2017
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.118.237404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Giant Paramagnetism-Induced Valley Polarization of Electrons in Charge-Tunable Monolayer MoSe2

Abstract: For applications exploiting the valley pseudospin degree of freedom in transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers, efficient preparation of electrons or holes in a single valley is essential. Here, we show that a magnetic field of 7 Tesla leads to a nearcomplete valley polarization of electrons in MoSe 2 monolayer with a density 1.6 × 10 12 cm −2 ; in the absence of exchange interactions favoring single-valley occupancy, a similar degree of valley polarization would have required a pseudospin g-factor exceedin… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
81
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
6
81
3
Order By: Relevance
“…8 Therefore, the possibility of electron doping leading to the increase in g eff factor is ruled out. 8,18,19,43 We also measured Zeeman-type spin splitting of defect emission in monolayer MoS 2 (see Supplementary Information Fig. S8c-f).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 Therefore, the possibility of electron doping leading to the increase in g eff factor is ruled out. 8,18,19,43 We also measured Zeeman-type spin splitting of defect emission in monolayer MoS 2 (see Supplementary Information Fig. S8c-f).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3(b)]. Even though the optical response of the attractive polaron is relatively modest, its strong dependence on the valley polarization of electrons and its large g factor exceeding 15 [25] Figure 3(c) shows the dependence of maximal extinction (black dots) and the corresponding linewidth (red squares) for several values of the transmission path NA, close to the same spot we used to obtain the data depicted in Fig. 2(b).…”
Section: (C)mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Our measurements suggest that the neutral exciton g factor of MoS 2 MLs might be intrinsically smaller (in magnitude) than for diselenide MLs and is different from the commonly observed value g X ≈ −4 [43][44][45]47,48]. Variations in the measured neutral exciton g factor can have different reasons: (i) different strain in CVD-grown MLs as compared to encapsulated monolayers may play a role, (ii) comparing g factors in samples of different origin with different electron concentrations is difficult due to the possible impact of many-body interactions [10,85,86], (iii) eventually, in unprotected samples with considerably broader linewidth, magnetoreflectivity may provide a g factor that is an average of exciton and trion g factors.…”
Section: B Valley Zeeman Splitting and Field-induced Valley Polarizamentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The g factor, closely related to the effective mass tensor, also gives a fingerprint of the impact of different bands on the optical transitions [45,48,84]. In addition, spectacular effects are expected for monolayers with tunable electron density, where the evolution of the valley polarization and the valley Zeeman splitting has been interpreted in terms of a Fermi-polaron model for excitonic transitions; i.e., the simple definitions of neutral exciton and trion are replaced by the attractive and repulsive polaron [10,85,86].…”
Section: B Valley Zeeman Splitting and Field-induced Valley Polarizamentioning
confidence: 99%