arXiv:cond-mat/9811078v1 5 Nov 1998 n/rpooigtesrp hs mgei ed,teLTT the fields, (magnetic phase deformation, stripe the promoting and/or n oto aaee ( parameter control a and omto saalbet ojcuetegnrlsaeof shape general ( the zero-temperature conjecture the to in- available experimental Although is enough formation uncertainties, temperature. list with zero the littered at to still added compete be which to have states stripes the of that of is discovery [1] the phase of of stripe consequence corner A remote diagram. a Mott- phase state, the in a metallic state and instability, antiferromagnetic anomalous superconducting insulating rather a to a subjected about was physics fteculn osato unu phase-dynamics quantum a of constant problem. coupling the of ga fhigh of agram inadteohrai stkni og es san as sense this rough call supercon- a I over in : localization taken ductivity charge is helps axis which other influence the and tion .The 1. I.1 h oooyo h eotmeauepaedi- phase zero-temperature the of topology The 1. FIG. swl efrhrdsusdi eto I ti bu a about is it II, section in discussed further be will As nilntln g,i a sue htcuprate that assumed was it ago, long not Untill unu hs rniin ncpae:srpsadantifer and stripes cuprates: in transitions phase Quantum g _ 1 nttt oet o hoeia hsc,Lie Univers Leiden Physics, Theoretical for Lorentz Institute 0 stripes classical x xshsteuulmaigo oeconcentra- hole of meaning usual the has axis Zn 46.i 12.a 47.h 75.10.-b 74.72.-h, 71.27.+a, 64.60.-i, Vario sector. magnetic (antiferr the experimentally. superconducting in behavior and critical ordered quantum for stripe argued unus time is da an same It existing with the of proposed phase-superconductivity. com be basis tight stripe will On a competition diagram in concentrations. phase is hole temperature state zero of superconducting range notion the large this a that that idea argued be the will with It transition. phase quantum T c ti eivdta h antcflcutosi urt supe cuprate in fluctuations magnetic the that believed is It doping). uecnutr,a ucino oig( doping of function as superconductors, .INTRODUCTION I. . 0.2 0.1 superconductor d-wave g phase coexistence phase stripe − k B 1 g − T ic ti iia oteinverse the to similar is it since 1 upesn superconductivity surpressing ) )paedarm e Fig. see diagram: phase 0) = x phase surface Fermi Spebr2,2018) 26, (September 0.3 .Zaanen J. x ) t,PO o 56 L20 ALie,TeNetherlands The Leiden, RA NL-2300 9506, Box P.O. ity, 1 huhsilqiecnrvril tmgtb hta in- at that be might it Al- controversial, termediate phase. quite stripe still the though with ‘un- range competes an concentration superconductor by large the least, a affected over not where strongly but regime’ last are derdoped and, which ‘classical’ disorder dopings quenched nickelate-like low by very some dop- at high presumably stripes at about superconductor the ings, with competing metal ini oaayeterl fti ceitne r more or, ‘coexistence’ this of phase. role supersolid’ the contribu- ‘antiferromagnetic this precisely, analyze of to aim main is A tion [2]. regime underdoped this eei rpryo h unu rtclrgm sthat is regime time critical [3]. phase-relaxation quantum the the criticality the of quantum meets property by de- one generic theory, A to be field referred can bosonic often a competition phenomena of the terms if in of and scribed locus continuous, the is from sition away in is transition one if the lengths also times, finite temperatures, at and physics the govern can transitions h unu rtclpit nadto,i a enar- been cuprates LTT has the it to in found proximity addition, antiferromagnet the close In that the gued point. signals critical gap quantum this the of smallness the eaue 1 perature: scmae oteltiesaeecag (100 exchange scale lattice the to compared as rmo nomnuaeflcutosaqie a at ∆ gap gap spec- this a the and acquires temperatures, that fluctuations low observation incommensurate the interpreta- of by proximity This trum helped the think further order. with to is antiferromagnetic tempting do tion stripe is to the it have of [2,5], fluctuations phase these stripe that peaks same static Bragg the the superlattice at of magnetic found the are fluctuations as these wavenumbers Since incommensurate [4]. the state by of obeyed fluctuations is magnetic behavior scaling this ieyLrnzivratdnmc h orlto length correlation the ξ dynamics invariant Lorentz tively rnsatrn,Aeppli scattering, tron srltdt emtia vrg fenergy of average geometrical a to related is tsaei htzr eprtr ‘unu’ phase (‘quantum’) temperature zero that is stake At htteeitneo tt hc sat is which state a of existence the that speitosflo hc a etested be can which follow predictions us mgei uesld saprerequisite a is supersolid) omagnetic cursfrhrceiiiyi combined if credibility further acquires aadsm ipecnieain,a considerations, simple some and ta cnutr eettepoiiyt a to proximity the reflect rconductors a oooywihi nqet the to unique is which topology ual eiinwt h tiepaeover phase stripe the with petition /ξ g − 2 1 ∼ tie n uecnutvt oxs in coexist superconductivity and stripes (¯ T hω aaee pc.I h tran- the If space. parameter 0 = ) oantcsupersolids. romagnetic 2 +( tal et La τ k φ B 1 . ≃ T eosrtdrcnl that recently demonstrated 85 ) Sr ¯ h/k 2 3.Uigieatcneu- inelastic Using [3]. 0 ε . B 15 svr ml (6 small very is T CuO hl o neffec- an for while , 4 nisnormal its in ω meV n tem- and meV [6]: ) ) La2−x−yREySrxCuO4 (RE = Eu, Nd, ...) is character- the concentration where Tranquada et. al. find the ized by strong quantum fluctuations [7], indicating the stripe order parameter to disappear in the LTT system proximity of the stripe antiferromagnet itself to the quan- [2]. It is firmly established that in the concentration tum disordering transition. range x = 0.125 0.20 incommensurate magnetic or- The above interpretation points at the presence of a der is present in the− LTT system [2] and some evidence second order quantum phase transition, at least involving is available for the presence of this order at x < 1/8, the spin sector. As I will show, this observation together even in La2−xSrxCuO4 [19] itself. A second singular with the phase diagram of Fig. 1 puts some strong con- doping concentration is x 0.06 where the supercon- ≃ straints on the form of the effective low energy theory. ductivity disappears. Remarkably, Yamada et. al. [5] The argument rests on: (a) Some well established no- find that with the diminishing of the superconductiv- tions developed in the context of the strongly interacting ity also the incommensurate magnetic fluctuations dis- boson problem, centered around the concept of super- appear, being replaced by a broad peak centered at the solid order [8–10]. (b) a straightforward extension to the (π/a,π/a) wavevector. Although evidence exists show- T = 0 (quantum) case of the phenomenological theory by ing that one or the other collective phenomenon involv- Zachar, Kivelson and Emery [11] for stripe order. These ing the holes and the spins is at work in the doping range matters will be discussed in section III. Since the phase- 0
2 amount of data. This cross-over diagram is reproduced in III. CRITICALITY AND THE Fig. 2. The spin-gap temperature T ∗ (dashed line) can ANTIFERROMAGNETIC SUPERSOLID. be interpreted as measuring the ‘distance’ between the superconductor and the coexistence phase. If tempera- ture exceeds the spin gap the ‘z = 1’ quantum critical Let us now focus on the doping regime characterized regime is entered, which is associated with the freezing by the competition between superconductivity and the of the stripe antiferromagnetism. It is obvious that this stripe phase. It is assumed that the long wavelength spin gap will, at least initially, grow as function of in- dynamics is governed by conventional bosonic ordering creasing doping. However, there are also crossover lines fields, described in terms of a Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson (GLW) action. A next assumption is that the stripe- associated with the singular x = xMI of the metal insu- antiferromagnet orders in a continuous quantum phase lator transition: Tcr (full lines) [23]. In sharp contrast ∗ transition. This is motivated by the work of Aeppli et. al. with T , Tcr is strongly doping dependent, as expected for a cross-over line associated with an isolated point on [4] as discussed in the introduction. Leaning heavily on the doping axis. the well understood phenomenology of supersolid order, together with the work by Zachar et. al. [11] on the phe- nomenology of stripe ordering, I find that the demand for T a continuous transition acts as a strong constraint on the allowed dynamics. First order behavior is more natural in the present context, and only under quite specific cir- Tcr cumstances second order transitions can occur. The anal- M-I ? ysis which follows is not complete. At several instances Stripe-SC criticality a full renormalization group (RNG) analysis is still to criticality (z=2) be done, but it is not expected that this will change the (z=1) picture radically. Quenched disorder is neglected allto- gether. For a two dimensional order like the stripe phase, quenched disorder has to dominate eventually [27]. How- T* ever, because the disordering lengths associated with the static stripe phases tend to be rather large, it should incompressible stripes make sense to analyze first the clean limit, while disorder physics becomes only of relevance very close to the phase Superconductor Tc transition. This section is organized as follows: first I will introduce a minimal set of ordering fields (subsection A). xM-I x In the absence of the spin fields, the problem becomes FIG. 2. Finite temperature crossover diagram according quite similar to the problem of supersolids, which will to Pines et. al. [22], but now with an interpretation moti- be discussed next (B). The charge-spin coupling will be vated by the zero temperature phase diagram, Fig. 1. The discussed, following the work of Zachar et. al. (C), and dotted lines (Tcr) indicate the cross-over to the quantum crit- combined with the supersolid theme in the final subsec- ical regime controlled by the metal-insulator transition. To tion (D). the underdoped side, a regime is entered below Tcr which is controlled by the line of quantum phase transitions from the superconductor to the coexistence phase. The spin-gap tem- ∗ perature T measures the T = 0 ‘distance’ to the coexistence A. The ordering fields. phase.
On the level of GLW-theory, the phase diagram Fig. 1 The precise nature of the critical regime associated suggests a rather rich dynamics because of the involve- with the metal-insulator transition depends on the na- ment of a variety of ordering fields. The order parameters ture of the metal in the overdoped regime. Assuming that of relevance are: this metal is a Fermi-liquid, the critical regime is likely of (i) The spatially uniform d-wave superconducting order- the Millis-Hertz variety [24] as controlled by the vanish- parameter eiθ0 , parametrized in terms of the phase- h i ing of the stripe order. Such an interpretation acquires angle θ0. The phase angle θ0 is conjugate to the uniform further credibility by the observation that this regime is charge density N0 such that [N0,θ0]= i. characterized by mean field exponents (z = 2), and the (ii) The finite wavevector charge density wave order N~ 2ǫ remaining issue is if the transition is dominated by the associated with the stripe phase charge order. The total spin-channel [22] or the charge channel [25]. Obviously, charge density can be written as, it remains to be seen if high Tc superconductivity has anything to do with Fermi-liquid physics [26]. N(x)= N0 + N2ε,1 cos(2εx1)+ N2ε,2 cos(2εx2) (1)
3 † 2ǫ is the wavevector of the charge order, while the stripe where ai and ai are bosonic creation and annihilation † † phase can occur in two orientations (x1,2 are the (1, 0) operators obeying [ai,aj ] = δij (ni = ai ai). The pa- and (0, 1) directions in the lattice, respectively). The im- rameters t,µ and U0 are the hopping, thermodynamic plication is that N2ε is a vector: N~ 2ε = (N2ǫ,1,N2ǫ,2). As potential and on-site interaction, respectively, while U1 under (i), superfluid phase angles θ2ε,i (i =1, 2) are con- and U2 are nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor jugated with the charge order, corresponding with finite interactions. This model has a litteral interpretation in momentum superconductivity: [N2ε,i,θ2ε,j ] = iδij . The the context of Josephson junction networks, while in the interplay of charge density wave order and superconduc- present context it is no more than a convenient lattice tivity is the central theme in the literature dealing with cut-off model, revealing universal features of the long supersolid order. wavelength physics. (iii) The novelty is the incommensurate antiferromagetic spin order associated with the stripe phase. A crucial issue is if the spin order is colinear, with the spatial mod- 1
ulation of the staggered order parameter driven by the MI SF
magnitude of the staggered magnetization, or if some spi- n ral modulation is involved. For the colinear case, the rel- 0 evant long wavelength theory is the same as for e.g. a
simple two sublattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet (O(3) 1 quantum non-linear sigma model, or the ‘soft spin’ model Ssol
adapted here) while the fluctuations of spiral phases are Sol 2 described by more involved matrix models [28]. Al- though direct experimental evidence is not available, it is generally believed that the stripe-antiferromagnet in the cuprates is of the colinear variety, both because this is the unanimous outcome of theoretical work [29], and because of the experience in the nickelates [30]. The stag- MI
gered spin density is, 0
1=16 1=8 3=16
0
J U 0
M~ (x)= M~ ε,1 cos(εx1)+ M~ ε,2 cos(εx2) (2) FIG. 3. The mean-field phase diagram of the Bose-Hubbard model as function of J/U0 and average boson density n0, according to van Otterlo et. al. [9]. Numerical defining the O(6) rotor field M~ ε = (M~ ε,1, M~ ε,2), where ε refers to the modulation wavevector, i =1, 2 to the stripe studies indicate that the topology of the phase diagram does not change significantly due to the fluctuations in 2+1D, for orientation, and M~ = (M x ,M y ,M z ). ε,i ε,i ε,i ε,i both the checkerboard-[9] and colinear/stripe [8] charge or- ders. B. Phenomenology of the supersolid.
In the absence of the non-local interactions U1,2 this In the absence of spin-order, the remaining charge sec- model describes the competition between the conden- tor is similar to the well studied subject of supersolid sation of the q = 0 charge mode (Mott-insulator) and order. Allthough the microscopic physics behind the the superfluid. For U = 0 charge density wave order 1,2 6 stripe phenomenon is clearly quite different from the sim- is found at particular densities. If U2 U1 a partic- ple Bose-Hubbard models discussed in the latter context, ular charge ordering occurs which is of≥ interest in the there is no obvious reason to expect the long-wavelength present context: a stripe charge order becomes stable behavior to be different. In the absence of antiferro- (often called ‘colinear’ in the Bose-Hubbard literature). magnetism, the progression superconductor-coexistence In Fig. 3 a representative part of the phase diagram phase-stripe phase of Fig. 1 translates in the triad is sketched [9], as function of increasing kinetic energy superconductor-supersolid-colinear charge order known (J/U0) and average particle number (n0) in the grand from the study of Bose-Hubbard models [8,9]. Let me canonical ensemble, for some particular choice of non- recollect some results as of relevance to the present con- local interactions. At integer fillings (n0 = 0, 1, ) the text. uniform Mott-insulating (MI) state is stable for small··· ki- The starting point is the Bose-Hubbard model, netic energy, while the stripe state (Sol) acquires stability at half-integer fillings (n0 =1/2, 3/2, ). Upon increas- H = J (a†a + a†a ) µ n + U n2 ··· i j j i − i 0 i ing the kinetic energy, first a phase is entered character-
+U1 ninj + U2 nink (3) the stripe (or colinear) supersolid (Ssol). Upon a fur-
4 at the phase boundary with the pure superfluid (SF). 2 x 1 1 2 2 2 SN = d dτ [( ∂τ N2ǫ,i) + ( N2ε,i) + rN N2ε,i] It is noticed that the Bose-Hubbard colinear order has Z {2 cN ∇ much in common with the cuprate stripe order. For in- Xi=1 u w stance, the bond-ordered stripes as found by White and + N ( N 2 ))2 N N 4 ) , (4) 4! 2ǫ,i − 4! 2ǫ,i } Scalapino [31] in their numerical studies of the t J model Xi Xi (Fig. 4) are quite like the Bose-Hubbard colinear− states where c is a velocity characterizing the charge order, assuming that the electrons pair on the elementary pla- N while the mass r measures the distance from the crit- quet to form effective bosons [32]. Interestingly, a simple N ical point associated with the charge ordering. For the explanation is found within this framework for the dop- quartic anisotropy parameter w = 0 this would corre- ing independence of the stripe wavevector ε in the doping N spond (at k T = 0 and 2 space dimensions) with the regime 1/8
5 Summarizing, although the direct transition from the λ 2 + 2 N 2 M~ 2 (9) superconductor to the stripe phase is first order, in the 2 | 2ε,i| | ε,i| } presence of a supersolid two continuous quantum phase- Xi=1 transitions are found: the superconductor-supersolid The leading order spin-charge coupling λ1 is proportional transition is a 3D XY transition, and the supersolid- to the charge field itself and to the square of the spin-field, stripe transition is generically described by the dilute because the former is a scalar and the latter is a vector. bose gas. This explains directly why spin orders at the wavevector ǫ and the charge at 2ǫ. The coupling Eq. (9), together with Eq.’s (4, 8), defines a phenomenological theory for C. Phenomenology of quantum stripes. stripe ordering,
As compared to the previous subsection, the novelty of Sstripes = SN + SM + SNM . (10) the cuprate stripe phase is the prominent role of antifer- romagnetism. Neglecting superconductivity, the problem On the mean-field level, the coupling λ1 gives rise to a remains of the interplay of the finite wavevector charge- rich phase diagram, which is reproduced in Fig. (4). Al- and spin modes and this has been analyzed on the phe- though still to be confirmed by a full RNG analysis, it is nomenological level by Zachar et. al. [11]. This work expected that the topology of this phasediagram will not focusses on the finite temperature classical phase dia- change in three dimensions if fluctuations are included. gram, but it is easily generalized to the 2+1D kBT = 0 This is quite different in two dimensions. Assuming 2ε quantum dynamics. to be commensurate with the lattice, and neglecting the The zero-temperature dynamics of the stripe- orientational freedom, the charge sector is Ising like and antiferromagnetic order parameter M~ ε (Eq. 2) can be can therefore order at finite temperature. However, the represented by a ‘soft-spin’ GLW action, which is the spin sector carries a continuous internal symmetry such six-flavor version of the charge action, Eq. (4), that magnetic order is forbidden at any finite temper- ature according to the Mermin-Wagner theorem. The 6 interpretation by Zachar et. al. of the finite temperature x 1 1 2 2 2 SM = d dτ [( ∂τ Mǫ,i) + ( Mε,i) + rM M ] phase transitions of LTT cuprates in terms of the phase Z {2 c ∇ ε,i Xi=1 M diagram Fig. 4 was critized by van Duin and myself [7]. u + M ( M 2 ))2 We argued that the stripe antiferromagnet is relatively 4! ǫ,i Xi close to the zero-temperature order-disorder transition, w with the effect that the 2D-3D crossover in the magnetic M (M~ M~ + M~ M~ )2 . (8) − 4! ǫ,1 · ǫ,1 ǫ,2 · ǫ,2 } sector is pushed to low temperatures, such that mean- field theory looses its validity. The quartic anisotropy wM is choosen such that it leaves the internal O(3) spin rotation unaffected, breaking the ~ spatial rotation symmetry to Z2; overall, O(6) is broken rn by w to O(3) Z . As shown by Brezin et. al. [34], any I: quantum M s × 2 disordered quartic anisotropy is relevant at the phase transition of stripes a O(N) problem with N > 4. Since N = 6 for the action N = 0, M = 0 T Eq. (8), its phase transition is governed by O(3) Z2 1 universality. Little attention has been paid to such× sym- metry breakings in the statistical physics literature and III: renormalized classical the precise nature of its quantum critical regime is under stripes investigation. N = 0, M = 0 E1 The actions Eq.’s (4,8) describe the ordering of the -1 -2 ~r stripe charge- and spin fields independently. Because a T II: quantum m fully developed stripe phase is at the same time charge- 2 paramagnetic -1 stripes and spin ordered, the mode couplings between these fields N = 0, M = 0 should be included. These have been analyzed by Zachar et. al. [11]. Their findings can be directly applied to the FIG. 4. The mean-field phase diagram following from the present context of quantum phase transitions. Including stripe action Eq’s (4,8,9) according to Zachar, Kivelson and the twofold degeneracy related to the stripe orientation, Emery [11], here interpreted as a zero-temperature phase di- agram. The axis are the coupling constants of the charge- the lowest order allowed spin-charge mode couplings are, 2 2 (˜rn = rN /λ1) and spin (˜rm = rM /λ1) sectors, respectively. 2 Dashed lines refer to second order transitions and the heavy λ1 ∗ SNM = dxdτ [N M~ ε,i M~ ε,i + h.c.] line corresponds with the spin-charge coupling induced first Z { 2 2ε,i · Xi=1 order transitions.
6 The quantum ordering dynamics at zero temperature In direct analogy with the coupling between the is governed by the (three) dimensionality of space-time charge-density mode and the superfluid phase, Eq. (6), and the topology of the mean-field phase diagram, Fig. the coupling between the uniform superconductor and 4, is not expected to be affected by fluctuations in a the stripe-antiferromagnet becomes, significant way. It is therefore expected that a quan- 6 tum stripe system has the following phases: (a) Phase x 2 SMS = d dτiσM (∂τ θ0) Mε,i (11) 2 Z I (rM , rN > λ1): the ‘quantum incompressible stripe Xi=1 phase’. Both the spin- and charge sector are quantum The crucial observation is that the interplay between disordered. Because the correlation length in the imag- finite wavevector charge order and zero-momentum su- inary time direction is finite in both sectors, both the perconductivity, as discussed in subsection B, can be charge- and spin excitation spectrum should show gaps at ‘dressed up’ with the stripe antiferromagnetism, without the stripe wavevectors. This is the interpretation found changing the picture drastically. On the phenomenolog- in the present framework for the ‘dynamical stripes’ con- ical level, the magnetic order parameter can be substi- jectured to exist in cuprate superconductors. (b) Phase tuted anywhere for the charge order parameter, with the 2 2 II ( rM /λ1 < 1 and/or rN /λ1 < 2): the ‘renormalized only difference that the symmetry is becoming larger. classical stripe phase’. Both spin- and charge are or- In analogy with the supersolid, a pure antiferromagnet dered, and this phase corresponds with the ‘static’ stripe and a pure superconductor are separated by a first order 2 phase. (c) Phase (III) ( rN < 0 and rM /λ1 larger than a boundary. However, a coexistence (antiferromagnetic su- critical value): the ‘quantum paramagnetic stripe phase’. perconductor) phase is thermodynamically allowed and Although the charge is ordered, the spin system remains both the antiferromagnet-coexistence phase and the co- in a quantum disordered state, and is characterized by existence phase-superconductor transitions are of second a dynamical mass gap. It is noticed that in principle order. In the context of stripes we meet in addition the also a state can exist which is spin ordered and charge charge-spin mode couplings causing the rich phase dia- disordered but this involves necessarily transversal mod- gram, Fig. 4. Since the charge and spin modes couple ulations of the spin system (the circular spiral state of in a similar way to the superconductivity, the supersolid Zacharet. al. [11]). (Fig. 3) and stripe (Fig. 4) phase diagrams ‘commute’ The phase transitions behave in an interesting way as with each other. function of the various coupling constants. Starting at First order boundaries are rather natural in the present 2 rN >> λ1, there is a second order transition between the context and I leave it to the reader to enumerate all pos- fully disordered state and the static stripe phase. This sible transitions of this kind. From now on, I insist on the transition is driven by the sign change of rM : the spin continuous character of the transition involving the or- driven transition. The charge mode is massive (rN >> 0) dering of the stripe antiferromagnet, as motivated by the and is unimportant in the critical regime, as will be fur- observations in Section’s I and II. A first condition is that ther discussed in subsection D. a coexistence phase should be present; a direct transition Upon decreasing rN , a regime is entered where the from the singlet cuperconductor to a pure stripe phase thermodynamics becomes driven by the spin-charge cou- is necessarily of first order. The second condition follows pling, Eq. (9), and this causes first order behavior (heavy from the stripe phase diagram, Fig. 4: the charge-spin line in Fig. 4). Initially, this first order transition sepa- driven first order transitions should be avoided. By these rates the disordered from the fully ordered stripe phase, simple considerations I find two possible scenario’s which but when rN changes sign a second order charge transi- allow for a second order spin ordering transition (Fig. 5). 2 tion splits off (E1 in Fig. 4). For rM > λ1 one finds there- fore the sequence: quantum disordered stripes, quan- (a) (b) tum paramagnetic stripe phase, and renormalized clas- sical stripe phase. Initially the spin ordering transition stripe phase stripe phase θ remains first order (due to the mode coupling) to change i iθ < e >=0 N=0 M=0 < e >=0 N=0 M=0 to a continuous transition in the purely charge driven DB regime. It is noticed that this latter transition is in the antiferromagnetic DB supersolid 3D O(3) universality class because the orientational free- i θ antiferromagnetic 1 < e >=0 N=0 M=0 1 dom is already broken at the charge transition. supersolid gO(3) g quantum paramagnetic iθ supersolid < e >=0 N=0 M=0 i θ Z O(3) D. Stripes and superconductivity: < e >=0 N=0 M=0 2 O(2) Superconductor + antiferromagnetic supersolids Superconductor + qu. disordered stripes qu. disordered stripes θ i θ i < e >=0 N=0 M=0 < e >=0 N=0 M=0 .
7 FIG. 5. The two possible scenario’s, implied by the pres- Defining rM (g gc)/gc (g is the bare coupling con- ence of a continuous spin ordering transition. The symmetries stant and g ∼the critical− coupling) and β as the order governing the various phase transitions are also indicated (DB c parameter exponent of the Z O(3) transition, is dilute bosons). 2 × β ~ gc g Scenario I: independent transitions. The trivial way to M − , ∼ gc arrive at a continuous magnetic transition is obviously to g g 2β let all orderings occur independently. This is possible if N c − , (12) the stripe sector is in the ‘charge driven’ (larger ˜m) re- ∼ gc gion of the phase diagram, Fig. 4. A typical sequence of a behavior which can easily be checked experimentally quantum phase transitions as function of decreasing ‘g−1’ by e.g. measuring the increase of the spin- and charge could be as indicated in Fig. (5a): the superconductor superlattice peaks as function of increasing Nd concen- acquires a charge order in the O(2) transition of Frey and tration. Balents [10]. The spin system of this stripe phase is still This ‘slavery’ of the charge field to the spin fields is quantum disordered, and orders independently in a stan- also expected to hold in the quantum disordered regime dard O(3) transition. The dilute boson transition where close enough to the transition. The arguments is as fol- the superconductivity vanishes might happen before or lows: in the neighborhood of the spin transition, where after this spin freezing transition; the charge- and spin r changes sign, the charge sector is still in the disor- sectors are in principle governed by independent coupling M dered regime, implying a charge-correlation length ξ constants and the order in which the transitions hap- N ∼ 1/√r or a charge mass gap ∆ = c /ξ c √r . pen is determined by the microscopy. Assuming that the N N N N N N For lengths >> ξ (energies << ∆ ) these fields∼ can be antiferromagnetic supersolid exists, the sequence of the N N integrated out by taking their saddlepoint values. Mini- transitions is as indicated in Fig. 5a. This fingerprint mizing S (Eq. 10) to the charge fields, of this scenario is a stripe phase which is charge ordered sstripes while the spin sector is still quantum disordered: the λ1 2 Nq = 2 Mi,q (13) quantum paramagnetic supersolid, or in other words, a 4(rN /2+ q ) superconducting stripe phase with a spin gap. Although Xi such a state has not been seen in experiments, it has including the gradient terms (q is Euclidean momentum). been (implicitely) discussed theoretically by Tworzydlo After substitution of Eq. (13) in the full action Eq. (10) et. al. [35]. The scenario Fig. (5a) might appear as less a spin-only action is obtained with a renormalised quar- 2 natural for the cuprates. It would be expected that the tic term uM /4! uM /4! λ1/(2rN ). As long as this (quantum) critical fluctuations in the superconducting quantity is positive,→ the critical− dynamics is in the spin- state would be dominated by the charge dynamics as- only (Z2 O(3)) universality class. This implies that the sociated with the superconductor - paramagnetic stripe charge-field× does not carry any dynamics of its own, but phase transition, and not by the spin fluctations. At the follows instead adiabatically the spin dynamics. This has same time, very little is known experimentally on how the interesting consequences for the charge dynamics. Using stripe related charge fluctuations behave and this possi- Eq. (13) the (dynamical) charge susceptibility becomes bility cannot be excluded on basis of the available data. in terms of the euclidean momentum q,
Scenario II: The spin-driven stripe ordering. There N χ = N N− is yet another possibility: the spin-driven regime of the q h q qi stripe phase diagram, fig. 4. The phasediagram simpli- λ2 1 ( M 2 )( M 2 ) . (14) fies in this case (Fig. 5b), and becomes litterally like ∼ (r + q2)2 h q,i −q,j i N Xi Xj the emperical phase diagram shown in Fig. 1. Different from the charge driven case (scenario I), the transition This implies that the stripe-like charge fluctuations will is now from the superconductor directly into the antifer- exhibit a dynamics which is quite similar to the spin romagnet supersolid. In addition, since the transition is dynamics. For instance, the charge fluctuations will dominantly spin driven this possibility appears as more show a quantum gap in the disordered regime which natural, given the quantum critical spin dynamics ob- will be identical to the spin gap in the magnetic sec- served by Aeppli et. al.. tor. On a more detailed level there will be differences. N 2 2 M 2 Although one would expect the transition from a su- On the gaussian level χq 1/(rN + q ) (χq ) where M ∼ perconductor to an antiferromagnetic supersolid to be of χ = M M − (dynamical spin susceptibility). q ih i,q i, qi first order, the transition can be of second order because However,P in the 3D case this will no longer be true be- the coupling term, Eq. (9), can force the charge fields cause of the relevancy of the four point vertex. to follow the spin fields parasitically. On the ordered It is noticed that it remains to be established how side, this implies that the charge orderparameter grows the critical fluctuations associated with this transition quadratically slower than the spin order parameter [11]. interact with the ‘background’ superconductor. In the
8 charged quasi-2D superfluid, the action Eq. (5) describes context. Laughlin argues that the ‘most relevant op- the acoustic plasmon, keeping in mind that the c-axis erator’ quenched disorder changes this into a (pseudo) Josephson plasma frequency sets a low energy cut-off. continuous behavior, while the coexistence phase is a The arguments by Frey and Balents [10] for the super- strongly disordered micro-phase-separated affair of insu- solid transition, as discussed in subsection B, can now be lating stripes and pure superconductors. Although this directly transferred to the case of a pure spin transition possibility is not excluded, I repeat that it is not easy (the specific heat exponent α < 0 for O(3)). The sub- to understand how to arrive at the spin quantum criti- tlety is, however, that the spin ordering is accompanied cality claimed by Aeppli et. al. (ii) The quantum liquid by the breaking of spatial rotational symmetry (the two crystals as proposed by Kivelson, Fradkin and Emery stripe directions), which changes the universality class of [21]. There is no conflict between those ideas and what the transition to Z2 O(3) and this has to be studied in is presented here. The liquid crystal ideas amount to further detail. × the assertion that the charge sector might reveal a sub- Finally, there is a serious problem with this scenario. structure which is more complex than the simple den- In the above I asserted that the zero temperature phase sity wave order which has been considered here. (iii) diagram has to do with the spin driven transition of The ‘unified’ SO(5) ideas of S.C. Zhang [37]. It is ac- Zachar et. al.. At the same time, in the LTT stripe tually the case that the phenomenology presented here phases the finite temperature transitions in the stripe can be completely reformulated in terms of a SO(5) ac- ordered region of the T = 0 phase diagram are of the tion, if appropriate anisotropies are added. For instance, charge driven kind: charge orders at a higher tempera- the antiferromagnetic supersolid can be understood as ture than the stripe antiferromagnet. At least in the close a ‘canted’ superspin phase, where the SO(5) vector is neighborhood of the quantum phase transition, where the canted in a direction in between the magnetic and su- GLW theory is valid, such a finite temperature behavior perconducting directions (π mode condensation). A dif- appears as impossible. In strictly 2+1 dimensions, any fi- ference with the original SO(5) proposal [37] is that the nite temperature will destroy the spin order, and it is easy antiferromagnetic component is now associated with the to understand that in the realistic case (spin anisotropy, finite wavevector stripe antiferromagnet, instead of the 3+1 D couplings) the spin ordering temperature can be- commensurate magnet of half-filling. Assuming that a come quite low due to the fluctuations. The problem is, mildly broken SO(5) symmetry is governing the dynam- however, that in the close neighborhood of the quantum ics gives rise to a number of additional possibilities. For transition the charge sector does not show a tendency to instance, finite momentum superconductivity appears as order in the absence of the spins. In order to find a finite a serious possibility within the SO(5) framework: the temperature charge ordering transition, it is necessary to simplest superconducting stripe phase corresponds with renormalize rN from a large positive value at T =0toa a SO(5) spiral where the superspin rotates from magnetic negative value at any finite temperature. Since tempera- to superconducting directions. It follows immediately ture acts in quantum field theory like a finite size scaling, that the superconductivity lives at the same wavevec- it is hard to see how this can happen. tors as the stripe antiferromagnet. Obviously, the most striking specialty of SO(5) is that the full symmetry can get restored at isolated point(s) in the zero temperature IV. CONCLUSIONS phase diagram, such that superconductivity and antifer- romagnetism occur on a strictly equal footing. I have presented here a minimal option for the phe- nomenological theory of the zero temperature competi- Acknowledgements. I acknowledge stimulating discus- tion between superconducting- and stripe order. It is sions with G. A. Aeppli, V. J. Emery, R. J. Laughlin, based on current beliefs on the types of order relevant S. Sachdev, J. M. Tranquada, A. van Otterlo, W. van for the cuprates. The identification of these orders is Saarloos, and S.-C. Zhang. based on a still highly incomplete experimental charac- terization. At the same time, I hope I have convinced the readership that by elementary considerations a vari- ety of predictions can be derived. It is hoped that these issues are taken up by the experimentalists, who are in the position to prove the above right or wrong. [1] J.M. Tranquada, B.J. Sternlieb, J.D. Axe, Y. Nakamura, Let me end this discussion by commenting on some dis- and S. Uchida, Nature 375, 561 (1995); see also J.M. tinct, but closely related ideas: (i) Laughlin argues that Tranquada, cond-mat/9802034 and ref.’s therein. the coexistence phase, critical behaviors, etcetera, are [2] J.M. Tranquada et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 338 (1997). not an intrinsic property of the clean limit but instead [3] S. Sachdev, ‘Quantum Phase Transitions’ (Cambridge are caused by dirt effects [36]. As repeatedly empha- University Press, to be published); S. Sachdev, in Proc. sized, first order behavior is rather natural in the present of the 19th IUPAP International Conference on Statisti-
9 cal Physics, (ed. B.-L. Hao, World Scientific, Singapore, mat/9809082. 1996; cond-mat/9508080). [22] D. Pines, Z. Phys. B 103, 129 (1997), and ref.’s therein. [4] G.A. Aeppli et. al., Science 278, 1432 (1998). [23] J.W. Loram et. al., Physica C 235-240, 134 (1994); ibid., [5] K. Yamada et. al., Phys. Rev. B 57, 6165 (1998). Physica C 282-287, 1405 (1997). [6] K. Yamada et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1626 (1995). [24] J.A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B 14, 525 (1976); A.J. Millis, [7] C.N.A. van Duin and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, Phys. Rev. B 48, 7183 (1993). 1513 (1998). [25] C. Castellani, C. Di Castro and M. Grilli, Phys. Rev. [8] C. Bruder, R. Fazio, and G. Sch¨on, Phys. Rev. B 47, Lett. 75, 4650 (1995). 342 (1993); G.G. Batrouni, R.T. Scalettar, G.T. Zimanyi, [26] P.W. Anderson, ‘The Theory of superconductivity in the and A.P. Kampf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2527 (1995); R.T. high Tc cuprates’ (Princeton University Press, Princeton, Scalettar, G.G. Batrouni, A.P. Kampf, and G.T. Zi- 1997). manyi, Phys. Rev. B 51, 8467 (1995). [27] A. I. Larkin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 58, 1466 (1970) [ Sov. [9] A. van Otterlo et. al., Phys. Rev. B 52, 16176 (1995). Phys. JETP 31, 784 (1970)]. [10] E. Frey and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 55, 1050 (1997). [28] T. Dombre and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B 39, 6797 (1989). [11] O. Zachar, S.A. Kivelson, and V.J. Emery, Phys. Rev. B [29] J. Zaanen, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. (in press, cond- 57, 1422 (1998). mat/9711009) and ref.’s therein. [12] B. B¨uchner, M. Breuer, A. Freimuth, and A.P. Kampf, [30] J.M. Tranquada, J.E. Lorenzo, D.J. Buttrey, and V. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1841 (1994); A.R. Moodenbaugh, Sachan, Phys. Rev. B 52, 3581 (1995). L.H. Lewis, and S. Soman, Physica C 290, 98 (1997). [31] S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1272 [13] K. Hirota, K. Yamada, I. Tanaka, and H. Kojima, Phys- (1998). ica B (in press). [32] It has been argued that the ‘half-filled’ cuprate stripes [14] A.H. Castro-Neto and A.V. Balatski, cond-mat/9805273. might develop an on-stripe density wave instablity (O. [15] N. Hasselman et. al., cond-mat/9807070. Nayak and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2465 (1997); [16] G. S. Boebinger et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5417 (1996). J. Zaanen and A.M. Ole´s, Ann. Physik 5, 224 (1996); [17] Given fig. 1, it is expected that the cores of the super- G. Seibold, C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, and M. Grilli, conducting vortices are antiferromagnetic (see D. Arovas cond-mat/9803184). Pending microscopic details, these et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2871 (1997)). The magnetic could give rise in principle to secondary transitions in field driven superconductivity-stripe transition could be the charge sector. related to a percolation-like transition where the vortex [33] D.S. Fisher and P.C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. B 37, 4936 cores start to overlap. (1988). [18] Y. Fukuzumi, K. Mizuhashi, K. Takenaka, and S. Uchida, [34] E. Brezin, J.C. Le Guillou, and J. Zinn-Justin, in ‘Phase Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 684 (1996). Transitions and Critical Phenonema’, Vol. 6 (eds. C. [19] Ch. Niedermayer et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3843 (1998); Domb and M.S. Green, Academic Press, London, 1976). T. Suzuki et. al., Phys. Rev. B 57, R3229 (1998). [35] J. Tworzydlo, O.Y. Osman, C.N.A. van Duin, and J. Za- [20] B.J. Suh et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (in press, cond- anen, submitted Phys. Rev. B (cond-mat/9804012). mat/9804200); P.C. Hammel et. al, cond-mat/9809096. [36] R.B. Laughlin, unpublished. [21] S.A. Kivelson, E. Fradkin, and V.J. Emery, Nature [37] S.-C. Zhang, Science 275, 1089 (1997). 393, 550 (1998); S.A. Kivelson and V.J. Emery, cond-
10