text:
# Vortex state in a doped Mott insulator

## I Introduction

Nature of the ground state as a function of doping remains one of the recurring unresolved issues in the theory of high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors. The problem is partly due to formidable difficulties related to the theoretical description of doped Mott insulators and partly due to experimental hurdles in accessing the normal state properties in the $`T0`$ limit because of the intervening superconducting order. Probes that suppress superconductivity and reveal the properties of the underlying ground state are therefore of considerable value. So far only pulsed magnetic fields in excess of $`H_{c2}`$ and impurity doping beyond the critical concentration have been used towards this goal. Here we argue that the vortex core spectroscopy performed using scanning tunneling microscope (STM) can provide new insights into the nature of the ground state in cuprates. We analyze the existing experimental data and conclude that they imply strongly correlated “normal” ground state, presumably derivable from a doped Mott insulator. We then develop a theoretical framework for the problem of tunneling in the vortex state of such a doped Mott insulator.

In the vortex core the superconducting order parameter is locally suppressed to zero and the region within a coherence length $`\xi `$ from its center can be to the first approximation thought of as normal. Spectroscopy of the vortex core therefore provides information on the normal state electronic excitation spectrum in the $`T0`$ limit. More accurately, the core spectroscopy reflects the spectrum in the spatially non-uniform situation where the order parameter amplitude rapidly varies in response to the singularity in the phase imposed by the external magnetic field. In order to extract useful information regarding the underlying ground state from such measurements a detailed understanding of the vortex core physics is necessary. So far the problem has been addressed using the weak coupling approach based on the Bogoliubov-de Gennes theory generalized to the $`d`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter, and semiclassical calculations. The early theoretical debate focused on the existence or absence of the vortex core bound states . This debate, now resolved in favor of absence of any bound states in pure $`d_{x^{}y^2}`$ state , has somewhat eclipsed the possibly more important issues related to the nature of the ground state in cuprates.

The body of work based on mean field, weak coupling calculations  yields results for the local density of states in the vortex core which exhibit two generic features: (i) the coherence peaks (occurring at $`E=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in the bulk) are suppressed, with the spectral weight transferred to a (ii) broad featureless peak centered around the zero energy. Here we wish to emphasize the heretofore little appreciated fact that these features are qualitatively inconsistent with the existing experimental data on cuprate superconductors. STM spectroscopy on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 (BSCCO) at 4.2K indicates a “pseudogap” spectrum in the vortex core with the spectral weight from the coherence peaks at $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_040`$meV transferred to high energies, and no peak whatsoever around $`E=0`$. Recent high resolution data on the same compound confirmed these findings down to 200mK and found evidence for weak bound states at $`\pm 7`$meV. Experiments on YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO) also indicate low energy bound states, but are somewhat more difficult to interpret because of the high zero-bias conductance of unknown origin appearing even in the absence of magnetic field.

The fundamental discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the experimental findings strongly suggests that models based on a simple weak coupling theory break down in the vortex core. The pseudogap observed in the core hints that the underlying ground state revealed by local suppression of the superconducting order parameter is a doped Mott insulator and not a conventional metal. Taking into account the effects of strong correlations appears to be necessary to consistently describe the physics of the vortex core. Conversely, studying the vortex core physics could provide information essential for understanding the nature of the underlying ground state in cuprates.

The first step in this direction was taken by Arovas et al.  who proposed that within the framework of the SO(5) theory  vortex cores could become antiferromagnetic (AF). They found that such AF cores can be stabilized at low $`T`$ but only in the close vicinity of the bulk AF phase. In contrast, experimentally the pseudogap in the core is found to persist into the overdoped region. More recently microscopic calculations within the same model revealed electronic excitations in such AF cores with behavior roughly resembling the experimental data. Quantitatively, however, these spectra exhibit asymmetric shifts in the coherence peaks (related to the fact that spin gap in the AF core is no longer tied to the Fermi level) not observed experimentally. These discrepancies suggest that generically cores will not exhibit the true AF order. Finally, these previous approaches are still of the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov type and cannot be expected to properly capture the effects of strong correlations.

Here we consider a model for the vortex core based on a version of the U(1) gauge field slave boson theory formulated recently by Lee. Originally proposed by Anderson the slave boson theory was formulated to describe strongly correlated electrons in the CuO2 planes of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Various versions of this theory have been extensively discussed in the literature . Interest in spin-charge separated systems revived recently due to the realization that it provides a natural description of the pseudogap phenomenon observed in the underdoped cuprates. The common ingredient in these theories is “splintering” of the electron into quasiparticles carrying its spin and charge degrees of freedom. Within the theories based on Hubbard and $`t`$-$`J`$ models this splintering is formally implemented by the decomposition of the electron creation operator

$$c_{i\sigma }^{}=f_{i\sigma }^{}b_i$$
(1)
into a fermionic spinon $`f_{i\sigma }`$ and bosonic holon $`b_i`$. The local constraint of the single occupancy $`b_i^{}b_i+f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }=1`$ is enforced by a fluctuating U(1) gauge field $`𝐚`$. The mean field phase diagram is known to contain four phases distinguished by the formation of spinon pairs, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=ϵ_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}`$, and Bose-Einstein condensation of the individual holons $`b=b_i`$, and is illustrated in Figure (1).

The effects of magnetic field on such spin-charge separated system is most conveniently studied in the framework of an effective Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory for the condensate fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`b`$. The corresponding effective action can be constructed based on the requirements of local gauge invariance with respect to the physical electromagnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$ and the internal gauge field $`𝐚`$:

$`f_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ $`=`$ $`|(2i𝐚)\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+r_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`|(i𝐚ie𝐀)b|^2+r_b|b|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_b|b|^4+v|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2|b|^2`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times 𝐀)^2+f_{\mathrm{gauge}}.`$ (4)
The factor of 2 in the spinon gradient term reflects the fact that pairs of spinons were assumed to condense. $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ describes the dynamics of the internal gauge field $`𝐚`$. We note that unlike the physical electromagnetic field $`𝐀`$ the gauge field $`𝐚`$ has no independent dynamics in the underlying microscopic model since it serves only to enforce a constraint. Sachdev and Nagaosa and Lee assumed that upon integrating out the microscopic degrees of freedom a term

$$f_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\frac{\sigma }{2}(\times 𝐚)^2$$
(5)
is generated in the free energy. They then analyzed vortex solutions of the free energy (4) and came to the conclusion that two types of vortices are permissible: a “holon vortex” with the singularity in the $`b`$ field and a “spinon vortex” with the singularity in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ field. Because holons carry electric charge $`e`$ the holon vortex is threaded by electronic flux quantum $`hc/e`$, i.e. twice the conventional superconducting flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$. Spinons on the other hand condense in pairs, and the spinon vortex therefore carries flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Stability analysis then implies that spinon vortex will be stable over the most of the superconducting phase diagram, while the $`hc/e`$ holon vortex can be stabilized only in the close vicinity of the phase boundary on the underdoped side . This is a direct consequence of the fact that singly quantized vortices are always energetically favorable.

As far as the electronic excitations are concerned, the spinon vortex is virtually indistinguishable from the vortex in a conventional weak coupling mean field theory: the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which gives rise to the gap in the electron spectrum, vanishes in the core. Consequently, the vortex state based on the results of Sachdev-Nagaosa-Lee (SNL) theory does not exhibit the pseudogap in the core and suffers from the same discrepancy with the experimental data as the weak coupling theories based on the conventional Fermi liquid description. Moreover, no evidence exists at present for stable doubly quantized holon vortices predicted by SNL. What is needed to account for the experimental data is a singly quantized holon vortex stable over the large portion of the superconducting phase in the phase diagram of Figure 1. In the core of such a holon vortex the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remains finite and leads naturally to the pseudogap excitation spectrum. In what follows we show that under certain conditions the free energy (4) permits precisely such solution.

The results of the SNL theory are predicated upon the assumption that the “stiffness” $`\sigma `$ of the gauge field is relatively large and that singular configurations in which $`\times 𝐚`$ contains a full flux quantum through an elementary plaquette are prohibited. Consider now a precisely opposite physical situation, allowing unconstrained fluctuations in $`𝐚`$. This amounts to the assumption that the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term (5) can be neglected in (4), i.e. $`\sigma 0`$. Physically this corresponds to the “extreme type-I” limit of the GL “superconductor” (4) with respect to fluctuations in $`𝐚`$. Based on Elitzur’s theorem Nayak recently argued that the exact local U(1) symmetry of the model cannot be broken, implying absence of the phase stiffness term (5) at all energy scales. Our assumption therefore appears reasonable and in Section III. we shall give a more thorough discussion of the significance of the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term for the vortex solutions of interest here. For the time being we shall assume that $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ can be neglected and explore physical consequences of the resulting theory.

$`f_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ given by Eq. (4) is quadratic in $`𝐚`$ and with the $`\times 𝐚`$ term absent the gauge fluctuations can be trivially integrated out. Within the closely related microscopic model this procedure has been recently implemented by Lee. The resulting effective free energy density reads

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{amp}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b^2}{4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\rho _b^2}}(\varphi 2\theta +2e𝐀)^2`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times 𝐀)^2,`$ (7)
where we have set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\varphi }`$, $`b=\rho _be^{i\theta }`$, and

$`f_{\mathrm{amp}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho _\mathrm{\Delta })^2+r_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^4`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`(\rho _b)^2+r_b\rho _b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_b\rho _b^4+v\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b^2`$ (9)
is the amplitude piece. The most important feature of the effective free energy (7) is that it no longer depends on the individual phases $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ but only on their particular combination

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\varphi 2\theta .$$
(10)
Since the physical superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}b^2=\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _b^2e^{i(\varphi 2\theta )}`$ it is reasonable to identify $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the phase of a Cooper pair. Physically, the unconstrained fluctuations of the gauge field in Eq. (4) resulted in partial restoration of the original electronic degrees of freedom in Eq. (7). In the underlying microscopic model this means that on long length scales spinons and holons are always confined, in agreement with Elitzur’s theorem . On lengthscales shorter than the confinement length, such as inside the vortex core, spinons and holons can still appear locally decoupled. In the present effective theory this aspect is reflected by two amplitude degrees of freedom present in (7). More detailed discussion of these issues is given in Refs. .

We have thus arrived at an effective theory of a spin-charge separated system containing one phase degree of freedom $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and two amplitudes, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _b`$. Deep in the superconducting phase, where both amplitudes are finite, the physics of (7) will be very similar to that of a conventional GL theory. In the situations where the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is strongly suppressed, such as in the vortex core, near an impurity or a wall, the new theory has an extra degree of richness, associated with the fact that it is sufficient (and generally preferred by the energetics) when only one of the two amplitudes is suppressed. Since the two amplitudes play very different roles in the electronic excitation spectrum, the effective theory (7) will lead to a number of nontrivial effects.

To illustrate this consider what will happen in the core of a superconducting vortex. Under the influence of the magnetic field the phase $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will develop a singularity such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }1/r`$ close to the vortex center. For the free energy to remain finite the amplitude prefactor in the second term of Eq. (7) must vanish for $`r0`$. This is analogous to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ vanishing in the core of a conventional vortex. In the present case, however, it is sufficient when the product $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _b`$ vanishes. Since suppressing any of the two amplitudes costs condensation energy, in general only one amplitude will be driven to zero. Which of the two is suppressed will be determined by the energetics of the amplitude term (9). On general grounds we expect that the state in the vortex core will be the same as the corresponding bulk “normal” state obtained by raising temperature above $`T_c`$. Thus, very crudely, we expect that holon vortex will be stable in the underdoped while the spinon vortex will be stable in the overdoped region of the phase diagram Figure 1.

An important point by which our approach differs from the SNL theory is that in the present theory both types of vortices carry the same superconducting flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and thus compete on equal footing. This is a direct consequence of our assumption of the vanishing phase stiffness $`\sigma `$.

In what follows we study in detail the vortex solutions of the free energy (7). Our main objective is to obtain the precise estimates for the energy of the two types of vortices as a function of temperature and doping and deduce the corresponding phase diagram for the state inside the vortex core. We show that for generic parameters in (7) the singly quantized holon vortex with a pseudogap spectrum in the core can be stabilized over a large portion of the superconducting phase, as required by the experimental constraints discussed above.

## II Solution for a single vortex

### A General considerations

In order to provide a more quantitative discussion we now adopt some assumptions about the coefficients entering the free energy (7). We assume that

$$r_i=\alpha _i(TT_i),i=b,\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(11)
where $`T_i`$ are corresponding “bare” critical temperatures, which we assume depend on doping concentration $`x`$ in the following way:

$$T_\mathrm{\Delta }=T_0(2x_mx),T_b=T_0x.$$
(12)
Here $`x_m`$ denotes the optimal doping and $`T_0`$ sets the overall temperature scale. We furthermore assume that $`u_i`$ and $`v`$ are all positive and independent of doping and temperature. It is easy to see that such choice of parameters qualitatively reproduces the bulk phase diagram of cuprates in the $`x`$-$`T`$ plane shown in Figure 1. The effect of the $`v`$-term is to suppress $`T_c`$ from its bare value away from the optimal doping. In real systems fluctuations will lead to additional suppression of $`T_c`$ which we do not consider here.

In the absence of perturbations the bulk values of the amplitudes are given by

$`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ $`=`$ $`(r_\mathrm{\Delta }u_br_bv)/D,`$ (13)
$`\overline{\rho }_b^2`$ $`=`$ $`(r_bu_\mathrm{\Delta }r_\mathrm{\Delta }v)/D,`$ (14)
with $`D=u_bu_\mathrm{\Delta }v^2`$. In analogy with conventional GL theories we may define coherence lengths for the two amplitudes

$`\xi _\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ $`=`$ $`(r_\mathrm{\Delta }r_bv/u_b),`$ (15)
$`\xi _b^2`$ $`=`$ $`(r_br_\mathrm{\Delta }v/u_\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (16)
one of which always diverges at $`T_c`$ as $`(TT_c)^{1/2}`$.

Minimization of the free energy (7) with respect to the vector potential $`𝐀`$ yields an equation

$$\times \times 𝐀=e\rho _s(\mathrm{\Omega }2e𝐀),$$
(17)
where

$$\rho _s=\frac{4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b^2}{4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\rho _b^2}$$
(18)
is the effective superfluid density. The term in brackets can be identified as twice the conventional superfluid velocity

$$𝐯_s=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }e𝐀.$$

Making use of the Ampere’s law $`4\pi 𝐣=\times 𝐁`$ we see that Eq. (17) specifies the supercurrent in terms superfluid density and velocity: $`𝐣=2e\rho _s𝐯_s`$. Minimization of (7) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then implies $`𝐣=0`$; the supercurrent is conserved.

Minimizing the free energy (7) with respect to the amplitudes results in the pair of coupled GL equations:

$$^2\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }+r_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }+u_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^3+v\rho _b^2\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b^2}{(4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\rho _b^2)^2}𝐯_s^2=0,$$
(20)
$$^2\rho _b+r_b\rho _b+u_b\rho _b^3+v\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b+\frac{16\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho _b^2}{(4\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\rho _b^2)^2}𝐯_s^2=0.$$
(21)
We are interested in the behavior of the amplitudes in the vicinity of the vortex center. In this region, for a strongly type-II superconductor, we may neglect the vector potential A in the superfluid velocity $`𝐯_s`$. In a singly quantized vortex $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ winds by $`2\pi `$ around the origin leading to a singularity of the form $`𝐯_s\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }=\widehat{\phi }/2r`$. First, for the holon vortex we assume that $`\rho _b`$ vanishes in the core as some power $`\rho _b(r)r^\nu `$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }(r)\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remains approximately constant. Eq. (21) then becomes

$$(\frac{1}{4}\nu ^2)r^{\nu 2}+(r_b+v\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }^2)r^\nu +u_b\overline{\rho }_b^2r^{3\nu }=0,$$
(22)
where we have neglected $`\rho _b^2(r)`$ compared to $`4\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ in the denominator of the last term in Eq. (21). The most singular term in Eq. (22) is the first one and we must demand that the coefficient of $`r^{\nu 2}`$ vanishes. This implies $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$. The asymptotic short distance behavior of the holon amplitude therefore can be written as

$$\rho _b(r)c_b\overline{\rho }_b\left(\frac{r}{\xi _b}\right)^{1/2},$$
(23)
where $`c_b`$ is a constant of order unity which may be determined by the full integration of Eqs. (II A). Similar analysis of Eq. (20) in the vicinity of the spinon vortex yields

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }(r)c_\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{r}{\xi _d}\right),$$
(24)
with $`\rho _b`$ approximately constant.

We notice the different power laws in the holon and spinon results. Operationally this difference arises from different numerical prefactors of the respective superfluid velocity terms in Eqs. (II A). Physically, the unusual $`r`$ dependence of the holon amplitude in the core reflects the fact that the field $`b`$ describes a condensate of single holons, each carrying charge $`e`$. Superconducting vortex with the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ represents a magnetic “half-flux” for the holon field which results in non-analytic behavior of $`\rho _b(r)`$ at the origin. Singly quantized holon vortex is therefore a peculiar object and we shall discuss it more fully in Section III. Here we note that the physical superconducting order parameter amplitude $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|=\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _b^2`$ remains analytic in the core of both the spinon and the holon vortex.

### B Holon vs. spinon vortex: the phase diagram

We are now in the position to estimate the energies of the two types of vortices and deduce the phase diagram for the “normal” state in the vortex core. To this end we consider a single isolated vortex centered at the origin. The total vortex line energy can be divided into electromagnetic and core contributions. The electromagnetic contribution consists of the energy of the supercurrents and the magnetic field outside the core region. It may be estimated by assuming that the amplitudes $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _b`$ have reached their bulk values $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_b`$ respectively. Taking curl of Eq. (17) and noting that $`\times \mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi \delta (𝐫)`$ for a singly quantized vortex we obtain the London equation for the magnetic field $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$ of the form

$$B\lambda ^2^2B=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\delta (𝐫)$$
(25)
where

$$\lambda ^2=8\pi e^2\frac{4\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }^2\overline{\rho }_b^2}{4\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\overline{\rho }_b^2}.$$
(26)
has the meaning of the London penetration depth for the effective GL theory (7). Aside from the unusual form of $`\lambda `$, Eq. (25) is identical to the conventional London equation. The corresponding electromagnetic energy is therefore the same for both types of vortices and can be calculated in the usual manner obtaining

$$E_{\mathrm{EM}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda }\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\kappa ,$$
(27)
with $`\kappa =\lambda /\mathrm{max}(\xi _\mathrm{\Delta },\xi _b)`$ being the generalized GL ratio.

To estimate the core contribution to the vortex line energy we assume that one of the amplitudes is suppressed to zero in the core

$$\rho _i(r)=0,r<\xi _i,$$
(28)
while the other one stays constant and equal to its bulk value. This is a very crude approximation which we justify below by an exact numerical computation. With these assumptions, the core energy is

$$E_{\mathrm{core}}^{(i)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda _i}\right)^2,$$
(29)
where $`i=\mathrm{\Delta },b`$ for spinon and holon vortex respectively and

$$\lambda _i^2=8\pi e^2\overline{\rho }_i^2.$$
(30)
Such a crude approximation overestimates the core energy. A more accurate analysis, which we do not pursue here, allows for a more realistic variation of $`\rho _i(r)`$ in the core and indicates that the value of $`E_{\mathrm{core}}^{(i)}`$ has the same form as Eq. (29) multiplied by a numerical factor $`c_10.5`$. Thus, the total energy of the vortex line can be written as

$$E^{(i)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda }\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\kappa +c_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda _i}\right)^2,$$
(31)
where again $`i=\mathrm{\Delta },b`$ for spinon and holon vortex respectively. Eq. (31) parallels the Abrikosov expression for the vortex line energy in a conventional GL theory where $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _i`$ are identical and equal to the ordinary London penetration depth.

In the vortex state described by the free energy (7) the vortex with lower energy $`E^{(i)}`$ will be stabilized. Eq. (31) implies that the difference in energy between the two types of vortices comes primarily from the core contribution, as expected on the basis of the physical argument presented above. Condition $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }=\lambda _b`$ marks the transition point between the two solutions. For fixed GL parameters $`T_0`$, $`x_m`$, $`\alpha _i`$, $`u_i`$ and $`v`$ this defines a transition line in the $`x`$-$`T`$ plane. According to (30) the equation for this line is

$$\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }(x,T)=\overline{\rho }_b(x,T).$$
(32)
Using Eqs. (11-14) one can obtain an explicit expression for the transition temperature $`T_g`$ between two types of vortices as a function of doping

$$T_g(x)=T_0\left[\frac{2x_mx}{1\beta }+\frac{x}{1\beta ^1}\right],$$
(33)
with

$$\beta =\frac{\alpha _b(u_\mathrm{\Delta }+v)}{\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }(u_b+v)}.$$
(34)
Eq. (33) describes a straight line in the $`x`$-$`T`$ plane, originating at $`[x_m,T_0x_m]`$, i.e. maximal $`T_c`$ at optimum doping, and terminating at $`[2x_m/(1+\beta ),0]`$. Generically, we expect that parameters $`\alpha _i`$ and $`u_i`$ will be comparable in magnitude for the holon and spinon channels. Parameter $`\beta `$ defined in Eq. (34) will therefore be of order unity. The typical situation for $`\beta =0.77`$ is illustrated in Figure 2. More generally the quartic coefficients $`u_i`$ and $`v`$ could exhibit weak doping and temperature dependences leading to a curvature in the phase boundary.

The appealing feature of the present theory is that parameter $`\beta `$ may vary from compound to compound. Thus, the experimental fact that in BSCCO the pseudogap in the core persists into the overdoped region is easily accounted for in the present theory. It would be interesting to see if the transition from holon to spinon vortex as a function of doping could be experimentally observed. A good candidate for such observation would be LSCO, where the transport measurements in pulsed magnetic fields established a metal-insulator transition around optimal doping, i.e. $`\beta 1`$. The current theory predicts a holon vortex with the pseudogap spectrum in the underdoped (insulating) region and spinon vortex with conventional metallic spectrum on the overdoped side.

### C Numerical results

In order to put the above analytical estimates on firmer ground we now pursue numerical computation of the vortex line energy. For simplicity we consider the strongly type-II situation $`(\kappa 1)`$ where the vector potential term in $`𝐯_s`$ can be neglected to an excellent approximation, as long as we focus on the behavior close to the core. We are then faced with the task of numerically minimizing the free energy (7) with respect to the two cylindrically symmetric amplitudes $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ and $`\rho _b(r)`$. As noted by Sachdev  direct numerical minimization of the free energy (7) provides a more robust solution than the numerical integration of the coupled differential equations (II A).

We discretize the free energy functional (7) on a disk of a radius $`R\xi _i`$ in the radial coordinate $`r`$ with up to $`N=2000`$ spatial points. We then employ the Polak-Ribiere variant of the Conjugate Gradient Method  to minimize this discretized functional with respect to $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }(r_j)`$ and $`\rho _b(r_j)`$, initialized to suitable single vortex trial functions. The procedure converges very rapidly and the results are insensitive to the detailed shape of the trial functions as long as they saturate to the correct bulk values outside the vortex core.

Typical results of our numerical computations are displayed in Figure (3) and are in complete agreement with the analytical considerations of the preceding subsections. Note in particular that $`\rho _b(r)`$ in the holon vortex vanishes with infinite slope, consistent with Eq. (23). Plotting $`\rho _b^2(r)`$ confirms that the exponent is indeed $`1/2`$. In the spinon vortex $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ is seen to vanish linearly as expected on the basis of Eq. (24). The nonvanishing order parameter is slightly elevated in the core reflecting the effective “repulsion” between the two amplitudes contained in the $`v`$-term of the free energy. The results for the spinon vortex are consistent with those of Ref. .

We explored a number of other parameter configurations and obtained similar results. We find that Eq. (32) is a good predictor of the transition line between the holon and spinon vortex, although the precise numerical value of the transition temperature $`T_g`$ for given $`x`$ tends to deviate slightly from the value predicted by Eq. (33). This is illustrated in Figure (2) where we compare the vortex core phase diagrams obtained numerically and from Eq. (33). Interestingly, the deviation always tends to enlarge the holon vortex sector of the phase diagram at the expense of the spinon vortex sector. This is presumably because the sharper $`\sqrt{r}`$ suppression of the holon order parameter in the core costs less condensation energy.

## III Gauge fluctuations and the spectral properties in the core

Theory of the vortex core based on the effective action (7) appears to yield results consistent with the STM data on cuprates  in that it implies stable holon vortex solution over the large portion of the superconducting phase diagram. The state inside the core of such a holon vortex is characterized by vanishing amplitude of the holon condensate field, $`|b|=0`$, and a finite spin gap $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$. This is the same state as in the pseudogap region above $`T_c`$. One would thus expect the electronic spectrum in the core to be similar to that found in the normal state of the underdoped cuprates, in agreement with the data. The holon vortex with this property carries conventional superconducting flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, in accord with experiment. This general agreement between theory and experiment would suggest that the effective action (7) provides the sought for phenomenological description of the vortex core physics in cuprates. In what follows we amplify our argumentation that it is also tenable in a broader theoretical context in that it naturally follows from the U(1) slave boson models extensively studied in the classic and more recent high-$`T_c`$ literature. We then provide a more detailed discussion of the vortex core spectra and propose an explanation for the experimentally observed core bound states.

### A Significance of the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term

Derivation of the effective action (7) from the more general U(1) action (4) hinges on our assumption that the stiffness $`\sigma `$ of the gauge field $`𝐚`$ is low and that the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term (5) can be neglected. Assumption of large $`\sigma `$ by SNL leads to very different vortex solutions which appear inconsistent with the recent experimental data. We first expand on our discussion as to why is $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term important and then we argue why it may be permissible to neglect it in the realistic models of cuprates.

To facilitate the discussion let us rewrite Eq. (4) by resolving the complex matter fields into amplitude and phase components:

$`f_{\mathrm{GL}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{amp}}+\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\varphi 2𝐚)^2+\rho _b^2(\theta 𝐚e𝐀)^2`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}(\times 𝐀)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}(\times 𝐚)^2,`$ (36)
with $`f_{\mathrm{amp}}`$ specified by Eq. (9). Now consider situation in which the sample is subjected to uniform magnetic field $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$. Two scenarios (discussed previously by SNL) appear possible. In the first, the internal gauge field develops no net flux, $`\times 𝐚=0`$, and the holon phase $`\theta `$ develops singularities in response to $`𝐀`$ such that

$$\times \theta =2\pi \underset{j}{}\delta (𝐫𝐫_j),$$

where $`𝐫_j`$ denotes the vortex positions. The holon amplitude $`\rho _b`$ is driven to zero at $`𝐫_j`$, essentially to prevent the free energy from diverging due to the singularity in the phase gradient. Since holons carry charge $`e`$, each vortex is threaded by flux $`hc/e`$, i.e. twice the superconducting flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$. This solution represents the doubly quantized holon vortex lattice, considered by SNL.

In the second scenario $`𝐚`$ develops a net flux such that $`𝐚e𝐀`$, which screens out the $`𝐀`$ field in the holon term but produces a net flux $`2e𝐀`$ in the spinon term. In response to this flux, spinon phase $`\varphi `$ develops singularities such that

$$\times \varphi =2\pi \underset{j}{}\delta (𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐫}_j),$$

corresponding to the spinon vortex lattice. $`\stackrel{~}{𝐫}_j`$ denotes vortex positions which will be different from $`𝐫_j`$ since at the fixed field $`B`$ there will be twice as many spinon vortices as holon vortices. (Spinon vortices carry conventional superconducting quantum of flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.) In this case $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is driven to zero at the vortex centers. In this scenario one pays a penalty for nucleating the net flux in $`\times 𝐚`$ due to last term in Eq. (36). This energy cost can be estimated as

$$E_\sigma 8\pi \sigma e^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda }\right)^2$$
(37)
per vortex. Stiffness $`\sigma `$ must be small enough so that $`E_\sigma `$ is small compared to the vortex energy (31). Taking the dominant $`E_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ term and neglecting $`\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$ this implies that

$$\sigma \frac{1}{8\pi e^2},$$
(38)
which is the same condition as considered in Ref. .

Now consider a third scenario in which a singly quantized holon vortex emerges. As a starting point consider the spinon vortex solution just described. In the underdoped regime the amplitude piece $`f_{\mathrm{amp}}`$ would favor suppressing the holon amplitude in the core instead of the spinon amplitude but according to our previous considerations this would ordinarily require formation of a doubly quantized vortex whose magnetic energy is too large. However, if the gauge field stiffness $`\sigma `$ is sufficiently small, the system could lower its free energy by setting up singularities in $`𝐚`$ which would precisely cancel the singularities in $`\varphi `$ and shift them to the holon term. To arrive at this situation imagine contracting the initially uniform flux $`\times 𝐚`$ so that it becomes localized in the individual vortex core regions. Taking this procedure to the extreme, i.e. taking the limit $`\sigma 0`$, the gauge field will form “flux spikes” of the form

$$2(\times 𝐚)=\times \varphi =2\pi \underset{j}{}\delta (𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐫}_j),$$
(39)
completely localized at the vortex centers. Gauge field of this form indeed completely cancels the singularities in the spinon phase gradient in Eq. (36) and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is no longer forced to vanish in the core. The singularities now appear in the holon term, but they stem from $`𝐚`$ rather that $`\theta `$ which remains nonsingular. Consequently, $`\rho _b`$ is forced to vanish in the vortex cores. By construction the vortices are located at $`\stackrel{~}{𝐫}_j`$ and are therefore singly quantized. This is the singly quantized holon vortex discussed in the framework of the free energy (7). Based on the above discussion the singly quantized holon vortex can be thought of as a composite object formed by attaching half quantum $`(h/2)`$ of the fictitious gauge flux $`\times 𝐚`$ to the spinon vortex. Within the full compact U(1) theory this is essentially equivalent to the Z2 vortex discussed by Wen in the framework of topological orders in spin liquids.

In the framework of the free energy (36) one pays a penalty for such a singular solution due to the gauge stiffness term. In the present continuum model this penalty per single vortex is actually infinite, since according to Eq. (39) it involves a spatial integral over $`[\delta (𝐫\stackrel{~}{𝐫}_j)]^2`$. Thus, in the continuum model the singular solutions of this type are prohibited. In reality, however, we have to recall that our effective action (4) descended from a microscopic lattice model for spinons and holons in which the gauge field $`𝐚`$ lives on the nearest neighbor bonds of the ionic lattice. The ionic lattice constant $`d`$ therefore provides a natural short distance cutoff and the delta function in Eq. (39) should be interpreted as a flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ piercing an elementary plaquette of the lattice. The energy cost per vortex thus becomes finite and is given by

$$E_\sigma ^{}\frac{\sigma e^2}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{d}\right)^2.$$
(40)
Again, for the solution to be stable, $`E_\sigma ^{}`$ must be negligible compared to the vortex energy (31). This implies

$$\sigma \frac{1}{8\pi ^2e^2}\left(\frac{d}{\lambda }\right)^2,$$
(41)
which is a much more stringent condition than (38) since in cuprates $`d\lambda `$.

When condition (41) is satisfied it is permissible to neglect the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term in the effective action (4) and it becomes fully equivalent to (7) as far as the vortex solutions are concerned. Eq. (41) gives the precise meaning to the requirement of the weak stiffness of the gauge field loosely stated when deriving the effective action (7).

### B Microscopic considerations

As mentioned in the introduction, the gauge field $`𝐚`$ has no dynamics in the original U(1) microscopic model, as it only serves to enforce a constraint on spinons and holons. The stiffness term (5) in the effective theory was assumed to arise in the process of integrating out the microscopic degrees of freedom. While such term is certainly permitted by symmetry, assessing its strength $`\sigma `$ is a nontrivial issue since even deep in the superconducting phase neither holons nor spinons are truly gapped. Thus, in general, integrating out these degrees of freedom may lead to singular and nonlocal interactions between the condensate and the gauge fields. To our knowledge the procedure has not been explicitly performed for the U(1) model and the precise form or magnitude of the gauge stiffness term is unknown. General considerations suggest that the gauge stiffness term is negligible in the class of models with exact local U(1) symmetry connecting the phases of holons and spinons.

Consider now an intermediate representation of the problem where only high energy microscopic degrees of freedom have been integrated out. In the presence of a cutoff this is a well defined procedure even for gapless excitations, as explicitly shown by Kwon and Dorsey for a simple BCS model. The corresponding effective Lagrangian density of the present U(1) model can be written as

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu }{2}}(_\mu \varphi 2a_\mu )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _b^\mu }{2}}(_\mu \theta a_\mu eA_\mu )^2f_{\mathrm{amp}}`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`(_\mu \varphi 2a_\mu )J_{\mathrm{sp}}^\mu +(_\mu \theta a_\mu eA_\mu )J_h^\mu `$ (43)
$`+`$ $`_{\mathrm{sp}}[\psi _{\mathrm{sp}},\psi _{\mathrm{sp}}^{};\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }]+_h[\psi _h,\psi _h^{};\rho _b]+_{\mathrm{EM}}[A_\mu ].`$ (44)
The Greek index $`\mu `$ runs over time and two spatial dimensions, $`\kappa _i^0`$ are compressibilities of the holon and spinon condensates, while

$$\kappa _i^j=2(\rho _i)^2,i=\mathrm{\Delta },b,j=1,2,$$
(45)
are the respective phase stiffnesses. $`J_{\mathrm{sp}}^\mu `$ and $`J_h^\mu `$ are spinon and holon three currents respectively and $`_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ and $`_h`$ are the low energy effective Lagrangians for the fermionic spinon field $`\psi _{\mathrm{sp}}`$ and bosonic holon field $`\psi _h`$. $`_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ is the Maxwell Lagrangian for the physical electromagnetic field. Thus, $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ describes an effective low energy theory of spinons and holons coupled to their respective collective modes and a fluctuating U(1) gauge field. Similar theory has been recently considered by Lee.

The precise form of the microscopic Lagrangians $`_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ and $`_h`$ is not important for our discussion. The salient feature which we exploit here is that only the amplitude of the respective condensate field enters into $`_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ and $`_h`$. Coupling to the phases and the gauge field is contained entirely in the Doppler shift terms \[second line of Eq. (44)\]. Such form of the coupling is largely dictated by the requirements of the gauge invariance and the particular form Eq. (44) can be explicitly derived by gauging away the respective phase factors from the $`\psi `$ fields.

The gauge field $`a_\mu `$ enters the effective Lagrangian (44) only via two gauge invariant terms: $`(_\mu \varphi 2a_\mu )`$ and $`(_\mu \theta a_\mu eA_\mu )`$, which may be interpreted as the three velocities of the spinon and holon condensates respectively. Furthermore, the only coupling between holons and spinons arises from $`a_\mu `$. Therefore, if we now proceed to integrate out the remaining microscopic degrees of freedom from $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the two velocity terms will not mix. This consideration suggests that upon integrating out all of the microscopic degrees of freedom, the resulting gauge stiffness term will be of the form

$`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}[\times (2𝐚\varphi )]^2`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _b}{2}}[\times (𝐚+e𝐀\theta )]^2.`$ (47)
Clearly, such term is permitted by the gauge symmetry. Furthermore, we note that for smooth (i.e. vortex free) configurations of phases the gradient terms will contribute nothing and we recover the gauge term considered in Ref. .

In the presence of a vortex in $`\varphi `$ or $`\theta `$ the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}^{}`$ term will contribute formally divergent energy. Regularizing this on the lattice, as discussed above Eq. (40), this energy will become finite and can be interpreted simply as the energy of the spinon or holon vortex core states, which have been integrated out. In the microscopic theory (44) such energy would arise upon solving the relevant fermionic or bosonic vortex problem.

We stress that, as concluded in the preceding subsection, the main theoretical obstacle to the formation of a singly quantized holon vortex in the original SNL theory was the appearance of a formally divergent contribution in the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term (5). The argument above suggests that $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ in Eq. (4) should be replaced by Eq. (47), in which such formally divergent contribution appears for arbitrary vortex configuration and upon regularization has a simple physical interpretation in terms of the energy of the vortex core states. Usage of the physically motivated term (47) in place of (5) therefore removes the bias against the singly quantized holon vortex solution, which appears to be realized in real materials. With (47) any bias between the holon and spinon vortex solutions can result only from the difference between the two stiffness constants $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _b`$. It is reasonable on physical grounds to assume that constants $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _b`$ are of the similar magnitudes. Furthermore, on the basis of Ref.  we expect these constants to be negligibly small in the physically relevant models. Consequently we expect that neglecting the $`f_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ term as in our derivation of effective action (7) will result in accurate determination of the phase diagram for the state in the vortex core.

### C Vortex core states

The phenomenological theory based on the effective action (7) does not allow us to address the interesting question of the nature of the fermionic states in the vortex core. To do this we need to consider the microscopic Lagrangian density (44). While the fully self consistent calculation is likely to be prohibitively difficult, one can obtain qualitative insights by first solving the GL theory (7) as described in Sec. II, and then using the order parameters $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _b`$ as an input to the fermionic and bosonic sectors of the theory specified by Eq. (44). The work on a detailed solution of this type is in progress. Here we wish to point out some interesting features of such a theory and argue that it may indeed exhibit structure in the low energy spectral density similar to that found experimentally.

It is instructive to integrate out the gauge fluctuations from the Lagrangian (44) as first discussed by Lee. Since $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is quadratic in $`a_\mu `$ the integration can be explicitly performed resulting in the Lagrangian of the form

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_\mu (v_s^\mu )^2f_{\mathrm{amp}}+_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ (48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _b^\mu }{4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +\kappa _b^\mu }}(v_s^\mu J_{\mathrm{sp}}^\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu }{4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +\kappa _b^\mu }}(v_s^\mu J_h^\mu )`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`_{\mathrm{sp}}+_h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +\kappa _b^\mu }}(2J_{\mathrm{sp}}^\mu +J_h^\mu )^2,`$ (50)
where $`K_\mu =4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \kappa _b^\mu /(4\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu +\kappa _b^\mu )`$ and

$$v_s^\mu =(_\mu \theta \frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi eA_\mu )$$
(51)
is the physical superfluid velocity. The first line reproduces the GL effective action (7) for the condensate fields, the second line describes the Doppler shift coupling of the superfluid velocity to the microscopic currents, and the third line contains spinon and holon pieces with additional current-current interactions generated by the gauge fluctuations.

We now discuss the physical implications of Eq. (50) for the two types of vortices. We focus on the static solutions (i.e. we ignore the time dependences of various quantities, e.g. taking $`v_s^0=0`$) of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ in the presence of a single isolated vortex. We are interested in the local spectral function of a physical electron. This is given by a convolution in the energy variable of the spinon and holon spectral functions. According to the analysis presented in Ref. , at low temperatures the electron spectral function will be essentially equal to the spinon spectral function. Convolution with the holon spectral function which is dominated by the sharp coherent peak due to the condensate merely leads to a small broadening of the order $`T`$. In the following we therefore focus on the behavior of spinons in the vicinity of the two types of vortices.

By inspecting Eq. (50) it is easy to see that the excitations inside the spinon vortex will be qualitatively very similar to those found in the conventional vortex described by the weak coupling $`d`$-wave BCS theory. In particular according to Eq. (24) we have $`\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }r^2`$, and $`\kappa _b`$ const in the core. Recalling furthermore that $`|𝐯_s|1/r`$ we observe that the spinon current $`𝐉_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ is coupled to a term that diverges as $`1/r`$ in the core (just as in a conventional vortex), while the holon current $`𝐉_h`$ is coupled to a nonsingular term. Thus, one may conclude that holons remain essentially unperturbed by the phase singularity in the spinon vortex while the spinons obey the essentially conventional Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations for a $`d`$-wave vortex.

In the holon vortex the situation is quite different. According to Eq. (23) we have $`\kappa _br`$ and $`\kappa _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ const in the core. The spinon current $`𝐉_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ is now coupled to a nonsingular term ($`1/r`$ divergence in $`v_s`$ is canceled by $`\kappa _br`$). Therefore, there will be no topological perturbation in the spinon sector and we expect the spinon wavefunctions to be essentially unperturbed by the diverging superfluid velocity. Spinon spectral density in the core should be qualitatively similar to that far outside the core. This is our basis for expecting a pseudogap-like spectrum in the core of a holon vortex.

We now address the possible origin of the experimentally observed vortex core states within the present scenario for a holon vortex. To this end consider the effect of the last term in Eq. (50) which we ignored so far. Upon expanding the binomial the temporal component is seen to contain a density-density interaction of the form $`J_{\mathrm{sp}}^0J_h^0`$ where $`J_h^0`$ is the local density of uncondensed holons. Since the holon order parameter vanishes in the core and the electric neutrality dictates that the total density of holons must be approximately constant in space, we expect that uncondesed holon density will behave roughly as

$`J_h^0(r)=\overline{\rho }_b\rho _b(r);`$

$`J_h^0(r)`$ will have a spike in the core of a holon vortex. Insofar as $`J_h^0(r)`$ can be viewed as a static potential acting on spinons, the uncondensed holons in the vortex core can be thought of as creating a scattering potential, akin to an impurity embedded in a $`d`$-wave superconductor. In fact, formally the spinon problem is identical to the problem of a fermionic quasiparticle in a $`d`$-wave superconductor in zero field in the presence of a localized impurity potential. It is known that such problem exhibits a pair of marginally bound impurity states at low energies which result in sharp resonances in the spectral density inside the gap. Such states have been extensively studied theoretically  and their existence was recently confirmed experimentally by Pan et al. . We propose here that, within the formalism of Eq. (50), the same mechanism could give rise to the low energy quasiparticle states in the core of a holon vortex. Such structure, if indeed confirmed by a microscopic calculation, could explain the spectral features observed experimentally in the vortex cores of cuprate superconductors .

## IV Conclusions

Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of the vortex cores affords a unique opportunity for probing the underlying “normal” ground state in cuprate superconductors. The existing experimental data on YBCO and BSCCO strongly suggest that conventional mean field weak coupling theories  fail to describe the physics of the vortex core. Our main objective was to develop a theoretical framework for understanding these spectra and the nature of the strongly correlated electronic system which emerges once the superconducting order is suppressed. We have shown that phenomenological model (4) based on a variant of the U(1) gauge field slave boson theory  contains the right physics, provided that the gauge field stiffness is vanishingly small. The latter assumption is consistent with the general arguments involving local gauge symmetry. In such a theory the gauge field can be explicitly integrated out, resulting in the effective action (7) which contains one phase degree of freedom representing the phase of a Cooper pair and two amplitude degrees of freedom representing the holon and spinon condensates.

Analysis of the effective theory (7) in the presence of a magnetic field establishes existence of two types of vortices, spinon and holon, with contrasting spectral properties in their core regions. Our holon vortex is singly quantized and therefore differs in a profound way from the doubly quantized holon vortex discussed by SNL. As indicated in Figure 2 such a singly quantized holon vortex is expected to be stable over the large portion of the phase diagram on the underdoped side. Quasiparticle spectrum in the core of a holon vortex is predicted to exhibit a “pseudogap”, similar to that found in the underdoped normal region above $`T_c`$. This is consistent with the data of Renner et al.  who pointed out a remarkable similarity between the vortex core and the normal state spectra in BSCCO. Spinon vortex, on the other hand, should be virtually indistinguishable from the conventional $`d`$-wave BCS vortex and is expected to occur on the overdoped side of the phase diagram. Transition from the insulating holon vortex to the metallic spinon vortex as a function of doping is a concrete testable prediction of the present theory.

Phenomenological theory based on the effective action (7) does not permit explicit evaluation of the electronic spectral function. To this end we have considered the corresponding microscopic theory (50) and concluded that holon vortex will indeed exhibit a pseudogap like spectrum. Such qualitative analysis furthermore suggests a plausible mechanism for the sharp vortex core states observed in YBCO and BSCCO . We stress that conventional mean field weak coupling theories yield neither pseudogap nor the core states. In the core of a holon vortex such states will arise as a result of spinons scattering off of the locally uncondensed holons, in a manner analogous to the quasiparticle resonant states in the vicinity of an impurity in a $`d`$-wave superconductor . The latter conclusion is somewhat speculative and must be confirmed by explicitly solving the fermionic sector of the microscopic theory (50).

On a broader theoretical front the importance of the vortex core spectroscopy as a window to the normal state in the $`T0`$ limit lies in its potential to discriminate between various microscopic theories of cuprates. It is reasonable to assume that the observed pseudogap in the vortex core reflects the same physics as the pseudogap observed in the normal state. This means that the mechanism responsible for the pseudogap must be operative on extremely short lengthscales, of order of several lattice spacings. The U(1) slave boson theory considered in this work apparently satisfies this requirement. Obtaining the correct vortex core spectral functions could serve as an interesting test for other theoretical approaches describing the physics of the underdoped cuprates.

It will be of interest to explore the implications of the effective theories (7) and (50) in other physical situations. Of special interest are situations where the holon condensate amplitude is suppressed, locally or globally, giving rise to “normal” transport properties (vanishing superfluid density) but quasiparticle excitations that are characteristic of a superconducting state. These include the spectra in the vicinity of an impurity, twin boundary or a sample edge. In the latter case one might hope to observe a signature of the zero bias tunneling peak anomaly (normally seen for certain geometries deep in the superconducting phase in the optimally doped cuprates) even above $`T_c`$ in the underdoped samples.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are indebted to A. J. Berlinsky, J. C. Davis, Ø. Fischer, C. Kallin, D.-H. Lee, P. A. Lee, S.-H. Pan, C. Renner, J. Ye and S.C. Zhang for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9415549 and by Aspen Center for Physics where part of the work was done. Note added in proof. After submission of this manuscript we learned about complementary microscopic treatments of the spin-charge separated state in the vortex core within U(1)  and SU(2)  slave boson theories. The former agrees qualitatively with our phenomenological theory. Ref.  proposes a new type of vortex which takes advantage of the larger symmetry group SU(2). In a related development Senthil and Fisher  discussed a Z2 vortex (which is essentially equivalent to our singly quantized holon vortex) and proposed a “vison detection” experiment based on trapping such a vortex in the hole fabricated in a strongly underdoped superconductor. Here we wish to point out that the experiment will produce the same general outcome in a system described by the U(1) theory where the role of a vison will be played by a flux quantum of the fictitious gauge field $`𝐚`$.


format: text

text:
# The evolution of helium white dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

Millisecond pulsars are thought to be components of low-mass binary systems in their final stage of evolution: the neutron star which has been spun up by accretion of matter from a low-mass evolved companion is now being slowed down by emission of magnetic dipole radiation (recycled radio pulsar). The companion, after having transferred most of its envelope mass towards the neutron star, remains as a white dwarf of rather a low mass whose core consists, in the majority of the known cases, of helium. The characteristic age, or so-called spin-down age, of the (recycled) pulsar depends on the physics how the neutron star’s rotational energy is converted into non-thermal emission of electromagnetic energy. On the other hand, the white-dwarf age is ruled by the white dwarf’s thermo-mechanical structure and the transformation of gravothermal energy content into thermal emission of photons from the surface. Any age determinations of the pulsar and the dwarf component should give the same answer, provided our physical understanding of the pulsar’s slow-down processes and the white dwarf’s cooling properties is correct.

So far, no general consensus on this matter has been achieved. Under the assumption that the cooling properties of low-mass white dwarfs are ruled by rather simple laws as is known from evolutionary calculations of more massive white dwarfs with carbon-oxygen cores (cf. Iben & Tutukov IT84 (1984); Koester & Schönberner KS86 (1986), Blöcker BL95 (1995)), large age differences between the pulsars and their dwarf companions have been found. In general, the white dwarfs appear to be much younger than the pulsars (cf. Hansen & Phinney 1998b  for a recent, detailed account). The best-studied example is the PSR J1012+5307 system, for which Lorimer et al. (LFLN95 (1995)) determined 7 Gyr for the spin-down age of the pulsar, but only about 0.3 Gyr for the white dwarf’s age. Note that the usual spin-down age determinations are based on the assumption that the initial rotational period after completion of the spin-up by accretion is much smaller then the present one, and that the pulsar emits magnetic dipole radiation (braking index $`n=3`$). A summary of the assumptions inherent in the derivation of characteristic or spin-down ages of pulsars is given in Hansen & Phinney (1998b ). A discrepant result as found for PSR J1012+5307, if true, would have important consequences for the details of the accretion process and the following spin-down phase (cf. Burderi et al. BKW96 (1996)).

A larger sample of millisecond pulsar systems with white-dwarf companions has recently been investigated by Hansen & Phinney (1998b ), using a grid of low-mass white-dwarf sequences especially computed for this purpurse (Hansen & Phinney 1998a ). In most cases spin-down and cooling ages appeared to be discrepant to various degrees, and the authors were able to constrain the initial spin periods and spin-up histories for individual systems, especially also for the PSR J1012+5307 system. However, the white-dwarf models which this study is based on, are generated from ad-hoc assumed initial configurations. These configurations appear not to be consistent with respect to the thermo-mechanical structures and unprocessed, hydrogen-rich envelopes with what would be adequate for companions in these pulsar binary systems.

The early investigations concerning the evolution of helium white dwarfs made by Webbink (W75 (1975)) indicated that the final cooling is slowed down considerably by ongoing hydrogen burning via the pp cycle. Obviously the cooling behaviour of low-mass white dwarfs depends on the size of the still unprocessed hydrogen-rich envelope, i.e. whether this envelope is massive enough as to sustain burning temperatures at its bottom for a long time span. The Webbink (W75 (1975)) white-dwarf models are, however, just evolved main sequence stars without any consideration of mass loss.

Since white-dwarf envelope masses cannot be guessed from first principles, they must rather be determined by detailed evolutionary calculations. A step in this direction was made by Alberts et al. (ASH96 (1996)) and Sarna et al. (SAAM98 (1998)) who modelled the PSR J1012+5307 system and in particular the evolution of the mass giving companion. It turned out that the donor shrinks below its Roche lobe while still having a rather massive hydrogen-rich envelope which is able to keep hydrogen burning dominant even through the white-dwarf cooling phase. The evolution was slowed down to such an extent that the discrepancy with the spin-down age of the pulsar vanished completely.

Strictly speaking the strength of hydrogen burning, and hence the cooling age of an observed white dwarf, depends on the size of the envelope before entering the cooling path. This envelope mass can be reduced because of thermal instabilities of the burning shell when the CNO rate dies out, namely by

* enhanced hydrogen consumption during the instability (flash) itself, and by
* a possible Roche-lobe overflow driven by the rapid envelope expansion.

The latter case was dominant for the evolution of the Iben & Tutukov (IT86 (1986)) 0.3 M helium white-dwarf model: Roche-lobe overflow due to the flash-driven envelope expansions reduced the envelope mass below the critical value necessary for hydrogen burning. The white-dwarf models of Webbink (W75 (1975)) and Sarna et al. (SAAM98 (1998)) experienced phases of unstable hydrogen burning for $`M0.2`$ M (but see Driebe et al. DBSH99 (1999) for a discussion).

Recently Driebe et al. (DSBH98 (1998)) published a grid of evolutionary tracks for helium white-dwarf models which were generated by enhanced mass loss applied at different positions along the red-giant branch of a 1 M sequence (see also Iben & Tutukov IT86 (1986), Castellani et al. 1994). This method mimicks to some extent the mass transfer in binary systems and allows to get reliable post-red-giant configurations which are very useful for the interpretation of observations. Driebe et al. (DSBH98 (1998)) covered the whole mass range of interest, and they demonstrated that

* the anti-correlation between core mass and size of envelope (cf. Blöcker et al. BHDBS97 (1997)) determines later the nuclear activity along the cooling branch, and that
* thermal instabilities of the hydrogen-burning shell appear to be restricted to the mass range of approximately 0.2 to 0.3 M.

The absence of thermal flashes below $`M=0.2`$ M agrees well with the results of Alberts et al. (ASH96 (1996)) but disagrees with those of Sarna et al. (SAAM98 (1998)). Nevertheless, the cooling times of our models are in excellent agreement with both studies. From the given parameters of the white-dwarf component in the PSR J1012+5307 system, Driebe et al. (DSBH98 (1998)) determined then its age to be of $`6\pm 1`$ Gyr, in good agreement with the pulsar’s spin-down age of $`7.0\pm 1.4`$ Gyr (Lorimer et al. LFLN95 (1995)).

The latest effort in a better understanding of the combined pulsar-white dwarf systems is that of Burderi et al. (BKW98 (1998)). They took the pulsar spin-down ages at their face value and concluded that the standard assumption for the white-dwarf cooling (i.e. without nuclear burning) complies with the observations, except for masses below approx. 0.2 M. There are, however, some facts that we would like to point out: Burderi et al. (BKW98 (1998)) used data ’renormalized’ to a standard luminosity of $`10^2`$ L, whereby it remains unclear how ages can be renormalized if the temporal evolution of the systems is not known a priori. Furthermore, they extrapolated existing white-dwarf cooling models into mass regimes where they are not valid anymore.

Because of its importance we felt the necessity to reconsider the whole issue by utilizing more realistic evolutionary models for low-mass white dwarfs. We will show in the next section that with such models a consistent description of those millisecond pulsar binary systems can be achieved for which sufficiently accurate data is available.

## 2 Pulsar characteristic times and cooling ages of their white-dwarf companions

We started with the sample of millisecond pulsar systems used by Burderi et al. (BKW98 (1998), see their Table 1 and our Fig. 1), but made a few changes: the companion mass for PSR J1012+5307 was updated according to Driebe et al. (DSBH98 (1998)), and the systems PSR J1640+2224 and PSR J0437-4715 were omitted because of too uncertain pulsar ages. For convenience, the relevant data are collected in Table 1, and all the listed systems are shown in Fig. 1 where the characteristic ages of the pulsars are plotted against the possible mass ranges of their (white-dwarf) companions.

The last column in Table 1 gives the white-dwarf masses according to the binary evolution calculations of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)). Within these binary calculations a relation between the system’s orbital period $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ and the white-dwarf mass can be derived (see e. g. Savonije S87 (1987) and Rappaport et al. RPJSH95 (1995)). For the systems discussed here the $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}M_{\mathrm{WD}}`$ relation of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)) predicts masses which are well within the estimated mass limits (see Table 1).

It should be emphasized that the characteristic ages given in Table 1 and plotted in Fig. 1 are based on certain assumptions (see Introduction) which may not be fulfilled in all cases. The corresponding systematic errors are difficult to assess and cannot be accounted for in this study.

Also shown in Fig. 1 are (post-red giant) ages of helium white-dwarf models taken from Driebe et al. (DSBH98 (1998)), supplemented by ages from evolutionary white-dwarf models with carbon-oxygen cores (Blöcker BL95 (1995)). The ages are given for four effective temperatures as to simplify the comparisons with the observed sytems: the range between 4 000 and 20 000 K embraces roughly the estimated effective temperatures of the companions of the systems PSR J0034-0534, PSR J1713+0747, PSR J1012+5307 and PSR B0820+02 (cf. Hansen & Phinney 1998b ). Only for the PSR J1012+5307 companion exists a rather accurately determined effective temperature (8 600 K, van Kerkwijk et al. KBK96 (1996), Callanan et al. CGK98 (1998)).

Note that the model ages are counted from the beginning of the post red-giant phase, i.e. they include also the contraction towards the white-dwarf regime.For white dwarfs of low mass this contraction from a giant towards a white-dwarf configuration makes up for a significant fraction of their ages and must be accounted for in younger systems like PSR B0820+02.

The temporal behavior of the models, as shown in Fig. 1, is determined by the following facts:

* The compositional differences between the lighter and heavier white dwarfs causes the obvious age break around $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}=0.5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.
* Hydrogen burning in the helium white dwarfs is, for a given temperature, responsible for the strong increase in age with decreasing mass.
* At high temperatures, the lighter models ($`0.23`$ M) are still in a pre white-dwarf phase very close to the turn-around point with rather low (post red-giant) ages.

Fig. 1 clearly demonstrates that for an effective temperature of 4 000 K our low-mass white-dwarf models exceed ages of 10 Gyr, roughly consistent with the pulsar characteristic ages. From the positions of individual pulsars (with error bars) we can estimate effective temperature and gravity ranges, and also the internal composition, to be expected for the white-dwarf companions. The results are collected in Table 2. Since for some of the white dwarfs temperature estimates based on photometry are available (Hansen & Phinney 1998b ), consistency checks are possible.

### 2.1 PSR J1012+5307

The white dwarf in PSR J1012+5307 is so far the best studied companion of all known systems (van Kerkwijk et al. KBK96 (1996); Callanan et al. CGK98 (1998)). With its surface parameters known, and together with our evolutionary white-dwarf models, a consistent description of the whole system is found (Fig. 2, upper two panels). Since the mass ratio of both components is known, the system’s inclination can be determined as well. The course of the inclination angle with white-dwarf companion mass is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2 for two limiting pulsar masses. The inclination can be expected to lie between 40 and 50 degrees.

### 2.2 PSR B0820+02

The mass of the companion is rather ill-defined, and it could have a helium or carbon/oxygen core (cf. Table 2). However, the temperature estimate, $`\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}250}\pm 250`$ K (Hansen & Phinney 1998b ), allows only a C/O white dwarf with at least $``$ 0.5 M and a rather high gravity ($`\mathrm{log}g8`$), in agreement with the results of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)) (cf. Table 1).

### 2.3 PSR B1855+09

The temperature of the companion has recently been photometrically determined by van Kerkwijk et al. (Kerk (2000)) to be $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}800}\pm 800`$ K. Given its accurately known mass of $`0.258_{0.016}^{+0.028}`$ M due to the measured Shapiro delay of pulsar timing (Kaspi et al. KTR94 (1994)), this low temperature corresponds to a cooling age of 10 Gyr using our models and 3 Gyr using the models of Hansen & Phinney (1998a ) with their smaller envelope masses ($`3\times 10^4`$ M). The characteristic age of the pulsar is, however, 5 Gyr (cf. Table 1), a fact which on one hand might be a hint for a smaller braking index of the pulsar as discussed by van Kerkwijk et al. (Kerk (2000)). On the other hand this result strengthens the dependence of age on the thickness of the hydrogen envelope.

According to our 0.259 M model, hydrogen burning ceases at about 10 Gyr, leaving a final unprocessed envelope 111The mass of the chemically homogeneous envelope is defined as the total mass of the layers above the hydrogen exhausted core. of $`510^4`$ M. The envelope mass right after the last shell flash is $`210^3`$ M, a value which is, however, subject to uncertainties like flash strength and metallicity. In additional calculations we artificially reduced this envelope mass by invoking mass loss on the upper cooling branch and followed the evolution of the models in the usual manner. It turned out that an earlier reduction of the envelope mass to $`510^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ after $`0.5`$ Gyr (at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}10^4\mathrm{K}`$) would be sufficient to give a cooling age of 5 Gyr at the desired effective temperature of 4800 K. We note that with this reduced envelope mass, hydrogen burning becomes insignificant below $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}10^4\mathrm{K}`$.

### 2.4 PSR J0034-0534

Hansen & Phinney (1998b ) estimated a very low temperature limit of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}500}`$ K for the white dwarf, yielding ages of more than 10 Gyr if helium models are used, which is to be compared with the pulsar’s characteristic age of $`6.8\pm 2.4`$ Gyr (Fig. 1). Consistency between the pulsar’s and the white dwarf’s age can only be achieved if we assume the white dwarf to have a carbon/oxygen core and a mass of $`0.5`$ M. Such a model cools considerably faster and reaches 3 500 K well within about 6 Gyr. We note that this mass is noticeably larger than estimates of other studies. The $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}M_{\mathrm{WD}}`$ relation of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)) gives $`M0.21\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and the photometric measurements of Lundgren et al. (1996a ) $`M0.23\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The cooling models of Hansen & Phinney (1998b ) predict $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}0.32\mathrm{M}_{}`$ as an upper limit. The discrepancy between these results and our mass estimate (C/O-white dwarf) might be related to the same problem as in the case of PSR B1855+09. If the companion is a helium-white dwarf with $`M0.2\mathrm{}0.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$ it is prone to hydrogen shell flashes with the corresponding uncertainties.

### 2.5 PSR 1713+0747

Hansen & Phinney (1998b ) give a white-dwarf effective temperature of $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}400}\pm 300`$ K which is just slightly lower than the one predicted by our helium models (see Table 2). The white-dwarf mass is not very sensitive to the temperature value and consistent with the estimate of $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}0.33\mathrm{M}_{}`$ from Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)).

### 2.6 Other millisecond pulsar systems

In addition to the sample discussed above we investigated some other MSP systems with respect to the possible $`(g,T_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ combinations for the white-dwarf components (see Table 3). The results are illustrated in Fig. 3 where effective temperature and surface gravity are plotted as a function of the white-dwarf mass for the systems listed in Table 3. The white-dwarf masses can be estimated from the $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}M_{\mathrm{WD}}`$ relation of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)). Taking these masses, it is straightforward to determine effective temperatures and surface gravities of the white-dwarf companions (see Table 3).

We find the systems in the first row of Fig. 3 (J1640+2224, J0751+1807, J1045-4509) to be consistent with He-WD companions if $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K. At this temperature our helium models reach cooling ages comparable with the age of the galactic disk ($`10`$ Gyr). For the white dwarf in J1640+2224 a temperature estimate is available: $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}500}\pm 1100`$ K (Hansen & Phinney 1998b ). This value implies, for 10 Gyr, a white-dwarf mass of $`0.35\pm 0.05`$ M with a surface gravity of $`\mathrm{log}g7.6`$ (cf. Fig. 3). This mass is in good agreement with the result of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)) ($`M_{\mathrm{WD}}^{\mathrm{TS99}}0.37\mathrm{M}_{}`$).

For the other systems the temperature ambiguity (more than one white dwarf mass for a given temperature, see. Fig. 3) does not allow to exclude the companions to be C/O-white dwarfs, but the mass values of Tauris & Savonije (TS99 (1999)) indicate that all these systems should contain helium white dwarfs.

## 3 Conclusions

From the present paper, together with previous efforts which concentrated solely on the PSR J1012+5307 system (Alberts et al. ASH96 (1996); Sarna et al. SAAM98 (1998); Driebe et al. DSBH98 (1998)), it becomes obvious that a consistent description of the millisecond binary systems with compact companions can only be achieved by using evolutionary model calculations of white dwarfs which include their complete pre-white-dwarf history. The key to the solution of the apparent age paradoxon between the pulsar and its white-dwarf companion is the fact that low-mass white dwarfs have massive, still unburnt envelopes that sustain hydrogen burning at their bases for a long time. Hydrogen burning slows down the cooling of a low-mass white dwarf to such an extent that cooling ages become comparable to, or may even exceed, observed pulsar spin-down ages.

Employing our evolutionary helium white-dwarf models, supplemented by those with carbon-oxygen cores, we demonstrated that, next to the already studied PSR J1012+5307 system, also in other millisecond pulsar binary systems with reliable information on pulsar age and companion properties, as mass and temperature, reasonable agreement between the components’ ages is achieved. The use of white-dwarf models with ad hoc assumed envelope masses may lead to erroneous interpretations since these envelope masses are usually much smaller than those which follow from complete evolutionary calculations.

It appears to us that upon using realistic white-dwarf models in interpreting millisecond binary systems there is no need to modify existing ideas of the spin-down process of pulsars. Clearly a larger sample of well-studied systems like PSR J1012+5307 would be very important in investigating more precisely the cooling theory of white dwarfs and the braking of radio pulsars.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Marten van Kerkwijk and Gerrit Savonije for helpful discussions and comments.