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
Based on μ-, T- and H-dependent pairing and number equations and the premise that μ(T) is predominantly the cause of the variation of the upper critical field H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T), wh...Based on μ-, T- and H-dependent pairing and number equations and the premise that μ(T) is predominantly the cause of the variation of the upper critical field H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T), where μ, T and H denote the chemical potential, temperature and the applied field, respectively, we provide in this paper fits to the empirical H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) data of H<sub>3</sub>S reported by Mozaffari, et al. (2019) and deal with the issue of whether or not H<sub>3</sub>S exhibits the Meissner effect. Employing a variant of the template given by Dogan and Cohen (2021), we examine in detail the results of Hirsch and Marsiglio (2022) who have claimed that H<sub>3</sub>S does not exhibit the Meissner effect and Minkov, et al. (2023) who have claimed that it does. We are thus led to suggest that monitoring the chemical potential (equivalently, the number density of Cooper pairs N<sub>s</sub> at T = T<sub>c</sub>) should shed new light on the issue being addressed.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>.
文摘Based on μ-, T- and H-dependent pairing and number equations and the premise that μ(T) is predominantly the cause of the variation of the upper critical field H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T), where μ, T and H denote the chemical potential, temperature and the applied field, respectively, we provide in this paper fits to the empirical H<sub>c</sub><sub>2</sub>(T) data of H<sub>3</sub>S reported by Mozaffari, et al. (2019) and deal with the issue of whether or not H<sub>3</sub>S exhibits the Meissner effect. Employing a variant of the template given by Dogan and Cohen (2021), we examine in detail the results of Hirsch and Marsiglio (2022) who have claimed that H<sub>3</sub>S does not exhibit the Meissner effect and Minkov, et al. (2023) who have claimed that it does. We are thus led to suggest that monitoring the chemical potential (equivalently, the number density of Cooper pairs N<sub>s</sub> at T = T<sub>c</sub>) should shed new light on the issue being addressed.
