I Why does doping make resonating valence bonds (singlet pairs) mobile?

Faizan Samad
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
I'm a first year masters student so I'm looking for a qualitative, possibly intuitive explanation, rather than a math heavy quantitative one. This is for a presentation for my class.
I know in RVB theory that neighbouring Copper atoms form singlet pairs via the superexchange "force". Upon doping with holes, these neutral singlet RVB pairs become mobile and charged and are able to superconduct. I know that the resonating valence bonds are in the copper 3d(x^2-y^2) orbital and when hole doped, these are the electrons that are removed. My questions are, why are they called neutral singlets when they are undoped? And why does doping allow them to become mobile? I read that they separate into fractional quasiparticles as holon-antiholon pairs when they are hole doped. Are these mobile RVBs "traveling" through holes or am I completely missing the picture? Also I have read a lot of papers from PW Anderson and G Baskaran and I am still a little confused as to what makes RVBs mobile superconductors upon doping. Thank you. Any help is appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am afraid that I can't help answer the specific questions; but it is perhaps worth pointing out that RVB is -most likely- not an actual explanation for HTS. which could be one reason for your confusion It was a very early theory, and does not -as far as I am aware- agree with experiments (at least in its "plain" form)
Hopefully, you are already aware of this and is studying this for "historical" reasons.
 
Faizan Samad said:
My questions are, why are they called neutral singlets when they are undoped?
The charge of electron pair (of Mott insulator in this case) is canceled by polarization of surrounding material when the pair is immobile. When pair is mobile, the lagging polarization can no longer fully cancel its charge.

I must also agree with @f95toli - the experimental proof for RVB (resonant valence bond) theory is substandard at the moment. The theory may be simply untrue.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top