text:
# Cancellation of Global Anomalies in Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories

## I Introduction

It is always possible to cancel gauge anomalies in effective theories by introducing non-renormalizable operators. These operators contain boson fields that transform non-linearly under the corresponding gauge symmetries. These fields can either be introduced as additional degrees of freedom—as in the Green-Schwarz (GS) GS  and other mechanisms archaeology —or be the would-be Goldstone bosons of the spontaneous breaking of the gauge symmetry Preskill .

After briefly reviewing the literature on local (perturbative) gauge anomalies, we discuss in some detail the global (non-perturbative) case Wittensu2  in $`d`$-dimensional effective theories of a gauge group $`G`$ spontaneously broken to $`H`$. We show how to construct local operators that cancel both local and global anomalies, using the would-be Goldstone bosons of the spontaneously broken theory without introducing additional degrees of freedom. This can be done provided that: 111A possible limitation of this procedure arises whenever we wish to preserve further symmetries of the original action that are explicitly broken by the introduction of these operators.

* the coset space $`G/H`$ is reductive;
* the fermion representations are free of local anomalies when restricted to the group $`H`$;
* the fermion representations are free of global anomalies when restricted to the group $`H`$;
* $`G`$ can be embedded in a group $`K`$ such that its homotopy group $`\pi _d(K)=0`$ and the fermion representations can be extended to $`K`$ without generating further anomalies of $`G`$.

Most of these conditions can be derived from the literature. In particular, conditions 1 and 2 have been derived for local gauge anomalies Wu ; AGG ; CHZ , while conditions 3 and 4 are closely related to the results of WittenGlobal ; w ; en . In this paper—generalizing the idea of computing global anomalies as local anomalies of a larger group $`K`$ en —we argue that the operators constructed in Wu ; AGG ; CHZ  to cancel local anomalies of $`G`$ can be properly defined globally and used to cancel global anomalies of $`G`$, provided the above four conditions are satisfied.

This result is of interest in model building in so far as the fermion content of an effective theory is only restricted by the cancellation of the anomalies of the unbroken group $`H`$. As an example we show how the standard model in $`d=6`$ DP  can be made (local and global) anomaly free.

## II Cancellation of Local Gauge Anomalies

In purely bosonic low-energy effective actions, anomalies are accounted for by the Wess-Zumino (WZ) term WZ . For a global symmetry group $`G`$ spontaneously broken to an anomaly-free subgroup $`H`$, the WZ coupling is a non-invariant function of the corresponding Goldstone bosons. The same term can be generalized to reproduce also gauge anomalies when part or all of the group $`G`$ is gauged WittenGlobal . From an effective field theory point of view, the WZ term can be seen as the remnant of massive fermions that have been integrated out in a microscopic theory hokerfari . This is in agreement with the ’t Hooft anomaly matching condition tHooft : anomalies, being long-distance effects, have to match in going from the fundamental to the effective theory.

The WZ term can also be viewed from a different perspective: an anomalous theory can be rendered gauge invariant by coupling it to $`G`$-valued scalar fields and adding the WZ term to the action archaeology . Thus, instead of reproducing the anomalies of an underlying theory, one can use the WZ term to cancel them. This construction is similar to the GS mechanism GS , which also requires the presence of additional degrees of freedom (but only works for reducible anomalies).

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ is the effective action for the gauge field $`A`$ obtained by integrating out fermions, the WZ term is defined in general by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,g)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(A^g)\mathrm{\Gamma }(A),$$
(1)
where $`A^g=g^1Ag+g^1dg`$ is the gauge transformed connection. From the definition, it satisfies the following (cocycle) condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A^g,U^g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,U)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,g),$$
(2)
where $`U`$ are the $`G`$-valued scalar fields and $`U^g=g^1U`$. If the low-energy theory contains both fermions and scalars, and the scalar action contains the WZ term, then the effective action $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(A,U)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,U)`$ is seen to be gauge invariant by means of (1) and (2). It can be shown that the addition of the WZ term cures also the problems arising in the canonical formulation of the theory perca2 , so that the quantum theory, aside from renormalizability issues, is well defined.

Although the fermionic effective action is nonlocal, the WZ action is local. The standard way of deriving an explicit expression for the WZ action is through the dimensional descent. Assume that the boundary conditions on the fields are such that spacetime can be compactified to a $`d`$-dimensional sphere (we assume $`d`$ to be even). We can think of this sphere as the boundary of a $`d+1`$-dimensional ball $`B`$. Assume for simplicity that the gauge fields are topologically trivial (no instantons) and that the scalar fields are homotopically trivial. (This will automatically be the case if the homotopy group $`\pi _d(G)=0`$, but we need not assume this). Then the fields can be extended to a gauge field $`\widehat{A}`$ and a scalar field $`\widehat{U}`$ defined on all of $`B`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{A})`$ be the Chern-Simons functional, the integral of the $`(d+1)`$-form $`\omega (\widehat{A})`$ on $`B`$. Its gauge variation under a gauge transformation $`g`$ is the WZ action:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,g)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{A}^{\widehat{g}})\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{A}).$$
(3)
Even though the right-hand side of (3) is written in terms of the fields on $`B`$, it is the integral of an exact form and therefore can be rewritten as an integral on spacetime, depending only on the boundary values of the fields $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{U}`$. This gives an explicit, local formula for the WZ term that cancels local anomalies.

A variation of this anomaly-cancellation scheme occurs when the scalar fields are not introduced by hand but are already present in the theory. This can happen in the Higgs phase of a gauge theory Preskill . The would-be Goldstone bosons—the angular components of the Higgs field—are the scalar fields that can be used to write the WZ term. This idea had been already put forward in GJ  where the interplay between renormalizability and anomaly cancellation in spontaneously broken gauge theories was first discussed in an abelian Higgs model coupled to a chiral fermion in four dimensions. This perspective—that spontaneously broken effective gauge theories with anomalous fermion content can be consistently quantized—has been exploited in Preskill  where the approach is extended to non-abelian gauge symmetries.

Since there is usually a nontrivial unbroken group $`H`$, one has to generalize the WZ term to the case of $`G/H`$-valued, rather than $`G`$-valued, scalars $`\phi `$. Let us review more explicitly how this construction works, following closely the analysis in Wu ; AGG ; CHZ  from the perspective of Preskill . Consider a given $`d`$-dimensional action with a local gauge symmetry $`G`$ spontaneously broken to a subgroup $`H`$. We denote by $`T^A`$ the whole set of generators of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of $`G`$, whereas $`T^i`$ and $`T^\alpha `$ are respectively the generators of $``$ and of the coset $`G/H`$. We assume that $`G/H`$ is a reductive space, i.e. that $`[T^i,T^\alpha ]=f_{i\alpha \beta }T^\beta `$. Assume also that the fermion content of the corresponding action gives rise to the following anomaly:

$`\delta _\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx𝒜_\alpha [A(x)]},`$
$`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
where $`𝒜_\alpha `$ denotes the usual one-loop gauge anomaly. In other words, eq.(4) implies that any potentially anomalous fermionic one-loop amplitude vanishes as soon as one of the external gauge fields belongs to $`H`$.

To write a WZ term, we now assume that there exists a unitary gauge, i.e. that there is a globally defined gauge transformation $`U(x)`$ that transforms the $`G/H`$-valued field $`\phi (x)`$ to a constant. 222This is always true whenever the gauge field $`A`$ and its components in $`H`$ are topologically trivial. More general cases can be however similarly analyzed. This is a purely topological restriction on $`\phi `$; it is less restrictive than the assumption of being homotopic to a constant.

This gauge transformation $`U`$ is not unique: two $`G`$-valued maps $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ correspond to the same $`\phi `$ if and only if they differ by a right-$`H`$ transformation: $`U^{}(x)=U(x)h(x)`$. Thus we can use $`U`$ as a dynamical variable instead of $`\phi `$, but in doing so, we introduce an additional $`H`$ gauge freedom. Having reformulated the theory in terms of $`U`$, we can add to the action a WZ term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,U)`$. Because of (4), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,Uh)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,U)`$, so it depends only on the coset $`\phi (x)=U(x)H`$, i.e. on the would-be Goldstone fields. In this case we will therefore write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,\phi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,U)`$. The addition of this term to the action cancels the anomaly exactly as in the previous case. 333One often encounters the notation $`U(x)=e^{\xi ^\alpha (x)T_\alpha }`$; this amounts to choosing a specific coordinate system on the coset space and can generally be valid only locally. In this notation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}(A,\xi )=_0^1𝑑td^dx\xi ^\alpha (x)𝒜_\alpha [A_t]`$ where $`A_t=e^{t\xi }Ae^{t\xi }+e^{t\xi }de^{t\xi }`$. In the simple case of $`G=U(1)`$ and $`H=\{1\}`$ one can easily check that this reduces to the form $`\xi F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ GJ , as also discussed in DSW  in the context of the GS mechanism in $`d=4`$.

This procedure can be used also when the second condition in eq. (4) is replaced by the weaker condition $`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_H)=0`$ where $`A_H`$ denotes the component of the gauge field in the subalgebra of $`H`$, i.e. when the fermion representations, restricted to the subgroup $`H`$, are free of local anomalies. As shown in Wu ; AGG ; CHZ , one can add to the action a local functional $`B_d(A_H,A)`$ such that the second relation in (4) is satisfied (see CHZ  and eq. (IV) below for an explicit expression of $`B_d(A_H,A)`$). Thus, in this more general setting, all local anomalies are cancelled by adding to the action the modified WZ term

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^{}(A,U)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(A^U)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(A),$$
(5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(A)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)+B_d(A_H,A).$$
(6)
Once gauge invariance is restored, it is possible to shift the fields in such a way as to decouple $`\phi `$, and give mass to the gauge bosons of $`G/H`$ (unitary gauge). The presence of the term (5) in the generic gauge signals however the non-renormalizability of the theory. An explicit proof of non-renormalizability in the ’t Hooft-Landau gauge is given in Preskill . This can also be understood by looking at the diagram giving rise to the anomaly containing off-shell non-analytic contributions ABJ  that cannot be cancelled by any local counterterm.

The result of these analyses is that, as far as local gauge anomalies are concerned, effective theories, for which renormalizability is not a requirement, can be made anomaly free by the addition of an appropriate WZ term. No restriction on the fermion content of the theory is needed, provided that the first two conditions listed in the introduction are satisfied.

So far, our analysis has been purely local without considering possible topological obstructions or possible global gauge anomalies. In fact, a potential problem can arise in the above construction whenever $`\pi _d(G/H)0`$ CHZ . On the other hand, the same condition of having a non-trivial homotopy group can give rise to global anomalies Wittensu2 . In the next section we will show how to generalize the above procedure to take into account these global issues and remove the above topological condition.

## III Cancellation of Global Gauge Anomalies

Even a theory free of perturbative anomalies—i.e. invariant under infinitesimal gauge transformations—can still be anomalous under gauge transformations that are not homotopic to the identity. This was discussed first for an $`SU(2)`$ theory in four dimensions in Wittensu2  and for other dimensions in en  (see also kiritsis ). These gauge anomalies are called global, or non-perturbative anomalies. They can occur whenever $`\pi _d(G)0`$444When spacetime is not flat, or instantons are present, the conditions can become more complicated. We will not consider these cases.

Extending the results of archaeology , it is always possible to cancel any global anomaly by coupling the theory to a $`G`$-valued scalar field $`U(x)`$ and adding a suitable WZ term $`\gamma `$ to the action perca . The absence of local anomalies means that $`\gamma `$, defined as in (1), is zero, independently of $`A`$, when $`g`$ is homotopic to a constant. Every $`g`$ in a certain homotopy class can be written as $`g_1g^{}`$ where $`g_1`$ is a fixed map in that same homotopy class and $`g^{}`$ is homotopically trivial. Then from the cocycle condition (2) one sees that $`\gamma (A,g_1g)=\gamma (A,g_1)`$, so $`\gamma `$ is invariant under continuous deformations of $`g`$. In conclusion, $`\gamma `$ depends only on the homotopy class $`[g]`$ and therefore can be seen as a topological term. 555The addition of a topological term to the action is a hallmark of the existence of $`\theta `$-sectors, and indeed one can interpret this anomaly-cancellation mechanism by saying that the anomalous theory can be quantized by coupling it to a specific $`\theta `$-sector of the scalar theory. From (2) we also see that it must define a representation of $`\pi _d(G)`$:

$$\gamma (g_1g_2)=\gamma (g_1)+\gamma (g_2).$$
(7)
As in section II, we are especially interested in the case where the scalar fields do not have to be introduced ad hoc, but are already present in the theory. We are thus led to ask: if the $`G`$ gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken to $`H`$ due to a Higgs mechanism, can one cancel the global anomalies of the low-energy effective theory by means of a WZ term written as a functional of the would-be Goldstone bosons? The answer is that this is possible if the fermion representations, restricted to $`H`$, are free of global anomalies.

As in the previous section we replace the coset-valued field $`\phi `$ by the $`G`$-valued field $`U`$. Having reformulated the theory in terms of $`U`$, we can write WZ terms $`\gamma (U)`$ cancelling any global anomaly, using the method described above. Of course now we want these terms to depend only on the physical scalar fields $`\phi `$. This will automatically be the case if the unbroken group $`H`$ is free of global anomalies. Indeed, in this case it follows from (7) that $`\gamma (Uh)=\gamma (U)+\gamma (h)=\gamma (U)`$ and therefore $`\gamma `$ really only depends on the (homotopy class of the) coset-valued field $`\phi (x)`$. Global $`H`$ anomalies will certainly be absent if $`\pi _d(H)=0`$, but even if $`\pi _d(H)`$ is nontrivial the theory may be free of global $`H`$ anomalies provided the fermion representations are chosen appropriately. In this case, global anomalies can be present only when $`\pi _d(G/H)0`$.

One may be interested in a general method for calculating the topological term $`\gamma `$. Following the discussion in w  and en , it can be written as a WZ term, albeit for a larger group. The construction of the WZ term given in (3) demands that the map $`U`$ be homotopic to a constant. If $`U`$ is not homotopic to a constant one can still proceed by embedding $`G`$ in a larger group $`K`$ such that $`\pi _d(K)=0`$. One then defines a map $`\overline{U}`$ by composing $`U`$ with this embedding, and a gauge field $`\overline{A}`$ by the corresponding embedding of the Lie algebras. For instance, one can write WittenGlobal

$$\overline{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{and}\overline{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The fermion content of $`K`$ is so chosen that upon reduction to $`G`$ gives rise to the required $`G`$ representations and a number of $`G`$ singlets (or anomaly-free representations of $`G`$).

The field $`\overline{U}`$ is homotopic to a constant and one can explicitly write the WZ term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K(\overline{A},\overline{U})`$ as in (3). As described above, if the theory is free of perturbative anomalies we can take simply $`\gamma (g)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K(\overline{A},\overline{g})`$. Thus, the WZ term canceling the nonperturbative $`G`$-anomaly can be calculated as a perturbative WZ term for the larger group $`K`$, along the lines of en .

Finally, let us consider the generic case when the theory has perturbative anomalies with only $`\delta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(A_H)=0`$, and at the same time $`\pi _d(G/H)0`$. In the last section we have seen, following Wu ; AGG ; CHZ , that it is always possible to add to the action a local operator $`B_d(A_H,A)`$ so as to construct a WZ term (5) and cancel the perturbative anomalies. This WZ term is well defined when the map $`U`$ is homotopic to a constant. We have also described in the previous paragraph a way of writing a WZ term for a larger group $`K`$ that, when restricted to the subgroup $`G`$, makes sense for all maps $`U`$, irrespective of their homotopy class. If there are local anomalies, this WZ term, now denoted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K(\overline{A},\overline{U})`$, is no longer topological. In fact, one can see (e. g. , by means of (8)) that when $`U`$ is homotopically trivial, it agrees with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^{}(A,U)`$ defined in (5). There follows that defining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^{}(A,U)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K(\overline{A},\overline{U})`$ the resulting effective action is defined for all maps $`U`$, whether trivial or not, and free of both local and global gauge anomalies for the group $`G`$ spontaneously broken to $`H`$666Even in the absence of global anomalies, this construction generalizes that of CHZ .

A physical interpretation of the group $`K`$ can be given (although not necessary), along the lines of hokerfari . In this case, one can imagine a microscopic theory with a gauge group $`K`$ and a completely anomaly free (local and global) fermion spectrum. The fermions are in representations of $`K`$ such that, upon the spontaneous breaking of $`K`$ to $`G`$, give rise to the required fermions in representations of $`G`$. The massive fermions that are integrated out produce the Wess-Zumino term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K(\overline{A},\overline{U})`$ above.

## IV The Standard Model in Six Dimensions

In a recent paper DP , it was argued that, in the minimal non-supersymmetric version of the standard model in $`d=6`$ dimensions, the requirement of canceling all gauge anomalies restricts the chiral fermion content of the theory. In particular, the cancellation of the $`SU(2)`$ global anomaly implies a restriction on the number $`N_g`$ of matter families:

$`N_g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}.`$ (9)
The field content of a single family is restricted by the requirement of the cancellation of all irreducible local anomalies—that is, by the requirement of having a vector-like theory of strong and gravitational interactions—while the $`d=6`$ realization of the usual GS mechanism is invokated in order to eliminate reducible local anomalies. Accordingly, the fields are those in Table 1.

A detailed inspection of the GS mechanism, performed in FPT3 , showed that the addition of two GS 2-forms—supplemented by the use of the $`U(1)_Y`$ Goldstone boson in order to realize the generalized abelian GS of DSW —is sufficient to restore gauge invariance. After compactification of the two extra-dimensions, some pseudo-scalar fields, behaving like Peccei-Quinn axions, remain in the $`d=4`$ effective field theory as remnants of the GS fields. Their presence solves the strong $`CP`$ problem, but imposes a strong bound on the scale of the GS couplings and therefore a limit on the volume of the compact extra-dimensions, the fundamental scale of which turns out to be in the range of usual GUT theories.

Is it possible to achieve the cancellation of the reducible anomalies with some mechanism which does not leave any axionic remnant in the low energy $`d=4`$ effective theory? The machinery discussed in this paper is suitable for this purpose.

The choice of fermion content guarantees that the model has no pure gravitational anomaly. The addition of a local Chern-Simons term shifts mixed gravitational anomalies into those of gauge. Fermions form a vector-like representation of the group $`SU(3)_c`$ with no contribution to the anomalies. We can thus identify the groups of the previous sections with those in DP

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}K\hfill & =& SU(4)_L\times U(1)_Y,\hfill \\ G\hfill & =& SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y,\hfill \\ H\hfill & =& U(1)_{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Since $`\pi _6\left(G/H\right)=𝐙_{12}`$, we have enlarged $`G`$ to $`K`$ for which $`\pi _6\left(K\right)=0`$.

Each $`SU(2)`$ doublet in Table 1 goes into the fundamental representation of $`SU(4)`$ (to be decomposed into a $`SU(2)`$ doublet plus singlets). In addition to the already-present singlets, more singlets are necessary in order to preserve the $`U(1)_Y^4`$ anomaly.

The subgroup $`H`$ is not anomaly free, but it is a simple exercise to verify that, with the field content in Table 1, fermions form a non-chiral representation of the unbroken group $`H`$: the weaker condition leading to the $`B_6`$ term is satisfied. Also all the other conditions stated in the introduction hold, and therefore the WZ term can be used to cancel all anomalies, as explained in the previous sections. This term can be explicitly written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{WZ}^K=_0^1\text{d}t\xi ^\alpha 𝒜_\alpha ^{}[\overline{A}_t],$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(A)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)+B_6(A_H,A)`$, with

$$B_6(A_0,A_1)=12_\mathrm{\Delta }\text{d}\mu \text{d}\lambda \mathrm{Str}[A_0,A_1,F_{\mu ,\lambda }^2],$$

and $`A_t`$ is defined in footnote 3. Following the notation of CHZ :

$`\mathrm{Str}[C_1,\mathrm{},C_N]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{f_P}}{N!}}\text{Tr}[C_{P_1}\mathrm{}C_{P_N}],`$
$`𝒜_\alpha ^{}(A_t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_\alpha (A_t)+\delta _\alpha B_6(A_H,A),`$ (12)
$`F_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}A_{\mu ,\lambda }+A_{\mu ,\lambda }^2,`$
$`A_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\mu A_0+\lambda A_1.`$
In eq. (11), the fields $`\xi ^\alpha `$ are the longitudinal components of the massive gauge bosons $`W`$ and $`Z`$. $`𝒜_\alpha `$ is the (one-loop) anomaly. All fields must be thought as $`K`$-valued, as in (8). The integration region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a triangle in the $`(\mu ,\lambda )`$ plane with vertices $`(0,1)`$, $`(1,0)`$ and the origin; $`f_P`$ is the number of times the permutation $`P`$ permutes two odd objects.

Thanks to this construction, no GS fields are needed; since there are no axions in the low energy $`d=4`$ theory, their experimental bounds do not apply. However, all global anomalies are canceled as well, and therefore the interesting prediction on the number of families is lost. A similar procedure might be relevant also for other six-dimensional extensions discussed in Borghini .

The term $`B_6`$ in eq. (11) remains, even in the unitary gauge, as a Chern-Simons coupling between gauge bosons, and gives rise to dimension-six operators after compactification to $`d=4`$. These operators are suppressed by a coefficient proportional to the compact volume $`R^2`$. Even though they modify, for instance, the photon couplings, we expect their effects to be negligible because $`R`$ few TeV-1 AD .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank S. Bertolini, L. Bonora and M. Testa for useful discussions. MP also thanks G. Tasinato. This work is partially supported by the European TMR Networks HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and HPRN-CT-2000-00152.


format: text

text:
# Fine Structure of the QCD String Spectrum

(July 10, 2002)

## Abstract

Using advanced lattice methods in Quantum Chromodynamics, three distinct scales are established in the excitation spectrum of the gluon field around a static quark-antiquark pair as the color source separation $`R`$ is varied. On the shortest length scale, the excitations are consistent with states created by local gluon field operators arising from a multipole operator product expansion. An intermediate crossover region below 2 fm is identified with a dramatic rearrangement of the level orderings. On the largest length scale of 2-3 fm, the spectrum agrees with that expected for string-like excitations. The energies nearly reproduce asymptotic $`\pi /R`$ string gaps, but exhibit a fine structure, providing important clues for developing an effective bosonic string description.

There exists great interest and considerable effort to explain quark confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics from the string theory viewpoint. The ideas of ’t Hooft, Polyakov, Witten, and others, and recent glueball spectrum and string tension calculations in AdS theories are illustrative examples. In a somewhat complementary approach, the search for a microscopic mechanism to explain quark confinement in the QCD vacuum continues with vigorous effort. Our view is that the relevant properties of the underlying effective QCD string theory, whether it emerges from strictly string theoretic ideas or from the microscopic theory of the vacuum, are coded in the excitation spectrum of the confining flux. To establish the main features of this spectrum is the objective of this work.

We report here, for the first time, our comprehensive determination of the rich low-lying energy spectrum of the excited gluon field between a static quark–antiquark $`(q\overline{q})`$ pair in the fundamental color representation of $`SU(3)_c`$. Only a few of these states have been previously studied and only for $`q\overline{q}`$ separations $`R`$ up to 1 fm ford ; perantonis ; bali . Due to our use of recent advances in lattice gauge theory technology, which include anisotropic lattices, an improved lattice gauge action, and large sets of creation operators, we have been able to determine the excitation spectrum for a large range of $`R`$ values from 0.1 to 3 fm, and for a greatly extended set of excited states never studied before. To investigate the onset of string-like behavior when the flux is much longer than its intrinsic width became a realistic goal JKM2 . The effects of light $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in the vacuum are not included in this study, with focus on the confining properties of the gluon field. Earlier results from less extensive simulations were reported in Ref. JKM1 .

Three exact quantum numbers which are based on the symmetries of the problem determine the classification scheme of the gluon excitation spectrum in the presence of a static $`q\overline{q}`$ pair. We adopt the standard notation from the physics of diatomic molecules and use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to denote the magnitude of the eigenvalue of the projection $`𝐉_g\widehat{𝐑}`$ of the total angular momentum $`𝐉_g`$ of the gluon field onto the molecular axis with unit vector $`\widehat{𝐑}`$. The capital Greek letters $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{}`$ are used to indicate states with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, respectively. The combined operations of charge conjugation and spatial inversion about the midpoint between the quark and the antiquark is also a symmetry and its eigenvalue is denoted by $`\eta _{CP}`$. States with $`\eta _{CP}=1(1)`$ are denoted by the subscripts $`g`$ ($`u`$). There is an additional label for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states; $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states which are even (odd) under a reflection in a plane containing the molecular axis are denoted by a superscript $`+`$ $`()`$. Hence, the low-lying levels are labeled $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_u`$, and so on. For convenience, we use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to denote these labels in general.

The gluon excitation energies $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ were extracted from Monte Carlo estimates of generalized large Wilson loops using extended sets of 15 to 25 operators, projected onto the various symmetry sectors, on three-dimensional time slices of the lattice. Monte Carlo estimates of the $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}(R,t)`$ Wilson correlation matrices were obtained in a series of simulations performed on our dedicated UP2000 Alpha cluster using an improved gauge-field action MP1 . The couplings $`\beta `$, input aspect ratios $`\xi `$, and lattice sizes for each simulation will be detailed in forthcoming publications but are available now upon request. The use of anisotropic lattices, with the temporal lattice spacing $`a_t`$ much smaller than the spatial spacing $`a_s`$, was crucial for resolving the gluon excitation spectrum, particularly for large $`R`$. The renormalized anisotropy was determined using the torelon dispersion relation. To hasten the onset of asymptotic behavior in effective mass plots, iteratively-smeared spatial links were used in the generalized Wilson loops whose temporal segments were constructed from thermally-averaged links to reduce statistical noise.

Restricted to the $`R=0.23`$ fm range of a selected simulation, energy gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ above the ground state are compared to asymptotic string gaps for 18 excited states in Fig. 1.

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/(N\pi /R)1`$ is plotted to show percentage deviations from the asymptotic string levels for string quantum number $`N=1,2,3,4`$. The energy gaps, far below the null lines of the plots and strongly split at fixed $`N`$, differ from the simple string gaps for $`R<2`$ fm and a fine structure remains visible beyond $`R`$ = 2 fm. The three relevant scales of the spectrum are discussed below.

The errors shown in Fig. 1 are statistical only and were determined using standard bootstrap techniques. Autocorrelations were explicitly calculated to ensure that the statistical errors were not underestimated. Dependence of the error estimates on the choice of temporal fit ranges was minimized by using fits to sums of two exponentials. The removal of contamination in our results from excited-states was checked using a variety of methods, including Bayesian constrained fits to large sums of exponentials, variational re-diagonalizations, and correlation matrix fits to sums of coupled exponentials. The insignificance of systematic effects from finite volume was verified, and simulations carried out for several other lattice spacings indicate that finite spacing errors in the results shown in Fig. 1 are expected to be small.

Short distance spectrum. For $`R1`$ fm, the observed level ordering is consistent with the short-distance physics of gluon field excitations which are trapped around a dominantly color octet static $`q\overline{q}`$ pair. Since gluon field dynamics will only depend softly on $`𝐑`$, a new approximate symmetry is expected in the $`R\sqrt{\sigma }1`$ limit (the string tension $`\sigma `$ sets the scale of transverse dimension across the flux). This symmetry was first noted within the context of the static bag picture of gluon excitations Hasenfratz  and used more extensively in Refs. JKM2 ; JKM4 ; foster ; soto . In particular, it was shown in Ref. soto  how the short-distance operator product expansion of gluon excitations around static color sources, in lowest order of the multipole expansion of the gluon field, can be applied to the spectrum yielding similar results to the bag picture JKM4  without phenomenological model assumptions.

Gluon excitations will transform according to representations of $`O(3)`$ in the short-distance limit so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be replaced by the gluon field angular momentum $`J`$. A representation with fixed $`J`$ contains degenerate states with different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values. For illustration, gluon field operators of $`O(3)`$ multiplets are listed in Table 1 for ten states with their short distance angular momentum quantum number $`J`$ for each multiplet. There are two triplets $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_g)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_u)`$, and two $`J=2`$ multiplets $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{},\mathrm{\Pi }_g^{^{}},\mathrm{\Delta }_g)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^+,\mathrm{\Pi }_u^{^{}},\mathrm{\Delta }_u)`$ in Table 1. $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states occur with two opposite sign chiralities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ within each $`O(3)`$ multiplet. Within the degenerate multiplets, one finds different string quantum numbers $`N`$ mixed together. Fig. 2 illustrates the remarkable working of the predicted short–distance degeneracies. Only the states $`\mathrm{\Delta }_u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+^{}`$ show considerable soft breaking of the approximate symmetry at the shortest $`R`$ values.

Crossover region. For $`0.5`$ fm $`<R<2`$ fm, a dramatic crossover of the energy levels toward a string-like spectrum as $`R`$ increases is observed. For example, the states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{}`$ with $`N=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$ with $`N=4`$ break violently away from their respective short-distance $`O(3)`$ degeneracies to approach the ordering expected from bosonic string theory near $`R2`$ fm.

An interesting feature of the crossover region is the successful parametrization of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{g}^+`$ ground state energy by the empirical function $`E_0(R)=a+\sigma Rc\frac{\pi }{12R}`$, with the fitted constant $`c`$ close to unity, once $`R`$ exceeds $`0.5`$ fm. The Casimir energy of a thin flux line was calculated in Refs. Luescher1 ; Luescher2 , yielding $`c=1`$, and this approximate agreement is often interpreted as evidence for string formation. While the spectrum, including the qualitative ordering of the energy levels, differs from the naive bosonic string gaps for $`R<1`$ fm, a high precision calculation shows the rapid approach of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)`$ to the asymptotic Casimir value in the same $`R`$ range Luescher3 . Although there is no inconsistency between the two different findings, a deeper understanding of this puzzling situation is warranted.

We will return to this issue in a high precision study of the 3-dimensional $`Z(2)`$ gauge model in a future publication JKM5 . This accurate study of $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)`$ and the excitation spectrum of the $`Z(2)`$ flux line for a wide range of $`R`$ values between 0.3 fm and 10 fm will clearly demonstrate the early onset of $`c1`$ without a well-developed string spectrum. For now, Fig. 3 shows the lowest excitations in $`Z(2)`$ for $`R=0.7`$ fm, revealing a bag-like disorder profile surrounding the static $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in the vacuum JKM5 . The two lowest energy levels are substantially dislocated from exact $`\pi /R`$ string gaps and all other excitations form a continuous spectrum above the glueball threshold. Since the submission of this work, a new study of $`Z(2)`$ at finite temperature has appeared caselle , reporting very early onset of string behavior in support of Ref. Luescher3 .

String limit. For $`R>2`$ fm, the energy levels exhibit, without exception, the ordering and approximate degeneracies of string-like excitations. The levels nearly reproduce the asymptotic $`\pi /R`$ gaps, but an intriguing fine structure remains.

It has been anticipated that the interactions of massless excitations on long flux lines are described by a local derivative expansion of a massless vector field $`𝝃`$ with two transverse components in four–dimensional space-time Luescher1 ; Luescher2 . Symmetries of the effective QCD string Lagrangian require a derivative expansion of the form

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=a_\mu 𝝃_\mu 𝝃+b(_\mu 𝝃_\mu 𝝃)^2+c(_\mu 𝝃_\nu 𝝃)(_\mu 𝝃_\nu 𝝃)+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where the dots represent further terms with four or more derivatives in world sheet coordinates. The coefficient $`a`$ has the dimension of a mass squared and can be identified with the string tension $`\sigma `$. The other coefficients must be determined from the underlying microscopic theory. Examples with calculable coefficients include the $`D=3Z(2)`$ defect line and the $`D=4`$ Nielsen-Olesen vortex in a semi-classical expansion of field theory. Similar calculations in QCD would require a quantitative understanding of quark confinement.

Asymptotic string gaps and the observed fine structure of the spectrum provide the most direct tests of effective QCD string formation for large $`R`$. Low frequency excitations are dominated by the first term which describes the asymptotic spectrum of massless modes with exact $`\pi /R`$ string gaps. Higher dimensional operators are expected to generate perturbative fine structure corrections in higher powers of $`R^1`$. Matching the coefficients of Eq. (1) to the spectrum is a realistic goal for future high precision simulations. Since it is reasonable to expect that the first few coefficients arise from the geometric properties of the effective string, it is useful to introduce the Nambu-Goto (NG) action $`\sigma \sqrt{1+_\mu 𝝃_\mu 𝝃}`$ as the simplest geometric model. The NG spectrum with fixed end boundary conditions in $`D`$ dimensions was first calculated in Ref. arvis  with the result $`E_N=\sigma R(1\frac{D2}{12\sigma R^2}\pi +\frac{2\pi N}{\sigma R^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ Although there exists a quantization problem in angular momentum rotations around the $`q\overline{q}`$ axis at finite $`R`$ values unless $`D=26`$ arvis , the problem disappears in the large $`R`$ limit. It has been widely expected that predictions at large $`R`$ from the NG model will be similar to effective bosonic string theory with a good description of the observed spectrum. Deviations from the NG string at large $`R`$ in Fig. 1 may indicate rigidity and other missing physical properties of the flux line in the model.

In this work, striking confirmation of string-like flux formation of the gluon field for large $`q\overline{q}`$ separations was presented. Our simulations revealed a first glimpse of a fine structure in the large-distance spectrum, offering the tantalizing possibility of understanding the nature of the QCD string in future high precision simulations.

###### Acknowledgements.

Throughout this extended project, we benefited from discussions with M. Peardon, G. Bali, R. Brower, K. Intriligator, P. Hasenfratz, M. Lüscher, C. Michael, S. Necco, F. Niedermayer, R. Sommer, J. Soto, P. Weisz, and many others. This work was supported by the DOE, Grant No. DE-FG03-97ER40546, the NSF under Award PHY-0099450 and the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00145, Hadrons/Lattice QCD.


text:
# Ultrafast Optical Manipulation of Ferromagnetic Order in InMnAs/GaSb

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been significant interest in ultrafast spin dynamics in ferromagnets, both from scientific and technological viewpoints.zhang  Itinerant ferromagnets such as nickel, cobalt, iron, and CoPt3 have been studied extensively using ultrafast optical and magneto-optical spectroscopies, exhibiting an array of new phenomena.beaurepaire ; hohlfeld ; scholl ; aeschlimann ; ju ; beaurepaire1 ; gudde ; koopmans ; guidoni  In particular, the discovery of ultrafast demagnetizationbeaurepaire  suggested a novel ultrafast scheme for writing data in magneto-optical recording applications. At the same time, exactly how a laser pulse can effectively change the magnetic spin moment in an ultrafast manner is an open question, motivating intensive experimental and theoretical investigations.gudde ; koopmans ; guidoni ; zhang1  In extreme cases, intense laser pulses were shown to increase the electron temperature to even above the Curie temperature, driving a ferromagnetic to paramagnetic phase transition in the femtosecond time scale.beaurepaire1

III-V ferromagnetic semiconductors such as InMnAsohno ; munekata  and GaMnAsohno1  can add new dimensions to this problem. The carrier-induced nature of ferromagnetism in these semiconductors, whose microscopic origin is a matter of controversy,theory  has paved a natural path to electricalohno2  and opticalkoshihara  control of magnetic order. Since ultrashort laser pulses can create a large density of transient carriers in semiconductors, in addition to heating the electron system as in the case of ferromagnetic metals, one can anticipate significant modifications in the exchange interaction between Mn ions. In addition, unlike metals, pumping semiconductors with circularly-polarized light results in spin-coherent carriers, which should not only lead to their own contribution to the net magnetization, but also be able to enhance or reduce the magnetization due to the Mn spins via $`sd`$ and $`pd`$ exchange interactions, depending on the relative orientations of the carrier spins and localized Mn spins.

Here we report results of an ultrafast optical study of spin/magnetization dynamics in a ferromagnetic InMnAs/GaSb heterostructure. We have developed a novel, two-color, time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) spectroscopy setup, which allows us to create transient carriers only in the magnetic InMnAs layer using mid-infrared (MIR) pulses and then probe the induced magnetization changes through the MOKE angle of near-infrared (NIR) probe pulses. Our data indeed shows that magnetic properties, e.g., coercivity and remanent magnetization, can be significantly modified by intense MIR pulses. We performed simultaneous measurements of MOKE angle and reflectivity for examining spin and charge dynamics separately. Furthermore, coherent optical spin injection using different senses of circular polarization led to different signs for the net MOKE changes induced by the pump.

## 2 Experimental Details

We performed two-color time-resolved MOKE spectroscopy using femtosecond pulses of MIR and NIR radiation. The experimental setup is schematically shown in Figure 1. The source of intense MIR pulses was an optical parametric amplifier (OPA) (Model FS-TOPAS-4/800, Quantronix/Light Conversion) pumped by a Ti:Sapphire-based regenerative amplifier (Model CPA-2010, Clark-MXR, Inc., 7300 West Huron River Drive, Dexter, MI 48130). The OPA was able to produce tunable and intense radiation from 522 nm to 20 $`\mu `$m using different mixing crystals. The CPA produced pulses of NIR radiation with a wavelength of 775 nm, a pulse energy of $``$ 1 mJ, and a pulse duration of $``$ 140 fs at a tunable repetition rate of 50 Hz $``$ 1 kHz. We used a very small fraction ($`10^5`$) of the CPA beam as a probe and the output beam from the OPA tuned to 2 $`\mu `$m as the pump. The CPA probe beam went through a computer-controlled variable delay stage in addition to a fixed $``$ 2 m long delay stage that equalized the pump and probe beam path lengths to the sample by taking into account the total path length inside of the multi-pass OPA. The two beams were made collinear by a non-polarizing beam splitter (Lambda Research Optics, Inc.), which was 50% reflective to the NIR probe and 50% transmissive to the MIR pump, and then focused by an off-axis parabolic mirror with a six inch focal length onto the sample mounted inside a 10 Tesla superconducting magnet with ZnS cold windows and CaF2 room temperature windows. The reflected NIR probe beam entered a Wollaston prism which spatially separated the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-components of the probe beam, which we then focused on a balanced bridge system consisting of a Si detector pair. The signal from the balanced detectors, which was proportional to the induced MOKE angle change, was fed into a lock-in amplifier or a boxcar integrator and was recorded by a computer. An additional beam splitter was placed before the Wollaston prism for monitoring the reflectivity of the probe. With this setup, we were able to record the MOKE angle and reflectivity as functions of time delay and magnetic field.

At this pump wavelength (2 $`\mu `$m), the photon energy (0.62 eV) was smaller than the band gaps of the GaSb buffer (0.812 eV) and GaAs substrate (1.519 eV) but larger than that of InMnAs ($``$ 0.42 eV), so the pump created carriers only in the InMnAs layer. The beam diameter of the MIR pump at the sample position was measured by pinholes to be $``$ 75 $`\mu `$m. The maximum MIR pulse energy used in this experiment was $``$ 6.3 $`\mu `$J, which corresponds to a fluence of $``$ 0.45 J/cm2. Using the optical constants of InAs and the thickness of the InMnAs layer, we estimated the maximum density of photocreated carriers to be $``$ 7.5 $`\times `$ 1022 cm-3, which is an extremely large number, especially if we think of the fact that the density of Mn ions is only $``$ 1021 cm-3.

The sample studied was an InMnAs/GaSb single heterostructure with a Curie temperature ($`T_c`$) of 55 K, consisting of a 25 nm thick In0.91Mn0.09As magnetic layer and an 820 nm thick GaSb buffer layer grown on a semi-insulating GaAs (100) substrate. Its room temperature hole density and mobility were 1.1 $`\times `$ 1019 cm-3 and 323 cm2/Vs, respectively, estimated from Hall measurements. The sample was grown by low temperature molecular beam epitaxy (growth conditions described previouslytom ) and then annealed at 250 C, which increased the $`T_c`$ by $``$ 10 K. hayashi ; potashnik  The magnetization easy axis was perpendicular to the epilayer due to the strain-induced structural anisotropy caused by the lattice mismatch between InMnAs and GaSb (InMnAs was under tensile strain). This allowed us to observe ferromagnetic hysteresis loops in the polar Kerr configuration.

## 3 Experimental Results and Discussion

Figure 2(a) shows three magnetic-field-scan data exhibiting ferromagnetic hysteresis loops at a temperature of 16 K, taken under different conditions. The curve labeled ’No Pump’ was taken with the OPA pump beam blocked, while the other two curves were taken under high OPA excitation (fluence $``$ 0.2 J/cm2) with a time delay of 0 ps and $``$7 ps, respectively. It can be seen that at timing zero the loop horizontally collapsed, i.e., the coercivity is almost zero. Note that this curve is not intentionally offset; namely, this vertical shift is a real effect induced by the pump, which exists only for a short time ($``$ 2 ps). As discussed later, we attribute this transient vertical shift of the MOKE signal to the coherent spin polarization of the photo-generated carriers. The negative time delay data also shows similar horizontal shrinkage though it is not as dramatic as the timing zero data. It is important to note that the vertical height (i.e., remanence) of the loops is not much affected by the pump, which excludes simple lattice heating as the cause of the horizontal loop quenching. To support this view more convincingly, we show in Fig. 1(b) CW magnetic circular dichroism data taken for the same sample at 10 K, 35 K, 45 K and 55 K. As can been seen clearly, raising the lattice temperature results in dramatic loop shrinkage both horizontally and vertically. Furthermore, we took time-resolved MOKE data with various combinations of average powers and fluences (data not shown) and found that it is the fluence that determines the degree of collapse, not the average power. For example, data taken at a low repetition rate with a high fluence displayed significant quenching while data taken at a high repetition rate with a low fluence did not show any quenching.

Next we discuss some time-scan data. Figure 3(a) shows two traces representing the pump-induced MOKE signal change versus time delay taken under the excitation of the MIR pump with two opposite senses of circular polarization, i.e., $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$. As clearly demonstrated here, opposite polarizations result in opposite signs of the photo-induced MOKE change, suggesting that these fast decaying transient MOKE signals are due to the photo-induced coherent carrier spin polarization. The pump-induced reflectivity change as a function of time is shown in Fig. 3(b). One can see a quick disappearance of the induced reflectivity change. In metals, photo-induced transmission or reflection changes can be attributed to electron temperature changes, which show characteristic cooling behavior as the electron system loses it energy to the lattice. In the present semiconductor system, however, the reflectivity change is most likely due to the transient change of the carrier density. The observed fast (¡ 2 ps) decay is consistent with the fast decays typically observed in low temperature grown semiconductors such as those used in terahertz emitters and receivers.smith  To further understand the origin of the polarization-dependent ultrafast MOKE change, we did the same measurements at elevated temperatures. As an example, data taken at 122 K is shown in Fig. 4. Here, again, we see opposite signs for $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarization. We attempted to observe photo-induced ferromagnetism by scanning the magnetic field at these high temperatures but did not see any evidence. These facts lead us to believe that these signals are related to the coherent carrier spins. We do not have an explanation for the second peak around 1 ps observed for both polarizations. More detailed temperature dependent measurements are in progress to elucidate this feature.

## 4 Summary

We have presented results of what we believe to be the first ultrafast optical study of spin/magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic InMnAs/GaSb heterostructures. Using a novel two-color time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect spectroscopy technique, we created transient carriers only within the ferromagnetic InMnAs layer using intense mid-infrared pulses and observed the induced magnetization changes through the Kerr angle of near-infrared probe pulses. Our data shows that magnetic properties, particularly coercivity, can be drastically modified by the intense MIR pulses. We were able to study spin and charge dynamics separately by simultaneously measuring MOKE and reflectivity. Finally, coherent optical spin injection using different senses of circular polarization led to different signs for the net MOKE changes induced by the pump.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency through grant No. MDA972-00-1-0034 and the National Science Foundation through grant No. DMR-0134058 (CAREER). We are grateful to Bruce Brinson and Ben Schmid for their technical assistance.


text:
# Collective potential for large-𝑁 hamiltonian matrix models and free Fisher information

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of the present paper is to find the natural mathematical language for describing the ‘large N limit’ of matrix models involving a continuously infinite number of matrices (in the Hamiltonian picture) e.g matrix quantum mechanics and matrix field theories. We find that non-commutative probability theory offers such a language, which after suitable generalizations can be adopted for the purposes of formulating the large N limit. Recasting continuum matrix models in this language allows us to find a variational principle for calculating the gauge invariant observables of such models. The advantage of the variational method being that we can use it to make well controlled approximations when exact solutions are no longer possible.

No apologies are really necessary for the study of continuum matrix models as they are ubiquitous in the world of both gauge theories and strings. QCD, where the gluonic field $`(A_\mu )`$ belongs to the adjoint representation of the structure group, is perhaps the most natural example of a field theory where the dynamical degrees of freedom are matrix valued. It is believed that the planar large N limit is the correct simplification to consider while trying to understand non-perturbative phenomena such as confinement, understanding which in the physically interesting case of four spacetime dimensions remains one of the major unsolved problems of theoretical physics. QCD when dimensionally reduced to one dimension is known to provide a regularization of the theory of the classical membrane, and the generalization of this method to the case of the supermembrane provides one with the Hamiltonian which is conjectured to be a description of M-theory in the infinite momentum frame . Other examples of one dimensional matrix models include those with a single matrix (with polynomial self interactions) depending continuously on a parameter (which is usually taken to be physical or stochastic time). Such models are known to provide explicit realizations of string field theories in one dimensional target spaces .

In a previous paper we studied ‘static’ matrix models, involving the integral over a finite number of hermitean matrices:

$$e^{N\mathrm{tr}S(A)}\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}A_{i_1}\mathrm{}A_{i_n}𝑑A.$$
(1)
It is known that the theory of ‘free random variables’ has a lot to do with the large N limit of these models . The mathematician’s notion of ‘freeness’  and the physicist’s picture of the planar large N limit are intimately related. The large N limit of matrix models was formulated in terms of a variational principle. There is an anamolous term in this variational principle, which we showed, has a simple meaning in terms of non-commutative probability theory: it is the free entropy of Voiculescu.

In the present paper we will extend our study to ‘dynamical’ matrix models, determined by hamiltonians such as

$$K_{ij}\frac{^2}{A_{ia}^bA_{jb}^a}+\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{V}(A).$$
(2)
In the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics this leads to integrals such as

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \left[K_{ij}\mathrm{tr}\dot{A}_i\dot{A}_j+\stackrel{~}{V}(A)\right]𝑑t}}\mathrm{tr}A_{i_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}A_{i_n}(t_n)𝒟A.$$
(3)
Starting from the quantum theory at finite ‘N’, there has been considerable progress in extracting the large N limit, which is described by a classical Hamiltonian. The ‘Collective Field’ formalism of Jevicki and Sakita  and the ‘coherent state’ picture of Yaffe  stand out in this area. The idea is to change variables from the matrix elements to the invariants of the matrices, because quantum fluctuations in these invariants become small in the large N limit. Thus the theory when expressed in terms of invariants should be a classical theory. One of the key lessons of their work is that this large N classical limit differs in many deep ways from the more familiar classical limit as $`\mathrm{}0`$. Most striking is the appearance of certain universal terms in the gauge invariant formulation of the Large N theory (e.g. The $`\varphi ^3`$ term in the collective potential of Jevicki and Sakita).

To understand the origin of these terms, let us consider a toy model from elementary quantum mechanics: a rotation invariant system whose configuration space is $`R^N`$ and has hamiltonian operator

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{}^2\frac{^2}{x^ix^i}+\stackrel{~}{V}(r),r=\sqrt{[x^ix^i]}.$$
(4)
If we consider only wavefunctions that are rotation invariant ( zero angular momentum), the angular variables can be eliminated and the hamiltonian can be expressed as a differential operator in the invariant variable $`r`$. The simplest way to perform this change of variables is to note that

$$\left[\mathrm{}^2_i\psi ^{}_i\psi +\stackrel{~}{V}(r)|\psi |^2\right]d^Nx=C_N\left[\mathrm{}^2|\psi ^{}|^2+\stackrel{~}{V}(r)|\psi |^2\right]r^{N1}𝑑r$$
(5)
where $`C_Nr^{N1}`$ is the area of the sphere of radius $`r`$. This factor is the jacobian of the non-linear change of variables $`x^ir`$. Even if we make the change of variables to the ‘radial wavefunction’ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=r^{\frac{N1}{2}}\psi (r)`$ to absorb this jacobian factor, there will be some derivatives of the jacobian that survive. After an integration by parts, we get

$$C_N\left[\mathrm{}^2|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2+\left\{\mathrm{}^2\frac{(N1)(N3)}{4r^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(r)\right\}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\right]𝑑r$$
(6)
Thus, the radial hamiltonian is not just $`\mathrm{}^2\frac{^2}{r^2}+V(r)`$, but is instead,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\mathrm{}^2\frac{^2}{r^2}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{(N1)(N3)}{4r^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(r).$$
(7)
The extra term is a sort of ‘centrifugal potential’ arising from differentiation of the volume of the sphere of radius $`r`$. It is at first surprising that such a centrifugal potential is present even when the angular momentum is zero: a phenomenon with no analogue in the classical theory. Indeed, this term vanishes as $`\mathrm{}0`$. This term is universal in the sense that it is independent of the choice of potential: it arises from rewriting the kinetic energy in radial variables.

To complete the story of this toy model, we see how to take the large N limit. In this limit we should expect that

$$\rho ^2=\frac{1}{N}x_ix_i$$
(8)
should have small fluctuations. (This is a kind of central limit theorem.) Thus expressed in these variables, the theory should approach a classical limit. This classical limit will be very different from the more obvious limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. In particular, the ground state can be very different. The hamiltonian is

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{N}\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{(N1)(N3)}{4N\rho ^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(N^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho ).$$
(9)
If we define $`H=\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{N}`$, $`V(r)=\frac{1}{N}\stackrel{~}{V}(N^{\frac{1}{2}}\rho )`$ we get

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{N^2}\frac{^2}{\rho ^2}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{(N1)(N3)}{4N^2\rho ^2}+V(\rho ).$$
(10)
If we define

$$\pi =\frac{i}{N}\frac{}{\rho }$$
(11)
we get the commutation relations

$$[\pi ,\rho ]=\frac{i}{N}$$
(12)
and the hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2+V_{coll}(\rho )+V(\rho ),$$
(13)
where $`V_{coll}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2(N1)(N3)}{N^2}\frac{1}{4\rho ^2}`$ Now we can take the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$ keeping $`V(\rho ),\mathrm{}`$ fixed. The collective potential tends to

$$V_{coll}(\rho )\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ),\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}.$$
(14)
The quantum fluctuations in $`\rho `$ are indeed small because the commutator $`[\pi ,\rho ]\frac{1}{N}`$. In the limit we get a classical hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{}^2p^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )+V(\rho )$$
(15)
with the canonical Poisson bracket relations

$$\{\rho ,p\}=1.$$
(16)
The ground state of this system is given by $`p=0,\rho =\rho _0`$ where $`\rho _0`$ is the minimum of

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )+V(\rho ).$$
(17)
In the conventional classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ keeping $`N`$ fixed, the ground state would have been at the minimum of $`V(\rho )`$. For example, if $`V(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2\rho ^2`$, it has minimum at $`\rho =0`$ with vanishing ground state energy. On the other hand, the ground state of the large $`N`$ limit is concentrated at

$$\rho _0=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2}\omega }\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(18)
with $`E_{gs}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\sqrt{2}}`$. Thus the large $`N`$ limit better captures the zero point fluctuations of this system.

The passage from matrix elements to invariants of a collection of matrices is analogous to the above change of variables from cartesian to radial co-ordinates. There is a jacobian associated with this nonlinear change. Transforming to ‘radial wavefunctions’ to absorb this will again induce an extra term in the potential, involving the derivative of the jacobian. These universal terms enable the Large $`N`$ limit to capture features of the theory that the usual perturbation expansion misses. They are crucial in determining the ground state of the matrix model. Is it possible to understand them directly in the large $`N`$ limit?

In this paper we show that this universal term has a natural meaning in the world of non-commutative probability theory: it is the free analogue of the Fisher information obtained by Voiculescu . This continues our earlier work  where it is shown that the jacobian of the change of variables to invariants is just the exponential of free entropy. Information is the square of the gradient of entropy, which gives a rough explanation of our present result.

We first motivate the connection between free probability theory and large N matrix models in the context of static models, explaining some concepts from non-commutative probability theory that appear not to be widely known in the physics literature. Then we carry out this reformulation for the problem of matrix quantum mechanics (or field theory at D(dimension of spacetime) = 1). This allows us to recover the results of Jevicki-Sakita . Certain points of view on non-commutative probability theory generalize beyond $`D=1`$, and we use them to formulate a variational principle for general matrix models. In the last part of the paper, we apply this principle to some specific examples to get approximate answers for the ground state of matrix field theories with $`D>1`$, where explicit solutions are not possible.

## 2 Non-Commutative Probability and Static Matrix Models:

Recall  that in non-commutative probability theory, the analogue of a probability distribution is a rule that gives an expectation value of a polynomial in the basic random variables. More precisely, consider the free associative algebra $`𝒯_M=\mathrm{C}X_1,\mathrm{},X_M`$ generated by the hermitian operator valued random variables $`X_i`$ over the complex numbers. We think of the elements of $`𝒯_M`$ as formal power series111 We continue the notation in . An upper case letter such as $`I`$ denotes a string of indices $`i_1\mathrm{}i_n`$. Repeated multi-indices are summed; $`\varphi `$ denotes the empty string. $`f(X)=f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=f^IX_I`$. The joint probability distribution of the $`X_i`$ in a tracial state is specified by the expectation values $`G_I=<X_I>`$, which are cyclically symmetric tensors (‘moments’) satisfying

$$G_\varphi =1,G_I^{}=G_{\overline{I}},G_{IJ}f_{}^{\overline{I}}{}_{}{}^{}f^J0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{polynomial}f(X)$$
(19)
where $`\overline{I}`$ is the string with the opposite order. The last condition is the positivity of the ‘Hankel matrix’ $`G_{I;J}=G_{IJ}`$. It is used to construct a metric on the space of probability distributions. $`G^{I;J}G_{JK}=\delta _K^I`$ denotes the inverse.

If there were only one such random matrix $`X`$ ( i.e., $`M=1`$), it would be possible to introduce a probability density function on the real line $`\rho _G(x)`$ such that

$$G_n=\rho _G(x)x^n𝑑x.$$
(20)
Many interesting quantities (such as entropy or information) have simple formulas in terms of $`\rho (x)`$.

The main complication in passing to multimatrix models with $`M>1`$ is that there is no longer any analogue of $`\rho (x)`$. We have to think of non-commutative probability distributions indirectly in terms of the moments $`G_I`$ or certain other cyclically symmetric tensors $`S^I`$ which contain equivalent data.

The two sets of tensors $`S^I`$ and $`G_I`$ are related by the ‘factorized Schwinger-Dyson equations’:

$$S^{J_1iJ_2}G_{J_1IJ_2}+\eta _I^i=0,$$
(21)
where $`\eta _I^i=\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}G_{I_1}G_{I_2}`$.

The motivation behind this definition is that the tensors $`S^I`$ can be thought of as providing a ‘matrix model’ for the non-commutative probability distribution:

$$G_I=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{𝑑Ae^{N\mathrm{tr}S(A)}\frac{\mathrm{tr}}{N}A_I}{𝑑Ae^{N\mathrm{tr}S(A)}}.$$
(22)
Thus, we can think of $`\frac{e^{N\mathrm{tr}S(A)}}{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑Ae^{N\mathrm{tr}S\left(A\right)}}}`$ as a (commutative) probability density function for the matrix elements of a set of $`N\times N`$ matrices $`A_i`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{tr}S(A)`$ is called the ‘action’ of the matrix model in the physics literature. This extends to the realm of random variables the usual idea that non-commutative variables can be realized as matrices with complex numbers as entries. In a typical problem arising from quantum physics, the action $`S(A)`$ is some simple polynomial and we are required to calculate the moments arising from it: i.e., solve the Schwinger-Dyson equations.

Infinitesimal variations of a non-commutative probability distribution are vector fields $`L_I^i`$ on the space of probability distributions, with a natural action on the moments given by,

$$L_I^iG_J=\delta _J^{J_1iJ_2}G_{J_1IJ_2}.$$
(23)
Algebraically, $`L_I^i`$ are the derivations of the tensor algebra $`𝒯_M`$ corresponding to the infinitesimal changes of variables $`[\delta A]_j=\delta _j^iA_I`$. These vector fields form a Lie algebra, with the following Lie bracket,

$$[L_I^i,L_J^j]=\delta _J^{J_1iJ_2}L_{J_1IJ_2}^j\delta _I^{I_1jI_2}L_{I_1JI_2}^i.$$
(24)
For the case of the one matrix model, when the strings are labeled by integers, this algebra reduces to the Virasoro algebra (without the central term).

The quantity $`\eta _I^i`$ appearing in the Schwinger-Dyson equation generates the first cohomology of the Lie algebra: it can be viewed as the variation $`\eta _I^i(G)=L_I^i\chi (G)`$ of some function $`\chi (G)`$ which, however cannot be expressed as a formal power series in the moments. Thus it is possible to regard the Schwinger-Dyson equation as the condition for a function

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(G)=S^IG_I+\chi (G)$$
(25)
to be stationary: $`L_I^i\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. This variational principle is useful because it allows for approximate solution of the SD equations: it is rare that they can be solved exactly.

This quantity $`\chi (G)`$ has a natural meaning in non-commutative probability theory: up to an additive constant, $`\chi (G)`$ is the free entropy in the sense of Voiculescu . It is the logarithm of volume of the set of $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices whose moments are $`G_I`$ in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit.

To obtain a more explicit formula for $`\chi `$, we have to introduce a third way of describing a non-commutative probability distribution: a transformation $`\varphi :A_i\varphi (A)_i=\varphi _i^IA_I`$ that maps given distribution to a reference distribution, i.e. $`\varphi :G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Under such a change of variable, $`\chi `$ transforms as a 1-cocycle, it is incremented by the expectation value of $`\frac{1}{N^2}\mathrm{log}det`$ of the Jacobian of $`\varphi `$. We do not follow this direction here, as it is explained in an earlier paper .

For a single hermitian random variable, there are simple explicit formulas for entropy

$`\chi (G)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\rho _G(x)\rho _G(y)\mathrm{log}|xy|}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}{xy}\right)}+\chi (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (27)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\rho _G(\varphi (x))\varphi ^{}(x)`$.

It is also worth recalling, that for the case of a single random matrix, the Schwinger-Dyson equation can be written in a simpler form using $`\rho `$:

$$(H\rho )(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }S^{}(x).$$
(28)
(This is called the Mehta-Dyson integral equation.) Here $`(H\rho )(x)=\frac{1}{\pi }𝒫𝑑y\frac{\rho (y)}{xy}`$ is the Hilbert transform.

The expression $`\eta _I^i=\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}G_{I_1}G_{I_2}`$ motivates the introduction of the operator $``$ , the difference quotient gradient , whose components are

$$^j:𝒯_M𝒯_M𝒯_M;^jX_I=\delta _I^{I_1jI_2}X_{I_1}X_{I_2}.$$
(29)
The partial difference quotient can be thought of as acting on a product of matrices. It breaks the matrix product at each occurrence of $`X_j`$, exposing two more matrix indices, thus producing an element in the tensor product. For $`M=1`$, $`\varphi (x)=\frac{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}{xy}`$. $``$ relates the non-commutative Hilbert transform to the variation of entropy.

The analogue of the difference quotient, when acting on a trace of a product of matrices rather than on a product of matrices, leads to the cyclic gradient $`\delta `$ :

$$\delta ^i:𝒯_M𝒯_M;\delta ^iX_I=\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}X_{I_2I_1}.$$
(30)
The ordering of multi-indices is explained by the matrix analogy. For a single generator, the cyclic gradient reduces to the partial derivative. The cyclic gradient of a polynomial is unchanged by cyclic permutations of any of its coefficients: Let $`S(X)=S^IX_I`$. Then

$$\delta ^kS(X)=S^{I_1kI_2}X_{I_2I_1}=S^{(kK)}X_K$$
(31)
where $`S^{(K)}=S^{k_1\mathrm{}k_m}+S^{k_mk_1\mathrm{}k_{m1}}+\mathrm{}+S^{k_2\mathrm{}k_mk_1}`$.

The formalism developed above allows us to get a formula for the Hilbert transform of a collection of non-commutative random variables. We first note that for a single hermitian variable, the Mehta-Dyson equation $`H\rho (x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }S^{}(x)`$ tells us that the Hilbert transform is the derivative of the 1-matrix model action. For several hermitian random variables, the Hilbert transform is a vector $`H^i(X)`$. The appropriate generalization of the ‘derivative’ of the action $`S^IA_I`$, must depend only on the cyclic part of the tensors $`S^I`$. The natural candidate is the cyclic gradient

$$H^i(X)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\delta ^iS(X).$$
(32)
Using the definition of $`\delta ^i`$,

$$H^i(X)=\frac{1}{2\pi }S^{K_1iK_2}X_{K_2K_1}=\frac{1}{2\pi }S^{Ii}X_I$$
(33)
The formula for the Hilbert transform given above involves the action $`S(X)`$. One can look for a formula for $`H^i(X)`$ in terms of the moments of the matrix model. Using the factorized SD equations in the form $`S^{Ii}=\eta _J^iG^{I;J}`$ we get

$$H^i(X)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\eta _I^iG^{I;J}X_J=\frac{1}{2\pi }G_{I_1}G_{I_2}G^{I_1iI_2;J}X_J.$$
(34)
Obtaining the inverse Hankel matrix from the moments is about as hard as getting the moments of a static matrix model given its action. This formula may be written

$$L_I^i\chi =2\pi H^i(X)X_I$$
(35)
thereby relating the Hilbert transform to the variation of entropy. Voiculescu used this as the defining property of the Hilbert transform .

Another quantity from the world of non-commutative probability theory that is going to be important for our understanding of matrix models is the notion of free Fisher information. Following Voiculescu, let us first consider Fisher information for a single real random variable $`f`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(f)=\underset{t0^+}{lim}\frac{𝒮(f+\sqrt{t}g)𝒮(f)}{t}.$$
(36)
Here $`g`$ is Gaussian with unit covariance, $`f`$ and $`g`$ are statistically independent and $`𝒮(f)`$ is Boltzmann’s entropy of $`f`$. If $`f`$ has pdf $`\rho (x)`$, then

$$𝒮(f)=\rho (x)\mathrm{log}\rho (x)𝑑x$$
(37)
Regarding $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as the zero time derivative of a Gaussian process starting at $`f`$, the heat equation gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(f)=𝑑x\rho (x)\left(_xlog\rho (x)\right)^2$$
(38)
For several real random variables $`x_i`$ with joint distribution $`\rho (𝐱)`$, the Fisher information matrix is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}=𝑑𝐱\rho (𝐱)^i\mathrm{log}\rho (𝐱)^j\mathrm{log}\rho (𝐱)$$
(39)
By analogy, the free Fisher information of a single hermitian random variable may be defined as  :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=\underset{t0^+}{lim}\frac{\chi (X+\sqrt{t}S)\chi (X)}{t}.$$
(40)
where $`S`$ is the Wigner semi-circular distribution. If $`X+\sqrt{t}S`$ has pdf $`\rho (x,t)`$, then $`\chi (X+\sqrt{t}S)=𝒫\rho (x,t)\rho (y,t)\mathrm{log}|xy|dxdy`$ is the free entropy. The complex Burger equation

$$\frac{G}{t}+G\frac{G}{z}=0$$
(41)
for the Cauchy transform $`G(z,t)=\frac{\rho (x,t)dx}{xz},z\mathrm{supp}(\rho )`$ plays the role of the heat equation for a semi-circular process and leads to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=2\pi ^2((H\rho )(x))^2\rho (x)𝑑x=\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}𝑑x(\rho (x))^3.$$
(42)
By analogy with the case of several real random variables, we define the free Fisher information matrix for several non-commuting random variables as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)=2\pi ^2H^i(X)H^j(X)$$
(43)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)`$ cannot be expressed solely in terms of the moments. As with the Hilbert transform, we can express it in terms of the $`G_K`$ and either the inverse Hankel matrix $`G^{I;J}`$ or the action $`S^IX_I`$ whose large $`N`$ moments are $`G_K`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{I;J}\eta _I^i\eta _J^j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{I_1iI_2;J_1jJ_2}G_{I_1}G_{I_2}G_{J_1}G_{J_2}`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S^{iI}S^{jJ}G_{IJ}.`$ (45)
The equivalence of these two follows from the factorized SD equations relating $`S^I`$ to $`G_K`$:

$$S^{Ii}=\eta _J^iG^{I;J}.$$
(46)
For a single generator this formula reduces to the familiar one when we use the Mehta Dyson equation.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(G)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}(m+1)(n+1)S_{m+1}S_{n+1}G_{m+n}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S^{}(x))^2`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`2\pi ^2{\displaystyle ((H\rho )(x))^2\rho (x)𝑑x}`$ (49)
## 3 Dynamical Matrix Models and Collective Field Theory

Now let us turn to the main object of our interest, i.e. matrix models in the Hamiltonian approach. To have a definite example in mind we consider in some detail, the quantum mechanics of a discrete number of hermitian matrices. In other words, we consider dynamical multi-matrix models whose Hamiltonians are of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=K_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{(A_i)_b^a(A_j)_a^b}+\mathrm{tr}[\stackrel{~}{V}^IA_I]$$
(50)
Here $`A_i(t)`$ are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices, whose time evolution is described by the Hamiltonian above. The positive tensor $`K_{ij}`$ determining the kinetic energy is usually just $`\mathrm{}^2\delta _{ij}`$. The ground state energy is

$$E_{gs}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{\psi (A)=1}{\mathrm{min}}\psi |\stackrel{~}{H}\psi $$
(51)
where the wave function $`\psi (A)`$ is invariant under the adjoint action of the unitary group; $`A_iUA_iU^{}i`$ and the inner product is with respect to the Lebesgue measure on matrix elements.

The planar large N limit of the above theory is the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ holding $`V^I=N^{|I|1}\stackrel{~}{V}^I`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ fixed. Moreover, only wavefunctions that are invariant under $`U(N)`$ are allowed. It will be convenient to make the rescaling $`A_iNA_i`$ so that

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{N^2}=H=\frac{1}{N^4}K_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{(A_i)_b^a(A_j)_a^b}+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}[V^IA_I].$$
(52)
It is known that in this limit, quantum fluctuations in the moments $`G_I=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}A_I`$ become small. Hence there ought to be some classical mechanical system that is equivalent to this limiting case of the matrix model. The configuration space of this classical mechanical system would be the space of probability distributions. It is our task now to determine the hamiltonian and Poisson brackets of this theory and use them to gain insight into the properties ( such as the ground state) of the matrix model.

### 3.1 The case of One Degree of Freedom

Such a reformulation is most transparent in the case where the time evolution of a single hermitian matrix is concerned,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}^2\frac{^2}{A_b^aA_a^b}+\underset{n}{}\mathrm{tr}\stackrel{~}{V}_nA^n.$$
(53)
If we rescale $`ANA`$ this becomes

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{N^2}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{N^4}\frac{^2}{A_b^aA_a^b}+\underset{n}{}V_n\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}A^n$$
(54)
where $`V_n=N^{n1}\stackrel{~}{V}_n`$. We are interested in determining the properties ( such as the ground state) of the system in the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$ keeping $`V_n`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ fixed.

We quote below the result obtained by Jevicki and Sakita , who changed variables to the eigenvalue density $`\rho (x)`$ of $`A`$ and showed that in the large $`N`$ limit, the Hamiltonian may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{N^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`H=K_r+V_{coll}+{\displaystyle 𝑑xV(x)\rho (x)}`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{where}V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}V_nx^n.`$ (56)
The collective potential and ‘radial’ kinetic energy 222We use the term radial by analogy with atomic physics are

$`V_{coll}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\rho (x)^3}=\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle ((H\rho )(x))^2\rho (x)𝑑x}`$ (57)
$`K_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x\pi ^{}(x)\rho (x)\pi ^{}(x)}`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{where}\pi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \rho (x)}};[\pi (x),\rho (x^{})]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{N^2}}\delta (xx^{}).`$ (59)
We notice that their collective potential $`V_{coll}`$ (the term that really makes the Hamiltonian describing the large N limit different from the finite N case) is just one fourth the free Fisher information of one hermitian random variable.

This reformulation of the matrix model allows us to take the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ easily. Note that $`N`$ only appears in the commutation relations between $`\rho `$ and $`\pi `$. Indeed, as $`N\mathrm{}`$ this commutator becomes small:$`\frac{1}{N^2}`$ appears where $`\mathrm{}`$ appears in the Heisenberg relations. Thus $`N\mathrm{}`$ is a kind of classical limit. The limiting theory has as configuration space the space of probability distributions $`\rho (x)`$ . The canonical conjugate of $`\rho (x)`$ is $`p(x)`$:

$$\{\rho (x),p(x^{})\}=\delta (xx^{})$$
(60)
The hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\mathrm{}^2p^2(x)\rho (x)+V_{coll}(\rho )+V(x)\rho (x)𝑑x$$
(61)
leads to the equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}^2p^2(x){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2}}\rho (x)^2V(x),`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\rho (x)p^{}(x)\right]}{x}}`$ (63)
where $`E`$ is the Lagrange multiplier imposing the constraint $`\rho (x)𝑑x=1`$. The spectrum (density of eigenvalues) of the matrix $`A`$ in ground state of the matrix quantum mechanics is then determined in this large N aproximation by the static solution

$$\rho (x)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}\sqrt{\left[2\left(EV(x)\right)\right]}\theta \left(EV(x)\right).$$
(64)
As noted above, the constant $`E`$ is determined by the condition $`\rho (x)𝑑x=1`$.

Notice that the collective potential $`V_{coll}`$ plays a crucial role in determining this answer; without that term there would have been no such static (ground state) solution. The elimination of the angular degrees of freedom induces a centrifugal potential ( collective potential $`V_{coll}`$) leading to a repulsion of eigenvalues of $`A`$. The volume of the set of matrices of a given spectrum vanishes when any pair of eigenvalues coincide. The collective potential is the square of the derivative of the logarithm of this volume, so is singular when a pair of eigenvalues coincide. This repulsion of eigenvalues counterbalances the tendency of the eigenvalues to accumulate at the minimum of $`V(x)`$. It is this balance that leads to a continuous density of eigenvalues.

In the more conventional limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ (keeping $`N`$ fixed) we would get a completely different answer: the ground state is concentrated at the minimum of $`V(x)`$.

### 3.2 Several Degrees of Freedom

Once we see the connection of the collective potential to the free Fisher information,non-commutative probability theory immediately suggests the generalization to multi-matrix models. (We will describe the answer first, postponing its derivation to the next subsection.)The probability density $`\rho (x)`$ no longer makes sense with several random variables; instead we must think of the moment tensors $`G_I`$ as characterizing the non-commutative probability distribution. This way of thinking leads to

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ij}\pi ^{iI}G_{IJ}\pi ^{jJ}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)+V^IG_I`$ (65)
$`\pi ^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_I}};[\pi ^I,G_J]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{N^2}}\delta _{(I)}^{(J)}`$ (66)
where $`\delta _{(I)}^{(J)}=1`$ if there is a cyclic permutation of $`I`$ that equals $`J`$ and zero otherwise. We will now show by an explicit change of variables that this is indeed the correct hamiltonian of the large N limit. It is convenient to introduce the effective potential

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}+V^IG_I$$
(67)
Thus, in the planar limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ keeping $`V^I,K_{ij}`$ fixed we do get a classical mechanical system whose configuration space is the space of non-commutative probability distributions with Poisson brackets

$$\{G_I,𝐩^J\}=\delta _{(I)}^{(J)}$$
(68)
and the hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ij}p^{iI}G_{IJ}p^{jJ}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)+V^IG_I`$ (69)
determine the equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dG_K}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{G_K,H\}=\{G_K,K_r\}`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ij}\delta _{(K)}^{(J_1jJ_2)}\left[\pi ^{I_1iI_2}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}+G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}\pi ^{I_1iI_2}\right]`$ (71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\pi ^K}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\pi ^K,H\}`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ij}\delta _{(I_2I_1J_2J_1)}^{(K)}\pi ^{I_1iI_2}\pi ^{J_1jJ_2}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{eff}(G)}{G_K}}`$ (73)
An interesting class of static solutions is determined by

$`\pi ^K`$ $`=`$ $`0|K|1`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{eff}(G)}{G_K}}`$ $`=`$ $`0|K|1`$ (75)
Thus, to find the ground state we must minimize $`V_{eff}`$. Note that this variational principle involves no approximation aside from the large $`N`$ limit. The equations for extremizing $`V_{eff}`$ are, $`L_K^k(\frac{1}{4}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}+V^IG_I)=0`$. The chief obstacle in solving these equations explicitly is the presence of the Fisher information term, which does not have any simple expression in terms of the moments. Of the two forms of the information matrix in eqn. (45), we choose to use the one involving the auxiliary variables $`S^I`$’s in carrying out the minimization of the effective potential. Let us note here, that these variables $`S^I(G)`$ are to be thought of as functions of the moments themselves, i.e. they are the solution to the Schwinger-Dyson equations of some (static) matrix model, whose large $`N`$ moments coincide with those of the dynamical matrix model at a particular value of time. In terms of the auxiliary variables $`S^I(G)`$ the equations to be solved are:

$$L_K^kV_{eff}=\frac{1}{8}K_{ij}S^{jJ}\left[2L_K^k\eta _J^iS^{iI}L_K^kG_{IJ}\right]+V^{I_1kI_2}G_{I_1KI_2}=0.$$
(76)
### 3.3 A geometric derivation of the collective Hamiltonian

We will study the quantum mechanical system whose degrees of freedom are described by a set of hermitian matrices $`(A_i)_b^a`$ and has hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{N^4}K_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{(A_i)_b^a(A_j)_a^b}+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}[V^IA_I].$$
(77)
The eigenvalue problem of $`H`$ follows from the condition that the quadratic form

$$<\psi |H|\psi >=\left[\frac{1}{2N^4}K_{ij}\frac{\psi ^{}}{A_{ib}^a}\frac{\psi }{A_{ja}^b}+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}V^IA_I|\psi (A)|^2\right]\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}d^{N^2}A_i$$
(78)
be extremal, subject to the constraint on the norm $`<\psi |\psi >=|\psi (A)|^2𝑑A=1`$.

The kinetic energy term is just the laplacian with respect to a euclidean metric on the space $`𝒜`$ of hermitean matrices:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(d[A_i]_b^a,d[A_j]_d^c)=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ibjd}^{ac}=K_{ij}\delta _d^a\delta _b^c$$
(79)
This metric is invariant under the action of $`U(N)`$ on the matrix variables: $`A_iUA_iU^1`$. Moreover, the potential energy $`\mathrm{tr}V^IA_I`$ is invariant under $`U(N)`$. We will regard this as a ‘gauge transformation’, and allow only for wavefunctions that are also invariant under $`U(N)`$:

$$\psi (UAU^{})=\psi (A).$$
(80)
The problem is to determine the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian $`H`$ over this class of invariant wave functions. Feynman diagram methods applied to this problem  suggest that there is an important simplification in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ holding $`V^I`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ fixed: only Feynman diagrams of planar topology contribute. This in turn implies that the gauge invariant observables such as $`G_I=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}A_I`$ have fluctutaions of the order $`\frac{1}{N^2}`$: thus matrix models reformulated in terms of invariants tend to some classical theory in the large $`N`$ limit. What are the configuration space, Poisson brackets and hamiltonian of this classical theory?

A complete set of invariants for the matrices are given by $`G_I=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{tr}A_I`$. For a fixed finite $`N`$, only a finite subset of the $`G_I`$ can be independent variables. If we allow $`N`$ to be arbitrary ( may be even infinite) the $`G_I`$ are independent except for cyclic symmetry, the reality conditions and inequalities. Thus the configuration space of matrix models is nothing but the space of non-commutative probability distributions that are tracial:

$$G_\varphi =1,G_I^{}=G_{\overline{I}},G_{IJ}f_{}^{\overline{I}}{}_{}{}^{}f^J0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{polynomial}f(X)$$
(81)
In essence our task is to change variables from cartesian co-ordinates $`A_{ib}^a`$ to ‘radial co-ordinates’ $`G_I`$.

It is easier to change variables in the quadratic form $`<\psi |H|\psi >`$ rather than the hamiltonian operator $`H`$ directly: we only have to deal with first order rathar than second order derivatives. By the chain rule of differntiation,

$$K_{ij}\frac{\psi ^{}}{A_{ib}^a}\frac{\psi }{A_{ja}^b}=K_{ij}\frac{G_I}{A_{ib}^a}\frac{G_J}{A_{ja}^b}\frac{\psi ^{}}{G_I}\frac{\psi }{G_J}.$$
(82)
Now,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_I}{[A_i]_b^a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}[A_{I_2I_1}]_a^b`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_I}{[A_i]_b^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_J}{[A_j]_a^b}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}\delta _J^{J_1jJ_2}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}`$ (84)
so that

$$K_{ij}\frac{\psi ^{}}{A_{ib}^a}\frac{\psi }{A_{ja}^b}=g_{I;J}\frac{\psi ^{}}{G_I}\frac{\psi }{G_J}$$
(85)
where

$$g_{I;J}=K_{ij}\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}\delta _J^{J_1jJ_2}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}$$
(86)
The geometrical meaning of this clear: $`g_{I;J}`$ is the inverse of the metric tensor induced on the space of non-commutative probability distributions by the euclidean metric on the space of matrices.

To complete the story we need to understand as well the Jacobian of the transformation $`A_iG_I`$. This problem was studied extensively in a previous paper, where we showed that this Jacobian is $`e^{N^2\chi (G)}`$ where $`\chi (G)`$ is the free entropy ( in the sense of Voiculescu) of the non-commutative probability distribution whose moments are $`G_I`$. Thus we get

$$<\psi |H|\psi >=\left[g_{I;J}\frac{\psi ^{}}{N^2G_I}\frac{\psi }{N^2G_J}+V^IG_I\psi ^{}\psi \right]e^{N^2\chi (G)}𝑑G$$
(87)
and, of course also,

$$<\psi |\psi >=\psi ^{}\psi e^{N^2\chi (G)}𝑑G.$$
(88)
To take the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$, it is useful to introduce a new ‘radial wavefunction’

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\frac{1}{2}N^2\chi }\psi $$
(89)
so that

$$<\psi |\psi >=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑G,V^IG_I\psi ^{}\psi e^{N^2\chi (G)}𝑑G=V^IG_I\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑G.$$
(90)
In making this change of variables on the expectation value of kinetic energy, there will be some extra contributions from the derivatives of the entropy.These will add an extra term $`V_{coll}`$ to the potential. It is our next task to determine this term. Using

$$\frac{\psi }{N^2G_I}e^{\frac{1}{2}N^2\chi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{N^2G_I}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\chi }{G_I}\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(91)
we get

$`g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{N^2G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{N^2G_J}}e^{N^2\chi (G)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{G_J}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_J}}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ (93)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2}{N^2G_J}}`$
An integration by parts gives

$`g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{N^2G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{N^2G_J}}e^{N^2\chi (G)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}{G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{G_J}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_I}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_J}}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ (96)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_J}}\left[g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_I}}\right]|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$
$`+\mathrm{total}\mathrm{divergence}.`$
The first term leads directly to the ‘radial’ kinetic energy of eqn. (66). The last two terms don’t involve derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and hence are contributions to the potential arising from the change of variables: they represent a sort of ‘centrifugal potential’ ( or ‘collective potential’ in the language of Jevicki-Sakita):

$$V_{coll}=\frac{1}{8}g_{I;J}\frac{\chi }{G_I}\frac{\chi }{G_J}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{N^2}\frac{}{G_J}\left[g_{I;J}\frac{\chi }{G_I}\right]$$
(97)
In the large $`N`$ limit the second term will be small compared to the first. In any case, we show that it vanishes. Using the formula for $`g_{I;J}`$ and $`\frac{\chi }{G_{Jj}}=G^{J;L}\eta _L^j`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_J}}(g_{I;J}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_I}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}K_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_I}}\left(\delta _I^{I_1iI_2}\delta _J^{J_1jJ_2}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_J}}\right)`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}K_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_{Ii}}}\left(G_{IJ}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_{Jj}}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}K_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _I^j}{G_{Ii}}}`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N^2}}K_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{}{G_{Ii}}}\left(\delta _I^{I_1jI_2}G_{I_1}G_{I_2}\right)=0.`$ (100)
since we are always differentiating with respect to a higher moment. Thus only the first term contributes to $`V_{coll}`$

$`V_{coll}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K_{ij}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_{I_1iI_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{G_{J_1jJ_2}}}`$ (101)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K_{ij}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}G^{I_2I_1;L}\eta _L^iG^{J_2J_1;M}\eta _M^j`$ (102)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K_{ij}G^{L;M}\eta _L^i\eta _M^j`$ (103)
From our earlier discussion of the Fisher information we see that

$$V_{coll}=\frac{1}{4}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}.$$
(104)
Now we can collect the different terms together to get the answer for the hamiltonian stated in eqn. (66).

## 4 Approximate Large N Ground State and the Variational Principle

Our aim is to understand the ground state of the Hamiltonian

$$H=K_r+V_{eff}$$
(105)
where $`K_r=\frac{1}{2}K_{ij}\pi ^{I_1iI_2}G_{I_2I_1J_2J_1}\pi ^{J_1jJ_2}`$ and $`V_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}K_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}+V^IG_I`$. The large $`N`$ ground state is the probability distribution minimizing the effective potential $`V_{eff}=V_{coll}+V^IG_I`$. In essence, this is the problem of minimizing free Fisher information holding the moments in the potential fixed via the Lagrange multipliers $`V^I`$. So far we have not made any approximations aside from the large $`N`$ limit.

Mean Field Theory: The equation for minimization of the effective potential also defines for us a variational principle. If we minimize $`V_{eff}`$ over a sub-manifold of the configuration space which corresponds to the choice of a few parameter family of actions for the static matrix model, we will get an upper bound for the ground state energy. But as we well know, explicit solutions of the Dyson-Schwinger equations for arbitrary multi-matrix models are not always possible. However we may chose as the action $`S`$ some solvable model, which can then act as a variational ansatz. The simplest choice for the action is the gaussian, which leads to the wignerian sub-manifold of moments. This leads to an approximation method similar to mean field theory (MFT). As a first check on our methods, we present below mean-field calculations for some dynamical matrix models.

Since the gaussian action for static matrix models leads to Wigner moments,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G)=\frac{1}{2}S^{iI}(G)S^{jJ}(G)G_{IJ}=\frac{1}{2}(G^1)^{ij}$$
(106)
on the wignerian sub-manifold. Here $`(G^1)^{ij}G_{jk}=\delta _k^i`$. Let us specialize to matrix models with a quartic potential $`V^{ij}G_{ij}+V^{ijkl}G_{ijkl}`$. Then the effective potential to be minimized is

$$V_{eff}(G_{ij})=\frac{1}{8}K_{ij}(G^1)^{ij}+V^{ij}G_{ij}+V^{ijkl}(G_{ij}G_{kl}+G_{il}G_{jk}).$$
(107)
The minimum of the effective potential is given by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{eff}}{G_{pq}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}K_{ij}(G^1)^{ip}(G^1)^{jq}+V^{pq}`$ (109)
$`+V^{pqkl}G_{kl}+V^{ijpq}G_{ij}+V^{pjkq}G_{jk}+V^{ipql}G_{il}=0.`$
Notice that this is a cubically non-linear equation for the positive symmetric variational matrix $`G_{ij}`$. $`G_{ij}`$ plays the role of a mean field and this is its self consistent equation.

### 4.1 Mean Field Theory for Dynamical $`1`$ Matrix Model

To calibrate our approximation method, let us consider the dynamical $`1`$ matrix model

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{A_b^aA_a^b}+\mathrm{tr}[\frac{1}{2}A^2+gA^4]$$
(110)
whose exact large $`N`$ ground state energy is known from the work of Brezin et.al. . On the sub-manifold of Wigner semicircular distributions,

$$V_{eff}^{sc}(G_2)=\frac{1}{8G_2}+\frac{1}{2}G_2+2gG_2^2$$
(111)
whose minimum occurs at

$`G_2^{sc}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24g}}[1+\mu ^{1/3}+\mu ^{1/3}],`$ (112)
$`\mathrm{where}\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1+216g^2+12g\sqrt{3+324g^2}`$ (113)
The semicircular estimate is a variational upper bound $`E_{gs}E_{gs}^{sc}`$.

### 4.2 Cram$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$r-Rao Inequality

Somewhat surprisingly, we can also get a lower bound for $`E_{gs}`$. For this we make use of the (non-commutative) Cram$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$r-Rao (CR) inequality  along with the moment inequalities, which are conditions for positivity of the Hankel matrix. The CR inequality states that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ij}(G^1)^{ij}`$ is a positive matrix. It is the statement that among all distributions with fixed 2nd moment, the Wigner distribution minimizes information. For one variable, it is the condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }G_21`$ which is understood as a sort of uncertainty principle in statistics. The moment inequalities (MI) for a single variable are

$$G_20,G_4G_2^2,G_2G_4G_6G_4^3+G_2^3G_6G_2^2G_4^20,\mathrm{}$$
(114)
We can saturate the MI by choosing $`G_20;G_4=G_2^2;G_6=G_2^3\mathrm{}`$. The MI are saturated by $`\rho (x)=\delta (xx_0)`$, $`G_{2n}=x_0^{2n}`$, not the Wigner moments.

The CR-MI estimate is a lower bound $`E_{gs}^{CRMI}E_{gs}`$. We see from the following comparison with Brezin et.al.’s exact ($`N\mathrm{}`$) result, that in addition to providing bounds on $`E_{gs}`$, mean field theory is a reasonably good approximation.

| g | $`E_{gs}^{CRMI}`$ | $`E_{gs}^{exact}`$ | $`E_{gs}^{sc}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| .01 | .503 | .505 | .505 |
| .1 | .523 | .542 | .543 |
| .5 | .591 | .651 | .653 |
| 1 | .653 | .740 | .743 |
| 50 | 1.794 | 2.217 | 2.236 |
| 1000 | 4.745 | 5.915 | 5.969 |
| $`g\mathrm{}`$ | .472 $`g^{1/3}`$ | .590 $`g^{1/3}`$ | .595 $`g^{1/3}`$ |

### 4.3 Semi-Circular Ansatz for a Dynamical $`2`$ Matrix Model

We consider the two matrix model, that is of considerable interest in M-theory (for simplicity we look at the non-supersymmetric counterpart of the ‘BFSS model), defined by,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{A_a^bA_b^a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{B_a^bB_b^a}}\right)+V(A,B)`$ (115)
$`\mathrm{where}V(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}(A^2+B^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}(AB+BA){\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}[A,B]^2\right].`$ (116)
We read off $`V^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}m^2& \frac{1}{2}c\\ \frac{1}{2}c& \frac{1}{2}m^2\end{array}\right)`$, $`V^{ABAB}=V^{ABBA}=\frac{1}{2}g`$ and consider the region $`g0,|c|m^2`$ where $`V^{ij}`$ is positive. The effective potential to be minimized is

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{tr}[G^1]+\frac{1}{2}m^2(G_{AA}+G_{BB})+cG_{AB}\frac{1}{2}g(G_{ABAB}G_{ABBA})$$
(117)
In terms of the positive $`G_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right)`$ ($`|\beta |\alpha `$) parameterizing the Wignerian sub-manifold of configuration space,

$$V_{eff}(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{\alpha }{4(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)}+m^2\alpha +c\beta +\frac{1}{2}g(\alpha ^2\beta ^2).$$
(118)
For the above range of parameters, $`V_{eff}`$ is bounded below. Since the information and potential scale oppositely, it has a minimum at a non-trivial $`\alpha >0`$. For $`c=0`$, we get $`\beta =0`$ and a cubic for $`\alpha :4g\alpha ^3+4m^2\alpha ^21=0`$. For $`c>0`$ the actual solution of the algebraic equations can be obtained numerically.

### 4.4 MFT for Relativistic $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ Matrix Field Theory

Next we consider a relativistic hermitian scalar matrix field $`\varphi _b^a(x)`$ in $`d+1`$ dimensions. The Hamiltonian in the Schrodinger representation is

$$H=d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \varphi _b^a(x)\delta \varphi _a^b(x)}+\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}|\varphi (x)|^2+\frac{m_0^2}{2}\varphi (x)^2+\lambda _0\varphi (x)^4\right)\right].$$
(119)
Let $`G_{xy}=\frac{\mathrm{tr}}{N}\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$, $`d^dyG^{xy}G_{yz}=\delta ^d(xz)`$. Within the mean field approximation, the effective potential is

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{8}𝑑xG^{xx}+𝑑x𝑑y\frac{1}{2}\delta (xy)(\frac{^2}{x^2}+m_0^2)G_{xy}+2\lambda _0𝑑x(G_{xx})^2.$$
(120)
Minimizing it leads to an integral equation for the mean field $`G_{xy}`$

$$\frac{1}{8}\delta (xy)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑zG_{zx}(\frac{^2}{z^2}+m_0^2)G_{zy}+4\lambda _0𝑑zG_{zz}G_{zx}G_{zy}=0$$
(121)
Assuming a translation invariant ground state

$$G_{xy}=G(xy)=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}e^{ip(xy)}\stackrel{~}{G}(p),$$
(122)
this equation can be solved:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(p)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}$$
(123)
where $`m`$ is determined self consistently by

$$m^2=m_0^2+4\lambda _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}$$
(124)
We recognize this as the mass renormalization; log, linearly and quadratically divergent in 1, 2 and 3 spatial dimensions. We need to go beyond the mean field ansatz to see coupling constant renormalization. We will address these issues in a separate paper.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported in part by U.S.Department of Energy grant No. DE–FG02-91ER40685