Minimal model of charge and pairing density waves in X-ray scattering experiments

Competing density waves play an important role in the mystery of high-temperature superconductors. In spite of the large amount of experimental evidence, the fundamental question of whether these modulations represent charge or pairing density waves (CDWs or PDWs) is still debated. Here we present a method to answer this question using momentum and energy-resolved resonant X-ray scattering maps. Starting from a minimal model of density waves in superconductors, we identify distinctive signatures of incipient CDWs and PDWs. The generality of our approach is confirmed by a self-consistent solution of an extended Hubbard model with attractive interaction. By considering the available experimental data, we claim that the spatial modulations in cuprates have a predominant PDW character. Our work paves the way for using X-ray to identify competing and intertwined orders in superconducting materials.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figures; Major revisions: Fig.1 fixed, new section including new figure (Fig.3), added supplemental material

Paring density waves as the origin of a ring-like RIXS profile in Bi2_2Sr2_2CaCu2_2O8+δ_{8+\delta}

The coexistence of a homogeneous d-wave gap and short-ranged pairing density waves (PDW) accounts for the apparent "ring" charge order in all directions of the copper oxide plane, observed by recent RIXS measurements in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}

Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change

Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data