x_opt and x_c in Cuprate Superconductors
Jürgen Röhler
arXiv:1909.12503 · 2019-09-27 · arXiv: Superconductivity
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
The characteristic hole concentrations x_opt = 0.16 and x_c = 0.19 in the under- to overdoped transition regime of cuprate superconductors are shown to be intimately interrelated by mesoscale organization of bond-like RVB arrays extending over 3 x 4 copper sites and comprising 2 holes spaced by 3a_0. Columnar organization maximizes T_c but reduces the superfluid stiffness, while zigzag (tweedy) organization maximizes the superfluid stiffness at reduced T_c. The latter goes hand in hand with the closure of the pseudogap. Columnar and zigzag mesoscale organizations of the bond-like RVB arrays are displacively transformed in each other between x_opt and x_c by weak overdoping.
Similar papers
High Temperature Superconductivity in the Cuprates: Phenomena from a Theorist's Point of View
similarity 0.91T. V. Ramakrishnan · 2025 · arXiv:2501.02351
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Photoemission perspective on pseudogap, superconducting fluctuations, and charge order in cuprates: a review of recent progress
similarity 0.89Inna Vishik · 2018 · arXiv:1803.11228
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Models of the Pseudogap State in High - Temperature Superconductors
similarity 0.89M. V. Sadovskii · 2004 · arXiv:cond-mat/0408489
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Carrier relaxation, pseudogap, and superconducting gap in high-Tc cuprates: A Raman scattering study
similarity 0.89M. Opel et al. · 1999 · arXiv:cond-mat/9908272
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Empirical case for two pseudogaps in cuprate superconductors
similarity 0.89J. M. Tranquada · 2019 · arXiv:1904.10473
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Cuprates phase diagram deduced from magnetic susceptibility: what is the `true' pseudogap line?
similarity 0.89Yves Noat et al. · 2022 · arXiv:2202.02589
Source status unknown — claims are unverified