If the magnetic susceptibility of a system diverges slower than ∼1/T for T → 0, and that it does not converge to any finite value at zero temperature then one can conclude about the non-Fermi-liquid behaviour. But how it is confirmed by resistivity measurement? Is it only the deviation from the T2 dependency of the Fermi-liquid behaviour?
Maybe you want to specify what kind of materials you're thinking of. There can be several reasons for departures from the "simple" Fermi liquid relations, and this need not be direct evidence for the inadequacy of the Fermi liquid picture.
If for example, as is the case in some heavy fermion materials, the density of states exhibits strong variations in the vicinity of the Fermi level (resp. chemical potential), then the simple Fermi liquid relations (usualy derived with the assumption of a smooth DOS) will only be obeyed at temperatures such low that the Fermi distribution cuts off the thermal influence of the strongly varying DOS.
So, while seeing a T2 dependence of the resistivity at low temperature is oftentaken as evidence for the formation of a Fermi liquid, the lack of T2 may indicate NFL behavior but is not a direct proof of it imho. I tend to think that a resistivity measurement alone will not suffice to claim NFL. But certainly it provides an incentive to go looking for more ample experimental evidence in case that's what you're looking for.
(Btw., the same kind of reasoning applies for the magnetic side. We discuss some of that in the final part of the linked manuscript.)
Article Kondo screening and beyond: An x-ray absorption and dichrois...
Thank You Fauth Sir. Actually I was reading a paper on Weyl and Dirac semimetals. They have confirmed the NFL behaviour by seeing the susceptibility behaviour. I wanted to know how to conform it by resistivity measurements and whether the resistivity measurements alone is sufficient or not. I am giving the paper reference below.
http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.041107
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction