
==== Front
Nat Commun
Nat Commun
Nature Communications
2041-1723
Nature Publishing Group UK London

52588
10.1038/s41467-024-52588-9
Article
Noncommuting charges can remove non-stationary quantum many-body dynamics
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0411-7380
Majidy Shayan ssmajidy@gmail.com

12
1 https://ror.org/01aff2v68 grid.46078.3d 0000 0000 8644 1405 Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON Canada
2 https://ror.org/03vek6s52 grid.38142.3c 0000 0004 1936 754X Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA USA
20 9 2024
20 9 2024
2024
15 82469 2 2024
11 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Studying noncommuting conserved quantities, or ‘charges,’ has revealed a conceptual puzzle: noncommuting charges hinder thermalization in some ways yet promote it in others. While many quantum systems thermalize according to the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH), systems with ‘dynamical symmetries’ violate the ETH and exhibit non-stationary dynamics, preventing them from equilibrating, much less thermalizing. We demonstrate that each pair of dynamical symmetries corresponds to a specific charge. We find that introducing new charges that do not commute with existing ones disrupts these symmetries, thereby eliminating non-stationary dynamics and facilitating thermalization. We illustrate this behavior across various models, including the Hubbard model and Heisenberg spin chains. Our findings demonstrate that noncommuting charges can enhance thermalization by reducing the number of local observables that thermalize according to the ETH.

Noncommuting charges pose a puzzle: they hinder thermalization in some ways yet promote it in others. Here, the authors demonstrate how noncommuting charges enhance thermalization by reducing the number of local observables that thermalize.

Subject terms

Theoretical physics
Quantum information
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

How can isolated quantum many-body systems thermalize? This question is largely answered by the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH)1,2. Consider a set of local observables Oi, an initial state ψ governed by a Hamiltonian H, and the corresponding expectation values 〈Oi(t)〉. A system is said to have thermalized at time t if ⟨Oi(t)⟩≈⟨Oi⟩th:=tr[ρthOi] for each Oi, where ρth is the thermal state with the temperature determined by the energy of ψ. Most quantum many-body systems thermalize according to the ETH3,4. Integrable, superintegrable5, and many-body localized (MBL) systems6, for example, violate the ETH by evolving to stationary but non-thermal states. Systems with quantum scars7 or dynamical symmetries8 defy the ETH with persistent non-stationary dynamics.

Most studies of quantum thermalization assume that systems’ charges commute. This assumption segments the system’s Hilbert space into “charge sectors,” which help in determining when a state thermalizes9 and its form. However, charges do not always commute. In fact, noncommutation of observables is a fundamental aspect of quantum theory, impacting uncertainty relations10,11, measurement disturbance12,13, and foundational tests14–17. Discarding this assumption leads to the breakdown of derivations of the thermal state’s form18–21, the ETH22, Onsager relations23, and other results24. Exploring the implications of noncommuting charges has spurred the development of a dynamic subfield, bridging thermodynamics and many-body physics19–21,24,25.

A conceptual puzzle in studying noncommuting charges relates to their impact on thermalization. Recent results suggests that noncommuting charges may inhibit thermalization by reducing entropy production rates26,27, imposing more stringent constraints on unitary operations compared to commuting charges28, and causing larger deviations from the thermal state under physically plausible conditions22. However, there is also evidence that noncommuting charges could facilitate thermalization. For instance, they are known to increase average entanglement levels29,30, crucial for thermalization in closed quantum systems, and destabilize MBL31.

This puzzle is theoretically compelling and has potential implications for quantum technologies. The primary challenge in scaling quantum computers is mitigating decoherence32–35, which is closely related to thermalization36. Discovering controllable obstacles to thermalization may imply obstacles to certain forms of decoherence. Systems with noncommuting charges, like spin systems22,29,37,38 and squeezed states23,27, are already used in quantum computing methods, like quantum dots39 and optical techniques40. This potential is further supported by recent advances showing that non-Abelian symmetric operations are universal for quantum computing41,42.

A promising approach to solving this puzzle is to introduce noncommuting charges into systems that initially resist thermalization and monitor the resulting changes. This approach was effectively used in demonstrating that noncommuting charges destabilize MBL31. In this work, we move from non-thermalizing to non-stationary dynamics by introducing noncommuting charges into systems with dynamical symmetries. In this work we focus on local dynamics.

Dynamical symmetries, proposed by Buča et al.8,43–45, are operators A that satisfy H,A=λA with λ∈R and λ ≠ 0, where H is the system’s Hamiltonian. Any local operator Oi overlapping with A (i.e., tr[OiA]≠0) will not thermalize, displaying non-stationary dynamics in violation of the ETH. Dynamical symmetries always come in pairs, exist in open systems8,46,47, and can be responsible for the non-stationary dynamics observed in quantum time crystals43, OTO crystals48, and quantum attractors49. Dynamical symmetries depart from the conventional definition of “symmetry” as an invariance under a transformation. Therefore, Noether’s theorem does not establish the link between dynamical symmetries and charges.

Our main result demonstrates that introducing noncommuting charges into a system can disrupt its existing dynamical symmetries. Starting with a system that possesses dynamical symmetries, we identify charges from the dynamical symmetries and then impose additional charges. If the added charge commutes with the existing physical charges, the dynamical symmetries remain intact. However, if the added charge does not commute with the existing charges, the original dynamical symmetries are eliminated. This work highlights a fundamental conflict between noncommuting charges and dynamical symmetries, revealing another mechanism by which noncommuting charges facilitate thermalization.

Results

Set-up

Consider a closed quantum system consisting of a lattice with N sites. Each site corresponds to a Hilbert space H of finite dimensionality d. The system is governed by a Hamiltonian H=∑kEkψkψk, where ψk are energy eigenstates with energies Ek. The time dependent state Φ(t)=∑kexp(−iEkt)ckψk will have fixed total energy E = 〈Φ(t)∣H∣Φ(t)〉, where we set ℏ = 1. The expectation value of an observable O for the state Φ(t) is1 O(t)=∑j,ke−i(Ek−Ej)tcj*ck⟨ψj∣O∣ψk⟩.

Oth:=tr[ρthO] is the thermal expectation value where ρth is the thermal state with temperature fixed by E. If an out-of-equilibrium Φ(0) thermalizes, we expect O(t) to approach Oth,2 O(t→∞)=Oth+C(t),

where C(t) accounts for fluctuations. This second term is also what allows O(0) to exhibit non-stationary dynamics. The ETH gives a set of conditions for which this expectation holds1,2.

Systems with dynamical symmetries violate the ETH8,44. Since dynamical symmetries result in time-dependent dynamics, they are violating the off-diagonal ETH. We denote a dynamical symmetry by a non-Hermitian operator A, such that3 H,A=λA,

where λ is a real and non-zero constant. We assume that A is extensive by restricting it to have the form A=∑j=1NA~(j), where A~(j) is an operator that acts non-trivially on one site and as the identity on all other sites. Furthermore, for every dynamical symmetry A, there exists another A†, [H,A†]=−λA†. Thus, dynamical symmetries always come in pairs. A system can have multiple pairs of dynamical symmetries. In that case, we add subscripts as follows [H,Aβ]=λβAβ. Furthermore, we define A+β: = Aβ and A−β:=Aβ†. The expectation value of an observable O that overlaps with one dynamical symmetry, tr[AO]≠0, will continue to change over time. As proven in ref. 8, dynamical symmetries are sufficient conditions for non-stationary dynamics. For certain locally interacting systems, they are also necessary conditions50.

We illustrate dynamical symmetries with an example. Consider a collection of spin-12 particles in an external field. The system’s Hamiltonian is H=B∑jσz(j) where σx,y,z are the Pauli matrices and the superscript denotes the operator acts non-trivially on the jth site. Such a Hamiltonian has dynamical symmetries A±=∑j(σx(j)±iσy(j)). The operator σx(j), for example, overlaps with A± and will thus experience non-stationary dynamics. The persistent recurrence from precessing spins prevents thermalization of σx(j). This is intuitive—an isolated spin in a magnetic field will continually process around the applied field. This very simple example also demonstrates the variation in the magnitude of the non-stationary dynamics and how it depends on the initial state. Consider one extreme case; all the spins are aligned and orthogonal to the external field. The magnitude of oscillations will be at its maximum. In the other extreme case, all the spins are aligned or anti-aligned with the external field. This is an eigenstate, and we thus have no dynamics. This is a trivial example of having “non-thermalizing” dynamics.

Finally, we introduce noncommuting charges. Charges are Hermitian operators that commute with the Hamiltonian, H,Q=0. A system can have multiple charges that we distinguish with Greek letter subscripts, and these charges can be noncommuting, [Qα,Qβ]≠0. We add a third condition to hermiticity and commutation for physically motivated reasons. Let Q~α denote a Hermitian operator defined on H. We denote by Q~α(j) the Q~α defined on the jth subsystem’s H. We denote an extensive observable4 Qα:=∑j=1NQ~α(j)≡∑j=1N1⊗(j−1)⊗Q~α(j)⊗1⊗(N−j).

Our third condition is that the charges are extensive. While this work focuses on closed quantum systems, noncommuting charges and dynamical symmetries can also exist in open quantum systems8,46,47,51.

Correspondence between charges and dynamical symmetries

In this subsection, we present a correspondence between the existence of charges and dynamical symmetries. This correspondence is in the form of two theorems. One theorem identifies a charge from pairs of dynamical symmetries. The other shows that for a class of commuting charges, one can always find a Hamiltonian that conserves those charges and has the corresponding dynamical symmetries.

Charges Qα that generate Lie algebras are important in physics because they describe conserved quantities such as angular momentum, particle number, electric charge, color charge, and weak isospin24,52–54, i.e., everything in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Lie algebras relevant to studying noncommuting charges are finite-dimensional because we study systems with a finite number of linearly independent charges38. The algebras are also defined over the complex number because the operators are Hermitian. Finally, the algebras are semisimple so that the operator representation of the charges can be diagonalized (not necessarily simultaneously diagonalized) and permit a special basis that we introduce later55. Many physically significant algebras satisfy these conditions, such as su(N), so(N), and all simple Lie algebras. From this point onward, we denote by g a finite-dimensional semisimple complex Lie algebra.

Essential to our study are Cartan-Weyl bases55, which we will now introduce. An algebra’s dimension c equals the number of generators in a basis for the algebra. The algebra’s rank r is the dimension of the algebra’s maximal commuting subalgebra, the largest subalgebra in which all elements are commuting. For example, consider the usual basis for su(2)—the Pauli-operators {σx, σy, σz}. There are three generators in this basis, so c = 3, and none of these operators commute with one another, so r = 1. A Cartan subalgebra is a maximal Abelian subalgebra consisting of semisimple elements, h∈h. From this point onward, we denote by h a Cartan subalgebra of a g. Every g will have a h. The g definition includes a vector space V defined over a field F. A form is a map V × V → F. The Killing form of operators x,y∈g is the bilinear form (x,y):=tr(adx⋅ady) where adx is the image of x under the adjoint representation of g. Let β(h):=(hβ′,h) where h,hβ′∈h. β(h) is a root of g relative to h if there exists a non-zero operator Xβ∈g such that5 h,Xβ=β(h)Xβ.

These operators Xβ are called root vectors. Denote by Δ all roots of g with respect to h. If β ∈ Δ, then so is − β. Thus, root vectors always come in pairs X±β. Finally, one can identify different Cartan-Weyl bases for each g. A Cartan-Weyl basis consists of a Cartan subalgebra h and one or more pairs of root vectors X±β. The choice of Cartan-Weyl is not unique.

We highlight additional features of root vectors which are important to this work. For all root vectors X+β,X−β∈h (Proposition 7.17 of ref. 56). X±β can always be chosen such that X+β=X−β† (p. 273 of ref. 57). It follows then that6 Xβ,X−β†=Xβ,X−β

and that7 X+β,H,X−β=X−β,H,X+β†

where H is any Hermitian operator.

Theorem 1

For every pair of dynamical symmetries A±β that a Hamiltonian has, there exists a charge Qβ=A+β,A−β.

Proof

For Qβ to be a charge, it must be conserved by the Hamiltonian, a Hermitian operator, and extensive. Using the Jacobi identity, Eq. (6), and Eq. (7), we find that8 H,A+β,A−β=A+β,H,A−β−A−β,H,A+β

9 =−λβA+β,A−β+A−β,A+β

10 =0.

Thus, the Hamiltonian conserves Qβ. For Qβ to be a charge, it must also be Hermitian, which it is11 Qβ†=AβAβ†−Aβ†Aβ†

12 =AβAβ†−Aβ†Aβ=Qβ.

Finally, recall that we are studying dynamical symmetries, which are k = 1 local. Thus, all Qβ=A+β,A−β will also be 1-local and are charges by our definition.

We say a set of dynamical symmetries “produces” a set of charges {Qβ} when the span of {Qβ} equals the span of the set of charges found using Theorem 1. A note on notation: We use the subscript β when considering charges defined by dynamical symmetries (as in Theorem 1) and α otherwise.

Theorem 2

For every set of charges {Qα} that form a h of g, there exists a Hamiltonian H conserving those charges such that the root vectors that complete the Lie algebra are dynamical symmetries of H.

Proof

Consider a Hamiltonian of the form H=Hg+∑αcαQα, where Hg is a Hamiltonian that commutes with all charges that generate g and cα are constants. The charges that generate g form a basis for the algebra38. Since the root vectors can be written in this basis, [Hg,X±β]=0. For any charge and root vector [Qα,X±β]=β(α)X±β. It follows then that X±β are dynamical symmetries:13 H,X±β=∑αcαQα,X±β=∑αcαβ(α)X±β.

We say a set of charges “can produce” a set of dynamical symmetries {A±β}, when {A±β} equals one set of dynamical symmetries that can be found using Theorem 2. Theorem 2 is for a set of charges that form a h of g. Any set of charges that generate a g can be partitioned into cr sets of mutually commuting charges38.

We pause here to clarify one point. Our objects of study are Hamiltonians H that have dynamical symmetries {A±β}. We are asking what happens to these dynamical symmetries when we enforce noncommuting charges onto the Hamiltonian. Thus, we first need to identify a charge of the system from its dynamical symmetries. This can be done with Theorem 1, Qβ=[A+β,A−β]. We now modify the Hamiltonian such that it conserves charges {Qα} that do not commute with each other or the existing charges {Qβ}. We then ask what happens to the {A±β} when we make this change. The final Hamiltonian’s noncommuting charges will form a Lie algebra. The initial Hamiltonian’s dynamical symmetries and original charges will also form a Lie algebra. In both cases, these can be the same Lie algebra, but the Hamiltonians have clearly different charges. This point is further clarified by the examples below.

A simple setting to illustrate this correspondence is the Hubbard model. We choose this model for various reasons. First, it has been shown to demonstrate non-stationary behavior emerging from dynamical symmetries and the forms of the charges and dynamical symmetries are known8. Additionally, its two commuting charges form separate h’s, unique from the other examples with commuting charges we study. Finally, it is a physically important model—the prototypical model of strongly correlated materials.

Consider a chain of N fermions. Denote by cσ(j)† and cσ(j) the creation and annihilation operators for a fermion of spin σ at lattice site j, σ ∈ {↑, ↓}. Denote by nσ(j):=cσ(j)†cσ(j) the number operator for fermions of spin σ at lattice site j. The 1D Hubbard model’s Hamiltonian can be written as5814 H=∑j=1N−1∑σ=↑,↓−tcσ(j)†cσ(j+1)+cσ(j+1)†cσ(j)+Un↑(j)n↓(j)−μn↑(j)+n↓(j)+B2n↑(j)−n↓(j),

where t is the hopping amplitude, U is the on-site Coulomb interaction, μ is the chemical potential, and B is the strength of a constant external magnetic field. The first term describes the kinetic energy of electrons hopping between neighboring sites. The second term describes the Coulomb repulsion between two electrons on the same site. The third term adjusts the total number of electrons in the system. The fourth term splits the energy levels of the up-spin and down-spin electrons.

The Hubbard model has two pairs of dynamical symmetries8,Supplementary Materials. The first pair are15 S+ztot=∑j=1Lc↑(j)†c↓(j)andS−ztot=∑j=1Lc↓(j)†c↑(j),

and the second pair are16 η+ztot=∑j=1N(−1)jc↑(j)†c↓(j)†andη−ztot=∑j=1L(−1)jc↓(j)c↑(j).

Using theorem 1, we identify two charges:17 S+ztot,S−ztot=Sztot=∑j=1Ln↑(j)−n↓(j),and

18 η+ztot,η−ztot=ηztot=∑j=1L(n↑(j)+n↓(j)−1).

These charges are the two known charges of the system.

Starting from the charges, we can also identify the dynamical symmetries. When B = 0 and μ = 0, the Hubbard Hamiltonian contains two sets of charges that generate su(2)59. For B ≠ 0 and μ ≠ 0, the Hubbard model has two sets of charges that generate Cartan subalgebras of su(2). Each charge, Sztot and ηztot, is an element in one of these algebras. We can use these Cartan subalgebras to complete a Cartan-Weyl basis for su(2). Doing so, we find two sets of generators {Sztot,S+ztot,S−ztot} and {ηztot,η+ztot,η−ztot}. This demonstrates how Cartan-Weyl bases can be used to identify the dynamical symmetries from the charges.

Noncommuting charges’ effect on dynamical symmetries

In this subsection, we consider the following setting. We begin with a system that has dynamical symmetries {A±α′}. From Theorem 1, we can identify its charges {Qα}, and those charges and dynamical symmetries will form a Lie algebra g. Furthermore, from Theorem 2, we know that a Hamiltonian with those charges and dynamical symmetries exists. This system experiences non-stationary dynamics in all observables Oi that overlap with any elements in {A±α′}. We then introduce one or more charges into the system that do not commute with the existing charges. This introduction of charge(s) removes the existing non-stationary dynamics. Finally, we explain why this effect occurs with noncommuting charges.

First we illustrate this procedure using charges that generate a Cartan subalgebra of su(2) and to charges that generate su(2). We then do the same analysis for the su(3) algebra. These sections further demonstrate the difference in introducing commuting and noncommuting charges. Each of these subsections also presents Hamiltonians that can be used to explore the distinction between commuting and noncommuting charges.

The Hubbard model illustrates that in systems with commuting charges, the dynamical symmetries of each charge can coexist. This section will present another example with two commuting charges and two examples with noncommuting charges. A summary of the examples studied in this work is presented in Table 1.Table 1 Summary of the examples studied in this work

	Subalgebra of su(2) (e.g., XXX model + field)	2 subalgebras of su(2) (e.g., Hubbard model)	Subalgebra of su(3) (e.g., Eq. (26))	Full su(2) (e.g., XXX model)	Full su(2) (e.g., Eq. (26))	
Charges’ symmetry	Abelian	Abelian	Abelian	Non-Abelian	Non-Abelian	
Charges	Sztot	Sztot,ηztot	τ3tot,τ8tot	Sα=x,y,ztot	τα=1,…,8tot	
Dynamical symmetries	S±ztot	S±ztot,η±ztot	A±1tot,A±2tot,A±3tot			
Throughout this work, we study five examples of systems with charges and with or without dynamical symmetries. This table summarizes our main result—that introducing noncommuting charges into systems with dynamical symmetries removes those symmetries. One explanation for this result is that a Cartan-Weyl basis (consisting of commuting charges and dynamical symmetries) and noncommuting charges each form a basis for the algebra being studied. The Hamiltonian, thus, cannot commute with all of the noncommuting charges and not commute with some elements of the Cartan-Weyl basis.

Dynamical symmetries always come in pairs, and a corresponding charge exists for every pair (Theorem 1). In the simplest case, a single charge introduces a U(1) symmetry. Thus, this dynamical symmetry pair and the charge will form an su(2) Lie algebra. This is the simplest example to consider. Consider again a system of N sites. We denote by σα(j) a Pauli operator acting on the jth site. We define the components of the spin-12 angular momentum operators as Sαtot:=∑j=1Nσα(j). The system begins with one charge that forms a Cartan subalgebra of su(2). To be concrete, we choose this element to be Sztot. Next, we complete the Cartan-Weyl basis by identifying the root vectors of the algebra, which are19 S±ztot=∑j=1N1⊗(j−1)⊗S±z(j)⊗1⊗(N−j)≡∑j=1NS±z(j)

where S±z=12(σx±iσy). Like with the Hubbard model, it is straightforward to reverse this procedure. Doing so, we check that S+z,S−z=Sz, and thus S+ztot,S−ztot=Sztot.

We now introduce another charge that does not commute with the existing one. However, a Hamiltonian that conserves two su(2) charges will necessarily conserve all three38. Thus, we introduce two additional charges into the system. To complete su(2), we include Sxtot and Sytot as charges. Introducing the charges means that the Hamiltonian now commutes with S±xtot and S±ytot, and thus also commutes with S±ztot. Together, the three conservation laws eliminate the original dynamical symmetries. When the system had one charge of su(2), it had two dynamical symmetries. Now that the system has three charges of su(2) it has no dynamical symmetries. This example contrasts with the Hubbard model, where the dynamical symmetries of S±ztot could coexist with a charge that commutes with Sztot.

Various Hamiltonians exist that can naturally transition from a single charge forming a Cartan subalgebra of su(2) to three charges constituting the full su(2). An example of this is the Heisenberg model under an external field.20 H2=B2∑j=1Nσz(j)+J2∑⟨j,k⟩∑⟨⟨j,k⟩⟩σx(j)σx(k)+σy(j)σy(k)+σz(j)σz(k),

where 〈j, k〉 indicates the sum over nearest neighbors, 〈〈j, k〉〉 indicates the sum is over next-nearest neighbors, B is the strength of an external magnetic field, and J is a coupling constant. For B ≠ 0, the system has one charge corresponding to a Cartan subalgebra of su(2) and one pair of dynamical symmetries. By setting B = 0, we introduce two additional noncommuting charges into the system, thereby removing the dynamical symmetries. We included the next-nearest neighbor interaction to break integrability. Alternatively, we could construct our Hamiltonian using genuine three-body interactions that are SU(2)-symmetric, such as21 σx(j)σy(j+1)σz(j+2)+σy(j)σz(j+1)σx(j+2)+σz(j)σx(j+1)σy(j+2)−σz(j)σy(j+1)σx(j+2)−σx(j)σz(j+1)σy(j+2)−σy(j)σx(j+1)σz(j+2),

and still break the symmetry with an external field.

In our study, charges can commute in two ways. First, they may be components of distinct algebras, as exemplified by the Hubbard model. Alternatively, they can belong to the same Cartan subalgebra. To demonstrate this second way charges can commute, we turn to su(3). su(3) has dimension c = 8 and rank r = 2. Thus, a system with an su(3) symmetry has eight charges that can be partitioned into cr=4 sets of mutually commuting charges. These sets generate Cartan subalgebras. The eight charges of su(3) can be represented by the Gell–Mann matrices60, τi for i = 1 to 8.

We begin with one Cartan sublagebra of su(3). For example, take the Cartan subalgebra with τ3 and τ8. In the three-dimensional representation of su(3), these operators can be represented with22 τ3=1000−10000andτ8=1310001000−2.

As before, our charges will be sums over these operators on each site, Q1=∑j=1Nτ3(j) and Q2=∑j=1Nτ8(j). Using this Cartan subalgebra, we construct a Cartan-Weyl basis. This requires identifying c−r2=3 pairs of root vectors. We define the following operators, A+1: = τ1 + iτ2, A+2: = τ4 + iτ5, and A+3: = τ6 + iτ7. These operators and their Hermitian conjugates are the root vectors. As we did in the previous example, we can construct the dynamical symmetries by taking sums over the operators on each site in our chain, A±βtot:=∑j=1NA±β(j). This is our initial set-up: a system with two commuting charges and six dynamical symmetries.

Since we begin with three pairs of dynamical symmetries, one may expect we would have three commuting charges. Consider the operators,23 Q1=c1A+1,A−1=121000−10000,

24 Q2~=c2A+2,A−2=1210000000−1,and

25 Q3~=c3A+3,A−3=1200001000−1.

The important point here is that all three are not linearly independent. One can see this from the Killing forms between all pairs not being zero: (Q1,Q2~)=3,(Q1,Q3~)=−3, and (Q2~,Q3~)=3. A Cartan subalgebra basis will require two charges. Thus, we sum over two of these three operators. We are free to do so in different ways. The choice that recovers the original two operators we considered is summing over charges Q2~ and Q3~: Q2=13Q2~+Q3~.

We now want to introduce other charges that do not commute with the existing ones, i.e., more of the charges that generate su(3). However, recall the dynamical symmetries for τ3 and τ8 are linear combinations of the other six Gell–Mann matrices. If the Hamiltonian now commutes with any elements from other Cartan subalgebras of su(3), it will stop some combination of A±1tot, A±2tot, and A±3tot from being dynamical symmetries. If the Hamiltonian commutes with all of su(3)’s charges, it will nullify the system’s dynamical symmetries. When the system had two commuting charges, it had six dynamical symmetries. Now that it has eight noncommuting charges, it has no dynamical symmetries.

Similar to the su(2) example, we can study Hamiltonians for the su(3) example. These Hamiltonians are less familiar but can be derived using the procedure in ref. 38,26 H3=J2∑α∑⟨j,k⟩∑⟨⟨j,k⟩⟩τα(j)τα(k)+B12∑jτ3(j)+B22∑jτ8(j).

Setting B1 and B2 to zero allows the noncommuting charges to give way to dynamical symmetries.

Finally, we can ask why noncommuting charges remove dynamical symmetries. A Cartan-Weyl basis (consisting of commuting charges and dynamical symmetries) and noncommuting charges each form a basis for the algebras being studied. Thus, the elements of the Cartan-Weyl basis can be expressed in terms of the noncommuting charges, i.e., the dynamical symmetries can be written as a linear combination of the noncommuting charges. Therefore, if the Hamiltonian commutes with more noncommuting charges, it will commute with fewer dynamical symmetries. This is why introducing noncommuting charges leads to the removal of existing dynamical symmetries.

Discussion

This study adds a key piece to the puzzle of whether noncommuting charges aid or hinder thermalization22,24,24–26,29,61–68. We found that introducing noncommuting charges into a system can remove its existing dynamical symmetries, thereby removing non-stationary dynamics. Noncommuting charges thus are able to promote thermalization by reducing the number of local observables that thermalize according to the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis.

Non-Abelian symmetries have now been shown to remove three forms of non-thermalizing behavior. The main result of this work shows the removal of dynamical symmetries and ref. 31 shows destabilizng MBL. Reference 69 presents a procedure for constructing Hamiltonians with quantum scars by taking a non-Abelian symmetric Hamiltonian and adding a perturbation that breaks the non-Abelian symmetry. Reversing this procedure, one finds a case where introducing introducing non-Abelian symmetries removes quantum scars. Unlike the quantum scar work, our analysis targets local observables and can extend beyond Hamiltonians to Lindbladians since noncommuting charges and dynamical symmetries are relevant in both closed and open systems8,46,47,51.

One promising opportunity for future work is unifying these three results. One motivation to look into this is that the Hamiltonians found in ref. 69 and those studied in this work overlap, suggesting a potential connection. A second reason comes from the entanglement in the systems studied in these three results. Reference 70 shows that, in contrast to typical systems where MBL occurs, SU(2) symmetry mandates eigenstates with entanglement exceeding area law. Meanwhile, ref. 69 finds that breaking SU(2) symmetry removes states with subthermal entanglement entropy. Both of these works align with recent research that indicates non-Abelian symmetries increase entanglement entropy29,30. Thus, it seems promising to look into the underlying mechanism causing non-Abelian symmetries to increase entanglement and understand its connection to supressing non-thermalizing phenomena.

A separate direction is to study the effect of breaking non-Abelian symmetries without introducing dynamical symmetries. For example, one could alter the Heisenberg Hamiltonian to break its non-Abelian symmetry by adding a coupling term like (σx(j)σy(j+1)−σy(j)σx(j+1)). If noncommuting charges diminish non-thermalizing dynamics under these conditions, their role in promoting thermalization would be further substantiated. If not, this would suggest that the thermalization-promoting ability of noncommuting charges is limited to certain systems. A third opportunity is to explore dynamical symmetries without any restrictions on locality and study their effect on the thermalization of less local observables, as done in ref. 43.

The primary aim of this work is to understand the influence of noncommuting charges on thermalization. Several studies indicate that noncommuting charges obstruct thermalization, as evidenced by deviations from the thermal state22, slower entropy production23, more constrained dynamics compared to systems with commuting charges28, and difficulties in characterizing the thermal state18–21. Conversely, there is evidence suggesting that noncommuting charges facilitate thermalization, demonstrated by increased average entanglement29,30 and the elimination of many-body localization, quantum scars, and dynamical symmetries31,69,70. One possible resolution is that noncommuting charges impede thermalization, while simultaneously enhancing equilibration by removing obstacles to reaching stationary states. Further work is needed to understand if this is true and to elucidate the nature of the relationship between noncommuting charges and thermalization.

Supplementary information

Peer Review File

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41467-024-52588-9.

Acknowledgements

S.M. would like to thank Berislav Buča and Abhinav Prem for useful discussions and Nicole Yunger Halpern for asking him a question that ultimately motivated this work—what do dynamical symmetries have to do with noncommuting charges? Further thanks are extended to Matthew Graydon, Raymond Laflamme, Zachary Mann, José Polo-Gómez, Abhinav Prem, and Nicole Yunger Halpern for their comments on the manuscript. This work received support from the Vanier C.G.S.

Author contributions

All contributions for this project were done by the sole author.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Data availability

All materials necessary to support the conclusions of this study are included in the main article.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Srednicki M Chaos and quantum thermalization Phys. Rev. E 1994 50 888 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.888
Srednicki, M. Chaos and quantum thermalization. Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994).
2. Deutsch JM Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system Phys. Rev. A 1991 43 2046 10.1103/PhysRevA.43.2046 9905246
Deutsch, J. M. Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system. Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991).9905246
3. Ueda M Quantum equilibration, thermalization and prethermalization in ultracold atoms Nat. Rev. Phys. 2020 2 669 681 10.1038/s42254-020-0237-x
Ueda, M. Quantum equilibration, thermalization and prethermalization in ultracold atoms. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 669–681 (2020).
4. Rigol M Dunjko V Olshanii M Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems Nature 2008 452 854 858 10.1038/nature06838 18421349
Rigol, M., Dunjko, V. & Olshanii, M. Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems. Nature 452, 854–858 (2008).18421349
5. Fagotti M On conservation laws, relaxation and pre-relaxation after a quantum quench J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2014 2014 P03016 10.1088/1742-5468/2014/03/P03016
Fagotti, M. On conservation laws, relaxation and pre-relaxation after a quantum quench. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2014, P03016 (2014).
6. Abanin DA Altman E Bloch I Serbyn M Colloquium: many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement Rev. Mod. Phys. 2019 91 021001 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001
Abanin, D. A., Altman, E., Bloch, I. & Serbyn, M. Colloquium: many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019).
7. Serbyn M Abanin DA Papić Z Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity Nat. Phys. 2021 17 675 685 10.1038/s41567-021-01230-2
Serbyn, M., Abanin, D. A. & Papić, Z. Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity. Nat. Phys. 17, 675–685 (2021).
8. Buča B Tindall J Jaksch D Non-stationary coherent quantum many-body dynamics through dissipation Nat. Commun. 2019 10 1730 10.1038/s41467-019-09757-y 30988312
Buča, B., Tindall, J. & Jaksch, D. Non-stationary coherent quantum many-body dynamics through dissipation. Nat. Commun. 10, 1730 (2019).30988312
9. D’Alessio L Kafri Y Polkovnikov A Rigol M From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics Adv. Phys. 2016 65 239 362 10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134
D’Alessio, L., Kafri, Y., Polkovnikov, A. & Rigol, M. From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. Adv. Phys. 65, 239–362 (2016).
10. Sen, D. The uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics. Curr. Sci. 107, 203–218 (2014).
11. Coles PJ Berta M Tomamichel M Wehner S Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications Rev. Mod. Phys. 2017 89 015002 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015002
Coles, P. J., Berta, M., Tomamichel, M. & Wehner, S. Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015002 (2017).
12. Fewster CJ Verch R Quantum fields and local measurements Commun. Math. Phys. 2020 378 851 889 10.1007/s00220-020-03800-6
Fewster, C. J. & Verch, R. Quantum fields and local measurements. Commun. Math. Phys. 378, 851–889 (2020).
13. Polo-Gómez J Garay LJ Martín-Martínez E A detector-based measurement theory for quantum field theory Phys. Rev. D 2022 105 065003 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.065003
Polo-Gómez, J., Garay, L. J. & Martín-Martínez, E. A detector-based measurement theory for quantum field theory. Phys. Rev. D 105, 065003 (2022).
14. Aspect A Bell’s inequality test: more ideal than ever Nature 1999 398 189 190 10.1038/18296
Aspect, A. Bell’s inequality test: more ideal than ever. Nature 398, 189–190 (1999).
15. Emary C Lambert N Nori F Leggett–Garg inequalities Rep. Prog. Phys. 2013 77 016001 10.1088/0034-4885/77/1/016001
Emary, C., Lambert, N. & Nori, F. Leggett–Garg inequalities. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2013).
16. Majidy S-S Katiyar H Anikeeva G Halliwell J Laflamme R Exploration of an augmented set of leggett-garg inequalities using a noninvasive continuous-in-time velocity measurement Phys. Rev. A 2019 100 042325 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.042325
Majidy, S.-S., Katiyar, H., Anikeeva, G., Halliwell, J. & Laflamme, R. Exploration of an augmented set of leggett-garg inequalities using a noninvasive continuous-in-time velocity measurement. Phys. Rev. A 100, 042325 (2019).
17. Majidy S Halliwell JJ Laflamme R Detecting violations of macrorealism when the original leggett-garg inequalities are satisfied Phys. Rev. A 2021 103 062212 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.062212
Majidy, S., Halliwell, J. J. & Laflamme, R. Detecting violations of macrorealism when the original leggett-garg inequalities are satisfied. Phys. Rev. A 103, 062212 (2021).
18. Yunger Halpern N Beyond heat baths II: Framework for generalized thermodynamic resource theories J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 2018 51 094001 10.1088/1751-8121/aaa62f
Yunger Halpern, N. Beyond heat baths II: Framework for generalized thermodynamic resource theories. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 51, 094001 (2018).
19. Yunger Halpern N Faist P Oppenheim J Winter A Microcanonical and resource-theoretic derivations of the thermal state of a quantum system with noncommuting charges Nat. Commun. 2016 7 1 7 10.1038/ncomms12051
Yunger Halpern, N., Faist, P., Oppenheim, J. & Winter, A. Microcanonical and resource-theoretic derivations of the thermal state of a quantum system with noncommuting charges. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–7 (2016).
20. Guryanova Y Popescu S Short AJ Silva R Skrzypczyk P Thermodynamics of quantum systems with multiple conserved quantities Nat. Commun. 2016 7 1 9 10.1038/ncomms12049
Guryanova, Y., Popescu, S., Short, A. J., Silva, R. & Skrzypczyk, P. Thermodynamics of quantum systems with multiple conserved quantities. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–9 (2016).
21. Lostaglio M Jennings D Rudolph T Thermodynamic resource theories, non-commutativity and maximum entropy principles N. J. Phys. 2017 19 043008 10.1088/1367-2630/aa617f
Lostaglio, M., Jennings, D. & Rudolph, T. Thermodynamic resource theories, non-commutativity and maximum entropy principles. N. J. Phys. 19, 043008 (2017).
22. Murthy, C., Babakhani, A., Iniguez, F., Srednicki, M. & Yunger Halpern, N. Non-abelian eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 140402 (APS, 2023).
23. Manzano G Parrondo JM Landi GT Non-abelian quantum transport and thermosqueezing effects PRX Quantum 2022 3 010304 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010304
Manzano, G., Parrondo, J. M. & Landi, G. T. Non-abelian quantum transport and thermosqueezing effects. PRX Quantum 3, 010304 (2022).
24. Majidy S Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum thermodynamics and beyond Nat. Rev. Phys. 2023 5 689 698 10.1038/s42254-023-00641-9
Majidy, S. et al. Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum thermodynamics and beyond. Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 689–698 (2023).
25. Majidy, S. Effects of Noncommuting Charges in Quantum Information and Thermodynamics (Doctor of Philosophy) (University of Waterloo, 2024).
26. Upadhyaya, T., Braasch W. F., Jr. Landi, G. T. & Yunger Halpern, N. What happens to entropy production when conserved quantities fail to commute with each other. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15480 (2023).
27. Manzano G Squeezed thermal reservoir as a generalized equilibrium reservoir Phys. Rev. E 2018 98 042123 10.1103/PhysRevE.98.042123
Manzano, G. Squeezed thermal reservoir as a generalized equilibrium reservoir. Phys. Rev. E 98, 042123 (2018).
28. Marvian I Restrictions on realizable unitary operations imposed by symmetry and locality Nat. Phys. 2022 18 283 289 10.1038/s41567-021-01464-0
Marvian, I. Restrictions on realizable unitary operations imposed by symmetry and locality. Nat. Phys. 18, 283–289 (2022).
29. Majidy S Lasek A Huse DA Yunger Halpern N Non-abelian symmetry can increase entanglement entropy Phys. Rev. B 2023 107 045102 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.045102
Majidy, S., Lasek, A., Huse, D. A. & Yunger Halpern, N. Non-abelian symmetry can increase entanglement entropy. Phys. Rev. B 107, 045102 (2023).
30. Majidy S Critical phase and spin sharpening in su (2)-symmetric monitored quantum circuits Phys. Rev. B 2023 108 054307 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.054307
Majidy, S. et al. Critical phase and spin sharpening in su (2)-symmetric monitored quantum circuits. Phys. Rev. B 108, 054307 (2023).
31. Potter AC Vasseur R Symmetry constraints on many-body localization Phys. Rev. B 2016 94 224206 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.224206
Potter, A. C. & Vasseur, R. Symmetry constraints on many-body localization. Phys. Rev. B 94, 224206 (2016).
32. Majidy, S., Wilson, C. & Laflamme, R. Building Quantum Computers: A Practical Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2024).
33. Preskill J Reliable quantum computers Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 1998 454 385 410 10.1098/rspa.1998.0167
Preskill, J. Reliable quantum computers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 385–410 (1998).
34. Gottesman, D. An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Quantum information science and its contributions to mathematics, Proc. Symp. Appl. Math., Vol. 68, 13–58 (2010).
35. Campbell ET Terhal BM Vuillot C Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation Nature 2017 549 172 179 10.1038/nature23460 28905902
Campbell, E. T., Terhal, B. M. & Vuillot, C. Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation. Nature 549, 172–179 (2017).28905902
36. Popovic M Mitchison MT Goold J Thermodynamics of decoherence Proc. R. Soc. A 2023 479 20230040 10.1098/rspa.2023.0040
Popovic, M., Mitchison, M. T. & Goold, J. Thermodynamics of decoherence. Proc. R. Soc. A 479, 20230040 (2023).
37. Yunger Halpern N Beverland ME Kalev A Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum many-body thermalization Phys. Rev. E 2020 101 042117 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.042117 32422760
Yunger Halpern, N., Beverland, M. E. & Kalev, A. Noncommuting conserved charges in quantum many-body thermalization. Phys. Rev. E 101, 042117 (2020).32422760
38. Yunger Halpern N Majidy S How to build hamiltonians that transport noncommuting charges in quantum thermodynamics npj Quantum Inf. 2022 8 10 10.1038/s41534-022-00516-4
Yunger Halpern, N. & Majidy, S. How to build hamiltonians that transport noncommuting charges in quantum thermodynamics. npj Quantum Inf. 8, 10 (2022).
39. Loss D DiVincenzo DP Quantum computation with quantum dots Phys. Rev. A 1998 57 120 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.120
Loss, D. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
40. Zhong H-S Quantum computational advantage using photons Science 2020 370 1460 1463 10.1126/science.abe8770 33273064
Zhong, H.-S. et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science 370, 1460–1463 (2020).33273064
41. Rudolph T Virmani SS The two-qubit singlet/triplet measurement is universal for quantum computing given only maximally-mixed initial states Nat. Commun. 2023 14 7800 10.1038/s41467-023-43481-y 38016955
Rudolph, T. & Virmani, S. S. The two-qubit singlet/triplet measurement is universal for quantum computing given only maximally-mixed initial states. Nat. Commun. 14, 7800 (2023).38016955
42. Freedman MH Hastings MB Zini MS Symmetry protected quantum computation Quantum 2021 5 554 10.22331/q-2021-09-28-554
Freedman, M. H., Hastings, M. B. & Zini, M. S. Symmetry protected quantum computation. Quantum 5, 554 (2021).
43. Medenjak M Buča B Jaksch D Isolated heisenberg magnet as a quantum time crystal Phys. Rev. B 2020 102 041117 10.1103/PhysRevB.102.041117
Medenjak, M., Buča, B. & Jaksch, D. Isolated heisenberg magnet as a quantum time crystal. Phys. Rev. B 102, 041117 (2020).
44. Medenjak M Prosen T Zadnik L Rigorous bounds on dynamical response functions and time-translation symmetry breaking SciPost Phys. 2020 9 003 10.21468/SciPostPhys.9.1.003
Medenjak, M., Prosen, T. & Zadnik, L. Rigorous bounds on dynamical response functions and time-translation symmetry breaking. SciPost Phys. 9, 003 (2020).
45. Chinzei K Ikeda TN Time crystals protected by floquet dynamical symmetry in hubbard models Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020 125 060601 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.060601 32845651
Chinzei, K. & Ikeda, T. N. Time crystals protected by floquet dynamical symmetry in hubbard models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 060601 (2020).32845651
46. Tindall J Muñoz CS Buča B Jaksch D Quantum synchronisation enabled by dynamical symmetries and dissipation N. J. Phys. 2020 22 013026 10.1088/1367-2630/ab60f5
Tindall, J., Muñoz, C. S., Buča, B. & Jaksch, D. Quantum synchronisation enabled by dynamical symmetries and dissipation. N. J. Phys. 22, 013026 (2020).
47. Buča B Jaksch D Dissipation induced nonstationarity in a quantum gas Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019 123 260401 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.260401 31951440
Buča, B. & Jaksch, D. Dissipation induced nonstationarity in a quantum gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 260401 (2019).31951440
48. Buča B Out-of-time-ordered crystals and fragmentation Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022 128 100601 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.100601 35333089
Buča, B. Out-of-time-ordered crystals and fragmentation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 100601 (2022).35333089
49. Buca, B. et al. Quantum many-body attractors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.11166 (2020).
50. Buča, B. Unified theory of local quantum many-body dynamics: Eigenoperator thermalization theorems. Physical Review X 13, 031013 (APS, 2023).
51. Zhang Z Tindall J Mur-Petit J Jaksch D Buča B Stationary state degeneracy of open quantum systems with non-abelian symmetries J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 2020 53 215304 10.1088/1751-8121/ab88e3
Zhang, Z., Tindall, J., Mur-Petit, J., Jaksch, D. & Buča, B. Stationary state degeneracy of open quantum systems with non-abelian symmetries. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 215304 (2020).
52. Das, A. & Okubo, S. Lie Groups and Lie Algebras for Physicists (World Scientific, 2014).
53. Iachello, F. Lie Algebras and Applications, Vol. 12 (Springer, 2006).
54. Gilmore, R. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Some of Their Applications (Courier Corporation, 2012).
55. Humphreys, J. E. Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory, vol. 9 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
56. Hall, B. C. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations (Springer, 2013).
57. Campoamor-Stursberg, R. & De Traubenberg, M. R. Group Theory in Physics: a Practitioner’s Guide (World Scientific, 2019).
58. Tasaki H The Hubbard model-an introduction and selected rigorous results J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1998 10 4353 10.1088/0953-8984/10/20/004
Tasaki, H. The Hubbard model-an introduction and selected rigorous results. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 10, 4353 (1998).
59. Jakubczyk D Jakubczyk P On the su (2) × su (2) symmetry in the Hubbard model Open Phys. 2012 10 906 912 10.2478/s11534-012-0055-6
Jakubczyk, D. & Jakubczyk, P. On the su (2) × su (2) symmetry in the Hubbard model. Open Phys. 10, 906–912 (2012).
60. Cahn, R. N. Semi-Simple Lie Algebras and Their Representations (Dover, 2006).
61. Kranzl, F. et al. Experimental observation of thermalisation with noncommuting charges. PRX Quantum 4, 020318 (APS, 2023).
62. Noh JD Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis in two-dimensional xxz model with or without su (2) symmetry Phys. Rev. E 2023 107 014130 10.1103/PhysRevE.107.014130 36797888
Noh, J. D. Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis in two-dimensional xxz model with or without su (2) symmetry. Phys. Rev. E 107, 014130 (2023).36797888
63. Siegl J Schliemann J Imperfect many-body localization in exchange-disordered isotropic spin chains N. J. Phys. 2023 25 123002 10.1088/1367-2630/ad0e1b
Siegl, J. & Schliemann, J. Imperfect many-body localization in exchange-disordered isotropic spin chains. N. J. Phys. 25, 123002 (2023).
64. Ares F Murciano S Vernier E Calabrese P Lack of symmetry restoration after a quantum quench: an entanglement asymmetry study SciPost Phys. 2023 15 089 10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.089
Ares, F., Murciano, S., Vernier, E. & Calabrese, P. Lack of symmetry restoration after a quantum quench: an entanglement asymmetry study. SciPost Phys. 15, 089 (2023).
65. Tabanera-Bravo J Parrondo JM Esposito M Barra F Thermalization and dephasing in collisional reservoirs Phys. Rev. Lett. 2023 130 200402 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.200402 37267544
Tabanera-Bravo, J., Parrondo, J. M., Esposito, M. & Barra, F. Thermalization and dephasing in collisional reservoirs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200402 (2023).37267544
66. Marvian, I. Theory of quantum circuits with abelian symmetries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12466 (2023).
67. Dabholkar, B. & Alet, F. Ergodic and non-ergodic properties of disordered su (3) chains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00442 (2024).
68. García-Pintos, L. P. et al. Estimation of hamiltonian parameters from thermal states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10343 (2024).
69. O’Dea N Burnell F Chandran A Khemani V From tunnels to towers: quantum scars from lie algebras and q-deformed lie algebras Phys. Rev. Res. 2020 2 043305 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043305
O’Dea, N., Burnell, F., Chandran, A. & Khemani, V. From tunnels to towers: quantum scars from lie algebras and q-deformed lie algebras. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043305 (2020).
70. Protopopov IV Ho WW Abanin DA Effect of su (2) symmetry on many-body localization and thermalization Phys. Rev. B 2017 96 041122 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.041122
Protopopov, I. V., Ho, W. W. & Abanin, D. A. Effect of su (2) symmetry on many-body localization and thermalization. Phys. Rev. B 96, 041122 (2017).
