Emergent gauge fields and the high-temperature superconductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantum entanglement of many states of matter can be represented by electric and magnetic fields, much like those found in Maxwell's theory. These fields 'emerge' from the quantum structure of the many-electron state, rather than being fundamental degrees of freedom of the vacuum. I review basic aspects of the theory of emergent gauge fields in insulators in an intuitive manner. In metals, Fermi liquid (FL) theory relies on adiabatic continuity from the free electron state, and its central consequence is the existence of long-lived electron-like quasi-particles around a Fermi surface enclosing a volume determined by the total density of electrons, via the Luttinger theorem. However, long-range entanglement and emergent gauge fields can also be present in metals. I focus on the 'fractionalized Fermi liquid' (FL*) state, which also has long-lived electron-like quasi-particles around a Fermi surface; however, the Luttinger theorem on the Fermi volume is violated, and this requires the presence of emergent gauge fields, and the associated loss of adiabatic continuity with the free electron state. Finally, I present a brief survey of some recent experiments in the hole-doped cuprate superconductors, and interpret the properties of the pseudogap regime in the framework of the FL* theory.This article is part of the themed issue 'Unifying physics and technology in light of Maxwell's equations'.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".