1:
2: \documentstyle[amssymb,aps,prb,preprint,epsfig]{revtex}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
5: %TCIDATA{Created=Sun Oct 21 15:21:14 2001}
6: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thursday, August 08, 2002 14:22:40}
7: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
8: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
9: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=revtex.cst}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \author{\ A.E. Karakozov$^{1}$, E.G. Maksimov$^{2}$, and O.V. Dolgov$^{3}$}
13: \address{$^{1}$L.F. Vereshchagin Institute for High Pressure Physics,\\
14: Russian Academy of Sciences, 142092 Troitsk, Moscow region, Russia,\\
15: $^{2}$ P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, 117924 Moscow, Russia \\
16: $^{3}$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Festk\"{o}rperforschung, Heisenbergstr.\\
17: 1, D-70506 Stuttgart, Germany}
18: \title{{\bf \ Electromagnetic response of superconductors and optical sum
19: rule.\ }}
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: The interrelation between the condensation energy and the optical sum rules
24: has been investigated. It has been shown that \ the so called 'partial' sum
25: rule violation is related mainly to a temperature dependence of the
26: relaxation rate rather than to the appearance of superconductivity itself.
27: Moreover, we demonstrate that the experimental data on the temperature
28: dependence of the optical sum rule can be explained rather well by an
29: account of strong electron-phonon interaction.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: Many recently published works are concerned with the origin of the
33: condensation energy of the superconducting state, a possible violation of
34: so-called 'optical sum rules', and the relation between these phenomena.
35: These papers include both theoretical investigations\cite%
36: {hm,nor1,scal,legg,nor2,kim} of these problems and experimental attempts\cite%
37: {basov,vdm,holcomb,santan} to observe a violation of the optical sum rule.
38: Usually, the possibility of such violation is related to the change of the
39: kinetic energy of metals under superconducting transition. If this statement
40: would be correct, than the violation of the optical sum rule should be most
41: clear seen in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer\cite{bcs}$(BCS)$ type
42: superconductors. It has been proved \ exactly by Bogolyubov\cite{bogol} that
43: the original model does not contain any potential energy. It is easy to see
44: considering the original $BCS$ Hamiltonian
45: \begin{equation}
46: \ H_{BCS}=\sum\limits_{{\bf k},s}\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}a_{{\bf k},s}^{+}a_{%
47: {\bf k},s}+\sum\limits_{{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime }}V_{{\bf kk}^{\prime }}a_{%
48: {\bf k}\uparrow }^{+}a_{-{\bf k}\downarrow }^{+}a_{-{\bf k}^{\prime
49: }\downarrow }a_{{\bf k}^{\prime }\uparrow }\ \ .
50: \end{equation}%
51: N. Bogolyubov has proven that for the normal state
52: \begin{equation}
53: \ \left\langle N\left| \sum\limits_{{\bf k},{\bf k}^{\prime }}V_{{\bf kk}%
54: ^{\prime }}a_{{\bf k}\uparrow }^{+}a_{-{\bf k}\downarrow }^{+}a_{-{\bf k}%
55: ^{\prime }\downarrow }a_{{\bf k}^{\prime }\uparrow }\right| N\right\rangle
56: \varpropto 1/\Omega \ \ ,
57: \end{equation}%
58: where $\Omega $ is the system volume. It means that in the thermodynamic
59: limit
60: \begin{equation}
61: \ \left\langle N\left| V_{BCS}\right| N\right\rangle \equiv 0\ \ .
62: \end{equation}%
63: The $BCS$ Hamiltonian can be exactly diagonalized in the superconducting
64: state using the Bogolyubov-Valatin transformation
65: \begin{eqnarray}
66: \gamma _{{\bf k}\uparrow } &=&u_{{\bf k}}a_{{\bf k}\uparrow }-v_{{\bf k}}a_{-%
67: {\bf k}\downarrow }^{+} \\
68: \gamma _{-{\bf k}\downarrow }^{+} &=&u_{{\bf k}}a_{-{\bf k}\downarrow
69: }^{+}+v_{{\bf k}}a_{{\bf k}\uparrow } \nonumber
70: \end{eqnarray}%
71: It leads to
72: \begin{equation}
73: \ H_{BCS}=\sum\limits_{{\bf k},s}E_{{\bf k}}\gamma _{{\bf k},s}^{+}\gamma _{%
74: {\bf k},s}\ \
75: \end{equation}%
76: where
77: \begin{equation}
78: \ E_{{\bf k}}=\pm \sqrt{\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}^{2}+\Delta ^{2}},\ \
79: \end{equation}%
80: which is a Hamiltonian of noninteracting but superconducting quasiparticles.
81: The condensation energy arises from the decreasing of the ground state
82: eigenvalue of the expression $\left( 5\right) $ due to an appearance of a
83: gap $\Delta $. The same is true for any mechanisms of superconductivity. The
84: decrease of a properly defined one-quasiparticle energy due to the
85: appearance of the gap on a Fermi level is the main contribution to the
86: condensation energy. This phenomenon has a certain feature is common to a
87: metal-insulator transition, where the band structure contribution to the
88: total energy decreases also due to the appearance of the gap on the Fermi
89: level. The example of the BCS model shows that the division of the total
90: energy into kinetic and potential parts is not a trivial problem even for
91: weakly interacting quasiparticles. This division becomes even worse defined
92: in systems with strongly interacting electrons. The study of the optical sum
93: rule and its change below the superconducting transition should be based,
94: from our point of view, on calculations of the conductivity itself and a
95: detailed analysis of this function and its dependence on temperature and
96: frequency.
97:
98: The optical sum rule can be written in general form as
99: \begin{equation}
100: \ \int\limits_{0}^{\infty }d\omega \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{%
101: \omega _{pl}^{2}}{8}=\frac{\pi ne^{2}}{2m}\ \ \label{1}
102: \end{equation}%
103: where $\sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) $ is the real part of the dynamical
104: conductivity, $n$\ is the total electron density and $m$\ is the bare
105: electron mass. The function $\sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) $ has a zero
106: frequency $\delta -$ function peak in the superconducting state due to the
107: dissipationless (rigid) response of the superconducting condensate. The
108: amplitude of this peak $A$ can be expressed in terms of an corresponding
109: penetration depth $\lambda _{L}$\
110: \begin{equation}
111: \ A=\frac{c^{2}}{8\lambda _{L}^{2}}, \label{2}
112: \end{equation}%
113: where $c$\ is the velocity of light . The existence of this $\delta -$
114: function contribution to $\sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) $\ in the
115: superconducting state leads to the so-called Ferrel-Glover-Tinkham sum rule%
116: \cite{tinkham}
117: \begin{equation}
118: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty }d\omega \left[ \sigma _{1}^{N}\left( \omega \right)
119: -\sigma _{1}^{S}\left( \omega \right) \right] =\frac{c^{2}}{8\lambda _{L}^{2}%
120: }\ , \label{3}
121: \end{equation}%
122: where $\sigma _{1}^{N,S}\left( \omega \right) $\ is the conductivity in the
123: normal and superconducting states, correspondingly. In such general form
124: this sum rule can never be violated for any superconductors possessing ideal
125: diamagnetic response with a finite penetration depth $\lambda _{L}$. The
126: real measurement of the dynamical conductivity can never be made up to
127: infinite frequency. They are restricted in practice to some finite value $%
128: \omega _{c}$. As it is well known\cite{tinkham}, the sum rule (9) is totally
129: satisfied in conventional superconductors when the integration is performed
130: up to $\omega _{c}\simeq \left( 4-6\right) \Delta $ where $\Delta $\ is the
131: superconducting gap. This value of $\omega _{c}$ is of the order of the
132: characteristic phonon energies. The statements about the sum rules
133: violation, which has been made in the experimental papers\cite%
134: {basov,vdm,holcomb,santan}, mean that the value $\omega _{c}$ in high-$T_{c}$
135: superconductors is much larger than in conventional ones. The maximum value $%
136: \omega _{c}$\ in high-$T_{c}$ systems, if they were also conventional,
137: should be $\simeq 0.1eV$ because they have a magnitude of the gap $\Delta
138: \approx 20meV.$ It has been shown in\cite{basov,basovPR} that for the
139: interlayer conductivity the optical sum rules are not saturated at least in
140: underdoped regime for $\omega _{c}\simeq 0.1eV.$ Even more intriguing
141: results have been obtained recently in the paper\cite{vdm,santan} where the
142: violation sum rules have been observed up to very high energies $\omega
143: _{c}\simeq 2eV.$ The main goal of the present paper is to show that the
144: observed violation of the optical sum rules at least for $\omega _{c}>0.1eV$
145: is not related explicitly to any mechanism of superconductivity. This
146: violation is the direct consequence of a high value of the electron
147: relaxation rate $\Gamma \left( \omega ,T\right) $, critical temperature $%
148: T_{c}$ and $\Delta $ themselves.
149:
150: Let us consider the for the future discussion important the so-called
151: restricted or 'partial' optical sum rule. Usually it is used in the form
152: \begin{equation}
153: \int\limits_{0}^{\omega _{c}}d\omega \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{%
154: \pi ne^{2}}{2m_{b}}\ .\
155: \end{equation}%
156: Here $1/m_{b}\ $is the an effective inverse electron band mass, which is
157: defined as
158: \begin{equation}
159: \frac{n}{m_{b}}=\frac{2}{\Omega }\sum\limits_{{\bf k}}\frac{\partial
160: ^{2}\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}}{\partial k_{x}^{2}}n_{{\bf k}}\ ,
161: \end{equation}%
162: where $n_{{\bf k}}$ is an electron distribution function. For a Hamiltonian
163: with nearest neighbor hopping $1/m_{b}$\ can be presented in terms of a
164: average of the one band kinetic energy \cite{hm}
165: \begin{equation}
166: \frac{n}{m_{b}}=\frac{a_{x}^{2}}{\Omega }\left\langle -T_{kin}\right\rangle
167: \ ,\
168: \end{equation}%
169: \begin{equation}
170: \ T_{kin}=-\sum\limits_{i}t_{i,i+a_{x}}a_{i}^{+}a_{i+a_{x}}\ .\
171: \end{equation}%
172: Here $a_{x}$\ is the lattice spacing in $x$\ - direction and $t_{i,i+a_{x}}$
173: is the nearest neighbor hopping integral. Usually it is believed that the
174: high energy cut off \ frequency $\omega _{c}$\ should be chosen of the order
175: of the corresponding band plasma frequency $\tilde{\omega}_{pl}=\sqrt{4\pi
176: e^{2}n/m_{b}}$ and is much smaller than the energies of interband
177: transitions. This partial sum rule can be easily proved for noninteracting
178: band electrons including the {\it interband} transitions in the expression
179: for the conductivity
180: \begin{equation}
181: \sigma _{1}^{inter}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{2\pi e^{2}}{\Omega m^{2}}%
182: \sum\limits_{{\bf k},j}n_{{\bf k}}\frac{\left| \left\langle {\bf k}j\left|
183: \nabla _{x}\right| {\bf k}\right\rangle \right| ^{2}}{\varepsilon _{{\bf k}%
184: j}-\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}}\delta \left( \varepsilon _{{\bf k}j}-\varepsilon
185: _{{\bf k}}-\omega \right) \ \ .
186: \end{equation}%
187: Here the summation is over all empty high energy bands with an electron
188: dispersion $\varepsilon _{{\bf k}j}.$ The minimum of the value $\varepsilon
189: _{{\bf k}j}-\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}=E_{g}$\ is the energy of the interband
190: transitions. Now, using $\omega _{c}<E_{g}$\ \ we can easily prove the sum
191: rules $\left( 10\right) $ and $\left( 12\right) $\ which give the well known
192: identity for the electron inverse effective mass\cite{AM}
193: \begin{equation}
194: \frac{n}{m_{b}}=\frac{n}{m}-\frac{2}{\Omega m^{2}}\sum\limits_{{\bf k},j}n_{%
195: {\bf k}}\frac{\left| \left\langle {\bf k}j\left| \nabla _{x}\right| {\bf k}%
196: \right\rangle \right| ^{2}}{\varepsilon _{{\bf k}j}-\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}}\
197: \ .
198: \end{equation}%
199: However is it not the case for interacting electrons. This fact can be
200: easily understood using the model of electrons interacting with impurities.
201: The {\it intraband} contribution to the optical conductivity can be written
202: in this case in form of the usual Drude expression for $\sigma _{1}\left(
203: \omega \right) $
204:
205: \begin{equation}
206: \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{pl}^{2}}{4\pi }\frac{%
207: \Gamma }{\omega ^{2}+\Gamma ^{2}},
208: \end{equation}%
209: where $\Gamma /2$\ is the relaxation rate due to impurity scattering. One
210: can derive the well known result for the partial optical sum rule
211:
212: \begin{equation}
213: \int\limits_{0}^{\omega _{c}}d\omega \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{%
214: \tilde{\omega}_{pl}^{2}}{8}\left( 1-\frac{2\Gamma }{\pi \omega _{c}}\right) .
215: \end{equation}%
216: This example shows that the {\it intraband} sum rules $\left( 10\right) $\
217: and $\left( 12\right) $ can be satisfied in the presence of the interaction
218: only in the limit $\omega _{c}\rightarrow \infty $. It is also true for any
219: interactions other than impurity scattering including, for example, the
220: electron-phonon interaction. Moreover, this violation of the optical sum
221: rules can not be obtained from the calculation of the kinetic energy change
222: from $Eq.\left( 12\right) $ as it was made in the Refs.\cite{hm,nor2}. As it
223: follows from $Eq.\left( 17\right) $\ the optical sum rules violation depends
224: on the high energy cutoff $\omega _{c}$\ but this parameter is certainly
225: absent in the expression for the kinetic energy.
226:
227: The {\it interband} transitions will also be changed due to electron
228: interactions. We can rewrite $Eq.\left( 14\right) $ for the impurity
229: scattering model in the simplest approximation as
230:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \qquad \sigma _{1}^{inter}\left( \omega \right) =\frac{2\pi e^{2}}{\Omega
233: m^{2}}\sum\limits_{{\bf k},j}n_{{\bf k}}\frac{\left| \left\langle {\bf k}%
234: j\left| \nabla _{x}\right| {\bf k}\right\rangle \right| ^{2}\Gamma }{\left(
235: \varepsilon _{{\bf k}j}-\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}-\omega \right) ^{2}+\Gamma
236: ^{2}}.\qquad \
237: \end{equation}%
238: The general sum rule $\left( 7\right) $ is certainly satisfied in this model
239: for any value of the relaxation rate $\Gamma $ but it is not true for the
240: partial sum rule as we have discussed above. Further, as it follows from $%
241: Eq.\left( 18\right) ,$ the {\it interband \ }contribution to the
242: conductivity becomes now spread out over all intervals of energies including
243: very low $\omega .$ It means that we can not even divide experimental data
244: into {\it intraband} contributions and {\it interband} ones. All these
245: effects are small as $\Gamma /\omega _{c}$ and $\Gamma /E_{g}.$ However, if
246: we shall take into account that the relaxation rate in high-$T_{c}$
247: compounds can reach values $\Gamma \approx 100meV$ we see immediately that
248: these effects can be very important even in the normal state.
249:
250: As the discussion given above confirms, there is no other way to understand
251: the behavior of the partial sum rules than to calculate the conductivity
252: itself as a function of frequency, temperature, doping etc. It can be
253: obtained by a calculation of a current-current correlation function. We
254: would like to emphasize here that expression for the current-current
255: correlation function does not contain, at least in the absence of the vertex
256: corrections, any explicit information about the mechanism of
257: superconductivity. All implicit information about the mechanism is contained
258: in the one-particle Green's function which can be written as\qquad
259: \begin{equation}
260: \hat{G}^{-1}\left( {\bf k},\omega \right) =\omega Z\left( {\bf k},\omega
261: \right) \hat{1}-\varepsilon _{{\bf k}}\hat{\tau}_{3}-Z\left( {\bf k},\omega
262: \right) \Delta \left( {\bf k},\omega \right) \hat{\tau}_{1}. \label{8}
263: \end{equation}%
264: Here $Z\left( {\bf k},\omega \right) $ is a renormalization function, $%
265: \Delta \left( {\bf k},\omega \right) $ is the superconducting order
266: parameter, and $\hat{\tau}_{i}$ are Pauli matrices. These functions should
267: be calculated in turn from the general equations for the Green's function of
268: electrons. Such equations have been derived by Eliashberg\cite{eliash} for
269: conventional superconductors with the electron-phonon pairing mechanism and,
270: for example, in Refs.\cite{mbp} for $d-$wave superconductivity. The
271: expression for $\sigma ^{S}\left( \omega \right) $ can be written for $%
272: \omega \gg 2\Delta $ in the form
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: \frac{\sigma _{1}^{S}\left( \omega \right) }{\sigma _{1}^{N}\left( \omega
275: \right) } &=&\frac{2}{\omega }\int\limits_{\Delta }^{\omega /2}d\omega
276: ^{\prime }\{%
277: %TCIMACRO{\func{Re}}%
278: %BeginExpansion
279: \mathop{\rm Re}%
280: %EndExpansion
281: \frac{\omega -\omega ^{\prime }}{\sqrt{\left( \omega -\omega ^{\prime
282: }\right) ^{2}-\Delta ^{2}\left( \omega -\omega ^{\prime }\right) }}%
283: %TCIMACRO{\func{Re}}%
284: %BeginExpansion
285: \mathop{\rm Re}%
286: %EndExpansion
287: \frac{\omega ^{\prime }}{\sqrt{\omega ^{\prime 2}-\Delta ^{2}\left( \omega
288: ^{\prime }\right) }}- \label{9} \\
289: &&\ \ \
290: %TCIMACRO{\func{Re}}%
291: %BeginExpansion
292: \mathop{\rm Re}%
293: %EndExpansion
294: \frac{\Delta \left( \omega -\omega ^{\prime }\right) }{\sqrt{\left( \omega
295: -\omega ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}-\Delta ^{2}\left( \omega -\omega ^{\prime
296: }\right) }}%
297: %TCIMACRO{\func{Re}}%
298: %BeginExpansion
299: \mathop{\rm Re}%
300: %EndExpansion
301: \frac{\Delta \left( \omega ^{\prime }\right) }{\sqrt{\omega ^{\prime
302: 2}-\Delta ^{2}\left( \omega ^{\prime }\right) }}\}.\qquad \nonumber
303: \end{eqnarray}%
304: The expression on the right hand side of the $Eq.\left( 20\right) $ is
305: nothing else than the BCS type coherency factors. The $Eq.\left( 20\right) $
306: have been derived\cite{nam,ss} for the conventional superconductors and was
307: used recently\cite{holcomb} to discuss the problem of the influence of the
308: superconducting gap on the optical spectra at $\omega _{c}\simeq 1.2eV$. In
309: spite of that this expression has been derived in the framework of the usual
310: $s-$wave superconductivity, it has with a slight modification much wider
311: areas of applications. One can, for example, include the angular dependence
312: of the gap for anisotropic superconductors and perform the integration over
313: the angle. It is easy to show using $Eq.\left( 20\right) ,$ that for $\omega
314: \gg 2\Delta $ we have
315:
316: \begin{equation}
317: \sigma _{1}^{S}\left( \omega \right) =\sigma _{1}^{N}\left( \omega \right)
318: \left( 1-\alpha \frac{\Delta ^{2}}{\omega ^{2}}\right) . \label{10}
319: \end{equation}%
320: Here the numerical coefficient $\alpha $ is of the order of unity and it is
321: included to take into account the possible averaging of the angular
322: dependence of the gap function. The same estimation for the dynamical
323: conductivity of a superconducting state at $\omega \gg \Delta $ can be
324: obtained from the equations derived in Ref.\cite{mbp}. $Eq.\left( 21\right) $
325: shows that the direct contribution of the superconducting gap to the
326: dynamical conductivity and, therefore, to the optical sum rules has the same
327: smallness for any mechanism of superconductivity, that is $\left( \Delta
328: /\omega \right) ^{2}$. This smallness is, certainly, different for
329: conventional superconductors and high-$T_{c}$ ones because the gap in the
330: later is one order larger.
331:
332: $Eqs.\left( 14\right) ,\left( 18\right) $ for the {\it interband}
333: contribution can also be generalized for the superconducting case and it can
334: be shown that their difference from the normal state is of the order of $%
335: \left( \Delta /\omega \right) ^{2}.$ We shall not consider the behavior of
336: the optical sum rules in the superconducting state further in this paper
337: because the real mechanism of superconductivity in high-$T_{c}$ systems is
338: unknown. The investigation of the optical sum rules for the normal state
339: will be of our main interest in the rest part of this paper. The detailed
340: experimental study of this problem has been done by D. van der Marel and
341: coworkers\cite{vdm}. They have measured the conductivity in a wide frequency
342: range and temperature intervals and than two optical sum rules have been
343: calculated. One of them was the low energy sum rule $A_{L}$
344:
345: \begin{equation}
346: A_{L}=8\int\limits_{0^{+}}^{1.25eV}d\omega \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) +%
347: \frac{c^{2}}{\lambda _{ab}^{2}\left( T\right) }\
348: \end{equation}%
349: where $\lambda _{ab}$ is the penetration depth in the $CuO$ plane and the
350: other one is the high energy sum rule $A_{h}$
351:
352: \begin{equation}
353: A_{h}=8\int\limits_{1.25eV}^{2.5eV}d\omega \sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) .
354: \label{11}
355: \end{equation}%
356: A few very prominent features in the behavior of both $A_{L}$ and $A_{h}$%
357: have been found in this work. First, $A_{L}$ and $A_{h}$ are temperature
358: dependent in the superconducting state as well as in the normal one. Second,
359: this dependence, at least, in the normal state is well described by a
360: quadratic function of $T.$ In addition, the low energy part depends on the
361: high-energy cutoff frequency $\omega _{c},$ if we consider the cases $\omega
362: _{c}=1.25eV$ and $\omega _{c}=2.5eV.$
363:
364: We are coming now to the consideration of details in the high energy part of
365: the optical sum rule $A_{h}.$ Preliminary we shall neglect the direct
366: contributions of\ the superconducting gap to the value of $A_{h}$ because
367: the ratio $\Delta ^{2}/\omega ^{2}$ for the considered values of frequencies
368: is very small $\approx 2\cdot 10^{-4}$. The main problem in the calculation
369: of the normal state conductivity is to establish the origin of the electron
370: relaxation in high-$T_{c}$ systems. This problem along with the problem of
371: the origin of superconductivity itself has been disputed during the last 15
372: years. It was shown (see for details\cite{maksUFN}) that the main source of
373: the relaxation processes in the normal state of high-$T_{c}$ superconductors
374: is the strong electron-phonon interaction. Recently, it has been
375: additionally demonstrated through examination of the frequency and
376: temperature dependence of the optical reflectivity in the $YBCO$ system\cite%
377: {maksSSC} that this interaction leads to a strong temperature dependence of
378: the conductivity up to very high frequencies. The experimental verification
379: of the existence of strong electron-phonon interaction in high-$T_{c}$
380: superconductors has been also obtained in ARPES measurements\cite{lanzara}
381: as an effect of an electron mass renormalization. There is some discussion%
382: \cite{kee,abanov} about the possibility, that the electron mass
383: renormalization observed in Ref.\cite{lanzara}and the corresponding change
384: of the relaxation rate can been explained by the interaction with the
385: so-called 'magnetic resonance peak'. This possibility, however, is unlikely%
386: \cite{kee,shen}, at least, for the normal state. As is well known, in the
387: normal state the conductivity $\sigma ^{N}\left( \omega ,T\right) $ in a
388: presence of the strong electron-phonon interaction can be written in the form%
389: \cite{sdm,maksUFN}
390:
391: \begin{equation}
392: \sigma ^{N}\left( \omega ,T\right) =\frac{\omega _{pl}^{2}}{4\pi }\frac{1}{%
393: -i\omega \frac{m^{\ast }\left( \omega ,T\right) }{m}+\Gamma \left( \omega
394: ,T\right) }, \label{12}
395: \end{equation}%
396: where $m^{\ast }\left( \omega ,T\right) $ is the frequency dependent optical
397: mass and $\Gamma \left( \omega ,T\right) $ is the optical relaxation rate.
398: The readers can find the precise expressions for both these functions in
399: terms of the Eliashberg function in Refs.\cite{sdm,maksUFN} and we shall not
400: reproduce them here. $Eq.\left( 24\right) $ for high values of frequencies $%
401: \left( \omega \gg \{\omega _{ph},\Gamma \}\right) $ can be rewritten for the
402: real part of the conductivity in the form
403:
404: \begin{equation}
405: \sigma _{1}^{N}\left( \omega ,T\right) \approx \frac{\omega _{pl}^{2}}{4\pi }%
406: \frac{\Gamma \left( T\right) }{\omega ^{2}}, \label{13}
407: \end{equation}%
408: where $\Gamma \left( T\right) $ is independent on frequency\cite{sdm,maksUFN}
409:
410: \begin{equation}
411: \Gamma \left( T\right) =2\pi \int\limits_{0}^{\infty }d\Omega \alpha
412: _{tr}^{2}\left( \Omega \right) F\left( \Omega \right) \coth \frac{\Omega }{2T%
413: }. \label{33}
414: \end{equation}%
415: Here $\alpha _{tr}^{2}\left( \Omega \right) F\left( \Omega \right) $ is the
416: transport Eliashberg function. It is easy to show by using $Eq.\left(
417: 26\right) $, that
418: \begin{equation}
419: \Gamma \left( T=0\right) =\lambda _{tr}\pi \left\langle \omega \right\rangle
420: , \label{34}
421: \end{equation}%
422: where
423:
424: \begin{equation}
425: \lambda _{tr}=2\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }d\Omega \frac{\alpha _{tr}^{2}\left(
426: \Omega \right) F\left( \Omega \right) }{\Omega } \label{28}
427: \end{equation}
428: is the {\it transport } constant of EPI, and $\left\langle \omega
429: \right\rangle $ is the average phonon frequency. At considerably high
430: temperatures, on the other hand, $\Gamma \left( T\right) $ can be written as
431:
432: \begin{equation}
433: \Gamma \left( T\right) \approx 2\lambda _{tr}\pi T. \label{16}
434: \end{equation}%
435: $Eqs.\left( 27\right) $ and $\left( 29\right) $ show that the relaxation
436: rate can increase considerably with increasing of temperature. It will lead,
437: to some increase of the high frequency part of the optical sum rule, which
438: can be written in the form
439:
440: \begin{equation}
441: A_{h}=8\int\limits_{\omega _{1}}^{2\omega _{1}}d\omega \sigma _{1}(\omega )=%
442: \frac{\omega _{pl}^{2}}{\pi }\frac{\Gamma (T)}{\omega _{1}}, \label{17}
443: \end{equation}%
444: where $\omega _{1}=1.25eV$. Using $Eqs.(25)$ and $(26)$ we can easily
445: calculate this value. There are two independent fitting parameters in this
446: procedure: the plasma frequency $\omega _{pl}$ and the coupling constant $%
447: \lambda _{tr}$. We have chosen the value $\lambda _{tr}\lesssim \lambda
448: \approx 1.5$ in accordance with APRES data \cite{lanzara}. The value of the
449: {\it intraband} plasma frequency is also unknown, but it is bounded from
450: above by the value of the low part of the sum rule obtained in Ref.\cite{vdm}%
451: , that is
452:
453: \begin{equation}
454: \omega _{pl}\lesssim 2eV. \label{18}
455: \end{equation}
456:
457: For the numerical calculations we have employed the Eliashberg function from
458: our preceding papers\cite{sdm,maksUFN} and use the general expression for
459: the conductivity $\left( 24\right) ,$ rather than approximate $Eq.\left(
460: 25\right) $. We carried out our calculations for two slightly different
461: Eliashberg functions shown in the inset in Fig.1, having the same value of $%
462: \lambda _{tr}.$ The difference between these spectra is related to the
463: different coupling of electrons with a soft phonon $\omega _{ph}\thickapprox
464: 20meV)$ and harder ones. The temperature dependence of $A_{h}$ is shown in
465: Fig.1 at $0\lesssim T\lesssim 200K.$ We have used as in Ref.\cite{vdm} the $%
466: T^{2}$ scale for the temperature to demonstrate the near perfect quadratic
467: dependence $A_{h}$ on $T.$ The overall agreement of our results with the
468: experimental data is reasonably well. The same is true concerning the
469: experimentally observed difference
470: \begin{equation}
471: A_{h}\left( T=200K\right) {\bf -}A_{h}\left( T=0K\right) {\bf \thickapprox }%
472: 0.08\left( eV\right) ^{2}.
473: \end{equation}%
474: It can also be seen from Fig.1, that $A_{h}$ has a temperature dependence
475: also at $T<T_{c},$ where $T_{c}$ is the critical temperature of the
476: superconducting transition ( $T_{c}=88K$ for the considered case).{\bf \ }We
477: would also like to emphasize that there is a little different behavior of
478: these curves at low temperatures. The value $A_{h}$ decreases with
479: decreasing of temperature for a softer spectrum even faster for low
480: temperature than $T^{2}$ as it has for high $T$. In contrast, $A_{h}$ has a
481: more weaker temperature dependence at low $T$ for more harder spectrum. The
482: difference $A_{h}\left( T=200K\right) {\bf -}A_{h}\left( T=0K\right) $ for
483: the spectrum with soft low frequency phonons is larger then for the harder
484: one.{\bf \ }We did not take into account in our calculations the influence
485: of the superconductivity on $A_{h}.$ It is small from our point of view but
486: it can exist. It is clear from the above consideration that it is very
487: difficult to separate using experimental data this specific superconducting
488: contribution from the total change of $A_{h}$ connected with the change of
489: the relaxation rate.{\bf \ }
490:
491: The general behavior of the low energy sum rule $A_{L}\left( T\right) $ (not
492: shown in Fig.1) is also reproduced rather well in our approach, at least for
493: the normal state. There is only one contradiction related to the total
494: amplitude of the change of the value $A_{L}\left( T\right) .$ It is clear
495: from the above consideration that the following equality should be satisfied
496: in the normal state
497:
498: \begin{eqnarray}
499: A_{L}\left( T=200\right) -A_{L}\left( T=100\right) &=&A_{h}\left(
500: T=200\right) -A_{h}\left( T=100\right) \nonumber \\
501: &&+A_{h}^{\prime }\left( T=200\right) -A_{h}^{\prime }\left( T=100\right) ,
502: \end{eqnarray}%
503: where
504:
505: \begin{equation}
506: A_{h}^{\prime }=8\int\limits_{2.5eV}^{\infty }d\omega \sigma _{1}\left(
507: \omega \right) .\
508: \end{equation}%
509: It is easy to see that
510:
511: \begin{equation}
512: A_{h}^{\prime }=A_{h}.\
513: \end{equation}%
514: It means that the total change of the low energy sum rule $A_{L}\left(
515: T\right) $ should be twice larger than the change of $A_{h}\left( T\right) $%
516: . Measurements\cite{vdm} give rather the value $1.5$ instead of two. We do
517: not know the exact origin of this contradiction. It is possible that it is
518: related to the temperature dependence of the {\it interband} transitions
519: which have not been included into our calculations. Indeed, we have obtained
520: as the value of the intraband contribution to $A_{h}{\bf \approx }0.21\left(
521: eV^{2}\right) $ at $T=200K$. It is much smaller than the experimentally
522: measured $A_{h}$\ $\thickapprox 1.8\left( eV\right) ^{2}.$ The difference
523: between these two values comes from the {\it interband} transitions. It is
524: difficult to say anything definite at this time about the temperature
525: dependence of the {\it interband} transitions and we will continue our
526: activity in this direction. Now we would like to emphasize that it not easy
527: to find any other mechanism of the relaxation besides the electron-phonon
528: one which can lead to a temperature dependence of the relaxation rate at so
529: high frequencies. Many of them, including, for example, the marginal Fermi
530: liquid\cite{varma}, do not give any temperature dependence at $T\ll \omega .$
531:
532: We can not calculate and compare with the experiment the sum rules in the
533: underdoped regime due to the existence of a {\it pseudogap} phenomenon
534: because its origin is also unknown. We can, however, claim that it is very
535: likely that the discussed effect will be also exist in the underdoped case.
536: This statement is based on observations obtained both by optical
537: measurements \cite{puchkov} and as well as ARPES\cite{lanzara}, that the
538: relaxation rate increases with decreasing the doping level. This also is
539: confirmed by result obtained in Ref.\cite{santan} on the sum rules violation.
540:
541: In summary, we have shown that there are no new energy scales defining the
542: influence of the superconductivity on the intraband contribution to the
543: optical sum rules, besides the superconducting energy gap itself. This is
544: true for any mechanism of the superconductivity because the expression for $%
545: \sigma _{1}\left( \omega ,T\right) $ at high frequencies does not include
546: any explicit information about such mechanisms.\ The experimentally observed
547: violation of the sum rule is mainly related to the properties of the normal
548: state of high-$T_{c}$ superconductors and it is ruled mainly by the
549: frequency and temperature dependence of the relaxation rate. We also have
550: shown that the experimental data obtained in the Ref.\cite{vdm} can be
551: explained very reasonably in the framework of the usual model with strong
552: electron-phonon interaction. The consideration of the sum rules for the
553: interplanar conductivity where the coherent transport is absent in the
554: normal state requires a more serious approach and the knowledge of the
555: mechanism blocking this transport. We should also know more details about
556: the pseudogap phenomenon and its interplay with superconductivity in order
557: to make more conclusive statements about the sum rule behavior in the
558: underdoped regime.
559:
560: \bigskip
561:
562: Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to many people for the fruitful
563: discussion and especially to N. Bontemps, A. Boris, C. Bernhard and D. van
564: der Marel. We would like to thank J. Kortus for his help in the preparation
565: of the paper. This work was supported partially by RFBI under grants
566: No.02-02-16658 and No.01-02-16719, the Russian program for the investigation
567: of the superconductivity and the program of the Presidium RAS. One of the
568: authors (E.G.M.) is grateful to O.K. Anderson for the kind hospitality
569: during the visit in the Max-Planck-Institute FKF (Stuttgart) where the part
570: of this work has been done.
571:
572: \begin{references}
573: \bibitem{hm} J.E. Hirsh, F. Marsiglio, Phys Rev, {\bf B62}, 15131 (2000)
574:
575: \bibitem{nor1} M.R. Norman, M. Randeria, B. Janko, J .C. Campuzano, Phys.
576: Rev., {\bf B61}, 14742 (2000)
577:
578: \bibitem{scal} D.J. Scalapino, S.R. White, Phys. Rev., {\bf B58,} 8222 (1998)
579:
580: \bibitem{legg} A.J. Legget , Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 83}, 392 (1999)
581:
582: \bibitem{nor2} M.R. Norman, G. Pepin, cond.-mat./0201415
583:
584: \bibitem{kim} E.H .Kim, Phys. Rev., {\bf B58}, 2452 (1998)
585:
586: \bibitem{basov} D.N. Basov {\it et al.,} Science, {\bf 283}, 49 (1999)
587:
588: \bibitem{vdm} H.J.A. Molegraaf {\it et al}., Science, {\bf 295}, 2239 (2002)
589:
590: \bibitem{holcomb} M.J. Holcomb {\it et al., }Phys.Rev., {\bf B53}, 6734(1996)
591:
592: \bibitem{santan} A.F. Santander-Syro {\it et al.,} cond.-mat./0111539
593:
594: \bibitem{bogol} N.N. Bogolyubov, V.V. Tolmachev, D.V. Shirkov, \ {\it A New
595: Method in the Theory of Superconductivity}, Consultants Bureau, N.Y. (1959)
596:
597: \bibitem{bcs} J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, J.R. Schrieffer, Phys.Rev., {\bf 108}%
598: , 1175 (1957)
599:
600: \bibitem{tinkham} M. Tinkham, {\it Introduction to Superconductivity }%
601: (McGrow-Hill,N.Y.,1996)
602:
603: \bibitem{basovPR} D.N. Basov{\it \ et al.} Phys. Rev., {\bf B63}, 134514
604: (2001)
605:
606: \bibitem{AM} N.W. Ashcroft and M.D. Mermin, {\it Solid State Physics} (
607: Saunders, Philadelphia, 1976)
608:
609: \bibitem{eliash} G.M. Eliashberg, Zh. Exp. Theor. Phys., {\bf 38}, 966; {\bf %
610: 39}, 1437(1960); Sov. Phys. JETP, {\bf 11}, 696 (1960); {\bf 12} ,1000 (1961)
611:
612: \bibitem{mbp} P. Monthoux, A.V. Balatsky, D. Pines, Phys. Rev. Let. {\bf 67}%
613: , 3448 (1991)
614:
615: \bibitem{nam} S.B. Nam, Phys.Rev.,{\bf 156}, 470 (1967)
616:
617: \bibitem{ss} W. Show, J.C. Swihart, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 20}, 1000 (1968)
618:
619: \bibitem{sdm} S.V. Shulga, O.V. Dolgov, E.G. Maksimov, Physica {\bf C 178},
620: 266 (1991)
621:
622: \bibitem{maksUFN} E.G. Maksimov, UFN {\bf 170}, 1033 (2000)
623: [Physics-Uspekhi, {\bf 43}, 965 (2000)]
624:
625: \bibitem{maksSSC} E.G. Maksimov{\it \ et al.,} Sol. St .Comm., {\bf 112},
626: 449 (1999)
627:
628: \bibitem{lanzara} A. Lanzara {\it et al}., Nature, {\bf 412}, 510 ( 2001)
629:
630: \bibitem{kee} H.-Y. Kee {\it et al.} cond.-mat./0110478
631:
632: \bibitem{abanov} Ar. Abanov{\it \ et al.} cond.-mat./0112126
633:
634: \bibitem{shen} Z.-X. Shen {\it et al.} cond.-mat./0108381
635:
636: \bibitem{varma} S. Schmitt-Rink, C.M. Varma, A.E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev.
637: Lett., {\bf 63}, 445 (1989)
638:
639: \bibitem{puchkov} A.V. Puchkov {\it et al}., J. Phys.: Cond. Matter, {\bf 8}%
640: , 10049 (1996)
641: \end{references}
642:
643: \bigskip \newpage
644:
645: \section{Figure caption.}
646:
647: \bigskip
648:
649: Fig.1 $A_{h}$ (see text) as a function of $T^{2}$ for two different spectral
650: functions as shown in the inset.
651:
652: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
653:
654: \bigskip
655:
656: \qquad
657:
658: \end{document}
659: