1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \input epsf.sty

3: \topmargin -.5cm

4: \textheight 21cm

5: \oddsidemargin -.125cm

6: \textwidth 16cm

7:  

8: \def\ZZZ{{\hbox{ Z\kern-1.6mm Z}}}

9: \newcommand{\rrho}{r}

10: \newcommand{\bA}{{\bf A}}

11: \newcommand{\tx}{\wt x}

12: \newcommand{\bG}{{\bf G}}

13: \newcommand{\bF}{{\bf F}}

14: \newcommand{\bbb}{{\bar b}}

15: \newcommand{\gam}{\tau}

16: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

17: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

18: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

19: \newcommand{\T}{\chi_{T}(k)}

20: \newcommand{\Tm}{\chi_{T}(k')}

21: \newcommand{\Cn}{{\cal C}_n}

22: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}

23: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}

24: \newcommand{\tl}{\wt\lambda}

25: \newcommand{\dt}{(\vec \nabla T)^2}

26: \newcommand{\hp}{{\wh\Phi}}

27: \newcommand{\hq}{{\wh Q_B}}

28: \newcommand{\he}{{\wh\eta_0}}

29: \newcommand{\ha}{{\wh{A}}}

30: \newcommand{\lllb}{\Bigl\langle\Bigl\langle}

31: \newcommand{\rrrb}{\Bigr\rangle\Bigr\rangle}

32: \newcommand{\tf}{\wt f}

33:  

34: \newcommand{\vv} {\bar v}

35: \newcommand{\uu} {\bar u}

36: \newcommand{\K}{{\rm K_1}}

37: \newcommand{\Kt}{{\rm \widetilde K_1}}

38:  

39: \newcommand{\B}{b'}

40: \newcommand{\C}{c'}

41: \newcommand{\bB}{\bar b'}

42: \newcommand{\Bu}{B_{\vec u}}

43: \newcommand{\VV}{{\cal V}}

44: \newcommand{\BB}{{\cal B}}

45: \newcommand{\II}{{\cal I}}

46: \newcommand{\AAA}{{\bf a}}

47: \newcommand{\GG}{{\cal G}}

48: \newcommand{\KK}{{\cal K}}

49: \newcommand{\ggg}{{\bf g}}

50: \newcommand{\fff}{{\bf f}}

51: \newcommand{\ccc}{{\bf c}}

52: \newcommand{\FF}{{\cal F}}

53: \newcommand{\HH}{{\cal H}}

54: \newcommand{\MM}{{\cal M}}

55: \newcommand{\CC}{{\cal C}}

56: \newcommand{\bC}{{\bf C}}

57: \newcommand{\OO}{{\cal O}}

58: \newcommand{\QQ}{{\cal Q}}

59: \newcommand{\PP}{{\cal P}}

60: \newcommand{\EE}{{\cal E}}

61: \newcommand{\LL}{{\cal L}}

62: \newcommand{\lll}{\langle\langle}

63: \newcommand{\rrr}{\rangle\rangle}

64: \newcommand{\square}{\Box}

65: \newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

66: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}

67: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}

68: \newcommand{\wc}{\check}

69: \newcommand{\wb}{\bar}

70: \newcommand{\bd}{\bar{\rm D}}

71: \newcommand{\RR}{{\cal R}}

72: \newcommand{\NN}{{\cal N}}

73: \newcommand{\TT}{{\cal T}}

74: \newcommand{\bg}{\bar g}

75: \newcommand{\bb}{\bar b}

76: \newcommand{\bT}{\bar \Theta}

77: \newcommand{\SSS}{{\cal S}}

78: \newcommand{\tlx}{\left(\tilde \lambda ; X^0(0) \right)}

79: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

80:  

81:  

82: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

83: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

84: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle}

85: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}

86: \newcommand{\refb}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

87: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}

88: \newcommand{\sectiono}[1]{\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

89: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

90: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}

91: \def\one{{\hbox{ 1\kern-.8mm l}}}

92: \def\zero{{\hbox{ 0\kern-1.5mm 0}}}

93:  

94: \begin{document}

95: {}~

96: {}~

97: \hfill\vbox{\hbox{hep-th/0308068}%\hbox{MRI-P-030801}

98: }\break

99:  

100: \vskip .6cm

101: \centerline{\Large \bf 

102: Open-Closed Duality: Lessons from Matrix Model}

103: 

104: \vskip .6cm

105: \medskip

106: 

107: \vspace*{4.0ex}

108:  

109: \centerline{\large \rm

110: Ashoke Sen}

111:  

112: \vspace*{4.0ex}

113:  

114:  

115: \centerline{\large \it Harish-Chandra Research Institute}

116: 

117:  

118: \centerline{\large \it  Chhatnag Road, Jhusi,

119: Allahabad 211019, INDIA}

120:  

121: \centerline{E-mail: ashoke.sen@cern.ch,

122: sen@mri.ernet.in}

123:  

124: \vspace*{5.0ex}

125:  

126: \centerline{\bf Abstract} \bigskip

127: 

128: Recent investigations involving the decay of unstable D-branes in string

129: theory suggest that the tree level open string theory which describes the

130: dynamics of the D-brane already knows about the closed string states

131: produced in the decay of the brane. We propose a specific conjecture

132: involving quantum open string field theory to explain this classical

133: result, and show that the recent results in two dimensional string theory

134: are in exact accordance with this conjecture.

135: 

136: \vfill \eject

137:  

138: \baselineskip=18pt

139: 

140: %\tableofcontents

141: 

142: Recent studies involving decay of unstable D-brane systems in string

143: theory indicate that while these D-branes are expected to decay into

144: closed string states of mass of order 

145: $1/g_s$\cite{0303139,0304192,0209222}, 

146: tree level

147: open 

148: string

149: theory provides an alternative description of the same 

150: process\cite{0203211,0203265,0204143,0207105,0208142,0202210,0209090,

151: 0301038,0302146,0208196,0212248,0305177,0205085,0205098,0207107,

152: 0304163,0301137,0301049,0303133}. 

153: In

154: particular various properties of the final state closed strings

155: produced during this decay agree with the predictions based on 

156: tree level open string analysis\cite{0304192,0305011,0306137,0306132}. 

157: These 

158: properties 

159: include the 

160: form 

161: of the

162: energy-momentum tensor, dilaton charge and anti-symmetric tensor field

163: charge of the system at late time. This suggests that in some way, 

164: tree level open string theory

165: already contains information about the final state

166: closed strings produced during this decay\cite{0305011,0306137}.

167: 

168: Clearly, in order to put this correspondence into a firmer footing, one 

169: needs a specific proposal for the full quantum theory. We propose the 

170: following 

171: 

172: \noindent {\it Conjecture: There is a quantum open string field theory

173: (OSFT) that describes the full dynamics of an unstable Dp-brane without an

174: explicit coupling to closed strings.  Furthermore, Ehrenfest theorem holds

175: in the weakly coupled OSFT: the classical results correctly

176: describe the evolution of the quantum expectation values.}

177: 

178: According to this conjecture, the effect of closed string emission is

179: already contained in the full quantum OSFT, and furthermore,

180: in the weak coupling limit, the results of quantum OSFT

181: must approach the results in classical OSFT.

182: Thus the above conjecture is sufficient to explain the observed open

183: closed duality mentioned earlier. For any finite 

184: coupling, the Ehrenfest theorem could break down over a sufficiently long 

185: time scale, but this time scale should approach infinity in the limit of 

186: zero coupling constant.

187: 

188: It is instructive to apply the above conjecture to the specific case of 

189: unstable D0-brane system. The quantum OSFT on a 

190: D0-brane is a quantum mechanical system of infinitely many degrees of 

191: freedom. 

192: If the above conjecture is valid, then this quantum mechanical system 

193: contains complete description of the closed strings produced in

194: the decay of the D0-brane, even though these closed strings 

195: live in the full space-time of string theory, which is (25+1) 

196: dimensional for the bosonic string theory and (9+1)-dimensional for the 

197: superstring theory. 

198: 

199: Note that the conjecture stated above does not imply that the OSFT

200: on a D0-brane (or any D$p$-brane for that matter) contains 

201: complete information about {\it all states} in string theory. It simply 

202: states 

203: that the 

204: OSFT

205: on the D0-brane is a consistent quantum theory by 

206: itself, and hence has included in it a description of the closed string 

207: states into which an unstable D0-brane is allowed to decay. In other 

208: words, OSFT on an unstable D-brane describes a closed subsector of the 

209: full string theory.

210: 

211: At present in the critical string theory there is not much further 

212: evidence for this conjecture beyond those already mentioned. The only 

213: other piece of information which is relevant is that formally the 

214: perturbation expansion of the OSFT around the 

215: maximum 

216: of the tachyon potential seems to be complete, in the sense that it 

217: reproduces correctly the Polyakov amplitudes of the first quantized string 

218: theory involving external open string states to all orders in perturbation 

219: theory.\footnote{This has been established\cite{GIDMARWIT,ZWIE91} for the 

220: cubic 

221: bosonic 

222: OSFT proposed by Witten\cite{WITTENSFT}, and is expected to 

223: hold\cite{9912120} 

224: also for 

225: the 

226: open 

227: superstring field theory proposed by 

228: Berkovits\cite{9503099,0001084,0002211}.} 

229: In particular the amplitude 

230: has the correct poles 

231: corresponding to intermediate closed string states\cite{thorn}. This 

232: suggests that the 

233: quantum OSFT is a consistent quantum theory by 

234: itself. 

235: Note however that the perturbation expansion discussed above is 

236: purely 

237: formal, as the amplitudes are divergent due to the presence of the 

238: open string tachyonic mode which lives on the unstable D-brane. 

239: Nevertheless, the formal consistency of the 

240: perturbation 

241: theory suggests that the same theory, when quantized correctly by 

242: expanding the action around the tachyon 

243: vacuum, will give a fully consistent quantum theory, as the tachyonic mode 

244: will be absent around such a vacuum.

245: 

246: We can however do much better in the two dimensional string theory for 

247: which a specific non-perturbative formulation is available in the form of 

248: a matrix quantum mechanics. There are two specific 

249: models for which 

250: the correspondence has been established, -- the two dimensional bosonic 

251: string theory\cite{GROMIL,BKZ,GINZIN} and the two dimensional type 0B 

252: string theory\cite{0307083,0307195}. 

253: Since 

254: the 

255: matrix models associated with the two systems are very similar, our 

256: discussion will be valid for both theories. 

257: In order that the various formul\ae\ in the two theories look identical, 

258: we 

259: shall set $\hbar=c=1$ and choose $\alpha'=1$ unit for the bosonic string 

260: theory and 

261: $\alpha'=1/2$ unit for type 0B string theory. In this convention the open 

262: string tachyon on the D0-brane has mass$^2=-1$ in both theories.

263: Also we shall define the closed string coupling constant $g_s$ in such 

264: a way that the D0-brane has mass $1/g_s$ in both 

265: theories.\footnote{There is an unresolved issue here. To the best of our 

266: knowledge it 

267: has not been shown that the D0-brane mass computed in the continuum 

268: string theory (which could be defined {\it e.g.} as the height of 

269: the maximum of the open string tachyon potential above the tachyon vacuum) 

270: agrees exactly with the prediction from 

271: the matrix model (the height of the maximum of the tachyon potential above 

272: the fermi level). Since the continuum string coupling constant is known in 

273: terms of the height of the tachyon potential in the matrix 

274: model(see {\it e.g.} \cite{9108019}),

275: this

276: problem could in principle be solved. We shall proceed by assuming that 

277: the D0-brane mass computed in the continuum string theory agrees with the 

278: corresponding answer in the matrix model.} We shall 

279: restrict our discussion mainly to D0-branes in type 0B string theory, 

280: since the two dimensional bosonic string theory is believed to be 

281: non-perturbatively inconsistent\cite{MOORE,9111035,9411028,9507041}.

282: 

283: \begin{figure}[!ht]

284: \leavevmode

285: \begin{center}

286: \epsfysize=5cm

287: \epsfbox{fig0.eps}

288: \end{center}

289: \caption{The matrix model description of the vacuum state of type 0B 

290: string theory in 1+1 dimensions. All the negative energy states are filled 

291: as shown by the shaded region of the diagram.

292: } \label{f0}

293: \end{figure}

294: According to the matrix model - 

295: string theory correspondence, the two dimensional type 0B string theory is 

296: equivalent to a theory of infinite number of non-interacting fermions, 

297: each moving in an 

298: inverted harmonic oscillator potential with hamiltonian

299: \be \label{e1}

300: h(p,q) = {1\over 2} (p^2 - q^2) + {1\over g_s}\, ,

301: \ee

302: where $(q,p)$ denote a

303: canonically conjugate pair of variables.  The coordinate 

304: variable $q$ is related to the eigenvalue of an infinite dimensional 

305: matrix, but this information will not be necessary for our discussion. 

306: Clearly $h(p,q)$ has a continuous energy spectrum spanning the range 

307: $(-\infty, \infty)$.

308: The 

309: vacuum of the theory corresponds to all states with negative $h$ 

310: eigenvalue 

311: being filled and all states with positive $h$ eigenvalue being empty (see 

312: Fig.\ref{f0}). Thus 

313: the fermi surface is the surface of zero energy. In the semi-classical 

314: limit, in which we represent a quantum state by an area element of size 

315: $\hbar$ in the phase space spanned by $p$ and $q$, we can represent the 

316: vacuum by having the region $(p^2 - q^2) \le -{2\over g_s}$ 

317: filled, and rest of the region empty\cite{POLCH,9212027}. This has been 

318: shown in 

319: Fig.\ref{f1}. Thus in this picture the fermi 

320: surface in the phase space 

321: corresponds to the curve:\footnote{

322: The matrix model description for the two dimensional bosonic string theory 

323: is almost 

324: identical, except that only the 

325: $q<0$, $(p^2 - q^2) \le -{2\over g_s}$ region is filled, but the 

326: $q>0$

327: region is not filled. Clearly such a configuration is non-perturbatively 

328: unstable since the fermions on the left side of the potential could tunnel 

329: to the right side. For this reason the bosonic string theory in two 

330: dimensions is thought to be non-perturbatively inconsistent.

331: }

332: \be \label{e2}

333: {1\over 2} (p^2 - q^2) + {1\over g_s} = 0\, .

334: \ee

335: \begin{figure}[!ht]

336: \leavevmode

337: \begin{center}

338: \epsfysize=5cm

339: \epsfbox{fig1.eps}

340: \end{center}

341: \caption{Semi-classical representation of the vacuum state in the matrix 

342: model.} \label{f1}

343: \end{figure}

344: 

345: 

346: It has been realized 

347: recently\cite{0305148,0306177,0304224,0305194,0305159,0307083,0307195} 

348: that 

349: D0-branes 

350: in two dimensional 

351: string theory\cite{0101152,0202032,0202043} also have simple 

352: description in the matrix model. 

353: In particular, a

354: state of a single D0-brane of the theory 

355: corresponds to a single fermion excited from the fermi surface to some 

356: energy above zero. Since the fermions are non-interacting, these states do 

357: not mix with any other states in the theory (say with states where two or 

358: more fermions are excited above the fermi level or states where a fermion 

359: is excited from below the fermi level to the fermi level). As a result, 

360: the 

361: quantum states of a D0-brane are in one to one correspondence with the 

362: quantum states of the Hamiltonian $h(p,q)$ given in \refb{e1} with one 

363: crucial difference, -- the spectrum is cut off sharply for energy below 

364: zero due to Pauli exclusion principle.

365: Thus in the matrix model description, the quantum `open string field 

366: theory'

367: for a single 

368: D0-brane is described by the 

369: inverted harmonic oscillator hamiltonian \refb{e1} with all the negative 

370: energy states removed by hand. The 

371: classical limit of this quantum 

372: Hamiltonian is described by the classical Hamiltonian \refb{e1}, with a 

373: sharp 

374: cut-off on the phase space variables:

375: \be \label{e4}

376: {1\over 2} (p^2 - q^2) + {1\over g_s} \ge 0\, .

377: \ee

378: This is the matrix model description of classical `open string field 

379: theory' describing the dynamics of

380: a D0-brane.

381: \begin{figure}[!ht]

382: \leavevmode

383: \begin{center}

384: \epsfysize=5cm

385: \epsfbox{fig2.eps}

386: \end{center}

387: \caption{Semiclassical representation of a closed string field 

388: configuration in the matrix model.} \label{f2}

389: \end{figure}

390: 

391: Clearly the quantum system described above provides us with a 

392: complete description of

393: the dynamics of a single D0-brane. This is in accordance with 

394: the general conjecture put forward at the beginning of this note. 

395: Note in particular that there is no need to couple this system explicitly 

396: to closed strings. In this context 

397: we note that 

398: according to \cite{POLCH,9212027}, classical closed string field 

399: configurtions in 

400: this 

401: theory correspond to deformations of the fermi surface \refb{e2} in the 

402: phase space (see Fig.\ref{f2}). In contrast the semi-classical description 

403: of a 

404: D0-brane with energy of order $1/g_s$ amounts to filling up an area of

405: order $\hbar$ in the phase space at an energy of order $1/g_s$ above the 

406: fermi

407: surface (see Fig.\ref{f3}), and hence such a state cannot be described as 

408: a deformation of 

409: the fermi surface. Thus in general a D0-brane cannot be described as a 

410: classical closed string field configuration. However in the asymptotic 

411: past and asymptotic future all trajectories in the phase space, including 

412: the fermi surface, approach 

413: the asymptotes $p=\pm q$. Thus in this limit the D0-brane can be thought 

414: of as a deformation of the fermi surface, {\it i.e.} a classical closed 

415: string field configuration\cite{9212027}. The precise form of this closed 

416: string field 

417: configuration can be found using the bosonization 

418: formula\cite{DASJEV,SENWAD,GROSSKLEB} and was 

419: shown to agree\cite{0305159,0307083,0307195,0305194,0308047} with the 

420: coherent 

421: closed string 

422: fields produced in 

423: the decay of the D0-brane computed directly from the continuum string 

424: theory\cite{0303139,0304192}. 

425: This is one of the compelling pieces of evidence that the identification 

426: of the D0-brane with the single excited fermion in the matrix model 

427: description is correct.

428: But this also clearly demonstrates that closed strings produced in the 

429: `decay' of the D0-brane are already included in the quantum `open 

430: string field theory'

431: describing the dynamics of the D0-brane, and there is no 

432: need to take into account the closed string emission effect separately.

433: \begin{figure}[!ht]

434: \leavevmode

435: \begin{center}

436: \epsfysize=5cm

437: \epsfbox{fig3.eps}

438: \end{center}

439: \caption{Semi-classical representation of a state of the D0-brane in the 

440: matrix model.} \label{f3}

441: \end{figure}

442: 

443: 

444: It remains to see how this simple system described by 

445: the Hamiltonian \refb{e1} with the phase space cut-off \refb{e4} is 

446: related to the more conventional description of the continuum open string 

447: field 

448: theories (OSFT)

449: of the type described in \cite{WITTENSFT} and 

450: \cite{9503099,0001084,0002211}.\footnote{I wish to thank L. Rastelli for 

451: pointing out that OSFT on a D0-brane in non-critical string theories can 

452: be formulated in the same way as in the case of critical string theories.

453: The essential point to note is that while the presence of the linear 

454: dilaton background changes the structure of the inner product in the 

455: closed string sector (so that the BPZ inner product between the SL(2,C) 

456: invariant vacuum states vanish), the structure of inner products in the 

457: open string sector on a D0-brane remains unchanged since these open 

458: strings do 

459: not carry any momentum in the Liouville direction.} To this end we note 

460: the following facts: \begin{enumerate}

461: \item The effective Planck's constant (coupling constant) of the single 

462: fermion quantum 

463: mechanics described in \refb{e1} is of order $g_s$\cite{POLCH}. This can 

464: be 

465: seen by introducing new variables $\wt p=\sqrt{g_s}p$, $\wt q = \sqrt{g_s} 

466: q$

467: so that the Hamiltonian expressed in terms of $\wt p$, $\wt q$ 

468: has an overall multiplicative factor of $1/g_s$, but otherwise there is no 

469: $g_s$ 

470: dependence either in the Hamiltonian or in the constraint \refb{e4}. 

471: The commutator of $\wt q$ and $\wt p$ is 

472: proportional to $i g_s$, and hence in terms of the rescaled variables 

473: $g_s$ 

474: is the effective Planck's constant. On the other hand in the standard 

475: OSFT

476: also $g_s$ is the effective Planck's constant since 

477: $1/g_s$ appears as an overall multiplicative factor in the action. 

478: Thus we see that $g_s$ plays the 

479: same role in the quantum 

480: OSFT

481: and the quantum system described by \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}.

482: 

483: \item Both the classical Hamiltonian \refb{e1} with the constraint 

484: \refb{e4} and the OSFT on a D0-brane have a lower bound of zero on the 

485: energy\cite{0001084,0002211,0003220,0004015,0010108,

486: 0012198,0012210,0106231}.\footnote{For 

487: bosonic string 

488: theory, in both descriptions 

489: there is a local minimum at the zero of the energy, but globally the 

490: energy is unbounded from 

491: below\cite{KS,9605088,9912249,0002237,0208149,0211012,0009103,0009148,

492: 0009191}.}

493: 

494: \item Next we shall compare time dependent classical solutions in the OSFT

495: on a D0-brane and the system described by \refb{e1}, 

496: \refb{e4}. During this discussion we shall assume that given any 

497: boundary conformal field theory (BCFT) obtained by deforming the original 

498: D0-brane BCFT by a marginal deformation, we have a classical solution of 

499: the OSFT. We should caution the reader however that explicit construction 

500: of these solutions may involve 

501: subtle issues, and so far a clear correpondence 

502: between BCFT and the classical solutions of OSFT 

503: have not been established in the context of time 

504: dependent solutions\cite{0207107,0304163}.

505: 

506: Comparing the classical solutions of the equations of motion derived from 

507: the Hamiltonian \refb{e1} subject to the constraint \refb{e4}, and the 

508: BCFT's describing time dependent configurations on a D0-brane, we find 

509: that

510: both systems have a continuous family of solutions labelled by 

511: the energy $E$ for all $E\ge 0$. In fact for each energy there are two 

512: inequivalent orbits. In the case of the system described by 

513: \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}, these solutions are given by:

514: \ben \label{e5}

515: &&q = \pm\sqrt{2(g_s^{-1} - E)} \, \cosh(x^0), \quad 

516: p = \pm \sqrt{2(g_s^{-1} - E)} \, \sinh(x^0), \quad \hbox{for 

517: $0\le E\le g_s^{-1}$}\, 

518: , \nonumber \\

519: &&q = \pm\sqrt{2(E-g_s^{-1})} \, \sinh(x^0), \quad p = 

520: \pm\sqrt{2(E-g_s^{-1})} 

521: \, 

522: \cosh(x^0),\quad \hbox{for $E\ge g_s^{-1}$} \, . \nonumber \\

523: \een

524: Here $x^0$ is the time coordinate.

525: On the other hand in OSFT for D0-branes in the continuum type 0B string 

526: theory, these solutions 

527: correspond 

528: to adding to the world-sheet theory a boundary deformation

529: proportional 

530: to\cite{0203265}\footnote{For bosonic string theory, the 

531: corresponding boundary 

532: deformations take the form\cite{0203211}:

533: \ben %\label{e6}

534: &&\pm \tl \cosh (X^0), \qquad \tl=\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{Eg_s}), \quad 

535: 0\le\tl\le{1\over 2}, \qquad \hbox{for 

536: $0\le E\le g_s^{-1}$}, \nonumber \\

537: &&\pm \tl\sinh(X^0), \qquad \tl=\cosh^{-1}(\sqrt{Eg_s}), \quad \tl\ge 0,

538: \qquad \hbox{for 

539: $E\ge g_s^{-1}$} \, . \nonumber %\\

540: \een

541: } 

542: \ben \label{e6a}

543: &&\pm \tl \Psi^0 \, \sinh (X^0)\otimes \sigma_1, \quad 

544: \tl=\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{Eg_s}), \quad 

545: 0\le\tl\le{1\over 2},  \quad 

546: \hbox{for

547: $0\le E\le g_s^{-1}$}\, , \nonumber \\

548: &&\pm \tl \Psi^0 \cosh(X^0)\otimes \sigma_1, \quad 

549: \tl=\cosh^{-1}(\sqrt{Eg_s}), \quad 

550: \tl\ge 0, \quad 

551: \hbox{for

552: $E\ge g_s^{-1}$} \, .

553: \een

554: Here

555: $X^0$ is the world-sheet field 

556: corresponding to the time coordinate, $\Psi^0$ denotes the world-sheet 

557: superpartner of $X^0$ and 

558: $\sigma_1$ is a Chan-Paton factor. 

559: In both the matrix model description based on \refb{e1}, \refb{e4} and the 

560: continuum string theory description, each of these orbits are open 

561: orbits, {\it i.e.}

562: they are not periodic. Thus the two theories have exactly the same family 

563: of classical solutions.

564: 

565: If classical OSFT

566: could be viewed as a Hamiltonian 

567: system described by a pair of phase space coordinates $(T,\Pi)$ with some 

568: Hamioltonian $H(\Pi, T)$ ({\it e.g.} $H=\sqrt{\Pi^2 + (V(T))^2}$ with 

569: $V(T)=1/(g_s \cosh T)$ as described in 

570: \cite{0204143,9909062,0003122,0003221,0004106,0009061,0209122,0301076,

571: 0303035,0304045,0209034,0305229,0208019})

572: then the 

573: above correspondence between classical solutions would immediately imply 

574: that there is a canonical transformation relating this system to the one 

575: described by \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}. This canonical transformation can be 

576: found as follows. Let the trajectories of OSFT for a given energy $E$ be 

577: given by 

578: \be \label{e7}

579: T = F(E, x^0), \qquad \Pi = G(E, x^0)\, ,

580: \ee

581: and the trajectories of the system described by \refb{e1}, \refb{e4} be 

582: given by:

583: \be \label{e8}

584: q = f(E, x^0), \qquad p = g(E, x^0)\, .

585: \ee

586: We can now eliminate $E$ and $x^0$ from eqs.\refb{e7} and \refb{e8} to 

587: express $q$ and $p$ in terms of $T$ and $\Pi$ or vice versa. As long as 

588: the orbits are open, this is always possible and gives a one to one 

589: mapping 

590: between the allowed regions of the $(q,p)$ plane and the $(T,\Pi)$ 

591: plane. In particular, if the $(T,\Pi)$ coordinates are unconstrained, -- 

592: as in the case of the tachyon `effective Hamiltonian' $H=\sqrt{\Pi^2 + 1/ 

593: (g_s^2 \cosh^2 T)}$, -- then the region \refb{e4} will be mapped to the 

594: full $(T,\Pi)$ plane. The transformation 

595: constructed this way is also guaranteed to be canonical, and maps 

596: $H(\Pi,T)$ to $h(p,q)$. Thus the two 

597: systems are related by canonical transformation. (In contrast if the 

598: orbits had been periodic, such a transformation can be constructed only if 

599: the periods of the orbit for any given energy $E$ are 

600: identical 

601: in the two systems.)

602: 

603: Unfortunately OSFT in its current form cannot be thought of as a

604: Hamiltonian system since it has interaction terms involving higher 

605: order time derivatives.

606: Nevertheless, the fact that the classical solutions in the two systems are

607: in one to one correspondence strongly suggests that the two systems are

608: classically equivalent.

609: 

610: \item We can also compare the set of classical solutions in the euclidean 

611: version of the two theories. While the euclidean solutions are not 

612: directly relevant for comparing the two classical theories in the 

613: Lorentzian signature space-time, in the quantum theory these euclidean 

614: solutions induce tunnelling between two sides of the tachyon potential for 

615: orbits with $E<g_s^{-1}$, and hence comparing them between the two 

616: theories is important for establishing the equivalence between the two 

617: quantum theories\cite{0305159,0307195}. Euclideanization of the system 

618: described by \refb{e1}, 

619: \refb{e4} is achieved by making the replacement $p\to ip$, $x^0\to ix$ in 

620: the classical solutions and the constraint \refb{e4}. Thus the 

621: inequivalent classical 

622: solutions in this theory are:

623: \be \label{e11}

624: q = \lambda \cos x, \qquad p = \lambda\sin x, \qquad \lambda^2<{2\over 

625: g_s}\, .

626: \ee

627: On the other hand in the continuum string theory the euclidean solutions 

628: are obtained as boundary deformation of the world-sheet theory with $X^0$ 

629: and $\Psi^0$ replaced by $iX$ and $i\Psi$ respectively. The inequivalent 

630: classical solutions on a D0-brane in continuum type 0B string theory 

631: correspond to deformation by\cite{9808141,9812031}\footnote{

632: For bosonic string theory the corresponding boundary operator is $\tl \cos 

633: X$\cite{9402113,9404008,9811237,9902105}.

634: }

635: \be \label{e12}

636: \tl \Psi \sin X \otimes \sigma_1, 

637: \qquad 0\le \tl\le {1\over 2}\, .

638: \ee

639: The important point to note is that in both the matrix theory version and 

640: the continuum version the solutions are periodic in euclidean time 

641: coordinate $x$ with the same (energy independent) periodicity $2\pi$. Thus 

642: even in the euclidean 

643: theory the classical solutions of the system described by \refb{e1}, 

644: \refb{e4}

645: are in one to one correspondence to the classical solutions of OSFT. Had 

646: OSFT been described by a canonical Hamiltonian this would imply that the 

647: semiclassical tunnelling probability $P(E)$ for tunnelling across the 

648: potential barrier

649: at any given energy $E$ is identical in OSFT and 

650: the matrix model, -- $P(E)\sim \exp[-2\pi({1\over g_s}-E)]$, -- since for 

651: a canonical system $P(E)$ is determined in 

652: terms of the period $\tau(E)$ of the euclidean orbit via the relation 

653: $\tau(E)={d\over d E} \ln P(E)$. (In this context note that the tachyon 

654: `effective Hamiltonian' $H=\sqrt{\Pi^2 + 1 / (g_s^2 \cosh^2T)}$ also has 

655: orbits of the same period in the Euclidean theory\cite{0303139}. Hence 

656: the semiclassical 

657: tunnelling probability across the potential barrier in this theory is 

658: identical to that for the system described by \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}, {\it 

659: i.e.} $P(E)\sim \exp[-2\pi({1\over g_s}-E)]$.)

660: 

661: There is however one subtle issue here. The solution associated with

662: $\lambda=\sqrt{2/g_s}$ in the matrix model description corresponds to the

663: point $\tl={1\over 2}$ in the continuum OSFT description. Physically in

664: the continuum theory this solution represents a periodic array of 

665: D-instanton - anti-D-instanton pair

666: with periodicity $2\pi$. But given this configuration, we can deform it to

667: construct other solutions of the Euclidean OSFT where the array has a

668: different periodicity. In fact we can construct a family of solutions

669: parametrized by the periodicity\cite{0304192}, and in the limit of 

670: infinite periodicity

671: we have a single isolated D-instanton.\footnote{These solutions also 

672: exist for the tachyon `effective Hamiltonian' $H=\sqrt{\Pi^2 + 1/(g_s^2 

673: \cosh^2 T)}$.} The matrix model counterpart does

674: not seem to have these solutions. The resolution of this puzzle could lie

675: in the fact that while the quantum mechanics of a single D0-brane system

676: is well defined in the matrix model description, the semi-classical limit

677: may break down very close to the Fermi level due to the sharp cut-off on

678: the energy levels. Thus in the $g_s\to 0$ limit the {\it classical 

679: Hamiltonian}

680: \refb{e1} with the 

681: constraint \refb{e4} may not be the correct description of the system very 

682: close to the fermi level \refb{e2}. It is precisely at the (euclidean 

683: version of the) fermi level 

684: that a new direction

685: of deformation opens up for the OSFT solution. It is clearly important to

686: investigate this issue in detail.

687: 

688: \end{enumerate}

689: 

690: The various tests described above provide strong 

691: evidence that the full quantum OSFT on a single 

692: D0-brane is equivalent to 

693: the quantum theory of a single particle described by \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}. 

694: Indeed if the matrix model - string theory correspondence is right, 

695: and if the identification of the D0-brane as a single excited fermion 

696: is correct, then this must be the case. This, in turn, would imply that 

697: quantum OSFT in the continuum (1+1) dimensional string theory is an 

698: internally consistent theory and is capable of describing the complete 

699: dynamics of the D0-brane, exactly in accordance with the conjecture.

700: 

701: One can easily generalise this discussion to the case of multiple (say 

702: $n$)

703: D0-branes. In the matrix model 

704: a state of $n$ D0-branes corresponds to $n$ fermions excited from the 

705: fermi level to some states above the fermi level. The dynamics of such a 

706: system is clearly described by the quantum mechanics of

707: $n$ non-interacting fermions, each moving under the Hamiltonian \refb{e1} 

708: and satisfying the constraint

709: \refb{e4}. 

710: This is 

711: clearly a consistent theory by itself. 

712: In the continuum string theory the 

713: corresponding OSFT is easily 

714: constructed in terms of the boundary conformal field theory of $n$ 

715: D0-branes. The matrix model - string theory correspondence would imply 

716: that this quantum OSFT is exactly equivalent 

717: to the quantum system of $n$ fermions described above. Hence the OSFT 

718: describing the dynamics of $n$ D0-branes  will be 

719: an internally consistent quantum theory. This is again in accordance 

720: with our general conjecture. 

721: However in general ({\it e.g.} in critical string theory) even if the 

722: quantum OSFT on $n$ D0-branes provides a complete description of the 

723: system, there is no reason for this theory to be physically equivalent to

724: $n$ copies of the OSFT describing a single D0-brane.

725: 

726: We must emphasize again that in each case, the states of the D0-brane 

727: system, described by 

728: OSFT or the matrix theory hamiltonian \refb{e1}, \refb{e4}, describe only 

729: a subset of states in string theory. Thus we do not recover the full 

730: string theory by studying the OSFT, but recover a subsector of the 

731: theory that is a consistent quantum theory by itself. It is this lesson 

732: that we expect will be valid in the full critical string theory, and forms 

733: the basis of the conjecture stated at the beginning of this note. It is 

734: however instructive to ask, in the context of the two dimensional string 

735: theory, if there is some D0-brane system that describes the full string 

736: theory. To this effect we note that since a state of $n$ D0-branes 

737: corresponds in the matrix model to a state where $n$ fermions are excited 

738: above the fermi level, as we increase the number $n$ of 

739: D0-branes, the system is capable of describing more and more states in the 

740: theory. In the $n\to\infty$ limit, the states of the OSFT describe 

741: arbitrary excitations of multiple fermions from fermi level to any state 

742: above the 

743: fermi level. This however leaves out one important class of states, namely 

744: the `hole states' where we excite states from below the fermi level to the 

745: fermi level. If we had another set of `D0-branes' whose quantum states 

746: describe the hole states of the theory, then by beginning with $n$ 

747: usual D0-branes and $m$ `hole type' D0-branes, and taking the limit 

748: $m,n\to\infty$, we could represent all the states of the matrix model as 

749: states of the OSFT on this D0-brane system. Some proposal for the boundary 

750: conformal field theory describing the hole states has recently been put 

751: forward in \cite{0307195,0307221}, but it remains to be seen to what 

752: extent the dynamics 

753: of these `hole type' D0-branes can be described by the standard

754: open 

755: string field theory.\footnote{We note that this 

756: way of producing the states of string theory is somewhat different from 

757: the proposal of \cite{0304224,0305194}. In these papers the authors

758: consider taking the 

759: $n\to\infty$ limit 

760: before taking the double scaling limit of the matrix model so that the 

761: Fermi level is lifted by an infinite amount from its original value. 

762: As a result the height of the maximum of the potential above the fermi 

763: level changes, and we have a new string theory with a different coupling 

764: constant.

765: In 

766: this case the 

767: hole states of the new theory can be considered as particle like 

768: excitation in the original theory, and there is no need for exotic `hole 

769: type' D0-branes. In contrast we are considering the problem where the 

770: double scaling limit has been taken at the very beginning. Thus in this 

771: case the spectrum around the fermi level is continuous,

772: and adding any finite number $n$ of fermions does not move the fermi 

773: level. Thus even as we take the $n\to\infty$ limit, the Fermi level 

774: remains unchanged.

775: } Alternatively one 

776: might hope that by taking open string field theory on a finite number of 

777: space-filling non-BPS branes (or brane anti-brane systems) 

778: one might be able to describe all the states of the theory. However since 

779: there is not yet a simple description of the space-filling branes in the 

780: matrix model, the matrix model does not provide any insight into this 

781: possibility.

782: 

783: We should add here that the view about the hole states described 

784: above represents perhaps a conservative view of the situation. A 

785: more radical viewpoint will be  

786: that single hole states can also be represented as 

787: states of the same OSFT that describes the D0-brane. The proposal for the 

788: hole states outlined in \cite{0307195,0307221} involves analytic 

789: continuation in the parameter space of the solution describing a D0-brane 

790: and simultaneously changing the sign of the boundary state. It is not 

791: clear whether this combined operation generates a solution of the 

792: original 

793: OSFT, but it is worth examining this issue in detail. 

794: 

795: We would like to end with the remark that if the conjecture stated in this 

796: note is valid in a general string theory, then we have the possibility of 

797: studying different subsectors of string theory associated with different 

798: unstable brane systems without having to study the whole string theory at 

799: once. This might eventually lead to an efficient way of studying string 

800: theory.

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: {\bf Acknowledgement}: I would like to thank P.~Mukhopadhyay, L.~Rastelli,

805: M.~Rozali, M.~Schnabl and B.~Zwiebach for useful discussions, and

806: L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach for a critical reading of the manuscript. I

807: would also like to thank the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT, the

808: organisers of the Strings 2003 conference at Kyoto and the Pacific

809: Institute for the Mathematical Sciences at Vancouver for hospitality

810: during various stages of this work.

811: 

812: 

813: 

814: 

815: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

816: 

817: 

818: %%%

819: \bibitem{0303139}

820: N.~Lambert, H.~Liu and J.~Maldacena,

821: %``Closed strings from decaying D-branes,''

822: arXiv:hep-th/0303139.

823: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303139;%%

824: 

825: \bibitem{0304192}

826: D.~Gaiotto, N.~Itzhaki and L.~Rastelli,

827: arXiv:hep-th/0304192.

828: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304192;%% 

829: 

830: \bibitem{0209222}

831: B.~Chen, M.~Li and F.~L.~Lin,

832: %``Gravitational radiation of rolling tachyon,''

833: JHEP {\bf 0211}, 050 (2002)

834: [arXiv:hep-th/0209222].

835: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209222;%%

836: 

837: 

838: %%%

839: \bibitem{0203211}

840: A.~Sen,

841: %``Rolling tachyon,''

842: JHEP {\bf 0204}, 048 (2002)

843: [arXiv:hep-th/0203211].

844: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203211;%%

845: 

846: %%%

847: \bibitem{0203265}

848: A.~Sen,

849: %``Tachyon matter,''

850: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 065 (2002)

851: [arXiv:hep-th/0203265].

852: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203265;%%

853: 

854: %%%

855: \bibitem{0204143}

856: A.~Sen,

857: %``Field theory of tachyon matter,''

858: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17}, 1797 (2002)

859: [arXiv:hep-th/0204143].

860: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204143;%%

861: 

862: \bibitem{0207105}

863: A.~Sen,

864: %``Time evolution in open string theory,''

865: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 003 (2002)

866: [arXiv:hep-th/0207105].

867: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207105;%%

868: 

869: %%%

870: \bibitem{0208142}

871: P.~Mukhopadhyay and A.~Sen,

872: %``Decay of unstable D-branes with electric field,''

873: JHEP {\bf 0211}, 047 (2002)

874: [arXiv:hep-th/0208142].

875: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208142;%%

876: 

877: %%%

878: \bibitem{0202210}

879: M.~Gutperle and A.~Strominger,

880: %``Spacelike branes,''

881: JHEP {\bf 0204}, 018 (2002)

882: [arXiv:hep-th/0202210].

883: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202210;%%

884: 

885: %%%

886: \bibitem{0209090}

887: A.~Strominger,

888: %``Open string creation by S-branes,''

889: arXiv:hep-th/0209090.

890: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209090;%%

891: 

892: %%%

893: \bibitem{0301038}

894: M.~Gutperle and A.~Strominger,

895: %``Timelike boundary Liouville theory,''

896: arXiv:hep-th/0301038.

897: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301038;%%

898: 

899: 

900: %%%

901: \bibitem{0302146}

902: A.~Maloney, A.~Strominger and X.~Yin,

903: %``S-brane thermodynamics,''

904: arXiv:hep-th/0302146.

905: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302146;%%

906: 

907: %%%

908: \bibitem{0208196}

909: T.~Okuda and S.~Sugimoto,

910: %``Coupling of rolling tachyon to closed strings,''

911: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 647}, 101 (2002)

912: [arXiv:hep-th/0208196].

913: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208196;%%

914: 

915: %%%

916: \bibitem{0212248}

917: F.~Larsen, A.~Naqvi and S.~Terashima,

918: %``Rolling tachyons and decaying branes,''

919: JHEP {\bf 0302}, 039 (2003)

920: [arXiv:hep-th/0212248].

921: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212248;%%

922: 

923: 

924: %%%

925: \bibitem{0305177}

926: N.~R.~Constable and F.~Larsen,

927: %``The rolling tachyon as a matrix model,''

928: arXiv:hep-th/0305177.

929: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305177;%%

930: 

931: \bibitem{0205085}

932: S.~Sugimoto and S.~Terashima,

933: %``Tachyon matter in boundary string field theory,''

934: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 025 (2002)

935: [arXiv:hep-th/0205085].

936: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205085;%%

937: 

938: \bibitem{0205098}

939: J.~A.~Minahan,

940: %``Rolling the tachyon in super BSFT,''

941: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 030 (2002)

942: [arXiv:hep-th/0205098].

943: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205098;%%

944: 

945: 

946: \bibitem{0207107}

947: N.~Moeller and B.~Zwiebach,

948: %``Dynamics with infinitely many time derivatives and rolling 

949: %tachyons,''

950: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 034 (2002)

951: [arXiv:hep-th/0207107].

952: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207107;%%

953: 

954: 

955: \bibitem{0304163}

956: M.~Fujita and H.~Hata,

957: %``Time Dependent Solution in Cubic String Field Theory,''

958: arXiv:hep-th/0304163.

959: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304163;%%

960: 

961: 

962: \bibitem{0301137}

963: I.~Y.~Aref'eva, L.~V.~Joukovskaya and A.~S.~Koshelev,

964: %``Time evolution in superstring field theory on non-BPS brane. I: 

965: %Rolling  tachyon and energy-momentum conservation,''

966: arXiv:hep-th/0301137.

967: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301137;%%

968: 

969: \bibitem{0301049}

970: S.~J.~Rey and S.~Sugimoto,

971: %``Rolling tachyon with electric and magnetic fields: T-duality 

972: %approach,''

973: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 086008 (2003)

974: [arXiv:hep-th/0301049].

975: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301049;%%

976: 

977: \bibitem{0303133}

978: S.~J.~Rey and S.~Sugimoto,

979: %``Rolling of modulated tachyon with gauge flux and emergent fundamental  

980: %string,''

981: arXiv:hep-th/0303133.

982: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303133;%%

983: 

984: \bibitem{0305011}

985: A.~Sen,

986: %``Open and closed strings from unstable D-branes,''

987: arXiv:hep-th/0305011.

988: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305011;%%

989: 

990: \bibitem{0306137}

991: A.~Sen,

992: %``Open-closed duality at tree level,''

993: arXiv:hep-th/0306137.

994: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306137;%%

995: 

996: \bibitem{0306132}

997: J.~L.~Karczmarek, H.~Liu, J.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger,

998: %``UV finite brane decay,''

999: arXiv:hep-th/0306132.

1000: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306132;%%

1001: 

1002: \bibitem{GIDMARWIT}

1003: S.~B.~Giddings, E.~J.~Martinec and E.~Witten,

1004: %``Modular Invariance In String Field Theory,''

1005: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 176}, 362 (1986).

1006: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B176,362;%%

1007: 

1008: \bibitem{ZWIE91}

1009: B.~Zwiebach,

1010: %``A Proof That Witten's Open String Theory Gives A Single Cover Of Moduli 

1011: %Space,''

1012: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 142}, 193 (1991).

1013: %%CITATION = CMPHA,142,193;%%

1014: 

1015: \bibitem{WITTENSFT}

1016: E.~Witten,

1017: %``Noncommutative Geometry And String Field Theory,''

1018: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268}, 253 (1986).

1019: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,253;%%

1020: 

1021: \bibitem{9912120}

1022: N.~Berkovits and C.~T.~Echevarria,

1023: %``Four-point amplitude from open superstring field theory,''

1024: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478}, 343 (2000)

1025: [arXiv:hep-th/9912120].

1026: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912120;%%

1027: 

1028: \bibitem{9503099}

1029: N.~Berkovits,

1030: %``SuperPoincare invariant superstring field theory,''

1031: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 450}, 90 (1995)

1032: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 459}, 439 (1996)]

1033: [arXiv:hep-th/9503099].

1034: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9503099;%%

1035: 

1036: \bibitem{0001084}

1037: N.~Berkovits,

1038: %``The tachyon potential in open Neveu-Schwarz string field theory,''

1039: JHEP {\bf 0004}, 022 (2000)

1040: [arXiv:hep-th/0001084].

1041: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001084;%%

1042: 

1043: \bibitem{0002211}

1044: N.~Berkovits, A.~Sen and B.~Zwiebach,

1045: %``Tachyon condensation in superstring field theory,''

1046: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 587}, 147 (2000)

1047: [arXiv:hep-th/0002211].

1048: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002211;%%

1049: 

1050: \bibitem{thorn}

1051: D.~Z.~Freedman, S.~B.~Giddings, J.~A.~Shapiro and C.~B.~Thorn,

1052: %``The Nonplanar One Loop Amplitude In Witten's String Field Theory,''

1053: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 298}, 253 (1988);

1054: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B298,253;%%

1055: J.~A.~Shapiro and C.~B.~Thorn,

1056: %``Closed String - Open String Transitions And Witten's String Field   

1057: %Theory,''

1058: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194}, 43 (1987);

1059: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B194,43;%%

1060: %``Brst Invariant Transitions Between Closed And Open Strings,''

1061: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36}, 432 (1987).

1062: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,432;%%

1063: 

1064: 

1065: \bibitem{GROMIL}

1066: D.~J.~Gross and N.~Miljkovic,

1067: %``A Nonperturbative Solution Of D = 1 String Theory,''

1068: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 238}, 217 (1990).

1069: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B238,217;%%

1070: 

1071: \bibitem{BKZ}

1072: E.~Brezin, V.~A.~Kazakov and A.~B.~Zamolodchikov,

1073: %``Scaling Violation In A Field Theory Of Closed Strings In One Physical 

1074: %Dimension,''

1075: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 338}, 673 (1990).

1076: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B338,673;%%

1077: 

1078: \bibitem{GINZIN}

1079: P.~Ginsparg and J.~Zinn-Justin,

1080: %``2-D Gravity + 1-D Matter,''

1081: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 240}, 333 (1990).

1082: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B240,333;%%

1083: 

1084: \bibitem{0307083}

1085: T.~Takayanagi and N.~Toumbas,

1086: %``A matrix model dual of type 0B string theory in two dimensions,''

1087: arXiv:hep-th/0307083.

1088: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307083;%%

1089: 

1090: \bibitem{0307195}

1091: M.~R.~Douglas, I.~R.~Klebanov, D.~Kutasov, J.~Maldacena, E.~Martinec and 

1092: N.~Seiberg,

1093: %``A new hat for the c = 1 matrix model,''

1094: arXiv:hep-th/0307195.

1095: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307195;%%

1096: 

1097: \bibitem{9108019}

1098: I.~R.~Klebanov,

1099: %``String theory in two-dimensions,''

1100: arXiv:hep-th/9108019.

1101: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9108019;%%

1102: 

1103: \bibitem{MOORE}

1104: G.~W.~Moore,

1105: %``Double scaled field theory at c = 1,''

1106: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 368}, 557 (1992).

1107: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B368,557;%%

1108: 

1109: \bibitem{9111035}

1110: G.~W.~Moore, M.~R.~Plesser and S.~Ramgoolam,

1111: %``Exact S matrix for 2-D string theory,''

1112: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 377}, 143 (1992)

1113: [arXiv:hep-th/9111035].

1114: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9111035;%%

1115: 

1116: \bibitem{9411028}

1117: J.~Polchinski,

1118: %``What is string theory?,''

1119: arXiv:hep-th/9411028.

1120: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9411028;%%

1121: 

1122: \bibitem{9507041}

1123: A.~Dhar, G.~Mandal and S.~R.~Wadia,

1124: %``Discrete state moduli of string theory from the C=1 matrix model,''

1125: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 454}, 541 (1995)

1126: [arXiv:hep-th/9507041].

1127: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9507041;%%

1128: 

1129: \bibitem{POLCH}

1130: J.~Polchinski,

1131: %``Classical Limit Of (1+1)-Dimensional String Theory,''

1132: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 362}, 125 (1991).

1133: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B362,125;%%

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{9212027}

1136: A.~Dhar, G.~Mandal and S.~R.~Wadia,

1137: %``A Time dependent classical solution of c = 1 string field theory and 

1138: %nonperturbative effects,''

1139: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 8}, 3811 (1993)

1140: [arXiv:hep-th/9212027].

1141: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9212027;%%

1142: 

1143: \bibitem{0305148}

1144: E.~J.~Martinec,

1145: %``The annular report on non-critical string theory,''

1146: arXiv:hep-th/0305148.

1147: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305148;%%

1148: 

1149: \bibitem{0306177}

1150: S.~Y.~Alexandrov, V.~A.~Kazakov and D.~Kutasov,

1151: %``Non-perturbative effects in matrix models and D-branes,''

1152: arXiv:hep-th/0306177.

1153: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306177;%%

1154: 

1155: \bibitem{0304224}

1156: J.~McGreevy and H.~Verlinde,

1157: %``Strings from tachyons: The c = 1 matrix reloated,''

1158: arXiv:hep-th/0304224.

1159: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304224;%%

1160: 

1161: \bibitem{0305194}

1162: J.~McGreevy, J.~Teschner and H.~Verlinde,

1163: %``Classical and quantum D-branes in 2D string theory,''

1164: arXiv:hep-th/0305194.

1165: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305194;%%

1166: 

1167: \bibitem{0305159}

1168: I.~R.~Klebanov, J.~Maldacena and N.~Seiberg,

1169: %``D-brane decay in two-dimensional string theory,''

1170: JHEP {\bf 0307}, 045 (2003)

1171: [arXiv:hep-th/0305159].

1172: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305159;%%

1173: 

1174: \bibitem{0101152}

1175: A.~B.~Zamolodchikov and A.~B.~Zamolodchikov,

1176: %``Liouville field theory on a pseudosphere,''

1177: arXiv:hep-th/0101152.

1178: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101152;%%

1179: 

1180: \bibitem{0202032}

1181: T.~Fukuda and K.~Hosomichi,

1182: %``Super Liouville theory with boundary,''

1183: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 635}, 215 (2002)

1184: [arXiv:hep-th/0202032].

1185: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202032;%%

1186: 

1187: 

1188: \bibitem{0202043}

1189: C.~Ahn, C.~Rim and M.~Stanishkov,

1190: %``Exact one-point function of N = 1 super-Liouville theory with 

1191: %boundary,''

1192: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 636} (2002) 497

1193: [arXiv:hep-th/0202043].

1194: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202043;%%

1195: 

1196: \bibitem{DASJEV}

1197: S.~R.~Das and A.~Jevicki,

1198: %``String Field Theory And Physical Interpretation Of D = 1 Strings,''

1199: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 5}, 1639 (1990).

1200: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A5,1639;%%

1201: 

1202: \bibitem{SENWAD}

1203: A.~M.~Sengupta and S.~R.~Wadia,

1204: %``Excitations And Interactions In D = 1 String Theory,''

1205: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 6}, 1961 (1991).

1206: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A6,1961;%%

1207: 

1208: \bibitem{GROSSKLEB}

1209: D.~J.~Gross and I.~R.~Klebanov,

1210: %``Fermionic String Field Theory Of C = 1 Two-Dimensional Quantum 

1211: %Gravity,''

1212: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 352}, 671 (1991).

1213: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B352,671;%%

1214: 

1215: \bibitem{0308047}

1216: M.~Gutperle and P.~Kraus,

1217: hep-th/0308047.

1218: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0308047;%%

1219: 

1220: 

1221: \bibitem{0003220}

1222: P.~J.~De Smet and J.~Raeymaekers,

1223: %``Level four approximation to the tachyon potential in superstring field  

1224: %theory,''

1225: JHEP {\bf 0005}, 051 (2000)

1226: [arXiv:hep-th/0003220].

1227: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003220;%%

1228: 

1229: \bibitem{0004015}

1230: A.~Iqbal and A.~Naqvi,

1231: %``Tachyon condensation on a non-BPS D-brane,''

1232: arXiv:hep-th/0004015.

1233: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004015;%%

1234: 

1235: \bibitem{0010108}

1236: D.~Kutasov, M.~Marino and G.~W.~Moore,

1237: %``Remarks on tachyon condensation in superstring field theory,''

1238: arXiv:hep-th/0010108.

1239: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010108;%%

1240: 

1241: \bibitem{0012198}

1242: P.~Kraus and F.~Larsen,

1243: %``Boundary string field theory of the DD-bar system,''

1244: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 106004 (2001)

1245: [arXiv:hep-th/0012198].

1246: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012198;%%

1247: 

1248: \bibitem{0012210}

1249: T.~Takayanagi, S.~Terashima and T.~Uesugi,

1250: %``Brane-antibrane action from boundary string field theory,''

1251: JHEP {\bf 0103}, 019 (2001)

1252: [arXiv:hep-th/0012210].

1253: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012210;%%

1254: 

1255: \bibitem{0106231}

1256: D.~Ghoshal,

1257: %``Normalization of the boundary superstring field theory action,''

1258: arXiv:hep-th/0106231.

1259: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106231;%%

1260: 

1261: \bibitem{KS}

1262: V.~A.~Kostelecky and S.~Samuel,

1263: %``On A Nonperturbative Vacuum For The Open Bosonic String,''

1264: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 336}, 263 (1990).

1265: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B336,263;%%

1266: 

1267: 

1268: \bibitem{9605088}

1269: V.~A.~Kostelecky and R.~Potting,

1270: %``Expectation Values, Lorentz Invariance, and CPT in the Open Bosonic 

1271: %String,''

1272: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 381}, 89 (1996)

1273: [arXiv:hep-th/9605088].

1274: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9605088;%%

1275: 

1276: \bibitem{9912249}

1277: A.~Sen and B.~Zwiebach,

1278: %``Tachyon condensation in string field theory,''

1279: JHEP {\bf 0003}, 002 (2000)

1280: [arXiv:hep-th/9912249].

1281: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912249;%%

1282: 

1283: \bibitem{0002237}

1284: N.~Moeller and W.~Taylor,

1285: %``Level truncation and the tachyon in open bosonic string field theory,''

1286: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 583}, 105 (2000)

1287: [arXiv:hep-th/0002237].

1288: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002237;%%

1289: 

1290: \bibitem{0208149}

1291: W.~Taylor,

1292: %``A perturbative analysis of tachyon condensation,''

1293: JHEP {\bf 0303}, 029 (2003)

1294: [arXiv:hep-th/0208149].

1295: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208149;%%

1296: 

1297: \bibitem{0211012}

1298: D.~Gaiotto and L.~Rastelli,

1299: %``Experimental string field theory,''

1300: arXiv:hep-th/0211012.

1301: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211012;%%

1302: 

1303: \bibitem{0009103}

1304: A.~A.~Gerasimov and S.~L.~Shatashvili,

1305: %``On exact tachyon potential in open string field theory,''

1306: JHEP {\bf 0010}, 034 (2000)

1307: [arXiv:hep-th/0009103].

1308: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009103;%%

1309: 

1310: \bibitem{0009148}

1311: D.~Kutasov, M.~Marino and G.~W.~Moore,

1312: %``Some exact results on tachyon condensation in string field theory,''

1313: JHEP {\bf 0010}, 045 (2000)

1314: [arXiv:hep-th/0009148].

1315: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009148;%%

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{0009191}

1318: D.~Ghoshal and A.~Sen,

1319: %``Normalisation of the background independent open string field theory  

1320: %action,''

1321: JHEP {\bf 0011}, 021 (2000)

1322: [arXiv:hep-th/0009191].

1323: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009191;%%

1324: 

1325: \bibitem{9909062}

1326: A.~Sen,

1327: %``Supersymmetric world-volume action for non-BPS D-branes,''

1328: JHEP {\bf 9910}, 008 (1999)

1329: [arXiv:hep-th/9909062].

1330: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909062;%%

1331: 

1332: %%%

1333: \bibitem{0003122}

1334: M.~R.~Garousi,

1335: %``Tachyon couplings on non-BPS D-branes and Dirac-Born-Infeld action,''

1336: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 284 (2000)

1337: [arXiv:hep-th/0003122].

1338: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003122;%%

1339: %``On-shell S-matrix and tachyonic effective actions,''

1340: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 647}, 117 (2002)

1341: [arXiv:hep-th/0209068].

1342: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209068;%%

1343: arXiv:hep-th/0303239;

1344: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303239;%%

1345: arXiv:hep-th/0304145.

1346: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304145;%%

1347: 

1348: %%%

1349: \bibitem{0003221}

1350: E.~A.~Bergshoeff, M.~de Roo, T.~C.~de Wit, E.~Eyras and S.~Panda,

1351: %``T-duality and actions for non-BPS D-branes,''

1352: JHEP {\bf 0005}, 009 (2000)

1353: [arXiv:hep-th/0003221].

1354: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003221;%%

1355: 

1356: %%%

1357: \bibitem{0004106}

1358: J.~Kluson,

1359: %``Proposal for non-BPS D-brane action,''

1360: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 126003 (2000)

1361: [arXiv:hep-th/0004106].

1362: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004106;%%

1363: 

1364: %%%

1365: \bibitem{0009061}

1366: G.~W.~Gibbons, K.~Hori and P.~Yi,

1367: %``String fluid from unstable D-branes,''

1368: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 596}, 136 (2001)

1369: [arXiv:hep-th/0009061].

1370: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009061;%%

1371: 

1372: 

1373: 

1374: %%%

1375: \bibitem{0209122}

1376: A.~Sen,

1377: %``Time and tachyon,''

1378: arXiv:hep-th/0209122.

1379: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209122;%%

1380: 

1381: %%%

1382: \bibitem{0301076}

1383: C.~j.~Kim, H.~B.~Kim, Y.~b.~Kim and O.~K.~Kwon,

1384: %``Electromagnetic string fluid in rolling tachyon,''

1385: arXiv:hep-th/0301076.

1386: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301076;%%

1387: 

1388: %%%

1389: \bibitem{0303035}

1390: F.~Leblond and A.~W.~Peet,

1391: %``SD-brane gravity fields and rolling tachyons,''

1392: arXiv:hep-th/0303035.

1393: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303035;%%

1394: 

1395: %%%

1396: \bibitem{0304045}

1397: D.~Kutasov and V.~Niarchos,

1398: %``Tachyon effective actions in open string theory,''

1399: arXiv:hep-th/0304045.

1400: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0304045;%%

1401: 

1402: \bibitem{0209034}

1403: G.~Gibbons, K.~Hashimoto and P.~Yi,

1404: %``Tachyon condensates, Carrollian contraction of Lorentz group, and 

1405: %fundamental strings,''

1406: JHEP {\bf 0209}, 061 (2002)

1407: [arXiv:hep-th/0209034].

1408: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209034;%%

1409: 

1410: \bibitem{0305229}

1411: O.~K.~Kwon and P.~Yi,

1412: %``String fluid, tachyon matter, and domain walls,''

1413: arXiv:hep-th/0305229.

1414: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305229;%%

1415: 

1416: \bibitem{0208019}

1417: G.~N.~Felder, L.~Kofman and A.~Starobinsky,

1418: %``Caustics in tachyon matter and other Born-Infeld scalars,''

1419: JHEP {\bf 0209}, 026 (2002)

1420: [arXiv:hep-th/0208019].

1421: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208019;%%

1422: 

1423: \bibitem{9808141}

1424: A.~Sen,

1425: %``SO(32) spinors of type I and other solitons on brane-antibrane pair,''

1426: JHEP {\bf 9809}, 023 (1998)

1427: [arXiv:hep-th/9808141].

1428: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808141;%%

1429: 

1430: \bibitem{9812031}

1431: A.~Sen,

1432: %``BPS D-branes on non-supersymmetric cycles,''

1433: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 021 (1998)

1434: [arXiv:hep-th/9812031].

1435: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812031;%%

1436: 

1437: \bibitem{9402113}

1438: C.~G.~Callan, I.~R.~Klebanov, A.~W.~Ludwig and J.~M.~Maldacena,

1439: %``Exact solution of a boundary conformal field theory,''

1440: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 422}, 417 (1994)

1441: [arXiv:hep-th/9402113].

1442: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9402113;%%

1443: 

1444: \bibitem{9404008}

1445: J.~Polchinski and L.~Thorlacius,

1446: %``Free Fermion Representation Of A Boundary Conformal Field Theory,''

1447: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 622 (1994)

1448: [arXiv:hep-th/9404008].

1449: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9404008;%%

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{9811237}

1452: A.~Recknagel and V.~Schomerus,

1453: %``Boundary deformation theory and moduli spaces of D-branes,''

1454: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 545}, 233 (1999)

1455: [arXiv:hep-th/9811237].

1456: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811237;%%

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{9902105}

1459: A.~Sen,

1460: %``Descent relations among bosonic D-branes,''

1461: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 14}, 4061 (1999)

1462: [arXiv:hep-th/9902105].

1463: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9902105;%%

1464: 

1465: \bibitem{0307221}

1466: D.~Gaiotto, N.~Itzhaki and L.~Rastelli,

1467: %``On the BCFT description of holes in the c = 1 matrix model,''

1468: arXiv:hep-th/0307221.

1469: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307221;%%

1470: 

1471: %***

1472: 

1473: \end{thebibliography}

1474: 

1475: \end{document}

1476: 

1477: 

1478: \bye

1479: 

1480: