Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Resolution of Infrared Entanglement Divergences via the Extended Uncertainty Principle

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Extended Uncertainty Principle turns the infrared entanglement divergence into a finite, geometry-determined value.

desk verdict The single-oscillator EUP solution is solid and the variance-saturation idea is genuinely interesting, but the many-body proof only bounds a Gaussian surrogate, not the true EUP ground state, so the central claim remains conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29427 v1 pith:6JGXRCIF submitted 2026-07-31 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Subhra Mondal , S. Shankaranarayanan (IIT Bombay) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-thquant-ph PACS 03.65.-w03.67.Mn04.62.+v
keywords extendeduncertaintyprincipleinfrareddivergenceentanglemententropyzeromodesharmonicoscillatorchainmasslessscalarfieldmodulargapmaximum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the infrared divergence of entanglement entropy—the unbounded growth caused by zero modes spreading over infinite space—is cured by the Extended Uncertainty Principle (EUP), a large-length-scale deformation of quantum mechanics. Under the EUP, a zero-frequency oscillator's position variance saturates at $1/\gamma$ rather than diverging, so a geometric length scale $\gamma^{-1/2}$ bounds spatial delocalization. From this single-particle fact, the authors construct a Gaussian reference state with the same covariance matrix as the exact EUP state and use the maximum entropy principle to bound the true many-body entanglement entropy. They conclude that for coupled oscillators, a one-dimensional chain, and a massless scalar field, the entropy remains finite in the massless limit and the entanglement spectrum stays discrete and evenly gapped. The result matters because it replaces ad hoc infrared cutoffs in quantum field theory with a regulator fixed by the background geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the EUP-deformed momentum operator $\hat{p}=(1+\gamma\hat{x}^{2})\hat{\pi}-i\hbar\gamma\hat{x}$, whose Schrodinger equation maps exactly to an associated Legendre equation; the resulting states are labelled by $l$ with $l(l+1)=(M\omega/\hbar\gamma)^{2}$, and through the variance formula $\langle\hat{x}^{2}\rangle=1/[\gamma(2l+1)]$ they encode the geometric saturation that blocks the IR divergence. For the many-body problem the operative machinery is the Moment-Matched Gaussian Reference State: a Gaussian chosen to share the exact EUP position variance (and, in the deep asymptotic regime $\kappa=M\omega_{\rm int}/(\hbar\gamma)\gg1$, the exact momentum variance as well), because the true EUP states' power-law tails make direct energy evaluation unstable. The Maximum Entropy Principle then makes the Gaussian state's finite entropy an upper bound on the true entropy, while the symplectic-eigenvalue formalism of covariance matrices converts this bound into explicit entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum results.

What would settle it

Numerically diagonalize the exact coupled-oscillator ground state in the EUP framework without the Gaussian replacement, hold $\gamma$ fixed, and take $\omega\to0$ at small $\kappa=M\omega_{\rm int}/(\hbar\gamma)$; the central claim fails if the exact entanglement entropy or symplectic eigenvalue grows without bound rather than saturating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the EUP, with $[\hat{x},\hat{p}]=i\hbar(1+\gamma\hat{x}^{2})$ and $\gamma$ set by the background curvature, the exact ground state of a harmonic oscillator develops a heavy power-law tail and a position variance $\langle\hat{x}^{2}\rangle=1/[\gamma(2l+1)]$, where $l(l+1)=(M\omega/\hbar\gamma)^{2}$; in the free limit $\omega\to0$ this variance saturates to $1/\gamma$ (equation 14). The paper extends this single-particle saturation to entanglement: a Moment-Matched Gaussian Reference State built from the EUP variances, together with the maximum entropy principle, provides a rigorous upper bound on the von Neumann entropy of the true state, and the reduced covariance matrix yields the entropy and the symplectic eigenvalue $\nu$. As $\omega\to0$, $\nu$ saturates, so the entanglement entropy approaches a finite plateau instead of diverging. The entanglement spectrum, obtained from the eigenvalues $p_n$ of the reduced density matrix, becomes a discrete, evenly spaced ladder with a non-vanishing modular gap, capping the local entanglement temperature. In the continuum scalar-field limit the saturated entropy grows only as $\ln(\ln(16\kappa/\gamma))$, with $\kappa=M\omega_{\rm int}/\hbar$, showing that the geometric deformation supplies an intrinsic soft infrared cutoff.

Load-bearing premise

The many-body proof stands on replacing the exact non-Gaussian EUP state with a Gaussian reference state whose momentum variance matches the exact one only in the deep asymptotic regime $\kappa\gg1$; the paper leaves the ultra-small $\kappa$ regime untreated, so a failure of saturation there would not be captured by the argument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the strictly massless limit, the entanglement entropy saturates to a finite value for two coupled oscillators, a one-dimensional harmonic chain, and a massless scalar field.
  • The entanglement spectrum remains discrete and evenly spaced with a non-vanishing modular gap, so the effective entanglement temperature of the vacuum is capped.
  • The crossover from standard divergent behavior to the saturated regime occurs near the frequency scale $\omega\sim\hbar\gamma/M$, with $M\omega/(\hbar\gamma)$ as the governing parameter.
  • Even in the absence of a potential, the EUP free-particle and free-field spectra are discrete, and a massless scalar field acquires a zero-point gap $\zeta_0=\sqrt{\gamma}$.
  • The continuum saturated entropy depends on $\ln(\ln(16\kappa/\gamma))$, providing a geometry-determined soft cutoff that is independent of external boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If $\gamma$ is tied to the background Ricci scalar, this mechanism turns the infrared cutoff of field theory into a dynamical geometric quantity; a testable consequence is that the entropy plateau and correlation length in curved-space vacuum states would shift with the local curvature.
  • The maximum-entropy argument implies a purely information-theoretic bound: among all states compatible with the EUP variances, the Gaussian reference state carries the largest entanglement entropy, so the saturation reported here is an upper bound that non-Gaussian EUP states cannot exceed.
  • The discrete EUP mode ladder suggests an effective lattice description with spacing set by $\gamma^{-1/2}$; in higher-dimensional field theories the same spectral-gap mechanism could make area-law entanglement acquire curvature-dependent corrections.
  • An engineered analog experiment, such as a trapped-ion or circuit chain with position-dependent couplings mimicking $1+\gamma x^2$, should display a plateau in the entanglement entropy as the on-site frequency goes to zero.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the Extended Uncertainty Principle (EUP), through the modified algebra [x,p]=iℏ(1+γx²), resolves the infrared divergence of entanglement entropy for coupled harmonic oscillators, one-dimensional harmonic chains, and massless scalar fields. The single-oscillator section gives an exact solution whose position variance saturates at ⟨x²⟩→1/γ as ω→0 (Eq. (14)), and the γ→0 limit correctly reproduces the standard Gaussian oscillator. The many-body sections replace the standard Gaussian spread parameters by the EUP-saturated values β±→β±,EUP (Eq. (32)) inside standard Gaussian covariance-matrix entropy formulas, invoke the Maximum Entropy Principle, and conclude that the true entanglement entropy is finite. The entanglement spectrum is claimed to remain discrete and evenly gapped in the massless limit.

Significance. The single-particle EUP oscillator result is a solid, explicit calculation: the variance saturation and the smooth γ→0 limit are genuine and nontrivial, and the paper deserves credit for presenting closed-form wavefunctions and normalization factors for a non-Gaussian exactly solvable model. The many-body claim, if rigorously established, would be significant because it would replace an artificial IR cutoff by a geometric scale. However, the proof of the central claim currently rests on an unverified covariance-matching assumption, and the paper's own Appendix C.1 documents a momentum mismatch that is not controlled in the center-of-mass mode in the IR limit. The evidence actually establishes saturation of the Gaussian Reference State entropy, not of the true EUP ground-state entropy; the proof gap is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (32) and §VII] The Maximum Entropy Principle bound S(ρ_GRS) ≥ S(ρ_true) requires the Gaussian Reference State and the true state to share the same covariance matrix. Here the GRS covariance is assigned by hand through β±→β±,EUP, but the physical Hamiltonian H does not decouple in normal-mode coordinates (Eq. (30), ΔH≠0), and the exact ground state of H is never constructed. The true normal-mode position and momentum variances are never computed. Consequently, the statement in §VII that the finiteness of the true entanglement entropy is 'mathematically prove[n]' is not supported by the calculation; the calculation proves finiteness of S(ρ_GRS).
  2. [Appendix C.1, Eq. (C1)–(C4)] Even granting that the true covariance equals the single-oscillator EUP values, the MEP bound requires matching momentum variances. Appendix C.1 shows that the GRS momentum variance differs from the exact EUP momentum variance unless l−≫1. In the IR limit ω→0, the center-of-mass mode has l+→0, so the mismatch in that mode is O(1) and is not controlled by the large-κ regime κ∈[10²,10⁴] on which the numerics focus. Thus the proof's core requirement fails precisely in the mode responsible for the IR divergence.
  3. [§IV, Appendix B.1 and Appendix C.2, Fig. 11] The product-state analysis in Appendix C.2 and Fig. 11 concerns a state that is an exact eigenstate of the decoupled Hamiltonian H′, not of the physical Hamiltonian H; Appendix B.1 itself shows that this state has an anomalously large energy variance σ_H ≫ ⟨H⟩. Therefore the numerical observation that the product state's entropy is bounded by the GRS entropy does not bound the entropy of the true ground state of H. The comparison in Fig. 11 is between two approximate states, and the MEP argument does not close the gap to the physical ground state.
  4. [§V and §VI; §VI, Eq. (50)] The chain and scalar-field sections inherit the same covariance-matching assumption after substituting EUP single-particle variances into the standard Gaussian formulas. The paper explicitly omits the κ≪1 regime, where the symplectic-eigenvalue constraint ν≥1/2 is violated by the naive RCM replacement, but the IR center-of-mass issue noted above is not an omitted parameter regime; it is the l+→0 limit of the mode that drives the divergence. The scalar-field mode expansion additionally asserts completeness of the EUP free-particle modes without proof, which is needed for the discrete expansion in Eq. (51).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (43), (44), (50), (53)] Several displayed equations contain stray commas or doubled punctuation: Eq. (43) ends with ',.', Eq. (44) has a trailing comma, Eq. (50) ends with ',,' and Eq. (53) contains an extra comma. These should be cleaned up.
  2. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (A1)] The normalization constant in Eq. (A1) is introduced as a conjecture and verified numerically up to n=50; for a paper whose later claims rely on normalized states, this should be stated as a conjecture in the main text or replaced by a proof.
  3. [§III.C.3 and §VI, Eq. (50)] The free-particle energy spectrum is given as E_n=ℏ²γ n²/(2M) in §III.C.3, while the scalar-field section uses λ_n²=γ(n+1)² with n starting at 0. The indexing shift and the factor-of-two difference should be harmonized and explicitly explained.
  4. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 7] The figures use natural units (M=ℏ=1), but the captions do not state this; adding the parameter values and unit convention to each caption would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the many-body saturation is an explicitly constructed covariance input, and the flagged MEP gap is a support issue rather than an equivalence.

full rationale

The single-particle result (Eq. 14) is derived by exactly solving the EUP-deformed oscillator (Eqs. 4-13), with the flat-space limit γ→0 recovering the standard SHO as an external check; no parameter is fitted to the target entropy. The many-body Gaussian Reference State is introduced transparently: Eq. (32) says 'we manually upgrade the spread parameters to their exact EUP-modified counterparts,' so the saturation of S(ρ_G) follows from the already-derived single-particle variance, not from a hidden fit. The paper also discloses the key limitation in Sec. IV A: 'the GRS ... cannot simultaneously accommodate the exact EUP momentum variance,' with App. C1 showing the momentum mismatch disappears only for l− ≫ 1. Consequently the Maximum Entropy bound S(ρ_G) ≥ S(ρ_true) is conditional on an unproved covariance match, and the Sec. VII statement that the finiteness of the true entropy is mathematically proven is overstrong; this is a missing-premise/correctness defect, not a circular reduction. App. C2's statement that the product state shares the GRS covariance is likewise unsupported once momentum variances are included. The only self-citation (Ref. [36] for the EUP algebra) supplies a model input rather than a conclusion drawn from the present results. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of a later predicted quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on one unfitted model parameter (gamma), an adopted momentum representation, and the assumption that standard Gaussian-state entanglement machinery applies to the non-Gaussian EUP states. No new particles or forces are introduced, but the geometric localization length L ~ gamma^{-1/2} functions as an effective invented regulator.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (curvature scale) = not fitted; assumed small and positive
    All IR regularization and the saturation scale 1/gamma derive from this unfitted parameter, which is related to the background Ricci scalar. In flat spacetime gamma = 0 and the divergence returns.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption EUP commutation relation [x,p] = i hbar (1 + gamma x^2) with gamma > 0 small
    The entire paper rests on this modified algebra from the EUP literature (Sec. II, Eq. 1); if gamma = 0, the standard flat-space divergences are recovered.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal Hermitian momentum representation p = (1 + gamma x^2) pi - i hbar gamma x, with no additional position-dependent potential h(x)
    Sec. II acknowledges that the commutation relation does not fix the representation; choosing the minimal representation changes the Hamiltonian and hence the IR behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper The EUP free-particle modes phi_n form a complete orthonormal basis on the infinite line
    The scalar field mode expansion in Sec. VI and App. E assumes completeness of the set {phi_n}; no completeness proof is supplied.
  • domain assumption Standard Gaussian covariance-matrix entropy formulas and the Maximum Entropy Principle apply to EUP-deformed systems
    The coupled oscillator and chain calculations use Gaussian-state entropy formulas from Refs. [12,46] and the MEP; the exact EUP state is non-Gaussian, so applicability is restricted to the kappa >> 1 regime.
  • domain assumption Equal-time field commutator [Phi(x,t), Pi(y,t)] = i delta(x-y) is preserved under the EUP field quantization
    This canonical commutator is required for the ladder structure and entropy formula in App. E; its preservation is asserted rather than derived from the modified spatial derivative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolution of Infrared Entanglement Divergences via the Extended Uncertainty Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JGXRCIF

@misc{pith2026260729427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolution of Infrared Entanglement Divergences via the Extended Uncertainty Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JGXRCIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29427}
}
read the original abstract

The entanglement entropy of quantum systems typically exhibits both ultraviolet and infrared (IR) divergences. In the low-frequency limit, the IR divergence is intimately tied to the unbounded spatial delocalization of zero-modes, a pathological feature common to both coupled harmonic oscillators and massless scalar fields. In this work, we demonstrate that this infinite growth is naturally resolved by invoking the Extended Uncertainty Principle (EUP), which introduces large-length-scale geometric corrections to the canonical commutation relations. By exactly solving the simple harmonic oscillator under the EUP framework, we establish the existence of an intrinsic geometric confinement that enforces a strict upper bound on the position variance, limits spatial delocalization, and introduces an intrinsic localization length scale related to the background Ricci scalar. We extend this regularizing mechanism to many-body systems by evaluating the entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum of a one-dimensional harmonic chain and a massless scalar field. We show that the EUP-induced spatial bounds prevent the accumulation of low-lying long-wavelength modes, keeping the entanglement spectrum discrete and evenly gapped even in the strictly massless limit. This non-vanishing modular gap effectively caps the local entanglement temperature of the vacuum. Consequently, the entanglement entropy saturates to a finite value, providing a robust, geometric resolution to the zero-mode IR divergence problem in quantum field theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The spatial profiles of the first four discrete eigenstates of the EUP-modified oscillator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spatial wave functions of the EUP-deformed free particle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The spatial variance of the ground state as a function of the oscillator frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The energy variance of the Gaussian reference state (left) compared to the exact normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The entanglement spectrum for the standard HUP (left) and EUP-modified (right) scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of RCM and RDM entanglement entropy versus frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of RCM and RDM entanglement entropy versus frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of entanglement entropy for the product state, Gaussian reference state, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_11.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mathematically, this corresponds tolϵ→1 and ϵ→0

    The Standard Flat-Space Limit (γ→0) In the strict standard limit where the background curvature vanishes (γ→0), the ge- ometric deformation is entirely removed. Mathematically, this corresponds tolϵ→1 and ϵ→0. In this limit, the quadratic correction term in the energy spectrum vanishes identi- cally, and the conventional, equally-spaced SHO spectrum is im...

    work page

  2. [2]

    HUP Regime: The Weak-Deformation Limit (Mω/ℏγ≫1) In this regime, the system is dominated by the external harmonic potential, but the macroscopic spacetime geometry introduces a small, non-vanishing perturbative correction (γ >0). Substitutingl∼ϵ −1 =Mω/ℏγinto the exact spectrum yields the standard SHO spectrum alongside a leading-order quadratic geometric...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Dirichlet Boundary Conditions Imposing Dirichlet boundary conditionsψ(±R) = 0 over a domainx∈[−R,R] discretizes the parameterm. In the continuum limit (R→∞), the wave functions simplify to the compact parity-separated form: ψn(x) =    γ1/4√ 2p π(1 +γx 2) cos narctan √γx ,ifnis odd, iγ1/4√ 2p π(1 +γx 2) sin narctan √γx ,ifnis even, (23) wheren∈N...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Neumann Boundary Conditions Imposing Neumann boundary conditionsψ ′(±R) = 0 is of primary interest for the scalar field theory quantization. As detailed in Appendix (A 3), the eigenvalue condition yields m→n∈NasR→∞, giving the normalized eigenfunctions: ψn(x) =    γ1/4√ 2p π(1 +γx 2) cos narctan √γx ,ifnis odd, iγ1/4√ 2p π(1 +γx 2) sin narctan ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    How- ever, the exact spatial wave functions and energy spectrum exhibit several distinct features that differ qualitatively from standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics

    Energy Spectrum and Geometric Localization Settingω= 0 in the EUP wave equation removes the external harmonic potential. How- ever, the exact spatial wave functions and energy spectrum exhibit several distinct features that differ qualitatively from standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics. As detailed above (and derived explicitly in Appendix (A 3)), ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    However, the non-linearities introduced by the EUP-modified momentum operator reintro- duce cross-couplings among the coordinates upon such a transformation

    + 1 2Mω 2 int(ˆx1−ˆx2)2.(28) In the standard HUP treatment, one performs a coordinate rotation in configuration space, transforming to normal-mode coordinates in which the Hamiltonian completely decouples. However, the non-linearities introduced by the EUP-modified momentum operator reintro- duce cross-couplings among the coordinates upon such a transform...

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    However, for the special case whereland γare real, positive quantities, a distinct pattern emerges upon examining the first few eigenstates

    Normalization constant for arbitrary state The calculation of the normalization constant for an arbitrary state involves evaluating analytical integrals of hypergeometric functions. However, for the special case whereland γare real, positive quantities, a distinct pattern emerges upon examining the first few eigenstates. Based on this structure, we conjec...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Ground-State Variances The normalized ground-state wave function of the EUP-deformed harmonic oscillator is given by: ψ(x) = γ π 1/4 Γ(l+ 2) Γ(l+ 3/2) 1/2 1 (1 +γx 2)1+l/2.(A2) Since, the wave function is symmetric under parity (x→−x), the first moment vanishes identically,⟨ˆx⟩= 0. Consequently, the spatial variance is determined entirely by the second mo...

    work page

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    nπarctan √γx 2 arctan √γR # ,ifnis odd, iγ1/4 q arctan √γR (1 +γx 2) sin

    Free-Particle Limit(ω→0)Under the EUP Evaluating the free-particle limit (ω→0) of the EUP-deformed oscillator provides the continuous spectrum regime under modified spatial kinematics. Unlike standard quantum mechanics — where free particles correspond to unconstrained plane w...

  2. [10]

    Energy Variance of the Product State Ansatz We explicitly demonstrate why the exact eigenstates of the decoupled HamiltonianH ′ fail as a reliable approximation for the physical HamiltonianH. Let|Ψ prod⟩denote the trial product state, defined as an exact eigenstate of the unpe...

  3. [11]

    Momentum Variances of the Gaussian Reference State Consider a single-variable Gaussian state with an EUP-enforced position variance: ψ(x) = β π 1/4 exp −βx2 2 ,(B11) whereβ= γ 2(2l+ 1). In the standard HUP framework, the corresponding momentum variance is given by: ⟨ˆp2⟩HUP, G...

  4. [12]

    RCM Entanglement vs. RDM Entanglement As noted in the main text, the RDM formalism applied to the GRS yields the standard HUP momentum variance because the Gaussian ansatz cannot simultaneously encode the exact EUP momentum variance. In this subsection, we analyze the physical...

  5. [13]

    Evaluating its entanglement entropy serves as a test of the Maximum Entropy Prin- ciple

    Entanglement Analysis for the Product State Although the energy-based limitations of the product state were demonstrated in Ap- pendix (B), its resulting covariance matrix yields exact EUP spatial and momentum vari- ances. Evaluating its entanglement entropy serves as a test o...

  6. [14]

    Derivation of Scaled and Rotated Hermite Polynomial Identities Starting from the generating function of Hermite polynomials: ∞X m=0 ∞X n=0 Hm x+y√ 2 Hn x−y√ 2 tmsn m!n! = exp 2(x+y)t√ 2 + 2(x−y)s√ 2 −t 2−s 2 = exp 2x(t+s)√ 2 − (t+s) 2 2 + 2y(t−s)√ 2 − (t−s) 2 2 . (C14) The rig...

  7. [15]

    In this section, we derive the continuous field limit and obtain an explicit analytical expression for the von Neumann entropy at ω= 0

    Continuum limit of 1-D Harmonic Chain Taking the continuum limit of the one-dimensional harmonic chain provides analytical insights into the system’s entanglement entropy. In this section, we derive the continuous field limit and obtain an explicit analytical expression for th...

  8. [16]

    (1 +γx 2)2∂ ˆΦ ∂x # dx.(E8) Recalling the definition of the modified spatial differential operator ˆDx 2 , expanding the derivative term yields d dx

    Entanglement Entropy in the Large-νLimit The von Neumann entanglement entropy for a single bosonic mode is uniquely determined by its symplectic eigenvalueν. In physical regimes characterized by strong squeezing or IR zero-mode contributions—such as the continuum massless limi...

  9. [17]

    Bombelli, R

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D34, 373 (1986)

    1986

  10. [18]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 666 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9303048

    1993 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. I. Latorre and A. Riera, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General42, 504002 (2009), arXiv:0906.1499 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009). 50

    2009

  13. [21]

    S. Das, S. Shankaranarayanan, and S. Sur, (2008), arXiv:0806.0402 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    V. R. Vieira, Journal of Physics: Conference Series213, 012005 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    S. N. Solodukhin, Living Rev. Rel.14, 8 (2011), arXiv:1104.3712 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sachdev, in25th Solvay Conference on Physics: The Theory of the Quantum World(2012) arXiv:1203.4565 [hep-th]

    S. Sachdev, in25th Solvay Conference on Physics: The Theory of the Quantum World(2012) arXiv:1203.4565 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Mallayya, R

    K. Mallayya, R. Tibrewala, S. Shankaranarayanan, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D90, 044058 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    S. M. Chandran and S. Shankaranarayanan, Physical Review D99(2019), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.99.045010, arXiv:1810.03888 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. M. Chandran and S. Shankaranarayanan, Physical Review D102, 125025 (2020), arXiv:2010.03418 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    P. Jain, S. M. Chandran, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D103, 125008 (2021), arXiv:2103.01772 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, J. Stat. Mech.0512, P12012 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0511014

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, J. Phys. A42, 504007 (2009), arXiv:0905.2562 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Bianchini and O

    D. Bianchini and O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, Nucl. Phys. B913, 879 (2016), arXiv:1607.05656 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 1049 (1967)

    1967

  28. [36]

    Zanardi and N

    P. Zanardi and N. Paunkovi´ c, Phys. Rev. E74, 031123 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Zhou and J

    H.-Q. Zhou and J. P. Barjaktareviˇ c, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 412001 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    S. S. Kumar and S. Shankaranarayanan, Sci. Rep.7, 15774 (2017), arXiv:1606.05472 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nenmeli and S

    V. Nenmeli and S. Shankaranarayanan, arxiv (2022), arXiv:2212.07174 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mignemi, Mod

    S. Mignemi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A25, 1697 (2010), arXiv:0909.1202 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wagner, Phys

    F. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D104, 126010 (2021), arXiv:2110.11067 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. P. Dabrowski and F. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 676 (2020), arXiv:2006.02188 [gr-qc]. 51

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Singh and D

    R. Singh and D. Kothawala, Phys. Rev. D105, L101501 (2022), arXiv:2110.15951 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    K. S. Gupta, T. Juri´ c, A. Samsarov, and I. Smoli´ c, JHEP10, 170 (2019), arXiv:1908.07402 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D52, 1108 (1995), arXiv:hep- th/9412167

    1995

  38. [47]

    Nenmeli, S

    V. Nenmeli, S. Shankaranarayanan, V. Todorinov, and S. Das, Phys. Lett. B821, 136621 (2021), arXiv:2106.04141 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Kempf, Phys

    A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D54, 5174 (1996), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 1114 (1997)], arXiv:hep- th/9602119

    1996

  40. [49]

    Park, Phys

    M.-i. Park, Phys. Lett. B659, 698 (2008), arXiv:0709.2307 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Wagner, Phys

    F. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D105, 025005 (2022), arXiv:2111.15583 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Petruzziello and F

    L. Petruzziello and F. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D103, 104061 (2021), arXiv:2101.05552 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Gattu and S

    M. Gattu and S. Shankaranarayanan, Gen. Rel. Grav.56, 102 (2024), arXiv:2204.01780 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    M. G. Genoni, M. G. A. Paris, and K. Banaszek, Phys. Rev. A78, 060303 (2008), arXiv:0805.1645 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Adesso,Entanglement of Gaussian states, Other thesis (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702069

    G. Adesso,Entanglement of Gaussian states, Other thesis (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702069

    2007 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Syst. Info. Dyn.21, 1440001 (2014), arXiv:1401.4679 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [56]

    L. Lami, A. Serafini, and G. Adesso, New J. Phys.20, 023030 (2018), arXiv:1612.05215 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [57]

    F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark,NIST Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions(2010)

    2010

  49. [58]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,

    DLMF, “NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions,”https://dlmf.nist.gov/14.3, Release 1.2.4 of 2025-03-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2025

  50. [59]

    J. L. L´ opez and N. M. Temme, Advances in Computational Mathematics39, 349 (2013)

    2013

  51. [60]

    Hamil, B

    B. Hamil, B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, and A. Hocine, Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, 2350079 (2023). 52

    2023

  52. [61]

    De Palma and D

    G. De Palma and D. Trevisan, J. Math. Phys.65, 062201 (2024), arXiv:2105.05627 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    How compactness curbs entanglement growth in bosonic systems,

    S. Aimet, P. Schmoll, J. Eisert, J. Schmiedmayer, and S. Sotiriadis, “How compactness curbs entanglement growth in bosonic systems,” (2026), arXiv:2603.16775 [quant-ph]

    2026

  54. [63]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 010504 (2008), arXiv:0805.0332 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Chandran, V

    A. Chandran, V. Khemani, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 060501 (2014), arXiv:1311.2946 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [65]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  57. [66]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  58. [67]

    Padmanabhan,Quantum Field Theory

    T. Padmanabhan,Quantum Field Theory. The Why, What and How, Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer, 2016). 53

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.