REVIEW 1 cited by
Complexity of Holographic Superconductors
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We study the complexity of holographic superconductors (Einstein-Maxwell-complex scalar actions in $d+1$ dimension) by the `complexity = volume' (CV) conjecture. First, it seems that there is a universal property: the superconducting phase always has a smaller complexity than the unstable normal phase below the critical temperature, which is similar to a free energy. We investigate the temperature dependence of the complexity. In the low temperature limit, the complexity (of formation) scales as $T^\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is a function of the complex scalar mass $m^2$, the $U(1)$ charge $q$, and dimension $d$. In particular, for $m^2=0$, we find $\alpha=d-1$, independent of $q$, which can be explained by the near horizon geometry of the low temperature holographic superconductor. Next, we develop a general numerical method to compute the time-dependent complexity by the CV conjecture. By this method, we compute the time-dependent complexity of holographic superconductors. In both normal and superconducting phase, the complexity increases as time goes on and the growth rate saturates to a temperature dependent constant. The higher the temperature is, the bigger the growth rate is. However, the growth rates do not violate the Lloyd's bound in all cases and saturate the Lloyd's bound in the high temperature limit at a late time.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Time dependence of complexity for Lovelock black holes
For Lovelock black holes, the Complexity=Action growth rate at late times is a coupling-independent multiple of the mass, and the Schwarzschild limit is recovered only up to a constant under the authors' boundary-term...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.