1: \documentstyle[twocolumn,epsfig]{jpsj}
2: %\documentstyle[preprint,epsfig]{jpsj}
3: \renewcommand\figureheight[1]{\vspace{24pt}\mbox{\rule{0cm}{#1}}}
4: \def\runtitle{d-Wave Superconductivity Induced by Chern-Simons Term in
5: High-$T_c$ Cuprates}
6: \def\runauthor{Takao {\sc Morinari}}
7:
8: \title{d-Wave Superconductivity Induced by Chern-Simons Term in
9: High-$T_c$ Cuprates}
10:
11: \author{Takao {\sc Morinari}}
12: \inst{Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University,
13: Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
14:
15: \recdate
16: {October 5, 2000}
17:
18: \abst
19: {
20: We show that a Chern-Simons term for a gauge field describing a
21: fluctuation of spins is induced by integrating out hole
22: fields in the presence of spin-orbit coupling which originates from a
23: buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane.
24: Through the Chern-Simons term, holes behave like skyrmion excitations
25: in a spin system and become a superconducting state with
26: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry after the antiferromagnetic long-range order is
27: destroyed.}
28:
29: \kword
30: {high-$T_c$ superconductivity, mechanism of d-wave superconductivity,
31: Chern-Simons term, skyrmion excitation, buckling of CuO$_2$ plane,
32: spin-orbit coupling}
33:
34: \begin{document}
35: \sloppy
36: \maketitle
37: Since the discovery of high-$T_c$ superconductivity in cuprates
38: \cite{BEDNORZ_MULLER}, much experimental and
39: theoretical effort has been invested to clarify its mechanism of
40: superconductivity.
41: Results of experimental studies indicate that the following properties
42: are essential features.
43: First, the CuO$_2$ layered structure is intrinsic to superconductivity
44: and both the undoped and carrier-doped CuO$_2$ planes are characterized
45: as two-dimensional systems on the basis of their
46: magnetic\cite{SHIRANE_ETAL}, transport\cite{ITO_ETAL}, and
47: optical properties\cite{HOMES_ETAL}.
48: Second, superconductivity occurs in a disordered spin
49: background\cite{ANDERSON}.
50: For the undoped case, the system is a Mott insulator and spins at Cu
51: sites show antiferromagnetic long-range order below the N{\' e}el
52: temperature $T_N$. Upon doping, $T_N$ decreases to zero and spin-glass
53: behavior is observed\cite{SG}.
54: Superconductivity emerges upon further doping.
55: Apparently, disorder in the spin system is introduced by doped
56: holes.
57: Third, the Cooper pair is spin-singlet and has $d_{x^2-y^2}$
58: symmetry.\cite{D_WAVE}
59:
60: In addition to these properties, the occurrence of superconductivity
61: appears to be closely related to the structure of the CuO$_2$ plane.
62: Near the overdoped region of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_2$ the
63: disappearance of superconductivity was observed at an orthorhombic
64: to tetragonal structural phase transition point\cite{TAKAGI_ETAL}.
65: Moreover, the transition temperature $T_c$ is closely related to
66: the buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane \cite{CHMAISSEM_ETAL}.
67: Among the effects on the conduction electron system accompanied by
68: a buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane, there is spin-orbit
69: coupling\cite{SPIN_ORBIT1,SPIN_ORBIT2,SPIN_ORBIT3}.
70: Spin-orbit coupling can have an important effect on
71: conduction electrons through the Berry phase induced by
72: the background spin configuration\cite{MN_BERRY}.
73:
74: In this Letter, we propose a mechanism of d-wave superconductivity in
75: a disordered spin background based on a two-dimensional model with
76: spin-orbit coupling.
77: We assume for the spin-orbit coupling term that it is induced by the
78: buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig_buckling}.
79: We show that a Chern-Simons term for a gauge field, which describes
80: the fluctuation of spins at Cu sites, is induced by integrating out
81: the hole fields.
82: \begin{figure}[htbp]
83: \center
84: %\epsfxsize=6.0truein
85: %\epsfig{file=Buckling.eps,width=6.0in,angle=0}
86: \epsfxsize=2.7truein
87: \epsfig{file=Buckling.eps,width=2.7in,angle=0}
88: \vspace{-0.1in}
89: \caption{Buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane. O atoms are displaced from the
90: CuO$_2$ plane. Arrows represent the spins at Cu sites. The hole at
91: the O site interacts with the spin via Kondo coupling $J_K$.}
92: \label{fig_buckling}
93: \end{figure}
94: Through this Chern-Simons term, holes behave like skyrmion
95: excitations\cite{SKYRMION1,SKYRMION2,SKYRMION3,SKYRMION4,SKYRMION5,
96: MARINO_NETO}
97: for the spin system.
98: When the antiferromagnetic long-range order is destroyed by these
99: skyrmion excitations, the Chern-Simons term leads to Cooper pairing of
100: holes.
101: We show that the pairing state is spin-singlet with
102: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry using a transformation to the previously
103: considered model\cite{MORINARI}.
104:
105: Our model is described by the following Hamiltonian:
106: \begin{equation}
107: H = -t_0 \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \left( c_i^{\dagger}
108: c_j + H.c. \right) + J_{\rm K} \sum_j {\bf s}_j \cdot {\bf
109: S}_j + H_{\rm so} + H_{\rm spin},
110: \label{hamiltonian}
111: \end{equation}
112: where
113: $c_i^{\dagger} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
114: c_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger} & c_{i\downarrow}^{\dagger} \end{array} \right)$
115: and $c_i=\left( \begin{array}{cc} c_{i\uparrow} &
116: c_{i\downarrow} \end{array} \right)^T$ denote a creation and
117: an annihilation operator for holes in a spinor
118: representation. In the first term, the summation is taken over the
119: nearest-neighbor sites.
120: The second term denotes Kondo coupling between the spin of holes:
121: ${\bf s}_j=\frac12 c_j^{\dagger}
122: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} c_j$, and the spin at Cu sites:
123: ${\bf S}_j$\cite{IMADA_ETAL,MATSUKAWA_FUKUYAMA}.
124: The Hamiltonian (\ref{hamiltonian}) is based on a model which
125: distinguishes electrons at the Cu site and holes at the O site.
126: We implicitly exclude the double occupancy of holes at O sites
127: because there is a strong on-site Coulomb repulsion.
128: A similar model without $H_{\rm so}$ is proposed in
129: refs.~\citen{IMADA_ETAL}, ~\citen{MATSUKAWA_FUKUYAMA}
130: and ~\citen{KAMIMURA_ETAL}.
131: Note that
132: if we take the limit $J_K \rightarrow \infty$, eq. (\ref{hamiltonian})
133: without $H_{\rm so}$ corresponds to
134: the so-called t-J
135: model\cite{ZHANG_RICE,MATSUKAWA_FUKUYAMA}.
136: For spin orbit coupling, we assume the following form
137: \cite{SPIN_ORBIT1,SPIN_ORBIT2,SPIN_ORBIT3}:
138: \begin{equation}
139: H_{\rm so} = i \sum_{j} \sum_{\alpha=x,y} c_j^{\dagger}
140: {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}}^{(\alpha)}
141: \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}} ~c_{j+ a {\hat e}_{\alpha}} +
142: H.c.,
143: \label{eq_so}
144: \end{equation}
145: where $\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)}=
146: \left( \lambda^{(\alpha)}_x, \lambda^{(\alpha)}_y \right)$,
147: ${\hat e}_{\alpha}$ is a unit vector along
148: the $\alpha$-axis, and $a$ is the lattice constant.
149: Spin-orbit coupling (\ref{eq_so}) is produced by a buckling of
150: the CuO$_2$ plane. An example is shown in Fig. \ref{fig_buckling}.
151: In the presence of spin-orbit coupling (\ref{eq_so}),
152: there is generally a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-type interaction
153: for the spin system. However, we ignore this term because it does
154: not play an important role in terms of the mechanism of interest.
155: In order to describe the spin system we introduce the Schwinger
156: bosons\cite{AROVAS}:
157: ${\bf S}_j = \frac12 z^{\dagger}_j {\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$}}
158: z_j$ with $z_j^{\dagger}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} z_{j
159: \uparrow}^{\dagger} & z_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger} \end{array} \right)$
160: and $z_j = \left ( \begin{array}{cc} z_{j\uparrow} & z_{j\downarrow}
161: \end{array} \right)^T$.
162: Here $z_{j\sigma}$ are boson fields and obey the constraint
163: $z_{j\uparrow}^{\dagger}z_{j\uparrow} + z_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger}
164: z_{j\downarrow} = 1$, since $S=1/2$.
165:
166: We use the path-integral formulation to describe the system.
167: The action is given by
168: \begin{equation}
169: S=\int dt
170: \left\{
171: \sum_j \left[ \overline{c}_j (t)
172: i \partial_t c_j(t) +
173: \overline{z}_j(t) i \partial_t z_j(t) \right]
174: - H
175: \right\}.
176: \end{equation}
177: The effect of the spin fluctuation on holes can be introduced by
178: performing a series of SU(2) transformations.
179: Let us focus on an $i-j$ bond along the $\alpha$-axis where $i$ and
180: $j$ are nearest-neighbor sites. We assume that the j-site belongs to
181: the A-sublattice and the i-site belongs to the B-sublattice.
182: The hopping term is given by
183: \begin{equation}
184: h_{ij}(\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)}) =
185: \sqrt{t_0^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2} ~\overline{c}_i
186: \chi (\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)}) c_j,
187: \end{equation}
188: where $\chi ( \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)} ) =
189: \frac{1}{\sqrt{t_0^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2}} \left( -t_0
190: \sigma_0 + i \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)} \cdot
191: \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$} \right)$, with $\sigma_0$ the unit
192: matrix in spin space and $\lambda_{\alpha} =
193: |\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)}|$.
194: Since $\lambda_{\alpha} \neq 0$, there is a twist in spin space.
195: Then, first we perform a transformation to diagonalize the hopping
196: term:
197: $c_j \rightarrow
198: \chi^{\dagger} ( \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)}) c_j$,
199: and $\overline{c}_i \rightarrow \overline{c}_i$.
200: By this transformation, we obtain
201: $h_{ij} (\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)})
202: = - \sqrt{t_0^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2}
203: \overline{c}_i c_j$ up to $O((\lambda_{\alpha}/t_0)^2)$ in the phase
204: factor.
205: Second, we perform a transformation which diagonalizes the Kondo
206: coupling term: $c_j \rightarrow U_j c_j$, $\overline{c}_i \rightarrow
207: \overline{c}_i \left( i \sigma_y \overline{U}_i \right)$,
208: where $U_l = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
209: z_{l \uparrow} & - \overline{z}_{l\downarrow} \\ z_{l\downarrow} &
210: \overline{z}_{l \uparrow} \end{array} \right)$ and $\overline{U}_l =
211: \left( \begin{array}{cc} \overline{z}_{l\uparrow} &
212: \overline{z}_{l\downarrow} \\ - z_{l \downarrow} & z_{l\uparrow}
213: \end{array} \right)$.
214: By this transformation, SU(2) gauge fields which describe
215: the fluctuation of the spins are introduced\cite{DFM,MUDRY_FRADKIN}:
216: $
217: \overline{U}_i U_j
218: \equiv
219: |\overline{U}_i U_j | \exp \left( -i a {\cal A}_{ji} \right).
220: $
221: The use of this transformation is based on the assumption that $J_K$
222: has a higher energy scale than any other parameter in the
223: Hamiltonian and the antiferromagnetic correlation between spins is
224: retained and its correlation length is much larger than the lattice
225: constant $a$.
226: In this transformation, the sign of Kondo coupling and the time
227: component of the gauge field:
228: ${\cal A}_t \equiv -i \overline{U} \partial_t U$ , for holes at
229: the B-sublattice is changed since there is an extra factor,
230: $i \sigma_y$ for the B-sublattice.
231: For the amplitude fluctuation of the spins; $|\overline{U}_i U_j|$,
232: we take its mean value $\eta = \langle |\overline{U}_i U_j | \rangle$,
233: because it is a relatively higher energy mode than the phase
234: fluctuation of the spins.
235: Next, we perform the inverse transformation of the first transformation
236: and we obtain
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: h_{ij} (\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)})
239: &=&
240: - \sqrt{t_0^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2} ~\eta ~\overline{c}_i (i \sigma_y)
241: \nonumber \\
242: & & \times \exp \left( - \frac{i}{t_0} \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf
243: \lambda}$}^{(\alpha)} \cdot
244: \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$} - i a {\cal A}_{ji} \right) c_j,
245: \label{eq_hopping}
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: up to $O((\lambda_{\alpha}/t_0)^2)$ in the exponent.
248:
249: Compared with the model considered in ref.~\citen{MORINARI},
250: the derivation of the Chern-Simons term is complicated because we need
251: to distinguish between the A- and B-sublattices.
252: However, there is a transformation which connects the model to that in
253: ref.~\citen{MORINARI}, that is,
254: \begin{equation}
255: c_j \rightarrow c_j,
256: \hspace{2em} \overline{c}_i \rightarrow \overline{c}_i (- i\sigma_y).
257: \label{AF_F}
258: \end{equation}
259: After this transformation is performed, an additional sign change
260: occurs for both the Kondo coupling term and the time component
261: of the gauge field.
262: However, as we will discuss later, transformation (\ref{AF_F})
263: changes the symmetry of the pairing matrix. Therefore, we must
264: perform the inverse transformation to obtain the physical state of the
265: original system.
266: In the following, we call the system obtained after transformation
267: (\ref{AF_F}) the ``F-system'' and the original system the ``AF-system.''
268: In the F-system, the action for the holes is given by
269: \begin{equation}
270: S_h= \int dt \sum_j \overline{c}_j(t)
271: G^{-1} (\{ {\hat k}_{\mu} - {\cal A}_{\mu} \})
272: c_j (t),
273: \end{equation}
274: where ${\hat k}_{\mu}$ is defined by ${\rm e}^{ia{\hat k}_{\alpha}}c_j =
275: c_{j+a{\hat e}_{\alpha}}$, for $\mu=x,y$,
276: and ${\hat k}_t = -i \partial_t$.
277: The inverse of the Green's function is given by
278: \begin{equation}
279: G^{-1} (\left\{ k_{\mu} \right\}) = (k_0 + 2 t_0 \eta
280: \sum_{\alpha =x,y}
281: \cos k_{\alpha} )\sigma_0
282: - {\bf g} ({\bf k}) \cdot \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf \sigma}$},
283: \label{eq_Ginv_L}
284: \end{equation}
285: where
286: \begin{equation}
287: {\bf g} ({\bf k}) = \left(
288: 2 \eta \sum_{\alpha=x,y} \lambda^{(\alpha)}_x \sin k_{\alpha},
289: 2 \eta \sum_{\alpha=x,y} \lambda^{(\alpha)}_y \sin k_{\alpha},
290: -\frac{J_K}{4} \right).
291: \label{eq_g}
292: \end{equation}
293: Note that we cannot take the limit $J_K \rightarrow \infty$ in the
294: presence of spin-orbit coupling (\ref{eq_so}).
295: If we take the limit $J_K \rightarrow \infty$, then the spin of holes
296: is projected in the direction antiparallel to the spin at Cu sites.
297: However, the hopping process always involves the opposite spin of
298: holes as long as $\lambda_{\alpha} \neq 0$.
299:
300: In order to calculate the Chern-Simons term, we take a continuum
301: limit.
302: (The condition of taking this limit will be discussed later.)
303: The induced Chern-Simons term is given by \cite{VOLOVIK,HST,READ_GREEN}
304: \begin{equation}
305: S_{\rm CS} = - \frac{\theta}{2\pi}
306: \int dt \int d^2 {\bf r}
307: {\cal A}_t^x \left( \partial_x {\cal A}^x_y - \partial_y {\cal A}^x_x
308: \right)
309: \label{eq_CS}
310: \end{equation}
311: where
312: \begin{equation}
313: \theta
314: = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int d^2 {\bf k}
315: \frac{{\bf g}({\bf k}) \cdot \left( \partial_{k_x} {\bf g}({\bf k})
316: \times \partial_{k_y} {\bf g}({\bf k}) \right)}{|{\bf g}({\bf
317: k})|^3}.
318: \label{eq_CSth}
319: \end{equation}
320: Note that only the Abelian Chern-Simons term appears in
321: eq. (\ref{eq_CS}) because the SU(2) gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}$ is
322: reduced to the Abelian Chern-Simons term upon using the curl-free
323: condition\cite{HST}.
324: We retain ${\cal A}_{\mu}^x$ because it describes the staggered
325: spin fluctuation.
326: From eq. (\ref{eq_CSth}), we obtain
327: \begin{equation}
328: \theta = - \frac12 \times {\rm sgn} \left( J_K \Lambda \right),
329: \label{eq_th}
330: \end{equation}
331: where $\Lambda \equiv \lambda_x^{(x)} \lambda_y^{(y)}-\lambda_y^{(x)}
332: \lambda_x^{(y)}$, and we have used the continuum form of (\ref{eq_g}):
333: ${\bf g}({\bf k}) = (2\eta
334: \sum_{\alpha}\lambda_x^{(\alpha)}k_{\alpha}, 2\eta
335: \sum_{\alpha}\lambda_y^{(\alpha)}k_{\alpha},$
336: $ -J_K/4)$.
337: In contrast to the anyon system\cite{ANYON1,ANYON2}, the value of
338: $\theta = \pm 1/2$ does not alter the statistics of
339: particles\cite{KIVELSON_ROKHSAR}.
340: We can extend the above calculation to a finite
341: temperature\cite{BDP}. However, if we concentrate on the region $k_B T
342: \ll J_K$, we can neglect finite temperature corrections.
343: Since spin-orbit coupling term (\ref{eq_so}) involves
344: a process of hopping between different d-orbitals at the same site,
345: the external electromagnetic gauge field $A_{\mu}^{\rm ext}$ does not
346: couple to it.
347: Therefore, there is no Chern-Simons term for $A_{\mu}^{\rm ext}$.
348: In deriving eq. (\ref{eq_CS}), we have taken the continuum limit for
349: the gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}^x$.
350: Since the length scale of the gauge field is given by
351: $v/\Delta_{\rm sw}$,
352: where $\Delta_{\rm sw}$ and $v$ denote the gap and the velocity
353: of the spin wave mode respectively,
354: the condition of taking the continuum limit is
355: $\Delta_{\rm sw}/(v/a) < \lambda_{\alpha}/t_0$,
356: which can be seen from eq. (\ref{eq_hopping}).
357: For $\lambda_{\alpha}$, a rough estimation gives
358: $\lambda_{\alpha} \sim 2~$meV\cite{SPIN_ORBIT1}.
359: We assume that this condition is satisfied in the underdoped region
360: because there $\Delta_{\rm sw}$ may be very small and $v/a$ is close
361: to the value of the undoped case $\sim 200~$meV\cite{SPIN_WAVE}.
362: Although the presence of spin-orbit couping is essential for the
363: derivation of the Chern-Simons term, it has no importance
364: for other physical processes.
365: Therefore, we can neglect it in the following discussion.
366:
367: Now we discuss the effect of the Chern-Simons term.
368: We take
369: \begin{equation}
370: S=S_h+S_{\rm CS}+S_{\rm spin},
371: \end{equation}
372: for the effective action. The last term is the action for
373: the spin system and is given by the $CP_1$ model\cite{READ_SACHDEV}:
374: $S_{\rm spin} = (2/g)
375: \int d^3 x \sum_{\sigma}
376: \left[
377: \left| \left( \partial_{\mu} - i {\cal A}_{\mu}^x \right)
378: z_{\sigma} \right|^2
379: + \left( \Delta_{\rm sw}^2/ v^2 \right) |z_{\sigma}|^2
380: \right]$.
381: By integrating out the ${\cal A}_t^x$, we obtain the relationship
382: between the spin density of the hole and the ``magnetic'' field
383: ${\cal B} ({\bf r},t) = \partial_x {\cal A}_y^x ({\bf r},t) -
384: \partial_y {\cal A}_x^x ({\bf r},t)$.
385: If we take the x-axis as the quantization axis for the spin,
386: we obtain
387: $\sum_{\sigma} s_{\sigma} \rho_{\sigma} ({\bf r},t) =
388: \frac{\theta}{2\pi} {\cal B}({\bf r},t)$,
389: where $s_{\sigma}=1$ for $\sigma=\uparrow$ and
390: $s_{\sigma}=-1$ for $\sigma=\downarrow$.
391: In the AF-system, this relation involves the isospin index, that is,
392: \begin{equation}
393: \sum_{\sigma} s_{\sigma} s_{\tau} \rho_{\sigma} ({\bf r},t)
394: = \frac{\theta}{2\pi} {\cal B}({\bf r},t).
395: \label{eq_flux_AF}
396: \end{equation}
397: Here $s_{\tau}=1(-1)$ for ${\bf r}$ belongs to the A(B)-sublattice.
398: Therefore,
399: $\uparrow$($\downarrow$)-spin at the A-sublattice induces a
400: (anti-)skyrmion excitation in the localized spin system and
401: $\downarrow$($\uparrow$)-spin at the B-sublattice induces a
402: (anti-)skyrmion excitation in the localized spin system.
403: Since the skyrmion and anti-skyrmion excitations introduce disorder
404: into the localized spin system\cite{BELAVIN_POLYAKOV}
405: and the number of them is the same as that of holes,
406: disorder in the spin system increases upon doping.
407: If the hole density is sufficiently small that the magnetic long-range
408: order is preserved, then the Meissner effect occurs for the gauge field
409: ${\cal A}^x_{\mu}$ and
410: holes are pinned because skyrmions break the translational invariance,
411: that is, the system is an insulator.
412:
413: After the magnetic long-range order is destroyed by the skyrmion
414: excitations\cite{SKYRMION5,MARINO_NETO},
415: the Chern-Simons term becomes dominant in
416: the long wavelength and low-energy physics.
417: For the holes, it leads to a pairing state.
418: Coupling between the hole current and the gauge
419: field ${\cal A}^x_{\mu}$, in the F-system is given by
420: \begin{equation}
421: S_{j-{\cal A}} = \sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow}
422: \int dt \int d^2 {\bf r}~s_{\sigma}
423: {\bf j}_{\sigma} ({\bf r},t) \cdot
424: \mbox{\boldmath ${\bf {\cal A}}$}^x ({\bf r},t),
425: \label{eq_j_A}
426: \end{equation}
427: where $j_{\sigma} ({\bf r},t)$ is the hole current for
428: $\sigma$-spin.
429: Since eq. (\ref{eq_j_A}) describes minimal coupling between the
430: hole current and the gauge field $\mbox{\boldmath ${\bf {\cal
431: A}}$}^x$, it gives rise to a Lorentz force.
432: Such a Lorentz force is induced between holes
433: passing each other.
434: Therefore, it leads to a chiral pairing state. The chirality is
435: determined by the sign of $\theta$.
436: From its pairing mechanism, the possibility of the s-wave pairing state
437: is excluded.
438:
439: Now we investigate the pairing state of the AF-system through the
440: F-system. Before doing that, we must know the relationship of the
441: pairing matrix between them.
442: We assume that $i$ and $j$ are nearest neighbor sites.
443: If we take $\Delta_{ij}^s
444: = \langle c_{i\uparrow} c_{j \downarrow}
445: - c_{i\downarrow} c_{j \uparrow} \rangle$ for the spin-singlet pairing
446: order parameter for the AF-system, then after performing
447: transformation (\ref{AF_F}) we obtain
448: $\Delta_{ij}^s
449: \rightarrow \langle c_{i\uparrow} c_{j \uparrow}
450: + c_{i\downarrow} c_{j \downarrow} \rangle$.
451: Therefore, the spin-singlet pairing state is transformed
452: into the spin-triplet pairing state and vice versa.
453: In ${\bf k}$-space, holes at the A-sublattice are described by the
454: fields $\alpha_{{\bf k}\sigma}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
455: \left( c_{{\bf k}\sigma} + c_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q} \sigma} \right)$
456: and holes at the B-sublattice are described by
457: $\beta_{{\bf k}\sigma}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
458: \left( c_{{\bf k}\sigma} - c_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q} \sigma} \right)$,
459: where ${\bf Q}=(\pi/a,\pi/a)$.
460: Here, we assume that the A-sublattice is the set of
461: $({\rm even},{\rm even})$ and $({\rm odd},{\rm odd})$ and the
462: B-sublattice is the set of
463: $({\rm even},{\rm odd})$ and $({\rm odd},{\rm even})$.
464: The pairing matrix may be given by
465: \begin{equation}
466: \Delta^{\bf k}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2}
467: =
468: {\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}}^{\prime}
469: V_{{\bf k} {\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\rm AF}
470: \langle \beta_{-{\bf k}^{\prime} \sigma_2} \alpha_{{\bf k}^{\prime}
471: \sigma_1} \rangle_{\rm AF},
472: \label{eq_gapAF}
473: \end{equation}
474: where $\sum_{\bf k}^{\prime} (f_{\bf k}+f_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q}}) =
475: \sum_{\bf k} f_{\bf k}$.
476: Here, we do not need the explicit form of
477: $V_{{\bf k} {\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\rm AF}$,
478: because we solve the gap equation through that of the F-system.
479: Transformation (\ref{AF_F}) in ${\bf k}$-space is given by
480: $\beta_{{\bf k}\sigma} \rightarrow i \sigma_y \beta_{{\bf k}\sigma}$.
481: By performing this transformation, the gap equation (\ref{eq_gapAF})
482: is transformed into
483: \begin{equation}
484: \Delta^{\bf k}_{\sigma_1 \sigma_2}
485: =
486: {\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}}^{\prime}
487: V_{{\bf k} {\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\rm F}
488: \langle \left( i\sigma_y \beta_{-{\bf k}^{\prime}} \right)_{\sigma_2}
489: \alpha_{{\bf k}^{\prime} \sigma_1} \rangle_{\rm F}.
490: \label{eq_gap_F}
491: \end{equation}
492: For the singlet pairing case
493: $\Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{\bf k}= -\Delta_{\downarrow
494: \uparrow}^{\bf k}$, eq. (\ref{eq_gap_F}) is reduced to
495: \begin{equation}
496: \Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{\bf k} =
497: \left( \Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(1){\bf k}}
498: + \Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(2){\bf k}} \right)/2,
499: \label{eq_Delta}
500: \end{equation}
501: where
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: \Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(1){\bf k}}
504: &=&
505: {\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}}^{\prime}
506: V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\rm F}
507: \langle c_{-{\bf k}^{\prime} \uparrow} c_{{\bf k}^{\prime} \uparrow}
508: \rangle_{\rm F},
509: \label{eq_Delta1} \\
510: \Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(2){\bf k}}
511: &=& -
512: {\sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}}^{\prime}
513: V_{{\bf k}{\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\rm F}
514: \langle c_{-{\bf k}^{\prime}+{\bf Q} \uparrow} c_{{\bf k}^{\prime}
515: + {\bf Q} \uparrow} \rangle_{\rm F}.
516: \label{eq_Delta2}
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: The minus sign in eq. (\ref{eq_Delta2}) originates from the sign
519: change in the kinetic term in $G^{-1} \left( k_0, {\bf k}+{\bf Q}
520: \right)$.
521: Although the vector ${\bf g}({\bf k})$ changes as
522: ${\bf g} \left( {\bf k}+{\bf Q} \right) = {\rm diag}(-1,-1,1)
523: {\bf g} \left( {\bf k} \right)$, the sign of $\theta$ does not change.
524: In the continuum approximation, eqs. (\ref{eq_Delta1}) and
525: (\ref{eq_Delta2}) are reduced to
526: \begin{equation}
527: \Delta_{\bf k} = \pm \sum_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}
528: \frac{4\pi i}{\theta}
529: \frac{{\bf k}\times {\bf k}^{\prime}}{|{\bf k}-{\bf k}^{\prime}|^2}
530: \frac{\Delta_{\bf k}}{2E_{\bf k}},
531: \label{eq_gap}
532: \end{equation}
533: where $E_{\bf k} = \sqrt{\xi_{\bf k}^2 + |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2}$,
534: at $T=0$.
535: Following the analysis of ref.~\citen{GWW}, we can solve
536: eq. (\ref{eq_gap}). The solution is given by
537: $
538: \Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(1){\bf k}} = \Delta_k \exp \left( \pm
539: 2i\ell \theta_{\bf k} \right)$,
540: and $\Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{(2){\bf k}} = \Delta_k \exp
541: \left( \mp 2i\ell \theta_{\bf k} \right)$,
542: where $\Delta_k$ is a function of $k=|{\bf k}|$
543: and $\theta_{\bf k}=\arctan k_y/k_x$.
544: Here, $2\ell$ is the relative angular momentum of the Cooper pair and
545: is not equal to zero.
546: The gap of superconductivity $\Delta_{k_F}$ is of the order of
547: Fermi energy $\epsilon_F$ and
548: the cohrence length of superconductivity $\xi_{\rm SC}$
549: is given by
550: $\xi_{\rm SC}/a \sim \frac{\epsilon_F}{4\sqrt{x}\Delta_{k_F}}$.
551: Here, $x$ is the hole concentration.
552: Since $\Delta_{k_F}$ is of the order of $\epsilon_F$,
553: this value may be smaller than
554: the average distance between holes: $\sim a/\sqrt{x}$.
555: From eq. (\ref{eq_Delta}), we obtain
556: \begin{equation}
557: \Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{\bf k} = - \Delta_{\downarrow
558: \uparrow}^{\bf k} = \Delta_k \cos \left( 2\ell \theta_{\bf k} \right).
559: \label{eq_singlet}
560: \end{equation}
561: Since the smallest $\ell$ is realized in the ground state,
562: we set $\ell=1$.
563: In this case, eq. (\ref{eq_singlet}) describes the $d_{x^2-y^2}$
564: pairing state because $\cos \left( 2\theta_{\bf k} \right) = \left
565: ( k_x^2 - k_y^2 \right)/k^2$.
566: For the triplet pairing case, we find that
567: $\Delta_{\uparrow \uparrow}^{\bf k} =
568: \Delta_{\downarrow \downarrow}^{\bf k} =
569: \left(
570: \Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{(1){\bf k}} +
571: \Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{(2){\bf k}}
572: \right)/2$, and
573: $\Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}^{\bf k}
574: =\Delta_{\downarrow \uparrow}^{\bf k}=0$.
575: However, such a pairing state is not stable in the bulk of the system
576: because the d-vector \cite{LEGGETT} satisfies ${\bf d}_{\bf k}
577: \parallel {\hat e}_y$, that is, the spins of
578: Cooper pairs lie in the plane perpendicular to the y-axis.
579: As a result, the pairing state has spin-singlet and $d_{x^2-y^2}$
580: symmetry.
581:
582: There is also some contribution to the pairing mechanism from other
583: spin fluctuations, which may be characterized by the Maxwell
584: term:
585: $\sim - \frac14 \left ( \partial_{\mu} {\cal A}^x_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}
586: {\cal A}^x_{\mu} \right)^2$
587: in the gauge field description because coupling to the spin system
588: is mediated by the gauge field ${\cal A}_{\mu}^x$.
589: Meanwhile, our spin fluctuation is characterized by the Chern-Simons
590: term. Since there is an extra derivative for the former compared with
591: the latter, our mechanism may be more dominant in the long wavelength
592: and the low-energy limit than other spin fluctuation mechanisms.
593: Moreover, the Chern-Simons term only exists in the $2+1$ dimension.
594: Therefore, our spin fluctuation is unique to the $2+1$ dimension.
595: In contrast, the Maxwell term exists in any dimension.
596:
597: For the application to the orthorhombic phase of
598: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$\cite{SPIN_ORBIT1,SPIN_ORBIT2,SPIN_ORBIT3},
599: we require one more transformation after
600: transformation (\ref{AF_F}), that is,
601: $c_{({\rm odd},{\rm even})} \rightarrow
602: i\sigma_z c_{({\rm odd},{\rm even})}$, and
603: $c_{({\rm even},{\rm odd})} \rightarrow
604: -i\sigma_z c_{({\rm even},{\rm odd})}$.
605: Also in this case, the value of $\theta$ is given by eq. (\ref{eq_th})
606: and the pairing state has spin-singlet and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ symmetry.
607:
608: In summary, we have studied a model of the CuO$_2$ plane with buckling
609: and have shown that the Chern-Simons term for the gauge field, which
610: describes the fluctuation of the spin system, is induced.
611: Through this Chern-Simons term, the doped hole behaves like a skyrmion
612: or anti-skyrmion excitation depending on its spin or isospin, that
613: is, whether it resides on the A-sublattice or B-sublattice.
614: After the antiferromagnetic long-range order is destroyed by the
615: skyrmion excitations, the Chern-Simons term becomes dominant for
616: long wavelength and low-energy physics and leads to the spin-singlet
617: $d_{x^2-y^2}$ superconducting state.
618:
619: The author would like to thank M. Sigrist, K. Ohgushi, J. Goryo,
620: A. Furusaki, and K. K. Ng for helpful discussions.
621: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry
622: of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
623:
624: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
625: \bibitem{BEDNORZ_MULLER} J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M{\" u}ller:
626: Z. Phys. B {\bf 64} (1986) 189.
627: \bibitem{SHIRANE_ETAL} G. Shirane, R. J. Birgeneau, Y. Endoh and
628: M. A. Kastner: Physics B {\bf 197} (1994) 158.
629: \bibitem{ITO_ETAL} T. Ito, H. Takagi, S. Ishibashi, T. Ido and
630: S. Uchida: Nature {\bf 350} (1991) 596.
631: \bibitem{HOMES_ETAL} C. C. Homes, T. Timusk, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn and
632: W. N. Hardy: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 1645.
633: \bibitem{ANDERSON} P. W. Anderson: Science {\bf 235} (1987) 1196.
634: \bibitem{SG} F. C. Chou, N. R. Belk, M. A. Kastner, R. J. Birgeneau
635: and A. Aharony: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75} (1995) 2204.
636: \bibitem{D_WAVE} See, for example, D. J. Scalapino: Phys. Rep. {\bf
637: 250} (1995) 329.
638: \bibitem{TAKAGI_ETAL} H. Takagi, R. J. Cava, M. Marezio, B. Batlogg,
639: J. J. Krajewski, W. F. Peck, Jr., P. Bordet and D. E. Cox:
640: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} (1992) 3777.
641: \bibitem{CHMAISSEM_ETAL} O. Chmaissem, J. D. Jorgensen, S. Short,
642: A. Knizhnik, Y. Eckstein and H. Shaked: Nature {\bf 397} (1999) 45.
643: \bibitem{SPIN_ORBIT1} N. E. Bonesteel, T. M. Rice and F. C. Zhang:
644: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} (1992) 2684.
645: \bibitem{SPIN_ORBIT2} L. Shekhtman, O. Entin-Wohlman and A. Aharony:
646: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 836.
647: \bibitem{SPIN_ORBIT3} W. Koshibae, Y. Ohta and S. Maekawa:
648: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47} (1993) 3391.
649: \bibitem{MN_BERRY} J. Ye, Y.-B, Kim, A. J. Millis, B. I. Shraiman,
650: P. Majumdar and Z. Te\u{s}anovi\'{c}: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 3737.
651: \bibitem{SKYRMION1} B. I. Shraiman and E. D. Siggia:
652: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61} (1988) 467.
653: \bibitem{SKYRMION2} R. J. Gooding: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66} (1991) 2266.
654: \bibitem{SKYRMION3} J. P. Rodrigues: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39} (1989) 2906.
655: \bibitem{SKYRMION4} S. Haas, F. C. Zhang, F. Mila and T. M. Rice:
656: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77} (1996) 3021.
657: \bibitem{SKYRMION5} C. Timm and K. H. Bennemann: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
658: 84} (2000) 4994.
659: \bibitem{MARINO_NETO} E. C. Marino and M. B. Silva Neto:
660: preprint cond-mat/0008186.
661: \bibitem{MORINARI} T. Morinari: to appear in Phys. Rev. B.
662: \bibitem{IMADA_ETAL} M. Imada, N. Nagaosa and Y. Hatsugai:
663: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 57} (1988) 2901.
664: \bibitem{MATSUKAWA_FUKUYAMA} H. Matsukawa and H. Fukuyama:
665: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 58} (1989) 2845.
666: \bibitem{KAMIMURA_ETAL} H. Kamimura and Y. Suwa: J. Phys
667: Soc. Jpn. {\bf 64} (1993) 2585.
668: \bibitem{ZHANG_RICE} F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}
669: (1988) 3759.
670: \bibitem{AROVAS} D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}
671: (1988) 316.
672: \bibitem{DFM} E. Dagotto, E. Fradkin and A. Moreo: Phys. Rev. B {\bf
673: 38} (1988) 2926
674: \bibitem{MUDRY_FRADKIN} C. Mudry and E. Fradkin: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}
675: (1994) 5200.
676: \bibitem{VOLOVIK} G. E. Volovik: Sov. Phys.-JETP {\bf 67} (1988) 1804.
677: \bibitem{HST} Z. Hlousek, D. S\'{e}n\'{e}chal and
678: S.-H. H. Tye: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41} (1990) 3773.
679: \bibitem{READ_GREEN} N. Read and D. Green: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 61}
680: (2000) 10267.
681: \bibitem{ANYON1} R. B. Laughlin: Science {\bf 242} (1988) 525.
682: \bibitem{ANYON2} X. G. Wen, F. Wilczek and A. Zee: Phys. Rev. B {\bf
683: 39} (1989) 11413.
684: \bibitem{KIVELSON_ROKHSAR} S. A. Kivelson and D. S. Rokhsar:
685: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61} (1988) 2630.
686: \bibitem{BDP} K. S. Babu, A. Das and P. Panigrahi: Phys. Rev. D {\bf
687: 36} (1987) 3725.
688: \bibitem{SPIN_WAVE} J. Rossat-Mignod, L. P. Regnault, C. Bettier,
689: P. Burlet, J. Y. Henry and G. Lapertoto: Physica B {\bf 169} (1991)
690: 58.
691: \bibitem{READ_SACHDEV} N. Read and S. Sachdev: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 42}
692: (1990) 4568.
693: \bibitem{BELAVIN_POLYAKOV} A. A. Belavin and A. M. Polyakov: JETP
694: Lett. {\bf 22} (1975) 245.
695: \bibitem{GWW} M. Greiter, X. G. Wen and F. Wilczek: Nucl. Phys. B
696: {\bf 374} (1992) 567.
697: \bibitem{LEGGETT} A. J. Leggett: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 47} (1975) 331.
698: \end{thebibliography}
699: \end{document}
700:
701:
702: \newpage
703: \Large
704: {\bf Takao Morinari: Figure 1}\par
705: \vspace{1in}
706: \begin{figure}[htbp]
707: \center
708: \epsfxsize=6.0truein
709: \epsfig{file=Buckling.eps,width=6.0in,angle=0}
710: %\epsfxsize=3.0truein
711: %\epsfig{file=Buckling.eps,width=3.0in,angle=0}
712: \vspace{1.0in}
713: \caption{Buckling of the CuO$_2$ plane. O atoms are displaced from the
714: CuO$_2$ plane. Arrows represent the spins at Cu sites. The hole at
715: the O site interacts with the spin via Kondo coupling $J_K$.}
716: \label{fig_buckling}
717: \end{figure}
718: