1:
2: % V-thickness
3: % critical temperature
4: % Fe-thickness
5: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
6: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
7:
8:
9: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \usepackage{epsf}
12: \usepackage{graphicx}
13:
14: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
15: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Friday, June 30, 2006 11:06:49}
16: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
17:
18: \def\dv{$d_V$\ }
19: \def\ts{$T_S$\ }
20: \def\df{$d_{Fe}$\ }
21: \input{tcilatex}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{Mobility and its temperature dependence in LSCO: viscous motion ?}
26: \author{Lev P. Gor'kov}
27: \affiliation{NHMFL, Florida State University, 1800 E P.Dirac Dr., Tallahassee FL 32310,
28: USA}
29: \affiliation{L.D.Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics of the RAS, Chernogolovka
30: 142432, RUSSIA }
31: \author{Gregory B. Teitel'baum}
32: \email{grteit@kfti.knc.ru}
33: \affiliation{E.K.Zavoiskii Institute for Technical Physics of the RAS, Kazan 420029,
34: RUSSIA }
35: \date{\today}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We argue that charges in underdoped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$
39: move in a dissipative environment of strong spatial and temporal
40: fluctuations. The unusual temperature dependence of the Hall angle
41: known as "the separation of lifetimes" is reinterpreted and
42: attributed to the appearance of the thermally activated component
43: in the effective number of carriers with the temperature increase.
44: We consider the temperature interval above $T_{c}$ where
45: localization effects can be neglected.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \pacs{74.45+c, 74.78.Pr}
49: \maketitle
50:
51: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
52:
53: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
54: %\keywords{Proximity effect, superconducting spin valve}
55:
56: The normal phase properties of high temperature superconducting
57: (HT$_{c}$) cuprates differ strongly from those of ordinary
58: superconductors. The fact has been justly attributed to the
59: proximity of new materials to the Mott metal-insulator (MI)
60: transition, where metallic features come about due to doping of
61: external carriers into the CuO$_2$-plane. The Mott's physics has
62: been best traced in evolution of two parent materials,
63: La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$ (LCO, or 214) and YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6}$
64: (YBCO$_{6}$, or 123), from the antiferromagnetic (AFM) insulator state into the HT%
65: $_{c}$ material at doping. La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$, when doped by the
66: divalent Sr, transforms into the single-plane HT$_{c}$
67: superconductor, La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ (LSCO). YBCO$_{6+y}$
68: is nowadays a classic example of the two-plane HT$_c$ material
69: doped by the excessive oxygen.
70:
71: We concentrate on transport characteristics of LSCO. Better single
72: crystals have been available for these materials which have been
73: examined extensively. Early resistivity and the Hall effect
74: studies were conducted usually below room temperatures (For brief
75: review of old results, see e.g., \cite{Timusk}). Recent data
76: \cite{Ono} for resistivity and the Hall effect in LSCO now cover
77: the broad range of concentration and up to 1000 K. Below we apply
78: our analysis mostly to the findings \cite{Ono}.
79:
80: In this presentation we interpret anew the $T$-dependence of
81: resistivity taking into account the increase of number of carriers
82: with temperature
83:
84: Transport data for cuprates could not be easy explained in terms
85: of the Fermi liquid (FL) theory. Thus, resistivity in optimally
86: doped LSCO has been found to increase linearly with temperature up
87: to 1000 K without any tendency to saturation \cite{Gurvitch}. This
88: dependence was interpreted in frameworks of the phenomenological
89: Marginal Fermi Liquid (MFL) theory \cite{Varma}. According to
90: \cite{Varma}, all measured quantities are expected to scale with
91: the only possible dimensional parameter -
92: the temperature; hence, linear in $T$ dependence of the relaxation rate: $%
93: 1/\tau \propto T$. A challenge to MFL came up with observation of
94: almost quadratic temperature dependence for the Hall angle (more
95: precisely, of $\cot (\theta _{H})=\rho_{xx}/\rho_{yx}$, where
96: $\rho_{xx}$ and $\rho_{yx}$ are the
97: longitudinal and the transverse resistivity components, correspondingly) %
98: \cite{Ong}. Quadratic $T$-dependence for the Hall angle, as
99: opposed to the $T$-linear resistivity, seemed to be the evidence
100: in favor of two scales in the relaxation processes for carriers
101: \cite{Chien}. (The controversy is sometimes referred to as ``the
102: separation of lifetimes''; e.g. see in \cite{Hussey}).
103:
104: In \cite{Anderson} the puzzle was attributed to ``spin-charge
105: separation'', the concept borrowed from the physics of
106: one-dimensional conductors and merely postulated for HT$_{c}$
107: cuprates. The quadratic $T$- dependence for $\cot (\theta _{H})$
108: was ascribed in \cite{AbVa} to small angle scattering of carriers
109: on dopants, e. g., on the Sr$^{2+}$- ions located far enough from
110: the conducting CuO$_{2}$-planes.
111:
112: Treatment of transport phenomena in metals and semiconductors is
113: based on the fundamental concept of quasiparicles and on
114: the subsequent use of the Boltzmann-like equation. In the MFL theory \cite%
115: {Varma} the energy spectrum of electronic liquid bears the
116: singular character and the well-defined quasiparticles are absent.
117: MFL scaling \cite{Varma} does not immediately include the small
118: angle scattering and the Boltzmann equation approach had to be
119: generalized in \cite{AbVa}.
120:
121: The electron energy spectrum in cuprates was directly addressed in
122: the ARPES experiments. Consensus is that within the current
123: resolution well-defined quasiparticle excitations exist only at
124: crossing of the ``Fermi surface (FS) locus''\ along the nodal
125: directions. These regions of the FS are termed as ``the Fermi
126: arcs'', with the arcs' lengths increasing with the increase of
127: temperature. Broad features are seen instead
128: for all other directions (see a summary of recent ARPES findings in \cite%
129: {Yoshida} together with a discussion concerning possible implications of the
130: ``arcs''\ to transport properties).
131:
132: It is worth mention here in passing that the Fermi surface
133: ``restoration'', i.e. formation of sharp excitations, takes place
134: below $T_{c}$ \cite{Kanigel}.
135:
136: The text-book expression for conductivity has the form:
137: \begin{equation}
138: \sigma =ne^{2}\tau _{tr}/m^{\ast } \label{eq1}
139: \end{equation}%
140: where $m^{\ast }$ is the effective mass, $\tau _{tr}$-the
141: transport scattering time (Eq.(1) can be equally expressed through
142: the mobility: $\mu \equiv \tau /m^{\ast }$).
143:
144: The Hall coefficient, $R_{H}$, in metals and semiconductors must
145: also be derived using the Boltzmann equation. For the parabolic
146: energy spectrum the well-known result is:
147: \begin{equation}
148: R_{H}=1/nec \label{eq2}
149: \end{equation}%
150: $R_{H}$ preserves its form, Eq.(2), for interacting electrons with
151: the isotropic energy spectrum \cite{Khodas}. In a more general
152: case, however, the expression for $R_{H}$ would depend on the
153: model. Recall that even for semiconductors with small elliptic
154: pockets the expression (2) should be multiplied by a factor that
155: depends on the anisotropy of masses. In metals even the sign of
156: $R_{H}$ may depend on the FS topology \cite{Ong2}.
157:
158: Eq.(2) becomes exact in the limit of strong magnetic fields
159: \cite{LL}. At weaker fields expression (2) is nothing more than an
160: \emph{estimate for effective number of carriers}. To the best of
161: the authors' knowledge, the only example when $R_{H}$ in its form
162: (2) measures the exact number of carriers is given by the motion
163: of charged particles in electric and magnetic fields in
164: a viscous media. All the more is it interesting that in case of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$%
165: _{4}$ experimentally the number of carriers, $n$, calculated as in
166: Eq.(2) exactly coincides with $x$ at small $x$ \cite{Ono, LGLT,
167: Tsukuba}.
168:
169: It is common in the literature to consider peculiarities in
170: transport properties of cuprates above $T_{c}$ as coming due to
171: the non-FL behavior, in other words, due to non-existence of
172: quasiparticles in a system of strongly interacting electrons.
173: Strong interactions are of course important in a system near the
174: Mott MI transition, but the view itself does not lead to
175: theoretical understanding. Below we suggest that anomalies in the
176: cuprates' transport may actually stem from some qualitatively
177: different physics. It concerns, first of all, homogeneity of the
178: electronic liquid in cuprates.
179:
180: Interpretations of the electronic spectra as obtained from the
181: ARPES data, for instance, always implicitly infer that studied
182: samples are homogeneous both in space and time. It is definitely
183: not so. Abstracting from non-homogeneity caused by external
184: doping, it is now the well-established experimental fact that
185: spatial and temporal fluctuations between non-magnetic regions and
186: incommensurate antiferromagnetic (ICAFM) regions (known also as
187: ``stripes'') constitute the
188: ubiquitous feature of the so-called pseudogap (PG) phase on the ($T,x$%
189: )-plane for LSCO. At lower temperatures the two fluctuating phases
190: realize themselves as static SC regions that coexist spatially
191: with ICAFM areas. \emph{Static} phase coexistence is established
192: in the elastic neutron
193: experiments both with \cite{Khaykovich, Lake} and without magnetic fields \cite%
194: {Tranquada}, from the NMR data \cite{Mitrovic} and from the $\mu
195: $SR experiments \cite{Savichi}. The ``granular''\ character of
196: LSCO samples manifests itself in the anomalous ``$\ln
197: T$-resistivity''\ at low
198: temperatures when SC is suppressed by strong enough magnetic fields \cite%
199: {Ando}.
200:
201: \emph{Temporal} phases' fluctuations at higher temperatures were
202: seen by the
203: inelastic neutron scattering \cite{Obzor} and in the NMR experiments \cite%
204: {LPGT_JETP}. Slowing down of the fluctuations at cooling, for
205: instance, was directly traced as ``wipe out''\ of the
206: $^{63}$Cu-signal at the temperature decrease \cite{wipeout}.
207:
208: In the complex dynamic regime of fluctuating sub-phases kinetic
209: properties cannot be obtained from a Boltzmann-like approach. Note
210: the important role of non-elastic events in such a regime.
211:
212: The clue to the following analysis is this. As it was already
213: emphasized above, for LSCO at small $x$ the number of externally
214: doped holes is known \emph{a priori} and is equal to the number of
215: dopants, Sr$^{2+}$.
216: The remarkable fact is then that from Eq.(2) and the experimental $R_{H}$ %
217: \cite{Ono} one indeed obtains exactly $x$ carriers per Cu-site (at
218: small $x$ and temperatures around 100 K) \cite{Ono, LGLT}. It
219: encourages us to add more significance to measurements of the Hall
220: coefficient in LSCO. More specifically, \textit{we assume that
221: from expression (2) for $R_{H}$ one obtains the true number of
222: carriers, }$n_{eff}$\textit{(}$T,x$\textit{), at all given
223: }$x$\textit{\ and temperature, }$T$\textit{\ }\cite{LGLT}. In
224: accordance with the introductory remarks above, we conclude that
225: \textit{at low }$x$\textit{\ and finite T single charges move in a
226: dissipative media}.
227:
228: Analysis of the Hall data from \cite{Ono} performed in \cite{LGLT,
229: Tsukuba} has shown that the number of holes per Cu atom,
230: $n_{Hall}(T,x) = nV_{Cu}$, in LSCO changes with temperature as:
231: \begin{equation}
232: n_{Hall}(T,x)=n_{0}(x)+n_{1}(x)\cdot \exp [-\Delta (x)/T)]
233: \label{eq3}
234: \end{equation}%
235: where $n_{0}(x)=x$ at low $x$; $n_{1}$ is a constant ($\sim 2.8$),
236: but decreases rapidly above $x\sim 0.2$, $V_{Cu}$ is the unit
237: volume per Cu. Note that the activation character of the
238: $T$-dependent term in Eq.(3) is the thermodynamic feature.
239:
240: In the ARPES experiments one also measures the energy position of
241: \begin{figure}[tbp]
242: \centering \includegraphics[height=7cm]{fig1.eps} %\lable{fig:1}
243: \caption{ The resistivity multiplied by $n_{Hall}(T,x)$ from Eq.
244: (3) plotted against $T^2$ for LSCO at selected $x$ deduced from
245: \cite{Ono}.}
246: \end{figure}
247: the ``van Hove flat band''\ with respect to the chemical
248: potential. The gap, $\Delta (x)$, in (3) and this energy do
249: coincide, and therefore in \cite{LGLT, Tsukuba} the activation gap
250: has been interpreted as the ionization energy of coupled
251: electron-hole pairs, i.e., the local formations on Cu-O clusters.
252:
253: With Eq.(3) in mind, it becomes tempting to extract the proper
254: relaxation rate, $1/\tau (T)$, for a single moving charge by
255: making use of Eq.(1). (At least, at small enough $x$ this quantity
256: should not depend on the holes concentration!). In Fig.1 we have
257: plotted (for a few
258: concentrations) resistivity, $\rho (T,x)$, multiplied by $n_{Hall}(T,x)$ \cite%
259: {Ono, LGLT}. One sees that all three curves at $T<$300-400 K
260: superimpose on each other, the result consistent with the notion
261: of the single charge carrier mobility.
262:
263: The $T$-dependence in Fig.1 is very close to the quadratic law, $T^{2}$%
264: . One may try to interpret this dependence as the FL behavior of
265: the carriers forming small Fermi-pockets. We show that such
266: interpretation is not correct. Indeed, assuming a Fermi energy,
267: $T_{F}$, for such a hypothetical pocket, one may attempt to
268: re-write $\hbar /\tau $ as
269: \begin{equation}
270: \hbar /\tau =const\cdot T(m/m^{\ast })(T/T_{F}) \label{eq4}
271: \end{equation}%
272: and estimate $T_{F}$ from Fig.1. After trivial calculations one
273: arrives to the value: $T_{F}\sim 120-160$ K (For the effective
274: mass, $m^{\ast }$, we use its optical value $\sim (3-4)m_{0}$ from
275: \cite{Padilla}). It is obvious that the FL concept is not
276: applicable: the quadratic dependence on temperature in the FL
277: frameworks is justified only at $T<<T_{F} $.
278:
279: There is no immediate explanation either for the $T$-squared
280: dependence that would follow out the picture of a charge moving
281: along fluctuating sub-phases. Most probable, the form of Eq.(4) is
282: nothing but a good numerical fit to the data. Note that the
283: quadratic dependence in Fig.1 is actually the same
284: $T^{2}$-dependence that has been first observed in old
285: measurements for the Hall angle and comes about according to (3)
286: after multiplying resistivity by $n_{Hall}(T,x)\propto 1/R_{H}$
287: \cite{Levin}. More recently, the very question whether the linear
288: and the quadratic $T$ -behavior in resistivity and the Hall angle,
289: correspondingly, are ubiquitous for cuprates became the subject of
290: debates (see, e.g. in \cite{Hussey}).
291:
292: In Fig.2, for completeness, we plotted the same value for $\
293: x=0.12$ for the whole temperature interval available in
294: \begin{figure}[tbp]
295: \centering \includegraphics[height=7cm]{fig2.eps} %\lable{fig:2}
296: \caption{The resistivity multiplied by $n_{Hall}(T,x)$ plotted
297: \emph{vs} $T^2$ for LSCO (x=0.12) (deduced from \cite{Ono}).}
298: \end{figure}
299: \cite{Ono}. There are two regions of a seemingly quadratic
300: dependence in $T$, separated by an intermediate temperature range.
301: The transition between the two regime occurs near the pseudogap
302: temperature, $T^{\ast }(x)$, for this concentration. (According to
303: \cite{LGLT}, $T^{\ast }(x)$ is defined as a temperature at which
304: the number of holes, $n_{0}(x)$, introduced through the external
305: doping and the number of the thermally activated holes in Eq.(3)
306: become approximately equal). Although at higher temperatures the
307: carriers' concentration also rapidly increases and charges may be
308: not independent anymore, qualitatively the result would mean that
309: the dissipation rate grows enormously above $\sim 100-150$ K (in
310: other terms, the mobility becomes extremely low).
311:
312: It is only natural to wonder whether the concept elaborated above
313: for LSCO does apply to other HT$_{c}$ materials. Unlike LSCO, in
314: other cuprates there is no easy way to know the amount of holes,
315: $p$, introduced by the external (chemical) doping, especially
316: close to the onset of superconductivity. Judgments about the
317: actual hole concentration are then often based on the shape of the
318: so called ``superconducting dome'', its dependence on the dopants'
319: concentration, and the subsequent comparison with those in LSCO as
320: a template (or estimated otherwise from the thermopower experiments above $%
321: T_{c}$). As to the shape of the ``superconducting dome'', it is worth
322: reminding that for a $d$-wave SC $T_{c}$ is sensitive to defects introduced
323: by the doping process.
324:
325: Consider briefly two examples. The low temperature Hall effect in
326: the normal state was measured in \cite{FedorNature} for Bi$_{2}$ Sr$_{2-x}$%
327: La$_{x}$CuO$_{6+y}$ (BSLCO, or La-doped Bi-2201) where the hole
328: number, $p$, was defined according to such a procedure in
329: \cite{Ando 2}. Superconductivity occurs only above $p\sim 0.10$.
330: We have calculated
331: the number of holes in La-doped Bi-2201 from the $R_{H}(T,x)$ \cite%
332: {FedorNature} according to Eq.(3). The results indeed turned out
333: very close to our results for LSCO (See Fig.3). Together with the
334: \begin{figure}[tbp]
335: \centering \includegraphics[height=7cm]{fig3.eps} %\lable{fig:3}
336: \caption{The dependence of the Hall carriers number on the
337: concentration of the dopants in the CuO$_2$ plane for LSCO
338: \cite{LGLT} (circles) and BSLCO found in \cite{FedorNature} from
339: $R_H$ at 100 K (filled triangles) and from the fitting of Eq. (3)
340: to the $R_{H}(T)$ dependencies (open triangles).}
341: \end{figure}
342: analysis \cite{LGLT} for LSCO, one may conclude that the Hall
343: coefficient in form of Eq.(2) does indeed serve as the measure of
344: the actual number of carriers. Another argument in favor of
345: applicability of the above physics to other materials is that
346: rough estimations gave us (for 0.12 - 0.15 doping) close values of
347: $T_{F}\sim 50$($m$*/$m$) for LSCO, YBCO \cite{YBCO} and BiSrLaCuO.
348: Correspondingly, the Hall angle (recalculated for the equal field
349: values) is practically the same for these compounds.(Noting that
350: this $\cot (\theta _{H})\approx AT^{2}$, it is straightforward to
351: obtain the expression for characteristic temperature as
352: $T_{F}=k_{B}m^{\ast }c/(Ae\hbar B_{z})$. Here parameter $A$ is
353: inversely proportional to $B_{z}$, the magnetic field normal to
354: CuO$_{2}$ plane. The material dependent quantities here are $A$
355: and $m^{\ast }$).
356:
357: To summarize, according to \cite{Ono, LGLT}, the number of
358: carriers in SC cuprates (above $T_{c}$) changes with temperature
359: and deviates from simple proportionality to the amount of holes
360: given by concentration of chemical dopants. Therefore the
361: effective mobility (or $\hbar /\tau (T)$) must be calculated from
362: Eq.(1) after taking $n_{Hall}(T,x)$ from (3) into account. No
363: traditional approach is then able to explain the quadratic
364: \emph{T}-dependence which we consider as a purely numerical
365: artifact. Mobility shows dramatic decrease at temperatures above
366: $\sim 100$ K. We ascribe this behavior to motion of charges in a
367: viscous media. For cuprates spatial and temporal competition
368: between the two phases is ubiquitous at these temperatures.
369: \begin{acknowledgements}
370:
371: The work of L.P.G. was supported by the NHMFL through NSF
372: cooperative agreement DMR-9527035 and the State of Florida, that
373: of G.B.T. through the RFBR Grant N 07-02-01184.
374: \end{acknowledgements}
375:
376: \begin{references}
377:
378: \bibitem{Timusk} T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. \textbf{62},
379: 61 (1999)
380:
381: \bibitem{Ono} S. Ono, S. Komiya, and Y. Ando, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{75},
382: 024515 (2007)
383:
384: \bibitem{Gurvitch} M. Gurvitch and A. T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett.
385: \textbf{59}, 1337 (1987)
386:
387: \bibitem{Varma} C. M. Varma \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{63},
388: 1996 (1989)
389:
390: \bibitem{Ong} N. P. Ong, in \emph{Physical Properties of High
391: Temperature Superconductors}, edited by D.M. Ginsberg, Vol. 2, p.
392: 459 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)
393:
394: \bibitem{Chien} T. R. Chien, Z. Z. Wang, and N. P. Ong, Phys.
395: Rev. Lett. \textbf{67}, 2088 (1991)
396:
397: \bibitem{Hussey} N. E. Hussey, in \emph{Handbook of High Temperature
398: Superconductivity: Theory and Experiment} (eds. J.R. Schrieffer
399: and J. Brooks)(Springer Verlag, Amsterdam, 2007)
400:
401: \bibitem{Anderson} P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{67}, 2092
402: (1991)
403:
404: \bibitem{AbVa} Elihu Abrahams and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68},
405: 094502 (2003); C.M. Varma and Elihu Abrahams, Phys. Rev. Lett.
406: \textbf{86}, 4652 (2001)
407:
408: \bibitem{Yoshida} T. Yoshida \emph{et al.}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter
409: \textbf{19}, 125209 (2007)
410:
411: \bibitem{Kanigel} A. Kanigel \emph{et al.}, Phys.
412: Rev. Lett. \textbf{99}, 157001 (2007)
413:
414: \bibitem{Khodas} M. A. Khodas and A. M. Finkel'stein, Phys.
415: Rev. B \textbf{68}, 155114 (2003)
416:
417: \bibitem{Ong2} N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{43}, 193 (1991)
418:
419: \bibitem{LL} E.M.Lifshitz and L.P.Pitaevskii, \emph{Landau and
420: Lifshitz Course of Theoretical physics, v.10: Physical Kinetics}
421: (Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford, 1997)
422:
423: \bibitem{LGLT} L.P. Gor'kov and G.B. Teitel'baum, Phys. Rev.
424: Lett. \textbf{97}, 247003 (2006)
425:
426: \bibitem{Tsukuba} L.P. Gor'kov and G.B. Teitel'baum,
427: arXiv:0801.1728
428:
429: \bibitem{Khaykovich} B. Khaykovich \emph{et al.}, Phys Rev B \textbf{71}, 220508 (2005)
430:
431: \bibitem{Lake} B. Lake \emph{et al.}, Nature (London) \textbf{415}, 299 (2002).
432:
433: %\bibitem{Lake2} B. Lake, G. Aeppli, K. N. Clausen, D. F. McMorrow, K. Lefmann,
434: %N. E. Hussey, N. Mangkorntong, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, T. E. Mason,
435: %A.Schroder, Science \textbf{291}, 1759 (2001).Mozno opustit'
436:
437: \bibitem{Tranquada} J. M. Tranquada \emph{et al.}, Nature (London) \textbf{375}, 561
438: (1995)
439:
440: \bibitem{Mitrovic} V. F. Mitrovic \emph{et al.}, Nature (London) \textbf{413},501 (2001)
441:
442: \bibitem{Savichi} A. T. Savici \emph{et al.}, Phys.Rev. B \textbf{66}, 014524 (2002)
443:
444: \bibitem{Ando} Yoichi Ando \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{75},
445: 4662 (1995); I. S. Beloborodov \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
446: \textbf{91}, 246801(4) (2003)
447:
448: \bibitem{Obzor} Robert J. Birgeneau \emph{et al.}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{75}, 111003 (2006)
449:
450: \bibitem{LPGT_JETP} L. P. Gor'kov and G. B. Teitel'baum, JETP
451: Lett. \textbf{80}, 195 (2004).
452:
453: \bibitem{wipeout} A. W. Hunt \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
454: 82, 4300 (1999); G.B. Teitel'baum \emph{et al.}, Phys.Rev. B
455: \textbf{63}, 020507 (R) (2001)
456:
457: \bibitem{Padilla} W. J. Padilla \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{72}, 060511 (2005)
458:
459: \bibitem{Levin} For a better fit of experimental data it
460: was once assumed in \cite{Levin1} that there may be other carriers
461: present with the temperature dependent concentration and different
462: relaxation times
463:
464: \bibitem{Levin1} G. A. Levin and K.F. Quader, Phys. Rev. B
465: \textbf{62}, 11879 (2000)
466:
467: \bibitem{FedorNature} Fedor F. Balakirev \emph{et al.},
468: Nature (London) \textbf{424}, 912 (2003).
469:
470: \bibitem{Ando 2} Y. Ando \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{61}, 14956
471: (2000)
472:
473: \bibitem{YBCO} Kouji Segawa and Yoichi Ando, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{69}, 104521
474: (2004)
475:
476: % arXiv:0711.4213 [ps, pdf, other]
477:
478: %Title: Implication of the Mott-limit violation in high-Tc cuprates
479:
480: %Authors: Yoichi Ando (Osaka University)
481:
482:
483: \end{references}
484:
485: \bigskip
486:
487: %\textbf{FIGURE CAPTIONS}
488:
489: \end{document}
490: