- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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
  • Open Access

Entanglement suppression, quantum statistics, and symmetries in spin-3/2 baryon scatterings

Tao-Ran Hu1,*, Katsuyoshi Sone2,†, Feng-Kun Guo1,3,‡, Tetsuo Hyodo2,§,∥, and Ian Low4,5,¶

  • *Contact author: hutaoran21@mails.ucas.ac.cn
  • †Contact author: sone-katsuyoshi@ed.tmu.ac.jp
  • ‡Contact author: fkguo@itp.ac.cn
  • §Contact author: hyodo@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp
  • ∥Present address: Research Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP), Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan.
  • Contact author: ilow@northwestern.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043306 – Published 16 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/x52w-4rbs

Abstract

We explore the interplay among entanglement suppression, quantum statistics, and enhanced symmetries in the nonrelativistic S-wave scattering involving the lowest-lying spin-3/2 baryons, which can be considered as four-dimensional qudits. These baryons form a ten-dimensional representation (decuplet) under the SU(3) light-flavor symmetry and, in this limit, are considered indistinguishable under strong interactions. Treating the S matrix in the spin-3/2 baryon-baryon scattering as a quantum logic gate in the spin space, we study the consequence of entanglement suppression and compute the entanglement power of the S matrix. When the entanglement power vanishes, the S matrix is either an Identity or a SWAP gate and spin-flavor symmetries and/or nonrelativistic conformal invariance emerge, as previously observed in spin-1/2 baryons. In the case of scattering identical particles, the entanglement power never vanishes due to constraints from spin statistics, which we interpret as projection-valued measurements onto symmetric or antisymmetric Hilbert space and define the entanglement power accordingly. When the entanglement power is nonvanishing but sits at a global or local minimum, enhanced symmetries still emerge and the S matrix can be interpreted as an Identity or a SWAP gate acting on the restricted Hilbert space allowed by quantum statistics. In general, when scattering identical spin-s particles, we identify an enhanced SU(2s+1)spin symmetry for the Identity gate.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (69)

  1. The deuteron is a S13 bound state with a binding energy of 2.2 MeV, while the S01 nn pair has a virtual state about 66 keV below threshold (see, e.g., Ref.  [2]). Were the attraction in the latter pair a little bit stronger, a bound state would also be formed. As a consequence of the existence of the shallow bound or virtual state, both channels have unnaturally large scattering lengths.
  2. R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, An accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge independence breaking, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995).
  3. D. B. Kaplan and M. J. Savage, The spin flavor dependence of nuclear forces from large-n QCD, Phys. Lett. B 365, 244 (1996).
  4. S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement suppression and emergent symmetries of strong interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 102001 (2019).
  5. A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, Maximal entanglement in high energy physics, SciPost Phys. 3, 036 (2017).
  6. Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Entanglement and quantum tomography with top quarks at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 907 (2021).
  7. R. Aoude, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, C. S. Machado, and M.-K. Tam, Silence of binary Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 181602 (2020).
  8. R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, Probing new physics through entanglement in diboson production, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2023) 017.
  9. K. Sakurai and M. Spannowsky, Three-body entanglement in particle decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 151602 (2024).
  10. A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139, 104134 (2024).
  11. R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen, and O. Sumensari, Positivity in amplitudes from quantum entanglement, arXiv:2402.16956.
  12. I. Low and Z. Yin, An area law for entanglement entropy in particle scattering, arXiv:2405.08056.
  13. I. Low and Z. Yin, Elastic cross section is entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065027 (2025).
  14. M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Entanglement saturation in quantum electrodynamics scattering processes, arXiv:2505.06878.
  15. I. Low and T. Mehen, Symmetry from entanglement suppression, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074014 (2021).
  16. Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025204 (2023).
  17. M. Carena, I. Low, C. E. M. Wagner, and M.-L. Xiao, Entanglement suppression, enhanced symmetry, and a standard-model-like Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. D 109, L051901 (2024).
  18. Q. Liu and I. Low, Hints of entanglement suppression in hyperon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138899 (2024).
  19. T.-R. Hu, S. Chen, and F.-K. Guo, Entanglement suppression and low-energy scattering of heavy mesons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014001 (2024).
  20. K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, Entanglement in flavored scalar scattering, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2024) 156.
  21. S. Chang and G. Jacobo, Consequences of minimal entanglement in bosonic field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 096020 (2024).
  22. N. McGinnis, Symmetry, entanglement, and the S-matrix, arXiv:2504.21079.
  23. M. Carena, G. Coloretti, W. Liu, M. Littmann, I. Low, and C. E. M. Wagner, Entanglement maximization and mirror symmetry in two-Higgs-doublet models, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2025) 016.
  24. J. Thaler and S. Trifinopoulos, Flavor patterns of fundamental particles from quantum entanglement? Phys. Rev. D 111, 056021 (2025).
  25. J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 112, 015028 (2025).
  26. E. Wigner, On the consequences of the symmetry of the nuclear Hamiltonian on the spectroscopy of nuclei, Phys. Rev. 51, 106 (1937).
  27. E. Wigner, On the structure of nuclei beyond oxygen, Phys. Rev. 51, 947 (1937).
  28. E. P. Wigner, On coupling conditions in light nuclei and the lifetimes of beta-radioactivities, Phys. Rev. 56, 519 (1939).
  29. M. L. Wagman, F. Winter, E. Chang, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, M. J. Savage, and P. E. Shanahan, Baryon-Baryon interactions and spin-flavor symmetry from lattice quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114510 (2017).
  30. M. C. Birse, J. A. McGovern, and K. G. Richardson, A renormalization group treatment of two-body scattering, Phys. Lett. B 464, 169 (1999).
  31. T. Mehen, I. W. Stewart, and M. B. Wise, Conformal invariance for nonrelativistic field theory, Phys. Lett. B 474, 145 (2000).
  32. G. Busoni, J. Gargalionis, E. N. V. Wallace, and M. J. White, Emergent symmetry in a two-Higgs-doublet model from quantum information and nonstabilizerness, Phys. Rev. D 112, 035022 (2025).
  33. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  34. C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum complexity fluctuations from nuclear and hypernuclear forces, Phys. Rev. C 112, 044004 (2025).
  35. C. D. White and M. J. White, Magic states of top quarks, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116016 (2024).
  36. I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum magic and computational complexity in the neutrino sector, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023228 (2025).
  37. Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Maximal magic for two-qubit states, arXiv:2502.17550.
  38. Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, Quantum magic in quantum electrodynamics, arXiv:2503.03098.
  39. J. Gargalionis, N. Moynihan, S. Trifinopoulos, E. N. V. Wallace, C. D. White, and M. J. White, Spin versus magic: Lessons from gluon and graviton scattering, arXiv:2508.14967.
  40. Q. Liu, I. Low, and Z. Yin, A quantum computational determination of the weak mixing angle in the standard model, arXiv:2509.18251.
  41. For brevity, we would just refer to spin-3/2 baryons as “qudits” henceforth.
  42. S. R. Beane, R. C. Farrell, and M. Varma, Entanglement minimization in hadronic scattering with pions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150205 (2021).
  43. T. Kirchner, W. Elkamhawy, and H.-W. Hammer, Entanglement in few-nucleon scattering events, Few-Body Syst. 65, 29 (2024).
  44. The same considerations apply to the scattering of identical bosons in the two-Higgs-doublet model [21].
  45. F. Dyson and N. H. Xuong, Y = 2 States in su(6) theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 815 (1964).
  46. M. Bashkanov et al., Double-Pionic fusion of nuclear systems and the ABC effect: Aproaching a puzzle by exclusive and kinematically complete measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 052301 (2009).
  47. P. Adlarson et al. (WASA-at-COSY), ABC effect in basic double-pionic fusion—observation of a new resonance? Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 242302 (2011).
  48. P. Adlarson et al. (WASA-at-COSY), Evidence for a new resonance from polarized neutron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 202301 (2014).
  49. There is also a nonresonant explanation for the experimental signal [50].
  50. R. Molina, N. Ikeno, and E. Oset, Sequential single pion production explaining the dibaryon “d*(2380)” peak, Chin. Phys. C 47, 041001 (2023).
  51. S. Gongyo et al., Most strange dibaryon from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 212001 (2018).
  52. T. R. Richardson, M. R. Schindler, and R. P. Springer, The role of intermediate ΔΔ states in nucleon–nucleon scattering in the large-Nc and unitary limits, and ΔΔ and ΩΩ scattering, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 52, 085101 (2025).
  53. In principle, the octet-octet and octet-decuplet channels with lower thresholds can also couple to the decuplet-decuplet systems with the same quantum numbers. In the near-threshold region of the decuplet pair, such channels do not produce any sharp energy dependence, and thus effectively give an optical potential to the decuplet-decuplet interaction, manifesting as an imaginary part of the contact terms. For simplicity, we disregard the complexities associated with this imaginary component.
  54. P. Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 63, 040304 (2001).
  55. I. Bengtsson, J. Braennlund, and K. Zyczkowski, CPn, or, entanglement illustrated, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17, 4675 (2002).
  56. I. Bengtsson and K. Życzkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017).
  57. At the unitarity limit, pcotδ=0, where p is the magnitude of the center-of-mass momentum and δ is the phase shift, so that the inverse of the scattering amplitude is given only the unitarity term, and correspondingly δ=π/2.
  58. E. Alfsen and F. Shultz, Unique decompositions, faces, and automorphisms of separable states, J. Math. Phys. 51, 052201 (2010).
  59. N. Johnston, Characterizing operations preserving separability measures via linear preserver problems, Lin. Multilin. Alg. 59, 1171 (2011).
  60. S. Friedland, C.-K. Li, Y.-T. Poon, and N.-S. Sze, The automorphism group of separable states in quantum information theory, J. Math. Phys. 52, 042203 (2011).
  61. H. A. Bethe, Theory of the effective range in nuclear scattering, Phys. Rev. 76, 38 (1949).
  62. D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucleon-nucleon scattering from effective field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 478, 629 (1996).
  63. H.-W. Hammer, S. König, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: Status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 025004 (2020).
  64. J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Scattering of decuplet baryons in chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 760 (2017).
  65. M. Illa et al. (NPLQCD), Low-energy scattering and effective interactions of two baryons at mπ∼450 mev from lattice quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054508 (2021).
  66. As mentioned in Sec.  4a, such a basis consists of symmetric and antisymmetric base vectors.
  67. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012).
  68. The denominator in Eq.  (109) is different from that used in Ref.  [43] to compute the entanglement power in the spin-1 dd scattering, where the corresponding denominator is (∫dωAdωB〈ψin|PS|ψin〉)2. We thank Hans-Werner Hammer for clarifications on this point.
  69. Recall that when adding two identical half-integral angular momenta, the even total angular momentum is antisymmetric under the exchange of two particles. On the other hand, when adding two identical integral angular momenta, the symmetric states also have even total angular momentum!

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043306– Published 16 December, 2025
  • Received 16 June 2025
  • Accepted 14 November 2025
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