arXiv:cond-mat/0101411v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 26 Jan 2001 ..Wn,DN hn,adCS Ting a C.S. doping and Sheng, finite D.N. to Weng, Z.Y. hole one From separation: -charge otHbadisltrmdl eae ohigh- doped to T related the models understanding insulator in Mott-Hubbard concept basic very between. in situation one-h a in to points corresponds Fermi actually four regime to struc surface one Fermi band-structure-like The large excitations. elementary and ae nagnrlzdsaepril representa- the slave-particle of tion generalized a on based in sketched as holon and 1(b). spinon Fig. simple of from pair different a fundamentally is symmetry topologi- whose remains it contrary, the cally metal- On the in regime. disappear lic and spinon and holon free ex- spin-charge does a citation consistent that find we a theory separation on perceived. previously based been Specifically, has dif- what drastically from be can ferent quasiparticle the of 1(a). fate the Fig. in illustrated as bare a system injecting the excita- by into e.g., hole holon created, and being once spinon tions decay elementary such should more in and stable into state quasiparti- be separation spin-charge longer the a no that would it excitation assumed spin literature, cle usually In both been carries numbers. has that quantum charge quasiparticle and the — met- a als conventional to in opposed excitation elementary as single respectively, holon, spinless and spinon neutral excitations, elementary dependent hresprto tt u otecnnmn ffc introdu effect confinement the to due deconfinement state separation charge ea etrfrSprodciiy nvriyo Houston of University Superconductivity, for Center Texas c pncag eaainie 1 a eoea become has [1] idea separation Spin-charge uhasi-hresprto hoy[,]is [2,3] theory separation spin-charge a Such that example an show will we work this in But ntepeec fnnoa hs hf ffcs quasiparti a effects, shift phase nonlocal of presence the In urts tsae httesse a w in- two has system the that states It cuprates. stable t nafr fsio-oo on state bound spinon-holon of form a in − J nyhpesi the in happens only not oe nwihteeeto (hole) the which in model ipybeku noapi of pair a into up break simply zero-doping a ii hr aehl a oeisitgiyaddcyit h into decay and integrity its lose can hole bare a where limit l ae n eageta h ocle underdoped so-called the that argue we and case, ole uei opeeydffrn nteetocss rma from cases, two these in different completely is ture oetmlk”qatmnme otequasi- the “angular- to new number a quantum introduces momentum-like” vorticities, its to due pnsa nfc,i a eson[]that [5] shown be can it fact, In sea. holon- of spin background a inde- quasi- in and even stable a excitation pendent a that remain means practically will which particle perturbation under realize local to quasiparticle a time infinite a virtually of take dissolution would the limit, dynamic aial an basically ihΘ with uttk lc ntebcgon.Since background. the in place take must pnneeetr xiain,apaeshift phase a excitations, elementary spinon 1 stepaesitfield shift phase the is (1) half-filling. of limit [4] the state in mean-field Schwinger-boson the to duces uspril rae by created quasiparticle a [2]. effect string phase the as known model h enfil tt 3 hc scnrle ya ∆ by parameter controlled order RVB is which bosonic [3] single state mean-field in excitations the elementary the describe fields holon ua hss(in)ivle ntedoped the in sin- involved the (signs) of phases track keeps gular precisely which field phase and hr holon where ed,stsyn h odul-cuac con- no-double-occupancy straint the satisfying fields, c follows as expressed is operator P iσ l a eantplgclysal vni spin- a in even stable topologically remain can cle h e etr ntebsnzto formulation bosonization the in feature key The h eopsto 1 mle hti re for order in that implies (1) decomposition The l 6= = e ytepaesit tfiiedpn.True doping. finite at shifts phase the by ced i oso,T 70,U.S.A. 77204, TX Houston, , θ θ i h i ( i † ( h iσ string l b l ml ( ln Im = ) i † ) iσ h i e P i + infinite-body Θ ˆ h α iσ ≡ i † P αn n spinon and σ 1 2 lα b b  iσ † Φ z − i b i b iσ − 1 −  z Φ , prtri h thermo- the in operator .Teesio and spinon These 1. = σ c l iσ e .I savortex-like a is It ). Φ i b Θ i h ˆ i h iσ odcyit holon- into decay to  iσ nwihΦ which in , r both are = ≡ ( P − σ l 6= ) s i i e θ n re- and bosonic i i Θ Θ ˆ ( e t iσ string l i iσ i b ) Θ olon − Θ ˆ ˆ n (1) iσ iσ l h = is J 1 , , 2

involves an infinite body of them. Upon detailed examination, it is found [5] that the holon field † i b σ h 2 Φi −i 2 Φi hi has to be bound to e while biσ to e ˆ (a) in (1). But while eiΘiσ is well-defined, these two phase factors are not single-valued by themselves except in the zero doping limit. Consequently, at finite doping the holon and spinon constituents are generally confined together due to their bind- ˆ ing to eiΘiσ . Involving infinite-body holons and , the quasiparticle excitation has to be treated more carefully before applying the mean-field approx- imation. Using the exact Hamiltonian to de- (b) termine the equation of motion i∂tciσ(t) = − [Ht−J ,ciσ(t)] and then introducing the mean-field order parameter ∆s in the high order terms, one finds [5] Figure 1. Quasiparticle deconfinement (a) and confinement (b) due to the phase shift field i∂tciσ(t) teff clσ + µciσ − ≈ l=NNX(i)

3 s i ˆ † † iσAh J∆ e Θiσ h b e il + ... (3) −8 i l−σ particle such that the excitation is orthogonal to l=NNX(i) h i the ground state as well as those states of elemen- t tary holon and spinon excitations. Therefore, the where teff = 2 (1 + δ), µ is the chemical poten- h h phase shift field not only plays a role leading to tial. Ail is the difference of Φi /2 at site i and a non-Fermi liquid (with the quasiparticle weight l. Note that without the “scattering” term, (3) Z = 0) as conjectured [1,6] by Anderson on a gen- would give rise to a bare quasiparticle kinetic en- eral ground, but also attaches a distinct quantum ergy ǫk = 2teff (cos kx + cos ky). The “scat- − number to the quasiparticle to ensure its integrity tering” effect in the second line of (3) actually in the metallic phase. corresponds to the decaying process of the quasi- To further understand the phase shift effect, let particle into holon and spinon constituents. But ′ iΘˆ iΘˆ iσ us construct Ψ e iσ ΨG where ΨG is the the presence of e prevents a real decay since | i ≡ | i | i ground state of Ht−J . Then by computing its such a vortex field would cost a logarithmically energy cost one can show [5] divergent energy if being left alone as discussed

′ ′ above. Nonetheless, at Ψ Ht−J Ψ ΨG Ht−J ΨG ln L (2) h | | i − h | | i∝ E > E + E (4) which diverges logarithmically with the sam- quasiparticle holon spinon ple length scale L. But the quasiparticle state a strong signature of spin-charge separation is ex- ciσ ΨG should cost only a finite energy relative pected to show up in the spectral function as the | i to the ground-state energy. It thus imples that logarithmic potential is not important in short- the holon and spinon constituents on the r.h.s. range, high-energy regime. of (1) can no longer behave as mean-field free el- In the ground state, the bosonic holons are † ementary excitations: They have to absorb the Bose condensed with hi = h0 √δ and the d- ˆ h i ∼ effect of the vortex-like phase shift eiΘiσ to re- wave superconducting order parameter ∆SC = 0 sult in the finiteness of the quasiparticle energy. [3]. Based on (3), one can find a coherent con-6 Clearly here one has to go beyond the mean-field tribution from the “scattering” term. The de- treatment of individual holon and spinon as ciσ composition (1) may be rewritten in two parts: 3

′ iΘˆ ciσ = h aiσ + c where aiσ biσe iσ and where Tc = 0. Namely 0 iσ ≡ ′ † iΘˆ iσ † † ciσ = (: hi :)biσ e with : hi : hi h0. Cor- 2∆k(T = 0) respondingly, the single-electron≡ propagator− may (7) Tc → ∞ be expressed as at δ 0, whereas the BCS theory predicts a 2 ′ → Ge = h0Ga + Ge, (5) constant. The quasiparticle thus gains a “coherent” part where one has [5] h0a which should behave similarly to the con- 2 2 ventional quasiparticle in the BCS theory as it 2 k 2 uk vk h0Ga( ,ω) h0 + . (6) does not further decay at Ek < Es. In this ∼ ω Ek ω + Ek  − sense, the quasiparticle partially restores its co- 2 2 herence in the superconducting state. Such a co- with Ek = (ǫk µ) + ∆k , ∆k = SC − | | herent part will disappear as a result of vanish- 3 ∆k+q p 4 J q Γq h2 in which Γq = cos qx +cos qy. ing superfluid density. The total spectral func-  0  P And like in the BCS theory, u2 = [1 + (ǫ tion as the imaginary part of Ge can be written k k k 2 k ′ k 2 − as Ae( ,ω) = h0Aa( ,ω)+ Ae( ,ω) so that at µ)/Ek]/2 and vk = [1 (ǫk µ)/Ek]/2. − − h0 0, even though ∆k does not scale with h0, The large “Fermi surface” is defined by ǫk = µ → 2 the superconducting coherent part h Aa vanishes and ∆k then represents the energy gap opened 0 at the Fermi surface which is d-wave-like as illus- altogether, with Ae reduces to the normal part A′ at T >T . trated in Fig. 2 by the “V” shape lines. Note e c Destruction of Fermi surface: Deconfinement that in the ground state, there also exists an in- of quasiparticle. The existence of a large Fermi dependent discrete spinon excitation level [3] at surface, coinciding with the non-interacting band- Es δJ which leads to Eg = 2Es 41meV (if J∼ 100meV ) magnetic peak at ∼δ 0.14. structure one, can be attributed to the integrity of the quasiparticle due to the confinement of This latter∼ spin collective mode is independent∼ spinon and holon. But such a confinement disap- of the quasiparticle excitation at the mean-field h level. While ∆SC apparently scales with the dop- pear in the zero-doping limit where Φi vanishes k i Φb while e 2 i becomes single-valued. In this limit, ing concentration δ (h0 √δ) and vanishes at ∝ the single-electron propagator may be expressed δ 0, the gap ∆k does not and can be extrap- olated→ to a finite value in the zero doping limit in the following decomposition form Ge iGf Gb (8) ≈ · where 1 b 1 b † i 2 Φi (t) −i 2 Φj (0) Gf = i Tthi (t) e e hj (0) (9) − D   E and E i−j † s Gb = i( σ) Ttbiσ(t)bjσ (0) (10) − − D E without the multi-value problem. Ek Here the large Fermi surface is gone except for four Fermi points at k0 = ( π/2, π/2) with 0 the rest part looking like all± “gapped”± [7]. In fact, in the convolution form of (8) the “quasi- particle” peak (edge) is essentially determined by the spinon spectrum Es = 2.32J 1 s2 with k − k Figure 2. Low-lying excitations in the super- sk = (sin kx + sin ky)/2 through thep spinon prop- conducting phase: The “V”” shape quasiparticle agator Gb, since the holon propagator Gf is in- spectrum and the discrete spinon energy at Es. coherent [7]. The intrinsic broad feature of the 4 spectral function is obtained due to the convolu- in this regime which is characterized by the tion law of (8) and is a direct indication of the Bose condensation of bosonic spinon field. Since composite nature of the quasiparticle, which is spinons are presumably condensed in hole-dilute also consistent with the ARPES results [8] as well regions [3], the propagator will then exhibit fea- as the earlier theoretical discussion [9]. Further- tures looking like in an even weaker doping con- more, at high energy or equal-time limit, the sin- centration or more “gap” like than in a uni- i Φb ∗ gular phase factor e 2 i also contributes to a large form case, below a characteristic temperature T “remnant Fermi surface” in the momentum distri- which determines this microscopic phase separa- bution function n(k) which can be regarded as a tion. Therefore, the “spin gap” phenomenon re- precursor of the large Fermi surface in the confin- lated to the ARPES experiments in the under- ing phase at finite doping, which is also consistent doped cuprates may be understood as a “par- with the ARPES experiment [8]. tial” deconfinement of holon and spinon whose The above one-hole picture may have an im- effect is “amplified” through a microscopic phase portant implication for the so-called pseudo-gap separation in this weakly-doped regime. T ∗ also phenomenon in the underdoped region of the characterizes other “spin-gap”properties in mag- high-Tc cuprates. Even though the confinement netic and transport channels in this underdoping will set in once the density of holes becomes fi- regime [3]. nite, the “confining force” should remain weak at small doping, and one expects the virtual “decay- REFERENCES ing” process in (3) to contribute significantly at 1. P. W. Anderson, The Theory of Supercon- weakly doping to bridge a continuum evolution ductivity in the High T Cuprates, (Princeton between the Fermi-point structure in the zero- c Univ. Press, Princeton, 1997) doping limit to a full large Fermi surface at larger 2. Z. Y. Weng et al., Phys. Rev. B55, 3894 doping. Recall that in the one-hole case decaying (1997); D. N. Sheng et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. into spinon-holon composite happens around k 0 77, 5102 (1996). at zero energy transfer, while it costs higher en- 3. Z. Y. Weng et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5401 ergy near (π, 0) and (0, π), which shouldn’t be (1998); Phys. Rev. B59, 8943 (1999). changed much at weakly doping. In the con- 4. D.P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. finement regime, the quasiparticle peak in the B38, 316 (1988). electron spectral function defines a quasiparticle 5. Z. Y. Weng et al., cond-mat/9911146. spectrum and a large Fermi surface as discussed 6. P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1839 before. Then due to the the virtual “decaying” (1990). process in the equation of motion (3), the spec- 7. Z. Y. Weng et al., cond-mat/9908032. tral function will become much broadened with 8. F. Ronning et al. Science 282, 2067 (1998); C. its weight shifted toward higher energy like a gap- Kim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4245 (1998); opening near those portions of the Fermi surface B.O. Wells et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 964 far away from k , particularly around four corners 0 (1995). ( π, 0) and (0, π). With the increase of dop- 9. R.B. Laughlin, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 56, 1627 ing± concentration± and reduction of the decaying (1995); Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1726 (1997). effect, the suppressed quasiparticle peak can be gradually recovered starting from the inner parts of the Fermi surface towards four corners ( π, 0) and (0, π). ± Furthermore,± at small doping (underdoping), something more dramatic can happen in the present spin-charge separation state [3]: a micro- scopic type of phase separation has been found