English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

One of the first finding concerning the superconducting (SC) density $n_{\rmsc}$ in cuprates was their small magnitudes that revealed the importance ofphase fluctuations. More recently, measurements in a variety of overdopedcuprates indicate that it is also much smaller than expected from BCS theoriesand falls smoothly to zero as doping is increased. We explain theseobservations by an electronic phase separation theory with a Ginzburg-Landaupotential $V_{\rm GL}$ that produces alternating charge domains whosefluctuations lead to localized SC order parameters that are connected byJosephson coupling $E_{\rm J}$. The average ${\left <E_{\rm J}( p,T)\right>}$is proportional to the local superfluid phase stiffness $\rho_{\rm sc} \propton_{\rm sc}$. The fraction of condensed carriers decreases in the overdopedregion due to the weakening of $V_{\rm GL}$. The results agreed with $\rho_{\rmsc}(p)$ vs. $T_{\rm c}(p)$ and the Drude-like peak measurements.

Why the superfluid density tracks $T_{\rm c}$ in cuprate superconductors?