A critique of two metals

I argue that Anderson's identification of the conflict between the fermi-liquid and non-fermi-liquid metallic states as the central issue of cuprate superconductivity is fundamentally wrong. All experimental evidence points to adiabatic continuability of the strange metal into a conventional one, and thus to one metallic phase rather than two, and all attempts to account theoretically for the existence of a luttinger-liquid at zero temperature in spatial dimension greater than one have failed. I discuss the underlying reasons for this failure and then argue that the true higher-dimensional generalization of the luttinger-liquid behavior is a propensity of the system to order. This implies that the central issue is actually the conflict between different kinds of order, i.e. exactly the idea implicit in Zhang's paper. I then speculate about how the conflict between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity, the two principal kinds of order in this problem, might result in both the observed zero-temperature phase diagram of the cuprates and the luttinger-liquid phenomenology, i.e. the breakup of the electron into spinons and holons in certain regimes of doping and energy. The key idea is a quantum critical point regulating a first-order transition between these phases, and toward which one is first attracted under renormalization before bifurcating between the two phases. I speculate that this critical point lies on the insulating line, and that the difference between the Mott-insulator and fermi-liquid approaches to the high-T-C problem comes down to whether or not the superconducting states made by nand p-type doping can be continued into each other. A candidate for the second fixed point required for distinct superconducting phases is the P- and T-violating chiral spin liquid state invented by me.