← Back to search

Reply to the comment by C. Capan and K. Behnia on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors" (cond-mat/0501288)

A. S. Alexandrov

arXiv:cond-mat/0508452 · DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.259704 · 2005-08-19 · Physical Review Letters

T35 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

The comment criticisms (cond-mat/0501288) are completely out of line with the context of the commented theory (Phys. Rev. Lett. v.93, 217002 (2004)). The comment neglected essential parts of the theory, which actually addressed all relevant experimental observations. I argue that the coexistence of the large Nernst signal and the insulating-like in-plane resistivity in underdoped cuprates rules out the vortex scenario, but agrees remarkably well with our theory.

Similar papers