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

2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: %

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,epsfig,graphicx}

5: %

6: \newcommand{\fixme}[1]{\textbf{FIXME: }$\langle$\textit{#1}$\rangle$}

7: \newcommand{\note}[1]{\textbf{NOTE: }$\langle$\textit{#1}$\rangle$}

8: \newcommand{\bse}{\begin{subequations}}

9: \newcommand{\ese}{\end{subequations}}

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

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

12: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

15: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

16: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

17: %

18: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

19: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

20: \makeatother

21: %

22: \expandafter\ifx\csname mathbbm\endcsname\relax

23: \newcommand{\bzeta}{\mbox{Z\hspace{-0.8em}Z}}

24: \newcommand{\bone}{\mbox{1\hspace{-0.65em}1}}

25: \else

26: \newcommand{\bzeta}{{\mathbbm{Z}}}

27: \newcommand{\bone}{{\mathbbm{1}}}

28: \fi

29: %

30: \def\by{\times}

31: \def\1{{\bf 1_{2^k\times2^k}}}

32: \def\l{\left}

33: \def\r{\right}

34: \def\bl{\biggl}

35: \def\br{\biggr}

36: \def\tg{tiny\ graviton}

37: \def\N{{\cal N}}

38: \def\O{{\cal O}}

39: \def\F{{\cal F}}

40: \def\G{{\cal G}}

41: \def\L5{{\cal L}_5}

42: \def\Lodd{{\cal L}_{2k+1}}

43: \def\M{{\cal M}}

44: \def\R{{\cal R}}

45: \def\C{\mathbb C}

46: \def\Tr{{\rm {Tr}}}

47: %\def\lm{\left( \matrix{ }

48: %\def\rm{\right) }

49: \def\lp{l_{\rm Pl}}

50: \def\pp{pp-wave\ }

51: \def\pl{plane-wave\ }

52: \def\lc{light-cone\ }

53: \def\Ham{Hamiltonian\ }

54: \def\bg{background}

55: \def\holo{holographic\ }

56: \def\opt{operator\ }

57: \def\rep{representation}

58: \def\susy{supersymmetry\ }

59: \def\susys{supersymmetries\ }

60: \def\sugra{supergravity\ }

61: \def\sugras{supergravities\ }

62: \def\eom{equations of motion\ }

63: \def\super{$PSU(2|2)\times PSU(2|2)\times U(1)$}

64: %

65: \textheight 22.9cm%

66: \textwidth 16.5cm%

67: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-15mm}%

68: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-20mm}%

69: %\parskip 4mm

70: %\parindent 5mm

71: %\evensidemargin 5mm

72: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}

73: %\topmargin -1cm

74: %\oddsidemargin 5mm

75: %\evensidemargin 5mm

76: %

77: \begin{document}

78: \baselineskip 18pt%

79: 

80: \begin{titlepage}

81: \vspace*{1mm}%

82: \hfill%

83: \vbox{

84:     \halign{#\hfil        \cr

85:            IPM/P-2004/075 \cr

86:            hep-th/0501001 \cr

87:            } % end of \halign

88:       }  % end of \vbox

89: \vspace*{10mm}%

90: 

91: \begin{center}

92: {\Large {\bf Classification of All 1/2 BPS Solutions of\\

93: the Tiny Graviton Matrix Theory}}%

94: %DLCQ of IIB Plane-Wave  String Theory, A Conjecture}}

95: \vspace*{10mm}

96: 

97: %{Authors}

98: {\bf M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari$^{1,2}$, M. Torabian$^{1,2,3}$}%

99: 

100: \vspace*{0.4cm}

101: {\it {$^1$Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics (IPM)\\

102: P.O.Box 19395-5531, Tehran, IRAN\\

103: $^2$the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics\\

104: 34014, Trieste, ITALY\\

105: $^3$Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology\\

106: P.O.Box 11365-9161, Tehran, IRAN}}\\

107: %Department of Physics, Stanford University\\

108: %382 via Pueblo Mall, Stanford CA 94305-4060, USA}}\\

109: {E-mails: {\tt jabbari, mahdi@theory.ipm.ac.ir}}%

110: \vspace*{1.5cm}

111: %\maketitle

112: \end{center}

113: 

114: %\begin{abstract}

115: \begin{center}{\bf Abstract}\end{center}

116: \begin{quote}

117: The tiny graviton Matrix theory \cite{tiny} is proposed to

118: describe DLCQ of type IIB string theory on the maximally

119: supersymmetric plane-wave or $AdS_5\times S^5$ background. In this

120: paper we provide further evidence in support of the tiny graviton

121: conjecture by focusing on the zero energy, half BPS configurations

122: of this matrix theory and classify all of them. These vacua are

123: generically of the form of various three sphere giant gravitons.

124: We clarify the connection between our solutions and the half BPS

125: configuration in $\N=4$ SYM theory and their gravity duals.

126: Moreover, using our half BPS solutions,  we show how the tiny

127: graviton Matrix theory and the mass deformed $D=3,\ \N=8$

128: superconformal field theories are related to each other.

129: \end{quote}

130: %\end{abstract}

131: 

132: \end{titlepage}

133: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

134: 

135: %Introduction

136: \section{Introduction}

137: Soon after the introduction of (flat) D-branes as dynamical

138: objects in string theory \cite{Polchinski} it was realized that

139: the theory residing on $N$ coincident $Dp$-branes is a $p+1$

140: dimensional $U(N)$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory with 16

141: supercharges \cite{Witten}. The above facts have been in the core

142: of the most interesting developments in string/M- theory in the

143: past eight years, the BFSS Matrix Theory \cite{BFSS} and the

144: AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{AdS/CFT}. In the both examples

145: certain $\alpha'\to 0$ limit of a background with $N$ D-branes

146: were used to argue for (or obtain) a non-perturbative description

147: of string/M- theory. In the BFSS case, this was $N$ $D0$-branes,

148: {\it i.e.} a $U(N)$ $0+1$ dimensional SYM, which was proposed to

149: describe Discrete Light-Cone Quantization (DLCQ) of M-theory in

150: the sector with $N$ units of light-cone momentum \cite{BFSS}. In

151: the AdS/CFT, however, the near horizon limit of the geometry with

152: $N$ $D3$-branes, {\it i.e.} the $AdS_5\times S^5$ background with

153: $N$ units of the five-form flux through the $S^5$, was proposed to

154: be dual (or equivalent) to the ${\cal N}=4,\ D=4$ $U(N)$ SYM. In

155: another point of view, the latter is the holographic description

156: of string theory on $AdS_5\times S^5$, as the causal boundary of

157: the $AdS_5$ geometry is $R\times S^3$ \cite{holography}. The two

158: conjectures, the BFSS matrix model and the AdS/CFT, have passed

159: many non-trivial crucial tests and a large class of such checks

160: are based on analysis of supersymmetric, BPS configurations. BPS

161: states provide a powerful tool for checking the conjectures

162: because they are protected against corrections which are often

163: times out of control in the desired regimes.

164: 

165: The type IIB string $\sigma$-model on the $AdS_5\times S^5$

166: background has turned out to be very hard to solve, e.g. see

167: \cite{BPR}, and consequently many tests of the AdS/CFT in string

168: theory side has been limited to the supergravity limit

169: (corresponding to large $N$ limit in the dual gauge theory). In a

170: quest for pushing the duality beyond the supergravity limit it was

171: shown that the Penrose limit, after which the $AdS_5\times S^5$

172: geometry goes over to the plane-wave background \cite{BMN, Blau},

173: opens the possibility of exploring a region where the gauge and

174: string theories are both perturbatively accessible (for reviews

175: see \cite{review, Plefka-lectures}).

176: 

177: The ten dimensional, maximally supersymmetric plane-wave

178: background (here we follow conventions and notations of

179: \cite{review}.):

180: \begin{subequations}\label{background}

181: \begin{align}

182:  ds^2 = -2 dX^+ dX^- & -\mu^2(X^i X^i + X^a X^a) {(dX^+)}^2 + dX^i dX^i+ dX^a dX^a \\

183:  F_{+ijkl} &= \frac{4}{g_s} \mu\ \epsilon_{ijkl} \qquad,\qquad

184:  F_{+abcd}=\frac{4}{g_s} \mu \ \epsilon_{abcd} \\

185:  &\qquad\quad e^\phi = g_s = \rm{constant}

186: \end{align}

187: \end{subequations}%

188: where $i,a=1,2,3,4$ and $F_5$ is the (self-dual) fiveform field

189: strength, has a one dimensional {\it light-like} causal boundary

190: and this leads one to the question whether strings on the

191: plane-wave background has a holographic description. Such a

192: theory, if exists, should then be a $0+1$ dimensional (presumably

193: gauge) Matrix theory.

194: 

195: In \cite{tiny}, through a study of the three-brane giant gravitons

196: \cite{MST} and their quantization, a $0+1$ dimensional $U(J)$

197: gauge theory was obtained, the Tiny Graviton Matrix Theory (TGMT).

198: According to the tiny graviton conjecture, TGMT describes  DLCQ of

199: type IIB string theory on the plane-wave \eqref{background}, in

200: the sector with $J$ units of light-cone momentum. Furthermore, it

201: was  argued that the same theory should also describe DLCQ of type

202: IIB strings on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ background.

203: 

204: Some pieces of evidence in support of the TGMT conjecture was

205: presented in \cite{tiny}. In this work we provide further

206: supportive evidence through a detailed and exhaustive study of all

207: the 1/2 BPS configurations of the TGMT. For that, in section

208: \ref{review-section}, we review the statement of the conjecture

209: and the TGMT Hamiltonian. In section \ref{Zero-Energy-section}, we

210: focus on the zero energy configurations of the matrix theory and

211: show that these are generically of the form of concentric fuzzy

212: three spheres residing in the $X^i$ and/or $X^a$ directions ({\it

213: cf.} \eqref{background}). In the large $J$ (string theory) limit

214: these fuzzy spheres become spherical three-brane giants. In

215: section \ref{SYM-gravity-relation}, we argue how our zero energy

216: configurations are related to the similar 1/2 BPS configurations

217: in the type IIB supergravity recently studied in \cite{LLM} and in

218: the ${\cal N}=4, D=4$ $U(N)$ gauge theory \cite{Berenstein}. In

219: section \ref{mass-deformed}, we show how the TGMT and the mass

220: deformed ${\cal N}=8,\ D=3$ SCFT are related to each other.

221: Explicitly, we argue that the three fuzzy spheres of TGMT are

222: indeed the quantized (longitudinal) M5-branes of the latter. This

223: would also shed light on some less clear part of the TGMT, namely

224: the matrix ${\cal L}_5$ ({\it cf.} the arguments of \cite{tiny} or

225: section \ref{review-section}). In section

226: \ref{discussion-section}, we give a summary of our results and an

227: outlook. Some technical points have been gathered in the

228: Appendices. In Appendix \ref{convention}, we present our

229: conventions for the Dirac gamma matrices and some useful

230: identities. In Appendix \ref{appendixB}, we review the new

231: construction for the fuzzy spheres presented in \cite{tiny}. This

232: construction is based on the quantization of Nambu brackets. We

233: solve the two equations defining a generic fuzzy sphere by {\it

234: embedding} the fuzzy sphere in a higher dimensional noncommutative

235: Moyal plane and work out the details of this solution for the

236: cases of fuzzy two and four spheres. This constitutes a new

237: construction for the fuzzy spheres, in particular fuzzy three and

238: four spheres. In the Appendix \ref{superalgebra}, we have

239: presented the (dynamical part of the) superalgebra of the tiny

240: graviton matrix theory, namely \super\ algebra and its

241: representation in terms of matrices.

242: 

243: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

244: 

245: %Review

246: \section{Review of The Tiny Graviton Matrix Theory}\label{review-section}%

247: In this section we briefly review the basics of the tiny graviton

248: conjecture. This is essentially a short summary of \cite{tiny}.

249: 

250: \subsection{The Giant, The Normal, The Tiny}\label{giant-normal-tiny}

251: 

252: As discussed in the introduction, the key objects in both BFSS

253: matrix theory and the AdS/CFT correspondence are  flat 1/2 BPS

254: D-branes. In the non-flat backgrounds, where a form flux is turned

255: on, it is possible to construct 1/2 BPS (topologically) spherical

256: branes, the giant gravitons \cite{MST}. In order to stabilize a

257: spherical brane at a finite size we need to exert a repulsive

258: force on the brane to overcome its tension. This force can be

259: provided, noting that a spherical $p$-brane carries an (electric)

260: dipole moment of the $p+1$-form and if we have a $p+2$-form

261: (magnetic) flux in the background a moving (rotating) brane would

262: feel a repulsive force. The situation can be arranged such that

263: the tension and the form-field forces cancel each other. Indeed

264: this is only possible if the brane is following a light-like

265: geodesic, in this respect it behaves like any other (super)gravity

266: mode, hence it was called a giant graviton \cite{MST}. (Note that

267: the spherical $p$-brane cannot carry $p+1$-form charge, unlike a

268: flat brane.)

269: 

270: {}From the above argument it follows that the size of the giant is

271: related to its angular momentum. In the  $AdS_5\times S^5$ or the

272: plane-wave background, where we have a fiveform flux in the

273: background, we can stabilize an $S^3$ giant. The size of the giant

274: and its angular momentum $J$ are related as \cite{MST}%

275: \be\label{giant-size}%

276: \left(\frac{R_{giant}}{R_{AdS}}\right)^2=\frac{J}{N}\ ,

277: \ee%

278:  where $N$ is number of units of fiveform  flux through the five sphere

279: in $AdS_5\times S^5$ and \cite{AdS/CFT} \be R^4_{AdS}=R_{S^5}^4=N

280: l_p^4 \ , \ee where $l_p$ is the ten dimensional Planck length.

281: The radius of the giant grown inside the $S^5$ cannot exceed its

282: radius, and hence there is an upper bound on the $J$, $J\leq

283: N$.\footnote{It is possible to consider giants grown inside

284: $AdS_5$ \cite{AdS-giants}, for which there is no (upper) limit on

285: their size and/or angular momentum. However, there is a limit on

286: the number of such giants \cite{Berenstein, Nemani}, we will

287: comment more on this issue in section \ref{SYM-gravity-relation}.}

288: 

289: Angular momentum $J$ is quantized and hence there is a minimal

290: size giant graviton, corresponding to $J=1$ in \eqref{giant-size}.

291: The size of this object which will be called {\it tiny graviton}

292: is then given by%

293: \be\label{tiny-size}%

294: \left(\frac{R_{tiny}}{R_{AdS}}\right)^2=\frac{1}{N}\ \Rightarrow

295: R^2_{tiny}=\frac{l^4_p}{R^2_{AdS}}=l^2_p\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\ .%

296: \ee%

297: Therefore, in the large $N$ (supergravity) limit tiny gravitons

298: become much smaller than $l_p$. In this limit,%

299: \be\label{hirarchy}%

300: R_{giant}\sim R_{AdS} \gg l_p \gg R_{tiny}\equiv l\ . %

301: \ee%

302:  We would

303: like to point out that the sizes for the giant and tiny gravitons

304: we have discussed above is a classical one. For the giants in

305: $S^5$ with the radius of order of $R_{AdS}$ the classical

306: description is a good one (also note that such giants are moving

307: very slowly, their angular velocity is very small). For the tiny

308: gravitons, however, the Compton wave-length is much larger than

309: their classical size. Therefore, the above  arguments should only

310: be treated as a suggestive one and in fact we need to study the

311: quantum theory of the tiny gravitons; that is exactly what we are

312: going to do in the next subsection.

313: 

314: Based on the observation \eqref{hirarchy} it was argued that the

315: tiny gravitons should then be treated as ``fundamental'' objects

316: which may be used to formulate a non-perturbative description of

317: strings on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ or on the plane-wave

318: \eqref{background}. In other words and in the BFSS terminology,

319: tiny gravitons are the ``D0-branes'' of the tiny graviton matrix

320: theory.\footnote{ To complete the above argument, however, one

321: needs to show that tiny or giant gravitons share another property

322: with flat D-branes, namely when $J$ number of them become

323: coincident the $U(1)$ gauge theory living on them enhance to

324: $U(J)$. Showing this is not as direct as the flat D-branes,

325: because due to the spherical shape of giants imposing Neumann

326: boundary conditions only on the directions parallel to the brane

327: is not as trivial. In \cite{Hedgehog}, using the Born-Infeld

328: action it was argued that the enhancement of the gauge symmetry

329: happens. The enhancement of the gauge symmetry for coincident

330: giants has recently been argued for, using the dual $N=4$ $U(N)$

331: gauge theory operators corresponding to cioncident giants

332: \cite{Vijay}.}  The above argument for the three sphere giants can

333: be repeated for the membrane giants in the $AdS_4\times S^7$,

334: $AdS_7\times S^4$ or the eleven dimensional plane-wave.

335: Explicitly,  spherical membranes with a unit angular momentum

336: become tiny in the large $N$ limit. In \cite{tiny} it was also

337: noted that the BMN matrix theory \cite{BMN, DSV1} is indeed a

338: (membrane) tiny graviton theory.

339: 

340: \subsection{Statement of the Conjecture}\label{conjecture-statement}

341: 

342: The tiny graviton matrix theory proposal is  that the DLCQ of

343: strings on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ or the 10 dimensional \pl \bg\ in

344: the sector with $J$ units of light-cone momentum, is described by

345: the theory or dynamics of $J$ ``tiny'' (three-brane) gravitons. To

346: obtain the action for $J$ tiny gravitons, we follow the logic of

347: \cite{DSV1} where the corresponding Matrix model is obtained as a

348: regularized (quantized) version of M2-brane \lc\ Hamiltonian, but

349: now for 3-branes. This has been carried out in \cite{tiny}. In

350: other words, DLCQ of type IIB strings on the \pl\ \bg\

351: \eqref{background} is nothing but a quantized 3-brane theory. The

352: statement of the conjecture is then:

353: 

354: \begin{quote}

355: {\it The theory of $J$ tiny three-brane gravitons, which is a

356: $U(J)$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics with the \super\ symmetry,

357: is the Matrix theory describing the DLCQ of strings on the

358: plane-waves or on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ in the sector with

359: light-cone momentum $p^+=J/R_-$, $R_-$ being the light-like

360: compactification radius. The \Ham  of this Matrix model is:}

361: \end{quote}

362: \be\label{Matrix-model-Ham}

363: \begin{split}

364: {\bf H}= R_-\ \Tr&\bl[ \frac{1}{2}\Pi_I^2+

365: \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu}{R_-}\right)^2 X_I^2 +\frac{1}{2\cdot

366: 3! g_s^2} [ X^I , X^J , X^K, {\cal L}_5][ X^I , X^J , X^K, {\cal

367: L}_5]\cr &-\frac{\mu}{3!R_- g_s}\left( \epsilon^{i j k l} X^i

368: [X^j, X^k, X^l, {\cal L}_5]+ \epsilon^{a b c d} X^a [ X^b, X^c,

369: X^d , {\cal L}_5] \right)\cr &+\left(\frac{\mu}{R_-}\right)

370: \left(\psi^\dagger {}^{\alpha \beta} \psi_{\alpha \beta}-

371: \psi_{\dot\alpha \dot\beta}\psi^\dagger {}^{\dot\alpha

372: \dot\beta}\right)\cr &+\frac{2}{g_s}\left( \psi^\dagger {}^{\alpha

373: \beta} (\sigma^{ij})_\alpha^{\:  \: \delta}

374:   [ X^i, X^j, \psi_{\delta \beta}, {\cal L}_5] +

375:   \psi^\dagger {}^{\alpha \beta} (\sigma^{ab})_\alpha^{ \: \: \delta} \:

376:   [ X^a, X^b, \psi_{\delta \beta}, {\cal L}_5]\right) \cr

377: &-\frac{2}{g_s} \left(\psi_{\dot\delta \dot\beta}

378: (\sigma^{ij})_{\dot\alpha}^{ \: \: \dot\delta} \:

379:   [ X^i, X^j, \psi^\dagger {}^{\dot\alpha \dot\beta}, {\cal L}_5]+

380: \psi_{\dot\delta \dot\beta} (\sigma^{ab})_{\dot\alpha}^{\: \:

381: \dot\delta} \:

382:   [ X^a, X^b, \psi^\dagger {}^{\dot\alpha \dot\beta}, {\cal L}_5]\right)\br]\ ,

383: \end{split}

384: \ee%

385: where $I,J,K=1,2\cdots ,8$ and $i,a=1,2,3,4$. In the above

386: $X^I$'s, $\psi$'s and ${\cal L}_5$ are all $J\by J$ matrices and

387: the four brackets are the quantized Nambu four-brackets defined

388: as:%

389: \be%

390: [F_1,F_2,F_3,F_4]\equiv \epsilon^{ijkl}F_iF_jF_kF_l%

391: \ee%

392: where $F_i$'s are arbitrary $J\by J$ matrices. As discussed in

393: \cite{tiny} ({\it cf.} Appendix \ref{appendixB}) the quantized

394: Nambu four brackets are non-associative but satisfy a generalized

395: Jacobi identity, are traceless and have a by-part integration

396: property: $Tr[F_1,F_2,F_3,F_4]F_5=-Tr[F_1,F_2,F_3,F_5]F_4 $. Using

397: the properties of the Nambu four-brackets, one may show explicitly

398: that the above Hamiltonian exhibits the invariance under the

399: \super\ superalgebra, which is the superalgebra of the plane-wave

400: background; see Appendix \ref{superalgebra} for the superalgebra

401: and its representation in terms of the $J\times J$ matrices. The

402: other advantage is that, similarly to BMN Matrix model \cite{BMN,

403: DSV1}, there are no flat directions and the flat directions are

404: lifted by the mass terms coming form the \bg\ \pl \ metric.

405: 

406: The  $U(J)$ gauge symmetry of the above \Ham\ is in fact a

407: discretized (quantized) form of the spatial diffeomorphisms of the

408: 3-brane. As is evident from the above construction we expect in

409: $J\to\infty$ limit to recover the diffeomorphisms. In this

410: respect, it is very similar to the usual BFSS (or BMN) Matrix

411: model in which the gauge symmetry is the regularized form of the

412: diffeomorphisms on the membrane worldvolume \cite{DSV1}.

413: 

414: Here we would like to stress that the DLCQ of strings on the

415: $AdS_5\times S^5$ and that of the 10 dimensional plane-wave should

416: be the same. To see this, we note that taking the Penrose limit

417: over the $AdS_5\times S^5$ we obtain the plane-wave \bg\  and that

418: the Penrose limit consists of following a light-like observer.

419: {}From the viewpoint of a light-like observer (a boosted infinite

420: momentum frame) which uses global AdS time as its time coordinate,

421: what is seen out of whole $AdS_p\times S^q$ background is the

422: Penrose limit of that, namely a plane-wave \bg . One should,

423: however, note that the size of the tiny graviton $l$ which in the

424: $AdS_5\times S^5$ is given by $l^4=l_p^4/N$ \eqref{tiny-size}, in

425: the plane-wave limit and in the notations of the Hamiltonian

426: \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham} is equal to \cite{tiny}%

427: \be\label{l-fuzziness}%

428: l^2=\frac{\mu g_s}{R_-}l_s^2.

429: \ee%

430: In other words, to use the Hamiltonian \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham}

431: for the $AdS_5\times S^5$ case one should replace

432: $\frac{R_-}{\mu}$ by $(g_sN)^{1/2}$. (Note that in our conventions

433: both $\mu$ and $R_-$ have dimension of energy.)

434: 

435: One less clear ingredient in the TGMT Hamiltonian is a given

436: classical $J\by J$ matrix ${\cal L}_5$. In sections

437: \ref{Zero-Energy-section} and \ref{mass-deformed}, we will show

438: how construction of 1/2 BPS solutions of the TGMT helps us with a

439: better understanding of the physical meaning of ${\cal L}_5$.

440: 

441: \subsection{Gauge symmetry and the Gauss law constraint}\label{Gauss-section}

442: The \Ham \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham} can be obtained from a $0+1$

443: dimensional $U(J)$ gauge theory Lagrangian, in the temporal gauge.

444: Explicitly, the only component of the gauge field, $A_0$, has been

445: set to zero. To ensure the $A_0=0$ gauge condition, all of our

446: physical states must satisfy the Gauss law constraint arising from

447: equations of motion of $A_0$. Similarly to the BFSS \cite{BFSS}

448: and BMN \cite{DSV1} cases, these constraints, which consists of

449: $J^2-1$ independent conditions are: %

450: \be\label{Gauss-law}%

451: \left(i[X^i,\Pi^i]+i[X^a, \Pi^a]+

452: 2\psi^{\dagger\alpha\beta}\psi_{\alpha\beta}

453: +2\psi^{\dagger\dot\alpha\dot\beta}\psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}\right)|\phi\rangle_{phys}=0.

454: \ee %

455: These constraints are the requirement of $SU(J)$ invariance of the

456: physical states.

457: 

458: We should stress that, as in any gauge theory, fixing the local

459: gauge symmetry does not fix the global gauge symmetry and the

460: Hamiltonian \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham} is still invariant under the

461: time independent gauge transformations: \be\label{gauge-trans}

462: X^I\ \ \rightarrow\ \ U X^I U^{-1}\ \quad ,\quad  {\cal L}_5\ \

463: \rightarrow\ \ U {\cal L}_5 U^{-1} \ee (and similarly for

464: fermions) where $U\in U(J)$. That is, ${\cal L}_5$ is a given

465: matrix up to a $U(J)$ transformation. We will comments on this

466: issue further in section \ref{Zero-Energy-section}.

467: 

468: 

469: \subsection{String theory limit}\label{String-limit}

470: The \Ham\ \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham} is proposed to describe type

471: IIB string theory on the \pl with compact $X^-$ direction. The

472: ``string theory limit'' is then a limit where we decompactify

473: $R_-$, keeping $p^+$ fixed, {\it i.e.}

474: \be\label{string-theory-limit} J, R_- \to \infty, \qquad \mu,\

475: p^+=J/R_-, g_s\ \ {\rm fixed}\ . \ee In fact one can show that in

476: the above string theory limit one can re-scale $X$'s such that

477: $\mu, p^+$ only appear in the combination $\mu p^+$. Therefore the

478: only parameters of the continuum theory are $\mu p^+$ and $g_s$.

479: 

480: For the proposal in the full $AdS_5\times S^5$ \bg\ with

481: $R_-/\mu=\sqrt{g_s N}$ the string theory limit

482: \eqref{string-theory-limit} is then equivalent to large $N$, large

483: $J$ ($J,\ N\to \infty$) limit, keeping $J^2/N$ and $g_s$ fixed,

484: that is the BMN double scaling limit \cite{BMN}.

485: 

486: According to the TGMT conjecture non-perturbative formulation of

487: type IIB string theory on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ \bg\ in the DLCQ,

488: is given by quantized D3-brane theory. As a complete theory, TGMT

489: should also contain other perturbative and non-perturbative

490: objects present in the string theory, including the fundamental

491: closed strings themselves. As the second part of the tiny graviton

492: conjecture it was argued in \cite{tiny} that the ``trivial''

493: $X^I=0$ vacuum solution of the TGMT, quantum mechanically

494: describes fundamental IIB closed strings. In other words, here

495: strings are non-perturbative objects around trivial vacuum.

496: Providing more supportive evidence for the second part of the

497: conjecture is postponed to a future work \cite{work-in-progress}.

498: 

499: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

500: %Zero energy solutions

501: \section{Zero Energy Solutions}\label{Zero-Energy-section}%

502: As the kinetic energy is always positive, the zero energy

503: configurations are necessarily static ($\Pi=0$) solutions,

504: similarly fermionic terms should also be set to zero. Therefore,

505: the Hamiltonian relevant for the zero energy solutions takes the

506: form%

507: \be\label{vacuum-potential} \begin{split} V = R_-\ \Tr\bl[

508: &\frac{1}{2}\bl(\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^l + \frac{1}{3!

509: g_s}\epsilon^{ijkl} [ X^i , X^j , X^k, {\cal L}_5]\br)^2 +

510: \frac{1}{4g_s^2} [X^i, X^j, X^a, {\cal L}_5][ X^i, X^j,X^a , {\cal

511: L}_5] \cr + &\frac{1}{2}\bl(\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^d+ \frac{1}{3! g_s}

512: \epsilon^{abcd}[ X^a , X^b , X^c, {\cal L}_5]\br)^2 +

513: \frac{1}{4g_s^2} [X^i, X^a, X^b, {\cal L}_5][ X^i, X^a,X^b , {\cal

514: L}_5] \br]

515: \end{split}

516: \ee%

517: Each term in the above expression is positive-definite, hence the

518: zero energy solutions are obtained when each of the four terms are

519: vanishing, {\it i.e.}

520: \begin{subequations}\label{master-equations}

521: \begin{align}

522:  [X^i,X^j,X^k,\L5] & = -\frac{\mu g_s}{R_-}\ \epsilon^{ijkl} X^l \\

523: [X^a,X^b,X^c,\L5]  & = -\frac{\mu g_s}{R_-}\ \epsilon^{abcd} X^d \\

524: [X^a,X^b,X^i,\L5]  &= [X^a, X^i, X^j, \L5] =0\ .

525: \end{align}

526: \end{subequations}

527: 

528: The first class of solutions to the above equations is the

529: ``trivial'' $X=0$ solution:%

530: \be\label{trivial} X^i = 0 \quad;\quad X^a = 0

531: \ee%

532: Although mathematically trivial, this vacuum is physically quite

533: non-trivial. According to the tiny graviton conjecture \cite{tiny}

534: $X=0$ corresponds to the  fundamental string vacuum.

535: 

536: The next class of solutions which was briefly discussed  in

537: \cite{tiny} is obtained when either  $X^i=0$ or $X^a=0$. In this

538: case eqs.(\ref{master-equations}c) and either of

539: (\ref{master-equations}a) or (\ref{master-equations}b) are

540: trivially satisfied. Since there is a $Z_2$ symmetry in the

541: exchange of $X^i$ and $X^a$, here we only focus on the $X^a=0$

542: case and the $X^i=0$ solutions have essentially the same

543: structure. Therefore, this class of vacua are solutions to

544: \be\label{single}%

545:  X^a = 0 \ ,\ [X^i,X^j,X^k,\L5] = -\frac{\mu

546: g_s}{R_-}\ \epsilon^{ijkl} X^l\ .

547: \ee%

548: In sections \ref{single-giant-section} and \ref{concentric} we

549: give the most general solutions to \eqref{single}. One should,

550: however, note that if we choose to expand the theory around either

551: of these vacua the $Z_2$ symmetry is spontaneously broken. As we

552: will see these solutions are generically of the form of concentric

553: fuzzy three spheres in either of the $SO(4)$'s.

554: 

555: There is yet another class of solutions where both $X^i$ and $X^a$

556: are non-zero. These are non-trivial solutions which in the string

557: theory limit correspond to giant gravitons grown in both $X^a$ and

558: $X^i$ directions. We consider these cases in sections

559: \ref{non-concentric} and \ref{generic-multi-giants}.

560: 

561: All of these vacua are 1/2 BPS states. To see this, consider the

562: superalgebra of the 10-dimensional \pl\bg\ given in Appendix

563: \ref{superalgebra}. The plane-wave solution \eqref{background} has

564: a large set of bosonic and fermionic isometries. The bosonic

565: isometry group, whose dimension is  30, includes  $SO(4)\times

566: SO(4)$ rotations and translation along $x^-$ and $x^+$ directions,

567: the generators of which will be denoted by ${\bf J_{ij}}$, ${\bf

568: J_{ab}}$, $P^+$ and ${\bf H} = -P_-$, respectively \cite{review}.

569: There are 16 other isometries which are not manifest in the above

570: coordinates. There are also 32 fermionic isometries (supercharges)

571: which can be decomposed into 16 kinematical supercharges

572: $q_{\alpha\beta}$, $q_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}$ and 16 dynamical

573: supercharges $Q_{\alpha\dot\beta}$ and $Q_{\dot\alpha\beta}$ (and

574: their complex conjugates), for more details see \cite{review} and

575: also Appendix \ref{superalgebra}.

576: 

577: Solutions to eqs.\eqref{master-equations} are {\it fuzzy

578: 3-spheres}, which in the string theory limit generically go over

579: to giant gravitons (spherical D3-branes) \footnote{ There has been

580: another proposal for a quantized giant three sphere \cite{Lozano}.

581: There the fact that $S^3=CP^1\ltimes S^1$ has been used and in the

582: quantum version the $CP^1=S^2$ has been replaced by its fuzzy

583: counterpart.}. Noting the equation \eqref{QQ} we see that these

584: zero energy fuzzy sphere solutions are all $1/2$ BPS, {\it i.e.}

585: they preserve all of the dynamical supercharges (half out of whole

586: kinematical and dynamical ones), as they have ${\bf H}=0$ and

587: ${\bf J}_{ij}={\bf J}_{ab}=0 $.

588: 

589: %Single giant

590: \subsection{Single giant solutions}\label{single-giant-section}

591: To start our classification of all zero energy 1/2 BPS solutions

592: of the TGMT,  in this subsection we study a single giant graviton

593: which is a solution to \eqref{single}. As can already be seen from

594: \eqref{single} and would be analyzed in detail in the rest of this

595: section, solutions to \eqref{single} group theoretically are

596: labeled by $J\by J$ representations of $SO(4)$ (or more precisely

597: $spin(4)$). These representations can be reducible or irreducible.

598: The irreducible representations (irreps), which corresponds to a

599: single giant graviton state, is discussed in this subsection.

600: 

601: Our goal is to solve \eqref{single} for $J\by J$ matrices. Let us,

602: however, first relax the constraint on the size of the matrices

603: and look for some generic solution to \eqref{single}. As

604: \[

605: [\gamma^i,\gamma^j,\gamma^k, \gamma^5]=-4!\epsilon^{ijkl}

606: \gamma^l\ ,

607: \]

608: it is

609: straightforward to see that%

610:  \be\label{4by4-soln}%

611:  X^i=\zeta

612: \gamma^i\ ,\qquad \L5=\frac{1}{4!} \gamma^5\ ,%

613: \ee %

614: with $\zeta^2=\frac{\mu g_s}{R_-}$ solves \eqref{single}.

615: ($\gamma^i$ and $\gamma^5$ are $4\by 4$ Dirac $\gamma$-matrices.

616: For our conventions see Appendix \ref{convention}.) Noting that

617: $\sum_i (\gamma^i)^2=4$, \eqref{4by4-soln} defines a fuzzy three

618: sphere of radius 2. This is indeed the smallest possible size for

619: an $S^3_f$.

620: 

621: 

622: To construct a generic solution to \eqref{single}, inspired by a

623: similar method for the fuzzy two sphere \cite{Hammou}, we try to

624: embed the fuzzy three sphere into a higher dimensional

625: noncommutative Moyal plane. To do this we introduce an eight

626: dimensional Moyal plane $\C^4_\theta$, {\it i.e.} a space

627: parameterized by $z_\alpha,\ {\bar z}_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2,3,4$

628: satisfying

629: \be\label{Moyal}%

630: [z_\alpha,\ {\bar z}_\beta]=\theta \delta_{\alpha\beta}\ .

631: \ee%

632: Next let

633: \be\label{general-soln}%

634: X^i=\kappa {\bar z}_\alpha(\gamma^i)_{\alpha \beta}\ z_{\beta}\

635: ,\qquad \L5=\xi {\bar z}_\alpha(\gamma^5)_{\alpha\beta} \

636: z_{\beta}\ .

637: \ee%

638: It can be shown (this has been shown in some detail in Appendix

639: \ref{appendixB} using identities of Appendix \ref{convention})

640: that \eqref{general-soln} solves \eqref{single} with

641: \be\label{normalizations}%

642: \frac{1}{3} \kappa^2\xi\ \theta^3 (X^0 +2) = \frac{\mu

643: g_s}{R_-}\equiv {l^2}\ ,

644: \ee%

645: where

646: \be\label{X0}%

647:  X^0\equiv \frac{1}{\theta} {\bar z}_\alpha{z}_\alpha.

648: \ee%

649: The equation \eqref{general-soln} is a realization of the Hopf

650: fibration for an $S^7$ with an $S^4$ base (for more details see

651: Appendix \ref{appendixB}).

652: 

653: Noting that the operator $X^0$ commutes with all $X^i$'s and

654: $\L5$, \eqref{general-soln} is then a solution to \eqref{single}.

655: In other words, \eqref{general-soln} is a generic solution to

656: \eqref{single} but with infinite size matrices. Notice that ${\bar

657: z}_\alpha/\sqrt{\theta}$ and ${z}_\alpha/\sqrt{\theta}$ are

658: creation and annihilation operators of a four dimensional harmonic

659: oscillator and hence are explicitly infinite size matrices.

660: Therefore, $X^i$'s are also infinite size matrices. These infinite

661: size matrices form {\it reducible} representations of $spin(4)$

662: and what we should do next is to identify finite size irreps

663: inside these matrices.

664: 

665: \subsubsection{Restricting to $J\by J$ solutions}\label{reduction-to-JbyJ}%

666: In this part we construct a finite size solution out of

667: \eqref{general-soln}. We will do this in two steps; first we

668: extract out a finite dimensional representation of $SO(5)$ and

669: then reduce that further to a $J\by J$ representation of $SO(4)$.

670: Note that $[X^i,X^j]$ are generators of $so(4)$ algebra and adding

671: $[X^i, \L5]$ to this collection we have a representation of

672: $so(5)$. Next, note that $X^0$ commutes with all $X^i$'s and $\L5$

673: and hence with all $so(5)$ generators, {\it i.e.} $X^0$ is a

674: Casimir of $so(5)$ and $\L5^2$ commutes with all the $so(4)$

675: generators. Therefore, these two steps can be taken, respectively,

676: by focusing on $X^0$ and $\L5^2$ and identify the blocks in which

677: they are proportional to the identity matrix.

678: 

679: In the number operator basis for the four dimensional harmonic

680: oscillator $X^0$ is already diagonal with the eigenvalues $n$ ($n$

681: is a non-negative integer). The eigenvalue $n$ comes with the

682: multiplicity $N$:%

683:  \be\label{Nvs.n}%

684: N=\frac{1}{6} (n+1)(n+2)(n+3)\ .%

685: \ee%

686:  $N$ is the number of possible partitions of $n$ into {\it

687: four} non-negative integers. In this basis $X^0$ takes the form

688: \begin{figure}[h]

689: \begin{center}

690: \be\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{X0.eps}.\ee

691: \end{center}

692: \end{figure}

693: 

694: Using the identities of Appendix \ref{convention}, one can easily

695: check that

696: \be\label{S4}%

697:  \sum_{\mu=1}^5 (X^\mu)^2 = \kappa^2\theta^2

698: X^0(X^0+4)\ , \ee%

699: where $X^\mu=\kappa {\bar z}\gamma^\mu z$, $\mu=1,2,\cdots, 5$.

700: Therefore, restricting $X^0$ to a block in which it is equal to

701: $n\cdot {\bf 1}_{N\by N}$ would give an embedding of a four

702: sphere, in fact a fuzzy four sphere ({\it cf.} Appendix

703: \ref{appendixB}), in an eight dimensional Moyal plane. The radius

704: of this sphere is then

705: \be\label{S4radius}%

706:  R^2_{S^4_f}=\kappa^2\theta^2 n(n+4),

707:  \ee%

708:   where $n$ and the size of matrices

709: $N$ are related as in \eqref{Nvs.n}. In the large $n$ limit

710: $R_{S^4_f}\simeq \kappa \theta\ n $ and $N\simeq n^3/6$. The

711: continuum (commutative) limit is when $\kappa\theta\sim 1/n \to

712: 0$, keeping $R$ fixed.

713: \begin{figure}[ht]

714: \begin{center}

715: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{sphere.eps}

716: \caption{A fuzzy three sphere $S^3_f$ is obtained from $S^4_f$ by

717: cutting it in a narrow strip close to its equator.}\label{S4toS3}

718: \end{center}

719: \end{figure}

720: 

721: Before moving to the construction of a fuzzy three sphere, we

722: would like to comment on the above construction of the four

723: sphere. By definition an $S^4$ is a four dimensional manifold with

724: $so(5)$ isometries. In the above we have given a specific

725: embedding of a four sphere in an eight dimensional

726: (noncommutative) space. More specifically, noting that $X^0=const.

727: $ defines an $S^7$ in the eight dimensional space (see

728: \eqref{X0}), we have an embedding of $S^4$ into $S^7$. This

729: embedding is a (noncommutative) realization of the Hopf fibration

730: with $S^4$ as the base, e.g. \cite{Grosse}. Out of the $so(8)$

731: isometries of the $S^7$ there is a $u(4)$ subgroup which is

732: compatible with the holomorphic structure on $\C^4\simeq {\mathbb

733: R}^8$. Note also that in the noncommutative Moyal case of

734: $\C^4_\theta$, that is this $u(4)\subset so(8)$ which does not

735: change the noncommutative structure \eqref{Moyal}. The $X^\mu$

736: behaves as a vector under $so(5)\subset su(4)$ and the generators

737: of the full $su(4)$ are $X^\mu$ and  $[X^\mu,X^\nu]$. (The

738: generator of the $u(1)\subset u(4)$ is $X^0$.)\footnote{It is

739: worth noting that the generators of $so(8)$ which are not included

740: in $u(4)$ cannot be constructed from combinations of $z,\ \bar

741: z$.}

742: 

743: 

744: We are now ready to take the second step and construct a (fuzzy)

745: three sphere, $S^3_f$, from the above $S^4_f$. The idea, as

746: depicted in Figure \ref{S4toS3}, is that a three sphere is a great

747: sphere on the equator of a four sphere. In the noncommutative

748: fuzzy case, however, due to the noncommutativity and fuzziness it

749: is not possible to { exactly} sit on the equator, and we are

750: forced to cut a narrow strip around the equator. The width of the

751: strip in the commutative limit goes to zero. This would become

752: clearer momentarily.

753: 

754: To cut the four sphere around its equator we should restrict the

755: coordinate $X^5$ to be zero or in fact very close to zero compared

756: to the other four embedding coordinates. Moreover, by definition

757: the sum of the squares of the embedding coordinates of an $S^3_f$

758: must be proportional to the identity matrix. Therefore, we need to

759: restrict ourselves to blocks in $N\by N$ matrices where $\L5^2$ is

760: proportional to the identity. In the number operator basis for the

761: four dimensional harmonic oscillator $X^5$ is diagonal ({\it cf.}

762: \eqref{general-soln}) and is of the form

763: \begin{figure}[ht]

764: \begin{center}

765: \be\label{X5matrix}

766: \includegraphics[scale=0.40]{X5.eps},

767: \ee

768: \end{center}

769: \end{figure}

770: \newline

771: where $0\leq k\leq n$, {\it i.e.} $X^5$ consists of $n+1$ blocks.

772: 

773: As we see in \eqref{X5matrix} $X^5$ ranges from $-n$ to $n$ with

774: the steps of two. In the continuum limit this reduces to the fact

775: that $X^5$ ranges from $-R_{S^4}$ to $R_{S^4}$. The equator then

776: corresponds to taking the smallest value for $X^5$; that is, zero

777: if $n$ is even and 1 or $-1$ if $n$ is odd. Obviously even $n$

778: case, which leads to $\L5=0$, is not an appropriate choice because

779: all the four brackets in the Hamiltonian \eqref{Matrix-model-Ham}

780: would vanish. The proper choice is then {\it odd} $n$ case which

781: leads to the $\L5$ of the form

782: \begin{figure}[h]

783: \begin{center}

784: \be\label{L5matrix}

785: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{L5.eps}.

786: \ee

787: \end{center}

788: \end{figure}

789: \newline

790: The size of this matrix $J$ is

791: \be\label{Jvs.n}%

792: J=\frac{1}{2} (n+1)(n+3)\ .

793: \ee%

794: This can be seen from the definition of $\L5$ in terms of the

795: harmonic oscillators and is derived from the number of possible

796: partitions of a given integer into two non-negative integers.

797: 

798: In \cite{tiny} and thus far, we had not given an explicit basis

799: independent definition of $\L5$. Using the above, however, now we

800: have one:

801: 

802: $\L5$ is a $J\by J$ hermitian matrix with

803: \be\label{L5-def}%

804: \L5^2= \left({\xi\theta}\right)^2 {\bf 1}_{J\by J}\ \ \ , \qquad  Tr\L5= 0\ .%

805: \ee%

806:  Note that

807: the expression for $\L5$ given in \eqref{L5matrix} is in the basis

808: where $\L5$ is diagonal and in general $\L5$ is defined up to a

809: (global) $U(J)$ rotation ({\it cf.} \eqref{gauge-trans}).

810: 

811: To complete our construction of the fuzzy three sphere we should

812: specify the relation between radius and size of the matrices $J$.

813: By definition%

814: \be\label{S3-radius}%

815:  \sum_{i=1}^4 (X^i)^2 =R^2_{S^3_f} {\bf 1}_{J\by J}\ ,

816: \ee%

817: where $X^i$'s are given in \eqref{general-soln}. One may start

818: with the $N\by N$ matrices corresponding to an $S^4_f$; {\it i.e.}

819: a spin $n$ representation of $so(5)$ and compute the sum of

820: squares of $X^i$'s where it becomes proportional to the $J\by J$

821: identity matrix. In other words, we are projecting $N\by N$

822: matrices using a projector ${P}_{\cal R}$ where $\sum_{i=1}^4

823: ({P}_{\cal R} X^i {P}_{\cal R})^2 \propto {\bf 1}_{J\by J}$ and

824: consequently $dim

825: {P}_{\cal R}= J$. Performing this calculation we find%

826: \be\label{S3f-radius}%

827: R^2\equiv R^2_{S^3_f}= \frac{1}{2}(n+1)(n+3)\kappa^2\theta^2= J\kappa^2\theta^2.%

828: \ee%

829: 

830: In the solution \eqref{general-soln} there are three parameters,

831: namely $\kappa$, $\xi$ and $\theta$, which are not completely

832: specified so far. There is, however, a relation among these

833: parameters and the tiny graviton matrix theory parameters,

834: \eqref{normalizations} and \eqref{S3f-radius}. Therefore, two of

835: these parameters, which are normalization parameters, are free and

836: we have a choice on fixing them. In our conventions $\theta$ has

837: dimension of length squared and we would like $\L5$ to be

838: dimensionless and $X^i$ of dimension of length.  Hence, $\kappa$

839: should have dimension of one over length and $\xi$ dimension of

840: one over length squared. We choose $\kappa\theta ={l}$, which

841: leads to $\xi\theta=\frac{l}{R}$. $\theta$ is still a free

842: parameter which may be absorbed in the redefinition of $z_\alpha$

843: as $z_{\alpha}/\sqrt{\theta}$. However as we will see in section

844: \ref{mass-deformed} and is discussed in Appendix \ref{appendixB},

845: $\theta=l R$ has a natural physical meaning as the minimal volume

846: which can be measured on a fuzzy four sphere and therefore would

847: prefer to keep $\theta$ in our formulae. In sum,

848: we fix our normalization parameters as%

849: \begin{subequations}\label{normalization-choices}

850: \begin{align}

851: \kappa &=\frac{l}{\theta}=\frac{1}{R}\\

852: \xi & =\frac{l}{R}\cdot \frac{1}{\theta}=\frac{1}{R^2}\\

853: \theta &= l R\ .

854: \end{align}

855: \end{subequations}%

856: Note that $l^2/l^2_s=\mu g_s/R_-$ \eqref{l-fuzziness}.

857: 

858: With the above choice it is easy to see that typically $X^i\sim R$

859: while $\L5\sim \frac{l}{R}$. It is now clear that, as we expected

860: and argued, $\L5$ in the continuum limit, $l\to 0,\ R={\rm

861: fixed}$, goes to zero. We would like to stress a very important

862: outcome of the above construction:

863: \begin{center}

864: { A fuzzy three sphere, due to the fuzziness and the fact that

865: $\L5\neq 0$ (cf. Figure \ref{S4toS3}),\\ is still topologically  a

866: (fuzzy) four sphere.}

867: \end{center}

868: In the continuum limit the width of the $\L5$ strip goes to zero

869: and we recover the usual three sphere. This would have profound

870: physical consequences which will be discussed in detail in section

871: \ref{mass-deformed}.

872: 

873: Before ending this subsection for completeness we briefly review

874: another equivalent construction of $S^3_f$. A more detailed

875: discussion on this method can be found in \cite{sunjay1, sunjay2}.

876: This method is based on group and representation theory of $SO(4)$

877: and $SO(5)$, rather than the four brackets, embedding into an

878: eight dimensional Moyal plane and Hopf fibration. For this, let us

879: start with the construction of the $S^4_f$ presented in Appendix

880: \ref{appendixB}, \ref{group-theory-construct}. Again, we single

881: out one of the $\G^\mu$'s, say $\G^5$, and restrict $\G^5$ to a

882: $J\by J$ sector in which $(\G^5)^2= {\bf 1}_{J\by J}$. The size of

883: the matrices and $n$, as indicated by the group theory

884: \cite{sunjay2}, is exactly given by the equation \eqref{Jvs.n}.

885: 

886: %multi giant

887: \subsection{Multi giant solutions}\label{multi-giant}%

888: Having studied the single giant graviton solution, we use that to

889: construct the most general 1/2 BPS solutions, {\it i.e.} multi

890: giant graviton solutions. This category of solutions to

891: \eqref{master-equations} encompasses spherical gravitons of

892: arbitrary size in $X^i$ and/or $X^a$ subspaces. In what follows we

893: present a detailed study of all possible cases.

894: 

895: \subsubsection{Concentric giants}\label{concentric}%

896: To go one step further and study more general solutions to what we

897: have studied so far, in this part we  search for solutions to

898: \eqref{single} (special case of \eqref{master-equations}) which

899: geometrically describe a number of concentric spheres in either of

900: $SO(4)$ invariant subspaces. Here we consider $X^a=0$ and $X^i\neq

901: 0$ case. Group theoretically it corresponds to reducible

902: representations of $SO(4)$.

903: 

904: This can be obtained by partitioning $J\by J$, $X^i$ matrices into

905: some $J_k\by J_k$ blocks, $X^i_k$ matrices, in such a way that

906: $\sum_{k=1}^m J_k = J$,  where $m$ is the number of spherical

907: gravitons ranging from $1$, corresponding to a single giant giant,

908: to $J$, corresponding to $J$ tiny gravitons. This has been

909: depicted in Figure

910: \ref{Ximulti}.\newline%

911: \begin{figure}[ht]

912: \begin{center}

913: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{XiL5multi.eps}.

914: \caption{$X^i$ corresponding to $m$ concenteric giants and the

915: $\L5$ corresponding to the $k^{th}$ block. The size of the

916: $k^{th}$ three sphere is then $R^2_k\propto J_k$ ({\it cf.}

917: \eqref{S3f-radius}) and hence $\sum_{k=1}^m R^2_k=

918: R^2$.}\label{Ximulti}

919: \end{center}

920: \end{figure}

921: \quad We should emphasize that, as solutions to

922: \eqref{master-equations} and the TGMT, all these solutions must

923: come with the same $\L5$ matrix. In fact noting the

924: \eqref{L5matrix} or \eqref{L5-def} one can observe that this is

925: possible, simply by reshuffling some of $1$'s and $-1$'s in

926: \eqref{L5matrix}.

927: %

928: \subsubsection{Non-concentric giants}\label{non-concentric}%

929: As the next  step, we construct solutions to

930: \eqref{master-equations} where both $X^i$ and $X^a$ are non-zero.

931: To start with we consider solutions which correspond to one giant

932: graviton in $X^i$ and one in $X^a$ directions. In order that, we

933: choose our matrices to have  two copies of the solution we

934: obtained in section \ref{reduction-to-JbyJ}. To realize this

935: solution through oscillator approach we have to start from

936: $\C_\theta^4\times\C_\theta^4$ Moyal complex plane. Since the

937: construction is essentially the same as what we presented in

938: \ref{reduction-to-JbyJ}, we do not repeat the details and only

939: present the final result.

940: 

941: It is easily seen that, by construction, $X^i$ and $X^a$ both

942: satisfy (\ref{master-equations}a) and (\ref{master-equations}b).

943: One should, however, make sure that (\ref{master-equations}c) is

944: also fulfilled. This leads to $X$'s of the form

945: \begin{figure}[h]

946: \begin{center}

947: \be\label{XiXamatrix}

948: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{XiXa.eps}.

949: \ee

950: \end{center}

951: \end{figure}

952: It is readily seen that $J_1+J_2=J$, or equivalently the sum of

953: the radii squares of the two spheres should be equal to the square

954: of the radius of a single giant. It is worth noting that, as it

955: should, $\L5$ has the same form as in \eqref{L5matrix}, but with

956: some of the $1$'s and $-1$'s interchanged,

957: \begin{figure}[h]

958: \begin{center}

959: \be\label{L5iL5amatrix}

960: \includegraphics[scale=0.75]{L5iL5a.eps}.

961: \ee

962: \end{center}

963: \end{figure}

964: %

965: \subsubsection{Generic multi giants}\label{generic-multi-giants}%

966: Finally we can combine the arguments of \ref{concentric} and

967: \ref{non-concentric} sections to construct the most generic

968: solutions to \eqref{master-equations}. These solutions describe

969: arbitrary number of $S^3$ giants in both $X^i$ and $X^a$

970: directions. As depicted in Figure \ref{XiXamultimatrix},

971: coordinates of each spherical graviton come from each block of the

972: partitioned $X^i$ and $X^a$ matrices and the radius squared of

973: each $S^3$ is proportional to  the size of the corresponding

974: block.

975: \begin{figure}[ht]

976: \begin{center}

977: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{XiXamulti.eps}.

978: \caption{$X$'s corresponding to the most generic 1/2 BPS solutions

979: of TGMT.} \label{XiXamultimatrix}

980: \end{center}

981: \end{figure}

982: 

983: It is instructive to compare our solutions to that of BMN matrix

984: theory \cite{BMN} which, as discussed in \cite{tiny}, is nothing

985: but (membrane) tiny graviton matrix theory. There we have  $X^i$

986: and $X^a$ directions but with $i=1,2,3$ and $a=1,2,\cdots ,6$. The

987: zero energy solutions are {\it either} of the form of concentric

988: fuzzy two sphere membranes grown in the $X^i$ directions

989: \cite{DSV1} {\it or} concentric spherical fivebranes grown in the

990: $X^a$ directions \cite{MSV}. In other words, each vacuum has a

991: description in terms of membranes or equivalently described by

992: fivebranes. In \cite{MSV} it was argued that both the membrane and

993: fivebrane vacua can be described by a Young tableau encoding

994: partition of the light-cone momentum $J$ into non-negative

995: integers. Depending whether we focus on the rows or columns of the

996: Young diagram we will see the membrane or the fivebrane

997: description. In this respect this is very similar to our case

998: ({\it cf.} Figure \ref{AdSvsS-giants}), however, now both the

999: $X^i$ or $X^a$ directions correspond to spherical three branes.

1000: 

1001: Compared with the 11 dimensional case of the BMN matrix theory

1002: \cite{DSV1, MSV}, however, the ten dimensional case of this paper

1003: has some specific features.  In the ten dimensional case, as we

1004: have shown one can explicitly construct solutions in which  both

1005: $X^i$ and $X^a$ are non-vanishing. (In fact to the authors'

1006: knowledge for the 11 dimensional case so far there is no explicit

1007: construction of the fivebranes in terms of matrices.) Moreover, in

1008: the ten dimensional case, besides the two possible dual

1009: descriptions in terms of the three sphere giants grown in $X^i$ or

1010: $X^a$ directions, there should be yet another description in terms

1011: of fundamental strings \cite{work-in-progress}.

1012: 

1013: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

1014: %Relation to SYM

1015: \section{Relation to 1/2 BPS States of $\N=4$ $U(N)$ SYM and Their

1016: Gravity Duals}\label{SYM-gravity-relation} The tiny graviton

1017: matrix theory is conjectured to describe DLCQ of strings on the

1018: $AdS_5\times S^5$ background. The latter, however, has another

1019: description in terms of $\N=4$, $D=4$ $U(N)$ SYM theory. As such,

1020: we should be able to show that there is a one-to-one map between

1021: the 1/2 BPS solutions of the two. For that, let us first review

1022: the structure of 1/2 BPS solutions in the $U(N)$ SYM.  The $\N=4$,

1023: $D=4$ $U(N)$ SYM is a superconformal field theory and has a large

1024: supersymmetry group, namely $PSU(2,2|4)$, the  bosonic part of

1025: which is $SO(6)\times SO(4,2)$. All the (gauge invariant)

1026: operators of the gauge theory fall into various (unitary)

1027: representations of this supergroup.  Starting from the

1028: $psu(2,2|4)$ in the appropriate notation, e.g. the one adopted in

1029: \cite{review}, it is straightforward to show that 1/2 BPS states

1030: are those which are invariant under $SO(4)_i\subset SO(4,2)$ and

1031: $SO(4)_a\subset SO(6)$. Besides this $SO(4)\times SO(4)$,  1/2 BPS

1032: operator must be invariant under another $U(1)$, $U(1)_H$. This

1033: $U(1)$ is constructed from $U(1)_{\Delta}$ and $U(1)_J$, where

1034: $SO(4)_i\times U(1)_\Delta\subset SO(4,2)$ and $SO(4)_a\times

1035: U(1)_J\subset SO(6)$, as follows: denote the generators of

1036: $U(1)_\Delta$ and $U(1)_J$ by $\Delta$ and $J$, the generator of

1037: $U(1)_H$ is then $H=\Delta-J$. (Note that $U(1)_\Delta$ is a

1038: non-compact $U(1)$ while $U(1)_J$ is a compact one.) Therefore,

1039: 1/2 BPS states should have $H=0$ and be invariant under

1040: $SO(4)\times SO(4)$. In other words, 1/2 BPS states of the $\N=4,\

1041: D=4$ SYM from the superalgebra viewpoint have exactly the same

1042: quantum numbers as the zero energy solutions of the tiny graviton

1043: matrix theory and naturally fall into the unitary representations

1044: of \super .

1045: 

1046: After this strong indication coming from the superalgebra and its

1047: representations, let us build a more direct relation between our

1048: fuzzy sphere solutions and the gauge theory 1/2 BPS operators. In

1049: the $\N=4$ gauge multiplet we have six real scalars $\phi_A$ which

1050: form a vector of $SO(6)$. Let $\phi_5+i\phi_6=Z$. A generic 1/2

1051: BPS operator, a chiral primary operator, is then a multi-trace

1052: operator only made out of $Z$'s: \be\label{chiral-priamry} {\cal

1053: O}_{\{k_i\}}=\ :TrZ^{k_1}\  TrZ^{k_2}\cdots  TrZ^{k_l}\ : \ee

1054: where the total R-charge (or scaling dimension) of ${\cal

1055: O}_{\{k_i\}}$ is $J=\sum_{i=1}^l k_i$. (There might be some

1056: repeated $k_i$'s.) The ``Tr'' basis is not necessarily an

1057: appropriate one, ${\cal O}_{\{k_i\}}$ and ${\cal O}_{\{k'_i\}}$

1058: are not orthogonal to each other. Instead one may use

1059: ``subdeterminant'' basis \cite{Vijay, Bala-Strassler} or ``Schur

1060: polynomial'' basis \cite{Jevicki, holoshape, deMelloKoch} which

1061: have the orthogonality condition. Consider a Young tableau

1062: consisting of $J$  boxes, this Young diagram represents both a

1063: representation ${\cal R}$ of $U(N)$, and also a representation of

1064: the permutation group of $J$ objects ${\cal S}_J$, $\chi_{\cal

1065: R}$. Hence one may use this observation to construct the Schur

1066: polynomial basis:%

1067: \be\label{Schur-basis}%

1068:  {\cal O}_{{\cal

1069: R}}=\frac{1}{n!}\ \sum_{{i_1}, i_2,\cdots , i_J}\ \

1070: \sum_{\sigma\in {\cal S}_J} \chi_{{\cal R}} \ \

1071: \left(Z^{i_1}_{i_{\sigma(1)}}Z^{i_2}_{i_{\sigma(2)}}\cdots

1072: Z^{i_J}_{i_{\sigma(J)}}\right)\ .%

1073: \ee %

1074: A generic Young diagram is depicted in Figure \ref{AdSvsS-giants}.

1075: In other words, there is a one-to-one map between representations

1076: of permutation group ${\cal S}_J$ and the chiral primary

1077: operators.

1078: 

1079: \begin{figure}[ht]

1080: \begin{center}

1081: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{tableau1.eps}

1082: \caption{Some Young Tableaux with $J$ boxes. (a) A totally

1083: anti-symmetric representation. This corresponds to a single giant

1084: graviton of radius $\sqrt{J}$ grown in $S^5$ {\it or} $J$ tiny

1085: gravitons residing in $AdS_5$. (b) A totally symmetric

1086: representation which corresponds to a single giant graviton in

1087: $AdS_5$ {\it or} $J$ tiny gravitons in $S^5$. (c) A generic Young

1088: tableau of $l$ rows and $J$ boxes. If we view the tableaux from

1089: above (focusing on columns) we see giants grown in $S^5$, and if

1090: we view it from the left side (focusing on rows) we see giants in

1091: $AdS_5$.  In a $U(N)$ Young tableau number of rows cannot exceed

1092: $N$, a realization of the stringy exclusion principle

1093: \cite{MST}.{} From the viewpoint of giants grown in $AdS$,

1094: however, this is the number of concentric 3-branes, and not their

1095: size, which cannot exceed $N$. The fact that each Young tableau

1096: has two interpretations in terms of giants in $S^5$ or $AdS_5$ is

1097: a manifestation of particle-hole duality in the two dimensional

1098: fermion picture discussed in \cite{LLM}.} \label{AdSvsS-giants}

1099: \end{center}

1100: \end{figure}

1101: 

1102: On the other hand there is a one-to-one correspondence between

1103: partitions of $J$ into arbitrary positive integers and the

1104: representations of ${\cal S}_J$. Hence it is evident that there is

1105: a one-to-one correspondence between our generic fuzzy sphere

1106: solutions of section \ref{generic-multi-giants} and the Young

1107: Tableaux with $J$ boxes. In this point of view each box in the

1108: Young tableau corresponds to a tiny graviton.

1109: 

1110: \begin{figure}[ht]

1111: \begin{center}

1112: \includegraphics[scale=0.95]{tableau2.eps}

1113: \caption{A Young tableau of $J$ boxes has three interpretations.

1114: {\it i}) A representation of $U(N)$, {\it ii}) Schur Polynomials

1115: and representation of permutation group ${\cal S}_J$ and {\it

1116: iii}) Partition of $J$ into non-negative integers. The first two

1117: interpretations were noticed in \cite{LLM, Berenstein,

1118: deMelloKoch} as discussed there, they lead to an equivalent

1119: description of all 1/2 BPS configurations of $\N=4$ $U(N)$ SYM in

1120: terms of two dimensional fermion system. The third one, however,

1121: is the one, is relevant to the 1/2 BPS

1122: solutions of the TGMT.} \label{tableau-partion}

1123: \end{center}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: We would also like to briefly comment on the relation to the

1126: supergravity solutions corresponding to the above 1/2 BPS states,

1127: recently constructed by Lin-Lunin-Maldacena \cite{LLM}. However,

1128: first we need to review another equivalent description of the 1/2

1129: BPS opterators of the $\N=4$ $U(N)$ gauge theory: A system of $N$

1130: two dimensional fermions in harmonic oscillator potential. To see

1131: this recall that the part of the $\N=4$ $U(N)$ gauge theory on

1132: $R\times S^3$, relevant for the dynamics of  chiral primary

1133: operators, in the temporal gauge, takes a very simple form:%

1134: \be\label{Z-action}%

1135:  S=\frac{1}{g^2_{YM}} \int d\tau \

1136: Tr\left(\partial_\tau Z^\dagger\partial_\tau Z- Z^\dagger

1137: Z\right)\ .

1138: \ee%

1139:  The simplifications leading to the above action

1140: come from two sources: 1) the chiral primaries, among all the

1141: fields present in a $\N=4$ gauge multiplet, only involve $Z$'s

1142: and; 2) to be 1/2 BPS they should be invariant under $SO(4)$

1143: acting on $S^3$ that the gauge theory is defined on. Therefore, we

1144: can perform integration over the $S^3$ to remain with a one

1145: dimensional  action \eqref{Z-action}. The mass term for $Z$ is the

1146: conformal mass present for all of six scalars (and fermions) of

1147: the $\N=4$ SYM on $R\times S^3$. The action \eqref{Z-action} which

1148: governs the dynamics of the chiral primary operators is nothing

1149: but the action for a bunch of decoupled harmonic oscillators all

1150: with the same frequency (note that $Z$'s are $N\by N$ matrices).

1151: One can still use the (global) $U(N)$ gauge transformations to

1152: bring $Z$'s to a diagonal form. These $N$ eigenvalues can directly

1153: be related to physical gauge invariant operators. In fact the

1154: eigenvalues correspond to position of $N$ two dimensional fermions

1155: in a harmonic oscillator potential. (If we choose to work with

1156: diagonal matrices, we should then add the Van der monde

1157: determinant, which in turn leads to the fermionic nature of the

1158: eigenvalues \cite{Brezin}.)

1159: 

1160: 

1161: 

1162: In the two dimensional fermions viewpoint every chiral primary

1163: corresponds to a distribution of fermions or a ``droplet'' in the

1164: fermion phase space. In a recent work Lin-Lunin-Maldacena (LLM)

1165: \cite{LLM} have constructed the supergravity solutions

1166: corresponding to each droplet. That is, they have shown that there

1167: is a one-to-one map between the 1/2 BPS type IIB supergravity

1168: solutions with \super\ supersymmetry and the $N$ 2d fermion phase

1169: space. These solutions, as supergravity solutions, correspond to

1170: various {\it classical} giant gravitons in the $AdS_5\times S^5$

1171: or the plane-wave \bg . We have discussed that there is a

1172: one-to-one correspondence between  our 1/2 BPS solutions and the

1173: $\N=4$ gauge theory, hence we expect that our multi-fuzzy sphere

1174: solutions to be associated with the {\it quantized}  LLM

1175: backgrounds. It is, however, hard to directly construct classical

1176: \bg\ metrics corresponding to a given Matrix theory

1177: configurations. This is also the case for BFSS Matrix Theory or

1178: its variants. Nonetheless, it should be possible to extract some

1179: information about the blackholes and their entropy from the matrix

1180: theory. We hope to address this question in future works.

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: 

1185: 

1186: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

1187: %Relation to mass deformed

1188: \section{Relation to Mass Deformed $D=3,\ \N=8$ SCFT}\label{mass-deformed}

1189: As discussed in \cite{tiny}  and reviewed in section

1190: \ref{review-section}, the TGMT Hamiltonian is obtained  from

1191: quantization (discretization) of a {3-brane} Hamiltonian in the

1192: plane-wave background, once the light-cone gauge is fixed. In the

1193: process of quantization, we prescribed to replace the classical

1194: Nambu 3-brackets, which naturally appear in the 3-brane action,

1195: with quantized Nambu 4-brackets. For that, however, we need to

1196: introduce a given fixed matrix, $\L5$. In this section we intend

1197: to clarify the role and physical significance of the $\L5$ and

1198: justify our prescription for quantization of Nambu 3-brackets.

1199: 

1200: In order that we recall the standard string/M-theory dualities and

1201: that type IIB string theory is related to M-theory on a $T^2$,

1202: under which an M5-brane (wrapping the $T^2$) is mapped to a

1203: D3-brane. On the other hand, the TGMT is a quantized 3-brane

1204: theory. Therefore, we propose that:

1205: \begin{quote}

1206: { The TGMT can also be thought as a quantized M5-brane theory,

1207: $\L5$ is indeed the reminiscent of the 11$^{th}$ circle and the

1208: three sphere giants are M5-branes with the worldvolume ${\mathbb

1209: R}^{2+1}\times S^3$. The ${\mathbb R}^2$ part is in fact

1210: compactified over the $T^2$ which relates M and type IIB theories,

1211: one of the directions in  $T^2$ is then along the $\L5$ and the

1212: other one is along the $X^-$ direction.}

1213: \end{quote}

1214: %\newline

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \subsection*{\ \ \ \ Evidence for the proposal}

1218: To present some pieces of evidence in support of the above

1219: proposal we first, very briefly, review the results and arguments

1220: of Bena-Warner \cite{BW}, which may also be found in \cite{LLM},

1221: where a class of 1/2 BPS solutions to 11 dimensional supergravity

1222: has been constructed. These solutions asymptote to $AdS_4\times

1223: S^7$ and, as discussed in \cite{BW}, correspond to M2-branes

1224: dielectrically polarized into M5-branes. In these solutions the

1225: $S^7$ has been deformed in such a way that its $SO(8)$ isometry is

1226: reduced to $SO(4)\times SO(4)$. Physically these solutions

1227: correspond to (near horizon geometry of) a stack of M2-branes

1228: along $X^0,X^1, X^2$ directions and M5-branes along $X^0,X^1,X^2$

1229: while their other three directions wrap an $S^3$ in the directions

1230: transverse to the M2-branes. Hence, the worldvolume of the

1231: M5-branes is on ${\mathbb R}^{2+1}\times S^3$. {}From the gravity

1232: viewpoint this deformed $AdS_4\times S^7$ is obtained by turning

1233: on a four-form flux through either of the $S^3$'s and the other

1234: remaining direction in $S^7$. (In our analysis we take this

1235: ${\mathbb R}^2$ to be compactified on an $S^1\times S^1$.) Due to

1236: the existence of the four-form flux one of this $S^1$ directions

1237: combine with one of the $S^3$'s to {topologically} form an $S^4$;

1238: the M5-branes then wrap the other $S^3$ \cite{LLM}.

1239: 

1240: This deformation of $AdS_4\times S^7$ has a dual description in

1241: terms of mass deformed three dimensional ${\cal N}=8$ SCFT. The

1242: mass deformation, which corresponds to the four-form flux through

1243: the $S^3$ in the supergravity solution, breaks the $SO(8)$

1244: $R$-symmetry of the SCFT to a $SO(4)\times SO(4)$ subgroup, as

1245: well as half of the supersymmetry.

1246: 

1247: The isometries of this solution include two translations along

1248: the M2-brane worldvolume. Following \cite{BW, LLM}, one may

1249: U-dualize this solution along this ${\mathbb R}^2$ down to type

1250: IIB supergravity. In the type IIB, however, the M5-branes appear

1251: as three sphere giant gravitons. One of the U-duality directions

1252: after the duality appear as the $X^-$ direction in our ten

1253: dimensional plane-wave \bg . In our DLCQ description this

1254: direction is compact with the radius $R_-/\mu$ (in units of

1255: $l_s$). We propose that the other one has a non-trivial appearance

1256: in our TGMT Hamiltonian through the $\L5$. In other words, the

1257: TGMT already knows about the 11 dimensional origin of the type IIB

1258: string theory.

1259: 

1260: As the first piece of evidence recall that, as we discussed and

1261: emphasized in section \ref{single-giant-section}, a fuzzy three

1262: sphere which is a {\it quantized} three sphere giant, is

1263: topologically a four sphere. The $\L5$, which is the reminiscent

1264: of the (fuzzy) four sphere we started with, has a non-vanishing

1265: extent, {\it cf.} Figure \ref{S4toS3}. The non-zero extent of

1266: $\L5$ is a ``quantum'' effect and therefore the 11 dimensional

1267: origin of the TGMT is a result of {\it quantization} of type IIB

1268: string theory. Recalling that $\L5\sim l/R$, in the classical

1269: limit, $l\to 0$, $R$=fixed, $\L5$ goes to zero and hence we

1270: reproduce the usual ten dimensional type IIB theory.

1271: 

1272: As a more quantitative evidence, we note the relation between the

1273: fuzziness, $g_s$ and $R_-$ \eqref{l-fuzziness}, which can be

1274: written as \be\label{gs-Rmul}

1275: g_s=\frac{{R_-}/{\mu}}{{l^2}/{l_s^2}}. \ee The above should be

1276: compared with the expression for the coupling of type IIB string

1277: theory obtained from M-theory on $T^2$. If the radii of the two

1278: cycles in $T^2$ are $R_1, R_2$, then $g_s=R_1/R_2$, e.g. see

1279: \cite{Townsend}. If we identify $R_1$ with $R_-/\mu$, then

1280: \eqref{gs-Rmul} implies that $R_2=l^2/l_s^2$. \footnote{Here we

1281: assume that $R_1$ and $R_2$ are both measured in the same units,

1282: e.g. $l_s$ or 11 dimensional Planck length and hence work with

1283: dimensionless quantities.}

1284: 

1285: Next, we note that as a direction in a fuzzy four sphere the width

1286: of the $\L5$ strip in units of $l_s$ is $\delta X^5=L\L5\sim L

1287: l/R$, where $L^4$ is the smallest volume one can measure on an

1288: $S^4_f$, {\it cf.} discussions at the end of Appendix

1289: \ref{appendixB}. Using

1290: \eqref{L4=l2R2} we have%

1291: \be\label{deltaX5}%

1292:  \delta X^5=\frac{lR}{l_s^2}\cdot \frac{l}{R}=\frac{l^2}{l_s^2}\ ,%

1293:  \ee%

1294: which is what we expected for $R_2$ from a $T^2$ compactification

1295: of M-theory. This is a remarkable result because reproduction of

1296: the standard string/M-theory dualities and their implications is

1297: among the strong supportive evidence for the TGMT conjecture.

1298: 

1299: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

1300: %Discussion and Outlook

1301: \section{Discussion and Outlook}\label{discussion-section}

1302: 

1303: As a start to a detailed analysis of the tiny graviton matrix

1304: theory (TGMT), in this paper we studied the zero energy 1/2 BPS

1305: configurations of the theory. These solutions are labeled by

1306: reducible or irreducible $J\by J$ representations of $SO(4)$ and

1307: physically correspond to various giant gravitons of different

1308: size, extended in $X^i$ and/or $X^a$ directions.

1309: 

1310: 

1311: Recently there have been an interest in better understanding of

1312: similar 1/2 BPS configurations  in the context of usual AdS/CFT

1313: correspondence in both gauge theory \cite{Berenstein} and gravity

1314: \cite{LLM} sides. The interest in the 1/2 BPS configurations is

1315: motivated by the fact that these 1/2 BPS states may help us with

1316: pushing the analysis of AdS/CFT to beyond the supergravity limit.

1317: In this respect our analysis parallels these studies, though in

1318: the context of the TGMT which is conjectured to be a

1319: non-perturbative, exact description of DLCQ of type IIB strings on

1320: $AdS_5\times S^5$. Of course, analysis of the 1/2 BPS states is a

1321: part of a bigger problem, which has been depicted in Figure

1322: \ref{triality}. In \cite{tiny} and also in this work we have tried

1323: to, at least, start addressing the AdS-TGMT-CFT triality. In this

1324: direction we have noted that a Young tableau can simultaneously

1325: label all the 1/2 BPS states/configurations of the $\N=4, D=4$

1326: $U(N)$ SYM, type IIB supergravity \cite{LLM} and also TGMT, see

1327: Figure \ref{tableau-partion}. It is very desirable to expand our

1328: understanding of the triality, which is postponed to future works.

1329: One interesting question is whether the two dimensional fermions

1330: of \cite{LLM, Berenstein} has a closer relation to the tiny

1331: gravitons \cite{work-in-progress}. Among the points and puzzles to

1332: be understood in this direction we should mention the fact that

1333: size of the matrices corresponding to a single fuzzy sphere

1334: solution, $J$, is fixed once we identify a quantum giant graviton

1335: as a fuzzy three sphere. In particular $J$ cannot take any

1336: arbitrary value ({\it cf.} eq.(3.16)). This rises the puzzle that

1337: in the gauge theory we can have e.g. subdeterminant operators with

1338: arbitrary length (or R-charge). Resolution of this puzzle is

1339: postponed to a future work \cite{work-in-progress}.

1340: 

1341: \begin{figure}[ht]

1342: \begin{center}

1343: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{triality.eps}

1344: \caption{The AdS-TGMT-CFT triality}\label{triality}

1345: \end{center}

1346: \end{figure}

1347: 

1348: One of the basic ingredients used in the formulation of  TGMT is

1349: the fact that the gauge symmetry of $m$ coincident giant

1350: gravitons, similarly to the flat D-branes, is $U(m)$. There have been

1351: two independent arguments in support of  this property

1352: \cite{Hedgehog, Vijay}. Noting a generic Young tableau we already

1353: see strong indications for this, see Figure

1354: \ref{Young-tableau-U(m)}. It is, however, instructive to re-derive

1355: the same fact from the TGMT. As the first step in this direction

1356: one may start with working out a configuration in TGMT

1357: corresponding to the giant hedge-hogs of \cite{Hedgehog}, the

1358: ``fuzzy giant hedge-hogs''.

1359: \begin{figure}[ht]

1360: \begin{center}

1361: \includegraphics[scale=1]{tableau3.eps}

1362: \caption{The ``fluctuations'' above the Young tableau

1363: corresponding to $n$ coincident giants in $AdS$ or $m$ coincident

1364: giants in $S^5$ can be thought as a Young tableau for states in a

1365: $U(n)$ or $U(m)$ gauge theory.}\label{Young-tableau-U(m)}

1366: \end{center}

1367: \end{figure}

1368: 

1369: As we have seen so far giant gravitons, and not fundamental

1370: strings of type IIB, naturally appear in the TGMT. The first

1371: question to ask is where are the type IIB fundamental strings. In

1372: \cite{tiny} there was a proposal that the $X=0$ vacuum corresponds

1373: to single string vacuum, around which fundamental strings appear

1374: as non-perturbative objects. In addition to the single string

1375: vacuum, we need to work out the details of multi-string vacua.

1376: Moreover, as TGMT is a formulation of type IIB string theory with

1377: compact $X^-$ direction, to specify the string vacuum states

1378: besides the light-cone momentum we should also give the winding

1379: number.\footnote{ We would like to thank Juan Maldacena for his

1380: comment on this issue.} Besides the vacuum states it is

1381: interesting to make connection between the TGMT description of

1382: type IIB strings on the ten dimensional plane-wave and the string

1383: bit model of Verlinde \cite{Stringbits}.

1384: 

1385: In section \ref{review-section} we gave an argument that the {\it

1386: classical} size of a tiny graviton is $l$. Through a detailed

1387: analysis of the fuzzy three sphere solutions, however, we found

1388: that {\it quantum} mechanically the smallest volume that one can

1389: probe on an $S^3_f$ is in principle much larger than $l^4$, that

1390: is $L^4$ \eqref{L4=l2R2}. It is interesting to compare $L$ with

1391: the ten dimensional Planck length $l_p$. Combining,

1392: \eqref{tiny-size},

1393: \eqref{L4=l2R2} and \eqref{S3f-radius} we obtain%

1394: \be\label{Lvs.lp}%

1395: L^2=\sqrt{\frac{J}{N}}l^2_p\ . %

1396: \ee%

1397: When the stringy exclusion relation discussed in \cite{MST} is

1398: saturated, {\it i.e.} $J\sim N$, $L\sim l_p$ and hence in this

1399: case $l_p$ is indeed the smallest physical length that one can

1400: probe.

1401: 

1402: In constructing our solutions we used an embedding of the fuzzy

1403: three spheres in  $\C^4_\theta\times \C^4_\theta$. It is amusing

1404: to see whether these two copies of the eight dimensional Moyal plane are

1405: just mathematical tools or have a more physical meaning. As a

1406: relevant point we note that the minimal physical length scale of

1407: the TGMT is $L$ which is equal to the noncommutativity

1408: scale on these Moyal planes \eqref{theta-L2}.

1409: 

1410: In the Appendix \ref{harmonic-oscil-construct} we reviewed and

1411: elaborated on a new method of construction of fuzzy spheres based

1412: on embedding them into higher dimensional Moyal planes. This

1413: method works perfectly well for the cases where the sphere admits

1414: a Hopf fibration. There are, however, only four such possibilities

1415: somehow related to the fact that the division algebras are only

1416: limited to real ${\mathbb R}$, complex $\C$, quaternion ${\mathbb

1417: H}$ and octonions ${\mathbb O}$. Among these cases we have used

1418: the first three and only the last one, which leads to a Hopf

1419: fibration of an $S^{15}$ with an $S^8$ base is remaining. One may

1420: use this and discussions of \ref{harmonic-oscil-construct} to

1421: construct a description of $S^8_f$ and $S^7_f$ by embedding them

1422: into a $\C^8_\theta$.

1423: 

1424: As discussed in section \ref{mass-deformed} the TGMT is related to

1425: a mass deformed $D=3, \N=8$ SCFT, which in turn is also related to

1426: specific deformations of the $D=6$ $(0,2)$ SCFT. (The latter can

1427: be understood because in the Bena-Warner solutions \cite{BW},

1428: besides a stack of M2-branes we have  M5-branes with worldvolume

1429: ${\mathbb R}^{2+1}\times S^3$.) Unfortunately we do not have an

1430: action for neither of the three and six dimensional SCFTs. Recently

1431: there has been a proposal for obtaining an action for the $D=3$

1432: SCFTs \cite{Schwarz}. In view of the above connections, it is an

1433: interesting problem to check if TGMT and/or the idea of quantized

1434: Nambu $p$-brackets can help with finding an action for either of

1435: the two SCFTs.

1436: 

1437: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

1438: %Acknowledgment

1439: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1440: We would like to thank Seif Randjbar-Daemi for discussions. It is

1441: a pleasure to thank the Abdus Salam ICTP, where a substantial part

1442: of this project was done. M.M.Sh-J would like to acknowledge

1443: partial financial support by NSF grant PHY-9870115 and funds from

1444: the Stanford ITP.\ M.T would like to thank Center of Excellence in

1445: Physics at the Physics department of Sharif University for its

1446: partial financial support.

1447: %This work is in part supported by the Iranian TWAS and chapter based

1448: %at ISMO.

1449: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

1450: %Appendices

1451: \appendix

1452: \section{Conventions and Identities}\label{convention}

1453: In our construction of the fuzzy four sphere, $S^4_f$, which will

1454: be reviewed in the next Appendix, we need to develop some

1455: identities involving $spin(5)$ gamma matrices. These are

1456: essentially the usual four dimensional Dirac matrices which obey

1457: the anticommutation relation, Clifford algebra \be

1458: \l\{\gamma_i,\gamma_j\r\} = 2\delta_{ij}{\bf 1_{4\by4}} \ ,\ \ \ \

1459: \ \ i,j=1,2,3,4.

1460: \ee%

1461: We follow the conventions in which the Dirac gamma matrices are

1462: \begin{equation}\label{gamma-convention}

1463: \gamma^{i} = \left(\begin{matrix} 0 && \sigma^i \\

1464: \bar\sigma^i && 0 \end{matrix}\right),\ \gamma^5 =

1465: \left(\begin{matrix} \mathbf{-1_{2\times2}} && 0 \\ 0 &&

1466: \mathbf{1_{2\times2}} \end{matrix}\right),\ \mathbf{1_{4\times4}}

1467: = \left(\begin{matrix} \mathbf{1_{2\times2}} && 0 \\ 0 &&

1468: \mathbf{1_{2\times2}} \end{matrix}\right).

1469: \end{equation}

1470: where

1471: \begin{equation}\label{sigma-sigma-bar}

1472: \sigma^i = (\mathbf{1_{2\times2}}, -i\vec{\sigma}_{pauli}),\

1473: \bar\sigma^i = (\mathbf{1_{2\times2}}, i\vec{\sigma}_{pauli})

1474: \end{equation}

1475: with the $\vec{\sigma}_{pauli}$ being the standard Pauli sigma

1476: matrices:

1477: \begin{equation}

1478: \sigma^1 = \left(\begin{matrix}  0 && 1 \\ 1 && 0

1479: \end{matrix}\right),\ \sigma^2 = \left(\begin{matrix}  0 && -i \\ i &&

1480: 0 \end{matrix}\right),\ \sigma^3 = \left(\begin{matrix}  1 && 0 \\

1481: 0 && -1 \end{matrix}\right),\ \mathbf{1_{2\times2}} =

1482: \left(\begin{matrix} 1 && 0 \\ 0 && 1 \end{matrix}\right)\ .

1483: \end{equation}

1484: In \eqref{gamma-convention}

1485: $\gamma^5=\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3\gamma^4=\frac{1}{4!}\epsilon_{ijkl}

1486: \gamma^i\gamma^j\gamma^k\gamma^l$.

1487: 

1488: In our conventions,

1489: \begin{eqnarray}

1490:  2\gamma^{ij}\equiv[\gamma^i,\gamma^j] = \left(\begin{matrix} \sigma^{ij} && 0 \nn\\

1491: 0 && \bar\sigma^{ij} \end{matrix}\right) \nn,\qquad

1492: \gamma^i\gamma^5 = \left(\begin{matrix} 0 && -\sigma^i \nn\\

1493: \bar\sigma^i && 0 \end{matrix}\right)

1494: \end{eqnarray}

1495: and also \be [\gamma^i,\gamma^j\gamma^5] = 2\delta^{ij}\gamma^5 \

1496: , \ee where

1497: \begin{eqnarray}

1498: \sigma^{ij}\equiv \sigma^i\bar\sigma^j-\sigma^j\bar\sigma^i ,

1499: &\qquad&

1500: \bar\sigma^{ij} \equiv \bar\sigma^i\sigma^j-\bar\sigma^j\sigma^i \nn\\

1501: \sigma^i\bar\sigma^j+\sigma^j\bar\sigma^i = 2\delta^{ij},&\qquad&

1502: \bar\sigma^i\sigma^j+\bar\sigma^j\sigma^i = 2\delta^{ij}\ . \nn

1503: \end{eqnarray}

1504: 

1505: $\gamma^{ij}$'s constitute a $4\by 4$ representation for the

1506: generators of the $spin(4)$ algebra. If we add $\gamma^i\gamma^5$

1507: to this collection, we have a representation of $spin(5)$; and the

1508: set of $\{\gamma^{ij},\ \gamma^i\gamma^5,\ \gamma^i, \gamma^5\}$

1509: would give the representation of the $spin(6)=su(4)$ algebra.

1510: 

1511: Next we list some useful identities involving $\sigma^i$ and

1512: $\bar\sigma^i$:

1513: \begin{equation}

1514: %\begin{array}{lcl}

1515: \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijkl}\sigma^{ij}

1516: =\epsilon^{ijkl}\sigma^i\bar\sigma^j = +\sigma^{kl}\ \ ,\qquad

1517: \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijkl}\bar\sigma^{ij}=\epsilon^{ijkl}\bar\sigma^i\sigma^j

1518: = -\bar\sigma^{kl}

1519: %\end{array}

1520: \ee

1521: 

1522: \begin{eqnarray}

1523: (\sigma^i)_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^i)_{\lambda\rho}=

1524: (\bar\sigma^i)_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^i)_{\lambda\rho} &=& +2

1525: (\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\lambda\rho}-\delta_{\alpha\rho}\delta_{\beta\lambda})

1526: \nn\\

1527: (\sigma^i)_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^i)_{\lambda\rho} =

1528: (\bar\sigma^i)_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^i)_{\lambda\rho} &=&

1529: +2\delta_{\alpha\rho}\delta_{\beta\lambda}

1530: \end{eqnarray}

1531: \begin{eqnarray}

1532: (\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^i)_{\gamma\lambda} &=&

1533: %+2(E_{\alpha\gamma\zeta\delta}\bar\sigma^j_{\zeta\beta}-

1534: %\Delta_{\zeta\delta\beta\gamma}\sigma^j_{\alpha\zeta}) =

1535: +2(\delta_{\gamma\lambda}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\beta}-

1536: \delta_{\alpha\lambda}\bar\sigma^j_{\gamma\beta}-

1537: \delta_{\beta\gamma}\sigma^j_{\alpha\lambda}) \nn\\

1538: (\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^i)_{\gamma\lambda} &=&

1539: %+2(E_{\alpha\gamma\zeta\delta}\sigma^j_{\zeta\beta}-

1540: %\Delta_{\zeta\delta\beta\gamma}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\zeta}) =

1541: +2(\delta_{\gamma\lambda}\sigma^j_{\alpha\beta}-

1542: \delta_{\alpha\lambda}\sigma^j_{\gamma\beta}-

1543: \delta_{\beta\gamma}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\lambda}) \\

1544: (\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^i)_{\gamma\lambda} &=&

1545: %-2(E_{\zeta\gamma\beta\delta}\sigma^j_{\alpha\zeta}-

1546: %\Delta_{\alpha\delta\zeta\gamma}\bar\sigma^j_{\zeta\beta}) =

1547: -2(\delta_{\gamma\lambda}\sigma^j_{\alpha\beta}-

1548: \delta_{\alpha\lambda}\bar\sigma^j_{\gamma\beta}-

1549: \delta_{\beta\gamma}\sigma^j_{\alpha\lambda}) \nn\\

1550: (\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^i)_{\gamma\lambda} &=&

1551: %-2(E_{\zeta\gamma\beta\delta}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\zeta}-

1552: %\Delta_{\alpha\delta\zeta\gamma}\sigma^j_{\zeta\beta}) =

1553: -2(\delta_{\gamma\lambda}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\beta}-

1554: \delta_{\alpha\lambda}\sigma^j_{\gamma\beta}-

1555: \delta_{\beta\gamma}\bar\sigma^j_{\alpha\lambda}) \nn

1556: \end{eqnarray}

1557: \begin{eqnarray}

1558: (\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^{ij})_{\gamma\lambda} =

1559: (\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\gamma\lambda}&=&

1560: %+8(E_{\alpha\gamma\zeta\eta}E_{\zeta\eta\beta\delta}-

1561: %\Delta_{\zeta\delta\zeta\eta}\Delta_{\zeta\eta\beta\gamma})=

1562: 16(\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\gamma\lambda}-2\delta_{\alpha\delta}

1563: \delta_{\gamma\beta}) \\

1564: %+8(E_{\alpha\gamma\zeta\eta}E_{\zeta\eta\beta\delta}-

1565: %\Delta_{\zeta\delta\zeta\eta}\Delta_{\zeta\eta\beta\gamma})=

1566: %16\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\gamma\lambda} \\

1567: (\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\gamma\lambda} =

1568: (\bar\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^{ij})_{\gamma\lambda} &=& 0

1569: \nn

1570: %-8(E_{\alpha\zeta\eta\delta}E_{\zeta\gamma\beta\eta}-

1571: %\delta_{\alpha\zeta}\delta_{\eta\gamma}\Delta_{\zeta\delta\beta\eta})=0 \nn\\

1572: %

1573: %-8(E_{\alpha\zeta\eta\delta}E_{\zeta\gamma\beta\eta}-

1574: %\Delta_{\alpha\zeta\eta\gamma}\Delta_{\zeta\delta\beta\eta})=0

1575: \end{eqnarray}%

1576: 

1577: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

1578: \section{Nambu Brackets and Fuzzy Spheres}\label{appendixB}

1579: As fuzzy spheres are the crucial ingredients in our solutions to

1580: the zero energy half BPS configurations of the tiny graviton

1581: matrix theory in this appendix we present a brief review on the

1582: fuzzy spheres. There are two equivalent approaches for the

1583: construction of fuzzy spheres. The first, which also historically

1584: came earlier, is based on  finding finite dimensional

1585: representations of $SO(d+1)$ (more precisely $spin(d+1)$) for a

1586: fuzzy $d$-sphere, $S^d_f$. This construction was first proposed

1587: for a two sphere \cite{Madore} and then extended to four

1588: \cite{Grosse} and to  higher dimensional spheres \cite{sunjay2}.

1589: The second construction which were first introduced and emphasized

1590: in \cite{tiny} is more geometrical, and is based on the

1591: ``quantization'' of the ``Nambu brackets'' \cite{Nambu}. Nambu

1592: brackets encode the isometries of the spheres. That is this second

1593: method which paves the way for the quantization of the giant

1594: gravitons, which in turn leads to the matrix theory description of

1595: the DLCQ of string/M- theory on the plane-wave backgrounds

1596: \cite{tiny}. Hence, in \ref{Nambu-brackets} we review Nambu

1597: brackets which are generalized form of the Poisson bracket and

1598: prescribe a consistent way to quantize them. In

1599: \ref{fuzzy-spheres}, using the definition of round spheres through

1600: Nambu brackets we present the definition of fuzzy spheres and then

1601: try to construct explicit solutions for the fuzzy two and four

1602: sphere cases.

1603: 

1604: \subsection{Nambu brackets}\label{Nambu-brackets}

1605: In this subsection we give the definition of Nambu brackets and

1606: prescribe how to quantize them consistently to make multilinear

1607: commutators.

1608: 

1609: \subsubsection*{Classical Nambu $p$-brackets}%

1610: A Nambu $p$-bracket is defined among $p$ functions

1611: $\F_i(\sigma^r), r,p=1,\dots,p$ as%

1612: \be\label{Nambu-p-bracket} \l\{\F_1,\F_2,\dots,\F_p\r\} \equiv

1613: \epsilon^{r_1r_2\cdots

1614: r_p}\frac{\partial\F_1}{\partial\sigma^{r_1}}

1615: \frac{\partial\F_2}{\partial\sigma^{r_p}}\dots

1616: \frac{\partial\F_p}{\partial\sigma^{r_p}}\ ,

1617: \ee%

1618: where $\F_i$ are functions on a $p$-dimensional space

1619: parameterized by $\sigma^r$. Obviously for $p=2$

1620: \eqref{Nambu-p-bracket} reduces to the standard Poisson bracket.

1621: These brackets, as enumerated in \cite{tiny}, have five important

1622: properties: cyclicity, (generalized) Jacobi identity,

1623: associativity, trace and by-part integration properties.

1624: 

1625: \subsubsection*{Quantization of Nambu $p$-brackets}

1626: 

1627: In order to pass to quantum (fuzzy, discretized or noncommutative)

1628: physics, we generalize the standard prescription, namely start

1629: from Hamilton-Jacobi formalism, substitute functions of phase

1630: space coordinates with operators (matrices) acting on Hilbert

1631: space, the Nambu brackets with multilinear

1632: commutators (quantized Nabmu brackets) and integrals with trace, {\it i.e.}%

1633: \begin{subequations}\label{evenpriscription}

1634: \begin{align}

1635: \F \longleftrightarrow \hat{\F} \qquad &;\qquad

1636: \int d^p\sigma \longleftrightarrow Tr \\

1637: \l\{\F_1,\cdots,\F_p\r\} \longleftrightarrow

1638: \frac{1}{(i\hbar)^{p/2}}[\hat{\F}_1,\cdots,\hat{\F}_p]&\equiv

1639: \frac{1}{(i\hbar)^{p/2}}\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{p}}

1640: \hat{\F}_{i_1}\hat{\F}_{i_2}\cdots\hat{\F}_{i_p}

1641: \end{align}

1642: \end{subequations}

1643: This prescription only works for even dimensional spaces ($p=2k$),

1644: more precisely, for even case commutators it has   the crucial

1645: properties of the Nambu brackets we mentioned above, that is

1646: cyclicity, generalized Jacobi identity and by-part and trace

1647: property. Note, however, that with (\ref{evenpriscription}b) we

1648: have lost associativity \cite{Zachos, tiny}.

1649: 

1650: As for the odd case ($p=2k-1$), besides the associativity we also

1651: lose the physically very important trace and by-part integration

1652: properties. To overcome that problem, in \cite{tiny} it was

1653: proposed to replace an odd $p$-bracket with an even

1654: $(p+1)$-bracket and then again use (\ref{evenpriscription}b). In

1655: order that, we should introduce a fixed matrix, a non-dynamical

1656: operator, $\Lodd$ (at least in string theory and in the case of

1657: fuzzy odd spheres we have strong evidence where it comes from,

1658: e.g. see discussions of \cite{tiny} and also section

1659: \ref{mass-deformed}).

1660: The prescription for quantization of odd brackets is then%

1661: \be\label{oddpriscription}%

1662:  \F \longleftrightarrow \hat{\F}

1663: \ ;\ \l\{\F_1,\cdots,\F_{2k-1}\r\} \longleftrightarrow

1664: \frac{1}{(i\hbar)^{k}}\l[\hat{\F}_1,\cdots,\hat{\F}_{2k-1},\Lodd\r]

1665: \ ;\  \int d^{2k-1}\sigma \longleftrightarrow Tr\ .

1666: \ee%

1667: 

1668: \subsection{Fuzzy spheres}\label{fuzzy-spheres}

1669: Any round (classical, continuous, commutative) $d$-sphere with

1670: radius $R$

1671: should satisfy these constraints as defining properties%

1672: \be\label{classical-sphere-def}

1673:  \sum _{\mu=1}^{d+1}(X^\mu)^2 = R^2 \qquad;\qquad

1674: \{X^{\mu_1},X^{\mu_2},\cdots,X^{\mu_d}\} =

1675: R^{d-1}\epsilon^{\mu_1\cdots

1676: \mu_{d+1}}X^{\mu_{d+1}}. \ee%

1677: The $d+1$ embedding coordinates $X^{\mu}$ rotate as a vector under

1678: the isometry symmetry of the $d$-sphere, $SO(d+1)$. In fact the

1679: bracket equation in \eqref{classical-sphere-def} is a

1680: manifestation of the $SO(d+1)$ isometry. (Note that $SO(d+1)$ has

1681: only two invariant tensors, the metric $\delta_{\mu\nu}$ and

1682: $\epsilon^{\mu_1\cdots \mu_{d+1}}$.)

1683: 

1684: In order to pass to the fuzzy (discretized or noncommutative)

1685: $d$-sphere, we follow the prescription for quantizing Nambu

1686: brackets presented above. Let us first start with a fuzzy even

1687: sphere. A fuzzy $2k$ sphere, $S^{2k}_f$, is defined through

1688: \be\label{fuzzyevensphere} \sum_{\mu=1}^{2k+1}(X^\mu)^2 = R^2

1689: \qquad;\qquad \l[X^{\mu_1},X^{\mu_2},\cdots,X^{\mu_{2k}}\r] =

1690: i^k\lambda^{2k-1}\epsilon^{\mu_1\mu_2\cdots\mu_{2k+1}}X^{\mu_{2k+1}}, %

1691: \ee%

1692: which leads to

1693: \[

1694: \epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_{2k+1}}X^{i_1}X^{i_2}\cdots X^{i_{2k+1}}

1695: = i^k\lambda^{2k-1}R^2.

1696: \]

1697: In the above, we have defined the ``${\hbar}$'' ({\it cf.}

1698: (\ref{evenpriscription}b)) as $(\lambda/R)^{(2k-1)/k}$ and

1699: $\lambda$, which in a sense quantifies how much our sphere is far

1700: from the classical sphere, will be called the ``fuzziness''.

1701: 

1702: Similarly for the fuzzy odd-spheres%

1703: \be\label{fuzzyoddsphere} \sum_{i=1}^{2k}(X^i)^2 = R^2

1704: \qquad;\qquad \l[X^{i_1},X^{i_2},\cdots,X^{i_{2k-1}},\Lodd\r] =

1705: i^kl^{2(k-1)}\epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_{2k}}X^{i_{2k}} %

1706: \ee%

1707: leading to

1708: \[

1709:  \epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_{2k+1}}X^{i_1}X^{i_2}\cdots\Lodd

1710: X^{i_{2k}} = i^kl^{2(k-1)}R^2.

1711: \]

1712: 

1713: With the above definition, the problem of construction of fuzzy

1714: even spheres is now reduced to finding explicit solutions to

1715: \eqref{fuzzyevensphere} in terms of some $N\by N$ matrices and

1716: giving the relation between the size of the sphere (its radius)

1717: and the size of the matrices. For the fuzzy odd sphere case, in

1718: addition we should also give an appropriate $\Lodd$. Note that by

1719: construction, solutions to \eqref{fuzzyevensphere} or

1720: \eqref{fuzzyoddsphere} are only specified up to an $SO(d+1)$

1721: rotation:

1722: \[

1723: {\cal R}_{ij}X^j=U({\cal R}) X_i U({\cal R})^{-1},

1724: \]

1725: where ${\cal R}_{ij}$ are the generators of the $spin(d+1)$

1726: isometry group of the sphere and $U({\cal R})$ are an $N\by N$

1727: representation of ${\cal R}$.

1728: 

1729: In this appendix, as examples, we will construct explicit

1730: solutions to \eqref{fuzzyevensphere} for $k=1,2$ cases, {\it i.e.}

1731: fuzzy two and four spheres. The construction of $S^3_f$ is

1732: presented in section \ref{Zero-Energy-section} of the main text.

1733: There are two ways to solve these equations and realize the fuzzy

1734: spheres, group theoretical and harmonic oscillator approaches. The

1735: first approach is widely studied and used since the introduction

1736: of fuzzy spheres was based on the group and the representation

1737: theory of the isometry of the sphere under study. The harmonic

1738: oscillator approach is a less-known one and is well-suited for

1739: specific dimension, and is inspired by principal Hopf fibrations.

1740: This method for the fuzzy two sphere were studied in some detail

1741: in \cite{Hammou}.

1742: 

1743: %Matrix description

1744: \subsubsection{ Group theoretical construction

1745: of fuzzy spheres}\label{group-theory-construct}%

1746: The fuzzy $2k$-sphere is defined through the algebra $\M_N$ of

1747: $N\by N$ hermitian matrices. When $N\rightarrow\infty$ the

1748: corresponding matrix geometry tends to the geometry of the round

1749: $2k$-sphere. To realize this idea, we think of the ordinary

1750: geometry of the round sphere as an infinite dimensional

1751: representation of $spin(2k+1)$ algebra. To pass to the fuzzy case,

1752: however, we need finite dimensional representations. Due to the

1753: basic theorem of the algebraic geometry, one can replace a given

1754: manifold with the algebra of functions defined on that. For the

1755: case of the $S^{2k}$ that is the algebra $\F$ of functions

1756: $f(X^\mu)$ on $S^{2k}$ which admits a polynomial expansion in the $X^\mu$'s:%

1757: \be%

1758: f(X_\mu) = f_0 + f_\mu X^\mu + \frac{1}{2}f_{\mu\nu}X^\mu X^\nu +

1759: \frac{1}{6}f_{\mu\nu\rho}X^\mu X^\nu X^\rho + \cdots%

1760: \ee%

1761: Now we would like to {\it truncate} this expansion in such a way

1762: that it is convertible to an algebra. To turn this approximation

1763: to algebra we replace $X^\mu$ with generalized gamma matrices

1764: $\G^\mu_{2k}$ of the algebra $\M_{N_k(n)}$ of $N_k(n)\by N_k(n)$

1765: hermitian matrices. These matrices are defined as follows%

1766: \bea\label{G-general} %

1767: \G^{\mu} &=&

1768: (\Gamma^\mu\otimes\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1769: \mathbf1\otimes\Gamma^\mu\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1770: \cdots+\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\mathbf1\otimes\Gamma^\mu)_{Sym} \cr

1771: \G^{\mu\nu} &=&

1772: (\Gamma^{\mu\nu}\otimes\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1773: \mathbf1\otimes\Gamma^{\mu\nu}\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1774: \cdots+\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\mathbf1\otimes\Gamma_{\mu\nu})_{Sym}%

1775: \eea%

1776: where $\G^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\l[\G^\mu,\G^\nu\r]$ and

1777: $\Gamma^{\mu\nu} =\frac{1}{2}\l[\Gamma^\mu,\Gamma^\nu\r] =

1778: \Gamma^\mu\Gamma^\nu$ are the generators of $SO(2k+1)$. These

1779: generalized gamma matrices are $n$-fold direct tensor-product of

1780: gamma matrices and identity matrix and the symmetrization means

1781: that they are defined on the vector space $Sym\l(V^{\otimes

1782: n}\r)$, the symmetrized $n$-fold tensor product space of the

1783: smallest irreducible representation of $spin(2k+1)$, $V$; and

1784: $dim(Sym\l(V^{\otimes n}\r))=N(n)$. Hence, $\G^{\mu}$ are $N\by N$

1785: matrices.

1786: These matrices have following properties%

1787: \begin{subequations}\label{radius-n}

1788: \begin{align}

1789:  \sum_{\mu=1}^{2k+1} \G_\mu\G_\mu &= n(n+2k)\ ,\\

1790: \l[\G^{\mu_1},\G^{\mu_2},\dots,\G^{\mu_{2k}}\r] &= -(-i)^k

1791: (2k)!!(2k-2+n)!!\epsilon^{\mu_1\mu_2\cdots

1792: \mu_{2k+1}}\G^{\mu_{2k+1}}.

1793: \end{align}

1794: \end{subequations}%

1795: If we now define  $X_\mu = \tilde{\lambda}\G^{(2k)}_\mu$ we can

1796: see that this matrix construction truly gives $S_f^{2k}$. The only

1797: remaining step to complete the construction is then to specify $N$

1798: as a function of $n$, which in turn, noting \eqref{radius-n},

1799: gives the relation between the size of matrices $N$ and the radius

1800: of the fuzzy sphere $R$. We will work this out for two specific

1801: cases of $S^2_f$ and $S^4_f$.

1802: \newline%

1803: %fuzzy two sphere

1804: {\bf Construction of $S_f^2$}

1805: %\newline%

1806: 

1807: Here we deal with $spin(3)=SU(2)$, and hence the analog of

1808: \eqref{G-general} for this case is the

1809: generalized Pauli sigma matrices,%

1810: \be %

1811: \Sigma_i = (\sigma_i \otimes\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1812: \mathbf1\otimes\sigma_i\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbf1 +

1813: \cdots+\mathbf1\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbf1\otimes\sigma_i)_{Sym}\

1814: ,

1815: \ee%

1816: where $\sigma^i$ are $2\by2$ Pauli matrices. $\Sigma_i$ form an

1817: $(n+1)\by(n+1)$ representation of the $SU(2)$ algebra,

1818: corresponding to spin $n/2$ states.

1819: Note that for $SU(2)$%

1820: \be\label{Nvs.n-SU(2)} N\equiv dim(Sym(V^{\otimes}))=n+1\ . \ee

1821: The embedding coordinates can be identified as $X^i =

1822: \frac{\lambda}{2}\Sigma^i$. The size of the matrices and the

1823: radius of the sphere are then related as \be

1824: R^2_{S^2_f}=\frac{\lambda^2}{4}(N^2-1). \ee

1825: \newline%

1826: %fuzzy two sphere

1827: {\bf Construction of $S_f^4$}

1828: %\newline%

1829: 

1830: Here the basic $\gamma$-matrices we start with are the standard

1831: $4\by 4$ Dirac $\gamma$-matrices, together with $\gamma^5$, for

1832: our conventions see Appendix \ref{convention}. These $\gamma$

1833: matrices satisfy

1834: \[

1835: \sum_{\mu=1}^5 \gamma^\mu\gamma^\mu = 5 \qquad;\qquad

1836: [\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu,\gamma^\rho,\gamma^\alpha] = 4!

1837: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\alpha\beta} \gamma^\beta

1838: \]%

1839: Again one can use \eqref{G-general} to construct an $N\by N$

1840: representation out of these $\gamma$'s. The only remaining part is

1841: how $N$ and the radius of the fuzzy four sphere are related. To

1842: work this out, one should use representation theory of $spin(5)$.

1843: This has been carried out in \cite{sunjay2} and the result is

1844: $N=\frac{1}{6}(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)$, where $R^2_{S^4_f}\propto n(n+4)$.

1845: 

1846: %Oscillator description

1847: \subsubsection{Harmonic oscillator construction

1848: of fuzzy spheres}\label{harmonic-oscil-construct}%

1849: 

1850: Commutative $d$-spheres are usually defined through embedding the

1851: $S^d$ in ${\mathbb R}^{d+1}$. The natural question to ask is

1852: whether a similar thing is also possible for a noncommutative

1853: fuzzy sphere. Precisely, the question is whether it is possible to

1854: embed an $S^d_f$ into a noncommutative plane, preferably a

1855: noncommutative Moyal plane. The answer, if positive, cannot be a

1856: $d+1$ dimensional plane. This can be seen from the fact that

1857: imposing the noncommutativity on the coordinates of the plane

1858: reduces the $SO(d+1)$ rotational invariance. Hence, we should look

1859: for embedding the $S^d_f$ into a higher dimensional Moyal plane,

1860: which includes $SO(d+1)$ among its isometries. In working with

1861: Moyal plane, it is more convenient to adopt  complex coordinates.

1862: Let us consider a $\C^p$ space parameterized with the coordinates

1863: $z_\alpha,\ \alpha=1,2,\cdots, p$ which satisfy the following

1864: commutation relation \be\label{Moyal-def}

1865:  [z_\alpha,\bar z_\beta] = \theta\delta_{\alpha\beta}\ .

1866: \ee%

1867: We  denote this space by $\C^p_\theta$. (In terms of

1868: $a_\alpha=z_\alpha/\sqrt{\theta}$, the above is nothing but the

1869: algebra of a $p$ dimensional harmonic oscillator.) The idea is to

1870: solve \eqref{fuzzyevensphere} for an $S^{2k}_f$ using

1871: \eqref{Moyal-def}. The first thing to specify is what is the

1872: appropriate $p$ for a given $k$. For that we note that

1873: $\C^p_\theta$, and specifically \eqref{Moyal-def}, is invariant

1874: under $U(p)$ transformations which rotate $z_\alpha$ to $(U\

1875: z)_{\alpha}$, $U\in U(p)$. Therefore, as the first criterion,

1876: $SO(2k+1)$ should be a subgroup of $U(p)$, e.g. for $k=1$, the

1877: case of a two sphere, $p$ can be two and for $k=2$, the four

1878: sphere case, $p$ should at least be four. For a generic case, one

1879: may start with

1880: \be\label{X-z}%

1881:  X^\mu =\kappa\bar z_\alpha\l(\Gamma^\mu\r)_{\alpha\beta}z_\beta\ ,

1882: \ee%

1883: where $\Gamma^\mu$ are $2k+1$ dimensional Dirac matrices, and

1884: hence are $D\by D$ matrices, where $D$ is the dimension of the

1885: smallest fermionic representation of $SO(2k+1)$. As is evident

1886: from \eqref{X-z} the proper choice is $p=D$. For $k=1$ and $2$,

1887: $D=2^{2/2}=2$ and $2^{4/2}=4$. In \eqref{X-z} $\kappa$ is a

1888: parameter of dimension one over length.

1889: 

1890: We would like to use \eqref{X-z} as the relations embedding a

1891: sphere in Moyal plane. In \eqref{X-z} the $\Gamma^\mu$ matrices

1892: are essentially Clebsch-Gordon coefficients relating $U(p)$

1893: vectors to $SO(2k+1)$ vectors. It is worth-noting that $X^\mu$'s

1894: defined in \eqref{X-z}, similarly to the $\Gamma^\mu$'s, are

1895: hermitian and well-suited for our purpose.

1896: 

1897: As a warm-up let us first focus on the case of the fuzzy two

1898: sphere and then discuss the case of four sphere and possible

1899: generalizations to higher dimensional spheres.

1900: \newline%

1901: %fuzzy four sphere

1902: {\bf Construction of $S^2_f$}

1903: 

1904: We are looking for an embedding of an $S^2_f$ in a $C^2_\theta$.

1905: This is done in \cite{Hammou} and here we briefly review that. To

1906: start with, consider \be\label{S2-C2} X^i=\frac{\kappa}{2} \bar

1907: z_\alpha (\sigma^i)_{\alpha\beta} z_\beta\ , \ee where $i=1,2,3$

1908: and $\alpha,\beta=1,2$. If $[z_\alpha,\bar

1909: z_\beta]=\theta\delta_{\alpha\beta}$, it is straightforward to

1910: show that \be\label{SU(2)-z} [X^i, X^j]=i\kappa\theta\

1911: \epsilon_{ijk}X_k\ . \ee Furthermore, one can easily show that

1912: \be\label{two-sphere-radius} \sum_{i=1}^3 (X^i)^2=

1913: \kappa^2\theta^2\ X^0 (X^0+\bf1) , \ee where we have defined

1914: \[

1915: X^0=\frac{1}{2\theta} \bar z_\alpha z_\alpha\ .

1916: \]

1917: {}From \eqref{SU(2)-z} the fuzziness, $\lambda$, is identified as

1918: \be\label{lambda-S2} \lambda=\kappa\theta\ , \ee and hence \be

1919: R^2_{S^2_f}= \lambda^2 X^0 (X^0+1) . \ee It is noteworthy that

1920: $[X^0, f(X^i)]=0$, where $f$ is a generic function of $X^i$'s. If

1921: we choose $\kappa$, which is so far a free parameter, to be

1922: $1/\sqrt{\theta}$ then $\lambda=\sqrt{\theta}$. That is, the fuzziness

1923: is equal to the noncommutativity parameter of the embedding Moyal

1924: plane. (Note that the minimal area which one can measure in the

1925: Moyal plane is $\theta$.) Another interesting choice for $\kappa$

1926: can be $1/R$. We will return to this choice and its physical

1927: significance later.

1928: 

1929: $X^i$ and $X^0$, as matrices are infinite dimensional, however, we

1930: are looking for finite dimensional matrices. In addition, in order

1931: to have a fuzzy two sphere (of a given radius) we need $\sum

1932: (X^i)^2$ to be proportional to the identity matrix. Noting

1933: \eqref{two-sphere-radius}, this means that we should restrict

1934: $X^0$ to a block in which it is proportional to identity. This can

1935: be easily done, recalling that $X^0$ is the number operator for a

1936: two dimensional harmonic oscillator and hence in the number

1937: operator basis it takes a diagonal form, consisting of blocks

1938: $(n+1)\by (n+1)$ blocks with the eigenvalue $n$. (For a two

1939: dimensional harmonic oscillator the multiplicity of a state of

1940: energy $n$ is $n+1$.) Therefore, if we focus only on

1941: $X^0=\frac{1}{2}n$ sector, we have a description of a fuzzy two

1942: sphere with radius $R^2_{S^2_f}=\lambda^2

1943: \frac{n}{2}(\frac{n}{2}+1)$, in terms of $(n+1)\by (n+1)$

1944: matrices.

1945: 

1946: It is instructive to study some interesting limits of the above

1947: fuzzy two sphere. In our problem we have two parameters, the

1948: fuzziness $\lambda$, and the radius of the sphere $R$. One may

1949: study various limits keeping some combinations of the two fixed.

1950: For example, the commutative $S^2$ limit is when $\lambda\to 0$,

1951: keeping $R$ fixed. (In this limit it is more convenient to choose

1952: the normalization $\kappa\sim 1/R$.) Another interesting limit is

1953: the Moyal plane limit \cite{Chu-Madore}: \be\label{Moyal-plane}

1954: \lambda\to 0\ ,\quad R\to\infty\ ;\qquad \lambda R=fixed\ . \ee

1955: Intuitively one can think of this limit by choosing one of the

1956: $X$'s, say $X^3$ to be very close to $R$ and $X^1,X^2\ll R$. In

1957: this limit the commutation relation \eqref{SU(2)-z} would then

1958: reduce to

1959: \[

1960: [X^1, X^2]=i \lambda R\ ,

1961: \]

1962: which defines a two dimensional Moyal plane. The minimal area that

1963: one can measure on this sphere is $\lambda R$. This result is in

1964: fact more general than this limit and is true for a generic

1965: $S^2_f$ of finite radius. That is, $\lambda R$, and not

1966: $\lambda^2$,  is the minimal area which can be measured on a fuzzy

1967: two sphere.

1968: 

1969: Before moving to the $S^4_f$ example, we would like to comment

1970: more on the relation between the $U(2)$ symmetry of the embedding

1971: $\C^2_\theta$ space and $spin(3)=SU(2)$ of the $S^2_f$. The extra

1972: $U(1)$ is basically the transformations which rotate $z_1,\ z_2$

1973: in the same way. The $X^i$'s, by construction, are explicitly

1974: invariant under this $U(1)$. The generator of this $U(1)$ is

1975: $X^0$. Geometrically the embedding \eqref{S2-C2} is a realization

1976: of the Hopf fibration. For the moment let us consider the

1977: commutative $\theta=0$ case. The $X^0=const.$ surface then defines

1978: an $S^3$ in ${\mathbb R}^4$. The $S^3$, however, can be thought as

1979: an $S^1$ fiber over an $S^2$ base (e.g. see \cite{Hammou} and

1980: references therein). To reduce $S^3$ to $S^2$ we then need to

1981: reduce over the $S^1$ fiber. This is done in \eqref{S2-C2} by

1982: taking the $X^i$ which are invariant under the global $U(1)$

1983: rotating $z$'s with the same phase.

1984: \newline%

1985: %fuzzy four sphere

1986: {\bf Construction of $S^4_f$}

1987: %\newline%

1988: 

1989: As we argued for the $S^4_f$ case the embedding space should be

1990: $\C^4_\theta$, as four dimensional Dirac $\gamma$-matrices are

1991: $4\by 4$. For performing computations it turns out to be more

1992: convenient if parameterize $\C^4_\theta$ as two $\C^2_\theta$'s,

1993: with $u_\alpha$ and $v_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2$ coordinates, where

1994: \be\label{u-v-NC}%

1995:  [u_\alpha,\bar u_\beta] =

1996: \theta\delta_{\alpha\beta} \quad;\quad [u_\alpha,\bar v_\beta] = 0

1997: \quad ;\quad [v_\alpha,\bar v_\beta] = \theta\delta_{\alpha\beta}\ .%

1998: \ee%

1999: We can again use \eqref{X-z}, to obtain the embedding coordinates.

2000: Employing the conventions of Appendix \ref{convention} for the

2001: Dirac matrices, we

2002: have%

2003: \begin{subequations}\label{S4-embedding}%

2004: \begin{align}

2005: X^i&=\kappa (\bar u \sigma^i v+ \bar v \bar\sigma^i u)\ , \qquad i=1,2,3,4\\

2006: X^5&=\kappa (\bar v {\bf 1} v- \bar u {\bf 1} u)\ , \\

2007: X^0&= \frac{1}{\theta}(\bar u {\bf1}u + \bar v{\bf1}v)\ ,

2008: \end{align}

2009: \end{subequations}%

2010: where $\sigma^i$'s are defined in \eqref{sigma-sigma-bar}. In the

2011: ``classical'' $\theta=0$ case \eqref{S4-embedding} is a

2012: realization of the Hopf map for S$^7$ with an $S^4$ base.

2013: 

2014: It is straightforward, but perhaps tedious, to show that the

2015: embedding coordinates \eqref{S4-embedding} satisfy%

2016: \bea%

2017: \sum _{\mu=1}^5(X^\mu)^2 &=& \kappa^2 \theta^2 X^0 (X^0+ 4\cdot\bf 1)\\

2018: \l[X^\mu,X^\nu,X^\rho,X^\alpha\r] &=& \frac{1}{3}\kappa^3\theta^3

2019: (X^0+2\cdot{\bf 1})\ \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\alpha\beta}X^\beta.

2020: \label{four-bracket-X}\eea%

2021: Therefore, if we restrict $X^0$ to a block in which it is

2022: proportional to the identity matrix, \eqref{S4-embedding} is

2023: defining a fuzzy four sphere with the radius $R_{S^4_f}$ and the

2024: fuzziness

2025: \be\label{S4-fuzziness}%

2026: \lambda^3=\frac{1}{3}(\kappa\theta)^3\left(\frac{R^2_{S^4_f}}

2027: {(\kappa\theta)^2}-4\right)

2028: \ee%

2029: For more details see the main text, section

2030: \ref{single-giant-section}.

2031: 

2032: As in the case of the $S^2_f$ one can study some interesting

2033: limits, e.g. the commutative round $S^4$ limit is obtained when

2034: $\lambda\to 0$, keeping the radius fixed. The other interesting

2035: limit is the four dimensional noncommutative plane limit, {\it

2036: i.e.} $\lambda\to 0,\ R\to\infty$ keeping $\lambda^3 R$ fixed. One

2037: can think of this limit as expansion of the four sphere about its

2038: north pole, {\it i.e.} take one of the $X^\mu$'s, say $X^5$, to be

2039: very close to $R$ while $X^i\ll R$. In this limit

2040: \eqref{four-bracket-X} reduces to %

2041: \be\label{L4}%

2042:  [X^i,X^j, X^k, X^l]=\lambda^3 R\ \epsilon^{ijkl}\ \equiv L^4 \

2043:  \epsilon^{ijkl}.%

2044: \ee%

2045: Note that this noncommutative plane is {\it not} a Moyal plane. As

2046: it can be seen from \eqref{L4}

2047: \be\label{L4=l2R2}%

2048: L^4=\lambda^3 R=l^2 R^2%

2049: \ee%

2050: (and not $\lambda^4$) is the smallest volume on this plane that

2051: one can measure. To obtain the second equality in \eqref{L4=l2R2}

2052: we have used \eqref{normalizations} and \eqref{S3f-radius}. This

2053: result can be shown to be true beyond this limit, for an $S^4_f$

2054: of generic radius.

2055: 

2056: One appropriate and natural choice for the normalization

2057: coefficient $\kappa$ is then obtained when we identify $L$ with

2058: the noncommutativity scale of the embedding eight dimensional

2059: Moyal plane, {\it i.e.}%

2060: \be\label{theta-L2}%

2061: L^2=\theta\ . %

2062: \ee%

2063:  This leads to the normalization \eqref{normalization-choices}.

2064: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

2065: \section{Superalgebra of the Tiny Graviton Matrix Theory}\label{superalgebra}

2066: The plane-wave \eqref{background} is a maximally supersymmetric

2067: one, {\it i.e.} it has 32 fermionic isometries which can be

2068: arranged into two sets of 16, the kinematical supercharges, $q$'s,

2069: and the dynamical supercharges, $Q$'s. The former are those which

2070: anticommute to light-cone momentum $P^+$ and the latter

2071: anticommute to the light-cone Hamiltonian ${\bf H}$. Here we show

2072: the dynamical part of superalgebra, which can be identified with

2073: \super \ and adopt the conventions of \cite{review}. For the

2074: complete superalgebra see \cite{review}. \bea [P^{+},

2075: q_{\alpha\beta}]=0 \quad&,&\quad [P^{+},

2076: q_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}]=0\ ,\cr [{\bf H}, q_{\alpha\beta}]=-i\mu

2077: q_{\alpha\beta} \quad&,&\quad [{\bf H},

2078: q_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}]=i\mu q_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}\ . \eea \bea

2079: [P^{+}, Q_{\alpha\dot\beta}]=0 \quad&,&\quad [P^{+},

2080: Q_{\dot\alpha\beta}]=0 \cr [{\bf H}, Q_{\alpha\dot\beta}]=0

2081: \quad&,&\quad [{\bf H},Q_{\dot\alpha\beta}]=0

2082: \eea%

2083: \be\label{qq} \{q_{\alpha

2084: \beta},q^{\dagger\rho\lambda}\}=2P^+\delta_{\alpha}^{\ \rho}

2085: \delta_{\beta}^{\ \lambda}\  , \ \ \ \{q_{\alpha

2086: \beta},q^{\dagger\dot\alpha \dot\beta}\}=0\ ,\ \ \{q_{\dot\alpha

2087: \dot\beta},q^{\dagger\dot\rho

2088: \dot\lambda}\}=2P^+\delta_{\dot\alpha}^{\

2089: \dot\rho}\delta_{\dot\beta}^{\ \dot\lambda}\  ,%

2090: \ee%

2091: \bea\label{QQ}%

2092:  \{Q_{\alpha\dot\beta},Q^{\dagger\rho

2093: \dot\lambda}\}&=&2\ \delta_{\alpha}^{\ \rho} \delta_{\dot\beta}^{\

2094: \dot\lambda}\ {\bf H} + \mu (i\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha}^{\ \rho}

2095: \delta_{\dot\beta}^{\ \dot\lambda}\ {\bf J}^{ij} + \mu

2096: (i\sigma^{ab})_{\dot\beta}^{\ \dot\lambda}\delta_{\alpha}^{\ \rho}

2097: {\bf J}^{ab} \ , \cr

2098: \{Q_{\alpha \dot\beta},Q^{\dagger\dot\rho \lambda}\}&=& 0 \ , \\

2099: \{Q_{\dot\alpha \beta},Q^{\dagger\dot\rho \lambda}\}&=&2\

2100: \delta_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho} \delta_{\beta}^{\ \lambda}\ {\bf

2101: H} +\mu (i\sigma^{ij})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho} \delta_{\beta}^{\

2102: \lambda}\ {\bf J}^{ij} + \mu (i\sigma^{ab})_{\beta}^{\

2103: \lambda}\delta_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho} {\bf J}^{ab} \ .

2104: \nonumber%

2105: \eea%

2106: 

2107: The generators of the above supersymmetry algebra can be realized

2108: in terms of $J\by J$ matrices as

2109: \begin{eqnarray}

2110: P^+=-P_- = \frac{1}{R_-} \Tr {\bf 1} \qquad&,&\qquad

2111: P^-=-P_+=-{\bf H} \cr q_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_-}}\ \Tr

2112: \psi_{\alpha\beta}\qquad&,&\qquad

2113: q_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_-}}\ \Tr

2114: \psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}

2115: \end{eqnarray}

2116: \begin{eqnarray}

2117: {\bf J}_{ij} &=& \Tr \left(X^i\Pi^j-X^j\Pi^i +

2118: \psi^{\dagger\alpha\beta} (i\sigma^{ij})_{\alpha}^{\ \rho}

2119: \psi_{\rho\beta} -\psi^{\dagger \dot\alpha\dot\beta}

2120: (i\sigma^{ij})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho}

2121: \psi_{\dot\rho\dot\beta}\right) \cr {\bf J}_{ab} &=& \Tr

2122: \left(X^a\Pi^b-X^b\Pi^a + \psi^{\dagger \alpha\beta}

2123: (i\sigma^{ab})_{\beta}^{\ \rho} \psi_{\alpha\rho} -\psi^{\dagger

2124: \dot\alpha\dot\beta} (i\sigma^{ab})_{\dot\beta}^{\ \dot\rho}

2125: \psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\rho}\right)

2126: \end{eqnarray}

2127: \be\begin{split} Q_{\dot\alpha\beta}=\sqrt{\frac{R_-}{2}}\ \Tr

2128: &\Bigl[ (\Pi^i-i\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^i) (\sigma^{i})_{\dot\alpha}^{\

2129: \rho} \psi_{\rho\beta}+ (\Pi^a-i\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^a)

2130: (\sigma^{a})_{\beta}^{\ \dot\rho} \psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\rho}\cr +&

2131: \frac{1}{3! g_s} \left(\epsilon^{ijkl}[ X^i, X^j, X^k, {\cal L}_5]

2132: (\sigma^{l})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \rho}\psi_{\rho\beta}+

2133: \epsilon^{abcd}[ X^a, X^b, X^c, {\cal L}_5]

2134: (\sigma^{d})_{\beta}^{\

2135: \dot\rho}\psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\rho}\right)\cr +& \frac{1}{2

2136: g_s}\left( [ X^i, X^a, X^b, {\cal L}_5]

2137: (\sigma^{i})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \rho} (i\sigma^{ab})_{\beta}^{\

2138: \gamma}\psi_{\rho\gamma}+ [ X^i, X^j, X^a, {\cal L}_5]

2139: (i\sigma^{ij})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho} (\sigma^{a})_{\beta}^{\

2140: \dot\gamma}\psi_{\dot\rho\dot\gamma}\right)\Bigr]

2141: \end{split}

2142: \ee%

2143: \be\begin{split} Q_{\alpha\dot\beta}=\sqrt{\frac{R_-}{2}}\ \Tr

2144: &\Bigl[ (\Pi^i-i\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^i) (\sigma^{i})_{\dot\alpha}^{\

2145: \rho} \psi_{\rho\beta}+ (\Pi^a-i\frac{\mu}{R_-} X^a)

2146: (\sigma^{a})_{\beta}^{\ \dot\rho} \psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\rho}\cr +&

2147: \frac{1}{3! g_s} \left(\epsilon^{ijkl}[ X^i, X^j, X^k, {\cal L}_5]

2148: (\sigma^{l})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \rho}\psi_{\rho\beta}+

2149: \epsilon^{abcd}[ X^a, X^b, X^c, {\cal L}_5]

2150: (\sigma^{d})_{\beta}^{\

2151: \dot\rho}\psi_{\dot\alpha\dot\rho}\right)\cr +& \frac{1}{2

2152: g_s}\left( [ X^i, X^a, X^b, {\cal L}_5]

2153: (\sigma^{i})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \rho} (i\sigma^{ab})_{\beta}^{\

2154: \gamma}\psi_{\rho\gamma}+ [ X^i, X^j, X^a, {\cal L}_5]

2155: (i\sigma^{ij})_{\dot\alpha}^{\ \dot\rho} (\sigma^{a})_{\beta}^{\

2156: \dot\gamma}\psi_{\dot\rho\dot\gamma}\right)\Bigr]

2157: \end{split}\ee%

2158: 

2159: The (anti)commutation relations may be verified using the quantum

2160: (as opposed to matrix) commutation relations:%

2161: \bea [X^I_{pq}, \Pi^J_{rs}] &=& i\delta^{IJ}\

2162: \delta_{ps}\delta_{qr} \cr \{(\psi^{\dagger \alpha\beta})_{pq},

2163: (\psi_{\rho\gamma})_{rs}\} &=& \delta^{\alpha}_{\rho}

2164: \delta^{\beta}_{\gamma}\ \delta_{ps}\delta_{qr} \cr

2165: \{(\psi^{\dagger \dot\alpha\dot\beta})_{pq},

2166: (\psi_{\rho\gamma})_{rs}\} &=& \delta^{\dot\alpha}_{\dot\rho}

2167: \delta^{\dot\beta}_{\dot\gamma}\ \delta_{ps}\delta_{qr}

2168: \eea%

2169: where $p,q, r, s=1,2,\cdots , J$ are matrix indices.%

2170: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

2171: %Bibliography

2172: \begin{thebibliography}{99}%\input{bibliography.tex}

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{tiny}

2175: M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari, ``Tiny graviton matrix theory: DLCQ of IIB

2176: plane-wave string theory, a conjecture,'' JHEP {\bf 0409}, 017

2177: (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0406214].

2178: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406214;%%

2179: 

2180: %\cite{Polchinski:1995mt}

2181: \bibitem{Polchinski}

2182: J.~Polchinski, ``Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges,''

2183: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 75}, 4724 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9510017].

2184: 

2185: %\cite{Witten:1995im}

2186: \bibitem{Witten}

2187: E.~Witten, ``Bound states of strings and p-branes,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\

2188: B {\bf 460}, 335 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9510135].

2189: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510135;%%

2190: 

2191: \bibitem{BFSS}

2192: T.~Banks, W.~Fischler, S.~H.~Shenker and L.~Susskind, ``M theory

2193: as a matrix model: A conjecture,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 5112

2194: (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9610043].

2195: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9610043;%%

2196: 

2197: W.~Taylor, ``M(atrix) theory: Matrix quantum mechanics as a

2198: fundamental theory,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 73}, 419 (2001)

2199: [arXiv:hep-th/0101126].

2200: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101126;%%

2201: 

2202: 

2203: %\cite{Maldacena:1997re}

2204: \bibitem{AdS/CFT}

2205: J.~M.~Maldacena, ``The large N limit of superconformal field

2206: theories and supergravity,'' Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2},

2207: 231 (1998) [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]

2208: [arXiv:hep-th/9711200].

2209: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

2210: 

2211: O.~Aharony, S.~S.~Gubser, J.~M.~Maldacena, H.~Ooguri and Y.~Oz,

2212: ``Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,'' Phys.\

2213: Rept.\  {\bf 323}, 183 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9905111].

2214: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9905111;%%

2215: 

2216: \bibitem{holography}

2217: E.~Witten, ``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,'' Adv.\ Theor.\

2218: Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 253 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9802150].

2219: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

2220: 

2221: 

2222: %\cite{Bena:2003wd}

2223: \bibitem{BPR}

2224: I.~Bena, J.~Polchinski and R.~Roiban, ``Hidden symmetries of the

2225: AdS(5) x S**5 superstring,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 046002

2226: (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0305116].

2227: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305116;%%

2228: 

2229: \bibitem{BMN}

2230: D. Berenstein, J. Maldacena, H. Nastase, ``Strings in flat space

2231: and pp waves from ${\cal N}=4$ Super Yang Mills,'' {\it JHEP} {\bf

2232: 0204} (2002) 013, [arXiv:hep-th/0202021].

2233: 

2234: %\cite{Blau:2002dy}

2235: \bibitem{Blau}

2236: M.~Blau, J.~Figueroa-O'Farrill, C.~Hull and G.~Papadopoulos,

2237: ``Penrose limits and maximal supersymmetry,'' Class.\ Quant.\

2238: Grav.\  {\bf 19}, L87 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0201081].

2239: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201081;%%

2240: 

2241: \bibitem{review}

2242: D.~Sadri and M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari, ``The plane-wave / super

2243: Yang-Mills duality,'' arXiv:hep-th/0310119.

2244: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310119;%%

2245: 

2246: \bibitem{Plefka-lectures}

2247: J.~C.~Plefka, ``Lectures on the plane-wave string / gauge theory

2248: duality,'' Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 52}, 264 (2004)

2249: [arXiv:hep-th/0307101].

2250: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307101;%%

2251: 

2252: \bibitem{MST}

2253: J.~McGreevy, L.~Susskind and N.~Toumbas, ``Invasion of the giant

2254: gravitons from Anti-de Sitter space,'' JHEP {\bf 0006}, 008 (2000)

2255: [arXiv:hep-th/0003075].

2256: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003075;%%

2257: 

2258: \bibitem{LLM}

2259: H.~Lin, O.~Lunin and J.~Maldacena, ``Bubbling AdS space and 1/2

2260: BPS geometries,'' JHEP {\bf 0410}, 025 (2004)

2261: [arXiv:hep-th/0409174].

2262: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0409174;%%

2263: 

2264: 

2265: \bibitem{Berenstein}

2266: D.~Berenstein, ``A toy model for the AdS/CFT correspondence,''

2267: JHEP {\bf 0407}, 018 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0403110].

2268: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0403110;%%

2269: 

2270: \bibitem{AdS-giants}

2271: M.~T.~Grisaru, R.~C.~Myers and O.~Tafjord, ``SUSY and Goliath,''

2272: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 040 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0008015].

2273: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008015;%%

2274: 

2275: A.~Hashimoto, S.~Hirano and N.~Itzhaki, ``Large branes in AdS and

2276: their field theory dual,'' JHEP {\bf 0008}, 051 (2000)

2277: [arXiv:hep-th/0008016].

2278: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0008016;%%

2279: 

2280: %\cite{Suryanarayana:2004ig}

2281: \bibitem{Nemani}

2282: N.~V.~Suryanarayana, ``Half-BPS giants, free fermions and

2283: microstates of superstars,'' arXiv:hep-th/0411145.

2284: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411145;%%

2285: 

2286: \bibitem{Hedgehog}

2287: D.~Sadri and M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari, ``Giant hedge-hogs: Spikes on

2288: giant gravitons,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 687}, 161 (2004)

2289: [arXiv:hep-th/0312155].

2290: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312155;%%

2291: 

2292: \bibitem{Vijay}

2293: V.~Balasubramanian, D.~Berenstein, B.~Feng and M.~x.~Huang,

2294: ``D-branes in Yang-Mills theory and Emergent Gauge Symmetry,''

2295: arXiv:hep-th/0411205.

2296: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411205;%%

2297: 

2298: \bibitem{DSV1}

2299: K.~Dasgupta, M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari and M.~Van Raamsdonk, ``Matrix

2300: perturbation theory for M-theory on a PP-wave,'' JHEP {\bf 0205},

2301: 056 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205185].

2302: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205185;%%

2303: 

2304: \bibitem{work-in-progress}

2305: M.M.~ Sheikh-Jabbari, M. Torabian {\it Work in progress}.

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{Lozano}

2308:   B.~Janssen, Y.~Lozano and D.~Rodriguez-Gomez,

2309:   ``A microscopical description of giant gravitons. II: The $AdS^5\times

2310:   S^5$  background,''

2311:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 669}, 363 (2003)

2312:   [arXiv:hep-th/0303183];

2313:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303183;%%

2314:   ``Giant gravitons and fuzzy CP(2),''

2315:   arXiv:hep-th/0411181.

2316:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411181;%%

2317: 

2318: 

2319: \bibitem{Hammou}

2320: A.~B.~Hammou, M.~Lagraa and M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari, ``Coherent state

2321: induced star-product on $R_\lambda^3$ and the fuzzy  sphere,''

2322: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 025025 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0110291].

2323: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110291;%%

2324: 

2325: \bibitem{Grosse}

2326: H.~Grosse, C.~Klimcik and P.~Presnajder, ``Finite quantum field

2327: theory in noncommutative geometry,'' Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf

2328: 180}, 429 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9602115].

2329: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602115;%%

2330: 

2331: \bibitem{sunjay1}

2332: Z.~Guralnik and S.~Ramgoolam, ``On the polarization of unstable

2333: D0-branes into non-commutative odd spheres,'' JHEP {\bf 0102}, 032

2334: (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0101001].

2335: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101001;%%

2336: 

2337: \bibitem{sunjay2}

2338: S.~Ramgoolam, ``On spherical harmonics for fuzzy spheres in

2339: diverse dimensions,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 610}, 461 (2001)

2340: [arXiv:hep-th/0105006].

2341: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105006;%%

2342: 

2343: \bibitem{MSV}

2344: J.~Maldacena, M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari and M.~Van Raamsdonk,

2345: ``Transverse fivebranes in matrix theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0301}, 038

2346: (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0211139].

2347: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211139;%%

2348: 

2349: \bibitem{Bala-Strassler}

2350: V.~Balasubramanian, M.~Berkooz, A.~Naqvi and M.~J.~Strassler,

2351: ``Giant gravitons in conformal field theory,'' JHEP {\bf 0204},

2352: 034 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0107119].

2353: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107119;%%

2354: 

2355: \bibitem{Jevicki}

2356: S.~Corley, A.~Jevicki and S.~Ramgoolam, ``Exact correlators of

2357: giant gravitons from dual N = 4 SYM theory,'' Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\

2358: Phys.\  {\bf 5}, 809 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0111222].

2359: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0111222;%%

2360: 

2361: \bibitem{holoshape}

2362: D.~Berenstein, ``Shape and holography: Studies of dual operators

2363: to giant gravitons,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 179 (2003)

2364: [arXiv:hep-th/0306090].

2365: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306090;%%

2366: 

2367: \bibitem{deMelloKoch}

2368: R.~de Mello Koch and R.~Gwyn, ``Giant graviton correlators from

2369: dual SU(N) super Yang-Mills theory,'' arXiv:hep-th/0410236.

2370: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410236;%%

2371: 

2372: %\cite{Brezin:1977sv}

2373: \bibitem{Brezin}

2374: E.~Brezin, C.~Itzykson, G.~Parisi and J.~B.~Zuber, ``Planar

2375: Diagrams,'' Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 59}, 35 (1978).

2376: %%CITATION = CMPHA,59,35;%%

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{BW}

2379: I.~Bena and N.~P.~Warner, ``A harmonic family of dielectric flow

2380: solutions with maximal supersymmetry,'' arXiv:hep-th/0406145.

2381: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406145;%%

2382: 

2383: \bibitem{Townsend}

2384: P.~K.~Townsend, ``Four lectures on M-theory,''

2385: arXiv:hep-th/9612121.

2386: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612121;%%

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{Stringbits}

2389: H.~Verlinde, ``Bits, matrices and 1/N,'' JHEP {\bf 0312}, 052

2390: (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0206059].

2391: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206059;%%

2392: 

2393: \bibitem{Schwarz}

2394: J.~H.~Schwarz, ``Superconformal Chern-Simons Theories,''

2395: arXiv:hep-th/0411077.

2396: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411077;%%

2397: 

2398: \bibitem{Madore}

2399: J.~Madore, ``The fuzzy sphere,'' Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 9},

2400: 69 (1992).

2401: %%CITATION = CQGRD,9,69;%%

2402: 

2403: \bibitem{Nambu}

2404: Y.~Nambu, ``Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D

2405: {\bf 7} (1973) 2405.

2406: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D7,2405;%%

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{Zachos}

2409: T.~Curtright and C.~Zachos, ``Quantizing Dirac and Nambu

2410: brackets,'' AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 672}, 165 (2003)

2411: [arXiv:hep-th/0303088] and references therein.

2412: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303088;%%

2413: 

2414: \bibitem{Chu-Madore}

2415: C.~S.~Chu, J.~Madore and H.~Steinacker, ``Scaling limits of the

2416: fuzzy sphere at one loop,'' JHEP {\bf 0108}, 038 (2001)

2417: [arXiv:hep-th/0106205].

2418: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106205;%%

2419: 

2420: \end{thebibliography}%

2421: 

2422: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

2423: \end{document}

2424: