Off-site repulsion-induced triplet superconductivity: A possibility for chiral px+y-wave pairing in Sr2RuO4

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 24, 2004, Pages

  Arita, Ryotaro ^a   Onari, Seiichiro ^a   Kuroki, Kazuhiko ^b   Aoki, Hideo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRO COMMUNICATIONS   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ANISOTROPY; APPROXIMATION THEORY; FERMI SURFACE; GREEN'S FUNCTION; HAMILTONIANS; MAGNETIC FIELDS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES; PHOTOEMISSION; SPECIFIC HEAT; STRONTIUM COMPOUNDS; SUPERCONDUCTIVITY;

DYNAMICAL CLUSTER APPROXIMATIONS (DCA); HUBBARD MODEL; PAIRING MECHANISM; SPIN FLUCTUATIONS;

SUPERCONDUCTING MATERIALS;

EID: 3242677263     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.247006     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Y. Maeno et al., Nature (London) 372, 532 (1994).
2. A. P. Mackenzie and Y. Maeno, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 657 (2003), and references therein.
3. K. Ishida et al., Nature (London) 396, 658 (1998).
4. G. M. Luke et al., Nature (London) 394, 558 (1998).
5. M. A. Tanatar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2649 (2001).
6. K. Izawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2653 (2001).
7. K. Deguchi, Z. Q. Mao, H. Yaguchi, and Y. Maeno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 047002 (2004).
8. C. Bergemann, A. P. Mackenzie, S. R. Jullian, D. Forsythe, and E. Ohmichi, Adv. Phys. 52, 639 (2002).
9. A. Damascelli et al., J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 114, 641 (2001).
10. T. Oguchi, Phys. Rev. B 51, 1385 (1995).
11. T. Kuwabara and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4586 (2000).
12. M. Sato and M. Kohmoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 3505 (2000).
13. T. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. B 62, R14 641 (2000).
14. K. Kuroki, M. Ogata, R. Arita, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 63, 060506(R) (2002).
15. H. Mukuda et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 3945 (1998).
16. C. Honerkamp and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 187004 (2001); Phys. Rev. B 64, 184516 (2001).
17. C. Honerkamp and M. Salmhofer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 187004 (2001); Phys. Rev. B 64, 184516 (2001).
18. T. Nomura and K Yamada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpa 69, 3678 (2000).
19. Y. Yanase et al., Phys. Rep. 387, 1 (2003).
20. T. Nomura and K. Yamada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71, 404 (2000).
21. R. Arita, K. Kuroki, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 60, 14 585 (1999); J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 1181 (2000).
22. R. Arita, K. Kuroki, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 60, 14 585 (1999); J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 1181 (2000).
23. P. Monthoux and G. Lonzarich, Phys. Rev. B 59, 14 598 (1999).
24. K. Kuroki, Y. Tanaka, T. Kimura, and R. Arita, cond-mat/0307553 [Phys. Rev. B (to be published)].
25. M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7475 (1998); M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12739 (2000); Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and J. Keller, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 613 (2000); M. Jarrell, Th. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Phys. Rev. B 64, 195130 (2001).
26. M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7475 (1998); M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12739 (2000); Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and J. Keller, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 613 (2000); M. Jarrell, Th. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Phys. Rev. B 64, 195130 (2001).
27. M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7475 (1998); M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12739 (2000); Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and J. Keller, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 613 (2000); M. Jarrell, Th. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Phys. Rev. B 64, 195130 (2001).
28. M. H. Hettler, A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7475 (1998); M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12739 (2000); Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, T. Pruschke, and J. Keller, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 613 (2000); M. Jarrell, Th. Maier, C. Huscroft, and S. Moukouri, Phys. Rev. B 64, 195130 (2001).
29. We have not employed the projector QMC method because the negative sign problem becomes too serious.
30. In general, the magnitude of V is substantial in transition metal oxides. For example, V ≃ U /4 for cuprates [see, e.g., G. Esirgen, H. B. Schuttler, and N. E. Bickers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1217 (1999)] and V for Ru 4d are expected to be larger than that for Cu 3d, because 4d orbitals spread more extensively than 3d orbitals.
31. K. Kuroki, R. Arita, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 63, 94509 (2001).
32. S. Onari, R. Arita, K Kuroki, and H. Aoki, cond-mat/0312314.
33. A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996).
34. J. E. Hirsch and R. M. Fye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2521 (1986).
35. As discussed by S. Moukouri, C. Huscroft, and M. Jarrell, in Proceedings of the XIIIth Workshop on Recent Developments in Computer Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics (Springer, New York, 2000), DCA gives a reliable result even in purely one-dimensional systems if we take a sufficiently large cluster.
36. y) is the symmetry considered in [17].
37. While it has been shown in Ref. [23] that the sign problem is not serious for nearly half-filled cases, the problem becomes serious for lower densities, especially in the presence of V.
38. N. E. Bickers, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 961 (1989).
39. G. Esirgen and N. E. Bickers, Phys. Rev. B 55, 2122 (1997).
40. This is consistent with Ref. [26], i.e., the pairing interaction for triplet pairs can be stronger than that for singlet pairs when V is large enough to make charge fluctuations dominant.
41. x2-y2.