spin correlations and provide clues to the mechanism of high-Tc superconductivity. Here we use a combined neutron scattering and scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) to study the Tc evolution of electron-doped superconducting Pr0.88LaCe0.12CuO4-delta obtained through the oxygen annealing process. We find that spin excitations detected by neutron scattering have two distinct modes that evolve with Tc in a remarkably similar fashion to the electron tunneling modes in STS. These results demonstrate that antiferromagnetism and superconductivity compete locally and coexist spatially on nanometer length scales, and the dominant electron-boson coupling at low energies originates from the electron-spin excitations.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
Pr0.88LaCe0.12CuO4-δ

Archive — visibility unverified

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

—Pressure not reportedunknown
Pr0.88LaCe0.12CuO4-δ

Archive — visibility unverified

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

—Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers