Journal of Superconductivity

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 349–353 | Cite as

Theory of spin fluctuations in striped phases of doped antiferromagnetic cuprates

  • Daniel Hone
  • A. H. Castro Neto
Article
Received:

Abstract

We study the properties of generalized striped phases of doped cuprate planar quantum antiferromagnets. We invoke an effective, spatially anisotropic, nonlinear sigma model in two space dimensions. Our theoretical predictions are inquantitative agreement with recent experiments in La{2-x}SrxCuO4 with 0≤ x ≤ 0.018. We focus on (i) the magnetic correlation length, (ii) the staggered magnetization at T= 0, and (iii) the Néel temperature, as functions of doping, using parameters determined previously and independently for this system. These results support the proposal that the low doping (antiferromagnetic) phase of the cuprates has a striped configuration.

Key Words

Quantum antiferromagnets doped cuprates striped phases 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Yamadaet al., preprint, and this volume.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Hizhnyakov and E. Sigmund,Physica C 156, 655 (1988); H. J. Schulz,J. Phys. France 50, 2833 (1989); J. Zaanen and J. Gunnarson,Phys. Rev. B 40, 7391 (1989); V. J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson, and H.-Q. Lin.Phys. Rev. Lett. 64. 475 (1990); M. Grilliet al., Phvs. Rev. Lett. 67, 259 (1991); j. A. Vergéset al., Phys. Rev. B 43, 6099 (1991); V. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson Physica C209, 597 (1993); S. Haaset al., Phys. Rev. B 51, 5989 (J995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. Tranquadaet al., Nature 375, 561 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.-W. Cheonget al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1791 (1991); E. D. Isaacset al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3421 (1994); T. E. Masonet al., Physica B 199, 284 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. H. Choet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 222 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Borsaet al., Phys. Rev. B 52, 7334 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. H. Castro Neto and D. Hone,Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2165 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. M. Tranquadaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1003 (1994) ; Condmat 9612007.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Eskes, R. Gnmberg, W. van Saarloos, and J. Zaanen,Phys. Rev. B 54, R724 (1996), and this volume.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. H. Castro Neto, Cond-mat 9611146.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson,Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1057 (1988);Phys. Rev. B 39, 2344 (1989).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    This might be appropriate for an even number of spins between stripes (seeS. R. White, R. M. Noack, and D. J. Scalapino,Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 886 (1994); N. Hatano and Y. Nishiyama,J. Phys. A 28, 3911 (1995)), or for spin Peierls dimerized chains (Z. Wang, Cond-mat 9611129). The topological term may be important, and the physics different, for coupled ladders with odd numbersN of legs (gapless spectrum for the individual isolated ladder). It seems that TN ≥ 0 for arbitrarily weak anisotropy when N= 1, for example; I. Affleck, M. P. Gelfand, and R. R. P. Singh,J. Phys. A 27, 7313 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Sachdev, inLow-Dimensional Quantum Field Theories for Condensed Matter Physicists, Proc. of the Trieste Summer School (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach,Phys. Rev. B 38, 316 (1988);Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 617 (1988).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. H. Castro Neto and D. Hone, in preparation.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Note that the condition is expressed relative to the fixed undoped coupling constant g0(1), given by Oguchi’s renormalized spin wave theory [17,11] as g0t~ 9.54. By using Eq. (5), which gives g0(α)/g0(1). we could readily write this directly as an inequality for the actual coupling constant of the anisotropic system for each value of α, a more obvious condition physically, but it is algebraically simpler to do it in terms of g0(1).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Oguchi,Phys. Rev. 177, 117 (1960).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. H. Castro Neto and E. Fradkin,Nuci Phys. B 400, 525 (1993).MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer,Phys. Lett. B 268, 231 (1991).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. M. Haydenet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 821 (1991); B. Keimeret al., Phys. Rev. B 46, l4034 (1992) ; T. Imaiet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 10002 (1993).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, e.g., D. J. Scalapino, Y. Imry, and P. Pincus,Phvs. Rev. B 11, 2042 (1975).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Hone
    • 1
  • A. H. Castro Neto
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaRiverside

Personalised recommendations