# 1 𝑅⁢(1/(𝑇₁⁢𝑇)) = ((𝑇₁⁢𝑇)⁻¹_{𝑚⁢𝑒⁢𝑎⁢𝑠.}-(𝑇₁⁢𝑇)⁻¹_𝑛)/(𝑇₁⁢𝑇)⁻¹_𝑛 of 63Cu(2) rate as a function of magnetic field at 95 K, the closed squares from Mitrović et al. []. (𝑇₁⁢𝑇)⁻¹_𝑛 is found from a fit to high temperature behavior and is given by 1648 s-1/(103 K + 𝑇). The solid curve is calculated pairing fluctuation contribution at 95 K []. The open circles are the measurements of Gorny et al.[]. The open squares are from Song (3.5 T) [], Auler et al. (5.7 T) [], Carretta et al. (5.9 T) [], and Hammel et al. (7.4 T) [].

Comment on ”Magnetic Field Independence of the Spin Gap in YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>7-δ</sub>   

The nature of the onset of superconductivity in high temperature superconductors has been of considerable recent interest. Does the superconducting order parameter emerge from preformed pairs, or reflect the opening of a spin-pseudogap or a pseudo-gap in the charge or pairing channels? Recent papers that relate to this subject are the measurement of the magnetic field dependence of the <sup>63</sup>Cu(2) NMR spin lattice relaxation in YBCO by Gorny et al. and Mitrović et al. and the related experiments on the spin susceptibility taken from the oxygen NMR shift of Bachman et al..

In the recent letter of Gorny et al. it was reported that the spin-lattice relaxation rate in YBCO<sub>7-δ</sub> is magnetic field independent and indicative of the opening of a spin-pseudogap. These authors point out that their results are inconsistent with prior reports  which concluded that there is a small but significant magnetic field dependence to $`1/T_1T`$ near $`T_c`$ in optimally doped material with interpretation in terms of pairing fluctuations  (see Fig. 1). Gorny et al. suggest that previous experiments might be in error since special care is required in the measurement of the <sup>63</sup>Cu(2) NMR rate in order to avoid what they refer to as background effects. These effects, and how to deal with them in aligned powder samples, have been known and practiced for some time . The particular approach of Gorny et al., measuring a satellite resonance, appears to be quite effective, but not unique.

In this comment we propose a different explanation for the discrepancy between the reports. Quite simply, the sample of Gorny et al. is not optimally doped. First, there is evidence for this in the distribution of electric field gradients apparent in the spectrum published by Gorny et al., being twice as broad (FWHM $``$ 400kHz) as is expected for high-quality, optimally doped material (FWHM $`<`$ 200kHz). In addition, field independence for the NMR in slightly underdoped materials has been noted previously by Auler et al. who have shown that NQR and NMR (H = 12 T) have the same rates for this resonance near $`T_c`$. Finally, Song $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 0.04)`$ and Auler et al. $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 0.02)`$ have shown the effect of modest underdoping is to shift the maximum value of $`1/T_1T`$ to lower values and to higher temperatures compared with optimal doping. This explains why the Gorny et al. measurements, open circles in Fig.1, fall below others at 95 K.

Results for optimally doped materials are remarkably consistent, having a magnetic field dependence shown in the figure for the data at a temperature of 95 K. This field dependence close to $`T_c`$ has been successfully interpreted in terms of d-wave superconducting pairing fluctuations . In the underdoped materials the fluctuation effects seem to be dominated by a field-independent

pseudogap, developing rapidly near optimal doping , reported by Carretta et al., Auler et al., and confirmed by Gorny et al..   
V. F. Mitrović, H. N. Bachman, W. P. Halperin,   
M. Eschrig, J. A. Sauls

> Department of Physics and Astronomy, and   
> Science and Technology Center for   
> Superconductivity, Northwestern University,   
> Evanston, Illinois 60208

(PACS numbers: 74.25.Nf, 74.40.+k, 74.72.Bk)