There have some papers say that Anderson localized insulator follows the expression: ln(ρ) = A (T-1/4) :
(Anderson-Mott transition induced by hole doping in Nd1−xTiO3 Phys. Rev. B 74, 104419 (2006);
Anderson localization of electrons in single crystals: LixFe7Se8 Sci. Adv. 2016; 2: e1501283;
Electrical transport in ZnO1−x films: Transition from band-gap insulator to Anderson localized insulator J. Appl. Phys. 96, 3827, 2004 )
Here, I have some points can not understand clearly:
Is it reasonable to say "Anderson localized insulator follows the expression: ln(ρ) = A (T-1/4)"?
The similar question please see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_reasonable_to_say_Anderson_localized_insulator_follows_the_expression_lnr_A_T-1_4
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_reasonable_to_say_Anderson_localized_insulator_follows_the_expression_lnr_A_T-1_4
The first two systems you mention have strong electronic correlations as well, while one may suppose they are not strong for the third system. If one nevertheless sees Anderson insulator type of resistivity, one may be able to say the third is a faithful representation of an Anderson insulator, while the first two should be quite different. This is because Mott localization and disorder-induced Anderson localization operate simultaneously. It is still possible that disorder effects take over if the disorder-free counterpart is close to a correlation-induced Mott transition. In certain dirty cuprates and manganites, such Anderson insulating behavior has also been seen before, but of course, they are not Anderson insulators, but disordered Mott insulators.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics
- Condensed Matter Physics