14 September 2013 On the paper by Loss et al. about stabilizing the toric code by coupling to a scalar field. (arxiv: )

Transcription

1 14 September 2013 On the paper by Loss et al. about stabilizing the toric code by coupling to a scalar field. (arxiv: ) Consider the Hamiltonian (where w(x) is a classical source for a massless scalar field): What is the energy of the ground state? The system is obviously unstable for w(x) = nonzero constant. For w > 0, the energy is unbounded below, and phi(x) --> + infinity is favored. (Poisson's equation) + solution to homogeneous equation determined by boundary conditions Suppose this solution to the homogeneous equation is zero. That would be true in three or more dimensions for a charge distribution of bounded support where we assume phi = 0 at spatial infinity. (We have done an integration by parts, and there is no surface term for phi = 0 at spatial infinity.) Again, this is the appropriate Green function if we assume phi=0 at infinity and a bounded charge distribution. But Loss says w(x) = n(x) where n is the anyon density --- that is, w(x) = -1 for vacuum and w(x) = 1 when an anyon is present. Loss then estimates the term which is linear in n(x), noting that the coefficient is IR divergent: But to evaluate this expression, he uses the Green function ~ 1 / x - y Does that make sense? The boundary conditions don't seem right... Suppose we consider the case of the vacuum, where w(x) = -1 everywhere. Then our field equation is just the Poisson equation for the electrostatic potential with uniform charge density 4 Pi.

2 Loss does the integral over 2D, because he imagines that the charge which acts as a source for the scalar field is confined to the 2D surface that houses the toric code. This is the infrared divergent chemical potential, the main result of Loss et al. But if we consider a source where w(x) = -1 everywhere (the toric code vacuum), what really happens is that the scalar field wants to slide off to infinity, seeking a minimum of the energy (which it never attains). The problem is that we need to use the right boundary condition to find the correct solution to the field equation. Our Green function solution determines the field phi up to adding a solution to the source-free Laplace equation. *If* we specify that phi(x) = 0 at infinity, and if our Green function solution satisfies that boundary condition as well, then the source free solution equals zero on the boundary and solves the Laplace equation, so must vanish. But that is not the right boundary condition if w(x) = -1 everywhere! It *would* be the right boundary condition if, for example, we considered a finite charge Q confined to a solid sphere of radius r= R, where phi = 0 at radius r = infinity. Loss et al. are interested in the case where the scalar field lives in a 3D bulk region, and where the charge density that acts as a source for the scalar field lives on the 2D boundary of the bulk region. To keep things simple, consider the case where w(x) = -1 on a sphere, and w(x) = zero everywhere else. That means we just need to solve the Poisson equation for a uniformly charge sphere. If our boundary condition is phi = 0 at r = infinity, and the total charge is - Q on a sphere of radius R, then phi = - Q / R = contant inside the sphere (r < R). phi = - Q / r outside the sphere (r > R). But if the charge density on the sphere is a fixed constant, then the total charge Q scales like the total surface area of the sphere ~ R^2, so the potential at the surface of the sphere scales like R. In fact it is exactly R if we normalize the charge density to unity. (A 4 Pi in the surface area cancels the 4 Pi in the Green function.) Now we consider introducing a *positive* charge on the sphere, amid the background of uniform negative charge. We consider this to be a small test charge, so we can ignore the backaction of this additional charge on the scalar field. Instead we just ask about the energy cost of introducing this positive charge in the fixed potential field produced by the background negative charge. And what we find is that if we introduce a positive charge at infinity and carry it to r = R, we lower its potential by R. You might think that would lower the energy by R, but actually it raises it by R/2 --- that's because when we include in the Hamiltonian the coupling of the source to the field we get a -1/2 mutliplying phi(x) times w(x). That R/2 matches the estimate for the chemical potential given above. But this looks fishy... because why should we consider carrying in the charge from spatial infinity? It would be more reasonable to consider creating a pair of anyons on the surface of the sphere, and then separating them, say to antipodal points. But the sphere is a equipotential surface. So though there might be some dependence of the energy on the separation of the charges due to their own contribution to the potential (their own pairwise electrostatic interaction), why should there be a cost arising from the background negative charge on the sphere? The main reason I am suspicious is because the solution to the Poisson equation that they find for the case of the uniform background charge is clearly not the configuration that minimizes the energy, which is actually unbounded below. We can lower the energy if we unpin the field phi at spatial infinity.

3 Note the difference with electrodynamics. In E&M, the scalar potential A_0 is not a dynamical variable, it is a constrained variable (no time derivatives in the action). So A_0 is completely determined by the charge distribution (though of course we also need boundary conditions!). In fact, to obtain a canonical system we may choose A_0 = 0 gauge. The action is gauge invariant because the current J_mu that couples to A^mu is conserved. And in electrodynamics, we can takes the energy to be just the integral of E^2 (for a static charge distribution). This is positive definite. Even though the potential energy may be negative for two charges of opposite sign, we also need to consider the self energy of each charge, which enforces positivity. Another way to probe whether something is wrong is to use the Loss et al. boundary condition, and ask whether it is possible to add an anyon to the sphere at a lower energy cost than their estimate (R/2). Before we introduce the anyon, what is the self-energy of the uniformly charged sphere? It is actually *negative*. We integrate (-1/2) w(x) phi(x) over the sphere (note the minus sign), obtaining U = -Q^2 / 2R. It makes sense that the self-energy is negative, because we know we can really reach U = - infinity by relaxing the boundary condition. Now we want to introduce the anyon on the sphere. We assume the anyon has a size ~ a, e.g. the lattice spacing in the case of the toric code. To reduce the energy cost, I'll create a bubble in the scalar field, also with size O(a), around the anyon's position. Let's suppose that in the interior of the bubble, the scalar field is phi = 0. That means we can put the anyon inside the bubble without paying any price in electrostatic energy. But the distortion of the scalar field does have a cost. We pay a price by increasing the electrostatic potential energy, and we pay a price because of the gradient energy in the walls of the bubble. The electrostatic cost arises because the charge in the bubble, ~ Q (a^2 / R^2) is in a region with phi = 0 instead of phi = -Q / R. This costs energy scaling like Q^2 a^2 / R^3. And because Q ~ R^2, the electrostatic cost of creating the bubble scales like R a^2. So... we still have a cost scaling like R. What about the gradient energy? We need phi to change by an amount like Q / R in a region of linear size a. So the gradient energy density is ~ (Q / R)^2 and we integrate over a sphere of radius a, obtaining Q^2 a^3 / R^2. Since Q scales like R^2, the gradient energy actually scales like R^2, i.e. it is even worse than the electrostatic cost. The bubble strategy does not work if we stick with the boundary condition phi = 0 at infinity. We still find an IR divergent energy cost for introducing an anyon on the sphere. Perhaps that is not surprising if our solution to the field equation correctly found the minimum of the energy for this boundary condition. On the other hand, if our solution is really a saddle point of the energy...? Let's try something different. We regulate by imposing an upper limit on the value of phi(x), which we'll call M. Then in the presence of a negative charge distribution, we minimize the electrostatic energy by choosing phi(x) = - M everywhere. And there is no gradient energy because phi(x) is a constant. In this case, the field configuration that minimizes the energy does not depend on the radius R of the sphere. On the other hand... the energy cost of introducing an anyon is positive and does scale like our regulator M. We still conclude that it is very costly to introduce an anyon, with the cost diverging as we remove the regulator. Hmmm... Important point: when gradients are large, the EFT breaks down. Even more important point: where scalar field theory differs from electrodynamics: No gauge invariance means fine tuning is needed to keep the scalar field massless.

4 As long as there is a nonzero mass, the mass will control the response of the scalar field to a nonzero charge density, and therefore the cost of introducing an anyon will be independent of system size. That means the response will be infrared finite. On the other hand, if m^2 is negative the system becomes unstable. We could imagine coupling the anyons to a gauge field, but in that case the cost of introducing a negatively charged anyon in a positively charged background would be negative -- again an instability. What about coupling to the graviton? We could imagine that the massless scalar is a Goldstone boson. That would make zero mass natural, but would also require that the scalar be derivatively coupled. So if the response to a background charge is a homogeneous scalar field (with vanishing derivatives), that would have no affect on the cost of creating an anyon.

5