Resistivity phase diagram of cuprates revisited

D. Pelc, M. J. Veit, C. J. Dorow, Y. Ge, N. Barišić, and M. Greven
Phys. Rev. B 102, 075114 – Published 11 August 2020

Abstract

The phase diagram of the cuprate superconductors has posed a formidable scientific challenge for more than three decades. This challenge is perhaps best exemplified by the need to understand the normal-state charge transport as the system evolves from Mott insulator to Fermi-liquid metal with doping. Here we report a detailed analysis of the temperature (T) and doping (p) dependence of the planar resistivity of simple-tetragonal HgBa2CuO4+δ (Hg1201), the single-CuO2-layer cuprate with the highest optimal superconducting transition temperature, Tc. The data allow us to test a recently proposed phenomenological model for the cuprate phase diagram that combines a universal transport scattering rate with spatially inhomogeneous (de)localization of the Mott-localized hole. We find that the model provides a good description of the data. We then extend this analysis to prior transport results for several other cuprates, including the Hall number in the overdoped part of the phase diagram, and find little compound-to-compound variation in the (de)localization gap scale. The results point to a robust, universal structural origin of the inherent gap inhomogeneity that is unrelated to doping-related disorder. They are inconsistent with the notion that much of the phase diagram is controlled by a quantum-critical point, and instead indicate that the unusual electronic properties exhibited by the cuprates are fundamentally related to strong nonlinearities associated with subtle nanoscale inhomogeneity.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 21 November 2019
  • Revised 23 May 2020
  • Accepted 27 July 2020

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.075114

©2020 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

  1. Physical Systems
Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied Physics

Authors & Affiliations

D. Pelc1,*, M. J. Veit1,†, C. J. Dorow1,‡, Y. Ge1,§, N. Barišić2,∥, and M. Greven1,¶

  • 1School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA
  • 2Institute of Solid State Physics, TU Wien, 1040 Vienna, Austria and Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia

  • *Corresponding author: dpelc@umn.edu; Present address: Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
  • Present address: Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
  • Present address: Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.
  • §Present address: Department of Physics, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
  • Corresponding author: barisic@ifp.tuwien.ac.at
  • Corresponding author: greven@umn.edu

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 102, Iss. 7 — 15 August 2020

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review B

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×