Doping Effects on the Spin-Density-Wave Background

  • Z. Y. Weng
  • C. S. Ting
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 246)


The single-band Hubbard model has been proposed1 as a candidate to describe the high-temperature copper-oxide superconductors. There are two ways to approach such a strongly correlated electron system with the intrinsic 2D antiferromagnetic correlations. One is from the strong coupling, localized limit, where one could get a Mott insulator in the half-filled case with one electron per Cu site, described by the antiferromagnetic (AF) Heisenberg Hamiltonian. The alternative way is from the itinerant approach, where the insulating spin-density-wave (SDW) state is present at the half-filling. From the itinerant approach, the doping effects of holes on the SDW background will be discussed in the present paper.


Spiral Structure Attractive Potential Dope Hole Magnetic Zone Intermediate Coupling Regime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P.W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.R. Schrieffer, X.-G. Wen and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 944 (1988).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.P. Su, Phys. Rev. B37, 9904(1988);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. H.Y. Choi and E.J. Mele, Phys. Rev. B38, 4540(1988);Google Scholar
  5. W.P. Su and X.Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. B38, 8879 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Z.Y. Weng, T.K. Lee and C.S. Ting, Phys. Rev. B38, 6561(1988);Google Scholar
  7. G. Vignale and K.S. Singwi, Phys. Rev. B39, 2956(1989).Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    J.R. Schrieffer, X.G. Wen and S.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B39, 11663(1989).Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    P.W.Anderson, Phys. Rev. 86, 694 (1952).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 7.
    Z.Y. Weng, C.S. Ting and T.K. Lee, to be published in Phys. Rev. B.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    B.I.Shraiman and E.D.Siggia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1564 (1989);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. C.L. Kane, P.A. Lee, T.K. Ng, B. Chakraborty and N. Read, preprintGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    Z.Y. Weng, C.S. Ting, preprint.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    R.J. Birgeneau et al., Phys. Rev. B39, 2868 (1989);ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. T.R. Thurston ec al., Phys. Rev. B40, 4585 (1989);Google Scholar
  16. G. Shirane et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 330 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11.
    A generalized Fork term like U ∑j<c+ j↑cj↓>+U ∑jc+ j↑cj↓<cj↑c+ j↓> should be also retained in H for a self-consistent mean-field approach as H involves spin- flip process. But we found such a term actually has a negligible contribution when ι ≪ ξ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Y. Weng
    • 1
  • C. S. Ting
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations