If an isolated macroscopic quantum system is left at a nonequilibrium state, then this system will relax to the unique equilibrium state, which is called thermalization. Most of quantum many-body systems thermalize, while some many-body systems including integrable systems do not thermalize. What determines the presence/absence of thermalization and how to understand thermalization from microscopic quantum mechanics are profound long-standing problems.

In the first part of my talk, I briefly review some established results of quantum thermalization. I first clarify the problem of thermalization in a mathematical manner, and then introduce several important results and insights: typicality of equilibrium states [1], relaxation caused by large effective dimension [2], and eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) [3,4] and weak-ETH [5].

In the second part of my talk, I explain some of my results. First, I introduce a model which is non-integrable and thermalizes but does not satisfy the ETH [6,7]. This finding disproves the conjectures that all nonintegrable systems satisfy the ETH and that the ETH is a necessary condition for thermalization. I also discuss the hardness of the problem of thermalization from the viewpoint of computational science [8]. Then, I move to an analytical approach to a concrete model, and prove that S=1/2 XYZ chain with a magnetic field is nonintegrable [9]. This is the first example of proof of nonintegrability in a concrete quantum many-body system, which will help a mathematical approach to thermalization.

15:00- Talk by Prof. Shin-ya Kawaguchi
16:15- Talk by Dr. Yuji Sugita
17:15- Discussion

The use of numerical simulations for complex systems is common. However, significant uncertainties may exist for many of the involved variables, and in order to ensure the reliability of our simulation results and the safety of such complex systems, a stochastic approach providing statistics of the probability distribution of the results is of crucial importance. However, when a highly accurate result is required, the conventional Monte Carlo based probabilistic methodology inherently requires many repetitions of the deterministic analysis and in cases where that deterministic simulation is (relatively) time consuming, such probabilistic assessment can easily become computationally intractable. Hence, to reduce the computational expense of such probabilistic assessments as much as possible, the targets of this seminar are twofold: (1), to exploit an efficient sampling strategy to minimize the number of needed simulations of Monte Carlo based probabilistic analysis; (2), to investigate a surrogate model to reduce the computational expense of single deterministic simulation.

This seminar contains two parts and will be accompanied by a set of illustrative building physical case studies (analysis of the heat and moisture transfer through building components). The first part of this seminar focusses on the use of quasi-Monte Carlo based probabilistic assessment for building performance, since it has the potential to outperform the standard Monte Carlo method. More specifically, the quasi-Monte Carlo sampling strategies and related error estimation techniques will be introduced in detail. In addition, questions on under which conditions the quasi-Monte Carlo can outperform the standard Monte Carlo method will be answered by a set of analyses. The second part of this seminar targets the investigation of using model order reduction methods for optimizing the deterministic simulation, given that it generally allows a (large) reduction of the simulation time without losing the dynamic behavior of the conventional models (such as the transient finite element analysis). Particularly, the fundamental concepts of one common model order reduction method – proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) will be provided, and its potential use for simulating (building physical) problems with different levels of non-linearity and complexity will be illustrated.

November 26 at 10:00-11:30, 2020 (JST)
November 25 at 20:00-21:30, 2020 (EST)

The physical concepts of quantum theory, in particular of quantum gravity and string theory, have proven to be extremely powerful in addressing deep problems in pure mathematics, from knot invariants to algebraic geometry. Is there such a thing as “quantum mathematics”? Should we add Feynman diagrams, strings, branes and black holes to the language of mathematics?