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

TL;DR

This paper defends a theory explaining the Nernst effect in cuprates against criticisms, emphasizing that experimental observations support their model over vortex-based explanations.

Contribution

It clarifies that the original theory accounts for experimental data and refutes the vortex scenario for the Nernst effect in underdoped cuprates.

Findings

Large Nernst signal coexists with insulating-like resistivity in cuprates

The data supports the theory over vortex explanations

Criticisms neglect essential aspects of the original theory

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.