1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \textwidth=6.5in

4: \hoffset=0in

5: \oddsidemargin=0in

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: 

9: \input{macros}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\Sym}{\mbox{{\bf Sym}}}

12: \newcommand{\Tless}{\mbox{{\bf Traceless}}}

13: 

14: \input{epsf}

15: 

16: \begin{titlepage}

17: \rightline{CLNS 01/1747}

18: 

19: \rightline{hep-th/0107180}

20: 

21: \vskip 2cm

22: \begin{center}

23: \Large{{\bf The large M limit of\\

24: Non-Commutative Open Strings\\

25: at strong coupling

26: }}

27: \end{center}

28: 

29: \vskip 1cm

30: \begin{center}

31: Vatche Sahakian\footnote{\texttt{vvs@mail.lns.cornell.edu}}

32: \end{center}

33: \vskip 12pt

34: \centerline{\sl Laboratory of Nuclear Studies}

35: \centerline{\sl Cornell University}

36: \centerline{\sl Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

37: 

38: \vskip 2cm

39: 

40: \begin{abstract}

41: Two dimensional Non-Commutative Open String (NCOS)

42: theory, well-defined perturbatively, may also be studied

43: at strong coupling and for large D-string charge by making use of

44: the Holographic duality. We analyze the zero mode dynamics of a 

45: closed string in the appropriate background geometry and map the results onto

46: a sector of strongly coupled NCOS dynamics.

47: We find an elaborate classical picture

48: that shares qualitative similarities with the SL(2,R) WZW model.  In the

49: quantum problem, we compute propagators and part of the energy spectrum of the

50: theory; the latter involves interesting variations in the

51: density of states as a function of the level number, and energies

52: scaling inversely with the coupling.

53: Finally, the geometry exhibits a near horizon throat, associated with

54: NCOS dynamics, yet it is found that the whole space is available for

55: Holography. This provides a setting to extend the Maldacena duality

56: beyond the near horizon limit.

57: 

58: 

59: \end{abstract}

60: 

61: \end{titlepage}

62: \newpage

63: \setcounter{page}{1}

64: 

65: \section{Introduction and Summary}

66: \label{intro}

67: 

68: 

69: Within the realm of perturbation theory it was originally

70: formulated in, 

71: string theory has been known to entail unusual and sometimes remarkable

72: dynamics, such as 

73: non-local interactions and interesting spectra. Certain puzzles that had

74: plagued theoretical physics for many years were successfully 

75: addressed in this perturbative framework

76: due to such unique attributes of the theory. In more recent years,

77: sometimes through the use of supersymmetry, certain non-perturbative

78: aspects of the theory have been explored, revealing yet richer and

79: more remarkable dynamics.

80: 

81: An important new tool in this program is the

82: so-called Holographic duality~\cite{MALDA1}-\cite{ADSLECT}

83: that allows the controlled

84: study of the theory beyond a perturbative expansion. It is believed that

85: this principle is a general one; that it applies to the theory

86: expanded about many of its multitude of vacua.

87: In particular, our goal in this work is to focus on

88: Non-Commutative Open Strings (NCOS)~\cite{SWNC}-\cite{GMMS}

89: within Wound String theory~\cite{GOMISOOG,DGK1,DGK2}.

90: The latter corresponds to a certain sector of string

91: theories that is characterized by non-relativistic dispersion

92: relations. In this setting,

93: a particular

94: class of non-perturbative solitons, longitudinal D-strings bounded with 

95: fundamental string charge,

96: involve particularly interesting dynamics;

97: they can be described by a 

98: two dimensional, Lorentz invariant theory

99: of open strings, with the time and space coordinates non-commuting.

100: This is a useful setup as it focuses onto an important

101: attribute of string theories, non-locality, in a framework that is relatively

102: simple. And of most interest to us, through the use of the Holographic

103: duality, this non-local dynamics is computationally accessible 

104: at strong coupling. It is worthwhile emphasizing that this is a quite

105: unusual situation; whereby {\em stringy dynamics} can be explored

106: non-perturbatively.

107: 

108: The Holographic duality in this context

109: establishes a strong-weak coupling map between two string theories\footnote{

110: A system that is most similar to this in this regard is that of Little

111: String theory~\cite{LST1,LST2}; 

112: however, in that context, there has not been a good

113: understanding of what constitutes a perturbative expansion of the theory.}.

114: This map is not well understood, but may hold

115: important treasures for one's intuition.

116: There have been suggestions 

117: that this correspondence may be formulated directly on the world sheet level

118: ~\cite{DGK2};

119: and indications of rich dynamics in the theory at strong

120: coupling~\cite{MALDARUSSO,HARMARKS,VVSNCOS,FASTER}. 

121: It even appears that the system is a prime setting to

122: understand Holography beyond the usual near-horizon scaling 

123: limit~\cite{DGK2}.

124: 

125: In conventional approaches to computations in holographic duals, 

126: one has a field theory on one side, and perturbative string theory

127: (in practice a supergravity)

128: on the other. The useful probes are often fields in the supergravity

129: propagating in some curved background 

130: geometry~\cite{WITHOLO,BALABULK1,BALABULK2}

131: (see however~\cite{WILSONMALDA}). 

132: In the NCOS analogue,

133: a central role must be played by probes of the dual geometry

134: that are strings. The novelty in the problem then is that

135: it involves studying the dynamics of closed strings in curved backgrounds,

136: and mapping results from this non-linear sigma model

137: onto physical quantities in NCOS theory.

138: 

139: In this work, we present an attempt in understanding strongly

140: coupled  dynamics in NCOS theory using this Holographic duality. 

141: We do this by studying, to a leading

142: order in a semi-classical approximation scheme, the dynamics of

143: an unexcited IIB

144: closed string in the background geometry cast about a bound state

145: of D strings and fundamental strings. This involves

146: the NCOS (or Wound String theory) scaling limit, and the background

147: space of interest becomes conformal to $AdS_3\times S^7$

148: (see also discussion in~\cite{BERMAN}), in the presence

149: of an NSNS B-field. Effects from the RR fields, and certain

150: corrections arising from the running dilaton, are found subleading

151: to the dynamics we consider. 

152: To be more concrete, our space is mapped by: seven coordinates on a seven

153: sphere; one radial coordinate we call $v$ (which is chosen dimensionless); 

154: and a time and a space coordinate

155: associated with the two dimensional NCOS theory, that we denote by

156: $t$ and $y$. We then have in the perturbative

157: NCOS setting the non-commutation relation

158: $[t,y]=i\theta$, with non-locality in time measured

159: by the scale $\theta$. The latter also sets the length scale 

160: in the NCOS Virasoro spectrum. Furthermore, we compactify the $y$ 

161: coordinate on a circle of circumference $\Sigma$.

162: 

163: The $AdS_3$,

164: of curvature scale set by $\theta$, is then

165: parameterized by the coordinates $v$, $t$ and $y$. An important role

166: is however played by the conformal factor, which introduces 

167: additionally a throat in

168: the geometry at the 

169: radial coordinate $v^3\sim 1/G$; the dimensionless variable

170: $G$ being interpreted in the dual NCOS theory as the open string coupling. We

171: refer to this throat as the non-commutativity throat.

172: Figure~\ref{throat1} shows a depiction of the string frame scalar curvature,

173: \begin{figure}

174: \epsfysize=10cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{throat.eps}}

175: \caption{\sl

176: The string frame curvature (in IIB string

177: units) is finite everywhere, becoming zero at the center $v=0$ and 

178: at asymptotic infinity; and has a throat at $v^3\sim 1/G$. It is found that

179: the center $v=0$ repulses incoming strings.

180: }

181: \label{throat1}

182: \end{figure}

183: as a function of $v$ and $y$. Note that this curvature is

184: bounded everywhere, being in particular zero at $v=0$ and $v\rightarrow\infty$. 

185: However, this does not mean that we can trust this background for all $v$;

186: as there are other conditions that need to be met to paint a reliable

187: picture of the dynamics.

188: 

189: Hence, the problem at hand is as follows. We consider the center of

190: mass motion of a closed string wrapping the cycle $y$ in the geometry

191: shown in Figure~\ref{throat1}, with zero angular momentum on the seven sphere. 

192: We analyze the motion first classically,

193: then quantum mechanically. This leads to several interesting

194: predictions about the dual NCOS theory; about a theory of strings

195: at strong coupling $G\gg 1$. In the subsequent paragraphs,

196: we summarize our main results.

197: 

198: \subsection{Classical dynamics}

199: 

200: The classical dynamics has similarities to a related system, 

201: the SL(2,R) WZW model~\cite{MALDAOOG1,MALDAOOG2,ADS2OOG}. 

202: The main differences arise from the presence of

203: the non-commutativity throat, which also makes the full problem in 

204: this case considerably more involved to solve for. The center of mass

205: dynamics of the closed string is however simple to unravel, as

206: it reduces to the dynamics of a point particle in a certain 

207: two dimensional curved space (the $v-t$ plane), in the presence

208: of a $v$ dependent potential and magnetic field.

209: We find an elaborate picture. 

210: 

211: There are two sets of solutions that

212: describe bounded motion, differing by the orientation of the closed

213: string along $y$ (the analogues of `short strings' in the WZW model,

214: pointed out already in~\cite{KLEBMALDA,DGK2}). 

215: The string falls toward the horizon at $v=0$, initially

216: accelerating, then decelerating as it gets {\em repulsed} from

217: the origin. It comes to a halt at the origin and reverses direction,

218: but cannot escape to infinity. Instead, it reverses course again at some

219: finite $v=v_c$, and falls back in. The period of this

220: oscillatory motion is finite in proper time; but infinite as measured

221: by the time variable $t$, because of the infinite redshift associated with

222: the horizon. More interestingly, $v_c$ is not necessarily

223: within the non-commutativity throat! Depending on the classical 

224: energy of the closed string, $v_c$ can readily

225: extend to asymptotic infinity. Figure~\ref{vcfig} shows a plot of 

226: \begin{figure}

227: \epsfysize=6cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{vcfig.eps}}

228: \caption{\sl

229: The maximum extent $v_c$ that the closed string reaches

230: in the radial direction $v$ as a function of its energy $Q_E$.

231: The `threshold' refers to the mass of the corresponding

232: wound string in the Wound string theory, $\omega \Sigma/(4\pi\alpe)$;

233: with $\omega$ being the winding number, and $\alpe$ the NCOS string scale

234: related to $\theta$ as in~\pref{thetaalpe}.

235: }

236: \label{vcfig}

237: \end{figure}

238: this maximum extent explored by the closed string

239: as a function of its energy $Q_E$. Positive (negative) 

240: winding refers to the fact that the

241: string is oriented parallel (anti-parallel) to the background B-field.

242: The throat region was

243: believed to be the analogue of the near horizon region of the Maldacena

244: duality~\cite{MALDA1,MALDA2}; 

245: perhaps being the `boundary' of the holographic projection. 

246: It was then suggestive that such bound state solutions would be confined

247: to within the throat area\footnote{This suggestion was made in~\cite{DGK2}

248: by analyzing the dynamics at small velocities.},

249: being duals to states in the NCOS theory.

250: We see however that this is not the case.

251: Figure~\ref{wzw1} shows a plot

252: \begin{figure}

253: \epsfysize=5cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{wzw1.eps}} 

254: \caption{\sl Depiction of the closed string world sheet

255: as a function of proper time for the bounded motions; both

256: possible winding orientations for the string generate qualitatively 

257: similar plots.

258: Note the deceleration effect near $v\sim 0$;

259: the closed string is repulsed from the center.

260: }

261: \label{wzw1}

262: \end{figure}

263: of the dynamics; the two cases of different winding orientation

264: are qualitatively similar in this respect.

265: 

266: If the energy of the string is high enough, only the positively wound closed

267: string can escape to infinity. The threshold energy is

268: given by the mass of the wound string in Wound String theory, which 

269: is consistent with one's intuition. We call the corresponding scenario

270: the scattering solution (the analogue of `long strings' in the SL(2,R)

271: WZW model). As shown in Figure~\ref{wzw2}, in finite proper time,

272: \begin{figure}

273: \epsfysize=5cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{wzw2.eps}} 

274: \caption{\sl The closed string world sheet

275: as a function of proper time for the scattering scenario with

276: positive winding. 

277: }

278: \label{wzw2}

279: \end{figure}

280: the closed string can be made to scatter off the horizon, if its

281: initial energy is high enough.

282: That the world-sheet theory at asymptotic

283: infinity coincides with that of the wound string was already shown 

284: in~\cite{DGK2}.

285: Hence, this presents a setting whereby one can define asymptotic 

286: on shell states corresponding to certain vertex operator insertions 

287: in the dual NCOS theory. This however also presents a puzzle, as the

288: time of scattering appears to be infinite in the variable $t$, due to the 

289: horizon redshift effect already encountered above.

290: 

291: This summarizes the classical dynamics of the problem. Next, we present

292: some of the results concerning the quantum mechanical treatment. 

293: 

294: \subsection{A spectrum}

295: 

296: Whenever one encounters bounded classical dynamics, one should expect

297: the possibility of a quantized energy spectrum in the quantum mechanical

298: problem. And indeed, due to subtle cancelations that appear

299: in the computation of the path integral of this problem, we argue that

300: the bounded dynamics leads to a prediction for part of the spectrum 

301: of the strongly coupled NCOS theory. Figure~\ref{specfig} summarizes these

302: \begin{figure}

303: \epsfysize=12cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{spec.eps}}

304: \caption{\sl The quantized spectrum associated with the bounded

305: dynamics of the closed string. $Q_E$ is mass of the state, and 

306: $N$ is an integer denoting the the level number.

307: This is a numerical plot of equations

308: ~\pref{sclbnd}, \pref{sdW} and~\pref{born}. The threshold corresponds to

309: the rest mass of the corresponding wound string,

310: $Q_E=\omega \Sigma/(4\pi \alpe)$. The shaded area indicates

311: the window of energies for which the spectrum may be reliable,

312: as determined by the values of $M$ for the upper bound, and either

313: $\Sigma$ or $M$ for the lower bound (depending on whether $\sqrt{M}$ is smaller

314: or bigger than $\Sigma/\le$). As a general rule, 

315: the shaded area widens for large $M$ and large $\Sigma/\le$.

316: For this

317: plot, we have chosen

318: $G\sim 110$, $\Sigma\sim 23\le$, $\omega\sim 100$, and

319: the full scale on the $N$ axis is around $10^4$. The shaded area is drawn

320: for $M=1.5\times 10^5$; the upper bound is beyond the figure.

321: For $M\rightarrow\infty$, with all other parameters finite,

322: this shaded region encompasses the whole spectrum.

323: }

324: \label{specfig}

325: \end{figure}

326: results in a plot. For high energies,

327: the energy levels scale as $N^{3/2}/\sqrt{G}$ for

328: the negatively wound case, with $N$ being the level number, and $G$

329: the NCOS coupling; while they scale as $N^3/G$ for the positively wound

330: case for low energies

331: (the lower region in the figure, where the two spectra become

332: degenerate). The threshold energy indicated in the figure is the

333: mass of the corresponding wound closed string, which comes out correctly

334: from our analysis~\cite{KLEBMALDA}. And the shaded region

335: is to indicate that the computation can be trusted

336: for a window of energies; this is widened by increasing the number

337: of D-strings $M$, and/or increasing the cycle size $\Sigma$ in NCOS

338: string units. The analytical form for this spectrum is

339: presented in the text.

340: 

341: An interesting observation is that

342: all physical quantities we compute, classically or quantum mechanically, have

343: all instances of the variable counting number of longitudinal 

344: D-strings appearing only in a certain combination with the original

345: coupling of the theory. Denoting the open string coupling by $G_o$,

346: and by $M$ the number of D-strings, the effective coupling is argued to be

347: $G\equiv G_o\sqrt{M}$ for large $M$~\cite{VVSNCOS}. More importantly, the

348: strict limit $M\rightarrow \infty$ with fixed $G$ is {\em regular},

349: with all observables remaining finite and

350: with the background geometry becoming reliable for all $v$. In particular,

351: the center, generally associated with a singularity, is almost flat;

352: as if the non-commutativity throat plays the role of a regulator of

353: the singularity for $M\rightarrow\infty$. Consequently,

354: the spectrum is well-defined for all energies.

355: This constitutes one of the main results of this work;

356: a computation of part of

357: the non-perturbative spectrum of a string theory

358: at strong coupling and in the large $M$ limit.

359: 

360: At finite $M$,

361: the reliability of our result

362: hinges on certain assumptions about regularity

363: of the dynamics near $v\sim 0$, 

364: where string interactions become important. We

365: discuss this in some detail in the text; for large but finite $M$,

366: we have energy levels that may receive corrections

367: through an expansion in inverse powers of $M$.

368: We also argue for the possibility for

369: transitions between these various levels  with different

370: winding number sectors; the computed spectrum being however

371: still a good first order layout of the dynamics. Finally,

372: note also that we should superimpose, towering on each mass level

373: depicted in the figure, another spectrum corresponding to 

374: excitations of the closed string about the center of mass.

375: 

376: \subsection{Propagators}

377: 

378: In the NCOS theory at strong coupling, it then seems that one has

379: an interesting spectroscopy of states whose masses

380: scale inversely with the NCOS coupling. These objects perhaps may be

381: accorded a size, and corresponding breathing modes, that correlate

382: with location in the radial direction $v$ in the dual picture.

383: In the sector we confine our analysis, all these states carry zero

384: total momentum in the $y$ direction, as well as zero angular

385: momentum on the seven sphere. They can be attributed 

386: a `winding number' correlating with the number of times the correponding

387: closed string winds the $y$ direction in the dual description. 

388: We mentioned also scattering processes whereby a closed string in Wound

389: String theory, represented perhaps as a local vertex operator insertion

390: in the NCOS theory, scatters off the longitudinal D-strings.

391: All of this dynamics may be probed by computing propagators,

392: which we also do. For propagations of duration $T$ in 

393: NCOS string units, up to a `size'

394: (or location in the $v$ coordinate) $v_2$, we find that the propagators

395: diverge at

396: $T\sim 1/v_2$; and we find amplitudes that scale as $\sqrt{G}$ and $G$.

397: 

398: 

399: \subsection{Beyond the near horizon regime}

400: 

401: Another matter we focus on is an attempt to understand

402: in what sense Holography is being implemented in this setting; and,

403: in particular, to what extent is one studying this phenomenon

404: beyond the near-horizon limit that Holography is usually attributed with.

405: We observe that, while the throat is not a boundary of dynamics between

406: what we associate with NCOS theory, and what we qualify as Wound

407: closed string theory, it does however correspond to an energy scale at

408: which all running physical parameter of the theory scale as

409: those of the NCOS theory. The picture that seems to emerge is that

410: the whole of the space is holographically encoded in the NCOS theory,

411: but there is a screen at some definite location in the bulk,

412: where the non-commutative throat sits, that we may still

413: associate with a `projection' plane. While the Wound string theory

414: may be viewed as living at asymptotic infinity only. This strongly suggests

415: that there is a controlled approach

416: in which the Maldacena duality can be extended beyond the near horizon.

417: 

418: \subsection{Outline}

419: 

420: As this work was possibly more pleasant to type than it will be to read,

421: we have tried to organize the presentation such that

422: many computational matters are 

423: collected in appendices. Section 2 presents the notation and

424: the setup of the problem. Section 3 describes the classical dynamics.

425: Section 4 concentrates on the details of the quantum problem;

426: while Sections 5 and 6 collect the results and present some analysis.

427: Section 7 contains the observations with regards to the role

428: of the throat in the geometry. And Section 8 discusses various

429: loose ends, extensions and suggestions for future work.

430: The casual reader may focus on Sections 2, 3, 5 and 8 (and 

431: Appendix E if the need arises). Appendices A-E summarize certain

432: computational details.

433: 

434: 

435: \section{Preliminaries}

436: \label{prelim}

437: 

438: In this section, we review the two dimensional 

439: NCOS theory and establish notational matters. The geometry

440: dual to the strongly coupled NCOS theory is 

441: described first, with more background material on the subject collected

442: in Appendix A. We then outline the regime of validity of the setup.

443: 

444: \subsection{Background geometry}

445: 

446: Two dimensional NCOS theory describes the dynamics of a bound state

447: of D strings and fundamental strings in IIB string theory.

448: It can also be attained as

449: a subsector of Wound String theory in the presence

450: of longitudinal D-strings.

451: 

452: NCOS theory is parameterized by an integer $M$ that

453: counts the number of D-strings;

454: a string coupling $G$ restricted to a finite range

455: $0\leq G \leq M/(32\pi^2)$; a string length $\le$ that sets the

456: scale for (a) the spacing of the levels in the

457: Virasoro tower of free open string excitations; and (b) for a

458: parameter $\theta$ that measures non-commutativity of the coordinates

459: \bb\label{noncomm}

460: \lk[t,y\re]=i\ \theta\ .

461: \ee

462: Here, $t$ and $y$ denote the coordinates of this two dimensional 

463: theory.

464: In our conventions, we have

465: \bb\label{thetaalpe}

466: \theta= 2\pi \alpe\equiv 2\pi \le^2\ .

467: \ee

468: We will also choose to compactify the $y$ coordinate on a circle

469: of size $\Sigma$.

470: 

471: This theory has a well defined perturbative expansion

472: for $G\ll 1$ inherited from

473: the parent string theory. Novel features of the dynamics

474: can be attributed to the

475: non-commutation relation~\pref{noncomm}.

476: 

477: The strong coupling dynamics of the two dimensional NCOS theory can

478: be described via a dual setup, by studying IIB closed string theory

479: in the background geometry cast about a 

480: bound state of D-strings and fundamental

481: strings. A particular scaling limit is needed to establish this correspondence

482: and it is briefly outlined in

483: Appendix A. The resulting background is given by the metric (in the string

484: frame)

485: \bb\label{metric}

486: ds_{str}^2=\Omega^2 \lk\{ \frac{v^2}{8\pi^2 \alpe}

487: \lk(-dt^2+\Sigma^2 dy^2\re)

488: +\frac{dv^2}{v^2}

489: +4 d\Omega_7^2\re\}\ ,

490: \ee

491: where

492: \bb\label{omega}

493: \Omega^2\equiv 8\pi^2 \alp \frac{\sqrt{G}}{\sqrt{v}}

494: \sqrt{1+G v^3}\ ,

495: \ee

496: and $\alp$ is the string scale in the associated IIB theory.

497: The space is conformal to $AdS_3\times S^7$\ \footnote{

498: We work in the analogue of 

499: the Poincare patch of $AdS_3$~\cite{BALABULK1}; 

500: the

501: motivation for this is that, in the S-dual picture, the

502: corresponding geometry describes strongly coupled two dimensional

503: SU(N) gauge theory with an electric flux; with a Hamiltonian canonical to our 

504: time variable $t$.

505: }. As such,

506: dynamics in this background will have qualitative similarities

507: to that of the SL(2,R) WZW system. Note also that we have

508: rescaled the $y$ coordinate such that it is

509: compact of size $1$. Furthermore, our choice of coordinates

510: is such that $v$ is dual to energy in the NCOS theory in NCOS

511: string units (\ie\ $v$ is dimensionless); this is often

512: termed the UV-IR map in the Holographic duality~\cite{PEETPOLCH}.

513: The large $v$ region, corresponding

514: to the UV in the NCOS theory, is where, if the conformal factor

515: $\Omega$ was missing, the timelike $AdS_3$ boundary would be sitting.

516: 

517: The dilaton in this geometry runs as

518: \bb\label{dil}

519: e^\phi=\lk(32 \pi^2\re)^2 \frac{G^{3/2}}{M}

520: \frac{1+G v^3}{v^{3/2}}\ .

521: \ee

522: We also have an axion field

523: \bb

524: \chi=\frac{M}{\lk(32 \pi^2 G\re)^2} \frac{1}{1+G v^3}\ .

525: \ee

526: There is the RR two-form gauge field

527: \bb

528: A_{ty}=-\frac{\alp}{\alpe} \Sigma \frac{M}{\lk(32 \pi^2 G\re)^2}\ ;

529: \ee

530: and, most importantly, the NSNS B-field 

531: \bb\label{Bfield}

532: B_{ty}=\frac{\alp}{\alpe} \Sigma\ G v^3\ .

533: \ee

534: 

535: IIB string theory in this background is expected to be holographically

536: encoded into two dimensional NCOS theory.

537: We will focus on probing the dynamics in this geometry

538: using a closed string that wraps the cycle $y$. Figure~\ref{throat1}

539: shows a plot of the geometry at hand. The Penrose diagram is

540: identical to that of the Poincare patch of $AdS_3$ 

541: (see for example ~\cite{BALABULK1}).

542: 

543: 

544: \subsection{Regime of validity}

545: \label{valsec}

546: 

547: Given that

548: the geometry given by~\pref{metric} arises in a low energy limit of 

549: perturbative IIB

550: string theory, we need to determine the regime where this

551: setup is reliable. First,

552: the curvature scale must not be stringy,

553: which leads to the condition

554: \bb\label{curvcond}

555: \sqrt{\frac{v}{G}} \frac{-2+7 G v^3}{\lk(1+G v^3\re)^{3/2}}\ll\frac{1}{\alp}

556: \Rightarrow\lk\{

557: \begin{array}{ll}

558: v\gg 1/G & \mbox{  for  }G v^3\gg 1\mbox{  and  }G\ll 1 \\

559: v\ll G & \mbox{  for  }G v^3\ll 1\mbox{  and  }G\ll 1

560: \end{array}\re.\ ,

561: \ee

562: with no restriction for $G\gg 1$ (see the curve labeled (a)

563: in Figure~\ref{validity}).

564: The coordinate $v$ is dual to energy in the NCOS theory, 

565: in units of $\le$; hence, this is

566: a statement restricting energy scale. Requiring that the closed string

567: coupling be small yields the additional condition

568: \bb\label{curveb}

569: v\gg \frac{G}{M^{2/3}} \lk(1+G v^3\re)^{2/3}\Rightarrow

570: \lk\{

571: \begin{array}{ll}

572: v\ll M^{2/3} G^{-5/3} & \mbox{  for  }G v^3\gg 1 \\

573: v\gg M^{-2/3} G & \mbox{  for  }G v^3\ll 1

574: \end{array}\re.\ ,

575: \ee

576: or the curve labeled (b) in the figure below.

577: On the low energy (small $v$) side, the compact cycle $y$ becomes of 

578: stringy size unless 

579: \bb\label{curvec}

580: v^3\gg \frac{1}{G} \lk(\frac{\le}{\Sigma}\re)^{4}\ ,

581: \ee

582: \ie\ curve (c) in Figure~\ref{validity}. The region between these

583: three curves is the arena where we will confine our calculations. 

584: 

585: A key observation that we will rely on is that each of these three

586: curves is controlled my one of three independent parameters.

587: We first choose $G\gg 1$ so as to be safely onto the right

588: of curve (a). We then choose $M\gg 1$ to create a hierarchically 

589: wide regime of energies between the two flanks of

590: curve (b). And, finally, we make

591: $\Sigma/\le \gg 1$ so as to push curve (c) towards parametrically

592: smaller values of $v$.

593: The patch of spacetime then available for us extends from the

594: largest values

595: of $v$ to the smallest, a window controlled by $M$ and $\Sigma$.

596: 

597: Outside this domain, our calculations may be extended by applying

598: a sequence of dualities, as in~\cite{VVSNCOS}. However, for low or large enough

599: energies, and for finite $M$, 

600: we would eventually have to reach regions of space of

601: stringy curvature scales (or Planckian scales in an M theory), 

602: for both large (or small $v$). We will argue later

603: that, within the bounds of the space of parameters we will be working

604: in, our conclusions to leading order in an expansion in $1/M$

605: may be insensitive to the details behind

606: these stringy walls at large and small $v$. We will have to assume however

607: well-behaved boundary data in these asymptotic regions. 

608: \begin{figure}

609: \epsfysize=7cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{validity.eps}}

610: \caption{\sl The regime of validity of the background geometry used in

611: the text, as a function of the coupling $G$

612: and the energy scale (or coordinate) $v$.

613: The white area is where we confine our calculations.

614: To the left, perturbative NCOS dynamics can be used to study the system.

615: The corner in curve (a) is at $G\sim 1$; that

616: of curve (b) is at $G\sim \sqrt{M}$. They both occur along the

617: line $G v^3\sim 1$., \ie\ the non-commutativity throat of Figure~\ref{throat1}.

618: The right intersection point of curves (b) and (c) is around 

619: $G\sim \le \sqrt{M}/\Sigma$, which arises in our discussion on

620: several occasions. For a more complete analysis of this setup in a

621: thermodynamic setting, see~\cite{VVSNCOS}.

622: }

623: \label{validity}

624: \end{figure}

625: 

626: More interestingly, 

627: we note that the only explicit dependence on $M$ appears in

628: the condition dictated by curve (b); and it is such that, for 

629: $M\rightarrow \infty$, with $G>1$ and all other parameters held finite

630: \footnote{Note that this also corresponds to the large $N$ limit

631: in the S-dual two dimensional SU(N) gauge theory (see equations~\pref{Gs}

632: and~\pref{cpl}).},

633: curve (b) imposes no restrictions on $v$. We are left with

634: curve (c) to worry about, which sets a lower bound on $v$. 

635: We then need to apply two duality transformations; first, a T-duality

636: on $y$, and then, for yet lower values of $v$, 

637: we need to lift to M-theory. Following~\cite{VVSNCOS}, we find

638: that the M-lift in the T-dual theory is needed at

639: \bb

640: v\sim \frac{G^{5/9}}{M^{4/9}} \lk(\frac{\le}{\Sigma}\re)^{4/9}\ .

641: \ee

642: But this goes to zero as $M\rightarrow\infty$, with all other parameters

643: held fixed. The is due to the fact that our metric and

644: B-field do not depend on $M$ explicitly, yet the dilaton scales

645: inversely with it. Hence, in the T-dual IIA theory, as in the original IIB

646: theory, the $M\rightarrow\infty$ limit renders the dilaton and string

647: interactions negligible. And the geometry 

648: can be trusted {\em for all $v$}, as there are no other restrictions

649: that arise (see~\cite{VVSNCOS} for the details). The physical conclusions

650: will be unchanged under the application of the duality

651: transformation, as this corresponds to changing framework

652: within the same parent theory; describing the same dynamics with

653: other degrees of freedom. And

654: all physical observables we compute will be found independent of $M$.

655: This strict limit is then indeed regular, and

656: our computations are reliable when restricted to this

657: regime. This also gives us partial

658: confidence that the finite $M$ case, for fixed but large

659: values of $M$, gives a faithful picture of the dynamics to leading

660: order in an expansion involving inverse powers of $M$.

661: 

662: We also note that

663: a number of papers have studied dynamics of the theory onto the left

664: of Figure~\ref{validity}, 

665: where a perturbative expansion in $G$ can be trusted~\cite{GGKRW,KRISRAJAN}.

666: 

667: 

668: \section{Classical dynamics}

669: 

670: In this section, we probe the geometry given by~\pref{metric} by

671: studying the dynamics of a closed string wrapping the cycle $y$.

672: In the first subsection, we set up the action, ansatz and 

673: classical equations of motion. In the second

674: subsection, we focus on the specific case of interest, solve the 

675: corresponding

676: dynamics, and analyze the resulting classical motion of the wrapped

677: string.

678: 

679: \subsection{Equations and ansatz}

680: 

681: The classical motion of a closed string in a curved background is

682: described by the action (see for example~\cite{POLCHV1})

683: \bb\label{Saction}

684: S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alp} \int d^2\sigma\ 

685: \sqrt{-h} \lk\{

686: \lk( -h^{ab} G_{\mu\nu}(X)+\varepsilon^{ab} B_{\mu\nu}(X)\re)

687: \del_a X^\mu \del_b X^\nu

688: +\LL_{dil}

689: +\LL_{ferm} \re\}\ ,

690: \ee

691: where $h_{ab}$ is the worldsheet metric. The coupling to the

692: dilaton and RR fields is given by

693: \bb

694: \LL_{dil}= \alp R^{(2)} \phi(X)\ ,\ \ 

695: \LL_{ferm}=\LL_{free}+\LL_{RR}\ ,

696: \ee

697: where $\LL_{free}$ contains the kinetic term for the fermions

698: (and the kappa symmetry term in the spacetime formalism), while

699: $\LL_{RR}$ contains the coupling of the worldsheet theory

700: to the background RR fields through fermions\footnote{

701: The latter would involve terms of the form

702: $\del_\mu \chi \bar{\VV} C \Gamma^\mu \VV$ and

703: $\del_{[\alpha} A_{\beta\gamma]} \bar{\VV} 

704: C\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\gamma} \VV$ that couple the spin fields

705: to the axion and

706: D-string gauge field. In this respect,

707: it is wiser to formulate such a setup from the outset

708: with the spacetime supersymmetry formalism, since

709: the vertex operators coupling to the RR fields are then more transparent

710: (see also~\cite{BVW}).}.

711: The details of the fermionic contributions will be irrelevant, as

712: we will focus in this work

713: on classical bosonic dynamics on the worldsheet, 

714: with the fermion fields set to zero\footnote{One effect at this level however

715: may be additional degeneracies in the spectrum

716: from fermionic zero modes.} . Furthermore, the coupling

717: to the dilaton is subleading, being weighed

718: by a power of the string length $\alp$. The dynamics we will find can be 

719: plugged back into our energy-momentum tensor, 

720: to analyze the justification of dropping

721: the term given by $\LL_{dil}$. One then finds the condition~\pref{curvcond}.

722: Hence, for the setup we will be concerned with, valid within the region

723: depicted in Figure~\ref{validity}, 

724: both $\LL_{dil}$ and $\LL_{ferm}$ may be ignored.

725: 

726: The worldsheet theory is conformal by definition. The metric $h_{ab}$

727: can be fixed, while supplementing the equations of motion with the

728: first class constraint

729: \bb\label{constraint}

730: G_{\mu\nu} \del_c X^\mu \del_d X^\nu

731: -\frac{1}{2} h_{cd} G_{\mu\nu} h^{ab} \del_a X^\mu \del_b X^\nu

732: +O(\alp)=0\ ;

733: \ee

734: otherwise known as the string on-shell condition. Note that we have 

735: dropped from these equations contributions from the worldsheet 

736: quantum field theory of order $\alp$ and beyond\footnote{Such terms 

737: typically appear as quantum corrections to 

738: all components of the worldsheet energy-momentum tensor; in

739: addition to correcting its trace, where they add to

740: the equations of 

741: motion of IIB supergravity, as the condition for scale invariance on

742: the worldsheet.}. Also, there is no contribution from the background

743: $B$ field.

744: 

745: The equations of motion that follow from~\pref{Saction} are

746: \bb\label{eom}

747: \nabla_a \nabla^a X^\gamma=

748: -\Gamma^\gamma_{\mu\nu} h^{ab} \del_a X^\mu \del_b X^\nu

749: +\frac{1}{2} G^{\gamma\alpha} \varepsilon^{ab} H_{\alpha \mu\nu}

750: \del_a X^\mu \del_b X^\nu\ ,

751: \ee

752: with $\Gamma^\gamma_{\mu\nu}$ the Christoffel variables associated with

753: the background metric $G_{\mu\nu}$\footnote{Throughout, we conform

754: to the conventions in~\cite{WALD}.}. And the field strength $H$ is defined as

755: \bb

756: H_{\alpha\mu\nu}\equiv 3 \del_{[\alpha} B_{\mu\nu]}\ .

757: \ee

758: 

759: With the choice of coordinates given by the background~\pref{metric},

760: we write the worldsheet scalars $X^\mu$ as

761: \bb

762: X^\mu\in\{t(\tau,\sigma),v(\tau,\sigma),y(\tau,\sigma),\Theta(\tau,\sigma)\}\ ,

763: \ee

764: where $\Theta$ denotes all angle variables on the seven sphere

765: of~\pref{metric}. We also fix the worldsheet metric to $h_{ab}=\eta_{ab}$.

766: 

767: The classical system described by equation~\pref{eom}

768: can be solved by~\cite{BOZHILOV,MATTOS}

769: \bb

770: X^\mu(\sigma+\tau)\mbox{  or  }X^\mu(\sigma-\tau)\ ,

771: \ee

772: for otherwise arbitrary functions,

773: irrespective of the background fields. Generally, we loose however

774: the naive principle of superposition. In special backgrounds

775: one may find solutions with simultaneously

776: both left and right moving modes.

777: 

778: We focus instead on dynamics subject to the ansatz

779: \bb

780: t(\tau,\sigma)\rightarrow t(\tau)\ ,\ \ 

781: v(\tau,\sigma)\rightarrow v(\tau)\ ,\ \ 

782: y(\tau,\sigma)\rightarrow \pm \omega \frac{\sigma}{\Sigma}\ ,\ \ 

783: \Theta(\tau,\sigma)\rightarrow 0\ .

784: \ee

785: $\omega$ is the number of windings of the closed string on $y$

786: ($\sigma$ has size $\Sigma$). We have chosen 

787: \bb

788: \omega \geq 1\ ,

789: \ee

790: and will account for both orientations explicitly by the $\pm$ sign

791: in subsequent equations. The upper choice will be referred to as positive

792: winding, the lower as negative. Positive winding corresponds to the

793: closed string oriented parallel to the background B field.

794: 

795: Our ansatz corresponds to the center of mass motion of the closed

796: string. Furthermore, if we were to consider the slight generalization

797: \bb

798: y(\tau,\sigma)\rightarrow \pm \omega \frac{\sigma}{\Sigma}+y(\tau)\ ,

799: \ee

800: it is easy to check that the constraint from the off-diagonal elements

801: of the worldsheet energy-momentum tensor requires $y(\tau)$ to be constant.

802: Roughly speaking, we cannot put momentum on the probe string without 

803: wiggling it.

804: 

805: Subject to this ansatz, and in the background geometry 

806: given by~\pref{metric}-\pref{Bfield}, the Lagrangian becomes 

807: \bb\label{lagrangian}

808: \LL=\pm \omega \frac{\Sigma}{2\pi \alpe} G v^3 \dot{t}

809: +\frac{\Sigma}{4\pi} \frac{\Omega^2}{\alp} \frac{{\dot{v}}^2}{v^2}

810: -\frac{\Sigma}{32 \pi^3 \alpe} \frac{\Omega^2}{\alp} v^2 {\dot{t}}^2

811: -\frac{\Sigma}{32 \pi^3 \alpe} \frac{\Omega^2}{\alp} v^2 \omega^2\ ;

812: \ee

813: \ie\ a classical system describing a point particle, 

814: in the presence of a background gauge field and a potential,

815: evolving in proper time $\tau$ (see~\cite{BOZHILOV} 

816: for a more general treatment); 

817: we denote

818: \bb

819: \dot{v}\leftrightarrow \frac{dv}{d\tau}\ ,\ \ 

820: \dot{t}\leftrightarrow \frac{dt}{d\tau}\ .

821: \ee

822: And we leave the $\Omega$ factor arbitrary in this subsection.

823: 

824: The Hamiltonian becomes

825: \bb\label{hamil}

826: H=\frac{\pi}{\Sigma} \frac{\alp}{\Omega^2} v^2 \Pi_v^2

827: -\frac{8\pi^3 \alpe}{\Sigma v^2} \frac{\alp}{\Omega^2}

828: \lk(\Pi_t\mp\omega \frac{\Sigma}{2\pi\alpe} G v^3\re)^2

829: +\omega^2 \frac{\Sigma}{32 \pi^3 \alpe} \frac{\Omega^2}{\alp} v^2\ ,

830: \ee

831: with the canonical momenta given by

832: \bb\label{Piv}

833: \Pi_v=\frac{\Sigma}{2\pi} \frac{\Omega^2}{\alp} \frac{\dot{v}}{v^2}\ ;

834: \ee

835: \bb\label{Pit}

836: \Pi_t=\pm\frac{\Sigma}{2\pi \alpe} v^2 

837: \lk(G\omega v\mp\frac{\Omega^2}{8\pi^2 \alp} \dot{t} \re)\ .

838: \ee

839: 

840: The equation of motion for the radial coordinate $v$ is then

841: \bb\label{radialeom}

842: 2\frac{\Omega^2}{v^2} \ddot{v}

843: -2\frac{\Omega^2}{v^2} {\dot{v}}^2

844: \lk(\frac{1}{v}-\frac{\Omega'}{\Omega}\re)

845: +\frac{v^2\Omega^2}{4\pi^2 \alpe} 

846: \lk(\frac{1}{v}+\frac{\Omega'}{\Omega}\re) {\dot{t}}^2

847: \mp 6\omega G \frac{\alp}{\alpe} v^2 \dot{t}

848: +\omega^2 \frac{v^2\Omega^2}{4\pi^2 \alpe}

849: \lk(\frac{1}{v}+\frac{\Omega'}{\Omega}\re)=0\ ;

850: \ee

851: while for the time coordinate $t$, it is 

852: \bb\label{timeeom}

853: \dot{\Pi}_t=0\ ;

854: \ee

855: \ie\ $\Pi_t$ is the N\"{o}ether charge associated with the Killing

856: vector field $\del_t$.

857: 

858: The constraint equation becomes

859: \bb\label{expconst}

860: \frac{1}{2} \frac{\Omega^2}{v^2} {\dot{v}}^2

861: -\frac{v^2 \Omega^2}{16\pi^2 \alpe} {\dot{t}}^2

862: +\omega^2\frac{v^2\Omega^2}{16\pi^2\alpe}=0\ ,

863: \ee

864: \ie\ the vanishing of the worldsheet Hamiltonian $H=0$,

865: which can also be interpreted as the on-shell condition for a particle in

866: a certain curved background. As the system is

867: constrained, one of the two solutions of

868: ~\pref{radialeom} must be dropped in view of~\pref{expconst}. 

869: Of course, consistent

870: dynamics requires that the constraint evolves properly by the equations

871: of motion, as it does. 

872: 

873: We solve the $t$ equation~\pref{timeeom} trivially by introducing a constant of

874: motion $E$

875: \bb\label{Edef}

876: \Pi_t=\frac{\Sigma}{4\pi\alpe} E\ .

877: \ee

878: $E$ is a dimensionless parameter related to the energy

879: of the probe $Q_E$ as seen by the dual NCOS theory

880: (canonical to $\delta t$) as in

881: \bb\label{Qdef}

882: Q_E\equiv -\Pi_t\ .

883: \ee

884: The factor $\Sigma$ introduced in~\pref{Edef} helps to make our intermediate

885: equations somewhat less cluttered. Note the negative sign

886: in~\pref{Qdef}, which we justify below.

887: Using~\pref{Edef} and~\pref{Pit}, we then find

888: \bb\label{tdot}

889: \dot{t}=\frac{4\pi^2\alp}{\Omega^2}

890: \frac{-E\pm 2 G \omega v^3}{v^2}\ .

891: \ee

892: This allows us to solve the constraint equation~\pref{expconst} for $\dot{v}$

893: \footnote{In taking the square root of~\pref{vdot}, we choose conventionally

894: $\dot{v}<0$ throughout, 

895: \ie\ in-bound motion. The reader may assume that

896: in all subsequent equations where this ambiguity arises this choice

897: has been made.}

898: \bb\label{vdot}

899: {\dot{v}}^2 =\frac{2\pi^2 \alp^2}{\alpe\Omega^4}

900: \lk(\lk(E\mp2 G \omega v^3\re)^2

901: -\omega^2 \frac{v^4\Omega^4}{16\pi^4 \alp^2}\re)\ .

902: \ee

903: The two possible signs for $\dot{v}$ 

904: correspond to motion inward and outward from 

905: the center of the geometry located at $v=0$. It is easy

906: to check that this solution satisfies~\pref{radialeom}. 

907: 

908: One way to think of the situation is in analogy to Light-Cone gauge

909: fixing in flat backgrounds. We would like to gauge fix say some $X^+\sim \tau$

910: using the residual conformal symmetry on the worldsheet; residual 

911: after fixing $h_{ab}=\eta_{ab}$. We could do this in flat space since 

912: this choice would solve the equations of motion. In our curved background,

913: the analogous fixing of the residual conformal symmetry, which we still

914: have, is solving for the time coordinate $t$ using the time translational

915: invariance of the background. This is given implicitly by~\pref{tdot}.

916: Once equation~\pref{vdot} is integrated, we obtain

917: $t(\tau)$ from~\pref{tdot}. And~\pref{expconst} is nothing but the constraint

918: that in the flat space case allows us to solve for $X^-$.

919: These basic ideas are illustrated also when setting up the Fateev-Popov

920: determinant in the path integral in Appendix B. Finally, 

921: note that, because the system is constrained, we loose one constant of motion.

922: The dynamics is parameterized by $E$, and the initial and final positions of

923: the variable $v$; we denote them by $v_1$ and $v_2$, arising

924: as integration limits in~\pref{tdot} and~\pref{vdot}.

925: 

926: \subsection{Analysis of the solutions}

927: 

928: A more instructive way to view the dynamics is to push the

929: analogy with a point particle further. We are solving for

930: \bb

931: \frac{{\dot{v}}^2}{2}+V(v)=\EE=0\ ,

932: \ee

933: with

934: \bb\label{pot}

935: V(v)\equiv -\frac{\pi^2 \alp^2}{\alpe \Omega^4}

936: \lk( \lk(E\mp 2 G\omega v^3\re)^2

937: -\omega^2 \frac{v^4\Omega^4}{16\pi^4 \alp^2}\re)\ .

938: \ee

939: By studying the shape of this potential $V(v)$, we see the bulk

940: properties of the motion. At this point, we will need to

941: use the explicit form of $\Omega$ given by~\pref{omega}.

942: 

943: From equations~\pref{pot} and~\pref{omega}, we see that

944: \bb

945: V(v)\rightarrow \frac{E^2}{64\pi^2 \alpe G^2} \frac{v}{v_c^3}

946: \mbox{  as  }v\rightarrow \infty\ ,

947: \ee

948: due to a subtle cancelation of terms, irrespective of the

949: winding orientation. We have introduced the parameter

950: \bb\label{vc}

951: v_c^3\equiv\frac{E^2}{4 G \lk(\omega^2\pm \omega E\re)}\ ,

952: \ee

953: whose significance will become apparent below. 

954: In the opposite limit, we have

955: \bb

956: V(v)\rightarrow -\frac{E^2}{64\pi^2 \alpe G} v

957: \mbox{  as  }v\rightarrow 0\ .

958: \ee

959: for both orientations.

960: And finally

961: \bb

962: V(v)=0\Rightarrow v=v_c\mbox{  or  }v=0\ .

963: \ee

964: It is now easy to plot the potential $V(v)$. There are two qualitatively

965: different cases. For $v_c^3>0$, we have bounded motion with

966: $0\leq v \leq v_c$. While for $v_c<0$, 

967: we have unbounded motion $0\leq v$ (see Figure~\ref{potfig}).

968: \begin{figure}

969: \epsfysize=6cm \centerline{\leavevmode \epsfbox{potfig.eps}}

970: \caption{\sl The potential given by equation~\pref{pot}

971: as a function of the radial coordinate $v$.

972: The `particle' has zero total (worldsheet) energy, corresponding to the

973: on-shell constraint condition on the dynamics. 

974: Two solutions are associated with the bounded scenario, with 

975: both orientations for closed string winding; and one solution with

976: positive winding corresponds to a scattering process. 

977: }

978: \label{potfig}

979: \end{figure}

980: 

981: Using~\pref{omega}, one easily gets the explicit form of the evolution of the

982: variables

983: \bb\label{tdot2}

984: \dot{t}=\frac{-E\pm2 G \omega v^3}

985: {2\sqrt{G} v^{3/2} \sqrt{1+G v^3}}\ .

986: \ee

987: \bb\label{vdot2}

988: {\dot{v}}^2=\frac{E^2}{32\pi^2 \alpe G}

989: \frac{1-(v/v_c)^3}{1+G v^3} v\ .

990: \ee

991: One then integrates~\pref{vdot2}, and substitutes in~\pref{tdot2}.

992: Note that $\dot{v}$ vanishes for all $v$ for $E=0$.

993:  

994: We next determine the physical relevance of the various possible

995: solutions. We need to require that

996: \bb\label{ftime}

997: \frac{dt}{d\tau}\geq 0\Rightarrow

998: -E\geq \mp 2 G \omega v^3\ .

999: \ee

1000: First, consider the case $v_c^3<0$, \ie\ unbounded motion. It is then easy

1001: to see that the only possibility consistent with~\pref{ftime} is

1002: for the winding of the string to be parallel to the B-field; negative

1003: winding is not possible, as it corresponds to opposite propagation 

1004: in times $t$ and $\tau$. Furthermore, the combination of the two conditions 

1005: $v_c^3<0$ and~\pref{ftime} in the

1006: case of positive winding leads to $E<-\omega$.

1007: 

1008: Next consider the case $v_c^3>0$, \ie\ bounded motion.

1009: We then find that the positive winding solution must satisfy

1010: $-\omega<E<0$, complementing the parameter space established 

1011: by the unbounded case. However, looking at the negative winding case,

1012: we now find that it is also a possible solution to the dynamics. 

1013: For this scenario, assuming $E>0$ leads to

1014: \bb

1015: E^2\geq 2 E \omega\mbox{ and } E\leq \omega\ ;

1016: \ee

1017: a contradiction. While $E<0$ leads to the consistent scenario.

1018: 

1019: To validate the proposed dynamics, we also look at the `acceleration'

1020: at two critical points in the motion. We find

1021: \bb\label{vdd}

1022: \lk.\ddot{v}\re|_{v=0}=\frac{E^2}{64\pi^2 \alpe G}\geq 0\ ;

1023: \ee

1024: and 

1025: \bb\label{vdd2}

1026: \lk.\ddot{v}\re|_{v=v_c}=-\frac{3 E^2}

1027: {64\pi^2\alpe G \lk(1+G v_c^3\re)}\leq 0\ .

1028: \ee

1029: From~\pref{vdd}, we see that the string is repulsed from the origin

1030: $v\sim 0$, where a horizon sits.

1031: 

1032: We can now put the story together, depicting it as in Figures~\ref{wzw1}

1033: and~\ref{wzw2},

1034: in analogy to classical dynamics that has risen in the context of 

1035: the SL(2,R) WZW model. We have two oscillating solutions which we call

1036: bound states, and one unbounded motion that reaches asymptotically

1037: larger values of $v$; we call the 

1038: latter a scattering solution. We summarize the scenarios as follows

1039: \bb\label{table}

1040: \lk\{

1041: \begin{array}{lclcc}

1042: v_c^3<0 & \Rightarrow & \mbox{ unbounded dynamics with positive winding } 

1043: & \Rightarrow & E<-\omega \\

1044: v_c^3>0 & \Rightarrow & \mbox{ bounded dynamics with positive winding } 

1045: & \Rightarrow & -\omega<E<0 \\

1046: v_c^3>0 & \Rightarrow & \mbox{ bounded dynamics with negative winding } 

1047: & \Rightarrow & E<0 \\

1048: \end{array}

1049: \re.

1050: \ee

1051: 

1052: We note that for all cases, we have

1053: \bb

1054: E< 0\ .

1055: \ee

1056: However, in our chosen convention for $E$ through~\pref{Edef}, there is

1057: a sign difference between real energy $Q_E$

1058: and $E$ as seen in~\pref{Qdef}. Hence,

1059: the N\"{o}ether energy $Q_E$ is positive definite for all cases.

1060: The origin of the sign flip will be seen below. It is also significant that the

1061: threshold energy $E=-\omega$ is then identified in the dual picture

1062: as $Q_E=\omega \Sigma/(4\pi\alpe)$, the mass of the closed string in

1063: Wound String theory, with the additional $1/2$ factor for

1064: the wound string tension that has already been noted in~\cite{KLEBMALDA}. 

1065: This indicates

1066: that we have identified in this dual picture what corresponds to energy

1067: in NCOS theory with the correct numerical factor.

1068: 

1069: The two solutions with positive winding have an attractive interpretation

1070: in the dual NCOS theory. We will argue below that the scattering

1071: solution is seen as a closed string in Wound string theory 

1072: scattering off the bound state of D strings and fundamental strings.

1073: In the NCOS theory, it is seen as an insertion of 

1074: vertex operators, and the propagation of a non-perturbative open string

1075: resonance in between\footnote{We note that in 

1076: the embedding Wound string theory,

1077: we are not working in a decoupling limit; our discussion naturally maps to

1078: the analogue of extending the Maldacena duality beyond the near horizon

1079: region (see discussion along this line of thought in~\cite{DGK2}.)}.

1080: On the other hand,

1081: if the corresponding open string state does

1082: not have enough energy to create the appropriate closed string, as in 

1083: the case of the bounded solution with positive winding and $-\omega<E<0$,

1084: it is a non-perturbative state within NCOS theory.

1085: 

1086: The negatively wound

1087: solution however is at first sight

1088: a pathological case. It appears to 

1089: correspond to a non-perturbative state in NCOS theory that cannot

1090: leave the system no matter how high an energy in attains.

1091: For now, we want to check the relevance of these

1092: solutions quantum mechanically, with the hope that perhaps the negatively wound

1093: state becomes metastable.

1094: 

1095: 

1096: \section{Quantum effects}

1097: \label{quantumeff}

1098: 

1099: The task in this section is to understand the quantum mechanics of the

1100: classical dynamics we discussed above . It is a problem

1101: of quantum mechanics as we have reduced the system to that of a point

1102: particle moving in a curved space subject to an electric field and

1103: a constraint. Such a treatment however assumes that quantum fluctuations

1104: that can excite modes on the probe closed string outside

1105: our ansatz are negligible. 

1106: The quantum mechanics  we study

1107: is that of the center of mass in a two dimensional

1108: cross-section of the whole spacetime.

1109: We will address the relevance of any additional corrections

1110: in the Discussion section.

1111: 

1112: The propagator for the system is given by the path integral\footnote{

1113: We normalized the asymptotic states as in

1114: \bb

1115: \langle v_2, t |v_1, t \rangle=\delta(v_2-v_1)\ ,

1116: \ee

1117: without the conventional $1/\sqrt{|g(v_1,t)|}$ factor on the right ($g$ being

1118: the determinant of the metric). This is so that we may directly look at 

1119: $|\GG|^2$ as probability of propagation, without the need to 

1120: multiply with the measure in the curved space.

1121: }

1122: \bb\label{prop}

1123: \langle v_2, \Delta t |v_1,0 \rangle\equiv

1124: \GG\lk(v_1,v_2,\Delta t\re)\sim \int\ \DD v \DD \Pi_v

1125: e^{i\int_1^2\ dt\ 

1126: \lk(

1127: \Pi_v \frac{dv}{dt} +\Phi_t\re)}\ ,

1128: \ee

1129: where

1130: \bb\label{Phit}

1131: \Phi_t=

1132: \frac{v^2}{\sqrt{8\pi^2 \alpe}}

1133: \sqrt{\Pi_v^2+\omega^2 \frac{\Sigma^2}{32\pi^4 \alpe} 

1134: \frac{\Omega^4}{\alp^2}}\pm\omega \frac{\Sigma}{2\pi\alpe} G v^3\ .

1135: \ee

1136: The latter is just the constraint solved for $\Phi_t\rightarrow \Pi_t$.

1137: This expression is such that the propagator is to be viewed as

1138: a function of the initial and final positions in $v$, that we call

1139: $v_1$ and $v_2$, and the

1140: time separation $\Delta t$. It would tell us the probability

1141: to propagate from $v_1$ to $v_2$ in time $\Delta t$.

1142: Note that we were careful in writing this propagator in the Hamiltonian

1143: formalism, as we are dealing with a path integral in curved space. 

1144: The derivation of~\pref{prop} is given in detail in Appendix B. 

1145: As seen from equation~\pref{prop}, the

1146: system effectively evolves in time $t$ according to $-\Phi_t$.

1147: This is the origin of the minus sign appearing in~\pref{Qdef}.

1148: 

1149: The result of this path integration is, to order $\hbar^2$

1150: \bb\label{propres}

1151: \GG\lk(v_1,v_2,\Delta t\re)\sim 

1152: \sqrt{|\Delta|} e^{i S_{cl}+iS_{dW}}\ .

1153: \ee

1154: $S_{cl}$ is the action evaluated at the classical solutions given

1155: by~\pref{tdot2} and~\pref{vdot2},

1156: with the appropriate boundary conditions; $|\Delta|$

1157: is determinant of the propagation operator in this curved space; and $S_{dW}$

1158: is a term proposed by DeWitt~\cite{DEWITT} and is generally needed for

1159: path integrals in curved spaces. Corrections to~\pref{propres} start at

1160: order $\hbar^2$.  

1161: In the subsequent subsections, we elaborate on these

1162: three quantities and compute them.

1163: 

1164: \subsection{Leading contribution}

1165: 

1166: The leading contribution is obtained by substituting in

1167: the exponent of~\pref{prop}

1168: the classical action evaluated at the solutions given by~\pref{tdot2} and

1169: ~\pref{vdot2}. This is because the extremum of the exponential is at

1170: these solutions for given boundary conditions, as shown in

1171: Appendix B. Changing integration variable to $v$, we then get from

1172: ~\pref{lagrangian}, \pref{tdot2} and~\pref{vdot2}

1173: \bb\label{sclint}

1174: S_{cl}=\pm \omega G \Sigma \sqrt{\frac{2}{\alpe}} 

1175: \frac{E\pm 2\omega}{-E}

1176: \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

1177: \frac{v}{\sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}\ .

1178: \ee

1179: The dependence of this expression on $\Delta t$ is implicitly

1180: through the variable $E$, obtained by integrating and inverting

1181: \bb\label{tint}

1182: \Delta t=\sqrt{8\pi^2} \frac{\le}{E}

1183: \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

1184: \frac{-E\pm2 \omega G v^3}{v^2\sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}\ ;

1185: \ee

1186: the latter is simply~\pref{tdot2} divided by the square root of~\pref{vdot2}.

1187: From~\pref{vdot2}, we also have an expression for the amount of proper

1188: time it takes for the string to propagate between $v_1$ and $v_2$

1189: \bb\label{tauint}

1190: \Delta\tau=\sqrt{32\pi^2} \frac{\sqrt{G\alpe}}{E}

1191: \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

1192: \frac{\sqrt{1+G v^3}}{\sqrt{v} \sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}\ .

1193: \ee

1194: 

1195: All these expressions can be solved in terms of various hypergeometric

1196: functions. The more interesting physics is however in their asymptotic

1197: forms; which we now write down.

1198: 

1199: We will distinguish two processes: a positive winding scattering

1200: scenario; and two bound state scenarios with both possible winding

1201: orientations. For the scattering scenario, we take $v_1$ very large,

1202: and $v_2$ very small. For the bound state cases, we take $v_1=v_c$

1203: and $v_2$ small. 

1204: Making use of the appropriate boundary conditions in $v$ in each case,

1205: as well as on $E$ as given by~\pref{table}, we find:

1206: 

1207: \begin{itemize}

1208: 

1209: \item For the bound states, we have

1210: \bb\label{sclbnd}

1211: S_{cl}^{bnd}=-\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}}{3} \frac{\Gamma(2/3)}{\Gamma(7/6)}

1212: \frac{G}{|E|}

1213: \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

1214: v_c^2 \lk(\mp\omega |E|+2 \omega^2\re)\ ,

1215: \ee

1216: which is finite for both orientations of winding.

1217: 

1218: \item The action for the scattering process becomes

1219: \bb\label{sclscatt}

1220: S_{cl}^{scatt}\simeq

1221: \frac{\Sigma}{\le} 

1222: \sqrt{2 G \omega} 

1223: \frac{|E|-2\omega}{\sqrt{|E|-\omega}} \sqrt{v_1}

1224: -\frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2\alpe}} G \omega

1225: \frac{|E|-2\omega}{|E|} v_2^2\ ,

1226: \ee

1227: and is large for $v_1$ big.

1228: 

1229: \item The time $\Delta t_{bnd}$

1230: for half the trip in the bound state scenario is given by

1231: \bb\label{deltatbnd}

1232: 2\Delta t_{{bnd}} \simeq \frac{\sqrt{32\pi^2 \alpe}}{v_2}\ ,

1233: \ee

1234: for both winding orientations.

1235: The divergence, as $v_2\rightarrow 0$, is essentially

1236: the infinite redshift that an external

1237: observer generically witnesses as a probe approaches

1238: a horizon. It

1239: will play a crucial role in regulating the bound state spectrum later.

1240: 

1241: \item The scattering time in the same coordinate is given by

1242: \bb\label{deltatscatt}

1243: 2\Delta t_{scatt}\simeq

1244: \frac{\sqrt{128\pi^2 G \omega \alpe}}{\sqrt{|E|}} \sqrt{v_1}

1245: +\frac{\sqrt{32\pi^2 \alpe}}{v_2}\ ,

1246: \ee

1247: which is large for both big $v_1$ and small $v_2$.

1248: 

1249: \item The half period in proper time $\Delta \tau_{bnd}$ that the string

1250: takes to oscillate in the bound state scenario is

1251: \bb\label{deltataubnd}

1252: 2\Delta \tau_{bnd}=

1253: 8\pi^2 \frac{\sqrt{2 G\alpe}}{3 |E|} 

1254: \sqrt{v_c} \sqrt{1+G v_c^3}\ ,

1255: \ee

1256: which is finite unlike~\pref{deltatbnd}.

1257: 

1258: \item The proper time elapsed during the scattering process is

1259: \bb\label{deltatauscatt}

1260: 2\Delta\tau_{scatt}\simeq

1261: 16\pi \frac{\sqrt{2 \alpe}}{E}

1262: G \sqrt{|v_c|^{3}} \sqrt{v_1}\ ,

1263: \ee

1264: and increases unboundedly with large $v_1$.

1265: 

1266: \end{itemize}

1267: 

1268: We will use all these ingredients in upcoming sections

1269: in attempting to understand 

1270: strongly coupled dynamics in the dual NCOS theory.  Let us first

1271: however 

1272: compute the subleading terms to the propagator. 

1273: 

1274: \subsection{Sub-leading contributions}

1275: 

1276: \subsubsection{The determinant}

1277: 

1278: The determinant $\Delta$ appearing in~\pref{propres} is nothing more that 

1279: \bb\label{unitarity}

1280: |\Delta|=\lk|\frac{\del^2 S_{cl}}{\del v_1 \del v_2}\re|\ .

1281: \ee

1282: This is a well known statement from quantum mechanics, yet not

1283: properly advertised or emphasized in most textbooks. The origin of this 

1284: important relation is unitarity~\cite{GOTT,BERRYMOUNT,MILLER}. 

1285: It can be derived assuming {\em only}

1286: unitary evolution by the corresponding Hamiltonian. Alternatively,

1287: one can see it by deriving a first order current conservation differential

1288: equation that is satisfied by $\Delta$~\cite{SHULMAN}. 

1289: For given boundary conditions,

1290: in the setting of quantum mechanics, equation~\pref{unitarity} is essentially

1291: established by making use of the existence and uniqueness theorem

1292: for the corresponding differential equation\footnote{

1293: A particularly elegant approach is also described in~\cite{GOTT} (and

1294: see references therein), where

1295: the authors use the uncertainty relation, and a simple

1296: classical phase space probability estimate to derive~\pref{unitarity}.

1297: }.

1298: 

1299: While equation~\pref{unitarity} makes it easy to compute the determinant

1300: of the propagation operator, we need to be careful about one aspect of this

1301: computation. In differentiating the classical action, we need to keep

1302: in mind that one holds $t$ fixed, {\em not} $E$, which in turn implicitly

1303: depends on $t$, as well as $v_1$ and $v_2$. This requires some mild

1304: juggling of partial derivatives, that we show in Appendix D. The result 

1305: is, for the canonical momentum,

1306: \bb\label{canmom2}

1307: \PP\equiv \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del v_1}\re)_{t,v_2}=

1308: \frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2\alpe}} |E| 

1309: \frac{\sqrt{1-(v_1/v_c)^3}}{v_1^2}\ ,

1310: \ee

1311: as the reader may check with respect to $\Pi_v$

1312: (see~\pref{Piv} and~\pref{vdot2}). And, more importantly,

1313: \bb\label{delta}

1314: \Delta=

1315: \lk(\frac{\del \PP}{\del v_2}\re)_{t,v_1}=

1316: \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

1317: \lk(\frac{|E|\pm 2 G \omega v_1^3}{v_1^2 \sqrt{1-(v_1/v_c)^3}}\re)

1318: \lk(\frac{|E|\pm 2 G \omega v_2^3}{v_2^2 \sqrt{1-(v_2/v_c)^3}}\re)

1319: \frac{|E|}{\sqrt{32} G \omega^2}

1320: \II^{-1}\ ,

1321: \ee

1322: with

1323: \bb\label{ii}

1324: \II\equiv \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

1325: \frac{v \lk(1+G v^3\re)}{\lk(1-(v/v_c)^3\re)^{3/2}}\ .

1326: \ee

1327: This last integral can in turn be written down

1328: in terms of hypergeometric functions. We note that it is 

1329: finite as $v_2\rightarrow 0$. This expression, being

1330: the real part of the propagator, tells us 

1331: about a physical amplitude as a function of the 

1332: corresponding boundary data.

1333: 

1334: Let us look at~\pref{delta} for the two interesting cases:

1335: 

1336: \begin{itemize}

1337: 

1338: \item For the bound state scenario, we have 

1339: \bb\label{deltabnd}

1340: \Delta_{bnd}\simeq 2^{1/6} 3 

1341: \frac{\Sigma}{\le} \omega^{1/3} \frac{G^{1/3}}{|E|^{2/3}}

1342: \frac{\lk(\omega\mp |E|\re)^{4/3} 

1343: \lk(\pm E^2-2\omega |E|\re)}{E^2\mp4\omega |E|+4\omega^2}

1344: \frac{1}{v_2^2}\ ;

1345: \ee

1346: which is divergent as $v_2\rightarrow 0$.

1347: 

1348: \item For scattering, we get

1349: \bb\label{deltascatt}

1350: |\Delta_{scatt}|\sim \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

1351: \frac{E^2}{4\sqrt{2} G \omega} \frac{1}{v_1 v_2^2 |v_c|^3}\ .

1352: \ee

1353: 

1354: \end{itemize}

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \subsubsection{The DeWitt term}

1358: 

1359: It was shown by DeWitt that, in evaluating the path integral

1360: for a particle in curved space, coupled to a gauge field, and 

1361: an arbitrary potential, the resulting propagator does not satisfy

1362: the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for the corresponding Hamiltonian. 

1363: To assure that $\GG(v_1,v_2,t)$ is the correct

1364: propagator for the Hamiltonian~\pref{hamil}, DeWitt showed that we

1365: need to add a term $S_{dW}$ as in~\pref{propres}, given by\footnote{

1366: In this approach, the constraint can be imposed

1367: on the Hilbert space, instead of being solved for from the outset.

1368: See the discussion about this in Appendix E.}

1369: \bb

1370: S_{dW}=\int d\tau\ \frac{\RR}{12}

1371: =\frac{1}{16} \frac{\sqrt{2\alpe}}{\Sigma} \frac{1}{|E|}

1372: \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

1373: \frac{1+2 G v^3\lk(3+G v^3\re)}

1374: {\lk(1+G v^3\re)^2 \sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}\ ,

1375: \ee

1376: where $\RR$ is the scalar curvature associated with the metric

1377: \bb

1378: g_{vv}=\Sigma \frac{\Omega^2}{\pi \alp v^2}\ ,\ \ 

1379: g_{tt}=-\Sigma \frac{v^2 \Omega^2}{8\pi^3 \alpe \alp}\ ,

1380: \ee

1381: that appears in our Hamiltonian. The physical meaning of this curvature

1382: term has long been a mystery\footnote{

1383: In his classic book on path integration, Shulman 

1384: writes ``If you like excitement, conflict, and controversy, especially

1385: when nothing very serious is at stake, then you will love the history

1386: of quantization on curved spaces.'' Our problem can certainly

1387: be attributed by some of these qualifications.

1388: }. The puzzle arises when one

1389: notices that this term carries more powers in $\hbar$ (which is

1390: not easy to see when one sets $\hbar=1$).

1391: Restoring powers of $\hbar$ in the exponent of~\pref{propres}, we should 

1392: have written

1393: \bb

1394: \frac{1}{\hbar}\lk(S_{cl}+\frac{\hbar^2}{12}\int\ d\tau\ \RR\re)\ .

1395: \ee

1396: In our problem, we will instead

1397: count powers of $\hbar$ through powers of the

1398: coupling $G$. Now, let us look at the two cases of interest:

1399: 

1400: \begin{itemize}

1401: \item For the bound state problem, we get

1402: \bb\label{sdW}

1403: S_{dW}^{bnd}=-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{8\sqrt{2}} \frac{\Gamma(4/3)}{\Gamma(5/6)}

1404: \frac{\le}{\Sigma}

1405: \frac{1}{|E|} G^2 v_c^7\ \SS\ ;

1406: \ee

1407: where we define

1408: \bb

1409: \SS\equiv 

1410: \lk(\frac{1}{x^2}\re) \mbox{}_2F_1\lk(\frac{1}{3},2,\frac{5}{6},-x\re)

1411: +\lk(\frac{12}{5} \frac{1}{x}\re) 

1412: \mbox{}_2F_1\lk(\frac{4}{3},2,\frac{11}{6},-x\re)

1413: +\lk(\frac{32}{55}\re) \mbox{}_2F_1\lk(2,\frac{7}{3},\frac{17}{6},-x\re) \ ,

1414: \ee

1415: with

1416: \bb\label{xdef}

1417: x\equiv G |v_c|^3\ .

1418: \ee

1419: 

1420: \item For the scattering scenario, we have

1421: \bb

1422: S_{dW}^{scatt}\simeq \frac{1}{128 G} \frac{\le}{\Sigma} \frac{1}{|E|}

1423: \lk(\frac{2 |E|}{\sqrt{\pm\omega |E|-\omega^2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{v_1}}

1424: +\sqrt{G} v_2\re)\ ,

1425: \ee

1426: which interestingly goes to zero for large $v_1$ and small $v_2$.

1427: 

1428: \end{itemize}

1429: 

1430: \section{The bound state problem}

1431: 

1432: In this section, we focus on the bound state scenario,

1433: with two possible orientations for the closed string winding.

1434: We set $v_1=v_c$ and choose $v_2$ small throughout.

1435: 

1436: To determine the spectrum within the Bohr-Sommerfeld approximation, we use

1437: the condition

1438: \bb\label{born}

1439: S_{tot}^{bnd}=\pi N\mbox{  with  }N\gg 1\ ,

1440: \ee

1441: with

1442: \bb\label{stot}

1443: S_{tot}^{bnd}=S_{cl}^{bnd}+S_{dW}^{bnd}\ ,

1444: \ee

1445: evaluated for the bounded motion $v\in\{0,v_c\}$. $N$ is taken as a large

1446: integer. The action in~\pref{stot} is, remarkably, finite

1447: and corresponds to a non-zero phase picked up

1448: by the closed string during a round trip.

1449: The left hand side of~\pref{born} is a function of $E$,

1450: $\omega$, $G$, and $\Sigma/\le$, and this equation then gives

1451: us the quantization of $E$, and hence of $Q_E$.

1452: There are several issues with regards to this statement that are unusual.

1453: First, the infinite redshift at the horizon $v_2\sim 0$ implies that,

1454: while the string takes finite proper time for a round trip between

1455: $v_c$ and $v_2\sim 0$, it would take infinite time in the time

1456: variable $t$. The dynamics is however novel in that

1457: that the closed string gets {\em repulsed} from

1458: the horizon. Furthermore,

1459: the limit $v_2\rightarrow 0$ is problematic for finite $M$ in view

1460: of~\pref{curvec}.

1461: These issues are addressed in

1462: detail in Appendix E and the Discussion section. 

1463: The reader concerned about them

1464: is urged to consult the appendix at this point.

1465: 

1466: While we have an analytical expressions for the level spectrum given 

1467: by~\pref{born}, along with~\pref{sclbnd} and~\pref{sdW},

1468: it is instructive to look at

1469: physically interesting limits, so as to write more

1470: transparent expressions. Two cases stand out

1471: \bb\label{subass}

1472: \lk\{

1473: \begin{array}{lll}

1474: |E|\ll \omega & \Rightarrow Q_E\ll \omega \frac{\Sigma}{4\pi \alpe} 

1475: & \Rightarrow x\sim 

1476: \frac{|E|^2}{4\omega^2}\ll 1 \\

1477: |E|\gg \omega & \Rightarrow Q_E\gg \omega \frac{\Sigma}{4\pi \alpe} 

1478: & \Rightarrow x\sim 

1479: \frac{|E|}{4\omega}\gg 1 \\

1480: \end{array}

1481: \re.\ ,

1482: \ee

1483: where $x$ was defined in~\pref{xdef}. Physically, these limits

1484: correspond respectively to energies much below and above the threshold

1485: of creating the corresponding wound closed string in Wound String theory.

1486: 

1487: We then find

1488: \bb\label{bnd1}

1489: S_{cl}^{bnd}=

1490: -\frac{\Sigma}{\le} 2^{7/6} \pi^{1/2}

1491: \frac{\Gamma(2/3)}{\Gamma(1/6)}

1492: \lk\{

1493: \begin{array}{ll}

1494: G^{1/3} \omega^{2/3} |E|^{1/3} & x\ll 1 \\

1495: \frac{1}{2} G^{1/3} \omega^{1/3} |E|^{2/3} & x\gg 1 \\

1496: \end{array}

1497: \re.\ ;

1498: \ee

1499: \bb\label{bnd2}

1500: S_{dW}^{bnd}=

1501: -\frac{\le}{\Sigma} \frac{\pi^{1/2}}{2^{19/6}}

1502: \frac{\Gamma(4/3)}{\Gamma(5/6)}

1503: \lk\{

1504: \begin{array}{ll}

1505: \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{G^{1/3} \omega^{2/3} |E|^{1/3}} & x\ll 1 \\

1506: \frac{1}{G^{1/3} \omega^{1/3} |E|^{2/3}} & x\gg 1 \\

1507: \end{array}

1508: \re.\ .

1509: \ee

1510: The expansion parameter in each limit is then the same for

1511: both expressions. For $x\ll 1$, the expansion in $\hbar$ becomes an

1512: expansion in $G |E| \omega^2$; while for $x\gg 1$, it becomes

1513: $G |E|^2 \omega$. Putting~\pref{bnd1} and~\pref{bnd2} together in~\pref{stot},

1514: we find

1515: \bbb

1516: Q_E\le & \sim \lk(\frac{\le}{\omega \Sigma}\re)^2 \frac{N^3}{G} 

1517: & \mbox{  for  }

1518: x \ll 1\mbox{  with the two winding possibilities degenerate} \label{finspec1}\\

1519: Q_E\le & \sim \sqrt{\frac{\le}{\omega \Sigma}} 

1520: \frac{N^{3/2}}{\sqrt{G}} 

1521: & \mbox{  for  }

1522: x \gg 1\mbox{  for negative winding only}\label{finspec2}

1523: \eee

1524: The DeWitt term corrects only the

1525: numerical coefficients in front of these expressions;

1526: the scaling with respect to all physical parameters of

1527: the theory is fixed by the leading term $S_{cl}^{bnd}$.

1528: From~\pref{subass}, \pref{finspec1} can be trusted

1529: for $N\ll N_{max}$ with $N_{max}\equiv \omega (\Sigma/\le) G^{1/3}$; 

1530: while~\pref{finspec2} can be trusted

1531: for $N\gg N_{max}$. 

1532: Beyond these two asymptotic 

1533: regimes, one needs to use the full analytic forms given by~\pref{sclbnd},

1534: \pref{sdW} and~\pref{born}, which we plot in Figure~\ref{specfig}. Note

1535: also that the spectrum does not have any explicit dependence on $M$.

1536: 

1537: From Figure~\ref{specfig}, we see how the density of levels increases

1538: as we approach the threshold energy from below, in the case

1539: of a positively wound closed string. Much below the threshold,

1540: where the two windings correspond to degenerate levels, 

1541: the energy scales as $N^{3}$. For

1542: the negatively wound case, we go past the threshold energy with a peculiar

1543: $N^{3/2}$ scaling with the level number. It also appears that the

1544: negatively wound states have always higher energies than the positively

1545: wound ones for same $N$.

1546: If we could trust the spectrum for low enough energies, we would also be

1547: identifying a ground state with

1548: energy slightly above zero, scaling with respect

1549: to the parameters of the theory as shown in

1550: equation~\pref{finspec1}. Finally, we note that

1551: the spacing of energy levels increases with $N$

1552: as $\delta Q_E/\delta N\sim N^2$ for positive winding and for energies 

1553: well below the threshold, and as

1554: $\delta Q_E/\delta N\sim \sqrt{N}$ for negative winding and high energies. 

1555: 

1556: Even with the full form of the quantization condition depicted

1557: in the Figure, we need to be careful in trusting the spectrum, given

1558: the restrictions on the spacetime imposed by~\pref{curvcond}, \pref{curveb}

1559: and~\pref{curvec}. In particular, we need to make sure that the region of space

1560: explored by the closed string lies within the area delineated

1561: by the curves of Figure~\ref{validity}. For example,

1562: for~\pref{finspec1}, we need 

1563: $\alpe/(4\pi\Sigma^3)\ll Q_E\ll \omega G^2 \Sigma/(4\pi \alpe)$ for

1564: $G\ll 1$ (corresponding to the lower small triangular 

1565: region in Figure~\ref{validity});

1566: $\omega/(4\pi\Sigma)\ll Q_E\ll \omega \Sigma/(4\pi \alpe)$ for

1567: $1\ll G \ll \sqrt{M} \le/\Sigma$; and 

1568: $\omega \Sigma G^2/(4\pi\alpe M)\ll Q_E\ll \omega \Sigma/(4\pi \alpe)$ for

1569: $\sqrt{M} \le/\Sigma \ll G$; while for the second expression, one needs 

1570: $\omega \Sigma/(4\pi\alpe)\ll Q_E\ll \omega \Sigma M^2/(4\pi \alpe G^4)$.

1571: One should not make too much of these additional conditions; the only relevant

1572: point is that there are certain restrictions and we can arrange a large

1573: hierarchy of energies where our expression for energy levels can be trusted

1574: by changing $G$, $M$, and $\Sigma/\le$. This is shown

1575: in the figure above 

1576: with a shaded region. The important points

1577: are that (a) the energy levels scale inversely with the

1578: coupling $G$, and hence are non-perturbative in character; (b)

1579: the scaling with the integer $N$ is large enough that the higher levels 

1580: will be spaced more and more; 

1581: (c) that the spectrum is regular in the limit $M\rightarrow\infty$;

1582: a regime which circumvents complications that affect the dynamics near

1583: $v\sim 0$; (d) that

1584: there exists states with the `wrong' winding orientation that

1585: cannot escape to infinity and yet explore energies above the threshold;

1586: and (e) that, for positive winding,

1587: the transition point between freed closed strings and

1588: NCOS states is the threshold energy. As pointed out earlier, this

1589: threshold energy appears with the correct additional $1/2$ factor

1590: that has already been attributed to the closed string tension~\cite{KLEBMALDA}.

1591: 

1592: Most interestingly,

1593: the $M\rightarrow \infty$ limit,

1594: with all other parameters of the theory held fixed, is regular;

1595: this renders the whole of space, from $v=0$ to $v\rightarrow\infty$,

1596: reliable for our computations. In this strict limit, the spectrum is in 

1597: principle good for all energies as to the issues pointed out in

1598: Section~\ref{valsec}, but

1599: except for issues having to do with reliability

1600: of a WKB-like approximation. These latter matters are controllable

1601: and are discussed in Appendix E as well as the Discussion section.

1602: For finite but large $M$, we argue in the Discussion section that this

1603: spectrum may constitute a first order estimate of energy levels

1604: in an expansion in $1/M$.

1605: 

1606: Let us next look at the propagators in the bound state problem.

1607: We emphasize that the

1608: region explored by the bound state motion is not confined to the throat

1609: $G v^3<1$, but can involve the whole of the

1610: space; as seen from equation~\pref{vc},

1611: for both windings, $v_c$ ranges from $0$ to $\infty$, for the allowed

1612: values for $E$ as given in~\pref{table}.

1613: Expression~\pref{propres} for the

1614: propagator tells us about the probability of propagation in the $v$

1615: direction (see footnote at the beginning of Section~\ref{quantumeff} 

1616: with regards to the measure); 

1617: in the dual NCOS theory, this presumably translates to probability 

1618: for a corresponding NCOS state to live and `breath' for some time;

1619: location in the $v$ direction being mapped onto size of a soliton

1620: in the NCOS theory. Note also that these states carry zero total

1621: momentum in the $y$ direction. 

1622: In order to interpret~\pref{propres} as a probability amplitude,

1623: we need however to eliminate all instances

1624: of $E$ in the propagator in favor of $\Delta t$.

1625: This is identical to the

1626: situation that arises say in $AdS_3$ where one tries to 

1627: find the correlators of two operators in the conformal field theory

1628: by looking at a geodesic motion in the bulk, \ie\ at a propagator

1629: in the bulk. We would then need to invert~\pref{tint}

1630: to write $E$ as a function of $\Delta t$; a difficult task that we will

1631: not be able to do. The problem here is that the motion explores the

1632: space all the way near the center; whereas in the $AdS_3$ case for example,

1633: the corresponding geodesic motion lives near the boundary, and leads to

1634: a trivial relation $t\sim 1/E$. We cannot do this here as the motion is

1635: not confined near a boundary, about which we would expand. For the

1636: case of the scattering solution that we discuss in the next section,

1637: the problem will be the same, as the closed string falls from infinity

1638: all the way to the horizon.

1639: In an effort to unravel the dynamics, we will then look at the two limits

1640: $|E|\gg\omega$ and $|E|\ll\omega$, and expand the relations between 

1641: $t$ and $E$ in these regimes only.

1642: 

1643: The expression given by~\pref{deltatbnd} 

1644: is not enough and one needs the subleading

1645: term to extract the energy dependence. This is a subtle limit

1646: to take, which we do carefully by taking the limits on energy

1647: first, then integrating~\pref{tint}. The procedure is outlined briefly

1648: in Appendix C. The result are simple relations (for $v_1=v_c$)

1649: \bb\label{eoft1}

1650: |E|^{1/3}= 2 \sqrt{G}\omega \sqrt{\frac{D_1 v_2}{1-T v_2}}\mbox{     for  }

1651: |E|\ll\omega\ ;

1652: \ee

1653: and

1654: \bb\label{eoft2}

1655: |E|^{1/3}= 4 G\omega \frac{D_2 v_2}{1-T v_2}\mbox{     for  }

1656: |E|\gg\omega\ .

1657: \ee

1658: $D_1$ and $D_2$ are numerical constants given by

1659: $D_1=\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(2/3)/\Gamma(1/6)$ and $D_2=2 D_1$.

1660: And $T$ is defined as

1661: \bb

1662: T\equiv \frac{\Delta t_{bnd}}{\sqrt{8\pi^2 \alpe}}\ ,

1663: \ee

1664: \ie\ the time in NCOS string units. In these expressions,

1665: we have also expanded in powers of

1666: $v_2/v_c\ll 1$. 

1667: These are not the typical relation $|E|\sim 1/T$; as $v_2\rightarrow 0$,

1668: and $T\rightarrow\infty$, with the product $T v_2$ getting close to $1$,

1669: we have $E$ remaining finite. Note also that $v_2$ is the IR cutoff in

1670: the dual NCOS theory, so that the $T v_2$ is a natural combination.

1671: In particular, we have the requirement $T v_2\leq 1$; \ie\ we should not

1672: probe dynamics for times longer than the one set by the IR cutoff.

1673: We have also verified these asymptotic expansions numerically, and found they

1674: are excellent approximations to the exact form within the regimes

1675: of interest\footnote{

1676: Note that the exponent in~\pref{propres} could in principle be used

1677: to extract the spectrum of states in an alternative way. 

1678: One would Fourier transform in the time variable $t$ dual

1679: to energy in the NCOS theory; then, look for poles in energy. This is 

1680: technically a much

1681: more involved approach in this case for obvious reasons.}.

1682: 

1683: The interesting quantity

1684: to look at is the real part of the propagator~\pref{propres}, 

1685: $|\GG|^2\sim |\Delta|$. 

1686: Let us focus on the two interesting regimes in expression~\pref{deltabnd}:

1687: \bb\label{deltabnd2}

1688: |\Delta_{bnd}|\sim \lk\{

1689: \begin{array}{ll}

1690: \omega^{2/3} \frac{\Sigma}{\le} G^{1/3} \frac{|E|^{1/3}}{v_2^2} & \mbox{  for  }

1691: |E|\ll \omega \\

1692: \omega^{1/3} \frac{\Sigma}{\le} G^{1/3} \frac{|E|^{2/3}}{v_2^2} & \mbox{  for  }

1693: |E|\gg \omega

1694: \end{array}\re.\ .

1695: \ee

1696: Eliminating $E$ between~\pref{eoft1}, \pref{eoft2} and~\pref{deltabnd2}, we get 

1697: \bbb

1698: |\GG|^2 & \sim

1699: \omega \frac{\Sigma}{\le} \frac{\sqrt{G}}{v_2^{3/2}}

1700: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-T v_2}} & \mbox{  for  }

1701: v_1^3\ll \frac{1}{G} \label{deltabndf1} \\

1702: |\GG|^2 & \sim

1703: \omega \frac{\Sigma}{\le} G \frac{1}{1-T v_2} & \mbox{  for  }

1704: v_1^3\gg \frac{1}{G} \label{deltabndf2}

1705: \eee

1706: Note that, in these expressions, $v_c$ is the initial position

1707: $v_1=v_c$; and we need to be careful to take $v_2\ll v_c$, in particular

1708: for~\pref{deltabndf1}. Also, the dependence on $T$ includes

1709: contribution from $v_c$; so that our expression is a function of $v_2$

1710: and $T$ independently, with fixed initial position of propagation at

1711: the classical turning point. We interpret these expressions as

1712: the probability for a corresponding configuration in NCOS theory to 

1713: spread in size from its most compact form to a size $1/v_2$ in a time $T$.

1714: 

1715: \section{The scattering problem}

1716: 

1717: The scattering solution exists only for positive winding. The

1718: closed string starts at $v$ large, where perhaps it can be used to

1719: define an asymptotic on-shell state within Wound string theory, 

1720: and falls to $v\rightarrow 0$, while decelerating as it approaches

1721: the horizon. It would then bounce back to infinity. For fixed initial

1722: position $v_1$, this process takes finite proper time, as seen

1723: from~\pref{deltatauscatt}. In the time variable $t$, which we associate with

1724: the NCOS theory, this process seems to take infinite time. This presents

1725: a problem in trying to interpret the process as scattering within the

1726: dual NCOS dynamics.

1727: 

1728: The natural suggestion of this setup is that this solution

1729: describes a closed string in Wound String theory scattering off the

1730: bound state of D-strings and fundamental strings. This correlates

1731: well with the fact that strings of only positive winding can undergo

1732: this process. Given that $v_c$ for the

1733: positively wound bound state approaches infinity as 

1734: $Q_E\rightarrow \omega \frac{\Sigma}{4\pi\alpe}$, which is the threshold

1735: of creating a wound closed string (see equation~\pref{vc}), we may expect that

1736: in the dual NCOS theory the scattering process is encoded 

1737: holographically by the insertion of the appropriate local

1738: vertex operators at large values of $v$, in the UV. Hence in this case,

1739: $\Delta$ given by~\pref{deltascatt} would tell us about the amplitude

1740: for the incoming closed string to break up on the D-strings, breath

1741: for a while through a resonance (with zero net momentum in the $y$ direction), 

1742: and leave the NCOS theory. We will carry on in computing this amplitude,

1743: keeping in mind that we do not have a satisfactory resolution of the

1744: issue that this process yet appears to take infinite times in the variable $t$ .

1745: We consider in this section $v_1$ large and $v_2$ small throughout.

1746: 

1747: Using equation~\pref{deltatscatt}, we solve for $E$ and find

1748: \bb\label{eoftscatt}

1749: |E|=4 G\omega \frac{v_1 v_2^2}{\lk(T v_2-1\re)^2}\ .

1750: \ee

1751: And taking the limit $|E|\gg\omega$ in~\pref{deltascatt}, we get 

1752: \bb

1753: |\Delta_{scatt}|\sim \frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2\alpe}} |E| \frac{1}{v_1 v_2^2}

1754: \sim \omega \frac{\Sigma}{\le} \frac{G}{\lk(T v_2-1\re)^2}\ ,

1755: \ee

1756: where in the last step, we used~\pref{eoftscatt} to eliminate $E$. 

1757: In particular, the divergences from $v_1$ and $v_2$, the IR and UV cutoff

1758: cancel. Another interesting aspect of this result is the linearity

1759: in the NCOS coupling. We can interpret this propagator as an amplitude

1760: in NCOS theory associated with a local insertion of a single vertex operator

1761: corresponding to the closed string in the parent Wound string theory;

1762: with $v_2$ being interpreted as the size of the final state,

1763: presumably a non-perturbative coherent state,

1764: in the NCOS theory. Yet, at strongly coupling, this amplitude scales

1765: linearly with the NCOS coupling. For the same technical

1766: reasons encountered above in inverting $t$ as a function of $E$,

1767: the bound state spectrum is difficult to unravel from the scattering

1768: propagator.

1769: 

1770: For the reader's convenience, we write in this regime

1771: the leading phase of the propagator. We find, after eliminating $E$

1772: \bb

1773: S_{cl}^{scatt}\sim 2 \omega \frac{\Sigma}{\le} G \frac{v_1 v_2}{T v_2-1}\ ,

1774: \ee

1775: Hence, there is a suggestive correlation between the UV and IR cutoffs, as

1776: they appear in the product $v_1 v_2$ that perhaps could be held finite

1777: in a controlled limit.

1778: 

1779: 

1780: \section{The holographic duality for NCOS}

1781: \label{holosec}

1782: 

1783: In this section, we collect several observations suggesting that we may

1784: associate a screen, located at finite $v$

1785: in the bulk space, with the dual NCOS theory, that

1786: holographically encodes dynamics in the whole of space. Consider

1787: an observer siting at the non-commutativity throat

1788: \bb

1789: v^3_o=\frac{\kappa}{G}\ ,

1790: \ee

1791: where $\kappa$ is an arbitrary numerical constant.

1792: If this observer was to measure, locally, energy

1793: of our projectile, it would be

1794: \bb\label{locale}

1795:  \varepsilon=\lk.|G_{00}|^{1/2} \frac{dt}{d\tau}\re|_{v_0}

1796: \sim |E|+\mbox{constant}

1797: \ee

1798: \ie\ all instances of $G$ disappear from~\pref{locale}. 

1799: Furthermore, evaluating the metric~\pref{metric} at $v_0$, we get

1800: \bb

1801: \lk.G_{\mu\nu}\re|_{v_o}=\frac{G_s^2}{\gs} \sqrt{\kappa}\sqrt{1+\kappa}\ .

1802: \ee

1803: While the dilaton is

1804: \bb

1805: \lk.e^\phi\re|_{v_o}=

1806: G_s \frac{1+\kappa}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\ ;

1807: \ee

1808: (see also~\pref{Gs}).

1809: And from the worldsheet action of the closed string in this region, the

1810: effective string length at this point is

1811: \bb

1812: \alp|_{v_0}=\frac{\alp}{|G_{00}|_{v_0}}=

1813: \frac{\alpe}{\sqrt{\kappa}\sqrt{1+\kappa}}\ .

1814: \ee

1815: These four expressions are, up to a numerical constant logged by

1816: $\kappa$, the NCOS energy scale, metric, (closed string) coupling, 

1817: and string scale respectively, 

1818: in {\em flat space}\footnote{In particular, we remind the reader of the

1819: NCOS map

1820: $G_{\mu\nu}=G_s^2/\gs$~\cite{SWNC,GMSS,KLEBMALDA,GMMS}. We may also refer

1821: to this as the Wound String theory map adopted to the NCOS setting.}.

1822: Hence, it is natural to think that the dual NCOS

1823: theory to our spacetime `sits' at an energy scale

1824: $v\sim v_0$, which is

1825: the throat region of the spacetime geometry depicted in Figure~\ref{throat1}. 

1826: It is the region

1827: analogous to the `boundary'

1828: of space in the Maldacena scaling limit in the cases with zero

1829: B-field.

1830: Note however that, for the bound state solutions, the closed string

1831: reaches up to an extent $v_c$, which can get larger than $v_0$ for high

1832: enough energies. And it then appears that the whole of space

1833: is available for holographic encoding.

1834: 

1835: Finally, it is important that, at $v\rightarrow \infty$, within the

1836: same framework, we also recover

1837: the conventionally different scaling limit of Wound String theory

1838: $g_{\mu\nu}=\lk(-1,1,\delta,\delta,\ldots\re)$,

1839: $\alp\sim \delta$, and

1840: $\gs\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}$,

1841: as shown explicitly in~\cite{DGK2}, with $\delta\sim 1/v^3$.

1842: 

1843: \section{Discussion}

1844: 

1845: Two aspects of our setup need more elaboration. The

1846: first has to do with the fact that our formalism neglects quantum fluctuations

1847: beyond the ansatz we used. We have been discussing the dynamics

1848: of the center of mass of the closed string, with zero angular

1849: momentum on the seven sphere. We showed that this ansatz can be 

1850: classically solved for self-consistently.

1851: We studied the

1852: quantum mechanics with sum over paths restricted to this ansatz;

1853: yet the string has available to itself a much larger phase space for

1854: quantum fluctuations than that of a point particle in one dimension. 

1855: 

1856: If we were to imagine how the spectrum we calculated would look like

1857: had we solved the full problem exactly, we may expect a tower

1858: of levels associated with the bounded motion of the center of mass,

1859: and, superimposed on this, another level spectrum associated with fluctuations

1860: on the string about the center mass. We may expect correlations

1861: between the spacings of these two classes of energy levels.

1862: The spectrum we have computed 

1863: must then correspond to approximating part of this

1864: full spectrum. We should expect two additional effects: first, additional

1865: levels towering on each energy level we predict, corresponding to

1866: vibrations of the string itself; and second, possibly additions and

1867: corrections to the levels we computed from fluctuations of the zero modes that

1868: take us away from the ansatz; corrections, in particular, that come from the

1869: zero point energy of other oscillators.

1870: We suggest confining the results

1871: to large values of $N$, where the energy level spacings become large

1872: parametrically with $N$. Other fluctuations being independent of this,

1873: they become of less importance for the higher levels.

1874: Also, our WKB-like approximation is naturally improved for large $N$.

1875: 

1876: The other issue of concern has to do with the

1877: part of the motion of the closed string near the center $v\sim 0$.

1878: The problem here is that, even as we push

1879: $\Sigma$ and, more importantly,

1880: $M$ large enough so as to trust the computation to small

1881: values of the radial coordinate, we will eventually venture into a regime

1882: where the calculation breaks down near the repulsive horizon at $v=0$

1883: if $M$ is finite;

1884: and the question is with regards to the effect of this forbidden region on the

1885: overall picture of the dynamics we painted.

1886: 

1887: As mentioned earlier, the strict limit $M\rightarrow\infty$, 

1888: with $G$, $\Sigma$, and $\le$ fixed, is a well-defined regime with all

1889: physical measurables remaining finite. This is strong evidence that

1890: we have identified the coupling of the theory $G$ correctly as in~\pref{cpl}.

1891: More interestingly, in this regime, the issues that plague dynamics in the

1892: $v\sim 0$ region do not exist, as the geometry is reliable from $v=0$

1893: to $v\rightarrow\infty$. The spectrum computation

1894: is then controlled, up to the standard issues associated

1895: with the WKB-like approach discussed in Appendix E, 

1896: and the restriction of the phase

1897: space to the $v-t$ plane discussed above; both matters are effects we can

1898: understand and control by taking the level number large. Note also that, 

1899: for $M\rightarrow\infty$, there is a possibility that,

1900: the WKB-like calculation being coincidentally exact as it sometimes can be,

1901: and with the help of supersymmetry in controlling zero point energies of

1902: other oscillators in the system, we may have

1903: part of the exact spectrum of a string theory at strong coupling.

1904: 

1905: For finite $M$, the picture is more problematic.

1906: First, let us note that, in principle we can extend the calculation 

1907: to smaller values in $v$ by applying duality transformations. But this

1908: is bound to postpone the question instead of answering it;

1909: either into an S-dual picture, or strongly coupled IIA theory

1910: (after applying a T-duality). We instead will attempt to speculate within 

1911: IIB theory as to the effect of the center of the geometry

1912: on the dynamics in the bulk for finite $M$.

1913: 

1914: Near the origin of the radial coordinate,

1915: the local string coupling is becoming big

1916: with smaller values of $v$,

1917: as can be seen from Figure~\ref{validity}.

1918: Furthermore, as the string falls onto the center,

1919: it is decelerating and its multiply wound strands are getting 

1920: squeezed into a smaller area of space. As it spends longer and longer

1921: proper times 

1922: in this region, we expect string interactions to become more and more

1923: important for this part of the motion. In the first quantized formalism

1924: we adopted, we should then consider processes where the closed string

1925: splits and joins, while conserving total winding number. One could describe

1926: these processes by introducing this surgery by hand in the center of

1927: the geometry, and representing the entire process by gluing the corresponding

1928: trajectories near the center, as classical solutions that  

1929: interpolate between the various solutions we have written.

1930: The effect of these interactions is subleading to the overall

1931: dynamics, weighed by powers of the local string coupling, and correspondingly,

1932: as can be seen from equation~\pref{dil}, by powers of $1/M$, with $M$ being

1933: finite but large. This

1934: suggests that we may

1935: describe the picture by the spectrum we have computed,

1936: by allowing possibly copious transitions between the various energy levels

1937: across different winding sectors. In the dual NCOS picture, this would

1938: correspond to non-perturbative states that can decay amongst each other,

1939: with their masses being estimated well to first order in $1/M$ 

1940: by the quantum mechanical spectrum

1941: computed. This is a first look into

1942: what appears to be a complex and rich non-perturbative

1943: dynamics in NCOS theory at finite $M$. 

1944: Somewhat similar phenomena may be at work in

1945: the SL(2,R) WZW model (see discussion in~\cite{MALDAOOG1}).

1946: 

1947: Hence, the picture we have is that there exists states in the NCOS at

1948: strong coupling,

1949: with masses that scale inversely with the coupling. These objects,

1950: which carry zero momentum in the $y$ direction, may have time dependent

1951: sizes; perhaps similar to breathing modes. There can be created in scattering

1952: processes involving a closed string of Wound String theory, perhaps

1953: represented as a vertex operator insertion in the NCOS theory.

1954: In certain asymptotic regimes, we wrote propagators

1955: of the NCOS theory, as a function of time and

1956: size. A general observation was that these have poles at

1957: times of order the final size $T\sim 1/v_2$. 

1958: A linear scaling in the coupling, along with certain non-trivial cancelations

1959: of potential divergences in the UV, are some of the interesting

1960: features we encountered.

1961: To address these issues, it seems important that we understand the 

1962: infinite redshift effect at the horizon tied to

1963: our choice of what we call energy or time.

1964: 

1965: Another interesting matter has to do with our observation that,

1966: in the $M\rightarrow\infty$ limit, we have a well-defined background

1967: geometry for all $v$. This may be viewed as a mechanism whereby

1968: non-commutativity, through the introduction of the throat, 

1969: regulates the singularity that would otherwise arise at $v=0$.

1970: The potential trouble gets replaced in the center with a patch of

1971: spacetime which is almost flat, much like a similar mechanism proposed

1972: in~\cite{JPJ}. In this case, the regulator is non-commutativity in the infinite

1973: $M$ limit. It would be interesting to pursue this line of thought further

1974: in other systems.

1975:  

1976: Beyond resolving some of these open questions, 

1977: let us also comment briefly on potentially interesting

1978: future directions.

1979: First, understanding the dynamics of putting momentum along the $y$

1980: direction, as well as vibrations on the closed

1981: string, is important. The problem is not intractable, as one can adopt

1982: an approach of a perturbative expansion about the center of mass

1983: dynamics (if needed) to gain at least a hint of how the spectrum evolves. 

1984: It is useful however, at this stage, to understand and include the

1985: effects of the RR fields. This may necessitate a more controlled approach

1986: by using the symmetries in the theory, in particular supersymmetry.

1987: There are interesting qualitative similarities between our problem

1988: and the SL(2,R) WZW model analyzed in~\cite{MALDAOOG1}. In understanding

1989: that system, a crucial role is played by spectral flow, in a system

1990: that is an exactly solvable CFT. It would be interesting to see

1991: whether one can find an analogous operation

1992: that may be used to study the NCOS problem in a more

1993: mature manner. In this respect, an important simplification may be

1994: achieved by working in the strict limit $M\rightarrow\infty$.

1995: 

1996: Another line of thought is to attempt to understand dynamics of D-branes

1997: in this background. In particular, D-string motion may entail interesting

1998: information, the setting being S-dual to the one considered. And it

1999: would be desirable to better understand how one should think of

2000: holography in this context. It appears this system may be used to

2001: test and study the Holographic duality beyond

2002: the near horizon scaling limit; within Wound String

2003: theory, the energy regime we consider is a superset of the conventional

2004: regime associated with Holography~\cite{DGK2}. In this respect, our analysis

2005: demonstrate that previous attempts to identify a criterion for

2006: Holography are too restrictive~\cite{BOUSSOCONJ,AGC,CFUNCTION}, 

2007: as they confine themselves to

2008: short wavelength, point-like probes; geodesics, which are only part of the

2009: story in a picture involving strings. We hope to report on this in

2010: an upcoming work.

2011: 

2012: 

2013: \section{Acknowledgments}

2014: I thank P. Argyres and T. Becher for discussions. I am grateful

2015: to K. Gottfried for making part of his manuscript of his upcoming

2016: textbook on Quantum Mechanics available for reading. 

2017: This work was supported in part by a grant

2018: from the NSF.

2019: 

2020: 

2021: \section{Appendix A: The $(N,M)$ string solution}

2022: 

2023: In this appendix, we present, for the convenience of the reader,

2024: the background fields generated 

2025: by the $(N,M)$ string, and the associated NCOS limit. 

2026: The parameter space in the parent IIB theory is given by

2027: \bb

2028: \lk\{N,M,\gs,\alp,\Sigma\re\}\ .

2029: \ee

2030: The metric can be found in~\cite{SL2Z,VVSNCOS}

2031: \bb

2032: ds_{str}^2=\gs \sqrt{\frac{K}{L}} \lk \{

2033: A^{-1/2} \lk ( -dt^2+\Sigma^2 dy^2 \re ) 

2034: +A^{1/2} \lk ( dr^2+r^2 d\Omega_7^2 \re)\re \}\ .

2035: \ee

2036: With the NSNS fields

2037: \bb

2038: B_{ty}=\gs^2 \Sigma \frac{N}{M} A^{-1} L^{-1/2}\ ;

2039: \ee

2040: \bb

2041: e^\phi=\gs A^{1/2} \frac{K}{L}\ .

2042: \ee

2043: And the RR fields

2044: \bb

2045: A_{ty}=\Sigma \lk(A^{-1}-1\re) L^{-1/2}\ ;

2046: \ee

2047: \bb

2048: \chi=\frac{N}{M} A^{-1} \frac{A-1}{K}\ .

2049: \ee

2050: The various variables appearing in these expressions are defined as

2051: \bb

2052: A\equiv 1+\frac{q^6}{r^6}\ ,\ \ 

2053: K\equiv 1+A^{-1} \lk(\frac{N \gs}{M}\re)^2\ ,\ \ 

2054: L\equiv 1+\lk(\frac{N\gs}{M}\re)^2\ ,

2055: \ee

2056: with

2057: \bb

2058: q^6\equiv \frac{32 \pi^2}{\gs^2} M \alp^3 L^{1/2}\ .

2059: \ee

2060: This solution has manifest SL(2,Z) symmetry.

2061: 

2062: The NCOS limit is obtained by

2063: \bb

2064: \alp\rightarrow 0\ ,\ \ 

2065: \gs\alp=\alpe G_s^2\mbox{  fixed  }\ ,\ \ 

2066: \mbox{and  }U\equiv \frac{r}{\alp}\mbox{   fixed}\ ,

2067: \ee

2068: with $\alpe$ defined by this expression, and $G_s$ defined below.

2069: In the main text, we have also performed a coordinate change

2070: \bb

2071: U^2\equiv \frac{V}{\le^3}\equiv \frac{M^2}{(32\pi^2)^3 G^3 \alpe} v\ ,

2072: \ee

2073: to put the metric in a form conformal to $AdS_3\times S^7$.

2074: Furthermore, $v$ becomes energy scale in the UV-IR relation

2075: $v\sim \mu_{NCOS}$.

2076: 

2077: In this limit, the dual theory is 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory,

2078: with (closed) string coupling

2079: \bb\label{Gs}

2080: G_s=\frac{M}{N}\ ,

2081: \ee

2082: which is more conveniently written as

2083: \bb\label{cpl}

2084: G\equiv \frac{G_o \sqrt{M}}{32\pi^2}\ ,\ \ G_o\equiv \sqrt{G_s}\ .

2085: \ee

2086: 

2087: \section{Appendix B: The path integral}

2088: 

2089: We need to setup a path integral for the propagator 

2090: of our quantum mechanical system, and evaluate it,

2091: subject to the first class constraint

2092: \bb

2093: C_1=\frac{2\pi^2}{\Sigma^2} \frac{\alp^2}{\Omega^2} v^2 \Pi_v^2

2094: -\frac{16 \pi^4 \alpe }{\Sigma^2 v^2} \frac{\alp^2}{\Omega^2}

2095: \lk(\Pi_t\mp\frac{\omega G \Sigma}{2\pi \alpe} v^3\re)^2

2096: +\omega^2 \frac{v^2\Omega^2}{16\pi^2\alpe}=0\ .

2097: \ee

2098: The term `first class' refers to the fact that $C_1$ commutes with

2099: the Hamiltonian (in this case, it {\em is} our Hamiltonian). 

2100: The proper approach is to supplement the constraint with

2101: a secondary constraint that is consistent with the equations of

2102: motion~\cite{KOS}. In our case, we choose

2103: \bb

2104: C_2=t-T(\tau)=0\ ,

2105: \ee

2106: where

2107: \bb

2108: \frac{dT}{d\tau}=\lk.\frac{dt}{d\tau}\re|_{v\rightarrow v_{cl}(\tau)}\ .

2109: \ee

2110: The Poisson bracket of the two constraints is then

2111: \bb

2112: \lk\{C_1,C_2\re\}=-2 \lk(\Pi_t\mp\omega \frac{\Sigma}{2\pi\alpe} G v^3\re)\ .

2113: \ee

2114: 

2115: We now can write down the appropriate path

2116: integral, being careful to start in the Hamiltonian formalism\footnote{

2117: If arranged in the Lagrangian picture in the naive way, 

2118: a path integral in curved space

2119: gives the incorrect measure. This is because of the coordinate

2120: dependent factors multiplying the kinetic term (see for example~\cite{RAMOND}).}

2121: \bb

2122: \GG\sim \int

2123: \DD t\ \DD \Pi_t\ 

2124: \DD v\ \DD \Pi_v\ 

2125: \delta(C_1) \delta(C_2) \sqrt{\lk|\mbox{Det}\lk\{C_1,C_2\re\}\re|}

2126: e^{i \int_0^{\tau_0}d\tau\ \lk(\dot{v} \Pi_v

2127: +\dot{t} \Pi_t-H(t,\Pi_t,v,\Pi_v)\re)}\ .

2128: \ee

2129: Using the well-known identity

2130: \bb

2131: \delta(C_1)\rightarrow 

2132: \frac{1}{2 \lk|\Pi_t\mp\omega\frac{\Sigma}{2\pi\alpe} G v^3\re|} 

2133: \delta\lk(\Pi_t-\Phi_t\re)\ ,

2134: \ee

2135: with $\Phi_t$ given by solving for $\Pi_t$ in $C_1=0$,

2136: the determinant in the measure cancels. We then have

2137: \bb

2138: \GG\sim \int\ \prod_\tau\ dv(\tau)\ d\Pi_v(\tau)\ 

2139: e^{i\sum_\tau\ \delta\tau \lk(\Pi_v \dot{v} +\Phi_t \dot{T}\re)}\ .

2140: \ee

2141: We now perform a change of coordinates from $\tau$ to $t$, using $T(\tau)$

2142: \bb

2143: \int\ d\tau \lk(\Pi_v\dot{v}+\Phi_t\dot{T}\re)=

2144: \int\ dt\lk(\Pi_v \frac{dv}{dt}+\Phi_t\re)\ .

2145: \ee

2146: We then have the expressions given in~\pref{prop} and~\pref{Phit}.

2147: 

2148: The phase space has been reduced from four to two dimensions. On

2149: this subspace, the evolution operator is $-\Phi_t$, evolving

2150: life in the time variable $t$. The extremum of the integrand in~\pref{prop} 

2151: is at

2152: \bb

2153: \frac{dv}{dt}=-\frac{\delta\Phi_t}{\delta\Pi_v}\ ,\ \ 

2154: \frac{d\Pi_v}{dt}=\frac{\delta\Phi_t}{\delta v}\ .

2155: \ee

2156: The reader may check that these correspond to

2157: the equations of motion~\pref{radialeom} and~\pref{timeeom}, 

2158: subject to~\pref{expconst}.

2159: 

2160: \section{Appendix C: Some computational details}

2161: 

2162: In this appendix, we collect a few details the reader

2163: may find useful in checking some of the formula appearing in the main

2164: text.

2165: 

2166: To compute many of the integrals we encountered, or to write down

2167: their asymptotic behaviors, the coordinate change

2168: \bb

2169: \lk\{

2170: \begin{array}{ll}

2171: \sinh(y)=v^{3/2}/|v_c|^{3/2} & \mbox{  for  } v_c^3<0 \\

2172: \sin(y)=v^{3/2}/|v_c|^{3/2}  & \mbox{  for  } v_c^3>0

2173: \end{array}

2174: \re.

2175: \ee

2176: is useful.

2177: For example, the classical action becomes

2178: \bb

2179: S_{cl}=\lk.\pm \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

2180: \omega G \frac{E\pm2\omega}{E}

2181: \sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3} v_c^2

2182: \mbox{ }_2F_1

2183: \lk(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{3}{2},1-\frac{v^3}{v_c^3}\re)\re|_{v_1}^{v_2}\ .

2184: \ee

2185: While the integral given in~\pref{ii} becomes

2186: \bb

2187: \II=-\frac{v_c^3}{6} 

2188: \lk\{

2189: 4 \lk(-\frac{1}{v_c^3}-G\re) 

2190: \frac{v^2}{\sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}

2191: +\lk(\frac{1}{v_c^3}+4 G\re) v^2 

2192: \mbox{ }_2F_1\lk(\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{3},\frac{v^3}{v_c^3}\re)

2193: \re\}_{v_1}^{v_2}\ .

2194: \ee

2195: 

2196: In finding the asymptotic expansion of~\pref{tint}, we 

2197: rescale $v\rightarrow v/v_c\equiv y$, then note that the numerator of the

2198: integrand becomes $|E|\pm 2\omega G v^3\rightarrow |E|$ for $|E|\ll \omega$;

2199: while it becomes $|E| (1-y^3/2)$ for $|E|\gg\omega$. We then evaluate

2200: the integral in each case in term of hypergeometric functions, which have

2201: well defined expansions for $v_2/v_c\ll 1$.

2202: 

2203: \section{Appendix D: Calculation of the determinant} 

2204: \label{detapp}

2205: 

2206: In this appendix, we show the computation of the determinant

2207: $\Delta$ appearing in~\pref{propres}. For this, we need to compute

2208: derivatives of $S_{cl}$ while holding $t$, $v_1$, and $v_2$ 

2209: fixed as needed. This means we have to eliminate $E$

2210: that appears in $S_{cl}$

2211: \bb

2212: \lk\{ S_{cl}(E,v_1,v_2), t(E,v_1,v_2)\re\}

2213: \rightarrow S_{cl}(t,v_1,v_2)\ .

2214: \ee

2215: 

2216: For example, the canonical momentum to $v$ is given by

2217: \bb\label{canmom}

2218: \PP\equiv 

2219: \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del v_1}\re)_{t,v_2}=

2220: \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del v_1}\re)_{E,v_2}+

2221: \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}

2222: \lk(\frac{\del E}{\del v_1}\re)_{t,v_2}\ ,

2223: \ee

2224: with

2225: \bb

2226: \lk(\frac{\del E}{\del v_1}\re)_{t,v_2}=

2227: -\frac{\lk({\del t}/{\del v_1}\re)_{E,v_2}}

2228: {\lk({\del t}/{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}}\ .

2229: \ee

2230: The expressions on the right hand sides can be derived 

2231: in a straightforward manner using techniques

2232: found typically in thermodynamics textbooks.

2233: The determinant is also given by

2234: \bb

2235: \Delta\equiv

2236: \frac{\del^2 S_{cl}}{\del v_2 \del v_1}=

2237: \lk(\frac{\del \PP}{\del v_2}\re)_{t,v_1}=

2238: \lk(\frac{\del \PP}{\del v_2}\re)_{E,v_1}-

2239: \lk(\frac{\del \PP}{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}

2240: \frac{\lk({\del t}/{\del v_2}\re)_{E,v_1}}

2241: {\lk({\del t}/{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}}\ .

2242: \ee

2243: 

2244: We now use equations~\pref{sclint} and~\pref{tint} to evaluate these

2245: derivatives. We get

2246: \bb

2247: \lk(\frac{\del t}{\del v_1}\re)_{E,v_2}=

2248: -2\pi \frac{\sqrt{2\alpe}}{E}

2249: \frac{-E\pm 2 G \omega v_1^3}

2250: {v_1^2 \sqrt{1-(v_1/v_c)^3}}\ .

2251: \ee

2252: And

2253: \bb\label{int1}

2254: \lk(\frac{\del t}{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}=

2255: 8\pi G \frac{\sqrt{2\alpe}}{E^3} \omega^2

2256: \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

2257: \frac{v \lk(1+G v^3\re)}{\lk(1-(v/v_c)^3\re)^{3/2}}\ .

2258: \ee

2259: 

2260: From the classical action, we have

2261: \bb

2262: \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del v_1}\re)_{E,v_2}=

2263: \sqrt{2} G \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

2264: \frac{2\pm E}{E}

2265: \frac{v_1}{\sqrt{1-(v_1/v_c)^3}}\ .

2266: \ee

2267: And

2268: \bb\label{int2}

2269: \lk(\frac{\del S_{cl}}{\del E}\re)_{v_1,v_2}=

2270: 2\sqrt{2} \frac{G}{E^2} \frac{\Sigma}{\le}

2271: \omega^2 \int_{v_1}^{v_2}\ dv\ 

2272: \frac{v \lk(1+G v^3\re)}{\lk(1-(v/v_c)^3\re)^{3/2}}\ .

2273: \ee

2274: 

2275: Note that the integrals in~\pref{int1} and~\pref{int2} are identical.

2276: This results in a cancelation in computing~\pref{canmom} that simplifies

2277: the problem considerably. Putting everything together, we get

2278: the expressions given in~\pref{canmom2} and~\pref{delta}.

2279: 

2280: \section{Appendix E: Comments on the Bohr-Sommerfeld approximation}

2281: \label{bohrapp}

2282: 

2283: In this appendix, we discuss the merits of the method we used in

2284: deriving the energy spectrum associated with the bounded motion

2285: of the closed string. We also use this opportunity to briefly discuss

2286: the problem from a slightly different angle.

2287: 

2288: We can think of our quantum mechanical problem in the Schr\"{o}dinger

2289: picture as one corresponding to a Hilbert space spanned

2290: by energy eigenstates

2291: \bb

2292: H |{\Psi}\rangle =\EE |\Psi\rangle\ ,

2293: \ee

2294: with the additional prescription to project onto

2295: the space of states with zero

2296: `energy' $\EE$; \ie\ we apply our constraint directly

2297: on the Hilbert space. We also have

2298: \bb

2299: \Pi_t |{\Psi}\rangle =\frac{\Sigma}{4\pi\alpe} E |\Psi\rangle\ ,

2300: \ee

2301: since $\Pi_t$ commutes with the Hamiltonian $H$.

2302: 

2303: Our Hamiltonian has the form

2304: \bb

2305: H=f(v)^2 \frac{\Pi_v^2}{2}+\ldots\ .

2306: \ee

2307: The peculiar factor multiplying the momentum is

2308: not a concern, since one can always apply a canonical

2309: transformation {\em without} changing the energy spectrum. For example,

2310: using the generator

2311: \bb

2312: \HH(v,P_v): \lk(v,\Pi_v\re)\rightarrow \lk(W,P_v\re)\ ,

2313: \ee

2314: with

2315: \bb

2316: \HH(v,P_v)=P_v \int_{v_0}^v\ \frac{dv}{f(v)}\ ,

2317: \ee

2318: puts the problem in the standard form

2319: \bb

2320: H\rightarrow \frac{P_v^2}{2}+\VV(W)\ .

2321: \ee

2322: 

2323: The corresponding Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rule may be written as\footnote{

2324: Note that we are not quantizing $\EE$, which is fixed to zero by

2325: the constraint; this is a statement of quantization for $E$.}

2326: \bb\label{quant}

2327: \BB_1+\BB_2=\pi N\ ,

2328: \ee

2329: with $N$ a large integer, and

2330: \bb\label{bb1}

2331: \BB_1=\int\ P_v\ dW=\int \Pi_v dv=

2332: \frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2\alpe}} E \int_{v_2\rightarrow 0}^{v_c}\ dv\ 

2333: \frac{\sqrt{1-(v/v_c)^3}}{v^2}\ ;

2334: \ee

2335: \bb\label{bb2}

2336: \BB_2=\int_{v_c}^{v2\rightarrow 0}\ \Pi_t\ dt=

2337: \frac{\Sigma}{4\pi\alpe} E \Delta t_{bnd}\ .

2338: \ee

2339: The reader may be concerned with the inclusion of $\BB_2$.

2340: The necessity of this term can be seen from~\pref{prop}; the

2341: exponent in the propagator is the sum of

2342: $\BB_1$ {\em and} $\BB_2$. The physical origin of the quantization condition

2343: is periodicity of this expression, hence the requirement that the

2344: exponent of~\pref{prop} be quantized.

2345: Since our Hamiltonian vanishes, the `counter' of wavefunction nodes

2346: $\oint p\ dx$ is the same as the classical action. $E$ appears in

2347: the quantization condition as a parameter tuning the shape of the

2348: potential of the one dimensional quantum mechanics problem; and the

2349: Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization determines for what potential is

2350: there a `zero energy' state with an integer number of nodes.

2351: 

2352: The second more important

2353: concern the reader must have has to do with the fact that,

2354: for the bounded motion, we have limits of integration

2355: in~\pref{bb1} and~\pref{bb2} extending to

2356: $v_2\rightarrow 0$. But the latter involves

2357: venturing into forbidden domains of the spacetime if $M$ is taken finite, as 

2358: dictated by~\pref{curvec}. To appreciate the problem at hand

2359: further, let us look at the

2360: behavior of~\pref{bb1} and~\pref{bb2} near $v_2\sim 0$.

2361: 

2362: For the first term in~\pref{quant}, we have

2363: \bb\label{div1}

2364: \BB_1\sim -\frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2 \alpe}} E

2365: \frac{1}{v_2}+\mbox{finite}\ .

2366: \ee

2367: Hence it is divergent as $v_2\rightarrow 0$, since the momentum

2368: canonical to $v$ blows up at the origin (while $\dot{v}$ vanishes).

2369: This divergence arises in the IR of the NCOS theory.

2370: 

2371: Looking at the second contribution, we get, using~\pref{deltatbnd} 

2372: in~\pref{bb2}

2373: \bb\label{div2}

2374: \BB_2=\frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{2 \alpe}} E \frac{1}{v_2}+\mbox{finite}\ .

2375: \ee

2376: The origin of this divergence is the infinite redshift

2377: at $v_2\sim 0$ with respect to the time variable $t$; a phenomenon well

2378: known from dynamics near a black hole horizon. And indeed this term cancels

2379: precisely the divergence arising in~\pref{div1}, leading to the 

2380: finite action in~\pref{sclbnd} and~\pref{quant}. The important conclusion

2381: is that the region near $v_2\sim 0$ contributes negligibly to~\pref{quant}

2382: for $v_2\ll 1$ in $\int_0^{v_2} dv$.

2383: 

2384: For finite $M$,

2385: we then consider taking $M$ large (and $\Sigma/\le\gg 1$ if needed), 

2386: so that the spacetime

2387: is reliable up to very small values in $v$ and the asymptotic expansions

2388: used above are therefore valid. Then, the contribution of the forbidden

2389: region, as we approach it from larger values of $v$, is parametrically

2390: small in the quantization equation~\pref{quant}.

2391: 

2392: All this still assumes that, 

2393: to leading order in the dynamics of the

2394: closed string, we have bounded motion, with a turning point at $v_c$;

2395: in particular, that our ignorance of the details of the dynamics at

2396: the origin of the radial coordinate $v$ does not change the fact that,

2397: to this level of

2398: semiclassical approximation, the closed string slows down to a virtual

2399: stop as it approaches

2400: the horizon, bounces back, and hence is effectively in

2401: a box. Note that there is no need however of any concern in this regard

2402: for the regime where $M\rightarrow\infty$, as discussed 

2403: in Section~\ref{valsec}. In that strict limiting case, the dynamics

2404: is reliable all the way to $v=0$; and our picture of bounded motion

2405: is correct. Note that no observable,

2406: such as the action or $v_c$, associated

2407: with this dynamics depends on $M$ explicitly; and, hence, the limit 

2408: is regular.

2409: 

2410: For large but finite $M$,

2411: the regularity of the classical action near $v\sim 0$ gives us some

2412: confidence that, at least as we approach this unknown region,

2413: the dynamics appears well controlled. As we argue in the Discussion section,

2414: we may expect however that

2415: there will be processes involving the splitting and joining the 

2416: closed string; these effects being

2417: subleading in a perturbative expansion in the local value of the

2418: dilaton, and hence involving an expansion in $1/M$.

2419: We then propose a scenario whereby

2420: these effects may be incorporated in our formalism as 

2421: transitions between energy levels of different winding numbers. 

2422: Hence, the spectrum we derive may still be

2423: the leading effect in determining the dynamics. More discussion about this 

2424: may be found in the Discussion section.

2425: 

2426: Finally,

2427: it is important to emphasize that, despite the fact there

2428: is an infinite redshift at $v\sim 0$, one is able to extract a finite

2429: spectrum for the energy, due to the cancelations detailed earlier. Along

2430: this line of thought, let us also note that we have checked that the phase

2431: factor computed above is additive as the string oscillates between $v=0$

2432: and $v=v_c$ in finite proper time; 

2433: as opposed to perhaps canceling because of some sign flip.

2434: 

2435: The optimistic reader may wonder whether using the Bohr-Sommerfeld

2436: condition was somewhat too reserved; why not apply the full WKB-like machinery,

2437: in an attempt to estimate the ground state energy of the spectrum near

2438: $N\sim 0$. In fact, expanding the spectrum for small $N$, we do indeed find

2439: some non-zero ground state energy. 

2440: At issue however is a numerical shift on the right hand side

2441: of equation~\pref{quant} $N+\mbox{constant}$, this constant

2442: often called the Maslov index which we have not computed. 

2443: It can be determined by analyzing

2444: caustics of the classical trajectory, a subject that connects

2445: to Catastrophe theory.

2446: While as an Armenian, I readily relate to theories of

2447: catastrophes,

2448: venturing into this analysis is uncalled for in this case, for two reasons. 

2449: First,

2450: the approximation scheme we have adopted (sometimes wrongfully referred

2451: to as WKB) is improved for $N\gg 1$, as is well known. Hence, the estimate

2452: for a ground state energy, with numerical accuracy, is unlikely to be reliable.

2453: The overly optimistic reader may suggest that, this spectrum, being

2454: related to center of mass dynamics, is perhaps `protected' in some

2455: unknown sense and for some unknown reason (perhaps supersymmetry). 

2456: While this is an interesting suggestion,

2457: it is difficult to understand controlled fluctuations without analyzing the

2458: symmetry principle at work, which we have not 

2459: explored in our formalism; and

2460: such quantum fluctuations are otherwise

2461: generically likely to wash out our center of mass

2462: spectrum for small values of $N$. Hence,

2463: the $N\gg 1$ is needed for this purpose 

2464: as well, and the issue of estimating the ground state energy is

2465: deferred to a more complete analysis that studies, amongst other

2466: effects, the role of supersymmetry.

2467: 

2468: 

2469: %\bibliography{biblio}

2470: %\bibliographystyle{utphys}

2471: 

2472: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}

2473: 

2474: \bibitem{MALDA1}

2475: J.~Maldacena, ``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and

2476:   supergravity,'' \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9711200}{{\tt

2477:   hep-th/9711200}}.

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{WITHOLO}

2480: E.~Witten, ``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

2481:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9802150}{{\tt hep-th/9802150}}.

2482: 

2483: \bibitem{KLEB}

2484: S.~S. Gubser, I.~R. Klebanov, and A.~M. Polyakov, ``Gauge theory correlators

2485:   from noncritical string theory,'' {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B428} (1998) 105,

2486:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9802109}{{\tt hep-th/9802109}}.

2487: 

2488: \bibitem{ADSLECT}

2489: O.~Aharony, S.~S. Gubser, J.~Maldacena, H.~Ooguri, and Y.~Oz, ``Large N field

2490:   theories, string theory and gravity,''

2491:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9905111}{{\tt hep-th/9905111}}.

2492: 

2493: \bibitem{SWNC}

2494: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten, ``String theory and noncommutative geometry,'' {\em

2495:   JHEP} {\bf 09} (1999) 032, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9908142}{{\tt

2496:   hep-th/9908142}}.

2497: 

2498: \bibitem{GMSS}

2499: R.~Gopakumar, S.~Minwalla, N.~Seiberg, and A.~Strominger, ``OM theory in

2500:   diverse dimensions,'' \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0006062}{{\tt

2501:   hep-th/0006062}}.

2502: 

2503: \bibitem{KLEBMALDA}

2504: I.~R. Klebanov and J.~Maldacena, ``1+1 dimensional NCOS and its U(N) gauge

2505:   theory dual,'' \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0006085}{{\tt

2506:   hep-th/0006085}}.

2507: 

2508: \bibitem{GMMS}

2509: R.~Gopakumar, J.~Maldacena, S.~Minwalla, and A.~Strominger, ``S-duality and

2510:   noncommutative gauge theory,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 06} (2000) 036,

2511:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0005048}{{\tt hep-th/0005048}}.

2512: 

2513: \bibitem{GOMISOOG}

2514: J.~Gomis and H.~Ooguri, ``Non-relativistic closed string theory,''

2515:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0009181}{{\tt hep-th/0009181}}.

2516: 

2517: \bibitem{DGK1}

2518: U.~H. Danielsson, A.~Guijosa, and M.~Kruczenski, ``IIA/B, wound and wrapped,''

2519:   {\em JHEP} {\bf 10} (2000) 020,

2520:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0009182}{{\tt hep-th/0009182}}.

2521: 

2522: \bibitem{DGK2}

2523: U.~H. Danielsson, A.~Guijosa, and M.~Kruczenski, ``Newtonian gravitons and

2524:   D-brane collective coordinates in wound string theory,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 03}

2525:   (2001) 041, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0012183}{{\tt

2526:   hep-th/0012183}}.

2527: 

2528: \bibitem{LST1}

2529: N.~Seiberg, ``New theories in six dimensions and matrix description of M-

2530:   theory on T**5 and T**5/z(2),'' {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B408} (1997) 98--104,

2531:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9705221}{{\tt hep-th/9705221}}.

2532: 

2533: \bibitem{LST2}

2534: O.~Aharony, M.~Berkooz, D.~Kutasov, and N.~Seiberg, ``Linear dilatons,

2535:   NS5-branes and holography,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 10} (1998) 004,

2536:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9808149}{{\tt hep-th/9808149}}.

2537: 

2538: \bibitem{MALDARUSSO}

2539: J.~M. Maldacena and J.~G. Russo, ``Large N limit of non-commutative gauge

2540:   theories,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 09} (1999) 025,

2541:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9908134}{{\tt hep-th/9908134}}.

2542: 

2543: \bibitem{HARMARKS}

2544: T.~Harmark, ``Supergravity and space-time non-commutative open string theory,''

2545:   {\em JHEP} {\bf 07} (2000) 043,

2546:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0006023}{{\tt hep-th/0006023}}.

2547: 

2548: \bibitem{VVSNCOS}

2549: V.~Sahakian, ``The phases of 2-D NCOS,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 09} (2000) 025,

2550:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0008073}{{\tt hep-th/0008073}}.

2551: 

2552: \bibitem{FASTER}

2553: A.~Hashimoto and N.~Itzhaki, ``Traveling faster than the speed of light in

2554:   non-commutative geometry,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 126004,

2555:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0012093}{{\tt hep-th/0012093}}.

2556: 

2557: \bibitem{BALABULK1}

2558: V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Kraus, and A.~Lawrence, ``Bulk vs. boundary dynamics in

2559:   anti-de Sitter spacetime,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 046003,

2560:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9805171}{{\tt hep-th/9805171}}.

2561: 

2562: \bibitem{BALABULK2}

2563: V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Kraus, A.~Lawrence, and S.~P. Trivedi, ``Holographic

2564:   probes of anti-de Sitter space-times,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999)

2565:   104021, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9808017}{{\tt hep-th/9808017}}.

2566: 

2567: \bibitem{WILSONMALDA}

2568: J.~Maldacena, ``Wilson loops in large N field theories,'' {\em Phys. Rev.

2569:   Lett.} {\bf 80} (1998) 4859--4862,

2570:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9803002}{{\tt hep-th/9803002}}.

2571: 

2572: \bibitem{BERMAN}

2573: D.~S. Berman {\em et.~al.}, ``Holographic noncommutativity,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf

2574:   05} (2001) 002, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0011282}{{\tt

2575:   hep-th/0011282}}.

2576: 

2577: \bibitem{MALDAOOG1}

2578: J.~Maldacena and H.~Ooguri, ``Strings in AdS(3) and SL(2,r) WZW model. I,''

2579:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0001053}{{\tt hep-th/0001053}}.

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{MALDAOOG2}

2582: J.~Maldacena, H.~Ooguri, and J.~Son, ``Strings in AdS(3) and the SL(2,r) WZW

2583:   model. II: Euclidean black hole,''

2584:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0005183}{{\tt hep-th/0005183}}.

2585: 

2586: \bibitem{ADS2OOG}

2587: P. Lee, H. Ooguri, J. Park, and J. Tannenhauser,

2588: ``Open strings on AdS(2) branes,''

2589: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0106129}{{\tt hep-th/0106129}}.

2590: 

2591: \bibitem{MALDA2}

2592: N.~Itzhaki, J.~M. Maldacena, J.~Sonnenschein, and S.~Yankielowicz,

2593:   ``Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges,''

2594:   {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58} (1998) 046004,

2595:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9802042}{{\tt hep-th/9802042}}.

2596: 

2597: \bibitem{PEETPOLCH}

2598: A.~W. Peet and J.~Polchinski, ``UV / IR relations in AdS dynamics,''

2599:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9809022}{{\tt hep-th/9809022}}.

2600: 

2601: \bibitem{GGKRW}

2602: S.~S. Gubser, S.~Gukov, I.~R. Klebanov, M.~Rangamani, and E.~Witten, ``The

2603:   Hagedorn transition in non-commutative open string theory,''

2604:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0009140}{{\tt hep-th/0009140}}.

2605: 

2606: \bibitem{KRISRAJAN}

2607: S. Kristiansson and P.~Rajan, ``Wound

2608:   string scattering in NCOS theory,''

2609:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0011054}{{\tt hep-th/0011054}}.

2610: 

2611: \bibitem{POLCHV1}

2612: J.~Polchinski, {\em String Theory, Vol. 1}.

2613: \newblock Cambridge University Press, 1998.

2614: 

2615: \bibitem{BVW}

2616: N.~Berkovits, C.~Vafa, and E.~Witten, ``Conformal field theory of AdS

2617:   background with Ramond-Ramond flux,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 03} (1999) 018,

2618:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9902098}{{\tt hep-th/9902098}}.

2619: 

2620: \bibitem{WALD}

2621: R.~Wald, {\em General Relativity}.

2622: \newblock The University of Chicago Press, 1984.

2623: 

2624: \bibitem{BOZHILOV}

2625: P.~Bozhilov, ``Exact string solutions in nontrivial backgrounds,''

2626:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103154}{{\tt hep-th/0103154}}.

2627: 

2628: \bibitem{MATTOS}

2629: O.~A.~Mattos and V.~O.~Rivelles, 

2630: ``Non-perturbative solutions of string theory in

2631:   gravitational backgrounds,'' {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70} (1993)

2632:   1583--1586, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9210116}{{\tt

2633:   hep-th/9210116}}.

2634: 

2635: \bibitem{DEWITT}

2636: B.~S. DeWitt, ``Dynamical theory in curved spaces. 1. a review of the classical

2637:   and quantum action principles,'' {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 29} (1957)

2638:   377--397.

2639: 

2640: \bibitem{GOTT}

2641: K.~Gottfried and T.~M.~Yan, {\em Quantum Mechanics}.

2642: \newblock Springer (to appear in 2002).

2643: 

2644: \bibitem{BERRYMOUNT}

2645: M.~V.~Berry and K.~E.~Mount {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 35} (1972) 315.

2646: 

2647: \bibitem{MILLER}

2648: W.~Miller {\em Adv. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 25} (1974) 69.

2649: 

2650: \bibitem{SHULMAN}

2651: L.~Schulman, {\em Techniques and Applications of Path Integration}.

2652: \newblock John Wiley, 1996.

2653: 

2654: \bibitem{JPJ}

2655: C.~V. Johnson, A.~W. Peet, and J.~Polchinski, ``Gauge theory and the excision

2656:   of repulson singularities,'' {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61} (2000) 086001,

2657:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9911161}{{\tt hep-th/9911161}}.

2658: 

2659: \bibitem{BOUSSOCONJ}

2660: R.~Bousso, ``A covariant entropy conjecture,'' {\em JHEP} {\bf 07} (1999) 004,

2661:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9905177}{{\tt hep-th/9905177}}.

2662: 

2663: \bibitem{AGC}

2664: E.~Alvarez and C.~Gomez, ``Geometric holography, the renormalization group and

2665:   the c- theorem,'' {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B541} (1999) 441,

2666:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9807226}{{\tt hep-th/9807226}}.

2667: 

2668: \bibitem{CFUNCTION}

2669: V.~Sahakian, ``Holography, a covariant c-function, and the geometry of the

2670:   renormalization group,'' \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9910099}{{\tt

2671:   hep-th/9910099}}.

2672: 

2673: \bibitem{SL2Z}

2674: J.~H. Schwarz, ``An SL(2,Z) multiplet of type IIB superstrings,'' {\em Phys.

2675:   Lett.} {\bf B360} (1995) 13--18,

2676:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9508143}{{\tt hep-th/9508143}}.

2677: 

2678: \bibitem{KOS}

2679: T.Kashiwa, Y.Ohnuki, and M.Suzuki, ``Path integral methods,'' Oxford

2680: Science Publications (1997).

2681: 

2682: \bibitem{RAMOND}

2683: P.Ramond, ``Field theory: a modern primer,'' Frontiers in Physics (1990).

2684: 

2685: 

2686: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup

2687: 

2688: 

2689: \end{document}

2690: 

2691: