Symmetry properties of superconducting order parameter in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$
Anthony J. Leggett, Ying Liu
arXiv:2010.15220 · DOI 10.1007/s10948-020-05717-6 · 2020-10-28 · Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism
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
Soon after the discovery of superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 (SRO) in 1994, it was conjectured that its order parameter (OP) has a form similar to that realized in the superfluid He-3, namely, odd parity and spin triplet. The chiral p-wave pairing realized in He-3 A-phase was favored by several early experiments, in particular, the muon spin rotation and the Knight shift measurements published in 1998. However, the original Knight shift result was called into question in early 2019, raising the question as to whether the chiral p-wave, or even the spin-triplet pairing itself, is indeed realized in SRO. In this brief pedagogical review, we will address this question by counterposing the currently accepted results of Knight shift, polarized neutron scattering (PNS), spin counterflow half-quantum vortex (HQV), and Josephson experiments with predictions made both by standard BCS theory and by more general arguments based only on (1) the symmetry of the Hamiltonian including the spin-orbital terms, (2) thermodynamics, and (3) the qualitative experimental features of SRO. We also introduce a notation for triplet states alternative to the more popular d-vector one which we believe well suited to SRO. We conclude that the most recent Knight shift and PNS experiments do not exclude in the bulk the odd-parity, spin-triplet "helical" states allowed by the symmetry group of SRO but do exclude the chiral p-wave state. On the other hand, the Josephson and the HQV experiments showed that the pairing in SRO cannot be of the even-parity, spin-singlet type, and in the surface region or in samples of mesoscopic size, the d-vector must have a c-axis component, thus excluding apparently all bulk p-wave states except the chiral p-wave. Possible resolution of this rather glaring prima facie contradiction is discussed, taking into account other important experiments on SRO touched upon only briefly in this article.
Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval
| Formula | Reported Tc (K) | Pressure (GPa) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sr2RuO4 Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | 1.5 | Pressure not reported | unknown |
| In Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | 3.4 | Pressure not reported | unknown |
Similar papers
Evidence for even parity unconventional superconductivity in SrRuO
similarity 0.92Aaron Chronister et al. · 2020 · arXiv:2007.13730
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Spin Polarization Enhanced by Spin-Triplet Pairing in SrRuO Probed by NMR
similarity 0.92K. Ishida et al. · 2015 · arXiv:1508.06421
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Magnetic field induced rotation of the d-vector in Sr_2RuO_4
similarity 0.92J. F. Annett et al. · 2006 · arXiv:cond-mat/0606163
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Superconducting subphase and substantial Knight shift in
similarity 0.91R. Gupta et al. · 2020 · arXiv:2007.03811
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Why Scanning Tunneling Microscopy on SrRuO sometimes doesn't see the superconducting gap
similarity 0.91Adrian Valadkhani et al. · 2024 · arXiv:2405.13106
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Exploring Topological Superconductivity in Topological Materials
similarity 0.91Yupeng Li & Zhu-An Xu · 2019 · arXiv:1907.04493
Source status unknown — claims are unverified