Date

2003-12-03

Description

Comment: Published version, 4 pages, 2 figures, RevTex4

Using the factorization of the wavefunction in the t-J-J'-model at small

exchange couplings, we demonstrate the connection between the existence of a

spin gap and an hc/2e flux periodicity of the ground state energy. We

conjecture that all spin-gapped SU(2)-invariant Luttinger liquids have hc/2e

flux periodicity, and that this is connected to the fact that a gapped spin-1/2

chain always breaks translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell.

exchange couplings, we demonstrate the connection between the existence of a

spin gap and an hc/2e flux periodicity of the ground state energy. We

conjecture that all spin-gapped SU(2)-invariant Luttinger liquids have hc/2e

flux periodicity, and that this is connected to the fact that a gapped spin-1/2

chain always breaks translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell.

Type

Identifier

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.046401

Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 046401 (2004)

Database

Link to record

Show preview

Hide preview

ar
X

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 31

21 06

v2 [

co nd

-m at.

str -el

] 24

A ug

20 04

Flux period, spin gap, and pairing in the one-dimensional t− J − J ′-model Alexander Seidel1, 2 and Dung-Hai Lee1, 2

1Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

(Dated: July 15, 2011)

Using the factorization of the wavefunction in the t-J-J ′-model at small exchange couplings, we demonstrate the connection between the existence of a spin gap and an hc/2e flux periodicity of the ground state energy. We conjecture that all spin-gapped SU(2)-invariant Luttinger liquids have hc/2e flux periodicity, and that this is connected to the fact that a gapped spin- 1

2 chain always

breaks translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell.

PACS numbers: 74.72.-h, 75.10.JM

Soon after the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity, Anderson proposed that the basic physics of the cuprates is that of a doped two-dimensional Mott-insulator [1]. In particular, the Cooper pairs of the superconducting state are viewed as the “liberated spin singlet pairs” of the insulating host material. While this picture is very attractive, it has been difficult to find an explicit model for which the proclaimed behavior can be shown to occur unequivocally.

Searching for models of Mott insulators that show su- perconductivity upon doping has been the motivation for many studies of one-dimensional systems.[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Thanks to methods such as perturbative renormalization group and bosonization, considerable knowledge has been acquired on the weak coupling phase diagram of both strictly one-dimensional[8] and ladder systems[9]. The drawback of the weak coupling approach is that it often is only an instability analysis. The ultimate statement of the quantum phase still rests on certain assumptions about the “strong coupling fixed point” of the renormal- ization group flow. Most strong coupling models cannot be solved analyt-

ically. A notable exception is the Luther-Emery action [10] which describes an electronic liquid with a spin gap and dominant singlet-superconducting (SS) correlations at large distances. Another interesting analytic method for analyzing strong coupling 1D models was introduced by Ogata and Shiba [11], and extended in Ref.[3]. This method is designed to treat the large U Hubbard model (or the small J t-J model). It is based on two facts: i) in the limit of U → ∞ (or J/t → 0) the ground state of the Hubbard (t-J model) is infinitely degenerate, and ii) each of the degenerate states is described by a wave- function composed of a product of pure charge and spin components [11]. For large but finite U (small J/t) one can apply degenerate perturbation theory to lift the de- generacy. After doing so, the ground state wavefunction remains factorized. Moreover, the spin wavefunction is given by that of the Heisenberg model on a “squeezed lattice”(i.e. the lattice where the unoccupied sites are omitted). In superconductivity the hallmark of electron pairing is

the Φ0/2 ≡ hc/2e flux period. In three dimensions, if one plots the ground state energy E(Φ) of a solid supercon- ducting torus as a function of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) flux Φ through the hole, one finds a periodic function with period Φ0/2. Moreover the energy barrier separat- ing the successive minima is extensive. In two and one dimensions the flux period is the same. However the en- ergy barrier becomes intensive for two dimensions, and vanishes as the inverse circumference for one dimension.

In one dimension the spin and charge degrees of free- dom decouple in the low energy and long wavelength limit. According to common wisdom, the presence of a spin gap implies pairing. It is thus natural to draw a connection between the existence of a spin gap and a Φ0/2 flux period. However, since the vector potential only enters in the charge action, it is not obvious how the presence of a spin gap may affect the flux period. The purpose of this paper is to clarify this issue in the context of a strongly correlated 1D system.

In the following we study the one-dimensional t-J-J ′- model, making use the degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3]. The model is defined by the Hamil- tonian

H = −t ∑ i

P( e 2piiL ΦΦ0 c†i,σci+1,σ + h.c. )P

+J ∑ i

(Si·Si+1−1 4 nini+1)+J

′ ∑ i

(Si·Si+2−1 4 nini+2),

(1)

describing N electrons on a ring of L sites in the presence of an Aharonov-Bohm flux Φ. Here, the projection oper- ator P excludes states with doubly occupied sites, and the Si are spin-1/2 operators. At J = J

′ = 0 the model corresponds to the U = ∞ Hubbard model. As pointed out in Ref.[11], in this limit the eigenstates factorize into products of pure charge and spin states. This property has been used extensively to study the large (but finite) U Hubbard model [11, 12, 13], which is related to the small J t-J model. Much less analytic work has been done on the t-J-J ′ model with a finite α ≡ J ′/J , because the model is no longer integrable. In this case, however, the

2 degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3] still allows one to determine the ground state properties. In the following we will use this method to study the

ground state energy of (1) as a function of the AB-flux Φ. We begin by defining the N -particle wavefunction of the system

Ψ(x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) = 〈0 |cx1σ1 . . . cxNσN |Ψ〉 (2) on the domain

D := { (x1 . . . xN ) ∈ ZN

∣∣ x1<x2<. . . xN <x1 + L} . Here |Ψ〉 and |0〉 are the state of the system and the vacuum of the fermionic operators cx,σ ≡ cx+L,σ, re- spectively. The fermion antisymmetry and the periodic boundary condition imply

Ψ (x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) =

(−1)(N−1) Ψ(x2, σ2, ..., xN , σN , (x1 + L), σ1) (3) At J = J ′ = 0, each eigen wavefunction of (1) factor-

izes into a product of a charge and a spin wavefunction [11],

Ψ(x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) = f(x1 . . . xN ) g(σ1 . . . σN )(4)

where f(x1 . . . xN ) =

1√ LN

det [ exp(ikixj) ] (5)

is a Slater determinant constructed from N plane waves. It is of central importance here to observe that for a finite ring with periodic boundary conditions, the spin part and the charge part of the wavefunction (4) are not completely independent. Specifically if we quantize the N momenta in (4) according to

kj = 2pi

L qj +

K

L where qj ∈ Z and K ∈ [0, 2pi),

(6)

then the condition (3) requires the spin wavefunction to satisfy

g(σ1 . . . σN ) = e iK g(σ2 . . . σN , σ1), (7)

which implies that K is the “spin momentum” on the squeezed lattice. Thus by means of (6), the momen- tum K of the spin wavefunction injects a twist into the charge wave function. For large but finite U the exact ground state wavefunction of the Hubbard model remains of the form given by Eq. (4), and the same relation be- tween charge twist and spin momentum is observed [11]. Within the degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3] the same still applies to the ground state of (1) for any value of α = J ′/J in the limit of vanishing ex- change couplings. In this limit, all solutions of the form Eq. (4) are degenerate in the spin wavefunction, which is only required to have the spin momentum K determined by the twist of the charge wavefunction.

To first order in the exchange couplings, this degen- eracy is lifted by an effective Hamiltonian acting in the “squeezed” space of N spins [3]:

Heff = L

N

Jeff

N∑ j=1

Sj · Sj+1 + J ′eff N∑ j=1

Sj · Sj+2

Jeff = J 〈nini+1〉f + J ′ 〈ni(1− ni+1)ni+2〉f J ′eff = J

′ 〈nini+1ni+2〉f (8)

Here, 〈〉f denotes a spinless fermion expectation value with respect to the wavefunction f displayed in (4). We now focus on the case of constant α where α >

αc ≈ .241 [14]. In this regime numerical and analytical works suggest the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1. At zero doping the spin chain corresponding to the model (1) at half filling (N = L) is gapped. The spin gap will survive for a finite range of doping x = 1 − N/L < xc (Fig. 1), and the effective spin Hamiltonian (8) may be used to calculate xc exactly in the limit J/t → 0. This was first proposed by Ogata et al. [3] and has been con- firmed numerically in Ref. [15]. Thus the validity of degenerate perturbation theory is well established. (We will give a detailed discussion of the involved subtleties elsewhere [16] (see also [7])). To first order in J/t and J ′/t, the ground state energy

of Eq. (1) takes the form

Etot = Ec + Es (9)

where Ec is the kinetic energy associated with the charge wavefunction f0, and Es is the ground state energy of (8) with the spin momentum K. For any given AB-flux, f0 will be of the form given in (5), where theN consecutively occupied momenta kj are given by (6) with

qj = q0 + j − 1, j = 1 . . .N (10)

J/t

sp in

g ap

10

SS

xc x

CDW

phase separation

Tomonaga−Luttinger liquid

FIG. 1: Sketch of the zero temperature phase diagram of (1) as obtained in [3, 15] for α = 1

2 . The spin-gapped region is

divided by a crossover (dashed) between regions of dominant singlet superconducting (SS) and charge-density-wave (CDW) correlations.

3 2 N

piK= q =

0 P=0

0K= N

P= k q =

0 2 f

2 N +1q =

0

0K=

P=k f

ΦE( )

Φ/Φ0

2 N

piK= q =

0 P=0

0K= N

P= k q =

0 2 f

2 N +1q =

0

0K=

P=k f

ΦE( )

Φ/Φ0

a) b)

−0.5 0.5 0 −0.5 0.5 0

FIG. 2: Ground state energy according to (9), (11) for x < xc and x > xc. The energy scale is t/L. a) x < xc (spin-gapped case). Periodic pattern of branches with K = 0 and K = pi separated by half a flux quantum. The thick line represents the ground state energy at given Φ. The ground state momentum P changes by kf between adjacent branches. b) x > xc (no spin gap). The 1

2 Φ0-periodicity is destroyed by a relative shift of order J/L between K = 0 and K = pi branches.

and q0 is an integer. The kinetic energy is given by

Ec(q0,K,Φ) = −2t ∑ j

cos

( kj +

2pi

L

Φ

Φ0

)

= −2t sin(kf ) sin ( pi L

) cos ( kf +

2pi

L q0 +

K − pi L

+ 2pi

L

Φ

Φ0

)

(11)

In Eq. (11) kf is defined as kf ≡ piN/L. Note that for all charge wavefunctions characterized by Eq. (6), (10) with different q0 and K, the effective couplings appearing in (8) are the same. We will consider an even number of particles N from

now on. In the spin-gapped regime 0 < x < xc, the effective Hamiltonian (8) has two lowest-energy states with spin momenta K = 0 and K = pi. These two states are separated from other spin states by an energy gap of order J or J ′. For a finite ring, the energy difference be- tween these two lowest spin states vanishes exponentially with the circumference of the ring. Thus in the thermo- dynamic limit these two states become degenerate. For fixed Φ, we choose K and q0 so that the total

energy is minimized. This minimization can be achieved by first minimizing Ec by varying q0 for fixed K, then minimizing Es + Ec with respect to K. When the first minimization is achieved the argument of the cosine is always of order 1/L regardless of the values of K. Hence the effect of varying K in the second minimization can only result in O(t/L) modulations in Ec. We consider the limit t/L ≪ J here. It then follows that the value of K must be either 0 or pi. Other choices of K would increase Es by the spin gap of order J , which cannot be compensated by the possible lowering of Ec. After substituting the optimum value of q0 for K = 0

or K = pi back into Eq. (11) we obtain two branches of energy versus Φ curves shown in Fig. 2a). The lower envelope of these curves is the ground state energy as a function of Φ for small J/t and J ′/t. One observes that this function does indeed show a period of Φ0/2, owing to the existence of two different types of branches corresponding to K = 0 and K = pi, respectively. This structure is resemblant of that proposed for the dimer

model [17, 18]. It is also interesting to note that K = pi is the analogy of the “vison” flux [19] in 1D.

The situation is fundamentally different in the regime x > xc (Fig. 1), where the spin gap vanishes. Here the ground state of the effective spin Hamiltonian (8) has K = 0 or K = pi depending on whether N = 4m or N = 4m + 2 (see e.g. [20]). For a finite chain of length N = O(L) the first spin excited states at K = pi or K = 0 (i. e. whose momenta differ by pi from that of the respective ground state) have excitation energies of order J/L. This energy gives rise to the relative shift between the K = 0 and K = pi branches shown in Fig. 2b) for N = 4m. The resulting lower envelope is illustrated for a small but finite J/t, where the flux period is now Φ0. For N = 4m + 2 the shift between the K = 0 and K = pi branches is opposite in sign. This behavior is well demonstrated in the large repulsive U Hubbard model [21], where no spin gap is present.

It is sometimes felt that the existence of metastable minima of E(Φ) at Φ0/2 intervals is the sign of a pairing tendency, even though Φ0/2 is strictly not the flux period. Fig.2b) presents a clear counter example of this type of reasoning. Indeed according to Fig. 2b) this can hap- pen in a regime of the phase diagram where the ground state is neither spin-gapped, nor features a dominance of superconducting pairing correlations.

On the other hand, for x < xc, there is a spin gap but no charge gap, and the ground state energy is a periodic function of Φ with period Φ0/2. It has thus all the char- acteristics of a superconductor. However for J/t ≪ 1 the superconducting correlations (SS) are weaker than the charge density wave (CDW) correlations (Fig. 1). In this regime we can think of the system as being close to a superconductor-(Cooper pair) insulator transition due to strong quantum fluctuation of the phase of the superconducting order parameter. Here, a weak exter- nal perturbation such as disorder can easily localize the Cooper pairs and drive the system insulating. As the system crosses the crossover line in (Fig. 1), the phase fluctuations become much less severe so that the SS cor- relations become dominant over the CDW correlations.

4 We expect the appearance of a Φ0/2 flux period to hold in the entire spin gapped regime. Indeed, more detailed considerations show that the arguments given here are not limited to first order perturbation theory [16]. In particular, we find that second order contributions to the ground state energy may be incorporated into the effective spin Hamiltonian. The latter will then also de- pend on the twist of the zeroth order wave function and on flux, yet Heff (K,Φ) = Heff (K − pi,Φ + Φ0/2) con- tinues to hold. Furthermore, we have shown that all the results presented here also follow from a weak cou- pling/bosonization procedure [22].

The analysis presented here can be applied to a wide class of models of the form Eq. (1) where the second line is replaced by a more general spin-chain type of Hamilto- nian. Most features of the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1 will likely survive as long as the spin chain at half fill- ing is gapped. In particular, the spin gap will survive for a range of doping, and phase separation will occur at sufficiently large values of J/t, where J is an appro- priate energy scale for the spin couplings. As the phase separation line is approached, the charge compressibil- ity diverges, and Luttinger liquid physics then implies a regime of dominant SS correlations. Our analysis on flux period will then carry over to this more generic case, provided that the gapped spin state at x = 0 also breaks translational symmetry by doubling of the unit cell, anal- ogous to the dimerization that occurs in the J-J ′ model at half filling. Such an example is given by the t-Jz model studied in Ref. [23]. Although in Ref. [23], the possibil- ity of Φ0/n flux periods (n ≥ 2) has been postulated for models of the type considered here, only the case n = 2 has been found for the t-Jz model. This follows easily along the line of arguments given here, and we believe that only n = 1 and n = 2 are found in generic models.

If, on the other hand, a gapped spin- 12 chain exists that does not break translational symmetry, it appears that a doped model with a spin gap could be constructed which does not feature Φ0/2 flux quantization as displayed in Fig. 2a). However, such a state would violate the Lieb- Schultz-Mattis theorem [24]. For SU(2)-invariant spin- 1 2 chains in one dimension, we are aware of only one way to create a spin gap, i.e. breaking the translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell. Hence there seems to be an intimate relation between this fact and the possible universality of the Φ0/2 flux period which we postulate below. We note that a Φ0/2 flux period associated with a spin

gap has also been observed in numerical studies of a two- leg ladder [25]. This suggests that our main conclusion may be generalized beyond the purely one-dimensional case. However, a two-leg ladder has an even number of sites per unit cell. Here the undoped system may have a spin gap due to the formation of singlet pairs located on the rungs, which does not require symmetry breaking. These singlet pairs become mobile upon doping, and the

above notion of symmetry breaking in some internal spin space is not required to explain the Φ0/2 period. To conclude, we have demonstrated the relation be-

tween a Φ0/2-periodicity in the ground state energy and the existence of a spin gap in the small exchange limit of the t-J-J ′ model. Based on these findings, we con- jecture that the observed Φ0/2 flux period is a universal property of spin-gapped SU(2) invariant one-dimensional systems of spin- 12 particles with gapless charge degrees of freedom. In particular, the value of the charge Luttinger parameter is not a determining factor of the flux period- icity, as our result did not require the predominance of singlet superconducting correlations. Our findings fur- ther suggest an intimate relation between the proposed universality of the Φ0/2 flux period and the fact that all gapped SU(2)-invariant spin- 12 chains feature broken translational symmetry with a doubling of the unit cell. This work has been supported by DOE grant DE-

AC03-76SF00098.

[1] P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987). [2] M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, S. Sorella, and F. F. Assaad,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2388 (1991). [3] M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B

44, 12083 (1991). [4] M. Imada, Phys. Rev. B 48, 550 (1993). [5] M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B 54, 10054 (1996). [6] E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science 271, 618 (1996). [7] A. Seidel and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 69, 094419 (2004). [8] J. So´lyom, Adv. Phys. 28, 201 (1979). [9] H.-H. Lin, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B

56, 6569 (1997). [10] A. Luther and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 589

(1974). [11] M. Ogata and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 41, 2326 (1990). [12] A. Parola and S. Sorella, Phys.Rev. Lett. 64, 1831 (1990). [13] M. Ogata, T. Sugiyama, and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 43,

8401 (1991). [14] R. Jullien and F. D. M. Haldane, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.

28, 344 (1983). [15] M. Nakamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 717 (1998). [16] A. Seidel and D.-H. Lee, in preparation. [17] S. A. Kivelson, D. S. Rokhsar, and J. P. Sethna, Phys.

Rev. B 35, 8865 (1987). [18] D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B 36, 7187 (1987). [19] T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850

(2000). [20] T. Tonegawa and I. Harada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 56, 2153

(1987). [21] A. Ferretti, I. O. Kulik, and A. Lami, Phys. Rev. B 45,

5486 (1992). [22] A. Seidel and D.-H. Lee, cond-mat/0402663 (2004), to be

published. [23] V. Ferrari and G. Chiappe, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8,

8583 (1996). [24] E. H. Lieb, T. D. Schultz, and D. C. Mattis, Ann. Phys.

16, 407 (1961). [25] C. A. Hayward, D. Poilblanc, R. M. Noack, D. J.

Scalapino, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 926 (1995).

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 31

21 06

v2 [

co nd

-m at.

str -el

] 24

A ug

20 04

Flux period, spin gap, and pairing in the one-dimensional t− J − J ′-model Alexander Seidel1, 2 and Dung-Hai Lee1, 2

1Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

(Dated: July 15, 2011)

Using the factorization of the wavefunction in the t-J-J ′-model at small exchange couplings, we demonstrate the connection between the existence of a spin gap and an hc/2e flux periodicity of the ground state energy. We conjecture that all spin-gapped SU(2)-invariant Luttinger liquids have hc/2e flux periodicity, and that this is connected to the fact that a gapped spin- 1

2 chain always

breaks translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell.

PACS numbers: 74.72.-h, 75.10.JM

Soon after the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity, Anderson proposed that the basic physics of the cuprates is that of a doped two-dimensional Mott-insulator [1]. In particular, the Cooper pairs of the superconducting state are viewed as the “liberated spin singlet pairs” of the insulating host material. While this picture is very attractive, it has been difficult to find an explicit model for which the proclaimed behavior can be shown to occur unequivocally.

Searching for models of Mott insulators that show su- perconductivity upon doping has been the motivation for many studies of one-dimensional systems.[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Thanks to methods such as perturbative renormalization group and bosonization, considerable knowledge has been acquired on the weak coupling phase diagram of both strictly one-dimensional[8] and ladder systems[9]. The drawback of the weak coupling approach is that it often is only an instability analysis. The ultimate statement of the quantum phase still rests on certain assumptions about the “strong coupling fixed point” of the renormal- ization group flow. Most strong coupling models cannot be solved analyt-

ically. A notable exception is the Luther-Emery action [10] which describes an electronic liquid with a spin gap and dominant singlet-superconducting (SS) correlations at large distances. Another interesting analytic method for analyzing strong coupling 1D models was introduced by Ogata and Shiba [11], and extended in Ref.[3]. This method is designed to treat the large U Hubbard model (or the small J t-J model). It is based on two facts: i) in the limit of U → ∞ (or J/t → 0) the ground state of the Hubbard (t-J model) is infinitely degenerate, and ii) each of the degenerate states is described by a wave- function composed of a product of pure charge and spin components [11]. For large but finite U (small J/t) one can apply degenerate perturbation theory to lift the de- generacy. After doing so, the ground state wavefunction remains factorized. Moreover, the spin wavefunction is given by that of the Heisenberg model on a “squeezed lattice”(i.e. the lattice where the unoccupied sites are omitted). In superconductivity the hallmark of electron pairing is

the Φ0/2 ≡ hc/2e flux period. In three dimensions, if one plots the ground state energy E(Φ) of a solid supercon- ducting torus as a function of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) flux Φ through the hole, one finds a periodic function with period Φ0/2. Moreover the energy barrier separat- ing the successive minima is extensive. In two and one dimensions the flux period is the same. However the en- ergy barrier becomes intensive for two dimensions, and vanishes as the inverse circumference for one dimension.

In one dimension the spin and charge degrees of free- dom decouple in the low energy and long wavelength limit. According to common wisdom, the presence of a spin gap implies pairing. It is thus natural to draw a connection between the existence of a spin gap and a Φ0/2 flux period. However, since the vector potential only enters in the charge action, it is not obvious how the presence of a spin gap may affect the flux period. The purpose of this paper is to clarify this issue in the context of a strongly correlated 1D system.

In the following we study the one-dimensional t-J-J ′- model, making use the degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3]. The model is defined by the Hamil- tonian

H = −t ∑ i

P( e 2piiL ΦΦ0 c†i,σci+1,σ + h.c. )P

+J ∑ i

(Si·Si+1−1 4 nini+1)+J

′ ∑ i

(Si·Si+2−1 4 nini+2),

(1)

describing N electrons on a ring of L sites in the presence of an Aharonov-Bohm flux Φ. Here, the projection oper- ator P excludes states with doubly occupied sites, and the Si are spin-1/2 operators. At J = J

′ = 0 the model corresponds to the U = ∞ Hubbard model. As pointed out in Ref.[11], in this limit the eigenstates factorize into products of pure charge and spin states. This property has been used extensively to study the large (but finite) U Hubbard model [11, 12, 13], which is related to the small J t-J model. Much less analytic work has been done on the t-J-J ′ model with a finite α ≡ J ′/J , because the model is no longer integrable. In this case, however, the

2 degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3] still allows one to determine the ground state properties. In the following we will use this method to study the

ground state energy of (1) as a function of the AB-flux Φ. We begin by defining the N -particle wavefunction of the system

Ψ(x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) = 〈0 |cx1σ1 . . . cxNσN |Ψ〉 (2) on the domain

D := { (x1 . . . xN ) ∈ ZN

∣∣ x1<x2<. . . xN <x1 + L} . Here |Ψ〉 and |0〉 are the state of the system and the vacuum of the fermionic operators cx,σ ≡ cx+L,σ, re- spectively. The fermion antisymmetry and the periodic boundary condition imply

Ψ (x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) =

(−1)(N−1) Ψ(x2, σ2, ..., xN , σN , (x1 + L), σ1) (3) At J = J ′ = 0, each eigen wavefunction of (1) factor-

izes into a product of a charge and a spin wavefunction [11],

Ψ(x1, σ1, ..., xN , σN ) = f(x1 . . . xN ) g(σ1 . . . σN )(4)

where f(x1 . . . xN ) =

1√ LN

det [ exp(ikixj) ] (5)

is a Slater determinant constructed from N plane waves. It is of central importance here to observe that for a finite ring with periodic boundary conditions, the spin part and the charge part of the wavefunction (4) are not completely independent. Specifically if we quantize the N momenta in (4) according to

kj = 2pi

L qj +

K

L where qj ∈ Z and K ∈ [0, 2pi),

(6)

then the condition (3) requires the spin wavefunction to satisfy

g(σ1 . . . σN ) = e iK g(σ2 . . . σN , σ1), (7)

which implies that K is the “spin momentum” on the squeezed lattice. Thus by means of (6), the momen- tum K of the spin wavefunction injects a twist into the charge wave function. For large but finite U the exact ground state wavefunction of the Hubbard model remains of the form given by Eq. (4), and the same relation be- tween charge twist and spin momentum is observed [11]. Within the degenerate perturbation approach introduced in Ref.[3] the same still applies to the ground state of (1) for any value of α = J ′/J in the limit of vanishing ex- change couplings. In this limit, all solutions of the form Eq. (4) are degenerate in the spin wavefunction, which is only required to have the spin momentum K determined by the twist of the charge wavefunction.

To first order in the exchange couplings, this degen- eracy is lifted by an effective Hamiltonian acting in the “squeezed” space of N spins [3]:

Heff = L

N

Jeff

N∑ j=1

Sj · Sj+1 + J ′eff N∑ j=1

Sj · Sj+2

Jeff = J 〈nini+1〉f + J ′ 〈ni(1− ni+1)ni+2〉f J ′eff = J

′ 〈nini+1ni+2〉f (8)

Here, 〈〉f denotes a spinless fermion expectation value with respect to the wavefunction f displayed in (4). We now focus on the case of constant α where α >

αc ≈ .241 [14]. In this regime numerical and analytical works suggest the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1. At zero doping the spin chain corresponding to the model (1) at half filling (N = L) is gapped. The spin gap will survive for a finite range of doping x = 1 − N/L < xc (Fig. 1), and the effective spin Hamiltonian (8) may be used to calculate xc exactly in the limit J/t → 0. This was first proposed by Ogata et al. [3] and has been con- firmed numerically in Ref. [15]. Thus the validity of degenerate perturbation theory is well established. (We will give a detailed discussion of the involved subtleties elsewhere [16] (see also [7])). To first order in J/t and J ′/t, the ground state energy

of Eq. (1) takes the form

Etot = Ec + Es (9)

where Ec is the kinetic energy associated with the charge wavefunction f0, and Es is the ground state energy of (8) with the spin momentum K. For any given AB-flux, f0 will be of the form given in (5), where theN consecutively occupied momenta kj are given by (6) with

qj = q0 + j − 1, j = 1 . . .N (10)

J/t

sp in

g ap

10

SS

xc x

CDW

phase separation

Tomonaga−Luttinger liquid

FIG. 1: Sketch of the zero temperature phase diagram of (1) as obtained in [3, 15] for α = 1

2 . The spin-gapped region is

divided by a crossover (dashed) between regions of dominant singlet superconducting (SS) and charge-density-wave (CDW) correlations.

3 2 N

piK= q =

0 P=0

0K= N

P= k q =

0 2 f

2 N +1q =

0

0K=

P=k f

ΦE( )

Φ/Φ0

2 N

piK= q =

0 P=0

0K= N

P= k q =

0 2 f

2 N +1q =

0

0K=

P=k f

ΦE( )

Φ/Φ0

a) b)

−0.5 0.5 0 −0.5 0.5 0

FIG. 2: Ground state energy according to (9), (11) for x < xc and x > xc. The energy scale is t/L. a) x < xc (spin-gapped case). Periodic pattern of branches with K = 0 and K = pi separated by half a flux quantum. The thick line represents the ground state energy at given Φ. The ground state momentum P changes by kf between adjacent branches. b) x > xc (no spin gap). The 1

2 Φ0-periodicity is destroyed by a relative shift of order J/L between K = 0 and K = pi branches.

and q0 is an integer. The kinetic energy is given by

Ec(q0,K,Φ) = −2t ∑ j

cos

( kj +

2pi

L

Φ

Φ0

)

= −2t sin(kf ) sin ( pi L

) cos ( kf +

2pi

L q0 +

K − pi L

+ 2pi

L

Φ

Φ0

)

(11)

In Eq. (11) kf is defined as kf ≡ piN/L. Note that for all charge wavefunctions characterized by Eq. (6), (10) with different q0 and K, the effective couplings appearing in (8) are the same. We will consider an even number of particles N from

now on. In the spin-gapped regime 0 < x < xc, the effective Hamiltonian (8) has two lowest-energy states with spin momenta K = 0 and K = pi. These two states are separated from other spin states by an energy gap of order J or J ′. For a finite ring, the energy difference be- tween these two lowest spin states vanishes exponentially with the circumference of the ring. Thus in the thermo- dynamic limit these two states become degenerate. For fixed Φ, we choose K and q0 so that the total

energy is minimized. This minimization can be achieved by first minimizing Ec by varying q0 for fixed K, then minimizing Es + Ec with respect to K. When the first minimization is achieved the argument of the cosine is always of order 1/L regardless of the values of K. Hence the effect of varying K in the second minimization can only result in O(t/L) modulations in Ec. We consider the limit t/L ≪ J here. It then follows that the value of K must be either 0 or pi. Other choices of K would increase Es by the spin gap of order J , which cannot be compensated by the possible lowering of Ec. After substituting the optimum value of q0 for K = 0

or K = pi back into Eq. (11) we obtain two branches of energy versus Φ curves shown in Fig. 2a). The lower envelope of these curves is the ground state energy as a function of Φ for small J/t and J ′/t. One observes that this function does indeed show a period of Φ0/2, owing to the existence of two different types of branches corresponding to K = 0 and K = pi, respectively. This structure is resemblant of that proposed for the dimer

model [17, 18]. It is also interesting to note that K = pi is the analogy of the “vison” flux [19] in 1D.

The situation is fundamentally different in the regime x > xc (Fig. 1), where the spin gap vanishes. Here the ground state of the effective spin Hamiltonian (8) has K = 0 or K = pi depending on whether N = 4m or N = 4m + 2 (see e.g. [20]). For a finite chain of length N = O(L) the first spin excited states at K = pi or K = 0 (i. e. whose momenta differ by pi from that of the respective ground state) have excitation energies of order J/L. This energy gives rise to the relative shift between the K = 0 and K = pi branches shown in Fig. 2b) for N = 4m. The resulting lower envelope is illustrated for a small but finite J/t, where the flux period is now Φ0. For N = 4m + 2 the shift between the K = 0 and K = pi branches is opposite in sign. This behavior is well demonstrated in the large repulsive U Hubbard model [21], where no spin gap is present.

It is sometimes felt that the existence of metastable minima of E(Φ) at Φ0/2 intervals is the sign of a pairing tendency, even though Φ0/2 is strictly not the flux period. Fig.2b) presents a clear counter example of this type of reasoning. Indeed according to Fig. 2b) this can hap- pen in a regime of the phase diagram where the ground state is neither spin-gapped, nor features a dominance of superconducting pairing correlations.

On the other hand, for x < xc, there is a spin gap but no charge gap, and the ground state energy is a periodic function of Φ with period Φ0/2. It has thus all the char- acteristics of a superconductor. However for J/t ≪ 1 the superconducting correlations (SS) are weaker than the charge density wave (CDW) correlations (Fig. 1). In this regime we can think of the system as being close to a superconductor-(Cooper pair) insulator transition due to strong quantum fluctuation of the phase of the superconducting order parameter. Here, a weak exter- nal perturbation such as disorder can easily localize the Cooper pairs and drive the system insulating. As the system crosses the crossover line in (Fig. 1), the phase fluctuations become much less severe so that the SS cor- relations become dominant over the CDW correlations.

4 We expect the appearance of a Φ0/2 flux period to hold in the entire spin gapped regime. Indeed, more detailed considerations show that the arguments given here are not limited to first order perturbation theory [16]. In particular, we find that second order contributions to the ground state energy may be incorporated into the effective spin Hamiltonian. The latter will then also de- pend on the twist of the zeroth order wave function and on flux, yet Heff (K,Φ) = Heff (K − pi,Φ + Φ0/2) con- tinues to hold. Furthermore, we have shown that all the results presented here also follow from a weak cou- pling/bosonization procedure [22].

The analysis presented here can be applied to a wide class of models of the form Eq. (1) where the second line is replaced by a more general spin-chain type of Hamilto- nian. Most features of the phase diagram shown in Fig. 1 will likely survive as long as the spin chain at half fill- ing is gapped. In particular, the spin gap will survive for a range of doping, and phase separation will occur at sufficiently large values of J/t, where J is an appro- priate energy scale for the spin couplings. As the phase separation line is approached, the charge compressibil- ity diverges, and Luttinger liquid physics then implies a regime of dominant SS correlations. Our analysis on flux period will then carry over to this more generic case, provided that the gapped spin state at x = 0 also breaks translational symmetry by doubling of the unit cell, anal- ogous to the dimerization that occurs in the J-J ′ model at half filling. Such an example is given by the t-Jz model studied in Ref. [23]. Although in Ref. [23], the possibil- ity of Φ0/n flux periods (n ≥ 2) has been postulated for models of the type considered here, only the case n = 2 has been found for the t-Jz model. This follows easily along the line of arguments given here, and we believe that only n = 1 and n = 2 are found in generic models.

If, on the other hand, a gapped spin- 12 chain exists that does not break translational symmetry, it appears that a doped model with a spin gap could be constructed which does not feature Φ0/2 flux quantization as displayed in Fig. 2a). However, such a state would violate the Lieb- Schultz-Mattis theorem [24]. For SU(2)-invariant spin- 1 2 chains in one dimension, we are aware of only one way to create a spin gap, i.e. breaking the translational symmetry by doubling the unit cell. Hence there seems to be an intimate relation between this fact and the possible universality of the Φ0/2 flux period which we postulate below. We note that a Φ0/2 flux period associated with a spin

gap has also been observed in numerical studies of a two- leg ladder [25]. This suggests that our main conclusion may be generalized beyond the purely one-dimensional case. However, a two-leg ladder has an even number of sites per unit cell. Here the undoped system may have a spin gap due to the formation of singlet pairs located on the rungs, which does not require symmetry breaking. These singlet pairs become mobile upon doping, and the

above notion of symmetry breaking in some internal spin space is not required to explain the Φ0/2 period. To conclude, we have demonstrated the relation be-

tween a Φ0/2-periodicity in the ground state energy and the existence of a spin gap in the small exchange limit of the t-J-J ′ model. Based on these findings, we con- jecture that the observed Φ0/2 flux period is a universal property of spin-gapped SU(2) invariant one-dimensional systems of spin- 12 particles with gapless charge degrees of freedom. In particular, the value of the charge Luttinger parameter is not a determining factor of the flux period- icity, as our result did not require the predominance of singlet superconducting correlations. Our findings fur- ther suggest an intimate relation between the proposed universality of the Φ0/2 flux period and the fact that all gapped SU(2)-invariant spin- 12 chains feature broken translational symmetry with a doubling of the unit cell. This work has been supported by DOE grant DE-

AC03-76SF00098.

[1] P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987). [2] M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, S. Sorella, and F. F. Assaad,

Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2388 (1991). [3] M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B

44, 12083 (1991). [4] M. Imada, Phys. Rev. B 48, 550 (1993). [5] M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B 54, 10054 (1996). [6] E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science 271, 618 (1996). [7] A. Seidel and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 69, 094419 (2004). [8] J. So´lyom, Adv. Phys. 28, 201 (1979). [9] H.-H. Lin, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B

56, 6569 (1997). [10] A. Luther and V. J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 589

(1974). [11] M. Ogata and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 41, 2326 (1990). [12] A. Parola and S. Sorella, Phys.Rev. Lett. 64, 1831 (1990). [13] M. Ogata, T. Sugiyama, and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 43,

8401 (1991). [14] R. Jullien and F. D. M. Haldane, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.

28, 344 (1983). [15] M. Nakamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 717 (1998). [16] A. Seidel and D.-H. Lee, in preparation. [17] S. A. Kivelson, D. S. Rokhsar, and J. P. Sethna, Phys.

Rev. B 35, 8865 (1987). [18] D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B 36, 7187 (1987). [19] T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850

(2000). [20] T. Tonegawa and I. Harada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 56, 2153

(1987). [21] A. Ferretti, I. O. Kulik, and A. Lami, Phys. Rev. B 45,

5486 (1992). [22] A. Seidel and D.-H. Lee, cond-mat/0402663 (2004), to be

published. [23] V. Ferrari and G. Chiappe, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8,

8583 (1996). [24] E. H. Lieb, T. D. Schultz, and D. C. Mattis, Ann. Phys.

16, 407 (1961). [25] C. A. Hayward, D. Poilblanc, R. M. Noack, D. J.

Scalapino, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 926 (1995).

Comments