# to appear in JETP Probing the field-induced variation of the chemical potential in 𝐵⁢𝑖₂⁢𝑆⁢𝑟₂⁢𝐶⁢𝑎⁢𝐶⁢𝑢₂⁢𝑂_𝑦 via the magneto-thermopower measurements

## a Mean value of the magneto-TEP: $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{av}(T,H)`$.

Assuming that the net result of the magnetic field is to modify the chemical potential (Fermi energy) $`\mu `$ of quasiparticles, we can write the the generalized GL free energy functional $`𝒢`$ of a superconducting sample in the mixed state as

$$𝒢[\psi ]=a(T)|\psi |^2+\frac{\beta }{2}|\psi |^4\mu |\psi |^2.$$
(3)   
Here $`\psi =|\psi |e^{i\varphi }`$ is the superconducting order parameter, $`\mu (H)`$ stands for the field-dependent in-plane chemical potential of quasiparticles; $`a(T,H)=\alpha (H)(TT_c)`$ and the GL parameters $`\alpha (H)`$ and $`\beta (H)`$ are related to the critical temperature $`T_c`$, zero-temperature BCS gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.76k_BT_c`$, the out-of-plane chemical potential (Fermi energy) $`\mu _c(H)`$, and the total particle number density $`n`$ as $`\alpha (H)=\beta (H)n/T_c=2\mathrm{\Delta }_0k_B/\mu _c(H)`$. In fact, in layered superconductors, $`\mu =\mu _c/\gamma ^2m_{ab}^{}(J_cd/2\mathrm{})^2`$, where $`d`$ and $`J_c`$ are the interlayer distance and coupling energy within the Lawrence-Doniach model, and $`\gamma =\sqrt{m_c^{}/m_{ab}^{}}`$ is the mass anisotropy ratio. The magnetic field is applied normally to the $`ab`$-plane where the strongest magneto-TEP effects are expected.  In what follows, we ignore the field dependence of the critical temperature since for all fields under discussion $`T_c(H)=T_c(0)(1H/H_{c2})T_c(0)T_c`$.

As usual, the equilibrium state of such a system is determined from the minimum energy condition $`𝒢/|\psi |=0`$ which yields for $`T<T_c`$

$$|\psi _0|^2=\frac{\alpha (H)(T_cT)+\mu (H)}{\beta (H)}$$
(4)   
Substituting $`|\psi _0|^2`$ into Eq.(3) we obtain for the average free energy density

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,H)𝒢[\psi _0]=\frac{[\alpha (H)(T_cT)+\mu (H)]^2}{2\beta (H)}$$
(5)   
In turn, the magneto-TEP $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(T,H)`$ can be related to the corresponding difference of transport entropies  $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/T`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(T,H)=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T,H)/en`$, where $`e`$ is the charge of the quasiparticles. Finally the mean value of the mixed-state magneto-TEP reads (below $`T_c`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{av}(T,H)=S_{p,av}(H)B_{av}(H)(T_cT),$$
(6)   
with

$$S_{p,av}(H)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{eT_c},$$
(7)   
and

$$B_{av}(H)=\frac{8\mathrm{\Delta }_0k_B\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{eT_c\gamma ^2\mu ^2(0)}.$$
(8)   
Before we proceed to compare the above theoretical findings with the available experimental data, we first have to estimate the corresponding fluctuation contributions to the observable magneto-TEP, both above and below $`T_c`$.

## b Mean-field Gaussian fluctuations of the magneto-TEP: $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{fl}(T,H)`$.

The influence of superconducting fluctuations on transport properties of HTS (including TEP and electrical conductivity) has been extensively studied for the past few years (see, e.g.,  and further references therein). In particular, it was found that the fluctuation-induced behavior may extend to temperatures more than $`10K`$ higher than the respective $`T_c`$. Let us consider now the region near $`T_c`$ and discuss the Gaussian fluctuations of the mixed-state magneto-TEP $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{fl}(T,H)`$. Recall that according to the theory of Gaussian fluctuations,  the fluctuations of any observable, which is conjugated to the order parameter $`\psi `$ (such as heat capacity, susceptibility, etc) can be presented in terms of the statistical average of the square of the fluctuation amplitude $`<(\delta \psi )^2>`$ with $`\delta \psi =\psi \psi _0`$. Then the TEP above $`(+)`$ and below $`()`$ $`T_c`$ have the form of

$$S_{fl}^\pm (T,H)=A<(\delta \psi )^2>_\pm =\frac{A}{Z}d|\psi |(\delta \psi )^2e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }[\psi ]},$$
(9)   
where $`Z=d|\psi |e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }[\psi ]}`$ is the partition function with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\psi ](𝒢[\psi ]𝒢[\psi _0])/k_BT`$, and $`A`$ is a coefficient to be defined below. Expanding the free energy density functional $`𝒢[\psi ]`$

$$𝒢[\psi ]𝒢[\psi _0]+\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{^2𝒢}{\psi ^2}\right]_{|\psi |=|\psi _0|}(\delta \psi )^2,$$
(10)   
around the mean value of the order parameter $`\psi _0`$, which is defined as a stable solution of equation $`𝒢/|\psi |=0`$ we can explicitly calculate the Gaussian integrals. Due to the fact that $`|\psi _0|^2`$ is given by Eq.(4) below $`T_c`$ and vanishes at $`TT_c`$, we obtain finally

$$S_{fl}^{}(T,H)=\frac{Ak_BT_c}{4\alpha (H)(T_cT)+4\mu (H)},TT_c$$
(11)   
and

$$S_{fl}^+(T,H)=\frac{Ak_BT_c}{2\alpha (H)(TT_c)2\mu (H)},TT_c$$
(12)   
As we shall see below, for the experimental range of parameters under discussion, $`\mu (H)/\alpha (H)|T_cT|`$. Hence, with a good accuracy we can linearize Eqs.(11) and (12) and obtain for the fluctuation contribution to the magneto-TEP

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{fl}^\pm (T,H)S_{p,fl}^\pm (H)\pm B_{fl}^\pm (H)(T_cT),$$
(13)   
where

$$S_{p,fl}^{}(H)=\frac{Ak_BT_c\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{4\mu ^2(0)},S_{p,fl}^+(H)=2S_{p,fl}^{}(H),$$
(14)   
and

$$B_{fl}^{}(H)=\frac{3Ak_B^2T_c\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{\gamma ^2\mu ^4(0)},B_{fl}^+(H)=2B_{fl}^{}(H).$$
(15)   
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that $`S_p^{}=S_p^+S_p`$, where $`S_p^{}=S_{p,av}+S_{p,fl}^{}`$ and $`S_p^+=S_{p,fl}^+`$. Then the above equations bring about the following explicit expression for the constant parameter $`A`$, namely $`A=4\mu ^2(0)/3ek_BT_c^2`$. This in turn leads to the following expressions for the fluctuation contribution to peaks and slopes through their average counterparts (see Eqs.(7) and (8)): $`S_{p,fl}^+(H)=(2/3)S_{p,av}(H)`$, $`S_{p,fl}^{}(H)=(1/3)S_{p,av}(H)`$, $`B_{fl}^{}(H)=(1/2)B_{av}(H)`$, and $`B_{fl}^+(H)=B_{av}(H)`$. Finally, the total contribution to the observable magneto-TEP reads (Cf. Eq.(1))

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S(T,H)=S_p(H)\pm B^\pm (H)(T_cT),$$
(16)   
where

$$S_p(H)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{3eT_c},B^+(H)B_{fl}^+(H)=2B^{}(H),$$
(17)   
and

$$B^{}(H)B_{av}(H)+B_{fl}^{}(H)=\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }_0k_B\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)}{eT_c\gamma ^2\mu ^2(0)}.$$
(18)   
Let us compare now the obtained theoretical expressions with the typical experimental data  on textured $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_y`$ for the slopes $`B^\pm (H)`$ and the peak $`S_p(H)`$ values for $`H=0.12T`$ (see Fig.1): $`S_p=0.16\pm 0.01\mu V/K`$, $`B^{}=0.012\pm 0.001\mu V/K^2`$, and $`B^+=0.027\pm 0.003\mu V/K^2`$. First we notice that the calculated slopes $`B^+(H)`$ above $`T_c`$ are twice their counterparts below $`T_c`$, i.e., $`B^+(H)=2B^{}(H)`$ in a good agreement with the observations. Using $`\gamma 55`$ and $`d=1.2nm`$ for the anisotropy ratio and interlayer distance in this material,  we obtain reasonable estimates of the field-induced changes of the in-plane chemical potential (Fermi energy) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)`$ (along with its zero-field value $`\mu (0)`$) and the interlayer coupling energy $`J_c`$. Namely, $`\mu (0)1.6meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)0.02meV`$, and $`J_c4meV`$. Furthermore, relating the field-induced variation of the in-plane chemical potential to the change of the corresponding magnetization $`M(H)`$, viz.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)=\frac{M(H)H}{n_h},$$
(19)   
where $`M(H)`$ for $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ has a form  (recall that the lower critical field for this material is $`H_{c1}=(\varphi _0/4\pi \lambda _{ab}^2)\mathrm{ln}\kappa 40G`$ with $`\lambda _{ab}250nm`$, $`\xi _{ab}1nm`$, and $`\kappa 250`$)

$$\mu _0M(H)=\frac{2\varphi _0}{\sqrt{3}\lambda _{ab}^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{3\varphi _0}{4\pi \lambda _{ab}^2(HH_{c1})}\right]\right\}^2H,$$
(20)   
we obtain $`n_h2.5\times 10^{27}m^3`$ for the hole number density in this material, in reasonable agreement with the other estimates of this parameter.  Fig.2 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)`$ calculated according to Eq.(19) with the experimental data points deduced (via Eq.(17)) from the magneto-TEP measurements on the same sample.  As is seen, the data are in a good agreement with the model predictions. And finally, using the above parameters (along with the critical temperature), we find that $`\mu (H)/\alpha (H)100K`$ which justifies the use of the linearized Eq.(13) since, as is seen in Fig.1, the observed magneto-TEP practically vanishes for $`|T_cT|15K`$.

In conclusion, to probe the variation of chemical potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)`$ of quasiparticles in anisotropic materials under an applied magnetic field, we calculated the mixed-state magneto-thermopower $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(T,H)`$ in the presence of field-modulated charge effects near $`T_c`$. Using the available magneto-TEP experimental data on textured $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_y`$, field-induced behavior of in-plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (H)`$ was obtained along with reasonable estimates for its zero-field value (Fermi energy) $`\mu (0)`$, interlayer coupling energy $`J_c`$, and the hole number density $`n_h`$ in this material.

We thank A. Varlamov for very useful discussions on the subject. Part of this work has been financially supported by the Action de Recherche Concertées (ARC) 94-99/174. S.A.S. acknowledges the financial support from FNRS.