1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.1 1999/07/26 10:28:22 Simon Exp spepping $

4: %

5: \documentclass[twoside]{article}

6: \usepackage{fleqn,espcrc2}

7: 

8: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09

9: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

10: 

11: % if you want to include PostScript figures

12: \usepackage{graphicx}

13: % if you have landscape tables

14: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

15: 

16: % put your own definitions here:

17: %   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}

18: %   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]

19: %   ...

20: \newcommand{\Df}{D^{^{F}}}

21: \newcommand{\Do}{D^0}

22: \newcommand{\vfx}{v_{Fx}}

23: \newcommand{\vkp}{{\bf k^\prime}}

24: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\den}{\overline{n}}

26: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

27: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

29: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

30: \newcommand{\vk}{{\bf k}}

31: \newcommand{\vv}{{\bf v}}

32: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

33: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

34: \newcommand{\ph}{\phi}

35: \newcommand{\dg}{\dagger}

36: \newcommand{\vr}{{\bf{r}}}

37: \newcommand{\vq}{{\bf{q}}}

38: \newcommand{\vQ}{{\bf{Q}}}

39: \newcommand{\hj}{\hat{\alpha}}

40: \newcommand{\hx}{\hat{\bf x}}

41: \newcommand{\hy}{\hat{\bf y}}

42: \newcommand{\hz}{\hat{\bf z}}

43: \newcommand{\vS}{{\bf S}}

44: \newcommand{\cV}{{\cal U}}

45: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}

46: \newcommand{\tnh}{{\rm tanh}}

47: \newcommand{\sh}{{\rm sech}}

48: \newcommand{\vR}{{\bf R}}

49: \newcommand{\crx}{c^\dg(\vr)c(\vr+\hx)}

50: \newcommand{\crkubox}{c^\dg(\vr)c(\vr+\hat{x})}

51: \newcommand{\pll}{\parallel}

52: \newcommand{\crj}{c^\dg(\vr)c(\vr+\hj)}

53: \newcommand{\crmj}{c^\dg(\vr)c(\vr - \hj)}

54: \newcommand{\sumall}{\sum_{\vr}}

55: \newcommand{\sumx}{\sum_{r_1}}

56: \newcommand{\nabj}{\nabla_\alpha \theta(\vr)}

57: \newcommand{\nabx}{\nabla_1\theta(\vr)}

58: \newcommand{\sumy}{\sum_{r_2,\ldots,r_d}}

59: \newcommand{\krj}{K(\vr,\vr+\hj)}

60: \newcommand{\sigr}{|\psi_0\rangle}

61: \newcommand{\sigl}{\langle\psi_0 |}

62: \newcommand{\sier}{|\psi_{\Phi}\rangle}

63: \newcommand{\siel}{\langle\psi_{\Phi}|}

64: \newcommand{\sumrj}{\sum_{\vr,\alpha=1\ldots d}}

65: \newcommand{\krw}{K(\vr,\vr+\hx)}

66: \newcommand{\Dtheta}{\Delta\theta}

67: \newcommand{\rhonew}{\hat{\rho}(\Phi)}

68: \newcommand{\rhoold}{\hat{\rho_0}(\Phi)}

69: \newcommand{\dt}{\delta\tau}

70: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}

71: \newcommand{\cS}{{\cal S}}

72: \newcommand{\vm}{{\bf m}}

73: \newcommand{\hnr}{\hat{n}({\vr})}

74: \newcommand{\hnm}{\hat{n}({\vm})}

75: \newcommand{\del}{\hat{\delta}}

76: \newcommand{\upa}{\uparrow}

77: \newcommand{\dna}{\downarrow}

78: 

79: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}

80: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2

81:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

82: 

83: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list

84: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}

85: 

86: % declarations for front matter

87: \title{Quasiparticles and Phase Fluctuations in High Tc Superconductors}

88: 

89: \author{{Arun Paramekanti and Mohit Randeria}

90:  \address{

91:                 Dept. of Theoretical Physics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005,

92: 		India

93: 	}}

94:        

95: \begin{document}

96: 

97: \begin{abstract}

98: We argue based on theoretical considerations and analysis of

99: experimental data that quasiparticle excitations near the nodes

100: determine the low temperature properties in the superconducting

101: state of cuprates. Quantum effects of phase fluctuations are shown

102: to be quantitatively important, but thermal effects are small for

103: $T \ll T_c$. An anisotropic

104: superfluid Fermi liquid phenomenology is presented for 

105: the effect of quasiparticle interactions on the temperature and doping

106: dependence of the low $T$ penetration depth.

107: \vspace{1pc}

108: \end{abstract}

109: 

110: % typeset front matter (including abstract)

111: \maketitle

112: 

113: \bigskip

114: 

115: 

116: {\section {INTRODUCTION:}}

117: 

118: \medskip

119: 

120: The superconducting (SC) state  of the high Tc

121: cuprates differs from conventional SCs in several ways: a d-wave

122: gap with low energy quasiparticle excitations near the nodes,

123: a small phase stiffness and a short coherence length.

124: There is some controversy about the importance of quasiparticles

125: \cite{lee97} versus phase fluctuations \cite{emery95} in determining

126: the low temperature properties. In this paper, we discuss this problem

127: focusing mainly on the doping and temperature dependence of the in-plane

128: superfluid stiffness $D_{_\pll}$ which is related to the penetration depth

129: $\lambda_{_\pll}$ through $\lambda^{-2}_{_\pll}=4\pi e^2

130: D_{_\pll}/\hbar^2 c^2 d_c$ where $d_c$ is the mean interlayer spacing; 

131: we will set $\hbar=c=e=1$ below.

132: 

133: \smallskip

134: 

135: We first review experimental

136: evidence for quasiparticle excitations at optimal doping. 

137: Transport data in the SC state in YBCO \cite{ong95,bonn92} 

138: shows a scattering rate decreasing sharply below $T_c$ implying long

139: lived quasiparticle excitations for $T \ll T_c$.

140: Direct evidence from ARPES in Bi2212 

141: shows the presence of sharp quasiparticle peaks 

142: over the {\em entire} Fermi surface\cite{arpes99} for $T \ll T_c$. 

143: Thermal conductivity data \cite{taillefer} in YBCO and Bi2212 shows 

144: $\kappa \sim T$ at low $T$. The slope predicted by 

145: quasiparticle theory \cite{kappa} is in good agreement \cite{taillefer}

146: with this

147: $\kappa$ data on Bi2212, using ARPES \cite{mesot99}

148: estimates for the Fermi velocity 

149: $v_{F}$ and the gap slope 

150: $v_{\Delta} = (2\hbar k_{_F})^{-1}d\Delta/d\phi$ 

151: at the node.

152: Experimentally, it thus seems that quasiparticle excitations exist

153: and are important at low temperature.

154: 

155: It then seems natural to interpret the linear $T$ dependence 

156: of $\lambda_{_\pll}(T)$ \cite{hardy93} as arising from nodal 

157: quasiparticles (QP). Ignoring QP interactions the layer stiffness

158: $D_{_\pll}(T) = D_{_\pll}(0) - A_0 T$ with 

159: $A_0=(k_{_B}\ln 2 /\pi) v_{F} /v_{\Delta}$.

160: ARPES estimates in Bi2212 \cite{mesot99} for $v_{F}$ and $v_{\Delta}$

161: give $A_0 \sim 0.8 meV/K$, whereas experiments at optimality 

162: measure a slope $\sim 0.3 - 0.4 meV/K$. Thus there is at least a factor

163: of two discrepancy which needs to be understood.

164: 

165: Alternatively, it has been suggested that this linear $T$

166: behavior could arise entirely from thermal phase fluctuations

167: \cite{classicalxy1,classicalxy2} without invoking nodal quasiparticles.

168: However, there are two reasons to believe that thermal phase fluctuations

169: are unimportant at low $T$ in the cuprates. (1) An effective action calculation 

170: for charged $d-$wave SCs \cite{arun99}, summarized below, shows that 

171: thermal phase fluctuations become important only 

172: near $T_c$ for Bi2212 at optimality. 

173: On the other hand, quantum phase fluctuations are important at low $T$

174: and suppress both  $D_{_\pll}(0)$ and the slope. 

175: For Bi2212, the resulting renormalized $D_{_\pll}$ is about 

176: $30\%$ smaller while the renormalized slope is about $25 \%$ 

177: smaller than the bare values. 

178: (2) Further, with underdoping, $D_{_\pll}(0)$ decreases \cite{uemura89}

179: and the slope of $D_{_\pll}(T)$ also shows evidence of

180: decreasing in Bi2212 and La214, although some YBCO data is consistent 

181: with a doping-independent slope (see the compilation in 

182: refs.~\cite{mesot99,xiang99}).

183: Insofar as the data indicate a doping dependent slope for $D_{_\pll}(T)$,

184: they independently rule out classical thermal phase fluctuations as the 

185: explanation \cite{classicalxy1,classicalxy2} 

186: for the linear $T$ dependence, since 

187: the slope of $D_{_\pll}$ in such 

188: theories is insensitive to doping. 

189: Finally there is another proposal for understanding $D_{_\pll}(x;T)$ invoking

190: incoherent pair excitations \cite{chen98} which, in our opinion,

191: does not properly include the effect of Coulomb interactions.

192: 

193: We next summarize our phase action calculation, and then

194: describe how quasiparticle interactions could account for the difference

195: between the free QP value and the measured slope and its doping dependence. 

196: 

197: \bigskip

198: 

199: {\section{PHASE FLUCTUATIONS:}}

200: 

201: \medskip

202: 

203: We have recently derived, by appropriate coarse-graining, 

204: a quantum XY model describing phase fluctuations 

205: in charged, layered $d-$wave SCs, starting with a lattice 

206: model of fermions. See ref.~\cite{arun99} for details

207: of this derivation and some of the discussion in this Section.

208: 

209: The phase action for layered SCs with in-plane lattice spacing

210: $a=1$ takes the form

211: \bea

212: & &S[\theta]=\frac{1}{8 T}{\sum_{\vq,\omega_n}}'~\frac{\omega^2_n \xi_0^2}

213: {\tilde{V}_\vq} |\theta(\vq,\omega_n)|^2 \\ \nonumber

214: &+&\frac{1}{4}

215: \int_0^{1/T}d\tau\sum_{\vr,\hj}

216: \Df_{_\pll}

217: \left[1-\cos(\theta_{\vr,\tau}-\theta_{\vr+\hj,\tau})\right]

218: \label{quantumxy}

219: \eea

220: where $\xi_0$ is the in-plane coherence length,

221: and $\Df_{_\pll}$ refers to the layer stiffness {\it without}

222: phase fluctuation effects, but including possible renormalizations

223: due to quasiparticle interactions.

224: Here $\tilde{V}_\vq = V(\vq_{_\pll}/\xi_0,\vq_{_\perp})$ with

225: $V(\vq) = (2\pi e^2/q_\pll\epsilon_b)

226: \sinh(q_\pll d_c)/\left[{\rm cosh}(q_\pll d_c)-\cos(q_\perp

227: d_c)\right] $

228: is the Coulomb interaction for layered systems, $\epsilon_b$ is

229: the background dielectric constant, $d_c$ the interlayer spacing,

230: and $\vq_{_\pll},\vq_{_\perp}$ refer to in-plane and $c$-axis momentum 

231: components.

232: The prime on the sum indicates a Matsubara frequency cutoff 

233: since the energy of the fluctuations should not exceed the

234: condensation energy $E_{\rm cond}=\frac{1}{8}\Df_{_\pll}(\pi/\xi_0)^2$.

235: The form of the first term of (1), which arises from

236: coarse-graining up to a scale $\xi_0$, and the importance of cutoffs have 

237: not been appreciated earlier.

238: The (typically very small) $c$-axis stiffness $\Df_{_\perp}$ 

239: can be ignored for in-plane properties since it was found not to lead to 

240: qualitative or quantitative changes.

241: 

242: We ignore vortices (transverse phase fluctuations) which are suppressed at 

243: low $T$ by their finite core energy.

244: Analyzing longitudinal phase fluctuations for (1)

245: within a self-consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA)

246: \cite{classicalxy1}

247: leads to the renormalized 

248: stiffness $D_{_\pll} = \Df_{_\pll}\exp(-\la \delta\theta^2 \ra/2)$

249: where $\delta\theta^2=(\theta_{\vr,\tau}-\theta_{\vr+\alpha,\tau})^2$.

250: Our numerical results can be simply understood as follows: 

251: $\la \delta\theta^2 \ra (T=0) \sim

252: \sqrt{(e^2/\epsilon_b\xi_0)/D_{_\pll}(0)}$ is a measure of 

253: zero point quantum fluctuations, while

254: classical thermal phase fluctuations become important near a crossover

255: scale $T_\times \sim \min\left[T_c,T^0_\times\right]$ where

256: $T^0_\times = \sqrt{D_{_\pll}(0)(e^2/\epsilon_b\xi_0)}$

257: is the $T=0$ oscillator level spacing in the

258: renormalized harmonic theory.

259: 

260: It is easy to see that phase fluctuation effects are

261: negligible in the BCS limit, except very close to $T_c$.

262: With $e^2/\epsilon_b a \sim \Df_{_\pll} \sim E_{_F}$

263: and $\xi_0\sim v_{F}/\Delta$, one obtains the standard result 

264: $E_{\rm cond} \sim \Delta^2/E_{_F}$ per unit cell, and

265: $\la \delta\theta^2 \ra (T=0) \sim \sqrt{\Delta/E_{_F}} \ll 1$ and 

266: $T_\times \sim \min\left[T_c,\sqrt{E_{_F}\Delta}\right] = T_c$. 

267: 

268: For the cuprates, the small $\xi_0$ and small $\Df_{_\pll}$ act 

269: together to increase $\la \delta\theta^2\ra$, but they push $T_\times$ in 

270: opposite directions.

271: For optimal Bi2212 we use $e^2/\epsilon_b a \approx 0.33 eV$ 

272: with $\epsilon_b \approx 10$, $\xi_0/a \approx 10$, and $d_c/a \approx 4$.   

273: Assuming that the two layers within a bilayer are phase-locked, we get the 

274: bilayer 

275: stiffness $D_{_\pll}(0) \approx 80 meV$, from experimental data which

276: shows $\lambda_{_\pll} (0)\approx 2000 A$. This leads to $E_{\rm cond} 

277: \approx 6 

278: K/{\rm unit cell}$ and 

279: $T^0_\times \approx 600 K$. 

280: Since the bare stiffness $\Df_{_\pll}$ actually decreases

281: with temperature due to quasiparticle excitations,

282: an estimate of the crossover scale $T_\times$ can be

283: obtained from $T_\times \sim \sqrt{D_{_\pll}(T_\times)(e^2/\epsilon_b

284: \xi_0)}$. Assuming a linearly decreasing $D_{_\pll}(T)$, this leads to 

285: $T_\times \sim T_c$.

286: Thus longitudinal thermal fluctuations are clearly unimportant at 

287: low temperatures. 

288: Quantum fluctuations are important at low temperatures since 

289: $\la \delta\theta^2 \ra(T=0) \sim 1$ at optimality and detailed

290: calculations \cite{arun99} lead to 

291: a $30\%$ decrease of $\Df_{_\pll}(0)$ and a $25\%$ decrease in

292: the slope.

293: 

294: While it might appear that there could be a low $T$ crossover to 

295: thermal phase fluctuations due to the low energy $c$-axis plasmon 

296: ($\sim 7 K$ for Bi2212) in the anisotropic layered SCs, the phase space for 

297: these low lying fluctuations is too small to lead to a linear $T$ behavior

298: \cite{arun99}. 

299: Even in a purely 2D system with a low lying $\sqrt{q_{_\pll}}$ 

300: plasmon, the decrease in the phase stiffness due to phase fluctuations 

301: only goes as a large power law ($\sim T^5$). Quasiparticles are 

302: thus crucial in obtaining the observed linear temperature dependence.

303: 

304: We next turn to the doping dependence of phase fluctuations.

305: The (amplitude) coherence length $\xi_0$ is crucial in determining 

306: the effect of phase fluctuations. Since $\xi_0$

307: is determined by the pairing gap which appears to remain finite

308: as we underdope, we do not expect singular behavior in the phase

309: fluctuations arising from the doping dependence of $\xi_0$.

310: In this case, the dominant doping dependence to phase fluctuations arises

311: only from the singular behavior of the bare parameters in the phase action

312: on underdoping. This singular $x$-dependence in $\Df_{_\pll}(x)$ is most 

313: naturally explained by quasiparticle interaction effects as discussed below.

314: 

315: To estimate the doping dependence of phase fluctuations, we note

316: that the core energy will lead to vortices being exponentially suppressed 

317: at low $T$, even as we underdope. Using the experimental input

318: $T_c \sim D_{_\pll}(x;T=0) \sim x$ \cite{uemura89} and

319: assuming a doping independent $\xi_0$, longitudinal fluctuations 

320: within the SCHA lead to $T^0_\times \sim \sqrt{x}$ and hence $T^0_\times 

321: \gg T_c $. Thus,

322: $T_\times \sim \min\left[T_c,T^0_\times\right] 

323: \sim T_c$, which implies that thermal

324: phase fluctuations are unimportant at low $T$ as one underdopes.

325: Further, within the SCHA, $\la \delta\theta^2 \ra \sim x^{-1/2}$, which

326: would lead to a destruction of superconductivity at small enough $x$. However,

327: we do not expect the SCHA to be valid close to this transition.

328: 

329: \bigskip

330: 

331: {\section {QUASIPARTICLE INTERACTIONS:}}

332: 

333: \medskip

334: 

335: The increasing importance of interactions with underdoping is

336: evident: $D_{_\pll}(x;0) \sim x$ \cite{uemura89}

337: and the quasiparticle weight diminishes \cite{jcc99} as one

338: approaches the Mott insulator. We thus explore the possibility that

339: residual interactions between the quasiparticles in the SC state

340: can account for the value and doping dependence of the slope

341: of $D_{_\pll}(x;T)$. To this end we use a phenomenological

342: superfluid Fermi liquid theory (SFLT) \cite{leggett75,millis98}.

343: All available experimental evidence on the ground state and low lying

344: excitations suggests that the correlated SC state in the cuprates is 

345: adiabatically connected to a d-wave BCS state. 

346: We thus feel that SFLT may be a reasonable 

347: description of QP interactions in the SC state at low $T$, even though this 

348: formulation makes reference to a (hypothetical) $T=0$ normal 

349: Fermi liquid in which SC is induced by turning on a pairing interaction. 

350: (One could argue that approaching the superconducting phase from 

351: the overdoped side at $T=0$, one obtains a normal Fermi liquid to SC

352: transition.)

353: 

354: The bilayer stiffness after including QP interaction effects is given

355: by, $\Df_{_\pll}(T)=\beta_{_F} \Do_{_\pll}(0) 

356: - \alpha_{_F} 2 (k_{_B} T \ln 2 /\pi) v_{F} /v_{\Delta}$ 

357: where $\alpha_{_F},\beta_{_F}$ are Fermi liquid renormalizations. 

358: We will constrain the Landau QP interaction function by demanding $\beta_{_F} 

359: \sim x$, consistent with experiments

360: and then determine the doping trends in $\alpha_{_F}$.

361: 

362: To compute $\alpha_{_F},\beta_{_F}$, 

363: using a standard Kubo formula in the quasiparticle basis,

364: it is convenient to shift the origin of the

365: Brillouin zone to the $(\pi,\pi)$ point and

366: describe the hole-like Fermi surface of Bi2212 in terms of an angle $\phi$.

367: The Landau $f$-function is denoted by $f(\phi,\phi')$.

368: We define $\la O \ra_{\phi} \equiv \int_0^{2\pi} 

369: d\phi k_{_F}(\phi) O(\phi)/[2\pi |v_{F}(\phi)|]$. 

370: We get

371: $\beta_{_F}= 1+ 4\pi \la\la \vfx (\phi) \vfx (\phi ')

372: f(\phi,\phi ') \ra\ra_{{\phi}{\phi\prime}}/\la \vfx^2 \ra_{\phi}$ 

373: from the diamagnetic response of the free energy 

374: $\partial^2 \delta F / \partial {\bf A}_x^2$ to an applied

375: vector potential.

376: The current carried by nodal quasiparticles is then renormalized by

377: the factor

378: $\sqrt{\alpha_{_F}}= 1 + \la \vfx(\phi) f(\phi_n,\phi)\ra_{\phi}

379: /\left[ \pi \vfx (\phi_n) \right ]$, 

380: relative to its non-interacting value, where the nodes are at

381: $\phi_n=(2n-1)\pi/4$ with $n=1\ldots 4$.

382: 

383: \begin{figure}

384: %\vskip -8mm

385: \vspace*{1.5ex}

386: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=3.0in, clip]{Fig1.eps}}

387: \vskip -1cm

388: \caption{\small Doping dependence of renormalizations 

389: $\alpha_{_F}$ and $\beta_{_F}$ plotted for anisotropic model discussed

390: in the text. For the isotropic case one gets

391: $\alpha_{_F}=\beta^2_{_F}$.}

392: \vskip -7mm

393: \end{figure}

394: 

395: We expand $f(\phi,\phi')= \sum_{m \geq m'} F_{m,m'} [ \cos(m \phi+m'\phi') 

396: + \cos(m'\phi+m'\phi ') ]$ in a set of complete basis functions

397: \cite{aoi73},

398: where $m,m'=0,\pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots$ with square lattice symmetry

399: imposing $m+m'=4 p$ with $p=0,1,2,\ldots$.

400: In an isotropic system only $p=0$ survives {\it and}

401: $k_{_F}$ and $v_{_F}$ are $\phi$-independent. However, as

402: emphasized in ref.~\cite{millis98} one then obtains 

403: $\alpha_{_F} = \beta^2_{_F} \sim x^2$ in disagreement

404: with experiments \cite{mesot99}.

405: 

406: To illustrate how anisotropy can qualitatively change this scaling

407: we keep only the leading $p=0$ term: 

408: $f(\phi,\phi') = 2 F_{1,1} \cos(\phi-\phi ')$, 

409: but retain the full anisotropy of the dispersion

410: seen in ARPES \cite{arpes95}. 

411: We make a reasonable choice of $F_{1,1} = P + Qx$, with $P$ such that 

412: $\beta_{_F} \sim x$ as $x\to 0$,

413: and $Q$ such that $\beta_{_F} = 0.5$ at $x=0.2$. 

414: This leads to $\alpha_{_F}(x)$ shown in Fig.1, which

415: is a weak function of doping.

416: In general there are too many free parameters in the anisotropic case (an infinite 

417: set $F_{m,m'}$) for the theory to have predictive power; nevertheless the simple

418: example above shows how the $T=0$ value and slope of $D_{_\pll}$

419: can easily exhibit rather different $x$-dependences, and account for the

420: experimentally observed $D_{_\pll}(x;T)$.

421: 

422: We thus arrive at the following picture for the doping and temperature

423: dependence of $D_{_\pll}$. The bare stiffness arising from

424: non-interacting quasiparticles is renormalized by both QP interactions and 

425: quantum phase fluctuations at low $T$ leading to the measured

426: stiffness, $D_{_\pll}(x;T)$. Its doping dependence,

427: $D_{_\pll}(x;0) \sim x$, is determined by QP interactions while its linear $T$

428: behavior is governed by nodal QPs, with its slope

429: renormalized by both QP interactions and quantum phase fluctuations. 

430: 

431: \bigskip

432: 

433: {\bf Acknowledgments:} We thank J.C. Campuzano, J. Mesot, M.R. Norman,

434: C. Panagopoulos, T.V. Ramakrishnan and L. Taillefer for useful 

435: conversations. M.R. thanks the Indian DST for partial support through a 

436: Swarnajayanti fellowship.

437: 

438: \bigskip

439: 

440: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

441: \begin{thebibliography}{9}

442: \bibitem{lee97}

443: P.A. Lee and X.G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 4111 (1997).

444: \bibitem{emery95}

445: V.J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Nature (London), {\bf 374}, 434 (1995)

446: \bibitem{ong95}

447: K. Krishana, J. Harris and N.P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3529 (1995).

448: \bibitem{bonn92}

449: D. Bonn {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2390 (1992).

450: \bibitem{arpes99}

451: A. Kaminski {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 1788 (2000).

452: \bibitem{taillefer}

453: L. Taillefer {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 483 (1997);

454: M. Chiao {\em et al}, cond-mat/9910367.

455: \bibitem{kappa}

456: M.J. Graf {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 15147 (1996);

457: A.C. Durst and P.A. Lee, cond-mat/9909182.

458: \bibitem{hardy93}

459: W.N. Hardy {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 3999 (1993)

460: \bibitem{mesot99}

461: J. Mesot {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 840 (1999). 

462: \bibitem{classicalxy1}

463: E. Roddick and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 74}, 1430 (1995);

464: \bibitem{classicalxy2}

465: E.W. Carlson {\em et al},

466: Phys. Rev.  Lett. {\bf 83}, 612 (1999).

467: \bibitem{arun99}

468: A. Paramekanti, M. Randeria, T.V. Ramakrishnan and S.S. Mandal,  

469: cond-mat/0002349  (Phys. Rev. B, submitted).

470: \bibitem{uemura89}

471: Y.J. Uemura {\em et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2317 (1989).

472: \bibitem{xiang99}

473: T. Xiang and C. Panagopoulos, cond-mat/9910098 (Phys. Rev. B, to appear).

474: \bibitem{chen98}

475: Q. Chen {\em et al}, Phys. Rev.  Lett. {\bf 81}, 4708 (1998).

476: \bibitem{jcc99}

477: J. C. Campuzano {\em et al}, 

478: Phys. Rev.  Lett. {\bf 83}, 3709 (1999).

479: \bibitem{leggett75}

480: A.J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 47}, 331 (1975).

481: \bibitem{millis98}

482: A.J. Millis {\em et al},

483: J. Phys. Chem.  Solids {\bf 59}, 1742 (1998).

484: \bibitem{aoi73}

485: K. Aoi and J.C. Swihart, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 7}, 1240 (1973).

486: \bibitem{arpes95}

487: M.R. Norman {\em et al},

488: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 615 (1995).

489: \end{thebibliography}

490: \end{document}

491: