text:
# Quasiparticles as composite objects in the RVB superconductor

## I Introduction

This paper concerns the nature of the superconducting state and the excitation spectrum obtained from the bosonic resonating valence bond (b-RVB) theory of the $`tJ`$ model. The $`tJ`$ model, arguably the simplest description of a doped Mott insulator , is given by

$$H=t\underset{ij\sigma }{}c_{i\sigma }^{}(1n_{i\sigma })c_{j\sigma }(1n_{j\sigma })+J\underset{ij}{}\left[𝐒_i𝐒_j\frac{n_in_j}{4}\right].$$
(1)
The b-RVB theory of the Hamiltonian (1) yields a consistent description of the doped antiferromagnetic Mott insulator. At half filling, the theory reduces to the Schwinger boson representation of the Heisenberg model . At small doping concentrations, the theory describes a cluster spin glass phase, which eventually makes way to a superconducting phase . The theory also exhibits a spontaneous vortex phase where the holons are (Bose) condensed and the spinons are perceived as half vortices by the holon field . Recently, we considered a Ginzburg-Landau formulation of this theory and showed how $`\frac{hc}{2e}`$ quantization arises in the superconducting state. A spinon, perceived as a half vortex by the holon field, is trapped within a vortex core, thereby leading to a $`2e`$ flux quantum . In this paper, we present a microscopic description of the superconducting state at zero temperature. In particular, we show explicitly that when the holons are condensed, it costs a logarithmically divergent energy to create a bare spinon excitation. Therefore, a bare spinon excitation is confined. We show that energy considerations only permit neutral $`S=1`$ and quasiparticle excitations. We also demonstrate that the short range antiferromagnetic (AF) correlations lead to $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry. The results presented in this paper illustrate how a nodal quasiparticle arises from an RVB vacuum, at low energies. This paper complements the macroscopic description of the superconducting state, presented in our earlier work .

The paper is organized as follows. For completeness, we devote the next section to a brief summary of the b-RVB formulation of the $`tJ`$ model (1). This leads to an effective Hamiltonian for the spin and charge degrees of freedom which can be solved within a mean field approximation. The basic results used repeatedly in this paper are summarized. In the following section, we discuss the nature of the superconducting state, and show how $`d`$ -wave pairing arises in this theory. The excitation spectrum is studied in Section IV. We show that bare spinon (or holon) excitations are confined in the superconducting state, and that only neutral $`S=1`$ and composite excitations (that carry both spin and charge) are allowed in the superconducting state. The latter would be the RVB analog of quasiparticles in a BCS superconductor. In the final section, we summarize our results and discuss them in the context of the complete phase diagram obtained within the b-RVB theory.

## II Bosonic formulation of the $`tJ`$ model

The b-RVB formulation can be regarded as a bosonization scheme for the $`tJ`$ model (1). The electron operator, $`c_{i\sigma }`$ is written as

$$c_{i\sigma }=h_i^{}b_{i\sigma }e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}$$
(2)
where the holon $`h_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and spinon $`b_{i\sigma }`$ operators represent bosonic fields. The holon and spinon fields satisfy the constraint, $`h_i^{}h_i+_\sigma b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{i\sigma }=1`$, as in the fermion or $`d`$-RVB theories . However, the presence of the nontrivial phase string operator, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }`$, in (2), makes this theory very different from the $`d`$-RVB theories. The phase string operator leads to nonlocal correlations between the charge and spin degrees of freedom on account of hole motion in a background with short range AF correlations. The fermion statistics of $`c_{i\sigma }`$ is also realized through the phase field

$$e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}=(\sigma )^{\widehat{N}_h}(\sigma )^ie^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_{i\sigma }^{\mathrm{string}}}.$$
(3)
The Klein factor $`(\sigma )^{\widehat{N}_h}`$ guarantees anticommutation relations between electron operators with different spins. Unless otherwise stated, this factor will be omitted as it does not play any role in the spin, transport, and single particle channels. The phase string operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{i\sigma }^{\mathrm{string}}`$, is a nonlocal operator given by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{i\sigma }^{\mathrm{string}}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right],$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b=\underset{li}{}\theta _i(l)\left(\underset{\alpha }{}\alpha n_{l\alpha }^b1\right),$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h=\underset{li}{}\theta _i(l)n_l^h.$$
(6)
Here, $`n_{l\alpha }^b`$ and $`n_l^h`$ are spinon and holon number operators, respectively. The quantity $`\theta _i(l)`$ is defined as $`\theta _i(l)\text{Im ln }(z_iz_l)`$, where $`z_l=x_l+iy_l`$ is the complex coordinate of a lattice site $`l`$.

Using the decomposition (2), we find that the hopping term $`H_t`$ in (1) can be written as

$$H_t=t\underset{ij\sigma }{}\left(e^{iA_{ij}^si\varphi _{ij}^0}\right)h_i^{}h_j\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ji}^h}\right)b_{j\sigma }^{}b_{i\sigma }+h.c.,$$
(7)
where

$$A_{ij}^s=\frac{1}{2}\underset{li,j}{}\left[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)\right]\left(\underset{\sigma }{}\sigma n_{l\sigma }^b\right),$$
(8)
and

$$\varphi _{ij}^0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{li,j}{}\left[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)\right].$$
(9)
The lattice gauge field $`A_{ij}^s`$ describes fictitious fluxoids bound to spinons satisfying

$$\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^s=\pm \pi \underset{lc}{}\left[n_l^bn_l^b\right],$$
(10)
for an arbitrary closed path $`c`$ (assuming no spinons along $`c`$). The sign $`\pm `$ on the right hand side of the above equation refers to the clockwise or counter clockwise choices for the path $`c`$. The quantity $`\varphi _{ij}^0`$ describes a uniform flux threading through the 2D plane with a strength $`\pi `$ per plaquette, $`_{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{ij}^0=\pm \pi `$. The gauge field $`A_{ij}^h`$ is given by holons,

$$A_{ij}^h=\frac{1}{2}\underset{li,j}{}\left[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)\right]n_l^h,$$
(11)
and describes fictitious fluxoids bound to holons,

$$\underset{c}{}A_{ij}^h=\pm \underset{lc}{}n_l^h.$$
(12)
The superexchange term $`H_J`$ in (1) is given by

$$H_J=\frac{J}{2}\underset{ij\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}\right)b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}\left(e^{i\sigma ^{}A_{ji}^h}\right)b_{j\sigma ^{}}b_{i\sigma ^{}},$$
(13)
From equations (7) and (13), we see that the b-RVB theory can be thought of as a $`\pi `$-flux theory where the $`\pi `$ fluxoids are bound to the constituent particles, *i.e.*, the spinons and the holons.

### A Mean field solution

The Hamiltonians for the charge and spin degrees of freedom, (7) and (13) respectively, can be solved within a generalized mean field approximation. We expect the presence of the nonlocal fields $`A_{ij}^s`$ and $`A_{ij}^h`$ to cause residual effects of the short range AF correlations within such a mean field treatment. We summarize below, a few results that will be used in this paper. We refer the reader to an earlier paper by one of us for details .

A mean field decoupling leads to an effective Hamiltonian, $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H_h+H_s`$ , where the effective holon Hamiltonian

$$H_h=t_h\underset{ij}{}\left(e^{i[A_{ij}^s\varphi _{ij}^0]}\right)h_i^{}h_j+h.c.,$$
(14)
with $`t_ht`$. The effective spinon Hamiltonian is given by

$$H_s=J_s\underset{ij\sigma }{}\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}\right)b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}+h.c.+\lambda \left(\underset{i\sigma }{}b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{i\sigma }(1\delta )N\right),$$
(15)
where $`J_s`$ and $`J`$ are related by the generalized RVB order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s`$ as $`J_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}{2}J`$. In the above expression,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^s\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s=\underset{\sigma }{}e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}b_{i\sigma }b_{j\sigma }.$$
(16)
The single occupancy constraint is enforced on the average by the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ in $`H_s`$. Note that the RVB order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s`$ above, incorporates the link field $`A_{ij}^h`$, and is invariant under the following transformation: $`A_{ij}^hA_{ij}^h+\theta _i\theta _j`$, and $`b_{i\sigma }b_{i\sigma }e^{i\sigma \theta _i}`$. Equations (14) and (15) define the effective Hamiltonian, $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. All the results presented in this paper are obtained using this Hamiltonian.

The Hamiltonian, $`H_J`$ can be diagonalized by the Bogoliubov transformation,

$$b_{i\sigma }=\underset{m}{}\left(u_{m\sigma }(i)\gamma _{m\sigma }v_{m\sigma }(i)\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\right).$$
(17)
The Bogoliubov factors, $`u_{m\sigma }(i)`$ and $`v_{m\sigma }(i)`$ can be reexpressed in terms of a single particle wave function $`w_{m\sigma }(i)`$ as $`u(v)_{m\sigma }(i)=u(v)_mw_{m\sigma }(i)`$, and $`w_{m\sigma }`$ is determined by the eigen equation

$$\xi _mw_{m\sigma }(i)=\frac{J}{2}\underset{j=nn(i)}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^se^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}w_{m\sigma }(j).$$
(18)
The Hamiltonian, $`H_s`$ is then diagonal in the $`\gamma _m`$ representation, $`H_s=_{m\sigma }E_m\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\gamma _{m\sigma }`$, where $`(E_m)_{min}\delta J`$, as shown in . The RVB order parameter is determined self consistently as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s=\underset{m\sigma }{}e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}w_{m\sigma }(i)w_{m\sigma }^{}(j)(u_mv_m)\left[1+\underset{\alpha }{}\gamma _{m\alpha }^{}\gamma _{m\alpha }\right].$$
(19)
In the following, we will always consider a real order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s`$. In this case, it can be verified that $`w_{m\sigma }=w_{m\sigma }^{}`$ and that $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s\right)^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s`$. Finally, it is useful to note that

$$𝐒_i𝐒_j=\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{\Delta }^s|^2<0$$
(20)
for nearest neighbors, $`ij`$. This is consistent with the notion that the b-RVB order parameter essentially characterizes the short range AF correlations.

## III Ground state: Superconducting state with $`d`$-wave symmetry

The b-RVB ground state is underpinned by the RVB order parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^s`$. At low temperatures, the holons are condensed. At $`T=0`$, the ground state is superconducting. In this section, we will show that the superconducting order parameter has $`d`$-wave symmetry. This is due to the short range AF correlations. When a hole moves from a lattice site $`i+\widehat{x}`$ to $`i+\widehat{y}`$, the string operator (4) picks up a minus sign on an average due to the short range AF correlations. We will show below that this translates into $`d`$-wave pairing of electrons.

The pair operator between nearest neighbor sites $`ij`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^{\mathrm{SC}}_\sigma \sigma c_{i\sigma }c_{j\sigma }`$, will now be reexpressed using the boson representation (2). For the purposes of this section, we find it convenient to define the quantities,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s={\displaystyle \underset{li}{}}\theta _i(l){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\alpha n_{l\alpha }^b,`$

and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0={\displaystyle \underset{li}{}}\theta _i(l).`$

Then, it is easy to verify that

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^{\mathrm{SC}}=e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0,$$
(21)
where

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0\left[(1)^j(1)^{N_h}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0i\varphi _{ij}^0}\right]h_i^{}h_j^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^s$$
(22)
At low temperature, holons are Bose condensed, *viz.*, $`h_i^{}=h_0e^{i\varphi _i^h}`$, where $`\varphi _i^h`$ is a fixed phase. Then, the superconducting order parameter can be written as a product of an amplitude and a phase as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}.$$
(23)
In the Appendix, we prove that the quantity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0`$ is a constant, independent of $`ij`$. The important physical quantity in this discussion is the phase factor, $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}`$ in (21).

First we note that a real superconducting order parameter will be established only when phase coherence is realized; *i.e.*, when spinons are paired up in the ground state such that $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}0`$. Therefore, it should be clear that the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ is determined by phase coherence .

Besides the phase (de)coherence, the topological phase factor $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^s\right)}`$in (21) also determines the $`d`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter. To see this, let us compare $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{x}}^s\right)}`$ and $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{y}}^s\right)}`$. First, we rewrite

$`e^{i\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^s\right)}=e^{i\left(A_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^s+\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{\eta }}^s\right)},`$

which holds true when two spinons at $`i`$ and $`i+\widehat{\eta }`$ are annihilated by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^0`$ in (21). We do so because $`e^{iA_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^s}`$ is well defined with $`A_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^s=0`$ at $`T=0`$. Therefore, $`e^{iA_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^s}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(A_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^s\right)^2}>0`$ in the ground state, and is independent of the nn link $`ii+\widehat{\eta }`$. On the other hand, the difference between $`e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{x}}^s}`$ and $`e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{y}}^s}`$ leads to a phase change. Consider

$`e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{x}}^si\mathrm{\Phi }_{i+\widehat{y}}^s}=e^{i\left[\theta _{i+\widehat{x}}(i+\widehat{y})_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{y}\sigma }^b\theta _{i+\widehat{y}}(i+\widehat{x})_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{x}\sigma }^b\right]+iA_{_{i+\widehat{x},i+\widehat{y}}}^s}.`$

In the presence of short range AF correlations, one has $`_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{y}\sigma }^b_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{x}\sigma }^b`$ such that

$`e^{i\left[\theta _{i+\widehat{x}}(i+\widehat{y})_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{y}\sigma }^b\theta _{i+\widehat{y}}(i+\widehat{x})_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{x}\sigma }^b\right]}`$ $``$ $`e^{i\left[\theta _{i+\widehat{x}}(i+\widehat{y})\theta _{i+\widehat{y}}(i+\widehat{x})\right]_\sigma \sigma n_{i+\widehat{x}\sigma }^b}`$
$`=`$ $`1`$
since $`\theta _{i+\widehat{x}}(i+\widehat{y})\theta _{i+\widehat{y}}(i+\widehat{x})=\pm \pi `$. We emphasize that such a such a sign change is generally true on an average in an RVB background, and does *not* require long range AF order.

Thus, the presence of short range AF correlations among spins causes a $`d`$ -wave like sign change between $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ii+\widehat{x}}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ii+\widehat{y}}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$. If one only retains the nn pairing amplitude $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ii+\widehat{\eta }}^{\mathrm{SC}}=\mathrm{\Delta }^0f_{i,i+\widehat{\eta }}`$, with $`f_{i,i+\widehat{x}}/f_{i,i+\widehat{y}}=1`$ , then in momentum space, one has the familiar $`d`$-wave form factor

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^{\mathrm{SC}}=2\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ii+\widehat{x}}^{\mathrm{SC}}\left(\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}k_ya\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^0$$
(24)
## IV Elementary Excitations

In this Section, we consider the confinement of bare spinon and holon excitations. Though the superconducting state at $`T=0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$, is characterized by spinon (RVB) pairing and a holon condensate, it does not necessarily imply the presence of free spinon and holon excitations. In fact, we will show that creating a bare spinon or holon excitation out of the RVB vacuum costs infinite energy. On the other hand, we will show that neutral $`S=1`$ excitations as well as quasiparticle excitations can be created from the ground state with finite energies.

### A Spin excitations

A single spinon excitation can be constructed as $`\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. As mentioned earlier, a mean field treatment of (13) yields the result, $`E_m\delta J`$. Therefore, we may be tempted to conclude that the cost of creating a spinon excitation is finite. However, the presence of the long range topological gauge field $`A_{ij}^s`$, in the effective Hamiltonian for *holons* (15) suggests that the creation of a single spinon will be perceived as a half vortex, and consequently would be a high energy excitation. To see this, consider the energy cost of such an excitation, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m\sigma }H_h\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^h`$ , where $`E_0^h=\mathrm{\Psi }_G|H_h|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. Now, consider $`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m\sigma }e^{iA_{ij}^f}h_i^{}h_j\gamma _{m\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. From (17), we see that

$`\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}w_{m\sigma }(l)\left[u_mb_{l\sigma }^{}+v_mb_{l\sigma }\right].`$

Using this, we find

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m\sigma }e^{iA_{ij}^f}h_i^{}h_j\gamma _{m\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_G|e^{iA_{ij}^f}h_i^{}h_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_Ge^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]}|w_{m\sigma }(l)|^2.`$

Noting that $`\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)`$ is independent of $`l`$ when summed over all links $`<ij>`$ in $`H_h`$, and on using the normalization condition $`_l|w_{m\sigma }(l)|^2=1`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m\sigma }H_h\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^h=E_0^h\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]1\right].`$

For a nearest neighbor link $`<ij>`$ far away from any lattice site $`l`$, one has

$`|\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)|{\displaystyle \frac{a|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{ij}|}{r_{li}}}`$

where $`\alpha _{ij}`$ is the azimuthal angle of the link $`<ij>`$ and $`r_{li}r_{lj}`$ is the distance between $`l`$ and $`<ij>,`$ and $`a`$ is the lattice constant. Then, a summation over all nearest neighbor links $`<ij>`$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]1\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{a}},`$

$`L`$ being the size of the sample. We thus see that it costs a logarithmically divergent energy to create a single spinon excitation. Consequently, single spinon excitations are not allowed in the superconducting ground state at $`T=0`$. We reemphasize the crucial role played by the topological gauge field $`A_{ij}^s`$, leading to this result.

The above analysis suggests that a logarithmic divergence in the excitation energy can be avoided by pairing of spinons (binding of a vortex-antivortex pair). Such an excitation is nothing but a neutral $`S=1`$ excitation. For example, consider a spin excitation created by $`S_i^z`$, $`S_i^z|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. At $`T=0`$, the relevant term in $`S_i^z|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ is $`\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. The excitation energy can be readily determined from the mean field theory of $`H_s`$, as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }\gamma _{m\sigma }H_s\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^s=E_m+E_m^{^{}},`$

which is finite. Now let us check the vortex energy in the charge sector, $`H_h`$. A straightforward calculation yields

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }\gamma _{m\sigma }H_h\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^h`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0^h}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1l_2}{}}|w_{m\sigma }(l_1)|^2|w_{m^{^{}}\sigma }(l_2)|^2\mathrm{cos}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l_1)\theta _j(l_1)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l_2)\theta _j(l_2)]\right\}E_0^h.`$
In obtaining the above, we have made repeated use of

$`h_ie^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^h}=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _j(i)}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^h}h_i,`$

$`b_{i\sigma }e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^b}=e^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}\theta _j(i)}e^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^b}b_{i\sigma },`$

*etc.* Note that the factor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l_1)\theta _j(l_1)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l_2)\theta _j(l_2)]`$

vanishes when $`l_1=l_2`$. It has a dipole configuration when $`l_1l_2`$, $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ being the cores of the spinon vortex-antivortex pair. The corresponding energy is no longer logarithmically divergent, since the factor $`|w_{m\sigma }(l_1)|^2`$ $`|w_{m^{^{}}\sigma }(l_2)|^2`$ restricts $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ within a characteristic length scale of the spinon wave packet, $`l_c`$. Hence, we get (in the continuum limit)

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }\gamma _{m\sigma }H_h\gamma _{m\sigma }^{}\gamma _{m^{^{}}\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^h`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_0^h}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1l_2}{}}|w_{m\sigma }(l_1)|^2|w_{m^{^{}}\sigma }(l_2)|^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐫_{l_1}𝐫_{l_2}|}{l_c}}.`$
Thus, an $`S=1`$ spin excitation comprising a pair of spinons costs a finite energy, and is an elementary excitation. It does not decay into free spinons, due to a logarithmic confining force between the constituent spinons. The excitation energy has a lower bound, $`E_g2E_s`$, where $`E_s=(E_m)_{\mathrm{min}}\delta J`$.

To conclude this subsection, we note that an $`S=1`$ excitation created by $`S_i^+=(1)^ib_i^{}b_ie^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h}`$ should also have a finite excitation energy, as required by spin rotational symmetry. This can be verified by an explicit calculation. In this case, the relevant excitation at $`T=0`$ is of the form $`\gamma _m^{}\gamma _m^{^{}}^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$. Following the same steps as above, we find that the logarithmic divergence is avoided by a cancellation between the $`2\pi `$ vortex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^h`$ and two $`\pi `$ vortices introduced by $`\gamma _m^{}\gamma _m^{^{}}^{}`$. In the following subsection, we will discuss an analogous effect which leads to a finite energy for the quasiparticle excitation.

### B Quasiparticle excitations

A quasiparticle (or a quasihole) excitation is obtained as a linear combination of $`c_{l\sigma }|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ and $`c_{l\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$. We now show that the emergence and stability of such an excitation is due to the confinement of bare spinon and holon excitations at $`T=0`$.

From (2), we see that a quasihole excitation has the form

$$c_{l\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_Gh_l^{}b_{l\sigma }e^{\frac{i}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h\right]}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G,$$
(25)
*viz.*, it comprises the holon, spinon and the vortex fields. Let us examine these three components individually.

First, we have already seen that $`b_{l\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ would cost an infinite energy in $`H_h`$. Similarly, a single holon added to the ground state will also cost a logarithmically diverging energy in $`H_s`$. It is easily seen that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_G|h_lH_sh_l^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G}{\mathrm{\Psi }_G|h_lh_l^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G}E_0^s=E_0^s\times \left[\frac{1}{2N}\underset{<ij>}{}\mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]1\right],$$
(26)
which diverges logarithmically with the lattice size. The third component in (25) is the vortex field. Consider

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|e^{+\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h}H_he^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^h=E_0^h\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]1\right],`$

which is also logarithmically divergent. Similarly,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_G|e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s}H_se^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s}|\mathrm{\Psi }_GE_0^s=E_0^s\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)]1\right],`$

which diverges too. Therefore, in the ground state of the b-RVB, the quasiparticle cannot decay into independent holon, spinon and vortex excitations as it costs infinite energy. On the other hand, a quasiparticle excitation as a composite excitation has a finite energy. In this case, a cancellation of the vortex effects ensues on binding the holon and spinon excitations to the vortex fields.

Consider $`H_s`$. Clearly, $`b_{l\sigma }|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ costs a finite energy, and we saw earlier that both $`h_l^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ and $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ separately cost infinite energies in $`H_s`$. In contrast, consider the combination $`h_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}`$ in (25). We will show below that the vortex effects cancel. Now,

$`H_sh_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G=h_l^{}[J_s{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}\right)b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}e^{i\sigma \chi _{ij}}+h.c.]e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G,`$

where the phase twist $`\chi _{ij}=1/2\left[\theta _i(l)\theta _j(l)\right]`$ if ($`ij`$)$`l`$ and $`\chi _{ij}=0`$ if $`i=l`$ or $`j=l`$, is responsible for the logarithmic energy in (26). This is just the statement that the holon is perceived as a half vortex through the term $`A_{ij}^h`$. Such a vortex effect will be canceled by $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}`$, since

$`H_sh_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G=h_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}[J_s{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left(e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}\right)b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{j\sigma }^{}+h.c.]|\mathrm{\Psi }_G.`$

Equivalently, $`[H_s,\text{ }h_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}]=0`$, such that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_G|h_le^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}H_sh_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Phi }_G=\mathrm{\Phi }_G|h_lh_l^{}H_s|\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$

is finite. Consequently, $`c_{i\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ defined in (25) must have a finite matrix element in $`H_s`$.

A similar analysis can be carried out for the matrix elements of $`H_h`$. In this case, $`h_l^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ and $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ cost finite energies in $`H_h`$, but $`b_{l\sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ and $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h}|\mathrm{\Psi }_G`$ yield divergent energies. The vortex effects can be cancelled by constructing the combination $`b_{l\sigma }e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h}`$, *viz.*, $`[H_h,\text{ }b_{l\sigma }e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h}]=0,`$ which shows that the vortex effect induced by $`b_{l\sigma }`$ in $`H_h`$ is cancelled by the effect of $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h}`$.

Note that only the vortex phase factor $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right]}`$ is single valued. Neither $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}`$ nor $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}`$ are single valued by themselves . This means that $`h_l^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s}`$ and $`b_{l\sigma }e^{\frac{i}{2}\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_l^h}`$ cannot be independent physical objects. Therefore, the holon and spinon fields in (25) have to be bound to the vortex field $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_l^s\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_i^h\right]}`$ as a whole, such that the quasiparticle excitation is well defined and stable in the superconducting state.

Now that we have demonstrated the stability of the quasiparticle excitation, we determine its energy. Consider

$`[H_s,\text{ }c_{i\sigma }]`$
$`=`$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{m\alpha }^{}e^{i\alpha A_{im}^h}+h.c.]c_{i\sigma }`$
$`+c_{i\sigma }J_s{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{m\alpha }^{}e^{i\alpha A_{im}^h}+h.c.)`$
$`=`$ $`J_s{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}h_i^{}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{m\alpha }^{}e^{i\alpha A_{im}^h}e^{i\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta _i(m)}+h.c.)b_{i\sigma }`$
$`+J_s{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}h_i^{}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}b_{i\sigma }({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{m\alpha }^{}e^{i\alpha A_{im}^h}+h.c.)`$
Each term in the above expression involves three spinon operators and can be linearized using the mean field approximation (16). Then,

$`[H_s,\text{ }c_{i\sigma }]10J_s\mathrm{\Delta }^sc_{i\sigma }\text{ }+J_s{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}h_i^{}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{i\sigma }}b_{m\sigma }^{}e^{i\sigma A_{im}^h}b_{i\sigma }b_{i\sigma }^{}`$

(noting that terms involving $`e^{i\frac{\sigma }{2}\theta _i(m)}`$ vanish after averaging over all possible $`\theta _i(m))`$. The second term on the rhs of the above equation can be rewritten, using (2) and (21). We get

$`[H_s,\text{ }c_{i\sigma }]10\mathrm{\Delta }^sJ_sc_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{J_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=nn(i)}{}}b_{i\sigma }b_{i\sigma }^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{im}^{\mathrm{SC}}}{h_0^2}}\right)\sigma c_{m\sigma }^{}.`$

In obtaining the above expression, we have approximated $`h_i^{}`$ by $`h_m`$, since the holons are condensed with an expectation value, $`<h^{}>=h_0`$ (its phase $`\varphi ^h`$ can be always set as zero due to the gauge choice discussed in Appendix). The factor of $`\sigma `$ in the second term of the rhs comes from commuting the holon field $`h_m`$ with $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{m\sigma }}`$. We have used the definition of the superconducting order parameter,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{im}^{\mathrm{SC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}h_i^{}h_j^{}e^{i\sigma A_{ij}^h}b_{i\sigma }b_{j\sigma }(\sigma )^i(\sigma )^m(1)^{N_h}e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b+\mathrm{\Phi }_m^b\right)}`$
$``$ $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }^s(\sigma )^i(\sigma )^m(1)^{N_h}e^{\frac{i}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^b+\mathrm{\Phi }_m^b\right)}.`$
Then in momentum space,

$$[H_s,\text{ }c_{𝐤\sigma }]10\mathrm{\Delta }^sJ_sc_{𝐤\sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d\sigma c_{𝐤\sigma }^{},$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d=\frac{(3\delta )J}{4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^0}{h_0^2}\right)`$. Here, we have used $`b_{i\sigma }b_{i\sigma }^{}=1+b_{i\sigma }^{}b_{i\sigma }=(3\delta )/2`$ and $`J_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}{2}J`$.

On the other hand, the hopping term will generally give rise to a kinetic energy

$$[H_h,\text{ }c_{𝐤\sigma }]=(ϵ_𝐤\mu )c_{𝐤\sigma }$$
(28)
with $`ϵ_𝐤t_h(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$. Clearly, a quasiparticle operator can be constructed in the usual manner as

$`\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }^{}=\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}\sigma \stackrel{~}{v}_𝐤c_{𝐤\sigma }`$

where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤^2+\stackrel{~}{v}_𝐤^2=1`$. On imposing the condition $`[H_s,\text{ }\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }^{}]=E_𝐤^{qp}\alpha _{𝐤\sigma }^{}`$ and using equations (27) and (28), it is straightforward to get the standard expressions, $`E_𝐤^{qp}=\sqrt{(ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d)^2}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+\frac{ϵ_𝐤\mu }{E_𝐤^{qp}}\right)^{1/2}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_𝐤=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1\frac{ϵ_𝐤\mu }{E_𝐤^{qp}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sgn}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d)`$. The first term on the rhs of (27) can be absorbed in the definition of the chemical potential, $`\mu `$. The latter can be determined within mean field theory in the usual manner, by fixing the particle number.

The d-wave gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d`$ vanishes along the two nodal lines, $`k_x=\pm k_y`$. Thus, the quasiparticle spectrum has four nodes at $`ϵ_{k_f}\mu =0`$.

It is important to note that even though the confining force between the holon, spinon, and vortex constituents within a quasiparticle is weak (logarithmic), the quasiparticle should be a well defined, long lived excitation. Even if we neglect the logarithmic energy cost that keeps them bound (which becomes important when the components are separated far away), the mean field energies for holon and spinon constituents are zero and $`E_m`$, respectively. Thus, for $`E_𝐤^{qp}<\left(E_m\right)_{\mathrm{min}}E_s`$, the quasiparticle energy is always lower than its constituents. This implies that the nodal quasiparticle excitation will be observed as a sharp spectral feature. Note that the vortex field in (25) also provides a confining potential that glues the spin and charge degrees of freedom. This lowers the quasiparticle energy, in comparison to the mean field energies of the spinon and holon excitations.

However, at higher energies, the signature of the composite quasiparticle will be seen in the spectral function. For energies $`\omega >E_s`$, the spectral function, $`A(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{sgn}(\omega )`$, displays a composite structure in the form of a broad peak and spectral weight at higher energies . Therefore, even though low energy quasiparticles in the b-RVB superconductor seemingly look like their counterparts in a conventional d-wave BCS superconductor, they are easily distinguished from the latter at higher energies, by a broad incoherent structure. This reflects the composite nature of the RVB vacuum (*i.e.*, spin charge separation).

It is clear that the width of the quasiparticle would increase if $`E_𝐤^{qp}`$ becomes comparable to, or greater than, $`E_s`$. Typically, this would first happen around the corners of the Brillouin zone, ($`\pm \pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm \pi )`$. In these regions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d`$ and $`E_𝐤^{qp}`$ attain their maximal values. Since the mean field excitation energies of the holon and spinon constituents are now comparable to, or smaller than, $`E_𝐤^{qp}`$, the quasiparticle will be seen as a loosely bound spinon-holon composite. This is consistent with results from exact diagonalization .

A similar effect also occurs as the hole concentration is reduced. As $`\delta 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d`$ is finite (recall the factor of $`h_0^2`$ in the denominator of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^d`$), whereas $`E_sJ\delta 0`$. Therefore, at small $`\delta `$, the sharp quasiparticle peak evolves into a broad feature quickly as one moves away from the nodal regions to the corners of the Brillouin zone. Eventually, for low enough doping, the spectral function becomes very broad away from the nodal points $`(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$, and is best described in terms of spin charge separation rather than a bound excitation. Elsewhere, we discussed this in detail for the case of a single hole doped into the antiferromagnetic Mott insulator .

## V Summary

In this paper, we discussed the ground state and the nature of excitations in a bosonic resonating valence bond (b-RVB) superconductor. We considered an effective Hamiltonian for the spin and charge degrees of freedom. The effective Hamiltonian was derived by rewriting the $`tJ`$ model using the phase string decomposition. This decomposition can be thought of as a bosonization scheme for the $`tJ`$ model. The ground state at $`T=0`$ is a d-wave superconducting state which arises from RVB pairing and holon condensation.

The physical reason behind $`d`$-wave pairing has a simple explanation. Suppose one of the holes forming the Cooper pair is located at site $`i`$. As the other hole belonging to the pair is transported from site $`i+\widehat{x}`$ to $`i+\widehat{y}`$, say, *via* $`i+\widehat{x}+\widehat{y}`$ (the shortest path), it picks pick up a phase string, $`\sigma _{i+\widehat{x}+\widehat{y}}\sigma _{i+\widehat{y}}`$, due to an irreparable displacement of the Marshall sign that occurs due to hole motion . Owing to the short range AF correlations, $`\sigma _{i+\widehat{x}+\widehat{y}}\sigma _{i+\widehat{y}}<0`$ on the average, which implies that the Cooper pair at sites $`i`$ and $`i+\widehat{y}`$ changes sign relative to the pair at $`i`$ and $`i+\widehat{x}`$.

The superconducting condensation in the b-RVB and conventional d-RVB theories  both involve the RVB pairing of spinons and holon condensation. The main distinction between these two classes of theories lies in the origins of kinetic energy frustration. In the b-RVB theory, the kinetic energy of holons is strongly frustrated, due to the short range AF correlations that are carefully incorporated. This kinetic energy frustration is realized as the phase string effect. A partial recovery of the frustrated kinetic energy occurs at the superconducting transition. However, spinon and holon excitations out of the b-RVB vacuum still exhibit the signature of strong mutual frustration between themselves: a single spinon or holon excitation always invites a severe response from the other degrees of freedom, causing a logarithmically divergent energy. This is the origin of the low energy quasiparticle, by spin charge recombination.

We showed that in the superconducting state, $`S=1`$ excitations composed of spinon pairs have finite energies, although single spinons would cost a logarithmic energy. Similarly, a composite quasiparticle excitation, carrying both spin and charge, is well defined and has a finite energy. Though the quasiparticle operator we constructed has a superficial similarity with the nodal quasiparticle in a conventional $`d`$ -wave BCS superconductor, there are important differences. The first is that neutral $`S=1`$ excitations in the b-RVB state, to leading order, are independent of quasiparticle excitations. They occur as bound spinon pairs, whereas in BCS theory, the $`S=1`$ excitation is built out of quasiparticles. A second difference is that the composite character of the quasiparticle can be seen in the spectral function, at high energies. For low doping, even the low energy quasiparticle is unstable at the Brillouin zone corners. It should be noted that the quasiparticle in the b-RVB theory becomes incoherent at $`T_c`$. As discussed in Ref. , the superconducting transition occurs when spinons are deconfined such that free spinon-vortices destroy the phase coherence of the order parameter (23). The proliferation of spinon vortices leads to the screening of the logarithmic confining potential, and the quasiparticle decays into its constituents. These differences in the excitation spectra reflect the fundamental difference between a BCS superconductor and an RVB superconductor. The former is constructed from a Fermi sea of electrons, whereas the latter is built from an RVB vacuum which describes a doped antiferromagnetic Mott insulator.

Though spin charge separation is the key feature in the description of the doped Mott insulator, an important point we discussed in this paper is that bare holons and spinons need not necessarily exist as excitations of the RVB vacuum. The fact that a single holon or spinon cannot be created or annihilated in the system at $`T=0`$ is consistent with the requirement of the no double occupancy constraint at the global level. In contrast, an $`S=1`$ spin excitation or a quasiparticle excitation does not violate such a constraint. The confinement of single spinon and holon excitations, along with the emergence of $`S=1`$ spin excitations and quasiparticles as the low lying elementary excitations in the b-RVB theory has furthered our understanding of the concepts of the RVB state and spin charge separation. In fact, deconfinement of spinons and holons plays a key role in determining the superconducting transition and in the description of the high temperature phases of the b-RVB theory. The phase string decomposition (2) provides a natural realization of a two dimensional fermion-boson transmutation envisaged by Baskaran, during the early years of the RVB theory . Recently, Sarker has discussed the recombination of spin and charge degrees of freedom in the superconducting state of the $`tJ`$ model, using a Schwinger boson representation . Spin-charge recombination in the superconducting phase was also conjectured previously by Wen, Lee and others  within the slave-boson framework. In contrast, fractionalization of electrons or spin charge separation of the elementary excitations persists in the superconducting state obtained within Z<sub>2</sub> gauge theory .

Finally, in this paper, we were mainly interested in the stability and finite energy of the nodal quasiparticle. We showed that the composite character of this excitation can be observed clearly as a function of doping. As the doping is reduced, the quasiparticle peak around the corners of the Brillouin zone would broaden and the spectral function is better described in terms of spin charge separation. A quantitative analysis of this phenomenon in terms of the life time of the quasiparticle excitation, and a comparison with experimental results available on the evolution of the Fermi surface with doping, will be discussed elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank P. W. Anderson and N. P. Ong for urging us to clarify the nature of the fermionic quasiparticle excitation in the b-RVB theory. Y.Z. and Z.Y.W. acknowledge partial support from NSFC Grant 90103021.

## A Appendix: Evaluation of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0`$

The amplitude of the superconducting order parameter in (23) can be expressed by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}^0=g_{ij}h_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }^s$$
(A1)
with

$$g_{ij}(1)^j(1)^{N_h}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0+2\varphi _j^h)i\left[\varphi _{ij}^0+(\varphi _i^h\varphi _j^h)\right]}$$
(A2)
The link quantity $`g_{ij}`$ defined in (A2) may be rewritten as:

$$g_{ij}=(1)^j(1)^{N_h}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_j^0+2\varphi _j^h)}e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0}$$
(A3)
with $`\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0\varphi _{ij}^0+(\varphi _i^h\varphi _j^h).`$

By using $`\theta _i(j)\theta _j(i)=\pm \pi ,`$ one can generally show that

$`g_{ij}=g_0e^{i_c2\overline{\varphi }_{lm}^0}e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0}`$

where $`g_0(1)^{j_0}(1)^{N_h}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_{j_0}^0+2\varphi _{j_0}^h)}`$ and $`c`$ represents an arbitrary path composed of nn links on the lattice which connects the site $`j`$ and a reference site $`j_0`$. Note that, as $`_{\mathrm{}}2\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0=_{\mathrm{}}2\varphi _{ij}^0=\pm 2\pi `$, $`g_{ij}`$ is independent of the choice of the path $`c`$.

Once $`j_0`$ is fixed, $`g_{ij}`$ on every link will be determined. For example, on the horizontal bonds connected to $`j_0`$: ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm \widehat{x}`$), ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm 2\widehat{x}`$), ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm 3\widehat{x}`$), …

$`g_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0}^0i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{x}}^0}=g_0e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{x}}^0}`$ (A4)
$`g_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0\pm 2\widehat{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i(2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm 2\widehat{x},j_0\pm \widehat{x}}^0+2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0}^0)i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0\pm 2\widehat{x}}^0}`$ (A6)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
Similarly on the vertical bonds connected to $`j_0`$: ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm \widehat{y}`$), ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm 2\widehat{y}`$), ($`j_0`$, $`j_0\pm 3\widehat{y}`$), …,

$`g_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{y},j_0}^0i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{y}}^0}=g_0e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{y}}^0}`$ (A7)
$`g_{j_0\pm \widehat{y},j_0\pm 2\widehat{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i(2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm 2\widehat{y},j_0\pm \widehat{y}}^0+2\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{y},j_0}^0)i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{y},j_0\pm 2\widehat{y}}^0}`$ (A9)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
Now let us consider the choice of the gauge in $`\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0`$ which satisfies

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0=\pm \pi $$
(A10)
The holon Hamiltonian in the holon condensed phase reduces to

$$H_h=t_hh_0^2\underset{ij}{}e^{i\left[A_{ij}^s\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0\right]}+h.c.$$
(A11)
Note that in the ground state all spinons are paired up such that $`A_{ij}^s`$ is cancelled out and $`e^{iA_{ij}^s}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(A_{ij}^s\right)^2}`$ which is generally independent of ($`ij).`$ Then

$$H_h=t_hh_0^2e^{iA_{ij}^s}\underset{ij}{}e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{ij}^0}+h.c.$$
(A12)
which is optimized at the staggered-$`\pi `$-flux gauge choice of

$`\overline{\varphi }_{ii+\widehat{x}}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \left(1\right)^i\pi /4`$ (A13)
$`\overline{\varphi }_{ii+\widehat{y}}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^i\pi /4`$ (A14)
satisfying (A10). In (A14), there are two choices of signs, $`\pm ,`$ for the staggered $`\pi `$ flux at a given plaquette.

On averaging over these two equivalent gauge choices, we get

$`g_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0,j_0\pm \widehat{x}}^0}=g_0/\sqrt{2}`$
$`g_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0\pm 2\widehat{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_0e^{i\overline{\varphi }_{j_0\pm \widehat{x},j_0\pm 2\widehat{x}}^0}=g_0/\sqrt{2}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
In general

$$g_{ij}=g_0/\sqrt{2}$$
(A15)


format: text

text:
# Doppler cooling of an optically dense cloud of trapped atoms

## I Introduction

Since the advent of laser cooling of neutral atoms more than 20 years ago, this method has been extensively studied Lett et al. (1989) and widely used for a variety of atoms and applications. Ultimately, laser cooling followed by evaporative cooling Ketterle and van Druten (1996) allowed the creation of a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) of neutral atoms Anglin and Ketterle (2002); Inguscio et al. (1998); Cornell and Wieman (2002).

In almost all BEC experiments atoms are caught in a magneto–optical trap. After sub-Doppler molasses cooling Dalibard and Cohen-Tannoudji (1989) and polarization of the sample by optical pumping, the atoms are typically transferred into a magnetic trap Anglin and Ketterle (2002); Inguscio et al. (1998); Cornell and Wieman (2002) or, as has been recently demonstrated, into an optical Barrett et al. (2001) trap. The consecutive evaporative cooling process requires both, a high initial density to provide a reasonably large elastic collision rate, and a large number of atoms, since most atoms are removed from the trap during evaporation. The figure of merit for efficient evaporative cooling is the initial phase space density of the atomic cloud. Therefore, all laser cooling and polarization steps have to be optimized carefully, to keep the temperature of the atoms low and the number of atoms high, thus maximizing the phase space density in the final trap.

In this paper, we present a robust Doppler cooling scheme in an external trap which is applicable to most laser-coolable atomic species. Our scheme is particularly well suited for optically dense samples and reduces the figure of merit for evaporative cooling to the number of atoms transferred into the trap regardless of temperature.

Free-space one-dimensional Doppler cooling is usually performed in a standing wave light field created by two counterpropagating laser beams with a frequency below the atomic transition frequency. Cooling is based on preferential absorption of photons from the laser beam opposing the direction of motion of the atom. Subsequent spontaneous emission is centrally symmetric and does not change the mean momentum of the atom. Doppler cooling of polarized atoms in a magnetic trap has been proposed for atomic hydrogen Hijmans et al. (1989) and experimentally realized for sodium Helmerson et al. (1992), hydrogen Setija et al. (1993) and lithium Schreck et al. (2001). In Ref. Helmerson et al., 1992 one-dimensional Doppler cooling of an optically thin cloud of sodium atoms in a magnetic trap was performed. The atoms were treated as a two level system since a very high magnetic offset field ($`B_01500`$ G) spectroscopically resolved the Zeeman substates. Cooling of the motional degrees of freedom orthogonal to the laser beams was provided by anharmonic mixing in the trapping potential. Due to a long mixing time compared to the cooling time, the achieved temperature was ten times the Doppler temperature for sodium. In Ref. Setija et al., 1993 single-beam pulsed Doppler cooling was performed on a dense sample of magnetically trapped hydrogen atoms. Thermalization of the cloud was accomplished by elastic collisions between the atoms. Cooling was limited to approx. five times the Doppler temperature due to limited laser power and additional heating rates.

The main advantage of the cooling technique presented here is that it combines three-dimensional temperatures close to the Doppler-limit with the cooling of dense samples. In our experiment, one-dimensional optical molasses cools the cloud of atoms in axial direction down to the Doppler limit Lett et al. (1989). Cooling in the radial directions, orthogonal to the laser beams, can be explained by reabsorption of spontaneously emitted photons by the optically dense cloud. To our knowledge, reabsorption has so far been treated only as a density-limiting mechanism which comes along with heating of the atomic sample Sesko et al. (1991); Hillenbrand et al. (1994); Ellinger and Cooper (1997); Castin et al. (1998). Here, we focus on the cooling aspects of scattered and reabsorbed photons in a trapped polarized atomic sample.

We show that the atoms in the magnetic trap remain polarized during the cooling process and practically no atoms are lost, provided the magnetic substructure is spectrally resolved. We are able to cool chromium atoms in a magnetic trap from $`1`$ mK to a mean temperature of $`240\mu `$K, corresponding to an increase in phase space density by a factor of 80. We have studied the dynamics of the cooling process as well as the steady state temperature for various cooling parameters. The experimental results can be explained with a simple model based on rate equations for the temperature.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we present a theoretical model for Doppler cooling in a magnetic trap in the presence of reabsorption. The setup and experimental techniques for our cooling experiments with chromium are described in Sec. 3. Results on the dynamics and steady state properties of the cooling process are presented in Sec. 4. We conclude with a discussion of our results in Sec. 5.

## II Theory

### II.1 Rate Equations

In this section, we present a simple model based on rate equations. Although we assume cooling in a magnetic trap here, the scheme is universal to all kinds of traps, provided cooling is compatible with the trap and the quantization axis of the atoms is independent of the position of the atoms in the trap.

Consider a cloud of spin-polarized atoms with mass $`m`$ and magnetic moment $`\mu `$ confined in an axially symmetric harmonic magnetic trap with trapping potential $`V(x,y,z)=\mu (\frac{1}{2}B_x^{^{\prime \prime }}x^2+\frac{1}{2}B_y^{^{\prime \prime }}y^2+\frac{1}{2}B_z^{^{\prime \prime }}z^2+B_0)`$.

$`B_{x,y,z}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ are the magnetic field curvatures in radial ($`x`$, $`y`$) and axial ($`z`$) direction, respectively, and $`B_0`$ is a homogeneous offset field along the axial direction. We assume that the corresponding trap frequencies $`\omega _{x,y,z}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu B_{x,y,z}^{^{\prime \prime }}}{m}}`$ are much smaller than the Larmor precession frequency at the center of the trap $`\omega _L=\frac{\mu B_0}{\mathrm{}}`$, ensuring that the atoms stay spin polarized and no spin flip losses occur Sukumar and Brink (1997).

Doppler cooling is performed on an electric dipole transition that couples a long-lived ground state with total angular momentum $`J`$ to a short-lived excited state with angular momentum $`J^{^{}}`$, such that $`J^{^{}}=J+1`$ Dop . We also assume the corresponding Landé factors $`g_J`$ and $`g_J^{^{}}`$ to have the same sign, which we choose to be positive for our example. The atoms are polarized in the ”weak field seeking” state $`m_J=J`$ and have a magnetic moment of $`\mu =m_Jg_J\mu _B`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is Bohr’s magneton.

Cooling is carried out in a $`\sigma ^+/\sigma ^+`$-standing wave created by two laser beams propagating along the axial direction with normalized intensity $`I=I_{\mathrm{laser}}/I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ and detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\omega _{\mathrm{laser}}\omega _{\mathrm{atom}})/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the unperturbed atomic transition frequency. $`I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the saturation intensity and the linewidth of the transition, respectively.

In general, the quality of the polarization of the cooling light is important. For perfectly polarized $`\sigma ^+`$-light propagating along the quantization axis of the atoms in a homogeneous magnetic field, no depolarizing transitions $`m_Jm_J,m_J1`$ can occur. This is also true for excitation by scattered photons since the polarization with respect to the quantization axis of the incident light is preserved in the scattering process if the propagation direction coincides with the orientation of the magnetic field. For imperfect polarization, the cooling light can also drive depolarizing transitions which cause loss of atoms. In the configuration described above, the Zeeman-splitting due to the finite offset field $`B_0`$ additionally reduces the scattering rates $`R_{\mathrm{dep}}`$ of unwanted depolarizing transitions with respect to the rate $`R_{\mathrm{pol}}`$ of the cooling transition $`m_Jm_J+1`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{dep}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{2IC_3^3}{1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{dep}^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{2IC_3^4}{1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{pol}^2}=R_{\mathrm{pol}},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{dep}}`$ are the effective detunings between the laser and the atomic transition frequency in a magnetic field and $`C_i^j`$ is the square of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for the transition from state $`m_g=i`$ to $`m_e=j`$.

In Fig. 1 this effect is illustrated for the $`J=3J=4`$ transition that connects the ground state $`{}_{}{}^{7}S_{3}^{}`$ to the excited state $`{}_{}{}^{7}P_{4}^{}`$ in 52Cr. A full treatment of optical pumping in an arbitrary light field taking into account all excited and ground state levels gives the steady state population of each ground state for a given magnetic field Stuhler (2002). Assuming a polarization quality of 1:10, a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.5`$ for the polarizing transition and allowing for an atom loss of less than 1% during the cooling process, we find for the case of chromium a necessary offset field of $`B_05`$ G and for rubidium $`B_015`$ G.

Following the common treatment of free-space Doppler cooling Lett et al. (1989); Helmerson et al. (1992), rate equations for the temporal evolution of the temperature for the axial ($`z`$) and radial ($`y`$) degrees of freedom are readily obtained:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT_z}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_Rk_B}{2\tau _z^{heat}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_z}{\tau _z^{cool}}}`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT_y}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_Rk_B}{2\tau _y^{heat}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_y}{\tau _y^{cool}}},`$ (3)
where $`E_R=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}`$ is the recoil energy of the cooling transition with wavenumber $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ and $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. Usually, the heating and cooling time constants are derived by considering the random walk in momentum space due to spontaneous emission and the net cooling effect of scattered photons from the two counterpropagating laser beams Lett et al. (1989). In an optically dense sample reabsorption of photons has to be taken into account. Previously, reabsorption has mainly been discussed as a reason for density limitations and density-dependent heating in magneto-optical traps Sesko et al. (1991); Hillenbrand et al. (1994); Ellinger and Cooper (1997) and in the context of sub-recoil cooling Castin et al. (1998). In our model, we emphasize cooling effects of reabsorbed photons which can be substantial for polarized atoms confined in an external trapping potential.

The photon energy after a scattering event in the low intensity limit Cohen-Tannoudji et al. (1992) is shifted by at most $`4E_R+2\mathrm{}kv\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`v`$ is the velocity of an atom at Doppler temperature. Therefore scattered photons have essentially the same detuning and polarization as the cooling laser beams. For our calculations, we use the axial direction parallel to the laser beam as our quantization axis. The contribution of the reabsorbed photons to cooling of the radial and axial directions depends on the projection of their wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ onto these directions. The effective intensity $`I_{z,y}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the cooling photons is proportional to the incident laser light intensity $`2I`$ with a proportionality factor $`\kappa _{z,y}`$ which primarily depends on the optical density $`OD_{z,y}`$ in these directions:

$$I_{z,y}^{\mathrm{eff}}=2I\times \kappa _{z,y}2I\times \kappa _{z,y}^{}\times OD_{z,y}$$
(5)
If we consider a dipole radiation and absorption pattern for $`\sigma `$-polarized light and take into account the $`1/e^2`$ size $`\sigma (\theta )`$ of a Gaussian shaped cloud in the direction given by $`\theta `$, we arrive at the following expressions:

$`\kappa _y`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _0{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^2\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (6)
$`\kappa _z`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _0{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^2\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta |\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ (7)
$`\kappa _0=n_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\lambda \frac{9}{128\sqrt{2\pi }}`$ is an angle-independent constant, with peak density $`n_0`$ and resonant absorption cross section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\lambda =6\pi \mathrm{\lambda ̄}^2`$ which we assume to be uniform over the cloud. In a simple picture, $`\kappa _{z,y}`$ can be interpreted as the effective number of photons that contribute to cooling in the corresponding directions originating from a single photon absorbed from the laser light. The total number of reabsorption/emission cycles for an incident photon is given by

$$\kappa =\kappa _0\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^2\sigma (\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(8)
If the effects of reabsorbed photons are included the cooling rates become Helmerson et al. (1992)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _z^{cool}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{32\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}(1+\kappa _z)2I}{(1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_R}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _y^{cool}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{32\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}\kappa _y2I}{(1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_R}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}.`$ (10)
In axial and radial direction the total cooling light intensity reads $`I_z^{\mathrm{tot}}=2I+I_z^v=2I(1+\kappa _z)`$ and $`I_y^{\mathrm{tot}}=I_y^v=2I\kappa _y`$, respectively.

For the derivation of the heating rates, we have to take into account directed reabsorption of $`\kappa _{z,y}`$ photons and spontaneous emission of $`(\kappa +1)`$ photons for each photon absorbed from the cooling laser beams:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _z^{heat}}}`$ $`=`$ $`[(1+\kappa _z)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}(1+\kappa )]{\displaystyle \frac{2I\mathrm{\Gamma }}{1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}^2}}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _y^{heat}}}`$ $`=`$ $`[\kappa _y+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}(1+\kappa )]{\displaystyle \frac{2I\mathrm{\Gamma }}{1+4\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}^2}}`$ (12)
The factors $`2/5`$ and $`3/10`$ are statistical weights from the dipole radiation pattern for the different directions of spontaneous emission. In this model we have neglected additional loss and heating processes, like e.g. radiative escape Walker and Feng (1994) and radiation trapping Sesko et al. (1991). The influence of these additional effects will be discussed in the experimental part of this paper.

### II.2 Discussion of the Model

#### II.2.1 Steady State

For simplicity we assume the coefficients $`\kappa _{z,y}`$ to be time independent. This is justified for the evaluation of the steady state parameters of the cooling process. The dynamics of the cooling process can be described only qualitatively within this model, since the optical density will change during cooling and therefore the number of reabsorbed photons increases.

The steady state temperatures are readily derived from Eqns. 2, 3 to be

$`T_z^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _z^{cool}}{\tau _z^{heat}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Rk_B}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa _z+\frac{2}{5}(1+\kappa )}{1+\kappa _z}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_D}{2}}`$ (13)
$`T_y^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _y^{cool}}{\tau _y^{heat}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_Rk_B}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _y+\frac{3}{10}(1+\kappa )}{\kappa _y}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_D}{2}},`$ (14)
where $`T_D=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2k_B}`$ is the Doppler temperature. These minimum temperatures are found at a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}=\frac{1}{2}`$, in agreement with free space Doppler cooling Lett et al. (1989). It is worthwhile to mention that in this configuration in absence of reabsorption (i.e. $`\kappa _{z,y}=\kappa =0`$) the 1D temperature in axial direction

$$T_z^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{7}{10}T_D$$
(15)
is smaller than what is usually called the 1D Doppler temperature. The reason is easily seen: in the 1D model photons can be absorbed and emitted only along the axial direction; in a 3D model with 1D cooling, photons can be emitted into radial degrees of freedom according to the dipol radiation pattern. These degrees of freedom take up photon recoil heating and therefore reduce the heating rate in the axial direction. In this situation the radial energy grows without limit.

If we now include reabsorption, the situation changes. Whereas reabsorption only in axial direction ($`\kappa _z>0`$) changes the cooling rate but not the steady state temperature, reabsorption in radial direction ($`\kappa _y>0`$) provides a cooling effect, that establishes a radial steady state temperature (Eq. 14). The magnitude of this temperature is determined by the ratio of heating to cooling photons.

Experimentally, it is not possible to independently change $`\kappa _y`$, $`\kappa _z`$ and $`\kappa `$. They depend via Eqns. 7 and 8 on the shape of the trapped cloud. In Fig. 2 we show an example, where we have integrated these equations for different aspect ratios $`\alpha =\sigma _z/\sigma _y`$ to calculate the steady state temperatures. The aspect ratio has no influence on the axial temperature, since cooling is dominated by photons scattered directly from the laser beams. In radial direction we observe a minimum near a spherical cloud. For a cigar shaped cloud the optical density in radial direction decreases and for a pancake-shaped cloud the solid angle decreases in which photons contributing to radial cooling can be scattered.

#### II.2.2 Dynamics

The transient evolution of the temperature in radial and axial direction can be approximated by the well known solution of Eqns. 2, 3:

$`T_{z,y}(t)=T_{z,y}^{\mathrm{}}+(T_{z,y}^0T_{z,y}^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau _{z,y}^{cool}}})`$ (16)
where $`T_{z,y}^0`$ are the initial temperatures of the cloud in axial and radial direction. Depending on the initial temperatures and the steady state temperatures Eqns. 13, 14, either Doppler cooling ($`T_{z,y}^{\mathrm{}}<T_{z,y}^0`$) or Doppler heating ($`T_{z,y}^{\mathrm{}}>T_{z,y}^0`$) occurs. However, since the atoms are oscillating in a harmonic trap, cooling preferentially occurs close to the trap minimum where the velocity of the atoms is highest. Therefore the cooling rates can not be higher than approx. one quarter of the trap oscillation period $`t_{z,y}`$.

According to Eqns. 9, 10 the time constants $`\tau _z^{cool}`$, $`\tau _y^{cool}`$ depend on the number of scattered cooling photons. This can provide a test for the reabsorption model. If cooling in radial direction originated from elastic scattering Setija et al. (1993) or anharmonic mixing by the trapping potential Helmerson et al. (1992), one would expect an intensity independent relaxation towards an equilibrium temperature, provided $`\tau _z^{cool}\tau _y^{cool}`$, while our model explicitly requires an intensity dependence of $`\tau _y^{cool}`$

We have already mentioned in the previous section that the effective intensity of reabsorbed photons will change during the cooling process. We will now discuss the dynamical effects on the relevant parameters $`\kappa _{z,y}`$. From Fig. 2 and Eq. 13 we deduce a weak dependence of the axial steady state temperature on reabsorbed photons. In this regime cooling in axial direction is dominated by the real laser beams and we can assume $`T_z`$ to be unperturbed from its minimum value $`T_z^{\mathrm{min}}`$. On the contrary, radial cooling strongly depends on the reabsorbed photons, so we have to take into account how $`\kappa _y`$ changes with time. As cooling in the $`z`$-direction starts, the cloud shrinks according to $`\sigma _z=\sqrt{\frac{k_BT_z}{\mu B_z^{^{\prime \prime }}}}`$. That will increase the optical density in radial direction and thus the number of reabsorbed photons according to Eq. 5 and

$$OD_y\frac{1}{\sigma _z\sigma _y}\kappa _y.$$

As a result, the radial steady state temperature is reduced, since it depends on the effective number of reabsorbed photons (Eq. 14). The same argument holds for the size of the cloud in radial direction. During radial cooling $`\sigma _y`$ shrinks and we arrive at an even lower $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}`$. In actual experiments this nonlinear effect is less pronounced and will be neglected.

## III Experimental Setup

In our experiment, we continuously load typically $`10^8`$ chromium atoms in the low field seeking $`|j=3,m_J=3>`$ magnetic substate into a weak Ioffe-Pritchard trap Bergeman et al. (1987) in the cloverleaf configuration Mewes et al. (1996). Details of the continuous loading mechanism can be found in Refs. Stuhler et al., 2001; Schmidt and et al., a. In the compressed cigar-shaped trap with a nearly harmonic trapping potential in all three dimensions, we have an axial and a radial curvature of $`B_z^{^{\prime \prime }}=110`$ G/cm2 and $`B_y^{^{\prime \prime }}=750`$ G/cm2, respectively. This corresponds to trapping frequencies for chromium $`\mu =6\mu _B`$ of $`\omega _x=\omega _y=2\pi \times 110`$ Hz and $`\omega _z=2\pi \times 42`$ Hz. We use a rather high offset field of $`B_0=28`$ G to assure sufficient harmonicity in all directions. During compression the atoms are adiabatically heated to a temperature of 1 mK at a peak density of $`0.41\times 10^{10}`$ cm-3. In this trap we perform one-dimensional Doppler cooling with a retroreflected $`\sigma ^+`$-polarized beam along the axial direction of the trap. Laser light at 425.55 nm from a frequency doubled Ti:Sapphire laser drives the 7S$`{}_{3}{}^{}_{}^{7}`$P4 transition in 52Cr ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 5.02\mathrm{MHz}`$, $`I_{sat}=85.2\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{m}^2`$, see Fig. 1). The laser frequency is tuned to $`7\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ above the unperturbed transition frequency corresponding to an effective detuning of approx. $`0.8\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for a nonmoving atom placed at the minimum of the magnetic field in the center of the trap. This value was optimized with respect to minimum temperature in all directions. The mean intensity of the approx. 1 cm diameter beam as seen by the approx. 2 mm diameter cloud was measured to be $`4\times 10^3I_{sat}`$ using a 1 mm diameter pinhole in front of a calibrated photodiode unless otherwise noted. The atomic ensemble is detected by absorption imaging using a 12 Bit CCD camera. The resulting optical density profile of the cloud is fitted with two orthogonal Gaussian profiles meeting at the center of the cloud. The number of atoms is extracted from this fit using the peak optical density and the size. We perform time-of-flight (TOF) sequences to obtain the temperature in axial and radial direction. Densities are derived using the size of the cloud in the trap obtained from the time-of-flight fit and the number of atoms. The error bars shown in the figures are the square root of the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix for the fitting parameters obtained from a least square fit. No systematic errors have been included, unless otherwise noted.

## IV Experimental Results

### IV.1 Dynamics

In this section, we present experimental results on the dynamics of the cooling process. In Fig. 3 we have plotted the temperature of the cloud in axial ($`z`$) and radial ($`y`$) direction after a variable cooling time. We start in both directions with a temperature of approx. 1 mK. In axial (cooling laser beam) direction we see a fast decrease in temperature. But also in the radial direction, where no laser beam is applied, cooling is observed on a short timescale. The initial decrease in temperature is very well fitted by an exponential decay in both cases, as is expected from Eq. 16. The cooling time constants derived from the fit are $`\tau _z^{cool}10`$ ms, corresponding to the fastest possible cooling time of $`\frac{2\pi }{4\omega _z}`$ and $`\tau _y^{cool}50`$ ms. In fact, we have never observed axial cooling time constants significantly lower than 10 ms. The minimum steady state temperatures in Fig. 3 are $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}=334\pm 7\mu `$K and $`T_z^{\mathrm{}}=124\pm 3\mu `$K, corresponding to 2.7 and 1 times the 1D Doppler temperature of $`T_D=124\mu `$K. Due to density dependent heating effects in the light field Bell et al. (1999); Bradley et al. (2000), the minimum axial temperature of $`T_z^{\mathrm{min}}90\mu `$K is not reached. Fig. 4 shows the evolution of the number of atoms and the phase space density during the cooling in a double logarithmic plot to resolve the fast initial dynamics. The number of atoms stays constant within experimental uncertainty beyond 300 ms at which time the steady state temperature is reached. We gain more than a factor of 80 in phase space density and increase at the same time the peak density by more than one order of magnitude from $`0.4\times 10^{10}`$ to $`5.6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

In the experiment shown in Figs. 3 and 4, we continued cooling after reaching steady state. Fig. 4 shows a strong reduction in the number of atoms for cooling times longer than 500 ms. Atoms are lost from the trap presumably by radiative escape or fine structure changing collisions Walker and Feng (1994); Stuhler et al. (2001) in the cooling light. At the same time the temperature increases in radial direction, whereas it stays constant in axial direction. This is evidence for a density dependent cooling effect in radial direction. A lower number of atoms results in a reduced optical density and, according to Eq. 14, to a higher steady state temperature $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}`$. We will come back to this effect in the discussion of the steady state results.

We have already pointed out in section 2B that the cooling rate of the radial degrees of freedom via anharmonic mixing or elastic collisions between the atoms should be independent of cooling light intensity, provided cooling in axial direction is much faster. In Fig. 5 the results of a cooling experiment with different cooling light intensities are plotted. For each data point we have performed an experiment analogous to Fig. 3 and fitted the initial exponential decay of the temperature to obtain the cooling rate. The corresponding rate constant for the axial direction has been verified to be larger by at least a factor of five for each data point. One can clearly see a linear dependence of the radial cooling rate on light intensity, ruling out anharmonic mixing or elastic collisions as the major cooling mechanism. We have also performed an experiment in which we stopped cooling after the axial direction reached steady state, thus producing a highly anisotropic temperature distribution. The subsequent cross-dimensional relaxation of the temperatures driven by elastic ground state collisions occurred on a much longer timescale than the observed cooling time constants when the light was on.

Increasing the laser intensity beyond the values shown in Fig. 5 results in a strong distortion of the cloud due to light pressure forces and intensity imbalance between the two counterpropagating cooling beams. This causes parasitic heating and increases the achievable temperatures.

From the slope of the linear fit to the data in Fig. 5 we can extract $`\kappa _y`$ according to Eq. 10. Taking into account that the average intensity incident on an atom is a factor of 3 lower than the measured intensity due to absorption, we obtain $`\kappa _y=0.023`$ for a detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pol}}=0.8`$. To compare this experimentally determined value with theory, we have integrated Eq. 6 using the steady state size of the cloud $`\sigma _z=700\mu `$m and $`\sigma _y=410\mu `$m. The theoretical result of $`\kappa _y=0.1`$ is larger by more than a factor 4. This deviation supposedly arises from uncertainties in the effective intensity as seen by the atoms. This includes a systematic error in the measured intensity, uncertainty in the averaged intensity due to absorption of photons from the laser beam and averaging effects for the detuning due to magnetic field curvature.

### IV.2 Steady State Temperatures

In this section, we present experiments that elucidate the different effects influencing the steady state temperature and compare them to theory.

In the simplified model used to derive the steady state temperatures in axial and radial direction given by Eqns. 13 and 14, the latter are independent of cooling light intensity, since both, the heating rate $`1/\tau _{z,y}^{heat}`$ and the cooling rate $`1/\tau _{z,y}^{cool}`$ are linear in intensity. Accounting for an additional constant heating rate $`R`$ in the differential equation (3), the steady state temperature for a detuning of $`\delta =0.5`$ becomes

$$T_y^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\left(\kappa _y+\frac{3}{10}(1+\kappa )+\frac{R}{E_R\mathrm{\Gamma }I}\right)}{\kappa _y}\frac{T_D}{2}.$$
(17)
In Fig. 6 we have plotted the measured steady state temperature $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}`$ for different cooling light intensities. The fit to Eq. 17 using the measured detuning of $`\delta =0.8`$ and $`\kappa =0.24`$ calculated from Eq. 8, gives $`\kappa _y=0.11\pm 0.002`$ and $`R=2.6\times 10^{26}\pm 10\%\mathrm{Js}^1`$. This result is in excellent agreement with the integrated value for $`\kappa _y=0.1`$ obtained from Eq. 6. From Fig. 6 we can also estimate a minimum radial temperature of $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}300\mu `$K which is in good agreement with the predicted value using Eq. 14 and Fig. 2 of $`T_y^{\mathrm{}}=2.3T_D290\mu `$K. Thus, the additional, intensity independent heating mechanism slightly increases the minimum temperature. We have identified this mechanism to be a strong dipolar relaxation process in chromium Schmidt and et al. (b).

We have already seen in Fig. 3 that the steady state temperature in radial direction depends on the number of atoms in the cloud (increase in temperature for a decreasing number of atoms at long cooling times). To elucidate this effect more quantitatively we have performed an experiment in which we cool down the atoms to steady state as described before. In a second ”cooling” stage we reduce the cooling laser intensity to $`1.6\times 10^3I_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ to slow down the loss of atoms. After different cooling times, we measure the temperature and the optical density in radial direction. The result is plotted in Fig. 7 as a function of optical density in radial direction. We observe a decrease in temperature with increasing optical density. The effective number of reabsorbed radial and total cooling photons, $`\kappa _y`$ and $`\kappa `$, respectively, are to lowest order linearly proportional to the optical density $`OD_y`$ (Eq. 5). Introducing two new constants, $`\kappa _y^{}=\kappa _y/OD_y`$ and $`\kappa ^{}=\kappa /OD_y`$, the steady state temperature reads

$$T_y^{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\left(\kappa _y^{}\times OD_y+\frac{3}{10}(1+\kappa ^{}\times OD_y)+\frac{R}{E_R\mathrm{\Gamma }I}\right)}{\kappa _y^{}\times OD_y}\frac{T_D}{2}.$$
(18)
This equation is plotted as a solid line in Fig. 7 using the results for $`R`$ and $`\kappa _y`$ (normalized to steady state optical density of 4.5) from the fit to the data in Fig. 6. The agreement with the experimental data is surprisingly good, since $`\kappa _y`$ and $`\kappa `$ are not strictly linear in the optical density (see Eqns. 6, 8) and the heating rate depends on temperature and density.

## V Conclusion

We have presented a general Doppler cooling technique which works for optically dense, trapped atomic samples. In experiments with magnetically trapped Chromium atoms we have achieved an increase in phase space density by two orders of magnitude. To explain our experimental results, in particular the fast and efficient three-dimensional cooling in a one-dimensional molasses, we have developed a model which takes into account radial cooling due to reabsorption of scattered photons. Our experimental findings for the intensity-dependence of the cooling rate and the steady-state temperature agree well with the theoretical considerations. We could exclude thermalization effects via elastic collisions or anharmonic mixing as the origin of the radial cooling we observe. Optimum radial cooling is observed in spherical trap configurations and the radial cooling efficiency increases with the radial optical density.

Our technique should be applicable to most atomic species which can be laser-cooled provided that a moderate magnetic offset-field (e.g. $`B_0=15`$ G for 87Rb) is applied to prevent depolarization of the sample. Implementation of this technique in a BEC experiment could simplify the initial laser cooling stages, since Doppler cooling in the trap reduces the figure of merit for loading of the trap to the number of atoms transferred into the trap regardless of temperature. Due to the low light intensities needed to cool the atoms, our method might also be applicable to magnetically trapped atoms in a cryogenic environment Weinstein et al. (2002); deCarvalho et al. . In our experiment, the achieved phase space density for chromium already provides good starting conditions for evaporation and only excessive atom loss and heating due to dipolar relaxation Schmidt and et al. (b) in the consecutive evaporation stage prevented us from reaching quantum degeneracy.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was funded by the Forschergruppe Quantengase der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. P.O.S has been supported by the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes.