The chicken and egg question in excitonic insulators

Posted in Journal Articles on August 31, 2020 at 11:31 am by JCCMP

1. Nature of symmetry breaking at the excitonic insulator transition: Ta2NiSe5
Authors: G. Mazza, M. Rösner, L. Windgätter, S. Latini, H. Hübener, A. J. Millis, A. Rubio, and A. Georges
Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 197601 (2020); DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.197601

2. Nonlinear spectroscopy of collective modes in excitonic insulator
Authors: D. Golež, Z. Sun, Y. Murakami, A. Georges, and A. J. Millis

Recommended with a commentary by Atsushi Fujimori, Waseda University
|View Commentary (pdf)|

This commentary may be cited as:
DOI: 10.36471/JCCM_August_2020_01

One response on “The chicken and egg question in excitonic insulators”

  1. I really enjoyed this clear and insightful summary of the latest on the excitonic vs. lattice controversy in Ta2NiSe5. In my opinion there is a more fundamental question we should also be trying to answer: Under what circumstances does a Bose condensate of excitons behave like a superfluid, and when is it an insulator? Many manuscripts offer conflicting accounts of this point. Some make arguments about the electron-phonon interaction and gapping of collective modes, as above. Others give platitudes about the requirement of separate particle number conservation for both electrons and holes. It would be nice to have a universal explanation based on fundamental principles that also clarifies the relationship between spontaneous excitonic phases in materials like Ta2NiSe5 and TiSe2, and those in artificial devices like quantum Hall and graphene bilayers (in which, one should note, the electron-phonon interaction is not “small”).

Guidelines for Comments by Members:
Members are invited to comment on the chosen papers and refer only to papers intimately related to the papers selected. Other comments and suggestions can be transmitted to the organizers through the 'Guest book' link. These comments will be put on the web-site and the archives so that they can be read by other members. Just as in the Guidelines to the Corresponding Members, we suggest that the comments be confined to substantive issues of science and in order to illuminate the subject matter. A collegial and respectful tone is suggested. Issues of priority should not be raised in the comments.

Leave Your Comment Below

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.