Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Simulation
Quantum Foundations
Ether of Orbifolds
arXiv
Authors: Henry Lamm
Year
2026
Paper ID
38955
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
126
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Whose world is this? The orbifold lattice has been proposed as a bridge to practical quantum simulation of Yang--Mills theory, claiming exponential speedup over all known approaches. Through analytical derivations, Monte Carlo simulation, and explicit circuit construction, we identify compounding hidden costs entirely absent in Kogut--Susskind formulations: a mass-dependent Trotter overhead that scales as m4, gauge-violating dynamics that grow as m2 and worsen with penalty terms, and a mandatory mass extrapolation. Monte Carlo simulations of SU(3) establish a universal scaling: the continuum limit forces m2 propto 1/a, binding the Trotter step to the lattice spacing through a cost unique to orbifolds. For a fiducial 103 calculation, the orbifold is 104--1010 times more expensive than every published alternative. The bridge is not built. The gap is the foundation.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Whose world is this?
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.