1: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long

2: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.

3: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.

4: %  Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes

5: %  Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear

6: %  Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear

7: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

8: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

9: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showkeys,showpacs]{revtex4}

10: \documentclass[rmp,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

11: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

12: %\usepackage{showkeys}

13: 

14: %\documentclass{article}

15: %\input rmp.rty

16: 

17: 

18: %\setlength{\textheight}{9.7in}

19: 

20: \def\Ref#1{\citeauthor{#1}, \citeyear{#1}}

21: \def\cit#1{\citeauthor{#1}, \citeyear{#1}}

22: 

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

26: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

27: \bibliographystyle{apsrmp}

28: 

29: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

30: % number on the title page in preprint mode.

31: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

32: %\preprint{}

33: 

34: %Title of paper

35: \title{

36: Doping a Mott Insulator: Physics of High Temperature Superconductivity

37: }

38: % Optional argument for running titles on pages

39: %\title[]{}

40: 

41: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation  \etc. as needed

42: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current

43: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail

44: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.

45: % Please use the appropriate macro for the type of information

46: 

47: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

48: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

49: % other information

50: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

51: \author{Patrick A. Lee$^a$}

52: \author{Naoto Nagaosa$^b$}

53: \author{Xiao-Gang Wen$^a$}

54: \affiliation{$^a$ Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

55: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139\\

56: $^b$ CREST, Department of Applied Physics,

57: University of Tokyo,

58: 7--3--1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan}

59: %\email{Your e-mail address}

60: %\homepage{http://dao.mit.edu/~wen}

61: %\thanks{}

62: %\altaffiliation{}

63: 

64: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress

65: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be

66: %used with the \author command).

67: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

68: %\collaboration{}

69: %\noaffiliation

70: 

71: \date{\today}

72: %\date{Dec. 2002}

73: 

74: \begin{abstract}

75: This article reviews the effort to understand the physics of high temperature

76: superconductors from the point of view of doping a Mott insulator.  The basic

77: electronic structure of the cuprates is reviewed, emphasizing the physics of

78: strong correlation and establishing the model of a doped Mott insulator as a

79: starting point.  A variety of experiments are discussed, focusing on the

80: region of the phase diagram close to the Mott insulator (the underdoped

81: region) where the behavior is most anomalous.  The normal state in this region

82: exhibits the pseudogap phenomenon.  In contrast, the quasiparticles in the

83: superconducting state are well defined and behave according to theory.  We

84: introduce Anderson's idea of the resonating valence bond (RVB) and argue that

85: it gives a qualitative account of the data.  The importance of phase

86: fluctuation is discussed, leading to a theory of the transition temperature

87: which is driven by phase fluctuation and thermal excitation of quasiparticles.

88: However, we argue that phase fluctuation can only explain the pseudogap

89: phenomenology over a limited temperature range, and some additional physics is

90: needed to explain the onset of singlet formation at very high temperatures.

91: We then describe the numerical method of projected wavefunction which turns

92: out to be a very useful technique to implement the strong correlation

93: constraint, and leads to a number of predictions which are in agreement with

94: experiments.  The remainder of the paper deals with an analytic treatment of

95: the $t$-$J$ model, with the goal of putting the RVB idea on a more formal

96: footing.  The slave-boson is introduced to enforce the constraint of no double

97: occupation.  The implementation of the local constraint leads naturally to

98: gauge theories.  We follow the historical order and first review the $U(1)$

99: formulation of the gauge theory.  Some inadequacies of this formulation for

100: underdoping are discussed, leading to the $SU(2)$ formulation.  Here we

101: digress with a rather thorough discussion of the role of gauge theory in

102: describing the spin liquid phase of the undoped Mott insulator.  We emphasize

103: the difference between the high energy gauge group in the formulation of the

104: problem versus the low energy gauge group which is an emergent phenomenon.

105: Several possible routes to deconfinement based on different emergent gauge

106: groups are discussed, which lead to the physics of fractionalization and 

107: spin-charge separation.  We next describe the extension of the $SU(2)$ formulation to

108: nonzero doping.  We focus on a part of the mean field phase diagram called the

109: staggered flux liquid phase.  We show that inclusion of gauge fluctuation

110: provides a reasonable description of the pseudogap phase.  We emphasize that

111: $d$-wave superconductivity can be considered as evolving from a stable $U(1)$

112: spin liquid.  We apply these ideas to the high $T_c$ cuprates, and discuss

113: their implications for the vortex structure and the phase diagram.  A possible

114: test of the topological structure of the pseudogap phase is discussed.

115: \end{abstract}

116: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

117: \pacs{74.20.Mn, 71.27.+a}

118: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

119: \keywords{High $T_c$ superconductivity, spin liquid, slave-boson theory}

120: 

121: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

122: \maketitle

123: 

124: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

125: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

126: %\section{Introduction}

127: %\label{intro}

128: 

129: \tableofcontents

130: 

131: 

132: 

133: 

134: \section{Introduction}

135: The discovery of high temperature superconductivity in cuprates \cite{BM8689}

136: %(Bednorz and M\"{u}ller, 1986) 

137: and the rapid raising of the transition temperature to well

138: above the melting point of nitrogen \cite{WAT8708}

139: %(Wu {\em et al.}, 1987)

140: ushered in an era

141: of great excitement for the condensed matter physics community.  For decades

142: prior to this discovery, the highest $T_c$ had been stuck at 23~K.  Not only

143: was the old record $T_c$ shattered, but the fact that high $T_c$

144: superconductivity was discovered in a rather unexpected material, a transition

145: metal oxide, made it clear that some novel mechanism must be at work.  The

146: intervening years have seen great strides in high  $T_c$ research.  First and

147: foremost, the growth and characterization of cuprate single crystals and thin

148: films have advanced to the point where sample quality and reproducibility

149: problems which plagued the field in the early days are no longer issues.  At

150: the same time, basically all conceivable experimental tools have been applied

151: to the cuprates.  Indeed, the need for more and more refined data has spurred

152: the development of experimental techniques such as angle resolved

153: photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and low temperature scanning tunneling

154: microscopy (STM).  Today the cuprate is arguably the best studied material

155: outside of the semiconductor family and a great deal of facts are known.  It

156: is also clear that many of the physical properties are unusual, particularly

157: in the metallic state above the superconductor.  Superconductivity is only one

158: aspect of a rich phase diagram which must be understood in its totality.

159: \begin{figure}[t]

160: \centerline{

161: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{fig1.1.eps}

162: %\psfig{figure=Fig.1.eps,width=3.25in}

163: }

164: %\vspace{0.5cm}

165: \caption{Schematic phase diagram of high $T_c$ superconductors showing hole doping (right side) and

166: electron doping (left side). From 

167: %Damascelli {\em et al.}, 2003

168: \Ref{DHS0373}. }

169: \label{Fig.1}

170: \end{figure}

171: 

172: While there are hundreds of high $T_c$ compounds, they all share a layered

173: structure made up of one or more copper-oxygen planes.  They all fit into a

174: ``universal'' phase diagram shown in Fig. 1.  We start with the so-called

175: ``parent compound,'' in this case La$_2$CuO$_4$.  There is now general

176: agreement that the parent compound is an insulator, and should be classified

177: as a Mott insulator.  The concept of Mott insulation was introduced many years

178: ago \cite{M4916}

179: %(Mott, 1949)

180: to describe a situation where a material should be metallic according to band

181: theory, but is insulating due to strong electron-electron repulsion.  In our

182: case, in the copper-oxygen layer there is an odd number of electrons per unit

183: cell.  More specifically, the copper ion is doubly ionized and is in a $d^9$

184: configuration, so that there is a single hole in the $d$ shell per unit cell.

185: According to band theory, the band is half-filled and must be metallic.

186: Nevertheless, there is a strong repulsive energy cost to put two electrons (or

187: holes) on the same ion, and when this energy (commonly called $U$) dominates

188: over the hopping energy $t$, the ground state is an insulator due to strong

189: correlation effects.  It also follows that the Mott insulator should be an

190: antiferromagnet (AF), because when neighboring spins are oppositely aligned,

191: one can gain an energy $4t^2/U$ by virtual hopping.  This is called the

192: exchange energy $J$.  The parent compound is indeed an antiferromagnetic

193: insulator.  The ordering temperature $T_N \approx 300$K shown in

194: Fig.~\ref{Fig.1} is in fact misleadingly low because it is governed by a small

195: interlayer coupling, which is furthermore frustrated in La$_2$CuO$_4$ (see

196: \Ref{KBS9897}).

197: %Kastner {\em et al.}, 1998).  

198: %\cite{Kastner98}.

199: The exchange energy $J$ is in fact extraordinarily high, of order 1500~K, and

200: the parent compound shows strong antiferromagnetic correlation much above

201: $T_N$.

202: 

203: 

204: The parent compound can be doped by substituting some of the trivalent La by

205: divalent Sr.  The result is that $x$ holes are added to the Cu-O plane in

206: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$.  This is called hole doping.  In the compound

207: Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$, the reverse happens in that $x$ electrons are added

208: to the Cu-O plane.  This is called electron doping.  As we can see from Fig.

209: 1, on the hole doping side the AF order is rapidly suppressed and is gone by 3

210: to 5\% hole concentration.  Almost immediately after the suppression of AF,

211: superconductivity appears, ranging from $x = 6$\% to 25\%.  The dome-shaped

212: $T_c$ is characteristic of all hole-doped cuprates, even though the maximum

213: $T_c$ varies from about 40~K in the La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO) family to

214: 93~K and higher in other families such as YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+y}$ (YBCO) and

215: Ba$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+y}$ (Bi-2212).  On the electron doped side, AF is

216: more robust and survives up to $x = 0.14$, beyond which a region of

217: superconductivity arises.  One view is that the carriers are more prone to be

218: localized on the electron doped side, so that electron doping to closer to

219: dilution by nonmagnetic ions, which is less effective in suppressing AF order

220: than itinerant carriers.  Another possibility is that

221: the next neighbor hopping term favors AF on the electron doped side

222: \cite{SG0214}.

223: It is as though a more robust AF region is covering

224: up the more interesting phase diagram revealed on the hole doped side.  In

225: this review we shall focus on the hole doped materials, even though we will

226: address the issue of the particle-hole asymmetry of the phase diagram from

227: time to time.

228: 

229: The region in the phase diagram with doping $x$ less than that of the maximum

230: $T_c$ is called the underdoped region.  The metallic state above $T_c$ has

231: been under intense study and exhibits many unusual properties not encountered

232: before in any other metal.  This region of the phase diagram has been called

233: the pseudogap phase.  It is not a well defined phase in that a definite finite

234: temperature phase boundary has never been found.  The line drawn in Fig.~1

235: should be regarded as a cross-over.  Since we view the high $T_c$ problem as

236: synonymous with that of doping a Mott insulator, the underdoped region is

237: where the battleground between Mott insulator and superconductivity is drawn

238: and this is where we shall concentrate on in this review.

239: 

240: The region of the normal state above the optimal $T_c$ also exhibits unusual

241: properties.  The resistivity is linear in $T$ and the Hall coefficient is

242: temperature dependent (see \Ref{CWO9188}).

243: %Chien, Wang and Ong, 1991).   

244: %\cite{Chien91}.

245: These were cited as examples of non-Fermi liquid behavior since the early days

246: of high $T_c$.  Beyond optimal doping (called the overdoped region), sanity

247: gradually returns.  The normal state behaves more normally in that the

248: temperature dependence of the resistivity resembles $T^2$ over a temperature

249: range which increases with further overdoping.  The anomalous region above

250: optimal doping is sometimes referred to as the ``strange metal'' region.  We

251: offer a qualitative description of this region in section IX, but in our mind

252: the understanding of the ``strange metal'' is even more rudimentary that

253: of the ``pseudogap.''  A popular notion is that the strange metal is

254: characterized by a quantum critical point lying under the superconducting dome

255: (\cit{V9754}; \cit{CCG9737}; \cit{TL0053})

256: %(Varma, 1997; Tallon and Loram, 2000).

257: %\cite{Varma97; Tallon00}.

258: In our view, unless the nature of the ordered side of a quantum critical point

259: is classified, the simple statement of quantum criticality does not teach us

260: too much about the behavior in the critical region.  For this reason, we

261: prefer to concentrate on the underdoped region and leave the strange metal

262: phase to future studies.

263: 

264: Contrary to the experimental situation, the development of high $T_c$ theory

265: follows a rather tortuous path and people often have the impression that the

266: field is highly contentious and without a clear direction  or consensus.  We

267: do not agree with this assessment and would like to clearly state our point of

268: view from the outset.  Our starting point is, as already stated, that the

269: physics of high $T_c$ superconductivity is the physics of doping a Mott

270: insulator.  Strong correlation is the driving force behind the phase diagram.

271: We believe that there is a general consensus on this starting point.  The

272: simplest model which captures the strong correlation physics is the Hubbard

273: model and its strong coupling limit, the $t$-$J$ model.  Our view is that one

274: should focus on understanding these simple models before adding various

275: elaborations.  For example, further neighbor hopping certainly is significant

276: and as we shall discuss, plays an important role in understanding the

277: particle-hole asymmetry of the phase diagram.  Electron-phonon coupling can

278: generally be expected to be strong in transition metal oxides, and we shall

279: discuss their role in affecting spectral line shape.  However, these

280: discussions must be made in the context of strong correlation.  The logical

281: step is to first understand whether simple models such as the $t$-$J$ model

282: contains enough physics to explain the appearance of superconductivity and

283: pseudogaps in the phase diagram.

284: 

285: The strong correlation viewpoint was put forward by 

286: \Ref{A8796},

287: %Anderson, 1987, 

288: who revived his earlier work on a possible spin liquid state in a frustrated

289: antiferromagnet.  This state, called the resonating valence band (RVB), has no

290: long range AF order and is a unique spin singlet ground state.  It has spin

291: 1/2 fermionic excitations which are called spinons.  The idea is that when

292: doped with holes the RVB is a singlet state with coherent mobile carriers, and

293: is indistinguishable in terms of symmetry from a singlet BCS superconductor.

294: The process of hole doping was further developed by \Ref{KRS8765}

295: %Kivelson, Rokhsar and Sethna, 1987 

296: who 

297: %introduced the term holon to describe 

298: argue that the combination of the

299: doped hole with the spinon form a bosonic excitation. This excitation,

300: called the holon, carries charge but no spin whereas the

301: spinon carries spin 1/2 but no charge, and the notion of spin-charge

302: separation was born.  Meanwhile, a slave-boson theory was formulated by

303: \Ref{BZA8773}.

304: %Baskaran, Zou and Anderson, 1987.  

305: %\cite{BZA8773}

306: Many authors contributed to the development of the mean field theory,

307: culminating in the paper by 

308: \Ref{KL8842}

309: %Kotliar and Liu, 1988 

310: who found that the

311: superconducting state should have $d$-symmetry and that a state with spin gap

312: properties should exist above the superconducting temperature in the

313: underdoped region.  The 

314: possibility of d-wave superconductivity has been discussed in terms of the

315: exchange of spin fluctuations

316: (\cit{SLH8690}, \citeyear{SLH8794}; \cit{MSV8654}; \cit{E8377},

317: \citeyear{E8621}; \cit{MP9369}).

318: These discussions are either based on phenomenological coupling between spins

319: and fermions or via RPA treatment for the Harbbard model which is basically a

320: weak coupling expansion. In contrast, the salve-boson

321: theory was developed in the limit of strong repulsion. Details of the

322: mean field theory will be discussed

323: in section VIII.

324: 

325: At about the same time, the proposal by 

326: \Ref{A8796}

327: %Anderson, 1987 

328: of using projected mean

329: field states as trial wavefunctions was implemented on the computer by 

330: %Gros, 1988a,b

331: \Ref{G8831}, \citeyear{G8853}.  

332: The idea is to remove by hand on a computer all components of the

333: mean field wavefunction with doubly occupied sites, and use this as a

334: variational wavefunction for the $t$-$J$ model.  

335: \Ref{G8831}, \citeyear{G8853} 

336: %Gros, 1988a,b  

337: concluded that

338: the projected $d$-wave superconductor is the variational ground state for the

339: $t$-$J$ model over a range of doping.  The projected wavefunction method

340: remains one of the best numerical tools to tackle the $t$-$J$ or Hubbard model

341: and is reviewed in section VI.

342: 

343: It was soon realized that inclusion of fluctuations about the mean field

344: invariably leads to gauge theory 

345: \cite{BA8880,IL8988,NL9050}.

346: %(Baskaran and Anderson, 1988; Ioffe and Larkin, 1989; Nagaosa and Lee, 1990).

347: The gauge field fluctuations can be

348: treated at a Gaussian level and these early developments together with some of

349: the difficulties are reviewed in section IX.

350: 

351: In hindsight, the slave-boson mean field theory and the projected wavefunction

352: studies contain many of the qualitative aspects of the hole doped phase

353: diagram.  It is indeed quite remarkable that the main tools of treating the

354: $t$-$J$ model, \ie projected trial wavefunction, slave-boson mean field, and

355: gauge theory, were in place a couple of years after the discovery of high

356: $T_c$.  In some way the theory was ahead of its time, because the majority

357: view in the early days was that the pairing symmetry was $s$-wave, and the

358: pseudogap phenomenology remains to be discovered.  (The first hint came from

359: Knight shift measurements in 1989 shown in Fig. \ref{chi}(a).)  Some of the

360: early history and recent extensions are reviewed by 

361: %Anderson {\em et al.} (2004)

362: \Ref{ARR0455}.

363: 

364: The gauge theory approach is a difficult one to pursue systematically because

365: it is a strong coupling problem.  One important development is the realization

366: that the original $U(1)$ gauge theory should be extended to $SU(2)$ in order

367: to make a smooth connection to the underdoped limit 

368: \cite{WLsu2}

369: %(Wen and Lee, 1996).  

370: This

371: is discussed in sections XI and XII.  More generally, it was gradually

372: realized that the concepts of confinement/deconfinement which are central to

373: QCD also play a key role here, except that the presence of matter field make

374: this problem even more complex.  Since gauge theories are not so familiar to

375: condensed matter physicists, these concepts are discussed in some detail in

376: section X.  One of the notable recent advances is that the notion of the spin

377: liquid and its relation to deconfinement in gauge theory has been greatly

378: clarified and several soluble models and candidates based on numerical exact

379: diagonalization have been proposed.  It remains true, however, that so far no

380: two-dimensional spin liquid has been convincingly realized experimentally.

381: 

382: Our overall philosophy is that the RVB idea of a spin liquid and its relation

383: to superconductivity contains the essence of the physics and gives a

384: qualitative description of the underdoped phase diagram.  The goal of our

385: research is to put these ideas on a more quantitative footing.  Given the

386: strong coupling nature of the problem, the only way progress can be made is

387: for theory to work in consort with experiment.  Our aim is to make as many

388: predictions as possible, beyond saying that the pseudogap is a RVB spin

389: liquid, and challenge the experimentalists to perform tests.  Ideas along

390: these lines are reviewed in section XII.

391: 

392: High $T_c$ research is an enormous field and we cannot hope to be complete in

393: our references.  Here we refer to a number of excellent review articles on

394: various aspects of the subject.  

395: %M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura

396: \Ref{IFT9839} reviewed the general topic of metal-insulator transition.

397: %Orenstein and Millis, 2000 and Norman and Pepin, 2003 

398: \Ref{OM0068} and \Ref{NP0347}

399: have provided highly readable accounts of experiments and general

400: theoretical approaches.  

401: Early numerical work was reviewed by \Ref{D9463}.

402: %Kastner {\em et al.}, 1998

403: \Ref{KBS9897} summarized the earlier

404: optical and magnetic neutron scattering data mainly on

405: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$.  Major reviews of angle resolved photoemission data

406: (ARPES) have been provided by 

407: %Campuzzano {\em et al.}, 2003 and Damascelli {\em et al.}, 2003

408: \Ref{CNR03} and \Ref{DHS0373}.  Optics measurements on underdoped materials are reviewed by

409: %Timusk and Statt, 1999

410: \Ref{TS9961}.  The volumes edited by 

411: %D.M. Ginzberg, 1989

412: \Ref{Gin89} contain

413: excellent reviews of early NMR work by C.P. Slichter and early transport

414: measurement by N.P. Ong among others.  Discussions of stripe physics are

415: recently given by 

416: %Carlson {\em et al.}, 2003 and Kivelson {\em et al.}, 2003

417: \Ref{CEK03} and \Ref{KBF0301}.

418: A discussion of spin liquid states 

419: is given by

420: %Sachdev, 2003

421: \Ref{S0313} with an emphasis on dimer order and by

422: \Ref{Wen04} with an emphasis on quantum order. 

423: For an account of experiments and early RVB theory, see the

424: book by 

425: %Anderson, 1997

426: \Ref{AndHtc97}.

427:  

428: \section{Basic electronic structure of the cuprates} 

429: 

430: It is generally agreed that the physics of high $T_c$ superconductivity is

431: that of the copper oxygen layer, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig.2}.  In the parent

432: compound such as La$_2$CuO$_4$, the formal valence of Cu is $2+$, which means

433: that its electronic state is in the $d^9$ configuration.  The copper is

434: surrounded by six oxygens in an octahedral environment (the apical oxygen

435: lying above and below Cu are not shown in Fig. 2).  The distortion from a

436: perfect octahedron due to the shift 

437: \begin{figure}

438: \centerline{

439: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig2.2.eps}

440: %\psfig{figure=Fig.2.eps,width=4.5in}

441: }

442: \centerline{

443: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{fig2b.eps}

444: %\psfig{figure=Fig.2.eps,width=4.5in}

445: }

446: %\vspace{0.5cm}

447: \caption{The two-dimensional copper-oxygen layer (left) is simplified to the one-band model (right). 

448: Bottom figure shows the copper $d$ and oxygen $p$ orbitals in the hole picture.  A single hole with  $S = 1/2$ occupies the copper $d$ orbital in the insulator.

449: }

450: \label{fig.2}

451: \end{figure}

452: \noindent of the apical oxygens splits the $e_g$ orbitals so that the highest

453: partially occupied $d$ orbital is $x^2 -y^2$.  The lobes of this orbital point

454: directly to the $p$ orbital of the neighboring oxygen, forming a strong

455: covalent bond with a large hopping integral $t_{pd}$.  As we shall see, the

456: strength of this covalent bonding is responsible for the unusually high energy

457: scale for the exchange interaction.  Thus the electronic state of the cuprates

458: can be described by the so-called 3 band model, where in each unit cell we

459: have the Cu $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital and two oxygen $p$ orbitals  

460: \cite{E8759,VSA8781}.

461: %(Emery, 1987; Varma {\em et al.}, 1987).

462: The Cu orbital is singly occupied while the $p$

463: orbitals are doubly occupied, but these are admixed by $t_{pd}$.  In addition,

464: admixtures between the oxygen orbitals may be included.  These tight-binding

465: parameters may be obtained by fits to band structure calculations 

466: \cite{M8728,YFX8735}.

467: %(Mattheiss, 1987; Yu {\em et al.}, 1987).  

468: However, the largest energy in the problem

469: is the correlation energy for doubly occupying the copper

470: % or oxygen

471: orbital.  To describe these correlation energies, it is more convenient to go

472: to the hole picture. 

473: %As shown in Fig.~3, 

474: The Cu $d^9$ configuration is represented by energy level $E_d$ occupied by a

475: single hole with $S={1\over 2}$.  The oxygen $p$ orbital is empty of holes and

476: lies at energy $E_p$ which is higher than $E_d$. The energy to doubly occupy

477: $E_d$ (leading to a $d^8$ configuration) is $U_d$, which is very large and can

478: be considered infinity. The lowest energy excitation is the charge transfer

479: excitation where the hole hops from $d$ to $p$ with amplitude $-t_{pd}$.  If

480: $E_p-E_d$ is sufficiently large compared with $t_{pd}$, the hole will form a

481: local moment on Cu.  This is referred to as a charge transfer insulator in the

482: scheme of 

483: %Zaanen, Allen, and Sawatzky (1985)

484: \Ref{ZSA8518}.  Essentially, $E_p-E_d$ plays

485: the role of the Hubbard $U$ in the one-band model of the Mott insulator.

486: Experimentally an energy gap of 2.0~eV is observed and interpreted as the

487: charge transfer excitation (see 

488: %Kastner {\em et al.}, 1998

489: \Ref{KBS9897}).

490: 

491: %\begin{figure}

492: %\centerline{

493: %\psfig{figure=Fig.3.eps,width=4.5in}}

494: %\vspace{0.5cm}

495: %\caption{}

496: %\end{figure}

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: 

501: Just as in the one-band Mott-Hubbard insulator, where virtual hopping to

502: doubly occupied states leads to an exchange interaction $J{\v{S}}_1\cdot

503: {\v{S}}_2$ where $J=4t^2/U$, in the charge-transfer insulator, the local

504: moments on nearest neighbor Cu prefer antiferromagnetic alignment because both

505: spins can virtually hop to the $E_p$ orbital.  Ignoring the $U_p$ for doubly

506: occupying the $p$ orbital with holes, the exchange integral is given by

507: \be

508: J = {t^4_{pd}\over (E_p-E_d)^3} .

509: \label{Eq.1}

510: \en

511: The relatively small size of the charge transfer gap means that we are not

512: deep in the insulating phase and the exchange term is expected to be large.

513: Indeed experimentally the insulator is found to be in an antiferromagnetic

514: ground state.  By fitting Raman scattering to two magnon excitations 

515: \cite{SFL9025},

516: %(Sulewsky {\em et al.}, 1990), 

517: the exchange energy is found to be $J = 0.13$~eV.   This

518: is one of the largest exchange energies known and is exceeded only by that of

519: the ladder compounds which involve the same Cu-O bonding.  This value of $J$

520: is confirmed by fitting spin wave energy to theory,  where an additional ring

521: exchange terms is found 

522: \cite{CHA0177}.

523: %(Coldea {\em et al.}, 2001).

524: 

525: By substituting divalent Sr for trivalent La, the electron count on the Cu-O

526: layer can be changed in a process called doping. For example, in

527: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$, $x$ holes per Cu is added to the layer. As seen in

528: Fig.~2, due to the large $U_d$, the hole will reside on the oxygen $p$

529: orbital.  The hole can hop via $t_{pd}$  and due to translational symmetry,

530: the holes are mobile and form a metal, unless localization due to disorder or

531: some other phase transition intervenes.  The full description of the hole

532: hopping in the three-band model is complicated, and a number of theories

533: consider this essential to the understanding of high T$_c$ superconductivity

534: \cite{E8759,VSA8781}.

535: %(Emery, 1987;  Varma {\em et al.}, 1987).

536: On the other hand, there is strong

537: evidence that the low energy physics (on a scale small compared with $t_{pd}$

538: and $E_p-E_d$) can be understood in terms of an effective one-band model, and

539: we shall follow this route in this review.   The essential insight is that

540: the doped hole resonates on the four oxygen sites surrounding a Cu and the

541: spin of the doped hole combines with the spin on the Cu to form a spin

542: singlet.  This is known as the Zhang-Rice singlet \cite{ZR8859}.

543: This state is split off by an energy of order $t^2_{pd}/(E_p-E_d)$ because the

544: singlet gains energy by virtual hopping.  On the other hand, the Zhang-Rice

545: singlet can hop from site to site.  Since the hopping is a two step process,

546: the effective hopping integral $t$ is also of order $t^2_{pd}/(E_p-E_d)$.

547: Since $t$ is the same parametrically as the binding energy of the singlet, the

548: justification of this point of view relies on a large  numerical factor for

549: the binding energy which is obtained by studying small clusters.

550: 

551: By focusing on the low lying singlet, the hole doped three-band model

552: simplifies to a one-band tight binding model on the square lattice, with an

553: effective nearest neighbor hopping integral $t$ given earlier 

554: %and an effective on-site repulsion $U$ which is of order 

555: and with $E_p-E_d$ playing a role analogous to $U$.  In the large $E_p-E_d$ 

556: limit this maps onto the $t$-$J$ model

557: \be

558: H = &P&  \left(

559: -\sum_{\langle \v i\v j \rangle,\sigma} t_{\v i\v j}c^\dagger_{\v i\sigma}c_{\v i\sigma}  \right.  \nonumber  \\ 

560: &+& J\sum_{\langle \v i\v j \rangle}

561: \left. \rule{0in}{.3in}

562: \left(

563: \v{S}_{\v i} \cdot \v{S}_{\v j} - {1\over 2}n_{\v i}n_{\v j} \right)

564: \right) P

565: \label{Eq.2}

566: \en

567: where the projection operator $P$ restricts the Hilbert space to one which

568: excludes double occupation of any site.  $J$ is given by $4t^2/U$ and we can

569: see that it is the same functional form as that of the three-band model

570: described earlier.  It is also possible to dope with electrons rather than

571: holes. The typical electron doped system is Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$

572: (NCCO). The added electron corresponds to removal of a hole from the copper

573: site in the hole picture (Fig. \ref{fig.2}), \ie the Cu ion is in the

574: $d^{10}$ configuration.  This vacancy can hop with a $t_\text{eff}$ and the mapping

575: to the one-band model is more direct than the hole doped case.  Note that in

576: the full three-band model the object which is hopping is the Zhang-Rice

577: singlet for hole doping and the Cu $d^{10}$ configuration for electron doping.

578: These have rather different spatial structure and are physically quite

579: distinct.  For example, the strength of their coupling to lattice distortions

580: may be quite different.  When mapped to the one-band model, the nearest

581: neighbor hopping $t$ has the same parametric dependence, but could have a

582: different numerical constant.  As we shall see, the value of $t$ derived from

583: cluster calculations turn out to be surprisingly similar for electron and hole

584: doping.  For a bi-partate lattice, the $t$-$J$ model with nearest neighbor $t$

585: has particle-hole symmetry because the sign of $t$ can be absorbed by changing

586: the sign of the orbital on one sublattice.  Experimentally the phase diagram

587: exhibits strong particle-hole asymmetry. On the electron doped side, 

588: the antiferromagnetic insulator

589: survives up to much higher doping concentration (up to $x \approx 0.2$) and

590: the superconducting transition temperature is quite low (about 30~K).  Many of

591: the properties  of the superconductor resemble that of the overdoped region of

592: the hole doped side and the pseudogap phenomenon, which is so prominent in the

593: underdoped region, is not observed with electron doping.  It is as though the

594: greater stability of the antiferromagnet has covered up any anomalous regime

595: that might exist otherwise.  Precisely why is not clear at  the moment.  One

596: possibility is that polaron effects may be stronger on the electron doped

597: side, leading to carrier localization over a broader range of doping.  There

598: has been some success in modeling the contrast in the single hole spectrum by

599: introducing further neighbor coupling into the one-band model which breaks

600: the particle-hole symmetry 

601: %(Shih {\em et al.}, 2004)

602: \cite{SLE0402}.  This will be discussed

603: further below.

604: 

605: We conclude that

606: the electron correlation is strong enough to produce a Mott insulator at half

607: filling. Furthermore, the one band $t$-$J$

608: %that the one-band Hubbard 

609: model captures the essence of the low

610: energy electronic excitations of the cuprates.  

611: %The Hubbard $U$ is large

612: %enough to place the system on the Mott insulator side of the model at half

613: %filling.  In that case, we may further simplify the model to the $t$-$J$

614: %model, which is the strong coupling limit of the Hubbard model.  

615: Particle-hole

616: asymmetry may be accounted for by including further neighbor hopping

617: $t^\prime$. 

618: %The parameters of this model is known.  $J= 0.13$~eV from experiment and $t

619: %\approx 3J$ from cluster and LDA band calculations (Schluter, O. Anderson).

620: %and $t^\prime = t^{\prime\prime} = ...........$ where $t^\prime$ is the

621: %hopping across the diagonal while $t^{\prime\prime}$ is the hopping to the

622: %next-nearest neighbor along a straight line. (references ????)  In

623: %particular, Anderson {\em et. al.} (1996) (J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 105}, 285)

624: %have shown that the low energy band structure can be parameterized  by a

625: %nearest-neighbor tight binding model involving Cu $d$ and oxygen $p$ orbitals

626: %plus the Cu $4s$ orbital.  The latter can give rise to 

627: This point of view has been tested extensively by 

628: %Hybertsen {\em et al.} (1990), 

629: \Ref{HSS9068}

630: who used {\em ab initio} local density functional theory to generate

631: input parameters for the three-band Hubbard model and then solve the spectra

632: exactly on finite clusters.  The results are compared with the low energy

633: spectra of the one-band Hubbard model and the $t-t^\prime-J$ model.  They found

634: an excellent overlap of the low lying wavefunctions for both the one-band

635: Hubbard and the $t-t^\prime-J$ model and were able to extract effective

636: parameters.  They found $J$ to be $128 \pm 5$~meV, in excellent agreement with

637: experimental values.  Furthermore they found $t \approx 0.41$~eV and $0.44$~eV

638: for electron and hole doping, respectively.  The near particle-hole symmetry

639: in $t$ is surprising because the underlying electronic states are very

640: different in the two cases, as already discussed.  Based on their results, the

641: commonly used parameter $J/t$ for the $t$-$J$ model is 1/3.  They also found a

642: significant next nearest neighbor $t^\prime$ term, again almost the same for

643: electron and hole doping.

644: 

645: \begin{figure}[t]

646: \centerline{

647: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig4.eps}

648: %\psfig{figure=Fig.4.eps,width=3.5in}

649: }

650: %\vspace{0.5cm}

651: \caption{%Fig.4 

652: The Knight shift for YB$_2$Cu$_4$O$_8$.  It is an underdoped material with

653: $T_c = 79$K.  From 

654: %Curro {\it et al}. (1997)

655: \Ref{CIS9777}.}

656: \label{Knight}

657: \end{figure}

658: 

659: More recently, 

660: %Andersen {\em et al.}, 1996

661: \Ref{Ao9685} have pointed out that in addition

662: to the three-band model, an additional Cu $4s$ orbital has a strong influence

663: on further neighbor hopping $t^\prime$ and $t^{\prime\prime}$, where

664: $t^\prime$ is the hopping across the diagonal and $t^{\prime\prime}$ is

665: hopping to the next-nearest neighbor along a straight line.  Recently 

666: %Pavarini {\em et. al.}, 2001 

667: \Ref{PDS0103}

668: emphasized the importance of the apical oxygen in

669: modulating the energy of the Cu $4s$ orbital and found a sensitive dependence

670: of $t^\prime/t$ on the apical oxygen distance.  They also pointed out an

671: empirical correlation between optimal $T_c$ and $t^\prime/t$.  As we will

672: discuss in sections VI.D and VII, $t^\prime$ may play an important role in

673: determining $T_c$ and in explaining the difference between electron and hole

674: doping.  However, in view of the fact that on-site repulsion is the largest

675: energy scale in the problem, it would make sense to begin our modeling of the

676: cuprates with the $t$-$J$ model and ask to what extent the phase diagram can

677: be accounted for.  As we shall see, even this is not a simple task and will

678: constitute the major thrust of this review.

679: 

680: \begin{figure}[t]

681: \centerline{

682: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig5a_old.eps}

683: }

684: \centerline{

685: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig5b_old.eps}

686: %\psfig{figure=Fig.5a.eps,width=3.25in}

687: %\psfig{figure=Fig.5b.eps,width=3.0in}

688: }

689: \vspace{0.5cm}

690: \caption{%Fig.5 

691: (a) Knight shift data of YBCO for a variety of doping (from 

692: %Alloul {\em et al.}, 1989

693: \Ref{AOM8900}).  The zero reference level for the spin  contribution

694: is indicated by the arrow and the dashed line represents the prediction of the 2D $S = {1\over 2}$ Heisenberg model for

695: $J = 0.13$~eV. (b)~Uniform magnetic susceptibility for LSCO (from 

696: %Nakano {\em et al.}, 1994

697: \Ref{NOM9400}). The orbital contribution $\chi_0$ is shown (see

698: text) and the solid line represents the Heisenberg model prediction.}

699: \label{chi}

700: \end{figure}

701: 

702: 

703: \begin{figure}[t]

704: \centerline{

705: \includegraphics[width=2.75in]{fig6a-fixed.eps}

706: }

707: \centerline{

708: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig6b-fixed.eps}

709: }

710: \vspace{0.5cm}

711: \caption{ 

712: The specific heat coefficient $\gamma$ for YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+y}$ (top) and

713: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (bottom).  Curves are labeled by the oxygen content

714: $y$ in the top figure and by the hole concentration $x$ in the bottom figure.

715: Optimal and overdoped samples are shown in the inset.  The jump in $\gamma$

716: indicates the superconducting transition.  Note the reduction of the jump size

717: with underdoping.  (From 

718: %Loram {\em et al.}, 1993, 2001

719: \Ref{LMC9340} and \Ref{LLC0159}).

720: }

721: \label{gamma}

722: \end{figure}

723: 

724: 

725: 

726: \section{Phenomenology of the underdoped cuprates} The essence of the problem

727: of doping into a Mott insulator is readily seen from Fig. \ref{fig.2}.  When a

728: vacancy is introduced into an antiferromagnetic spin background, it would like

729: to hop with amplitude $t$ to lower its kinetic energy.  However, after one hop

730: its neighboring spin finds itself in a ferromagnetic environment, at an energy

731: cost of ${3\over 2} J$ if the spins are treated as classical $S = {1\over 2}$.

732: It is clear that the holes are very effective in destroying the

733: antiferromagnetic background.  This is particularly so when $t \gg J$ when the

734: hole is strongly delocalized.  The basic physics is the competition between

735: the exchange $J$ and the kinetic energy which is of order $t$ per hole or $xt$

736: per unit area.  When $xt \gg J$ we expect the kinetic energy to win and the

737: system should be a Fermi liquid metal with weak residual antiferromagnetic

738: correlation.  When $xt \leq J$, however, the outcome is much less clear

739: because the system would like to maintain the antiferromagnetic correlation

740: while allowing the hole to move as freely as possible.  Experimentally we know

741: that N\'{e}el order is destroyed with 3\% hole doping, after which $d$-wave

742: superconducting state emerges as the ground state up to 30\% doping. Exactly how and

743: why superconductivity emerges as the best compromise is the centerpiece of the

744: high T$_c$ puzzle but we already see that the simple competition between $J$

745: and $xt$ sets the correct scale $x = J/t = {1\over 3}$ for the appearance of

746: nontrivial ground states. We shall focus our attention on the so-called

747: underdoped region, where this competition rages most fiercely.  Indeed it is

748: known experimentally that the ``normal'' state above the superconducting T$_c$

749: behaves differently from any other metallic state that we have known about up

750: to now.  Essentially an energy gap appears in some properties and not others.

751: This region of the phase diagram is referred to as the pseudogap region and is

752: well documented experimentally.  We review below some of the key properties.

753: 

754: 

755: 

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: \subsection{The pseudogap phenomenon in the normal state}

760: 

761: As seen in Fig. \ref{Knight} Knight shift measurement in the YBCO 124 compound

762: shows that while the spin susceptibility $\chi_s$ is almost temperature

763: independent between 700~K and 300~K, as in an ordinary metal, it decreases

764: below 300~K and by the time the T$_c$ of 80~K is reached, the system has lost

765: 80\% of the spin susceptibility 

766: %(Curro {\em et al.}, 1997)

767: \cite{CIS9777}.  To emphasize the

768: universality of this phenomenon, we reproduce in Fig. \ref{chi} some old data

769: on YBCO and LSCO.  Figure \ref{chi}(a) shows the Knight shift data from 

770: %Alloul {\it et al}. (1989)

771: \Ref{AOM8900}. We have subtracted the orbital contribution, which is

772: generally agreed to be 150~ppm 

773: %(Takigawa {\em et al.}, 1993)

774: \cite{THS9350}, and drawn in the

775: zero line to highlight the spin contribution to the Knight shift which is

776: proportional to $\chi_s$.  The proportionality constant is known, which allows

777: us to draw in the Knight shift which corresponds to the 2D square $S = {1\over

778: 2}$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet with $J = 0.13$~eV 

779: %(Ding {\em et al.}, 1991; Sandvik {\em et al.}, 1997)

780: \cite{DM9162,SDS9701}.   The point of this exercise is to show that in the

781: underdoped region, the spin susceptibility drops {\it below} that of the

782: Heisenberg model at low temperatures before the onset of superconductivity.

783: This trend continues even in the severely underdoped limit (O$_{0.53}$ to

784: O$_{0.41}$), showing that the $\chi_s$ reduction cannot simply be understood

785: as fluctuations towards the antiferromagnet.  Note that the discrepancy is

786: worse if $J$ were replaced by a smaller $J_\text{eff}$ due to doping, since

787: $\chi_s \sim J_\text{eff}^{-1}$.  The data seen in this light strongly point

788: to singlet formation as the origin of the pseudogap seen in the uniform spin

789: susceptibility.

790: 

791: It is worth noting that the trend shown in Fig. \ref{chi}(a) is not so

792: apparent if one looks at the measured spin susceptibility directly 

793: %(Tranquada {\em et al.}, 1988)

794: \cite{TMG8877}. This is because the van~Vleck part of the spin

795: susceptibility is doping dependent, due to the changing chain contribution.

796: This problem does not arise for LSCO, and in Fig. 4(b) we show the uniform

797: susceptibility data 

798: %(Nakano {\em et al.}, 1994)

799: \cite{NOM9400}.  The zero of the spin part is

800: determined by comparing susceptibility measurements to $^{17}$O Knight shift

801: data 

802: %{Ishida {\em et al.}, 1991}

803: \cite{IKZ9116}.  

804: %Nakano {\em et al.}, 1994

805: \Ref{NOM9400}  find an

806: excellent fit for the $x = 0.15$ sample (see Fig. 9 of this reference) and

807: determine the orbital contribution for this sample to be $\chi_0 \sim 0.4

808: \times 10^{-7}$~emu/g.  This again allows us to plot the theoretical

809: prediction for the Heisenberg model.  Just as for YBCO, $\chi_s$ for the

810: underdoped samples ($x = $0.1 and 0.08) drops below that of the Heisenberg

811: model.  In fact, the behavior of $\chi_s$ for the two systems is remarkably

812: similar, especially in the underdoped region.\footnote{ We note that a

813: comparison of $\chi_s$ for YBCO and LSCO was made by 

814: %Millis and Monien, 1993

815: \Ref{MM9310}.

816: Their YBCO analysis is similar to ours.  However, for LSCO they find  a rather

817: different  $\chi_0$ by matching the measurement above 600~K to that of the

818: Heisenberg model.  Consequently, their $\chi_s$ looks different for YBCO and

819: LSCO.  We believe their procedure is not really justified.}

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: A second indication of the pseudogap comes from the linear $T$ coefficient of

824: the specific heat, which shows a marked decrease below room temperature

825: %\cite{N9310} 

826: (see Fig. \ref{gamma}).  

827: %\begin{figure}

828: %\centerline{

829: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{Dummy_Fig5.eps} }

830: %\vspace{0.5cm}

831: %\caption{ This is Dummy Fig.5.}

832: %\end{figure}

833: Furthermore, the specific heat jump at T$_c$ is greatly reduced with

834: decreasing doping.  It is apparent that the spins are forming into singlets

835: and the spin entropy is gradually lost.  On the other hand, as shown in Fig.

836: \ref{sigma} the frequency dependent conductivity behaves very differently

837: depending on whether the electric field is in the $ab$ plane $(\sigma_{ab})$

838: or perpendicular to it $(\sigma_c)$.  

839: 

840: 

841: \begin{figure}

842: \centerline{

843: \includegraphics[width=3in]{uchida_s.eps}

844: }

845: %\vspace{0.5cm}

846: \caption{ 

847: The frequency dependent conductivity with electric field parallel to the plane ($\sigma_a(\omega)$, top figure) and perpendicular to the plane ($\sigma_c(\omega)$ bottom figure) in an underdoped YBCO crystal.  From 

848: %Uchida (1997)

849: \Ref{U9712}.

850: }

851: \label{sigma}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: \begin{figure}

855: \centerline{

856: \includegraphics[width=3.1in]{fig7a_s.eps}

857: }

858: \vskip 0.05in

859: \centerline{

860: \includegraphics[width=2.3in]{fig7b.eps}

861: }

862: %\vspace{0.5cm}

863: \caption{%Fig.8 

864: (a--c)~Spectra from underdoped Bi-2212 ($T_c = 85$K) taken at different $k$ points along the Fermi surface shown in (d).  Note the pullback of the spectrum from the Fermi surface as determined by the Pt reference (red lines) for $T > T_c$. (e)~Temperature dependence of the leading-edge midpoints. (from 

865: %Norman {\em et al.}, 1998

866: \Ref{NDR9857})  Bottom figure shows the temperature $T^\ast$

867: where the pseudogap determined from the leading edge first appears plotted as a function of doping for

868: Bi-2212 samples.  Triangles are determined from data such as shown in Fig.~7(a) and squares are lower

869: bound estimates. Circles show the energy gap $\Delta$ measured at $(0,\pi)$ at low temperatures. (from

870: %Campuzzano {\it et al}., 2003)

871: \Ref{CNR03}).}

872: \label{edge}

873: \end{figure}

874: 

875: At low frequencies (below 500~cm$^{-1}$) $\sigma_{ab}$ shows a typical

876: Drude-like behavior for a metal with a width which decreases with temperature,

877: but an area (spectral weight) which is independent of temperature

878: %(Santander-Syro {\em et al.}, 2002)

879: \cite{SLB0205}. Thus there is no sign of the pseudogap in

880: the spectral weight.  This is surprising because in other examples where an

881: energy gap appears in a metal, such as the onset of charge or spin density

882: waves, there is a redistribution of the spectral weight from the Drude part to

883: higher frequencies.  An important observation concerning the spectral weight

884: is that the integrated area under the Drude peak is found to be proportional

885: to $x$ 

886: %(Orenstein {\em et al.}, 1990; Cooper {\em et al.}, (1993); Uchida {\em

887: %et al.}, 1991; Padilla {\em et al.}, 2004)

888: (\cit{OTM9042}; \cit{CRK9333}; \cit{UIT9142}; \cit{PLD04}).  In the superconducting state this

889: weight collapses to form the delta function peak, with the result that the

890: superfluid density $n_s/m$ is also proportional to $x$.  It is as though only

891: the doped holes contribute to charge transport in the plane.  In contrast,

892: angle-resolved photoemission shows a Fermi surface at optimal doping very

893: similar to that predicted by band theory, with an area corresponding to

894: $(1-x)$ electrons (see Fig. \ref{edge}(d)).  With underdoping, this Fermi

895: surface is partially gapped in an unusual manner which we shall next discuss.

896: 

897: 

898: In contrast to the metallic behavior of $\sigma_{ab}$, it was discovered by

899: %Homes {\em et al.} (1993)

900: \Ref{HTL9310} that  below 300~K $\sigma_c(\omega)$ is gradually

901: reduced for frequencies below 500~cm$^{-1}$ and a deep hole is carved out of

902: $\sigma_c(\omega)$ by the time T$_c$ is reached.

903: This is clearly seen in the lower panel of Fig.

904: \ref{sigma}.

905: 

906: 

907: 

908: 

909: Finally, angle-resolved photoemission shows that an energy gap (in the form of

910: a pulling back of the leading edge of the electronic spectrum from the Fermi

911: energy) is observed near momentum $(0,\pi)$. Note that the lineshape is

912: extremely broad and completely incoherent. The onset of superconductivity is

913: marked by the appearance of a small coherent peak at this gap edge (Fig.

914: \ref{edge}).  The size of the pull back of the leading edge is the same as the

915: energy gap of the superconducting state as measured by the location of the

916: coherence peak.  As shown in Fig. \ref{edge} this gap energy increases with

917: decreasing doping, while the superconducting T$_c$ decreases. This trend is

918: also seen in tunneling data.

919: 

920: 

921: 

922: It  is possible to map out the Fermi surface by tracking the momentum of the

923: minimum excitation energy in the superconducting state for each momentum

924: direction.  Along the Fermi surface the energy gap does exactly what is

925: expected for a $d$-wave superconductor.  It is maximal near $(0,\pi)$ and

926: vanishes along the line connection $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ where the

927: excitation is often referred to as nodal quasiparticles.  Above T$_c$ the

928: gapless region expands to cover a finite region near the nodal point, beyond

929: which the pseudogap gradually opens as one moves towards $(0,\pi)$. This

930: unusual behavior is sometimes referred to as the Fermi arc 

931: %(Loeser {\em et al.}, 1996; Marshall {\em et al.}, 1996; 

932: %Ding {\em et al.}, 1996)

933: (\cit{LSD9625}; \cit{MDL9641}; \cit{DYC9651}).  It is

934: worth noting that unlike the anti-nodal direction (near $(0,\pi)$) the

935: lineshape is relatively sharp along the nodal direction even above T$_c$.

936: From the width in  momentum space, a lifetime which is linear  in temperature

937: has been extracted for a sample near optimal doping 

938: %(Valla {\em et al.}, 1999)

939: \cite{VFJ9910}.  

940: A narrow lineshape in the nodel direction has also been observed in LSCO

941: \cite{Yo0301} and in $Na$ doped $Ca_2CuO_2Cl_2$

942: \cite{RSK0301}. So the notion of relatively well defined nodal excitations in

943: the normal state is most likely a universal feature.

944: 

945: \begin{figure}[t]

946: \centerline{

947: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig9.eps}

948: %\psfig{figure=Fig.9.eps,width=4.75in}}

949: }

950: %\vspace{0.5cm}

951: \caption{%Fig.9 

952: (A) Doping dependence of the ARPES spectra at $(0,\pi)$ at $T \ll T_c$ for

953: overdoped (OD), optimally doped (OP), and underdoped (UD) materials labeled by

954: their $T_c$'s.  (B)~The spectral weight of the coherent peak in Fig.~8(a)

955: normalized to the background is plotted vs. doping $x$.  From 

956: %Feng {\it et al}. (2000)

957: \Ref{Fo0077}.}

958: \label{ARPES}

959: \end{figure}

960: 

961: 

962: As mentioned earlier, the onset of superconductivity is marked by the

963: appearance of a sharp coherence peak near $(0,\pi)$.  The spectral weight of

964: this peak is small and gets even smaller with decreasing doping, as shown in

965: Fig. \ref{ARPES}(b).  Note that this behavior is totally different from

966: conventional superconductors.  There the quasiparticles are well defined in

967: the normal state and according to BCS theory, the sharp peak pulls back from

968: the Fermi energy and opens an energy gap in the superconducting state.

969: 

970: 

971: \begin{figure}[t]

972: \centerline{

973: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{STM_s.eps}

974: %\psfig{figure=Fig.10.eps,width=4.75in}}

975: }

976: %\vspace{0.5cm}

977: \caption{%Fig.9

978: From 

979: %McElroy {\em et al.}, 2004

980: \Ref{MLH0405}.  STM images showing the spatial distribution of energy gaps for

981: a variety of samples which are progressively more underdoped from A to E.

982: Panel F shows the average spectrum for a given energy gap.

983: }

984: \label{STM}

985: \end{figure} 

986: 

987: In the past few years, low temperature STM data have become available, mainly

988: on Bi-2212 samples.  STM provides a measurement of the local density of states

989: $\rho(E, \v{r})$ with atomic resolution.  It is complementary to ARPES in that

990: it provides real space information but no direct momentum space information.

991: One important outcome is that STM reveals spatial inhomogeneity of the Bi-2212

992: on roughly 50 to 100~\AA \hspace{.002in} length scale, which becomes more and

993: more significant with underdoping.  As shown in Fig.~\ref{STM}(f) spectra with

994: different energy gaps are associated with different patches and with

995: progressively more underdoping, patches with large gaps become more and more

996: pre-dominant.  Since ARPES is measuring the same surface, it becomes necessary

997: to reinterpret the ARPES data with inhomogeneity in mind.  In particular, the

998: decrease of the weight of the coherent peak shown in Fig.~\ref{ARPES}(b) may

999: simply be due to a reduction of the fraction of the sample which has sharp

1000: coherent peaks. 

1001: 

1002: 

1003: A second remarkable observation by STM is that the low lying density of states

1004: ($\rho (E, \v{r})$ for $E \lesssim 10$ to 15 meV) is remarkably homogeneous.

1005: This is clearly seen in Fig. 9(f).  It is reasonable to associate this low

1006: energy excitation with the quasiparticles near the nodes.  Indeed, the low

1007: lying quasiparticles exhibit interference effects due to scattering by

1008: impurities, which is direct evidence for their spatial coherence over long

1009: distances.  Then the combined STM and ARPES data suggest a kind of phase

1010: separation in momentum space, \ie the spectra in the anti-nodal region (near

1011: $0,\pi$) is highly inhomogeneous in space whereas the quasiparticles near the

1012: nodal region are homogeneous and coherent.  The nodal quasiparticles must be

1013: extended and capable of averaging over the spatial homogeneity, while the

1014: anti-nodal quasiparticles appear more localized.  In this picture the

1015: pseudogap phenomenon mainly has to do with the anti-nodal region.

1016: 

1017: 

1018: %McElroy {\em et al.}, 2004 

1019: \Ref{MLH0405} argued that there is a limiting spectrum (the

1020: broadest curve in Fig. \ref{STM}(f)) which characterizes the extreme

1021: underdoped region at zero temperature.  It has no coherent peak at all, but

1022: shows a reduction of spectral weight up to a very high energy of 100 to 200

1023: meV.  Very recently, 

1024: %Hanaguri {\em et al.}, 2004

1025: \Ref{HLK04} provided support of this

1026: point of view in their study of Na doped Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$.  In this

1027: material the apical oxygen in the CuO$_4$ cage is replaced by Cl and the

1028: crystal cleaves easily.  For Na doping ranging from $x = 0.08$ to $0.12$, a

1029: tunneling spectrum very similar to the limiting spectrum for Bi-2212 is

1030: observed.  This material appears free of the inhomogeneity which plagues the

1031: Bi-2212 surface.  ARPES experiments on these crystals are becoming available

1032: \cite{RSK0301}

1033: and the combination of STM and ARPES should yield much information on the real

1034: and momentum space dependence of  the electron spectrum.  There is much

1035: excitement concerning the discovery of a static $4 \times 4$ pattern in this

1036: material, and their relation to the incommensurate pattern seen in the vortex

1037: core of Bi-2212 

1038: %(Hoffman {\em et al.}, 2002)

1039: \cite{HHL0266} and reported also in the absence

1040: of magnetic field, albeit in a much weaker form 

1041: %(Howard {\em et al.}, 2003; Vershinin {\em et al.}, 2004)

1042: \cite{HEK0333,VSO0495}.  How this spatial modulation is related to the

1043: pseudogap spectrum is a topic of current debate.

1044: 

1045: In the literature, the pseudogap behavior is often associated with anomalous

1046: behavior of the nuclear spin relaxation rate ${1\over T_1}$.  In normal metals

1047: the nuclear spin relaxes by exciting low energy particle-hole excitations,

1048: leading to the Koringa behavior, \ie ${1\over T_{1}T}$ is temperature

1049: independent.  In high T$_c$ materials, it is rather ${1\over T_1}$ which is

1050: temperature independent, and the enhanced relaxation (relative to Koringa) as

1051: the temperature is reduced is ascribed to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations.

1052: It was found that in underdoped YBCO, the nuclear spin relaxation rate at the

1053: copper site reaches a peak at a temperature $T^\ast_1$ and decreases rapidly

1054: below this temperature 

1055: %(Warren {\em et al.}, 1989; Takigawa {\em et al.}, 1991)

1056: (\cit{WWB8993}; \cit{YIS8954}; \cit{TRH9147}).  

1057: The resistivity also shows a decrease below $T^\ast_1$.  In some

1058: literature $T^\ast_1$ is referred to as the pseudogap scale.  However, we note

1059: that $T^\ast_1$ is lower than the energy scale we have been discussing so far,

1060: especially compared with that for the uniform spin susceptibility and the

1061: $c$-axis conductivity.  Furthermore, the gap in ${1\over T_1}$ is not

1062: universally observed in cuprates. It is  not seen in LSCO.  In

1063: YBa$_2$Cu$_4$O$_8$, which is naturally underdoped, the gap in ${1\over T_1T}$

1064: is wiped out by 1\% Zn doping, while the Knight shift remains unaffected

1065: %(Zheng {\em et al.}, 2003)

1066: \cite{ZOM0391}.  It is known from neutron scattering that the low

1067: lying spin excitations near $(\pi,\pi)$ is sensitive to disorder.  Since

1068: ${1\over T_1}$ at the copper site is dominated by these fluctuations, it is

1069: reasonable that ${1\over T_1}$ is sensitive as well.  In contrast, the

1070: gap-like behavior we described thus far in a variety of physical properties is

1071: universally observed across different families of cuprates (wherever data

1072: exist) and are robust.  Thus we prefer not to consider $T^\ast_1$ as the

1073: pseudogap temperature scale.

1074: 

1075: \subsection{Neutron scattering, resonance and stripes} Neutron scattering

1076: provides a direct measure of the spin excitation spectrum.  Early work (see

1077: %Kastner {\em et al.}, 1998

1078: \Ref{KBS9897}) has shown that the long range N\'{e}el order gives

1079: way to short range order with progressively shorter correlation length with

1080: doping, so that at optimal doping, the static spin correlation length is no

1081: more than 2 or 3 lattice spacings.  Much of the early work was focused on the

1082: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ family, because of the availability of large single

1083: crystals.  It was found that there is enhanced spin scattering at low

1084: energies, centered around the incommensurate positions $\v{q}_0 = \left( \pm

1085: {\pi \over 2}, \pm \delta  \right)$, 

1086: %(Cheong {\em et al.}, 1991)

1087: \cite{CAM9191}.  

1088: %Yamada {\em et al.}, 1998 

1089: \Ref{Yo9865}

1090: found that $\delta$ increases systematically with doping, as

1091: shown in Fig. \ref{incomm}.  

1092: \begin{figure}[t]

1093: \centerline{

1094: \includegraphics[width=3in]{incomm.eps}

1095: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1096: }

1097: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1098: \caption{%Fig.10 

1099: From 

1100: %Matsuda {\em et al.}, 2000

1101: \Ref{MFY0048}.  Plot of the incommensurability $\delta$ vs.

1102: hole concentration $x$.  In the superconducting state, the open circles denote

1103: the position of the fluctuating spin density wave observed by neutron

1104: scattering.  (Data from 

1105: %Yamada {\em et al.}, 1998.

1106: \Ref{Yo9865}.)  In the insulator the spin density wave becomes static at low

1107: temperatures and its orientation is rotated by 45$^\circ$.  The dashed line

1108: $(\delta = x)$ is the prediction of the stripe model which assumes a fixed

1109: density of holes along the stripe.

1110: }

1111: \label{incomm}

1112: \end{figure} 

1113: Meanwhile it was noted that in the La$_2$CuO$_4$ family, there is a marked

1114: suppression of $T_c$ near $x = {1 \over 8}$.  This suppression is particularly

1115: strong with Ba doping, and $T_c$ is completely destroyed if some Nd is

1116: substituted for La, as in La$_{1.6-x}$Nd$_{0.4}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ for $x= {1 \over

1117: 8}$.  

1118: %Tranquada {\em et al.}, 1995

1119: \Ref{TSA9561}

1120: discovered static spin density wave and

1121: charge density wave order in this system, which onsets below about 50~K.  The

1122: period of the spin and charge density waves are 8 and 4 lattice constants,

1123: respectively.  The static order is modeled by a stripe picture where the holes

1124: are concentrated in period 4 charge stripes separated by spin ordered regions

1125: with anti-phase domain walls.  Recently, the same kind of stripe order was

1126: observed in La$_{1.875}$Ba$_{0.125}$CuO$_4$ 

1127: %(Fujita {\em et al.}, 2004)

1128: \cite{FGY0496}.  Note

1129: that in this model there is one hole per two sites along the charge stripe.

1130: It is tempting to interpret the low energy spin density wave observed in LSCO

1131: as a slowly fluctuating form of stripe order, even though the associated

1132: charge order (presumably dynamical also) has not yet been seen.  The most

1133: convincing argument for this interpretation comes from the observation that

1134: over a range of doping $x = 0.06$ to $x = 0.125$, the observed

1135: incommensurability $\delta$ is given precisely by the stripe picture, \ie

1136: $\delta = x$, while $\delta$ saturates at approximately ${1 \over 8}$ for $x

1137: \gtrsim 0.125$ (see Fig.\ref{incomm}).  However, it must be noted that in this

1138: interpretation, the charge stripe must be incompressible, \ie they behave as

1139: charge insulators.  Upon changing $x$, it is energetically more favorable to

1140: add or remove stripes and change the average stripe spacing, rather than

1141: changing the hole density on each stripe, which is pinned at ${1 \over 4}$

1142: filling.  It is difficult to reconcile this picture with the fact that LSCO is

1143: metallic and superconducting in the same doping range.  An alternative

1144: interpretation of the incommensurate spin scattering is that it is due to

1145: Fermi surface nesting 

1146: %(Littlewood {\em et al.}, 1993; Si {\em et al.}, 1993)

1147: \cite{LZA9387,SZL9355,TKF9355}.

1148: However, in this case the $x$ dependence of $\delta$ requires some fine

1149: tuning.  Regardless of interpretation, it is clear that in the LSCO family,

1150: there are low lying spin density wave fluctuations which are almost ready to

1151: condense.  At low temperatures, static SDW order is stabilized by Zn doping

1152: %(Kimura {\em et al.}, 1999)

1153: \cite{KHY9917}, near $x = {1 \over 8}$ 

1154: %(Wakimoto {\em et al.}, 1999)

1155: \cite{WSE9969}, and in oxygen doped systems 

1156: %(Lee {\em et al.}, 1999)

1157: \cite{LBK9943}.  However, in the

1158: latter case, there is evidence from $\mu$SR 

1159: %(Savici {\em et al.}, 2002)

1160: \cite{SFG0224} that

1161: there may be microscopic phase separations in this material (not too

1162: surprising in view of the STM data on Bi-2202).  It was also found that SDW

1163: order is stabilized in the vicinity of vortex cores 

1164: %(Kitano {\em et al.}, 2000; Lake {\em et al.}, 2001; 

1165: %Khaykovich {\em et al.}, 2002)

1166: (\cit{KYS0077}; \cit{LAC0159}; \cit{KLE0228}).

1167: 

1168: \begin{figure}[t]

1169: \centerline{

1170: \includegraphics[width=3in]{hourglass.eps}

1171: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1172: }

1173: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1174: \caption{%Fig.10 

1175: Neutron scattering from YBCO$_{6.5}$.  This sample has $T_c = 59$~K and the

1176: experiment was performed at 6~K (from 

1177: %Stock {\em et al.}, 2004b

1178: \Ref{SBC0471}).  Top panel

1179: refers to in-phase fluctuations between the bilayer which shows a resonance

1180: located at $(\pi,\pi)$ ($q = 0$ in the figure) and at energy 33~meV.

1181: Incommensurate peaks disperse down from the resonance.  Broad peaks also

1182: disperse upward from the resonance, forming the hourglass pattern.  Solid line

1183: is the spin wave spectrum of the insulating parent compound.  Bottom panel

1184: denotes out-of-phase fluctuations between the bilayers.

1185:  }

1186:  \label{hourglass}

1187: \end{figure} 

1188: 

1189: 

1190: 

1191: The key question is then whether the fluctuating stripe picture is special to

1192: the LSCO family or plays a significant role in all the cuprates.  Outside of

1193: the LSCO family, the spin response is dominated by a narrow resonance at

1194: $(\pi,\pi)$.  The resonance was first discovered at 41~meV for optimally doped

1195: YBCO 

1196: %(Rossat-Mignon {\em et al.}, 1991; Mook {\em et al.}, 1993)

1197: (\cit{RRV9186}; \cit{MYA9390}).  Careful subtraction of an accidentally degenerate

1198: phonon line reveals that the resonance appears only below $T_c$ at optimal

1199: doping 

1200: %(Fong {\em et al.}, 1995)

1201: \cite{FKA9516}.  Now it is known that with underdoping, the resonance moves

1202: down in energy and survives into the pseudogap regime above $T_c$.  The

1203: resonance moves smoothly to almost zero energy at the edge of the transition

1204: to N\'{e}el order in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.35}$ 

1205: %(Buyers {\em et al.}, 2004)

1206: \cite{Bo04} and

1207: clearly plays the role of a soft mode at that transition.

1208: 

1209: The resonance was interpreted as a spin triplet exciton bound below

1210: $2\Delta_0$ 

1211: %(Fong {\em et al.}, 1995)

1212: \cite{FKA9516}.  This idea was elaborated upon by a number of RPA calculations 

1213: %(Liu {\em et al.}, 1995; Bulurt and Scalapino, 1995; Norman, 2000, 2001; Kao

1214: %{\em et al.}, 2000; Onufrieva and Pfeuty, 2002; Brinckmann and Lee, 1999,

1215: %2002; Abanov {\em et al.}, 2002)

1216: (\cit{LZL9530}; \cit{BS9649}; \cit{N0051}; \cit{N0109}; \cit{KSL0098};

1217: \cit{OP0215}; \cit{BL9915}; \cit{BL0202}; \cit{ACE0202}).  An alternative

1218: picture making use of the particle-particle channel was proposed

1219: %(Demler and Zhang, 1995)

1220: \cite{DZ9526}.  However, as explained by 

1221: %Tchernyshyov {\em et al.} (2001)

1222: \Ref{TNC0107} and by 

1223: %Norman and Pepin (2003)

1224: \Ref{NP0347}, this theory predicts an anti-bound resonance above the

1225: two-particle continuum, which is not in accord with experiments.

1226: 

1227: Further support of the triplet exciton idea comes from the observation that

1228: incommensurate branches extend below the resonance energy 

1229: %(Bourges {\em et al.}, 2000)

1230: \cite{BSF0034}.  This behavior is predicted by RPA-type theories 

1231: %(Norman, 2000; Onufrieva and Pfuety, 2002; Brinckmann and Lee, 2002)

1232: (\cit{N0051}; \cit{OP0215}; \cit{BL0202})

1233:  in that the gap in the

1234: particle-hole continuum extends over a region near $(\pi,\pi)$, where the

1235: resonance can be formed.  With further underdoping this incommensurate branch

1236: extends to lower energies (see Fig.~\ref{hourglass}).  Now it becomes clear

1237: that the low energy incommensurate scattering previously reported for

1238: underdoped YBCO 

1239: %(Mook {\em et al.}, 2000)

1240: \cite{MDD0004} is part of this downward dispersing

1241: branch 

1242: %(Stock {\em et al.} 2004a; Pailhes {\em et al.}, 2004)

1243: (\cit{SBL0402}; \cit{PSB0409}).  

1244: 

1245: It should be

1246: noted that while the resonance is prominent due to its sharpness, its spectral

1247: weight is actually quite small, of order 2\% of the total spin moment sum rule

1248: for optimal doping and increasing somewhat with underdoping.  There is thus

1249: considerable controversy over its significance in terms of its contribution to

1250: the electron self-energy and towards pairing (see 

1251: %Norman and Pepin, 2003

1252: \Ref{NP0347}).

1253: The transfer of this spectral weight from above to below $T_c$ has been

1254: studied in detail by 

1255: %Stock {\em et al.} (2004a)

1256: \Ref{SBL0402}.  These authors emphasized

1257: that in the pseudogap state above $T_c$ in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.5}$, the

1258: scattering below the resonance is gapless and in fact increases in strength

1259: with decreasing temperature.  This is in contrast with the sharp drop seen in

1260: ${1 \over T_1T}$ below 150~K.  Either a gap open up at very low energy (below

1261: 4~meV) or the $(\pi,\pi)$ spins fluctuating seen by neutrons are not the

1262: dominant contribution to the nuclear spin relaxation, \ie the latter may be

1263: due to excitations which are smeared out in momentum space and undetected by

1264: neutrons.  We note that a similar discrepancy between neutron scattering

1265: spectral weight and ${1\over T_1T}$ was noted for LSCO 

1266: %(Aeppli {\em et al.}, 1995)

1267: \cite{AMH9511}.  This reinforces our view that the decrease in ${1\over T_1T}$ should

1268: not be considered a signature of the pseudogap.  We also note that an enhanced

1269: $(\pi,\pi)$ scattering together with singlet formation is just what is

1270: predicted by the $SU(2)$ theory in section XI.D.

1271: 

1272: Recently, neutron scattering has been extended to energies much above the

1273: resonance.  It is found that very broad features disperse upward from the

1274: resonance, resulting in the ``hourglass'' structure shown in

1275: Fig.~\ref{hourglass} which was first proposed by 

1276: %Bourges {\em et al.}, 2000

1277: \Ref{BSF0034}

1278: %(Hayden {\em et al.}, 2004; Stock {\em et al.}, 2004a)

1279: \cite{HMD0431,SBL0402}.  Interestingly, there

1280: has also been a significant evolution of the understanding of the neutron

1281: scattering in the LSCO family.  For a long time it has been thought that the

1282: LSCO family does not exhibit the resonance which shows up prominently below

1283: $T_c$ in YBCO and other compounds.  However, neutron scattering does show a

1284: broad peak around 50~meV which is temperature independent.  

1285: %Tranquada {\em et al.}, (2004)

1286: \Ref{TWP0434} studied La$_{1.875}$Ba$_{0.125}$CuO$_4$ which exhibits static

1287: charge and spin stripes below 50~K, and a greatly suppressed $T_c$.  Their

1288: data also exhibits an ``hourglass''-type dispersion, remarkably similar to

1289: that of underdoped YBCO.  In particular, the incommensurate scattering which

1290: was previously believed to be dispersionless now exhibits downward dispersion

1291: %(Fujita {\em et al.}, 2004)

1292: \cite{FGY0496}.  The same phenomenon is also seen in optimally

1293: doped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ 

1294: %(Christensen {\em et al.}, 2004)

1295: \cite{CMR0439}.  It is

1296: remarkable that in these materials known to have static or dynamic stripes,

1297: the incommensurate low energy excitations are not spin waves emanating  from $

1298: \left( {\pi \over 2} \pm \delta \right) $ as one might have expected, but

1299: instead are connected to the peak at $(\pi, \pi)$ in the hourglass fashion.

1300: %Tranquada {\em et al.} (2004)

1301: \Ref{TWP0434} fit the $\v{k}$ integrated intensity to a model

1302: of a two-leg ladder.  It is not clear how unique this fit is because one may

1303: expect high energy excitations to be relatively insensitive to details of the

1304: model.  What is emerging though is a picture of a universal hourglass shaped

1305: spectrum which is common to LSCO and YBCO families.  The high energy

1306: excitations appear common while the major difference seems to be in the

1307: re-arrangement of spectral weight at low energy.  In LBCO, significant weight

1308: has been transferred to the low energy incommensurate scattering, as shown in

1309: Fig.~\ref{tranquada}, and is associated with stripes.  In our view the

1310: universality supports the picture that 

1311: \begin{figure}[t]

1312: \centerline{

1313: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{tranquada_s.eps}

1314: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1315: }

1316: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1317: \caption{%Fig.10 

1318: Neutron scattering from La$_{1.875}$Ba$_{0.125}$CuO$_4$ at 12~K $(> T_c)$

1319: (from 

1320: %Tranquada {\em et al.}, 2004)

1321: \Ref{TWP0434}).  Right panel shows the hourglass pattern

1322: of the excitation spectrum (cf Fig. \ref{hourglass}).  Solid line is a fit to

1323: a two-leg ladder spin model.  Left panel shows the momentum integrated

1324: scattering intensity.  Dashed line is a Lorenztian fit to the rising intensity

1325: at the incommensurate positions. Sharp peak at 40~meV could be a phonon.

1326:  }

1327:  \label{tranquada}

1328: \end{figure} 

1329: all the cuprates share the same short distance and high energy physics, which

1330: include the pseudogap behavior.  Stripe formation is a competing state which

1331: becomes prominent in the LSCO family, especially near $x = {1 \over 8}$, and

1332: may dominate the low energy and low temperature (below 50~K) physics.  There

1333: is a school of thought which holds the opposite view (see 

1334: %Carlson {\em et al.}, 2003)

1335: \Ref{CEK03}), that fluctuating stripes are responsible for the pseudogap

1336: behavior and the appearance of superconductivity.  From this point of view the

1337: same data have been interpreted as an indication that stripe fluctuations are

1338: also important in the YBCO family 

1339: %(Tranquada {\em et al.}, 2004)

1340: \cite{TWP0434}.  Clearly,

1341: this is a topic of much current debate.

1342: 

1343: 

1344: 

1345: 

1346: 

1347: \subsection{Quasiparticles in the superconducting state} In contrast with the

1348: anomalous properties of the normal state, the low temperature properties of

1349: the superconductor seem relatively normal.  There are two major differences

1350: with conventional BCS superconductors, however.  First, due to the proximity

1351: to the Mott insulator, the superfluid density of the superconductor is small,

1352: and vanishes with decreasing hole concentration.  Second, because the pairing

1353: is $d$-wave, the gap vanishes on four points on the Fermi surface (called gap

1354: nodes), so that the quasiparticle excitations are gapless and affect the

1355: physical properties even at the lowest temperatures.  We will focus on these

1356: nodal quasiparticles in this sub-section.

1357: 

1358: The nodal quasiparticles clearly contribute to the thermal dynamical

1359: quantities such as the specific heat.  Because their density of states  vanish

1360: linearly in energy, they give rise to a $T^2$ term which dominates the low

1361: temperature specific heat.  In practice, disorder rounds off the linear

1362: density of states, giving instead an  $\alpha T + \beta T^3$  behavior.  An

1363: interesting effect in the presence of a magnetic field

1364: was proposed by 

1365: %Volovik (1993)

1366: \Ref{V9369}.  He argued that in the presence of a vector potential or superfluid flow,

1367: the quasiparticle dispersion $E(\v{k}) = \sqrt{(\epsilon_{\v{k}}-\mu)^2 + \Delta_{\v k}^2}$ is shifted by

1368: \be

1369: E_{\v{A}}(\v{k}) = E(\v{k}) + \left(

1370: {1\over 2e} \v{\nabla}\theta - \v{A}

1371: \right) \cdot \v{j}_{\v k}

1372: \label{Eq.3}

1373: \en

1374: where $\v{j}_{\v k}$ is the current carried by ``normal state'' quasiparticles with

1375: momentum $\v{k}$ and is usually taken to be $-e {\partial \epsilon_{\v k} \over

1376: \partial\v{k}}$.  Note that since the BCS quasiparticle is a superposition of

1377: a particle and a hole, the charge is not a good quantum number.  However, the

1378: particle component with momentum $\v{k}$ and the hole component with momentum

1379: $-\v{k}$ each carry the same electrical current $\v{j}_{\v k} = -e {\partial

1380: \epsilon_{\v k} \over \partial\v{k}}$ and it makes sense to consider this to be the

1381: current carried by the quasiparticle.  Note that $\v{j}_{\v{k}}/e$ is very

1382: different from the group velocity ${\partial E(\v{k}) \over \partial\v{k}}$.

1383: 

1384: In a magnetic field which exceeds $H_{c1}$, vortices enter the sample. The

1385: superfluid flow $\v{\nabla}\theta \sim {2\pi \over r}$ where $r$ is the

1386: distance to the vortex core.  On average, ${1 \over 2}|\v{\nabla}\theta|

1387: \approx \pi/R$ where $R = (\phi_0/H)^{1/2}$ is the average spacing between

1388: vortices and $\phi_0 =  hc/2e$ is the flux quantum.  Volovik then predicts a

1389: shift of the quasiparticle spectra by $\approx ev_F (H/\phi_0)^{1/2}$ which in

1390: turn gives a contribution to the specific heat proportional to $\sqrt{H}$.

1391: This contribution has been observed experimentally

1392: %(Moler {\em et al.}, 1994)

1393: \cite{MBU9444}.

1394: 

1395: The quasiparticles contribute to the low temperature transport properties as

1396: well. 

1397: %Lee (1993)

1398: \Ref{L9387} considered the frequency-dependent conductivity

1399: $\sigma(\omega)$ due to quasiparticle excitations.  In the low temperature

1400: limit, he found that the low frequency limit of the conductivity is universal

1401: in the sense that it does not depend on impurity strength, but only on the

1402: ratio $v_F/v_\Delta$ where $v_\Delta$ is the velocity of the nodal

1403: quasiparticle in the direction of the maximum gap $\Delta_0$, \ie 

1404: $\sigma(\omega \rightarrow 0) = {e^2 \pi v_F \over h v_\Delta}$, if $v_F \gg

1405: v_\Delta$.  This result was derived within the self-consistent $t$-matrix

1406: approximation and can easily be understood as follows.  In the presence of

1407: impurity scattering, the density of states at zero energy becomes finite.  At

1408: the same time, the scattering rate is proportional to the self-consistent

1409: density of states.  Since the conductivity is proportional to the density of

1410: states and inversely to the scattering rate, the impurity dependence cancels.

1411: 

1412: 

1413: \begin{figure}[t]

1414: \centerline{

1415: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig10_new_s.eps}

1416: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1417: }

1418: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1419: \caption{%Fig.10 

1420: Figure from 

1421: %Sutherland {\em et al.}, 2003

1422: \Ref{SHH0320}. Doping dependence of the

1423: superconducting gap $\Delta_0$ obtained from the quasiparticle velocity

1424: $v_\Delta$ using eq. (\ref{Eq.4}) (filled symbols).  Here we assume $\Delta = \Delta_0

1425: \cos2\phi$, so that $\Delta_0 = \hbar k_Fv_\Delta/2$, and we plot data for

1426: YBCO alongside Bi-2212 

1427: %(Chiao {\em et al.}, 2000)

1428: \cite{CHL0054} and Tl-2201 

1429: %(Proust {\em et al.}, 2003)

1430: \cite{PBH0203}.  For comparison, a BCS gap of the form $\Delta_{\bf BCS} = 2.14

1431: k_BT_c$ is also plotted.  The value of the energy gap in Bi-2212, as

1432: determined by ARPES, is shown as measured in the superconducting state

1433: %(Campuzzano {\em et al.}, 1999)

1434: \cite{CDN9909} and the normal state 

1435: %(Norman {\em et al.}, 1998)

1436: \cite{NDR9857} (open symbols).  The thick dashed line is a guide to the eye.

1437:  }

1438:  \label{gap}

1439: \end{figure} 

1440: 

1441: The frequency-dependent $\sigma(\omega)$ is difficult to measure and it was

1442: realized that thermal conductivity $\kappa$ may provide a better test of the

1443: theory because according to the Wiedemann-Franz law, $\kappa/T$ is

1444: proportional to the conductivity and should be universal.  Unlike

1445: $\sigma(\omega)$, thermal conductivity does not have a superfluid contribution

1446: and can be measured at DC.  More detailed considerations by 

1447: %Durst and Lee (2000)

1448: \Ref{DL0070}

1449:  show that $\sigma(\omega)$ has two non-universal corrections: one due

1450: to backscattering effects, which distinguishes the transport rate from the

1451: impurity rate which enters the density of state; and a second one due to Fermi

1452: liquid corrections.  On the other hand, these corrections do not exist for

1453: thermal conductivity.  Consequently, the  Wiedemann-Franz law is violated, but

1454: the thermal conductivity per layer is truly universal and is given by

1455: \be

1456: {\kappa \over T} = {k^2_B \over 3\hbar c}  \left(

1457: {v_F \over v_\Delta }+ {v_\Delta \over v_F}

1458: \right)

1459: \label{Eq.4}

1460: \en

1461: We note that this result is obtained within the self-consistent $t$-matrix

1462: approximation which is expected to break down if the impurity scattering is

1463: strong, leading to localization effects.  The localization of nodal

1464: quasiparticles is a complex subject.  Due to particle-hole mixing in the

1465: superconductor, zero energy is a special point and quasiparticle localization

1466: belongs to a different universality class 

1467: %(Senthil \& Fisher 1999)

1468: \cite{SF9993}  from the standard ones.  Senthil and Fisher also pointed out

1469: that since quasiparticles carry well defined spin, the Wiedemann-Franz law for

1470: spin conductivity should hold and spin conductivity should be universal.  We

1471: note that 

1472: %Durst and Lee (2000) 

1473: \Ref{DL0070} argued that Fermi liquid corrections enter the spin conductivity,

1474: but we now believe their argument on this point is faulty.

1475: 

1476: Thermal conductivity has been measured to mK temperatures in a variety of YBCO

1477: and BCCSO samples.  The universal nature of $\kappa/T$ has been demonstrated

1478: by studying samples with different Zn  doping and showing that $\kappa/T$

1479: extrapolates to the same constant at low temperatures 

1480: %(Taillefer {\em et al.}, 1997)  

1481: \cite{TLG9783}

1482: A magnetic field dependence analogous to the Volovik effect for the

1483: specific heat has also been observed 

1484: %(Chiao, {\em et al.}, 2000)

1485: \cite{CHL0054}  Using

1486: eq.~(\ref{Eq.4}), the experimental data can be used to extract the ratio

1487: $v_F/v_\Delta$.  In the case of BCCSO where photoemission data for $v_F$ and

1488: the energy gap is available, the extracted ratio $v_F/v_\Delta$ is in

1489: excellent agreement with ARPES results, assuming a simple $d$-wave

1490: extrapolation of the energy gap from the node to the maximum gap $\Delta_0$.

1491: In particular, the trend that $\Delta_0$ increases with decreasing doping $x$

1492: is directly observed as a decrease of $v_F/v_\Delta$ extracted from

1493: $\kappa/T$.  A summary of the data is shown in Fig.~\ref{gap} 

1494: %(Sutherland {\em et al.}, 2003)

1495: \cite{SHH0320}.    Results of such systematic studies strongly support the

1496: notion that in clean samples the nodal quasiparticles behave exactly as one

1497: expects for well defined quasiparticles in a $d$-wave superconductor.  We

1498: should add that in LSCO the ratio $v_F/v_\Delta$ extracted from $\kappa/T$

1499: seems anomalously small, suggesting that strong disorder may be playing a role

1500: here to invalidate eq.~(\ref{Eq.4}).

1501: 

1502: \begin{figure}[tb]

1503: \centerline{

1504: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig10.eps}

1505: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1506: }

1507: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1508: \caption{%Fig.11 

1509: The London penetration depth measured in a series of YBCO film 

1510: %displayed in three different ways.  The top inset shows the raw data

1511: %$\lambda^{-2}$ plotted vs. temperature.  These date are converted to

1512: %$\rho_s(T)$ in absolute scale and $\rho_s(T) - \rho_s(0)$ is plotted in the

1513: %bottom inset to highlight the temperature dependent part.  The main plot

1514: %shows the data normalized to $\rho_s(T=0)$ vs. $T/T_c$.  From Stacjic {\it et

1515: %al}., 2003.  

1516: with different oxygen concentration and T$_c$'s.  The plot shows

1517: $\lambda^{-2}$ plotted vs.  temperature.  Data provided by T.R. Lemberger and

1518: published in 

1519: %Boyce {\it et al.} (2000)

1520: \Ref{BSL0061}. 

1521: }

1522: \label{Lemberger}

1523: \end{figure} 

1524: 

1525: 

1526: %Lee and Wen (1997) 

1527: \Ref{LW9711}

1528: pointed out that the nodal quasiparticles also manifest

1529: themselves in the linear $T$ dependence of the superfluid density.  They

1530: showed that by treating them as well defined quasiparticles in  the sense of

1531: Landau, a general expression of the linear $T$ coefficient can be written

1532: down, independent of the microscopic origin of the superconductivity.  We have

1533: \be

1534: {n_s(T) \over m}  = {n_s(0) \over m} - {2\ln 2 \over \pi} \alpha^2 \left( {v_F  \over v_\Delta}

1535: \right) T

1536: \label{Eq.5}

1537: \en

1538: The only assumption made is that the quasiparticles carry an electric current

1539: \be

1540: \v{j}(\v{k}) = -e \alpha \v{v}_F

1541: \label{Eq.6}

1542: \en

1543: where $\alpha$ is a phenomenological Landau parameter which was left out in

1544: the original Lee-Wen paper but added in by 

1545: %Millis {\it et al} (1998)

1546: \Ref{MGI9842}.  While

1547: the linear $T$ dependence is well known in the conventional BCS theory of a

1548: $d$-wave superconductor, the same theory gives $n_s/m$ of order unity.  It is

1549: therefore useful to write $n_s$ in this phenomenological way, and choose

1550: $n_s(T=0)$ to be of order $x$ as we discussed in section III.A.  The key

1551: question raised by eq.~(\ref{Eq.6}) is whether $\alpha$ depends on $x$ or not.  There

1552: is experimental evidence that the linear $T$ coefficient of

1553: $n_s(T)/m$ which is directly related to London penetration depth measurements,

1554: is almost independent of $x$ for $x$ less than optimal doping.

1555: Figure~\ref{Lemberger} shows data obtained for a series of thin films of YBCO

1556: %(Boyce {\em et al.}, 2000; Stajic {\em et al.}, 2003).   

1557: \cite{BSL0061,SIL0320}

1558: %The raw data with $\lambda$ measured in absolute unit is shown in the upper

1559: %inset.  The lower inset shows the temperature dependent part of $n_s$, again

1560: %in absolute unit, and shows a remarkable insensitivity to the doping $x$.  We

1561: %emphasize that in order to make this comparison, it is essential to obtain an

1562: %absolute determination of $\lambda(T)$, which turns out to be a difficult

1563: %experimental problem for bulk samples. 

1564: The thin film data are in full agreement with earlier  but less extensive data

1565: on bulk crystals 

1566: %(Bonn, 1996)

1567: \cite{Bo9695}.

1568: However, we note that very recent data on severely underdoped YBCO crystal

1569: ($T_c<20$K)  show that $\frac{d(n_s/m)}{dT}$ is roughly linear in $T_c$

1570: \cite{BTO04}.

1571: 

1572: Since $v_F/v_\Delta$ is known to go to a constant for small $x$ (and, indeed,

1573: decreases with decreasing $x$), the independence of the linear $T$ term in

1574: $n_s/m$ on $x$ means that $\alpha$ approaches a constant for small $x$.  By

1575: combining with $v_F/v_\Delta$ extrapolated from thermal conductivity,

1576: $\alpha^2$ has been estimated to be 0.5 (see 

1577: %Ioffe and Millis (2002)

1578: \Ref{IM0259} for an

1579: excellent summary).  This is an important result because it states that

1580: despite the proximity to the Mott insulator, the nodal quasiparticles carry a

1581: current which is similar to that of the tight-binding Fermi liquid band.  We

1582: note that the simplest microscopic theory which gives correctly $n_s(T=0)$ to

1583: be proportional to $x$ is the slave-boson  mean-field theory to be discussed

1584: in section IX.B.  That theory predicts $\alpha$ to be proportional to $x$ and

1585: the resulting $x^2T$ term is in strong disagreement with experiment.  The

1586: search for a microscopic theory which gives correctly both $n_s(T=0)$ and the

1587: linear $T$ term is one of the open problems that faces us today.

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: The unusual combination of a small $n_s(T=0)$ and a large linear $T$ reduction

1592: due to quasiparticles has a number of immediate  consequences.  Simply by

1593: extrapolating the linear $T$ dependence, we can conclude that $n_s$ vanishes

1594: at the temperature scale proportional to $x$ and T$_c$ must be bound by it.

1595: Furthermore, at $T_c$ the number of quasiparticles which are thermally excited

1596: is still small, and not sufficient to close the gap as in standard BCS theory.

1597: Thus the transition must not be thought of as a gap-closing transition, and

1598: the effect of an energy gap must persist considerably above $T_c$.  This can

1599: potentially explain at least part of the pseudogap phenomenon.  As we shall

1600: see in the next section, when combined with phase fluctuations, the

1601: quasiparticle excitations explain the magnitude of $T_c$ in the underdoped

1602: cuprates and account for a wide phase fluctuation region above $T_c$, but not

1603: the full pseudogap phenomenon.

1604: 

1605: The disconnect between the gap energy $\Delta_0$ and $kT_c$ introduces two

1606: length scales, $\xi_0 = \hbar v_F/\Delta_0$ and $R_2 = \hbar v_F/kT_c$, where

1607: $kT_c$ is proportional to $x$.  Around a vortex, the supercurrent induces a

1608: population of quasiparticles by the Volovik effect, and in analogy to eq.

1609: (\ref{Eq.5})

1610: causes a reduction in $n_s$.  

1611: %Lee and Wen (1997) 

1612: \Ref{LW9711} show that at a radius of

1613: $R_2$ the circulating supercurrent exceeds the critical current and inside

1614: that radius the superconductor looses its phase stiffness.  They suggest that

1615: the system becomes normal once the large core radius $R_2$ overlaps and

1616: $H_{c2} \approx \phi_0/R_2^2$, in contrast with $H_{c2}^\ast \approx

1617: \phi_0/\xi_0^2$ as in conventional BCS theory.  Note that $H_{c2}$ decreases

1618: while $H_{c2}^\ast$ increases with underdoping.  Experimentally the resistive

1619: transition to the normal state indeed takes place at an $H_{c2}$ which

1620: decreases with decreasing $T_c$.  However, there are signs that vortices

1621: survive above this magnetic field up to $H_{c2}^\ast$, as will be discussed in

1622: section. V.B.

1623: 

1624: Finally, we comment on suggestions in the literature that classical

1625: fluctuations of the superconducting phase can lead to a linear reduction of

1626: $n_s$ at low temperatures 

1627: %(Carlson {\em et al}, 1999)

1628: \cite{CKE9912}.  Just as in the case of lattice displacements, such

1629: fluctuations must be treated quantum mechanically at low temperatures (as

1630: phonons in that case) to avoid the $3 k_B$ low temperature limit for the

1631: specific heat.  In the case of phonons, the characteristic temperature scale

1632: is the phonon frequency.  In the case of the superconductor, the phase mode is

1633: pushed up to the plasma frequency by long-range  Coulomb interaction.

1634: Nevertheless, due to the coupling to the low-lying particle-hole excitations,

1635: the cross-over from classical to quantum fluctuations must be treated with

1636: some care.  

1637: %Paramekanti {\em et al}, 2000, 2002 and Benfatto {\em et al.}, 2001

1638: \Ref{PRR0086}, \citeyear{P0221} and \Ref{BCC0113}

1639:  have calculated that the cross-over happens at quite a high temperature

1640: scale and we believe the low-temperature linear reduction of $n_s$ is entirely

1641: due to thermal excitations of quasiparticles.

1642:  

1643: \section{Introduction to RVB and a simple explanation of the pseudogap} 

1644: 

1645: We explained in the last section that the N\'{e}el spin order is incompatible

1646: with hole hopping.  The question is whether there is another arrangement of

1647: the spin which achieves a better compromise between exchange energy and the

1648: kinetic energy of the hole.  For $S={1\over 2}$ it appears possible to take

1649: advantage of the special stability of the singlet state. The ground state of

1650: two spins $S$ coupled with antiferromagnetic Heisenberg exchange is a spin

1651: singlet with energy $-S(S+1)J$.  Compared with the classical large  spin

1652: limit, we see that quantum mechanics provides an additional stability in the

1653: term unity in $(S+1)$ and this contribution is strongest for $S={1\over 2}$.

1654: Let us consider a one-dimensional spin chain.  A N\'{e}el ground state with

1655: $S_z = \pm {1\over 2}$ gives an energy of $-{1\over 4}J$ per site.  On the

1656: other hand, a simple trial wavefunction of singlet dimers already gives a

1657: lower energy of $-{3\over 8}J$ per site.  This trial wavefunction breaks

1658: translational symmetry and the exact ground state can be considered to be a

1659: linear superposition of singlet pairs which are not limited to nearest

1660: neighbors, resulting in a ground state energy of 0.443~J.  In a square and

1661: cubic lattice the N\'{e}el energy is $-{1\over 2}J$ and $-\frac34J$ per site,

1662: respectively, while the dimer variational energy stays at $-{3\over 8}J$.  It

1663: is clear that in a 3D cubic lattice, the N\'{e}el state is a far superior

1664: starting  point, and in two dimensions the singlet state may present a serious

1665: competition.  Historically, the notion of a linear superposition of spin

1666: singlet pairs spanning different ranges, called the resonating valence bond

1667: (RVB), was introduced by 

1668: %Anderson (1973)

1669: \Ref{A7353} and 

1670: %Fazekas and Anderson (1974)

1671: \Ref{FA7432} as a

1672: possible ground state for the $S={1\over 2}$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg

1673: model on a triangular lattice.  The triangular lattice is of special interest

1674: because an Ising-like ordering of the spins is frustrated.  Subsequently, it

1675: was decided that the ground state forms a $\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$

1676: superlattice where the moments lie on the same plane and form $120^\circ$

1677: angles between neighboring sites 

1678: %(Huse and Elser, 1988)

1679: \cite{HE8831}.  Up to now there is no known spin Hamiltonian with full $S(U2)$

1680: spin rotational symmetry outside of one dimension which is known to have an

1681: RVB ground state.  However, see section X.H for examples which either violate

1682: spin rotation or which permit charge fluctuations.

1683: 

1684: The N\'{e}el state has long range order of the staggered magnetization and an

1685: infinite degeneracy of ground states leading to Goldstone modes which are

1686: magnons.  In contrast, the RVB state is a unique singlet ground state with

1687: either short range or power law decay of antiferromagnetic order.  This state

1688: of affairs is sometimes referred to as a spin liquid.  However, the term spin

1689: liquid is often used more generally to denote any kind of short range or power

1690: law decay, \ie the absence of long range order, even when the unit cell is

1691: doubled, either spontaneously or explicitly. For example, the ladder system

1692: has two states per unit cell and in the limit of strong coupling across the

1693: rung, the ground state is naturally a spin singlet with short range

1694: antiferromagnetic order.  Another example is the spontaneously dimerized

1695: ground state for the frustrated spin chains when the next-nearest neighbors

1696: exchange $J^\prime$ is sufficiently large.  This kind of ground state is more

1697: properly called a valence band solid and is smoothly connected to spin

1698: singlet ground states often observed for systems with an even number of

1699: electrons per unit cell, the extreme example being Si.  Thus we think it is

1700: better to reserve the term spin liquid to cases where there is an odd number

1701: of electrons per unit cell.

1702: 

1703: Soon after the discovery of high T$_c$ superconductors, 

1704: %Anderson (1987)

1705: \Ref{A8796}

1706: revived the RVB idea and proposed that with the introduction of holes the

1707: N\'{e}el state is destroyed and the spins form a superposition of singlets.

1708: The vacancy can hop in the background of what he envisioned as a liquid of

1709: singlets and a better compromise between the hole kinetic energy and the spin

1710: exchange energy may be achieved.  Many elaborations of this idea followed,

1711: but here we argue that the basic physical picture described above gives a

1712: simple account of the pseudogap phenomenon.  The singlet formation explains

1713: the decrease of the uniform spin susceptibility and the reduction of the

1714: specific heat $\gamma$. The vacancies are responsible for transport in the

1715: plane.  The conductivity spectral weight in the $ab$ plane is given by the

1716: hole concentration $x$ and is unaffected by the singlet formation.  On the

1717: other hand, for $c$-axis conductivity, an electron is transported between

1718: planes.  Since an electron  carries spin ${1\over 2}$, it is necessary to

1719: break a singlet.  This explains the gap formation in $\sigma_c(\omega)$ and

1720: the energy scale of this gap should be correlated with that of the uniform

1721: susceptibility.  In photoemission, an electron leaves the solid and reaches

1722: the detector, the pull back of the leading edge simply reflects the energy

1723: cost to break a singlet.

1724: 

1725: A second concept associated with the RVB idea is the notion of spinons and

1726: holons, and spin charge separations.  Anderson  postulated that the spin

1727: excitations in an RVB state are $S={1\over 2}$ fermions which he called

1728: spinons.  This is in contrast with excitations in a N\'{e}el state which are

1729: $S = 1$ magnons or $S = 0$ gapped singlet excitations.

1730: 

1731:  

1732:  \begin{figure}[t]

1733: \centerline{

1734: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig11.eps}

1735: %\psfig{figure=Fig.11.eps,width=4.75in}}

1736: }

1737: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1738: \caption{%Fig.11 

1739: A cartoon representation of the RVB liquid or singlets.  Solid bond represents a spin singlet

1740: configuration and circle represents a vacancy.  In (b) an electron is removed from the plane in

1741: photoemission or $c$-axis conductivity experiment.  This necessitates the breaking of a singlet. }

1742:  \label{RVB}

1743: \end{figure}  

1744: 

1745:  

1746: Initially the spinons are  suggested to form a Fermi surface, with Fermi

1747: volume equal to that of $1-x$ fermions.  Later it was proposed that the Fermi

1748: surface is gapped to form $d$-wave type structure, with maximum gap near

1749: $(0,\pi)$.  This $\v{k}$ dependence of the energy gap is needed to explain the

1750: momentum dependence observed in photoemission.

1751: 

1752: The concept of spinons is a familiar one in one-dimensional spin chains where

1753: they are well understood to be domain walls.  In two dimensions the concept is

1754: a novel one  which does not involve domain walls.  Instead, a rough physical

1755: picture is as follows.  If we assume a background of short range singlet

1756: bonds, forming the so-called short-range RVB state, a cartoon of the spinon is

1757: shown in Fig. \ref{RVB}.  If the singlet bonds are ``liquid,'' two $S={1\over

1758: 2}$ formed by breaking a single bond can drift apart, with the liquid of

1759: singlet bonds filling in the space between them.  They behave as free

1760: particles and are called spinons.  The concept of holons follows naturally

1761: %(Kivelson, Rokhsar, and Sethna 1988) 

1762: \cite{KRS8765}

1763: as the vacancy left over by removing a

1764: spinon.  A holon carries charge $e$ but no spin.

1765: 

1766: 

1767: \section{Phase fluctuation vs. competing order} 

1768: 

1769: One of the hallmarks of doping

1770: a Mott insulator is that the spectral weight of the frequency dependent

1771: conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ should go to zero in the limit of small doping.

1772: Indeed, $\sigma(\omega)$ shows a Drude-like peak at low frequencies and its

1773: area was shown to be proportional to the hole concentration 

1774: %(Orenstein {\em et al.}, 1990; Cooper {\em et al.}, 1993; 

1775: %Uchida {\em et al.}, 1991; Padilla {\em et al.}, 2004)

1776: (\cit{OTM9042}; \cit{CRK9333}; \cit{UIT9142}; \cit{PLD04}).

1777: Results from exact diagonalization of small samples  are

1778: consistent with a Drude weight of order $xt$ 

1779: %(Dagotto {\em et al.}, 1992)

1780: \cite{DMO9241}.

1781: When the metal becomes superconducting, all the spectral weight collapses into

1782: a $\delta$-function if the sample is in the clean limit. The London

1783: penetration depth for field penetration perpendicular to the $ab$ plane is

1784: given by

1785: \be

1786: \lambda_\perp^{-2}

1787: %(T=0) 

1788: = {4\pi n_s^{3d}e^2\over m^\ast c^2} ,

1789: \label{Eq.7}

1790: \en

1791: where $n_s^{3d}/m^\ast$ is the spectral weight and $n_s^{3d}$ is the $3d$

1792: superfluid charge density.  As an example, if we take $\lambda_\perp =

1793: 1600$~Angstrom for YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.9}$,  and take $n_s^{3d}$ to be the hole

1794: density, we find from eq. (\ref{Eq.7}) $m^\ast \approx 2m_e$ which corresponds

1795: to an effective hopping $t^\ast = {1\over 3} t$.  The notion that

1796: $\lambda_\perp^{-2}$ is proportional to $xt$ is also predicted by slave-boson

1797: theory, as will be discussed in section IX.B.

1798: 

1799:  

1800:  \begin{figure}[t]

1801: \centerline{

1802: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{fig12.eps}

1803: %\psfig{figure=Fig.12.eps,width=4.75in}}

1804: }

1805: %\vspace{0.5cm}

1806: \caption{%Fig.12 

1807: The phase stiffness $T_\theta$ measured at different frequencies $(T_\theta =

1808: \hbar^2 n_s/m^\ast)$.  The solid dots give the bare stiffness obtained by

1809: extrapolation to infinite frequency.  $T_c$ of this sample is 74~K.This is

1810: where the phase stiffness measured at low frequency would vanish according to

1811: BKT theory.  Note the linear decrease of the bare stiffness with $T$ which

1812: extends considerably above $T_c$.  This decrease is due to thermal excitations

1813: of nodal quasiparticles.  Inset shows the time scale of the phase fluctuation.

1814: Hatched region denotes ${\hbar \over \tau} = kT_c$. From 

1815: %Corson {\it et al}. (1999)

1816: \Ref{CMO9921}. 

1817: }

1818: \label{Corson}

1819: \end{figure} 

1820:  

1821:  

1822: %Uemura {\em et al.}, 1989

1823: \Ref{ULS8917}

1824: discovered empirically a linear relation between

1825: $\lambda_\perp^{-2}$ measured by $\mu$SR and the superconducting T$_c$.   He

1826: interpreted this relation as indicative of Bose condensation of holes, since in

1827: two dimensions the Bose-Einstein condensation temeprature is proportional to

1828: the areal density.  Since $\lambda_{\perp}^{-2}$ is proportional to the 3d

1829: density, in principle, some adjustment for the layer spacing should be made.

1830: Furthermore, $\lambda_{\perp}^{-2}$ is highly sensitive to disorder, and it is

1831: now known that in many systems, not all the spectral weight collapses to the

1832: $\delta$-function, \ie  some residual normal conductivity is left, presumably

1833: due to inhomogeneity 

1834: %(Basov {\em et al.}, 1994; Corson {\em et al.}, 2000)

1835: \cite{BPH9465,COO0069}.

1836: Thus the Uemura plot should be viewed as providing a qualitative trend, rather

1837: than a quantitative relation.  Nevertheless, it is important in that it draws

1838: a relationship between T$_c$ and carrier density.

1839: 

1840: 

1841: \begin{figure}[t]

1842: \centerline{

1843: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{123layer.eps}

1844: }

1845: \vspace{0.5cm}

1846: \caption{ 

1847: Schematic plot of the phase stiffness $T_\theta = \hbar^2 n_s/m^\ast$ for superconductors with $N$ coupled layers.  The linear decrease with temperature is due to the thermal excitation of quasiparticles.  The transition temperatures $T_{cN}, N=1, 2, 3$ are estimated by the interception with the BKT line $T_\theta = 8 T/\pi$.

1848: }

1849: \label{Tc}

1850: \end{figure}

1851:  

1852:  

1853: \subsection{A theory of $T_c$} 

1854: 

1855: The next important step was taken by 

1856: %Emery and Kivelson (1995)

1857: \Ref{EK9534}, who noted that it is the superfluid density which controls

1858: the phase stiffness of the superconducting order parameter $\Delta =

1859: |\Delta|e^\theta$, \ie the energy density cost of a phase twist is

1860: \be

1861: H = {1\over 2} K_s^0 (\nabla\theta)^2

1862: \label{Eq.8}

1863: \en

1864: Here the superscript on $K^0_s$ denotes the bare stiffness on a short distance

1865: scale.  For two-dimensional layers the stiffness $K_s =

1866: \hbar^2(n_s/2)/2m^\ast$, \ie the kinetic energy of Cooper pairs.  The

1867: spectral weight $n_s/m^\ast$ and the stiffness are given by

1868: \be

1869: K_s = {1 \over 4}{\hbar^2n_s \over m^\ast}

1870: = {1\over 4} {\hbar^2n_s^{3d}c_0 \over m^\ast} 

1871: \label{Eq.9}

1872: \en

1873: where $c_0$ is the spacing between the layers 

1874: %Combining Eq. (5.1) and (5.3) $\rho_s^0$ can  be written

1875: and using Eqs. (\ref{Eq.7}) and (\ref{Eq.9}), can be directly measured in terms of

1876: $\lambda_\perp$.  If $K_s^0$ is small due to the proximity to the Mott

1877: insulator, then phase fluctuation is strong and the T$_c$ in the underdoped

1878: cuprates may be governed by phase fluctuations.  The theory of phase

1879: fluctuations in two dimensions is well understood due to the work of

1880: %Berezinskii (1971)

1881: \Ref{B7144}

1882: and 

1883: %Kosterlitz and Thouless (1973)

1884: \Ref{KT7381}.  The BKT transition is

1885: described by the thermal unbinding of vortex anti-vortex pairs.  The energy of

1886: a single vortex is given by

1887: \be

1888: E_\text{vortex} = E_c + 2\pi K_s^0 \ln (L/\xi_0)

1889: \label{Eq.10}

1890: \en

1891: where $L$ is the sample size, $\xi_0$ is the BCS coherence length which serves

1892: as a short distance cut-off, and $E_c$ is the core energy.  For vortex

1893: anti-vortex pairs, the sample size $L$ is replaced by the separation of the

1894: pairs.  The vortex unbinding transition is driven by the balance between this

1895: energy and the entropy which also scales logarithmically with the vortex

1896: separation.  At T$_c$, $K_s$ is predicted to jump between zero and a finite

1897: value $K_s(T_c)$ given by a universal relation 

1898: \be

1899: kT_c = (\pi/2)K_s(T_c) =

1900: {\pi \over 8} {\hbar^2 n_s \over m^\ast}

1901: \label{Eq.11}

1902: \en

1903: %(Nelson and Kosterlitz, 1977)

1904: \cite{NK7701}.  The precise value of T$_c$ depends on $K_s(T=0)$ and weakly on

1905: the core energy.  In  the limit of very large core energy, $kT_c = 1.5 K_s^0$,

1906: whereas for an  XY model on a square lattice 

1907: %whose long distance behavior is also governed by Eq. (5.2), 

1908: $E_c$ is basically zero if $\xi_0$ in eq. (\ref{Eq.10}) is replaced by the lattice

1909: constant and $T_c = 0.95 K_s^0$.  Thus $K_s^0$ should give a reasonable guide

1910: to T$_c$ in the phase fluctuation scenario.  Emery and Kivelson estimated

1911: $K^0_s$ from $\lambda_\perp$ data for a variety of materials and concluded that

1912: $K_s^0$ is indeed on the scale of T$_c$.  However, they assumed that each

1913: layer is fluctuating independently, even for systems with strongly Josephson

1914: coupled bi-layers. Subsequent work using microwave conductivity has confirmed

1915: the BKT nature of the phase transition, but concluded that in BSCCO, it is the

1916: bi-layer which should be considered as a unit, \ie the superconducting phase

1917: is strongly correlated between the two layers of a bi-layer 

1918: %(Corson {\it et al}. 1999)

1919: \cite{CMO9921}.  This increases the $K_s^0$ estimate by a factor of 2.  For

1920: example, for $\lambda_\perp = 1600$ Angstroms, Emery and Kivelson quoted

1921: $K_s^0$ to be 145~K for YBCO.  This should really be replaced by 290~K, a

1922: factor of 3 higher than T$_c$.

1923: %On the other hand, it is realized that thermal excitation of nodal

1924: %quasiparticles reduces the superfluid stiffness in a linear fashion with

1925: %increasing temperature (Lee \& Wen) and $K_s^0$ should include this

1926: %reduction, which is easily a factor of 2.  Indeed, as discussed in section

1927: %III.B, Lee and Wen pointed out that in a Landau quasiparticle treatment, the

1928: %linear $T$  term is independent of doping concentration and the extrapolation

1929: %of $\rho_s^0$ to zero gives a reasonable estimate of T$_c$.  This can be seen

1930: %in Figs. 10 and 12.  There is now good evidence that T$_c$ for underdoped

1931: %cuprates can be  understood and even quantitative fits to the temperature

1932: %dependence of $\lambda_\perp^{-2}$ have been attempted along these lines.

1933: %(G. William, 2003)

1934: 

1935: 

1936: 

1937: 

1938: We can get around this difficulty by realizing that $K_s$ is reduced by

1939: thermal excitation of quasiparticles and the bare $K_s^0$ in the BKT  theory

1940: should include this effect.  In Section III.B we showed empirical evidence

1941: that the linear $T$ coefficient of $n_s(T)$ is relatively independent of $x$.

1942: The bare $K_s^0$ is measured as the high frequency limit in a microwave

1943: experiment 

1944: %(Corson {\it et al}., 1999)

1945: \cite{CMO9921}.  As seen in Fig. \ref{Corson}, the

1946: bare phase stiffness $T_\theta^0 \equiv \hbar^2 n_s^0/m^\ast$ continues to

1947: decrease linearly with $T$ above T$_c$ = 74~K.  Given the universal relation

1948: eq.~(\ref{Eq.11}), an estimate of T$_c$ can be obtained by the interception of

1949: the straight line $T_\theta = (8/\pi)kT$ with the bare stiffness.  This yields

1950: an estimate of the BKT transition temperature of $\approx 60$~K.  The somewhat

1951: higher actual T$_c$ of 74~K is due to three dimensional ordering effects

1952: between bi-layers.  Now we can extend this procedure to a multi-layer

1953: superconductor.  In Fig.\ref{Tc} we show schematically $T_\theta^0 = \hbar^2

1954: n_s^0/m^\ast$ plot of single-layer, bi-layer and tri-layer systems $(N=1,2,3)$

1955: assuming that the layers are identical.  We expect $n_s^0(T=0)$, which is the

1956: areal density per $N$ layers, to scale linearly with $N$.  On the other hand,

1957: the linear $T$ slope also scales with $N$, because the number of thermally

1958: excited quasiparticles per area scale with $N$.  The extrapolated ``T$_c$'s''

1959: are therefore the same.  Now we may estimate $T_c(N)$ from the interception of

1960: the line $T_\theta^0 = (8/\pi)kT$.  We see that $T_c$ increases monotonically

1961: with $N$, but much slower than linear.  This trend is in agreement with what

1962: is seen experimentally, notably in the Tl and Hg compounds.  As $N$ increases

1963: further, the assumption that the layers are identical breaks down as the

1964: charge density of each layer begins to differ.  We therefore conclude that the

1965: combination of phase fluctuations and the thermal excitation of $d$-wave

1966: quasiparticles can account for $T_c$ in underdoped cuprates, including the

1967: qualitative trend as a function of the number of layers within a unit cell.

1968: 

1969:  

1970:  

1971:  

1972:  This theory of $T_c$ receives confirmation from measurement of the oxygen

1973: isotope effect of $T_c$ and on the penetration depth.  It is found that there

1974: is substantial isotope effect on the $n_s/m^\ast$ for both underdoped and

1975: optimally doped YBCO films.

1976: %, which the experimentalists interpret as an effect on $n_s/m^\ast$.  

1977: On the other hand, there is significant isotope effect on

1978: $T_c$ in underdoped YBCO 

1979: %(Khasanov {\em et al,}, 2003)

1980: \cite{KSC0317}, but no effect on

1981: optimally doped samples 

1982: %(Khasanov {\em et al.}, 2004)

1983: \cite{Ko0402}.  Setting aside the

1984: origin of the isotope effect on $n/m^\ast$, the remarkable doping dependence

1985: of the isotope effect on $T_c$ is readily explained in our theory, since $T_c$

1986: is controlled by $n_s/m^\ast$ in the underdoped but not in the overdoped

1987: region.  In fact, a more detailed examination of the data for two underdoped

1988: samples show that $n_s(T)/m^\ast$ appears to be shifted down by a constant

1989: when O$^{16}$ is replaced by O$^{18}$.  This suggests that there is no isotope

1990: effect on the temperature dependent term in eq.~\ref{Eq.5} which depends on

1991: $v_F$.  This is consistent with direct ARPES measurements 

1992: %(Gweon {\em et al.}, 2004)

1993: \cite{GSZ0487}.  Thus the data is consistent with an isotope effect only on

1994: the zero temperature spectral weight $n_s(0)/m^\ast$.  The latter is a

1995: complicated many body property of the ground state which is not simply related

1996: to the effective mass of the quasiparticles in the naive manner.

1997: 

1998:  

1999: \subsection{Cheap vortices and the Nernst effect} 

2000: 

2001: %Emery and Kivelson, 1995

2002: \Ref{EK9534},

2003: also suggested that the notion of strong phase fluctuations may provide an

2004: explanation of the pseudogap phenomenon.  They proposed that the pairing

2005: amplitude is formed at a temperature $T_{MF}$ which is much higher than T$_c$

2006: and the region between $T_{MF}$ and T$_c$ is characterized by robust pairing

2007: amplitude and energy gap.  

2008: 

2009: This leaves open the microscopic origin of the robust pairing amplitude and

2010: high $T_{MF}$ but we shall argue that even as phenomenology, phase

2011: fluctuations alone cannot be the full explanation of the pseudogap.  Since

2012: T$_c$ is driven by the unbinding of vortices, let us examine the vortex energy

2013: more carefully.  As an extreme example, let us suppose $T_{MF}$ is described

2014: by the standard BCS theory.  The vortex core energy in BCS theory is estimated

2015: as $E_c \approx {\Delta_0^2 \over E_Fa^2} \xi_0^2$ where $\Delta_0$ is the

2016: energy gap, $\Delta_0^2/(E_Fa^2)$ is the condensation energy per area, and

2017: $\xi_0^2$ is the core size.  Using $\xi_o = {v_F \over \Delta_0}$, we conclude

2018: that $E_c \approx E_F$ in BCS theory, an enormous energy compared with T$_c$.

2019: Even if we assume $E_c$ to be of order of the exchange energy $J$ or the mean

2020: field energy $T_{MF}$, it is still much larger than T$_c$.  We already note

2021: that in BKT theory, T$_c$ is relatively insensitive to the core energy. Now we

2022: emphasize that despite the insensitivity of $T_c$ to $E_c$, the physical

2023: properties above $T_c$ are very sensitive to the core energy. This is because

2024: BKT theory is an asymptotic long-distance theory which becomes simple in the

2025: limit of dilute vortex or large $E_c$.  The typical vortex spacing which is

2026: $n_v^{-{1\over 2}}$ where the vortex density $n_v$ goes as $e^{-E_c/kT}$.

2027: Vortex unbinding happens on a renormalized length scale, \ie the typical

2028: spacing between {\em free} vortices, which is much larger than $n_V^{-{1\over

2029: 2}}$.  As a result, the physics of the system above T$_c$ is very sensitive to

2030: $E_c$.  If $E_c \gg kT_c$, vortices are dilute and the system will behave like

2031: a superconductor for all measurements performed on a reasonable spatial or

2032: temporal scale.  However, except for the close vicinity of  T$_c$, the

2033: pseudogap region is not characterized by strong superconducting fluctuations,

2034: but rather behaves like a metal.  Thus a large vortex core energy can be ruled

2035: out.  The core energy must be small, of the order T$_c$, \ie it is comparable

2036: to the second term in eq.~(\ref{Eq.10}).  The notion of ``cheap'' vortices has

2037: two important consequences.  First, it is clear that the amplitude fluctuation

2038: and phase fluctuation are controlled by the same energy scale, $kT_c$.  This

2039: is because the vortex core is a region where the pairing amplitude vanishes

2040: and, in addition, the phase $\theta$ winds by $2\pi$.  If we do away with the

2041: phase winding and retain the amplitude fluctuation, this should cost even less

2042: energy.  Thus the temperature scale where vortices proliferate is also the

2043: scale where amplitude fluctuation proliferates.  Then the notion of strong

2044: phase fluctuations is applicable only on a temperature scale of say 2~T$_c$

2045: and this scale must become small as $x$ becomes small.  Thus phase fluctuation

2046: cannot explain a pseudogap phenomenon which extends to finite $T$ in the small

2047: $x$ limit.

2048: 

2049: 

2050: Second, the notion of a cheap vortex means that there is a non-superconducting

2051: state which is very close in energy.  In an ordinary superconductor, the core

2052: can be thought of as a  patch of normal metals with a finite density of states

2053: at the Fermi level.  The reason the core energy is large is because the energy

2054: gained by opening up an energy gap is lost.  In underdoped and in slightly

2055: overdoped cuprates there is experimental evidence from STM tunneling into the

2056: core that the energy gap is retained inside the core 

2057: %(Maggio-April {\em et al.}, 1995; Pan {\em et al.}, 2000)

2058: \cite{MRE9554,PHG0036}.  The large peak in the density state predicted for

2059: $d$-wave BCS theory 

2060: %(Wang and MacDonald, 1995)

2061: \cite{WM9576} is simply not there.  The nature of the state in the core, which

2062: one can think of as a competing state to the superconductor, is highly

2063: nontrivial and is a topic of current debate.

2064: 

2065: The above discussion is summarized by a schematic phase diagram shown in Fig.

2066: \ref{Nernst}.  A temperature scale of about 2~T$_c$ in the underdoped region

2067: marks the range of phase fluctuation.  This is the region where the picture

2068: envisioned by 

2069: %Emery and Kivelson (1995)

2070: \Ref{EK9534} may be valid.  Here the phase is

2071: locally well defined and vortices are identifiable objects.  Indeed, this is

2072: the region where a large Nernst effect has been measured 

2073: %(Wang {\em et al.}, 2001, 2002, 2003)

2074: \cite{WYK0119,WOX0203,WOO0386}.

2075: The Nernst effect is the voltage transverse to a thermal

2076: gradient in the presence of a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane.  It

2077: is exquisitely sensitive to the presence of vortices, because vortices drift

2078: along the thermal gradient and produce the phase winding which supports a

2079: transverse voltage by the Josephson effect.  A large Nernst signal has been

2080: taken to be strong evidence for the presence of well-defined vortices above

2081: T$_c$ 

2082: %(Wang {\em et al.}, 2001, 2002, 2003)

2083: \cite{WYK0119,WOX0203,WOO0386}.   At higher temperatures,

2084: vortices overlap and the Nernst signal smoothly crosses over to that

2085: describable by Gaussian fluctuation of superconducting amplitude and phase

2086: %(Usshishkin {\em et al.}, 2002)

2087: \cite{USH0201}.  Very recently, the identification of the

2088: Nernst region with fluctuating superconductivity was confirmed by the

2089: observation of diamagnetic fluctuations which persist up to the same

2090: temperature as the onset of the Nernst signal 

2091: %(Wang {\em et al.}, 2004)

2092: \cite{WLN04}.

2093: 

2094: \begin{figure}

2095: \centerline{

2096: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{fig13.eps}

2097: %\psfig{figure=Fig.13.eps,width=3.25in}}

2098: }

2099: %\vspace{0.5cm}

2100: \caption{%Fig.13 

2101: Schematic phase diagram showing the phase fluctuation regime where the Nernst effect is large. 

2102: Note that this regime is a small part of the pseudogap region for small doping. }

2103: \label{Nernst}

2104: \end{figure} 

2105: 

2106: 

2107: It remains necessary to explain  why the resistivity looks metallic-like in

2108: this temperature range and does not show the strong magnetic field dependence

2109: one ordinarily expects for flux flow resistivity in the presence of thermally

2110: excited vortices. The explanation may lie in the breakdown of the standard

2111: Bardeen-Stephen model of flux flow resistivity.  Here the vortices have

2112: anomalously low dissipation because in contrast to BCS superconductors, there

2113: are no states inside the core to dissipate.  

2114: %Ioffe and Millis, 2002b 

2115: \Ref{IM0213}

2116: proposed

2117: that the vortices are fast and yield a large flux flow resistivity.  In the

2118: two fluid model, the conductivity is the sum of the flux flow conductivity

2119: (the superfluid part) and the quasiparticle conductivity (the normal part).

2120: The small flux flow conductivity is quickly shorted out by the nodal

2121: quasiparticle contributions, and the system behaves like a metal, but with

2122: carriers only in the nodal region.  This is also reminiscent of the Fermi arc

2123: picture.  Unfortunately, a more detailed modeling requires an understanding

2124: of the state inside the large core radius $R_2$ introduced in section III.C

2125: which is not available up to now.

2126: 

2127: Instead of generating vortices thermally, one can also generate them by

2128: applying a magnetic field.  

2129: %Wang {\em et al.}, 2003

2130: \Ref{WOO0386} have applied fields up to

2131: 45~T and found evidence that the Nernst signal remains large beyond that field

2132: in the underdoped samples.  They estimate that the field needed to suppress

2133: the Nernst signal to be of order $H^\ast_{c2} \approx \phi_0/\xi_0^2$ where

2134: $\phi_0 \approx \hbar v_F/\Delta_0$.  This is the core size consistent with

2135: what is reported by STM tunneling experiments.  At the same time, the field

2136: needed for a resistive transition is much lower.  Recently 

2137: %Sutherland~{\em et al.}, 2004 

2138: \Ref{SHH04}

2139: showed that in YBCO$_{6.35}$ superconductivity is destroyed 

2140: by annealing or by applying a modest magnetic field.

2141: Beyond this point the material is a thermal metal, with a

2142: thermal conductivity which is unchanged from the superconducting side, where

2143: it is presumably due to nodal quasiparticles and described by

2144: eq.~(\ref{Eq.4}). Thus this field induced metal may be coexisting with pairing

2145: amplitude and may be a very interesting new metallic state.

2146: 

2147: What is the nature of the gapped state inside the vortex core as revealed by

2148: STM tunneling and how is it related to the pseudogap region?  A popular

2149: notion is that the vortex core state is characterized by a competing order.  A

2150: variety of competing order has been proposed in the literature.  An early

2151: suggestion was that the core has antiferromagnetic order and an explicit model

2152: was constructed based on the $SU(5)$ model of 

2153: %Zhang (1997)

2154: \Ref{Z9789}

2155: % (Arovas {\em et al.}, 1997)

2156: \cite{ABK9771}.  However, this particular version has been criticized for its

2157: failure to take into account the strong Coulomb repulsion and the proximity to

2158: the Mott insulator 

2159: %(Greiter, 1997; Baskaran and Anderson, 1998)

2160: (\cit{G9798}; \cit{BA9880}).  Recently,

2161: more phenomenological version based on Landau theory have been proposed

2162: %(Demler, Sachdev and Zhang, 2000; Chen {\em et al.}, 2004)

2163: (\cit{DSZ0102}; \cit{CCA0416}) where the

2164: antiferromagnetism may be incommensurate.  As the temperature is raised into

2165: the pseudogap regime, vortices proliferate and their cores overlap and,

2166: according to this view, the pseudogap is characterized by fluctuating

2167: competing order.  The dynamic stripe picture 

2168: %(Carlson {\em et al.}, 2003)

2169: \cite{CEK03} is an example of this point of view.  Another proposal for

2170: competing order is for orbital currents 

2171: %(Varma, 1997; Chakravarty {\em et al.}, 2001)

2172: (\cit{V9754}; \cit{CLM0203}).  In this case the competing order is proposed to persist

2173: in the pseudogap region but is ``hidden'' from detection because of

2174: difficulties of coupling to the order.  Finally, as discussed earlier, the

2175: recent observation of checkerboard patterns in the vortex core and in some

2176: underdoped cuprates has inspired various proposals of charge density ordering. 

2177: 

2178: Most of the proposals for competing order are phenomenological in nature.  For

2179: example, the proximity of $d$-wave superconductivity to antiferromagnetism is

2180: simply assumed as an experimental fact.  However, from a microscopic point of

2181: view, the surprise is that $d$-wave superconductivity turns out to be the

2182: winner of this competition.  Our goal is a microscopic explanation of both the

2183: superconducting and the pseudogap states.  We shall give a detailed proposal

2184: for the vortex core in section XII.C.  Here we mention that while our proposal

2185: also calls for slowly varying orbital currents in the core, this fluctuating

2186: order is simply one manifestation of a quantum state.  For example, enhanced

2187: antiferromagnetic fluctuation is another manifestation.  As discussed in

2188: section VI.C, this picture is fundamentally different from competing states

2189: described by Landau theory.  In the pseudogap phase, vortices proliferate and

2190: overlap and all orders become very sort range.  Apart from characterizing this

2191: state as a spin liquid (or RVB), the only possibility of order is a subtle

2192: one, called topological/quantum order.  These concepts are described in

2193: section X and a possible experimental consequence is described in section

2194: XII.E.

2195: 

2196: 

2197: 

2198: 

2199: 

2200: \subsection{Two kinds of pseudogaps} Since the pseudogap is fundamentally a

2201: cross-over phenomenon, there is a lot of confusion about the size of the

2202: pseudogap and the temperature scale where it is observed.  Upon surveying the

2203: experimental literature, it seems to us that we should distinguish between two

2204: kinds of pseudogaps.  The first is clearly due to superconducting

2205: fluctuations.  The energy scale of the pseudogap 

2206: is the same as the low temperature superconducting gap

2207: and it extends over a surprisingly large range of temperatures above $T_c$.

2208: This is what we called the Nernst region in the last section.  This kind of

2209: pseudogap has been observed in STM tunneling, where it is found that a

2210: reduction of the density of states persists above $T_c$ even in overdoped

2211: samples 

2212: %(Kugler {\em et al.}, 2001)

2213: \cite{KFR0111}.  We believe the pull-back of the leading

2214: edge observed in ARPES shown in Fig.~\ref{edge}(a) should be understood along these

2215: lines.  There is another kind of pseudogap which is associated with singlet

2216: formation.  A clear signature of this phenomenon is the downturn in uniform

2217: spin susceptibility shown in Figs. \ref{Knight} and \ref{chi}.  The

2218: temperature scale of the onset is high and increases up to 300 to 400~K with

2219: underdoping.  The energy scale associated with this pseudogap is also very

2220: large, and can extend up to 100~meV or beyond.  For example, the onset of the

2221: reduction of the $c$-axis conductivity (which one may interpret as twice the

2222: gap) has been reported to exceed 1000~cm$^{-1}$.  This is also the energy

2223: scale one associates with the limiting STM tunneling spectrum observed in

2224: highly underdoped Bi-2212 (Fig. \ref{STM}(f)) and in Na doped

2225: Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$ 

2226: %(Hanaguri {\em et al.}, 2004)

2227: \cite{HLK04}.  The gap in these spectra

2228: is very broad and ill defined.  In the ARPES literature it is described as the

2229: ``high-energy pseudogap'' (see 

2230: %Damascelli {\em et al.}, 2003

2231: \Ref{DHS0373}) or the ``hump''

2232: energy.  These spectra evolve smoothly into that  of the insulating parent.

2233: This is most clearly demonstrated in Na-doped Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$ and the

2234: ARPES spectrum near the antinodal point looks remarkably similar to that seen

2235: by STM 

2236: %(Ronning {\em et al.}, 2003)

2237: \cite{RSK0301}.  Examples of this kind of a spectrum can

2238: be seen in the samples UD46 and UD30 shown in Fig. \ref{ARPES}(a).  In

2239: contrast to the low energy pseudogap, a coherent quasiparticle peak is never

2240: seen at these very high energies when the system enters the superconducting

2241: state.  Instead, weak peaks may appear at lower energies, but judging from the

2242: STM data, these may be associated with inhomogeneity.

2243: %Examples of this kind of spectra can be seen in the samples UD46 and UD30

2244: %shown in Fig. \ref{ARPES}(a).  

2245: In this connection, we point out that the often quoted $T^\ast$ line shown in

2246: Fig. \ref{edge} is actually a combination of the two kinds of pseudogaps. The

2247: solid triangles marking the onset of the leading edge refer to the fluctuating

2248: superconductor gap, while the solid squares are lower bounds based on the

2249: observation of the ``hump.''  Another example of this difference is that in

2250: LSCO, the superconducting gap is believed to be much smaller and the pull back

2251: of the leading edge is not seen by ARPES.  On the other hand, the singlet

2252: formation is clearly seen in Fig. \ref{Knight}(b) and the broad hump-like

2253: spectra is also seen by ARPES 

2254: %(Zhou {\em et al.}, 2004)

2255: \cite{ZYL0481}.

2256: 

2257: We note that in contrast to superconducting fluctuations which extend across

2258: the entire doping range but are substantially reduced for overdoped samples,

2259: the onset of singlet formation seems to end rather abruptly near optimal

2260: doping.  The Knight shift is basically temperature independent just above

2261: $T_c$ in optimally doped and certainly in slightly overdoped samples 

2262: %(Takigawa {\em et al.}, 1993; Horvatic {\em et al.}, 1993)

2263: (\cit{THS9350}; \cit{HBB9348}).  For this reason, we propose

2264: that the pseudogap line and the Nernst line may cross in the vicinity of

2265: optimal doping, as sketched in Fig. \ref{Nernst}.  In this connection it is

2266: interesting to note that the pseudogap has also been seen inside the vortex

2267: core 

2268: %(Maggio-Aprile {\em et al.}, 1995; Pan {\em et al.}, 2000)

2269: \cite{MRE9554,PHG0036}.  By

2270: definition, this is where the superconducting amplitude is suppressed to zero

2271: and the gap is surely not associated with the pairing amplitude.  We have

2272: argued that the gap offers a glimpse of the state which lies behind the

2273: pseudogap associated with singlet formation.  It is interesting to note that

2274: the gap in the vortex core has been reported in a somewhat overdoped sample

2275: %(Hoogenboom {\em et al.}, 2001)

2276: \cite{HKR0101}.  It is as though at zero temperature the

2277: state with a gap in the core is energetically favorable compared with the

2278: normal metallic state up to quite high doping.  It will be interesting to

2279: extend these measurements to even more highly overdoped samples to see when

2280: the gap in the vortex core finally fills in.  At the same time, it will be

2281: interesting to extend the tunneling into the vortex core in overdoped samples

2282: to higher temperatures, to see if the gap will fill in at some temperature

2283: below $T_c$.

2284: 

2285:  

2286: 

2287: \section{Projected trial wavefunctions and other numerical results} 

2288: 

2289: In the original RVB article, \Ref{A8796} 

2290: %(1987) 

2291: proposed a projected trial wavefunction as a description of the RVB state.

2292: \be

2293: \Psi = P_G|\psi_0\rangle

2294: \label{Eq.12}

2295: \en

2296: where $P_G = \prod_{\v i}(1-n_{\v i\up}n_{\v i\down})$ is called the Gutzwiller

2297: projection operator.  It has the effect of suppressing all amplitudes in

2298: $|\psi_0\>$ with double occupation, thereby enforcing the constant of the $t$-$J$

2299: model exactly.  The unprojected wavefunction contains variational parameters

2300: and its choice is guided by mean-field theory (see section XIII).  The full

2301: motivation for the choice of $|\psi_0\>$ becomes clear only after the discussion

2302: of mean-field theory, but we discuss the projected wavefunction first because

2303: the results are concrete and the concepts are simple. The projection operator

2304: is too complicated to be treated analytically, but properties of the trial

2305: wavefunction can be evaluated using Monte Carlo sampling.

2306: 

2307:  

2308:   

2309:  

2310: \subsection{The half-filled case} 

2311: 

2312: We shall first discuss the half-filled case,

2313: where the problem reduces to the Heisenberg model.  While the original

2314: proposal was for $|\psi_0\>$ to be the $s$-wave BCS wavefunction, it was soon

2315: found that the $d$-wave BCS state is a better trial wavefunction, \ie

2316: consider

2317: \begin{align}

2318: H_d & = 

2319: -\sum_{\langle \v i\v j \rangle ,\sigma}  \left(

2320: \chi_{\v i\v j} f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v i\sigma} + c.c.  \right)-

2321: \sum_{\v i,\sigma} 

2322: \mu f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v i\sigma} +

2323: \nonumber\\

2324:  & +\sum_{\langle \v i\v j \rangle} 

2325: \left[\Delta_{\v i\v j} \left( f_{\v i\up}^\dagger f_{\v j\down}^\dagger -

2326: f_{\v i\down}^\dagger f_{\v j\up}^\dagger \right) + c.c.\right]

2327: \label{Eq.13}

2328: \end{align}

2329: where $\chi_{\v i\v j} = \chi_0$ for nearest neighbors, and $\Delta_{\v i\v j} = \Delta_0$

2330: for $\v j =\v i + \hat{x}$ and $-\Delta_0$ for $j = i + \hat{y}$.  The eigenvalues

2331: are the well known BCS spectrum

2332: \be

2333: E_{\v k} = \sqrt{(\epsilon_{\v{k}}-\mu)^2 + \Delta_{\v{k}}^2}

2334: \label{Eq.14} 

2335: \en

2336: where 

2337: \be

2338: \epsilon_{\v{k}} = -2 \chi_0 \left(

2339: \cos k_x + \cos k_y

2340: \right)

2341: \label{Eq.15}

2342: \en

2343: \be

2344: \Delta_{\v{k}} = 2 \Delta_0 \left(

2345: \cos k_x - \cos k_y

2346: \right)

2347: \label{Eq.16}

2348: \en

2349: At half filling, $\mu = 0$ and $|\psi_0\>$ is the usual BCS wavefunction 

2350: $|\psi_0\>

2351: = \prod_{\v{k}} \left( u_{\v{k}} + v_{\v{k}} f_{\v{k}\up}^\dagger

2352: f_{-\v{k}\down}^\dagger \right) |0\rangle.  $

2353: 

2354: 

2355: A variety of mean-field wavefunctions were soon discovered which give

2356: identical energy and dispersion.  Notable among these is the staggered flux

2357: state 

2358: %(Affleck and Marston, 1988)

2359: \cite{AM8874}.  In this state the hopping $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ is

2360: complex, $\chi_{\v i\v j} = \chi_0 \exp \left( i (-1)^{i_x+j_y} \Phi_0 \right) $,

2361: and the phase is arranged in such a way that it describes free fermion hopping

2362: on a lattice with a fictitious flux $\pm 4 \Phi_0$ threading alternative

2363: plaquettes.  Remarkably, the eigenvalues of this problem are identical to that

2364: of the $d$-wave superconductor given by eq.~(\ref{Eq.14}), with

2365: \be

2366: \tan \Phi_0 = {\Delta_0 \over \chi_0}  .

2367: \label{Eq.17}

2368: \en

2369: The case $\Phi_0 = \pi/4$, called the $\pi$ flux phase, is special in that it

2370: does not break the lattice translation symmetry.  As we can see from

2371: eq.~(\ref{Eq.17}),

2372: the corresponding $d$-wave problem has a very large energy gap and its

2373: dispersion is shown in Fig.~\ref{flux}.  The key feature is that the energy

2374: gap vanishes at the nodal points located at $\left( \pm{\pi\over 2},

2375: \pm{\pi\over 2} \right)$.  Around the nodal points the dispersion rises

2376: linearly, forming a cone which resembles the massless Dirac spectrum.  For the

2377: $\pi$ flux state the dispersion around the node is isotropic.  For $\Phi_0$

2378: less than $\pi /4$ the gap is smaller and the Dirac cone becomes progressively

2379: anisotropic.    The anisotropy can be characterized by two velocities, $v_F$

2380: in the direction towards $(\pi,\pi)$ and $v_\Delta$ in the direction towards

2381: the maximum gap at $(0,\pi)$.

2382: 

2383: 

2384: 

2385: The reason various mean-field theories have the same energy was explained by

2386: %Affleck {\it et al}. ,1988 and Dagotto {\em et al.}, 1988

2387: \Ref{AZH8845} and \Ref{DFM8826}  as being due to a

2388: certain $SU(2)$ symmetry.  We defer a full discussion of the $SU(2)$ symmetry to

2389: section X but we only mention here that it corresponds to the following

2390: particle-hole transformation

2391: \be

2392: f_{\v i\up}^\dagger &\rightarrow& \alpha_{\v i} f_{\v i\up}^\dagger + \beta_{\v i} f_{\v i\down} \label{Eq.18} \\ \nonumber

2393: f_{\v i\down} &\rightarrow& -\beta_{\v i}^\ast f_{\v i\up}^\dagger + \alpha_{\v i}^\ast f_{\v i\down}  .

2394: \en

2395: Note that the spin quantum number is conserved.  It describes the physical

2396: idea that adding a spin-up fermion or removing a spin-down fermion are the

2397: same state after projection to the subspace of singly occupied fermions.  It

2398: is then not a surprise to learn that the Gutzwiller projection of the $d$-wave

2399: superconductor and that of the staggered flux state gives the same trial

2400: wavefunction, up to a trivial overall phase factor, provided $\mu = 0$ and

2401: eq.~(\ref{Eq.17}) is satisfied.  A simple proof of this is given by 

2402: %Zhang {\it et al}, 1988 

2403: \Ref{ZGR8836}.  The energy of this state is quite good.  The best estimate for the

2404: ground state energy of the square lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet which is

2405: a N\'{e}el ordered state is $\langle S_{\v i} \cdot S_{\v j} \rangle = -0.3346$~J

2406: %(Trivedi and Ceperley, 1989; Runge, 1992)

2407: (\cit{TC8937}; \cit{R9292}).  The projected $\pi$ flux state

2408: %(Gros, 1988; Yokoyama and Ogata, 1996)

2409: \cite{G8831,YO9615} gives $-0.319$J, which is excellent

2410: considering that there is no variational parameter.  

2411:  

2412: \begin{figure}[t]

2413: \centerline{

2414: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig14.eps}

2415: %\psfig{figure=Fig.14.eps,width=4.0in}}

2416: }

2417: %\vspace{0.5cm}

2418: \caption{%Fig.14 

2419: The energy dispersion of the $\pi$ flux phase.  Note the massless Dirac spectrum at the nodal

2420: points at $\left( \pm {\pi \over 2}, \pm{\pi \over 2} \right)$.}

2421: \label{flux}

2422: \end{figure}

2423: 

2424:  

2425:  

2426: We note that the projected $d$-wave state has power law decay for the

2427: spin-spin correlation function.  The equal time spin-spin correlater decays as

2428: $r^{-\alpha}$ where $\alpha$ has been estimated to be 1.5 \cite{I00,PRT0453}.

2429: This projection has considerably enhanced the spin correlation

2430: compared with the exponent of 4 for the unprojected state.  One might expect a

2431: better trial wavefunction by introducing a sublattice magnetization in the

2432: mean-field Hamiltonian.  A projection of this state gives an energy which is

2433: marginally better than the projected flux state, $-0.3206$J.  It also has a

2434: sublattice magnetization of 84\% which is too classical.  The best trial

2435: wavefunction is one which combines staggered flux and sublattice magnetization

2436: before projection 

2437: %(Gros, 1989a,b; Lee and Feng, 1988)

2438: \cite{G8831,G8853,LF8809}.  

2439: It gives an energy of $-0.332$~J and a sublattice magnetization of about 70\%,

2440: both in excellent agreement with the best estimates.

2441: 

2442: 

2443: \begin{figure}[t]

2444: \centerline{

2445: \includegraphics[width=3in]{fig15a.eps}

2446: }

2447: %\centerline{

2448: %\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig15b.eps}

2449: %%\psfig{figure=Fig.15a.eps,width=3.0in}

2450: %%\psfig{figure=Fig.15b.eps,width=2.75in}}

2451: %%\vspace{0.5cm}

2452: %}

2453: \caption{%Fig.15 

2454: (a) Comparison of the energy of various projected trial wavefunctions. From 

2455: %Ivanov (2003)

2456: \Ref{I0365}.

2457: (b)~The condensation energy estimated from the difference of the projected $d$-wave superconductor and

2458: the projected staggered flux state. From 

2459: %Ivanov and Lee (2003)

2460: \Ref{IL0301}.}

2461: \label{Ivanov}

2462: \end{figure} 

2463: 

2464: \subsection{Doped case} 

2465: 

2466: In the presence of a hole, the projected wavefunction

2467: eq.~(\ref{Eq.12}) has been studied for a variety of mean-field states $\psi_0$.  Here

2468: $P_G$ stands for a double projection: the amplitudes with double occupied

2469: sites are projected out and only amplitudes with the desired number of holes

2470: are kept.  The ratio $\Delta_0/\chi_0$, $\mu/\chi_0$ and $h_s/\chi_0$, where

2471: $h_s$ is the field conjugate to the sublattice magnetization, are the

2472: variational parameters.  It was found that the best state is a projected

2473: $d$-wave superconductor and the sublattice magnetization is nonzero for $x  <

2474: x_c$, where $x_c = 0.11$ for $t/J = 3$. 

2475: %(Yokoyama and Ogata, 1996)

2476: \cite{YO9615}  The

2477: energetics of various state are shown in Fig.~(\ref{Ivanov}(a)).  It is

2478: interesting to note that  the projected staggered-flux state always lies above

2479: the projected $d$-wave superconductor, but the energy difference is small and

2480: vanishes as $x$ goes to zero, as expected.  The staggered-flux state also

2481: prefers antiferromagnetic order for small $x$, and the critical $x_c^{SF}$ is

2482: now 0.08, considerably less than that for the projected $d$-wave

2483: superconductor.  The energy difference between the projected flux state and

2484: projected $d$ superconductor (with antiferromagnetic order) is shown in

2485: Fig.~(\ref{Ivanov}(b)).  As we can see from Fig.~(\ref{Ivanov}(a)), inclusion

2486: of AF will only give a small enhancement of the energy difference for small $x

2487: \leq 0.05$.  The projected staggered flux state is the lowest energy

2488: non-superconducting state that has been constructed so far.  For $x > 0.18$,

2489: the flux $\Phi_0$ vanishes and this state connects smoothly to the projected

2490: Fermi sea, which one ordinarily thinks of as the normal state.  It is then

2491: tempting to think of the projected staggered flux state as the ``normal''

2492: state in the underdoped region $(x < 0.18)$ and interpret the energy

2493: difference shown in Fig.~(\ref{Ivanov}(b)) as the condensation energy.  Such a

2494: state may serve as the ``competing'' state that we have argued must live

2495: inside the vortex core.  The fact that the energy difference vanishes at $x =

2496: 0$ guarantees that it is small for small $x$.

2497: 

2498: %Ivanov (2003)

2499: \Ref{I0365} pointed out that the concave nature of the energy curves shown

2500: in Fig.~\ref{Ivanov}(a) for small $x$ indicate that the system is prone to

2501: phase separation.  Such a phase separation may be suppressed by long-range

2502: Coulomb interaction and the energy curves are indeed sensitive to

2503: nearest-neighbor repulsion.  Thus we believe that Fig.~\ref{Ivanov}(a) still

2504: provides a useful comparison of different trial wavefunctions.

2505: 

2506: 

2507: 

2508: 

2509: 

2510: 

2511: \subsection{Properties of projected wavefunctions} It is interesting to put

2512: aside the question of energetics and study the nature of the projected

2513: $d$-wave superconductor.  A thorough study by 

2514: %Paramekanti, Randeria and Trivedi (2001, 2003)

2515: \Ref{PRT0102}, \citeyear{PRT0404}

2516: showed that it correctly captures many of the properties

2517: of the cuprate superconductors.  For example, the superfluid density vanishes

2518: linearly in $x$ for small $x$.  This is to be expected since the projection

2519: operator is designed to yield an insulator at half-filling.  The momentum

2520: distribution exhibits a jump near the noninteracting Fermi surface. The size

2521: of the jump is interpreted as the quasiparticle weight $z$ according to Fermi

2522: liquid theory and again goes to zero smoothly as $x \rightarrow 0$.  Using the

2523: sum rule and assuming Ferm liquid behavior for the nodal quasiparticles, the

2524: Fermi velocity is estimated and found to be insensitive to doping, in

2525: agreement with photoemission experiments.

2526: 

2527: A distinctive feature of the projected staggered flux state is that it breaks

2528: translational symmetry and orbital currents circulate the plaquettes in a

2529: staggered fashion as soon as $x \neq 0$.  Motivated by the $SU(2)$ symmetry

2530: which predicts a close relationship between the projected $d$-wave

2531: superconductor and the projected staggered flux states, 

2532: %Ivanov, Lee and Wen (2000) 

2533: \Ref{ILW0053}

2534: examined whether there are signs of the orbital current in the

2535: projected $d$-wave superconductor.  Since this state does not break

2536: translation or time-reversal symmetry, there is no static current.  However,

2537: the current-current correlation

2538: \be

2539: G_{\v j} = \langle

2540: j(\alpha) j(\beta)

2541: \rangle

2542: \label{Eq.19}

2543: \en

2544: where $j(\alpha)$ is the current on the $\alpha$ bond, shows a power law-type

2545: decay and its magnitude is much larger than the naive expectation that it

2546: should scale as $x^2$.  Note that before projection the $d$-wave

2547: superconductor shows no hint of the staggered current correlation.  The

2548: correlation that emerges is entirely a consequence of the projection.  We

2549: believe the emergence of orbital current fluctuations provides strong support

2550: for the importance of $SU(2)$ symmetry near half filling.  Orbital current

2551: fluctuations of similar magnitude were found in the exact ground sate

2552: wavefunction of the $t$-$J$ model on a small lattice, two holes on 32 sites.

2553: %(Leung, 2001)  Lee and Sha (2003)

2554: (\cit{L0012}; \cit{LS0371}) showed that the orbital current correlation

2555: has the same power law decay as the hole-chirality correlation,

2556: \be

2557: G_{\chi_h} = \langle

2558: \chi_h(i) \chi_h(j) 

2559: \rangle \nonumber

2560: \en

2561:  where $\chi_h$ is defined on a plaquette $i$ as $n_h(4) \v{S}_1 \cdot

2562: (\v{S}_2 \times \v{S}_3)$ where 1 to 4 labels the sites around the plaquette

2563: and $n_h(\v i) = 1 - c_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger c_{\v i\sigma}$ is the hole density

2564: operator.  This is in agreement with the notion  that a hole moving around the

2565: plaque experiences a Berry's phase due to the non-colinearity of the spin

2566: quantization axis of the instantaneous spin configurations.  For $S = {1\over

2567: 2}$ the Berry's phase is given by ${1\over 2} \phi$ where $\phi$ is the solid

2568: angle subtended by the instantaneous spin orientations $\v{S}_1$, $\v{S}_2$

2569: and $\v{S}_3$. 

2570: %(Wen, Wilczek and Zee, 1989; E. Fradkin, 1991)

2571: (\cit{WWZcsp}; \cit{Fra91}) This solid angle

2572: is related to the spin chirality $\v{S}_1 \cdot (\v{S}_2 \times \v{S}_3)$.

2573: This phase drives the hole in a clockwise or anti-clockwise direction

2574: depending on its sign, just as a magnetic flux through the center of the

2575: plaquette would.  Thus the flux $\Phi_0$ of the staggered flux state has its

2576: physical origin in the coupling between the hole kinetic energy and the spin

2577: chirality.

2578: 

2579: 

2580: %Insert A

2581: It is important to emphasize that the projected $d$-wave state possesses long

2582: range superconducting pairing order, while at the same time exhibiting power

2583: law correlation in antiferromagnetic order and staggered orbital current.  On

2584: the other hand, projection of a staggered flux phase at finite doping will

2585: possess long range orbital current order, but short range pairing and

2586: antiferromagnetic order.  A useful analogy is to think of these projected

2587: states as a person with a variety of personalities.  He may be courteous and

2588: friendly at one time, and aggressive and even belligerent at another, depending

2589: on his environment.  Thus different versions of projected states shown in

2590: Fig.~\ref{Ivanov}(a) all have the same kinds of fluctuations; it is just

2591: that one kind of order may dominate over the others.  Then it is easy to

2592: imagine that the system may shift from one state to another in different

2593: environments.  For instance, in section XII.C we will argue that the pairing

2594: state will switch to a projected staggered flux state inside the vortex core.

2595: Note that this is a different picture from the traditional Landau picture of

2596: competing states as advocated by 

2597: %Chakravarty {\em et al.}, 2001

2598: \Ref{CLM0203}, for instance.

2599: These authors suggested on phenomenological grounds that the pseudogap region

2600: is characterized by staggered orbital current order, which they call

2601: $d$-density waves (DDW).  The symmetry of this order is indistinguishable from

2602: the doped staggered flux phase 

2603: %(Hsu {\em et al.}, 1991; Lee, 2002)

2604: \cite{HMA9166,L0249}.  According

2605: to Landau theory, the competition between DDW and superconducting order will

2606: result in either a first order transition or a region of co-existing phase at

2607: low temperatures.  This view of competing order is very different from the one

2608: proposed here, where a single quantum state possesses a variety of fluctuating

2609: orders.

2610: 

2611: \subsection{Improvement of projected wavefunctions, effect of $t^\prime$, and

2612: the Gutzwiller approximation} 

2613: 

2614: The projected wavefunction is the starting point

2615: for various schemes to further improve the trial wavefunction.  Indeed, the

2616: variational energy can be lowered and 

2617: %Sorella {\it et al}. (2002)

2618: \Ref{SMB0202}

2619:  provide

2620: strong evidence that  a $d$-wave superconducting state may be the ground state

2621: of the $t$-$J$ model.  On the other hand, other workers 

2622: %(Heeb and Rice, 1993; Shih {\it et al}., 1998)

2623: \cite{HR9373,SCL9894}

2624:  found that the superconducting tendency decreases

2625: with the improvement of the trial wavefunctions.  Studies based  on  other

2626: methods such as DMRG 

2627: %(White and Scalapino, 1999)

2628: \cite{WS9953} found that next-nearest

2629: neighbor hopping $t^\prime$ with $t^\prime/t > 0$ is needed to stabilize the

2630: $d$-wave superconductor.  Otherwise the holes are segregated into strip-like

2631: structures.  All these computational schemes suffer from some form of

2632: approximation and cannot give definitive answers.  What is clear is that the

2633: $d$-wave superconductor is a highly competitive candidate for the ground state

2634: of the $t$-$J$ model.

2635: 

2636: 

2637: Recently 

2638: %Shih {\em et al.} (2004)

2639: \Ref{SLE0402} have examined the pairing correlation in

2640: projected wavefunctions including the effect of $t^\prime$.  They find that

2641: for moderate doping ($x \gtrsim 0.1$) $t^\prime/t$ with a negative sign

2642: greatly enhances the pairing correlation.  The effect increases with

2643: increasing $t^\prime$ and is maximal around $t^\prime/t \approx -0.4$.  Their

2644: result contradicts expectations based on earlier DMRG work 

2645: %(White and Scalapino, 1999)

2646: \cite{WS9953} which found a suppression of superconductivity with negative

2647: $t^\prime/t$.  However, Shih {\em et al.} pointed out that the earlier work

2648: was limited to very low doping and is really not in disagreement with their

2649: finding for $x \gtrsim 0.1$.  This result should be confirmed by improving the

2650: wavefunction but the pair correlation with $t^\prime$ is so robust that the

2651: controversy surrounding the $t^\prime = 0$ case may well be avoided.  It

2652: should be noted that a negative $t^\prime$ is what band theory predicts.

2653: Furthermore, 

2654: %Pavarini {\em et al.} (2001)

2655: \Ref{PDS0103} have noted a correlation of $T_c$

2656: with $| t^\prime |$ and shown that the Hg and Tl compounds which have the

2657: highest $T_C$ have $t^\prime/t$ in the range $-0.3$ to $-0.4$.  Thus the role

2658: of $t^\prime$ may well explain the variation of $T_c$ among different families

2659: of cuprates.

2660: 

2661: The Gutzwiller projection is a rather cumbersome machinery to implement and a

2662: simple approximate scheme has been proposed, called the Gutzwiller

2663: approximation

2664: %(Zhang {\it et al}. 1988; Hsu 1990)

2665: (\cit{ZGR8836}; \cit{H9079}).  The essential step is to construct an effective Hamiltonian

2666: \be

2667: H_\text{eff} = -g_t t\sum_{\langle \v i\v j \rangle \sigma} c_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger c_{\v i\sigma} + g_J \sum_{\langle \v i\v j

2668: \rangle} \v{S}_{\v i} \cdot \v{S}_{\v j}

2669: \label{Eq.20}

2670: \en

2671: and treat this in the Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation. The projection operator

2672: in the original $t$-$J$ model is eliminated in favor of the reduction factors

2673: $g_t = 2x/(1 + x)$ and $g_J = 4/(1 + x)^2$, which are estimated by assuming

2674: statistical independence of the population of the sites

2675: %(Vollhardt, 1984)

2676: \cite{V8499}.

2677: The important point is that $g_t = 2x/(1 + x)$ reduces the kinetic energy to

2678: zero in the $x \rightarrow 0$ limit, in an attempt to capture the physics of

2679: the approach to the Mott insulator.  The Gutzwiller approximation bears a

2680: strong resemblance to the slave-boson mean-field theory and is just as easy to

2681: handle analytically.  It has the advantage that the energetics compare well

2682: with the Monte Carlo projection results.  The Gutzwiller approximation has

2683: been applied to more complicated problems such as impurity and vortex

2684: structure 

2685: %(Tsuchiura {\em et al.}, 2000, 2003)

2686: \cite{TTO0005,TOT0309} with good results.

2687: 

2688: %\section{The single hole problem}

2689: %

2690: %\section{Slave boson formulation of the $t$-$J$ model and mean-field theory}

2691: %

2692: %\section{$U(1)$ gauge fields}

2693: %

2694: %\section{$SU(2)$ formulation}

2695: %

2696: %\section{Spin-charge separation, confinement and fractionalization}

2697: %

2698: %\section{Summary and Future Outlook}

2699: %

2700: 

2701: 

2702: %\newcommand{\non}{\nonumber} \newcommand{\noi}{\noindent}

2703: %\newcommand{\e}{\varepsilon} \newcommand{\ii}{{i}}

2704: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

2705: %\newcommand{\en}{\end{eqnarray}}

2706: %\newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle}

2707: %\newcommand{\up}{\uparrow}

2708: %\newcommand{\down}{\downarrow}

2709: %\newcommand{\dia}{\noi$\diamond\,\,\,$}

2710: %\newcommand{\r}{\bbox{r}}

2711: %\newcommand{\k}{\bbox{k}}

2712: %\newcommand{\q}{\bbox{q}}

2713: %\newcommand{\bigQ}{\bbox{q}}

2714: %\newcommand{\bv}{\bbox{v}}

2715: %\newcommand{\bb}{\bbox}

2716: %\newcommand{\ga}{{\bbox{a}^3}}

2717: %\newcommand{\bbi}{\r_i}

2718: %\newcommand{\bbx}{\hat{\bf{e}}_x}

2719: %\newcommand{\bby}{\hat{\bf{e}}_y}

2720: 

2721: \section{The single hole problem}

2722: 

2723: The motion of a single hole doped into the antiferromagnet is a most

2724: fundamental issue to start with.  The $t$-$J$ type model is again the

2725: canonical Hamiltonian to study this problem.  The key physics of the problem

2726: is the competition between the antiferromagnetic (AF) correlation/long range

2727: ordering and the kinetic energy of the hole. The motion of the single hole

2728: distort the AF ordering when it hops between different sublattices.

2729: %Shraiman-Siggia

2730: \Ref{SS8867} studied this distortion in a semiclassical way,

2731: and found the new coupling between the spin current of the hole and the

2732: magnetization current of the background. This coupling leads to the long

2733: range dipolar distortion of the staggered magnetization and the minimum of the

2734: hole dispersion at $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$.  This position of the energy minimum is

2735: interpreted as follows.  Even if we start with the pure $t$-$J$ model, the

2736: direct hopping between nearest neighbor sites is suppressed, while the second

2737: order processes in $t$ leads to the effective hopping between the sites

2738: belonging to the same sublattice.  This effective $t'$ and $t''$ has the

2739: negative sign and hence lower the energy of $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ compared with

2740: $k=(\pi,0),(0,\pi)$.

2741: 

2742: The dynamics of the single hole, \ie the spectral function of the Green's

2743: function is also studied by analytic method.  When the spin excitation is

2744: approximated by the magnon (spin wave), the Hamiltonian for the signle hole is

2745: given by \cite{KLR8980}

2746: \be

2747: H = { t \over N} \sum_{\v k ,q} M_{\v k,\v q} [ h^\dagger_{\v k} h_{\v k - \v q}

2748: \alpha_{\v q}

2749: + h.c.] + \sum_{q} \Omega_{\v q} \alpha_{\v q}^\dagger \alpha_{\v q}

2750: \label{Eq.21}

2751: \en

2752: where 

2753: \be

2754: \Omega_{\v q} =  2J \sqrt{ 1 - \gamma_{\v q}^2}

2755: \label{Eq.22}

2756: \en

2757: with $\gamma_{\v q} = ( \cos q_x + \cos q_y )/2$ and

2758: \be

2759: M(\v k,\v q) = 4(u_{\v q} \gamma_{\v k-\v q} + v_{\v q} \gamma_{\v k})

2760: \label{Eq.23}

2761: \en

2762: with $u_{\v k} = \sqrt{(1 + \nu_{\v k})/(2 \nu_{\v k})}$, $v_{\v k} = - \text{sign}(\gamma_{\v k})

2763: \sqrt{(1 - \nu_{\v k})/(2 \nu_{\v k})}$, and $\nu_{\v k} = \sqrt{1 -\gamma_{\v k}^2}$.  This

2764: Hamiltonian dictates that the magnon is emitted or absorbed every time the

2765: hole hops.  The most widely accepted method to study this model is the

2766: self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA) initiated by Kane, Lee and

2767: Read where the Feynman diagrams with the crossing magnon

2768: propagators are neglected. This leads to the self-consistent equation for the

2769: hole propagator:

2770: \be

2771: G(\v k,\omega) = [ \omega - \sum_{\v q} g(\v k,\v q)^2 G(\v k-\v q,\omega-\Omega_{\v q}) ]^{-1}.

2772: \label{Eq.24}

2773: \en

2774: The result is that there are two components of the spectral function $A(\v

2775: k,\omega) = - (1/\pi) \Im G^R(\v k,\omega)$: One is the coherent sharp peak

2776: corresponding to the quasi-particle and the other is the incoherent

2777: background. The former has the lowest energy at $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ at the

2778: energy $\sim -t$ and disperses of the order of $J$, while the latter does not

2779: depend on the momentum $k$ so much and extends over the energy of the order of

2780: $t$.  Intuitively the hole has to wait for the spins to flip to hop, which

2781: takes a time of the order of $J^{-1}$.  Therefore the bandwidth is reduced

2782: from $\sim t$ to $\sim J$.  This mass enhancement leads to the reduced weight

2783: $z \sim J/t$ for the quasi-particle peak.  Later, more detailed studies have

2784: been done in SCBA\cite{LM9225}.  The conclusions obtained are the followings:

2785: (i) At $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$, there appear two additional two peaks at $E_{2,3}$

2786: in addition to the ground state delta-functional peak at $E_1$.

2787: 

2788: These energies are given for $J/t<0.4$ by

2789: \be

2790: E_n/t = - b + a_n (J/t)^{2/3}

2791: \label{Eq.25}

2792: \en

2793: where $a_1=2.16,a_2=5.46,a_3=7.81$, and $b=3.28$.  (ii) The spectral weight

2794: $z$ at $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ scales as $z = 0.65(J/t)^{2/3}$.

2795: 

2796: These can be understood as the "string" excitation of the hole moving in the

2797: linear confining potential due to the AF background.  It has also been

2798: interpreted in terms of the confining interaction between spinon and holon

2799: %(Laughlin, 1997)

2800: \cite{L9726}.  Exact diagonalization studies have reached consistent results

2801: with SCBA.  Experimentally angle-resolved-photoemission spectroscopy

2802: (ARPES)(\cit{WSM9564}; \cit{Ro9867}) in undoped cuprates has revealed the spectral function of

2803: the single doped hole.  The energy dispersion of the hole looks like that of

2804: the $\pi$-flux state shifted by the Mott gap to the low energy 

2805: %(Laughlin, 1997)

2806: \cite{L9726}.  However, in real materials the second ($t'$) and third ($t"$)

2807: nearest neighbor hoppings are important.  The calculated energy dispersion is

2808: found to be sensitive to $t^\prime$ and $t^{\prime\prime}$.  For $t^\prime =

2809: t^{\prime\prime} = 0$, the dispersion is flat between $(\pi/2, \pi/2)$ and

2810: $(0,\pi)$ and does not agree with the data.  It turns out that the data is

2811: well fitted by $J/t=0.3$, $t'/t=-0.3$, $t"/t=0.2$.  On the other hand, ARPES

2812: in slightly electron-doped Ne$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_2$ showed that the electron is

2813: doped into the point $k=(\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$ \cite{Ao0103}. This difference

2814: will be discussed below.

2815: 

2816: 

2817: The variational wavefunction approach to the antiferromagnet and single hole

2818: problem has been pursued by several authors \cite{LHN0301,LLH0301}.  A good

2819: ground state variational wavefunction (vwf) at half-filling is 

2820: \be

2821: | \Psi_0\> = P_G

2822: \biggl[ \sum_{\v k} ( A_{\v k} a_{\v k \uparrow}^\dagger a_{-\v k \downarrow}^\dagger

2823: + B_{\v k} b_{\v k \uparrow}^\dagger b_{-\v k \downarrow}^\dagger \biggr]^{N/2}

2824: | 0\>

2825: \label{Eq.26}

2826: \en

2827: with $N$ being the number of atoms.  The operators $a_{\v k \sigma}^\dagger$,

2828: $b_{\v k \sigma}^\dagger$ are those for the upper and lower bands split by SDW

2829: with the energy $\pm \xi_{\v k}$, respectively, and $A_{\v k} = (E_{\v k} + \xi_{\v k})/\Delta_{\v k}$,

2830: $B_{\v k} =  (-E_{\v k} + \xi_{\v k})/\Delta_{\v k}$ with $E_{\v k} = \sqrt{ \xi_{\v k}^2+ \Delta_{\v k}^2}$ and

2831: $\Delta_{\v k} = (3/8)J \Delta( \cos k_x - \cos k_y)$.  The picture here is that in

2832: addition to the SDW, the RVB singlet formation represented by $\Delta$ is

2833: taken into account.  As mentioned in the last section, this vwf gives much

2834: better energy compared to  that with $\Delta=0$. Hence the ground state is far

2835: from the classical N\"{e}el state and includes strong quantum fluctuations.

2836: Next the vwf in the case of single doped hole with momentum $q$ and $S^z =

2837: 1/2$ is

2838: \be

2839: | \Psi_{\v q}\> = P_G c^\dagger_{q \uparrow}

2840: \biggl[ \sum_{\v k (\ne q)} ( A_{\v k} a_{\v k \uparrow}^\dagger 

2841: a_{-\v k \downarrow}^\dagger

2842: + B_{\v k} b_{\v k \uparrow}^\dagger b_{-\v k \downarrow}^\dagger \biggr]^{N/2-1}

2843: | 0\>

2844: \label{Eq.27}

2845: \en

2846: 

2847: This vwf does not contain the information of $t'$,$t''$ except the very small

2848: dependence of $A_{\v k}$, and  $B_{\v k}$.  The robustness of this vwf is the

2849: consequence of the large quantum fluctuation already present in the

2850: half-filled case, so that the hole motion is possible even without disturbing

2851: the spin liquid-like state.  Although the vwf does not depends on the

2852: parameters $t'$,$t''$, the energy dispersion $E(\v k)$ is given by the

2853: expectation value as

2854: \begin{equation}

2855: E(\v k) = \< \Psi_{\v k} | H_{t-J} + H_{t'-t''}| \Psi_{\v k} \>,

2856: \label{Eq.28}

2857: \end{equation}

2858: and depends on these parameters.  This expression gives a reasonable agreement

2859: with the experiments both in undoped material \cite{Ro9867} and electron-doped

2860: material \cite{Ao0103}.  Here an important question is the relation

2861: between the hole- and electron-doped cases.  There is a particle-hole symmetry

2862: operation which relates the $t$-$t'$-$t''$-$J$ model for a hole to that for an

2863: electron.  The conclusion is that the sign change of $t'$, and $t''$ together

2864: with the shift in the momentum by $(\pi,\pi)$ gives the mapping between the

2865: two cases.  Using this transformation, one can explain the difference between

2866: hole- and electron-doped cases in terms of the common vwf eq.~(\ref{Eq.27}).

2867: The former has the minimum at $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ while the latter at

2868: $k=(\pi,0),(0,\pi)$.

2869: 

2870: Exact diagonalization study \cite{T009} has shown that the electronic state is

2871: very different between $k = (\pi/2,\pi/2)$ and $k =(\pi,0)$ for the

2872: appropriate values of $t'$ and $t''$ for hole doped case.

2873: The spectral weight becomes very small at $(\pi,0)$ and the hole is surrounded

2874: by anti-parallel spins sitting on the same sublattice.  Both these features

2875: are captured by a trial wavefunction which differs from eq.~(\ref{Eq.27}) in

2876: that the momentum $\v{q}$ of the broken pair is different from the momentum

2877: of the inserted electron.  This can also be interpreted as the decay of the

2878: quasiparticle state via the emission of a spin wave \cite{LLH0301}.  There are

2879: thus two types of wf's with qualitatively different nature, {\em i.e.}, one

2880: describes the quasi-particle state and another  which is highly incoherent and

2881: may be realized as a spin-charge separated state.

2882: 

2883: One important discrepancy between experiment and theory is the line-shape of

2884: the spectral function. Namely the experiments show broad peak with the width

2885: of the order of $\sim 0.3$eV in contrast to the delta-functional peak expected

2886: for the ground state at $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$. One may attribute this large width

2887: to the disorder effect in the sample. However the ARPES in the overdoped region

2888: shows even sharper peak at the Fermi energy even though the doping introduces

2889: further disorder.  Therefore the disorder effect is unlikely to explain this

2890: discrepancy.  Recently the electron-phonon coupling to the single hole in

2891: $t$-$J$ model has been studied using quantum Monte Carlo simulation

2892: %(Mishchenko {\em et al.}, 2004)

2893: \cite{MN0402}.  It is found that the small polaron 

2894: formation

2895: in the presence of strong

2896: correlation 

2897: reduces the dispersion and the weight of the zero-phonon line, while the center of

2898: mass of the spectral weight for the originally "quasi-particle" peak remain

2899: the same as the pure $t$-$J$ model, even though the shape is broadened.

2900: Therefore the polaron effect is a promising scenario to explain the spectral

2901: shape.

2902: 

2903: Recently, 

2904: %Shen {\em et al.} (2004)

2905: \Ref{SRL0402} pointed out that the polaron picture also

2906: explains a long standing puzzle regarding the location of the chemical

2907: potential with doping.  Naive expectation based on doping a Hubbard model

2908: predicts that the chemical potential should lie at the top of the valence

2909: band, whereas experimentally in Na-doped Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$ it was found that

2910: the chemical potential appears to lie somewhere in mid-gap, \ie with a small

2911: but finite density of holes, the chemical potential is several tenths of eV

2912: higher than the energy of the peak position of the one-hole spectrum.  This is

2913: naturally explained if the one-hole spectrum has been shifted down by polaron

2914: effects, so that the top of the valence band should be at the zero-phonon

2915: line, rather than the center of mass of the one-hole spectrum.

2916: 

2917: 

2918: \section{Slave boson formulation of $t$-$J$ model and mean field theory}

2919: 

2920: As has been discussed in II, it is widely believed that the low energy physics

2921: of high-Tc cuprates is described in terms of $t$-$J$ type model, which is

2922: given by \cite{LN9221}

2923: \be

2924: H= \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} J\left(

2925: {\v{S}}_{\v i}\cdot {\v{S}}_{\v j}-{1\over

2926: 4}n_{\v i} n_{\v j} \right)

2927: -\sum_{\v i\v j}t_{\v i\v j}

2928: \left(c_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger

2929: c_{\v j\sigma}+{\rm H.c.}\right).

2930: \label{t-J}

2931: \en

2932: where $t_{\v i\v j}=t$, $t'$, $t''$ for the nearest, second nearest and 3rd nearest

2933: neighbor pairs, respectively. The effect of the strong Coulomb repulsion is

2934: represented by the fact that the electron operators $c^\dagger_{\v i\sigma}$ and

2935: $c_{\v i\sigma}$ are the projected ones, where the double occupation is

2936: forbidden.  This is written as the inequality

2937: \be

2938: \sum_{\sigma} c^\dagger_{\v i\sigma} c_{\v i \sigma} \le 1,

2939: \label{Eq.30}

2940: \en

2941: which is very difficult to handle.  A powerful method to treat this constraint

2942: is so called the slave-boson method 

2943: %(Barnes, 1976; Coleman, 1984)

2944: \cite{B7675,C8435}.  In most

2945: general form, the electron operator is represented as

2946: \be

2947: c^\dagger_{\v i\sigma} = f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger b_{\v i} + 

2948: \epsilon_{\sigma \sigma'} f_{\v i \sigma'} d_{\v i}^\dagger

2949: \label{Eq.31}

2950: \en

2951: where $\epsilon_{\uparrow \downarrow} = 

2952: - \epsilon_{\downarrow \uparrow} = 1$ is the antisymmetric tensor.

2953:   $f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger$, $f_{\v i \sigma}$ are the fermion operators, while

2954: $b_{\v i}$, $d^\dagger_{\v i}$ are the slave-boson operators.  This representation

2955: together with the constraint 

2956: \be

2957: f_{\v i\uparrow}^\dagger f_{\v i\uparrow}

2958: + f_{\v i\downarrow}^\dagger f_{\v i\downarrow} + b^\dagger_{\v i} b_{\v i}

2959: + d^\dagger_{\v i} d_{\v i} = 1

2960: \label{Eq.32}

2961: \en

2962: reproduces all the algebra of the electron (fermion) operators.  From eqs.

2963: (\ref{Eq.31}) and (\ref{Eq.32}), the physical meaning of these operators is

2964: clear. Namely, there are 4 states per site and $b^\dagger$, $b$ corresponds to

2965: the vacant state, $d^\dagger$,$d$ to double occupancy, and $f^\dagger_\sigma$,

2966: $f_{\sigma}$ to the single electron with spin $\sigma$.  With this formalism

2967: it is easy to exclude the double occupancy just by deleting $d^\dagger$, $d$

2968: from the above equations (\ref{Eq.31}) and (\ref{Eq.32}).  Then the projected

2969: electron operator is written as

2970: \be

2971: c_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger = f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger b_{\v i}

2972: \label{Eq.33}

2973: \en

2974: with the condition

2975: \be

2976: f_{\v i\uparrow}^\dagger f_{\v i\uparrow}

2977: + f_{\v i\downarrow}^\dagger f_{\v i\downarrow} + b^\dagger_{\v i} b_{\v i} = 1.

2978: \label{Eq.34}

2979: \en

2980: This constraint can be enforced with a Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda_{\v i}$.

2981: Note that unlike eq. (\ref{Eq.31}), eq. (\ref{Eq.33}) is not an operator

2982: identity and the R.H.S. does not satisfy the fermion commutation relation.

2983: Rather, the requirement is that both sides have the correct matrix elements in

2984: the reduced Hilbert space with no doubly occupied states.  For example, the

2985: Heisenberg exchange term is written in terms of $f^\dagger_{\v i\sigma}$,

2986: $f_{\v i\sigma}$ only \cite{BZA8773}

2987: \be

2988: {\v{S}}_{\v i}\cdot {\v{S}}_{\v j} &=& -{1\over 4} f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v j\sigma}

2989: f_{\v j\beta}^\dagger f_{\v i\beta}  \nonumber  \label{Eq.35} \\

2990: &-& {1\over 4} \left(

2991: f_{\v i\up}^\dagger f_{\v j\down}^\dagger - f_{\v i\down}^\dagger f_{\v j\up}^\dagger

2992: \right) \left(

2993: f_{\v j\down} f_{\v i\up} - f_{\v j\up} f_{\v i\down}

2994: \right)  \nonumber \\ 

2995: &+& {1\over 4} \left( f_{\v i\alpha}^\dagger f_{\v i\alpha}  \right) .

2996: \en

2997: We write

2998: \be

2999: n_{\v i}n_{\v j} = (1 - b_{\v i}^\dagger b_{\v i} ) (1 - b_{\v j}^\dagger b_{\v j} )  .

3000: \label{Eq.36}

3001: \en

3002: Then ${\v{S}}_{\v i}\cdot {\v{S}}_{\v j} - {1\over 4}n_{\v i}n_{\v j}$ can be written in terms of

3003: the first two terms of eq. (\ref{Eq.35})  plus quadratic terms, provided we

3004: ignore the nearest-neighbor hole-hole interaction ${1\over 4}b_{\v i}^\dagger

3005: b_{\v i}b_{\v j}^\dagger b_{\v j} $.  We then decouple the exchange term in both the

3006: particle-hole and particle-particle channels via the Hubbard-Stratonovich (HS)

3007: transformation.  

3008: %For this purpose the $SU(2)$ doublets defined below are useful

3009: %\cite{AZH8845,DFM8826}

3010: 

3011: 

3012: Then the partition function is written in the 

3013: %compact 

3014: form

3015: \be

3016: Z = \int{D f D f^\dagger Db D\lambda D\chi D\Delta} \exp \left(

3017: -\int^\beta _0 d\tau L_1

3018: \right)

3019: \label{Eq.38}

3020: \en

3021: where

3022: \be

3023: \label{Eq.39}

3024: %L_1 &=& {\tilde{J}\over 2} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>}\Tr [U_{\v i\v j}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j}] +

3025: %{\tilde{J}\over 2} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>,\sigma} \left (

3026: %\Phi_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j} \Phi_{\v j\sigma} + c.c.

3027: %\right) \nonumber \\

3028: L_1 &=& \tilde{J} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} \left(

3029: |\chi_{\v i\v j}|^2 + | \Delta_{\v i\v j} |^2 \right)

3030: +\sum_{\v i\sigma}f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger (\partial_\tau - i\lambda_{\v i})

3031: f_{\v i\sigma} 

3032: \nonumber\\

3033: &-& \tilde{J} 

3034: \left[

3035:  \sum_{\<\v i\v j \>} \chi_{\v i\v j}^\ast \left( \sum_{\sigma} f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger

3036: f_{\v j\sigma} \right) + c.c. \right]  

3037: \\

3038: &+& \tilde{J} \left[ \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} \Delta_{\v i\v j} \left(

3039: f^\dagger_{\v i\up}f^\dagger_{\v j\down} - f^\dagger_{\v i\down} f^\dagger_{\v j\up} \right) + c.c. \right] \nonumber \\

3040: &+&\sum_{\v i} b_{\v i}^\ast(\partial_\tau - i\lambda_{\v i} + \mu_B ) b_{\v

3041: i} 

3042: - \sum_{\v i\v j}{t}_{\v i\v j}b_{\v i}b_{\v j}^\ast f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v j\sigma} ,

3043: \nonumber 

3044: \en

3045: with $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ representing fermion hopping and $\Delta_{\v i\v j}$

3046: representing fermion pairing corresponding to the two ways of representing the

3047: exchange interaction in terms of the fermion operators. From eqs.

3048: (\ref{Eq.35}) and (\ref{Eq.39})  it is concluded that $\tilde{J}=J/4$, but in

3049: practice the choice of $\tilde{J}_{\v i\v j}$ is not so trivial, namely one

3050: would like to study the saddle point approximation (SPA) and the Gaussian

3051: fluctuation around it, and requires SPA to reproduce the mean field theory.

3052: %It is usually the case 

3053: The latter requirement is satisfied when only one HS variable is relevant, but

3054: not for the multicomponent HS variables 

3055: %(Orland and Negele; Ubbens and Lee, 1992)

3056: \cite{NegO87,UL9234}.  In the latter case, it is better to chose the

3057: parameters in the Lagrangian to reproduce the mean field theory. In the

3058: present case, $\tilde{J} = 3J/8$ reproduces the mean field self-consistent

3059: equation which is obtained by the Feynman variational principle \cite{BL0102}.

3060: 

3061: We note that $L_1$ in \Eq{Eq.39} is invariant under a local $U(1)$

3062: transformation

3063: \begin{align}

3064: \label{U1gaugetrans}

3065:  f_{\v i} &\to e^{i\th_{\v i}} f_{\v i} \nonumber\\

3066:  b_{\v i} &\to e^{i\th_{\v i}} b_{\v i} \nonumber\\

3067:  \chi_{\v i\v j} &\to e^{-i\th_{\v i}} \chi_{\v i\v j} e^{i\th_{\v j}} \nonumber\\

3068:  \Del_{\v i\v j} &\to e^{i\th_{\v i}} \Del_{\v i\v j} e^{i\th_{\v j}} \nonumber\\

3069:  \la_{\v i} &\to  \la_{\v i} +\prt_\tau \th_{\v i}

3070: \end{align}

3071: which is called $U(1)$ gauge transformation.

3072: Due to such a $U(1)$ gauge invariance, the phase fluctuations of $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ and $\la_{\v i}$

3073: have a dynamics of $U(1)$ gauge field (see section IX).

3074: 

3075: Now we describe the various mean field theory corresponding to the saddle

3076: point solution to the functional integral.  The mean field conditions are

3077: \begin{align}

3078: \label{Eq.39a}

3079: \chi_{\v i\v j} &= \sum_\sigma \langle

3080: f^\dagger_{\v i\sigma} f_{\v j\sigma} \rangle \\

3081: \label{Eq.40} 

3082: \Delta_{\v i\v j} &= \langle  f_{\v i\up}f_{\v j\down} - f_{\v i\down}f_{\v i\up}  \rangle

3083: \end{align}

3084: 

3085: Let us first consider the $t$-$J$ model in the undoped case,

3086: \ie the half-filled case.  There are no bosons in this case, and the theory

3087: is purely that of fermions.  The original one, \ie uniform RVB state,

3088: proposed by Baskaran-Zou-Anderson \cite{BZA8773} is given by

3089: \be

3090: \chi_{\v i\v j} = \chi = \text{real}

3091: \label{Eq.41}

3092: \en

3093: for all the bond and $\Delta_{\v i\v j}=0$.  The fermion spectrum is that of the

3094: tight binding model

3095: \be

3096: H_\text{uRVB} = - \sum_{\v k \sigma} 2 {\tilde J}

3097: \chi ( \cos k_x + \cos k_y )

3098: f^\dagger_{\v k \sigma} f_{\v k \sigma}, 

3099: \label{Eq.42}

3100: \en

3101: with the saddle point value to the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_{\v i}=0$.  The so

3102: called ``spinon Fermi surface'' is large, \ie it is given by the condition

3103: $k_x \pm k_y = \pm \pi$ with a diverging density of states (van Hove

3104: singularity) at the Fermi energy. 

3105: %Affleck-Marston 

3106: Soon after, many authors 

3107: %studied 

3108: found lower energy states than the uniform RVB state. One can easily

3109: understand that lower energy states 

3110: %are there 

3111: exist because the Fermi surface is perfectly nested with the nesting

3112: wavevector ${\vec Q} = (\pi,\pi)$ and the various instabilities with $\vec Q$

3113: are expected. Of particular importance are the $d$-wave state [see (Eq.

3114: \ref{Eq.13})] and the staggered flux state [see (Eq. \ref{Eq.17})] which give

3115: identical energy dispersion.  This was explained as being due to a local

3116: $SU(2)$ symmetry when the spin problem is formulated in terms of fermions

3117: \cite{AZH8845,DFM8826}.  We write

3118: \be

3119: \Phi_{\v i\up} =

3120: \bpm f_{\v i\up} \\

3121: f_{\v i\down}^\dagger \epm \,\, , \,\,\,\,

3122: \Phi_{\v i\down} =

3123: \bpm f_{\v i\down} \\

3124: -f_{\v i\up}^\dagger \epm \,\, ,

3125: \label{Eq.37}

3126: \en

3127: Then eq.~(\ref{Eq.39}) can be written in the more compact form

3128: \be

3129: L_1 &=& {\tilde{J}\over 2} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>}\Tr [U_{\v i\v j}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j}] +

3130: {\tilde{J}\over 2} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>,\sigma} \left (

3131: \Phi_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j} \Phi_{\v j\sigma} + c.c.

3132: \right) \nonumber \\

3133: &+&\sum_{\v i\sigma}f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger (\partial_\tau - i\lambda_{\v i})

3134: f_{\v i\sigma} \nonumber \\

3135: &+&\sum_{\v i} b_{\v i}^\ast(\partial_\tau - i\lambda_{\v i} + \mu_B ) b_{\v i} \nonumber \\

3136: &-& \sum_{\v i\v j}{t}_{\v i\v j}b_{\v i}b_{\v j}^\ast f_{\v i\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v j\sigma} ,

3137: \label{Eq.44}

3138: \en

3139: where

3140: \be

3141: U_{\v i\v j}=

3142: \bpm -\chi_{\v i\v j}^\ast&\Delta_{\v i\v j}\\

3143: \Delta_{\v i\v j}^\ast&\chi_{\v i\v j} \epm.

3144: \label{Eq.45} 

3145: \en

3146: At half filling $b = \mu_B =0$ and the mean field solution corresponds to

3147: $\lambda_{\v i} = 0$.  The Lagrangian is invariant under

3148: \be

3149: \Phi_{\v i\si} &\rightarrow&  W_{\v i}\Phi_{\v i\si} \\

3150: U_{\v i\v j} &\rightarrow& W_{\v i} U_{\v i\v j} W_{\v j}^\dagger

3151: \en

3152: where $W_{\v i}$ is an $SU(2)$ matrix [see eq.~(\ref{Eq.18})].  We reserve a fuller discussion of the $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry to Section X, but here we just give a simple example.

3153: %\be

3154: %U_{\v i\v j}=

3155: %\bpm -\chi_{\v i\v j}^\ast&\Delta_{\v i\v j}\\

3156: %\Delta_{\v i\v j}^\ast&\chi_{\v i\v j} \epm.

3157: %\label{Eq.40}

3158: %\en

3159: %Of particular important is the $\pi$-flux state which is given by 

3160: %\be 

3161: %\chi_{\v i i+x} = \chi

3162: %\nonumber \\

3163: %\chi_{\v i i+y} = \chi (-1)^{\v i_x + i_y}

3164: %\label{Eq.43}

3165: %\en

3166: %with $\Delta_{\v i\v j} = 0$.

3167: %When one pick up one plaquette and consider the 

3168: %product of the hopping integral around its perimeter,

3169: %\be 

3170: %\chi_{ i i+x} \chi_{\v i +x i+x+y} \chi_{\v i+x+y i+y} \chi_{\v i+y i} 

3171: %= - \chi^4

3172: %\label{Eq.44}

3173: %\en

3174: %This product is invariant with respect to the local gauge

3175: %transformation 

3176: %\be

3177: %f_{\v i \sigma} \to e^{\v i \varphi_{\v i}} f_{\v i \sigma}

3178: %\label{Eq.45}

3179: %\en

3180: %and plays the essential role in the gauge theory described later.

3181: %Writing the product as $\chi^4 e^{ i \Phi}$ the "flux" $\Phi$

3182: %penetrating the plaquette is $\pi$ in the present case, and hence

3183: %this state is called "$\pi$-flux state". 

3184: %The fermion spectrum is given by 

3185: %\be

3186: %& & H_{\pi-flux}

3187: %\nonumber \\

3188: %&=& \sum_{\v k:half BZ, \sigma} {\tilde J} \chi

3189: %\sqrt{ \cos^2 k_x + \cos^2 k_y}

3190: %(f^\dagger_{1 k \sigma} f_{1 k \sigma} - 

3191: %f^\dagger_{2 k \sigma} f_{2 k \sigma} )

3192: %\label{Eq.46}

3193: %\en

3194: %where the summation over $k$ is done with the reduced half-Brillouin 

3195: %zone shown in Fig. . 

3196: %The fermion operator $f_{1 k \sigma}$, $f_{2 k \sigma}$

3197: %are given by a linear combination of $f_{\v k \sigma}$ and $f_{\v k+ Q \sigma}$

3198: %unitary transformation 

3199: %Up to now, we consider the case without the pairing $\Delta_{\v i\v j}$.

3200: %The "superconducting" state of fermions are pursued first by 

3201: %Kotliar-Liu \cite{KL8842}, who found the d-wave pairing s\v tate is the most 

3202: %stable. This d-wave RVB state is given by 

3203: %\be 

3204: %\chi_{\v i\v j} = \chi

3205: %\nonumber \\

3206: %\Delta_{\v i i+x} = - \Delta_{\v i i+y} = \Delta.

3207: %\label{Eq.47}

3208: %\en

3209: %The self-consistent equation results in $\chi=\Delta$ 

3210: %at half-filing. The mean field energy is the same as 

3211: %the $\pi$-flux state, \ie $E_G = -  {\tilde J}$.

3212: %The fermion spectrum is the same as that of the 

3213: %BCS theory:

3214: %\be

3215: %H_{d-RVB} = \sum_{\v k} {\tilde J} \chi

3216: %\sqrt{ \cos^2 k_x + \cos^2 k_y}

3217: %(f^\dagger_{+ k } f_{+ k } - 

3218: %f^\dagger_{- k } f_{- k } )

3219: %\label{Eq.48}

3220: %\en

3221: %Again one case see the similarity between the 

3222: %fermion spectrum of the $\pi$-flux and

3223: %d-RVB states, although the former breaks the 

3224: %periodicity of the lattice while the latter 

3225: %mixes the particle and hole. 

3226: %Here some caution is needed. 

3227: %According to the gauge transformation eq. ( ),

3228: %the momentum of the fermion can be changed. Therefore

3229: %it is possible that the solution with periodicity doubling 

3230: %is equivalent to that without it via a gauge transformation.

3231: %However one need one step further to relate the $\pi$-flux state and 

3232: %d-RVB state by generalizing the gauge transformation to mix

3233: %particle and hole.

3234: %Affleck {\it et al.}\cite{AZH8845} 

3235: %found exactly this $SU(2)$ local gauge symmetry

3236: %for the $t$-$J$ model at half-filling, and showed the

3237: %equivalence between $\pi$-flux state and d-RVB state.

3238: %The $SU(2)$ doublet in Eq. (5) expresses the

3239: %physical idea that a physical up-spin can be represented by

3240: %the presence of an up-spin fermion, or the absence

3241: %of a down-spin fermion, once the constraint is imposed.

3242: %This symmetry has far more physical consequences even in the

3243: %doped case as will be discussed in section  , but here we restrict to 

3244: %the mean field solution at half-filling.

3245: In terms of the link variable $U_{\v i\v j}$, the $\pi$-flux and $d$-RVB states are

3246: represented as

3247: \be  

3248: U_{\v i\v j}^{\pi\text{-flux}} = -\chi ( \tau^3 - i(-1) ^{i_x+j_y} ),

3249: \label{Eq.49}

3250: \en

3251: and

3252: \be

3253: U_{\v i,i+\mu}^d = -\chi ( \tau^3 + \eta_\mu \tau^1 ),

3254: \label{Eq.50}

3255: \en

3256: respectively.  These two are related by

3257: \be

3258: U_{\v i\v j}^{SF} = W_{\v i}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j}^d W_{\v j}

3259: \label{Eq.51}

3260: \en

3261: where

3262: \be

3263: W_{\v j} = \exp \left[

3264: i(-1)^{j_x+j_y} {\pi\over 4} \tau^1 \right].

3265: \label{Eq.52}

3266: \en

3267: Therefore the $SU(2)$ transformation of the fermion variable

3268: \be

3269: \Phi'_{\v i} = W_{\v i} \Phi_{\v i}

3270: \label{Eq.53}

3271: \en

3272: relates the $\pi$-flux and d-RVB states.  Here some remarks are in order.

3273: First it should be noted that we are discussing the Mott insulating state and

3274: its spin dynamics. The charge transport is completely suppressed by the

3275: constraint eq. (\ref{Eq.34}). This will be discussed in sec. X where the mean

3276: field theory is elaborated into gauge theory.  Secondly, it is now established

3277: that the ground state of the two-dimensional antiferromagnetic Heisenberg

3278: model shows the antiferromagnetic long range ordering (AFLRO).  This

3279: corresponds to the third (and most naive) way of decoupling the exchange

3280: interaction, \ie

3281: \be

3282: {\v{S}}_{\v i}\cdot {\v{S}}_{\v j} = 

3283: {1\over 4} f_{\v i\alpha}^\dagger \sigma^{\mu}_{\alpha \beta} f_{\v i \beta}

3284: f_{\v j \gamma}^\dagger \sigma^{\mu}_{\gamma \delta} f_{\v j\delta}

3285: \label{Eq.54}

3286: \en

3287: However even with the AFLRO, the singlet formation represented by $\chi_{\v i\v j}$

3288: and $\Delta_{\v i\v j}$ dominates and AFLRO occurs on top of it. This view has been

3289: stressed by Hsu \cite{H9079,HMA9166} generalizing the $\pi$-flux state to

3290: include the AFRLO, and is in accord with the energetics of the projected

3291: wavefunctions, as discussed in section VI.A.

3292: 

3293: 

3294: \begin{figure}[t]

3295: \centerline{

3296: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig21.eps}

3297: }

3298: \vspace{0.5cm}

3299: \caption{ 

3300: Schematic phase diagram of the $U(1)$ mean field theory.  The solid line

3301: denotes the onset of the uniform RVB state $(\chi \neq 0)$.  The dashed line

3302: denotes the onset of fermion pairing $(\Delta \neq 0)$ and the dotted line

3303: denotes mean field Bose condensation $(b \neq 0)$.  The four regions are

3304: (I)~Fermi liquid $\chi \neq 0$, $b \neq 0$; (II)~spin gap $\chi \neq 0$,

3305: $\Delta \neq 0$; (III)~$d$-wave superconductor $\chi \neq 0$, $\Delta \neq 0$,

3306: $b \neq 0$; and (IV)~ strange metal $\chi \neq 0$ \cite{LN9221}.

3307: }

3308: \label{U1}

3309: \end{figure}

3310: 

3311: 

3312: Now we turn to the doped case, \ie $x \ne 0$.  Then the behavior of the

3313: bosons are crucial for the charge dynamics. At the mean field theory, the

3314: bosons are free and condensed at $T_{BE}$.  In three-dimensional system,

3315: $T_{BE}$ is finite while $T_{BE} = 0$ for purely two-dimensional system.

3316: Theories assume weak three dimensional hopping between layers, and obtain the

3317: finite $T_{BE}$ roughly proportional to the boson density $x$

3318: \cite{KL8842,SHF8868}.  This materializes the original idea by Anderson

3319: \cite{A8796} that the preformed spin superconductivity (RVB) turns into the

3320: real superconductivity via the Bose condensation of holons.  

3321: %Kotliar and Liu, 1988 

3322: \Ref{KL8842}

3323: and 

3324: %Suzumura {\em et al.}, 1988

3325: \Ref{SHF8868} found the d-wave superconductivity in the

3326: slave-boson mean field theory presented above, and the schematic phase diagram

3327: is given in Fig.~\ref{U1}.  There are 5 phases classified by the order

3328: parameters $\chi$, $\Delta$, and $b=\<b_{\v i}\>$ for the Bose condensation.  In

3329: the incoherent state at high temperature, all the order parameters are zero.

3330: In the uniform RVB state (IV in Fig.~\ref{U1}), only $\chi$ is finite. In the

3331: spin gap state (II), $\Delta$ and $\chi$ are nonzero while $b=0$. This

3332: corresponds to the spin singlet ``superconductivity'' with the incoherent

3333: charge motion, and can be viewed as the precursor phase of the

3334: superconductivity. 

3335: %However as mentioned in sec. and also as will be discussed in sec. , this

3336: %interpretation is too naive. 

3337: This state has been interpreted as the pseudogap phase \cite{F9287}.

3338: We note that at the mean field level, the $SU(2)$ symmetry is broken by the

3339: nonzero $\mu_B$ in eq.~(\ref{Eq.44}) and the $d$-wave pairing state is chosen

3340: because it has lower energy than the staggered flux state.  We shall return to

3341: this point in Section X.  In the Fermi liquid state (I), both $\chi$ and $b$

3342: are nonzero while $\Delta=0$. This state is similar to the slave-boson

3343: description of heavy fermion state.  Lastly when all the order parameter is

3344: nonzero, we obtain the $d$-wave superconducting state (III). This mean field

3345: theory, in spite of its simplicity, captures rather well the experimental

3346: features as described in sections III and IV.

3347: 

3348: 

3349: Before closing this section, we mention the slave fermion method and its mean

3350: field theory (\cit{AA8816}; \cit{Y8916}; \cit{CRK9019}).  One can exchange the

3351: statistics of fermion and boson in eqs.  (\ref{Eq.31}) and (\ref{Eq.33}). Then

3352: the bosons has the spin index, \ie $b_{\v i \sigma}$ while the fermion

3353: becomes spinless, \ie $f_{\v i}$. This boson is called Schwinger boson, and

3354: is suitable to describe the AFLRO state. The large $N$-limit of Schwinger

3355: boson theory gives the AFLRO state for $S=1/2$.  The holes are represented by

3356: the spinless fermion forming a small hole pockets around $k=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$.

3357: The size of the hole pocket is twice as large as the usual doped SDW state due

3358: to the absence of the spin index. Therefore the slave fermion method violates

3359: the Luttinger theorem.  Finally we mention that by introducing a phase-string

3360: in the slave fermion approach, one obtains a phase-string formulation of high

3361: $T_c$ superconductivity (\cit{WST0067}; \cit{W0361}).  In such an approach both

3362: spin-1/2 neutral particles and spin-0 charged particles are bosons with a

3363: non-trivial mutual statistics between them.

3364: 

3365: 

3366: \section{$U(1)$ gauge theory of the uRVB state}

3367: 

3368: 

3369: %Insert A1

3370: The mean field theory only enforces the constraint on the average.

3371: Furthermore, the fermions and bosons introduce redundancy in representing the

3372: original electron, which results in an extra gauge degree of freedom.  The

3373: fermions and bosons are not gauge invariant and should not be thought of as

3374: physical particles.  To include these effects we need to consider fluctuations

3375: around the mean field saddle points, which immediately become gauge theories,

3376: as first pointed out by 

3377: %Baskaran and Anderson, 1988

3378: \Ref{BA8880}.  Here, we review the

3379: early work on the $U(1)$ gauge theory, which treats gauge fluctuations on the

3380: Gaussian level 

3381: %(Ioffe and Larkin, 1989; Nagaosa and Lee, 1990; Lee and Nagaosa, 1992; 

3382: %Ioffe and Kotliar, 1990)

3383: (\cit{IL8988}; \cit{NL9050}; \cit{LN9221}; \cit{IK9048}).  The theory can be

3384: worked out in some detail, leading to a nontrivial recipe for obtaining

3385: physical response functions in terms of the fermion and boson ones, called the

3386: Ioffe-Larkin composition rule.  It highlights the importance of calculating

3387: gauge invariant quantities and the fact that the fermion and bosons only enter

3388: as useful intermediate steps.  The Gaussian $U(1)$ gauge theory was mainly

3389: designed for the high temperature limit of the optimally doped cuprate, \ie

3390: the so-called strange metal phase in Fig.~\ref{U1}.  We will describe its

3391: failure in the underdoped region, which leads to the $SU(2)$ formulation of

3392: the next two sections.  The Gaussian theory also misses the confinement

3393: physics which is important for the ground state.

3394: 

3395: \subsection{Effective gauge action and non-Fermi-liquid behavior}

3396: 

3397: %Gauge structure often appears in the quantum field theory of constrained

3398: %system.  can be intuitively understood by the following analogy.  Gauge

3399: %theory is closely related to the differential geometry of the curved space.

3400: %When the vector is constrained on a tangential space to the curved surface,

3401: %for example, the metric for it is different from that in the three

3402: %dimensional free space. Particular interesting is the parallel transport of

3403: %the vector, which is defined so that the change of the vector has no

3404: %components within the tangential plane to the surface at each point. When one

3405: %continues this parallel transport along a closed loop and takesit back to the

3406: %original point, the resultant vector is different from the initial one.  This

3407: %phenomenon is called holonomy, and the difference of the final and initial

3408: %vectors are related to the curvature integrated over the surface enclosed by

3409: %the loop. Now in the case of quantum mechanics, one can consider the Hilbert

3410: %space and vector, which corresponds to the wavefunction. Then when the

3411: %wavefunction is constrained within the subspace of the Hilbert space, the

3412: %similar situation occurs.  Namely the parallel transport of the wavefunction

3413: %results in the quantum holonomy, and the curvature corresponds to the gauge

3414: %field.  

3415: 

3416: 

3417: As has been discussed in section III, the phenomenology of the optimally doped

3418: Mott insulator is required to describe the two seemingly contradicting

3419: features, \ie the doped insulator with small hole carrier concentration and

3420: the electrons forming the large Fermi surface. The former is supported various

3421: transport and optical properties, representatively the Drude weight

3422: proportional to $x$, while the latter by the angle resolved photoemission

3423: spectra (ARPES) in the normal state of optimal doped samples. In the

3424: conventional single-particle picture, the reduction of the 1st Brillouin zone

3425: due to the antiferromagnetic long range ordering (AFLRO) distinguishes these

3426: two. Namely small hole pockets with area $x$ are formed in the reduced

3427: 1st BZ in the AFLRO state, while the large metallic Fermi surface of area

3428: $1-x$ appears otherwise. The challenge for the theory of the optimally doped

3429: case is that aspects of the doped insulator appear in some experiments even

3430: with the large Fermi surface. Also it is noted that the ARPES shows that there

3431: is no sharp peak corresponding to the quasi-particle in the normal state,

3432: especially at the anti-nodal region near ${\v k} = (\pi,0)$. The fermi

3433: surface is defined by a rather broad peak dispersing near the Fermi energy.

3434: These strongly suggests that the normal state of high temperature

3435: superconductors is not described in terms of the usual Landau Fermi liquid

3436: picture. 

3437: 

3438: A promising theoretical framework to describe this dilemma is the slave-boson

3439: formalism introduced above. It has the two species of particles, \ie

3440: fermions and bosons, due to the strong correlation, and the electron is

3441: ``fractionalized'' into these two particles.  However, one must not take

3442: naively this conclusion, because the fermions and bosons cannot be regarded as

3443: ``physical'' particles in that they are not gauge invariant as explained

3444: below.  Furthermore, they are not noninteracting particles; they are strongly

3445: coupled to the gauge field. This arises from the fact that the conservation of

3446: the gauge charge $Q_{\v i} = \sum_\sigma f^\dagger_{\v i \sigma} f_{\v i \sigma} +

3447: b^\dagger_{\v i} b_{\v i}$ can be derived by the Noether theorem starting from the local

3448: $U(1)$ gauge transformation

3449: \be

3450: f_{\v i \sigma} \to e^{\v i \varphi_{\v i}} f_{\v i \sigma}

3451: \nonumber  \\

3452: b_{\v i} \to e^{i \varphi_{\v i}} b_{\v i \sigma}.

3453: \label{Eq.55}

3454: \en

3455: Therefore the constraint  eq.~(\ref{Eq.34})  is equivalent to a local gauge

3456: symmetry.  The Green's functions for fermions and bosons $G_F(\v i,\v j;\tau) = -

3457: \<T_\tau f_{\v i \sigma}(\tau) f^\dagger_{\v j \sigma} \>$ and $G_B(\v i,\v j;\tau) = -

3458: \<T_\tau b_{\v i}(\tau) b^\dagger_{\v j} \>$ transforms as

3459: \be

3460: G_F(\v i,\v j;\tau) \to e^{i (\varphi_{\v i} - \varphi_{\v j})} G_F(\v i,\v j;\tau)

3461: \nonumber \\

3462: G_B(\v i,\v j;\tau) \to e^{i (\varphi_{\v i} - \varphi_{\v j})} G_B(\v i,\v j;\tau).

3463: \label{Eq.56}

3464: \en

3465: Therefore these fermions and bosons are not gauge invariant and should be

3466: regarded as only the particles which are useful in the intermediate step of

3467: the theory to calculate the physical (gauge invariant) quantities as will be

3468: done in the next section. 

3469: %Here it is noted that this gauge symmetry is not the ``symmetry'' of the

3470: %system. It is rather a symmetry to impose the constraint, and can be

3471: %different from $U(1)$ as discussed in sec.X.  Namely it could be $Z_2$ or

3472: %$SU(2)$.  In this section, we will focus on the $U(1)$ formulation which was

3473: %originally proposed and reveal its limitations ans drawbacks.

3474: 

3475: At the mean field level, the constraint was replaced by the averaged one

3476: $\<Q_{\v i}\> = 1$. This average is controlled by the saddle point value of the

3477: Lagrange multiplier field $\<\lambda_{\v i}\> = \lambda$. Originally $\lambda_{\v i}$ is

3478: the functional integral variable and is a function of (imaginary) time. When

3479: this integration is done exactly, the constraint is imposed. Therefore we have

3480: to go beyond the mean field theory and take into account the fluctuation

3481: around it.  In other words, the local gauge symmetry is restored by the gauge

3482: fields which transform as

3483: \be

3484: a_{\v i\v j} \to a_{\v i\v j} + \varphi_{\v i} - \varphi_{\v j}

3485: \nonumber \\

3486: a_0 (\v i)  \to  a_0(\v i) + { {\partial \varphi_{\v i}(\tau)} \over {\partial \tau}},

3487: \label{Eq.57}

3488: \en

3489: corresponding to eq.~(\ref{Eq.55}).  The fields satisfying this condition are

3490: already in the Lagrangian eq.~(\ref{Eq.39}). Namely the phase of the HS

3491: variable $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ and the fluctuation part of the Lagrange multiplier

3492: $a_0(\v i) = \lambda_{\v i}$ are these fields. 

3493: 

3494: Let us study this $U(1)$ gauge theory for the uRVB state in the phase diagram

3495: Fig.~\ref{U1}. This state is expected to describe the normal state of the

3496: optimally doped cuprates, where the $SU(2)$ particle-hole symmetry 

3497: described by eq.~(\ref{Eq.37}) is not so important.   Here we neglect

3498: $\Delta$-field, and consider $\chi$ and $\lambda$ field. There are amplitude

3499: and phase fluctuations of $\chi$-field, but the former one is massive and does

3500: not play important roles in the low energy limit.  Therefore the relevant

3501: Lagrangian to start with is

3502: \be

3503: L_1 &=& \sum_{ i, \sigma} f^*_{\v i \sigma} 

3504: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial \tau}} - \mu_F + i a_0({\v r}_{\v i})

3505: \biggr) f_{\v i \sigma} 

3506: \nonumber \\

3507:  &+& \sum_{ i} b^*_{\v i} 

3508: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial \tau}} - \mu_B + i a_0({\v r}_{\v i})

3509: \biggr) b_{\v i} 

3510: \nonumber \\

3511: &-& {\tilde J}\chi \sum_{\<\v i\v j\> \sigma} 

3512: ( e^{i a_{\v i\v j}} f^*_{\v i \sigma} f_{\v j \sigma} + h.c.) \nonumber \\

3513: &-& t \eta \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} 

3514: ( e^{i a_{\v i\v j}} b^*_{\v i} b_{\v j} + h.c.)

3515: \label{Eq.58}

3516: \en

3517: where $\eta$ is the saddle point value of another HS variable to decouple the

3518: hopping term.  We can take $\eta = \chi$ using eq.~(\ref{Eq.39a}). Here the

3519: lattice structure and the periodicity with respect to $a_{\v i\v j} \to a_{\v

3520: i\v j} + 2 \pi$ are evident, and the problem is that of the lattice gauge

3521: theory coupled to the fermions and bosons. It is also noted here that there is

3522: no dynamics of the gauge field at this starting Lagrangian. Namely the

3523: coupling constant of the gauge field is infinity, and the system is in the

3524: strong coupling limit.  This is because the gauge field represents the

3525: constraint; by integrating over the gauge field we obtain the original problem

3526: with the constraint.  This raises the issue of confinement as will be

3527: discussed in section  IX.D and XI.F.  Here we exchange the order of the

3528: integration between the gauge field ($a_{\v i\v j},a_0$) and the matter fields

3529: (fermions and bosons). Namely the matter fields are integrated over first, and

3530: we obtain the effective action for the gauge field.

3531: \be

3532: e^{- S_{\rm eff.} (a)} = 

3533: \int D f^* Df D b^* Db e^{ - \int_0^\beta L_1 }

3534: \label{Eq.59}

3535: \en

3536: However this integration can not be done exactly, and the approximation is

3537: introduced here. The most standard one is the Gaussian approximation or RPA,

3538: where the effective action is obtained by perturbation theory up to the

3539: quadratic order in $a$.  For this purpose we introduce here the continuum

3540: approximation to the Lagrangian $L_1$ in eq.~(\ref{Eq.58}).

3541: \be

3542: L &=& \int d^2 {\v r} 

3543: \biggl[  \sum_\sigma f^*_{ \sigma}({\v r}) 

3544: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial \tau}} - \mu_F + i a_0({\v r})

3545: \biggr) f_{ \sigma}({\v r}) 

3546: \nonumber \\

3547:  &+& b^*({\v r}) 

3548: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial \tau}} - \mu_B + i a_0({\v r})

3549: \biggr) b({\v r}) 

3550: \nonumber \\

3551:  &-& {1 \over {2 m_F}} 

3552: \sum_{\sigma, j = x,y} 

3553:  f^*_{ \sigma}({\v r}) 

3554: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial x_j} } + i a_j

3555: \biggr)^2 f_{ \sigma}({\v r}) 

3556: \nonumber \\

3557:  &-& {1 \over {2 m_B}} 

3558: \sum_{j = x,y} 

3559: b^*({\v r}) 

3560: \biggl( {\partial \over {\partial x_j} } + i a_j

3561: \biggr)^2 b({\v r}) 

3562: \biggr],

3563: \label{Eq.60}

3564: \en

3565: where the vector field ${\v a}$ is introduced by $a_{\v i\v j} = ({\v r}_{\v i} - {\v

3566: r}_{\v j}) \cdot {\v a}[ ({\v r}_{\v i} + {\v r}_{\v j})/2]$.  Note $1/m_F \approx J$ and

3567: $1/m_B \approx t$.  The coupling between the matter fields and gauge field is

3568: given by

3569: \be

3570: L_{\rm int.} = \int d^2 {\v r} (j^F_\mu + j^B_\mu) a_\mu

3571: \label{Eq.61}

3572: \en

3573: where $j^F_\mu$ ($j^B_\mu$) is the fermion (boson) current density. 

3574: 

3575: Note that integration over $a_0$ recovers the constraint eq.~(\ref{Eq.34}) and

3576: integration over the vector potential $\v{a}$ yields the constraint

3577: \be

3578: \v{j}_F + \v{j}_B = 0 ,

3579: \label{Eq.61A}

3580: \en

3581: \ie the fermion and boson can move only by exchanging places.  Thus the

3582: Gaussian approximation apparently enforces the local constraint exactly

3583: \cite{L0094}.  We must caution that this is true only in the continuum limit,

3584: and an important lattice effect related to the $2\pi$ periodicity of the phase

3585: variable has been ignored.  These latter effects lead to instantons and

3586: confinement, as will be discussed later in section IX.D.  Thus it is not

3587: surprising that the ``exact'' treatment of D.H. Lee yields the same

3588: Ioffe-Larkin composition rule which is derived based on the Gaussian theory

3589: (see section IX.C).

3590: 

3591: We now proceed to reverse the order of integration.  We integrate out the

3592: fermion and boson fields to obtain an effective action for $a_\mu$.  We then

3593: consider the coupling of the fermions and bosons to the gauge fluctuations

3594: which are controlled by the effective action.  To avoid double counting, it

3595: may be useful to consider this procedure in the renormalization group sense,

3596: \ie we integrate out the high energy fermion and boson fields to produce an

3597: effective action of the gauge field which in turn modifies the low energy

3598: matter field. This way we convert the initial problem of infinite coupling to

3599: one of finite coupling.  The coupling is of order unity but may be formally

3600: organized as a $1/N$ expansion by artificially introducing $N$ species of

3601: fermions.  Alternatively, we can think of this as an RPA approximation, \ie

3602: a sum of fermion and boson bubbles.  The effective action for $a_\mu$ is given

3603: by  the following 

3604: \be

3605: S_{\rm eff.}^\text{RPA} (a) = 

3606: (\Pi^F_{\mu \nu} (q) + \Pi^B_{\mu \nu} (q) ) a_\mu(q) a_\nu(-q)

3607: \label{Eq.62}

3608: \en

3609: where $q= ({\v q},\omega_n)$ is a three dimensional vector.  The

3610: current-current correlation function $\Pi^F_{\mu \nu}(q)$ ($\Pi^B_{\mu

3611: \nu}(q)$) of the fermions (bosons) is given  by

3612: \be

3613: \Pi^\alpha_{\mu\nu}(q) = \< j_\mu^\alpha(q) j_\nu^\alpha(-q)\>

3614: \label{Eq.63}

3615: \en

3616: with $\alpha=F,B$.  Taking the transverse gauge by imposing the gauge fixing

3617: condition

3618: \be

3619: \nabla \cdot {\v a} = 0

3620: \label{Eq.64}

3621: \en

3622: the scalar ($\mu=0$) and vector parts of the gauge field dynamics are

3623: decoupled. The scalar part $\Pi^\alpha_{00}(q)$ corresponds to the

3624: density-density response function and does not show any singular behavior in

3625: the low energy/momentum limit. On the other hand, the transverse

3626: current-current response function shows singular behavior for small $\v q$ and

3627: $\om$.  Explicitly the fermion correlation function is given by

3628: \be

3629: \Pi^F_T(q) = i \omega \sigma^T_{F1}({\v q},\omega) - \chi_F 

3630: {\v q}^2

3631: \label{Eq.65}

3632: \en

3633: where $\chi_F = 1/(24 \pi m_F)$ is the fermion Landau diamagnetic

3634: susceptibililty.  The first term describes the dissipation and the static limit

3635: of $\sigma^T_{F1}$ (real part of the fermion conductivity) for $\omega <

3636: \gamma_{\v q}$ is $\sigma^T_{F1}({\v q},\omega) = \rho_F/(m_F \gamma_{\v

3637: q})$ where $\rho_F$ is the fermion density and

3638: \be

3639: \gamma_{\v q} &=& \tau_{\rm tr}^{-1} \ \ \ {\rm for}\

3640: |{\v q}| < (v_F  \tau_{\rm tr})^{-1}

3641: \nonumber \\

3642:  &=& v_F |{\v q}|/2  \ \ \ {\rm for}\ 

3643: |{\v q}| > (v_F  \tau_{\rm tr})^{-1}

3644: \label{Eq.66}

3645: \en

3646: where $\tau_{\rm tr}$ is the transport lifetime due to the scatterings by the

3647: disorder and/or the gauge field.  A similar expression is obtained for the

3648: bosonic contribution as

3649: \be

3650: \Pi^B_T(q) = i \omega \sigma^T_{B1}({\v q},\omega) - \chi_B 

3651: {\v q}^2

3652: \label{Eq.67}

3653: \en

3654: where $\chi_B = n(0)/(48 \pi m_B)$ where $n(\epsilon) $ is the Bose occupation

3655: factor.  $\chi_B$ diverges at the Bose condensation temperature $T_{BE}^{(0)}

3656: = 2 \pi x/ m_B$ when we assume a weak 3D transfer of the bosons. Assuming that

3657: the temperature is higher than $T_{BE}^{(0)}$, the boson conductivity is

3658: estimated as

3659: \be

3660: \sigma^T_{B1}

3661:  \cong x^{1/2}/|{\v q}|

3662: \label{Eq.68}

3663: \en

3664: for $|{\v q}|> \ell_B^{-1}$, where $\ell_B$ is the mean free path of the

3665: bosons. It can be seen from eqs. (\ref{Eq.66}) and (\ref{Eq.68}),

3666: $\sigma^T_{B1} \ll \sigma^T_{F1}$.

3667: 

3668: Summarizing, the propagator of the transverse gauge field is given by

3669: \be

3670: \<a_\alpha(q) a_{\beta}(-q)\> = ( \delta_{\alpha \beta}

3671: - q_\alpha q_\beta / |{\v q}|^2 ) D_T(q)

3672: \label{Eq.69}

3673: \en

3674: \be

3675: D_T(q) = [\Pi^F_T(q) + \Pi^B_T(q) ]^{-1}

3676: \cong [ i \omega \sigma ({\v q}) - \chi_d {\v q}^2 ]^{-1}.

3677: \label{Eq.70}

3678: \en

3679: Here  

3680: \be

3681: \sigma({\v q}) &\cong& k_0/|{\v q}| \ \ \ {\rm for}\ |{\v q}|\ell>1

3682: \nonumber \\

3683:  &\cong& k_0 \ell \ \ \ {\rm for}\ |{\v q}|\ell<1

3684: \label{Eq.71}

3685: \en

3686: where $\ell$ is the fermion mean free path and $k_0$ is of the order $k_F$ of

3687: the fermions.

3688: 

3689: This gauge field is coupled to the fermions and bosons and leads to their

3690: inelastic scatterings.  By estimating the lowest order self-energies of the

3691: fermion and boson propagators, it is found that these are diverging at any

3692: finite temperature.  It is because of the singular behavior of $D_T(q)$ for

3693: small $|{\v q}|$ and $\omega$.  This kind of singularity was first noted by

3694: %Reizer, 1989

3695: \Ref{R8902} for the problem of electrons coupled to a transverse

3696: electromagnetic field, even though related effects such as non-Fermi liquid

3697: corrections for the specific heat have been noted earlier 

3698: %(Holstein {\em et al.}, 1973)

3699: \cite{HNP7349}.  However this does not cause any trouble since the propagators

3700: of fermions and bosons are not the gauge invariant quantity and hence is not

3701: physical as discussed above.  As the representative of gauge invariant

3702: quantities, we consider the conductivity of fermions and bosons.  (Note that

3703: these are not still ``physical'' because one must combine these to obtain the

3704: physical conductivity as discussed in the next section.) For example the

3705: integral for the (inverse of) transport life-time $\tau_{\rm tr}$ contains the

3706: factor $1 - \cos \theta$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the initial and

3707: final momentum for the scattering. This factor scales with $|{\v q}|^2$ for

3708: small ${\v q}$, and gets rid of the divergence.  The explicit estimate gives

3709: \be

3710: { 1 \over {\tau^F_{\rm tr}} } &\cong& \xi_{\v k}^{4/3} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ \ 

3711: \xi_{\v k} > kT

3712: \nonumber \\

3713:  &\cong& T^{4/3} \ \ \ {\rm for} \ \ 

3714: \xi_{\v k} < kT

3715: \label{Eq. 72}

3716: \en

3717: for the fermions while

3718: \be

3719: { 1 \over {\tau^B_{\rm tr}} } &\cong& 

3720: {{ k T} \over { m_B \chi_d} }

3721: \label{Eq.73}

3722: \en

3723: for bosons.  These results are interpreted as the scattering by the

3724: fluctuating gauge flux 

3725: %enclosed 

3726: whose propagator is given by the loop representing the particle-hole

3727: propagator for the two-particle current-current correlation function.

3728:  

3729: Now some words on the physical meaning of the gauge field are in order. For

3730: simplicity let us consider the three sites, and that the electron is moving

3731: around these.  The quantum mechanical amplitude for this process is

3732: \be

3733: P_{123} = \<\chi_{12} \chi_{23} \chi_{34}\>

3734: =\< f^\dagger_{1 \alpha} f_{2 \alpha}  

3735:  f^\dagger_{2 \beta} f_{3 \beta}  

3736:  f^\dagger_{3 \gamma} f_{1 \gamma}\>.  

3737: \label{Eq.74}

3738: \en

3739: One can prove that

3740: \be

3741: (P_{123} - P_{132})/(4i)  =  {\v S}_1 \cdot

3742: ( {\v S}_2 \times {\v S}_3)

3743: \label{Eq.75}

3744: \en

3745: and the righthand side of the above equation corresponds to the solid angle

3746: subtended by the three vectors ${\v S}_1,{\v S}_2, {\v S}_3$, and is called

3747: spin chirality \cite{WWZcsp}.  Therefore the gauge field fluctuation is

3748: regarded as that of the spin chirality. Recently it is discussed that the spin

3749: chirality will produce the anomalous Hall effect in some ferromagnets such as

3750: manganites and pyrochlore oxides, where the non-coplanar spin configurations

3751: are realized by thermal excitation of the Skymion or the strong spin anisotropy

3752: in the ground state 

3753: %(Ye {\em et al.}, 1999; Taguchi {\em et al.}, 2001)

3754: (\cit{YKM9937}; \cit{TOY0173}).  This

3755: phenomenon can be interpreted as the static limit of the gauge field, while

3756: the gauge field discussed here has both quantum and thermal fluctuations.

3757: 

3758: \subsection{Ioffe-Larkin composition rule}

3759: 

3760: In order to discuss the physical properties of the total system, we have to

3761: combine the information obtained for fermions and bosons.  This has been first

3762: discussed by 

3763: %Ioffe and Larkin (1989)

3764: \Ref{IL8988}.  Let us start with the physical

3765: conductivity $\sigma$, which is given by

3766: \be

3767: \sigma^{-1} = \sigma_F^{-1} + \sigma_B^{-1}

3768: \label{Eq.76}

3769: \en

3770: in terms of the conductivities of fermions ($\sigma_F$) and bosons

3771: ($\sigma_B$).  This formula corresponds to the sequential circuit (not

3772: parallel) of the two resistance, and is intuitively understood from the fact

3773: that both fermions and bosons have to move subject to the constraint.  This

3774: formula can be derived in terms of the shift of the gauge field $\v{a}$, and

3775: resultant backflow effect.  In the presence of the external electric field

3776: ${\v E}$, the gauge field $\v{a}$ and hence the internal electric field ${\v

3777: e}$ is induced.  Let us assume that the external electric field ${\v E}$ is

3778: coupled to the fermions. Then the effective electric field 

3779: %which

3780: seen by the fermions 

3781: %are feeling 

3782: is

3783: \be

3784: {\v e}_F = {\v E} + {\v e}

3785: \label{Eq.77}

3786: \en

3787: while that for the boson is

3788: \be

3789: {\v e}_B = {\v e}.

3790: \label{Eq.78}

3791: \en

3792: The fermion current ${\v j}_F$ and boson current ${\v j}_B$ are induced,

3793: respectively as

3794: \be

3795: {\v j}_F = \sigma_F {\v e}_F, \ \ \ {\v j}_B = \sigma_F {\v e}_B.

3796: \label{Eq.79}

3797: \en

3798: The constraint ${\v j}_F + {\v j}_B = {\v 0}$ given by eq.~(\ref{Eq.61A})

3799: leads to the relation

3800: \be

3801: {\v e} = - { {\sigma_F} \over { \sigma_F + \sigma_B} } {\v E} .

3802: \label{Eq.81}

3803: \en

3804: The physical current ${\v j}$ given by

3805: \be

3806: {\v j} = {\v j}_F = - {\v j}_B = 

3807: { {\sigma_F \sigma_B } \over { \sigma_F + \sigma_B} } {\v E}

3808: \label{Eq.82}

3809: \en

3810: leading to the expression for the physical conductivity $\sigma$ in

3811: eq.~(\ref{Eq.76}).  It is also noted here that the same result 

3812: %can be 

3813: is obtained 

3814: %when 

3815: if instead we couple the e.m. field to bosons. 

3816: %in the starting.

3817: In this case the internal electric field ${\v e}$ is different, but ${\v

3818: e}_F$ and ${\v e}_B$ remain unchanged.  Therefore it is not a physical

3819: question which particle is charged, \ie fermion or boson. This is related to

3820: the fact that both fermions and bosons are not physical particles as

3821: repeatedly stated.  Note that $\sigma_F \gg \sigma_B$ in the uRVB state, we

3822: conclude that $\sigma \cong \sigma_B = x \tau_{\rm tr}^B/m_B$ which is

3823: inversely proportional to the temperature $T$. Furthermore the Drude weight

3824: of the optical conductivity is determined by $x/m_B$ as is observed

3825: experimentally. It remains true that the superfluidity density $\rho_S$ in the

3826: superconducting state is given by the missing oscillator strength below the

3827: gap, this also means that $\rho_s \propto x$.

3828: 

3829: A more formal way of deriving the physical electromagnetic response follows.

3830: We can generalize the discussion of the effective action $S_{\rm eff.}(\v{a})$

3831: for the gauge field to include the external e.m. field $A_\mu$. Let us couple

3832: $A_\mu$ again to the fermions. Then the effective action becomes instead of

3833: eq.~(\ref{Eq.62})

3834: \be

3835: S_{\rm eff.}^\text{RPA} (a,A) &=& 

3836: \Pi^F_{\mu \nu} (q) (a_\mu(q)+ A_\mu(q))( a_\nu(-q) + A_\nu(-q))

3837: \nonumber \\

3838:  &+& \Pi^B_{\mu \nu} (q)  a_\mu(q) a_\nu(-q).

3839: \label{Eq.83}

3840: \en

3841: Then after integrating over the gauge field $a_\mu$, we end up with the

3842: effective action for $A_\mu$ only as

3843: \be

3844: S_{\rm eff.}^\text{RPA} (A) = 

3845: \Pi_{\mu \nu} (q) A_\mu(q)A_\nu(-q)

3846: \label{Eq.84}

3847: \en

3848: with the physical e.m. response function 

3849: \be

3850: \Pi_\alpha(q)^{-1} = (\Pi_\alpha^F(q))^{-1}+(\Pi_\alpha^B(q))^{-1}

3851: \label{Eq.85}

3852: \en

3853: where $\alpha = 0$ or $T$ stands for the longitudinal and the transverse

3854: parts.  Then the physical diamagnetic susceptibility ${\tilde \chi}$ is given

3855: by ${\tilde \chi}^{-1} = \chi_F^{-1}+ \chi_B^{-1}$.  Again in the

3856: superconducting state, $\Pi_T^F \propto \rho^F_s$ and $\Pi_T^B \propto

3857: \rho^B_s$, where $\rho^F_s$ and $\rho_s^B$ are superfluidity density of the

3858: fermion pairing and boson condensation.  This leads to the composition rule

3859: for $\rho_s$ as $\rho_s^{-1} = (\rho^F_s)^{-1} + (\rho_s^B)^{-1} \cong

3860: (\rho^B_s)^{-1} \propto x^{-1}$ with $\rho^F_s \gg \rho_s^B $, reproducing the

3861: same result as suggested from the Drude weight.  

3862: On the other hand the temperature dependence of $\rho_s^F$ is of the form

3863: $\rho_s^F(T)=\rho_s^F(0)(1-aT)$ where $a$ is given by the nodal fermion

3864: dispersion, while the temperature dependence of $\rho_s^B$ is expected to be 

3865: higher power in $T$ and negligible. The Ioffe-Larkin composition rule then

3866: predicts that

3867: \begin{align}

3868: \label{rhosT}

3869:  \rho_s(T) &\approx \rho_s^B(1-\frac{\rho_s^B}{\rho_s^F}) \nonumber\\

3870: &\approx \rho_s^B(0) - \frac{(\rho_s^B(0))^2}{\rho_s^F(0)} aT .

3871: \end{align} 

3872: Since $\rho_s^B(0)\sim x$, this predicts that the temperature dependence of

3873: the superfluid density is proportional to $x^2$.

3874: Comparison with \Eq{Eq.5} implies that $\al\sim x$ in the slave-boson theory.

3875: As shown in Fig. \ref{Lemberger}, this prediction does not agree with

3876: experiment and is probably an indication of the breakdown of gaussian

3877: fluctuations which underlines the Ioffe-Larkin rule.

3878: 

3879: We conclude this section by remarking that the Ioffe-Larkin rule can be extended to

3880: various other physical quantities.  For example the Hall constant $R_H$ is

3881: given by

3882: \be

3883: R_H = { {R_H^F \chi_B + R_H^F \chi_F} \over

3884: {\chi_B + \chi_F} }

3885: \label{Eq.86}

3886: \en

3887: while the thermopower $S = S_B + S_F$ and the electronic thermal conductivity

3888: $\kappa = \kappa_B + \kappa_F$ are sum of the bosonic and fermionic

3889: contributions.

3890: 

3891: Compared with the two-particle correlation functions discussed above, the single

3892: particle Green's function is more complicated.  At the mean field level, the

3893: electron Green's function is given by the product of those of fermions and

3894: boson in the $({\v r},\tau)$ space. Therefore in the momentum-frequency

3895: space, it is given by the convolution. The spectral function is composed of

3896: the two contributions, one is the quasi-particle peak with the weight $\sim x$

3897: while the other is the incoherent background. Even the former one is broadened

3898: due to the momentum distribution of the noncondensed bosons, \ie there is no

3899: quasi-particle peak in the strict sense.  This absence of the delta-functional

3900: peak occurs also in the $SU(2)$ theory in sec. XI indicating that the fermions 

3901: %is 

3902: are not free and hence can not be regarded as the quasi-particle.  On the

3903: other hand, the dispersion of this ``quasi-particle'' peak is determined by

3904: that of fermions, and hence its locus of zero energy constitutes the large

3905: Fermi surface enclosing the area $1-x$.  However this simple calculation does

3906: not reproduce some of the novel features in the ARPES experiments such as the

3907: ``Fermi arc'' in underdoped samples, which will be discussed later in section

3908: XI.

3909: 

3910: Combined with the discussion on the transport properties and the electron

3911: Green's function, the present uniform RVB state in the $U(1)$ formulation

3912: offers an explanation on the dichotomy between the doped Mott insulator and

3913: the metal with large Fermi surface.  In particular, the conclusion that the

3914: conductivity is dominated by the boson conductivity $\sigma \approx \sigma_B

3915: \approx x \tau_{tr}^B/m_B \approx xt T$ explains the linear $T$ resistivity

3916: which has been taken as a sign of non-Fermi liquid behavior from the beginning

3917: of high $T_c$ research.  However, we must caution that this conclusion was

3918: reached for $T > T_{BE}^{(0)}$ while in the experiment the linear $T$ behavior

3919: persists to much lower temperature near optimal doping.  It is possible that

3920: gauge fluctuations suppress the effective Bose condensation.  

3921: %D. Lee, D. Kim and P. Lee, 1996 

3922: \Ref{LKL9601}

3923: attempted  to include the effect of strong gauge fluctuations

3924: on the boson conductivity by assuming a quasi-static gauge fluctuation and

3925: treating the problem by quantum Monte Carlo.  The picture is that the boson

3926: tends to make self-retracing paths to cancel out the effect of the gauge

3927: field \cite{NL9133}.  They indeed find that the boson conductivity remains linear in $T$

3928: down to much lower temperature than $T_{BE}^{(0)}$.                                                                     

3929: 

3930: 

3931: 

3932: \subsection{Ginzburg-Landau theory and vortex structure}

3933:  

3934: Up to now, we have focused on the uRVB state where the pairing amplitude

3935: $\Delta$ of the fermions is zero. In this subsection we review the

3936: phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau theory to treat this pairing field.  The free

3937: energy for a single CuO$_2$ layer is given by

3938: \be

3939: F = F_F[\psi, {\v a}, {\v A}] + 

3940: F_B[\phi, {\v a}]

3941: + F_{\rm gauge} [ {\v a}]

3942: \label{Eq.87}

3943: \en

3944: with

3945: \be

3946: F_F[\psi, {\v a},{\v A}]

3947: &=& {{H_{cF}^2} \over {8 \pi}}

3948: \int d^2 r 

3949: \biggl[ 2 \xi_F^2 |( \nabla - 2 i {\v a} - i { {2e} \over c}

3950: {\v A}) \psi |^2

3951: \nonumber \\

3952: &+& 2 \text{sign}(T-T_D^{(0)}) |\psi|^2 + |\psi|^4 \biggr],

3953: \label{Eq.88}

3954: \en

3955: \be F_B[\psi, {\v a}] &=& {{H_{cB}^2} \over {8 \pi}} \int d^2 r \biggl[ 2

3956: \xi_B^2 |( \nabla - i {\v a}) \phi |^2 \nonumber \\ &+& 2

3957: \text{sign}(T-T_{BE}^{(0)}) |\phi|^2 + |\phi|^4 \biggr], \label{Eq.89} \en and

3958: \be

3959: F_{\rm gauge}[{\v a}]

3960: = \int d^2 r 

3961: \biggl[ \chi_F [ \nabla \times ({\v a}+(e/c){\v A})]^2

3962: + \chi_B (\nabla \times {\v a})^2

3963: \biggr]

3964: \label{Eq.90}

3965: \en

3966: where ${\v A}$ is the e.m. vector potential, $c$ is the velocity of light,

3967: and $\hbar$ is put to be unity. In the above equations, the optimal value of

3968: the order parameter is scaled to be unity, and hence the correlation lengths

3969: $\xi_B,\xi_F$ and the thermodynamic critical fields $H_{cF},H_{cB}$ are

3970: temperature dependent both for fermion pairing and Bose condensation. It is

3971: noted that the penetration length of the fermion pairing (boson condensation)

3972: $\lambda_F$ ($\lambda_B$) is related to $H_{cF}$ ($H_{cB}$) as $H_{cF} =

3973: \phi_0/(2 \sqrt{2} \pi \xi_F \lambda_F)$ ($H_{cB} = \phi_0/( \sqrt{2} \pi

3974: \xi_B \lambda_B)$).  We take the lattice constant as the unit of length.  Then

3975: $\xi_F(0) \sim J/\Delta$, $\xi_B \sim x^{-1/2}$, and the condensation energy

3976: per unit area is given by $H_{cF}(0)^2/(8 \pi) \sim \Delta^2/J$, and

3977: $H_{cB}(0)^2/(8 \pi) \sim t x^2$.

3978: 

3979: Now we consider the consequences derived from this GL free energy. One is on

3980: the interplay between the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transitions

3981: for the fermion pairing and boson condensation. We consider the type II limit,

3982: and neglect ${\v A}$ for the moment. As is well known, the binding-unbinding

3983: of the topological vortex excitations leads to the novel phase transition (BKT

3984: transition) in 2D.  This is due to the logarithmic divergence of the vortex

3985: energy with respect to the sample size.  This energy is competing with the

3986: entropy term which is also logarithmically diverging. Above some critical

3987: temperature the entropy dominates, and the free vortex excitations are

3988: liberated resulting in the exponential decay of the order parameter. However

3989: this logarithmic divergence is cut-off when the order parameter is coupled to

3990: the massless gauge field ${\v a}$. Namely the gauge field screens the vortex

3991: current, and $| (\nabla - i{\v a}) \phi|$ and $|(\nabla - 2 i{\v a})\psi|$

3992: decays exponentially beyond some penetration lengths. This means that the BKT

3993: transition for the fermion pairing and boson condensation disappear when the

3994: gauge field ${\v a}$ is massless. In other words, these two order parameters

3995: are coupled through the gauge field, and the BKT transition occurs only

3996: simultaneously where the gauge field becomes massive due to the Higgs

3997: mechanism.  Therefore the phase transition lines for fermion pairing and boson

3998: condensation in the phase diagram Fig.~\ref{U1}  become the crossover

3999: lines and only the superconducting transition remains to be the real BKT

4000: transition. 

4001: 

4002: Now we turn to the vortex structures in the superconducting state. The most

4003: intriguing issue here is the quantization of the magnetic flux. Because the

4004: boson has charge $e$ while the fermion pairing $-2e$, the question is whether

4005: the $hc/e$ vortex may be more stable than the conventional $hc/2e$ vortex. To

4006: study this issue, we compare the energy cost of the two types of vortex

4007: structure, \ie (i) type A: the fermion pairing order parameter $\psi$

4008: vanished at the core, with its phase winding around it. The boson condensation

4009: does not vanish and the vortex core state is the Fermi liquid. The flux

4010: quantization is $hc/2e$. (ii) type B: the Bose condensation is destroyed at the

4011: core and the fermion pairing remains finite. Then the vortex core state is the

4012: spin gap state. The flux quantization is $hc/e$ in this case.  The energy of

4013: each vortex is estimated as follows. First the Ioffe-Larkin composition rule

4014: results in the penetration length $\lambda$ of the magnetic field as 

4015: \be

4016: \lambda^2 = \lambda_F^2 + \lambda_B^2,

4017: \label{Eq.91}

4018: \en

4019: which is equivalent to $\rho_s^{-1} = (\rho^F_s)^{-1} + (\rho_s^B)^{-1}$

4020: derived in the previous subsection.  The contribution from the region where

4021: the distance from the core is larger than $\xi_F,\xi_B$ is estimated similarly

4022: to the usual case.

4023: \be

4024: E_0 = \biggl[ { {\phi_0} \over { 4 \pi \lambda} }\biggr]^2

4025: \ln \biggl[ { {\lambda} \over { {\rm max}(\xi_F, \xi_B)} } \biggr]

4026: \label{Eq.92}

4027: \en

4028: for the type A, and $4E_0$ for the type B because the quantized flux is

4029: doubled in the latter case.  The core energy $E_c$ is given by the

4030: condensation energy per area times the area of the core.  For type A vortex

4031: \be

4032: E_c^{(A)} \approx H_{cF}^2 \xi_F^2 \approx J

4033: \label{Eq.93}

4034: \en

4035: while for type B vortex

4036: \be

4037: E_c^{(B)} \approx H_{cB}^2 \xi_B^2 \approx tx .

4038: \label{Eq.94}

4039: \en

4040: Then the vortex energies are estimated to be $E^{(A)} \approx E_0 + E_c^{(A)}$

4041: and $E^{(B)} = 4E_0 + E_c^{(B)}$, respectively.  Note that $E_0$ is

4042: proportional to $\lambda^{-2}$ which is dominated by  $\lambda_B^{-2} = x$ and

4043: hence $E_0$, $E_c^{(B)}$ are proportional to $x$ while $E_c^{(A)}$ is a

4044: constant of order $J$.  The latter energy is in agreement with the estimate of

4045: the vortex in the BCS theory discussed in Section V.B and is the dominant

4046: energy for sufficiently small $x$.  We come to the conclusion that type B

4047: vortex (with $hc/e$ flux quantization) will be more stable in the underdoped

4048: region. This conclusion was reached by 

4049: %Sachdev, 1992 

4050: \Ref{S9289}

4051: and by

4052: %Nagaosa and Lee, 1992 

4053: \Ref{NL9266} and appears to be a general feature of the $U(1)$ gauge

4054: theory.  Unfortunately, the experimental search for stable $hc/e$ vortices

4055: have so far come up negative 

4056: %(Wynn {\em et al.}, 2001)

4057: \cite{WBG0102}.   In section XII.C we

4058: will describe how this problem is fixed by the $SU(2)$ gauge theory, which is

4059: designed to be more accurate for small doping. 

4060: 

4061: 

4062: \subsection{Confinement-deconfinement problem}

4063: 

4064: Despite the qualitative success of the mean field and $U(1)$ gauge field theory,

4065: there are several difficulties with this picture. One is that the gauge

4066: fluctuations are strong and one can not have a well controlled small expansion

4067: parameter, except rather formal ones such as the large $N$ expansion.  This

4068: issue is closely related to the confinement problem in lattice gauge theory,

4069: and will be discussed  below and also in section X.H and XI.F.

4070: 

4071: The coupling constant of the gauge field is defined as the inverse of the

4072: coefficient of $f_{\mu \nu}^2$ in the Lagrangian. It is well-known that the

4073: strong coupling gauge field leads to confinement.  In the confining phase,

4074: only the gauge singlet particles appear in the physical spectrum, which

4075: corresponds for example to the physical electron and magnon in the present

4076: context. Below we give a brief introduction to this issue.

4077: 

4078: Up to now the discussion is at the Gaussian fluctuation level where the

4079: effective action for the gauge field has been truncated at the quadratic order

4080: in the continuum approximation.  However we are starting from the

4081: infinite-coupling limit, and even if the finite coupling is produced by

4082: integrating over the matter field, the strong coupling effect must be

4083: considered seriously. In the original problem the gauge field is defined on

4084: the lattice and the periodicity with respect to $a_{\v i\v j} \to a_{\v i\v j} + 2 \pi$

4085: must be taken into account. Namely the relevant model is that of the {\em

4086: compact} lattice gauge theory.  Let us first consider the most fundamental

4087: model without the matter field;

4088: \be

4089: S_{\rm gauge}  =  - { 1 \over g} \sum_{\rm plaquette}

4090: ( 1 - \cos f_{\mu \nu})

4091: \label{Eq.95}

4092: \en

4093: where 

4094: \be

4095: f_{\mu \nu} =

4096:   a_{\v i, \v i+\v \mu} 

4097: + a_{\v i+\v \mu, \v i+ \v \mu + \v \nu}

4098: - a_{\v i+ \v \nu, \v i + \v \mu + \v \nu} 

4099: - a_{\v i, \v i +\v \nu}  

4100: \label{Eq.96}

4101: \en

4102: is the flux penetrating through the plaquette in the (d+1)-dimensional space,

4103: and $\mu,\nu=x,y,\cdots$.

4104: Now $S_{\rm gauge}$ is a periodic function of $f_{\mu\nu}$ with period $2\pi$

4105: and one can consider tunneling between different potential minima.  This leads

4106: to the ``Bloch state'' of $f_{\mu \nu}$ when the potential barrier height

4107: $1/g$ is low enough, while it is ``localized'' near one minimum when $1/g$ is

4108: high.  The former corresponds to the quantum disordered $f_{\mu \nu}$, and

4109: leads to the linear confining force as shown below (confining state).  On the

4110: other hand, in the latter case, one can neglect the compact nature of the

4111: gauge field, and the analysis in previous sections are justified (deconfining

4112: state).  For this confinement-deconfinement transition, one can define the

4113: following order parameter, \ie the Wilson loop:

4114: \be 

4115: W( C )= \< \exp [ i q \oint_C d {x}_\mu a_\mu (x) ]\>  

4116: \label{Eq.97}

4117: \en

4118: where the loop $C$ consists of the paths of length $T$ along the time

4119: direction and those of length $R$ along the spatial direction. It is related

4120: to the gauge potential $V(R)$ between the two static gauge charges $\pm q$

4121: with opposite sign put at the distance $R$ as

4122: \be

4123: W( C ) = \exp[ - V(R)T ].

4124: \label{Eq.98}

4125: \en

4126: There are two types of behavior of $W(C)$, \ie (i) area law: $W( C ) \sim

4127: e^{- \alpha RT }$, and (ii) perimeter law: $W( C ) \sim e^{- \beta (R+T) }$,

4128: where $\alpha,\beta$ are constants.

4129: In the first case (i), the potential $V(R)$ is increasing linearly 

4130: in $R$, and hence the two gauge charges can never be free. Therefore it

4131: corresponds to confinement, while the other case (ii) to 

4132: deconfinement.

4133: 

4134: It is known that the compact QED (pure gauge model) 

4135: in (2+1)D is always confining however small the coupling 

4136: constant is \cite{Pol87}.

4137: The argument is based on the instanton configuration,

4138: which is enabled by the compactness of the gauge field.

4139: This instanton is the source of the flux with the field distribution 

4140: \be 

4141: {\v b}({\v x}) = { { {\v x}} \over { 2|{\v x}|^3} }.

4142: \label{Eq.99}

4143: \en

4144: where ${\v x} = ({\v r},\tau)$ is the (2+1)D coordinates in the imaginary time

4145: formalism, and ${\v b}({\v x}) = ( e_y({\v x}), - e_x({\v x}), b({\v x}))$ is

4146: the combination of the ``electric field'' $e_\alpha({\v x})$ and ``magnetic

4147: field'' $b({\v x})$.  This corresponds to the tunneling phenomenon of the flux

4148: because the total flux slightly above (future) or below (past) of the

4149: instanton differs by $2 \pi$. The anti-instanton corresponds to the sink of

4150: the flux.  This instanton/anti-instanton corresponds to the singular

4151: configuration in the continuous approximation, but is allowed in the compact

4152: model on a lattice.  Therefore (anti)instantons take into account the compact

4153: nature of the original model in the continuum approximation.  It is also clear

4154: from eq. (\ref{Eq.99}) that the (anti)instanton behaves as the (negative)

4155: positive magnetic charge. Then it is evident that when we plug in the

4156: (anti)instanton configurations into the action

4157: \be

4158: S= \int d^3 {\v x}{ 1 \over {2g}}  [{\v b}({\v x})]^2

4159: \label{Eq.100}

4160: \en

4161: ( $g$ is the coupling constant), we obtain the Coulomb $1/|{\v

4162: x}|$-interaction between the (anti)instantons as

4163: \be

4164: S_{\rm inst} =  \sum_{i<j} {{q_i q_j} \over {| {\v x}_i - {\v x}_j |} }.

4165: \label{101}

4166: \en

4167: where $q_i$ is the magnetic charge, which is $\sqrt{g}/2$ for instanton and $

4168: -\sqrt{g}/2$ for anti-instanton.

4169: 

4170: Now it is well-known that the Coulomb gas in 3D is always in the screening

4171: phase, namely the long range Coulomb interaction is screened to be the short

4172: range one due to the cloud of the opposite charges surrounding the charge.

4173: Therefore the creation energy of the (anti)instanton is finite and the free

4174: magnetic charges are liberated. This free magnetic charges disorder the gauge

4175: field and  makes the Wilson loop show the area law, \ie confinement. 

4176: 

4177: The discussion up to now is for the pure gauge model without matter field.

4178: With matter field the confinement issue becomes very subtle since the Wilson

4179: loop does not work as the order parameter any more. Furthermore the

4180: confinement disappears above some transition temperature even in the pure

4181: gauge model. In the presence of matter field, the confinement-deconfinement

4182: transition at finite temperature is replaced by the gradual crossover to the

4183: plasma phase in the high temperature limit (\cit{P7877}; \cit{S7910}; \cit{S861}). 

4184: Therefore we can expect that the

4185: slave-boson theory without  confinement describes the physics of the

4186: intermediate energy scale even though the ground state is the confining state.

4187: Indeed, within the $U(1)$ gauge theory, the ground states are either

4188: antiferromagnetic, superconductor or Fermi-liquid and are all confining.

4189: Nevertheless, the pseudogap region which exists only at finite temperatures

4190: may be considered ``deconfined'' and describable by fermions and bosons

4191: coupled to noncompact gauge fields.  We emphasize once again that in this

4192: scenario the fermions and bosons are not to be considered free physical

4193: objects.  Their interaction with gauge fields are important and physical

4194: gauge-invariant quantities are governed by the Ioffe-Larkin rule within the

4195: Gaussian approximation.

4196: 

4197: It is of great interest to ask the question of whether a deconfined ground

4198: state is possible in a $U(1)$ gauge theory in the presence of matter field. This

4199: issue was first addressed in  a seminal paper by 

4200: %Fradkin and Shenker (1979)

4201: \Ref{FS7982}

4202: who considered a boson field coupled to a compact $U(1)$ gauge field.  The

4203: following bosonic action is added to $S_{\rm gauge}$ :

4204: \be

4205: S_B = t \sum_{\v i} \cos \left(

4206: \Delta_\mu \theta(\v r_{\v i}) - q a_\mu (\v r_{\v i})

4207: \right)

4208: \label{Eq.102}

4209: \en

4210: Here the Bose field is represented by phase fluctuation only, $\Delta_\mu$ is

4211: the lattice derivative and $a_\mu(\v r_{\v i}) = a_{\v i,\v i+\v \mu}$ 

4212: is the gauge field on

4213: the link $\v i, \v i+\v \mu$ and $q$ is an integer.  It is interesting to consider the

4214: phase diagram in the $t, g$ plane.  Along the $t=0$ line, we have pure gauge

4215: theory which is always confining in $2+1$ dimension.  For $g \ll 1$, gauge

4216: fluctuations are weak and $S_B$ reduces to the XY model weakly coupled to a

4217: $U(1)$ gauge field, which exhibits an ordered phase called the Higgs phase at

4218: zero temperature.  Note that in the Higgs phase, the gauge field is gapped by

4219: the Anderson-Higgs mechanism. On the other hand,  it is also gapped in the

4220: confinement phase due to the screening of magnetic charges described earlier.

4221: There is no easy way to distinguish between these two phases and the central

4222: result of Fradkin and Shenker is that for $q = 1$ the Higgs phase and the

4223: confinement phases are smoothly connected to each other.  Indeed, it was

4224: argued by 

4225: %Nagaosa and Lee, 2000

4226: \Ref{NL0066} that for the 1+2D case the entire $t$-$g$ plane is covered by

4227: the Higgs-confinement phase, with the exception of the line $g = 0$, which

4228: contains the XY transition.

4229: 

4230: The situation is dramatically different for $q = 2$, \ie if the boson field

4231: corresponds to a pairing field.  Then it is possible to distinguish between

4232: the Higgs phase and the confinement phase by asking whether two $q = \pm 1$

4233: have a linear confinement potential between them or not.  In this case there

4234: is a phase boundary between the confined and the Higgs phase, and the Higgs

4235: phase (the pairing phase) is deconfined.  One way of understanding this

4236: deconfinement is that the paired phase has a residual $Z_2$ gauge symmetry,

4237: \ie the pairing order parameter is invariant under a sign change of the

4238: underlying $q = 1$ fields which make up the pair.  Furthermore, it is known

4239: that the $Z_2$ gauge theory has a confinement-deconfinement transition in $2 +

4240: 1$ dimensions.  Thus the conclusion is that a compact $U(1)$ gauge theory

4241: coupled to a pair field can have a deconfined phase.  This is indeed the route

4242: to a deconfined ground state proposed by \Ref{RS9173} and \Ref{Wsrvb}.  

4243: In the context

4244: of the $U(1)$ gauge theory, the fermion pair field $\Delta$ plays the role of

4245: the $q = 2$ boson field in eq.~(\ref{Eq.102}). In such a phase,

4246: the spinon and holons are deconfined, leading to the phenomenon of spin and

4247: charge fractionalization.  A third elementary excitation in this theory is the

4248: $Z_2$ vortex, which is gapped.

4249: 

4250: \Ref{SF0050} pointed out that the square root of $\Delta$ carried unit gauge

4251: charge and one can combine this with the fermion to form a gauge invariant

4252: spinon and with the boson to form a gauge invariant ``chargon''.  The spinon

4253: and chargon only carry $Z_2$ gauge charges and can be considered almost free,

4254: They propose an experiment to look for the gapped $Z_2$ vortex but the results

4255: have so far been negative.  The connection between the $U(1)$ slave-boson

4256: theory and their $Z_2$ gauge theory was clarified by 

4257: %Senthil and Fisher, 2001a

4258: \Ref{SF0119}.  

4259: 

4260: There is yet another route to a deconfined ground state, and that is a

4261: coupling of a compact $U(1)$ gauge field to gapless fermions.  

4262: %Nagaosa, 1993

4263: \Ref{N9310}

4264: suggested that dissipation due to gapless excitations lead to  deconfinement.

4265: The special case of coupling to gapless Dirac fermions is of special interest.

4266: This route (called the $U(1)$ spin liquid) appears naturally in the $SU(2)$

4267: formulation and will be discussed in detail in section XI.F.  The hope

4268: expressed in section XII is to use the proximity to this deconfined state to

4269: understand the pseudogap state.  This is a more attractive scenario compared

4270: with the reliance purely on finite temperature to see deconfinement effects as

4271: described earlier in this section.

4272: 

4273: 

4274: 

4275: In the literature there have been some confusing discussions of the role of

4276: confinement in the gauge theory approach to strong correlation.  In

4277: particular, %Nayak

4278: \Ref{N0078}, \citeyear{N0193} has claimed that slave particles are

4279: always confined in $U(1)$ gauge theories.  His argument is based on the fact

4280: that since these gauge fields are introduced to enforce constraint, they

4281: do not have restoring force and the coupling constant is infinite.  What he

4282: overlooks is the possibility that partially integrating out the matter fields

4283: will generate restoring forces, which brings the problem to one of strong but

4284: finite coupling, and then sweeping conclusions can no longer be made.

4285: Comments by 

4286: %Ichinose and Matsui

4287: \Ref{IM0142}, 

4288: %Ichinose {\em et al.}

4289: \Ref{IMO0116}, and by 

4290: %Oshikawa\

4291: \Ref{O0301} have clarified the issues and

4292: in our opinion adequately answered Nayak's objections.  For example, 

4293: %Ichinose and Matsui (2001)

4294: \Ref{IM0142} pointed out that $3+1$ dimensional $SU(3)$ gauge theory

4295: coupled to $N$ fermions is in the deconfined phase even at infinite coupling

4296: for $N > 7$.  Another counter example is found by

4297: \Ref{Wqoslpub}, \Ref{RWspin} and 

4298: %Hermele {\em et al.} (2004)

4299: \Ref{HSF0451}

4300: who showed that the $U(1)$ gauge theory coupled to massless Dirac fermions is

4301: in a gapless phase (or the deconfined phase) for sufficiently large $N$ (see

4302: section XI.F).  There is also numerical evidence from Monte Carlo studies that

4303: the $SU(N)$ Hubbard-Heisenberg model at $N=4$ exhibits a gapless spin liquid

4304: phase, \ie a Mott insulator with power law spin correlation without breaking

4305: of lattice translation symmetry \cite{A0474}.  This spin liquid state is

4306: strongly suggestive of the stability of a deconfined phase with $U(1)$ gauge

4307: field coupled to Dirac fermions.

4308: 

4309: \subsection{Limitations of the $U(1)$ gauge theory} 

4310: 

4311: The $U(1)$ gauge theory, which only includes Gaussian fluctuations about mean

4312: field theory, suffers from several limitations which are especially serious in

4313: the underdoped regime.  Apart from the confinement issue discussed in the last

4314: section, we first mention a difficulty with the linear $T$ coefficient of the

4315: superfluid density.  As long as the gauge fluctuation is treated as Gaussian,

4316: the Ioffe-Larkin law holds and one predicts that the superfluid density

4317: $\rho_s(T)$ behaves as $\rho_s(T) \approx ax - bx^2T$.  The $ax$ term agrees

4318: with experiment while the $-bx^2T$ term does not (\cit{LW9711}; \cit{IM0109})

4319: as already explained in section V.A.  This failure is traced to the fact that

4320: in the Gaussian approximation, the current carried by the quasiparticles in

4321: the superconducting state is proportional to $x v_F$.  We believe this failure

4322: is a sign that nonperturbative effects again become important and confinement

4323: takes place, so that the low energy quasiparticles near the nodes behave like

4324: BCS quasiparticles which carry the full current $v_F$.  This is certainly

4325: beyond the Gaussian fluctuation treatment described here.

4326: 

4327: A second difficulty is that experimentally it is known from neutron scattering

4328: that spin correlations at $(\pi,\pi)$ are enhanced in the underdoped regime.

4329: This happens at the same time while a spin gap is forming in the pseudogap

4330: regime.  The $U(1)$ mean field theory explains the existence of the spin gap

4331: as due to fermion pairing.  However, this reduces the fermion density of

4332: states and it is not clear how one can get an enhancement of the spin

4333: correlation unless one introduces phenomenologically RPA interactions

4334: \cite{BL0102}.  The problem is more serious because the gauge field is gapped

4335: in the fermion paired state and one cannot use gauge fluctuation to enhance

4336: the spin correlation.  The gapping of the gauge field also tends to suppress

4337: fermion pairing self-consistently 

4338: %(Ubbens and Lee, 1994).

4339: \cite{UL9453}.  We shall see that both these difficulties are resolved by the

4340: $SU(2)$ formulation.

4341: 

4342: A third difficulty has to do with the structure of the vortex core in the

4343: underdoped limit.\cite{WLsu2}  As mentioned in section IX.C, the $U(1)$ gauge

4344: theory predicts the stability of $hc/e$ vortices, which has not been observed.

4345: This is a serious issue especially because the STM experiments show that the

4346: pseudogap remains in the vortex core. Therefore it should be type B in the

4347: $U(1)$ theory, which carries $hc/e$ flux.  On the other hand, the $hc/2e$ vortex

4348: is not ``cheap'' because the pairing amplitude vanishes and one has to pay the

4349: pairing energy at the core.  These difficulties arise because in the $U(1)$

4350: theory, the fermions becomes ``strong'' superconductor at low temperature in

4351: the underdoped region. However this contradicts with the fact that at

4352: half-filling the d-wave RVB state is equivalent to the $\pi$-flux state, which

4353: is not ``superconducting''.  In short, the $U(1)$ theory misses the important

4354: low lying fluctuation related to the $SU(2)$ particle-hole symmetry at

4355: half-filling.  By incorporating this symmetry to the gauge field even at

4356: finite doping, we will be lead to the $SU(2)$ gauge theory of high Tc

4357: superconductors, which we will next discuss.

4358: 

4359: 

4360: 

4361: 

4362: 

4363: \section{$SU(2)$ slave-boson representation for spin liquids}

4364: 

4365: In this section we are going to develop $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory for spin

4366: liquids and underdoped high $T_c$ superconductors.  The $SU(2)$ slave-boson

4367: theory is equivalent to the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory discussed in the last

4368: section. However, the $SU(2)$ formalism makes more symmetries of the

4369: slave-boson theory explicit. This makes it easier to see the low energy

4370: collective modes in the $SU(2)$ formalism, which in turn allows us to resolve

4371: some difficulties of the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory.\footnote{We would like to

4372: point out that those difficulties are not because the $U(1)$ slave-boson

4373: theory is incorrect. The difficulties are results of incorrect treatment of

4374: the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, for example, overlooking some low energy soft

4375: modes.} To develop the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, let us first describe

4376: another way to understand the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations in the slave-boson

4377: theory. In this section we will concentrate on undoped case where the model is

4378: just a pure spin system.  Even though the theory involves only fermionic

4379: representation of the spin in the underdoped case, we continue to refer to

4380: the theory as slave-boson theory in anticipation of the doped case.  We

4381: generalize the $SU(2)$  salve-boson theory to doped model in the next section.

4382: 

4383: \subsection{Where does the gauge structure come from?}

4384: 

4385: According to the $U(1)$ slave-boson mean-field theory, the fluctuations around

4386: the mean-field ground state are described by gauge fields and fermion fields.

4387: Remember that the original model is just a interacting spin model which is a

4388: purely bosonic model. How can a purely bosonic model contain excitations

4389: described by gauge fields and fermion fields?  Should we believe the result?

4390: 

4391: Let us examine how the results are obtained. We first split the bosonic spin

4392: operator into a product of two fermionic operators $\v S_{\v i}=\frac12

4393: f^\dag_{\v i}\v \si f_{\v i}$.  We then introduce a gauge field to glue the

4394: fermions back into a bosonic spin.  From this point of view it appears that

4395: the gauge bosons and the fermions are fake and their appearance is just a

4396: mathematical artifact. The appearance of the fermion field and gauge field in

4397: a purely bosonic model seems only indicates that the slave-boson theory is

4398: incorrect.

4399: %Their appearance seems entirely due to the mean-field approximation. 

4400: 

4401: However, we should not discard the slave-boson mean-field theory too quickly.

4402: It is actually capable of producing pictures that agree with the common sense:

4403: the excitations in a bosonic spin system are bosonic excitations corresponding

4404: to spin flips, provided that the gauge field is in a confining phase.

4405: %(although through a long detour).  It actually can reproduce a picture that

4406: %agrees with common sense: a spin model only contain bosonic spin-1

4407: %excitations, provided that the gauge field is in a confining phase. 

4408: In the confining phase of the $U(1)$ gauge theory, the fermions interact with

4409: each other through a linear potential and can never appear as quasiparticles

4410: at low energies. The gauge bosons have a large energy gap in the confining

4411: phase and are absent from the low energy spectrum.  The only low energy

4412: excitations are bound state of two fermions which carry spin-1 and are bosons.

4413: So the mean-field theory plus the gauge fluctuations, may not be very useful,

4414: but is not wrong. 

4415: 

4416: On the other hand, the slave-boson mean-field theory (plus gauge fluctuations)

4417: is also capable of producing pictures that defy the common senses, if the

4418: gauge field is in a deconfined phase. In this case the fermions and gauge

4419: bosons 

4420: %will 

4421: may appear as well defined quasiparticles. The question is do we believe the

4422: picture of deconfined phase? Do we believe the possibility of emergent gauge

4423: bosons and fermions from a purely bosonic model?  Clearly, the slave-boson

4424: construction outlined above is far too formal to convince most people to

4425: believe such drastic results.  However, recently, it was realized that some

4426: models \cite{K032,LWsta,Wqoem} can be solved by the slave-boson theory exactly

4427: \cite{Wqoexct}.  Those models are in deconfined phases and confirm the

4428: striking results of emergence of gauge bosons and fermions

4429: from the slave-boson theory.  

4430: 

4431: %It turns

4432: %out that a deconfined state correspond to a many-body correlated state that

4433: %contains a new kind of order.  The striking results from the slave-boson

4434: %construction are results of new kind of many-body correlation in the ground

4435: %state which correspond to a new kind of order - topological/quantum

4436: %order \cite{Wtoprev,Wqoslpub}.  

4437: 

4438: To have an intuitive picture of the correlated ground state

4439: which leads to emergent gauge bosons and fermions, let us try to understand

4440: how a mean-field ansatz $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ is connected to a physical spin wave

4441: function.

4442: % which has exactly one fermion per site.  

4443: We know that the ground

4444: state, $|\Psi_\text{mean}^{(\chi_{\v i \v j})}\>$, of the mean-field Hamiltonian

4445: \begin{align}

4446: \label{HmeanU1}

4447: H_\text{mean}=\tilde J \sum (\chi_{\v i\v j}f^\dag_{\v i}f_{\v j}+h.c.) 

4448: +\sum a_0(f^\dag_{\v i}f_{\v i}-1),

4449: \end{align}

4450: is not a valid wavefunction for

4451: the spin system, since it may not have one fermion per site.  To connect to

4452: physical spin wavefunction, we need to include fluctuations of $a_0$ to

4453: enforce the one-fermion-per-site constraint. With this understanding, we may

4454: obtain a valid wave-function of the spin system $\Psi_\text{spin}(\{\al_{\v

4455: i}\})$ by projecting the mean-field state to the subspace of

4456: one-fermion-per-site:

4457: \begin{equation}

4458: \Psi_\text{spin}^{(\chi_{\v i \v j})}(\{\al_{\v i}\}) 

4459: = \<0_f|\prod_{\v i} f_{\al_{\v i}\v i} |

4460: \Psi_\text{mean}^{(\chi_{\v i \v j})}\> .

4461: \label{PsiPsichi}

4462: \end{equation}

4463: where $|0_f\>$ is the state with no $f$-fermions: $f_{\al\v i}|0_f\>=0$.

4464: Eq. (\ref{PsiPsichi}) connects the mean-field ansatz to 

4465: physical spin wavefunction.

4466: It allows us to understand the physical meaning of the mean-field ansatz and

4467: mean-field fluctuations.

4468: 

4469: For example, the projection \Eq{PsiPsichi} give the gauge transformation

4470: \Eq{U1gaugetrans} a physical meaning.  Usually, for different choices of

4471: $\chi_{\v i\v j}$, the ground states of $H_\text{mean}$ \Eq{HmeanU1} correspond to

4472: different mean-field wavefunctions $|\Psi_\text{mean}^{(\chi_{\v i \v j})}\>$.

4473: After projection they lead to different physical spin wavefunctions

4474: $\Psi_\text{spin}^{(\t \chi_{\v i \v j})}(\{\al_{\v i}\})$. Thus we can regard

4475: $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ as labels that label different physical spin states.

4476: However, two mean-field ansatz $\chi_{\v i \v j}$ and $\t \chi_{\v i \v j}$

4477: related by a gauge transformation

4478: \begin{equation}

4479: \label{tchichiga}

4480:  \t \chi_{\v i \v j} = e^{i\th_{\v i}}  \chi_{\v i \v j}e^{-i\th_{\v j}}

4481: \end{equation}

4482: give rise to the same physical spin state after the projection

4483: \begin{equation}

4484: \label{tchichi}

4485:  \Psi_\text{spin}^{(\t \chi_{\v i \v j})}(\{\al_{\v i}\})

4486: = e^{i\sum_{\v i} \th_{\v i}}

4487: \Psi_\text{spin}^{(\chi_{\v i \v j})}(\{\al_{\v i}\})

4488: \end{equation}

4489: %Thus there is a many to one correspondence between the mean-field ansatz

4490: %$\chi_{\v i \v j}$ and the physical spin wavefunction obtained by the

4491: %projection.

4492: Thus $\chi_{\v i \v j}$ is not a one-to-one label, but a many-to-one label.

4493: This property is important for us to understand the unusual dynamical

4494: properties of $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ fluctuations.  Using many labels to label the

4495: same physical state also make our theory a gauge theory.

4496: 

4497: Let us consider how the many-to-one property or the gauge structure of

4498: $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ affect its dynamical properties.  If $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ was

4499: an one-to-one label of physical states, then $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ would be like

4500: the condensed boson amplitude $\<\phi(\v x,t)\>$ in boson superfluid or the

4501: condensed spin moment $\<\v S_{\v i}(t)\>$ in SDW state. The fluctuations of

4502: $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ would correspond to a bosonic mode similar to sound mode or

4503: spin-wave mode.\footnote{More precisely, the sound mode and spin-wave mode are

4504: so called scaler bosons. The fluctuations of local order parameters always

4505: give rise to scaler bosons.} However, $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ does not behave like

4506: local order parameters, such as $\<\phi(\v x,t)\>$ and $\<\v S_{\v i}(t)\>$,

4507: which label physical states without redundancy.  $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ is a

4508: many-to-one label as discussed above.  The many-to-one label creates a

4509: interesting situation when we consider the fluctuations of $\chi_{\v i \v j}$

4510: -- some fluctuations of $\chi_{\v i \v j}$ do not change the physical state

4511: and are unphysical. Those fluctuations are called the pure gauge fluctuations.

4512: %For a generic fluctuation $\del \chi_{\v i\v j}$, part of it is physical and

4513: %the other part is unphysical.  

4514: The effective theory for $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ must be gauge invariant: for

4515: example, the energy for the ansatz $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ satisfies

4516: \begin{equation*}

4517:  E(\chi_{\v i\v j})=E(e^{i\th_{\v i}}  \chi_{\v i \v j}e^{-i\th_{\v j}}).

4518: \end{equation*}

4519: If we consider the phase fluctuations of $\chi_{\v i\v j}=\bar\chi_{\v i\v

4520: j}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}}$, then the energy for the fluctuations $a_{\v i\v j}$

4521: satisfies

4522: \begin{equation*}

4523:  E(a_{\v i\v j})=E(a_{\v i \v j}+\th_{\v i}-\th_{\v j}).

4524: \end{equation*}

4525: This gauge invariant property of the energy (or more precisely, the action)

4526: drastically change the dynamical properties of the fluctuations.  It is this

4527: property that makes fluctuations of $a_{\v i \v j}$ behave like gauge bosons,

4528: which are very different from sound mode and spin-wave mode.\footnote{In the

4529: continuum limit, the gauge bosons are vector bosons -- bosons described by

4530: vector fields.}

4531: %We know that the gauge field $a_{\v i\v j}$ is not physical. Because of this,

4532: %it is hard to picture the ``shape'' of a gauge fluctuation.  The similar

4533: %thing also happen to the fermions since the fermion operator $f_{\v i\al}$ is

4534: %also not gauge invariant.  However, in 

4535: 

4536: If we believe that gauge bosons and fermions do appear as low energy

4537: excitations in the deconfined phase, then a natural question will be what do

4538: those excitations looks like?  The slave-boson construction \Eq{PsiPsichi}

4539: allows us to construct an explicit physical spin wavefunction that

4540: corresponds to a gauge fluctuation $a_{\v i\v j}$

4541: \begin{equation*}

4542: \Psi_\text{spin}^{(a_{\v i\v j})}

4543: = \<0_f|\prod_{\v i} f_{\al_{\v i}\v i} 

4544: |\Psi_\text{mean}^{(\bar \chi_{\v i \v j}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}})}\> .

4545: \end{equation*}

4546: We would like to mention that the gauge fluctuations affect the average

4547: \begin{equation*}

4548:  P_{123} = \<\chi_{12} \chi_{23} \chi_{31}\>=

4549:   \<\bar\chi_{12} \bar\chi_{23} \bar\chi_{31}\> e^{i(a_{12}+a_{23}+a_{31})}

4550: \end{equation*}

4551: Thus the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations $a_{\v i\v j}$, or more precisely the flux

4552: of $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations $a_{12}+a_{23}+a_{31}$, correspond to the

4553: fluctuations of the spin chirality ${\v S}_1 \cdot ( {\v S}_2 \times {\v

4554: S}_3)=\frac{P_{123} - P_{132}}{4i}$ as pointed out in the last section.

4555: 

4556: Similarly, the slave-boson construction also allows us to construct a physical

4557: spin wavefunction that corresponds to a pair of the fermion excitations.  We

4558: start with the mean-field ground state with a pair of particle-hole

4559: excitations.  After the projection \Eq{PsiPsichi}, we obtain the physical spin

4560: wavefunctions that contain a pair of fermions:

4561: \begin{equation*}

4562: \Psi_\text{spin}^\text{ferm}(\v i_1,\la_1; \v i_2,\la_2)

4563: = \<0| (\prod_{\v i} f_{\al_{\v i}\v i}) 

4564: f^\dag_{\la_1\v i_1} f_{\la_2\v i_2} 

4565: |\Psi_\text{mean}^{(\bar \chi_{\v i \v j})}\> .

4566: \end{equation*}

4567: We see that the gauge fluctuation $a_{\v i\v j}$ and fermion excitation do

4568: have a physical ``shape'' given by the spin wavefunction

4569: $\Psi_\text{spin}^{(a_{\v i\v j})}$ and $\Psi_\text{spin}^\text{ferm}$,

4570: although the shape is too complicated to picture. 

4571: %Naively, one may say that the slave-boson construction produces a correlated

4572: %ground state $\Psi_\text{spin}^{0} = \<0|\prod_{\v i} f_{\al_{\v i}\v i}

4573: %|\Psi_\text{mean}^{(\chi^{(mean)}_{\v i \v j})}\>$. We may view the

4574: %complicated correlation in the ground state as a pattern of entanglement.

4575: %Such a pattern corresponds to the new order -- quantum order. The gauge

4576: %fluctuation described by $\Psi_\text{spin}^{(a_{\v i\v j})}$ can be viewed as

4577: %a fluctuation of the entanglement and the fermion excitations can be viewed

4578: %as topological defects in the entanglement. 

4579: 

4580: Certainly, the two types of excitations, the gauge fluctuations and the

4581: fermion excitations, interact with each other. The form of the interaction is

4582: determined by the fact that the fermions carry unit charge of the $U(1)$ gauge

4583: field. The low energy effective theory is given by \Eq{Eq.39} with $\Delta_{\v

4584: i\v j} = 0$ and $b_{\v i} = 0$.

4585: %Eq. 37

4586: 

4587: %This is as far as I can go without using the picture of string-net

4588: %condensation.

4589: 

4590: %If you are not satisfied by the physical picture presented and do not believe

4591: %that projective construction can produce emergent gauge bosons and fermions,

4592: %you may go directly to chapter \ref{sec:string}.  In chapter \ref{sec:string}

4593: %we construct several spin models which can be solved exactly (or

4594: %quasi-exactly) by the projective construction. Those models have emergent

4595: %$Z_2$/$U(1)$ gauge structure and fermions. The exact soluble models reveal

4596: %the string-net origin of the emergent gauge bosons and fermions.  The rest of

4597: %this chapter is for believers.  We assume projective construction make sense

4598: %and study its consequences. 

4599: 

4600: \subsection{What determines the gauge group?}

4601: 

4602: We have mentioned that the collective fluctuations around the a slave-boson

4603: mean-field ground state are described by $U(1)$ gauge field. Here we would

4604: like to ask why the gauge group is $U(1)$?  The reason for the gauge group to

4605: be $U(1)$ is that the fermion Hamiltonian and the mean-field Hamiltonian are

4606: invariant under the local $U(1)$ transformation

4607: \begin{equation*}

4608: \label{lclU1}

4609:  f_{\v i} \to e^{i\th_{\v i}} f_{\v i},\ \ \ \ \ \ \

4610:  \chi_{\v i \v j} \to e^{i\th_{\v i}}  \chi_{\v i \v j}e^{-i\th_{\v j}}

4611: \end{equation*}

4612: The reason that the fermion Hamiltonian is invariant under the local $U(1)$

4613: transformation is that the fermion Hamiltonian is a function of spin operator

4614: $\v S_{\v i}$ and the spin operator $\v S_{\v i}=\frac12 f_{\v i}^\dag \v \si

4615: f_{\v i}$ is invariant under the local $U(1)$ transformation.  So the gauge

4616: group is simply the group formed all the transformations between $f_{\up\v i}$

4617: and $f_{\down\v i}$ that leave the physical spin operator invariant.

4618: 

4619: \subsection{From $U(1)$ to $SU(2)$}

4620: 

4621: This deeper understanding of gauge transformation allows us to realize that

4622: $U(1)$ is only part of the gauge group. The full gauge group is actually

4623: $SU(2)$. To see the gauge group to be $SU(2)$ let us introduce

4624: \begin{equation*}

4625:  \psi_{1\v i}=f_{\up\v i},\ \ \ \ \ \

4626:  \psi_{2\v i}=f^\dag_{\down\v i}

4627: \end{equation*}

4628: We find

4629: \begin{align*}

4630:  S^+_{\v i}=& f_{\v i}^\dag  \si^+ f_{\v i} = 

4631: \frac12 (

4632: \psi_{1\v i}^\dag \psi_{2\v i}^\dag -\psi_{2\v i}^\dag \psi_{1\v i}^\dag )

4633: \nonumber\\

4634:  S^z_{\v i} = & \frac12 f_{\v i}^\dag  \si^z f_{\v i} = 

4635: \frac12 (\psi_{1\v i}^\dag \psi_{1\v i} 

4636: + \psi_{2\v i}^\dag \psi_{2\v i} -1)

4637: \end{align*}

4638: Now it is clear that $\v S_{\v i}$ and any Hamiltonian expressed in terms of

4639: $\v S_{\v i}$ are invariant under local $SU(2)$ gauge transformation:

4640: \begin{equation*}

4641: \bpm \psi_{1\v i}\\ \psi_{2\v i} \epm

4642: \to

4643: W_{\v i}\bpm \psi_{1\v i}\\ \psi_{2\v i} \epm,

4644: \ \ \ \ \ \ W_{\v i} \in SU(2)

4645: \end{equation*}

4646: The local $SU(2)$ invariance of the spin Hamiltonian implies that the

4647: mean-field Hamiltonian not only should have the $U(1)$ gauge invariance, it

4648: should also have the $SU(2)$ gauge invariance.

4649: 

4650: To write down the mean-field theory with explicit $SU(2)$ gauge invariance, we

4651: start with the mean-field ansatz that includes pairing correlation:

4652: %  The

4653: %generalized mean-field ansatz is described by $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ and $\Del_{\v

4654: %i\v j}$:

4655: \begin{align}

4656: \label{sl2a.4}

4657: \chi_{\v i \v j}\del_{\al\bt}&= 2 \< f_{\v i\al}^{\dag} f_{\v j \bt} \>,

4658: & \chi_{\v i \v j} &= \chi_{\v j \v i}^* .

4659: \nonumber \\

4660: \Del_{\v i \v j} \eps_{\al\bt}&=  2 \< f_{\v i \alpha}~f_{\v j \bt} \> ,

4661: & \Del_{\v i \v j} &=\Del_{\v j \v i} ,

4662: \end{align}

4663: After replacing fermion bi-linears with $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ and $\Del_{\v i\v

4664: j}$ in \Eq{Eq.35}, we obtain the following mean-field Hamiltonian with pairing

4665: \begin{align*}

4666: H_\text{mean}= &

4667: \ \ \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} -\frac{3}{8} J_{\v i\v j} 

4668: \left[(\chi_{\v j \v i}f^\dag_{\v i\al}f_{\v j\al}  - \Del_{\v i \v j}

4669: ~f^\dag_{ i \alpha} f^\dag_{ j \bt}\eps_{\alpha \bt}) + h.c

4670: \right. \nonumber\\

4671: & \left.

4672:  - |\chi_{\v i \v j}|^2  -|\Del_{\v i \v j}|^2 \right]

4673: \end{align*}

4674: 

4675: However, the above mean-field Hamiltonian is incomplete.  We know that the

4676: physical Hilbert space is formed by states with one $f$-fermion per site. Such

4677: states correspond to states with even $\psi$-fermion per site.  The states

4678: with even $\psi$-fermion per site are $SU(2)$ singlet one every site. The

4679: operators $\psi_{\v i}^\dag \v \tau \psi_{\v i}$ that generate local $SU(2)$

4680: transformations vanishes within the physical Hilbert space, where $\v

4681: \tau=(\tau^1,\tau^2, \tau^3)$ are the Pauli matrices.  In the mean-field

4682: theory, we replace the constraint $\psi_{\v i}^\dag \v \tau \psi_{\v i}=0$ by

4683: its average

4684: \begin{equation*}

4685: \< \psi_{\v i}^\dag \v \tau \psi_{\v i} \>=0 .

4686: \end{equation*}

4687: The averaged constraint can be enforced by including Lagrangian multiplier

4688: $\sum_{\v i} a^l_0(\v i)\psi_{\v i}^\dag \tau^l \psi_{\v i}$ in the mean-field

4689: Hamiltonian. This way we obtain the mean-field Hamiltonian of $SU(2)$

4690: slave-boson theory \cite{AZH8845,DFM8826}:

4691: \begin{align}

4692: \label{sl2.6su2}

4693: &H_\text{mean} \\

4694: =&

4695: \ \ \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} -\frac{3}{8} J_{\v i\v j} 

4696: \Big[(\chi_{\v j \v i}f^\dag_{\v i\al}f_{\v j\al}  - \Del_{\v i \v j}

4697: ~f^\dag_{ i \alpha} f^\dag_{ j \bt}\eps_{\alpha \bt}) + h.c

4698: \nonumber\\

4699: &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

4700:  - |\chi_{\v i \v j}|^2  -|\Del_{\v i \v j}|^2 \Big]

4701: \nonumber \\

4702: & 

4703: \ \  +\sum_{\v i} \left[ a_0^3(f_{\v i\al}^\dag f_{\v i\al} -1)+[(a_0^1+i a_0^2)

4704:  f_{\v i\al} f_{\v i\bt}\eps_{\al\bt}+h.c.]\right]

4705: \nonumber 

4706: \end{align}

4707: So the mean-field ansatz that describes a $SU(2)$ slave-boson mean-field state

4708: is really given by $\chi_{\v i\v j}$, $\Del_{\v i\v j}$, and $\v a_0$.  We

4709: note that $\chi_{\v i\v j}$, $\Del_{\v i\v j}$, and $\v a_0$ are invariant

4710: under spin rotation. Thus the mean-field ground state of $H_\text{mean}$ is a spin

4711: singlet. Such a state describes a spin liquid state.

4712: 

4713: The $SU(2)$ mean-field Hamiltonian \Eq{sl2.6su2} is invariant under local

4714: $SU(2)$ gauge transformation. To see such an invariance explicitly, we need to

4715: rewrite \Eq{sl2.6su2} in terms of $\psi$:

4716: \begin{align}

4717: \label{sl2a.8}

4718: H_\text{mean} =& \sum_{\<\v i \v j\>} \frac{3}{8}

4719:  J_{\v i\v j} \left[ 

4720: \frac12 \Tr (U_{\v i \v j}^\dag~U_{\v i \v j}) +(\psi^\dag_ i

4721: U_{\v i \v j}

4722: \psi_ j +~h.c.)\right]  \nonumber\\

4723: &

4724: +\sum_{\v i}  a_0^l \psi_{\v i}^\dag \tau^l \psi_{\v i} 

4725: \end{align}

4726: where

4727: \begin{equation}

4728: U_{\v i \v j }= \bpm - \chi_{\v i \v j}^\ast &\Del_{\v i \v j} \\

4729:                \Del_{\v i \v j}^\ast & \chi_{\v i \v j}

4730:                                         \epm

4731: =U_{\v j \v i}^\dag

4732: \label{sl2a.7}

4733: \end{equation}

4734: Note that $\det (U) < 0$, so that $U_{\v j \v k}$ is not a member of $SU(2)$,

4735: but $iU_{\v j \v k}$ is a member up to a normalization constant.  From

4736: \Eq{sl2a.8} we now can see clearly that the mean-field Hamiltonian is

4737: invariant under a local $SU(2)$ transformation $W_{\v i}$:

4738: \begin{align}

4739: \psi_{\v i} \to & W_{\v i}\psi_{\v i}  \nonumber \\

4740: U_{\v i \v j} \to &W_{\v i}~U_{\v i \v j}~W^\dag_{\v j}    

4741: \label{sl2a.9}

4742: \end{align}

4743: 

4744: 

4745: We note that in contrast to $\Phi_{i\up}$ and $\Phi_{i\down}$ introduced in

4746: eq.~(\ref{Eq.37}), the doublet $\psi_{\v i}$ does not carry a spin index.  Thus the

4747: redundancy in the $\Phi_{i\sigma}$ representation is avoided, which accounts

4748: for a factor of 2 difference in front of the bilinear $\psi_{\v i}$ term in

4749: \Eq{sl2a.8} vs eq.~(\ref{Eq.44}).  However, the spin-rotation symmetry is not

4750: explicit in our formalism and it is hard to tell if \Eq{sl2a.8} describes a

4751: spin-rotation invariant state or not. In fact, for a general $U_{\v i \v j}$

4752: satisfying $U_{\v i \v j}=U_{\v j \v i}^\dag$, \Eq{sl2a.8} may not describe a

4753: spin-rotation invariant state.  But, if $U_{\v i \v j}$ has a form

4754: \begin{align}

4755: \label{UuW}

4756: U_{\v i \v j} =& \chi^\mu_{\v i\v j}\tau^\mu,\ \ \ \ \ \ \mu=0,1,2,3,\nonumber\\

4757: \chi^0_{\v i\v j}=& \text{imaginary}, \ \ \ \ \ \ 

4758: \chi^l_{\v i\v j} = \text{real},\ \ \ \ \ \ l=1,2,3,

4759: \end{align}

4760: then \Eq{sl2a.8} will describe a spin-rotation invariant state.  This is

4761: because the above $U_{\v i \v j}$ has the form of \Eq{sl2a.7}.  In this case

4762: \Eq{sl2a.8} can be rewritten as \Eq{sl2.6su2} where the spin-rotation

4763: invariance is explicit.  In \Eq{UuW}, $\tau^0$ is the identity matrix.

4764: % and $\tau^{1,2,3}$ are the Pauli matrices.  

4765: 

4766: Now the mean-field ansatz can be more compactly represented by $(U_{\v i\v j},

4767: \v a_0(\v i))$. Again the mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, \v a_0(\v i))$ can

4768: be viewed as a many-to-one label of physical spin states. The physical spin

4769: state labeled by $(U_{\v i\v j}, \v a(\v i))$ is given by

4770: \begin{equation*}

4771:  |\Psi^{(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0(\v i))}_\text{spin}\>

4772: =\cP |\Psi^{(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0(\v i))}_\text{mean}\>

4773: \end{equation*}

4774: where $|\Psi^{(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0(\v i))}_\text{mean}\>$ is the ground state of

4775: the mean-field Hamiltonian \Eq{sl2a.8} and $\cP$ is the projection that

4776: project into the subspace with even numbers of $\psi$-fermion per site.  From

4777: the relation between the $f$-fermion and the $\psi$-fermion, we note that the

4778: state with zero $\psi$-fermion correspond to the spin-down state and the state

4779: with two $\psi$-fermions correspond to the spin-up state.  Since the states

4780: with even numbers of $\psi$-fermion per site are $SU(2)$ singlet on every

4781: site, we find that two mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, \v a_0(\v i))$ and

4782: $(\t U_{\v i\v j}, \t{\v a}(\v i))$ related by a local $SU(2)$ gauge

4783: transformation

4784: \begin{equation*}

4785: \t U_{\v i \v j} = W_{\v i}~U_{\v i \v j}~W^\dag_{\v j},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

4786: \t {\v a}_0(\v i)\cdot \v\tau  

4787: = W_{\v i}~\v a_0(\v i)\cdot \v\tau ~W^\dag_{\v i} .

4788: \end{equation*}

4789: label the same physical spin state

4790: \begin{equation*}

4791: \cP |\Psi^{(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0(\v i))}_\text{mean}\>

4792: =\cP |\Psi^{(\t U_{\v i\v j},\t{\v a}_0(\v i))}_\text{mean}\>

4793: \end{equation*}

4794: This relation represents the physical meaning of the $SU(2)$ gauge structure.

4795: 

4796: Just like the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, the fluctuations of the mean-field

4797: ansatz correspond to collective excitations.  In particular, the ``phase''

4798: fluctuations of $U_{\v i\v j}$ represent the potential gapless excitations.

4799: However, unlike the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, the ``phase'' of $U_{\v i\v j}$

4800: is described by a two by two hermitian matrix $a^l_{\v i\v j}\tau^l$,

4801: $l=1,2,3$, on each link.  If $(\bar U_{\v i\v j},\bar{\v a}(\v i))$ is the

4802: ansatz that describe the mean-field ground state, then the potential gapless

4803: fluctuations are described by

4804: \begin{equation*}

4805:  U_{\v i\v j}= \bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{ia^l_{\v i\v j}\tau^l},\ \ \ \ \

4806: \v a_0(\v i)= \bar{\v a}_0(\v i)+ \del \v a_0(\v i).

4807: \end{equation*}

4808: Since $(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0(\v i))$ is a many-to-one labeling, the

4809: fluctuations $(\v a_{\v i\v j}, \del \v a_0(\v i))$ correspond to $SU(2)$

4810: gauge fluctuations rather than usual bosonic collective modes such as phonon

4811: modes and spin waves.

4812: 

4813: 

4814: \subsection{A few mean-field ansatz for symmetric spin liquids}

4815: 

4816: After a general discussion of the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, let us discuss a

4817: few mean-field ansatz that have spin rotation, translation $T_{x,y}$, and

4818: parity $P_{x,y,xy}$ symmetries.  We will call such a spin state symmetric spin

4819: liquid.  Here $T_x$ and $T_y$ are translation in $x$- and $y$-directions, and

4820: $P_x$, $P_y$ and $P_{xy}$ are parity transformations $(x, y)\to (-x,y)$, $(x,

4821: y)\to (x,-y)$, and $(x, y)\to (y,x)$ respectively.  We note that  $P_{x,y,xy}$

4822: parity symmetries imply the $90^\circ$ rotation symmetry.  

4823: 

4824: %After finding some mean-field ansatz of symmetric spin liquids that have low

4825: %energies, we can then study the physical properties of those symmetric spin

4826: %liquid states and finally determine which spin liquids describe the under

4827: %doped high $T_c$ superconductors by comparing the theoretical results with

4828: %experiments.

4829: 

4830: We will concentrate on three simple mean-field ansatz that describe symmetric

4831: spin liquids:\\

4832: 

4833: \noindent

4834: $\pi$-flux liquid ($\pi$fL) state\footnote{

4835: This state was called $\pi$-flux ($\pi$F) state in literature.}

4836: \cite{AM8874}

4837: \begin{align}

4838: \label{piF}

4839: %U_{\v i, \v i + \v x} & = - \tau^3 \chi - i (-)^{\v i} \chi ,

4840: %\nonumber\\

4841: %U_{\v i, \v i + \v y} & = - \tau^3 \chi + i (-)^{\v i} \chi ,

4842: U_{\v i, \v i + \v x} & = - i(-)^{i_y} \chi ,

4843: \nonumber\\

4844: U_{\v i, \v i + \v y} & = - i\chi ,

4845: \end{align}

4846: staggered flux liquid (sfL)

4847: \footnote{In

4848: \Ref{WLsu2} and \Ref{LNNWsu2}, this phase was called simply the staggered

4849: flux (sF) state.  In this paper we reserve sF to denote the $U(1)$ mean field

4850: state which explicitly breaks translational symmetry and which exhibits

4851: staggered orbital currents, as originally described by 

4852: %Hsu {\em et al.}, 1991

4853: \Ref{HMA9166}.  This latter state is also called $d$-density wave (ddw),

4854: following 

4855: %Chakravarty {\em et al.}, 2001.

4856: \Ref{CLM0203}.}

4857: state \cite{AM8874}

4858: \begin{align}

4859: \label{sF}

4860: U_{\v i, \v i + \v x} & = - \tau^3 \chi - i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

4861: \nonumber\\

4862: U_{\v i, \v i + \v y} & = - \tau^3 \chi + i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

4863: \end{align}

4864: $Z_2$-gapped state \cite{Wsrvb}

4865: \begin{align}

4866: U_{\v i,\v i+\v x }=&  U_{ \v i,\v i+\v y }= -\chi \tau^3 \nonumber \\

4867: U_{\v i,\v i+ \v x + \v y} =&  \eta\tau^1 +\la\tau^2 \nonumber \\

4868: U_{\v i,\v i-\v x + \v y} =&  \eta\tau^1 -\la\tau^2 \nonumber\\

4869: a_0^{2,3} =&  0, \ \ \ a_0^1 \neq 0

4870: \label{Z2gA}

4871: \end{align}

4872: where $(-)^{\v i}\equiv (-)^{i_x+i_y}$.  Note that the $Z_2$ mean-field state

4873: has pairing along the diagonal bond.

4874: 

4875: At first sight, those mean-field ansatz appear not to have all the symmetries.

4876: For example, the $Z_2$-gapped ansatz are not invariant under the $P_x$ and

4877: $P_y$ parity transformations and the $\pi$fL and sfL ansatz are not invariant

4878: under translation in the $y$-direction. However, those ansatz do describe spin

4879: states that have all the symmetries. This is because the mean-field ansatz are

4880: many-to-one labels of the physical spin state, the non-invariance of the

4881: ansatz does not imply the non-invariance of the corresponding physical spin

4882: state after the projection.  We only require the mean-field ansatz to be

4883: invariant up to a $SU(2)$ gauge transformation in order for the projected

4884: physical spin state to have a symmetry. For example, a $P_{xy}$  parity

4885: transformation changes the sfL ansatz to

4886: \begin{align*}

4887: U_{\v i, \v i + \v x} & = - \tau^3 \chi + i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

4888: \nonumber\\

4889: U_{\v i, \v i + \v y} & = - \tau^3 \chi - i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

4890: \end{align*}

4891: The reflected ansatz can be transformed into the original ansatz via a $SU(2)$

4892: gauge transformation $W_{\v i}=(-)^{\v i}i\tau^1$.  Therefore, after the

4893: projection, the sfL ansatz describes a $P_{xy}$ parity symmetric spin state.

4894: Using the similar consideration, one can show that the above three ansatz

4895: are invariant under translation $T_{x,y}$ and parity $P_{x,y,xy}$ symmetry

4896: transformations followed by corresponding $SU(2)$ gauge transformations

4897: $G_{T_x,T_y}$ and $G_{P_x,P_y,P_{xy}}$, respectively. Thus the three ansatz all

4898: describe symmetric spin liquids.  In the following, we list the corresponding

4899: gauge transformations $G_{T_x,T_y}$ and $G_{P_x,P_y,P_{xy}}$ for the above

4900: three ansatz:\\

4901: 

4902: \noindent

4903: $\pi$fL state

4904: \begin{align}

4905: \label{GssF}

4906: %G_{T_x}(\v i) =& G_{T_y}(\v i) = i(-)^{\v i}\tau^1,  

4907: %&

4908: %G_{P_x}(\v i) =& G_{P_y}(\v i) = \tau^0, \nonumber\\

4909: %G_0(\v i) =& e^{i(-)^{\v i} (\th^1\tau^1+\th^2\tau^2)+i\th^3\tau^3}

4910: %& 

4911: %G_{P_{xy}}(\v i) =&  i(-)^{\v i}\tau^1, 

4912: G_{T_x}(\v i) =& (-)^{i_x}G_{T_y}(\v i) = \tau^0,  

4913: &

4914: G_{P_{xy}}(\v i) =&  (-)^{i_xi_y} \tau^0, 

4915: \nonumber\\

4916: (-)^{i_x}G_{P_x}(\v i) =& (-)^{i_y}G_{P_y}(\v i) = \tau^0, 

4917: & 

4918: G_0(\v i) =& e^{i\th^l\tau^l}

4919: \end{align}

4920: sfL state

4921: \begin{align}

4922: \label{GspiF}

4923: G_{T_x}(\v i) =& G_{T_y}(\v i) = i(-)^{\v i}\tau^1,  

4924: &

4925: G_{P_{xy}}(\v i) =&  i(-)^{\v i}\tau^1, 

4926: \nonumber\\

4927: G_{P_x}(\v i) =& G_{P_y}(\v i) = \tau^0, 

4928: & 

4929: G_0(\v i) =& e^{i\th\tau^3}

4930: \end{align}

4931: $Z_2$-gapped state

4932: \begin{align}

4933: \label{GsZ2gA}

4934: G_{T_x}(\v i) =& G_{T_y}(\v i) = i\tau^0,  

4935: &

4936: G_{P_{xy}}(\v i) =&  \tau^0, 

4937: \nonumber\\

4938: G_{P_x}(\v i) =& G_{P_y}(\v i) = (-)^{\v i}\tau^1, 

4939: & 

4940: G_0(\v i) =& -\tau^0

4941: \end{align}

4942: In the above we also list the pure gauge transformation $G_0(\v i)$ that leave

4943: the ansatz invariant.

4944: 

4945: \subsection{Physical properties of the symmetric spin liquids at mean-field

4946: level}

4947: 

4948: To understand the physical properties of the above three symmetric spin

4949: liquids, let us first ignore the mean-field fluctuations of $U_{\v i\v j}$ and

4950: consider the excitations at mean-field level.

4951: 

4952: At mean-field level, the excitations are spin-1/2 fermions $\psi$ (or $f$).

4953: Their spectrum is determined by the mean-field Hamiltonian \Eq{sl2a.8} (or

4954: \Eq{sl2.6su2}).  In the $\pi$fL state, the fermions has a dispersion

4955: \begin{equation*}

4956:  E_{\v k}=\pm \frac34 J|\chi| \sqrt{\sin^2 k_x + \sin^2 k_y}

4957: \end{equation*}

4958: In the sfL state, the dispersion is given by

4959: \begin{equation*}

4960:  E_{\v k}=\pm \frac34 J\sqrt{\chi^2 (\cos k_x+\cos k_y)^2 

4961:  + \Del^2 (\cos k_x - \cos k_y)^2 }

4962: \end{equation*}

4963: In the $Z_2$-gapped state, we have

4964: \begin{align*}

4965: E_{\v k}=&\pm \sqrt{\eps_{\v k}^2+\Del^2_{1\v k}+\Del^2_{2\v k}}

4966: \nonumber\\

4967: \eps_{\v k} = & -\frac34 J \chi (\cos k_x + \cos k_y) 

4968: \nonumber\\

4969: \Delta_{1\v k} = & \frac34  \eta J' \cos (k_x + k_y) +a^1_0

4970: \nonumber\\

4971: \Delta_{2\v k} = & \frac34 \la J' \cos (-k_x + k_y)

4972: \end{align*}

4973: where $J$ is the nearest-neighbor spin coupling and $J'$ is the

4974: next-nearest-neighbor spin coupling.  We find that the $\pi$fL state and the

4975: sfL

4976: state, at the mean-field level, have gapless spin-1/2 fermion excitations,

4977: while the $Z_2$-gapped state has gapped spin-1/2 fermion excitations.

4978: 

4979: %%Usually 

4980: %Hopefully the results from mean-field theory are at least qualitatively

4981: %correct and we can use the mean-field results to qualitatively understand the

4982: %properties of real physical systems.  If we accept this picture, we would

4983: %conclude that the above three spin liquids contain spin-1/2 fermionic

4984: %excitations.  This result is very striking.  Usually, the excitations in a

4985: %spin system are spin-1 bosons corresponding to spin flips. 

4986: 

4987: Should we trust the mean-field results from the slave-boson theory?  The

4988: answer is that it depends on the importance of the gauge fluctuations.  Unlike

4989: usual mean-field theory, the fluctuations in the slave-boson theory include

4990: gauge fluctuations which can generate confining interactions between the

4991: fermions. In this case the gauge interactions represent relevant perturbations

4992: and the mean-field state is said to be unstable.  The mean-field results from

4993: an unstable mean-field ansatz cannot be trusted and cannot be applied to real

4994: physical spin state. In particular, the spin-1/2 fermionic excitations in the

4995: mean-field theory in this case will not appear in the physical spectrum of

4996: real spin state.

4997: 

4998: If the dynamics of the gauge fluctuations is such that the gauge interaction

4999: is short ranged, then  the gauge interactions represent irrelevant

5000: perturbations and can be ignored.  In this case the mean-field state is said

5001: to be stable and the mean-field results can be applied to the real physical

5002: spin liquids.  In particular, the corresponding physical spin state contain

5003: fractionalized spin-1/2 fermionic excitations.

5004: 

5005: 

5006: 

5007: \subsection{Classical dynamics of the $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations}

5008: 

5009: We have seen that the key to understand the physical properties of a spin

5010: liquid described by a mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, a^l_0)$ is to

5011: understand the dynamics of the $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations.  To gain some

5012: intuitive understanding, let us treat the mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, \v

5013: a_0(\v i))$ as classical fields and study classical dynamics of their

5014: fluctuations.  The  dynamics of the fluctuations is determined by the

5015: effective Lagrangian $L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j}(t), \v a_0(\v i)(t))$.  To obtained

5016: the effective Lagrangian, we start with the Lagrangian representation of the

5017: mean-field Hamiltonian

5018: \begin{align*}

5019:  L(\psi_{\v i}, U_{\v i\v j}, \v a_0)

5020: =&\sum_{\v i} i\psi^\dag_{\v i}\prt_t\psi_{\v i} -H_\text{mean}

5021: \end{align*}

5022: where $H_\text{mean}$ is given in \Eq{sl2a.8}. The effective Lagrangian $L_\text{eff}$

5023: is then obtained by integrating out $\psi$:

5024: \begin{equation*}

5025:  e^{i\int dt L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0)}

5026: =\int \cD\psi\cD\psi^\dag e^{i\int dt L(\psi,U_{\v i\v j},\v a_0)}

5027: \end{equation*}

5028: We note that $L$ describes a system of fermions $\psi_{\v i}$ and $SU(2)$

5029: gauge fluctuations $U_{\v i\v j}$.  Thus the effective Lagrangian is invariant

5030: under the $SU(2)$ gauge transformation

5031: \begin{align}

5032: \label{Egauge}

5033: & L_\text{eff}(\t U_{\v i\v j}, \t{\v a}_0)=L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j}, \v a_0),

5034: \nonumber\\

5035: & 

5036: \t U_{\v i\v j}= W_{\v i}(U_{\v i\v j})W_{\v j},\ \ \ \ 

5037: \t a^l_0(\v i)\tau^l= W_{\v i}a^l_0(\v i)\tau^lW_{\v i},

5038: \nonumber\\

5039: & W_{\v i}\in SU(2)

5040: \end{align}

5041: The classical equation of motion obtained from $L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j},\v

5042: a_0)$ determines the classical dynamics of the fluctuations.

5043: 

5044: To see if the collective fluctuations are gapless, we would like to examine if

5045: the frequencies of the collective fluctuations are bound from below. We know

5046: that the time independent saddle point of $L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j},\v

5047: a_0)$, $(\bar U_{\v i\v j},\bar {\v a}_0)$, corresponds to mean-field ground

5048: state ansatz, and $-L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j},\bar {\v a}_0)$ is the

5049: mean-field ground state energy. If we expand $-L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v

5050: j}e^{ia^l_{\v i\v j}\tau^l},\bar {\v a}_0)$ to the second order in the

5051: fluctuation $a_{\v i\v j}$, then the presence or the absence of the mass term

5052: $a_{\v i\v j}^2$ will determine if the collective $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations

5053: have an energy gap or not.

5054: 

5055: 

5056: %To see how $SU(2)$ gauge bosons commit suicide, we consider a lattice $SU(2)$

5057: %gauge theory. The lattice $SU(2)$ gauge field is given by link variables

5058: %$U_{\v i\v j} \in SU(2)$. The first-order mean-field theory \Eq{sl2a.12} is a

5059: %$SU(2)$ lattice gauge theory. The energy of a configuration is a function of

5060: %$U_{\v i\v j}$: $E(U_{\v i\v j})$.  The energy is invariant under $SU(2)$

5061: %gauge transformation \begin{align}

5062: %\label{Egauge}

5063: % E(\t U_{\v i\v j})=E(U_{\v i\v j}),\ \ \ \ \ \ 

5064: % \t U_{\v i\v j}= W_{\v i}(U_{\v i\v j})W_{\v j},\ \ \ \ \ \  W_{\v i}\in SU(2)

5065: %\end{align}

5066: %To understand the dynamic of the lattice $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations, we write

5067: %$U_{\v i\v j}=U_{\v i\v j}^{(mean)}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^l\tau^l}$ where two by two

5068: %matrices $a_{\v i\v j}$ on the links describe the gauge fluctuations. The

5069: %energy now can be written as $E(U_{\v i\v j}^{(mean)},e^{ia_{\v i\v

5070: %j}^l\tau^l})$. To see if the $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations gain an energy gap or

5071: %not, we need to examine if $ E(U_{\v i\v j}^{(mean)},e^{ia_{\v i\v

5072: %j}^l\tau^l})$ contains a mass term $(a^l_{\v i\v j})^2$ or not, in the small

5073: %$a^l_{\v i\v j}$ limit.

5074: 

5075: To understand how the mean-field ansatz $\bar U_{\v i\v j}$ affect the

5076: dynamics of the gauge fluctuations, it is convenient to introduce the loop

5077: variable of the mean-field solution \index{flux!$SU(2)$}

5078: \begin{equation}

5079: \label{sl2a.15}

5080: P(C_{\v i})= (i\bar{U}_{\v i\v j}) (i\bar{U}_{\v j\v k})...  (i\bar{U}_{\v k\v i})

5081: \end{equation}

5082: Following the comment after \Eq{sl2a.7} $P(C_{\v i})$ belongs to $SU(2)$ and we can

5083: write $P(C_{\v i})$ as $P(C_{\v i})=e^{i\Phi(C_{\v i})}$, where $\Phi$ is the

5084: $SU(2)$ flux through the loop $C_{\v i}$: $\v i\to \v j\to \v k\to ..\to \v

5085: l\to \v i$ with base point $\v i$.

5086: %We will also call it $SU(2)$-flux operator.  \index{SU(2)-flux

5087: %operator@$SU(2)$-flux operator}

5088: The $SU(2)$ flux correspond to gauge field strength in the continuum limit.

5089: Compare with the $U(1)$ flux, the $SU(2)$ flux has two new features.  First

5090: the flux $\Phi$ is a two-by-two traceless Hermitian matrix.  If we expand

5091: $\Phi$ as $\Phi=\Phi^l\tau^l$, $l=1,2,3$ we can say that the flux is

5092: represented by a vector $\Phi^l$ in the $\tau^l$ space.  Second, the flux is

5093: not gauge invariant.  Under the gauge transformations, $\Phi(C_{\v i})$

5094: transforms as

5095: \begin{equation}

5096: \label{PWPW}

5097:  \Phi(C_{\v i}) \to W_{\v i} \Phi(C_{\v i}) W_{\v i}

5098: \end{equation}

5099: Such a transformation rotates the direction of the vector $\Phi^l$.

5100: %We note that the $SU(2)$ flux has a form $P(C)=\chi^0(C)\tau^0+i

5101: %\chi^l(C)\tau^l$.  Thus when $\chi^l\neq 0$, the $SU(2)$ flux has a sense of

5102: %direction in the $SU(2)$ space as indicated by $\chi^l$.  From \Eq{PWPW}, we

5103: %see that the local $SU(2)$  gauge transformations rotate the direction of the

5104: %$SU(2)$ flux.  

5105: Since the direction of the $SU(2)$ flux for loops with different base point

5106: can be rotated independently by the local $SU(2)$ gauge transformations, it is

5107: meaningless to directly compare the directions of $SU(2)$ flux for different

5108: base points.  However, it is quite meaningful to compare the directions of

5109: $SU(2)$ flux for loops with the same base point. We can divide different

5110: $SU(2)$ flux configurations into three classes based  on the $SU(2)$ flux

5111: through loops with the \emph{same} base point: (a) trivial $SU(2)$ flux where

5112: all $P(C)\propto \tau^0$, (b) collinear $SU(2)$ flux where all the $SU(2)$

5113: fluxes point in the same direction, and (c) non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux where

5114: $SU(2)$ flux for loops with the same base point are in different directions.

5115: \index{SU2 flux@$SU(2)$ flux!trivial} \index{SU2 flux@$SU(2)$ flux!collinear}

5116: \index{SU2 flux@$SU(2)$ flux!non-collinear} We will show below that different

5117: $SU(2)$ flux can lead to different dynamics for the gauge field \cite{Wsrvb}.

5118: 

5119: \subsubsection{Trivial $SU(2)$ flux}

5120: 

5121: First let us consider an ansatz $\bar U_{\v i\v j}$ with trivial $SU(2)$ flux

5122: $\Phi(C)=0$ for all the loops (such as the $\pi$fL ansatz in \Eq{piF}). We will

5123: call the state described by such an ansatz the $SU(2)$ state. 

5124: %The $SU(2)$ flux is invariant under the $SU(2)$ gauge transformation. We can

5125: %choose a mean-field ansatz (by

5126: We can perform a $SU(2)$ gauge transformations to transform the ansatz into a

5127: form where all $\bar U_{\v i\v j} \propto \tau^0$.

5128: %\footnote{This is hard to prove mathematically. Here we will just accept it

5129: %as a mathematical fact.}

5130: In this case, the gauge invariance of the effective Lagrangian implies that

5131: \begin{equation} 

5132: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^l\tau^l} )=

5133: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{i\th^l_{\v i}\tau^l} e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^l\tau^l}

5134: e^{-i\th^l_{\v j}\tau^l} ).

5135: \end{equation}

5136: Under gauge transformation $e^{i\th^1_{\v i}\tau^1}$, $a_{\v i\v j}^1$

5137: transform as $a_{\v i\v j}^1=a_{\v i\v j}^1+\th^1_{\v i}-\th^1_{\v j}$.  The

5138: mass term $(a^1_{\v i\v j})^2$ is not invariant under such a transformation

5139: and is thus not allowed.  Similarly, we can show that none of the mass terms

5140: $(a^1_{\v i\v j})^2$, $(a^2_{\v i\v j})^2$, and $(a^3_{\v i\v j})^2$ are

5141: allowed in the expansion of $L_\text{eff}$.  Thus the $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations

5142: are gapless and appear at low energies.  

5143: 

5144: We note that all the pure gauge transformations $G_0(\v i)$ that leave the

5145: ansatz invariant form a group. We will call such a group invariant gauge group

5146: (IGG).  For the ansatz $\bar U_{\v i\v j} \propto \tau^0$,  the IGG is an

5147: $SU(2)$ group formed by uniform $SU(2)$ gauge transformation $G_0(\v

5148: i)=e^{i\th^l\tau^l}$. 

5149: %It is interesting to see that the gauge group 

5150: We recall from the last paragraph that the (classical) gapless gauge

5151: fluctuations 

5152: %is just the IGG of the ansatz.  Such a

5153: is also $SU(2)$.  Such a relation between the IGG and the gauge group of the

5154: gapless classical gauge fluctuations is general and applies to all the ansatz

5155: \cite{Wqoslpub}.  

5156: 

5157: To understand the dynamics of the gapless gauge fluctuations beyond the

5158: classical level, we need to treat two cases separately. In the first case, the

5159: fermions have a finite energy gap. Those fermions will generate the following

5160: low energy effective Lagrangian for the gauge fluctuations

5161: \begin{equation*}

5162:  \cL = \frac{g}{8\pi} \Tr f_{\mu\nu}f^{\mu\nu}

5163: \end{equation*}

5164: where $f_{\mu\nu}$ is a 2 by 2 matrix representing the field strength of the

5165: $SU(2)$ gauge field $a_{\v i\v j}$ in the continuum limit.  At classical

5166: level, such an effective Lagrangian leads to $\sim g\log (r)$ interaction

5167: between $SU(2)$ charges in two spatial dimensions.  So the gauge interaction

5168: at classical level is not confining (\ie not described by a linear potential).  However, if we go beyond the classical

5169: level (\ie beyond the quadratic approximation) and include the interactions

5170: between gauge fluctuations, the picture is changed completely.  In 1+2D, the

5171: interactions between gauge fluctuations change the $g\log (r)$ interaction to

5172: a linear confining interaction, regardless the value of the coupling constant

5173: $g$. So the $SU(2)$ mean-field states with gapped fermions  are not stable.

5174: The mean-field results from such ansatz cannot be trusted.

5175: 

5176: In the second case, the fermions are gapless and have a linear dispersion.  In

5177: the continuum limit, those fermions correspond to massless Dirac fermions.

5178: Those fermions will generate a non-local low energy effective Lagrangian for

5179: the gauge fluctuations, which roughly has a form, $ \cL = \frac{g}{8\pi} \Tr

5180: f_{\mu\nu}\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\prt^2}}f^{\mu\nu}$.  Due to the screening of

5181: massless fermions the interaction potential between $SU(2)$ charges becomes

5182: $\sim g/r$ at classical level.  Such an interaction represents a marginal

5183: perturbation.  It is a quite complicated matter to determine if the $SU(2)$

5184: states with gapless Dirac fermions are stable or not beyond the quadratic

5185: approximation.

5186: 

5187: 

5188: \subsubsection{Collinear $SU(2)$ flux}

5189: 

5190: Second, let us assume the $SU(2)$ flux is collinear.  This means the $SU(2)$

5191: flux for different loops with the same base point all point in the same

5192: direction. 

5193: However, the $SU(2)$ flux for loops with different base points may still point

5194: in different directions (even for the collinear $SU(2)$ flux).  Using the

5195: local $SU(2)$ gauge transformation we can always rotate the $SU(2)$ flux for

5196: different base points into the same direction, and we can pick this direction

5197: to be $\tau^3$ direction.  In this case all the $SU(2)$ flux have a form

5198: $P(C)\propto \chi^0(C)+ i\chi^3(C)\tau^3$.  We can choose a gauge such that

5199: the mean-field ansatz  have a form $\bar U_{\v i\v j}=ie^{i\phi_{\v i\v j}

5200: \tau^3}$.  

5201: %Since the ansatz is invariant under the global $U(1)$ gauge transformation

5202: %$e^{i\th\tau^3}$ but not $e^{i\th\tau^{1,2}}$, we say the $SU(2)$ gauge

5203: %structure is broken down to a $U(1)$ gauge structure.  

5204: The gauge invariance of the energy implies that

5205: \begin{equation} 

5206: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^l\tau^l} )=

5207: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{i\th_{\v i}\tau^3} e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^l\tau^l}

5208: e^{-i\th_{\v j}\tau^3} ).

5209: \end{equation}

5210: %In order for the gauge bosons to obtain a gap we need all the three mass terms

5211: %$ (a^l)^2$ to appear in the expansion of the energy.  However 

5212: When $a^{1,2}_{\v i\v j}=0$, The above reduces to

5213: \begin{equation} 

5214: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^3\tau^3} )=

5215: L_\text{eff}(\bar U_{\v i\v j}e^{i(a_{\v i\v j}^3+\th_{\v i}-\th_{\v j})\tau^3}

5216: ).

5217: \label{sl2a.16}

5218: \end{equation}

5219: We find that the mass term $(a^3_{\v i\v j})^2$ is incompatible with

5220: \Eq{sl2a.16}.  Therefore at least the gauge field $a^3_{\v i\v j}$ is 

5221: gapless.  How

5222: about $a^1_{\v i\v j}$ and $a^2_{\v i\v j}$ gauge fields?  Let $P_A(\v i)$ be

5223: the $SU(2)$ flux through a loop with base point $\v i$.  If we assume all the

5224: gauge invariant terms that can appear in the effective Lagrangian do appear,

5225: then $L_\text{eff}(U_{\v i\v j})$ will contain the following term

5226: \begin{equation} 

5227: L_\text{eff}=a\Tr[P_A(\v i)iU_{\v i,\v i+\v x}P_A(\v i+\v x)iU_{\v i+\v x, \v i}]+...

5228: \label{sl3a.6c}

5229: \end{equation}

5230: If we write $iU_{\v i, \v i+\v x}$ as $\chi e^{i\phi_{\v i\v j}\tau^3}e^{i

5231: a_x^l\tau^l}$, using the fact $U_{\v i, \v i+\v x}=U^\dag_{\v i+\v x,\v i}$

5232: (see \Eq{sl2a.7}), and expand to $(a_x^l)^2$ order, \Eq{sl3a.6c} becomes

5233: \begin{equation} 

5234: L_\text{eff}=-\frac{1}{2} a\chi^2 \Tr ([P_A, a_x^l\tau^l]^2) +...

5235: \label{sl3a.6d}

5236: \end{equation}

5237: We see from \Eq{sl3a.6d} that the mass term for $a^1_{\v i\v j}$ and $a^2_{\v

5238: i\v j}$ are generated if $P_A\propto \tau^3$.  

5239: 

5240: To summarize, we find that if the $SU(2)$ flux is collinear, then the ansatz

5241: is invariant only under a $U(1)$ rotation $e^{i\th \v n\cdot\tau}$ where $\v

5242: n$ is the direction of the $SU(2)$ flux.  Thus the IGG=$U(1)$.  The collinear

5243: $SU(2)$ flux also break the $SU(2)$ gauge structure down to a $U(1)$ gauge

5244: structure, \ie the low lying gauge fluctuations are described by a $U(1)$

5245: gauge field.  Again we see that the IGG of the ansatz is the gauge group of

5246: the (classical) gapless gauge fluctuations.

5247: %The corresponding mean-field state will has  gapless $U(1)$ gauge

5248: %fluctuations.

5249: We will call the states with collinear $SU(2)$ flux the $U(1)$ states.  The

5250: sfL ansatz in \Eq{sF} is an example of collinear $SU(2)$ flux.

5251: 

5252: For the $U(1)$ states with gapped fermions, the fermions will generate the

5253: following effective Lagrangian for the gauge fluctuations

5254: \begin{equation*}

5255:  \cL = \frac{g}{8\pi} (\v e^2 - b^2)

5256: \end{equation*}

5257: where $\v e$ is the ``electric'' field and $b$ is the ``magnetic'' field of

5258: the $U(1)$ gauge field.  Again at classical level, the effective Lagrangian

5259: leads to $\sim g\log (r)$ interaction between $U(1)$ charges and the gauge

5260: interaction at classical level is not confining.  If we go beyond the

5261: classical level and include the interactions between gauge fluctuations

5262: induced by the space-time monopoles,  the $g\log (r)$ interaction will be

5263: changed to a linear confining interaction, regardless the value of the

5264: coupling constant $g$ \cite{P7729}. So the $U(1)$ mean-field states with

5265: gapped fermions  are not stable.  

5266: 

5267: If the fermions in the $U(1)$ state are gapless and are described by massless

5268: Dirac fermions (such as those in the sfL state), those fermions will generate a non-local low energy effective

5269: Lagrangian, which, at quadratic level, has a form

5270: \begin{equation}

5271: \label{LaNL}

5272:  \cL = \frac{g}{8\pi} f_{\mu\nu}\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\prt^2}}f^{\mu\nu}

5273: \end{equation}

5274: Again the screening of massless fermions change the $g\log (r)$ interaction to

5275: $g/r$ interactions between $U(1)$ charge, at lease at classical level.  Such

5276: an interaction represents a marginal perturbation.  Beyond the classical

5277: level, we will show in subsections \ref{asl} and \ref{screen} that, when there

5278: are many Dirac fermions, the $U(1)$ gauge interactions with Dirac fermions are

5279: exact marginal perturbations.  So the $U(1)$ states with enough gapless Dirac

5280: fermions are not unstable.  The mean-field theory can give us a good starting

5281: point to study the properties of the corresponding physical spin state (see

5282: subsection \ref{asl}).

5283: 

5284: \subsubsection{Non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux}

5285: 

5286: Third, we consider the situation where the $SU(2)$ flux is non-collinear.  In

5287: the above, we have shown that an $SU(2)$ flux $P_A$ can induce a mass term of

5288: form $\Tr([P_A, a_x^l\tau^l]^2)$. For a non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux

5289: configuration, we can have in \Eq{sl3a.6c} another $SU(2)$ flux, 

5290: %$P_A$ and 

5291: $P_B$, pointing in a different direction from $P_A$. The mass term will 

5292: %also 

5293: contain in addition to \Eq{sl3a.6d} a term $\Tr([P_B, a_x^l\tau^l]^2)$. In

5294: this case, the mass terms for all the $SU(2)$ gauge fields $(a^1_{\v i\v

5295: j})^2$, $(a^2_{\v i\v j})^2$, and $(a^3_{\v i\v j})^2$ will be generated.  All

5296: $SU(2)$ gauge bosons will gain an energy gap.  

5297: %Those gauge fluctuation can only generate short range interaction between

5298: %fermions.  The gauge interactions are irrelevant and the mean-field state

5299: %described by the ansatz will be a stable state.  

5300: 

5301: We note that ansatz $U_{\v i\v j}$ is always invariant under the global $Z_2$

5302: gauge transformation $-\tau^0$. So the IGG always contains a $Z_2$ subgroup

5303: and the $Z_2$ gauge structure is unbroken at low energies.  The global $Z_2$

5304: gauge transformation is the only invariance for the non-collinear ansatz. Thus

5305: IGG=$Z_2$ 

5306: %and the low energy gauge group is exactly $Z_2$.

5307: %Since the ansatz is invariant under a $Z_2$ transformation $W_{\v i}=-\tau^0$

5308: %but not other more general global $SU(2)$ gauge transformations (\ie

5309: %IGG=$Z_2$), the non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux break the $SU(2)$ gauge structure

5310: %down to a $Z_2$ gauge structure.  

5311: and the low energy effective theory is a $Z_2$ gauge theory.  

5312: %In sections \ref{trnANS} and \ref{sec:splq-3-5} we will study the low energy

5313: %properties of states with non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux. 

5314: We can show that the low energy properties of non-collinear states, such as

5315: the existence of $Z_2$ vortex and ground state degeneracy, are indeed

5316: identical to those of a $Z_2$ gauge theory. So we will call the state with

5317: non-collinear $SU(2)$ flux a $Z_2$ state.

5318: 

5319: In a $Z_2$ state, all the gauge fluctuations are gapped. Those fluctuations

5320: can only mediate short range interactions between fermions. The low energy

5321: fermions interact weakly and behave like free fermions. Therefore, including

5322: mean-field fluctuations does not qualitatively change the properties of the

5323: mean-field state. The gauge interactions are irrelevant and the $Z_2$

5324: mean-field state is stable at low energies.

5325: 

5326: A stable mean-field spin liquid state implies the existence of a real physical

5327: spin liquid. The physical properties of the stable mean-field state apply to

5328: the physical spin liquid. If we believe these two statements, then we can

5329: study the properties of a physical spin liquid by studying its corresponding

5330: stable mean-field state. Since the fermions are not confined in mean-field

5331: $Z_2$ states, the physical spin liquid derived from a mean-field $Z_2$ state

5332: contain neutral spin-1/2 fermions as its excitation. 

5333: %This is very striking result, after realizing that the spin model is a purely

5334: %bosonic model.

5335: 

5336: The $Z_2$-gapped ansatz in \Eq{Z2gA} is an example where the $SU(2)$ flux is

5337: non-collinear. To see this, let us consider the $SU(2)$ flux through two

5338: triangular loops $(\v i,\v i+\v y,\v i-\v x)$ and $(\v i,\v i+\v x,\v i+\v y)$

5339: with the same base point $\v i$:

5340: \begin{align*}

5341: U_{\v i,\v i+\v y} ~U_{\v i+\v y,\v i-\v x} ~U_{\v i-\v x,\v i} = 

5342:  -\chi^2 ( \eta\tau^1 +\la\tau^2 ),

5343: \nonumber\\ 

5344: U_{\v i,\v i+\v x} ~U_{\v i+\v x,\v i+\v y} ~U_{\v i+\v y,\v i} = 

5345:  -\chi^2 ( \eta\tau^1 -\la\tau^2 ).

5346: \end{align*}

5347: We see that when $\eta$ and $\la$ are non-zero, the $SU(2)$ flux is not

5348: collinear. Therefore, after projection, the $Z_2$-gapped ansatz give rise to a

5349: real physical spin liquid which contains fractionalized spin-1/2 neutral

5350: fermionic excitations \cite{Wsrvb}. The spin liquid also contains a $Z_2$

5351: vortex excitation.  The bound state of a spin-1/2 fermionic excitation and a

5352: $Z_2$ vortex give us a spin-1/2 bosonic excitation

5353: %Read and Chakraborty, 1989

5354: \cite{RC8933,Wsrvb}.

5355: 

5356: 

5357: %In this case $\Del_{\v i\v j}$ must be non-zero. Once the $SU(2)$ gauge

5358: %structure is broken, the infrared problems are well under control due to the

5359: %finite mass term.  In this case the low energy properties of the mean-field

5360: %theory and the corresponding spin liquid state can be reliably derived.

5361: 

5362: %In all the cases discussed above the infrared problem of the fermions with

5363: %the $SU(2)$ gauge interaction is resolved by opening energy gaps in gauge

5364: %fluctuations.  Due to those energy gaps the infrared behavior of the

5365: %mean-field theory is well under control. We can obtain the low energy

5366: %properties of the mean-field theory quite reliably. Because of the infrared

5367: %stability of the theory, those low energy properties are expected to be

5368: %robust against small perturbations.  Therefore it is reasonable to assume

5369: %that the low energy properties of the mean-field theory qualitatively

5370: %describe the low energy properties of the spin liquid state.  In the next

5371: %section, as an example, we will study a $T$ and $P$ symmetric spin liquid

5372: %state corresponding to the case B).

5373: 

5374: %Besides examining the $SU(2)$ flux, the gauge group of the (classical)

5375: %gapless gauge fluctuations can be determined by another more general method.

5376: %In the new method, we first calculate the invariant gauge group (IGG).  IGG

5377: %is a group formed by all the pure $SU(2)$ gauge transformations that leave

5378: %the mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, \v a_0(\v i))$ invariant.  It turns out

5379: %that %the gauge group of the gapless gauge fluctuations is nothing but the

5380: %IGG \cite{Wqoslpub}.  For ansatz with trivial, collinear, and non-collinear

5381: %$SU(2)$ flux, the IGG can be found to be $SU(2)$, $U(1)$, and $Z_2$

5382: %respectively. 

5383: 

5384: \subsection{The relation between different versions of slave-boson theory}

5385: 

5386: We have discussed two version of the slave-boson theories, the $U(1)$

5387: slave-boson theory and the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory.  In \Ref{SF0050}, a

5388: third slave-boson theory -- $Z_2$ slave-boson theory -- was also proposed.

5389: Here we would like to point out that all the three version of the slave-boson

5390: theory are \emph{equivalent} description of the same spin-1/2 Heisenberg model

5391: on square lattice, if we treat the $SU(2)$, $U(1)$ or $Z_2$ gauge fluctuations

5392: exactly.

5393: 

5394: To understand the relation between the three version of the slave-boson

5395: theory, we would like to point out that the $SU(2)$, $U(1)$ or $Z_2$ gauge

5396: structures are introduced to project the fermion Hilbert space (which has four

5397: states per site) to the smaller spin-1/2 Hilbert space (which has two states

5398: per site).  In the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, we regard the two fermions

5399: $\psi_{1\v i}$ and $\psi_{2\v i}$ as an $SU(2)$ doublet.  Among the four

5400: fermion-states on each site, $|0\>$, $\psi^\dag_{1\v i}|0\>$, $\psi^\dag_{2\v

5401: i}|0\>$, and $\psi^\dag_{1\v i}\psi^\dag_{2\v i}|0\>$, only the $SU(2)$

5402: invariant state correspond to the physical spin state.  There are only two

5403: $SU(2)$ invariant states on each site: $|0\>$ and $\psi^\dag_{1\v

5404: i}\psi^\dag_{2\v i}|0\>$ which correspond to the spin-up and the spin-down

5405: states.  So the spin-1/2 Hilbert space is obtained from the fermion Hilbert

5406: space by projecting onto the local $SU(2)$ singlet subspace.

5407: 

5408: In the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, we regard $\psi_{1\v i}$ as a charge $+1$

5409: fermion and $\psi_{2\v i}$ as a charge $-1$ fermion.  The spin-1/2 Hilbert

5410: space is obtained from the fermion Hilbert space by projecting onto the local

5411: charge neutral subspace.  Among the four fermion-states on each site, only two

5412: states $|0\>$ and $\psi^\dag_{1\v i}\psi^\dag_{2\v i}|0\>$ are charge neutral.

5413: % which correspond to the spin-up and the spin-down states.

5414: 

5415: In the $Z_2$ slave-boson theory, we regard $\psi_{a\v i}$ as a fermion that

5416: carries a unit $Z_2$-charge.  The spin-1/2 Hilbert space is obtained from the

5417: fermion Hilbert space by projecting onto the local $Z_2$-charge neutral

5418: subspace.  Again the two states $|0\>$ and $\psi^\dag_{1\v i}\psi^\dag_{2\v

5419: i}|0\>$ are the only $Z_2$-charge neutral states.

5420: 

5421: %So far 

5422: In the last subsection we discussed  $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ spin liquid

5423: states.  

5424: %We also discussed 

5425: These must not be confused with $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ slave-boson

5426: theories.  We would like to stress that $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ in the

5427: $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ spin liquid states  are gauge groups that appear in

5428: the low energy effective theories of those spin liquids. We will call those

5429: gauge group low energy gauge group.  They should not be confused with the

5430: $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ gauge groups in the $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$

5431: slave-boson theories.  

5432: %The later are so called  

5433: We will call the latter high energy gauge groups.

5434: %In addition to the above $Z_2$ spin liquids, in this paper we will also study

5435: %many other spin liquids with different low energy gauge structures, such as

5436: %$U(1)$ and $SU(2)$ gauge structures. We will use the terms $Z_2$ spin

5437: %liquids, $U(1)$ spin liquids, and $SU(2)$ spin liquids to describe them. We

5438: %would like to stress that $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ here are gauge groups

5439: %that appear in the low energy effective theories of those spin liquids. They

5440: %should not be confused with the $Z_2$, $U(1)$, and $SU(2)$ gauge group in

5441: %slave-boson approach or other theories of the projective construction. The

5442: %latter are high energy gauge groups. 

5443: The high energy gauge groups have nothing to do with the low energy gauge

5444: groups.

5445: %that appear in the low energy effective theories.  

5446: A high energy $Z_2$ gauge theory (or a $Z_2$ slave-boson approach) can have a

5447: low energy effective theory that contains $SU(2)$, $U(1)$ or $Z_2$ gauge

5448: fluctuations.  Even the Heisenberg model, which has no gauge structure at

5449: lattice scale, can have a low energy effective theory that contains $SU(2)$,

5450: $U(1)$ or $Z_2$ gauge fluctuations.  The spin liquids studied in this paper

5451: all contain some kind of low energy gauge fluctuations. Despite their

5452: different low energy gauge groups, all those spin liquids can be constructed

5453: from any one of $SU(2)$, $U(1)$, or $Z_2$ slave-boson approaches.  After all,

5454: all those slave-boson approaches describe the same Heisenberg model and are

5455: equivalent.

5456: 

5457: The high energy gauge group is related to the way in which we write down the

5458: Hamiltonian. We can write Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg model in many

5459: different ways which can contain arbitrary high energy gauge group of our

5460: choice. We just need to split the spin into two, four, six, or some other even

5461: numbers of fermions.  While the low energy gauge group is a property of ground

5462: state of the spin model. It has nothing to do with how are we going to write

5463: down the Hamiltonian.  

5464: %The Hamiltonian of a given system can be written in several forms, and

5465: %different forms may have different high energy gauge groups.

5466: Thus we should not regard $Z_2$ spin liquids as the spin liquids constructed

5467: using $Z_2$ slave-boson approach.  A $Z_2$ spin liquid can be constructed and

5468: was first constructed within the $U(1)$ or $SU(2)$ slave-boson/slave-fermion

5469: approaches.  

5470: %A precise mathematical definition of the low energy gauge group will be given

5471: %in section \ref{psg}.

5472: 	      However, when we study a particular spin liquid state, a certain

5473: version of the slave-boson theory may be more convenient than other versions.

5474: Although a spin liquid can be described by all the versions of the slave-boson

5475: theory, sometimes a particular version may have the weakest fluctuations. 

5476: 

5477: \subsection{The emergence of gauge bosons and fermions in condensed matter

5478: systems}

5479: 

5480: In the early days, it was believed that a pure boson system can never generate

5481: gauge bosons and fermions. Rather, the gauge bosons and the fermions were

5482: regarded as fundamental.   The spin liquids discussed in this paper suggest

5483: that gauge bosons (or gauge structures) and fermions are not fundamental and

5484: can emerge from local bosonic model. Here we will discuss how those ideas were

5485: developed historically.

5486: 

5487: Let us first consider gauge bosons.  In the standard picture of gauge theory,

5488: the gauge potential $a_\mu$ is viewed as a geometrical object -- a connection

5489: of a fibre bundle.  However, there is another point of view about the gauge

5490: theory.  Many thinkers in theoretical physics were not happy with the

5491: redundancy of the gauge potential $a_\mu$.  It was realized in the early

5492: 1970's that one can use gauge invariant loop operators to characterize

5493: different phases of a gauge theory 

5494: (\cit{W7159}; \cit{W7445}; \cit{KS7595}).  It was later

5495: found that one can formulate the entire gauge theory using closed strings

5496: (\cit{BMK7793}; \cit{GRV7978}; \cit{M7991}; \cit{P7947}; \cit{F7987}; \cit{S8053}). Those studies reveal the

5497: intimate relation between gauge theories and closed-string theories --- a

5498: point of view very different from the geometrical notion of vector potential.

5499: 

5500: In a related development, it was found that gauge fields can emerge from a

5501: local bosonic model, if the bosonic model is in certain quantum phases.  This

5502: phenomenon is also called dynamical generation of gauge fields.  The emergence

5503: of gauge fields from local bosonic models has a long and complicated history.

5504: Emergent $U(1)$ gauge \emph{field} has been introduced in quantum disordered

5505: phase of 1+1D $CP^N$ model \cite{DDL7863,W7985}. In condensed matter physics,

5506: the $U(1)$ gauge \emph{field} have been found in the slave-boson approach to

5507: spin liquid states 

5508: (\cit{BA8880}; \cit{AM8874}).  

5509: The slave-boson approach not only has a $U(1)$ gauge

5510: field, it also has gapless fermion \emph{fields}.

5511: 

5512: %Due to instanton effects, 

5513: It

5514: is well known that the compact $U(1)$ gauge theory is confining in $1+1$ and

5515: $1+2$D \cite{P7582}.  

5516: %The effect of the matter field (the fermions) was not clear, but 

5517: The concern about

5518: confinement  led to an opinion that the $U(1)$ gauge field and the gapless

5519: fermion fields are just a unphysical artifact of the ``unreliable''

5520: slave-boson approach.  Thus the key to find emergent gauge bosons and emergent

5521: fermions is not to write down a Lagrangian that contain \emph{gauge fields}

5522: and \emph{Fermi fields}, but to show that gauge \emph{bosons} and

5523: \emph{fermions} actually appear in the physical low energy spectrum.  

5524: % In fact, for any given physical system,  

5525: %we can use many different form of Lagrangian to describe it.  In particular,

5526: %we can alway design a Lagrangian which contains a gauge field of an arbitrary

5527: %choice to describes the system.  However, a gauge field in a Lagrangian may

5528: %not give rise to a gauge boson that appear as a low energy

5529: %\emph{quasiparticle}.  

5530: However, only when the dynamics of gauge field is such that the gauge field is

5531: in the deconfined phase can the gauge boson appear as a low energy

5532: quasiparticle.  Thus after the initial finding of \Ref{DDL7863}; \Ref{W7985};

5533: \Ref{BA8880}; \Ref{AM8874}, many researches have been trying to find the

5534: deconfined phase of the gauge field.

5535: 

5536: %In high energy physics, a 3+1D local bosonic model with emergent deconfined

5537: %$U(1)$ gauge bosons was constructed in \Ref{FNN8035}.  It was suggested that

5538: %light in nature may be emergent.  In condensed matter physics, 

5539: One way to obtain deconfined phase is to give gauge boson a mass.  In 1988, it

5540: was shown that if we break the time reversal symmetry in a 2D spin-1/2 model,

5541: then the $U(1)$ gauge field from the slave-boson approach can be in a

5542: deconfined phase due to the appearance of Chern-Simons term (\cit{WWZcsp};

5543: \cit{KW8983}). The deconfined phase correspond to a spin liquid state of the

5544: spin-1/2 model \cite{KL8795} which is called chiral spin liquid.  The chiral

5545: spin state contains neutral spin-1/2 excitations that carry fractional

5546: statistics.  A second deconfined phase was found by breaking the $U(1)$ or

5547: $SU(2)$ gauge structure down to a $Z_2$ gauge structure. Such a phase contains

5548: a deconfined $Z_2$ gauge theory \cite{RS9173,Wsrvb} 

5549: %The $Z_2$ gauge theory also describe a spin liquid state which 

5550: and is called $Z_2$ spin liquid (or short ranged RVB state).\footnote{The

5551: $Z_2$ state obtained in \Ref{RS9173} breaks the $90^\circ$ rotation symmetry

5552: while the $Z_2$ state in \Ref{Wsrvb} has all the lattice symmetries.} The

5553: $Z_2$ spin state also contains neutral spin-1/2 excitations.  But now the

5554: spin-1/2 excitations are fermions and bosons.  

5555: 

5556: The above $Z_2$ spin liquids have a finite energy gap for their neutral

5557: spin-1/2 excitations. In \Ref{BFN9833}, a spin liquid with gapless spin-1/2

5558: excitations was constructed by studying quantum disordered $d$-wave

5559: superconductor.  Such a spin liquid was identified as a $Z_2$ spin liquid

5560: using a $Z_2$ slave-boson theory \cite{SF0050}.  The mean-field ansatz is

5561: given by  

5562: %(Ivanov \& Senthil) 

5563: \begin{align}

5564: \label{Z2lCs}

5565: U_{\v i,\v i+{\v x}} &= \chi \tau^3 +\eta \tau^1, & 

5566: U_{\v i,\v i+{\v y}} &= \chi \tau^3 -\eta \tau^1,

5567: \\

5568: a_0^3 \neq &0,  \ \ \ \ a^{1,2}_0=0,  

5569: &

5570: U_{\v i,\v i+{\v x}+\v y} &= 

5571: U_{\v i,\v i+{\v x}-\v y} = \ga \tau^3.

5572: \nonumber 

5573: \end{align}

5574: The diagonal hopping breaks particle-hole symmetry and breaks the $U(1)$

5575: symmetry of the $a^3_0=0$ $d$-wave pairing ansatz down to $Z_2$.  We will call

5576: such an ansatz $Z_2$-gapless ansatz.

5577: %(which was first written down in \Ref{KL8842}).  

5578: The ansatz describes a symmetric spin liquid, since it is invariant under the

5579: combined transformations $(G_{T_x}T_x, G_{T_y}T_{y},

5580: G_{P_x}P_x, G_{P_y}P_y, G_{P_{xy}}P_{xy}, G_0) $ with

5581: \begin{align}

5582: \label{GsZ2lCs}

5583:  G_{T_x}=&\tau^0, &

5584:  G_{T_y}=&\tau^0, &

5585:  G_0=&-\tau^0, \nonumber\\

5586:  G_{P_x}=&\tau^0, &

5587:  G_{P_y}=&\tau^0, &

5588:  G_{P_{xy}}=&i\tau^3 .

5589: \end{align}

5590: The fermion excitations are gapless only at four $\v k$ points with a linear

5591: dispersion.  

5592: 

5593: The $Z_2$-gapped state and the $Z_2$-gapless state are just two $Z_2$ states

5594: among over 100 $Z_2$ states that can be constructed within the $SU(2)$

5595: slave-boson theory \cite{Wqoslpub}.  The chiral spin liquid and the $Z_2$ spin

5596: liquids provide examples of emergent gauge structure and emergent fermions (or

5597: anyons).  However, those results were obtained using slave-boson theory, which

5598: is not very convincing to many people. 

5599: 

5600: In 1997, an exact soluble spin-1/2 model \cite{K032}

5601: \begin{equation*}

5602:  H_\text{exact}=16g \sum_{\v i} S^y_{\v i} S^x_{\v i+\hat{\v x}} S^y_{\v

5603: i+\hat{\v x}+\hat{\v y}} S^x_{\v i+\hat{\v y}}

5604: \end{equation*}

5605: was found. The $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory turns out to be exact for such a model

5606: \cite{Wqoexct}. That is by choosing a proper $SU(2)$ mean-field ansatz, the

5607: corresponding mean-field state give rise to an exact eigenstate of $H_\text{exact}$

5608: after the projection. In fact all the eigenstates of $H_\text{exact}$ can be

5609: obtained this way by choosing different mean-field ansatz.  The exact solution

5610: allows us to show the excitations of $H_\text{exact}$ to be fermions and $Z_2$

5611: vortices. This confirms the results obtained from the slave-boson theory.

5612: 

5613: %which confirms the results obtained form the salve-boson theory

5614: %\cite{Wqoexct}.  

5615: %Since the spin-1/2 model does not have the spin rotation

5616: %symmetry, the corresponding $SU(2)$ slave-boson mean-field Hamiltonian has a

5617: %more general form

5618: %\begin{equation}

5619: %\label{HmeanExct}

5620: % H_\text{mean}=

5621: %\sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} \left(

5622: %\psi^\dag_{a,\v i} u_{\v i\v j}^{ab} \psi_{b,\v j}

5623: %+\psi^\dag_{a,\v i} w_{\v i\v j}^{ab} \psi^\dag_{b,\v j}

5624: %+h.c. \right)

5625: %\end{equation}

5626: %where $a,b=1,2$.  We will use $u_{\v i\v j}$ and $w_{\v i\v j}$ to

5627: %denote the $2\times 2$ complex matrices whose elements are $u_{\v i\v

5628: %j}^{ab}$ and $w_{\v i\v j}^{ab}$. 

5629: %If we choose the mean-field ansatz to be

5630: %\begin{align}

5631: %\label{suw}

5632: %-w_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v x}} =&  u_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v x}}

5633: %=-is_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v x}} (1+\tau^3), 

5634: %\nonumber\\

5635: %-w_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v y}} =&  u_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v y}}

5636: %=-is_{\v i,\v i+\hat{\v y}} (1-\tau^3)

5637: %\end{align}

5638: %where $s_{\v i\v j}=\pm 1$, then the ground state of $H_\text{mean}$ will give rise

5639: %to an exact eigenstate of $H_\text{exact}$ after the projection. The eigenvalue is

5640: %$g\sum s_{\v i,\v i+\v x} s_{\v i+\v x,\v i+\v x+\v y} s_{\v i+\v x+\v y,\v

5641: %i+\v y} s_{\v i+\v y,\v i} $. By choosing different signs of $s_{\v i\v j}$ on

5642: %different links we can obtain all the exact eigenstates of $H_\text{exact}$.  The

5643: %ground state of $H_\text{exact}$ is a $Z_2$ state since $s_{\v i\v j}$ is a

5644: %many-to-one label of the physical spin states. Two ansatz $s_{\v i\v j}$ and

5645: %$\t s_{\v i\v j}$ differ by a $Z_2$ gauge transformation $\t s_{\v i\v

5646: %j}=G_{\v i} s_{\v i\v j}G_{\v j}$, $G_{\v i}=\pm 1$, give rise to the same

5647: %spin state after the projection. 

5648: 

5649: More exactly soluble or quasi-exactly soluble models were find for dimmer

5650: model \cite{MS0181}, spin-1/2 model on Kagome lattice \cite{BFG0212}, boson

5651: model on square lattice \cite{SM0204}, and Josephson junction array

5652: \cite{IFI0203}.  A model of electrons coupled to pairing fluctuations, with a

5653: local constraint which results in a Mott insulator  that obeys the spin

5654: $SU(2)$, symmetry was also constructed \cite{MS0204}.  Those models realize

5655: the $Z_2$ states.  A boson model that realize $Z_3$ gauge structure

5656: \cite{M0308} and $U(1)$ gauge structure \cite{SM0204,Walight} were also found.

5657: 15 years after the slave-boson approach to the spin liquids, now it is easy to

5658: construct (quasi-)exactly soluble spin/boson models that have emergent gauge

5659: bosons and fermions.

5660: 

5661: We would like to point out that the spin liquids are not the first example of

5662: emergent fermions from local bosonic models.  The first example of emergent

5663: fermions, or more generally, emergent anyons is given by the FQH states.

5664: Although \Ref{ASW8422} only discussed how anyons can emerge from a fermion

5665: system in magnetic field, the same argument can be easily generalized to show

5666: how fermions and anyons  can emerge from a boson system in magnetic field.

5667: Also in 1987, in a study of resonating-valence-bond (RVB) states, emergent

5668: fermions (the spinons) were proposed in a nearest neighbor dimer model on

5669: square lattice (\cit{KRS8765}; \cit{RK8876}; \cit{RC8933}). But, according to

5670: the deconfinement picture, the results in \Ref{KRS8765} and \Ref{RK8876} 

5671: are valid only

5672: when the ground state of the dimer model is in the $Z_2$ deconfined phase. It

5673: appears that the dimer liquid on square lattice with only nearest neighbor

5674: dimers is not a deconfined state (\cit{RK8876}; \cit{RC8933}), and thus it is

5675: not clear if the nearest neighbor dimer model on square lattice \cite{RK8876}

5676: has the deconfined quasiparticles or not \cite{RC8933}.  However, on

5677: triangular lattice, the dimer liquid is indeed a $Z_2$ deconfined state

5678: \cite{MS0181}.  Therefore, the results in \Ref{KRS8765} and \Ref{RK8876} are valid for

5679: the triangular-lattice dimer model and deconfined quasiparticles do emerge in

5680: a dimer liquid on triangular lattice.  

5681: 

5682: All the above models with emergent fermions are 2D models, where the emergent

5683: fermions can be understood from binding flux to a charged particle

5684: \cite{ASW8422}. Recently, it was pointed out in \Ref{LWsta} that the key to

5685: emergent fermions is a string structure. Fermions can generally appear as ends

5686: of open strings in any dimensions, if the ground state has a condensation of

5687: closed strings. The string picture allows a construction of a 3D local bosonic

5688: model that has emergent fermions \cite{LWsta}.  According to this picture, all

5689: the models with emergent fermions contain closed-string condensation in their

5690: ground states.  Since the fluctuations of condensed closed strings are gauge

5691: fluctuations \cite{BMK7793,S8053,Walight}, this explains why the model with

5692: emergent fermions also have emergent gauge structures. Since the gauge charges

5693: are ends of open strings, this also explains why the emergent fermions always

5694: carry gauge charges.

5695: 

5696: The second way to obtain deconfined phase is to simply go to higher

5697: dimensions.  In 3+1 dimension, the gapless $U(1)$ fluctuations do not generate

5698: confining interactions. In 4+1 dimensions and above, even non-Abelian gauge

5699: theory can be in a deconfined phase.  So it is not surprising that one can

5700: construct bosonic models on cubic lattice that have emergent gapless photons

5701: ($U(1)$ gauge bosons) (\cit{Wlight}; \cit{MS0204}; \cit{Walight}).  

5702: 

5703: The third way to obtain deconfined phase is to include  gapless excitations

5704: which carry gauge charge. The charged gapless excitations can screen the gauge

5705: interaction to make it less confining.  We would like to remark that the

5706: deconfinement in this case has a different behavior than the previous two

5707: cases.  In the previous two cases, the charged particles in the deconfined

5708: phases become non-interacting quasiparticles at low energies.  In the present

5709: case, the deconfinement only means that those gapless charged particles remain

5710: to be gapless.  Those particles may not become non-interacting quasiparticles

5711: at low energies.  The spin liquids obtained from the sfL ansatz and the uRVB

5712: ansatz (given by \Eq{sF} with $\Del=0$) belong to this case. Those spin liquid

5713: are gapless.  But the gapless excitations are not described by free fermionic

5714: quasiparticles or free bosonic quasiparticles at low energies.  The uRVB state

5715: (upon doping) leads to strange metal states \cite{LN9221} with large Fermi

5716: surface. We will discuss the spin liquid obtained from the sfL ansatz in

5717: subsections \ref{asl} and \ref{screen}.

5718: 

5719: Finally, we remark that what is common among these three ways to get

5720: deconfinement is that instantons are irrelevant and a certain gauge flux is a

5721: conserved quantity.  We shall exploit this property in section XII.E.

5722: 

5723: \subsection{The projective symmetry group and quantum order}

5724: 

5725: The $Z_2$-gapped ansatz \Eq{Z2gA} and the $Z_2$-gapless ansatz \Eq{Z2lCs},

5726: after the projection, give rise to two spin liquid states. The two states have

5727: exactly the same symmetry. The question here is that whether there is a

5728: way to classify these as distinct phases.   According to Landau's symmetry

5729: breaking theory, two states with the same symmetry belong to the same phase.

5730: However, after the discovery of fractional quantum Hall states, we now know

5731: that Landau's symmetry breaking theory does not describe all the phases.

5732: Different quantum Hall states have the same symmetry, but yet they can belong

5733: to different phases since they contain different topological orders

5734: \cite{Wtoprev}. So it is possible that the two $Z_2$ spin liquids contain

5735: different orders that cannot be characterized by symmetry breaking and local

5736: order parameters. The issue here is to find a new set of universal quantum

5737: numbers that characterize the new orders.

5738: 

5739: To find a new set of universal quantum numbers, we note that although 

5740: the projected wavefunctions of the two

5741: $Z_2$ spin liquids have the same symmetry, their ansatz are invariant under

5742: the same set of symmetry transformations but followed by different gauge transformations (see

5743: \Eq{GsZ2gA} and \Eq{GsZ2lCs}). So the invariant group of the mean-field ansatz

5744: for the two spin liquids are different. The invariant group is called the

5745: Projective Symmetry Group (PSG).  The PSG is generated by the combined

5746: transformations $(G_{T_x}T_x, G_{T_y}T_y, G_{P_x}P_x, G_{P_y}P_y,

5747: G_{P_{xy}}P_{xy}) $ and $G_0$.  We note that the PSG is the symmetry group of

5748: the mean-field Hamiltonian.  Since the mean-field fluctuations in the $Z_2$

5749: states are weak and perturbative in nature, those fluctuations cannot change

5750: the symmetry group of the mean-field theory. Therefore, the PSG of an ansatz

5751: is a universal property, at least against perturbative fluctuations.  The PSG

5752: can be used to characterize the new order in the two $Z_2$ spin liquids

5753: \cite{Wqoslpub}. Such order is called the quantum order.  The two $Z_2$ spin

5754: liquids belong to two different phases since they have different PSG's and

5755: hence different quantum orders.

5756: 

5757: We know that the symmetry characterization of phases (or orders) have some

5758: important applications. It allows us to classify all the 230 crystal orders in

5759: three dimensions. The symmetry also produces and protects gapless collective

5760: excitations -- the Nambu-Goldstone bosons.  The PSG characterization of

5761: quantum orders has similar applications.  Using PSG, we can classify over 100

5762: different 2D $Z_2$ spin liquids that all have the same symmetry

5763: \cite{Wqoslpub}.  Just like the symmetry group, PSG can also produce and

5764: protect gapless excitations.  However, unlike the symmetry group, PSG can

5765: produce and protects gapless gauge bosons and fermions

5766: \cite{Wqoslpub,Wlight,WZqoind}. 

5767: 

5768: \section{ $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory of doped Mott insulators}

5769: 

5770: %The $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory can explain many highly unusual properties of

5771: %high $T_c$ superconductors.  However, 

5772: In order to apply the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory to high $T_c$ superconductors

5773: we need to first generalize the $SU(2)$ slave-boson to the case with finite

5774: doping.  Then we will discuss how to use the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory to

5775: explain some of those properties in detail.

5776: 

5777: \subsection{$SU(2)$ slave-boson theory at finite doping}

5778: 

5779: The $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory can be generalized to describe doped spin

5780: liquids (\cit{WLsu2}; \cit{LNNWsu2}).  The generalized  $SU(2)$ slave-boson

5781: theory involves two $SU(2)$ doublets $\psi_{\v i}$ and $h_{\v i} = \left

5782: ({b_{1\v i}\atop b_{2\v i}}\right) $.  Here $b_{1\v i}$ and $b_{2\v i}$ are

5783: two spin-0 boson fields.  The additional boson fields allow us to form $SU(2)$

5784: singlet to represent the electron operator $c_{\v i}$:

5785: \begin{align}

5786: \label{cpsib}

5787: c_{\up\v i} 

5788: =& {1\over \sqrt 2} h^\dagger_{\v i}\psi_{\v i}

5789: = {1\over \sqrt 2} \left (b^\dagger_{1\v i} f_{\up\v i}

5790: + b^\dagger_{2\v i}f^\dagger_{\down\v i}\right ) 

5791: \nonumber\\

5792: c_{\down\v i}  

5793: =& {1\over \sqrt 2} h^\dagger_{\v i} \bar \psi_{\v i}

5794: = {1\over \sqrt 2} \left ( b^\dagger_{1\v i}f_{\down\v i}

5795: - b^\dagger_{2\v i}f^\dagger_{\up\v i}\right ) 

5796: \end{align}

5797: where $\bar \psi = i\tau^2 \psi^*$ which is also an $SU(2)$ doublet.  The

5798: $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian 

5799: \begin{align*}

5800: H_{tJ}=\sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} \left [ J \left (\v S_{\v i}\cdot \v S_{\v j}

5801: - {1\over 4} n_{\v i} n_{\v j} \right ) -t(c^\dagger_{\alpha \v i} c_{\alpha \v j} + h.c.)

5802: \right ]

5803: \end{align*}

5804: can now be written in terms of our fermion-boson fields.  The Hilbert space of

5805: the fermion-boson system is larger than that of the $t$-$J$ model.  However,

5806: the local $SU(2)$ singlets satisfying $\left ( \psi^\dagger_{\v i} \v\tau

5807: \psi_{\v i} + h^\dagger_{\v i} \v\tau h_{\v i} \right ) |{\rm phys} \rangle =

5808: 0$ form a subspace that is identical to the Hilbert space of the $t$-$J$

5809: model.  On a given site, there are only three states that satisfy the above

5810: constraint.  They are $f^\dagger_1 |0\rangle$, $f^\dagger_2 |0\rangle$, and

5811: ${1\over \sqrt 2} \left (b^\dagger_1 + b^\dagger_2 f^\dagger_2 f^\dagger_1

5812: \right ) |0\rangle$ corresponding to a spin up and down electron, and a

5813: vacancy respectively.  Furthermore, the fermion-boson Hamiltonian $H_{tJ}$, as

5814: a $SU(2)$ singlet operator, acts within the subspace, and has same matrix

5815: elements as the $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian.

5816: 

5817:  

5818:  We note that just as in eq.~(\ref{Eq.36}), our treatment of the ${1\over 4}

5819: n_{\v i}n_{\v j}$ term introduces a nearest neighbor boson attraction term which we

5820: shall ignore from now on.\footnote{

5821: %Lee and Salk (2001)

5822: \Ref{LS0101} have introduced a

5823: slightly different formulation where the combination $\left( \v{S}_{\v i}\cdot

5824: \v{S}_{\v j} - {1\over 4} n_{\v i}n_{\v j} \right)$ is written as $

5825: - {1 \over 2} \left | \left( f_{\v i\up}^\dagger f_{\v j\down}^\dagger -

5826:   f_{\v i\down}^\dagger f_{\v j\up}^\dagger \right) \right |^2 (1 - h_{\v i}^\dagger h_{\v i})

5827: (1 - h_{\v j}^\dagger h_{\v j}) $.  The last two factors are the boson projections which

5828: are needed to take care of the case when both sites $i$ and $j$ are occupied

5829: by holes.  While the formulations are equivalent, the mean field phase diagram

5830: is a bit different in that a nearest-neighbor attraction term may lead to

5831: boson pairing.  The competition between boson condensation and boson pairing

5832: needs further studies but we will proceed without the boson interaction term.}

5833: %From Lee & Nagaosa insert A

5834: Now the partition function $Z$ is given by

5835: \begin{equation*}

5836: Z = \int D\psi D\psi^\dagger DhDa^1_0Da^2_0Da^3_0D U\exp

5837: \left(

5838: -\int^\beta_0 d\tau L_2

5839: \right)

5840: \end{equation*}

5841: with the Lagrangian taking the form

5842: \be

5843: \label{128}

5844: L_2 &=& \tilde{J} \sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} \Tr \left[ U_{\v i\v j}^\dagger

5845: U_{\v i\v j} \right] + \tilde{J} 

5846:  \sum_{<\v i\v j>} \left( \psi_{\v i}^\dagger

5847: U_{\v i\v j} \psi_{\v j} +

5848: c.c. \right) \nonumber \\

5849: &+& \sum_{\v i} \psi_{\v i}^\dagger \left(

5850: \partial_\tau - ia_{0\v i}^\ell \tau^\ell \right) \psi_{\v i} \nonumber \\

5851: &+& \sum_{\v i} h_{\v i}^\dagger \left(

5852: \partial_\tau - ia_{0\v i}^\ell \tau^\ell + \mu \right) h_{\v i} \nonumber \\

5853: &-& {1\over 2}\sum_{\<\v i\v j\>} t_{\v i\v j} 

5854: \left(

5855: \psi_{\v i}^\dagger

5856: h_{\v i}h_{\v j}^\dagger

5857:  \psi_{\v j} + c.c.

5858: \right)

5859: \,\,\, . \nonumber \\

5860: \en

5861: %end Lee & Nagaosa insert A

5862: 

5863: Following the standard approach with the choice $\tilde{J} = {3\over 8} J$, we

5864: obtain the following mean-field Hamiltonian

5865: %\cite{UL9453}  

5866: for the fermion-boson system, which is an extension of \Eq{sl2a.8} to the

5867: doped case:

5868: \begin{align}

5869: \label{5}

5870: H_\text{mean} =& \sum_{\<\v i \v j\>} \frac{3}{8}

5871:  J \left[ 

5872: \frac12 \Tr (U_{\v i \v j}^\dag~U_{\v i \v j}) +(\psi^\dag_ i

5873: U_{\v i \v j}

5874: \psi_ j +~h.c.)

5875: \right]  

5876: \nonumber\\

5877: &-{1\over 2}\sum_{\<\v i \v j\>} t (h^\dagger_{\v i} U_{\v i\v j} h_{\v j} + {\rm h.c.} )

5878: \nonumber\\

5879: &

5880: - \mu \sum_{\v i} h^\dagger_{\v i}h_{\v i}  

5881: +\sum_{\v i}  a_0^l (

5882: \psi_{\v i}^\dag \tau^l \psi_{\v i} 

5883: +h_{\v i}^\dag \tau^l h_{\v i} )

5884: \end{align}

5885: The value of the chemical potential $\mu$ is chosen such that the total boson

5886: density (which is also the density of the holes in the $t$-$J$ model) is

5887: \begin{equation*}

5888: \langle h^\dagger_{\v i} h_{\v i}\rangle =

5889: \langle b^\dagger_{1\v i} b_{1\v i} +  b^\dagger_{2\v i} b_{2\v i}\rangle = x.  

5890: \end{equation*}

5891: The values of $a^l_{0}(\v i)$ are chosen such that 

5892: \begin{equation*}

5893: \langle \psi^\dagger_{\v i} \tau^l \psi_{\v i} +

5894: h^\dagger_{\v i} \tau^l h_{\v i}\rangle = 0.

5895: \end{equation*}

5896: For $l = 3$ we have

5897: \begin{equation}

5898: \langle f^\dagger_{\alpha\v i} f_{\alpha\v i} +

5899: b^\dagger_{1\v i} b_{1\v i} - b^\dagger_{2\v i} b_{2\v i}\rangle = 1 \label{6}

5900: \end{equation}

5901: We see that unlike the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, the density of the fermion

5902: $\langle f^\dagger_{\alpha \v i} f_{\alpha \v i}\rangle$ is not necessarily

5903: equal $1 - x$.  This is because a vacancy in the $t$-$J$ model may be

5904: represented by an empty site with a $b_1$ boson, or a doubly occupied site

5905: with a $b_2$ boson.  

5906: 

5907: %We also notice that the mean-field  Hamiltonian is invariant under local

5908: %$SU(2)$ transformations, $W_{\v i} \in SU(2)$: $\psi_{\alpha \v i} \to W_{\v

5909: %i} \psi_{\alpha \v i}$, $b_{\v i} \to W_{\v i}b_{\v i}$, $U_{\v i\v j} \to W_{\v i}

5910: %U_{\v i\v j}W^\dagger_{\v j}$, and $a^l_{0\v i}\tau^l \to W_{\v i} a^l_{0\v i} \tau^l

5911: %W_{\v i}^\dagger$.

5912: 

5913: \subsection{ The mean-field phase diagram}

5914: 

5915: To obtain the mean-field phase diagram, we have searched the minima of the

5916: mean-field  free energy for the mean-field ansatz with translation, lattice

5917: and spin rotation symmetries.  We find a phase diagram with six different

5918: phases (see Fig. \ref{su2phase}) \cite{WLsu2}.

5919: 

5920: {(1)}  The $d$-wave superconducting (SC) phase is described by the following

5921: mean-field ansatz

5922: \begin{align}

5923: \label{dSC}

5924: U_{\v i, \v i+ \hat x} = & -\chi\tau^3 + \Delta\tau^1, \nonumber\\

5925: U_{\v i, \v i+ \hat y} = & -\chi\tau^3 - \Delta\tau^1,

5926: \nonumber\\

5927: a^3_{0}  \neq & 0,\ \ \ \ \ \

5928: a^{1,2}_{0}  =  0,

5929: \nonumber\\

5930: \langle b_1\rangle \ne & 0 ,\ \ \ \ \ \ 

5931: \langle b_2\rangle = 0.

5932: \end{align}

5933: Notice that the boson condenses in the SC phase despite the fact that in our

5934: mean-field  theory the interactions between the bosons are ignored.  

5935: %The SC

5936: %mean-field  solution provides an interesting example of finite-temperature

5937: %free boson condensation in two dimensions.

5938: %%To understand this phenomenon, 

5939: %To see this, notice that the $a^3_0$ term in the mean-field Hamiltonian

5940: %%\begin{equation}

5941: %$\sum_{\v i} a^3_0 \left ( f^\dagger_{\alpha \v i} f_{\alpha \v i} +

5942: %b^\dagger_{1\v i} b_{1\v i} - b^\dagger_{2\v i} b_{2\v i} - 1 \right ) $

5943: %%\label{11} \end{equation} Thus $a^3_0$ is 

5944: %makes $a^3_0$ behaves like the chemical potential of the fermions.  The

5945: %fermions contribute a term $-(a^3_0 )^2$ to the free energy and favor a

5946: %non-zero $a^3_0$.  Let us assume $a^3_0 > 0$, which makes $\langle

5947: %f^\dagger_{\alpha \v i} f_{\alpha \v i}\rangle < 1$.  

5948: %%From \ref{11} we also see that 

5949: %A positive $a^3_0$ also makes the $b_1$-band bottom to be higher than that of

5950: %$b_2$, and the thermally excited bosons satisfy $ \langle b^\dagger_1

5951: %b_1\rangle_{therm} < \langle b^\dagger_2 b_2\rangle_{therm}$.  Thus the

5952: %thermally excited bosons alone cannot satisfy the constraint in  eq.~(\ref{6}).

5953: %The $b_1$ boson are forced to condense at the bottom of the $b_1$ band to

5954: %satisfy the constraint, in the same way that ordinary boson condense to

5955: %satisfy the density constraint.

5956: %%Despite the fact that the bosons condense into a higher energy state,

5957: %Due to the fermion contribution, the total free energy can still be lowered by

5958: %generating a finite $a^3_0$ at low temperatures.  

5959: In the SC phase, the fermion and boson dispersion are given by $\pm E_f$ and

5960: $\pm E_b-\mu$, where

5961: \begin{align}

5962: \label{EfEb}

5963: E_f = & \sqrt{(\epsilon_f+a_0^3)^2 + \eta^{2}_f},  \nonumber\\

5964: \epsilon_f  =& -{3J\over 4} (\cos k_x + \cos k_y ) \chi,  \nonumber\\ 

5965: \eta_f  =& -{3J\over 4} (\cos k_x - \cos k_y ) \Delta,  \nonumber\\

5966: E_b = & \sqrt{(\epsilon_b+a_0^3)^2 + \eta^{2}_b},  \nonumber\\

5967: \epsilon_b  =& -2t (\cos k_x + \cos k_y ) \chi,  \nonumber\\ 

5968: \eta_b  =& -2t (\cos k_x - \cos k_y ) \Delta.

5969: \end{align} 

5970: 

5971: 

5972: \begin{figure}

5973: \centerline{

5974: \includegraphics[width=3in]{su2phase.eps}

5975: }

5976: \caption{

5977: $SU(2)$ mean-field  phase diagram for $t/J=1$. The phase diagram for $t/J=2$

5978: is quantitatively very similar to the $t/J=1$ phase diagram, when

5979: plotted in terms of the scaled variable $xt/J$, except the

5980: $\pi$fL phase disappears at a lower scaled doping concentration.

5981: We also plotted the Fermi surface, the Fermi arcs, or the Fermi points in some

5982: phases. \cite{WLsu2} 

5983: }

5984: \label{su2phase}

5985: \end{figure}

5986: 

5987: {(2)}  The Fermi liquid (FL) phase is similar to the SC phase except that

5988: there is no fermion pairing ($\Delta = 0$).

5989: 

5990: {(3)} Staggered flux liquid (sfL) phase:

5991: \begin{align}

5992: \label{sFans}

5993: U_{\v i, i + \hat x} & = - \tau^3 \chi - i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

5994: \nonumber\\

5995: U_{\v i, i + \hat y} & = - \tau^3 \chi + i (-)^{\v i} \Delta ,

5996: \nonumber\\

5997: a^l_{0}  = & 0, \ \ \ \ \ \ 

5998: \langle b_{1,2}\rangle = 0.

5999: \end{align}

6000: %The flux through each plaquette $\Pi \chi_{\v i\v j} = e^{i\Phi}$ is $\Phi = \pm

6001: %4\arctg \left ( {\Delta\over\chi} \right )$.

6002: The $U$ matrix is the same as that of the staggered flux phase in the $U(1)$

6003: slave-boson theory, which breaks transition symmetry.  Here the breaking of

6004: translational invariance is a gauge artifact.  In fact, a site dependent

6005: $SU(2)$ gauge transformation $W_{\v i} = e^{-i\pi\tau^1/4} e^{-i\pi (i_x + i_y

6006: ) (\tau^1/2+1)}$ maps the sfL ansatz to the $d$-wave pairing ansatz:

6007: \begin{align}

6008: \label{8}

6009: U_{\v i, \v i+ \hat x} = & -\chi\tau^3 + \Delta\tau^1, \nonumber\\

6010: U_{\v i, \v i+ \hat y} = & -\chi\tau^3 - \Delta\tau^1,

6011: \nonumber\\

6012: a^l_{0}  = & 0, \ \ \ \ \ \ 

6013: \langle b_{1,2}\rangle = 0.

6014: \end{align}

6015: which is explicitly translation invariant.  However, the staggered flux

6016: representation of eq.~(\ref{sFans}) is more convenient because the gauge

6017: symmetry is immediately apparent.  Since this $U$ matrix commutes with

6018: $\tau^3$, it is clearly invariant under $\tau^3$ rotation, but not $\tau^1$

6019: and $\tau^2$, and the gauge symmetry has been broken from $SU(2)$ down to

6020: $U(1)$, following the discussion in section X.F.  For this reason we shall

6021: refer to this state as the staggered flux liquid (sfL).

6022: 

6023: In the sfL phase, the fermion and boson dispersion are still given by $\pm

6024: E_f$ and $\pm E_b-\mu$ with $E_f$ and $E_b$ in \Eq{EfEb}, but now $a_0^3=0$.

6025: Since $a^3_0 = 0$ we have $\langle f^\dagger_{\alpha \v i} f_{\alpha \v i}

6026: \rangle = 1$ and $\langle b^\dagger_1b_1\rangle = \langle

6027: b^\dagger_2b_2\rangle = {x\over 2}$. 

6028: 

6029: {(4)}  The $\pi$-flux liquid ($\pi$fL) phase is the same as the sfL phase

6030: except here $\chi = \Delta$.

6031: 

6032: {(5)}  The uniform RVB (uRVB) phase is described by eq. (\ref{sFans}) with

6033: $\Delta = 0$.

6034: 

6035: {(6)}  A localized spin (LS) phase has $U_{\v i\v j} = 0$ and $a^l_{0\v i} = 0$, where

6036: the fermions cannot hop.

6037: % and have zero band width.

6038: 

6039: 

6040: 

6041: %\begin{figure}

6042: %\centerline{

6043: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{su2f2.eps}

6044: %}

6045: %\caption{

6046: %(a) The electron spectral function Im$G_U$ in the sF phase for

6047: % $t/J=2$, $x=0.041$, $T/J=0.13$, where

6048: %$\chi=0.57$ and $\Delta=0.22$.

6049: %The sharp peaks near $\omega=0$ are quasi-particle peaks.

6050: %The insert shows a quarter of the Brillouin

6051: %zone.\hfil\break

6052: %(b)

6053: %The spectral functions Im$G_U$

6054: %for three linear scans along the line A, B, and C in the insert.

6055: %}

6056: %\label{fig2}

6057: %\end{figure}

6058: 

6059: \subsection{Simple properties of the mean-field  phases}

6060: 

6061: %In the following we would like to discuss some simple physical properties of

6062: %the mean-field  phases.  

6063: Note that the topology of the phase diagram is similar to that of $U(1)$ mean

6064: field theory shown in Fig.~\ref{U1}.  The uRVB, sfL, $\pi$fL and LS phases

6065: contain no boson condensation and correspond to unusual metallic states.  

6066: %Since $a^3_0 = 0$, the area of the fermion Fermi sea in the uRVB phase is

6067: %pinned at ${1\over 2}$ of the Brillouin zone.  

6068: As temperature is lowered, the uRVB phase changes into the sfL or $\pi$fL

6069: phases.  A gap is opened at the Fermi surface near $(\pi,0)$ which reduces the

6070: low energy spin excitations.  Thus the sfL and $\pi$fL phases correspond to

6071: the pseudo-gap phase.  

6072: 

6073: The FL phase contains boson condensation.  In this case the electron Green's

6074: function $\<c^\dag c\>=\<(\psi^\dag h)(h^\dag \psi)\>$ is proportional to the

6075: fermion Green's function $\<\psi^\dag\psi\>$.  Thus the electron spectral

6076: function contain $\del$-function peak in the FL phase.  Therefore, the low

6077: energy excitations in the FL phase are described by electron-like

6078: quasiparticles and the FL phase corresponds to a Fermi liquid phase of

6079: electrons. 

6080: 

6081: The SC phase contains both the boson and the fermion-pair condensations and

6082: corresponds to a $d$-wave superconducting state of the electrons.  Just like

6083: the $U(1)$ slave-boson theory, the superfluid density is given by

6084: $\rho_s=\frac{\rho_s^b \rho_s^f}{ \rho_s^b +\rho_s^f}$ where $\rho_s^b$ and

6085: $\rho_s^f$ are the superfluid density of the bosons and the condensed

6086: fermion-pairs, respectively. We see that in the low doping limit, $\rho_s \sim

6087: x$ and one need the condensation of both the bosons and the fermion-pairs to

6088: get a superconducting state.  

6089: 

6090: We would like to point out that the different mean-field  phases contain

6091: different gapless gauge fluctuations at classical level. \ie the gauge groups

6092: for gapless gauge fluctuations are different in different mean-field phases.

6093: The uRVB and the $\pi$fL phases have trivial $SU(2)$ flux and the gapless

6094: gauge fluctuations are $SU(2)$ gauge fluctuations.

6095: %  We can choose a gauge such that $U_{\v i\v j}$ is

6096: %proportional to an identity $2 \times 2$ matrix.  

6097: In the sfL phase, the collinear $SU(2)$ flux break the $SU(2)$ gauge structure

6098: to a $U(1)$ gauge structure.  In this case the gapless gauge fluctuations are

6099: $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations.  In the SC and FL phases, $\langle b_a\rangle \neq

6100: 0$. Since $b_a$ transform as a $SU(2)$ doublet, there is no pure $SU(2)$ gauge

6101: transformation that leave mean-field ansatz $(U_{\v i\v j}, a^l_0, b_a)$

6102: invariant. Thus the invariant gauge group (IGG) is trivial.  As a result, the

6103: $SU(2)$ gauge structure is completely broken and there is no low energy gauge

6104: fluctuations.

6105: 

6106: 

6107: \subsection{Effect of gauge fluctuations: enhanced $(\pi,\pi)$ spin

6108: fluctuations in pseudo-gap phase} \label{asl}

6109: 

6110: The pseudo-gap phase has a very puzzling property which seems hard to explain.

6111: As the doping is lowered, it was found experimentally that both the pseudo-gap

6112: and the antiferromagnetic (AF) spin correlation in the normal state increase.

6113: Naively, one expects the pseudo-gap and the AF correlations to work against

6114: each other. That is the larger the pseudo-gap, the lower the single particle

6115: density of states, the fewer the low energy spin excitations, and the weaker

6116: the AF correlations.

6117: 

6118: It turns out that the gapless $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations present in the sfL

6119: phase play a key role in resolving the above puzzle \cite{KL9930,RWspin}.  Due

6120: to the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations, the AF spin fluctuations in the sfL phase

6121: are as strong as those of a nested Fermi surface, despite the presence of the

6122: pseudo-gap. 

6123: 

6124: To see how the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuation in the sfL phase enhance the AF spin

6125: fluctuations, we map the lattice effective theory for the sfL state onto a

6126: continuum theory.  In the low doping limit, the bosons do not affect the spin

6127: fluctuations much. So we will ignore the bosons and effectively consider the

6128: undoped case. In the sfL phase, the low energy fermions only appear near $\v

6129: k=(\pm \frac{\pi}{2},\pm \frac{\pi}{2})$ Since the fermion dispersion is

6130: linear near $\v k=(\pm \frac{\pi}{2},\pm \frac{\pi}{2})$, those fermions are

6131: described by massless Dirac fermions in the continuum limit:

6132: \begin{eqnarray}

6133: \label{Dirac}

6134: S&=&\int d^{3}x \sum_\mu \sum_{\al=1}^N\bar{\Psi}_{\al}

6135: v_{\al,\mu} \partial_{\mu}\gamma_{\mu}\Psi_{\al}

6136: \end{eqnarray}

6137: where $v_{\al, 0}=1$ and $N=2$, but in the following we will treat $N$ as

6138: an arbitrary integer, which gives us a large $N$ limit of the sfL state.  In

6139: general $v_{\al, 1}\neq v_{\al,2}$. However, for simplicity we will

6140: assume $v_{\al,i}=1$ here.  The Fermi field $\Psi_{\al}$ is a $4\times

6141: 1$ spinor which describes lattice fermions $f_{\v i}$ with momenta near $(\pm

6142: \pi/2, \pm \pi/2)$.  The $4\times4$ $\gamma_{\mu}$ matrices form a

6143: representation of the

6144: $\{\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_{\nu}\}=2\delta_{\mu\nu}$ ($\mu,\nu = 0,1,2$) and are

6145: taken to be

6146: \begin{eqnarray}

6147: \gamma_{0}&=&\bpm \sigma_{3}&0\\ 0&-\sigma_{3} \epm, \quad

6148: \gamma_{1}=\bpm \sigma_{2}&0\\ 0&-\sigma_{2}   \epm, \\

6149: \gamma_{2}&=&\bpm\sigma_{1}&0\\  0&-\sigma_{1}\epm

6150: \end{eqnarray}

6151: with $\sigma_{\mu}$ the Pauli matrices.  Finally note that

6152: $\bar{\Psi}_{\sigma} \equiv \Psi^{\dag}_{\sigma} \gamma_{0}$.  

6153: 

6154: 

6155: The fermion field $\Psi$ couples to the $U(1)$ gauge field in the sfL phase.

6156: To determine the form of the coupling, we note that the $U(1)$ gauge

6157: transformation takes the following form

6158: \begin{equation*}

6159:  f_{\v i} \to e^{i\th_{\v i}} f_{\v i}

6160: \end{equation*}

6161: if we choose the  ansatz \Eq{sFans} to describe the sfL phase.  By requiring

6162: the $U(1)$ gauge invariance of the continuum model, we find the continuum

6163: Euclidean action to be

6164: \begin{eqnarray}

6165: \label{QED3a}

6166: S&=&\int d^{3}x \sum_\mu \sum_{\sigma=1}^N\bar{\Psi}_{\sigma}

6167: v_{\sigma,\mu} (\partial_{\mu}-ia_{\mu})\gamma_{\mu}\Psi_{\sigma}

6168: \end{eqnarray}

6169: 

6170: The dynamics for the $U(1)$ gauge field arises solely due to the screening by

6171: bosons and fermions, both of which carry gauge charge. In the low doping

6172: limit, however, we will only include the screening by the fermion fields.

6173: After integrating out $\Psi$ in \Eq{QED3a}, we obtain the following effective

6174: action for the $U(1)$ gauge field \cite{KL9930}

6175: \begin{eqnarray}

6176: \cal Z&=&\int Da_{\mu}\exp\Big( -\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}a_{\mu}

6177: (\v{q})\Pi_{\mu\nu}a_{\nu}(-\v{q})\Big) \nonumber \\

6178: \Pi_{\mu\nu}&=&\frac{N}{8}\sqrt{\v{q}^2}\Big(\delta_{\mu\nu}

6179: - \frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{\v{q}^{2}}\Big)

6180: \label{Pi}

6181: \end{eqnarray}

6182: By simple power counting we can see that the above polarizability makes the

6183: gauge coupling $a_\mu j^\mu$ a marginal perturbation at the free fermion fixed

6184: point.  

6185: %Importantly however we should note that 

6186: Since the conserved current $j^\mu$ cannot have any anomalous dimension, this

6187: interaction is an \emph{exact} marginal perturbation protected by current

6188: conservation.

6189: % which on the quantum level is implemented via the Ward identities.

6190: 

6191: For $N=2$, the spin operator with momenta near $\v q=(0,0)$, $(\pi,\pi)$, and

6192: $(\pi,0)$ has different form when expressed in terms of $\Psi_\al$.  Near $\v

6193: q=(0,0)$ 

6194: \begin{equation*}

6195:  \v S_u(\v x)=\frac12 \bar \Psi_\al \ga^0 \v \si_{\al\bt} \Psi_\bt

6196: \end{equation*}

6197: Near $\v q=(\pi,\pi)$ 

6198: \begin{equation*}

6199:  \v S_s(\v x)=\frac12 \bar \Psi_\al \v \si_{\al\bt} \Psi_\bt

6200: \end{equation*}

6201: Near $\v q=(\pi,0)$ 

6202: \begin{equation*}

6203:  \v S_{(\pi,0)}(\v x)=\frac12 \bar \Psi_\al 

6204: \bpm 0 & \sigma_{1}\\ \sigma_{1} & 0 \epm

6205: \v \si_{\al\bt} \Psi_\bt

6206: \end{equation*}

6207: 

6208: \begin{figure}[tb]

6209: %\epsfxsize=65mm

6210: %\centerline{ \epsfbox{Pol1N.eps} }

6211: \begin{center}

6212: \includegraphics[width=3in]{Fig1.eps}

6213: \caption{Non-zero leading $1/N$ corrections to the staggered spin

6214: correlation function. The ${\v x}$ denotes the vertex which is the $4 \times

6215: 4$ unit matrix in  the case of interest.}

6216: \label{Pol1N}

6217: \end{center}

6218: \end{figure}

6219: 

6220: At the mean-field level, all the above three spin operators have algebraic

6221: correlations $1/r^4$ with decay exponent $4$.  The effect of gauge

6222: fluctuations can be included at $\frac{1}{N}$ order by calculating the

6223: diagrams in Fig. \ref{Pol1N}.  We find that (\cit{RWspin}; \cit{FPS0308}) these three spin

6224: correlaters still have algebraic decays, indicating that the gauge interaction

6225: is indeed marginal.  The decay exponents of the spin correlation near $\v

6226: q=(0,0)$ and $\v q=(\pi,0)$ are not changed and remain to be $4$.  This result

6227: is expected for the spin correlation near $\v q=(0,0)$ since $S_u(\v x)$ is

6228: proportional to the conserved density operator that couple to the $U(1)$ gauge

6229: field.  Therefore $S_u(\v x)$ cannot have anomalous dimension.  

6230: %It is a surprise that

6231: $ \v S_{(\pi,0)}(\v x)$ does not have any anomalous dimension either (at $1/N$

6232: order).  In fact, this result holds to all orders in $1/N$ for the case of

6233: isotropic velocities, due to an $SU(4)$ symmetry 

6234: %(Hermele and Senthil, 2004)

6235: \cite{HS04}.

6236: Thus the spin fluctuations near $(\pi,0)$ is also not enhanced by the gauge

6237: interaction. This may explain why it is so hard to observe any spin

6238: fluctuations near $(\pi,0)$ in experiments.

6239: 

6240: 

6241: $S_s(\v x)$ is found to have a non-zero anomalous dimension.  The spin

6242: correlation near $\v q=(\pi,\pi)$ is found to be $1/r^{4-2\al}$ with

6243: \begin{equation}

6244: \label{eqnu}

6245: \al=\frac{32}{3\pi^2 N}

6246: \end{equation}

6247: In the $\om$-$\v k$ space, the imaginary part of the spin susceptibility near

6248: $(\pi,\pi)$ is given by

6249: \begin{align}

6250: \label{sspin}

6251: & \Im\chi(\omega,\mathbf{q})

6252: \equiv\Im\langle S^{+}(\omega,\mathbf{q}+\v Q)

6253: S^{-}(-\omega,-\mathbf{q}+\v Q) \rangle \nonumber \\ 

6254: =&

6255: \frac{C_s}{2}\sin(2\al\pi)\Gamma(2\al-2)

6256: \Theta(\omega^2-\mathbf{q}^2)\left(\omega^2-\mathbf{q}^2\right)^{1/2-\al} 

6257: \end{align}

6258: where $C_{s}$ is a constant depending on the physics at the lattice scale.

6259: 

6260: \begin{figure}[tb]

6261: \begin{center}

6262: \includegraphics[width=70mm]{Fig2.eps}

6263: \caption{Imaginary part of the spin susceptibility at $(\pi,\pi)$. 

6264: Note the divergence at small $\omega$. (from \Ref{RWspin}}

6265: \label{chi_Q_ASL}

6266: \end{center}

6267: \end{figure}

6268: 

6269: From \Eq{sspin} it is clear that the gauge fluctuations have reduced the

6270: mean-field exponent. If we boldly set $N=2$ which is the physically relevant

6271: case we find $\al =0.54 > 1/2$ which signals the divergence of $\chi(\omega = 0,

6272: q = 0)$.  Thus, after including the gauge fluctuations, the $(\pi,\pi)$ spin

6273: fluctuations are enhanced in the sfL phase despite the pseudo-gap.  In Fig.

6274: \ref{chi_Q_ASL}, we plot the imaginary part of the spin susceptibility at

6275: $(\pi,\pi)$. The $\om$ dependence of the spin susceptibility at $(\pi,\pi)$ is

6276: similar to the one from a nested Fermi surface.

6277: 

6278: The enhancement of the staggered spin correlation follows the trend found in

6279: Gutzwiller projection of the staggered flux (or equivalently the $d$-wave

6280: pairing) state.  

6281: %Ivanov (2000) 

6282: \Ref{I00} and 

6283: %Paramekanti {\em et al.} (2004)

6284: \Ref{PRT0404} reports a

6285: power law decay of the equal time staggered spin correlation function as

6286: $r^{-\nu}$ where $\nu = 1.5$ for the undoped case and $\nu = 2.5$ for

6287: 5\% doping, which are considerably slower than the $r^{-4}$ behavior before

6288: projection.  

6289: %Furthermore the result agrees with the first order term in the 1/N expansion

6290: %of the non-perturbative result obtained in the context of spontaneous chiral

6291: %symmetry breaking in Ref.\onlinecite{Gusynin}. Expanding their result to

6292: %$1/N^2$ allows us to at least estimate the sign and order of magnitude that

6293: %higher order corrections will play and shows in effect that $1/N^2$

6294: %corrections have the appropriate sign to increase the real space exponent

6295: %even further.  bringing the analytic result closer in line with the numerical

6296: %data.  

6297: 

6298: %Let us also remark that although we do not know the exact value of $\nu$,

6299: %many results discussed in this paper remain valid since they are not

6300: %sensitive to the value of $\nu$. Those results mainly depend on two things:

6301: %(A) $\nu$ is close to or bigger than $1/2$, a large change from the

6302: %mean-field exponent , and (B) $\nu$ is irrational. Condition (B) ensures a

6303: %branch-cut in the spin-spin correlation function, which is needed to explain

6304: %experimental data.

6305: 

6306: We remark that with doping, Lorentz invariance is broken by the presence of

6307: bosons. In this case the Fermi velocity receives an logarithmic correction

6308: which enhances the specific heat $\ga$  coefficient and the uniform

6309: susceptibility \cite{KLW9709}.

6310: 

6311: \subsection{Electron spectral function} \label{specG} 

6312: 

6313: 

6314: One of the striking properties of the high $T_c$ superconductor is the

6315: appearance of the pseudo-gap in electron spectral function for underdoped

6316: samples, even in the non-superconducting state. To understand this property

6317: within the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, we like to calculate the physical

6318: electron Green function.  Since the non-superconducting state for small $x$ is

6319: described by the sfL phase in the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, so we need to

6320: calculate the electron Green function in the sfL phase.  

6321: 

6322: 

6323: \subsubsection{Single

6324: hole spectrum}

6325: 

6326: The electron Green's function is given by

6327: \begin{equation*}

6328:  G_e(\v x)=\<h^\dag(\v x)\psi(\v x) h(0)\psi^\dag(0)\>

6329: \end{equation*}

6330: If we ignore the gauge interactions between the bosons and the fermions, the

6331: electron Green's function can be written as

6332: \begin{equation*}

6333:  G_{e0}=\<h^\dag h\>_0 \<\psi \psi^\dag\>_0

6334: \end{equation*}

6335: where the subscript $0$ indicates that we ignore the gauge fluctuations when

6336: calculating $\<...\>_0$.

6337: 

6338: \begin{figure}[t]

6339: \begin{center}

6340: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{bsnfrm.eps}

6341: \end{center}

6342: \caption{

6343: The thick line represents the boson world line,

6344: the thin line represents the fermion world line, and the dash line represent

6345: the gauge interaction. The dash-dot line is the straight return path.

6346: The $U(1)$ gauge interaction is caused by the extra phase term

6347: $e^{i\oint d\v x\cdot \v a}$ due to the $U(1)$ flux through the loop

6348: formed by the boson and the fermion world lines. 

6349: Such flux can be approximated by

6350: the flux through the loop

6351: formed by the fermion world line and the straight return path.

6352: }

6353: \label{bsnfrm}

6354: \end{figure}

6355: 

6356: The effect of the $U(1)$ gauge fluctuations is an extra phase term $e^{i\oint

6357: d\v x\cdot \v a}$ determined by the $U(1)$ flux through the loop formed by the

6358: boson and the fermion world lines (see Fig. \ref{bsnfrm}).  Since the fermion

6359: has a linear dispersion relation, the area between the boson and the fermion

6360: world lines is of order $|\v x|^2$, where $|\v x|$ is the separation between

6361: the two points of the Green's function.  Such an area is about the same as the

6362: area between the fermion world line and the straight return path (see Fig.

6363: \ref{bsnfrm}).  So we may approximate the effect of $U(1)$ gauge

6364: fluctuations as the effect caused by the $U(1)$ flux through the fermion world

6365: line and the straight return path \cite{RW0140}. This corresponds to

6366: approximate the electron Green's function as

6367: \begin{equation*}

6368:  G_e(\v x)=\<h^\dag(\v x) h(0)\>_0 

6369: \<\psi(\v x) \psi^\dag(0) e^{i\int_0^{\v x} d\v x \cdot \v a}\>

6370: \end{equation*}

6371: where $\int_0^{\v x}d\v x$ is the integration along the straight return path

6372: and $\<...\>$ includes integrating out the gauge fluctuations.

6373: 

6374: First, let us consider the fermion Green's function.  At the leading

6375: order of a large-$N$ approximation, it was found that \cite{RW0171,RW0140}

6376: \footnote{ 

6377: Note that the usual fermion Green's function $\<\psi(\v x)

6378: \psi^\dag(0)\>$ is not gauge invariant.  As a result, the Green's function is

6379: not well defined and depends on the choices of gauge-fixing conditions

6380: \cite{FT0103,FTV0235,K0206,Y0217}.  If one incorrectly identifies $\<\psi(\v

6381: x) \psi^\dag(0)\>$ as the the electron Green's function, then the electron

6382: Green's function will have different decay exponents for different

6383: gauge-fixing conditions.  In contrast, the combination $\<\psi(\v x)

6384: \psi^\dag(0) e^{i\int_0^{\v x} d\v x \cdot \v a}\>$ is gauge invariant and

6385: well defined.  The resulting electron Green's function does not depend on

6386: gauge-fixing conditions.

6387: }

6388: \begin{equation}

6389: \label{fermG}

6390:  \<\psi(\v x) \psi^\dag(0) e^{i\int_0^{\v x} d\v x \cdot \v a}\>

6391: \propto (\v x^2)^{-(2-\al)/2}  .

6392: \end{equation}

6393: where $\al$ is given in \Eq{eqnu}.  

6394: %If we boldly set $N = 2$, we have

6395: %$\alpha = 0.54$.  

6396: We note that the above becomes the Green's function for free

6397: massless Dirac fermion when $\al=0$.  The finite $\al$ is the effect of gauge

6398: fluctuations.

6399: 

6400: \begin{figure}[tb]

6401: \begin{center}

6402: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{Fig23.eps}

6403: \end{center}

6404: \caption{

6405: The single hole spectral function at $\left(  {\pi \over 2},{\pi \over 2}    \right)$.  Increasing $\alpha$ corresponds to increasing attraction between fermion and boson due to gauge field fluctuations. (from \Ref{RW0140})

6406: }

6407: \label{specG2}

6408: \end{figure}

6409: 

6410: For a single hole, the boson Green's function is simply that of a classical

6411: particle.  The electron Green's function $G_e(\v{r},\tau)$ is readily

6412: calculated using \Eq{fermG} and its Fourier transform yields the electron

6413: spectral function.  The result at the nodal position $\left( {\pi \over 2},

6414: {\pi \over 2}   \right)$ is shown in Fig.~(\ref{specG2}).  The $\alpha = 0$

6415: curve is the result without gauge fluctuation.  It is the convolution of the

6416: fermion and Bose spectra and is extremely broad.  The gauge field leads to an

6417: effective attraction between the fermion and boson in order to minimize the

6418: gauge flux enclosed by the fermion on boson vortex lines as shown in

6419: Fig.~(\ref{bsnfrm}).  The result is a piling up of a spectral weight at low

6420: energy with increasing $\alpha$.  Still, the one-hole spectrum remains

6421: incoherent, as is appropriate for a deconfined $U(1)$ spin liquid state.  This

6422: calculation can be extended to finite hole density, which requires making

6423: certain assumptions about the boson Green's function 

6424: (\cit{RW0140}; \cit{FT0103}).

6425: Under certain  conditions they obtain power-like type spectral functions

6426: similar to those of the Luttinger liquid.

6427: %(see Fig. \ref{specG2}).

6428: 

6429: \subsubsection{Finite hole density: pseudo-gap and Fermi arcs}

6430: \label{specmean}

6431: 

6432: Here we will consider the mean-field electron Green's function $G_0$

6433: at finite doping.

6434: Using the expression

6435: of $c_\alpha$ in \Eq{cpsib},

6436: % in terms of the fermion $f_\alpha$ and the boson

6437: %$b$ fields,

6438: the mean-field electron Green's function is given by the product of the

6439: fermion and boson Green functions.  So the electron spectral function is a

6440: convolution of the boson spectral function and the fermion spectral function.

6441: 

6442: %\begin{eqnarray}

6443: %\label{Gmean}

6444: %G_0(\v r,\tau) & = & -\frac12 \langle  T_\tau h^\dagger \psi

6445: %(\v r,\tau) \psi^\dagger(0,0) h\rangle \nonumber  \\

6446: %         % & \approx & \frac12 \langle  T_\tau \left(

6447: %         %   \right) \rangle G_F (\v{r}, \tau)

6448: %          &= & \frac12 \sum_{ab} G_B^{ba}(-\v r,-\tau) G_F^{ab} (\v r, \tau)

6449: %\end{eqnarray}

6450: %where

6451: %\begin{eqnarray}

6452: %G_B^{ab}(\v r, \tau) & = &  \langle T_\tau 

6453: %\left( b_a(\v r, \tau)b_b^{\dagger} (0,0) \right) \rangle \nonumber \\

6454: %G_F^{ab}(\v r, \tau) & = & -\langle T_\tau \left(

6455: %\psi_a (\v r, \tau) \psi_b^\dagger(0,0) \right) \rangle

6456: %\end{eqnarray}

6457: %

6458: %

6459: %Let us first calculate the electron Green function in the SC state, which is a

6460: %simpler problem.  The boson Green function contains two parts.  Note that at

6461: %temperature $T$ most bosons are in states which have energies of order $T$

6462: %from the bottom of the boson band.  Thus at high energies the boson Green

6463: %function is given by the single-boson Green function $G_{b}^{s}$ as if no

6464: %other bosons are present.  The imaginary part of this part of boson Green

6465: %function extends the whole band width of the boson band.  

6466: %

6467: %The first part comes from the condensed bosons and is constant.  The second

6468: %part comes from the unoccupied state at higher energies.  This part is given

6469: %by the single-boson Green function $G_B^{s}$ as if no other bosons are

6470: %present.  Thus the boson Green function has a form $x e^{i\v Q_b\cdot \v r} +

6471: %G_B^{s}$ where $\v Q_b$ is the momentum of the bottom of the boson band.  The

6472: %mean field electron Green function in SC phase has a form

6473: %\begin{align}

6474: %\label{G0SC}

6475: %G_0 =& \frac{x}{2} e^{i\v Q_b\cdot \v r}

6476: % G_F^{11} + G_{in} \nonumber\\

6477: %=& {x\over 2} \left ( {u_{\v k}^2\over \omega - E_f} 

6478: %+ {v_{\v k}^2\over \omega + E_f}\right ) + G_{in}

6479: %\end{align}

6480: %where $u$ and $v$ are the coherent factors: 

6481: %\begin{align*}

6482: %u_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f + \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} {\rm sgn} (\eta_f ),

6483: %\nonumber\\

6484: %v_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f - \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} .  

6485: %\end{align*}

6486: %The second term $G_{in}$ gives rise to a broad background in the electron

6487: %The second term comes from the convolution of $G_{B}^{s}$ and $G_{F}$ and is

6488: %the incoherent part of the Green function.  The first term is the coherent

6489: %part since its imaginary part is given by discrete $\delta$-functions.  It is

6490: %this coherent part that gives rise to the quasiparticle peaks in the SC phase

6491: %observed in photoemission experiments. 

6492: %We plot the above mean-field

6493: %electron spectral function in Fig. \ref{su2longf1}.  

6494: %The quasiparticle dispersion is given by $\pm E_f$.

6495: %The peak in the electron

6496: %spectral function crosses zero energy at four points at $\v k=(\pm

6497: %(\frac{\pi}{2}-\del), \pm (\frac{\pi}{2}-\del))$.  Thus the SC phase has four

6498: %Fermi points as represented in Fig. \ref{su2phase}.

6499: 

6500: %\begin{figure}

6501: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{su2longf1.eps}

6502: %\caption{

6503: %The electron spectral function for, from top down,

6504: % (a) $k=(-\pi/4, \pi/4) \to (\pi/4, 3\pi/4)$,

6505: %(b) $k=(-\pi/8, \pi/8) \to (3\pi/8, 5\pi/8)$, (c) 

6506: %$k=(0, 0) \to (\pi/2, \pi/2)$, and 

6507: %(d) $k=(0, \pi/2) \to (0,0)$.

6508: %We have chosen $J=1$ and

6509: %$\frac{\Delta}{\chi} = 0.2$.

6510: %}

6511: %\label{su2longf1}

6512: %\end{figure} 

6513: 

6514: %If the boson spectral

6515: %function was a $\del$-function in $\om$ and $\v k$, then $G_0$ would be

6516: %proportional to the fermion Green function $G_F$, In this case the electron

6517: %and the fermion would have the same dispersion given by $\pm E_f(\v k)$.  

6518: 

6519: Let us consider a region of the pseudogap above $T_c$ but at a temperature

6520: which is not too high.  The boson can be considered nearly condensed. The

6521: boson spectral function contain a sharp peak at $\om=0$ and $\v k=0$ and $\v

6522: k=(\pi,\pi)$.  The weight of the peak is of order $x$ and the width is of

6523: order $T$.  At high energies, the boson Green function is given by the

6524: single-boson Green function $G_{b}^{s}$ as if no other bosons are present.  So

6525: the boson spectral function also contain a broad background which extends the

6526: whole band width of the boson band.  The resulting  mean-field electron Green

6527: function has a form (\cit{WLsu2}; \cit{LNNWsu2})

6528: \begin{align}

6529: \label{G0SC}

6530: G_0 

6531: %= & \frac{x}{2} e^{i\v Q_b\cdot \v r}

6532: % G_F^{11} + G_{in} \nonumber\\

6533: =& {x\over 2} \left ( {u_{\v k}^2\over \omega - E_f} 

6534: + {v_{\v k}^2\over \omega + E_f}\right ) + G_{in}

6535: \end{align}

6536: where $u$ and $v$ are the coherent factors: 

6537: \begin{align*}

6538: u_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f + \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} {\rm sgn} (\eta_f ),

6539: \nonumber\\

6540: v_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f - \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} .  

6541: \end{align*}

6542: The second term $G_{in}$ gives rise to a broad background in the electron. It

6543: comes from the convolution of the background part of the boson spectral

6544: function  and the fermion spectral function.  The first term is the coherent

6545: part since its imaginary part is a peak of width $T$, which is approximated by

6546: a $\delta$-function here.  The quasiparticle dispersion is given by $\pm E_f$.

6547: The peak in the electron spectral function crosses zero energy at four points

6548: at $\v k=(\pm \frac{\pi}{2}, \pm \frac{\pi}{2})$.  Thus the mean-field sfL

6549: phase has four Fermi points.  Also, in the sfL phase, Im$G_{in}$ is non-zero

6550: only for $\omega<0$ and contributes $1/2$ to a total spectral weight which is

6551: $(1+x)/2$.

6552: 

6553: 

6554: 

6555: 

6556: %The boson spectral function also contain a broad background of width $\sim

6557: %8t$.  The total weight of the background is of order 1.  The electron

6558: %spectral function, as a convolution of the boson spectral function and the

6559: %fermion spectral function, has a sharp peak (of weight $\sim x$ and width

6560: %$\sim T$) at the fermion energy $\om=E_f(\v k)$, as a result of the sharp

6561: %peak in the boson spectral function.  The electron spectral function also

6562: %contain a broad background (of weight $\sim 1$ and width $\sim 8t$) as a

6563: %result of the broad back ground in the boson spectral function.  The detailed

6564: %expression of $G_0$ is lengthy, but it can be approximated at low

6565: %temperatures by \begin{equation}

6566: %\label{13}

6567: %G_0 (k, \omega ) = {x\over 2} \left ( {u_{\v k}^2\over \omega - E_f} 

6568: %+ {v_{\v k}^2\over \omega + E_f}\right ) + G_{in}

6569: %\end{equation}

6570: %The first term gives rise to the sharp peak in the electron spectral function

6571: %and describes the coherent motion of electrons with the fermion dispersion.

6572: %Here $u$ and $v$ are the coherent factors: 

6573: %\begin{align*}

6574: %u_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f + \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} {\rm sgn} (\eta_f ),

6575: %\nonumber\\

6576: %v_{\v k} = &\sqrt{{E_f - \epsilon_f\over 2E_f}} .  

6577: %\end{align*}

6578: %The second term $G_{in}$ gives rise to a broad background in the electron

6579: %spectral function which mainly reflects the boson density of states.

6580: %Im$G_{in}$ is non-zero only for $\omega<0$ and contributes $1/2$ to a

6581: %total spectral weight which is $(1+x)/2$.

6582: 

6583: %The peak in the electron spectral function from the coherent part of $G_0$

6584: %correspond to electron-like quasiparticles.  

6585: 

6586: From the dispersion relation of the peak $\om=E_f(\v k)$ and the fact that

6587: Im$G_{in}\approx 0$ when $\omega<-E_f(\v k)$, we find that the electron

6588: spectral function contain the gap of order $\Del$ at $(0,\pi)$ and $(\pi,0)$

6589: even in the non-superconducting state.  So the mean-field electron spectral

6590: function of the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory can explain the pseudo-gap in the

6591: underdoped samples.  However, if we examine the mean-field electron spectral

6592: function more closely, we see that the Fermi surface of the quasiparticles is

6593: just four isolated points $(\pm \pi/2,\pm \pi/2)$.  This property does not

6594: agree with experiments. 

6595: 

6596: \begin{figure}

6597: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{su2longf2.eps}

6598: %\centerline{\epsfile{file=su2longf2.eps,width=100mm,height=30mm}}

6599: \caption{

6600: A diagram for renormalized electron Green function.

6601: The solid (dash) line is the fermion (boson) propagator.

6602: }

6603: \label{su2longf2}

6604: \end{figure}

6605: 

6606: 

6607: In reality there is a strong attraction between the boson and the fermions due

6608: to the fluctuation around the mean-field state.  The dominant effect comes

6609: from the gauge fluctuations which attempt to bind the bosons and the fermions

6610: into electrons.  This corresponds to an effective attraction between the

6611: bosons and the fermions.  In the case of a single hole, the interaction with

6612: gauge fields can be treated as discussed in the last section.  Here we proceed

6613: more phenomenologically.  One way to include this effect is to use the diagram

6614: in Fig. \ref{su2longf2} to approximate the electron Green function, which

6615: corresponds to an effective short range interaction of form

6616: \begin{equation}

6617: -\frac{V}{2} (\psi^\dagger h) (h^\dagger \psi )=-V  c^\dagger c

6618: \end{equation}

6619: with $V < 0$.  We get

6620: \begin{equation}

6621: G = \frac{1}{\left( G_0 \right)^{-1} + V}

6622: \label{GV}

6623: \end{equation}

6624: The first contribution to $V$ come from the fluctuations of $a_{0}^{\ell}$

6625: which induces the following interaction between the fermions and the bosons:

6626: \begin{equation}

6627:  \psi^{\dagger} \v{\tau} \psi \cdot h^{\dagger}

6628: \v{\tau}h

6629: \end{equation}

6630: The second one (whose importance was pointed out by 

6631: %Laughlin 

6632: \Ref{L9527}) is

6633: the fluctuations of $|\chi_{\v i\v j}|$ which induces

6634: \begin{equation}

6635: -t (\psi^\dagger h)_{\v j} (h^\dagger \psi )_{\v i} =-2t c^\dagger_{\v j} c_{\v i}

6636: \end{equation}

6637: %The numerical calculations indicate that the simple formula eq. \ref{GV} fits

6638: %well with more complicated calculations if we choose

6639: This is nothing but the original hopping term. We expect the coefficient $t$

6640: to be reduced due to screening, but in the following we adopt the form

6641: \begin{equation}

6642: V(\v k)=U + 2t(\cos k_x +\cos k_y)

6643: \end{equation}

6644: for $V$ in eq. (\ref{GV}). 

6645: %Here the first and the second term comes from the first and the second kind

6646: %of fluctuations.  

6647: In Fig. \ref{su2longf3} and \ref{su2longf3a} we plot the electron spectral

6648: function calculated from eq. (\ref{GV}) (\cit{WLsu2}; \cit{LNNWsu2}).

6649: 

6650: 

6651: \begin{figure}

6652: \includegraphics[width=3in]{su2longf3.eps}

6653: %\centerline{\epsfile{file=su2longf3.eps,width=100mm,height=100mm}}

6654: \caption{

6655: The electron spectral function for, from top down, 

6656: (a) $k=(-\pi/4, \pi/4) \to (\pi/4, 3\pi/4)$,

6657: (b) $k=(-\pi/8, \pi/8) \to (3\pi/8, 5\pi/8)$, 

6658: (c) $k=(0, 0) \to (\pi/2, \pi/2)$, and

6659: (d) $k=(0, \pi) \to (0,0)$.

6660: We have chosen $J=1$.

6661: The paths of the four momentum scans are shown in Fig. \ref{su2longf7}.

6662: }

6663: \label{su2longf3}

6664: \end{figure} 

6665:  

6666: \begin{figure}

6667: \includegraphics[width=2in]{su2longf7.eps}

6668: \caption{

6669: The solid line a, b, c, and d are paths of the four momentum scans

6670: in Fig. \ref{su2longf3}.

6671: The solid curves are schematic representation of

6672: the Fermi segments where the quasiparticle peak

6673: crosses the zero energy.

6674: }

6675: \label{su2longf7}

6676: \end{figure}  

6677: 

6678: \begin{figure}

6679: \includegraphics[width=3in]{su2longf3a.eps}

6680: \caption{

6681: The points describe the dispersion of the quasi-particle peaks for the

6682: s-flux liquid phase in Fig. \ref{su2longf3a}.  The vertical bars are proportional

6683: to the peak values of Im$G_U$ which are proportional to

6684: the quasi-particle weight.

6685: }

6686: \label{su2longf3a}

6687: \end{figure} 

6688: 

6689: 

6690: 

6691: We have chosen 

6692: %  $\tilde J=J/2$, 

6693: $t=2J$, $\chi = 1$, $\Delta/\chi = 0.4$, $x = 0.1$, and $T = 0.1 J$. 

6694: %Here we choose $\frac{\Delta}{\chi} = 0.4$ so that the renormalized gap near

6695: %$(0, \pi)$ is about $0.4 J$.

6696: The value of $U$ is determined from requiring the renormalized electron Green

6697: function to satisfies the sum rule

6698: \begin{equation}

6699: \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega }{2\pi}\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}

6700:  \Im G= x

6701: \end{equation}

6702: %Note that the mean field electron Green function does not satisfy this sum

6703: %rule, and instead obeys \begin{equation}

6704: %\int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega }{2\pi}\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}

6705:  % \Im G_0= x/4

6706: %\end{equation}

6707: 

6708: We find that the gap near $(0, \pm \pi)$ and $(\pm \pi,0)$ survives the

6709: binding potential $V(\v k)$.

6710: %inclusion of gauge and $|\chi_{\v i\v j}|$ fluctuations.  

6711: However spectral functions near $(\pm \frac{\pi}{2}, \pm \frac{\pi}{2})$ are

6712: modified.  The Fermi point at $(\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})$ for the  mean

6713: field electron Green function $G_0$ is stretched into a Fermi segment as shown

6714: in Fig.  \ref{su2longf7}.  As we approach the uRBV phase, $\Delta$ decreases

6715: and the Fermi arcs are elongated.  Eventually the arcs join together to form a

6716: large closed Fermi surface.

6717: 

6718: While the phenomenological binding picture successfully produces Fermi arcs,

6719: the results are not as satisfactory for the anti-nodal points.  While an

6720: energy gap is produced near $(0,\pi)$, the theory gives a rather sharp

6721: structure at the gap and we see from Fig. \ref{su2longf3a} that the gap above

6722: and below the Fermi energy is not symmetric.  

6723: 

6724: This exposed a serious weakness of the slave-boson gauge theory approach. With

6725: finite hole density, the bosons tend to condense at the mean field level. In

6726: reality the holes are strongly coupled to gauge fluctuations which tend to

6727: suppress the Bose condensation. While the fermions are also coupled to gauge

6728: fields, the Fermi statistics allow us to approach the problem perturbatively

6729: by introducing artificial expansion parameters such as $\frac{1}{N}$ . In

6730: contrast, the problem of bosons coupled to gauge fields is much less

6731: understood. Furthermore the gauge fields mediate strong attraction between

6732: fermions and bosons and, in the case of $SU(2)$ theory, between $b_1$ and $b_2$

6733: bosons which carry opposite gauge charges. In the phenomenological approach

6734: outlined above, the bosons are treated as almost condensed (\ie a narrow peak

6735: in the spectral function is assumed) and bind with a fermion. The assumption

6736: of ``almost Bose condensation'' leads to sharp hole spectra at both the nodal

6737: and anti-nodal points and the latter disagrees with experiment. 

6738: Furthermore it can be shown that the assumption of Bose condensation leads to

6739: a decoupling of the electron to the electromagnetic field, and as a result, the

6740: current carried by the quasiparticles $j = e\frac{dE_{\v k}(\v A)}{d\v A}$ 

6741: is strongly reduced from $ev_F$ which disagrees with experiments

6742: (see IX.B). 

6743: 

6744: \Ref{WL9893} took a first step towards addressing this problem by assuming

6745: that the binding between the bosons and the fermions and/or between the

6746: $b_1$ and $b_2$ bosons prevents single-boson

6747: condensation.  The superconducting state characterized by $\< cc\>\neq 0$

6748: contains only boson pair condensation, \ie $\< b_1b_2 \> \neq 0$ while

6749: $\<b\>=0$. They show that with this assumption the quasiparticle current can

6750: be a finite fraction of $ev_F$ , \ie the $\al$ parameter in \Eq{Eq.6} does

6751: not have to go as $x$. The competition between fermion-boson binding,

6752: boson-boson binding and Bose condensation is a complicated problem which is

6753: still poorly understood at present.

6754: 

6755: STM experiment reveals a rather

6756: broad structure for both particle and hole excitations 

6757: %(Hanaguri {\em et al.}, 2004) 

6758: \cite{HLK04}

6759: and ARPES measurements, which can measure only the occupied states, show

6760: a reduction of the density of states over a broad energy range 

6761: %(Ronning {\em et al.}, 2003)

6762: \cite{RSK0301}.  These lineshapes are more reminiscent of those shown in Fig.

6763: \ref{specG2} for intermediate $\alpha$.  It appears that the assumption of

6764: almost Bose condensation and simple binding via a

6765: short range potential do not capture the subtlety of gauge fluctuation

6766: effects near $(0,\pi)$ where fermions and bosons appear to be closer to being

6767: deconfined.  This dichotomy between nodal and anti-nodal electronic structure

6768: is an important issue which remains open for further theoretical work.

6769:  

6770: 

6771: %We would like to point out that the electron Green function obtained here

6772: %does not show any ``shadow band'' at $\omega=0$, {\it i.e.} Im$G_{e}(0, k)$

6773: %does not have any peak outside of the $(0,\pi)$ -- $(\pi,0)$ line as the

6774: %mirror image of the peaks that appear inside of the  $(0,\pi)$ -- $(\pi,0)$

6775: %line.

6776: %

6777: %In the limit of a single hole, this attraction can lead to a bound state with

6778: %the quantum number of a electron, as emphasized in Ref.  \cite{14}. In the

6779: %case of finite hole concentration, we expect that fermion particle-hole pairs

6780: %may be spontaneously excited out of the mean-field ground state so that the

6781: %$b_2$ ($b_1$) bosons can  bind to fermions (anti-fermions).  The result would

6782: %be low lying physical electron excitations which may resemble a Fermi

6783: %surface. In order to capture this physics, even at a very crude level, we

6784: %assume that after screening, the $a_0^l$ fluctuations induce the following

6785: %short range interaction $- \displaystyle\sum_i U \psi^\dagger_{\alpha i}

6786: %\tau^l \psi_{\alpha i}\ b^\dagger_i\tau^l b_i$, where $U < 0$.  We have

6787: %calculated $G_U$ which included this attraction in the Bethe-Salpeter

6788: %approximation. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3}.  To

6789: %interpret these results, we consider instead $G'_U=(G_0^{-1}+U)^{-1}$ which

6790: %we have found numerically to be nearly identical to $G_U$. It is easy to see

6791: %that $G'_U$ also has the form $G'_U=G'_{coh} +G'_{in}$. In the case when

6792: %either $|u|$ or $|v|\approx 1$, we find that $G'_{coh}={Z\over \omega \pm

6793: %E_f+\mu_f}$ with $\mu_f={xU\over 2 (1 + U G_{in})}$ and $Z={x/2\over ( 1 +

6794: %UG_{in} )^2}$ We see that a negative $U$ generates a negative $\mu_f$ which

6795: %produces small hole pockets.  A negative $U$ also enhance the spectral weight

6796: %of unoccupied quasi-particles. This allows us to choose $U$ by requiring that

6797: %the occupied spectral weight in $G_U$ is $1-x$. For general $u$ and $v$, we

6798: %find that the coherent part of $G'_U$ produce pocket-like Fermi surfaces near

6799: %$\Sigma$ (see Fig \ref{fig2}) which is determined by

6800: %$2E_f(1+UG_{in})=Ux(u^2-v^2)$. The quasi-particle weight at the Fermi surface

6801: %$Z = {2E^{2}_f\over xU^2}$ vanishes at $\Sigma$ and is very small on the

6802: %outer edge of the pocket, making it hard to detect.  

6803: %

6804: 

6805: %, with low lying excitations near $M$ and a shape which resembles the

6806: %experiment.\cite{1} A more detailed discussion on how gauge fluctuation

6807: %affect the quasiparticle line shape can be found in

6808: %\Ref{RW0171,FT0103,RW0140}. 

6809: 

6810: 

6811: 

6812: 

6813: \subsection{Stability of algebraic spin liquids} \label{screen}

6814: 

6815: %The calculation in the last subsection implies that 

6816: The sfL mean-field ansatz leads to an gapless spin liquid. We will call this

6817: the $U(1)$ spin liquid, and it is an example of a class which we call

6818: algebraic spin liquid (ASL) since all the spin correlations have algebraic

6819: decay.  We would like to stress that the ASL is a phase of matter, not a

6820: critical point at a phase transition between two phases.

6821: 

6822: ASL has a striking property: its low energy excitations interact with each

6823: other even down to zero energy. This can be seen from the correlation

6824: functions at low energies which always contain branch cut without any poles.

6825: The lack of poles implies that we cannot use free bosonic or free fermionic

6826: quasiparticles to describe the low energy excitations.  For all other commonly

6827: know gapless states, such as solids, superfluids, Fermi liquids, \etc, the

6828: gapless excitations are always described by free bosons or free fermions. The

6829: only exception is the 1D Luttinger liquid.  Thus the ASL can be view as an

6830: example of Luttinger liquids beyond one dimension.

6831: 

6832: We know that interactions tend to open up energy gaps.  From this point of

6833: view, one might have thought that the only self consistent gapless excitations

6834: are the ones  described by free quasiparticles. Knowing the gapless

6835: excitations in the ASL interact down to zero energy, we may wonder does ASL

6836: really exist?  Have we overlooked some effects which open up energy gap and

6837: make ASL unstable?

6838: 

6839: Indeed, in the above calculation, we have overlooked two effects. Both of them

6840: can potentially destabilize the ASL.  First, the self-energy in Fig.

6841: \ref{Pol1N}A,B, contains a cut-off dependent term which gives the fermion

6842: $\Psi$ a cut-off dependent mass $m(\La)\bar \Psi\Psi$. In the above

6843: calculation, we have dropped such a term. If such a cut-off-dependent term was

6844: kept, the fermions would gain a mass which would destabilize the ASL. 

6845: 

6846: Second, we have overlooked the effects of instantons described by the

6847: space-time monopoles of the $U(1)$ gauge field.  After integrating out the

6848: massless fermions, the effective action of the $U(1)$ gauge field has a form

6849: \Eq{LaNL}.  Unlike the Maxwell term discussed in section IX.D, which produced

6850: a $1/r$ potential, in this case the interaction of the  space-time monopoles

6851: is described by a $\log (r)$ potential.  That is the action of the pair of

6852: space-time monopoles separated by a distance $r$ is given by $ C\log (r)$.

6853: Just like the Coulomb gas in 2D, if the coefficient $C$ is larger than 6, then

6854: the instanton effect is an irrelevant perturbation and the inclusion of the

6855: instantons will not destabilize the ASL \cite{IL8988}. If the coefficient $C$

6856: is less then 6, then the instanton effect is a relevant perturbation and the

6857: inclusion of the instantons will destabilize the ASL.

6858: 

6859: Recently, it was argued in \Ref{HS0301} and \Ref{HSS0310} that the instanton

6860: effect always represent a relevant perturbation due to a screening effect of

6861: 3D Coulomb gas, regardless the value of $C$.  This led to a conclusion in

6862: \Ref{HS0301} that the ASL described by the sfL state does not exist.  The easiest way

6863: to understand the screening effect of the 3D Coulomb gas is to note that the

6864: partition function of the Coulomb gas can be written as a path integral

6865: \begin{align}

6866:  &\int \prod d^3\v x_i e^{-C \sum q_i q_j\log |\v x_i-\v x_j|}

6867: \nonumber\\

6868: =&\int \cD\phi e^{-\int d^3\v x \frac{2\pi}{C}

6869: \prt \phi \sqrt{-\prt^2} \prt \phi -g \cos(\phi)}

6870: \label{monopole}

6871: \end{align}

6872: If we integrate out short distance fluctuations of $\phi$, a counter term

6873: $K(\prt \phi)^2$ can be generated. The counter term changes the long distance

6874: interaction of the space-time monopoles from $\log (r)$ to $1/r$.  The

6875: space-time monopoles with $1/r$ interaction always represent a relevant

6876: perturbation, which will destabilize the ASL.  Physically, the change of the

6877: interaction from $\log (r)$ to $1/r$ is due to the screening effect of

6878: monopole-anti-monopole pairs. Thus the counter term $K(\prt \phi)^2$

6879: represents the screening effect.

6880: 

6881: 

6882: The issue of the stability of the ASL has been examined by \Ref{Wqoslpub},

6883: \Ref{RWspin} and more carefully by 

6884: %Hermele {\em et al.}, 2004.

6885: \Ref{HSF0451} using an argument based on PSG. They came to the conclusion that the $U(1)$ spin liquid is

6886: stable for large enough $N$, if the $SU(2)$ spin symmetry is generalized to

6887: $SU(N)$.  They showed that there is no relevant operator which can destabilize

6888: the deconfined fixed point which consists of $2N$ two-component Dirac fermions

6889: coupled to {\em noncompact} $U(1)$ gauge fields, for $N$ sufficiently large.

6890: \Ref{HSF0451} also pointed out the fallacy of the monopole screening argument.

6891: We summarize some of the salient points below.

6892: 

6893: The operators which perturb the noncompact fixed point can be classified into

6894: two types, those which preserve the flux and those which change the flux by

6895: $2\pi$.  The latter are instanton creation operators which restore the

6896: compactness of the gauge field.  Among the first type there are four fermion

6897: terms which are readily seen to be irrelevant, but as mentioned earlier, the

6898: dangerous term is the quadratic fermion mass term.  The important point is

6899: that the mass terms are forbidden by the special symmetry described by PSG.

6900: The discrete symmetry (such as translation and rotation) of the sfL state

6901: defined on the lattice imposes certain symmetry on the continuum Dirac field

6902: which forbids the mass term.  Another way of seeing this is that after

6903: integrating out the short distance fluctuations, if a mass term is generated

6904: it can be described in the lattice model as a deformation of the mean-field

6905: ansatz $\del U_{\v i\v j}$. Since the short distance fluctuations are

6906: perturbative in nature, the deformation $\del U_{\v i\v j}$ cannot change the

6907: symmetry of the ansatz $\bar  U_{\v i\v j}$ that describe the ground state,

6908: \ie if $\bar  U_{\v i\v j}$ is invariant under a PSG, $\del U_{\v i\v j}$ must

6909: be invariant under the same PSG. One can show that for all the possible

6910: deformations that are invariant under the sfL PSG described by \Eq{GssF}, none

6911: of them can generate the mass term for the fermions. Thus the masslessness of

6912: the fermions are protected by the sfL PSG.

6913: 

6914: As for the second type of operators which change the flux, 

6915: %Hermele {\em et al.}, 2004 

6916: \Ref{HSF0451} appeal to a result in conformal field theory which relates the

6917: scaling dimension of such operators to the eigenvalues of states on a sphere

6918: with a magnetic flux through the surface 

6919: %(Borokhov {\em et al.}, 2002)

6920: \cite{BKW0249}.  This

6921: is easily bound by the ground state energy of $2N$ component Dirac fermions on

6922: the sphere which clearly scale as $N$.  Thus the creation of instantons is

6923: also irrelevant for sufficiently large $N$.

6924: 

6925: As far as the monopole screening argument goes, the fallacy is that in that

6926: argument the fermions are first integrated out completely in order to derive

6927: an effective action for the field $\phi$ shown in eq.~\ref{monopole}.  Then

6928: renormalization group arguments generate a $K(\partial \phi)^2$ term.  However

6929: implicit in this procedure is the assumption that the fermions are rapidly

6930: varying variables compared with the monopoles.  The fact that the fermions are

6931: gapless makes this procedure unreliable.  (One could say that the screening

6932: argument implicitly assumes mass generation for the fermions.)  A better

6933: approach is to renormalize the monopoles and the fermions on the same footing,

6934: \ie let the infrared cutoff length scale for the fermion $(L_f)$ and the

6935: monopoles $(L_m)$ to approach infinity with a fixed ratio, e.g.  $L_f/L_m =

6936: 1$.  In this case integrating out the fermions down to scale $L_f$

6937: will produce an effective action for the $U(1)$ gauge field of the form

6938: 

6939: \begin{equation*}

6940: {g(L_f) \over 16 \pi} f_{\mu v}f^{\mu v}

6941: \end{equation*}

6942: where the running coupling constant $g(L_f) \sim L_f$.  This in turn generates an

6943: interaction between two monopoles separated by a distance $r$ which is of

6944: order $g(L_f)/r$.  To calculate such an interaction, we should integrate out all

6945: the fermions with wavelength less than $r$.  We find the interaction to be

6946: ${g(r) \over r} \sim r^0$, indicating a logarithmic interaction between

6947: monopoles.   Thus the logarithmic interaction is constantly being rejuvenated

6948: and cannot be screened.  This can be cast into a normalization group language

6949: and we can see that the flow equation for the coupling constant $g$ is

6950: modified from the form used by \cite{HS0301}.  The extra term leads to the

6951: conclusion that the instanton fugacity scales to zero and the instanton

6952: becomes irrelevant for $N$ larger than a certain critical value.  

6953: 

6954: To summarize, the ASL derived from the sfL ansatz contain a quantum order

6955: characterized by the sfL PSG \Eq{GssF}. The sfL PSG forbids the mass term of the

6956: fermions. To capture such an effect, we \emph{must} drop the mass term in the

6957: self-energy in our calculation in the continuum model \cite{RWspin}. Ignoring

6958: the mass term is a way to include the effects of PSG into the continuum model.

6959: Similarly,  we must ignore the screening effect described by the $K(\prt

6960: \phi)^2$ term when we consider instantons.  We are then assured that instanton

6961: effects are irrelevant in the large $N$ limits.  So the ASL exists and is

6962: stable at least in the large $N$ limit.  The interacting gapless excitations

6963: in the ASL are protected by the sfL PSG.  It is well known that the symmetry

6964: can protect gapless Nambu-Goldstone modes.  The above example shows that the

6965: PSG and the associated quantum order can also protect gapless excitations

6966: \cite{Wqoslpub,WZqoind,RWspin}.

6967: 

6968: 

6969: %\subsection{Temperature dependence of the superfluid density}

6970: 

6971: \section{Application of gauge theory to the high $T_c$ superconductivity

6972: problem}

6973: 

6974: 

6975: Now we summarize how the gauge theory concepts we have described may be

6976: applied to the high $T_c$ problem.  The central observation is that high $T_c$

6977: superconductivity emerges upon doping a Mott insulator.  The antiferromagnetic

6978: order of the Mott insulator disappears rather rapidly and is replaced by the

6979: superconducting ground state.  The ``normal'' state above the superconducting

6980: transition temperature exhibits many unusual properties which we refer to as

6981: pseudogap behavior.  How does one describe the simultaneous suppression of

6982: N\'{e}el order and the emergence of the pseudogap and the superconductor from

6983: the Mott insulator? The approach we take is to first understand the nature of

6984: a possible nonmagnetic Mott state at zero doping, the spin liquid state, which

6985: naturally becomes a singlet superconductor when doped.  This is the central

6986: idea behind the RVB proposal \cite{A8796} and is summarized in Fig.

6987: \ref{sldsc1}.  The idea is that doping effectively frustrates the N\'{e}el

6988: order so that the system is pushed across the transition where the N\'{e}el

6989: order is lost.  In the real system the loss of N\'{e}el order may proceed

6990: through complicated states, such as incommensurate charge and spin order,

6991: stripes or inhomogeneous charge segregation 

6992: %(Carlson { \it et al.}, 2003)

6993: \cite{CEK03}.

6994: However, in this direct approach the connection with superconductivity is not

6995: al all clear.  Instead it is conceptually useful to arrive at the

6996: superconducting state via a different path, starting from a spin liquid state.

6997: Recently, 

6998: %Senthil and Lee (2004)

6999: \Ref{SL0466} have elaborated upon this point of view which

7000: we summarize below.

7001: 

7002: %Insert from Senthil and Lee

7003: \begin{figure}

7004: %\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{sldsc_a.eps}

7005: %\vskip 0.1in

7006: %\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{sldsc_b.eps}

7007: \includegraphics[width=2in]{zeroTphs.eps}

7008: \caption{

7009: a) Schematic zero temperature phase diagram showing the route between the

7010: antiferromagnetic Mott insulator and the $d$-wave superconductor.  The

7011: vertical axis is labeled by a parameter $g$ which may be taken as a measure

7012: of the frustration in the interaction between the spins in the Mott insulator.

7013: AF represents the antiferromagnetically ordered state. SL is a spin liquid

7014: insulator that could potentially be reached by increasing the frustration.

7015: The path taken by the cuprate materials as a function of doping $x$ is shown

7016: in a thick  dashed-dot line. The question marks represent regions where the

7017: physics is not clear at present. Doping the spin liquid naturally leads to the

7018: dSC state. The idea behind the spin liquid approach is to regard the

7019: superconducting system at non-zero $x$  as resulting from doping the spin

7020: liquid as shown in the solid line, though this is not the path actually taken

7021: by the material.  b) Same as in Fig. \protect\ref{sldsc1}(a) but as a function

7022: of chemical potential rather than hole doping.

7023: }

7024: \label{sldsc1}

7025: \end{figure}  

7026: 

7027: 

7028: \subsection{Spin liquid, quantum critical point and the pseudogap} It is

7029: instructive to consider the phase diagram as a function of the chemical

7030: potential rather than the hole doping as shown in Fig. \ref{sldsc1}(b). 

7031: 

7032: Consider any spin liquid Mott state that when doped leads to a $d$-wave

7033: superconductor. As a function of chemical potential, there will then be a 

7034: zero temperature phase transition where the holes first enter the system. For

7035: concreteness we will simply refer to this 

7036: as the Mott transition.

7037: % - the corresponding phase boundary is marked in red in Fig \ref{sldsc1}(b). 

7038: The associated quantum critical fixed point will control 

7039: the physics in a finite non-zero range of parameters. The various crossovers

7040: expected near such transitions are well-known and are shown in Fig.

7041: \ref{mqc}.

7042: 

7043: Sufficiently close to this zero temperature critical point many aspects of the

7044: physics will be universal. The regime in which such universal behavior 

7045: is observed will be limited by `cut-offs' determined by microscopic

7046: parameters. In particular we may expect that the cutoff scale is provided by

7047: an energy of 

7048: a fraction of $J$ (the exchange energy for the spins in the Mott insulator).

7049: We note that this corresponds to a reasonably high temperature scale. 

7050: 

7051: 

7052: 

7053: Now consider an underdoped cuprate material at fixed doping $x$. Upon

7054: increasing the temperature this will follow a path in Fig.\ref{mqc} that is

7055: shown schematically. 

7056: The properties of the system along this path may be usefully discussed in

7057: terms of the various crossover regimes.  In particular it is clear that the

7058: `normal' state above the superconducting transition is to be understood

7059: directly as the finite temperature `quantum critical'

7060: region associated with the Mott transition. Empirically this region

7061: corresponds to the pseudogap regime. Thus our assertion is that the pseudogap

7062: regime 

7063: is controlled by the unstable zero temperature fixed point associated with the

7064: (Mott) transition to a Mott insulator.

7065: 

7066: 

7067: 

7068: 

7069: 

7070: \begin{figure}

7071: \includegraphics[width=2.4in]{mqc.eps}

7072: \caption{Schematic phase diagram for a doping induced Mott transition between

7073: a spin liquid insulator and a $d$-wave superconductor.  The bold dot-dashed

7074: line is the path taken by a system at hole density $x$ that has a

7075: superconducting ground state. The region marked FS represents the fluctuation

7076: regime of the superconducting transition. The region marked QC is the quantum

7077: critical region associated with the Mott critical point. This region may be

7078: identified with the high temperature pseudogap phase in the experiments. }

7079: \label{mqc}

7080: \end{figure}   

7081: 

7082: %end of insert from Senthil and Lee

7083: 

7084: What are the candidates for the spin liquid phase?  There have been several

7085: proposals in the literature.  One proposal is the dimer phase  

7086: %(Sachdev, 2003)

7087: \cite{S0313}.  Strictly speaking, this is a valence bond solid and not a spin liquid:

7088: it is a singlet state which breaks translational symmetry.  It has been shown

7089: by 

7090: %Read and Sachdev (1990)

7091: \Ref{RS9068} that within the large $N$ Schwinger boson approach

7092: the dimer phase emerges upon disordering the N\'{e}el state.  Sachdev and

7093: collaborators have shown that doping the dimer state produces a $d$-wave

7094: superconductor \cite{VS9916}.  However, such a superconductor also inherits

7095: the dimer order and has a full gap to spin excitations, at least for low

7096: doping.  As we have seen in this review, there are strong empirical evidence

7097: for gapless nodal quasiparticles in the superconducting state.  In our view,

7098: it is more natural to start with translation invariant spin liquid states

7099: which produce $d$-wave superconductors with nodal quasiparticles when doped.

7100: 

7101: We see from Section X that the spin liquid states are rather exotic beasts in

7102: that their excitations are conveniently described in terms of fractionalized

7103: spin 1/2 ``spinon'' degrees of freedom.  We discussed in Section X.G that spin

7104: liquids are characterized by their low energy gauge group.  Among spin liquids

7105: with nodal fermionic spinons, two versions, the $Z_2$ and the $U(1)$ spin

7106: liquids have bee proposed.  The $Z_2$ gauge theory was advocated by

7107: \cite{SF0050}.  It can be considered as growing out of the fermion pairing

7108: phase of the $U(1)$ mean field phase diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{U1}.  The

7109: pairing of fermions $\Delta_{\v i\v j} = \langle   f_{\v i\up} f_{\v i\down} - f_{\v i\down}

7110: f_{\v i\up}     \rangle$ breaks the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry down to $Z_2$, \ie

7111: only $f \rightarrow -f$ remains unbroken.  One feature of this theory is that

7112: in the superconducting state $hc/e$ vortices tend to have lower energy than

7113: $hc/2e$ vortices, particularly at low doping.  We saw in section IX.C that

7114: $hc/2e$ vortices involve suppression of the pairing amplitude $|\Delta_{\v i\v j}|$

7115: at the center and cost a large energy of order $J$.  On the other hand, one

7116: can form an $hc/e$ vortice by winding the boson phase by $2\pi$, leaving the

7117: fermion pairing intact inside the core.  Another way of describing this from

7118: the point of view of $Z_2$ gauge theory is that the $hc/2e$ vortex necessarily

7119: involves the presence of a $Z_2$ gauge flux (called a vison by Senthil and

7120: Fisher) in its core.  The finite energy cost of the $Z_2$ flux dominates in

7121: the low doping limit and raises the energy of the $hc/2e$ vortices.

7122: Experimental proposals were made 

7123: %(Senthil and Fisher)

7124: \cite{SF0192} to provide for a

7125: critical test of such a theory by detecting the vison excitation or by

7126: indirectly looking for signatures of stable $hc/e$ vortices.  To date, all

7127: such experiments have yielded negative results and provided fairly tight

7128: bounds on the vison energy 

7129: %(Bonn {\em et al.}, 2001)

7130: \cite{BWG0187}.   

7131: 

7132: We are then left with the $U(1)$ spin liquid as the final candidate.  The mean

7133: field basis of this state is the staggered flux liquid state of the $SU(2)$

7134: mean field phase diagram (Fig. \ref{su2phase}).  The low energy theory of this

7135: state consists of fermions with massless Dirac spectra (nodal quasiparticles)

7136: interacting with a $U(1)$ gauge field.  Note that this $U(1)$ gauge field

7137: refers to the low energy gauge group and is not to be confused with the $U(1)$

7138: gauge theory in section IX, which refers to the high energy gauge group, in

7139: the nomenclature of section X.G.  This theory was treated in some detail in

7140: Section XI.  This state has enhanced ($\pi,\pi$) spin fluctuations but no long

7141: range N\'{e}el order, and the ground states becomes a $d$-wave superconductor

7142: when doped with holes.  As we shall see, a low energy $hc/2e$ vortex can be

7143: constructed, thus overcoming a key difficulty of the $Z_2$ gauge theory.

7144: Furthermore, an objection in the literature about the stability of the $U(1)$

7145: spin liquid has been overcome, at least for sufficiently large $N$ (see

7146: section IX.F)  It has also been argued by Senthil and Lee, 2004 that even if

7147: the physical spin 1/2 case does not possess a stable $U(1)$ liquid phase, it

7148: can exist as a critical state separating the N\'{e}el phase from a $Z_2$ spin

7149: liquid and may still have the desired property of dominating the physics of

7150: the pseudogap and the superconducting states.

7151: An example of deconfinement appearing at the critical point between two ordered

7152: phases is recently pointed out by \cite{SVB0490}.

7153: 

7154: In the next section we shall further explore the properties of the $U(1)$ spin

7155: liquid upon doping.  We approach the problem from the low temperature limit

7156: and work our way up in temperature.  This regime is conveniently described by

7157: a nonlinear $\sigma$-model effective theory.

7158: 

7159: \subsection{$\sigma$-model effective theory and new collective modes in the

7160: superconducting state}

7161: 

7162: Here we attempt to reduce the large number of degrees of freedom in the

7163: partition function in \Eq{128} to the few which dominate the low energy

7164: physics.  We shall ignore the amplitude fluctuations in the fermionic degree

7165: of freedom which are gapped on the scale of $J$.  The bosons tend to Bose

7166: condense.  We shall ignore the amplitude fluctuation and assume that its phase

7167: is slowly varying on the fermionic scale, which is given by $\xi =

7168: \epsilon_F/\Delta$ in space.  In this case we can have an effective field

7169: theory ($\sigma$-model) description where the local boson phases are the slow

7170: variables and the fermionic degrees of freedom are assumed to follow them.  We

7171: begin by picking a mean field representation $U_{\v i\v j}^{(0)}$.  The choice of

7172: the staggered flux state $U_{\v i\v j}^{SF}$ given by \Eq{EfEb} is most convenient

7173: because $U_{\v i\v j}^{SF}$ commutes with $\tau^3$, making explicit the residual

7174: $U(1)$ gauge symmetry which corresponds to a $\tau^3$ rotation.  Thus we

7175: choose $ U_{\v i\v j}^{(0)} = U_{\v i\v j}^{SF} e^{ia_{\v i\v j}^3\tau^3} $ and replace the

7176: integral over $U_{\v i\v j}$ by an integral over the gauge field $a_{\v i\v j}^3$.  It

7177: should be noted that any $U_{\v i\v j}^{(0)}$ which are related by $SU(2)$ gauge

7178: transformation will give the same result.  At the mean field level, the bosons

7179: form a band with minima at $Q_0$.  Writing $h = \tilde{h} e^{i\v{Q}_0\cdot

7180: \v{r}}$, we expect $\tilde{h}$ to be slowly  varying in space and time.  We

7181: transform to the radial gauge, 

7182: %from Lee and Nagaosa, insert B

7183: \ie we write

7184: \be

7185: \tilde{h}_{\v i} = g_{\v i}

7186: \bpm b_{\v i} \\

7187: 0 

7188: \epm 

7189: \; , 

7190: \label{eq.154}

7191: \en

7192: where $b_{\v i}$ can be taken as real and positive and $g_{\v i}$ is an $SU(2)$ matrix

7193: parametrized by

7194: \be

7195: g_{\v i}=

7196: \bpm z_{\v i1} & -z_{\v i2}^\ast \\

7197: z_{\v i2} & z_{\v i1}^\ast 

7198: \epm

7199: \; 

7200: \label{eq.155}

7201: \en

7202: where

7203: \be

7204: z_{\v i1}  = e^{i\alpha_{\v i}} e^{-i{\phi_{\v i}\over 2}} \cos {\theta_{\v i} \over 2}

7205: \label{eq.156}

7206: \en

7207: and

7208: \be

7209: z_{\v i2}  = e^{i\alpha_{\v i}} e^{i{\phi_{\v i}\over 2}} \sin {\theta_{\v i} \over 2} \,\,\, .

7210: \label{eq.157}

7211: \en

7212: We ignore the boson amplitude fluctuation and replace $b_{\v i}$ by a constant

7213: $b_0$.

7214: 

7215: An important feature of eq. (\ref{128}) is that $L_2$ is invariant under the 

7216: $SU(2)$ gauge transformation

7217: \be

7218: \tilde{h}_{\v i} &=& g_{\v i}^\dagger h_{\v i}   \label{eq.158} \\ 

7219: \tilde{\psi}_{\v i} &=& g_{\v i}^\dagger \psi_{\v i}  \label{eq.159}\\

7220: \tilde{U}_{\v i\v j} &=& g_{\v i}^\dagger U_{\v i\v j}^{(0)} g_{\v j}

7221: \label{eq.160}

7222: \en

7223: and

7224: \be

7225: \tilde{a}_{0\v i}^\ell \tau^\ell = g^\dagger a_{0\v i}^\ell \tau^\ell g - g \left(

7226: \partial _\tau g^\dagger \right) \,\,\, .

7227: \label{eq.161}

7228: \en

7229: Starting from eq. (\ref{128}) and making the above gauge transformation, the

7230: partition function is

7231: integrated over $g_{\v i}$ instead of $h_{\v i}$ and the Lagrangian

7232: takes the form

7233: \begin{align}

7234: L_2^\prime &= {\tilde{J} \over 2} \sum_{<\v i\v j>} \Tr \left(

7235: \tilde{U}_{\v i\v j}^\dagger \tilde{U}_{\v i\v j} \right) +

7236: \tilde{J} \sum_{<\v i\v j>} \psi_{\v i}^\dagger

7237: \tilde{U}_{\v i\v j}\psi_{\v j} + c.c. \nonumber \\

7238: %&+&  \sum_{\v i} \psi_{\v i}^\dagger 

7239: &+ \sum_{\v i} \psi_{\v i}^\dagger  \left( \partial_\tau - ia_{0\v i}^\ell \tau^\ell  \right)

7240:  \psi_{\v i}\nonumber + \sum_{\v i}  

7241:  \left(- ia_{0\v i}^3 + \mu_B \right)

7242:  b_0^2 \nonumber \\

7243:   &- \sum_{\v i\v j,\sigma} \tilde{t}_{\v i\v j} b_0^2 f_{\v j\sigma}^\dagger f_{\v i\sigma}

7244: \label{eq.162} 

7245: \end{align}

7246: We have removed the tilde from $\tilde{\psi}_{\v i\sigma}$,

7247: $\tilde{f}_{\v i\sigma}$, $\tilde{a}_0^\ell$ because these are integration

7248: variables and $\tilde{t}_{\v i\v j} = t_{\v i\v j}/2$.  %end Lee and Nagaosa, insert B

7249: Note that $g_{\v i}$ appears only in $\tilde{U}_{\v i\v j}$.  For every configuration

7250: $\{g_{\v i}(\tau),  a^3_{\v i\v j}(\tau)\} $ we can, in principle, integrate out the

7251: fermions and $a_0^\ell$ to obtain an energy functional.  This will constitute

7252: the $\sigma$-model description.  In practice, we can make the slowly varying

7253: $g_{\v i}$ approximation and solve the local mean field equation for

7254: $a_{0\v i}^\ell$.  This is the approach taken by 

7255: %Lee, Nagaosa, Ng and Wen (1998)

7256: \Ref{LNNWsu2}.

7257: Note that since $\{g_{\v i}\}$ appears only in the fermionic Lagrangian via

7258: $\tilde{U}_{\v i\v j}$ in eq. (\ref{eq.162}), the resulting energy functional is

7259: entirely fermionic in origin, and no longer has any bosonic contribution.

7260: 

7261: 

7262: The $\si$-model depends on $\{ g_{\v i}(\tau), a^3_{\v i\v j}(\tau) \}$,

7263: \ie it is characterized by $\al_{\v i}$, $\th_{\v i}$, $\phi_{\v i}$ and the gauge field $a_{\v i\v

7264: j}^3$. $\al_{\v i}$ is the familiar overall phase of the electron operator which

7265: becomes half of the pairing phase in the superconducting state. To help

7266: visualize the remaining dependence of freedom, 

7267: %To get a physical picture for this approach, 

7268: it is useful to introduce the local quantization axis

7269: \be \v{I}_{\v i} = z_{\v i}^\dagger \v{\tau} z_{\v i} = ( \sin \theta_{\v i} \cos \phi_{\v i}, \sin

7270: \theta_{\v i} \sin \phi_{\v i}, \cos \theta_{\v i}) \label{eq.163} 

7271: \en 

7272: Note that $\v{I}_{\v i}$ is

7273: independent of the overall phase $\alpha_{\v i}$, which is the phase of the

7274: physical electron operator.  Then different orientations of $\v{I}$ represent

7275: different mean field states in the $U(1)$ mean field theory.  This is shown in

7276: Fig. \ref{fig.26}.  For example, $\v{I}$ pointing to the north pole

7277: corresponds to $g_{\v i} = I$ and the staggered flux state.  This state has $a_0^3

7278: \neq 0$, $a_0^1 = a_0^2 = 0$ and has small Fermi pockets.  It also has orbital

7279: staggered currents around the plaquettes.  $\v{I}$ pointing to the south pole

7280: corresponds to the degenerate staggered flux state whose staggered pattern is

7281: shifted by one unit cell.  On the other hand, when $\v{I}$ is in the equator,

7282: it corresponds to a $d$-wave superconductor.  Note that the angle $\phi$ is a

7283: gauge degree of freedom and states with different $\phi$ anywhere along the

7284: equator are gauge equivalent.  A general orientation of $\v{I}$ corresponds to

7285: some combination of $d$-SC and $s$-flux.

7286: 

7287: \begin{figure}

7288: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]{fig26.eps}

7289: \caption{The quantization axis $\v{I}$ in the $SU(2)$ gauge theory.  The north

7290: and south poles correspond to the staggered flux phases with shifted orbital

7291: current patterns.  All points on the equators are equivalent and correspond to

7292: the $d$-wave superconductor.  In the superconducting state one particular

7293: direction is chosen on the equator.  There are two important collective modes.

7294: The $\theta$ modes correspond to fluctuations in the polar angle

7295: $\delta\theta$ and the $\phi$ gauge mode to a spatially varying fluctuation in

7296: $\delta\phi$.}

7297:  \label{fig.26}

7298: \end{figure}   

7299: 

7300: 

7301: At zero doping, all orientations of $\v{I}$ are energetically the same.  This

7302: symmetry is broken by doping, and the $\v{I}$ vector has a small preference to

7303: lie on the equator.  At low temperature, there is a phase transition to a

7304: state where $\v{I}$ lies on the equator, \ie the $d$-SC ground state.  It is

7305: possible to carry out a small expansion about this state and work out

7306: explicitly the collective modes 

7307: %(Lee \& Nagaosa, 2003)

7308: \cite{LN0316}.  In an ordinary

7309: superconductor, there is a single complex order parameter $\Delta$ and we

7310: expect an amplitude mode and a phase mode.  For a charged superconductor the

7311: phase mode is pushed up to the plasma frequency and one is left with the

7312: amplitude mode only.  In the gauge theory we have in addition to $\Delta_{\v i\v j}$

7313: the order parameter $\chi_{\v i\v j}$.  Thus it is natural to expect additional

7314: collective modes.  From Fig. \ref{fig.26} we see that two modes are of special

7315: interest corresponding to small $\theta$ and $\phi$ fluctuations.  Physically

7316: the $\theta$ mode corresponds to local fluctuations of the $s$-flux states

7317: which generate local orbital current fluctuations.  These currents generate a

7318: small magnetic field (estimated to be $\sim10$ gauss) which couples to

7319: neutrons. 

7320: %Lee and Nagaosa (2003)

7321: \Ref{LN0316} predict a peak in the neutron scattering

7322: cross-section at $(\pi,\pi)$, at energy just below $2\Delta_0$, where

7323: $\Delta_0$ is the maximum $d$-wave gap.  This is {\em in addition} to the

7324: resonance mode discussed in section III.B which is purely spin fluctuation in

7325: origin.  The orbital origin of this mode can be distinguished from the spin

7326: fluctuation by its distinct form factor 

7327: %(Hsu, Marston and Affleck, 1991; Chakravarty, Kee and Nayak, 2002).

7328: (\cit{HMA9166}; \cit{CKN0240})

7329: 

7330: 

7331: The $\phi$ mode is more subtle because 

7332: $\phi$ is the phase of a Higgs field, \ie it is part of

7333: the gauge degree of freedom.  It

7334: turns out to correspond to a relative oscillation of the {\em amplitudes} of

7335: $\chi_{\v i\v j}$ and $\Delta_{\v i\v j}$ and is again most prominent at $(\pi,\pi)$.

7336: Since $|\chi_{\v i\v j}|$ couples to the bond density fluctuation, inelastic Raman

7337: scattering is the tool of choice to study this mode, once the technology

7338: reaches the requisite 10~meV energy resolution.  

7339: %Lee and Nagaosa, 2003

7340: \Ref{LN0316} point

7341: out that due to the special nature of the buckled layers in LSCO, this mode

7342: couples to photons and may show up as a transfer of spectral weight from a

7343: buckling phonon to a higher frequency peak.  Such a peak was reported

7344: experimentally \cite{KTM0304}, but it is apparently not unique to LSCO as the

7345: theory would predict, and hence its interpretation remains unclear at this

7346: point.

7347: 

7348: From Fig. \ref{fig.26} it is clear that the $\sigma$-model representation of

7349: the $SU(2)$ gauge theory is a useful way of parameterizing the myriad $U(1)$

7350: mean field states which become almost degenerate for small doping.  The low

7351: temperature $d-SC$ phase is the ordered phase of the $\sigma$-model, while in

7352: the high temperature limit we expect the $\v{I}$ vector to be disordered in

7353: space and time, to the point where the $\sigma$-mode approach fails and one

7354: crosses over to the $SU(2)$ mean field description.  The disordered phase of

7355: the $\sigma$-model then corresponds to the pseudogap phase.  How does this

7356: phase transition take place?  It turns out that the destruction of

7357: superconducting order proceeds via the usual route of BKT proliferation of

7358: vortices.  To see how this comes about in the $\sigma$-model description, we

7359: have to first understand the structure of vortices. 

7360: 

7361: \subsection{Vortex structure} 

7362: 

7363: The $\sigma$-model picture leads to a natural

7364: model for a low energy $hc/2e$ vortex 

7365: %(Lee and Wen, 2001)

7366: \Ref{LW0117}.  It takes advantage

7367: of the existence of two kinds of bosons $b_1$ and $b_2$ with opposite gauge

7368: charges but the same coupling to electromagnetic fields.  Far away from the

7369: vortex core, $|b_1| = |b_2|$ and $b_1$ has constant phase while $b_2$ winds

7370: its phase by $2\pi$ around the vortex.  As the core is approached $|b_2)$ must

7371: vanish in order to avoid a divergent kinetic energy, as shown in Fig.

7372: \ref{vortex}(top).

7373: The quantization axis $\v{I}$ provides a nice way to visualize this structure

7374: [Fig. \ref{vortex}(bottom)].  It smoothly rotates to the north pole at the vortex core,

7375: indicating that at this level of approximation, the core consists of the

7376: staggered flux state.  The azimuthal angle winds by $2\pi$ as we go around the

7377: vortex. It is important to remember that $\v{I}$ parameterizes  only the

7378: internal gauge degrees of freedom $\theta$ and $\phi$ and the winding of

7379: $\phi$ by $2\pi$ is different from the usual winding of the overall phase

7380: $\alpha$ by $\pi$ in an $hc/2e$ vortex.  To better understand the phase

7381: winding we write down the following continuum model for the phase $\theta_1,

7382: \theta_2$ of $b_1$ and $b_2$, valid far away from the core.

7383: \be

7384: D = \int d^2x {K\over 2} 

7385: \left[ \rule{0in}{.15in}

7386: \left( \v{\nabla} \theta_1 -\v{a} - \v{A} \right) \right.

7387: &+&

7388: \left.

7389: \left(

7390: \nabla \theta_2 + \v{a} - \v{A}

7391: \right)^2

7392: \right] \nonumber \\

7393: && + \cdots

7394: \label{eq.164}

7395: \en

7396: where $\v{a}$ stands for the continuum version of $a^3_{\v i\v j}$ in the last

7397: section, and $\v{A}$ is the electromagnetic field ($e/c$ has been set to be

7398: unity).  We now see that the $hc/2e$ vortex must contain a half integer vortex

7399: of the $\v{a}$ gauge flux with an opposite sign.  Then $\theta_1$ sees zero

7400: flux while $\theta_2$ sees $2\pi$ flux, consistent with the windings chosen in

7401: Fig.\ref{vortex}.  This vortex structure has low energy for small $x$ because

7402: the fermion degrees of freedom remain gapped in the core and one does not pay

7403: the fermionic energy of order $J$ as in the $U(1)$ gauge theory.  Physically,

7404: the above description takes advantage of the states with almost degenerate

7405: energies (in this case the staggered flux state) which is guaranteed by the

7406: $SU(2)$ symmetry near half filling.  There is direct evidence from STM

7407: tunneling that the energy gap is preserved in the core 

7408: %(Maggio-Aprile {\em et al.}, 1995; Pan {\em et al.}, 2000)

7409: \cite{MRE9554,PHG0036}.  This is in contrast to theoretical

7410: expectations for conventional $d$-wave vortex cores, where a large resonance

7411: is expected to fill in the gap in the tunneling spectra 

7412: %(Wang and McDonald, 1995)

7413: \cite{WM9576}.

7414: 

7415: \begin{figure}

7416: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig27.eps}

7417: \caption{Structure of the superconducting vortex.  Top: $b_1$ is constant

7418: while $b_2$ vanishes at the center and its phase winds by $2\pi$.  Bottom: The

7419: isospin quantization axis points to the north pole at the center and rotates

7420: towards the equatorial plane as one moves out radially.  The pattern is

7421: rotationally symmetric around the $\hat{z}$ axis.}

7422:  \label{vortex}

7423: \end{figure} 

7424: 

7425: 

7426: We can clearly reverse the roles of $b_1$ and $b_2$ to produce another vortex

7427: configuration which is degenerate in energy.  In this case $\v{I}$ in Fig.

7428: \ref{vortex}

7429: points to the south pole.  These configurations are sometimes referred to

7430: merons (half of a hedgehog) and the two halves can tunnel to each other via

7431: the appearance of instantons in space-time.  The time scale of the tunneling

7432: event is difficult to estimate, but should be considerably less than $J$.

7433: Depending on the time scale, the orbital current of the staggered flux state

7434: in the core generates a physical staggered magnetic field which may be

7435: experimentally observable by NMR (almost static), $\mu$SR (intermediate time

7436: scale) and neutron (short time scale).  The experiment must be performed in a

7437: large magnetic field so that a significant fraction of the area consists of

7438: vortices and the signal of the staggered field should be proportional to $H$.

7439: A $\mu$SR experiment on underdoped YBCO has detected such a field dependent

7440: signal with a local field of $\pm$18 gauss 

7441: %(Miller {\em {et al.}, 2002})

7442: \cite{MKB0202}.

7443: However $\mu$SR is not able to determine whether the field has an orbital or

7444: spin origin and this experiment is only suggestive, but by no means

7445: definitive, proof of orbital currents in the vortex core.  In principle,

7446: neutron scattering is a more definitive probe, because one can use the form

7447: factor to distinguish between orbital and spin effects.  However, due to the

7448: small expected intensity, neutron scattering has so far not yielded any

7449: definite results.

7450: 

7451: As discussed in section XI.E, we expect enhanced $(\pi, \pi)$ fluctuations to

7452: be associated with the staggered flux liquid phase.  Indeed, the $s$-flux

7453: liquid state is our route to N\'{e}el order and if gauge fluctuations are

7454: large, we may expect to have quasi-static N\'{e}el order inside the vortex

7455: core.  Experimentally, there are reports of enhanced spin fluctuations in the

7456: vortex core by NMR experiments 

7457: (\cit{CMH0073}; \cit{MSB0105}; \cit{MSH0303}; \cit{KKM0203}).  There

7458: are also reports of static incommensurate spin order forming a halo around the

7459: vortex in the LSCO family 

7460: %(Katano {\em et al.}, 2000; Lake {\em et al.}, 2001, 2002; 

7461: %Khaykovich {\em et al.}, 2002)

7462: (\cit{KYS0077}; \cit{LAC0159}; \cit{LRC0299}; \cit{KLE0228}.  One possibility is that these halos are

7463: the condensation of pre-existing soft incommensurate modes known to exist in

7464: LSCO, driven by quasi-static N\'{e}el order inside the core.  We emphasize the

7465: $s$-flux liquid state is our way of producing antiferromagnetic order starting

7466: from microscopies and hence is fully consistent with the appearance of static

7467: or dynamical antiferromagnetism in the vortex core.  Our hope is that gauge

7468: fluctuations (including instanton effects) are sufficiently reduced in doped

7469: systems to permit a glimpse of the staggered orbital current.  The detection

7470: of such currently fluctuations will be a strong confirmation of our approach.

7471: 

7472: Finally, we note that orbital current does not show up directly in STM

7473: experiments, which are sensitive to the local density of states.  However,

7474: %Kishine, Lee and Wen, 2002 

7475: \Ref{KLW0226} have considered the possibility of interference

7476: between Wannier orbitals on neighboring lattice sites, which could lead to

7477: modulations of STM signals {\em between} lattice positions.  STM experiments

7478: have detected $4 \times 4$ modulated patterns in the vortex core region and

7479: also in certain underdoped regions.  Such patterns appear to require density

7480: modulations which are in addition to our vortex model.

7481: 

7482: \subsection{Phase diagram} 

7483: 

7484: We can now construct a phase diagram of the

7485: underdoped cuprates starting from the $d$-wave superconductor ground state at

7486: low temperatures.  The vortex structure allows us to unify the $\sigma$-model

7487: picture with the conventional picture of the destruction of superconducting

7488: order in two dimensions, ie., the BKT transition via the unbinding of

7489: vortices.  The $\sigma$-model 

7490: contains in addition to the pairing phase $2\al$, the phases

7491: $\th$ and $\phi$. However, we saw in section XII.C that a particular

7492: configuration of $\th$ and $\phi$ is favored in side the vortex core.

7493: %the low energy fluctuations are those of the

7494: %pairing phase $\alpha$ and the phase $\theta$.  We saw in section XII.C that

7495: %the $\theta$ fluctuations are tied to the vortex core.  

7496: The $SU(2)$ gauge

7497: theory provides a  mechanism for cheap vortices which are necessary for a BKT

7498: description, as discussed in section V.B.  If the core energy is too large,

7499: the system will behave like a superconductor on any reasonable length scale

7500: above  $T_{\rm BKT}$, which is not in accord with experiment.  On the other

7501: hand, if the core energy is small compared with $T_c$, vortices will

7502: proliferate rapidly. They overlap and lose their identity.  As discussed

7503: section V.B, there is strong experimental evidence that vortices survive over

7504: a considerable temperature range above $T_c$.  Taken as a whole, these

7505: experiments require the vortex core energy to be cheap, but not too cheap,

7506: \ie of the order of $T_c$.  

7507: %Honerkamp and Lee, 2004

7508: \Ref{HL0401} have attempted a

7509: microscopic modeling of the proliferation of vortices.  They assume an

7510: $s$-flux core and estimate the energy from projected wavefunction

7511: calculations.  They indeed found that there is a large range of temperature

7512: above the BKT transition where vortices grow in number but still maintain

7513: their identity.  This forms a region in the phase diagram which may be called

7514: the Nernst region shown in Fig.~\ref{Nernst}.  The corresponding picture of

7515: the $\v{I}$ vector fluctuation is shown in Fig.~\ref{isospin}.  Above the

7516: Nernst region the $\v{I}$ vector is strongly fluctuating and is almost

7517: isotopic.  This is the strongly disordered phase of the $\sigma$-model. The

7518: vortices have lost their identity and indeed the $\sigma$-model description

7519: which assumes well defined phases of $b_1$ and $b_2$ begin to break down.

7520: Nevertheless, the energy gap associated with the fermions remains.  This is

7521: the pseudogap part of the phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{Nernst}.  In the $SU(2)$

7522: gauge theory this is understood as the $U(1)$ spin liquid.  There is no order

7523: parameter in the usual sense associated with this phase, as all fluctuations

7524: including staggered orbital currents and $d$-wave pairing become short range.

7525: Is there a way to characterize this state of affairs other than the term spin

7526: liquid?  This question is addressed in the next section.

7527: 

7528: \begin{figure}

7529: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{isospin.eps}

7530: \caption{

7531: Schematic picture of the quantization axis $\v{I}$ in different parts of the

7532: phase diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{Nernst}. (a)~In the superconducting phase

7533: $\v{I}$ is ordered in the $x$-$y$ plane.  (b)~In the Nernst phase, $\v{I}$

7534: points to the north or south pole inside the vortex core. (c)~The pseudogap

7535: corresponds to a completely disordered arrangement of $\v{I}$. ($\v{I}$ is a

7536: three dimensional vector and only a two dimensional projection is shown.)

7537: }

7538: \label{isospin}

7539: \end{figure} 

7540: 

7541: 

7542: \subsection{Signature of the spin liquid}

7543: 

7544: %Senthil and Lee (2004) 

7545: \Ref{SL0466}

7546: pointed out that if the pseudogap region is controlled

7547: by the $U(1)$ spin liquid fixed point, it is possible to characterize this

7548: region in a certain precise way.  The spin liquid is a de-confined state,

7549: meaning that instantons are irrelevant.  Then the $U(1)$ gauge flux is a

7550: conserved quantity.  Unfortunately, it is not clear how to couple to this

7551: gauge flux using conventional probes.  We note that the flux associated with

7552: the $\v{a}^3$ gauge field is {\em different} from the $U(1)$ gauge flux

7553: considered in section IX, which had the meaning of spin chirality.  In the

7554: case where the bosons are locally condensed and their local phase well

7555: defined, it is possible to identify the gauge flux in terms of the local 

7556: phase variables.

7557: The gauge magnetic field $\cal{B}$ is given by

7558: \be

7559: {\cal B} & =& (\v \nabla \times \v{a}^3)_z \nonumber \\

7560: & = & \frac{1}{2} \hat{n} \cdot \partial_x \hat{n} \times \partial_y \hat{n}

7561: \label{eq.165}

7562: \en

7563: where

7564: \be

7565: \hat{n} = (\sin \theta \cos \alpha, \sin \theta \sin \alpha, \cos \theta) \nonumber \;\; .

7566: \en

7567: with $\th$ and $\al$ defined in \Eq{eq.156}.

7568: Note that the azimuthal angle associated with $\hat{n}$ is now the pairing

7569: phase $\alpha$, in contrast with the vector $\v{I}$ we considered earlier.

7570: The gauge flux is thus related to the local pairing and $s$-flux order as

7571: \be

7572: {\cal B} = \frac{1}{2} 

7573: \left( \v \nabla  \hat{n}_z  \times \v \nabla \alpha \right)_z

7574: \label{eq.166}

7575: \en

7576: and it is easily checked that the vortex structure described in section XII.C

7577: contains a half integer gauge flux.

7578: 

7579: In the superconducting state the gauge flux is localized in the vortex core

7580: and fluctuations between $\pm$ half integer vortices are possible via

7581: instantons, because the instanton action is finite.  The superconductor is in

7582: a confined phase as far as the $U(1)$ gauge field is concerned.  As the

7583: temperature is raised towards the pseudogap phase this gauge field leaks out

7584: of the vortex cores and begins to fluctuate more and more homogeneously.

7585: 

7586: %Senthil and Lee, insert B

7587: 

7588: The asymptotic conservation of the gauge flux at the Mott transition fixed

7589: point

7590: potentially provides some possibilities for its detection. At non-zero

7591: temperatures in the non-superconducting regions, the flux 

7592: conservation is only approximate (as the instanton fugacity is small but

7593: non-zero). Nevertheless at low enough temperature the conserved flux will 

7594: propagate diffusively over a long range of length and time scales. Thus there

7595: should be an extra diffusive mode that is present at low temperatures in the 

7596: non-superconducting state. It is however not clear how to design a probe that

7597: will couple to this diffusive mode at present.

7598: 

7599: 

7600: 

7601: 

7602: 

7603: Alternately the vortex structure described above provides a useful way to

7604: create and then detect the gauge flux in the non-superconducting

7605: normal state. We will first describe this by ignoring the

7606: instantons completely in the normal state. The effects of

7607: instantons will then be discussed.

7608: 

7609: Consider first a large disc of

7610: cuprate material which is such that the doping level changes as a function of

7611: the radial distance from the center as shown in Fig. \ref{u1ft1}.

7612: The outermost annulus has the largest doping $x_1$. The inner annulus has a

7613: lower doping level $x_2$. The rest of the sample is at a doping level

7614: $x_3< x_2 < x_1$. The corresponding transition temperatures $T_{c1,2,3}$

7615: will be such that $T_{c3} < T_{c2} < T_{c1}$. We also imagine that

7616: the thickness $\Delta R_o, \Delta R_i$ of the outer and inner  annuli

7617: are both much smaller than the penetration

7618: depth for the physical vector potential $A$. The penetration depth

7619: of the internal gauge field $a$ is expected to be small and we

7620: expect it will be smaller than $\Delta R_o, \Delta R_i$.  

7621: We also imagine that the radius of this inner annulus $R_i$ is a substantial

7622: fraction of the radius $R_o$

7623: of the outer annulus.

7624: 

7625: 

7626: \begin{figure}[tb]

7627: \centering

7628: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]{u1ft1.eps}

7629: \caption{Structure of the sample needed for the proposed experiment. The outer annulus (in dark blue) has the highest $T_c$. The inner annulus 

7630: (in light blue) has a smaller $T_c$. The rest of the sample (in brown) has even smaller $T_c$. 

7631:  } 

7632: \label{u1ft1}

7633: \end{figure} 

7634: 

7635:  Now consider the following set of operations on such a sample.

7636: 

7637: (i) First cool in a magnetic field to a temperature $T_{in}$ such that

7638: $T_{c2} < T_{in} < T_{c1}$. The outer ring will then go superconducting while

7639: the rest of the sample stays normal.

7640: In the presence of the field the outer ring will condense into a state in

7641: which there is a net vorticity on going around the ring.

7642: We will be interested in the case where this net vorticity is an odd multiple

7643: of the basic $hc/2e$ vortex. If as assumed the

7644: physical penetration depth is much bigger than the thickness $\Delta R_o$ then

7645: the physical magnetic flux enclosed by the ring will not be quantized.

7646: 

7647: 

7648: (ii) Now consider turning off

7649: the external magnetic field. The vortex present in the outer superconducting

7650: ring will stay (manifested as a small circulating persistent current)

7651: and will give rise to a small magnetic field. As explained above if the

7652: vorticity is odd, then it must be associated with a flux of the

7653: internal gauge field that is $\pm \pi$. This internal gauge flux must

7654: essentially all be in the inner `normal' region of the sample with

7655: very small penetration into the outer superconducting ring. It will spread out

7656: essentially evenly over the full inner region.

7657: 

7658: We have thus managed to create a configuration with a non-zero  internal gauge

7659: flux

7660: in the non-superconducting state.

7661: 

7662: 

7663: 

7664: (iii) How do we detect the presence of this internal gauge flux? For that

7665: imagine now cooling the sample further to a temperature

7666: $T_{fin}$ such that $T_{c3} < T_{fin} < T_{c2}$. Then the inner ring will also

7667: go superconducting. This is to be understood as the condensation

7668: of the two boson species $b_{1,2}$. But this condensation occurs in the

7669: presence of some internal gauge flux. When the bosons $b_{1,2}$ condense in

7670: the inner ring,

7671: they will do so in a manner that quantizes the internal gauge flux enclosed by

7672: this inner ring into an integer multiple of $\pi$. If as

7673: assumed the inner radius is a substantial fraction of the outer radius then

7674: the net internal gauge flux will prefer the quantized values $\pm \pi$ rather

7675: than

7676: be zero (see below). However configurations of the inner ring that enclose

7677: quantized internal gauge flux of $\pm \pi$ also necessarily

7678: contain a physical vortex that is an odd multiple of $hc/2e$. With the

7679: thickness of the inner ring being smaller than the physical penetration depth, 

7680: most of the physical magnetic flux will escape. There will still be a small

7681: residual physical flux due to the current in the inner ring associated with

7682: the 

7683: induced vortex. This residual physical magnetic flux can then be detected.

7684: 

7685: 

7686: 

7687: Note that the sign of the induced physical flux is independent of the sign of

7688: the initial magnetic field. Furthermore

7689: the effect obtains only if the initial vorticity in the outer ring is odd. If

7690: on the other hand the initial vorticity is

7691: even the associated internal gauge flux is zero, and there will be no induced

7692: physical flux when the inner ring goes superconducting.

7693: 

7694: The preceding discussion ignores any effects of instantons. In

7695: contrast to a bulk vortex in the superconducting state the

7696: vortices in the set-up above have macroscopic cores. The internal

7697: gauge flux is therefore distributed over a region of macroscopic

7698: size. Consequently if instantons are irrelevant at long scales in

7699: the normal state, their rate may be expected to be small. At any

7700: non-zero temperature (as in the proposed experiment) there will be

7701: a non-zero instanton rate which will be small for small

7702: temperature.

7703: 

7704: When such instantons are allowed then the internal gauge flux

7705: created in the sample after step (ii) will fluctuate between the

7706: values $+\pi$ and $-\pi$. However so long as the time required to

7707: form the physical vortex in step (iii), which we expect to be short electronic

7708: time scale, is much shorter than the

7709: inverse of the instanton rate we expect that the effect will be seen.

7710: Since the cooling is assumed slow enough that the system always stays in

7711: equilibrium, the outcome of the experiment is determined by thermodynamic

7712: considerations.  

7713: %Senthil and Lee (2004)

7714: \Ref{SL0466} estimated the energies of the various

7715: stages of the operation and concluded that for sample diameters under a micron

7716: and sufficiently low temperatures (= 10 K), such an experiment may be

7717: feasible.

7718: 

7719: 

7720: \section{Summary and outlook}

7721: 

7722: In this review we have summarized a large body of work which views high

7723: temperature superconductivity as the problem of doping of a Mott insulator.

7724: We have argued that the $t$-$J$ model, supplemented by $t^\prime$ terms,

7725: contains the essence of the physics.  We offer as evidence numerical work

7726: based on the projected trial wavefunctions, which correctly predicts the

7727: $d$-wave pairing ground state and a host of properties such as the superfluid

7728: density and the quasiparticle spectral weight and dispersion.  Analytic theory

7729: hinges on the treatment of the constraint of no double occupation.  The

7730: redundancy in the representations used to enforce the constraint naturally

7731: leads to various gauge theories.  We argue that with doping, the gauge theory

7732: may be in a deconfined phase, in which case the slave-boson and fermion

7733: degrees of freedom, which were introduced as mathematical devices, take on a

7734: physical meaning in that they are sensible starting points to describe

7735: physical phenomena.  However, even in the deconfined phase, the coupling to

7736: gauge fluctuations is still of order unity and approximation schemes (such as

7737: large $N$ expansion) are needed to calculate physical properties such as spin

7738: correlation and electron spectral function.  These results qualitatively

7739: capture the physics of the pseudogap phase, but certainly not at a

7740: quantitative level.  Nevertheless, our picture of the vortex structure and how

7741: they proliferate gives us a reasonable account of the phase diagram and the

7742: onset of $T_c$.

7743: 

7744: One direction of future research is to refine the treatment of the low energy

7745: effective model, \ie fermions and bosons coupled to gauge fields, and

7746: attempt more detailed comparison with experiments such as photoemission

7747: lineshapes, \etc.  On the other hand, it is worthwhile to step back and take a

7748: broader perspective.  What is really new and striking about the high

7749: temperature superconductors is the strange ``normal'' metallic state for

7750: underdoped samples.  The carrier density is small and the Fermi surface is

7751: broken up by the appearance of a pseudogap near $(0,\pi)$ and $(\pi, 0)$,

7752: leaving a ``Fermi arc'' near the nodal points.  All this happens without

7753: doubling of the unit cell via breaking translation or spin rotation symmetry.

7754: How this state comes into being in a lightly doped Mott insulator is the crux

7755: of the problem.  We can distinguish between two classes of answers.  The

7756: first, perhaps the more conventional one, postulates the existence of a 

7757: symmetry-breaking state

7758: which gaps the Fermi surface, and further assumes that thermal fluctuation

7759: prevents this state from ordering.  A natural candidate for the state is the

7760: superconducting state itself.  However, it now appears that phase fluctuations

7761: of a superconductor can explain the pseudogap phenomenon only over a

7762: relatively narrow temperature range, which we called the Nernst regime.

7763: Alternatively, a variety of competing states which have nothing to do with

7764: superconductivity have been proposed, often on a phenomenological level, to

7765: produce the pseudogap.  We shall refer to this class of theory as ``thermal''

7766: explanation of the pseudogap.

7767: 

7768: A second class of answer, which we may dub the ``quantum'' explanation,

7769: proposes that the pseudogap is connected with a fundamentally new quantum

7770: state.  Thus, despite its appearance at high temperatures, it is argued that

7771: it is a high frequency phenomenon which is best understood quantum

7772: mechanically.  The gauge theory reviewed here belongs to this class, and views

7773: the pseudogap state as derived from a new state of matter, the quantum spin

7774: liquid state.  The spin liquid state is connected to the N\'{e}el state at

7775: half filling by confinement.  At the same time, with doping a $d$-wave

7776: superconducting ground state is naturally produced.  We argue that rather than

7777: following the route taken by the cuprate in the laboratory of evolving

7778: directly from the antiferromagnet to the superconductor, it is better

7779: conceptually to start from the spin liquid state and consider how AF and

7780: superconductivity develop from it.  In this view the pseudogap is the

7781: closest we can get to obtaining a glimpse of the spin liquid which up to now

7782: is unstable in the square lattice $t$-$J$ model. 

7783: 

7784: Is there a ``smoking gun'' signature to prove or disprove the validity of this

7785: line of theory?  Our approach is to make specific predictions as much as

7786: possible in the hope of stimulating experimental work.  This is the reason we

7787: make special emphasis on the staggered flux liquid with its orbital current

7788: fluctuations, because it is a unique signature which may be experimentally

7789: detectable.  Our predictions range from new collective modes in the

7790: superconducting state, to quasi-static order in the vortex core.

7791: Unfortunately the physical manifestation of the orbital current is a very weak

7792: magnetic field, which is difficult to detect, and to date we have not found

7793: experimental verification.  Besides orbital current, we also propose an

7794: experiment involving flux generation in a special geometry. This experiment

7795: addresses the fundamental issue of the quantum spin liquid as the origin of

7796: the pseudogap phase.

7797: 

7798: The pseudogap metallic state is so strange that at the beginning, it is not

7799: clear if a microscopic description is even possible. So the microscopic

7800: description provided by the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory, although still

7801: relatively qualitative, represents  important progress and leads to some deep

7802: insights.  A key finding is that the parent spin liquid is a new state of

7803: matter that cannot be described by Landau's symmetry breaking theory.  The

7804: description of the parent spin liquid, such as the $SU(2)$ slave-boson theory,

7805: must involve gauge theory.  Even if one starts with an ordered phase and later

7806: uses quantum fluctuations to restore the symmetry, the resulting description

7807: of the symmetry restored  state, if found, appears to always contain gauge

7808: fields \cite{WMW9846}.  Thus the appearance of the gauge field in the quantum

7809: description of the  pseudogap metal is not a mathematical artifact of the

7810: slave-boson theory. It is a consequence of a new type of correlations in those

7811: states. The new type of correlations represents a new type of order

7812: \cite{Wqoslpub}, which make those states different from the familiar states

7813: described by Landau's symmetry breaking theory.

7814: 

7815: From this perspective, the study of high temperature superconductivity may

7816: have a much broader and deeper impact than merely understanding high

7817: temperature superconductivity. Such a study is actually a study of new states

7818: of matter. It represents our entry into a new exciting world that lies beyond

7819: Landau's world of symmetry breaking.  Hopefully the new states of matter may

7820: be discovered in some materials other than high temperature superconductors.

7821: The slave-boson theory and the resulting gauge theory developed for high

7822: temperature superconductivity may be useful for these new states of matter

7823: once they are discovered in experiments. [Examples of these new states of

7824: matter have already been discovered in many theoretical toy models

7825: (\cit{K032}; \cit{MS0181}; \cit{BFG0212}; \cit{Wqoexct}).] At the moment,

7826: gauge theory is the only known language to describe this new state of

7827: affairs.  We believe the introduction of this subject to condensed matter

7828: physics has enriched the field and will lead to may interesting further

7829: developments.

7830: 

7831: 

7832: 

7833: \begin{acknowledgments}

7834: P.A.L. acknowledges support by NSF grant number

7835: DMR-0201069.

7836: X.G.W. acknowledges support by NSF Grant No. DMR--01--23156,

7837: NSF-MRSEC Grant No. DMR--02--13282, and NFSC no. 10228408.

7838: \end{acknowledgments}

7839: 

7840: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

7841: %\bibliography{/home/wen/bib/wencross,/home/wen/bib/all,/home/wen/bib/rmp,/home/wen/bib/publst} 

7842: %\end{document}

7843: 

7844: 

7845: 

7846: \begin{thebibliography}{338}

7847: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

7848: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

7849:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

7850: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

7851:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

7852: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

7853:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

7854: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

7855:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

7856: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

7857: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

7858: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

7859: 

7860: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Abanov} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Abanov,

7861:   Chubukov, Esehig, Norman, and Schmalian}}]{ACE0202}

7862: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Abanov}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

7863:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Chubukov}},

7864:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Esehig}},

7865:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Norman}}, and

7866:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Schmalian}},

7867:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

7868:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}}, \bibinfo{pages}{177002}.

7869: 

7870: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aeppli} \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Aeppli, Mason,

7871:   Hayden, and Mook}}]{AMH9511}

7872: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Aeppli}, \bibfnamefont{G.}},

7873:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mason}},

7874:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hayden}}, and

7875:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Mook}}, \bibinfo{year}{1995},

7876:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. Solids} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

7877:   \bibinfo{pages}{1911}.

7878: 

7879: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Affleck and Marston}(1988)}]{AM8874}

7880: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Affleck}, \bibfnamefont{I.}}, and

7881:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Marston}},

7882:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

7883:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{37}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3774}.

7884: 

7885: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Affleck} \emph{et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Affleck, Zou,

7886:   Hsu, and Anderson}}]{AZH8845}

7887: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Affleck}, \bibfnamefont{I.}},

7888:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Zou}},

7889:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Hsu}}, and

7890:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.} \bibnamefont{Anderson}},

7891:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

7892:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{745}.

7893: 

7894: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Alloul} \emph{et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Alloul, Ohno,

7895:   and Mendels}}]{AOM8900}

7896: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Alloul}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

7897:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ohno}}, and

7898:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Mendels}},

7899:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

7900:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1700}.

7901: 

7902: \bibitem[{Andersen \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Andersen}

7903:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Ao9685}

7904: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Andersen}, \bibfnamefont{O.~K.}}, \emph{et~al.},

7905:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Low Temp. Phys.}

7906:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{105}}, \bibinfo{pages}{285}.

7907: 

7908: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Anderson}(1973)}]{A7353}

7909: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Anderson}, \bibfnamefont{P.~W.}},

7910:   \bibinfo{year}{1973}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mat. Res. Bull.}

7911:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}}, \bibinfo{pages}{153}.

7912: 

7913: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Anderson}(1987)}]{A8796}

7914: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Anderson}, \bibfnamefont{P.~W.}},

7915:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

7916:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{235}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1196}.

7917: 

7918: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Anderson}(1997)}]{AndHtc97}

7919: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Anderson}, \bibfnamefont{P.~W.}},

7920:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The Theory of Superconductivity

7921:   in the High Tc Cuprates}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Princeton University Press},

7922:   \bibinfo{address}{Princeto}).

7923: 

7924: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Anderson} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Anderson,

7925:   Randeria, Rice, Trivedi, and Zhang}}]{ARR0455}

7926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Anderson}, \bibfnamefont{P.~W.}},

7927:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

7928:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Rice}},

7929:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Trivedi}}, and

7930:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}},

7931:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Cond. Matter}

7932:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{R755}.

7933: 

7934: \bibitem[{Armitage \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Armitage}

7935:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Ao0103}

7936: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Armitage}, \bibfnamefont{N.~P.}}, \emph{et~al.},

7937:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

7938:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{147003}.

7939: 

7940: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Arovas} \emph{et~al.}(1984)\citenamefont{Arovas,

7941:   Schrieffer, and Wilczek}}]{ASW8422}

7942: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Arovas}, \bibfnamefont{D.}},

7943:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Schrieffer}}, and

7944:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Wilczek}},

7945:   \bibinfo{year}{1984}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

7946:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}}, \bibinfo{pages}{722}.

7947: 

7948: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Arovas and Auerbach}(1988)}]{AA8816}

7949: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Arovas}, \bibfnamefont{D.~P.}}, and

7950:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Auerbach}},

7951:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

7952:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{316}.

7953: 

7954: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Arovas} \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Arovas,

7955:   Berlinsky, Kallin, and Zhang}}]{ABK9771}

7956: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Arovas}, \bibfnamefont{D.~P.}},

7957:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Berlinsky}},

7958:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Kallin}}, and

7959:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-C.} \bibnamefont{Zhang}},

7960:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

7961:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2871}.

7962: 

7963: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Assaad}(2004)}]{A0474}

7964: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Assaad}, \bibfnamefont{F.}},

7965:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0406074}.

7966: 

7967: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balents} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Balents,

7968:   Fisher, and Girvin}}]{BFG0212}

7969: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Balents}, \bibfnamefont{L.}},

7970:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}}, and

7971:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.} \bibnamefont{Girvin}},

7972:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

7973:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{224412}.

7974: 

7975: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Balents} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Balents,

7976:   Fisher, and Nayak}}]{BFN9833}

7977: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Balents}, \bibfnamefont{L.}},

7978:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}}, and

7979:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Nayak}},

7980:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B}

7981:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1033}.

7982: 

7983: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Banks} \emph{et~al.}(1977)\citenamefont{Banks, Myerson,

7984:   and Kogut}}]{BMK7793}

7985: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Banks}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

7986:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Myerson}}, and

7987:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Kogut}},

7988:   \bibinfo{year}{1977}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B}

7989:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{129}}, \bibinfo{pages}{493}.

7990: 

7991: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Barnes}(1976)}]{B7675}

7992: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Barnes}, \bibfnamefont{S.~E.}},

7993:   \bibinfo{year}{1976}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. F}

7994:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1375}.

7995: 

7996: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baskaran and Anderson}(1998)}]{BA9880}

7997: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Baskaran}, \bibfnamefont{G.}}, and

7998:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Anderson}},

7999:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. Solids}

8000:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1780}.

8001: 

8002: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baskaran and Anderson}(1988)}]{BA8880}

8003: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Baskaran}, \bibfnamefont{G.}}, and

8004:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.} \bibnamefont{Anderson}},

8005:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8006:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{37}}, \bibinfo{pages}{580}.

8007: 

8008: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baskaran} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Baskaran,

8009:   Zou, and Anderson}}]{BZA8773}

8010: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Baskaran}, \bibfnamefont{G.}},

8011:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Zou}}, and

8012:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.} \bibnamefont{Anderson}},

8013:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Solid State Comm.}

8014:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{973}.

8015: 

8016: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Basov} \emph{et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Basov, Puchkov,

8017:   Hughes, Strach, Preston, Timusk, Bonn, Liang, and Hardy}}]{BPH9465}

8018: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Basov}, \bibfnamefont{D.~N.}},

8019:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Puchkov}},

8020:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Hughes}},

8021:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Strach}},

8022:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Preston}},

8023:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Timusk}},

8024:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}},

8025:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}}, and

8026:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}},

8027:   \bibinfo{year}{1994}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8028:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}}, \bibinfo{pages}{12165}.

8029: 

8030: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bednorz and Mueller}(1986)}]{BM8689}

8031: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Bednorz}, \bibfnamefont{J.~G.}}, and

8032:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~A.} \bibnamefont{Mueller}},

8033:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}, \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys. B}

8034:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{189}.

8035: 

8036: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Benfatto} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Benfatto,

8037:   Capara, Castellani, Paramekanti, and Randeria}}]{BCC0113}

8038: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Benfatto}, \bibfnamefont{L.}},

8039:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Capara}},

8040:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Castellani}},

8041:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}}, and

8042:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

8043:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B.}

8044:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{174513}.

8045: 

8046: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berezinski}(1971)}]{B7144}

8047: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Berezinski}, \bibfnamefont{V.~L.}},

8048:   \bibinfo{year}{1971}, \bibinfo{journal}{Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.}

8049:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1144}.

8050: 

8051: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bonn} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Bonn, Wynn, b.W.

8052:   Gardner, Liang, Hardy, Kiteley, and Moler}}]{BWG0187}

8053: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Bonn}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}},

8054:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Wynn}},

8055:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{b.W. Gardner}},

8056:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

8057:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}},

8058:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kiteley}}, and

8059:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Moler}},

8060:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8061:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{414}}, \bibinfo{pages}{887}.

8062: 

8063: \bibitem[{Bonn \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Bonn} \emph{et~al.}}]{Bo9695}

8064: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Bonn}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}}, \emph{et~al.},

8065:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Czech. J. Phys.}

8066:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{46}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3195}.

8067: 

8068: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Borokhov} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Borokhov,

8069:   Kapustin, and Wu}}]{BKW0249}

8070: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Borokhov}, \bibfnamefont{V.}},

8071:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapustin}}, and

8072:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.}~\bibnamefont{Wu}}, \bibinfo{year}{2002},

8073:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. High Energy Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},

8074:   \bibinfo{pages}{49}.

8075: 

8076: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bourges} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Bourges,

8077:   Sidis, Fong, Regnault, Bossy, Ivanov, and B.Keimer}}]{BSF0034}

8078: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Bourges}, \bibfnamefont{P.}},

8079:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sidis}},

8080:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Fong}},

8081:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Regnault}},

8082:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Bossy}},

8083:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ivanov}}, and

8084:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{B.Keimer}}, \bibinfo{year}{2000},

8085:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{288}},

8086:   \bibinfo{pages}{1234}.

8087: 

8088: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Boyce} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Boyce, Skinta,

8089:   and Lemberger}}]{BSL0061}

8090: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Boyce}, \bibfnamefont{B.~R.}},

8091:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Skinta}}, and

8092:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lemberger}},

8093:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica C}

8094:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{341-348}}, \bibinfo{pages}{561}.

8095: 

8096: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brinckmann and Lee}(2001)}]{BL0102}

8097: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Brinckmann}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, and

8098:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, \bibinfo{year}{2001},

8099:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

8100:   \bibinfo{pages}{014502}.

8101: 

8102: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brinckmann and Lee}(1999)}]{BL9915}

8103: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Brinckmann}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, and

8104:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8105:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8106:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2915}.

8107: 

8108: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brinckmann and Lee}(2002)}]{BL0202}

8109: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Brinckmann}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, and

8110:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8111:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8112:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{014502}.

8113: 

8114: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brown} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Brown, Turner,

8115:   Ozcan, Movgan, Liang, Huang, and Bonn}}]{BTO04}

8116: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Brown}, \bibfnamefont{D.~M.}},

8117:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~J.} \bibnamefont{Turner}},

8118:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ozcan}},

8119:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Movgan}},

8120:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

8121:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~N.} \bibnamefont{Huang}}, and

8122:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bonn}},

8123:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{to be published} .

8124: 

8125: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bulut and Scalapino}(1996)}]{BS9649}

8126: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Bulut}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

8127:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Scalapino}},

8128:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8129:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5149}.

8130: 

8131: \bibitem[{Buyers \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Buyers} \emph{et~al.}}]{Bo04}

8132: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Buyers}, \bibfnamefont{W.~J.~L.}}, \emph{et~al.},

8133:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{SNS2004 Conference Proceedings, to be

8134:   published} .

8135: 

8136: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Campuzano} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Campuzano,

8137:   Ding, Norman, Fretwell, Randeria, Kaminski, Mesot, Takeuchi, Sato, Yokoya,

8138:   Takahashi, Mochiku} \emph{et~al.}}]{CDN9909}

8139: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Campuzano}, \bibfnamefont{J.~C.}},

8140:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ding}},

8141:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~R.} \bibnamefont{Norman}},

8142:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~M.} \bibnamefont{Fretwell}},

8143:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

8144:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kaminski}},

8145:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Mesot}},

8146:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Takeuchi}},

8147:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Sato}},

8148:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yokoya}},

8149:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

8150:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mochiku}}, \emph{et~al.},

8151:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8152:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3709}.

8153: 

8154: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Campuzano} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Campuzano,

8155:   Norman, and Randeria}}]{CNR03}

8156: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Campuzano}, \bibfnamefont{J.~C.}},

8157:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Norman}}, and

8158:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

8159:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{in {\em Physics of Conventional and

8160:   Unconventional Superconductors}, edited by K.H. Bennemann and J.B. Ketterson

8161:   (Springer, Berlin)} .

8162: 

8163: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carlson} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Carlson,

8164:   Emery, Kivelson, and Orgad}}]{CEK03}

8165: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Carlson}, \bibfnamefont{E.~W.}},

8166:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Emery}},

8167:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kivelson}}, and

8168:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Orgad}},

8169:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{in {\em Physics of Conventional and

8170:   Unconventional Superconductors}, edited by K.H. Bennemann and J.B. Ketterson

8171:   (Springer, Berlin).} .

8172: 

8173: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carlson} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Carlson,

8174:   Kivelson, Emery, and Manousakis}}]{CKE9912}

8175: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Carlson}, \bibfnamefont{E.~W.}},

8176:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kivelson}},

8177:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Emery}}, and

8178:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Manousakis}},

8179:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8180:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}}, \bibinfo{pages}{612}.

8181: 

8182: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Castellani}

8183:   \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Castellani, Castro, and Grilli}}]{CCG9737}

8184: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Castellani}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8185:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~D.} \bibnamefont{Castro}}, and

8186:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grilli}},

8187:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys.}

8188:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{103}}, \bibinfo{pages}{137}.

8189: 

8190: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chakraborty}

8191:   \emph{et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Chakraborty, Read, Kane, and Lee}}]{CRK9019}

8192: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chakraborty}, \bibfnamefont{B.}},

8193:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Read}},

8194:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Kane}}, and

8195:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8196:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8197:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4819}.

8198: 

8199: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chakravarty}

8200:   \emph{et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Chakravarty, Kee, and

8201:   Nayak}}]{CKN0240}

8202: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chakravarty}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

8203:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Kee}}, and

8204:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Nayak}},

8205:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B}

8206:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3140}.

8207: 

8208: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chakravarty}

8209:   \emph{et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Chakravarty, Laughlin, Morr,

8210:   and Nayak}}]{CLM0203}

8211: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chakravarty}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

8212:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~B.} \bibnamefont{Laughlin}},

8213:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~K.} \bibnamefont{Morr}}, and

8214:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Nayak}},

8215:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8216:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{094503}.

8217: 

8218: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chen} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Chen, Caponi,

8219:   Alet, and Zhang}}]{CCA0416}

8220: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chen}, \bibfnamefont{H.-D.}},

8221:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Caponi}},

8222:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Alet}}, and

8223:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-C.} \bibnamefont{Zhang}},

8224:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8225:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{024516}.

8226: 

8227: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cheong} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Cheong,

8228:   Aeppli, Mason, Mook, Hayden, Canfield, Fisk, Clausen, and

8229:   Martinez}}]{CAM9191}

8230: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Cheong}, \bibfnamefont{S.-W.}},

8231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

8232:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~E.} \bibnamefont{Mason}},

8233:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Mook}},

8234:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.} \bibnamefont{Hayden}},

8235:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~C.} \bibnamefont{Canfield}},

8236:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Fisk}},

8237:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~N.} \bibnamefont{Clausen}}, and

8238:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Martinez}},

8239:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8240:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1791}.

8241: 

8242: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chiao} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Chiao, Hill,

8243:   Lupien, Taillefer, Lambert, Gagnon, and Fourier}}]{CHL0054}

8244: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chiao}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8245:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Hill}},

8246:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lupien}},

8247:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Taillefer}},

8248:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Lambert}},

8249:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Gagnon}}, and

8250:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Fourier}},

8251:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8252:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3554}.

8253: 

8254: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chien} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Chien, Wang,

8255:   and Ong}}]{CWO9188}

8256: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Chien}, \bibfnamefont{T.~R.}},

8257:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Wang}}, and

8258:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ong}}, \bibinfo{year}{1991},

8259:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}},

8260:   \bibinfo{pages}{2088}.

8261: 

8262: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Christensen}

8263:   \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Christensen, McMorrow, Ronnow, Lake, Hayden,

8264:   Aeppli, Perring, Mangkorntong, Nohara, and Tagaki}}]{CMR0439}

8265: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Christensen}, \bibfnamefont{N.~B.}},

8266:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{McMorrow}},

8267:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ronnow}},

8268:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Lake}},

8269:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hayden}},

8270:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

8271:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Perring}},

8272:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Mangkorntong}},

8273:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Nohara}}, and

8274:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Tagaki}},

8275:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0403439}.

8276: 

8277: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Coldea} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Coldea,

8278:   Hayden, Aeppli, Perrig, Frost, Mason, Cheong, and Fisk}}]{CHA0177}

8279: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Coldea}, \bibfnamefont{R.}},

8280:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hayden}},

8281:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

8282:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Perrig}},

8283:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Frost}},

8284:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mason}},

8285:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Cheong}}, and

8286:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Fisk}}, \bibinfo{year}{2001},

8287:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},

8288:   \bibinfo{pages}{5377}.

8289: 

8290: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Coleman}(1984)}]{C8435}

8291: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Coleman}, \bibfnamefont{P.}},

8292:   \bibinfo{year}{1984}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8293:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{29}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3035}.

8294: 

8295: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cooper} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Cooper,

8296:   Reznik, Kotz, Karlow, Liu, Klein, Lee, Giapintzakis, Ginsberg, Veal, and

8297:   Paulikas}}]{CRK9333}

8298: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Cooper}, \bibfnamefont{S.~L.}},

8299:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Reznik}},

8300:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kotz}},

8301:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Karlow}},

8302:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liu}},

8303:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~V.} \bibnamefont{Klein}},

8304:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~C.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8305:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Giapintzakis}},

8306:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{Ginsberg}},

8307:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~W.} \bibnamefont{Veal}}, and

8308:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~P.} \bibnamefont{Paulikas}},

8309:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8310:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{47}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8233}.

8311: 

8312: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Corson} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Corson,

8313:   Mallozzi, Orenstein, Eckstein, and Bozovic}}]{CMO9921}

8314: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Corson}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

8315:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Mallozzi}},

8316:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Orenstein}},

8317:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Eckstein}}, and

8318:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Bozovic}},

8319:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8320:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{398}}, \bibinfo{pages}{221}.

8321: 

8322: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Corson} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Corson,

8323:   Orenstein, Oh, O'Donnell, and Eckstein}}]{COO0069}

8324: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Corson}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

8325:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Orenstein}},

8326:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Oh}},

8327:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{O'Donnell}}, and

8328:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Eckstein}},

8329:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8330:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2569}.

8331: 

8332: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Curro} \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Curro, Imai,

8333:   Slichter, and Dabrowski}}]{CIS9777}

8334: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Curro}, \bibfnamefont{N.~J.}},

8335:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Imai}},

8336:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Slichter}}, and

8337:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Dabrowski}},

8338:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8339:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{877}.

8340: 

8341: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Curro} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Curro, Milling,

8342:   Haase, and Slichter}}]{CMH0073}

8343: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Curro}, \bibfnamefont{N.~J.}},

8344:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Milling}},

8345:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Haase}}, and

8346:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Slichter}},

8347:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8348:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3473}.

8349: 

8350: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{D'Adda} \emph{et~al.}(1978)\citenamefont{D'Adda,

8351:   Vecchia, and L{\"u}scher}}]{DDL7863}

8352: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{D'Adda}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

8353:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~D.} \bibnamefont{Vecchia}}, and

8354:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{L{\"u}scher}},

8355:   \bibinfo{year}{1978}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B}

8356:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{146}}, \bibinfo{pages}{63}.

8357: 

8358: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dagotto}(1994)}]{D9463}

8359: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Dagotto}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

8360:   \bibinfo{year}{1994}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

8361:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{763}.

8362: 

8363: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dagotto} \emph{et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Dagotto,

8364:   Fradkin, and Moreo}}]{DFM8826}

8365: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Dagotto}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

8366:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Fradkin}}, and

8367:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Moreo}},

8368:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8369:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2926}.

8370: 

8371: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dagotto} \emph{et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Dagotto,

8372:   Moreo, Ortolani, Poilblanc, and Riera}}]{DMO9241}

8373: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Dagotto}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

8374:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Moreo}},

8375:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Ortolani}},

8376:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Poilblanc}}, and

8377:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Riera}},

8378:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8379:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10741}.

8380: 

8381: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Damascelli}

8382:   \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Damascelli, Hussin, and Shen}}]{DHS0373}

8383: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Damascelli}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

8384:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Hussin}}, and

8385:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-X.} \bibnamefont{Shen}},

8386:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

8387:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{473}.

8388: 

8389: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Demler} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Demler,

8390:   Sachdev, and Zhang}}]{DSZ0102}

8391: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Demler}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

8392:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}}, and

8393:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}},

8394:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8395:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{067202}.

8396: 

8397: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Demler and Zhang}(1995)}]{DZ9526}

8398: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Demler}, \bibfnamefont{E.}}, and

8399:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-C.} \bibnamefont{Zhang}},

8400:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8401:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4126}.

8402: 

8403: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ding} \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Ding, Yokoya,

8404:   Campuzano, Takahashi, Randeria, Norman, Mochiku, and Giapintzakis}}]{DYC9651}

8405: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ding}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

8406:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yokoya}},

8407:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Campuzano}},

8408:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~T.} \bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

8409:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

8410:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Norman}},

8411:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mochiku}}, and

8412:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Giapintzakis}},

8413:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8414:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{382}}, \bibinfo{pages}{51}.

8415: 

8416: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ding and Makivic}(1991)}]{DM9162}

8417: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ding}, \bibfnamefont{H.~O.}}, and

8418:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Makivic}},

8419:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8420:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{43}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3562}.

8421: 

8422: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Durst and Lee}(2000)}]{DL0070}

8423: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Durst}, \bibfnamefont{A.~C.}}, and

8424:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8425:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8426:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1270}.

8427: 

8428: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Emery}(1983)}]{E8377}

8429: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Emery}, \bibfnamefont{V.~J.}},

8430:   \bibinfo{year}{1983}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. (Paris) Colloq}

8431:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}}, \bibinfo{pages}{C3}.

8432: 

8433: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Emery}(1986)}]{E8621}

8434: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Emery}, \bibfnamefont{V.~J.}},

8435:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}, \bibinfo{journal}{Synth. Met.}

8436:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{13}}, \bibinfo{pages}{21}.

8437: 

8438: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Emery}(1987)}]{E8759}

8439: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Emery}, \bibfnamefont{V.~J.}},

8440:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8441:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3759}.

8442: 

8443: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Emery and Kivelson}(1995)}]{EK9534}

8444: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Emery}, \bibfnamefont{V.~J.}}, and

8445:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kivelson}},

8446:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8447:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{374}}, \bibinfo{pages}{434}.

8448: 

8449: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fazekas and Anderson}(1974)}]{FA7432}

8450: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fazekas}, \bibfnamefont{P.}}, and

8451:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Anderson}},

8452:   \bibinfo{year}{1974}, \bibinfo{journal}{Philos. Mag.}

8453:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{30}}, \bibinfo{pages}{432}.

8454: 

8455: \bibitem[{Feng \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Feng} \emph{et~al.}}]{Fo0077}

8456: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Feng}, \bibfnamefont{D.~L.}}, \emph{et~al.},

8457:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

8458:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{289}}, \bibinfo{pages}{277}.

8459: 

8460: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Foerster}(1979)}]{F7987}

8461: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Foerster}, \bibfnamefont{D.}},

8462:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters B}

8463:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{87}.

8464: 

8465: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fong} \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Fong, Keiman,

8466:   Anderson, Reznik, Dogan, and Aksay}}]{FKA9516}

8467: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fong}, \bibfnamefont{H.~F.}},

8468:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Keiman}},

8469:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Anderson}},

8470:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Reznik}},

8471:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Dogan}}, and

8472:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Aksay}},

8473:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8474:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{316}.

8475: 

8476: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fradkin}(1991)}]{Fra91}

8477: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fradkin}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

8478:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Field Theories of Condensed

8479:   Matter Systems}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Addison-Wesley}).

8480: 

8481: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fradkin and Shenker}(1979)}]{FS7982}

8482: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fradkin}, \bibfnamefont{E.}}, and

8483:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~H.} \bibnamefont{Shenker}},

8484:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

8485:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3682}.

8486: 

8487: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Franz} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Franz,

8488:   Pereg-Barnea, Sheehy, and Tesanovic}}]{FPS0308}

8489: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Franz}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8490:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Pereg-Barnea}},

8491:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Sheehy}}, and

8492:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Tesanovic}},

8493:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8494:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{024508}.

8495: 

8496: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Franz and Tesanovic}(2001)}]{FT0103}

8497: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Franz}, \bibfnamefont{M.}}, and

8498:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Tesanovic}},

8499:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8500:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{257003}.

8501: 

8502: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Franz} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Franz,

8503:   Tesanovic, and Vafek}}]{FTV0235}

8504: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Franz}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8505:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Tesanovic}}, and

8506:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Vafek}},

8507:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8508:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{054535}.

8509: 

8510: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fujita} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Fujita, Goka,

8511:   Yamada, Tranquada, and Regnault}}]{FGY0496}

8512: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fujita}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8513:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Goka}},

8514:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

8515:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tranquada}}, and

8516:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Regnault}},

8517:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0403396}.

8518: 

8519: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fukuyama}(1992)}]{F9287}

8520: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Fukuyama}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

8521:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl.}

8522:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{108}}, \bibinfo{pages}{287}.

8523: 

8524: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ginzberg}(1989)}]{Gin89}

8525: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ginzberg}, \bibfnamefont{D.~M.}},

8526:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Physical Properties of High

8527:   Temperature Superconductors}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{World Scientific},

8528:   \bibinfo{address}{Singapore}).

8529: 

8530: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gliozzi} \emph{et~al.}(1979)\citenamefont{Gliozzi,

8531:   Regge, and Virasoro}}]{GRV7978}

8532: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Gliozzi}, \bibfnamefont{F.}},

8533:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Regge}}, and

8534:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Virasoro}},

8535:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters B}

8536:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}}, \bibinfo{pages}{178}.

8537: 

8538: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Greiter}(1997)}]{G9798}

8539: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Greiter}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8540:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8541:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4898}.

8542: 

8543: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gros}(1988{\natexlab{a}})}]{G8831}

8544: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Gros}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8545:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8546:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{931}.

8547: 

8548: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gros}(1988{\natexlab{b}})}]{G8853}

8549: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Gros}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8550:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Phys.}

8551:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{189}}, \bibinfo{pages}{53}.

8552: 

8553: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gweon} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Gweon,

8554:   Sasagawa, Zhou, Graf, Takagi, Lee, and Lanzara}}]{GSZ0487}

8555: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Gweon}, \bibfnamefont{G.-H.}},

8556:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Sasagawa}},

8557:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Zhou}},

8558:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Graf}},

8559:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}},

8560:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

8561:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lanzara}},

8562:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8563:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{430}}, \bibinfo{pages}{187}.

8564: 

8565: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{H.~Yasuoka}(1989)}]{YIS8954}

8566: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{H.~Yasuoka}, \bibfnamefont{T.~S., T.~Imai}},

8567:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, in \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Strong Correlation and

8568:   Superconductivity}}, edited by \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.}

8569:   \bibnamefont{H.~Fukuyama}} and \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{A.~P.}

8570:   \bibnamefont{Malozemoff}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer-Verlag}), p.

8571:   \bibinfo{pages}{254}.

8572: 

8573: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hanaguri} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Hanaguri,

8574:   Lupien, Kohsaka, Lee, Azuma, Takano, Takagi, and Davis}}]{HLK04}

8575: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hanaguri}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

8576:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lupien}},

8577:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kohsaka}},

8578:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8579:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Azuma}},

8580:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Takano}},

8581:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}}, and

8582:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Davis}},

8583:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{to appear} .

8584: 

8585: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hayden} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Hayden, Mook,

8586:   Dau, Perrig, and Dogan}}]{HMD0431}

8587: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hayden}, \bibfnamefont{S.~M.}},

8588:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Mook}},

8589:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Dau}},

8590:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Perrig}}, and

8591:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Dogan}},

8592:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8593:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{429}}, \bibinfo{pages}{531}.

8594: 

8595: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Heeb and Rice}(1993)}]{HR9373}

8596: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Heeb}, \bibfnamefont{E.~S.}}, and

8597:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~M.} \bibnamefont{Rice}},

8598:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys. B}

8599:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{73}.

8600: 

8601: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Herbut and Seradjah}(2003)}]{HS0301}

8602: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Herbut}, \bibfnamefont{I.~F.}}, and

8603:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Seradjah}},

8604:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8605:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{171601}.

8606: 

8607: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Herbut} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Herbut,

8608:   Seradjeh, Sachdev, and Murthy}}]{HSS0310}

8609: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Herbut}, \bibfnamefont{I.~F.}},

8610:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~H.} \bibnamefont{Seradjeh}},

8611:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}}, and

8612:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Murthy}},

8613:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review B}

8614:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{195110}.

8615: 

8616: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hermele and Senthil}(2004)}]{HS04}

8617: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hermele}, \bibfnamefont{M.}}, and

8618:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Senthil}},

8619:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{to be published} .

8620: 

8621: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hermele} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Hermele,

8622:   Senthil, Fisher, Lee, Nagaosa, and Wen}}]{HSF0451}

8623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hermele}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8624:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Senthil}},

8625:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

8626:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8627:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}}, and

8628:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

8629:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0404751}.

8630: 

8631: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hoffman} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Hoffman,

8632:   Hudson, Lang, Madhaven, Eisaki, Uchida, and Davis}}]{HHL0266}

8633: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hoffman}, \bibfnamefont{J.~E.}},

8634:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hudson}},

8635:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lang}},

8636:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Madhaven}},

8637:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Eisaki}},

8638:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}}, and

8639:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Davis}},

8640:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

8641:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{195}}, \bibinfo{pages}{466}.

8642: 

8643: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Holstein} \emph{et~al.}(1973)\citenamefont{Holstein,

8644:   Norton, and Pincus}}]{HNP7349}

8645: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Holstein}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

8646:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Norton}}, and

8647:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Pincus}},

8648:   \bibinfo{year}{1973}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8649:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2649}.

8650: 

8651: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Homes} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Homes, Timusk,

8652:   Liang, Bonn, and Hardy}}]{HTL9310}

8653: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Homes}, \bibfnamefont{C.~C.}},

8654:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Timusk}},

8655:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

8656:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}}, and

8657:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}},

8658:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8659:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4210}.

8660: 

8661: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Honerkamp and Lee}(2004)}]{HL0401}

8662: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Honerkamp}, \bibfnamefont{C.}}, and

8663:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8664:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8665:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1201}.

8666: 

8667: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hoogenboom}

8668:   \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Hoogenboom, Kadowaki, Revaz, Li, Renner, and

8669:   Fischer}}]{HKR0101}

8670: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hoogenboom}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8671:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kadowaki}},

8672:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Revaz}},

8673:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Li}},

8674:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Renner}}, and

8675:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Fischer}},

8676:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8677:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{267001}.

8678: 

8679: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Horvatic} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Horvatic,

8680:   Berthier, Berthier, Segramsan, Butaud, Clark, Gillet, and Henry}}]{HBB9348}

8681: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Horvatic}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8682:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Berthier}},

8683:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Berthier}},

8684:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Segramsan}},

8685:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Butaud}},

8686:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Clark}},

8687:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Gillet}}, and

8688:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Henry}},

8689:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8690:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{48}}, \bibinfo{pages}{13848}.

8691: 

8692: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Howland} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Howland,

8693:   Eisaki, Kaneko, Greven, and Kapitulnik}}]{HEK0333}

8694: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Howland}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8695:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Eisaki}},

8696:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Kaneko}},

8697:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Greven}}, and

8698:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapitulnik}},

8699:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8700:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{014533}.

8701: 

8702: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hsu} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Hsu, Marston, and

8703:   Affleck}}]{HMA9166}

8704: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hsu}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

8705:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Marston}}, and

8706:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Affleck}},

8707:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.Rev. B}

8708:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{43}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2866}.

8709: 

8710: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hsu}(1990)}]{H9079}

8711: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hsu}, \bibfnamefont{T.~C.}},

8712:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8713:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}}, \bibinfo{pages}{11379}.

8714: 

8715: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Huse and Elser}(1988)}]{HE8831}

8716: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Huse}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}}, and

8717:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Elser}},

8718:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8719:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2531}.

8720: 

8721: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hybertson} \emph{et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Hybertson,

8722:   Stechel, Schuter, and Jennison}}]{HSS9068}

8723: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Hybertson}, \bibfnamefont{M.~S.}},

8724:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Stechel}},

8725:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Schuter}}, and

8726:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Jennison}},

8727:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8728:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}}, \bibinfo{pages}{11068}.

8729: 

8730: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ichinose and Matsui}(2001)}]{IM0142}

8731: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ichinose}, \bibfnamefont{I.}}, and

8732:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Matsui}},

8733:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8734:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{942}.

8735: 

8736: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ichinose} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Ichinose,

8737:   Matsui, and Onoda}}]{IMO0116}

8738: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ichinose}, \bibfnamefont{I.}},

8739:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Matsui}}, and

8740:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Onoda}},

8741:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8742:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{104516}.

8743: 

8744: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Imada} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Imada,

8745:   Fujimori, and Tokura}}]{IFT9839}

8746: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Imada}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8747:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Fujimori}}, and

8748:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tokura}},

8749:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

8750:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1039}.

8751: 

8752: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe and Larkin}(1989)}]{IL8988}

8753: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.}}, and

8754:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Larkin}},

8755:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8756:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8988}.

8757: 

8758: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe and Millis}(2001)}]{IM0109}

8759: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.}}, and

8760:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Millis}},

8761:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{comd-mat} , \bibinfo{pages}{0112509}.

8762: 

8763: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Ioffe,

8764:   Feigel'man, Ioselevich, Ivanov, Troyer, and Blatter}}]{IFI0203}

8765: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.~B.}},

8766:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~V.} \bibnamefont{Feigel'man}},

8767:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ioselevich}},

8768:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Ivanov}},

8769:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Troyer}}, and

8770:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Blatter}},

8771:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

8772:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{415}}, \bibinfo{pages}{503}.

8773: 

8774: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe and Kotliar}(1990)}]{IK9048}

8775: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.~B.}}, and

8776:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Kotliar}},

8777:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8778:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}}, \bibinfo{pages}{10348}.

8779: 

8780: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe and Millis}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{IM0259}

8781: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.~B.}}, and

8782:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Millis}},

8783:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. Solids}

8784:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2259}.

8785: 

8786: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ioffe and Millis}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{IM0213}

8787: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ioffe}, \bibfnamefont{L.~B.}}, and

8788:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Millis}},

8789:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8790:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{094513}.

8791: 

8792: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ishida} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Ishida,

8793:   Kitaoka, Zhang, and Asayama}}]{IKZ9116}

8794: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ishida}, \bibfnamefont{K.}},

8795:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kitaoka}},

8796:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}}, and

8797:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Asayama}},

8798:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}

8799:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3516}.

8800: 

8801: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ivanov}(2000)}]{I00}

8802: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ivanov}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}},

8803:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{MIT PhD Thesis} .

8804: 

8805: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ivanov}(2003)}]{I0365}

8806: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ivanov}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}},

8807:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0309265}.

8808: 

8809: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ivanov and Lee}(2003)}]{IL0301}

8810: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ivanov}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}}, and

8811:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8812:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8813:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{132501}.

8814: 

8815: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ivanov} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Ivanov, Lee,

8816:   and Wen}}]{ILW0053}

8817: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ivanov}, \bibfnamefont{D.~A.}},

8818:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

8819:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

8820:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8821:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3953}.

8822: 

8823: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kakuyanagi}

8824:   \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Kakuyanagi, Kumagai, and Matsuda}}]{KKM0203}

8825: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kakuyanagi}, \bibfnamefont{K.}},

8826:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kumagai}}, and

8827:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Matsuda}},

8828:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8829:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{060503}.

8830: 

8831: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kalmeyer and Laughlin}(1987)}]{KL8795}

8832: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kalmeyer}, \bibfnamefont{V.}}, and

8833:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~B.} \bibnamefont{Laughlin}},

8834:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8835:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2095}.

8836: 

8837: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kane} \emph{et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Kane, Lee, and

8838:   Read}}]{KLR8980}

8839: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kane}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

8840:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

8841:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Read}}, \bibinfo{year}{1989},

8842:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}},

8843:   \bibinfo{pages}{6880}.

8844: 

8845: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kao} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Kao, Si, and

8846:   Levin}}]{KSL0098}

8847: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kao}, \bibfnamefont{Y.-J.}},

8848:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Si}}, and

8849:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Levin}},

8850:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8851:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{11898}.

8852: 

8853: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kastner} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Kastner,

8854:   Birgeneau, Shirane, and Endoh}}]{KBS9897}

8855: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kastner}, \bibfnamefont{M.~A.}},

8856:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

8857:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}}, and

8858:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Endoh}},

8859:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

8860:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{897}.

8861: 

8862: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khasanov} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Khasanov,

8863:   Shengelaya, Conder, Morenzoni, Savic, and Keller}}]{KSC0317}

8864: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Khasanov}, \bibfnamefont{R.}},

8865:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Shengelaya}},

8866:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Conder}},

8867:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Morenzoni}},

8868:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~M.} \bibnamefont{Savic}}, and

8869:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Keller}},

8870:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. -- cond. matt.}

8871:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{15}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L17}.

8872: 

8873: \bibitem[{Khasanov \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Khasanov}

8874:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Ko0402}

8875: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Khasanov}, \bibfnamefont{R.}}, \emph{et~al.},

8876:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8877:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}}, \bibinfo{pages}{057602}.

8878: 

8879: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khaykovich}

8880:   \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Khaykovich, Lee, Erwin, Lee, Wakimoto,

8881:   Thomas, Kastner, and Birgeneau}}]{KLE0228}

8882: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Khaykovich}, \bibfnamefont{B.}},

8883:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8884:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Erwin}},

8885:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8886:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Wakimoto}},

8887:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Thomas}},

8888:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kastner}}, and

8889:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

8890:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8891:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{014528}.

8892: 

8893: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khveshchenko and Wiegmann}(1989)}]{KW8983}

8894: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Khveshchenko}, \bibfnamefont{D.}}, and

8895:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Wiegmann}},

8896:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Mod. Phys. Lett.}

8897:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{3}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1383}.

8898: 

8899: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khveshchenko}(2002)}]{K0206}

8900: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Khveshchenko}, \bibfnamefont{D.~V.}},

8901:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0205106}.

8902: 

8903: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kim and Lee}(1999)}]{KL9930}

8904: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kim}, \bibfnamefont{D.~H.}}, and

8905:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8906:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Physics}

8907:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{272}}, \bibinfo{pages}{130}.

8908: 

8909: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kim} \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Kim, Lee, and

8910:   Wen}}]{KLW9709}

8911: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kim}, \bibfnamefont{D.~H.}},

8912:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

8913:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

8914:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

8915:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2109}.

8916: 

8917: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kimura} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Kimura,

8918:   Hiroki, Yamada, Endoh, Lee, Majkrzak, Erwin, Shirane, Greven, Lee, Kastner,

8919:   and Birgeneau}}]{KHY9917}

8920: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kimura}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

8921:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Hiroki}},

8922:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

8923:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Endoh}},

8924:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8925:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Majkrzak}},

8926:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Erwin}},

8927:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}},

8928:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Greven}},

8929:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

8930:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kastner}}, and

8931:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

8932:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8933:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6517}.

8934: 

8935: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kishine} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Kishine, Lee,

8936:   and Wen}}]{KLW0226}

8937: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kishine}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

8938:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

8939:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

8940:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8941:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{064526}.

8942: 

8943: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kitaev}(2003)}]{K032}

8944: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kitaev}, \bibfnamefont{A.~Y.}},

8945:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)}

8946:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{303}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2}.

8947: 

8948: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kitano} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Kitano,

8949:   Yamada, Suzuki, and Fukase}}]{KYS0077}

8950: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kitano}, \bibfnamefont{S.~M.}},

8951:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

8952:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Suzuki}}, and

8953:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Fukase}},

8954:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8955:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{14677}.

8956: 

8957: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kivelson} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Kivelson,

8958:   Bindloss, Fradkin, Oganesyan, Tranquada, Kapitulnik, and Howard}}]{KBF0301}

8959: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kivelson}, \bibfnamefont{S.~A.}},

8960:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Bindloss}},

8961:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Fradkin}},

8962:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Oganesyan}},

8963:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tranquada}},

8964:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapitulnik}}, and

8965:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Howard}},

8966:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

8967:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1201}.

8968: 

8969: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kivelson} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Kivelson,

8970:   Rokhsar, and Sethna}}]{KRS8765}

8971: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kivelson}, \bibfnamefont{S.~A.}},

8972:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~S.} \bibnamefont{Rokhsar}}, and

8973:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{Sethna}},

8974:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

8975:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{35}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8865}.

8976: 

8977: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kogut and Susskind}(1975)}]{KS7595}

8978: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kogut}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, and

8979:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Susskind}},

8980:   \bibinfo{year}{1975}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

8981:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}}, \bibinfo{pages}{395}.

8982: 

8983: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kosterlitz and Thouless}(1973)}]{KT7381}

8984: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kosterlitz}, \bibfnamefont{J.~M.}}, and

8985:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Thouless}},

8986:   \bibinfo{year}{1973}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. C}

8987:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1181}.

8988: 

8989: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kotliar and Liu}(1988)}]{KL8842}

8990: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kotliar}, \bibfnamefont{G.}}, and

8991:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Liu}}, \bibinfo{year}{1988},

8992:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}},

8993:   \bibinfo{pages}{5142}.

8994: 

8995: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kugler} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Kugler,

8996:   Fischer, Renner, Ono, and Ando}}]{KFR0111}

8997: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kugler}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

8998:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Fischer}},

8999:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Renner}},

9000:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ono}}, and

9001:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ando}}, \bibinfo{year}{2001},

9002:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},

9003:   \bibinfo{pages}{4911}.

9004: 

9005: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kuzmenko} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Kuzmenko,

9006:   Tombros, Molegraaf, Grueninger, van~der Marel, and Uchida}}]{KTM0304}

9007: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Kuzmenko}, \bibfnamefont{A.~B.}},

9008:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Tombros}},

9009:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Molegraaf}},

9010:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Grueninger}},

9011:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{van~der Marel}}, and

9012:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}},

9013:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9014:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{037004}.

9015: 

9016: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lake} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Lake, Aeppli,

9017:   Clausen, McMorrow, Lefmann, Hussey, Mangkorntong, Nohara, Takagi, Mason, and

9018:   Schroder}}]{LAC0159}

9019: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lake}, \bibfnamefont{B.}},

9020:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

9021:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Clausen}},

9022:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{McMorrow}},

9023:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lefmann}},

9024:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Hussey}},

9025:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Mangkorntong}},

9026:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Nohara}},

9027:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}},

9028:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mason}}, and

9029:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Schroder}},

9030:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

9031:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{291}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1759}.

9032: 

9033: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lake} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Lake, Ronnow,

9034:   Christensen, Aeppli, Lefmann, McMorrow, Vorderwisch, Smeibidl, Mangkorntong,

9035:   Sasagawa, Nohara, Takagi} \emph{et~al.}}]{LRC0299}

9036: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lake}, \bibfnamefont{B.}},

9037:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ronnow}},

9038:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Christensen}},

9039:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

9040:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lefmann}},

9041:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{McMorrow}},

9042:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Vorderwisch}},

9043:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Smeibidl}},

9044:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Mangkorntong}},

9045:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Sasagawa}},

9046:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Nohara}},

9047:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}}, \emph{et~al.},

9048:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

9049:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{415}}, \bibinfo{pages}{299}.

9050: 

9051: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Laughlin}(1995)}]{L9527}

9052: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Laughlin}, \bibfnamefont{R.~B.}},

9053:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. Solid}

9054:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1627}.

9055: 

9056: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Laughlin}(1997)}]{L9726}

9057: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Laughlin}, \bibfnamefont{R.~B.}},

9058:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9059:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1726}.

9060: 

9061: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(2000)}]{L0094}

9062: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{D.-H.}},

9063:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9064:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2694}.

9065: 

9066: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee} \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Lee, Kim, and

9067:   Lee}}]{LKL9601}

9068: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{D.~K.~K.}},

9069:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Kim}}, and

9070:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9071:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9072:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4801}.

9073: 

9074: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(1993)}]{L9387}

9075: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}},

9076:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9077:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1887}.

9078: 

9079: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}(2002)}]{L0249}

9080: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}},

9081:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. and Chem. Solids}

9082:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2149}.

9083: 

9084: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Nagaosa}(1992)}]{LN9221}

9085: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}}, and

9086:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}},

9087:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9088:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5621}.

9089: 

9090: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Nagaosa}(2003)}]{LN0316}

9091: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}}, and

9092:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}},

9093:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9094:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{024516}.

9095: 

9096: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Lee, Nagaosa, Ng,

9097:   and Wen}}]{LNNWsu2}

9098: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}},

9099:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}},

9100:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.-K.} \bibnamefont{Ng}}, and

9101:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9102:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9103:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6003}.

9104: 

9105: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Sha}(2003)}]{LS0371}

9106: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}}, and

9107:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Sha}},

9108:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Sol. States Comm.}

9109:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{126}}, \bibinfo{pages}{71}.

9110: 

9111: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Wen}(1997)}]{LW9711}

9112: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}}, and

9113:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9114:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9115:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4111}.

9116: 

9117: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Wen}(2001)}]{LW0117}

9118: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{P.~A.}}, and

9119:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9120:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9121:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{224517}.

9122: 

9123: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Salk}(2001)}]{LS0101}

9124: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{S.-S.}}, and

9125:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Salk}},

9126:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9127:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{052501}.

9128: 

9129: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee and Feng}(1988)}]{LF8809}

9130: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{T.-K.}}, and

9131:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Feng}}, \bibinfo{year}{1988},

9132:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}},

9133:   \bibinfo{pages}{11809}.

9134: 

9135: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}

9136:   \emph{et~al.}(2003{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Lee, Ho, and

9137:   Nagaosa}}]{LHN0301}

9138: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{T.~K.}},

9139:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-M.} \bibnamefont{Ho}}, and

9140:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}},

9141:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9142:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{067001}.

9143: 

9144: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee}

9145:   \emph{et~al.}(2003{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Lee, Lee, Ho, and

9146:   Leung}}]{LLH0301}

9147: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{W.-C.}},

9148:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~K.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9149:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-M.} \bibnamefont{Ho}}, and

9150:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.} \bibnamefont{Leung}},

9151:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9152:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{057001}.

9153: 

9154: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lee} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Lee, Birgeneau,

9155:   Kastner, Endoh, Wakimoto, Yamada, Erwin, Lee, and Shirane}}]{LBK9943}

9156: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Lee}, \bibfnamefont{Y.~S.}},

9157:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

9158:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kastner}},

9159:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Endoh}},

9160:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Wakimoto}},

9161:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

9162:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Erwin}},

9163:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

9164:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}},

9165:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9166:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3643}.

9167: 

9168: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Leung}(2000)}]{L0012}

9169: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Leung}, \bibfnamefont{P.~W.}},

9170:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9171:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6112}.

9172: 

9173: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Levin and Wen}(2003)}]{LWsta}

9174: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Levin}, \bibfnamefont{M.}}, and

9175:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9176:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9177:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{245316}.

9178: 

9179: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Littlewood}

9180:   \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Littlewood, Zaanen, Aeppli, H, and

9181:   Monien}}]{LZA9387}

9182: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Littlewood}, \bibfnamefont{P.~B.}},

9183:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Zaanen}},

9184:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

9185:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{H}}, and

9186:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Monien}}, \bibinfo{year}{1993},

9187:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{48}},

9188:   \bibinfo{pages}{487}.

9189: 

9190: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liu} \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Liu, Zha, and

9191:   Levin}}]{LZL9530}

9192: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Liu}, \bibfnamefont{D.~Z.}},

9193:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Zha}}, and

9194:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Levin}},

9195:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9196:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4130}.

9197: 

9198: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liu and Manousakis}(1992)}]{LM9225}

9199: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Liu}, \bibfnamefont{Z.}}, and

9200:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Manousakis}},

9201:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9202:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2425}.

9203: 

9204: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Loeser} \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Loeser, Shen,

9205:   Desau, Marshall, Park, Fournier, and Kapitulnik}}]{LSD9625}

9206: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Loeser}, \bibfnamefont{A.~C.}},

9207:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-X.} \bibnamefont{Shen}},

9208:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Desau}},

9209:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Marshall}},

9210:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Park}},

9211:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Fournier}}, and

9212:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapitulnik}},

9213:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

9214:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{273}}, \bibinfo{pages}{325}.

9215: 

9216: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Loram} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Loram, Luo,

9217:   Cooper, Liang, and Tallon}}]{LLC0159}

9218: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Loram}, \bibfnamefont{J.~W.}},

9219:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Luo}},

9220:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Cooper}},

9221:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}}, and

9222:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Tallon}},

9223:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. Solids}

9224:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{59}.

9225: 

9226: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Loram} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Loram, Mirza,

9227:   Cooper, and Liang}}]{LMC9340}

9228: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Loram}, \bibfnamefont{J.~W.}},

9229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Mirza}},

9230:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Cooper}}, and

9231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

9232:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9233:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1740}.

9234: 

9235: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Maggio-Aprile}

9236:   \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Maggio-Aprile, Renner, Erb, Walker, and

9237:   Fischer}}]{MRE9554}

9238: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Maggio-Aprile}, \bibfnamefont{I.}},

9239:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Renner}},

9240:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Erb}},

9241:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Walker}}, and

9242:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Fischer}},

9243:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9244:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2754}.

9245: 

9246: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mandelstam}(1979)}]{M7991}

9247: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mandelstam}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

9248:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

9249:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2391}.

9250: 

9251: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Marshall} \emph{et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Marshall,

9252:   Dessau, Loeser, Park, Matsuura, Eckstein, Bozovic, Fournier, Kapitulnik,

9253:   Spicer, and Shen}}]{MDL9641}

9254: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Marshall}, \bibfnamefont{D.~S.}},

9255:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~S.} \bibnamefont{Dessau}},

9256:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Loeser}},

9257:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-H.} \bibnamefont{Park}},

9258:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Matsuura}},

9259:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~N.} \bibnamefont{Eckstein}},

9260:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Bozovic}},

9261:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Fournier}},

9262:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapitulnik}},

9263:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~E.} \bibnamefont{Spicer}}, and

9264:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-X.} \bibnamefont{Shen}},

9265:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9266:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4841}.

9267: 

9268: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Matsuda} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Matsuda,

9269:   Fujita, Yamada, Birgeneau, Kastner, Hiraka, Endoh, Wakimoto, and

9270:   Shirane}}]{MFY0048}

9271: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Matsuda}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

9272:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fujita}},

9273:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

9274:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

9275:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kastner}},

9276:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Hiraka}},

9277:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Endoh}},

9278:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Wakimoto}}, and

9279:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}},

9280:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9281:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{9148}.

9282: 

9283: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mattheiss}(1987)}]{M8728}

9284: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mattheiss}, \bibfnamefont{L.~F.}},

9285:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9286:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1028}.

9287: 

9288: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{McElroy} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{McElroy, Lee,

9289:   Hoffman, Lay, Hudson, Eisaki, Uchida, Lee, and Davis}}]{MLH0405}

9290: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{McElroy}, \bibfnamefont{K.}},

9291:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9292:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Hoffman}},

9293:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lay}},

9294:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hudson}},

9295:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Eisaki}},

9296:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}},

9297:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, and

9298:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Davis}},

9299:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0404005}.

9300: 

9301: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Miller} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Miller, Kiefl,

9302:   Brewer, Sonier, Chakhalian, Dunsiger, Morris, Price, Bonn, Hardy, and

9303:   Liang}}]{MKB0202}

9304: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Miller}, \bibfnamefont{R.~I.}},

9305:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~F.} \bibnamefont{Kiefl}},

9306:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Brewer}},

9307:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.} \bibnamefont{Sonier}},

9308:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Chakhalian}},

9309:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Dunsiger}},

9310:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~D.} \bibnamefont{Morris}},

9311:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~N.} \bibnamefont{Price}},

9312:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bonn}},

9313:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~H.} \bibnamefont{Hardy}}, and

9314:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

9315:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9316:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{137002}.

9317: 

9318: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Millis} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Millis,

9319:   Girvin, Ioffe, and Larkin}}]{MGI9842}

9320: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Millis}, \bibfnamefont{A.~J.}},

9321:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Girvin}},

9322:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Ioffe}}, and

9323:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Larkin}},

9324:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. and Chem. of Solids}

9325:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1742}.

9326: 

9327: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Millis and Monien}(1993)}]{MM9310}

9328: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Millis}, \bibfnamefont{A.~J.}}, and

9329:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Monien}},

9330:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9331:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2810}.

9332: 

9333: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mishchenko and Nagaosa}(2004)}]{MN0402}

9334: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mishchenko}, \bibfnamefont{A.~S.}}, and

9335:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}},

9336:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9337:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{93}}, \bibinfo{pages}{036402}.

9338: 

9339: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitrovic} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Mitrovic,

9340:   Sigmund, Bachman, Eschrig, Halperin, Reyes, Kuhns, and Moulton}}]{MSB0105}

9341: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mitrovic}, \bibfnamefont{V.~F.}},

9342:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Sigmund}},

9343:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Bachman}},

9344:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Eschrig}},

9345:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Halperin}},

9346:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Reyes}},

9347:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Kuhns}}, and

9348:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Moulton}},

9349:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

9350:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{413}}, \bibinfo{pages}{505}.

9351: 

9352: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mitrovic} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Mitrovic,

9353:   Sigmund, Halperin, Reyes, Kuhns, and Moulton}}]{MSH0303}

9354: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mitrovic}, \bibfnamefont{V.~F.}},

9355:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Sigmund}},

9356:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Halperin}},

9357:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Reyes}},

9358:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Kuhns}}, and

9359:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Moulton}},

9360:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9361:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{220503}.

9362: 

9363: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Miyake} \emph{et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Miyake,

9364:   Schmitt-Rink, and Varma}}]{MSV8654}

9365: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Miyake}, \bibfnamefont{K.}},

9366:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Schmitt-Rink}}, and

9367:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{Varma}},

9368:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9369:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6554}.

9370: 

9371: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moessner and Sondhi}(2001)}]{MS0181}

9372: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Moessner}, \bibfnamefont{R.}}, and

9373:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~L.} \bibnamefont{Sondhi}},

9374:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9375:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1881}.

9376: 

9377: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moler} \emph{et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Moler, Baar,

9378:   Urbach, Liang, Hardy, and Kapitulnik}}]{MBU9444}

9379: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Moler}, \bibfnamefont{K.~A.}},

9380:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Baar}},

9381:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Urbach}},

9382:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

9383:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}}, and

9384:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kapitulnik}},

9385:   \bibinfo{year}{1994}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9386:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2744}.

9387: 

9388: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Monthonx and Pines}(1993)}]{MP9369}

9389: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Monthonx}, \bibfnamefont{P.}}, and

9390:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Pines}},

9391:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9392:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{47}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6069}.

9393: 

9394: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mook} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Mook, Dai,

9395:   Dogan, and Hunt}}]{MDD0004}

9396: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mook}, \bibfnamefont{H.~A.}},

9397:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Dai}},

9398:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Dogan}}, and

9399:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Hunt}}, \bibinfo{year}{2000},

9400:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}},

9401:   \bibinfo{pages}{097004}.

9402: 

9403: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mook} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Mook, Yethraj,

9404:   Aeppli, Mason, and Armstrong}}]{MYA9390}

9405: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mook}, \bibfnamefont{H.~A.}},

9406:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Yethraj}},

9407:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Aeppli}},

9408:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mason}}, and

9409:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Armstrong}},

9410:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9411:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3490}.

9412: 

9413: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Motrunich}(2003)}]{M0308}

9414: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Motrunich}, \bibfnamefont{O.~I.}},

9415:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9416:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{115108}.

9417: 

9418: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Motrunich and Senthil}(2002)}]{MS0204}

9419: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Motrunich}, \bibfnamefont{O.~I.}}, and

9420:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Senthil}},

9421:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9422:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}}, \bibinfo{pages}{277004}.

9423: 

9424: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mott}(1949)}]{M4916}

9425: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Mott}, \bibfnamefont{N.~F.}},

9426:   \bibinfo{year}{1949}, \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Phys. Soc.}

9427:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{A 62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{416}.

9428: 

9429: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nagaosa}(1993)}]{N9310}

9430: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}, \bibfnamefont{N.}},

9431:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9432:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4210}.

9433: 

9434: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nagaosa and Lee}(1990)}]{NL9050}

9435: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9436:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9437:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9438:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2450}.

9439: 

9440: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nagaosa and Lee}(1991)}]{NL9133}

9441: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9442:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9443:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9444:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{43}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1233}.

9445: 

9446: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nagaosa and Lee}(1992)}]{NL9266}

9447: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9448:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9449:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9450:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{966}.

9451: 

9452: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nagaosa and Lee}(2000)}]{NL0066}

9453: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9454:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9455:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9456:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{9166}.

9457: 

9458: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nakano} \emph{et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Nakano, Oda,

9459:   Manabe, Momono, Miura, and Ido}}]{NOM9400}

9460: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nakano}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

9461:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Oda}},

9462:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Manabe}},

9463:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Momono}},

9464:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Miura}}, and

9465:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ido}}, \bibinfo{year}{1994},

9466:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}},

9467:   \bibinfo{pages}{16000}.

9468: 

9469: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nayak}(2000)}]{N0078}

9470: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nayak}, \bibfnamefont{C.}}, \bibinfo{year}{2000},

9471:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},

9472:   \bibinfo{pages}{178}.

9473: 

9474: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nayak}(2001)}]{N0193}

9475: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nayak}, \bibfnamefont{C.}}, \bibinfo{year}{2001},

9476:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},

9477:   \bibinfo{pages}{943}.

9478: 

9479: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Negele and Orland}(1987)}]{NegO87}

9480: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Negele}, \bibfnamefont{J.~W.}}, and

9481:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Orland}},

9482:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Many-Particle Systems}}

9483:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Perseus Publishing}).

9484: 

9485: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nelson and Kosterlitz}(1977)}]{NK7701}

9486: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Nelson}, \bibfnamefont{D.~R.}}, and

9487:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kosterlitz}},

9488:   \bibinfo{year}{1977}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9489:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1201}.

9490: 

9491: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Norman}(2000)}]{N0051}

9492: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Norman}, \bibfnamefont{M.~R.}},

9493:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9494:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{14751}.

9495: 

9496: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Norman}(2001)}]{N0109}

9497: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Norman}, \bibfnamefont{M.~R.}},

9498:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.}

9499:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{092509}.

9500: 

9501: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Norman} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Norman, Ding,

9502:   Randeria, Campuzano, Yokoya, Takeuchi, Takahashi, Michiku, Kadowaki,

9503:   Guptasarma, and Hinks}}]{NDR9857}

9504: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Norman}, \bibfnamefont{M.~R.}},

9505:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ding}},

9506:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

9507:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Campuzano}},

9508:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yokoya}},

9509:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Takeuchi}},

9510:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

9511:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Michiku}},

9512:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kadowaki}},

9513:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Guptasarma}}, and

9514:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Hinks}},

9515:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

9516:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{392}}, \bibinfo{pages}{157}.

9517: 

9518: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Norman and Pepin}(2003)}]{NP0347}

9519: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Norman}, \bibfnamefont{M.~R.}}, and

9520:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Pepin}},

9521:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rep. Prog. Phys.}

9522:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1547}.

9523: 

9524: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Onufrieva and Pfeuty}(2002)}]{OP0215}

9525: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Onufrieva}, \bibfnamefont{F.}}, and

9526:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Pfeuty}},

9527:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9528:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{054515}.

9529: 

9530: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Orenstein and Millis}(2000)}]{OM0068}

9531: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Orenstein}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, and

9532:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Millis}},

9533:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

9534:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{288}}, \bibinfo{pages}{468}.

9535: 

9536: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Orenstein} \emph{et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Orenstein,

9537:   Thomas, Millis, Cooper, Rapkine, Timusk, Schneemeyer, and

9538:   Waszczak}}]{OTM9042}

9539: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Orenstein}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

9540:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Thomas}},

9541:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Millis}},

9542:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Cooper}},

9543:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Rapkine}},

9544:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Timusk}},

9545:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Schneemeyer}}, and

9546:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Waszczak}},

9547:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9548:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6342}.

9549: 

9550: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Oshikawa}(2003)}]{O0301}

9551: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Oshikawa}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

9552:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9553:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{109901}.

9554: 

9555: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Padilla} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Padilla, Lee,

9556:   Deemm, Blumberg, Ono, Segawa, Komiya, Ando, and Basov}}]{PLD04}

9557: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Padilla}, \bibfnamefont{W.~J.}},

9558:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9559:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Deemm}},

9560:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Blumberg}},

9561:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ono}},

9562:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Segawa}},

9563:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Komiya}},

9564:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ando}}, and

9565:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Basov}},

9566:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{preprint} .

9567: 

9568: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pailhes} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Pailhes,

9569:   Sidis, Bourges, Hinkov, Ivanov, Ulrich, Regnault, and Keimer}}]{PSB0409}

9570: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Pailhes}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9571:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Sidis}},

9572:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Bourges}},

9573:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Hinkov}},

9574:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ivanov}},

9575:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Ulrich}},

9576:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Regnault}}, and

9577:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Keimer}},

9578:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0403609}.

9579: 

9580: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pan} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Pan, Hudson,

9581:   Gupta, Ng, Eisaki, Uchida, and David}}]{PHG0036}

9582: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Pan}, \bibfnamefont{S.-H.}},

9583:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Hudson}},

9584:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Gupta}},

9585:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.-W.} \bibnamefont{Ng}},

9586:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Eisaki}},

9587:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}}, and

9588:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{David}},

9589:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9590:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1536}.

9591: 

9592: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paramekanti}(2002)}]{P0221}

9593: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9594:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9595:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{104521}.

9596: 

9597: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paramekanti}

9598:   \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Paramekanti, Randeria, Ramakrishnan, and

9599:   Mandal}}]{PRR0086}

9600: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9601:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}},

9602:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~V.} \bibnamefont{Ramakrishnan}}, and

9603:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~S.} \bibnamefont{Mandal}},

9604:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9605:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6786}.

9606: 

9607: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paramekanti}

9608:   \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Paramekanti, Randeria, and

9609:   Trivedi}}]{PRT0102}

9610: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9611:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}}, and

9612:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Trivedi}},

9613:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9614:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{217002}.

9615: 

9616: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paramekanti}

9617:   \emph{et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Paramekanti, Randeria, and

9618:   Trivedi}}]{PRT0453}

9619: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9620:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}}, and

9621:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Trivedi}},

9622:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0405353}.

9623: 

9624: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paramekanti}

9625:   \emph{et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Paramekanti, Randeria, and

9626:   Trivedi}}]{PRT0404}

9627: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Paramekanti}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9628:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Randeria}}, and

9629:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Trivedi}},

9630:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9631:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}}, \bibinfo{pages}{054504}.

9632: 

9633: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pavarini} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Pavarini,

9634:   Dasgupta, Saha-Dasgupta, Jasperson, and Andersen}}]{PDS0103}

9635: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Pavarini}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

9636:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Dasgupta}},

9637:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Saha-Dasgupta}},

9638:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Jasperson}}, and

9639:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Andersen}},

9640:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9641:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{047003}.

9642: 

9643: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1978)}]{P7877}

9644: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Polyakov}, \bibfnamefont{A.}},

9645:   \bibinfo{year}{1978}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

9646:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}}, \bibinfo{pages}{477}.

9647: 

9648: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1975)}]{P7582}

9649: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Polyakov}, \bibfnamefont{A.~M.}},

9650:   \bibinfo{year}{1975}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

9651:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}}, \bibinfo{pages}{82}.

9652: 

9653: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1977)}]{P7729}

9654: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Polyakov}, \bibfnamefont{A.~M.}},

9655:   \bibinfo{year}{1977}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B}

9656:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{120}}, \bibinfo{pages}{429}.

9657: 

9658: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1979)}]{P7947}

9659: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Polyakov}, \bibfnamefont{A.~M.}},

9660:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}

9661:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{247}.

9662: 

9663: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1987)}]{Pol87}

9664: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Polyakov}, \bibfnamefont{A.~M.}},

9665:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Gauge Fields and Strings}}

9666:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Harwood Academic Publishers},

9667:   \bibinfo{address}{London}).

9668: 

9669: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Proust} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Proust,

9670:   Boaknin, Hill, Taillefer, and MacKenzie}}]{PBH0203}

9671: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Proust}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

9672:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Boaknin}},

9673:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Hill}},

9674:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Taillefer}}, and

9675:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{MacKenzie}},

9676:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9677:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}}, \bibinfo{pages}{147003}.

9678: 

9679: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rantner and Wen}(2001{\natexlab{a}})}]{RW0171}

9680: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Rantner}, \bibfnamefont{W.}}, and

9681:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9682:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9683:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3871}.

9684: 

9685: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rantner and Wen}(2001{\natexlab{b}})}]{RW0140}

9686: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Rantner}, \bibfnamefont{W.}}, and

9687:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9688:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0105540}.

9689: 

9690: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rantner and Wen}(2002)}]{RWspin}

9691: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Rantner}, \bibfnamefont{W.}}, and

9692:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}},

9693:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9694:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{144501}.

9695: 

9696: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Read and Chakraborty}(1989)}]{RC8933}

9697: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Read}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9698:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Chakraborty}},

9699:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9700:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{40}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7133}.

9701: 

9702: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Read and Sachdev}(1990)}]{RS9068}

9703: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Read}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9704:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}},

9705:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9706:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4568}.

9707: 

9708: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Read and Sachdev}(1991)}]{RS9173}

9709: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Read}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

9710:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}},

9711:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9712:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1773}.

9713: 

9714: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Reizer}(1989)}]{R8902}

9715: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Reizer}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

9716:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9717:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1602}.

9718: 

9719: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rokhsar and Kivelson}(1988)}]{RK8876}

9720: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Rokhsar}, \bibfnamefont{D.~S.}}, and

9721:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kivelson}},

9722:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9723:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2376}.

9724: 

9725: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ronning} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Ronning,

9726:   Sasagawa, Kohsaka, Shen, Damascelli, Kim, Yoshida, Armitage, Lu, Feng,

9727:   Miller, Takagi} \emph{et~al.}}]{RSK0301}

9728: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ronning}, \bibfnamefont{F.}},

9729:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Sasagawa}},

9730:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kohsaka}},

9731:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~M.} \bibnamefont{Shen}},

9732:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Damascelli}},

9733:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Kim}},

9734:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yoshida}},

9735:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~P.} \bibnamefont{Armitage}},

9736:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~H.} \bibnamefont{Lu}},

9737:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~L.} \bibnamefont{Feng}},

9738:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~L.} \bibnamefont{Miller}},

9739:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}}, \emph{et~al.},

9740:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9741:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{165101}.

9742: 

9743: \bibitem[{Ronning \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Ronning}

9744:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Ro9867}

9745: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ronning}, \bibfnamefont{F.}}, \emph{et~al.},

9746:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

9747:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{282}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2067}.

9748: 

9749: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rossat-Mignod}

9750:   \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Rossat-Mignod, Regnault, Vettier, Bourges,

9751:   Burlet, Bossy, Henry, and Lapertot}}]{RRV9186}

9752: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Rossat-Mignod}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

9753:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Regnault}},

9754:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Vettier}},

9755:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Bourges}},

9756:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Burlet}},

9757:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Bossy}},

9758:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Henry}}, and

9759:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Lapertot}},

9760:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica C}

9761:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{185}}, \bibinfo{pages}{86}.

9762: 

9763: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Runge}(1992)}]{R9292}

9764: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Runge}, \bibfnamefont{K.~J.}},

9765:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9766:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{12292}.

9767: 

9768: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sachdev}(1992)}]{S9289}

9769: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sachdev}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

9770:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9771:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{389}.

9772: 

9773: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sachdev}(2003)}]{S0313}

9774: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sachdev}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

9775:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

9776:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}}, \bibinfo{pages}{913}.

9777: 

9778: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sandvik} \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Sandvik,

9779:   Dagotto, and Scalapino}}]{SDS9701}

9780: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sandvik}, \bibfnamefont{A.~W.}},

9781:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Dagotto}}, and

9782:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Scalapino}},

9783:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9784:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{11701}.

9785: 

9786: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Santander-Syro}

9787:   \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Santander-Syro, Lobo, Bontemps,

9788:   Konstantinovic, Li, and Raffy}}]{SLB0205}

9789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Santander-Syro}, \bibfnamefont{A.~F.}},

9790:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P. S.~M.} \bibnamefont{Lobo}},

9791:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Bontemps}},

9792:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Konstantinovic}},

9793:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Li}}, and

9794:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Raffy}},

9795:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9796:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{097005}.

9797: 

9798: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Savici} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Savici,

9799:   Fudamoto, Gat, Ito, Larkin, Uemura, Luke, Kojima, Lee, Kastner, Birgeneau,

9800:   and Yamada}}]{SFG0224}

9801: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Savici}, \bibfnamefont{A.~T.}},

9802:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Fudamoto}},

9803:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~M.} \bibnamefont{Gat}},

9804:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ito}},

9805:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~I.} \bibnamefont{Larkin}},

9806:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~J.} \bibnamefont{Uemura}},

9807:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~M.} \bibnamefont{Luke}},

9808:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~M.} \bibnamefont{Kojima}},

9809:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9810:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kastner}},

9811:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Birgeneau}}, and

9812:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

9813:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9814:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{014524}.

9815: 

9816: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Savit}(1980)}]{S8053}

9817: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Savit}, \bibfnamefont{R.}}, \bibinfo{year}{1980},

9818:   \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}},

9819:   \bibinfo{pages}{453}.

9820: 

9821: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Scalapino} \emph{et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Scalapino,

9822:   Loh, and Hirsch}}]{SLH8690}

9823: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Scalapino}, \bibfnamefont{D.~J.}},

9824:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Loh}}, and

9825:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.} \bibnamefont{Hirsch}},

9826:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9827:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8190}.

9828: 

9829: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Scalapino} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Scalapino,

9830:   Loh, and Hirsch}}]{SLH8794}

9831: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Scalapino}, \bibfnamefont{D.~J.}},

9832:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Loh}}, and

9833:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.} \bibnamefont{Hirsch}},

9834:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9835:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{35}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6694}.

9836: 

9837: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Fisher}(1999)}]{SF9993}

9838: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9839:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

9840:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9841:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6893}.

9842: 

9843: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Fisher}(2000)}]{SF0050}

9844: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9845:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

9846:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9847:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7850}.

9848: 

9849: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Fisher}(2001{\natexlab{a}})}]{SF0119}

9850: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9851:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

9852:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A}

9853:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L119}.

9854: 

9855: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Fisher}(2001{\natexlab{b}})}]{SF0192}

9856: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9857:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

9858:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9859:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{292}.

9860: 

9861: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Lee}(2004)}]{SL0466}

9862: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9863:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9864:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0406066}.

9865: 

9866: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil and Motrunich}(2002)}]{SM0204}

9867: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

9868:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Motrunich}},

9869:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9870:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{205104}.

9871: 

9872: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Senthil} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Senthil,

9873:   Vishwanath, Balents, Sachdev, and Fisher}}]{SVB0490}

9874: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Senthil}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

9875:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vishwanath}},

9876:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Balents}},

9877:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}}, and

9878:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fisher}},

9879:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

9880:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{303}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1490}.

9881: 

9882: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shen} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Shen, Ronning,

9883:   Lu, Lee, Ingle, Meevasana, Baumberger, Damascelli, Armitage, Miller, Kohsaka,

9884:   Azuma} \emph{et~al.}}]{SRL0402}

9885: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Shen}, \bibfnamefont{K.~M.}},

9886:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Ronning}},

9887:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~H.} \bibnamefont{Lu}},

9888:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9889:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Ingle}},

9890:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Meevasana}},

9891:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Baumberger}},

9892:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Damascelli}},

9893:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~P.} \bibnamefont{Armitage}},

9894:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~L.} \bibnamefont{Miller}},

9895:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kohsaka}},

9896:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Azuma}}, \emph{et~al.},

9897:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0407002}.

9898: 

9899: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shih} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Shih, Chen, Lin,

9900:   and Lee}}]{SCL9894}

9901: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Shih}, \bibfnamefont{C.~T.}},

9902:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~C.} \bibnamefont{Chen}},

9903:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~Q.} \bibnamefont{Lin}}, and

9904:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.-K.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9905:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. rev. Lett.}

9906:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1294}.

9907: 

9908: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shih} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Shih, Lee, Eder,

9909:   Mou, and Chen}}]{SLE0402}

9910: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Shih}, \bibfnamefont{C.~T.}},

9911:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.-K.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

9912:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Eder}},

9913:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-Y.} \bibnamefont{Mou}}, and

9914:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Chen}}, \bibinfo{year}{2004},

9915:   \bibinfo{journal}{superconducting tendency decreases \j Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9916:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}}, \bibinfo{pages}{227002}.

9917: 

9918: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shraiman and Siggia}(1988)}]{SS8867}

9919: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Shraiman}, \bibfnamefont{B.~I.}}, and

9920:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~D.} \bibnamefont{Siggia}},

9921:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9922:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}}, \bibinfo{pages}{467}.

9923: 

9924: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Si} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Si, Zha, Levin,

9925:   and Lu}}]{SZL9355}

9926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Si}, \bibfnamefont{Q.}},

9927:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Zha}},

9928:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Levin}}, and

9929:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lu}}, \bibinfo{year}{1993},

9930:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{47}},

9931:   \bibinfo{pages}{9055}.

9932: 

9933: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Singh and Ghosh}(2002)}]{SG0214}

9934: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Singh}, \bibfnamefont{A.}}, and

9935:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ghosh}},

9936:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9937:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{134414}.

9938: 

9939: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sorella} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Sorella,

9940:   Martins, Bocca, Gazza, Capriotti, Parola, , and Dagotto}}]{SMB0202}

9941: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sorella}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

9942:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Martins}},

9943:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Bocca}},

9944:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Gazza}},

9945:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Capriotti}},

9946:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Parola}}, , and

9947:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Dagotto}},

9948:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

9949:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{117002}.

9950: 

9951: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stajis} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Stajis,

9952:   Iyengar, Levin, Boyce, and Lemberger}}]{SIL0320}

9953: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Stajis}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

9954:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Iyengar}},

9955:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Levin}},

9956:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Boyce}}, and

9957:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Lemberger}},

9958:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9959:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{024520}.

9960: 

9961: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stock}

9962:   \emph{et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Stock, Buyers, Cowley, Clegg,

9963:   Coldea, Frost, Liang, Peets, Bonn, Hardy, and Birgeneau}}]{SBC0471}

9964: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Stock}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

9965:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Buyers}},

9966:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{Cowley}},

9967:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~S.} \bibnamefont{Clegg}},

9968:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Coldea}},

9969:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~D.} \bibnamefont{Frost}},

9970:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

9971:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Peets}},

9972:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}},

9973:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~N.} \bibnamefont{Hardy}}, and

9974:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

9975:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0408071}.

9976: 

9977: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stock}

9978:   \emph{et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Stock, Buyers, Liang, Peets,

9979:   Tun, Bonn, Hardy, and Birgeneau}}]{SBL0402}

9980: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Stock}, \bibfnamefont{C.}},

9981:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Buyers}},

9982:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

9983:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Peets}},

9984:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Tun}},

9985:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}},

9986:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~N.} \bibnamefont{Hardy}}, and

9987:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

9988:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

9989:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}}, \bibinfo{pages}{014502}.

9990: 

9991: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sulewsky} \emph{et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Sulewsky,

9992:   Fleury, Lyons, Cheong, and Fisk}}]{SFL9025}

9993: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sulewsky}, \bibfnamefont{P.~E.}},

9994:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Fleury}},

9995:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lyons}},

9996:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Cheong}}, and

9997:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Fisk}}, \bibinfo{year}{1990},

9998:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}},

9999:   \bibinfo{pages}{225}.

10000: 

10001: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Susskind}(1979)}]{S7910}

10002: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Susskind}, \bibfnamefont{L.}},

10003:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

10004:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{20}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2610}.

10005: 

10006: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sutherland}

10007:   \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Sutherland, Hawthorn, Hill, Ronning,

10008:   Wakimoto, Zhang, Proust, Boaknin, Lupien, Taillefer, Liang, Bonn}

10009:   \emph{et~al.}}]{SHH0320}

10010: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sutherland}},

10011:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~G.} \bibnamefont{Hawthorn}},

10012:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~W.} \bibnamefont{Hill}},

10013:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Ronning}},

10014:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Wakimoto}},

10015:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}},

10016:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Proust}},

10017:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Boaknin}},

10018:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lupien}},

10019:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Taillefer}},

10020:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

10021:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bonn}}, \emph{et~al.},

10022:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10023:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}}, \bibinfo{pages}{174520}.

10024: 

10025: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sutherland}

10026:   \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Sutherland, Hawthorn, Hill, Ronning,

10027:   Tanatar, Paglione, Boaknin, Zhang, Taillefer, DeBenedictis, Liang, Bonn}

10028:   \emph{et~al.}}]{SHH04}

10029: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Sutherland}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

10030:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Hawthorn}},

10031:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Hill}},

10032:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Ronning}},

10033:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Tanatar}},

10034:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Paglione}},

10035:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Boaknin}},

10036:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Zhang}},

10037:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Taillefer}},

10038:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{DeBenedictis}},

10039:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

10040:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}}, \emph{et~al.},

10041:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{to be published} .

10042: 

10043: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Suzumura} \emph{et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Suzumura,

10044:   Hasegawa, and Fukuyama}}]{SHF8868}

10045: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Suzumura}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10046:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Hasegawa}}, and

10047:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuyama}},

10048:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}

10049:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2768}.

10050: 

10051: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Svetitsky}(1986)}]{S861}

10052: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Svetitsky}, \bibfnamefont{B.}},

10053:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.}

10054:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{132}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1}.

10055: 

10056: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Taguchi} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Taguchi,

10057:   Oohara, Yoshizawa, Nagaosa, and Tokura}}]{TOY0173}

10058: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Taguchi}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10059:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Oohara}},

10060:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Yoshizawa}},

10061:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Nagaosa}}, and

10062:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tokura}},

10063:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

10064:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{291}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2573}.

10065: 

10066: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Taillefer} \emph{et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Taillefer,

10067:   Lussier, Gagnon, Behnia, and Aubin}}]{TLG9783}

10068: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Taillefer}, \bibfnamefont{L.}},

10069:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Lussier}},

10070:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Gagnon}},

10071:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Behnia}}, and

10072:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Aubin}},

10073:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10074:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{483}.

10075: 

10076: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Takigawa} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Takigawa,

10077:   Hults, and Smith}}]{THS9350}

10078: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Takigawa}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

10079:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hults}}, and

10080:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Smith}},

10081:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10082:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2650}.

10083: 

10084: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Takigawa} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Takigawa,

10085:   Reyes, Hammel, Thompson, Heffner, Fisk, and Ott}}]{TRH9147}

10086: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Takigawa}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

10087:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~P.} \bibnamefont{Reyes}},

10088:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~C.} \bibnamefont{Hammel}},

10089:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Thompson}},

10090:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Heffner}},

10091:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Fisk}}, and

10092:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~C.} \bibnamefont{Ott}},

10093:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10094:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{43}}, \bibinfo{pages}{247}.

10095: 

10096: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tallon and Loram}(2000)}]{TL0053}

10097: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tallon}, \bibfnamefont{J.~L.}}, and

10098:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{Loram}},

10099:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica C}

10100:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{349}}, \bibinfo{pages}{53}.

10101: 

10102: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tanamoto} \emph{et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Tanamoto,

10103:   Konno, and Fukuyama}}]{TKF9355}

10104: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tanamoto}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

10105:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Konno}}, and

10106:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuyama}},

10107:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.} ,

10108:   \bibinfo{pages}{1455}.

10109: 

10110: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tchernyshyov}

10111:   \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Tchernyshyov, Norman, and

10112:   Chubukov}}]{TNC0107}

10113: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tchernyshyov}, \bibfnamefont{O.}},

10114:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Norman}}, and

10115:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Chubukov}},

10116:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10117:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}}, \bibinfo{pages}{144507}.

10118: 

10119: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Timusk and Statt}(1999)}]{TS9961}

10120: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Timusk}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, and

10121:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Statt}},

10122:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rep. Prog. Phys.}

10123:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{61}.

10124: 

10125: \bibitem[{Tohyama \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Tohyama}

10126:   \emph{et~al.}}]{T009}

10127: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tohyama}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, \emph{et~al.},

10128:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}

10129:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}}, \bibinfo{pages}{9}.

10130: 

10131: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tranquada} \emph{et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Tranquada,

10132:   Moudden, Goldman, Zolliker, Cox, Shirane, Sinha, Vaknin, Johnston, Alvarez,

10133:   Jacobson, Lewandowski} \emph{et~al.}}]{TMG8877}

10134: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tranquada}, \bibfnamefont{J.~M.}},

10135:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~H.} \bibnamefont{Moudden}},

10136:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~I.} \bibnamefont{Goldman}},

10137:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Zolliker}},

10138:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Cox}},

10139:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}},

10140:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~K.} \bibnamefont{Sinha}},

10141:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Vaknin}},

10142:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~C.} \bibnamefont{Johnston}},

10143:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~S.} \bibnamefont{Alvarez}},

10144:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Jacobson}},

10145:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~T.} \bibnamefont{Lewandowski}},

10146:   \emph{et~al.}, \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10147:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2477}.

10148: 

10149: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tranquada} \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Tranquada,

10150:   Sternkieb, Aye, Nakamura, and Uchida}}]{TSA9561}

10151: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tranquada}, \bibfnamefont{J.~M.}},

10152:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~J.} \bibnamefont{Sternkieb}},

10153:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Aye}},

10154:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Nakamura}}, and

10155:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}},

10156:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

10157:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{375}}, \bibinfo{pages}{561}.

10158: 

10159: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tranquada} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Tranquada,

10160:   Wou, Perring, Goka, Gu, Xu, Fujita, and Yamada}}]{TWP0434}

10161: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tranquada}, \bibfnamefont{J.~M.}},

10162:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Wou}},

10163:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Perring}},

10164:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Goka}},

10165:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Gu}},

10166:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Xu}},

10167:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Fujita}}, and

10168:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

10169:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nature}

10170:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{429}}, \bibinfo{pages}{534}.

10171: 

10172: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Trivedi and Ceperley}(1989)}]{TC8937}

10173: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Trivedi}, \bibfnamefont{N.}}, and

10174:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Ceperley}},

10175:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10176:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{40}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2737}.

10177: 

10178: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tsuchiura} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Tsuchiura,

10179:   Ogata, Tanaka, and Kashiwaya}}]{TOT0309}

10180: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tsuchiura}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

10181:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ogata}},

10182:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tanaka}}, and

10183:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kashiwaya}},

10184:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10185:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{012509}.

10186: 

10187: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tsuchiura} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Tsuchiura,

10188:   Tanaka, Ogata, and Kashiwaya}}]{TTO0005}

10189: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Tsuchiura}, \bibfnamefont{H.}},

10190:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tanaka}},

10191:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ogata}}, and

10192:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kashiwaya}},

10193:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10194:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3105}.

10195: 

10196: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ubbens and Lee}(1992)}]{UL9234}

10197: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ubbens}, \bibfnamefont{M.}}, and

10198:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10199:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10200:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{46}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8434}.

10201: 

10202: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ubbens and Lee}(1994)}]{UL9453}

10203: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ubbens}, \bibfnamefont{M.~U.}}, and

10204:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10205:   \bibinfo{year}{1994}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10206:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6853}.

10207: 

10208: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Uchida}(1997)}]{U9712}

10209: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Uchida}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

10210:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica C}

10211:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{282}}, \bibinfo{pages}{12}.

10212: 

10213: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Uchida} \emph{et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Uchida, Ido,

10214:   Takagi, Arima, Tokura, and Tajima}}]{UIT9142}

10215: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Uchida}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

10216:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ido}},

10217:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Takagi}},

10218:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Arima}},

10219:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tokura}}, and

10220:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Tajima}},

10221:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10222:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{43}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7942}.

10223: 

10224: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Uemura} \emph{et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Uemura, Luke,

10225:   Sternlieb, Brewer, Carolan, Hardy, Kadono, Kempton, Kiefl, Kreitzman,

10226:   Mulhern, Riseman} \emph{et~al.}}]{ULS8917}

10227: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Uemura}, \bibfnamefont{Y.~J.}},

10228:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~M.} \bibnamefont{Luke}},

10229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~J.} \bibnamefont{Sternlieb}},

10230:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Brewer}},

10231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{Carolan}},

10232:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~N.} \bibnamefont{Hardy}},

10233:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Kadono}},

10234:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Kempton}},

10235:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~F.} \bibnamefont{Kiefl}},

10236:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Kreitzman}},

10237:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Mulhern}},

10238:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~M.} \bibnamefont{Riseman}}, \emph{et~al.},

10239:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10240:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2317}.

10241: 

10242: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ussishkin} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Ussishkin,

10243:   Sondhi, and Huse}}]{USH0201}

10244: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ussishkin}, \bibfnamefont{I.}},

10245:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sondhi}}, and

10246:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Huse}}, \bibinfo{year}{2002},

10247:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},

10248:   \bibinfo{pages}{287001}.

10249: 

10250: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Valla} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Valla, Fedorov,

10251:   Johnson, Wells, Hulbert, Li, Gu, and Koshizuka}}]{VFJ9910}

10252: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Valla}, \bibfnamefont{T.}},

10253:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Fedorov}},

10254:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Johnson}},

10255:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Wells}},

10256:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Hulbert}},

10257:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Li}},

10258:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Gu}}, and

10259:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Koshizuka}},

10260:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

10261:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{285}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2110}.

10262: 

10263: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Varma}(1997)}]{V9754}

10264: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Varma}, \bibfnamefont{C.~M.}},

10265:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10266:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}}, \bibinfo{pages}{14554}.

10267: 

10268: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Varma} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Varma,

10269:   Schmitt-Rink, and Abrahams}}]{VSA8781}

10270: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Varma}, \bibfnamefont{C.~M.}},

10271:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Schmitt-Rink}}, and

10272:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Abrahams}},

10273:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Solid State Commun.}

10274:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{681}.

10275: 

10276: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vershinin} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Vershinin,

10277:   Shashank, Ono, Abe, Ando, and Yazdani}}]{VSO0495}

10278: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Vershinin}, \bibfnamefont{M.}},

10279:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Shashank}},

10280:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ono}},

10281:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Abe}},

10282:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ando}}, and

10283:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Yazdani}},

10284:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

10285:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{303}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1995}.

10286: 

10287: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vojta and Sachdev}(1999)}]{VS9916}

10288: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Vojta}, \bibfnamefont{M.}}, and

10289:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Sachdev}},

10290:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10291:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3916}.

10292: 

10293: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vollhardt}(1984)}]{V8499}

10294: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Vollhardt}, \bibfnamefont{D.}},

10295:   \bibinfo{year}{1984}, \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.}

10296:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{99}.

10297: 

10298: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Volovik}(1993)}]{V9369}

10299: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Volovik}, \bibfnamefont{G.}},

10300:   \bibinfo{year}{1993}, \bibinfo{journal}{JETP Lett.}

10301:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{469}.

10302: 

10303: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wakimoto} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Wakimoto,

10304:   Shirane, Endoh, Hirota, Ueki, Yamada, Birgeneau, Kastner, Lee, Gehring, and

10305:   Lee}}]{WSE9969}

10306: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wakimoto}, \bibfnamefont{S.}},

10307:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Shirane}},

10308:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Endoh}},

10309:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Hirota}},

10310:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ueki}},

10311:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Yamada}},

10312:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

10313:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kastner}},

10314:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10315:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Gehring}}, and

10316:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10317:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10318:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{R769}.

10319: 

10320: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wang} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Wang, Lu,

10321:   Naughton, Gu, Uchida, and Ong}}]{WLN04}

10322: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wang}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10323:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Lu}},

10324:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Naughton}},

10325:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Gu}},

10326:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}}, and

10327:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ong}}, \bibinfo{year}{2004},

10328:   \bibinfo{journal}{to appear} .

10329: 

10330: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wang and MacDonald}(1995)}]{WM9576}

10331: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wang}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}}, and

10332:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{MacDonald}},

10333:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10334:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3876}.

10335: 

10336: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wang} \emph{et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Wang, Ong, Xu,

10337:   Kakeshita, Uchida, Bonn, Liang, and Hardy}}]{WOX0203}

10338: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wang}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10339:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ong}},

10340:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Xu}},

10341:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kakeshita}},

10342:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}},

10343:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}},

10344:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}}, and

10345:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}},

10346:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10347:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{257003}.

10348: 

10349: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wang} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Wang, Ono,

10350:   Onose, Gu, Ando, Tokura, Uchida, and Ong}}]{WOO0386}

10351: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wang}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10352:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ono}},

10353:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Onose}},

10354:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Gu}},

10355:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ando}},

10356:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Tokura}},

10357:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}}, and

10358:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ong}}, \bibinfo{year}{2003},

10359:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{299}},

10360:   \bibinfo{pages}{86}.

10361: 

10362: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wang} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Wang, Yu,

10363:   Kakeshita, Uchida, Ono, Ando, and Ong}}]{WYK0119}

10364: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wang}, \bibfnamefont{Y.}},

10365:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Yu}},

10366:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kakeshita}},

10367:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Uchida}},

10368:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ono}},

10369:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ando}}, and

10370:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ong}}, \bibinfo{year}{2001},

10371:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},

10372:   \bibinfo{pages}{224519}.

10373: 

10374: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Warren} \emph{et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Warren,

10375:   Walstedt, Brennert, Cava, Tyeko, Bell, and Dabbaph}}]{WWB8993}

10376: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Warren}, \bibfnamefont{W.~W.}},

10377:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Walstedt}},

10378:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Brennert}},

10379:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Cava}},

10380:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Tyeko}},

10381:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Bell}}, and

10382:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Dabbaph}},

10383:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10384:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1193}.

10385: 

10386: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wegner}(1971)}]{W7159}

10387: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wegner}, \bibfnamefont{F.}},

10388:   \bibinfo{year}{1971}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Math. Phys.}

10389:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2259}.

10390: 

10391: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wells} \emph{et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Wells, Shen,

10392:   Matsura, King, Kastner, Greven, and Birgeneau}}]{WSM9564}

10393: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wells}, \bibfnamefont{B.~O.}},

10394:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-X.} \bibnamefont{Shen}},

10395:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Matsura}},

10396:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{King}},

10397:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kastner}},

10398:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Greven}}, and

10399:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Birgeneau}},

10400:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10401:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}}, \bibinfo{pages}{964}.

10402: 

10403: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(1991)}]{Wsrvb}

10404: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10405:   \bibinfo{year}{1991}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10406:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2664}.

10407: 

10408: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(1995)}]{Wtoprev}

10409: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10410:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}, \bibinfo{journal}{Advances in Physics}

10411:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}}, \bibinfo{pages}{405}.

10412: 

10413: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{Wlight}

10414: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10415:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10416:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}}, \bibinfo{pages}{11602}.

10417: 

10418: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{Wqoslpub}

10419: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10420:   \bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10421:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{165113}.

10422: 

10423: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2003{\natexlab{a}})}]{Walight}

10424: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10425:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{a}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10426:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{115413}.

10427: 

10428: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2003{\natexlab{b}})}]{Wqoem}

10429: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10430:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{b}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

10431:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{065003}.

10432: 

10433: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2003{\natexlab{c}})}]{Wqoexct}

10434: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10435:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}{\natexlab{c}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10436:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{016803}.

10437: 

10438: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen}(2004)}]{Wen04}

10439: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10440:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body

10441:   Systems -- From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons}}

10442:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford Univ. Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Oxford}).

10443: 

10444: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen and Lee}(1996)}]{WLsu2}

10445: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}}, and

10446:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10447:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10448:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}}, \bibinfo{pages}{503}.

10449: 

10450: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen and Lee}(1998)}]{WL9893}

10451: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}}, and

10452:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~A.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10453:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10454:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{80}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2193}.

10455: 

10456: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen} \emph{et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Wen, Wilczek, and

10457:   Zee}}]{WWZcsp}

10458: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}},

10459:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Wilczek}}, and

10460:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zee}}, \bibinfo{year}{1989},

10461:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}},

10462:   \bibinfo{pages}{11413}.

10463: 

10464: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wen and Zee}(2002)}]{WZqoind}

10465: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wen}, \bibfnamefont{X.-G.}}, and

10466:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zee}}, \bibinfo{year}{2002},

10467:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

10468:   \bibinfo{pages}{235110}.

10469: 

10470: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Weng}(2003)}]{W0361}

10471: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Weng}, \bibfnamefont{Z.-Y.}},

10472:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, in \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Proceedings of the

10473:   International Symposium on Frontiers of Science}},

10474:   \bibinfo{note}{cond-mat/0304261}.

10475: 

10476: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Weng} \emph{et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Weng, Sheng, and

10477:   Ting}}]{WST0067}

10478: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Weng}, \bibfnamefont{Z.~Y.}},

10479:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~N.} \bibnamefont{Sheng}}, and

10480:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.} \bibnamefont{Ting}},

10481:   \bibinfo{year}{2000}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica}

10482:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C341-348}}, \bibinfo{pages}{67}.

10483: 

10484: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{White and Scalapino}(1999)}]{WS9953}

10485: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{White}, \bibfnamefont{S.~R.}}, and

10486:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Scalapino}},

10487:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10488:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}}, \bibinfo{pages}{753}.

10489: 

10490: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wilson}(1974)}]{W7445}

10491: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wilson}, \bibfnamefont{K.~G.}},

10492:   \bibinfo{year}{1974}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

10493:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2445}.

10494: 

10495: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Witten}(1979)}]{W7985}

10496: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Witten}, \bibfnamefont{E.}},

10497:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B}

10498:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{149}}, \bibinfo{pages}{285}.

10499: 

10500: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wu} \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Wu, Mou, Wen, and

10501:   Chang}}]{WMW9846}

10502: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wu}, \bibfnamefont{C.-L.}},

10503:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-Y.} \bibnamefont{Mou}},

10504:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{X.-G.} \bibnamefont{Wen}}, and

10505:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Chang}},

10506:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/9811146}.

10507: 

10508: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wu} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Wu, Ashburn,

10509:   Torng, Hor, Meng, Gao, Huang, Wang, and Chu}}]{WAT8708}

10510: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wu}, \bibfnamefont{M.~K.}},

10511:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Ashburn}},

10512:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Torng}},

10513:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Hor}},

10514:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Meng}},

10515:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Gao}},

10516:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Huang}},

10517:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Wang}}, and

10518:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Chu}}, \bibinfo{year}{1987},

10519:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

10520:   \bibinfo{pages}{908}.

10521: 

10522: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wynn} \emph{et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Wynn, Bonn,

10523:   Gardner, Lin, Liang, Hardy, Kirtley, and Moler}}]{WBG0102}

10524: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Wynn}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

10525:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bonn}},

10526:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Gardner}},

10527:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-J.} \bibnamefont{Lin}},

10528:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Liang}},

10529:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hardy}},

10530:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kirtley}}, and

10531:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Moler}},

10532:   \bibinfo{year}{2001}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10533:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}}, \bibinfo{pages}{197002}.

10534: 

10535: \bibitem[{Yamada \emph{et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Yamada}

10536:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Yo9865}

10537: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Yamada}, \bibfnamefont{K.}}, \emph{et~al.},

10538:   \bibinfo{year}{1998}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}

10539:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6165}.

10540: 

10541: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ye}(2002)}]{Y0217}

10542: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ye}, \bibfnamefont{J.}}, \bibinfo{year}{2002},

10543:   \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0205417}.

10544: 

10545: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ye} \emph{et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Ye, Kim, Millis,

10546:   Shraiman, Majumda, and Tesanovic}}]{YKM9937}

10547: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Ye}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

10548:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kim}},

10549:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Millis}},

10550:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Shraiman}},

10551:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Majumda}}, and

10552:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Tesanovic}},

10553:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10554:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3737}.

10555: 

10556: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yokoyama and Ogata}(1996)}]{YO9615}

10557: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Yokoyama}, \bibfnamefont{H.}}, and

10558:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ogata}},

10559:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn}

10560:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3615}.

10561: 

10562: \bibitem[{Yoshida \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Yoshida}

10563:   \emph{et~al.}}]{Yo0301}

10564: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Yoshida}, \bibfnamefont{T.}}, \emph{et~al.},

10565:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. rev. Lett.}

10566:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{027001}.

10567: 

10568: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yoshioka}(1989)}]{Y8916}

10569: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Yoshioka}, \bibfnamefont{D.}},

10570:   \bibinfo{year}{1989}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}

10571:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1516}.

10572: 

10573: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yu} \emph{et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Yu, Freeman, and

10574:   Xu}}]{YFX8735}

10575: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Yu}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

10576:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Freeman}}, and

10577:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-H.} \bibnamefont{Xu}},

10578:   \bibinfo{year}{1987}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10579:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1035}.

10580: 

10581: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zaanen} \emph{et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Zaanen,

10582:   Sauatzky, and Allen}}]{ZSA8518}

10583: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zaanen}, \bibfnamefont{J.}},

10584:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Sauatzky}}, and

10585:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Allen}},

10586:   \bibinfo{year}{1985}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

10587:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}}, \bibinfo{pages}{418}.

10588: 

10589: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhang} \emph{et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Zhang, Gros,

10590:   Rice, and Shiba}}]{ZGR8836}

10591: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zhang}, \bibfnamefont{F.~C.}},

10592:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Gros}},

10593:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~M.} \bibnamefont{Rice}}, and

10594:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shiba}},

10595:   \bibinfo{year}{1988}, \bibinfo{journal}{Supercond. Sci. Tech.}

10596:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}}, \bibinfo{pages}{36}.

10597: 

10598: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhang and Rice}(1988)}]{ZR8859}

10599: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zhang}, \bibfnamefont{F.~C.}}, and

10600:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Rice}}, \bibinfo{year}{1988},

10601:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{37}},

10602:   \bibinfo{pages}{3759}.

10603: 

10604: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhang}(1997)}]{Z9789}

10605: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zhang}, \bibfnamefont{S.-C.}},

10606:   \bibinfo{year}{1997}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

10607:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{275}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1089}.

10608: 

10609: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zheng} \emph{et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Zheng,

10610:   Odaguchi, Mito, Kitaoka, Asayama, and Kodama}}]{ZOM0391}

10611: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zheng}, \bibfnamefont{G.-Q.}},

10612:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Odaguchi}},

10613:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mito}},

10614:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kitaoka}},

10615:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Asayama}}, and

10616:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kodama}},

10617:   \bibinfo{year}{2003}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}

10618:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2591}.

10619: 

10620: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhou} \emph{et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Zhou, Yoshida,

10621:   Lee, Yang, Brouet, Zhou, Ti, Xiong, Zhao, Sasagawa, Kakeshita, Eisaki}

10622:   \emph{et~al.}}]{ZYL0481}

10623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Zhou}, \bibfnamefont{Y.-J.}},

10624:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yoshida}},

10625:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.-H.} \bibnamefont{Lee}},

10626:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~L.} \bibnamefont{Yang}},

10627:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Brouet}},

10628:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Zhou}},

10629:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~X.} \bibnamefont{Ti}},

10630:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{Xiong}},

10631:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.~X.} \bibnamefont{Zhao}},

10632:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Sasagawa}},

10633:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kakeshita}},

10634:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Eisaki}}, \emph{et~al.},

10635:   \bibinfo{year}{2004}, \bibinfo{journal}{cond-mat/0403181}.

10636: 

10637: \end{thebibliography}

10638: 

10639: \end{document}

10640: