1: \input harvmac

2: 

3: 

4: 

5: \let\includefigures=\iftrue

6: \let\useblackboard=\iftrue

7: \newfam\black

8: 

9: %Figure Stuff

10: \includefigures

11: \message{If you do not have epsf.tex (to include figures),}

12: \message{change the option at the top of the tex file.}

13: \input epsf

14: \def\figin{\epsfcheck\figin}\def\figins{\epsfcheck\figins}

15: \def\epsfcheck{\ifx\epsfbox\UnDeFiNeD

16: \message{(NO epsf.tex, FIGURES WILL BE IGNORED)}

17: \gdef\figin##1{\vskip2in}\gdef\figins##1{\hskip.5in}% blank space instead

18: \else\message{(FIGURES WILL BE INCLUDED)}%

19: \gdef\figin##1{##1}\gdef\figins##1{##1}\fi}

20: \def\DefWarn#1{}

21: \def\figinsert{\goodbreak\midinsert}

22: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\DefWarn#1\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}

23: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%

24: \figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip\centerline{\vbox{

25: \baselineskip12pt\advance\hsize by -1truein

26: \noindent\footnotefont{\bf Fig.~\the\figno:} #2}}

27: %\bigskip

28: \endinsert\global\advance\figno by1}

29: %%%

30: \else

31: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}

32: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%

33: %\figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip

34: %\centerline{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt

35: %\advance\hsize by -1truein\noindent

36: %\footnotefont{\bf Fig.~\the\figno:} #2}}

37: %\bigskip\endinsert

38: \global\advance\figno by1}

39: \fi

40: %

41: 

42: %%BLACKBOARD FONT STUFF

43: \useblackboard

44: \message{If you do not have msbm (blackboard bold) fonts,}

45: \message{change the option at the top of the tex file.}

46: \font\blackboard=msbm10 scaled \magstep1

47: \font\blackboards=msbm7

48: \font\blackboardss=msbm5

49: \textfont\black=\blackboard

50: \scriptfont\black=\blackboards

51: \scriptscriptfont\black=\blackboardss

52: \def\Bbb#1{{\fam\black\relax#1}}

53: \else

54: \def\Bbb{\bf}

55: \fi

56: % *************************************

57: %\draft

58: %

59: \def\subsubsec#1{\bigskip\noindent{\it{#1}} \bigskip}

60: \def\yboxit#1#2{\vbox{\hrule height #1 \hbox{\vrule width #1

61: \vbox{#2}\vrule width #1 }\hrule height #1 }}

62: \def\fillbox#1{\hbox to #1{\vbox to #1{\vfil}\hfil}}

63: \def\ybox{{\lower 1.3pt \yboxit{0.4pt}{\fillbox{8pt}}\hskip-0.2pt}}

64: %

65: %

66: %%MATH MACROS

67: %Greek letters and their bars

68: \def\ep{\epsilon}

69: \def\bep{\bar\epsilon}

70: \def\blam{\bar\lambda}

71: \def\bsig{\bar\sigma}

72: \def\bpsi{\bar\psi}

73: \def\bphi{\bar\phi}

74: \def\bp{\bar\partial}

75: \def\bthet{\overline \theta}

76: \def\Dbar{\overline D}

77: \def\bgam{\bar\gamma}

78: \def\xit{\xi}

79: 

80: %More bars

81: \def\bi{\bar i}

82: \def\jb{\bar j}

83: \def\Qbar{\overline Q}

84: 

85: \def\l{\left}

86: \def\r{\right}

87: \def\comments#1{}

88: \def\cc{{\rm c.c.}}

89: \def\tM{\tilde M}

90: \def\bM{\bar M}

91: \def\QC{\Bbb{C}}

92: \def\QH{\Bbb{H}}

93: \def\QM{\Bbb{M}}

94: \def\QR{\Bbb{R}}

95: \def\QX{\Bbb{X}}

96: \def\QZ{\Bbb{Z}}

97: \def\p{\partial}

98: \def\tilp{\tilde\partial}

99: \def\eps{\epsilon}

100: \def\half{{1\over 2}}

101: \def\Tr{{{\rm Tr~ }}}

102: \def\tr{{\rm tr\ }}

103: \def\Re{{\rm Re\hskip0.1em}}

104: \def\Im{{\rm Im\hskip0.1em}}

105: \def\even{{\rm even}}

106: \def\odd{{\rm odd}}

107: \def\lcm{{\rm lcm}}

108: \def\diag{{\rm diag}}

109: \def\bra#1{{\langle}#1|}

110: \def\ket#1{|#1\rangle}

111: \def\bbra#1{{\langle\langle}#1|}

112: \def\kket#1{|#1\rangle\rangle}

113: \def\vev#1{\langle{#1}\rangle}

114: \def\Dslash{\rlap{\hskip0.2em/}D}

115: \def\CA{{\cal A}}

116: \def\CC{{\cal C}}

117: \def\CD{{\cal D}}

118: \def\CE{{\cal E}}

119: \def\CF{{\cal F}}

120: \def\CG{{\cal G}}

121: \def\CT{{\cal T}}

122: \def\CM{{\cal M}}

123: \def\CN{{\cal N}}

124: \def\CO{{\cal O}}%AEL

125: \def\CP{{\cal P}}

126: \def\CL{{\cal L}}

127: \def\CV{{\cal V}}

128: \def\CS{{\cal S}}

129: \def\CW{{\cal W}}

130: \def\CX{{\cal X}}%AEL

131: \def\CZ{{\cal Z}}

132: %\def\ad#1#2{{\delta\over\delta\sigma^{#1}(#2)}}

133: \def\ppt{{\partial\over\partial t}}

134: \def\comment#1{[#1]}

135: \def\nl{\hfill\break}

136: \def\a{\alpha}

137: \def\ta{\tilde\alpha}

138: \def\ap{\alpha'}

139: \def\sqap{\sqrt{\alpha'}}

140: \def\bA{\bar A}

141: \def\floor#1{{#1}}

142: \def\sgn{{\rm sgn\ }}

143: \def\I{{\rm I}}

144: \def\IA{{\rm IA}}

145: \def\II{\relax{I\kern-.10em I}}

146: \def\IIa{{\II}a}

147: \def\IIb{{\II}b}

148: \def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}

149: \def\hk{hyperk\"ahler\  }

150: \def\Hk{Hyperk\"ahler\  }

151: \def\cascade{{\cal A}}

152: %

153: \def\imp{$\Rightarrow$}

154: \def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice

155: {\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

156: {\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

157: {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

158: \else{\cmss Z\kern-.4emZ}\fi}

159: \def\IB{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em B}}

160: \def\IC{{\relax\hbox{$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}}}

161: \def\ID{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em D}}

162: \def\IE{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em E}}

163: \def\IF{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em F}}

164: \def\IG{\relax\hbox{$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm G}$}}

165: \def\IGa{\relax\hbox{${\rm I}\kern-.18em\Gamma$}}

166: \def\IH{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em H}}

167: \def\II{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em I}}

168: \def\IK{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em K}}

169: \def\IP{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em P}}

170: %\def\IX{\relax{\rm X\kern-.01em X}}

171: %this doesn't work

172: \def\IX{{\bf X}}

173: %

174: \def\barom{\overline{\Omega}}

175: \def\barA{\bar{A}}

176: \def\jb{{\bar \jmath}}

177: \def\Hom{{\rm Hom}}

178: \def\ad{{\rm ad}}

179: \def\inbar{\,\vrule height1.5ex width.4pt depth0pt}

180: \def\mod{{\rm\; mod\;}}

181: \def\ndt{\noindent}

182: \def\p{\partial}

183: \def\pab{\pb_{\bar A} }

184: \def\pb{{\bar \p}}

185: \def\pgp{\pb g g^{-1}}

186: \font\cmss=cmss10 \font\msss=cmss10 at 7pt

187: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}

188: \def\pbar{\bar{\p}}

189: \def\qmvw{\CM_{\vec \zeta}(\vec v, \vec w) }

190: \def\sdtimes{\mathbin{\hbox{\hskip2pt\vrule

191: height 4.1pt depth -.3pt width .25pt\hskip-2pt$\times$}}}

192: \def\ker{{\rm ker\ }}

193: \def\cok{{\rm cok\ }}

194: \def\im{{\rm im\ }}

195: \def\ind{{\rm ind\ }}

196: \def\ub{{\bar{u}}}

197: \def\vol{{\rm vol}}

198: \def\Vol{{\rm Vol}}

199: \def\wb{{\bar{w}}}

200: \def\zb {{\bar{z}}}

201: \def\one {{\bf 1}}

202: \def\dpr{^{\prime\dagger}}

203: %

204: \def\BR{\IR}

205: \def\BZ{{\bf Z}} % for now

206: \def\BP{\IP}

207: \def\BR{\IR}

208: \def\BC{\IC}

209: \def\BM{\QM}

210: \def\BH{\QH}

211: \def\BX{\QX}

212: %

213: \def\ls{l_s}

214: \def\ms{m_s}

215: \def\gs{g_s}

216: \def\lp10{\ell_p^{10}}

217: \def\lp11{\ell_p^{11}}

218: \def\R11{R_{11}}

219: \def\mb{{m_{\rm brane}}}

220: \def\vb{{v_{\rm brane}}}

221: %

222: \def\brs{Q_{{\rm B}}}

223: \def\brsb{\bar{Q}_{{\rm B}}}

224: \def\dels{\delta_{{\rm S}}}

225: \def\delb{\delta_{{\rm B}}}

226: \def\zb{\bar{z}}

227: \def\frac#1#2{{#1 \over #2}}

228: \def\epb{\bar{\epsilon}}

229: \def\tts{{\rm tt}{}^\ast}

230: \def\ch{{\rm ch}}

231: \def\td{{\rm Td}}

232: \def\ahat{\hat{A}}

233: \def\cft#1{{\rm CFT_{#1}}}

234: \def\dS{\partial \Sigma}

235: \def\ni{\noindent}

236: \def\imt{{\rm Im} \tau}

237: 

238: \global\newcount\itemno \global\itemno=0

239: \def\itemized{\global\itemno=0\bigbreak\bigskip\noindent}

240: \def\itemaut#1{\global\advance\itemno by1\noindent\item{\the\itemno. } #1}

241: 

242: %\itemized

243: %\itemaut{First this.}

244: %\itemaut{Then that.}

245: 

246: %identity operator from doyon-fonseca

247: \def\Ione{\hbox{$1\hskip -1.2pt\vrule depth 0pt height 1.53ex width 0.7pt

248:                   \vrule depth 0pt height 0.3pt width 0.12em$}}

249: 

250: 

251: \def\thetafunction#1#2#3#4{

252: \vartheta\left[\matrix{ #1 \cr #2} \right] (#3 |#4)}

253: 

254: \def\bD{ $\bar{\rm D}$}

255: \def\ttref#1{#1}

256: \def\next#1{\subsubsec{#1}}

257: 

258: 

259: \def\oh{{\bf O}}

260: \def\bD{$\bar{\rm D}$}

261: \def\pslash{\p \llap{/}}

262: \def\Dslash{D \llap{/}}

263: \def\mfls{(-1)^{F_{LS}}}

264: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

265: 

266: 

267: %% from the topological vertex paper

268: 

269: 

270: %%                              TABLEAUX.TEX

271: %%      This  macro file is for producing a ``Young Tableau'' which is

272: %%      an array of little squares sometimes used in mathematical physics.

273: %%      For instance, the command $\tableau{6 3 2}$ will produce a tableau

274: %%      with 6 squares in the top row, 3 in the next, and 2 in the last.

275: %%                                  OOOOOO

276: %%      This tableau will look like OOO    but made of squares instead of O's.

277: %%                                  OO

278: %%      Any number of rows may be present, each having a nonzero number of

279: %%      squares.

280: %%

281: %%      A tableau is math mode material, so use $ or $$ to enclose it.

282: %%

283: %%      The size and line-thickness of the little boxes are controlled by the

284: %%      dimension parameters --

285: %%              \tableauside=1.0ex              %(size)

286: %%              \tableaurule=0.4pt              %(line-thickness)

287: %%      Change them if you want.

288: %%

289: %%                                                      -- Doug Eardley 9/19/8%%

290: %%

291: \newdimen\tableauside\tableauside=1.0ex

292: \newdimen\tableaurule\tableaurule=0.4pt

293: \newdimen\tableaustep

294: \def\phantomhrule#1{\hbox{\vbox to0pt{\hrule height\tableaurule width#1\vss}}}

295: \def\phantomvrule#1{\vbox{\hbox to0pt{\vrule width\tableaurule height#1\hss}}}

296: \def\sqr{\vbox{%

297:   \phantomhrule\tableaustep

298:   \hbox{\phantomvrule\tableaustep\kern\tableaustep\phantomvrule\tableaustep}%

299:   \hbox{\vbox{\phantomhrule\tableauside}\kern-\tableaurule}}}

300: \def\squares#1{\hbox{\count0=#1\noindent\loop\sqr

301:   \advance\count0 by-1 \ifnum\count0>0\repeat}}

302: \def\tableau#1{\vcenter{\offinterlineskip

303:   \tableaustep=\tableauside\advance\tableaustep by-\tableaurule

304:   \kern\normallineskip\hbox

305:     {\kern\normallineskip\vbox

306:       {\gettableau#1 0 }%

307:      \kern\normallineskip\kern\tableaurule}%

308:   \kern\normallineskip\kern\tableaurule}}

309: \def\gettableau#1 {\ifnum#1=0\let\next=\null\else

310:   \squares{#1}\let\next=\gettableau\fi\next}

311: 

312: \tableauside=1.0ex

313: \tableaurule=0.4pt

314: 

315: 

316: %% from shiraz

317: 

318: 

319: \font\smallrm=cmr8

320:  \def\app#1#2{\global\meqno=1\global\subsecno=0\xdef\secsym{\hbox{#1.}}

321:  \bigbreak\bigskip\noindent{\bf Appendix.}\message{(#1. #2)}

322:  \writetoca{Appendix {#1.} {#2}}\par\nobreak\medskip\nobreak}

323:  %

324:  %       \eqn\label{a+b=c}       gives displayed equation, numbered

325:  %                               consecutively within sections.

326: %     \eqnn and \eqna define labels in advance (of eqalign?)

327:  %

328:  \def\eqnn#1{\xdef #1{(\secsym\the\meqno)}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}%

329:  \global\advance\meqno by1\wrlabeL#1}

330:  \def\eqna#1{\xdef #1##1{\hbox{$(\secsym\the\meqno##1)$}}

331:  \writedef{#1\numbersign1\leftbracket#1{\numbersign1}}%

332:  \global\advance\meqno by1\wrlabeL{#1$\{\}$}}

333:  \def\eqn#1#2{\xdef #1{(\secsym\the\meqno)}\writedef{#1\leftbracket#1}%

334:  \global\advance\meqno by1$$#2\eqno#1\eqlabeL#1$$}

335: 

336: %\def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice

337: % {\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

338: % {\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

339: % {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}\else{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}\fi}

340: 

341: 

342: 

343: 

344: 

345: %%ENGLISH MACROS

346: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

347: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

348: \def\cf{{\it c.f.}}

349: \def\etal{{\it et. al.}}

350: \hyphenation{Di-men-sion-al}

351: 

352: %%REFERENCING MACROS

353: \def\np{{\it Nucl. Phys.}}

354: \def\prl{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}}

355: \def\prev{{\it Phys. Rev.}}

356: \def\pl{{\it Phys. Lett.}}

357: \def\atamp{{\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.}}

358: \def\cqg{{\it Class. Quant. Grav.}}

359: \def\mpl{{\it Mod. Phys. Lett.}}

360: \def\cmp{{\it Comm. Math. Phys.}}

361: \def\annm{{\it Ann. Math.}}

362: \def\jhep{{\it J. High Energy Phys.}}

363: \def\ijmp{{\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.}}

364: %%

365: 

366: 

367: 

368: %\BershadskyZS

369: \lref\BershadskyZS{

370: M.~Bershadsky and I.~R.~Klebanov,

371: ``Partition functions and physical states in two-dimensional quantum gravity

372: %and supergravity,''

373: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 360}, 559 (1991).

374: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,559;%%

375: }

376: 

377: %\witten

378: \lref\witten{ E.~Witten, ``Ground ring of two-dimensional string

379: theory,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 187 (1992)

380: [arXiv:hep-th/9108004];

381: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9108004;%%

382:  E.~Witten and B.~Zwiebach, ``Algebraic structures and

383: differential geometry in 2D string theory,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B

384: {\bf 377}, 55 (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9201056].

385: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9201056;%%

386: }

387: 

388: 

389: 

390: %\PolchinskiMH

391: \lref\PolchinskiMH{

392: J.~Polchinski,

393: ``Remarks On The Liouville Field Theory,''

394: UTTG-19-90

395: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=uttg-19-90}{SPIRES entry}

396: {\it Presented at Strings '90 Conf., College Station, TX, Mar 12-17, 1990}

397: }

398: %\PolchinskiMB

399: \lref\PolchinskiMB{

400: J.~Polchinski,

401: ``What is string theory?,''

402: arXiv:hep-th/9411028.

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

404: }

405: %\cite{Berenstein:2004kk}

406: \lref\Berenstein{

407: D.~Berenstein,

408: ``A toy model for the AdS/CFT correspondence,''

409: JHEP {\bf 0407}, 018 (2004)

410: [arXiv:hep-th/0403110].

411: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0403110;%%

412: }

413: %\GinspargIS

414: \lref\GinspargIS{

415: P.~H.~Ginsparg and G.~W.~Moore,

416: ``Lectures on 2-D gravity and 2-D string theory,''

417: arXiv:hep-th/9304011.

418: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9304011;%%

419: }

420: %\KlebanovQA

421: \lref\KlebanovQA{

422: I.~R.~Klebanov,

423: ``String theory in two-dimensions,''

424: arXiv:hep-th/9108019.

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

426: }

427: 

428: 

429: %\KlebanovVP

430: \lref\KlebanovVP{

431: I.~R.~Klebanov,

432: ``Ward identities in two-dimensional string theory,''

433: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 7}, 723 (1992)

434: [arXiv:hep-th/9201005].

435: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9201005;%%

436: }

437: 

438: 

439: %\KlebanovUI

440: \lref\KlebanovUI{

441: I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~Pasquinucci,

442: ``Correlation functions from two-dimensional string ward identities,''

443: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 393}, 261 (1993)

444: [arXiv:hep-th/9204052].

445: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9204052;%%

446: }

447: %\PolyakovQX

448: \lref\PolyakovQX{

449: A.~M.~Polyakov,

450: ``Selftuning fields and resonant correlations in 2-d gravity,''

451: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6}, 635 (1991).

452: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A6,635;%%

453: }

454: %

455: \lref\MaldacenaRE{ J.~M.~Maldacena,

456: %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

457: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 231 (1998) [Int.\ J.\

458: Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)] [arXiv:hep-th/9711200].

459: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

460: }

461: 

462: 

463: %\DiFrancescoSS

464: \lref\DiFrancescoSS{

465: P.~Di Francesco and D.~Kutasov,

466: ``Correlation functions in 2-D string theory,''

467: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 261}, 385 (1991);

468: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B261,385;%%

469: P.~Di Francesco and D.~Kutasov,

470: ``World sheet and space-time physics in two-dimensional (Super)string theory,''

471: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 375}, 119 (1992)

472: [arXiv:hep-th/9109005].

473: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9109005;%%

474: }

475: %\KlebanovHX

476: \lref\KlebanovHX{

477: I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov,

478: ``Interaction of discrete states in two-dimensional string theory,''

479: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6}, 3273 (1991)

480: [arXiv:hep-th/9109032].

481: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9109032;%%

482: }

483: %\BoulatovXZ

484: \lref\BoulatovXZ{

485: D.~Boulatov and V.~Kazakov,

486: ``One-dimensional string theory with vortices as the upside down matrix

487: oscillator,''

488: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 8}, 809 (1993)

489: [arXiv:hep-th/0012228].

490: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012228;%%

491: }

492: %\KazakovPM

493: \lref\KazakovPM{

494: V.~Kazakov, I.~K.~Kostov and D.~Kutasov,

495: ``A matrix model for the two-dimensional black hole,''

496: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 622}, 141 (2002)

497: [arXiv:hep-th/0101011].

498: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101011;%%

499: }

500: %\tHooftJZ

501: \lref\tHooftJZ{

502: G.~'t Hooft,

503: ``A Planar Diagram Theory For Strong Interactions,''

504: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 72}, 461 (1974).

505: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B72,461;%%

506: }

507: %\BrezinSV

508: \lref\BrezinSV{

509: E.~Brezin, C.~Itzykson, G.~Parisi and J.~B.~Zuber,

510: ``Planar Diagrams,''

511: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 59}, 35 (1978).

512: %%CITATION = CMPHA,59,35;%%

513: }

514: 

515: %\CorleyZK

516: \lref\CorleyZK{

517: S.~Corley, A.~Jevicki and S.~Ramgoolam,

518: ``Exact correlators of giant gravitons from dual N = 4 SYM theory,''

519: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 5}, 809 (2002)

520: [arXiv:hep-th/0111222].

521: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0111222;%%

522: }

523: 

524: %\HashimotoZP

525: \lref\HashimotoZP{

526: A.~Hashimoto, S.~Hirano and N.~Itzhaki,

527: ``Large branes in AdS and their field theory dual,''

528: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 051 (2000)

529: [arXiv:hep-th/0008016].

530: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008016;%%

531: }

532: 

533: 

534: %\AlexandrovQK

535: \lref\AlexandrovQK{

536: S.~Y.~Alexandrov, V.~A.~Kazakov and I.~K.~Kostov,

537: ``2D string theory as normal matrix model,''

538: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 667}, 90 (2003)

539: [arXiv:hep-th/0302106].

540: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0302106;%%

541: }

542: 

543: 

544: %\OkounkovSP

545: \lref\OkounkovSP{

546: A.~Okounkov, N.~Reshetikhin and C.~Vafa,

547: ``Quantum Calabi-Yau and classical crystals,''

548: arXiv:hep-th/0309208.

549: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309208;%%

550: }

551: 

552: 

553: %\KontsevichTI

554: \lref\KontsevichTI{

555: M.~Kontsevich,

556: ``Intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the matrix Airy

557: function,''

558: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 147}, 1 (1992).

559: %%CITATION = CMPHA,147,1;%%

560: }

561: 

562: %\GaiottoYB

563: \lref\GaiottoYB{

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

565: ``A paradigm of open/closed duality: Liouville D-branes and the Kontsevich

566: model,''

567: arXiv:hep-th/0312196.

568: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312196;%%

569: }

570: 

571: 

572: \lref\rajesh{

573: R.~Gopakumar,

574: ``From free fields to AdS. I, II''

575: arXiv:hep-th/0308184, 0402063.

576: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0308184;%%

577: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402063;%%

578: }

579: 

580: %\KlebanovKM

581: \lref\KlebanovKM{

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

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

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

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

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

587: }

588: 

589: %\DouglasUP

590: \lref\DouglasUP{

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

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

593: arXiv:hep-th/0307195.

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

595: }

596: 

597: 

598: %\TeschnerRV

599: \lref\TeschnerRV{

600: J.~Teschner,

601: ``Liouville theory revisited,''

602: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 18}, R153 (2001)

603: [arXiv:hep-th/0104158].

604: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104158;%%

605: }

606: 

607: %\GuptaFU

608: \lref\GuptaFU{

609: A.~Gupta, S.~P.~Trivedi and M.~B.~Wise,

610: ``Random Surfaces In Conformal Gauge,''

611: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 340}, 475 (1990).

612: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B340,475;%%

613: }

614: 

615: %\SeibergEB

616: \lref\SeibergEB{

617: N.~Seiberg,

618: ``Notes On Quantum Liouville Theory And Quantum Gravity,''

619: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 102}, 319 (1990).

620: %%CITATION = PTPSA,102,319;%%

621: }

622: 

623: 

624: %\BershadskyZS

625: \lref\BershadskyZS{

626: M.~Bershadsky and I.~R.~Klebanov,

627: ``Genus One Path Integral In Two-Dimensional Quantum Gravity,''

628: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 65}, 3088 (1990);

629: ``Partition functions and physical states in two-dimensional quantum gravity

630: %and supergravity,''

631: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 360}, 559 (1991).

632: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,559;%%

633: }

634: 

635: 

636: 

637: \lref\girvin{

638: S.~M.~Girvin,

639: ``The Quantum Hall Effect: Novel Excitations and Broken Symmetries,''

640: Topological Aspects of Low Dimensional Systems, ed. A. Comtet, T.   Jolicoeur, S. Ouvry, F. David (Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Les Editions de   Physique, Les Ulis, 2000), [arXiv:cond-mat/9907002].}

641: 

642: 

643: %\FateevIK

644: \lref\FateevIK{

645: V.~Fateev, A.~B.~Zamolodchikov and A.~B.~Zamolodchikov,

646: ``Boundary Liouville field theory. I: Boundary state and boundary  two-point

647: function,''

648: arXiv:hep-th/0001012.

649: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001012;%%

650: }

651: 

652: %\ZamolodchikovAH

653: \lref\ZamolodchikovAH{

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

655: ``Liouville field theory on a pseudosphere,''

656: arXiv:hep-th/0101152.

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

658: }

659: %\TeschnerMD

660: \lref\TeschnerMD{

661: J.~Teschner,

662: ``Remarks on Liouville theory with boundary,''

663: arXiv:hep-th/0009138.

664: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0009138;%%

665: }

666: 

667: %\PolyakovTJ

668: \lref\PolyakovTJ{ A.~M.~Polyakov,

669: ``String theory and quark confinement,''

670: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 68}, 1 (1998)

671: [arXiv:hep-th/9711002].

672: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711002;%%

673: }

674: 

675: 

676: 

677: %\GopakumarKI

678: \lref\GopakumarKI{

679: R.~Gopakumar and C.~Vafa,

680: ``On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence,''

681: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 3}, 1415 (1999)

682: [arXiv:hep-th/9811131].

683: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811131;%%

684: }

685: 

686: 

687: \lref\winftyrefs{

688: J.~Avan and A.~Jevicki,

689: ``Classical integrability and higher symmetries of collective string field

690: theory,''

691: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 266}, 35 (1991);

692: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B266,35;%%

693: D.~Minic, J.~Polchinski and Z.~Yang,

694: ``Translation invariant backgrounds in (1+1)-dimensional string theory,''

695: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 369}, 324 (1992);

696: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B369,324;%%

697: G.~W.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

698: ``From loops to fields in 2-D quantum gravity,''

699: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 7}, 2601 (1992);

700: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A7,2601;%%

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

702: ``Gauge theory formulation of the C = 1 matrix model: Symmetries and discrete

703: states,''

704: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 7}, 5165 (1992)

705: [arXiv:hep-th/9110021].

706: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9110021;%%

707: }

708: 

709: %\AvanKQ

710: \lref\AvanKQ{

711: J.~Avan and A.~Jevicki,

712: ``Classical integrability and higher symmetries of collective string field

713: theory,''

714: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 266}, 35 (1991).

715: }

716: %\MinicRK

717: \lref\MinicRK{

718: D.~Minic, J.~Polchinski and Z.~Yang,

719: %``Translation invariant backgrounds in (1+1)-dimensional string theory,''

720: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 369}, 324 (1992).

721: }

722: %\MooreAG

723: \lref\MooreAG{

724: G.~W.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

725: %``From loops to fields in 2-D quantum gravity,''

726: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 7}, 2601 (1992).

727: }

728: %\DasQB

729: \lref\DasQB{

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

731: ``Gauge theory formulation of the C = 1 matrix model: Symmetries and discrete

732: states,''

733: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 7}, 5165 (1992)

734: [arXiv:hep-th/9110021].

735: }

736: 

737: 

738: \lref\screening{

739: B.~L.~Feigin and D.~B.~Fuchs, unpublished;

740: %``Verma Modules Over The Virasoro Algebra,''

741: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=1979574}{SPIRES entry}

742: V.~S.~Dotsenko and V.~A.~Fateev,

743: ``Conformal Algebra And Multipoint Correlation Functions In  2d Statistical

744: %Models,''

745: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 240}, 312 (1984);

746: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B240,312;%%

747: ``Four Point Correlation Functions And The Operator Algebra In The

748: Two-Dimensional Conformal Invariant Theories With $c<1$,''

749: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 251}, 691 (1985).

750: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B251,691;%%

751: }

752: 

753: 

754: 

755: %\DiFrancescoNK

756: \lref\DiFrancescoNK{ P.~Di Francesco, P.~Mathieu and D.~Senechal,

757: ``Conformal field theory,'' New York, USA: Springer (1997) 890 p.

758: }

759: 

760: 

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: 

765: %\GoulianQR

766: \lref\GoulianQR{

767: M.~Goulian and M.~Li,

768: ``Correlation Functions In Liouville Theory,''

769: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 66}, 2051 (1991).

770: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,2051;%%

771: }

772: 

773: 

774: 

775: 

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: 

780: 

781: 

782: %\GrossTU

783: \lref\GrossTU{

784: D.~J.~Gross,

785: ``Two-dimensional QCD as a string theory,''

786: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 400}, 161 (1993)

787: [arXiv:hep-th/9212149].

788: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9212149;%%

789: }

790: 

791: 

792: 

793: 

794: \lref\stringyexclusion{

795: J.~M.~Maldacena and A.~Strominger,

796: ``AdS(3) black holes and a stringy exclusion principle,''

797: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 005 (1998)

798: [arXiv:hep-th/9804085];

799: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9804085;%%

800: S.~S.~Gubser,

801: ``Can the effective string see higher partial waves?,''

802: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 4984 (1997)

803: [arXiv:hep-th/9704195];

804: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9704195;%%

805: J.~Polchinski,

806: ``Classical limit of (1+1)-dimensional string theory,''

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

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

809: }

810: 

811: %\McGreevyCW

812: \lref\McGreevyCW{

813: J.~McGreevy, L.~Susskind and N.~Toumbas,

814: ``Invasion of the giant gravitons from anti-de Sitter space,''

815: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 008 (2000)

816: [arXiv:hep-th/0003075].

817: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003075;%%

818: }

819: 

820: %\WittenZD

821: \lref\WittenZD{

822: E.~Witten,

823: ``Ground ring of two-dimensional string theory,''

824: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 187 (1992)

825: [arXiv:hep-th/9108004].

826: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9108004;%%

827: }

828: 

829: 

830: 

831: 

832: \lref\SeibergNM{ N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih,

833: ``Branes, rings and matrix models in minimal (super)string theory,''

834: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 021 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0312170].

835: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312170;%%

836: }

837: 

838: 

839: %\McGreevyKB

840: \lref\McGreevyKB{

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

842: ``Strings from tachyons,''

843: JHEP {\bf 0312}, 054 (2003)

844: [arXiv:hep-th/0304224].

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

846: }

847: %\McGreevyEP

848: \lref\McGreevyEP{

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

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

851: JHEP {\bf 0401}, 039 (2004)

852: [arXiv:hep-th/0305194].

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

854: }

855: 

856: \lref\DouglasXV{

857: M.~R.~Douglas,

858: ``Conformal field theory techniques for large N group theory,''

859: arXiv:hep-th/9303159.

860: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9303159;%%

861: }

862: 

863: %\AganagicQJ

864: \lref\AganagicQJ{

865: M.~Aganagic, R.~Dijkgraaf, A.~Klemm, M.~Marino and C.~Vafa,

866: ``Topological strings and integrable hierarchies,''

867: arXiv:hep-th/0312085.

868: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312085;%%

869: }

870: 

871: %\GhoshalWM

872: \lref\GhoshalWM{

873: D.~Ghoshal and C.~Vafa,

874: ``c = 1 string as the topological theory of the conifold,''

875: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 453}, 121 (1995)

876: [arXiv:hep-th/9506122].

877: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9506122;%%

878: }

879: 

880: 

881: %\VafaQA

882: \lref\VafaQA{

883: C.~Vafa,

884: ``Two dimensional Yang-Mills, black holes and topological strings,''

885: arXiv:hep-th/0406058.

886: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406058;%%

887: }

888: 

889: 

890: \lref\stone{

891: M.~Stone,

892: ``Schur Functions, Chiral Bosons And The Quantum Hall Effect Edge

893: States,''

894: ILL-TH-90-11

895: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=ill-th-90-11}{SPIRES entry}

896: }

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: 

901: 

902: \Title{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt\hbox{hep-th/0408180}

903: \hbox{PUTP/2130}}} {\vbox{ \centerline{The Large N Harmonic

904: Oscillator as

905: %

906: %}\bigskip \centerline{

907: a String Theory}}}

908: 

909: \bigskip

910: \centerline{Nissan Itzhaki and John McGreevy}

911: \bigskip

912: \centerline{{\it Department of Physics, Princeton University,

913: Princeton, NJ 08544}}

914: \bigskip

915: \bigskip

916: \noindent We propose a duality between the  large-$N$ gauged

917: harmonic oscillator and a novel  string theory in two dimensions.

918: %We present evidence for the equivalence of the gauged

919: %$N\times N$ matrix harmonic oscillator with a certain two

920: %dimensional string theory.

921: %The chemical potential conjugate to $N$

922: %plays the role of the inverse string coupling.

923: %The string worldsheet is described by

924: %a product of a

925: %free boson (which corresponds to the

926: %matrix model time) with a

927: %timelike Liouville CFT with

928: %imaginary linear dilaton and $c=25$.

929: %The correspondence can be

930: %interpreted as an open-closed duality.

931: 

932: \bigskip

933: \Date{August, 2004}

934: 

935: 

936: 

937: \newsec{Introduction}

938: 

939: Since  't Hooft's work  thirty years ago \tHooftJZ \ it is

940: generally believed that large-$N$ gauge theories admit a dual

941: string theory description. Given the utility of such dualities for

942: both sides, and the difficulty of finding them, it is of interest

943: to find more examples which are under precise control.

944: %Given a large $N$ gauge theory it is not

945: %easy to determine what is its dual stringy description. In cases

946: %where  the dual description is known the duality can teach us

947: %quite a bit  both about the gauge theory and about the relevant

948: %string theory. It is therefore of interest to have more exact

949: %gauge/string dualities.

950: The aim of this paper is to explore a

951: new and remarkably simple

952: duality of this kind. We address an old question that was

953: %re-raised

954: resurrected recently  \Berenstein : what is the string theory dual

955: of the large-$N$ gauged harmonic oscillator?

956: 

957: %Of course a large $N$ gauge theory does not come with a warranty

958: %of having a tractable

959: %an excisable

960: %stringy dual.

961: %But we know

962: A clue comes from the fact that the large $N$ {\it inverted}

963: harmonic oscillator is dual to a certain string theory in two

964: dimensions (for reviews see

965: \refs{\KlebanovQA,\GinspargIS,\PolchinskiMB}). Therefore, we

966: should find the meaning in string theory of rectifying the

967: inverted matrix potential.

968: %all we

969: %should do is to figure out what does, on the string theory

970: %side, to invert back the inverted harmonic oscillator.

971: This is done in section 4, after discussing some of the properties

972: and symmetries of the large-$N$ harmonic oscillator in sections 2

973: and 3. The physics of the harmonic oscillator and the inverted

974: oscillator are very different. The latter has a continuous

975: spectrum, while in the former the spectrum is discrete. This

976: implies that, unlike in the standard 2d-string/matrix model

977: duality, there is no need to take a double scaling limit to find a

978: continuum dual string description. Finite $N$ corresponds to

979: nonzero string coupling constant. In this sense, the duality we

980: propose works more like the AdS/CFT duality \MaldacenaRE\ than the

981: standard 2d-string/matrix model duality.  Since the matrix model

982: is well-defined at finite $N$, we will be able to define and study

983: interesting finite-coupling effects in this bosonic string theory.

984: 

985: 

986: %Despite being exactly solvable there are interesting quantities to

987: %calculate

988: The observables of interest in the large-$N$ harmonic oscillator

989: are the overlap amplitudes between resonances. In section 5 we

990: explain how the resonances come  about on the string theory side.

991: In section 6 we calculate  these overlap amplitudes on both sides

992: of the duality and show that the large-$N$ limit of the harmonic

993: oscillator exactly agrees with the relevant sphere amplitudes on

994: the string theory side. In this section, we also make contact with

995: a normal matrix model.

996: %describe a useful matrix integral

997: %representation for the correlators.

998: In section 7 we show that the

999: duality passes non-trivial tests involving the $1/N$ corrections

1000: to the leading large-$N$ behavior. Section 8 is devoted to a

1001: heuristic picture of the duality.

1002: 

1003: In addition to providing a new example of open/closed string

1004: duality, the relation we propose is interesting for a completely

1005: different reason. The matrix harmonic oscillator is closely

1006: related to the quantum hall effect (QHE) and therefore the  dual

1007: stringy description might be useful for understanding various open

1008: questions in the QHE, like what is the effective description of

1009: the quantum phase transition from one plateau to the next. In

1010: section 9 we briefly speculate on this and other possible

1011: applications and generalizations.

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: \newsec{The Matrix Model}

1017: The model we wish to study is the gauged quantum mechanics of an

1018: $N\times N$

1019: matrix harmonic oscillator,

1020: %

1021: \eqn\act{ S = \half \int dt ~ \tr \left( (D_0 X)^2 - X^2 \right)

1022: .}

1023: %

1024:  The derivative $D_0 = \del_0 + [A_0, \cdot ]$ is covariant with

1025: respect to gauged $U(N)$ conjugations $ X \mapsto \Omega X

1026: \Omega^\dagger $. The gauge field acts as a Lagrange multiplier

1027: that projects onto singlet states,

1028: which in turn \BrezinSV\ describe $N$

1029: free fermions in the harmonic oscillator potential.

1030: 

1031: 

1032: This model is, of course, solvable. The possible energy levels of

1033: a single fermion are \eqn\1{ E_j=j+\half.} Since there are $N$

1034: fermions the vacuum energy is \eqn\2{E_{0}=\half+{3\over

1035: 2}+...+{(2N-1)\over 2}={N^2 \over 2}.} The Hilbert space is

1036: spanned by states labelled by $N$ integers $k_n$ such that

1037:  $0\leq k_1<k_2<...<k_N$, and the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are

1038: \eqn\energy{H\ket{k_1,k_2,...,k_N}=

1039: \left( {N\over 2} +\sum_{n=1}^{N}k_n\right) \ket{k_1,k_2,...,k_N}.}

1040: 

1041: Despite the fact that this model is free something quite interesting

1042: is happening in the large-$N$ limit:

1043: excitations above the ground state

1044: are most easily described in terms of a chiral boson,

1045: as emphasized recently in \Berenstein.

1046: %One simple but not quite intuitive

1047: A nice way to see this is to consider the partition function

1048: \eqn\partition{Z=\tr q^H=q^{N\over 2}\sum_{k_1=0}^{\infty}

1049: \sum_{k_2=k_1+1}^{\infty}...\sum_{k_N=k_{N-1}+1}^{\infty}q^{\sum_{n=1}^{N}k_n}.

1050:   }

1051: Performing the sums sequentially we get \BoulatovXZ\

1052: \eqn\partitionb{Z=q^{N^2/2}\prod_{n=1}^{N}{1\over 1-q^n}.} This is

1053: exactly the partition function of a two-dimensional chiral boson

1054: with $\alpha_0=N$ whose excitations are truncated at level $N$.

1055: Namely the Hamiltonian is \eqn\hamiltonianb{ H={\alpha_0^2 \over

1056: 2}+ \sum_{n=1}^{N} \alpha_{-n}\alpha_{n},} and we are using stringy

1057: conventions for the commutators \eqn\com{ [\alpha_m,\alpha_n]=n

1058: \delta_{n+m}.} Later on we shall argue that this chiral boson is

1059: (up to normalization) equivalent to the target-space field of the

1060: string description.

1061: %stringy modes in the dual description.

1062: Note that for finite $N$, the momentum modes of the chiral boson

1063: are truncated in a clean way. This is another example of the

1064: stringy exclusion principle \refs{\stringyexclusion, \GrossTU},

1065: about which we will say more in section 5.

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: %\subsubsec{Finite $N$ real bosonization}

1073: 

1074: To understand this boson description in more detail, we introduce

1075: matrix raising and lowering operators

1076: %

1077: \eqn\creation{ a^i_j = {1

1078: \over \sqrt 2} \left(X^i_j + i P^i_j\right), ~~~~~ a^{\dagger~i}_j

1079: = {1 \over \sqrt 2} \left(X^i_j - i P^i_j\right), }

1080: %

1081:  where $P$ is

1082: the momentum conjugate to the matrix $X$. These operators satisfy

1083: %

1084: \eqn\alllgg{ [a^i_j, a^{\dagger~k}_l ] = \delta^i_l \delta^k_j,

1085: ~~~~~ [H, a] = - a, ~~~~~ [H, a^\dagger] = a^\dagger .}

1086: %

1087: The vacuum is defined by $ a^i_j \ket{0} = 0 $.

1088: % and therefore

1089: %generate the evenly-spaced spectrum.

1090: %A more detailed correspondence between states

1091: %in the fermionic and bosonic descriptions is as follows.

1092: The states

1093: %

1094: \eqn\ketmi{\ket{ \{ m_i\} } \equiv c_{\{m_i\}}

1095: \prod_{i=1}^r \tr ( a^{\dagger~m_i } ) \ket{0} ,}

1096: %

1097: with  $m_1 \geq m_2 \geq ... \geq m_r$ provide a useful

1098: basis

1099: for the Hilbert space. From \alllgg \ we see that

1100: indeed the spectrum is evenly-spaced. Note that the stringy

1101: exclusion is the statement that \eqn\excl{m_i \leq N}

1102:  in order that these states be linearly independent.

1103: 

1104: An orthonormal basis of states can be constructed from \ketmi\ as

1105: %The state \ketmi\ may also be written as

1106: %

1107: \eqn\qoq{ \ket{ R(\{ m_i\}) } = c_{\{m_i\}}~\chi_{R(\{m_i\})}

1108: (a^\dagger) \ket{0} }

1109: %

1110: (see \eg\ \CorleyZK\ or \stone \foot{We thank D. Berenstein for

1111: pointing out a misstatement in an earlier version, and the latter reference.})

1112: where $R( \{ m_i \} )$ is the representation

1113: of $U(N)$ corresponding to the Young tableau with columns of

1114: lengths $ ( m_1, m_2, ..., m_r) $ and $\chi_R(U)$ is the character

1115: of $U$ in this representation. The bound $m_i \leq N$ guarantees

1116: that this is indeed a tableau for a $U(N)$ representation.

1117: 

1118: 

1119: 

1120: 

1121: In terms of the free-fermion description, the wavefunction for the

1122: state \qoq\ is a Slater determinant constructed as follows. Look

1123: at the tableau $\{m_i\}$ sideways, define $k_n$ to be the

1124: row-lengths; note that there are at most $N$ rows by \excl.  The

1125: many-fermion wavefunction is then

1126: %

1127: \eqn\taio{\bra{z_1}\otimes\bra{z_2}\cdots\vev{z_N |R(\{m_i\}) } =

1128: \det_{n,l = 1,..,N} \psi_{k_n + N - n + 1}(z_l)}

1129: %

1130: where $\psi_n(z)

1131: = \vev{ n | z} = H_n(z) e^{ - |z|^2/2 } $ are the single-particle

1132: harmonic-oscillator wavefunctions. For example, for the empty

1133: tableau, this fills the lowest $N$ energy levels with fermions.

1134: The state $ \tr ( a^{\dagger})^k \ket{0}$ corresponds to exciting

1135: $k$ fermions by one level each -- it makes a hole in the fermi sea

1136: at level $N-k$. For $m = N$, the hole is at the lowest state. For

1137: $m> N$, there is no such single-particle description, in accord

1138: with the stringy exclusion principle.

1139: 

1140: 

1141: 

1142: %$$ \{ b_r, b_s \} = \delta_{r+s,0} $$

1143: %$$ \alpha_n = \sum_{r \in \BZ} b_r b_{n-r} $$

1144: 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: 

1148: This is the same Hilbert space as that of two-dimensional

1149: Yang-Mills theory on a cylinder (see \eg\ \DouglasXV \ ). The

1150: Hamiltonian for the matrix oscillator is, however, the number of

1151: boxes in the tableau,

1152: %

1153: \eqn\pqc{ (H - E_0)\ket{ \{ m_i\} } = \sum_{i=1}^r  m_i \ket{ \{

1154: m_i\} }}

1155: %

1156: rather than the second Casimir $C_2(R)$.

1157: %[Later we can try to

1158: %%find this deformation of the string theory.

1159: %Note that topological string duals of

1160: %2d yang mills are now known.]

1161: 

1162: 

1163: 

1164: \newsec{Symmetries}

1165: 

1166: As is well-known (see \eg\ \S12 of \GinspargIS) there are

1167: infinitely many conserved charges associated with the harmonic

1168: oscillator. These charges generate the $w_{\infty}$ algebra that

1169: controls much of the physics of the system, and was studied quite

1170: intensively in the case of the inverted harmonic oscillator

1171: \winftyrefs\ in relation with the $c=1$ theory.

1172: %All of what we have to say about this

1173: Although most of our discussion can be obtained from these papers

1174: by plugging $i$'s in the right places, we find it useful to be

1175: explicit

1176: %Still we find it useful to do

1177: %explicitly that simple exercise mainly because

1178: because the harmonic oscillator

1179: physics is quite different from the inverted

1180: oscillator physics.

1181: 

1182: At large $N$, a semi-classical description

1183: %Since we are particularly

1184: %interested in the large-$N$ limit, it is useful

1185: %to consider the semi-classical limit that

1186: exhibits most of the relevant

1187: physics in a simple way. Semi-classically, the eigenvalues form a

1188: Fermi sea in phase space.

1189:  It is most convenient to parametrize the phase space by

1190: \eqn\nj{U={(X+iP)\over\sqrt2},~~\;\;\;\;V=U^{\dagger}=

1191: {(X-iP)\over \sqrt2},} which satisfy the Poisson bracket \eqn\pb{

1192: \{ U,V\} _{PB}=i.} The Hamiltonian is $H=UV$, and thus

1193: \eqn\eqm{U(t)=e^{-i t} U(0),\;\;\;V(t)=e^{it} V(0),} which implies

1194: that following charges are conserved \eqn\wi{Q_{n,m}=e^{i(n-m)t}

1195: U^n V^m.} These charges form the $w_{\infty}$ algebra \eqn\we{

1196: \{Q_{n,m},Q_{n^{'},m^{'}}\} _{PB}

1197:  =i(nm^{'}-mn^{'})~ Q_{n+n^{'}-1,m+m^{'}-1}.}

1198: The ground state is obtained by filling

1199: states in the phase space up to the Fermi surface

1200: %

1201: \eqn\gs{ UV = N,}

1202: %

1203: so that  the area in units of the Poisson brackets \pb\ is equal

1204: to the number of fermions.

1205: %\eqn\area {A={\pi N \over \pi}=N.}

1206: 

1207: Excitations above the ground state can be described using

1208: area-preserving transformations of the phase space. The area is

1209: preserved since it corresponds to the number of fermions.

1210: Area-preserving transformations can be described using a single scalar

1211: function $h(U,V)$,

1212: a basis for which are

1213: % that in our case can take the following values

1214: \eqn\area{ h_{nm}=U^n V^m,} $n$ and $m$ must be integers in order

1215: to preserve the connectivity of the fermi surface. $h_{nm}$

1216: determines a vector field that is associated with

1217:  an infinitesimal area-preserving transformation of the

1218: U-V plane, \eqn\vecr{  \vec{B} _{nm}={ \partial h_{nm}\over

1219: \partial U}

1220: \partial_V- {\partial h_{nm}\over\partial V} \partial_U.}

1221: The Lie brackets of the $\vec{B}_{nm}$'s form a $w_{\infty}$

1222: algebra.

1223: 

1224: The

1225: %area-preserving transformation

1226: vector field $\vec{B}_{nm}$ clearly depends both on $n$ and $m$.

1227: However, when acting on the ground state \gs, $\vec{B}_{nm}$

1228: depends only on $|s|=|n-m|$. Let us see how this comes about. Eq.\

1229: \vecr\ implies that $h_{nm}$ generates the following infinitesimal

1230: deformation

1231: %

1232: \eqn\trr{\delta V=\epsilon\partial_U h=

1233: \epsilon nU^{n-1}V^m,\;\;\;\delta U=-\epsilon

1234: \partial_V h =-\epsilon mU^n V^{m-1}. }

1235: %

1236: Therefore, to leading order in $\epsilon$, we find that

1237: \eqn\kl{(V+\delta V)(U+\delta U)= UV +\epsilon(n-m)U^n V^m. } If

1238: $UV$ is to begin with a constant (like in the ground state) then

1239: \kl $\; $implies that the deformation of the Fermi surface is

1240: \eqn\df { \delta( UV ) \sim \epsilon  \left( {U \over V}\right)

1241: ^{s/2}.} The only dependence on $r=n+m$ is in the numerical

1242: constant. Parameterizing  the phase space  using polar coordinates

1243: (see fig. 1)

1244: %

1245: \eqn\polar{ U=re^{i\theta},\;\;\;V=re^{-i\theta},}

1246: %

1247: we can  write the variation in the fermi level \df\ as

1248: %

1249: \eqn\kll{ \delta(\theta)\sim \epsilon \Re (e^{is \theta })

1250: =\epsilon \cos (|s | \theta ).}

1251: %

1252: % Since $\theta$ is periodic the

1253: %excitations of the Fermi surface carry integer momentum conjugate

1254: %to $\theta$. Namely they scale like \df, where $s$ is the momentum

1255: %in the $\theta$ direction.

1256: If we act more than once with $\vec{B}_{nm}$ on the ground state

1257: then both $s$ and  $r$  matter as is clear from the $w_{\infty}$

1258: algebra. For example, both $1$ and $UV$ act trivially on the

1259: ground state but only $1$ acts trivially on every state.

1260: \ifig\fermisea{ For the right-side-up oscillator, the Fermi sea is

1261: a compact droplet.  Ripples on the Fermi surface (and holes) travel

1262: in circles with unit angular velocity. }

1263: {\epsfxsize1.5in\epsfbox{puddle.eps}}

1264: 

1265: This can be conveniently phrased at the quantum level. Using the

1266: bosonic description one can excite the ground state by acting with

1267: single trace operators. For example, up to a normalization

1268: constant, the $\alpha_{n}$ of the chiral boson, which appeared in

1269: \hamiltonianb, correspond to \Berenstein\

1270:    \eqn\7{\tr ((a^{\dagger})^n) ,\;\;\;\,}

1271: %a^i_j =   {1\over\sqrt{2}}(X^i_j + i P^i_j)}

1272: with $a$ as in \creation. Momentarily we shall claim that  these

1273: are  dual to excitations of the  closed string "tachyon". As

1274: should be clear from the semi-classical discussion above, there

1275: are other single trace operators in the theory that involve both

1276: $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$. These are

1277: %Namely the ones that are

1278: associated with the  $h_{nm}$ with $m\neq 0$. For example,

1279: consider the operator \eqn\ex{\tr (a (a^{\dagger})^2).} Acting

1280: with this operator on the ground state has the same effect as

1281: acting with $\tr(a^{\dagger})$. Namely, both take the ground state

1282: to the first excited state. However clearly these operators are

1283: not the same. In fact we will see that it is natural to relate

1284: these

1285:  operators to discrete states in the dual stringy description.

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: At this point we encounter a small puzzle. At the quantum level

1290: there seem to be many more excitations than at the semi-classical

1291: level, which clearly makes no sense. To see this we note that

1292: there are many different single trace operators that at the

1293: semi-classical level are associated with the same $h_{nm}$. The

1294: simplest example is $ \tr (aa^\dagger a a^\dagger ) $ and $\tr

1295: (a^2a^{\dagger~2} )$. On the one hand, since in a non-Abelian

1296: theory the order inside the trace matters, these are  different

1297: operators. On the other hand semi-classically they are both

1298: associated with $h_{2,2}$. The fact that the theory is gauged

1299: resolves this issue: in one dimension there is no electric or

1300: magnetic field and so the current that couples to $A$ must vanish

1301: on-shell, \foot{ Note that here we are using  matrix commutator

1302: $[a,a^\dagger]_i^j$ which is not to be confused with  the

1303: canonical commutator $[ a_i^j, a_k^{\dagger~l}]$ in \alllgg.}

1304: %

1305: \eqn\gauss{j=[X,D_0 X]=i[a, a^{\dagger}]=0.}

1306: %

1307: %theory it

1308: %is important to mention a subtlety that arises because of the

1309: %gauging.

1310: %The effect of introducing the gauge field $A$

1311: %is to

1312: %$As usual, Gauss' law is a secondary constraint, and is therefore

1313: %$imposed as a condition on physical states.  In this case the

1314: %$current which must vanish is \eqn\gauss{ 0 = [a, a^\dagger]_i^j

1315: %$~\ket{{\rm phys}} = \left( a_i^k a^{\dagger~j}_k -

1316: %$a^{\dagger~k}_i a_k^j \right)~\ket{0} . }

1317: %

1318: 

1319: This implies that operators which differ by such commutators

1320: actually give the same result when acting on  physical states. As

1321: a result, the inequivalent single-trace operators are in 1-to-1

1322: correspondence with $w_\infty$ generators. In section 5 we discuss

1323: further these operators at the quantum level.

1324: 

1325: 

1326: Eq. \gauss\ is reminiscent of a normal matrix model (for a

1327: recent discussion in relation with the $c=1$ theory see

1328: \AlexandrovQK ).

1329: We will elaborate on this connection in \S6.

1330: 

1331: 

1332: 

1333: \newsec{The dual string theory}

1334: 

1335: Generally speaking it is not an easy task to find the stringy dual

1336: description of some  large-$N$ gauge theory. In our case a natural

1337: candidate  comes from the well-studied duality between 2d string

1338: theory with a Liouville direction and matrix quantum mechanics.

1339: The matrix quantum mechanics dual to 2d

1340: string theory is closely related to the one that we are

1341: considering. The kinetic term is the same and the sign

1342: of the potential term

1343: is flipped. Namely, the free fermions experience the celebrated

1344: inverted quadratic potential, rather then the harmonic

1345: oscillator potential of our case.

1346: Starting from that

1347: well-tested duality, what we have to do is figure out what it

1348: means, on the string theory side, to flip the potential, and see

1349: if what we get makes sense. In this section we discuss the meaning

1350: of flipping  the potential on the string theory side. In the rest

1351: of the paper we test our conjecture for the dual stringy

1352: description.

1353: 

1354: As was emphasized in \refs{\KlebanovQA} the curvature of the

1355: potential in the matrix model is related to the tension of the

1356: dual string theory by

1357: %

1358: \eqn\po{ U(x)= {1 \over 2 \ap} x^2.}

1359: %

1360: So flipping the potential means that we have to take

1361: %

1362: \eqn\9{ \ap \rightarrow -\ap.}

1363: %

1364: In dimension larger than two this would cause an instability due

1365: to the massive modes that are now tachyonic. However, in 2d there

1366: are no massive modes (other than some discrete states that will

1367: play an important role shortly) so we do not have that problem. A

1368: better way to say this is that instead of \9\ what we could do is

1369: to keep $\ap$ positive and Wick rotate {\it all} dimensions. In

1370: $D$ dimensions  this means that there are $D-1$ time-like

1371: directions, which causes problems if $D>2$. But in two dimensions

1372: this just means that the previously spatial dimension is now the

1373: time direction and vice-versa.

1374: 

1375: Let us see what happens if we apply that logic to the $c=1$

1376: theory. Before we flip the potential the dual string theory could

1377: be viewed as a tensor product of two CFT's, a free time-like boson

1378: $X$ (with $c=1$), which is identified with the quantum mechanics

1379: time, and a space-like Liouville field, $\varphi$, with $c=25$.

1380: Namely,

1381: %

1382: %\eqn\tt{ X(z,\bar z)X(0,0)={\ap\over 2}\ln

1383: %|z|^2+...,\;\;\;\;\;\;\varphi(z,\bar

1384: %z)\varphi(0,0)=-{\ap\over 2}\ln |z|^2+... ,}

1385: \eqn\tt{ T(z)={1 \over \ap}\left( :\del X \del X: - :\del \varphi

1386:  \del \varphi: \right) + {Q \over \sqrt{\ap }}\del^2

1387: \varphi,\;\;\;\;Q=b+1/b=2. }

1388: %

1389: Adding the Liouville term, we end up with the

1390: following worldsheet action

1391: %

1392: \eqn\wsaction{ S = {1 \over 4 \pi \ap} \int d^2 \sigma \sqrt{g} ~

1393: \left( -\del_{\alpha} X  \del^{\alpha} X+ \del_{\alpha} \varphi  \del^{\alpha}

1394: \varphi + \sqrt{\ap} R^{(2)} Q \varphi + \mu_0 e^{  2 b

1395: \varphi/\sqrt{\ap}} \right).}

1396: 

1397: According to the reasoning above, to find the candidate

1398: dual to the large-$N$ harmonic oscillator we could either apply \9\

1399: or double Wick rotate

1400: %

1401: \eqn\wr{  X\rightarrow i X,\;\;\;\; \varphi\rightarrow i\varphi .}

1402: %

1403: Either way  we get a CFT whose stress tensor is

1404: %

1405: %\eqn\tt{ X(z,\bar z)X(0,0)=-{\ap\over 2}\ln

1406: %|z|^2+...,\;\;\;\;\;\;\varphi(z,\bar

1407: %z)\varphi(0,0)={\ap\over 2}\ln |z|^2+... ,}

1408: \eqn\ttt{ T(z)={1 \over \ap}\left( :\del \varphi \del \varphi:

1409:  - :\del X  \del

1410: X: \right) + i{Q \over \sqrt{\ap }}\del^2 \varphi .}

1411: %

1412: The energy-momentum tensor is now complex which implies that the

1413: world-sheet theory is non-unitary. This, however, does not mean

1414: that the target space theory is inconsistent, because of the large

1415: redundancy of the worldsheet description. It is worth pointing out

1416: in this context  that a similar CFT (with spatial $\varphi$ and no

1417: $X$) is used to realize the minimal models in the Coulomb gas

1418: formalism (for a review see \DiFrancescoNK, chapter 9). The total

1419: central charge of \ttt\ is

1420: %

1421: \eqn\cc{c=2- 6 i^2  Q^2=26,}

1422: %

1423: where the minus sign comes from the fact that now the Liouville

1424: direction is time-like. The worldsheet action is

1425: %

1426: \eqn\wsa{ S = {1 \over 4 \pi \ap} \int d^2 \sigma\sqrt{g}  ~

1427: \left( \del_{\alpha} X \del^{\alpha} X - \del_{\alpha} \varphi  \del^{\alpha}

1428: \varphi + i\sqrt{\ap} R^{(2)} Q \varphi + \mu_0 e^{ i 2 b \varphi

1429: /\sqrt{\ap}} \right).}

1430: %

1431: Notice that in the presence of the Liouville interaction  this is

1432: not an {\it analytic} continuation \PolchinskiMH. During the

1433: continuation, the contour of integration of the $\varphi$ field

1434: passes over infinitely many troughs of the Liouville potential,

1435: and the two theories are therefore not equivalent. As is clear

1436: from \po\ and \act, to compare this string theory with the

1437: harmonic oscillator it is most convenient to work with $\ap =1$,

1438: which  we use in  the rest of the paper.

1439: 

1440: The coupling of $\varphi $ to the world-sheet curvature implies

1441: that the string coupling constant is

1442: %

1443: \eqn\scc{ g_s=e^{i 2\varphi}.}

1444: %

1445: Notice that unlike in the usual linear dilaton case there is no

1446: separation into weakly coupled and strongly coupled regions. The

1447: absolute value of $g_s$ is one everywhere. This seems to suggest

1448: that there is no good expansion parameter in this theory. That is

1449: indeed the case in the free theory, $\mu_0=0$. However, as  we

1450: shall see in the next section, in the interacting theory $1/\mu_0$

1451: is the parameter that controls the genus expansion.

1452: 

1453: From \scc $ $ we also see that now, again unlike the usual case,

1454: we can compactify $\varphi $. The allowed radii of compactification

1455: seem to be

1456: %

1457: \eqn\c{ R=m/2,}

1458: %

1459: where $m$ is an integer. However, since non-perturbatively

1460: there are D-branes and open strings effects in the theory, the

1461: open-string coupling constant should be well-defined. Since

1462: $g_o^2=g_s$ we find that $m$ is an even number. So the smallest

1463: possible radius is $1$

1464: %

1465: \eqn\c{\varphi \sim \varphi +2\pi.}

1466: %

1467: The dual string theory we propose to the large-$N$ harmonic

1468: oscillator is \wsa $ $ with this periodicity condition \c.

1469: % Later on

1470: %we will present some evidence that other radii lead to

1471: %inconsistencies  at the quantum level.

1472: 

1473: A useful way to think about the radius of the $\varphi$ direction

1474: is that  $\varphi $ is dual to $\theta$ of \polar $ $, which has

1475: the same periodicity. The relation we are proposing between the

1476: large-$N$ harmonic oscillator and that string theory is simple:

1477: $X$ should be identified with the quantum mechanics time and

1478: $\varphi$ should be identified with the angular variable,

1479: $\theta$,  in phase-space. This seems to make sense since

1480: excitations in both descriptions travel at the same speed ($1$ in

1481: our units) regardless of their energy. Note, however, that on the

1482: string theory side, at least naively, there are both left-movers

1483: and right-movers (in the target space), while on the quantum

1484: mechanics side there are only left-movers. In the next section we

1485: will see how to resolve this apparent contradiction.

1486: 

1487: \newsec{Correlation functions}

1488: 

1489: In this section we describe the map between the quantum mechanics

1490: and the string theory degrees of freedom and compare their

1491: correlation functions.

1492: This section is devoted to a more qualitative illustration of

1493: the dictionary between the

1494: two sides of the duality. More details can be found in the

1495: next section.

1496: 

1497: Let us start with the quantum mechanics side.

1498: %Despite the fact

1499: %that the theory is exactly solvable there are  non-trivial

1500: %quantities to calculate. These are

1501: The observables of interest are the overlaps between different

1502: states

1503: %

1504: \eqn\ov{ {\cal O}({\rm bra; ket})=\vev{{\rm bra | ket }}  .}

1505: %

1506: Since the time evolution in the theory is trivial, in principle,

1507: all other gauge invariant observables are determined by these

1508: overlap amplitudes. The simplest case corresponds to what we

1509: loosely speaking call

1510: %we normally call

1511: a two-point function, namely \ov\ with

1512: %

1513: \eqn\twopf{ \bra{{\rm bra }} =  \bra{0}

1514: \tr(a^{k_1}), \;\;\;\;\;\; \ket{{\rm ket}}=\tr

1515: ((a^{\dagger})^{k_2})\ket{0}.}

1516: %

1517: By counting index lines, we see

1518: that the leading contribution in the large-$N$

1519: limit goes like

1520: %

1521: \eqn\rtwop{ {\cal O}(k_1;k_2) \sim \delta_{k_1,k_2} N^{k_1}.}

1522: %

1523: As usual there are $1/N$ corrections. What is special about this

1524: large-$N$ theory is that here the $1/N $ corrections are

1525: truncated after a finite number of terms. Namely,

1526: %

1527: \eqn\hjkp{ {\cal O}(k_1;k_2)=\delta_{k_1,k_2}\sum_{l=0}^{[k_1/2]}

1528: C_l(k_1) N^{k_1 -2 l}, }

1529: %

1530: where the $C_l$'s depend on $k_1$ but not on $N$. Later on we

1531: shall see how this comes about on the string theory side.

1532: %Of course, it is possible  that one (or more) of the $C_l$'s

1533: %vanishes.

1534: %That  makes a non-trivial prediction about the string

1535: %theory; one important such case will be discussed in section 7.

1536: 

1537: The analog of a three-point function is \ov\ with

1538: %

1539: \eqn\twopf{ \bra{{\rm bra }} =  \bra{0} \tr(a^{k}), \;\;\;\;\;\;

1540: \ket{{\rm ket}}=\tr

1541: ((a^{\dagger})^{k_1})\tr ((a^{\dagger})^{k_2})\ket{0}.}

1542: %

1543: In that case the leading contribution in the large-$N$ limit is

1544: %

1545: \eqn\jk{ {\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2) \sim \delta_{k, k_1+k_2} N^{k-1}.}

1546: %

1547: 

1548: We now turn to the string theory side.

1549: The ghost-number-two cohomology contains

1550: the tachyon vertex operator

1551: %

1552: \eqn\tv{T^{\pm}_k= c\bar c ~ e^{-ik (X \pm \varphi)} e^{ i 2 b

1553: \varphi },}

1554: %

1555: where the factor $e^{ i 2 b \varphi }$ is the string coupling that

1556: multiplies the tachyon wave function, and $k$ is an integer due to

1557: the periodicity \c $ $. There are four kinds of modes, with the

1558: following interpretations

1559: %

1560: $$ T^{+}_{k>0}: ~~~~{\rm incoming~~ leftmover},~~~~~~~

1561: T^{-}_{k>0}: ~~~~{\rm incoming~~ rightmover}, $$

1562: $$ T^{+}_{k<0}: ~~~~{\rm outgoing ~~ leftmover },~~~~~~~

1563: T^{-}_{k<0}: ~~~~{\rm outgoing~~ rightmover}.

1564:  $$

1565: %

1566: Note that to make the relation with the matrix model  simple, the

1567: energy in the $X$ direction (rather than  in the $\varphi$

1568: direction which is actually the time direction in this background)

1569: determines in our terminology if a wave is incoming or outgoing.

1570: 

1571: 

1572: S-matrix amplitudes are constructed in the usual fashion,

1573: and take the form

1574: %

1575: \eqn\presmat{A(k_1,k_2,...,k_{n^{+}};k_{n^{+}+1},...,k_{n^{+}+n^{-}})=\int

1576: {\cal D} X{\cal D}\varphi e^{-S} \prod_{i=1}^{n^+ + ~ n^-} \int

1577: d^2 \sigma \sqrt{g} e^{ik_i\varphi \pm ik_i X} e^{ i 2 b \varphi}, }

1578: %

1579: where it is understood that the first $n^{+}$ tachyons have

1580: positive chirality, and the remaining $n^{-}$ have negative chirality.

1581: The action $S$

1582: is given by \wsa\ (with $\ap =1$).

1583: 

1584: At first sight it seems   hard to do calculations in this theory,

1585: since the worldsheet action contains an interaction term.

1586: However,

1587: we can \refs{\screening, \GoulianQR}

1588: expand the

1589: exponent in powers of $\mu_0$ and get

1590: %

1591: \eqn\smat{A(k_1,k_2,...,k_{n^{+}};k_{n^{+}+1},...,k_{n^{+}+n^{-}})=}

1592: $$ \int {\cal D} X{\cal D}\varphi \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\mu_0^n \over

1593: n!} (\int d^2 \sigma \sqrt{g}  e^{ i 2 b \varphi})^n e^{-S_0}

1594: \prod_{i=1}^{n^++n^-} \int d^2 \sigma \sqrt{g} e^{ik_i\varphi \pm ik_i X} e^{

1595: i 2 b\varphi},$$

1596: %

1597: where

1598: %

1599: \eqn\freeaction{S_0= {1 \over 4 \pi } \int d^2 \sigma\sqrt{g}  ~

1600: \left( \del_{\alpha} X \del^{\alpha} X - \del_{\alpha} \varphi  \del^{\alpha}

1601: \varphi + i R^{(2)} Q \varphi \right).}

1602: %

1603: Eq.\ \smat\ now takes the form of a sum over amplitudes in the

1604: free theory with the same tachyon (or any other closed string

1605: mode) insertions plus additional insertions of the screening

1606: operator, $\int d^2 \sigma \sqrt{g}  e^{ i 2 b \varphi}$.

1607: 

1608: To proceed it is convenient to follow \refs{\GuptaFU, \SeibergEB,

1609: \BershadskyZS, \GoulianQR, \PolyakovQX} and decompose $\varphi=\varphi^0

1610: +\tilde \varphi$ and $X=X^0+\tilde X$ and integrate first the zero

1611: modes, $\varphi^0$ and $X^0$. The integral over $X^0$ is

1612: a delta function which

1613: imposes energy conservation

1614: %

1615: \eqn\ec{ k_{tot}^{+} +k_{tot}^{-} = 0,~~~~~~k_{tot}^{+}

1616: =\sum_{i=1}^{n^+ }k_i,~~~~~~k_{tot}^{-} =\sum_{i=n^{+} + 1}^{n^{+}

1617: + n^{-} }k_i.}

1618: %

1619: The integral over $\varphi^0$

1620: imposes the condition

1621: %

1622: \eqn\mc{2-2g-(n+n_{+}+n_{-})+{1\over 2}(k_{tot}^{+} -k_{tot}^{-})

1623: =0,}

1624: %

1625: where $g$ is the genus and $n$ is the number of insertions of the

1626: screening operator.  This relation is the equivalent of momentum

1627: conservation in the $\varphi $ direction. The last two terms need

1628: no explanation. The rest of the  terms are usually called the

1629: background charge, as they are induced by the coupling of

1630: $\varphi_0$ to the integral of the world sheet curvature which is

1631: %

1632: $$ \chi=2-2g-h,$$

1633: %

1634: where $h$ is the number of holes; in our case $h$  corresponds to

1635: the total number of closed string insertions. Combining  \mc\ and

1636: \ec\ we get

1637: %

1638: \eqn\emc{ k_{tot}^- =-k_{tot}^+ =2-2g-(n+n_{+}+n_{-}).}

1639: %

1640: This relation implies  that $1/\mu_0 $ is indeed the genus

1641: expansion parameter: Given a certain amplitude determined by

1642: $k_i$, $n^+$ and $n^-$,  we see that as we increase $g$, we

1643: decrease $n$, the power of $\mu_0$.

1644: %which in turns implies that the power of $\mu$ is smaller.

1645: The phases arising from the complex dilaton conspire to make

1646: $\mu_0^{-1}$ the string coupling constant. In fact, comparing \emc\ to

1647: the 't Hooft counting of powers of $N$, we see that we can

1648: identify

1649: %

1650: \eqn\ml{\mu_0 \sim N.}

1651: %

1652: Now we are ready to compare some stringy amplitudes with the

1653: quantum results mentioned at the beginning of this section. Let us

1654: start with $1 \rightarrow 1$ amplitudes. There are two possible

1655: ways to satisfy the energy conservation \ec\ and momentum

1656: conservation \mc\ conditions on the sphere ($g=0$). The first is

1657: to take $n=0$ and $k_{tot}^- =k_{tot}^+ =0$. This can be achieved

1658: by having two particles with the same chirality and opposite

1659: energy (say $n^+ =2$ and $n^- =0$). Such amplitudes vanish since

1660: they involve only  two closed string insertions, which

1661: do not suffice

1662: to saturate the ghost zero modes on the sphere. Indeed

1663: there is no dual quantum mechanical amplitude for these scattering

1664: amplitudes.

1665: 

1666: The second way to saturate \ec, \mc\ is more interesting. We take

1667: one particle with positive chirality and energy $k$ and another

1668: particle with the negative chirality and energy $-k$. So $n^+ =1$

1669: and $n^- =1$. From \emc $ $ we see that $n= k$ and so the

1670: amplitude scales like

1671: %

1672: \eqn\amp{ A(k ; -k) \sim \mu_0^k \sim N^k.}

1673: %

1674: This amplitude does not vanish since (due to the insertions of the

1675: screening operators) it involves more than two closed string

1676: insertions on the sphere. It is natural to make the following

1677: identification between the closed string modes and the quantum

1678: mechanics operators

1679: %

1680: \eqn\id{ T^+_{k>0} \Leftrightarrow \tr ((a^{\dagger})^{k})

1681: ,~~~~~~~~T^{-}_{k<0} \Leftrightarrow \tr (a^{k}).}

1682: %

1683: Indeed we see that \amp $ $ is  in agreement with the harmonic

1684: oscillator result \rtwop $ $. Notice that amplitudes that involve

1685: $T^+_{k<0}$ and $T^-_{k>0}$ vanish.\foot{In the next section we

1686: shall see how this comes about in higher point functions as well.}

1687: This resolves the puzzle arising from the naive expectation that

1688: we should have twice as many stringy modes as excitations of the

1689: Fermi surface, raised at the end of the previous section. Namely,

1690: just like in the harmonic oscillator,

1691: we only see

1692: %there are only

1693: tachyon wavefunctions with $p_{\varphi}=-i\del_{\varphi}$ negative. In

1694: this 'imaginary' version of Liouville theory, there is a sense in

1695: which the Seiberg bound becomes the fact that the target-space

1696: field is chiral.

1697: 

1698: \subsubsec{Stringy exclusion}

1699: 

1700: As usual in string theory there are corrections from

1701: higher-genus worldsheets.

1702: Since $n\geq 0$ we find from \emc\ non-vanishing amplitudes only for

1703: %

1704: \eqn\rl{g \leq \left[ {k \over 2} \right] ,}

1705: %

1706: which exactly agrees with \hjkp $ $.

1707: %One of the motivations for \Berenstein\

1708: %was the possibility of a detailed understanding

1709: %of stringy exclusion effects offered by this

1710: %simple matrix model.

1711: %In addition to the improved analytic control,

1712: %the effect is much cleaner here than in higher-dimensional

1713: %examples.

1714: So our string theory  has the remarkable property that the

1715: perturbative corrections to a given amplitude truncate after a

1716: finite number of terms. As it is clear from \rl \

1717: %A quick glance at

1718: %the KPZ rule \emc\ shows that correlators of operators of the form

1719: %$\tr a^k$ with

1720: there are more and more corrections as we increase  $k$.

1721: % receive

1722: %many more perturbative string corrections than those with small

1723: %$k$.

1724: Although the single-trace states $\tr a^{\dagger k} \ket{0}$

1725: remain orthogonal for any $k \leq N$ (by energy conservation),

1726: this suggests that, as in ten dimensions \McGreevyCW, the best

1727: description of these states at $k \sim N$ may not be in terms of a

1728: perturbative closed string. It seems likely that a geometric

1729: D-brane mechanism may again explain the interesting finite $N$

1730: truncation of the spectrum. In fact,   models that are closely

1731: related to the harmonic oscillator have been considered in

1732: \refs{\HashimotoZP, \CorleyZK} in relation with giant gravitons in

1733: $AdS$ spaces.

1734: %We note that

1735: %The fact that at finite string coupling, there is a UV cutoff on the

1736: %target space momentum.

1737: A similar phenomenon of a UV cutoff on the target space momentum

1738: of order $1/g_s$

1739: %target space

1740: %lattice with spacing of order $g_s$

1741: has recently been observed in the

1742: context of topological strings \OkounkovSP.

1743: 

1744: 

1745: 

1746: 

1747: \subsubsec{Three-point functions}

1748: 

1749: 

1750: Next we turn to ``three-point functions,'' namely, the $1\rightarrow

1751: 2$ scattering amplitudes.

1752: From \emc\ we see that the

1753: sphere contribution to such amplitudes scales like

1754: %

1755: \eqn\ua{A(k;-k_1,-k_2)\sim \delta_{k,k_1+k_2} \mu_0^{k-1}.}

1756: %

1757: Again we find agreement with the harmonic oscillator scaling \jk.

1758: At the level of the discussion of this section it seems possible

1759: to have $k_1>0$ and $k_2<0$ such that \ua $ $ appear not to

1760: vanish. This would contradict the proposed duality. A closer look

1761: in the next section will show that such amplitudes in fact vanish,

1762: in agreement with the discussion below \id.

1763: 

1764: \subsec{Discrete states}

1765: 

1766: The closed-string ghost-number-two cohomology contains other

1767: states, known as discrete states, that are the remnants of the

1768: massive modes of the string. In the usual $c=1$ theory they appear as

1769: non-normalizable modes with

1770:  imaginary energy (or real Euclidean energy)

1771:  and imaginary Liouville momentum. In our case

1772: they become normalizable propagating modes that are as important

1773: as the tachyon modes discussed above.

1774: 

1775: Let us review how the discrete states come about. The simplest way

1776: to think about them is in terms of the chiral

1777: $SU(2)$ current algebra

1778: %

1779: \eqn\su{ J^{\pm}(z)=e^{\pm 2 i X(z)}, ~~~~~J^3(z)= i \partial X(z).}

1780: %

1781: The highest weight fields with respect to this algebra are

1782: $\Psi_{j,j}(z)=e^{2ij X}$ where $j=0,1/2,1...$. With the help of

1783: $J^-_0=\oint {dz \over 2\pi i} e^{-2i X}$ we can now form

1784: representations of the $SU(2)$ algebra

1785: %

1786: \eqn\rep{\Psi_{j,m}(z)\sim (J_0^- )^{j-m} \Psi_{j,j}(z),

1787: ~~~~m=-j,-j+1,...,j. }

1788: %

1789: The closed string vertex operators (with dimension $(1,1)$ and

1790: ghost number two\foot{The theory also has non-trivial closed string

1791: cohomology at ghost number $0$ that forms the ground ring,

1792: and

1793: at ghost number 1, which is associated with the conserved charges dual

1794: to \wi $ $ \witten \ .}) in the theory are

1795: %

1796: \eqn\css{S_{j,m}(z, \bar z)=Y_{j,m}\bar Y

1797: _{j,m},~~~~~~~Y_{j,m}=c\Psi_{j,m} e^{2i(1-j)\varphi}.}

1798: %

1799: The $S_{j,j}$'s  are the tachyon vertex operators that we have

1800: already discussed. The rest  are new fields that are called the

1801: discrete states. In our case this name is a bit misleading since

1802: the tachyon modes are discrete as well.

1803: %(see figure).

1804: This analysis differs from the usual $c=1$ case only by the

1805: inclusion of appropriate factors of $i$. Again we emphasize that

1806: this is a crucial  $i$  since it turns the discrete states into a

1807: physical   propagating modes.

1808: %$the only difference in our

1809: %discussion with respect to the usual $c=1$ case is that we added

1810: %some $i$'s in the appropriate place.

1811: 

1812: It is easy to see that the energy in the $X$ direction of

1813: $S_{j,m}$ is $2m$ while the momentum in the $\varphi $ direction

1814: is $2j$. Therefore, when computing \eg\ the $1\rightarrow

1815: 1$ amplitude we get, instead of \ec $ $ and \mc,

1816: %

1817: \eqn\fit{2 m^+  +2 m^- = 0,~~~~~~2-2g-(n+1+1)+{1\over 2}(2 j^+ + 2

1818: j^-) =0, }

1819: %

1820: and so the sphere amplitude scales like

1821: %

1822: \eqn\spaa{ A(m^-, j^-; m^+, j^+)\sim \delta_{m^+ + m^-}~ \mu_0^{

1823: j^+ + j^- }.}

1824: %

1825: 

1826: On the quantum mechanics side we can  follow the same steps. The

1827: $SU(2)$ generators are

1828: %

1829: \eqn\susu{J^{+} = \half \tr((a^{\dagger})^2), ~~~~J^{-}=

1830: \half \tr(a^2),~~~~J^3={1 \over 4}\tr(a a^{\dagger} +a^{\dagger} a).}

1831: %

1832: The highest-weight states with respect to this $SU(2)$ algebra are

1833: $\gamma_{j,j}=c_j~\tr ((a^{\dagger})^{2j}) $, where

1834: $j=0,1/2,1,...$. Again we can form a representation of the algebra

1835: by commuting $j-m$ times  $\gamma_{j,j}$ with $J^- ~ $ to get

1836: $\gamma_{j,m}$. Up to ordering issues  that are not relevant for

1837: the qualitative discussion of this section we find

1838: %

1839: \eqn\gag{\gamma_{j,m}\sim \tr( a^{j-m}(a^{\dagger})^{j+m} ). }

1840: %

1841: These operators satisfy a commutator algebra which at large $N$

1842: approaches the semi-classical $w_\infty$ algebra \we. Even at

1843: finite $N$, the algebra closes, using the gauge equivalence

1844: \gauss. The precise details of the finite $N$ corrections to \we,

1845: however, remain to be determined.

1846: %The calculations of \CorleyZK\ should be useful in this regard.

1847: 

1848: The two-point function associated with the discrete states takes

1849: the form

1850: %

1851: \eqn\ovb{ {\cal O}(m^-,j^-;m^+,j^+)\sim \bra{0}\tr( a^{j^- +m^-}

1852: (a^{\dagger})^{j^- -m^-})\tr(a^{j^+ -m^+} (a^{\dagger})^{j^+ +m^+}

1853: )\ket{0}}

1854: $$\sim \delta_{m^+ + m^-}~ N^{j^+ + j^-},$$

1855: %

1856: again in  agreement with the string theory result \spaa $ $.

1857: 

1858: 

1859: 

1860: 

1861: \newsec{A closer look at the correlation functions}

1862: 

1863: In this section we consider some of the correlation functions

1864: discussed in the previous section in more detail.

1865: %There are two

1866: %main reasons for doing so. First, so far we have checked that the

1867: %dependence on $N$ agrees on both side of the duality. It would, of

1868: %cause, be nice to verify that there is an exact agreement. Second,

1869: %there is one issue that is confusing about what we said so far. On

1870: %the string theory side we are computing scattering amplitudes

1871: %while on the quantum mechanics side we are computing overlaps of

1872: %states. To relate the two we have to  add leg factor. This is

1873: %familiar from the usual 2d strings/MM duality.

1874: Let us again start with the harmonic oscillator. It is a simple

1875: calculation to show

1876: that

1877: %that in the large-$N$ limit

1878: the $1\rightarrow 1$ amplitude \rtwop\ is

1879: %

1880: \eqn\rtwopp{ {\cal O}(k_1;k_2) = \delta_{k_1,k_2} k_1 N^{k_1}

1881: \left( 1 + \CO(N^{-2}) \right).}

1882: %

1883: That follows from the fact that there are $k_1$ planar ways  to

1884: commute the $a$'s through the $a^{\dagger}$.  Somewhat more

1885: involved combinatorics show that for the $1\rightarrow 2$ overlap

1886: amplitudes, \jk, the planar limit gives

1887: %

1888: \eqn\hjk{ {\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2) =\delta_{k, k_1+k_2} k k_1 k_2

1889: N^{k-1}.}

1890: %

1891: The simplest way to calculate $1\rightarrow m$ overlap amplitudes

1892: %

1893: \eqn\onen{ {\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2,...k_m)=\bra{0} \tr(a^{k})\tr

1894: ((a^{\dagger})^{k_1})\tr ((a^{\dagger})^{k_2})...\tr

1895: ((a^{\dagger})^{k_m}) \ket{0},}

1896: %

1897: in the large-$N$ limit is to use the $w_{\infty}$ algebra $m$

1898: times to move $\tr(a^{k})$ to the right. From \we \foot{Since we

1899: are interested in the large-$N$ limit we can simply replace the

1900: Poisson bracket in \we $ $ by a commutator.}$ $ we get

1901: %

1902: \eqn\onetn{ {\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2,...k_m)=\delta_{k, k_1+k_2+...k_m} k

1903: (k-1)(k-2)...(k-m+2) k_1 k_2...k_m  N^{k-m+1} .}

1904: %

1905: 

1906: To match this on the string theory side, we have to compute the

1907: relevant sphere amplitudes in full detail. As explained in the

1908: previous section the relevant calculation is equivalent to

1909: scattering amplitudes in the free theory ($\mu_0 =0$) with extra

1910: insertions of the screening operator. In particular, on the sphere

1911: we get for the $1\rightarrow m$ tachyon scattering amplitude

1912: %

1913: \eqn\sct{ A(k;-k_1,-k_2,...,-k_m)_{\mu_0}={\mu_0^n \over n!}

1914: A(k;0,0,...,0,-k_1,-k_2,...,-k_m)_{free}~, }

1915: %

1916: where the zeros indicate the insertion of the screening operator

1917: $n=k-m+1$ times. In critical string theory one cannot write down a

1918: closed formula for such  amplitudes. However, in 2D this can be

1919: done using various approaches\foot{The motivation for studying

1920: scattering amplitudes in this theory was as a tool for finding the

1921: scattering amplitudes in the usual $c=1$ theory.} \refs{\PolyakovQX,

1922: \KlebanovVP, \KlebanovUI, \DiFrancescoSS}. The result of the most general

1923: $1\rightarrow r$ amplitude is

1924: %

1925: \eqn\onetor{ A(k;-k_1,-k_2,...,-k_r)_{free}=\prod_{i=1}^r

1926: {\Gamma(1-k_i) \over\Gamma(k_i)} {\pi^{r-2} \over (r-2)!}. }

1927: %

1928: Combining this with \sct\ we find

1929: %

1930: \eqn\allequationshavethesamename{ 

1931: A(k;-k_1,-k_2,...,-k_m)_{\mu_0}={\pi^{k-1}\over (k-m+1)!

1932: (k-1)!} \left( {\mu_0 \Gamma(1) \over \Gamma(0)}\right) ^{k-m+1} ~

1933: \prod_{i=1}^m {\Gamma(1-k_i) \over\Gamma(k_i)}.  }

1934: %

1935: This expression  contains some  zeros and some infinities that

1936: must be dealt with before comparing with the harmonic oscillator

1937: results. There are two kinds of zeros. The first comes from   the

1938: $(1/\Gamma(0))^{k-m+1}$ and is due to the screening operators.

1939: %At this point,

1940: %the way to deal with that is to

1941: Recall that to obtain finite results

1942: in the Liouville theory one needs to renormalize the cosmological

1943: constant when $b\rightarrow 1$

1944: (see \eg\ \TeschnerRV).  To be precise we need to take

1945:  $\mu_0\rightarrow \infty$ and $b\rightarrow 1$ while keeping

1946: %

1947: \eqn\reg{\mu =\pi\mu_0 {\Gamma (b^2)\over \Gamma(1-b^2)},}

1948: %

1949: fixed. This is exactly the combination that appears in 

1950: \allequationshavethesamename\ so

1951: we can replace the $ \mu_0 { \Gamma(1) \over \Gamma(0)}$ in that

1952: equation by $\mu/\pi$. A precise way to think about this procedure

1953: is the following. Take $b=1+\epsilon/2 $ and twist the boundary

1954: condition on the tachyon field $T(\varphi )=e^{2\pi i\epsilon

1955: }T(\varphi +2\pi)$. That twisting has the effect of lifting the

1956: tachyon  zero mode to $k=\epsilon$ so that the $\mu_0\Gamma(1)/

1957: \Gamma(0)$ in \allequationshavethesamename\ becomes

1958: $\mu_0\Gamma(1+\epsilon)/\Gamma(\epsilon)$ and in the limit

1959: $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ we simply get $\mu/\pi$.

1960: 

1961: 

1962: The formula \allequationshavethesamename\ also vanishes

1963: %Other Zero's appear

1964: when one of the outgoing momenta, $-k_i$, is positive. This is

1965: exactly as it should be since there are no operators on the

1966: harmonic oscillator side that correspond to $T^{-}_{k>0}$ (see

1967: discussion after eq.\ \ua).

1968: 

1969: Infinities arise from the $\Gamma$ functions

1970: when $k_i>0$. The reason for these infinities is

1971: that the amplitudes are sitting on a resonance. Physically there

1972: is no region of interaction, the particles are always nearby and

1973: they keep interacting forever. In the harmonic oscillator side

1974: we avoided this by not propagating in time each of the operators.

1975: To realize the same effect on the string theory side we need to

1976: introduce leg factors. Heuristically, these can be viewed as

1977: putting back the external legs that are missing in the

1978: amputated S-matrix elements calculated by

1979: string theory amplitudes.

1980: The way to find the relevant leg-factors is to

1981: match the two-point function on both sides of the duality. Then

1982: one can test the duality by comparing the higher point functions.

1983: The relevant leg-factors are\foot{The leg factors

1984: for $k<0$ are familiar from the usual matrix model 2d string

1985: duality (in Euclidean signature). We could have taken the same

1986: leg-factors for $k>0$ (since $\Gamma(-n+\epsilon)={1\over \epsilon

1987: \Gamma(n+1)}+{\cal O}(\epsilon^0)$) but that would have made the

1988: relation with the matrix model a bit more clumsy. }

1989: %

1990: \eqn\leg{

1991: f_{{\rm ket}}(k)=- {1 \over \pi} {\Gamma(k)\over \Gamma(-k)},

1992: ~~(k<0)~~~

1993:  ~~{\rm and} ~~~

1994:  f_{{\rm bra}}(k)=\pi \Gamma(k) \Gamma(k+1), ~~(k>0).

1995: }

1996: %\eqn\leg{f(k_i)={1 \over \pi} {\Gamma(k_i)\over \Gamma(-k_i)},~~~

1997: %{\rm for}~~~ k<0~~~{\rm and} ~~~f(k_i)=\pi \Gamma(k) \Gamma(k+1),

1998: %~~~{\rm for} ~~~ k>0.}

1999: %

2000: Putting all of this together one finds that  the relation between

2001: the string theory scattering amplitudes and the matrix model

2002: overlap amplitudes for the $1\rightarrow m$ processes is

2003: %

2004: %\eqn\stmm{{\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2,...k_m)= f(k) \prod_{i=1}^m f(k_i)

2005: %A(k;-k_1,-k_2,...-k_m)_{\mu},}

2006: \eqn\stmm{{\cal O}(k;k_1,k_2,...k_m)= f_{{\rm bra}}(k) 

2007: \prod_{i=1}^m f_{{\rm ket}}(k_i)

2008: A(k;-k_1,-k_2,...-k_m)_{\mu},}

2009: %

2010: with $\mu =N$. This relation holds in the $1\rightarrow 1$ cases

2011: by construction. The fact that it holds for the other cases

2012: ($m>1$), that have non-trivial dependence on the $k$'s (see eq.\

2013: \onetn) is  an encouraging consistency  check of the proposed

2014: duality.

2015: 

2016: 

2017: So far we did not consider the winding modes. Since $\varphi$ is

2018: compactified, modular invariance implies that there must be winding

2019: modes in the theory. But there are no candidate dual operators for

2020: the winding modes in the quantum mechanics.\foot{The usual

2021: suspects are the Wilson loops. But since $X$ is not compactified

2022: there are no such operators in the gauged quantum mechanics.} This

2023: is exactly the same puzzle we have encountered with the momentum

2024: modes with opposite chirality. In that case the resolution was

2025: that  scattering amplitudes with at least one opposite-momentum

2026: mode vanish. The same is expected to happen for the winding modes.

2027: As in the case of the momentum modes with opposite chirality,

2028: we do not know how to prove this in general, but we demonstrate it\

2029: here for some  cases. Consider, for example, scattering amplitudes of

2030: $m$ winding modes. The analog of

2031: %KPZ scaling

2032: \mc\ in that case is

2033: %

2034: \eqn\wind{ 2-2g-(n+m)=0,}

2035: %

2036: where again $n$ is the number of insertions of the screening

2037: operator. We see that no amplitude with $m>2$ can satisfy

2038: this  relation. For $m=1$ and  $m=2$ the relation can be satisfied

2039: on the sphere with $n=1$ and $n=0$ respectively. But both cases

2040: vanish since they  involve only two insertions of closed strings

2041: on the sphere.

2042: 

2043: 

2044: \subsec{Normal matrix models and matrix integral representation}

2045: 

2046: We end this section with a discussion on a  relation with normal

2047: matrix models. A normal matrix model (NMM) is an integral over

2048: complex matrices $Z$ such that $[Z, Z^\dagger] = 0$. The fact that

2049: $Z$ commutes with its conjugate implies that, much like in the

2050: case of a single matrix, in many interesting cases the model can

2051: be described in terms of the eigenvalues of $Z$ and $Z^\dagger $.

2052: The NMM that appears to be related to the quantum mechanics

2053: described here takes the form

2054: %

2055: \eqn\normalmatrixint{ \CZ_{\rm NMM}(J, J^\dagger) = \int_{[Z,

2056: Z^\dagger] = 0 }  d^{N^2}Z d^{N^2}Z^\dagger ~  e^{  - \tr

2057: (Z^\dagger Z+ Z J^\dagger + Z^\dagger J ) }. }

2058: %

2059: %The only non-trivial aspect about that action

2060: The normal-matrix

2061: constraint in the path integral

2062: %. This

2063: can be imposed  with a

2064: Lagrange multiplier matrix $A$,

2065: %

2066: \eqn\deltarep{ \delta^{N^2}\left( i [ Z,

2067: Z^\dagger] \right) = \int dA ~e^{ \tr [Z, Z^\dagger] A }, }

2068: %

2069: so that \normalmatrixint\ becomes

2070: %

2071: \eqn\normalmatrixintagain{ \CZ_{\rm NMM}(J, J^\dagger) = \int d^{N^2} A

2072: d^{N^2}Z d^{N^2}Z^\dagger ~  e^{  - \tr (Z^\dagger Z+ [Z,

2073: Z^\dagger] A+ Z J^\dagger + Z^\dagger J ) }. }

2074: %

2075: We recognize the first two terms in the exponent as the

2076: Hamiltonian of the gauged harmonic oscillator (when one does not

2077: fix the gauge $A=0$). This strongly indicates a relation with the

2078: quantum mechanics, where the NMM should be viewed as the

2079: Hamiltonian reduction of the quantum mechanics. One expects to be

2080: able to compute (at least in the large-$N$ limit) the overlap

2081: amplitudes discussed above using the NMM. In particular, by

2082: comparing Wick contractions, one should find a relation of the

2083: form \eqn\matrixsource{ \prod_i \tr \left(\del_J^{k_i}

2084: \del_{J^\dagger} ^{p_i} \right) |_{J=J^\dagger =0} \ln \CZ_{\rm

2085: NMM}(J, J^\dagger) = \vev{ T \left( \prod_i \tr a^{\dagger~k_i}

2086: a^{ p_i } \right)}} where $T$ indicates a certain ordering

2087: prescription.

2088: %which we will clarify momentarily.

2089: 

2090: Here we mention one interesting way  to think about this connection.

2091: Recall the Wigner phase-space integral representation of

2092: expectation values in one-dimensional quantum mechanics:

2093: %

2094: \eqn\wignerintegral{

2095: \bra{\psi} \hat{\CO} \ket{\psi} = \int dx dp~W_\CO (x,p)

2096: W^\star_\psi(x,p), }

2097: where \eqn\weylrep{ W_\CO(x,p) \equiv \int dy

2098: ~e^{ i p y} \bra{ x + { y\over 2}} \hat \CO \ket{ x - {y \over 2}

2099:  } ,}

2100: %

2101:  and the Wigner function of the state $\psi$ is

2102: %

2103: \eqn\wignerfunction{ W_\psi(x,p) \equiv W_{ \ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}}

2104: =\int dy ~ e^{ i p y } \psi^\star \left(x+ {y \over 2}\right)

2105: \psi\left(x-{y \over 2}\right).}

2106: %

2107: For the case of the harmonic oscillator this representation is

2108: particularly interesting. To compute the  vacuum expectation

2109: values of some operator we simply use the fact that the ground

2110: state wave function is

2111: %Because of the form of the wavefunctions

2112: %$ \psi_n(x) = H_n(x) e^{ - x^2/2} $,

2113: $ \psi(x) = \psi_0(x) = e^{ - x^2/2} $, and eq.\ \wignerintegral\

2114: becomes \eqn\harmonicwignerintegral{ \bra{\psi_0} \hat \CO

2115: \ket{\psi_0}= \int dx dp~e^{-H(x,p)}~W_\CO(x,p). } This quantum

2116: expectation value is equal to a classical statistical average at

2117: inverse temperature $\beta = 1$, the resonant frequency. The

2118: generalization of these formulae to $U(N)$ matrix quantum

2119: mechanics look very similar to \normalmatrixint. There are,

2120: however, various subtleties involving ordering (related

2121: to the ordering in \matrixsource) and gauge fixing that should

2122: be clarified.

2123: 

2124: 

2125: 

2126: 

2127: 

2128: \newsec{Beyond tree level}

2129: 

2130: So far on the string theory side we have considered in detail only

2131: sphere amplitudes. In this section we first test our proposal at

2132: the one-loop level and then discuss some non-perturbative aspects.

2133: 

2134: 

2135: \subsec{Torus vacuum energy}

2136: 

2137: Let us consider the simplest one-loop amplitude. This is the

2138: one-loop contribution to the ground state energy.  On the string

2139: theory side the ground state energy is the expectation value of

2140: the zero momentum graviton which is one of the discrete states

2141: discussed in section 5, $S_{1,0}$. The energy conservation

2142: condition is automatic (since $m=0$) and the $\varphi$ momentum

2143: conservation gives

2144: %

2145: \eqn\qas{n=2-2g. }

2146: %

2147: This means that there are two possible perturbative contributions.

2148: The first

2149: comes from the sphere and since $n=2$ it scales like $N^2$. The

2150: second comes from the torus with $n=0$, and it

2151: therefore scales like $N^0$.

2152: 

2153: On the quantum mechanics side the ground state energy is $N^2/2$

2154: with no additional constant that scales like $N^0$. This suggests

2155: that  the one-loop vacuum energy in this string theory  should be

2156: zero. This seems unlikely since this is a bosonic string theory

2157: and it is hard to see what could possibly cancel the positive

2158: vacuum energy. On the other hand this is a somewhat unconventional

2159: string theory and so it is worthwhile to do the calculation and

2160: see what we get.

2161: 

2162: A simpler way to compute the ground state energy is to calculate

2163: the one particle irreducible contribution to the partition

2164: function with $X$  compactified, $ X\sim X + \beta.$ In the limit

2165: $\beta\rightarrow \infty$ we have

2166: %

2167: \eqn\er{\ln Z= -\beta E_0,}

2168: %

2169: from which we can read off $E_0$. Thus what we have to do is to

2170: compute the torus partition function.

2171: % is

2172: %

2173: %\eqn\tp{ {\cal Z}_{torus}=\int_{{\cal F}} d^2 \tau \int {\cal D}

2174: %{\cal D} X{\cal D}b{\cal D}c e^{-S-S_{b,c} } ~,}

2175: %

2176: %where $S$ is given in \wsa $ $  and $S_{b,c}$ is the usual ghost

2177: %action.

2178: That calculation is relatively simple since the background charge

2179: on the torus is  zero and so it does not involve

2180: the Liouville

2181: term at all.

2182: As far as this calculation is concerned $X$ and

2183: $\varphi$ are two free scalar fields. In fact this calculation was

2184: already done in the context of the usual $c=1$ theory

2185: \refs{\GuptaFU, \SeibergEB, \BershadskyZS}.  The

2186: motivation for that calculation was to study the theory at finite

2187: temperature. In that case the Liouville direction is not

2188: compactified and $X$ is compactified $X\sim X+2\pi R$. The result

2189: of that calculation is \BershadskyZS

2190: %

2191: \eqn\pqw{ {Z_{torus}\over V_L}={1\over 12\sqrt{2}} \left(

2192: {R\over\sqrt{\ap}}+{\sqrt{\ap}\over R}\right) ,}

2193: %

2194: where  $V_L$ is the volume in the Liouville direction.

2195: 

2196: 

2197: Since in that calculation $X$ and $\varphi$ are two free scalars

2198: we can interchange their role to find the partition function in

2199: our case. Interchanging their role means that  now $\varphi $ is

2200: compactified and

2201: %

2202: \eqn\oa{ V_L \rightarrow V_X =\beta,}

2203: %

2204: which gives

2205: %

2206: \eqn\tpp{ \lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty} {Z_{torus}\over \beta}=-{

2207: i\over 12\sqrt{2}}\left( {R\over\sqrt{\ap}}-{\sqrt{\ap}\over

2208: R}\right) .}

2209: %

2210: The $i$ and the minus sign come from the fact that $\varphi$ is a

2211: timelike direction. Another way to see this is to take $\ap

2212: \rightarrow -\ap$ in \pqw $ $. Since in our case $R=1$ in units

2213: where $\ap=1$\foot{Since $\varphi$ is time-like this is not the

2214: self-dual radius. Acting on a time-like direction, T-duality takes

2215: $R$ to $-\ap / R$, in order that the partition function be

2216: invariant.} we find that

2217: %

2218: \eqn\tq{ \lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty}{Z_{torus}\over \beta}=0,}

2219: %

2220: as predicted by the duality with the quantum mechanics.

2221: 

2222: This is an interesting result for several reasons. First, it is

2223: obtained by summing over contributions of all of the physical

2224: states of the string. In addition to the chiral momentum modes

2225: with nonzero S-matrix amplitudes, these include winding modes and

2226: momentum modes with the opposite chirality that, we argued,  do

2227: not appear on external legs. This is reminiscent of the ghost

2228: structure of loop amplitudes in a gauge theory, and one is tempted

2229: to attribute this behavior to the underlying $w_\infty$ symmetry.

2230: Second, one should always take notice when finding zero for the

2231: quantum correction to the cosmological constant, especially in a

2232: bosonic theory.

2233: 

2234: 

2235: \subsec{Hints for nonperturbative effects}

2236: 

2237: 

2238: The fact that the perturbative expansion for all scattering

2239: amplitudes is truncated seems to imply that there is no room  for

2240: non-perturbative effects in this theory. Indeed instantons are

2241: usually related to the non-convergence of the perturbative

2242: expansion, which is not an issue with finitely many terms. On the

2243: string theory side this means that there are no D-instantons.

2244: Below we provide some evidence, from the quantum mechanics side,

2245: that there are, however, D-particles in the theory.

2246: 

2247: Consider the matrix model at finite temperature. Assume that the

2248: temperature is low so that the contribution of the zero modes of

2249: the gauge fields can be neglected.  The  free energy is then

2250: %

2251: \eqn\partition{ F(q,N) = \ln Z_N(q) = \half \beta N^2 -

2252: \sum_{n=1}^N \ln ( 1 - q^n),~~~~~~q=e^{-\beta} . }

2253: %

2254:  Keeping track of the

2255: $N$-dependence, this can be rewritten (a similar equation appears

2256: in $QCD_2$ \GrossTU) as

2257: %

2258: \eqn\partitionN{ F\left(q,N \right) = {\beta N^2\over 2 } +

2259: f(\beta)+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} C_n \left(e^{ -n \beta N}

2260: \right),~~~~~~f(\beta)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ln( 1 - q^n) . }

2261: %

2262: The first term we recognize as the ground state energy. The second

2263: term is associated with the leading  torus contribution to the

2264: free energy when $\beta $ is large but finite. There are no

2265: further perturbative corrections in accord with the

2266: scaling rule \emc.

2267: %KPZ scaling.

2268: There are, however, non-perturbative effects. The fact that these

2269: scale like $ e^{-w\beta N}$ implies that there are D-particles in

2270: the spectrum which contribute to the partition sum when their

2271: worldlines wrap the thermal circle. The fact that there are no

2272: terms of the form $e^{- N} $ implies that, as was argued above,

2273: there are no D-instantons. It would be very interesting to verify

2274: this statement using worldsheet techniques.

2275: 

2276: 

2277: Another reason to study D-branes in this theory is the following.

2278: We motivated our search for the string dual of the harmonic

2279: oscillator by noticing that reversing the sign of the string

2280: tension in the usual $c=1$ theory

2281: %$\alpha' \mapsto -\alpha'$

2282: rights the upside-down oscillator.

2283: This identification of $-{1\over \alpha'}$ with

2284: the mass of the open-string tachyon

2285: relies on the D-brane physics of the

2286: 2d string theory.

2287: The analogous understanding for this

2288: 'imaginary Liouville' theory remains to be

2289: developed.

2290: The branes which

2291: describe the matrix eigenvalues

2292: in this case

2293: are closely related to the

2294: instantonic branes of the

2295: usual $c=1$ theory \KlebanovKM,

2296: which experience trajectories of the form

2297: $ z = \tilde \lambda \cos t $.

2298: We note that the gauging of the $U(N)$ symmetry

2299: should again be motivated by the presence of a

2300: null open-string descendant.

2301: A more detailed understanding

2302: of these issues will allow a

2303: clear intepretation of the relation discussed

2304: in this paper as

2305: open/closed duality

2306: along the lines of \refs{\McGreevyKB, \KlebanovKM, \McGreevyEP}.

2307: 

2308: 

2309: 

2310: 

2311: \newsec{The worldsheet as a phase-space}

2312: 

2313: So far we have presented quite a bit of evidence that supports the

2314: proposed duality. What is still missing is a simple

2315: intuitive picture of how the duality works. Below we give a

2316: heuristic description of how, we believe, the closed string

2317: world-sheet is related to the harmonic oscillator phase-space.

2318: 

2319: It is reasonable that $\mu$ on the string theory side is actually

2320: the conjugate variable to $N$. Namely, it is the chemical

2321: potential. At large $\mu$, these agree $\vev{\hat N} = \mu$. There

2322: are two reasons to suspect that this is the case. First, that is

2323: the way the usual duality between 2d strings and the matrix model

2324: works. Second, at the moment, it is not clear what effect on the

2325: string theory side could force $\mu$ to be an integer.\foot{This

2326: argument is not too convincing since there is a  counterexample

2327: to the reasoning, namely the duality of \GopakumarKI.  In this

2328: topological case, the open-string side of the duality implies that

2329: the closed string coupling constant should be quantized. But the

2330: closed string dual seems to make sense for all values of $g_s$.}

2331: Assuming that this is the case we see that something quite

2332: interesting is happening. From the world-sheet point of view $\mu$

2333: is the conjugate variable to the area of the world-sheet. From the

2334: target space point of view it is conjugate to $N$ which is the

2335: area of the phase-space. This seems to suggests that the

2336: worldsheet should be related (via some non-local map) with the

2337: phase-space of the harmonic oscillator.

2338: 

2339: At first sight this seems unlikely since the phase-space has a

2340: boundary while the closed string word-sheet does not. However,

2341: recall  the nature of the calculations we did on the quantum

2342: mechanics side that had a simple interpretation on the string

2343: theory side. We were computing overlap amplitudes

2344: %

2345: \eqn\olj{\vev{{\rm bra| ket}}.}

2346: %

2347: At the semi-classical level this is equivalent to  exciting  two

2348: copies of the Fermi sea, and gluing them together along their

2349: Fermi surfaces to form a closed manifold, which could be viewed as

2350: the closed-string worldsheet (see fig. 2).

2351: %

2352: \ifig\gluing{ Gluing together two copies of the phase space along

2353: the Fermi surface produces a closed Fermi sea, which could be

2354: viewed as the closed string world sheet. }

2355: {\epsfxsize1.5in\epsfbox{braket.eps}} This closed two-dimensional

2356: space might be interpreted as the closed string world-sheet. The

2357: analog of the target-space energy conservation condition on the

2358: world-sheet is the level matching between the left and right

2359: movers

2360: %

2361: \eqn\utr{E_{\rm bra}=E_{\rm ket} ~~ \Leftrightarrow ~~ N_L = N_R

2362: .}

2363: %

2364: It should be interesting to see how precise this can be made. In

2365: particular, it would be nice to make  contact with \rajesh $ $

2366: where it was illustrated how  a  closed string world-sheet could

2367: be realized in the large-$N$ limit of a free field theory.

2368: 

2369: 

2370: 

2371: \newsec{Discussion }

2372: 

2373: 

2374: 

2375: There are various

2376: generalizations and applications of the duality

2377: proposed here that might be interesting to study. Here we

2378: mention some of them.

2379: 

2380: 

2381: 

2382: \subsubsec{$c<1$}

2383: 

2384: The  simplest generalization of the string theory described here

2385: (other than the supersymmetric generalization) is to consider

2386: minimal models (with $c<1$) times a time-like Liouville direction

2387: with an imaginary linear dilaton so that the total central charge

2388: is $26$. One way to think about this theory is to start with the

2389: usual minimal strings where the Liouville direction is space-like

2390: and the linear dilaton is real and Wick rotate the Liouville

2391: direction.\foot{ This is different than taking $\ap\rightarrow

2392: -\ap$ since we do not "Wick rotate" the minimal model.} That

2393: theory is quite amusing  since the minimal models have a Coulomb

2394: gas description in terms of

2395: %are equivalent to

2396: a space-like scalar with an imaginary linear dilaton. So we end up

2397: with  a string theory in 2D Minkowski space-time with an imaginary

2398: dilaton that depends on a certain linear combination of the time

2399: and the space directions. The string theory considered here is a

2400: special case in which the imaginary linear dilaton depends only on

2401: the time-like direction, $\varphi$. The fact that the $\varphi $

2402: direction is compact prevents one from relating the theories by a

2403: boost.  It is likely that these string theories are dual to some

2404: matrix models. The results of the present paper seem to indicate

2405: that these matrix models should not involve double scaling. It

2406: should be interesting to explore the relation between these

2407: theories and the usual minimal strings, especially in light of

2408: recent progress (see \eg \ \refs{\SeibergNM,\GaiottoYB}).

2409: 

2410: 

2411: 

2412: \subsubsec{Topological strings}

2413: 

2414: The fact that the perturbative corrections to the amplitudes in

2415: this string theory truncate after a finite number of terms may

2416: seem to conflict with one's intuition about unitarity. This

2417: confusion is resolved however, when one realizes that these

2418: amplitudes do not have an imaginary part. In fact, as is obvious

2419: on the matrix model side, they are integers that are equal to the

2420: number of diagrams with given topology, fixed by the

2421: external lines and the genus. This makes a connection with

2422: topological string seem inevitable. Given that deep connections

2423: have been found between noncritical strings and topological

2424: strings on noncompact Calabi-Yaus (\eg\ \refs{\AganagicQJ,

2425: \GhoshalWM}) and further that 2d Yang-Mills also has a topological

2426: string description \VafaQA, it seems likely that there is a

2427: topological string description of the matrix harmonic oscillator.

2428: 

2429: 

2430: 

2431: 

2432: 

2433: \subsubsec{Stringy compactification }

2434: 

2435: 

2436: The fact that the string theory considered in this paper seems to

2437: makes sense despite its strange properties suggests that

2438: generalizations to higher dimension might be interesting to

2439: explore. Perhaps these could even lead to a new class of stringy

2440: compactification with phenomenological applications. For example

2441: consider string theory on $\IR ^d \times S^1$ where the radius of

2442: the $S^1$ is $R$. The usual phenomenological problem with such a

2443: compactification is that the radius of the $S^1$ is not fixed and

2444: as a result the $d$ dimensional physics contains a massless scalar

2445: that (under reasonable assumptions) contradicts observation.

2446: Fixing such moduli is a non-trivial problem in string theory. Here

2447: we seem to encounter  a simple way to deal with this: Suppose that

2448: we turn on an imaginary linear dilaton in the $S^1$ direction. As

2449: discussed in section 4, periodicity of the string coupling

2450: constant fixes $R$ to be an integer $m$. For $m\gg 1$ we find that

2451: the contribution of that direction to the central charge is almost

2452: $1$. And so the difference, which scales like $1/m^2$, could

2453: easily be cancelled against some other fluxes in the theory

2454: without involving significant  $\ap $ corrections.

2455: 

2456: Needless to say, one should be careful here. The fact that in 2d

2457: having a complex string coupling constant seems to work does not

2458: mean that the same will happen in higher dimensions. In

2459: particular, in 2d only the zero mode of the dilaton appears in the

2460: cohomology, $S_{1,0}$, which makes the unitarity condition much

2461: less restrictive.

2462: 

2463: 

2464: 

2465: \subsubsec{The quantum Hall effect}

2466: 

2467: The matrix model studied in this paper is closely related to the

2468: quantum hall effect (for a beautiful review of the QHE see

2469: \girvin). The simplest way to see this is at the level of the

2470: classical phase-space. If we replace $ P $ by $ B_z Y$ (where

2471: $B_z$ is the magnetic field and $Y$ is interpreted as a new

2472: spatial direction), we end up with the familiar cyclotron motion

2473: around the origin $X=Y=0$. The fact that the center of the

2474: cyclotron motion is fixed means that translation invariance in the

2475: $X, Y$ plane is broken, which is crucial for realizing the QHE .

2476: Namely, this is the analog of the Anderson localization in the

2477: presence of an impurity located at the origin of a sample in the

2478: shape of a  disk. At the quantum level, this is clearest when

2479: considering the problem in the symmetric gauge $\vec{A}=-{1\over

2480: 2}\vec{r}\times\vec{B}$.  In that gauge it is convenient to label

2481: %specify the wave functions that solve the equation of motion

2482: states by their energy $n+1/2$ (at the nth Landau level)

2483: and their angular momentum $m$.\foot{Recall that due to the

2484: large magnetic field  $m$ cannot be negative.

2485: This translates to the chiral nature of the tachyon in our case.

2486: %That is the analog

2487: %of having a chiral boson in our case.

2488: } There is no further

2489: degeneracy in the problem. The states we have in the harmonic

2490: oscillator correspond to $n=m$, which means that in each Landau

2491: level we have exactly one state.

2492: 

2493: A long-standing problem in the QHE is to find a CFT description of

2494: the quantum phase transition from one plateau to another. The

2495: jump from one plateau to the next is associated with occupying a

2496: new Landau level. The analogous transition in our case is of

2497: adding a new eigenvalue to the system, which means on the string

2498: theory side adding a D-brane. This might be viewed as an

2499: indication that the  CFT that describes  the phase transition in

2500: the QHE is the one considered here, but on the disk rather than on

2501: the sphere. This fits neatly with the heuristic picture of the

2502: previous section. Now the worldsheet has a boundary that is

2503: associated with the disk shaped sample. All the interesting

2504: physics associated with the edge states should correspond to open

2505: strings inserted at the boundary of the worldsheet. The fact

2506: that much progress has been made recently in understanding the open

2507: string spectrum of D-branes in the usual Liouville theory

2508: \refs{\FateevIK, \TeschnerMD, \ZamolodchikovAH}

2509: %implies that there might be room for optimism

2510: suggests

2511: that this

2512: speculation could be tested in the near future.

2513: 

2514: 

2515: 

2516: 

2517: 

2518: \bigskip

2519: \centerline{\bf{Acknowledgements}}

2520: 

2521: We thank A. Hashimoto, V. Oganesyan, L. Rastelli, E. Verlinde and

2522: especially I. Klebanov for discussions.

2523: JM is supported by a Princeton University Dicke

2524: Fellowship, and by the Department of Energy under Grant No.\

2525: DE-FG03-92ER40701,

2526: and would like to thank

2527: the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality during the course of

2528: this work.

2529: NI is  supported in part by the National

2530: Science Foundation under Grant No.\ PHY 9802484. Any opinions,

2531: findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

2532: material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

2533: the views of the National Science Foundation.

2534: 

2535: 

2536: 

2537: 

2538:  \listrefs

2539: \end

2540: 

2541: 

2542: 

2543: 

2544: 

2545: 

2546: The amplitudes we are studying can be computed by a

2547: zero-dimensional matrix model. This is an auxiliary matrix

2548: integral with matrix sources: \eqn\matrixintegral{ \CZ(J,

2549: J^\dagger) = \int d^{N^2}Z d^{N^2}Z^\dagger ~

2550: %\delta^{N^2}([Z, Z^\dagger])~

2551: e^{ -\tr ( Z^\dagger Z  + Z J^\dagger + Z^\dagger J ) } = e^{ \tr

2552: J J^\dagger}. } Correlators of the matrix quantum mechanics

2553: satisfy

2554: \eqn\matrixsource{ \prod_i \tr \left(\del_J^{k_i}

2555: \del_{J^\dagger} ^{p_i} \right) |_{J=J^\dagger =0} \ln \CZ(J,

2556: J^\dagger) = \vev{ T \left( \prod_i \tr a^{\dagger~k_i} a^{ p_i }

2557: \right)}} where $T$ indicates a certain ordering prescription

2558: which will become clear momentarily.

2559: 

2560: 

2561: 

2562: There are two ways to arrive at the result \matrixsource. A crude

2563: explanation for \matrixsource\ is that the propagator needed to

2564: compute the correlators in the matrix quantum mechanics

2565: %\eqn\mqmpropagator{ \bra{0} a^i_j a^{\dagger~k}_l \ket{0}

2566: %= \bra{0} [ a^i_j, a^{\dagger~k}_l ] \ket{0}

2567: %= \delta^i_l \delta^k_j }

2568: is just the same as the propagator

2569: %\eqn\matrixprop{ \int d^{N^2}A~ d^{N^2}A^\dagger~ e^{ \tr A^\dagger A }

2570: %~A^i_j A^{\dagger~k}_l }

2571: in the zero-dimensional matrix integral. So the two calculations

2572: involve the same combinatorics of Wick contractions, with the same

2573: 2-point function\foot{ It is very tempting to suggest that this

2574: description is related to the normal matrix model of

2575: \AlexandrovQK.  This is similar to \matrixintegral, but with the

2576: measure of $Z$ restricted to normal matrices, $[Z, Z^\dagger] =

2577: 0$, \eqn\normalmatrixint{ \CZ_{\rm NMM}(J, J^\dagger) = \int d^{N^2}Z

2578: d^{N^2}Z^\dagger ~ \delta^{N^2}([Z, Z^\dagger])~ e^{ -\tr (

2579: Z^\dagger Z  + Z J^\dagger + Z^\dagger J ) }. } Imposing the

2580: normal-matrix contraint with a Lagrange multiplier matrix $A$,

2581: \eqn\deltarep{ \delta^{N^2}\left( i [ Z, Z^\dagger] \right) = \int

2582: dA ~e^{ \tr [Z, Z^\dagger] A }, } it is worth noting that

2583: $H(Z,Z^\dagger,A)$ appearing in

2584: $$ \CZ_{\rm NMM} = \int dA dZ dZ^\dagger

2585: %e^{\tr J Z}

2586: e^{-H(Z, Z^\dagger, A)} $$ is the Hamiltonian of the MQM. Defining

2587: the inverse propagator \eqn\propG{ G(A)^{-1} = \Ione + \ad_{A}, }

2588: and integrating out $Z$, we find \eqn\generating{ \CZ(J,

2589: J^\dagger) = \int dA~\det{}^{-1}(G(A)) ~e^{\tr J^\dagger ( G(A) J)

2590: } } Therefore \eqn\contract{ \prod_i \tr \del_J^{n_i}

2591: \del_{J^\dagger}^{m_i} \CZ = \int dA ~\det{}^{-1}(G(A)) \prod_i

2592: \tr \del_J^{n_i} (G(A)J)^{m_i} .} The contributions of $A$ are

2593: always of the form $\tr \ad \cdots = 0$, and therefore this

2594: reduces to the contribution from $ G(A = 0)$, for which we may use

2595: the generating function \matrixintegral, \ie\ the propagator is

2596: identical to the MQM propagator. It would be interesting to

2597: understand the connection with \AlexandrovQK\ in more detail. }

2598: 

2599: The only subtlety is that the matrix integral computes the

2600: correlator with a particular ordering. This ordering can be

2601: understood as follows. It is possible to show that the LHS of

2602: \matrixsource\ is the Wigner phase-space integral representation

2603: of the correlator on the RHS.

2604: 

2605: Recall first the phase-space integral representation of

2606: expectation values in one-dimensional quantum mechanics:

2607: \eqn\wignerintegral{ \bra{\psi} \hat{\CO} \ket{\psi} = \int dx

2608: \int dp~W_\CO (x,p) W^\star_\psi(x,p) } where \eqn\weylrep{

2609: W_\CO(x,p) \equiv \int dy ~e^{ i p y} \bra{ x + {\hbar \over 2}y}

2610: \hat \CO \ket{ x - {\hbar \over 2} y } } and the Wigner function

2611: of the state $\psi$ is \eqn\wignerfunction{ W_\psi(x,p) \equiv W_{

2612: \ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}} =\int dy ~ e^{ i p y } \psi^\star \left(x+

2613: {\hbar \over 2}y\right) \psi\left(x-{\hbar \over 2}y\right).} For

2614: the case of the harmonic oscillator this representation is

2615: particularly interesting. For vacuum expectation values,

2616: %Because of the form of the wavefunctions

2617: %$ \psi_n(x) = H_n(x) e^{ - x^2/2} $,

2618: $ \psi(x) = \psi_0(x) = e^{ - x^2/2} $, \wignerintegral\ can be

2619: rewritten as \eqn\harmonicwignerintegral{ \bra{\psi_0} \hat \CO

2620: \ket{\psi_0}= \int dx dp~e^{-H(x,p)}~W_\CO(x,p) } This quantum

2621: expectation value is equal to a classical statistical average at

2622: inverse temperature $\beta = 1$, the resonant frequency.

2623: 

2624: For the non-gauged matrix oscillator, these formulae can be

2625: directly matricized. This implies that the phase-space-integral

2626: representation of the non-gauged matrix harmonic oscillator

2627: correlators are generated by the integral \matrixintegral.

2628: %without the delta function

2629: %imposing normality of the matrix.

2630: If the operator $\CO$ is Weyl-ordered in its matrix indices, the

2631: matrix function $W_\CO$ will have the same form.

2632: 

2633: The gauging has the following effect.

2634: % complication, namely the fact that

2635: The identity operator on the physical, gauge-invariant Hilbert

2636: space is \eqn\identityop{ \Ione = \int d^{N^2} X \ket{X}\bra{X}

2637: \hat\CP } where $ \hat \CP = \hat \CP^2 $ is the projection

2638: operator onto the gauge-invariant subspace, \eqn\projectorop{ \hat

2639: \CP = \int dA ~e^{ i \tr A [ \hat X, \hat P] } . } Acting on an

2640: $X$ eigenstate, this integrates over its gauge orbit:

2641: \eqn\translate{ \hat \CP \ket{X} = \int dA~\ket{ e^{iA} X e^{

2642: -iA}}.} and the identity operator may be rewritten

2643: \eqn\identityagain{ \Ione = \int dX \int dA \ket{X} \bra{ e^{ -i

2644: A} X e^{ i A} }. }

2645: %%-- integrate over all gauge-equivalent ways of gluing together

2646: %% the two states.

2647: The matrix integral expectation value for a Weyl-ordered operator

2648: $\CO$ is then

2649: \def\vvev#1{\langle\langle#1\rangle\rangle}

2650: \eqn\mmm{ \vvev{\CO}= \int d^{N^2}X~d^{N^2}P

2651: %~\delta^{N^2}([X,P])

2652: ~W_{\psi_0}(X,P)~ W_\CO(X, P) .} This is \eqn\mmagain{ \int

2653: %dA

2654: dX dY_1 dY_2 dP ~e^{ i \tr P ( Y_1 - Y_2)}

2655: % + [A, X]) }

2656: \vev{\psi_0 | X + {\hbar \over 2} Y_1  } \bra{ X + {\hbar \over 2}

2657: Y_2 } \hat \CO \ket{ X - {\hbar \over 2} Y_2 } \vev{ X - {\hbar

2658: \over 2} Y_1 | \psi_0} } If the operator $\CO$ is gauge-invariant,

2659: \eqn\gaugeinvariance{ \hat\CO(X)= \hat \CO(e^{iA}Xe^{-iA}) = \hat

2660: \CP \hat \CO \hat \CP,} \eqn\awef{ \vvev{\CO} = \bra{\psi_0} \int

2661: dX_+ \ket{ X_+  } \bra{ X_+ } \hat \CP \hat \CO \int dX_- \hat \CP

2662: \ket{ X_- } \vev{ X _- | \psi_0} } we see in \awef\ two

2663: resolutions of unity which we can remove to obtain $

2664: \vvev{\CO}=\vev{\CO}$. The end result of this discussion is that

2665: expectation values of gauge-invariant and Weyl-ordered MQM

2666: operators may be computed using the formula \matrixsource. Note

2667: that because of the gauging, one can represent every MQM operator

2668: in terms of the ordering $\tr \del_J^m \del_{J^\dagger}^n $.

2669: 

2670: 

2671: 

2672: 

2673: 

2674: 

2675: 

2676: 

2677: 

2678: 

2679: 

2680: 

2681: 

2682: 

2683: 

2684: 

2685: The phases arising from the complex dilaton conspire

2686: to give this selection rule.

2687: 

2688: We have learned the following

2689: lesson

2690: about the liouville dressings here:

2691: in this 'imaginary' version of Liouville,

2692: the Seiberg bound becomes the fact that

2693: the target space field is chiral.

2694: 

2695: 

2696: 

2697: 

2698: The discrete states, which previously

2699: had unphysical imaginary momenta

2700: now become real modes of the theory.

2701: 

2702: 

2703: 

2704: Later, using the corley et al tricks \CorleyZK

2705: 

2706: 

2707: 

2708: 

2709: If we include multiple flavors of oscillator,

2710: the matrix model is just as solvable.

2711: There is a hagedorn density of single-string states.

2712: What is the string theory then?

2713: 

2714: \subsec{normal matrix model}

2715: 

2716: 

2717: 

2718: 

2719: \newsec{Introduction}

2720: 

2721: 

2722: A great deal has been learned from matrix models of strings in few

2723: dimensions. The reinterpretation as open-closed string duality

2724: puts these relationships in a modern perspective, from which we

2725: might hope to [\eg\ find the right framework to prove

2726: higher-dimensional open-closed dualities]. In an important

2727: respect, however, the known exact descriptions of low-dimensional

2728: strings by double-scaled matrix models are not precise analogs of

2729: the description of strings in $AdS_5\times S^5$ by the $\CN=4$

2730: SYM. The number of branes {\it must} be infinite in these models

2731: to have a continuum string description. That is, the feynman

2732: diagrams of double-scaled models discretize the worldsheet of the

2733: string, rather than triangulating the moduli space of this

2734: worldsheet. [Notable exceptions are the Kontsevich model

2735: \KontsevichTI -- as explained in \GaiottoYB, the diagrams of this

2736: model are the cubic OSFT diagrams -- and [maybe] the normal matrix

2737: model \AlexandrovQK, about which see below.] In contrast, AdS/CFT

2738: can be formulated at finite $N$.

2739: 

2740: The model we will discuss in this paper is the quantum mechanics

2741: of a matrix harmonic oscillator,

2742: $$ S = \half \int dt ~ \tr \left( (D_0 X)^2 - X^2 \right) .$$

2743: The derivative $D_0 = \del_0 + [A_0, . ]$ is covariant with

2744: respect to gauged $U(N)$ conjugations $ X \to \Omega X

2745: \Omega^\dagger $. Very closely related models have been considered

2746: \refs{\HashimotoZP, \CorleyZK, \Berenstein} as toy models for the

2747: $\CN=4$ SYM theory. This model has two imporant features for our

2748: purposes.  Firstly, it is ridiculously simple and completely

2749: solvable.  Secondly, there is no critical behavior.  The only

2750: dimensionless coupling is $N$. In the spirit of \rajesh\ we will

2751: attempt to find a string theory description of this free gauge

2752: theory at finite, large $N \sim {1\over g_s}$, with no

2753: double-scaling involved. This is like AdS/CFT, except that there

2754: is no analog of the 't Hooft coupling. This will allow us to probe

2755: finite-$N$ effects, such as stringy exclusion.

2756: Further, we will

2757: see that at finite string coupling, there is a UV cutoff on the

2758: target space momentum. A similar phenomenon of a target space

2759: lattice with spacing of order $g_s$ has been observed in the

2760: context of topological strings \OkounkovSP.

2761: 

2762: 

2763: The string dual of such a simple field theory might be expected to

2764: have some kind of dangerous pathology. And indeed, our candidate

2765: dual is indeed apparently insane (the action isn't real, the

2766: string tension is negative). It is, however, calculable, and to

2767: the extent that it is the same as the harmonic oscillator, it is

2768: well-behaved.

2769: 

2770: Another important fact to observe is that this string theory can

2771: be studied experimentally.

2772: