Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence

Probing Stringy Horizons with Pole-Skipping in Non-Maximal Chaotic Systems

arXiv
Authors: Ping Gao, Hong Liu

Year

2025

Paper ID

36291

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

123

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In this paper, we study pole-skipping in non-maximally quantum chaotic systems. Using Rindler conformal field theories and the large-q SYK chain as illustrative examples, we argue that the pole-skipping points of few-body operators organize into trajectories in the complex frequency-momentum plane, with the leading trajectory encoding the quantum Lyapunov exponent. We further propose that these trajectories admit a natural interpretation as Regge trajectories of stringy excitations in a dual stringy black hole geometry. From this perspective, pole-skipping for an individual operator can be viewed as tracking the stringy horizon through the response of a single excitation. Our results suggest that pole-skipping reflects intrinsic properties of quantum chaotic systems and may be deeply connected to the structure of horizons in the stringy regime.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In this paper, we study pole-skipping in non-maximally quantum chaotic systems.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #36291

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.