Reply to the comment by C. Capan and K. Behnia on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors" (cond-mat/0501288)

Abstract

The comment criticisms (cond-mat/0501288) are completely out of line with the context of the commented theory (Phys. Rev. Lett. v.93, 217002 (2004)). The comment neglected essential parts of the theory, which actually addressed all relevant experimental observations. I argue that the coexistence of the large Nernst signal and the insulating-like in-plane resistivity in underdoped cuprates rules out the vortex scenario, but agrees remarkably well with our theory.

1 page, 1 figure

References in corpus (2)

• Nernst effect in poor conductors and the cuprate superconductors
• Comment on "Nernst effect in poor conductors and in the cuprate superconductors"

Cited by in corpus (6)

• Normal state diamagnetism of charged bosons in cuprate superconductors
• Diamagnetism around the Meissner transition in a homogeneous cuprate single crystal
• Bose-Einstein condensation of strongly correlated electrons and phonons in cuprate superconductors
• Theory of giant and nil proximity effects in cuprate semiconductors
• The diamagnetism above the superconducting transition in underdoped La(1.9)Sr(0.1)CuO(4) revisited: Chemical disorder or phase incoherent superconductivity?
• Diamagnetism of real-space pairs above Tc in hole doped cuprates