1: %\documentclass[aps,prb,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{bm,color,amsmath,amssymb,mathrsfs,latexsym,graphicx,psfrag}
4:
5: % boldsymbol (requires amsmath)
6: \newcommand{\bs}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}
7:
8: % A command for inner product and bras and kets
9: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle #1 | #2 \right\rangle}
10: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle#1\right|}
11: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}
12:
13: % Various bracketing commands
14: \newcommand{\of}[1]{\!\left(#1\right)}
15: \newcommand{\sqof}[1]{\left[#1\right]}
16: \newcommand{\cuof}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
17:
18: % Theta function
19: \newcommand{\tfunc}{\vartheta_1}
20:
21: % Absolute value
22: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
23:
24: % Roman functions for real and imaginary parts
25: \newcommand{\re}{\mathrm{Re}}
26: \newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{Im}}
27:
28: % Sets of up-spin and down-spin locations
29: \newcommand{\bket}{\left\{z_1 \cdots z_{\num}\right\}}
30: \newcommand{\wket}{\left\{w_1 \cdots w_{\num}\right\}}
31:
32: %Expectation values
33: \newcommand{\expect}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}
34:
35: \def\ie{{\it i.e.},\ }
36: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}\ }
37: \def\ea{{\it et al.}}
38: %\def\eV{\,\text{eV}}
39: \def\eV{}
40:
41: \begin{document}
42: \title{No evidence for spontaneous orbital currents in finite size
43: studies\\ of three-band models for CuO planes} \author{Martin
44: Greiter and Ronny Thomale} \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theorie der
45: Kondensierten Materie, Universit\"at Karlsruhe, D 76128 Karlsruhe}
46: \pagestyle{plain}
47:
48: %\homepage[]{Your web page}
49: %\thanks{}
50: %\altaffiliation{}
51: \date{\today}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: We have numerically evaluated the current-current correlations for
55: three-band models of the CuO planes in high-$T_{\rm c}$
56: superconductors at hole doping $x=1/8$. The results show no
57: evidence for the orbital current patterns proposed by Varma. If
58: such patterns exist, the associated energy is estimated to be
59: smaller than 5 meV per link even if
60: $\epsilon_\text{p}-\epsilon_\text{d}=0$. Assuming that the
61: three-band models are adequate, quantum critical fluctuations of
62: such patterns hence cannot be responsible for phenomena occurring at
63: significantly higher energies, such as superconductivity or the
64: anomalous properties of the pseudogap phase.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \pacs{74.20.Mn, 74.72.-h, 74.20.-z}
68: % 74.20.Mn Nonconventional mechanisms (spin fluctuations, polarons
69: % and bipolarons, resonating valence bond model, anyon mechanism,
70: % marginal Fermi liquid, Luttinger liquid, etc.)
71: % 74.72.-h Cuprate superconductors (high-Tc and insulating parent compounds)
72: % 74.20.-z Theories and models of superconducting state
73: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
74: %\keywords{}
75:
76: \maketitle
77:
78: The problem of high-$T_{\rm c}$ superconductivity has been something
79: like a holy grail to the field of condensed matter physics for the
80: past two decades~\cite{zaanen-06np138}. In the words of R.B.\
81: Laughlin, it has not been a fight, but a war. It has been a traumatic
82: experience for some of those involved, but has also led to a plethora
83: of new developments extending far beyond the field. Many of the
84: experimental techniques used to study the systems, like angle resolved
85: photo emission spectroscopy (ARPES) or scanning tunneling microscopy
86: (STM), have undergone revolutions with regard to resolution and data
87: processing. {The} theory of superconductivity in high-$T_{\rm c}$
88: cuprates has been found as many times as victories must have been
89: proclaimed in civil wars, but while individuals believe to have the
90: theory, there is no consensus what the theory should be. Many ideas,
91: even though too general to qualify as complete theories of the
92: cuprates, have inspired a vast amount of research in both high-$T_{\rm
93: c}$ and other areas. Most prominently among them are the notions of
94: a resonating valence bond (RVB) state~\cite{Anderson87s1196}, the
95: gauge theories of antiferromagnetism~\cite{Lee-06rmp17}, and the
96: notion of quantum criticality~\cite{Sachdev03rmp913}. There have
97: been, however, a few concise proposals which make falsifiable
98: predictions. Intellectual masterpieces among them have been the
99: theory of anyon superconductivity~\cite{Laughlin88s525}, the proposal
100: of kinetic energy savings through interlayer
101: tunneling~\cite{Anderson95s1154}, the SO(5) theory of a common order
102: parameter for superconductivity and magnetism~\cite{Demler-04rmp909},
103: and a more recent proposal that the anomalous properties of the
104: cuprates may be due to quantum critical fluctuations of current
105: patterns formed spontaneously in the CuO planes~\cite{Varma99prl3538,
106: Varma06prb155113}. This last proposal is further investigated in
107: this Letter.
108:
109: The idea of a spontaneous symmetry breaking through orbital currents
110: was, as with so many major advances in physics, motivated by
111: experiment. The normal state of the cuprates at optimal doping shows
112: a behavior which can be classified as quantum critical, and has been
113: rather adequately described by a phenomenological theory called
114: marginal Fermi liquid~\cite{Varma-89prl1996}.
115: This phenomenology suggests a quantum critical point (QCP) at a hole
116: doping level of $x_{\rm c}\approx 0.19$, an assumption consistent with
117: a significant body of experimental data~\cite{Tallon-01pc53,
118: Alff-03n698, vanderMarel03n271, dagan-04prl167001,
119: Naqib-05prb054502}. Critical fluctuations around this point would
120: then be responsible for the anomalous properties of the pseudogap
121: phase, and provide the pairing force responsible for the
122: superconducting phase which hides the QCP.
123:
124: Interpreting the phase diagram in these terms, one is immediately led
125: to ask what the phase to the left of the QCP, \ie for $x<x_{\rm c}$,
126: might be. The theory would require a spontaneously broken symmetry
127: beyond the global U(1) symmetry broken through superconductivity
128: (which is often erroneously refered to as a broken gauge
129: symmetry~\cite{Greiter05ap217}). In addition, as the fluctuations are
130: assumed to determine the phase diagram up to temperatures of several
131: hundred Kelvin, the characteristic energy scale of the correlations
132: inducing this symmetry violation must be at least of the same order of
133: magnitude. No definitive evidence of such a broken symmetry has been
134: found up to now, even though several possibilities have been suggested.
135: These include stripes~\cite{Kivelson-03rmp1201}, a
136: $d$-density wave~\cite{Chakravarty-01prb094503}, and most recently a
137: checkerboard charge density wave~\cite{Li-06prb184515}.
138:
139: The general consensus is that the low energy sector of the three-band
140: Hubbard model proposed for the CuO planes (see \eqref{3bH}
141: below)~\cite{emery87prl2794} reduces to a one-band $t$--$t'$--$J$
142: model, with parameters $t\approx 0.44$, $t'\approx -0.06$, and
143: $J\approx 0.128$ (energies throughout this article are in
144: eV)~\cite{Zhang-88prb3759, Eskes-88prl1415, Hybertsen-89prb9028,
145: Hybertsen-90prb11068, Rice-91ptrsla459}. For the undoped CuO
146: planes, the formal valances are Cu$^{2+}$ and O$^{2-}$. As the
147: electron configuration of Cu atoms is [Ar] $3d^{10}4s^1$, this implies
148: one hole per unit cell, which will predominantly occupy the
149: $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital. As the onsite potential $\epsilon_\text{p}$
150: in the O $2p_x$ and $2p_y$ orbitals relative to the Cu $3d_{x^2-y^2}$
151: orbital is generally assumed to be of the order of
152: $\epsilon_\text{p}=3.6\eV$ (with $\epsilon_{\text{d}}=0$), and hence
153: smaller than the onsite Coulomb repulsion $U_d\approx 10.5\eV$ for a
154: second hole in the $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital, it is clear that additional
155: holes doped into the planes will primarily reside on the Oxygens. The
156: maximal gain in hybridization energy is achieved by placing the
157: additional hole in a combination of the surrounding O $2p_x$ and
158: $2p_y$ orbitals with the same symmetry as the original hole in the Cu
159: $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital, which requires antisymmetry of the wave
160: function in spin space, \ie the two holes must form a singlet. This
161: picture is strongly supported by data from NMR~\cite{Walstedt90s248}
162: and even more directly from spin-resolved
163: photoemission~\cite{tjeng-97prl1126}. In the effective one-band
164: $t$--$J$ model description of the CuO planes, these singlets
165: constitute the ``holes'' moving in a background of spin 1/2 particles
166: localized at the Cu sites.
167:
168: \begin{figure}[t]
169: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.3\linewidth}
170: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pattern}
171: \end{minipage}
172: \caption{Orbital current pattern proposed by Varma.}
173: \label{fig:pattern}
174: \vspace{-4mm}
175: \end{figure}
176: In contrast to this picture, Varma~\cite{Varma99prl3538,
177: Varma06prb155113} has proposed that the additional holes doped in
178: the CuO planes do not hybridize into Zhang-Rice singlets, but give
179: rise to circular currents on O-Cu-O triangles, which align into a
180: planar pattern as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pattern}. He assumes that
181: the inter-atomic Coulomb potential $V_\text{pd}$ is larger than both
182: the hopping $t_\text{pd}$ and the onsite potential $\epsilon_\text{p}$
183: of the O $2p$ orbitals relative to the Cu $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals, an
184: assumption which is not consistent with the values generally agreed on
185: (see the list below \eqref{3bH}).
186: Making additional assumptions, Varma has shown that the circular
187: current patterns are stabilized in a mean field solution of the
188: three-band Hubbard model. The orbital current patterns break
189: time-reversal symmetry breaking (T) and the discrete four-fold
190: rotation symmetry on the lattice, but leave translational symmetry
191: intact. The current pattern is assumed to disappear at a doping level
192: of about $x_{\rm c}\approx 0.19$. The phenomenology of CuO
193: superconductors, including the pseudogap and the marginal Fermi liquid
194: phase, are assumed to result from critical fluctuations around this
195: QCP, as outlined above.
196:
197: Motivated by this proposal, several experimental groups have looked
198: for signatures of orbital currents or T violation in CuO
199: superconductors. While there is no agreement between different groups
200: regarding the manifestation of T violation in ARPES
201: studies~\cite{Kaminski-02n610,Borisenko-04prl207001}, a recent
202: neutron scattering experiment by Fauqu\'e \ea~\cite{fauque-06prl197001}
203: indicates magnetic order within the unit cells of the CuO planes.
204: Their results are consistent with Varma's proposal, and call the
205: validity of the one-band models into question.
206:
207: In a recent article, Aji and Varma~\cite{Aji-06cm0610646} have mapped
208: the four possible directions of the current patterns in each unit cell
209: onto two Ising spins, and investigated the critical fluctuations.
210: Within this framework, the coupling between and the transverse fields
211: for these Ising spins decide whether or under which circumstances the
212: model displays long-range order in the orbital currents.
213:
214: We hence undertook to estimate these couplings through numerical
215: studies of finite clusters containing 8 unit cells, \ie 8 Cu and 16 O
216: sites, and periodic boundary conditions (which do not frustrate but
217: should enhance the correlations). The total number of holes on our
218: cluster was taken $N=9$ (5 up-spins and 4 down-spins), corresponding
219: to a hole doping of $x=1/8$. We had hoped that the energy associated
220: with a domain wall, which may be implemented through a twist in the
221: boundary conditions, would provide information regarding the coupling
222: aligning the orbital currents in neighboring plaquets, while the
223: splitting between the lowest energies for a finite system would
224: provide an estimate for the transverse field.
225: The result of our endeavors, however, is a daunting disappointment:
226: The coupling is zero within the error bars of our numerical
227: experiments.
228:
229: Let us now report our numerical studies in detail. To begin with, we
230: wish to study the three-band Hubbard Hamiltonian
231: $H=H_\text{t}+H_\text{U}$ with
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: H_\text{t}&\!=\!&\!
234: \sum_{i,\sigma} \epsilon_\text{p}\,
235: n_{i,\sigma}^{\text{p}}
236: -t_{\text{pd}}\!\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle , \sigma}\!
237: \left(d_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger} p^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{j,\sigma}
238: +p_{j,\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)
239: \nonumber \\
240: &-\!&\! t_{\text{pp}}\!\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle , \sigma}\!
241: \left( p_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger}p_{j,\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
242: +p_{j,\sigma}^{\dagger}p_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\right)
243: + V_{\text{pd}}\hspace{-9pt}\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle , \sigma, \sigma '}
244: \hspace{-9pt} n_{i, \sigma}^{\text{d}} n_{j,\sigma '}^{\text{p}},\hspace{3pt}
245: \nonumber \\[2pt]
246: H_\text{U}\!\!&\!=\!&\!
247: U_{\text{p}}\sum_i n_{i, \uparrow}^{\text{p}} n_{i, \downarrow}^{\text{p}}
248: + U_{\text{d}}\sum_i n_{i, \uparrow}^{\text{d}} n_{i, \downarrow}^{\text{d}},
249: \label{3bH}
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: where {\small $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$} indicates that the sums extend over pairs
252: of nearest neighbors, while $d_{i,\sigma}$ and $p_{j,\sigma}$
253: annihilate holes in Cu $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ or O $2p$ orbitals, respectively.
254: Hybertsen \ea~\cite{Hybertsen-89prb9028} assumed $t_{\text{pd}}=1.5\eV$,
255: $t_{\text{pp}}=0.65\eV$, $U_{\text{d}}=10.5\eV$, $U_{\text{p}}=4\eV$,
256: $V_{\text{pd}}=1.2\eV$, and $\epsilon_{\text{p}}=3.6\eV$.
257:
258: \begin{figure}[t]
259: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.9\linewidth}
260: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{paper-ep36}
261: \end{minipage}
262: \caption{Current-current correlations $\expect{j_{k,k+\hat
263: x}j_{l,m}}$ multiplied by $10^2$ for the ground state of
264: \eqref{3btj} with $\epsilon_\text{p}=3.6$ on a 24 site cluster (8
265: Cu = open circles, 16 O = filled circles) with PBCs. The
266: reference link is indicated in the top and (due to the PBCs)
267: bottom left corner.}
268: \label{fig:ep36}
269: \vspace{-3mm}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: In order to be able to diagonalize \eqref{3bH} for 24 sites, we need
273: to truncate the Hilbert space. A first step is to eliminate doubly
274: occupied sites, which yields the effective three-band $t$--$J$
275: Hamiltonian
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: H_{\text{eff}}\!\!&=\!\!&\tilde{P}_{\text{G}} H_\text{t}
278: \tilde{P}_{\text{G}} + H_\text{J} \ \ \ \text{with}\\[5pt]
279: H_\text{J}&\!\!=\!\!&
280: J_{\text{pd}}\hspace{-1pt}\sum_{\langle i, j \rangle}
281: \of{\bs{S}_{i}^{\text{p}}\!\cdot\! \bs{S}_{j}^{\text{d}}-\frac{1}{4}}
282: + J_{\text{pp}}\hspace{-1pt}\sum_{\langle i, j \rangle}
283: \of{\bs{S}_{i}^{\text{p}}\!\cdot\! \bs{S}_{j}^{\text{p}}-\frac{1}{4}},
284: \hspace{5pt}\nonumber
285: \label{3btj}
286: \vspace{-5pt}
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: where
289: %\begin{equation}
290: % \label{jpdjpp}
291: % J_{\text{pd}}=2t_{\text{pd}}^2\of{\frac{1}{U_{\text{d}}-\epsilon_\text{p}}
292: % +\frac{1}{U_\text{p}+\epsilon_\text{p}}}\ \text{and}\
293: % J_{\text{pp}}=\frac{4t_\text{pp}^2}{U_\text{p}}.
294: % \nonumber
295: %\end{equation}
296: \begin{equation}
297: \label{jpdjpp}
298: J_{\text{pd}}=2t_{\text{pd}}^2\of{\frac{1}{U_{\text{d}}-\epsilon_\text{p}}
299: +\frac{1}{U_\text{p}+\epsilon_\text{p}}}, \
300: J_{\text{pp}}=\frac{4t_\text{pp}^2}{U_\text{p}}\hspace{1pt},
301: \nonumber
302: \end{equation}
303: and the sums in $H_\text{J}$ are limited to pairs where both neighbors
304: are occupied by holes. If $\tilde{P}_{\text{G}}$ only eliminates
305: configurations with more than one hole on a site, the dimension of the
306: $S^z_\text{tot}=\frac{1}{2}$ sub-sector is with 164,745,504 still
307: beyond our capabilities. We have hence implemented two further ways
308: of truncating the Hilbert space: (a) We limit the maximal number of
309: holes allowed in the O orbitals to $N^\text{max}_\text{ox}$. (b) We
310: limit the maximal number of CuO links occupied with 2 holes to
311: $N^\text{max}_\text{link}$. For the values proposed by Hybertsen \ea,
312: either truncation should hardly affect the low energy sector. In
313: Table~\ref{tab:one},
314: \begin{table}[b]
315: \centering
316: \begin{tabular}{ccc||ccc}
317: \hline\hline
318: $N^\text{max}_\text{ox}$ & $E$ & $10^2\!\expect{JJ}_\text{diag.}$ &
319: $N^\text{max}_\text{link}$ & $E$ & $10^2\!\expect{JJ}_\text{diag.}$ \\
320: \hline
321: 3& -0.705 & -0.0085 & 2 & -0.063 & 0.0004 \\
322: 4& -0.835 & -0.0304 & 3 & -0.635 & -0.0279 \\
323: 5& -0.877 & -0.0488 & 4 & -0.851 & -0.0508 \\
324: \hline\hline
325: \end{tabular}
326: \caption{Ground state energies per unit cell and a current-current
327: correlation for various truncations of the Hilbert space.}
328: \label{tab:one}
329: \end{table}
330: we compare the ground state energies and the current-current
331: correlation on diagonally and maximally separated links on the torus
332: for different values of $N^\text{max}_\text{ox}$ and
333: $N^\text{max}_\text{link}$. This comparison gives us confidence that
334: it is not unreasonable to set $N^\text{max}_\text{link}=4$, which
335: reduces the Hilbert space dimension to 93,595,824. Since the
336: truncation (b) is predominantly projecting out states with high
337: kinetic energy, we expect that the value of $\epsilon_{\text{p}}$ will
338: not affect the validity of the approximation. Excluding
339: configurations with too many CuO links occupied by two holes should,
340: in any occasion, not weaken the tendency to form orbital current
341: patterns. Truncation (a), by contrast, is no longer reasonable if
342: $\epsilon_\text{p}$ is small.
343:
344: Let us now turn to our results for the current-current correlations in
345: the ground state (situated at the M point in the Brillouin zone) for
346: our 24 site cluster with 9 holes and parameters as assumed by
347: Hybertsen, where no orbital current pattern are expected. With the
348: current operator for, \eg an O-O link given by
349: \begin{equation}
350: \label{curdef}
351: j_{k,l}=i t_{\text{pp}}\sum_\sigma
352: \of{p_{l,\sigma}^{\dagger}p_{k,\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
353: -p_{k,\sigma}^{\dagger}p_{l,\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}},
354: \vspace{-3pt}
355: \end{equation}
356: the correlations function $\expect{j_{k,k+\hat x}j_{l,m}}$ with an O-O link as
357: reference link is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ep36}. As expected, the
358: correlations fall off rapidly, and there is no indication of order.
359:
360: \begin{figure}[t]
361: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.9\linewidth}
362: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{paper-ep0}
363: \end{minipage}
364: \caption{as in Fig.~\ref{fig:ep36}, but with
365: $\epsilon_{\text{p}}=0$. Except for the vertical links, positive
366: correlations indicate alignment with the current pattern shown in
367: Fig.~\ref{fig:pattern}.}
368: \label{fig:ep0}
369: \vspace{-3mm}
370: \end{figure}
371:
372: The crucial result is that the correlations change continuously and
373: only quantitatively, but not really qualitatively, as
374: $\epsilon_{\text{p}}$ is lowered from $3.6\eV$ to $1.8\eV$, $0.9\eV$,
375: $0.4\eV$, and finally to $\epsilon_{\text{p}}=0$, where the result is
376: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ep0} (the ground state is now situated at the
377: $\Gamma$ point). This is the situation for which Varma has proposed
378: that the current pattern sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:pattern} would
379: occur. Fig.~\ref{fig:ep0}, by contrast, shows no alignment of the
380: currents.
381:
382: The numerical experiments for the finite cluster can, as a matter of
383: principle, never rule out that a symmetry is violated. We can use
384: them, however, to put an upper bound on the size of the spontaneous
385: currents, and hence the energy associated with these currents. If a
386: current pattern as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:pattern} were to exist,
387: the current correlation $\expect{j_{k,k+\hat x}j_{l,l+\hat x}}$ for
388: links far away from each other in a rotationally invariant ground
389: state should approach $\frac{1}{2}\expect{\hat x|j_{k,k+\hat x}|\hat
390: x}^2$, where $\ket{\hat x}$ denotes a state with a spontaneous
391: current pointing in $\hat x$ direction (the factor $\frac{1}{2}$
392: arises because by choosing our reference link in $x$-direction, we
393: effectively project onto two of the four possible directions for the
394: current pattern). From the values of
395: $10^2\!\cdot\!\expect{j_{k,k+\hat x}j_{l,l+\hat x}}$ for the four
396: horizontally connected links in the center of Fig.~\ref{fig:ep0},
397: $-0.1832, +0.0158, -0.0676$, and $+0.0158$, which should all be
398: positive if a current pattern were present, we estimate
399: $10^2\!\cdot\!\expect{j_{k,k+\hat x}}^2 < 0.20$ and hence
400: $\expect{\hat x|j_{k,k+\hat x}|\hat x}^2 < 4\cdot 10^{-3}$ as an upper
401: bound for a current pattern we are unable to detect through the
402: error bars of our numerical experiment. We now denote $\expect{\hat
403: x|j_{k,k+\hat x}|\hat x}$ by $j_\text{pp}$. %_\text{O-O}$.
404:
405: We roughly estimate the kinetic energy $\varepsilon_\text{pp}$ per
406: link associated with a spontaneous current $j_\text{pp}$ of this
407: magnitude using $j_\text{pp}=n_\text{p}v$ and
408: $\varepsilon_\text{pp}=\frac{1}{2}n_\text{p} m v^2$ with
409: $m={1}/{2t_\text{pp}}$,
410: where $n_\text{p}$ is the hole density on the Oxygen sites ($n_\text{p}=0.30$
411: for the state of Fig.~\ref{fig:ep0}), and obtain
412: \begin{equation}
413: \label{estimate-pp}
414: \varepsilon_\text{pp}
415: \approx\frac{j_\text{pp}^2}{4t_\text{pp}n_\text{p}}<5\cdot 10^{-3}.
416: \nonumber
417: \end{equation}
418: A similar analysis for the CuO links, using data not shown here,
419: yields with $10^2\!\cdot\!\expect{j_{k,k+\hat x+\hat y}}^2 < 1.0$ and
420: hence $j_\text{pd}^2 < 10^{-2}$ (there is no factor
421: $\frac{1}{2}$ in this case)
422: %using $8n_\text{d}+16n_\text{p}=9$
423: an estimate of
424: \begin{equation}
425: \label{estimate-pd}
426: \varepsilon_\text{pd}
427: \approx\frac{j_\text{pd}^2}{4t_\text{pd}\sqrt{n_\text{p}n_\text{d}}}
428: <4 \cdot 10^{-3}.
429: \nonumber
430: \end{equation}
431:
432: We conclude that while we cannot rule out that orbital current
433: patterns exist, we can rule out that they are responsible for the
434: superconductivity, the properties of the pseudogap phase, or the
435: anomalous normal state properties extending up to temperatures of
436: several hundred Kelvin, as the energy associated with the spontaneous
437: loop currents is less than 5 meV per link if such currents exist.
438: We have assumed that the CuO planes are adequately described by the
439: three-band Hubbard model \eqref{3bH}, but we have allowed
440: $\epsilon_\text{p}$ to be much smaller than generally agreed upon, and
441: based our estimates on the extreme and to our purposes most
442: unfavorable value $\epsilon_\text{p}=0$. (Note that the ordered
443: antiferromagnetic phase in undoped cuprates requires a finite
444: $\epsilon_\text{p}$.) Numerical data not presented here show that our
445: conclusions remain intact if we set $J_\text{pd}=J_\text{pp}=0$ or/and
446: double the value of the repulsion $V_\text{pd}$, which generates the
447: orbital currents in Varma's mean-field calculation. They also hold
448: for other low energy states for the finite system (\eg as situated at
449: the M point in the Brillouin zone for $\epsilon_\text{p}=0$).
450: %They are further insenistive to changing the primitive region for the
451: %PBCs from being spanned by the vectors $(2,2$ and $(2,-2)$ to being
452: %spanned by $(3,1)$ and $(2,-2)$.
453:
454: Nonetheless, we should keep in mind that any analysis of a model can
455: only reach a conclusion valid for this model. The question of whether
456: current patterns exist in CuO superconductors can ultimately only be
457: settled by experiment. We consider it likely, however, that an
458: eventual consensus among experiments will confirm our conclusion.
459:
460: %A more elaborate account of this work is in preparation.
461: \begin{acknowledgments}
462: We wish like to thank C.M.\ Varma, V.\ Aji, F.\ Evers and in
463: particular P.\ W\"olfle for many illuminating discussions of this
464: subject. RT was supported by a PhD scholarship from the
465: Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. We further acknowledge the
466: support of the computing facilities of the INT at the
467: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.
468: \end{acknowledgments}
469:
470: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
471: %\bibliographystyle{/users/tkm/rachel/bib/prsty}
472: %\bibliography{/users/tkm/rachel/bib/book,/users/tkm/rachel/bib/paper,/users/tkm/rachel/bib/unpub,/users/tkm/rachel/bib/htc}
473:
474: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
475:
476: \bibitem{zaanen-06np138}
477: J. Zaanen {\it et~al.}, Nature Physics {\bf 2}, 138 (2006).
478:
479: \bibitem{Anderson87s1196}
480: P.~W. Anderson, Science {\bf 235}, 1196 (1987).
481:
482: \bibitem{Lee-06rmp17}
483: P.~A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.~G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 78}, 17 (2006).
484:
485: \bibitem{Sachdev03rmp913}
486: S. Sachdev, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 913 (2003).
487:
488: \bibitem{Laughlin88s525}
489: R.~B. Laughlin, Science {\bf 242}, 525 (1988).
490:
491: \bibitem{Anderson95s1154}
492: P.~W. Anderson, Science {\bf 268}, 1154 (1995).
493:
494: \bibitem{Demler-04rmp909}
495: E. Demler, W. Hanke, and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 909 (2004).
496:
497: \bibitem{Varma99prl3538}
498: C.~M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3538 (1999).
499:
500: \bibitem{Varma06prb155113}
501: C.~M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 155113 (2006).
502:
503: \bibitem{Varma-89prl1996}
504: C.~M. Varma, P.~B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams, and A.~E.
505: Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 1996 (1989).
506:
507: \bibitem{Tallon-01pc53}
508: J.~L. Tallon and J.~W. Loram, Physica C 53 (2001).
509:
510: \bibitem{Alff-03n698}
511: L. Alff, Y. Krockenberger, B. Welter, M. Schonecke, R. Gross, D. Manske, and M.
512: Naito, Nature {\bf 422}, 698 (2003).
513:
514: \bibitem{vanderMarel03n271}
515: D.~v.~d. Marel, H.~J.~A. Molegraaf, J. Zaanen, Z. Nussinov, F. Carbone, A.
516: Damascelli, H. Eisaki, M. Greven, P.~H. Kes, and M. Li, Nature {\bf 425},
517: 271 (2003).
518:
519: \bibitem{dagan-04prl167001}
520: Y. Dagan, M.~M. Qazilbash, C.~P. Hill, V.~N. Kulkarni, and R.~L. Greene, Phys.
521: Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 167001 (2004).
522:
523: \bibitem{Naqib-05prb054502}
524: S.~H. Naqib, J.~R. Cooper, J.~L. Tallon, R.~S. Islam, and R.~A. Chakalov, Phys.
525: Rev. B {\bf 71}, 054502 (2005).
526:
527: \bibitem{Greiter05ap217}
528: M. Greiter, Ann. Phys. {\bf 319}, 217 (2005).
529:
530: \bibitem{Kivelson-03rmp1201}
531: S.~A. Kivelson, I.~P. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V. Oganesyan, J.~M. Tranquada, A.
532: Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 1201 (2003).
533:
534: \bibitem{Chakravarty-01prb094503}
535: S. Chakravarty, R.~B. Laughlin, D.~K. Morr, and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
536: 63}, 094503 (2001).
537:
538: \bibitem{Li-06prb184515}
539: J.~X. Li, C.~Q. Wu, and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 74}, 184515 (2006).
540:
541: \bibitem{emery87prl2794}
542: V.~J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 2794 (1987).
543:
544: \bibitem{Zhang-88prb3759}
545: F.~C. Zhang and T.~M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 3759 (1988).
546:
547: \bibitem{Eskes-88prl1415}
548: H. Eskes and G.~A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 1415 (1988).
549:
550: \bibitem{Hybertsen-89prb9028}
551: M.~S. Hybertsen, M. Schl\"uter, and N.~E. Christensen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 39},
552: 9028 (1989).
553:
554: \bibitem{Hybertsen-90prb11068}
555: M.~S. Hybertsen, E.~B. Stechel, M. Schl\"uter, and D.~R. Jennison, Phys. Rev. B
556: {\bf 41}, 11068 (1990).
557:
558: \bibitem{Rice-91ptrsla459}
559: T.~M. Rice, F. Mila, and F.~C. Zhang, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 334},
560: 459 (1991).
561:
562: \bibitem{Walstedt90s248}
563: R.~E. Walstedt and W.~W. {Warren, Jr.}, Science {\bf 248}, 1082 (1990).
564:
565: \bibitem{tjeng-97prl1126}
566: L.~H. Tjeng {\it et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 1126 (1997).
567:
568: \bibitem{Kaminski-02n610}
569: A. Kaminksi {\it et~al.}, Nature {\bf 416}, 610 (2002).
570:
571: \bibitem{Borisenko-04prl207001}
572: S.~V. Borisenko, A.~A. Kordyuk, A. Koitzsch, T.~K. Kim, K.~A. Nenkov, M.
573: Knupfer, J. Fink, C. Grazioli, S. Turchini, and H. Berger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
574: {\bf 92}, 207001 (2004).
575:
576: \bibitem{fauque-06prl197001}
577: B. Fauqu\'{e}, Y. Sidis, V. Hinkov, S. Pailhes, C.~T. Lin, X. Chaud, and P.
578: Bourges, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 197001 (2006).
579:
580: \bibitem{Aji-06cm0610646}
581: V. Aji and C.~M. Varma, cond-mat/0610646.
582:
583: \end{thebibliography}
584:
585: \end{document}
586: