The diamagnetism above the superconducting transition in underdoped La(1.9)Sr(0.1)CuO(4) revisited: Chemical disorder or phase incoherent superconductivity?

Abstract

The interplay between superconducting fluctuations and inhomogeneities presents a renewed interest due to recent works supporting an anomalous [beyond the conventional Gaussian-Ginzburg-Landau (GGL) scenario] diamagnetism above Tc in underdoped cuprates. This conclusion, mainly based in the observation of new anomalies in the low-field isothermal magnetization curves, is in contradiction with our earlier results in the underdoped La(1.9)Sr(0.1)CuO(4) [Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3157 (2000)]. These seemingly intrinsic anomalies are being presented in various influential works as a 'thermodynamic evidence' for phase incoherent superconductivity in the pseudogap regime, this last being at present a central and debated issue of the cuprate superconductors' physics. Here we have extended our magnetization measurements in La(1.9)Sr(0.1)CuO(4) to two samples with different chemical disorder, in one of them close to the one associated with the random distribution of Sr ions. For this sample, the corresponding Tc-distribution may be approximated as symmetric around the average Tc, while in the most disordered sample is strongly asymmetric. The comparison between the magnetization measured in both samples provides a crucial check of the chemical disorder origin of the observed diamagnetism anomalies, which are similar to those claimed as due to phase fluctuations by other authors. This conclusion applies also to the sample affected only by the intrinsic-like chemical disorder, providing then a further check that the intrinsic diamagnetism above the superconducting transition of underdoped cuprates is not affected by the opening of a pseudogap in the normal state. It is also shown here that once these disorder effects are overcome, the remaining precursor diamagnetism may be accounted at a quantitative level in terms of the GGL approach under a total energy cutoff.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

Similar papers