Two-component exciton condensates in an electron–hole bilayer

a, Field dependence of eMCD and hMCD at exciton density \({n}_{{\rm{x}}}=0.3\times {10}^{12}{\rm{c}}{{\rm{m}}}^{-2}\). This device does not exhibit obvious features related to II A . b, Field dependence of eMCD (left axis) and hMCD (right axis) in an extended field range. They mirror each other up to the optical scale factor. For a better comparison, the green dashed line shows –hMCD, which overlaps with the eMCD trace. c, Same as b but acquired at \(T=4\,{\rm{K}}\), which is above the condensate transition temperature. The eMCD and hMCD become independent, with holes polarizing substantially faster (saturating earlier) because of their larger g-factor. d, Temperature and density dependence of d(eMCD)/dB averaged in \(|B| < 100\,{\rm{mT}}\). A dome with enhanced susceptibility suggests the II B condensate. Its boundary is very similar to the main device (Extended Data Fig. 9c). e, A vertical linecut through panel d at \({n}_{{\rm{x}}}=0.3\times {10}^{12}{\rm{c}}{{\rm{m}}}^{-2}\). The susceptibility shows a kink at \(T\approx 1.2\,{\rm{K}}\). The overall curve shape is similar to the window B susceptibility shown in Fig. 4b. f, Corresponding data for the hole side, with a similar enhancement dome at low temperatures.