1: \documentstyle[aps,prb,multicol,epsf,picinpar]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,prb,multicol,picinpar,epsf]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[aps,12pt]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,multicol,aps,epsfig,picinpar,amstex]{revtex}
5: %\oddsidemargin 0.in
6: %\topmargin -0.7in
7: %\textheight 9.3in
8: %\textwidth 6.4in
9: %\pagestyle{empty}
10:
11: \def\ep {\epsilon}
12: \def\ek {\epsilon_k}
13: \def\e2 {\epsilon-\epsilon_k}
14: \def\be {\begin{equation}}
15: \def\ee {\end{equation}}
16: \def\bea {\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \def\eea {\end{eqnarray}}
18: \def\om {\omega}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \draft
22: \title{A Fermi liquid model for the overdoped and optimally doped
23: cuprate superconductors: scattering rate, susceptibility,
24: spin resonance peak and superconducting transition}
25:
26: \bigskip
27: \author{George Kastrinakis}
28: \address{Dept. of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
29: Urbana, IL 61801, USA\\
30: and\\
31: Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Cambridge,
32: Cambridge CB2 3RA, U.K. $^*$
33: }
34:
35: \date{Received 14 Jan. 2000}
36: \author{Physica C {\bf 340}, 119 (2000)}
37:
38: \maketitle
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We present a Fermi liquid model
41: for the overdoped and optimally doped cuprate superconductors.
42: For the normal state,
43: we provide an analytic demonstration, backed by
44: self-consistent Baym-Kadanoff (BK) numerical calculations, of the linear in
45: temperature
46: resistivity and linear in 1/energy optical conductivity,
47: provided the interacting Fermi liquid has strong peaks in its density
48: of states (van-Hove singularities in 2 dimensions) near the chemical potential
49: $\mu$.
50: Recent ARPES expts. by Valla et al., Science {\bf 285}, 2110 (1999),
51: and e-print cond-mat/0003407,
52: directly support the linearity of the one-particle scattering rate
53: everywhere in the Brillouin zone hereto obtained.
54: We show that the origin of this linearity is the linear in energy term
55: of the imaginary part of the carrier susceptibility.
56: Moreover, we verify that the interactions tend to pin the
57: van-Hove singularities close to $\mu$.
58: We show that the {\em low} energy dependence of the
59: susceptibility
60: can have a purely fermionic origin.
61: We introduce an {\em ansatz} for the susceptibility of the carriers, which
62: we postulate to be {\em enhanced} in an additive
63: manner due to the weak antiferromagnetic order of the CuO$_2$ planes.
64: Inter alia, this ansatz may explain the appearance of the spin resonance peak
65: (observed in neutron scattering) in the normal state of the cuprates.
66: Further, we obtain particularly high transition temperatures $T_c$ from our
67: BK-Eliashberg scheme
68: by using this ansatz:
69: we have a $d_{x^2-y^2}$ gap with $T_c > 120 ^o$K for
70: nearest neighbour hopping $t=250meV$.
71:
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \pacs{PACS numbers: 74.72.-h, 74.20.-z}
75:
76: \vspace{1cm}
77: \centerline{\bf I. Introduction}
78: \vspace{1cm}
79:
80: The nature of the many-body state of the cuprate superconductors
81: is a central question for the understanding of these materials
82: \cite{agl,scala,pines}.
83: E.g. one long standing puzzle has been the elucidation of the origin of the
84: linear in temperature in-plane resistivity \cite{iye}
85: and linear in 1/energy optical
86: conductivity observed in the optimal doping regime and to a good extent
87: in the overdoped regime.
88: Vice-versa, the answer to this question should shed light on the character of
89: the carriers and, subsequently, on the superconducting transition.
90: Here we address these issues based on a {\em minimum} unconventional Fermi
91: liquid model \cite{gk}. Our model comprises strong peaks in its density
92: of states (van-Hove singularities in 2 dimensions) near the chemical potential.
93: We show that it accounts in a natural,
94: comprehensive and internally consistent manner
95: for several normal state characteristics. The introduction of an {\em
96: ansatz} for the susceptibility of the carriers further allows us both
97: to propose an explanation for the origin of the spin resonance peak
98: and to obtain
99: particularly high $d$-wave transition temperatures $T_c$.
100: Overall, our results make a strong case for a Fermi liquid approach
101: to the optimally doped and overdoped cuprates.
102:
103: We perform a combination of analytical and numerical many-body
104: calculations in the context of our model.
105: The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
106: In Section II we write our many-body approximation, which we used
107: in our numerical calculations. We emphasize both that
108: our treatment is relevant for overdoped and optimally doped
109: cuprates (see Section VI for the underdoped regime) and that the results
110: presented in Sections III-V depend only {\em quantitavely} and not
111: qualitatively on the specific Hamiltonian and approximation thereof etc.
112: In Section III we discuss our analytical and numerical results
113: for the linear in max($T,\ep$) scattering rate of the carriers,
114: in connection with the existence
115: of van Hove singularities (vHs) close to the chemical potential. We also show
116: that a conductivity linear in $(1/T,1/\ep)$ follows. In Section IV
117: we discuss both the fermionic origin of the energy dependence of the
118: Millis-Monien-Pines susceptibility and our ansatz of eq. (\ref{ansatz})
119: for the susceptibility
120: of the carriers. We show that this ansatz may explain the appearance of the
121: so called spin resonance peak, seen in neutron scattering experiments,
122: in the normal state of the cuprates.
123: In Section V we discuss the superconducting transition
124: in the frame of the ansatz. Finally Section VI contains a summary of our
125: results. In the Appendix
126: we examine the role of doping-induced disorder on the carrier
127: susceptibility.
128:
129:
130: \vspace{1cm}
131: \centerline {\bf II. General framework}
132: \vspace{1cm}
133:
134: We assume that we deal with a Fermi liquid, albeit an
135: unconventional one, as will become apparent from our discussion
136: of the scattering rate of the carriers below.
137: We choose the 2-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian as a specific model
138: for our numerical calculations (c.f. the last paragraph of Section I
139: on this).
140:
141: \be
142: H = \sum_{k,\sigma} \epsilon_k \; c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} c_{k,\sigma}
143: + \frac{U}{2 N^2} \sum_{k,k',q,\sigma} c_{k+q,\sigma}^{\dag}
144: c_{k'-q,-\sigma}^{\dag} c_{k',-\sigma} c_{k,\sigma} \;\;.
145: \ee
146: $c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag}$ is an electron creation operator and
147: $\epsilon_k$ is the electronic tight-binding dispersion suggested by
148: angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiments - e.g. see \cite{stoj} - and
149: LDA
150: calculations \cite{ander}
151: \be
152: \epsilon_k = -2 t (\cos{k_x}+\cos{k_y})-4t'\cos{k_x}\cos{k_y}-
153: 2t''(\cos{2k_x}+\cos{2k_y}) \;\; .
154: \ee
155: It is assumed here that the lattice constant
156: is equal to unity and is the same along the two
157: crystal axis $a,b$ in the planes - hence $k_x,k_y \in [-\pi,\pi]$.
158: $N\times N$ is the discretization of the Brillouin zone.
159:
160: We consider the fluctuation-exchange diagrammatic approximation (FLEX)
161: of Bickers, Scalapino and White \cite{flex} for the Hamiltonian, which
162: consists in summing bubble and ladder diagrams.
163: FLEX is a Baym-Kadanoff
164: conserving approximation \cite{bk},
165: meaning that there is a free energy
166: functional $\Phi[G]$ of the Green' function $G$, such that the self-energy
167: $\Sigma$ is given by the relation $\Sigma = \delta \Phi[G]/\delta G$.
168: We thus obtain a set of
169: self-consistent equations for $G(k,\ep_n)$ and $\Sigma(k,\ep_n)$ :
170: \be
171: G(k,\ep_n)^{-1} = G_o(k,\ep_n)^{-1} - \Sigma(k,\ep_n) \;\;,
172: \ee
173: \be
174: G_o(k,\ep_n) = \frac{1}{i \ep_n + \mu - \ep_k } \;\; ,
175: \ee
176: \be
177: \Sigma(k,\ep_n) = - \frac{T}{N^2}\sum_{q,\omega_m} V(q,\omega_m) G(k-q,\ep_n-
178: \omega_m) \; \; . \label{sigm}
179: \ee
180: The potential $V(q,\omega_m)$ is given by
181: \be
182: V(q,\omega_m)=V_{ex}(q,\omega_m)-V_H(q,\omega_m) \;\;, \label{dyn}
183: \ee
184: \be
185: V_{ex}(q,\omega_m) = \frac{ - U^2 \chi_o(q,\omega_m)}
186: {1 - U^2 \chi_o^2(q,\omega_m)} \;\; ,
187: \ee
188: \be
189: V_H(q,\omega_m) = \frac{U^3 \chi_o^2(q,\omega_m)}
190: {1 - U \chi_o(q,\omega_m)} \;\;,
191: \ee
192: The susceptibility $\chi_o(q,\omega_m)$ is given by
193: \be
194: \chi_o(q,\omega_m) = -(T/N^2) \sum_{\ep_n,k} G(k+q,\ep_n+\omega_m) G(k,\ep_n) \;
195: \; .
196: \label{epid}
197: \ee
198: $\mu$ is the chemical potential and the Matsubara frequencies
199: are $\ep_n=(2n+1)\pi T$ and $\omega_m=2m\pi T$ for fermions and bosons,
200: respectively.
201: We solve numerically this self-consistent set of equations,
202: working with a given number $M$ of Matsubara frequencies
203: and discretization of the Brillouin zone
204: ($M=256-480$ and $N \geq 64$).
205:
206: There have been a number of similar numerical calculations on the normal-phase
207: and the superconducting transition of the cuprates
208: \cite{flex,mont,sglb,vilk,carb,andersen},
209: with FLEX
210: being a particularly popular approach.
211:
212: All the convolution operations are done by using the Fast Fourier
213: Transform (FFT), in order to cut down calculation time.
214: We use Pad\'e approximants \cite{pade} to analytically continue
215: our results to the real frequency axis.
216:
217: \vspace{1cm}
218:
219: \centerline {\bf III. On the scattering rate of the cuprates}
220:
221: \vspace{1cm}
222:
223:
224: We have analytically obtained a scattering rate linear in
225: the maximum of the temperature $T$ or energy $\epsilon$,
226: for a Fermi liquid with strong density of states peaks - van-Hove
227: singularities (vHs) in 2-d - located at an energy $\epsilon_{vH}$
228: close to the chemical potential $\mu$.
229:
230: The derivation relies on the relation (\ref{sigm}) for the
231: self-energy, which is valid quite generally in the frame of a BK
232: approximation, irrespectively of the specific Hamiltonian and approximation
233: thereof. See also the discussion following eq. (\ref{imv}).
234: It can easily be shown \cite{agd} that $Im \Sigma(k,\ep)$
235: is given by the following formula at finite temperature :
236: \be
237: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) = \sum_{q,\om} Im G^R(q,\ep-\om) Im V^R(k-q,\om) \;
238: \{\coth(\om/2T) \; + \; \tanh((\ep-\om)/2T) \}\;\;.
239: \ee
240: Taking
241: \be
242: Im G^R(k,\ep) = -\pi \delta(s_{k,\ep}), \; \; s_{k,\ep} = \ep+\mu-\ep_k-Re
243: \Sigma(k,\ep) \;\; ,
244: \label{gde}
245: \ee
246: we obtain
247: \be
248: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) = -\pi \sum_q Im V^R(k-q,s_{q,\ep}) \;
249: \{ \coth(s_{q,\ep}/2T) \; + \; \tanh((\ep-s_{q,\ep})/2T) \}\;\; .
250: \ee
251: Setting $Im G^R(k,\ep)$ equal to a delta function is a reasonable
252: approximation for this purpose, in view of the typical sharp spike feature
253: of $Im G^R(k,\ep)$ shown in fig. 1 - also see figs. 2 and 3, all of which
254: are representative of our numerical solution of eqs. (3)-(9).
255: Further, numerically $Im G^R(k,\ep)$ is
256: {\em very small} compared to the band energy for small couplings,
257: and the difference of $Im \Sigma(k,\ep)$, as seen in our numerical
258: calculation, for small and large coupling constants is mostly {\em quantitative}
259: rather than qualitative.
260:
261: We write
262: \be
263: Im V^R(q,x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \; \frac{V_q^{(2n+1)}(0) \; x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}
264: \; ,
265: \ee
266: where $V_q^{(n)}(0)$ is the $n-$th derivative of $Im V^R(q,\om=0)$ with respect
267: to $\om$. This is true for an electronically mediated interaction,
268: with a polarization which is a regular function of $\om$ (see also eq.
269: (\ref{imv}) below).
270: There are only odd powers of $\om$ in the series because the imaginary
271: part of the susceptibility is an odd function of energy - e.g. c.f.
272: eq. (2.63) of Pines and Nozi\`eres \cite{pino}.
273: One possible exception to this is given by Gonzalez, Guinea and Vozmediano
274: \cite{gon}. The authors showed that for the {\em underdoped LSCO-type}
275: Fermi surface (FS)
276: and for momenta $K$ connecting two inflection points of the FS, the imaginary
277: part of the susceptibility goes like $|\om|^{1/4}$ in 2 dimensions. However,
278: this fact will influence the final result for the scattering rate {\em only} for
279: a small range of momenta $k$ satisfying $k=K+q_o$ - c.f. eqs. (14) and (15),
280: and $q_o$ is given in the paragraph below. Moreover, we have already emphasized
281: that our picture is not valid in the underdoped regime.
282:
283: First we consider the low $T$ limit.
284: The sum over $q$ is dominated by the van-Hove singularities at the points
285: $q_o$. Assuming that $\ep_{vH} = \ep_{q_o} + <Re \Sigma(q_o,\ep)>$
286: [{\em this relation is misprinted in the journal version of the paper}]
287: is {\em close} to $\mu$, the
288: tanh has a vanishing contribution at the vicinity of
289: $\ep_q + Re \Sigma(q,\ep) \sim \mu$
290: (note that for $\ep_q + Re \Sigma(q,\ep) < \mu$
291: and $\ep_q + Re \Sigma(q,\ep) > \mu + \ep$ the contributions
292: of tanh and coth annihilate each other in the low $T$ limit). Hence
293: \be
294: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) \simeq -\pi \sum_{q \sim q_o} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
295: \frac{ V_{k-q}^{(2n+1)}(0) \; (s_{q,\ep})^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} \; \;,
296: \ee
297: For {\em sufficiently small} $V_{q}^{(n)}(0), \; \forall n>1$, we obtain
298: \be
299: a_k = \pi\sum_{q \sim q_o} V_{k-q}^{(1)}(0) \; \gg \; \pi\sum_{q \sim q_o}
300: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \; \frac{ V_{k-q}^{(2n+1)}(0) \; (\ep + c)^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}
301: \;\;,
302: \ee
303: where $c = \mu - \ep_{vH}$. This relation is valid for $\ep + c < \ep_c$,
304: where the latter is the characteristic energy beyond which the infinite sum
305: on the right becomes comparable to the $V_{q}^{(1)}$ term.
306: Also, for energies beyond the bandwidth $W$ ($W=8t$ for the non-interacting
307: system), $Im \chi_o$, and hence
308: $Im V$ (see below), decay to zero.
309: These considerations yield the two energy crossovers
310: \be
311: \ep_1 = |\mu - \ep_{vH}| \;\;,\;\;
312: \ep_2 = \min\{\ep_c + \ep_{vH} - \mu, \; W + \ep_{vH} - \mu\} \;,\;\;
313: \ee
314: while the assumption above for $a_k$ leads to
315: \be
316: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) \simeq - a_k (\ep + c) \;\;, \;\;\ep_1 < \ep
317: < \ep_2 \;\;.
318: \label{taye}
319: \ee
320: For $\ep > \ep_2$ $Im \Sigma$ gradually decreases, due to the finite
321: bandwidth of the system.
322: Finally, we note that if the Fermi surface approaches a van-Hove singularity
323: at $q_o$,
324: $V_{k-q}^{(1)}(0)$ should become bigger, being proportional
325: to $1/(\vec \nabla \ep_{k_F} \vec k_F$) (as implied by the standard Fermi
326: liquid
327: result for the imaginary part of the susceptibility \cite{pino} - see the
328: discussion below on the susceptibility of the cuprates).
329:
330: We consider now the high temperature limit $T > (\mu-\ep_{vH})/4$
331: \cite{varel}.
332: We see immediately that
333: \be
334: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) = - \pi \sum_q Im V^R(k-q,s_{q,\ep}) \{ 2 T/s_{q,\ep} +
335: O(s_{q,\ep}/2T) \} \;\; .
336: \ee
337: (Note that the term of order $T$ of this sum is
338: reminiscent of the left-hand side of the sum rule -
339: c.f. Pines and Nozi\`eres\cite{pino} -
340: $\lim_{q \rightarrow 0} \int_0^{\infty} d\om Im \chi_o(q,\om) |\varepsilon
341: (q,\om)|^2/\om = - N\pi/m c_s^2 $, with $N$ being the total particle number,
342: $c_s$ the speed of sound, $m$ the effective mass, and $\varepsilon(q,\om)$
343: the dielectric function.)
344: The sum is dominated by the van-Hove singularities at the points
345: $q_o$, thus yielding
346: \be
347: Im \Sigma^R(k,\ep) \simeq - 2 T \pi \sum_{q \sim q_o} V_{k-q}^{(1)}(0) =
348: - 2 a_k T \;\;. \label{tayt}
349: \ee
350: Here we made use of the condition above for $a_k$.
351: In addition, it is straightforward to see from our analytic
352: treatment that $Im \Sigma^R \propto x^2$, $x=$max$\{T,\ep\}$, when
353: both $T,\ep \rightarrow 0$. In all respects we have a
354: genuine Fermi liquid.
355:
356: {\em Note added:} ARPES expts. by Valla et al., Science {\bf 285}, 2110 (1999),
357: and preprint cond-mat/0003407,
358: have very recently shown that in optimally doped Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$
359: the one-particle scattering rate is linear in max\{$T,\epsilon$\}
360: over most of the Fermi surface, in support of our picture.
361:
362: A brief comment here. It has been known long ago - see e.g. \cite{sil}
363: - that the scattering rate becomes linear in $T$ for $T > \om_B/4$, with
364: $\om_B$ being the characteristic boson frequency mediating the carrier
365: interaction. Our treatment shows that $\om_B$ here is nothing else but
366: the {\em fermionic} energy $\mu-\ep_{vH}$.
367:
368: The prefactors in the r.h.s. of
369: eqs. (\ref{taye}) and (\ref{tayt}) differ by a factor of 2.
370: This is in agreement with experiments in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ and
371: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ \cite{tanner}, where the factor is found to
372: be in the range 2.1 - 2.2 .
373: We note that the "marginal Fermi liquid" phenomenology of Varma, Littlewood,
374: Schmitt-Rink, Abrahams and Ruckenstein \cite{mfl} gives a factor
375: of $\pi$ instead.
376:
377: We emphasize that the $T$ and $\epsilon$ dependence of the result are
378: {\em independent}
379: of $k$ - {\bf thus leading necessarily to a linear in $T$ resistivity and
380: a linear
381: in $1/\ep$ optical conductivity,} even with inclusion of vertex corrections
382: in the calculation.
383: The reason for this being that $\{T,\ep\}$ are obtained
384: as overall prefactors, for the relevant $T$ and $\ep$ regimes, in such
385: calculations.
386: E.g. the Kubo formula yields
387: $\sigma(\om)=(e^2/\om) \sum_{k,\ep} v_k^2 \; G(k,\ep+\om) G(k,\ep)
388: \;[1+S(k,\ep)] \; [f(\ep+\om) - f(\ep)]$,
389: where $v_k$ is the group velocity,
390: $S$ includes vertex corrections
391: from the Ward identity, and $f$ is the Fermi occupation factor.
392: The main $T$ and $\om$ dependence in the integrand is in
393: the one-particle self-energy in $G$ and in $f$. Doing the $k$ sum,
394: we get the dominant contribution from the poles of $G$. Now, the
395: one-particle scattering rate is linear in max($T,\ep$) {\em everywhere}
396: in the Brillouin zone, and this linear dependence appears in the
397: denominator of $\sigma$.
398: Here we assumed that the vertex corrections do {\em not} have a strong
399: temperature dependence over a substantial part of the Brillouin zone.
400: Indeed, Kontani, Kanki and Ueda \cite{kku} have recently shown numerically,
401: in the frame of the FLEX approximation, that
402: vertex corrections are small for the resistivity, and do {\em not}
403: change its $T$ dependence.
404:
405: Hlubina and Rice \cite{hlu} considered analytically a
406: model of interacting fermions with a vHs close to $\mu$. However,
407: they find a scattering rate similar to ours only close to the vH region,
408: and different otherwise. As a result, their resistivity goes like
409: $T^2 \; ln^2(1/T)$. In their 'hot' and 'cold' spots scenario, relying
410: on strong scattering off antiferromagnetic fluctuations, they
411: obtain an {\em average} scattering rate similar to ours, and numerically
412: a linear in $T$ resistivity (however, they seem to {\em assume} that
413: the group velocity is finite along the whole Fermi surface - cf. between
414: eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) of \cite{hlu}). Similar results are also obtained
415: in the antiferromagnetic scenario of Pines and Stojkovic \cite{stp}.
416:
417: A note on phonons. As they form a - presumably small- part of the
418: effective potential $V$, they provide necessary momentum dissipation, yielding
419: a finite resistivity. However, the linear $T$ dependence of the latter
420: is {\em not} specifically influenced by phonons in our model.
421:
422: Returning to the derivation of the scattering rate above,
423: we observe that the overall behavior of $Im V$ closely
424: follows $Im \chi_o(q,\om)$, as
425: \be
426: Im V(q,\om) = Im \chi_o(q,\om) \;\; |\varepsilon(q,\om)|^2 \;\;, \label{imv}
427: \ee
428: $Im \chi_o$
429: is odd in $\om$, while $|\varepsilon|^2$ is even.
430: Eq. (\ref{imv}) follows from any screened interaction
431: between the carriers. Hence the argument for the
432: linear in energy and temperature behavior of $\tau^{-1}(T,\ep)$
433: is equally generic. It relies essentially on a large coefficient for the
434: linear in energy term of $Im V$ - i.e. of $Im \chi_o$ - and
435: the presence of van-Hove singularities
436: {\em near} the Fermi surface. The result holds {\em regardless} of the
437: dimensionality of the system. However, it is important that a significant
438: part of the spectral weight be included in the strong peaks of the density
439: of states lying close to $\mu$.
440:
441:
442: What is more, in our self-consistent numerical solution
443: we observe that the energy $\ep_{vH}$ of the singularities is pushed
444: by the interactions close to the chemical potential
445: - see fig. 4. This result is especially pronounced when we use the ansatz
446: for the susceptibility of the carriers of eq. (\ref{ansatz}) below.
447: Then we find typically for $n \sim 0.87 - 0.95$ and for a broad range
448: of $t',t'',U$
449: \be
450: \mu - \ep_{vH} \leq t/20 \;\;.
451: \ee
452: The shape of the
453: self-energy $\Sigma(k,\ep)$ of the interacting system
454: is responsible for the modification of the density of states $N(\ep)$,
455: %peak closer to the Fermi surface
456: through the relation $N(\ep)=-Tr \; Im G(k,\ep)/\pi$.
457: A trend for the transfer of the spectral weight is indicated by the fact that
458: $Im \Sigma(k,\ep)$ has a peak below $\mu$ and a dip above it.
459: %account for the transfer of the spectral weight.
460: The numerical result concerning the approachment between $\ep_{vH}$ and $\mu$
461: has been known for some years.
462: Si and Levin \cite{sil} and Newns, Pattnaik and Tsuei \cite{newns}
463: observed the pinning of the vHs close to $\mu$
464: by using a $U \rightarrow \infty$ mean field slave boson approximation of
465: a model with Cu 3d and O 2p orbitals.
466: Recently, Gonzalez, Guinea and Vozmediano \cite{ggv} were able to obtain
467: analytically the essential part of
468: %this result
469: the approachment between the vHs and $\mu$ with a first order
470: renormalization group treatment in the context of the Hubbard model.
471: A review of related work in the frame of the so-called van-Hove
472: scenario has been given by Markiewicz \cite{mark}.
473: This pinning of the vHs close to $\mu$ seems to be a plausible explanation
474: for the common characteristic of a good many cuprates whose van-Hove
475: singularities are located between 10-30 $meV$ {\em below} the Fermi surface
476: \cite{bednorz} (see also the next section).
477:
478: It is interesting that the electron doped
479: Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$
480: which has a van-Hove singularity much below the Fermi surface, i.e. at
481: approximately $\mu$-350 meV, as shown by ARPES\cite{stanford},
482: has a usual Fermi liquid $\tau^{-1}(T) = const. \; T^2 ln(T)$ \cite{tsuei}.
483: This lends support to the picture described above.
484: Along the same line, the resistivity of Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$ (Tl-2201)
485: switches over from linear to quadratic with increasing doping from the optimal
486: to the overdoped regime \cite{kubo}, which we suspect to be an indication
487: of the vHs moving well away from $\mu$.
488:
489: Finally, in further support of the relevance of the vHs in the
490: transport properties of the cuprates, Newns et. al \cite{newns2} and
491: McIntosh and Kaiser \cite{kaiser} have shown that the thermal conductivity
492: of the cuprates can be well accounted for if the vHs are located very close
493: to the Fermi surface, as discussed above.
494:
495:
496: The numerical solution of the many-body system always
497: corroborates our analytical result for the self energy at finite temperature.
498: $Im \Sigma(k,\epsilon)$ turns out
499: to be essentially linear in energy in the interval
500: $\epsilon_1<\epsilon<\epsilon_2$.
501: A linear dependence of $Im \Sigma(k,\epsilon)$ as a function of either $T$
502: or $\epsilon$ was also obtained in the numerical work of Beere and Annett
503: \cite{beere}, Kontani et al. \cite{kku} and Si and Levin \cite{sil}.
504: Note that in figs. 2 and 3 we show the self-energy for the set of the system
505: parameters which yields the highest transition temperature $T_c$, if use
506: of the ansatz of eq. (\ref{ansatz}) is made. The linearity of
507: $Im \Sigma(k,\epsilon)$ with $\ep$ is even {\em more} pronounced for
508: other combinations of $t',t''$ and $n$.
509: $Im \Sigma(k,\epsilon)$ has always the correct parabolic Fermi liquid bevahior
510: for $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.
511: Furthermore,
512: the energy interval of linear behavior expands as the energy $\epsilon_{vH}$
513: of the (extended)
514: van-Hove singularities at the (vicinity of the) points
515: $q_o =(\pm \pi,0), (0,\pm \pi)$ approaches $\mu$.
516:
517: Another feature of the density of states as seen in our treatment
518: - c.f. fig. 4 - is the following. The non-interacting density of states has
519: two minor
520: peaks at the bottom and top of the spectrum respectively (in fig. 4 the top
521: one is a vHs). As the
522: strength of the interaction increases, these two peaks are washed out, as
523: a result of the self-energy which becomes substantial in magnitude for
524: energies away from $\mu$ - c.f. figs. 2 and 3.
525:
526:
527: At the moment it is not clear whether the present mechanism of the linear
528: scattering rate can explain the experimentally observed $T^3$ dependence of
529: the Hall resistivity of the cuprates. A
530: way to explain it has been found by Stojkovic and Pines \cite{stp},
531: using an electron interaction peaked at $Q=(\pm\pi,\pm\pi)$.
532: Their argument can be slightly modified, so that it works for our form
533: of the electron potential $V$ - given by eq. (\ref{dyn}) - but with a
534: modified effective
535: $\chi_o$ peaked at Q, as we propose in the next section
536: - c.f. eq. (\ref{ansatz}) and below.
537: Kontani et al. \cite{kku} have shown that vertex corrections in the frame of
538: FLEX have a drastic influence on the $T$ dependence of the Hall resistivity,
539: in marked contrast to the case of the longitudinal resistivity.
540:
541:
542: \vspace{1cm}
543:
544: \centerline{\bf IV. On the susceptibility of the cuprates}
545:
546: \vspace{1cm}
547:
548: {\em \bf The low energy dependence of the susceptibility of the cuprates.}
549: The Millis-Monien-Pines susceptibility\cite{mmp,pines}
550: \be
551: \chi_{MMP}(q,\om) = \frac{X_1 \; \xi^2}{1+\xi^2 (q-Q)^2 - i\om/\om_{SF}} \;\;,
552: \ee
553: has been used to fit the {\em low} energy part of the
554: %imaginary part of the
555: susceptibility of the
556: cuprates in both NMR rate and inelastic neutron scattering (INS) experiments.
557: Here $Q=(\pm\pi,\pm\pi)$.
558: The short range antiferromagnetic (AF) order, a remnant of the parent
559: antiferromagnetic materials, with correlation length $\xi$,
560: is responsible for the peak of the susceptibility for $q$ near $Q$.
561: Typically $\xi$ is of the order of the lattice constant ($\xi$ decreases
562: as the doping increases, and e.g. $\xi \simeq 2$ for optimally doped
563: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$), while $\om_{SF} \approx 10-40 meV$.
564:
565: The origin of the small magnitude of $\om_{SF}$ has remained
566: elusive thus far.
567: E.g. Sachdev, Chubukov and Sokol have interpreted it as a damped spin
568: wave mode \cite{css}. Spin waves are clearly observable in underdoped cuprates.
569: However to date there is no experimental proof that they are strong
570: enough in the normal phase of the optimally doped and overdoped regimes.
571: The proximity of the system to an antiferromagnetic instability,
572: i.e. $\bar V_Q \; \chi(Q,\om) \simeq 1$, where $\bar V_q$ and $\chi(q,\om)$
573: are some
574: appropriate coupling and susceptibility respectively, can in principle
575: explain the small magnitude of $\om_{SF}$, as pointed out by Millis, Monien
576: and Pines \cite{mmp}.
577:
578: Here we propose that an alternative explanation - which may coexist
579: with the latter - is the following fermionic origin for $\om_{SF}$.
580:
581: First however, let us present a proposal for the susceptibility which
582: has been put forward
583: by Onufrieva and Rossat-Mignod\cite{onu}. This starts by viewing the CuO$_2$
584: planes as a lattice of plaquettes centered on the copper site with four
585: nearest neighbour oxygen sites.
586: A Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$, reminiscent of but more comprehensive than
587: the one of the $t-J$ model, was introduced in terms of the Hubbard
588: operators.
589: In this formulation, the itinerant carriers which propagate via Cu spin flips
590: are clearly {\em separate} objects from the localized Cu spins with short range
591: AF order.
592: A diagrammatic approach was developed in the frame of ${\cal H}$,
593: leading to the following RPA-type {\em total} susceptibility
594: \be
595: \chi_t(q,\om) = \frac{\chi_{AF}(q,\om) + \chi_F(q,\om)}{1 +
596: J_q (\chi_{AF}(q,\om) + \chi_F(q,\om))} \;\;. \label{xon}
597: \ee
598: $J_q$ is the effective Cu spin exchange interaction, $\chi_F$ is a purely
599: fermionic susceptibility and $\chi_{AF}(q,\om)$ is
600: %purely
601: due
602: to the localized spins. $\chi_t(q,\om)$ encompasses in an appealing way
603: the idea of the
604: entangled carrier-spin dynamics in the cuprates.
605: Furthermore, this approach is able to account to a good extent for the
606: variation of the total susceptibility as a function of doping and temperature,
607: as measured by INS.
608:
609: Now, we use the result for $\chi_{t}$ above with
610: \be
611: \chi_{AF}(q,\om) = \frac{\chi_1 \; \xi^2 }{1+\xi^2 (q-Q)^2 - f(\om)} \;\;, \;\;
612: \chi_F(q,\om) = \chi_{Fo} (1+i \om/\om_o + O(\om^2)) \;\; ,
613: \;q \rightarrow Q \;\;.
614: \ee
615: Let us suppose that $f(\om)=i \om/\om_S$.
616: If $\om_S \gg \om_o$ {\em and} $J_Q \xi^2 \chi_1 < 1$,
617: and taking $\chi_F(q,\om) \equiv \chi_o(q,\om)$ (as given by eq. (\ref{epid})),
618: we essentially recover $\chi_{MMP}(q,\om)$ - which is
619: itself an {\em approximate} form of the true susceptibility - with
620: \be
621: \om_{SF} \rightarrow \bar \om(q) = \frac{\om_o \; \om_S}{\om_o +
622: \om_S J_q \chi_o^2 \; (1+\xi^2 (q-Q)^2)\;/\;(\xi^2 \chi_1)} \;\; .
623: \ee
624:
625:
626: From the numerical solution
627: of our system, we easily obtain values of $\om_o$ comparable to
628: the experimentally relevant ones, when the van-Hove energy $\ep_{vH}$ is near
629: $\mu$, with $\om_o$ scaling quickly towards zero as $\mu - \ep_{vH}
630: \rightarrow 0$.
631: Hence $\om_o$ can be interpreted as $\om_o(\vec q_F)=\vec \nabla \ep_{q_F}
632: \vec q_F$ - c.f. the non-interacting Fermi liquid result $\om_o(q)=v_F q$
633: \cite{pino}.
634: The small difference $\mu - \ep_{vH}$ is observed in a good number
635: of cuprates.
636: E.g. in ref. \cite{bednorz} there is a compilation of several cuprates,
637: the van-Hove singularities of which are located between 10 - 30 $meV$
638: below the Fermi level (c.f. the discussion in the previous section).
639: Also, Blumberg, Stojkovic and Klein (BSK) \cite{stoj} suggested
640: that this characteristic may be true irrespective of the doping,
641: as long as the latter is appropriate for superconductivity.
642: This is based on ARPES experiments on the bilayer YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$.
643: ARPES remains the best diagnostic probe
644: for the Fermi surface of the cuprates.
645: Yet it has not proved possible to perform measurements
646: on many other compounds, especially the monolayers
647: such as Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$ etc.
648: The point here is the following. By fitting the ARPES data BSK
649: show that one of the two effective bands - the anti-bonding one - formed
650: by hybridization of the two layers by interlayer coupling has a chemical
651: potential only some 20 - 50 $meV$ above the van-Hove singularity at
652: $(0,\pi)$, irrespective of the doping regime. It is then clear that these
653: carriers, with a large density of states, give rise to a {\em small} $\om_o$
654: as discussed above. Hence it is very
655: interesting to know
656: how universal this band-structure characteristic of the cuprates is,
657: as it may explain naturally the magnitude of $\bar \om$.
658: Furthermore, it would be interesting to determine experimentally,
659: e.g. by
660: INS, the value of $\bar \om$ for Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$.
661: In that case, $\om_o$ should be enhanced as a result of the van-Hove
662: singularities being far away from the Fermi surface.
663:
664: In the Appendix we discuss the (non)influence of weak disorder on the value of
665: $\om_o$.
666:
667: {\em \bf The antiferromagnetic ansatz for the carrier susceptibility.}
668: We thereby propose that the {\em effective} non-interacting
669: susceptibility (i.e. without interaction lines connecting the particle-hole
670: lines) of the carriers is given by the following {\bf ansatz}
671: \be
672: \chi_o(q,\om) \rightarrow \chi_o^{eff}(q,\om) = \chi_o(q,\om) +
673: a \; \chi_{AF}(q,\om) \;\;. \label{ansatz}
674: \ee
675: $\chi_o$ is given by eq. (9) above,
676: $\chi_{AF}$ is the antiferromagnetic susceptibility of the localized
677: Cu spins and $0 < a < 1$ is a dimensionless weighting factor, which in
678: principle depends on doping, band structure, temperature (presumably a
679: decreasing function of the latter) etc.
680: The intuitive idea is that the carriers
681: should perceive the ordered antiferromagnetic background of the CuO$_2$ planes,
682: even in the absence
683: of phase separation \cite{ek,zaa,cn}.
684: In this way, the fermionic susceptibility acquires an antiferromagnetic
685: enhancement, which may then influence the effective carrier potential
686: and pairing, through an electronically
687: mediated interaction - see also the next section. Furthermore,
688: $\chi_o^{eff}$ can explain the temperature dependence of the Hall resistivity
689: of the cuprates, as we mentioned at the end of the previous section
690: on the scattering rate.
691: Finally, we note that with this effective $\chi_o^{eff}$ our many-body
692: approximation remains {\em conserving}, since the relation $\Sigma = \delta F/
693: \delta G$ between the self-energy, the free energy and the Green's function
694: is still valid, as $\chi_{AF}$ does {\em not} depend on $G$.
695: We note that this is consistent with the work of Onufrieva and
696: Rossat-Mignod \cite{onu} mentioned
697: above. The carriers and the localized spins form two distinct, albeit
698: interrelated, systems. The additive form of the ansatz is also compatible
699: in spirit with $\chi_t(q,\om)$ of eq. (\ref{xon}).
700:
701: We mention here the
702: alternative treatment of the spin and charge susceptibilities of
703: Imada, Fujimori and Tokura \cite{imad}.
704:
705: Taking the ansatz of eq. (\ref{ansatz}) at face value in the context of
706: our many body
707: scheme means that both the charge and spin susceptibility of the carriers
708: acquire an AF enhancement. Currently we cannot prove this ansatz.
709: We emphasize that our ansatz can be taken to apply {\em only}
710: for the spin
711: susceptibility of the carriers. In that case, in the frame of our
712: Baym-Kadanoff scheme, only $\chi_o(q,\om)$ entering the ladder diagrams
713: with opposite particle-hole spins
714: would be replaced by $\chi_o^{eff}$.
715: Quantitatively, the differerence between this case and the case in which both
716: charge and spin susceptibilities are enhanced is small (for relevant values
717: of the AF enhancement) - c.f. the discussion
718: on the critical temperature $T_c$ in the next section.
719:
720: In our numerical implementation, we consider two similar forms
721: for the AF susceptibility, namely (A)
722: \bea
723: \chi_{AF}^A(q,\om_m) = X_o \; \sum_{i=1}^4 \Gamma_i^{-1}\;
724: \theta(\omega_c - |\omega_m|) , \; \label{xx1}
725: \eea
726: with $\Gamma_i=\xi^{-2} + (q-Q_i)^2$, $\om_c$ being a cut-off, and (B)
727: \be
728: \chi_{AF}^B(q,\om_m) = X_o \; D \; \sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{ \om_m - (2 \om_m /\pi)
729: \arctan(\om_m/D) - \Gamma_i D + (2 \Gamma_i D /\pi) \arctan(\Gamma_i) }
730: {\om_m^2 - (\Gamma_i D)^2} \;, \label{ansb}
731: \ee
732: with $Q_i=(\pm\pi,\pm\pi)$ and $D$ being a cut-off frequency,
733: above which $Im \chi_{AF}(q,\om)=0$.
734: Form (B) has appeared in \cite{millis}. Here the characteristic spin wave
735: frequency obeys $\omega_S \propto \xi^{-z}$, and the $z=2$ scaling regime
736: has been assumed, in agreement with the analysis of Sokol and Pines
737: for the optimally doped and overdoped regime of YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$
738: etc. \cite{sokol}
739:
740: {\em \bf The spin resonance peak of the cuprates.}
741: INS experiments in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ - see e.g. \cite{fong1} and
742: therein - and Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ \cite{fong2} have revealed
743: the existence of a strong peak in the spin triplet channel, centered
744: at $Q=(\pm\pi,\pm\pi)$ and at a characteristic resonance energy
745: $\omega_R\simeq 30-40$ meV. Although this peak is usually seen exclusively
746: in the superconducting state, it has been observed up to temperatures
747: $\sim 250 ^o$K in YBa$_2$(Cu$_{0.995}$Zn$_{0.005})_3$O$_7$ \cite{fong1}
748: for $\omega_R\sim 40$ meV.
749: Interestingly, this fact cannot be accounted for by most of the theoretical
750: models so far available - see e.g. \cite{fong1,fong2} for refs. - as these
751: models require the onset of superconductivity. An exception is the
752: model of Bulut \cite{bulut}, which, however, differs drastically from ours.
753:
754: The use of the ansatz of eq. (\ref{ansatz}) in the spin channel only
755: may account in a natural way for the appearance of the resonance peak
756: in the normal state through
757: a bilayer effect. Both YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ and
758: Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ are bilayer materials.
759: Here one can define bonding and antibonding bands \cite{andersen}
760: $\epsilon_{\pm k}=\epsilon_k\pm t_\perp(k)$, $t_\perp(k)$
761: being the $k$-dependent interlayer
762: hopping element. Further, one defines the susceptibilities
763: $\chi_{o \pm}(q,\om)= Tr[ G_+(+q,+\om) G_\pm +G_-(+q,+\om) G_\mp ]$.
764: When $\epsilon_{vH}-\mu$ is {\em small}, $\chi_{o-}(q,\om)$ has a
765: narrow peak at $q=Q$ and
766: $\om\simeq\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the bilayer splitting at
767: $q\sim q_o = (\pi,0),(0,\pi)$, i.e. the
768: van Hove neighbourhood. Liechtenstein et al. \cite{andersen} have shown in
769: the frame of the FLEX approximation that $\Delta$ is drastically reduced
770: for a finite interaction, compared to the non-interacting value
771: $\Delta_o=2 t_\perp(q=q_o)$, such that it becomes comparable to the
772: experimental $\omega_R$. Our ansatz can be taken to apply to $\chi_{o\pm}$,
773: yielding $\chi_{o \pm} \rightarrow \chi_{o \pm}^{eff}=\chi_{o \pm}
774: + a\; \chi_{AF}$.
775: As a result $\chi_-(q,\om)=\chi_{o-}^{eff}(q,\om)/(1-U \chi_{o-}^{eff}(q,\om))$
776: is strongly peaked at $Q$ for an energy $\om_{cR}\sim\Delta$, and may
777: account for the experimental observations.
778: Of course we require $\chi_{o-} > \chi_{o+}$ for this to work, which
779: is valid for a range of the parameters $t',t'',n$.
780:
781:
782: One can ask the question: why does the resonance peak not appear in the
783: normal state in general? As demonstrated here, the amplitude of the AF
784: enhancement needs to be sufficiently large for the peak to be visible.
785: Zn is known to enhance AF fluctuations
786: in the CuO$_2$ planes - e.g. \cite{casba}, which if interpreted as yielding
787: a larger ($a \; \chi_{AF}$) contribution
788: in $\chi_o^{eff}$, is in agreement with the results above.
789: On the other hand, as we discuss in the next section on the superconducting
790: transition, too strong a factor $(a \; \chi_{AF})$ reduces
791: $T_c$ - c.f. $T_c=93^o$K
792: for the pure YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_7$ versus $T_c=87^o$K for the Zn doped material
793: mentioned above (also see the last paragraph of section V).
794:
795: \vspace{1cm}
796:
797: \centerline{\bf V. On the superconducting transition of the cuprates}
798:
799: \vspace{1cm}
800:
801: With the solution of the normal system at hand, we solve
802: the gap (Eliashberg) equation\cite{loh}
803: \be
804: \Delta(k,\ep_n)=-\frac{T}{N^2}\sum_{k',\ep_n'} V_{p}(k-k',\ep_n-\ep_n')
805: G(k',\ep_n')G(-k',-\ep_n')\Delta(k',\ep_n') \;\; . \label{gap}
806: \ee
807: This form of the equation is valid close to the transition temperature
808: $T_c$ only.
809: The pairing potential $V_{p}$ is given by
810: \be
811: V_{p}(q,\omega_m) = V_{x}(q,\omega_m) + V_h(q,\omega_m) \;\;,
812: \ee
813: \be
814: V_{x}(q,\omega_m) = \frac{U}{1 - U^2 \chi_o^2(q,\omega_m)} \;\;,
815: \ee
816: \be
817: V_h(q,\omega_m) = \frac{U^2 \chi_o(q,\omega_m)}
818: {1 - U \chi_o(q,\omega_m)} \;\;.
819: \ee
820: We have assumed that the gap is an even function of both its
821: momentum and energy arguments in order to write $V_{p}(q,\om_m)$
822: in this form. We also assumed that the gap is spin singlet, as
823: Knight shift experiments have shown \cite{scala,agl}. The superconducting
824: state of the cuprates is probably a generalized BCS state - see
825: e.g. \cite{nayak} -
826: with the transition being due to a momentum anisotropic potential,
827: as envisaged by Kohn and Luttinger \cite{kohn}.
828:
829: The symmetry of the gap is determined by the
830: exact shape and sign of $V_p$.
831: Based on symmetry grounds \cite{scala} as
832: well as on experimental evidence, we expect a $d_{x^2-y^2}$ or
833: a $s$ wave gap - but see also \cite{shf}.
834: (In principle, higher order even angular momentum harmonics are also possible.)
835: The highest $T_c$'s correspond to a $d_{x^2-y^2}$ gap, and are
836: obtained by including an
837: antiferromagnetically enhanced susceptibility in the calculation, following our
838: {\em ansatz} of eq. (\ref{ansatz}).
839: In passing, let us note that in general the proximity of $\ep_{vH}$ to
840: $\mu$ plays a less significant role than the ansatz in raising $T_c$ - but
841: c.f. below.
842: Nevertheless we also obtain a $s$-wave gap under the same conditions,
843: but with a much lower $T_c'$ \cite{tran}.
844: This is consistent with the experimental situation. Most of the cuprates
845: appear to have a $d_{x^2-y^2}$ gap at $T_c$ - e.g. c.f. \cite{agl}.
846: Experiments point to the opening of a {\em secondary} order parameter
847: gap at $T_c' \ll T_c$ \cite{covi,kouz,movs}.
848:
849: We note here that the van-Hove singularities at $q_o$ tend to
850: suppress a
851: $s$-wave gap if the pairing potential $V_p>$0 ($V_p$ defined above
852: is negative for sufficiently large and negative $U$ and/or an appropriate
853: phonon coupling,
854: and positive otherwise).
855: The (likely) $s$-wave gap of Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$
856: could originate from e.g.
857: the fact that the van-Hove singularities are 350$meV$
858: below the Fermi surface, and hence ineffective here,
859: or from $V_p<$0 for some relevant parts of the phase space
860: in this material,
861: or possibly from both facts.
862: Yet another possibility which may coexist with the above
863: is that $V_p$ is strongly peaked close to zero momentum owing to
864: the band structure of this material. All these factors can
865: result in the $s$-wave $T_c$ being higher than the $d$-wave $T_c$, and hence in
866: the dominance of the former channel over the latter.
867:
868:
869: We obtain the
870: following (near) optimum set of parameters for the $d$-wave $T_c$.
871: We take $t=250 meV$ and $\xi=1$ (increasing the latter leads to a
872: reduction of $T_c$, see below).
873: For form (A) - eq. (\ref{xx1}) - we obtain $T_c \simeq 125^o K$,
874: for $a X_o=0.2eV^{-1}$,
875: $\om_c=4t$, $t'=-0.11t$, $t''=0.5t$, $U=1.27eV$ and $n=0.88$.
876: For form (B) - eq. (\ref{ansb}) - we obtain $T_c \simeq 105^o K$,
877: for $a X_o=0.5eV^{-1}$,
878: $D=32t$, $t'=-0.11t$, $t''=0.25t$, $U=1.47eV$ and $n=0.91$.
879: The variation of $T_c$ in $^oK$ with $\xi$ is as follows for this last set
880: of parameters : (94, 1.5), (91, 2), (90, 3), (88, 5).
881:
882: Monthoux and Pines obtained similarly high transition temperatures
883: \cite{mont} with their approach, which uses
884: ${\cal V}(q,\om)=g^2 \chi_{MMP}(q,\om)$ as the effective carrier-carrier
885: potential. Their approach has no room for the Hubbard $U$ and the subsequent
886: screened carrier-carrier interaction though. Overall, our approach yields
887: significantly enhanced $T_c$'s compared to the standard FLEX-type
888: treatments \cite{fls}.
889:
890:
891: We obtain an optimum value of $n$ for the following reason.
892: $\chi_o$ - and hence $\chi_o^{eff}$ - is a decreasing function of $n$.
893: We allow the coupling to increase up until
894: $b = U \chi_o^{eff}(Q,\om=0)$ saturates to a value close to and below unity.
895: Then $V$ and $V_p$ (given by eqs. (6) and (32) respectively) are
896: increasing with $n$. And so does the characteristic
897: scattering rate entering $G$. Thus the optimum value of $n$ for the
898: highest $T_c$ corresponds to the overall highest kernel $V_p \; |G|^2$
899: in the gap equation (\ref{gap}).
900:
901: Further, we have done an {\em extensive} search of the parameter space
902: to locate the optimum parameter set for the highest $T_c$. From our data
903: it appears that the variation of $T_c$ as a function of the system parameters
904: is {\em smooth} and that the optimum parameter set above is a {\em global}
905: optimum \cite{phon}.
906:
907: Assuming that only the spin susceptibility acquires an AF
908: enhancement according to our ansatz, yields a $T_c$ which is lower
909: by
910: %(somewhat less than)
911: 9\% for $\xi=1$, but only lower by 2\% for $\xi=3$,
912: if we make use of $\chi_{AF}^B$, with the optimum parameters above.
913: The variation of $T_c$ with $\xi$ is as follows here :
914: (96,1), (92,1.5), (90,2), (89,3), (88,5).
915:
916: There is an {\em optimum} value of $a$ for the maximum attainable $T_c$.
917: This is again due to the form of the pairing potential $V_p$ above :
918: the AF instability condition allows $U \chi_o^{eff} < 1$ only.
919: Now, for a given value of the latter product, the highest $V_p$ - which
920: in principle yields the highest $T_c$ as well (c.f. above) -
921: will correspond
922: to the highest possible $U$. This in turn corresponds to a smaller
923: $\chi_o^{eff}$, and hence to a {\em small} but finite optimum $a$.
924: In the next paragraph we discuss relevant experimental evidence.
925:
926: Zheng, Kitaoka, Ishida and Asayama \cite{zheng} made
927: a very interesting empirical
928: observation. Namely, among the hole doped cuprates, the highest $T_c$ 's
929: correspond to a combination of {\em both} optimum total carrier concentration
930: $n_{x^2-y^2}+2 n_{p_{\sigma}}$ in the planes ($n_{x^2-y^2}$ being the
931: concentration
932: of holes of Cu-3d orbital character and $n_{p_{\sigma}}$ of O-2p orbital
933: character)
934: as well as of a reduced (probably minimum) imaginary susceptibility -
935: as deduced from NMR experiments.
936: In fact, Zheng et al. noticed that the highest $T_c$ 's are obtained
937: for a reduced ratio $n_{x^2-y^2}/2n_{p_{\sigma}} \sim 1$, and, moreover, that
938: such a trend is correlated with a reduced relaxation rate $(1/T_1)_{Cu} \propto
939: T \; \lim_{\omega \rightarrow 0} \sum_{q} A_q^2 \; Im \chi(q,\omega)/\omega $,
940: in properly normalized units (here $A_q$ is the hyperfine coupling).
941: This last fact points to a reduced $Im \chi(q,\omega)$ etc.
942: These conclusions are in accordance with our picture, which yields both
943: special values of the filling factor $n$ - for this also c.f. e.g.
944: \cite{flex,sglb} - as well as special {\em small}
945: values of the product $(a \; \chi_{AF})$ as a prerequisite
946: for the highest attainable $T_c$ 's (also c.f. the last paragraph of section IV).
947:
948: \vspace{1cm}
949:
950: \centerline{\bf VI. Summary}
951:
952: \vspace{1cm}
953:
954: To summarize, we present a single plane Fermi liquid model
955: which for the normal state can explain the salient transport properties,
956: the low energy
957: dependence of $\chi_{MMP}$, and their relation to the existence
958: of van-Hove singularities close to the Fermi surface.
959: E.g. we obtain analytically a scattering rate linear in max($T,\ep$), within
960: appropriate $T$ and $\ep$ bounds, for {\em all} momenta in the Brillouin
961: zone. This result yields directly a linear in $T$ resistivity and linear in
962: 1/$\ep$ optical conductivity.
963: The introduction of an ansatz for the susceptibility of the carriers allows
964: for an understanding of both the appearance of the spin resonance peak in the
965: normal state and the temperature behaviour of the Hall conductivity.
966: Further, by using the ansatz we obtain significantly enhanced $d_{x^2-y^2}$
967: wave transition temperatures $T_c$.
968: Attention is paid
969: to Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$, the properties of which,
970: despite appearances,
971: we believe to be fully consistent with those of the majority of cuprates.
972:
973: In brief, let us discuss the possible connection to the physics
974: of the underdoped cuprates. Strong experimental evidence suggests that they are
975: in a phase separated
976: regime, with AF domains of spins separated by stripes of holes \cite{ek,zaa,cn}.
977: One can envisage that with doping increasing towards the optimal regime,
978: the stripes melt into an effective Fermi liquid, and the physics described
979: here is recovered.
980: Further models on the underdoped cuprates can be found in \cite{timu}.
981:
982: The author has enjoyed discussions with
983: Yia-Chung Chang, Gordon Baym, Joseph Betouras,
984: Girsh Blumberg, Antonio Castro Neto, Lance Cooper,
985: Sasha Liechtenstein, Peter Littlewood,
986: J\"{o}rg Schmalian, Raivo Stern, Qimiao Si and
987: Branko Stojkovic.
988: This work was supported by the Research Board of
989: the University of Illinois, the Office of Naval Research under
990: N00014-90-J-1267 and NSF under DMR-89-20538.
991:
992:
993: \vspace{1cm}
994:
995: \centerline{\bf Appendix - Disorder effects in the susceptibility
996: of the carriers}
997:
998: \vspace{.5cm}
999:
1000: Returning to the origin of a small $\om_o$, which was discussed
1001: in section IV,
1002: another option would in principle be the disorder inherent in the cuprates.
1003: The dopants are randomly positioned in the crystal structure, thereby
1004: creating an effective disorder potential for the carriers in the planes.
1005: We calculated the effect of disorder by considering the dopants as
1006: isotropic point scatterers, with a density $n_i$=1\% and typical scattering
1007: strength $V_s=0-1$ eV (i.e. $\le 8t$). These parameters give a residual
1008: impurity scattering rate less than 2 $meV$, consistent with experiments on
1009: the cuprates.
1010: For the calculation of the
1011: susceptibility we used the diffuson \cite{lera}.
1012: We only used a band
1013: structure with $t''=0$, and only took into account non-magnetic disorder.
1014: The non-interacting Green's function now becomes
1015: \be
1016: G_o'(k,\ep_n) = \frac{1}{i \ep_n + \mu - \ep_k + \sigma_i(\ep_n)} \;\; ,
1017: \ee
1018: with $\sigma_i(\ep_n) = n_i V_s/(1-(V_s/N^2) \sum_k G_o(k,\ep_n))$.
1019: The susceptibility is given by
1020: \be
1021: \chi_o(q,\omega_m) = - T \sum_{\ep_n} P(q,\omega_m;\ep_n) \Big\{
1022: \frac{ \theta(-\ep_n(\ep_n+\omega_m))}{1- n_i V_s^2 P(q,\omega_m;\ep_n) }
1023: \; + \; \theta(\ep_n(\ep_n+\omega_m)) \Big\} \;\; ,
1024: \ee
1025: and $P(q,\omega_m;\ep_n) = (1/N^2) \sum_k G(k+q,\ep_n+\omega_m) G(k,\ep_n)$.
1026: However we found {\em no} evidence, for the parameters
1027: above, of $\om_o$ being influenced by disorder.
1028:
1029:
1030: \vspace{1cm}
1031: $^*$ Current address: 18 Giampoudi St., Iraklio, Crete 71201, Greece.
1032: E-mail: kast@iesl.forth.gr .
1033:
1034:
1035: \begin{references}
1036:
1037: \bibitem{agl}
1038: J. Annett, N.D. Goldenfeld \& A.J. Leggett, in {\em Physical Properties
1039: of High Temperature Superconductors}, ed. D. Ginsberg,
1040: World Scientific, Singapore, vol. V (1996).
1041:
1042: \bibitem{scala}
1043: D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Repts. {\bf 250}, 329 (1995).
1044:
1045: \bibitem{pines}
1046: D. Pines, in {\em High T$_c$ Superconductivity and the C$_{60}$ Family},
1047: eds. T.D. Lee \& H.C. Ren, Gordon \& Breach (1995).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{iye}
1050: Y. Iye, in {\em Physical Properties
1051: of High Temperature Superconductors}, ed. D. Ginsberg,
1052: World Scientific, Singapore, vol. III (1992).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{gk}
1055: A short account of this work has appeared in G. Kastrinakis,
1056: Physica C {\bf 317-319}, 497 (1999); G. Kastrinakis, cond-mat/9703141.
1057:
1058: \bibitem{stoj}
1059: G. Blumberg, B.P. Stojkovic \& M.V. Klein, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, R15741 (1995).
1060:
1061: \bibitem{ander}
1062: O.K. Andersen, A.I. Liechtenstein, O. Jepsen \& F. Paulsen,
1063: J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 56}, 1573 (1995).
1064:
1065: \bibitem{flex}
1066: N.E. Bickers, D.J. Scalapino \& S.R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62};
1067: 961 (1989), N.E. Bickers \& S.R. White, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 8044 (1991).
1068:
1069: \bibitem{bk}
1070: G. Baym, Phys. Rev. {\bf 127}, 1391 (1962); G. Baym \& L.P. Kadanoff, ibid.
1071: {\bf 124}, 287 (1961).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{mont}
1074: P. Monthoux \& D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 6069 (1993),
1075: ibid., {\bf 49}, 4261 (1994).
1076:
1077: \bibitem{sglb}
1078: S. Grabowski, M. Langer, J. Schmalian \& K.H. Bennemann, Europhys. Lett.
1079: {\bf 34}, 219 (1996).
1080:
1081: \bibitem{vilk}
1082: Y.M. Vilk \& A.-M.S. Tremblay, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 33}, 159 (1996).
1083:
1084: \bibitem{carb}
1085: J.P. Carbotte, St. Lenck \& R.C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 10149 (1994).
1086:
1087: \bibitem{andersen}
1088: A.I. Liechtenstein, O. Gunnarson, O.K. Andersen \& R.M. Martin,
1089: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 12505 (1996).
1090:
1091: \bibitem{pade}
1092: H.J. Vidberg \& J.W. Serene, J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 29}, 177 (1977).
1093:
1094: \bibitem{agd}
1095: A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov \& I.E. Dzyaloshinski, {\em Methods of Quantum
1096: Field Theory in Statistical Physics}, Prentice-Hall (1964).
1097:
1098: \bibitem{pino}
1099: D. Pines \& Ph. Nozi\`eres, {\em The Theory of Quantum Liquids},
1100: W.A. Benjamin (1966).
1101:
1102: \bibitem{gon}
1103: J. Gonz\'alez, F. Guinea \& M.A.H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},
1104: 3514 (1997).
1105:
1106: \bibitem{varel}
1107: The factor 1/4 was kindly pointed out by G. Varelogiannis.
1108:
1109: \bibitem{sil}
1110: Q. Si \& K. Levin, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 4727 (1991).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{tanner}
1113: D. B. Tanner, private communication.
1114:
1115: \bibitem{mfl}
1116: C.M. Varma, P.B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams \& A.E. Ruckenstein,
1117: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 1996 (1989); P.B. Littlewood \& C.M. Varma,
1118: J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 69}, 4979 (1991).
1119:
1120: \bibitem{kku}
1121: H. Kontani, K. Kanki \& K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, 14723 (1999).
1122:
1123: \bibitem{hlu}
1124: R. Hlubina \& T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 9253 (1995).
1125:
1126: \bibitem{stp}
1127: B. P. Stojkovic \& D. Pines, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 811 (1996).
1128:
1129: \bibitem{newns}
1130: D.M. Newns, P.C. Pattnaik \& C.C. Tsuei, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 3075 (1991).
1131:
1132: \bibitem{ggv}
1133: J. Gonz\'alez, F. Guinea \& M.A.H. Vozmediano, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 34}, 711
1134: (1996); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 485}, 694 (1997).
1135:
1136: \bibitem{mark}
1137: R.S. Markiewicz, cond-mat/9611238.
1138:
1139: \bibitem{bednorz}
1140: D.H. Lu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 4845 (1996).
1141:
1142: \bibitem{stanford}
1143: D.M. King et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 3159 (1993);
1144: R.O. Anderson et al., ibid., {\bf 70}, 3163 (1993).
1145:
1146: \bibitem{tsuei}
1147: C.C. Tsuei, A. Gupta \& G. Koren, Physica C {\bf 161}, 415 (1989).
1148:
1149: \bibitem{kubo}
1150: Y. Kubo, Y. Shimakawa, T. Manako \& H. Igarashi, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 7875
1151: (1991).
1152:
1153: \bibitem{newns2}
1154: D.M. Newns et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 1695 (1994).
1155:
1156: \bibitem{kaiser}
1157: G.C. McIntosh \& A.B. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54}, 12569 (1996).
1158:
1159: \bibitem{beere}
1160: W.H. Beere \& J.F. Annett, cond-mat/9801030.
1161:
1162: \bibitem{mmp}
1163: A.J. Millis, H. Monien \& D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}, 167 (1990).
1164:
1165: \bibitem{css}
1166: S. Sachdev, A.V. Chubukov \& A. Sokol, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 14874 (1995).
1167:
1168: \bibitem{onu}
1169: F. Onufrieva \& J. Rossat-Mignod, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 7572 (1995);
1170: F. Onufrieva, Physica C {\bf 251}, 348 (1995).
1171:
1172: \bibitem{ek}
1173: V.J. Emery, S.A. Kivelson \& O. Zachar, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 56}, 6120 (1997),
1174: and therein.
1175:
1176: \bibitem{zaa}
1177: J. Zaanen, cond-mat/9711009, and therein.
1178:
1179: \bibitem{cn}
1180: A.H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3931 (1997), and therein.
1181:
1182: \bibitem{imad}
1183: M. Imada, A. Fujimori \& Y. Tokura,
1184: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70}, 1039 (1998).
1185:
1186: \bibitem{millis}
1187: A.J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 13047 (1992).
1188:
1189: \bibitem{sokol}
1190: A. Sokol \& D. Pines, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 2813 (1993).
1191:
1192: \bibitem{fong1}
1193: H.F. Fong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1939 (1999).
1194:
1195: \bibitem{fong2}
1196: H.F. Fong et al., Nature {\bf 398}, 588 (1999).
1197:
1198: \bibitem{bulut}
1199: N. Bulut, cond-mat/9909437.
1200:
1201: \bibitem{casba}
1202: A.H. Castro Neto \& A. Balatsky, cond-mat/9805273.
1203:
1204: \bibitem{loh}
1205: D.J. Scalapino, E. Loh,Jr. \& J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 34}, 6554 (1986).
1206:
1207: \bibitem{nayak}
1208: C. Nayak \& F. Wilczek, cond-mat/9510132.
1209:
1210: \bibitem{kohn}
1211: W. Kohn \& J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 15}, 524 (1965).
1212:
1213: \bibitem{shf}
1214: J. Betouras \& R. Joynt, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 31}, 119 (1995).
1215:
1216: \bibitem{tran}
1217: Note however that our treatment through eq. (\ref{gap})
1218: is inadequate for a
1219: {\em quantitative} determination of the $s$-wave $T_c'$, as this occurs deep in
1220: the $d$-wave superconducting phase.
1221:
1222: \bibitem{covi}
1223: M. Covington et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 277 (1997).
1224:
1225: \bibitem{kouz}
1226: K.A. Kouznetsov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3050 (1997).
1227:
1228: \bibitem{movs}
1229: R. Movshovich et al., cond-mat/9709061.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{fls}
1232: In terms of FLEX calculations (c.f. section I), the highest $T_c$'s
1233: have been obtained by Grabowski, Langer, Schmalian and Bennemann (GLSB)
1234: \cite{sglb}. For $t=250meV$ - which we use here as well - they have obtained
1235: a maximum $T_c=80^o$K. They are using a numerical implementation for
1236: locating $T_c$
1237: (J. Schmalian, private communication)
1238: which is different from ours, and which gives
1239: systematically higher $T_c$'s than our implementation.
1240: E.g. for the same set of optimal
1241: parameters of GLSB we obtain $T_c=70^o$K. All our results from the use
1242: of the ansatz (\ref{ansatz}) should be compared to this latter value.
1243:
1244: \bibitem{phon}
1245: We note that the basic effect of considering moderate values of an isotropic
1246: phonon interaction
1247: is to allow for greater
1248: values of $U$ before
1249: the AF instability condition $b=1$ (c.f. above) sets-in.
1250: Hence a finite phonon interaction
1251: allows for a bigger on-site/paramagnon coupling.
1252:
1253: \bibitem{zheng}
1254: G.-Q. Zheng, Y. Kitaoka, K. Ishida \& K. Asayama, J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 64},
1255: 2524 (1995).
1256:
1257: \bibitem{timu}
1258: T. Timusk \& B. Statt, Repts. Prog. Phys. {\bf 62}, 61 (1999).
1259:
1260: \bibitem{lera}
1261: P.A. Lee \& T.V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 57}, 287 (1985).
1262:
1263: \end{references}
1264:
1265: \vspace{.5cm}
1266:
1267: \centerline{ FIGURE CAPTIONS}
1268:
1269: \vspace{.5cm}
1270:
1271: Figure 1. Full Green's function $G^R(k_F,\ep)$ for (a)
1272: $k_F=k_F^{boundary}$
1273: along $(\pi,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$ and (b)
1274: $k_F=k_F^{diagonal}$
1275: along $(0,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$, for $t=250meV$, $t'=-0.11t$,
1276: $t''=0.25t$, $U=1.5eV$, $n=0.91$, at $T=105 ^oK$.
1277:
1278: \vspace{.5cm}
1279:
1280: Figure 2. Self-energy $\Sigma(k_F,\ep)$ for
1281: $k_F=k_F^{boundary}$
1282: along $(\pi,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$ (continuous line) and
1283: $k_F=k_F^{diagonal}$
1284: along $(0,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$ (dashed line), for the same
1285: parameters as in fig. 1.
1286: (a) depicts Im$\Sigma^R(k_F,\ep)$ and (b) depicts Re$\Sigma(k_F,\ep)$.
1287: A (quasi)linear energy dependence of Im$\Sigma^R(k_F,\ep)$ can be seen
1288: for energies below 0.5$eV$ - also c.f. text.
1289:
1290: \vspace{.5cm}
1291:
1292: {Figure 3. Self-energy $\Sigma(k_F,\ep)$ for
1293: $k_F=k_F^{boundary}$
1294: along $(\pi,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$ (continuous line) and
1295: $k_F=k_F^{diagonal}$
1296: along $(0,0) \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$ (dashed line), for $t=250meV$, $t'=-0.11t$,
1297: $t''=0.25t$, $U=1.47eV$, $n=0.91$, at $T=105 ^oK$.
1298: The carrier susceptibility has an antiferromagnetic enhancement
1299: according to the ansatz of eq. (\ref{ansatz}) here (see section IV), with $\xi=1$,
1300: $aX_o=0.5eV^{-1}$ and $D=32t$. This is the optimum $T_c$ case when using
1301: form (B) - eq. (\ref{ansb}) - of our ansatz.}
1302: (a) depicts Im$\Sigma^R(k_F,\ep)$ and (b) depicts Re$\Sigma(k_F,\ep)$.
1303: A (quasi)linear energy dependence of Im$\Sigma^R(k_F,\ep)$ can be seen
1304: for energies below 0.5$eV$.
1305:
1306: \vspace{.5cm}
1307:
1308: {Figure 4. Evolution of the density of states. Dashed line : non-interacting
1309: system, with parameters as in fig. 3. Continuous line :
1310: same system with $U=0.8eV$.
1311: Notice the transfer of the central van-Hove peak towards the chemical
1312: potential, the disappearance of the two satellite peaks - see text,
1313: and the broadening of the total spectral width.
1314: }
1315:
1316: %\end{multicols}
1317:
1318: \begin{figure}
1319: \epsfbox{fi1a}
1320: \end{figure}
1321:
1322: \begin{figure}
1323: \epsfbox{fi1b}
1324: \end{figure}
1325:
1326: \begin{figure}
1327: \epsfbox{fi2a}
1328: \end{figure}
1329:
1330: \begin{figure}
1331: \epsfbox{fi2b}
1332: \end{figure}
1333:
1334: \begin{figure}
1335: \epsfbox{fi3a}
1336: \end{figure}
1337:
1338: \begin{figure}
1339: \epsfbox{fi3b}
1340: \end{figure}
1341:
1342: \begin{figure}
1343: \epsfbox{fi4}
1344: \end{figure}
1345:
1346:
1347: \end{document}
1348:
1349: