1: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[aps,twocolumn,prl,epsfig]{revtex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{
7: Analysis of the
8: Knight shift data on Li and Zn substituted
9: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
10: }
11:
12: \author{ N.\ Bulut }
13:
14: \address{
15: Department of Physics, Ko\c{c} University, Sariyer, 80910 Istanbul, Turkey \\
16: nbulut@ku.edu.tr}
17:
18: %\date{\today}
19: \draft
20:
21: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
22: \maketitle
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: The Knight shift data on Li and Zn substituted
26: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
27: are analysed using an itinerant model with short-range
28: antiferromagnetic correlations.
29: The model parameters,
30: which are determined by fitting the experimental data
31: on the transverse nuclear relaxation rate $T_2^{-1}$ of pure
32: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
33: are used to calculate the Knight shifts for various nuclei
34: around a nonmagnetic impurity located in the CuO$_2$ planes.
35: The calculations are carried out for Li and Zn impurities substituted
36: into optimally doped and underdoped
37: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
38: The results are compared with the $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y
39: Knight shift measurements on these materials.
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \pacs{PACS Numbers: 74.62.Dh, 76.60.Cq, 71.10.Fd, 74.72.Bk}
44:
45: %Keywords: Knight shift, nonmagnetic impurities, antiferromagnetic
46: %correlations, YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
47: ]
48:
49: %\newpage
50:
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: The substitution of nonmagnetic impurities
55: into cuprates serves as a probe
56: of the electronic correlations in these materials.
57: In particular, it has been found that
58: the nonmagnetic impurities
59: significantly influence the magnetic correlations in the
60: normal state
61: \cite{Mahajan94,Bobroff,Mendels,Mahajan99,Alloul99,MacFarlane,Julien,Ishida93,Zheng,Ishida96}.
62: The $^{89}$Y NMR experiments \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}
63: find that when Zn is substituted into
64: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
65: the Knight shifts
66: of the Y sites near the impurity
67: are strongly enhanced as the temperature is lowered.
68: It has been also found that the Li impurities
69: induce changes in the local magnetic environment
70: similar to that of Zn \cite{Bobroff}.
71: A Curie-like
72: $T$ dependence is found in the SQUID
73: measurements of the uniform susceptibility for
74: Zn substituted
75: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ \cite{Mendels}
76: as well.
77: It has been also shown that the Zn impurities
78: induce a Curie-like $T$ dependence in the broadening
79: of the $^{63}$Cu(2) spectral line in
80: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.7}$ \cite{Julien}.
81: The effects of nonmagnetic impurities
82: in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
83: have been also
84: probed by the measurements of
85: the $^{89}$Y and $^7$Li NMR relaxation rates
86: $T_1^{-1}$ \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99,MacFarlane}
87: and by the inelastic neutron scattering experiments
88: \cite{Kakurai,Sidis,Fong,Sidis2000}.
89: The $T_1^{-1}$ measurements have been also carried out
90: for Cu(2) in Zn substituted
91: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$
92: \cite{Ishida93}
93: and YBa$_2$Cu$_4$O$_{8}$ \cite{Zheng} systems.
94: The effects of the nonmagnetic impurities on the magnetic
95: correlations were also studied in
96: La$_{1.85}$Sr$_{0.15}$CuO$_4$ with Al impurities
97: \cite{Ishida96}.
98:
99: Numerous theoretical studies
100: \cite{Heisenberg,Sandvik,Poilblanc,Gabay,Li,Bulut2000,neutron}
101: have been carried out for exploring
102: the effects of the nonmagnetic impurities on the magnetic
103: properties of the cuprates.
104: The effects of a nonmagnetic impurity embedded into
105: the 2D Heisenberg lattice \cite{Heisenberg,Sandvik}
106: as well as in gapped Heisenberg antiferromagnets \cite{Sandvik}
107: have been studied.
108: The exact diagonalization calculations have been used to
109: study the effects of a nonmagnetic impurity in the
110: $t$-$J$ model \cite{Poilblanc}.
111: Theoretical studies have been also carried out for the
112: underdoped
113: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
114: where there is a spin pseudogap
115: \cite{Gabay}.
116: Calculations of the neutron scattering intensity for Zn substituted
117: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
118: have been also carried out \cite{Li,neutron}.
119:
120: In this paper, a simple framework \cite{Bulut2000}
121: of one nonmagnetic impurity
122: embedded into the lattice of the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard
123: model will be used to make comparisons with the $^7$Li
124: and $^{89}$Y Knight shift measurements on the
125: Li and Zn substituted
126: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
127: The purpose of this paper
128: is to study the effects of the nonmagnetic impurities
129: on the magnetic correlations in the normal state of the cuprates.
130: In the following, the 2D Hubbard model and the random-phase
131: approximation (RPA) will be used for modelling
132: the antiferromagnetic correlations in pure
133: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
134: The 2D Hubbard model is defined by
135: \begin{eqnarray}
136: \label{Hubbard}
137: H=-t\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle ,\sigma}
138: (c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}
139: +c^{\dagger}_{j\sigma}c_{i\sigma})
140: + U \sum_i
141: c^{\dagger}_{i\uparrow} c_{i\uparrow}
142: c^{\dagger}_{i\downarrow} c_{i\downarrow} \nonumber \\
143: -\mu \sum_{i,\sigma}
144: c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} c_{i\sigma}.
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: Here $c_{i\sigma}$ ($c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$)
147: annihilates (creates) an electron with spin $\sigma$
148: at site $i$,
149: $t$ is the near-neighbor hopping matrix element,
150: $U$ is the onsite Coulomb repulsion, and $\mu$ is the
151: chemical potential.
152: The model parameters for the pure system will be
153: determined by fitting the experimental data
154: \cite{Pennington,Itoh,Imai,Takigawa94}
155: on the transverse nuclear relaxation rate
156: $T_2^{-1}$ of pure
157: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
158:
159: Next, a static extended impurity potential will be used to incorporate
160: the effects of one nonmagnetic impurity embedded into the 2D
161: Hubbard model.
162: There is considerable support for using an extended
163: impurity potential for modelling the effective impurity potential
164: \cite{Xiang,Ziegler}.
165: Here, it will be assumed that the effective interaction between an impurity
166: located at site ${\bf r}_0$ and a quasiparticle at ${\bf r}$
167: can be approximated by the static potential
168: \begin{equation}
169: \label{Veff}
170: V_{\rm eff}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}) =
171: V_0 \delta({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}) +
172: V_1 \sum_{\alpha=1}^4 \delta({\bf r},{\bf r}_0 + \rho_{\alpha}),
173: \end{equation}
174: which has a range of one lattice spacing.
175: In Eq.~(\ref{Veff}),
176: $\alpha$ sums over the four near-neighbor sites of the
177: impurity as illustrated in Fig.~1.
178: Using this simple form of $V_{\rm eff}$,
179: the Knight shift of various nuclei around the impurity will be
180: calculated, and the results will be compared with the experimental
181: data.
182:
183: In the following,
184: since the Zn and Li impurities are considered to have closed outer
185: electronic shells with $S=0$,
186: the onsite component $V_0$ will be set to
187: a large negative value.
188: On the other hand, the near-neighbor component $V_1$ will
189: be used as a free model parameter.
190: Clearly, this form of $V_{\rm eff}$, Eq.~(\ref{Veff}), is a simple
191: approximation.
192: For instance, the range of $V_{\rm eff}$
193: could be more than one lattice spacing.
194: Furthermore, $V_{\rm eff}$ could have scattering in the magnetic channel
195: \cite{Hirschfeld}.
196: In fact, any magnetic scattering could
197: drastically change the results presented here.
198: Nevertheless, it is interesting to explore the consequences of this form
199: of $V_{\rm eff}$ on the Knight shifts within this simple framework.
200: Within this model at the level of RPA,
201: the fitting of the $^7$Li and
202: $^{89}$Y Knight shift data will require that $V_1$
203: is weakly attractive.
204:
205: The comparisons will be first carried out
206: with the $^7$Li Knight shift, $^7K$, measurements in Li
207: substituted
208: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.97}$
209: by Bobroff {\it et al.} \cite{Bobroff}.
210: Here, $^7K$ will be calculated
211: for various values of $V_1$.
212: It will be seen that the temperature dependence of $^7K$
213: can be fitted by using a $V_1\approx -0.15t$.
214: The effects of the nonmagnetic impurity on the
215: $^{89}$Y and the $^{63}$Cu(2) Knight shifts for the sites near the
216: impurity will also be given for
217: this compound.
218:
219: According to this simple model \cite{Bulut2000},
220: the anomalous $T$ dependence
221: observed in the Knight shift data is due
222: to the enhancement of the antiferromagnetic correlations
223: in the local environment of the impurity.
224: In this model,
225: the scattering of the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations
226: by the impurity with large momentum transfers near $2{\bf k}_F$,
227: where ${\bf k}_F$ is the fermi wave vector,
228: plays a particularly important role
229: \cite{Bulut2000,neutron}.
230: These scatterings locally enhance the antiferromagnetic
231: correlations, and, in addition, allow for the Knight shift
232: of the nuclear sites near the impurity to be coupled to the
233: locally
234: enhanced antiferromagnetic correlations.
235:
236: Because of the presence of the spin pseudogap in
237: underdoped
238: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
239: it is indeed difficult
240: to extend this analysis to this compound.
241: However, the Knight shift experiments on underdoped
242: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
243: yielded interesting results
244: on the real-space structure of the induced magnetic
245: correlations around the impurity.
246: These measurements have been carried out for
247: $^7$Li in Li substituted
248: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$ \cite{Bobroff} and for
249: $^{89}$Y in Zn or Li substituted
250: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.64}$ \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}.
251: For $^{89}$Y, two magnetic resonance satellites
252: in addition to the main line are found in the
253: presence of the Zn or Li impurities in underdoped
254: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
255: These satellites have been identified as belonging to the
256: first and the second neighbour Y sites of the impurity.
257: The availability of the Knight shift data on $^7$Li and
258: the two $^{89}$Y satellites gives valuable information on
259: the real-space structure of the magnetic correlations
260: in the local environment
261: of the impurity \cite{Mahajan99}.
262: The $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y Knight shift
263: measurements by Mahajan {\it et al.}
264: \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}
265: and the data on the Knight shift of $^{63}$Cu(2),
266: $^{63}K_c$, by Julien {\it et al.}
267: \cite{Julien}
268: point out that a staggered
269: polarisation cloud forms around the impurity
270: when a uniform magnetic field is applied.
271: Hence, here, using simple assumptions, the
272: results of the calculations will be compared with the
273: $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y Knight shifts in order to
274: see whether this simple model has some
275: of the features observed experimentally.
276: Results on $^{63}K_c$ will also be presented.
277: It is important to keep in mind that the purpose
278: in this paper will
279: not be to present a theory of the magnetic correlations
280: in the pseudogap state within the presence of nonmagnetic
281: impurities.
282: This is clearly beyond the simple model used here.
283: Rather, the purpose is to study the real-space structure
284: of the deformations induced by the impurity
285: by making simple assumptions.
286: It would have been more desirable to carry out such a
287: study for optimally doped
288: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$,
289: where this model is more applicable,
290: but in that case the $^{89}$Y lines are not resolved.
291: Here, the model parameters determined by fitting the $T_2^{-1}$
292: data on pure
293: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$
294: will be used to calculate the $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y
295: Knight shifts.
296: Initially, the Knight shifts will be calculated
297: by neglecting the opening of the pseudogap in the
298: ${\bf q}\rightarrow 0$ component of the
299: magnetic susceptibility of the pure system.
300: Even in this case, it will be found that for
301: $V_1$ between $-0.125t$ and
302: $-0.15t$, the real-space pattern of the
303: magnetic correlations around the impurity
304: is similar to what is seen experimentally.
305: Later on, a pseudo gap in the
306: ${\bf q}\rightarrow 0$ component of the
307: magnetic susceptibility will be introduced artificially.
308: In this case, comparisons with the data require
309: $V_1\approx -0.15t$.
310: It has to be re-emphasized that the results on the
311: underdoped
312: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
313: needs to be interpreted cautiously.
314: The treatment of the pseudogap is clearly not rigorous.
315: An especially important point is that the presence of the
316: pseudogap can introduce new physics which is quite different
317: than the simple scenario discussed here using
318: a weak-coupling model.
319:
320: In Section II below, the model will be introduced.
321: After comparisons with the experimental data
322: in Sections III.A and III.B,
323: the pattern of the magnetic correlations around the impurity
324: will be shown in Section III.C.
325: The implications of these calculations and the role of the
326: antiferromagnetic correlations will be discussed
327: in Section IV.
328: In addition, here,
329: the dependence of the results on the
330: effective bandwidth will be studied,
331: and the hyperfine couplings used in the calculations will be
332: compared with the experimental estimates.
333: In Section V, the summary and the conclusions will be given.
334:
335: \section{Model}
336:
337: Here, the framework for calculating the
338: Knight shifts will be introduced.
339: In Section II.A, the modelling of the magnetic susceptibility
340: for pure
341: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
342: will be presented.
343: The model parameters, which will be used to parameterise
344: the antiferromagnetic correlations of pure
345: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
346: will be determined by fitting the experimental
347: data on the transverse nuclear relaxation rate
348: $T_2^{-1}$ of
349: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ \cite{Pennington,Itoh,Imai,Takigawa94}.
350: In Section II.B, the static extended impurity potential
351: used for approximating the interaction between the
352: impurity and the electrons will be discussed.
353: In the following section, the calculation of the magnetic
354: susceptibility for the case of one impurity will be presented.
355: In Section II.D, the hyperfine interactions for the $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y
356: nuclear spins will be introduced.
357:
358: \subsection{Parameterisation of $\chi({\bf q},\omega)$
359: for pure YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$}
360:
361: In this paper, it will be assumed that the magnetic correlations of pure
362: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
363: can be approximated by the
364: two-dimensional Hubbard model.
365: The magnetic susceptibility of the pure system is defined by
366: \begin{equation}
367: \chi_{pure}({\bf q})= \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \,
368: \langle m^-({\bf q},\tau) m^+({\bf q},0) \rangle.
369: \end{equation}
370: Here, $\tau$ is the Matsubara time,
371: $m^+({\bf q},0)=N^{-1/2} \sum_{\bf p}
372: c_{{\bf p}+{\bf q}\uparrow} c_{{\bf p}\downarrow}$,
373: $m^-({\bf q},\tau)=
374: e^{H\tau} m^-({\bf q},0) e^{-H\tau}$,
375: and
376: $m^-({\bf q},0)=N^{-1/2} \sum_{\bf p}
377: c_{{\bf p}+{\bf q}\downarrow} c_{{\bf p}\uparrow}$.
378: The RPA form for $\chi_{pure}$ is
379: \begin{equation}
380: \label{chirpa}
381: \chi_{pure}({\bf q}) = { \chi_0^L({\bf q}) \over 1-U \chi_0^L({\bf q})}.
382: \end{equation}
383: Here,
384: $U$ is the renormalized Coulomb repulsion
385: and the static Lindhard susceptibility
386: $\chi_0^L({\bf q})$ is given by
387: \begin{equation}
388: \label{Lindhard}
389: \chi_0^L({\bf q}) = {1\over N}
390: \sum_{\bf p}
391: { f(\varepsilon_{{\bf p}+{\bf q}}) - f(\varepsilon_{\bf p})
392: \over
393: \varepsilon_{\bf p}
394: - \varepsilon_{{\bf p}+{\bf q}} },
395: \end{equation}
396: where $f(\varepsilon_{\bf p})$ is the fermi factor
397: and
398: $\varepsilon_{\bf p}=-2t(\cos{p_x} + \cos{p_y})-\mu$.
399: Using this form for $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ with the renormalised
400: values of $U$ and the hopping matrix element $t$,
401: the longitudinal and the transverse relaxation rates
402: $T_1^{-1}$ and $T_2^{-1}$ for
403: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$ have been calculated \cite{T1,T2}.
404: In this model, the renormalization of $U$
405: is due to the particle-particle correlations and the single-particle
406: self-energy corrections, and the renormalization of the
407: bandwidth is due to the Coulomb correlations \cite{PhysicaC}.
408: The value of $U$ will be determined by fitting the experimental
409: data on the $^{63}$Cu(2) transverse relaxation rate $T_2^{-1}$
410: in pure
411: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
412: In the following, the effective bandwidth $W$
413: will be taken to be $1$ eV
414: as in Refs.~\cite{T1,T2}.
415: Later, in Section IV.C the dependence of the results
416: on $W$ will be studied.
417:
418: The transverse nuclear relation rate $T_2^{-1}$ of $^{63}$Cu(2)
419: for an orienting field along the $c$-axis is given by
420: \cite{Pennington}
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: \label{T2}
423: \bigg({1 \over T_2}\bigg)^2 =
424: {0.69 \over 32\hbar^2 }
425: \bigg\{
426: {1\over N}\sum_{{\bf q}} |A({\bf q})|^4\chi_{pure}^2({\bf q}) \nonumber \\
427: -
428: \bigg(
429: {1\over N}\sum_{{\bf q}} |A({\bf q})|^2 \chi_{pure}({\bf q})
430: \bigg)^2
431: \bigg\}
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: where
434: \begin{equation}
435: A({\bf q}) =A_c + 2B(\cos{q_x}+\cos{q_y}).
436: \end{equation}
437: Here, the following hyperfine interaction \cite{MR}
438: has been assumed for
439: the $^{63}$Cu nuclear spin at site $i$,
440: \begin{equation}
441: \label{MR}
442: \sum_{\alpha=x,y,z} A_{\alpha \alpha}
443: I_i^{\alpha} S_i^{\alpha} +
444: B \sum_{\delta=1}^4
445: {\bf I}_i \cdot {\bf S}_{i+\delta},
446: \end{equation}
447: where $\delta$ sums over the four nearest neighbours of site $i$.
448: For the hyperfine couplings,
449: $A_c=-4B=-2.45\times 10^{-18}$ erg,
450: corresponding to 164 kOe/$\mu_B$,
451: will be used as in Ref. \cite{T2}.
452: In fitting the $T$ dependence of $T_2^{-1}$ with the RPA
453: form of Eq.~(\ref{chirpa}), $U$ will be adjusted
454: as $T$ is varied.
455: Clearly, this is a simple, approximate procedure for
456: determining the strength of the antiferromagnetic
457: correlations in the pure system.
458: In fact, the model is so simple that electron filling
459: $\langle n\rangle$ will be taken to be 0.86 for both
460: the underdoped and optimally doped systems.
461: Hence, the only feature which differentiates between the
462: underdoped and the optimally doped systems in this model is
463: the strength of the antiferromagnetic correlations
464: of the pure system which
465: is set by adjusting $U$
466: to fit the $T_2^{-1}$ data.
467: As discussed in Ref.\cite{Bulut2000}, the antiferromagnetic
468: correlations of the impure system can get significantly
469: enhanced by the impurity scattering as compared
470: to those in the pure system.
471:
472: The fitting of $T_2^{-1}$ will be first carried out for
473: optimally doped
474: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
475: The transverse relaxation rate $T_2^{-1}$ of
476: $^{63}$Cu(2)
477: has been measured by Pennington and Slichter \cite{Pennington}
478: in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$,
479: and by Imai {\it et al.} \cite{Imai}
480: in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$.
481: The data by Imai {\it et al.} \cite{Imai}
482: are represented by the open circles
483: in Fig.~2(a).
484: Here, it is seen that $T_2^{-1}$ increases linearly as $T$ is
485: lowered from 300 K to 100 K.
486: The dashed line in this figure has been obtained by using the
487: RPA form of Eq.~(\ref{chirpa}) in Eq.~(\ref{T2}) and by adjusting
488: $U$ to fit the experimental data.
489: The resultant values of $U(T)$ are given by the dashed line
490: in Fig.~2(b).
491: Here one observes that as $T$ is lowered from 300 K to 100 K,
492: $U(T)$ decreases by 5\%.
493: Note also that the dashed curve in Fig.~2(a) has been
494: extrapolated up to 400 K, since in Section III the Knight shifts will
495: be calculated up to this temperature.
496:
497: The filled circles in Fig. 2(b) represent the
498: $T_2^{-1}$ data for $^{63}$Cu(2) in
499: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$
500: measured by Takigawa \cite{Takigawa94}.
501: Here it is seen that $T_2^{-1}$ varies almost linearly
502: for $T$ between 160 K and 300 K.
503: Below 160 K, $T_2^{-1}$ saturates.
504: Because of this, the fitting of
505: $T_2^{-1}$ for $T< 160$ K will require more
506: attention.
507: This saturation might be due to two reasons:
508: (1) the suppression of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\sim 0)$ because of the
509: opening of the magnetic pseudogap,
510: or
511: (2) the saturation of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ for
512: ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$.
513: In the first case,
514: $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi))$ would continue
515: to increase as $T$ is lowered and the saturation
516: of $T_2^{-1}$ would be due directly to the
517: suppression of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\sim 0)$.
518: In the other case,
519: the saturation of $T_2^{-1}$ would be due
520: to the saturation of the antiferromagnetic correlations.
521: In order to take into account these two possibilities, the fitting
522: of $T_2^{-1}$ below 160 K will be done in two ways.
523: In the first case,
524: the saturation of $T_2^{-1}$ will be attributed to the
525: suppression of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\sim 0)$ and it will be
526: assumed that without this effect $T_2^{-1}$ would have
527: continued to increase linearly as $T$ is lowered below 160 K.
528: Hence, in this case, $T_2^{-1}$ will be extrapolated for
529: $T<160$ K as shown by the solid line in Fig.~2(a).
530: The resultant values of $U(T)$ are shown by the
531: solid curve in Fig.~2(b).
532: In the second case, the $T_2^{-1}$ data below
533: 160 K will be fitted directly as shown
534: by the dotted curve in Fig.~2(a).
535: The resultant $U(T)$ is shown by the dotted curve
536: in Fig.~2(b).
537: By comparing the solid and the dotted curves for $T<160$ K in
538: Figs.~2(a) and (b), it is seen that small changes
539: in $U$ produce significant
540: changes in $T_2^{-1}$.
541: This is because the system is close to a magnetic instability with
542: a large Stoner enhancement for
543: ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$.
544:
545: At this point, it is useful to see the strength of the
546: antiferromagnetic correlations required for fitting
547: the $T_2^{-1}$ data.
548: The dashed curve in Fig.~3(a) shows $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$
549: versus ${\bf q}$ obtained
550: by fitting the $T_2^{-1}$ data on pure
551: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$
552: at 100 K.
553: The solid and the dotted curves represent
554: $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ obtained
555: with the first and the second scenarios, respectively,
556: for fitting $T_2^{-1}$ of
557: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$
558: at 100 K \cite{Takigawa94}.
559: For the form of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ used here,
560: Eqs.~(\ref{chirpa}) and (\ref{Lindhard}), the peak in
561: $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ occurs at an incommensurate wave vector
562: ${\bf Q}^*$ away from ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$.
563: The neutron scattering experiments \cite{Arai,Bourges} on
564: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
565: find that in the superconducting state,
566: the spin-fluctuation spectral weight
567: ${\rm Im}\,\chi_{pure}({\bf q},\omega)$
568: peaks away from $(\pi,\pi)$, but with
569: an incommensuration which is more than what is
570: observed in Fig.~3(a).
571: The form of $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ used here is clearly a crude
572: approximation.
573: The results shown below will not depend sensitively on the amount of
574: the incommensuration, rather they will depend on the
575: total integrated weight
576: in the ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$ region
577: of the ${\bf q}$-space.
578: Further results on the nature of the antiferromagnetic
579: correlations are shown in Fig.~3(b).
580: The dashed line in Fig.~3(b) shows $\chi_{pure}({\bf Q}^*)$
581: versus $T$ for
582: optimally doped
583: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
584: Also shown in this figure by the solid
585: line are the results for $\chi({\bf Q}^*)$
586: of the impure system
587: with 0.5\% randomly distributed impurities
588: which will be discussed below in Section IV.A.
589: Fig.~3(c) shows
590: similar results for
591: $\chi({\bf Q}^*)$ of underdoped
592: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
593: Here, it is seen that $\chi({\bf Q}^*)$ gets significantly
594: enhanced by the substitution of the nonmagnetic impurities,
595: especially for underdoped
596: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
597: By comparing Fig.~2(a) with Figs.~3(b) and (c),
598: it is also seen that
599: the temperature dependence
600: of $T_2^{-1}$ and $\chi_{pure}({\bf Q}^*)$ are
601: closely related, as expected.
602:
603: \subsection{Effective Impurity Potential}
604:
605: The effects of one nonmagnetic impurity located at site ${\bf r}_0$
606: will be taken into account by adding to Eq.~(\ref{Hubbard})
607: the term
608: \begin{equation}
609: \label{Vimp}
610: \sum_{i,\sigma} V_{\rm eff}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}_i)
611: c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger} c_{i\sigma}
612: \end{equation}
613: where $V_{\rm eff}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r})$
614: is given by Eq.~(\ref{Veff}).
615: The importance of using an extended impurity potential has been
616: previously noted {\cite{Xiang,Ziegler}.
617: In Ref.~\cite{Ziegler}, it has been pointed out that
618: the Coulomb correlations of the host could cause the extended
619: nature of the effective interaction.
620: The fact that the defects generated by the electron irradiation
621: of the samples have similar effects on the $T_c$
622: suppression \cite{Tc} and on the magnetic
623: properties \cite{irradiation}
624: also supports using an impurity potential
625: with only a potential scattering term.
626:
627: In the following, the onsite component of the impurity
628: potential, $V_0$, will be set to a large negative value, $-100t$,
629: in order to model the closed electronic
630: shell of the nonmagnetic impurity.
631: As long as $|V_0|$ has a large value,
632: its exact magnitude or its sign does not play an important role.
633: For instance, using $V_0=-200t$ instead of $-100t$
634: does not change the results.
635: The near-neighbour component $V_1$, on the other hand,
636: will be used as a free parameter in fitting the Knight shift
637: measurements on Li and Zn substituted
638: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
639: In the next section,
640: the effects of this static extended impurity potential
641: on the magnetic susceptibility
642: will be calculated.
643:
644: \subsection{Magnetic susceptibility within the presence
645: of one nonmagnetic impurity}
646:
647: The calculation of $\chi$ within the presence of a non-magnetic
648: impurity used here follows that given in Ref.~\cite{Bulut2000}.
649: First, the effects of the impurity on the single-particle
650: Green's function will be calculated.
651: The single-particle Green's function in Matsubara frequency
652: space is defined by
653: \begin{equation}
654: G({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,i\omega_n) =
655: - \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \,
656: e^{i\omega_n \tau}
657: \langle c_{i\sigma}(\tau)
658: c^{\dagger}_{j\sigma}(0) \rangle,
659: \label{G}
660: \end{equation}
661: where $\omega_n=(2n+1)\pi T$.
662: For the pure system with $U=0$,
663: one has
664: \begin{equation}
665: G_0({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,i\omega_n) =
666: {1\over N}
667: \sum_{\bf p}
668: e^{ i {\bf p} \cdot ({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j) }
669: G_0({\bf p},i\omega_n)
670: \end{equation}
671: where
672: \begin{equation}
673: G_0({\bf p},i\omega_n)
674: ={1 \over i\omega_n-\varepsilon_{\bf p} }.
675: \end{equation}
676: If an impurity is introduced at site ${\bf r}_0$,
677: then one gets
678: \begin{eqnarray}
679: \label{GT}
680: &&G({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_n) =
681: G_0({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_n) \nonumber \\
682: && +
683: \sum_{{\bf r}'',{\bf r}'''}
684: G_0({\bf r},{\bf r}'',i\omega_n)
685: T({\bf r}'',{\bf r}''',i\omega_n)
686: G({\bf r}''',{\bf r}',i\omega_n),
687: \end{eqnarray}
688: where the $T$-matrix for the impurity scattering is given by
689: \begin{eqnarray}
690: \label{Tmatrix}
691: T({\bf r},&&{\bf r'},i\omega_n)=
692: \delta({\bf r},{\bf r'})
693: V_{\rm eff}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r}) \nonumber \\
694: &&+
695: \sum_{{\bf r''}} V_{\rm eff}({\bf r}_0,{\bf r})
696: G_0({\bf r},{\bf r''},i\omega_n)
697: T({\bf r''},{\bf r'},i\omega_n).
698: \end{eqnarray}
699: The calculation of $G({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_n)$
700: is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig.~4(a).
701:
702: When the translational invariance is broken,
703: the magnetic susceptibility is defined in real space as
704: \begin{equation}
705: \chi({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_m) =
706: \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \,
707: e^{i\omega_m \tau}
708: \langle
709: m^{-}({\bf r},\tau) m^{+}({\bf r'},0)
710: \rangle,
711: \label{chi}
712: \end{equation}
713: where $m^{+}(\bf r)=c^{\dagger}_{{\bf r}\uparrow}
714: c_{{\bf r}\downarrow}$, and
715: $m^{-}({\bf r})=c^{\dagger}_{{\bf r}\downarrow}
716: c_{{\bf r}\uparrow}$.
717: The effects of a single impurity
718: will be first calculated for $U=0$,
719: giving the irreducible susceptibility
720: $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_m)$,
721: and
722: then the effects of the Coulomb correlations will
723: be included.
724: The diagrams representing the effects of the impurity
725: on $\chi_0$
726: are shown in Figs.~4(b) and (c).
727: Both the self-energy and the vertex corrections
728: need to be included \cite{Langer}, and the
729: resulting expression for
730: $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_m)$
731: is given by
732: \begin{eqnarray}
733: \label{chi0}
734: \chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'},i\omega_m) = - T &&\sum_{i\omega_n}
735: \bigg[
736: G({\bf r},{\bf r}', i\omega_{n}+i\omega_m) \nonumber \\
737: \times
738: G_0({\bf r}',{\bf r},i\omega_n)
739: +
740: G_0&&({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_{n}+i\omega_m)
741: G({\bf r}',{\bf r},i\omega_n) \nonumber \\
742: -
743: G_0&&({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_{n}+i\omega_m)
744: G_0({\bf r}',{\bf r},i\omega_{n})
745: \bigg] \nonumber \\
746: - T \sum_{i\omega_n}
747: \sum_{{\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_3,{\bf r}_4}
748: G_0({\bf r},&&{\bf r}_1, i\omega_{n}+i\omega_m) \nonumber \\
749: \times
750: G_0({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}',i\omega_{n}+i&&\omega_m)
751: T({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,i\omega_{n}+i\omega_m) \nonumber \\
752: \times
753: T({\bf r}_3,{\bf r}_4,i\omega_n)
754: G_0&&({\bf r}_3,{\bf r},i\omega_n)
755: G_0({\bf r}',{\bf r}_4,i\omega_n).
756: \end{eqnarray}
757: Note that the irreducible impurity-scattering
758: vertex has been used
759: in calculating the vertex corrections to $\chi_0$
760: instead of the reducible one.
761: This is necessary in order to prevent double counting,
762: since here the effects of only one impurity
763: are calculated.
764:
765: Next,
766: the Coulomb correlations are included
767: by solving the RPA equation
768: \begin{eqnarray}
769: \chi({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_m) &&=
770: \chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_m) \nonumber \\
771: &&+
772: U \sum_{{\bf r}''}
773: \chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r}'',i\omega_m)
774: \chi({\bf r}'',{\bf r}',i\omega_m)
775: \label{rpa}
776: \end{eqnarray}
777: for $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_m)$.
778: Here $\chi$ is calculated for an $N$-site
779: square lattice with one nonmagnetic impurity located
780: at the center using periodic boundary conditions.
781: The calculations are carried out
782: on sufficiently large lattices so that the
783: finite size effects are small.
784: In Ref.~\cite{Bulut2000}, the finite size effects on
785: $\chi$ have been studied in detail.
786:
787: The Knight shift is determined by
788: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r}')=
789: \chi({\bf r},{\bf r}',i\omega_m=0)$.
790: In the following section, the hyperfine
791: interactions, which relate
792: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r}')$ to the Knight shifts, will be discussed
793: for $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y.
794:
795: \subsection{Hyperfine interactions for
796: $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y}
797:
798: The hyperfine interaction between the $^7$Li nuclear spin
799: with $^7I=3/2$ substituted into a Cu(2) site
800: and the electronic spins will be modelled
801: by the following hyperfine coupling \cite{Bobroff}
802: \begin{equation}
803: C \sum^4_{\delta=1} \,
804: {^7{\bf I}}\cdot {\bf S}_{\delta}.
805: \label{A7}
806: \end{equation}
807: Here $\delta$ sums over the four Cu(2) sites neighbouring the Li impurity.
808: The nature of this interaction is similar to that of the transferred
809: hyperfine coupling of the $^{63}$Cu(2) nuclear spins to the
810: electronic spins at the neighbouring Cu(2)
811: sites given by the second term
812: in Eq.~(\ref{MR}) \cite{MR}.
813: In Section III,
814: the magnitude of the $^7$Li
815: hyperfine coupling $C$ will be taken to be
816: $1.8\times 10^{-20}$ erg,
817: corresponding to 0.85 kOe/$\mu_B$.
818: This choice for the value of $C$ will be discussed later in
819: Section IV.C.
820: As a result of this coupling, Eq.~(\ref{A7}),
821: the Knight shift of $^7$Li is (see Appendix I)
822: \begin{equation}
823: ^7K = {1 \over 2}
824: \left( { \gamma_e \over ^7\gamma_n } \right)
825: C \,
826: 4k({\bf r}=(1,0)),
827: \label{K7}
828: \end{equation}
829: where $k({\bf r})$ is defined by
830: \begin{equation}
831: \label{kr}
832: k({\bf r}) = \sum_{{\bf r}'}
833: \chi({\bf r},{\bf r}'),
834: \end{equation}
835: and $\gamma_e$ and $^7\gamma_n$ are the gyromagnetic
836: ratios of the electron and the
837: $^7$Li nuclear spin.
838: The factor of four in Eq.~(\ref{K7}) is
839: because the Li impurity has four Cu(2) neighbours.
840:
841: The hyperfine interaction for the $^{89}$Y
842: nuclear spin with $^{89}I=1/2$ is
843: \begin{equation}
844: D\sum_{\alpha=1} ^8 \,
845: ^{89}{\bf I}\cdot {\bf S}_{\alpha}
846: \end{equation}
847: where $\alpha$ sums over the eight Cu(2) sites neighbouring the
848: $^{89}$Y nuclear spin.
849: In Section III, the hyperfine interaction
850: $D$ will be assumed to be
851: $-2.2\times 10^{-20}$ erg,
852: corresponding to $-1.0$ kOe/$\mu_B$,
853: in order to fit the normal state value of $^{89}K$ in pure
854: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
855: using a bandwidth of $W=1$ eV.
856: Later in Section IV.C, the dependence of the results on
857: $W$ and on the values of the hyperfine couplings $C$ and $D$
858: will be discussed.
859: Here, it will also be assumed that the $^{89}$Y hyperfine couplings
860: do not change upon the substitution of the nonmagnetic
861: impurity.
862: Then the Knight shift
863: for $^{89}$Y at a particular Y lattice site is given by
864: \begin{equation}
865: ^{89}K = {1 \over 2}
866: \left( { \gamma_e \over ^{89}\gamma_n } \right)
867: D
868: \sum_{\alpha=1}^8
869: k({\bf r}_{\alpha}),
870: \end{equation}
871: where ${\bf r}_{\alpha}$ are the locations of the
872: eight nearest-neighbour Cu(2) sites of the
873: Y site in the CuO$_2$ bilayer.
874: For dilute Li or Zn impurities, the $^{89}$Y nuclear spin will be
875: affected by an impurity located in one of the layers of the
876: CuO$_2$ bilayer in
877: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
878: Here, it will be assumed that the
879: changes induced in $^{89}K$ are due only to the changes in
880: the magnetic correlations in the layer which contains the
881: impurity as it was done in Ref.~\cite{Mahajan99}.
882: Also,
883: in the following, the quantity of interest for $^{89}$Y
884: will be the change in the Knight shift of $^{89}$Y due
885: to the presence of the impurity.
886: Hence, the calculations will be carried out for
887: \begin{equation}
888: \label{dK89}
889: \delta^{89} K =
890: {1 \over 2}
891: \left( { \gamma_e \over ^{89}\gamma_n } \right)
892: D
893: \bigg[ \sum_{\alpha=1}^4 k({\bf r}_{\alpha}) -
894: 4\chi_{pure}\bigg],
895: \end{equation}
896: where $\alpha$ sums over the four Cu(2) sites neighbouring
897: the impurity in the layer which contains the impurity.
898: In Eq.~(\ref{dK89}),
899: $\chi_{pure}$ is the uniform static susceptibility
900: of the pure system.
901: The value of $^{89}K$ will depend strongly
902: on the location of the $^{89}$Y nuclear spin with respect to the
903: impurity.
904: In Fig.~5, a sketch of the various Y sites with respect to the
905: impurity site is given.
906: Note that the measurement of $^{89}K$ at the Y sites
907: near the impurity,
908: along with that of $^7K$, determines the real-space structure
909: of $k({\bf r})$ in the environment of the
910: impurity.
911: For instance,
912: $^{89}K$ for Y(1) is determined by
913: $k({\bf r}=(1,0))$ and
914: $k({\bf r}=(1,1))$, while $^7K$ is set by
915: $k({\bf r}=(1,0))$.
916: In Section~III, the results of the calculations on $^7K$
917: and $^{89}K$ for various Y sites will be shown
918: and compared with the experimental data.
919:
920: \section{Results of the Calculations}
921:
922: The comparison of the results with the experimental data
923: will be carried out first for the optimally doped
924: and then for the underdoped
925: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
926:
927: \subsection{Results on optimally doped
928: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$}
929:
930: The filled circles in Fig.~6(a) denote the experimental
931: data by Bobroff {\it et al.} \cite{Bobroff}
932: on the $^7$Li Knight shift $^7K$ for
933: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.97}$
934: with dilute Li impurities.
935: The curves in this figure represent the results of the calculations
936: of $^7K$ for various values of $V_1$ as indicated
937: next to the curves.
938: The model parameters other than $V_1$ were already set
939: by fitting the $T_2^{-1}$ data on pure
940: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$
941: by Imai {\it et al.} \cite{Imai}
942: as discussed in Section II.A.
943: Here,
944: it is seen that for $V_1\approx -0.15t$ the calculated
945: values of $^7K$ are in agreement with the
946: experimental data.
947: It is useful to compare these results with
948: what is expected for the $^7$Li
949: Knight shift if the magnetic correlations had not
950: changed upon the substitution of the impurity
951: and had remained the same
952: as in the pure material.
953: In Fig.~6(b), $^7K_0$ defined by
954: \begin{equation}
955: ^7K_0= {1\over 2}
956: \bigg( { \gamma_e \over ^7\gamma_n } \bigg)
957: C 4 \chi_{pure},
958: \end{equation}
959: where $\chi_{pure}$ is the uniform susceptibility
960: of the pure system,
961: is plotted as a function of the temperature.
962: The solid line has been obtained from
963: $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\rightarrow 0)$
964: given by Eq.~(\ref{chirpa})
965: for optimally doped
966: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
967: The dashed line in Fig.~6(b) has been obtained
968: by rescaling the $^{89}$Y Knight shift $^{89}K$ of pure
969: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$ \cite{Alloul89}
970: with
971: \begin{equation}
972: ^7K_0 = {1\over 2}
973: \bigg( {^{89}\gamma_n C \over ^7\gamma_n D} \bigg)\,
974: ^{89}K.
975: \end{equation}
976: The factor of $1/2$ in this expression is because
977: Y has eight Cu(2) near neighbours while Li has four.
978: In these figures,
979: it is also seen that for $V_1=0$,
980: corresponding to an onsite impurity potential
981: in the unitary limit,
982: $^7K$ is enhanced with respect to $^7K_0$
983: but this enhancement is not sufficient to explain the
984: experimental data.
985: If positive values of $V_1$ are used, then
986: $^7K$ gets suppressed with respect to the $V_1=0$ case.
987:
988: The stoichiometry of the samples is a factor
989: which could affect the comparisons with the data.
990: Note that $U(T)$ used in calculating $^7K$ for
991: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.97}$
992: was determined by fitting the $T_2^{-1}$ data on
993: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$.
994: For
995: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$,
996: $T_2^{-1}$ was measured at 100 K, and its value is
997: $7.7 \pm {0.6}$ msec$^{-1}$ compared to
998: $\sim 9.5$ msec$^{-1}$ for
999: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$.
1000: The value of $7.7$ msec$^{-1}$ for
1001: $T_2^{-1}$ requires a slightly smaller value for $U$ and,
1002: consequently,
1003: the fitting of $^7K$ is done using larger values of $V_1$.
1004: If one assumes that the $T$ dependence of $T_2^{-1}$
1005: is given by a line which passes through $7.7$ msec$^{-1}$
1006: at 100 K and which is parallel to the dashed line in Fig.~2(a),
1007: then the $^7K$ data can be fitted by using $V_1\approx -0.275t$.
1008:
1009: Based on these results and considering the simplicity
1010: of the model, the conclusions which can be reached
1011: are limited.
1012: Probably, the best thing to say is that the analysis of the
1013: $^7K$ data on optimally doped
1014: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1015: within this model at the level of RPA
1016: requires an impurity potential which is
1017: weakly attractive at the nearest-neighbor Cu(2) sites.
1018:
1019: The results of the calculations for $^{89}K$ are shown
1020: in Fig.~7(a).
1021: Here,
1022: the temperature dependence
1023: of $\delta^{89}K$ is shown
1024: for the first four nearest-neighbor Y sites which are indicated
1025: in Fig.~5.
1026: In obtaining these results,
1027: $V_1=-0.15t$ was used.
1028: Note that in Fig.~7(a) the expected values of the Knight
1029: shifts are close to each other.
1030: Experimentally, for
1031: optimally doped
1032: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
1033: the expected resonance lines for the $^{89}$Y nuclei near
1034: the Zn impurity are not resolved.
1035:
1036: Next, results on how the nonmagnetic impurity affects the
1037: $^{63}$Cu(2) Knight shifts in this model are presented.
1038: The $^{63}$Cu(2) Knight shift at site ${\bf r}_i$
1039: with the orienting magnetic field ${\bf H}||{\bf c}$
1040: is given by
1041: \begin{equation}
1042: \label{Kc}
1043: ^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i) =
1044: {1 \over 2}
1045: \bigg( {\gamma_e \over ^{63}\gamma_n } \bigg)
1046: \bigg[
1047: A_c k({\bf r}_i) +
1048: B\sum_{\alpha=1}^{4} k({\bf r}_{\alpha})
1049: \bigg],
1050: \end{equation}
1051: where $\alpha$ sums over the four Cu(2) neighbors of
1052: ${\bf r}_i$.
1053: Figure 7(b) shows the $T$ dependence of
1054: $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$ for $V_1=-0.15t$
1055: for the first four neighboring Cu(2) sites
1056: of the impurity, which correspond to
1057: ${\bf r}_i=(1,0)$, (1,1), (2,0), and (2,1).
1058: For the pure system,
1059: $^{63}K_c$ vanishes since
1060: $A_c+4B=0$.
1061: Here, it is seen that $^{63}K_c$
1062: has a staggered pattern;
1063: it is negative
1064: at the sublattice of the (1,0) site
1065: and it is positive at the sublattice of the impurity.
1066: This spatial pattern of
1067: $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$
1068: is due to the staggered pattern of
1069: $k({\bf r})$, which will be discussed in Sections III.C
1070: and IV.A.
1071: The measurements of $^{63}K_c$ have been
1072: carried out in
1073: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.7}$
1074: by Julien {\it et al.} \cite{Julien}.
1075: While the individual $^{63}$Cu(2) lines
1076: are not resolved, it has been observed that the broadening of the
1077: linewidth has a Curie-like $T$ dependence.
1078: This has been attributed
1079: to the development of a straggered polarization cloud
1080: around the impurity \cite{Julien}.
1081:
1082: \subsection{Results on underdoped YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ }
1083:
1084: The analysis of the Knight shift data on the underdoped
1085: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ is considerably more complicated
1086: because of the magnetic pseudogap.
1087: This is so because the origin of the magnetic pseudogap
1088: in this material
1089: is currently an unresolved issue.
1090: Hence, it is necessary to note that the purpose here is not
1091: to develop a theory for the magnetic susceptibility
1092: of the underdoped
1093: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1094: with impurities.
1095: Instead, the purpose is to explore any possible role of the
1096: antiferromagnetic correlations in producing the
1097: anomalous $T$ dependence of the Knight shift data in
1098: underdoped
1099: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1100: within the presence of nonmagnetic impurities.
1101: The emphasis here will be on the real-space structure
1102: of the magnetic correlations around the impurity.
1103:
1104: The $^7$Li Knight shift measurements by Bobroff {\it et al.}
1105: \cite{Bobroff} on underdoped
1106: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1107: with Li impurities found that $^7K$ increases rapidly
1108: as $T$ is lowered.
1109: In Fig.~8(a), the experimental data on
1110: $\delta^7K$ defined by
1111: \begin{equation}
1112: \delta^7K = ^7K - ^7K_0
1113: \end{equation}
1114: are compared with the results of the calculations.
1115: The comparisons are carried out for
1116: $\delta ^7K$ rather than for $^7K$ in order to compensate
1117: for the effect of the magnetic pseudogap
1118: which is not taken into account here.
1119: The data points shown by the filled circles
1120: in Fig.~8(a) were obtained
1121: by subtracting from the $^7K$ data of Bobroff {\it et al.}
1122: \cite{Bobroff}
1123: the quantity
1124: \begin{equation}
1125: ^7K_0 =
1126: {1 \over 2}
1127: \bigg( {^{89}\gamma_n C \over ^7\gamma_n D} \bigg) \,
1128: ^{89}K({\rm main}),
1129: \end{equation}
1130: where $^{89}K({\rm main})$ is the Knight shift of the
1131: main $^{89}$Y spectral line measured by Mahajan {\it et al.}
1132: \cite{Mahajan99}
1133: in Zn substituted
1134: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$.
1135: The solid points in Fig.~8(b) indicate
1136: $^7K_0$ estimated this way.
1137: The dashed curve in Fig.~8(b)
1138: shows the estimate for $^7K_0$ obtained by using the
1139: $^{89}K$ measurements on pure
1140: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$ \cite{Alloul89}.
1141: In the Zn substituted samples, $^{89}K({\rm main})$ is
1142: slightly shifted with respect to $^{89}K$ of the pure samples.
1143: This might be due to the difference in the
1144: stoichiometry of the Zn substituted and the pure samples,
1145: as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Mahajan99}.
1146:
1147: The results of the calculations on $\delta^7 K$ are represented
1148: by the various curves in
1149: Fig.~8(a).
1150: The term subtracted from $^7K$ to obtain these results is
1151: shown by the solid line in Fig.~8(b).
1152: Note that the solid line in Fig.~8(b) lies slightly
1153: above the solid line in Fig.~6(b), since
1154: larger values of $U$ were used
1155: for the underdoped
1156: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1157: These calculations are shown for four different
1158: values of $V_1$: $-0.125t$ (short-dashed), $-0.15t$ (solid),
1159: $-0.175t$ (long-dashed), and
1160: $0.0$ (dot-dashed).
1161: These results have been obtained by using $U(T)$
1162: represented by the solid curve in Fig.~2(b).
1163: Hence,
1164: they correspond to the first scenario described above where
1165: $T_2^{-1}$ has been linearly extrapolated for
1166: $T< 160$ K.
1167: For each value of $V_1$,
1168: the calculations of $\delta ^7 K$ have been repeated
1169: according to the second scenario, where the saturation of
1170: $T_2^{-1}$ below 160 K is attributed to the saturation
1171: of the antiferromagnetic correlations.
1172: In this case, the values of $U(T)$ shown by the dotted curve
1173: in Fig.~2(b) were used.
1174: In Fig.~8(a), these results are shown by the dotted curves
1175: for each value of $V_1$ as indicated.
1176: Comparing the results of the calculations with the experimental
1177: data, one sees that the
1178: values of $V_1$ between $-0.125t$ and $-0.15t$ would produce
1179: a fit of the experimental data
1180: on $\delta^7K$.
1181:
1182: Next, the results for $^{89}$Y are discussed.
1183: The experiments by Mahajan {\it et al.} \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}
1184: found that Zn substitution in underdoped
1185: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ strongly modifies the nuclear resonance
1186: spectrum of $^{89}$Y.
1187: In this case, in addition to the main $^{89}$Y resonance
1188: line, two satellite peaks are observed.
1189: These outer and middle resonance lines have been
1190: identified as belonging to the $^{89}$Y
1191: nuclear spins which are respectively the first and the second
1192: near-neighbours of the Zn impurity,
1193: Y(1) and Y(2) in Fig.~5.
1194: The fact that the magnetic resonance spectrum of
1195: $^{89}$Y in Li substituted
1196: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1197: is nearly the same as in Zn substituted samples confirms
1198: this identification \cite{Bobroff}.
1199: In the following, the data on $^{89}K$
1200: will be compared with the results
1201: of the calculations which were outlined in Section III.
1202: However,
1203: the comparisons will not be carried out directly for
1204: $^{89}K$.
1205: Rather, the shift of the satellite lines with respect to the
1206: main line will be used
1207: in order to compensate for the
1208: opening of the pseudogap in the pure system.
1209: Hence, the comparisons will be carried out for the following quantities,
1210: \begin{eqnarray}
1211: && \delta^{89}K({\rm outer}) = ^{89}K({\rm outer})- ^{89}K({\rm main})
1212: \nonumber \\
1213: && \delta^{89}K({\rm middle}) = ^{89}K({\rm middle})- ^{89}K({\rm main}).
1214: \end{eqnarray}
1215: Since $^{89}K({\rm main})$
1216: in Zn substituted material nearly
1217: follows the $T$ dependence of
1218: $^{89}K$
1219: in the pure system,
1220: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ and
1221: $\delta^{89}K(\rm middle)$
1222: represent the change in the Knight shifts
1223: of the nuclear spins at the Y(1) and Y(2) sites, respectively,
1224: due to the substitution of the Zn impurity.
1225:
1226: In Figures 9(a) and (b),
1227: the points represent the experimental data on
1228: $-\delta^{89}K(\rm outer)$ and
1229: $-\delta^{89}K(\rm middle)$, respectively, for underdoped
1230: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ measured by Mahajan {\it et al.}
1231: \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}.
1232: In these figures, the data points are shown for two
1233: different orientations of the magnetic field ${\bf H}$.
1234: It is estimated that the $^{89}$Y hyperfine coupling
1235: has an anisotropy of about 15\%,
1236: which could be the cause of the anisotropy
1237: of the data seen in Figs.~9(a) and (b) \cite{Mahajan99,Takigawa93}.
1238: In Fig.~9(a), the error bars shown for the lowest and the highest
1239: temperature measurements are representative of
1240: the error bars for the other data points.
1241: In Fig.~9(b), the data points are shown up to 130 K,
1242: since at higher
1243: temperatures the middle satellite is not resolved.
1244:
1245: The curves in Figs.~9(a) and (b) represent
1246: the results of the calculations for
1247: $-\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ and
1248: $-\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})$, respectively.
1249: These calculations have been carried out for the same values
1250: of $V_1$ as in Fig.~8(a) for
1251: $\delta^7K$ \cite{89Y}.
1252: For $T < 160$~K, these calculations were carried out
1253: in two ways by using $U(T)$ shown by the solid
1254: and the dotted curves in Fig.~2(b).
1255: In Figs.~9(a) and (b), it is seen that for
1256: $V_1$ between $-0.125t$ and $-0.15t$,
1257: the data can be fitted.
1258: Finally, in Fig.~10 the $T$ dependence of
1259: $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$ in underdoped
1260: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1261: is shown for various Cu(2) sites near the impurity.
1262: Here, $V_1=-0.15t$ was used.
1263: In order to interpret these,
1264: in the next section the real-space structure of the changes
1265: induced in the magnetic correlations
1266: by the impurity will be shown.
1267: The $^{63}K_c$ measurements in Zn substituted
1268: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.7}$
1269: imply that the polarisation around the impurity
1270: is staggered \cite{Julien}.
1271:
1272: \subsection{Pattern of the magnetic correlations
1273: around the impurity}
1274:
1275: In Fig.~11(a), $k({\bf r})$ defined by
1276: Eq.~(\ref{kr}), is shown as a function of the lattice distance
1277: $r=|{\bf r}|$ away from the impurity at $T=100$ K.
1278: Here, $r$ is given in units of the lattice constant, and
1279: in obtaining these results $V_1=-0.15t$
1280: was used.
1281: The horizontal long-dashed line denotes what is expected for
1282: $k({\bf r})$ within this model for pure
1283: optimally doped
1284: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
1285: and the open circles represent $k({\bf r})$
1286: when an impurity is introduced into this material
1287: at ${\bf r}_0=0$.
1288: The results for underdoped
1289: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1290: are also shown in Fig.~11(a).
1291: The dotted horizontal line denotes
1292: $k({\bf r})$ for pure underdoped
1293: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
1294: while the filled circles show
1295: $k({\bf r})$ within the presence of the impurity
1296: for this material.
1297: The results on underdoped
1298: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1299: were obtained using the value of $U$
1300: given by the solid curve in Fig.~2(b).
1301: Note that, for underdoped
1302: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ in this graph,
1303: the physically more relevant quantity is the change in
1304: $k({\bf r})$ induced by the impurity, since the presence of the
1305: pseuogap in the uniform susceptibility
1306: of the pure system is not included in the model.
1307:
1308: The real-space structure of $k({\bf r})$ is important since
1309: it determines the Knight shift at various sites.
1310: For instance,
1311: $k({\bf r})$ at ${\bf r}=(1,0)$ determines the value of
1312: $^7K$.
1313: On the other hand,
1314: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$, corresponding to the
1315: Y(1) site in Fig.~5, is given by the change in
1316: \begin{equation}
1317: k(0,0) + 2k(1,0) + k(1,1)
1318: \end{equation}
1319: induced by the impurity.
1320: Similarly,
1321: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})$, corresponding to the Y(2)
1322: site, probes the change induced in
1323: \begin{equation}
1324: k(1,0) + k(1,1) + k(2,0) + k(2,1)
1325: \end{equation}
1326: by the impurity.
1327: Hence, it is seen that by the fitting of
1328: $\delta ^7K$ in Fig.~8(a), the value of
1329: $k(1,0)$ is fixed.
1330: Since it is known that $k(0,0)$ vanishes when the impurity is
1331: introduced, the fitting of
1332: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$
1333: in Fig.~9(a) fixes the value of $k(1,1)$.
1334: In Fig.~11(a), it is seen that while
1335: $k(1,0)$ is enhanced strongly
1336: by the impurity,
1337: $k(1,1)$ is strongly suppressed and it even becomes negative.
1338: The fact that both $\delta^7 K$ and
1339: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ can be fitted
1340: at the same time means that the induced changes in
1341: $k({\bf r})$ of the actual system must have a staggered pattern at
1342: the sites (1,0) and (1,1).
1343: Since $k(1,0)$ and $k(1,1)$ are now fixed,
1344: the fact that
1345: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})$
1346: can also be fitted means that the change in
1347: $k(2,0)+k(2,1)$ is fixed.
1348: In Fig.~11(a), it is seen that $k(2,0)$ gets suppressed
1349: by the impurity and $k(2,1)$ gets enhanced while the total
1350: effect on $k(2,0)+k(2,1)$ is small.
1351: This in turn means that the induced changes in
1352: $k({\bf r})$ of the actual system must also be staggered
1353: at sites (2,0) and (2,1).
1354: Hence, the fits obtained in Figs.~8(a), 9(a) and
1355: (b) imply that $k({\bf r})$ has a staggered
1356: pattern in the vicinity of the impurity.
1357: This conclusion was reached by the
1358: analysis of Mahajan {\it et al.}
1359: \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99}.
1360: Here it is seen that this simple model produces
1361: this pattern as well.
1362:
1363: It is useful to compare the staggered pattern of $k({\bf r})$
1364: with the pattern of $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$ near the impurity.
1365: Fig.~11(b) shows $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$
1366: versus $r$ plotted in the same way as $k({\bf r})$
1367: is plotted in Fig.~11(a).
1368: Here one sees that $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$
1369: is strongly modified near the impurity.
1370: It is also seen that $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$
1371: does not have a staggered pattern as, for instance,
1372: one would have had for antiferromagnetically ordered spins.
1373: The comparisons shown in Figs.~6, 8 and 9 mean that
1374: the experimental data on $^7K$ and $^{89}K$ require
1375: a staggered pattern for $k({\bf r})$
1376: in the vicinity of the impurity.
1377: But a staggered structure for
1378: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$ is not necessary.
1379:
1380: In Figs.~11(a) and (b),
1381: it is seen that
1382: while $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$ is positive for all
1383: ${\bf r}$, $k({\bf r})$ can become negative, for instance at
1384: ${\bf r}=(1,1)$.
1385: This is possible because $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ for
1386: ${\bf r}=(1,0)$ and ${\bf r'}=(1,1)$ has a large
1387: negative value after the impurity is introduced,
1388: meaning that the impurity is inducing strong
1389: antiferromagnetic correlations in its local
1390: environment in this model.
1391: These points will be discussed further in Section IV.A.
1392:
1393: At this point it is also useful to present results on how the impurity
1394: potential affects the single-particle properties.
1395: For this purpose, in Fig.~11(c) the electron occupation number
1396: $n({\bf r}_i)= \sum_{\sigma}
1397: \langle c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} c_{i\sigma} \rangle$
1398: for sites near the impurity is shown as a function of
1399: the distance $r=|{\bf r}_i|$ from the impurity
1400: for various values of $V_1/t$.
1401: Since $V_0$ is strongly attractive, the impurity site
1402: which is not shown in this figure,
1403: is nearly doubly occupied, $n({\bf r}_i=0)\approx 2.0$.
1404: For $V_1=0$, it is seen that $n({\bf r}_i)$ is
1405: enhanced at ${\bf r}_i=(1,1)$
1406: with respect to its value at ${\bf r}_i=(1,0)$.
1407: Away from the impurity, these oscillation in $n({\bf r}_i)$
1408: decay, and $n({\bf r}_i)$ goes to its value in the pure system,
1409: $\langle n\rangle=0.86$,
1410: which is indicated by the horizontal long-dashed line.
1411: Here, it is also seen that this structure in $n({\bf r}_i)$
1412: holds for weak attractive values of $V_1$.
1413: But as $V_1$ becomes more attractive, for instance for
1414: $V_1=-0.15t$, the pattern in $n({\bf r}_i)$ changes.
1415: In this case, $n({\bf r}_i=(1,0))$ gets enhanced
1416: over $n({\bf r}_i=(1,1))$.
1417: Hence, in Fig.~11(c) one observes that the structure
1418: in $n({\bf r}_i)$ in the vicinity of the impurity
1419: does not necessarily reflect the sign of $V_1$.
1420: For instance, a finite attractive $V_1$ is required before
1421: $n({\bf r}_i=(1,0))$ gets enhanced
1422: with respect to $n({\bf r}_i=(1,1))$.
1423: This has to do with the
1424: presence of the strongly attractive $V_0$ term
1425: in the impurity potential.
1426:
1427: In Section III.B, it was seen that the data
1428: on $\delta^7K$ and $\delta^{89}K$ can
1429: be fitted reasonably well over the whole
1430: temperature range by using a simple form
1431: for the effective impurity potential
1432: without any $T$ dependence.
1433: On the other hand, because of the various approximations employed
1434: in this model, the quantitative agreement obtained
1435: in the fits might actually be misleading.
1436: However, what is significant is the fact that
1437: $\delta^7K$, $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ and
1438: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})$ can be fitted all
1439: at the same time, which means that the real-space
1440: structure of the changes induced in the magnetic correlations
1441: near the impurity
1442: appears to be described by this simple model.
1443:
1444: \section{Discussion}
1445:
1446: \subsection{Role of the antiferromagnetic correlations}
1447:
1448: It is useful to discuss the connection between the antiferromagnetic
1449: correlations of the system
1450: which is composed of the impurity and the host,
1451: and the anomalous enhancement
1452: of the Knight shift at sites around the impurity.
1453: This connection becomes more clear if the Fourier transform
1454: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'})$ is introduced,
1455: \begin{equation}
1456: \label{chirr}
1457: \chi({\bf q},{\bf q'})=\sum_{{\bf r},{\bf r'}}
1458: e^{ i({\bf q}\cdot{\bf r} - {\bf q'}\cdot {\bf r'}) }
1459: \chi({\bf r},{\bf r'}).
1460: \end{equation}
1461: Note that $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$
1462: is the susceptibility
1463: for an $N$-site square lattice with one impurity
1464: at the center and periodic boundary conditions.
1465:
1466: An especially important quantity is
1467: the off-diagonal susceptibility
1468: $\chi({\bf q},0)\equiv
1469: \chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$,
1470: since its Fourier transform with respect to
1471: ${\bf q}$ gives $k({\bf r})$.
1472: Particularly,
1473: at sites ${\bf r}=(1,0)$ and $(1,1)$
1474: with respect to the impurity,
1475: one has
1476: \begin{eqnarray}
1477: \label{k10}
1478: k(1,0) && = \sum_{\bf q} {1\over 2} ( \cos{q_x} + \cos{q_y} )
1479: \, \chi({\bf q},0) \nonumber \\
1480: k(1,1) && = \sum_{\bf q} \cos({q_x+q_y})
1481: \, \chi({\bf q},0).
1482: \end{eqnarray}
1483: In Figs.~12(a) and (b),
1484: the ${\bf q}$ dependence of
1485: $-\chi_0({\bf q},0)$, which is for $U=0$, and
1486: $-\chi({\bf q},0)$ are shown at 100~K for
1487: optimally doped
1488: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1489: obtained by using $V_1=-0.15t$ \cite{Finitesize}.
1490: Here,
1491: the $\delta$-function component of
1492: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ at ${\bf q}=0$ has been
1493: omitted.
1494: In these figures, it is seen that
1495: $-\chi({\bf q},0)$ is enhanced with respect to
1496: $-\chi_0({\bf q},0)$, and they both peak at
1497: ${\bf q}$ near $(\pi,\pi)$.
1498: Note that for ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$, the form
1499: factors entering Eq.~(\ref{k10}),
1500: ${1\over 2} ( \cos{q_x} + \cos{q_y} ) \sim -1$
1501: and
1502: $\cos(q_x+q_y)\sim 1$.
1503: Because of the ${\bf q}$ structure of $\chi({\bf q},0)$,
1504: $k(1,0)$ gets enhanced and $k(1,1)$ gets suppressed.
1505: Hence, within this model,
1506: the staggered pattern of $k({\bf r})$ near the impurity
1507: is a consequence of the
1508: peaking of $-\chi({\bf q},0)$ near $(\pi,\pi)$.
1509:
1510: The enhancement of $-\chi({\bf q},0)$ with respect to
1511: $-\chi_0({\bf q},0)$ is understood better if
1512: the RPA equation, Eq.~(\ref{rpa}),
1513: is written in momentum space,
1514: \begin{equation}
1515: \label{chiqq}
1516: \chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}) =
1517: \chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'}) +
1518: U \sum_{{\bf q''}}
1519: \chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q''})
1520: \chi({\bf q''},{\bf q'}),
1521: \end{equation}
1522: where
1523: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'})$ is for $U=0$.
1524: For the pure system,
1525: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ is given by
1526: \begin{equation}
1527: \chi({\bf q},0)
1528: = N \delta_{{\bf q},0} \chi_{pure} ( {\bf q}\rightarrow 0)
1529: \end{equation}
1530: where $\chi_{pure}$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{chirpa}),
1531: and within the presence of the impurity
1532: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ is obtained by solving
1533: \begin{equation}
1534: \label{chiq0}
1535: \chi({\bf q},0) =
1536: \chi_0({\bf q},0) +
1537: U \sum_{{\bf q''}}
1538: \chi_0({\bf q''},0)
1539: \chi({\bf q''},{\bf q}).
1540: \end{equation}
1541: This expression shows that when ${\bf q''}\sim (\pi,\pi)$,
1542: $\chi({\bf q}\sim(\pi,\pi),{\bf q'}=0)$ couples
1543: to the antiferromagnetic correlations
1544: determined by
1545: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q})$ with ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$
1546: of the system which is composed of the host and the impurity.
1547: This is the reason for the strong enhancement of
1548: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ with respect to
1549: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$.
1550:
1551: It is useful to discuss the physical meaning of the off-diagonal
1552: susceptibility $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'})$ where
1553: ${\bf q}\neq{\bf q'}$.
1554: During the scattering of the spin fluctuations by the impurity
1555: potential, the momentum is not conserved and
1556: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q}\neq {\bf q'})$ acts as the
1557: vertex for the scattering of the spin fluctuations
1558: by the impurity
1559: with ${\bf Q^*}={\bf q}-{\bf q'}$ momentum transfers.
1560: The peaking of $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$
1561: near ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$ means that the scattering
1562: of the antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations with momentum transfers
1563: near $(\pi,\pi)$ is the dominant scattering process.
1564: The effects of the scatterings with large momentum transfers
1565: on the ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$ neutron scattering intensity have been
1566: also emphasized in Ref. \cite{neutron},
1567: where $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'})$ was calculated at the lowest
1568: order in the impurity potential.
1569: Within this model, both the Knight shifts and the neutron
1570: scattering experiments point out at the importance of the
1571: scattering of the particle-hole pairs by the nonmagnetic
1572: impurity with large momentum transfers near $2{\bf k}_F$.
1573: If the $\sim 2{\bf k}_F$ scatterings are indeed one of the primary
1574: effects of the nonmagnetic impurities,
1575: then an anomalous softening of the phonons at
1576: wave vectors $\sim 2{\bf k}_F$ might be observed in
1577: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ with dilute Zn
1578: impurities \cite{SidisPC}.
1579:
1580: The real-space
1581: pattern of $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$ seen in Fig.~7(b)
1582: also reflects the ${\bf q}$ dependence of
1583: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$.
1584: Equation~(\ref{Kc}) for $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$
1585: can be rewritten as
1586: \begin{equation}
1587: ^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)=
1588: {1\over 2}
1589: \bigg( {\gamma_e \over ^{63}\gamma_n } \bigg)
1590: {1 \over N}
1591: \sum_{\bf q} \,
1592: e^{ i{\bf q} \cdot {\bf r}_i }
1593: \big(
1594: A_c + 4B\gamma_{\bf q}
1595: \big)
1596: \chi({\bf q},0),
1597: \end{equation}
1598: where $\gamma_{\bf q} = (\cos{q_x} + \cos{q_y})/2$.
1599: Since $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ has most of its weight at
1600: ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$ for which
1601: $\gamma_{\bf q}\sim -1$,
1602: one gets
1603: \begin{equation}
1604: ^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i) \approx -
1605: {1\over 2}
1606: \big(
1607: |A_c| + 4B
1608: \big)
1609: \bigg( {\gamma_e \over ^{63}\gamma_n } \bigg)
1610: {1 \over N}
1611: \sum_{{\bf q} \sim (\pi,\pi)} \,
1612: e^{ i{\bf q} \cdot {\bf r}_i }
1613: \chi({\bf q},0).
1614: \end{equation}
1615: Here one sees
1616: that $|A_c|+4B$ has a large value and
1617: $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$ directly couples to
1618: $\chi({\bf q}\sim(\pi,\pi),{\bf q'}=0)$.
1619: It has been noted in Ref.~\cite{Julien} that the
1620: anomalous broadening of the $^{63}$Cu(2) linewidth
1621: reflects the staggered
1622: polarization of the magnetic correlations near the impurity.
1623:
1624: It is important to note that, within this model,
1625: the antiferromagnetic correlations also get enhanced due to the
1626: presence of the impurity \cite{Bulut2000}.
1627: If $N_i$ randomly distributed nonmagnetic impurities
1628: are considered in the dilute limit,
1629: then the ${\bf q}$-dependent magnetic susceptibility
1630: of this system is given by
1631: \begin{equation}
1632: \chi({\bf q}) \equiv
1633: \chi_{pure}({\bf q}) +
1634: n_i N
1635: \bigg[
1636: \chi({\bf q},{\bf q}) - \chi_{pure}({\bf q})
1637: \bigg],
1638: \end{equation}
1639: where $n_i=N_i/N$ is the impurity concentration.
1640: The results on $\chi({\bf Q^*})$ for
1641: 0.5\% nonmagnetic impurities are compared with
1642: $\chi_{pure}({\bf Q^*})$
1643: in Figs.~3(b) and (c),
1644: where it is seen that the impure system has stronger
1645: antiferromagnetic correlations than the pure system.
1646: Here, ${\bf Q^*}$ is the incommensurate wave vector where
1647: $\chi$ peaks at low temperatures.
1648: The enhancement of $\chi({\bf Q^*})$ over
1649: $\chi_{pure}({\bf Q^*})$ is especially significant
1650: for the underdoped system.
1651: Hence, it needs to be noted that the enhancement of the Knight
1652: shifts near the impurity in this model
1653: is a result of the
1654: coupling to $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$
1655: of the whole system
1656: which is composed of the impurity and the host
1657: rather than to $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\sim(\pi,\pi))$
1658: of the pure host.
1659:
1660: Experimentally,
1661: ${\rm Im}\,\chi({\bf Q},\omega)$ is the inelastic
1662: neutron scattering spectral weight.
1663: The enhancement of
1664: ${\rm Im}\,\chi({\bf Q},\omega)$
1665: in the normal state by the impurity scattering is clearly
1666: seen for dilute Zn impurities in
1667: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$
1668: \cite{Sidis,Fong,Sidis2000}.
1669: The low frequency part of ${\rm Im}\,\chi$ is also probed by the
1670: measurement of the longitudinal relaxation rate
1671: $T_1^{-1}$ at sites near the impurity.
1672: The measurements of $T_1^{-1}$ at sites near the
1673: impurity have found interesting results
1674: \cite{Mahajan94,Mahajan99,MacFarlane,Julien}.
1675: The calculations presented here
1676: have been extended to obtain the $^7$Li $T_1^{-1}$
1677: using the Pade approximation
1678: for analytic continuation to the real-frequency
1679: axis of the results calculated in terms of the
1680: Matsubara frequencies.
1681: While it is difficult to obtain reliable results on
1682: ${\rm Im}\,\chi({\bf Q},\omega)$ for general $\omega$
1683: using the Pade approximation,
1684: it is possible to obtain control on the calculation
1685: of $T_1^{-1}$, which requires only
1686: the $\omega\rightarrow 0$ limit.
1687: Since the analytic continuation procedure requires special
1688: attention, the calculations of
1689: the $^7$Li $T_1^{-1}$
1690: will be presented elsewhere \cite{Korringa,Li7}.
1691:
1692: \subsection{Effects of the pseudogap in underdoped
1693: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$}
1694:
1695: The analysis of the data on underdoped YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1696: needs to be interpreted carefully because of the presence
1697: of the pseudogap in this system.
1698: The uniform susceptibility of
1699: pure YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$
1700: starts to decrease below 300 K, with a $T$ dependence
1701: proportional to that given
1702: by the dashed curve in Fig.~8(b).
1703: This has been ignored in the calculations presented above.
1704: In order to explore the effects of the pseudogap on the Knight
1705: shift results, the following simple
1706: calculation has been carried out.
1707: The suppression of the diagonal irreducible susceptibility
1708: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}\sim 0$
1709: has been artificially incorporated
1710: into the model by multiplying
1711: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q})$ by the factor
1712: \begin{equation}
1713: \label{F}
1714: F({\bf q}) =
1715: 1 - a e^{-|{\bf q}|^2/\kappa^2},
1716: \end{equation}
1717: which has been chosen in order to cause a suppression
1718: for ${\bf q}\sim 0$.
1719: After artificially suppressing the diagonal
1720: irreducible susceptibility for ${\bf q}\sim 0$,
1721: the Fourier transform is taken to obtain
1722: $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ of the pure system, which
1723: is then used in calculating $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'})$
1724: of the impure system.
1725: Hence, in this procedure, the diagonal terms
1726: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}\sim 0$
1727: of the impure system have the effects of the pseudogap,
1728: but $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$
1729: and the off-diagonal terms
1730: $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'})$, where ${\bf q}\neq {\bf q'}$,
1731: are not affected by this artificial opening of the pseudogap.
1732: Next, $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ calculated with this
1733: procedure was used in solving Eq.~(\ref{rpa})
1734: for $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$
1735: and in determining the Knight shifts.
1736: The parameter $\kappa$ entering Eq.~(\ref{F})
1737: was arbitrarily chosen to be $\pi/2$.
1738: In addition, $a$ has been chosen such that the ratio of
1739: \begin{equation}
1740: { F(0) \chi_0^L(0)
1741: \over
1742: 1 - U F(0) \chi_0^L(0) }
1743: \end{equation}
1744: to $\chi_0^L(0)/(1-U\chi_0^L(0))$ is equal to
1745: the ratio of $^{89}K$ in pure underdoped
1746: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1747: to that in pure optimally doped
1748: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1749: For instance, at $T=100$ K, this condition is satisfied
1750: by using $a=0.51$.
1751: The opening of the pseudogap
1752: in this way requires slightly larger values of $V_1$
1753: for fitting the Knight shift data.
1754: In Section III.B, the data on $\delta^7K$,
1755: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ and
1756: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})$ were fitted by using $V_1$ between
1757: $-0.125t$ and $-0.15t$.
1758: Here, if $V_1=-0.15t$ is used along with the above
1759: mentioned values of $\kappa$ and $a$, then at $T=100$~K one
1760: obtains the following results for the Knight shifts:
1761: $\delta^7K=650$ ppm,
1762: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})=-180$ ppm, and
1763: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})=-75$ ppm.
1764: On the other hand, at 300 K, it is necessary to use $a=0.25$
1765: and in this case one obtains:
1766: $\delta^7K=250$ ppm,
1767: $\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})=-35$ ppm, and
1768: $\delta^{89}K({\rm middle})=-20$ ppm.
1769: These values for the Knight shifts
1770: are comparable to the data seen in
1771: Figs.~8(a) and 9.
1772: Hence, when the pseudogap is introduced
1773: in $\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q})$ for ${\bf q}\sim 0$
1774: in this artificial way, the Knight shift data can be still fitted,
1775: but by using a slightly larger value for $V_1$.
1776: However,
1777: it must be kept in mind that
1778: the way the pseudogap is introduced here is not rigorous,
1779: and in fact the fitting of the data in this way can be
1780: considered as superfluous.
1781: For this reason, the fitting of the data on the underdoped
1782: compound will not be pursued further.
1783: Rather, here it is only pointed out that
1784: the staggered nature of the induced
1785: magnetic correlations seen in this model appears to be consistent
1786: with the measurements of the
1787: $^7$Li and $^{89}$Y Knight shifts in underdoped
1788: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1789:
1790: \subsection{Dependence of the results
1791: on the effective bandwidth}
1792:
1793: The results seen in Section III were obtained by using an effective
1794: bandwith $W$ of 1 eV.
1795: For a one-band model of the cuprates,
1796: the bare hopping matrix element is estimated
1797: to be of order 0.45 eV leading to a bare bandwidth of 3.6 eV.
1798: While in principle one expects that the Coulomb correlations
1799: act to reduce the bandwidth, it is not clear what the precise
1800: value of the effective bandwidth should be
1801: in an RPA framework.
1802: Hence, it is necessary to check the dependence
1803: of the results on the effective bandwidth $W$,
1804: which was assumed to be 1 eV in Section III.
1805: For this reason, here, the Knight shifts are calculated
1806: for $W=3$~eV.
1807: In this case, larger values of $U$ are required for fitting the
1808: $T_2^{-1}$ data and, consequently, the pure system has
1809: a stronger Stoner enhancement of the antiferromagnetic correlations.
1810: For $W=3$~eV, the value of
1811: the $^{89}$Y hyperfine coupling $D$ was chosen to be
1812: $-2$ kOe/$\mu_B$ in order to fit the value of $^{89}K$ for pure
1813: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$
1814: in the normal state.
1815: The experimental estimate for $D$ is also about
1816: $-2$ kOe/$\mu_B$ \cite{Mahajan99}.
1817:
1818: In Fig.~13, $^7K$ versus $T$ is shown for optimally doped
1819: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ calculated using $W=3$~eV.
1820: Here, the $^7$Li hyperfine coupling $C$
1821: was taken to be $1.4$ kOe/$\mu_B$.
1822: The open circles represent $^7K_0$ deduced from the
1823: $^{89}K$ data \cite{Alloul89} on pure
1824: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$.
1825: The dotted curve represents the theoretical results for
1826: $^7K_0$.
1827: Here, it is seen that a smaller value of
1828: $V_1$ is required for fitting the $^7K$ data as compared to
1829: that for $W=1$ eV.
1830: This is because in this case the antiferromagnetic
1831: correlations are stronger.
1832:
1833: It is also necessary to compare the value of $C$ used here
1834: with the experimental estimate.
1835: In Ref.~\cite{Bobroff}, $C$ was estimated to be 2.4 kOe/$\mu_B$.
1836: This value was deduced by comparing the enhancement of the
1837: uniform susceptibility $\Delta\chi$ with the enhancement of
1838: $^7K$ for the underdoped
1839: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1840: by assuming that the contribution to $\Delta\chi$ is
1841: arising from the changes in the magnetic correlations
1842: at only the four nearest-neighbour Cu(2) sites
1843: of the impurity.
1844: Note, however, that $\Delta\chi$ is given by
1845: \begin{equation}
1846: \Delta\chi = \sum_{j} k({\bf r}_j) -
1847: \chi_{pure}({\bf q}\rightarrow 0),
1848: \end{equation}
1849: where the sum over $j$ is carried over the whole lattice,
1850: and the Knight shift data and the numerical results presented
1851: in this paper indicate that the changes induced in $k({\bf r}_j)$
1852: by the impurity is extended and not restricted to the four
1853: nearest-neighbor sites of the impurity.
1854: In fact, by limiting the changes in $k({\bf r}_j)$ to be only at the
1855: nearest-neighbor sites, one would overestimate
1856: $\Delta\chi$.
1857: Similarly, when one calculates $C$
1858: by using the experimental data on
1859: $\Delta\chi$ and the $^7K$ data,
1860: one would overestimate $C$.
1861: For instance, in Fig. 11(a), it is seen that at 100~K
1862: the enhancement of $k(1,0)$ by the impurity,
1863: $\Delta k(1,0)$, is about 20 states/eV
1864: for underdoped
1865: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1866: If $\Delta\chi$ is estimated by just using the change in
1867: $k(1,0)$, then one would obtain $\Delta\chi=0.4$ states/eV
1868: in the dilute limit for an impurity concentration of 0.5\%.
1869: On the other hand, the calculated value of $\Delta\chi$ at
1870: $T=100$ K and $V_1=-0.15t$ for underdoped
1871: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ in this model is
1872: $\sim 0.2$ states/eV.
1873: Hence, by using $\Delta k(1,0)$
1874: and assuming that the changes in $k({\bf r})$ occur
1875: only at the nearest-neighbor sites of the impurity, one would
1876: overestimate $\Delta\chi$ by about a factor of two.
1877: Similarly,
1878: if $\Delta k(1,0)$ and $\Delta\chi$ are used
1879: to calculate $C$ one would overestimate $C$ by the same amount.
1880: When this is taken into account, it is seen that the values of
1881: $C$ used here, 0.85 kOe/$\mu_B$ in Section III and
1882: 1.4 kOe/$\mu_B$ in Section IV.C, are comparable to the experimental
1883: estimate which was obtained by using
1884: the data on $\Delta\chi$ and $^7K$.
1885:
1886: In Figs.~14(a)--(c), the $T$ dependence of
1887: $\delta^7K$, $-\delta^{89}K$(outer), and
1888: $-\delta^{89}K$(middle) are shown for underdoped
1889: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1890: Here, it is seen that for $V_1=-0.03t$,
1891: the magnitudes of the calculated Knight shifts
1892: agree with the experimental data.
1893: However, the fitting of the $T$ dependence
1894: of the Knight shifts
1895: is not as good as that seen in Section III for $W=1$ eV.
1896:
1897: The results presented in this section show that the value of
1898: $V_1$ required for fitting the Knight shift data depends
1899: on the effective bandwidth.
1900: For $W=3$~eV, the system has stronger enhancement of the AF
1901: correlations compared to that for $W=1$~eV.
1902: Here, it has been shown that as $W$ increases $V_1$ required
1903: for fitting the data decreases.
1904: However, even if a $W$ of 4~eV is used, at the level of RPA,
1905: an impurity potential with $V_1=0$ does not produce sufficient
1906: $T$ variation for fitting the $^7K$ data on optimally doped
1907: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
1908: and a weakly attractive $V_1$ is necessary.
1909:
1910: \subsection{Nature of the effective impurity potential}
1911:
1912: Because of the Coulomb correlations,
1913: the bare impurity potential which has only an onsite
1914: component $V_0\sum_{\sigma} c^{\dagger}_{0\sigma}c _{0\sigma}$
1915: could acquire an extended component
1916: through higher-order scattering processes \cite{Ziegler}.
1917: How this could happen at lowest order in the Coulomb
1918: repulsion $U$ is discussed in Appendix II.
1919: This extended component is modelled here by using a
1920: static $V_1$ as a free parameter.
1921: In this picture, the fact that the Knight shift
1922: data imply $V_1<0$ is giving information on the
1923: effective particle-particle interaction in the system.
1924: The real-space structure of the effective impurity interaction
1925: was studied at half-filling for the $t$-$J$ model
1926: within the exact diagonalization calculations \cite{Ziegler}.
1927: It is useful to calculate $V_1$
1928: in exact numerical calculations away from half-filling.
1929: This would be a test of the model presented here.
1930: Furthermore, note that here $V_1$ is assumed to have no
1931: temperature dependence.
1932: However, $V_1$ could depend on $T$,
1933: if indeed the Coulomb correlations play
1934: a role in inducing the extended component of the impurity potential.
1935: This could quantitatively affect the fits seen above.
1936:
1937: These results carried out at the level of RPA imply that
1938: $V_1$ is weakly attractive.
1939: At this level, even though an onsite scattering potential
1940: ($V_1=0$) yields large enhancements of the Knight shifts,
1941: it is still insufficient for fitting the $T$ dependence,
1942: for instance, of $^7K$ in optimally doped
1943: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
1944: However, note that corrections beyond RPA
1945: might change this result.
1946: For instance, the spin-fluctuation self-energy corrections
1947: to the single-particle Green's functions,
1948: when taken into account self-consistently,
1949: could play an important role.
1950:
1951: Within this model, the Knight shift experiments on the cuprates with
1952: nonmagnetic impurities are interesting especially
1953: because they probe the interplay of the correlations in the
1954: density and the magnetic channels.
1955: The effective impurity potential acts in the density channel while
1956: its spatially-resolved magnetic response is detected
1957: through the Knight shift measurements.
1958: Similarly, the recent $^7$Li Knight shift
1959: measurements \cite{NMRSC}
1960: in the $d$-wave superconducting state of
1961: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
1962: give valuable information
1963: about the interplay of the density, magnetic and the $d$-wave
1964: superconducting correlations in this material.
1965:
1966: Another set of experiments which produce spatially
1967: resolved information on the effects of the nonmagnetic impurities
1968: are the STM measurements on Zn substituted BISCO
1969: \cite{Pan}.
1970: These measurements have been carried out in the superconducting
1971: state.
1972: Clearly, similar STM measurements above $T_c$ would be
1973: useful for understanding the effects of the nonmagnetic impurities
1974: in the normal state.
1975: This would allow for a direct comparison of the single-particle
1976: properties with this model.
1977:
1978: It is also desirable to extend these model calculations
1979: to the superconducting state in order to make comparisons
1980: with the STM \cite{Pan} and the recent NMR \cite{NMRSC}
1981: measurements below $T_c$.
1982: However, note that if a spin-fluctuation mediated mechanism
1983: is assumed for the $d$-wave pairing, then the effects of the impurity
1984: on the pairing potential
1985: need to be taken into account as well as the scattering
1986: of the quasiparticles by the impurity.
1987: This is because it is already known in the normal state
1988: that in the local environment of the impurity the spin-fluctuations
1989: are strongly modified
1990: \cite{Mahajan94,Bobroff,Mendels,Mahajan99,Alloul99,MacFarlane,Julien,Ishida93,Zheng,Ishida96}.
1991:
1992: Here, the effects of the scatterings by a nonmagnetic impurity
1993: on the magnetic spectrum is studied by modelling the impurity
1994: as a potential scatterer.
1995: In this respect, disorder could have effects similar to those of
1996: nonmagnetic impurities, and it has been already pointed out
1997: that the anomalous
1998: line broadening of $^{63}$Cu(2) in
1999: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ could be due
2000: to the intrinsic disorder in this compound
2001: \cite{Slichter}.
2002:
2003: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
2004:
2005: In this paper, the Knight shift data on
2006: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2007: with nonmagnetic impurities
2008: have been analyzed within a rather simple model
2009: exhibiting short-range antiferromagnetic correlations.
2010: The antiferromagnetic correlations have been modelled
2011: within the framework of the 2D Hubbard model,
2012: and the effects of an impurity have been approximated by
2013: using a static extended impurity potential.
2014: The strength of the antiferromagnetic correlations in the
2015: pure system has been determined by fitting the
2016: $T_2^{-1}$ data of pure
2017: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2018: The impurity potential has been assumed to have a range of
2019: just one lattice spacing without any temperature dependence.
2020: The onsite component of the impurity potential was taken to be
2021: strongly attractive, and the near-neighbor component $V_1$
2022: was treated as a free parameter
2023: in fitting the Knight shift data.
2024: The simplicity of the model and the differences
2025: in the stoichiometry of the samples along
2026: with the uncertainities in the hyperfine couplings
2027: are factors which limit the conclusions which can be drawn.
2028: Nevertheless, here,
2029: it has been found that the anomalous $T$ dependence of $^7 K$ in
2030: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7}$
2031: can be fitted,
2032: if a weakly attractive $V_1$ is used.
2033: The nature of the effective impurity potential
2034: could be studied in the
2035: paramagnetic state of the Hubbard model, where there are
2036: short range antiferromagnetic correlations,
2037: by using exact numerical methods.
2038: This could be a test of one of the main assumptions
2039: of this model.
2040: Especially, the sign of $V_1$ could be tested.
2041: These calculations have been
2042: also extended to the case of underdoped
2043: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2044: after making various assumptions about the magnetic correlations
2045: in this compound, which has a magnetic pseudogap.
2046: Based on these assumptions,
2047: it has been found that
2048: the real-space structure of the magnetic correlations
2049: in the vicinity of the impurity is consistent with the
2050: Knight shift experiments.
2051: However, caution is necessary in interpreting the
2052: results on underdoped
2053: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2054:
2055: The results presented in this paper depend on the nature of the
2056: effective impurity potential used.
2057: Any magnetic scattering component in $V_{\rm eff}$
2058: could significantly change the results.
2059: Furthermore, it needs to be kept in mind that
2060: the validity of these results depend on the
2061: weak-coupling approach used for calculating the magnetic correlations.
2062: Clearly, much remains to be understood about the
2063: effects of the Zn or Li impurities on the magnetic correlations of
2064: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2065: in the normal state.
2066:
2067: \vspace{0.4 in}
2068:
2069: \begin{center}
2070: {\bf {Appendix I: {\boldmath$^7$}Li Knight shift}}
2071: \end{center}
2072:
2073: In the presence of a uniform static magnetic field,
2074: ${\bf B}=B_0{\bf z}$, and a hyperfine coupling to the
2075: electronic spins given by Eq.~(\ref{A7}),
2076: the interaction energy of a $^7$Li nuclear moment
2077: $^7{\bf {\mu}}= \hbar ^7\gamma_n {\bf I}$ is
2078: \begin{equation}
2079: -\hbar ^7\gamma_n I^z B_0 +
2080: C I^z \sum_{i=1}^4
2081: \langle S^z({\bf r}_i) \rangle,
2082: \end{equation}
2083: where $i$ sums over the four Cu(2) sites neighboring the $^7$Li
2084: impurity.
2085: This expression can be rewritten as
2086: \begin{equation}
2087: -\hbar ^7\gamma_n I^z B_0 ( 1 + ^7K ),
2088: \end{equation}
2089: where the $^7$Li Knight shift $^7K$ defined by
2090: \begin{equation}
2091: ^7K = -
2092: \bigg( { C \over \hbar ^7\gamma_n B_0 } \bigg)
2093: \sum_{i=1}^4 \langle S^z({\bf r}_i) \rangle
2094: \end{equation}
2095: gives the fractional change in the Zeeman frequency
2096: of the nuclear magnetic moment due to the hyperfine coupling.
2097: According to the Kubo linear-response theory \cite{Mahan},
2098: the expectation value at time $t$
2099: of the electronic spin at site ${\bf r}_i$,
2100: $\langle S^z({\bf r}_i,t)\rangle $,
2101: is given by
2102: \begin{equation}
2103: \label{Sz}
2104: \langle S^z({\bf r}_i,t) \rangle = -i
2105: \int_{-\infty}^t \, dt' \,
2106: \langle [ S^z({\bf r}_i,t), V_Z(t')] \rangle
2107: \theta(t-t') ,
2108: \end{equation}
2109: where $V_Z(t') = e^{iH_0 t} V_Z e^{-iH_0 t}$ with
2110: the Zeeman term for the electronic spins
2111: \begin{equation}
2112: V_Z = - \hbar \gamma_e B_0 \sum_j S^z({\bf r}_j).
2113: \end{equation}
2114: In Eq.~(\ref{Sz}), the expectation values are evaluated with
2115: respect to the eigenstates of
2116: \begin{equation}
2117: H_0 = H_{Hubbard} + V_{imp},
2118: \end{equation}
2119: where $H_{Hubbard}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Hubbard}) and the impurity
2120: interaction $V_{imp}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Vimp}).
2121: In the adiabatic limit and as $t\rightarrow \infty$,
2122: $\langle S^z({\bf r}_i) \rangle $
2123: is related to the magnetic susceptibility
2124: \cite{Mahan},
2125: and in this limit
2126: Eq.~(\ref{Sz}) reduces to
2127: \begin{equation}
2128: \langle S^z ({\bf r}_i) \rangle =
2129: {1\over 2} \hbar \gamma_e B_0
2130: \sum_j \chi({\bf r}_i, {\bf r}_j)
2131: \end{equation}
2132: where the transverse susceptibility
2133: $\chi({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)= \chi({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,i\omega_m=0)$
2134: is defined by Eq.~(\ref{chi}).
2135: Hence, the $^7$Li Knight shift is given by
2136: \begin{equation}
2137: ^7K = {1 \over 2}
2138: \bigg( {\gamma_e \over ^7\gamma_n} \bigg) C
2139: \sum_{i=1}^4 k({\bf r}_i)
2140: \end{equation}
2141: where
2142: \begin{equation}
2143: k({\bf r}_i) = \sum_j \chi({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)
2144: \end{equation}
2145: with $j$ summing over the whole lattice.
2146: Note that for the pure system $k({\bf r}_i)$ reduces to
2147: $\chi_{pure}({\bf q}\rightarrow 0)$.
2148:
2149: \vspace{0.4 in}
2150:
2151: \begin{center}
2152: {\bf {Appendix II: {\boldmath$V_{\rm eff}$} at lowest order in
2153: {\boldmath$U$}}}
2154: \end{center}
2155:
2156: It is possible that the effective impurity potential
2157: has an extended component because of the correlated nature
2158: of the host material \cite{Ziegler}.
2159: At lowest order in the bare impurity potential $V_0$
2160: and the Coluomb repulsion $U$, such a contribution
2161: originates from the scattering process shown in
2162: Fig.~15.
2163: This process leads to a momentum-dependent effective interaction
2164: which is given by
2165: \begin{equation}
2166: V^{(1)}_{\rm eff}({\bf q}) = - V_0 U
2167: \chi_0^L({\bf q}),
2168: \end{equation}
2169: where $\chi_0^L$ is the Lindhard susceptibility of the pure
2170: system, Eq.~(\ref{Lindhard}).
2171: Since $\chi_0^L({\bf q})$ peaks at
2172: ${\bf q}\sim (\pi,\pi)$,
2173: $V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}$ is attractive at sites neighboring the
2174: impurity when $V_0<0$.
2175: For large $V_0$, it is necessary to replace the bare impurity
2176: potential in Fig.~15 by the impurity scattering $t$-matrix,
2177: in which case one obtains
2178: \begin{eqnarray}
2179: V^{(1)}_{\rm eff}({\bf q}) = U {T \over N}
2180: \sum_{{\bf k},i\omega_{n'}} \,
2181: G_0&&({\bf k},i\omega_{n'})
2182: G_0({\bf k}+{\bf q},i\omega_{n'}) \nonumber \\
2183: &&
2184: \times
2185: { V_0 \over 1 - V_0 F_0(i\omega_{n'}) },
2186: \end{eqnarray}
2187: where
2188: \begin{equation}
2189: F_0(i\omega_n) = {1 \over N} \sum_{\bf p}
2190: G_0({\bf p},i\omega_n).
2191: \end{equation}
2192: The Fourier transform
2193: \begin{equation}
2194: V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}({\bf r}) = {1 \over N} \sum_{\bf q}
2195: e^{i {\bf q} \cdot {\bf r}}
2196: V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}({\bf q})
2197: \end{equation}
2198: gives the real-space structure of the effective interaction.
2199: This calculation of $V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}({\bf r})$ has been
2200: carried out for $V_0=-100t$, $T=100$~K and $W=3$~eV,
2201: and it is found that $V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}({\bf r})$
2202: at ${\bf r}=(1,0)$ is $-0.017t$.
2203: Even though $V_{\rm eff}^{(1)}({\bf r}=(1,0))$
2204: is found to be attractive in leading order in $U$,
2205: its magnitude is smaller by a factor of three from $V_1=-0.05t$
2206: found by fitting the $^7K$ data on optimally doped
2207: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2208:
2209: This is the behavior expected for $V_{\rm eff}$ at lowest
2210: order in $U$.
2211: Clearly, an approximation which is first order in $U$
2212: would be insufficient.
2213: The actual structure of $V_{\rm eff}$, which includes
2214: scattering processes to all orders in $U$, depends on the
2215: reducible particle-particle vertex in the singlet and the
2216: triplet channels.
2217: Hence, it would be useful to calculate
2218: $V_{\rm eff}$ using exact numerical techniques in the paramagnetic
2219: state of the Hubbard or the $t$-$J$ models.
2220: However, it should be noted that the structure in
2221: the electron density $n({\bf r})$ does not necessarily
2222: reflect the structure in $V_{\rm eff}$, as it was seen in
2223: Fig.~11(c).
2224: In Ref.~\cite{Ziegler}, $V_{\rm eff}$ was calculated
2225: for the $t$-$J$ model but at half-filling, where $V_{\rm eff}$
2226: at the $(1,0)$ site was found to be repulsive.
2227: However, the insulating state might be different than the
2228: paramagnetic state, which is considered here.
2229: In Ref.~\cite{Bulut2000}, an effective impurity interaction
2230: which is repulsive at ${\bf r}=(1,0)$ was used
2231: for calculating the enhancement of the uniform susceptibility
2232: by dilute nonmagnetic impurities.
2233: Since both positive and negative values of $V_1$ act to enhance
2234: the uniform susceptibility,
2235: this does not determine the sign of $V_1$.
2236: On the other hand,
2237: the Knight shift data studied here require that,
2238: at the level of RPA,
2239: $V_{\rm eff}$ at the nearest-neighbor sites of the impurity
2240: is weakly attractive.
2241:
2242: \acknowledgments
2243:
2244: The author gratefully acknowledges helpful discussions
2245: with H. Alloul, J. Bobroff, P. Bourges, C. Hammel, B. Keimer,
2246: Y. Sidis, and C.P. Slichter.
2247: The author also thanks H. Alloul and J. Bobroff for helpful comments
2248: on the manuscript
2249: and the Laboratoire de Physique des Solides at Orsay
2250: for its hospitality.
2251: The numerical computations reported in this paper were performed
2252: at the Center for Information Technology at Ko\c{c} University.
2253:
2254: %\newpage
2255:
2256: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
2257:
2258: \bibitem{Mahajan94} A.V. Mahajan, H. Alloul, G. Collin, and
2259: J.-F. Marucco,
2260: \prl {\bf 72}, 3100 (1994).
2261:
2262: \bibitem{Bobroff} J. Bobroff, W.A. MacFarlane, H. Alloul, P. Mendels,
2263: N. Blanchard, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco,
2264: \prl {\bf 83}, 4381 (1999).
2265:
2266: \bibitem{Mendels} P. Mendels, J. Bobroff, G. Collin, H. Alloul,
2267: M. Gabay, J.-F. Marucco, N. Blanchard, and B. Grenier,
2268: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 46}, 678 (1999).
2269:
2270: \bibitem{Mahajan99} A.V. Mahajan, H. Alloul, G. Collin, and
2271: J.-F. Marucco,
2272: Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 13}, 457 (2000).
2273:
2274: \bibitem{Alloul99} H. Alloul, J. Bobroff, A. Mahajan, P. Mendels,
2275: and Y. Yoshinari,
2276: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Suppl. B,
2277: {\bf 59}, 114 (2000).
2278:
2279: \bibitem{MacFarlane} W.A. MacFarlane, J. Bobroff, H. Alloul,
2280: P. Mendels, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco,
2281: \prl {\bf 85}, 1108 (2000).
2282:
2283: \bibitem{Julien} M.-H. Julien, T. Feher, M. Horvatic,
2284: C. Berthier, O.N. Bakharev, P. Segransan, G. Collin,
2285: and J.-F. Marucco,
2286: \prl {\bf 84}, 3422 (2000).
2287:
2288: \bibitem{Ishida93} K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, N. Ogata, T. Kamino,
2289: K. Asayama, J.R. Cooper, and N. Athanassopoulou,
2290: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 62}, 2803 (1993).
2291:
2292: \bibitem{Zheng} G. Zheng, T. Odaguchi, T. Mito, Y. Kitaoka,
2293: K. Asayama, and Y. Kodama,
2294: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 62} 2591 (1993).
2295:
2296: \bibitem{Ishida96} K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, K. Yamazoe, K. Asayama,
2297: and Y. Yamada,
2298: \prl {\bf 76}, 531 (1996).
2299:
2300: \bibitem{Kakurai} K. Kakurai, S. Shamoto, T. Kiyokura,
2301: M. Sato, J.M. Tranquada, and G. Shirane,
2302: \prb {\bf 48}, 3485 (1993).
2303:
2304: \bibitem{Sidis} Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, B. Hennion, L.P. Regnault,
2305: R. Vielleneuve, G. Collin, and J.F. Marucco,
2306: \prb {\bf 53}, 6811 (1996).
2307:
2308: \bibitem{Fong} H.F. Fong, P. Bourges, Y. Sidis,
2309: L.P. Regnault, J. Bossy, A. Ivanov, D.L. Milius, I.A. Aksay,
2310: and B. Keimer,
2311: \prl {\bf 82}, 1939 (1999).
2312:
2313: \bibitem{Sidis2000} Y. Sidis, P. Bourges, B. Keimer, L.P. Regnault,
2314: J. Bossy, A. Ivanov, B. Hennion, P. Gautier-Picard,
2315: and G. Collin,
2316: preprint, cond-mat/0006265.
2317:
2318: \bibitem{Heisenberg} N. Bulut, D. Hone, D.J. Scalapino,
2319: and E.Y. Loh,
2320: \prl {\bf 62}, 2192 (1989).
2321:
2322: \bibitem{Sandvik} A. Sandvik, E. Dagotto, and D.J. Scalapino,
2323: \prb {\bf 56}, 11701 (1997).
2324:
2325: \bibitem{Poilblanc} D. Poilblanc, D.J. Scalapino, and W. Hanke,
2326: \prl {\bf 72}, 884 (1994);
2327: \prb {\bf 50}, 13020 (1994).
2328:
2329: \bibitem{Gabay} M. Gabay,
2330: Physica C {\bf 235-240}, 1337 (1994).
2331:
2332: \bibitem{Li} J.-X. Li, W.-G. Yin, and C.-D. Gong,
2333: \prb {\bf 58}, 2895 (1998).
2334:
2335: \bibitem{Bulut2000} N. Bulut,
2336: \prb {\bf 61}, 9051 (2000).
2337:
2338: \bibitem{neutron} N. Bulut,
2339: Physica C {\bf 353}, 270 (2001).
2340:
2341: \bibitem{Pennington} C.H. Pennington and C.P. Slichter,
2342: \prl {\bf 66}, 381 (1991).
2343:
2344: \bibitem{Itoh} Y. Itoh, H. Yasuoka, Y. Fujiwara, Y. Ueda,
2345: T. Machi, I. Tomeno, K. Tai, N. Koshizuka, and S. Tanaka,
2346: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 61}, 1287 (1992).
2347:
2348: \bibitem{Imai} T. Imai, C.P. Slichter, A.P. Paulikas, and B. Veal,
2349: \prb {\bf 47}, 9158 (1993).
2350:
2351: \bibitem{Takigawa94} M. Takigawa,
2352: \prb {\bf 49}, 4158 (1994).
2353:
2354: \bibitem{Xiang} T. Xiang and J.M. Wheatley,
2355: \prb {\bf 51}, 11721 (1995).
2356:
2357: \bibitem{Ziegler} W. Ziegler, D. Poilblanc, R. Preuss,
2358: W. Hanke, and D.J. Scalapino,
2359: \prb {\bf 53}, 8704 (1996).
2360:
2361: \bibitem{Hirschfeld} L.S. Borkowski and P.J. Hirschfeld,
2362: \prb {\bf 49}, 15404 (1994).
2363:
2364: \bibitem{T1} N. Bulut, D. Hone, D.J. Scalapino and N.E. Bickers,
2365: \prl {\bf 64}, 2723 (1990).
2366:
2367: \bibitem{T2} N. Bulut and D.J. Scalapino,
2368: \prl {\bf 67}, 2898 (1991).
2369:
2370: \bibitem{PhysicaC} N. Bulut, D.J. Scalapino and S.R. White,
2371: Physica C {\bf 246}, 85 (1995).
2372:
2373: \bibitem{MR} F. Mila and T.M. Rice,
2374: Physica C {\bf 157}, 561 (1989).
2375:
2376: \bibitem{Arai} M. Arai, T. Nishijima, Y. Endoh, T. Egami,
2377: S. Tajima, K. Tomimoto, Y. Shiohara, M. Takahashi, A. Garrett,
2378: and S.M. Bennington,
2379: \prl {\bf 83}, 608 (1999).
2380:
2381: \bibitem{Bourges} Ph. Bourges, B. Keimer,
2382: L.P. Regnault, and Y. Sidis,
2383: preprint, cond-mat/0006085.
2384:
2385: \bibitem{Tc} F. Rullier-Albenque, P.A. Vieillefond, H. Alloul,
2386: A.W. Tyler, P. Lejay, and J.F. Marucco,
2387: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 50} (1), 81 (2000).
2388:
2389: \bibitem{irradiation} J. Bobroff, H. Alloul, F. Rullier-Albenque,
2390: and P.A. Vieillefond,
2391: Proceedings of M$^2$S-HTSC-VI, Houston (2000).
2392:
2393: \bibitem{Langer} J.S. Langer,
2394: Phys. Rev. {\bf 120}, 714 (1960).
2395:
2396: \bibitem{Alloul89} H. Alloul, T. Ohno, and P. Mendels,
2397: \prl {\bf 63}, 1700 (1989).
2398:
2399: \bibitem{Takigawa93} M. Takigawa, W.L. Hults, and J.L. Smith,
2400: \prl {\bf 71}, 2650 (1993).
2401:
2402: \bibitem{89Y} When the magnetic resonance spectrum of
2403: $^{89}$Y in underdoped
2404: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2405: with Zn impurities is compared with the
2406: $^{89}$Y spectrum within the presence of Li
2407: impurities, it is found that
2408: $^{89}K({\rm outer})$ and
2409: $^{89}K({\rm middle})$ are shifted by about 20\% more to higher values
2410: for Li compared to Zn \cite{Bobroff}.
2411: This could be because the stoichiometry
2412: of the Zn substituted and the Li substituted samples
2413: might be different \cite{Bobroff}.
2414: For this reason, it would have been probably better to divide
2415: the calculated values of $\delta^{89}K$'s by a factor of 1.2
2416: before comparing them with the
2417: $\delta ^{89}K$ experimental data.
2418: However, this will not qualitatively affect the fits
2419: seen in Figs.~9(a) and (b).
2420:
2421: \bibitem{Finitesize} $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ seen in
2422: Fig.~12(b) is not a smooth curve, hence one could expect
2423: large finite size effects
2424: on the Knight shifts.
2425: This is not the case
2426: because of the way the calculation of
2427: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$
2428: is carried out.
2429: As described in Ref. \cite{Bulut2000},
2430: $\chi_0({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ is calculated on a small lattice
2431: ($28\times 28$), however by using
2432: $G_0({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j,i\omega_n)$
2433: and $\chi_0^L({\bf q})$
2434: calculated on large lattices.
2435: Hence, when the RPA equation is solved for
2436: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ on the small lattice, the local quantities
2437: such as the Knight shifts for the sites near the impurity
2438: have small finite size effects,
2439: even though
2440: $\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ obtained from
2441: $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ is not a smooth curve.
2442:
2443: \bibitem{Korringa} N. Bulut and U. Yaz,
2444: unpublished.
2445:
2446: \bibitem{Li7} Comparisons with the $^7$Li $T_1^{-1}$ data
2447: will also be useful in estimating the magnitude of the
2448: $^7$Li hyperfine coupling.
2449:
2450: \bibitem{Pan} S.H. Pan, E.W. Hudson, K.M. Lang,
2451: H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J.C. Davis,
2452: Nature {\bf 403}, 746 (2000).
2453:
2454: \bibitem{SidisPC} Y. Sidis, private communication.
2455:
2456: \bibitem{NMRSC} J. Bobroff, H. Alloul, W.A. MacFarlane,
2457: P. Mendels, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, and J.-F. Marucco,
2458: preprint, cond-mat/0010234.
2459:
2460: \bibitem{Slichter} J. Haase, C.P. Slichter, R. Stern, C.T. Milling,
2461: and D.G. Hinks,
2462: ``Third International Conference on Stripes
2463: and High $T_c$ Superconductivity'',
2464: Rome (2000).
2465:
2466: \bibitem{Mahan} See, for example,
2467: G. Mahan, ``Many-Particle Physics'',
2468: Plenum Press (1981).
2469:
2470: \end{thebibliography}
2471:
2472: \newpage
2473:
2474: \begin{figure}
2475: \begin{center}
2476: \leavevmode
2477: \epsfxsize=10cm
2478: \epsfysize=10cm
2479: \epsffile[100 180 550 630]{f1.ps}
2480: \end{center}
2481: \caption{
2482: Illustration of the extended impurity potential due to
2483: a nonmagnetic impurity
2484: represented by the filled square at the center.
2485: Here,
2486: $V_0$ is the onsite component of the impurity potential and
2487: $V_1$ acts at the nearest-neighbour sites of the impurity.
2488: }
2489: \label{fig1}
2490: \end{figure}
2491:
2492: \newpage
2493:
2494: \begin{figure}
2495: \begin{center}
2496: \leavevmode
2497: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2498: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2499: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f2a.ps}
2500: \end{center}
2501: \begin{center}
2502: \leavevmode
2503: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2504: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2505: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f2b.ps}
2506: \end{center}
2507: \caption{
2508: (a) Transverse nuclear relaxation rate $T_2^{-1}$ for
2509: $^{63}$Cu(2) versus $T$ in pure
2510: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2511: The open and the filled circles represent the experimental
2512: data by Imai {\it et al.} [24]
2513: and Takigawa [25]
2514: for
2515: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$
2516: and for
2517: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$,
2518: respectively.
2519: The dashed line is a fit of the $T_2^{-1}$ data
2520: by Imai {\it et al.} [24] on
2521: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$.
2522: For
2523: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$,
2524: the fitting of the data below 160~K
2525: has been carried out in two ways.
2526: The solid line has been obtained by
2527: ignoring the
2528: saturation of $T_2^{-1}$ below $\sim 160$ K,
2529: and
2530: the dotted curve has been obtained by fitting the data for
2531: 80~K$<T<160$~K.
2532: (b) Temperature dependence of $U$.
2533: The dashed curve has been obtained by fitting the $T_2^{-1}$
2534: measurements on pure
2535: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$.
2536: The solid and the dotted curves have been obtained for pure
2537: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$
2538: by fitting the solid and the dotted curves seen in (a).
2539: }
2540: \label{fig2}
2541: \end{figure}
2542:
2543: \newpage
2544:
2545: \begin{figure}
2546: \begin{center}
2547: \leavevmode
2548: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2549: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2550: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f3a.ps}
2551: \end{center}
2552: \begin{center}
2553: \leavevmode
2554: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2555: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2556: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f3b.ps}
2557: \end{center}
2558: \begin{center}
2559: \leavevmode
2560: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2561: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2562: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f3c.ps}
2563: \end{center}
2564: \caption{
2565: (a) $\chi_{pure}({\bf q})$ versus ${\bf q}$ at 100~K
2566: for the pure system.
2567: The dashed curve represents results for
2568: optimally doped
2569: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2570: The solid and the dotted curves have been obtained for
2571: underdoped
2572: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2573: (b) $\chi({\bf Q^*})$ versus $T$
2574: for optimally doped
2575: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
2576: where ${\bf Q^*}$ is the wavevector at which $\chi({\bf q})$ peaks
2577: at low temperatures.
2578: Here, the dashed curve is for optimally doped pure
2579: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$, and
2580: the solid curve is for the
2581: case of 0.5\% dilute impurities.
2582: (c) $\chi({\bf Q^*})$ versus $T$
2583: for underdoped
2584: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2585: The dashed curve is for the pure system
2586: and the solid curve is for
2587: the case with 0.5\% impurities.
2588: The dotted curves were obtained by using the values of $U$
2589: given by the dotted curves in Fig.~2(b).
2590: The results for the impure systems
2591: shown in (b) and (c)
2592: were calculated for $V_1=-0.15t$
2593: as described in Section IV.A.
2594: }
2595: \label{fig3}
2596: \end{figure}
2597:
2598: \newpage
2599:
2600: \begin{figure}
2601: \begin{center}
2602: \leavevmode
2603: \epsfxsize=10cm
2604: \epsfysize=10cm
2605: \epsffile[100 180 550 630]{f4.ps}
2606: \end{center}
2607: \caption{
2608: Feynman diagrams for
2609: (a) the dressed single-particle Green's function $G$ and
2610: (b)-(c) the irreducible susceptibility $\chi_0$
2611: within the presence of one impurity.
2612: }
2613: \label{fig4}
2614: \end{figure}
2615:
2616: \newpage
2617:
2618: \begin{figure}
2619: \begin{center}
2620: \leavevmode
2621: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2622: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2623: \epsffile[100 200 550 610]{f5.ps}
2624: \end{center}
2625: \caption{
2626: Sketch of the neighbouring Y($i$) sites of
2627: a nonmagnetic impurity located in the CuO$_2$ plane.
2628: Here, the filled square indicates the impurity site.
2629: }
2630: \label{fig5}
2631: \end{figure}
2632:
2633: \newpage
2634:
2635: \begin{figure}
2636: \begin{center}
2637: \leavevmode
2638: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2639: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2640: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f6a.ps}
2641: \end{center}
2642: \begin{center}
2643: \leavevmode
2644: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2645: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2646: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f6b.ps}
2647: \end{center}
2648: \caption{
2649: (a) $^7$Li Knight shift $^7K$ versus $T$ in
2650: optimally doped
2651: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2652: The filled circles represent the Knight shift data by Bobroff
2653: {\it et al.} [2].
2654: The curves represent the results of the calculations
2655: for various values of $V_1/t$
2656: which are indicated next to the curves.
2657: (b) Estimated temperature dependence of
2658: $^7K_0$ for optimally doped
2659: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2660: Here, $^7K_0$ represents the value of the
2661: $^7$Li Knight shift, if the substitution of the Li impurity
2662: had not induced any changes in the magnetic correlations
2663: around it.
2664: The dashed curve is the experimental estimate of
2665: $^7K_0$ obtained by using the $^{89}K$ data [38] on pure
2666: optimally doped
2667: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2668: The solid line is the result obtained by setting
2669: $V_0=V_1=0$ in this model.
2670: }
2671: \label{fig6}
2672: \end{figure}
2673:
2674: \newpage
2675:
2676: \begin{figure}
2677: \begin{center}
2678: \leavevmode
2679: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2680: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2681: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f7a.ps}
2682: \end{center}
2683: \begin{center}
2684: \leavevmode
2685: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2686: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2687: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f7b.ps}
2688: \end{center}
2689: \caption{
2690: (a) Temperature dependence of $-\delta^{89}K$
2691: at the sites which are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
2692: and the 4th nearest
2693: $^{89}$Y neighbors of the impurity in
2694: optimally doped
2695: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2696: Here,
2697: $\delta^{89}K$ is the induced change in the
2698: $^{89}$Y Knight shift up on the substitution of the
2699: impurity.
2700: (b) Temperature dependence of the $^{63}$Cu(2)
2701: Knight shift for ${\bf H}||{\bf c}$,
2702: $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$,
2703: at various sites ${\bf r}_i$,
2704: which are indicated next to the curves,
2705: for the optimally doped
2706: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2707: The results shown in (a) and (b)
2708: were obtained by using
2709: $V_1= -0.15t$.
2710: }
2711: \label{fig7}
2712: \end{figure}
2713:
2714: \newpage
2715:
2716: \begin{figure}
2717: \begin{center}
2718: \leavevmode
2719: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2720: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2721: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f8a.ps}
2722: \end{center}
2723: \begin{center}
2724: \leavevmode
2725: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2726: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2727: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f8b.ps}
2728: \end{center}
2729: \caption{
2730: (a) Temperature dependence of
2731: $\delta^7K$
2732: for underdoped
2733: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2734: Here, $\delta^7K$ is defined as $^7K-^7K_0$,
2735: where $^7K$ is the $^7$Li Knight shift and
2736: $^7K_0$ represents the value of the $^7$Li Knight shift,
2737: if the substitution of the Li impurity had not changed
2738: the magnetic correlations around it.
2739: The filled circles represent the data
2740: by Bobroff {\it et al.} [2] on
2741: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$.
2742: The curves represent the results of the calculations
2743: for various values of $V_1/t$ which are
2744: indicated next to the curves.
2745: (b) Temperature dependence of
2746: $^7K_0$ for underdoped
2747: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2748: The solid points have been obtained by using the
2749: $^{89}K({\rm main})$ data on underdoped
2750: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2751: with Zn impurities [1,4],
2752: while the dashed curve has been obtained by using the
2753: $^{89}K$ data on pure underdoped
2754: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ [38].
2755: The solid curve shows the results of the calculations for
2756: $V_0=V_1=0$.
2757: }
2758: \label{fig8}
2759: \end{figure}
2760:
2761: \newpage
2762:
2763: \begin{figure}
2764: \begin{center}
2765: \leavevmode
2766: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2767: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2768: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f9a.ps}
2769: \end{center}
2770: \begin{center}
2771: \leavevmode
2772: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2773: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2774: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f9b.ps}
2775: \end{center}
2776: \caption{
2777: (a) Temperature dependence of $-\delta^{89}K(\rm outer)$
2778: in underdoped
2779: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2780: with Zn impurities.
2781: Here, $\delta^{89}K(\rm outer)$ is defined as the shift of the outer
2782: $^{89}$Y satellite with respect to the $^{89}$Y main resonance line.
2783: The open and the filled circles represent the experimental data on
2784: $-\delta^{89}K({\rm outer})$ in underdoped
2785: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2786: with Zn impurities
2787: for the magnetic field ${\bf H}|| {\bf c}$
2788: and ${\bf H}\perp {\bf c}$,
2789: respectively [1,4].
2790: The curves represent the results obtained
2791: by using various values of $V_1/t$
2792: which are indicated next to the curves
2793: for the Y(1) site, which is the nearest $^{89}$Y neighbour
2794: of the nonmagnetic impurity.
2795: (b) Results similar to those in (a) but for $-\delta^{89}K(\rm middle)$.
2796: Here, $\delta^{89}K(\rm middle)$ is defined as the shift of the middle
2797: $^{89}$Y resonance line with respect to the main line.
2798: The curves represent results
2799: for various values of $V_1/t$
2800: for the Y(2) site, which is the second-nearest
2801: $^{89}$Y neighbour of the nonmagnetic impurity.
2802: }
2803: \label{fig9}
2804: \end{figure}
2805:
2806: \newpage
2807:
2808: \begin{figure}
2809: \begin{center}
2810: \leavevmode
2811: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2812: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2813: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f10.ps}
2814: \end{center}
2815: \caption{
2816: Temperature dependence of the $^{63}$Cu(2) Knight shift
2817: for ${\bf H}||{\bf c}$, $^{63}K_c({\bf r}_i)$,
2818: in underdoped
2819: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2820: at sites ${\bf r}_i$
2821: which are indicated next to the curves.
2822: These results were obtained for
2823: $V_1=-0.15t$ using the values of $U(T)$ given by the
2824: solid curve in Fig.~2(b).
2825: }
2826: \label{fig10}
2827: \end{figure}
2828:
2829: %\newpage
2830:
2831: \begin{figure}
2832: \begin{center}
2833: \leavevmode
2834: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2835: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2836: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f11a.ps}
2837: \end{center}
2838: \begin{center}
2839: \leavevmode
2840: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2841: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2842: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f11b.ps}
2843: \end{center}
2844: \begin{center}
2845: \leavevmode
2846: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2847: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2848: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f11c.ps}
2849: \end{center}
2850: \caption{
2851: (a) $k({\bf r})$ versus
2852: the distance $r$ away from the impurity
2853: in units of the lattice spacing $a$ for $T=100$~K
2854: and $V_1=-0.15t$.
2855: Here, the open and the filled circles represent
2856: the results for the optimally doped and the underdoped
2857: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
2858: respectively.
2859: Also,
2860: the horizontal long-dashed and dotted lines represent
2861: $k({\bf r})$ for the
2862: optimally doped and underdoped pure systems, respectively.
2863: (b) $\chi({\bf r},{\bf r})$ versus the distance $r$
2864: away from the impurity presented in the same way as in
2865: (a) for $k({\bf r})$.
2866: (c) Electron occupation $n({\bf r}_i)$ at sites ${\bf r}_i$ near
2867: the impurity plotted as a function
2868: $r=|{\bf r}_i|$ at 100 K.
2869: These results were obtained for $V_1/t=-0.15$ with
2870: $W=1$ eV (solid) and for $V_1/t=-0.05$ with $W=3$ eV (dashed).
2871: Also shown are results for an onsite impurity potential ($V_1=0$)
2872: and $W=1$ eV (dotted).
2873: In all of these cases, $V_0=-100t$ was used.
2874: }
2875: \label{fig11}
2876: \end{figure}
2877:
2878: \newpage
2879:
2880: \begin{figure}
2881: \begin{center}
2882: \leavevmode
2883: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2884: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2885: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f12a.ps}
2886: \end{center}
2887: \begin{center}
2888: \leavevmode
2889: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2890: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2891: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f12b.ps}
2892: \end{center}
2893: \caption{
2894: Off-diagonal susceptibilities
2895: (a) $-\chi_0({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ and
2896: (b) $-\chi({\bf q},{\bf q'}=0)$ versus ${\bf q}$
2897: obtained by using $V_1=-0.15t$ for
2898: optimally doped
2899: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2900: at $T=100$ K.
2901: Here, the $\delta$-function components at
2902: ${\bf q}={\bf q}'=0$ have been omitted.
2903: }
2904: \label{fig12}
2905: \end{figure}
2906:
2907: \newpage
2908:
2909: \begin{figure}
2910: \begin{center}
2911: \leavevmode
2912: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2913: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2914: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f13.ps}
2915: \end{center}
2916: \caption{
2917: Temperature dependence of $^7K$ for optimally doped
2918: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$,
2919: obtained for various values of $V_1/t$.
2920: These results are for an effective bandwidth of 3 eV,
2921: and here the $^7$Li hyperfine coupling $C$
2922: was taken to be 1.4 kOe/$\mu_B$.
2923: The filled circles represent the $^7K$ data on optimally doped
2924: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2925: by Bobroff {\it et al.} [2].
2926: The open circles represent the estimate of
2927: $^7K_0$ obtained by using the $^{89}K$ data [38] on pure
2928: optimally doped
2929: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$.
2930: Here, the $^{89}$Y hyperfine coupling was taken to be
2931: -2~kOe/$\mu_B$.
2932: The dotted curve has been obtained by using $V_0=V_1=0$ and the
2933: remaining curves have been obtained by using $V_0=-100t$
2934: and the values of $V_1/t$
2935: which are indicated next to the curves.
2936: }
2937: \label{fig13}
2938: \end{figure}
2939:
2940: \newpage
2941:
2942: \begin{figure}
2943: \begin{center}
2944: \leavevmode
2945: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2946: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2947: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f14a.ps}
2948: \end{center}
2949: \begin{center}
2950: \leavevmode
2951: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2952: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2953: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f14b.ps}
2954: \end{center}
2955: \begin{center}
2956: \leavevmode
2957: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2958: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2959: \epsffile[100 170 550 580]{f14c.ps}
2960: \end{center}
2961: \caption{
2962: Temperature dependence of
2963: (a) $\delta^7K$, (b) $-\delta^{89}K$(outer) and
2964: (c) $-\delta^{89}K$(middle) for underdoped
2965: YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$
2966: obtained by using various values of $V_1/t$
2967: which are indicated next to the curves.
2968: These results have been calculated
2969: by using an effective bandwidth $W$ of 3~eV,
2970: as compared to $W=1$~eV used in Figs.~8 and 9.
2971: In addition, here the $^7$Li and the $^{89}$Y hyperfine couplings
2972: were taken to be 1.4~kOe/$\mu_B$ and
2973: -2~kOe/$\mu_B$, respectively.
2974: The experimental data in (a) are from Ref.~[2], and the data
2975: in (b) and (c) are from Refs.~[1,4].
2976: }
2977: \label{fig14}
2978: \end{figure}
2979:
2980: \newpage
2981:
2982: \begin{figure}
2983: \begin{center}
2984: \leavevmode
2985: \epsfxsize=7.5cm
2986: \epsfysize=6.59cm
2987: \epsffile[100 200 550 610]{f15.ps}
2988: \end{center}
2989: \caption{
2990: Feynman diagram for a scattering process which causes the effective
2991: impurity potential to be extended in real space.
2992: This diagram is lowest order in $U$ and
2993: the bare impurity potential $V_0$.
2994: Here, an electron with momentum ${\bf p}$, Matsubara frequency
2995: $\omega_n$ and spin $\sigma$ scatters to a state with
2996: momentum ${\bf p+q}$, Matsubara frequency $\omega_n$ and
2997: spin $\sigma$.
2998: }
2999: \label{fig15}
3000: \end{figure}
3001:
3002:
3003: \end{document}
3004:
3005:
3006:
3007:
3008:
3009:
3010:
3011:
3012:
3013:
3014:
3015:
3016:
3017:
3018:
3019:
3020:
3021: