Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
Common Problems in
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
Condensed Matter and High
Energy Physics
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
Round Table Discussion
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
2/2/2015
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
Co-Chairs E. Fradkin and J Maldacena
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
BES-HEP Connections
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjk
lzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopa
Round Table Discussion on
‘Common Problems in Condensed Matter and High Energy Physics’
Germantown, Maryland
February 2, 2015
Executive Summary
On February 2, 2015 the Offices of High Energy Physics (HEP) and Basic Energy Sciences
(BES) convened a Round Table discussion among a group of physicists on ‘Common Problems
in Condensed Matter and High Energy Physics’. This was motivated by the realization that both
fields deal with quantum many body problems, share many of the same challenges, use quantum
field theoretical approaches and have productively interacted in the past. The meeting brought
together physicists with intersecting interests to explore recent developments and identify
possible areas of collaboration.
Two Associate Directors in the Office of Science, James Siegrist for HEP and Harriet Kung for
BES approved the Roundtable. Eduardo Fradkin, University of Illinois and Juan Maldacena,
Institute for Advanced Study co-chaired the meeting and 12 additional attendees with expertise
in these areas participated in the discussions. Each attendee agreed to provide a short talk and to
contribute to a report summarizing the discussion.
The Round Table met for a full day and was also attended by HEP and BES management. This
report highlights the discussions and contributions from the Round Table. Rather than make
specific recommendations, the report outlines areas where further work could have dramatic
impact on science in both fields and describes those areas in the form of 12 Grand Challenge
Questions. The Grand Challenge Questions address recent results with importance for analytical
theory, computational science and experiment.
Several topics were identified as offering great opportunity for discovery and advancement in
both condensed matter physics and particle physics research. These included topological phases
of matter, the use of entanglement as a tool to study nontrivial quantum systems in condensed
matter and gravity, the gauge-gravity duality, non-Fermi liquids, the interplay of transport and
anomalies, and strongly interacting disordered systems. Many of the condensed matter problems
are realizable in laboratory experiments, where new methods beyond the usual quasi-particle
approximation are needed to explain the observed exotic and anomalous results. Tools and
techniques such as lattice gauge theories, numerical simulations of many-body systems, and
tensor networks are seen as valuable to both communities and will likely benefit from
collaborative development.
This report also recognizes that these fields have productively interacted in the past by
exchanging or co-developing theoretical and computational methods, and notes some of the
current activities that are already providing a bridge between the two communities and the
science to which these are dedicated.
Introduction
Condensed matter theory (CMT) and high energy physics (HEP) naturally have common
interests. Both deal with systems with a large number of spatially organized degrees of freedom.
In each case it is highly non-trivial to go between the laws of physics at short distances and
emergent behavior at long distances. The techniques of quantum field theory are useful in both
areas.
This interaction was historically important, from Nambu’s applications of the theory of
superconductivity to elementary particles that culminated on the Higgs mechanism to the
analysis of second order phase transitions that led to the renormalization group.
These interactions are still going on today and there are several areas which are of common
interest to both fields, with several researchers actively working in the interphase between the
two fields or crossing over back and forth. There are particular developments that make these
interactions stronger today. One is the study of topological phases of matter. These theories have
potential applications to quantum computing, but they are also very interesting on their own as
new phases which are missed by the traditional Landau classification. Topological effects in field
theory are important both in high energy physics and mathematics. Another factor is the interest
in using entanglement as a tool to study quantum systems. This is relevant to the characterization
of topological phases as well as the study of quantum gravity and the structure of spacetime. It
has been also useful for formulating sharper versions of the black hole information paradox. The
gauge/gravity duality has provided examples of strongly coupled systems which can be easily
analyzed using the gravity description. This has been a useful testing ground for theoretical ideas
about strongly coupled systems in general. In addition, having a solvable example made it
possible to discover some phenomena which are actually valid for general systems, such as the
anomaly induced terms in hydrodynamics. In addition there are many tools and techniques which
are of common interest, such as lattice gauge theories and the numerical simulation of many
body systems. Numerical methods have also made it possible to carry out the conformal
bootstrap program in some three dimensional examples, such as the three dimensional Ising
model. The development of entanglement based renormalization approaches led to tensor
networks which are useful both as numerical and theoretical tools.
There have already been research activities that try to bridge these different communities,
including high-energy and condensed matter physics, and quantum information science, and
encourage interdisciplinary research on quantum entanglement in many-body physics.
Examples of recent activities which are jointly organized by CMT and HEP theorists:
• The “Entanglement in Strongly-Correlated Quantum Matter” workshop, at the KITP in
Santa Barbara, April-July 2015.
• The summer school on topological insulators at IAS/Princeton University, July 2031,
2015.
• The DOE supported “Field theoretic computer simulations for condensed matter and high
energy theory” workshop, at Boston University, May 8-10, 2014.
• The Aspen Center for Physics 2015 Winter Conference “Progress and Application of
Modern Quantum Field Theory”, February 16-21, 2015.
• The Aspen Center for Physics Summer program “Understanding Strongly Coupled
Systems in High Energy and Condensed Matter Physics”, May 24 -June 14, 2015.
• Simons Foundation Symposium “Quantum Entanglement”, March 15-21, 2015.
Grand Challenge Questions
To focus our discussion, we formulate here a set of Grand Challenge Questions providing
particularly enticing opportunities, though of course our list is far from complete. One thing
these questions have in common is that people with a deep understanding of more than one area
will be especially well positioned to lead future developments.
1) How do we characterize and study highly entangled systems?
Entanglement has emerged as an important notion for characterizing complex quantum systems,
ranging from topological phases in condensed matter to quantum gravity and black holes.
Some of the most exciting developments in condensed matter theoretical physics in recent years
have centered on entanglement. It has become clear that to understand many of the most
interesting strongly correlated systems one must understand their entanglement. Measures of
entanglement, such as the von Neumann entropy, provide key insights: for example,
entanglement entropy can be used to distinguish topological phases, such as quantum spin liquids
and quantum Hall states, which cannot be distinguished by ordinary order parameters. It has also
given new insights into the nature of quantum phase transitions by unveiling the existence of
new scaling laws associated with non-local correlations encoded in the entanglement. In the
process it has become a powerful tool to study these strongly coupled systems. On a different
front, entanglement has also been useful in discussing many-body localization and other
inherently complex quantum systems. In continuum quantum field theory the study of the
entanglement properties of the vacuum has led to new results such as the F-theorem in 2+1
dimensions, which provides a quantity, the entanglement entropy of a circle, that decreases under
the renormalization group flow. In the study of quantum gravity, the entanglement entropy is
computed by a simple area formula which generalizes the black hole entropy formula. This
suggests a close connection between entanglement and the geometry of spacetime. Entanglement
also plays a prominent role in the study of renormalization at the level of the wavefunction and
has led to the development of tensor networks, a set of numerical methods designed to efficiently
compute and manipulate wavefunctions of many-body systems. A new community of physicists
has formed with interests in both quantum lattice systems and in quantum information.
In general, the problem is to characterize the level of quantum complexity of the system.
Entanglement has proven to be theoretically useful. However, we lack effective ways to measure
it experimentally. So a question of common interest is to devise observables that are particularly
useful at characterizing this quantum complexity, including the entanglement entropy, the
entanglement spectrum, etc. The answer to this question will be helpful in understanding which
phases can arise from local Hamiltonians and which states can be simulated efficiently by a
quantum (or classical) computer. It might even be important for understanding the geometry of
spacetime itself.
The behavior of entanglement during dynamical processes is also a problem of fundamental
importance that has attracted the attention of both condensed matter and high-energy physicists.
In 1+1 dimensions, the growth of entanglement entropy after a quench was found to be linear
before saturation. In higher dimensions, the problem has been investigated using holographic
techniques, but further study is necessary to ascertain the universality of these results.
2) How do we form a tensor network description for quantum field theories in more than
1+1 dimensions? Can we include chiral theories?
A tensor network can be viewed as a compressed representation of the wavefunction, with a
tradeoff between accuracy and the amount of storage needed, controlled by a single parameter
which is the range of values of the indices of the tensors. The type of network is carefully chosen
to exploit the pattern of entanglement of the target state.
The prototypical tensor network is the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), where
each renormalization step truncates the system based on entanglement rather than energy. It is
now understood as the optimal low entanglement approximation for gapped 1+1 dimensional
quantum lattice systems. It is so efficient that it has almost completely supplanted quantum
Monte Carlo, which was the previously used technique. Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) is
extensively used in lattice gauge theory and it is useful for many problems, but it suffers from a
“sign problem”, where the probability being sampled becomes negative. The sign problem
occurs in doped fermion systems, such as the high temperature superconductors, and in frustrated
magnetic systems; these two sets of systems are some of the most important in condensed matter.
In high-energy theory it arises in finite density chromodynamics. For higher dimensional
systems DMRG is much less efficient – a “dimensionality problem” replaces the sign problem.
For 2+1 dimensional systems, including models of hightemperature superconductors, DMRG is
still very useful, competing successfully with approximate QMC methods. In 3+1 dimensional
systems we have no efficient method for systems with a sign problem.
In the last decade tensor networks adapted for higher dimensions and/or scale invariant theories
have been developed. The two most important of these are projected entangled pair states (PEPS)
and the multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA). These have shown promise in
2+1 dimensions, such as the t-J model of the high temperature superconducting cuprates. For
tensor network methods to be useful for higher dimensional field theories, we need to understand
better how to formulate them in a way that facilitates the algorithms.
Several questions remain: How do we put the theory on the lattice, respecting gauge invariance,
with small lattice-spacing errors and with the minimum number of degrees of freedom? What is
the most efficient tensor network algorithm? Are there restrictions on what types of theories can
be efficiently represented on a tensor network, e.g. are chiral theories efficiently representable?
How does one efficiently represent systems with a Fermi surface in higher dimensions? Can one
construct an efficient enough tensor network algorithm in 3+1 dimensions?
Tensor networks are not only a numerical method. They can also be used as a theoretical tool to
explore various system properties. For example, it is possible to construct networks that can be
used to construct a unitary operator that produces the target state from a set of decoupled qubits.
This could be useful for producing the state in a quantum simulator. Furthermore, studying the
scaling of the number of needed qubits in terms of system size one can classify the
corresponding systems. This connects the subject to quantum information theory.
A connection with high-energy theory is the realization that the geometry of the tensor network
has several parallels to the actual geometry that is dual to gauge theories with a holographic dual.
This parallel is being extended actively and it is likely that it will lead to new ways to think both
about the renormalization group as well as about the emergence of the geometry of spacetime.
For example, tensor networks make manifest the ER=EPR relationship in quantum gravity,
which connects spacetime wormholes to entanglement.
3) What are the topological phases of matter?
Since the discovery of the fractional quantum Hall (FQH) effect, topological phases of matter
have been studied intensively by condensed matter physicists. This is an arena that has nurtured
intense interactions between condensed matter and high energy theorists. Experimental work on
these states is at the cutting edge of technology. The theoretical work combines ideas from
condensed matter, quantum field theory, string theory and mathematics. The FQH states have a
finite energy gap in the bulk (hence are incompressible) and have a topologically-protected
fractional Hall conductivity (in units of e2/h), providing the most accurate determination of the
fine structure constant α. The low energy regime is described by a topological field theory, the
Chern-Simons gauge theory. This theory was originally studied in high energy physics in
connection to the parity anomaly in odd-spacetime dimensions and later as the quantum field
theory of knots in 2+1 dimensions. The finite energy excitations are vortices that carry a
fractional charge and exhibit fractional statistics. They are described by representations of the
braid group coming from Chern-Simons theory.
Of particular interest are the so-called non-Abelian FQH states whose vortices are described by
non-Abelian representations of the braid group. These vortices are being investigated as a
possible physical platform for topological qubits for quantum computation. On the other hand,
FQH fluids on a sample with a boundary exhibit chiral edge states whose properties are
described by chiral conformal field theories, which originally were developed for string theory.
The edge states play a key role in experiments since they are accessible to tunneling and noise
experiments. An area of intense research is the study of quantities such as the Hall viscosity
which embodies the universal coupling between the FQH fluid and the background geometry of
the surface on which the two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) resides. These edge modes are
also related to the entanglement properties of the ground state.
The recent discovery of topological materials, topological insulators and topological
superconductors, has revolutionized the field of topological phases of matter by providing a large
class of new topological systems, in one, two and three space dimensions. While most of the
systems found to date are weakly interacting, strongly coupled systems are beginning to be
investigated. The development of this broader field of research will depend crucially on the
interaction between condensed matter and high energy theorists. The case of 3D topological
insulators and superconductors, with their protected Weyl fermionic surface states, is a
particularly fertile setting for this interaction, both for novel analytical approaches and for
powerful numerical simulations.
The connection between some topological phases and chiral anomalies in field theory has been
realized early on, but recently the subject has been revitalized by the discovery of a new class of
anomalies which are not due to chiral fermions, but rather to topological terms in the action for
the gauge fields. A new kind of global gravitational anomalies has also been identified. A
complete classification of ’t Hooft anomalies, for both internal and geometric symmetries, seems
within reach, at least for field theories. It appears to be closely connected to the problem of
classifying short-range entangled (SRE) topological phases of matter. However, the precise
connection is not clear. Partly this is due to a lack of a sufficiently precise definition of an SRE
topological phase, and partly to a lack of understanding about what sort of phases of matter can
be described by Euclidean field theory at long distances.
The problem of classifying topological phases with long-range entanglement in arbitrary spatial
dimension is probably too difficult at present. But in low spatial dimensions it is amenable to
algebraic treatment. Recently the focus has shifted to symmetry-enhanced topological phases.
Novel examples of such phases in four spacetime dimensions are given by non-Abelian gauge
theories. It has been noted recently that the Wilson-’t Hooft classification of such phases can be
restated in terms of higher-form symmetries, i.e. symmetries which arise not from groups, but
from more complicated algebraic objects (d-groups). It would be very interesting to find
realizations of such phases in condensed matter systems, such as quantum materials.
4) Can we create a laboratory system with dynamical gauge fields, supersymmetric
theories, the standard model, or emergent dynamical gravity?
In the study of quantum field theory the lattice is usually introduced to perform a numerical
computation. A more exciting possibility is to be able to design a physical lattice, sometimes
called a Hamiltonian lattice, such that the theory of interest emerges at long distances. This
would provide a full quantum simulation of the theory. Theoretically one would like to
understand how to construct lattice systems giving massless fermions, abelian and non-abelian
gauge fields, chiral interactions, supersymmetry, etc. There are condensed matter systems that
display some of these elements individually, but getting them all together is a big challenge.
Finding systems with emergent gravity is also interesting. Here the most promising route would
be to find a system with a gravity dual. Typically this would require a large N system, where N is
the number of fields. However, it should be possible to find cases where a relatively small N,
which can be experimentally realized, could be large enough to display some of the features we
expect in gravity.
Although supersymmetry is believed to be hard to find in condensed matter systems, there are
hints that this may not be so. It has been known for some time that the states of the spectrum of
the edge states of certain fractional quantum Hall states (e.g. the nonAbelian FQH state at filling
fraction 5/2) are supersymmetric. There is also strong theoretical evidence that spacetime
supersymmetry emerges in the low energy regime of boundary states of 3D topological
superfluids. These two examples show that this problem deserves close attention. Likewise, it is
also generally believed that, mainly due to the pervasive presence of lattice effects, it is hard to
construct condensed matter analogs of gravity. Recent work on the general theory of the Hall
viscosity, both in quantum Hall fluids and in topological insulators, has revealed that these
topological fluids sense the geometry of the underlying substrate. More interesting are also
recent findings that long distance nematic fluctuations in these systems act on the fermionic
degrees of freedom in the same way as a fluctuating geometry.
5) What theories can be put on the lattice and which ones cannot? the Standard Model? If
you allow extra dimensions, are the gauge fields of the Standard Model emergent from
some more fundamental theory?
The lattice is a very powerful tool for addressing non-perturbative features of quantum field
theory. For quantum chromodynamics (QCD) it has provided solid evidence for confinement as
well as computations for matrix elements used in flavor physics and searches for deviations from
the Standard Model.
Putting chiral gauge theories on the lattice remains challenging. One popular approach involves
domain wall fermions, where chiral fermions arise for topological reasons on a domain wall in an
otherwise gapped system. Condensed matter physicists have been studying topological insulators
where massless fermions similarly arise on interphases between different materials. The study of
these symmetry protected topological (SPT) states has led to a deeper understanding of gauge
and gravitational anomalies. These developments could lead to constructions of (non-anomalous)
chiral gauge theories on the lattice. These would be useful both for the Standard Model and for
theories beyond the standard model. For example, one could numerically simulate baryogenesis
in a variety of theories or one could study theories where the Higgs and some of the Standard
Model fermions are emergent.
Fermions with chiral interactions are also important in supersymmetric theories. Numerically
simulating these would be useful for testing conjectures in theoretical physics, such as
weak/strong coupling dualities or the gauge/gravity duality. Recent proposals to simulate
maximally supersymmetric theories led to interesting lattice models based on topological
theories.
In condensed matter physics one often knows the lattice and wishes to derive a continuum model
for long wavelengths and low energies. In high energy physics one starts from a quantum field
theory which is then discretized on a lattice. In both cases lattice simulations are a powerful tool
for discovery.
6) What is the fixed point theory of non-Fermi liquids?
A number of candidate fixed point theories of non-Fermi liquids have been found in the past few
years, involving different analytic tools: patch constructions, 1/N expansions, novel methods of
dimensional continuation, and holographic mappings to charged horizons. With the examples
available, it becomes possible to address bigger and more general questions. Do the fixed-point
theories have to satisfy constraints, such as inequalities on critical exponents? What is the
entanglement structure of such fixed points: do they all violate the area law of entanglement
entropy logarithmically? Do they have any emergent symmetries? How do they respond to
external magnetic fields, and do they have any experimental signatures in quantum oscillations?
What is the matrix large-N limit of such non-Fermi liquids, and does it have a stringy
formulation? Are such fixed points generically unstable to superconductivity, and is there any
route to computing the critical temperature? The list of questions is large and fascinating, and it
is clear that even partial progress will have a tremendous impact on experimental and theoretical
studies of quantum materials.
The importance of the problem of quantum critical metals in condensed matter physics is hard to
overstate. Novel phases emerging from the interaction of a Fermi surface with a critical scalar or
emergent gauge boson are thought to be central in the physics of heavy fermions, high Tc
cuprates, spin liquids, and so forth. This problem also arises in the study of high density QCD,
where the gauge bosons are the ordinary gluons. This problem has been attacked using large NF
(fermion flavors) techniques, but infrared divergences have prevented the approach to the low
energy fixed point. It is also possible to consider large NB (boson) techniques, or to promote the
bosons to large NB matrices. This problem is ripe for attack from both new theoretical and new
numerical perspectives.
7) Can we understand the dynamics of matter without quasiparticles? Can we
classify/understand finite density, compressible phases of matter, and their possible
instabilities to symmetry breaking phases?
Many of the new “quantum materials”, including the copper-based high temperature
superconductors, display metallic regimes often referred to as “strange metals”. These are metals
which do not display any experimental signatures of the quasiparticle excitations that are the
foundation of the theory of conventional metals. A complete understanding of such strange
metals is of fundamental importance for both practical and conceptual reasons. It will only be
possible to design quantum materials for which we can predict the critical temperature of
superconductivity after we have an understanding of the strange metal state which appears after
the loss of superconductivity with increasing temperature. Conceptually, strange metals
constitute the most experimentally accessible examples of quantum matter with long-range
quantum entanglement: hence any progress on the theory of strange metals will reverberate
across many fields of physics via their common interest in quantum entanglement. New ideas are
needed for a theory of such gapless states of matter with long-range quantum entanglement, and
many proposals have emerged in recent years at the interface between condensed matter and
particle theorists. Strongly coupled conformal field theories (in greater than 2 spacetime
dimensions) are the simplest realizations of states without quasiparticle excitations, and these
examples have lent much insight to the more general problem of strange metals. Gauge theories
at finite density and temperature are the prototype theories of strange metals and are clearly
challenging problems in both fields.
The list of well-understood phases of matter which are compressible at zero temperature is very
short: solids, superfluids, and Fermi liquids. Fermi liquids are found in all common metals, and
are the only state in this list that do not break a symmetry. However the ubiquity of strange-metal
states which are clearly not Fermi liquids in many correlated electron compounds makes the
problem of classification of compressible quantum phases quite urgent. Some of the most
interesting recent proposals involve fermions at non-zero density coupled to emergent and
deconfined gauge fields. Such a field theoretic formulation also exposes the connection between
this condensed matter-motivated question and the problem of the plasma in high density and high
temperature quark matter. In condensed matter, essentially all non-Fermi liquid compressible
phases found so far have instabilities to symmetry breaking of some variety at low temperatures:
superconductivity, spin and charge density waves, or some form of “intertwined” order. The
quantum phase transitions associated with these instabilities involve both conventional symmetry
breaking and the onset of confinement. A great deal remains to be understood on the nature of
such transitions, and progress will surely require contributions from condensed matter and
particle theorists.
8) What are the possible emergent symmetries of non-trivial fixed points? Can we use them
to solve these problems? What is the fixed point theory of non-Fermi liquids?
Many interesting condensed matter systems are strongly coupled: their observables cannot be
computed as a series expansion in a small parameter. Bootstrap techniques provide a way of
calculating in such systems when the theory has an emergent conformal symmetry (CFT). The
bootstrap philosophy is to constrain the structure of observables using symmetries and
consistency conditions, with the hope that sufficiently powerful constraints might actually
determine those observables, either exactly or approximately. This type of reasoning applies
even in the absence of quasiparticles. In the 80’s, bootstrap techniques were spectacularly
successful in elucidating two dimensional conformal theories. More recently, the bootstrap has
lead to a successful numerical approach for theories in higher dimensions, for example the three
dimensional critical Ising model. This is despite the fact that, contrary to the two dimensional
case, the conformal group is finite dimensional in three or more dimensions. This recent progress
was initially driven by a desire to explain the electroweak naturalness problem.
These considerations raise several questions:
• When does conformal symmetry emerge from a microscopic theory (so that current
bootstrap techniques can be applied)?
• What other symmetry groups can emerge at long distances?
• Can bootstrap techniques be applied for more general quantum critical points, such as
non-Fermi liquids?
9) What is the interplay between anomalies and transport?
Anomalies play extremely important roles in quantum field theories, acting as a bridge between
short and long distances. Recently, considerable attention has been given to the role of anomalies
in the collective dynamics of systems at finite temperature and density. It started with the
discovery that the equations of hydrodynamics of a normal fluid are modified due to the effects
of quantum anomalies. This was made almost accidentally by using the methods of gauge/gravity
duality. Subsequently, these modified equations were derived without using holography, relying
only on symmetries and the second law of thermodynamics, so that they now apply to any theory
with anomalies.
The new terms in the hydrodynamic equations lead to two novel effects: the chiral magnetic
effect, i.e., the appearance of an equilibrium current in a magnetic field; and the chiral vortical
effect, i.e., the appearance of current when the fluid undergoes rotation. Recent experiments with
Dirac and Weyl semimetals raise hope that these effects can be observed in a controlled
experimental setting. In fact, a large negative magnetoresistence of a Dirac semimetal has been
reported, which has been predicted to arise from quantum anomalies. There have been attempts
to use the anomalous effects to explain pulsar kicks.
10) Are there fundamental quantum mechanical bounds on transport, dissipation, or other
quantities?
There are few handles to analyze strongly interacting systems which are not describable in terms
of quasiparticles. However, due to conservation laws it is always possible to define heat and
charge currents, for example the electrical conductivity and viscosity. While it may be difficult to
compute these quantities from first principles, a recent attractive idea is that such transport
quantities may be subject to fundamental universal bounds, originating purely from the structure
of quantum mechanics.
There is both theoretical and experimental evidence for such bounds. Theoretically, there is
evidence from the gauge/gravity duality which relates certain strongly interacting field theories
at finite temperature to black holes. First a bound on the viscosity to entropy ratio was suggested.
More recently an argument for a bound on the quantum version of Lyapunov exponents was
given. Experimentally, many strongly interacting “bad metals” have conductivities that behave in
a very similar way, with a linear in temperature resistivity and an underlying universal timescale
determined by 1/kBT. A possible explanation for this behavior is that they are saturating a
conductivity bound.
Collaboration between fields seems crucial both for suggesting and for proving or disproving
these bounds, since it is useful to have a large suite of systems to get inspired to make proposals
and also to test these proposals.
11) How do we describe strongly interacting disordered systems?
The interplay of quenched disorder and quantum fluctuations presents fascinating challenges to
theory. Because disorder is present at all length scales, disordered quantum critical points and
phases are possible. These are described by scale invariant theories in which momentum is not
conserved. Such a system is very difficult to describe using the conventional quantum field
theoretic techniques. This is because, for a start, if the long wavelength description is to be
translation invariant but not conserve momentum, it must be intrinsically dissipative. A tractable
model of a disordered quantum critical system would likely offer insight into the mystery of bad
metals that are able to conduct despite having extremely large resistivities.
It has recently been discovered that a holographic description of disordered fixed points is
possible. Here the near horizon (low energy) geometry is described by an event horizon that is
very rugged on all length scales, but whose thermodynamic properties are controlled by a
disorder-averaged scale-invariant metric. These will likely provide uniquely tractable models of
strongly interacting disordered quantum critical systems. A key problem in these inherently
complex systems is that of “many-body localization”.
Disorder can drive quantum phase transitions (QPT) from conducting to insulating phases. In
most cases the nature of the phases and the universality class and the exponents describing the
transition are still open questions. Also of interest are the dynamical response functions
(conductivity, susceptibility) in the quantum critical regime in the absence of well-defined quasi-
particles. One of the paradigmatic Hamiltonians is the Bose Hubbard model with site or hopping
disorder. At integer fillings this model maps onto a Josephson junction array (JJA) with disorder
in the charging or Josephson coupling term. While it is well known that the clean d-dimensional
quantum JJA maps onto the D=d+1 dimensional anisotropic classical Wilson-Fisher
renormalization group fixed point, the situation in the presence of disorder is still open. Does the
dynamical exponent z equal 1 or is there breaking of Lorentz invariance in the presence of
disorder? In the quantum to classical mapping the random disorder becomes correlated along the
time dimension, hence its effect can be quite non-trivial and lead to novel phases that are not
simple generalizations of classical phases. Is the insulating phase a Mott glass that is
incompressible or a compressible Bose glass?
There has been some success of comparing quantum Monte Carlo and anti-de Sitter-conformal
field theory (AdS-CFT) methods for the dynamical conductivity at the QPT for the clean
problem. It will be important to continue this dialog in the presence of disorder. While there are
some QMC results in the presence of disorder, similar results using gravity methods are yet to be
developed. The situation is more complicated away from half filling because of a sign problem.
There are several puzzles seen in the experiments on disordered superconductors in a magnetic
field. There is evidence for pairs in the insulator and a positive magnetoresistance that can
become as large as 1012 Ohms. The field of disorder-driven phase transitions is ripe for bringing
together and consolidating a variety of theoretical methods from self-consistent mean-field to
strong disorder RG methods, to quantum Monte Carlo and AdS-CFT to address different
portions of the phase diagram.
12) Can we develop numerical algorithms to deal with finite density systems, frustrated
models, etc.?
It is important to develop numerical methods that can deal with problems that have a “sign
problem”, for which the standard method, quantum Monte Carlo, fails. Nowadays, “solving the
sign problem” is often interpreted as finding any broadly applicable, systematically improvable,
and efficient quantum simulation method which can treat, say, doped fermion systems in 2+1 or
3+1 dimensions.
Attempts have been made to solve the QMC-specific sign problem since the 1980’s. Two types
of successful treatments have emerged: sign-free treatments for specific models, and useful
approximate approaches. We now understand that one cannot go well beyond these types of
solutions: a general solution to the sign problem would solve NP-hard problems, which is
extremely unlikely. The useful approximate approaches generally take an approximate solution
to the problem, typically a variational wavefunction, and use it to constrain the minus signs.
However, as these methods have been developed, we have also learned that some of the most
interesting condensed matter systems, such as the doped fermion Hubbard model in 2+1 D, seem
to have very complicated phase diagrams with many competing phases. To resolve this
competition, it appears that relative energies must be resolved to about 10-4, a very tough
standard when essentially all the energy is “correlation energy”. The competition is also very
sensitive to biases, say from constraining wavefunctions. So an efficient method to treat a system
like the Hubbard model would be real progress.
As discussed above, tensor networks offer one approach for dealing with the sign problem, but
they have yet to be extended to 3+1 dimensions. In the context of lattice QCD one method
involves using a complexified Langevin equation. The problem with this approach has
historically been that this solution is not unique and there has been no way to guarantee
convergence to the correct solution. Recently there has been substantial progress on this problem
within the lattice QCD community using a so-called gauge cooling algorithm. In addition an
independent approach has been investigated based on the Picard-Lefschetz theory, which
involves a clever choice of integration contour where the phase of the integrand is constant. This
is a rapidly developing field which potentially may offer new ways of simulating a variety of
systems which suffer from sign problems.
References
References relevant to each of the Grand Challenge Questions.
1) “Topological entanglement entropy”, A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006)
110404, arXiv: hep-th/0510092.
“Topological entanglement entropy in Chern-Simons theories and quantum Hall fluids”, S.
Dong, E. Fradkin, R. Leigh and S. Nowling, JHEP 05 (2008) 016, arXiv:0802.3231.
“Holographic Entanglement Entropy: An Overview”, T. Nishioka, S. Ryu,T. Takayanagi, J.
Phys. A 42 (2009) 504008, arXiv:0905.0932.
“Entanglement entropy as a portal to the physics of quantum spin liquids”, T. Grover, Y.
Zhang and A. Vishwanath, New Journal of Physics 15 (2013) 025002, arXiv:1302.0899.
2) “A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected
Entangled Pair States”, R. Orus, arXiv:1306.2164.
“Viewpoint: Tensor networks -- A new tool for old problems”, S. Sachdev, APS Physics 2,
90, October 26, 2009.
3) “Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, Second Edition”, E. Fradkin, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013, Chapters 8,9 and 12-16.
“Topological Insulators and Topological Superconductors”, B.A. Bernevig, Princeton
University Press, Princeton NJ, 2013.
4) “Emergent Space-time Supersymmetry at the Boundary of a Topological Phase”, T.
Grover, D.N. Sheng, A. Vishwanath, Science 344, 280 (2014), arXiv:1301.7449.
“N=4 Supersymmetry on a Space-Time Lattice”, S. Catterall, P.H. Damgaard, T. DeGrand,
J. Giedt, D. Schaich, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065013 (2014), arXiv:1405.0644.
“Geometry of Fractional Quantum Hall Fluids”, G.Y. Cho, E. Fradkin and Y. You, Phys.
Rev. B 90, 115139 (2014), arXiv:1406.2700.
5) “Chiral gauge theories revisited”, Martin Luscher, lecture from conference proceedings
International School of Subnuclear Physics: 38th Course: Theory and Experiment Heading
for New Physics, 27 Aug - 5 Sep 2000, Erice, Italy, p. 14-89, arxiv:hep-th/0102028.
“Symmetry Protected Topological Phases of Quantum Matter”, T. Senthil, Annual Review
of Condensed Matter Physics, 6, 299 (2015), arXiv:1405.4015.
“Bosonic Topological insulators and Paramagnets: A View from Cobordisms”, A.
Kapustin, arXiv:1404.6659
6) “Quantum Phase Transitions”, S. Sachdev, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK,
2nd edition, 2013.
“What can gauge-gravity duality teach us about condensed matter physics?”, S. Sachdev,
Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 3, 9 (2012), arxiv:1108.1197.
“Horizons, holography and condensed matter”, S.A. Hartnoll, chapter of the book `Black
Holes in Higher Dimensions' to be published by Cambridge University Press (editor: G.
Horowitz), arXiv:1106.4324.
7) “Scaling theory of the cuprate strange metals”, S.A. Hartnoll and A. Karch, Phys. Rev. B
91, 155126 (2015), arXiv:1501.03165.
“Holographic non-Fermi liquid fixed points”, T. Faulkner, N. Iqbal, H. Liu, J, McGreevy,
and D. Vegh, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 369 (2011) 1640, arXiv:1101.0597
“Deconfined Quantum Critical Points”, T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev,
and M. P.A. Fisher, Science 303, 1490 (2004).
8) “Conformal Bootstrap in Three Dimensions?”, S. Rychkov, arXiv:1111.2115.
9) “Hydrodynamics with Triangle Anomalies”, D.T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett.
103 (2009) 191601, arXiv: 0906.5044.
“Electromagnetic and gravitational responses and anomalies in topological insulators and
superconductors”, S. Ryu, J.E. Moore, A.W.W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B 85, 045104 (2012),
arXiv:1010.0936.
10) “Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics”, P.
Kovtun, D.T. Son, A.O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 111601, arXiv:hep-
th/0405231.
“A Bound on Chaos”, J. Maldacena, S.H. Shenker, D. Stanford, arXiv:1503.01409.
11) “Many body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics”, D.A. Huse
and R. Nandkishore, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, Vol. 6: 15-38 (2015),
arXiv:1404.0686
“Localization protected quantum order”, D.A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, V. Oganesyan,
Arijeet Pal, and S.L.Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014206 (2013), arXiv:1304.1158.
“Dynamical Conductivity Across The Disorder-Tuned Superconductor-Insulator
Transition”, M. Swanson, Y.L. Loh, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021007
(2014); DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021007, arXiv:1310.1073.
“TASI lectures on complex structures”, F. Denef, Proceedings, Theoretical Advanced
Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 2010). String Theory and Its
Applications: From meV to the Planck Scale : Boulder, Colorado, USA, June 1-25, 2010,
pp. 407-512, arXiv:1104.0254
12) “New approach to the sign problem in quantum field theories: High density QCD on a
Lefschetz thimble?”, M. Cristoforetti, F. Di Renzo, and L. Scorzato, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012)
074506, arXiv:1205.3996.
HEP-BES Round Table Participants
Leaders
Eduardo Fradkin University of Illinois [email protected]
Juan Maldacena Inst. Advanced Study, Princeton
[email protected]Participants
Simon Catterall Syracuse University [email protected]
Sean Hartnoll Stanford University
[email protected]Shamit Kachru Stanford University
[email protected]Anton Kapustin Caltech
[email protected]John McGreevy UC San Diego
[email protected]Shinsei Ryu University of Illinois
[email protected]Subir Sachdev Harvard University
[email protected]David Simmons-Duffin Inst Advanced Study, Princeton
[email protected]Dam Son University of Chicago
[email protected]Nandini Trivedi Ohio State University
[email protected]Xiao-Gang Wen MIT
[email protected]Steve White UC Irvine
[email protected]DOE Observers
Jim Siegrist
Linda Horton
Glenn Crawford
Jim Horwitz
Jeff Krause
Matthias Graf
DOE Contacts
Jim Davenport DOE/BES
[email protected] Email to Participants
Dear Colleagues:
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in a roundtable discussion on ‘Common
Problems in Condensed Matter and High Energy Physics’ to be held at DOE Germantown on
Monday, February 2, 2015, chaired by Eduardo Fradkin and Juan Maldacena.
The goal of the Roundtable is to bring together physicists with intersecting interests in High
Energy Physics (HEP) and Condensed Matter especially recent developments in quantum field
theory and strongly interacting systems to identify opportunities for possible areas of
collaboration.
HEP and Basic Energy Sciences (BES) have been discussing Connections between the two
Programs that can accelerate science by drawing on unique expertise in their communities and
avoiding duplication in developing tools for discovery science valuable to both communities.
Identified broad areas include research into quantum field theory and condensed matter and
atomic systems (such as strongly interacting systems) that substantiate particle physics models.
The Associate Directors in the Office of Science, James Siegrist for HEP and Harriet Kung for
BES have approved this meeting and have asked us to work with the group on planning.
We expect the Round Table Discussions to result in a short report (10-15 pages) describing the
findings. These might include novel techniques in condensed matter and high energy physics
with an emphasis on areas where the two fields may fruitfully interact. The report should identify
major unsolved problems and opportunities to advance science – in particular areas of theory and
computation.
This is also to confirm that DOE will be offering you travel support provided you are not a
Federal employee and our DOE Contractor ORISE/ORAU will contact you for travel and
logistics details.
We will be sending more information including tentative agenda and other details soon.
Meantime, please let us know if you are a US Citizen as we have to process additional forms for
non US Citizens.
Sincerely
Lali Chatterjee and Jim Davenport
Dr. James W Davenport Dr. Lali Chatterjee
Program Manager Program Manager
Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics Office of High Energy Physics
Materials Sciences and Engineering Division
[email protected]Office of Basic Energy Sciences
[email protected]
