1: %\input{tcilatex}

2: %\input{tcilatex}

3: %\input{tcilatex}

4: %\input{tcilatex}

5: %\input{tcilatex}

6: %\input{tcilatex}

7: %\input{tcilatex}

8: %\input{tcilatex}

9: %\input{tcilatex}

10: %\input{tcilatex}

11: %\input{tcilatex}

12: %\input{tcilatex}

13: %\input{tcilatex}

14: %\input{tcilatex}

15: %\input{tcilatex}

16: %\input{tcilatex}

17: %\input{tcilatex}

18: %\input{tcilatex}

19: 

20: 

21: \documentclass[prb,showpacs,showkeywords]{revtex4}

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: \usepackage{amsmath}

24: \usepackage{graphicx}

25: 

26: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}

27: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}

28: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}

29: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Saturday, May 08, 2004 17:32:19}

30: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

31: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

32: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=revtex4.cst}

33: %TCIDATA{PageSetup=72,72,72,72,0}

34: %TCIDATA{Counters=arabic,1}

35: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="PrintViewPercent" CONTENT="100">}

36: %TCIDATA{AllPages=

37: %H=36

38: %F=36

39: %}

40: 

41: 

42: \input{tcilatex}

43: 

44: \begin{document}

45: 

46: \title{Magnetic phases of $t-J$ model on triangular lattice}

47: \author{Yongjin Jiang}

48: \affiliation{Center for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China}

49: \author{Fan Yang}

50: \affiliation{Center for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China}

51: \author{Tao Li}

52: \affiliation{Center for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China}

53: 

54: \begin{abstract}

55: We study the magnetic properties of the $t-J$ model on triangular lattice in

56: light of the recently discovered superconductivity in Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$

57: system. \ We formulate the problem in the Schwinger Boson - slave Fermion

58: scheme and proposed a sound mean field ansatz(canting ansatz) for the RVB\

59: order parameters. Working with the canting ansatz, we map out the

60: temperature-doping phase diagram of the model for both sign of the hopping

61: term. We find the prediction of the $t-J$ model differ drastically from that

62: of earlier LSDA calculation and there is large doping range in which the

63: system show zero net magnetization, rather than saturated magnetization as

64: predicted in the LSDA calculation. We show the result of LSDA is unreliable

65: in the strong coupling regime due to its neglect of electron correlation. We

66: find the spin Berry phase play a vital role in this geometrically frustrated

67: system and the various states in the phases diagram are characterized(and

68: distinguished) by their respective spin Berry phase, rather than any

69: Landau-like order parameter related to broken symmetry. We find the spin

70: Berry phase is responsible for the qualitative difference in the low energy

71: excitation spectrum of the various states of the phase diagram. We argue the

72: phase boundary in the mean field phase diagram may serve as the first

73: explicit and realistic example for phase transition between states with

74: different quantum orders which in our case is nothing but the spin Berry

75: phase. We also find an exotic state with nonzero spin chirality but no spin

76: ordering is stable in a large temperature and doping range and find this

77: state support a nonzero staggered current loop in the bulk of the system. We

78: propose to study this exotic state in the hole doped Na$_{1-x}$TiO$_{2}$

79: system. As\bigskip\ a by-product of this study, we also achieve an

80: improvement over earlier Schwinger Boson mean field theory of the triangular

81: antiferromagnet by obtaining two gapless spinon modes. We find the small gap

82: of the third spinon mode is caused by quantum fluctuation and our theory

83: reproduce the linear spin wave theory(LSWT) result in the semiclassical

84: limit.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: \pacs{74. 25. ha, 74.70.-b, 74.20.-z,71.27.+a}

88: \keywords{$t-J$ model, Berry phase, quantum order, Na_{x}CoO_{2}}

89: \maketitle

90: 

91: \section{Introduction}

92: 

93: The recent discovery of superconductivity below T$_{c}\simeq 4.5K$ in Na$%

94: _{x} $Co0$_{2}\cdot y$H$_{2}$O$(x\simeq 0.35,y\simeq 1.3)$ \cite{1}has

95: aroused much research interest. This material constitutes another example of

96: superconducting transition metal oxides with layered structure besides the

97: cuprates. The similarity between the two systems make it possible that the

98: study of the new superconductor may shed light on those difficult problems

99: in the study of the cuprates. In Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$ material, the Co$^{4+}$

100: ion possess a half spin and play a similar role as the Cu$^{2+}$ ion in

101: cuprates. However, the Co$^{4+}$ in Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$ form a triangular

102: lattice rather than square lattice as in the cuprates. From theoretical

103: point of view, triangular lattice system is even more interesting since it

104: is intrinsically frustrated.

105: 

106: Shortly after the discovery of superconductivity several theoretical

107: proposals are raised to address its mechanism\cite{2,3,4}. On the basis of

108: the mean field analysis on $t-J$ model, a $d+id\prime $ pairing state is

109: proposed by Barskran\cite{2}, while Tanaka et al proposed a triplet pairing

110: state based on symmetry consideration\cite{3}. Experimentally, the pairing

111: symmetry is still under debate\cite{5,6,7}. Besides superconductivity, this

112: system also exhibit nontrivial magnetic properties. In particular, a phase

113: transition at 22 $K$ from paramagnetic to weak ferromagnetic state is

114: reported in Na$_{0.75}$CoO$_{2}$\cite{8}. Experience in the study of

115: cuprates tell us that the magnetic degree of freedom may play an important

116: role in the low energy physics of this strongly correlated system.

117: Especially, it is important to find out the relation between the magnetic

118: properties and the superconductivity. Thus a comprehensive understanding of

119: the magnetic properties of this system is valuable. In this respect, Singh

120: calculated the magnetic properties of the system in the LSDA scheme\cite{9}

121: and found that the carrier in the conduction band is always fully polarized,

122: even in the half filled case. This result is inconsistent with the result of

123: the strong coupling analysis based on $t-J$ model. In the LSDA-like weak

124: coupling treatment, the tendency of the system toward ferromagnet state is

125: exaggerated due to the absence of electron correlation(the electron avoid

126: each other only through the Pauli exclusion principle which make the

127: ferromagnetic ordering of the electron spin energetically favorable). In

128: technical terms, the Stoner factor $1-UN(E_{F})$ overestimate the

129: ferromagnetic instability in the strongly correlated regime. In fact, as $U$

130: increase, the density of state at the Fermi energy is also depressed.

131: Especially, at the half filled case, $N(E_{F})$ may reduce to zero due to

132: the Mott insulator physics. Thus a through study of the magnetic properties

133: of the system in the strong coupling regime is deserved.

134: 

135: In this paper, we study the magnetic properties of the system within the$t-J$

136: model perspective. Complementary to the weak coupling picture, in the strong

137: coupling regime, it is the reduction of kinetic energy rather than the

138: potential energy that dominate the low energy physics and thus determine the

139: magnetic properties since the no double occupancy constraints in the $t-J$

140: model already take into account of the effect of the potential energy in the

141: zeroth order. Here the kinetic energy contains contribution from both real

142: charge transport of doped holes and the virtual hopping process that lead to

143: spin exchange. The real and virtual part of the kinetic energy are competing

144: with each other. The real kinetic energy favor ferromagnetic alignment of

145: the spin due to the Nagaoka physics while the virtual kinetic energy or the

146: superexchange favor antiferromagnetic alignment of spin since it is blocked

147: by Pauli exclusion principle. At half filling, the real process is depressed

148: and the virtual process dominate. Thus a fully polarized state is obviously

149: unfavorable in this case. In fact, the triangular $t-J$ model show zero net

150: magnetization at the half filling and is generally believed to be in a

151: coplanar 120$^{0}$ state with three sublattices\cite{10,11,12,13}(see Figure

152: 1). How dose this state evolve with doping? This is the central problem we

153: want to address in this paper. We find the answer depend crucially on the

154: sign of the hoping term of the $t-J$ model(on a triangular lattice, the

155: particle hole symmetry is broken and the sign of the hopping term is

156: essential). A negative hopping matrix element will induce a $\pi $ -flux

157: around each triangular plaqutte of the lattice and frustrate the motion of

158: the charge carrier. The charge carrier will also see another flux due to the

159: spin Berry phase in a noncollinear spin background. The interplay between

160: the two result in a complex doping dependence of the magnetic properties

161: found in this work. Although the hopping term in the Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$

162: system is positive, we will consider both positive and negative sign case in

163: our paper for general interest.

164: 

165: In this paper, we treat the $t-J$ model in the slave Fermion - Schwinger

166: Boson formalism since it is convenient for the discussion of magnetic

167: properties. At half filling, the spin system is in a coplanar state with

168: three sublattices. The spin in the three sublattices lay symmetrically on

169: their common plane with a 120$^{0}$ angle between each other. From this

170: state, the most natural way for the system to obtain a net magnetization is

171: to tilt the spin of the three sublattices symmetrically above their common

172: plane. This is supported by a unrestricted search of the semiclassical

173: energy functional. The state so obtained is called a canting state. With

174: this picture in mind, we propose a sound ansatz for the mean field RVB order

175: parameter for the spins. We call the mean field ansatz constructed in this

176: way the canting ansatz. Working with the canting ansatz, we map out the

177: whole doping-temperature phase diagram of the $t-J$ model for both sign of

178: the hopping term. The main result result of this paper can be summarized as

179: follow.

180: 

181: We find there is large doping range in which the system show zero net

182: magnetization, rather than saturated magnetization as predicted in the LSDA

183: calculation. Thus the LSDA result is unreliable in the strong coupling

184: regime.

185: 

186: We find the spin Berry phase play a vital role in this geometrically

187: frustrated system. We find the various states in the phase diagram are

188: characterized(and distinguished) by their respective spin Berry phase,

189: rather than any Landau-like order parameter related to broken symmetry. We

190: also find the spin Berry phase is responsible for the qualitative difference

191: in the low energy excitation spectrum of the various states in the phase

192: diagram. We argue that the phase boundary in the mean field phase diagram

193: are true phase transition lines and may serve as the first explicit and

194: realistic example for phase transition between states with different quantum

195: orders\cite{14}. We argue the spin Berry phase provide a first realistic

196: example for the concept of quantum order.

197: 

198: We find there exists an exotic state with nonzero spin chirality but no spin

199: ordering in a large temperature and doping range. We find this exotic state

200: support nonzero staggered current loop in the bulk of the system and propose

201: to study this exotic state in the hole doped Na$_{1-x}$TiO$_{2}$ system.

202: 

203: As\bigskip\ a by-product of this study, we also achieve an improvement over

204: earlier Schwinger Boson mean field theory on the triangular antiferromagnet.

205: The canting ansatz proposed in this paper lead to two branches of gapless

206: spinon modes. We find the small gap of the third spinon mode is caused by

207: quantum fluctuation and our theory reproduce the linear spin wave theory

208: result in the semiclassical limit.

209: 

210: Finally, we find our general phase diagram is consistent with experimental

211: result on Na$_{1-x}$CoO$_{2}$ system and a singlet pairing picture may be

212: more relevant in the small doping regime.

213: 

214: The paper is organized as follows. In section II, the Schwinger Boson-slave

215: Fermion representation for the $t-J$ model and our working ansatz, the

216: canting ansatz are introduced. The phase diagram is presented in section

217: III. In section IV, we present the result for the doping dependence of

218: magnetization and excitation spectrum. In the concluding section IV,

219: relevance of our result to experiments are discussed.

220: 

221: \bigskip

222: 

223: \section{ The Canting Ansatz}

224: 

225: \bigskip Our starting point is the $t-J$ model on triangular lattice,

226: 

227: \begin{equation}

228: H=-t\sum_{<i,j>,\sigma }(\hat{C}_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }\hat{C}_{j\sigma

229: }+H.c.)+J\sum_{<i,j>}\hat{S}_{i}\hat{S}_{j}  \label{1}

230: \end{equation}%

231: in which $\hat{C}_{i\sigma }$ satisfy the no double occupation constraint $%

232: \sum_{\sigma }\hat{C}_{i\sigma }^{+}\hat{C}_{i\sigma }\leq 1$. $%

233: \dsum\limits_{\left\langle i,j\right\rangle }$ denotes sum over

234: nearest-neighbouring sites. For the triangular lattice, the sign the $t$ is

235: essential and we will consider both sign of $t$ for theoretical interest,

236: although $t$ is positive in Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$ system.

237: 

238: At half filling, the model reduce to the much studied antiferromagnetic

239: Heisenberg model on a triangular lattice. It is believed that this model

240: posses a coplanar magnetic order with three sublattices at zero temperature%

241: \cite{10,11,12,13}. In this state, the spins in the three sublattices reside

242: symmetrically on their common plane with 120$^{0}$ angle between each

243: other(see Figure 1). This result can be obtained in the Schwinger-Boson mean

244: field theory of the model\cite{12,13}. In this formalism, the spin operator $%

245: \hat{S}_{i}$ is represented by Schwinger Boson $b_{i,\alpha }$

246: 

247: \begin{equation*}

248: \hat{S}_{i}=\frac{1}{2}b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }\sigma _{\alpha \beta

249: }b_{i\beta }

250: \end{equation*}

251: 

252: with the constraint $\sum_{\alpha }b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }b_{i\alpha }=1$

253: and the Hamiltonian is

254: 

255: \begin{equation*}

256: H_{s}=\frac{1}{4}J\sum_{<i,j>}b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }\sigma _{\alpha \beta

257: }b_{i\beta }b_{j\gamma }^{\dagger }\sigma _{\gamma \delta }b_{j\delta }

258: \end{equation*}%

259: In the mean field treatment, order parameter $D_{ij}=\left\langle

260: b_{i\uparrow }^{{}}b_{j\downarrow }^{{}}-b_{i\downarrow }^{{}}b_{j\uparrow

261: }^{{}}\right\rangle $, $Q_{ij}=\left\langle \dsum\limits_{\alpha }b_{i\alpha

262: }^{\dagger }b_{j\alpha }^{{}}\right\rangle $ are introduced to represent the

263: spin correlation in the system. Although $D_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ are

264: themselves spin rotational invariant, by condensing the bosonic spinon $%

265: b_{i\alpha }$ we can still break this symmetry and describe magnetic ordered

266: state(note both $D_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ are needed for a nonbipartite lattice

267: to find the absolute minima of the energy functional). The choice of the

268: mean field ansatz $D_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ depends on our understanding of the

269: ground state. The ansatz used in previous theories\cite{11,12,13} on this

270: problem can reproduce the three sublattice magnetic order, but fails to give

271: three branches of gapless spin wave and are thus not fully satisfactory. In

272: the following, we will determine the mean field ansatz with a semiclassical

273: analysis. When the system is doped, we should introduce another slave

274: particle to represent the hole degree of freedom. In this paper, we use the

275: slave Fermion- Schwinger Boson representation. In this formalism

276: 

277: \begin{equation*}

278: \hat{C}_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }=f_{i}b_{i\sigma }^{\dagger },

279: \end{equation*}%

280: in which $f_{i}$ is Fermionic operator for the holon, and $b_{i\sigma

281: }^{\dagger }$ is bosonic operator for the spinon just defined. The no double

282: occupation constraint is now expressed as: 

283: \begin{equation*}

284: f_{i}^{\dagger }f_{i}+\sum_{\sigma }b_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }b_{i\sigma }=1,

285: \end{equation*}%

286: and the Hamiltonian (\ref{1}) is: 

287: \begin{eqnarray}

288: H &=&-t\sum_{<i,j>}(f_{i}f_{j}^{\dagger }b_{i\sigma }^{\dagger }b_{j\sigma

289: }+h.c.)+\frac{1}{4}J\sum_{<i,j>}b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }\sigma _{\alpha \beta

290: }b_{i\beta }b_{j\gamma }^{\dagger }\sigma _{\gamma \delta }b_{j\delta } 

291: \notag \\

292: &&+\sum_{i}\lambda _{i}(f_{i}^{\dagger }f_{i}+b_{i\sigma }^{\dagger

293: }b_{i\sigma }-1)-\mu \sum_{i}f_{i}^{\dagger }f_{i},  \label{3}

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: 

296: in which $\lambda _{i}$ is the Lagrangian multipliers to enforce particle

297: number constraint and $\mu $ is the chemical potential for the hole. This

298: Hamiltonian can be decoupled into bilinear form with the introduction of the

299: mean field order parameter $D_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$. In principle, we should

300: also include the order parameter $F_{ij}=\left\langle f_{i}^{\dagger

301: }f_{j}\right\rangle $ in the doped case. However, since the hole has no

302: dynamics of its own, $F_{ij}$ is proportional to $Q_{ij}^{{}}$ and is not an

303: independent variable. After the decoupling, we get the mean field Hamiltonian

304: 

305: \begin{equation*}

306: H_{s}=\dsum\limits_{\left\langle i,j\right\rangle }\left[ (tF_{ij}^{\ast }+%

307: \frac{J}{4}Q_{ij}^{\ast })b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }b_{j\alpha }^{{}}-\frac{J}{4%

308: }D_{ij}^{\ast }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }b_{j\beta

309: }^{\dagger }+H.c.\right] -\mu _{b}\dsum\limits_{i}b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger

310: }b_{i\alpha }^{{}}

311: \end{equation*}%

312: for spinon and

313: 

314: \qquad 

315: \begin{equation*}

316: H_{h}=\dsum\limits_{\left\langle i,j\right\rangle }\left[

317: tQ_{ij}^{{}}f_{j}^{\dagger }f_{i}+H.c.\right] -\mu

318: _{f}\dsum\limits_{i}f_{i}^{\dagger }f_{i}

319: \end{equation*}%

320: for holon. Here $\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }$ is the antisymmetric tensor. $%

321: \mu _{b}$ and $\mu _{f}$ are the spinon and holon chemical potential to

322: enforce the particle number constraints $\left\langle b_{i\alpha }^{\dagger

323: }b_{i\alpha }^{{}}\right\rangle =1-x$ and $\left\langle f_{i}^{\dagger

324: }f_{i}\right\rangle =x$ ,where $x$ is the hole concentration. From this

325: Hamiltonian, we see the spin background affect the hole motion through the

326: order parameter $Q_{ij}$ whose phase is nothing but the spin Berry phase

327: mentioned in the Introduction.

328: 

329: Now we determine the mean field ansatz $D_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ from a

330: semiclassical analysis\cite{15}. In the semiclassical limit, we can take $%

331: b_{i\alpha }$ as a two component spinor

332: 

333: \begin{equation}

334: b_{i}=\sqrt{S_{{}}}\left( 

335: \begin{array}{c}

336: e^{-i\varphi _{i}}\cos (\frac{1}{2}\theta _{i}) \\ 

337: \sin (\frac{1}{2}\theta _{i})%

338: \end{array}%

339: \right)

340: \end{equation}

341: 

342: in which $\theta _{i}$ and $\varphi _{i}$ are spherical coordinates of the

343: spin $S_{i}$. Here an arbitrary gauge phase factor $e^{i\chi _{i}}$ is

344: omitted. Now let us consider possible magnetization of the system from the

345: coplanar state at half filling. In this parent state, the spins in the three

346: sublattices lay symmetrically in their common plane. Hence the most natural

347: way for the system to obtain a net magnetization is to tilt the spins of the

348: three sublattices symmetrically above their common plane. We call such a

349: state a canting state. In this state, the semiclassical spin on the three

350: sublattices are%

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: b_{{}}^{A} &=&\sqrt{S}\left( 

353: \begin{array}{c}

354: \cos (\frac{1}{2}\theta ) \\ 

355: \sin (\frac{1}{2}\theta )%

356: \end{array}%

357: \right)  \notag \\

358: b_{{}}^{B} &=&\sqrt{S}\left( 

359: \begin{array}{c}

360: e^{-i\frac{2\pi }{3}}\cos (\frac{1}{2}\theta ) \\ 

361: \sin (\frac{1}{2}\theta )%

362: \end{array}%

363: \right)  \label{6} \\

364: b_{{}}^{C} &=&\sqrt{S}\left( 

365: \begin{array}{c}

366: e^{-i\frac{4\pi }{3}}\cos (\frac{1}{2}\theta ) \\ 

367: \sin (\frac{1}{2}\theta )%

368: \end{array}%

369: \right) ,  \notag

370: \end{eqnarray}%

371: where $A,B,C$ stands for the three sublattices. The coplanar state at half

372: filling is a special case of the canting state with $\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}$%

373: . This canting ansatz is supported by minimizing the semiclassical energy

374: functional. This energy functional is obtained by substituting (\ref{3})

375: into (\ref{2})(with $\sqrt{S}$ replaced by $\sqrt{S(1-\delta )}$ in the

376: doped case, where $\delta $ is the hole concentration) and then diagonalize

377: the holon Hamiltonian. We performed an unconstraint search on a $12\times 12$

378: lattice and find the canting state always has the lowest energy. In the

379: semiclassical limit, the mean field order parameter can be readily written

380: down. For the canting state, we have

381: 

382: \begin{eqnarray}

383: D_{AB} &=&\left\langle b_{A\uparrow }^{{}}b_{B\downarrow

384: }^{{}}-b_{A\downarrow }^{{}}b_{B\uparrow }^{{}}\right\rangle =D_{BC}e^{i%

385: \frac{4}{3}\pi }=D_{CA}e^{-i\frac{4}{3}\pi }=D  \label{4} \\

386: Q_{AB} &=&\left\langle \dsum\limits_{\alpha }b_{B\alpha }^{\dagger

387: }b_{A\alpha }^{{}}\right\rangle =Q_{BC}=Q_{CA}=Q  \notag

388: \end{eqnarray}%

389: To fix the gauge totally, we require $D$ to be real. In this paper, we will

390: study mean field ansatz satisfying (\ref{4}) and call such a mean field

391: ansatz canting ansatz. In this ansatz, a real order parameter $D$ and a

392: complex order parameter $Q$ are introduced to represent the spin correlation

393: in the system. In particular, the phase of $Q$ equals to one sixth of the

394: solid angle spanned by the spins in the three sublattices and is thus

395: related to the spin chirality and the spin Berry phase of the background

396: spins\cite{16}.

397: 

398: The mean field Hamiltonian with the canting ansatz can be diagonalized.

399: Introducing $\Psi _{k}=%

400: \begin{array}{ccc}

401: (f_{k}^{A} & f_{k}^{B} & f_{k}^{C})%

402: \end{array}%

403: ^{T}$ and $\Phi _{k}=%

404: \begin{array}{cccccc}

405: (b_{k\uparrow }^{A} & b_{k\uparrow }^{B} & b_{k\uparrow }^{C} & 

406: b_{-k\downarrow }^{A\dagger } & b_{-k\downarrow }^{B\dagger } & 

407: b_{-k\downarrow }^{C\dagger })%

408: \end{array}%

409: ^{T}$, the Hamiltonian can be written as

410: 

411: \begin{eqnarray*}

412: H_{s} &=&\sum_{k}\Phi _{k}^{\dagger }\mathbf{M}_{b}\Phi _{k} \\

413: H_{h} &=&\sum_{k}\Psi _{k}^{\dagger }\mathbf{M}_{h}\Psi _{k}

414: \end{eqnarray*}%

415: where the expression for the $6\times 6$ matrix $\mathbf{M}_{b}$ and the $%

416: 3\times 3$ matrix $\mathbf{M}_{h}$ are given in the Appendix. Here the

417: momentum sum runs over the reduced Brillouin zone for the three sublattice

418: system. The six branches of spinon dispersions are

419: 

420: \begin{equation*}

421: \omega _{n}^{\pm }(k)=\left\vert -2\func{Im}(T)\func{Im}(\Gamma

422: _{n,k}^{{}})\pm \sqrt{\left[ \mu _{b}+2\func{Re}(T)\func{Re}(\Gamma

423: _{n,k}^{{}})\right] ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\left[ D\func{Im}(\Gamma _{n,k}^{{}})%

424: \right] ^{2}}\right\vert

425: \end{equation*}

426: 

427: with $n=0,1,2$. The three branches of holon dispersions are

428: 

429: \begin{equation*}

430: \varepsilon _{n}^{{}}(k)=\mu _{f}+t\func{Re}(Q\Gamma _{n,k})

431: \end{equation*}

432: 

433: with $n=0,1,2$. Here $T=(-tF+\frac{Q}{4})e^{i\frac{2\pi }{3}}$ , $\Gamma

434: _{n,k}^{{}}=\gamma _{k}e_{{}}^{i\frac{2n\pi }{3}}$ and $\gamma

435: _{k}=\dsum\limits_{\delta }e^{ik\delta }$ in which $\delta =(1,0),(-\frac{1}{%

436: 2},\pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}).$ Since $\omega _{n}^{+}(k)=\omega _{n}^{-}(-k)$,

437: each branch of spinon mode is two-fold degenerate. This is a reflection of

438: the spin rotational symmetry which is unbroken in our treatment.

439: 

440: By solving the self-consistent mean field equations, we can obtain a series

441: of solutions for $D$ and $Q$. These solutions are characterized by the phase

442: of $Q$ . As we have shown, this phase angle, $\varphi $, equals to one sixth

443: of the solid angle spanned by the spins. Since the solid angle is defined

444: modulo $4\pi $ and the problem is symmetric under the reflection about the

445: common plane of the spins, we can restrict ourselves to the interval $0\leq

446: \varphi \leq \frac{\pi }{3}$. In the following, the state with $\varphi =0$

447: will be called a collinear state and the state with $\varphi =\frac{\pi }{3}$

448: will be called the coplanar state. A state with $\varphi $ between this two

449: limits will be called the canted state. In the next section, we will map out

450: the mean field phase diagram of the model by determining the solution with

451: the lowest free energy.

452: 

453: \bigskip

454: 

455: \section{The phase diagram}

456: 

457: \subsection{The $t>0$ case}

458: 

459: \bigskip The temperature-doping phase diagram for $t/J=1.5$ is shown in

460: Figure 2. At low doping, the coplanar state has the lowest free energy.

461: Above a critical doping about $0.5$ the system transform into the collinear

462: state through a first order phase transition. The canted state is never

463: stable for $t>0$. This result can be understood as follows. From (\ref{1}),\

464: we see the bare hopping term of the hole (which is $-t$) is renormalized by

465: the spin dependent factor $Q$ . For $t>0$, the hole will feel a flux of

466: strength $\pi \pm 3\varphi $ around each elementary triangular loop of the

467: lattice($\varphi $ is the phase of $Q$) and is in general frustrated. When $%

468: \varphi =\frac{\pi }{3}$, or, when the spin is in the coplanar state, the

469: frustration due to the bare hopping term is released by the spin Berry phase

470: from $Q$. Thus at low doping, the spins prefer to stay in the coplanar

471: state(this state is of course also favored by the spin exchange energy). At

472: high doping, the situation is reversed and now it is the 'holes'\bigskip\ of

473: the nearly filled hole band that are moving. The sign of the hopping term of

474: these 'holes' is opposite to that of the original hole and thus the

475: frustration due the bare hopping term is absent. Thus at high doping, the

476: spins prefer to align themselves ferromagnetically(the spin exchange energy

477: is suppressed at high doping due to dilution of spins). In the argument

478: raised above, we neglect the effect of the amplitude of the $Q$.

479: Semiclassical analysis shows that this neglect has no qualitative effect.

480: 

481: At zero temperature, the condensation of the spinon will lead to long range

482: order of spins. In the coplanar state, there are two gapless spinon

483: modes(see discussion in section IV). Both modes condense into the coplanar

484: spin long range order. In the collinear state, there is only one gapless

485: spinon mode. The condensation of this mode give rise to ferromagnetic long

486: range order of the spins. Thus unlike the LSDA result, there is a finite

487: doping range in our phase diagram in which the net magnetization is zero.

488: 

489: At finite temperature, the spin long range order does not exist. The

490: distinction between the coplanar state and the collinear state is now more

491: subtle. On symmetry ground, it is hard to tell apart between the two. In our

492: theory, the two states are distinguished by their spin Berry phase. The

493: problem here is whether the phase boundary between the coplanar state and

494: the collinear state represent true phase transition or just crossover. We

495: think this phase boundary still represent true phase transition since there

496: is a discontinues change of the spin correlation pattern(embodied in the

497: spin Berry phase) across it. This discontinues change in the spin

498: correlation pattern lead to a discontinues change in the excitation spectrum

499: and thus thermodynamical properties of the system across the phase boundary.

500: As will be shown in the next section, the spin Berry phase is responsible

501: for the qualitative difference in the excitation spectrum of the various

502: states in the phase diagram. In particular, in the coplanar state with $%

503: \varphi =\frac{\pi }{3}$, there is always two branches of gapless spinon(the

504: gap due to finite temperature is exponentially small), both of which have

505: linear dispersion. While in the collinear state (or any states with $\varphi

506: \neq \frac{\pi }{3}$), there is only one branch of gapless spinon whose

507: dispersion is quadratic. In other words, the two branches of gapless spinon

508: mode in the coplanar state seems to be protected by some kind of order not

509: related to any broken symmetry. This special kind of the order, which is

510: nothing but the characteristic spin Berry phase of the coplanar state, is

511: broken across the phase boundary between the coplanar state and the

512: collinear state. It is in this sense that we think the phase boundary a true

513: phase transition line. The concept of an order with no broken symmetry is

514: first advocated by Wen who give it the name quantum order\cite{14}. The

515: quantum order, as it defined by Wen, describes the structure in the quantum

516: wave function which is beyond the classification on symmetry ground and can

517: be detected by checking the excitation spectrum of the system which is

518: sensitive to the structure of the ground state wave function. In our case,

519: the quantum order is nothing but the spin Berry phase. We think the

520: transition between the coplanar state and the collinear state may serve as

521: the first explicit and realistic example for phase transition between states

522: with different quantum orders. This is the most important finding of this

523: paper. In this regard, it is seems natural to look at the zero temperature

524: transition between the two states also as a transition between different

525: quantum orders rather than the conventional Landau-type phase transition,

526: although the symmetry is really broken in this case.

527: 

528: \bigskip The realistic value of $t/J$ for Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$ is still

529: unsettled. In our theory, the phase boundary between the coplanar state and

530: the fully polarized state will shift to lower doping with increasing $t/J$.

531: If our assignment of $t/J=1.5$ is realistic(ARPES experiment report a

532: similar value\cite{17}), then the superconductivity observed around $x\sim

533: 0.35$ is covered totally in the coplanar state in which ferromagnetic

534: fluctuation is suppressed. This implies that the singlet pairing picture may

535: be more relevant for the superconductivity in this system. Furthermore, the

536: ferromagnetic transition observed at $22K$ for $x\sim 0.75$ \cite{8}seems to

537: be also consistent with our phase diagram.\ 

538: 

539: \bigskip 

540: 

541: \subsection{\textbf{The }$t<0$ \textbf{case }}

542: 

543: The temperature-doping phase diagram for $t/J=-1.5$ is shown in Fig.3. The

544: phase diagram is much more complex as compared with that of the $t>0$ case.

545: At zero temperature, the spins cant gradually out of their common plane with

546: increasing doping until a critical doping level, above which the spin return

547: back into the coplanar state through a first order phase transition. At

548: finite temperature, the phase diagram show complex structures. Below a lower

549: critical doping, the zero temperature canted state return back into the

550: coplanar state through a second order phase transition at high temperature.

551: Above the lower critical doping, the canted state transform into the

552: collinear state through a second order phase transition. The coplanar state

553: at high doping also transform into the collinear state at high temperature,

554: but through a first order phase transition. The phase diagram contains both

555: first order and second order phase transition lines with tricritical and

556: quadricritical points join them.

557: 

558: This complex phase diagram structure can also be understood on semiclassical

559: ground. For $t<0$, the frustration due to the bare hopping term is absent

560: and the kinetic energy of the hole favor a state with $\varphi =0$, or, the

561: collinear state at low doping. The antiferromagnetic exchange energy act

562: against this tendency. The compromise between the two result in the canted

563: state in which the spin cant gradually out of the coplanar state at half

564: filling. At high doping, the situation is again reversed and now the kinetic

565: energy favors the coplanar state which is also favored by the exchange

566: energy. Below the lower critical doping, the spin canting at zero

567: temperature induced by the hole will eventually be erased by the thermal

568: fluctuation\ and the spins will return to the coplanar state at high

569: temperature. At higher doping level, the hole system is more robust and it

570: in fact help to enhance the spin correlation against thermal fluctuation.

571: This is quite different from the situation in cuprates. In the triangular

572: lattice, the spin is already frustrated at half filling. Doping a small

573: concentration of holes in fact help to release such geometrical frustration.

574: This special effect will be discussed further in the next section.

575: 

576: At finite temperature, the spin long range order can not exist and the

577: various phases in the phase diagram are characterized by the value of the

578: spin Berry phase. Among these phases, of particular interest is the canted

579: phase which hold a special kind of long range order even at finite

580: temperature. In the canted phase, the time reversal symmetry is

581: spontaneously broken and system posses a nonzero spin chirality. Thus the

582: phase boundary between the canted phase and other phases are true phase

583: transitions rather than crossovers even in the Landau sense. In the canted

584: phase, the spin chirality will induce a nonzero current of the hole. Since

585: the spin chirality is staggered, the induced current is also staggered. Thus

586: in the canted state, we expect staggered current to flow around each

587: triangular loop. This is the most important characteristic of the canted

588: phase. A detection of such current loop is interesting.

589: 

590: Before closing this subsection we note that although the $t<0$ case of the

591: model is not directly relevant to the Na$_{1-x}$CoO$_{2}$ system, it is

592: proposed that it may be appropriate for the hole doped system Na$_{1-x}$TiO$%

593: _{2}$\cite{4}.

594: 

595: \section{Physical Observable.}

596: 

597: \subsection{The doping dependence of the net magnetization.}

598: 

599: At zero temperature, the gapless spinon will condense into magnetic long

600: range order. For the canted state and the collinear state, this condensation

601: will lead to a nonzero net magnetization of the system. For the $t>0$

602: case(which is relevant for the Na$_{1-x}$CoO$_{2}$ system), there is

603: discontinues jump of the magnetization at the transition point between the

604: coplanar state and the collinear state. For $t<0$, the magnetization build

605: up gradually with increasing doping as the spin cant out of their common

606: plane and jump to zero when the spin return back into the coplanar state at

607: high doping. These results are shown in Figure 4. We also presents the

608: result for the fraction of the condensed spin (which is a measure of

609: magnitude of sublattice magnetization)in this figure. We see doping a small

610: amount of hole enhance the sublattice magnetization for both $t>0$ and $t<0$%

611: . The reason for this enhancement is that the doped hole can release

612: partially the geometric frustration inherent of the triangular lattice.

613: 

614: \bigskip 

615: 

616: \subsection{\protect\bigskip The spinon excitation spectrum}

617: 

618: In quantum systems, the structures in the ground state wave function often

619: have nontrivial consequences in the excitation spectrum of the system. In

620: fact, the excitation spectrum serve as the most direct way to detect any

621: non-symmetry-breaking related structure(or quantum order) in the ground

622: state wave function of quantum system. In our case, the various phases in

623: the phase diagram are distinguished by their spin Berry phase. Now we

624: discuss the effect of the spin Berry phase on the excitation spectrum of the

625: system.

626: 

627: In the reduced Brillouin Zone of the three sublattice system, there are

628: three branches of nondegenerate spinon modes. These three branches of

629: nondegenerate spinon modes transform into each other under the translation

630: in the momentum space by a reciprocal lattice vector of the reduced

631: Brillouin zone(this can be easily shown since $\gamma _{k+G}=\gamma

632: _{k}e^{\pm i\frac{2\pi }{3}}$, where $G$ is a reciprocal lattice vector of

633: reduced Brillouin zone). Thus in the extended zone scheme, these three

634: branches of spinon modes can be expressed by a single formula

635: 

636: \begin{equation}

637: \omega (k)=\left\vert 2\func{Im}(T)\func{Im}(\gamma _{k})+\sqrt{\left[ \mu

638: _{b}+2\func{Re}(T)\func{Re}(\gamma _{k})\right] ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\left[ D%

639: \func{Im}(\gamma _{k})\right] ^{2}}\right\vert  \label{5}

640: \end{equation}

641: 

642: In the coplanar state $T$ is real(since $\varphi =\frac{\pi }{3}$) and the

643: spinon spectrum can be further reduced to

644: 

645: \begin{equation*}

646: \omega (k)=\sqrt{\left[ \mu _{b}+2T\func{Re}(\gamma _{k})\right] ^{2}-\frac{1%

647: }{4}\left[ D\func{Im}(\gamma _{k})\right] ^{2}}

648: \end{equation*}%

649: \qquad\ This spectrum is degenerate at the six corners of the Brillouin zone

650: of the triangular lattice($\gamma _{k}=3e^{\pm i\frac{2\pi }{3}}$at these

651: points). This degeneracy is the most important characteristic of the

652: excitation spectrum of the coplanar state and it is protected by the spin

653: Berry in this state. When $\varphi $ deviate from $\frac{\pi }{3}$, this

654: degeneracy is gone. At zero temperature, the spinon at these momentums will

655: become gapless and condense into the $120^{0}$ spin long range order. Thus,

656: at general doping there are two branches of gapless spin wave excitation on

657: the ordered spin background(the six corners of the Brillouin zone correspond

658: to two independent momentums). Since $\gamma _{k}\sim 3+uk^{2}$ for small $k$%

659: , both of the two modes have linear dispersion around the gapless point.

660: Besides these two gapless modes, there is a third minimum of the excitation

661: spectrum at the center of the Brillouin zone. The energy of this mode

662: decrease linearly with decreasing doping but remain finite at half filling

663: as shown Figure 5. The excitation spectrum of the half filled system is

664: shown in Figure 6 and it is compared with spin wave spectrum obtained in the

665: linear spin wave theory(LSWT)\cite{10}. The LSWT predict three branches of

666: gapless spin wave on the three sublattice spin background while our

667: Schwinger Boson mean theory predict only two. The reason for this

668: discrepancy can be seen in the following way. Requiring both the zone corner

669: modes and the zone center to be gapless, we obtain

670: 

671: \begin{equation*}

672: D^{2}=3\left\vert Q\right\vert ^{2}

673: \end{equation*}%

674: at half filling, a relation valid for coplanar state in the semiclassical

675: limit($S\longrightarrow \infty $ limit). Thus the zone center mode will also

676: become gapless in the semiclassical limit and our theory can reproduce the

677: result of the LSWT in this limit. This analysis also indicate that the gap

678: of the zone center mode is due to quantum fluctuation and may be observable

679: for the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ system. We note previous Schwinger Boson mean

680: field theory on the triangular antiferromagnet(with different mean field

681: ansatz)predict only one gapless mode\cite{11,12,13}. Thus our result is an

682: improvement over these earlier ones. At finite doping, the gap due to

683: quantum fluctuation is masked by the much larger gap due to the hole

684: background. However, the gaplessness at the zone corner is still intact as

685: long as the system remain in the coplanar state. This provide a explicit

686: example of protected excitation spectrum due to quantum order. Here the

687: quantum order is nothing but the spin Berry phase.

688: 

689: In the canted state and the collinear state(the collinear state is a special

690: case of the canted state), the degeneracy between the zone corner modes is

691: broken. From (\ref{5}), we see the splitting between the zone corner modes

692: is $\sqrt{3}\func{Im}(T)$ which increase with increasing canting angle.

693: Especially, in the collinear state in which $D=0,\varphi =0$, one of the

694: zone corner mode become degenerate with the massive zone center mode. For

695: general canting angle there are three nondegenerate modes in which only one

696: (at zone corner)become gapless at zero temperature. Since $\func{Im}(T)\func{%

697: Im}(\gamma _{k})\neq 0$ at the gapless point, the dispersion around it is

698: quadratic. The quadratic dispersion is a characteristic of the ferromagnet

699: spin wave. In our case, canting induce a weak ferromagnetic moment. The

700: gaplessness of the quadratic mode indicate that the long wavelength

701: fluctuation of the weak ferromagnetic moment is unaffected by the hole

702: background. The excitation spectrum for a general canting angle is shown in

703: Figure 7.

704: 

705: \section{\protect\bigskip Conclusion}

706: 

707: Now let's summarize the results of this paper. In this paper, we have

708: studied the magnetic properties of the $t-J$ model on triangular lattice in

709: light of the recently discovered superconductivity in Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$

710: system. \ We formulated the problem in the Schwinger Boson - slave Fermion

711: scheme and proposed a sound mean field ansatz, namely the canting ansatz,

712: for the RVB\ order parameters of spins. With the canting ansatz, we have

713: mapped out the temperature-doping phase diagram of the model for both sign

714: of the hopping term. We find the prediction of the $t-J$ model differs

715: drastically from that of LSDA calculation. In our theory, there is large

716: doping range in which the system show zero net magnetization, rather than

717: saturated magnetization as predicted in the LSDA calculation. We show the

718: result of LSDA is unreliable in the strong coupling regime due to its

719: neglect of electron correlation.

720: 

721: The most important thing found in this paper is the vital role of the spin

722: Berry phase in this geometrically frustrated system. We find the various

723: phases in the phases diagram are characterized(and distinguished) by their

724: spin Berry phase, rather than any Landau-like order parameter related to

725: broken symmetry. We find the spin Berry phase is responsible for the

726: qualitative difference in the low energy excitation spectrum of the various

727: states in the phase diagram. We argue that the spin Berry phase in this

728: system may provide the first explicit example for the concept of quantum

729: order and the transition between state with different spin Berry phase may

730: serve as the first realistic example for phase transition between states

731: with different quantum orders.

732: 

733: Another interesting thing found in this paper is the existence of an exotic

734: state with nonzero spin chirality but no spin ordering in a large

735: temperature and doping range. We find this exotic state, which break the

736: time reversal symmetry, support nonzero staggered current loop in the bulk

737: of the system. Since this state break a discreet symmetry, its phase

738: boundary with other phases are well defined phase transition in the Landau

739: sense. We propose to study this exotic state in the hole doped Na$_{1-x}$TiO$%

740: _{2}$ system.

741: 

742: As\bigskip\ a by-product of this study, we also achieve an improvement over

743: earlier Schwinger Boson mean field theory on the triangular antiferromagnet.

744: The canting ansatz proposed in this paper lead to two branches of gapless

745: spinon modes. We find the small gap of the third spinon mode is caused by

746: quantum fluctuation and our theory can reproduce the LSWT result in the

747: semiclassical limit.

748: 

749: Finally, we find our general phase diagram is consistent with experimental

750: result on Na$_{x}$CoO$_{2}$ system. We find singlet pairing picture for its

751: superconductivity may be more relevant in the small doping regime.

752: 

753: \bigskip {\LARGE Acknowledgement}

754: 

755: \bigskip The authors would like to thank members of the high Tc group at

756: CASTU for discussion and Z.Y.Weng for drawing our attention to the Na$_{x}$%

757: CoO$_{2}$ material. Works of T. Li is supported by NSFC Grant No. 90303009.

758: 

759: \bigskip

760: 

761: {\LARGE Appendix: The spinon and holon Hamiltonian} \bigskip

762: 

763: The spinon Hamiltonian in matrix form is

764: 

765: \begin{eqnarray*}

766: \mathbf{M}_{b} &=&\left( 

767: \begin{array}{cc}

768: \mathbf{m}_{1} & \mathbf{t}^{\ast } \\ 

769: \mathbf{t} & \mathbf{m}_{2}%

770: \end{array}%

771: \right) \\

772: &&

773: \end{eqnarray*}%

774: where

775: 

776: \begin{equation*}

777: \mathbf{m}_{1}=\left( 

778: \begin{array}{ccc}

779: \mu _{b} & x & x^{\ast } \\ 

780: x^{\ast } & \mu _{b} & x \\ 

781: x & x^{\ast } & \mu _{b}%

782: \end{array}%

783: \right) ,\mathbf{m}_{2}=\left( 

784: \begin{array}{ccc}

785: \mu _{b} & y & y^{\ast } \\ 

786: y^{\ast } & \mu _{b} & y \\ 

787: y & y^{\ast } & \mu _{b}%

788: \end{array}%

789: \right) ,\mathbf{t}=\left( 

790: \begin{array}{ccc}

791: 0 & z_{_{2}} & -z_{_{1}}^{\ast } \\ 

792: -z_{_{2}}^{\ast } & 0 & z_{_{0}} \\ 

793: z_{_{1}} & -z_{_{0}}^{\ast } & 0%

794: \end{array}%

795: \right)

796: \end{equation*}%

797: in which $x=(-tF+\frac{J}{4}Q)\gamma _{k}$, $y=(-tF^{\ast }+\frac{J}{4}%

798: Q^{\ast })\gamma _{k}$, $z_{n}=\frac{J}{4}D\gamma _{k}e^{i\frac{2n\pi }{3}}$%

799: , $\gamma _{k}=\dsum\limits_{\delta }e^{ik\delta }$. The holon Hamiltonian is

800: 

801: \begin{equation*}

802: \mathbf{M}_{h}=\left( 

803: \begin{array}{ccc}

804: \mu _{_{F}} & w & w^{\ast } \\ 

805: w^{\ast } & \mu _{_{F}} & w \\ 

806: w & w^{\ast } & \mu _{_{F}}%

807: \end{array}%

808: \right)

809: \end{equation*}

810: 

811: in which $w=tQ\gamma _{\substack{ k\text{.}  \\  \\  \\ }}$

812: 

813: \bigskip

814: 

815: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

816: \bibitem{1} K. Takada, \textit{et al.}, Nature, \textbf{422} 53(2003).

817: 

818: \bibitem{2} G. Baskaran, Phys. Rev. Lett \textbf{91}, 097003(2003).

819: 

820: \bibitem{3} A. Tanaka \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0304409.

821: 

822: \bibitem{4} Q. H. Wang \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0304377.

823: 

824: \bibitem{5} T. Waki \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0306036.

825: 

826: \bibitem{6} Y. Kobayashi \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0306264.

827: 

828: \bibitem{7} T. Fujimoto \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0307127.

829: 

830: \bibitem{8} T. Motohashi \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{67}, 064406

831: (2003).

832: 

833: \bibitem{9} D. J. Singh, Phy.Rev B \textbf{68}, 020503 (2003).

834: 

835: \bibitem{10} Th. Jolicoeur et al., Phys. Rev. B \textbf{40}, 2727(1989).

836: 

837: \bibitem{11} D. Yoshioka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{58}, 32 (1989).

838: 

839: \bibitem{12} A. Mattsson, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{51},11574(1995).

840: 

841: \bibitem{13} Y. C. Chen, Mod. Phys. Lett. B \textbf{8}, 1253(1994).

842: 

843: \bibitem{14} X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 165113 (2002).

844: 

845: \bibitem{15} C. L. Kane \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{41},

846: 2653(1990).

847: 

848: \bibitem{16} P. A. Lee \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{46}, 5621

849: (1992).

850: 

851: \bibitem{17} M. Z. Hasan \textit{et al.}, cond-mat/0308438.

852: \end{thebibliography}

853: 

854: \begin{center}

855: \newpage

856: 

857: FIGURES

858: \end{center}

859: 

860: FIG. 1. The coplanar spin order at half filling and the canting state

861: proposed in this work.

862: 

863: \medskip

864: 

865: FIG. 2. Temperature-doping phase diagram for $t/J=1.5$. 

866: 

867: \medskip FIG. 3. Temperature-doping phase diagram for $t/J=-1.5$.

868: 

869: \medskip 

870: 

871: FIG. 4. Doping dependence of the net magnetization(a and c) and the

872: sublattice magnetization(b and d).

873: 

874: \bigskip 

875: 

876: FIG. 5. Doping dependence of the zone center gap in the coplanar state.

877: 

878: \medskip 

879: 

880: FIG. 6. Spinon dispersion of the triangular antiferromagnet as predicted in

881: this work(a) and the spin wave dispersion predicted by the linear spin wave

882: theory(b)\cite{10}. 

883: 

884: \bigskip 

885: 

886: FIG. 7. Spinon dispersion in the canted state. Note the origin of the

887: Brillouin zone has been moved to the gapless point. 

888: 

889: \end{document}

890: