Author Archives: preskill

Unknown's avatar

About preskill

I am a theoretical physicist at Caltech, and the Director of the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter. Follow me on Twitter @preskill.

What’s inside a black hole?

Posted on by
80

I have a multiple choice question for you.

What’s inside a black hole?

(A) An unlimited amount of stuff.
(B) Nothing at all.
(C) A huge but finite amount of stuff, which is also outside the black hole.
(D) None of the above.

The first three answers all seem absurd, boosting the credibility of (D). Yet … at the “Rapid Response Workshop” on black holes I attended last week at the KITP in Santa Barbara (and which continues this week), most participants were advocating some version of (A), (B), or (C), with varying degrees of conviction.

When physicists get together to talk about black holes, someone is bound to draw a cartoon like this one:

Penrose diagram depicting the causal structure of a black hole spacetime.

Part of a Penrose diagram depicting the causal structure of a black hole spacetime.

I’m sure I’ve drawn and contemplated some version of this diagram hundreds of times over the past 25 years in the privacy of my office, and many times in public discussions (including at least five times during the talk I gave at the KITP). This picture vividly captures the defining property of a black hole, found by solving Einstein’s classical field equations for gravitation: once you go inside there is no way out. Instead you are unavoidably drawn to the dreaded singularity, where known laws of physics break down (and the picture can no longer be trusted). If taken seriously, the picture says that whatever falls into a black hole is gone forever, at least from the perspective of observers who stay outside.

But for nearly 40 years now, we have known that black holes can shed their mass by emitting radiation, and presumably this process continues until the black hole disappears completely. If we choose to, we can maintain the black hole for as long as we please by feeding it new stuff at the same rate that radiation carries energy away. What I mean by option (A) is that  the radiation is completely featureless, carrying no information about what kind of stuff fell in. That means we can hide as much information as we please inside a black hole of a given mass.

On the other hand, the beautiful theory of black hole thermodynamics indicates that the entropy of a black hole is determined by its mass. For all other systems we know of besides black holes, the entropy of the system quantifies how much information we can hide in the system. If (A) is the right answer, then black holes would be fundamentally different in this respect, able to hide an unlimited amount of information even though their entropy is finite. Maybe that’s possible, but it would be rather disgusting, a reason to dislike answer (A).

There is another way to argue that (A) is not the right answer, based on what we call AdS/CFT duality. AdS just describes a consistent way to put a black hole in a “bottle,” so we can regard the black hole together with the radiation outside it as a closed system. Now, in gravitation it is crucial to focus on properties of spacetime that do not depend on the observer’s viewpoint; otherwise we can easily get very confused. The best way to be sure we have a solid way of describing things is to pay attention to what happens at the boundary of the spacetime, the walls of the bottle — that’s what CFT refers to. AdS/CFT provides us with tools for describing what happens when a black hole forms and evaporates, phrased entirely in terms of what happens on the walls of the bottle. If we can describe the physics perfectly by sticking to the walls of the bottle, always staying far away from the black hole, there doesn’t seem to be anyplace to hide an unlimited amount of stuff.

At the KITP, both Bill Unruh and Bob Wald argued forcefully for (A). They acknowledge the challenge of understanding the meaning of black hole entropy and of explaining why the AdS/CFT argument is wrong. But neither is willing to disavow the powerful message conveyed by that telling diagram of the black hole spacetime. As Bill said: “There is all that stuff that fell in and it crashed into the singularity and that’s it. Bye-bye.”

Adherents of (B) and (C) like to think about black hole physics from the perspective of an observer who stays outside the black hole. From that viewpoint, they say, the black hole behaves like any other system with a temperature and a finite entropy. Stuff falling in sticks to the black hole’s outer edge and gets rapidly mixed in with other stuff the black hole absorbed previously. For a black hole of a given mass, though, there is a limit to how much stuff it can hold. Eventually, what fell in comes out again, but in a form so highly scrambled as to be nearly unrecognizable.

Where the (B) and (C) camps differ concerns what happens to a brave observer who falls into a black hole. According to (C), an observer falling in crosses from the outside to the inside of a black hole peacefully, which poses a puzzle I discussed here. The puzzle arises because an uneventful crossing implies strong quantum entanglement between the region A just inside the black hole and region B just outside. On the other hand, as information leaks out of a black hole, region B should be strongly  entangled with the radiation system R emitted by the black hole long ago. Entanglement can’t be shared, so it does not make sense for B to be entangled with both A and R. What’s going on? Answer (C) resolves the puzzle by positing that A and R are not really different systems, but rather two ways to describe the same system, as I discussed here.That seems pretty crazy, because R could be far, far away from the black hole.

Answer (B) resolves the puzzle differently, by positing that region A does not actually exist, because the black hole has no interior. An observer who attempts to fall in gets a very rude surprise, striking a seething “firewall” at the last moment before passing to the inside. That seems pretty crazy, because no firewall is predicted by Einstein’s trusty equations, which are normally very successful at describing spacetime geometry.

At the workshop, Don Marolf and Raphael Bousso gave some new arguments supporting (B). Both acknowledge that we still lack a concrete picture of how firewalls are created as black holes form, but Bousso insisted that “It is time to constrain and construct the dynamics of firewalls.” Joe Polchinski emphasized that, while AdS/CFT provides a very satisfactory description of physics outside a black hole, it has not yet been able to tell us enough about the black hole interior to settle whether there are firewalls or not, at least for generic black holes formed from collapsing matter.

Lenny Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Ted Jacobson, and I all offered different perspectives on how (C) could turn out to be the right answer. We all told different stories, but perhaps each of us had at least part of the right answer. I’m not at KITP this week, but there have been further talks supporting (C) by Raju, Nomura, and the Verlindes.

I had a fun week at the KITP. If you watch the videos of the talks, you might get an occasional glimpse of me typing furiously on my laptop. It looks like I’m doing my email, but actually that’s how I take notes, which helps me to pay attention. Every once in a while I was inspired to tweet.

I have felt for a while that ideas from quantum information can help us to grasp the mysteries of quantum gravity, so I appreciated that quantum information concepts came up in many of the talks. Susskind invoked quantum error-correcting codes in discussing how sensitively the state of the Hawking radiation depends on the information it encodes, and Maldacena used tensor networks to explain how to build spacetime geometry from quantum entanglement. Scott Aaronson proposed the appropriate acronym HARD for HAwking Radiation Decoding, and argued (following Harlow and Hayden) that this task is as hard as inverting an injective one-way function, something we don’t expect quantum computers to be able to do.

In the organizational session that launched the meeting, Polchinski remarked regarding firewalls that “Nobody has the slightest idea what is going on,” and Gary Horowitz commented that “I’m still getting over the shock over how little we’ve learned in the past 30 years.” I guess that’s fair. Understanding what’s inside black holes has turned out to be remarkably subtle, making the problem more and more tantalizing. Maybe the current state of confusion regarding black hole information means that we’re on the verge of important discoveries about quantum gravity, or maybe not. In any case, invigorating discussions like what I heard last week are bound to facilitate progress.

Monopoles passing through Flatland!

Posted on by
7

Like many mathematically inclined teenagers, I was charmed when I first read the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott.* It’s a story about a Sphere who visits a two-dimensional world and tries to awaken its inhabitants to the existence of a third dimension. As perceived by Flatlanders, the Sphere is a circle which appears as a point, grows to maximum size, then shrinks and disappears.

My memories of Flatland were aroused as I read a delightful recent paper by Max Metlitski, Charlie Kane, and Matthew Fisher about magnetic monopoles and three-dimensional bosonic topological insulators. To explain why, I’ll need to recall a few elements of the theory of monopoles and of topological insulators, before returning to the connection between the two and why that reminds me of Flatland.

Flatlanders, confined to the surface of a topological insulator, are convinced by a magnetic monopole that there is a third dimension.

Flatlanders, confined to the two-dimensional surface of a topological insulator, are convinced by a magnetic monopole that a third dimension must exist.

Monopoles

Paul Dirac was no ordinary genius. Aside from formulating relativistic electron theory and predicting the existence of antimatter, Dirac launched the quantum theory of magnetic monopoles in a famous 1931 paper. Dirac envisioned a magnetic monopole as a semi-infinitely long, infinitesimally thin string of magnetic flux, such that the end of the string, where the flux spills out, seems to be a magnetic charge. For this picture to make sense, the string should be invisible. Dirac pointed out that an electron with electric charge e, transported around a string carrying flux \Phi, could detect the string (via what later came to be called the Aharonov-Bohm effect) unless the flux is an integer multiple of 2\pi\hbar /e, where \hbar is Planck’s constant. Conversely, in order for the string to be invisible, if a magnetic monopole exists with magnetic charge g_D = 2\pi\hbar /e, then all electric charges must be integer multiples of e. Thus the existence of magnetic monopoles (which have never been observed) could explain quantization of electric charge (which has been observed).

Captivated by the beauty of his own proposal, Dirac concluded his paper by remarking, “One would be surprised if Nature had made no use of it.”

Our understanding of quantized magnetic monopoles advanced again in 1979 when another extraordinary physicist, Edward Witten, discussed a generalization of Dirac’s quantization condition. Witten noted that the Lagrange density of electrodynamics could contain a term of the form

\frac{\theta e^2\hbar}{4\pi^2}~\vec{E}\cdot\vec{B},

where \vec{E} is the electric field and \vec{B} is the magnetic field. This “\theta term” may also be expressed as

\frac{\theta e^2\hbar}{8\pi^2}~ \partial^\mu\left(\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}A^\nu\partial^\lambda A^\sigma \right),

where A is the vector potential, and hence is a total derivative which makes no contribution to the classical field equations of electrodynamics. But Witten realized that it can have important consequences for the quantum properties of magnetic monopoles. Specifically, the \theta term modifies the field momentum conjugate to the vector potential, which becomes

\vec{E}+\frac{\theta e^2\hbar}{4\pi^2}\vec{B}.

Because the Gauss law condition satisfied by physical quantum states is altered, for a monopole with magnetic charge m g_D , where g_D is Dirac’s minimal charge 2\pi\hbar /e and m is an integer, the allowed values of the electric charge become

q = e\left( n - \frac{\theta m}{2\pi}\right),

where n is an integer. This spectrum of allowed charges remains invariant if \theta advances by 2\pi, suggesting that the parameter \theta is actually an angular variable with period 2\pi. This periodicity of \theta can be readily verified in a theory admitting fermions with the minimal charge e. But if the charged particles are bosons then \theta turns out to be a periodic variable with period 4\pi instead.

That \theta has a different period for a bosonic theory than a fermionic one has an interesting interpretation. As Goldhaber noticed in 1976, dyons carrying both magnetic and electric charge can exhibit statistical transmutation. That is, in a purely bosonic theory, a dyon with magnetic charge g_D= 2\pi\hbar/e and electric charge ne is a fermion if n is an odd integer — when two dyons are exchanged, transport of each dyon’s electric charge in the magnetic field of the other dyon induces a sign change in the wave function. In a fermionic theory the story is different; now we can think of the dyon as a fermionic electric charge bound to a bosonic monopole. There are two canceling contributions to the exchange phase of the dyon, which is therefore a boson for any integer value of n, whether even or odd.

As \theta smoothly increases from 0 to 2\pi, the statistics (whether bosonic or fermionic) of a dyon remains fixed even as the dyon’s electric charge increases by e. For the bosonic theory with \theta = 2\pi, then, dyons with magnetic charge g_D and electric charge ne are bosons for n odd and fermions for n even, the opposite of what happens when \theta=0. For the bosonic theory, unlike the fermionic theory, we need to increase \theta by 4\pi for the physics of dyons to be fully invariant.

In 1979 Ed Witten was a postdoc at Harvard, where I was a student, though he was visiting CERN for the summer when he wrote his paper about the \theta-dependent monopole charge. I always read Ed’s papers carefully, but I gave special scrutiny to this one because magnetic monopoles were a pet interest of mine. At the time, I wondered whether the Witten effect might clarify how to realize the \theta parameter in a lattice gauge theory. But it certainly did not occur to me that the \theta-dependent electric charge of a magnetic monopole could have important implications for quantum condensed matter physics. Theoretical breakthroughs often have unexpected consequences, which may take decades to emerge.

Symmetry-protected topological phases

Okay, now let’s talk about topological insulators, a very hot topic in condensed matter physics these days. Actually, a topological insulator is a particular instance of a more general concept called a symmetry-protected topological phase of matter (or SPT phase). Consider a d-dimensional hunk of material with a (d-1)-dimensional boundary. If the material is in an SPT phase, then the physics of the d-dimensional bulk is boring — it’s just an insulator with an energy gap, admitting no low-energy propagating excitations. But the physics of the (d-1)-dimensional edge is exotic and exciting — for example the edge might support “gapless” excitations of arbitrarily low energy which can conduct electricity. The exotica exhibited by the edge is a consequence of a symmetry, and is destroyed if the symmetry is broken either explicitly or spontaneously; that is why we say the phase is “symmetry protected.”

The low-energy edge excitations can be described by a (d-1)-dimensional effective field theory. But for a typical SPT phase, this effective field theory is what we call anomalous, which means that for one reason or another the theory does not really make sense. The anomaly tells us something interesting and important, namely that the (d-1)-dimensional theory cannot be really, truly (d-1) dimensional; it can arise only at the edge of a higher-dimensional system.

This phenomenon, in which the edge does not make sense by itself without the bulk, is nicely illustrated by the integer quantum Hall effect, which occurs in a two-dimensional electron system in a high magnetic field and at low temperature, if the sample is sufficiently clean so that the electrons are highly mobile and rarely scattered by impurities. In this case the relevant symmetry is electron number, or equivalently the electric charge. At the one-dimensional edge of a two-dimensional quantum Hall sample, charge carriers move in only one direction — to the right, say, but not to the left. A theory with such chiral electric charges does not really make sense. One problem is that electric charge is not conserved — an electric field along the edge causes charge to be locally created, which makes the theory inconsistent.

The way the theory resolves this conundrum is quite remarkable. A two-dimensional strip of quantum Hall fluid has two edges, one at the top, the other at the bottom. While the top edge has only right-moving excitations, the bottom edge has only left-moving excitations. When electric charge appears on the top edge, it is simultaneously removed from the bottom edge. Rather miraculously, charge can be conveyed across the bulk from one edge to the other, even though the bulk does not have any low-energy excitations at all.

I first learned about this interplay of edge and bulk physics from a beautiful 1985 paper by Curt Callan and Jeff Harvey. They explained very lucidly how an edge theory with an anomaly and a bulk theory with an anomaly can fit together, with each solving the other’s problems. Curiously, the authors did not mention any connection with the quantum Hall effect, which had been discovered five years earlier, and I didn’t appreciate the connection myself until years later.

Topological insulators

In the case of topological insulators, the symmetries which protect the gapless edge excitations are time-reversal invariance and conserved particle number, i.e. U(1) symmetry. Though the particle number might not be coupled to an electromagnetic gauge field, it is instructive for the purpose of understanding the properties of the symmetry-protected phase to imagine that the U(1) symmetry is gauged, and then to consider the potential anomalies that could afflict this gauge symmetry. The first topological insulators conceived by theorists were envisioned as systems of non-interacting electrons whose properties were relatively easy to understand using band theory. But it was not so clear at first how interactions among the electrons might alter their exotic behavior. The wonderful thing about anomalies is that they are robust with respect to interactions. In many cases we can infer the features of anomalies by studying a theory of non-interacting particles, assured that these features survive even when the particles interact.

As have many previous authors, Metlitski et al. argue that when we couple the conserved particle number to a U(1) gauge field, the effective theory describing the bulk physics of a topological insulator in three dimensions may contain a \theta term. But wait … since the electric field is even under time reversal and the magnetic field is odd, the \theta term is T-odd; under T, \theta is mapped to -\theta, so T seems to be violated if \theta has any nonzero value. Except … we have to remember that \theta is really a periodic variable. For a fermionic topological insulator the period is 2\pi; therefore the theory with \theta = \pi is time reversal invariant; \theta = \pi maps to \theta = -\pi under T, which is equivalent to a rotation of \theta by 2\pi. For a bosonic topological insulator the period is 4\pi, which means that \theta = 2\pi is the nontrivial T-invariant value.

If we say that a “trivial” insulator (e.g., the vacuum) has \theta = 0, then we may say that a bulk material with \theta = \pi (fermionic case) or \theta = 2\pi (bosonic case) is a “nontrivial” (a.k.a. topological) insulator. At the edge of the sample, where bulk material meets vacuum, \theta must rotate suddenly by \pi (fermions) or by 2\pi (bosons). The exotic edge physics is a consequence of this abrupt change in \theta.

Monopoles in Flatland

To understand the edge physics, and in particular to grasp how fermionic and bosonic topological insulators differ, Metlitski et al. invite us to imagine a magnetic monopole with magnetic charge g_D passing through the boundary between the bulk and the surrounding vacuum. To the Flatlanders confined to the surface of the bulk sample, the passing monopole induces a sudden change in the magnetic flux through the surface by a single flux quantum g_D, which could arise due to a quantum tunneling event. What does the Flatlander see?

In a fermionic topological insulator, there is a monopole that carries charge e/2 when inside the sample (where \theta=-\pi) and charge 0 when outside (where \theta=0). Since electric charge is surely conserved in the full three-dimensional theory, the change in the monopole’s charge must be compensated by a corresponding change in the charge residing on the surface. Flatlanders are puzzled to witness a spontaneously arising excitation with charge e/2. This is an anomaly — electric charge conservation is violated, which can only make sense if Flatlanders are confined to a surface in a higher-dimensional world. Though unable to escape their surface world, the Flatlanders can be convinced by the Monopole that an extra dimension must exist.

In a bosonic topological insulator, the story is somewhat different: there is a monopole that carries electric charge 0 when inside the sample (where \theta=-2\pi) and charge –e when outside (where \theta=0). In this case, though, there are bosonic charge-e particles living on the surface. A monopole can pick up a charged particle as it passes through Flatland, so that its charge is 0 both inside the bulk sample and outside in the vacuum. Flatlanders are happy — electric charge is conserved!

But hold on … there’s still something wrong. Inside the bulk (where \theta= -2\pi) a monopole with electric charge 0 is a fermion, while outside in the vacuum (where \theta = 0) it is a boson. In the three-dimensional theory it is not possible for any local process to create an isolated fermion, so if the fermionic monopole becomes a bosonic monople as it passes through Flatland, it must leave a fermion behind. Flatlanders are puzzled to witness a spontaneously arising fermion. This is an anomaly — conservation of fermionic parity is violated, which can only make sense if Flatlanders are confined to a surface in a higher-dimensional world. Once again, the clever residents of Flatland learn from the Monopole about an extra spatial dimension, without ever venturing outside their two-dimensional home.

Topological order gets edgy

This post is already pretty long and I should wrap it up. Before concluding I’ll remark that the theory of symmetry-protected phases has been developing rapidly in recent months.

In particular, a new idea, introduced last fall by Vishwanath and Senthil, has been attracting increasing attention. While in most previously studied SPT phases the unbroken symmetry protects gapless excitations confined to the edge of the sample, Vishwanath and Senthil pointed out another possibility — a gapped edge exhibiting topological order. The surface can support anyons with exotic braiding statistics.

Here, too, anomalies are central to the discussion. While anyons in two-dimensional media are already a much-studied subject, the anyon models that can be realized at the edges of three-dimensional SPT phases are different than anyon models realized in really, truly two-dimensional systems. What’s new are not the braiding properties of the anyons, but rather how the anyons transform under the symmetry. Flatlanders who study the symmetry realization in their gapped two-dimensional world should be able to infer the existence of the three-dimensional bulk.

The pace of discovery picked up this month when four papers appeared simultaneously on the preprint arXiv, by Metlitski-Kane-Fisher, Chen-Fidkowski-Vishwanath, Bonderson-Nayak-Qi, and Wang-Potter-Senthil, all proposing and analyzing models of SPT phases with gapped edges. It remains to be seen, though, whether this physics will be realized in actual materials.

Are we on the edge?

In Flatland, our two-dimensional friend, finally able to perceive the third dimension thanks to the Sphere’s insistent tutelage, begs to enter a world of still higher dimensions, “where thine own intestines, and those of kindred Spheres, will lie exposed to … view.” The Sphere is baffled by the Flatlander’s request, protesting, “There is no such land. The very idea of it is utterly inconceivable.”

Let’s not be so dogmatic as the Sphere. The lessons learned from the quantum Hall effect and the topological insulator have prepared us to take the next step, envisioning our own three-dimensional world as the edge of a higher-dimensional bulk system. The existence of an unseen bulk may be inferred in the future by us edgelings, if experimental explorations of our three-dimensional effective theory reveal anomalies begging for an explanation.

Perhaps we are on the edge … of a great discovery. At least it’s conceivable.

*Disclaimer: The gender politics of Flatland, to put it mildly, is outdated and offensive. I don’t wish to endorse the idea that women are one dimensional! I included the reference to Flatland because the imagery of two-dimensional beings struggling to imagine the third dimension is a perfect fit to the scientific content of this post.

We are all Wilsonians now

Posted on by
33
Ken Wilson

Ken Wilson

Ken Wilson passed away on June 15 at age 77. He changed how we think about physics.

Renormalization theory, first formulated systematically by Freeman Dyson in 1949, cured the flaws of quantum electrodynamics and turned it into a precise computational tool. But the subject seemed magical and mysterious. Many physicists, Dirac prominently among them, questioned whether renormalization rests on a sound foundation.

Wilson changed that.

The renormalization group concept arose in an extraordinary paper by Gell-Mann and Low in 1954. It was embraced by Soviet physicists like Bogoliubov and Landau, and invoked by Landau to challenge the consistency of quantum electrodynamics. But it was an abstruse and inaccessible topic, as is well illustrated by the baffling discussion at the very end of the two-volume textbook by Bjorken and Drell.

Wilson changed that, too.

Ken Wilson turned renormalization upside down. Dyson and others had worried about the “ultraviolet divergences” occurring in Feynman diagrams. They introduced an artificial cutoff on integrations over the momenta of virtual particles, then tried to show that all the dependence on the cutoff can be eliminated by expressing the results of computations in terms of experimentally accessible quantities. It required great combinatoric agility to show this trick works in electrodynamics. In other theories, notably including general relativity, it doesn’t work.

Wilson adopted an alternative viewpoint. Take the short-distance cutoff seriously, he said, regarding it as part of the physical formulation of the field theory. Now ask what physics looks like at distances much larger than the cutoff. Wilson imagined letting the short-distance cutoff grow, while simultaneously adjusting the theory to preserve its low-energy predictions. This procedure sounds complicated, but Wilson discovered something wonderful — for the purpose of computing low-energy processes the theory becomes remarkably simple, completely characterized by just a few (renormalized) parameters. One recovers Dyson’s results plus much more, while also acquiring a rich and visually arresting physical picture of what is going on.

When I started graduate school in 1975, Wilson, not yet 40, was already a legend. Even Sidney Coleman, for me the paragon of razor sharp intellect, seemed to regard Wilson with awe. (They had been contemporaries at Caltech, both students of Murray Gell-Mann.) It enhanced the legend that Wilson had been notoriously slow to publish. He spent years pondering the foundations of quantum field theory before finally unleashing a torrent of revolutionary papers in the early 70s. Cornell had the wisdom to grant tenure despite Wilson’s unusually low productivity during the 60s.

As a student, I spent countless hours struggling through Wilson’s great papers, some of which were quite difficult. One introduced me to the operator product expansion, which became a workhorse of high-energy scattering theory and the foundation of conformal field theory. Another considered all the possible ways that renormalization group fixed points could control the high-energy behavior of the strong interactions. Conspicuously missing from the discussion was what turned out to be the correct idea — asymptotic freedom. Wilson had not overlooked this possibility; instead he “proved” it to be impossible. The proof contains a subtle error. Wilson analyzed charge renormalization invoking both Lorentz covariance and positivity of the Hilbert space metric, forgetting that gauge theories admit no gauge choice with both properties. Even Ken Wilson made mistakes.

Wilson also formulated the strong-coupling expansion of lattice gauge theory, and soon after pioneered the Euclidean Monte Carlo method for computing the quantitative non-perturbative predictions of quantum chromodynamics, which remains today an extremely active and successful program. But of the papers by Wilson I read while in graduate school, the most exciting by far was this one about the renormalization group. Toward the end of the paper Wilson discussed how to formulate the notion of the “continuum limit” of a field theory with a cutoff. Removing the short-distance cutoff is equivalent to taking the limit in which the correlation length (the inverse of the renormalized mass) is infinitely long compared to the cutoff — the continuum limit is a second-order phase transition. Wilson had finally found the right answer to the decades-old question, “What is quantum field theory?” And after reading his paper, I knew the answer, too! This Wilsonian viewpoint led to further deep insights mentioned in the paper, for example that an interacting self-coupled scalar field theory is unlikely to exist (i.e. have a continuum limit) in four spacetime dimensions.

Wilson’s mastery of quantum field theory led him to another crucial insight in the 1970s which has profoundly influenced physics in the decades since — he denigrated elementary scalar fields as unnatural. I learned about this powerful idea from an inspiring 1979 paper not by Wilson, but by Lenny Susskind. That paper includes a telltale acknowledgment: “I would like to thank K. Wilson for explaining the reasons why scalar fields require unnatural adjustments of bare constants.”

Susskind, channeling Wilson, clearly explains a glaring flaw in the standard model of particle physics — ensuring that the Higgs boson mass is much lighter than the Planck (i.e., cutoff) scale requires an exquisitely careful tuning of the theory’s bare parameters. Susskind proposed to banish the Higgs boson in favor of Technicolor, a new strong interaction responsible for breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry, an idea I found compelling at the time. Technicolor fell into disfavor because it turned out to be hard to build fully realistic models, but Wilson’s complaint about elementary scalars continued to drive the quest for new physics beyond the standard model, and in particular bolstered the hope that low-energy supersymmetry (which eases the fine tuning problem) will be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider. Both dark energy (another fine tuning problem) and the absence so far of new physics beyond the HIggs boson at the LHC are prompting some soul searching about whether naturalness is really a reliable criterion for evaluating success in physical theories. Could Wilson have steered us wrong?

Wilson’s great legacy is that we now regard nearly every quantum field theory as an effective field theory. We don’t demand or expect that the theory will continue working at arbitrarily short distances. At some stage it will break down and be replaced by a more fundamental description. This viewpoint is now so deeply ingrained in how we do physics that today’s students may be surprised to hear it was not always so. More than anyone else, we have Ken Wilson to thank for this indispensable wisdom. Few ideas have changed physics so much.

Entanglement = Wormholes

Posted on by
80

One of the most enjoyable and inspiring physics papers I have read in recent years is this one by Mark Van Raamsdonk. Building on earlier observations by Maldacena and by Ryu and Takayanagi. Van Raamsdonk proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry.* Since my first encounter with this provocative paper, I have often mused that it might be a Good Thing for someone to take Van Raamsdonk’s idea really seriously.

Now someone has.

I love wormholes. (Who doesn’t?) Picture two balls, one here on earth, the other in the Andromeda galaxy. It’s a long trip from one ball to the other on the background space, but there’s a shortcut:You can walk into the ball on earth and moments later walk out of the ball in Andromeda. That’s a wormhole.

I’ve mentioned before that John Wheeler was one of my heros during my formative years. Back in the 1950s, Wheeler held a passionate belief that “everything is geometry,” and one particularly intriguing idea he called “charge without charge.” There are no pointlike electric charges, Wheeler proclaimed; rather, electric field lines can thread the mouth of a wormhole. What looks to you like an electron is actually a tiny wormhole mouth. If you were small enough, you could dive inside the electron and emerge from a positron far away. In my undergraduate daydreams, I wished this idea could be true.

But later I found out more about wormholes, and learned about “topological censorship.” It turns out that if energy is nonnegative, Einstein’s gravitational field equations prevent you from traversing a wormhole — the throat always pinches off (or becomes infinitely long) before you get to the other side. It has sometimes been suggested that quantum effects might help to hold the throat open (which sounds like a good idea for a movie), but today we’ll assume that wormholes are never traversable no matter what you do.

Alice and Bob are in different galaxies, but each lives near a black hole, and their black holes are connected by a wormhole.

Love in a wormhole throat: Alice and Bob are in different galaxies, but each lives near a black hole, and their black holes are connected by a wormhole. If both jump into their black holes, they can enjoy each other’s company for a while before meeting a tragic end.

Are wormholes any fun if we can never traverse them? The answer might be yes if two black holes are connected by a wormhole. Then Alice on earth and Bob in Andromeda can get together quickly if each jumps into a nearby black hole. For solar mass black holes Alice and Bob will have only 10 microseconds to get acquainted before meeting their doom at the singularity. But if the black holes are big enough, Alice and Bob might have a fulfilling relationship before their tragic end.

This observation is exploited in a recent paper by Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind (MS) in which they reconsider the AMPS puzzle (named for Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully). I wrote about this puzzle before, so I won’t go through the whole story again. Here’s the short version: while classical correlations can easily be shared by many parties, quantum correlations are harder to share. If Bob is highly entangled with Alice, that limits his ability to entangle with Carrie, and if he entangles with Carrie instead he can’t entangle with Alice. Hence we say that entanglement is “monogamous.” Now, if, as most of us are inclined to believe, information is “scrambled” but not destroyed by an evaporating black hole, then the radiation emitted by an old black hole today should be highly entangled with radiation emitted a long time ago. And if, as most of us are inclined to believe, nothing unusual happens (at least not right away) to an observer who crosses the event horizon of a black hole, then the radiation emitted today should be highly entangled with stuff that is still inside the black hole. But we can’t have it both ways without violating the monogamy of entanglement!

The AMPS puzzle invites audacious reponses, and AMPS were suitably audacious. They proposed that an old black hole has no interior — a freely falling observer meets her doom right at the horizon rather than at a singularity deep inside.

MS are also audacious, but in a different way. They helpfully summarize their key point succinctly in a simple equation:

ER = EPR

Here, EPR means Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, whose famous paper highlighted the weirdness of quantum correlations, while ER means Einstein-Rosen (sorry, Podolsky), who discovered wormhole solutions to the Einstein equations. (Both papers were published in 1935.) MS (taking Van Raamsdonk very seriously) propose that whenever any two quantum subsystems are entangled they are connected by a wormhole. In many cases, these wormholes are highly quantum mechanical, but in some cases (where the quantum system under consideration has a weakly coupled “gravitational dual”), the wormhole can have a smooth geometry like the one ER described. That wormholes are not traversable is important for the consistency of ER = EPR: just as Alice cannot use their shared entanglement to send a message to Bob instantaneously, so she is unable to send Bob a message through their shared wormhole.

AMPS imagined that Alice could distill qubit C from the black hole’s early radiation and carry it back to the black hole, successfully verifying its entanglement with another qubit B distilled from the recent radiation. Monogamy then ensures that qubit B cannot be entangled with qubit A behind the horizon. Hence when Alice falls through the horizon she will not observe the quiescent vacuum state in which A and B are entangled; instead she encounters a high-energy particle. MS agree with this conclusion.

AMPS go on to say that Alice’s actions before entering the black hole could not have created that energetic particle; it must have been there all along, one of many such particles constituting a seething firewall.

Here MS disagree. They argue that the excitation encountered by Alice as she crosses the horizon was actually created by Alice herself when she interacted with qubit C. How could Alice’s actions, executed far, far away from the black hole, dramatically affect the state of the black hole’s interior? Because C and A are connected by a wormhole!

The ER = EPR conjecture seems to allow us to view the early radiation with which the black hole is entangled as a complementary description of the black hole interior. It’s not clear yet whether this picture works in detail, and even if it does there could still be firewalls; maybe in some sense the early radiation is connected to the black hole via a wormhole, yet this wormhole is wildly fluctuating rather than a smooth geometry. Still, MS provide a promising new perspective on a deep problem.

As physicists we often rely on our sense of smell in judging scientific ideas, and earlier proposed resolutions of the AMPS puzzle (like firewalls) did not smell right. At first whiff, ER = EPR may smell fresh and sweet, but it will have to ripen on the shelf for a while. If this idea is on the right track, there should be much more to say about it. For now, wormhole lovers can relish the possibilities.

Eventually, Wheeler discarded “everything is geometry” in favor of an ostensibly deeper idea: “everything is information.” It would be a fitting vindication of Wheeler’s vision if everything in the universe, including wormholes, is made of quantum correlations.

*Update: Commenter JM reminded me to mention Brian Swingle’s beautiful 2009 paper, which preceded Van Raamsdonk’s and proposed a far-reaching connection between quantum entanglement and spacetime geometry.

A Public Lecture on Quantum Information

Posted on by
13

Sooner or later, most scientists are asked to deliver a public lecture about their research specialties. When successful, lecturing about science to the lay public can give one a feeling of deep satisfaction. But preparing the lecture is a lot of work!

Caltech sponsors the Earnest C. Watson lecture series (named after the same Earnest Watson mentioned in my post about Jane Werner Watson), which attracts very enthusiastic audiences to Beckman Auditorium nine times a year. I gave a Watson lecture on April 3 about Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Computing, which is now available from iTunes U and also on YouTube:

I did a Watson lecture once before, in 1997. That occasion precipitated some big changes in my presentation style. To prepare for the lecture, I acquired my first laptop computer and learned to use PowerPoint. This was still the era when a typical physics talk was handwritten on transparencies and displayed using an overhead projector, so I was sort of a pioneer. And I had many anxious moments in the late 1990s worrying about whether my laptop would be able to communicate with the projector — that can still be a problem even today, but was a more common problem then.

I invested an enormous amount of time in preparing that 1997 lecture, an investment still yielding dividends today. Aside from figuring out what computer to buy (an IBM ThinkPad) and how to do animation in PowerPoint, I also learned to draw using Adobe Illustrator under the tutelage of Caltech’s digital media expert Wayne Waller. And apart from all that technical preparation, I had to figure out the content of the lecture!

That was when I first decided to represent a qubit as a box with two doors, which contains a ball that can be either red or green, and I still use some of the drawings I made then.

Entanglement, illustrated with balls in boxes.

Entanglement, illustrated with balls in boxes.

This choice of colors was unfortunate, because people with red-green color blindness cannot tell the difference. I still feel bad about that, but I don’t have editable versions of the drawings anymore, so fixing it would be a big job …

I also asked my nephew Ben Preskill (then 10 years old, now a math PhD candidate at UC Berkeley), to make a drawing for me illustrating weirdness.

The desire to put weirdness to work has driven the emergence of quantum information science.

The desire to put weirdness to work has driven the emergence of quantum information science.

I still use that, for sentimental reasons, even though it would be easier to update.

The turnout at the lecture was gratifying (you can’t really see the audience with the spotlight shining in your eyes, but I sensed that the main floor of the Auditorium was mostly full), and I have gotten a lot of positive feedback (including from the people who came up to ask questions afterward — we might have been there all night if the audio-visual staff had not forced us to go home).

I did make a few decisions about which I have had second thoughts. I was told I had the option of giving a 45 minute talk with a public question period following, or a 55 minute talk with only a private question period, and I opted for the longer talk. Maybe I should have pushed back and insisted on allowing some public questions even after the longer talk — I like answering questions. And I was told that I should stay in the spotlight, to ensure good video quality, so I decided to stand behind the podium the whole time to curb my tendency to pace across the stage. But maybe I would have seemed more dynamic if I had done some pacing.

I got some gentle criticism from my wife, Roberta, who suggested I could modulate my voice more. I have heard that before, particularly in teaching evaluations that complain about my “soporific” tone. I recall that Mike Freedman once commented after watching a video of a public lecture I did at the KITP in Santa Barbara — he praised its professionalism and “newscaster quality”. But that cuts two ways, doesn’t it? Paul Ginsparg listened to a podcast of that same lecture while doing yardwork, and then sent me a compliment by email, with a characteristic Ginspargian twist. Noting that my sentences were clear, precise, and grammatical, Paul asked: “is this something that just came naturally at some early age, or something that you were able to acquire at some later stage by conscious design (perhaps out of necessity, talks on quantum computing might not go over as well without the reassuring smoothness)?”

Another criticism stung more. To illustrate the monogamy of entanglement, I used a slide describing the frustration of Bob, who wants to entangle with both Alice and Carrie, but finds that he can increase his entanglement with Carrie only my sacrificing some of his entanglement with Alice.

Entanglement is monogamous. Bob is frustrated to find that he cannot be fully entangled with both Alice and Carrie.

Entanglement is monogamous. Bob is frustrated to find that he cannot be fully entangled with both Alice and Carrie.

This got a big laugh. But I used the same slide in a talk at the APS Denver meeting the following week (at a session celebrating the 100th anniversary of Niels Bohr’s atomic model), and a young woman came up to me after that talk to complain. She suggested that my monogamy metaphor was offensive and might discourage women from entering the field!

After discussing the issue with Roberta, I decided to address the problem by swapping the gender roles. The next day, during the question period following Stephen Hawking’s Public Lecture, I spoke about Betty’s frustration over her inability to entangle fully with both Adam and Charlie. But is that really an improvement, or does it reflect negatively on Betty’s morals? I would appreciate advice about this quandary in the comments.

In case you watch the video, there are a couple of things you should know. First, in his introduction, Tom Soifer quotes from a poem about me, but neglects to name the poet. It is former Caltech postdoc Patrick Hayden. And second, toward the end of the lecture I talk about some IQIM outreach activities, but neglect to name our Outreach Director Spiros Michalakis, without whose visionary leadership these things would not have happened.

The most touching feedback I received came from my Caltech colleague Oskar Painter. I joked in the lecture about how mild mannered IQIM scientists can unleash the superpower of quantum information at a moment’s notice.

Mild mannered professor unleashes the super power of quantum information.

Mild mannered professor unleashes the superpower of quantum information.

After watching the video, Oskar shot me an email:

“I sent a link to my son [Ewan, age 11] and daughter [Quinn, age 9], and they each watched it from beginning to end on their iPads, without interruption.  Afterwards, they had a huge number of questions for me, and were dreaming of all sorts of “quantum super powers” they imagined for the future.”

Remembering Arthur Wightman

Posted on by
5
Arthur Wightman

Arthur Wightman

Arthur Wightman passed away this past January, at age 90. He was one of the great mathematical physicists of the past century.

Two of Arthur’s most renowned students, Arthur Jaffe and Barry Simon, wrote an affectionate obituary. I thought I would add some reminiscences of my own — Wightman was my undergraduate thesis advisor at Princeton.

I loved math in high school, and like many high school students before and since, I became convinced that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is the coolest insight ever produced by the human mind. I resolved to devote my life to set theory and logic, and somehow I also became convinced that Princeton would be the best place in the world to study the subject. So there I went. I had a plan.

As a freshman, I talked my way into a graduate level course on Advanced Logic taught by Dana Scott. (I cleared the biggest obstacle by writing an essay to pass out of the freshman English requirement.) The course was wonderful, but by the end of it I was starting to accept what I had already sensed while in high school — I lack the talent to be a great mathematician.

A door was closing, but meanwhile another was opening. I was also taking a course on Electricity and Magnetism, based on the extraordinary book by Ed Purcell, taught by the charismatic Val Fitch. Chapter 5 contains an unforgettable argument explaining how electrostatic forces combined with special relativity imply magnetic forces. Meanwhile, while learning advanced calculus from the lovely (but challenging) little book by Michael Spivak, I realized that the Maxwell field is actually a two-form! Physics can be almost as cool as logic, so I would be a physics major! I had a new plan.

Continue reading →

Grad student life: high highs and low lows

Posted on by
1
Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics, Caltech, 19 January 2013

Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics, Caltech, 19 January 2013.

On January 18-20, Caltech was one of the host campuses for the annual Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics. Nearly 200 women attended here, mostly physics majors from the western US. It was an exciting and fun event, packed with talks, panel discussions, lab tours, a poster session, and other activities.

One highlight was a screening of The PhD Movie, followed by a discussion with director Jorge Cham and the cast (real-life Caltech grad students Alex Lockwood and Crystal Dilworth, and undergrad Raj Katti). The movie, filmed on location at Caltech, provides a very funny look at the misery of graduate student life. You can get a pretty accurate impression of the movie’s tone by viewing the trailer. The discussion afterward featured poignant warnings about the pitfalls of graduate school, and emphasized the importance of having the right mentor.

I found myself reflecting on my own experience. Graduate school will sometimes deal grave blows to your self confidence, but it can also be a time of exhilarating intellectual growth. The highs are high but the lows are low.

One thing we try to do at Quantum Frontiers is provide a variety of perspectives on the graduate student experience by featuring our students as contributors. Today we’ll try something a bit different: a profile of grad student Debaleena Nandi from Caltech writer Ann Wendland.

Of Bravery, Support, and Breakthroughs
By Ann Wendland

Debaleena Nandi, in the lab as usual.

Debaleena Nandi, in the lab as usual.

In March 2008, a graduate student at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) named Debaleena Nandi heard Caltech physics professor Jim Eisenstein give a series of lectures on two-dimensional systems of quantum electronic matter. “I was very keen to take a peek into his lab,” she says—so keen that, with a friend by her side for moral support, she walked up to Eisenstein and asked if she could join his group for the summer. Eisenstein had noted her smart questions during his talks and said he was open to the idea. Still, he was surprised when he returned to Caltech and found she’d e-mailed him. A few months later, Nandi rented an apartment in Pasadena and left India for the first time.

Continue reading →

A poll on the foundations of quantum theory

Posted on by
57
Erwin Schrödinger. Discussions of quantum foundations often seem to involve this fellow's much abused cat.

Erwin Schrödinger. Discussions of quantum foundations often seem to involve his much abused cat.

The group of physicists seriously engaged in studies of the “foundations” or “interpretation” of quantum theory is a small sliver of the broader physics community (perhaps a few hundred scientists among tens of thousands). Yet in my experience most scientists doing research in other areas of physics enjoy discussing foundational questions over coffee or beer.

The central question concerns quantum measurement. As often expressed, the axioms of quantum mechanics (see Sec. 2.1 of my notes here) distinguish two different ways for a quantum state to change. When the system is not being measured its state vector rotates continuously, as described by the Schrödinger equation. But when the system is measured its state “collapses” discontinuously. The Measurement Problem (or at least one version of it) is the challenge to explain why the mathematical description of measurement is different from the description of other physical processes.

My own views on such questions are rather unsophisticated and perhaps a bit muddled:

1) I know no good reason to disbelieve that all physical processes, including measurements, can be described by the Schrödinger equation.

2) But to describe measurement this way, we must include the observer as part of the evolving quantum system.

3) This formalism does not provide us observers with deterministic predictions for the outcomes of the measurements we perform. Therefore, we are forced to use probability theory to describe these outcomes.

4) Once we accept this role for probability (admittedly a big step), then the Born rule (the probability is proportional to the modulus squared of the wave function) follows from simple and elegant symmetry arguments. (These are described for example by Zurek – see also my class notes here. As a technical aside, what is special about the L2 norm is its rotational invariance, implying that the probability measure picks out no preferred basis in the Hilbert space.)

5) The “classical” world arises due to decoherence, that is, pervasive entanglement of an observed quantum system with its unobserved environment. Decoherence picks out a preferred basis in the Hilbert space, and this choice of basis is determined by properties of the Hamiltonian, in particular its spatial locality.
Continue reading →

Science books for kids matter (or used to)

Posted on by
46

The elementary school I attended hosted an annual book fair, and every year I went with my mother to browse. I would check out the sports books first, to see whether there were any books about baseball I had not already read (typically, no). There was also a small table of science books, and in 1962 when I was in the 4th grade, one of them caught my eye: a lavishly illustrated oversized “Deluxe Golden Book” entitled The World of Science.

My copy of The World of Science by Jane Werner Watson, purchased in 1962 when I was in the 4th grade.

My copy of The World of Science by Jane Werner Watson, purchased in 1962 when I was in the 4th grade.

As I started leafing through it, I noticed one of the cutest girls in my class regarding me with what I interpreted as interest. Right then I resolved to buy the book, or more accurately, to persuade my mother to buy it, as the price tag was pretty steep. Impressing girls is a great motivator.

The title page.

The title page.

Continue reading →

Ignacio Cirac and Peter Zoller get what they deserve

Posted on by
1
Ignacio Cirac, Dave Wineland, and Peter Zoller receiving the 2010 Franklin medal.

Ignacio Cirac, Dave Wineland, and Peter Zoller receiving the 2010 Franklin medal.

A good thing about a blog is that when my friends win prizes I have the opportunity to say nice things about them. This seems to be happening a lot lately (Kitaev, Wineland, Kimble, Hawking, Polchinski, …).

Today’s very exciting news is that Ignacio Cirac and Peter Zoller have won the 2013 Wolf Prize in Physics “for groundbreaking theoretical contributions to quantum information processing, quantum optics, and the physics of quantum gases.”
Continue reading →