Monthly Archives: April 2024

To thermalize, or not to thermalize, that is the question.

Posted on by
1
The Noncommuting-Charges World Tour (Part 3 of 4)

This is the third part of a four-part series covering the recent Perspective on noncommuting charges. I’ll post one part every ~5 weeks leading up to my PhD thesis defence. You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

If Hamlet had been a system of noncommuting charges, his famous soliloquy may have gone like this…

To thermalize, or not to thermalize, that is the question:
Whether ’tis more natural for the system to suffer
The large entanglement of thermalizing dynamics,
Or to take arms against the ETH
And by opposing inhibit it. To die—to thermalize,
No more; and by thermalization to say we end
The dynamical symmetries and quantum scars
That complicate dynamics: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to thermalize;
To thermalize, perchance to compute—ay, there’s the rub:
For in that thermalization our quantum information decoheres,
When our coherence has shuffled off this quantum coil,
Must give us pause—there’s the respect
That makes calamity of resisting thermalization.

Hamlet (the quantum steampunk edition)


In the original play, Hamlet grapples with the dilemma of whether to live or die. Noncommuting charges have a dilemma regarding whether they facilitate or impede thermalization. Among the five research opportunities highlighted in the Perspective article, resolving this debate is my favourite opportunity due to its potential implications for quantum technologies. A primary obstacle in developing scalable quantum computers is mitigating decoherence; here, thermalization plays a crucial role. If systems with noncommuting charges are shown to resist thermalization, they may contribute to quantum technologies that are more resistant to decoherence. Systems with noncommuting charges, such as spin systems and squeezed states of light, naturally occur in quantum computing models like quantum dots and optical approaches. This possibility is further supported by recent advances demonstrating that non-Abelian symmetric operations are universal for quantum computing (see references 1 and 2).

In this penultimate blog post of the series, I will review some results that argue both in favour of and against noncommuting charges hindering thermalization. This discussion includes content from Sections III, IV, and V of the Perspective article, along with a dash of some related works at the end—one I recently posted and another I recently found. The results I will review do not directly contradict one another because they arise from different setups. My final blog post will delve into the remaining parts of the Perspective article.

Playing Hamlet is like jury duty for actors–sooner or later, you’re getting the call (source).

Arguments for hindering thermalization

The first argument supporting the idea that noncommuting charges hinder thermalization is that they can reduce the production of thermodynamic entropy. In their study, Manzano, Parrondo, and Landi explore a collisional model involving two systems, each composed of numerous subsystems. In each “collision,” one subsystem from each system is randomly selected to “collide.” These subsystems undergo a unitary evolution during the collision and are subsequently returned to their original systems. The researchers derive a formula for the entropy production per collision within a certain regime (the linear-response regime). Notably, one term of this formula is negative if and only if the charges do not commute. Since thermodynamic entropy production is a hallmark of thermalization, this finding implies that systems with noncommuting charges may thermalize more slowly. Two other extensions support this result.

The second argument stems from an essential result in quantum computing. This result is that every algorithm you want to run on your quantum computer can be broken down into gates you run on one or two qubits (the building blocks of quantum computers). Marvian’s research reveals that this principle fails when dealing with charge-conserving unitaries. For instance, consider the charge as energy. Marvian’s results suggest that energy-preserving interactions between neighbouring qubits don’t suffice to construct all energy-preserving interactions across all qubits. The restrictions become more severe when dealing with noncommuting charges. Local interactions that preserve noncommuting charges impose stricter constraints on the system’s overall dynamics compared to commuting charges. These constraints could potentially reduce chaos, something that tends to lead to thermalization.

Adding to the evidence, we revisit the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH), which I discussed in my first post. The ETH essentially asserts that if an observable and Hamiltonian adhere to the ETH, the observable will thermalize. This means its expectation value stabilizes over time, aligning with the expectation value of the thermal state, albeit with some important corrections. Noncommuting charges cause all kinds of problems for the ETH, as detailed in these two posts by Nicole Yunger Halpern. Rather than reiterating Nicole’s succinct explanations, I’ll present the main takeaway: noncommuting charges undermine the ETH. This has led to the development of a non-Abelian version of the ETH by Murthy and collaborators. This new framework still predicts thermalization in many, but not all, cases. Under a reasonable physical assumption, the previously mentioned corrections to the ETH may be more substantial.

If this story ended here, I would have needed to reference a different Shakespearean work. Fortunately, the internal conflict inherent in noncommuting aligns well with Hamlet. Noncommuting charges appear to impede thermalization in various aspects, yet paradoxically, they also seem to promote it in others.

Arguments for promoting thermalization

Among the many factors accompanying the thermalization of quantum systems, entanglement is one of the most studied. Last year, I wrote a blog post explaining how my collaborators and I constructed analogous models that differ in whether their charges commute. One of the paper’s results was that the model with noncommuting charges had higher average entanglement entropy. As a result of that blog post, I was invited to CBC’s “Quirks & Quarks” Podcast to explain, on national radio, whether quantum entanglement can explain the extreme similarities we see in identical twins who are raised apart. Spoilers for the interview: it can’t, but wouldn’t it be grand if it could?

Following up on that work, my collaborators and I introduced noncommuting charges into monitored quantum circuits (MQCs)—quantum circuits with mid-circuit measurements. MQCs offer a practical framework for exploring how, for example, entanglement is affected by the interplay between unitary dynamics and measurements. MQCs with no charges or with commuting charges have a weakly entangled phase (“area-law” phase) when the measurements are done often enough, and a highly entangled phase (“volume-law” phase) otherwise. However, in MQCs with noncommuting charges, this weakly entangled phase never exists. In its place, there is a critical phase marked by long-range entanglement. This finding supports our earlier observation that noncommuting charges tend to increase entanglement.

I recently looked at a different angle to this thermalization puzzle. It’s well known that most quantum many-body systems thermalize; some don’t. In those that don’t, what effect do noncommuting charges have? One paper that answers this question is covered in the Perspective. Here, Potter and Vasseur study many-body localization (MBL). Imagine a chain of spins that are strongly interacting. We can add a disorder term, such as an external field whose magnitude varies across sites on this chain. If the disorder is sufficiently strong, the system “localizes.” This implies that if we measured the expectation value of some property of each qubit at some time, it would maintain that same value for a while. MBL is one type of behaviour that resists thermalization. Potter and Vasseur found that noncommuting charges destabilize MBL, thereby promoting thermalizing behaviour.

In addition to the papers discussed in our Perspective article, I want to highlight two other studies that study how systems can avoid thermalization. One mechanism is through the presence of “dynamical symmetries” (there are “spectrum-generating algebras” with a locality constraint). These are operators that act similarly to ladder operators for the Hamiltonian. For any observable that overlaps with these dynamical symmetries, the observable’s expectation value will continue to evolve over time and will not thermalize in accordance with the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH). In my recent work, I demonstrate that noncommuting charges remove the non-thermalizing dynamics that emerge from dynamical symmetries.

Additionally, I came across a study by O’Dea, Burnell, Chandran, and Khemani, which proposes a method for constructing Hamiltonians that exhibit quantum scars. Quantum scars are unique eigenstates of the Hamiltonian that do not thermalize despite being surrounded by a spectrum of other eigenstates that do thermalize. Their approach involves creating a Hamiltonian with noncommuting charges and subsequently breaking the non-Abelian symmetry. When the symmetry is broken, quantum scars appear; however, if the non-Abelian symmetry were to be restored, the quantum scars vanish. These last three results suggest that noncommuting charges impede various types of non-thermalizing dynamics.

Unlike Hamlet, the narrative of noncommuting charges is still unfolding. I wish I could conclude with a dramatic finale akin to the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, Claudius’s poisoning, and the proclamation of a new heir to the Danish throne. However, that chapter is yet to be written. “To thermalize or not to thermalize?” We will just have to wait and see.

How I didn’t become a philosopher (but wound up presenting a named philosophy lecture anyway)

Posted on by
3

Many people ask why I became a theoretical physicist. The answer runs through philosophy—which I thought, for years, I’d left behind in college.

My formal relationship with philosophy originated with Mr. Bohrer. My high school classified him as a religion teacher, but he co-opted our junior-year religion course into a philosophy course. He introduced us to Plato’s cave, metaphysics, and the pursuit of the essence beneath the skin of appearance. The essence of reality overlaps with quantum theory and relativity, which fascinated him. Not that he understood them, he’d hasten to clarify. But he passed along that fascination to me. I’d always loved dealing in abstract ideas, so the notion of studying the nature of the universe attracted me. A friend and I joked about growing up to be philosophers and—on account of not being able to find jobs—living in cardboard boxes next to each other.

After graduating from high school, I searched for more of the same in Dartmouth College’s philosophy department. I began with two prerequisites for the philosophy major: Moral Philosophy and Informal Logic. I adored those courses, but I adored all my courses.

As a sophomore, I embarked upon an upper-level philosophy course: philosophy of mind. I was one of the course’s youngest students, but the professor assured me that I’d accumulated enough background information in science and philosophy classes. Yet he and the older students threw around technical terms, such as qualia, that I’d never heard of. Those terms resurfaced in the assigned reading, again without definitions. I struggled to follow the conversation.

Meanwhile, I’d been cycling through the sciences. I’d taken my high school’s highest-level physics course, senior year—AP Physics C: Mechanics and Electromagnetism. So, upon enrolling in college, I made the rounds of biology, chemistry, and computer science. I cycled back to physics at the beginning of sophomore year, taking Modern Physics I in parallel with Informal Logic. The physics professor, Miles Blencowe, told me, “I want to see physics in your major.” I did, too, I assured him. But I wanted to see most subjects in my major.

Miles, together with department chair Jay Lawrence, helped me incorporate multiple subjects into a physics-centric program. The major, called “Physics Modified,” stood halfway between the physics major and the create-your-own major offered at some American liberal-arts colleges. The program began with heaps of prerequisite courses across multiple departments. Then, I chose upper-level physics courses, a math course, two history courses, and a philosophy course. I could scarcely believe that I’d planted myself in a physics department; although I’d loved physics since my first course in it, I loved all subjects, and nobody in my family did anything close to physics. But my major would provide a well-rounded view of the subject.

From shortly after I declared my Physics Modified major. Photo from outside the National Academy of Sciences headquarters in Washington, DC.

The major’s philosophy course was an independent study on quantum theory. In one project, I dissected the “EPR paper” published by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in 1935. It introduced the paradox that now underlies our understanding of entanglement. But who reads the EPR paper in physics courses nowadays? I appreciated having the space to grapple with the original text. Still, I wanted to understand the paper more deeply; the philosophy course pushed me toward upper-level physics classes.

What I thought of as my last chance at philosophy evaporated during my senior spring. I wanted to apply to graduate programs soon, but I hadn’t decided which subject to pursue. The philosophy and history of physics remained on the table. A history-of-physics course, taught by cosmologist Marcelo Gleiser, settled the matter. I worked my rear off in that course, and I learned loads—but I already knew some of the material from physics courses. Moreover, I knew the material more deeply than the level at which the course covered it. I couldn’t stand the thought of understanding the rest of physics only at this surface level. So I resolved to burrow into physics in graduate school. 

Appropriately, Marcelo published a book with a philosopher (and an astrophysicist) this March.

Burrow I did: after a stint in condensed-matter research, I submerged up to my eyeballs in quantum field theory and differential geometry at the Perimeter Scholars International master’s program. My research there bridged quantum information theory and quantum foundations. I appreciated the balance of fundamental thinking and possible applications to quantum-information-processing technologies. The rigorous mathematical style (lemma-theorem-corollary-lemma-theorem-corollary) appealed to my penchant for abstract thinking. Eating lunch with the Perimeter Institute’s quantum-foundations group, I felt at home.

Craving more research at the intersection of quantum thermodynamics and information theory, I enrolled at Caltech for my PhD. As I’d scarcely believed that I’d committed myself to my college’s physics department, I could scarcely believe that I was enrolling in a tech school. I was such a child of the liberal arts! But the liberal arts include the sciences, and I ended up wrapping Caltech’s hardcore vibe around myself like a favorite denim jacket.

Caltech kindled interests in condensed matter; atomic, molecular, and optical physics; and even high-energy physics. Theorists at Caltech thought not only abstractly, but also about physical platforms; so I started to, as well. I began collaborating with experimentalists as a postdoc, and I’m now working with as many labs as I can interface with at once. I’ve collaborated on experiments performed with superconducting qubits, photons, trapped ions, and jammed grains. Developing an abstract idea, then nursing it from mathematics to reality, satisfies me. I’m even trying to redirect quantum thermodynamics from foundational insights to practical applications.

At the University of Toronto in 2022, with my experimental collaborator Batuhan Yılmaz—and a real optics table!

So I did a double-take upon receiving an invitation to present a named lecture at the University of Pittsburgh Center for Philosophy of Science. Even I, despite not being a philosopher, had heard of the cache of Pitt’s philosophy-of-science program. Why on Earth had I received the invitation? I felt the same incredulity as when I’d handed my heart to Dartmouth’s physics department and then to a tech school. But now, instead of laughing at the image of myself as a physicist, I couldn’t see past it.

Why had I received that invitation? I did a triple-take. At Perimeter, I’d begun undertaking research on resource theories—simple, information-theoretic models for situations in which constraints restrict the operations one can perform. Hardly anyone worked on resource theories then, although they form a popular field now. Philosophers like them, and I’ve worked with multiple classes of resource theories by now.

More recently, I’ve worked with contextuality, a feature that distinguishes quantum theory from classical theories. And I’ve even coauthored papers about closed timelike curves (CTCs), hypothetical worldlines that travel backward in time. CTCs are consistent with general relativity, but we don’t know whether they exist in reality. Regardless, one can simulate CTCs, using entanglement. Collaborators and I applied CTC simulations to metrology—to protocols for measuring quantities precisely. So we kept a foot in practicality and a foot in foundations.

Perhaps the idea of presenting a named lecture on the philosophy of science wasn’t hopelessly bonkers. All right, then. I’d present it.

Presenting at the Center for Philosophy of Science

This March, I presented an ALS Lecture (an Annual Lecture Series Lecture, redundantly) entitled “Field notes on the second law of quantum thermodynamics from a quantum physicist.” Scientists formulated the second law the early 1800s. It helps us understand why time appears to flow in only one direction. I described three enhancements of that understanding, which have grown from quantum thermodynamics and nonequilibrium statistical mechanics: resource-theory results, fluctuation theorems, and thermodynamic applications of entanglement. I also enjoyed talking with Center faculty and graduate students during the afternoon and evening. Then—being a child of the liberal arts—I stayed in Pittsburgh for half the following Saturday to visit the Carnegie Museum of Art.

With a copy of a statue of the goddess Sekhmet. She lives in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, which shares a building with the art museum, from which I detoured to see the natural-history museum’s ancient-Egypt area (as Quantum Frontiers regulars won’t be surprised to hear).

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a physicist, not a philosopher. I don’t have the training to undertake philosophy, and I have enough work to do in pursuit of my physics goals. But my high-school self would approve—that self is still me.