format: text

text:
# The IKKT Matrix Model

### The IKKT Matrix Model

The IKKT matrix model  is defined as the dimensional reduction to a point of ten-dimensional maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The action is

$`S_{\mathrm{IKKT}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[X^i,X^j]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _i[X^i,\mathrm{\Psi }]\right),`$ (1.1)
where $`X^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},10`$, are $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices, whose eigenvalues represent the coordinates of a D-instanton in ten dimensional spacetime, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices which are Majorana-Weyl spinors in ten dimensions. The $`X^i`$’s are the reductions of the ten dimensional gauge fields and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the reductions of their superpartners. In the double scaling limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`g^20`$ with the product $`Ng^2`$ finite, the model (1.1) is conjectured to provide a nonperturbative definition of Type IIB superstring theory . Precisely, it is related to the Green-Schwarz formulation of the Type IIB string in the Schild gauge. It is also related to various other matrix models in string theory. For instance, by compactifying one of the directions on a circle $`𝐒^1`$ one can recover the BFSS matrix model  which is conjectured to provide a nonperturbative definition of M-Theory. By compactifying two of the directions on a torus $`𝐓^2=𝐒^1\times 𝐒^1`$, one can arrive at the DVV matrix string theory which proposes a nonperturbative definition of Type IIA superstring theory .

### Toroidal Compactification

The fact that the spacetime of the model (1.1) is described by mutually noncommuting matrices $`X^i`$ suggests that it should be related in some way to noncommutative geometry . This feature was first made precise in  in the following way. Let us compactify the coordinates $`X^i`$ on a hypercubic $`D`$-dimensional torus $`𝐓^D`$ of sides $`R^i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$. Because of the $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry of the action (1.1), it should be invariant under periodic shifts of the matrices $`X^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$ around the cycles of this torus up to unitary conjugation. Thus the toroidal compactification of the IKKT matrix model is tantamount to finding unitary matrices $`U_i`$ such that

$`X^i+2\pi R^i\delta _j^i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_N=U_j^1X^iU_j`$ (1.2)
for each $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},D`$. Taking the trace of both sides of the equations (1.2) shows that they cannot be solved by finite dimensional matrices. It is, however, straightforward to solve them by operators which act on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, i.e. by setting $`N\mathrm{}`$. By applying the translations (1.2) in two different directions it is easily seen that the unitary operators $`U_i`$ must satisfy the consistency conditions $`[U_iU_jU_i^1U_j^1,X^k]=0`$ for all $`i,j,k=1,\mathrm{},D`$, which imply that the unitary operators $`U_iU_jU_i^1U_j^1`$ can be represented via multiplication by some phases $`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}\text{}`$, on this Hilbert space. The operators $`U_i`$ thereby obey the commutation relations

$`U_iU_j=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}}U_jU_i.`$ (1.3)
We will assume throughout that the antisymmetric $`D\times D`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ is invertible (so that $`D=2d`$ is even).

The algebraic relations (1.3) are the defining presentation of the noncommutative torus $`𝐓_\mathrm{\Theta }^D`$ . The operators $`U_i`$ generate the algebra of smooth functions on $`𝐓_\mathrm{\Theta }^D`$ through the generalized Fourier series expansions

$`f={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}\text{}^D}{}}f_\stackrel{}{m}U_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}U_D^{m_D}`$ (1.4)
where $`f_\stackrel{}{m}`$ lives in an appropriate Schwartz space of sequences of sufficiently rapid decrease. The $`U_i`$’s may be represented in terms of Hermitian coordinate operators $`\widehat{x}^i`$ as

$`U_i=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\widehat{x}^i/R^i},[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]={\displaystyle \frac{iR^iR^j\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}}{2\pi }}.`$ (1.5)
In the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ the expansion (1.4) becomes the usual Fourier mode expansion for functions on the ordinary torus $`𝐓^D`$.

### The Moyal Product

The algebra (1.3,1.4) can be alternatively represented by deforming the usual pointwise multiplication in the algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐓^D)`$ of smooth functions on the ordinary torus to the associative, non-local star-product

$`f(x)g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`f(x)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^i}}\theta ^{ij}\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^j}}\right)g(x)`$ (1.6)
$`=`$ $`f(x)g(x)+i\theta ^{ij}_if(x)_jg(x)+𝒪\left(\theta ^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^D|det\theta |}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dy\mathrm{d}^Dzf(x+y)g(x+z)\mathrm{e}^{2i(\theta ^1)_{ij}y^iz^j}}.`$
On the torus $`𝐓^D`$, where $`\theta ^{ij}=R^iR^j\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}/2\pi `$, we can in addition represent this product by the Fourier series expansion

$`f(x)g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{n}\text{}^D}{}}f_\stackrel{}{m}g_{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m}}\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}m_in_j}\mathrm{e}^{in_ix^i/R^i}.`$ (1.7)
In particular, via an integration by parts one can find that the natural trace of products of functions in this deformed algebra coincides with that of the undeformed algebra,

$`\mathrm{Tr}fg={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dxf(x)g(x)}={\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^Dxf(x)g(x)}.`$ (1.8)
### Solving Quotient Conditions

To solve the quotient conditions (1.2) for toroidal compactification of the IKKT matrix model, we introduce anti-Hermitian linear derivations $`\widehat{}_i`$ which, together with the commutators of the coordinate operators in (1.5), obey the commutation relations

$`[\widehat{}_i,\widehat{x}^j]=\delta _i^j,[\widehat{}_i,\widehat{}_j]=f_{ij},`$ (1.9)
where $`f_{ij}`$ is an antisymmetric c-number tensor. Since then $`\widehat{}_iU_j=U_j(\widehat{}_i+2\pi i\delta _{ij}/R^i)`$, these derivations constitute a particular solution to the equations (1.2). A solution of the corresponding homogeneous equation can be obtained from any function $`A_i(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ of the generators $`\stackrel{~}{U}_i`$ of the commutant of the algebra $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐓_\mathrm{\Theta }^D)`$, i.e. $`[\stackrel{~}{U}_i,U_j]=0i,j`$. They themselves generate a related noncommutative $`D`$-torus. Therefore, the most general solution to the quotient conditions is of the form

$`X^i=i\left(R^i\right)^2\widehat{}_i+A_i\left(\stackrel{~}{U}\right).`$ (1.10)
The infinite dimensional operators (1.10) represent a connection of a gauge bundle (of topological charges $`f_{ij}`$) over the noncommutative torus. When they are substituted back into the action (1.1), one arrives at a field theory which can be obtained from ordinary Yang-Mills gauge theory on $`𝐓^D`$ by replacing all products of fields by the Moyal product (1.6). This field theory is known as noncommutative gauge theory.

2. Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory

The gauge theory obtained in the previous section is Yang-Mills theory on the noncommutative torus which is defined by the action

$`S_{\mathrm{NCYM}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^DxF_{ij}(x)F^{ij}(x)},`$ (2.1)
where

$`F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_iiA_iA_j+iA_jA_i.`$ (2.2)
This field theory possesses the noncommutative gauge symmetry

$`\delta _\lambda A_i=_i\lambda +i\lambda A_iiA_i\lambda ,\delta _\lambda F_{ij}=i\lambda F_{ij}iF_{ij}\lambda ,`$ (2.3)
where $`\lambda C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐓^D)`$. Although the Moyal product leads to an infinitely non-local interaction, this deformation of ordinary Yang-Mills theory leads to a sensible quantum field theory. In fact, it is the unique associative deformation which reduces to commutative Yang-Mills theory. It can be analysed in perturbation theory by replacing the structure constants $`f_{abc}`$ in the Feynman rules for ordinary non-abelian gauge theory everywhere by the oscillatory momentum-dependent functions $`2i\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{ij}p_{ai}p_{bj})`$, where $`p_a`$, $`p_b`$ and $`p_c`$ are the incoming momenta of a three-gluon vertex. Many of the perturbative properties of this theory can be thereby analysed.

While the effective noncommutative field theory so obtained has very natural interpretations in both string theory and 11-dimensional supergravity, it has required a stringent large $`N`$ limit to be taken in the IKKT matrix model and the information originally encoded by the matrix dynamics has been lost. It would be interesting to see if the origins of noncommutative geometry persists at the level of a finite dimensional matrix model. This would enable, at least in principal, the usage of standard numerical and analytical methods from matrix model technology to solve a host of problems in string theory. In  it was shown precisely how to do this via a lattice version of noncommutative gauge theory. In addition to providing finite dimensional versions of the above construction, it allows one to analyse various properties of noncommutative field theory and also to explain why noncommutative gauge theory arises so naturally from reduced models of Yang-Mills theory. A key feature of this analysis is that it is carried out within the framework of regulated quantum field theory and hence all results thereby obtained are rigorous.

3. Properties of Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory

Let us first summarize some of the basic properties of noncommutative field theories that will be analysed within the lattice approach to noncommutative gauge theory in subsequent sections.

### UV/IR Mixing

There is a well-known distinction between planar and non-planar Feynman graphs in noncommutative perturbation theory, analogous to that which arises in multi-colour quantum chromodynamics. For illustration, consider massive noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$-theory in four dimensions, which is defined by the interaction

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^4x\varphi (x)\varphi (x)\varphi (x)\varphi (x)}={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k_a}{(2\pi )^4}\varphi (k_a)\delta ^{(4)}\left(_bk_b\right)V(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)}`$ (3.1)
with momentum space vertex function

$`V(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)={\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}k_{ai}\theta ^{ij}k_{bj}}.`$ (3.2)
The momentum dependent phase factor (3.2) depends on the cyclic ordering of the vertex momenta $`k_a`$, and thereby contributes non-trivially only to non-planar Feynman graphs. For instance, the one-loop planar and non-planar contributions to the mass renormalization in this theory can be written symbolically as (neglecting overall numerical factors)

(3.3)
(3.4)
From (3.3) it is evident that the renormalizability properties of planar noncommutative diagrams are the same as those of the corresponding commutative theory (obtained by setting $`\theta =0`$) . This dispells the old belief that noncommutativity would generically serve as a regulator of ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory (at least for this class of noncommutative geometries that arises naturally in string theory and in M-Theory). On the other hand, the non-planar diagrams (3.4) exhibit the characteristic mixing of ultraviolet and infrared modes in noncommutative perturbation theory. Namely, although for finite external momentum $`p`$ the Feynman integral (3.4) is ultraviolet convergent due to the oscillatory momentum-dependent phase factor, in the infrared limit $`p0`$ the integral collapses to (3.3) which is ultraviolet divergent. The ultraviolet divergences in non-planar graphs have been regulated by the noncommutativity, but these have reappeared as infrared divergences. This is not completely surprising, since at $`\theta =0`$ these divergences must reappear in some way, and this reemergence is characterized by the low energy sector of the quantum field theory. It is a highly unexpected result to have found infrared divergences in a massive quantum field theory. Notice also that the $`\theta 0`$ limit is not a smooth one . One of the questions we will address in the following is whether this property is an artifact of perturbation theory or if it manifests itself in nonperturbative properties of the field theory.

This mixing of ultraviolet and infrared modes can in fact be argued for at a heuristic level just from the existence of noncommutativity. Indeed, the noncommutativity parameters lead to a correlation between the position uncertainties in a given pair $`ij`$ of spacetime directions of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i=\theta ^{ij}/\mathrm{\Delta }x^j`$. On the other hand, from the ordinary Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^j=1/\mathrm{\Delta }p^j`$, and therefore the spatial extension of a particle in a direction grows with its momentum in the transverse noncommutative directions. The growth in the size of an object with its energy $`E_i`$ is characteristic of string-modified uncertainty relations which have the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i}}+\alpha ^{}E_i,`$ (3.5)
and so the UV/IR mixing property of noncommutative quantum field theory can be regarded as an intrinsically “stringy” feature of these models. This has been at least part of the reason for the huge surge in activity in this models, because as quantum field theories they are believed to capture many of the generic properties of string theory.

### Origins of Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory

Besides the manner outlined in section 1, there are two other ways that noncommutative Yang-Mills theory arises as an effective field theory of string dynamics. The first is as a description of the low-energy dynamics of open strings on D-branes in background magnetic fields . Formally, the dynamics of the endpoints of the open strings is analogous to that described by the quantum mechanical Landau Lagrangian

$`_\mathrm{L}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{2}}\left(\dot{x}^i\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}ϵ_{ij}x^i\dot{x}^j`$ (3.6)
which describes the motion of electrons in the plane $`(x^1,x^2)`$ in the presence of a constant perpendicular magnetic field of strength $`B`$. In the low energy limit $`\mu 0`$, the coordinates become canonically conjugate operators with commutator $`[x^1,x^2]=i\theta `$, where $`\theta =1/B`$. Thus the configuration space of this simple model is deformed into a noncommutative space by the presence of the magnetic field. In this same sort of low-energy limit, the effective field theory governing the dynamics of D-branes in magnetic fields is noncommutative gauge theory .

The second appearence of noncommutative Yang-Mills theory in string theory comes from expanding the spacetime variables $`X^i`$ of the IKKT matrix model (1.1) about a D-brane background, which is characterized by a particular noncommuting configuration of the variables with constant curvature . Again this background can only be represented by infinite-dimensional matrices. This derivation has been used to suggest that twisted large $`N`$ reduced models may provide a concrete, non-perturbative definition of noncommutative gauge theory. In the following we shall examine, within a much more general framework, the reasons why this proposal appears to be correct.

### One-Loop Renormalization of Noncommutative Gauge Theory

The quadratic part of the one-loop effective action in momentum space for noncommutative quantum electrodynamics in four dimensions has been computed to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{quad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k^2}}\right)`$ (3.7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{24\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2\left[k_i(\theta ^{ij})^2k_j\right]}}\right)\}F^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an ultraviolet cutoff and $`F`$ is the noncommutative field strength tensor (2.2). The second term in (3.7) comes from the planar one-loop Feynman diagrams while the third one is due to the non-planar contributions. This result shows that, at the level of planar noncommutative diagrams, i.e. in the limit $`\theta \mathrm{}`$, the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory has a running coupling constant which coincides with that of ordinary $`SU(\mathrm{})`$ Yang-Mills theory. In particular, ignoring issues related to the center $`U(1)`$ of the gauge group when $`N>1`$ , we see that $`U(N)`$ noncommutative Yang-Mills theory with $`n_f`$ flavours of fundamental (fermion) matter fields is equivalent to ordinary $`U(\mathrm{})`$ Yang-Mills theory coupled to $`n_fN`$ flavours of matter. As we will explain in the following, the feature that noncommutative Yang-Mills theory at large $`\theta `$ coincides with large $`N`$ commutative gauge theory is a consequence of Morita equivalence of noncommutative gauge theories, which can also be thought of as a stringy characteristic within the present class of quantum field theories.

4. Lattice Regularization

The questions raised thus far will be answered via a lattice regularization of noncommutative field theory. Since, as we have discussed, constant noncommutativity parameters do not cure a quantum field theory of its ultraviolet divergences, this formalism will also provide a natural ultraviolet regulator for these models. Our starting point will be the definition of a noncommutative space of dimension $`D`$ which is defined by Hermitian coordinate operators $`\widehat{x}^i`$ that obey the commutation relations

$`[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]=i\theta ^{ij}`$ (4.1)
of noncommutative $`\text{}^D`$, where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},D`$. The lattice discretization is defined by restricting the spacetime points of $`\text{}^D`$ to the discrete values $`x^iϵ\text{}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the lattice spacing. This leads to a compact momentum space with periodically identified momenta $`k_ik_i+\frac{2\pi }{ϵ}\delta _{ij}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},D`$. As a consequence, the lattice discretization of noncommutative spacetime requires that the operators $`\widehat{x}^i`$ obey the constraint

$`\mathrm{e}^{i(k_i+\frac{2\pi }{ϵ}\delta _{ij})\widehat{x}^i}=\mathrm{e}^{ik_i\widehat{x}^i}`$ (4.2)
for each $`j=1,\mathrm{},D`$. By multiplying both sides of (4.2) by the operator $`\mathrm{e}^{ik_i\widehat{x}^i}`$ we learn two things. First of all, $`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\widehat{x}^i/ϵ}=11`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$. This is just the usual constraint that arises in lattice field theory, stating that the spacetime discretization must be compatible with the spectra of the position operators. However, because of (4.1), the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula produces a non-trivial c-number phase factor which leads to the constraint $`\theta ^{ij}k_j2ϵ\text{}`$, which when combined with the periodicity of momentum space implies that the numbers $`\frac{\pi }{ϵ^2}\theta ^{ij}`$ are integral for each $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},D`$.

This means that the momentum space is also discrete, $`k_i=2\pi (\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_a`$, where $`m_a\text{}`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},D`$, have the periodicities $`m_am_a+\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$. Thus the spacetime coordinates are effectively restricted to lie on a periodic lattice

$`x^ix^i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^i,a=1,\mathrm{},D,`$ (4.3)
where the $`D\times D`$ period matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined by

$`M^{ia}\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^jM^{ja}\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^i={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{ϵ}}\theta ^{ij}`$ (4.4)
for some integral $`D\times D`$ matrix $`M`$. We have therefore found that lattice regularization of noncommutative field theory implies that spacetime is necessarily compact. Notice that the continuum limit $`ϵ0`$ does not commute with the commutative limit $`\theta ^{ij}0`$, since the former limit restores the infinite (noncommutative) spacetime $`\text{}^D`$ while the latter limit shrinks it to a point. This discrete compactification is therefore just the UV/IR mixing phenomenon that we encountered perturbatively in the previous section. Here we have found that it arises at a completely non-perturbative level.

It is possible to take a continuum limit to a noncommutative torus in this case by letting the matrix elements $`M^{ia}\mathrm{}`$ . In the general case, however, we obtain a discrete representation of the noncommutative torus characterized by the algebra

$`\widehat{Z}_a\widehat{Z}_b=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}}\widehat{Z}_b\widehat{Z}_a,`$ (4.5)
where we have defined the single-valued coordinate operators

$`\widehat{Z}_a=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^a\widehat{x}^i},`$ (4.6)
and

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}=2\pi \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\right)_i^a\theta ^{ij}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\right)_j^b=ϵ\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\right)_i^aM^{ib}ϵ\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\right)_i^bM^{ia}`$ (4.7)
are the corresponding dimensionless noncommutativity parameters which are rational-valued. Furthermore, on the lattice one should as usual consider not the linear derivations $`\widehat{}_i`$ defined by (1.9), but rather the shift operators $`\widehat{D}_i=\mathrm{e}^{ϵ\widehat{}_i}`$ which affect translations in units of the lattice spacing $`ϵ`$. They act on the coordinate operators (4.6) as

$`\widehat{D}_i\widehat{Z}_a\widehat{D}_i^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi iϵ(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^a}\widehat{Z}_a.`$ (4.8)
To construct a field theory on the noncommutative lattice, we introduce a map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)`$ which provides an isomorphism between the algebra of finite dimensional Weyl operators $`\widehat{f}`$ and the noncommutative algebra of lattice fields $`f(x)`$ with a discrete version of the Moyal product. If $`f_\stackrel{}{m}`$ denotes the periodic lattice Fourier transform of the lattice field $`f(x)`$, then one can define its corresponding Weyl operator by the Fourier series

$`\widehat{f}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|det\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_a\widehat{x}^i}f_\stackrel{}{m},`$ (4.9)
where the sum runs over all integral vectors $`\stackrel{}{m}\text{}^D`$ modulo the periodicity of momentum space. The expression (4.9) can be written as

$`\widehat{f}={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}f(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x),`$ (4.10)
where the sum runs over all lattice points $`xϵ\text{}^D`$ modulo the periodicity (4.3) and

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|det\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{D}{}}}\widehat{Z}_a^{m_a}{\displaystyle \underset{b<a}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\pi im_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}m_b}\right]\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}.`$ (4.11)
Because of the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|det\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}=\delta _{x,0(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Sigma })},`$ (4.12)
it follows that at $`\theta =0`$ the map (4.11) reduces trivially to $`\delta (x\widehat{x})`$. However, in the generic noncommutative case it defines a very complicated transformation.

If Tr is any suitably normalized trace on the algebra of Weyl operators, then it is straightforward to show that the trace of the map (4.11) is $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)=1`$. Furthermore, these maps form a mutually orthonormal system of operators on the lattice, $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(y)=\delta _{xy}`$. From these properties it follows that the operator trace Tr may be uniquely represented in terms of a lattice sum as

$`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{f}={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}f(x),`$ (4.13)
and one can construct the Wigner map

$`f(x)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{f}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\right)`$ (4.14)
which is the inverse of the Weyl map (4.10). In particular, applying the Wigner map (4.14) to the product $`\widehat{f}\widehat{g}`$ of two Weyl operators leads to the definition of the lattice star-product,

$`f(x)g(x)\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{f}\widehat{g}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|det\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|}}{\displaystyle \underset{y,z}{}}\mathrm{e}^{2i(\theta ^1)_{ij}y^iz^j}f(x+y)g(x+z),`$ (4.15)
where in the second equality we have assumed that $`M^1`$ is an integral matrix. The expression (4.15) is the lattice version of the third equality in (1.6).

5. Discrete Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory

The construction of the previous section can be used to systematically construct a lattice version of noncommutative gauge theory. As in ordinary lattice gauge theory, the gauge fields are placed on links of the lattice, which in the present case leads to the definition of the Weyl operators

$`\widehat{U}_i={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)U_i(x),`$ (5.1)
where $`U_i(x)`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices. Unitarity of the Weyl operators (5.1), $`\widehat{U}_i^{}\widehat{U}_i=11`$, is then equivalent to star-unitarity of the corresponding lattice fields, $`U_i(x)^{}U_i(x)=11_N`$. A natural plaquette action may then be constructed from these fields as

$`S_\mathrm{D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\left[\widehat{U}_i\left(\widehat{D}_i\widehat{U}_j\widehat{D}_i^{}\right)\left(\widehat{D}_j\widehat{U}_i^{}\widehat{D}_j^{}\right)\widehat{U}_j^{}\right]`$ (5.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\left[U_i(x)U_j(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})U_i(x+ϵ\widehat{ȷ})^{}U_j(x)^{}\right],`$ (5.3)
where $`\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}`$ is the trace in the fundamental representation of the $`N\times N`$ unitary group $`U(N)`$, and $`\widehat{ı}`$ is a unit vector in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ direction of the lattice. The action (5.2,5.3) is invariant under the noncommutative gauge transformations

$`\widehat{U}_i\widehat{\omega }\widehat{U}_i\left(\widehat{D}_i\widehat{\omega }^{}\widehat{D}_i^{}\right),U_i(x)\omega (x)U_i(x)\omega (x+ϵ\widehat{ı})^{},`$ (5.4)
where the gauge operator $`\widehat{\omega }`$ is unitary, or equivalently the $`N\times N`$ gauge function $`\omega (x)`$ is star-unitary.

Note that this construction displays the manner in which the colour and spacetime degrees of freedom are treated on equal footing in noncommutative gauge theory. As we will see, this will be the essence of the relationship between these models and large $`N`$ reduced models. The lattice regularization now renders the quantum theory corresponding to the action (5.3) rigorously defined. The lattice noncommutative gauge transformations (5.4) form a finite-dimensional Lie group, and so the path integral measure can be taken to be the corresponding Haar measure, i.e. that which is invariant under left and right multiplications by elements of the noncommutative gauge group, $`\widehat{U}_i\widehat{\omega }\widehat{U}_i`$ and $`\widehat{U}_i\widehat{U}_i\widehat{\omega }`$. In the continuum limit $`ϵ0`$, we write $`U_i(x)=\mathrm{exp}_{}iϵA_i(x)`$, where the star-exponential $`\mathrm{exp}_{}`$ is defined by replacing ordinary products in the Taylor series expansion of the exponential function by star-products. Then one can easily work out the star-product of lattice gauge fields around a plaquette to be

$`U_i(x)U_j(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})U_i(x+ϵ\widehat{ȷ})^{}U_j(x)^{}=\mathrm{exp}_{}iϵ^2F_{ij}(x),`$ (5.5)
where $`F_{ij}`$ is the noncommutative field strength tensor (2.2). Thus in the continuum limit the action (5.3) reduces to the usual continuum noncommutative Yang-Mills action functional (2.1), and as such it represents the natural noncommutative version of the Wilson plaquette action for ordinary lattice gauge theory .

Let us now describe the observables of lattice noncommutative gauge theory . In analogy with the commutative case, let us choose an oriented contour $`𝒞=\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_L\}`$ on the lattice which is specified by $`L`$ links $`i_a=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\pm D`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},L`$, which start from the origin $`x=0`$ and end at the point $`\mathrm{}=ϵ_a\widehat{ı}_a`$. We then introduce the noncommutative version of the lattice parallel transport operator along the contour $`𝒞`$,

$`𝖴(x;𝒞)=U_{i_1}(x)U_{i_2}(x+ϵ\widehat{ı}_1)\mathrm{}U_{i_L}\left(x+ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}\widehat{ı}_a\right),`$ (5.6)
which transforms under noncommutative gauge transformations (5.4) in the expected way as

$`𝖴(x;𝒞)\omega (x)𝖴(x;𝒞)\omega (x+\mathrm{})^{}.`$ (5.7)
To construct star-gauge invariant operators from (5.6), we note that a simple application of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula gives

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^an_ax^i}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}`$
$`=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^an_ax^i}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi in_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}m_b}`$
$`=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^an_a\left(x^i+2\pi \theta ^{ij}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_j^bm_b\right)},`$ (5.8)
which via Fourier transformation implies that plane waves in noncommutative geometry affect the translations

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}\omega (x)\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}=\omega (x+\mathrm{}_\stackrel{}{m})`$ (5.9)
on arbitrary functions $`\omega (x)`$, where

$`\mathrm{}_\stackrel{}{m}^i=2\pi \theta ^{ij}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\right)_j^am_a+\mathrm{\Sigma }_a^iw^a`$ (5.10)
with $`w^a\text{}`$. This property, that unitary conjugation can induce spacetime translations of a function, is particular to the noncommutative Moyal product. It is related to the fact that noncommutative gauge theories are intimately connected with general relativity, another feature of them which is tied to their stringy nature.

From these properties it is straightforward to construct a gauge invariant observable associated with the contour $`𝒞`$ as

$`𝖮(𝒞)={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}𝖴(x;𝒞)\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}.`$ (5.11)
Its invariance follows from (5.7) and (5.9). The integer vector $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ can be interpreted as the total momentum of the line $`𝒞`$ and it is related to the separation of its endpoints by (5.10). The most remarkable aspect of this construction is that we haven’t had to assume that the contour $`𝒞`$ is closed. Therefore, in marked contrast to the commutative case, in noncommutative gauge theory there are gauge-invariant observables associated with open contours. The price to pay for this extra class of operators is that they are necessarily non-local, as the noncommutative gauge symmetry is a geometrical one and so requires the usage of the spacetime trace Tr in addition to the colour trace $`\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}`$ to define star-gauge invariant operators. In the commutative limit $`\theta =0`$, we recover the well-known fact that on a compact space the only gauge invariant observables are the Polyakov lines which wind $`w^a`$ times around the compact direction $`a`$. In that case, any function can be convoluted with the parallel transport operator in (5.11) and we recover the usual local observables of Yang-Mills theory. Notice also the feature that the size $`\mathrm{}`$ of the contour grows with its momentum according to (5.10). This is just another manifestation of the UV/IR mixing property that generically persists in noncommutative field theories.

6. Morita Equivalence

We will now describe a remarkable symmetry on the space of noncommutative (lattice) gauge theories. Consider commutative $`U(N)`$ lattice gauge theory with ’t Hooft flux in dimension $`D=2d`$. The action is the usual Wilson plaquette action

$`S_\mathrm{W}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\left[U_i(x)U_j(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})U_i(x+ϵ\widehat{ȷ})^{}U_j(x)^{}\right],`$ (6.1)
with the gauge fields obeying the twisted boundary conditions

$`U_i(x+\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a\widehat{ȷ})=\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x)U_i(x)\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x+ϵ\widehat{ı}).`$ (6.2)
Gauge fields which are multi-valued according to (6.2) are only defined on the universal covering space of the lattice because they carry a non-vanishing flux. By writing the large gauge transformation (6.2) along two different directions, we find that the transition functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x)`$ must satisfy the cocycle conditions

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^b\widehat{ı})\mathrm{\Omega }_b(x)=𝒵_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }_b(x+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^a\widehat{ı})\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x).`$ (6.3)
The phase factor $`𝒵_{ab}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi iQ_{ab}/N}\text{}_N`$ is called the “twist”, where $`Q_{ab}`$ is the integer ’t Hooft flux through the $`(ab)`$-th two-cycle of the torus . If we choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ to be constant $`SU(N)`$ matrices, then (6.3) implies that the transition functions obey the Weyl-’t Hooft algebra

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_b=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi iQ_{ab}/N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ (6.4)
which determines them as twist-eating solutions for $`SU(N)`$. Our task is to now find the general form of the gauge fields which solve the twisted boundary conditions (6.2). For this, we map the problem onto an equivalent one involving (commutative) Weyl operators. We introduce the map (5.1) and rewrite the action (6.1) as in (5.2). The large gauge transformations (6.2) may then be expressed in terms of Weyl operators as

$`\left(\widehat{D}_j\right)^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a/ϵ}\widehat{U}_i\left(\widehat{D}_j^{}\right)^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^a/ϵ}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\widehat{U}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}.`$ (6.5)
### Irreducible Representation of Twist Eaters

Before solving (6.5), we first need to digress a bit and describe the representation theory of the Weyl-’t Hooft algebra (6.4) . For this, we use the discrete $`SL(D,\text{})`$ automorphism symmetry group of the torus to rotate $`Q`$ into a canonical skew-diagonal form with skew-eigenvalues $`q_\alpha \text{}`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},d`$, and define the three sets of $`d`$ integers

$`N_\alpha =\mathrm{gcd}(q_\alpha ,N),\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{N_\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{q_\alpha }{N_\alpha }}.`$ (6.6)
A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of twist-eating solutions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is that there exists an integer $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0`$ such that $`N=\stackrel{~}{N}_0\stackrel{~}{N}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}_d`$. The integer $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{N}_d`$ is then the dimension of the irreducible representation of the Weyl-’t Hooft algebra (6.4), and the twist eaters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ may be defined on the $`SU(N)`$ subgroup $`SU(\stackrel{~}{N}_1)\mathrm{}SU(\stackrel{~}{N}_d)SU(\stackrel{~}{N}_0)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\alpha 1}`$ $`=`$ $`11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}\mathrm{}V_{\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha }\mathrm{}11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_d}11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_0},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}\mathrm{}\left(W_{\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha }\right)^{\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha }\mathrm{}11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_d}11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_0},`$ (6.7)
for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},d`$. Here $`(V_N)_{ab}=\delta _{a,b1}`$ and $`(W_N)_{ab}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(a1)/N}\delta _{ab}`$ are the cyclic shift and clock matrices of $`SU(N)`$ which obey the commutation relations

$`V_NW_N=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i/N}W_NV_N.`$ (6.8)
Note that the matrices (6.7) commute with the $`SU(\stackrel{~}{N}_0)`$ subgroup of $`SU(N)`$ consisting of matrices of the form $`11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_1}\mathrm{}11_{\stackrel{~}{N}_d}Z_0`$, $`Z_0SU(\stackrel{~}{N}_0)`$.

By construction, for each $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},d`$ the integers $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha `$ are relatively prime, and so there exist integers $`a_\alpha `$ and $`b_\alpha `$ such that $`a_\alpha \stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha +b_\alpha \stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha =1`$. We now introduce two diagonal $`D\times D`$ matrices $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ whose diagonal elements are the integers $`a_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\alpha `$, respectively, each of which appear with multiplicity two. Likewise, we define two skew-diagonal matrices $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ whose skew-diagonal elements are the integers $`b_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha `$. After using the $`SL(D,\text{})`$ automorphism group to rotate the flux matrix $`Q`$ back to general form, we find that the resulting four integral $`D\times D`$ matrices $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are all mutually commutating and obey the matrix identity

$`A\stackrel{~}{𝒩}+B\stackrel{~}{Q}=11_D.`$ (6.9)
As a consequence, these four matrices naturally produce a block matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ \stackrel{~}{Q}& \stackrel{~}{𝒩}\end{array}\right)SO(D,D;\text{}).`$ (6.10)
### Solving Twisted Boundary Conditions

Using the above construction, it is now straightforward to write down the general solution to the twisted boundary conditions (6.5). The details can be found in , and one finds

$`\widehat{U}_i={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{D}{}}}\widehat{Z}_a^{m_a}{\displaystyle \underset{b<a}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\pi im_a\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}m_b}\right]u_i(\stackrel{}{m}),`$ (6.11)
where $`u_i(\stackrel{}{m})`$ is an $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0\times \stackrel{~}{N}_0`$ matrix and the new coordinate operators are

$`\widehat{Z}_a^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^a\widehat{x}^i}{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{D}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\right)^{B_{ab}}.`$ (6.12)
Because of the algebra (6.4), the operators (6.12) obey the commutation relations (4.5) with noncommutativity parameter matrix

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^1B^{}`$ (6.13)
and also the relations (4.8) with period matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. We see therefore that by absorbing the ’t Hooft flux $`Q`$ and some of the colour degrees of freedom into the coordinate operators (6.12), we have effectively arrived at a new toroidal lattice which is now a noncommutative space.

We can now introduce a new Weyl-Wigner correspondence map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(x^{})`$ by substituting (6.12) into (4.11), where $`x^{}`$ are coordinates on the new (noncommutative) torus. Using this new map, we may then expand the operator $`\widehat{U}_i`$ in terms of a new field $`U_i^{}(x^{})`$ which is a single-valued $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0\times \stackrel{~}{N}_0`$ star-unitary matrix field on a toroidal lattice with periods $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The commutative Wilson plaquette action (6.1) then becomes the discrete noncommutative Yang-Mills action (5.3) of reduced gauge group rank $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0`$, with rational-valued noncommutativity parameters (6.13), and with new Yang-Mills coupling constant $`g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=Ng^2/\stackrel{~}{N}_0`$. We have thereby found that $`U(N)`$ commutative Yang-Mills theory with ’t Hooft flux is equivalent to a noncommutative $`U(\stackrel{~}{N}_0)`$ gauge theory with single-valued gauge fields. This transformation is an example of Morita equivalence. Note that it reduces the rank of the gauge group and increases the size of the torus. In fact, when $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0=1`$ (so that gauge group rank $`N`$ itself is the dimension of the desired irreducible representation of the Weyl-’t Hooft algebra), we see that the colour degrees of freedom of any non-abelian gauge theory can be completely absorbed into the noncommutativity of spacetime. This explains in part the equivalences between ordinary and noncommutative quantum gauge theories that we observed in section 3.

Morita equivalence is a standard equivalence relation among certain noncommutative spaces. Here we have found that it is simply a result of a change of basis $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(x^{})`$ for the mapping between Weyl operators and lattice fields. This Morita equivalence is in fact the noncommutative field theory version of the $`SO(D,D;\text{})`$ $`T`$-duality symmetry of toroidally compactified string theory . It is a remarkable fact that this string theoretical duality is manifested explicitly at a field theoretical level in noncommutative gauge theory. Furthermore, this equivalence can be shown to hold also at the level of all quantum correlation functions, and hence at the level of the full quantum field theory . For example, under this duality the Polyakov lines of ordinary gauge theory (with non-vanishing winding number $`w^a`$) on a torus are mapped onto the open Wilson lines of the Morita equivalent noncommutative gauge theory (with non-vanishing momentum $`m_a`$). Generally, at the level of observables, the Morita equivalence acts precisely like a $`T`$-duality, in that it interchanges momentum and winding modes $`m_aw^a`$.

7. Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model

We are now ready to naturally describe the link between noncommutative gauge theories and twisted reduced models. Let us reduce the Wilson action (6.1) to a single plaquette, leaving a one-site $`U(N)`$ lattice gauge theory, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=ϵ\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1_D`$, with ’t Hooft flux. By reducing the model to a point $`x=0`$, we can obtain the values of gauge fields at the other three sites of the plaquette by using the twisted boundary conditions (6.2) to get $`U_i(ϵ\delta _j^a\widehat{ȷ})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_aU_i(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}`$. The action (6.1) then reduces to

$`S_{\mathrm{TEK}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝒵_{ij}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\left(V_iV_jV_i^{}V_j^{}\right),`$ (7.1)
where $`V_i=U_i(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are $`N\times N`$ unitary matrices and the phase factor $`𝒵_{ij}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi iQ_{ij}/N}`$ is the twist that appeared in (6.3). This unitary matrix model is known as the (twisted) Eguchi-Kawai model . Such reduced models of gauge theory where originally introduced as matrix models whereby the spacetime dependence of gauge fields is absorbed into colour degrees of freedom, necessitating a large $`N`$ limit to be taken. The twist is required so that the reduced model is equivalent to the ’t Hooft limit of large $`N`$ quantum field theory on the continuum spacetime. This connection with noncommutative gauge theories is very natural, since both sorts of models describe a mixing of colour and spacetime degrees of freedom. In order to reproduce continuum field theories, the Eguchi-Kawai model was always studied in the large $`N`$ limit. But now we have unravelled a much deeper connection between the finite $`N`$ version of the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model and noncommutative lattice gauge theory, i.e. the two models are Morita equivalent. In the continuum limit, which requires $`N\mathrm{}`$, we now see why the reason for the intimate relationship between noncommutative Yang-Mills theory and reduced models – it is the simplest instance of Morita equivalence of noncommutative geometries. Note that the twist factor is related to a background flux, consistent with the fact that noncommutative field theory arises from string theory in background magnetic fields. We emphasize that the connection just presented between matrix models and noncommutative gauge theory is rigorous because it is derived from regulated quantum field theory.

A particularly interesting feature of the reduced model is that it yields a finite dimensional representation of the noncommutative torus. The algebraic relations (4.5,4.8) are satisfied by the $`N\times N`$ matrices

$`\widehat{Z}_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{D}{}}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right)^{B_{ij}},\widehat{D}_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$ (7.2)
with rational noncommutativity parameters (6.13) and period matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=ϵ\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. The problem of representing a continuum noncommutative torus using such a finite dimensional approximation is a little subtle and technically involved. The detailed, rigorous construction can be found in . However, given the matrix model (7.1), which is the unitary version of the IKKT matrix model obtained by exponentiating the Hermitian matrices of (1.1) according to $`V_i=\mathrm{e}^{iX^i/ϵ}`$, we can now write down a finite-dimensional version of the quotient conditions for toroidal compactification of the matrix model. Exponentiation of (1.2) leads to the conditions

$`\widehat{Z}_jV_i\widehat{Z}_j^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i\delta _{ij}\stackrel{~}{N}_i/N}V_i`$ (7.3)
which define the compactification of the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model (7.1) on a rectangular torus $`𝐓^D`$ of sides $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},D`$. Now taking the trace of both sides of the equation (7.3) only implies that $`V_i`$ is a traceless unitary matrix, which is a condition obeyed by the twist-eating solutions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. Moreover, the consistency condition generated by (7.3) yields precisely the defining relations (4.5) of the noncommutative torus. Because all parameters involved are rational numbers, finite-dimensional representations of all these quantities exist, and so it is possible to maintain a finite $`N`$ version of the noncommutative geometry described in section 1. A particular solution to the quotient conditions comes from the shift operators $`\widehat{D}_i`$ in (7.2), which modulo gauge transformations is the vacuum configuration of the matrix model (7.1). The general solution to (7.3) is then given by

$`V_i=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$ (7.4)
where the unitary matrices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$ generate the commutant of the noncommutative torus (4.5), i.e. $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i,\widehat{Z}_j]=0`$. The unitary matrices (7.4) represent a finite-dimensional approximation to a generic gauge connection on the noncommutative torus of topological charges $`Q_{ij}`$ . The general solutions of the commutant condition can be expanded in the Weyl basis of $`gl(N,\text{})`$, whose lattice Fourier transform provides the map between finite dimensional matrices and lattice fields. The corresponding expansion coefficients $`U_i(\stackrel{}{m})`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$ are now interpreted as the Fourier coefficients of some fields $`U_i(x)`$ defined on a periodic lattice. When (7.4) is then substituted back into the Eguchi-Kawai action (7.1), one arrives at the noncommutative lattice Yang-Mills action (5.3) for gauge group $`U(1)`$. For more details of this construction, see . In this way we have arrived at another derivation of the relationship between reduced models and noncommutative gauge theory. The two approaches are equivalent, because the commutant algebra generated by the matrices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$ in fact defines a Morita equivalent noncommutative torus .

8. Coupling to Fundamental Matter Fields

We will now examine to what extent the observables of noncommutative gauge theory can be regarded as fundamental. For this, we minimally couple the noncommutative gauge theory (5.3) to complex scalar fields $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$ in the fundamental representation of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group. The matter-coupled action is

$`S_\mathrm{m}={\displaystyle \underset{x,i}{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}U_i(x)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})+\mu ^2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x),`$ (8.1)
and, together with (5.4), it is invariant under the star-gauge transformations

$`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)\omega (x)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x),\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\omega (x)^{}.`$ (8.2)
The free scalar field propagator is

$`\varphi _a(x)^{}\varphi _b(y)_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2}}\delta _{ab}\delta _{xy},`$ (8.3)
where all averages in the following will denote those for a fixed gauge background, i.e. the gauge fields are not integrated over.

A real technical advantage of the lattice formulation of noncommutative gauge theory now comes into play. The scalar matter fields in the present lattice field theory may be integrated out analytically using the standard large mass expansion, in powers of $`\frac{1}{\mu ^2}`$, of lattice gauge theory. For instance, we can evaluate the effective action functional thereby induced for the gauge fields, which is defined by the perturbation series

$`𝖲_{\mathrm{eff}}[U]=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{x,i}{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}U_i(x)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})\right)^n_0\right].`$ (8.4)
The expectation values in (8.4) may be computed by using the standard Wick expansion and the propagator (8.3). The series (8.4) can thereby be reduced to a geometric sum over contours on the lattice of the same type that appears in ordinary lattice gauge theory, and we have

$`𝖲_{\mathrm{eff}}[U]={\displaystyle \underset{𝒞\mathrm{closed}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2L(𝒞)}}{L(𝒞)}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}𝖴(x;𝒞),`$ (8.5)
where $`L(𝒞)`$ is the number of links in the contour $`𝒞`$. In this way we recover the closed loop observables (5.11) (of momentum $`\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{0}`$) of noncommutative Yang-Mills theory.

To see how the star-gauge invariant observables associated with open Wilson lines arise, consider a two-point function of the form

$`𝖦[F]={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)F(x),`$ (8.6)
where $`F(x)`$ can be regarded as the wavefunction of the composite operator $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)`$. By Fourier transforming the function $`F(x)`$ to momentum space, we can write (8.6) as

$`𝖦[F]={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}F_\stackrel{}{m}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x)^{}\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i}\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x+\mathrm{}_\stackrel{}{m}),`$ (8.7)
where $`\mathrm{}_\stackrel{}{m}^i`$ is defined in (5.10) and we have used (5.9). The matter correlators in (8.7) are now straightforward to evaluate and are again given geometrically by a standard sum-over-paths representation. This enables us to write

$`𝖦[F]={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{m}}{}}F_\stackrel{}{m}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒞:\widehat{ı}_1+\mathrm{}+\widehat{ı}_{L(𝒞)}=\mathrm{}_\stackrel{}{m}}{}}\mu ^{2L(𝒞)}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}𝖴(x;𝒞)\mathrm{e}^{2\pi i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)_i^am_ax^i},`$ (8.8)
and so we recover the open Wilson line observables (of arbitrary momentum $`\stackrel{}{m}`$) of noncommutative gauge theory. Note that in the commutative limit $`\theta =0`$, only closed contours $`𝒞`$ contribute to the sum in (8.8) and are thereby independent of the integer vector $`\stackrel{}{m}`$. Then, the Fourier sum in (8.8) can be done explicitly, reinstating the wavefunction $`F(x)`$ and thereby recovering the closed Wilson line observables of ordinary gauge theory. Thus the open Wilson line observables of noncommutative gauge theory play just as fundamental a role as the closed ones do in ordinary Yang-Mills theory. The present demonstration of this feature is in fact identical to the way that Wilson loops were originally discovered .

### Morita Equivalence with Fundamental Matter

Let us now consider commutative $`U(N)`$ gauge theory minimally coupled to $`N_f`$ flavours of fundamental scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)_{a,\alpha }`$, where the index $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$ labels colour and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N_f`$ indexes flavour. If we take $`N_f=N`$, then we may regard $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ as an $`N\times N`$ complex matrix field. The action obtained by summing $`N_f`$ commutative actions analogous to (8.1) can then be written as

$`S_\mathrm{m}^{(N_f)}={\displaystyle \underset{x,i}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^{}U_i(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x+ϵ\widehat{ı})+\mu ^2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{tr}_{(N)}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x).`$ (8.9)
It possesses the local left $`U(N)`$ colour symmetry analogous to (8.2), and also a global right $`U(N)`$ flavour symmetry $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)h`$, $`hU(N_f)`$. We can thereby use the global $`SU(N_f)`$ flavour symmetry to mimic the adjoint $`U(N)`$ representation for these fundamental matter fields. In particular, as in (6.2) we can impose twisted boundary conditions on the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ in the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^a\widehat{ı})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}`$, where here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ represents a large gauge transformation while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}`$ represents a rotation in flavour space. We may now repeat the procedure described in section 6 of obtaining a Morita equivalent matter-coupled noncommutative gauge theory. One finds generally that ordinary $`U(N)`$ gauge theory coupled to $`n_fN`$ flavours of fundamental matter fields is equivalent to $`U(\stackrel{~}{N}_0)`$ noncommutative gauge theory with $`n_f\stackrel{~}{N}_0`$ flavours of fundamental matter. In the case $`\stackrel{~}{N}_0=1`$, we have thereby unveiled a proper explanation for the equivalences of commutative and noncommutative matter-coupled quantum gauge theories mentioned at the end of section 3. We stress once more that these equivalences are completely rigorous within the present setting, since they are obtained in a regularized quantum field theory.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank A. Armoni for comments on the manuscript. He also thanks the organisors and participants of the Euroconference for having provided a stimulating environment, and in particular C.-S. Chu, J. Fröhlich, A. Schwarz and M. Sheikh-Jabbari for interesting discussions. This work is supported in part by an Advanced Fellowship from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (U.K.).


text:
# Does Indeterminism Give Rise to an Intrinsic Time Arrow? Submitted to Studies in Hist. and Phil. of Mod. Phys.

## 1 Introduction

Our experience suggests that the universe’s evolution is invariably time-asymmetric, that is, that events evolve one after another from past to future. If this intuition is correct, then time’s apparent arrow should be intrinsic to the fundamental dynamical laws describing our universe. However, this intuitive impression is contradicted by current physical theories, according to which the fundamental dynamical laws of the universe are without exception time symmetric, i.e., invariant under time reversal.

In view of this time symmetry of physical laws, most accounts in the foundations of physics appeal to statistical assumptions concerning certain special boundary conditions in order to account for the apparent arrow of time. There are, however a few attempts (see e. g. Penrose ) to account for this arrow of time by making an appeal to a new physics which would explicitly include within the dynamical equations of motion a time-asymmetric component.

Another unresolved question in the foundations of physics is whether determinism holds at the microscopic level. Here opinions are more evenly divided. In quantum mechanics, for instance, some interpretations postulate dynamical equations of motion that are completely deterministic (e. g. Bohm’s pilot-wave  and Everett’s many worlds interpretation ), whereas other interpretations, following early ideas of von Neumann  and Dirac , attempt to rewrite the fundamental quantum mechanical laws by proposing indeterministic equations of motion (e. g. the collapse theory of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber (GRW)  and Penrose’s  hypothesis of gravitational collapse). Genuine stochastic dynamics has also been invoked in other fields of physics, e. g. black-hole thermodynamics (Hawking and Penrose ) and general relativity (Earman ).

These two questions, that is, the questions of whether the fundamental dynamical laws contain an (as yet unknown) intrinsic time arrow, and whether or not they are genuinely deterministic, went on nearly oblivious to one another. In this paper we would like to study their bearings on one another in detail.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we discuss three types of uncertainty and their physical manifestations. In section 3 we show the fundamental affinity between indeterminism and entropy. In section 4 we briefly review the GRW theory, then in section 5 we review Albert’s method of deriving the thermodynamic arrow from quantum collapse. Finally, we discuss the broader connection between the stochastic dynamics and the arrow of time.

## 2 Three Uncertainties and their Physical Manifestations

Let us begin with some theoretical considerations of uncertainty, reversibility, and determinism. We will use the term “uncertainty” to denote the strong, ontological sense of the term. In other words, we do not refer to the observer’s mere ignorance but to the real absence of any strict cause-effect relations between two event. We make use of the notion of causation here in an intuitive way without appealing to any specific theory of causation. An operational definition for such uncertainty is as follows:

If event A is uncertain and event B is its cause (effect), then, repeating the process in the forward (backward) time direction will not always reproduce A from B.

Such an uncertainty can take one out of three forms, which we shall denote by “$`𝐕`$,” “$`𝚲`$,” and “$`𝐗`$,” according to these letters’ shapes (as in Fig. 1). Strict determinism will be represented by $`𝐈`$, since it has a linear topology: each initial event $`C`$ constitutes a cause for only one effect $`E`$. Indeterministic theories can have one of the following topologies :“$`𝐕`$ uncertainty” arises when a certain cause $`C`$ can give rise to more than one possible effect: $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, … . “$`𝚲`$ uncertainty” is the inverse case where a system can start at any one out of some initial states, $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, …, but always reaches one final state $`E`$. “$`𝐗`$ uncertainty” is a combination of the former two: an event can have several initial causes, $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, …, as well as several effects, $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, … .

Note the following:

* Only $`𝚲`$ and $`𝐕`$ topologies are asymmetric under time reversal, and as such have a “built-in” microscopic time arrow. This microscopic time arrow may, or may not, manifest itself at the macro level, for instance in the form of a thermodynamic arrow (in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics). However, any further discussion on the arrow of time becomes superfluous, since its origin is apparent.
* $`𝐕`$ uncertainty is what we call “indeterminism”, since the present state of the system cannot help predicting its future state. However, such a topology is reversible since reversing the system from any of the effects $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, …, will always yield the initial cause $`C`$.
* $`𝚲`$ uncertainty, on the other hand, is deterministic in the forward time direction, but irreversible (in the sense just defined).
* All but $`𝐗`$ uncertainty are not accessible to empirical investigation. In $`𝐈`$ topology, for example, a system can be prepared in such a way as to either increase or decrease its entropy, depending only on the initial state. Hence, as Hawking  pointed out, we might be living in a universe that actually evolves from what we call “future” to our “past”, and we wouldn’t notice, as our perceptual mechanisms would be reversed accordingly. Similarly, since $`𝐕`$ and $`𝚲`$ uncertainties are mirror images of one another, we could be living in a world having one topology which nevertheless evolves from “past” to “future” (in some absolute sense), or vice versa. Neither experience nor experiment can distinguish between these possibilities.
* Hence, only $`𝐗`$ is a testable hypothesis, which we shall study in what follows.

Returning to physics, it is quantum mechanics where one would look for examples for such uncertainties. We would like to state that uncertainty in physics always comes in the $`𝐗`$ topology. For that purpose, consider the experimental setup in Fig. 2a. Here an electron source emits electrons in an $`x`$-spin up ($`x+`$) state. These electrons pass through a Stern-Gerlach (S.G.) magnet that splits their path according to their $`z`$-spin. Then the electrons can hit, with a 50-50 probability, one of the two detectors: $`A`$ for $`z+`$, or $`B`$ for $`z`$.

In a world of indeterministic dynamics (such as von Neumann’s “collapse”, or GRW111What we say in what follows applies only to the discrete model of the GRW theory. In the continuous model the dynamics turns out also to be time irreversible, but for different reasons related to the behavior of the tails of the collapsed wavefunction (see footnote 5 for more details).) one would intuitively classify its topology to be $`𝐕`$, such as in Fig. 1b: here one initial state $`C`$ (the electron at spin $`x+`$), gave rise to one out of two effects: $`E_1`$ (the electron hitting $`A`$ with spin $`z+`$), and $`E_2`$ (the electron hitting $`B`$ with spin $`z`$). However, $`𝐕`$ topology must be strictly reversible, and this is not the case here: reversing the operation of the detector that has clicked will cause the electron to reach the source in either a $`z+`$ or a $`z`$ state, in contrast to state $`C`$ where a spin $`x+`$ electron was emitted.

In order to resolve this inconsistency, let us look at Fig. 2b. Here the apparatus is extended to the past to explain how one could make an $`x+`$ spin source: one has actually used a generic electron source and passed the output beam through an $`X`$-S.G. Only the $`x+`$ part was allowed to continue the experiment. Now, reversing the experiment will, in 50% of the cases, return an $`x+`$ electron to the source $`S`$.

However, there is another possible past for the system. The electron could have been emitted in a $`X`$ spin state from source $`P`$, and reach exactly the same probabilities for the final states $`E_1`$, and $`E_2`$. This additional possible past now completes the picture, since reversing from these final states might cause the electron to be deflected down at the $`x`$-S.G. and reach source $`P`$.

Now we can see that in an indeterministic theory the dynamics can be time reversed in the above sense provided there are two possible pasts - that is, an $`𝐗`$ topology. Note, however, that the $`𝐗`$ might not be completely time-symmetric, that is $`C_1`$, and $`C_2`$ need not be equal to $`E_1`$, and $`E_2`$.

Note further that in the case of collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics such as the GRW theory (and von Neumann’s theory) the X shape situation means that the statistical results of measurements that may be carried out on a system at a given time (that is, of measurements of commuting observables) are in principle insufficient in order to built up, by retrodiction, the initial wavefunction of the system.222One can, however, built up the wavefunction from the (counterfactual) statistical results of all possible measurements which would include non-commuting measurements. Of course, in quantum mechanics without collapse it is also true that the actual statistics of results is insufficient to retrodict with certainty the wavefunction, but in such theories it is also true that the overall state of the world after a measurement is described by the uncollapsed wavefunction which obeys a completely deterministic and time reversible dynamics (i. e. the Schrödinger equation).

Next we shall consider the bearing of these conclusions on the origins of the thermodynamic arrow of time.

## 3 When Determinism Fails

In most physical discussions, “irreversibility” is used in the technical, hence relative sense. Processes like milk being spilt or a match being burnt are irreversible only in the practical sense because, in principle, a sufficiently advanced technology can reverse them. Indeed some processes considered irreversible by past standards are becoming reversible today.

Notice, however, that when referring to “sufficiently advanced technology,” one has in mind a kind of nanotechnology that can reverse, precisely and simultaneously, the motions of a myriad of molecules, so as to get spilt milk gathered anew in the jar and a match re-assembled from charcoal, smoke, and thermal photons. Now, this sense of reversibility rests on a highly non-trivial assumption that must no more be left tacit. To say that a process can be microscopically reversed, one must profess absolute determinism. It is only strict determinism that guarantees that, once the momenta of all molecules of a system are reversed, the system will return to its initial state.

Fig. 3 gives a simple illustration for this principle. A set of Newtonian balls (hence, harboring an $`𝐈`$ topology) is simulated in the forward and backward time directions at absolute precision. In Fig. 4, an event of $`𝐗`$ indeterminism is inserted by a single random interference with the position of a single ball. It is common knowledge that, for a normal system whose entropy increases, a slight interference will make no difference for the overall entropy increase. The final macrostate affected by the interference will be indistinguishable from the final state that would ensue otherwise. In contrast, an entropy decreasing system is extremely sensitive to interference: It requires a very special microstate at any instant, and the slightest interference will ruin its entropy decrease. Hence, the system will fail to converge to the desired ordered state.

What makes this seemingly trivial observation crucial in the context of time’s arrow is this: Regardless of the system’s initial conditions, its entropy always increases following the random event. If these initial conditions are of the normal, entropy-increasing type, the random event would merely strengthen entropy increase. If, on the other hand, they are of the unique, entropy-decreasing type, the random event would most probably flip the system’s evolution back towards entropy increase. Hence, genuine indeterminism at the micro scale enforces a macroscopic time arrow that has nothing to do with initial condition. Rather, it seems to be intrinsic (see also Elitzur and Dolev ).

A similar conclusion has been reached by Albert , who studied the indeterminism entailed by the GRW theory. We shall review the GRW interpretation in the following section, and Albert’s arguments afterwards.

## 4 The GRW theory

The GRW theory  is an interpretation of QM in which the von Neumann collapse is built into the dynamics of the wavefunction itself. There is no talk about measurement, observation, decoherence, or anything like that, and there is no need for thumb rules that somehow distinguish between the classical and the quantum levels, or system and its environment. According to GRW, any system whatsoever has a quantum state, and that state evolves under a single dynamical equation of motion. Quantum mechanics can be applied to any system whatsoever, including the universe as a whole. However, the theory explains, as a straightforward result of the dynamics, why systems consisting of a large number of particles (i. e. macroscopic systems) do not usually exhibit quantum interference (Schrödinger cats and measuring devices included). The theory in its most simple (and nonrelativistic) form goes as follows.333Here we follow Bell’s discrete model .

Consider the quantum wavefunction of a composite system consisting of $`N`$ particles:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1\mathrm{}x_N,t).$$
(1)
The time evolution of the wavefunction usually but not always satisfies the linear and deterministic Schrödinger equation. From time to time the wavefunction collapses onto some localized Gaussian in position of the normalized form:

$$G(x_k)=Ke^{(xx_k)^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(2)
where $`x_k`$ is randomly chosen from the arguments in (1) and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the Gaussian is stipulated to be approximately $`\mathrm{\Delta }=10^5cm`$. This parameter is taken as a new constant of nature. The GRW jumps are also stipulated to occur only in position, and this means that on this theory, wavefunctions that are approximate eigenstates of position are taken to be physically preferred.

Two additional questions with respect to the GRW collapses need to be settled: first, When do they occur? and second, Where? According to GRW, the answers to both questions are a matter of probability. Concerning the first, the probability $`\tau `$ for a collapse for a single particle at any given time is stipulated to be approximately $`\tau =10^{15}`$ (again a new constant of nature). Concerning the second question, the probability that the reduced wavefunction will be centered around any spatial point $`x`$ at time $`t`$ is given by the standard Born rule:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1\mathrm{}x_N,t|G(x_k)|^2,$$
(3)
where $`G(x,k)`$ is the GRW Gaussian defined in (2).

This is essentially the whole theory. However, three brief comments are in order:

(1) The choice of the new constants of nature, i. e. the frequency of the collapses $`\tau `$ (which is proportional to the number of particles) and the width of the Gaussian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ensure that the collapses will not result in violations of either our experience on the macroscopic scale, or of the well confirmed predictions of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, the stochastic dynamics is designed in such a way that the solution to the measurement problem in the quantum theory of measurement, obtains a straightforward result of the quantum mechanics of composite systems. In other words, any interaction which involves the spatial displacement of a large number of particles (say, in the pointer, or in records imprinted on a paper) will, with overwhelming probability, result in a collapse of the wavefunction onto one of the eigenstates of the pointer’s position with the usual Born probabilities.

(2) It follows from the GRW prescription that the collapses of the wavefunction might induce violations of both momentum and energy conservation. The GRW collapses will sometimes give rise to increase in momentum, in which case electrons might jump out of their orbits in the atoms. Similarly, they might increase the energy of a given cloud of gas just enough to heat it up, whereas we know experimentally that such things do not occur. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is chosen here to be wide enough so that the violations of the conservation laws will be small enough so as to be unobserved. So (in principle) it seems as if in the GRW theory there is a trade off between getting the second law of thermodynamics right, by the price of making the first law approximate. Note that if the GRW collapses were to occur onto delta functions in position, the violations of the conservation laws would be observable.

(3) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is chosen to be narrow enough so that the GRW collapses map the wavefunctions onto states that are close (in Hilbert space norm) to eigenstates of position, so that the positions become only approximately definite. This means that the GRW hits do not set the systems onto definite position states, but rather onto superpositions of positions with nonzero tails.444This yields the so-called tails problem: see Albert . Also, when and where the hits occur in measurement situations might drastically vary. For some measurements it turns out that the GRW collapses are unlikely to occur prior to the interaction with the observer: see Albert and Vaidman . But the amplitudes of these tails are small enough, so that the superposition has no observable effects, and the particles behave as if they actually have definite positions. Moreover, it turns out that these tails play an important role in the attempts to write down a relativistic version of the GRW theory.555 In the case of the continuous, relativistic, model of the GRW theory the time reversed evolution in standard quantum mechanics (with no collapse) and in the GRW theory coincide. That is, on this model the almost zero tail of the ”down” wavepacket will grow as the wavefunction is evolved backwards in time, so that the reversed wavepackets will exhibit the standard Schrödinger re-interference. This is by contrast to the almost negligible effect of the tail of the wavefunction in the course of the forward time evolution. In this sense also the continuous model of the GRW theory is not time reversible, though for a different reason. Note that the time irreversibility of the GRW tails turns out to be crucial in the case of relativistic versions of the theory. See Pearle . Given this behavior of the continuous model, it is interesting to consider whether or not it remains genuinely stochastic.

## 5 Albert’s Derivation of Entropy Increase from Quantum Collapse

According to Albert , the GRW theory provides a good candidate for reducing thermodynamics to mechanics, because its basic dynamical laws are fundamentally and irreducibly indeterministic. Moreover, the genuine stochastic collapse in the GRW theory is supposed to occur at the microscopic level with a frequency that suffices to actually derive the second law from the GRW dynamics.

Albert argues that a fundamental thermodynamic arrow intrinsic to the dynamics can be derived only in the GRW theory and not in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Bohm’s theory, modal interpretations and the many worlds interpretations, since the latter are all deterministic and time reversible theories ($`𝐈`$ topology). Following Albert, we argue that a genuine indeterministic dynamics is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for deriving a fundamental arrow of time, including the thermodynamic arrow. That is, such a derivation can be carried only in theories which employ genuine stochastic equations of motion. By an intrinsic arrow of time we mean that the arrow of time should be solely a consequence of the dynamical equations of motion of the theory, and in particular it should be independent of initial (or final) conditions.

Here is one way to see how Albert’s reduction of the thermodynamic laws to the GRW theory is carried out. Consider, for instance, the special case of the approach to equilibrium of thermodynamic systems. Take $`N`$ molecules of some gas that is spreading out in a container. In standard (Schrödinger) quantum mechanics the composite wavefunction of the gas will almost always correspond to a state in which (due to quantum mechanical interactions) the molecules will be entangled with each other (and with the container walls), and moreover they will generally not be located in some definite positions within the container.

However, because of the high value of N, the $`N`$-particles wavefunction in the GRW theory has an overwhelming probability for collapses at almost every instant of time. Moreover, according to the GRW prescription the wavefunction is reduced after a collapse to a Gaussian that is localized around some spatial distribution of the gas molecules. This means in particular that the solutions of the GRW equations of motion for the times at which collapses occur are approximately product states in position, where the molecules have in fact definite positions.

Finally note that this behavior critically depends on two factors. First, the number of particles in the system needs to be large enough to ensure the high probability for a GRW collapse. Second, the time evolution needs to be such that the wavefunction evolves into a superposition of terms corresponding to spatial locations of the molecules which differ more than the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the GRW Gaussian. If these conditions hold, the GRW jumps will invariably change the wavefunction of the gas in a way that is enough to put each molecule of the gas onto an apparently well defined trajectory. In particular, this behavior of the wavefunction is completely independent of initial conditions.

Recall now how mainstream physics tackles Loschmidt’s paradox. According to Loschmidt, by the same statistical considerations that have lead Boltzmann to predict entropy growth in the future direction, entropy should grow in the past direction too, as statistics itself is indifferent to the time directions. Against this paradox physicists invoke the low entropy past postulate (see Price ). This hypothesis simply imposes by fiat the low-entropy state in the universe’s past, in accordance with everyday observation. However, in the case of completely deterministic and time reversible theories this hypothesis means that the thermodynamic laws are recovered only for very special initial conditions which are (moreover) highly improbable.

In the case of the GRW theory, on the other hand, Loschmidt paradox simply does not arise. That is, the dynamics by itself does not entail that low entropy states in the past are just as improbable as low entropy future states. In this case, in order to settle the question whether or not entropy increasing trajectories in the future direction are highly probable, one has to actually solve the equations of motion of the GRW theory for the time in question. And that, as repeatedly stressed by Albert, is a straightforward empirical question (though perhaps not a tractable one in practice) about the predictions of the theory.

That is, given the GRW jumps, the question of the thermodynamic arrow of time becomes a completely empirical question. What is clear is that in the GRW dynamics there is a built in mechanism in the form of the quantum jumps that as a matter of principle can send the system onto an entropy increasing trajectory independently of initial conditions, in a way similar to our simulation on Section 3. And this is ensured by the fact that the GRW dynamics is truly stochastic (or indeterministic), and a-fortiori time irreversible.666There are some extreme cases in which, as of principle, the GRW theory might not deliver the second law. But due to decoherence effects these are probably unobservable, see Albert .

## 6 The Arrow of Time

We conclude our paper by generalizing our argument (Elitzur and Dolev ): A real arrow of time, that is an arrow of time intrinsic to the dynamical equations of motion, exists only in theories with indeterministic dynamics. In this sense, we argue that indeterministic $`𝐗`$ topology dynamics, as in the GRW theory, is a necessary (though not always sufficient) condition for deriving the thermodynamic arrow of time.

As is well known the postulated dynamics in most theories of current physics is time reversible.777Quantum weak interaction with $`CP`$ violations notwithstanding. This means that in principle such theories cannot account for the thermodynamic arrow of time (and for our experience of the arrow of time888We assume here that our experience of the arrow of time supervenes on physical processes.) as intrinsic to the dynamical equations of motion. As we briefly discussed in section 5, such theories can recover the second law of thermodynamics only by appealing to the low-entropy past hypothesis. This applies to both classical statistical mechanics and to no-collapse quantum mechanics (including decoherence theories).999For how to recover the thermodynamic laws in no collapse quantum mechanics, see Hemmo and Shenker . It turns out, however, that environmental decoherence is a sufficient condition for deriving the thermodynamic arrow as an effective law. In such theories no arrow of time is built into the dynamics (since they are time reversible), and therefore no intrinsic arrow of time can be obtained from the dynamics, no matter what empirical evidence we have for the thermodynamic arrow. This is not the case in stochastic theories such as the GRW theory.

Thus it is crucial to bear in mind that even if the second law of thermodynamics (and thus the thermodynamic arrow of time) can be derived in completely deterministic and time reversible theories, this would mean that the thermodynamic behavior is recovered only as an effective behavior that crucially depends on some specific initial conditions. In this sense such behavior will not be intrinsic to the dynamics of the theory. The microcanonical distribution postulated by the traditional approaches to this problem in classical statistical mechanics, for instance, ensures that the second law can be derived as an effective law. But the microcanonical distribution itself does not depend on the dynamics,101010There is a sense in which the ergodic approach in classical statistical mechanics tries to derive the microcanonical distribution from the ergodicity of the dynamics. But it is not clear whether this approach can be successful. See Sklar  for an overview of the problem and of the ergodic approach, and for references. and so thermodynamically pathological trajectories are in principle possible depending solely on the initial conditions of the system. Moreover, such trajectories turn out to be improbable, that is, they are assigned low probability (whatever probability means in the classical approach) only on the low-entropy past hypothesis.

Note that a theory might be genuinely stochastic and yet not deliver the thermodynamic arrow. For to derive the latter the stochastic dynamics at the macroscopic level must also be time irreversible, and (moreover) in the case of quantum mechanics the stochastic jumps must result in approximate eigenstates of position. That is, a stochastic theory in which the jumps were to occur, say onto some eigenstates of momentum, will definitely not yield the thermodynamic arrow. Since the above additional conditions on the dynamics are independent of whether or not the dynamics is stochastic, it follows that indeterminism by itself, even if it contains a built in arrow of time, is not sufficient to derive the thermodynamic arrow. This is, in fact, why other collapse theories such as von Neumann’s standard formulation will not be workable for deriving the arrow of time in general.111111In von Neumann’s theory the stochastic dynamics comes to play only in measurement situations, and so the derivation will only hold for these situations. This means that on a such a theory there will be no universal thermodynamic arrow, since no measurements are carried out on the universe as a whole.

In the case of the GRW theory, the quantum jumps are not time reversible, and that very fact allows to define, what might be called a quantum mechanical arrow of time. As we see from the above example, however, this arrow is completely independent of the thermodynamic arrow. But in the case of the GRW theory we saw that the dynamics alone can yields also the thermodynamic arrow of time. In this sense, in the GRW theory the thermodynamic arrow correlates with the quantum mechanical arrow of time. Moreover, if, as a matter of empirical fact, the GRW equations of motion will turn out to yield, with high probability, entropy increasing trajectories, then one could say that on this theory the thermodynamic arrow is derived from the quantum mechanical arrow. That is, what we have here is a proof that in the GRW theory the thermodynamic arrow can be built from the specific form of the GRW jumps.