text:
# Mathematical structure of the temporal gauge in quantum electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

In the treatment of gauge quantum field theories, even if the choice of the gauge, a basic ingredient for the control of the dynamical problem, is irrelevant for the physical conclusions, it crucially affects the mathematical structure of the formulation as well as the way the various mechanisms (mass generation, gauge symmetry breaking, $`\theta `$-vacua, chiral symmetry breaking etc.) are effectively realized. In the discussion of the non-perturbative aspects of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD)  and of the Higgs mechanism , the temporal gauge has been widely used and it is therefore worthwhile to investigate its mathematical structure.

¿From a technical point of view, (the only relevant for the gauge choice), such a gauge has been preferred to others because it is believed to satisfy locality, positivity, the Gauss’ law constraint in operator form, at the only expense of manifest Lorentz covariance. As such, it appears as intermediate between the Coulomb gauge, where locality is lost (besides manifest Lorentz covariance), and the Feynman-Gupta-Bleuler (FGB) gauge  where locality holds but positivity and the operator Gauss’ law constraint are lost.

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the mathematical structure of the temporal gauge and the status of general properties like positivity, operator Gauss’ law, positivity of the energy, relativistic spectrum condition.

The usual formulation of the temporal gauge relies either on canonical quantization as a basis of the perturbative expansion or on a functional integral approach to the interacting theory, with a space lattice regularization, which also gives a (lattice regularized) canonical structure. Thus, in both cases one has a CCR algebra at equal times; actually, also in the presence of the interaction, the subalgebra generated by $`divA`$ and $`divEj_0`$ remains canonical, at all times, with an interaction independent commutator.

Contrary to the standard case, the CCR structure of the temporal gauge does not uniquely identify its vacuum representation; as a matter of fact, the form of the propagator of the gauge potential has been debated in the literature, but a classification of the possibilities is lacking especially in connection with basic structural properties, so that also recent textbook presentations of the temporal gauge  leave such basic points unsettled.

The analysis of such a problem is the main content of this note: we shall classify all time translation invariant states on the CCR algebra in the free case and indicate the implications on the interacting abelian theory.

The results are the following. Both in the free and the interacting case positivity and time translation invariance exclude the existence of the correlation functions of the field $`divA`$, only its exponentials being defined. Positivity also implies that the vacuum satisfies the Gauss’ law constraint in operator form and that the space translations are not strongly continuous, so that one cannot define their generators (the momentum) and the relativistic spectrum condition cannot even be defined. In the free case the condition of positivity of the energy spectrum is shown to uniquely select the (non regular) state considered in Ref.  (see also ); other time translational invariant pure states exist, which satisfy the spectral condition only on the observables.

In view of the perturbative expansion and the standard functional integral approach, a problem widely discussed in the literature is the form of the propagator of the gauge potential, with no general sharp conclusion and with proposals often in conflict with basic principles of standard quantum field theory, even in the free case (see Ref.). To clarify the problem, we shall derive a Källen-Lehmann representation of the two point function of the gauge potential in the interacting case under the general conditions of locality and invariance under space-time translations, rotations and parity. The resulting two point function violates positivity and the relativistic spectral condition (but not the positivity of the energy spectrum) and the vacuum cannot be annihilated by the Gauss operator $`divEj_0`$ (such features are shared by the FGB gauge, where, however, there is no violation of the relativistic spectral condition). In the free field case, the quasi free state defined by the two point function gives rise to an indefinite inner product structure which can be discussed as in the FGB gauge in terms of a Hilbert-Krein structure.

The euclidean functional integral representation is discussed in the positive and in the indefinite case, also with the aim of clarifying the unsatisfactory proposals in the literature (which ignore the violation of Nelson positivity, involve infinite normalizations, formal Faddev-Popov ghosts, improper realization of the Gauss constraint etc.). In the indefinite case, the representation of the euclidean fields requires, besides real gaussian fields $`A_i^{tr}(𝐱,\tau )`$, $`_i\phi (𝐱)`$, $`\xi (𝐱,\tau )`$, with $`\xi (f,\tau )`$ the Wiener process, a complex Gaussian field $`z(𝐱)`$. In the positive case, the complex Gaussian field $`z(𝐱)`$ is replaced by a real random field $`\mathrm{\Xi }(𝐱)`$ with functional measure defined by ergodic means. The correlation functions of the exponentials of the (smeared) fields are therefore represented by integration with the product of the above Gaussian measures and a measure over the spectrum of the Bohr algebra generated by the exponentials of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(g)`$.

## 2 Algebraic structure

At a formal level the temporal gauge is defined by the gauge condition $`A_0=0`$, by the canonical commutation relations (CCR)

$$[A_i(𝐱),_tA_j(𝐲)]=i\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐱𝐲),$$
(2.1)
and by the CAR relations of the charged fermion fields $`\psi (𝐱),\overline{\psi }(𝐲)`$. The gauge fields satisfy the following equations of motion

$$_t^2A_i\mathrm{}A_i+_idivA=j_i,$$
(2.2)
where $`j_\mu `$ is the conserved gauge invariant electromagnetic current constructed in terms of the charged fermion fields. We shall denote by $`_c`$ the polynomial algebra generated by the zero time fields $`A_i,\dot{A}_i,\psi ,\overline{\psi },j_\mu `$, smeared with test functions in $`𝒮(𝐑^3)`$, hereafter called canonical field algebra.

Eq.(2.2) implies that $`divEj_0`$ is time independent so that $`g𝒮(𝐑^3)`$

$$(divEj_0)(g,t)(divEj_0)(g,h),h𝒮(𝐑),𝑑sh(s)=1,$$

is a well defined time independent operator and therefore its equal time commutators with the fields are well defined operator valued distributions. Such commutators are fixed by the condition that $`GdivEj_0`$ generates time independent gauge transformations; such a property follows from canonical quantization if the gauge invariant point splitting regularization of the current amounts to the addition of terms linear in $`A_i,_0A_i`$ to the canonical fermion current. Under such a condition one has

$$[A_i(𝐱,t),G(𝐲,t)]=i_i\delta (𝐱𝐲).$$
(2.3)
As we shall see below, a positive realization of the temporal gauge can only be done in terms of Weyl algebras. We then introduce the algebras:
1) $`𝒜`$ the polynomial algebra generated by $`A(f)A_i(f_i),_tA(g)=E(g),f_i,g_i𝒮(𝐑^3)`$ (gauge field algebra), and $`𝒲`$ the corresponding gauge Weyl algebra generated by $`\mathrm{exp}i[A(f)+E(g)]W(f,g)`$;
2) $`𝒜_l`$ the polynomial algebra generated by $`A_i(_ih),(divEj_0)(g),h,g𝒮(𝐑^3)`$, called the longitudinal field algebra, and $`𝒲_l`$ the corresponding longitudinal Weyl algebra, generated by $`\mathrm{exp}i[A(h)+(divEj_0)(g)]W_l(h,g)`$.

By decomposing test functions into longitudinal and transverse (non local) components and by an analysis in momentum space, it is not difficult to see that in the free case the time evolution of $`𝒲`$ is relativistically local, i.e.

$$\alpha _t(A(f)+E(g)))=A(f_t)+E(g_f),$$

with $`suppf_tsuppg_t`$ contained in the causal shadow of $`suppfsuppg`$. The same analysis shows that eq.(2.2) has a relativistically causal Green function, so that, in the interacting case, the relativistic locality of the gauge fields of the temporal gauge follows from the relativistic locality of the observable field $`j_i`$; this implies local commutativity for the Wightman field algebra $``$, since the fermion coupling is local. In contrast, in the Coulomb gauge, the fermion coupling is non local and local commutativity is lost.

The free time evolution of the longitudinal Weyl algebra is

$$\alpha _t(W_l(h,k))=W_l(h,k+th)$$
(2.4)
so that the longitudinal fields describe an infinite set of free non-relativistic particles. In fact, given a complete set $`\{f_n\}`$ in $`L^2(𝐑^3)`$, with $`(f_n,\mathrm{}f_m)=\delta _{n,m}`$, the variables

$$q_ndivA(f_n),p_ndivE(f_n),$$
(2.5)
are canonical and the time evolution is that of free particles

$$\dot{q}_n=p_n,\dot{p}_n=0.$$

The above algebraic structure follows from canonical quantization at equal times. Its validity is independent of the presence of the interaction, provided an ultraviolet regularization (e.g. by a space lattice cutoff) is introduced, so that the time evolution of the above algebras is well defined. Actually, by eq.(2.3), $`[e^{iA(f,t)},(divEj_0)(g,s)]`$ is independent of $`s`$ and therefore such a canonical commutator extends to unequal times and is independent of the interaction

$$[e^{iA_i(_ih)},(divEj_0)(g,s)]=d^4x\mathrm{\Delta }h(x)g(𝐱)e^{iA_i(_ih)},h𝒮(𝐑^4).$$
(2.6)
The field algebra $``$ of the temporal gauge has the following infinite dimensional group of automorphisms (time independent (small) gauge transformations): $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)𝒮(𝐑^3)`$

$$\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(A(f))=A(f)d^3x\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑ivf,\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(E(g))=E(g),\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi (f)=\psi (e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}f).$$
(2.7)
The $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ commute with the time translations, as a consequence of the gauge invariance of the Lagrangean; they are generated by $`G(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and are unitarily implemented by elements of the longitudinal Weyl algebra.

The automorphisms of eq.(2.7), with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱)=\alpha 𝐱`$, are called large gauge transformations and are still denoted by $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. They commute with the time and space translations and are locally generated by the local charges

$$G_R^\mathrm{\Lambda }G(\mathrm{\Lambda }f_R),f_R(x)=f(|x|/R),f𝒟(𝐑),$$

in the sense that the variations of the fields $`A`$ are given by

$$\delta ^\mathrm{\Lambda }A=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}i[Q_R^\mathrm{\Lambda },A].$$
(2.8)
The observable subalgebras $`_{obs},𝒜_{obs},𝒲_{obs}`$ are characterized by pointwise invariance under all $`\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`𝒜_{obs}`$ is the algebra generated by $`A(f),divf=0`$ and by $`E(g)`$; $`_{obs}`$ has a non trivial center which contains the algebra generated by $`G(f),f𝒮(𝐑^3)`$. The invariance of the vacuum under large gauge transformations is incompatible with the existence of the correlation functions of the field algebra $``$ and, as we shall see explicitly in the free case, only holds in the non regular positive formulation.

The gauge field algebra $`𝒜`$, as well as the gauge Weyl algebra $`𝒲`$, have the following three parameter group of automorphisms $`\beta ^\theta ,\theta 𝐑^3`$:

$$\beta ^\theta (A(f))=A(f),\beta ^\theta (E(g))=E(g)+\theta _id^3xg_i,$$
(2.9)
which generate a background constant (classical) electric field.

The automorphisms $`\beta ^\theta `$, for simplicity called $`\theta `$ automorphisms, commute with the space translations and have the following commutation relations with the gauge transformations and with the free time evolution

$$\beta ^\theta \gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }=\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ^\theta ,\beta ^\theta \alpha _t=\alpha _t\beta ^\theta \gamma ^{t\theta x},$$
(2.10)
so that that they commute with the free time evolution on the observable algebra. The $`\theta `$ automorphisms are generated on $`𝒲`$ (and on $`𝒜`$) by the local charges

$$Q_RA_i(\theta _if_R).$$
(2.11)
Even if the automorphisms $`\beta ^\theta `$ commute with the gauge transformations, the corresponding generators do not. In conclusion, at least in the free case, such transformations have similar properties to those of the chiral transformations in quantum chromodynamics.

## 3 States and representations

In the following we shall adopt the physicist terminology by which a linear normalized functional on a \*-algebra $`𝒜`$ is briefly called a state, even if it is not positive with respect to the intrinsic \*-operation defined on the algebra. A state in the above sense defines a representation $`\pi _\omega `$ of $`𝒜`$ with a cyclic vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega `$ and an inner product $`(\pi _\omega (A)\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ,\pi _\omega (B)\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega )=\omega (A^{}B)`$. A representation of a \*-algebra $`𝒜`$ is called irreducible if any bounded operator which commutes with $`𝒜`$ is a multiple of the identity.

We shall show that the gauge condition $`A_0=0`$ does not uniquely fix the vacuum representation of the longitudinal algebra, i.e. its actual realization in terms of operators. We shall discuss the general obstructions which arise if, given a positive state on the observable field algebra $`_{0bs}`$, one looks for extensions to the field algebra $``$. Actually, independently of the interaction, we shall show that existence of the correlation functions of the fields requires a non positive vacuum state, which cannot be annihilated by the Gauss operator $`divEj_0`$, whereas a positive representation requires a non regular state on the longitudinal algebra $``$ generated by $`\mathrm{exp}i(A_i(_ih)),h𝒮(𝐑^4)`$. The two alternatives are shown to have very different mathematical features and can in fact be distinguished on the basis of the structural properties that one wants to preserve.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`\omega `$ be a positive vacuum state on $`_{obs}`$, satisfying the cluster property, then
i) $`\omega `$ does not have a positive extension to $``$
ii) any positive extension $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $``$ is non regular and satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(0,g))=\omega (W_l(0,g)),\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(f,g))=0,iff0$$
(3.1)
iii) all positive extensions of $`\omega `$ to an algebra containing $``$ define a GNS representation $`\pi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in which the space translations are not implemented by strongly continuous unitary operators $`U(𝐱),𝐱𝐑^3`$, and therefore the generator, the momentum, cannot be defined
iv) all positive extensions of $`\omega `$ are invariant under the large (and small) gauge transformations:

$$(\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega },(divE(𝐱)j_0(𝐱))\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(3.2)
Proof. i). Since $`[W_l(0,h),_{obs}]=0`$, by Theor. 4.4 of

$$W_l(0,h)\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega =c_h\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ,c_h𝐂,.$$
(3.3)
By Schwarz’ inequality a positive extension $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(0,h)BW_l(0,g))=c_g\overline{c_h}\mathrm{\Omega }(B),B.$$
(3.4)
This implies

$$\mathrm{\Omega }([divA(f),(W_l(0,h)c_h)])=0,f,h𝒮(𝐑^4),$$

whereas the algebraic structure, eq.(2.6) gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }([divA(f),W_l(0,h)])=id^4xf(x)\mathrm{\Delta }h(x)\omega (W_l(0,h))=c_hd^4xf\mathrm{\Delta }h,$$

which cannot vanish since $`|c_h|=1`$.

ii). In fact,

$$|c_h|^2\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA_i(_if)})=\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(0,h)e^{iA_i(_if)}W_l(0,h))=$$

$$=e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xf\mathrm{\Delta }h}}\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA_i(_if)}),f,h𝒮(𝐑^4),$$

and therefore, for $`f0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA_i(_if)})=0.$$
(3.5)
iii). In fact, one has

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA_i(_ih)}U(𝐱)e^{iA_i(_ih)}U(𝐱))=\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA_i(_ih_ih_𝐱)})$$

and the right hand side vanishes for all $`𝐱0`$ and it is $`=1`$ for $`𝐱=0`$.

iv). In fact, by eq.( 2.7) one has

$$\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma ^{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}(B))=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}i\mathrm{\Omega }([G_R^\mathrm{\Lambda },\gamma ^{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}(B)])=0$$

since eq.(3.4) implies $`G(\mathrm{\Lambda }f_R)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }=C_{\mathrm{\Lambda }f_R}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Furthermore, Lorentz invariance implies $`C_h=\omega (G(h))=0`$.

The above Proposition clarifies the roots of the problems which arise in the quantization of the temporal gauge, by reducing them to very basic structures. The solutions proposed in the literature, relying on an analysis of the free case, involve a non normalizable vacuum, or the violation of time translation invariance, etc., (for an extensive review see Ref.), so that new problems are somewhat arbitrarily added, hiding the basic issues. The following analysis of the free case makes clear that general properties, like time translation invariance and either positivity or existence of the correlation functions of the fields select exactly two alternatives, yielding solutions in terms of a time translation invariant vacuum over well defined operator algebras.

In particular, the existence of the ground state correlation functions of the fields requires an indefinite inner product space as in the Gupta-Bleuler gauge; alternatively, positivity can be achieved at the price of regularity of the representation of the longitudinal Weyl algebra. A close analog of such a situation appears for free non relativistic particles when one asks for the existence of a ground state (see ).

In general, given an algebra $`𝒜`$, a time translation automorphism $`\alpha _t`$ and a time traslationally invariant hermitean linear functional $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`𝒜`$, we shall say that the energy spectral condition holds if the expectations $`G_{AB}(t)\mathrm{\Omega }(A\alpha _t(B))`$ are continuous in $`t`$ and their Fourier transform

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}(\omega )=(2\pi )^{1/2}𝑑tG_{AB}(t)e^{i\omega t}$$

are supported in $`𝐑^+`$.

###### Proposition 3.2

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a state on the gauge field algebra $`𝒜`$ invariant under the free time evolution, then
i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cannot be positive
ii) if the restriction $`\omega `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the observable gauge algebra $`𝒜_{obs}`$ is semidefinite and satisfies the energy spectral condition, then the GNS representation $`\pi _\omega `$ of $`𝒜_{obs}`$ is irreducible and coincides with the standard vacuum representation of the electromagnetic field algebra.

2. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a state on the Weyl gauge algebra $`𝒲`$ invariant under the free time evolution, satisfying the energy spectral condition and its restriction $`\omega `$ to $`𝒲_{obs}`$ be semidefinite, then $`\pi _\mathrm{\Omega }(divE)=0`$, the GNS representation $`\pi _\omega `$ of $`𝒲_{obs}`$ is irreducible and coincides with the standard vacuum representation of the free electromagnetic field (Weyl) algebra.

Proof. 1.i). In fact, by time translation invariance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(_tO)=0,O𝒜,`$ and, since by the equations of motion $`_tdivE=0`$, one has

$$\mathrm{\Omega }((divE(f))^2)=\mathrm{\Omega }(_t(divA(f)divE(f)))=0,$$
(3.6)
so that positivity implies that the Hilbert space vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which represents $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (in the GNS representation space), satisfies

$$divE(f)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }=0,f𝒮(𝐑^3).$$

This is incompatible with the CCR since

$$\mathrm{\Omega }([A_i(x),divE(y)])=i_i\delta (𝐱𝐲).$$

1.ii). By Schwarz’ inequality, eq.(3.7) gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(OdivE(h))=0,O𝒜_{obs}.$$

Thus, the restriction $`\omega `$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`𝒜_{obs}`$ yields a representation $`\pi _\omega `$ such that $`\pi _\omega (F_{\mu \nu })`$ is a free electromagnetic field with energy spectral condition and the usual argument gives the standard Fock representation; the one-point function $`\omega (E)=\omega (\dot{A})`$ vanishes by the time translation invariance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

2. In fact, time translation invariance implies that for $`h0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(h,k))`$ is independent of $`k`$, say $`F(h)`$. On the other hand, one has

$$e^{i[(h,k^{})(k,h^{})]/2}e^{it(h,h^{})/2}\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(h,k)\alpha _t(W_l(h^{},k^{})))$$

$$=F(h+h^{}),ifh+h^{}0,$$

$$=\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(0,k+k^{}+th^{}))G(k+k^{}+th^{}),ifh+h^{}=0.$$

Thus, the energy spectral condition requires $`F(h+h^{})=0,`$ whenever $`h+h^{}0`$, since otherwise, by taking $`h=h^{}`$ one would get a negative point of the energy spectrum. It also requires that the distributional Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega )`$ of $`G(th)`$, with respect to the variable $`t`$, has support in $`\omega =0`$. In fact, putting $`h^{}=h,k=k^{}=0,d(h,h)/2`$, in the above formula we have

$$G_h(\alpha t)G(\alpha ht)=\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(\alpha h,0)W_l(\alpha h,\alpha ht))e^{it\alpha ^2d}H(t)e^{it\alpha ^2d}.$$

Taking the Fourier transform with respect to $`t`$, and using the positive support of the Fourier transform of $`H(t)`$, we get

$$supp\stackrel{~}{G}_h(\omega )=supp\stackrel{~}{H}((\omega \alpha ^2d)/\alpha )𝐑^+,$$

so that

$$supp_\omega \stackrel{~}{G}((\omega +\alpha ^2d)/\alpha )𝐑_+,supp\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega )\alpha ^1𝐑_+\alpha d,\alpha 𝐑.$$

Then $`supp\stackrel{~}{G}[\alpha d,\mathrm{}],`$ for $`\alpha >0`$ and $`supp\stackrel{~}{G}[\mathrm{},\alpha d]`$ for $`\alpha <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, which implies $`supp\stackrel{~}{G}=\{0\}`$. Since, by positivity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`G(t)`$ is bounded, one has $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega )=\delta (\omega )`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W_l(0,tk))=1,$$
(3.7)
so that $`divE`$ is a regular variable and all its correlation functions vanish.

The above Propositions imply that the representations of the temporal gauge in the free case with positive energy are the following.

### 3.1 Positive gauge invariant representation

###### Proposition 3.3

Invariance under free time evolution and positivity of the energy uniquely determine the positive states $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the Weyl field algebra to be of the following form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W(f,g))=0,\text{if}divf0,$$
(3.8)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W(f,g+k)=\mathrm{\Omega }(W(f,g)),$$
(3.9)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(W(f,g))=e^{w(f,g)},\text{if}divf=0,$$
(3.10)
where $`(k)_i=_ik,k𝒮_{real}(𝐑^3)`$ and $`w(f,g)`$ is the standard transverse two-point function $`<(A(f)+E(g))(A(f)+E(g))>_0,divf=0`$.

Proof.  In fact, by eqs.(3.7), (2.1), one has

$$0=\mathrm{\Omega }([W(f,g),divE(k)])=d^3xk𝑑ivf\mathrm{\Omega }(W(f,g)),$$

which implies eq.(3.10). Equation (2.4) and the invariance under time translation implies eq.(3.9). The last equation follows from Proposition 3.2 which fixes the representation of the observable algebra to be the standard Fock one.

It is not difficult to see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is pure  and coincides with the state considered in Ref. . Thus, as anticipated, we have a non regular representation and the ground state correlation functions of the vector potential do not exist. Non regularity also follows from the requirement of Gauss’ law constraint by the results of Refs. . However, the selection of the above representation of $`𝒲`$, eqs.(3.8 - 3.10), crucially depends on the condition of positive energy; in fact, one may find other (non regular) time translationally invariant pure states which define disjoint representations in which the energy spectral condition is violated.

###### Proposition 3.4

In the free case, the $`\theta `$ automorphisms are not unitarily implementable in the GNS representation $`\pi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given by the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined above, eqs.(3.8)-(3.10). The states $`\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ are space time translationally invariant and define disjoint non regular representations of the Weyl field algebra, in which the energy spectral condition is violated.

Proof.  In fact, by using eqs.(3.8)(3.10) one has

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iE_j(f_R)/R^3})=e^{w(0,f_R/R^3)}\stackrel{}{_R\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$

which implies

$$s\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{iE_j(f_R)/R^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

By the CCR, the same equation holds for any $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the form $`A\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Omega },A𝒲`$, i.e. on a dense set, and therefore on any vector of the representation (since $`W(0,R^3f_R)`$ is a unitary operator). On the other hand, by eq.(2.10)

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iE_j(f_R)/R^3})=e^{i\theta _j}.$$

Thus, the states $`\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ define disjoint representations.

Space translation invariance follows from $`\beta ^\theta \alpha _𝐱=\alpha _x\beta ^\theta `$ and time translation invariance follows from eq.(2.9)

$$(\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega })(\alpha _t(W(f,g)))=\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^\theta \alpha _t(W(f,g)))=\mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha _t\gamma ^{t\theta x}\beta ^\theta (W(f,g)))=$$

$$=\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ^\theta (W(f,g))=(\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega })((W(f,g))).$$

The energy spectral condition is violated as a consequence of Proposition 3.2.

A characteristic property of the $`\theta `$-vacua is that they yield a non vanishing expectation of the electric field, which is the time derivative of the vector potential. This is not incompatible with time translation invariance, because $`\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }(E(f))=0`$, if $`divf=0`$ and, if $`divf0`$, $`A(f)`$ is non regularly represented, namely its expectations do not exist, only those of its exponentials do.

Since $`\beta ^\theta `$ commutes with $`\alpha _t`$ on the observable fields, the energy spectral condition holds for the correlation functions of observables and in fact each observable sector $`_\theta `$ has a unique translationally invariant state, which is the lowest energy state.

### 3.2 Indefinite regular representations

The perturbative expansion as well as the standard functional integral computations rely on the use of the field variables and therefore implicitly make use of a representation of the field algebra (otherwise the propagator of the vector potential would not exist). However, even in the free case there is a rich literature on the possible form of the propagator of the gauge field $`A_i`$ and no general agreement on the conclusion (for a review of the contributions and a detailed bibliography see Ref.).

At the roots of the problem debated in the literature is the identification of gauge invariance with the vacuum being annihilated by the Gauss operator $`G=divEj_0`$ and the conflict of this condition with canonical quantization. The solutions proposed, often in conflict with basic features of standard quantum field theory, do not seem to realize that the vanishing of the Gauss operator on the vacuum is only compatible with a non regular representation, precluding the existence of the propagator of $`A_i`$. As a consequence, see Proposition 3.1, a representation of the field algebra requires to abandon positivity, to admit that not all vectors obtained by applying the fields to the vacuum have a physical interpretation and to require the Gauss operator constraint only in expectations on the physical states (a feature common to other non positive gauges like the Feynman-Gupta-Bleuler gauge).

Motivated by the lack in the literature of a satisfactory characterization of the two point function of the gauge potential (even in the free case), we shall analyze it under the general condition of space time translational invariance. In our opinion it is difficult to live without such a condition, as required by a momentum space analysis of the correlation functions or of the Feynman diagrams, according to the general wisdom of quantum field theory (e.g. the positive energy spectral condition needed for the analytic continuation to imaginary times and the functional integral representation of the so obtained Schwinger functions).

In the following, we shall characterize the two point function in the temporal gauge with interaction, under the assumption of locality discussed in Sect.2, in terms of a Källen-Lehmann representation under the additional condition of rotational and parity invariance. The result shows that i) positivity of the energy spectrum is satisfied by the two point function, but not the relativistic spectral condition, ii) the vacuum is a non positive functional on the field algebra, iii) the Gauss’ law constraint does not hold as an operator equation on the physical states and can only be required to hold in expectations of such states.

###### Proposition 3.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a state on the local field algebra $``$ invariant under space time translations, rotations and parity, whose restriction to the observable field algebra satisfies the standard Wightman axioms for vacuum expectation values, then the two point function of the gauge potential has the following representation, ( $`yx^{}x`$),

$$<A_i(x)A_j(x^{})>\mathrm{\Omega }(A_i(x)A_j(x^{}))=$$

$$=d^4ke^{iky}𝑑\rho (m^2)\left(\delta _{ij}\frac{k_ik_j}{𝐤^2+m^2}\right)\delta (k^2+m^2)\theta (k_0)+$$

$$+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}iy_0[_i_j𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta })\delta (𝐲)+d^3ke^{i𝐤𝐲}𝑑\rho (m^2)k_ik_j(𝐤^2+m^2)^1]+_i_ja(𝐱^2),$$
(3.11)
where $`𝒫`$ is a polynomial and $`d\rho `$ is the spectral measure of the two point function of the electromagnetic field

$$<F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }>(y)=(g_{\rho \sigma }_\mu _\nu +g_{\mu \nu }_\rho _\sigma g_{\rho \nu }_\mu _\sigma g_{\mu \sigma }_\nu _\rho )F(y),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(k)=𝑑\rho (m^2)\delta (k^2+m^2)\theta (k_0).$$
(3.12)
The condition of a canonical structure at equal times, apart from renormalization constants, requires

$$𝒫=constantZ.$$

The arbitrary function $`a(𝐱)`$ can be removed by a time independent operator gauge transformation.

Such a two point function satisfies the positive energy but not the relativistic spectral condition.

In particular, in the free field case, we have

$$<A_iA_j>(y)=(\delta _{ij}_i_j(\mathrm{\Delta })^1)D^+(y)+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}iy_0_i_j(\mathrm{\Delta })^1\delta (𝐲).$$
(3.13)
Proof. Invariance under space time translation, rotations and parity implies that the two point function can be written in the form

$$<A_iA_j>(x)=\delta _{ij}H(x)+_i_jL(x),$$
(3.14)
with $`H,L`$ rotationally invariant distributions; such a decomposition is unique up to a redefinition $`HH+h(x_0),LL{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}h(x_0)𝐱^2`$, $`L`$ being defined up to constants. A comparison between the two point function of the electric field given by eq.(3.12) and that derived from eq.(3.14) (using $`E_i=_0A_i`$) yields

$$\delta _{ij}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(HF)+_i_j(F+_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L)=0.$$

Such an equation implies

$$H=F+h(t),_i_j_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L=_i_jF\delta _{ij}h(t)$$

and one can use the arbitrariness in the definition of $`H,L`$ to remove $`h(t)`$. Hence one can write

$$_i_jL=(_i_j/_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})F+a_{ij}(𝐱)+itb_{ij}(𝐱),$$

since the operator $`_i_j/_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ is well defined in momentum space, where it corresponds to multiplication of the spectral measure by the bounded function $`k_ik_j(𝐤^2+m^2)^1`$; furthermore, by taking the curl one gets $`a_{ij}(𝐱)=_i_ja(𝐱^2),b_{ij}(𝐱)=_i_jb(𝐱^2)`$.

Locality of the commutator $`<[A_i(x),_0A_j(y)]>`$ requires

$$2\stackrel{~}{b}(𝐤)=𝑑\rho (m^2)(𝐤^2+m^2)^1+𝒫(𝐤^2)$$

and a canonical structure at equal times requires $`𝒫(𝐤^2)=Z`$. The residual gauge invariance of the equations of motion and of the CCR’s under time independent operator gauge transformations

$$A_i(x)A_i(x)+_i\phi (𝐱),\psi (x):e^{ie\phi }:(𝐱)\psi (x)$$

allows to eliminate the function $`a(𝐱^2)`$.

The Fourier transform of the term linear in time has support on the plane $`\omega =0,𝐤`$ arbitrary, so that the posivitity of the energy spectrum is satisfied, but not the relativistic spectral condition.

In the free field case both $`divA\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`divE\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ are vectors of zero indefinite product with themselves, briefly of zero norm or null vectors, which however cannot vanish.

As one should a priori expect, whenever a state yields a non-trivial representation of a gauge dependent field algebra , the above indefinite states on the field algebra are not gauge invariant. In fact, one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\gamma ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(A_i))\mathrm{\Omega }(A_i)=0.`$

###### Proposition 3.6

In the free case, the states $`\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ any quasi free (indefinite) state defined by eq.(3.13) are space translationally invariant on the field algebra, but not time translationally invariant. Only their restrictions to the gauge invariant field algebra are time translationally invariant.

Proof. In fact, $`f𝒮(𝐑^3)`$, one has

$$\beta ^\theta \mathrm{\Omega }(\alpha _t(A(f))=\mathrm{\Omega }(A(f))+td^3x\theta _if_i(𝐱))$$

and, if $`divf=0`$, $`𝑑x\theta _if_i(𝐱)=𝑑x𝜽.𝐱divf(𝐱)=0`$.

In conclusion, the space and time translationally invariant $`\theta `$-states on the observable field algebra do not have regular time translationally invariant extensions to the field algebra (the time invariant extension are non regular); in this sense they display a mechanism which is crucial for solving the problem arising in the Ward identities of chiral symmetry breaking in quantum chromodynamics .

Since the new structures emerging with respect to the standard case are connected with the longitudinal algebra, it is worthwhile to have a better mathematical control on the properties of its GNS representation given by the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of Proposition 3.5, at least in the free case. As mentioned in Section 2, eqs.(2.5), the longitudinal algebra can be discussed in terms of the field variables $`divA_l(f_n),div\dot{A}_l(f_n),f_n𝒮(𝐑^3)`$. The problem is then reduced to the unique ground state (indefinite) representation of the Heisenberg algebra associated to a countable number of free particles. Such GNS representation has been analyzed in  and the result is

###### Proposition 3.7

In the free case the quasi free (indefinite) state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by eq.(3.13) is faithful on the longitudinal algebra $`𝒜_l`$ generated by $`divA,divE`$ and the commutant of $`𝒜_l`$ in the corresponding GNS representation is isomorphic to $`𝒜_l`$.

The GNS representation is given as an infinite tensor product of Fock and anti-Fock representations  of the canonical variables

$$Q_{n,\pm }(q_n\pm p_n^{})/\sqrt{2},P_{n,\pm }(\pm p_n+q_n^{})/\sqrt{2},$$

with

$$q_n^{}iSq_nS,p_n^{}iSp_nS,n,$$

and $`S`$ the antiunitary KMS operator defined by

$$SA\mathrm{\Psi }_0=A^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0,A𝒜_l.$$

Proof.  The proof is the same as for a single free particle.

## 4 Functional integral representation

We start by discussing the functional integral representation of the temporal gauge in the indefinite case with free time evolution.

By analytic continuation to imaginary time the two point correlation function, eq.(3.13), gives rise to the following Schwinger function

$$S_{ij}(xy)=(\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }^1_i_j)S(xy)_i_j\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲)|x_0y_0|/2,$$
(4.1)
where $`S`$ is the standard Schwinger function of a scalar field. The Schwinger function eq.(4.1) defines an inner product in $`𝒮_{real}^3(𝐑^4)`$

$$<f,f>=<f,f>_{tr}+<f,f>_l,$$

$$<f,f>_{tr}d^4xd^4yf_i(x)(\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }^1_i_j)f_j(y)S(xy),$$
(4.2)
$$<f,f>_ld^4xd^4yf(x)f(y)\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲)|x_0y_0|/2.$$
(4.3)
The transverse inner product $`<.,.>_{tr}`$ is semidefinite and therefore it defines a Gaussian integral with measure $`d\mu (A^{tr}(𝐱,\tau ))`$ and an euclidean Gaussian field $`A_i^{tr}(𝐱,\tau )`$.

The (longitudinal) inner product $`<.,.>_l`$ is indefinite but not degenerate on $`𝒮_l(𝐑^4)\{h=_ig_i,g_i𝒮_{real}(𝐑^4)\}`$. Therefore, the longitudinal inner product defines the two point Schwinger function of a Gaussian vector field $`_i\varphi (𝐱,\tau )`$ with

$$<\varphi (𝐱,\tau )\varphi (𝐲,\sigma )>=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲)|\tau \sigma |/2.$$
(4.4)
Thus, $`f𝒮(𝐑^3),\varphi (f,\tau )`$ is the analog of the variable $`q(\tau )`$ describing the position of a free particle and eq.(4.4) corresponds to the ground state euclidean representation of the Heisenberg algebra with free evolution . Following the results of Ref. , a functional integral representation is obtained by representing $`A_i(𝐱,\tau )`$ by the random field

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_i(𝐱,\tau )=A_i^{tr}(𝐱,\tau )+_i[\xi (𝐱,\tau )+z(𝐱)\overline{z}(𝐱)|\tau |],$$
(4.5)
where $`z(𝐱)`$ is a complex Gaussian field with the following expectations

$$<z(𝐱)z(𝐲)>=0,<z(𝐱)\overline{z}(𝐲)>={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲),$$

corresponding to $`z=z_1+iz_2,z_1,z_2`$ independent real Gaussian fields with

$$<z_1^2>=<z_2^2>=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲)/4,$$

and $`\xi (𝐱,\tau )`$ is a real Gaussian field with

$$<\xi (𝐱,\tau )\xi (𝐲,\sigma )>={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta (𝐱𝐲)(|\tau \sigma |+|\tau |+|\sigma |).$$

Clearly, the covariance of $`\xi `$ is a positive kernel, being the product of the positive kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta `$ and of the Wiener kernel. Hence, one has

$$<A_{i_1}(𝐱_1,\tau _1)\mathrm{}A_{i_n}(𝐱_n,\tau _n)>=𝑑\mu (A^{tr}(𝐱,\tau ))𝑑w(\xi (𝐱,\tau ))𝑑\nu (z(𝐱))$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(A_i^{tr}(𝐱_k,\tau _k)+_i(\xi (𝐱_k,\tau _k)+z(𝐱_k)\overline{z}(𝐱_k)|\tau _k|)),$$
(4.6)
where $`d\mu ,d\nu ,dw`$ are the functional measures defined by the processes introduced above.

In the positive (non regular) formulation of Section 3.1 the construction of a functional integral representation for the euclidean correlation functions essentially reduces to the case of the euclidean correlation functions given by the (non regular) positive ground state of a non relativistic particle, discussed in Ref. . In fact, the euclidean correlation functions of exponentials of fields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA(f_1,\tau _1)}\mathrm{}e^{iA(f_n,\tau _n)})$$

obtained from eqs (3.8) \- (3.10) have the same form as in Ref. , eq.(C.2), with $`\alpha _k`$ replaced by $`_i\varphi (f_k)`$ and vanish unless

$$_if_1^i(𝐱)+\mathrm{}+_if_n^i(𝐱)=0.$$
(4.7)
If this condition is satisfied, by Proposition 3.6 and eqs.(4.2-3) they coincide with the correlation functions of the indefinite case. Moreover, eq.(4.7) implies that in the exponential the variable $`z`$ is smeared with a vanishing test function and the two point function of $`\overline{z}`$ vanishes. Therefore, as in Ref. , the above correlation functions coincide with those of the exponentials of gaussian fields

$$A_i^{tr}(f^i,\tau )+\xi (_if^i,\tau )$$
(4.8)
with the measures $`d\mu ,dw`$ introduced above in eq.(4.6).

As for a free particle, the above correlation functions are therefore given by the ergodic mean over the real variables $`\mathrm{\Xi }(g),\mathrm{\Xi }𝒮_{real}^{}(𝐑^3)`$ of the correlation functions of exponentials

$$\mathrm{exp}iA_i^{tr}(f^i,\tau )\mathrm{exp}i(\xi (_if^i,\tau )+\mathrm{\Xi }(_if^i))$$
(4.9)
and therefore, by the Riesz-Markov theorem, they can be represented as integrals over the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`\mathrm{exp}i\mathrm{\Xi }(g),g𝒮_{real}(𝐑^3)`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the generalization of the spectrum of the Bohr algebra , generated by $`\mathrm{exp}i\alpha x,x𝐑`$, with $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ corresponding to $`x`$ and $`g`$ to $`\alpha `$.

In conclusion,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{iA(f_1,\tau _1)}\mathrm{}e^{iA(f_n,\tau _n)})=𝑑\mu (A^{tr}(𝐱,\tau ))𝑑w(\xi (𝐱,\tau ))$$

$$𝑑\nu _\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Xi }(g))\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{iA_i^{tr}(f_j^i,\tau _j)}e^{i\xi (_if_j^i,\tau _j)}e^{i\mathrm{\Xi }(_if_j^i)}$$

with $`d\nu _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ representing the ergodic mean in all the variables $`\mathrm{\Xi }(g)`$ ; the integral vanishes if eq.(4.7) does not hold and otherwise coincides with the expectation of a product of exponentials of fields of the form (4.8).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0212345

PP-wave Black holes and The Matrix Model

Miao Li

Institute of Theoretical Physics

Academia Sinica

Beijing 100080

and

Department of Physics

National Taiwan University

Taipei 106, Taiwan

mli@phys.ntu.edu.tw

We discuss the sizes of a black hole in the M theory pp-wave background, and how the transverse size can be reproduced in the matrix model.

Dec. 2002

PP-wave backgrounds, as a limit of AdS and some inner spheres, have proven an interesting place to test ideas of holography and the correspondence between string/M theory in such a background and some supersymmetric gauge theory . In a previous paper , we discussed possible correspondence between string states and black hole states in such a background, when the string coupling is fined tuned for a given total oscillation number of the strings. As we shall see, the estimate of the transverse gravitational size of a black hole in that paper is correct, but the longitudinal size given there is incorrect.

In the original paper, the first paper in , a matrix model is given for the PP-wave background obtained from the M theory AdS backgrounds. This matrix model was further discussed in . Here we are interested in the question of whether this matrix model can reproduce at least the transverse size of a black hole for a given energy. As we shall argue, indeed it can, provided this model can produce a certain form of interaction between two partons. This form, we will argue, shall come out naturally from a computation in the matrix model, although we will not undertake such a calculation in this paper.

The spirit of the analysis in this paper is that of , where Schwarzschild black holes in a flat spacetime is analyzed using matrix theory. The main ingredients in that analysis are to assume that a black hole is a bound state of partons which are completely virialized, and to assume that the minimal uncertainty relation is obeyed by partons.

We will start with an estimation of the transverse size of gravitating point source in the pp-wave background, and also discuss its longitudinal size. Then we turn to the matrix model, give a general analysis of the possible loop corrections to the interaction potential between two partons. We argue that the one loop correction must assume the form

$$V_1=c\frac{G}{R^3}\frac{v^5}{r^8},$$

where $`c`$ is a dimensionless numerical coefficient, $`G`$ is the Newton constant in 11 dimensions, $`R`$ is the longitudinal radius in the direction $`x^{}`$, $`v`$ is the relative velocity between two partons, and $`r`$ is their transverse separation. Although the power in the velocity dependence sounds a little strange, we will argue that this should be most important term in the one-loop correction, if $`\mu r<v`$. Happily, as we shall see, this is the right term to reproduce the correct transverse horizon size of a black hole. The more accurate form of (1) appears in (30) and breaks time reversal invariance. This is possible, because the existence of the four form field strength indeed breaks time reversal invariance. We leave the computation of the interaction between two partons to a future work.

The gravitational sizes

The metric of the M theory pp-wave background is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =4dx^+dx^{}[(\frac{\mu ^2}{9}\underset{i}{}(x^i)^2+\frac{\mu ^2}{36}\underset{a}{}(x^a)^2](dx^+)^2+(dx^A)^2,\hfill \\ \hfill i=& 1,2,3,a=4,\mathrm{}9,A=i,a.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`x^+`$ is taken as our time in the light-cone approach, there is a harmonic potential in each transverse direction, even for a massless particle. This term is the source for a kind of dimensional transmutation in the Newtonian potential of a point source.

To see the origin of the dimensional transmutation, let us start with a flat spacetime, where we shall get the standard Newtonian potential. To be general, let us work in $`D`$ dimensional spacetime, the retarded Green’s function in the momentum space is simply $`1/[(\omega +iϵ)^2k^2)]`$. It proves simplest to work in the light-cone frame to carry out the Green’s function in the coordinate space, by first integrating over $`k_+`$, and later integrating over the transverse momentum space, the result is

$$G(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^{D/2}}e^{\pi Di/4}\theta (x^+)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}k_{}^{\frac{D4}{2}}[e^{ik_{}(x^2iϵ)}e^{ik_{}(x^2+iϵ)}],$$

where $`x^+=x^+x^{}x_{}^2`$, $`x_{}`$ is the transverse coordinates. We will drop the subscript $``$ in the following expressions.

To estimate the gravitational sizes of a moving particle with longitudinal momentum $`p^\pm `$, let us use the component of the stress tensor $`T_+`$ (see )

$$T_+(x)=p^{}\delta (x^{}ax^+)\delta ^{D2}(x),$$

where $`a=p^{}/p^+`$, and we have been loose about the numerical coefficient, since we are interested only in the functional form of the gravitational size. The metric perturbation $`h_+`$ is then

$$h_+=GG(xy)T_+(y)𝑑y,$$

again a numerical coefficient is not taken into account. Integration over $`y^{}`$ and $`y`$ is trivial. Let $`\tau =x^+y^+`$, the metric perturbation is

$$h_+=I_+I_{},$$

with

$$I_+Gp^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}k_{}^{\frac{D4}{2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(ik_{}[a\tau ^2+\tau (x^{}ax^+)x^2iϵ]\right),$$

and $`I_{}`$ is given by a similar formula, with $`k_{},ϵk_{},ϵ`$. The integration over $`\tau `$ can be carried out approximately, if $`k_{}a`$ is sufficiently large. However, if $`x^{}ax^+`$ is positive, the arguments in the exponential in (1) containing $`\tau `$ are all positive, the integral is damped greatly. This simply implies that the particle at time $`x^+`$ has not yet reached the longitudinal position $`x^{}`$.If $`x^{}ax^+<0`$, the integral over $`\tau `$ can be carried out approximately, we have

$$I_+Gp^{}/\sqrt{a}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}k_{}^{\frac{D5}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(ik_{}[x^2+\frac{(x^{}ax^+)^2}{4a}+iϵ]\right).$$

Remember that the integral over $`\tau `$ results in a factor $`1/\sqrt{ak_{}}`$ which is independent of $`x`$. Finally, we carry out the integral over $`k`$ by rotating the contour. Put $`I_+`$ and $`I_{}`$ together,

$$h_+G(p^{}/\sqrt{a})[x^2+\frac{(x^{}ax^+)^2}{4a}]^{\frac{D3}{2}}.$$

Note that in (1), $`p^{}/\sqrt{a}=\sqrt{p^+p^{}}=m`$, just the invariant mass of the boosted particle, this must be the case since the strength of the gravitational field must be proportional to the invariant mass in a flat spacetime, due to Lorentz invariance. When we look at near the trajectory of the particle in the longitudinal direction where $`x^{}ax^+=0`$, the gravitational potential assumes the form

$$h_+Gmr^{(D3)},$$

where $`r=|x|`$. The above is the correct Newtonian potential, for the dependence on the transverse direction should be boost invariant. Thus, the gravitational size in the transverse direction is just $`r_0^{D3}Gm`$. Set $`r=0`$ in (1), we obtain the gravitational size in the longitudinal direction $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=\sqrt{a}r_0`$. Let $`p^\pm =e^{\pm \alpha }m`$, $`\alpha `$ is the boost parameter, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=e^\alpha r_0`$, namely, there is the standard Lorentz contraction in the longitudinal direction.

Having discussed the estimate of gravitational sizes of a boosted particle in a flat spacetime, we are ready to discuss these in a pp-wave background. For definitiveness, we work in 11 dimensions. The exact scalar Green’s function can be computed in a similar fashion as in , we will do it in the appendix. Here for simplicity, we will work with a metric with $`SO(9)`$ symmetry, namely with a fictitious metric

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}(\mu ^2\underset{a}{}(x^a)^2)(dx^+)^2+(dx^a)^2,$$

where $`a`$ runs from 1 to 9. To simplify all the formulas in the following, we do the rescaling $`x^{}\mu ^\pm x^{}`$. We will recover the factor $`\mu `$ in the final result. Although the above metric is quite different from (1), the physics captured by it will not be so different. The sizes in two sets of transverse directions in the real space (1) may be different, but their dependence on physical parameters such $`p^\pm `$ and $`\mu `$ will be similar.

The Green’s function in the background (1) can be computed along the line in , and is given by a similar formula as in (1). In fact, we simply replace $`(xy)^2`$ in that formula by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=4(x^{}y^{})\mathrm{sin}(x^+y^+)[1\mathrm{cos}(x^+y^+)](x^2+y^2)+(xy)^2,$$

where $`x,y`$ are the transverse locations of two spacetime points. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maybe interpreted as the invariant spacetime distance between two points in the pp-wave background.

The component of stress tensor $`T_+`$ is still given by (1), we plug it as well as the Green’s function (1) into (1) and obtain

$$h_+Gp^{}𝑑k_{}k_{}^{\frac{D4}{2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{ik_{}(\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )+iϵ)}+\mathrm{},$$

where the first term is similar to $`I_+`$ in (1), and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the term similar to $`I_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )=4(x^{}ax^++a\tau )\mathrm{sin}\tau +x^2\mathrm{cos}\tau .$$

Thus, the integral over $`\tau `$ in (1) is more involved. We will use the stationary method to approximate this integral. The stationary point satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\tau )=(x^2+4a)\mathrm{sin}\tau +4(x^{}ax^++a\tau )\mathrm{cos}\tau =0.$$

When $`x^{}ax^+=0`$, on the light-cone trajectory, one stationary point is clear, it is just $`\tau =0`$. There is another stationary point, it contributes much less than does the point $`\tau =0`$. Near $`\tau =0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ expanded to the second order is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )=x^2(4a+\frac{x^2}{2})\tau ^2.$$

Note that the term proportional to $`\tau ^2`$ is quite different from that in (1), now it depends on $`x^2`$ as well as on $`a`$. When $`ax^2`$, we go back to (1) and obtain a result same as in the flat case. If $`x^2a`$, the result is completely different. Integrating out $`\tau `$ as well as $`k_{}`$, we have

$$h_+Gp^{}|x|^{(D3)}(4a+\frac{x^2}{2})^{1/2},$$

apparently, if $`ax^2`$, we obtain the Newtonian potential in the flat space. Rescaling back $`p^\pm \mu ^{\pm 1}p^\pm `$, the condition is $`a\mu ^2x^2`$, this is just to say that the harmonic potential in the metric is not important. For $`a\mu ^2x^2`$, the result is

$$h_+\frac{Gp^{}}{\mu |x|^{D2}},$$

this is a result already obtained in . The Newtonian potential is modified by a factor $`1/(\mu |x|)`$. For small $`x`$, the result of  is incorrect, the reason is that one cannot truncate the Green’s function to the first mode in this case as done in that paper.

Thus, the transverse gravitational size is given by

$$r_0^{D2}=\frac{Gp^{}}{\mu }.$$

For $`D=11`$, the case of interest, the exponent is $`9`$ rather than $`8`$. Also, the transverse size no longer depends on the invariant mass, it depends both on the light-cone energy as well as on the parameter $`\mu `$. We want to note that although the metric (1) and that in (1) are not Lorentz boost invariant, there is a generalized Lorentz boost invariance

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x^\pm & e^{\pm \alpha }x^\pm ,p^\pm e^{\pm \alpha }p^\pm ,\hfill \\ \hfill \mu & e^\alpha \mu .\hfill \end{array}$$

Formula (1) is invariant under this generalized boost.

The other extreme points to look at are when $`x^2=0`$, we want to know the longitudinal size of the gravitating point along the origin in the transverse space. We need to solve the stationary point

$$a\mathrm{sin}\tau +(x^{}ax^++a\tau )\mathrm{cos}\tau =0.$$

Let the solution be $`\tau _0>0`$. Near this point

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )=2a\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\tau _0}{\mathrm{cos}\tau _0}\delta \tau ^2+4a\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\tau _0}{\mathrm{cos}\tau _0}.$$

Using the stationary method, we find

$$h_+Gp^{}a^{\frac{D2}{2}}|\mathrm{sin}\tau _0|^{(D3)}|\mathrm{cos}\tau _0|^{\frac{D2}{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\tau _0)^{1/2}.$$

Apparently, the above result is periodic in $`x^{}ax^+`$. If $`\tau _0(x^{}ax^+)`$ is a solution to (1), then $`\tau _0(x^{}ax^+2\pi na)=\tau _0(x^{}ax^+)+2\pi n`$, and the potential (1) is not changed at all. The exact result cannot be exactly periodic in $`x^{}ax^+`$, since although the function (1) is periodic under the double shifts $`x^{}ax^+x^{}ax^+2\pi na`$, $`\tau \tau +2\pi n`$, but the range of the integration of $`\tau `$ is also changed. Thus, the gravitational tail in the longitudinal direction should slowly die away.

The matrix model analysis

The matrix model proposed in the first reference of  is described by the action

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& =S_0+S_m,\hfill \\ \hfill S_0& =𝑑t\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{2R}(D_tX^A)^2+\frac{R}{4l_p^6}[X^A,X^B]^2+\psi D_t\psi +\frac{iR}{l_p^3}\psi \gamma ^A[\psi ,X^A]\right),\hfill \\ \hfill S_m& =𝑑t\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{2R}(\frac{\mu ^2}{9}(X^i)^2\frac{\mu ^2}{36}(X^a)^2)\frac{\mu }{4}\psi \gamma _{123}\psi \frac{\mu i}{3l_p^3}ϵ_{ijk}X^iX^jX^k\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Again, the matrix model has the global invariance $`SO(3)\times SO(6)`$, not $`SO(9)`$. For simplicity, in the following dimensional analysis, we assume that the global invariance is $`SO(9)`$, it is not hard to amend our analysis for the action (1), although for our purpose it is not necessary to do this.

To perform a dimensional analysis, let us rescale $`X`$ and $`\psi `$ in the following way

$$X\frac{l_p^3}{R}X,\psi \frac{l_p^3}{R^{3/2}}\psi ,$$

The action after this rescaling takes the form

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}[S_0+S_m],g^2=\frac{R^3}{l_p^6},$$

where the original matrix action $`S_0`$ now is independent of $`l_p`$ and $`R`$, and the mass term $`S_m`$ is also independent of these parameters, and depends only on $`\mu `$.

It is still possible to classify all the loop corrections into loops weighted by the coupling constant $`g^2`$, although the new term $`S_m`$ does contain an interaction vertex. Consider the $`2\times 2`$ matrices, describing a system of two partons. We then formally expand the quantum effective action in powers of $`g^2`$: $`S_{eff}=_ng^{2(n1)}S_n`$. We are interested in the potential, and the potential has a similar expansion: $`V_{eff}=_nV_n=_ng^{2(n1)}U_n`$. Since the dimension of the coupling constant $`g^2`$ is $`L^3`$, the dimension of $`U_n`$ is $`L^{3n4}`$. The rescaled $`X`$ or $`r`$, the separation of the two partons, has a dimension $`L^1`$, we can write $`U_n=r^{43n}f_n`$, now $`f_n`$ is a dimensionless function. If we are interested in the bosonic part only, the dimensionless function $`f_n`$ is a function of three sets of dimensionless quantities, they are $`x^i/r`$, $`v^i/r^2`$ and $`\mu /r`$ (now since we are assuming $`SO(9)`$ symmetry, $`i`$ runs from 1 to 9). Rescaling back to the original coordinates, we have, in general

$$V_n=Rl_p^{3n6}r^{43n}f_n(\frac{x^i}{r},\frac{l_p^3v^i}{Rr^2},\frac{l_p^3\mu }{Rr}).$$

Of course, the above form is too general to be useful.

To fix the most important term at the one-loop level, without committing concrete calculation starting with action (1), we need to make some guess or reasonable physics argument. Here is our reasonable argument. Without the mass term, it is well known that the one-loop bosonic interaction assumes the form $`\frac{v^4}{r^7}`$, $`v`$ is the relative velocity between the two partons . There is an additional dimensionful coefficient $`l_p^9/R^3`$, of which $`l_p^9/R^2`$ can be interpreted as $`Gp^+(1)p^+(2)`$. the combination $`1/(Rr^7)`$ can be interpreted as the smearing of the Newtonian potential $`1/r^8`$ over the longitudinal direction (produced by an infinity array of mirror images). Alternatively, this potential can be obtained by considering a D0-brane moving in the Aichelburg-Sexl background. As we already shown, in the pp-wave background, the Newtonian potential for large $`\mu r`$ is no longer $`1/r^8`$, but modified to $`1/(\mu r^9)`$. We expect that the D0-brane interaction should be the smearing of this new potential in the longitudinal direction, thus we should have a factor $`1/(R\mu r^8)`$ in the potential. It must be also proportional to the Newton constant $`G`$ and $`p^+(1)p^+(2)=1/R^2`$, thus in general we must have

$$V_1=\frac{G}{R^3\mu r^8}f(v^2,\frac{v^ix^i}{r}).$$

$`f`$ is a function of velocity and velocity components. (In the flat background, the loop expansion was analyzed in the second reference of .

Is it possible to reproduce the form (1) using (1) at the one-loop level? A general term of (1) for $`n=1`$ is

$$Rl_p^3r[\frac{l_p^3v^ix^i}{Rr^3}]^m[\frac{l_p^6v^2}{R^2r^4}]^n[\frac{l_p^3\mu }{Rr}]^p.$$

From the dependence of (1) on $`\mu `$, we determine $`p=1`$. Now (1) becomes

$$\frac{l_p^{3m+6n6}}{\mu R^{m+2n2}r^{2m+4n2}}v^{2n}[\frac{vx}{r}]^m.$$

If we demand the exponent of $`l_p`$ is $`9`$, namely $`m+2n=5`$, we automatically have the exponent of $`R`$ in the denominator to be 3 and the exponent of $`r`$ to be 8. Of course, on the dimensional ground, only one of these two exponents is a free parameter, but it is now determined by our general analysis. This analysis does not help us to determine $`m`$ and $`n`$ separately, but for our purpose we do not have to know these separately, so we will collectively denote the one-loop potential by

$$V_1=\frac{Gv^5}{R^3\mu r^8}.$$

The fact that the power of $`v`$ is higher than that in the flat spacetime may have something to do with our previous result on the modified Newtonian potential, which is proportional to $`p^{}`$ rather than the invariant mass.

Note that, for small $`\mu r`$ and very small $`v`$, where $`r`$ is the characteristic separation between two partons and their distance from the original, the original $`v^4`$ interaction is still most important. For this interaction to be smaller than our new interaction (1), the condition is $`\mu r<v`$, namely the relative velocity cannot be too small.

Of course, our general analysis can not replace a direct computation of the one-loop potential in the matrix model, since it is highly nontrivial for possible low order terms to cancel, to yield a result proportional to $`1/r^8`$.

We now turn to a simple analysis of the ground bound states along the lines of . We assume that a simple black hole is composed of $`N`$ partons in which each individual parton is essentially a distinguished constituent, and thus satisfies the minimal uncertainty relation

$$\frac{1}{R}vr_01,$$

or

$$v\frac{R}{r_0}.$$

For the matrix model to be effective, $`v`$ must be small, thus $`r_0`$ is much greater than the longitudinal cut-off $`R`$.

Next, each parton is subject to interaction with all partons of number $`N`$ (for large enough $`N`$), and the total potential is roughly

$$NV_1=\frac{NGv^5}{R^3\mu r_0^8}.$$

It must be the same order of the kinetic energy $`v^2/R`$. Using the result (1) in $`NV_1v^2/R`$, we find

$$r_0^{11}\frac{NGR}{\mu },$$

it is certainly invariant under the generalized boost (1), or $`(\mu ,R)e^\alpha (\mu ,R)`$. The above relation can be rewritten as

$$r_0^9\frac{G}{\mu }\frac{N}{R}[\frac{R}{r_0}]^2\frac{Gp^{}}{\mu },$$

exactly the same formula as (1), if we take $`D=11`$ in that formula. We used I used $`P^{}Nv^2/R`$ and $`vR/r_0`$ in arriving at (1).

We see that indeed the matrix interaction can reproduce the formula for the transverse horizon size of a black hole. In the flat background, $`N`$ is taken as the entropy of the black hole , and there is a general relation $`SNr_0M`$, $`M`$ is the invariant mass of the black hole. In the pp-wave background, there is no boost invariance, so we do not hope in general that the entropy is boost invariant. However, we do have a generalized boost invariance (1), and we can define the boost invariant mass by $`M=\sqrt{p^+p^{}}\frac{N}{R}v`$. Using the uncertainty relation $`vR/r_0`$, we have

$$Nr_0M,$$

exactly the same relation as in the flat background. Note that this relation has nothing to do with the detailed formula for $`r_0`$, it is a result of the definition of the invariant mass and the uncertainty relation. If $`N`$ indeed can be regarded as the entropy of the black hole in the pp-wave background, using (1) and (1), we have

$$r_0^{10}\frac{GMR}{\mu },S[\frac{GR}{\mu }]^{\frac{1}{10}}M^{\frac{11}{10}},$$

in contrast to the relations in the flat background

$$r_0^8GM,SG^{\frac{1}{8}}M^{\frac{9}{8}}.$$

Appendix

We compute the exact Green’s function of a massless scalar in the background (1). To simplify formulas, assume $`\mu =3`$, or alternatively rescale $`x^\pm `$ to absorb $`\mu `$. The Green’s function satisfies

$$(_+_{}h_{++}_{}^2+^2)G(x,y)=\delta ^{11}(xy),$$

where $`h_{++}`$ is the coefficient of $`(dx^+)^2`$ in (1)with $`\mu =3`$, $`^2`$ is the Laplacian in the 9 dimensional transverse space.

Let

$$G(x^\pm y^\pm ,x,y)=\frac{dk_+dk_{}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik_+(x^+y^+)+ik_{}(x^{}y^{})}G(x,y),$$

where $`x,y`$ are transverse coordinates, then

$$(k_+k_{}+h_{++}k_{}^2+^2)G(x,y)=\delta ^9(x,y).$$

Apparently, the Green’s function in (1) can be expressed as a sum of harmonic eigenstates in the transverse space. For $`A=i`$, the eigenstates are

$$\varphi _{n_i}(x_i)=\left(\frac{\sqrt{|k_{}|}}{2^{n_i}n_i!\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}H_{n_i}(\sqrt{|k_{}|}x_i)e^{\frac{1}{2}|k_{}|x_i^2}.$$

For $`A=a`$, the eigenstates are

$$\varphi _{n_a}(x_a)=\left(\frac{\sqrt{|k_{}|}}{2^{n_a+1}n_a!\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}H_{n_i}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{|k_{}|}x_a)e^{\frac{1}{4}|k_{}|x_a^2}.$$

The eigenstates of the operator $`k_+k_{}+h_{++}k_{}^2+^2`$ are just products

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (x)=\underset{i}{}\varphi _{n_i}(x_i)\underset{a}{}\varphi _{n_a}(x_a).$$

Finally, the Green’s function of (1) is given by

$$G(x,y)=\underset{\{n_i,n_a\}}{}\frac{1}{k_+k_{}|k_{}|(2n_i+1)+\frac{1}{2}(2n_a+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (y).$$

Substitute (1) into (1) and perform the integral over $`k_+`$, we obtain a factor $`\theta (x_+)`$ (for the retarded Green’s function) and a product of functions depending on $`n_i,x_i`$ or $`n_a,x_a`$. Following , we use the following identity

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{n!}H_n(\sqrt{\omega }x)H_n(\sqrt{\omega }y)(\frac{z}{2})^n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1z^2}}\mathrm{exp}(\omega \left(\frac{2xyz(x^2+y^2)z^2}{1z^2}\right)$$

to obtain a closed form of the integrand in the integral over $`k_{}`$. In the end, up to a numerical factor, the retarded Green’s function can be expressed as

$$G(x,y)=I_+I_{},$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_+& =\mathrm{cos}^3(x^+y^+)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_{}k_{}^{7/2}e^{ik_{}(\mathrm{\Phi }+iϵ)},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }& =2(x^{}y^{})\mathrm{sin}2(x^+y^+)+2xy(x^2+y^2)\mathrm{cos}2(x^+y^+)\hfill \\ & +\left(2\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}(\stackrel{~}{x}^2+\stackrel{~}{y}^2)\mathrm{cos}(x^+y^+)\right)\mathrm{cos}(x^+y^+),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`xy=x_ix_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}=x_ay_a`$ and so on. $`I_{}`$ is given by the same formula as (1) with the $`k_{}`$ in the exponential replaced by $`k_{}`$, of course the sign of $`ϵ`$ must be switched too, to guarantee the convergence of the $`k_{}`$ integral. We can use the Green’s function obtained in this appendix to repeat the analysis in the main text.

Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by a grant of NSC, and by a “Hundred People Project” grant of Academia Sinica and an outstanding young investigator award of NSF of China.

References

relax D. Berenstein, J. Maldacena and H. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang Mills,” hep-th/0202021; R. Penrose, “Any spacetime has a plane wave as a limit,” in Differential Geometry and Relativity, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976; J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and G. Papadopoulos, “Homogeneous fluxes, branes and a maximally supersymmetric solution of M-theory,” JHEP 0108 (2001) 036, hep-th/0105308; M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull and G. Papadopoulos, “Penrose limits and maximal supersymmetry,” hep-th/0201081; R. R. Metsaev, “Type IIB Green-Schwarz superstring in plane wave Ramond-Ramond background,” Nucl.Phys. B625 (2002) 70-96, hep-th/0112044. relax M. Li, “Correspondence Principle in a PP-wave Background,” hep-th/0205043, Nucl.Phys. B638 (2002) 155-164. relax K. Dasgupta, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Matrix Perturbation Theory For M-theory On a PP-Wave,” hep-th/0205185, JHEP 0205 (2002) 056; “Protected Multiplets of M-Theory on a Plane Wave,” hep-th/0207050, JHEP 0209 (2002) 021; N. Kim and J.-H. Park, “Superalgebra for M-theory on a pp-wave,” hep-th/0207061, Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 106007; N. Kim, Jan Plefka, “On the Spectrum of PP-Wave Matrix Theory,” hep-th/0207034; N. Kim, K. M. Lee and Piljin Yi, “Deformed Matrix Theories with N=8 and Fivebranes in the PP Wave Background,” hep-th/0207264, JHEP 0211 (2002) 009; J. Maldacena, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M Van Raamsdonk, “Transverse Fivebranes in Matrix Theory,” hep-th/0211139. relax T. Banks, W. Fischler, I. Klebanov and L. Susskind, “Schwarzschild black holes from matrix theory I and II”, hep-th/9709091, hep-th/9711005; I. Klebanov and L. Susskind, “ Schwarzschild black holes in various dimensions from matrix theory”, hep-th/9709108; G. Horowitz and E. Martinec, “Comments on black holes in matrix theory”, hep-th/9710217; M. Li, “Matrix Schwarzschild black holes in large N limit”, hep-th/9710226, JHEP 9801 (1998) 009; M. Li and E. Martinec, “Probing matrix black holes,” hep-th/9801070. relax S. D. Mathur, A. Saxena, Y. K. Srivastava, “Scalar propagator in the pp-wave geometry obtained from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$,” hep-th/0205136, Nucl.Phys. B640 (2002) 367-378. relax M.R. Douglas, D. Kabat, P. Pouliot and S. H. Shenker, “D-branes and Short Distances in String Theory,” hep-th/9608024, Nucl.Phys. B485 (1997) 85-127; K. Becker, M. Becker, J. Polchinski and A. Tseytlin Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 3174-3178, hep-th/9706072.