Evidence for two types of low-energy charge transfer excitations in Sr2CuO3

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Moskvin, A S ^a   Malek J ^b,c   Knupfer, M ^b   Neudert, R ^b,g   Fink, J ^b   Hayn, R ^b,d   Drechsler, S L ^b   Motoyama, N ^e   Eisaki, H ^e,f   Uchida, S ^e  

^a URAL FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^b Leibniz Institut   (Germany)

^c INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS   (Czech Republic)

^d LMMP   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AIST   (Japan)

^g ROBERT BOSCH GMBH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHARGE TRANSFER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COPPER COMPOUNDS; ELECTRIC INSULATING MATERIALS; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; ELECTRON ENERGY LOSS SPECTROSCOPY; ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE; ENERGY GAP; GROUND STATE; HAMILTONIANS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; ONE DIMENSIONAL;

CHARGE TRANSFER GAP; HUBBARD HAMILTONIAN; LOW ENERGY CHARGE TRANSFER EXCITATION; STRONTIUM CUPRATES;

STRONTIUM COMPOUNDS;

EID: 0041384280     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. T. Ogasawara et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2204 (2000).
2. H. Kishida et al., Nature (London) 405, 929 (2000).
3. T. Manako et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1754 (2001).
4. M. Ashida et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 2831 (2001).
5. Y. Y. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1809 (1996).
6. F. C. Zhang and K. K. Ng, Phys. Rev. B 58, 13520 (1998).
7. A. S. Moskvin et al., Phys. Rev. B 65, 180512(R) (2002).
8. 2h symmetry, only, and one should distinguish between OCE involving "side-" from those with "in-chain" O sites. Two different O sites have been observed in O 1s x-ray absorption spectra [9]. There are also slightly differnt Cuo-O bond lengths and transfer intergrals [10].
9. R. Neudert et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, 10 752 (2000).
10. S.-L. Drechsler et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 117, 407 (1999).
11. L. F. Mattheiss et al., Phys. Rev. B 40, 2217 (1989).
12. R. Hayn et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 645 (1999).
13. J. J. M. Pothuizen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 717 (1997).
14. C. Dürr et al., Phys. Rev. B 63, 014505 (2000).
15. u(σ) configurations.
16. 3 by M. Z. Hasan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 177403 (2002). There, a slightly higher dispersion of charge excitations ≈ 1 eV has been found (compare with ≈ 0.7 eV in our EELS data). Probably due to the smaller resolution the O 2pπ related nondispersive shoulder seen in EELS near 2.2 eV (see Fig. 1) could not be resolved.
17. R. Neudert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 657 (1998).
18. K. Penc and W. Stephan, Phys. Rev. B 62, 12 707 (2000).
19. A. Hübsch et al., Phys. Rev. B 63, 205103 (2001).
20. M. E. Simón et al., Phys. Rev. B 54, R3780 (1996).
21. E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 763 (1994).
22. W. B. Archibald et al., Phys. Rev. B 52, 16 101 (1995).
23. Y. J. Shin et al., Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 616, 201 (1992).
24. 2(pd) one (see Ref. [7]) which is seen within in-chain response near 4.5 eV.
25. 3 [26]. The large dipole moment d between excited S and P excitons estimated above is important in explaining the NLO effects.
26. M. Imada et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998). Thin film absorption in ⊥ response [3] shows a peak near 3.2 eV at variance with these data and EELS. Anyhow, it cannot be described within the usual pdσ model, too.