Complexity and entanglement for thermofield double states

By Shira Chapman, Jens Eisert, Lucas Hackl, M. Heller, Ro Jefferson, H. Marrochio, R. Myers. SciPost Physics, 2018

211 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Motivated by holographic complexity proposals as novel probes of black hole spacetimes, we explore circuit complexity for thermofield double (TFD) states in free scalar quantum field theories using the Nielsen approach. For TFD states at t = 0t=0, we show that the complexity of formation is proportional to the thermodynamic entropy, in qualitative agreement with holographic complexity proposals. For TFD states at t>0t>0, we demonstrate that the complexity evolves in time and saturates after a time of the order of the inverse temperature. The latter feature, which is in contrast with the results of holographic proposals, is due to the Gaussian nature of the TFD state of the free bosonic QFT. A novel technical aspect of our work is framing complexity calculations in the language of covariance matrices and the associated symplectic transformations, which provide a natural language for dealing with Gaussian states. Furthermore, for free QFTs in 1+1 dimension, we compare the dynamics of circuit complexity with the time dependence of the entanglement entropy for simple bipartitions of TFDs. We relate our results for the entanglement entropy to previous studies on non-equilibrium entanglement evolution following quenches. We also present a new analytic derivation of a logarithmic contribution due to the zero momentum mode in the limit of vanishing mass for a subsystem containing a single degree of freedom on each side of the TFD and argue why a similar logarithmic growth should be present for larger subsystems.

Subfields: Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95739f16cf426e14f8726ce6398c8a6afb501f1a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

  1. Jonas Haferkamp
  2. Nicole Yunger Halpern
  3. N. B. T. Kothakonda
  4. Jens Eisert
  5. Philippe Faist
  6. Pasquale Calabrese

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

  1. Jonas Haferkamp
  2. Nicole Yunger Halpern
  3. N. B. T. Kothakonda
  4. Jens Eisert
  5. Philippe Faist

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

  1. Jonas Haferkamp
  2. Nicole Yunger Halpern
  3. N. B. T. Kothakonda
  4. Jens Eisert
  5. Philippe Faist

Citations in the corpus