1: %Membrane topology and matrix regularization

2: %Short version

3: %For hep-th v2

4: %For hep-th v3

5: 

6: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

7: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}%A4~21cm

8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.3cm}

9: 

10: %\textheight 23.5cm

11: %\topmargin -35pt

12: %\def\baselinestretch{1}

13: 

14: %\documentclass[a4j,twocolumn]{article}

15: %\usepackage[dviout]{graphicx}

16: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

17: %\documentstyle[a4j,12pt]{article}

18: 

19: \def\Vec#1{{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

20: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

22: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

23: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

24: \def\fracp#1#2{\frac{\partial#1}{\partial#2}}

25: \def\non{\nonumber}

26: \def\L{\left}

27: \def\R{\right}

28: \def\ss{\Vec{\sigma}}

29: \def\Tr{\mbox{Tr}}

30: 

31: \def\NPB#1#2#3{Nucl. Phys. {\bf B#1}(#2)#3}

32: \def\PLB#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {\bf B#1}(#2)#3}

33: \def\PRD#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. {\bf D#1}(#2)#3}

34: \def\PRL#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf #1}(#2)#3}

35: 

36: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

37: \makeatletter

38: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

42: \begin{titlepage}

43: \begin{flushright}

44: hep-th/0307058v3\\ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

45: UT-KOMABA/03-11\\

46: April 2004 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

47: \end{flushright}

48: \begin{center}

49: 

50: {\bf\Large Membrane topology and matrix regularization}

51: 

52: \vspace{1.5cm}

53: 

54: {\bf  Hidehiko~Shimada}\footnote

55: {

56: E-mail: shimada@hep1.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

57: }	

58: 

59: \vspace{1.0cm}

60: 

61: {\it  Institute of Physics, Tokyo University,\\

62: Komaba, Megro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan}

63: 

64: \vspace{1.9cm}

65: \end{center}

66: \begin{abstract}

67: The problem of membrane topology in the matrix model of M-theory is considered. 

68: The matrix regularization

69: procedure, which makes a correspondence  between finite-sized matrices

70: and functions defined on a two-dimensional base space,

71: is reexamined.

72: %

73: It is found that the information of topology of the base space

74:  manifests itself in the eigenvalue distribution of a single matrix.

75: The precise manner of the manifestation is described.

76: The set of all eigenvalues can be decomposed into 

77: subsets whose members increase smoothly, provided that the 

78: fundamental approximations in matrix regularization hold well.

79: Those subsets are termed as eigenvalue sequences.

80: The eigenvalue sequences exhibit a branching phenomenon

81: which reflects Morse-theoretic information of topology.

82: 

83: Furthermore, exploiting the notion of eigenvalue sequences,

84: a new correspondence rule

85: between matrices and functions is constructed.

86: The new rule identifies the matrix elements directly with

87: Fourier components

88: of the corresponding function, evaluated along certain orbits.

89: The rule has semi-locality in the base space, so that it can be used

90: for all membrane topologies in a unified way.

91: %

92: A few numerical examples are studied, and  

93: consistency with previously known correspondence rules is discussed.

94: \end{abstract}

95: \vfill

96: \end{titlepage}

97: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

98: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

99: 

100: \section{Introduction}

101: Topological properties of a system are often important in 

102: investigating the dynamics of the system.

103: It seems certain that

104: M-theory\cite{11_10} 

105: has membranes as dynamical degrees of freedom.

106: Furthermore, the only existing proposal for formulation of M-theory, 

107: namely the matrix model of M-theory\cite{IMF}, can be considered

108: as an attempt to define quantum membrane

109: theory~\cite{Memb_Mr_mrG, Memb_Mr_mrH, S_Memb_Mr}.

110: More explicitly stated, it is a regularized version of 

111: membrane theory in lightcone gauge, dynamical

112: variables becoming $N \times N$ matrices instead of functions

113: defined on two-dimensional worldspace.

114: 

115: 

116: 

117: But, at present, the topological properties of membranes in M-theory are not 

118: known.

119: The concern of this paper is membrane topology

120: \footnote{

121: We use the word membrane topology 

122: to express the topology of a configuration of membranes in a time-slice.

123: The topology is not of a single membrane but of

124: a totality of membranes.

125: Thus, membrane topology is classified by the numbers of

126: membranes $n_i$ which has genus $i=0,1,\cdots$.

127: }

128: in the matrix model.

129: It is believed that the matrix model can describe

130: membranes of arbitrary topologies.

131: However, there has been a problem:

132: we do not know 

133: whether and how the information of the 

134: topology manifests itself in the matrix model.

135: The cause for this problem lies in the manner

136: in which the correspondence between matrices and functions has been given.

137: There has been no unique rule that can deal with all membrane topologies.

138: Instead, we have many different rules for different topologies

139: \cite{Memb_Mr_mrG, Memb_Mr_mrH, S_Memb_Mr, MrTor, MrGen},

140: interrelationships between those rules being unclear.

141: 

142: In this paper, we address this problem

143: by reexamining the regularization procedure,

144: the so-called matrix regularization. 

145: We shall show that the information indeed manifests itself 

146: in the eigenvalue distribution of a single matrix.

147: The precise manner of the manifestation will be described.

148: Moreover, we have constructed

149:  a new correspondence rule between functions and matrices

150: which can be applied to all membrane topologies in a unified way.

151: 

152: We start by discussing 

153: relevant aspects of matrix regularization, in section \ref{SMatReg}.

154: We take the simple view that, classically,

155: the matrix regularization is an approximation

156: of continuum theory by a discretized theory.

157: \footnote{

158: In quantum theory, at the same time, 

159: the matrix regularization is considered as

160:  a definition of continuum

161: theory by a non-trivial limit of discrete theories.

162: This is the reason why we should first treat the finite-$N$

163: theory carefully.

164: }

165: %

166: This approximation between two theories

167: is based solely on some fundamental large-$N$ approximation

168: formulae (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}).

169: They play a vital role in this paper.

170: We also recall the

171: well-known mathematical analogy between

172: the matrix regularization and 

173: canonical quantization

174: of systems with one degree of freedom, which will be our main tool in 

175: subsequent discussions.

176: 

177: Then, in section \ref{STop}, 

178: we turn to the investigation of membrane topology 

179: in the matrix model.

180: Our basic observation is that, in order to study membrane topology,

181: it suffices to consider the two-dimensional base space, which we 

182: shall term as the $\ss$-space,

183: not the shape of the membranes in the target space. 

184: This observation greatly simplifies the analysis,

185: since it enables us to deal with only a single matrix, not many matrices.

186: 

187: We base the discussion on the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization

188: condition.

189: We shall show that,

190: in the case where the fundamental approximations hold well,

191: the eigenvalue distribution of a matrix has a particular structure.

192: Namely, the set of all eigenvalues can be decomposed into subsets 

193: characterized by the following property:

194: the eigenvalues in one of the subsets, when sorted, increase smoothly.

195: We call these subsets as eigenvalue sequences.

196: The grouping of the eigenvalues into sequences

197: reveals a branching phenomenon of sequences.

198: We find that the branching phenomenon, in turn, reflects 

199: certain Morse-theoretic information of topology of the $\ss$-space. 

200: This is our answer to the above problem. Thus, the information of topology

201: manifests itself, in the  world of matrices, as a branching phenomenon of 

202: eigenvalue sequences.

203: 

204: 

205: Furthermore, the notion of eigenvalue sequences enables us to construct

206: a new correspondence rule between matrices 

207: and functions, which is the subject in section \ref{SMRCorr}. 

208: The matrix elements are approximately equal to 

209: Fourier components of the corresponding function,

210: calculated along appropriate orbits on the $\ss$-space.

211: The rule is analogous to the correspondence 

212: noticed by Heisenberg when he created Matrix Mechanics

213: pursuing Bohr's correspondence principle\cite{Heisenberg}.

214: There, the matrix elements of an observable, 

215: in the basis which makes

216: the Hamiltonian diagonal, are equal to the classical

217: Fourier components of the observable along the appropriate

218: classical orbits on the phase space. 

219: We shall show that the fundamental approximation formulae

220: hold well if the new correspondence rule

221: holds.

222: The correspondence rule contains the above-mentioned analog of the

223: Bohr-Sommerfeld condition.

224: This justifies the use of it 

225: in section \ref{STop}.

226: 

227: The new rule is  semi-local in the $\ss$-space, and consequently

228: can be applied for all membrane topologies uniformly, in

229: marked contrast with the previously known rules.

230: This, in particular, enables one to construct functions corresponding

231: to given matrices when the approximations are good. Using previous rules,

232: one could only do the reverse, namely, to construct matrices corresponding 

233: to given functions.

234: This is because one could not know the topology corresponding to

235: the given matrices, and therefore could not choose the rule to be used.

236: 

237: Apart from the unified treatment for all topologies, the new rule 

238: has the virtue that the identification of the matrix elements 

239: with Fourier components is direct, and

240: so that the geometrical meanings of the

241: matrix elements

242: are clear.

243: Our arguments are 

244: also relevant to the matrix model of type IIB string theory

245: \cite{TypeIIBMatrixModel},

246: since the same regularization is involved.

247: Further, the same kind of mathematics as that of matrix regularization appears

248: in such subjects as bound states of D-branes or 

249: non-commutative field theory. Ideas in this paper may find some applications

250: in those subjects.

251: 

252: A few illustrative numerical examples are given

253: in section \ref{SNumEx}.

254: The consistency between our new rule and previous rules

255: is checked by studying them. Finally, we conclude with some discussions

256: in section \ref{SConDis}.

257: 

258: 

259: \section{Matrix regularization} \label{SMatReg}

260: Let us briefly recall the matrix regularization procedure

261: from our viewpoint.

262: Although it is supermembrane theory in eleven dimension

263: \cite{S_Memb_Action}

264: that is relevant to M-theory,

265: we consider  bosonic membrane theory 

266: for simplicity of presentation.  

267: 

268: Firstly, we shall describe the continuum theory.

269: We parametrize the 

270: membranes by three parameters $(\tau,\sigma^1,\sigma^2) =

271: (\tau,\ss)$.

272: Then, the geometrical shape of membranes in spacetime is described by the coordinate

273: functions

274: $x^\mu(\tau,\ss)$. 

275: In lightcone gauge formalism,

276: $\tau$ is chosen to be equal to $x^+$, and $\ss$ is chosen so as to

277: make the area of a domain in the $\ss$-space proportional to  total 

278: $p^+$ contained in the domain. Here, we denote 

279: the momentum density vector of the membranes by $p^\mu$.

280: %

281: The canonical variables of the system are

282: transverse coordinates and momenta (which are functions 

283: defined on the $\ss$-space)

284: as well as zero modes, 

285: \beq

286: x^\alpha(\ss), p^\alpha(\ss); X^-, -P^+.\label{ContiCanVar}

287: \eeq

288: The Hamiltonian is given by 

289: \beq

290: H=[\ss]\int\frac{(p^\alpha)^2+

291: \frac{1}{2}(\{x^\alpha,x^\beta\})^2}{2 P^+} d^2\ss,

292: \label{ContiH}

293: \eeq

294: with Lie brackets 

295: \[

296: \{ f ,g \}= \fracp{f}{\sigma^1}\fracp{g}{\sigma^2}-

297: \fracp{f}{\sigma^2}\fracp{g}{\sigma^1}, \non

298: \]

299: where $f$ and $g$ are functions on the $\ss$-space. 

300: We have also introduced a conventional constant

301: $[\ss]$ which is the total area of the $\ss$-space,

302: $[\ss] =\int d^2\ss$.

303: The remaining ingredients of the theory are the phase space constraints

304: \beq

305: \{x^\alpha, p^\alpha\}(\ss)=0,\label{ContiCon}

306: \eeq

307: and its global version. They correspond to the local symmetry of the 

308: lightcone gauge theory

309: under reparametrization by area-preserving diffeomorphism (APD) on 

310: the $\ss$-space.

311: This is a local symmetry, because one can perform reparametrization 

312: by different 

313: APD for different $\tau$.

314: 

315: Secondly, we shall give the regularized theory.

316: The canonical variables are

317: $N\times N$ matrices as well as  zero modes,

318: \beq

319: \hat{x}^\alpha,\hat{p}^\alpha; X^-, -P^+.\label{RegCanVar}

320: \eeq

321: The Hamiltonian is given by

322: \beq

323: H= N\Tr \frac{(\hat{p}^\alpha)^2-\frac{1}{2}(2\pi

324: [\hat{x}^\alpha,\hat{x}^\beta])^2}

325: {2 P^+},\label{RegH}

326: \eeq

327: and the constraints are,

328: \beq

329: [\hat{x}^\alpha,\hat{p}^\alpha]=0,\label{RegCon}

330: \eeq

331: where $[~,~]$ is a commutator of matrices.

332: 

333: Now, we turn to the explanation of 

334: the matrix regularization.

335: The following fact is essential:

336: there exists a correspondence between appropriate

337: functions on the $\ss$-space

338: $f(\ss),g(\ss),\cdots$ 

339: and matrices $\hat{f}, \hat{g}, \cdots$ such that

340: the fundamental approximation 

341: formulae

342: \beqa

343: \frac{1}{[\ss]}\int f(\ss) d^2 \ss &\approx& \frac{1}{N} \Tr \hat{f} 

344: \label{AppNrm}\\

345: \widehat{f g} &\approx& \hat{f} \hat{g}

346: \label{AppMtp}\\

347: \widehat{\{f,g\}} &\approx& -i \frac{2\pi N}{[\ss]} [ \hat{f} ,\hat{g} ]

348: \label{AppBra}

349: \eeqa

350: hold.

351: Here, we denote by $\widehat{\{f,g\}}$ and $\widehat{f g}$

352: the matrices which correspond to the functions $\{f,g\}(\ss)$

353: and $f(\ss) g(\ss)$, respectively.

354: \footnote{

355: Maybe we should add the linearity of the correspondence,

356: $\widehat{f+g}=\hat{f}+\hat{g}$,

357: for the sake of completeness.

358: We have omitted it since it holds trivially in all our discussions.

359: }

360: The larger is $N$, the better is the approximation.

361: %

362: From these formulae it follows that 

363: the continuum theory, defined by (\ref{ContiCanVar})-(\ref{ContiCon})

364: can 

365: be approximated by a regularized theory defined by

366: (\ref{RegCanVar})-(\ref{RegCon}).

367: We stress the importance of above formulae.

368: They are almost the definition of the matrix regularization.

369: 

370: Since Lie brackets and matrix commutators 

371: both obey the Jacobi identity and antisymmetry, the important 

372: advantage of matrix regularization follows.

373: Namely, the regularized theory has local symmetry under the transformation

374: \beq

375: x^{\alpha\prime}(\tau)=U(\tau)x^\alpha(\tau) U(\tau)^{-1}, \ \ 

376: p^{\alpha\prime}(\tau)=U(\tau)p^\alpha(\tau) U(\tau)^{-1}, \label{LocSymMat}

377: \eeq

378: where $U(\tau)$ is an arbitrary matrix which is a function of $\tau$,

379: corresponding to

380: the APD symmetry in continuum theory.

381: 

382: The matrix regularization procedure is analogous to the

383: quantization of a system which has one degree of freedom,

384: as is well known. The analogy can be summarized as,

385: \beq

386: \begin{array}{c|c}

387: \mbox{Canonical quantization} 

388: & \mbox{Matrix regularization} \\

389: \hline

390:  (x,p)& (\ss^1,\ss^2)\\

391:  \mbox{Canonical transformation}& \mbox{Area-preserving diffeomorphism}\\

392: \{~,~\}_{P.B.} \rightarrow -i\frac{1}{\hbar} [~,~]&

393: \{~,~\} \rightarrow -i\frac{2\pi N }{[\ss] } [~,~]\\

394: \hbar & \frac{[\ss]}{2\pi N} \\

395: \end{array} \label{AnalogyTable}

396: \eeq

397: where $\{~,~\}_{P.B.}$ is the usual Poisson brackets.

398: We shall motivate our discussion by this analogy in section \ref{STop}.

399: 

400: We conclude this section with discussions on 

401: the previously known correspondence rules. 

402: We first recall the general manner the rules are formulated. 

403: We must, 

404: first of all, fix topology of the $\ss$-space.

405: After that, we consider a basis in the vector space of all functions 

406: defined on the $\ss$-space.

407: Then, we define an appropriate basis in the vector space of all 

408: $N \times N$ matrices, and postulate a correspondence

409: between it and

410: the basis in the space of the functions appropriately truncated.

411: The rules are, finally,

412: justified by checking

413: that the fundamental approximations (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) 

414: hold well for large $N$ by them.

415: 

416: This manner has made difficult

417: to consider whether and how membrane topology

418: manifests itself in the matrix model.

419: In particular,   

420: one can expand an arbitrary matrix 

421: by basis referring to any particular topology.

422: This fact, at first sight, seems to suggest 

423: that a configuration of matrix model 

424: could  be interpreted as membranes of arbitrary topology,

425: and there would be, therefore, no information of topology

426: in the matrix model.

427: 

428: This is not necessarily true. 

429: Even if one can formally expand some matrices

430: by a basis referring to a particular topology,

431: the fundamental approximations  may not work at all.

432: \footnote

433: {

434: This may be expected from the previously known rules.

435: Let us, for example, imagine a smooth function defined 

436: on a torus. One can construct the corresponding matrix

437: using the basis for torus topology.

438: One can then expand the matrix by the basis (in the space of matrices)

439: corresponding to the topology of a sphere, and construct a function

440: defined on a sphere. We expect that the resulting function

441: would have discontinuity or, in any case, some singularity

442: (see subsection II. C of \cite{ReviewByTaylor}).

443: This implies that 

444: the function varies considerably in a very small length scale.

445: Therefore the approximations may well be no good,

446: since, in general, 

447: the smaller the length scale of the variation of functions,

448: the larger must be $N$ in order that the approximations are good.

449: 

450: However, it is difficult to characterize precisely, 

451: using only previously known correspondence rules, when 

452: the approximations break down. 

453: Hence,

454: it has not been clear if this picture is indeed right.

455: }

456: In our perspective, that the matrix regularization is an approximation

457: scheme, we cannot, then, interpret the matrices as membranes of the

458: particular topology.

459: Information of topology 

460: may be hidden in the matrices in this way.

461: Through sections \ref{STop} and \ref{SMRCorr},

462: we shall see indeed that, 

463: provided that the approximations are good,

464: the information reflects in the

465: eigenvalue distribution.

466: 

467: 

468: 

469: 

470: \section{Membrane topology and matrix regularization}

471: \label{STop}

472: In this section, we show that the information of membrane topology

473: manifests itself in the matrix model.

474: Before explicit description of the manner of the manifestation,

475: let us give some basic observations.

476: 

477: If one wishes to specify the complete shape of membranes in the

478:  target space,

479: one needs information of many (that is, roughly speaking, 

480: as many as the dimension of the target space)

481: functions.

482: This would imply that one should study many matrices in the matrix model.

483: %

484: However, the information of membrane topology,

485: or at least the information of 

486: topology of the $\ss$-space,

487: is contained in one generic 

488: function defined on the $\ss$-space,

489: as is strongly suggested by Morse theory.

490: We choose, as our basic strategy, to consider the latter information.

491: Then, we shall seek  in a single 

492:  matrix the information of topology of the $\ss$-space.

493: 

494: There is another point we would like to discuss.

495: It is most natural to identify functions which are transformed into each

496: other by APD transformations.

497: We shall identify those matrices which are transformed into

498: each other by similarity transformations, 

499: since (\ref{AppBra}) tells us that

500: the counterpart of the APD transformation

501: is the similarity transformation.

502: This has some non-triviality, since 

503: it may happen that the identification is only allowed

504: approximately. Nonetheless, we shall carry out the identification,

505: because that the APD symmetry survives as (\ref{LocSymMat}) is the most

506: important advantage of the matrix regularization.

507: %

508: This identification and our strategy, to consider 

509: the topology of the $\ss$-space, act together to

510: greatly simplify the analysis.

511: Since one can always diagonalize a single matrix,

512: we can concentrate on the eigenvalue 

513: distribution of the matrix.

514: 

515: Having explained our basic strategy,

516: we shall now proceed to investigate the manner of the manifestation

517: of membrane topology in the eigenvalue distribution.

518: 

519: First, let us consider how one can read off the information of topology

520: from a function in an APD invariant way.

521: We choose an arbitrary generic function $f(\ss)$.

522: \footnote

523: {

524: We use the word generic in the sense of Morse theory:

525: we avoid  degenerate functions, constant functions for instance, 

526: which can be changed into  generic functions by arbitrarily small perturbations.

527: }

528: It could be one of the transverse coordinates, for instance.

529: The function is fixed, throughout our discussion, 

530: as a kind of reference.

531: Thus, we shall use $f$, shortly below, as both

532: an analog of the Hamiltonian in canonical 

533: quantization and a Morse function.

534: %

535: As a natural APD-invariant concept with a given function $f(\ss)$,

536: we introduce

537: an ordinary differential equation (ODE)

538: \beq

539: \frac{d}{dt}\ss =\{ \ss,f\} \label{EomOnSs}, 

540: \eeq

541: drawing analogy to the Hamiltonian equation 

542: of motion with a given Hamiltonian function $H(x,p)$, 

543: which is invariant under canonical transformations.

544: This ODE governs the motion of points of the $\ss$-space.

545: \footnote

546: {

547: We note that the independent variable of the ODE, $t$, is

548: just a mathematical tool to substantiate the analogy to canonical

549: quantization. It has nothing to do with physical time coordinates

550: of membrane theory.

551: }

552: Thus, we envisage an auxiliary Hamiltonian-like

553: dynamical system with the $\ss$-space as its phase space

554: and with $f$ as its Hamiltonian.

555: Since $f$ is conserved along the motion by the identity $\{f, f\}=0$,

556: an orbit of this equation is a part of an equal-$f$ line in the $\ss$-space.

557: It will form a closed loop because of the compactness of the $\ss$-space.

558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Ftorus%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

559: \begin{figure}[t]

560: \begin{center}

561: \includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{trslpf}

562: \caption {The $\ss$-space which has topology of a torus.

563: The height in the figure is the reference function.

564: Some orbits of the ODE $d \ss/dt=\{ \ss, f\}$ are drawn,

565: which form closed loops that are, in turn, parts of

566: the equal-$f$ lines.

567: If one gradually increases the value of $f$,

568: one observes a branching phenomenon of the orbits:

569: appearing, branching, merging, and disappearing processes at the points

570: A, B, C, and D, respectively.

571: Depicted is essentially the $\ss$-space, 

572: so that the horizontal directions of the figure

573: have rather arbitrary meanings.

574: If one wishes, one can also give definite meanings to the

575: horizontal directions by interpreting 

576: this figure as the geometrical shape

577: of a membrane in the target space, and the reference function

578: as one of the coordinate functions. 

579: } 

580: \label{Ftorus}

581: \end{center}

582: \end{figure}

583: %%%%%%%Ftorus%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

584: 

585: Then, 

586: if we scan the $\ss$-space by gradually increasing the value of $f$,

587: we will observe 

588: branching processes of these orbits.

589: There are four types of these branching processes:

590: appearing, disappearing, branching  and merging.

591: %

592: Let us consider, for a typical example, the situation depicted 

593: in Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}.

594: The membrane topology is that of a torus.

595: The reference function $f$

596: is chosen to be the height in the figure, and 

597: some orbits of (\ref{EomOnSs}) are drawn.

598: In this example, at the points A, B, C, D, 

599: the orbits appear, branch, merge, disappear, respectively.

600: %

601: %

602: We can read off the information of topology from these processes.

603: This is just the well-known idea of 

604: Morse theory.

605: In particular, we obtain the Euler number of the $\ss$-space,

606: by subtracting the total number of the 

607: branching and  merging processes from

608: the total number of the appearing and disappearing processes.

609: 

610: Now, we shall show that this analysis of topology in the world of 

611: functions has a counterpart in the world of matrices. 

612: The analogy of the matrix regularization

613: to  canonical quantization is useful here.

614: In the latter, the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition

615: determines the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian operator $\hat{H}$ from the classical Hamiltonian function $H(x, p)$ defined on the phase space $(x, p)$.

616: Namely, we draw classical orbits in $(x, p)$ space, 

617: that are parts of equal-$H$ lines,

618: so that the areas of the domains between two adjacent orbits are equal to

619: $2\pi \hbar$. Then eigenvalues of $\hat{H}$ are given by 

620: the values of $H$ at these orbits.

621: %

622: Here, we shall

623: exploit the analogy, which is summarized in (\ref{AnalogyTable}),

624: and state the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition.

625: Namely, we draw orbits of (\ref{EomOnSs}) in the $\ss$-space

626: so that the areas of the domains

627: \footnote

628: {

629: The area of a domain means here area in the $\ss$-space

630: not in the target space.

631: Its physical meaning is the total $p^+$ contained in the domain,

632: apart from a conventional factor,

633: by the gauge choice made in the lightcone gauge formalism.

634: }

635:  between two adjacent orbits are equal to

636: $[\ss]/N$.

637: Since $[\ss]$ is the total area of the $\ss$-space,

638: this simply means that we divide the $\ss$-space

639: into $N$ parts of equal area.

640: Eigenvalues of $\hat{f}$ are then given by 

641: the values of $f$ at these orbits. 

642: We assume this rule to hold. We shall justify the assumption

643: in section \ref{SMRCorr}.

644: 

645: If we apply this rule to the case in Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}, then 

646: the eigenvalues of $\hat{f}$ can be grouped into 

647: four subsets each of which corresponds to the family of

648: the orbits belonging to 

649: (i) the region from the point A to 

650: the point B, (ii) the left branch of the torus from the point B 

651: to the point C,

652: (iii) the right branch of the torus from the point B to the point C,

653: (iv) the region  from the point C to the point D, respectively.

654: We call these subsets as 

655: eigenvalue sequences.

656: %

657: For large enough N, eigenvalues belonging to each sequence

658:  have the following property.

659: If we sort the eigenvalues contained in a sequence 

660: in increasing order of their values, and make a graph 

661: plotting the values of them versus 

662: their order,

663: then the plotted points can be linearly approximated locally.

664: To put it short, 

665: the eigenvalues in a sequence

666: increase smoothly.

667: It should be clear that, in general, if we do not group the eigenvalues 

668: properly,

669: then the graph become zigzag-shaped and the above property is  lost.

670: In section \ref{SMRCorr}, we see that

671: this linear approximation is  essential in order 

672:  the fundamental approximations

673: (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) to hold.

674: 

675: The eigenvalue sequences should exhibit the same branching phenomenon

676: as that of the orbits.

677: For the example of Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}, the sequence

678: (i) appears and then branches into the sequences (ii) and (iii).

679: They merge into the sequence (iv), and finally (iv) disappears.

680: %

681: It is clear that all these considerations work the same in general cases

682: other than that of Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}.

683: Thus, the information of membrane topology manifests itself

684: in the branching phenomenon (which consists of appearing, branching, merging,

685: disappearing processes) of eigenvalue sequences.

686: A few examples, including the case similar to the situation in 

687: Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}, are given in section \ref{SNumEx}.

688: 

689: 

690: \section{The new correspondence rule} \label{SMRCorr}

691: In this section, we present a new 

692: correspondence rule between matrices and functions,

693: and then show that the fundamental approximations

694: (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra})

695: stem from the rule.

696: 

697: 

698: We choose an arbitrary

699:  generic function $f$ and fix it as a reference, as in section 

700: \ref{STop}.

701: The rule is formulated in such a way that

702: the representation of matrices is so chosen that

703:  the matrix $\hat{f}$, corresponding to 

704: the function $f$, is diagonal.

705: For simplicity of notation,

706: we shall consider the case where only one

707: eigenvalue sequence is present. We explain 

708: the generalization later in this section. 

709: 

710: We first give the rule to determine the diagonal

711: matrix $\hat{f}$.

712: To this end, we set up some notations. 

713: We again consider 

714: ODE (\ref{EomOnSs})

715: \[

716: \frac{d\ss}{d t}= \{ \ss, f \} .

717: \]

718: A solution of this ODE is periodic, the point of the $\ss$-space 

719: circulating on a loop which is part of an equal-$f$ line. 

720: We shall denote its period, as a function of $f$, by $T(f)$.

721: %

722: We sort the eigenvalues of $\hat{f}$ 

723: in increasing order, and call them $\hat{f}_n$,

724: \beq

725: \cdots \le \hat{f}_{n-1} \le \hat{f}_n \le \hat{f}_{n+1} \le \cdots. 

726: \eeq

727: To be specific, we choose the representation such that

728: \beq

729: \hat{f}=\mbox{diag}(

730: \cdots, \hat{f}_{n-1}, \hat{f}_n, \hat{f}_{n+1}, \cdots 

731: ).

732: \eeq

733: %

734: The relation between the function $f$ and the 

735: matrix elements $\hat{f}_n$

736: is the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition stated in 

737: section \ref{STop}. If $N$ is sufficiently large, the rule can be 

738: formulated as,

739: \beq 

740: \hat{f}_m-\hat{f}_n \approx (m-n) \frac{[\ss]}{ N}

741:  \frac{1}{T\bigl(\!

742:  \frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\bigr)}, \label{QtzOfArea}

743: \eeq 

744: when $|m-n|$ is small. 

745: We have used that for two nearby loops, one at 

746: $f$ and the other at $f+\delta f$,

747: the area $\delta S$ between them can be approximated by

748: \beq

749: \delta S=\oint \frac{\delta f}{|

750: \mbox{grad} f|}ds=T\!\biggl(\!f+\frac{\delta f}{2}\biggr)\ \delta f .

751: \eeq

752: We can construct $\hat{f}_m$ satisfying (\ref{QtzOfArea}) directly 

753: by the following method. We first define $S(f) = \int^f (1/T(f)) df$.

754: The value of $S(f)$ runs from $0$ to $[\ss]$ in this case

755: where there is

756: only one eigenvalue sequence.

757: We then consider the inverse function $f(S)$, and set

758: $\hat{f}_m=f(S_m)$, where $S_m$ are determined 

759: by $S_{m+1}-S_m= [\ss]/N$ up to a constant shift.

760: The shift should be of order $1/N$ for consistency.

761: \footnote 

762: {

763: We can determine the shift  by setting $S_1=[\ss]/(2N)$

764: for an eigenvalue sequence beginning

765: with an appearing process. 

766: %This means 

767: %the area of

768: %the part of the $\ss$-space satisfying

769: %$f(\ss)\leq \hat{f}_1$ is equal to $[\ss]/(2N)$. 

770: This is analogous to 

771: the $1/2$ in the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition 

772: $\oint p dq = (n + (1/2) ) 2 \pi \hbar$.

773: %, representing the effect of 

774: %zero point energy.

775: The justification for the above rule comes from

776: the fact that

777: (\ref{DerivedAppNrm}) holds at one more higher order

778: in $1/N$ by this rule.

779: In other words, the rule is just 

780: the midpoint rule for numerical integration.

781: Similar rule exists for an eigenvalue sequence

782: ending with a disappearing process.

783: \label{FootnoteOnShiftZeroPoint}}

784: 

785: 

786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% a loop integral along these loops

787: 

788: Having stated the correspondence rule for the reference function,

789: we next turn to the correspondence rule for an arbitrary function $g$.

790: We denote the matrix elements of the corresponding matrix $\hat{g}$

791: by $\hat{g}_{mn}$.

792: %

793: When $|m-n|$ is small, $\hat{g}_{mn}$ is equal to the 

794: Fourier component of

795: order $m-n$ of the function $g(\ss(t))$.

796: Here, $\ss(t)$ denotes the solution of (\ref{EomOnSs}) along which

797: the function $f(\ss)$ takes the (constant) value $(\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n)/2$. 

798: To obtain explicit formulae,

799: we define the Fourier components $g_s(f)$ by

800: \beq

801: g(\ss(t))=\sum_{s=-\infty}^{+\infty}

802: g_s(f)\ e^{i \left(\frac{2\pi}{T(f)} s \right) t}, \label{DefOfgOfs}

803: \eeq

804: where the parameter $f$ denotes the value of the function $f(\ss)$

805: along the solution $\ss(t)$.

806: We then set,

807: \footnote{

808: This relation is the direct

809: analog of the correspondence, in semi-classical region,

810: between quantum matrix elements

811: and Fourier components

812: along classical orbits,

813: first introduced in \cite{Heisenberg}.

814: Also, formulae which bear some resemblance

815: to ours appear in \cite{Memb_Matstr}, where a correspondence

816: between membrane theory and Matrix String Theory is considered.

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: See also \cite{Taylor}.

819: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

820: }

821: \beq

822: \hat{g}_{mn}=g_{m-n}\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr).

823: \label{MatrixElement}

824: \eeq

825: We also require that when $|m-n|$ gets larger, the value of 

826: $g_{mn}$ falls off rapidly. This condition naturally conforms 

827: with (\ref{MatrixElement}), provided that the function $g$ is 

828: sufficiently smooth and

829: $N$ is sufficiently large.

830: 

831: A comment to the rule (\ref{MatrixElement}) is in order.

832: We have freedom to change the orbit $\ss(t)$ by translation of $t$.

833: The amount of translation is a function of $f$, which we denote by 

834: $\Delta t(f)$. By this transformation, $g_s(f)$ becomes

835: \beq

836: e^{i s \frac{2\pi}{T}\ \!\!\!\Delta\! t(\!f\!)} \ g_s(f).

837: \eeq

838: Therefore, $\hat{g}_{mn}$ changes into

839: \beq

840: e^{i (m-n) \frac{2\pi}{T}\ \!\!\Delta\! t

841: \bigl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\bigr)} 

842: \ \hat{g}_{mn}. \label{TimeTranslation}

843: \eeq

844: This freedom has a counterpart in the world of matrices.  %v3

845: Namely, we can change $m$-th eigenvector by a phase factor $e^{i\delta_m}$.

846: By this transformation, $\hat{g}_{mn}$ becomes

847: \beq

848: e^{i (\delta_n -\delta_m)} \hat{g}_{mn}. \label{PhaseChose}

849: \eeq

850: Comparing (\ref{TimeTranslation}) and (\ref{PhaseChose}), we find that if

851: \beq

852: \delta_n -\delta_m \approx (m-n)\ \frac{2\pi}{T}\ 

853: \Delta t\ \!\!\bigg(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\bigg)

854: \label{RelationBetweenTimetranslationAndPhase}

855: \eeq

856: holds, then the two transformations are approximately identical.

857: We can construct $\delta_m$ satisfying 

858: (\ref{RelationBetweenTimetranslationAndPhase}) from given

859: $\Delta t(f)$, provided that $\Delta t(f)$ is sufficiently smooth

860: and $N$ is sufficiently large.

861: 

862: Equations (\ref{QtzOfArea}) and (\ref{MatrixElement})

863: constitute, then, 

864: our new correspondence rule. We shall now deduce

865: the fundamental approximations (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra})

866: from the new rule.

867: 

868: By (\ref{QtzOfArea}), we have divided the $\ss$-space into $N$

869: domains around orbits along which $f(\ss)$ takes the values 

870: $\hat{f}_1, \cdots, \hat{f}_N$.

871: We can evaluate the integral of an arbitrary function $\int g(\ss) d^2\ss$

872: approximately, 

873: by summing up the average values of $g(\ss)$ on these loops

874: multiplied by the areas of each domains.

875: Since (\ref{DefOfgOfs}) and (\ref{MatrixElement}) 

876: tell us that the average value of $g$

877: on the orbit along which $f(\ss(t))=\hat{f}_n$ is $\hat{g}_{nn}$, 

878: and since each area is equal to

879: $[\ss]/N$, we obtain

880: \beq

881: \int g(\ss) \ d^2\!\ss \approx \sum_{n} g_{nn} \frac{[\ss]}{N},

882: \label{DerivedAppNrm}

883: \eeq

884: which is nothing but (\ref{AppNrm}).

885: 

886: We next consider multiplication of matrices constructed by 

887: (\ref{MatrixElement})

888: \beq

889: (\hat{g}\hat{h})_{mn}

890: =\sum_l \hat{g}_{ml}\ \hat{h}_{ln}

891: =\sum_l g_{m-l}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_l}{2}\!\biggr)\ 

892: h_{l-n}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_l+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr).

893: \label{(gh)mn_basic}

894: \eeq

895: Since $g_{m-l}$ and $g_{l-n}$ fall off rapidly when $|m-l|$ and $|l-n|$ 

896: are large,

897: respectively,

898: the terms in which  $l$ is not far away from 

899: $m$ or $n$ dominate the summation.

900: Then, by (\ref{QtzOfArea}), neglecting

901: higher order terms in $1/N$, we can replace both

902: $(\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_l)/2$ and $(\hat{f}_l+\hat{f}_n)/2$ by 

903: $(\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n)/2$. We have, therefore,

904: \beq

905: (\hat{g}\hat{h})_{mn}\approx \sum_l g_{m-l}\ \!\!

906: \biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)\ 

907: h_{l-n}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)=

908: (gh)_{m-n}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)

909: =\widehat{gh}_{mn},

910: \eeq

911: where the second equality is the convolution law of Fourier series.

912: Thus, the matrix corresponding to the multiplication

913: of the two functions approximately coincides with

914: the multiplication of matrices corresponding to the functions.

915: We have derived (\ref{AppMtp}).

916: 

917: We have just seen that, to the leading order, the multiplication of 

918: the matrices

919: is commutative, since $\widehat{gh}=\widehat{hg}$, as a matter of course.

920: Incorporating one more higher order terms in $1/N$,

921: we shall evaluate the non-commutativity of the matrices.

922: Thus, from (\ref{(gh)mn_basic}), we have

923: \beq

924: (\hat{g}\hat{h})_{mn} \approx 

925: \sum_l \L(g_{m-l}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)\ 

926: + \frac{\hat{f}_l-\hat{f}_n}{2} g^\prime_{m-l}\R)

927: \L(h_{l-n}\ \!\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)

928: + \frac{\hat{f}_l-\hat{f}_m}{2} h^\prime_{l-n}\R).

929: \eeq

930: Here, we set $g_s^\prime(f)=dg_s/df$.

931: \footnote

932: {

933: We choose the orbits in (\ref{DefOfgOfs}) smoothly,

934: so that

935: $d g_s / d f$ is well-defined.

936: }

937: We have omitted the value of $f$ at which $g^\prime$ or $h^\prime$

938: is evaluated,

939: since that does not affect the results to the order we are working.

940: By (\ref{QtzOfArea}), it follows that

941: \[

942: (\hat{g}\hat{h})_{mn} \approx \sum_{u+v=m-n}

943: \L(g_{u}\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)

944: +  \frac{[\ss]}{N}\frac{1}{T}\biggl(\frac{v}{2}\biggr)g^\prime_{u}\R)

945: \L(h_{v}\!\biggl(\!\frac{\hat{f}_m+\hat{f}_n}{2}\!\biggr)

946: +  \frac{[\ss]}{N}\frac{1}{T}\biggl(-\frac{u}{2}\biggr)h^\prime_{v}\R),

947: \]

948: where we have introduced new dummy indices $u=m-l, v=l-n$.

949: Then, finally, we have

950: \beqa

951: ([\hat{g}, \hat{h}])_{mn}

952: &\approx& \frac{[\ss]}{N}\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{2}\L(

953: \sum_{u+v=m-n} \bigl(-g_u (u h^\prime_v) +  (v g^\prime_u) h_v\bigr)

954: - \big(g\leftrightarrow h\big) \R)  \non\\

955: &=&

956:  \frac{[\ss]}{N} \frac{1}{T} \sum

957:  \big( -\!(u g_u) h^\prime _v + g^\prime_u(v h_v)\ \big). 

958: \label{ghCommHighFinal}

959: \eeqa

960: 

961: In order to understand the relation of the last expression to the function 

962: $\{ g, h\}(\ss)$, it is instructive to consider

963: the special case $h=f$. Namely, we consider 

964: the case in which one of the functions is the reference function.

965: In that case we have by (\ref{QtzOfArea}),

966: \beq

967: [\hat{g},\hat{f}]_{mn}

968: =\hat{g}_{mn} (\hat{f}_n -\hat{f}_m)

969: \approx \frac{[\ss]}{N} \frac{1}{T} (n-m) g_{m-n}, \label{gfCommFin}

970: \eeq

971: which is the special case of (\ref{ghCommHighFinal}).

972: On the other hands, 

973: the Lie brackets between $g$ and $f$ can be  

974: expressed by a solution of  (\ref{EomOnSs}) 

975: as,

976: \beq

977: \{g, f\}(\ss) = \left( \frac{d}{dt} g\left(\ss\!\left(t

978: \right)\right) \right) 

979: \Bigg|_{\ss(t)=\ss} \label{HeisenbergEOMinSS},

980: \eeq

981: where the total derivative with respect to

982:  $t$ is taken at the point where the Lie bracket is calculated.

983: Then, from the definition of the Fourier component $g_s$,

984: (\ref{DefOfgOfs}),

985: we get

986: \beq

987: \widehat{ \{g, f\} }_{mn} = i (m-n) \frac{2\pi}{T} g_{m-n} .

988: \label{BragfFin}

989: \eeq

990: Comparing with (\ref{gfCommFin}), we obtain

991: \beq

992: \widehat{ \{g, f\} }_{mn} \approx  -i \frac{2 \pi N}{[\ss]} 

993: [\hat{g},\hat{f}]_{mn}, \label{CommIsLieBraSpecial}

994: \eeq

995: the special case of (\ref{AppBra}).

996: 

997: The last expression in (\ref{ghCommHighFinal}) and the

998: above derivation

999: of (\ref{CommIsLieBraSpecial}) suggest the natural generalization.

1000: We reinterpret the independent

1001: parameter of the ODE, $t$,

1002: as a function defined locally on the $\ss$-space. Then, from 

1003: (\ref{HeisenbergEOMinSS}), we find 

1004: \beq

1005: \{ t , f\} = \frac{dt}{dt} =1,

1006: \eeq

1007: which means that we can consider that $(t, f)$ as canonically conjugate

1008: variables in terms of the analogous canonical formalism.

1009: It follows that,

1010: \beq

1011: \{ g, h \} = \L(\fracp{g}{t}\R)_f \L(\fracp{h}{f}\R)_t - 

1012: \L(\fracp{g}{f}\R)_t \L(\fracp{h}{t}\R)_f. \label{ghBraAsLieBraBytf}

1013: \eeq

1014: The definition of the Fourier components $g_s$, (\ref{DefOfgOfs}), 

1015: is now interpreted 

1016: as the representation of $g$ as a function of $(t ,f)$

1017: \beq

1018: g(t,f)=\sum_{s=-\infty}^{+\infty}

1019: g_s(f) e^{i \left(\frac{2\pi}{T(f)} s \right) t}, \label{gAsAFunctionOftf}

1020: \eeq

1021: Substituting (\ref{gAsAFunctionOftf}) and the similar formula for $h$ 

1022: into (\ref{ghBraAsLieBraBytf})

1023: we get,

1024: \footnote

1025: {

1026: Technically, that $t$ is defined only locally poses a  problem.

1027: However, we can cope with it easily by introducing

1028: patches on each of which $t$ is well-defined, and considering 

1029: the relation between the patches.

1030: }

1031: \beq

1032: (\{g, h\})_s= \sum_{u+v=s} (i \frac{2\pi}{T} u g_u) h^\prime_v

1033: -  g^\prime_u( i \frac{2\pi}{T} v h_v).

1034: \eeq

1035: (Terms in which $(\partial/\partial f)_t $ acts on $1/T(f)$ cancel out.)

1036: By comparing this expression with (\ref{ghCommHighFinal}),

1037: we finally prove (\ref{AppBra}),

1038: \beq

1039: \widehat{ \{g, h\} }_{mn} \approx -i \frac{2\pi N }{[\ss]}

1040: [\hat{g} ,\hat{h} ]_{mn}.

1041: \eeq

1042: 

1043: Up to this point, our derivation has been confined to the case

1044: where there is only one eigenvalue sequence. 

1045: The extension to the general 

1046: case where there are several eigenvalue sequences

1047: is easy. Namely,

1048: we apply (\ref{QtzOfArea}) and (\ref{MatrixElement}) within

1049: each sequences

1050: separately. 

1051: They determine the

1052: matrix elements  between eigenvectors belonging to 

1053: the same sequence.

1054: We then set remaining matrix elements, that is, 

1055: matrix elements between eigenvectors which belong to 

1056: different sequences, to zero.

1057: Above derivations of the fundamental approximations work just the same.

1058: 

1059: This argument means that we can concentrate on the

1060: behaviour of functions on one branch of the $\ss$-space, 

1061: ignoring the behaviour on other branches.

1062: Also, since in our arguments

1063: the matrix element $\hat{g}_{mn}$ falls off rapidly

1064: when $|m-n|$ gets larger, we can ignore the behaviour of the functions

1065: at the place differing much in the value of $f$.

1066: These properties render our new rule a semi-local nature.

1067: That is, both the rule and the approximations work 

1068: locally in the direction $f$ changes.

1069: This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the uncertainty principle

1070: in the analogous quantum mechanical case. We have chosen

1071: the representation to make $\hat{f}$ diagonal. This choice 

1072: achieves minimum uncertainty in $f$, 

1073: and, at the same time, makes the conjugate variable $t$

1074: maximally uncertain.

1075: That our rule can be applied to any topology may be 

1076: considered as a direct consequence of this semi-locality.

1077: 

1078: The linear approximation (\ref{QtzOfArea})

1079: has been essential in the machinery of the derivations

1080: of (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}).

1081: Therefore, it seems that the linear approximation, hence

1082: the existence of the eigenvalue sequences

1083: is necessary in order that the approximations are good.

1084: Also the use of the analog of the

1085: Bohr-Sommerfeld condition in section \ref{STop} 

1086: is justified, since the condition is nothing but (\ref{QtzOfArea}).

1087: 

1088: Unfortunately, it seems that our new rule does not 

1089: apply to the following exceptional quantities: matrix elements 

1090: near branching and merging processes.

1091: Our rule is essentially a WKB approximation.

1092: In the immediate 

1093: vicinity of the branching and merging processes, 

1094: there should be 

1095: tunneling effects which make the WKB approximation unreliable.

1096: Consider an analog problem in quantum mechanics, that is,

1097: the motion of a particle in the double-well potential.

1098: It is possible to deal with each well

1099: separately semi-classically,

1100: for sufficiently small $\hbar$, and for generic energy levels.

1101: Indeed, tunneling amplitudes between the wells in general 

1102: are negligibly small,

1103: behaving like $\exp{(-O(1)/\hbar)}$.

1104: However, for those rare energy levels which have energy close to 

1105: the value of the potential at the local maximum,

1106: the tunneling amplitudes are 

1107: not negligible. The break down of our rule could also be expected 

1108: from a more direct argument.

1109: The solution of (\ref{EomOnSs}), $\ss(t)$, in the vicinity of

1110: the branching and merging processes,

1111: spends most of the time near the branching point, moving very slowly.

1112: Then, even if $g(\ss)$ is a smooth function, $g(\ss(t))$ might develop

1113: singularity. Then, the validity of the condition used in our argument, 

1114: that $\hat{g}_{mn}$ is negligible for large $|m-n|$, might be

1115: questioned.

1116: 

1117: 

1118: \section{Examples}

1119: \label{SNumEx}

1120: In this section we shall present three examples.

1121: In the first example, by an analytical calculation,

1122: we show the equivalence between our new rule

1123: and the previously known rules. Both

1124: diagonal and 

1125: off-diagonal matrix elements are compared.

1126: %

1127: In the remaining two examples,

1128: our purpose is mainly to 

1129: illustrate the notion of eigenvalue sequences.

1130: We calculate numerically eigenvalues

1131: of matrices constructed by the previously known rules.

1132: We represent the resulting eigenvalue distribution

1133: in a method such that the structure discussed in section 3,

1134: namely the eigenvalue sequences and their

1135: branching phenomenon, can be easily seen.

1136: We confirm that the branching phenomenon of the

1137: eigenvalue sequences coincides with

1138: that of the orbits of the ODE (\ref{EomOnSs}).

1139: We further numerically compute the eigenvalues

1140: by our rule (\ref{QtzOfArea}), and compare them

1141:  with those calculated by the previously known rules.

1142: \paragraph{Example 1}  \label{ExSphA}

1143: \begin{figure}

1144: \parbox{.02\linewidth}{\ }

1145: \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}

1146: \begin{center}

1147: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{sphalpf}

1148: \caption{The $\ss$-space of spherical topology.

1149: The height is the reference function. The orbits

1150: of (\protect\ref{EomOnSs}) appear at A and disappear at B.

1151: } \label{FSphereA}

1152: \end{center}

1153: \end{minipage}

1154: \parbox{.05\linewidth}{\ }

1155: \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}

1156: \begin{center}

1157: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{sphaevf}

1158: \caption{Plot of the eigenvalues and the difference

1159: of the eigenvalues of the matrix corresponding

1160: to the height in Fig.~\protect\ref{FSphereA}. The eigenvalue

1161: sequence appears at A and disappears at B.} \label{FSphereAEv}

1162: \end{center}

1163: \end{minipage}

1164: \parbox{.07\linewidth}{\ }

1165: \end{figure} 

1166: We consider the $\ss$-space which has topology of a sphere.

1167: We represent the $\ss$-space as an unit sphere in $\xi, \eta, \zeta$-space,

1168: \beq

1169: \xi^2+\eta^2+\zeta^2=1

1170: \eeq

1171: with the area element given by

1172: \beq

1173: dS = \sin{\theta} d\theta d\phi,

1174: \eeq

1175: where $\theta$ and $\phi$ are polar coordinates defined by 

1176: $\zeta=\cos{\theta}, \xi=\sin{\theta} \cos{\phi},

1177: \eta=\sin{\theta} \sin{\phi}$.

1178: Then the Lie brackets are $\{\xi, \eta\} = \zeta, \cdots$.

1179: %

1180: We choose the simple reference function $f=\zeta$.

1181: Fig.~\ref{FSphereA} represents the $\ss$-space and the 

1182: reference function.

1183: The orbits of (\ref{EomOnSs})

1184: appear at the point A and disappear at the

1185: point B.

1186: 

1187: We first construct the matrix $\hat{\zeta}$ corresponding

1188: to the function $\zeta$, by our new rule.

1189: The area of the domain $\zeta \leq \zeta^\prime$ is given by

1190: \beq

1191: \frac{\zeta^\prime+1}{2} 4 \pi.

1192: \eeq

1193: Then, by the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition,

1194: or (\ref{QtzOfArea}), we obtain

1195: \footnote{

1196: See also footnote \ref{FootnoteOnShiftZeroPoint}.

1197: }

1198: \beq

1199: (\hat{\zeta}_1, \cdots, \hat{\zeta}_N) =

1200: (-1+\frac{1}{N}, -1 + \frac{3}{N}, \cdots, 1-\frac{1}{N}). 

1201: \label{ZetaMatElementsNewRule}

1202: \eeq

1203: We further construct the matrices $\hat{\xi}$ and $\hat{\eta}$,

1204: corresponding to the functions $\xi$ and $\eta$.

1205: The solutions to the ODE (\ref{EomOnSs}) can be explicitly written as, 

1206: \beqa

1207: (\xi+ i \eta)(t) &=&  \sqrt{1-\zeta^2} e^{it}\\

1208: (\xi- i \eta)(t) &=&  \sqrt{1-\zeta^2} e^{-it}.\non

1209: \eeqa

1210: Then, from (\ref{MatrixElement}), the only non-zero

1211: matrix elements is,

1212: \beq

1213: (\hat{\xi} +i \hat{\eta})_{m+1,m}=

1214: \sqrt{1- \L(\frac{\hat{\zeta}_m+\hat{\zeta}_n}{2}\R)^2}

1215: =\sqrt{1- \frac{4}{N^2-1} \L(m-\frac{N}{2}\R)^2}

1216: = (\hat{\xi} -i \hat{\eta})_{m,m+1}. \label{XiEtaMatElmntsNewRule}

1217: \eeq

1218: 

1219: We shall now compare these results 

1220: with those obtained from the previously known rules.

1221: The rule for the spherical topology reads~\cite{%

1222: Memb_Mr_mrG, Memb_Mr_mrH, S_Memb_Mr},

1223: \beq

1224: \hat{\xi}= \sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\hat{l}_x ,\ \ 

1225: \hat{\eta}= \sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\hat{l}_y,\ \ 

1226: \hat{\zeta}= \sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\hat{l}_z, \label{BasisToBasisSphere}

1227: \eeq

1228: where $\hat{l}_x, \hat{l}_y, \hat{l}_z$ are generators 

1229: of the representation of $SU(2)$ with spin $l=(N-1)/2$.

1230: Since eigenvalues of $\hat{l}_z$ are

1231: $\{-l, -l+1, \cdots, l \}$, we have,

1232: \beq

1233: \L(\hat{\zeta}_1, \cdots, \hat{\zeta}_N\R)=

1234: \L(-\sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\frac{N-1}{2}, 

1235: -\sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\frac{N+1}{2}, 

1236: \cdots,\sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}}\frac{N-1}{2}\R),

1237: \eeq

1238: which coincides, for large $N$, with the result of our new rule,

1239: (\ref{ZetaMatElementsNewRule}).

1240: %

1241: Further, it is well known that

1242: in the basis where $\hat{l}_z$ is 

1243: diagonalized, $\hat{l}_x$ and $\hat{l}_y$ have matrix elements only 

1244: between the eigenvectors corresponding to adjacent eigenvalues.

1245: The expression for the non-zero matrix elements are,

1246: \beq

1247: <l_z^\prime+1|(\hat{l}_x+ i\hat{l}_y)|l_z^\prime> 

1248: = \sqrt{l(l+1)-l_z^\prime(l_z^\prime+1)}

1249: = <l_z^\prime|(\hat{l}_x- i\hat{l}_y)|l_z^\prime+1>

1250: \eeq

1251: where we have denoted by $|l_z^\prime>$ the eigenvectors of $\hat{l}_z$ 

1252: belonging to the eigenvalue $l_z^\prime$.

1253: Thus, the result of the previously known rule is,

1254: \beq

1255: (\hat{\xi} +i \hat{\eta})_{m+1,m}=

1256: \sqrt{1- \frac{4}{N^2-1} \L(m-\frac{N-1}{2}\R)\L(m-\frac{N+1}{2}\R)}

1257: =(\hat{\xi} -i \hat{\eta})_{m,m+1}.

1258: \label{SphMatElmntsOldRule}

1259: \eeq

1260: These matrix elements are also approximately equal to 

1261: (\ref{XiEtaMatElmntsNewRule}).

1262: %

1263: The agreements of our rule with the

1264: previously known rule for the simple functions

1265: $\xi, \eta, \zeta$

1266: imply agreements for more general functions

1267: which can be constructed by multiplying

1268: $\xi, \eta, \zeta$ finite (much less than $N$) times.

1269: The  reason for this is that  

1270: the approximate equality between

1271: multiplication of functions and that of matrices,

1272: (\ref{AppMtp}), is valid for both rules.

1273: \footnote

1274: {

1275: For torus topology, similar argument as

1276: in this example,

1277: using simple functions such as $\cos{\sigma^1}$ or $\sin{\sigma^2}$

1278: (see example 3 for definitions),

1279: has a tricky aspect

1280: since these simple functions are degenerate functions in the sense of 

1281: Morse theory.

1282: }

1283: 

1284: 

1285: 

1286: The eigenvalues $\hat{\zeta}_i$ and the difference 

1287: $\hat{\zeta}_{i+1}-\hat{\zeta}_i$

1288: of the eigenvalues are given in Fig.~\ref{FSphereAEv}.

1289: We see that the eigenvalues consist of one eigenvalue sequence.

1290: The sequence appears at the point A and disappears at the point B

1291: in Fig.~\ref{FSphereAEv}.

1292: They correspond to the branching points of

1293: orbits A, B in Fig.~\ref{FSphereA}.

1294: 

1295: \paragraph{Example 2} \label{ExSphB}

1296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1297: \begin{figure}

1298: \begin{center}

1299: \includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{sphblpf}

1300: \end{center}

1301: \caption{

1302: The $\ss$-space of spherical topology 

1303: with a more

1304: interesting branching phenomenon of orbits than

1305: Fig.~\protect\ref{FSphereA}.

1306: Appearing, branching, (first) disappearing and (final) disappearing

1307: processes occur at the points A, B, C and D, respectively. 

1308: } \label{FSphereB}

1309: \end{figure} 

1310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1312: \begin{figure}

1313: \begin{center}

1314: \includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{sphb4evf}\label{FSphereBEv}

1315: \end{center}

1316: \caption{The plot of the eigenvalues and their difference,

1317: of the matrix corresponding to the reference function

1318: (\protect\ref{RefFuncSphB})

1319: given in

1320: Fig.~\ref{FSphereB}. The eigenvalue distribution

1321: is calculated both by the previously known rule (open squares),

1322: and our new rule, namely, the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition

1323: (crosses). They agree almost completely.

1324: The branching phenomenon for 

1325: eigenvalue sequences is the same as that of the orbits

1326: in Fig.~\ref{FSphereB}.

1327: Horizontal lines signify critical values of $f$ at which the 

1328: processes in the branching phenomenon take place,

1329: calculated directly from $f$.

1330: }

1331: \end{figure} 

1332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1333: We treat another case of spherical topology,

1334: which exhibits a more

1335: interesting branching phenomenon of eigenvalue sequences

1336: than the previous example.

1337: Perturbing the reference function considered there,

1338: we here consider the reference function of the form

1339: \beq

1340: f(\ss)=a\zeta +b\xi + c \xi^2. \label{RefFuncSphB}

1341: \eeq

1342: The reference function

1343: and the $\ss$-space are schematically depicted in Fig.~\ref{FSphereB}.

1344: Orbits of (\ref{EomOnSs})

1345: appear at the point A and then branch into two

1346: families at the point B. Then, the orbits belonging to the right branch

1347: disappear at the point C, and finally the orbits belonging to the

1348: left branch disappear at the point D.

1349: 

1350: 

1351: The corresponding matrix $\hat{f}$ is given by 

1352: \beq

1353: \hat{f}=a \sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}} \hat{l}_z + b \sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}} \hat{l}_x+

1354: c\left(\sqrt{\frac{4}{N^2-1}} \hat{l}_x\right)^2, 

1355: \eeq

1356: if one uses the previously known correspondence

1357: rule (\ref{BasisToBasisSphere}). 

1358: We have computed numerically its eigenvalues, in the case

1359: $a=1, b=2, c=6$, with $N=40$.

1360: We have also obtained the eigenvalue distribution

1361: from our new rule.

1362: To this end, we have  computed numerically 

1363: the area of the $\ss$-space as a function of the

1364: height $f$ for each branches of the $\ss$-space.

1365: Then, by the analog of the

1366: Bohr-Sommerfeld condition (\ref{QtzOfArea}),

1367: \footnote

1368: {

1369: See also footnote \ref{FootnoteOnShiftZeroPoint}.

1370: }

1371: we have calculated the eigenvalues of $\hat{f}$.

1372: 

1373: We represent the eigenvalues by the following method

1374: to see the information of membrane topology.

1375: Firstly, we sort the eigenvalues in increasing order,

1376: \beq

1377: \lambda_1 \le \lambda_2 \le \cdots \le \lambda_N.

1378: \eeq

1379: They are given in Fig.~\ref{FSphereBEv}.

1380: In order to see the branching phenomenon clearly,

1381: it is useful to plot also the difference of the eigenvalues 

1382: $\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i$. 

1383: By the plot

1384: %, or just by 

1385: %scrutinising the plot of $\lambda_i$ very closely,

1386: one  finds that

1387: from the point B to the point C,

1388: the plot of $\lambda_i$ is zig-zag shaped.

1389: Thus, the plot of $\lambda_i$ gives a juxtaposition of

1390: four eigenvalue sequences.

1391: We see the same branching phenomenon

1392: of the sequences 

1393: as that of the orbits in Fig.~\ref{FSphereB}.

1394: %We thus have a confirmation of the 

1395: %discussion in section \ref{STop}.

1396: The agreement between our new rule and the previously known

1397: rule is remarkable.

1398: 

1399: \paragraph{Example 3} \label{ExTorus}

1400: We consider the $\ss$-space which has  topology of a torus. 

1401: The $\ss$-space can be represented by $[0, 2\pi)\times[0, 2\pi)$,

1402: where periodic boundary conditions are understood.

1403: We choose the reference function to be

1404: \beq

1405: f(\ss)=a \cos{\sigma^1} + b \cos{\sigma^2}.

1406: \label{RefFuncTorus}

1407: \eeq

1408: We assume that $a\neq b$, $a\neq 0$, $b\neq 0$, in order to avoid

1409: degenerate reference functions. To be specific we choose $0<a<b$.

1410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1411: \begin{figure}

1412: \parbox{0.075\textwidth}{\ }

1413: \parbox[t]{0.4\textwidth}{

1414: (a)

1415: \begin{center}

1416: \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{trsctrf}

1417: \end{center}

1418: }

1419: \parbox{0.05\textwidth}{\ }

1420: \parbox[t]{0.4\textwidth}{

1421: (b)

1422: \begin{center}

1423: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{trsblpf}

1424: \end{center}

1425: }

1426: \caption{

1427: (a) Contour plot of the reference function 

1428: $f=a \cos{\sigma^1}+b \cos{\sigma^2}$, with $0<a<b$.

1429: (b) Schematic picture of the $\ss$-space and the reference

1430: function.

1431: The contours, {\it i.e.},

1432: the orbits of (\protect\ref{EomOnSs}) appear, branch, merge and disappear

1433: at the points A, B, C, and D, respectively. 

1434: In (a) the orbits are so written that the areas of the domains

1435: between two adjacent orbits are [\ss]/N.

1436: }

1437: \label{FTorusContour}

1438: \end{figure}

1439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1440: %

1441: The reference function is represented in Fig.~\ref{FTorusContour}.

1442: It has essentially the same feature

1443: as the reference function in Fig.~\ref{Ftorus}.

1444: At the points A, B, C, D the function $f$ takes the critical values

1445: $-a-b, a-b, -a+b, a+b$, respectively.

1446: 

1447: In the previously known correspondence rule for torus topology,

1448: one postulates\cite{MrTor}, 

1449: \beq

1450: \widehat{e^{i\sigma^1}} = h_1, \ \ \widehat{e^{i\sigma^2}} = h_2, \label{BasisToBasisTorus}

1451: \eeq

1452: where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are the well-known

1453: $N \times N$ matrices which satisfy the relation

1454: $h_1 h_2 =h_2 h_1 \exp{( i 2\pi /N)}$.

1455: Then, it follows that

1456: \beqa

1457: \hat{f}= \frac{a}{2}(h_1+h_1^\dagger)+ \frac{b}{2} (h_2+h_2^\dagger).

1458: \eeqa

1459: We have computed the eigenvalue distribution of this matrix numerically, 

1460: in the case $a=1, b=3,$  with $N=30$.

1461: We can also calculate them by the new rule

1462: as we have done in the previous example. %\ref{ExSphB}.

1463: \footnote{

1464: Due to the poor knowledge in the vicinity of 

1465: the merging and branching processes discussed at

1466: the end of section \ref{SMRCorr},

1467: we have two (or rather one due to the symmetry of the present example)

1468: undetermined parameters of order $1/N$ mentioned in footnote

1469: \ref{FootnoteOnShiftZeroPoint}. 

1470: %Complete fixing of the order $1/N$ parameters requires

1471: %incorporation of the tunneling effect discussed at the end of

1472: %section \ref{SMRCorr}, and beyond the scope of the present paper.

1473: We have fixed the  order $1/N$ parameter by comparison to the result of

1474: the previously known rule.

1475: }

1476: The results by the two methods are given in  Fig.~\ref{FTorusEigenvalues}.

1477: %

1478: They

1479:  agree well, except at the vicinity of the

1480: branching process at the point B. 

1481: The reason for the discrepancy is 

1482:  noted at the end of the previous section:

1483: our new rule should not be trusted in the vicinity of branching processes.

1484: We can trust the previously known rule, on the other hand,

1485: since the fundamental approximations (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) are 

1486: guaranteed by the rule (\ref{BasisToBasisTorus}),

1487: irrespectively of the branching phenomenon.

1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

1489: \begin{figure}

1490: \begin{center}

1491: \includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{trs2evf}

1492: \end{center}

1493: \caption{

1494: Same as Fig.~\protect\ref{FSphereBEv}

1495: but for the reference function

1496: (\protect\ref{RefFuncTorus}) given in

1497: Fig.~\protect\ref{FTorusContour}.

1498: The topology of the $\ss$-space is that of a torus.

1499: The eigenvalues calculated by the new rule and the previously known

1500: rule agree well except at the immediate

1501: vicinity of the point B or the point C.

1502: The branching phenomenon of  the 

1503: eigenvalue sequences is the same as that of the orbits in 

1504: Fig.~\protect\ref{FTorusContour}.

1505: The (approximate) degeneracy of eigenvalues 

1506: from the point B to the point C is only accidental, 

1507: being result of the symmetry of the $f$.

1508: }

1509: \label{FTorusEigenvalues}

1510: \end{figure}

1511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1512: 

1513: In Fig.~\ref{FTorusEigenvalues},

1514: we see a sequence, which appears at the point A and branches

1515: into two sequences at the point B.

1516: Then, the two sequences merge at

1517: the point C,

1518: and finally the last sequence disappears at the point D.

1519: These branching processes of sequences 

1520: directly correspond to the branching processes

1521: of the orbits A, B, C, D in  Fig.~\ref{FTorusContour}.

1522: 

1523: 

1524: 

1525: \section{Conclusions and discussions} \label{SConDis}

1526: In this paper, we have clarified some elementary

1527: but unknown features of the matrix regularization procedure.

1528: We have worked under the simple view that it is an approximation of 

1529: a continuum theory by a discrete theory.

1530: The approximation between two theories is

1531: based solely

1532: on the fundamental approximation formulae (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}).

1533: %

1534: We have constructed a new geometrical correspondence rule

1535: between matrices and functions. 

1536: We have shown the validity of the rule directly

1537: by deriving the fundamental approximations from it.

1538: %In the process of the derivation,

1539: %we have also seen what conditions are necessary for 

1540: %the approximations to be good.

1541: %

1542: The new rule is semi-local in the $\ss$-space,

1543: and, as a consequence, can be applied 

1544: to all membrane topologies in a unified way, in marked contrast 

1545: with previously known rules.

1546: Using our rule, 

1547: one can construct functions corresponding to given matrices 

1548: such that the fundamental approximations hold well,

1549: provided that these functions exist.

1550: Whether these functions exist for given matrices can be also determined.

1551: As a physical application, for given matrices

1552: $\hat{x}^\alpha, \hat{p}^\alpha$ of the

1553: matrix model, 

1554: one can construct the geometrical shape and the momentum densities

1555: of the membranes.

1556: 

1557: The new rule includes

1558: the linear approximation (\ref{QtzOfArea}), 

1559: which is the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition.

1560: The linear approximation

1561: has lead us to the particular structure

1562: of the eigenvalue distribution,

1563: namely the branching phenomenon of the eigenvalue sequences.

1564: The eigenvalue sequences, which we have introduced in this paper,

1565: are subsets

1566: of the all eigenvalues whose members

1567: can be linearly approximated locally.

1568: From the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition,

1569: we have shown that

1570: the branching phenomenon reflects the information of topology. 

1571: 

1572: Thus, we have clarified the manner

1573: the information of topology

1574: manifests itself

1575: in the eigenvalue distribution.

1576: It is natural to further ask  the question:

1577: ``How completely 

1578: can we read off the information of

1579: topology from given matrices?''.

1580: We shall give here some

1581: observations which are essential to this question.

1582: %

1583: In the first place,

1584: our argument implies that

1585: there is no information of topology in

1586: such ill-behaved matrices for which the fundamental approximation

1587: formulae (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) 

1588: do not hold well. 

1589: Indeed, 

1590: it is only for the case (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) work,

1591: that the linear approximation

1592: (\ref{QtzOfArea}) should hold.

1593: Hence, even the existence of the eigenvalue sequences

1594: is not guaranteed for those ill-behaved matrices.

1595: %

1596: Secondly, 

1597: there occurs overlapping 

1598: of topologies when we consider the interaction of membranes. 

1599: For a typical example, let us consider process

1600: shown in

1601: Fig.~\ref{FTopologyChangeConti}.

1602: At first there are two spheres.

1603: Then, these spheres approach each other

1604: and 

1605: the distance $\Delta$ (in the target space)

1606: between two spheres reduces to zero gradually,

1607: and finally the two spheres merge into a sphere.

1608: \begin{figure}

1609: \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}

1610: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{tpcngcn2}

1611: \caption{Typical case of topology changing of membrane}

1612: \label{FTopologyChangeConti}

1613: \end{minipage}

1614: \parbox{0.1\textwidth}{\ }

1615: \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}

1616: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{tpcngev2}

1617: \caption{Typical case of topology changing from the viewpoint

1618: of eigenvalue distribution}

1619: \label{FTplCngEvals}

1620: \end{minipage}

1621: \end{figure}

1622: This overlapping is also present in the eigenvalue distribution.

1623: The process from the viewpoint of eigenvalue distribution

1624: is as follows.

1625: In Fig.~\ref{FTplCngEvals} the 

1626: eigenvalue distribution of the matrix

1627: corresponding to

1628: the height in Fig.~\ref{FTopologyChangeConti} is shown.

1629: The eigenvalue distribution consists of two

1630: eigenvalue sequences. 

1631: If the distance $\Delta$ between the two eigenvalue sequences

1632: gradually reduces to zero, 

1633: then we cannot distinguish the eigenvalue distribution from 

1634: that of a matrix corresponding to 

1635: one sphere.

1636: It is interesting 

1637: to treat topology changing processes of 

1638: membranes by the matrix model in this way.

1639: 

1640: Our discussion in this paper has been of purely kinematical nature.

1641: To explore the dynamical implication of our rule is

1642: also clearly important.

1643: For example, 

1644: our consideration has made clear the distinction

1645: between the configurations of matrices

1646: which approximate membranes well and

1647: which do not.

1648: It is interesting to consider whether and how the former 

1649: configurations dominate in the path integral of the

1650: matrix model.

1651: 

1652: We would like to comment on the issue of

1653: the membrane instability\cite{Memb_Instability}.

1654: Let us consider a configuration of membranes 

1655: which has a spike-like portion whose area is less than $1/N$.

1656: If we simply apply the analog of the Bohr-Sommerfeld

1657: condition, we should fail to include the information of the spike

1658: into the matrices. Stated more appropriately,

1659: our argument tells us that

1660: the configuration

1661: cannot be well approximated by $N\times N$ matrices.

1662: We want to stress that this spike has an essential difference 

1663: to the spike which is considered in  the  membrane instability.

1664: One uses the word spike for a portion of a surface

1665:  when its linear dimension is large,

1666: and at the same time its area is small. The difference between the spike

1667: in our context and the spike in the instability context lies 

1668: in the meaning of the area.

1669: In the former, the area means area in the $\ss$-space, that is 

1670: essentially $p^+$.

1671: In the latter, the area means area in the target space, or

1672: the energy of the spike.

1673: This difference is meaningful. Indeed,

1674: there are membranes which have portions that have 

1675: small energy but large $p^+$ or vice versa.

1676: In particular, one can construct configurations of the matrix model

1677: which approximate well the membranes with spikes in the sense of the

1678: membrane instability. 

1679: 

1680: As a direction of further investigation of the matrix regularization

1681: procedure itself,

1682: we recall the discussion at the end of section

1683: \ref{SMRCorr}.

1684: Our rule in the present form does not include tunneling effects between

1685: sequences. Although our rule

1686: gives correct overall behaviour of the matrix elements,

1687: we could not trust the rule in the present form

1688: to investigate the matrix elements in the immediate vicinity of 

1689: the merging and branching processes. 

1690: Concrete

1691: examples of the processes are the points B, C in example 3 in section 5.

1692: %the point B in example 2 is also branching

1693: \footnote{

1694: We can trust our rule 

1695: near appearing or disappearing processes,

1696: such as the point C

1697: in example 2 of section \ref{SNumEx}.

1698: The jump

1699: in the plot of the difference of eigenvalues 

1700: is a natural consequence of our rule.

1701: }

1702: It is an important task

1703: to extend our rule to incorporate the tunneling effects\cite{Tunneling}.

1704: One possible strategy would be  to revisit the analog problem,

1705: namely the quantum mechanics of a particle in a double-well potential.

1706: We can construct a formula to relate

1707: the semi-classical wave functions in both wells, which is valid

1708: even for the energy level

1709: near the local maximum, extending the ordinary argument

1710: in the WKB approximation

1711: using Airy functions.

1712: %

1713: Another interesting question

1714: is the uniqueness

1715: of the correspondence which gives the fundamental approximations.

1716: Although we cannot, at present, provide the proof,

1717: we suspect that the correspondence rule

1718: from which (\ref{AppNrm})-(\ref{AppBra}) can be derived

1719: is unique up to similarity transformation.

1720: Indeed, examples studied in section 5 suggest

1721: that the previously known rules and our new rule are

1722: the same up to similarity transformation.

1723: An immediate consequence of the uniqueness is that

1724: a change of the reference function

1725: should amount to a similarity transformation.

1726: \footnote{

1727: This property implies that

1728: the fundamental approximations are no good

1729: for a configuration of matrices which 

1730: consists of matrices corresponding to different topologies.

1731: }

1732: 

1733: 

1734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1735: It is believed that

1736: the matrix regularization can be

1737: extended for general even dimensional base spaces on which the

1738: Lie brackets can be defined.

1739: The correspondence rule between matrices and functions

1740: can be easily constructed by using tensor product of matrices,

1741: when the topology of the base space are given by direct

1742: product of some two dimensional spaces.

1743: These extensions are important in the matrix model

1744: of M-theory, in order to incorporate longitudinal 5-branes.

1745: To extend our analysis to 

1746: study topological properties of these higher dimensional objects

1747: is also an interesting problem.

1748: We believe that the analysis analogous to the WKB approximation,

1749: used throughout in this paper, will also be useful

1750: for the higher dimensional case.

1751: However, it would be a challenging task,

1752: since the WKB approximation itself is not fully understood

1753: for generic non-integrable Hamiltonian systems on four 

1754: or more dimensional phase spaces,

1755: compared to that for the necessarily integrable systems

1756: on two dimensional phase spaces considered in this paper.

1757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1758: 

1759: We conclude 

1760: with three possible applications of the new correspondence rule.

1761: 

1762: (1) One can construct various 

1763: interesting configurations of the matrix model by our rule. 

1764: A particular merit of our rule

1765: in this respect is that it can be applied to a membrane

1766: which has genus higher than two, with no more difficulty 

1767: than to a membrane having topology of a sphere or a torus.

1768: 

1769: (2) Our rule may be useful when investigating

1770: the Lorentz symmetry of 

1771: the matrix model.

1772: It has been tried to regularize the Lorentz generators of 

1773: the continuum theory in order to construct those of the matrix model

1774: \cite{MembLorentzSymm}.

1775: However, since some of the Lorentz generators are not built up by

1776: simple multiplications or integrations or Lie brackets,

1777: one has been inclined to use the basis expansion of the

1778: previously known

1779: correspondence rules.

1780: Since there are many different expansions for different topologies,

1781: it has been difficult to define the

1782: Lorentz generators in a unique way.

1783: Since our rule can be applied uniformly to all topologies,

1784: it is a promising tool in 

1785: constructing

1786: definitions of the Lorentz generators of the matrix model in a unique way.

1787: 

1788: (3) The geometrical interpretation

1789: of matrix elements in our rule may make 

1790: the problem of the large $N$ limit of the matrix model accessible.

1791: The problem can be interpreted as

1792: a renormalization of the membrane theory.

1793: We hope that our rule,

1794: by determining the short-distance (or rather, the small-area)

1795: degrees of freedom,

1796: enables us to construct a block-spin transformation 

1797: of the matrix model.

1798: 

1799: \paragraph{}

1800: I would like to thank, first of all,

1801: Prof. T. Yoneya for discussions, encouragements

1802:  and careful reading of the manuscript.

1803: I would like to thank, for discussions and encouragements, 

1804: other members and

1805: former members of Komaba particle theory group,

1806: especially Y. Aisaka, S. Dobashi

1807: and T. Sato.

1808: Also, I would like to thank W. Taylor, S. Iso and T. Shimada

1809: for discussions and encouragements, %%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%

1810: and J. Hoppe for helpful and encouraging correspondence.

1811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1812: 

1813: 

1814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% v3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1815: \paragraph{Note Added:}

1816: This paper is an extended version of

1817: the author's master thesis \cite{MasterThesis}

1818: submitted to University of Tokyo on April 2002,

1819: where the basic results %in this paper

1820: were preliminarily reported.

1821: %

1822: The author has recently noticed that Hyakutake

1823: has constructed matrices corresponding to

1824: axial symmetric membrane configurations \cite{Hyakutake},

1825: which are special cases of the general prescription given in 

1826: section \ref{SMRCorr} of this paper.

1827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% v3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1828: 

1829: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1830: \bibitem{11_10}

1831: E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B443}(1995)85.

1832: \bibitem{IMF}

1833: T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker,

1834: L. Susskind Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}(1997)5112.

1835: \bibitem{Memb_Mr_mrG}

1836: J. Goldstone unpublished. %(1982).

1837: \bibitem{Memb_Mr_mrH}

1838: J. Hoppe MIT Ph. D. thesis (1982)\\

1839: (available at http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/\~{}hoppe).

1840: \bibitem{S_Memb_Mr}

1841: B. de Wit, J. Hoppe, H. Nicolai Nucl. Phys. {\bf B305}[FS23](1988)545. 

1842: \bibitem{MrTor}

1843: D. Fairlie, P. Fletcher, C. Zachos, \PLB{218}{1989}{203}.

1844: 

1845: D. Fairlie, C. Zachos, \PLB{224}{1989}{101}.

1846: 

1847: E. Floratos, \PLB{228}{1989}{335}.

1848: \bibitem{MrGen}

1849: M. Bordemann, E. Meinreken, M. Schlichenmaier,

1850: Comm. Math. Phys.{\bf 165}(1994)281.

1851: \bibitem{Heisenberg}

1852: W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys.

1853: {\bf 33}(1925)879.

1854: \bibitem{TypeIIBMatrixModel}

1855: N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, A. Tsuchiya,

1856: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B498}(1997)467.

1857: \bibitem{S_Memb_Action}

1858: E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, P. K.Townsend,

1859: \PLB{189}{1987}{75},\\Ann. Phys. (NY){\bf 185}(1988)330.

1860: \bibitem{ReviewByTaylor}

1861: W. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}(2001)419.

1862: \bibitem{Memb_Matstr}

1863: Y. Sekino, T. Yoneya, \NPB{619}{2001}{22}.

1864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1865: \bibitem{Taylor}

1866: W. Taylor, \PLB{394}{1997}{283}.

1867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1868: \bibitem{Memb_Instability}

1869: B.de Wit, M.L\"{u}scher, H.Nicolai, \NPB{320}{1989}{135}.

1870: \bibitem{Tunneling}

1871: H. Shimada, work in progress.

1872: \bibitem{MembLorentzSymm}

1873: B. de Wit, U. Marquard, H. Nicolai, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 128}(1990)39.

1874: 

1875: K. Ezawa, Y. Matsuo, K. Murakami, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}(1998)5118.

1876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1877: \bibitem{MasterThesis}

1878: H. Shimada, Master's Thesis, University of Tokyo (2002).

1879: \bibitem{Hyakutake}

1880: Y. Hyakutake, \NPB{675}{2003}{241}.

1881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%v3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1882: \end{thebibliography}

1883: \end{document}

1884: 

1885: