# Comparison of superconductivity in 𝑆⁢𝑟₂⁢𝑅⁢𝑢⁢𝑂₄ and copper oxides

\[

## Abstract

To compare the superconductivity in strongly correlated electron systems with the antiferromagnetic fluctuations in the copper oxides and with the ferromagnetic fluctuations in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ a $`tJI`$ model is proposed. The antiferromagnetic coupling $`J`$ results in the superconducting state of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry and the ferromagnetic coupling $`I`$ results in the spin-triplet $`p`$-type state. The difference in the gap anisotropies provides the large difference in $`T_c`$ values, for the typical values of the coupling constants: $`T_c1K`$ for the ruthenate and $`T_c100K`$ for the cuprates.   
PACS numbers: 71.27.+a, 74.25

\]

More then a decade of intensive research of the cuprate superconductors and related systems has raised fundamental challenges to our understanding of the mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity (SC). One of the most important question is what is so specific in copper oxides, is it the unique chemistry of the planar $`CuO`$ bond that determines the high value of $`T_c`$ ? The discovery of SC in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ with $`T_c1K`$  is of a particular interest because it has a similar crystal structure to the parent compound $`La_2CuO_4`$, of one of the best studied families of the cuprate superconductors, $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$, but has four valence electrons (for $`Ru^{4+}`$) instead of one hole per formula unit. It is generally believed that comparison of normal and SC properties of the cuprates and the ruthenate will give more deeper understanding of the nature of high-$`T_c`$ SC. While the normal state of doped cuprates looks like almost antiferromagnetic Fermi-liquid , the normal state of $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ is characterised by the strong ferromagnetic fluctuations . Properties of SC state are also different: the singlet pairing with major contribution of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry was suggested for the cuprates , while the triplet pairing with $`p`$-type symmetry similar to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}HeA_1`$ phase is proposed for $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ . The triplet SC in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ is induced by the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations .

To compare the SC in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ and cuprates we have proposed here a $`tJI`$ model containing both an indirect antiferromagnetic coupling $`J`$ and a direct ferromagnetic coupling $`I`$ between neighboring cations. This model is based on the electronic structure calculations. An

important difference from the cuprates is that relevant orbitals to the states near the Fermi energy are $`Rudϵ(d_{xy},d_{yz},d_{xz})`$ and $`Op\pi `$, instead of $`Cud_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`Op\sigma `$ states. Due to $`\sigma `$-bonding in the cuprates a strong $`pd`$ hybridization takes place resulting in the strong antiferromagnetic coupling $`J`$, a direct $`d_{x^2y^2}CuCu`$ overlapping is negligible. In $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ with $`\pi `$-bonding the $`RuORu`$ 180-degree antiferromagnetic superexchange coupling is weak  while a direct $`d_{xy}RuRu`$ overlapping is not small. That is why we add the Heisenberg type direct $`RuRu`$ exchange interaction to the Hamiltonian of the $`tJ`$ model. The strong electron correlations are common features of the charge carriers both in cuprates and $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ in our model. These correlations for the cuprates are well known . The importance of electron correlations for $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ follows from the high value of the effective mass of electrons in the $`\gamma `$-band obtained by the quantum oscillations measurements .

We have found the different solutions for SC state in $`tJI`$ model: with the singlet $`d`$-type pairing governed by the antiferromagnetic coupling $`J`$ and with the triplet $`p`$-type pairing induced by the ferromagnetic coupling $`I`$. The equations for $`T_c`$ in both states are similar. Nevertheless the same absolute value of the coupling constants results in quite different $`T_c`$ values, $`T_c^{(p)}1K`$ and $`T_c^{(d)}100K`$ for typical values of parameters. The gap anisotropy is responsible for the large difference in the $`T_c`$ values. For the $`p`$-type pairing the $`𝐤`$-dependence of the gap provides cancellation of the singular van-Hove contribution of the two-dimensional density of states, while the $`𝐤`$-dependence of the $`d`$-type gap results in the significant contribution of the van-Hove singularity.

The Hamiltonian of the $`tJI`$ model is written in the form

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{𝐟\sigma }{}}(\epsilon \mu )X_𝐟^{\sigma \sigma }t{\displaystyle \underset{𝐟\delta \sigma }{}}X_𝐟^{\sigma 0}X_{𝐟+\delta }^{0\sigma }+J{\displaystyle \underset{𝐟\delta }{}}K_{𝐟,𝐟+\delta }^{()}`$ (1)   
$`I{\displaystyle \underset{𝐟\delta }{}}K_{𝐟,𝐟+\delta }^{(+)},`$ (2)   
$`K_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐠}}^{(\pm )}=\stackrel{}{S}_𝐟\stackrel{}{S}_𝐠\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_𝐟n_𝐠,X_𝐟^{}+X_𝐟^{}+X_𝐟^{00}=1.`$ (3)   
Here the Hubbard X-operators $`X_𝐟^{pq}=|pq|`$ are determined in the reduced Hilbert space containing empty states $`|0`$ and single-occupied states $`|\sigma `$, $`\sigma =`$ or $`\sigma =`$. The X-operators algebra exactly takes into accounts the constrain condition that is one of the important effects of the strong electron correlations. The $`\stackrel{}{S}_𝐟`$ and $`n_𝐟`$ operators in (2) are the usual spin and number of particles operators at the site $`𝐟`$, $`\delta `$ is the vector between n.n.. For the cuprates $`JI`$, but for $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ $`IJ`$.

To get SC the copper oxides should be doped while $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ is self-doped. According to the band structure calculations  the electron $`\alpha `$-band in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ is half-filled, the hole $`\beta `$-band has $`n_0=0.28`$ holes and the electron $`\gamma `$-band with $`d_{xy}`$ contribution is more then half-filled, $`n_\gamma =1+n_0`$. The strong electron correlations split the $`\gamma `$-band into filled lower Hubbard band (LHB) with $`n_e=1`$and partially filled upper Hubbard band (UHB) with the electron concentration $`n_e=n_0`$. We use the hole representation where the electron UHB transforms in the hole LHB with hole concentration $`n_h=1n_0`$. All other bands ( $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ ) are treated here as an electron reservoir. Observation of a square flux-line lattice in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ allows to suggest that SC resides mainly on the $`\gamma `$ band . For the cuprates the quasiparticle is a hole in the electron LHB with the electron concentration $`n_e=1n_0`$, for $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ $`n_0=x`$.

There are many ways to get the mean-field solutions for SC state, we have used the irreducible Green function method  projecting the higher-order Green functions onto subspace of normal $`X_𝐤^{0\sigma }X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}`$ and abnormal $`X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}`$ Green functions coupled via the Gorkov system of equations. Three different solutions have been studied: singlet $`s`$\- and $`d`$\- and triplet $`p`$-types. The gap equation has the form for $`s`$-state

$`1=\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _𝐩+(2g\lambda )\omega _𝐩^2}{2E_{𝐩0}}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{𝐩0}}{2\tau }}\right)`$ (4)   
and for the $`p,d`$-states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _l}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _l^2(𝐩)}{2E_{𝐩l}}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{𝐩l}}{2\tau }}\right).`$ (5)   
Here for $`s,p,d`$-states

$`E_{𝐩l}=\sqrt{c^2(n_0)(\omega _𝐩m)^2+\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐩l}\right|^2},`$ (6)   
$`m=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ϵ}{zt}}+(g+\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1n_0}{2}}\right]/c(n_0),`$ (7)   
where $`\omega _𝐩=\gamma _𝐩=(1/z)\underset{\delta }{}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐩\delta )`$, $`m`$ is a dimensionless chemical potential, $`c(n_0)=(1+n_0)/2`$, $`g=J/t,\lambda =I/t`$ and $`\tau =k_BT/zt`$ is a dimensionless temperature. The SC gaps are equal to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤0}=[2+(2g\lambda )\omega _𝐤]\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\omega _𝐩B_𝐩/c(n_0),`$ (8)   
$`B_𝐩=X_𝐩^0X_𝐩^0`$ (9)   
for $`s`$-type $`(l=0)`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤l}=\alpha _l\psi _l(𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\psi _l(𝐩)B_𝐩/c(n_0)`$ (10)   
for the $`p`$\- and $`d`$\- states. The coupling constants and the gap anisotropy in the $`l`$-th channel are given by

$`\alpha _p=\lambda ,\psi _p(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{sin}k_x+\mathrm{sin}k_y),`$ (11)   
$`\alpha _d=(2g\lambda ),\psi _d(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y).`$ (12)   
Here we have considered only the two-dimensional square lattice with the lattice parameter $`a=1`$. The equation for the chemical potential has the form

$`1n_0=\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}X_𝐤^{\sigma 0}X_𝐤^{0\sigma }.`$ (13)   
An important effect of the strong electron correlation is the constrain condition excluding double-occupied states

$`\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}B_𝐤=\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}X_𝐤^0X_𝐤^0=0.`$ (14)   
The first term in (4) for the singlet $`s`$-type pairing parameter is proportional to $`2tz`$ and appears due to the kinematic mechanism of pairing . The $`s`$-type solution does not satisfy to the constrain condition (14)  while for $`p`$\- and $`d`$-type it is fulfilled. The equation for $`T_c`$ in $`p`$\- and $`d`$-states is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2c(n_0)}{\alpha _l}}=\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _l^2(𝐩)}{\left|\omega _𝐩m\right|}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c(n_0)\left|\omega _𝐩m\right|}{2\tau _c^{(l)}}}\right).`$ (15)   
The same equation for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-pairing has been derived by the diagram technique for the $`tJ`$ model .

At the numerical solution of the equations (15) more then $`10^6`$ points of the Brillouine zone have been taken. Results of $`T_c(n_0)`$ computations are shown in the Fig.1 and 2 for several values of the coupling constants $`\alpha _l`$. These results have revealed the remarkable difference in $`T_c`$ values: $`T_c^{(p)}T_c^{(d)}`$ when $`\alpha _p=\alpha _d`$. The moderate values of $`\alpha 0.40.5`$ and $`zt0.5eV`$ result in $`T_c^{(p)}1K,T_c^{(d)}100K`$.

It is clear from equations (11),(12) that the $`p`$-type SC is formed by the ferromagnetic interaction, that is the case of $`Sr_2RuO_4`$, and the $`d`$-type SC is induced by the antiferromagnetic interaction in copper oxides. To understand why $`T_c^{(d)}T_c^{(p)}`$ we have analysed the eqn. (15) analytically. Using integration over the constant energy surfaces $`\omega _𝐤=\omega `$ it can be rewritten like

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2c(n_0)}{\alpha _l}}={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _l^2(\omega )}{\left|\omega m\right|}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c(n)\left|\omega m\right|}{2\tau _c}}\right)𝑑\omega ,`$ (16)   
$`\psi _l^2(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left(\sigma _\omega \right)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _l^2(𝐤)}{\left|_𝐤\omega _𝐤\right|}}𝑑\sigma _\omega .`$ (17)   
The sum rule for the $`\psi _l^2(\omega )`$ functions is the same for $`l=p`$ and $`l=d`$ :

$`\frac{1}{N}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _l^2(𝐤)={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{+1}{}}}\psi _l^2(\omega )𝑑\omega =1/4.`$ (18)   
For the $`p`$-state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _p^2(𝐤)}{\left|_𝐤\omega _𝐤\right|}}=\left|_𝐤\omega _𝐤\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}k_x\mathrm{sin}k_y}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+\mathrm{sin}^2k_y}}}`$ (19)   
the second term in (19) gives zero contribution to the integral (17) and $`\psi _p^2(\omega )`$ is rather small with smooth energy dependence, $`\psi _p^2(\omega )(2/\pi ^2)(1\left|\omega \right|^{1.61})`$. For the $`d`$-state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _d^2(𝐤)}{\left|_𝐤\omega _𝐤\right|}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)^2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2k_x+\mathrm{sin}^2k_y}}}`$ (20)   
has the same singularity as the van-Hove singularity in the density of states $`\rho (\omega )`$. The result of calculation is

$`\psi _d^2(\omega )=(1\omega ^2)\rho (\omega )2\psi _p^2(\omega ),`$ (21)   
$`\rho (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}(\left|\omega \right|).`$ (22)   
The comparison of $`\psi _p^2(\omega )`$ and $`\psi _d^2(\omega )`$ has shown that the van-Hove singularity is cancelled in the $`p`$-state and does not cancelled in the $`d`$-state (Fig 3).

In conclusion we have presented the model of strongly correlated electrons in two dimensional lattice that allows to consider the cuprates ($`JI`$) and $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ $`(JI)`$ on the same footing. The singlet SC in the $`s`$-state is absent in the strong correlation limit, the triplet $`p`$-pairing occurs due to the ferromagnetic fluctuations and the singlet $`d`$-pairing is induced by the antiferromagnetic fluctuations. The reason why $`T_c`$ in the cuprates is much higher then in $`Sr_2RuO_4`$ is the different gap anisotropies. For the $`p`$-state $`𝐤`$-dependence of the gap results in the cancellation of the van-Hove singularity while for the $`d`$-state the gap anisotropy permits large van-Hove singularity contribution in the equation for $`T_c`$. For the question what is so specific in the copper oxides for high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity the possible answer may be as follows: it is the planar $`CuO\sigma `$-bonding resulting in the strong antiferromagnetic $`CuCu`$ interaction, that induced the singlet pairing with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry.

We thank N.M.Plakida for useful discussions and I.O.Baklanov for numerical calculations. The work was supported by the Russian Federal Program ”Integration of high school education and science”, grant N69.

\*****

\*Present address: L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics, Krasnoyarsk, 660036, Russia.

Electronic address: sgo@post.krascience.rssi.ru

\- - - - -

 Y.Maeno, H.Hasimoto, K.Yoshida, S.Nisshizaki, T.Fujita, F.Lichtenberg, Nature 372,  532 (1994).

 D.Pines, Physica B 163,  78 (1990).

 T.Oguchi, Phys. Rev. B 51,  1385 (1995).

 N.E.Bickers, D.J.Scalapino, R.T.Scaletar,   
Int. J. Mod. Phys. B1,  687 (1987).

 T.M.Rice, H.Sigrist, J. Phys. Cond. Matter 7,   
L 643 (1995).

 I.I.Mazin, D.J.Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79,    
733 (1997).

 J.B.Goodenough, Magnetism and chemical bond (John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.-London, 1963).

 E.Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66,  763 (1994).

 A.P.Mackenzie, S.R.Julian, A.J.Diver et al,   
Phys. Rev. Lett. 76,  3786 (1996).

 D.J.Singh, Phys. Rev. B 52,  1358 (1995).

 T.M.Riseman, P.G.Kealey, E.M.Forgan,   
A.P.Mackenzie, L.M.Galvin, A.W.Tyger, S.L.Lee,   
C.Ages, D.McK.Paul, C.M.Aegerter, R.Cubitt, Z.Q.Hao, T.Akima, Y.Maeno, Nature (London) 396,  242 (1998).

 S.V.Tyablikov, Methods of quantum theory of magnetism (2-nd edition, Moscow, Nauka, 1975).

 R.O.Zaitsev, V.A.Ivanov, Fiz. tverdogo tela   
(Sov. Solid State Physics) 29,  2554 (1987).

 N.M.Plakida, V.Yu.Yushanhai, I.V.Stasyuk,   
Physica C  160,  80 (1989).

 Yu.A.Izyumov, M.I.Katsnelson, Yu.N.Skryabin, Magnetism of itinerant electrons (Moscow, Nauka, 1994).

\*****