1: \tolerance = 10000

2: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{latexsym}

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\fig}[2]{\includegraphics[width=#1]{#2}}

8: 

9: \title{The Roton Fermi Liquid}

10: 

11: 

12: \author{Leon Balents}

13: \affiliation{Department of  Physics, University of California,

14: Santa Barbara, CA 93106--4030}

15: \author{Matthew P. A. Fisher}

16: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical Physics,

17: University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106--4030}

18: 

19: \date{\today}

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22:   We introduce and analyze a novel metallic phase of two-dimensional

23:   (2d) electrons, the Roton Fermi Liquid (RFL), which, in contrast to

24:   the Landau Fermi liquid, supports both gapless fermionic and bosonic

25:   quasiparticle excitations.  The RFL is accessed using a re-formulation

26:   of 2d electrons consisting of fermionic quasiparticles and $hc/2e$

27:   vortices interacting with a mutual long-ranged statistical

28:   interaction.  In the presence of a strong vortex-antivortex (i.e.

29:   roton) hopping term, the RFL phase emerges as an exotic yet eminently

30:   tractable new quantum ground state.  The RFL phase exhibits a ``Bose

31:   surface'' of gapless roton excitations describing transverse current

32:   fluctuations, has off-diagonal quasi-long-ranged order (ODQLRO) at

33:   zero temperature ($T=0$), but is not superconducting, having zero

34:   superfluid density and no Meissner effect.  The electrical resistance

35:   {\it vanishes} as $T \rightarrow 0$ with a power of temperature (and

36:   frequency), $R(T) \sim T^\gamma$ (with $\gamma >1$), independent of

37:   the impurity concentration.  The RFL phase also has a full Fermi

38:   surface of quasiparticle excitations just as in a Landau Fermi liquid.

39:   Electrons can, however, scatter anomalously from rotonic ``current

40:   fluctuations'' and ``superconducting fluctuations''.  Current

41:   fluctuations induced by the gapless rotons scatter anomalously only at

42:   ``hot spots'' on the Fermi surface (with tangents parallel to the

43:   crystalline axes), while superconducting fluctuations give rise to an

44:   anomalous lifetime over the entire Fermi surface {\sl except} near the

45:   (incipient) nodal points (``cold spots'').

46:   Fermionic quasiparticles dominate the Hall electrical transport.

47:   We also find three dominant instabilities of the RFL phase: an

48:   instability to a conventional Fermi liquid phase driven by vortex

49:   condensation, a BCS-type instability towards fermion pairing and a

50:   (non-pairing) superconducting instability.  Precisely {\it at} the

51:   instability into the Fermi liquid state, the exponent $\gamma$

52:   saturates the bound, $\gamma =1$, so that $R(T) \sim T$.  Upon

53:   entering the superconducting state the rotons are gapped out, and the

54:   anomalous quasiparticle scattering is strongly suppressed.  We discuss

55:   how the RFL phase might underlie the strange metallic state of the

56:   cuprates near optimal doping, and outline a phenomenological picture

57:   to accomodate the underdoped pseudo-gap regime and the overdoped

58:   Landau Fermi liquid phase.

59: \end{abstract}

60: 

61: \maketitle

62: 

63: 

64: \vspace{0.15cm}

65: 

66: 

67: 

68: 

69: \section{Introduction}

70: \label{sec:introduction}

71: 

72: Despite the appeal of spin-charge separation as an underpinning to

73: superconductivity in the cuprates, there are seemingly fatal obstacles

74: with this approach.  Ever since Anderson's initial

75: suggestion\cite{PWA1} of a spinon Fermi surface in the normal state at

76: optimal doping, there have been nagging questions about the {\it

77:   charge} sector of the theory.  The concept of the ``holon'', a

78: charge $e$ spinless boson, was introduced in the context of the doped

79: spin liquid state\cite{KRS}, and was presumed to be responsible for

80: the electrical conduction.  In the simplest theoretical scenario,

81: spin-charge separation occurs on electronic energy scales, thereby

82: liberating the electron's charge from its Fermi statistics.  This

83: idea has been actively investigated over the past 15 years -- see

84: Ref.~\onlinecite{SubirReview} for a review.  A

85: pervasive challenge to this perspective, however, is the difficulty of avoiding

86: holon condensation and superconductivity at {\it inappropriately} high

87: temperatures.  In addition, recent theoretical work, which has

88: elucidated the phenomenology of putative spin-charge separated states,

89: has led to further conflicts with observations.  One class of theories

90: have shown how spin-charge separation can emerge from a

91: superconducting phase by pairing and condensing vortices.\cite{NL}\

92: Following this work, a $Z_2$ gauge theory formulation greatly

93: clarified the nature of fractionalization of electronic (and other)

94: quantum numbers.\cite{Z2}\ It has become clear that a necessary

95: requirement for true spin charge separation in two dimensions is the

96: existence of a ``vison'' excitation with a

97: gap.\cite{earlyvison1,earlyvison2,vison1,vison2}\ The vison is perhaps

98: most simplest thought of within the vortex pairing picture, as the

99: remnant of an unbound single vortex.  If these ideas were to apply to

100: the cuprates, one would expect this gap to be of order the pseudogap

101: scale $k_B T^*$.  Unfortunately for spin-charge separation advocates,

102: experiments designed to detect the vison and measure its

103: gap\cite{visexp1,visexp2}\ have determined an unnaturally low upper

104: bound of approximately $150K$ for the vison gap in underdoped YBCO. Is

105: this the death knell for spin-charge separation?

106: 

107: In a very recent paper focusing on the effects of ring-exchange in

108: simple models of bosons hopping on a 2d square lattice\cite{EBL}, we

109: have identified a novel zero temperature {\it normal fluid} phase -

110: (re-)named the ``Exciton Bose Liquid'' (EBL).  In the EBL phase

111: boson-antiboson pairs (ie an exciton) are mobile, being carried by a

112: set of gapless collective excitations, while single bosons cannot

113: propagate.  The resulting quantum state is ``almost an insulator'',

114: with the d.c. conductivity vanishing as a power of temperature,

115: $\sigma(T) \sim T^\alpha$ with $\alpha \ge 1$.  This is in contrast to

116: the ``strange metallic phase'' in the optimally doped cuprates, which

117: is ``almost superconducting''\cite{PWAbook} with an extrapolated zero

118: resistance at $T=0$, as if it were a superconductor with $T_c=0$.

119: This phenomenology suggests the need for a non-superconducting quantum

120: phase in which the vortices are strongly immobilized at low

121: temperatures.

122: 

123: Motivated by this, we revisit the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon field theory of

124: interacting electrons\cite{NL,Z2}, in which the $hc/2e$ vortices and

125: the spinons have a long-ranged statistical interaction mediated by two

126: $Z_2$ gauge fields.  Rather than gapping out single vortices while

127: condensing pairs (which leads to a spin-charge separated

128: insulator)\cite{Z2}, we would like to find a quantum phase in which

129: the vortices are gapless but nevertheless immobile.  To this end, we

130: add an additional ``vortex-ring'' term to the earlier vortex field

131: theory.  This term is effectively a kinetic energy for

132: vortex-antivortex pairs, that is for rotons.  To access the limit of

133: strong roton hopping requires a further reformulation of the $Z_2$

134: vortex-spinon field theory, replacing the $Z_2$ gauge fields by $U(1)$

135: gauge fields.  Similar $U(1)$ vortex-fermion field theories have been

136: explored in Refs.~\onlinecite{tesanovic}.  The resulting $U(1)$ vortex-spinon

137: formulation is 

138: tractable in the limit of a very strong roton hopping, and describes

139: the ``Roton Fermi Liquid'' (RFL) phase, a novel metallic ground

140: state qualitatively different than Landau's Fermi liquid phase.

141: 

142: 

143: Both the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon field theory developed in

144: Refs.~[\onlinecite{NL,Z2}] and our $U(1)$ vortex-fermion field theory,

145: described in Section II below, are constructed in terms of operators

146: which create the excitations of a conventional BCS superconductor: the

147: Bogoliubov quasiparticles, the $hc/2e$ vortices and the collective

148: plasmon mode.  This choice of ``basis'', however, does not presume

149: that the system is necessarily superconducting at low temperatures,

150: and indeed we intend to employ such a formulation to describe

151: non-superconducting states.  When superconductivity {\it is} present

152: at low temperatures, the formulation will also be employed to describe

153: the ``normal'' state above $T_c$.  In these approaches, the Bogoliubov

154: quasiparticle is electrically neutralized\cite{NL}, and the resulting

155: ``spinon'' excitation transported around an $hc/2e$ vortex within an

156: ordinary 2d BCS superconductor, acquire a Berry's phase of $\pi$.

157: Within the $Z_2$ and $U(1)$ vortex-spinon formulations, one introduces

158: spinon creation operators, $f^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}$, where we let

159: ${\bf r}$ denote the sites of a 2d square lattice and with $\sigma$

160: the spin.  Vortex creation operators are also introduced, conveniently

161: represented in a ``rotor'' representation as $e^{i\theta}$, which live

162: on the plaquettes of the 2d lattice.  The vortices are minimally

163: coupled to a gauge field, living on the links of the dual lattice.

164: The ``flux'' in the gauge field describes charge density fluctuations

165: on the original lattice sites, and for example encapsulates the

166: plasmon mode inside the superconducting phase\cite{Duality}.  Finally,

167: the long-ranged statistical interaction between the spinons and

168: vortices is incorporated by introducing two Chern-Simons $Z_2$ or

169: $U(1)$ gauge fields.  The important new element in the present paper

170: is the inclusion of a roton hopping term.  As we shall see, the RFL

171: phase is readily accessed within the $U(1)$ formulation when the

172: magnitude of this roton hopping term is taken signifigantly larger

173: than the single vortex hopping strength.

174: 

175: Here, we briefly summarize the main results established in the following

176: Sections.  In Sec. II the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon field theory formulation

177: of Ref.~[\onlinecite{Z2}] is recast in terms of a lattice Hamiltonian.

178: Via a sequence of exact unitary transformations on the Hamiltonian, we

179: demonstrate that it is possible to exchange the $Z_2$ Chern-Simons gauge

180: fields for their $U(1)$ counterparts.  Within a Lagrangian

181: representation of the resulting $U(1)$ Hamiltonian which we employ

182: throughout the paper, it is possible to choose a gauge for one of the

183: $U(1)$ Chern-Simons fields so that the ``spinon'' is recharged, and has

184: finite overlap with a bare electron.  (In App.~\ref{ap:elecform} we show

185: that this gauge choice can effectively be made at the Hamiltonian level,

186: and construct a Hamiltonian theory in terms of vortices and fermionic

187: operators which carry the electron charge and have a finite overlap with

188: a bare electron.)

189: 

190: Initially, in Sec. III, we ignore the fermions entirely, and focus on

191: the bosonic charge (or vortex) sector of the theory.  A ``spin-wave''

192: expansion valid in the presence of a large roton hopping term, leads

193: to a simple theory which is quadratic - {\it except} for a single

194: vortex hopping term.  Dropping this vortex hopping term then leads to

195: a soluble harmonic theory of the ``Roton-Liquid'' (RL) phase.  In

196: addition to the gapless 2d plasmon, the RL phase is shown to support a

197: ``Bose surface'' of gapless roton excitations.  We compute the Cooper

198: pair propagator in the RL phase, and show that it exhibits

199: off-diagonal quasi-long-ranged order (ODQLRO) at zero temperature, but

200: {\it not} a Meissner effect.  The RL phase exhibits a high degree of

201: ``emergent'' symmetry - the number of vortices on every row and column

202: of the 2d dual lattice is asymptotically conserved at low energies.

203: This symmetry implies that the harmonic ``fixed point'' theory of the

204: RL phase has an infinite conductivity at any temperature.

205: 

206: In Sec. IV we study the legitimacy of the approximations used to

207: arrive at the harmonic RL theory, focussing first on the neglected

208: vortex hopping term.  We show that for a range of parameters the

209: vortex hopping term is ``irrelevant'', scaling to zero at low energies

210: whenever its associated scaling dimension satisfies $\Delta_v \ge 2$.

211: Nevertheless, at finite temperatures vortex hopping leads to

212: dissipation, giving a resistance which vanishing as a power law in

213: temperature, $R(T) \sim T^\gamma$ with $\gamma = 2 \Delta_v -3 \ge 1$.

214: A ``plaquette duality'' transformation\cite{EBL} allows us to next

215: address the legitimacy of the initial ``spin-wave'' expansion, used to

216: obtain the harmonic RL theory. Of paramount importance is the presence

217: of a term in the dual theory which hops a ``charged'' quasiparticle

218: excitation, a term {\it not} present in the harmonic fixed-point

219: theory. We find that the ``charge'' hopping process is irrelevant over

220: a range of parameters - approximately the complement of the range

221: where vortex hopping was irrelevant - implying stability of the RL

222: phase.  When relevant, on the other hand, the ``charge'' quasiparticle

223: condenses, leading to a superconducting ground state.

224: 

225: The fermions are re-introduced back into the theory in Section V, where

226: we argue for the stability of the Bose surface of rotons and the 2d

227: plasmon in the presence of a {\sl gapless} Fermi sea of fermionic

228: quasiparticles.  We denote the corresponding phase by the Roton Fermi

229: Liquid (RFL).  The gaplessness of the fermions is somewhat surprising,

230: and deserves some comment.  Indeed, it is in sharp contrast to the

231: gapped nature of the quasiparticles in both the superconducting phase

232: and $Z_2$ fractionalized insulator, in which the spinons experience a

233: BCS-like ``pair field''.  The cause of this difference is the existence

234: of gapless single vortex excitations (and fluctuations) in the RFL,

235: which according to our analysis leads to the ``irrelevance'' of the

236: fermion pairing term.  Crudely, because the bosonic pair field exhibits

237: only OD{\sl Quasi-}LRO rather than ODLRO, there is no average pair field

238: felt by the quasiparticles, and hence no gap.  In this sense, the RFL is

239: in fact closer to a Fermi-liquid state than it is a superconductor.

240: 

241: Section VI is devoted to an analysis of the properties of the RFL phase.

242: We study both the longitudinal and Hall conductivities, and find that

243: the dissipative electrical resistance vanishes with a power of

244: temperature, $R(T) \sim T^\gamma$ with $\gamma \ge1$, similar to the

245: behavior without fermions present.  But the fermions are found to

246: dominate the Hall response, leading within a na\"ive Drude treatment to

247: an inverse Hall angle varying as $\Theta_H^{-1} \sim 1/(\tau_f^2

248: T^\gamma)$, with $\tau_f$ the fermionic quasiparticle transport

249: lifetime.  Due to the presence of the ``Bose surface'' of gapless

250: rotons, electrons at finite energy $\omega$ experience anomalous

251: scattering, {\it not} present in a Landau Fermi liquid.  Specifically,

252: quasiparticles scatter due to rotonic ``current fluctuations'' and

253: ``superconducting fluctuations'', which contribute additively to the

254: electron decay rate.  The former gives rise to especially strong

255: electron scattering at ``hot spots'' -- points on the Fermi surface with

256: tangents parallel to the axes of the square lattice.  At such hot spots

257: the associated electron decay rate varies with an anomalous power of

258: energy, $\omega^{(\gamma + 2)/2}$, for $1 < \gamma < 2$.  The decay rate

259: from superconducting fluctuations is present everywhere along the Fermi

260: surface {\sl except} near ``cold spots'' at the incipient $d$-wave nodal

261: points.  This contribution grows strongly with decreasing

262: energy/temperature, although it has a smaller overall amplitude than the

263: current fluctuation contribution.   Upon entering a superconducting state, the

264: rotons -- gapless within the RFL phase -- become gapped out, and all

265: anomalous scattering is strongly suppressed.

266: 

267: Finally, in Section VII we briefly discuss possible connections of the

268: present work to the cuprates.  We suggest that the RFL phase might

269: underlie the unusual behavior observed near optimal doping in the

270: cuprates, in particular the ``strange metal'' normal state above $T_c$.

271: A scenario is outlined which also incorporates the pseudo-gap regime and

272: the conventional Fermi liquid behavior in the strongly overdoped limit.

273: 

274: 

275: 

276: \section{The Model}

277: \label{sec:model}

278: 

279: We are interested in electrons hopping on a 2d square lattice, with

280: electron creation operators $c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}$.  Here, the

281: sites are denoted (in bold roman characters) as, ${\bf r}=x_1 {\bf \hat{x}}

282: + x_2 {\bf \hat{y}}$, where $x_1,x_2$ are integers, $\hat{\bf

283:   x}_1=\hat{\bf x}$, $\hat{\bf x}_2=\hat{\bf y}$ are unit vectors

284: along the $x$ and $y$ axes, and $\sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow$

285: denotes the two spin polarizations of the electron (such a spin

286: index will be distinguished from Pauli matrices $\sigma^\mu$ by

287: the lack of any superscript).

288: 

289: 

290: \subsection{$Z_2$ Chargon-spinon formulation}

291: \label{sec:z_2-chargon-spinon}

292: 

293: We begin by formulating the electron problem in spin-charge

294: separated variables using the $Z_2$ gauge theory Hamiltonian.  We

295: emphasize that this formulation does not imply that spin-charge

296: separated excitations are deconfined, and indeed this formulation

297: correctly describes the low-energy physics of conventional

298: confined phases as well.

299: 

300: 

301: 

302: The $Z_2$ gauge theory is most readily formulated in terms of a

303: charge $e$ singlet bosonic chargon $b_{\bf r},b_{\bf r}^\dagger$,

304: a neutral spin-$1/2$ fermionic spinon $f_{{\bf r}\sigma}, f_{{\bf

305: r}\sigma}^\dagger$, and an Ising gauge field (Pauli matrix)

306: $\sigma_j^\mu({\bf r})$ residing on the link between sites ${\bf

307: r}$ and ${\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j$.  It is convenient to use a rotor

308: representation for the chargons, $b_{\bf r} = e^{-i\phi_{\bf r}}$,

309: $b^\dagger_{\bf r} b^{\vphantom\dagger}_{\bf r} = n_{\bf r}$, with

310: $[\phi_{\bf r},n_{\bf

311:   r'}]=i\delta_{\bf r,r'}$.

312: 

313: The $Z_2$ Hamiltonian is conveniently expressed in terms of the

314: Hamiltonian density, $H_{Z_2}=\sum_{\bf r} {\cal H}_{Z_2}$, which

315: in turn is decomposed into a bosonic charge sector, a fermionic

316: sector and a gauge field contribution, ${\cal H}_{Z_2}={\cal H}_c

317: + {\cal H}^{Z_2}_f + {\cal H}_g$:

318: \begin{eqnarray}

319:   \label{eq:Z2chargeham}

320:   {\cal H}_c & = & - t_c \sum_j \sigma_j^z({\bf r}) \cos(\partial_j\phi_{\bf

321:     r}-A_j({\bf r})) + u_c (n_{\bf r}-\rho_0)^2 , \\

322:   {\cal H}_g & = & - t_v \sum_j \sigma^x_j({\bf r}) \!-\!

323:   K\!\!\!\!\prod_{\Box({\bf r}+{\bf w})} \!\!\!\!\sigma^z \!\!\!

324:   - \kappa_r\! \prod_j \sigma_j^x({\bf r}) \sigma_j^x({\bf

325:     r}\!+\!\hat{\bf x}_j), \\

326:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_f & = &  -  \sum_j \sigma_j^z({\bf r})

327:   [ t_s f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

328:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}+\Delta_j f_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

329:       x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'}+ {\rm

330:     h.c.}] \nonumber \\

331:   & & - t_e \sum_j f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j

332:     \sigma} e^{i (\partial_j \phi_{{\bf r}} -A_j({\bf r}))}

333:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}+ h.c. . \label{HfZ2}

334: \end{eqnarray}

335: Here, $\rho_0 \equiv 1 - x$ is the electron (charge) density with $x$

336: measuring deviations from half-filling. Throughout the paper,

337: $\partial_j$ with $j=1,2$ denotes a {\it discrete} (forward) spatial

338: lattice derivatives in the $x_1$ and $x_2$ directions, for example,

339: $\partial_1 \phi_{\bf r} = \partial_x \phi_{\bf r} = \phi_{{\bf r} +

340:   {\bf \hat{x}}} - \phi_{\bf r}$.  We have included an external

341: (physical) vector potential $A_j({\bf r})$ in order to calculate

342: electromagnetic response and to include applied fields. The

343: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_c$ describes the dynamics of the chargons

344: hopping with strength, $t_c$, which are minimally coupled to the $Z_2$

345: gauge field. The dynamics of the gauge fields is primarily determined

346: from ${\cal H}_g$, the first two terms of which constitute the

347: standard pure $Z_2$ gauge theory Hamiltonian.  The ``magnetic''

348: contribution involves the plaquette product,

349: \begin{equation}

350: \prod_{\Box({\bf r}+{\bf w})} \sigma^z \equiv \sigma^z_1({\bf r})

351: \sigma^z_1({\bf

352:     r}+ \hat{\bf y}) \sigma^z_2({\bf r}) \sigma^z_2({\bf r}+\hat{\bf

353:     x}),

354: \end{equation}

355: which is the $Z_2$ analog of the lattice curl. Here we have

356: defined, ${\bf w} = (1/2)(\hat{x}+\hat{y})$, and ${\bf r} +{\bf

357: w}$ denotes the center of the plaquette.  We have also included an

358: additional contribution bi-linear in $\sigma^x$, which in the dual

359: vortex representation below will become a ``roton'' hopping term.

360: In the fermion Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}^{Z_2}_f$, we have defined

361: the antisymmetric matrix

362: $\epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}=i\sigma^y_{\sigma\sigma'}$, and take

363: $\Delta_j=(-1)^j\Delta$, which describes a nearest-neighbor pair

364: field with d-wave symmetry.  Apart from the first two terms

365: familiar to aficionados of the $Z_2$ gauge theory\cite{Z2}, we

366: have included a less exotic bare electron hopping amplitude $t_e$.

367: We will primarily be interested in the limit that the spinon

368: hopping strength is significantly larger than the electron hopping

369: strength, $t_s \gg t_e$.

370: 

371: In most of the analysis of this paper, we will consider the limit of

372: small spinon pairing $\Delta_j \rightarrow 0$.  This can be justified

373: either by the assumption $\Delta_j \ll t_s$, or by the irrelevance in

374: the renormalization group (RG) sense, which will occur occur in some

375: regimes.  If strictly $\Delta_j=0$, both fermion (spinon) number and

376: boson charge are conserved, and in principle may be separately fixed.

377: However, for $\Delta_j \rightarrow 0$, even infinitesimal, this is not

378: the case.  Instead the spinons will {\sl equilibrate} in some time that

379: diverges as $\Delta_j\rightarrow 0$ but is otherwise finite, and the

380: system will choose a unique fermion density to minimize its (free)

381: energy.  We will return to this point in the $U(1)$ formulation in

382: Sec.~\ref{sec:u1-vortex-spinon-1}. 

383: 

384: 

385: The full Hamiltonian above has a set of local $Z_2$ gauge

386: symmetries, commuting with each of the local operators,

387: \begin{equation}

388:   \label{eq:Z2constraint}

389:   {\cal C}_{\bf r}^1 = (-1)^{n_{\bf r}+ n^f_{{\bf r}}} \prod_{+({\bf r})} \sigma^x ,

390: \end{equation}

391: where $n^f_{{\bf r}} = f_{{\bf r}\sigma}^\dagger f_{{\bf

392: r}\sigma}^{\vphantom\dagger}$ is the fermion density and the $Z_2$

393: lattice divergence is defined as:

394: \begin{equation} \prod_{+({\bf r})}

395: \sigma^x \equiv \prod_j \sigma^x_j({\bf

396:     r}) \sigma^x_j({\bf r}-\hat{\bf x}_j) .

397: \end{equation}

398: Physical states are required to be gauge invariant, which is

399: specified by the set of local {\it constraints}: ${\cal C}^1_{\bf

400: r} \equiv 1$.  This is the $Z_2$ analog of Gauss law for

401: conventional electromagnetism.

402: 

403: The connection between the $Z_2$ gauge theory and a theory of

404: interacting electrons, is most apparent in the limit that $t_v$ is

405: taken to be much larger than all other couplings. In this limit

406: the electron creation operator is equivalent to the product of the

407: chargon and spinon creation operators, $c^\dagger_{{\bf r \sigma}}

408: = b^\dagger_{\bf r} f^\dagger_{{\bf r} \sigma}$.  Indeed, when

409: $t_v \rightarrow \infty$ the $Z_2$ ``electric'' field becomes

410: frozen, $\sigma^x_j \approx 1$, and the gauge constraints then

411: imply that on each site of the lattice the sum of the chargon and

412: spinon numbers, $n_{\bf r} + n^f_{\bf r}$, is even. Moreover, for

413: large $t_v$, the chargon and spinon hopping terms are strongly

414: suppressed, and can be considered perturbatively. Upon integrating

415: out the gauge fields, one will thereby generate an additional electron

416: kinetic energy term with amplitude of order $t_c t_s/t_v$.  A

417: brief discussion is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:fermiliquid}.

418: 

419: 

420: In what follows, we will study the $Z_2$ gauge theory more

421: generally, away from the large $t_v$ limit. Of interest is the

422: electron Greens function,

423: \begin{equation}

424: {\cal G}_e({\bf r}_1, \tau_1; {\bf r}_2, \tau_2) = - \langle

425: T_\tau \hat{c}_{{\bf r}_1\sigma}(\tau_1) \hat{c}^\dagger_{{\bf

426: r}_2 \sigma}(\tau_2) \rangle  .

427: \end{equation}

428: We will express the electron operators as,

429: \begin{equation}

430: c_{{\bf r}\sigma} \equiv b_{\bf r} f_{{\bf r}\sigma} ,

431: \end{equation}

432: which is exact as $t_v \rightarrow \infty$, but more generally

433: should be sufficient to extract the universal low energy and long

434: length scale behavior of the electron Green's function. We will

435: also be interested in correlation functions involving the Cooper

436: pair creation and destruction operators, $B^\dagger_{\bf r},B_{\bf

437: r}$, with $B_{\bf r} = (b_{\bf r})^2 = e^{-2i\phi_{\bf r}}$.

438: 

439: 

440: 

441: \subsection{$Z_2$ Vortex-spinon formulation}

442: \label{sec:z_2-vortex-spinon}

443: 

444: In what follows, it will prove particularly convenient to work

445: with vortex degrees of freedom, rather than the chargon fields. To

446: arrive at such a description, we use the U(1) duality

447: transformation\cite{Duality}, in which the dual variables sit

448: naturally on the 2d dual lattice. We denote the sites of the 2d

449: dual lattice by sans serif characters as ${\sf r}=x_1 {\bf

450: \hat{x}} + x_2 {\bf \hat{y}} + {\bf

451:   w}$, with ${\bf w} = (1/2)({\bf \hat{x}} + {\bf \hat{y}})$ and

452: integer $x_1,x_2$.  The duality transformation itself defines two

453: conjugate gauge fields $[a_i({\sf r}), e_j({\sf r}')] = i\delta_{ij}\delta_{\sf

454:   r,r'}$, where

455: \begin{eqnarray}

456:   \label{eq:duality}

457:   n_{\bf r} & = & \frac{1}{\pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j({\bf

458:     r-w}), \\

459:   \partial_i \phi_{\bf r} & = & \pi \epsilon_{ij} e_j({\bf

460:     r+w}-\hat{\bf x}_j).

461: \end{eqnarray}

462: Here, as defined, due to the discreteness of the $n_{\bf r}$

463: variables, $a_j({\sf r})$ takes on values that are integer multiples

464: of $\pi$, while $e_j({\sf r})$ is a periodic variable with period

465: $2$.  This transformation is faithful provided the constraint

466: \begin{equation}

467:   \label{eq:U1constraint}

468:   (\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{e})({\sf r}) \equiv  \sum_j \partial_j

469:   e_j({\sf r}-{\bf x}_j) = 0 \;\; ({\rm mod}\, 2),

470: \end{equation}

471: or equivalently

472: \begin{equation}

473:   \label{eq:U1constrainta}

474:   {\cal C}^2_{\sf r} = e^{i\pi (\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{e})({\sf r})} = 1

475: \end{equation}

476: is imposed at every site ${\sf r}$ of the dual lattice.

477: Rewriting the charge Hamiltonian, one has

478: \begin{eqnarray}

479:   \label{eq:DualChargeHam}

480:   {\cal H}_c & = & - t_c\sum_i \sigma_i^z({\bf r}) \cos(\pi

481:   \epsilon_{ij} e_j({\bf r+w}-\hat{\bf x}_j)-A_i({\bf r}) )\nonumber \\

482:   &&  + \frac{u_c}{\pi^2}(\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i

483:   a_j- \pi\rho_0)^2.

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: 

486: Conventional $hc/2e$ superconducting vortices are composites of a

487: ``vison'' (topological excitation in $\sigma_j^z$) and a

488: half-vortex in $\phi$.  To describe them, we perform a unitary

489: transformation to a new Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}_{Z_2}$ with new

490: constraints $\tilde{\cal C}^a$ ,

491: \begin{equation}

492:   \label{eq:Hdual1}

493:   \tilde{H}_{Z_2} = U^\dagger H_{Z_2} U^{\vphantom\dagger} , \qquad \tilde{\cal

494:     C}^a = U^\dagger {\cal

495:     C}^a U^{\vphantom\dagger},

496: \end{equation}

497: with the unitary operator,

498: \begin{eqnarray}

499:   \label{eq:unitary}

500:   U & = & \exp[\frac{i}{2} \sum_{{\bf r},i,j} \epsilon_{ij}a_i({\bf r+w}-\hat{\bf

501:     x}_i) (\sigma_j^z({\bf r})-1)] \nonumber\\

502:   & = & \prod_{\bf r} (\sigma^z_1({\bf r}))^{\frac{a_2({\bf r}+\overline{\bf w})}{\pi}}

503:   (\sigma^z_2({\bf r}))^{\frac{a_1({\bf r}-\overline{\bf w})}{\pi}},

504: \end{eqnarray}

505: with $\overline{\bf w} = (1/2)(\hat{\bf x} - \hat{\bf y}) = {\bf

506:   w}-\hat{\bf y}$.  The transformed constraints are,

507: \begin{eqnarray}

508:   \label{eq:Z2constraint2a}

509:   \tilde{\cal C}_{\bf r}^1 & = & (-1)^{n^f_{{\bf r}}} \prod_{+({\bf

510:       r})} \sigma^x = 1,  \\

511:   \tilde{\cal C}^2_{\sf r} & = & (-1)^{(\vec{\nabla}\cdot

512:     \vec{e})({\sf r})} \prod_{\Box({\sf r})} \sigma^z = 1.

513:     \label{eq:Z2constraint2b}

514: \end{eqnarray}

515: Under this unitary transformation,

516: \begin{eqnarray}

517:   \label{eq:Z2ham2}

518:   \tilde{\cal H}_c & = & - t_c \sum_j \cos( \pi e_j({\sf

519:     r})+\epsilon_{jk}A_k({\sf r}+{\bf\overline{w}})) \nonumber \\ && +

520:   \frac{u_c}{\pi^2}(\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j -

521:   \pi\rho_0)^2 , \\

522:   \tilde{\cal H}_g & = & \!\!\!\!- t_v \!\sum_j

523:   \!\overline{\sigma}_j^x({\sf r}) 

524:   \cos(a_j({\sf r})) \!-\! K

525:   (-1)^{(\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{e})({\sf r})} + {\cal H}^{Z_2}_r.

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: Here we have defined, $\overline{\sigma}^x_1({\sf r}) =

528: \sigma^x_2({\sf

529:   r}+\overline{\bf w}), \overline{\sigma}^x_2({\sf r}) =

530: \sigma^x_1({\sf r}-\overline{\bf w})$, and have used

531: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z2constraint2b}).  The transformed ``roton'' hopping

532: term becomes,

533: \begin{equation}

534:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_r = -\kappa_r \overline{\sigma}_1^x({\sf

535:     r}) \overline{\sigma}_1^x({\sf

536:     r}+\hat{\bf x}_2)\cos(\partial_y a_x({\sf r})) + (x\leftrightarrow

537:   y) .

538: \end{equation}

539: The fermion Hamiltonian is almost unchanged in the dual

540: vortex-spinon representation,

541: \begin{eqnarray}

542:   \label{eq:fdv}

543:   \tilde{\cal H}^{Z_2}_f & = &  -  \sum_j \sigma_j^z({\bf r})

544:   [ t_s f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

545:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}+\Delta_j f_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

546:       x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'}+ {\rm

547:     h.c.}] \nonumber \\

548:   & & - t_e \sum_j \sigma_j^z({\bf r}) e^{i(\pi \overline{e}_j({\bf

549:       r})-A_j({\bf r}))}

550:     f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j

551:       \sigma} f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}+ h.c. ,

552:       \label{HtildefermZ2}

553: \end{eqnarray}

554: the changes appearing only in the electron hopping (the last term).

555: Here we have defined,

556: \begin{equation}

557:   \overline{e}_i({\bf r}) = \epsilon_{ij} e_j({\bf r} + {\bf w} - \hat{x}_j)  .

558: \label{eq:defineebar}

559: \end{equation}

560: Notice that $\pi \overline{e}_j$ couples ``like a gauge field'' to

561: the spinons in the final electron term.

562: 

563: To arrive at the final $Z_2$ vortex-spinon theory, we split the

564: electric and magnetic fields into longitudinal and transverse parts,

565: $a_j = a_j^l + a_j^t$, $e_j=e_j^l+ e_j^t$, with $\vec{\nabla}\cdot

566: \vec{a}^t=\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{e}^t=0$, $\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i

567: a_j^l=\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i e_j^l= 0$.  For future purposes, we note

568: that the longitudinal part of $e_j$ is related to the transverse part

569: of $\overline{e}_j$ and vice versa, i.e. $\overline{e}_i^{l/t}({\bf

570:   r}) = \epsilon_{ij} e_j^{t/l}({\bf r} + {\bf w} - \hat{x}_j)$.  It

571: is convenient then to solve the constraint for the longitudinal

572: fields,

573: \begin{eqnarray}

574:   \label{eq:vortexvarstheta}

575:   a_j^l({\sf r}) &  = & -\partial_j \theta_{\sf r}, \\

576:   (\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{e}^l)({\sf r}) & = & N_{\sf r}.\label{eq:vortexvarsN}

577: \end{eqnarray}

578: The fields $e^{i\theta_{\sf r}}$ and $N_{\sf r}$ have the

579: interpretation of vortex creation and number operators, as can be seen

580: by tracking the circulation defined from the original chargon phase

581: variable $\phi$.  One finds canonical commutation relations,

582: \begin{equation}

583:   [\hat{\theta}_{\sf r}, \hat{N}_{\sf r^\prime}] = i \delta_{{\sf r}{\sf

584:       r^\prime}}  .\label{eq:Nthetacom}

585: \end{equation}

586: 

587: At this stage, $N_{\sf r}$ is a periodic variable with period $2$,

588: and $-\partial_j \theta_{\sf r} + a^t_j({\sf r})$ is constrained

589: to be an integer multiple of $\pi$.  It is convenient to soften

590: the latter constraint, and in order to respect the uncertainty

591: relation implied by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Nthetacom}), at the same time

592: relax the periodicity of $N_{\sf r}$.  Formally, this is

593: accomplished by replacing,

594: \begin{equation}

595:   \label{eq:replacecosine}

596:   -t_c \sum_j \cos (\pi e_j+\epsilon_{jk}A_k) \rightarrow {\rm Const.} +

597:   \frac{u_v}{2} 

598:   \sum_j (e_j+\epsilon_{jk} A_k/\pi)^2,

599: \end{equation}

600: with $u_v \approx t_c \pi^2$, and adding a term to the

601: Hamiltonian, $\tilde{H}_{Z_2} \rightarrow \tilde{H}_{Z_2} +

602: \sum_{\sf r} {\cal H}^{Z_2}_{2v}$, with

603: \begin{equation}

604:   \label{eq:pairvortex}

605:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_{2v}  =  - t_{2v} \sum_j \cos (2\partial_j \theta-

606:   2a_j^t).

607:   \label{pairvhop}

608: \end{equation}

609: The constraint is recovered for large $t_{2v}$, but we will

610: consider a renormalized theory in which $t_{2v}$ may be considered

611: a small perturbation.

612: 

613: It is convenient to regroup the longitudinal contribution to

614: $\tilde{H}_c$ along with the terms in $\tilde{H}_g$  and ${\cal

615: H}^{Z_2}_{2v}$ into vortex ``potential'' and ``kinetic'' terms,

616: $H_N$ and $H^{Z_2}_{kin}$. We thereby arrive at the final form for

617: the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon Hamiltonian,

618: \begin{equation}

619: \tilde{H}_{Z_2} = H_{pl} + H_N + H^{Z_2}_{kin} +

620: \tilde{H}_f^{Z_2}, \label{HamZ2vs}

621: \end{equation}

622: with the fermion Hamiltonian $\tilde{\cal H}_s^{Z_2}$ given in

623: Eq.~(\ref{HtildefermZ2}) and with,

624: \begin{eqnarray}

625:   \label{eq:z2vortexspinon}

626:     {\cal H}_{pl} & = & {u_v \over 2} [e^t_j({\sf

627:       r})\!+\!\epsilon_{jk}A^l_k({\sf r}+\overline{\bf w})]^2 \nonumber

628:     \\ && +

629:     \frac{v_0^2}{2u_v} 

630:   [\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a^t_j({\sf r})\! - \pi \rho_0]^2  , \\

631:   H_{N} & = &   {u_v \over 2} \sum_{{\sf r},{\sf r}^\prime}

632:   (\hat{N}_{\sf r}-\frac{B_{\sf r}}{\pi})

633:   (\hat{N}_{{\sf r}^\prime}-\frac{B_{\sf r}}{\pi}) V({\sf r} - {\sf

634:     r}^\prime) , \\ 

635:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_{kin} & = & {\cal H}^{Z_2}_v  + {\cal H}^{Z_2}_{2v}

636:   + {\cal H}^{Z_2}_r.

637: \end{eqnarray}

638: Here $B_{\sf r} = \epsilon_{ij}\partial_i A_j({\sf r}-{\bf w})$ is the

639: physical flux through the plaquette of the original lattice located at

640: the site ${\sf r}$ of the dual lattice.

641: In the ``plasmon'' Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}_{pl}$, an implicit sum

642: over $j=1,2$ is understood and we have defined a (bare) plasmon

643: velocity, $v_0$, as $v_0^2 = 2 u_ct_c = 2u_c t_v /\pi^2$. Inside

644: the superconducting phase, this Hamiltonian describes the

645: Goldstone mode - or sound mode - and can be readily diagonalized

646: to give the dispersion, $\omega^2_{pl}({\bf k}) = v_0^2 \sum_j [2

647: \sin(k_j/2)]^2$ with $|k_j| < \pi$ in the first Brillouin zone.

648: Since the electron charge density is given by, ${1 \over \pi}

649: \epsilon_{ij}

650:  \partial_i a_j$, one can readily include long-ranged Coulomb interactions

651: which will modify the plasmon at small ${\bf k}$.

652: 

653: 

654: In $H_N$ above we have set $K=0$, dropping henceforth

655: the term $\delta H_N(K) = - K\sum_{\sf r}

656: (-1)^{N_{\sf r}}$, since it will not play an important role in the

657: phases of interest.

658: The vortex-vortex interaction energy $V({\sf r})$ is the Fourier

659: transformation of the discrete inverse Laplacian operator,

660: $V^{-1}({\bf k}) \equiv {\cal K}^2({\bf k})$, with ${\cal

661: K}^2({\bf k}) = \sum_j 2(1-\cos k_j)$, and has the expected

662: logarithmic behavior at large distances, $V({\sf r}) \sim {1 \over

663: 2 \pi} \ln(|{\sf r}|)$.  The vortex kinetic energy, ${\cal

664: H}^{Z_2}_{kin}$, is a sum of three contributions - a single vortex

665: hopping term,

666: \begin{equation}

667: {\cal H}^{Z_2}_v =  - t_{v} \sum_j \overline{\sigma}_j^x({\sf

668:     r})\cos (\partial_j \theta_{\sf r}- a_j^t) ,

669: \end{equation}

670: a pair-vortex hopping term ${\cal H}^{Z_2}_{2v}$ given in

671: Eq.~(\ref{pairvhop}), and a ``roton'' hopping term,

672: \begin{equation}

673: {\cal H}^{Z_2}_r = -\kappa_r \overline{\sigma}_2^x({\sf

674:     r}) \overline{\sigma}_2^x({\sf

675:     r}+\hat{\bf x}_1)\cos(\Delta_{xy} \theta_{\sf r} -

676:     \partial_x a^t_y({\sf r})) + (x\leftrightarrow y) ,

677:   \end{equation}

678: where we have defined,

679: \begin{equation}

680: \Delta_{xy} \theta_{{\sf r}} = \Delta_{yx} \theta_{{\sf r}} \equiv

681: \sum_{e_1,e_2 = 0,1} (-1)^{e_1 + e_2} \theta_{{\sf r}+ e_1 {\bf

682: \hat{x}}+ e_2 {\bf \hat{y}} }  . \label{deltaxy}

683: \end{equation}

684: Notice that ${\cal H}^{Z_2}_r$ hops two vortices, originally at

685: sites of the dual lattice on opposite corners of an elementary

686: square, to the other two sites. Equivalently, this term can be

687: interpreted as hopping a vortex-antivortex pair on neighboring

688: sites (ie. a vortex ``dipole'' or more simply a {\it roton}) one

689: lattice spacing in a direction perpendicular to the dipole.  Such

690: a roton is a 2d analog of a 3d vortex ring, and in a Galilean

691: invariant superfluid (such as $4-He$) vortex rings propagate in

692: precisely this manner. Henceforth we shall refer to this process

693: as a ``roton hopping'' process.

694: 

695: 

696: 

697: The above $Z_2$ vortex-spinon Hamiltonian must be supplemented by

698: the two gauge constraints, which from

699: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Z2constraint2a},\ref{eq:Z2constraint2b}) and

700: (\ref{eq:vortexvarsN}) can be cast into an appealingly simple and

701: symmetrical form:

702: \begin{equation}

703: \tilde{\cal C}_{\bf r}^1  =  (-1)^{n^f_{\bf r}} \prod_{\Box({\bf

704: r})} \overline{\sigma}^x = 1,

705:   \label{Z2con1}

706: \end{equation}

707: \begin{equation}

708: \tilde{\cal C}^2_{\sf r}  =  (-1)^{N_{\sf r}} \prod_{\Box({\sf

709:         r})} \sigma^z = 1.

710: \label{Z2con2}

711: \end{equation}

712: 

713: 

714: These constraints correspond to an attachment of a $Z_2$ flux in

715: $\sigma^z$ and $\overline{\sigma}^x$ to the vortex number {\it

716: parity} and the spinon number parity, respectively.  Since the

717: spinons are minimally coupled to $\sigma^z$ and the vortices to

718: $\overline{\sigma}^x$, this implies a sign change upon hopping a

719: spinon around a vortex -- or vice versa. Indeed, if the partition

720: function for the vortex-spinon Hamiltonian (without ${\cal

721: H}^{Z_2}_r$ and with $t_e=0$) is expressed as an imaginary time

722: path integral with the $Z_2$ constraints in

723: Eqs.~(\ref{Z2con1},~\ref{Z2con2}) imposed, the resulting Euclidean

724: action becomes identical to Eqs (109)-(113) in

725: Ref.~[\onlinecite{Z2}].

726: 

727: It is instructive to obtain explicit expressions for the electron

728: and Cooper pair creation operators in terms of the dualized vortex

729: degrees of freedom.  From Eq.~(\ref{eq:duality}) we can directly

730: obtain an expression for the Cooper pair destruction operator,

731: $B_{\bf r} = e^{-2i \phi_{\bf r}}$, as

732: \begin{equation}

733: B_{\bf r} = \prod_{\bf r}^{\infty} e^{2\pi i  \overline{e}_j({\bf r}')

734:   d{\bf r}'_j} ,

735: \label{pairop}

736: \end{equation}

737: where the $\prod$ symbol here denotes a product along a semi-infinite

738: ``directed'' string running on the links of the original lattice,

739: originating at ${\bf r}$ and terminating at spatial infinity, with

740: $d{\bf r}'$ the unit vector from the point ${\bf r}'$ along the string

741: to the next point.  In terms of $e_j$ (rather than $\overline{e}_j$),

742: the product contains a factor of $\exp(\pm 2\pi i e_j({\sf r}))$ for

743: each link of the dual lattice that crosses the string, taking the

744: positive/negative sign for directed links crossing the string from

745: right/left to left/right proceeding from ${\bf r}$ to $\infty$.  We

746: will use the above notation when possible to present precise analytic

747: expressions for such strings.

748: The path independence of the string is assured by the second gauge

749: constraint, ${\cal C}^2_{\sf r} = 1$.  Since the unitary

750: transformation, $U$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:unitary}), commutes with

751: $e^{2\pi i e_j}$, this is the correct expression for the Cooper

752: pair operator within the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon theory.

753: 

754: An expression for the electron operator, $c_{{\bf r}\sigma} =

755: b_{\bf r} f_{{\bf r}\sigma}$, in the dual vortex-spinon theory can

756: be extracted by moreover re-expressing the ``chargon'' operator

757: $b_{\bf r} = e^{-i\phi_{\bf r}}$ as a string,

758: \begin{equation}

759: b_{\bf r} = \prod_{\bf r}^\infty  e^{i\pi \overline{e}_j d{\bf r}'_j} = {\cal

760: S}_{vort}({\bf r}) {\cal S}_\phi({\bf r})  . \label{bstring}

761: \end{equation}

762: For later convenience, we have here decomposed this expression

763: into a piece depending on the vortex configurations through the

764: longitudinal ``electric'' field, $e_j^{\ell}$, and a contribution

765: depending on the smooth part of the phase, $\phi$, through the

766: transverse field, $e_j^t$:

767: \begin{equation}

768: {\cal S}_{vort}({\bf r}) = \prod_{\bf r}^\infty

769:  e^{i \pi \overline{e}_j^{t}d{\bf r}'_j} ; \hskip1cm  {\cal

770:    S}_\phi({\bf r}) = \prod_{\bf 

771: r}^\infty e^{i\pi \overline{e}_j^l d{\bf r}'_j} . \label{SvortSphi}

772: \end{equation}

773: But unlike the Cooper pair operator, the ``chargon'' operator

774: transforms non-trivially under the unitary transformation in

775: Eq.~(\ref{eq:unitary}):

776: \begin{equation}

777: \tilde{b}_{\bf r} = U^\dagger b_{\bf r} U = \prod_{\bf r}^\infty

778: [\sigma^z_i e^{i\pi \overline{e}_j d{\bf r}'_j} ] , \label{btilde}

779: \end{equation}

780: now including a factor of $\sigma^z_j({\bf r})$ for each link of

781: the string.  Again, the path independence is guaranteed by the

782: gauge constraint, $\tilde{\cal C}^2_{\sf r} = 1$.  

783: The final expression for the electron operator within the dualized

784: $Z_2$ vortex-spinon field theory follows simply as,

785: \begin{equation}

786: \tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\sigma} = U^\dagger c_{{\bf r}\sigma} U =

787: \tilde{b}_{\bf r} f_{{\bf r}\sigma} .

788: \label{electronZ2}

789: \end{equation}

790: 

791: As discussed at length in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Z2}], the $Z_2$

792: vortex-spinon formulation is particularly well suited for

793: accessing spin-charge separated insulating states. Specifically,

794: when pairs of vortices hop around they ``see'' an average gauge

795: flux of, $2 \epsilon_{ij}

796: \partial_i a_j = 2\pi \rho_0$.  Thus at half-filling with

797: $\rho_0=1$, vortex-pairs are effectively moving in zero flux and

798: at large pair-hopping strength, $t_{2v} \rightarrow \infty$, will

799: readily condense - driving the system into an insulating state

800: with a charge gap.  In the simplifying limit with vanishing {\it

801: single} vortex hopping strength, $t_v=0$, all of the vortices are

802: paired, $(-1)^N =1$, and the $Z_2$ gauge constraint in

803: Eq.~(\ref{Z2con2}) reduces to $\prod_{\Box} \sigma^z

804: =1$. The ``vison'' excitations (plaquettes with $\prod_ {\Box}

805: \sigma^z = -1$) are gapped out of the ground state, and the

806: spinons, being minimally coupled to $\sigma^z$, can propagate as

807: deconfined excitations.  The charge sector supports gapped but

808: deconfined chargon excitations, which can be viewed as topological

809: defects in the pair-vortex condensate.

810: 

811: But as we shall see below, to access the new Roton Fermi Liquid phase

812: requires taking the strength of the roton hopping strength large, and

813: the $Z_2$ formulation proves inadequate.  To remedy this, we introduce

814: in subsection C below, a new $U(1)$ formulation of the vortex-spinon

815: field theory.  As we shall demonstrate, the $U(1)$ and $Z_2$

816: vortex-spinon formulations are formally equivalent, and by a sequence

817: of unitary transformations it is possible to pass from one

818: representation to the other.  Care should be taken when considering

819: operators which transform non-trivially under the unitary operations

820: related different representations, however.  A third dual vortex

821: formulation involving electron (rather than spinon) operators is

822: briefly discussed below in Appendix \ref{ap:elecform}. The Hamiltonian

823: in this ``vortex-electron'' formulation is equivalent under a sequence

824: of unitary transformations to both the $Z_2$ and $U(1)$ vortex-spinon

825: Hamiltonians.

826: 

827: To establish these equivalences, it is convenient to ``choose a

828: gauge'' in the $Z_2$ theory.  As detailed in Appendix

829: \ref{ap:enslaveZ2}, it is possible to unitarily transform to a

830: basis in which the $Z_2$ gauge fields are completely ``slaved'' to

831: the vortex and spinon operators, and can be eliminated completely

832: from the theory.  Specifically, in the chosen gauge the

833: $x-$components of both $\sigma^z$ and $\overline{\sigma}^x$ are

834: set to unity on every link of the lattice:

835: $\overline{\sigma}_1^{x}({\sf r})= \sigma_1^{z}({\bf r}) = 1$. As

836: we shall see in subsection C below, the $U(1)$ gauge fields in the

837: $U(1)$ vortex-spinon formulation can be similarly enslaved.

838: Remarkably one arrives at the {\it identical} ``enslaved''

839: Hamiltonian in both cases, thereby establishing the formal

840: equivalence between the two formulations.

841: 

842: 

843: 

844: 

845: \subsection{U(1) Vortex-spinon formulation}

846: \label{sec:u1-vortex-spinon}

847: 

848: 

849: In the $U(1)$ formulation of the vortex-spinon field theory, the

850: Pauli matrices $\sigma^z, \overline{\sigma}^x$ which live as $Z_2$

851: gauge fields on the links of the original and dual lattice,

852: respectively, are

853: effectively replaced by exponentials of two

854: $U(1)$ gauge fields:  $\overline{\sigma}^x_j({\sf r}) \rightarrow

855: exp[i \alpha_j({\sf r})]$ and  $\sigma^z_j({\bf r})

856:  \rightarrow

857: exp[i\beta_j({\bf r})]$. These two $U(1)$ gauge fields are

858: canonically conjugate variables taken to satisfy,

859: \begin{equation}

860: [\alpha_i({\sf r} - {\bf \hat{x}}_i),\beta_j({\bf r}^\prime)] = i

861: \pi \epsilon_{ij} \delta^2({\bf r} - {\bf r}^\prime)  ,

862: \end{equation}

863: with ${\sf r} = {\bf r}   + {\bf w}$. For two ``crossing'' links

864: these commutation relations imply that the exponentials,

865: $e^{i\alpha}, e^{i\beta}$, anticommute with one another, $[e^{i

866: \alpha}, e^{i \beta}]_- =0$.

867: 

868: \subsubsection{$U(1)$ Vortex-spinon Hamiltonian}

869: \label{sec:u1-vortex-spinon-1}

870: 

871: The full Hamiltonian for the $U(1)$ vortex-spinon field theory

872: takes the same form as the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon Hamiltonian in

873: Eq.~(\ref{HamZ2vs}),

874: \begin{equation}

875: H = H_{pl} + H_N + H_{kin} + H_f,

876: \label{HamU1vs}

877: \end{equation}

878: with $H_{pl}$ and $H_N$ given as before in

879: Eq.~(\ref{eq:z2vortexspinon}). Only the vortex kinetic terms and

880: the fermion Hamiltonian are modified. Once again the vortex

881: kinetic energy terms are decomposed into single vortex,

882: pair-vortex and roton hopping processes:

883: \begin{equation}

884:   {\cal H}_{kin}  =  {\cal H}_v  + {\cal H}_{2v}

885:   + {\cal H}_r .

886: \end{equation}

887: Since the vortices in the $U(1)$ formulation are minimally coupled

888: to the $U(1)$ gauge field, $\alpha_j({\sf r})$, each of these

889: three terms will be modified from their $Z_2$ forms. Specifically,

890: in terms of the associated Hamiltonian densities we have,

891: \begin{equation}

892: {\cal H}_v = -t_v \sum_{j=1,2} \cos(\partial_j \theta - a^t_j + \alpha_j)  ,

893: \label{vorthop}

894: \end{equation}

895: \begin{equation}

896: {\cal H}_{2v} = -t_{2v} \sum_{j=1,2}

897: \cos(2\partial_j \theta - 2a^t_j + 2\alpha_j) ,

898: \label{vortpairhop}

899: \end{equation}

900: \begin{equation}

901: {\cal H}_{r} = -{\kappa_r \over 2}  \cos[\Delta_{xy} \theta -

902: \partial_x(a^t_y - \alpha_y)]   + (x \leftrightarrow y)   ,

903: \label{rothop}

904: \end{equation}

905: with $\Delta_{xy} \theta_{{\sf r}}$ defined in

906: Eq.~({\ref{deltaxy}).

907: 

908: 

909: 

910: 

911: 

912: The Hamiltonian density for the fermions in the $U(1)$ formulation

913: is given by

914: \begin{eqnarray}

915: {\cal H}_f  & = & -  \sum_j e^{i\beta_j({\bf r})} [ (t_s + t_e e^{i(\pi

916:   \overline{e}_j({\bf r})-A_j({\bf r}))})

917: f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

918:     f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}  \nonumber \\

919:     & & +  \Delta_j

920:     [{\cal S}_{\bf r}]^2 f_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

921:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'}+ {\rm

922:       h.c.}]

923:         \label{eq:Hf}

924: \end{eqnarray}

925: In the $U(1)$ formulation, the (average) density of spinons,

926: $\langle f^\dagger_{\sigma} f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{\sigma} \rangle

927: = \langle {1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j \rangle

928: $ (as follows from Eq.~(\ref{U1constraint})) is taken to be {\it

929: equal} to the (average) charge density, $\langle {1 \over \pi}

930: \epsilon_{ij}

931: \partial_i a_j \rangle$.

932: A new element, not present in the $Z_2$ fermion Hamiltonian,

933: ${\tilde{\cal H}}^{Z_2}_s$ in Eq.~(\ref{HtildefermZ2}), is the

934: ``string operator'', ${\cal S}_{\bf r}$. The string operator is

935: given as a product of $e^{i\beta}$ running along directed links of

936: the original lattice from the site ${\bf r}$ to spatial infinity:

937: \begin{equation}

938: {\cal S}_{\bf r} = \prod_{\bf r}^\infty e^{i\beta_j d{\bf r}'_j} .

939: \end{equation}

940: As we shall discuss below, once we restrict the Hilbert space to

941: gauge invariant states other choices for the ``path'' of the

942: string are formally equivalent. 

943: 

944: 

945: 

946: In addition to global spin and charge conservation, the full

947: $U(1)$ vortex-spinon Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}$ above, has a number

948: of {\it local} gauge symmetries. To fully define the model we need

949: to specify the set of gauge invariant states that are allowed.

950: Associated with each of the ``Chern-Simons'' fields, $\alpha$ and

951: $\beta$,  is a $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. Specifically, the full

952: Hamiltonian is invariant under {\it independent} gauge

953: transformations:

954:   \begin{eqnarray}

955:     e^{-i \theta_{\sf r}} & \rightarrow &   e^{-i \theta_{\sf r}} e^{i \chi_r}, \nonumber \\

956:     \alpha_j({\sf r}) & \rightarrow & \alpha_j({\sf r}) + \partial_j \chi_{\sf r} ,

957:     \label{Hgauge1}

958:   \end{eqnarray}

959: and

960:   \begin{eqnarray}

961:     f_{{\bf r}\sigma} & \rightarrow & f_{{\bf r}\sigma}e^{i\Lambda_{\bf

962:         r}}, \nonumber \\

963:     \beta_j({\bf r}) & \rightarrow & \beta_j({\bf r}) +

964: \partial_j \Lambda_{\bf r},

965:     \label{Hgauge2}

966:   \end{eqnarray}

967: for arbitrary real functions, $\Lambda_{\bf r}$ and $\chi_{\sf r}$,

968: living on the original and dual lattices, respectively.

969: The corresponding operators which

970: transform the fields in this way are,

971: \begin{equation}

972: {\cal G}_v(\chi_{\sf r}) = e^{-i \sum_{\sf r} \chi_{\sf r} [

973: N_{\sf r} - {1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \beta_j({\sf r}

974: - {\bf w}) ]} , \label{U1opvortex}

975: \end{equation}

976: and

977: \begin{equation}

978: {\cal G}_f(\Lambda_{\sf r}) = e^{i \sum_{\bf r} \Lambda_{\bf r}

979: [ f^\dagger_{{\bf r} \sigma}

980: f_{{\bf r} \sigma} - {1 \over \pi}

981: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j({\bf r} - {\bf w}) ]} .

982: \label{U1opspinon}

983: \end{equation}

984: Both of these operators commute with the full Hamiltonian

985: $H$. The $U(1)$ sector is specified by simply setting ${\cal

986: G}_v = {\cal G}_f =1$ for arbitrary $\chi_{\sf

987:   r}$ and $\Lambda_{\bf r}$.  From

988: Eqs.~(\ref{U1opvortex},\ref{U1opspinon}) this is equivalent to

989: attaching $\pi$ flux in the statistical gauge fields $\alpha$ and

990: $\beta$ to the spinons and vortices:

991: \begin{equation}

992: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j({\bf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi f^\dagger_{{\bf r} \sigma}

993: f_{{\bf r} \sigma}  ;   \hskip0.5cm  \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \beta_j({\sf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi N_{\sf r}   .

994: \label{U1constraint}

995: \end{equation}

996: Notice that this is simply the $U(1)$ analog of the $Z_2$ flux

997: attachment in Eqs.~(\ref{Z2con1},\ref{Z2con2}),

998: and implies the same sign change

999: when a spinon is transported around a vortex or vice versa. The

1000: only difference is that in the $U(1)$ formulation the phase of

1001: $\pi$ is accumulated gradually when the spinon is taken around the

1002: vortex, whereas the sign change in the $Z_2$ theory can occur when

1003: the spinon hops across a single link. The formal equivalence of

1004: the $Z_2$ and $U(1)$ formulations will be established below.

1005: 

1006: 

1007: 

1008: As we shall see, the ``smearing'' of the accumulated $\pi$ phase

1009: change, makes the theory in the $U(1)$ formulation eminently more

1010: tractable. The one notable complication is the square of the ``string operator'',

1011: which in the $U(1)$ sector is a non-trivial function of

1012: $e^{2i\beta}$ along the string, rather than equaling unity as in

1013: the $Z_2$ sector. However, it is worth emphasizing that within the

1014: $U(1)$ sector of the theory, the value of the operator ${\cal O}_{\bf r}

1015: \equiv {\cal S}_{\bf r}^2$ is

1016: {\it independent} of the chosen path.  Specifically, consider two

1017: (unitary) string operators, denoted ${\cal O}_1, {\cal O}_2$, with

1018: different paths running from the same site ${\bf r}$ off to

1019: spatial infinity.  The ``difference'' between the two string

1020: operators, ${\cal O}_1^{-1}{\cal O}_2$, is a product of

1021: $e^{2i\beta}$ around {\it closed loops}.  But due to the $U(1)$

1022: gauge constraint in Eq.~(\ref{U1constraint}), $\epsilon_{ij}

1023: \partial_i \beta_j = \pi N$, this product is an exponential

1024: of the total vorticity $N_{tot}$ inside the closed loops, ${\cal

1025: O}_1^{-1}{\cal O}_2 = exp(2\pi i N_{tot})$. Since the vorticity is

1026: integer, one deduces that the string operator is indeed path

1027: independent, ${\cal O}_1 = {\cal O}_2$.

1028: 

1029: It will prove useful to obtain expressions for the electron and

1030: Cooper pair creation operators within the $U(1)$ vortex-spinon

1031: formulation.  The Cooper pair operator has the same form as in the

1032: $Z_2$ vortex-spinon formulation, given explicitly in

1033: Eq.~(\ref{pairop}), but the electron operator is modified in a

1034: non-trivial way. As we shall check explicitly below, the electron

1035: operator within the $U(1)$ formulation involves a string depending

1036: on both the dual ``electric field'', $e_j$, as well as the

1037: statistical gauge field, $\beta_j$:

1038: \begin{equation}

1039: c_{{\bf r}\sigma} = f_{{\bf r}\sigma} \prod_{\bf r}^\infty

1040: e^{i[\pi \overline{e}_i+ \beta_i]d{\bf r}'_i}  , \label{electronU1}

1041: \end{equation}

1042: with $\overline{e}_i({\bf r})$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:defineebar}).

1043: The path independence follows from the condition in

1044: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vortexvarsN}), together with the second $U(1)$ gauge

1045: constraint in Eq.~(\ref{U1constraint}) above;

1046: \begin{equation}

1047: \pi \partial_j e_j({\sf r} - {\bf x}_j) = \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i

1048: \beta_j({\sf r} - {\bf w}).

1049: \end{equation}

1050: This implies an equality between the longitudinal ``electric

1051: field'' and the transverse statistical field:

1052: \begin{equation}

1053: \beta^t_1({\bf r}) = \pi e^l_2({\bf r} + \overline{\bf w}) ;

1054: \hskip1cm \beta^t_2({\bf r}) = - e^l_1({\bf r} -

1055: \overline{\bf w}) ,

1056: \end{equation}

1057: or

1058: \begin{equation}

1059:   \label{eq:bteqebt}

1060:   \beta_i^t = -\pi \overline{e}_i^t,

1061: \end{equation}

1062: and enables the electron destruction operator to be re-expressed

1063: as,

1064: \begin{equation}

1065: c_{{\bf r}\sigma} = f_{{\bf r}\sigma} {\cal S}_\phi({\bf r})

1066: \prod_{\bf r}^\infty e^{i\beta_j^l d{\bf r}'_j} \label{elecspinon}

1067: \end{equation}

1068: with ${\cal S}_\phi({\bf r})$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{SvortSphi}).

1069: Similarly, the string operator that enters into the $U(1)$ fermion

1070: Hamiltonian, $H_f$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hf}), can be written as,

1071: \begin{equation}

1072: {\cal S}_{\bf r} = {\cal S}_{vort}({\bf r})

1073: \prod_{\bf r}^\infty e^{i\beta^l_j d{\bf r}'_j}  .

1074: \end{equation}

1075: Upon combining the above two equations, and recalling the identity for

1076: the ``chargon'' operator in the original $Z_2$ theory, $b_{\bf r} =

1077: {\cal S}_{vort}({\bf r}) {\cal S}_\phi({\bf r})$ in

1078: Eq.~({\ref{bstring}), implies that, ${\cal S}^\dagger_{\bf r} f_{{\bf

1079:       r}\sigma} = b^\dagger_{\bf r} c_{{\bf r}\sigma}$.  Consequently,

1080:   ``spinon pairing'' terms in the $Z_2$ gauge theory are seen to be

1081:   equivalent to the usual Bogoliubov-deGennes form:

1082: \begin{equation}

1083: [{\cal S}_{\bf r} ]^2 \epsilon_{\sigma \sigma^\prime}

1084: f_{{\bf r}\sigma} f_{{\bf r}\sigma^\prime} = B^\dagger_{\bf r}

1085: \epsilon_{\sigma \sigma^\prime} c_{{\bf r}\sigma} c_{{\bf

1086: r}\sigma^\prime} ,

1087: \label{eq:bdgform}

1088: \end{equation}

1089: with $B^\dagger_{\bf r}$ the Cooper pair creation operator.  For

1090: $d$-wave pairing, the pair field lives on links, and a similar identity

1091: obtains: 

1092: \begin{eqnarray}

1093:   \label{eq:dwaveid}

1094: \!\!\!  e^{i\beta_j({\bf r})} 

1095:     [{\cal S}_{\bf r}]^2 f_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

1096:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'} & = &

1097:     \!\!\!B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}^\dagger 

1098:     c_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf 

1099:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf

1100:         r}\sigma'}. \end{eqnarray} 

1101: Here we have introduced a bond-Cooper pair operator,

1102: \begin{eqnarray}

1103:   \label{eq:bondcp}

1104:   B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}^\dagger & = & \tilde{b}^\dagger_{\bf

1105:     r} \tilde{b}^\dagger_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}, \\

1106:   \tilde{b}^\dagger_{\bf r} & = & \prod_{\bf r}^\infty e^{-i\pi

1107:     \overline{e}_i d{\bf r}'_i}.

1108: \end{eqnarray}

1109: Note that in the un-transformed chargon variables of the  $Z_2$

1110: gauge theory formulation, $B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

1111:     x}_j}^\dagger=\sigma^z_j({\bf r})b^\dagger_{\bf r} b^\dagger_{{\bf

1112:     r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}$.

1113: 

1114: Recalling the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:z_2-chargon-spinon}, it is

1115: still the case that for $\Delta_j=0$, when this pairing term is absent,

1116: the fermion number is conserved, and naively may be chosen arbitrarily.

1117: However, in the limit $\Delta_j\rightarrow 0$, which we consider here,

1118: this conservation is weakly violated, and only the total charge is

1119: conserved.  The physics at work is clear from Eq.~(\ref{eq:bdgform}):

1120: for non-vanishing $\Delta_j$, quasiparticle pairs and boson pairs are

1121: interchanged, and the two charged fluids come to equilibrium.  Thus in

1122: what follows, we should choose to divide the charge density amongst the

1123: fermions and bosons in such a way as to minimize the total (free)

1124: energy.  This division will therefore shift as parameters of the

1125: Hamiltonian are changed.  How it does so is crucial to the ultimate

1126: low energy physical properties of the system, as is clear from

1127: Eqs.~(\ref{vorthop})-~(\ref{rothop}), which show that the vortices

1128: experience an effective ``flux'' proportional to the difference of the

1129: total charge density ($\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i a_j/\pi$) and the

1130: fermionic density $n_f=\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i\alpha_j/\pi$.  As the

1131: fermion density is varied, the effective flux seen by the vortices

1132: changes.  Significantly, in the limit $t_v\rightarrow \infty$, vortex

1133: hopping dominates the energetics, and is minimized when the fermion

1134: density equals the total charge density, $n_f =

1135: \epsilon_{ij}\partial_i a_j/\pi$.  This naturally

1136: recovers the Fermi liquid phase (App.~\ref{sec:fermiliquid}) by binding

1137: charge $e$ firmly to each fermion, fully accommodating all the electrical

1138: charge.  

1139: 

1140: In the rest of the paper we work exclusively within the $U(1)$

1141: vortex-spinon formulation, which is particularly suitable for

1142: extracting the properties of the Roton Fermi liquid. Before

1143: embarking on that, we first establish the formal equivalence

1144: between the two formulations by enslaving the $U(1)$ gauge fields.

1145: As detailed in Appendix ~\ref{ap:enslaveU1}, it is possible to

1146: unitarily transform to a gauge with $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\alpha}

1147: = \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\beta}^{slave} = 0$.  In this gauge, both

1148: $\alpha_j$ and $\beta_j$ are ``enslaved", being fully expressible

1149: in terms of the spinon and vortex densities, $n^f_{\bf r}$ and

1150: $N_{\sf r}$, respectively.  Moreover, the enslaved $U(1)$

1151: Hamiltonian is found to be {\it identical} to the enslaved $Z_2$

1152: Hamiltonian obtained in Appendix ~\ref{ap:enslaveZ2}, and the

1153: enslaved expressions for the electron operators also

1154: coincide.

1155: 

1156: Having thereby established the equivalence between the $Z_2$ and

1157: $U(1)$ vortex-spinon field theories, in the remainder of the paper

1158: we choose to work exclusively within the $U(1)$ formulation,

1159: employing the Hamiltonian $H$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{HamU1vs}),

1160: together with the gauge constraints in Eq.~(\ref{U1constraint}).

1161: In practice, it is far simpler to work within a Lagrangian

1162: formulation, where the gauge constraints can be imposed explicitly

1163: within a path integral, as detailed in the next subsection.

1164: 

1165: 

1166: 

1167: 

1168: 

1169: \subsubsection{Lagrangian for $U(1)$ Vortex-spinon theory }

1170: \label{sec:lagr-form-u1}

1171: 

1172: In order to impose the $U(1)$ gauge constraints in

1173: Eq.~(\ref{U1constraint}) on the Hilbert space of the full

1174: vortex-spinon Hamiltonian, $H$, we will pass to a Euclidean

1175: path integral representation of the partition function. The

1176: associated Euclidean Lagrangian is readily obtained as a sum of

1177: three contributions,

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: S = \int d \tau [ H  + L_{B} + L_{con}],

1180: \label{Sfulla}

1181: \end{equation}

1182: with $L_{B}$ involving the generalized coordinates and conjugate momenta,

1183: \begin{eqnarray}

1184: L_{B} & = &

1185: \sum_{{\bf r} = {\sf r} + {\bf w}}

1186: [i N_{\sf r} \partial_0 \theta_{\sf r}

1187: -  {i \over \pi} \beta_i({\bf r}) \epsilon_{ij} \partial_0 \alpha_j ({\sf r} + \hat{x}_i )]  \nonumber \\

1188: & + & \sum_{{\bf r} = {\sf r} + {\bf w}}

1189: [i e^t_j({\sf r}) \partial_0 a^t_j({\sf r})

1190: + f_{{\bf r} \sigma}^\dagger \partial_0

1191: f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} ] ,

1192: \end{eqnarray}

1193: with $\partial_0 \equiv \partial/\partial \tau$ denoting an

1194: imaginary time derivative and $L_{con}$ is a Lagrange multiplier

1195: term imposing the two independent $U(1)$ gauge constraints,

1196: \begin{eqnarray}

1197: L_{con} & = & {i \over \pi} \sum_{{\bf r} = {\sf r} - {\bf w}}

1198: \alpha_0({\sf r}) [\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \beta_j({\bf r}) - \pi N_{\sf r} ] \nonumber \\

1199: & +& {i \over \pi} \sum_{{\bf r} = {\sf r} + {\bf w}}

1200:  \beta_0({\bf r})

1201: [ \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j({\sf r}) - \pi f_{{\bf r}

1202: \sigma}^\dagger f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} ] .

1203: \end{eqnarray}

1204: Here we have introduced two Chern-Simons scalar potentials as

1205: Lagrange multipliers, denoted $\alpha_0({\sf r})$ and

1206: $\beta_0({\bf r})$, which live on the dual and original lattice

1207: sites respectively.

1208: 

1209: Upon introducing another scalar potential, $a_0({\sf r})$, living on the sites

1210: of the dual lattice, and collecting together the longitudinal and transverse parts

1211: of $a_j$ and $e_j$, the full Euclidean action

1212: can be compactly cast into a simple form.

1213: In order to make the vortex physics more explicit we choose to re-introduce the

1214: vortex phase-field $\theta$ within the Lagrangian formulation.

1215: Specifically, we shift

1216: $a_\mu \rightarrow a_\mu + \partial_\mu \theta$

1217: with $\mu = 0,x,y$,

1218: and then integrate over {\it both} $a_\mu$ and $\theta$.

1219: In this way we arrive at the final form for the full Euclidean Lagrangian:

1220: \begin{equation}

1221: S = S_c + S_f + S_{cs} + S_A  .

1222: \label{Sfullb}

1223: \end{equation}

1224: The charge sector action $S_c =\int_\tau \sum_{\sf r} {\cal

1225: L}_c$ can be expressed in terms of the Lagrangian density,

1226: \begin{equation}

1227: {\cal L}_c= {\cal L}_{a} + {1 \over 2u_0} (\partial_0 \theta - a_0 + \alpha_0)^2 +  {\cal L}_{kin},

1228: \label{Lc}

1229: \end{equation}

1230: with the $u_0 \rightarrow 0$ limit enslaving $a_0 = \partial_0 \theta  +

1231: \alpha_0$ and

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: {\cal L}_{a} = {u_v \over 2} (\overline{e}_j-\frac{A_j}{\pi})^2 - i e_j

1234: (\partial_0 a_j - 

1235: \partial_j a_0) + {v_0^2 \over 2 u_v} (\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j - \pi

1236: \rho_0)^2   .

1237: \end{equation}

1238: The vortex kinetic

1239: energy terms ${\cal L}_{kin}$ are given explicitly by ${\cal H}_{kin}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{vorthop}-\ref{rothop})

1240: except with $a_j^t \rightarrow a_j$.

1241: 

1242: 

1243: 

1244: The fermion action $S_f = \int_\tau \sum_{\bf r} {\cal L}_f$ is

1245: given by,

1246: \begin{equation}

1247: \label{eq:Lf}

1248: {\cal L}_f =  f_{{\bf r} \sigma}^\dagger (\partial_0 - i \beta_0)

1249: f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} + {\cal H}_f ,

1250: \end{equation}

1251: with ${\cal H}_f$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hf}).  The two sectors are

1252: coupled together by the electric field in the electron hopping term, and

1253: by the Chern-Simons action $S_{cs} = \int_\tau \sum_{{\bf r} = {\sf r} +

1254:   {\bf w}} {\cal L}_{cs}$ with

1255: \begin{eqnarray}

1256: {\cal L}_{cs} & = & {i \over  \pi}  \beta_0({\bf r}) \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j({\sf r}) \nonumber \\

1257: && +  {i \over \pi} \beta_i({\bf r}) \epsilon_{ij} \big[

1258: \partial_j \alpha_0({\sf r} + \hat{x}_i ) - \partial_0 \alpha_j

1259: ({\sf r} + \hat{x}_i ) \big] .

1260: \label{Lcs}

1261: \end{eqnarray}

1262: Notice that in the absence of the electron hopping term ($t_e =

1263: 0$), the ``electric field'' $e_j$ enters quadratically in the

1264: action, and can then be integrated out to give ${\cal L}_a

1265: \rightarrow \tilde{\cal L}_a$, with

1266: \begin{equation}

1267: \tilde{\cal L}_{a} = {1 \over 2u_v }(\partial_0 a_j - \partial_j a_0)^2 +

1268: v_0^2 (\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j - \pi \rho_0)^2   .

1269: \end{equation}

1270: 

1271: 

1272: Finally, it is useful in some circumstances to treat the external gauge

1273: field by making the shift

1274: $\overline{e}_i \rightarrow \overline{e}_i+A_i/\pi$, which removes all

1275: coupling of $A_i$ to the fermions, and furthermore leaves $A_i$ {\sl linearly

1276: coupled} to a charge ``3-current'' of the usual form,

1277: $S_A = \int_\tau \sum_{r} {\cal L}_A$,

1278: with

1279: \begin{equation}

1280: \label{LA}

1281: {\cal L}_A = i A_\mu({\bf r}) J_\mu ({\bf r}) .

1282: \end{equation}

1283: Here $J_\mu$ is the charge 3-current given explicitly by,

1284: \begin{equation}

1285: \label{eq:Jzero}

1286: J_0({\bf r}) = {1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j({\sf r})  ,

1287: \end{equation}

1288: \begin{equation}

1289: \label{eq:Jj}

1290: J_i({\bf r}) = {1 \over  \pi}  \epsilon_{ij} [ \partial_j a_0({\sf r} +

1291: \hat{x}_i ) - \partial_0 a_j({\sf r} +

1292: \hat{x}_i ) ]  ,

1293: \end{equation}

1294: with ${\bf r} = {\sf r} + {\bf w}$.  Notice that the 3-current is

1295: conserved as required: $\partial_0 J_0({\bf r}) + \partial_i J_i({\bf r}

1296: - \hat{x}_i ) =0$.  This form is useful for a variety of calculations,

1297: particularly within the purely bosonic RL model discussed in

1298: Secs.~\ref{sec:roton-liquid}-\ref{sec:inst-roton-liqu}, but less so in

1299: some RFL calculations best done in the ``electron gauge'' (see below),

1300: which is incompatible with the above shift of $\overline{e}_i$.  

1301: 

1302: As can be seen

1303: from the equations of motion obtained from, $\delta {\cal

1304: L}/\delta \alpha =0$ and $\delta {\cal L} / \delta \beta =0$, the

1305: effect of the Chern-Simons term is to attach $\pi$ flux in

1306: $\alpha$ ($\beta$) to the spinon (vortex) world-lines;

1307: \begin{equation}

1308: \epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda}  \partial_\nu \alpha_\lambda = \pi

1309: J^s_\mu ;  \hskip0.5cm \epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda} \partial_\nu

1310: \beta_\lambda = \pi J^v_\mu ,

1311: \end{equation}

1312: where $J^s_\mu$ and $J^v_\mu$ are the spinon and vortex

1313: three-currents.  Here $\mu,\nu,\lambda = 0,x,y$ run over the three

1314: space-time coordinates.

1315: 

1316: 

1317: 

1318: 

1319: Finally we comment on the nature of the gauge symmetries of the

1320: full action $S$ in the Lagrangian representation.  In particular,

1321: associated with the three gauge fields $a_\mu,\alpha_\mu$ and

1322: $\beta_\mu$ are three {\it independent} space-time gauge

1323: symmetries. Specifically, these are:

1324: \begin{enumerate}

1325: \item

1326:   \begin{eqnarray}

1327:     \label{eq:gauge1}

1328:     \theta_{\sf r} & \rightarrow & \theta_{\sf r} + \Theta_{\sf r}, \nonumber \\

1329:     a_\mu({\sf r}) & \rightarrow & a_\mu({\sf r}) + \partial_\mu \Theta_{\sf

1330:     r},

1331:   \end{eqnarray}

1332: \item

1333:   \begin{eqnarray}

1334:     \label{eq:gauge2}

1335:     \theta_{\sf r} & \rightarrow & \theta_{\sf r} + \chi_{\sf r}, \nonumber \\

1336:     \alpha_\mu({\sf r}) & \rightarrow & \alpha_\mu({\sf r}) - \partial_\mu \chi_{\sf

1337:     r},

1338:   \end{eqnarray}

1339: \item

1340:   \begin{eqnarray}

1341:     \label{eq:gauge3}

1342:     f_{{\bf r}\sigma} & \rightarrow & f_{{\bf r}\sigma}e^{i\Lambda_{\bf

1343:         r}}, \nonumber \\

1344:     \beta_\mu({\bf r}) & \rightarrow & \beta_\mu ({\bf r}) +

1345: \partial_\mu \Lambda_{\bf r} ,

1346:   \end{eqnarray}

1347: \end{enumerate}

1348: with $\Theta_{\sf r}, \chi_{\sf r}$ and $\Lambda_{\bf r}$

1349: arbitrary functions of space and imaginary time.  Because of the

1350: gauge invariance of $S$ under these three distinct

1351: transformations, we are free to fix gauges {\it independently} for

1352: the three gauge fields.

1353: 

1354: In addition to these three gauge symmetries, the full Lagrangian

1355: has two {\it global} symmetries.  By construction,

1356: the spinon Lagrangian ${\cal L}_s$ conserves the total

1357: spin, and since the electrical 3-current in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Jzero}-\ref{eq:Jj}) satisfies

1358: a continuity equation, $\partial_\mu J_\mu =0$,

1359: the total electrical charge $Q = \sum_{\bf r} J_0({\bf r})$ is

1360: also conserved.

1361: 

1362: 

1363: 

1364: A particularly convenient gauge choice for the gauge field $\beta_\mu$

1365: is,

1366: \begin{equation}

1367: \beta^l_i({\bf r}) = - \pi \overline{e}^l_i({\bf r}) ,

1368: \end{equation}

1369: with $\overline{e}_i$ defined in terms of the ``electric field''

1370: $e_j({\sf r})$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:defineebar}).  Remarkably, in this

1371: gauge the electron creation operator equals the spinon creation

1372: operator. To see this, it is convenient to shift $\alpha_0

1373: \rightarrow \alpha_0 + a_0$ and then integrate out $a_0$, which

1374: constrains $\vec\nabla\times\vec\beta = \pi\vec\nabla\cdot

1375: \vec{e}$, or equivalently $\beta_i^t = -\pi \overline{e}^t_i$.

1376: Together with the above gauge choice this implies that $\beta_i

1377: \equiv - \pi \overline{e}_i$, so that from Eq.~(\ref{electronU1})

1378: one has $c_{{\bf r}\sigma} = f_{{\bf r}\sigma}$. We refer to this

1379: as the ``electron gauge''. The possibility to choose a gauge

1380: within the Lagrangian formulation of the $U(1)$ vortex-spinon

1381: theory which makes $f_{{\bf r}\sigma}$ an electron operator,

1382: suggest that it should be possible to re-formulate the

1383: vortex-spinon {\it Hamiltonian} entirely in terms of vortices and

1384: electrons.  This is indeed the case, as we demonstrate briefly in

1385: Appendix \ref{ap:elecform}.

1386: 

1387: 

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: 

1392: \section{The Roton Liquid}

1393: \label{sec:roton-liquid}

1394: 

1395: We first focus on the bosonic charge sector of the theory, ignoring

1396: entirely the fermions.  Specifically, in the full Euclidean action in

1397: Eq.~(\ref{Sfullb}) we retain {\it only} the charge action, $S_c$, and

1398: the coupling to the external electromagnetic field, $S_A$.  We take the

1399: fermionic density as a non-fluctuating constant.  As discussed in

1400: Sec.~\ref{sec:u1-vortex-spinon-1}, this constant should be determined by

1401: energetics.  We assume here that the largest energy scales in the

1402: problem are those of the vortices, i.e. $\kappa_r,u_v$ etc.  In this

1403: case, one expects that vortex kinetic energy (rotonic or otherwise) is

1404: minimized when the vortices experience zero average magnetic flux.  We

1405: therefore choose the fermionic density {\sl equal} to the total charge

1406: density, setting ${1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j =

1407: \rho_0$ and also putting $\alpha_0=0$.  Note that this choice is

1408: essential to recovering an ordinary Fermi liquid state (see

1409: Sec.~\ref{sec:vortex-hopping},App.~\ref{sec:fermiliquid}) and hence is also

1410: natural in this sense.  We remark that, while we will continue to assume

1411: the average fermion density is equal to $\rho_0$ in the bulk of this

1412: paper, we will return to another possibility -- and its physical regime

1413: of relevance -- in the discussion section.

1414: 

1415: It is also convenient to isolate the

1416: fluctuations in the charge density by defining,

1417: \begin{equation}

1418: a_j = a_j^b + \tilde{a}_j   ,

1419: \end{equation}

1420: with ``background'' density ${1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a^b_j

1421: = \rho_0 $.

1422: We can then take $\alpha_j = a^b_j$,

1423: so that $a_j - \alpha_j = \tilde{a}_j$.

1424: Of the three vortex kinetic energy processes which enter in ${\cal L}_{kin}$,

1425: we hereafter and in the rest of the paper drop entirely the vortex pair hopping process

1426: in Eq.~(\ref{vortpairhop})

1427: putting $t_{2v}=0$.  For now we also set the single vortex hopping processes

1428: to zero, putting $t_v=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{vorthop}), but will return to their effects

1429: in Section IV.  Of interest here is the new roton hopping process,

1430: ${\cal L}_{r} \equiv {\cal H}_{r}$ in Eq.~(\ref{rothop}), which can be conveniently recast in

1431: the form:

1432: \begin{equation}

1433: {\cal L}_{r} = - \kappa_r {\cal C}[\tilde{a}] \cos[\Delta_{xy} \theta -

1434:  {1 \over 2}(\partial_x \tilde{a}_y +\partial_y \tilde{a}_x)]  ,

1435: \end{equation}

1436: with

1437: \begin{equation}

1438: {\cal C}[\tilde{a}] = \cos(\epsilon_{ij}

1439: \partial_i \tilde{a}_j/2) .

1440: \label{rotamp}

1441: \end{equation}

1442: More generally, with spinon fluctuations included

1443: one has ${\cal C} = \cos[\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i (a_j - \alpha_j)/2]$.

1444: Clearly, ${\cal C}$ is maximal -- and hence the rotonic kinetic energy

1445: most negative -- for

1446: $\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i\tilde{a}_j=0$, which is true on average for

1447: this choice of fermion density.

1448: 

1449: We next choose the gauge $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\tilde{a}} =0$, and

1450: integrate over $a_0$ (with $u_0 \rightarrow 0$).

1451: Having dropped the vortex hopping processes, the remaining charge Lagrangian is then given by,

1452: \begin{equation}

1453: {\cal L}_c = {\cal L}_{pl} + {\cal L}_{\theta}  ,

1454: \end{equation}

1455: with

1456: \begin{equation}

1457: {\cal L}_{pl} = {1 \over 2u_v} [ (\partial_0 \tilde{a}_j)^2 + v_0^2  (\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \tilde{a}_j)^2 ]  ,

1458: \label{Lplas}

1459: \end{equation}

1460: \begin{equation}

1461: {\cal L}_{\theta} = {1 \over 2u_v} (\partial_j \partial_0 \theta)^2 -

1462: \kappa_r{\cal C}[\tilde{a}] \cos[\Delta_{xy}\theta -

1463:  {1 \over 2}(\partial_1 \tilde{a}_2+\partial_2 \tilde{a}_1)]  .

1464: \label{Ltheta}

1465: \end{equation}

1466: To analyze the phases of this model

1467: it is instructive to represent the Lagrangian ${\cal L}_\theta$

1468: in Hamiltonian

1469: form by re-introducing the vortex number operator, $\hat{N}_{\sf

1470:   r}$:

1471: \begin{eqnarray}

1472:   \hat{H}_\theta & = & {u_v \over 2} \sum_{{\sf r},{\sf r}^\prime}

1473:   \hat{N}_{\sf r}

1474:   \hat{N}_{{\sf r}^\prime} V({\sf r} - {\sf r}^\prime) \nonumber \\ &&

1475:   \hspace{-0.3in}- \kappa_r   \sum_{\sf r} {\cal C}[\tilde{a}]

1476:  \cos(\Delta_{xy}\hat{\theta}_{\sf

1477:     r}-\frac{1}{2}(\partial_x \tilde{a}_1+\partial_y\tilde{a}_x))  .

1478: \label{Htheta}

1479: \end{eqnarray}

1480: Again $V({\sf r})$ is Fourier

1481: transform of the discrete inverse Laplacian operator, $V({\bf k})

1482: \equiv 1/{\cal K}^2({\bf k})$, with ${\cal K}^2({\bf k}) = \sum_j

1483: 2(1-\cos k_j)$.

1484: 

1485: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{Htheta}) describes a logarithmically

1486: interacting gas of (integer strength) vortices moving on

1487: the dual 2d square lattice.  When $\kappa_r =0$, this model

1488: will undergo a finite temperature Kosterlitz-Thouless transition\cite{2dXY} from

1489: a high temperature ``vortex plasma'' into the low temperature ``vortex

1490: dielectric''.  This corresponds, of course, to a transition into

1491: a superconducting phase.  With $\kappa_r=0$ the Kosterlitz-Thouless

1492: transition temperature will be set by the vortex interaction strength,

1493: $u_v$.  But upon increasing the strength of the roton hopping,

1494: one expects the transition temperature to be suppressed, and for

1495: $\kappa_r \gg u_v$ to be driven all the way to zero.

1496: Thus, at zero temperature, upon increasing the single dimensionless

1497: ratio, $\kappa_r/u_v$, one expects a quantum phase transition

1498: out of the superconducting phase and into a new phase (see Fig. 1) -

1499: the ``Roton Liquid''.

1500: 

1501: 

1502: 

1503: \begin{figure}

1504: \begin{center}

1505: \vskip-2mm

1506: \hspace*{0mm}

1507: \centerline{\fig{2.8in}{fig1.eps}}

1508: \vskip-2mm

1509: \caption{Schematic phase diagram of the Hamiltonian in the charge sector, $H_c = H_\theta + H_{pl}$,

1510: with zero vortex hopping strength, $t_v=0$.  When the roton hopping vanishes,

1511: $\kappa_r=0$, $H_c$ describes a classical

1512: logarithmically interacting vortex gas, and

1513: has a superconductor-to-normal transition

1514: at a Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature, $T_{KT} \approx u_v$.

1515: With increasing roton hopping, $T_{KT}$ decreases being driven to zero

1516: at $\kappa_r^* \approx u_v$ where there is a quantum phase transition

1517: from the superconductor into the Roton liquid phase.

1518: }

1519: \label{fig:RLphasediag}

1520: \end{center}

1521: \end{figure}

1522: 

1523: 

1524: \subsection{Harmonic theory and Excitations}

1525: \label{sec:harm-theory-excit}

1526: 

1527: To access the properties of the Roton Liquid (RL), we consider

1528: $\kappa_r \gg u_v$, where it is presumably valid to expand

1529: the cosine terms in Eq.~(\ref{Htheta}) for small argument,

1530: giving $\hat{H}_\theta = \hat{H}_{rot} + ...$, with

1531: \begin{eqnarray}

1532: \label{eq:Hrot}

1533: \hat{H}_{rot} & = & {u_v \over 2} \sum_{{\sf r},{\sf r}^\prime} \hat{N}_{\sf r}

1534: \hat{N}_{{\sf r}^\prime} V({\sf r} - {\sf r}^\prime) +

1535: \frac{\kappa_r}{8} \sum_{\sf r} (\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i

1536: \tilde{a}_j)^2  \nonumber \\

1537: & & + \frac{\kappa_r}{2}

1538:   \sum_{\sf r} [\Delta_{xy}\hat{\theta}_{\sf

1539:     r}- \frac{1}{2} (\partial_x \tilde{a}_y+\partial_y \tilde{a}_x)]^2  .

1540: \end{eqnarray}

1541: With this expansion, it is no longer legitimate to

1542: restrict $\theta$ to the interval $[0,2\pi]$.   Consistency then dictates that

1543: the eigenvalues of the vortex number operator no longer be restricted

1544: to integers, but allowed to take on any real value from $[- \infty, \infty]$.

1545: 

1546: The full Roton Liquid Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}_{RL} =\hat{H}_{pl}+\hat{H}_{\rm rot}$ is

1547: quadratic and can be readily diagonalized.  This is most conveniently

1548: done by returning to the Lagrangian framework, described now by

1549: \begin{eqnarray}

1550:   {\cal L}_{RL} & = & {1 \over 2u_v} [ (\partial_0 \tilde{a}_j)^2 +

1551:   \tilde{v}_0^2  (\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \tilde{a}_j)^2

1552:   ] \nonumber \\

1553:   &  & \hspace{-0.5in}+

1554:   {1 \over 2u_v} (\partial_j \partial_0 \theta)^2 +{ \kappa_r \over 2}

1555:   [\Delta_{xy} \theta -

1556:   {1 \over 2}(\partial_x \tilde{a}_y+\partial_y \tilde{a}_x)]^2   ,

1557: \label{LRL}

1558: \end{eqnarray}

1559: with $\tilde{v}_0=\sqrt{v_0^2 + \kappa_r u_v/4}$.

1560: To proceed to describe the normal modes of this quadratic Lagrangian,

1561: we define Fourier transforms

1562: \begin{eqnarray}

1563:   O({\bf r},\tau) & = & \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n} e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\bf r} -i\omega_n\tau} O({\bf k},\omega_n), \\

1564:   {\sf O}({\sf r},\tau) & = & \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n} e^{i {\bf k}\cdot{\sf r}-i\omega_n\tau} {\sf O}({\bf k},\omega_n),

1565: \end{eqnarray}

1566: for fields $O,{\sf O}$ on the original and dual lattices,

1567: respectively.  Here integration $\int_{\bf k} \equiv \int d^2{\bf

1568:   k}/(2\pi)^2$ is taken over the Brillouin zone $|k_1|,|k_2| < \pi$ and

1569: $\int_{\omega_n} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^\infty d\omega_n/(2\pi)$

1570: defines the integration measure (at zero temperature) for the

1571: Matsubara frequency $\omega_n$.  At non-zero temperature, one simply

1572: replaces $\int_{\omega_n} \rightarrow \beta^{-1}\sum_{\omega_n}$, with

1573: $\omega_n=2\pi n/\beta$.  It is moreover convenient to define

1574: \begin{equation}

1575:   {\cal K}_j({\bf k}) = -i(e^{ik_j}-1),

1576: \end{equation}

1577: so that upon Fourier transformation, the discrete derivatives behave

1578: intuitively,

1579: \begin{equation}

1580:   \partial_j \rightarrow_{FT} i {\cal K}_j({\bf k}),

1581: \end{equation}

1582: and of course $\partial_0 \rightarrow -i\omega_n$ as usual.  We also

1583: introduce the transverse gauge field:

1584: \begin{equation}

1585: \tilde{a}_i({\bf k}) =\epsilon_{ij} {  i{\cal K}^*_j({\bf k})  \over {\cal

1586:     K}({\bf k}) } a({\bf k})    ,

1587: \end{equation}

1588: with ${\cal K}^2({\bf k})  = \sum_j |{\cal K}_j({\bf k})|^2$

1589: and $|{\cal K}_j({\bf k})| = 2 |\sin(k_j/2)|$.

1590: 

1591: 

1592: To now diagonalize ${\cal L}_{RL}$, it is convenient to define

1593: a real two-component field

1594: $\Upsilon_a$ via

1595: \begin{eqnarray}

1596:   a({\bf k},\omega_n) & = & \sqrt{u_v} e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf w}} \Upsilon_1({\bf

1597:     k},\omega_n), \\

1598:   \theta({\bf k},\omega_n) & = & \frac{\sqrt{u_v}}{{\cal K}({\bf

1599:       k}) } \Upsilon_2({\bf k},\omega_n).

1600: \end{eqnarray}

1601: Then the action, $S_{RL}=\sum_{\sf r}\int_\tau {\cal L}_{RL}$ is

1602: \begin{eqnarray}

1603:   S_{RL} & = & \frac{1}{2}

1604: \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}  \hspace{-0.2in} \Upsilon_\alpha({\bf k},\omega_n) G^{-1}_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},\omega_n)

1605:   \Upsilon_\beta({\bf -k},-\omega_n),

1606:   \label{eq:upsilons}

1607: \end{eqnarray}

1608: with

1609: \begin{equation}

1610:   \label{eq:gf}

1611:   G_{\alpha\beta} =

1612:   \frac{G^0 \delta_{\alpha\beta} + G^z \sigma^z_{\alpha\beta} + G^x

1613:     \sigma^x_{\alpha\beta}}{(\omega_n^2+\omega_{pl}^2)(\omega_n^2+\omega_{rot}^2)} ,   \end{equation}

1614: where $\vec{\sigma}$ is the usual vector of Pauli matrices.

1615: Here we have defined,

1616: \begin{eqnarray}

1617:   G^0 & = & \omega_n^2 + \frac{1}{2} v_+^2 {\cal K}^2, \\

1618:   G^z & = & -\frac{1}{2} v_+^2 {\cal K}^2 + v_1^2 \frac{|{\cal

1619:       K}_x{\cal K}_y|^2}{{\cal K}^2}, \\

1620:   G^x & = & \frac{v_1^2}{2} (|{\cal K}_x|^2 -

1621:     |{\cal K}_y|^2)\frac{\tilde{\cal K}_x\tilde{\cal K}_y}{{\cal K}^2},

1622: \label{eq:gf1}

1623: \end{eqnarray}

1624: with $v_1=\sqrt{\kappa_r u_v}$ and $\tilde{\cal K}_j = 2\sin (k_j/2)$.  The poles in

1625: $G_{\alpha\beta}$ at $\omega=i\omega_n=\pm \omega_{pl}, \pm \omega_{rot}$

1626: describe two types of collective modes.

1627: 

1628: The first excitation is a plasmon with a

1629: renormalized dispersion,

1630: \begin{equation}

1631:   \omega_{pl}^2({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ v_{+}^2 {\cal K}^2 +

1632:     \sqrt{ v_{-}^4 {\cal K}^4 + \tilde{v}_0^2 v_1^2 (|{\cal K}_x|^2

1633: - |{\cal K}_y|^2 )^2 }\right],

1634: \end{equation}

1635: with velocities,

1636: \begin{equation}

1637:   v_{\pm}=\sqrt{\tilde{v}_0^2 \pm v_1^2/4} .

1638: \end{equation}

1639: The plasmon frequency vanishes at the center of the Brillouin zone,

1640: ${\bf k}=0$, and in the absence of long-ranged Coulomb interactions

1641: disperses linearly $\omega_{pl} = v_{pl} |{\bf k}|$ at

1642: small wavevectors, $k_j \rightarrow 0$.

1643: But the associated plasmon velocity, $v_{pl}(\phi)$,

1644: depends upon the ratio, $k_y/k_x = \tan(\phi)$.

1645: In particular, along the zone diagonals with $k_y= \pm k_x$

1646: the velocity is minimal and unaffected by the vortices with $v_{pl} = \tilde{v}_0$, whereas

1647: it takes it's maximum

1648: value, $v_+$, along the $k_x$ or $k_y$ axes.

1649: 

1650: 

1651: This upward shift in the plasmon frequency is due to a

1652: ``level repulsion'' with the second collective mode - the gapless roton,

1653: which disperses as,

1654: \begin{equation}

1655:   \omega_{rot}^2({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ v_+^2 {\cal K}^2 -

1656:    \sqrt{ v_{-}^4 {\cal K}^4 + \tilde{v}_0^2 v_1^2 (|{\cal K}_x|^2

1657: - |{\cal K}_y|^2 )^2 }\right]  .

1658: \end{equation}

1659: For $|k_x| \ll 1$ {\sl and fixed $k_y$} the roton dispersion {\it vanishes},

1660: $\omega_{rot} \sim v_{rot} |k_x|$, with

1661: \begin{equation}

1662:   v_{rot} = \frac{\tilde{v}_0}{v_{+}} v_1  .

1663: \end{equation}

1664: Remarkably, the Roton Liquid phase supports

1665: a gapless ``Bose surface'' of roton excitations,

1666: along the $k_x=0$ and $k_y=0$ axes.  These roton excitations

1667: describe {\it gapless and transverse} current fluctuations,

1668: which are obviously not present in a conventional bosonic superfluid.

1669: 

1670: 

1671: With long-range Coulomb interactions present one would have simply,

1672: $v_0^2 \rightarrow v_0^2({\bf k}) \sim {1 \over |{\bf k}|}$, giving

1673: the familiar 2d plasmon dispersion, $\omega_{pl} \sim \sqrt{|{\bf

1674:     k}|}$.  In addition, the roton velocity $v_{rot}$ becomes

1675: dependent upon $k_y$.  We note in passing that the roton velocity is

1676: in either case determined not only from the dynamics of $\theta$ but

1677: also that of $\tilde{a}$, as is evident from its dependence upon

1678: $\tilde{v}_0/v_{+}$.  It will be sometimes instructive in the

1679: following to consider the simple limit $v_0\sim\tilde{v}_0 \rightarrow

1680: \infty$, in which the spatial fluctuations of $\tilde{a}$ vanish and

1681: the roton mode is entirely decoupled from $\tilde{a}$.

1682: 

1683: 

1684: 

1685: 

1686: 

1687: 

1688: 

1689: 

1690: \subsection{No Meissner effect in roton liquid}

1691: \label{sec:no-meissner-effect}

1692: 

1693: We now employ the Gaussian theory to examine some of the electrical

1694: properties of the Roton liquid phase.

1695: Consider first the response of the RL phase to

1696: an applied magnetic field.

1697: In the presence of a magnetic field, $B = \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i A_j$, there is an additional term that

1698: one must add to the Lagrangian, which

1699: from Eq.~(\ref{LA}) takes the form:

1700: \begin{equation}

1701: {\cal L}_A = {i \over \pi} a_0 B   .

1702: \end{equation}

1703: If $a_0$ is integrated out from ${\cal L}_c$ in Eq.~(\ref{Lc}) with this

1704: additional term present, the Hamiltonian, $H_\theta(\hat{N}_{\sf r},

1705: \hat{\theta}_{\sf r})$ in Eq.~(\ref{Htheta}) becomes simply,

1706: $H_\theta(\hat{N}_{\sf r}- {1 \over \pi} B, \hat{\theta}_{\sf r})$.  As

1707: expected, the vortex density will become non-zero in the presence of the

1708: magnetic field.  Since the vortex number operator in $H_\theta$ has

1709: integer eigenvalues, it is not generally possible to shift away the

1710: applied B-field.  But in the Roton Liquid phase (at zero temperature)

1711: where the cosine term can be expanded to quadratic order (as in

1712: $H_{rot}$), the vortex number operator has a continuous spectra, and one

1713: can formally eliminate the B-field by shifting, $\hat{N}_{\sf r}

1714: \rightarrow \hat{N}_{\sf r} + {1 \over \pi} B$, for all ${\sf r}$.

1715: Since the ground state energy of the RL phase is thus independent of the

1716: applied B-field, both the magnetization and the magnetic susceptibility,

1717: $\chi = \partial M/\partial B$ vanish.  Unlike in a superconductor,

1718: where $\chi = -{1 \over 4\pi}$, there is {\it no} Meissner effect in the

1719: Roton Liquid (strictly speaking, there is never a Meissner effect in a

1720: single two dimensional layer, but one can consider an infinite stack of

1721: electrically decoupled but magnetically coupled layers, which would

1722: exhibit a Meissner effect when the layers are true 2d superconductors,

1723: but not when they are RLs).  Physically, since the RL phase supports

1724: gapless roton excitations, the state cannot screen out an applied

1725: magnetic field.

1726: 

1727: \subsection{Off-Diagonal Quasi-Long-Range Order}

1728: \label{sec:quasi-diagonal-long}

1729: 

1730: 

1731: 

1732: We next consider the Cooper pair propagator in the Roton Liquid,

1733: \begin{equation}

1734:   G^{cp}({\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2,\tau_1-\tau_2)  = \langle

1735:   B_{{\bf r}_1}(\tau_1)

1736:   B^\dagger_{{\bf r}_2}(\tau_2) \rangle ,

1737: \end{equation}

1738: with the Cooper pair destruction operator $B_{\bf r}$ given in

1739: Eq.~(\ref{pairop}) as an infinite product of exponentials, $e^{2\pi i

1740:   e_j}$, running along the string.  The propagator for the $d$-wave pair

1741: field, $B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}$, 

1742: \begin{eqnarray}

1743:   \label{eq:Gcpij}

1744:     G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau) & = & 

1745:   \left\langle B^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf 0},\hat{\bf

1746:         x}_i}(0)B^\dagger_{{\bf r},{\bf 

1747:     r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}(\tau)\right\rangle,

1748: \end{eqnarray}

1749: behaves similarly, and will

1750: be discussed at the end of this sub-section.

1751: 

1752: \subsubsection{Equal time correlator}

1753: 

1754: We consider at first the equal time correlator, with $\tau_1=\tau_2$.

1755: The path independence of the string rests on the condition,

1756: $(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{e})({\sf r}) = N_{\sf r}$, with {\it integer}

1757: vortex number, $N_{\sf r}$.  Unfortunately, within the tractable

1758: harmonic approximation valid for most quantities in the roton liquid

1759: phase (with cosine terms in the roton hopping expanded to quadratic

1760: order), the condition of integer vortex number is {\it not} satisfied,

1761: and the results for $G^{cp}({\bf r},0)$ depend upon the choice of

1762: string.  We believe that the correct behavior can be extracted by taking

1763: the string running along the straightest and ``shortest'' (using the

1764: ``city block'' metric $|x_1-x_2|+|y_1-y_2|$) path between the two

1765: points, ${\bf r}_1$ and ${\bf r}_2$.  As we shall see, the Cooper pair

1766: propagator calculated in this way has an anisotropic spatial power-law

1767: decay.  Preliminary calculations suggest that, once perturbative

1768: corrections to the harmonic approximation (using the formalism

1769: established in Sec.~\ref{sec:superc-inst}) are taken into account (even

1770: if they are irrelevant in the renormalization group sense), simple

1771: variations in the string do not modify the power-law decay of

1772: $G^{cp}({\bf r},0)$, but only change the (non-universal)

1773: prefactor.\cite{BFunpub}\ 

1774: 

1775: We take ${\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2= X\hat{x}+Y\hat{y}$, and ${\bf r}_2

1776: = {\bf w}$, with integer $X,Y\geq 0$. Then, upon expressing the

1777: correlator $G^{cp}(X,Y,0)$ as an imaginary time path integral, one

1778: obtains an extra term in the Euclidean action, $S=\int_\tau

1779: \sum_{\sf r} {\cal

1780:   L}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Sfullb}), with

1781: \begin{equation}

1782:   {\cal L} \rightarrow {\cal L} + i e_j({\sf r}

1783:   ,\tau) {\cal J}_j({\sf r},\tau)  .

1784: \end{equation}

1785: The c-number ``source'' field is given as,

1786: \begin{equation}

1787: {\cal J}_j({\sf r},\tau) = 2 \pi \delta(\tau)\big[

1788: \delta_{j2}\sum_{x'=0}^{X-1} \delta_{x,x'+1}\delta_{y,0}-\delta_{j1}

1789: \sum_{y'=0}^{Y-1} \delta_{x,X}\delta_{y,y'} \big] .

1790: \end{equation}

1791: The Fourier transform is simply,

1792: \begin{equation}

1793:   {\cal J}_j({\bf k},\omega_n) = 2\pi \big[\delta_{j2}

1794:   \frac{1-e^{-ik_x X}}{i{\cal K}_x} - \delta_{j1} \frac{e^{-ik_x

1795:       X}(1-e^{-ik_y Y})}{i{\cal K}_y}\big].

1796: \end{equation}

1797: Integrating out the electric field $e_j$ in the gauge

1798: $\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{a}=0$ and decomposing the source

1799: fields into transverse and longitudinal parts, ${\cal J}_t = i

1800: \epsilon_{ij} {\cal K}_i {\cal J}_j/{\cal K}$, ${\cal J}_l=i {\cal

1801:   K}_i^* {\cal J}_i/{\cal K}$, one obtains the result

1802: \begin{eqnarray}

1803:   \label{eq:stringups}

1804:   G^{cp}(X,Y,0) & = & \Big\langle \exp\big\{ -\int_{{\bf

1805:       k},\omega_n}\big[

1806:   \frac{i\omega_n}{\sqrt{u_v}}( {\cal J}_t \Upsilon_1-{\cal J}_l

1807:   \Upsilon_2 ) \nonumber \\ && + \frac{1}{2u_v} ({\cal J}_t^2+{\cal

1808:     J}_l^2) \big] \big\}

1809:   \Big\rangle_{\Upsilon} ,

1810: \end{eqnarray}

1811: where the Gaussian average over $\Upsilon$ is to be taken with respect

1812: to $S_{RL}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:upsilons}).  Performing this Gaussian

1813: integral, one obtains

1814: \begin{eqnarray}

1815:   \label{eq:Gcpthree}

1816:   G^{cp}(X,Y,0) & = & \exp[ -\Gamma_l -\Gamma_t

1817:   -\Gamma_{lt}],

1818: \end{eqnarray}

1819: where

1820: \begin{eqnarray}

1821:   \label{eq:Gammacps}

1822:   \Gamma_l & = & \int_{{\bf k}\omega_n} \frac{|{\cal J}_l|^2

1823:     (1-\omega_n^2 G_{22})}{2u_v}, \\

1824:   \Gamma_t & = & \int_{{\bf k}\omega_n} \frac{|{\cal J}_t|^2

1825:     (1-\omega_n^2 G_{11})}{2u_v}, \\

1826:   \Gamma_{lt} & = & -\int_{{\bf k}\omega_n} \frac{{\cal J}_l{\cal J}_t^*

1827:     \omega_n^2 G_{12}}{u_v},

1828: \end{eqnarray}

1829: with $G_{ij}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gf}).

1830: 

1831: Investigation of $\Gamma_t$ and $\Gamma_{lt}$ shows that the

1832: corresponding integrands are non-singular at small $k_x$ or $k_y$, and

1833: hence go to finite limits for large $|X|$ and/or large $|Y|$.

1834: They will thus affect only the amplitude of the Cooper pair propagator at

1835: large distances, and we henceforth neglect them.  Singular behavior at

1836: long distances {\sl does} arise from $\Gamma_l$, in line with the

1837: intuition that it is vortex fluctuations which disrupt the

1838: superconducting phase, since ${\cal J}_l$ couples to the longitudinal

1839: electric field, which through $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec{e} = N$ describes

1840: the vorticity.  To evaluate $\Gamma_l$, we first perform the frequency

1841: integration to obtain

1842: \begin{eqnarray}

1843:   \label{eq:gammal1}

1844:   \Gamma_l & = & \int_{\bf k} |{\cal J}_l|^2 \frac{\tilde{v}_0 v_1

1845:     |{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y| + v_1^2|{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y|^2/{\cal

1846:       K}^2}{4u_v (\omega_{pl}+\omega_{rot})} .

1847: \end{eqnarray}

1848: Next, we explicitly express the square of the longitudinal string,

1849: \begin{eqnarray}

1850:   \label{eq:stringl}

1851:   |{\cal J}_l|^2 & = & \frac{(2\pi)^2}{{\cal K}^2} \Big[

1852:   \left|\frac{{\cal K}_x}{{\cal K}_y}\right|^2 |1-e^{-ik_y Y}|^2 +

1853:   \left|\frac{{\cal K}_y}{{\cal K}_x}\right|^2 |1-e^{-ik_x X}|^2

1854:   \nonumber \\

1855:   & & + 2{\rm Re} \{ (1-e^{-ik_x X})(1-e^{-ik_y Y}) \} \Big].

1856: \end{eqnarray}

1857: The first two terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stringl}) are singular for small

1858: $k_y$, $k_x$ respectively for very large $Y$,$X$, leading to

1859: a logarithmic dependence when inserted in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammal1}).  The

1860: final term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stringl}), by contrast, is singular only

1861: for {\sl both} $k_x$,$k_y$ small, and this singularity, inserted into

1862: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammal1}), is weak and integrable.  Extracting the

1863: logarithmic parts, one finds

1864: \begin{equation}

1865:   \label{eq:gammal2}

1866:   \Gamma_l \sim \Delta_c (\ln |X| + \ln|Y|),

1867: \end{equation}

1868: for $|X|,|Y| \gg 1$, with

1869: \begin{equation}

1870: \Delta_c = 2\pi {\tilde{v}_0 \over v_+ } \sqrt{ {\kappa}_r \over

1871: u_v }  .

1872: \label{Cooperexp}

1873: \end{equation}

1874: Hence we have

1875: \begin{equation}

1876:   \label{eq:ODQLRO}

1877:   G^{cp}(X,Y,0) \sim \frac{{\rm const}}{|X|^{\Delta_c}|Y|^{\Delta_c}}.

1878: \end{equation}

1879: This establishes

1880: that the Roton liquid phase has off-diagonal quasi-long-ranged

1881: order (ODQLRO) at zero temperature.

1882: 

1883: \subsubsection{Unequal time correlator}

1884: 

1885: We now consider the Cooper pair propagator at unequal times.

1886: Unfortunately, it is difficult to produce a simple and general

1887: calculation for arbitrary spatial and time separations.  In

1888: particular, clearly, by square symmetry, we expect $G^{cp}(X,Y,\tau) =

1889: G^{cp}(Y,X,\tau)$.  Any choice of strings, however, necessarily

1890: creates an asymmetry between the two spatial directions.  As we have

1891: been unable to resolve this dilemma, we instead focus on the simple

1892: case in which the pair is created and annihilated on a single row of

1893: the lattice, i.e. $G^{cp}(X,0,\tau)$.  We will see that this

1894: correlator decays as a power law both in space and time.

1895: 

1896: To proceed, we take ${\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2= X\hat{x}$, ${\bf r}_2 =

1897: {\bf w}$, $\tau_1=\tau$, $\tau_2=0$, with $X,Y\geq 0$.  With this

1898: choice, the string in Fourier space becomes

1899: \begin{equation}

1900:   \label{eq:stringtau}

1901:   {\cal J}_j({\bf k},\omega_n) = 2\pi \delta_{j2}

1902:   \frac{1-e^{-ik_x X+i\omega_n\tau}}{i{\cal K}_x}.

1903: \end{equation}

1904: Repeating the same manipulations as above, one again obtains (with

1905: negligible contributions from the transverse part of the string)

1906: \begin{equation}

1907:   \label{eq:cptau}

1908:   G^{cp}(X,0,\tau) \sim \exp[ -\tilde\Gamma_l ],

1909: \end{equation}

1910: with

1911: \begin{equation}

1912:   \label{eq:gammalt}

1913:   \tilde\Gamma_l \sim \frac{\Delta_c}{2} \ln ( X^2 + v_{rot}^2 \tau^2 ),

1914: \end{equation}

1915: where for simplicity we have taken $v_{rot}$ independent of $k_y$ (for

1916: a non-trivial $v(k_y)$, the logarithm is simply averaged uniformly

1917: over the $k_y$ axis).  This gives

1918: \begin{equation}

1919:   \label{eq:Gctau}

1920:   G_c(X,0,\tau) \sim \frac{\rm const.}{(X^2+v_{rot}^2 \tau^2)^{\Delta_c/2}}.

1921: \end{equation}

1922: Note that this power-law form implies a power-law local tunneling

1923: density of states for Cooper pairs, $\rho_{cp}(\epsilon) \sim

1924: \epsilon^{\Delta_c-1}$.

1925: 

1926: We conjecture that the full

1927: correlator satisfies a simple scaling form with ``z=1'' scaling:

1928: \begin{equation}

1929:   \label{eq:scaling}

1930:   G^{cp}(X,Y,\tau) \sim \frac{{\rm

1931:       const}}{|X|^{\Delta_c}|Y|^{\Delta_c}} {\cal

1932:     G}(\frac{X}{v_{rot}\tau},\frac{Y}{v_{rot}\tau}).

1933: \end{equation}

1934: Combining our two calculations above implies ${\cal G}(\chi,0) =

1935: (\chi^2/(\chi^2+1))^{\Delta_c/2}$.

1936: 

1937: \subsubsection{ODQLRO of the $d$-wave pair field}

1938: \label{sec:odqlro-d-wave}

1939: 

1940: We now briefly discuss the analogous ODQLRO of the $d$-wave pair field

1941: described by $G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gcpij}).  This

1942: quantity is plagued by the same string ambiguities as the local Cooper

1943: pair propagator, but to a larger degree, since it involves {\sl two}

1944: separate strings emanating from the two sites shared by the initial bond

1945: and ending at the two sites shared by the final bond.  Although we are

1946: confident $G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau)$ has a power-law form consistent

1947: with ODQLRO, we are unable to determine the precise nature of these

1948: correlations with reliability.  For instance, consider the equal time

1949: pair field correlator for two bonds along the $x$-axis,

1950: $G^{cp}_{11}({\bf r},0)$.  For two bonds in the same row, ${\bf

1951:   r}=X\hat{\bf x}_1$, the strings can be chosen to line all in the same

1952: row, and since the logarithmic divergence controlling the ODQLRO arises

1953: from small $k_x$ in this case, the power law exponent is unchanged, i.e.

1954: $G^{cp}_{11}(X,0,0) \sim {\rm Const}/|X|^{\Delta_c}$, with $\Delta_c$

1955: given above.  We believe that, since this choice of string is by far the

1956: most natural, this is probably the correct result.  If, instead, we

1957: choose to separate the two pair fields along a single column, ${\bf

1958:   r}=Y\hat{\bf x}_2$, then the two strings involved cannot be taken

1959: entirely atop one another.  Different choices for the strings then give

1960: different results.  For instance, making the symmetric choice of two

1961: parallel strings (each of strength $\pi$ rather than $2\pi$) gives a

1962: decay exponent reduced from $\Delta_c$ to $\Delta_c/2$ in the $Y$

1963: direction, while choosing the strings to overlap everywhere except the

1964: two ends reproduces the previous exponent $\Delta_c$ without any

1965: reduction.  Since we are unable to reliably resolve this ambiguity, we

1966: are unable to determine the exact form of the $d$-wave pair field

1967: correlator.  Instead, we will take the pragmatic approach of

1968: approximating the correlations by those of the local pair field,

1969: $G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau) \approx G^{cp}({\bf r},\tau)$.  It should be

1970: understood that the decay exponent $\Delta_c$ may need to be

1971: renormalized and/or the correlator corrected slightly to obtain detailed

1972: results for a specific model.

1973: 

1974: \subsection{Conductivity in the harmonic theory}

1975: \label{sec:cond-harm-theory}

1976: 

1977: Given the above result of ODQLRO, it is natural to expect a very

1978: large and perhaps infinite conductivity in the Roton liquid.

1979: Indeed, neglecting the effects of vortex hopping, ${\cal L}_v$ in

1980: Eq.~(\ref{vorthop}), one can readily see (e.g. from

1981: Eq.~(\ref{Htheta})) that the total vortex number on each row and

1982: each column of the 2d lattice is separately conserved.  Thus it is

1983: impossible to set up a vortex flow, and hence by the Josephson

1984: relation to generate an electric field.  Using the quadratic roton

1985: liquid Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{RL}$, this expectation can be

1986: directly confirmed.  In particular, we can integrate out {\sl all}

1987: dynamical fields ($\theta,a$) from the Lagrangian leaving only the

1988: external gauge field $A^\mu$, and thereby extract the polarization

1989: tensor and conductivity.  This is most conveniently carried out in

1990: the gauge $A_0=0$, and assuming no magnetic field $\partial_x

1991: A_y-\partial_y A_x=0$.  In this case, one may write

1992: \begin{equation}

1993:  S_A = \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n} \frac{-i\omega_n {\cal K}_j({\bf

1994:      k})}{\pi{\cal K}({\bf k})}e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf w}} a({\bf k},\omega_n)

1995:  A_j(-{\bf k},-\omega_n).

1996: \end{equation}

1997: Integrating out $a$ and $\theta$ using the Green's function $G_{11}$

1998: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gf}) , one obtains, in the limit $|{\bf k}| \rightarrow

1999: 0$, the effective action

2000: \begin{equation}

2001:   S^{0}_A = \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n} \Pi^0_{ij}({\bf

2002:     k},\omega_n) A_i({\bf k},\omega_n) A_j(-{\bf k},-\omega_n),

2003: \end{equation}

2004: with

2005: \begin{equation}

2006:   \Pi^0_{ij}({\bf k},\omega_n) \sim \frac{u_v}{\pi^2}\frac{k_i k_j}{k^2} ,

2007: \end{equation}

2008: as $|{\bf k}| \rightarrow 0$.  The dependence of $\Pi^0_{ij}$ on the

2009: orientation of ${\bf k}$ is due to the fact that we have assumed

2010: $B=0$, which according to Faraday's law requires ${\bf \nabla}\times

2011: {\bf E} = -\partial_t {\bf B}=0$.  Hence we must choose ${\bf k}$

2012: parallel to the electric field ${\bf A}={\bf E}/(-i\omega)$.  Thus we

2013: extract an {\sl isotropic} conductivity tensor $\sigma^0_{ij} =

2014: \delta_{ij} \sigma^0$, with

2015: \begin{equation}

2016:   \sigma^0(\omega) = \frac{u_v}{\pi^2} \frac{1}{-i\omega},

2017: \end{equation}

2018: characteristic of a system with no dissipation.

2019: 

2020: The above conclusion for the quadratic RL Lagrangian is, however,

2021: modified by the vortex hopping terms.  As we detail in the next section,

2022: the effects of a small vortex hopping term depend sensitively on the

2023: parameters that enter in the harmonic theory of the roton liquid - in

2024: particular the dimensionless ratio $u_v/\kappa_r$.  There are two

2025: regimes.  When this ratio is larger than a critical value, vortex

2026: hopping is ``relevant'' and grows at low energies destabilizing the

2027: roton liquid phase.  On the other hand, for small enough $u_v/\kappa_r$

2028: the vortex hopping strength scales to zero and the roton liquid phase is

2029: stable.  In this latter case, the effects of vortex hopping on physical

2030: quantities can be treated perturbatively.  In particular, we find that

2031: the conductivity in the roton liquid diverges as a power law in the low

2032: frequency and low temperature limit.

2033: 

2034: 

2035: \section{Instabilities of the Roton Liquid}

2036: \label{sec:inst-roton-liqu}

2037: 

2038: We first consider the instabilities of the roton liquid due to the

2039: presence of a vortex hopping term, and examine the effects of such

2040: processes on the electrical transport.  In the subsequent subsection

2041: we consider the legitimacy of the harmonic expansion required to

2042: obtain the quadratic RL Lagrangian.  This is achieved by performing a

2043: ''plaquette duality'' transformation\cite{EBL}, where it is possible to address

2044: this issue perturbatively.  Again we find two regimes depending on the

2045: parameters in the quadratic roton liquid Lagrangian.  A stable regime

2046: for small $u_v/\kappa_r$ wherein the harmonic roton liquid description

2047: is valid, and an instability towards a superconducting phase when this

2048: ratio is large.

2049: 

2050: 

2051: \subsection{Vortex hopping}

2052: \label{sec:vortex-hopping}

2053: 

2054: The analysis of the stability of the RL to vortex hopping is

2055: mathematically nearly identical to the stability analysis of the

2056: Exciton Bose Liquid (EBL) of Ref.~[\onlinecite{EBL}] with respect to

2057: boson hopping.  Taking over those methods, we note that the vortex

2058: hopping operator exhibits {\sl one-dimensional power-law

2059:   correlations},

2060: \begin{equation}

2061:   \label{eq:hoppower}

2062:  \langle e^{i\partial_y\theta_{\sf r}(0)} e^{-i\partial_y\theta_{{\sf

2063:         r}+{\bf r}}(\tau)} \rangle_{RL} = \delta_{y,0} {\cal R}(x,\tau) ,

2064: \end{equation}

2065: with a power law form at large space-time separations,

2066: \begin{equation}

2067: \label{rotgreen}

2068: {\cal R}(x,\tau) =

2069:   \frac{c}{(x^2+v_{rot}^2 \tau^2)^{\Delta_v}},

2070: \end{equation}

2071: where ${\bf r}=x{\bf\hat{x}}+y{\bf\hat{y}}$

2072: and $c$ is a dimensionless constant.

2073: Here, ${\cal R}(x,\tau)$ is essentially the single roton

2074: Greens function,

2075: describing the space-time propagation of a roton with a dipole

2076: oriented

2077: along the $\hat{y}$ axis.

2078: When calculated using the RL Lagrangian, one finds

2079: \begin{equation}

2080: \label{DeltavRL}

2081:   \Delta_v = \frac{1}{4\pi} \sqrt{\frac{u_v}{\kappa_r}} \frac{v_+}{\tilde{v}_0}.

2082: \end{equation}

2083: Simple calculations show that this power-law behavior is not modified

2084: by including the fluctuating $a_y$ field in the vortex hopping

2085: operator, $\hat{T}_j({\sf r},\tau) = e^{i(\partial_y\theta_{\sf r} +

2086:   a_y({\sf r}))}$, i.e.

2087: \begin{equation}

2088:   \label{eq:hoppower2}

2089:   \langle \hat{T}_y({\sf r},0) \hat{T}^*_y({\sf r}+{\bf r},\tau)

2090:    \rangle_{RL} \sim

2091:   \frac{\delta_{y,0}}{(x^2+v_{rot}^2 \tau^2)^{\Delta_v}},

2092: \end{equation}

2093: with only a change in the prefactor. Notice that the exponent

2094: $\Delta_v$ characterizing the power law decay of the roton

2095: propagator is inversely proportional to the analogous exponent

2096: $\Delta_c$ in Eq.~(\ref{Cooperexp}) which gives the power law

2097: decay of the Cooper pair propagator.  Indeed, for the Roton liquid

2098: Lagrangian studied here we find the simple identity, $\Delta_v

2099: \Delta_c = 1/2$.  But with inclusion of other terms in the

2100: original Hamiltonian such as the spinons or further neighbor roton

2101: hopping terms, this equality will be modified.

2102: 

2103: The arguments of Ref.~[\onlinecite{EBL}] imply that the vortex hopping

2104: term is then relevant for $\Delta_v <2$.  In this regime, the vortex

2105: hopping strength grows large when scaling to low energies, and one

2106: expects the vortices to condense at zero temperature.  In this case it is legitimate to

2107: expand the cosine term in Eq.~(\ref{vorthop})

2108: and one generates a ``dual Meissner

2109: effect'' where the gauge fields that are minimally coupled to the

2110: vortices become massive.  In the presence of spinons this leads to a

2111: mass term of the form, ${\cal L}_v \sim {t_v \over 2} (a_j -

2112: \alpha_j)^2$, which confines one unit of electrical charge to each

2113: spinon presumably driving one into a Fermi liquid phase.  If we ignore

2114: fluctuations in the spinon density, or drop the spinons entirely

2115: retaining a theory of Cooper pairs, the resulting phase is a charge

2116: ordered bosonic insulator.  The nature of the charge ordering will in

2117: this case depend sensitively on the commensurability of the Cooper

2118: pair density ($\rho_0/2$) with the underlying square lattice.  In the

2119: simplest commensurate case with one Cooper pair per site ($\rho_0 =

2120: 2$), a featureless Mott insulating state obtains.

2121: 

2122: \subsubsection{Electrical Resistance in the

2123:  roton liquid}

2124: \label{sec:electr-resist-roton}

2125: 

2126: When $\Delta_v>2$, on the other hand, vortex hopping is ''irrelevant'',

2127: and the effects of the hopping on physical quantities can be treated

2128: perturbatively.  Despite its irrelevance, we expect the vortex hopping

2129: to strongly modify the Gaussian result for the conductivity by

2130: introducing dissipation.  To understand how this occurs, it is

2131: instructive to first consider the simple limit alluded to earlier in

2132: which $v_0 \rightarrow \infty$.  In this limit, the longitudinal density

2133: fluctuations described by $\tilde{a}$ at non-zero wavevector are

2134: suppressed, and the roton mode is purely captured by the $\theta$ field.

2135: The zero wavevector (but non-zero frequency) piece of $a$, however,

2136: remains non-zero in this limit and can be used to calculate the

2137: conductivity in an RPA fashion.  In particular, we take into account the

2138: roton fluctuations and their associated dissipation induced by vortex

2139: hopping by calculating the effective action for $\tilde{a},A$ upon

2140: integrating out $\theta$ to second order (the lowest non-trivial

2141: contribution) in $t_v$.  Starting then with the Lagrangian, ${\cal

2142:   L}_{RL} + {\cal L}_A + {\cal L}_v$, expanding to second order in the

2143: vortex hopping action $S_v$, and integrating over the $\theta$ field and

2144: the gauge field $a({\bf k} \ne 0)$ with $v_0 \rightarrow \infty$ gives,

2145: \begin{eqnarray}

2146:   S_{a,A}^{\rm eff} & = & \sum_{{\bf r}={\sf r}+{\bf w}}\int_\tau

2147:   [\frac{1}{2u_v} 

2148:   (\partial_0\tilde{a}_j)^2 -\frac{i}{\pi}\epsilon_{ij} \tilde{a}_i({\sf r})

2149:   \partial_0 A_j({\bf r}-{\bf\hat{x}_j})] \nonumber \\

2150: & & + S^{(2)}_{a,A},

2151: \end{eqnarray}

2152: where

2153: \begin{equation}

2154:   S^{(2)}_{a,A} = -\frac{t_v^2}{2} \sum_{{\sf r,r'}}\int_{\tau,\tau'}

2155:   \left\langle \cos(\partial_i \theta - \tilde{a}_i)_{{\sf r}\tau}

2156:     \cos(\partial_j \theta-\tilde{a}_j)_{{\sf r'}\tau'} \right\rangle_\theta,

2157: \end{equation}

2158: where $\langle\cdot\rangle_\theta$ indicates the average with respect

2159: to the Gaussian action for $\theta$.  From Eq.~(\ref{eq:hoppower}),

2160: one can carry out this average to obtain,

2161: \begin{eqnarray}

2162:   S^{(2)}_{a,A} & \sim & -\frac{t_v^2}{4} \bigg\{

2163:   \sum_{{\sf r},x}\int_{\tau,\tau'}

2164:  {\cal R}(x,\tau - \tau^\prime) \nonumber \\

2165:   & \times &  \cos[\tilde{a}_y({\sf r},\tau)-\tilde{a}_y({\sf

2166:     r}+x{\bf\hat{x}},\tau')] + (x \leftrightarrow y)\bigg\} ,

2167: \end{eqnarray}

2168: with the roton propagator ${\cal R}(x,\tau)$ given as in Eq.~(\ref{rotgreen}),

2169: except with $\Delta_v \rightarrow \sqrt{u_v/\kappa_r}/(4\pi)$ in this limit.

2170: Following the usual RPA strategy, we expand $S^{(2)}$ to quadratic

2171: order in $\tilde{a}$ to obtain,

2172: \begin{equation}

2173: \label{RPArot}

2174:   S_{a,A}^{(2)} =   \frac{t_v^2}{4} \int_{{\bf

2175:   k},\omega_n} \tilde{{\cal R}}(\omega_n) 

2176:  |\tilde{a}_j(\omega_n)|^2,

2177: \end{equation}

2178: with the definition, $\tilde{{\cal R}}(\omega_n) = {\cal R}(0)

2179: - {\cal R}(\omega_n)$ and,

2180: \begin{equation}

2181: \label{Protgreen}

2182: {\cal R}(\omega_n) \equiv  {\cal R}(k_x=0,\omega_n) .

2183: \end{equation}

2184: The ${\bf k} = 0$ limit

2185: is valid when

2186: $v_0\rightarrow\infty$.

2187: At low frequencies one has,

2188: \begin{equation}

2189: {\cal R}(\omega_n) =   - {\cal C}_\gamma  \frac{| \omega_n /v_{rot} |^{1 + \gamma} }{v_{rot} \sin \frac{\pi}{2}

2190: (1 + \gamma) }  + ... ,

2191: \label{rotpol}

2192: \end{equation}

2193: with ${\cal C}_\gamma > 0$ a dimensionless constant.  Here we have retained

2194: explicitly the leading singular frequency dependence and

2195: dropped analytic terms consisting of even powers of $\omega_n$.

2196: The exponent $\gamma$ is defined as,

2197: \begin{equation}

2198: \gamma = 2 \Delta_v - 3 .

2199: \end{equation}

2200: and in the stable regime of the RL phase, $\gamma >1$.

2201: 

2202: Finally, upon

2203: integrating out $\tilde{a}_j$, one obtains a renormalized

2204: electromagnetic response tensor

2205: \begin{equation}

2206:   \Pi_{ij} =  \frac{\omega_n^2}{u_v^{-1} (\pi \omega_n)^2 +

2207:     \frac{\pi^2 t_v^2}{2} \tilde{{\cal R}}(\omega_n) } \frac{k_i

2208:     k_j}{k^2}.

2209: \label{eq:piRPA}

2210: \end{equation}

2211: 

2212: It is now straightforward to extract the conductivity by analytic

2213: continuation,

2214: \begin{equation}

2215:   \sigma(\omega) = \left.\frac{\Pi_{xx}(k_x\rightarrow

2216:       0,k_y=0,\omega_n)}{\omega_n} \right|_{i\omega_n\rightarrow

2217:     \omega+i\delta}.

2218: \end{equation}

2219: One obtains an appealing Drude form:

2220: \begin{equation}

2221:   \label{eq:drude}

2222:   \sigma(\omega) = \frac{1}{-i\omega ( \pi^2/u_v) +

2223: i \frac{\pi^2 t_v^2}{2}  \tilde{{\cal R}}_{ret}(\omega) /\omega  } ,

2224: \end{equation}

2225: with the retarded propagator obtained from analytic continuation:

2226: \begin{equation}

2227: {\cal R}_{ret}(\omega)= {\cal R}(\omega_n) |_{i\omega_n\rightarrow

2228:     \omega+i\delta}.

2229: \end{equation}

2230: The non-analytic frequency dependence of ${\cal R}_{ret} (\omega)$

2231: contributes to the dissipative (real) part of the resistance

2232: (per square), $R(\omega) \equiv {\rm Re} \sigma^{-1}(\omega)$,

2233: which is quadratic in the vortex hopping amplitude, $t_v^2$:

2234: \begin{equation}

2235: \label{eq:resist}

2236:  R(\omega) =   \frac{\pi^2 t_v^2} {2\omega} Im {\cal R}_{ret}(\omega) =

2237: {\cal C}_\gamma \frac{ \pi^2 t_v^2}{2v_{rot}^2} \left[ \frac{|\omega|}{v_{rot}}\right]^\gamma .   \end{equation}

2238: Note that at the point for which vortex hopping is just marginal,

2239: $\gamma =1$, the resistance becomes linear in frequency ${\rm Re}

2240: \sigma(\omega) \sim 1/\omega$.

2241: 

2242: We can readily extend this result to finite temperatures,

2243: by using the finite temperature roton propagator:

2244: \begin{equation}

2245: {\cal R}(\tau) = c_\gamma \left[

2246:  \frac{ \pi/v_{rot}\beta } { sin(\pi \tau/\beta) } \right]^{\gamma + 2}  .

2247: \end{equation}

2248: The retarded roton propagator follows upon analytic continuation,

2249: and can be most readily extracted by using the identity:

2250: \begin{equation}

2251: \label{eq:identity}

2252: Im {\cal R}_{ret}(\omega) = \sinh(\beta \omega/2) \int^\infty_{-\infty}

2253: dt e^{i \omega t} {\cal R}(\tau \rightarrow \frac{\beta}{2} + it ) .

2254: \end{equation}

2255: Upon combining Eq.~(\ref{eq:resist}-\ref{eq:identity}) we thereby obtain

2256: a general expression for the finite temperature and frequency

2257: (dissipative) resistance in the roton liquid phase:

2258: \begin{equation}

2259: R(\omega,T) = c_\gamma \frac{(\pi t_v)^2}{v_{rot}^2}

2260: \left[ \frac{\pi T}{v_{rot}}\right]^\gamma

2261: \tilde{R}_\gamma(\omega/\pi T)   ,\label{eq:RLresist}

2262: \end{equation}

2263: with a universal crossover scaling function,

2264: \begin{equation}

2265: \tilde{R}_\gamma(X) = \frac{2^\gamma}{\Gamma(2+\gamma)} |\Gamma(1 + \frac{\gamma

2266: +iX}{2})|^2  \frac{\sinh(\pi X/2)}{X}  ,

2267: \end{equation}

2268: interpolating between the d.c. resistance at finite temperature

2269: and

2270: the $T=0$ a.c. behavior.

2271: Since $\tilde{R}_\gamma(X \rightarrow 0)$ is finite, the d.c. resistance varies as a power law in temperature: $R(T) \sim T^\gamma$.

2272: At the boundary of the

2273: RL phase with $\gamma =1$, a linear temperature dependence is predicted.

2274: At large argument,

2275: \begin{equation}

2276: \tilde{R}_\gamma(X \rightarrow \infty) = \frac{\pi}{ \Gamma(2 + \gamma)}

2277: X^\gamma   ,

2278: \end{equation}

2279: so that the resistance crosses over smoothly to

2280: the zero temperature form, $R(\omega, T=0) \sim |\omega|^\gamma$.

2281: 

2282: This RPA treatment has the appeal that it produces the natural physical

2283: result that the effect of the weak (irrelevant) vortex hopping is to

2284: generate a small {\sl resistivity} $\sim t_v^2$.  Formally, it is

2285: correct for $v_0=\infty$ because the RPA reproduces the exact

2286: perturbative result for the electromagnetic response tensor to

2287: $O(t_v^2)$ in this case.  Unfortunately, when the spatial fluctuations

2288: of $\tilde{a}_j$ are not negligible, i.e. for $v_0 < \infty$, even the

2289: $O(t_v^2)$ term is not obtained correctly.  More generally, the

2290: fluctuations of $\tilde{a}_j$ and $\theta$ must be treated on the same

2291: footing.  Therefore in the general case we instead integrate out {\sl

2292:   both} fields and obtain more directly the correction to $\Pi_{ij}$ to

2293: $O(t_v^2)$.  The calculations are described in

2294: appendix~\ref{sec:appendix} .  This does not yield the appealing

2295: ``Drude'' form in Eq.~(\ref{eq:drude}) but instead the Taylor expansion

2296: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:piRPA}) to $O(t_v^2)$,

2297: \begin{equation}

2298:   \label{eq:polar3}

2299:   \Pi_{ij}^{(2)} \sim - \frac{t_v^2 u_v^2}{2v_{rot}^{2\Delta_v -1}} |\omega_n|^{2\Delta_v-4} \frac{k_i

2300:     k_j}{k^2} ,

2301: \end{equation}

2302: except with the scaling dimension $\Delta_v$, given explicitly in

2303: Eq.~(\ref{DeltavRL}), now fully renormalized by the plasmon

2304: fluctuations.  Provided the vortex hopping is irrelevant, this is

2305: sufficient to recover properly the low-frequency behavior of the

2306: resistivity, Eq.~(\ref{eq:resist}) to $O(t_v^2)$.  In particular, 

2307: formally inverting the perturbative result for $\sigma(\omega,T)$ to

2308: $O(t_v^2)$, we infer the appropriate d.c. dissipative

2309: resistance $R(T) \sim t_v^2 T^{\gamma}$, with $\gamma =

2310: 2\Delta_v -3$.

2311: 

2312: 

2313: \subsection{``Charge Hopping''}

2314: \label{sec:charge-hopping}

2315: 

2316: In this subsection we examine the legitimacy of the ``spin wave''

2317: expansion employed in Sec. IIIA to obtain the Gaussian Roton

2318: liquid Lagrangian. This is most readily achieved by passing to a

2319: dual representation, which exchanges vortex operators for new

2320: ``charge'' operators.  This procedure is a quantum analog of the

2321: mapping from the classical 2d $XY$-model to a sine-Gordon

2322: representation\cite{2dXY}, the latter suited to examine

2323: corrections to the low temperature ``spin wave'' expansion. As we

2324: shall find, there are parameter regimes where the ``charge''

2325: hopping terms are irrelevant and the RL phase is stable.  But

2326: outside of these regimes, the ``charge'' quasiparticles become

2327: mobile at low energies and condense - driving an instability into

2328: a conventional superconducting phase. Throughout this subsection

2329: we will drop the vortex hopping term, $H_v$, focusing on the

2330: parameter regimes of the Roton Liquid phase where it is irrelevant

2331: (i.e. $\Delta_v > 2$).

2332: 

2333: \subsubsection{Plaquette Duality}

2334: \label{sec:plaquette-duality}

2335: 

2336: To this end we now employ the ``plaquette duality''

2337: transformation, originally introduced in Ref.~[\onlinecite{EBL}]

2338: in the context of the Exciton-Bose-Liquid phase.  Consider

2339: the charge sector

2340: of the theory, with Hamiltonian $H_c = H_{pl} + H_{\theta} + H_v$.

2341: This Hamiltonian

2342: is a function of the vortex phase field and number operators,

2343: $\theta_{\sf r}, N_{\sf r}$ (living on the sites of the dual lattice),

2344: as well as the (transverse) gauge field

2345: $a^t_j$ and it's conjugate transverse ``electric field'', $e^t_j$.

2346: The plaquette duality exchanges $\theta_{\sf r}$ and $N_{\sf r}$

2347: for a new set of canonically conjugate fields  which live on the sites of the

2348: original 2d square lattice.  The two new fields, denoted $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}$ and

2349: $\tilde{n}_{\bf r}$, are defined

2350: via the relations,

2351: \begin{equation}

2352:   \pi N_{{\bf r} + {\bf w}} \equiv \Delta_{xy} \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}   ,

2353: \end{equation}

2354: \begin{equation}

2355:   \pi \tilde{n}_{\bf r} \equiv \Delta_{xy} \theta_{{\bf r} - {\bf w}}   .

2356: \end{equation}

2357: Although $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}$ and $\tilde{n}_{\bf r}$ are conjugate fields satisfying,

2358: \begin{equation}

2359: \label{nphicomm}

2360: [\tilde{n}_{\bf r},\tilde{\phi}_{{\bf r}^\prime} ]= i \delta_{{\bf r} {\bf r}^\prime}  ,

2361: \end{equation}

2362: they can not strictly be interpreted as phase and number operators

2363: since the eigenvalues of $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} = \pi m$ for arbitrary

2364: integer $m$, whereas $\pi \tilde{n}_{\bf r}$ is $2 \pi$ periodic.

2365: It is important that $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}$ and $\tilde{n}_{\bf r}$

2366: not be confused with the ``chargon'' phase and number operators introduced in Section II

2367: which were denoted $\phi_{\bf r},n_{\bf r}$ -

2368: {\it without} the tildes.  As we discuss below, $e^{i\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}}$

2369: does in fact create a charge-like excitation, but it is {\it not} the chargon.

2370: 

2371: Under the change of variables, $H_\theta(\theta,N) \rightarrow

2372: H_\phi(\tilde{\phi},\tilde{n})$,

2373: \begin{equation}

2374: H_\phi = H_u  - \kappa_r \sum_{\sf r} \cos[\pi \tilde{n}_{{\sf r} + {\bf w}} -

2375: {1 \over 2} (\partial_x \tilde{a}_y + \partial_y \tilde{a}_x)]   ,

2376: \end{equation}

2377: with the definition,

2378: \begin{equation}

2379: H_u = {u_v \over 2 \pi^2  }  \sum_{{\bf r} {\bf r}^\prime}

2380: \Delta_{xy} \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} \Delta_{xy} \tilde{\phi}_{{\bf  r}^\prime} V({\bf r} - {\bf r}^\prime) .

2381: \end{equation}

2382: 

2383: In the Roton Liquid phase the cosine term in $H_\phi$ is expanded

2384: to quadratic order, and $H_\phi + H_{pl} \rightarrow H_{RL}$.

2385: To be consistent, both $\tilde{n}$ and $\tilde{\phi}$ must then be allowed to take on

2386: any real value, and it is convenient to pass to a Lagrangian written

2387: just in terms of $\tilde{\phi}$:

2388: \begin{eqnarray}

2389:   L_{RL}  & = & L_{pl} + H_u + {1 \over 2 }  \sum_{\bf r}

2390:   { (\partial_0 \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} )^2    \over \pi^2 \kappa_r}

2391: \nonumber \\

2392:  & & + \frac{i}{2\pi}

2393:   \sum_{\sf r} \partial_0 \tilde{\phi}_{{\sf r} + {\bf w}}

2394:   (\partial_x \tilde{a}_y +

2395:   \partial_y \tilde{a}_x )  .

2396: \label{LRLdual}

2397: \end{eqnarray}

2398: In this dual form the Roton Liquid Lagrangian depends

2399: (quadratically) on the field $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}$, which

2400: lives on the sites of the direct lattice,

2401: and the (transverse) gauge field, $\tilde{a}_j({\sf r})$,

2402: defined on the links of the dual lattice.

2403: 

2404: 

2405: \subsubsection{Superconducting Instabilities}

2406: \label{sec:superc-inst}

2407: 

2408: This dual formulation is ideal for studying the legitimacy

2409: of the ``spin-wave'' expansion needed to obtain the quadratic

2410: RL Lagrangian.  The crucial effect of the spin-wave expansion

2411: was in softening the integer constraint on

2412: the eigenvalues of $\tilde{\phi}/\pi$,

2413: allowing $\tilde{\phi}$ to take on all real values in $L_{RL}$.

2414: It is, however, possible to mimic the effects

2415: of this constraint by adding a potential term to $L_{RL}$ of the form,

2416: \begin{equation}

2417: L_\lambda  = - \lambda \sum_{\bf r} \cos(2 \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r})  .

2418: \label{cospert}

2419: \end{equation}

2420: When $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$ the integer constraint is enforced,

2421: whereas the RL phase corresponds to $\lambda =0$.

2422: Stability of the RL phase can be studied by treating $\lambda$ as a {\it small}

2423: perturbation to the quadratic RL Lagrangian.

2424: But as discussed in Ref.~[\onlinecite{EBL}], one should also consider other

2425: perturbations to $L_{RL}$ which might be even more relevant.

2426: Generally, one can add any local operator involving

2427: $\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}$ at a set of nearby spatial points

2428: which is $2 \pi$ periodic in $2 \tilde{\phi}$, and satisfies all

2429: the discrete lattice symmetries (i.e.. translations, rotations

2430: and parity).  For example, terms of the form $\cos(2 \ell \tilde{\phi})$

2431: for arbitrary integer $\ell$ are allowed, although these

2432: will generically become less relevant with increasing $\ell$.

2433: as we shall see,

2434: for our ``minimal'' model of the RL phase, the most relevant

2435: perturbation is of the form,

2436: \begin{equation}

2437: L_t = - t_c \sum_{\bf r} \sum_{j=1,2} \cos(2\partial_j \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} )  .

2438: \label{chhoppert}

2439: \end{equation}

2440: 

2441: Before studying the perturbative stability to such operators, we

2442: try to get some physical intuition for the meaning of the operator

2443: $e^{i\tilde{\phi}}$.  From the commutation relations in

2444: Eq.~(\ref{nphicomm}), the operator $e^{i\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}}$ increase

2445: $\tilde{n}_{\bf r}$ by one, and creates some sort of quasiparticle

2446: excitation on the spatial site ${\bf r}$. Since the perturbation

2447: in Eq.~(\ref{cospert}) changes the number $\tilde{n}_{\bf r}$ by $\pm 2$,

2448: the total number of these quasiparticles, $\tilde{n}_{tot} = \sum_{\bf r}

2449: \tilde{n}_{\bf r}$ is {\it not} conserved, but the ``complex charge'', $Q_c

2450: = e^{i\pi \tilde{n}_{tot}}$ is conserved.   The perturbation in

2451: Eq.~(\ref{chhoppert}) can then be interpreted as a ``charge

2452: hopping'' process. To get some feel for the nature of the

2453: quasiparticle, it is instructive to introduce an external magnetic

2454: field, $B = \epsilon_{ij}

2455: \partial_i A_j$, which enters into $H_u$ above via the

2456: substitution, $\Delta_{xy} \phi_{\bf r} \rightarrow \Delta_{xy}

2457: \phi_{\bf r} - B_{{\bf r} + {\bf w}}$. A spatially

2458: uniform field, $B$, can readily be removed from the Gaussian RL

2459: Lagrangian by letting

2460: \begin{equation}

2461: \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} \rightarrow \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r} + B x y .

2462: \end{equation}

2463: But then $B$ appears in the cosine perturbations, in ``almost'' a

2464: minimal coupling form.  For example, one has the combination

2465: $\partial_x \tilde{\phi} - 2A_x$ where we have chosen the gauge $A_x = -B

2466: y/2$ and $A_y =Bx/2$, suggesting that $e^{i\tilde{\phi}}$ carries the

2467: Cooper pair charge. But the $y-$derivative enters as $\partial_y

2468: \tilde{\phi} + 2A_y$ - with the {\it wrong} sign.  Thus, this quasiparticle

2469: is {\it not} a conventional electrically charged particle.

2470: Nevertheless, as we show below, condensation of the quasiparticle

2471: with $\langle e^{i\tilde{\phi}} \rangle \ne 0$ does drive the RL phase

2472: into a superconducting state.

2473: 

2474: To evaluate the relevance of the various perturbations

2475: in the RL phase, requires diagonalizing the associated action, $S_{RL}$.

2476: In momentum space one has,

2477: \begin{equation}

2478:   S_{RL} =  \int_{k_\mu} [ \frac{D_{\phi \phi}}{2} |\tilde{\phi}|^2

2479:   + \frac{D_{aa}}{2} |a|^2 + D_{a \phi} a(k_\mu) \tilde{\phi}(-k_\mu)  ],

2480: \end{equation}

2481: \begin{equation}

2482:  D_{\phi \phi} = {1 \over \pi^2 \kappa_r } [ \omega_n^2  + { u_v \kappa_r

2483: |{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y |^2  \over {\cal K}^2  }  ] ,

2484: \end{equation}

2485: \begin{equation}

2486:  D_{aa} = {1 \over u_v } [ \omega_n^2  + \tilde{v}_0^2 {\cal K}^2 ]  ,

2487: \end{equation}

2488: \begin{equation}

2489:  D_{a \phi} = { \omega_n ({\cal K}_x^2 - {\cal K}_y^2) e^{i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf w}}  \over 2  \pi {\cal K} }  ,

2490: \end{equation}

2491: with $k_\mu = ({\bf k}, \omega_n)$.

2492: Evaluation of the two-point function of $e^{2i\tilde{\phi}}$ then gives,

2493: \begin{equation}

2494: \langle e^{i 2\tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}(\tau)} e^{-i2\tilde{\phi}_{\bf 0}(0)} \rangle_{RL}

2495: \sim  {  \delta_{{\bf r},{\bf 0}}   |\tau|^{-2 \Delta_c } } ,

2496: \label{eq:e2phi}

2497: \end{equation}

2498: with scaling dimension,

2499: \begin{equation}

2500:   \Delta_c = 2 \pi \sqrt{ \kappa_r \over u_v } { \tilde{v}_0 \over v_+ } .

2501: \label{Deltac}

2502: \end{equation}

2503: We note in passing that this power-law form of the ``charge''

2504: operator ($e^{2i\tilde{\phi}}$) two-point function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:e2phi})

2505: differs from $\exp(-\ln^2 \tau)$ behavior of the corresponding

2506: object in the Exciton Bose liquid of Ref.~\onlinecite{EBL}, due to

2507: the long-range logarithmic interactions between vortices.

2508: Stability of the RL phase requires $\Delta_c > 1$. Evaluation of

2509: the two-point function for the ``charge'' hopping operator,

2510: $e^{2i\partial_y \tilde{\phi}}$, gives,

2511: \begin{equation}

2512: \langle e^{i 2 \partial_y \tilde{\phi}_{\bf r}(\tau)} e^{-i2

2513: \partial_y \tilde{\phi}_{\bf 0}(0)} \rangle_{RL}

2514: \sim  {  \delta_{y,0} \over  (x^2 + v_{rot}^2 \tau^2 )^{\Delta_c} }  ,

2515: \label{eq:chargehopping}

2516: \end{equation}

2517: with ${\bf r} = x{\bf\hat{x}} + y {\bf\hat{y}}$, and with

2518: the {\it same} scaling dimension $\Delta_c$ as above.

2519: However, since this two-point function decays algebraically in

2520: two (rather than one) space-time dimensions, the perturbation

2521: $t_c$ is relevant for $\Delta_c < 2$.

2522: 

2523: When $\Delta_c <2$, the ``charge'' hopping process will grow at low

2524: energies, and will destabilize the roton liquid phase.  Not

2525: surprisingly, the resulting quantum ground state is

2526: superconducting. Indeed, the exponent $\Delta_c$ in Eq.~(\ref{Deltac}) above

2527: is in fact {\it identical} to the exponent characterizing the

2528: power law decay of the Cooper pair propagator in Eq.~(\ref{Cooperexp}),

2529: so that for small $\Delta_c$ the Roton liquid phase is already ``almost'' superconducting.

2530: Moreover, when the vortex core

2531: energy greatly exceeds the roton hopping strength, $u_v \gg

2532: \kappa_r$, the Hamiltonian $H_\theta$ in Eq.~(\ref{Htheta}) is

2533: deep within it's superconducting phase.  This limit precisely

2534: corresponds to $\Delta_c \ll 1$, the limit where the ``charge''

2535: hopping is strongly relevant.  More directly, when the ``charge''

2536: hopping strength $t_c$ grows large, the field $\tilde{\phi}$ gets trapped

2537: at the minimum of the cosine potentials in

2538: Eqs.~(\ref{cospert},\ref{chhoppert}), and it is legitimate to

2539: expand the cosine potentials to quadratic order.  Once massive,

2540: the expectation value $\langle e^{i\tilde{\phi}} \rangle \ne 0$ - and the

2541: charge quasiparticle has condensed.  Moreover, setting $\tilde{\phi}=0$ in

2542: Eq.~(\ref{chhoppert}) in the presence of an applied magnetic field

2543: will generate a term of the form,

2544: \begin{equation}

2545:   {\cal L}_t \sim {t_c  \over 2} \vec{A}^2   ,

2546: \end{equation}

2547: indicative of a Meissner response.

2548: 

2549: In the resulting superconducting phase, the rotons  - gapless in the

2550: RL phase - become gapped.

2551: This follows upon expanding the cosine term in Eq.~(\ref{cospert}),

2552: ${\cal L}_\lambda = 2 \lambda \tilde{\phi}^2$,

2553: which leaves the roton liquid Lagrangian quadratic, and allow one to readily extract the

2554: modified roton dispersion.  For $k_x \rightarrow 0$ at fixed $k_y$, this gives:

2555: \begin{equation}

2556: \omega_{rot}({\bf k}) = \sqrt { v_{rot}^2 k_x^2 + m_{rot}^2   }  ,

2557: \end{equation}

2558: with the ``roton mass gap'' given by, $m_{rot} = 2\pi \sqrt{\kappa_r \lambda}$.

2559: 

2560: 

2561: Since the product $\Delta_c \Delta_v = {1 \over 2}$, it is not

2562: possible to have both the vortex hopping and the ``charge'' hopping

2563: terms simultaneously irrelevant.

2564: 

2565: 

2566: 

2567: 

2568: \section{The Roton Fermi Liquid Phase}

2569: \label{sec:roton-spinon-liquid}

2570: 

2571: We now put the fermions back into the description of the Roton liquid.

2572: We first consider setting the explicit pairing term in the fermion

2573: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_f$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hf}) to zero: $\Delta = 0$.  As

2574: in Sec.~\ref{sec:roton-liquid}, we will assume for the most part (with

2575: the exception of Sec.~\ref{sec:phase-diagram} in the discussion) that

2576: the equilibrium fermion density is equal to the charge density $\rho_0$.

2577: This choice naturally minimizes Coulomb energy and vortex kinetic

2578: energy, as discussed therein.  As we shall see, in this way we will

2579: arrive at a description of a novel non-Fermi liquid phase - the Roton

2580: Fermi liquid - which supports a gapless Fermi surface of quasiparticles

2581: coexisting with a gapless set of roton modes. We then reintroduce a

2582: non-zero pairing term, and study the perturbative effects of $\Delta$.

2583: We argue that, when the scaling exponent that describes the decay of the

2584: off-diagonal order in the Roton liquid is large enough, $\Delta_c>

2585: \Delta_c^* > 3/2$, the explicit pairing term is perturbatively

2586: irrelevant, and the RFL phase with a full gapless Fermi surface is

2587: stable.

2588: 

2589: Even in the absence of the explicit pairing term -- which couples

2590: the fermionic and vortex degrees of freedom in a highly non-linear

2591: manner -- the rotons and quasiparticles interact through

2592: (three-)current-current interactions ``mediated'' by the

2593: $\beta_\mu$ and $e_i$ fields.  Although these interactions are

2594: long-ranged for individual vortices, they are not for rotons,

2595: which carry no net vorticity. Moreover, due to phase space

2596: restrictions we find that the residual short-ranged interactions

2597: asymptotically decouple at low energies.  The resulting RFL phase

2598: supports both gapless charge and spin excitations with no broken

2599: spatial or internal symmetries, just as in a conventional Fermi

2600: liquid.  But, due to the vortex sector of the theory, the RFL

2601: phase is demonstrably a non-Fermi liquid, with a gapless ``Bose

2602: surface'' of Rotons and with ODQLRO in the Cooper pair field but

2603: no Meissner effect (see below).  Moreover, the quasiparticles at

2604: the RFL Fermi surface are sharp (in the sense of the electron

2605: spectral function), but electrical currents are carried by the

2606: (quasi-)condensate.  Even with impurities present the resistivity

2607: vanishes as a power law of temperature in the RFL.  The power law

2608: exponent, $\gamma$, varies continuously, but is greater than or

2609: equal to one.  For $\gamma <1$, the zero temperature RFL phase is

2610: unstable to a quantum confinement transition, which presumably

2611: drives the system into a conventional Fermi liquid phase.

2612: 

2613: To describe the RFL, we start with the general Lagrangian,

2614: Eqs.~(\ref{Sfullb}-\ref{eq:Lf}), and first make the same approximation

2615: as in the RL of expanding the roton hopping term to quadratic order.

2616: That is, to leading order, ${\cal L}_{kin} \approx {\cal L}_r^0$, with

2617: \begin{eqnarray}

2618:   {\cal L}_r^0   =  {\kappa_r \over 2} [ \partial_{xy} \theta & -

2619:   & {1 \over 2} \lbrace \partial_x (a_y - \alpha_y) + \partial_y(a_x - \alpha_x)

2620:   \rbrace ]^2 \nonumber \\

2621:   & & + {\kappa_r \over 8} [\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i (a_j - \alpha_j)]^2.

2622: \end{eqnarray}

2623: As before for the RL, this approximation will be corrected

2624: perturbatively by ``charge'' and vortex hopping terms, which will {\sl

2625:   not} be expanded.

2626: 

2627: Turning to the fermionic sector, we assume for the moment that the

2628: power-law decay (ODQLRO) of the Cooper pair field is sufficiently

2629: rapid that the pair field term $\Delta_j$ can be neglected.  We

2630: argue later this is correct for $\Delta_c> \Delta_c^* > 3/2$.

2631: This gives a non-anomalous fermionic Lagrange density $L_f$, which

2632: we further presume is well-described by Fermi liquid theory, again

2633: checking the correctness of this assumption perturbatively in the

2634: couplings to $\beta_\mu$ and $e_i$.   Hence we replace ${\cal L}_f

2635: \approx {\cal L}_f^0 + {\cal

2636:   L}_f^1$, with (working for

2637: simplicity at zero temperature)

2638: \begin{eqnarray}

2639:   \label{eq:Lf0}

2640:   {\cal L}_f^0 & = & f^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}(\partial_0 - \mu)

2641:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma} -t \sum_j f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +

2642:     {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma} f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma},  \\

2643:   \label{eq:Lf1}

2644:   {\cal L}_f^1 & = & -i\beta_0({\bf r}) f_{{\bf r}\sigma}^\dagger

2645:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma} \\ &&  - i\sum_j

2646:   [t\beta_j({\bf r}) +

2647:   t_e (\pi\overline{e}_j({\bf

2648:     r})+A_j({\bf r}))] f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +

2649:     {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma} f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}

2650:   \nonumber \\

2651:   & & \hspace{-0.4in} + \sum_j [\frac{t_s}{2} \beta_j({\bf r})^2 +

2652:   \frac{t_e}{2}(\beta_j({\bf r})+ \pi\overline{e}_j({\bf

2653:     r})+A_j({\bf r}))^2]

2654:   f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +

2655:     {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma} f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} . \nonumber

2656: \end{eqnarray}

2657: Note that, to leading order, the fermionic dispersion is

2658: controlled by the sum of the two hopping amplitudes, $t=t_s+t_e$.

2659: Here we have included explicitly the physical external vector

2660: potential, $A_j({\bf r})$, in the electron hopping term.  Some

2661: care needs to be taken when treating $A_j({\bf r})$.  The above

2662: form is correct provided $A_j({\bf r})$ is also coupled into $e_j$

2663: in the quadratic Hamiltonian in the ``canonical'' fashion $\pi

2664: \overline{e}_j \rightarrow \pi \overline{e}_j + A_j$, in the

2665: roton/plasmon portion of the Hamiltonian. It is {\sl not} correct

2666: if this canonical coupling is removed by shifting

2667: $\overline{e}_j$, which is the procedure needed to generate the

2668: $A_\mu J_\mu$ coupling in Eq.~(\ref{LA}).  If the latter form of

2669: the Lagrangian is used, the vector potential should be removed

2670: from the electron hopping term.  Either choice is correct if used

2671: consistently.

2672: 

2673: The full Lagrangian that we then use to access the RFL phase is

2674: given by,

2675: \begin{equation}

2676: {\cal L}_{RFL} = {\cal L}_a + {\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}_r^0 + {\cal

2677: L}_{cs} + {\cal L}_f^0 + {\cal L}_f^1  , \label{LRFL}

2678: \end{equation}

2679: with the definition,

2680: \begin{equation}

2681: {\cal L}_0 = {1 \over 2 u_0} (\partial_0 \theta - a_0 +

2682: \alpha_0)^2 .

2683: \end{equation}

2684: The interaction terms between the Fermions and the fields

2685: $\beta_j$ and $e_j$ in ${\cal L}_f^1$ will be treated in the

2686: random phase approximation. Doing so, one arrives at a tractable,

2687: if horrendously algebraically complicated Lagrangian describing

2688: the RFL, which is quadratic in the fields

2689: $\theta,a_\mu,e_j,\alpha_\mu$ and $\beta_\mu$. This makes

2690: calculations of nearly any physical quantity possible in the RFL.

2691: 

2692: Before turning to these properties, we verify (in the remainder of this

2693: section) the above claims that the coupling of fermions and vortices

2694: does not destabilize the RFL -- i.e. it neither modifies the form of the

2695: low energy roton excitations at the ``Bose surface'' nor the fermionic

2696: quasiparticles at the Fermi surface.

2697: 

2698: \subsection{Quasiparticle Scattering by Rotons}

2699: \label{sec:selectr-scatt-rotons}

2700: 

2701: In this subsection, we show that the coupling of the electronic

2702: quasiparticles to the vortices does not destroy the Fermi surface.

2703: To do so, we will integrate out the vortex degrees of freedom to

2704: arrive at effective interactions amongst the quasiparticles.  This

2705: procedure is somewhat gauge dependent.  To provide a useful

2706: framework for the calculation of the electron spectral function in

2707: the following section, we will choose the gauge $\vec{\nabla}\cdot

2708: \vec{\beta} = \pi \epsilon_{ij}\partial_i e_j$, in which the

2709: $f,f^\dagger$ operators create fermionic quasiparticles with

2710: non-vanishing overlap with the bare electrons, without the need

2711: for any additional string operators. This is essentially

2712: equivalent to working in the electron formulation of Appendix

2713: \ref{ap:elecform}.

2714: 

2715: Since this gauge choice explicitly involves

2716: $\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i e_j$, we must employ a path integral

2717: representation in which the transverse component of the electric

2718: field, $e^t_j$, has not been integrated out. It is further

2719: convenient to fix the two remaining gauge choices according to

2720: $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{a}=\alpha_0=0$, and to integrate out the

2721: field $a_0$ in the $u_0 \rightarrow 0$ limit. The full RFL

2722: Lagrangian density (before imposing the constraint $\beta^l_j =

2723: \pi e^t_j$) then takes the form,

2724: \begin{equation}

2725:   \label{eq:laget0}

2726:   {\cal L}_{RFL} = {\cal L}_{vort} + {\cal L}^0_f(\beta_\mu) + {\cal

2727:   L}_f^1(\beta_\mu)  ,

2728: \end{equation}

2729: with

2730: \begin{eqnarray}

2731:   \label{eq:laget}

2732:   {\cal L}_{vort} & = & \frac{u_v}{2} (e^t_j)^2 + i e^t_j \partial_0 a^t_j +

2733:   \frac{v_0^2}{2u_v} (\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i a^t_j - \pi

2734:   \overline{\rho})^2 \\

2735:   & & + \frac{i}{\pi}\epsilon_{ij} \alpha_i (\partial_j \beta_0 -

2736:   \partial_0 \beta_j) + {\cal L}_\theta(\alpha_j-a^t_j) ,

2737:   \nonumber

2738: \end{eqnarray}

2739: where

2740: \begin{eqnarray}

2741:   \label{eq:Lthetaet}

2742:   {\cal L}_\theta(\alpha_j) & = &   \frac{1}{2u_v} (\partial_0 \partial_i

2743:   \theta)^2 + \frac{\kappa_r}{8}(\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i \alpha_j)^2

2744:   \nonumber \\

2745:   & + & \frac{\kappa_r}{2}[\Delta_{xy}\theta +

2746:   \frac{1}{2}(\partial_x\alpha_y+\partial_y\alpha_x)]^2 .

2747: \end{eqnarray}

2748: 

2749: To assess the perturbative effects of the vortices upon the electronic

2750: quasiparticles, we wish to integrate out the vortices perturbatively

2751: in the coupling of the gauge field $\beta_\mu$ to the fermions.  For

2752: this we require the correlation functions of the $\beta_\mu$ fields

2753: (neglecting the couplings inside ${\cal L}_f$, and in particular to

2754: lowest order just $\langle \beta_\mu \beta_\nu \rangle$).  To obtain

2755: the latter, we add a source term to the Lagrangian,

2756: \begin{equation}

2757:   \label{eq:betasource}

2758:   {\cal L}_{vort} \rightarrow {\cal L}_{vort} +i( \lambda_0 i\beta_0 +

2759:   \vec{\lambda}\cdot\vec{\beta}).

2760: \end{equation}

2761: Here we have included an extra factor of $i$ with $\beta_0$ to

2762: compensate for the factor of $i$ present in the coupling of

2763: $\beta_0$ to the fermion density.  Upon fully integrating out the

2764: $e^t, \theta,a^t,\beta_\mu,\alpha_j$ fields, the coefficient of

2765: $\lambda_\mu \lambda_\nu$ in the effective action will give (half)

2766: the desired correlator.  We perform the integration in two stages.

2767: First, imposing the constraint $\beta^l = \pi e^t$, we eliminate

2768: $e^t$, shift $\alpha_j \rightarrow \alpha_j - (\partial_j \theta -

2769: a^t_j)$, and integrate out the $\theta$, $a^t_j$, and $\beta_\mu$

2770: fields.  One obtains ${\cal L}_{vort} \rightarrow \tilde{\cal

2771:   L}_{vort}(\alpha_j,\lambda_\mu)$, with

2772: \begin{eqnarray}

2773:   \label{eq:lvorttilde}

2774:   \tilde{\cal L}_{vort} & = & \frac{v_0^2}{2u_v}

2775:   (\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i \alpha_j +i\pi \tilde{\lambda}_0)^2 +

2776:   \frac{\kappa_r}{4} [(\partial_x \alpha_y)^2 + (\partial_y

2777:   \alpha_x)^2] \nonumber \\

2778:   & & + \frac{1}{2u_v} (\partial_0 \alpha_i - \pi \epsilon_{ij}

2779:   \lambda_j)^2 -t_v \cos(\alpha_j ),

2780: \end{eqnarray}

2781: with $\tilde\lambda_0 = \lambda_0 -i\overline{\rho}$.

2782: 

2783: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:lvorttilde}) we have added back in the vortex

2784: hopping term, ${\cal L}_v  = -t_v \cos(\alpha_j)$, neglected in

2785: the RFL Lagrangian.  In the RFL phase, the vortex hopping is

2786: irrelevant, and scales to zero at low energies.  If we put

2787: $t_v=0$, the remaining integrations over $\alpha_j$ are Gaussian

2788: and can be readily performed. We will return to the effects of

2789: non-zero vortex hopping upon the fermions in

2790: Sec.~\ref{subsec:resist}. The final effective action then takes

2791: the form,

2792: \begin{equation}

2793:   \label{eq:Svorteff}

2794:   S_{eff}(\lambda_\mu) = - \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}\!

2795:   U^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}({\bf k},\omega_n) \lambda_\mu({\bf k},\omega_n)

2796:   \lambda_\nu(-{\bf k},-\omega_n).

2797: \end{equation}

2798: Here

2799: \begin{equation}

2800:   \label{eq:Umunu}

2801:   U^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}({\bf k},\omega_n) = \frac{\pi^2}{u_v(\omega_n^2 +

2802:     \omega_{pl}^2)(\omega_n^2+\omega_{rot}^2)} u_{\mu\nu}({\bf k},\omega_n)

2803: \end{equation}

2804: specifies the $\beta_\mu$ propagator: $\langle

2805: \beta_0\beta_0\rangle_0=U^{(0)}_{00}$ , $\langle

2806: \beta_i\beta_j\rangle_0=-U^{(0)}_{ij}$,$\langle

2807: i\beta_0\beta_j\rangle_0=-U^{(0)}_{0j}$, where the superscript

2808: zero reminds us that this is the result to zeroth order in

2809: $t_v=0$, and we have the definitions,

2810: \begin{eqnarray}

2811:   \label{eq:lambdamunu}

2812:   u_{00} & = & v_0^2[\omega_n^4 + \frac{v_1^2 {\cal K}^2}{2} \omega_n^2 +

2813:   \frac{v_1^4}{4} |{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y|^2], \\

2814:   u_{xx} & = & -v_1^2[\tilde{v}_0^2 |{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y|^2 + v_+^2

2815:   |{\cal K}_x|^2 \omega_n^2], \\

2816:   u_{yy} & = & -v_1^2[\tilde{v}_0^2 |{\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y|^2 + v_+^2

2817:   |{\cal K}_y|^2 \omega_n^2], \\

2818:   u_{xy} & = & -v_0^2 {\cal K}_x {\cal K}_y \omega_n^2, \\

2819:   u_{0j} & = & -v_0^2 {\cal K}_x i\omega_n [2\omega_n^2 + v_1^2 ({\cal

2820:     K}^2 - {\cal K}_j^2)].\label{eq:lambda0j}

2821: \end{eqnarray}

2822: 

2823: In the d.c. limit, these interactions simplify considerably, and one

2824: obtains the simple results

2825: \begin{eqnarray}

2826:   \label{eq:Udc}

2827:   U^{(0)}_{00}({\bf k},\omega_n=0) & = & \frac{\pi^2 \kappa_r}{4}

2828:   \left(\frac{v_0}{\tilde{v}_0}\right)^2, \\

2829:   U^{(0)}_{ij}({\bf k},\omega_n=0) & = & -\frac{\pi^2}{u_v} \delta_{ij},

2830: \end{eqnarray}

2831: and $U^{(0)}_{0i}({\bf k},\omega_n=0) = 0$.

2832: 

2833: 

2834: 

2835: 

2836: 

2837: 

2838: 

2839: Since $i\beta_0$ and $\beta$ couple to the fermion density and

2840: current respectively, ${\cal S}_{eff}$ mediates an effective

2841: frequency and wavevector dependent interaction between fermions.

2842: Since, in the d.c. limit, $-U^{(0)}_{00}({\bf k},\omega_n=0)$ and

2843: $U^{(0)}_{ii}({\bf k},\omega_n=0)$ are finite and wavevector

2844: independent, they describe local (on-site) repulsive quasiparticle

2845: density-density and attractive current-current interactions,

2846: respectively.

2847: 

2848: Generally, a repulsive density-density interaction between fermions

2849: will lead to Fermi liquid corrections in the quasiparticle dynamics

2850: and thermodynamics, but will not destroy the Fermi surface.  On the

2851: other hand, the current-current interaction for near-neighbor

2852: quasiparticle hopping can be rewritten in terms of antiferromagnetic,

2853: near-neighbor repulsive, and pairing interactions:

2854: \begin{equation}

2855:   H_J = J \sum_{{\bf r}, {\bf r}^\prime} \left[{\bf S}_{\bf r} \cdot

2856:   {\bf S}_{{\bf r}^\prime} + \frac{1}{4} n^f_{\bf r} n^f_{\bf r'}

2857:   + 2\overline{\Delta}^f_{\bf r} \Delta^f_{\bf r'} \right] ,

2858: \end{equation}

2859: up to a shift of the fermion chemical potential, with ${\bf S} \equiv

2860: f^\dagger \frac{\vec\sigma}{2} f^{\vphantom\dagger}$, (with $\vec\sigma$

2861: the vector of Pauli matrices), $n^f = f^\dagger f^{\vphantom\dagger}$,

2862: $\Delta^f = f_\uparrow f_\downarrow$ and $\overline{\Delta}^f =

2863: f^\dagger_\downarrow f^\dagger_\uparrow$.  Here, $J \sim t_s^2 /u_v$ is

2864: inversely proportional to the vortex core energy. One expects that the

2865: antiferromagnetic interaction can lead to an a Cooper instability in the

2866: $d$-wave (or extended $s-$wave) channel.  The repulsive pairing

2867: interaction interaction dis-favors an $s$-wave Cooper instability.

2868: Hence it seems possible that for small $u_v$, for which this $J$ is

2869: large, a spontaneous quasiparticle pairing instability may occur, most

2870: probably of $d$-wave symmetry.  Another possibility, which appears very

2871: natural for {\sl extremely} small doping $x\rightarrow 0^+$ (and $u_v

2872: \rightarrow 0^+$), is that the antiferromagnetic interaction drives an

2873: antiferromagnetic spin-density-wave instability.  We will discuss both

2874: possibilities in the discussion section.

2875: 

2876: 

2877: 

2878: 

2879: \subsection{Roton Scattering by Quasiparticles}

2880: \label{sec:roton-scatt-selectr}

2881: 

2882: Having established that the Fermi surface remains intact (apart

2883: from a possible BCS-type pairing instability) in the presence of

2884: gapless rotons, we need to see how the fermions feed back and

2885: effect the roton modes.  To this end, we will integrate out all

2886: fields except $\theta$, treating the fermions within the random

2887: phase approximation (RPA), to study the effects upon the roton

2888: dispersion.  The RPA is complicated by the two distinct

2889: amplitudes, $t_s$ and $t_e$, describing spinon and electron

2890: hopping processes, the latter coupling to the electric field $e_j$

2891: as well as the $\beta_j$ gauge field.  We begin with the RFL

2892: Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{LRFL}).  It is convenient to first shift

2893: $\alpha_\mu \rightarrow \alpha_\mu + a_\mu$ then integrate out

2894: $a_0$ and take $u_0 \rightarrow 0$, which constrains

2895: $\vec\nabla\times\vec\beta = \pi\vec\nabla\cdot \vec{e}$ and

2896: $\alpha_0 = -\partial_0 \theta$. Choosing in addition

2897: $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec\beta =- \pi \vec\nabla\times\vec{e}$, we

2898: essentially return to the electron formulation, with $\beta_i=-\pi

2899: \overline{e}_i$.  This choice is convenient, since the $\beta_i$

2900: and $\pi\overline{e}_i$ fields present in the electron hopping

2901: term precisely cancel, and only the $-\pi \overline{e}_i$ appears

2902: ``like a gauge field'' in the spinon hopping term.  The fermionic

2903: quasiparticles can then be integrated out in the random phase

2904: approximation (RPA).  One finds $S_f \rightarrow S_{RPA}$, with

2905: \begin{eqnarray}

2906:   S_{RPA}(\beta_\mu) & = & {1 \over 2} \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}\!\!\!

2907:   [ \Pi_{00} |\beta_0({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 + \frac{\pi^2

2908:     t_s^2}{t^2}\Pi_{11} |e_l({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 \nonumber \\

2909:   & & + \pi^2

2910:   t_s(1\!-\!\frac{t_s}{t}\!) T_{nn} |e({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 ] ,\label{eq:sRPA}

2911: \end{eqnarray}

2912: where $T_{nn} = \langle f^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}

2913: f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r+\hat{x}}\sigma}\rangle$ is the nearest

2914: neighbor kinetic energy, and $t=t_s+t_e$.  Here $\Pi_{00}$ and

2915: $\Pi_{11}$ are respectively the density-density and current-current

2916: response kernels (polarization bubbles + diamagnetic contribution in the

2917: case of $\Pi_{11}$) that would obtain for the Fermi sea were a single

2918: gauge field minimally coupled to the fermions.  These depend upon the band

2919: structure.  We will not require particular expressions for these

2920: quantities, but will use the fact that both $\Pi_{00}({\bf k},\omega_n)$

2921: and $\Pi_{11}({\bf k},\omega_n)$ are finite and generally non-vanishing

2922: at {\sl fixed wavevector} $|{\bf k}|>0$ and $\omega_n=0$.  Since we will

2923: focus upon the low energy rotons, which occur near the principle axes in

2924: the Brillouin zone, we have dropped terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sRPA}) that

2925: are small for $\omega_n \sim k_x \ll k_y$ and $\omega_n \sim k_y \ll

2926: k_x$ (e.g.  due to the parity symmetry, $x \rightarrow -x$, of the 2d

2927: square lattice, $\Pi_{01}(k_x=0,k_y,\omega_n)$ vanishes).  We also note

2928: that Eq.~(\ref{eq:sRPA}) does not have the usual RPA form even in this

2929: limit, due to the non-minimal coupling form of the fermion Lagrangian

2930: (minimal coupling is restored only for $t_s\rightarrow t$).

2931: 

2932: It may be helpful to keep in mind the forms for a circular Fermi

2933: surface (e.g. valid at small electron densities), where, at small

2934: wavevectors and frequencies, one has

2935: \begin{equation}

2936:   \Pi_{00}({\bf k}, \omega_n) \sim m^* ,

2937: \end{equation}

2938: where $m^* \sim t^{-1}$ is the effective mass and

2939: \begin{equation}

2940:   \Pi_{11} ({\bf k}, \omega_n) \sim {1 \over m^*} [ {\bf k}^2 +

2941:   {|\omega|  \over  v_F k  } ] ,

2942: \end{equation}

2943: which is valid for $|\omega | < v_F k $.  We stress, however, that our

2944: results do not depend upon these particular forms.

2945: 

2946: Since $S_{RPA}$ is quadratic, one can perform the remaining

2947: integrals  straightforwardly.  We choose

2948: $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{a}=\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\alpha}=0$, and

2949: integrate out $a$, $\beta_0$ and $e$, to obtain

2950: \begin{eqnarray}

2951:   \label{eq:atlag}

2952:   S & = &  \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}\!\!\! \big\{

2953:   \frac{\omega_n^2}{2\tilde{u}_v} \alpha^2 + \frac{\kappa_r}{8}\frac{4v_0^2 +

2954:     \tilde{v}_1^2}{\tilde{v}_1^2}\alpha^2 + \frac{\omega_n^2 {\cal

2955:       K}^2}{\overline{u}_v} \theta^2 \nonumber \\

2956:   & &

2957:   + \frac{\kappa_r}{2}|{\cal K}_x{\cal K}_y \theta + \frac{({\cal

2958:     K}_x^2 - {\cal K}_y^2)}{2{\cal K}} \alpha|^2 \big\},

2959: \end{eqnarray}

2960: where $\tilde{u}_v = u_v + \pi^2 t_s (1-t_s/t) T_{nn}$,

2961: $\overline{u}_v = \tilde{u}_v + \pi^2 t_s^2/t^2 \Pi_{11}$, and

2962: $\tilde{v}_1^2 = v_1^2 + \kappa_r \pi^2 \Pi_0 v_0^2$.  Without loss of

2963: generality, we focus upon the branch of rotons with $\omega_n \sim k_x

2964: \ll k_y \sim O(1)$, for which the first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:atlag})

2965: is negligible, and the remaining $\alpha$ integral can be carried out

2966: to obtain finally the effective action

2967: \begin{equation}

2968:   S_{rot} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}^\prime  \frac{\tilde{\cal

2969:     K}_y^2}{\overline{u}_v} \left[ \omega_n^2 + v_{rot}^2(k_y)

2970:   k_x^2\right] |\theta|^2, \label{eq:Srotsec5}

2971: \end{equation}

2972: with

2973: \begin{equation}

2974:   v_{rot}^2(k_y) = v_1^2 \frac{\overline{u}_v}{u_v}

2975: {  v_0^2 + {1 \over 4} \tilde{v}_1^2    \over   v_0^2 + {1 \over 2}

2976:   \tilde{v}_1^2  }  .\label{eq:vrotfull}

2977: \end{equation}

2978: 

2979: 

2980: We have thereby shown that even a gapless Fermi sea  {\it

2981:   does not} lead to a qualitative change in the gapless Bose-surface

2982: of rotons.  Due to the $k_y$-dependence of $\Pi_{00}$ and $\Pi_{11}$

2983: (implicit in $\tilde{v}_1$ and $\overline{u}_v$), the roton velocity

2984: is now seen to depend upon $k_y$.  Additional ``direct''

2985: quasiparticle-quasiparticle interactions (not mediated by the rotons)

2986: would in any case similarly renormalize $v_{rot}$.  But the location

2987: of the Bose surface and the qualitative low energy dispersion of the

2988: roton modes are seen to be unaffected by the fermions.  Together with

2989: the earlier demonstration of the stability of the Fermi

2990: surface, this result establishes the RFL phase as a stable 2d

2991: non-Fermi liquid with {\it both} gapless charge and spin excitations.

2992: 

2993: 

2994: 

2995: \section{Instabilities of the Roton Fermi Liquid}

2996: \label{sec:inst-roton-spin}

2997: 

2998: As for the RL, the RFL has potential instabilities to superconducting

2999: and Fermi Liquid states, driven by effects/terms neglected in the

3000: previous subsection.  We address each in turn now.

3001: 

3002: \subsection{Landau Fermi Liquid Instability}

3003: \label{sec:fermi-liqu-inst}

3004: 

3005: The arguments of Sec.~\ref{sec:vortex-hopping} for determining the

3006: relevance or irrelevance of the neglected vortex hopping term

3007: within the simpler RL continue to hold for the full RFL, provided

3008: the proper renormalized roton liquid parameters are employed.  In

3009: particular, the vortex hopping term continues to be described by a

3010: $1+1$-dimensional scaling dimension $\Delta_v$, which is, however,

3011: renormalized by the statistical interactions with the fermions, to

3012: wit:

3013: \begin{equation}

3014:   \label{eq:deltavrenorm}

3015:   \Delta_v = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \! \frac{dk_y}{2\pi}\,

3016:   \frac{\overline{u}_v(k_y)}{v_{rot}(k_y)},

3017: \end{equation}

3018: with $v_{rot}(k_y)$ given from Eq.~(\ref{eq:vrotfull}).  The same

3019: arguments thus continue to apply, and the vortex hopping term is

3020: irrelevant for $\Delta_v>2$.  For $\Delta_v<2$, we expect an

3021: instability to a state with proliferated vortices.  The dual

3022: Meissner effect for this vortex condensate confines particles with

3023: non-zero gauge charge, as discussed in

3024: Sec.~\ref{sec:vortex-hopping}.  Coming from the RFL, the natural

3025: expectation is then that the system becomes a Fermi liquid.  This

3026: hypothesis is fleshed out in Appendix \ref{sec:fermiliquid}.

3027: 

3028: \subsection{Superconducting Instabilities}

3029: \label{sec:superc-inst-1}

3030: 

3031: As for the RL, the RFL can also be unstable to a superconducting

3032: state.  However, the inclusion of the fermionic quasiparticles opens new

3033: routes to superconductivity from the RFL.  We explore each of

3034: these in turn.

3035: 

3036: \subsubsection{``Charge'' hopping}

3037: \label{sec:charge-hopping-1}

3038: 

3039: As for the vortex hopping considered above, the arguments for the

3040: relevance of the ``charge'' hopping in Sec.~\ref{sec:superc-inst} for

3041: the RL continue to apply with only a renormalization of the roton

3042: liquid parameters.  In particular, the scaling dimension defined from

3043: the charge hopping, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chargehopping}), is modified to

3044: \begin{equation}

3045:   \label{eq:deltacrenorm}

3046:   \Delta_c = \pi \int_{-\pi}^\pi \! \frac{dk_y}{2\pi} |{\cal K}_y(k_y)|^2

3047:   \frac{v_{rot}(k_y)}{\overline{u}_v(k_y)}.

3048: \end{equation}

3049: With this modification, the charge hopping processes become

3050: relevant for $\Delta_c<2$, as before.  It should be noted that,

3051: including the renormalizations due to scattering by fermions,

3052: $\Delta_c \Delta_s \neq 1/2$, owing to the $k_y$ dependence of the

3053: $v_{rot}$ and $\overline{u}_v$.

3054: 

3055: As we established in Sec.~\ref{sec:superc-inst} by employing the

3056: plaquette duality transformation, when the charge hopping

3057: processes are relevant the rotons become gapped out and the system

3058: exhibits a Meissner effect.  Here, we briefly comment on the

3059: corresponding fate of the fermionic quasiparticles, which are

3060: gapless across the Fermi surface in the RFL phase. The relevance

3061: of the charge hopping in the plaquette dualized representation,

3062: indicates that it is not legitimate to expand the cosine term that

3063: enters into the roton hopping Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_r$.  Rather,

3064: in the original vortex representation, the state corresponds to a

3065: ``vortex vacuum", and the properties of the state can be accessed

3066: by taking all of the vortex hopping processes small,

3067: $t_v,t_{2v},\kappa_r \ll u_v$. At zeroth order in the vortex

3068: kinetic terms, the full Hamiltonian of the $U(1)$ vortex-spinon

3069: field theory in Eq.~(\ref{HamU1vs}) is independent of $\alpha_j$,

3070: so that $\beta_j$ commutes with $\hat{H}$ and naively can be taken

3071: as c-numbers. A simple choice consistent with the condition

3072: $N_{\sf r}=0$ is $\beta_j=0$, and in the vortex vacuum one also

3073: has that $e^\ell_j =0$.  In this case, the full fermionic

3074: Hamiltonian describing the quasiparticles in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hf})

3075: reduces to the Bogoliubov-deGennes form, apart from the coupling

3076: to $e^t_j$ which describes the Doppler shift couplings to the

3077: super-flow.  In particular, the string operator which enters into

3078: the explicit pairing term equals unity, ${\cal S}^2_{\bf r}=1$, so

3079: that the fermionic quasiparticles are paired. We denote by

3080: $|0\rangle_f$ the ground state of $\hat{H}_f$ with

3081: $\beta_j=e_j=0$, which is easily found by filling the

3082: Bogoliubov-deGennes levels below the Fermi energy. Our naive

3083: ground state is then

3084: \begin{equation}

3085:   \label{eq:u1naive}

3086:   |0\rangle_0 = |0\rangle_f \otimes |\beta_j=0\rangle \otimes |N_{\sf

3087:   r}=0\rangle.

3088: \end{equation}

3089: In the U(1) sector, unfortunately, we must take somewhat more

3090: care, since the condition $\beta_j=0$ is in fact inconsistent with

3091: the gauge constraint ${\cal G}_f(\Lambda_{\bf r})=1$.  We can,

3092: however, project into the U(1) subspace using the operator

3093: \begin{equation}

3094:   \label{eq:projector}

3095:   \hat{P}=\prod_{\bf r} \delta(f^\dagger_{{\bf r} \sigma}

3096:   f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} - {1 \over \pi}

3097:   \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j({\bf r} - {\bf w})).

3098: \end{equation}

3099: Since $[\hat{P},\hat{H}]=[\hat{P},{\cal G}_v(\chi_{\sf r})]=0$,

3100: the state

3101: \begin{equation}

3102:   \label{eq:projgs}

3103:   |0\rangle = \hat{P}|0\rangle_0

3104: \end{equation}

3105: satisfies all gauge constraints and remains an eigenstate of $H$

3106: (with zero kinetic terms). This establishes that the resulting

3107: superconducting state is an ordinary BCS-type superconductor with

3108: paired electrons.

3109: 

3110: 

3111: 

3112: 

3113: \subsubsection{BCS instability}

3114: \label{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}

3115: 

3116: As we saw in Section V, the coupling of the spinons to the gapless

3117: rotons in the RFL phase leads to Heisenberg exchange and pair

3118: field interactions between the fermions with strength $J \sim

3119: t_s^2/u_v$.  In the physically interesting limit $t \approx t_s

3120: \gg t_e$, the quasiparticles move primarily as spinons, i.e.

3121: without any associated electrical charge, and hence do not

3122: experience a long-ranged Coulomb repulsion.  Thus one may imagine

3123: that the above interactions could lead to a BCS pairing

3124: instability at ``high'' energies (still below the quasiparticle

3125: Fermi energy to make the Fermi liquid description appropriate, but

3126: quantitatively large compared to e.g. more conventional BCS

3127: critical temperatures) of order $J$.  Here we explore the

3128: properties of the resulting phase which emerges when the fermions

3129: pair spontaneously and condense.  To this end, we focus on the

3130: fluctuations of the phase, $\Phi$ of the fermion pair field,

3131: $\langle f_{\uparrow} f_{\downarrow} \rangle = \Delta_f

3132: e^{i\Phi}$.  Keeping $\Delta_f$ fixed, and working once more in

3133: the electron  gauge $\beta_i = -\pi \overline{e}_i$, we integrate

3134: out the fermions entering in ${\cal L}_{RFL}$ to generate an

3135: effective action for $\Phi, \beta_0$, and $\overline{e}_i$.

3136: Specifically, one obtains ${\cal L}^0_f + {\cal L}_f^1 \rightarrow

3137: {\cal

3138:   L}_\Phi$, with

3139: \begin{eqnarray}

3140: {\cal L}_\Phi & = & \frac{g_f}{2} (\partial_0 \Phi - 2 \beta_0)^2 + \frac{

3141:   \rho_s^f t_s}{2}(\partial_i\Phi + 2\pi

3142: \overline{e}_i)^2

3143:  \\ & & \hspace{-0.5in} + \frac{\rho_s^f t_e}{2}(\partial_i \Phi - 2A_i)^2

3144: -\alpha\frac{ k_B T}{t\Delta_f} (t \partial_i \Phi + 2 \pi

3145: t_s\overline{e}_i - 2 t_e A_i)^2. \nonumber

3146: \label{eq:LPhi}

3147: \end{eqnarray}

3148: Here $g_f$ is of order the density of states at the Fermi surface, $A_i$

3149: is (time-independent for simplicity) external vector potential, and

3150: $\rho_s^f$ is the fermion pair (``superfluid'') density.  The final term

3151: represents the low but non-zero temperature corrections to the

3152: superfluid density appropriate to the case of d-wave pairing.  Here

3153: $\alpha$ is a non-universal constant of order one representing the

3154: effects of Fermi liquid corrections, or equivalently, high-energy

3155: renormalizations of the ``Doppler shift'' coupling constant.

3156: 

3157: The excitations and response functions of the system can then be

3158: obtained from the RFL Lagrangian by shifting $\alpha_\mu

3159: \rightarrow \alpha_\mu + a_\mu$ and then integrating out $a_0,

3160: a_j$ and $\alpha_0$.  Having made the replacement, ${\cal L}_f

3161: \rightarrow {\cal L}_\Phi$, one thereby obtains ${\cal L}_{RFL}

3162: \rightarrow {\cal L}_{eff}$, with an effective Lagrangian given by

3163: ${\cal L}_{eff} =\hat{\cal L}_{rot}+{\cal L}_\Phi$, where

3164: \begin{eqnarray}

3165:   \label{eq:Lrothat}

3166:   \hat{\cal L}_{rot} & = & \frac{u_v}{2} (e_i+ \frac{1}{\pi}

3167:   \epsilon_{ij}A_j)^2 + i \partial_0 e_i (\partial_i\theta+\alpha_i)

3168:   \nonumber \\

3169:   & & +

3170:   \frac{u_v}{2\pi^2 v_0^2}\beta_0^2 + \frac{i}{\pi} \beta_0

3171:   \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j \\

3172:   & & + \frac{\kappa_r}{8}(\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i \alpha_j)^2 +

3173:   \frac{\kappa_r}{2}[ \Delta_{xy}\theta + \frac{1}{2}(\partial_x

3174:     \alpha_y + \partial_y \alpha_x)]^2. \nonumber

3175: \end{eqnarray}

3176: 

3177: First, it is instructive to consider the transverse electromagnetic

3178: response, in particular consider a static, transverse external gauge

3179: field, $\partial_0 A_i = \vec\nabla\cdot\vec{A}=0$.  Since the external

3180: gauge field is at zero frequency, $\alpha_j,\beta_0$, $\theta$, and $e_t$ are

3181: decoupled from $A_i$ and $e_l$ in this limit, and we may thus neglect all but

3182: the first term in Eq.~\ref{eq:Lrothat}.  In addition, $\Phi$ is

3183: decoupled from $e_l$ ($\overline{e}_t$) as well, so we may simplify the

3184: effective Lagrangian to

3185: 

3186: \begin{eqnarray}

3187:   \label{eq:efflagmeissner}

3188: {\cal L}_{eff}=

3189:   \frac{u_v}{2}({e_l}+ \frac{A_t}{\pi })^2 +

3190:   2 t_e \rho_s^f A_t^2+  2\pi^2t_s\rho_s^f e_l^2

3191: \nonumber \\  -\alpha\frac{ k_B T}{t\Delta_f} (2 \pi

3192: t_s e_l - 2 t_e A_t)^2.

3193: \end{eqnarray}

3194: 

3195: Integrating over $e_l$ then gives the superfluid stiffness $K_s$ as the

3196: coefficient of $2 A_t^2$ (corresponding to the pair-field phase

3197: stiffness) in the effective action:

3198: \begin{eqnarray}

3199:   \label{eq:rhos}

3200:   K_s & & =  \\

3201:   & & \frac{\rho_s^f(t u_v + 4\pi^2 t_e t_s \rho_s^f

3202:     )}{u_v + 4\pi^2 t_s\rho_s^f} -

3203:      \frac{( t u_v + 4\pi^2 t_e t_s \rho_s^f )^2}{(u_v + 4\pi^2

3204:          t_s\rho_s^f )^2} \frac{2\alpha k_B T}{t\Delta_f}\nonumber

3205: \end{eqnarray}

3206: to linear order in temperature.  Note that, for $\rho_s^f\neq 0$, the

3207: system is a true charge superfluid, displaying a Meissner effect.

3208: 

3209: We would next like to establish the fate of the roton excitations.

3210: To do these, we let $A_i=0$, specialize to $T=0$, and consider the

3211: appropriate limit $\omega_n \sim k_x \ll k_y\sim O(1)$,

3212: integrating out fields to obtain an effective action for $\theta$

3213: alone.  Integrating out $\Phi$, one obtains in this limit

3214: \begin{eqnarray}

3215:   \label{eq:Phiintegral}

3216:   {\cal L}_\Phi & \rightarrow & 2 g_f \beta_0^2 + 2\pi^2 \rho_s^f t_s

3217:   e_l^2,

3218: \end{eqnarray}

3219: using the above conditions on $\omega_n$ and ${\bf k}$, and $\partial_0

3220: \beta_0 \ll \epsilon_{ij}\partial_i e_j$, which follows in this limit.

3221: Further taking the gauge $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec\alpha=0$, one sees that

3222: $e_t$ couples only to $\partial_0\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lrothat}), and

3223: thus generates only negligible terms at low frequencies and may be

3224: dropped.  We therefore need only the effective action for

3225: $\alpha=\alpha_t$, $\theta$, $\beta_0$ and $e_l$, $S_{eff}=\int_{{\bf

3226:     k}\omega_n} s_{eff}$, which in this limit becomes

3227: \begin{eqnarray}

3228:   \label{eq:seffatbe}

3229:   s_{eff} & & = \frac{u_v + 4\pi^2 \rho_s^f t_s}{2} e_l^2 +

3230:   \frac{u_v+4\pi^2 v_0^2 g_f}{2\pi^2 v_0^2}\beta_0^2 - |{\cal

3231:     K}_y|\omega_n e_l \theta \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-0.3in} + \frac{i|{\cal

3232:       K}_y|}{\pi}\beta_0 \alpha

3233:    +

3234:   \frac{\kappa_r}{8}{\cal K}_y^2 \alpha^2 + \frac{\kappa_r {\cal

3235:       K}_y^2}{2}|k_x \theta + \frac{{\rm sign}(k_y)}{2} \alpha|^2.

3236: \end{eqnarray}

3237: Performing the integration over $\alpha$, $\beta_0$ and $e_l$, one

3238: obtains the final effective action for $\theta$:

3239: \begin{eqnarray}

3240:   \label{eq:Seffthetafinal}

3241:   s_{eff}(\theta) & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{{\cal K}_y^2}{u_v+4\pi^2

3242:     \rho_s^f t_s}\left(\omega_n^2 + \tilde{v}_{rot}^2

3243:     k_x^2\right)|\theta|^2,

3244: \end{eqnarray}

3245: where

3246: \begin{eqnarray}

3247:   \label{eq:vrotss}

3248:   \tilde{v}_{rot}^2 = v_1^2 \frac{u_v+4\pi^2 \rho_s^f t_s}{u_v}

3249:   \frac{u_v(v_0^2+\frac{v_1^2}{4}) + \pi^2 g_f v_0^2 v_1^2}{u_v(v_0^2 +

3250:     \frac{v_1^2}{2})

3251:     + 2\pi^2 g_f v_0^2 v_1^2}.

3252: \end{eqnarray}

3253: Thus, despite the superconductivity induced by quasiparticle pairing,

3254: the gapless roton excitations survive, with some quantitative

3255: modifications to their velocity and correlations.

3256: 

3257: As we shall explore further in the concluding sections, in the limit of

3258: a very small ``bare'' vortex core energy appropriate in the under-doped

3259: limit, $u_v \sim x \rightarrow 0$, there is a large energy scale for

3260: pairing, $J \sim t_s^2 /u_v$.  It is then natural to assume $t\rho_s^f

3261: \approx t(1-x)

3262: \gg u_v$.  If we presume that the fermionic kinetic energy is

3263: predominantly due to ``spinon hopping'', $t\approx t_s \gg t_e$, then

3264: one has

3265: \begin{equation}

3266:   \label{eq:Ksapprox}

3267:   K_s \approx \frac{u_v}{4\pi^2} + t_e\rho_s^f - (\frac{u_v}{4\pi^2} +

3268:   t_e\rho_s^f)^2 \frac{2\alpha k_{\scriptscriptstyle B}T}{t\Delta_f

3269:     (\rho_s^f)^2}.

3270: \end{equation}

3271: Thus, despite the large bare superfluid stiffness coming from the BCS

3272: pairing of the quasiparticles, the renormalized stiffness is small, set

3273: by the bare vortex core energy, $K_s = {u_v \over 4\pi^2} \sim x$ or the

3274: electron hopping $t_e$ (presumed small).  It is the renormalized

3275: stiffness which determines the vortex core energy, and sets the scale

3276: for the finite temperature Kosterlitz-Thouless superconducting

3277: transition, $T_{KT} \sim u_v \sim x$.  In this way, one can understand

3278: the large separation in energy scales between the pseudo-gap line at

3279: scale $J$ and the superconducting transition temperature, $T_{KT} \sim

3280: x$.  Unfortunately (since it is in apparent conflict with the small

3281: amount of experimental data for this quantity), along with this small

3282: superfluid stiffness, one obtains a small linear temperature derivative,

3283: $\left.\partial K_s/\partial T\right|_{T=0}$, due to the same mechanism.

3284: This is similar to results for the U(1) gauge theory for the $t-J$

3285: model.

3286: 

3287: To complete the analysis, one should consider the effects of the

3288: heretofore neglected explicit pairing term in this novel ``rotonic''

3289: superconductor.  In particular, one may imagine that, once the fermionic

3290: pair field has condensed, it may induce true off-diagonal long-range

3291: order in the rotonic sector through the proximity effect.  Naively,

3292: ODLRO appears incompatible with gapless rotons, so one may expect the

3293: explicit pairing term to induce a gap in the roton spectrum.  While this

3294: is possible, it is easy to see that it is not inevitable.  To see this,

3295: note that, in the rotonic superconductor, the fermionic pair-field in

3296: the explicit pairing term may be replaced simply by its mean-field value,

3297: $\Delta_1 c_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf 

3298:         x}_1 \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf r}\sigma'} =

3299:     \Delta_2 c_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf 

3300:         x}_2 \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf

3301:         r}\sigma'}=\Delta_f$.  This leads, in the roton sector, to an

3302:     additional term, 

3303: \begin{eqnarray}

3304:   \label{eq:Hdelta}

3305:   H_\Delta & = & - \Delta_f \sum_{j\bf r} (B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

3306:       x}_j}^\dagger + {\rm h.c.}).

3307: \end{eqnarray}

3308: Indeed, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdelta}), since it embodies a linear coupling to

3309: the bosonic pair field, $B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}$, will induce

3310: ODLRO in the $B_{\bf r}$ operators.  However, this need not itself be a

3311: mechanism to induce a roton gap.  Noting that from

3312: Sec.~\ref{sec:quasi-diagonal-long}, the boson pair field correlators are

3313: power-law in form, we expect that for $\Delta_c$ sufficiently large,

3314: perturbation theory in $\Delta_f$ will be regular and convergent, and

3315: the gapless rotons will be preserved.  Due to the anisotropic structure

3316: of these correlators, we cannot reliably determine the relevance or

3317: irrelevance of $\Delta_f$ by simple power-counting arguments.  We note

3318: that for $\Delta_c>3/2$, the induced ODLRO is expected to be linear in

3319: $\Delta_f$, i.e. the bosonic pair-field susceptibility is finite.

3320: However, the criterion for irrelevance is probably more stringent, e.g.

3321: $\Delta_c>3$.  To determine the precise value $\Delta_c^*$ such that for

3322: $\Delta_c>\Delta_c^*$, the explicit pairing term remains irrelevant

3323: after condensation of quasiparticle pairs, would require a more careful

3324: analysis of the structure of the perturbation theory in $\Delta_f$.  We

3325: leave this for braver souls, and content ourselves with the observation

3326: that there is a range of stability to this perturbation.  We note that,

3327: however, since the RL itself even without the pairing term is always

3328: unstable to either vortex or ``charge'' hopping, the rotonic

3329: superconductor, with true gapless rotons, exists at best as an

3330: intermediate energy scale crossover.  Nevertheless, provided the

3331: inevitable roton gap is small (i.e. for small $\Delta_f,t_c, t_v$), we

3332: expect the gap onset will only slightly modify the values for the superfluid

3333: stiffness and its linear temperature derivative determined above.

3334: 

3335: 

3336: 

3337: 

3338: 

3339: 

3340: 

3341: 

3342: 

3343: 

3344: 

3345: 

3346: \subsubsection{Explicit pairing term}

3347: \label{sec:stab-expl-spin}

3348: 

3349: The final potential instability of the RFL we consider is from the

3350: explicit (spinon) pairing term $\Delta$.  Recall from

3351: Sec.~\ref{sec:u1-vortex-spinon-1}, 

3352: \begin{eqnarray}

3353:   \label{eq:explicit}

3354:   {\cal H}_\Delta & = &   \sum_j e^{i\beta_j({\bf r})} \Delta_j

3355:     [{\cal S}_{\bf r}]^2 f_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

3356:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'}+ {\rm

3357:       h.c.}\\

3358:     & = & \sum_j \Delta_j B_{{\bf r},{\bf r}+\hat{\bf x}_j}^\dagger

3359:     c_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf 

3360:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf r}\sigma'}+ {\rm

3361:       h.c.},\label{eq:explicitelec}

3362: \end{eqnarray}

3363: where the last line is written in electron variables, or equivalently in

3364: the ``electron gauge'' with $\beta_j=-\pi\overline{e}_j$.  This

3365: representation is convenient because it eliminates all unphysical gauge

3366: fluctuations, which, although they do not appear in any physical

3367: properties, may enter inadvertently through approximations.  Had we

3368: considered instead a Hamiltonian with $s$-wave pairing, we would have

3369: had

3370: \begin{eqnarray}

3371:   \label{eq:Hswave}

3372:   {\cal H}_\Delta^{s-{\rm wave}} & = & \Delta^s [{\cal S}_{\bf r}]^2

3373:   f_{{\bf r}\sigma}\epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{{\bf r}\sigma'} + {\rm

3374:     h.c.} \nonumber \\

3375:   & = & \Delta^s B_{\bf r}^\dagger c_{{\bf

3376:       r}\sigma}\epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf r}\sigma'} + {\rm 

3377:     h.c.}

3378: \end{eqnarray}

3379: Since we have already determined the correlations of the boson pair

3380: field operator $B_{\bf r}$ (which exhibits ODQLRO), in

3381: Sec.~\ref{sec:quasi-diagonal-long}, all the operators appearing in

3382: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hswave}) have well understood properties at this stage, and

3383: so we will discuss this case for simplicity.  For the physically more

3384: interesting scenario of $d$-wave pairing, we require instead the

3385: behavior of the bond pair field correlations.  As discussed in

3386: Sec.~\ref{sec:odqlro-d-wave}, this behavior is qualitatively identical

3387: to that of the local pair field, with a possible renormalization of

3388: $\Delta_c$.  Hence we believe that the results we obtain for local

3389: ($s$-wave) pairing -- in particular that the pairing term is irrelevant

3390: for sufficiently large $\Delta_c$ -- carry over to the $d$-wave case,

3391: provided a possible (and for the moment unknown) $O(1)$ modification of

3392: $\Delta_c$ is made in the relations.

3393: 

3394: We would like to determine the ``relevance'' of ${\cal H}_\Delta$ in the

3395: renormalization group (RG) sense, i.e. whether its presence destabilizes

3396: the low energy properties of the RFL.  Unfortunately, due to the

3397: extremely anisotropic nature of the rotonic spectrum, and the very

3398: different nature of the low energy electronic quasiparticle states at

3399: the Fermi surface, we do not know how to formulate a proper RG

3400: transformation.  However, we do note that correlations of ${\cal

3401:   H}_\Delta$ decay as power laws in space and imaginary time in the

3402: theory with $\Delta=0$, since then these correlations factor into

3403: $G^{cp}$ (with power-law behavior described in

3404: Sec.~\ref{sec:quasi-diagonal-long}) and the fermion pair-field

3405: correlator, which has the power law form characteristic of a Fermi

3406: liquid.  Clearly, for sufficiently large $\Delta_c$, the Cooper pair

3407: propagator $G^{cp}({\bf r},\tau)$ will decay sufficiently rapidly that

3408: perturbation theory in $\Delta$ does not generate any (primitive)

3409: singularities.  However, determining the critical $\Delta_c^*$ above

3410: which this occurs is beyond the scope of the current study.  A simple

3411: argument clearly bounds $\Delta_c^*>3/2$.  In particular, one may

3412: attempt to integrate out the vortices perturbatively in ${\cal

3413:   H}_\Delta$ in a cumulant expansion.  The first non-trivial term in

3414: this expansion occurs at second order, and generates an attractive

3415: fermion pair-field to pair-field interaction whose vertex is

3416: simply the Fourier transform of $G^{cp}({\bf r},\tau)$.  For

3417: $\Delta_c<3/2$, a simple scaling analysis indicates that this

3418: Fourier transform is divergent at ${\bf q}=\omega_n=0$.  Thus for

3419: such values of $\Delta_c$, this attractive Cooper channel

3420: interaction will overwhelm any other repulsive interaction that

3421: might be present at low energies, leading to a Cooper instability

3422: and pairing.  This analysis, however, neglects higher cumulant

3423: terms which are certainly present in integrating out the vortices,

3424: and which are presumably crucial in determining the ultimate

3425: limits of stability of the RFL.  Nevertheless, and this is all we

3426: shall require at present, it is clear that $\Delta_c^*$ exists and

3427: is not infinite, so that a non-vanishing region of stability also

3428: exists. When $\Delta_c < \Delta_c^*$ the explicit pairing term

3429: will be ``relevant'', destabilizing the RFL phase, presumably

3430: driving it into a conventional superconducting phase with paired

3431: electrons and gapped rotons.  Given our lack of knowledge of

3432: $\Delta_c^*$, the additional uncertainty in the decay exponent of ODQLRO

3433: is not particularly damaging.

3434: 

3435: 

3436: 

3437: 

3438: 

3439: \section{Properties of the RFL phase}

3440: 

3441: \label{sec:RFLproperties}

3442: 

3443: Having established the existence of the RFL phase, we now discuss

3444: some of it's properties.  Since the rotons are effectively

3445: decoupled from the fermions at low energies, much of the physics

3446: of the RFL phase follows directly from the results we established

3447: for the charge sector in Sections III and IV.  Specifically, one

3448: expects {\it three} different gapless excitations in the RFL phase

3449: - a gapless longitudinal plasmon, a Bose surface of gapless rotons

3450: and a set of particle-hole excitations across the Fermi surface.

3451: The {\it spin} physics in the RFL phase is then qualitatively

3452: similar to that of a conventional normal metal.  Also like a

3453: metal, the RFL has ODQLRO in the Cooper pair field.  Unlike an

3454: ordinary metal, however, this power law off-diagonal order exists

3455: with two distinct unrelated powers, one originating from the

3456: two-particle excitations of the Fermi sea, and the other from the

3457: gapless rotons. Because the rotons and electronic quasiparticles

3458: exist as nearly independent excitations in the RFL, one would

3459: expect a sharp electron spectral function despite the critical

3460: rotons. While this is true, as we demonstrate below in detail, the

3461: quasiparticles do scatter appreciably and in a singular manner

3462: from the gapless rotons at particular ``hot spots'' on the Fermi

3463: surface.  Nevertheless, even at these hot spots, the decay rate

3464: vanishes more rapidly than the electron's energy.

3465: 

3466: Despite the existence of such long lived electron-like quasiparticle

3467: excitations, the electrical transport in the RFL phase is strikingly

3468: non-Drude like, as we now demonstrate.  Specifically, in the presence of

3469: impurities the electrical conductivity at low temperatures is dominated

3470: by the quasi-condensate in the charge sector, diverging at low

3471: temperatures as $\sigma \sim T^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma >1$.  But as we

3472: shall see, the {\it Hall conductivity} behaves very differently, being

3473: dominated by the electron-like quasiparticles.

3474: 

3475: \subsection{Electrical Conductivity}

3476: \label{subsec:resist}

3477: Here we evaluate the electrical resistance in the RFL phase.  As in

3478: Section IVA, it will be necessary to include the effects of the vortex

3479: hopping term, even though vortex hopping is technically ``irrelevant''

3480: when $\gamma >1$.  The RFL phase exhibits the same ``emergent

3481: symmetry'' as in the Roton liquid -- the number of vortices on every

3482: row and column being independently conserved -- so inclusion of vortex

3483: hopping is necessary to generate {\it any} dissipative resistance

3484: whatsoever.  In order to access the

3485: Hall conductivity we apply a uniform external magnetic field.  We

3486: choose a gauge with $A_0=0$, and set,

3487: \begin{equation}

3488: A_j({\sf r},\tau) = A^B_j({\sf r}) + \tilde{A}_j(\tau)  ,

3489: \end{equation}

3490: with $\epsilon_{ij} \partial_i A^B_j = B$ the external magnetic field

3491: and $\tilde{A}_j$ a time-dependent source term used to extract the

3492: conductivity tensor.  As might be expected it is important to include

3493: the effects of elastic scattering from impurities. 

3494: 

3495: It is convenient to

3496: employ, as in Sec.~\ref{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}, in which the fermions

3497: have been integrated out, their effects felt only through an

3498: additional contribution to the effective action.  In particular, we

3499: choose,  as in Sec.~\ref{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}, the electron gauge, and

3500: write

3501: \begin{equation}

3502:   \label{eq:actionforRFLsigma}

3503:   S_{eff} = \int_\tau \sum_{\sf r} \left[ \hat{\cal L}_{rot} - t_v

3504:     \cos(\partial_i \theta+\alpha_i)\right] + S_f(e_i,\beta_0,\tilde{A}_i),

3505: \end{equation}

3506: with $\hat{L}_{rot}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lrothat}). Here $S_f$

3507: represents the fermionic terms in the action.  We proceed by

3508: shifting $\overline{e}_j \rightarrow \overline{e}_j -A_j^B/\pi$,

3509: which takes $A_j \rightarrow \tilde{A}_j$ in $\hat{L}_{rot}$

3510: without any further changes since $A_j^B$ is time independent.

3511: This has the effect for the fermions of making the magnetic field

3512: appear uniformly in both electron and spinon hopping terms.

3513: Integrating out the fermions then  perturbatively in

3514: $\overline{e}_i$, $\beta_0$, and $\tilde{A}_i$ effectively

3515: replaces $S_f \rightarrow \tilde{S}_f = \int_{{\bf k}\omega_n}

3516: s_f$, where

3517: \begin{eqnarray}

3518:   \label{eq:SfRFLsigma}

3519:   s_f & = & \frac{\Pi_{00}}{2} |\beta_0({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 + \frac{\pi^2 t_s}{2} T_{nn}|\overline{e}_j|^2 + \frac{t_e}{2}

3520:   T_{nn} |\tilde{A}_j|^2 \nonumber \\

3521:   &   & \hspace{-0.2in} +

3522:   \frac{\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}}{2t^2}(\pi t_s \overline{e}_i + t_e

3523:   \tilde{A}_i)_{{\bf k},\omega_n}(\pi t_s\overline{e}_j +t_e

3524:   \tilde{A}_j)_{-({\bf k}\omega_n)}.

3525: \end{eqnarray}

3526: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:SfRFLsigma}), both $\Pi_{00}$ and $\tilde\Pi_{ij}$ are

3527: functions of ${\bf k}$ and $\omega_n$ (and $B$ through $A_j^B$ which

3528: appears in the electron hopping term), and we have neglected a

3529: cross-term $\Pi_{0i}$ between $\beta_0$ and the spatial gauge fields,

3530: which is negligible in all the limits of interest.  We will require the

3531: behavior of $\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}$ in two regimes.  Since the external

3532: fields are spatially uniform, we will need $\tilde{\Pi}({\bf

3533:   k=0},\omega_n)$ at low frequencies

3534: \begin{eqnarray}

3535:   \label{eq:Piuniform}

3536:   \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}({\bf k=0},\omega_n) \approx \sigma_{xx}^f |\omega_n|

3537:   \delta_{ij} + \sigma_{xy}^f \omega_n \epsilon_{ij},

3538: \end{eqnarray}

3539: where $\sigma_{ij}^f$ is the conductivity tensor for the fermions.

3540: Roton fluctuations are dominated in contrast by $\omega_n \sim k_x \ll

3541: k_y \sim O(1)$ (or the same with $k_x \leftrightarrow k_y$).  In this

3542: limit, $\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}$ becomes a non-trivial function of the $O(1)$

3543: component of the wavevector, but has the useful property (due to square

3544: reflection symmetry) of decoupling in the longitudinal and transverse

3545: basis,

3546: \begin{eqnarray}

3547:   \label{eq:Pilt}

3548:   \tilde\Pi_{ij}({\bf k},\omega_n) \approx \tilde{\Pi}_t \left( \delta_{ij}

3549:     - \frac{{\cal K}_i^{\vphantom{*}}{\cal K}_j^*}{{\cal K}^2}\right) +

3550:   \tilde\Pi_l 

3551:   \frac{{\cal K}_i^{\vphantom{*}}{\cal K}_j^*}{{\cal K}^2} . 

3552: \end{eqnarray}

3553: In this limit, we note that $\tilde\Pi_t$ is related to $\Pi_{11}$ of

3554: Sec.~\ref{sec:roton-scatt-selectr}\ by $\Pi_{11} = \tilde{\Pi}_t+

3555: T_{nn}$.

3556: 

3557: As discussed above, the conductivity is finite only once the vortex

3558: hopping is included to break the row/column symmetries of the RFL.

3559: Hence to extract the conductivity, we must compute the effective

3560: action for $\tilde{A}_j$ to $O(t_v^2)$, which gives the first

3561: non-trivial correction.  This requires only Gaussian integrals, with

3562: no further approximations.  However, for ease of presentation, it is

3563: convenient, analogously to Sec.~\ref{sec:electr-resist-roton}, to take the

3564: simplifying limit $u_v/v_0^2 + \Pi_{00} \ll 1/\kappa_r$.  In this

3565: limit the fluctuations of $\beta_0$ are extremely strong, which in

3566: turn strongly suppresses the fluctuations of $\alpha^t({\bf

3567:   k},\omega_n)$ except at ${\bf k=0}$.  Furthermore, choosing

3568: the gauge $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec\alpha=0$, we may thereby take

3569: $\alpha_i({\sf r},\tau)$ to be a function of $\tau$ only.  Doing so,

3570: we may drop all spatial derivatives of $\alpha_j$ in $\hat{\cal

3571:   L}_{rot}$.  Furthermore, since fluctuations of $\alpha_j$ are only

3572: temporal, it can be accurately treated in an RPA fashion.  

3573: 

3574: To carry out the RPA calculation, we first perform the integral over

3575: $e_i$, which gives an effective action in terms of the remaining

3576: $\theta$, $\alpha_i$, and $\tilde{A}_i$ fields,

3577: $S_{eff}\rightarrow S'_{eff}=S'_1(\tilde{A}_i)  

3578: + S'_2(\alpha_i,\tilde{A}_i)+ S'_3(\theta, \alpha_i)$, with 

3579: \begin{widetext}

3580:   \begin{eqnarray}

3581:     \label{eq:speff}

3582:     S'_1 & = & L^2\int_{\omega_n} \frac{1}{2}\big\{ 

3583:     (\eta t_s + t_e)T_{nn}\delta_{ij} 

3584:     + \frac{1}{t^2}\left(t_e^2 +

3585:       \eta^2 t_s^2+ 2 \eta t_e t_s \right)\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}({\bf

3586:       k=0},\omega_n) \big\} 

3587:     \tilde{A}_i(-\omega_n)\tilde{A}_j(\omega_n), \\

3588:     \label{eq:speff2}

3589:     S'_2 & = & L^2 \int_{\omega_n} \left\{

3590:       \frac{\eta \omega_n^2}{2u_v}\left[\delta_{ij} +\frac{\eta \pi^2

3591:           t_s^2}{u_v t^2} \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}({\bf

3592:           k=0},\omega_n)\right]\alpha_i(-\omega_n)\alpha_j(\omega_n)

3593:       -\frac{\eta 

3594:         \omega_n}{\pi} \epsilon_{ij} \alpha_i(-\omega_n)

3595:       \tilde{A}_j(\omega_n) \right\}  \\ 

3596:     \label{eq:speff3}

3597:     S'_3 & =&\int_{{\bf k}\omega_n}  \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\omega_n^2

3598:         {\cal K}^2}{\overline{u}_v}+ 

3599:       \kappa_r|{\cal K}_x{\cal K}_y|^2 \right]|\theta({\bf

3600:       k},\omega_n)|^2 - t_v \sum_{\sf 

3601:       r}\int_\tau \cos(\partial_i \theta+\alpha_i), 

3602:   \end{eqnarray}

3603: \end{widetext}

3604: where $\eta = u_v/(u_v+\pi^2 t_s T_{nn})$, and $\overline{u}_v = u_v +

3605: \pi^2 t_s T_{nn} + \pi^2 t_s^2 \tilde{\Pi}_t/t^2 = \tilde{u}_v + \pi^2

3606: t_s^2 \Pi_{11}/t^2$ as in Sec.~\ref{sec:roton-scatt-selectr}.  In

3607: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:speff}),~(\ref{eq:speff2}), $L^2$ is the system volume

3608: (number of sites in the square lattice), arising since

3609: $\alpha_i,\tilde{A}_i$ are spatially constant. In

3610: obtaining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:speff}-~\ref{eq:speff2}), we expanded to linear

3611: order in $\tilde\Pi_{ij}({\bf k=0},\omega_n)$ since we are interested

3612: ultimately in the low-frequency limit, and $\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}$ is linear

3613: in frequency.  In Eq.~(\ref{eq:speff3}), we used the fact that $\theta$

3614: coupled to only to the longitudinal part of $e_i$ and hence only to

3615: $\tilde\Pi_t$.  Note that the quadratic part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:speff3})

3616: reproduces precisely Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Srotsec5}-~\ref{eq:vrotfull}), in the

3617: limit $v_0 \gg \tilde{v}_1$, as assumed herein.  

3618: 

3619: We now can integrate out $\theta$ to $O(t_v^2)$.  This proceeds

3620: identically as in Sec.~\ref{sec:electr-resist-roton}, with $a_j$

3621: replaced by $-\alpha_j$, and with the renormalized roton liquid

3622: parameters $u_v \rightarrow \overline{u}_v$.  Hence we obtain the

3623: correction $S'_3(\theta,\alpha_i) \rightarrow S''_3(\alpha_j)$, with 

3624: \begin{eqnarray}

3625:   \label{eq:S3pp}

3626:   S''_3 & = & \frac{t_v^2}{4} L^2 \int_{\omega_n} \tilde{\cal R}(\omega_n)

3627:   |\alpha_j(\omega_n)|^2, 

3628: \end{eqnarray}

3629: with $\tilde{\cal R}(\omega_n) \sim

3630: -|\omega_n|^{1+\gamma}$ as in Eq.~(\ref{rotpol}) of

3631: Sec.~\ref{sec:electr-resist-roton}, but $\gamma=2\Delta_v-3$ with the

3632: renormalized $\Delta_v$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltavrenorm}).  

3633: 

3634: With this replacement, the remaining quadratic integral over $\alpha_i$

3635: can be easily performed to determine the physical response kernel,

3636: $S'_1+S'_2+S''_3 \rightarrow S_{resp}(\tilde{A}_j)$, with

3637: \begin{eqnarray}

3638:   \label{eq:Sresp}

3639:   S_{resp} & = & L^2 \int_{\omega_n} \frac{1}{2} \tilde{A}_i(-\omega_n)

3640:   \Pi^{RFL}_{ij}(i\omega_n) \tilde{A}_j(\omega_n),

3641: \end{eqnarray}

3642: where

3643: \begin{eqnarray}

3644:   \label{eq:PiRFL}

3645:   \Pi^{RFL}_{ij}(i\omega_n) & \approx & \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}^f +

3646:   \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}^{rot}, 

3647: \end{eqnarray}

3648: and

3649: \begin{eqnarray}

3650:   \label{eq:pif}

3651:   \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}^f & = & t_e T_{nn}\delta_{ij} +

3652:   \frac{t_e^2+2\eta t_e t_s}{t^2} \tilde\Pi_{ij}({\bf k\! =\!0},\omega_n) ,

3653:   \\

3654:   \tilde{\Pi}_{ij}^{rot} & = &     \left[\frac{u_v}{\pi^2} - \frac{u_v^2 t_v^2

3655:       \tilde{\cal R}(\omega_n)}{2\pi^2 \omega_n^2}\right]\delta_{ij}.

3656: \end{eqnarray}

3657: The conductivity is obtained from the Kubo formula as

3658: \begin{equation}

3659:   \label{eq:kubo}

3660:   \sigma_{ij}(\omega) = \left[\frac{\Pi_{ij}^{RFL}(i\omega_n)-t_e

3661:   T_{nn}\delta_{ij}}{\omega_n} \right]_{i\omega_n\rightarrow

3662:   \omega+i\delta}.

3663: \end{equation}

3664: As in Sec.~\ref{sec:electr-resist-roton}, we see that the rotonic

3665: contribution to the conductivity

3666: is not perturbative (at low frequencies) in $t_v$, so to capture the

3667: expected behavior, we replace it by,

3668: \begin{equation}

3669:   \label{eq:pirotdrude}

3670:   \sigma^{rot}_{ij} =

3671:   \left[\frac{\tilde{\Pi}_{ij}^{rot}}{\omega_n}\right]_{i\omega_n\rightarrow \omega+i\delta}

3672:   \rightarrow \frac{\delta_{ij}}{-i\omega \frac{\pi^2}{u_v} + i

3673:   \frac{\pi^2 t_v^2}{2} \tilde{\cal R}_{ret}(\omega)/\omega }    .

3674: \end{equation}

3675: This gives

3676: \begin{equation}

3677:   \label{eq:condadd}

3678:   \sigma_{ij}(\omega,T) = \sigma_{ij}^{rot}(\omega,T)+\frac{t_e^2+2\eta t_e

3679:   t_s}{t^2}\sigma_{ij}^f(\omega, T)  .

3680: \end{equation}

3681: 

3682: Notice that from Eq.~(\ref{eq:condadd}), the conductivity is the

3683: sum of separate fermion and roton contributions, and that the only

3684: effects of the fermions upon the rotonic piece is to modify the

3685: exponent $\gamma$ (or $\Delta_v$) implicit in $\tilde{\cal

3686: R}(\omega)$.  Moreover, the fermionic contribution vanishes for

3687: $t_e=0$, as expected on physical grounds since the spinon hopping

3688: term does not transport charge.

3689: 

3690: 

3691: 

3692: 

3693: Consider first the dissipative diagonal d.c. (sheet) resistance,

3694: $R(T) = Re[\sigma^{-1}_{xx}]$, which at low temperatures is

3695: completely dominated by the rotonic contribution, given as in

3696: Eq.~(\ref{eq:RLresist}),

3697: \begin{equation}

3698:   \label{eq:RFLcond}

3699: R(T) = c_\gamma \frac{(\pi t_v)^2}{v_{rot}^2} \left[ \frac{\pi

3700: T}{v_{rot}}\right]^\gamma  ,

3701: \end{equation}

3702: except with $v_{rot}$ and the exponent $\gamma$ renormalized by

3703: the interactions with the fermions. We thereby arrive at the

3704: important conclusion that the resistance in the RFL phase varies

3705: as $R(T) \sim T^\gamma$, with $\gamma >1$.  When $\gamma < 1 $ the

3706: RFL phase is unstable to confinement into a Fermi liquid phase,

3707: and right at the quantum confinement transition the resistance is

3708: linear in temperature.

3709: 

3710: The Hall conductivity and hence Hall angle on the other hand, are

3711: dominated by the fermionic quasiparticles. Specifically,

3712: $\sigma_{xy} \approx \sigma_{xy}^f$, and in the d.c. limit the

3713: fermionic Hall conductivity can be approximately obtained from a

3714: Drude expression, $\sigma_{xy}^f \approx \omega_c \tau_f (n_f e^2

3715: \tau_f)/m \sim \omega_c \tau_f^2$, where $\omega_c = eB/m$ is the

3716: cyclotron frequency. The fermionic scattering time $\tau_f$ has a

3717: variety of contributions, from elastic impurity scattering to

3718: interactions with rotons, considered in the next section, and

3719: hence may (or may not) have temperature dependence of its own - in

3720: contrast to the diagonal conductivity,  $\sigma_{xx} \sim

3721: T^{-\gamma}$, which diverges as $T \rightarrow 0$ due to the

3722: rotonic contribution. These considerations suggest that the

3723: cotangent of the Hall angle, defined in terms of the resistivity

3724: tensor $\rho_{ij}$ as $\cot(\Theta_H) \equiv \rho_{xx} /

3725: \rho_{xy}$, will vary as,

3726: \begin{eqnarray}

3727:   \label{eq:thetaH}

3728:   \cot(\Theta_H) & \sim & \frac{\sigma_{xx}}{\sigma_{xy}} \sim

3729:   \frac{T^{-\gamma}}{\omega_c \tau_f^2} \sim \frac{1}{\omega_c

3730:     T^{\gamma}\tau_f^2} .

3731: \end{eqnarray}

3732: 

3733: 

3734: 

3735: 

3736: 

3737: 

3738: 

3739: 

3740: 

3741: 

3742: 

3743: 

3744: 

3745: 

3746: 

3747: 

3748: 

3749: The complete absence of a roton contribution to the Hall conductivity

3750: $\sigma_{xy}^{RFL}$  is a consequence of the

3751: magnetic field independence of the roton liquid Lagrangian, ${\cal

3752:   L}_{RL}$, either in it's original or dual forms, Eqs.~(\ref{LRL}) and

3753: (\ref{LRLdual}), respectively.  But as discussed in Sec. IVB, the dual

3754: representation of ${\cal L}_{RL}$ allows for additional terms involving

3755: cosines of the dual field $\phi$, which are present due to the

3756: underlying discreteness of the vortex number operator.  While being

3757: irrelevant in the Roton liquid phase, these neglected terms {\it do

3758:   depend} on the external magnetic field and if retained will lead to a

3759: non-vanishing roton contribution to the Hall conductivity.  But

3760: this contribution is expected to vanish rapidly at low

3761: temperatures.  If on the other hand, these terms are {\it

3762: relevant} and drive a superconducting instability at low

3763: temperature, they will likely contribute signifigantly to the Hall

3764: conductivity.  A careful analysis of the Hall response {\it above}

3765: the superconducting transition temperature in this situation will

3766: be left for future work.

3767: 

3768: 

3769: 

3770: 

3771: \subsection{Electron Lifetime}

3772: 

3773: 

3774: 

3775: 

3776: Although the electron spectral function is expected to be sharp at zero

3777: temperature right on the Fermi surface in the ideal RFL ``fixed point''

3778: theory, at finite energies (or temperatures) one expects the electrons

3779: to scatter off the rotons through interactions neglected in the RFL,

3780: causing a decay.  Here, we consider two contributions to this electron

3781: decay rate at lowest order in the perturbations to the RFL.  We consider

3782: two scattering mechanisms.  First, scattering due to coupling of the

3783: quasiparticle current to boson currents through the $\beta_\mu$ and

3784: $e_i$ terms present in the fermionic hamiltonian.  Because singular

3785: bosonic current fluctuations are primarily induced by vortex hopping,

3786: non-trivial contributions to the fermion lifetime through this mechanism

3787: occur first at $O(t_v^2)$.  Second, we consider scattering of

3788: quasiparticles due to ``superconducting fluctuations'', i.e. fermion

3789: decay mediated by the ``Jospephson coupling'' $\Delta$ to the bosonic

3790: pair field.  Since we expect $\Delta \ll t_v$ on physical grounds (see

3791: Sec.~\ref{sec:effective-parameters}), this $O(\Delta^2)$ contribution is

3792: naively much smaller than the former one.  However, depending upon the

3793: parameters of the RFL, this need not be the case.  This point will be

3794: returned to in the discussion.

3795: 

3796: 

3797: As discussed above, to compute the spectral function it is

3798: simplest to work in the gauge $\beta^\ell=\pi e^t$, in which we

3799: may assume the electron operator $c_{{\bf r}\sigma} \sim f_{{\bf

3800: r}\sigma}$, and hence study

3801: \begin{equation}

3802: {\cal G}_f ({\bf r}, \tau) = - \langle T_\tau f_{{\bf r} \sigma} (\tau)

3803: f^\dagger_{{\bf 0} \sigma}(0)  \rangle   .

3804: \end{equation}

3805: In other gauges, it would be necessary to include string factors as

3806: indicated in Eq.~(\ref{electronU1}).

3807: 

3808: Neglecting the fluctuating $\beta_\mu$ fields, one has ${\cal

3809:   G}_0({\bf k},\omega_n) = (i\omega_n - \epsilon_{\bf k} )^{-1}$, with

3810: dispersion, $\epsilon_{\bf k} = -2t \cos(k_j) - \mu_s$.

3811: Both fluctuations of the $\beta_\mu$ gauge fields, which mediate retarded

3812: interactions amongst the quasiparticles, as well as the explicit

3813: interactions in the pairing term, will induce a self

3814: energy $\Sigma({\bf k},\omega_n)$, defined by

3815: \begin{equation}

3816:   \label{eq:selfenergydef}

3817:   {\cal G}_0({\bf k},\omega_n) = \frac{1}{i\omega_n -\epsilon_{\bf

3818:       k}-\Sigma({\bf k},\omega_n)}.

3819: \end{equation}

3820: We will compute the lowest order corrections to the

3821: electron self energy, obtaining a single-particle lifetime from the

3822: imaginary part of its retarded continuation, $\Sigma_{ret}({\bf

3823:   k},\omega) = \Sigma({\bf k},\omega_n \rightarrow -i\omega+ 0^+)$ in

3824: the usual way.  At the level of this discussion, the two types of

3825: interactions act in parallel to scatter quasiparticles, so

3826: \begin{eqnarray}

3827:   \label{eq:addsigmas}

3828:   \Sigma({\bf k},\omega) & = &   \Sigma_{cf}({\bf k},\omega) +

3829:   \Sigma_{sf}({\bf k},\omega).  

3830: \end{eqnarray}

3831: We will focus upon the imaginary part $\Sigma''({\bf k},\omega)$, which

3832: describes broadening of the electron spectral function, $1/\tau_f(T) =

3833: \Sigma''({\bf k},0;T)$.  We have

3834: \begin{eqnarray}

3835:   \label{eq:matthieson}

3836:   {\tau_f}^{-1} & = &   (\tau_f^{cf})^{-1}+ (\tau_f^{sf})^{-1}.

3837: \end{eqnarray}

3838: In principle this single-particle ``lifetime'' is

3839: distinct from the momentum scattering rate which is relevant in

3840: discussions of transport quantities.  However, we will use the behavior

3841: obtained for $1/\tau_f$ as a crude guide to the quasiparticle transport

3842: as well, leaving a more careful treatment for future study.

3843: 

3844: \subsubsection{Scattering mediated by vortex hopping-enhanced current

3845:   fluctuations} 

3846: \label{sec:scatt-medi-vort}

3847: 

3848: Taking into account quadratic fluctuations of the $\beta_\mu$ fields,

3849: the leading self energy correction due to current fluctuations is

3850: \begin{eqnarray}

3851: \Sigma_{cf}({\bf k}, i\omega_n) & = & \sum_{\mu\nu} \int_{{\bf q},

3852:   \omega_n^\prime} \!\!\!\!

3853: v_{F\mu} v_{F\nu} {\cal G}_0({\bf k}-{\bf q},\omega_n - \omega_n^\prime)

3854: U_{\mu\nu}( {\bf q}, \omega_n^\prime) \nonumber \\

3855: & & \hspace{-0.75in}= \sum_{\mu\nu} \int_{{\bf q}, \omega_n^\prime}

3856: v_{F\mu} v_{F\nu} \frac{1}{i(\omega_n-\omega_n^\prime)-\epsilon_{{\bf

3857:     k-q}}}U_{\mu\nu}( {\bf q}, \omega_n^\prime),

3858: \end{eqnarray}

3859: with the definitions, $v_{Fj} = \partial \epsilon_{\bf k} /

3860: \partial k_j$, $v_{F0} = 1$.  Here we have written the self-energy

3861: in terms of the full $\beta-$gauge-field correlator, $U_{\mu\nu}$

3862: to all orders in $t_v$, rather than restricting to $t_v=0$ as we

3863: did in obtaining Eq.~(\ref{eq:Umunu}).

3864: 

3865: Introducing a spectral representation,

3866: \begin{equation}

3867:   U_{\mu\nu}({\bf k}, \omega_n) = \int^\infty_{-\infty} { d \omega \over \pi}

3868: { U_{\mu\nu}^{\prime\prime}({\bf q}, \omega)  \over  \omega -  i\omega_n  }  ,

3869: \end{equation}

3870: with $U_{\mu\nu}^{\prime \prime}(\omega) = Im

3871: U_{\mu\nu}^{ret}(\omega) =  Im U_{\mu\nu}(\omega_n \rightarrow

3872: -i\omega+ 0^+)$, allows one to analytically continue to obtain the

3873: (retarded) self energy,

3874: \begin{equation}

3875: \Sigma_{ret}({\bf k}, \omega) = \Sigma({\bf k}, \omega_n)|_{i \omega_n

3876:   \rightarrow \omega + i0^+ }   .

3877: \end{equation}

3878: For positive frequencies, $\omega > 0$, the

3879: imaginary part, $\Sigma^{\prime \prime} = Im \Sigma_{ret}$ is given by,

3880: \begin{eqnarray}

3881: \label{eq:Imself}

3882: \Sigma_{cf}^{\prime \prime}({\bf k}, \omega) & = & \\

3883: & & \hspace{-0.5in}\sum_{\mu\nu} \int_{\bf q} v_{F\mu} v_{F\nu}

3884: U_{\mu\nu}^{\prime \prime}({\bf q},\omega - \epsilon_{{\bf k} +

3885: {\bf q}} )  \Theta(\epsilon_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}}) \Theta(\omega -

3886: \epsilon_{{\bf k} + {\bf q}}).\nonumber

3887: \end{eqnarray}

3888: 

3889: The self-energy can now be evaluated by considering progressive orders

3890: in $t_v$.  To zeroth order, the expressions for $U_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}({\bf

3891:   k},\omega_n)$ may be taken from

3892: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Umunu}-\ref{eq:lambda0j}).  We note that, because they

3893: come from the quadratic RL Lagrangian, they contain only simple poles.

3894: Furthermore, they are explicitly real functions of $i\omega_n$, so

3895: that, upon analytic continuation, their retarded correlator has zero

3896: imaginary part.  Since $U_{\mu\nu}^{(0)\prime\prime}=0$, one thus

3897: has $\Sigma_{cf}^{(0)\prime\prime}({\bf k},\omega)=0$.

3898: 

3899: Thus there is no broadening of the quasiparticle peak at zeroth

3900: order in the vortex hopping.  The first non-trivial contribution

3901: to the quasiparticle lifetime occurs though the $O(t_v^2)$

3902: corrections to the gauge field propagator

3903: $U_{\mu\nu}=U^{(0)}_{\mu\nu}+t_v^2 U^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}+\cdots$.  This

3904: correction is obtained by integrating out $\alpha_j$ to second

3905: order in $t_v$ starting from Eq.~(\ref{eq:lvorttilde}) to obtain

3906: $S_{eff}(\lambda_\mu)$ to $O(t_v^2)$ using the cumulant expansion.

3907: We shift $\alpha_i({\sf r},\tau) \rightarrow \alpha_i({\sf

3908: r},\tau) - \upsilon_i({\sf r},\tau)$, to eliminate the linear

3909: terms in $\alpha_i$ in the Lagrangian, with $\upsilon_i$ linear in

3910: $\lambda_\mu$ given explicitly by,

3911: \begin{widetext}

3912: 

3913: \begin{eqnarray}

3914:   \label{eq:alphashift}

3915:   \upsilon_x({\bf k},\omega_n) & = & -\frac{\pi}{(\omega_n^2 +

3916:     \omega_{pl}^2)(\omega_n^2+\omega_{rot}^2)} [ v_0^2 {\cal K}_x{\cal

3917:     K}_y (v_0^2 {\cal K}_x \lambda_0 +i\omega_n \lambda_x) -

3918:   (\omega_n^2 + v_+^2 |{\cal K}_x|^2)(v_0^2 {\cal K}_y \lambda_0

3919:   +i\omega_n \lambda_y)], \\

3920:   \upsilon_y({\bf k},\omega_n) & = & \frac{\pi}{(\omega_n^2 +

3921:     \omega_{pl}^2)(\omega_n^2+\omega_{rot}^2)} [ v_0^2 {\cal K}_x{\cal

3922:     K}_y (v_0^2 {\cal K}_y \lambda_0 + i\omega_n \lambda_y) -

3923:   (\omega_n^2 + v_+^2 |{\cal K}_y|^2)(v_0^2 {\cal K}_x \lambda_0 +

3924:   i\omega_n \lambda_x)].\nonumber

3925: \end{eqnarray}

3926: After this shift the correction to the effective action can be

3927: formally written,

3928: \begin{eqnarray}

3929:   \label{eq:deltaSeff}

3930:   S_{eff}^{(2)} & = & - \frac{t_v^2}{2}\sum_{ij}\sum_{{\sf

3931:       r,r'}}\int_{\tau,\tau'} \big\langle \cos (\alpha_i({\sf r},\tau)

3932:   - \upsilon_i({\sf r},\tau)) \cos (\alpha_j({\sf r},\tau)

3933:   - \upsilon_j({\sf r},\tau)) \big\rangle_\alpha,

3934: \end{eqnarray}

3935: where the subscript $\alpha$ indicates a Gaussian average over

3936: $\alpha_i$ with respect to the quadratic terms in

3937: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lvorttilde}).  Since $\upsilon_i$ is linear in

3938: $\lambda_\mu$, this correction is not quadratic in $\lambda_\mu$,

3939: indicating that the $\beta_\mu$ fluctuations are not Gaussian.  To

3940: evaluate the leading order self-energy correction, however, we require

3941: only the two-point function of $\beta_\mu$, and hence may expand

3942: to quadratic order in $\upsilon_i$.  One finds

3943: \begin{eqnarray}

3944:   \label{eq:u2a}

3945:   S_{eff}^{(2)} & = & -\frac{t_v^2}{4} \int_{{\bf k}\omega_n} \left(

3946:   |\upsilon_x({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 \tilde{\cal R}(k_y,\omega_n) +

3947:   |\upsilon_y({\bf k},\omega_n)|^2 \tilde{\cal R}(k_x,\omega_n)\right).

3948: \end{eqnarray}

3949: Here $\tilde{\cal R}(k,\omega_n)$

3950: is the two-point function of the vortex hopping operator considered in

3951: Sec.~\ref{sec:vortex-hopping}, i.e.

3952: \begin{eqnarray}

3953:   \label{eq:vorthopalpha}

3954:   \tilde{\cal R}(k,\omega_n) & = & \sum_x \int_\tau (1-\cos(k x + \omega_n

3955:   \tau)) \left\langle e^{i\alpha_y(x,y,\tau)} e^{-i\alpha_y(0,y,0)}

3956:   \right\rangle_\alpha \nonumber \\

3957:   & \sim & \frac{A(\Delta_v)}{\sin \pi(\Delta_v-1)}  (\omega_n^2 +

3958:   v_{rot}^2 k^2)^{\Delta_v-1},

3959: \end{eqnarray}

3960: \end{widetext}

3961: where the latter behavior gives the leading non-analytic term for

3962: small $\omega_n, k$, with $A(\Delta_v)$ a constant prefactor.  An

3963: analytic quadratic term is also present (and larger than the given

3964: form for $\Delta_v>2$), but does not contribute to the imaginary part

3965: of the self-energy for the same reasons described above for the

3966: $t_v=0$ terms.

3967: 

3968: Next, we must analytically continue to obtain the

3969: $U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{\mu\nu}({\bf k},\omega)$.  From

3970: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:alphashift}), one immediately sees that

3971: $\upsilon_i^{ret}({\bf k},\omega)$ is purely real.  Hence, the

3972: imaginary part comes entirely from the analytic continuation of

3973: ${\tilde R}(k_i,\omega_n)$.  One has

3974: \begin{equation}

3975:   \label{eq:rimag}

3976:   {\cal R}''(k_i,\omega) \sim  A(\Delta_v) (\omega^2-v_{rot}^2

3977:   k_i^2)^{\Delta_v-1} \Theta(|\omega|-v_{rot}|k_i|){\rm sgn}(\omega).

3978: \end{equation}

3979: $ $From inspection of Eq.~(\ref{eq:u2a}), one thereby sees the imaginary

3980: part of the retarded gauge field correlator, $U^{(2)''}_{\mu\nu}({\bf

3981:   k},\omega)$ , is the sum of two terms, which are non-zero only for

3982: $|\omega|>v_{rot}|k_x|$ or $\omega>v_{rot}|k_y|$, respectively.

3983: Thus the momentum integrals in the expression for $\Sigma''_{cf}$ in

3984: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Imself}), are constrained not only by

3985: $0<\epsilon_{\bf

3986:   k+q}<\omega$ but also either $\epsilon_{\bf k+q}<

3987: \omega-v_{rot}|q_x|$ or $\epsilon_{\bf k+q}< \omega-v_{rot}|q_y|$, for

3988: the two terms, respectively.

3989: 

3990: We focus on the self-energy for momenta exactly on the Fermi

3991: surface, $|{\bf k}|=k_F$.  In this case, the constraints clearly

3992: require small ${\bf q}$ for small $\omega$.  For such small

3993: wavevectors, one may approximate $\epsilon_{\bf k+q} \approx

3994: \vec{v}_F\cdot\vec{q}+ q^2/2m^*$.  For a generic point on the

3995: Fermi surface (taken for simplicity in the quadrant with

3996: $k_x,k_y>0$ , for which $\vec{v}_F$ makes an angle $\theta_F \neq

3997: 0,\pi/2$ to the $x$ axis, the $q^2$ term is negligible, and one

3998: has $\epsilon_{\bf k+q} \approx v_F (q_x \cos\theta_F + q_y

3999: \sin\theta_F)$.  Applying the above constraints, one finds that

4000: both $q_x$ and $q_y$ are integrated over a small bounded region in

4001: which both are $O(\omega)$.  Thus for such generic points on the

4002: Fermi surface, we should consider the limit of

4003: $U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},\omega-\epsilon_{\bf k+q})$

4004: in which all arguments are $O(\omega)$.  In this limit, inspection

4005: of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:alphashift},\ref{eq:vorthopalpha}) shows that the

4006: correlator satisfies a scaling form,

4007: \begin{equation}

4008:   \label{eq:genericscaling}

4009:   U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},\omega-\epsilon_{\bf k+q}) \sim

4010:   \omega^{2(\Delta_v-2)} {\cal U}(q_x/\omega, q_y/\omega),

4011: \end{equation}

4012: with a well-behaved limit as ${\bf q}\rightarrow 0$.  Inserting this

4013: into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Imself}) and rescaling the momentum integrals by

4014: $\omega$, one sees that $\Sigma''_{cf}({\bf k}_F,\omega) \sim

4015: \omega^{2(\Delta_v-1)}$ for $\theta_F \neq 0,\pi$.  Since

4016: $\Delta_v\geq 2$ in the stable region of the RFL, this dependence is

4017: always as weak or weaker than the ordinary $\omega^2$ scattering rate

4018: due to Coulomb interactions in a Fermi liquid.

4019: 

4020: The special cases when $\theta_F =0,\pi/2$ require separate

4021: consideration.  For these values, the Fermi velocity is along one

4022: of the principal axes of the square lattice, and the linear

4023: approximation for $\epsilon_{\bf k+q}$ is inadequate.  Taking for

4024: concreteness $\theta_F=0$, we have instead $\epsilon_{\bf k+q}

4025: \approx v_F q_x + q_y^2/2m^*$, and it is not obviously consistent

4026: to neglect the $q_y^2$ term.  For the first term (involving

4027: $\tilde{R}''(q_y,\omega-\epsilon_{\bf k+q})$), the constraints

4028: reduce to $0<v_F q_x + q_y^2/2m^* < \omega-v_{rot} |q_y|$.  This

4029: is approximately solved for small $\omega$ by $0< q_y <

4030: (\omega-v_{rot}|q_x|)/v_F$ and $ |q_x|<\omega/v_F$. Thus both

4031: $q_x,q_y$ are again bounded and $O(\omega)$, so the above Fermi

4032: liquid-like scaling applies.

4033: 

4034: For the second term (involving

4035: $\tilde{R}''(q_x,\omega-\epsilon_{\bf k+q})$), the constraints reduce

4036: to $0<v_F q_x  + q_y^2/2m^* < \omega - v_{rot} |q_x|$.  This is solved

4037: by taking $-\omega/v_{rot}<q_x<\omega/(v_{rot}+v_F)$ and ${\rm

4038:   max}(0,-v_F q_x) < q_y^2/2m^* < \omega -v_F q_x - v_{rot}|q_x|$.

4039: Hence for this term, $q_x$ is $O(\omega)$ while $q_y$ is

4040: $O(\sqrt{\omega})$.  Since with this scaling, $|q_y| \gg \omega \sim

4041: |q_x|$, one has the significant simplification

4042: \begin{equation}

4043:   \label{eq:upsilonkybig}

4044:   \upsilon_y({\bf q},\omega) \sim \frac{\pi v_0^2 v_1^2}{2v_+^2}

4045:   \frac{q_x \lambda_0}{v_{rot}^2q_x^2-\omega^2} \qquad {\rm for}\;|q_y| \gg

4046:   \omega\sim |q_x| .

4047: \end{equation}

4048: Since only $\lambda_0$ appears, in this limit,

4049: $U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{00} \gg U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{ii},

4050: U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{0i}$, i.e. the fluctuations of $\beta_0$ are much

4051: stronger than those of $\beta_i$.  One may therefore approximate

4052: \begin{eqnarray}

4053:   \label{eq:thetaf0}

4054: \left.U^{(2)\prime\prime}_{\mu\nu}({\bf q},\omega)\right|_{\theta_F=0}

4055: & \!\!\! \sim & \!\!\!

4056:   \frac{A(\Delta_v)\pi^2}{2} \frac{t_v^2 v_0^4 v_1^4}{v_+^4}

4057:   q_x^2(\omega^2-v_{rot}^2q_x^2)^{\Delta_v-3} \nonumber \\

4058:   & & \times \Theta(|\omega|-v_{rot}|q_x|) {\rm sgn}\omega \delta_{\mu

4059:     0}\delta_{\nu 0} .

4060: \end{eqnarray}

4061: Inserting this into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Imself}), one may integrate over

4062: $q_y$ (to yield a constant multiplying $\sqrt{|q_x|}$ and rescale $q_x

4063: \rightarrow \omega q_x$, to obtain the result

4064: \begin{equation}

4065:   \label{eq:hotspots}

4066:   \Sigma''_{cf}({\bf k}_F,\omega) \sim \omega^{2\Delta_v-\frac{5}{2}}\qquad

4067:   {\rm for}\, \theta_F=0,\frac{\pi}{2},\cdots .

4068: \end{equation}

4069: At the end point of the RFL, for which $\Delta_v=2$,

4070: this gives the anomalous lifetime $\Sigma''({\bf k}_F,\omega) \sim

4071: \omega^{3/2}$ at these special ``hot spots'' for which the Fermi

4072: velocity is parallel to one of the principle axes of the square

4073: lattice.  For the conventional Fermi surface believed to apply to the

4074: cuprates, this corresponds to the points on the Fermi surface closest

4075: to $(\pi,0)$, $(0,\pi)$.

4076: 

4077: 

4078: 

4079: 

4080: 

4081: 

4082: 

4083: 

4084: 

4085: 

4086: 

4087: 

4088: Comparing the scattering rate at these hot spots to elsewhere on the

4089: Fermi surface, one finds

4090: \begin{equation}

4091:   { \Sigma^{\prime \prime}_{cf;hot}(\omega) \over \Sigma^{\prime

4092:       \prime}_{cf;typ}(\omega) } \sim \sqrt{  m^* v_F^2   \over \hbar

4093:     \omega }  .

4094: \end{equation}

4095: Since the Fermi surface in the cuprates is particularly ``flat''

4096: near $(\pi,0)$, the effective mass would be large, $m^* \gg m_e$,

4097: and a significantly enhanced scattering rate at such ``hot spots''

4098: would be expected in the RFL phase.

4099: 

4100: In parameter regimes where the RFL phase is unstable (via ``charge

4101: hopping") at low temperatures to a conventional superconductor,

4102: the enhanced scattering at the hot spots will be significantly

4103: suppressed upon cooling below the transition temperature.  Indeed,

4104: the low energy roton excitations are gapped out in the

4105: superconducting phase, and at temperatures well below $T_c$ will

4106: not be appreciably thermally excited. Unimpeded by the rotons, the

4107: electron lifetime will be greatly enhanced relative to that in the

4108: normal state, particularly at the hot spots on the Fermi surface

4109: with tangents along the $\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$ axes, for example

4110: at wavevectors near $(\pi,0)$ in the cuprates.

4111: 

4112: \subsubsection{Scattering mediated by ``superconducting fluctuations'',

4113:   i.e. boson-fermion pair exchange} 

4114: \label{sec:scatt-medi-boson}

4115: 

4116: A second mechanism of fermion decay is by the ``pairing term'' ${\cal

4117:   H}_\Delta$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:explicit}).  We supposed $|\Delta|$ is small,

4118: and so consider the first perturbative contribution to the quasiparticle

4119: lifetime, at $O(\Delta^2)$.  In general, for $d$-wave pairing, this

4120: takes the form

4121: \begin{eqnarray}

4122:   \label{eq:sigmadwave}

4123:   \Sigma_{sf}({\bf k},\omega_n) & = & \sum_{i,j=1}^2

4124:   \Delta_i\Delta_j\int_{{\bf q}\Omega_n}\!\!

4125:   \frac{e^{ik_i}\!+\!e^{i(q_i-k_i)}}{2}

4126:   \frac{e^{-ik_j}\!+\!e^{-i(q_j-k_j)}}{2}\nonumber \\

4127:   & & \times

4128:   \frac{G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf

4129:       q},\Omega_n)}{-i(\Omega_n-\omega_n)+\epsilon_{\bf q-k}},

4130: \end{eqnarray}

4131: where 

4132: \begin{eqnarray}

4133:   \label{eq:Gcpijft}

4134:   G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf q},\Omega_n) & = & \sum_{\bf r}\int_\tau

4135:   G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau)e^{i {\bf q}\cdot{\bf r}-i\Omega_n\tau},

4136: \end{eqnarray}

4137: with $G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf r},\tau)$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gcpij}).

4138: 

4139: Our uncertainties in the details of the Cooper pair propagator

4140: (originating from ambiguities in the string geometry) do not allow a

4141: thorough calculation of the resulting self energy.  However, as we will

4142: now show, we can obtain a rough understanding of its scaling properties

4143: by some simple approximations, which we believe do not significantly

4144: effect the results.  In particular, we will assume that the lifetime is

4145: controlled by the small wavevector $|q|\ll \pi$ portion of the Cooper

4146: pair propagator.  In this regime, we expect $G^{cp}_{ij}({\bf

4147:   q},\Omega_n) \approx G^{cp}({\bf q},\Omega_n)$, the Fourier transform

4148: of the {\sl local} Cooper pair propagator studied in depth in

4149: Sec.~\ref{sec:quasi-diagonal-long}.  Making this approximation, one has

4150: $|q|\ll |k|$ for ${\bf k}$ near the quasiparticle Fermi surface, and

4151: one may write

4152: \begin{eqnarray}

4153:   \label{eq:sigmadwave2}

4154:   \Sigma_{sf}({\bf k},\omega_n) & \approx & |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2

4155:   \int_{{\bf q}\Omega_n}

4156:     \frac{G^{cp}({\bf

4157:       q},\Omega_n)}{-i(\Omega_n-\omega_n)+\epsilon_{\bf q-k}},

4158: \end{eqnarray}

4159: with $\Delta_{\bf k}=|\Delta|(\cos k_x-\cos k_y)$.  Note that this form

4160: immediately implies that scattering due to this mechanism is strongly

4161: suppressed upon approaching the nodal regions of the Fermi surface.  

4162: 

4163: A detailed analysis is now possible based on a spectral representation

4164: of $G^{cp}$, as in Sec.~\ref{sec:scatt-medi-vort}.\cite{BFunpub}\ Unlike

4165: the above case, however (since the power law decay of $G^{cp}({\bf

4166:   r},\tau)$ is approximately isotropic) a much simpler scaling analysis

4167: suffices to obtain the qualitative behavior of the lifetime.  In particular, the scaling form

4168: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:scaling}) implies that

4169: \begin{eqnarray}

4170:   \label{eq:Gcpscalingqw}

4171:   G^{cp}({\bf q},\Omega_n) \sim |\Omega_n|^{2\Delta_c-3} \tilde{\cal

4172:     G}({\bf q}/\Omega_n),

4173: \end{eqnarray}

4174: up to non-singular additive corrections, for small $|q|$ and $\Omega_n$.

4175: Furthermore, for small ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf k}$ on the Fermi surface, one

4176: may write $\epsilon_{\bf q-k} \approx v_{\scriptscriptstyle F}

4177: q_\parallel + q_\perp^2/2m$, where $q_\parallel,q_\perp$ are the

4178: components of ${\bf q}$ parallel and perpendicular to the local Fermi

4179: velocity at ${\bf k}$, and $v_{\scriptscriptstyle F}$ and $m$ are the

4180: magnitude of the local Fermi velocity and effective mass.  The

4181: singularity in the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmadwave2}) is then cut

4182: off by the external frequency $\omega_n$, and rescaling ${\bf

4183:   q}\rightarrow {\bf q}\Omega_n$, one sees that the effective mass term

4184: is negligible, and obtains by power counting,

4185: \begin{eqnarray}

4186:   \label{eq:Sigmapc}

4187:   \Sigma_{sf}({\bf k},\omega_n) \sim |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2

4188: |\omega_n|^{2\Delta_c-1},

4189: \end{eqnarray}

4190: again with possible analytic and sub-dominant corrections.  Upon analytic

4191: continuation to obtain the lifetime, only non-analytic terms contribute,

4192: and we expect 

4193: \begin{eqnarray}

4194:   \label{eq:sigmapppc}

4195:   \Sigma''_{sf}({\bf k},\omega) \sim |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2

4196:   |\omega|^{2\Delta_c-1} {\rm sign}(\omega),

4197: \end{eqnarray}

4198: for ${\bf k}$ on the Fermi surface.  This result can be verified by

4199: more detailed calculations using the spectral representation of

4200: $G^{cp}$.\cite{BFunpub}  Moreover, we expect that for

4201: $k_{\scriptscriptstyle B}T \gg \omega$, $\omega$ can be replaced by

4202: $k_{\scriptscriptstyle B}T$ in this formula.  

4203: 

4204: As expected, for sufficiently large $\Delta_c$, this lifetime vanishes

4205: rapidly at low energies, and in particular for $\Delta_c>3/2$, this

4206: contribution is sub-dominant to the usual Fermi liquid one.  However, in

4207: the regime with $\Delta_c<\Delta_v$, this is never the case ($\Delta_c <

4208: 1/\sqrt{2}$), at least within our simple model without dramatic

4209: corrections to the RL exponents.  Indeed, for $\Delta_c<1$, as supposed

4210: herein, this ``scattering rate'' is much {\sl larger} than the

4211: quasiparticle energy at low frequency.  Taken literally, this implies

4212: increasingly incoherent behavior away from the nodes as temperature is

4213: lowered.  Near the nodes, the amplitude of this strong scattering

4214: contribution vanishes rapidly, similar to the idea of ``cold spots''

4215: proposed by Ioffe and Millis.\cite{IoffeMillis} \

4216: 

4217: \section{Discussion}

4218: 

4219: \label{sec:Discussion}

4220: 

4221: We close with a discussion of some theoretical issues concerning

4222: the vortex-quasiparticle formulation of interacting electrons that

4223: we have been employing throughout. In particular, we contrast our

4224: approach with the earlier $Z_2$ formulation\cite{Z2} and mention

4225: the connection with more standard and more microscopic

4226: formulations of correlated electrons. We then address the possible

4227: relevance of the Roton Fermi Liquid phase to the cuprate phase

4228: diagram and the associated experimental phenomenology.

4229: 

4230: 

4231: \subsection{Theoretical Issues}

4232: 

4233: Since the discovery of the cuprate superconductors, the many

4234: attempts to reformulate theories of two-dimensional strongly

4235: correlated electron in terms of new collective or composite

4236: degrees of freedom, have been fueled on the one hand by related

4237: theoretical successes and on the other by cuprate phenomenology.

4238: The remarkable and successful development of {\it

4239: bosonization}\cite{Bosonization} both as a  reformulation of

4240: interacting one-dimensional electron models in terms of bosonic

4241: fields and as a means to extract qualitatively new physics outside

4242: of the Fermi liquid paradigm, played an important role in a number

4243: of early theoretical approaches to the cuprates\cite{PWAbook}. The

4244: equally impressive successes of the {\it composite boson} and {\it

4245: composite fermion} approaches in the fractional quantum Hall

4246: effect\cite{FQHEbook} were also influential in early high $T_c$

4247: theories, most notably the {\it anyon} theories\cite{Anyon}. Gauge

4248: theories of the Heisenberg and $t-J$ models were notable early

4249: attempts to reformulate 2d interacting electrons in terms of

4250: ``spin-charge'' separated variables\cite{U1A,U1B} -- electrically

4251: neutral fermionic spin one-half ``spinons'' and charge $e$ bosonic

4252: holons  -- and were motivated both by analogies with 1d

4253: bosonization and by resonating valence bond ideas\cite{PWAbook}.

4254: More recent approaches to 2d spin-charge separation have

4255: highlighted the connections with superconductivity\cite{NL,Z2}, by

4256: developing a formulation in terms of vortices, Bogoliubov

4257: quasiparticles and plasmons: the three basic collective

4258: excitations of a 2d superconductor. These latter theories were

4259: primarily attempting to access the pseudo-gap regime by approaching

4260: from the superconducting phase\cite{NL} - focusing on low energy

4261: physics where appreciable pairing correlations were manifest.

4262: 

4263: \subsubsection{Vortex-fermion formulation}

4264: 

4265: 

4266: In this paper, although we are employing a formulation with the same

4267: field content -- $hc/2e$ vortices, fermionic quasiparticles and

4268: collective plasmons -- we are advocating a rather different philosophy.

4269: In particular, we wish to use these same fields to describe higher

4270: energy physics in regimes where the physics is decidedly non-BCS-like

4271: even at short distances, most importantly the cuprate normal state near

4272: optimal doping.  The philosophy of this approach is very similar to that

4273: of the $Z_2$ gauge theory proposal of a fractionalized under-doped normal

4274: state.  Indeed, as demonstrated in Sec.~\ref{sec:u1-vortex-spinon} and

4275: Apps.~\ref{ap:enslaveZ2}-\ref{ap:enslaveU1}, our $U(1)$ formulation is

4276: completely (unitarily) equivalent to a $Z_2$ gauge theory.  However,

4277: because the unitary transformation relating the two formulations is

4278: non-trivial, the $U(1)$ formulation is (much) more convenient for the

4279: types of manipulations and approximations we employ here, largely

4280: because the $U(1)$ gauge fields are continuous variables.  The price

4281: paid for the use of the $U(1)$ formulation is that the ``spinon pairing

4282: term'' of the $Z_2$ gauge theory appears non-local in the $U(1)$

4283: Hamiltonian.  

4284: 

4285: Fortunately, this non-locality and its consequences are readily

4286: understood.  In particular, although the $U(1)$ vortex-quasiparticle

4287: Hamiltonian is microscopically equivalent to a $Z_2$ gauge theory, it is

4288: {\sl also} equivalent (as described in App.~\ref{ap:elecform}) to a

4289: theory of electronic (i.e. charge $e$) quasiparticles coupled to charge

4290: $2e$ bosons (with the latter described in dual vortex variables).  The

4291: ``two-fluid'' point of view of this vortex-electron formulation is

4292: convenient for understanding the qualitative properties of the RFL phase

4293: and its descendents, although it should be emphasized that the

4294: current-current couplings (embodied by the gauge fields of the $U(1)$

4295: formulation) between the two fluids are not expected to be weak.  In the

4296: vortex-electron language, the non-local term simply represents coherent

4297: ``Josephson coupling'' of electron pairs and the bosons.  The

4298: non-locality of the pairing term arises simply from the non-local

4299: representation of boson operators in the usual $U(1)$ boson-vortex

4300: duality.  The crucial feature which allows us to handle the pairing term

4301: despite its non-locality is the strength of vortex fluctuations in the

4302: bosonic Roton Liquid, which persists even with these strong

4303: current-current couplings.  The resulting power-law decay of bosonic

4304: pair-field correlations (ODQLRO) opens up a regime, corresponding to the

4305: RFL phase, in which the pairing term is irrelevant and can be treated

4306: perturbatively.  We note in passing that, although it is not relevant

4307: for the cuprates, the above discussion makes clear that a RL phase (for

4308: which fermions need never be introduced) should be possible in a purely

4309: bosonic model, which would be interesting in and of itself.

4310: 

4311: 

4312: A second important feature of the present formulation is the retention

4313: of the lattice scale structure.  Appropriate to the cuprates, we have

4314: carefully defined the theory on a 2d square lattice which we wish to

4315: identify with the microscopic copper lattice. Since our theory obviously

4316: does not similarly retain physics on atomic {\it energy} scales, our

4317: starting ``bare'' Hamiltonian should be viewed as a {\it low energy} but

4318: not spatially coarse grained effective theory (or at most an effective

4319: theory coarse-grained spatially only insofar as to remove e.g. the $O$

4320: $p$-orbitals).  It is important to emphasize that the very existence of

4321: the Roton Fermi liquid phase {\it requires} the presence of a square

4322: lattice.  In the RFL ground state there is an infinite set of

4323: dynamically generated symmetries, corresponding to a conserved number of

4324: vortices on every row and column of the lattice.  If we study the same

4325: model on a different lattice, say the triangular lattice, the quantum

4326: ground state analogous to the RFL phase (obtained, again, by taking the

4327: roton hopping amplitude $\kappa_r \rightarrow \infty$) is highly

4328: unstable, being destroyed by the presence of an arbitrarily small single

4329: vortex hopping amplitude.

4330: 

4331: More generally, the importance of employing the dual

4332: vortex-quasiparticle field theory reformulation cannot be

4333: overemphasized.  The novel and unusual RFL phase emerges quite simply

4334: when one takes a large amplitude for the roton hopping term, and the

4335: fixed point theory is also quite simple consisting of a Fermi sea of

4336: quasiparticles minimally coupled to an ``electric'' field with Gaussian

4337: dynamics. It is very difficult to see how one could adequately describe

4338: such a phase working with bare electron operators.  Indeed, we do not

4339: yet understand the simpler task of constructing a microscopic

4340: (undualized) boson model which enters the RL phase, even without the

4341: complications of fermions.  However, previous experience with dual

4342: vortex formulations for bosonic and electronic systems strongly argues

4343: that the RL and RFL theories properly describe physically accessible

4344: (albeit microscopically unknown) models.

4345: 

4346: An unfortunate drawback of the present formulation, however, is

4347: the apparent lack of {\it direct} connection between the starting

4348: lattice Hamiltonian and any microscopic electron model.  In

4349: particular, it is presently unclear what microscopic electron

4350: physics could be responsible for generating such a large roton

4351: hopping term.  In the absence of a microscopic foundation, one

4352: must resort to developing phenomenological implications of the

4353: Roton Fermi Liquid phase and comparing with the experimentally

4354: observed cuprate phenomenology.  We take a preliminary look in

4355: this direction in Sec.~\ref{sec:cuprates-rfl-phase} below.

4356: 

4357: 

4358: \subsubsection{Related approaches}

4359: 

4360: It is instructive to contrast the RFL phase with earlier notions of

4361: spin-charge separation.  Anderson's original picture of the cuprate

4362: normal state at optimal doping consisted of gas of spinons with a

4363: Fermi surface co-existing and somehow weakly interacting with a gas of

4364: holons\cite{PWA1,PWAbook} In the early gauge theory implementations of

4365: this picture, both the spinons and holons carried a $U(1)$ (or

4366: $SU(2)$) gauge charge\cite{U1A,U1B}.  Mean-field phase diagrams were

4367: obtained by pairing the spinons and/or condensing the holons, and a

4368: pseudo-gap regime with d-wave paired spinons yet uncondensed holons was

4369: predicted\cite{U1A,U1B} -- several years before experiment (of course

4370: the d-wave nature of the superconducting state was also predicted by

4371: other approaches\cite{Scalapino}). Within this approach, the normal

4372: state at optimal doping was viewed as an incoherent gas of uncondensed

4373: holons strongly interacting with unpaired spinons.  Some efforts were

4374: made to use the neglected gauge field fluctuations to stop the holons

4375: condensing at inappropriately high energy scales, with some

4376: success\cite{Bosongauge}.

4377: A serious worry is that these gauge fluctuations, ignored at the

4378: mean-field level, will almost certainly drive

4379: confinement\cite{Polyakov} (gluing the spinons and the holons

4380: together) and thus at low temperatures invalidate the assumed

4381: stability of the initial mean-field saddle point.

4382: 

4383: A few early papers emphasized that spinon pairing would break the

4384: continuous $U(1)$ (or $SU(2)$) gauge symmetry down to a discrete $Z_2$

4385: subgroup\cite{U1toZ2,earlyvison2}, and this might be a way to avoid

4386: confinement.  These ideas were later considerably amplified\cite{Z2},

4387: and the stability of genuinely spin-charge separated ground states

4388: established\cite{Frac1,Frac2}.  Such ground states are exotic

4389: electrical insulators which support fractionalized excitations

4390: carrying separately the spin and charge of the electron.  Each

4391: fragment carries a $Z_2$ gauge charge, but in contrast to the $U(1)$

4392: gauge theory saddle points, the $Z_2$ spinons are electrically neutral

4393: and do not contribute additively to the resistance.  Such

4394: fractionalized insulators necessarily support an additional $Z_2$

4395: vortex-like excitation: the vison\cite{vison1}.

4396: 

4397: Within the present formulation, these $Z_2$ fractionalized insulators

4398: can be readily accessed by condensing {\it pairs of

4399:   vortices}\cite{NL}, rather than condensing rotons.  Since

4400: vortex-{\it pairs} only have statistical interactions with charged

4401: particles and not the spinons, the resulting pair-vortex condensate is

4402: an electrical {\it insulator} with deconfined spinon, ``chargon'' and

4403: vison excitations\cite{NL,Z2} -- dramatically different from the

4404: Roton Fermi Liquid.  Recent experiments on very under-doped cuprate

4405: samples have failed to find evidence of a gapped

4406: vison\cite{visexp1,visexp2}, suggesting that the pseudo-gap phase is

4407: not fractionalized.  But a negative result in these vison detection

4408: experiments does not preclude the RFL phase, which supports mobile

4409: single vortices even at very low temperatures.  A different approach supposing

4410: unbound and mobile single vortices is the QED$_3$ theory of

4411: Ref.~\onlinecite{tesanovic}. 

4412: 

4413: At the most basic level, a roton is a small pattern of swirling

4414: electrical currents.  Much recent attention has focused on the

4415: possibility of a phase in the under-doped cuprates with non-vanishing

4416: orbital currents\cite{ddw}, counter rotating about elementary plaquettes

4417: on the two sub-lattices of the square lattice.  Such a phase was

4418: initially encountered as a mean-field state within a slave-Fermion gauge

4419: theory approach\cite{stagflux} - the so-called ``staggered-flux phase'',

4420: but has been resurrected as the ``d-density wave'' ordered state of a

4421: Fermi liquid\cite{ddw}.  In either case, such a phase within the present

4422: formulation would be described as a ``vortex-antivortex lattice'' - a

4423: checkerboard configuration on the plaquettes of the 2d square lattice.

4424: Ground states with {\it short-ranged} ``orbital antiferromagnetic''

4425: order have also been suggested recently\cite{stagshort}.  Surprisingly,

4426: the Roton liquid phase also has appreciable short-ranged orbital order.

4427: A ``snapshot view'' of the orbital current correlations in the RL phase

4428: can be obtained by examining the vortex-density structure function.  For

4429: simplicity, consider the charge sector of the RFL theory (the RL) in the

4430: limit of large plasmon velocity, $v_0 \rightarrow \infty$, which

4431: suppresses the longitudinal charge density fluctuations.  The transverse

4432: electrical currents are then described by the Hamiltonian $H_{rot}$ in

4433: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hrot}) with $\tilde{a}_j \rightarrow 0$.  The

4434: vortex-density structure function, $S_{NN}$, can be readily obtained

4435: from this Gaussian theory:

4436: \begin{equation}

4437: S_{NN}({\bf k}) \equiv  \langle |\hat{N}({\bf k})|^2 \rangle

4438: = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{\kappa_r}{u_v}} |{\cal K}_x({\bf k})

4439: {\cal K}_y({\bf k})| \sqrt{{\cal K}^2({\bf k})}   ,

4440: \end{equation}

4441: with $|{\cal K}_j({\bf k})| = 2 |\sin(k_j/2)|$ and ${\cal

4442: K}^2({\bf k})  = \sum_j |{\cal K}_j({\bf k})|^2$ as before. The

4443: vortex structure function is analytic except on the $k_x=0$ and

4444: $k_y=0$ axes and is {\it maximum} at ${\bf k} = (\pi,\pi)$,

4445: indicative of short-ranged orbital-antiferromagnetism. As such,

4446: the RFL/RL phase can perhaps be viewed as a quantum-melted

4447: staggered-flux (or vortex-antivortex) state, with only residual

4448: short-ranged orbital current correlations - the rapid motion of

4449: the rotons being responsible for the melting.  If the fermions are

4450: paired, the amplitude for the basic roton hopping process which

4451: generates the structure function above vanishes upon approaching

4452: half filling, as is apparent from Eq.~(\ref{rotamp}).  A

4453: preliminary analysis\cite{EBL} suggests that the further

4454: neighbor roton hopping processes which do survive at half-filling,

4455: lead to a vortex structure function which vanishes as $|{\bf k}-(\pi,\pi)|$

4456: for wavevectors near $(\pi,\pi)$.

4457: 

4458: \subsection{Cuprates and the RFL phase?}

4459: \label{sec:cuprates-rfl-phase}

4460: 

4461: In applying BCS theory to low temperature superconductors, one

4462: implicitly assumes that the normal state above $T_c$ is adequately

4463: described by Fermi liquid theory.  Within a modern renormalization

4464: group viewpoint\cite{Shankar}, this is tantamount to presuming that

4465: the effective Hamiltonian valid below atomic energy scales (of say

4466: 10eV) is sufficiently ``close'' (in an abstract space of Hamiltonians)

4467: to the Fermi liquid ``fixed point'' Hamiltonian (actually an invariant

4468: or ``fixed'' manifold of Hamiltonians characterized by the marginal

4469: Fermi liquid parameters).  In practical terms, ``close'' means that

4470: under a renormalization group transformation which scales down in

4471: energies, the renormalized Hamiltonian arrives at the Fermi liquid

4472: fixed point on energy scales which are still well above $T_c$.  BCS

4473: theory then describes the universal crossover flow between the Fermi

4474: liquid fixed point (which is marginally unstable to an attractive

4475: interaction in the Cooper channel) and the superconducting fixed point

4476: which characterizes the universal low energy properties of the

4477: superconducting state well below $T_c$.  Four orders of magnitude

4478: between 10eV and $T_c$ gives the RG flows plenty of ``time'' to

4479: accomplish the first step to the Fermi liquid fixed point, and is the

4480: ultimate reason behind the amazing quantitative success of BCS theory.

4481: 

4482: \subsubsection{Assumptions underlying the RFL approach}

4483: \label{sec:assumpt-underly-rfl}

4484: 

4485: In what follows, our working hypothesis is that the effective

4486: electron Hamiltonian on the 10eV scale appropriate for the 2d

4487: copper-oxygen planes at doping levels within and nearby the

4488: superconducting ``dome'', is ``close'' to the Roton Fermi liquid

4489: ``fixed manifold'' of Hamiltonians (characterized by Fermi/Bose

4490: liquid parameters for the quasiparticles/rotons). More specifically, we

4491: presume that when renormalized down to the scale of say one-half

4492: of an eV, the effective Hamiltonian can be well approximated by a

4493: Hamiltonian {\it on the RFL fixed manifold} - up to {\it small}

4494: perturbations.  The important small perturbations are those that

4495: are {\it relevant} over appreciable portions of the fixed

4496: manifold.  As established in Sections IV and V, there are three

4497: such perturbations: (i) Single vortex hopping, (ii) ``charge''

4498: hopping and (iii) attractive quasiparticle interactions in the Cooper

4499: channel. When relevant, these three processes destabilize the RFL

4500: phase and cause the RG flows to cross over to different fixed

4501: points which determine the asymptotic low temperature behavior.  From

4502: our calculations, we find that at least one, and often more of these

4503: three perturbations is always relevant, regardless of the roton liquid

4504: parameters.  Hence the RFL should be regarded as a {\sl critical}, and

4505: usually {\sl multi-critical} phase, rather than a stable one.  

4506: For these three processes, the resulting quantum ground states

4507: are, respectively: (i) A (``confined'' and) conventional Fermi

4508: liquid phase, (ii) a conventional superconducting phase with

4509: singlet $d_{x^2-y^2}$ pairing and gapless nodal Bogoliubov

4510: quasiparticles and (iii) a ``rotonic superconductor'' with the

4511: properties of a conventional superconductor but coexisting gapless roton

4512: excitations.  The rotonic superconductor, as described in

4513: Sec.~\ref{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}, has further potential instabilities

4514: driven by either single vortex hopping and ``charge'' hopping/explicit

4515: pairing.  Both perturbations, if relevant, will generate an energy gap

4516: for the rotons.  It seems likely that the domains of relevance of these

4517: two perturbations overlap, so that there no regime of true stability of

4518: the rotonic superconductor.  The true ground state of the system in this

4519: regime is then a conventional superconductor, and its ``rotonic'' nature

4520: is evidenced only as an intermediate energy crossover.  

4521: 

4522: 

4523: \subsubsection{Effective parameters}

4524: \label{sec:effective-parameters}

4525: 

4526: In order to construct a phase diagram within this scenario, it is

4527: necessary to specify the various parameters (eg. Bose and Fermi

4528: liquid parameters) of the RFL model as a function of the doping

4529: level, $x$.  Because the RFL is multi-critical, we cannot rely upon

4530: ``universality'' to validate ad-hoc requirements of smallness of

4531: perturbations, as might be the case e.g. for renormalized perturbations

4532: around a stable fixed point.  Instead, we will make some assumptions 

4533: based (partly) on physics.  First, our main assumption is the basic

4534: validity at high energies of the roton dynamics, and of Fermi liquid-like

4535: quasiparticles.  Second, we assume that superconductivity is never

4536: strong, i.e. always occurs below the rotonic/Fermi liquid energy scales.

4537: Mathematically, these two assumptions are encompassed in the

4538: inequalities

4539: \begin{eqnarray}

4540:   \label{eq:inequalities}

4541:   \kappa_r, u_v, t_s \gg t_v \gg t_c, \Delta_j.

4542: \end{eqnarray}

4543: Reading from left to right, this corresponds to the first and second

4544: assumptions above.  In practice, we can at best hope for a factor of a

4545: few between e.g. $t_v$ and $\kappa_r$, so the ``$\gg$'' symbols above

4546: should not be taken too strongly.  Although it is not important to our

4547: discussion, it is natural to assume that $v_0 \sim \kappa_r, u_v, t_s$

4548: (since Coulombic energies at the lattice scale are comparable to the

4549: electronic bandwidth).  A third assumption, which is not needed for

4550: consistency of the approach, but seems desirable empirically, is that

4551: the fermion dynamics is primarily by ``spinon'' rather than electron

4552: hopping, $t_s \gg t_e$.  Many of the parameters of the RFL phase can be

4553: fixed empirically from the observed behavior of the cuprates on or above

4554: the eV scale.  For example, the $k-$space location of the quasiparticle

4555: Fermi surface can be chosen to coincide with the electron Fermi surface

4556: as measured via ARPES\cite{ARPES}. The value of other parameters, such

4557: as the bare velocity $v_0$ which appears in ${\cal L}_a$ and sets the

4558: scale of the plasmon velocity, can be roughly estimated from the basic

4559: electronic energy scales, and in any case does not greatly effect the

4560: relevance/irrelevance of the three important perturbations.  For our

4561: basic lattice Hamiltonian introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, the two

4562: most important parameters characterizing the RFL phase are the vortex

4563: core energy, $u_v$ and the roton hopping strength, $\kappa_r$. Indeed,

4564: as shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:inst-roton-liqu}, the scaling dimensions

4565: which determine the relevance of the vortex and ``charge'' hopping

4566: perturbations at the RFL fixed point, denoted $\Delta_v$ and $\Delta_c$

4567: respectively, depended sensitively on the ratio $u_v/\kappa_r$.  For

4568: example, ignoring renormalizations from the gapless fermions we found,

4569: \begin{equation}

4570: \Delta_v = {1 \over 2 \Delta_c} = \frac{1}{4\pi}

4571: \sqrt{\frac{u_v}{\kappa_r}} \frac{v_+}{\tilde{v}_0}  , 

4572: \end{equation}

4573: with $v^2_+ = \tilde{v}_0^2 + {1 \over 4} u_v \kappa_r = v_0^2 + {1

4574:   \over 2} u_v \kappa_r$.

4575: 

4576: 

4577: 

4578: \begin{figure}

4579: \begin{center}

4580: \vskip-2mm

4581: \hspace*{0mm}

4582: \centerline{\fig{2.8in}{fig2.eps}}

4583: \vskip-2mm

4584: \caption{Proposed values for the vortex and ``charge'' hopping scaling

4585:   dimensions, $\Delta_v(x)$ and $\Delta_c(x)$, as a function of the

4586:   doping $x$.  These hopping perturbations are relevant at the RFL

4587:   fixed point when their $\Delta <2$.  Within the doping range, $x_1 <

4588:   x < x_2$, the ``charge'' hopping is {\it more} relevant, and the RFL

4589:   phase is unstable to superconductivity.  }

4590: \label{fig:scaledim}

4591: \end{center}

4592: \end{figure}

4593: 

4594: 

4595: 

4596: 

4597: 

4598: Rather than specifying the doping dependence of $u_v, \kappa_r, v_0$

4599: and the Bose/Fermi liquid parameters, though, it is simpler and

4600: suffices for our purposes to specify the final $x-$dependence of

4601: $\Delta_v$ and $\Delta_c$.  Shown in Figure 2 is a proposed form for

4602: $\Delta_{v/c}(x)$, primarily chosen to fit the gross features of

4603: the cuprate phase diagram.  For example, since the RFL phase is

4604: strongly unstable to the Fermi liquid phase when $\Delta_v \ll 2$, we

4605: have taken $\Delta_v$ decreasing to small values in the strongly

4606: over-doped limit.  On the other hand, to account for the observed {\it

4607:   non-Fermi liquid} behavior in the normal state near {\it optimal}

4608: doping\cite{PWAbook}, requires that we take $\Delta_v \ge 2$ in

4609: that regime.  On the under-doped side of the dome we can use the

4610: observed linear $x$-dependence of the superfluid density to guess

4611: the behavior of $\Delta_v$ for small $x$.  In this regime the

4612: (renormalized) vortex core energy in the superconducting state is

4613: presumably tracking the transition temperature, varying linearly

4614: with $x$.  It seems plausible that the ``bare'' vortex core energy

4615: $u_v$ in the lattice Hamiltonian, while perhaps significantly

4616: larger, also tracks this $x-$ dependence. This implies $\Delta_v

4617: \sim \sqrt{u_v} \sim \sqrt{x}$ as depicted in the Figure.

4618: Moreover, to recover (conventional) insulating behavior when $x

4619: \rightarrow 0$, requires that vortex condensation (rather than

4620: charge hopping) be more relevant in this limit, i.e. $\Delta_v<

4621: \Delta_c$ (see below).     

4622: 

4623: 

4624: \subsubsection{Phase diagram}

4625: \label{sec:phase-diagram}

4626: 

4627: Under the above assumptions, we now discuss in some detail the

4628: resulting phase diagram and predicted behaviors.  Consider first the

4629: ground states upon varying $x$.  In the extreme over-doped limit with

4630: $\Delta_v \ll 2$, vortex hopping will be a strongly relevant

4631: perturbation at the RFL fixed point.  The vortices will condense at

4632: $T=0$, leading to a conventional Fermi liquid ground state.  Upon

4633: decreasing $x$ there comes a special doping value ($x_2$ in Fig. 2)

4634: where $\Delta_c$ becomes {\it smaller} than $\Delta_v$.  At $x=x_2$

4635: the RFL phase is unstable to {\it both} vortex and ``charge'' hopping

4636: processes, since both $\Delta_v = \Delta_c = 1/\sqrt{2} < 2$.  It seems

4637: reasonable to assume that in this situation, the more strongly

4638: relevant process ultimately dominates at low energies.  This implies

4639: that $x_2$ demarcates the boundary between a Fermi liquid and a

4640: superconducting ground state, as illustrated in Figure 3.  Upon

4641: further decreasing $x$, the ``charge'' hopping becomes even more

4642: strongly relevant, tending to increase $T_c$ until it reaches a

4643: maximum at ``optimal doping'', denoted $x_{opt}$ in Figures 2 and 3.

4644: As one further decreases $x$, $T_c$ should start decreasing.  But as

4645: shown in Sec. VA, with decreasing vortex core energy, $u_v \sim x$,

4646: the enhanced vortex density fluctuations generate an increasing

4647: antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $J \sim t_s^2 / u_v$.  This

4648: {\it attractive} interaction between fermions will mediate

4649: quasiparticle pairing, with a pairing energy scale growing rapidly as $x

4650: \rightarrow 0$.  It is natural to associate this ``quasiparticle pairing''

4651: temperature scale with the crossover temperature into the pseudo-gap

4652: regime\cite{PWAbook}, shown as $T^*$ in Figure 3.  As discussed in

4653: Sec.~\ref{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}, under the assumption that quasiparticle

4654: kinetic energy arises primarily through spinon hopping, $t_s \gg t_e$,

4655: the superfluid density associated with the quasiparticle pairing is

4656: small, so that potential true superconductivity as a consequence of this

4657: pairing is suppressed to a low or zero temperature.   

4658: 

4659: Since $\Delta_v < \Delta_c$ for doping levels with $x < x_1$, vortex

4660: hopping should again dominate over ``charge'' hopping.  This is the same

4661: condition which we argued leads to the Fermi liquid state for $x>x_2$

4662: above.  However, the physics for small $x$ is more complex, owing to the

4663: strong antiferromagnetic interactions and proximity to the commensurate

4664: filling $x=0$ at which antiferromagnetic order is probable.  In the

4665: $U(1)$ vortex-quasiparticle formalism of this paper, this difference

4666: arises from the freedom to choose (as $\Delta_j\rightarrow 0$) the

4667: fermion density to minimize the total (free) energy of the system.  In

4668: the majority of this paper we have taken $n_f=\rho_0$, in order to

4669: minimize the vortex kinetic energy.  However, if antiferromagnetic

4670: quasiparticle interactions are large, and $x\ll 1$, another possibility

4671: arises.  To optimally benefit from the antiferromagnetic interactions,

4672: one may instead choose the fermion density commensurate, $n_f=1$, for

4673: which the Fermi surface is optimally nested and the quasiparticles can

4674: become fully gapped, gaining the maximal ``condensation energy'' from

4675: antiferromagnetic ordering.  The cost of this choice is some loss of

4676: vortex kinetic energy as the vortex motion becomes somewhat frustrated

4677: by the resulting dual ``flux'' $\pi x$.  Although we assume vortex energy

4678: scales are large, this flux itself is small for small $x$, so eventually

4679: as $x\rightarrow 0$ this rise in kinetic energy becomes smaller than the

4680: lowering of fermionic energy due to antiferromagnetism and such a choice

4681: becomes favorable.  The ultimate physics of the remaining vortices in

4682: this limit is  difficult to analyze reliably, but it

4683: seems evident that for $\Delta_v<\Delta_c$, the more relevant vortex

4684: hopping will lead to an insulating state.  Since the quasiparticles are

4685: then gapped, the remaining uncompensated flux $\pi x$ is expected to

4686: lead to incommensurate charge ordering when the vortices condense -- the

4687: dual analog of the Abrikosov lattice.

4688: 

4689: \begin{figure}

4690: \begin{center}

4691: \vskip-2mm

4692: \hspace*{0mm}

4693: \centerline{\fig{2.8in}{fig3.eps}}

4694: \vskip-2mm

4695: \caption{Schematic phase diagram that follows from the doping dependence

4696:   of $\Delta_{v,c}$ shown in Fig. 2.  With increasing doping $x$, the

4697:   ground state evolves from a charge ordered insulator (I), into a

4698:   superconductor (dSC) and then back into a Fermi liquid (FL).  The

4699:   normal state behavior near optimal doping is controlled by the

4700:   Roton Fermi liquid (RFL) ground state.  Below $T^*$, the

4701:   quasiparticles pair.  A quantum phase transition between the RFL and

4702:   FL ground states occurs at $x_c$ - but is preempted by

4703:   superconductivity.  At $x=x_c$, a normal state resistance {\it linear}

4704:   in temperature is predicted.}

4705: \label{fig:phasediag}

4706: \end{center}

4707: \end{figure}

4708: 

4709: \subsubsection{The RFL Normal state}

4710: 

4711: Having established the phase diagram which follows from the assumed

4712: doing dependence of $\Delta_v(x)$, we turn to a discussion of the

4713: normal state properties above $T_c$.  Under our working assumption, in

4714: the energy range above $T_c$ we can ignore the small (but ultimately

4715: relevant) ``charge'' hopping perturbation, and use the RFL fixed point

4716: Hamiltonian to describe the physics of the normal state.  First

4717: consider the special doping value, $x = x_c$, where $\Delta_v=2$ on

4718: the over-doped side of the superconducting dome (see Figures 2 and 3).

4719: For $x < x_c$ the vortex hopping strength $t_v$ decreases upon scaling

4720: down in energy, so that it can be treated perturbatively.  As shown in

4721: Sec. VIA, at second order in the vortex hopping, the electrical

4722: conductivity is additive in the roton and quasiparticle conductivities.  With

4723: impurities present the quasiparticle conductivity, $\sigma^f$, will saturate

4724: to low temperatures, whereas $\sigma_{rot} \sim T^{-\gamma}$ (with

4725: $\gamma = 2 \Delta_v -3 $) diverges as $T \rightarrow 0$.  The low

4726: temperature normal state electrical resistance is thus predicted to

4727: behave as a power law,

4728: \begin{equation}

4729: R(T) \sim t_v^2 T^\gamma ,

4730: \end{equation}

4731: with a {\it vanishing residual resistivity}.  Moreover, right {\it at}

4732: $x=x_c$, since $\gamma=1$ a {\it linear} temperature dependence is

4733: predicted.  Notably, this transport behavior is a due to the presence

4734: of the quasi-condensate in the RFL phase, and as such is completely

4735: independent of the single particle scattering rate.

4736: 

4737: The Hall conductivity, however, will be largely determined by the

4738: fermionic quasiparticle contribution, as detailed in Sec.

4739: \ref{sec:RFLproperties}. Specifically, the cotangent of the Hall

4740: angle, $\cot(\Theta_H) \equiv \rho_{xx}/\rho_{xy}$, was found to

4741: vary as $\cot(\Theta_H) \sim 1/ (T^\gamma \tau_f^2)$ in the RFL

4742: phase, with $\tau_f^{-1}$ the spinon momentum relaxation rate.

4743: Moreover, at the ``hot spots'' on the Fermi surface, $\tau_f^{-1}

4744: \sim T^{\gamma + \frac{1}{2}}$, due to scattering off the gapless

4745: rotons. Under the assumption that these same processes dominate

4746: the temperature dependence of the quasiparticle {\it transport}

4747: scattering rate, we deduce that,

4748: \begin{equation}

4749: \cot(\Theta_H) \sim { 1 \over T^\gamma \tau_f^2 } \sim T^{1

4750: +\gamma} ,

4751: \end{equation}

4752: and right at $x=x_c$, a quadratic dependence $\cot(\Theta_H) \sim

4753: T^2$. In striking contrast to conventional Drude theory which

4754: predicts $\cot(\Theta_H) \sim \tau^{-1} \sim R$ (with $\tau$ the

4755: electron's momentum relaxation time), in the RFL phase the

4756: cotangent of the Hall angle varies with a {\it different power} of

4757: temperature than for the electrical resistance, $R \sim T^\gamma$.

4758: This non-Drude behavior is consistent with the electrical

4759: transport generally observed in the optimally doped

4760: cuprates\cite{expRlin,expHall1,expHall2}, where $R \sim T$ and

4761: $\cot(\Theta_H) \sim T^2$.

4762: 

4763: Consider next the thermal conductivity $\kappa$ near optimal doping

4764: within the RFL normal state.  One of the most important defining

4765: characteristics of a conventional Fermi liquid is the Wiedemann-Franz

4766: law - the universal low temperature ratio of thermal and electrical

4767: conductivities, $L \equiv \kappa/\sigma T$.  In a Fermi liquid,

4768: electron-like Landau quasiparticles carry both the conserved charge

4769: and the heat, and since the energy of the individual quasiparticles

4770: becomes conserved as $T \rightarrow 0$, the Lorenz ratio is universal,

4771: $L^{FL} = L_0 = \pi^2 k_B^2 / 3 e^2$.  In contrast, the electrical

4772: conductivity is infinite in a superconductor, but the condensate is

4773: ineffective at carrying heat so that the Lorenz ratio vanishes,

4774: $L^{sc} = 0$.  Within the RFL phase, heat can also be transported by

4775: the single fermion excitations, with a contribution to the

4776: thermal conductivity linear in temperature: $\kappa_s = L_0 \sigma^f

4777: T$.  At low enough temperatures this will dominate over the phonon

4778: contribution, $\kappa_{phon} \sim T^3$.  But the roton excitations,

4779: which have a quasi-one dimensional dispersion at low energies, will

4780: presumably also contribute a linear temperature dependence,

4781: $\kappa_{rot} \sim T$.  Thus, the {\it total} thermal conductivity in

4782: the RFL phase is expected to vanish linearly in temperature, $\kappa

4783: \sim T$.  But since the roton contribution to the {\it electrical}

4784: conductivity diverges as $T \rightarrow 0$, the RFL phase is predicted

4785: to have a vanishing Lorenz ratio:

4786: \begin{equation}

4787: L^{RFL} = \frac{\kappa}{\sigma T} \sim T^{\gamma} .

4788: \end{equation}

4789: The quasi-condensate in the RFL phase is much more effective at

4790: transporting charge than heat, much as in a superconductor.  Electron

4791: doped cuprates near optimal doping, when placed in a strong magnetic

4792: field to quench the superconductivity, do exhibit a small Lorenz ratio

4793: at low temperatures\cite{Taillefer}, $L \approx L_0/5$.  But

4794: extracting the zero field Lorenz ratio is problematic, since above

4795: $T_c$ the phonon contribution to $\kappa$ is non-negligible.

4796: 

4797: It is instructive to consider the electrical resistance also in the {\it

4798:   under-doped regime}, particularly upon cooling below the fermion

4799: pairing temperature.  Above this crossover line the predicted electrical

4800: resistance varies with a power of temperature, $R \sim T^\gamma$.

4801: Since, as we assume, the fermion's kinetic energy comes primarily in the

4802: form of spinon hopping, $t\approx t_s \gg t_e$, the resulting superfluid

4803: density is however very small (see Sec.~\ref{sec:selectr-bcs-inst}), and

4804: phase coherent superconductivity does not result, at least not in this

4805: temperature range.  Nevertheless, one would expect a dramatic increase

4806: in the fermion conductivity, $\sigma^f$, upon cooling through $T^*$ --

4807: much as seen in superconducting thin films upon cooling through the

4808: materials bulk transition temperature.  Since the conductivity is

4809: additive in the roton and spinon contributions, $R(T)^{-1} \sim

4810: \sigma_{rot}(T)+ \sigma^f(T)$, a large and rapid increase in

4811: $\sigma^f(T)$ should be detectable as a drop in the electrical

4812: resistance relative to the ``critical'' power law form, i.e.

4813: \begin{equation}

4814: { R(T) \over T^\gamma } \sim {1 \over 1 + cT^\gamma \sigma^f(T) }

4815: .

4816: \end{equation}

4817: This behavior is generally consistent with that seen in the under-doped cuprates\cite{PWAbook,expHall2}, provided

4818: we take $\gamma  \approx 1$.

4819: 

4820: \subsubsection{Entering the superconductor}

4821: 

4822: We finally discuss the predicted behavior upon cooling from the

4823: RFL normal state into the superconducting phase.  The main change

4824: occurs in the spectrum of roton excitations, which become gapped

4825: inside the superconductor.  The roton gap, $\Delta_{rot}$, should

4826: be manifest in optical measurements, since the optical

4827: conductivity will drop rapidly for low frequencies, $ \omega <

4828: \Delta_{rot}$.  As in BCS theory, the ratio of the (roton) gap to

4829: the superconducting transition temperature $2 \Delta_{rot}/T_c$

4830: should be of order one.  This ratio is determined by the RG

4831: crossover flow between the RFL and superconducting fixed points.

4832: It seems likely that this ratio will be {\it non-universal},

4833: depending on the marginal Bose liquid parameters characterizing

4834: the RFL fixed point (this is distinct from changes in this ratio

4835: in strong coupling Eliashberg theories, since here variations in

4836: the ratio are due to marginal parameters of the RFL fixed manifold

4837: even at arbitrarily weak coupling).  Nevertheless, it would be

4838: instructive to compute this ratio for the simple near-neighbor RFL

4839: model we have been studying throughout, and to analyze the

4840: behavior of the optical conductivity above the gap.

4841: 

4842: Another important consequence of gapped rotons below $T_c$, is that

4843: the electron lifetime should rapidly increase upon cooling into the

4844: superconducting phase.  With reduced scattering from the rotons, the

4845: ARPES line width should narrow, most dramatically near the normal state

4846: ``hot spots'' (with tangents parallel to the $x$ or $y$ axes).  This

4847: behavior is consistent with the ARPES data in the

4848: cuprates\cite{ARPES}, which upon cooling into the superconductor does

4849: show a significant narrowing of the quasiparticle peak, particularly

4850: so at the Fermi surface crossing near momentum $(\pi,0)$.

4851: 

4852: 

4853: Despite these preliminary encouraging similarities between various

4854: properties of the RFL phase and the cuprate phenomenology, much more

4855: work is certainly needed before one can establish whether this exotic

4856: non-Fermi liquid ground state might actually underlie the physics of

4857: the high temperature superconductors.  We have already emphasized the

4858: strengths of this proposition, but there are, of course, some

4859: experimental features which seem challenging to explain from this point

4860: of view.  The ``quasiparticle charge'', i.e. temperature derivative of

4861: the superfluid density $\left.\partial K_s/\partial T\right|_{T=0}$

4862: appears, based upon a small number of experimental data points, to be

4863: large and roughly independent of doping $x$, in apparent conflict with

4864: the RFL prediction.  The linear temperature dependence of the

4865: electron lifetime $1/\tau_f \sim k_B T/\hbar$ observed for nodal

4866: quasiparticles near optimal doping in ARPES also does not seem natural

4867: in the RFL.  However, it seems likely that it may be possible to explain

4868: a small number of such deviations from the {\sl most naive} RFL

4869: predictions by more detailed considerations.  Further investigations of

4870: the RFL proposal should confront other experimental probes, such as

4871: interlayer transport and tunneling.

4872: Towards this end, it will be

4873: necessary to generalize the present approach to three-dimensions.

4874: More detailed predictions, such as for the optical conductivity upon

4875: entering the superconductor and the thermal Hall effect in the RFL

4876: normal state, might also be helpful in this regard.  It

4877: would of course be most appealing to identify a {\it new ``smoking gun''}

4878: experiment for the Roton Fermi liquid state, analogous to the

4879: vison-trapping experiment\cite{vison1} for detecting 2d spin-charge

4880: separation.  However, given the critical nature of the RFL, with copious

4881: gapless excitations with varieties of quantum numbers, finding such an

4882: incontrovertible experimental signature may be difficult.

4883: 

4884: 

4885: 

4886: \begin{acknowledgments}

4887:   

4888:   We are grateful to Arun Paramekanti and Ashvin Vishwanath for a number

4889:   of helpful conversations, and to Patrick Lee for commenting on a draft

4890:   of the manuscript.  We are especially indebted to T.  Senthil for his

4891:   many clarifying remarks, particularly pointing to the importance of

4892:   ``spinon pairing'' terms in the Hamiltonian.  This work was generously

4893:   supported by the NSF; M.P.A.F. under Grants DMR-0210790 and

4894:   PHY-9907949, and L.B. by grant DMR-9985255. L.B. also acknowledges

4895:   support from the Sloan and Packard foundations.

4896: 

4897: 

4898: \par

4899: 

4900: \end{acknowledgments}

4901: 

4902: 

4903: 

4904: 

4905: 

4906: 

4907: 

4908: 

4909: 

4910: 

4911: 

4912: 

4913: \appendix

4914: 

4915: 

4916: 

4917: 

4918: \section{Fermi Liquid Phase} \label{sec:fermiliquid}

4919: 

4920: We expect the Fermi Liquid phase to occur upon complete proliferation

4921: and unbinding of vortices.  To obtain the Fermi liquid in our

4922: formulation, we therefore in this appendix consider the limit of large

4923: vortex hopping $t_v \rightarrow \infty$ and small vortex energy

4924: $u_0\rightarrow 0$.  We have previously demonstrated the equivalence

4925: of the U(1) gauge theory to a $Z_2$ gauge theory, and it is

4926: this latter formulation which is most convenient in this limit.

4927: 

4928: To observe the Fermi liquid, we analyze the $Z_2$ gauge theory in its

4929: Hamiltonian form.  Although this limit is very straightforward, based

4930: on previous work on $Z_2$ gauge theory, it is instructive to go

4931: through it in some detail here, in order to observe the effects of the

4932: spinon pairing term.  The Hamiltonian density can be separated into

4933: pure gauge, charge, and spin parts, ${\cal H}={\cal H}_h+{\cal

4934:   H}^{Z_2}_c+{\cal H}^{Z_2}_s$, with

4935: \begin{equation}

4936:   {\cal H}_h = -h \sum_j \sigma_j^x({\bf r}),

4937: \end{equation}

4938: where $\sigma^x_j$ is the usual Pauli matrix in the space of states on

4939: link in the $j$ direction coming from site ${\bf r}$ (and hence

4940: anticommutes with $\sigma^z_j$).  In the charge sector,

4941: \begin{equation}

4942:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_c = -2t_c \sum_j \sigma_j^z({\bf r}) \cos(\phi_{{\bf r} +

4943:     {\bf \hat{x}}_j}-\phi_{\bf r} ) + u_c n_{\bf r}[n_{\bf r}-1],

4944: \end{equation}

4945: where $n_{\bf r}$ is the number operator conjugate to $\phi_{\bf r}$,

4946: satisfying $[\phi_{\bf r},n_{\bf r'}]=i\delta_{\bf rr'}$.  For

4947: simplicity, in the spin sector we consider a local $s$-wave pair field

4948: instead of a $d$-wave one. This is not essential, but simplifies the

4949: presentation and still addresses the essential issue of the relevance

4950: of spinon pairing in the Fermi liquid.  Hence,

4951: \begin{eqnarray}

4952:   {\cal H}^{Z_2}_s & = & -  t_s \sigma_j^z({\bf r})

4953:   [ f^\dagger_{{\bf r} +  {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

4954:     f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma}+{\rm h.c.}] + \epsilon_0

4955:     f^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma}

4956:     \nonumber \\

4957:     && +

4958:   \Delta(f_{{\bf r}\uparrow}f_{{\bf r}\downarrow} + {\rm h.c.}) + u_f

4959:   (f^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma})^2.

4960: \end{eqnarray}

4961: Note that we have added a local on-site energy $\epsilon_0$ and

4962: interaction $u_f$, allowed in general by symmetry.  The Hamiltonian

4963: commutes with the gauge generators,

4964: \begin{equation}

4965:   G_{\bf r}=(-1)^{n_{\bf r}+ f^\dagger_{{\bf

4966:         r}\sigma}f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma}} \prod_{j}

4967:   \sigma^x_j({\bf r}) \sigma^x_j({\bf r}-{\bf\hat{x}}_j).

4968: \end{equation}

4969: We require $G_{\bf r}=1$ to enforce gauge invariance.

4970: 

4971: In the analysis of the large vortex hopping limit above, we obtained

4972: the action for a $Z_2$ gauge theory with zero kinetic term.  This

4973: corresponds in the Hamiltonian to large $h$ (in particular we will

4974: take $h \gg t_c, t_s$.  In this limit $\sigma_j^x \approx 1$, and the

4975: gauge constraint becomes

4976: \begin{equation}

4977: (-1)^{n_{\bf r}+ f^\dagger_{{\bf

4978:       r}\sigma}f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma}} =1,

4979: \end{equation}

4980: i.e. requiring an even number of bosons and fermions on each site.

4981: Further, for large $h$, the chargon and spinon hopping terms are

4982: strongly suppressed, and can be considered perturbatively.  At zeroth

4983: order in $t_c,t_s$, then, the charge and spin sectors are decoupled at

4984: each site and decoupled also from one another except by the gauge

4985: constraint.  In the charge sector, for $u_c>0$, it is energetically

4986: favorable to have only either zero or one chargon per site $n_{\bf

4987:   r}=0,1$.  If $n_{\bf r}=0$, then we must have either zero or two

4988: spinons per site.  Note than in this subspace, even for small

4989: $\Delta$, these two local spinon singlet states are non-degenerate:

4990: the energy of the two-spinon state differs from the zero-spinon state

4991: by the energy $\epsilon_0+4u_f$.  With non-zero $\Delta$, one obtains

4992: as eigenstates simply two different linear combination of these two

4993: states on each site.  The lower energy of the two will be realized in

4994: the ground state, and the upper energy state has no physical

4995: significance.  Physically, the lower energy state, which is neutral

4996: ($n_{\bf r}=0$) and is a spin singlet, corresponds to the local

4997: vacuum, i.e. a site with no electron on it.  If $n_{\bf r}=1$, then we

4998: must have one spinon on this site, which may have either spin

4999: orientation.  This state has thus the quantum numbers of a physical

5000: electron.  Fixing the total charge of the system $Q=\sum_{\bf r}

5001: n_{\bf r} \neq 0$ will require some number of electrons in the

5002: system.  At zeroth order these are localized, but at O($t_c t_s/h$),

5003: the electrons acquire a hopping between sites, and one obtains a

5004: system clearly in a Fermi liquid phase (it is not non-interacting,

5005: since one has a hard-core constraint in the limit considered).

5006: 

5007: The above considerations can be applied for zero or non-zero $\Delta$,

5008: and there are no qualitative differences in the results (the detailed

5009: nature of the vacuum state depends smoothly on $\Delta$, leading to a

5010: weak dependence of the effective electron hopping on the ratio

5011: $\Delta/u_f$) in either case.  This strongly suggests that $\Delta$ is

5012: not a ``relevant'' (in the renormalization group sense) perturbation

5013: in the Fermi liquid phase.  This notion can be confirmed more formally

5014: by considering the limit of very weak $\Delta \ll u_f$, in which it

5015: may be treated perturbatively.  At zeroth order in this perturbation

5016: theory, the vacuum state (on a single site) is just the state with

5017: zero spinons.  Formally, the perturbative relevance of $\Delta$ is

5018: determined by the behavior of the two-point function of the pair-field

5019: operator, e.g.

5020: \begin{equation}

5021:   C_\Delta(\tau) = \langle f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{\bf

5022:     r\uparrow}(\tau)f^{\vphantom\dagger}_{\bf

5023:     r\downarrow}(\tau) f^\dagger_{\bf r\downarrow}(0)f^\dagger_{\bf

5024:     r\uparrow}(0) \rangle.

5025: \end{equation}

5026: Since the pair-field operator creates a site doubly-occupied by

5027: spinons, the energy of the intermediate states encountered in the

5028: imaginary time evolution from $0$ to $\tau$ is increased by $u_f$, so

5029: that the spinon pair-field correlator decays exponentially,

5030: $C_\Delta(\tau) \sim e^{-4u_f\tau}$.  This indicates that the spinon

5031: pair field is strongly irrelevant (formally with infinite scaling

5032: dimension).  The importance of this observation in the context of this

5033: paper is that it provides an example in which the spinon pair field --

5034: which naively has a special significance because it alone violates

5035: spinon number conservation -- is irrelevant.  This irrelevance is a

5036: consequence of strong vorticity fluctuations, which bind (confine)

5037: charge to the spinons to form electrons.  Since charge is conserved,

5038: electron number {\sl must} be conserved in the resulting effective

5039: theory.  Similar (but not quite so large) vorticity fluctuations in

5040: the RFL have the effect of rendering the spinon pair field irrelevant.

5041: 

5042: 

5043: 

5044: 

5045: \section{Enslaving the $Z_2$ gauge fields} \label{ap:enslaveZ2}

5046: 

5047: 

5048:  To enslave the $Z_2$ gauge fields, we employ

5049: two sequential unitary transformations, $U_{12}=U_1 U_2$, with

5050: \begin{eqnarray}

5051:   \label{eq:Z2slavers}

5052:   U_1 & \!\!= &\!\!\prod_{\bf r} \left(\prod_{x'=0}^\infty \sigma_1^z({\bf

5053:       r}+ x' \hat{\bf x}) \right)^{n^f_{\bf r}}\!\! \!\!=\!\! \prod_{\bf r}

5054:   (\sigma_1^z({\bf r}))^{\sum_{x'=0}^\infty n^f_{{\bf r}-x'\hat{\bf

5055:         x}}}, \\

5056:   U_2 & \!\!= & \!\!\prod_{\sf r} \left(\prod_{x'=0}^\infty \overline{\sigma}_1^x({\sf

5057:       r}+ x' \hat{\bf x}) \right)^{N_{\sf r}} \!\! \!\!= \!\!\prod_{\sf r}

5058:   (\overline{\sigma}_1^x({\sf r}))^{\sum_{x'=0}^\infty N_{{\sf r}-x'\hat{\bf

5059:         x}}}.

5060: \end{eqnarray}

5061: The two operators $U_1$ and $U_2$ are mutually commuting. Roughly,

5062: $U_1$ transforms to a gauge in which $\sigma_1^z=1$, and $U_2$

5063: transforms to a gauge with $\overline{\sigma}_1^x=1$. More

5064: precisely, applying the first unitary transformation, $H_{pl}$ and

5065: $H_N$ are invariant, while the fermion Hamiltonian transforms to

5066: \begin{eqnarray}

5067:   \label{eq:unitary1}

5068:   U_1^\dagger H^{Z_2}_{f} U_1^{\vphantom\dagger} & = &\left. H^{Z_2}_{f}

5069:   \right|_{\sigma_j^z({\bf r}) \rightarrow \sigma_j^{z,{\rm

5070:         slave}}({\bf r}; N)},

5071: \end{eqnarray}

5072: where

5073: \begin{eqnarray}

5074:   \label{eq:sigmazslave}

5075:   \sigma_1^{z,{\rm slave}}({\bf r}) & = & 1,  \\

5076:   \sigma_2^{z,{\rm slave}}({\bf r}) & = & \prod_{x'=0}^\infty \prod_{\Box({\bf

5077:       r+w}+x'\hat{\bf x})} \sigma^z = \prod_{x'=0}^\infty (-1)^{N_{{\bf

5078:       r+w}+x'\hat{\bf x}}}.   \nonumber

5079: \end{eqnarray}

5080: The vortex kinetic terms also transform

5081: \begin{equation}

5082:   \label{eq:unitary1a}

5083:   U_1^\dagger H^{Z_2}_{kin} U_1^{\vphantom\dagger}  =  \left. H^{Z_2}_{kin}

5084:   \right|_{\overline{\sigma}_j^x({\sf r}) \rightarrow

5085:     \overline{\sigma}_j^x \overline{\sigma}_j^{x,{\rm

5086:         slave}}({\sf r}; n)},

5087: \end{equation}

5088: with

5089: \begin{eqnarray}

5090:   \label{eq:sigmaxslave}

5091:   \overline{\sigma}_1^{x,{\rm slave}}({\sf r}) & = & 1,  \\

5092:   \overline{\sigma}_2^{x,{\rm slave}}({\sf r}) & = & = \prod_{x'=0}^\infty (-1)^{n^f_{{\sf

5093:       r}-\overline{\bf w}-x'\hat{\bf x}}}.   \nonumber

5094: \end{eqnarray}

5095: Simultaneously, the first constraint is rendered trivial

5096: \begin{equation}

5097:   \label{eq:trivialz2constraint1}

5098:  {\cal C}_{\bf r}^{1, {\rm slave}}= U_1^\dagger \tilde{\cal C}_{\bf r}^1

5099:    U_1^{\vphantom\dagger}  =  \prod_{\Box({\bf r})} \overline{\sigma}^x = 1.

5100: \end{equation}

5101: Further transformation with $U_2$ removes $\overline{\sigma}^x_j$

5102: from $H^{Z_2}_{kin}$ and trivializes the remaining constraint,

5103: i.e.

5104: \begin{equation}

5105:   \label{eq:trivialz2constraint2}

5106:  {\cal C}_{\sf r}^{2, {\rm slave}}= U_2^\dagger \tilde{\cal C}_{\sf r}^2

5107:    U_2^{\vphantom\dagger}  =  \prod_{\Box({\sf

5108:         r})} \sigma^z = 1.

5109: \end{equation}

5110: The final transformed Hamiltonian no longer involves any dynamical

5111: gauge fields (whose state is uniquely specified by

5112: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:trivialz2constraint1},~\ref{eq:trivialz2constraint2})),

5113: and is simply given by

5114: \begin{eqnarray}

5115:   \label{eq:z2slavefinal}

5116:   H_{Z_2}^{\rm slave} & = & U_{12}^\dagger

5117:   \tilde{H}_{Z_2} U_{12}^{\vphantom\dagger}

5118:  = \left. \tilde

5119:  {H}_{Z_2}\right|_{\sigma_j^\mu \rightarrow \sigma_j^{\mu,{\rm

5120:         slave}}}.

5121: \end{eqnarray}

5122: The electron destruction operator in the $Z_2$ vortex-spinon

5123: theory, $\tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\sigma}= \tilde{b}_{\bf r} f_{{\bf

5124: r}\sigma}$ with $\tilde{b}_{\bf r}$ in Eq.~(\ref{btilde}),

5125: transforms upon enslaving in an identical fashion,

5126: \begin{equation}

5127: U^\dagger_{12} \tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\sigma} U_{12}^{\vphantom\dagger}

5128: = \left. \tilde{c}_{{\bf r}\sigma}\right|_{\sigma_j^z \rightarrow

5129: \sigma_j^{z,{\rm slave}}}. \label{slaveZ2electron}

5130: \end{equation}

5131: 

5132: 

5133: 

5134: \section{Enslaving the $U(1)$ gauge theory} \label{ap:enslaveU1}

5135: 

5136: As for the $Z_2$ case, to enslave the gauge fields in the $U(1)$

5137: formulation we apply two sequential unitary transformations,

5138: $U_{ab} = U_a U_b$, with

5139: \begin{equation}

5140: U_a= e^{i\sum_{{\sf r},{\sf r}^\prime} N_{\sf r} V({\sf r} - {\sf

5141: r}^\prime) (\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{\alpha})({\sf r}^\prime)}

5142: e^{i\sum_{{\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime} n^f_{\bf r} V({\bf r} - {\bf

5143: r}^\prime) (\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{\beta})({\bf r}^\prime)} ,

5144: \end{equation}

5145: where $\nabla^2 V({\bf r} - {\bf r}^\prime) = \delta_{{\bf r}{\bf

5146: r}^\prime}$ and,

5147: \begin{equation}

5148: U_b = e^{{i \over 2} \sum_{{\bf r},{\sf r}^\prime} n^f_{\bf r}

5149: \Theta({\bf r} - {\sf r}^\prime) N_{{\sf r}^\prime}} ,

5150: \end{equation}

5151: where the lattice Laplacian is

5152: \begin{equation}

5153:   \label{eq:laplacian}

5154:   \nabla^2 f({\bf r}) = \sum_j \partial_j^2 f({\bf r}-{\bf\hat{x}}_j)

5155:   = \sum_j f({\bf r}+{\bf\hat{x}}_j) +  f({\bf r}-{\bf\hat{x}}_j)

5156:   -2f({\bf r}).

5157: \end{equation}

5158: 

5159: Here we have introduced a ``angle'' function $\Theta({\bf r}-{\sf

5160: r}')$, to be determined later.

5161: The two unitary transformations commute with one another. Again,

5162: both $H_{pl}$ and $H_N$ are invariant commuting with $U_a$ and

5163: $U_b$, whereas under application of $U_a$ the vortex kinetic

5164: energy transforms to,

5165: \begin{equation}

5166:   U_a^\dagger H_{kin} U_a^{\vphantom\dagger}  =  \left. H_{kin}

5167:   \right|_{e^{i\alpha_j} \rightarrow

5168:     e^{i\alpha^t_j} e^{i\alpha_j^{slave}(n^f)} }.

5169: \end{equation}

5170: Here, $\alpha_j^t$ is the transverse part of $\alpha_j$ and

5171: $\alpha_j^{slave}$ satisfies,

5172: \begin{equation}

5173: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j^{slave}({\bf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi

5174: n^f_{\bf r} ; \hskip1cm \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\alpha}^{slave} = 0

5175: .

5176: \end{equation}

5177: Similarly, the spinon and electron hopping Hamiltonians transform

5178: to,

5179: \begin{eqnarray}

5180:   U_a^\dagger H_{s/e} U_a^{\vphantom\dagger} & = &\left. H_{s/e}

5181:   \right|_{e^{i\beta_j} \rightarrow

5182:     e^{i\beta^t_j} e^{i\beta_j^{slave}(N)}},

5183: \end{eqnarray}

5184: with $\beta_j^t$ the transverse part of $\beta_j$ and

5185: \begin{equation}

5186: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \beta_j^{slave}({\sf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi

5187: N_{\sf r} ; \hskip1cm \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\beta}^{slave} = 0

5188: .\label{eq:betaslave}

5189: \end{equation}

5190: Notice that the longitudinal parts of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have

5191: been eliminated, and the remaining transverse pieces commute with

5192: one another and can be treated as c-numbers. Simultaneously, the

5193: two $U(1)$ constraints are rendered trivial,

5194: \begin{equation}

5195: {\cal G}_f^{slave} = U_a^\dagger {\cal G}_f U_a^{\vphantom\dagger}

5196: = e^{-{i \over \pi} \sum_{\bf r} \Lambda_{\bf r} \epsilon_{ij}

5197: \partial_i \alpha^t_j({\bf r} - {\bf w})} = 1  ,

5198: \end{equation}

5199: \begin{equation}

5200: {\cal G}_v^{slave} = U_a^\dagger {\cal G}_v U_a^{\vphantom\dagger}

5201: = e^{{i \over \pi} \sum_{\sf r} \chi_{\sf r} \epsilon_{ij}

5202: \partial_i \beta^t_j({\sf r} - {\bf w})} = 1  ,

5203: \end{equation}

5204: implying that $\alpha_j^t=\beta^t_j =0$, and fully eliminating

5205: both gauge fields from the full transformed Hamiltonian,

5206: \begin{equation}

5207: U_a^\dagger H U_a^{\vphantom\dagger} = \left. H

5208:   \right|_{e^{i\alpha_j},e^{i\beta_j} \rightarrow e^{i\alpha_j^{slave}},

5209:   e^{i\beta_j^{slave}}}  .

5210:   \end{equation}

5211: 

5212: Further transformation with $U_b$, which is essentially a

5213: non-singular gauge transformation of both the vortices and

5214: spinons, modifies the enslaved gauge fields (so that they vanish

5215: on the horizontal bonds and are integer multiples of $\pi$ on the

5216: vertical bonds) while leaving the gauge fluxes invariant.

5217: Specifically, we require

5218: \begin{eqnarray}

5219:   \label{eq:thetarequire}

5220:   \partial_x \Theta({\bf r}) & = &

5221:   2\tilde\beta_x({\bf r}), \qquad \forall {\bf r},\\

5222:   \partial_y \Theta({\bf r}) & = & 2\tilde\beta_y({\bf r}) \qquad \forall

5223:   {\bf r} \neq x{\bf\hat{x}}+{\bf\overline{w}}, x\geq 0.

5224: \end{eqnarray}

5225:  Here $\tilde\beta_j({\bf r})$ is the enslaved gauge field

5226: configuration for a vortex located at ${\sf r}=0$ (i.e. determined

5227: from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:betaslave}) with $N_{\sf r}=\delta_{\sf r,0}$).

5228: The transverseness of $\tilde\beta_j$ implies then

5229: \begin{equation}

5230:   \label{eq:ThetaLaplace}

5231:   \nabla^2 \Theta({\bf r}+{\bf\overline{w}}) = \psi_x

5232:   (\delta_{y,0}-\delta_{y,-1}),

5233: \end{equation}

5234: with an unknown function $\psi_x$ such that $\psi_x=0$ for $x<0$.

5235: Taking a line sum around the origin requires then

5236: \begin{equation}

5237:   \label{eq:bcslave}

5238:   \partial_y \Theta(x{\bf\hat{x}}+{\bf\overline{w}}) = -2\pi

5239:   +2\tilde\beta_y(x{\bf\hat{x}}+{\bf\overline{w}}),

5240: \end{equation}

5241: for $x\geq 0$.  Eqs.\ref{eq:ThetaLaplace},\ref{eq:bcslave} are the

5242: lattice analog of Laplace's equation and the condition that

5243: $\Theta$ jumps by $2\pi$ across the positive $x$-axis.  These

5244: conditions determine $\psi_x$ and hence $\Theta$.  After some

5245: algebra, the solution is expressible as a Fourier integral

5246: \begin{equation}

5247:   \label{eq:Thetafour}

5248:   \Theta({\bf r}) = \int_{\bf k} \Theta({\bf k}) e^{i{\bf k\cdot r}},

5249: \end{equation}

5250: where

5251: \begin{equation}

5252:   \label{eq:Thetasol}

5253:   \Theta({\bf k}) = -\frac{{2\pi} e^{i {\bf

5254:         k\cdot\overline{w}}}}{{\cal K}^2 F(k_x)} \left[ \frac{{\cal

5255:         K}_y^*}{{\cal K}_x^*}- {{\cal

5256:         K}_x^*}{{\cal K}_y^*} I(k_x)\right],

5257: \end{equation}

5258: with

5259: \begin{eqnarray}

5260:   \label{eq:integrals}

5261:   F(k_x) & = & 1 - \frac{|\sin(k_x/2)|}{\sqrt{\sin^2(k_x/2)+1}}, \\

5262:   I(k_x) & = & \frac{1}{4\sin(k_x/2) \sqrt{\sin^2(k_x/2)+1}}.

5263: \end{eqnarray}

5264: For large arguments, the asymptotic behavior can be obtained,

5265: \begin{equation}

5266: \Theta({\bf r}) \sim {\rm arctan}[y/x],

5267: \end{equation}

5268: for $\sqrt{x^2+y^2}\gg 1$, with the ${\rm arctan}$ defined on the

5269: interval $[0,2\pi]$.  Hence $\Theta({\bf r})$ gives a proper

5270: lattice version of the continuum angle function.

5271: 

5272: With this definition, one finds

5273: \begin{equation}

5274: H^{slave} = U_{ab}^\dagger H U_{ab}^{\vphantom\dagger} = \left. H

5275:   \right|_{e^{i\alpha_j},e^{i\beta_j} \rightarrow \overline{\sigma}_j^{x,slave},

5276:   \sigma_j^{z,slave}}  ,

5277:   \end{equation}

5278: with $\overline{\sigma}_j^{x,slave}({\sf r};n^f)$ and $

5279: \sigma_j^{z,slave}({\bf r};N)$ as defined in

5280: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmaxslave}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigmazslave}),

5281: respectively.  Remarkably, the enslaved $U(1)$ Hamiltonian is {\it

5282: identical} to the enslaved $Z_2$ Hamiltonian in

5283: Eq.~(\ref{eq:z2slavefinal}); $H^{slave} \equiv H_{Z_2}^{slave}$.

5284: 

5285: We have thereby established the formal equivalence between the

5286: $Z_2$ and $U(1)$ formulations of the vortex-spinon field theory -

5287: the unitarily transformed enslaved versions of the original

5288: Hamiltonians $\tilde{H}_{Z_2}$ and $H$ in

5289: Eqs.~(\ref{HamZ2vs},\ref{HamU1vs}) are identical to one another.

5290: Finally, we can verify that the enslaved versions of the electron

5291: operators in the $U(1)$ and $Z_2$ formulations also coincide. From

5292: the definition of the electron operator in the $U(1)$ formulation,

5293: $c_{{\bf r}\sigma}$ in Eq.~(\ref{electronU1}), one can readily

5294: show that,

5295: \begin{equation}

5296:  U_{ab}^\dagger c_{{\bf r}\sigma}

5297: U_{ab}^{\vphantom\dagger} = \left.  c_{{\bf r}\sigma}

5298:   \right|_{e^{i\beta_j} \rightarrow

5299:   \sigma_j^{z,slave}}  .

5300:   \end{equation}

5301: With the analogous expression for the enslaved $Z_2$ electron

5302: operator in Eq.~(\ref{slaveZ2electron}), and upon comparing the

5303: defining expressions of the electron operators in the $Z_2$ and

5304: $U(1)$ formulations in Eqs.~(\ref{electronZ2}) and

5305: (\ref{electronU1}), respectively, one thereby establishes the

5306: desired formal equivalence: $U^\dagger_{12} \tilde{c}_{{\bf

5307: r}\sigma} U_{12} \equiv U_{ab}^\dagger c_{{\bf r}\sigma}U_{ab}$.

5308: 

5309: 

5310: 

5311: \section{The Vortex-electron formulation} \label{ap:elecform}

5312: 

5313: In this Appendix we briefly discuss a third Hamiltonian

5314: formulation of the vortex-fermion field theory.  The

5315: vortex-electron Hamiltonian will be expressed in terms of

5316: ``electron operators'', or more correctly operators which create

5317: excitations having a non-vanishing overlap with the bare electron.

5318: In order to transform to this formulation, we start with the

5319: enslaved version of the $U(1)$ vortex-spinon Hamiltonian as

5320: obtained in Appendix \ref{ap:enslaveU1}:

5321: \begin{equation}

5322: U_a^\dagger H U_a^{\vphantom\dagger} = \left. H

5323:   \right|_{e^{i\alpha_j},e^{i\beta_j} \rightarrow e^{i\alpha_j^{slave}},

5324:   e^{i\beta_j^{slave}}}  ,

5325:   \end{equation}

5326: where $\alpha_j^{slave}$ and $\beta_j^{slave}$ satisfy,

5327: \begin{equation}

5328: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \alpha_j^{slave}({\bf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi

5329: n^f_{\bf r} ; \hskip1cm \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\alpha}^{slave} = 0

5330: ,

5331: \end{equation}

5332: \begin{equation}

5333: \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i \beta_j^{slave}({\sf r} - {\bf w}) = \pi

5334: N_{\sf r} ; \hskip1cm \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\beta}^{slave} = 0 .

5335: \end{equation}

5336: Now consider the unitary transformation,

5337: \begin{equation} U_{el}= e^{{i \over 2} \sum_{{\bf r},{\bf

5338: r}^\prime} n^f_{\bf r} V({\bf r} - {\bf r}^\prime) \epsilon_{ij}

5339: \partial_i e_j({\bf r}^\prime - {\bf w})} ,

5340: \end{equation}

5341: where again $\nabla^2 V({\bf r} - {\bf r}^\prime) = \delta_{{\bf

5342: r}{\bf r}^\prime}$.  As is apparent from

5343: Eqs.~(\ref{SvortSphi},\ref{elecspinon}) this transformation takes

5344: one from the spinon operator to the electron operator,

5345: \begin{equation}

5346: U^\dagger_{el} f_{{\bf r}\sigma} U_{el}  = {\cal S}_\phi({\bf r})

5347: f_{{\bf r}\sigma} = c_{{\bf r} \sigma} .

5348: \end{equation}

5349: Here ${\cal S}_{\phi}({\bf r}) = \prod_{\bf r}^\infty

5350:  e^{-i \pi

5351: e_j^t}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{SvortSphi}) and the last equality

5352: follows from Eq.~(\ref{elecspinon}) in the enslaved gauge with

5353: purely transverse gauge field, $\beta^{\ell}=0$. The electrical

5354: charge density in the vortex-spinon formulation transforms to

5355: include the {\it electron} density:

5356: \begin{equation}

5357: U^\dagger_{el} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j({\bf r} - {\bf w})

5358: U_{el} = \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j({\bf r} - {\bf w})  + \pi

5359: c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma} c_{{\bf r}\sigma} .

5360: \end{equation}

5361: 

5362: 

5363: The full Hamiltonian density within the vortex-electron

5364: formulation is readily obtained from the enslaved vortex-spinon

5365: Hamiltonian:  ${\cal H}_{ve} = U^\dagger_{el} U^\dagger_a {\cal H}

5366: U_a U_{el}$.  It can be compactly expressed as,

5367: \begin{eqnarray}

5368: {\cal H}_{ve} &=& {u_v \over 2} \sum_j e^2_j + {v_0^2  \over 2 u_v

5369: } [ \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j + c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}

5370: c_{{\bf

5371: r}\sigma} - \pi \rho_0 ]^2 \nonumber \\

5372:  &+& {\cal H}_v(a_j) + {\cal H}_r(a_j) +

5373: {\cal H}_f  ,

5374: \end{eqnarray}

5375: where ${\cal H}_v$ and ${\cal H}_r$ denote the vortex and roton

5376: hopping terms, respectively, and are given explicitly as,

5377: \begin{equation}

5378: {\cal H}_v(a_j) = -t_v \sum_j \cos(a_j)  ,

5379: \end{equation}

5380: \begin{equation}

5381: {\cal H}_{r}(a_j) = -{\kappa_r \over 2} \sum_i \cos(\epsilon_{ij}

5382: \partial_i a_j)  .

5383: \end{equation}

5384: The fermionic Hamiltonian is

5385: \begin{eqnarray}

5386:   \label{eq:Hfelect}

5387: {\cal H}_f  & = &  - \sum_j t_e c^\dagger_{{\bf r} + {\bf

5388: \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

5389:     c^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} \\

5390:      & & \hspace{-0.5in} -  \sum_j e^{i\pi \overline{e}_j ({\bf r}) } [t_s

5391: c^\dagger_{{\bf r} + {\bf \hat{x}}_j \sigma}

5392:     c^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r} \sigma} + \Delta_j B_{\bf r}^\dagger c_{{\bf r}+\hat{\bf

5393:         x}_j \sigma} \epsilon_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{{\bf r}\sigma'} + {\rm

5394:       h.c.}] . \nonumber

5395: \end{eqnarray}

5396: The electric field appearing in the spinon hopping term yields the

5397: same physical effects as the gauge field in the $U(1)$

5398: formulation. Specifically, when the electron hops from one site to

5399: a neighboring site,  the factor $e^{i\pi \overline{\epsilon}}$

5400: which shifts the gauge field $a_j$ by $\pi$, effectively hops a

5401: compensating chargon in the opposite direction. In addition, this

5402: minimal coupling form encodes the requisite minus sign when a

5403: spinon is hopped around a vortex and vice versa. The full

5404: Hamiltonian must be supplemented with the constraint that

5405: $\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{e} = N$, with integer $N$. We emphasize

5406: that the total spin,

5407: \begin{equation}

5408: \vec{S} = {1 \over 2} \sum_{\bf r} c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}

5409: \vec{\tau}_{\sigma \sigma^\prime} c^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf

5410: r}\sigma^\prime} ,

5411: \end{equation}

5412: and electric charge,

5413: \begin{equation}

5414: Q = \sum_{\bf r} [ {1 \over \pi} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_i a_j({\bf

5415: r} - {\bf w}) + c^\dagger_{{\bf r}\sigma}

5416: c^{\vphantom\dagger}_{{\bf r}\sigma} ] ,

5417: \end{equation}

5418: are conserved, commuting with ${\cal H}_{ve}$.

5419: 

5420: 

5421: It is of course also possible to pass to a Euclidean path integral

5422: representation of the partition function associated with the above

5423: vortex-electron Hamiltonian. Specifically, the corresponding

5424: Euclidean Lagrangian can be readily expressed as,

5425: \begin{equation}

5426: {\cal L}_{ve} = i e_j \partial_0 a_j + c^\dagger_{\bf r}

5427: \partial_0 c^{\vphantom\dagger}_{\bf r} + ia_0(\vec{\nabla} \cdot

5428: \vec{e} - N_{\sf r}) + {\cal H}_{ve} ,

5429: \end{equation}

5430: where the time component of the gauge field $a_0({\sf r})$ lives

5431: on the sites of the dual lattice.  In the partition function, the

5432: vortex number $N_{\sf r}$ is a continuous field running over the

5433: real numbers, but the integration only contributes when $N$ is

5434: integer.  To see why, it is instructive to let $a_\mu \rightarrow

5435: a_\mu - \partial_\mu \theta$, and to integrate the vortex phase

5436: variable $\theta$ over the reals.  Since the Hamiltonian is $2\pi$

5437: periodic in $\theta$, upon splitting the integration as

5438: $\partial_0 \theta = 2\pi \ell + \partial_0 \tilde{\theta}$ with

5439: $\tilde{\theta}=[0,2\pi]$, the summation of $exp(i2\pi \ell N)$

5440: over integer $\ell$ vanishes unless the vortex number $N$ is an

5441: integer.

5442: 

5443: To obtain a more tractable representation of the Lagrangian, we

5444: introduce a Hubbard-Stratonovich field, $e_0({\bf r})$, to decouple the

5445: Coulomb interaction term above.  Here $i e_0$ has the physical meaning of

5446: a dynamical electrostatic potential.  In this way the full

5447: Euclidean Lagrangian can be conveniently decomposed as the sum of a

5448: bosonic charge sector and a fermionic spin and charge carrying sector,

5449: ${\cal L}_{ve} = {\cal L}_c + {\cal L}_f$.  The full bosonic sector is

5450: given by,

5451: \begin{eqnarray}

5452: {\cal L}_c &=& {u_v \over 2} [e_j^2 + {1 \over {\pi^2 v_0^2}} e_0^2 ] +

5453: ie_j(\partial_0 a_j - \partial_j a_0) - \frac{i}{\pi} e_0 \epsilon_{ij}

5454: \partial_i a_j \nonumber \\

5455: &+& i (\partial_0 \theta - a_0) N + {\cal L}_v + {\cal L}_r ,

5456: \end{eqnarray}

5457: with vortex and roton hopping terms,

5458: \begin{equation}

5459: {\cal L}_v = -t_v \sum_j \cos(\partial_j \theta - a_j)  ,

5460: \end{equation}

5461: \begin{equation}

5462: {\cal L}_{r} = -{\kappa_r \over 2} [ \cos(\Delta_{xy} \theta -

5463: \partial_x a_y) + (x \leftrightarrow y)] .

5464: \end{equation}

5465: The Lagrangian density in the fermionic sector is,

5466: \begin{equation}

5467: {\cal L}_f = c^\dagger_{\bf r} (\partial_0 - i e_0) c_{\bf r} +

5468: {\cal H}_f + i e_0 \rho_0  .

5469: \end{equation}

5470: 

5471: In addition to the global symmetries corresponding to spin and

5472: charge conservation, the full Lagrangian has a local gauge

5473: symmetry, being invariant under,

5474: \begin{eqnarray}

5475:     \label{eq:gauge1}

5476:     \theta_{\sf r} & \rightarrow & \theta_{\sf r} + \Theta_{\sf r},

5477:     \nonumber \\ 

5478:     a_\mu({\sf r}) & \rightarrow & a_\mu({\sf r}) + \partial_\mu \Theta_{\sf

5479:     r},

5480:   \end{eqnarray}

5481: with $\Theta_{\sf r}$ an arbitrary function of space and imaginary

5482: time.  Because of this gauge invariance we are free to choose an

5483: appropriate gauge.

5484: 

5485: 

5486: 

5487: \section{Polarization tensor}

5488: \label{sec:appendix}

5489: 

5490: In this appendix, we calculate the corrections to the polarization

5491: tensor $\Pi_{ij}$ at $O(t_v^2)$ including fluctuations of both

5492: $\tilde{a}$ and $\theta$, for the general case $v_0<\infty$.

5493: Integrating out all dynamical fields to $O(t_v^2)$, one finds that the

5494: effective action as a functional of $A_j$ takes the

5495: form $S_A^{\rm eff} = S_A^0 + S_A^{(2)}$, where

5496: \begin{equation}

5497:   \label{eq:sa2}

5498:   S_{A}^{(2)}  =  -\frac{t_v^2}{2}e^{S_A^0}    \sum_{\sf r,r'}

5499:   \int_{\tau\tau'}

5500:  \bigg\langle  C_i({\sf r},\tau) C_j({\sf r}^\prime,\tau^\prime)   e^{-S_A} \bigg\rangle_{A=0},

5501: \end{equation}

5502: with the shorthand notation, $C_i({\sf r},\tau) = \cos(\partial_i \theta -

5503:     \tilde{a}_i)_{{\sf r}\tau}$ and with

5504: the $\langle \cdot\rangle_{A=0}$ indicating a Gaussian average

5505: with respect to the RL action.  This can be written as

5506: \begin{equation}

5507:   \label{eq:sa2a}

5508:   S_A^{(2)} = -\frac{t_v^2}{4} e^{S_A^0} \left( e^{\langle \Gamma_x^2

5509:       \rangle_{A=0}} + e^{\langle \Gamma_y^2 \rangle_{A=0}}\right),

5510: \end{equation}

5511: with

5512: \begin{eqnarray}

5513:   \label{eq:gammadef}

5514:   \Gamma_x & = & \int_{{\bf k},\omega_n}

5515: [ (\psi_{{\bf k}\omega_n}  \frac{{\cal

5516:       K}_x^*}{{\cal K}} + \frac{i\omega_n {\cal K}_j^* A_j}{\pi{\cal

5517:       K}}) a({\bf k},\omega_n)  \nonumber \\

5518: & & - \psi_{{\bf k}\omega_n} {\cal K}_y

5519:   \theta({\bf k},\omega_n) ] ,

5520: \end{eqnarray}

5521: $\psi_{{\bf k}\omega_n} = e^{i({\bf k}\cdot{\sf r}-\omega_n\tau)}

5522: -  e^{i({\bf k}\cdot{\sf r'}-\omega_n\tau')}$, and $\Gamma_y$ obtained

5523: from $\Gamma_x$ by $x\leftrightarrow y$.  Evaluating the

5524: expectation value gives

5525: \begin{eqnarray}

5526:   \label{eq:sa2b}

5527:   S_A^{(2)} & \sim & -t_v^2 \sum_{xx'y}\int_{\tau\tau'}

5528:     \frac{1}{[x^2+v_{rot}^2(\tau-\tau')^2]^{\Delta_v}} \\

5529:     & \times & e^{\int_{{\bf k}\omega_n} \frac{i\omega_n

5530:         u_v}{\pi{\cal K}^2} \psi_{-{\bf k},-\omega_n} (\tilde{\cal

5531:         K}_y G_{12} + \tilde{\cal K}_x G_{11}) \tilde{K}_j A_j({\bf

5532:         -k},-\omega_n)} \nonumber \\ & & + x\leftrightarrow y. \nonumber

5533: \end{eqnarray}

5534: Since we are interested in the polarization tensor, we may expand the

5535: exponential in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sa2b}) to $O(A^2)$ to obtain $\Pi_{ij} =

5536: \Pi_{ij}^0 + \Pi_{ij}^{(2)}$, with

5537: \begin{eqnarray}

5538:   \label{eq:polar2}

5539:   \Pi_{ij}^{(2)} & \sim & -\frac{t_v^2\omega_n^2 u_v^2}{2{\cal K}^4}

5540:   (\omega_n^2+v_{rot}^2 k_x^2)^{\Delta_v-1} \nonumber \\ &  \times &

5541:    |\tilde{\cal K}_y G_{12} + \tilde{\cal K}_x G_{11}|^2 \tilde{K}_i

5542:    \tilde{K}_j + (x \leftrightarrow y).

5543: \end{eqnarray}

5544: In the limit of interest for the conductivity, $|{\bf k}|\rightarrow

5545: 0$ at fixed frequency, $G_{11} \gg G_{12}$, and we obtain

5546: Eq.~(\ref{eq:polar3}) of the main text.

5547: 

5548: 

5549: 

5550: 

5551: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

5552: 

5553: \bibitem{PWA1}  P.W. Anderson, Science, {\bf 235}, 1196 (1987).

5554: 

5555: \bibitem{KRS} S. Kivelson, D.S. Rokhsar, and J. Sethna, Phys. Rev.

5556:   {\bf B35}, 8865 (1987).

5557: 

5558: \bibitem{SubirReview} S. Sachdev, Annals Phys. {\bf 303}, 226 (2003).

5559: 

5560: \bibitem{NL}  L. Balents, M.P.A. Fisher and C. Nayak,

5561: Intnl. J.

5562: Mod. Phys. B{\bf 12}, 1033 (1998); Phys. Rev. B{\bf 60}, 1654 (1999);

5563: Phys. Rev. B{\bf 61}, 6307 (2000).

5564: 

5565: \bibitem{Z2} T. Senthil and Matthew P.A. Fisher,

5566: Phys. Rev. {\bf B62}, 7850 (2000).

5567: 

5568: \bibitem{earlyvison1} For early papers

5569: on the topological vortex in spin-charge separated

5570: states see, N. Read and B. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. {\bf B40}, 7133 (1989);

5571: S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. {\bf B39}, 259 (1989).

5572: 

5573: \bibitem{earlyvison2} X.G. Wen, Phys. Rev. {\bf B44}, 2664 (1991).

5574: 

5575: \bibitem{vison1} T. Senthil and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

5576:     86}, 292 (2001). 

5577: 

5578: \bibitem{vison2} T. Senthil and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 63}, 134521 (2001); Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 214511 (2001).

5579: 

5580: \bibitem{visexp1}  J.C. Wynn, D.A. Bonn, B.W. Gardner, Y.J. Lin, R.X.

5581: Liang, W.N. Hardy, J.R. Kirtley, K.A. Moler, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 197002 (2001).

5582: 

5583: \bibitem{visexp2}  D.A. Bonn, J.C. Wynn, B.W. Gardner, Y.J. Lin, R.

5584: Liang, W.N. Hardy,

5585: J.R. Kirtley and K.A. Moler, Nature {\bf 414}, 887-889 (2001)

5586: 

5587: \bibitem{EBL} A. Paramekanti, L. Balents and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys.

5588:   Rev. B. {\bf 66}, 4526 (2002).

5589:  

5590: \bibitem{PWAbook} See ``The Theory of Superconductivity in the

5591:   high-$T_c$ Cuprates'', 

5592: by P.W. Anderson, Princeton University Press (Princeton N.J., 1997),

5593: and references therein.

5594: 

5595: \bibitem{tesanovic} see, e.g. M. Franz, Z. Tesanovic, and O. Vafek,

5596:   Phys.Rev. B{\bf 66}, 054535 (2002); I.F. Herbut, Phys.Rev. B{\bf 66},

5597:   094504 (2002).

5598: 

5599: \bibitem{Duality} For a discussion of the dual vortex-field

5600: theory for 2d bosons

5601: see,  M.P.A. Fisher and D.H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 39}, 2756 (1989) and

5602: X.G. Wen and A. Zee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf 4}, 437 (1990).

5603: 

5604: \bibitem{2dXY}

5605: J. V. Jos\'e, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson

5606: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 16}, 1217 (1977).

5607: 

5608: \bibitem{BFunpub} L. Balents and M.P.A. Fisher, unpublished.

5609: 

5610: \bibitem{IoffeMillis} L.B. Ioffe and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. {\bf B58},

5611:   11631 (1998). 

5612: 

5613: \bibitem{Bosonization} For various approaches to bosonization

5614: see, for example,

5615: V. Emery,  in {\em Highly conducting one-dimensional solids}, edited by J.

5616: Devreese, R. Evrard, and V. Van~Doren (Plenum Press, New York, 1979), p.247;

5617: A.W.W. Ludwig, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. {\bf B8}, 347

5618: (1994);  R. Shankar, Acta Phys. Polonica B {\bf 26},  1835  (1995);

5619: M. P. A. Fisher and L. I. Glazman, Mes. Elec. Transp.,

5620: ed. by L.L. Sohn, L.P. Kouwenhoven, and G. Schon, NATO Series E,

5621: Vol. 345, 331 (Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, 1997).

5622: 

5623: 

5624: 

5625: \bibitem{FQHEbook} See, ``Perspectives in Quantum Hall effects'', edited by

5626: S. Das Sarma and A. Pinczuk, Wiley (New York, NY, 1997).

5627: 

5628: \bibitem{Anyon} R. B. Laughlin,

5629: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 2677 (1988);

5630: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 379 (1988).

5631: 

5632: \bibitem{U1A} G. Baskaran, Z. Zou, and P.W. Anderson, Solid State

5633:   Commun. {\bf 63}, 873 (1987);

5634: G. Baskaran and P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. {\bf B37}, 580 (1988).

5635: 

5636: \bibitem{U1B}I. Affleck and J.B. Marston, Phys. Rev. {\bf B37}, 3774

5637:   (1988); L. Ioffe and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. {\bf B 39}, 8988 (1989);

5638:   P.A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, T.-K. Ng, and X.G. Wen, Phys. Rev. {\bf B57},

5639:   6003 (1998).

5640: 

5641: \bibitem{Scalapino} D.J. Scalapino, E. Loh, Jr., and J.E. Hirsch, {\bf

5642:     Phys. Rev. B34}, 8190 (1986). 

5643: 

5644: \bibitem{Bosongauge} D. H. Kim, D. K. K. Lee, and P. A. Lee, Phys.

5645: Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 4801 (1996) and Phys. Rev. B {\it 55},

5646: 591-605 (1997).

5647: 

5648: 

5649: \bibitem{Polyakov} A. M. Polyakov, {\sl Gauge fields and Strings}

5650:   (Harwood Academic Publishers, London, 1987).

5651: 

5652: \bibitem{U1toZ2} N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 1773 (1991);

5653: S. Sachdev and N. Read, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf B5}, 219 (1991).

5654: 

5655: \bibitem{Frac1} R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi

5656: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1881 (2001);  C. Nayak and K. Shtengel

5657: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 064422 (2001);

5658: L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher, and S.M. Girvin Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 224412 (2002).

5659: 

5660: \bibitem{Frac2}   O. I. Motrunich and T. Senthil,  Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 89},

5661:   27704 (2002); T. Senthil and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66},

5662:   205104  (2002); 

5663: 

5664: 

5665: 

5666: 

5667: \bibitem{ddw} S. Chakravarty, R. B. Laughlin, D. K. Morr, and C. Nayak

5668: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 094503 (2001);  S. Tewari, H.-Y. Kee, C. Nayak, and S. Chakravarty Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 224516 (2001).

5669: 

5670: 

5671: \bibitem{stagflux}

5672: See F.C. Zhang, C. Gros, T.M. Rice and H. Shiba,

5673: Sci. Technol. {\bf 1}, 36 (1988).

5674: 

5675: \bibitem{stagshort}  D. A. Ivanov, P. A. Lee, and X.-G. Wen

5676: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf } 84, 3958 (2000).

5677: 

5678: \bibitem{Shankar} R. Shankar

5679: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 66}, 129 (1994).

5680: 

5681: \bibitem{ARPES} See, A. Damascelli, Z-X. Shen and Z. Hussain,

5682:   Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 473 (2003); and references therein.

5683: 

5684: \bibitem{expRlin} S. Martin, A. T. Fiory, R. M. Fleming, L. F. Schneemeyer, and J. V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 846 (1990);  S. J. Hagen, T. W. Jing, Z. Z. Wang, J. Horvath, and N. P. Ong

5685: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 7928 (1988).

5686: 

5687: 

5688: \bibitem{expHall1}

5689: J. M. Harris, Y. F. Yan, and N. P. Ong,

5690: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 46}, 14293 (1992).

5691: 

5692: \bibitem{expHall2} J. M. Harris, H. Wu, N. P. Ong, R. L. Meng, and C. W. Chu,

5693: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 3246 (1994).

5694: 

5695: 

5696: \bibitem{Taillefer} See, R.W. Hill, C. Proust, L. Taillefer, P.

5697: Fournier and R.L. Greene, Nature {\bf 414}, 711 (2001).

5698: 

5699: 

5700: 

5701: 

5702: 

5703: 

5704: 

5705: 

5706: 

5707: 

5708: 

5709: 

5710: 

5711: 

5712: 

5713: \end{thebibliography}

5714: 

5715: 

5716: 

5717: 

5718: \end{document}

5719: