arxiv: v1 [hep-th] 6 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 Dressed infrared quantum information Daniel Carney, Laurent Chaurette, Domini Neuenfeld, and Gordon Walter Semenoff Deartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada We study information-theoretic asects of the infrared sector of quantum electrodynamics, using the dressed-state aroach ioneered by Chung, Kibble, Faddeev-Kulish and others. In this formalism QED has an IR-finite S-matrix describing the scattering of electrons dressed by coherent states of hotons. We show that measurements sensitive only to the outgoing electronic degrees of freedom will exerience decoherence in the electron momentum basis due to unobservable hotons in the dressing. We mae some comments on ossible refinements of the dressed-state formalism, and how these considerations relate to the blac hole information aradox. arxiv: v1 [he-th] 6 Oct 2017 There are two common methods for dealing with infrared divergences in quantum electrodynamics. One is to form inclusive transition robabilities, tracing over arbitrary low-energy hoton emission states.[1 3] However, one may wish to retain an S-matrix descrition instead of woring directly with robabilities. To this end, a long literature initiated by Chung, Kibble, and Faddeev-Kulish has advanced a rogram in QED where one forms an infrared-finite S-matrix between states of charges dressed by long-wavelength hoton modes.[4 10] The extension to erturbative gravity in flat sacetime has been initiated in [11]. In the inclusive robability formalism, one is forced to trace out soft hotons to get finite answers. In revious wor, we showed that this leads to an almost comletely decohered density matrix for the outgoing state after a scattering event.[12] This aer analyses the situation in dressed state formalisms, in which no trace over IR hotons is needed to obtain a finite outgoing state. However, consider the measurement of an observable sensitive only to electronic and high-energy hotonic degrees of freedom. We show that for such observables, there will be a loss of coherence identical to that obtained in the inclusive robability method. Quantum information is lost to the low-energy bremsstrahlung hotons created in the scattering rocess. The rimary goal of this aer is to give concrete calculations exhibiting the dressed formalism and how it leads to decoherence. To this end, we wor with the formulas from the aers of Chung and Faddeev-Kulish. The result of this calculation should carry over identically to any of the existing refinements of Chung s formalism. In section III, we mae a number of remars on ossible refinements to the basic dressing formalism, give an exanded hysical interretation of our results, and relate our wor to literature in mathematical hysics on QED Electronic address: carney@umd.edu; Current address: Joint Center for Quantum Information and Comuter Science, University of Maryland, College Par, MD and the Joint Quantum Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, College Par, MD. Electronic address: dodeca@has.ubc.ca Electronic address: dneuenfe@has.ubc.ca Electronic address: gordonws@has.ubc.ca suerselection rules. In section IV we mae remars on how this wor fits into the recent literature on the blac hole information aradox; in brief, we believe that our results are consistent with the recent roosal of Strominger [13], but not the original roosal of Hawing, Perry and Strominger.[14, 15] I. IR-SAFE S-MATRIX FORMALISM Following Chung, we study an electron with incoming momentum scattering off a wea external otential. This 1 1 rocess is simle and sufficient to understand the basic oint; at the end of the next section, we show how to generalize our results to n-article scattering. The electron sin will be unimortant for us and we suress it in what follows. The standard free-field Foc state for the electron is romoted to a dressed state as follows. For a given hoton momentum we define the soft factor F l (, ) = e l() φ(, ). (1) Here l = 1, 2 labels the hoton olarization states, and φ(, ) is any function that smoothly goes to φ 1 as 0. We introduce an IR regulator ( hoton mass ) λ and an uer infrared cutoff E > λ, which can be thought of as the energy resolution of a single-hoton detector in our exeriment. Let R = e λ< <E ] [F l (, )a l () F l (, )a l () 2 and define the single-electron dressing oerator W = ex R } = N ex ex e e } F l (, )a l () 2 } Fl (, )a l (), 2 (2) (3) where in the second line, we have ut this coherent-state dislacement oerator into its normal-ordered form, with

2 2 normalization factor [26] N = ex e2 2 } 2 F l(, ) 2. (4) Here and in the following all momentum-sace integrals are evaluated in the shell λ < < E. The dressed single-electron state is then defined as = W. (5) This consists of the electron and a coherent state of onshell, transversely-olarized hotons. Consider now an incoming dressed electron scattering into a suerosition of outgoing dressed electron states. The outgoing state is, to lowest order in erturbation theory in the electric charge, ψ = d 3 q S q q. (6) At higher orders there will be additional hotons in the outgoing state; as exlained in the next section, these will not affect the infrared behavior studied here, so we ignore them for now. Here the S-matrix is just the standard Feynman-Dyson time evolution oerator, evaluated between dressed states. That is, S q = q S, (7) ( with S = T ex i ) V (t)dt as usual.[16] As calculated by Chung, the dressed 1 1 elements of this matrix are indeendent of the IR regulator λ and thus infrared-finite as we send λ 0. We can write the matrix element ( ) A E S q = Sq Λ (8) Λ where [ ] A = e2 1 + β 8π 2 β 1 ln, β = 1 m4 1 β ( q) 2. (9) The undressed S-matrix element on the right side means the amlitude comuted by Feynman diagrams with hoton loos evaluated only with hoton energies above Λ and evaluated between undressed electron states, that is, with no external soft hotons. By definition, this quantity is infrared-finite; moreover, the deendence on the scale Λ cancels between the refactor and S Λ. II. SOFT RADIATION AND DECOHERENCE The state (6) is a coherent suerosition of states, each containing a bare electron and its corresonding hotonic dressing. The resence of hard hotons in the outgoing state will not change our conclusions below, so for simlicity we ignore them. In articular, the density matrix formed from this state has off-diagonal elements of the form S q S q q q. (10) These states have highly non-trivial hoton content. However, if one is doing a measurement involving only the electron degree of freedom, then these hotons are unobserved, and we can mae redictions with the reduced density matrix of the electron, obtained by tracing the hotons out. The resulting electron density matrix has coefficients damed by a factor involving the overla of the hoton states, namely ρ electron = d 3 qd 3 q S S q q D qq q q (11) where the damening factor is given by the hotonvacuum exectation value D qq = 0 W q W q 0. (12) Straightforward comutation gives this factor as } D qq = ex e2 2 2 F l(q) Fl (q ) 2 d = ex e 2 3 (q q ) 2 } 2 (q )(q. ) (13) In this integrand, since q and q are two timelie vectors with the same temoral comonent, we have that the numerator is ositive definite and the denominator is ositive. It is therefore manifest that we have D = 1 if q = q and D = 0 otherwise, since the integral over diverges in its lower limit. Thus, tracing the hotons leads to an electron density matrix that is comletely diagonalized in momentum sace. It is noteworthy that the factor (13) deends only on roerties of the outgoing suerosition; it has no deendence on the initial state. This may seem surrising since we are tracing over outgoing radiation, the roduction of which deends on both the initial and final electron state. The oint is that the daming factor measures the distinguishability of the radiation fields given the rocesses q and q. The radiation field for a scattering rocess consists of two ieces added together: a term A µ µ / eaed in the direction of the incoming electron and a term A µ q µ /q eaed in the direction of the outgoing electron. The outgoing radiation fields with outgoing electrons q, q are then only distinguishable by the second terms here, since both radiation fields will have the same ole in the incoming direction. The daming factor (13) is recisely what was found in [12], reduced to the roblem of 1 1 scattering. The mechanism is the same: hysical, low-energy hoton bremsstrahlung is emitted in the scattering. These hotons are highly correlated with the electron state

3 3 and thus, if one does not observe them jointly with the electron, one will measure a highly-decohered electron density matrix. The only difference is booeeing: in the dressed formalism, the bremsstrahlung hotons are folded into the dressed electron states (the incoming/outgoing arts of the bremsstrahlung in the incoming/outgoing dressing, resectively). However, referring to an electron as a state including these soft hotons is just an abuse of semantics. In an actual measurement of the electron momentum, one does not measure these soft hotons. The dressed states are not energy eigenstates, and in fact contain states of arbitrarily high total energy. This should be contrasted with the inclusive-robability treatment used by Weinberg, which has a cutoff on both the single-hoton energy E and the total outgoing energy contained by all the hotons E T E in the outgoing state.[3] This additional arameter, however, aears only in the ratio E T /E in Weinberg s robability formulas, and one finds that the deendence on E T vanishes as E T. This can be understood because what is imortant is the very low-energy behavior of the hotons, so moving an uer cutoff has limited imact. We note that (6) does not include effects from the bremsstrahlung of additional soft hotons beyond those in the dressing. There is no inematic reason to exclude such hotons, so the outgoing state should roerly be written as ψ = d 3 qd 3n S ql}; q. (14) n=0 l} Here l} = 1 l 1,..., n l n } is a list of n hoton momenta and olarizations. By the dressed version of the soft hoton factorization theorem (see aendix), we have that S ql; = S q eo ( 0), (15) or in other words lim 0 S ql; = 0. Thus, when we tae a trace over n-hoton dressed states in (14), we obtain a sum of additional decoherence factors of the form Dqq nm = en+m O ( 0) d 3n d 3m l 1,...,l n l 1,...,l m 0 a l m ( m) a l 1 ( 1)W q W qa l 1 ( 1 ) a l n ( n ) 0. (16) Evaluating the inner roduct using (3), one finds [ Dqq nm 2 Re (F l (q) F l (q ))] n+m, (17) which is infrared-finite. Summing these contributions, which exonentiate, will not change the conclusion that (13) leads to vanishing off-diagonal electron density matrix elements. Finally, we exlain the generalization to n-electron states. We will find that the same decoherence is found in the dressed formalism as in the inclusive formalism.[12] Following Faddeev-Kulish [8], we write the multi-article dressing oerator by relacing (3) with R e d 3 (2π) 3 2 [ F l (, )a l () F l (, )a l () ] ρ(), (18) where we have introduced an oerator which counts charged articles with momentum. ρ() = s ( b,s b,s d,sd,s ), (19) and the b and d are electron and ositron oerators, resectively.[27] As in the one-article case, additional hotons do not affect the IR behaviour of scattering amlitudes. Hence, we will ignore them and only consider the case where the out-state is a linear suerosition of dressed electron states. In that case we have to relace the outgoing momentum by list of momenta, q β = q 1, q 2,...} and similarly q β = q 1, q 2,...}. This results to a relacement in (13) of F l (q) n β F l (q n ) F l (q ) m β F l (q m). (20) Using the exlicit form of F in the limit 0, the daming factor (13) then then becomes d D ββ = ex e 2 3 η m η n m q n. 2 (q m )(q n ) m,n β,β (21) In this equation the labels m, n both run over the full set β β, and η n = +1 if n β while η n = 1 if n β. This is recisely the quantity A ββ,α defined in [12], so we see that the results of that aer carry over to the dressed formalisms used here. III. PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION Dressed-state formalisms are engineered to rovide infrared-finite transition amlitudes, as oosed to inclusive robabilities constructed in the traditional aroach studied in [12]. In the dressed formalism, the outgoing state (6) is a coherent suerosition of states consisting of electrons lus dressing hotons. However, if one does a measurement of an observable sensitive only to the electron state, the measurement will exhibit decoherence because the unobserved dressing hotons are highly

4 4 correlated to the electron state. We have given a concrete calculation showing that the daming factor (21) is identical in either the dressed or undressed formalism. The hysical relevance of this calculation rests on the idea that the basic observable is a simle electron oerator in Foc sace. What would be much better would be to use a dressed LSZ reduction formula to understand the asymtotic limits of electron correlation functions. [9, 17] Nevertheless, the basic hysical icture seems clear: in a scattering exeriment, one does not measure an electron lus a finely-tuned shocwave of outgoing bremsstrahlung hotons, just the electron on its own. This is resonsible for well-measured henomena lie radiation daming. QED has a comlicated asymtotic Hilbert sace structure which is still somewhat oorly understood. For examle, although Faddeev-Kulish try to define a single, searable Hilbert sace H as [8, 17] other authors have argued that one needs an uncountable set of searable Hilbert saces.[7, 9] Formally, this is related to the fact that the dressing oerator (3) does not converge on the usual Foc sace. A related idea is that one can argue that QED has an infinite set of suerselection rules based on the asymtotic charges Q(Ω) = lim r r2 E r (r, Ω) (22) defined by the radial electric field at infinity.[18, 19] We believe that the calculations resented here and in [12] demonstrate the hysical mechanism for enforcing such a suerselection rule. The charges (22), the currents defined in our revious wor [12], and the large-u(1) charges defined in [20, 21] are resumably closely related, and woring out the recise relations is an interesting line of inquiry. IV. BLACK HOLE INFORMATION The recent resurgence of interest in infrared issues in QED and gravity was sared largely by a roosal of Hawing, Perry and Strominger suggesting that information aarently lost in the rocess of blac hole formation and evolution could be encoded in soft radiation.[14, 15] The original roosal was that there are symmetries which relate hard scattering (lie the blac hole rocess) to soft scattering and thus led to constraints on the S-matrix. As emhasized by a number of authors, this is not true in the dressed state aroach.[22 25] As we review in the aendix, soft modes decoule from the dressed hard scattering event at lowest order, in the sense that lim ω 0 [a ω, S dressed ] = 0. Droing a soft boson into the blac hole will not yield any information about the blac hole formation and evaoration rocess. However, a more recent roosal due to Strominger is to simly osit that outgoing soft radiation urifies the outgoing Hawing radiation.[13] That is, the state after the blac hole has evaorated is of the form ψ = a a Hawing a soft, such that the Hawing radiation is described by a thermal density matrix, i.e. ρ Hawing = tr soft ψ ψ ρ thermal. We believe that both the results resented here and those in our revious wor are consistent with this roosal. In either the inclusive or dressed formalism, the final state of any scattering rocess contains soft radiation which is highly correlated with the hard articles because the radiation is created due to accelerations in the hard rocess. The oen issue is to exlain why the hard density matrix coefficients behave thermally, which liely relies on details of the blac hole S-matrix. V. CONCLUSIONS When charged articles scatter, they exerience acceleration, causing them to radiate low-energy hotons. If one waits an infinitely long time (as mandated by an S-matrix descrition), these hotons cause severe decoherence of the charged article momentum state. This was first seen in [12] in the standard formulation of QED involving IR-finite inclusive cross section, and here we have shown the same conclusion holds in IR-safe, dressed formalisms of QED; they should carry over in a simle way to erturbative quantum gravity. These results constitute a shar and robust connection between the infrared catastrohe and quantum information theory, and should rovide guidance in roblems related to the infrared structure of gauge theories. Acnowledgements We than Colby Delisle, Wojciech Dybalsi, Phili Stam, and Jordon Wilson for discussions. All of us are grateful for suort from NSERC. DC was additionally suorted by the Temleton Foundation and the Pacific Institute of Theoretical Physics, and DN by a UBC Four Year Doctoral Fellowshi and the Simons Foundation. Aendix A: Dressed soft factorization The soft hoton theorem loos somewhat different in dressed QED. In standard, undressed QED, the theorem says that the amlitude for a rocess q accomanied by emission of an additional soft hoton of momentum and olarization l has amlitude [ q e S ql, = e l () e l () ] S q,. q (A1) This is singular in the 0 limit. On the other hand, in the dressed formalism of QED, the statement is that S ql, = ef() S q,, (A2)

5 FIG. 1: Diagrams contributing to the dressed scattering with additional bremsstrahlung. The first two diagrams corresond to mixing of the emitted hoton and dressing hotons (circles), while the latter two diagrams corresond to the usual Feynman diagrams where the hoton is emitted from the electron lines. 1 where f() O( 0 ), so that the right-hand side is finite as 0. We can see this by straightforward comutation. In comuting the matrix element (A2), there will be four Feynman diagrams at lowest order in the charge (see fig. 1). We will get the usual air of Feynman diagrams coming from contractions of the interaction Hamiltonian with the external hoton state, leading to the oles (A1). Moreover we will get a air of terms coming from contractions of the interaction Hamiltonian with dressing oerators. These contribute a factor times e, where the limit as 0 follows from the definition (1). This extra contribution recisely cancels the oles in (A1), leaving only the order O( 0 ) term. [Fl (, ) Fl (, q)] [ q e l () e l () ] + O( 0 ), q (A3) [1] F. Bloch and A. Nordsiec, Phys. Rev. 52, 54 (1937). [2] D. R. Yennie, S. C. Frautschi, and H. Suura, Annals Phys. 13, 379 (1961). [3] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965). [4] P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Phys. 33, 650 (1955). [5] J. D. Dollard, J. Math. Phys. 5, 729 (1964). [6] V. Chung, Phys. Rev. 140, B1110 (1965). [7] T. W. B. Kibble, J. Math. Phys. 9, 315 (1968). [8] P. P. Kulish and L. D. Faddeev, Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 745 (1970). [9] D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. D11, 3481 (1975). [10] D. Kaec, M. Perry, A.-M. Raclariu, and A. Strominger (2017), [11] J. Ware, R. Saotome, and R. Ahoury, JHEP 10, 159 (2013), [12] D. Carney, L. Chaurette, D. Neuenfeld, and G. W. Semenoff (2017), [13] A. Strominger (2017), [14] S. W. Hawing, M. J. Perry, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, (2016), [15] S. W. Hawing, M. J. Perry, and A. Strominger (2016), [16] S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2005). [17] W. Dybalsi (2017), [18] J.-L. Gervais and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Lett. 94B, 389 (1980). [19] D. Buchholz, Commun. Math. Phys. 85, 49 (1982). [20] D. Kaec, M. Pate, and A. Strominger (2015), [21] M. Camiglia and A. Laddha, JHEP 07, 115 (2015), [22] M. Mirbabayi and M. Porrati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, (2016), [23] B. Gabai and A. Sever, JHEP 12, 095 (2016), [24] C. Gomez and M. Pancheno (2016), [25] R. Bousso and M. Porrati (2017), [26] This factor diverges, so these states have zero norm. In this sense, the dressed-state formalism simly reorganizes the calculations such that the divergences are in the definitions of the states instead of the S-matrix elements. We view this is a major difficulty with these formalisms, and understanding this better would be very useful. See eg. [17] for some ideas in this direction. [27] Note that in the multi-article case there is an infinite hase factor which needs to be included in the definition of the S-matrix. Since this hase factor does not affect our discussion, we ignore it in the following.