Interrelation of superconducting and antiferromagnetic gaps in high-Tc compounds: a test case for the SO(5) theory

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 824-827

  Zacher, Marc G ^a   Hanke, Werner ^a,b   Arrigoni, Enrico ^a   Zhang, Shou Cheng ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIFERROMAGNETISM; DISPERSION (WAVES); ELECTRIC INSULATORS; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY; ENERGY GAP; PHOTOEMISSION; SUPERCONDUCTIVITY;

ANTIFERROMAGNETIC GAP; SUPERCONDUCTING GAP;

HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS;

EID: 4243296409     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.824     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. F. Ronning et al., Science 282, 2067 (1998).
2. k→| modulation of the AF gap.
3. D.S. Marshall et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4841 (1996).
4. H. Ding et al., Nature (London) 382, 51 (1996).
5. P.J. White et al., Phys. Rev. B 54, R15 669 (1996).
6. S. C. Zhang, Science 275, 1089 (1997).
7. S. Rabello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3586 (1998).
8. C. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3590 (1998).
9. Recently, such a projection procedure has been defined for the bosonic excitations: S. C. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 13070 (1999).
10. J. Mesot et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 840 (1999).
11. Z.-X. Shen (private communication).
12. x/y form. Both descriptions fit the experimental data points equally well (see Fig. 2 in Ref. [10] and our Fig. 2).
13. y) form introduced in Refs. [7,8]. Our form has the advantage of a more appropriate description of the experiments.
14. mod = 0.243t (the result of our nn SDW calculation).
15. R. Eder et al., Phys. Rev. B 55, R3414 (1997).
16. D. Duffy et al., Phys. Rev. B 56, 5597 (1997). and references therein.
17. C. Kim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4245 (1998).
18. S. Meixner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4902 (1997).
19. R. Eder. W. Hanke, and S.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 57, 13781 (1998).
20. E. Arrigoni and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2115 (1999).
21. J. R. Schrieffer, X. G. Wen, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11 663 (1989).
22. For both the SB and SDW/BCS mean-field evaluations with and without 3rd-nn pairing the starting point was to fit the SC gap to the Mesot experiment. At the fixed doping of 11% this results in V = 0.61t (nn SDW/BCS), V = 0.61/ (nn SB), V = 0.96t (3rd nn SDW/BCS), V = 1.66t (3rd nn SB).
23. G. Kotliar and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1362 (1986).
24. E. Arrigoni, M. G. Zacher, and W. Hanke (to be published).
25. SC.