Abstract
In this note we investigate the role of Lloyd’s computational bound in holographic complexity. Our goal is to translate the assumptions behind Lloyd’s proof into the bulk language. In particular, we discuss the distinction between orthogonalizing and ‘simple’ gates and argue that these notions are useful for diagnosing holographic complexity. We show that large black holes constructed from series circuits necessarily employ simple gates, and thus do not satisfy Lloyd’s assumptions. We also estimate the degree of parallel processing required in this case for elementary gates to orthogonalize. Finally, we show that for small black holes at fixed chemical potential, the orthogonalization condition is satisfied near the phase transition, supporting a possible argument for the Weak Gravity Conjecture first advocated in [1].
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Holographic complexity equals bulk action?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 191301 [arXiv:1509.07876] [INSPIRE].
A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Complexity, action and black holes, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 086006 [arXiv:1512.04993] [INSPIRE].
D. Stanford and L. Susskind, Complexity and shock wave geometries, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 126007 [arXiv:1406.2678] [INSPIRE].
N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa, The string landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force, JHEP 06 (2007) 060 [hep-th/0601001] [INSPIRE].
A. de la Fuente, P. Saraswat and R. Sundrum, Natural inflation and quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 151303 [arXiv:1412.3457] [INSPIRE].
T. Rudelius, On the possibility of large axion moduli spaces, JCAP 04 (2015) 049 [arXiv:1409.5793] [INSPIRE].
T. Rudelius, Constraints on axion inflation from the weak gravity conjecture, JCAP 09 (2015) 020 [arXiv:1503.00795] [INSPIRE].
M. Montero, A.M. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, Transplanckian axions!?, JHEP 08 (2015) 032 [arXiv:1503.03886] [INSPIRE].
J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu and P. Soler, Fencing in the swampland: quantum gravity constraints on large field inflation, JHEP 10 (2015) 023 [arXiv:1503.04783] [INSPIRE].
T.C. Bachlechner, C. Long and L. McAllister, Planckian axions and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 01 (2016) 091 [arXiv:1503.07853] [INSPIRE].
A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, F. Rompineve and L.T. Witkowski, Winding out of the swamp: evading the weak gravity conjecture with F-term winding inflation?, Phys. Lett. B 748 (2015) 455 [arXiv:1503.07912] [INSPIRE].
J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu and P. Soler, On axionic field ranges, loopholes and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 04 (2016) 017 [arXiv:1504.00659] [INSPIRE].
D. Junghans, Large-field inflation with multiple axions and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 02 (2016) 128 [arXiv:1504.03566] [INSPIRE].
E. Palti, On natural inflation and moduli stabilisation in string theory, JHEP 10 (2015) 188 [arXiv:1508.00009] [INSPIRE].
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, Sharpening the weak gravity conjecture with dimensional reduction, JHEP 02 (2016) 140 [arXiv:1509.06374] [INSPIRE].
K. Kooner, S. Parameswaran and I. Zavala, Warping the weak gravity conjecture, Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 402 [arXiv:1509.07049] [INSPIRE].
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, Weak gravity strongly constrains large-field axion inflation, JHEP 12 (2015) 108 [arXiv:1506.03447] [INSPIRE].
L.E. Ibáñez, M. Montero, A. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, Relaxion monodromy and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 04 (2016) 020 [arXiv:1512.00025] [INSPIRE].
M. Montero, G. Shiu and P. Soler, The weak gravity conjecture in three dimensions, JHEP 10 (2016) 159 [arXiv:1606.08438] [INSPIRE].
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, Evidence for a sublattice weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 08 (2017) 025 [arXiv:1606.08437] [INSPIRE].
A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, S. Theisen and L.T. Witkowski, Can gravitational instantons really constrain axion inflation?, JHEP 02 (2017) 097 [arXiv:1607.06814] [INSPIRE].
P. Saraswat, Weak gravity conjecture and effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 025013 [arXiv:1608.06951] [INSPIRE].
A. Herraez and L.E. Ibáñez, An axion-induced SM/MSSM Higgs landscape and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 02 (2017) 109 [arXiv:1610.08836] [INSPIRE].
H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Non-supersymmetric AdS and the swampland, arXiv:1610.01533 [INSPIRE].
G. Shiu, P. Soler and W. Cottrell, Weak gravity conjecture and extremal black hole, arXiv:1611.06270 [INSPIRE].
A. Hebecker, P. Henkenjohann and L.T. Witkowski, What is the magnetic weak gravity conjecture for axions?, Fortsch. Phys. 65 (2017) 1700011 [arXiv:1701.06553] [INSPIRE].
E. Palti, The weak gravity conjecture and scalar fields, JHEP 08 (2017) 034 [arXiv:1705.04328] [INSPIRE].
A. Hebecker and P. Soler, The weak gravity conjecture and the axionic black hole paradox, JHEP 09 (2017) 036 [arXiv:1702.06130] [INSPIRE].
D. Klaewer and E. Palti, Super-Planckian spatial field variations and quantum gravity, JHEP 01 (2017) 088 [arXiv:1610.00010] [INSPIRE].
L.E. Ibáñez, V. Martin-Lozano and I. Valenzuela, Constraining the EW hierarchy from the weak gravity conjecture, arXiv:1707.05811 [INSPIRE].
Y. Hamada and G. Shiu, Weak gravity conjecture, multiple point principle and the Standard Model landscape, JHEP 11 (2017) 043 [arXiv:1707.06326] [INSPIRE].
M. Montero, A.M. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, A Chern-Simons pandemic, JHEP 07 (2017) 123 [arXiv:1702.06147] [INSPIRE].
M. Montero, Are tiny gauge couplings out of the swampland?, JHEP 10 (2017) 208 [arXiv:1708.02249] [INSPIRE].
L.E. Ibáñez and M. Montero, A note on the WGC, effective field theory and clockwork within string theory, arXiv:1709.02392 [INSPIRE].
D. Lüst and E. Palti, Scalar fields, hierarchical UV/IR mixing and the weak gravity conjecture, arXiv:1709.01790 [INSPIRE].
S. Lloyd, Ultimate physical limits to computation, Nature 406 (2000) 1047 [quant-ph/9908043].
L. Susskind, The typical-state paradox: diagnosing horizons with complexity, Fortsch. Phys. 64 (2016) 84 [arXiv:1507.02287] [INSPIRE].
J. Watrous, Quantum computational complexity, arXiv:0804.3401.
R.A. Jefferson and R.C. Myers, Circuit complexity in quantum field theory, JHEP 10 (2017) 107 [arXiv:1707.08570] [INSPIRE].
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition, 10th ed., Cambridge University Press, New York NY U.S.A., (2011).
S. Chapman, M.P. Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski, Towards complexity for quantum field theory states, arXiv:1707.08582 [INSPIRE].
L. Susskind, Entanglement is not enough, Fortsch. Phys. 64 (2016) 49 [arXiv:1411.0690] [INSPIRE].
P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Liouville action as path-integral complexity: from continuous tensor networks to AdS/CFT, JHEP 11 (2017) 097 [arXiv:1706.07056] [INSPIRE].
N. Margolus and L.B. Levitin, The maximum speed of dynamical evolution, Physica D 120 (1998) 188 [quant-ph/9710043] [INSPIRE].
S.P. Jordan, Fast quantum computation at arbitrarily low energy, Phys. Rev. A 95 (2017) 032305 [arXiv:1701.01175] [INSPIRE].
N.A. Sinitsyn, Computing with a single qubit faster than the quantum speed limit, arXiv:1701.05550.
M. Dugić and M.M. Ćirković, Quantum information processing: the case of vanishing interaction energy, Phys. Lett. A 302 (2002) 291 [quant-ph/0210186].
R.-G. Cai, S.-M. Ruan, S.-J. Wang, R.-Q. Yang and R.-H. Peng, Action growth for AdS black holes, JHEP 09 (2016) 161 [arXiv:1606.08307] [INSPIRE].
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C.V. Johnson and R.C. Myers, Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 064018 [hep-th/9902170] [INSPIRE].
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C.V. Johnson and R.C. Myers, Holography, thermodynamics and fluctuations of charged AdS black holes, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 104026 [hep-th/9904197] [INSPIRE].
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
ArXiv ePrint: 1710.01175
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Cottrell, W., Montero, M. Complexity is simple!. J. High Energ. Phys. 2018, 39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2018)039
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2018)039