Quantum mechanical and information theoretic view on classical glass transitions

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 81, Issue 18, 2010, Pages

  Castelnovo, Claudio ^a   Chamon, Claudio ^b   Sherrington, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Boston University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955460497     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.184303     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. P. W. Anderson, Science 177, 393 (1972). 10.1126/science.177.4047.393
2. G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1754 (1979) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1754
3. G. Parisi, J. Phys. A 13, L115 (1980). 10.1088/0305-4470/13/4/009
4. As a nonexhaustive sample of the literature on the subject, see B. U. Felderhof, Rep. Math. Phys. 1, 215 (1971)
5. B. U. Felderhof, Rep. Math. Phys. 2, 151 (1971) 10.1016/0034-4877(71) 90027-9
6. B. U. Felderhof and M. Suzuki, Physica 56, 43 (1971) 10.1016/0031- 8914(71)90004-8
7. Th. W. Ruijgrok and J. A. Tjon, Physica 65, 539 (1973) 10.1016/0031-8914(73)90065-7
8. K. Kawasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 51, 1064 (1974) 10.1143/PTP.51.1064
9. H. Tomita, A. Itō, and H. Kidachi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 56, 786 (1976) 10.1143/PTP.56.786
10. M. Doi, J. Phys. A 9, 1465 (1976) 10.1088/0305-4470/9/9/008
11. R. Mélin, J. Phys. I 6, 469 (1996 10.1051/jp1:1996225
12. R. Stinchcombe, Adv. Phys. 50, 431 (2001). 10.1080/00018730110099650
13. C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, C. Mudry, and P. Pujol, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 318, 316 (2005). 10.1016/j.aop.2005.01.006
14. J. Kurchan, in Long-Range Interacting Systems, Lecture Notes of the Les Houches Summer School, Vol. 90, August 2008, edited by, T. Dauxois,,, S. Ruffo,, and, L. F. Cugliandolo, (OUP, Oxford, 2010), Part, Chap., p. 67.
15. R. L. Jack, J. P. Garrahan, and D. Chandler, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 184509 (2006) 10.1063/1.2374885
16. C. Giardinà, J. Kurchan, and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 120603 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.120603
17. J. P. Garrahan, R. L. Jack, V. Lecomte, E. Pitard, K. van Duijvendijk, and F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 195702 (2007) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98. 195702
18. J. P. Garrahan, R. L. Jack, V. Lecomte, E. Pitard, K. van Duijvendijk, and F. van Wijland, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 075007 (2009) 10.1088/1751-8113/42/7/075007
19. R. L. Jack and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. E 81, 011111 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.011111
20. R. L. Jack and P. Sollich, Prog Theor. Phys. Suppl. (to be published).
21. Y. S. Elmatad, R. L. Jack, D. Chandler, and J. P. Garrahan, arXiv:1003.3161v1, PNAS (to be published).
22. S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5, 965 (1975) 10.1088/0305-4608/5/5/017
23. S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 6, 1927 (1976). 10.1088/0305-4608/6/10/022
24. P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006) 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.031123
25. W.-L. You, Y.-W. Li, and S.-J. Gu, Phys. Rev. E 76, 022101 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.022101
26. P. Zanardi, M. Cozzini, and P. Giorda, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2007) L02002 10.1088/1742-5468/2007/02/L02002
27. M. Cozzini, P. Giorda, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. B 75, 014439 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.014439
28. For a review, see L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008) 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517
29. C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 77, 054433 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.054433
30. D. F. Abasto, A. Hamma, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 78, 010301 (R) (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.010301
31. C. Castelnovo, S. Trebst, and M. Troyer, in Understanding Quantum Phase Transitions, edited by, L. D. Carr, (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Cleveland/London, 2010), Chap..
32. K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986) 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.801
33. C. A. Angell, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 6675 (1995) 10.1073/pnas.92.15.6675
34. V. Lubchenko and P. G. Wolynes, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 58, 235 (2007). 10.1146/annurev.physchem.58.032806.104653
35. A. Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 303, 2 (2003). 10.1016/S0003-4916(02) 00018-0
36. S. A. Kivelson, D. S. Rokhsar, and J. P. Sethna, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8865 (1987) 10.1103/PhysRevB.35.8865
37. C. L. Henley, J. Stat. Phys. 89, 483 (1997)
38. E. Ardonne, P. Fendley, and E. Fradkin, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 310, 493 (2004) 10.1016/j.aop.2004.01.004
39. C. L. Henley, J. Phys. C 16, S891 (2004)
40. C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, C. Mudry, and P. Pujol, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 322, 903 (2007) 10.1016/j.aop.2006.04.017
41. D. Poilblanc, F. Alet, F. Becca, A. Ralko, F. Trousselet, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 74, 014437 (2006) 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.014437
42. S. Papanikolaou, E. Luijten, and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 76, 134514 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.134514
43. B. Gaveau and L. S. Schulman, J. Math. Phys. 39, 1517 (1998). 10.1063/1.532394
44. G. Biroli and J. Kurchan, Phys. Rev. E 64, 016101 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016101
45. Our aim here is to define the limit t→ ∞ of the two-time autocorrelation function so as to obtain the Edwards-Anderson order parameter qEA in the limit τ→∞ (see the subsequent Sec. ). In the original definition of qEA [see Refs. and], one ought to take the average over many values of the waiting time t, thus effectively recovering time-translation invariance and only a dependence on τ survives. From a formal point of view, this is equivalent to allowing | P (t)〉 to reach its equilibrium distribution, Š |0. This in turn is equivalent to taking the limit t→〉 whilst holding the system size fixed, and then sending N→∞ before taking the limit τ→∞.
46. K. H. Fischer and J. A. Hertz, Spin Glasses, Series: Cambridge Studies in Magnetism No. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
47. C. L. Henley, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, S891 (2004). 10.1088/0953-8984/16/11/045
48. Notice that the converse is not necessarily true. Even if q EA = 0, a sufficient number of low-lying excited states can lead to a nonintegrable power-law behavior of C c quant (τ) [e.g., the so-called enhanced power law appearing at Griffiths singularities (Ref.)] and to a divergent χ loc (ω = 0) (see also Sec. B3).
49. Note that if the classical energy E C is local in the microscopic degrees of freedom labeling the configurations { C }, and if the dynamics are local (i.e., only a finite portion of the system can be rearranged by the same instantaneous thermal process), one can then guarantee that the associated quantum Hamiltonian is local in the basis { | C 〉 } (Ref.). Conversely, when the classical energy is nonlocal, one can readily find examples of nonlocal quantum Hamiltonians where the closing of a gap does not lead to a signature in the fidelity susceptibility. For instance, in the spherical p = 2 spin glass model the gap closes at the Thouless-Almeida-Palmer temperature T TAP, whereas one can prove that there are no singularities in the free energy of the classical system (and therefore no singularities in the heat capacity) down to a finitely lower dynamical transition temperature T D (Ref.).
50. A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022315 (2005) 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022315
51. A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Lett. A 337, 22 (2005). 10.1016/j.physleta.2005.01.060
52. M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110405 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110405
53. A. Y. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110404
54. M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 666 (1993). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.666
55. P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2004) P06002. 10.1088/1742-5468/2004/06/P06002
56. F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220601
57. C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 76, 174416 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.174416
58. J.-P. Bouchaud and G. Biroli, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 7347 (2004). 10.1063/1.1796231
59. A. Montanari and G. Semerjian, J. Stat. Phys. 125, 23 (2006). 10.1007/s10955-006-9175-y
60. G. Koutsoumbas and G. K. Savvidy, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 751 (2002). 10.1142/S0217732302006965
61. G. K. Savvidy and K. G. Savvidy, Phys. Lett. B 337, 333 (1994) 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90984-9
62. G. K. Savvidy and K. G. Savvidy, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11, 1379 (1996). 10.1142/S0217732396001399
63. G. K. Savvidy, K. G. Savvidy, and P. G. Savvidy, Phys. Lett. A 221, 233 (1996). 10.1016/0375-9601(96)00541-5
64. R. L. Jack, J. P. Garrahan, and D. Sherrington, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036112 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.036112
65. See Ch. 7 in Rugged Free-Energy Landscapes: An Introduction, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 736, edited by, W. Janke, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008) and references therein. 10.1007/978-3-540-74029-2-1
66. E. N. M. Cirillo, G. Gonnella, D. A. Johnston, and A. Pelizzola, Phys. Lett. A 226, 59 (1997) 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00918-8
67. D. Espriu, M. Baig, D. A. Johnston, and R. P. K. C. Malmini, J. Phys. A 30, 405 (1997). 10.1088/0305-4470/30/2/008
68. A. Lipowski, J. Phys. A 30, 7365 (1997) 10.1088/0305-4470/30/21/012
69. A. Lipowski and D. Johnston, Phys. Rev. E 61, 6375 (2000) 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.6375
70. A. Lipowski and D. Johnston, J. Phys. A 33, 4451 (2000) 10.1088/0305-4470/33/24/304
71. A. Lipowski, D. Johnston, and D. Espriu, Phys. Rev. E 62, 3404 (2000) 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.3404
72. M. R. Swift, H. Bokil, R. D. M. Travasso, and A. J. Bray, Phys. Rev. B 62, 11494 (2000) 10.1103/PhysRevB.62.11494
73. P. Dimopoulos, D. Espriu, E. Jané, and A. Prats, Phys. Rev. E 66, 056112 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.056112
74. T. Jonsson and G. K. Savvidy, Phys. Lett. B 449, 253 (1999) 10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00098-2
75. T. Jonsson and G. K. Savvidy, Nucl. Phys. B 575, 661 (2000) 10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00137-1
76. G. K. Savvidy, J. High Energy Phys. 2000, 044 (2000). 10.1088/1126-6708/2000/09/044
77. G. K. Savvidy, K. G. Savvidy, and F. J. Wegner, Nucl. Phys. B 443, 565 (1995) 10.1016/0550-3213(95)00151-H
78. G. K. Bathas, E. Floratos, G. K. Savvidy, and K. G. Savvidy, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 2695 (1995). 10.1142/S0217732395002829
79. It is interesting to notice an important difference between this constructive scheme of a gaugeable glass and other disordered glassy systems. So long as the degeneracy can be understood in terms of essentially decoupled subsystems undergoing an ordering transition, it is bound to scale at most as exp (L θ), with θ < d - 1, where d is the dimensionality of the system (if the interactions are short ranged). Indeed, an extensive degeneracy ∼ exp (L d) would require the existence of an ordering transition in subsystems composed of a finite number of degrees of freedom, which is not possible. The significance of this difference is underlined by the fact that several phenomenological approaches to understand dynamical glass transitions [for instance in terms of configurational entropy (Ref.)] rely on the extensivity of the glass degeneracy.
80. We note in passing that if one promotes the J z x i / J = ± 1 and J y z i / J = ± 1 to dynamical variables as opposed to quenched random variables, with the contraint J z x i J y z i + x J z x i + y J y z i = J 4 yet enforced, the discussion above remains largely unchanged. However, in this case one has notably an example of a thermodynamic phase transition into a massively degenerate liquidlike phase (i.e., with no local order) in a nondisordered system.
81. G. Savvidy, arXiv:cond-mat/0003220 (unpublished).
82. It is worth pointing out that, in this correspondence, a d -dimensional classical system endowed with a given Markov dynamics (i.e., with a specific "time dimension") maps onto a d -dimensional quantum system, encoding all the information from d spatial dimensions plus 1 (time).
83. For the sake of clarity, what we mean here by "local perturbation" is an energy term proportional to the sum of operators with finite support, which differ only by translations. For instance, ∑ i σ i or ∑ i σ i σ i + x σ i + y σ i + x + y. According to this definition, a random field does not qualify as a local perturbation.
84. D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1792 (1975). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1792
85. G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1946 (1983). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1946
86. H. Rieger and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B 54, 3328 (1996) 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.3328
87. M. Guo, R. N. Bhatt, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 54, 3336 (1996) 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.3336
88. C. Pich, A. P. Young, H. Rieger, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5916 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5916
89. H. Rieger and A. P. Young, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1997), Vol. 492, pp. 256-265.
90. A. Hamma, P. Zanardi, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 72, 035307 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.035307
91. C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 78, 155120 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.155120
92. R. Pietig and F. J. Wegner, Nucl. Phys. B 466, 513 (1996) 10.1016/0550-3213(96)00072-7
93. R. Pietig and F. J. Wegner, Nucl. Phys. B 525, 549 (1998). 10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00342-3
94. S. Garnerone, N. T. Jacobson, S. Haas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 057205 (2009); 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.057205
95. N. T. Jacobson, S. Garnerone, S. Haas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. B 79, 184427 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.184427