Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a function of magnetic field H with orientations both parallel and perpendicular to the c-axis and at
temperatures between 0.5 and 300 K. In the mixed state, κ(H) measured at constant temperatures
reveals features that are not typical for common type-II superconductors. The observed behavior
may be associated with the field-induced reduction of two superconducting energy gaps, significantly
different in magnitude. A nonlinear temperature dependence of the electronic thermal conductivity
is observed in the field-induced normal state at low temperatures. This behavior is at variance with
the law of Wiedemann and Franz, and suggests an unexpected instability of the electronic subsystem
in the normal state at T ≈ 1 K.
2 102
15
ρ (µΩ cm)
H = 50 kOe H =0 Tc c
1
ρ (µΩ cm)
κ (W m -1 K -1)
10 101
0 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 a
T (K)
ρ (µΩ cm)
3
5
100
H =0 2
0 1 2
T 3 (106 K3)
0
0 100 200 300 400 b d
T (K) 10-1
III. RESULTS
25 10
102 4.03 K 0.60 K
H || c
0 kOe 5.13 K 1.02 K
0.63 kOe Tc 6.40 K 1.76 K
1.88 kOe 7.94 K 2.83 K
8
20
3.75 kOe
10 kOe
κ (W m-1 K -1)
κ (W m-1 K -1)
101 33 kOe
κ (W m -1 K -1)
6
50 kOe 15
60 4
ab 10
H c2
100
H c2 (kOe)
40
2
20 c
5
H c2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
10-1 0 10 20 30 40 H (kOe) H (kOe)
T (K)
features in the ρ(T ) data shown in Fig. 1, most likely ticular its temperature dependence, revealing a peak-like
caused by the influence of superconductivity in minor re- structure of κe /T vs T , shown in the inset of Fig. 5, is a
gions of the sample with enhanced Tc and Hc2 , different reliable result of our investigation.
from the corresponding bulk values. The onset of this su- The violation of the Wiedemann-Franz law at low tem-
perconductivity is clearly seen in the upper inset of Fig. 1 peratures is very unusual because the validity of this law
by inspecting ρ(T ) measured in a field of 50 kOe, substan- is expected to hold for the Fermi-liquid ground state of
tially exceeding Hc2 (0), the maximum bulk upper critical common metals. A similar set of data of Hill an cowork-
field of the same sample.21 Superconducting traces in a ers for (Pr,Ce)2 CuO4 was interpreted as evidence for
minute fraction of the sample may cause a considerable a breakdown of the Fermi-liquid theory for this oxide
reduction of the total measured electrical resistivity but material.28 The non-Fermi-liquid behavior of cuprates
leave the thermal conductivity virtually unchanged. In was speculated to be the consequence of possible spin-
this case a failure of the WFL would not be surprising. charge separation, a scenario that is considered in rela-
However, because the electrical resistivity of the sam- tion with high-Tc superconductivity.29 The same argu-
ple above Tc is practically temperature-independent, we ments are hardly relevant for the case of MgB2 where a
can, with a great deal of certainty, expect that the intrin- spin-charge separation is not expected. Another expla-
sic electrical resistivity of the bulk remains constant also nation for the results of Ref. 28 was recently offered in
at lower temperatures. The constant residual resistivity Ref. 30. It was argued that a peak-type structure of κe /T
ρ0 is caused by defects which actually set the maximum plotted versus T might be the consequence of some kind
mean free path for electrons, independent of temperature. of transition leading to a gap formation in the electronic
Indeed, results by Xu et al.27 of ρ(T ) measurements on excitation spectrum of the normal state. This scenario
single crystalline MgB2 at magnetic fields which presum- would lead to a peak of κe /T at T0 , close to the transition
ably exceed the upper critical field of the minor phase, temperature, an exponential decrease of κe /T below T0 ,
demonstrate that in, e.g., H = 90 kOe the electrical re- and a gradual approach to the Wiedemann-Franz value
sistivity remains constant with decreasing temperature of L0 /ρ0 at T > T0 . Such a peak at T0 ∼ 1 K indeed
down to at least 2 K. follows from our analysis of the MgB2 data (see the inset
of Fig. 5). Unfortunately our data set does not extend
In Fig. 5, we plot as a solid line, the normal-state elec-
to low enough temperatures in order to confirm the ex-
tronic thermal conductivity κWFL e below 8 K, calculated
ponential temperature dependence of κe well below T0 .
using Eq. (2) with the experimental value ρ0 = 2.1 µΩcm
for H = 33 kOe. The measured total thermal conductiv-
ity, shown by open circles, is considerably higher than
κWFL across the entire covered temperature range. For B. Thermal conductivity in the superconducting
e
the estimate of the upper limit of the phonon contribu- state (H = 0)
tion we assume that the minima of κ(H) shown in Fig. 4
are caused by the competition of a decreasing κph and an A rather unexpected feature in the temperature depen-
increasing κe . With this interpretation it is clear that the dence of κ in zero magnetic field is the absence of even the
values of κmin (H) represent at most the maximum value slightest manifestation of the transition at Tc = 38.1 K,
of the lattice contribution κph . The smooth interpolation as has already been mentioned in previous reports on
between these minimum values of κ(H) for different tem- κ(T ) for polycrystalline materials.23,24,25,26 This obser-
peratures, denoted as κmax ph , is shown as the broken line vation is quite unusual for superconductors with non-
in Fig. 5. The difference between the measured thermal negligible phonon heat transport, because the opening
conductivity at H = 33 kOe and the upper limit of the of the superconducting gap rapidly reduces the rate of
phonon contribution, κmin e = κ − κmaxph , obviously repre- phonon scattering on electrons and should lead to a fast
senting the lower limit of the electronic contribution, is increase of κph below Tc . The assumptions that either the
shown in Fig. 5 by open squares. It may be seen that phonon-electron scattering is much weaker than phonon-
at least below 8 K, the electronic contribution is consid- defect scattering, or that κph is negligibly small in the
erably larger than predicted by WFL. With increasing vicinity of Tc , which, in principle, might explain the ab-
temperature, κmine approaches the WFL prediction, as is sence of a κ(T ) feature at Tc , are all incompatible with
demonstrated in the inset of Fig. 5. Nevertheless, it is the observation that applying a relatively weak external
impossible to identify the temperature limit where the magnetic field of 0.63 kOe, introducing some additional
validity of the WFL is recovered if such a limit exists quasiparticles in the cores of vortices, considerably re-
at all. Considering our procedure it is clear that the duces the thermal conductivity at intermediate tempera-
true electronic contribution exceeds our estimate, partic- tures (see Fig. 3). The possibility that the enhancement
ularly towards the upper end of the considered temper- of κph below Tc is exactly compensated by a reduction
ature range. However, at very low temperatures where of κe , is not considered because, for a BCS supercon-
κ(H = 0) ≪ κn (e. g., at 0.60 K the zero field thermal ductor, the slope change in κph (T ) at Tc is much more
conductivity is less than 6% of the normal-state thermal pronounced than that in κe (T ).31 The latter statement
conductivity), κmine must be very close to the true κe . is not true for special cases of extremely clean samples of
Thus the observed deviation from the WFL and in par- strong-coupling superconductors, such as Pb and Hg,32,33
5
κ /T (W m-1 K-2)
3
20 s n
τp−e (ω) = g(ω/T, ∆/T )τp−e (ω), (5)
2
n
1 where τp−e (ω) is the normal-state relaxation time. The
κ (W m -1 K -1)
2
T = 0.60 K Nb
1.0
UPt3
LuNi2B2C
κe,σ MgB 2 (H||c)
κ (W m-1 K -1)
0.8
MgB 2 (H||ab)
κe / κe,n
0.6
κe,π
0.4
κph
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
H (kOe)
0.2
to saturate until, in the vicinity of Hc2 , the contribu- close to this temperature.
tion to κ from the electrons of the band associated with
the larger energy gap grows rapidly, merging into the
practically field-independent thermal conductivity in the
normal state above Hc2 .
Acknowledgments
At low temperatures, the electronic thermal conduc-
tivity of the field-induced normal state is nonlinear in
T and deviates considerably from the prediction of the We acknowledge useful discussions with I.L. Landau,
Wiedemann-Franz law. This deviation peaks at about R. Monnier, M. Chiao, and M. Sigrist. This work was fi-
1 K, suggesting the existence of some transition provok- nancially supported in part by the Schweizerische Nation-
ing a gap formation in the electronic excitation spectrum alfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung.
1 22
J. Nagamatsu, N. Nakagawa, T. Muranaka, Y. Zenitani, U. Welp, G. Karapetrov, W. K. Kwok, G. W. Crabtree,
and J. Akimitsu, Nature 410, 63 (2001). C. Marcenat, L. Paulius, T. Klein, J. Marcus, K. H. P.
2
A. Junod, Y. Wang, F. Bouquet, and P. Toulemonde, cond- Kim, C. U. Jung, H.-S. Lee, B. Kang, and S.-I. Lee, cond-
mat/0106394 (unpublished). mat/0203337 (unpublished).
3 23
P. Szabó, P. Samuely, J. Kačmarčik, T. Klein, J. Mar- E. Bauer, C. Paul, S. Berger, S. Majumdar, H. Michor, M.
cus, D. Fruchart, S. Miraglia, C. Marcenat, and A. G. M. Giovannini, A. Saccone, and A. Bianconi, J. Phys.: Cond.
Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 137005 (2001). Mat. 13, L487 (2001).
4 24
F. Bouquet, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, D. G. Hinks, and T. Muranaka, J. Akimitsu, and M. Sera, Phys. Rev. B 64,
J. D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 047001 (2001). 020505(R) (2001).
5 25
Y. Wang, T. Plackowski, and A. Junod, Physica C 355, M. Putti, E. G. d’Agliano, D. Marre, F. Napoli, M. Tas-
179 (2001). sisto, P. Manfrinetti, and A. Palenzona, cond-mat/0109174
6
F. Giubileo, D. Roditchev, W. Sacks, R. Lamy, D. X. (unpublished).
26
Thanh, J. Klein, S. Miraglia, D. Fruchart, J. Marcus, and M. Schneider, D. Lipp, A. Gladun, P. Zahn, A. Handstein,
P. Monod, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 177008 (2001). G. Fuchs, S.-L. Drechsler, M. Richter, K.-H. Müller, and
7
F. Giubileo, D. Roditchev, W. Sacks, R. Lamy, and J. H. Rosner, Physica C 363, 6 (2001).
27
Klein, cond-mat/0105146 (unpublished). M. Xu, H. Kitazawa, Y. Takano, J. Ye, K. Nishida, H. Abe,
8
X. K. Chen, M. J. Konstantinovic, J. C. Irwin, D. D. A. Matsushita, and G. Kido, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2779
Lawrie, and J. P. Franck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 157002 (2001).
28
(2001). R. W. Hill, C. Proust, L. Taillefer, P. Fournier, and R. L.
9
F. Laube, G. Goll, J. Hagel, H. v. Lohneysen, D. Ernst, Greene, Nature 414, 711 (2001).
29
and T. Wolf, Europhys. Lett. 56, 296 (2001). P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987).
10 30
S. Tsuda, T. Yokoya, T. Kiss, Y. Takano, K. Togano, H. Q. Si, Physica C 364-365, 9 (2001).
31
Kito, H. Ihara, and S. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 177006 J. Bardeen, G. Rickayzen, and L. Tewordt, Phys. Rev. 113,
(2001). 982 (1959).
11 32
H. Schmidt, J. F. Zasadzinski, K. E. Gray, and D. G. J. H. P. Watson and G. M. Graham, Can. J. Phys. 41,
Hinks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 127002 (2002). 1738 (1963).
12 33
M.-S. Kim, J. A. Skinta, T. R. Lemberger, W. N. Kang, V. Ambegaokar and L. Tewordt, Phys. Rev. 134, A805
H.-J. Kim, E.-M. Choi, and S.-I. Lee, cond-mat/0201550 (1964).
34
(unpublished). B. T. Geilikman and V. Z. Kresin, Kinetic and nonsteady-
13
M. Iavarone, G. Karapetrov, A. E. Koshelev, W. K. Kwok, state effects in superconductors (John Wiley & Sons, New
G. W. Crabtree, and D. G. Hinks, cond-mat/0203329 (un- York, Toronto, 1974).
35
published). R. Berman, Thermal conduction in solids (Clarendon
14
J. Kortus, I. I. Mazin, K. D. Belashchenko, V. P. Antropov, Press, Oxford, 1976).
36
and L. L. Boyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4656 (2001). B. Mühlschlegel, Z. Phys. 155, 313 (1959).
15 37
A. Y. Liu, I. I. Mazin, and J. Kortus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, I.-M. Tang, Phys. Rev. B 3, 1045 (1971).
38
087005 (2001). I.-M. Tang, Phys. Rev. B 6, 172 (1972).
16 39
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. P. Kumar and S. N. Gupta, Phys. Rev. B 6, 2642 (1972).
40
108, 1175 (1957). K. Maki, Phys. Rev. 156, 437 (1967).
17 41
S. Lee, H. Mori, T. Masui, Y. Eltsev, A. Yamamoto, and N. Nakai, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn
S. Tajima, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 70, 2255 (2001). 71, 23 (2002).
18 42
M. Angst, R. Puzniak, A. Wisniewski, J. Jun, S. M. Kaza- H. D. Yang, J.-Y. Lin, H. H. Li, F. H. Hsu, C. J. Liu, S.-C.
kov, J. Karpinski, J. Roos, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. Lett. Li, R.-C. Yu, and C.-Q. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167003
88, 167004 (2002). (2001).
19 43
N. Mott, Proc. Phys. Soc. 47, 571 (1935). M. R. Eskildsen, M. Kugler, S. Tanaka, J. Jun., S. M.
20
A. Wilson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A167, 580 (1938). Kazakov, J. Karpinski, and O. Fischer, (unpublished).
21 44
A. V. Sologubenko, J. Jun, S. M. Kazakov, J. Karpinski, K. D. Belashchenko, M. van Schilfgaarde, and V. P.
and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. B 65, 180505(R) (2002). Antropov, Phys. Rev. B 64, 092503 (2001).
9
45
V. P. Antropov, K. D. Belashchenko, M. van Schilfgaarde, Kortus, O. V. Dolgov, T. Muranaka, and J. Akimitsu, Solid
and S. N. Rashkeev, cond-mat/0107123 (unpublished). State Commun. 121, 479 (2002).
46 49
I. I. Mazin and J. Kortus, Phys. Rev. B 65, 180510(R) S. Haas and K. Maki, Phys. Rev. B 65, 020502(R) (2002).
50
(2002). E. Boaknin, R. W. Hill, C. Proust, C. Lupien, L. Taillefer,
47
I. I. Mazin, O. K. Andersen, O. Jepsen, O. V. Dolgov, J. and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 237001 (2001).
51
Kortus, A. A. Golubov, A. B. Kuz’menko, and D. van der J. Lowell and J. B. Sousa, J. Low Temp. Phys. 3, 65 (1970).
52
Marel, cond-mat/0204013 (unpublished). H. Suderow, J. P. Brison, A. Huxley, and J. Flouquet, J.
48
A. B. Kuz’menko, F. P. Mena, H. J. A. Molegraaf, D. Low Temp. Phys. 108, 11 (1997).
van der Marel, B. Gorshunov, M. Dressel, I. I. Mazin, J.