Density of states in (formula presented)-wave superconductors disordered by extended impurities

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 14, 2002, Pages 1-4

  Adagideli, İnanç ^a   Sheehy, Daniel E ^b   Goldbart, Paul M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c United States of America   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85038340193     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.140512     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. C. Pépin and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 63, 054502 (2001).
2. A.G. Yashenkin, W.A. Atkinson, I.V. Gornyi, P.J. Hirschfeld, and D.V. Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5982 (2001).
3. A. Altland, Phys. Rev. B 65, 104525 (2002).
4. A.V. Balatsky, M.I. Salkola, and A. Rosengren, Phys. Rev. B 51, 15 547 (1995);
5. M.I. Salkola, A.V. Balatsky, and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1841 (1996).
6. I. Adagideli, P.M. Goldbart, A. Shnirman, and A. Yazdani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5571 (1999).
7. Of course, the mechanism for creating low-energy states invoked in the present paper does not specifically require d-wave superconductivity. All that is required is that the pair potential be real (or can be made so by a suitable gauge transformation) and that it possess regions of momentum orientation over which it has opposing signs.
8. A. Yazdani, C.M. Howald, C.P. Lutz, A. Kapitulnik, and D.M. Eigler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 176 (1999).
9. Similar states have also been observed in the case of native defects inE. Hudson, S.H. Pan, A.K. Gupta, K.-W. Ng, and J.C. Davis, Science 285, 88 (1999).
10. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188, 513 (1981).
11. P. Salomonson and J.W. Van Holten, Nucl. Phys. B 196, 509 (1982).
12. See, e. g., G. Junker, Supersymmetric Methods in Quantum and Statistical Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
13. F.J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 92, 1331 (1953).
14. C. Chamon and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B 63, 100503 (2001).
15. D.E. Sheehy, I. Adagideli, P.M. Goldbart, and A. Yazdani, Phys. Rev. B 64, 224518 (2001).
16. A.F. Andreev, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 1823 1964 [Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 1228 (1964)].
17. D. Waxman and K.D. Ivanova-Moser, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 226, 271 (1993).
18. A. Comtet, J. Desbois, and C. Monthus, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 239, 312 (1995).
19. L. Balents and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 56, 12970 (1997).
20. See, e. g., L. Bartosch, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 10, 799 (2001).
21. Higher-order tunneling matrix elements are small, relative to the leading-order contributions, provided that (formula presented) (Ref. 10), i. e., that the coherence length is small compared with the typical impurity spacing. In addition, we note that, as (formula presented) may be made purely off-diagonal by a suitable unitary transformation, the tunneling amplitude between next-nearest neighbors vanishes identically.
22. The related task of computing tunneling corrections to the ground state of a SUSY Hamiltonian having multiple degenerate minima using instanton methods was considered in Ref. 10.
23. T.P. Eggarter and R. Riedinger, Phys. Rev. B 18, 569 (1978).
24. G. Theodorou and M.H. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B 13, 4597 (1976).
25. We suspect that the result for the DOS presented here will continue to hold not solely in the setting of uncorrelated hopping matrix elements (formula presented) but also for correlations of finite range.