1: \documentclass[twocolumn,letter]{jpsj2}
2:
3: \def\runtitle{Upper critical field of 3K phase in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$}
4: \def\runauthor{M. Matsumoto, C. Belardinelli and M. Sigrist}
5:
6: \title{Upper Critical Field of the 3 Kelvin Phase in Sr$_2$RuO$_4$}
7:
8:
9:
10: \author{
11: Masashige Matsumoto
12: \thanks{
13: Also at Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,
14: Shizuoka University, 836 Oya, Shizuoka 422--8529;
15: E-mail address: spmmatu@itp.phys.ethz.ch
16: },
17: Cyril Belardinelli and Manfred Sigrist
18: }
19:
20:
21:
22: \inst{Theoretische Physik, ETH--H\"onggerberg, CH--8093 Z\"urich, Switzerland}
23:
24:
25:
26: \recdate{April 3, 2003}
27:
28: \newcommand{\Sr}{Sr$_2$RuO$_4$}
29:
30: \abst{
31: The inhomogeneous 3 Kelvin phase is most likely a
32: superconducting state nucleating at the interface between
33: micrometer-sized
34: Ru-metal inclusions and Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ above the bulk onset of
35: superconductivity. This filamentary
36: superconducting state yields a characteristic temperature dependence
37: of the upper critical field which is sublinear, i.e., $ H_{c2} (T)
38: \propto (T^* - T)^{\gamma} $ with $ 0.5 \leq \gamma < 1 $ ($ T^* $:
39: nucleation temperature). The Ginzburg-Landau theory is used to
40: analyze the behavior of the nucleated spin-triplet phase in a field
41: and the characteristic features of $ H_{c2} $ observed in the
42: experiment are explained based on a two-component order parameter
43: in the presence of a filament of enhanced superconductivity with a
44: finite width.
45: }
46:
47:
48: \kword{
49: \Sr, upper critical field, filamentary superconductivity,
50: Ginzburg-Landau theory
51: }
52:
53: \begin{document}
54: \sloppy
55: \maketitle
56:
57:
58:
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: %Macros
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: \newcommand{\bA}{{\mbox{\boldmath$A$}}}
63: \newcommand{\bH}{{\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}}
64: \newcommand{\bD}{{\mbox{\boldmath$D$}}}
65: \newcommand{\bk}{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}
66: \newcommand{\bd}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}
67: \newcommand{\bn}{{\mbox{\boldmath$n$}}}
68: %\newcommand{\Sr}{Sr$_2$RuO$_4$}
69: \newcommand{\ex}{\eta_x}
70: \newcommand{\ey}{\eta_y}
71: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
72:
73:
74:
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: %\section{introduction}
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ plays an exemplary role among unconventional
79: superconductors as a realization of spin triplet pairing in a
80: quasi-two-dimensional (2D) Fermi liquid, with some similarities to
81: superfluid
82: $^3$He.
83: \cite{Maeno-1994,Rice-1995,Baskaran}
84: Experiments provide strong evidence of a superconducting
85: state with in-plane
86: equal-spin pairing
87: \cite{Ishida}
88: and violation of time reversal symmetry.
89: \cite{Luke}
90: This uniquely identifies the pairing symmetry to be that of a {\it chiral $p$-wave
91: state}, analogous to the A-phase of $^3$He: $ \bd(\bk) = \Delta_0
92: \hat{z}(k_x \pm ik_y ) $.
93: \cite{Rice-1998,Maeno-2001}
94: This is a lucky case in many respects. We mention only a few
95: points here. (1)
96: Broken time reversal symmetry is responsible for unusual magnetic
97: properties.
98: (2) The order parameter consists of {\it two} complex
99: components $ {\bf \eta} = ( \eta_x , \eta_y ) $, the only case among all
100: possible triplet pairing states, for tetragonal crystal symmetry, which
101: correspond otherwise to one-component order parameters. Thus, we may
102: write
103: \begin{equation}
104: \bd ({\bf k}) = \hat{z} ( \eta_x k_x + \eta_y k_y).
105: \end{equation}
106: (3)
107: It gives rise to unusual vortex physics, including a square vortex
108: lattice and anomalous low-temperature flux dynamics.
109: \cite{Riseman,Agterberg}
110: (4) Chiral gapless subgap quasiparticle states appear at the surface.
111: \cite{Matsumoto-1999,Mao}
112:
113: For these properties the important feature is
114: the degeneracy of the two order parameter
115: components, which is guaranteed by the tetragonal symmetry. It was
116: suggested that this degeneracy lifted by symmetry lowering would lead to
117: two consecutive phase transitions similar to those in the heavy Fermion
118: superconductor UPt$_3$.
119: One of the way to realize this is the confinement of the superconductor in a
120: narrow filament
121: which has by geometry a symmetry lower than tetragonal.\cite{OGAWA}
122: Such kind of filamentary superconductivity is
123: most likely realized in an inhomogeneous superconducting phase dubbed
124: the "3 Kelvin phase" of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
125: \cite{Maeno-1998,Ando}
126: This phase appears at nearly double the bulk transition
127: temperature $ T_c = 1.5 $ K and is associated
128: with the presence of micrometer-sized Ru-metal inclusions in the otherwise
129: very clean Sr$_2$RuO$_4$. It has been suggested that this phase nucleates
130: at the interface between the Ru-metal and Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, where the
131: critical temperature is larger possibly due to a
132: locally enhanced density of states and modified electron-electron
133: interactions.
134: \cite{Sigrist-2001}
135: In such a case the superconducting state appears at
136: a temperature $ T^* > T_c $ in a restricted region of lower
137: symmetry. This superconducting state
138: has a single order parameter component and does not violate
139: time reversal symmetry. The component corresponds to the $p$-wave
140: superconducting state with momentum along the interface, i.e., $ {\bf n}
141: \cdot {\bf \eta} = 0 $ where $ {\bf n} $ is the interface normal vector.
142: This filamentary phase yields several unusual properties.
143: Unlike in a conventional $s$-wave superconductor, the transition to the
144: bulk phase is not merely a matter of percolation, but represents a real
145: (time reversal) symmetry-breaking transition. This corresponds to an
146: additional second-order phase transition.
147: \cite{Yoshioka}
148: Moreover, this system may
149: constitute a complex intrinsically phase frustrated
150: superconducting network.
151:
152: An important way of probing the filamentary
153: phase is the observation of the nucleation in a magnetic field, i.e., the
154: upper critical field $ H_{c2} $. The confinement to a narrow filament
155: yields a sublinear temperature dependence
156: $ H_{c2} (T) \propto (T^* -T)^{\gamma} $ where
157: $ \gamma =0.5$ is close to $ T^* $ in contrast to the linear behavior for
158: the bulk $ H_{c2} $.
159: \cite{Buzdin,Abrikosov,Sigrist-2001}
160: In view of experiments showing exponent $ \gamma $ lying between 0.5 and
161: 1 in qualitative agreement with the expectations,
162: \cite{Yaguchi}
163: we would like to reanalyze the behavior of $ H_{c2} $ in the
164: filamentary phase.
165:
166:
167:
168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
169: %\section{Formulation}
170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
171: Our analysis is based on the Ginzburg-Landau model
172: of an infinite planar interface, as introduced in ref.
173: \ref{ref:Sigrist-2001}. It was suggested that the locally enhanced $ T_c
174: $ at the interface is the result of a local lattice distortion
175: mainly by RuO$_6$-octahedra rotation around the $z$-axis. This gives
176: rise to reduced
177: hopping matrix elements such that the Fermi velocities decrease,
178: increasing the density of states with an
179: additional (Stoner) enhancement of the uniform spin fluctuations. The
180: extension $ s $ of the distortion is of the order $ 100 $ \AA~and,
181: \cite{Neutron}
182: thus, is much shorter than
183: the coherence length $\xi $. On the other hand, the size of the Ru
184: inclusions is $ \sim 1 - 10~\mu {\rm m} $,
185: large compared to the coherence length.
186: \cite{Maeno-1998,Ando}
187: Hence we consider here an infinitely
188: extended interface separating two half spaces. The purpose of
189: the present study is to analyze the nucleation of the filamentary
190: unconventional superconducting state in a field. Therefore, we will
191: further simplify our model. The system is taken to be symmetric
192: at the interface so that the material on both sides is identical. This
193: deviation from reality has only a minor influence on the qualitative
194: behavior of $ H_{c2} $.
195: Because the specific orientation of the interface is not so essential, we
196: choose a concrete example in which the normal vector lies in the
197: $a-b$ plane and points along the $x$-axis. The interface location
198: is then defined by $x=0 $.
199: Our model is given by the
200: standard Ginzburg-Landau free-energy functional for the above
201: $p$-wave order parameter $ (\eta_x, \eta_y) $. The local enhancement of
202: superconductivity at the interface is introduced by an additional
203: interface term
204: \cite{Sigrist-2001}:
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: F &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty d x \Bigl\{
207: a ( |\ex|^2 + |\ey|^2 )
208: - \xi \sigma \delta(x) ( |\ex|^2 +|\ey|^2 ) \cr
209: &+& K_1 ( |D_x \ex|^2 + |D_y \ey|^2 ) +
210: K_2 ( |D_y \ex|^2 + |D_x \ey|^2 ) \cr
211: &+& [ K_3 (D_x \ex)^* (D_y \ey)
212: + K_4 (D_y \ex)^* (D_x \ey) + c.c ] \cr
213: &+& K_5 ( |D_z \ex|^2 + |D_z \ey|^2 ) + \frac{1}{8\pi} (\nabla \times \bA)^2
214: \Bigr\}.
215: \label{eqn:1}
216: \end{eqnarray}
217: This term is localized to the interface by a delta function, since
218: the extension $ s $ is small. Although we will see
219: later that for a higher field this
220: extension can be important, we will ignore it for the moment.
221: Moreover, $\bD=\nabla+i(2e/\hbar c)\bA$ and $a=(T-T_c)/T_c$,
222: where $\bA$ is the vector potential and $T_c=1.5$ K
223: for the bulk \Sr.
224: $K_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4~{\rm and}~5$) are coefficients for the gradient terms (
225: $K_1/3=K_2=K_3=K_4$ for a cylindrical Fermi surface). We define
226: $\xi=\sqrt{K_1}$ as the
227: characteristic length scale of the order parameter in the bulk material.
228: For the discussion of the nucleation of the superconducting phase,
229: we can neglect the quartic terms in the Ginzburg-Landau theory.
230:
231: The variation of $ F $ with respect to $\ex$ and $\ey$ in a zero-field,
232: leads to two decoupled differential equations in the form of
233: Schr\"{o}dinger equations:
234: \begin{equation}
235: \left[ - K_{1(2)} \del_x^2 - \xi \sigma \delta(x) \right]
236: \eta_{x(y)} = -a \eta_{x(y)}.
237: \label{instab-1}
238: \end{equation}
239: The ``lowest energy'' solution corresponds to a bound state for an
240: attractive delta potential (locally enhanced superconductivity)
241: leading to an eigenvalue $a$ which
242: determines the nucleation temperature.
243: The order parameter components shows an exponential decay towards the bulk
244: region:
245: \begin{equation}
246: \eta_{x(y)} = \exp(-|x|/\xi_{x(y)}), ~~ \mbox{with} ~~
247: \xi_{x(y)} = 2 K_{1(2)}/ \xi \sigma
248: \end{equation}
249: and the transition temperatures for $\ex$ and $\ey$ are
250: obtained from the eigenvalues $ a = (T^*-T_c)/T_c > 0 $:
251: \begin{equation}
252: T^*_x = T_c(1+\frac{\sigma^2}{4}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
253: T^*_y = T_c(1+\frac{\sigma^2}{4} \frac{K_1}{K_2}).
254: \end{equation}
255: Both are enhanced by the $\sigma$ term and $T^*_y > T^*_x$, since $K_1
256: > K_2$. Hence the first nucleation of superconductivity occurs in the
257: $ \ey $-component whose nodes lie perpendicular to $ \bn $.
258:
259: We study first the case of fields in the $x-y$ plane. The upper
260: critical field $ H_{c2} $ for the nucleation of superconductivity is
261: higher for $\bH \perp \bn $ ($ \parallel y $) than for $\bH \parallel \bn $.
262: For $\bH \parallel y$, the components $\ex$ and $\ey$ remain decoupled
263: at the nucleation point. $ H_{c2} $ is determined by the instability
264: of $\ey$. We use $ \bA=(0,0,-Hx)$ leading to the equation
265: \begin{equation}
266: \bigl[ - K_2 \del_x^2 - \xi \sigma \delta(x) + \frac{4 K_5 x^2}{l_H^4} \bigr] \ey = -a \ey
267: \label{eqn:5}
268: \end{equation}
269: for $\ey$, where $l_H=\sqrt{c\hbar/(eH)}$ is the magnetic length.
270: For low fields (long $l_H$),
271: the harmonic potential term is a weak perturbation to
272: (\ref{instab-1}), so that $\ey=\exp(-|x|/\xi_y)$ remains a good
273: approximation. Substituting it into (\ref{eqn:1}) and integrating over
274: $ x $ we obtain the second-order term
275: \begin{equation}
276: F = a\xi_y + \frac{K_2}{\xi_y} -\xi \sigma + \frac{4K_5 \xi_y^3}{2l_H^4},
277: \label{eqn:6}
278: \end{equation}
279: whose zero determines the instability. Thus $ F=0 $ yields $H_{c2}$:
280: \begin{equation}
281: H_{c2} = \frac{c\hbar}{2e} \sqrt{\frac{2}{K_5
282: \xi_y^2}}\sqrt{\frac{T^*_y-T}{T_c}} \; ,
283: \label{eqn:7}
284: \end{equation}
285: as found previously \cite{Buzdin,Abrikosov,Sigrist-2001}.
286: With increasing field, however, $l_H$ becomes shorter and the harmonic
287: potential term in (\ref{eqn:5}) becomes a larger correction. Thus
288: the extension of $\ey$ along $ \bn $ shrinks due to the decreasing
289: cyclotron radius.
290: A good approximation to the ground state of the ``Schr\"{o}dinger
291: equation'' (\ref{eqn:5}) is obtained by a variational ansatz, which
292: captures the basic behavior in a simple way:
293: \begin{equation}
294: \ey = \exp(-|x|/\xi_y) \exp(-\sqrt{K_5/K_2} x^2/l_H^2).
295: \label{eqn:8}
296: \end{equation}
297: Here $\exp(-\sqrt{K_5/K_2} x^2/l_H^2)$ describes the asymptotic
298: behavior for distances far from the interface, while the exponential part
299: gives the correct boundary conditions at the interface.
300: Again we substitute $\ey $ into (\ref{eqn:1}) and integrate over $x$, so
301: that setting $ F =0
302: $ leads to $ H_{c2} (T) $ (Fig. 1). We may approximate the low-field range,
303: by a power law $H_{c2} \propto (T_y^*-T)^\gamma$. We find the best
304: approximation to the variational solution for
305: $ \gamma = 0.62 $ in the range $ 0.9T^*_y < T < T^*_y = 2.8$ K.
306: This value compares well with recent experimental findings of
307: $\gamma=0.7 - 0.75$, which is indeed sublinear
308: \cite{Yaguchi}. The exact square-root behavior in the
309: limit of very small fields is experimentally difficult to observe.
310: The limitation of this behavior is given by $ \xi \ll l_H $, i.e., $ H \ll
311: H^*
312: $ with a characteristic field
313: $ H^* = 2 \sqrt{K_2/K_5} (\Phi_0/2\pi)/\xi^2 \sim 1 {\rm T} $.
314: Moreover, in Fig. 1 we observe a deviation from our
315: variational solution for $T < 2$K.
316: This is partially due to the limited validity of the
317: Ginzburg-Landau theory which only extends to the region close to $T_y^*$.
318: Furthermore, the suppression of $ H_{c2} $ is likely related to a
319: limiting effect (analogous to the paramagnetic
320: limiting) which has also been observed in the bulk $ H_{c2} $ for
321: fields in the basal plane. The discussion of this high-field behavior
322: lies beyond our model and our scope.
323:
324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
325: \begin{figure}[t]
326: \begin{center}
327: \includegraphics[width=7.8cm]{fig1.eps}
328: \end{center}
329: \caption{
330: Temperature dependence of the upper critical field for an in-plane field.
331: The solid line denotes $\bH \parallel y$.
332: For a low magnetic field,
333: $H_{c2}$ has a square-root dependence $H_{c2} \propto (T_y^*-T)^{0.5}$,
334: which is plotted as a dashed line for $\bH \parallel y$.
335: The long-dash linear line denotes $\bH \parallel x$.
336: We choose the following parameters:
337: $K_5/K_1=1/500$ and $K_1/(c\hbar/2e)=\xi^2/(c\hbar/2e)=20$.
338: $\sigma$ is given to fix the transition temperature $T_y^*=2.8$ K.
339: Circles (stars) denote the experimental data
340: for down (up) sweep of field or temperature,
341: \cite{Yaguchi}
342: showing a hysteresis in $H_{c2}$ below 1 K.
343: }
344: \label{fig:1}
345: \end{figure}
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347:
348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
349: \begin{figure}[t]
350: \begin{center}
351: \includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{fig2.eps}
352: \end{center}
353: \caption{
354: Temperature dependence of the upper critical field for $\bH \parallel z$.
355: For quite low magnetic fields,
356: $H_{c2}$ has a square-root dependence, which is plotted as a dashed line.
357: The parameters are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:1}.
358: Circles denote the experimental data.
359: \cite{Yaguchi}
360: }
361: \label{fig:2}
362: \end{figure}
363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
364:
365: For $\bH \parallel \bn $, we use $\bA=(0,0,Hy)$ leading to the
366: Ginzburg-Landau equation for $ \ey $:
367: \begin{equation}
368: \bigl[ - K_2 \del_x^2 - K_1 \del_y^2 + \xi \sigma \delta(x)
369: + \frac{4 K_5 y^2}{l_H^4} \bigr] \ey = -a \ey.
370: \label{eqn:9}
371: \end{equation}
372: Since the $ x $- and $y$-dependences factorize, we obtain
373: the relevant solution:
374: \begin{equation}
375: \ey = \exp(-|x|/\xi_y) \exp(-\sqrt{K_5/K_1} y^2/l_H^2)
376: \; ,
377: \label{eqn:10}
378: \end{equation}
379: and $ H_{c2} \propto T^*_y - T $ as shown in Fig. 1 (long-dash
380: line). The nucleation field for this direction is obviously
381: lower. It is clear that the observed $ H_{c2} $ is due to
382: interfaces that lie parallel to the applied field ($ \bH \perp \bn $),
383: which yields the highest nucleation field.
384:
385: Now we turn to fields parallel to the $ z $-axis assuming
386: simultaneously $ \bH \perp \bn $. In this case the two order
387: parameter components are coupled. We choose the vector potential as
388: $\bA=(0,Hx,0)$ so that the free energy is expressed as
389: \begin{equation} \begin{array}{ll}
390: F & \displaystyle = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dx ( f_x + f_y + f_{xy} ), \\
391: f_{x(y)} &= a |\eta_{x(y)}|^2 + K_{1(2)} |\del_x \eta_{x(y)}|^2 - \xi
392: \sigma \delta(x) |\eta_{x(y)}|^2 \\
393: & \quad \displaystyle
394: + \frac{4 K_{2(1)} x^2}{l_H^4} |\eta_{x(y)}|^2, \\
395: f_{xy} &= \displaystyle
396: \frac{2 (K_3 +K_4)}{l_H^2} \{ i \ex \partial_x \ey^* + i \ey
397: \partial_x \ex^* +c.c. \} .
398: \end{array}
399: \end{equation}
400: As in the case of $\bH \parallel y$, we introduce a variational form
401: for the order parameters:
402: \begin{equation}
403: \eta_{y(x)} = C_{y(x)} \exp(-\frac{|x|}{\xi_{y(x)}})
404: \exp(-\sqrt{K_{1(2)}/K_{2(1)}}\frac{x^2}{l_H^2}) \; ,
405: \end{equation}
406: where $C_{x(y)} $ are coefficients to be determined in order to
407: maximize the nucleation temperature
408: for a given magnetic field.
409: We can integrate the free energy analytically
410: and determine the upper critical field explicitly.
411: We plot the result in Fig. \ref{fig:2}.
412: Our result well reproduces the experiment above $0.9T^*_y$.
413: In this region, we find a exponent $\gamma=0.76$ fit to a power law,
414: which agrees well with the experimental result ($\gamma=0.72$).
415: \cite{Yaguchi}
416: In the vicinity of $ T^*_y $ $ H_{c2} $ exhibits again a
417: very-low-field square-root dependence as in the case of $\bH \parallel y$, which is
418: plotted in Fig.
419: \ref{fig:2} as a dashed line. In this case, $ H_{c2} $ deviates even more
420: rapidly from the square-root behavior as temperature decreases than
421: the in-plane fields. The reason lies in the lower characteristic field
422: $ H^* = 2 \sqrt{K_2/K_1} (\Phi_0/2\pi) \xi^2 \sim 0.05 {\rm T}$.
423:
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425: \begin{figure}[t]
426: \begin{center}
427: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
428: \end{center}
429: \caption{
430: Temperature dependence of the upper critical field for $\bH \parallel y~{\rm and}~z$.
431: Solid lines are the results for a finite $s$.
432: Dashed lines represent the result for $s=0$,
433: which are same as in Figs. \ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2}.
434: We choose the following parameters for a finite $s$:
435: $s=0.3\xi$, $\lambda=0.7$, $K_5/K_1=1/700$ and $K_1/(c\hbar/2e)=\xi^2/(c\hbar/2e)=24$.
436: $\sigma$ is fixed to give the transition temperature $T_y^*=2.8$ K.
437: We used the same experimental data as in Figs. \ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2}.
438: \cite{Yaguchi}
439: }
440: \label{fig:3}
441: \end{figure}
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443:
444: In Fig. 2 the experimental data show a pronounced up-turn
445: for $T < 2 {\rm K}$,
446: opposite to the trend for in-plane fields. We would now like to discuss
447: the origin of this behavior by extending our model. So far we have assumed
448: that the extension of the region with enhanced superconductivity is
449: negligible and is well described by a delta function. We replace,
450: however, now the delta function in eq.(2) by
451: \begin{equation}
452: \delta(x) \rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} s} \exp[-(x/s)^2] \; ,
453: \end{equation}
454: where $s$ represents the width of the interface region of
455: enhanced transition temperature. In the introduction we
456: speculated that this region is characterized by an increased density
457: of states or, equivalently, by a decreased Fermi velocity.
458: Since the coefficient of $K_i$ ($i=1,2,3~{\rm and}~4$)
459: is connected with the Fermi velocity in the $x-y$ plane ($ K_i \propto
460: v_F^2/T_c^2 $),
461: we introduce in addition, the following spatial dependence in $K_i$:
462: \begin{equation}
463: K_i \rightarrow K_i \{ 1 - \lambda \exp[-(x/s)^2] \}.~~~(i=1,2,3~{\rm and}~4)
464: \label{eqn:12}
465: \end{equation}
466: with $\lambda$ ($0 \leq \lambda \leq 1$) as a parameter.
467: Assuming the same variational order parameter form we
468: integrate the free energy analytically. The resulting $ H_{c2} $ is
469: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3}. In particular, we observe the onset of an
470: upturn of $ H_{c2} $ for $\bH \parallel z$ at approximately 2 K,
471: which compares well with the experiment.
472:
473: This feature originates from the fact that with shrinking magnetic
474: length the region of nucleation becomes increasingly confined into a
475: narrow layer, where we find an enhanced transition temperature as well as a
476: shorter local coherence length. Both act to increase the critical
477: field. Thus the onset of the upturn is expected when $ l_H \sim s $.
478: The fit to the data with our variational approach yields $ s \approx $
479: 200 \AA.
480: Note that this kind of upturn behavior is not expected for in-plane
481: fields, since $ K_5 $, that determines the coupling, would not have the
482: form (\ref{eqn:12}) as it depends on the $z$-axis
483: Fermi velocity that would not be significantly affected by RuO$_6$-octahedra
484: rotations.
485:
486:
487:
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
489: %\section{Summary}
490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
491: In summary, the discussion of the upper critical
492: field for the filamentary superconducting phase exhibits several
493: length scales to be taken into account, which
494: are the effective magnetic length $ l_H $, the
495: coherence length $
496: \xi $ and the extension $s$ of the interface regions. If the effective
497: magnetic length $ l_H $ is much larger than $ \xi $ and $ s $, we find
498: that $ H_{c2} $ would follow the square-root power law $ (T^*_y - T)^{1/2}
499: $. Once the field starts to shrink the extension of the nucleated order
500: parameter, we encounter a deviation from this behavior and a
501: power law fit would yield a different power law. Our
502: discussion shows that in the case of the 3-Kelvin phase the square-root
503: behavior occurs in a very limited range of low fields which is
504: hard to analyze. Finally, if the field becomes sufficiently strong to confine
505: the nucleating order parameter in the interface region $ s $ a
506: relative increase of the upper critical field is possible. In the
507: 3-Kelvin phase this is observed for the field along the
508: $z$-axis. However, it has to be noticed that an additional important
509: enhancement factor is the coupling of the two order parameter
510: components. This latter effect is due to the Zeeman coupling of the
511: magnetic field to the orbital magnetic moment of the Cooper pair for the
512: chiral $p$-wave phase.
513:
514: The comparison of our theory with the experiment shows that we are in
515: principle able to fit the experimental data. However, this aspect has
516: to be viewed with care, as the Ginzburg-Landau free energy is expanded
517: at a temperature around $ T^* $ and has therefore limited quantitative
518: reliability. Moreover the model was in many respects simplified.
519: Nevertheless, the ability to reproduce the qualitative
520: features are convincing, we believe. One obvious problem
521: is the limiting behavior for in plane fields which seems to be present in
522: both the bulk and 3 Kelvin phase of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.
523:
524: The upper critical field may be considered a strong confirmation of the
525: assumption that the 3 K phase \Sr~
526: is due to the local enhancement of the superconducting transition
527: temperature at the interface of Ru-inclusions and \Sr~.
528: Thus, we expect that \Sr~ has two consecutive phase transitions
529: due to the symmetry lowering by the Ru inclusions. This fact still remains
530: to be experimentally verified. It could then be added to the other
531: convincing evidence for chiral $p$-wave pairing in \Sr.
532:
533:
534:
535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
536: %\acknowledgements
537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
538: We are very grateful to Ch. Helm, H. von Loehneysen, Y. Maeno,
539: H. Monien,
540: M. Wada and H. Yaguchi for many valuable discussions and for
541: providing their experimental data in ref. 19.
542: This work is financially supported by Japanese Society for the
543: Promotion of Science (M.M.)
544: and the MaNEP project of the Swiss National Fund.
545:
546:
547:
548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
549: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
551: \bibitem{Maeno-1994}
552: Y. Maeno, H. Hashimoto, K. Yoshida, S. Nishzaki, T. Fujita,
553: J. G. Bednorz and F. Lichtenberg:
554: Nature {\bf 372} (1994) 532.
555:
556: \bibitem{Rice-1995}
557: T. M. Rice and M. Sigrist:
558: J. Phys. Condens. Matter {\bf 7} (1995) L643.
559:
560: \bibitem{Baskaran}
561: G. Baskaran:
562: Physica B {\bf 223-224} (1996) 490.
563:
564: \bibitem{Ishida}
565: K. Ishida, H. Mukuda, Y. Kitaoka,K. Asayama, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Mori
566: and Y. Maeno:
567: Nature {\bf 396} (1998) 658.
568:
569: \bibitem{Luke}
570: G. M. Luke, Y. Fudamoto, K. M. Kojima, M. I. Larkin, J. Merrin,
571: B. Nachumi, Y. J. Uemura, Y. Maeno, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Mori, H. Nakamura
572: and M. Sigrist:
573: Nature {\bf 394} (1998) 558.
574:
575: \bibitem{Rice-1998}
576: T. M. Rice:
577: Nature {\bf 396} (1998) 627.
578:
579: \bibitem{Maeno-2001}
580: Y. Maeno, T. M. Rice and M. Sigrist:
581: Physics Today {\bf 54} (2001) 42.
582:
583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
584:
585: \bibitem{Riseman}
586: T. M. Riseman, P. G. Kealey, E. M. Forgan, A. P. Mackenzie,
587: L. M. Galvin, A. W. Tyler, S. L. Lee,
588: C. Ager, D. Mck. Paul, C. M. Aegerter, R. Cubitt, Z. Q. Mao,
589: S. Akima and Y. Maeno:
590: Nature {\bf 396} (1998) 242.
591:
592: \bibitem{Agterberg}
593: D. F. Agterberg:
594: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 5184;
595: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58} (1998) 14484.
596:
597: \bibitem{Matsumoto-1999}
598: M. Matsumoto and M. Sigrist:
599: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 68} (1999) 994;
600: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 68} (1999) 3120.
601:
602: \bibitem{Mao}
603: Z. Q. Mao, K. D. Nelson, R. Jin, Y. Liu and Y. Maeno:
604: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 037003.
605:
606:
607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
608:
609: \bibitem{OGAWA}
610: N. Ogawa, M. Sigrist and K. Ueda: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 61} (1992) 1730.
611:
612: \bibitem{Maeno-1998}
613: Y. Maeno, T. Ando, Y. Mori, E. Ohmichi, S. Ikeda, S. NishiZaki and S. Nakatsuji:
614: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 3765.
615:
616: \bibitem{Ando}
617: T. Ando, T. Akima, Y. Mori and Y. Maeno:
618: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 68} (1999) 1651.
619:
620: \bibitem{Sigrist-2001}
621: M. Sigrist and H. Monien:
622: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 70} (2001) 2409.
623: \label{ref:Sigrist-2001}
624:
625: \bibitem{Yoshioka}
626: M. Yoshioka, H. Yaguchi, M. Wada and Y. Maeno:
627: Physica C {\bf 388-389} (2003) 501.
628:
629: \bibitem{Buzdin}
630: A. I. Buzdin and L. N. Bulaevski\u{i}:
631: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 34} (1981) 118
632: [JETP Lett. {\bf 34} (1982) 112].
633:
634: \bibitem{Abrikosov}
635: A. A. Abrikosov: {\it fundamentals of the Theory of Metals},
636: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998) Chapter 20.2.
637:
638: \bibitem{Yaguchi}
639: H. Yaguchi, M. Wada, T. Akima, Y. Maeno and T. Ishiguro:
640: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 67} (2003) 214519.
641:
642: \bibitem{Neutron} M. Braden, W. Reichardt, S. Nishizaki, Y. Mori and Y. Maeno:
643: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57} (1998) 1236.
644:
645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
646:
647: \end{thebibliography}
648:
649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
650:
651: \end{document}
652:
653:
654:
655:
656:
657: