1: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

2: % version 2, tue-20-mar-2004 @16:00 edt

3: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

5: \textheight=9.0truein

6: \textwidth=6.5truein

7: \voffset=-0.65truein

8: \hoffset=-0.6truein

9: \overfullrule=0pt

10: \parskip=0pt

11: \baselineskip=10pt

12: \usepackage{amssymb}

13: \usepackage{epsfig}

14: \usepackage{amsmath}

15: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

16: \begin{document}

17: 

18: \rightline{hep-th/0403170}

19: 

20: \bigskip\bigskip

21: 

22: \begin{center} 

23: {\Large \bf Brane-antibrane systems and \\ the thermal life of neutral

24: black holes}

25: \end{center} 

26: 

27: \bigskip\bigskip

28:   

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

30: \centerline{\bf

31: Omid~Saremi\footnote{omidsar@physics.utoronto.ca} and

32: Amanda~W.~Peet\footnote{peet@physics.utoronto.ca}}

33: \bigskip

34: \centerline{\it Department of Physics,}

35: \centerline{\it University of Toronto,}

36: \centerline{\it 60 St. George Street,}

37: \centerline{\it Toronto, Ontario,}

38: \centerline{\it Canada M5S 1A7.}

39:    

40: \setcounter{footnote}{0}   

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

42: 

43: \bigskip\bigskip

44: 

45: \abstract{A brane-antibrane model for the entropy of neutral black

46: branes is developed, following on from the work of Danielsson, Guijosa

47: and Kruczenski [1].  The model involves equal numbers of D$p$-branes

48: and anti-D$p$-branes, and arbitrary angular momenta, and covers the

49: cases $p=0,1,2,3,4$.  The thermodynamic entropy is reproduced by the

50: strongly coupled field theory, up to a power of two.  The

51: strong-coupling physics of the $p=0$ case is further developed

52: numerically, using techniques of Kabat, Lifschytz et al. [2,3], in the

53: context of a toy model containing the tachyon and the bosonic degrees

54: of freedom of the D0-brane and anti-D0-brane quantum mechanics.

55: Preliminary numerical results show that strong-coupling

56: finite-temperature stabilization of the tachyon is possible, in this

57: context.}

58: 

59: \vfill

60: 

61: \noindent 16 March 2004.

62: 

63: \setcounter{page}{0}

64: %====================================================================+

65: \newpage

66: \section{Introduction}

67: %

68: The drive to explain the thermodynamic entropy of black holes and

69: black branes via the statistical mechanics of microscopic degrees of

70: freedom has been a central preoccupation of string theorists and other

71: gravitational theorists for at least two and a half decades.  String

72: theory has provided significant progress on this front in the last

73: eight years.  The celebrated 1996 success of Strominger and Vafa in

74: computing the entropy of particular $D=5$ supersymmetric (BPS) black

75: holes occurring in low-energy string theory, by using a conformal

76: field theory appropriate to the microscopic physics of strings and

77: D-branes, even raised the profile of string theory itself in a

78: significant way.  Further successes followed; the thermodynamic

79: entropy of BPS and near-BPS black holes in various dimensions was

80: reproduced successfully, in some cases even beyond leading order in

81: macroscopic quantum numbers such as mass, charge, and angular momenta.

82: A microscopic string theoretic accounting of the entropy of neutral

83: black holes and black branes remains more elusive, however. One reason

84: is that neutral black holes and branes are literally as far from BPS

85: as possible, meaning that supersymmetry may provide no help at all in

86: the endeavour.

87: 

88: BFSS matrix theory \cite{BFSS} is a conjectured relationship between

89: quantum $D=11$ M theory in light-front frame and the supersymmetric

90: quantum mechanics of a large number $N$ of D0-branes.  This theory was

91: recruited, e.g. in \cite{KlebanovSusskind}, to help explain the

92: entropy of near-BPS black holes in dimensions $D=10-p$, and also in

93: attempts to explain the entropy of the neutral cases as well.  Reviews

94: of this story include \cite{peetCQGreview} (see references therein).

95: Another interesting proposal was in \cite{Englert}.  Here, we simply

96: record one major common feature of these various matrix theory

97: approaches to counting the entropy of neutral black holes, which is

98: relevant to our work here.  Namely, the need for an infinite boost in

99: the 11th dimension $x^{11}$ in order to relate the neutral black holes

100: of interest to nearly-BPS systems whose entropy can be computed

101: microscopically using D-brane field theory.  In particular, this

102: infinite boost in the 11th dimension eliminates anti-D0-branes from

103: the picture.  The approach that we will take here will be different.

104: Other interesting approaches to neutral black hole entropy from quite

105: different perspectives include \cite{dasetal} and references therein.

106: 

107: Gravity/gauge correspondences are specific relationships between open

108: string and closed string degrees of freedom.  For the case of sixteen

109: supercharges \cite{itzhaki}, they relate the degrees of freedom of

110: supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories to closed string theory on

111: near-horizon D$p$-brane spacetimes.  Subsequent string theoretic

112: developments of interest for our work here include tachyon

113: condensation in brane-antibrane systems.  The paper which sparked our

114: specific interest was \cite{Danielsson}, in which an interesting

115: proposal was made for a microscopic explanation of the entropy of

116: neutral black D3, M2 and M5 (non-dilatonic) branes in terms of a

117: system of strongly coupled branes and antibranes.

118: 

119: In section 2, we review features of earlier analytic work, upon which

120: we build here.  Section 3 contains the bulk of our analytic

121: observations.  We study the entropy of neutral black D$p$-brane

122: spacetimes by using a microscopic model with an equal number of

123: strongly coupled D$p$-branes and anti-D$p$-branes, with arbitrary

124: angular momenta turned on.  Our main result is that the supergravity

125: entropy density can be reproduced by strongly coupled field theory, up

126: to a power of two.  Section 4 contains an exposition of preliminary

127: numerical work on the $p=0$ system.  Our primary goal in the numerical

128: part of our work is to try to test some assumptions of the

129: brane-antibrane model, by doing direct strong-coupling simulation of

130: the $p=0$ system, adapting methods of \cite{kabat1,kabat2}.  We use a

131: bosonic toy model to do this analysis, and find preliminary evidence

132: that tachyon stabilization may indeed occur in the fashion expected

133: from the work of \cite{Danielsson}.  We are not yet able, however, to

134: be conclusive about the supersymmetric case.

135: 

136: While this paper was in preparation, the work of \cite{Guijosa}

137: appeared, which has some overlap with section 3, for the case $p=3$

138: with angular momentum.

139: 

140: %====================================================================+

141: \section{Analytic ingredients from prior work}

142: 

143: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

144: \subsection{Gravity/gauge correspondences for general $p$}

145: 

146: For a system of $N$ D$p$-branes, it is possible\footnote{For $p\leq

147: 4$, which are the cases on which we will concentrate} to take a clean

148: low-energy limit such that the open strings with endpoints on the

149: D$p$-branes decouple from the closed strings in the bulk.  This

150: observation led, of course, to the celebrated AdS/CFT correspondence

151: and the non-conformal open/closed-string correspondences of Itzhaki,

152: Maldacena, Sonnenschein and Yankielowicz \cite{itzhaki}.  The theory

153: on the branes is supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory (SYM) with sixteen

154: supercharges.  The 't Hooft coupling for the SYM theory is

155: %

156: \begin{equation}

157: g_{\rm YM}^2N\equiv(2\pi)^{p-2}g_s\ell_s^{p-3}\ N \,,

158: \end{equation}

159: %

160: where $g_s$ is the string coupling and

161: $\ell_s\equiv\sqrt{\alpha^\prime}$ is the string length.

162: 

163: These open/closed string correspondences tell us that we can hope to

164: understand the gravitational fields of D$p$-branes via the dual SYM

165: theory.  For $p\not=3$ the fields describing the $D=10$ geometry vary

166: radially in the spacetime, and on the SYM side the coupling is

167: dimensionful, yielding breakdown of the weak-coupling description

168: either in the UV or the IR.  In other words, there are limits to the

169: validity of both descriptions.  A dimensionless control variable is

170: given by $g_{\rm eff}^2\equiv g_{\rm YM}^2N U^{p-3}$; on the

171: supergravity side, $U\equiv r/\ell_s^2$ is the radial isotropic

172: coordinate in energy units.  The requirements \cite{itzhaki} for the

173: supergravity geometry in $D=10$ to remain valid are

174: %

175: \begin{equation}

176: 1\ll (g_{\rm YM}^2N U^{p-3})  \ll N^{\frac{4}{(7-p)}} \,.

177: \end{equation}

178: %

179: At the left-hand end, $\alpha'$ corrections become important and the

180: SYM theory takes over from the $D=10$ geometry as the weakly-coupled

181: description; at the right-hand end, strong coupling (dilaton) ensues

182: and it is necessary (for large-$N$) to turn to the S-dual supergravity

183: geometry.

184: 

185: It was earlier noted in \cite{KlebanovTseytlin} that thermodynamic

186: properties of near-BPS D$p$-brane (and M-brane) geometries could be

187: written in a way that is suggestive of a field theory interpretation.

188: The main focus of that paper was the non-dilatonic branes, for which

189: the energy density above extremality $\Delta m$ and entropy density

190: $s$ were written in a way reminiscent of gases of weakly interacting

191: massless particles in $d=p+1$.  For the dilatonic cases, however, the

192: expressions do not yield recognizable weak-coupling results. The

193: physical interpretation of this fact is that the strongly coupled

194: physics of the $p\not=3$ SYM theories gives rise to nontrivial

195: dependence of the entropy and the energy above extremality on the

196: temperature,

197: %

198: \begin{equation}\label{klebtseysimple}

199: \Delta m(T) \propto T^{\frac{2(7-p)}{(5-p)}} \,,\qquad s(T)

200: \propto T^{\frac{(9-p)}{(5-p)}} \,,

201: \end{equation}

202: %

203: where $T$ is the Hawking temperature of the geometry.

204: 

205: In the $p=0$ case, checking aspects of the open/closed-string

206: correspondence conjectures is potentially feasible.  The reason is of

207: course that the SYM theory in this case is actually matrix {\em

208: quantum mechanics} -- albeit with sixteen supercharges.  The numerical

209: investigations of \cite{kabat1,kabat2} aimed to check the $p=0$

210: correspondence explicitly, by finding the entropy of the system of

211: {\em strongly coupled} $N$ D0-branes and comparing it to the entropy

212: of the near extremal D0-brane supergravity background.  Results

213: obtained showed that the 9/5 power in the expression for the entropy

214: in (\ref{klebtseysimple}) was indeed approximately reproduced in the

215: numerical approach.  This striking result, in combination with the

216: work given a lightning review in the next subsection, provided the

217: essential motivation for our work.

218: 

219: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

220: \subsection{Brane and antibranes at finite temperature and the entropy

221: of black branes}

222: %

223: Motivated by an observation of Horowitz, Maldacena, and

224: Strominger~\cite{Maldacena1}, Danielsson, Guijosa and Kruczenski

225: \cite{Danielsson} argued that, starting with a brane-antibrane system

226: at zero temperature, turning on a finite temperature could lead to

227: reappearance of open string modes.  This physics was argued to ensue

228: at strong open-string coupling $g_s N$ but weak closed-string coupling

229: $g_s$, as would be appropriate to a model with validity in the black

230: brane regime.  Note that, to have this reappearance of the open string

231: modes at temperatures {\em below} the Hagedorn temperature, going to

232: the regime of strong open-string coupling was crucial. In alternative

233: language, the tachyonic mode becomes stabilized by finite-temperature

234: and strong coupling physics. Based on these observations, the authors

235: of \cite{Danielsson} formulated a microscopic brane-antibrane model

236: for the entropy of non-dilatonic black branes: the D3, M2 and M5

237: cases.

238: 

239: The model has two SYM theories on worldvolumes, one for the branes and

240: the other for the anti-branes.  The tachyon, argued to be stabilized

241: by finite-temperature and strong coupling effects, does not contribute

242: to the total energy of the black hole, because it sits almost on top

243: of the tachyon potential. It is also argued that the tachyon does not

244: contribute to the total entropy, because the tachyon gets a large

245: thermal mass.

246: 

247: The black holes of interest to us are neutral.  Since the black

248: 3-brane in $D=10$ (or, equivalently, the black hole in $D=7$) is

249: neutral, it is taken to be modelled by the gas on a number $N$ of

250: D3-branes, the gas on an identical number $N$ ${\overline{\rm

251: D3}}$-branes, and the tachyon dynamics.  Since the branes and

252: anti-branes appear in equal numbers, it makes sense to assume that the

253: corresponding temperatures are equal.  Using these assumptions, for

254: the strongly coupled field theory side,

255: %

256: \begin{eqnarray}

257: m_{\rm FT} = 2N\tau_3+a\frac{\pi^2}{8}N^2 T^4, \nonumber\\ 

258: s_{\rm FT}=a\frac{\pi^2}{6}N^2T^3 \,,

259: \end{eqnarray}

260: %

261: where $\tau_3$ is the D3-brane tension and $a$ is a constant known

262: \cite{peet1} from AdS/CFT to be 6 (not 8) when the SYM theory in

263: question is strongly coupled.  Note that the quantities of

264: thermodynamic interest written here are specific, i.e.  mass and

265: entropy {\em densities}.  Rearranging to eliminate $T$ gives

266: %

267: \begin{equation}

268: s_{\rm FT} = a(\pi^2/6) N^2 \left(

269: {\frac{m_{\rm FT} - 2N\tau_3}{a(\pi^2/8)N^2}}

270: \right)^{3/4} \,.

271: \end{equation}

272: %

273: 

274: It is important to emphasize that this analysis is done in the {\em

275: microcanonical} ensemble, where the total mass and charge of the black

276: hole, as well as any angular momenta present, are kept fixed.  Working

277: in the microcanonical ensemble prevents thermal fluctuations from

278: creating an infinite number of D3-${\overline{\rm D3}}$ pairs.

279: Working in canonical picture, by contrast, would allow the system to

280: catastrophically create an infinite number of pairs, by extracting an

281: arbitrary amount of energy from the reservoir, as it is a

282: thermodynamically favourable state. In other words, one indefinitely

283: spends energy to make more entropy, which makes the thermal ensemble

284: destabilized.

285: 

286: The essential innovation in \cite{Danielsson} is that the total number

287: of branes is regarded as an independent variable, which is determined

288: thermodynamically.

289: %

290: The next step in the analysis, then, is to maximize the entropy with

291: respect to $N$.  The value of $N$ so obtained is related to the mass

292: density as

293: %

294: \begin{equation}

295: m_{\rm FT} = 5 N \tau_3 \,.

296: \end{equation}

297: %

298: 

299: To proceed further, it is necessary to decide what to do with the

300: masses.  One assumption is to take $m_{\rm FT}=m_{\rm SG}$.  Using

301: this, and substituting back for the optimized value of $N$ leads to

302: the final expression for the entropy from the strongly coupled field

303: theory side,

304: %

305: \begin{equation}

306: s_{\rm

307: FT}=a^{\frac{1}{4}}2^{\frac{5}{4}}3^{-\frac{1}{4}}5^{-\frac{5}{4}}

308: \pi^{\frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{\kappa} m_{\rm FT}^{\frac{5}{4}} \,,

309: \end{equation}

310: %

311: where $\kappa={\sqrt{\pi}}/{\tau_3}$. One the other hand, entropy of a

312: black 3-brane is

313: %

314: \begin{equation}

315: s_{\rm SG}=2^{\frac{9}{4}}5^{-\frac{5}{4}}\pi^{\frac{1}{4}}

316: \sqrt{\kappa}m_{\rm SG}^{\frac{5}{4}} \,.

317: \end{equation}

318: %

319: Identifying $m_{\rm SG}=m_{\rm FT}$ and $a=6$ gives

320: %

321: \begin{equation}

322: s_{\rm SG}= 2^{3/4} s_{\rm FT} \, .

323: \end{equation}

324: %

325: This was the result of \cite{Danielsson}.  It shows that the entropy

326: scaling from the brane-antibrane model is correct.  It is worth noting

327: here that this scaling agreement is nontrivial: it does {\em not} come

328: about through simple dimensional analysis (and counting powers of

329: $N$).

330: 

331: The overall coefficient misses, by a factor close to unity.  It is

332: perhaps not surprising, though, that the agreement, while close, is

333: not exact.  Reasons for this may include the fact that there is no

334: clean decoupling between open string and closed string degrees of

335: freedom.  These effects not taken into account in the brane-antibrane

336: model may indeed play a role, but they cannot be major effects for

337: quantities like the entropy, because the scaling comes out correct.

338: 

339: %====================================================================+

340: \section{D$p$ and ${\overline{\rm\bf D}p}$-branes

341: with angular momenta}

342: %

343: In order to test the idea of the brane-antibrane model for neutral

344: black hole entropy further, it is interesting to consider the cases

345: other than $p=3$, and to add angular momentum.  This will be the main

346: focus of the analytic part of our work.

347: 

348: It is convenient to begin by reviewing some salient properties of

349: rotating black D$p$-branes for various $p$.  We are particularly

350: interested in the $p=0$ story, since that is the case of the

351: brane-antibrane model which we plan to test numerically, starting with

352: the preliminary investigations of section 4.

353: 

354: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

355: \subsection{Supergravity side}

356: 

357: Black $p$-branes in $D=10$ are of course equivalent to $D\equiv 10-p$

358: dimensional black holes.  We will not need the precise form of the

359: supergravity fields; what is important for us here is the relationship

360: between various physical parameters including tension, charge, angular

361: momenta, and horizon radius.  Using for example \cite{HarmarkObers},

362: and converting to quantities which are specific (per unit volume), we

363: have for the $D=10$ black branes

364: %

365: \begin{eqnarray}

366: %

367: j_i &=& {\frac{2}{(7-p)}}{\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}}

368: r_0^{7-p}\ell_i {\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}} \,,\nonumber\\

369: %

370: T_H &=& {\frac{(7-p)-2\kappa}{4\pi r_H}} {\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}

371: \quad {\rm{where}}\quad \kappa = \sum_{i=1}^n

372: {\frac{\ell_i^2}{\ell_i^2+r_H^2}} \,,\nonumber\\

373: %

374: m &=& {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} r_0^{7-p} \left[

375: {\frac{1}{(7-p)}} + {\frac{1}{1-\zeta^2}} \right] \,,\nonumber\\

376: %

377: s &=& {\frac{4\pi}{(7-p)}} {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} r_0^{7-p}

378: r_H {\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}} \,,\nonumber\\

379: %

380: q &=& {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} r_0^{7-p} \left[

381: {\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta^2}} \right] \,,

382: %

383: \end{eqnarray}

384: %

385: where $\zeta$ is the boost rapidity parameter while $r_0,\ell_i$ are

386: the original parameters used in creating the solutions, while the

387: Newton constant is given by $16\pi G = (2\pi)^{7} g_s^2 \ell_s^8$.  We

388: also use the shorthand $ \alpha_p \equiv (7-p)\Omega_{8-p}$.  Values

389: of $\alpha_p$ are tabulated here for convenience

390: %

391: \begin{center}

392: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline

393: $p$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6

394: %

395: \cr\hline

396: %

397: $\alpha_p$ & $7\pi^4/3$ & $32\pi^3/5$ & $5\pi^3$ & $32\pi^2/3$ &

398: $6\pi^2$ & $8\pi$ & $2\pi$

399: %

400: \cr\hline

401: \end{tabular}

402: \end{center}

403: %

404: The parameter $r_H$ is the horizon radius given by

405: %

406: \begin{equation}\label{r0rH}

407: r_H^{7-p} \prod_{i=1}^{n}\left( 1 + {\frac{\ell_i^2}{r_H^2}} \right) -

408: r_0^{7-p} = 0 \,.

409: \end{equation}

410: %

411: It is straightforward to massage the expressions to write the entropy

412: density $s$ in terms of the energy density above extremality $\Delta

413: m$.  To do that, it is convenient use (\ref{r0rH}) to obtain $r_0$ in

414: terms of $r_H$ and $\ell_i$.  This is simple if we make the

415: definitions

416: %

417: \begin{equation}

418: \rho \equiv {\frac{r_H}{r_0}} \ \,, \quad

419: \lambda_i \equiv {\frac{\ell_i}{r_H}} \,.

420: \end{equation}

421: %

422: Then we have

423: %

424: \begin{equation}\label{rhoeqn}

425: \rho(\lambda_i) \equiv {\frac{r_H}{r_0}} =

426: \left[ \prod_{i=1}^n

427: (1+\lambda_i^2) \right]^{-{\frac{1}{(7-p)}}} \,.

428: \end{equation}

429: %

430: The energy density above extremality $\Delta m \equiv m-q$ is given by

431: %

432: \begin{equation}\label{deltaE}

433: \Delta m = {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} r_0^{7-p} \left[

434: {\frac{1}{(1+\zeta)}} + {\frac{1}{(7-p)}} \right] \,.

435: \end{equation}

436: %

437: We can also write the Hawking temperature as

438: %

439: \begin{equation}

440: T_H = \sqrt{1-\zeta^2} \, {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi r_0}}

441: {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}} \,,

442: \end{equation}

443: %

444: where $\rho(\lambda_i)$ is given by (\ref{rhoeqn}) and we use the

445: additional shorthand

446: %

447: \begin{equation}

448: k_p(\lambda_i) \equiv 1 - {\frac{2}{(7-p)}}\sum_{i=1}^n

449: {\frac{\lambda_i^2}{(1+\lambda_i^2) }} \,.

450: \end{equation}

451: %

452: In addition, the number of D$p$-branes can be written as

453: %

454: \begin{equation}\label{Npzeta}

455: N_p = {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} {\frac{1}{\tau_p}} r_0^{7-p}

456: {\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta^2}} \,,

457: \end{equation}

458: %

459: where

460: %

461: \begin{equation}

462: \tau_p = {\frac{1}{g_s(2\pi)^p\ell_s^{p+1}}}

463: \end{equation}

464: %

465: is the D$p$-brane tension.

466: 

467: Our main interest is to explain the entropy of neutral black branes in

468: $D=10$, or equivalently, neutral black holes in $D=10-p$.  We

469: therefore record the expressions here that we aim to reproduce using

470: the strongly coupled brane-antibrane field theory model.

471: 

472: In the case of a neutral black hole, we have $\Delta m = m_{\rm SG}$.

473: Defining

474: %

475: \begin{equation}

476: \delta_p \equiv {\frac{(8-p)}{(7-p)}} \,,

477: \end{equation}

478: %

479: we have for the energy density

480: %

481: \begin{equation}

482: m_{\rm SG} = {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} r_0^{7-p} \delta_p

483: \end{equation}

484: %

485: and for the Hawking temperature

486: %

487: \begin{equation}

488: T_H = {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi r_0}}

489: {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}} \,.

490: \end{equation}

491: %

492: Therefore,

493: %

494: \begin{equation}

495: m_{\rm SG} (T_H) = {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}} \delta_p \left(

496: {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi}} {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}}

497: {\frac{1}{T_H}} \right)^{7-p} \,,

498: \end{equation}

499: %

500: while for the entropy

501: %

502: \begin{equation}

503: s_{\rm SG} (T_H) = {\frac{4\pi}{(7-p)}} {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi G}}

504: \rho(\lambda_i) \left( {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi}}

505: {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}} {\frac{1}{T_H}} \right)^{8-p}

506: \,.

507: \end{equation}

508: %

509: Defining

510: %

511: \begin{equation}

512: a_p \equiv {\frac{(7-p)}{2}} \delta_p^{\delta_p}

513: \left({\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi}}\right)^{\delta_p-1} \,,

514: \end{equation} 

515: %

516: we have that

517: %

518: \begin{equation}

519: s_{\rm SG}(m_{\rm SG}) = {\frac{2\pi}{Ga_p}} \rho(\lambda_i)

520: (Gm_{\rm SG})^{\delta_p} \,.

521: \end{equation}

522: %

523: 

524: We may now ask how to unfurl the dependence of $\rho(\lambda_i)$ on

525: $m_{\rm SG}$ and the rotation parameters $j_i$.  The simplest way to

526: proceed is to recognize that

527: %

528: \begin{equation}

529: {\frac{\lambda_i}{2\pi}} = {\frac{j_i}{s}} \,.

530: \end{equation}

531: %

532: We therefore have the equation

533: %

534: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sugralambda}

535: \lambda_i \left[\prod_{i=1}^n (1+\lambda_i^2)

536: \right]^{-{\frac{1}{(7-p)}}} &=& a_p {\frac{j_i}{G^{\delta_p-1}m_{\rm

537: SG}^{\delta_p}}} \nonumber\\

538: %

539: &=& {\frac{j_i}{R_{\rm SG}(m_{\rm SG},G)}} \,,

540: \end{eqnarray}

541: %

542: where

543: %

544: \begin{equation}

545: R_{\rm SG} \equiv {\frac{1}{a_p}} G^{\delta_p-1} m_{\rm SG}^{\delta_p}

546: \,.

547: \end{equation}

548: %

549: Then, finally, we have

550: %

551: \begin{equation}\label{sSGfnofrho}

552: s_{\rm SG} = 2\pi \rho(R_{\rm SG}(m_{\rm SG},G),j_i) \, R_{\rm

553: SG}(m_{\rm SG},G) \,.

554: \end{equation}

555: %

556: 

557: We want to invert (\ref{sugralambda}) to unfurl the dependence of

558: $\lambda_i$ on $m_{\rm SG}, G, j_i$.  When no angular momenta are

559: present, we have of course that $\rho=1$.  In general, however, the

560: equation for $\lambda_i$ is a polynomial of degree $(7-p)$ in

561: $\lambda$, which is a quintic or worse for $p\leq 2$.  For now, we do

562: not concern ourselves with whether we can actually solve for $\rho$;

563: we just leave the dependence of $\rho$ on $(m_{\rm SG},G,j_i)$

564: implicit.  We also note that for $p=3$ and one angular momentum

565: parameter $j_1$, we can actually solve to find

566: %

567: \begin{equation}

568: \lambda_1 (p=3) =

569: \sqrt{2\sqrt{\chi}\left(\sqrt{\chi}+\sqrt{1+\chi}\right)}

570: \end{equation}

571: %

572: and

573: %

574: \begin{equation}

575: \rho(p=3) = {\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{\chi}+\sqrt{1+\chi}}}} \,,

576: \end{equation}

577: %

578: where

579: %

580: \begin{equation}

581: \chi = 2^{-5} 3^{-1} 5^5 \pi {\frac{j_1^4}{G\,m_{\rm SG}^5}} \,.

582: \end{equation}

583: %

584: 

585: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

586: \subsection{Near-extremal: the field theory side}

587: %

588: In this subsection, we take the near-extremal limit of various

589: supergravity formul\ae\ to tell us how the strongly coupled field

590: theory quantities should behave on the branes and anti-branes, using

591: IMSY duality.

592: 

593: We should mention that in some respects our analysis here is quite

594: similar to \cite{KlebanovTseytlin}.  There are two major differences,

595: however. The first is that we are interested in the effect of turning

596: on angular momenta $j_i$.  Our results must of course reduce to those

597: of \cite{KlebanovTseytlin} upon taking $j_i=0$.  The second is that we

598: plan to use the information about the strongly coupled field theory,

599: obtained via weakly coupled supergravity, using the techniques of

600: \cite{Danielsson}.

601: 

602: Using the relation (\ref{Npzeta}), we can\footnote{The constant $c_p$

603: familiar from the TASI-99 lectures of one of us is related to the

604: quantities used here by $c_p g_s \ell_s^{7-p} = 16\pi G/\alpha_p$.}

605: express $r_0$ in terms of $N_p$

606: %

607: \begin{equation}\label{r0Npne}

608: r_0^{7-p} = 2(1-\zeta) \, N_p \tau_p {\frac{16\pi G}{\alpha_p}} \,,

609: \end{equation}

610: %

611: (Of course, this $r_0$ is appropriate to the near-extremal geometry,

612: and is not the same as the $r_0$ at the end of the previous

613: subsection, which refers to the horizon radius of the {\em neutral}

614: spacetime.) Equivalently,

615: %

616: \begin{equation}

617: 2(1-\zeta) = \left({\frac{r_0}{\ell_s}}\right)^{7-p}

618: {\frac{(2\pi\alpha_p)(2\pi)^{2(p-5)}}{\ell_s^{3-p}(g_{\rm YM}^2N)}}

619: \,.

620: \end{equation}

621: %

622: The energy density above extremality becomes

623: %

624: \begin{equation}

625: \Delta m_{\rm branes} = (1-\zeta) N_p \tau_p {\frac{(9-p)}{(7-p)}} \,.

626: \end{equation}

627: %

628: Near extremality we have\footnote{For reasons discussed in \cite{peet}

629: etc., the cases $p=5,6$ are more problematic to interpret.  We

630: therefore restrict ourselves from here on to the cases $p\leq 4$.} for

631: the Hawking temperature

632: %

633: \begin{eqnarray}\label{THzetane}

634: T_H &=& [2(1-\zeta)]^{\frac{(5-p)}{2(7-p)}} \left(

635: {\frac{\alpha_p}{16\pi GN_p\tau_p}} \right)^{\frac{1}{(7-p)}}

636: {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi}} {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}}

637: \nonumber\\

638: %

639: &=& [2(1-\zeta)(2\pi)^4]^{\frac{(5-p)}{2(7-p)}}

640: \left[{\frac{(2\pi\alpha_p)}{(g_{\rm

641: YM}^2N)\ell_s^4}}\right]^{\frac{1}{(7-p)}} {\frac{(7-p)}{4\pi}}

642: {\frac{k_p(\lambda_i)}{\rho(\lambda_i)}} \,.

643: \end{eqnarray}

644: %

645: We can obtain the equation of state for the near-extremal black

646: D$p$-brane by eliminating $\zeta$ in favour of $T_H$,

647: %

648: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ne_energy}

649: \Delta m_{\rm branes}(T_H) &=& N^2 \left\{ \gamma_p (2\pi)^2

650: \left(2\pi\alpha_p\right)^{-\frac{2}{(5-p)}} \right\} \times

651: \nonumber\\

652: %

653: && \times\quad \left(g_{\rm{YM}}^2N\right)^{\frac{(p-3)}{(5-p)}}

654: \left[ {\frac{4\pi}{(7-p)}} {\frac{\rho(\lambda_i)}{k_p(\lambda_i)}}

655: T_H \right]^{\frac{2(7-p)}{(5-p)}} \,.

656: \end{eqnarray}

657: %

658: Defining the abbreviation

659: %

660: \begin{equation}

661: \gamma_p \equiv {\frac{(9-p)}{2(7-p)}} \,,

662: \end{equation}

663: %

664: we have for the entropy density on the branes

665: %

666: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ne_entropy}

667: s_{\rm branes}(T_H) &=& N^2 \left\{ {\frac{4\pi}{(7-p)}} (2\pi)^{2}

668: \left(2\pi\alpha_p\right)^{-\frac{2}{(5-p)}} \right\} \times

669: \nonumber\\ 

670: %

671: && \times\quad \left( g_{\rm YM}^2N \right)^{\frac{(p-3)}{(5-p)}} \,

672: \rho(\lambda_i) \, \left[ {\frac{4\pi}{(7-p)}}

673: {\frac{\rho(\lambda_i)}{k_p(\lambda_i)}} T_H

674: \right]^{\frac{(9-p)}{(5-p)}} \,.

675: \end{eqnarray}

676: %

677: This equation is of central importance; it encodes the equation of

678: state for the system.

679: 

680: Now we come to the crucial step.  Following the innovation in

681: \cite{Danielsson}, we actually take the lead for the behaviour of the

682: strongly coupled field theory on the branes and anti-branes by using

683: the near-extremal supergravity results.  This is tantamount to using

684: IMSY duality \cite{itzhaki}.  Here, for general $p$, our proposal to

685: use IMSY duality for the $p\not=3$ case in the model of type

686: \cite{Danielsson} is a more nontrivial step than in the $p=3$ case

687: where the field theory behaved in a simple way.  This assumption

688: involves some nontrivial physics; like \cite{Danielsson}, we are not

689: taking into account the lack of a clean decoupling limit in the

690: brane-antibrane model.  Nonetheless, it is our point of view here that

691: taking the near-extremal supergravity result seriously for the

692: strongly coupled field theory on both the set of branes and the set of

693: antibranes is exactly what we need.

694: 

695: We are particularly interested to investigate this story for the

696: D0-${\overline{\rm{D}}0}$ case. The reason is that in the $d=0+1$ case

697: we have the hope of actually checking the above assumption explicitly,

698: using a strong-coupling simulation. In particular, a significant

699: motivation for our investigation of the non-conformal ($p\not=3$)

700: cases in the first place was the result of \cite{kabat1,kabat2} in

701: which the equation of state was approximately reproduced numerically.

702: We will begin developing the numerical story for the

703: D0-${\overline{\rm{D}}0}$ case in the next section, but for now we

704: work out the analytics.

705: 

706: For the open-string gas on (say) the set of D$p$-branes, we have

707: %

708: \begin{equation}

709: s_{\rm branes} = {\frac{2\pi}{b_p}} \rho(\lambda_i) \sqrt{N} g_{\rm

710: YM}^{\frac{(p-3)}{(7-p)}} \left(\Delta m\right)^{\gamma_p} \,,

711: \end{equation}

712: %

713: where we have defined

714: %

715: \begin{equation}

716: b_p \equiv {\frac{(7-p)}{2}} \gamma_p^{\gamma_p}

717: (2\pi)^{\frac{(p-4)}{(7-p)}}

718: \alpha_p^{\frac{1}{(7-p)}} \,.

719: \end{equation}

720: %

721: 

722: Now, for our model, recalling that we have the field theory on both

723: the branes {\em and} antibranes, we have

724: %

725: \begin{equation}\label{eTHne}

726: m_{\rm FT} = (2)N \tau_p + (2)\Delta m(T_{\rm FT}) \,.

727: \end{equation}

728: %

729: BPS branes carry no macroscopic entropy, so we take the entropy of the

730: strongly coupled field theory system representing the neutral black

731: brane to be twice the entropy of the gas on each set of branes,

732: $s_{\rm FT}(T_{\rm FT}) = (2)s(T_{\rm FT})$.  We find

733: %

734: \begin{equation}\label{SFTrot}

735: s_{\rm FT} = (2) {\frac{2\pi}{b_p}} \rho(\lambda_i) \sqrt{N} \,

736: g_{\rm{YM}}^{\frac{(p-3)}{(7-p)}} \, \left( {\frac{m_{\rm

737: FT}}{(2)}}-N\tau_p\right)^{\gamma_p} \,.

738: \end{equation}

739: %

740: We now need to know how $\rho(\lambda_i)$ depends on variables of

741: interest.  We again use the trick of the previous subsection to write

742: $\lambda_i = 2\pi j_i/s$.  Then

743: %

744: \begin{eqnarray}\label{lambdabp}

745: \lambda_i\rho(\lambda_i)= \lambda_i \left[\prod_{i=1}^n

746: (1+\lambda_i^2) \right]^{-{\frac{1}{(7-p)}}} &=& {\frac{b_p}{(2)}}

747: {\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}} \left(g_{\rm YM}\right)^{\frac{(3-p)}{(7-p)}} j_i

748: \left( {\frac{m_{\rm{FT}}}{(2)}} -N\tau_p\right)^{-\gamma_p}

749: \nonumber\\ &=& {\frac{j_i}{R_{{\rm FT}}(N, m_{\rm FT}, g_{\rm

750: YM},\tau_p)}} \,,

751: \end{eqnarray}

752: %

753: where

754: %

755: \begin{equation}\label{RFTdefn}

756: R_{{\rm FT}}(N,m_{\rm FT},g_{\rm YM},\tau_p) = (2) {\frac{1}{b_p}}

757: \sqrt{N}g_{\rm YM}^{\frac{(p-3)}{(7-p)}} \left(

758: {\frac{m_{\rm{FT}}}{(2)}} -N\tau_p\right)^{\gamma_p} \,.

759: \end{equation}

760: %

761: Referring back to the entropy equation (\ref{SFTrot}), we have for

762: general $p$ and general angular momenta that

763: %

764: \begin{equation}\label{sFTfnofrho}

765: s_{\rm FT} = 2\pi \, R_{{\rm FT}}(N,m_{\rm FT},g_{\rm YM},\tau_p)

766: \, \rho(R_{{\rm FT}}(N,m_{\rm FT},g_{\rm YM},\tau_p),j_i) \,.

767: \end{equation}

768: %

769: 

770: At this stage, we may wonder whether the equations for the physical

771: parameters $\lambda_i$ in terms of $(j_i,m_{\rm FT},N,g_{\rm

772: YM},\tau_p)$ can actually be solved explicitly analytically.  For some

773: $p$, they can.  For other cases, including the $p=0$ case of most

774: interest to us, however, they cannot.  For now, we will put this issue

775: aside, and just proceed with the dependence of $\rho$ on $R_{\rm FT}$

776: and thereby on $(N,m_{\rm FT}, g_{\rm YM},\tau_p, j_i)$ implicit.

777: 

778: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

779: \subsection{Comparing field theory and supergravity}

780: %

781: We now take the field theory result of the last subsection and ask

782: what happens when we optimize with respect to $N$, the number of

783: branes (and anti-branes).  For simplicity, we first ask how this story

784: works without angular momenta.  Later we add angular momenta back in.

785: 

786: Optimizing the entropy of the strongly coupled brane-antibrane

787: theories w.r.t. $N$ gives

788: %

789: \begin{equation}

790: N = {\frac{m_{\rm FT}}{2\tau_p(1+2\gamma_p)}} \, \quad {\rm i.e.}\quad

791: m_{\rm FT} = (2N\tau_p) 2\delta_p \,.

792: \end{equation}

793: %

794: The energy density in the brane gases is then

795: %

796: \begin{equation}\label{egasebranes}

797: m_{\rm FT} - 2N\tau_p = (2N\tau_p)2\gamma_p \,.

798: \end{equation}

799: %

800: Substituting these expressions for $N$ and $m_{\rm FT}$ back into the

801: expression for the entropy, and converting D$p$-brane quantities into

802: the Newton constant, we obtain

803: %

804: \begin{equation}

805: s_{\rm FT} = 2^{-\gamma_p} {\frac{2\pi}{a_p}}

806: G^{\delta_p-1}m_{\rm FT}^{\delta_p} \,.

807: \end{equation}

808: %

809: Two possible conclusions can be drawn from this.  The first is that

810: %

811: \begin{equation}

812: m_{\rm FT} = m_{\rm SG} \quad{\rm{and}}\quad s_{\rm

813: FT}=2^{-\frac{(9-p)}{2(7-p)}} \, s_{\rm SG}

814: \end{equation}

815: %

816: Alternatively, we can conclude that

817: %

818: \begin{equation}

819: s_{\rm FT} = s_{\rm SG} \quad{\rm{and}}\quad m_{\rm FT} =

820: 2^{\frac{(9-p)}{2(8-p)}} \, m_{\rm SG} \,.

821: \end{equation}

822: %

823: The second interpretation has an interesting conclusion. It says that

824: the field theory energy, which is simply the energy on the D$p$-branes

825: plus the energy on the ${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$-branes, is not simply

826: the supergravity energy, but there is a (suitably negative) binding

827: energy

828: %

829: \begin{equation}

830: \left| m_{\rm binding} \right| = m_{\rm SG} \left(

831: 2^{\frac{(9-p)}{2(8-p)}} -1 \right) \,.

832: \end{equation}

833: %

834: We find this interpretation the more attractive one.  Binding energy

835: can be expected in our model, because of the lack of a {\em clean}

836: decoupling limit in our system between the open-string and

837: closed-string modes.

838: 

839: Let us now add back the angular momenta and see if it affects our

840: exposition of the basic physics of the brane-antibrane model.

841: 

842: Recall that, in the microcanonical ensemble that we are studying, both

843: $m_{\rm FT}$ and $j_i$ are constants.  This is why we have labelled

844: $R_{\rm FT}(N$) a function of $N$, which we have to optimize following

845: the model of $\cite{Danielsson}$.

846: 

847: Regardless of whether the equation for $\lambda_i$ can be solved

848: explicitly, the entropy depends only on $\rho(R_{\rm FT})$, as in

849: (\ref{sFTfnofrho}). So we just proceed with $\rho(R_{\rm FT})$

850: implicit.

851: 

852: Our principle is to maximize the entropy as a function of $N$.  We

853: have

854: %

855: \begin{eqnarray}\label{maxiboo}

856: {\frac{1}{s_{\rm FT}}}{\frac{\partial s_{\rm FT}}{\partial N}} &=&

857: {\frac{1}{R_{\rm FT}}} {\frac{\partial R_{\rm FT}}{\partial N}} +

858: {\frac{1}{\rho(R_{\rm FT})}} {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial R_{\rm

859: FT}}} {\frac{\partial R_{\rm FT}}{\partial N}} \nonumber\\

860: %

861: &=& \left[ {\frac{1}{R_{\rm FT}}} + {\frac{1}{\rho(R_{\rm FT})}}

862: {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial R_{\rm FT}}} \right] {\frac{\partial

863: R_{\rm FT}}{\partial N}} \,.

864: \end{eqnarray}

865: %

866: Since we do not in general know the analytic dependence of $\rho$ on

867: $R_{\rm FT}$, we need to find the derivative implicitly.  We have

868: from (\ref{RFTdefn}) 

869: %

870: \begin{equation}

871: \lambda_i {\frac{1}{\rho}} {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial R}} =

872: -{\frac{j_i}{R^2\rho}} - {\frac{\partial\lambda_i}{\partial R}} \,.

873: \end{equation}

874: %

875: Using (\ref{sFTfnofrho}), and $\lambda_i/(2\pi)=j_i/s$, we have

876: $\lambda_i=j_i/(\rho R)$, which gives

877: %

878: \begin{equation}

879: \lambda_i\left[ {\frac{1}{R_{\rm FT}}} + {\frac{1}{\rho(R_{\rm FT})}}

880: {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial R_{\rm FT}}} \right] = -

881: {\frac{\partial\lambda_i}{\partial R_{\rm FT}}}

882: \end{equation}

883: %

884: Referring back to (\ref{lambdabp}), it is easy to find $\partial

885: \lambda_i/\partial R$,

886: %

887: \begin{equation}

888: {\frac{\left[(7-p)+(5-p)\lambda_i^2 \right]\lambda_i^{6-p}}{

889: (1+\lambda_i^2) \prod_j(1+\lambda_j^2) }} 

890: {\frac{\partial\lambda_i}{\partial R_{\rm SG}}} =

891: -{\frac{(7-p)}{R_{\rm SG}^{8-p}}} j_i^{7-p}

892: \end{equation}

893: %

894: Therefore the derivative is manifestly negative, as long as $p\leq 4$,

895: and it is nonzero as long as at least one angular momentum parameter

896: ($j_i$) is turned on.  Consequently, the term in square brackets in

897: (\ref{maxiboo}) does not vanish, and it is nonsingular.

898: %

899: Therefore, whatever the behaviour of $\rho(R_{\rm FT})$, we are safe

900: in concluding that the entropy is extremized by demanding that

901: $\partial R_{\rm FT}(N)/\partial N=0$.  Optimizing $R_{\rm FT}(N)$ we

902: find that

903: %

904: \begin{equation}

905: N = {\frac{m_{\rm FT}}{2\tau_p(1+2\gamma_p)}} \,.

906: \end{equation}

907: %

908: which is exactly what we had for the non-rotating case.

909: 

910: Substituting back this optimal value of $N$ into the field theory

911: quantity $R_{\rm FT}$, we find that

912: %

913: \begin{equation}

914: R_{\rm FT}(m_{\rm FT},j_{i\,{\rm FT}},g_{\rm YM},\tau_p)

915: = R_{\rm SG}(m,j_{i\,{\rm SG}},G) \,,

916: \end{equation}

917: %

918: where $j_{i\,{\rm FT}}$ are the angular momenta in {\em one} copy of

919: the strongly coupled field theory, if we make the identifications

920: %

921: \begin{equation}\label{idees}

922: m_{\rm FT} = m_{\rm SG} 2^{\frac{(9-p)}{2(8-p)}} \,,\quad

923: j_{i\,{\rm SG}} = j_{i\,{\rm FT}} \,.

924: \end{equation}

925: %

926: Now, na\"ively we would have expected the total angular momenta of the

927: neutral supergravity solution to be split in half, shared equally

928: between the strongly coupled brane and antibrane field theories.  The

929: fact that the angular momenta and the mass do not match precisely is

930: not particularly surprising, however, because of the lack of a clean

931: decoupling limit.  In fact, closed-string modes (whose physics not

932: included in the brane-antibrane model) might carry both mass and

933: angular momenta.  We find it intriguing, though, that the

934: renormalization factors are simply powers of two!

935: 

936: Now, in order to get the entropy to match between the field theory

937: side and the supergravity side here, we have the freedom to apply

938: renormalization factors to both the mass and angular momenta.

939: Alternatively, there is insufficient information to set these

940: renormalizations factors unambiguously using our analysis. 

941: 

942: Let us then accept the mass and angular momenta renormalizations of

943: (\ref{idees}).  We then find the remarkable fact that the functional

944: form of the field theory entropy (\ref{sFTfnofrho}) in terms of $R$ is

945: identical to the functional form of the entropy on the supergravity

946: side (\ref{sSGfnofrho}).  With the renormalizations (\ref{idees}), we

947: see that the $R$'s are the same on both sides.  The strongly coupled

948: field theory of branes and antibranes therefore reproduces the

949: supergravity result, up to renormalization factors of two, i.e.

950: %

951: \begin{equation}

952: s_{\rm FT}\left(m_{\rm FT}=2^{{\frac{(9-p)}{2(8-p)}}} m_{\rm

953: SG},j_{i\,FT}  \right) = s_{\rm SG}(m_{\rm SG},j_{i\,SG}) \,.

954: \end{equation}

955: %

956: This is our main analytic result. It shows that, regardless of

957: rotation or $p$, the entropy of the neutral black brane can be

958: recovered from the strongly coupled brane-antibrane field theory.  It

959: is also worth noting that this result {\em cannot} be obtained just by

960: dimensional analysis.  

961: 

962: Alternatively, we can think of this result as constituting a highly

963: nontrivial relationship between the thermodynamical properties of

964: near-extremal black branes and those of neutral black branes.

965: 

966: Before moving on to develop some more physics of the brane-antibrane

967: model, we may ask what our conclusion about the mass renormalization

968: may do to other parts of our brane-antibrane-gas model.  We know that

969: %

970: \begin{equation}

971: T_H^{-1} = {\frac{\partial s_{\rm SG}}{\partial m_{\rm SG}}} \,.

972: \end{equation}

973: %

974: Therefore if, as we have shown, the entropies match but the masses are

975: not equal, then the temperature is also affected in the same

976: proportion as the mass

977: %

978: \begin{equation}

979: T_{\rm FT} = T_H 2^{\frac{(9-p)}{2(8-p)}} \,.

980: \end{equation}

981: %

982: (Note that this does not spoil any of our previous assumptions.)  

983: 

984: One might wonder how the unusual thermal properties of neutral black

985: holes and black branes, such as negative heat capacity, could possibly

986: be understood from analyzing this D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ field

987: theory model, which is based on ordinary super-Yang-Mills systems in

988: various dimensions. The explanation of this point in the context of

989: the D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ model is simple and was given for the

990: conformal cases in \cite{Danielsson}.  Upon inspection, one finds that

991: there is a correlation between the energy in the open string gas and

992: the contribution to the energy coming from the tension of the branes.

993: Actually they are proportional to each other. This would give rise to

994: the following interpretation for the negative specific heat.  Namely,

995: that since the energy in the gases is proportional to the tension

996: energy, if we add more energy to the open string gases then we must

997: create more D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ pairs to maintain the

998: proportionality.  This requirement to make more D$p$-${\overline{{\rm

999: D}p}}$ pairs makes the system cool down, meaning that the more massive

1000: the black branes the colder they get.  As we see, the moral of the

1001: story is that `normal' SYM field theories on the worldvolume of the

1002: branes and antibranes behave `abnormally', because the total number of

1003: degrees of freedom controlled by $N$ is not a constant; rather, it is

1004: given thermodynamically by the entropy maximization scheme.

1005: 

1006: So it is natural and important to ask whether the same kind of

1007: correlations also hold in our particular system of interest, i.e.

1008: D0-${\overline{{\rm D}0}}$, and in an even broader sense, for a

1009: general D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ system.

1010: 

1011: It is easy to show the linear proportionality (\ref{egasebranes})

1012: between the energy in the gas and the energy contribution from the

1013: brane tension.

1014: Using 

1015: data from the optimization of $N$

1016: %

1017: \begin{equation}

1018: N\sim {\frac{m_{\rm FT}}{\tau_p}} \,,

1019: \end{equation}

1020: %

1021: where $m_{\rm FT}= 2N\tau_p + m_{\rm gas}$, gives

1022: %

1023: \begin{equation}

1024: m_{\rm gas}\sim N\tau_p \,.

1025: \end{equation}

1026: %

1027: It is intriguing that exactly the same behaviour was observed in the

1028: case of non-dilatonic branes (D3, M2, M5).  However, the way the

1029: result of \cite{Danielsson} was obtained, comparing energy density and

1030: pressure in field theory and supergravity, does not apply to our $p=0$

1031: case of particular interest as there is no pressure on a $0+1$

1032: dimensional worldvolume.

1033: 

1034: It is important to note that in our entire analysis, the black objects

1035: under study are neutral - nonperturbatively nonextremal.  It is quite

1036: pleasing that the brane-antibrane model precisely explains the entropy

1037: of the neutral black branes and black holes, up to renormalizations of

1038: the mass and angular momenta that we computed.

1039: 

1040: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1041: \subsection{Horizon size}

1042: 

1043: It is interesting to ask whether the transverse fluctuations of the

1044: D$p$-$\overline{\rm D}p$ system in the microscopic picture can

1045: reproduce the size of the horizon of the corresponding black brane

1046: geometry.  We now do a scaling analysis, not keeping precise numerical

1047: factors.

1048: 

1049: Before addressing the general-$p$ cases, it is instructive to review

1050: the simplest case $p=3$.  For $N$ {\em near-extremal} D3-branes at

1051: strong coupling, power counting in $N$ and conformal symmetry tell us

1052: that\footnote{The r.m.s. expectation value is normalized with a factor

1053: of $1/N$.}  $\langle {\vec{X}}^2 \rangle_{\rm rms}\sim N T^2$.  Using

1054: the model of \cite{Danielsson} to find the optimal value of $N$ gives

1055: $N\sim m_{\rm FT}/\tau_3\sim m_{\rm gas}/\tau_3$.  Here we have used

1056: the information from the brane-antibrane model both to set the optimal

1057: value of $N$ and to learn that there is roughly the same amount of

1058: energy density in the branes and in the open-string gas on those

1059: branes.  Next, we use the assumption $m_{\rm SG}\sim m_{\rm FT}$, and

1060: the supergravity relationship between the Hawking temperature and the

1061: energy, $m_{\rm SG}\sim r_0^4/G$.  We also recall the assumption that

1062: the brane gas temperature is equal to the antibrane gas temperature,

1063: and both are equal to the Hawking temperature of the black brane.

1064: Collecting these facts, and using the relationship $G\tau_3^2\sim 1$,

1065: then gives a relationship between the supergravity horizon radius and

1066: variables in the field theory.  The last assumption to be used is the

1067: supergravity relationship between the Hawking temperature and horizon

1068: radius $T_H\sim 1/r_0$.  So $\langle {\vec{X}}^2 \rangle_{\rm rms}

1069: \sim r_0^4 (1/r_0)^2 \sim r_0^2$.  Therefore, the r.m.s. extent of the

1070: position fields of the field theory corresponds to the horizon radius.

1071: In other words, we started from a near-extremal gauge theory and ended

1072: up with the size of the horizon of a {\em neutral} black 3-brane.

1073: 

1074: Now we turn away from the conformal case.  In later sections, we will

1075: be particularly interested in the $p=0$ case, so let us look at it

1076: here in some detail.

1077: 

1078: In the mean field approximation, it has been shown \cite{KabatLowe}

1079: that the extent of the ground state of the D0-brane theory at low

1080: temperatures is controlled by t'Hooft coupling, {\em not} the

1081: temperature.  In supergravity, on the other hand, the rough estimate

1082: of the size {\em is} temperature dependent.  Therefore, the above

1083: logic that we used for the D3-brane case will not work for the

1084: D0-brane case. In \cite{KabatLowe}, a remedy for this confusing

1085: situation was proposed. Namely, that fast-varying degrees of freedom

1086: are physically inaccessible to a local supergravity observer. The

1087: supergravity probes just cannot resolve high-frequency fluctuations of

1088: order of t'Hooft energies, that are occurring at a ``microscopic''

1089: level in quantum mechanics.  In other words, a supergravity probe

1090: cannot resolve distances sharper than $l_{\rm probe}\sim \beta$. As a

1091: consequence, the supergravity probes simply miss all the quantum

1092: dynamics of the D0-brane dynamics involving energies much higher than

1093: the Hawking temperature.  Therefore, in making a microscopic model to

1094: reproduce supergravity, caution must be used regarding which degrees

1095: of freedom have to be included in the picture.

1096: 

1097: Practically, the suggestion of \cite{KabatLowe} amounts to imposing a

1098: temperature-dependent cutoff on the spectral density of the transverse

1099: fluctuations, i.e. $X^i$ propagators, that leads to a temperature

1100: dependent $\langle{\vec{X}}^2\rangle_{\rm rms}$ which qualitatively

1101: shows the same behavior as $r^2_0$ does on supergravity side.  

1102: 

1103: So in what follows we will assume that, if one tries hard from the

1104: gauge theory point of view, the extension of the wavefunction of the

1105: near-extremal geometry should become consistent with supergravity

1106: expectations.  We use this intuition motivated by IMSY in what

1107: follows.

1108: 

1109: We now apply this thinking that came from studying D0-brane physics to

1110: the general-$p$ case.  We put together a number of ingredients that we

1111: have discussed in this section.  We begin with

1112: %

1113: \begin{equation}

1114: m_{\rm FT}\sim m_{\rm branes} + m_{\rm

1115: gas} \,,

1116: \end{equation}

1117: %

1118: and note from the model of \cite{Danielsson} we have 

1119: %

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: m_{\rm gas}\sim m_{\rm branes} \,.

1122: \end{equation}

1123: %

1124: (Of course, the same energy density is in the brane gas and antibrane

1125: gas, so for the purposes of scaling we do not need to compute each

1126: contribution separately.)  

1127: 

1128: From e.g. \cite{itzhaki}, we have for the spatial extent of a {\em

1129: near-extremal} D$p$ or ${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ geometry,

1130: %

1131: \begin{equation}

1132: U_0\sim (g_{\rm YM}^2 N)^{1/(5-p)} T^{2/(5-p)} \,,

1133: \end{equation}

1134: %

1135: where $U_0\equiv r_0/\ell_s^2$.  

1136: %

1137: (Thinking of $U_0$ as distance and $T$ as energy, we see that this is

1138: exactly the same energy/distance relation found by \cite{peet} for a

1139: $D=10$ supergraviton probe of a D$p$-brane geometry in the decoupling

1140: limit.  The coincidence is not too surprising.)

1141: %

1142: We now add in dynamical information from the brane-antibrane model,

1143: %

1144: \begin{equation}

1145: N\sim m_{\rm FT}/\tau_p \,,

1146: \end{equation}

1147: %

1148: to give

1149: %

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: r_0^{5-p}\sim G m_{\rm FT} T^{2/(5-p)} \,.

1152: \end{equation}

1153: %

1154: Lastly, we bring in the (field theory) relationship between

1155: temperature and mass

1156: %

1157: \begin{equation}

1158: T \sim (Gm_{\rm FT})^{-1/(7-p)} \,.

1159: \end{equation}

1160: %

1161: Finally, we find 

1162: %

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: r_0\sim (Gm_{\rm FT})^{1/(7-p)} \,.

1165: \end{equation}

1166: %

1167: Since $m_{\rm FT}\sim m_{\rm SG}$, this is the same radius as that of

1168: the horizon in the {\em neutral} geometry of interest.  Therefore, the

1169: brane-antibrane model does successfully provide a consistent picture

1170: of the spatial extent of the horizon.

1171: 

1172: We now turn to checking the consistency of the supergravity

1173: approximation itself.

1174: 

1175: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1176: \subsection{Validity of supergravity}

1177: 

1178: The black D$p$-branes on which we concentrate here are neutral.  In

1179: order that they can be thought of as bona fide supergravity entities,

1180: we require at a minimum that the curvature at the horizon radius

1181: should be small in string units, to keep $\alpha^\prime$ corrections

1182: small.  In scaling,

1183: %

1184: \begin{equation}

1185: (Gm)^{1/(7-p)} \gg \ell_s \,.

1186: \end{equation}

1187: %

1188: Using the equilibrium value of $N$, this becomes

1189: %

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: (g_{s}^2\ell_s^8N\tau_p)^{1/(7-p)}\gg \ell_s \,,

1192: \end{equation}

1193: %

1194: which in turn leads to

1195: %

1196: \begin{equation}

1197: g_{s}N \gg 1 \,.

1198: \end{equation}

1199: %

1200: Of course, we also require that string loop corrections be under

1201: control

1202: %

1203: \begin{equation}

1204: g_s \ll 1 \,,

1205: \end{equation}

1206: %

1207: for the $D=10$ neutral black brane spacetime.

1208: 

1209: Now, let us recall one important piece of physics from

1210: \cite{Danielsson}, the study of the conformal case.  Even though the

1211: neutral geometry of interest is not studied in the decoupling limit,

1212: the brane and antibrane systems in the microscopic model are actually

1213: taken to be decoupled -- as facts from AdS/CFT are used to describe

1214: the strongly coupled D3-brane theory.  Therefore, at this point, it is

1215: appropriate to check whether the conditions for validity of the $D=10$

1216: near-extremal D$p$-brane geometry are satisfied here also for the

1217: non-conformal cases, as these geometries dictate for us the behaviour

1218: of the strongly coupled field theories on the D$p$ and

1219: ${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$.

1220: 

1221: Let us therefore study the IMSY conditions carefully, to gain

1222: understanding of the brane-antibrane side of the picture.  As

1223: described in \cite{itzhaki}, there is a region in which type II $D=10$

1224: supergravity is valid

1225: %

1226: \begin{equation}\label{imsycondition}

1227: 1\ll g_{\rm eff}^2(U) \ll N^{\frac{4}{(7-p)}} \,,

1228: \end{equation}

1229: %

1230: where the effective coupling at energy scale $U$ is

1231: %

1232: \begin{equation}\label{boo1}

1233: g_{\rm eff}^2(U) \sim g_{\rm YM}^2 N U^{p-3} \,.

1234: \end{equation}

1235: %

1236: Also, the horizon radius for the near-extremal geometry is related to

1237: the energy above extremality $m_{\rm gas}$ and the temperature $T$ by

1238: %

1239: \begin{equation}\label{boo2}

1240: U_0 \sim (g_{\rm YM}^4 m_{\rm gas})^{\frac{1}{(7-p)}} \sim (g_{\rm

1241: YM}^2N)^{\frac{1}{(5-p)}} T^{\frac{2}{(5-p)}} \,.

1242: \end{equation}

1243: %

1244: 

1245: Now, our big neutral black brane will have a low Hawking temperature.

1246: This means that we are not in danger of violating the $\alpha^\prime$

1247: (left-hand) end of the bound (\ref{imsycondition}).  However,

1248: precisely because we are operating at such low temperatures, we may be

1249: concerned about violating the strong-coupling (right-hand) end of the

1250: bound (\ref{imsycondition}).  For example, for $p=0$, we may be

1251: concerned about having to lift up to $D=11$.

1252: 

1253: It is a satisfying fact that our microscopic brane-antibrane model

1254: remains consistent in the $D=10$ picture.  The essential reason for

1255: this is that, in the brane-antibrane model, $N$ is not an independent

1256: variable.  Rather, $N$ is thermodynamically determined.  Using the

1257: fact that $m_{\rm gas}\sim N\tau_p$ and formul\ae\

1258: (\ref{boo1},\ref{boo2}), and requiring that both ends of the IMSY

1259: bound (\ref{imsycondition}) are respected gives two conditions,

1260: which reduce to

1261: %

1262: \begin{equation}

1263: g_sN\gg 1 \,, \qquad g_s \ll 1 \,.

1264: \end{equation}

1265: %

1266: As we saw before, open strings are strongly coupled, but closed

1267: strings are weakly coupled.

1268: 

1269: Therefore, we do not need to be concerned about departing from the

1270: regime of validity of $D=10$ supergravity, for our systems of strongly

1271: coupled branes and antibranes.

1272: 

1273: In particular, for the $p=0$ case, we are always in the $D=10$

1274: supergravity regime.  This means, in particular, that we never get to

1275: the $D=11$ supergravity regime.  Therefore, it is not apparent whether

1276: there is any simple relationship between these microscopic models for

1277: $D=10$ neutral black branes and the BFSS matrix theory models, whose

1278: microphysical description is in terms of D0-brane degrees of freedom

1279: representing $D=11$ M theory.

1280: 

1281: %====================================================================+

1282: \section{Numerically investigating 

1283: ${\rm\bf D0}{-}\overline{\rm\bf D0}$ physics}

1284: 

1285: For the remainder of this paper we will concentrate on the $p=0$ case,

1286: i.e. the brane-antibrane model of the $D=10$ Schwarzschild black

1287: hole. The reason is that the physics is a quantum mechanics, lending

1288: itself to the possibility of actually computing the behaviour of the

1289: strongly coupled field theory.

1290: 

1291: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1292: \subsection{Scalings, and strategy}

1293: 

1294: Of course, the idea of doing direct numerical simulations in the

1295: strongly coupled QM is not new.  Kabat et al.~\cite{kabat1} have used

1296: a method called Variational Perturbation Theory (VPT) to check the

1297: IMSY gravity/gauge duality conjectures \cite{itzhaki} for the

1298: decoupling limit of D$p$-brane systems with sixteen supercharges.  In

1299: particular, the entropy of $N$ near extremal D0-branes was computed

1300: using VPT, and was found to match the with supergravity result to the

1301: level of approximation used \cite{kabat2}. The agreement is

1302: impressive.  In particular, the highly nontrivial temperature

1303: dependence of the free energy was obtained (approximately): $\beta

1304: F\propto T^{1.8}$!  Indeed, this could be considered as the first

1305: (approximate) nonperturbative check of any gauge theory/gravity

1306: duality.  The causal structure of spacetime from the point of view of

1307: the gauge theory also has been studied in the context of mean field

1308: Gaussian approximations~\cite{kabat3}.

1309: 

1310: The next step for our program to understand $D=10$ Schwarzschild black

1311: holes would be to justify the crude brane-antibrane picture drawn in

1312: the last few sections, by computing the microscopic entropy using the

1313: effective quantum description of a system of D0-$\overline{\rm D0}$s.

1314: 

1315: Now, in the D0-$\overline{\rm D0}$ system we cannot take a clean

1316: decoupling limit, if we expect to keep the open string tachyon and

1317: massless string modes but not massive string modes.  Therefore, our

1318: further progress in developing the brane-antibrane model is to be

1319: thought of as an approximate description, where the massive string

1320: modes are not fully decoupled.  Of course, the same story was true of

1321: the Danielsson et al. work \cite{Danielsson}.

1322: 

1323: Clearly, there are two different energy scales set by two different

1324: dimensionful coupling constants in our problem: $\alpha'$ and $g_{\rm

1325: YM}^2=g_{s}(2\pi)^{-2}\ell_s^{-3}N$. In gauge theory, everything is

1326: governed by $g_{\rm YM}^2$, while $\alpha'$ controls the mass of the

1327: tachyon.  For the physics of D0-branes alone, dimensional analysis and

1328: power counting in $N$ tells us \cite{kabat1} that a dimensionless

1329: quantity like $\beta F$ can be written as

1330: %

1331: \begin{equation}

1332: \beta F_{\rm D0} \propto N^2 \mathcal{F} (\frac{T}{(g_{\rm

1333: YM}^2N)^{1/3}}) \,.

1334: \end{equation}

1335: %

1336: Here, with the tachyon, we have two different scales: the t'Hooft

1337: coupling and $\alpha'$.  Thus, the free energy can be written as

1338: %

1339: \begin{eqnarray}

1340: \beta F_{{\rm D0}{-}\overline{\rm D0}} \propto N^2 \mathcal{G}

1341: (\frac{T}{(g_{\rm YM}^2N)^{1/3}}, \alpha'(g_{\rm YM}^2N)^{2/3})= N^2

1342: \mathcal{G} (\frac{T}{(g_{\rm YM}^2N)^{1/3}}, (g_{s}N)^{2/3}) \,.

1343: \end{eqnarray}

1344: %

1345: Therefore, the free energy written in dimensionless units will be a

1346: function of $g_{s}N$.  Of course, it will also depend on the

1347: dimensionless inverse temperature measured in 't Hooft units,

1348: $\tilde\beta$.

1349: 

1350: In the limit where massive open string excitations can be neglected,

1351: and the string coupling is small, the system is relatively simple.  We

1352: have two copies of the $D0$-brane theory - one for D0-branes and one

1353: $\overline{\rm D0}$-branes - plus a complex tachyon $T$ and a massless

1354: Majorana fermion $\Psi$ coming from D-$\overline{\rm D}$ open

1355: strings.

1356: 

1357: The strategy is to compute the free energy of this system as a

1358: function of the tachyon classical background field, plus other

1359: quantities at finite inverse temperature $\beta$.  In the field theory

1360: we compute at strong couplings using VPT, and in the closed string

1361: description the $D=10$ supergravity approximation is valid.  Then the

1362: following pieces of information could be read off immediately from the

1363: free energy

1364: %

1365: \begin{description}

1366: %

1367: \item[Tachyon static mass] The thermodynamically favourable value for

1368: the tachyon expectation value can be computed by minimizing the

1369: effective action, i.e. the free energy of the system as a function of

1370: the tachyon background.

1371: %

1372: \item[Sign of the Tachyon dynamical mass] Another important piece of

1373: information encoded in the free energy is the effective mass of the

1374: tachyon which is given by

1375: %

1376: \begin{equation}

1377: m^2_{T}=\beta\frac{\delta^2F}{\delta \langle T\rangle\delta \langle

1378: T\rangle^{\star}} \,,

1379: \end{equation}

1380: %

1381: where $\langle T\rangle$ is the tachyon expectation value.  This

1382: effective mass includes the contributions from infinite numbers of

1383: loop diagrams via the Schwinger-Dyson equation.

1384: %

1385: \item[Magnitude of the Tachyon Dynamical Mass] This quantity is a

1386: measure of the smallness of the tachyon fluctuations.  A large

1387: dynamical mass results in small contributions to the entropy from the

1388: tachyon.

1389: %

1390: \item[Phase Portrait of the theory] The final goal is to calculate the

1391: phase portrait of the system, as a function of inverse temperature

1392: $\beta$ and $g_sN$. A sign change in $m^2_{T}$ from negative to

1393: positive would be of great interest, since it would signal the tachyon

1394: stabilization phenomenon.  This stabilization would give a

1395: justification for why a gas of D0 and $\overline{\rm D0}$ branes does

1396: not simply annihilate all the way down to a bunch of closed strings.

1397: \end{description}

1398: 

1399: One note of caution.  The Hagedorn phenomenon in string theory might

1400: impact us here in one place: at temperatures of order of the string

1401: scale, massive open string excitations become important, but we are

1402: not incorporating massive excitations into our dynamics. In order to

1403: have a self-consistent description of the phenomena, therefore, we

1404: will look for a possible finite-temperature tachyon stabilization at a

1405: temperature well below the Hagedorn temperature.

1406: 

1407: We now turn to describing the technology which we will use to perform

1408: the numerical simulation of the D0-${\overline{{\rm D}0}}$ system.

1409: 

1410: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1411: \subsection{Variational perturbation theory (VPT)}

1412: %

1413: The basic idea of VPT is simple.  Using VPT to simulate

1414: strong-coupling D0-brane physics was first introduced in

1415: \cite{kabat1,kabat2}, and we review the salient points here for

1416: refernence.  Suppose that the theory of interest has action $S$, and

1417: the aim is to approximate its free energy at {\em strong couplings}.

1418: The idea is to use a free theory, with action $S_0$, with arbitrary

1419: tunable parameters.  The next step is to find values for these

1420: parameters in such a way the free theory is a best fit for the full

1421: interacting theory.

1422: 

1423: For any arbitrary $S_{0}$ the following identity holds

1424: %

1425: \begin{equation}

1426: \beta F=\beta F_{0} -\langle e^{-(S-S_{0})}-1\rangle_{0,C} \,,

1427: \end{equation}

1428: %

1429: where $0$ refers to the free theory and $C$ stands for connected

1430: contributions. Expanding the identity,

1431: %

1432: \begin{equation}

1433: \beta F=\beta F_{0}+\langle S-S_{0}\rangle_{0}-\frac{1}{2}

1434: \langle(S-S_{0})^2\rangle_{0,C}+ \cdots \,.

1435: \end{equation}

1436: %

1437: It is important to note that this expansion is {\em not} a

1438: perturbative expansion in the couplings of the original interacting

1439: theory of interest.

1440: 

1441: Now, if terms to all orders in the above expansion are kept, then

1442: there is of course no dependence on the parameters of the trial free

1443: theory, as it is an identity true for any $S_{0}$.  Taking a practical

1444: approach and terminating the series at any finite order, however, the

1445: series depends on the variational parameters.

1446: 

1447: The next step is to fix the variational parameters.  Minimizing the

1448: free energy with respect to those parameters (which is equivalent to

1449: requiring the trial free action to satisfy the Schwinger-Dyson

1450: equation) leads to a set of algebraic coupled equations (in general

1451: infinite in number), called ``gap equations".  Solution of the gap

1452: equations yields the variational parameters, which are then

1453: substituted back to obtain the free energy.

1454: 

1455: This VPT method has in fact been checked explicitly for quantum

1456: mechanical systems where calculations in the full interacting theory

1457: can actually be done exactly, and the above expansion captures the

1458: strong-coupling behaviour accurately; in particular, convergence is

1459: very fast.  Our system of interest here is of course not solvable, so

1460: we need to use the approximate expansion procedure outlined above.

1461: 

1462: Practically speaking, of course, the infinite set of equations cannot

1463: be solved.  Therefore it is necessary to cut off that infinite set of

1464: equations, and find the common roots of the finite coupled set of

1465: algebraic equations.  Solving this system of equations is, at any

1466: rate, computationally very expensive.

1467: 

1468: The last step is then to substitute the solution of the gap equations

1469: back into the free energy, to get the sought-after dependence on the

1470: parameters of interest. For us, these parameters will be the

1471: dimensionless inverse temperature $\tilde\beta$, and the open-string

1472: coupling $g_sN$.

1473: 

1474: As outlined in \cite{kabat1,kabat2}, the VPT method is not

1475: straightforward when dealing with supersymmetry and gauge theory.

1476: Regarding gauge theory.  Proposing a Gaussian theory for a

1477: non-dynamical gauge field in 0+1 dimensions is delicate, as one cannot

1478: simply gauge it away at finite temperature. Gauging away the gauge

1479: field leaves an observable (a Wilson loop), made from the zero mode of

1480: the gauge field encircling the Euclidean time direction, as a remnant.

1481: The Gaussian theory to be used \cite{kabat1} is the one-plaquette

1482: model studied by Gross and Witten~\cite{Gross}.  Taylor-Slavnov

1483: identities, which are consequences of gauge symmetry and relate

1484: various correlation functions, get invalidated by the VPT expansion.

1485: Regarding supersymmetry.  It turns out to be impossible in general to

1486: come up with a Gaussian theory with general variational parameters

1487: respecting supersymmetry, without inclusion of a trial action for

1488: auxiliary fields.  A way to get around the problem is to work with the

1489: off-shell superspace formulation.

1490: 

1491: On the other hand, the VPT method has some special positive features

1492: as well.  One is that VPT automatically respects 't Hooft counting.

1493: Another is that VPT automatically cures infrared problems arising from

1494: having an infinite moduli space of vacua where D0-branes are far

1495: apart.  The contribution coming from the zero mode sector goes like

1496: $\mathcal{O}(N)$ and is therefore distinguishable from

1497: ${\mathcal{O}}(N^2)$ contributions.  

1498: 

1499: %--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1500: \subsection{Motivating the action}

1501: %

1502: According to \cite{Kraus} (see also \cite{Tadashi} for a similar

1503: results), the action for a system of D9-$\overline{\rm D9}$ with the

1504: $U(1)$ gauge fields living on its world-volume is given by the

1505: following\footnote{We are using the mostly plus convention for the

1506: metric signature.}

1507: %

1508: \begin{eqnarray} S&=&-2\tau_{9}\int d^{10}x \,

1509: \exp(-2\pi\alpha^{\prime}T^{\dagger}T)\biggl[ 1 + 8\pi\alpha^{\prime2

1510: }\ln(2)D_{\mu}T^{\dagger}D^{\mu}T + \nonumber\\

1511: %

1512: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\frac{(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{2}}{8}

1513: {\overline{F}}_{\mu\nu} {\overline{F}}^{\mu\nu}

1514: +\frac{(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{2}}{8} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}

1515: \ldots\biggr] \,,

1516: \end{eqnarray}

1517: %

1518: where we have used `bars' to denote quantities in the ${\overline{\rm

1519: D0}}$ sector and `no bars' to denote quantities in the D0 sector.  Of

1520: course, T is a complex bi-fundamental gauge field so that

1521: $D_{\mu}T=\partial_{\mu}T-iTA_{\mu}+i{\overline{A}}_{\mu}T$.

1522: Dimensional reduction of this action should give the correct action

1523: for the dynamics of lower dimensional D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$

1524: systems including our $p=0$ case.  As usual, we substitute

1525: ${\overline{A}}_{i}=(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{-1}{\overline{X}}_{i}\,,\,

1526: A_{i}=(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{-1}X_{i}$.  Performing field

1527: redefinitions, a nonabelian generalization of this toy approximate

1528: action is

1529: %

1530: \begin{eqnarray}\label{nonabeliantoy}

1531: S&=&-\int dx^0 {\rm{Tr}}\

1532: \exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2\alpha'}{4\ln2}T^{\dagger}T\right)

1533: \biggl[

1534: \frac{1}{2g_{\rm YM}^2}(\partial_{0}T^{\dagger}\partial^{0}T

1535: +i\partial_{0}T^{\dagger}({\overline{A}}^{0}T-TA^{0})  \nonumber\\

1536: %

1537: && +i(A^{0}T^{\dagger}-T^{\dagger}{\overline{A}}^{0})\partial_{0}T

1538: -(A^{0}T^{\dagger}-T^{\dagger}{\overline{A}}^{0})

1539: ({\overline{A}}_{0}T-TA_{0}) \nonumber\\

1540: %

1541: &&

1542: -(X^{i}T^{\dagger}-T^{\dagger}{\overline{X}}^{i})

1543: ({\overline{X}}_{i}T-TX_{i}))

1544: +2\tau_{0}\mathbb{I}_{N\times N}\biggr] \nonumber\\

1545: %

1546: && + S'_{\rm D0}[X^i,A^0]+S'_{\overline{\rm D0}}

1547: [{\overline{X}}^i,{\overline{A}}^0] \,,

1548: \end{eqnarray}

1549: %

1550: where we use the usual definition of the 't Hooft coupling, $1/g_{\rm

1551: YM}^2=4\pi^2 g_{s}^{-1}\ell_s^{3}$, and where $S'_{\rm D0}$ and

1552: $S'_{\overline{\rm D0}}$ are the corresponding low-energy actions for

1553: D0 and $\overline{\rm D0}$ respectively.  Obviously, $T$ is in the

1554: $N\times {\overline{N}}$ bifundamental representation.

1555: 

1556: Now, in order to be able to compute the thermal partition

1557: function, we need to Euclideanize the Minkowskian action. First,

1558: we analytically continue the timelike component of both $U(N)$

1559: gauge fields as well as Minkowskian time direction $x^0$ while

1560: leaving the other fields untouched,

1561: %

1562: \begin{equation}

1563: x^0=-i\tau \,,\quad

1564: %

1565: iS_E=S_M \,,\quad iA^{0}_E=A^{0}_M \,,\quad

1566: %

1567: i{\overline{A}}^{0}_E={\overline{A}}^{0}_M \,.

1568: \end{equation}

1569: %

1570: Next, we Fourier expand $T$, $A^{0}$, ${\overline{A}}^{0}$, $X^{i}$

1571: and ${\overline{X}}^{i}$ in $\tau$ with a periodicity $\beta$ given by

1572: the the inverse temperature.  Since all these variables are bosonic,

1573: they have periodic boundary conditions,

1574: %

1575: \begin{equation}

1576: \left\{ A_{0}(\tau) , {\overline{A}}_{0}(\tau), X^i(\tau) ,

1577: {\overline{X}}^i(\tau) , T(\tau) \right\}

1578: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta}}\sum_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}} \left\{ A_{0\ell} ,

1579: {\overline{A}}_{0\ell} , X^i_{\ell} , {\overline{X}}^i_{\ell} , T_\ell

1580: \right\} e^{\frac{-2\pi i \ell}{\beta}\tau} \,.

1581: \end{equation}

1582: %

1583: Writing the action in terms of Fourier modes is straightforward.  We

1584: take the above expansions and perform the Euclidean time integral,

1585: using the following {\em variational} correlators in Wick contractions

1586: of Feynman diagrams contributing to the free energy (in our case, the

1587: amplitude $\langle S_{II E}-S_{0 E}\rangle_{0}$,)

1588: %

1589: \begin{eqnarray}

1590: \langle X^{i}_{\ell AB} X^{j}_{m CD}\rangle_{0} &=&\sigma_{\alpha

1591: \ell}^2 \delta^{i j}\delta_{\ell+m}\delta_{AD}\delta_{BC}\quad\quad

1592: i,j=1,2 \,,\nonumber\\ 

1593: %

1594: \langle X^{a}_{\ell AB} X^{b}_{m CD}\rangle_{0} &=&\Delta_{\alpha l}^2

1595: \delta^{ab}\delta_{\ell+m}\delta_{AD}\delta_{BC}\quad\quad a,b=3..9

1596: \,,\nonumber\\

1597: %

1598: \langle A_{00AB} A_{00CD}\rangle_{0} &=&

1599: \rho_{0}^{2} \delta_{AD}\delta_{BC} \,,\nonumber\\

1600: %

1601: \langle T^{\dagger}_{\ell AB} T_{m

1602: CD}\rangle_{0}&=&\xi_{\ell}^2\delta_{\ell m}\delta_{AD}\delta_{BC}

1603: \,.

1604: \end{eqnarray}

1605: %

1606: and similarly for the barred variables.  The need for separation of

1607: transverse scalar directions comes from the limitations of the

1608: original superspace formulation \cite{kabat2} of the D0-brane

1609: supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics. Namely, for each copy of the

1610: QM, there are 2 scalars $X^{i}$ in the gauge multiplet and $7$ other

1611: $\phi^{a}$ scalars coming from scalar multiplet.  In other words, the

1612: original $SO(9)$ $R$-symmetry is broken to $SO(2) \times\ G_2$

1613: ($\phi^{a}$ are a $\textbf{7}$ of $G_{2}$).

1614: 

1615: The numerical simulation of this action, which is an approximation

1616: to the system of D0-branes, anti-D0-branes and the tachyon sector

1617: where both copies of the D0-brane theory are supersymmetric is

1618: computationally very expensive, partly because of the need to find

1619: the solution to hundreds of nonlinear equations. In addition, we

1620: have to cover mapping out of the phase portrait as a function of

1621: $\beta$ and $g_sN$.  We therefore report on some initial results

1622: in a more stripped-down version of our model.

1623: 

1624: %====================================================================+

1625: \subsection{The toy model}

1626: %

1627: In this section, we look at a ``toy'' model which consists of

1628: large-$N$ bosonic matrix quantum mechanics (representing the D0-brane

1629: and anti-D0-brane theories) plus our bi-fundamental charged tachyon.

1630: 

1631: This toy model is obviously a good approximation to the original

1632: problem in the high-temperature limit where the Euclidean time circle

1633: is so small that nonzero thermal KK modes are heavy. In this limit,

1634: there is no antiperiodic fermion left after reduction to $0+0$

1635: dimensions. Of course, we are interested in low temperatures where the

1636: supergravity description is valid and quantum mechanics is strongly

1637: coupled.

1638: 

1639: There are reasons to believe why this toy model could demonstrate some

1640: generic behaviors of interest to us, which will continue to be true

1641: even in the case where we have two copies of {\em supersymmetric}

1642: matrix quantum mechanics. It is well known \cite{Polchinski} that the

1643: extent of the ground state of a system of D0-branes, defined in terms

1644: of fluctuations of transverse scalars, is controlled by the 't Hooft

1645: coupling. It is intuitively plausible to expect that, at strong

1646: coupling, the tachyon could acquire a large induced mass through its

1647: coupling to these large transverse scalar fluctuations.  As has been

1648: observed in \cite{kabat1}, both bosonic matrix quantum mechanics and

1649: its supersymmetric version have large transverse fluctuations.  So if

1650: one takes this intuition seriously, as far as the dynamics of the

1651: tachyon is concerned in the low energy approximation, even the bosonic

1652: version could be a good approximation to the right

1653: physics\footnote{Although irrelevant to the above discussion, the

1654: difference is in the actual value of the ground state energy, which is

1655: -- for each copy -- of course zero in the supersymmetric case but

1656: large and positive in the bosonic case.}

1657: 

1658: In the model of Danielsson et al \cite{Danielsson} which motivated our

1659: work here, the dynamical assumption is that the tachyon field is

1660: stabilized by finite-temperature strong-coupling effects about $T=0$.

1661: We therefore expand $T= 0 + t$, where $t$ is the fluctuation part, and

1662: plan to show the consistency of this assumption {\em a posteriori} by

1663: showing that the mass is indeed positive -- and large\footnote{We have

1664: ignored the higher powers in the expansion of the exponential

1665: prefactor in (\ref{nonabeliantoy}) sitting in front of the Lagrangian;

1666: this will be justified {\rm a posteriori} by the large-mass finding.}

1667: -- at strong coupling.  Therefore, the terms relevant to our

1668: discussion which are quadratic in the tachyon fluctuations $t$ can be

1669: written

1670: %

1671: \begin{eqnarray}

1672: S_{E}&=&\frac{1}{g^2_{\rm YM}}\int_{0}^{\beta}

1673: d\tau(\frac{1}{2}{\rm{Tr}} D_{\tau}X^{i}D_{\tau}X^{i} -\frac{1}{4}

1674: {\rm{Tr}}[X^{i},X^{j}][X^{i},X^{j}])\nonumber \\

1675: %

1676: && +\frac{1}{g^2_{\rm YM}}\int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau(\frac{1}{2}{\rm{Tr}}

1677: D_{\tau}{\overline{X}}^{i}D_{\tau}{\overline{X}}^{i} -

1678: \frac{1}{4}{\rm{Tr}}[{\overline{X}}^{i},{\overline{X}}^{j}]

1679: [{\overline{X}}^{i},{\overline{X}}^{j}]) \nonumber\\

1680: %

1681: && +\int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau {\rm{Tr}}[\frac{1}{2g^2_{\rm

1682: YM}}

1683: \biggl(\partial_{\tau}t^{\dagger}\partial_{\tau}t

1684: +A^{0}t^{\dagger}tA^{0}+t^{\dagger}{\overline{A}}^{0}

1685: {\overline{A}}^{0}t +X^{i}t^{\dagger}tX^{i} +

1686: t^{\dagger}{\overline{X}}^{i}{\overline{X}}^{i}t

1687: \nonumber\\ 

1688: &&

1689: %

1690: - \partial_0 t^\dagger ({\overline{A}}^0 t - t A^0) + (A^0

1691: t^\dagger-t^\dagger {\overline{A}}^0) \partial_0 t \biggr)

1692: +2\tau_{0}\mathbb{I}_{N\times

1693: N}-\frac{2\tau_0\pi^2\alpha'}{4\ln2}t^{\dagger}t\biggr] \,.

1694: \end{eqnarray}

1695: %

1696: Morally, we are going to treat the tachyon as background.  By this we

1697: simply mean that we are interested in finding the free energy as a

1698: function[al] of the tachyon, after integrating out the other fields in

1699: the problem -- nonperturbatively using VPT.  For this reason, no trial

1700: action for the tachyon is introduced; the VPT techniques are used for

1701: the fields other than the tachyon.

1702: 

1703: Using VPT, we have

1704: %

1705: \begin{equation}

1706: \beta F=\beta F_{0} + \beta {\overline{F}}_{0}+\langle S_{\rm

1707: D0}+S_{\overline{\rm D0}} +

1708: S_{T}-S_{0}\rangle_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\langle(S_{III})^2\rangle_{0,C}

1709: \quad (+\ldots) \,,

1710: \end{equation}

1711: %

1712: where $S_T$ is the tachyon contribution to the action, and the

1713: subscript zero refers to the contribution coming from the trial free

1714: action for the other fields.

1715: 

1716: As a first step, we can neglect the terms in the action that are cubic

1717: in the tachyon, as far as the VPT expansion is concerned.  There is a

1718: good reason why this is justified.  Namely, because the cubic

1719: contribution to the free energy enters at the order of

1720: $\mathcal{O}(t^4)$, which is small at small-$t$. 

1721: 

1722: Following the story for a single clump of D0-branes \cite{kabat1}, we

1723: put in the ghost field from gauge-fixing, whose Fourier modes are

1724: denoted $s_{\ell\not=0}$ (obviously, for physical reasons there is no

1725: zero mode).  We also use equations from pages 25-27 of that work; to

1726: save space here we only write here what changes when we introduce our

1727: tachyon field.  

1728: 

1729: We also introduce convenient dimensionless units. These are defined

1730: such that in term of them one gets an overall factor of $N^2$ in the

1731: free energy, and the rest is just a function of dimensionless

1732: quantities and $g_{s}N$.  We define newly dimensionless variables 

1733: with tildes; we have

1734: %

1735: \begin{equation}

1736: \tilde{\beta}=\beta {f^{1/3}} \,,\quad

1737: \tilde{\rho}_{0}^2=\frac{N\rho_{0}^2}{f^{1/3}} \,,\quad

1738: \tilde{\sigma}_{l}^2=\frac{N\sigma_{l}^2}{f^{1/3}} \,,\quad

1739: {\tilde{t}}_\ell^\dagger {\tilde{t}}_\ell=\frac{N t^\dagger_\ell

1740: t_\ell}{f^{1/3}} \,,

1741: \end{equation}

1742: %

1743: and similarly for the barred variables.  Here $f=(g_{\rm YM}^2

1744: N)^{1/3}$.  Note that in this bosonic model we do not have to treat

1745: the $X^i,{\overline{X}}^i$ fields for $i=1,2$ differently than for

1746: $i=3\ldots 9$ because there is no need to worry about maintaining

1747: explicit supersymmetry; therefore we do not have $\Delta_\ell$ and we

1748: just use $\sigma_\ell$ to represent correlators of all nine position

1749: fields.  Note that we are measuring the tachyon expectation value in

1750: string units.  

1751: 

1752: Henceforth, we drop the tildes for notational simplicity.  Then we

1753: obtain the following expression for the free energy as a function of

1754: the tachyon

1755: %

1756: \begin{eqnarray}

1757: \beta F&=&\beta F(\lambda)_{\square}+\beta

1758: F({\overline{\lambda}})_{\square} +

1759: \frac{N}{\lambda}\langle

1760: {\rm{Tr}}(U+U^{\dagger})\rangle_{\square}+

1761: \frac{N}{{\overline{\lambda}}}\langle

1762: {\rm{Tr}}({\overline{U}}+{\overline{U}}^{\dagger})\rangle_{\square}

1763: \nonumber \\

1764: %

1765: &&

1766: -\frac{9N^2}{2}\sum_{\ell}\log\sigma_\ell^2

1767: -\frac{9N^2}{2}\sum_{\ell}\log{\overline{\sigma}}_\ell^{2}

1768: +N^2\sum_{\ell\neq 0}\log s_{\ell}

1769: +N^2\sum_{\ell\neq 0}\log {\overline{s}}_{\ell}\nonumber\\  &&+

1770: %

1771: \frac{9N^2}{2}\sum_{\ell}((\frac{2\pi l}{\beta})^2

1772: \sigma_{\ell}^{2}-1) +\frac{9N^2}{2}\sum_{\ell}((\frac{2\pi

1773: l}{\beta})^2{\overline{\sigma}}_{\ell}^{2}-1) \nonumber\\

1774: %

1775: && +N^2\sum_{\ell\neq 0}((\frac{2\pi

1776: l}{\beta})^2s_{\ell}+1)+N^2\sum_{\ell\neq 0}((\frac{2\pi

1777: l}{\beta})^2{\overline{s}}_{\ell}+1) +

1778: \frac{9N^2}{\beta}\rho_{0}^{2}\sum_{\ell}\sigma_{\ell}^{2} \nonumber\\

1779: &&

1780: %

1781: + \frac{9N^2}{\beta}{\overline{\rho}}_{0}^{2}

1782: \sum_{\ell}{\overline{\sigma}}_{\ell}^{2}

1783: +\frac{36N^2}{\beta}(\sum_{\ell}\sigma_{\ell}^{2})^2 +

1784: \frac{36N^2}{\beta}(\sum_{\ell}{\overline{\sigma}}_{\ell}^{2})^2

1785: \nonumber\\

1786: %

1787: && +N^2\sum_{\ell}\frac{1}{2}(\frac{2\pi l}{\beta})^2

1788: {\rm{Tr}}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2}+

1789: \frac{N^2}{2\beta}(\rho^{2}_{0} + {\overline{\rho}}^{2}_{0})

1790: \sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2} \nonumber\\

1791: %

1792: &&+ \frac{9N^2}{2\beta}(\sum_{\ell}\sigma^{2}_{\ell} +

1793: \sum_{\ell}{\overline{\sigma}}^{2}_{\ell})

1794: \sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2}

1795: \nonumber\\ &&

1796: %

1797: -\frac{(2\pi)^{4/3}N^2}{8\ln2(g_{s}N)^{2/3}}\sum_{\ell}

1798: {\rm{Tr}}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2} +

1799: \frac{2(2\pi)^{2/3}N^2\beta}{(g_{s}N)^{4/3}} \,.

1800: \end{eqnarray}

1801: %

1802: 

1803: In what follows, we use a natural ansatz for the propagators

1804: %

1805: \begin{equation}

1806: \sigma^{2}_{\ell}= \left( {(\frac{2\pi \ell}{\beta})^2+m^{2}}

1807: \right)^{-1} \,,

1808: \end{equation}

1809: %

1810: and similarly for the barred variables.

1811: 

1812: The gap equations are easily obtained. We have (and similarly for

1813: barred variables)

1814: %

1815: \begin{equation}

1816: m^{2}=\frac{2\rho^{2}_{0}}{\beta} +

1817: \frac{16}{\beta}\sum_{\ell}\sigma^{2}_{\ell} +

1818: \frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{\ell}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2} \,,

1819: \end{equation}

1820: %

1821: where $\rho_0$ can be explicitly obtained in terms of $\lambda$, the

1822: coupling in the one-plaquette action, because the one-plaquette theory

1823: is soluble in the large-$N$ limit.

1824: 

1825: For $\lambda\leq 2$,

1826: %

1827: \begin{equation}

1828: -1+\frac{2}{\beta}\left(\frac{18}{\beta}\sum_{\ell}\sigma^{2}_\ell +

1829: \frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}

1830: \frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2}\right)

1831: \left[1-(1-\frac{2}{\lambda})\log(1-\frac{\lambda}{2})\right]=0 \,,

1832: \end{equation}

1833: %

1834: while for $\lambda\geq 2$, 

1835: %

1836: \begin{equation}

1837: \lambda =\beta/\left(\frac{18}{\beta}\sum_{\ell}\sigma^{2}_\ell +

1838: \frac{1}{\beta}

1839: \sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}\frac{t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}}{N^2}\right) \,.

1840: \end{equation}

1841: %

1842: We will solve this system of highly nonlinear, coupled equations.  The

1843: strategy will be to treat the tachyon as a background.  Solving the

1844: gap equations, and substituting back the solution as a function of the

1845: tachyon, then gives the free energy as a function of the (background)

1846: tachyon.  Given this effective action for the tachyon, it is then

1847: straightforward to read off the tachyon effective mass. The plan will

1848: be to work out the two-dimensional ``phase portrait'' of the system

1849: (with coordinates $g_{s}N $ and $\beta$), and find out whether any

1850: tachyon stabilization is possible. By this we simply mean that there

1851: are points in this two-dimensional portrait where the effective

1852: tachyon mass is positive.

1853: 

1854: Before we move to displaying our numerical results, a number of

1855: remarks are in order.

1856: 

1857: \begin{itemize}

1858: 

1859: \item As we saw earlier, in the supergravity limit in which we are

1860: interested, $g_{s}N \gg 1$.  By inspection of the equations it might

1861: then seem that, in the units we use, the wrong-sign mass term for the

1862: tachyon is suppressed and we are done!  This quick-and-dirty reasoning

1863: is, however, too na\"ive. In fact, in order not to excite any massive

1864: open string state, the temperature must be small in string units.  In

1865: turn, this implies that

1866: %

1867: \begin{equation}

1868: \beta \gg (g_{s}N)^{1/3} \gg 1 \,,

1869: \end{equation}

1870: %

1871: where $\beta$ is the dimensionless inverse temperature. With such low

1872: dimensionless temperatures, it becomes more and more difficult to

1873: overcome the wrong-sign mass term through the tachyon couplings to the

1874: transverse coordinates $X^{i},{\overline{X}}^i$ and the world-volume

1875: gauge fields $A_{0},{\overline{A}}_0$. 

1876: 

1877: \item It is crucial to remember that all variational parameters are

1878: {\em implicit} functions of the tachyon $t$.  So it is certainly not

1879: true that we can simply read off the effective tachyon mass from the

1880: the coefficients of the quadratic tachyon fluctuation in the

1881: expression for the free energy.  For example, terms like

1882: $(N^2/\beta)\rho^{2}_{0}\sum_{\ell}\sigma^{2}_{\ell}$, which do not

1883: have any {\em explicit} background tachyon dependence, are becoming

1884: tachyon-dependent through the gap equations.  All such terms make

1885: contributions to the effective tachyon mass, as one expands the

1886: variational parameters around $\sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}

1887: t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}=0$. (Note that these expansions exist,

1888: since the solution to the gap equations is differentiable with respect

1889: to $t$ in the vicinity of $\sum_{\ell}{\rm{Tr}}

1890: t^{\dagger}_{\ell}t_{\ell}=0$.)

1891: 

1892: \item Obviously, it is always possible to stabilize the tachyon at

1893: weak couplings, but the temperatures needed for this are above the

1894: Hagedorn temperature. It is easy to see this in perturbation theory,

1895: partly because at such high temperatures the D0 QM is perturbative.

1896: Perturbatively, to stabilize the tachyon, it is sufficient to have

1897: %

1898: \begin{equation}

1899: T>\frac{1}{(g_{s}N)^{4/3}\ell_s} \gg \frac{1}{\ell_s} \,,

1900: \end{equation}

1901: %

1902: for small $g_{s}N$.

1903: 

1904: \end{itemize}

1905: 

1906: In our investigations, we use the Metropolis algorithm.  This is a

1907: fast method generally; it really comes into its own for numerical

1908: investigations of the supersymmetric model, the numerical results from

1909: which we hope to report on in the near future.  We summarize some

1910: important features of the Metropolis algorithm in the Appendix.

1911: 

1912: %====================================================================+

1913: \subsection{Numerical results}

1914: %

1915: We are interested in the sign of the mass of the tachyon zero mode,

1916: for each point in the two-dimensional parameter space, coordinatized

1917: by $g_sN$ and $\beta$ which is the dimensionless inverse temperature

1918: in 't Hooft units.

1919: 

1920: We now plot our results for the phase portrait of the toy model

1921: theory.  Inverse temperature, in dimensionless 't Hooft units, is on

1922: the $y$-axis, while the open-string coupling $g_s N$ on the $x$-axis.

1923: (As a reminder, the parameter $g_s N$ tells us the bare negative

1924: mass-squared of the tachyon.)  Points at which the tachyon mass

1925: squared is positive are indicated by a cross, and those at which it is

1926: negative are indicated by a circle.  The green curve delineates where

1927: the Hagedorn phenomenon is important; points above the curve are below

1928: the Hagedorn temperature.  The red straight line delineates the region

1929: where the gauged QM theory has a strong effective coupling (set by the

1930: inverse temperature and 't Hooft coupling); the temperatures where the

1931: quantum mechanical theory is strongly coupled lie above the red line.

1932: 

1933: For clarity, we separate the regimes of smaller $g_s N $ from the

1934: regime of larger $g_s N $.  

1935: 

1936: \begin{figure}

1937: \begin{center}

1938: \epsfysize=3truein

1939: \epsffile{weakresults.eps}

1940: \end{center}

1941: \caption{Plot of results for the $g_sN\leq 2$ section of the phase

1942: portrait.  }

1943: \label{fig:fig1}

1944: \end{figure}

1945: 

1946: \begin{figure}

1947: \begin{center}

1948: \epsfysize=3truein \epsffile{strongresults.eps}

1949: \end{center}

1950: \caption{Plot of results for the $g_sN \geq 2$ section of the phase

1951: portrait.  }

1952: \label{fig:fig2}

1953: \end{figure}

1954: 

1955: As we expected for tachyon stabilization, at small $g_sN$, one has to

1956: go to very high temperatures; this is clear from Figure

1957: \ref{fig:fig1}.  As we see for large $g_sN$, on the other hand, even

1958: for low temperatures compared to the Hagedorn temperature, there is a

1959: possibility of tachyon stabilization.

1960: 

1961: %====================================================================+

1962: \section{Discussion}

1963: 

1964: In this paper, following the lines of \cite{Danielsson}, we have

1965: examined the validity of the brane-antibrane model for neutral black

1966: branes of various dimensionality.  What we have found is that this

1967: D$p$-${\overline{{\rm D}p}}$ picture works for arbitrary

1968: $p$. Interestingly, this is true even for the ``dilatonic'' branes,

1969: where the supergravity entropy cannot be written in terms of the

1970: entropy of a free world-volume gauge theory.  In the non-conformal

1971: cases, using IMSY duality proves to be working, relating strongly

1972: coupled gauge theories to the corresponding near-extremal backgrounds.

1973: We were able to show that, even after adding general angular momenta

1974: quantum numbers, the brane-antibrane model is able to reproduce the

1975: supergravity entropy.  The exact agreement in the entropy between the

1976: microscopic brane-antibrane side and the supergravity side comes at

1977: the expense of a renormalization of the mass by a $p$-dependent power

1978: of two, which we interpret as a binding energy, and a renormalization

1979: of the angular momenta by a simple factor of two.  We also find that

1980: the extent of the wavefunction of the $Dp-\overline{Dp}$ system

1981: exhibits the same scaling with the mass as does the radius of the

1982: horizon of the corresponding black brane.

1983: 

1984: In the original proposal of \cite{Danielsson}, the authors argued that

1985: the tachyon stabilization at finite temperature and strong coupling

1986: could lead to a reappearance of open string degrees of freedom.  Even

1987: at the field theory level, questions regarding strong coupling

1988: dynamics are often hard to answer, but in the special case of

1989: D0-${\overline{{\rm D}0}}$ there is a possibility to address some of

1990: the aspects in the context of a simple toy model following the lines

1991: of \cite{kabat1,kabat2}.  Using techniques developed there, we found

1992: the effective action for the tachyon numerically, in the context of

1993: the toy model. We have seen signals of tachyon stabilization in this

1994: toy model, at strong open string couplings and low temperatures

1995: compared to the string scale.  This might open a window to see clearly

1996: why it is possible to have a long-lived state of D0-branes and

1997: $\overline{{\rm D}0}$-branes, without decaying into closed strings at

1998: couplings of order one and low temperatures.

1999: 

2000: Our investigation here was for the case of neutral black branes, where

2001: the numbers of microscopic constituent branes $N$ and antibranes

2002: ${\overline{N}}$ are equal.  A natural extension of our work here will

2003: be to consider the case where the $D=10$ black branes carry $p$-brane

2004: charge $Q_p=N-{\overline{N}}$.  We hope to report on this story in the

2005: future\footnote{The $p=3$ case with charge was of course previously

2006: considered in \cite{Danielsson,Guijosa}.  It will be interesting to

2007: check whether this agreement holds up also in the {\em non}-conformal

2008: cases.  We thank Alberto Guijosa for a discussion in this regard.}.

2009: 

2010: Inspired by numerical investigations, we might speculate about the

2011: possible shape of the potential\footnote{at least for $|T|$ in the

2012: vicinity on $T=0$} in this model, say for the simplest case of a

2013: diagonal tachyon condensate at finite temperatures

2014: %

2015: \begin{equation}

2016: \beta F \propto e^{-\gamma |T|^2}(1+\lambda(N,g_{YM},\beta)

2017: |T|^2+\ldots)

2018: \end{equation}

2019: %

2020: where $\lambda > \gamma$. This potential has one minimum and two

2021: symmetrically located maxima. The minimum would correspond to the

2022: tachyon stabilization, i.e. the tachyon particle is classically

2023: stable\footnote{The kinetic term probably is not canonically

2024: normalized in the original field.}, even though this vacuum would be

2025: unstable due to quantum and thermal fluctuations and the finiteness of

2026: the height of the barrier. The tachyon can be expected to decay

2027: eventually into closed string radiation. In other words, this

2028: temporary and approximate decoupling between the open string modes and

2029: the closed strings degrees of freedom -- which has apparently

2030: manifested itself in our ability to compute the entropy of the

2031: closed-string background out of Yang-Mills degrees of freedom in the

2032: context of brane-antibrane model -- would not last forever, and the

2033: tachyon particle ground state would have a finite lifetime. If this

2034: picture corresponds well to the true stringy physics, then it would be

2035: plausible to think of the unstable maxima discussed above as being the

2036: unstable state of a D0-$\overline{{\rm D}0}$ pair created from the

2037: energy in the gas living on the worldvolume of the clump of D0s and

2038: $\overline{{\rm D}0}$s, due to the quantum and thermal fluctuations.

2039: This interpretation also leads to an estimate for the

2040: lifetime. Climbing up the hill to create such a pair requires energies

2041: at least of the order of $1/g_s$, so the whole tunnelling process is

2042: suppressed by $e^{-1/g_{s}}$.

2043: 

2044: %====================================================================+

2045: %\newpage

2046: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2047: 

2048: We would like to thank Joel Giedt, Martin Kruczenski, Erich Poppitz,

2049: and Lenny Susskind for helpful discussions.  We would especially like

2050: to thank Dan Kabat for substantive helpful conversations, particularly

2051: about the numerical collaborations \cite{kabat1,kabat2}.  We also

2052: thank Kaveh Khodjasteh and Johannes Martin for assistance with

2053: computer resources.

2054:  

2055: %====================================================================+

2056: \section*{Appendix}

2057: 

2058: The problem of finding the common solution to a set of nonlinear

2059: coupled algebraic equation can be though of a minimization process.

2060: To see this, consider the collection of the equations to be solved,

2061: $\mathcal{G}=\{f_{1}=0,...,f_{n}=0 \}$.  Clearly, a quadratic form

2062: $\mathcal{H}$ can be made out of this, viz.  $ \mathcal{H}=\sum_{i}

2063: f^2_{i} $.  If there is a solution to $\mathcal{G}$, this solution

2064: would be the global minimum of $\mathcal{H}$ i.e.,$

2065: f_{1}=0,...,f_{n}=0 $.

2066: 

2067: To solve this nonlinear system of equations, we use the Monte Carlo

2068: local update method (``Metropolis'' algorithm). This method is one of

2069: the stochastic search methods widely used for minimization of

2070: multivariable functions.

2071: 

2072: This method does not get trapped in local minima, because of a smart

2073: choice of control variables. The way this method accomplishes the goal

2074: is that, by introducing an unphysical temperature, thermal

2075: fluctuations of the configuration vector are allowed to happen in all

2076: possible directions in the configuration space - even in the ``wrong

2077: directions'' (which increase the Hamiltonian).  By decreasing the

2078: temperature very slowly, one lets the vector find the global minimum

2079: (or minima). For a vector trapped in a local minimum, there would be a

2080: certain probability to climb up the barrier because of the thermal

2081: fluctuations, and so the vector could find its way all the way down to

2082: the global minimum subject to a large number of iterations.  This

2083: story is actually very similar to the physics of the annealing

2084: process, and it is sometimes called the ``stimulated annealing''

2085: method.  With this method, a vector stores the starting point

2086: configuration. This configuration is changed randomly to generate new

2087: child configurations. A new configuration gets accepted with the

2088: probability $1$ if it has a smaller Hamiltonian than its parent, but

2089: if it has not then it would be accepted with the following

2090: Boltzmann-like probability $ P_{\rm acceptance}\sim e^{-\beta_{\rm

2091: fake}\Delta \mathcal{H}}$, where $\beta_{\rm fake}$ is a unphysical

2092: parameter acting like an inverse temperature, and $\Delta \mathcal{H}$

2093: is the energy difference between the child and parent

2094: configurations. After many iterations, and at the same time lowering

2095: the temperature slowly, the configuration vector stabilizes on the

2096: one(s) which minimize(s) the $\mathcal{H}$.

2097: 

2098: The Metropolis algorithm has strong advantages over the Newton-Raphson

2099: (NR) method, especially when the dimensionality of the configuration

2100: space is big.  Under such circumstances, the NR method becomes very

2101: inefficient, and its starting point dependence can be prohibitively

2102: large.  Practically, this makes it very hard to reach the solution in

2103: reasonable computer time.  The great advantage of the Metropolis

2104: method is the fact that it is almost independent of starting

2105: point.\footnote{Of course, any configuration space could be composed

2106: of disconnected pieces, such that one can not get to any arbitrary

2107: point by starting from another arbitrary point and moving through the

2108: potential.}  Another advantage of Metropolis is that it naturally

2109: avoids getting stuck in local minima, a problem to which NR often

2110: succumbs.

2111: 

2112: %====================================================================+

2113: %\newpage

2114: 

2115: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}

2116: 

2117: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2118: 

2119: \bibitem{Danielsson} Ulf H. Danielsson, Alberto Guijosa, Martin

2120: Kruczenski, ``Brane Anti-Brane Systems at Finite Temperature and the

2121: Entropy of Black Branes, JHEP 0109:011,2001 [arXiv:hep-th/0106201];

2122: U. H. Danielsson, A. Guijosa and M.~Kruczenski, Black brane entropy

2123: from brane-antibrane systems, arXiv:gr-qc/0204010.

2124: 

2125: \bibitem{kabat1}D. Kabat and G. Lifschytz,

2126: Approximations for strongly-coupled supersymmetric quantum mechanics,

2127: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 571}, 419 (2000)

2128: [arXiv:hep-th/9910001].

2129: 

2130: \bibitem{kabat2}

2131: D. Kabat, G. Lifschytz and D. A. Lowe,

2132: Black hole thermodynamics from calculations in strongly coupled

2133: gauge  theory,

2134: Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 86}, 1426 (2001)

2135: [Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 16}, 856 (2001)

2136: [arXiv:hep-th/0007051].

2137: 

2138: \bibitem{BFSS} T.~Banks, W.~Fischler, S.~H.~Shenker and L.~Susskind,

2139: ``M theory as a matrix model: A conjecture,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55},

2140: 5112 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9610043].

2141: 

2142: \bibitem{KlebanovSusskind} I.~R.~Klebanov and L.~Susskind,

2143: ``Schwarzschild black holes in various dimensions from matrix

2144: theory,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 416}, 62 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9709108].

2145: 

2146: \bibitem{peetCQGreview} A.~W.~Peet, ``The Bekenstein formula and

2147: string theory (N-brane theory),'' Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 15},

2148: 3291 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9712253].

2149: 

2150: \bibitem{Englert} F.~Englert and E.~Rabinovici, ``Statistical entropy

2151: of Schwarzschild black holes,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 426}, 269 (1998)

2152: [arXiv:hep-th/9801048].

2153: 

2154: \bibitem{dasetal} S.~Das, A.~Ghosh and P.~Mitra, ``Statistical entropy

2155: of Schwarzschild black strings and black holes,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf

2156: 63}, 024023 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0005108].

2157: 

2158: \bibitem{itzhaki}

2159: N. Itzhaki, J. M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz,

2160: Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen

2161: supercharges,

2162: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 046004 (1998)

2163: [arXiv:hep-th/9802042].

2164: 

2165: \bibitem{KlebanovTseytlin}

2166: I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~A.~Tseytlin, ``Entropy of Near-Extremal

2167: Black p-branes,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 475}, 164 (1996)

2168: [arXiv:hep-th/9604089].

2169: 

2170: \bibitem{Maldacena1}G. T. Horowitz, J. M. Maldacena and A. Strominger,

2171: Nonextremal Black Hole Microstates and U-duality, Phys. Lett. B {\bf

2172: 383}, 151 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9603109].

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{peet1} S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. W. Peet, Entropy

2175: and Temperature of Black 3-Branes, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3915

2176: (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9602135].

2177: 

2178: \bibitem{HarmarkObers}

2179: T.~Harmark and N.~A.~Obers,

2180: ``Thermodynamics of spinning branes and their dual field theories,''

2181: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 008 (2000)

2182: [arXiv:hep-th/9910036].

2183: 

2184: \bibitem{peet}

2185: A. W. Peet and J. Polchinski

2186: UV/IR relations in AdS dynamics,

2187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 065011 (1999)

2188: [arXiv:hep-th/9809022].

2189: 

2190: \bibitem{KabatLowe}

2191: N.~Iizuka, D.~Kabat, G.~Lifschytz and D.~A.~Lowe, ``Probing black

2192: holes in non-perturbative gauge theory,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65},

2193: 024012 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0108006].

2194: 

2195: \bibitem{kabat3}

2196: D. Kabat and G. Lifschytz,

2197: Tachyons and black hole horizons in gauge theory,

2198: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 002 (1998)

2199: [arXiv:hep-th/9806214].

2200: 

2201: \bibitem{Gross}

2202: D. J. Gross and E. Witten,

2203: Possible Third Order Phase Transition In The Large N Lattice

2204: Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21}, 446 (1980).

2205: 

2206: \bibitem{Kraus} P. Kraus and F. Larsen, Boundary string field theory

2207: of the DD-bar system, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 106004 (2001)

2208: [arXiv:hep-th/0012198].

2209: 

2210: \bibitem{Tadashi} T. Takayanagi, S. Terashima and T. Uesugi,

2211: Brane-antibrane action from boundary string field theory, JHEP 0103:

2212: 019 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0012210].

2213: 

2214: \bibitem{Polchinski}

2215: J.~Polchinski, ``M-theory and the light cone,'' Prog.\ Theor.\

2216: Phys.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 134}, 158 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9903165].

2217: 

2218: \bibitem{Guijosa} A.~Guijosa, H.~H.~Hernandez Hernandez and

2219: H.~A.~Morales Tecotl, ``The entropy of the rotating charged black

2220: threebrane from a brane-antibrane system,'' arXiv:hep-th/0402158.

2221: 

2222: \end{thebibliography}

2223: %====================================================================+

2224: \end{document}

2225: 

2226: