superconductivity in systems with strong correlations
DESCRIPTION
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN SYSTEMS WITH STRONG CORRELATIONS. N.M.Plakida Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia. Dubna, 28.08.2006. Outline. ● Dense matter vs Strong correlations ● Weak and strong corelations ● Cuprate superconductors ● Effective p-d Hubbard model - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN SYSTEMS WITH STRONG SYSTEMS WITH STRONG
CORRELATIONSCORRELATIONS
N.M.Plakida
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,
Dubna, Russia
Dubna, 28.08.2006
● Dense matter vs Strong correlations
● Weak and strong corelations
● Cuprate superconductors
● Effective p-d Hubbard model
● AFM exchange and spin-fluctuation pairing
● Results for Tc and SC gaps
● Tc (a) and isotope effect
Outline
Dense matter → strong correlations
Weak corelations → conventional metals, Fermi gas
Strong corelations → unconventional metals,
non-Fermi liquid
0
WH = ∑i,j σ t i,j c
+i,σ c j,σ
Hubbard model
H = ∑i,j σ t i,j c+
i,σ c j,σ
+ U ∑i ni ↑ ni ↓
where U > W
U
Weak correlations Strong correlations
2
3
1 2
3
4
Spin exchange
1
i j
Weak corelations → conventional metals, Fermi gas
One-band metal
i j
t12
2
1
0
W
Strong corelations → two Hubbard subabnds: inter-subband hopping
2
i j
1 0s
s
W
and intra - subband hopping
Structure of Hg-1201 compound ( HgBa2CuO4+δ )
After A.M. Balagurov et al.
Tc as a function of doping (oxygen O2– or fluorine F1– )
Abakumov et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. (1998)
CuO2
HgO3 doping atom
Ba
0.12 0.24
Tcmax = 96 K
px
py
dx2-y2
Electronic structure of cuprates: CuO2 plain
Undoped materials:
one hole per CuO2 unit cell.
According to the band theory:
a metal with half-filled band,
but in experiment:
antiferromagnetic insulators
Cu3d dx2-y2 orbital and O2p
(px , py) orbitals:
Cu 2+ (3d9) – O 2– (2p6)
Electronic structure of
cuprates Cu 2+ (3d 9) – O 2–
(2p 6)
Band structure calculations predict
a broad pdσ conduction band:
half-filled antibonding 3d(x2 –y2) - 2p(x,y) band
Mattheis (1987)
px
py
dx2-y2
d
d+ p
d+Ud
1
2
EFFECTIVE HUBBARD p-d MODEL
Model for CuO2 layer:
Cu-3d (εd) and O-2p (εp) states,
with Δ = εp − εd ≈ 3 eV,
Ud ≈ 8 eV, tpd ≈ 1.5 eV,
Cell-cluster perturbation theory
Exact diagonalization of the unit cell Hamiltonian Hi(0)
gives new eigenstates:
E1 = εd - μ → one hole d - like state: l σ > E2 = 2 E1 + Δ → two hole (p - d) singlet state: l ↑↓ >
Xiαβ = l iα > < iβ l with
l α > = l 0 >, l σ >= l ↑ >, l ↓ >, and l 2 >= l ↑↓ >Hubbard operators rigorously obey the constraint: Xi
00 + Xi↑↑ + Xi
↓↓ + Xi 22 = 1
― only one quantum state can be occupied at any site i.
We introduce the Hubbard operators for these states:
In terms of the projected Fermi operators: Xi
0σ = ci σ (1 – n i – σ) , Xi σ 2 = ci – σ n i σ
Commutation relations for the Hubbard operators: [Xi
αβ , Xj γμ ]+(−) = δi j δ β γ
Xiαμ
Here anticommutator is for the Fermi-like operators as Xi0σ, Xi
σ 2,
and commutator is for he Bose-like operators as Xiσ σ, Xi
22, e.g. the spin operators: Si
z = (1/2) (Xi++ – Xi
– , – ), S i
+ = Xi+ –, Si
– = Xi– + ,
or the number operator
Ni = (Xi++ + Xi
– –) + 2 Xi22
These commutation relations result in the kinematic interaction.
The two-subband effective Hubbard model reads:
Kinematic interaction for the Hubbard operators:
Dyson equation for GF in the Hubbard model We introduce the Green Functions:
Equations of motion for the matrix GF are solved within the Mori-type projection technique:
The Dyson equation reads:
with the exact self-energy as the multi-particle GF:
Mean-Field approximation
– anomalous correlation function – SC gap for singlets.
→ PAIRING at ONE lattice site but in TWO subbands
Frequency matrix:
where
Equation for the pair correlation Green function gives:
Gap function for the singlet subband in MFA :
is equvalent to the MFA in the t-J model
For the singlet subband: μ ≈ ∆ and E2 ≈ E1 ≈ – ∆ :
i j
t12
2
1
0
W
AFM exchange pairing
All electrons (holes) are paired in the conduction band.
Estimate in WCA gives for Tcex :
Self-energy in the Hubbard model
SCBA:
, where
Self-energy matrix:
Xj Xmtij tml
Bi Bl
tij tmlGjm
il≈
Gap equation for the singlet (p-d) subband:
where the kernel of the integral equation in SCBA
defines pairing mediated by spin and charge fluctuations.
2
i j
10
s
s
W
Spin-fluctuation pairing
Estimate in WCA gives for Tcsf :
Equation for the gap and Tc in WCA
The AFM static spin susceptibility
where ξ ― short-range AFM correlation length, ωs ≈ J ― cut-off spin-fluctuation energy.
Normalization condition:
Estimate for Tc in the weak coupling approximation
Wehave:
Fig.1. Tc ( in teff units):(i)~spin-fluctuation pairing, (ii)~AFM exchange pairing , (iii)~both contributions
NUMERICAL RESULTS
Parameters: Δpd / tpd = 2, ωs / tpd = 0.1, ξ = 3, J = 0.4 teff, teff ≈ 0.14 tpd ≈ 0.2 eV,
tpd = 1.5 eV
↑
δ=0.13
N.M. Plakida, L. Anton, S. Adam, and Gh. Adam,
JETP 97, 331 (2003). Exchange and Spin-Fluctuation Mechanisms of Superconductivity in Cuprates.
Fig. 2. ∆(kx, ky)
( 0 < kx, ky < π) at optimal doping δ ≈ 0.13
Unconventional d-wave pairing:
∆(kx, ky) ~∆ (coskx - cosky)
Large Fermi surface (FS)
FS
Tc (a) and pressure dependenceFor mercury compounds, Hg-12(n-1)n, experiments show dTc / da ≈ – 1.35·10 3 (K /Å), or d ln Tc / d ln a ≈ – 50 [ Lokshin et al. PRB 63 (2000) 64511 ]
From
Tc ≈ EF exp (– 1/ Vex ), Vex = J N(0) , we get: d ln Tc / d ln a = (d ln Tc / d ln J) · (d ln J / d ln a) ≈ – 40 , where J ≈ tpd
4 ~ 1/a14
Isotope shift: 16 O → 18 O
Isotope shift of TN = 310K for La2CuO4 , Δ TN ≈ −1.8 K
[ G.Zhao et al., PRB 50 (1994) 4112 ]
and αN = – d lnTN /d lnM ≈ – (d lnJ / d lnM) ≈ 0.05
Isotope shift of Tc : αc = – d lnTc / d lnM =
= – (d lnTc / dln J) (d lnJ/d lnM ) ≈ (1/ Vex) αN ≈ 0.16
For conventional, electron-phonon superconductors,
d Tc / d P < 0 , e.g., for MgB2, d Tc / d P ≈ – 1.1 K/GPa, while for cuprates superconductors, d Tc / d P > 0
CONCLUSIONS
Superconducting d-wave pairing with high-Tc
mediated by the AFM superexchange and spin-fluctuations is proved for the p-d Hubbard model.
Retardation effects for AFM exchange are suppressed:
∆pd >> W , that results in pairing of all electrons (holes) with high Tc ~ EF ≈ W/2 .
Tc(a) and oxygen isotope shift are explained. The results corresponds to numerical solution to the
t-J model in (q, ω) space in the strong coupling limit.
In the limit of strong correlations, U >> t, the Hubbard model
can be reduced to the t-J model by projecting out the upper band:
Comparison with t-J model
Jij = 4 t2 / U is the exchange energy for the nearest neighbors,
in cuprates J ~ 0.13 eV
In the t-J model the Hubbard operators act only in the subspace of
one-electron states: Xi0σ = ci σ (1 – n i – σ)
We consider matrix (2x2) Green function (GF) in terms of Nambu operators:
The Dyson equation was solved in SCBA for the normal G11 and
anomalous G12 GF in the linear approximation for Tc calculation:
The gap equation reads
where interaction
Fig.1. Spectral function for the t-J model in the symemtry direction
Γ(0,0) → Μ(π,π) at doping δ = 0.1 (a) and δ = 0.4 (b) .
Numerical results
1. Spectral functions A(k, ω)
Fig.2. Self-energy for the t-J model in the symemtry direction
Γ(0,0) → Μ(π,π) at doping δ = 0.1 (a) and δ = 0.4 (b) .
2. Self-energy, Im Σ(k, ω)
Fig.3. Electron occupation numbers for the t-J model in the quarter of BZ, (0 < kx, ky < π) at doping δ = 0.1 (a) and δ = 0.4 (b) .
3. Electron occupation numbers N(k) = n(k)/2
Fig.4. Fermi surface (a) and the gap Φ(kx, ky) (b) for the t-J model in the quarter of BZ (0 < kx, ky < π) at doping δ = 0.1.
4. Fermi surface and the gap function Φ(kx, ky)
CONCLUSIONS
Superconducting d-wave pairing with high-Tc
mediated by the AFM superexchange and spin-fluctuations is proved for the p-d Hubbard model.
Retardation effects for AFM exchange are suppressed:
∆pd >> W , that results in pairing of all electrons (holes) with high Tc ~ EF ≈ W/2 .
Tc(a) and oxygen isotope shift are explained. The results corresponds to numerical solution to the
t-J model in (q, ω) space in the strong coupling limit.
Electronic structure of cuprates: strong electron correlations Ud
> Wpd
At half-filling 3d(x2 –y2) - 2p(x,y) band splits into UHB and
LHB Insulator with the charge-transfer gap: Ud > Δ = εp
− εd
Publications:
N.M. Plakida, L. Anton, S. Adam, and Gh. Adam,
Exchange and Spin-Fluctuation Mechanisms of Superconductivity in
Cuprates. JETP 97, 331 (2003). N.M. Plakida , Antiferromagnetic exchange mechanism
of superconductivity in cuprates. JETP Letters 74, 36 (2001) N.M. Plakida, V.S. Oudovenko,
Electron spectrum and superconductivity in the t-J model at moderate doping.
Phys. Rev. B 59, 11949 (1999)
Outline
Effective p-d Hubbard model AFM exchange pairing in MFA Spin-fluctuation pairing Results for Tc and SC gaps Tc (a) and isotope effect Comparison with t-J model
WHY ARE COPPER–OXIDES THE ONLY HIGH–Tc SUPERCONDUCTORS with Tc > 100 K?
Cu 2+ in 3d9 state has the lowest 3d level in transition metals
with strong Coulomb correlations Ud >Δpd = εp – εd.
They are CHARGE-TRANSFER INSULATORS
with HUGE super-exchange interaction J ~ 1500 K —>
AFM long–range order with high TN = 300 – 500 K
Strong coupling of doped holes (electrons) with spins
Pseudogap due to AFM short – range order
High-Tc superconductivity
EFFECTIVE HUBBARD p-d MODEL
Model for CuO2 layer:
Cu-3d ( εd ) and
O-2p (εp ) states
Δ = εp − εd ≈ 2 tpd
In terms of O-2p Wannier states
d
d+ p
d+Ud
1
2