- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review E

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Exact pretransition effects in kinetically constrained circuits: Dynamical fluctuations in the Floquet-East model

Katja Klobas, Cecilia De Fazio, and Juan P. Garrahan

  • School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom and Centre for the Mathematics and Theoretical Physics of Quantum Non-Equilibrium Systems, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

PDF

Phys. Rev. E 110, L022101 – Published 1 August, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.110.L022101

Abstract

We study the dynamics of a classical circuit corresponding to a discrete-time version of the kinetically constrained East model. We show that this classical “Floquet-East” model displays pre-transition behavior which is a dynamical equivalent of the hydrophobic effect in water. For the deterministic version of the model, we prove exactly (i) a change in scaling with size in the probability of inactive space-time regions (akin to the “energy-entropy” crossover of the solvation free energy in water), (ii) a first-order phase transition in the dynamical large deviations, (iii) the existence of the optimal geometry for local phase separation to accommodate space-time solutes, and (iv) a dynamical analog of “hydrophobic collapse.”

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (112)

  1. H. B. Casimir, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. 51, 793 (1948).
  2. M. E. Fisher and P. G. Gennes, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 287, 207 (1978).
  3. C. Hertlein, L. Helden, A. Gambassi, S. Dietrich, and C. Bechinger, Nature (London) 451, 172 (2008).
  4. A. Gambassi, J. Phys. 161, 012037 (2009).
  5. R. Lipowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1575 (1982).
  6. R. Lipowsky, J. Appl. Phys. 55, 2485 (1984).
  7. K. Lum, D. Chandler, and J. D. Weeks, J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 4570 (1999).
  8. D. Chandler, Nature (London) 437, 640 (2005).
  9. S. Katira, K. K. Mandadapu, S. Vaikuntanathan, B. Smit, and D. Chandler, Elife 5, e13150 (2016).
  10. S. Katira, J. P. Garrahan, and K. K. Mandadapu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260602 (2018).
  11. G. H. Fredrickson and H. C. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1244 (1984).
  12. J. Jöckle and S. Eisinger, Z. Phys. B 84, 115 (1991).
  13. F. Ritort and P. Sollich, Adv. Phys. 52, 219 (2003).
  14. D. Chandler and J. P. Garrahan, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 61, 191 (2010).
  15. J. P. Garrahan, Physica A 504, 130 (2018).
  16. T. Speck, J. Stat. Mech. (2019) 084015.
  17. L. Berthier and G. Biroli, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 587 (2011).
  18. G. Biroli and J. P. Garrahan, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 12A301 (2013).
  19. J. P. Garrahan and D. Chandler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 035704 (2002).
  20. M. Merolle, J. P. Garrahan, and D. Chandler, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10837 (2005).
  21. J. P. Garrahan, R. L. Jack, V. Lecomte, E. Pitard, K. van Duijvendijk, and F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 195702 (2007).
  22. J. P. Garrahan, R. L. Jack, V. Lecomte, E. Pitard, K. van Duijvendijk, and F. van Wijland, J. Phys. A 42, 075007 (2009).
  23. V. Lecomte, C. Appert-Rolland, and F. van Wijland, J. Stat. Phys. 127, 51 (2007).
  24. H. Touchette, Phys. Rep. 478, 1 (2009).
  25. R. L. Jack, Eur. Phys. J. B 93, 74 (2020).
  26. M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1665 (2009).
  27. S. Wolfram, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 601 (1983).
  28. A. Bobenko, M. Bordemann, C. Gunn, and U. Pinkall, Commun. Math. Phys. 158, 127 (1993).
  29. B. Buča, K. Klobas, and T. Prosen, J. Stat. Mech. (2021) 074001.
  30. I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 025301 (2011).
  31. I. Lesanovsky and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 215305 (2013).
  32. V. D. Naik, F. B. Trigueros, and M. Heyl, arXiv:2311.16240.
  33. T. Zhang and Z. Cai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 206503 (2024).
  34. M. van Horssen, E. Levi, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. B 92, 100305(R) (2015).
  35. A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 266601 (2017).
  36. Z. Lan, M. van Horssen, S. Powell, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 040603 (2018).
  37. N. Pancotti, G. Giudice, J. I. Cirac, J. P. Garrahan, and M. C. Bañuls, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021051 (2020).
  38. S. Roy and A. Lazarides, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023159 (2020).
  39. R. J. Valencia-Tortora, N. Pancotti, and J. Marino, PRX Quantum 3, 020346 (2022).
  40. C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papić, Nat. Phys. 14, 745 (2018).
  41. S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 086501 (2022).
  42. R. M. Nandkishore and M. Hermele, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 295 (2019).
  43. M. Pretko, X. Chen, and Y. You, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2030003 (2020).
  44. C. D. Fazio, J. P. Garrahan, and K. Klobas, arXiv:2406.17464.
  45. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevE.110.L022101 for a graphical summary of the properties of the local gates, the additional details on the hydrophobic crossover, dynamical large deviations, hydrophobic collapse, and a characterization of an inhomogeneous quench.
  46. Tensor Network https://tensornetwork.org, Accessed: 21-12-2023.
  47. T. Prosen and C. Mejía-Monasterio, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 185003 (2016).
  48. A. Inoue and S. Takesue, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51, 425001 (2018).
  49. T. Prosen and B. Buča, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 395002 (2017).
  50. S. Gopalakrishnan, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060302(R) (2018).
  51. B. Buča, J. P. Garrahan, T. Prosen, and M. Vanicat, Phys. Rev. E 100, 020103(R) (2019).
  52. K. Klobas and T. Prosen, SciPost Phys. Core 2, 010 (2020).
  53. K. Klobas, M. Medenjak, T. Prosen, and M. Vanicat, Commun. Math. Phys. 371, 651 (2019).
  54. V. Alba, J. Dubail, and M. Medenjak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250603 (2019).
  55. K. Klobas, M. Vanicat, J. P. Garrahan, and T. Prosen, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 335001 (2020).
  56. J. W. P. Wilkinson, K. Klobas, T. Prosen, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062107 (2020).
  57. T. Iadecola and S. Vijay, Phys. Rev. B 102, 180302(R) (2020).
  58. S. Gopalakrishnan and B. Zakirov, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 044004 (2018).
  59. T. Gombor and B. Pozsgay, Phys. Rev. E 104, 054123 (2021).
  60. J. W. P. Wilkinson, T. Prosen, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. E 105, 034124 (2022).
  61. A. Deger, S. Roy, and A. Lazarides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160601 (2022).
  62. A. Deger, A. Lazarides, and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 190601 (2022).
  63. Note that the vector 〈P̃x| is not necessarily a valid probability vector since it does not need to be normalized.
  64. In the quantum setup, analogous objects—the left and right fixed points of the space transfer matrix—are referred to also as influence matrices [82]. These have recently been understood to provide convenient numerical [82, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109] and analytical tools [65, 69, 72, 80, 101, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112] to study quantum many-body dynamics.
  65. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210601 (2019).
  66. P. Kos, B. Bertini, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011022 (2021).
  67. P. Kos and G. Styliaris, Quantum 7, 1020 (2023).
  68. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 264101 (2018).
  69. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021033 (2019).
  70. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, SciPost Phys. 8, 067 (2020).
  71. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, SciPost Phys. 8, 068 (2020).
  72. L. Piroli, B. Bertini, J. I. Cirac, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. B 101, 094304 (2020).
  73. P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033032 (2020).
  74. P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 100603 (2021).
  75. B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Commun. Math. Phys. 387, 597 (2021).
  76. C. Jonay, V. Khemani, and M. Ippoliti, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043046 (2021).
  77. Y. Kasim and T. Prosen, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 025003 (2023).
  78. R. Suzuki, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Quantum 6, 631 (2022).
  79. A. Foligno and B. Bertini, Phys. Rev. B 107, 174311 (2023).
  80. A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041008 (2023).
  81. M. A. Rampp, R. Moessner, and P. W. Claeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 130402 (2023).
  82. A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021040 (2021).
  83. R. L. Jack, T. Nemoto, and V. Lecomte, J. Stat. Mech. (2020) 053204.
  84. C. Maes, Phys. Rep. 850, 1 (2020).
  85. Note that P□(l,t) scales with Pinact(l−12,t−12) due to the way that the sizes are defined in both cases: in the former the size corresponds to the number of unit cells (i.e., twice the number of sites), while in the latter the number of time/space steps. This subtlety arises because of the way that the constraints are applied—either to sites or gates. See [45] for an illustration.
  86. In the deterministic model, similar perimeter scaling is obtained for the free energies of space-time regions corresponding to allowed trajectories of the circuit. In contrast, only regions of 0s show this scaling in the stochastic case. See [45] for details.
  87. A. P. Willard and D. Chandler, J. Phys. Chem. B 112, 6187 (2008).
  88. H. F. Trotter, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959).
  89. M. Suzuki, J. Math. Phys. 32, 400 (1991).
  90. T. J. Osborne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 157202 (2006).
  91. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017).
  92. A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018).
  93. A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041019 (2018).
  94. C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018).
  95. S. Gopalakrishnan and A. Lamacraft, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064309 (2019).
  96. A. J. Friedman, A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210603 (2019).
  97. Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134306 (2019).
  98. B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019).
  99. T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyserlingk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250602 (2019).
  100. A. Zabalo, M. J. Gullans, J. H. Wilson, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and J. H. Pixley, Phys. Rev. B 101, 060301(R) (2020).
  101. K. Klobas, B. Bertini, and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 160602 (2021).
  102. K. Klobas and B. Bertini, SciPost Phys. 11, 106 (2021).
  103. K. Klobas and B. Bertini, SciPost Phys. 11, 107 (2021).
  104. B. Bertini, C. De Fazio, J. P. Garrahan, and K. Klobas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 120402 (2024).
  105. M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240603 (2009).
  106. A. Müller-Hermes, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, New J. Phys. 14, 075003 (2012).
  107. M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Ann. Phys. 435, 168677 (2021).
  108. A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. B 104, 035137 (2021).
  109. M. Frías-Pérez and M. C. Bañuls, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115117 (2022).
  110. G. Giudice, G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 220401 (2022).
  111. B. Bertini, K. Klobas, and T.-C. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 140503 (2022).
  112. B. Bertini, K. Klobas, V. Alba, G. Lagnese, and P. Calabrese, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031016 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 110, L022101– Published 1 August, 2024
  • Received 19 June 2023
  • Revised 21 December 2023
  • Accepted 2 July 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation