format: text

text:
# Measuring the black hole masses of high redshift quasars

## 1 Introduction

A reliable method for estimating the black-hole masses of high-redshift quasars would provide crucial new information for understanding the nature and cosmological evolution of quasars. In this paper we address this problem by deriving a virial black-hole mass estimator based on rest-frame UV observables which is capable of producing reliable quasar black-hole mass estimates from optical spectra out to redshifts of $`z2.5`$.

Currently, the most direct measurements of the central black-hole masses of powerful active galactic nuclei (AGN) come from the reverberation mapping studies of 17 Seyferts and 17 PG quasars by Wandel, Peterson & Malkan (1999) and Kaspi et al. (2000) respectively. By measuring the time-lag between the variations of the AGN continuum and the broad H$`\beta `$ (4861 Å) emission line, these long-term monitoring programmes have delivered direct measurements of the radius of the H$`\beta `$ emission region from the central ionizing source ($`R_{BLR}=c\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the time lag between the continuum and H$`\beta `$ variations). By combining these measurements with the assumption that the FWHM of the H$`\beta `$ line reflects the virialized bulk motion of the line-emitting material, it is then possible to produce the so-called virial estimate of the central black hole mass (see Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999 for a full discussion). Although the virial mass estimate is potentially subject to many uncertainties (eg. Krolik 2001), comparison with the predictions of the completely independent relation between black-hole mass and host-galaxy stellar velocity dispersion have shown the two to be in excellent agreement (Ferrarese et al. 2001, Gebhardt et al. 2000).

Unfortunately, because of the many years of monitoring required, it is unrealistic to expect that reverberation mapping measurements can be obtained for large samples of quasars, even at low redshift. However, the existing reverberation mapping of low redshift AGN has revealed a correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and the monochromatic AGN continuum luminosity at 5100Å (eg. $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}^{0.7}`$; Kaspi et al. 2000). By exploiting this correlation to estimate $`R_{BLR}`$ it is possible to produce a virial black-hole mass estimate from a single spectrum covering the H$`\beta `$ emission line.

This technique has recently been widely employed to investigate how the masses of quasar black holes relate to the properties of the surrounding host galaxies (eg. McLure & Dunlop 2002;2001; Laor 2001) and the radio luminosity of the central engine (Dunlop et al. 2002; Lacy et al. 2001). However, because of the atmospheric restrictions and relative observational expense of near-infrared spectroscopy, the vast majority of previous studies have relied on optical spectroscopy of the H$`\beta `$ region. Unfortunately, this effectively enforces a redshift upper limit of $`z0.80.9`$, with the vast majority of studies concentrating on samples at $`z0.3`$.

An ideal solution to this problem would be to calibrate a rest-frame UV emission line and continuum measurement such that it becomes possible to produce a virial black-hole mass estimate for high-redshift quasars from relatively straightforward optical spectroscopy. It is the purpose of this paper to provide the required UV calibration. There are two strong, permitted, broad UV lines which are candidates to replace H$`\beta `$ in the virial black-hole mass estimate; Civ(1549Å) and Mg ii(2798Å). We note here that Vestergaard (2002) recently derived a UV virial black-hole mass estimator using the Civ FWHM and the continuum luminosity at 1350Å . Although Civ does have the advantage of being accessible with optical spectroscopy at the very highest redshifts ($`3<z<5`$), where Mgii is redshifted into the near-infrared, there are a number of reasons to believe that Mgii represents a better substitute for H$`\beta `$ over the redshift range $`0.8<z<2.5`$.

The main reason for adopting Mgii as the UV tracer of BLR velocity is that, like H$`\beta `$, Mgii is a low-ionization line. Furthermore, due to the similarity of their ionization potentials, it is reasonable to expect that the Mgii and H$`\beta `$ emission lines are produced by gas at virtually the same radius from the central ionizing source, an assumption which is supported by the good agreement between the Mgii and H$`\beta `$ FWHM (see Section 5). This has two important consequences. Firstly, it allows us to directly adopt the reverberation mapping determinations of $`R_{BLR}`$ when calibrating the correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and 3000Å continuum luminosity. Secondly, because the line-widths of Mgii and H$`\beta `$ should trace the same BLR velocities, we are able to simply substitute the FWHM of Mgii for that of H$`\beta `$ in the virial mass estimator.

There is one further practical advantage which favours Mgii over Civ as the UV substitute for H$`\beta `$ . Due to the fact that Mgii becomes accessible to optical spectroscopy at $`z0.3`$, both H$`\beta `$ and Mgii can be observed in a single optical spectrum within the redshift interval $`0.3z0.9`$. Consequently, it is therefore possible to directly compare the results of the new UV virial mass estimator against those of the established optical virial mass estimator for objects at intermediate redshifts. This test is performed in Section 7 using data for the Large Bright Quasar Survey (Forster et al. 2001) and the radio-selected Molonglo quasar sample (Baker et al. 1999).

The structure of this paper can be summarized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly review the main aspects of the virial black-hole mass estimate, before proceeding in Section 3 to describe the properties of the sample of low-redshift AGN with reverberation mapping results. In Sections 4 and 5 this sample is used to calibrate the relation between broad-line radius and 3000Å continuum luminosity ($`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$) and to demonstrate the viability of adopting Mgii as a direct substitute for H$`\beta `$ in the virial black-hole mass estimator. Our final calibration of the UV black-hole mass estimator is presented in Section 6. In Section 7 the effectiveness of the new UV black-hole mass estimator is demonstrated by application to members of the Large Bright Quasar Survey (LBQS) and the Molonglo quasar sample (MQS) for which both H$`\beta `$ and Mgii FWHM measurements are available. Our conclusions are presented in Section 8. All cosmological calculations presented in this paper assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,H_0=70`$ kms-1Mpc-1.

## 2 The virial black-hole mass estimate

The underlying assumption behind the method of estimating AGN black-hole masses from the width of their broad emission lines is that the motion of the line-emitting material is virialized. Under this assumption the width of the broad lines can be used to trace the Keplerian velocity of the broad-line gas, and thereby allow an estimate of the central black-hole mass via the formula :

$$M_{bh}=G^1R_{BLR}V_{BLR}^2$$
(1)
where $`R_{BLR}`$ is the BLR radius and $`V_{BLR}`$ is the Keplerian velocity of the BLR gas. Recent evidence to support the Keplerian interpretation of AGN broad-line widths has been presented by Peterson & Wandel (2000) and Onken & Peterson (2002). These authors demonstrate, at least for several Seyfert galaxies which have been well studied for reverberation mapping purposes, that the FWHM of various emission lines follow the $`V_{BLR}R_{BLR}^{0.5}`$ relation expected for Keplerian motion. It is important to note that it is not clear that the virial condition is satisfied for the high-ionization Civ emission line. Substantial evidence exists in the literature that Civ may be produced in some form of outflow, as is suggested by the systematic blue-shift of Civ compared to H$`\beta `$ (eg. Marziani et al. 1996).

### 2.1 Broad-line region geometry

In Eqn 1 the velocity of the BLR gas is taken as $`V_{BLR}=`$ $`f\times `$ $`H\beta `$(FWHM), where $`f`$ is a geometric factor which relates the H$`\beta `$ FWHM to the intrinsic Keplerian velocity. Due to the fact that there is currently no consensus on the geometry of the BLR in radio-quiet quasars it is conventional to set $`f=\sqrt{3}/2`$. However, it is clear that if AGN broad lines are in general produced in a more disc-like configuration, evidence for which has been found in radio-loud quasars by numerous authors (eg. Wills & Browne 1986; Brotherton 1996; Vestergaard, Wilkes & Barthel 2000), then $`f`$ will be inclination dependent. Indeed, in McLure & Dunlop (2002) evidence was presented that the H$`\beta `$ FWHM is inclination dependent in radio-quiet quasars, and more consistent with the orbits of the H$`\beta `$ emitting material having a flattened disc-like geometry than being randomly orientated. However, even in the scenario where the FWHM of H$`\beta `$ and Mgii are entirely orientation dependent, inclination will only have a significant effect on the virial black-hole mass estimate for those objects within $`15^{}`$ of the line of sight. If quasars are taken to be distributed randomly within $`45^{}`$ of the line of sight (Barthel 1989) then this will only effect some 10% of objects. Consequently, for the purposes of providing a generally applicable UV black-hole mass estimator we adopt $`f=1`$ throughout this paper.

## 3 The reverberation mapped sample

As mentioned previously, the sample of 17 Seyferts and 17 PG quasars with reverberation mapping measurements (hereafter the RM sample) currently represents the best available set of black-hole mass estimates of powerful broad-line AGN. Therefore, it is the objects from this sample which we will use to calibrate the new UV virial black-hole mass estimator. Optical and UV data for the combined 34-object RM sample are listed in Table 1. The $`R_{BLR}`$ data are taken from Kaspi et al. (2000), with the exception of NGC 4051 for which we take the updated figure of $`R_{BLR}=5.9`$ light-days from Peterson et al. (2000).

### 3.1 Optical data

The 5100Å luminosities for the PG quasars have been calculated using the fluxes from the spectrophotometric study of Neugebauer et al. (1987). For the Seyfert galaxies the 5100Å luminosities are from Kaspi et al. (2000) after conversion to our cosmology. The H$`\beta `$ FWHM values for the PG quasars are taken from Boroson & Green (1992). The H$`\beta `$ FWHM values for the Seyfert galaxies are drawn from a number of literature sources which are listed in the caption to Table 1.

### 3.2 UV data

As with the optical continuum luminosities, the 3000Å luminosities listed in Table 1 for the PG quasars are derived from Neugebauer et al. (1987). In contrast, the 3000Å luminosities for the Seyfert galaxies, together with 17/22 of the Mgii FWHM values, are new measurements based on our fitting of spectra from the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) final data archive. A full discussion of our line-fitting method will be presented in a follow-up paper (McLure et al. 2002, in prep). In brief, we fit the region spanning the Mgii emission line (2300Å$``$ 3100Å) with a combination of a power-law continuum, a Feii emission template and two gaussians representing the broad and narrow components of the Mgii emission line.

As with the H$`\beta `$ emission line, it is crucial to account for blending with broad Feii emission in order to obtain a reliable measurement of the Mgii line-width. Consequently, following the analysis of Corbin & Boroson (1996) we have constructed a template of the FeII emission around the Mgii line from an archival IUE spectrum of the narrow line Seyfert galaxy I Zw 1. During the fitting process the amplitude and FWHM of the FeII template were left as free parameters in order to obtain the best possible match to the FeII emission of each object.

## 4 Estimating the BLR radius

In order to provide an estimate of $`R_{BLR}`$ it is necessary, in the absence of reverberation mapping, to exploit the known correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and AGN continuum luminosity. By combining the results of their reverberation mapping observations with those of Wandel, Peterson & Malkan (1999), Kaspi et al. (2000) investigated the correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and 5100Å continuum luminosity and found a best-fit of the form $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}^{0.70\pm 0.03}`$. In their re-analysis of the same correlation, Peterson et al. (2000) found a best fitting relation of the form $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}^{0.62\pm 0.02}`$. As well as being important within the context of the virial black-hole mass estimate, the slope of the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation is of intrinsic interest because it provides information about the AGN ionization parameter $`U`$ ($`U=\frac{Q}{4\pi r^2c}`$, where $`Q=\frac{L_\nu }{h\nu }𝑑\nu `$). For example, neither of the two fits mentioned above are consistent with the relation $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda ^{0.5}`$ expected if the ionization parameter is approximately the same for all AGN, regardless of luminosity. In this section we investigate the slope of the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation using continuum luminosity measurements at both 3000Å and 5100Å.

### 4.1 Regression analysis

Given the potential influence of the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation upon the accuracy of the virial black-hole mass estimator, we have chosen to employ three different regression techniques in our analysis to explore the possible variation in the best-fitting slope. The first technique is a straightforward weighted least-squares fit (WLS), in which the fit is weighted by the error in the reverberation mapping radius (Press et al. 1992). The second technique is a robust iterative chi-square fit (FITxy) in which the errors in both variables are taken into account (Press et al. 1992). However, although FITxy takes into account the errors on both variables, it does not account for the fact that there is likely to be intrinsic scatter in the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation. To account for this, the third technique we have employed is the BCES estimator of Akritas & Bershady (1996) which accounts for errors in both variables and intrinsic scatter.

### 4.2 The radius-luminosity relation at 3000Å and 5100Å

The results of the fitting process (in $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}`$ space) of both the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ and $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relations are listed in Table 2 where the listed BCES fit is the bisector. It can be seen from Table 2 that the results of all three regression methods are consistent with each other for both the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ and $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ relations. Furthermore, it can be seen that all three regression methods indicate that the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ relation is fully consistent with a slope of $`\lambda L_\lambda ^{0.5}`$, as expected for a constant ionization parameter.

The three fits to the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relation indicate that a slope of a $`\lambda L_\lambda ^{0.6}`$ is more appropriate for our choice of continuum data, in good agreement with the fit of Peterson et al. (2000). This is flatter than the slope of $`\lambda L_\lambda ^{0.7}`$ previously determined for the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relation by Kaspi et al. (2000), although the two are formally consistent.

There are two effects which are responsible for our finding of a flatter slope in the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relation. Firstly, our choice of cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=`$ $`0.3,\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ $`0.7,H_0=70`$ kms-1Mpc-1) results in higher luminosities for the 17 PG quasars in the RM sample, compared to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ $`=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ $`0,H_0=75`$ kms-1Mpc-1 cosmology adopted by Kaspi et al., while having little effect on the luminosities of the lower redshift Seyfert galaxies. Secondly, further flattening of the slope is due to the fact that the 5100Å fluxes for the PG quasars adopted here, derived from the Neugebauer et al. (1987) data, are typically $`0.1`$ dex higher than those determined by Kaspi et al. Indeed, if we adopt the same PG quasar luminosities and cosmology as Kaspi et al., then the BCES bisector fit to the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relation becomes: $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}^{0.65\pm 0.11}`$, entirely consistent with the slope determined by Kaspi et al.

Throughout the remainder of the paper we adopt the BCES bisector fits as our best estimate of the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation at both 3000Å and 5100Å . The bisector fits to both data-sets are shown in Fig 1 and have linear versions as follows:

$$R_{BLR}=(25.2\pm 3.0)\left[\lambda L_{3000}/10^{37}W\right]^{(0.47\pm 0.05)}$$
(2)
$$R_{BLR}=(26.4\pm 4.4)\left[\lambda L_{5100}/10^{37}W\right]^{(0.61\pm 0.10)}$$
(3)
where $`R_{BLR}`$ is in units of light-days.

## 5 Estimating the broad-line velocity

After successfully calibrating the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ relation, the second required element of the UV black-hole mass estimator is to calibrate the Mgii FWHM as a substitute for H$`\beta `$ . As discussed in Section 1, the principle reason for adopting Mgii as the UV H$`\beta `$ proxy is that it is a strong, fully-permitted, low-ionization line, and as such should provide the best UV analog of H$`\beta `$ . Moreover, because the ionization potentials of H$`\beta `$ and Mgii are very similar, the two lines should both be emitted at approximately the same radius from the central ionizing source. Fortunately, this assumption can be tested directly using the 22 objects from the RM sample for which we have Mgii FWHM measurements. If Mgii and H$`\beta `$ are being produced at the same broad-line radius then, if the BLR is virialized, we should see a 1:1 relation between Mgii FWHM and H$`\beta `$ FWHM. Fig 2 shows Mgii FWHM versus H$`\beta `$ FWHM for the 22 objects from the RM sample with Mgii FWHM measurements. The solid line in Fig 2 shows an exact 1:1 relation between Mgii and H$`\beta `$ FWHM. It can be seen that, with the exception of NGC 4051, the objects in the RM sample are perfectly consistent with Mgii and H$`\beta `$ tracing the same BLR velocity. The clear outlier, NGC 4051, is a well studied example of a narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1). The H$`\beta `$ FWHM for this object has been determined by numerous authors and is consistently found to be around 1000 kms-1 (eg. Wandel, Peterson & Malkan (1999) find H$`\beta `$ FWHM=1170 kms-1). However, from our line-fitting of IUE archive spectra we find a strong broad component to the Mgii emission line with FWHM=2790 kms-1.

In fact, several previous studies have found that the UV emission lines of NLS1 possess strong broad components which are not seen in their Balmer lines (eg. Rodríguez-Pascual, Mas-Hesse & Santos-Lleó 1997, Zheng et al. 1995). This suggests that Mgii may actually provide a better estimate of the BLR velocity of low-ionization gas in NLS1, where the Balmer lines could be biased, at least in part, by inclination effects. Irrespective of the reason why NGC 4051 is an outlier in Fig 2, we can safely exclude it from a regression fit to the Mgii \- H$`\beta `$ FWHM relation. The reason for this is that we are principally interested in providing a UV black-hole mass estimator for high redshift quasars, the vast majority of which have H$`\beta `$ FWHM $`>2000`$ kms-1. The dotted line in Fig 2 shows the BCES bisector fit which is equivalent to a relation of the form:

$$H\beta (\text{FWHM})MgII(\text{FWHM})^{1.02\pm 0.14}$$
(4)
which is clearly consistent with a linear relation. In the light of this result, an exact 1:1 relation between the Mgii FWHM and H$`\beta `$ FWHM is assumed in the next section for the final calibration of the UV black-hole mass estimator.

## 6 The UV black-hole mass estimator

Having determined in the previous two sections the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ relation and the 1:1 scaling between H$`\beta `$ FWHM and Mgii FWHM, we are now in a position to derive our UV black-hole mass estimator. In Fig 3 we show the reverberation mapping black-hole mass estimate versus the new UV mass estimate, which uses the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}`$ relation to estimate $`R_{BLR}`$ and the Mgii FWHM to trace the BLR velocity. It is clear from Fig 3 that Mrk 335 is an outlier. As with NGC 4051, Mrk 335 is another example of a NLS1. The reason Mrk 335 is an outlier in Fig 3 is that the FWHM of the variable component of its H$`\beta `$ line determined from reverberation mapping is only 1260 kms-1 (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999), while from our line-fitting of IUE archive spectra we detect a strong broad component in the Mgii line with FWHM=8605 kms-1. Our line-fitting results for this object are in excellent agreement with those of Zheng et al. (1995) who detected a broad Mgii component of FWHM=8218 kms-1. Again, as mentioned in the previous section, it appears a possibility that for at least some NLS1’s the width of the H$`\beta `$ emission line may not be a reliable tracer of BLR velocities. Of course, it is also possible that Mrk 335 may simply be a genuine outlier. The solid line in Fig 3 is the bisector fit to the data, excluding Mrk 335, and has the form:

$$\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(RM)=1.12(\pm 0.22)\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(UV)$$

$$\text{ }1.08(\pm 1.75)$$
(5)
again, consistent with a linear relation. Consequently, our final calibration of the UV mass estimator has the form:

$$\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(RM)=\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(UV)0.16$$
(6)
where the off-set of $`0.16`$ is adopted to ensure a mean $`M_{bh}(RM)`$:$`M_{bh}(UV)`$ ratio of unity. In terms of a useful formula the best fitting calibration of the UV black-hole mass estimator is therefore:

$$\frac{M_{bh}}{\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}}=3.37\left(\frac{\lambda L_{3000}}{10^{37}\mathrm{W}}\right)^{0.47}\left(\frac{FWHM(MgII)}{\mathrm{kms}^1}\right)^2$$
(7)
For completeness we have also re-derived the optical (H$`\beta `$) virial black-hole mass estimator using our re-analysis of the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{5100}`$ relation in Section 4. As expected, the correlation between $`M_{bh}(RM)`$ and $`M_{bh}(H\beta )`$ is also consistent with being linear ($`M_{bh}(RM)M_{bh}(H\beta )^{0.87\pm 0.18}`$) which, in the same fashion as for the UV estimate, leads to:

$$\frac{M_{bh}}{\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}}=4.74\left(\frac{\lambda L_{5100}}{10^{37}\mathrm{W}}\right)^{0.61}\left(\frac{FWHM(H\beta )}{\mathrm{kms}^1}\right)^2$$
(8)
### 6.1 Accuracy of the UV estimator

Having arrived at the final calibration of the UV black-hole mass estimator it is of obvious interest to assess the accuracy with which it can reproduce the full reverberation mass estimate. Excluding Mrk 335, the mean difference between the reverberation and the UV estimator is :

$$<\mathrm{log}(M_{bh})(RM)\mathrm{log}(M_{bh})(UV)>=0.00\pm 0.40$$
(9)
where the quoted uncertainty is the standard deviation ($`\sigma `$) and not the standard error. Therefore, provided the RM sample is representative of broad-line AGN in general, we conclude that the UV black-hole estimator provided by Eqn 7 can reproduce the reverberation black-hole mass to within a factor of 2.5 $`(1\sigma )`$. For the same sample the uncertainty on the optical estimator given in Eqn 8 is a factor of $`2.7`$.

## 7 Application to quasar surveys: the LBQS and MQS

Having derived the desired black-hole mass estimator in the previous section, we next assess its performance when applied to the spectra of the LBQS and the radio-selected MQS. If the new UV black-hole mass estimator is to be used in the analysis of high-redshift quasars, it is clearly important to ensure that it does not produce results which are biased with respect to the usual optical (H$`\beta `$) estimator. Therefore, our intention in this section is to simply test how the new UV mass estimator (Eqn 7) compares to the usual optical mass estimator (Eqn 8) when applied to those objects from the LBQS and MQS for which both the appropriate UV ($`\lambda L_{3000}`$, Mgii FWHM) and optical ($`\lambda L_{5100}`$, H$`\beta `$ FWHM) data are available.

Due to the fact that the LBQS is optically selected, while the MQS is a complete radio-selected quasar sample, applying the UV black-hole mass estimator to both samples allows us to ensure that Eqn 7 is equally applicable to both radio-quiet and radio-loud quasars.

### 7.1 The Large Bright Quasar Survey

The LBQS consists of 1058 optically-selected quasars in the redshift range $`0.2`$ $`<z<`$ $`3.3`$ (see Hewett, Foltz & Chaffee (1995) for a full description). A comprehensive study of the optical continuum and emission line properties of 992 quasars from the LBQS has recently been published by Forster et al. (2001). In this section we use data from Forster et al. for a 99-object sub-sample with reliable measurements of both Mgii and H$`\beta `$ FWHM and continuum fluxes at 3000Å and 5100Å . This sub-sample comprises 68% of the 145 LBQS objects in the redshift range $`0.20<z<0.66`$ within which both Mgii and H$`\beta `$ fall on the LBQS spectra.

### 7.2 The Molonglo quasar sample

The Molonglo quasar sample is a complete, radio-selected, sample consisting of 111 quasars in the redshift range $`0.1`$ $`<`$ $`z`$ $`<2.9`$ with a 408 MHz flux density greater than 0.95 Jy (Kapahi et al. 1998). Optical spectra for 79 MQS quasars were published by Baker et al. (1999), together with a preliminary analysis of their emission line properties. We are currently engaged in an automated study of the optical and UV emission lines from the MQS optical spectra (kindly provided by J. Baker), from which it has been possible to reliably measure the Mgii and H$`\beta `$ FWHM for 29/38 objects where the MQS spectra include both emission lines. Unlike the LBQS, Baker (1997) has shown that many MQS objects display substantial reddening in their optical spectra. As a result, the continuum luminosities of the reddest MQS objects were de-reddened using the SMC extinction curve of Pei (1992), assuming an intrinsic continuum slope of $`\alpha =0.5`$ ($`f\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) which was found by Baker (1997) to be typical of the least reddened MQS objects.

### 7.3 Optical versus UV black-hole mass estimators

In Fig 4 we show the optical black-hole mass estimator plotted against the new UV black-hole mass estimator for a combined sample of 150 objects, comprising 99 from the LBQS, 29 from the MQS and the 22 objects of the RM sample. Also shown is the BCES bisector fit to the LBQS and MQS objects which has the form:

$$\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(H\beta )=1.00(\pm 0.08)\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(MgII)$$

$$\text{ }+0.06(\pm 0.67)$$
(10)
which, as expected, is perfectly consistent with a linear relation. In Fig 5 we show a histogram of $`\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(MgII)\mathrm{log}M_{bh}(H\beta )`$ for the 128 objects from the LBQS and MQS. The solid line shows the best-fitting gaussian which has $`\sigma =0.41`$. These results, in combination with those of Section 6, lead us to conclude that compared to the traditional optical black-hole mass estimator, the new UV estimator provides results which are unbiased and of equal accuracy.

### 7.4 Black-hole mass and the radio-loudness dichotomy

Although a full analysis of the black-hole masses of the LBQS and MQS samples is beyond the scope of this paper, we will briefly comment here on one obvious feature of Fig 4. It is immediately apparent from Fig 4 that the MQS quasars are confined to the highest black-hole masses. In fact, 27/29 of the MQS quasars have black-hole masses $`10^{8.5}\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$, adopting either the UV or optical mass estimator. In contrast, only 17% of the 99 LBQS quasars have UV and optical black-hole mass estimates which are both $`10^{8.5}\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Naively this would appear to suggest that there is a clear division in black-hole mass between the radio-selected MQS and the largely radio-quiet LBQS. However, because the wavelength coverage of the LBQS spectra only extends to $`7500`$Å, compared to $`10000`$Å for those of the MQS, the need to include both Mgii and H$`\beta `$ on the spectra introduces a considerable redshift bias into the two sub-samples under investigation here. Due to the differences in wavelength coverage the mean redshift of the LBQS sub-sample is $`0.33\pm 0.01`$, while that of the MQS is $`0.63\pm 0.03`$. Consequently, the members of the MQS sub-sample are on average more optically luminous than those of the LBQS sub-sample, with an average luminosity of $`\mathrm{log}(\lambda L_{5100}/\mathrm{W})=38.14\pm 0.08`$ compared to $`\mathrm{log}(\lambda L_{5100}/\mathrm{W})=37.64\pm 0.07`$. Therefore, with reference to the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda `$ relation, we would expect that, simply due to this luminosity bias, the average black-hole mass of the MQS sub-sample would be a factor of $`2`$ larger than that of the LBQS. However, in reality the average black-hole mass of the MQS sub-sample is $`10^{9.10\pm 0.07}\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$ whereas that of the LBQS sub-sample is more than a factor of 6 lower at $`10^{8.27\pm 0.06}\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$111These figures are for the optical (H$`\beta `$) mass estimator although, as expected from Fig 4, the black-hole mass difference is comparable if the UV mass estimator is adopted ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{bh}=0.71`$ dex).

The origin of the additional factor of three difference in the average black-hole masses is a highly significant difference in the distributions of H$`\beta `$ and Mgii FWHM. For example, the average Mgii FWHM of the MQS sub-sample is a factor of $`1.56\pm 0.11`$ greater than the average Mgii FWHM of the LBQS sub-sample. The equivalent factor for H$`\beta `$ FWHM is $`1.68\pm 0.14`$. The application of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test returns a probability of $`p=1.33\times 10^6`$ that the two H$`\beta `$ FWHM distributions are drawn from the same parent distribution ($`p=4.1\times 10^9`$ for the Mgii FWHM distributions).

It is important to note that the differences in the FWHM distributions of the two samples do not appear to be related to the previously mentioned redshift/luminosity bias. An application of the partial spearman rank correlation test (Macklin 1982) reveals no significant correlations between H$`\beta `$ FWHM, redshift and $`\lambda L_{5100}`$ or Mgii FWHM, redshift and $`\lambda L_{3000}`$. In fact, these results are in good agreement with previous studies of the black-hole masses of radio-quiet and radio-loud quasars which were not subject to a redshift/luminosity bias. In their study of a sample of radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars with a matched redshift-luminosity distribution at $`z\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$, McLure & Dunlop (2002) found the average black-hole mass of the radio-loud quasars to be a factor of $`2`$ larger than their radio-quiet counterparts, albeit with a large overlap. Likewise, Laor (2000) found a clean separation in black-hole mass within the PG quasar sample, with the radio-loud quasars being confined to $`M_{bh}\stackrel{>}{}10^9\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In contrast, from their study of the First Bright Quasar Survey (FBQS), Lacy et al. (2001) concluded that the apparent gap in the quasar black-hole mass – radio-power plane is in fact filled by previously undetected radio-intermediate quasars.

In either case, it is clear that genuinely powerful, low-frequency selected, radio-loud quasars harbour central black-hole masses drawn from the extreme end of the AGN black-hole mass function. At present it is not clear whether the low frequency of radio-quiet quasars with $`M_{bh}>10^{8.5}\text{ }\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is real or, alternatively, is due to an inclination selection effect whereby the line-widths of optically selected quasars are biased to low values by a preference for selecting objects close to the line of sight. A more detailed analysis of the black-hole masses of high redshift radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars, the correlation between black-hole mass and radio power and the evidence for the role of inclination effects will be presented in a series of forthcoming papers (McLure et al. 2002, in prep).

Finally, we note that our finding that the FWHM of H$`\beta `$ and Mgii in the powerful radio-selected MQS objects are exclusively restricted to $`\stackrel{>}{}4000`$ kms-1 is of interest in the context of recent work on the location of radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN in so-called eigenvector 1 space (Marziani et al. 2001). In their study Marziani et al. concluded that powerful radio-loud quasars appear to be restricted to H$`\beta `$ FWHM $`>4000`$ kms-1, in excellent agreement with our analysis of the MQS spectra.

## 8 Conclusions

A new technique for estimating the central black-hole masses of high-redshift quasars using the Mgii FWHM and 3000Å quasar continuum luminosity has been presented. The new technique has been calibrated using a sample of 34 low redshift AGN with black-hole mass measurements based on long-term reverberation mapping experiments. The reliability of the new technique, with respect to the established optical virial black-hole mass estimator, has been tested using published data for the LBQS together with the results of a new analysis of the emission line properties of the MQS. The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:

* The correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and monochromatic 3000Å continuum luminosity is found to display less scatter than that between $`R_{BLR}`$ and 5100Å monochromatic continuum luminosity.
* The correlation between $`R_{BLR}`$ and 3000Å continuum luminosity is found to be consistent with a relation of the form $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_\lambda ^{0.5}`$, as expected for a constant ionization parameter in all AGN, irrespective of luminosity
* The FWHM of Mgii is found to be an effective substitute for the FWHM of H$`\beta `$ . The relationship between the two FWHM is found to be perfectly consistent with an exact 1:1 scaling.
* Combining the $`R_{BLR}\lambda L_{3000}^{0.47}`$ relation with the FWHM of Mgii produces a virial black-hole mass estimator based on rest-frame UV observables which is capable of reproducing black-hole masses determined from reverberation mapping to within a factor of 2.5 ($`1\sigma `$)
* An application to objects from the LBQS and MQS demonstrates that the new UV black-hole mass estimator produces results which are unbiased, and of equal accuracy to the established optical (H$`\beta `$) black-hole mass estimator.
* We therefore conclude that the new UV black-hole mass estimator is ideal for determining quasar black-hole masses in the redshift range $`0.25<z<2.5`$ via optical spectroscopy alone.

## 9 acknowledgments

The authors are happy to acknowledge Jo Baker for providing the optical spectra of the MQS. Dan Maoz and James Dunlop are acknowledged for useful discussions. RJM acknowledges the award of a PPARC postdoctoral fellowship. MJJ acknowledges the support of the European Community Research and Training Network ‘The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium’. This research is in part based on INES data from the IUE satellite.This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


text:
# Role of Umklapp Processes in Conductivity of Doped Two-Leg Ladders

## I Introduction

Ladder materials have been the focus of much theoretical and experimental work over the last few years rev . These materials, which consist of planes of copper-oxygen ladders separated by charge reservoir layers of other atoms, are interesting for a number of reasons. In terms of structure and behaviour there are similarities to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprate materials. For example, hole doped two-leg ladders exhibit a spin gap and the doped holes form pairs with a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ structure. Experimentally, a roughly linear temperature dependence of the resistivity has been observed in both doped ladders osa  and in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates gur . In addition, the copper-oxygen “ladders” are weakly coupled to one another, giving rise to a quasi one-dimensional system. This is interesting because there are analytical techniques for studying one-dimensional systems, and, perhaps more importantly, one-dimensional electronic systems exhibit Luttinger Liquid behaviour characterized by bosonic collective excitations and spin-charge separation. Ladder systems provide an opportunity to study such behaviour, which is not normally found in higher dimensional systems.

$`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ is an example of an experimentally realizable ladder compound mcc . This material, in comparison with other ladder materials, is easily fabricated and has received considerable attention from experimentalists. The structure of this compound consists of three unique layers: a copper-oxygen two-leg ladder layer, a $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ chain layer, and a layer of $`\mathrm{Sr}`$ and $`\mathrm{Ca}`$ atoms. By replacing $`\mathrm{Sr}`$ atoms with $`\mathrm{Ca}`$ atoms, pre-existing holes can be moved from the chains to the ladders. For $`x=0`$, the ladders are undoped and have a ground state with strong antiferromagnetic correlations.

Conductivity measurements have been performed on $`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ for $`x=8`$ and $`x=11`$ osa . The $`c`$-axis (parallel to the legs) resistivity, $`\rho _c`$, and conductivity, $`\sigma _{1c}`$, for $`x=11`$ are of particular interest. For this doping the resistivity shows insulating behaviour at low temperatures and metallic behaviour above $`T100`$ K. The conductivity has a low-frequency peak located at a finite frequency ($`\omega 50`$ cm<sup>-1</sup>). At higher frequencies there is considerable spectral weight.

Conductivity of single one-dimensional chains in the presence of either quenched disorder or umklapp processes has been studied in various theoretical papers shu ; gia1 ; gia2 ; gia3 . The effects of quenched disorder in two-leg ladders have also been examined in detail ori ; kim . In one such paper, Kim kim  explains the low temperature insulating behaviour and the low frequency optical conductivity peak of the $`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ two-leg ladder. Also, Qin et al. qin  have recently examined the conductivity properties of the doped two-leg ladder using a mean field holon-spinon treatment. However, an explanation of the metallic behaviour in resistivity above $`100`$ K, specifically the monotonic increase in resistivity, for $`x=11`$ has not yet been presented. It has been suggested kim  that disorder, in the presence of pairing fluctuations, may provide an explanation provided spin fluctuations are suppressed by the presence of a gap. The purpose of this paper will be to examine the roles which quenched disorder and umklapp processes play in these regimes. Specifically, we demonstrate that disorder cannot be responsible for the observed phenomena whereas umklapp processes provide a plausible explanation, as they do for the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates htc . In addition, we will illustrate the differences between umklapp processes in a single chain and in a two-leg ladder.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we present the model Hamiltonian used to describe the two-leg ladder with umklapp processes and disorder. This Hamiltonian may be derived in the case of weak coupling, but becomes a phenomenological model in the strong coupling case. In Sec. III, we present some scaling results which demonstrate that, at high energies, quenched disorder gives rise to a decreasing resistivity or a resistivity with little temperature dependence (depending on whether spin fluctuations are present or not) whereas umklapp processes can give rise to a resistivity which is approximately linear in $`T`$. In Sec. IV, we present a renormalization group (RG) analysis for umklapp processes and disorder. Using this RG analysis and NMR results from Fujiyama et al. fuj , we argue that the scaling results of Sec. III apply to the $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ca}_{11}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ two-leg ladder. We also discuss how perturbative calculations of conductivity, which should be valid at energies well above the charge and spin gap energies, are also valid, at least qualitatively, until localization effects take over at low energies. In Sec. V, we perform perturbative calculations for conductivity using the memory function formalism, in analogy with Giamarchi’s calculation gia2  for the single chain with umklapp processes. Finally, in Sec. VI, we use the perturbative calculations of Sec. V along with the scaling equations of Sec. III to produce conductivity curves which resemble the experimental results of Ref. osa .

## II Model

### II.1 Clean System

The Hamiltonian for the clean two-leg Hubbard Ladder is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,s}{}}\left(c_{i+1,s}^{}c_{i,s}+c_{i,s}^{}c_{i+1,s}\right)`$ (1)
$``$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,s}{}}\left(d_{i+1,s}^{}d_{i,s}+d_{i,s}^{}d_{i+1,s}\right)`$
$``$ $`t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,s}{}}\left(c_{i,s}^{}d_{i,s}+d_{i,s}^{}c_{i,s}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}:n_{i,}^cn_{i,}^c:+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}:n_{i,}^dn_{i,}^d:,`$
where the $`c_{i,s}`$’s annihilate fermions in spin state $`s`$ from the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ site on one leg and the $`d_{i,s}`$’s perform the same operation on the other leg. Also, $`::`$ represents normal ordering with respect to the filled Fermi sea. To investigate the properties of this model, we begin by making a transformation to the bonding/antibonding operators,

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill b_{i,s}\\ \hfill a_{i,s}\end{array}\}=\frac{c_{i,s}\pm d_{i,s}}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(2)
The resulting free Hamiltonian ($`U=0`$) has a band structure consisting of two cosine dispersion relations separated by $`2t_{}`$, where $`t_{}`$ is the hopping energy along a rung.

Next we linearize about the Fermi points and take a continuum limit as in Ref. emr . The continuum Hamiltonian will be composed of chiral field operators, $`\psi _{L/R,b/a,/}`$, where $`L/R`$ refers to left/right moving fermions, $`b/a`$ refers to the bonding/antibonding band, and $`/`$ refers to spin up/down. Specifically, the interaction terms will be of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}qx}\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\beta ^{}\psi _\delta \psi _\gamma `$, with $`q`$ being one of $`\pm \{0,2k_{b/a},4k_{b/a},2(k_a\pm k_b)\}`$, where $`k_{a/b}`$ is the Fermi momentum of the antibonding/bonding band. At low energy scales, only the $`q=0`$ terms are important, unless one of the other $`q`$ values is near a reciprocal lattice vector (giving rise to umklapp processes). For now we will ignore such processes and concentrate on the $`q=0`$ case.

Since we are concerned with the low energy properties of the two-leg ladder, a cutoff of $`O(1/a)`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing, may be introduced. This allows the well known Bosonization transformation vond  to be applied to the continuum Hamiltonian. Following Lin et al. lin , we perform this procedure and ignore interaction terms with irrelevant couplings. The resulting bosonic Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_{\rho ^+}+H_\rho ^{}+H_{\sigma ^+}+H_\sigma ^{}+H_{\mathrm{int}},`$ (3)
where

$`H_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{v_\nu }{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[K_\nu \pi _\nu ^2+\frac{1}{K_\nu }\left(_x\varphi _\nu \right)^2\right]},`$ (4)
and

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_c{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _{b\sigma }\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _{a\sigma }}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\left[g_{bs}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{8\pi }\varphi _{b\sigma }+g_{as}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{8\pi }\varphi _{a\sigma }\right]}.`$
A number of comments must be made about this Hamiltonian. First, we have neglected terms proportional to the difference between bonding and antibonding Fermi velocities in order to eliminate cross terms from the free Hamiltonian. This is a good approximation if $`t_{}`$ is smaller than $`2t`$ and neither band is very far from half filling. Second, in the non-interacting limit, $`H_{\mathrm{int}}0`$, $`u_\nu `$ becomes the Fermi velocity, and the Luttinger parameters, $`\{K_\nu \}`$, become unity. Finally, something must be said about the boson fields themselves. Within the bosonization framework, fermionic densities are represented by gradients of boson fields. In the present case, charge density in the bonding/antibonding band is given by $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_x\varphi _{b/a\rho }`$ while spin density is given by $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_x\varphi _{b/a\sigma }`$. The remaining fields in Eq. (3) are defined as

$`\varphi _{\rho ^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{b\rho }\pm \varphi _{a\rho }}{\sqrt{2}}}`$
$`\varphi _{\sigma ^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{b\sigma }\pm \varphi _{a\sigma }}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (6)
and

$`\pi _i=_x\theta _i.`$ (7)
Lin et al. lin  perform an RG analysis on the continuum fermion Hamiltonian for the two-leg ladder. By comparing the couplings in Eq. (5) to their counterparts in the fermion model, it is readily seen that $`g_c`$ and $`g_{b/as}`$ are relevant in the RG sense. This implies that the two spin modes are gapped and one charge mode is gapped. Also, in order to pin $`\theta _\rho ^{}`$, the two spin modes must first be pinned. That is, the magnitude of the charge gap must be smaller than the spin gap. Although Eq. (5) may be derived from the Hubbard for small $`U`$, numerical work noa  shows that there is no phase transition as one moves from weak to strong coupling. Therefore, we take this Hamiltonian as a phenomenological model for the case of strong coupling as well.

The free part of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) is written in terms of the $`\varphi _{\sigma ^\pm }`$ fields to eliminate cross terms which would appear if it had been written in terms of the $`\varphi _{b/a\sigma }`$ fields. The interaction part of the Hamiltonian is written in terms of the $`b/a\sigma `$ fields in order to elucidate the gap properties of the system. However, it is convenient to express the entire Hamiltonian in terms of the $`\sigma ^\pm `$ fields when describing scaling and renormalization properties. The interaction part then becomes

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{a^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\sigma ^+}}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _\sigma ^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_+}{a^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\sigma ^+}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _\sigma ^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}}{a^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\sigma ^+}\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _\sigma ^{}},`$
where $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are equal to $`g_c`$, but will flow differently under RG, and $`g_\pm =(g_{as}\pm g_{bs})/2`$.

### II.2 Scattering Mechanisms

#### II.2.1 Umklapp Processes

In the previous section, interaction terms of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}qx}\psi _\alpha ^{}\psi _\beta ^{}\psi _\delta \psi _\gamma `$ were ignored for non-zero $`q`$ values. However, if any of the possible $`q`$ values are close to a reciprocal lattice vector, then such terms will become important. With the restrictions on $`t_{}`$ and filling ($`t_{}`$ small compared to $`t`$, and both bands not far from half-filling), the only $`q`$ values which can satisfy this condition are $`\pm \{4k_{b/a},2(k_a+k_b)\}`$. In these cases the net momentum transfers will be $`2\pi /aq`$. When Bosonized, the umklapp terms become

$`H_{\mathrm{um}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}}\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\delta _{b+a}x)[g_{u1}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}`$ (9)
$``$ $`g_{u2}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _\sigma ^{}g_{u3}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\sigma ^{}]`$
$`+`$ $`g_{u4}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\mathrm{cos}\left[\sqrt{4\pi }\left(\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\varphi _\rho ^{}\right)+\delta _ax\right]}`$
$`+`$ $`g_{u5}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\mathrm{cos}\left[\sqrt{4\pi }\left(\varphi _{\rho ^+}\varphi _\rho ^{}\right)+\delta _bx\right]},`$
where

$`\delta _{b+a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{a}}2(k_a+k_b),`$ (10)
and

$`\delta _{b/a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{a}}4k_{b/a}.`$ (11)
Eq. (9) reveals an important difference between umklapp processes on a single chain and on a two-leg ladder. For the chain, spin was completely decoupled from the charge carrying mode gia2 . For the ladder, umklapp processes couple the charge mode, $`\rho ^+`$, to spin. The consequences of this coupling will be discussed later.

#### II.2.2 Disorder

For one dimensional conductors, disorder has typically been modeled by a random on-site potential abr ; gia1 ; ori ,

$`H_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,p,s}{}}ϵ_{i,p}:n_{i,s,p}:`$ (12)
where $`p`$ is the leg label, $`i`$ is the site label and $`s`$ is the spin state label. Also, the disorder strength, $`ϵ_{i,p}`$, is taken from a Gaussian distribution of width, $`D`$, which should be proportional to $`v_F/\tau `$, where $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity and $`\tau `$ is the mean free path.

After switching to bonding/antibonding operators, taking the continuum limit and Bosonizing, the disorder Hamiltonian becomes

$`H_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\xi _1e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\varphi _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\sigma ^+}+\varphi _\sigma ^{})}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\xi _2e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}\varphi _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\sigma ^+}\varphi _\sigma ^{})}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}}\xi _3(e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}\theta _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\sigma ^+}\theta _\sigma ^{})`$
$`+`$ $`e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\theta _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\sigma ^+}+\theta _\sigma ^{}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}}\xi _4(e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _\rho ^{}+\theta _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _\sigma ^{}+\theta _\sigma ^{})`$
$`+`$ $`e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _\rho ^{}\theta _\rho ^{})}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _\sigma ^{}\theta _\sigma ^{}))`$
$`+`$ $`H.c.,`$
where the $`\xi `$’s are taken from independent Gaussian distributions. Specifically, the disorder fields satisfy

$`\xi _i(x)\xi _j^{}(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`aD_i\delta _{i,j}\delta (xx^{}),`$
$`\xi \xi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes disorder averaging. Terms which produce scatterings from a Fermi point to itself have been ignored, as they are unimportant for conductivity calculations and may be eliminated by simple transformations ori .

Eq. (13) is useful for performing perturbative calculations above the spin and charge gaps. However, below these energies, simplified forms for the Hamiltonian may be derived by integrating over quantum fluctuations which arise due to the pinning of a field and the rapid oscillations this induces in the corresponding conjugate field. This procedure is explained in Appendix C of Ref. ori .

Some earlier experimental evidence mag  points to a spin gap of about $`300`$ K for $`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$, with $`x=11.5`$. One possible explanation of the nearly linear power law dependence of $`\rho _c`$ on $`T`$ kim , as mentioned in the introduction, involves quenched disorder in the presence of pairing fluctuations without spin fluctuations (i.e. $`\theta _\rho ^{}`$ is free to fluctuate, but $`\varphi _{\sigma ^+}`$ and $`\varphi _\sigma ^{}`$ are pinned). If such a regime exists, the effective Hamiltonian may be derived by integrating over the fluctuations in $`\theta _{\sigma ^+}`$ and $`\theta _\sigma ^{}`$. The result is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{\rho ^+}+H_\rho ^{}+g_c{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}}[\xi _ae^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}\varphi _\rho ^{})}`$
$`+`$ $`\xi _be^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }(\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\varphi _\rho ^{})}+H.c.],`$
where terms which would contribute to physical properties by an amount of $`O(D^2)`$ have been dropped.

## III Conductivity and Scaling

The real part of the conductivity is given by

$`\mathrm{}\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,T)\right]`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the current-current correlation function which may be calculated using the Kubo formula. In one dimension we have

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}[j^{}(x,t),j(0,0)],`$ (17)
where $`j`$ is the current operator, which can be readily obtained from the charge density operator, $`\rho `$, using the continuity equation, $`_t\rho _xj=0`$. For the present system, $`\rho `$ is given by

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}_x\varphi _{\rho ^+},`$ (18)
yielding

$`j={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}_t\varphi _{\rho ^+}.`$ (19)
Inserting this into Eq. (17) gives

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{4\omega ^2}{\pi }}G_{\mathrm{ret}}(\omega ,T)`$ (20)
where

$`G_{\mathrm{ret}}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}[\varphi _{\rho ^+}(x,t),\varphi _{\rho ^+}(0,0)].`$ (21)
At high energies, the retarded Green’s function, $`G_{\mathrm{ret}}`$, may be calculated using perturbation theory. However, if low energy properties are of interest, then another approach must be taken. In this work, RG and scaling techniques car  are used to obtain low energy information from perturbative calculations of higher energy properties. Suppose energy is scaled in the following way: $`EbE(b=e^{dl}`$ and $`E=\omega `$ or $`T)`$, then the Green’s function transforms as

$`G_{\mathrm{ret}}(E,\{g\})=b^2Z_{\rho ^+}G_{\mathrm{ret}}(bE,\{g(dl)\})`$ (22)
where $`Z_{\rho ^+}`$ is due to “wave function renormalization”, $`\{g\}`$ represents the set of coupling constants, and $`\{g(dl)\}`$ represents the set of coupling constants after scaling. Letting $`Z_{\rho ^+}=b^\gamma `$ and iterating Eq. (22) gives

$`G_{\mathrm{ret}}(E,\{g\})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _0^l^{}}𝑑l(2\gamma (l))\right]`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`G_{\mathrm{ret}}(e^l^{}E,\{g(l^{})\}).`$
If we wish to calculate the Green’s function on the LHS of Eq. (23), we may choose $`l^{}`$ such that $`e^l^{}=(E_0/E)`$ where $`E_0`$ is an energy comparable to the bandwidth (i.e. perturbation theory should be valid there).

Eq. (23) is also useful when $`E`$ is large and the Born approximation is valid. In this case, it leads directly to a scaling relation for $`1/\tau `$. It is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau (bE,\{g(dl)\})}}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{\tau (E,\{g\})}},`$ (24)
where contributions of $`O(g^2)`$ have been ignored. Since resistivity is proportional to $`1/\tau `$, Eq. (24) may be used to calculate its temperature or frequency dependence in regimes where perturbation theory is valid (i.e. well above spin and charge gaps). In order to do this, the scaling behaviour of couplings which lead to scattering in the $`\rho ^+`$ channel must be known. This information is easily determined in the Boson formalism (see Ref. vond ). As an example, the disorder strengths, $`D_{a/b}`$, in the Hamiltonian of Eq. (15) scale as $`D_{a/b}^{}=D_{a/b}b^{3(K_{\rho ^+}K_\rho ^{})/2}`$. This yields a high temperature resistivity of the form

$`\rho _ca_1D_aT^{\frac{K_{\rho ^+}}{2}+\frac{K_\rho ^{}}{2}2}+a_3D_bT^{\frac{K_{\rho ^+}}{2}+\frac{K_\rho ^{}}{2}2}`$
(25)
where the $`a_i`$’s are constants. This form for resistivity is valid above the $`\rho ^{}`$ gap if spin fluctuations are sufficiently suppressed. In the next section, we argue that the Luttinger parameters cannot deviate significantly from unity without moving the spin and/or charge gaps to extremely high or low energies. Therefore, Eq. (25) implies that $`\rho _c`$ will have a monotonically decreasing temperature dependence in the presence of pairing fluctuations and disorder. This is inconsistent with the linear power law regime observed in $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ca}_{11}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$.

Although some earlier experimental evidence points to a $`300`$ K spin gap for the strontium cuprate ladder, NMR results from Fujiyama et al.fuj  indicate the existence of spin fluctuations at temperatures as low as $`60`$ K - about the same temperature at which charge localization occurs. The Hamiltonian consisting of Eq. (8) and (13), which allows for spin fluctuations, may, therefore, be a more appropriate model in the power law regime. Performing the same scaling analysis which led to Eq. (25) on this model yields a high temperature resistivity of the form

$`\rho _c`$ $``$ $`a_1D_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{T}}\right)^{2\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\rho ^+}+K_\rho ^{}+K_{\sigma ^+}+K_\sigma ^{}\right)}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`a_3D_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_4}{T}}\right)^{2\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\rho ^+}+K_\rho ^{}+K_{\sigma ^+}+K_\sigma ^{}\right)}`$
$`+`$ $`a_5D_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_6}{T}}\right)^{2\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\rho ^+}+K_\rho ^{}+K_{\sigma ^+}+\frac{1}{K_\sigma ^{}}\right)}`$
$`+`$ $`a_7D_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_8}{T}}\right)^{2\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{\rho ^+}+K_\rho ^{}+K_\sigma ^{}+\frac{1}{K_\sigma ^{}}\right)}.`$
For Luttinger parameters close to unity, this resistivity will have little temperature dependence.

Turning to umklapp processes, if the system is not far from a special filling (i.e. one of the $`\delta `$’s in Eq. (9) is small), then, at high temperatures, Eq. (24) can be used to determine $`\rho _c`$ as before. For the case of $`\delta _{b+a}`$ small, it is

$`\rho _c`$ $``$ $`a_1g_{u1}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{T}}\right)^{32\left(K_{\rho ^+}+\frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}\right)}`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`a_3g_{u2}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_4}{T}}\right)^{32\left(K_{\rho ^+}+K_\sigma ^{}\right)}`$
$`+`$ $`a_5g_{u3}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_6}{T}}\right)^{32\left(K_{\rho ^+}+\frac{1}{K_\sigma ^{}}\right)}.`$
If the Luttinger parameters are close to unity, then this resistivity is approximately linear in $`T`$. For the case of $`\delta _{b/a}`$ small, similar results hold.

At this point, an important difference between the effect of umklapp processes on the conductivity of single chains and two-leg ladders becomes apparent. In the case of a single chain, if $`\delta T`$ but not zero ($`\delta =0`$ gives rise to a charge gap) and $`K_\rho 1`$, then umklapp processes lead to a linear $`T`$ dependence for resistivity regardless of the behaviour of the spin mode (which is completely decoupled from the charge mode) gia2 . However, in the case of the two-leg ladder, charge and spin gaps can alter this behaviour. For example, if a specific ladder material has a large spin gap, then a regime in which fluctuations of the $`\rho ^{}`$ mode are allowed but spin fluctuations are suppressed might exist. For $`\delta _{b+a}`$ small, an effective Hamiltonian for this regime may be derived from Eq. (9) by integrating over fluctuations in the $`\theta _\sigma ^{}`$ field. The result would be terms in the DC resistivity which are proportional to $`T^5`$, $`T`$ and $`1/T`$. Below the $`\rho ^{}`$ gap, all fillings which give rise to significant umklapp scattering would give $`T^5`$ and $`1/T`$ contributions pat .

## IV Renormalization Group Analysis

In the previous section it was demonstrated that, at high energies, umklapp processes can contribute a linear temperature dependence to the DC resistivity of two-leg ladder compounds. In this section and the next, we discuss what happens at lower energy and attempt to explain the conductivity data of Osafune et al. osa  Based on the discussion of the previous sections, we take our model to consist of the clean Hamiltonian of Eq. (3), the $`\delta _{b+a}`$ term of the umklapp Hamiltonian of Eq. (9) (we drop the $`b+a`$ subscript from here on), and the disorder Hamiltonian,

$`H_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2}\xi e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}}}+\xi ^{}e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}},`$ (28)
used in Ref.kim . Note that $`H_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ can be derived from Eq. (13) by integrating over fluctuations in the $`\sigma ^\pm `$ and the $`\rho ^{}`$ modes which exist when $`g_{b/as}`$ and $`g_c`$ are large. Since these couplings are strongly relevant, Eq. (28) is the correct disorder Hamiltonian at low energies. Here, we assume that the disorder couplings appearing in Eq. (28) are sufficiently weak that $`H_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ has little effect on transport properties except at these low energies.

RG equations may be derived for our model by scaling space-time variables while adjusting coupling constants to maintain the real space cutoff, $`a`$. Following standard methods car , this procedure has been carried out to second order in the couplings, with the results shown in Appendix A. These equations have a number of important implications. In weak coupling, the $`\sigma ^\pm `$ and the $`\rho ^{}`$ modes are gapped due to the relevancy of $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, $`g_{as}`$ and $`g_{bs}`$. Numerical work noa  has shown that these gaps persist in the strong coupling case. Therefore, the parameters of our phenomenological Hamiltonian must have values such that the couplings which generate the gaps grow large at the appropriate energy scale. From the RG equations it is also clear that, when the interaction couplings are small, the energy scale of the gaps is determined by the Luttinger parameters. For the case of a one-dimensional chain, there is only one Luttinger parameter, $`K_\sigma `$, relating to spin. This parameter is restricted to values near unity fra . We will assume that it is reasonable to take $`K_{\sigma ^\pm }`$ near unity as well. In fact, if either of $`K_{\sigma ^\pm }`$ or $`K_\rho ^{}`$ deviates significantly from unity, then one or more gaps will open at very high energy (near $`E_0`$) or at very low energy. This would be inconsistent with a gap magnitude of approximately $`60`$ K. Taken together with the fact that $`K_{\rho ^+}<1`$ for repulsive density interactions, these Luttinger parameter restrictions indicate that umklapp scattering gives rise to a nearly linear $`T`$ dependence for resistivity at high energies (see Eq. (27)). In addition, numerical integration of the RG equations shows that the Luttinger parameters do not undergo significant renormalization until the gap energy is reached. Therefore, this linear $`T`$ behaviour should persist until just above the gap energies, well below $`E_0`$.

Given that scaling arguments strongly suggest umklapp processes as the mechanism responsible for the power law resistivity feature of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ca}_{11}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$, it would be useful to perform conductivity calculations which are valid at all energy scales. To accomplish this, perturbative calculations along with the RG equations and Eq. (22) may be used. A number of simplifications can be made at this point. First, from numerical integration, we find that the Luttinger parameters and the velocities flow slowly at high energies (their flow rate is proportional to $`O(g^2)`$). At low energies, renormalization due to umklapp processes is attenuated by a rapid growth of $`\delta `$. Therefore, we ignore renormalization of Luttinger parameters and velocities due to umklapp processes. Within this approximation, the velocities will all flow to the same value until localization takes over at low energy. This implies that, above the localization energy, there is no qualitative difference between conductivities calculated with different velocity parameters. Taking all velocities as equal also allows perturbative conductivity calculations to be performed in a straightforward manner using standard results shu2 ; bou . Finally, all gap generating couplings will flow slowly under renormalization until they become $`O(1)`$, at which point they diverge rapidly. The Luttinger parameters also flow slowly until this point. Given that the $`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ ladder has spin fluctuations at energies as low as the charge localization energy, we ignore renormalization of the Luttinger parameters. This is qualitatively valid since these parameters only flow in a significant way after wavefunction renormalization becomes the dominant factor in scaling (see Eq. (22)).

## V Perturbative Calculation of the Memory Function

In order to make use of Eq. (22), perturbative calculations of $`\rho _c`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ are required. Following Giamarchi gia2 , the memory function formalism got  may be implemented for this purpose. We proceed by writing the conductivity as

$`\sigma =\mathrm{i}Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +M(\omega )}}`$ (29)
where $`Q`$ is the response of the free electron system and $`M`$ is the memory function given by

$`M(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{F;F_0(\omega )F;F_0(0)}{\omega Q}},`$ (30)
with

$`F;F_0=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}[F(x,t),F(0)]_0`$
and $`F=[j,H]`$. From Eq. (9), (19) and (28) we find

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i4}uK_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}}[\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}+\delta x)\{g_{u1}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\rho ^{}`$ (32)
$``$ $`g_{u2}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _\sigma ^{}g_{u3}\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _\sigma ^{}\}`$
$`+`$ $`\xi ^{}(x)e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}}\xi (x)e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{4\pi }\varphi _{\rho ^+}}]`$
where only the $`\delta _{b+a}`$ term from the umklapp Hamiltonian has been used and all velocities have been taken as equal. Using the results of Schulz shu2 , and Schulz and Bourbonnais bou , $`F;F_0(\omega )`$ may be calculated in a straightforward manner. The memory function of Eq. (30) then becomes $`M=M_{\mathrm{um}}+M_{\mathrm{dis}}`$, with

$`M_{\mathrm{um}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi K_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{\chi =1}{\overset{3}{}}}g_{u\chi }^2\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \kappa _\chi \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi aT}{u}}\right)^{2\left(\kappa _\chi 1\right)}`$ (33)
$`\times `$ $`\left(_\chi ^\omega (\delta )_\chi ^0(\delta )\right)`$
and

$`M_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $`=`$ $`4D\mathrm{sin}(\pi K_{\rho ^+})\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi aT}{u}}\right)^{2(K_{\rho ^+}1)}`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑p\left(_{\rho ^+}^\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}})_{\rho ^+}^0({\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}})\right)`$
where

$`_\chi ^\omega (\delta )`$ $`=`$ $`B({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\chi }{2}}\mathrm{i}S_+^\omega (\delta ),1\kappa _\chi )`$
$`\times `$ $`B({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\chi }{2}}\mathrm{i}S_{}^\omega (\delta ),1\kappa _\chi ),`$
$`_{\rho ^+}^\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}})`$ $`=`$ $`B({\displaystyle \frac{K_{\rho ^+}}{2}}\mathrm{i}S_+^\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}}),1K_{\rho ^+})`$
$`\times `$ $`B({\displaystyle \frac{K_{\rho ^+}}{2}}\mathrm{i}S_{}^\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}}),1K_{\rho ^+}),`$
$`S_\pm ^\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \pm ux}{4\pi T}},`$ (35)
and

$`\kappa _\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K_{\rho ^+}+\frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}:& \chi =1\hfill \\ \hfill K_{\rho ^+}+K_\sigma ^{}:& \chi =2\hfill \\ \hfill K_{\rho ^+}+\frac{1}{K_\sigma ^{}}:& \chi =3\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
Here $`B(x,y)`$ is the Beta function and $`Q`$ has been taken as $`4uK_{\rho ^+}/\pi `$, twice the value for a single band model sha . Also, the $`p`$ integral in $`M_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ arises because the disorder field, $`\xi `$, is Fourier transformed before disorder averaging is performed.

In this work, the zero frequency and zero temperature limits of the memory function will be of interest. For $`T0`$, $`\omega 0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}M_{\mathrm{um}}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\pi K_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}\frac{1}{\omega }\underset{\chi =1}{\overset{3}{}}g_{u\chi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\kappa _\chi )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \kappa _\chi )\left(\frac{a}{2u}\right)^{2(\kappa _\chi 1)}\\ \hfill \times \left\{\overline{\left[\left(u\delta \right)^2\omega ^2\right]}^{\kappa _\chi 1}\left(u\delta \right)^{2(\kappa _\chi 1)}\right\}.\end{array}$$
(40)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}M_{\mathrm{dis}}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{4DK_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}\frac{1}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}(\pi K_{\rho ^+})\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1K_{\rho ^+})\left(\frac{1}{2u}\right)^{2(K_{\rho ^+}1)}\\ \hfill \times _\pi ^\pi dp\{\overline{\left[\left(up\right)^2\omega ^2\right]}^{K_{\rho ^+}1}\left(up\right)^{2(K_{\rho ^+}1)}\}\end{array}$$
(41)
For the case $`\omega 0`$, $`T0`$ we have

$`M_{\mathrm{um}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\pi K_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\chi =1}{\overset{3}{}}}g_{u\chi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\kappa _\chi )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \kappa _\chi )`$ (42)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi aT}{u}}\right)^{2(\kappa _\chi 1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi T}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_\chi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{z}_\chi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1z_\chi )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{z}_\chi )}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(1z_\chi )+\mathrm{\Psi }(1\overline{z}_\chi )\mathrm{\Psi }(z_\chi )\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{z}_\chi )\right]`$
and

$`M_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i4}DK_{\rho ^+}}{a^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1K_{\rho ^+})\mathrm{sin}(\pi K_{\rho ^+})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi T}}\right)`$ (43)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi aT}{u}}\right)^{2(K_{\rho ^+}1)}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(y_p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{y}_p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1y_p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{y}_p)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(1y_p)+\mathrm{\Psi }(1\overline{y}_p)\mathrm{\Psi }(y_p)\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{y}_p)\right]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$,

$`z_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\chi }{2}}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{u\delta }{4\pi T}}`$ (44)
and

$`y_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_{\rho ^+}}{2}}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{up}{4\pi aT}}.`$ (45)
## VI Results From Scaling

Using the memory functions from the previous section along with Eq. (16), (22) and (49), conductivity and resistivity curves may be produced for a given set of couplings. To proceed, it is useful to rewrite Eq. (29) using Eq. (16) and (22) to obtain a scaling relation for resistivity/conductivity in terms of the memory function. For resistivity we have

$`\rho (T,\{g\})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\pi e^l^{}}{4uK_{\rho ^+}(l^{})}}e^{_0^l^{}𝑑l\gamma (l)}M(e^l^{}T,\{g(l^{})\})`$
(46)
and for conductivity,

$`\mathrm{}\sigma (\omega ,\{g\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4u}{\pi \omega }}e^{_0^l^{}𝑑l\gamma (l)}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^l^{}\omega K_{\rho ^+}(l^{})}{e^l^{}\omega +M(e^l^{}\omega ,\{g(l^{})\})}}\right].`$
In Sec. IV, it was argued that the Luttinger parameters and velocities do not renormalize significantly until the charge localization energy is reached. Therefore, in using Eq. (46) and (LABEL:eq:memcondscale), renormalization of these quantities will be ignored. Within this approximation, the parameters which affect the resistivity/conductivity curves are $`D,g_{ui},u,\delta ,K_{\rho ^+},K_\rho ^{}\text{ and }K_\sigma ^{}`$. Given any set of these parameters, we can now generate such curves. To set units, we make the transformation

$`T`$ $`k_BT,`$ $`\omega `$ $`\mathrm{}\omega ,`$
$`g_i`$ $`g_ita,`$ $`u`$ $`uta,`$
$`D`$ $`Dt^2a^2,`$ $`\rho `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}\rho ,`$
$`\sigma `$ $`e^2\sigma `$ (48)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge.

By trial and error, it is simple to choose parameters which generate curves that resemble those measured by Osafune et al. osa  We first recall that the Luttinger parameters should not be far from one, $`E_0`$ must be well above the highest temperature or wavenumber of interest, $`K_{\rho ^+}`$ must be less than one and $`\delta `$ should be small. It is also of interest to note that, quantitatively, the resistivity and conductivity curves are most sensitive to changes in $`D`$ and $`K_{\rho ^+}`$. For both resistivity and conductivity, we choose $`E_0=0.25`$ eV, $`ut=1.1`$ eV, $`K_{\rho ^+}=0.9`$, $`K_\rho ^{}=1.15`$, $`K_\sigma ^{}=0.85`$, $`g_{u1}t=0.4`$ eV, $`g_{u2}t=0`$ eV, $`g_{u3}t=0.5`$ eV, $`\delta =0.022`$ and $`D=0.00034`$ eV<sup>2</sup>. The resulting resistivity curve, shown in Fig. 1, demonstrates insulating behavior beginning below $`60`$ K and a monotonically increasing power law regime above that temperature. The localization temperature is mainly determined by $`K_{\rho ^+}`$, the exact nature of the power law above $`60`$ K is determined by the Luttinger parameters, the separation between the two regimes is determined by $`\delta `$ and the relative heights of the various parts of the curve are determined by $`\{g_{ui}\}`$ and $`D`$. The velocity, $`u`$, plays a role in determining the overall scale of the curve, as well as how fast the resistivity diverges at low $`T`$.

Our conductivity curve, shown in Fig. 2, demonstrates a finite frequency, Drude-like peak with additional spectral weight at higher wavenumbers. The position of the peak is determined mainly by $`K_{\rho ^+}`$, the peak height and attenuation are determined by $`u`$ and $`D`$, the relative height of the spectral weight beyond the peak is determined by $`\{g_{ui}\}`$, the nature of the power law at high wavenumbers is determined by the Luttinger parameters, and the wavenumber at which absorption due to umklapp processes begins is determined by $`\delta `$.

Although we have not done a detailed numerical fit to the data, our resistivity and conductivity curves show good qualitative agreement with the measurements of Osafune et al. osa . However, it it also clear that one can achieve a better quantitative fit to the data by choosing different values of $`D`$ and $`K_{\rho ^+}`$ to independently fit the resistivity and conductivity curves. This quantitative discrepancy is likely due to the fact that the renormalization of the Luttinger parameters and velocities was ignored.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we have used RG and scaling techniques to argue that the conductivity properties of the two-leg ladder compound $`\mathrm{Sr}_{14\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Ca}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cu}_{24}\mathrm{O}_{41}`$ can be explained by a combination of disorder and umklapp effects. It has been shown that quenched disorder, whether in the presence of pairing fluctuations alone or in the presence of pairing and spin fluctuations, does not contribute a monotonically increasing temperature dependence to the resistivity at high $`T`$. However, if spin and pairing fluctuations persist down to the charge localization temperature, then umklapp process can contribute an approximately linear temperature dependence if the system is near an appropriate filling. Experimental evidence from Fujiyama et al. fuj  suggests that such fluctuations do exist.

## Appendix A RG Equations

We have derived RG equations for the model described in Sec. IV using standard techniques. To second order in the interaction couplings they are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_1}{dl}}`$ $`=g_1\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}}K_{\sigma ^+}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_2}{dl}}`$ $`=g_2\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}}K_\sigma ^{}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{bs}}{dl}}`$ $`=g_{bs}\left(2K_{\sigma ^+}K_\sigma ^{}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{as}}{dl}}`$ $`=g_{as}\left(2K_{\sigma ^+}K_\sigma ^{}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{u1}}{dl}}`$ $`=g_{u1}\left(2K_{\rho ^+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{u2}}{dl}}`$ $`=g_{u2}\left(2K_{\rho ^+}K_\sigma ^{}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{u3}}{dl}}`$ $`=g_{u3}\left(2K_{\rho ^+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\sigma ^{}}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{dl}}=\delta ,{\displaystyle \frac{dD}{dl}}=D(32K_{\rho ^+}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_{\rho ^+}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2(g_{u1}^2+g_{u2}^2+g_{u3}^2)K_{\rho ^+}}{4u_0}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\rho ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_0(\delta a)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\rho ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_2(\delta a)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi DK_{\rho ^+}}{u_0}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_\rho ^{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{4u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho ^{}}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho ^{}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2+2J_0(\delta a)g_{u1}^2}{2}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho ^{}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_2(\delta a)g_{u1}^2\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_{\sigma ^+}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{8u_0}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\sigma ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)\left(g_1^2+g_+^2+g_{}^2\right)K_{\sigma ^+},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_\sigma ^{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{8u_0}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_\sigma ^{}^2}{u_0^2}})\{(g_2^2+g_+^2+g_{}^2+2J_0(\delta a)g_{u2}^2)K_\sigma ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2J_0(\delta a)g_{u3}^2}{K_\sigma ^{}}}\}`$
$``$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\sigma ^{}^2}{u_0^2}})\{2J_2(\delta a)g_{u2}^2K_\sigma ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2J_2(\delta a)g_{u3}^2}{K_\sigma ^{}}}\}],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_{\rho ^+}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2(g_{u1}^2+g_{u2}^2+g_{u3}^2)K_{\rho ^+}^2}{4u_{\rho ^+}u_0}}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\rho ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_0(\delta a)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\rho ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_2(\delta a)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi DK_{\rho ^+}^2}{u_{\rho ^+}u_0}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_\rho ^{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{4u_\rho ^{}u_0}}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho ^{}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2+2J_0(\delta a)g_{u1}^2}{2}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_\rho ^{}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)J_2(\delta a)g_{u1}^2\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_{\sigma ^+}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{8u_{\sigma ^+}u_0}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\sigma ^+}^2}{u_0^2}}\right)\left(g_1^2+g_+^2+g_{}^2\right)K_{\sigma ^+}^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_\sigma ^{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{8u_\sigma ^{}u_0}}[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u_\sigma ^{}^2}{u_0^2}})\{(g_2^2+g_+^2+g_{}^2+2J_0(\delta a)g_{u2}^2)K_\sigma ^{}^22J_0(\delta a)g_{u3}^2\}`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{u_\sigma ^{}^2}{u_0^2}})\{2J_2(\delta a)g_{u2}^2K_\sigma ^{}^22J_2(\delta a)g_{u3}^2\}]`$
where $`J_{0/2}`$ are the zeroth/second order Bessel functions, the $`b+a`$ subscript has been dropped from $`\delta _{b+a}`$, and $`u_0`$ was introduced to set the units of the time cutoff correctly. It is immediately clear that the velocities and Luttinger parameters initially flow slowly since their rate of change is $`O(g^2)`$. Also, $`\delta `$ grows exponentially so that the Bessel functions which appear in the equations for the velocities and Luttinger parameters go to zero at low energies. The contribution of umklapp processes to the renormalization of velocities and Luttinger parameters is neglected in this work by dropping all terms involving Bessel functions. Within this approximation, the velocities other than $`u_{\rho ^+}`$ will all flow to $`u_0`$ while $`u_{\rho ^+}`$ will only flow in a significant way when localization takes over at low energies. At this point, wavefunction renormalization becomes the dominant effect so we may ignore renormalization of the velocities as well. Finally, the feedback between the Luttinger parameters and the couplings which renormalize it is such that the Luttinger parameters flow slowly until couplings become $`O(1)`$. At this point, both couplings and Luttinger parameters diverge rapidly. However, if the gaps in the system occur below the charge localization energy, then this won’t happen until wavefunction renormalization becomes the dominant effect. Under these circumstances, neglecting Luttinger parameter renormalization should not introduce any qualitative errors in calculations of conductivity (although quantitatively there will likely be some effect).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank A.J. Berlinsky and C. Bourbonnais for valuable discussions. In addition, we acknowledge NSERC for financial support.