4.6 Article

Length scales, collective modes, and type-1.5 regimes in three-band superconductors

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 84, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.134518

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation through the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  3. NSF [DMR-0955902]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Materials Research [955902] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent discovery of iron pnictide superconductors has resulted in a rapidly growing interest in multiband models with more than two bands. In this work we specifically focus on the properties of three-band Ginzburg-Landau models which do not have direct counterparts in more studied two-band models. First we derive normal modes and characteristic length scales in the conventional U(1) three-band Ginzburg-Landau model as well as in its time-reversal symmetry-broken counterpart with U(1) x Z(2) symmetry. We show that, in the latter case, the normal modes are mixed phase-density collective excitations. A possibility of the appearance of a massless mode associated with fluctuations of the phase difference is also discussed. Next we show that gradients of densities and phase differences can be inextricably intertwined in vortex excitations in three-band models. This can lead to very long-range attractive intervortex interactions and the appearance of type-1.5 regimes even when the intercomponent Josephson coupling is large. In some cases it also results in the formation of a domainlike structure in the form of a ring of suppressed density around a vortex across which one of the phases shifts by p. We also show that field-induced vortices can lead to a change of broken symmetry from U(1) to U(1) x Z(2) in the system. In the type-1.5 regime, it results in a semi-Meissner state where the system has a macroscopic phase separation in domains with broken U(1) and U(1) x Z(2) symmetries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据