Transport properties of high-T
c
cuprate thin films 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
43X
© Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011
the two holes in the intermediate state reside on orthogonal 2p-O orbitals: a
configuration favoring ferromagnetic alignment of the spins (Zhou 1997), which
results in spin frustration at the interface. The ferromagnetic exchange interaction
is weak (White 1996) compared to the antiferromagnetic interactions along the
rungs and chains of the ladder. The large difference between the superexchange
across corner sharing and edge sharing CuO
4
-squares offers chemists a large
flexibility in creating cuprates with different magnetic structures. For example,
one can assemble chains to make ladders of increasing width. Surprisingly, both
experiments and numerical calculations show that this crossover between one and
two dimensions is not at all smooth (for relevant reviews see (Dagotto 1996,
Rice 1998)).
While a ladder with an odd number of legs retains the properties of a purely 1D
single Heisenberg chain, namely gapless spin excitations and a power-law decay
of the antiferromagnetic correlations, a ladder made of an even number of chains
reveals short-range spin correlations that have an exponential decay. These even
chain spin ladders exhibit a spin gap
∆
spin
in the energy spectrum in the absence of
hole carriers, which means that it costs a finite amount of energy to create spin
excitations above the spin singlet ground state. This property resembles the spin
gap feature that has been observed below a temperature T* in the high-T
c
cuprates,
especially in the underdoped regime. However, for high-T
c
cuprates, ‘pseudogap’
is a better term than spin gap since low-energy spin excitations exist, although
with low spectral weight in neutron scattering experiments (Dagotto 1999).
Double leg spin ladders not only share with high-T
c
superconductors the
corresponding spin gap property, but secondly, theories predict that the ground
state of the ladder compounds becomes dominated by superconducting correlations
upon doping them with holes (Dagotto et al. 1992, Sigrist et al. 1994, Gazza et al.
1999). The reason leading to these correlations can be best understood in the
strong coupling limit where the Heisenberg coupling is taken to be much larger
along the rungs (J
⊥
) than along the legs (J). In this case, the ground state of the
two-leg Heisenberg system corresponds to the direct product of spin singlets, one
per rung, as schematically represented in Fig. 2.6(a). The overall spin of the
system is zero, since each pair of spins on a rung is itself in a singlet state. In order
to produce a spin excitation, a rung singlet must be promoted to a rung triplet, and
this costs energy J
⊥
(=
∆
spin
in the J
⊥
>> J limit). If a spin S = ½ is removed from
the system by introducing a hole, the other spin of the original singlet becomes
free and no longer reduces its energy by singlet formation. If two holes, a large
distance apart from each other, are added to the system, each one will produce
substantial energy damage to the spin background, since both break a singlet
(Fig. 2.6(b)). However, if the two holes are placed nearby, then they can share a
common rung, thus reducing the number of damaged spin singlets from two to
one. This idea, illustrated in Fig. 2.6(c) (Dagotto et al. 1992, Dagotto 1996), leads
in a natural way to the concept of hole binding on two-leg ladders and to
superconductivity. The idea may hold in the ‘isotropic’ limit J
⊥
= J too, because