Excellent fits were obtained by Talantsev (MPLB 33, 1950195, 2019) to the temperature (T)-dependent upper critical field (H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T)) data of H<sub>3</sub>S report...Excellent fits were obtained by Talantsev (MPLB 33, 1950195, 2019) to the temperature (T)-dependent upper critical field (H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T)) data of H<sub>3</sub>S reported by Mozaffari et al. [Nature Communications 10, 2522 (2019)] by employing four alternative phenomenological models, each of which invoked two or more properties from its sample-specific set S<sub>1</sub> = {T<sub>c</sub>, gap, coherence length, penetration depth, jump in sp.ht.} and a single value of the effective mass (m*) of an electron. Based on the premise that the variation of H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) is due to the variation of the chemical potential μ(T), we report here fits to the same data by employing a T-, μ- and m*-dependent equation for H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) and three models of μ(T), viz. the linear, the parabolic and the concave-upward model. For temperatures up to which the data are available, each of these provides a good fit. However, for lower values of T, their predictions differ. Notably, the predicted values of H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(0) are much higher than in any of the models dealt with by Talantsev. In sum, we show here that the addressed data are explicable in a framework comprising the set S<sub>2</sub> = {μ, m*, interaction parameter λ<sub>m</sub>, Landau index N<sub>L</sub>}, which is altogether different from S<sub>1</sub>.展开更多
文摘Excellent fits were obtained by Talantsev (MPLB 33, 1950195, 2019) to the temperature (T)-dependent upper critical field (H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T)) data of H<sub>3</sub>S reported by Mozaffari et al. [Nature Communications 10, 2522 (2019)] by employing four alternative phenomenological models, each of which invoked two or more properties from its sample-specific set S<sub>1</sub> = {T<sub>c</sub>, gap, coherence length, penetration depth, jump in sp.ht.} and a single value of the effective mass (m*) of an electron. Based on the premise that the variation of H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) is due to the variation of the chemical potential μ(T), we report here fits to the same data by employing a T-, μ- and m*-dependent equation for H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) and three models of μ(T), viz. the linear, the parabolic and the concave-upward model. For temperatures up to which the data are available, each of these provides a good fit. However, for lower values of T, their predictions differ. Notably, the predicted values of H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(0) are much higher than in any of the models dealt with by Talantsev. In sum, we show here that the addressed data are explicable in a framework comprising the set S<sub>2</sub> = {μ, m*, interaction parameter λ<sub>m</sub>, Landau index N<sub>L</sub>}, which is altogether different from S<sub>1</sub>.
