Nernst signal in low-Tc disordered superconductors Alexandre Pourret INAC/ SPSMS/ IMAPEC CEA Grenoble Collaborators • Kamran Behnia • Hervé Aubin • Panayotis Spathis • Jérôme Lesueur ESPCI Paris Samples C. Kikuchi, L.Bergé, L. Demoulin (CSNSM Université Paris Sud 11, France) Z. Ovadyahu (Racah Institute of Physis Tel Aviv, Israel) Outline I. Nernst effect and experimental setup Thermoelectrics coefficients Nernst effect Experimental setup II. Superconducting fluctuations in NbxSi1-x Observation of a non-zero Nernst signal aboveTc Origin of the Nernst signal above Tc Comparison with the theoritical prediction III. The InOx case Comparison with NbxSi1-x Thermoelectric coefficients E x S xT Thermoelectric power E y N xT Ex B JQ Nernst signal Ey Bz xT Ey Nernst coefficient Je J Q T T E T 1 xy xx xx xy B xx2 xy2 Sondheimer cancellation (1948) Counterflow of hot and cold electrons e- eB e- e- e- eJQ≠0;Je=0;Ey=0 e- eHot side Cold side T In an ideally simple metal, the Nernst effect vanishes! Roughly, the Nernst coefficient tracks m/ eF… 2 k B2 H T 3 e e eF 2 k B2 m T 3 e eF Boltzmann equation mobility Low Fermi Energy = high Nernst signal! e m m* Recipe for a large diffusive Nernst response: •High mobility •Small Fermi energy •Ambipolarity 2 k B2 m T 3 e eF Nernst signal generated by moving vortices Fα-Sf T Vortices displaced by heat flow induce a transverse electrical field – the Nernst signal Ri. H.-C et al Phys. Rev. B 50, 3312–3329 (1994) Vortex-like excitations in the normal state of the underdoped cuprates? Wang, Li & Ong, ‘06 A finite Nernst signal in a wide temperature range above Tc Why measuring the Nernst signal of disordered superconductors ? Nernst effect is a very important probe since the discovery of a large Nernst signal in the underdoped region of the cuprates. Need to test theories of Nernst signal generated by superconducting fluctuations in systems simpler than the cuprates. Interesting fluctuations phenomena Kosterlitz-Thouless like transitions Quantum superconductor-insulator transitions Bose insulators Bose metals Experimental setup 1 heater -2 thermometers Manganin Wires Seebeck (S), Nernst (N), Hall angle (RH) thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity . Heater Sample Silver/Gold wire -36 -38 4mm -40 Cooper block Ø 1.5 cm dV (nV) -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 9000 9060 9120 9180 9240 9300 9360 9420 9480 9540 9600 9660 9720 T(s) Thermometers NbxSi1-x : an homogenous amorphous superconductor Co-evaporation of Nb and Si. 1200 No granularity observed by AFM 800 R(W) r=2 mWcm Two samples 12.5 nm and 35 nm Nb0.15Si0.85 d12.5 nm Tc=220 mK r mWcm 400 sample Quartz Nb Quartz Si Ecran 0 0 50 100 150 T(K) 200 250 300 le~ a ~kF-1~ 0.7 nm kF le ~1 Close to Mott-Ioffe limit RH 4.9 1011 m 3 / C Si Nb carrier density is large (1023 /cm3) Superconductivity in Nb0.15Si 0.85 thin films 1500 d=125 A Rsquare(W) 1200 900 d=250 A 600 d=500 A 300 d=1000 A 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 T(K) T(K) 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Above Tc, Cooper pairs fluctuations Paraconductivity 1320 T=1.2K Rsquare(W) 1300 Nernst effect can detect Cooper pairs fluctuations up to 30 * Tc. 1280 Tc=250mK 1260 0 1 2 T(K) 3 4 Theory : Fluctuations described in Gaussian approximation -Aslamazov – Larkin; Physics Letters, 26 A, 238 (1968) -Maki-Thomson -Density of States Magnetic field induced Quantum SuperconductorInsulator transition (Field perpendicular to sample plane) 1400 1300 Rsquare(W) Rsquare(W) 1375 z~0.7 1350 1325 300mK 110mK 1200 1300 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H(kOe) 0,0 0,5 T(K) 1,0 1,5 T dR/dT < 0 Localized Cooper pairs ? Finite size scaling dR/dT > 0 Paraconductivity T c H. Aubin et al. PRB 73, 094521 (2006) Nernst signal above Tc (d=12.5 nm ,Tc=165mK) in sample 1 A. Pourret et al.Nature Physics 2, 683 (2006) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 190mK B=2T 230MK 1500 mH=2T 310mK Tc=0.165 K 370mK 460Mk 1000 530mK=0 T 500 00.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 1 1 0 0.19 K 0.19 K ) 0 19nm 0.4 00.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.02 0.02 0.6 0.7 T(K) (T) 2 1 23 2 0.19 K 0.04 0.04 500 T(K) (T) 0.06 Tc=0.165 K (T) 0.00 4 3 0.00040 0.66K 0.85K 1.1K 1.38K 2.00K 0.66K 0.85K 1.1K 2.5K 0.66K 3.90K 5.40K 5.8K 1.38K 2.00K 2.5K0.85K 3.90K 0.06 =0 T 0.3 0.08 N (µV/K) 530mK 0.08 N N(µV/K) (µV/K) 0.6 N (µV/K) N N (µV/K) (µV/K) 0.6 0.08 R_square(W) 0.8 R_carre(W) 190mK 230MK 190mK0.81500 310mK 230mK 310mK 370mK 370mK 460Mk 460mK0.61000 530mK 5.40K1.38K 5.8K2.00K 3.90K 5.40K 1.1K 2.5K 5.8K 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.001 01 (T) 32 3 (T) (T) 212 Finite Nernst signal up to T=30*Tc and B>Bc2 (0.85T) 43 4 4 Tc=0.165 K 1000 0.06 Nernst coefficient in sample 1 (Tc =165mK) =0 T 500 00.0 0.2 0.0 N (µV/K) 0.4 370mK 460Mk 530mK R_square(W) N (µV/K) 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 T(K) 0 1 2 (T) 3 4 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 1 2 (T) 3 4 (µV/KT) 0.19 K 1 Sample 1 is independent of magnetic field at low magnetic field 0.1 0.01 5.8 K 0.003 0.02 0.1 (T) 1 4 Nernst signal below and above Tc (Sample 2, TC =380mK) A signal distinct from the vortex signal 6 T>Tc T<Tc N (mV/K) 0.06 180mK 200mK 240MK 250mK 270mK 315mK 330mK 360mK 400mK 4 2 0.56K 0.65K 0.72K 0.85K 1.2K 1.6K 1.9K 2.5K 3.2K 4.3K 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.0 0.4 0.8 B (T) 1.2 0.00 0 1 2 B (T) 3 4 Two characteristic fields that evolve symmetrically with respect to critical temperature mV/K Landau quantization of the fluctuating Cooper pair motion f0 B f 2 H 2 2d * * 0 2 Below Tc : Bc2 Above Tc : B* Normal state Nernst signal is very weak n < S tan, Hall angle The Cooper pairs life time is larger than the quasi particles life time : GL= qp ( /le) 2 Why a dirty superconductor? Compare the Ginzburg-Landau time scale and the quasi-particle lifetime: GL= qp ( /le) 2 dirty(dirty) qp 2 k B2 QP T 3 m* eF dirtier GL GL> qp n 0.2 1 e (T-Tc/Tc) 10 In a wide temperature range above Tc, Cooper pairs live much longer than quasiparticles and dominate the Nernst response! What generates the Nernst signal above Tc ? •The temperature dependence of maximum in the Nernst signal is controlled by the superconducting correlation length •We checked that the normal electrons do not have any contributions •There is no reason to believe that exist, above Tc, a regime controlled by phase fluctuations only. Coopers pairs fluctuations, described by theories in the Gaussian approximation, should explain the data. Theory: fluctuations of the super conducting order parameter in Gaussian approximation (I. Ussishkin et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 287001 (2002)) At 2D At low magnetic field Close to Tc 1 kBe d 2 6 B 2 SC xy xx > 103 xy et SC < 10-1 xx Rsquare Quantum of thermoelectric conductivity (21 nA/K) SC XY B BCS correlation length : 3 v F d 0.36 2 k BTc e 1 With v 4.35105 m2 s 1 F Marnieros (2000) Precise prediction Reduced temperature: xy B USH T ) Tc e ln( k Be 2 2 .ξ 2 d 6π Comparaison with the theoretical prediction SC XY xy/B(mA/TK) 0.01 is independent of the magnetic field at low field. B 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 0.02 xy/B(mA/TK) T=410mK T=450mK T=560mK T=640mK T=820mK T=1.6K T=3.2K Sample 2 Tc=380 mK 0.1 B (T) 1 4 0.01 The amplitude of signal is consistent with theory , close to Tc (B->0), with no adjustable parameters. 1E-3 1E-4 xy/B (Sample2) (B=0) 1E-5 xy/B (USH) 0.02 xy/B (Sample1) (B=0) 0.1 1 -2 eln(T/TC) d 4 The Nernst signal is determined only by the size of superconducting fluctuations mV/KT mV/KT lB lB A. Pourret et al. PRB 76, 214504 (2007). (nm) (nm) d d Pour B>B*, the caracteristic length is lB Pour B<B*, the caracteristic length is d f0 2B A. Pourret et al. PRB 76, 214504 (2007). Nernst signal is sensible to = lB f0 B 2 2d * d = l B d generalized correlation length The magnitude of the Nernst coefficient at high magnetic field can be predicted d (nm) The same function F() determine xy/B: xy/B(mA/TK) 50 With d for B < F(d) xy/B (USH) 1E-3 d2 B=0 d4 1E-5 0.02 0.1 xy/B(mA/TK) -21 50 l (nm) B F(0.93*lB) xy/B (USH)(450mK) 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 Landau quantization of the fluctuating Cooper pair motion 10 T=450mK F(lB) 0.01 = lB for B > B* 4 eln(T/TC) d 100 And 6.2 xy/B (B=0) 0.01 1E-4 B* 10 0.02 d(450mK) 0.1 -2 B(T) lB 1 4 At Tc, Nernst coefficient is determined by lB on the whole magnetic field range, because d diverge BSI BC2 xy/B(mA/TK) 1 T=200mK T=250mK T=310mK T=360mK T=450mK T=560mK T=640mK T=820mK T=1.6K T=2K T=3.2K F(lB) 0.1 0.01 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 0.02 0.1 1 B (T) F (lB) corresponds to xy B (Tc , B ) 4 Other theoretical approaches M. Serbyn et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 067001 (2009) Kubo formulism K. Michaeli, A. Finkelstein. Phys. Rev.B 80, 214516 (2009) Quantum kinetic approach One difference with cuprates The case of InOx M. A. Paalanen et al. Phys. Rev.Lett. 69, 1604 (1992). V. F. Gantmakher et al. JETP Lett. 61, 606 80 T=0.32 K (1995). G. Sambandamurthy et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 92, 107005 (2004). R (kW) V. F. Gantmakher, et al. JETP Lett. 71, 160 (2000). 10 R• (kW) B=5 T 0.62 K SIT 20 5 B=0 T 0 0 0.42 K 40 0 1 2 3 T(K) 4 Low carrier density: n=1021 cm-3 Weak phase stiffness (Emery and Kivelson) Ovadyahu Z. 5 Superconductor 1.20 K 2.10 K 0 3 B (T) Bose Insulator 6 9 Metal Nb0.15Si0.85 InOx The coherence length doesn’t diverge The case of InOx Carrier density is 80 times lower than Nb0.15Si0.85 Strong phase fluctuations • No visible anomaly in xy(T)! • The vortex signal and the fluctuation signal cannot be distinguished! Summary A Nernst signal generated by fluctuating Cooper pairs (as opposed to mobile vortices) can be resolved at T~30Tc in a dirty superconducting film! The magnitude of the signal is in very good agreement with the theory. The field dependence of this signal detects the “ghost critical field”, confirming a superconducting origin.