The paper argues that ultraviolet divergences are topological boundary artifacts and that homotopy-equivalent regularizations give identical physics, but the key proof is incomplete and internally inconsistent.
Qubit Regularization of Quantum Field Theories
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
To study quantum field theories on a quantum computer, we must begin with Hamiltonians defined on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space and then take appropriate limits. This approach can be seen as a new type of regularization for quantum field theories, which we refer to as qubit regularization. A related finite-dimensional regularization, known as the D-theory approach, was proposed long ago as a general framework for all quantum field theories. In this framework, the dimensionality of the local Hilbert space at each spatial point can increase as needed through an additional flavor index. To reproduce asymptotically free QFTs, most studies assume that qubit-regularized theories require extending the local Hilbert space to infinity. However, contrary to this common belief, recent discoveries in (1+1) dimensions have revealed two examples where asymptotic freedom appears to emerge within a strictly finite-dimensional local Hilbert space through a novel renormalization group (RG) flow. These findings motivate further investigation into whether asymptotically free gauge theories could also emerge within a strictly finite-dimensional local Hilbert space. To support these explorations, we propose an orthonormal basis called the monomer-dimer-tensor-network (MDTN) basis and use it to construct new types of qubit-regularized lattice gauge theories.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
physics.gen-ph 1years
2025 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Topological Regularization
The paper argues that ultraviolet divergences are topological boundary artifacts and that homotopy-equivalent regularizations give identical physics, but the key proof is incomplete and internally inconsistent.