Arxiv:2012.02926V2 [Hep-Ph] 26 Feb 2021 of This Critical Point Was Established at M 0.33G [60– 62]; the Resulting Phase Diagram Is Shown In≈ Fig.1

Real-time dynamics of Chern-Simons ﬂuctuations near a critical point

Kazuki Ikeda,1, ∗ Dmitri E. Kharzeev,2, 3, 4, † and Yuta Kikuchi3, ‡ 1Research Institute for Advanced Materials and Devices, Kyocera Corporation, Soraku, Kyoto 619-0237, Japan 2Center for Nuclear Theory, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794-3800, USA 3Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973-5000 4RIKEN-BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973-5000 The real-time topological susceptibility is studied in (1+1)-dimensional massive Schwinger model with a θ-term. We evaluate the real-time correlation function of electric ﬁeld that represents the topological Chern-Pontryagin number density in (1+1) dimensions. Near the parity-breaking critical point located at θ = π and fermion mass m to coupling g ratio of m/g ≈ 0.33, we observe a sharp maximum in the topological susceptibility. We interpret this maximum in terms of the growth of critical ﬂuctuations near the critical point, and draw analogies between the massive Schwinger model, QCD near the critical point, and ferroelectrics near the Curie point.

I. INTRODUCTION (1 + 1)-dimensional Minkowski space is Z 2 1 µν gθ µν ¯ Schwinger model [1] is quantum electrodynamics in S = d x F Fµν + Fµν + ψ(iD/ m)ψ , −4 4π − (1 + 1) space-time dimensions. For massless fermions, (1) Schwinger model is analytically solvable and equivalent µ to the theory of a free massive boson field [1–8]; however with D/ = γ (∂µ igAµ). Note that the gauge field Aµ the model with massive fermions presents a challenge for and the coupling− constant g have mass dimensions 0 and analytical methods and has a rich dynamics. 1, respectively. Upon a chiral transformation, ψ eiγ5θψ Recently, quantum algorithms have emerged as an ef- and ψ¯ ψ¯eiγ5θ, the action is transformed to,1 → ficient (and potentially superior) way to explore the dy- → Z 1 2 µν ¯ µ iγ5θ namics of quantum field theories, including the Schwinger S = d x F Fµν + ψ(iγ Dµ me )ψ . (2) model [9–56]. Previously, we have addressed the −4 − real-time dynamics of vector current [47] (a (1 + 1)- It is clear from (2) that the massive theory with a positive dimensional analog of the chiral magnetic current [57, mass m > 0 at θ = π is equivalent to the theory at θ = 0 58]) induced by the “chiral quench” – an abrupt change but with a negative mass m. of the θ-angle, or the chiral chemical potential. In this pa- − per, we will explore the connection between the real-time topological fluctuations and criticality using Schwinger model as a testing ground. The massive Schwinger model possesses a quantum phase transition at θ = π between the phases with opposite orientations of the electric field, see Fig.1. For m g, this phase transition is first order. However, it was shown by Coleman [59] that the line of the first order phase transition terminates at some critical value m∗, where the phase transition is second order. The position ∗ arXiv:2012.02926v2 [hep-ph] 26 Feb 2021 of this critical point was established at m 0.33g [60– 62]; the resulting phase diagram is shown in≈ Fig.1. The phase diagram of the theory in the (m/g, θ) plane is thus FIG. 1: Phase diagram of the massive Schwinger model in reminiscent of the phase diagram of QCD in the (T, µ) the (θ, m/g) plane. At θ = π and large masses m > m∗, the plane of temperature T and baryon chemical potential µ ferroelectric phases with opposite orientations of electric field [63, 64]. are separated by the line of the first order phase transition. ∗ To understand the physics behind this phase diagram, This line terminates at m ≈ 0.33g at the critical point, where the phase transition is second order. For small masses m we need to recall the role of θ-angle in the model. The ∗ action of the massive Schwinger model with θ term in m , the electric field is screened by the production of light fermion-antifermion pairs.

∗kazuki.ikeda.gtATkyocera.jp †dmitri.kharzeevATstonybrook.edu 1 The action is invariant under this transformation only up to the ‡ykikuchiATbnl.gov boundary term. 2

II. TOPOLOGICAL FLUCTUATIONS NEAR phase. At some critical value m m∗, the effective THE CRITICAL POINT potential becomes flat – this corresponds≈ to the critical point with a second order phase transition. Let us now discuss topological fluctuations in massive Schwinger model. For that purpose, it will be conve- For m > m∗, the minima are separated by a potential nient to use the Hamiltonian formalism with the tempo- barrier, and the transition between them (corresponding ral gauge, A0 = 0. From the action (2) the canonical to the change in the direction of the electric dipole mo- momentum conjugate to A1 can be read off as Π = A˙ 1. ment of the system) is first order – for example, having a The corresponding Hamiltonian is then given by domain with an opposite orientation of the electric dipole moment would cost an additional energy due to the “sur- Z 1 2 ¯ 1 iγ5θ face tension”. Due to this extra energy, the fluctuations H = dx Π ψ(iγ D1 me )ψ , (3) 2 − − of the electric dipole moment at m m∗ are suppressed. At the critical point, where m m∗, the potential bar- ≈ with commutation relations [A1(x), Π(y)] = iδ(x y), rier between the two minima disappears, and the “surface ¯ − and ψ(x), ψ(y) = γ0δ(x y). tension” of the domains with opposite orientations of the { } − electric dipole moments vanishes. Because of this, the In the bosonized description of the theory, the Hamil- fluctuations of the electric dipole moment near the crit- tonian is given by (see AppendixA for details) ical point are strongly enhanced. Here one can draw a useful analogy to the physics of ferroelectrics, where the Z 2 2 h1 2 1 2 µ θ electric susceptibility exhibits critical behavior near the H = dx ϕ˙ + (∂1ϕ) + ϕ + 2 2 2 2√π (4) Curie point [65]. i cmµ cos(2√πϕ) . When the ratio m/g becomes very small, the elec- − tric field is easily screened by the production of fermion- The potential of the model is thus given by antifermion pairs (or kink-antikink pairs in the bosonized description), and the fluctuations of electric dipole mo- µ2 θ 2 ment again become small. Basing on this qualitative U(ϕ) = ϕ + cmµ cos (2√πϕ), (5) 2 2√π − picture (that we will confirm below with a more formal treatment), we expect to see a maximum in the electric where µ = g/√π is the mass of the scalar boson, and the susceptibility near the critical point. We will show that dimensionless coefficient c is given by c = eγ /2π with the this is indeed the case. Euler constant γ = 0.5774. The electric field is related to the boson field as In order to characterize the topological fluctuation we θ compute the static topological susceptibility. It is the E = µ ϕ + , (6) zero frequency and wavelength limit of the real-time two- − 2√π point correlation function of the topological charge: where the first term is the quantum, dynamical contri- bution and the second one is the classical background χCS induced by the θ angle, Ecl = gθ/2π. − Z The physics is periodic as a function of θ in the absence = lim lim d2x eiωt−ikx Q(x)Q(0) Q(x) Q(0) of boundaries – as θ increases, the electric field becomes ω→0 k→0 h i − h ih i capable of producing a fermion-antifermion pair (or kink- Z = 2Re d2xΘ(t) Q(x)Q(0) Q(x) Q(0) , (8) antikink pair, in bosonic description) that screens it. At h i − h ih i θ = π the potential takes the form

2 µ2 √π where Θ(t) is the Heaviside’s step function. Q(x) = U(ϕ) = ϕ + cmµ cos (2√πϕ). (7) µ 2 2 − ∂µK is the density of the Chern-Pontryagin number given by the divergence of the Chern-Simons current µ µ µν When m µ, the potential has two well separated K . In (1 + 1) dimensions, K = (g/2π) Aν , and µν minima at ϕ 0, √π, associated with spontaneous Q = (g/4π) Fµν , where Fµν is the electromagnetic field symmetry breaking.≈ − As follows from (6), the minima strength tensor. The corresponding change of Chern- R 2 0 R 2 ϕ = 0, √π correspond to the electric fields E = g/2 Simons number is ∆NCS = d xK = (g/2π) d xA1; and E =− g/2, respectively. − the Chern-Pontryagin number density is given by the When m µ, there is a single minimum at ϕ = electric field: Q(x) = (g/2π)E(x). We call χCS (8) √π/2, which according to (6) corresponds to the phase the real-time topological susceptibility because it is com- with− no electric field. This is because at small m, the elec- puted from the real-time two-point function unlike the tric field is easily screened by the production of fermion- conventional topological susceptibility which is computed antifermion pairs - so we are dealing with the screened in the Euclidean space-time. 3

III. LATTICE SCHWINGER MODEL at the Hamiltonian, 2 2 N−1 " n i # ag X X † 1 ( 1) A. Lattice Hamiltonian H = χ χi − − 2 i − 2 n=1 i=1 N−1 For the purpose of numerical simulation, we place the i X χ† χ χ† χ (14) theory (3) on a spatial lattice. We introduce the stag- 2a n+1 n n n+1 † − n=1 − gered fermion χn and χn [66, 67], and lattice gauge field N operators Ln and Un with an integer n labeling a lat- X n † tice site; the lattice spacing is a. A two-component + m ( 1) χnχn. − Dirac fermion ψ = (ψ1, ψ2)T is converted to a staggered n=1 1 2 fermion ψ (ψ ) χn/√a for odd (even) n. The gauge It is noted again that the massive theory with a positive → −iagA1 fields are replaced by e Un and Π gLn, that mass m > 0 at θ = π is equivalent to the theory at θ = 0 → → − are placed on a link between nth and (n+1)st sites. The but with a negative mass m. The Hamiltonian (14) resulting lattice Hamiltonian is, accords with the latter viewpoint− and will be used in what follows. Note that the method used here is not 2 N−1 N−1 restricted to θ = 0 and π but can be generalized to other ag X i X H = L2 χ† U χ χ† U †χ values of θ without any difficulty. 2 n 2a n+1 n n n n n+1 n=1 − n=1 − N X n † B. Real-time topological susceptibility + m cos θ ( 1) χnχn n=1 − N−1 We compute the real-time topological susceptibility, m sin θ X n † † † + i ( 1) χn+1Unχn χnUnχn+1 , (9) 2 Z 2 − − g 2 n=1 χCS = 2 Re d xΘ(t) E(x)E(0) E(x) E(0) , 2π h i − h ih i (15) with the Gauss law constraint: where Θ(t) is the Heaviside step function. Recall that n † 1 ( 1) the Chern-Pontyagin number density is proportional to Ln+1 Ln = χ χn − − . (10) − n − 2 the electric field in 1+1 dimensions (8). For the purpose of calculating the topological susceptibility we take The right-hand side corresponds to the fermion density the zero-wavelength limit followed by the zero-frequency in terms of the Dirac fermions ψ. The second term re- limit, flects the fact that each component of Dirac fermion ψ1 2 Z g ¯ ¯ ¯ 2 (ψ2) is translated to a staggered fermion on odd (even) χCS = 2 V Re dtΘ(t)( E(t)E(0) E(0) ), n. We solve the constraint to eliminate the electric field 2π h i − h i (16) operators, where V is spatial volume (length) and E¯(t) := n i R dxE(t, x)/V is spatial average of electric field operator. X † 1 ( 1) Ln = χi χi − − , (11) We have used the translational invariance both in tem- − 2 i=1 poral and spatial directions, which approximately holds in a finite-size system. where we have fixed the boundary electric field, L0 = 0. On a lattice, it is given by By enforcing the relation (11), the states are automat- g 2 ically restricted to the physical ones. We furthermore χ = 2(N 1) ag2 CS 2π eliminate the link fields Un by the gauge transformation, − Z T Re dtΘ(t)( L¯(t)L¯(0) L¯(0) 2). (17) † † † † χn gnχn, χ χ g ,Un gn+1Ung , (12) × 0 h i − h i → n → n n → n ¯ 1 PN−1 with L := N−1 n=1 Ln. Note that the temporal in- with tegral is also truncated by T (not to be confused with temperature). We numerically compute the dimension- n−1 Y † less topological susceptibility, g1 = 1, gn = Ui . (13) ˆ i=1 Z T χCS N 1 = − Re dtˆ(t)( L¯(t)L¯(0) L¯(0) 2). (18) g2 π2 h i − h i In the present work, we limit θ to be 0 or π to study the 0 critical behavior at θ = π. Upon absorbing cos θ = 1 in with the dimensionless variables tˆ := (ag2/2)t and Tˆ := the second line of (9) to the fermion mass m, we arrive± (ag2/2)T . 4

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION our study of the real-time critical fluctuations contributes to the field in two different ways. We have numerically computed the susceptibility (18) First, we show how to use the Hamiltonian formalism using a Python package QuSpin [68, 69]. For the purpose of quantum field theory in this problem. This formalism of numerical analysis we convert the lattice Hamiltonian is suitable for digital quantum simulations, and opens of the Schwinger model to the spin Hamiltonian via the the pathway towards the study of these non-equilibrium Jordan-Wigner transformation (AppendixB). The same phenomena on future quantum computers. It would be Hamiltonian can be directly used to implement the digi- particularly beneficial for the future studies of higher di- tal quantum simulation of the Schwinger model. mensional or more complicated theories such as QCD, The real-time topological susceptibilities are shown in where real-time simulations on classical computers are Fig.2 as functions of m/g for different values of time very challenging. Tˆ and lattice size N. The data exhibits a sharp peak Second, we demonstrate that close to the critical point around the critical masses m∗/g 0.33. In order to the topological susceptibility exhibits a sharp peak. In confirm the critical behavior we plot≈ in − Fig.3 the rescaled our case, the topological susceptibility describes the fluc- susceptibility tuations of Chern-Simons number, and in other models in the same universality class, such as anisotropic magnets, −7/4 2 it would describe the magnetic susceptibility. N χCS/g , (19) The similarity to ferroelectrics may allow one to sim- as a function of N(m m∗)/g, based on the finite-size ulate the real-time ferroelectric response near the criti- scaling analysis detailed− in AppendixC. We set m∗/g = cal point [65]. Given the importance of ferroelectrics for 0.33 in accord with previous studies [60–62]. Here, the information storage and processing [75], this may have − temporal integral range Tˆ is taken to be proportional to interesting practical applications. the spatial lattice size N. The dependence of the susceptibility on the lattice size can be understood using the finite-size scaling, with the Acknowledgement critical exponents of the transverse Ising model. The Z2 symmetry of lattice Schwinger model at θ = π and broken Y.K. thanks Y. Meurice for useful comments on the parity put it in the same universality class as the 1 + 1 finite-size scaling analysis. This work was supported dimensional transverse-field Ising model, which in turn by the U.S. Department of Energy under awards DE- is equivalent to 2D Euclidean classical Ising model. The SC0012704 (D. K. and Y. K.) and DE-FG88ER40388 (D. corresponding finite-size scaling analysis is explained in K.). The work on numerical simulations was supported the AppendixC. by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science Na- The sharp peak in the real-time topological suscepti- tional Quantum Information Science Research Centers bility near the critical point of the phase diagram may under the “Co-design Center for Quantum Advantage” have important implications for the search for the criti- award. cal point of the QCD phase diagram. It has been argued [63, 70] that the behavior near the critical point in the QCD phase diagram belongs to the universality class of Appendix A: Massive Schwinger model at finite θ 3D Ising model. The model that we have studied in the paper belongs to the universality class of 2D classical We review the massive Schwinger model at finite θ (see Ising model that is characterized by different critical ex- e.g. [76] for a comprehensive review). Let us start with ponents, but shares many common features with the 3D 1+1D Maxwell theory at finite θ: Ising model. Z 1 gθ In particular, we expect that the sharp peak in real- S = d2x E2 + E , (A1) time susceptibility that we have observed near the criti- 2 2π cal point will also be present in the 3D Ising model, and thus near the critical point in QCD phase diagram. This where E = F01 = ∂0A1 = A˙ 1 is an electric field and would imply strong fluctuations of topological charge the temporal gauge A0 = 0 is taken. The momentum Π near the critical point, that can be detected through the conjugate to A1 is, charged hadron asymmetries [57, 71, 72] that are cur- rently under intense studies at RHIC. gθ Π = A˙ 1 + , (A2) The critical behavior in the model that we have stud- 2π ied belongs to the universality class of model A, in the obeying [Π(x),A1(y)] = iδ(x y). Hence, the Hamilto- Hohenberg-Halperin classification [73]. Therefore, we ex- − pect that our findings apply to a broad class of physical nian density takes the form, systems, including those described by the kinetic Ising 1 gθ 1 gθ 2 models [74]. These models are widely used to describe = ΠA˙ E2 + E = Π . (A3) the relaxational processes in near-equilibrium states, and H − 2 2π 2 − 2π 5

Tˆ = 1.5 Tˆ = 2.5 Tˆ = 3.5 0.4 N N N = 12 = 12 0.4 = 12 0.25 N = 16 N = 16 N = 16 N = 20 0.3 N = 20 N = 20 0.20 0.3 2 2 2

g g 0.2 g / 0.15 / / 0.2 CS CS CS χ χ χ 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.00

1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − m/g m/g m/g

2 FIG. 2: Dimensionless real-time topological susceptibility χCS/g as function of m/g at diﬀerent values of lattice size N and range of temporal integral Tˆ = (ag2/2)T . The topological susceptibility is computed using the Hamiltonian (14), where θ is limited to 0 or π.

0.0014 N = 12, Tˆ = 2.1 0.0012 N = 16, Tˆ = 2.8 N = 20, Tˆ = 3.5 0.0010 2

/g 0.0008 CS χ

4 0.0006 / 7 −

N 0.0004

0.0002

0.0000

0.0002 − 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 − − − N(m m∗)/g −

FIG. 3: Rescaled dimensionless real-time topological susceptibility N −7/4χ/g2 as functions of N(m − m∗)/g at diﬀerent values of lattice size N. The temporal range Tˆ = (ag2/2)T is taken to be proportional to N. The topological susceptibility is computed using the Hamiltonian (14), where θ is limited to 0 or π.

The Gauss operator must vanish, In line with the main text, we will briefly describe the bosonized form of the theory. The bosonization dictio- ∂1Π = 0, (A4) nary is as follows: on physical states. Therefore, Π is fixed once its value is specified, Π boundary = 0, at one of the two boundaries. | The boundary value 0 is interpreted as a background electric field. Hereafter, we take 0 = 0 with the background electric field being absorbed into θ. 2 ¯ µ (∂µϕ) iψγ ∂µψ , We now add a dynamical Dirac fermion ψ to have, ↔ 2 µν µ ∂ν ϕ Z ψγ¯ ψ , 2 1 2 gθ ↔ − √π S = d x E + E + ψ¯(iD/ m)ψ. (A5) (A7) 2 2π − ¯ µ ∂µϕ ψγ γ5ψ , ↔ − √π Then, the Gauss law fixes the electric field in the bulk as cg ψψ¯ cos(2√πϕ), Z x ↔ −√π Π = g dy ψ†ψ(y), (A6) boundary where 0 = 0 is taken. We call Π the dynamical electric field because it is induced by fermionic excitations as opposed to E = A˙1 = Π gθ/(2π), where the second term represents the background− electric field. with a dimensionless constant c = eγ /(2π) and the Euler 6 constant γ. Therefore, the action (A5) is converted to of implementing digital quantum simulation. We employ the Jordan-Wigner transformation [77] Z 2 h1 2 gθ S = d x E + E n−1 2 2π Xn iYn Y 2 µν χn = − ( iZi), (∂µϕ) ∂ν ϕ cmg i 2 − + + gA + cos(2√πϕ) i=1 2 µ √π √π (B1) (A8) n−1 Z † Xn + iYn Y 2 h1 2 g χ = (iZ ), = d x E + (2√πϕ + θ)E n 2 i 2 2π i=1 (∂ ϕ)2 cmg i + µ + cos(2√πϕ) . to convert the Hamiltonian of the massive Schwinger 2 √π model to the following spin Hamiltonian [78],

The equation of motion for ϕ yields, N−1 N 1 X m X n H = (XnXn+1 + YnYn+1) + ( 1) Zn 2 g 4a 2 ∂ ϕ = E 2cmg sin(2√πϕ), (A9) n=1 n=1 − √π − 2 2 N n i ! ag X X Zi + ( 1) + − . which, at m = 0, turns out to be the anomaly equation 2 2 µ ¯ µ n=1 i=1 for the axial current j = ψγ γ5ψ. The equation of 5 (B2) motion for A1 yields,

2√πϕ + θ The last term is the gauge kinetic term with the electric ∂ E + g = 0. (A10) field given by 1 2π n i X Zi + ( 1) By requiring the quantity inside the parenthesis to vanish L = − , (B3) n 2 at spatial infinity, we find i=1

2√πϕ + θ which is uniquely fixed by the Gauss law E = g . (A11) − 2π n+1 Zn+1 + ( 1) Ln+1 Ln = − (B4) Using the equation of motion, or equivalently integrating − 2 out the gauge field, we get the pure bosonic action, upon fixing the boundary electric field to 0. Z 2 2 2 h(∂µϕ) g 2 S = d x 2 (2√πϕ + θ) 2 − 8π (A12) cmg i Appendix C: Finite-volume analysis + cos(2√πϕ) . √π We are interested in computing the static susceptibility For 4πm > g/(√πc), at θ = π there exist the degenerate in the Schwinger model, ground states for ϕ satisfying, χ(m) := lim lim χ(k, ω, m), (C1) ω→0 k→0 cmg g2 sin(2√πϕ) = (2√πϕ + π). (A13) √π 4π2 where χ(k, ω; m) is the retarded Green’s function of electric fields. In 1+1 dimensional systems, the electric field Given the two solutions ϕ = ( π )/(2√π) with some can be regarded as a topological charge density E = F01. value , we find the associated− total± E electric fields In the thermodynamic limit the Green’s function is E expected to diverge at the quantum critical point. It is, however, not divergent in finite volume with the system E = g E , (A14) ± 2π size N. Hence, we attempt to identify the critical points, specified by the fermion mass m∗, by fitting the regular- respectively. For m g, approaches π and thus the to- E ized Green’s functionχ ˜(m; N). tal electric field E approximately takes the values g/2. ∗ ± Around the critical point ∆m := m m 0, the susceptibility behaves as [79], − ∼

Appendix B: Spin Hamiltonian of the Schwinger χ(m) A ∆m −γ . (C2) model ≈ | | In a finite system of size L = Na, the susceptibility is We show the spin Hamiltonin used for the numerical χ˜(m; N) N γ/ν Q(N/ξ), (C3) simulation presented in the main text and for the purpose ≈ 7 with the scaling function Q and the correlation length ξ The criticality of lattice Schwinger model belongs to given by the same universality class as 1+1D transverse Ising model, which in turn equivalent to 2D classical Ising −ν ξ(m) ξ0 ∆m . (C4) model. Hence the critical exponents are, ≈ | | The ansatz (C3) is satisfied in the limit N by re- → ∞ 7 1 quiring γ = , η = , ν = 1. (C8) 4 4 −γ/ν Q(x) A(ξ0x) x . (C5) ≈ → ∞ Note the scaling relation can be read off from the relation Finally, the relation (C3) in a finite system becomes N- between the susceptibility and correlation length (Sec.4 independent if we use the following rescaled quantities: in [80]), N 1/ν ∆m = N∆m, N −γ/ν χ˜ = N −7/4χ.˜ (C9) χ ξ2−η. (C6) ∼ Combined with (C2) and (C4) we find the scaling relation Indeed, the data points with different lattice size N approximately collapse as shown in Fig.3. The susceptibil- γ = ν(2 η). (C7) − ityχ ˜ corresponds to χCS in the main text.

[1] J. S. Schwinger, “Gauge Invariance and Mass,” Phys. Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quantum Field Rev. 125 (1962) 397–398. [,151(1962)]. Theories,” arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]. [Quant. Inf. [2] L. Brown, “Gauge invariance and mass in a Comput.14,1014(2014)]. two-dimensional model,” Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) [13] E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Simulating 29 no. 3, (1963) 617–643. Compact Quantum Electrodynamics with ultracold [3] C. M. Sommerfield, “On the definition of currents and atoms: Probing confinement and nonperturbative the action principle in field theories of one spatial effects,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 125302, dimension,” Annals of Physics 26 no. 1, (1964) 1–43. arXiv:1204.6574 [quant-ph]. [4] B. Zumino, “Charge conservation and the mass of the [14] E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Cold-Atom photon,” Phys. Lett. 10 no. CERN-TH-425, (1964) Quantum Simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills Lattice 224–226. Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 12, (2013) [5] C. Hagen, “Current definition and mass renormalization 125304, arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]. in a model field theory,” Il Nuovo Cimento A [15] D. Banerjee, M. Bögli,M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, (1965-1970) 51 no. 4, (1967) 1033–1052. P. Stebler, U. J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic [6] J. Lowenstein and J. Swieca, “Quantum Quantum Simulation of U(N) and SU(N) Non-Abelian electrodynamics in two dimensions,” Annals of Physics Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 12, 68 no. 1, (1971) 172–195. (2013) 125303, arXiv:1211.2242 [7] A. Casher, J. Kogut, and L. Susskind, “Vacuum [cond-mat.quant-gas]. polarization and the absence of free quarks,” Physical [16] D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. Muller, E. Rico, Review D 10 no. 2, (1974) 732. P. Stebler, U. J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic [8] S. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind, “Charge Quantum Simulation of Dynamical Gauge Fields shielding and quark confinement in the massive coupled to Fermionic Matter: From String Breaking to schwinger model,” Annals of Physics 93 no. 1-2, (1975) Evolution after a Quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 267–275. 175302, arXiv:1205.6366 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. [9] A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. S. [17] U.-J. Wiese, “Ultracold Quantum Gases and Lattice Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Systems: Quantum Simulation of Lattice Gauge Schoelkopf, “Strong coupling of a single photon to a Theories,” Annalen Phys. 525 (2013) 777–796, superconducting qubit using circuit quantum arXiv:1305.1602 [quant-ph]. electrodynamics,” Nature 431 no. 7005, (2004) 162–167. [18] U.-J. Wiese, “Towards Quantum Simulating QCD,” [10] J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Koch, B. R. Nucl. Phys. A931 (2014) 246–256, arXiv:1409.7414 Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, [hep-th]. A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, [19] S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Coupling Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories,” superconducting qubits via a cavity bus,” Nature 449 arXiv:1404.7115 [hep-th]. no. 7161, (2007) 443–447. [20] L. Garc´ıa-Alvarez,´ J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, I. L. [11] S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum Egusquiza, L. Lamata, G. Romero, and E. Solano, Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories,” Science 336 “Fermion-Fermion Scattering in Quantum Field Theory (2012) 1130–1133, arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]. with Superconducting Circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 [12] S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum no. 7, (2015) 070502, arXiv:1404.2868 [quant-ph]. 8

[21] D. Marcos, P. Widmer, E. Rico, M. Hafezi, P. Rabl, [36] H.-H. Lu et al., “Simulations of Subatomic Many-Body U. J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Two-dimensional Lattice Physics on a Quantum Frequency Processor,” Phys. Gauge Theories with Superconducting Quantum Rev. A100 no. 1, (2019) 012320, arXiv:1810.03959 Circuits,” Annals Phys. 351 (2014) 634–654, [quant-ph]. arXiv:1407.6066 [quant-ph]. [37] N. Klco and M. J. Savage, “Minimally-Entangled State [22] A. Bazavov, Y. Meurice, S.-W. Tsai, J. Unmuth-Yockey, Preparation of Localized Wavefunctions on Quantum and J. Zhang, “Gauge-invariant implementation of the Computers,” arXiv:1904.10440 [quant-ph]. Abelian Higgs model on optical lattices,” Phys. Rev. [38] H. Lamm and S. Lawrence, “Simulation of D92 no. 7, (2015) 076003, arXiv:1503.08354 Nonequilibrium Dynamics on a Quantum Computer,” [hep-lat]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 17, (2018) 170501, [23] E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, “Quantum arXiv:1806.06649 [quant-ph]. Simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultracold [39] E. Gustafson, Y. Meurice, and J. Unmuth-Yockey, Atoms in Optical Lattices,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 no. 1, “Quantum simulation of scattering in the quantum (2016) 014401, arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]. Ising model,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 9, (2019) 094503, [24] A. Mezzacapo, E. Rico, C. Sab´ın,I. L. Egusquiza, arXiv:1901.05944 [hep-lat]. L. Lamata, and E. Solano, “Non-Abelian SU(2) Lattice [40] N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, “SU(2) Gauge Theories in Superconducting Circuits,” Phys. non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on Rev. Lett. 115 no. 24, (2015) 240502, digital quantum computers,” arXiv:1908.06935 arXiv:1505.04720 [quant-ph]. [quant-ph]. [25] M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, “Lattice gauge theory [41] NuQS Collaboration, A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, simulations in the quantum information era,” Contemp. H. Lamm, and S. Lawrence, “σ Models on Quantum Phys. 57 no. 3, (2016) 388–412, arXiv:1602.03776 Computers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 9, (2019) 090501, [cond-mat.quant-gas]. arXiv:1903.06577 [hep-lat]. [26] E. Zohar, A. Farace, B. Reznik, and J. I. Cirac, “Digital [42] NuQS Collaboration, A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. A95 no. 2, (2017) S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and N. C. 023604, arXiv:1607.08121 [quant-ph]. Warrington, “Gluon Field Digitization for Quantum [27] E. A. Martinez et al., “Real-time dynamics of lattice Computers,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 11, (2019) 114501, gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” arXiv:1906.11213 [hep-lat]. Nature 534 (2016) 516–519, arXiv:1605.04570 [43] N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, “Deeply [quant-ph]. inelastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid [28] A. Bermudez, G. Aarts, and M. Müller,“Quantum quantum computer,” arXiv:1908.07051 [hep-th]. sensors for the generating functional of interacting [44] NuQS Collaboration, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and quantum field theories,” Phys. Rev. X7 no. 4, (2017) Y. Yamauchi, “Parton Physics on a Quantum 041012, arXiv:1704.02877 [quant-ph]. Computer,” arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat]. [29] J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, “Building [45] G. Magnifico, M. Dalmonte, P. Facchi, S. Pascazio, logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing F. V. Pepe, and E. Ercolessi, “Real Time Dynamics and system,” npj Quantum Information 3 no. 1, (2017) 2. Confinement in the Zn Schwinger-Weyl lattice model [30] L. Krinner, M. Stewart, A. Pazmiño,J. Kwon, and for 1+1 QED,” arXiv:1909.04821 [quant-ph]. D. Schneble, “Spontaneous emission of matter waves [46] B. Chakraborty, M. Honda, T. Izubuchi, Y. Kikuchi, from a tunable open quantum system,” Nature 559 and A. Tomiya, “Digital Quantum Simulation of the no. 7715, (2018) 589–592. Schwinger Model with Topological Term via Adiabatic [31] A. Macridin, P. Spentzouris, J. Amundson, and State Preparation,” arXiv:2001.00485 [hep-lat]. R. Harnik, “Electron-Phonon Systems on a Universal [47] D. E. Kharzeev and Y. Kikuchi, “Real-time chiral Quantum Computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no. 11, dynamics from a digital quantum simulation,” Phys. (2018) 110504, arXiv:1802.07347 [quant-ph]. Rev. Res. 2 no. 2, (2020) 023342, arXiv:2001.00698 [32] T. V. Zache, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. [hep-ph]. Oberthaler, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, “Quantum [48] A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, simulation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson “Quantum Algorithms for Simulating the Lattice fermions,” Sci. Technol. 3 (2018) 034010, Schwinger Model,” arXiv:2002.11146 [quant-ph]. arXiv:1802.06704 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. [49] B. S¸ahino˘gluand R. D. Somma, “Hamiltonian [33] J. Zhang, J. Unmuth-Yockey, J. Zeiher, A. Bazavov, simulation in the low energy subspace,” S. W. Tsai, and Y. Meurice, “Quantum simulation of arXiv:2006.02660 [quant-ph]. the universal features of the Polyakov loop,” Phys. Rev. [50] D. Paulson et al., “Towards simulating 2D effects in Lett. 121 no. 22, (2018) 223201, arXiv:1803.11166 lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer,” [hep-lat]. arXiv:2008.09252 [quant-ph]. [34] N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. [51] S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, “Toward Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, scalable simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories on and M. J. Savage, “Quantum-classical computation of quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 9, (2020) Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,” 094501, arXiv:2005.10271 [quant-ph]. Phys. Rev. A98 no. 3, (2018) 032331, [52] NuQS Collaboration, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu, arXiv:1803.03326 [quant-ph]. “Gluon Field Digitization via Group Space Decimation [35] N. Klco and M. J. Savage, “Digitization of scalar fields for Quantum Computers,” arXiv:2005.14221 for quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A99 no. 5, (2019) [hep-lat]. 052335, arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]. [53] I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, “Loop, string, and 9

hadron dynamics in SU(2) Hamiltonian lattice gauge [66] J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Hamiltonian Formulation theories,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 11, (2020) 114502, of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D11 arXiv:1912.06133 [hep-lat]. (1975) 395–408. [54] Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, “Search for [67] L. Susskind, “Lattice Fermions,” Phys. Rev. D16 Efficient Formulations for Hamiltonian Simulation of (1977) 3031–3039. non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories,” [68] P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, “QuSpin: a Python arXiv:2009.11802 [hep-lat]. Package for Dynamics and Exact Diagonalisation of [55] R. Dasgupta and I. Raychowdhury, “Cold Atom Quantum Many Body Systems part I: spin chains,” Quantum Simulator for String and Hadron Dynamics in SciPost Phys. 2 (2017) 003. Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory,” [69] P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, “QuSpin: a Python arXiv:2009.13969 [hep-lat]. package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of [56] G. Magnifico, D. Vodola, E. Ercolessi, S. P. Kumar, quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions M. Müller,and A. Bermudez, “Symmetry-protected and higher spins,” SciPost Phys. 7 no. arXiv: topological phases in lattice gauge theories: Topological 1804.06782, (2019) 020. QED2,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 1, (Jan., 2019) 014503, [70] M. Halasz, A. Jackson, R. Shrock, M. A. Stephanov, arXiv:1804.10568 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. and J. Verbaarschot, “Phase diagram of qcd,” Physical [57] D. Kharzeev, “Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can Review D 58 no. 9, (1998) 096007. happen, and how to look for it,” Phys. Lett. B633 [71] D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, (2006) 260–264, arXiv:hep-ph/0406125 [hep-ph]. “The effects of topological charge change in heavy ion [58] K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, collisions:“event by event p and cp violation”,” Nuclear “Chiral magnetic effect,” Physical Review D 78 no. 7, Physics A 803 no. 3-4, (2008) 227–253. (2008) 074033. [72] D. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. Voloshin, and G. Wang, [59] S. Coleman, “More about the massive schwinger “Chiral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy model,” Annals of Physics 101 no. 1, (1976) 239–267. nuclear collisions—a status report,” Progress in Particle [60] A. Schiller and J. Ranft, “The massive schwinger model and Nuclear Physics 88 (2016) 1–28. on the lattice studied via a local hamiltonian monte [73] P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, “Theory of carlo method,” Nuclear Physics B 225 no. 2, (1983) dynamic critical phenomena,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 49 (Jul, 204–220. 1977) 435–479. [61] C. Hamer, J. Kogut, D. Crewther, and M. Mazzolini, [74] K. Kawasaki, “Kinetics of ising models,” Phase “The massive schwinger model on a lattice: Background Transitions and Critical Phenomena 2 (1972) 443–501. field, chiral symmetry and the string tension,” Nuclear [75] M. Dawber, K. Rabe, and J. Scott, “Physics of thin-film Physics B 208 no. 3, (1982) 413–438. ferroelectric oxides,” Reviews of modern physics 77 [62] T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. Bursill, and C. Hamer, no. 4, (2005) 1083. “Density matrix renormalization group approach to the [76] D. Tong, “Gauge theory,” 2018. massive schwinger model,” Physical Review D 66 no. 1, [77] P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, “About the Pauli exclusion (2002) 013002. principle,” Z. Phys. 47 (1928) 631–651. [63] K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, “The condensed matter [78] J. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Hamiltonian formulation of physics of qcd,” in At The Frontier of Particle Physics: wilson’s lattice gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (Jan, Handbook of QCD (In 3 Volumes), pp. 2061–2151. 1975) 395–408. https: World Scientific, 2001. //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.11.395. [64] M. A. Stephanov, “QCD phase diagram and the critical [79] C. Hamer and M. Barber, “Finite Lattice Methods in point,” Prog. Theor. Phys., Suppl. 153 Quantum Hamiltonian Field Theory. 1. The Ising no. hep-ph/0402115, (2004) 139–156. Model,” J. Phys. A 14 (1981) 241–257. [65] S. Rowley, L. Spalek, R. Smith, M. Dean, M. Itoh, [80] S. Sachdev, “Quantum phase transitions,” Handbook of J. Scott, G. Lonzarich, and S. Saxena, “Ferroelectric Magnetism and Advanced Magnetic Materials (2007) . quantum criticality,” Nature Physics 10 no. 5, (2014) 367–372.