اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدComment on Identification of different electron screening behavior between the bulk and surface of (Ga,Mn)As [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 187203 (2011)]
52
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 187203 (2011)], Fujii et al. reported Mn 2p photoelectron emission spectra for (Ga,Mn)As recorded using hard x-rays. Due to the enhanced bulk sensitivity, hard-x-ray spectra reveal an extra low-binding-energy peak, which is absent in surface-sensitive spectra recorded using soft x-rays. Based on Anderson-impurity-model calculations, Fujii et al. assigned the low-binding-energy peak to a cd6L2 final state, and related the variations in its intensity to variations in the As 4p-Mn 3d hybridization strength V. We show here that the definition of the charge-transfer energy considered by Fujii et al. is different from that considered in the Zaanen-Sawatzky-Allen diagram. We note that the Anderson impurity model is insufficient to describe low-binding-energy peaks in hard-x-ray core-level photoemission for transition-metal compounds on the verge of a metal-insulator transition. We propose a more plausible origin for the (Ga,Mn)As low-binding-energy peak, related to the nature of its metal-insulator transition.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
The recent paper by V. G. Kogan and J. Schmalian Phys. Rev. B 83, 054515 (2011) argues that the widely used two-component Ginzburg-Landau (GL) models are not correct, and further concludes that in the regime which is described by a GL theory there co
uld be no disparity in the coherence lengths of two superconducting components. This would in particular imply that (in contrast to $U(1)times U(1)$ superconductors), there could be no type-1.5 superconducting regime in U(1) multiband systems for any finite interband coupling strength. We point out that these claims are incorrect and based on an erroneous scheme of reduction of a two-component GL theory. We also attach a separate rejoinder on reply by Kogan and Schmalian. In their reply Phys. Rev. B 86, 016502 (2012) to our comment Phys. Rev. B 86, 016501 (2012) Kogan and Schmalian did not refute or, indeed, discuss the main points of criticism in the comment. Unfortunately they instead advance new incorrect claims regarding two-band and type-1.5 superconductivity. The main purpose of the attached rejoinder is to discuss these new incorrect claims.
The RENO experiment recently reported the disappearance of reactor electron antineutrinos consistent with neutrino oscillations, with a significance of 4.9 standard deviations. The published ratio of observed to expected number of antineutrinos in th
e far detector is R=0.920 +-0.009(stat.) +-0.014(syst.) and corresponds to sin^2 2theta13 = 0.113 +-0.013(stat.) +-0.019(syst), using a rate-only analysis. In this letter we reanalyze the data and we find a ratio R=0.903 +-0.01(stat.), leading to sin^2 2theta13 = 0.135. Moreover we show that the sin^2 2theta13 measurement still depend of the prompt high energy bound beyond 4 MeV, contrarily to the expectation based on neutrino oscillation.
In [J. T. Matta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 082501 (2015)] a transverse wobbling band was reported in $^{135}$Pr. The critical experimental proof for this assignment is the E2 dominated linking transitions between the wobbling and normal bands, whi
ch are supported by two experiments performed with Gammasphere and INGA. However, the M1 dominated character cannot be excluded based on the reported experimental information, indicating that the wobbling assignment is still questionable.
In [S. Nandi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 132501 (2020)] two transverse wobbling bands were reported in $^{183}$Au. The critical experimental proof for this assignment is the E2 dominated linking transitions between the wobbling and normal bands, wh
ich are supported by fitting the measured DCO ratio and polarization results. However, the uncertainties are significantly underestimated according to an analysis on the statistical error. With reasonable error, the mixing ratios cannot be exclusively decided, and the M1 dominated character cannot be excluded, indicating that the wobbling assignment is still questionable.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
