4.6 Article

Observations of the effect of strong Pauli paramagnetism on the vortex lattice in superconducting CeCu2Si2

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 104, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.184508

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/J016977/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/J016977/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vortex lattice structure in CeCu2Si2 is close to a regular hexagon and is strongly limited by the Pauli paramagnetic effect. At lower temperatures, increasing magnetic field leads to an increase in magnetization of flux line cores, followed by a rapid decrease. Pairing in this material may be due to the effect of magnetic fluctuations rather than a d-wave order parameter.
We present the results of a study of the vortex lattice in the heavy fermion superconductor CeCu2Si2, using small-angle neutron scattering (SANS). In this material at temperatures well below Tc similar to 0.6 K, the value of the upper critical field Bc2 similar to 2.2 T is strongly limited by the Pauli paramagnetism of the heavy fermions. In this temperature region, our SANS data show an increase in the magnetization of the flux line cores with field, followed by a rapid fall near Bc2. This behavior is the effect of Pauli paramagnetism and we present a theory-based model, which can be used to describe this effect in a range of materials. The pairing in CeCu2Si2 appears to arise from the effect of magnetic fluctuations, but the evidence for a d-wave order parameter is rather weak. We find that the vortex lattice structure in CeCu2Si2 is close to regular hexagonal. There are no phase transitions to square or rhombic structures; such transitions are expected for d-wave superconductors and observed in CeCoIn5; however, the temperature dependence of the SANS intensity indicates that both large and small gap values are present, most likely due to multiband s-wave superconductivity, rather than a nodal gap structure.

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