This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Campbell penetration depth in low carrier density superconductor YPtBi

Hyunsoo Kim [email protected] Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Ames 50011, IA, USA Department of Physics & Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA Maryland Quantum Materials Center, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79410, USA    Makariy A. Tanatar Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Ames 50011, IA, USA Department of Physics & Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA    Halyna Hodovanets Maryland Quantum Materials Center, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79410, USA    Kefeng Wang Maryland Quantum Materials Center, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    Johnpierre Paglione Maryland Quantum Materials Center, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA    Ruslan Prozorov [email protected] Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Ames 50011, IA, USA Department of Physics & Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA
Abstract

Magnetic penetration depth, λm\lambda_{m}, was measured as a function of temperature and magnetic field in single crystals of low carrier density superconductor YPtBi by using a tunnel-diode oscillator technique. Measurements in zero DC magnetic field yield London penetration depth, λL(T)\lambda_{L}\left(T\right), but in the applied field the signal includes the Campbell penetration depth, λC(T)\lambda_{C}\left(T\right), which is the characteristic length of the attenuation of small excitation field, HacH_{ac}, into the Abrikosov vortex lattice due to its elasticity. Whereas the magnetic field dependent λC\lambda_{C} exhibit λCBp\lambda_{C}\sim B^{p} with p=1/2p=1/2 in most of the conventional and unconventional superconductors, we found that p0.231/2p\approx 0.23\ll 1/2 in YPtBi due to rapid suppression of the pinning strength. From the measured λC(T,H)\lambda_{C}(T,H), the critical current density is jc40A/cm2j_{c}\approx 40\,\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm^{2}} at 75 mK. This is orders of magnitude lower than that of conventional superconductors of comparable TcT_{c}. Since the pinning centers (lattice defects) and vortex structure are not expected to be much different in YPtBi, this observation is direct evidence of the low density of the Cooper pairs because jcnsj_{c}\propto n_{s}.

I Introduction

The superconducting phase transition temperature TcT_{c} of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconductors is typically of the order of 104TF\sim 10^{-4}T_{F}, where TF104T_{F}\sim 10^{4} - 105 K is the Fermi temperature [1, 2]. This follows from the small value of the energy gap in the density of states, Δ(0)1.76kBTc2ωDexp(1/VN0)\Delta\left(0\right)\approx 1.76k_{B}T_{c}\approx 2\hbar\omega_{D}\exp\left(-1/VN_{0}\right). For example, for Tc=10T_{c}=10 K, Δ(0)1.5\Delta\left(0\right)\approx 1.5 meVEF\ll E_{F} 1\sim 1 - 10 eV. Here ωD\omega_{D} is the Debye frequency, VV is the attractive pairing potential, N0N_{0} is the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi energy EFE_{F}. N0N_{0} has an exponential role in determining the TcT_{c} which is often estimated from the semi-phenomenological McMillan equation [3, 4]:

Tc2ωD1.76kBexp[1.04(1+λ)λμ(1+0.62λ)]T_{c}\approx\frac{2\hbar\omega_{D}}{1.76k_{B}}\exp\left[\frac{-1.04(1+\lambda)}{\lambda-\mu^{*}\left(1+0.62\lambda\right)}\right] (1)

where λ\lambda is the electron–phonon coupling parameter and μ\mu^{*} is the screened Coulomb interaction constant. The weak-coupling BCS formula can be recovered by replacing (λμ)(\lambda-\mu^{*}) with the product VN0VN_{0} in the limit of small λ1\lambda\ll 1. This relation was successfully applied for many intermetallic compounds with a typical carrier density n1022n\sim 10^{22} cm-3 [5].

However, discovery of superconductivity in materials with a poor metallic normal state with n1017n\sim 10^{17} - 101910^{19} cm-3 challenged the conventional approach. Such low nn superconductors include elemental bismuth [6], SrTiO3 [7], and half-Heusler compound RTBi (R=rare earth, T=Pd or Pt) [8, 9, 10, 11]. The observed TcT_{c}s (and often critical fields) in these materials are by orders of magnitude higher than the expected TcT_{c} from the McMillan formula [12]. These low nn superconductors have naturally much higher values of the ratio Tc/TFT_{c}/T_{F}, pushing them closer to the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) regime in which the spatial range of attractive interaction in the Cooper pair, the superconducting coherence length, ξ\xi, becomes comparable to the characteristic length associated with the Fermi momentum, ξ/pF\xi\sim\hbar/p_{F}. In YPtBi the kF0.4k_{F}\approx 0.4 nm-1 whereas in SrPd2Ge2 with a similar TcT_{c} it is kF10k_{F}\approx 10 nm-1. There are materials believed to be in the BCS-BEC crossover regime, notably FeSe1-xSx [13].

Determination of the Cooper-pair density nsn_{s} is required to confirm the unusual low nn nature of superconductivity in the material of interest. Traditionally, the normal state electronic concentration nn is used to estimate nsn_{s} by using a simple relation ns=n/2n_{s}=n/2. While the relation usually holds in the normal metals, accurate measurements of nn in the normal state with EF1E_{F}\ll 1 eV can be challenging due to strong temperature dependence of nn at low temperatures, anomalous Hall effect, and the presence of the surface states. Here we probe nsn_{s} directly in the superconducting state of YPtBi by determining the theoretical critical current density jsj_{s}, the quantity directly proportional to nsn_{s}.

The half-Heusler compound YPtBi is a topological semimetal with n1018n\sim 10^{18} cm-3 at low temperatures [14, 9]. Its superconductivity is attracting a considerable attention because TcT_{c} is about fourfold higher than that of doped SrTiO3 with a similar n1018n\sim 10^{18} cm-3, and it was suggested that its superconductivity arises from the j=3/2j=3/2 Fermi surface [15]. The possible superconducting states include unprecedented spin-quintet and septet states [16, 15]. The topological normal state is driven by strong spin-orbit coupling that inverts the ss-orbital derived Γ6\Gamma_{6} band and the pp-orbital derived Γ8\Gamma_{8} band [15]. The chemical potential lies about 35 meV below a quadratically touching point of Γ8\Gamma_{8} bands [9, 15] due to naturally occurring crystal imperfection [17].

Recent experimental results support unconventional superconductivity in YPtBi. TcT_{c} can be enhanced by physical pressure with an initial linear rate of 0.044 K/GPa [18]. The upper critical field at zero temperature is μ0Hc2(0)=1.5\mu_{0}H_{c2}(0)=1.5 T [9] that is higher than the Pauli limiting field 1.4 T [9] for a weak-coupling spin-1/2 singlet superconductor. The temperature dependence of Hc2(T)H_{c2}(T) is practically linear over almost entire superconducting temperature-range, quite different from conventional parabolic behavior [9]. A muon spin rotation study determined λL(0)=1.6\lambda_{L}(0)=1.6 μ\mum [19] which is an order of magnitude greater than that of strong type II superconductor CeCoIn5 where λ(0)0.26\lambda(0)\approx 0.26 μ\mum [20]. Coherence length at zero temperature is ξ(0)=ϕ0/2πHc2(0)15nm\xi(0)=\sqrt{\phi_{0}/2\pi H_{c2}\left(0\right)}\approx 15\>\mathrm{nm}. The Ginzburg-Landau parameter is κ=λL(0)/ξ(0)1021/2\kappa=\lambda_{L}(0)/\xi(0)\approx 10^{2}\gg 1/\sqrt{2}, placing it in the strong type-II regime of superconductivity.

In the mixed state of a type II superconductor, the small-amplitude AC magnetic penetration depth is governed by the elastic properties of the Abrikosov vortex lattice in the linear response regime. This means that the amplitude of the AC field excitation, HacH_{ac}, is not large enough to displace the vortex out of the pinning potential well, and it only perturbs the vortex position within the validity of Hooke’s law. In this case, the penetration depth is described by the Campbell penetration depth λC\lambda_{C} that determines the attenuation range of the AC perturbation from the sample surface to the interior, Bac(x)μHacex/λCB_{ac}\left(x\right)\propto\mu H_{ac}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}} in a semi-infinite superconductor [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Here μ\mu is magnetic permeability, and xx is the distance from the surface. Since λC\lambda_{C} is not commonly measured due to amplitude/sensitivity limitations of the conventional AC techniques, we provide a simple derivation of λC\lambda_{C} in the Appendix for completeness. The important advantage of employing λC\lambda_{C} is that it gives access to the shielding current density via a relation λC2=H0rp/jc\lambda_{C}^{2}=H_{0}r_{p}/j_{c}. Here rpr_{p} is the radius of the pinning potential, and H0H_{0} is the applied external DC magnetic field (see Appendix for details). Importantly, the critical current density is estimated at the frequency of the measurement, and the rf regime gives access to almost unrelaxed values. The initial vortex relaxation is exponential, and hence the conventional techniques estimate relaxed values far from the true jcj_{c} [28, 29, 30].

While analysis of the relaxed shielding current is complicated because of inclusion of the magnetic relaxation parameters, the unrelaxed critical current, j=H0rp/λC2j=H_{0}r_{p}/\lambda_{C}^{2} offers direct access to the superfluid density nsjcn_{s}\propto j_{c} [31, 32, 2]. In this work, we use a tunnel diode oscillator (TDO) technique to measure λC(T,H)\lambda_{C}(T,H) and determine jc(T,H)j_{c}(T,H) in YPtBi. The determined jcj_{c} is orders of magnitude smaller than that of well-known superconductors with the typical carrier density, and its rapid suppression by the magnetic field provides valuable insight into the fascinating nature of superconductivity at the low carrier density regime exemplified by YPtBi.

II Experimental

YPtBi single crystals were grown out of molten Bi with starting composition Y:Pt:Bi = 1:1:20 (atomic ratio).[33, 34, 9, 15] The starting materials Y ingot (99.5%), Pt powder (99.95%), and Bi chunk (99.999%) were put into an alumina crucible, and the crucible was sealed inside an evacuated quartz ampule. The ampule was heated slowly to 1150°C, kept for 10 hours, and then cooled down to 500°C at a 3°C/hour rate, where the excess of molten Bi was decanted by centrifugation.

The variation of the radio-frequency (rf) magnetic penetration depth Δλm\Delta\lambda_{m} was measured in a dilution refrigerator by using a tunnel diode oscillator (TDO) technique [35] (for review, see Ref. [36, 37]).

The sample with dimensions (0.29×\times0.69×\times0.24) mm3 positioned with the shortest direction along HacH_{ac} was mounted on a sapphire rod and inserted into a 2 mm inner diameter copper coil that (when empty) produces rf excitation field with amplitude Hac20mOeH_{ac}\approx 20\>\mathrm{mOe} and frequency of f022MHzf_{0}\approx 22\>\mathrm{MHz}. The shift of the resonant frequency (in cgs units), Δf(T)=G4πχ(T)\Delta f(T)=-G4\pi\chi(T), where χ(T)\chi(T) is the differential magnetic susceptibility, Gf0Vs/2Vc(1N)G\approx f_{0}V_{s}/2V_{c}(1-N) is a constant, NN is the effective demagnetization factor, VsV_{s} is the sample volume and VcV_{c} is the coil volume [36]. The constant GG was determined from the full frequency change by physically pulling the sample out of the coil. With the characteristic sample size, RR, 4πχ=(λm/R)tanh(R/λm)14\pi\chi=(\lambda_{m}/R)\tanh(R/\lambda_{m})-1, from which Δλm\Delta\lambda_{m} can be obtained [36].

III Results

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) Temperature variation of the radio-frequency magnetic penetration depth, Δλm(T)\Delta\lambda_{m}(T), in various applied DC magnetic fields HdcH_{dc}. (b) The HH-TT phase diagram constructed from Δλm(T,H)\Delta\lambda_{m}(T,H) using characteristic temperatures, T1T_{1} (maximum of dλm/dTd\lambda_{m}/dT, black squares), T2T_{2} (crossing point of linear extrapolations, blue circles), and T3T_{3} (onset of deviation, red up-triangles) as shown in the inset. The lines in the main panel of (b) show for reference the HH-TT phase diagram as determined from the field-dependent electrical resistivity by zero resistivity (black), crossing point of linear extrapolations (blue dashes) and onset of deviation (red dash-dot) criteria [9].

Figure 1(a) shows temperature variation of the rf magnetic penetration depth λm(T)\lambda_{m}(T) in a single crystal of YPtBi in various applied DC magnetic fields HdcH_{dc} from 0 to 30 kOe (bottom to top). For Hdc=0H_{dc}=0, measured Δλm(T)\Delta\lambda_{m}(T) is the zero field limiting London penetration depth ΔλL(T)\Delta\lambda_{L}(T) which exhibits a sharp superconducting phase transition at T0.8T\approx 0.8 K. We found ΔλL(T)=ATα\Delta\lambda_{L}(T)=AT^{\alpha} where A=1.98μm/KαA=1.98\>\mathrm{\mu m}/\mathrm{K}^{\alpha} and α=1.2\alpha=1.2 [15]. The observed exponent α\alpha is consistent with the presence of line-nodes in the superconducting gap and moderate impurity scattering. The large pre-factor, AλL(0)/Δ(0)A\propto\lambda_{L}(0)/\Delta(0) is compatible with a low carrier density superconductor within London theory λL(0)=(mc2/4πne2)1/2\lambda_{L}(0)=(mc^{2}/4\pi ne^{2})^{1/2}. For comparison, A=4A=4 - 15 Å/K is observed in dd-wave line-nodal high-temperature cuprate superconductors [38] and 190 - 370 Å/K in CeCoIn5 [39, 20, 40].

Furthermore, YPtBi exhibits very pronounced field dependence of λm\lambda_{m}. It is notable even at the lowest Hdc=100H_{dc}=100 Oe which is 0.007Hc2(0)H_{c2}(0). Here we use Hc2(0)=15H_{c2}(0)=15 kOe taken from Ref. [9]. By measuring λm(H,T)\lambda_{m}(H,T) as a function of temperature in different applied fields we constructed the magnetic field-temperature HH-TT phase diagram of YPtBi. Due to the broadness of the superconducting transition, we used three different criteria for the determination of TcT_{c}, as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 1(b). T1T_{1} was determined at the sharp maximum of dλm/dTd\lambda_{m}/dT (black squares). T2T_{2} was determined at the intersection of the lines through the data in the superconducting state and the normal states (blue circles). T3T_{3} was determined at the onset of Δλm(T)\Delta\lambda_{m}(T) deviation from the normal state behavior (red up triangles). The phase diagram from rf magnetic penetration depth data is shown in the main panel of Fig. 1(b). For reference, we show the diagram as determined from resistivity measurements by Butch et al. [9], using zero resistivity (black solid line), crossing point of linear extrapolations (blue dashes) and onset of deviation (red dash-dot) criteria. The phase diagram as determined from maximum of dλm/dTd\lambda_{m}/dT line is closely following the phase diagram as determined from resistivity measurements using ρ=0\rho=0 [9]. However, we detected apparent diamagnetic response in YPtBi at notably higher fields than in resistivity measurements, suggesting persistence of superconductivity in some non-bulk form [41]. A discrepancy between Hc2H_{c2} as determined from bulk thermal conductivity and non-bulk resistivity measurements is a known problem [42] and it is usually assigned to the superconducting layer surviving at the surface. Perhaps, it is related to the third critical field in superconductors predicted theoretically by Saint-James and Gennes [43] when a thin superconducting layer is formed on the flat surface parallel to the field. Recently, a surface-sensitive tunneling experiment on YPtBi detected energy gap spectra at higher temperatures than Tc0.8T_{c}\approx 0.8 K [44]. A similar signature of the superconducting phase was reported in another half-Heusler compound LuPtBi, which was attributed to the presence of van Hove singularity near EFE_{F} [45] and surface pairing states [46]. The shape of tunneling spectra in the superconducting state is inconsistent with an isotropic ss-wave in both YPtBi and LuPtBi [44, 45].

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) Temperature variation of the Campbell length λC(T)=λm2(T)λL2(T)\lambda_{C}(T)=\sqrt{\lambda_{m}^{2}(T)-\lambda_{L}^{2}(T)} in DC magnetic fields HdcH_{dc} as indicated in the panel. (b) Isotherms of field variation of λC2(H)\lambda_{C}^{2}(H) in YPtBi. Inset shows zoom of the low-field regime.

We focus now on the variation of λm\lambda_{m} with finite HdcH_{dc} in the mixed state. The measured magnetic penetration depth satisfies the relation λm2=λL2+λC2\lambda_{m}^{2}=\lambda_{L}^{2}+\lambda_{C}^{2} in the approximation of a linear elastic response of a vortex lattice to a small amplitude AC perturbation HacH_{ac} [21, 22, 23]. The TDO technique is a perfect probe for this measurements because of small frequency, f0=22f_{0}=22 MHz, and small amplitude of the perturbation, Hac=20H_{ac}=20 mOe. Since λL(T)=λL(0)+ΔλL(T)\lambda_{L}(T)=\lambda_{L}(0)+\Delta\lambda_{L}(T) where λ(0)=1.6μ\lambda(0)=1.6~{}\mum [19], we can readily calculate λC(T)\lambda_{C}(T) in various HdcH_{dc}. However, we took a conservative approach, assuming that this approximation is valid only at temperatures below 0.5T10.5T_{1} because λm(T)\lambda_{m}(T) becomes comparable to the size of the sample as temperature increases towards TcT_{c}. The calculated λC=λm2λL2\lambda_{C}=\sqrt{\lambda_{m}^{2}-\lambda_{L}^{2}} at various HdcH_{dc} is shown in Fig. 2(a). In all measured HdcH_{dc}, λC(T)\lambda_{C}(T) shows monotonic increase with temperature as the superconductor allows more penetration of the rf field with increasing temperature.

Figure 2(b) shows the field-dependent λC2(H)\lambda_{C}^{2}(H) at several temperatures. When critical current density does not vary much with field, we expect λC2(H)H\lambda_{C}^{2}(H)\sim H and it has been observed in most cases [47, 48, 41]. However, YPtBi exhibits significantly more curved λC2(H)\lambda_{C}^{2}(H), indicating nearly logarithmic behavior at low fields. This rapid rise of λm(H)\lambda_{m}(H) at low fields is unusual but may be explained considering very large values of λ\lambda leading to strong intervortex interaction due to significant overlap already in low fields. In Figure 3, we compare this anomalous λC(H)\lambda_{C}(H) in YPtBi with SrPd2Ge2 which has a normal carrier density and exhibits HH-linear behavior of λC2(H)\lambda_{C}^{2}(H).

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Field-dependent Campbell penetration depth λC2(H)\lambda_{C}^{2}(H) of YPtBi (red line with solid circles) shown in comparison with conventional metal/superconductor with similar TcT_{c}, SrPd2Ge2. The data are normalized to the values determined at 0.65Hc2(0)0.65H_{c2}(0) for clarity.

As noted above from the known λC(T,H)\lambda_{C}(T,H), one can evaluate critical current density jcj_{c} via jc=Hdcrp/λC2j_{c}=H_{dc}r_{p}/\lambda_{C}^{2} (see appendix for details) where rpr_{p} is a characteristic radius of the pinning potential, usually taken equal to the coherence length, rp(T)=ξ(T)r_{p}(T)=\xi(T) [21, 22, 47, 48, 41]. Figure 4 shows the calculated jc(T)j_{c}(T) in YPtBi, obtained from λC(T)\lambda_{C}(T) measurements taken in minimum applied Hdc=100H_{dc}=100 Oe. We compare jc(T)j_{c}(T) in YPtBi to the jcj_{c}’s determined in similar Campbell penetration depth measurements in some representative superconductors, LiFeAs [49] and SrPd2Ge2 [41]. The former is known as a two-band superconductor with full gaps [50], and the latter is a single-gap BCS superconductor [41]. The compared jc(T,H)j_{c}(T,H) in these superconductors were obtained by using the same TDO technique. In particular, we used the same TDO setup for YPtBi and SrPd2Ge2.

In YPtBi, the highest jc(T)40j_{c}(T)\approx 40 A/cm2 is observed at T75T\approx 75 mK, and jc(T)j_{c}(T) monotonically decreases with temperature. In LiFeAs, jc1×106j_{c}\approx 1\times 10^{6} A/cm2 at the lowest temperature, and it monotonically decreases by two orders of magnitude upon warming. In SrPd2Ge2, jc8.3×104j_{c}\approx 8.3\times 10^{4} A/cm2 at the lowest temperature with Hdc=200H_{dc}=200 Oe. However, its temperature variation is non-monotonic and exhibits a maximum at an intermediate temperature, which was attributed to a matching effect between temperature-dependent coherence length and relevant pinning length scale [41]. At a higher Hdc=4H_{dc}=4 kOe, jc(T)j_{c}(T) recovers a monotonic decrease with increasing temperature. Even when Tsc(H)T_{sc}(H) of SrPd2Ge2 was reduced to 0.86 K in Hdc=H_{dc}=4 kOe which is close to TscT_{sc} of YPtBi with 100 Oe, jcj_{c} is still two orders of magnitude greater, and the difference gets even bigger at base temperature. It is also instructive to calculate the depairing current density at which Cooper pairs break apart reaching critical velocity, 4πc1j=ϕ0/(33λL2ξ)1×107A/cm24\pi c^{-1}j=\phi_{0}/\left(3\sqrt{3}\lambda_{L}^{2}\xi\right)\approx 1\times 10^{7}\>\mathrm{A/}\mathrm{cm^{2}}, which is much larger than jcj_{c} due to pinning, but two orders of magnitude less than in “typical” normal carrier density superconductors [28, 30].

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Temperature variation of the theoretical current current density jc(T)j_{c}(T) in a selection of superconductors. We show the data in YPtBi in comparison with iron-based stoichiometric clean LiFeAs, and the low-temperature conventional superconductor SrPd2Ge2 measured in two different magnetic fields. TscT_{sc} stands for the superconducting transition at a given magnetic field. For YPtBi, Tsc=T1T_{sc}=T_{1} (see Fig. 1).

In Table 1, we compare normal state Hall constants RHR_{H} reported for YPtBi  [9] and SrPd2Ge2 [51]. In both compounds the Hall resistivity ρxy(H)\rho_{xy}(H) is field-linear, which enables RHR_{H} definition from the slope of the curve and sample geometry. The reported RHR_{H} values are 1.6×104-1.6\times 10^{-4} cm3/C [51] and +2.4+2.4 cm3/C [9] for SrPd2Ge2 and YPtBi, respectively. In the single band Drude model, the carrier density satisfies a simple relation, RH=1/neR_{H}=1/ne where ee is the electron charge. The calculated carrier densities are electron-like ne=3.9×1022n_{e}=3.9\times 10^{22} cm-3 for SrPd2Ge2 and hole-like nh=2.6×1018n_{h}=2.6\times 10^{18} cm-3 for YPtBi. For reference we also present jcj_{c} in both SrPd2Ge2 and YPtBi in Tab. 1.

IV Discussion

The carrier density nn is responsible for the observed theoretical current density because jcnsvsj_{c}\propto n_{s}v_{s} where vsv_{s} is the velocity of the supercurrent [32, 31, 2]. Provided nsn/2n_{s}\approx n/2, jcj_{c} in YPtBi is two orders of magnitude smaller than that in SrPd2Ge2, while the normal state nn in YPtBi is smaller by four orders of magnitude. Consequently, vsv_{s} in YPtBi is two orders of magnitude greater than that in SrPd2Ge2. In Ginzburg-Landau theory, jcj_{c} is associated with the depairing velocity vs=Δ(0)/kFv_{s}=\Delta(0)/\hbar k_{F}, and since Δ(0)\Delta(0) values in both superconductors are of the same order, the different vsv_{s} is accounted by different kFk_{F} values in these two compounds. In SrPd2Ge2, kF10k_{F}\approx 10 nm-1 in free electron approximation, i.e., kF=(3π2n)1/3k_{F}=(3\pi^{2}n)^{1/3} with n=2.6×1022n=2.6\times 10^{22} cm-3 which is about two orders of magnitude greater than that in YPtBi, kF=0.37k_{F}=0.37 nm-1. [15]

Table 1: Hall constant RHR_{H}, nn, and jcj_{c} in YPtBi and SrPd2Ge2.
RHR_{H} (cm3/C) nn (cm-3) jcj_{c} (A/cm2)
YPtBi +2.4+2.4 [9] 2.6×10182.6\times 10^{18} 40111determined at 75 mK (0.096Tc0.096T_{c}) and 100 Oe (0.007Hc2(0)0.007H_{c2}(0)).
SrPd2Ge2 1.6×104-1.6\times 10^{-4} [51] 3.9×10223.9\times 10^{22} 8300222determined at 60 mK (0.022Tc0.022T_{c}) and 200 Oe (0.042Hc2(0)0.042H_{c2}(0)).
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Comparative BCS-BEC plot of Tc/EFT_{c}/E_{F} vs. 1/kFξ(0)1/k_{F}\xi(0) for low carrier density ( n1022n\ll 10^{22} cm-3, red circles), conventional metallic superconductors (blue up-triangles) and some representative cuprates, under-doped YBCO and overdoped Tl2201 (black down-triangles). Red star is the result for YPtBi.

With the confirmed low density of the Cooper pairs in the superconducting YPtBi, we can expect EFn3/2E_{F}\sim n^{3/2} to be respectively low. In combination with the anomalously high TcT_{c}, not accounted for by the McMillan formula [12], this leads to a large value of the Tc/EFT_{c}/E_{F} ratio and a possibility of BCS-BEC crossover in YPtBi.

Superfluidity without Cooper pairing, i.e. BEC, can be achieved when the de Broglie wavelength of a particle becomes larger than the inter-particle distance, causing strong correlations. The possibility of BCS-BEC crossover was discussed in the low carrier density systems in which the effective size of the conduction electron is comparable to that of the Cooper pair. The mean spacing between conduction electrons, rsr_{s}, can be described with kFk_{F} by the relation, rs7.1/kFr_{s}\approx 7.1/k_{F}, for the parabolic band. In YPtBi, rs19r_{s}\approx 19 nm while the zero temperature coherence length is only ξ(0)=15\xi(0)=15 nm.

In the BCS-BEC crossover regime, the overlap between Cooper pairs is small or ξ(0)1/kF\xi(0)\sim 1/k_{F}. Many superconductors have been tested for the conditions for BEC, and recently the multigap superconductor FeSe was found to be near the regime, in which 1/kFξ(0)0.261/k_{F}\xi(0)\approx 0.26-0.670.67 [13]. For YPtBi, kF0.4k_{F}\approx 0.4 nm-1 [15] and ξ(0)=15\xi(0)=15 nm [9], which makes 1/kFξ(0)0.171/k_{F}\xi(0)\approx 0.17, and the ratio Tc/TF2×103T_{c}/T_{F}\approx 2\times 10^{-3} from Tc0.8T_{c}\approx 0.8 K and kBTFk_{B}T_{F} = 35 meV. Several low carrier density superconductors are compared to the well-known superconductors in the summary plot of Tc/EFT_{c}/E_{F} vs. 1/kFξ(0)1/k_{F}\xi(0) in Fig. 5. We find that both YPtBi (red star) and SrTiO3 are relatively close to the crossover regime whereas Bi is well in the BCS limit. Tuning chemical potential in YPtBi and SrTiO3 by gating or charge doping, particularly towards smaller EFE_{F}, would be uppermost interesting for understanding their pairing mechanism.

There has been much effort to elucidate the unconventional superconductivity in the low carrier density superconductors including YPtBi and SrTiO3. Recently, the unexpectedly high TcT_{c} in YPtBi was explained by the electron-phonon pairing mechanism with polar optical phonon mode within the j=3/2j=3/2 Luttinger-Kohn four-band model [52]. In the similar low carrier density superconductors, the plasmonic [53] and nonadiabatic [54] superconducting mechanisms were proposed in SrTiO3.

The structure of the superconducting energy gap and the symmetry of pairing interaction are prerequisites for understanding the superconducting mechanism, but low TcT_{c} in the low nn superconductors makes the experimental investigation difficult. The half-Heusler compounds RTBi (R=Y,La,Lu, T=Pt,Pd) exhibit relatively high superconducting transition temperatures Tc1T_{c}\sim 1 K[9, 10, 11], and a nodal superconducting gap was observed in YPtBi [15]. Subsequently, various exotic pairing symmetries were proposed including nematic dd-wave [55, 56] and j=3/2j=3/2 high-spin superconductivity  [16, 17, 15, 57, 46, 58]. In general, the high-spin superconductivity exhibits topological gap structures with the possibility of harboring the Majorana surface fluid [59, 46], which makes the low carrier density superconductor RTBi a promising platform for the fault-tolerant quantum devices.

V Summary

We measured rf superconducting magnetic penetration depth in single-crystal YPtBi. The London penetration depth is consistent with the nodal superconductivity in YPtBi. In the finite DC magnetic fields, the measured Campbell penetration depth exhibits unusual sub-quadratic power-law behavior in the low field range. From the variation of the Campbell penetration depth, we estimated the theoretical critical current density which is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the superconductors with a typical carrier density. Therefore, we confirmed the low carrier density nature of superconductivity in YPtBi.

VI acknowledgments

We would like to thank V. G. Kogan for the useful discussion. Work in Ames was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Science and Engineering Division. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. DOE by Iowa State University under contract DE-AC02-07CH11358. Research done at the University of Maryland was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Award No. DE-SC-0019154 (experimental investigations), and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation EPiQS Initiative through Grant No. GBMF4419 (materials synthesis).

Appendix A Illustration of the concept of Campbell length

Here we provide simple arguments behind the concept of pinning and Campbell penetration depth. This physics has been discussed multiple times in the past 80 years and is textbook material. However, we felt that it is instructive and to write down the derivation with units and show step by step the flow. There is still a significant degree of confusion dealing with currents, fields, and flux in cgs and SI. There is also some confusion about the Campbell penetration depth written for a single vortex featuring single flux quanta ϕ0\phi_{0} vs. what should be with the magnetic induction, BB, recognizing that this is a collective effect. This is because the critical current density is introduced via the single vortex pinning. Unfortunately, the original derivation by Campbell [21, 22] is too short and too schematic to our taste and we wanted to explain everything step by step.

A.1 Single vortex pinning

Refer to caption
Figure 6: Schematic for movement of vortices in the pinning potential. The violet vertical bars represent vortices, and the red parabolas are the pinning potential, U(u)U(u). The vortices move along the horizontal line (xx-axis), the electrical current flows into or out of the page (yy-axis), and the external magnetic field is applied along the positive vertical axis (zz-axis). The displacement uu stands for the horizontal position of each vortex from the equilibrium point.

Note, we use SI Units throughout Appendix section.

Figure 6 shows the schematics of the vortices and pinning potential model. The vortices move along the horizontal xx-axis, the electrical current flows into or out of the page along the yy-axis, and the external magnetic field is applied along the positive vertical direction of the zz-axis. The displacement u(x)u(x) is the deviation of a vortex from the center of its potential well. In equilibrium, u(x)=0u(x)=0 for all vortices and their distribution is constant.

Assuming a vortex along the positive zz-axis in a pinning potential U(u)U(u) (real units energy-distance), then for a single vortex, the Lorentz force per unit length is

𝐟L[Nm]=𝐣[Am2]×𝐳^ϕ0[T m2]\mathbf{f}_{L}\left[\frac{\textmd{N}}{\textmd{m}}\right]=\mathbf{j}\left[\frac{\textmd{A}}{\textmd{m}^{2}}\right]\times\mathbf{\hat{z}}\mathbf{\phi}_{0}\left[\textmd{T m}^{2}\right] (2)

Here, ϕ0=2.068×1015{\phi}_{0}=2.068\times 10^{-15} Wb = T m2.

The electric current density 𝐣\mathbf{j} along the positive yy-direction would push the vortices to the positive xx-direction with the magnitude, fL=jϕ0f_{L}=j\phi_{0}. It is usually assumed that the pinning potential is given by

U(u)=12αu2[Jm]U(u)=\frac{1}{2}\alpha u^{2}\left[\frac{\text{J}}{\text{m}}\right] (3)

where α\alpha is the so-called Labusch parameter:

α=d2U(u)du2[Jm3].\alpha=\frac{d^{2}U(u)}{du^{2}}\left[\frac{\text{J}}{\text{m}^{3}}\right]. (4)

The pinning force due to U(u)U(u) is defined by,

fp=dU(u)du=αu.f_{p}=-\frac{dU(u)}{du}=-\alpha u. (5)

In the presence of the electrical current, the two forces, 𝐟L\mathbf{f}_{L} and 𝐟p\mathbf{f}_{p}, will act on a vortex in the opposite directions, i.e., fL+fp=0f_{L}+f_{p}=0. In this case, the critical current density, jcj_{c}, is reached when the magnitudes of two forces become equal at a distance u=rpu=r_{p} that is called the ”radius of the pinning potential.” In equilibrium, jcϕ0=αrpj_{c}\phi_{0}=\alpha r_{p}, and therefore jcj_{c} can be expressed as:

jc=αrpϕ0[Am2].j_{c}=\frac{\alpha r_{p}}{\phi_{0}}\left[\frac{\text{A}}{\text{m}^{2}}\right]. (6)

The major contribution to pinning comes from the gain the free energy in the normal core volume of a vortex and, therefore, rpr_{p} is usually assumed to be equal to the superconducting coherence length ξ\xi. Of course, the pinning theory is much more complex, and the readers are referred to the excellent review articles, Ref.[28, 23].

The Campbell penetration depth

The Campbell length λC\lambda_{C} is defined for a large number of vortices since this is a wave-like perturbation in the vortex lattice treated as an elastic medium [28, 23]. In words, λC\lambda_{C} determines how far a small-amplitude ac perturbation on the superconductor edge propagates into the vortex lattice.) [21] Let us assume a uniform distribution of vortices (e.g. after field-cooling, FC) and hence a uniform magnetic induction B0B_{0}. We apply a small ac field on the sample edge, i.e., B=B0+BacB=B_{0}+B_{ac}, where BacB0B_{ac}\ll B_{0}. In equilibrium, the vortices are equally spaced by the distance d0d_{0} found from the condition that each vortex carries a single flux quantum, ϕ0\phi_{0}:

d0=ϕ0B0=45.473B[T][nm]d_{0}=\sqrt{\frac{\phi_{0}}{B_{0}}}=\frac{45.473}{\sqrt{B\left[\text{T}\right]}}\left[\text{nm}\right] (7)

Here we assumed a square vortex lattice instead of triangular for simplicity, which does not alter the results.

Consider a one-dimensional problem (semi-infinite superconductor positioned at x0x\geq 0) with a magnetic field applied along the positive zz-axis and electric current flowing along the positive yy-axis. At a distance, xx, from the edge, a row of vortices uniformly spaced along the yy-axis is displaced by u(x)u(x) from their equilibrium positions. The next row of vortices is displaced by the distance d0+u(x+d0)u(x)d_{0}+u\left(x+d_{0}\right)-u(x) counted from the first row of vortices (see Fig. 6). Therefore, the distance between the vortices, d(x)d(x), satisfies

d(x)=d0[1+u(x+d0)u(x)d0]d0(1+dudx)d\left(x\right)=d_{0}\left[1+\frac{u\left(x+d_{0}\right)-u(x)}{d_{0}}\right]\approx d_{0}\left(1+\frac{du}{dx}\right) (8)

because d0d_{0} is the smallest physical distance in the problem. Therefore, the magnetic induction BB at the location xx is given by

B(x)=ϕ0dd0=ϕ0d02(1+dudx)=B0(1dudx)B\left(x\right)=\frac{\phi_{0}}{dd_{0}}=\frac{\phi_{0}}{d_{0}^{2}\left(1+\frac{du}{dx}\right)}=B_{0}\left(1-\frac{du}{dx}\right) (9)

where we assume that dudx1,\frac{du}{dx}\ll 1, which can be easily checked with the final solution for u(x)u(x). Note that if all vortices were displaced uniformly, u=constu=const, then B(x)B(x) remains unchanged.

This perturbation of B(x)B(x) corresponds to the current density from the Maxwell equation, μ0𝐉=×𝐁\mu_{0}\mathbf{J}=\nabla\times\mathbf{B}. Assuming 𝐁=B(x)z^\mathbf{B}=B(x)\hat{z},

μ0Jy=B(x)x=B0d2udx2\mu_{0}J_{y}=-\frac{\partial B\left(x\right)}{\partial x}=B_{0}\frac{d^{2}u}{dx^{2}} (10)

The Lorentz force on vortices per unit volume is

FL=JB0=B02μ0d2udx2F_{L}=JB_{0}=\frac{B_{0}^{2}}{\mu_{0}}\frac{d^{2}u}{dx^{2}} (11)

which must be balanced by the pinning force. From the previous (single vortex) section, each vortex experiences pinning force per unit length, fp=αuf_{p}=-\alpha u, and there are approximately N=B0/ϕ0N=B_{0}/\phi_{0} vortices per unit area. The total pinning force per unit volume, FpF_{p}, can be written in the form

Fp=Nfp=αB0ϕ0u.F_{p}=Nf_{p}=-\frac{\alpha B_{0}}{\phi_{0}}u. (12)

The two forces, FLF_{L} and FpF_{p}, balance each other in the steady-state, and the characteristic penetration depth is determined from the following relation,

FL+Fp=B02μ0d2udx2αB0ϕ0u=0F_{L}+F_{p}=\frac{B_{0}^{2}}{\mu_{0}}\frac{d^{2}u}{dx^{2}}-\frac{\alpha B_{0}}{\phi_{0}}u=0 (13)

or

λC2d2udx2=u\lambda_{C}^{2}\frac{d^{2}u}{dx^{2}}=u (14)

Here we introduced the Campbell length:

λC2=ϕ0B0μ0α[T2m2HmJm3=m2]\lambda_{C}^{2}=\frac{\phi_{0}B_{0}}{\mu_{0}\alpha}\left[\frac{\text{T}^{2}\text{m}^{2}}{\frac{\text{H}}{\text{m}}\frac{\text{J}}{\text{m}^{3}}}=\text{m}^{2}\right] (15)

Note that the radius of the pinning potential, rpr_{p}, does not explicitly enter here. This is true only for parabolic pinning potential within the validity of Hooke’s law for vortex displacement. The non-parabolic potentials have also been considered and lead to a variety of interesting effects. [24, 60, 26, 27]

The Labusch constant α\alpha can be evaluated from the measured λC\lambda_{C} by using (15). The solution of the equation (14) for uu is

u(x)=u0ex/λCu\left(x\right)=u_{0}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}} (16)

Therefore the magnetic induction can be found by using (9) as follows:

B(x)=B0(1dudx)=B0(1+u0λCex/λC)B\left(x\right)=B_{0}\left(1-\frac{du}{dx}\right)=B_{0}\left(1+\frac{u_{0}}{\lambda_{C}}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}}\right) (17)

At the boundary, x=0,x=0, and B=B0+BacB=B_{0}+B_{ac} where

Bac\displaystyle B_{ac} =B0u0λC\displaystyle=B_{0}\frac{u_{0}}{\lambda_{C}}
u0\displaystyle u_{0} =λCBacB0\displaystyle=\lambda_{C}\frac{B_{ac}}{B_{0}}

The displacement u(x)u(x) in terms of BacB_{ac} and B0B_{0} can be written in the form

u(x)=λCBacB0ex/λCu\left(x\right)=\lambda_{C}\frac{B_{ac}}{B_{0}}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}} (18)

and we can express B(x)B(x) as

B(x)=B0(1+λCBacB0u0λCex/λC)=B0+Bacex/λCB\left(x\right)=B_{0}\left(1+\lambda_{C}\frac{B_{ac}}{B_{0}}\frac{u_{0}}{\lambda_{C}}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}}\right)=B_{0}+B_{ac}e^{-x/\lambda_{C}} (19)

which is expected from the boundary conditions.

Finally, we derive a practical expression for JcJ_{c} in terms of λC\lambda_{C} that can be experimentally determined. Using (A18):

λC2\displaystyle\lambda_{C}^{2} =ϕ0B0μ0α=ϕ0Hα\displaystyle=\frac{\phi_{0}B_{0}}{\mu_{0}\alpha}=\frac{\phi_{0}H}{\alpha}
ϕ0α\displaystyle\frac{\phi_{0}}{\alpha} =λC2μ0B0\displaystyle=\lambda_{C}^{2}\frac{\mu_{0}}{B_{0}}

Thus, JcJ_{c} is related to λC\lambda_{C} as follows:

Jc=αrpϕ0=B0rpμ0λC2=H0rpλC2J_{c}=\frac{\alpha r_{p}}{\phi_{0}}=\frac{B_{0}r_{p}}{\mu_{0}\lambda_{C}^{2}}=\frac{H_{0}r_{p}}{\lambda_{C}^{2}} (20)

We use the relation (20) to calculate the critical current density from the measured Campbell penetration depth in the main text.

References