4.8 Article

Electric field-tunable superconductivity in alternating-twist magic-angle trilayer graphene

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 371, 期 6534, 页码 1133-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abg0399

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [DMR-1922172]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship [N00014-18-1-2877]
  3. ARO MURI [W911NF-14-1-0247]
  4. Simons Investigator award
  5. Simons Collaboration on Ultra-Quantum Matter - Simons Foundation [651440]
  6. DOD through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program
  7. Elemental Strategy Initiative by the MEXT, Japan [JPMXP0112101001]
  8. JSPS KAKENHI [JP20H00354]
  9. CREST, JST [JPMJCR15F3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By constructing a van der Waals heterostructure with three stacked graphene layers at alternating twist angles, researchers observed tunable superconductivity at a specific twist angle. The superconducting regions are associated with flavor polarization of moire bands and are bounded by a van Hove singularity at high displacement fields, indicating unconventional moire superconductivity.
Engineering moire superlattices by twisting layers in van der Waals (vdW) heterostructures has uncovered a wide array of quantum phenomena. We constructed a vdW heterostructure that consists of three graphene layers stacked with alternating twist angles +/- theta. At the average twist angle theta similar to 1.56 degrees, a theoretically predicted magic angle for the formation of flat electron bands, we observed displacement field-tunable superconductivity with a maximum critical temperature of 2.1 kelvin. By tuning the doping level and displacement field, we found that superconducting regimes occur in conjunction with flavor polarization of moire bands and are bounded by a van Hove singularity (vHS) at high displacement fields. Our findings display inconsistencies with a weak coupling description, suggesting that the observed moire superconductivity has an unconventional nature.

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

4.8
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