 Solution

The t-J model approximates the low-energy sector of a repulsive Hubbard model with $U\gg t$ near one electron per site. Large on-site repulsion suppresses double occupancy. Virtual hopping out of and back into that low-energy sector produces antiferromagnetic superexchange with $J=4t^2/U$. One conventional effective Hamiltonian iswith projected electron operator ${\tilde{c}}_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }(1-n_{i\bar{\sigma }})$. At half filling, nearest-neighbor hopping cannot move an electron without entering a forbidden doubly occupied state, leaving the leading spin-exchange model. Doped holes can move and couple the charge dynamics to these spin correlations. Additional terms, including three-site processes at order $t^2/U$, are omitted in this simplified Hamiltonian.

The exchange term energetically favors a nearest-neighbor spin singlet. With $b_{ij}^{†}=(c_{i\uparrow }^{†}{c}_{j\downarrow }^{†}-c_{i\downarrow }^{†}{c}_{j\uparrow }^{†})/\sqrt{2}$ in the no-double-occupancy subspace, ${\mathbf{S}}_i\cdot {\mathbf{S}}_j-n_i{n}_j/4=-b_{ij}^{†}{b}_{ij}$. A square-lattice pairing ansatz can therefore use bond singlets with opposite signs along the two axes. This d-wave bond order hasIt changes sign under a quarter-turn and vanishes along the zone diagonals. It is an even-parity, spin-singlet pairing pattern, not a statement of triplet pairing or necessarily broken time reversal. Phase-sensitive interference experiments distinguish this sign structure from a merely anisotropic nonnegative gap in cuprate superconductors.^[ref]

The model captures strong local repulsion, antiferromagnetism and mobile doped carriers. Its interacting phase diagram is not solved by writing down the Hamiltonian: a mean-field d-wave ansatz is a proposed approximation, not a proof that every parameter choice has that exact ground state or a complete microscopic explanation of every high-temperature superconductor.