Researcher profile

Seth Musser

Seth Musser contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Interpreting Angle Dependent Magnetoresistance in Layered Materials: Application to Cuprates

The evolution of the low temperature electronic structure of the cuprate metals from the overdoped to the underdoped side has recently been addressed through Angle-Dependant Magneto-Resistance (ADMR) experiments in La$_{1.6-x}$Nd$_{0.4}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$. The results show a striking difference between hole dopings $p = 0.24$ and $p = 0.21$ which lie on either side of a putative quantum critical point at intermediate $p$. Motivated by this, we here study the theory of ADMR in correlated layered materials, paying special attention to the role of angle dependent quasiparticle weights $Z_{\mathbf{k}}$. Such a $Z_{\mathbf{k}}$ is expected to characterize a number of popular models of the cuprate materials, particularly when underdoped. Further, in the limit of weak interlayer hopping the quasiparticle weight will affect the $c$-axis transport measured in ADMR experiments. We show that proper inclusion of the quasiparticle weight does not support an interpretation of the data in terms of a $(π, π)$ spin density wave ordered state, in agreement with the lack of direct evidence for such order. We show that a simple model of Fermi surface reconfiguring across a van Hove point captures many of the striking differences seen between $p = 0.21$ and $p = 0.24$. We comment on why such a model may be appropriate for interpreting the ADMR data, despite having a large Fermi surface at $p = 0.21$, seemingly in contradiction with other evidence for a small Fermi surafce at that doping level.