text:
# Why Do Disks Form Jets?

## 1. Introduction and History

Before a child learns to run, it must learn to walk. Before it learns to walk, it must learn to stand. I believe that those of us studying jets and winds from rotating objects have been guilty of attempting to run before we have understood how to stand.

Here I give an account of the natural sequence of static magnetic structures that are obtained by the continued twisting of a local poloidal magnetic field by an accretion disk. My contention is that had we understood such structures long ago, then we would have considered the jets seen in nature to be an obvious consequence of the twisting of the field by an accretion disk in the presence of an external pressure. If we imagine the accretion disk as turning all the time, then we have to consider a sequence of equilibrium models in which the total twist angles increase linearly with time. This sequence of models gives towers whose height increases with time at a velocity of the order of the maximum rotation velocity in the disk.

Although I gave the first account of these growing towers in Lynden-Bell (1996), the magnetohydrodynamic wind modelers were already much more sophisticated and it is only recently that Li et al. (2001) decided that such an elementary model may give a fundamental clue to what is really going on. Their numerical method was not capable of exploring such models beyond the first two twists. While these are highly indicative of what happens, the many-twist picture is best understood from the somewhat more realistic version of my 1996 paper given here. The essentials of the process can be understood without any detailed mathematics and with only the minimal knowledge of magnetohydrodynamics contained in Alfvén’s theorem that magnetic flux moves with the fluid. Those primarily interested in the magnetic towers model of jets may be advised to move direct to §2 unless they have an interest in the history of the subject.

I was originally invited to give an account of black holes in galactic nuclei, a subject I had some hand in starting, but by now there are those far better qualified to discuss the recent exciting data and David Merritt has given a magnificent critical account here. My counter-suggestion of giving some account of the history of black holes in galactic nuclei followed by my recent work on jets was accepted, so I shall now turn to history.

Since the Isaac Newton Group is running this conference there is no better starting point than Newton’s first Query in his Opticks of 1704:

> And do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance and, by their action, bend its Rays, and is not this action (caeteris paribus) strongest at the least distance?

In 1784, moving on by 80 years we get to the Reverend John Michell’s great paper that not only predicted giant black holes but told us how massive they would be and how they would be found. Michell was a remarkable scientist, one of the founders of the geology of the UK through his early stratigraphy. He was the first to suggest that earthquakes traveled as waves. Other achievements of his were the experimental demonstration of an inverse square law between magnetic poles, the determination of the first luminosity function (using the Pleiades), the statistical demonstration that binary stars were gravitationally associated, a method for measuring the motion of the Sun through nearby stars and the invention of the apparatus for measuring $`G`$, the gravitational constant. This was perfected and first successfully used after his death by his great friend Henry Cavendish. Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, was among Michell’s more prominent students at Cambridge. Michell in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society for 1784 argued that bodies of greater than 500 times the diameter of the Sun and not of lesser density would so attract the light that it could not escape, rendering such great masses invisible to our senses. Nevertheless, he thought, they might be detected through observations of small satellites circling about them. It is interesting that $`(500)^3M_{}=1.25\times 10^8M_{}`$ (Mitchell 1784), while the first definitive observation of a giant black hole by Miyoshi et al. (1995) used material circling around it to determine its mass—$`3.6\times 10^7M_{}`$. Such predictions more than 200 years in advance of their time are extremely rare!

We know that Michell’s idea traveled to the French academy not only by the customary exchange of journals but also it was discussed in an exchange of letters between the botanist Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, and Benjamin Franklin, who was then (1783) US Ambassador in Paris. Two years after Michell died, Laplace described the idea of dark stars (without attribution) in his Système du Mond111Available in English translation (Laplace 1809). Laplace (1795), using exactly Michell’s argument translated into French, but in 1802 Young published his two-slit experiment demonstrating the wave nature of light (Young 1802). This put in doubt Michell’s arguments, based on the corpuscular theory of light, so Laplace deleted the passage on dark stars from the second edition of his book.

The well known historian of science Agnes Clarke, writing an account of Michell’s life and work for The Dictionary of National Biography (Clarke 1917), ended her list of Michell’s scientific achievements with the words

> But \[he\] speculated fruitlessly on a supposed retardation of light through the attraction of its corpuscles by the emitting masses.

This almost certainly reflects the received wisdom of the British astronomers of the time.

Returning to the 1780s, Sir William Herschel (1786) remarked upon the bright nuclei of the galaxies we now know as NGC 4151 and NGC 1068 and in 1850 Lord Rosse, using the giant telescope he had developed at Birr Castle, discovered spiral structure in M51 and other galaxies (Rosse 1850).

Coming to the 20th century, Vesto Slipher (1917), taking long time-exposed spectra photographically with a 36 inch telescope, discovered broad emission lines in these galaxies. They were so broad that he decided some non-Doppler broadening mechanism must be involved. It is seldom pointed out that most of the early redshifts of galaxies are due to Slipher’s work. He did not claim that the Universe was expanding because he thought similar work in the southern hemisphere might find almost nothing but blueshifts. However, his work was used by Eddington (1922) in his book on general relativity.

In 1918 Curtis photographed the jet at the centre of M87 (Curtis 1918). Even the emission mechanism remained a mystery until Baade showed it to be polarized synchrotron emission in 1952. Synchrotron emission was first worked out by Schott (1912) but it was not recognized as an emission mechanism in astronomy until the 1950s.

The major postwar development of astronomy came out of British developments in RADAR. In the years 1955–1975 Sir Martin Ryle led his Cambridge team to a series of remarkable discoveries which impacted almost all parts of the subject from stellar death to cosmology (Ryle 1968). Thus the third Cambridge Catalogue of radio sources and their 3C numbers became deeply embedded in the subject. Ryle and Hewish together developed aperture synthesis as a tool. In this they were helped not a little by a secret weapon. David Wheeler in Cambridge had developed a program for inverting Fourier transforms which was many times faster than others then in use. When some ten years later the method was rediscovered and published by Cooley and Tukey it rightly became famous.

Henry Palmer of Jodrell Bank led a team that developed linked radio telescopes over considerable distances and showed that a small fraction of the 3C sources contained small-angular-diameter sources down to a few arcseconds. Hazard realized that an accurate position for one of these could be obtained from a lunar occultation that would take place in Australia (Hazard, Mackay, & Shimmins 1963). Such positions were vital for the identification programs which Schmidt and Sandage had started at the Mt Wilson and Palomar Observatories. The first quasar spectrum to be taken was that of 3C48 by Greenstein. This showed emission lines at wavelengths that defied identification. Later that year (1963) Hazard sent Schmidt the lunar occultation position of 3C273. Luckily this showed two lines whose wavelength ratio exactly matched those of the hydrogen spectrum at the amazing redshift of $`z=0.158`$, quite unheard of for a 12th magnitude object.

Schmidt’s (1963) identification was soon confirmed by Oke’s (1963) detection of a third hydrogen line in the infrared. With the clues provided by 3C273, Greenstein’s spectrum of 3C48 was then interpreted as having a redshift of $`z=0.367`$. Soon afterwards, Greenstein & Schmidt (1964) collaborated on a paper that demonstrated that the high redshifts of the quasars could not be of gravitational origin. The emission lines needed a large volume for their formation and in a strong gravity field this would involve much greater line broadening than the emission lines showed. Hoyle and Fowler tried to get out of this by putting the source of emission at the centre of a very massive large stellar system which provided the potential but such a contrived model acquired few backers.

Early attempts to find cluster galaxies associated with quasars failed and this let to the idea that quasars were not associated with galaxies at all. Novikov (1964) and Ne’eman (1965) independently put forward the idea that they were white holes—time-delayed pieces of the Big Bang. It was Salpeter who first considered a massive object ploughing through a galaxy and accreting interstellar gas. Assuming that the material gradually percolated down to the last stable circular orbit, he gave the 5.7% efficiency of turning mass into energy. The properties of the orbits in Schwarzschild’s metric had indeed been known to relativists for some years, Zel’dovich among them.

Three papers laid the foundation of the thin accretion disk model now widely used

* Salpeter, E.E. 1964, ‘Accretion of interstellar matter by massive objects’, ApJ, 140, 796
* Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, ‘Galactic nuclei as collapsed old quasars’, Nat, 223, 690
* Bardeen, J. 1970, ‘Kerr metric black holes’, Nat, 226, 64

G. Burbidge (1959) gave minimum energy estimates of order $`10^{61}`$ erg for a number of radio sources and rightly emphasized that this was a very large number, while well before quasars Ambartsumian had emphasized the extraordinary behavior and high energy emissions from galactic nuclei (Ambartsumian & Shakbuzian 1958).

The main points of my 1969 paper were:

1. $`10^{61}`$ erg weigh $`{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}10^7M_{}`$. If these ergs arise from nuclear fusion then $`10^9M_{}`$ must be involved. But quasars vary in as little as 10 hours and $`G(10^9M_{})^2/(10\mathrm{light}\mathrm{hour})10^{61}\mathrm{erg}`$. The assumption that the energy is nuclear therefore leads to an even greater gravitational binding energy which must have been lost. Thus the assumption is wrong.

Hence most of the power of quasars is gravitational in origin and masses $`10^8M_{}`$ suffice. But there are no dead states like white dwarfs for such masses, except black holes. If emission is not 100% efficient remnants must remain.
2. I next considered the number of dead QSOs—based on Sandage’s (1965) estimates of them—and obtained

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{clusters}\\ \mathrm{of}\mathrm{galaxies}\end{array}\right)<\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\\ \mathrm{dead}\mathrm{quasars}\end{array}\right)<\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\\ \mathrm{galaxies}\end{array}\right).$$
3. How do we hide dead quasars of $`10^8M_{}`$ when they still gravitate? They are likely to be in dense places and to surround themselves with stars. Thus the obvious place to find them is in galactic nuclei.
4. What should dead quasars look like? Taking them to accrete via a friction caused by magnetic torques, I derived a temperature distribution $`T(r)r^{3/4}`$ and adding many such rings of black hole body emission gave me

$$S_\nu F_M^{2/3}\nu ^{1/3}\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /kT_{\mathrm{max}}),$$

where $`F_M`$ is the rest-mass flux down the hole.
5. Observational predictions were that most large galaxies should have nuclei with high M/L when inactive. In calling the paper ‘Galactic nuclei as collapsed old quasars’, I was raising the question “Are galactic nuclei just stars gathered around such black hole remnants of quasars?”

The masses of the black holes estimated in 1969, mainly from Merle Walker’s observations using the Lallmand image-tube, are compared with modern values in Figure 1. It is clear that these old estimates are mostly too high by a factor of order ten because no allowance was made for the mass of stars in the nuclei.

At the time, most working astronomers were highly sceptical of the whole picture, but Maarten Schmidt volunteered that it seemed the best theory available to explain the amazing phenomena.

It was clear that as a black hole accreted from the last stable orbit it would accrete angular momentum as well as mass. It thus became important to work out accretion disks with Kerr holes. I had a friendly competition with Jim Bardeen to do this and his knowledge of general relativity gave him a head start which he easily kept. His short but beautiful paper (Bardeen 1970) shows how a Schwarzschild hole evolves into an extreme Kerr hole as it accretes. Some of this is covered in my Vatican review (Lynden-Bell 1971a) and radio observations of the Galactic Centre were made then (Ekers & Lynden-Bell 1971).

In 1971 I reviewed the data on the Galactic Centre with Martin Rees (Lynden-Bell & Rees 1971) and some further details of Kerr disks and vortices were given later (Lynden-Bell 1978, 1986), but by then the field had become overpopulated.

A maximum likelihood method for determining luminosity functions was developed and applied to quasars and miniquasars (Lynden-Bell 1971b,c).

## 2. Jets from Accretion Disks

Jets were not generally acknowledged to feed radio lobes before Rees’s (1971) theory. Jets are seen in nature associated with radio galaxies (M87, Cygnus A; Hargrave & Ryle 1974), quasars (3C273, 3C47), young stars (Beckwith et al. 1990; Bouvier 1990) Herbig–Haro objects (Bontemps et al. 1996; Burrows et al. 1996), dying stars (SS 433), and micro-quasars (Mirabel & Rodriguez 1999).

One common feature is that the jet velocities are of the order of the circular velocity that would balance gravity at the central object’s surface.

Theoretical models of jets fall into three classes:

1. Hydrodynamic models collimated by Laval nozzles (Blandford & Rees 1974), or by vortices around black holes (Lynden-Bell 1978), or by self-similar thick disks (Gilham 1981; Narayan & Yi 1995; Narayan, Barret, & McClintock 1997).
2. Wind models in some way collimated by the local magnetic field of the rotating source (Mestel 1968; Blandford & Znajek 1977; Sakurai 1985, 1987; Heyvaerts & Norman 1989; Appl & Camenzind 1993; Lery et al. 1998; Lynden-Bell 1996; Okamoto 1997, 1999; Li et al. 2001).
3. Models collimated by a large-scale pre-existing magnetic field (Lovelace 1976; Blandford & Payne 1982; Shibata & Uchida 1985, 1986; Begelman & Li 1994; Bell & Lucek 1995; Lucek & Bell 1996; Ouyed & Pudritz 1997; Ouyed, Pudritz, & Stone 1997; Vlahakis & Tsinganos 1998).

Models in class 3 certainly work but their collimation is no surprise since the large-scale magnetic field provides collimation at great distances. A body of plasma initially fired across the field at some angle $`\theta `$ to it would have its transverse motion resisted by the field (a high conducting background medium being assumed) but its $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ motion along the field would continue. Eventually it would be collimated to move along the field. Thus, to some degree, all such models provide collimation by fiat in the boundary conditions. They cannot provide collimation in dying stars or bodies such as SS 433 in which the jets precess (Margon 1984).

The prevalence of electromagnetic phenomena associated with all jets and the acceleration of some particles to very high energies with relativistic motions strengthen the idea that the jets themselves may be an electromagnetic phenomenon and even the early advocates of purely hydrodynamic jets have more recently turned to magnetohydrodynamic models. This is partly because of the difficulty of getting sufficiently high speeds but also because it was difficult to obtain the extremely narrow jets like those seen in Cygnus A and HH 30.

Here we shall therefore concentrate on the models in class 2, in which the jets are collimated not by external fields but by fields associated with the objects themselves. Work in this area began from consideration of stellar winds and the angular momentum that they transported thereby braking stellar rotation, but it took on a new life in the discussion of pulsars. Following Sakurai’s early work there has been much discussion of asymptotic collimation of such winds, however the whole subject has been put in a well ordered form in Mestel’s (1999) book so the interested reader may find it there. I gave a brief review of the still active controversies in my introduction to the Royal Society’s meeting on Magnetic Activity in Stars, Disks and Quasars (Lynden-Bell et al. 2000).

As stated in the introduction, we shall now turn to my growing-towers picture (Lynden-Bell 1996) based on motion through a sequence of static structures that inevitably occur when a poloidal magnetic field is progressively twisted.

### 2.1. Magneto-Static Theorems and Rough Estimates

We consider a magnetic field anchored on the plane $`z=0`$ and confined by an ambient external pressure $`p_0`$ due to an ionized medium. Where there is field there is no gas pressure and except at the surface of the volume $`V`$ occupied by field (and $`z=0`$) the field configuration is force free. The total energy of the configuration may be written

$$W=W_R+W_\varphi +W_z+W_p=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(B_R^2+B_\varphi ^2+B_z^2\right)𝑑V+p_0V.$$
$`(1)`$
We have taken cylindrical polar components of the field for our later convenience but the theorems proved are not confined to fields of any particular symmetry. Now the field wiggles its way to the minimum energy configuration subject to the constraints imposed by the boundary conditions on the disk. These define the vertical field component $`B_z`$ on $`z=0`$ and the twist angles of each field line which are most easily conceived for the axially symmetric case in which they are measured as twists about the axis. It may be shown that the force free equations follow from minimizing the energy subject to the constraints.

###### Theorem 1

For any finite magneto-static configuration anchored on z = 0 then on any cut z = constant

$$w_R+w_\varphi =w_z+w_p,$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\mathrm{w}_{\mathrm{R},\varphi ,\mathrm{z}}`$ = $`[\mathit{1}/(\mathit{8}\pi )]\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{R},\varphi ,\mathrm{z}}^2\mathrm{dA},\mathrm{w}_\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{p}_0\mathrm{A}`$ and A is the area of the volume V intersected by the cut.

Notice that the capital W are related to the small w by integration over z.

Proof  Consider the slice between the cut at $`z`$ and one at $`z+dz`$. Lift the whole field configuration above $`z+dz`$ rigidly by an amount $`(\lambda 1)dz`$, expand the slice to thickness $`\lambda dz`$ and leave the configuration below $`z`$ unchanged (see Figure 2). In the vertical expansion of the slice flux conservation gives

$$B_RB_R/\lambda ,B_\varphi B_\varphi /\lambda ,B_zB_z,dAdz\lambda dAdz.$$

Thus in terms of the old fields and old $`w`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=\left[(w_R+w_\varphi )(\lambda ^11)+(w_z+w_p)(\lambda 1)\right]dz.$$

Now the original situation must be a minimum energy one, so $`(\mathrm{\Delta }W)/\lambda `$ must be zero at $`\lambda =1`$. This condition yields at once $`w_R+w_\varphi =w_z+w_p`$ (QED).

###### Theorem 2

For any finite magneto-static configuration anchored on z = 0

$$W_z=W_p+{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}W_0,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\mathrm{W}_\mathit{0}`$ = $`[\mathit{1}/(\mathit{4}\pi )]\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{z}\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{RdA}`$ evaluated on z = 0.

Proof  Consider a lateral expansion of the volume $`V`$ occupied by field such that $`R\mu R,zz`$. Conservation of flux across elementary areas $`Rd\varphi dz`$, etc., gives $`B_RB_R/\mu ,B_\varphi B_\varphi /\mu ,B_zB_z/\mu ^2,dA\mu ^2dA`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W=W_z(\mu ^21)+W_p(\mu ^21).$$

Now we must take care because, unlike our former transformation, this one moves the anchored foot-points on $`z=0`$. Luckily the principle of virtual work comes to our aid. We have to add to $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ the work done in infinitesimal movement $`\delta \mu R`$ of the foot points by the forces of constraint, viz. $`B_RB_zdA/(4\pi )`$, so

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }W}{\mu }\right]_{\mu =1}+\frac{1}{4\pi }_{z=0}B_RB_zR𝑑A=0.$$

Thus we obtain

$$W_z=W_p+{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}W_0$$

(QED). To those who believe that the pinch effect needs no external pressure it comes as a surprise that $`8\pi W_\varphi =B_\varphi ^2\mu ^2\mu ^2𝑑A𝑑z`$, which is independent of $`\mu `$. Thus there is no tendency for overall contractions in a purely toroidal field. It is perhaps of interest to minimize the energy of a toroidal flux $`F`$ contained between cylinders of radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ of height $`Z`$. One finds $`B_\varphi 1/R`$:

$$W_\varphi =\frac{1}{4}\frac{F_\varphi ^2Z^1}{\mathrm{ln}(R_2/R_1)}.$$

Thus if $`R_2`$ and $`R_1`$ are increased by the same factor there is no change in $`W_\varphi `$, in agreement with what we found above, but if $`R_2`$ is fixed then $`W_\varphi `$ decreases as $`R_1`$ is reduced giving rise to a pinch. In fact $`B_\varphi ^21/R^2`$ shows that the toroidal magnetic field acts as a pressure amplifier delivering on $`R_1`$ a pressure $`(R_2/R_1)^2`$ times that exerted on $`R_2`$. The whole pinch effect is a pressure amplifier—without anything to push on outside it has nothing to amplify and indeed the field would expand outwards as well as inwards.

To orient ideas it is useful to make some very crude dimensional estimates. Suppose the typical radius out to which the field expands laterally is $`R_2`$ and we deal with an axially symmetrical field configuration which is wound up by the turning of the accretion disk. Let the field pass upward through the disk at small radii and return downward at larger radii and let the total upward poloidal flux be $`F`$. With each turn of the upward flux relative to the downward a toroidal flux equal to $`R`$ will be generated, so after $`n`$ turns the toroidal flux will be $`nF`$. If $`Z`$ is the total height of the configuration then the volume $`V`$ occupied by field will be $`V=\pi R_2^2Z`$ a typical value of $`B_\varphi `$ will be $`nF/(R_2Z)`$, a typical value of $`B_R`$ will be $`F/(\sqrt{2}\pi RZ)`$, and a typical value of $`B_z`$ will be $`2F/(\pi R_2^2)`$; the $`\sqrt{2}`$ in $`B_R`$ comes from the fact that the typical $`\pi R`$ for a radial field line is $`2\pi (R_2^2/2)^{1/2}`$, while the factor 2 in the $`B_z`$ comes from the fact that the flux goes both up and down.

Dividing (2) by $`A/(8\pi )`$ yields the interesting exact result

$$B_R^2+B_\varphi ^2=B_z^2+8\pi p_0,$$
$`(4)`$
where the averages are taken over any $`z=\mathrm{constant}`$ plane. Putting in our rough estimates we get

$$\frac{F^2}{2\pi ^2R_2^2Z^2}\left(1+2\pi ^2n^2\right)=\frac{4F^2}{\pi ^2R_2^4}+8\pi p_0.$$
$`(5)`$
Now consider the case of no bounding pressure. Then

$$\frac{Z^2}{R_2^2}=\frac{1}{8}\left(1+2\pi ^2n^2\right),$$
$`(6)`$
so $`Z/R(\pi /2)n`$ for $`n`$ large, which appears to show that the collimation $`Z/R`$ increases with every turn $`n`$. On first finding this I was much encouraged and immediately turned to get a more exact model. When I solved it I was deeply disappointed because before the field has twisted by even one turn it relieves itself by expanding to infinity with an opening angle of $`120^{}`$—very far from the sort of collimation we seek. Figure 3 shows the field configurations for twist angles of $`130^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$. When $`208{}_{}{}^{}=2\pi /\sqrt{3}^c`$ is reached the field is outwards along cones up to $`60^{}`$ to the equator. This disconnection at infinity is precisely what was predicted by some pretty theorems of J.J. Aly (1995) but, although it provides a beautiful illustration of these, it fails to give the accurate collimation we seek. However, those interested in galaxies with conical outflows should perhaps pay more attention to this magneto-static result described in detail in Lynden-Bell & Boily (1994). I was so disappointed in the result, which was initially found in 1979, that I laid the whole subject aside and only returned to it in 1994. It took two more years before I realised that victory might still be snatched from the jaws of defeat. Expression (6) failed to give collimation only because $`n`$ could not be made large without the field disconnecting at infinity. If a way could be found to prevent the field reaching out to infinity then perhaps $`n`$ could be made large after all. This led me to introduce the ambient pressure $`p_0`$ to confine the field. It then takes an infinite amount of work for the field to extend to infinity so this will not occur at finite twist angles. Let us now turn to equation (3) and insert our rough estimates. On dividing by $`V/8\pi `$ we find

$$\frac{4F^2}{\pi ^2R_2^4}=8\pi p_0+2\sqrt{2}\frac{F^2}{\pi R_2^2Z^2},$$
$`(7)`$
where we have left the $`B_z`$ field on the disk at $`B_{z0}`$ since this is fixed but used our estimate of $`B_R`$ there too. Eliminating $`p_0`$ between (7) and (5) we find

$$\frac{Z^2}{R^2}=\frac{1}{16}\left(2\sqrt{2}+1+2\pi ^2n^2\right),$$

so asymptotically

$$Z/R\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}n,$$

just a factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ less than our first wrong estimate without $`p_0`$. With $`Z^2/R^2`$ large the last term in (7) is negligible compared with the first, so $`W_0`$ may be neglected compared with $`W_z`$. Furthermore, with $`n`$ large $`B_R`$ becomes negligible compared with $`B_\varphi `$. Thus highly wound configurations become tall towers. For such we have from (4) at each height

$$B_\varphi ^2=B_z^2+8\pi p_0.$$
$`(8)`$
Furthermore, we may consider local transformations that expand $`R\mu (z)R`$ where $`\mu (z)`$ is slowly varying but becomes one except in a region around some chosen height. Even after this transformation the fields will still have $`B_R`$ small so its square is negligible compared with $`B_z^2`$. From such transformations, which leave $`W_0`$ unchanged, we can deduce that at any great height (3) may be replaced by $`w_z=w_p`$, so on dividing by $`A/8\pi `$

$$B_z^28\pi p_0.$$
$`(9)`$
Hence from (8) we have everywhere well above the base $`z=0`$

$${}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}B_\varphi ^2=B_z^2=8\pi p_0,$$
$`(10)`$
where the averages are taken over areas at constant $`z`$.

## 3. Better Estimates of the Field Structure

Consider the tube of force that intersects the accretion disk in the circle of radius $`R_1`$. Let the poloidal flux rising within this tube be $`P`$. Then we may label each field line by the value of $`P`$ and indeed $`B_z=+[1/(2\pi R)]P/R`$, $`B_R=[1/(2\pi R)]P/z`$. If this field line returns to the disk at some larger radius $`R_2`$ then there will be a differential twisting due to the fact that on the accretion disk $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1>\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ so $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)`$ is the rate of twisting of the field line labeled $`P`$. Now suppose that at any given time $`t`$ when the twist angle will have accumulated to be $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Omega }(P)t`$ the field line labeled $`P`$ rises to a maximum height $`Z(P)`$. Then the total twist per unit height will be $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)/Z(P)`$. Now one turn (a twist of $`2\pi `$) will cause a toroidal flux between $`P`$ and $`P+dP`$ of just $`dP`$ so the toroidal flux per unit height between $`P`$ and $`P+dP`$ will be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}{2\pi Z(P)}.$$
$`(11)`$
Now only those field lines with $`P^{}P`$ will reach to height $`Z(P)`$ so the total toroidal flux per unit height at $`Z`$ will be

$$_0^{R(P)}B_\varphi 𝑑R=_0^P\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(P^{})}{2\pi Z(P^{})}𝑑P^{}$$

so

$$\overline{B}_\varphi =\frac{1}{2\pi R(P)}_0^P\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(P^{})}{Z(P^{})}𝑑P^{},$$
$`(12)`$
where $`P`$ is the flux label of the line that just reaches height $`Z(P)`$ and no further. The radius of the area occupied by magnetic field at height $`Z`$ we call $`R(Z(P))`$, or $`R(P)`$ for short. This is not the radius at which the line labeled $`P`$ reaches height $`Z`$.

Now the flux $`P`$ is all the poloidal flux that crosses height $`Z`$ once on the way up and once on the way down, so the average $`|B_z|`$ is $`2P/\left\{\pi \left[R(P)\right]^2\right\}`$. Since $`B_z=(2\pi R)^1P/R`$ we may write

$$B_z^2=_0^{R(P)}\left(2\pi R\right)^1\left(P/R\right)^2𝑑R=\left(2P/\left\{\pi \left[R(P)\right]^2\right\}\right)^2I,$$
$`(13)`$
where $`I`$ is the dimensionless integral given by

$$I=\frac{\pi }{8}_0^1\left(\stackrel{~}{P}/\stackrel{~}{R}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{R}^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{R}$$
$`(14)`$
and

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=P^{}(R^{})/P,\stackrel{~}{R}=R^{}/R(P).$$
$`(15)`$
By the theorem that the mean square is greater than or equal to the square of the mean modules $`I1`$.

Now in a self-similar distribution of field $`I`$ would be independent of $`Z`$ so we shall suppose that at heights well above the base at $`z=0`$, $`I`$ depends on $`Z`$ only weakly if at all. Using (13) for $`B_z^2`$ in (10) we find

$$\pi \left[R(P)\right]^2=P\left[I/(2\pi p_0)\right]^{1/2},$$
$`(16)`$
so neglecting the variation of $`\mathrm{log}I`$,

$$d\mathrm{ln}R(P)/d\mathrm{ln}P=1/2.$$
$`(17)`$
Now let $`B_\varphi ^2/\overline{B}_\varphi ^2=J.`$ Then from (10) and (12)

$$_0^P\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(P^{})}{Z(P^{})}𝑑P^{}=8\pi \left(\frac{\pi p_0}{J}\right)^{1/2}R(P).$$

Differentiating with respect to $`P`$ and using (17) and (16),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(P)/Z(P)=4\pi (\pi p_0/J)^{1/2}R(P)/P=(8I/J)^{1/2}/R(P),$$

where we have neglected the variation of $`J`$ with height. Hence

$$\frac{Z(P)}{R(P)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}{(8I/J)^{1/2}},$$

or, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Omega }(P)t`$,

$$Z(P)=(8I/J)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Omega }(P)R(P)t,$$
$`(18)`$
so the maximum height of each field line grows linearly in time at a velocity related to the disk’s circular velocity, and the area occupied by the field at height $`Z(P)`$ is proportional to $`P`$ as given by (16).

To proceed further we need to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)`$, which is one of the inputs of our model since it is determined by the distribution of the poloidal flux over the disk as well as the disk’s rotation.

We shall take our accretion disk to be Keplerian outside some radius $`R_0`$ so that the circular velocity

$$V=V_0(R_0/R_1)^{1/2}(R_1>R_0)$$

however, such a law cannot continue down to $`R_1=0`$ as it would lead to infinite velocities. We shall therefore take circular velocities of the form

$$V=V_0\left[1+\left(R_1/R_0\right)^2\right]^{1/4}.$$

My original accretion disk model of quasars (Lynden-Bell 1969) relied on shearing and reconnecting magnetic fields giving stresses to provide the torques which allowed the material to lose its angular momentum and be accreted. It gave magnetic fields $`BR^{5/4}`$, and more recent accretion disk models (e.g., Shakura & Sunyaev 1973, 1976; Tout & Pringle 1992), which rely on the less reliable $`\alpha `$viscosity, give the same $`R`$ dependence for magnetic fields. However, again the field must reach some finite value as $`R_1`$ becomes small so we shall take on the disk $`z=0`$

$$B_z=B_0(1+(R_1/R_0)^2)^{5/8}.$$
$`(19)`$
This gives a convenient flux function

$$P=F_0\frac{8}{3}\left\{\left[1+\left(R_1/R_0\right)^2\right]^{3/8}1\right\}\mathrm{for}PF_0$$
$`(20)`$
where $`F_0=\pi R_0^2B_0`$. We shall assume there is a total poloidal flux $`F`$ so $`PF`$. Eliminating $`R_1/R_0`$ we obtain

$$V=V_0\left[1+(3/8)P/F_0\right]^{2/3}(\mathrm{for}PF)$$

or writing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=V_0/R_0`$ we have

$$V/R_1=\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left[1+(3/8)P/F_0\right]^{2/3}\left\{\left[1+\frac{3P}{8F_0}\right]^{8/3}1\right\}^{1/2},$$
$`(21)`$
where the last factor is $`R_0/R_1`$ rewritten and we have neglected $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R_2)`$ compared with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R_1)`$.

For small $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0(P/F_0)^{1/2}.`$

We are now in a position to determine the shape of the magnetic cavity occupied in the magnetic field. From (16) $`P\left[R(P)\right]^2`$ so we get $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of $`R(P)`$ from (18). For $`R(P)b`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left[1+(3/8)\left(R(P)/a\right)^2\right]^{2/3}\left\{\left[1+\frac{3}{8}\left(\frac{R(P)}{a}\right)^2\right]^{8/3}1\right\}^{1/2},$$
$`(22)`$
where $`a^2=\pi ^1F_0\left[I/(2\pi p_0)\right]^{1/2},`$ which is constant and $`b^2=(F/F_0)a^2`$. Thus from (18) writing $`x=R(P)/a`$ we have for $`xb/a`$:

$$Z(P)=(8I/J)^{1/2}a\mathrm{\Omega }_0t\left[1+(3/8)x^2\right]^{2/3}\left\{\left[1+(3/8)x^2\right]^{8/3}1\right\}^{1/2}x.$$
$`(23)`$
The factors after the first bracket $`1`$ for $`x`$ small. $`Z(P)`$ gives the height and $`R(P)`$ alias $`x`$ gives the radius of the cavity occupied by field so a plot of this equation gives the shape at each time. $`R(P)`$ has a maximum at $`b`$ and at lower $`Z`$ it remains at $`b`$ down to $`Za`$ where the field configuration becomes that of Figure 3. The shape of the cavity is plotted as Figure 4.

The stability of the towers is an interesting subject that cannot be treated here. However, some general guidance can be given. Long thin towers in compression are unstable to sideways buckling like an Euler strut. If by contrast they are in tension, they are stable to such buckling. However, even a liquid is stable under compression if it is surrounded by other liquid at the same pressure. Thus if we imagine a long thin tower of liquid it will only buckle if asked to support a pressure in excess of the ambient pressure of the surrounding liquid. From this example it is reasonable to expect our magnetic towers to buckle only if they experience a net compressive force greater than the ambient pressure. With $`(B_\varphi ^2B_z^2)/8\pi p_0=0`$ our towers are just stable by that criterion. However, we have neglected two other effects. Firstly, magnetic field is buoyant, so if $`p_0`$ decreases with height this should require a net tension from the magnetic stresses. Secondly, ram pressure at the head of any advancing jet will require some extra compression along the jet. As these two effects act in opposite directions we must leave the stability of the towers undecided. Finally, it is not clear that all real jets are stable to buckling; that of 3C273 appears bent on milliarcsecond scales.

## 4. Conclusions

In reality jets are dynamic whereas the towers we have calculated are static. In so far as the ram pressure and other inertial effects can be neglected, evolution through growing towers gives a realizable model. But such models which are very useful for guidance and understanding, should not be considered as giving the exact shapes to be expected from fully dynamic jets. However, they do supply an interesting and provocative answer to the question “Why are there jets at all?” Theories of jet models that fail to answer that question but assume an imposed flux of material from their base may be missing this point. Our picture also gives a good explanation of why jets advance at speeds directly related to the circular or escape velocity of the inner parts of the disks from which they emerge.

## References

Aly, J. J. 1995, ApJ, 439, L63

Ambartsumian, V. A., & Shakbazian, R. K. 1958, Comm. Akad. Nunk. Armenin. SSR, 26, 277

Appl, S., & Camenzind, M. 1993, A&A, 270, 71

Bardeen, J. 1970, Nat, 226, 64

Beckwith, S. V. W., Sargent, A. L., Chin, R. S., & Gusten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924

Begelman, M. C., & Li, Z.-Y. 1994, ApJ, 426, 269

Bell, A. R., & Lucek, S. G. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1327

Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395

Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

Bontemps, S., André, P., Terebey, S., & Cabrit, S. 1996, A&A, 311, 858

Bouvier, J. 1990, AJ, 99, 946

Burbidge, G. R. 1959, in IAU Symp. 9 & URSI Symp. 1, Paris Symposium on Radio Astronomy, ed. R. N. Bracewell (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 541

Burrows, C. J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 473, 437

Clarke, A. M. 1917–, in The Dictionary of National Biography, XIII, ed. L. Stephen & S. Lee (London: Oxford University Press), p. 333

Curtis, H. D. 1918, Publ. Lick Obs., 13, 31

Eddington, A. S. 1922, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 162

Ekers, R. D., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, Astrophys. Letts., 9, 189

Gilham, S. 1981, MNRAS, 195, 753

Greenstein, J. L., & Schmidt, M. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796

Hargrave, P.J., & Ryle, M. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 305

Hazard, C., Mackay, M. B., & Shimmins, A. J. 1963, Nat, 197, 1037

Herschel, W. 1786, Phil. Trans., 76, 437

Heyvaerts, J., & Norman, C. A. 1989, ApJ, 347, 1055

Laplace, P. S. 1795, Système du Monde, Paris, p. 305

Laplace, P. S. 1809, System of the World, transl. J. Pond (London: Phillips)

Lery, T., Heyvaerts, J., Appl, S., & Norman, C. A. 1998, A&A, 337, 603

Li, H., Lovelace, R. V. E., Finn, J. H., & Colgate, S. A. 2001, preprint

Lovelace, R. V. E. 1976, Nat, 262, 649

Lucek, S. G., & Bell, A. R. 1996, MNRAS, 290, 327

Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nat, 223, 690

Lynden-Bell, D. 1971a, in Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia, Study Week on Nuclei of Galaxies, ed. D. J. K. O’Connell (New York: North-Holland Publishing)

Lynden-Bell, D. 1971b, MNRAS, 155, 95

Lynden-Bell, D. 1971c, MNRAS, 155, 119

Lynden-Bell, D. 1978, Phys. Scr., 17, 185

Lynden-Bell, D. 1986, in NATO Science Series B, vol. 186, Gravitation in Astrophysics, ed. B. Carter & J. B. Hartle (New York: Plenum), p.155

Lynden-Bell, D. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 389

Lynden-Bell, D., & Boily, C. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 146

Lynden-Bell, D., Priest, E. R., & Weiss, N. O. (eds.) 2000, Magnetic Activity in Stars, Disks & Quasars (Phil. Trans., 358, 635–867)

Lynden-Bell, D., & Rees, M. J. 1971, MNRAS, 152, 461

Margon, B. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 507

Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 140, 177

Mestel, L. 1999, Stellar Magnetism (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Mirabel, I. F., & Rodriguez, F. I. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 409

Michell, J. 1784, Phil. Trans., 74, 50

Miyoshi, M., Moran, J., Hernstein, J., Greenhill, I., Nakai, N., Diamond, P., & Inone, M. 1995, Nat, 373, 127

Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710

Narayan, R., Barret, D., & McClintock, J. E. 1997, ApJ, 482, 448

Ne’eman, Y. 1965, ApJ, 141, 1303

Newton, I. 1704, Opticks (New York: Dover)

Novikov, I. D. 1964, A. Zh., 41, 1075

Okamoto, I. 1997, A&A, 326, 1277

Okamoto, I. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 253

Oke, J. B. 1963, Nat, 197, 1040

Ouyed, R., Pudritz, R. E., & Stone, J. E. 1997, Nat, 385, 409

Ouyed, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 1997, ApJ, 484, 794

Rees, M. J. 1971, Nat, 229, 312

Rosse, Earl of, 1850, Phil. Trans., 499

Ryle, M. 1968, Highlights of Astronomy, ed. L. Perek (Dordrecht: Reidel), p. 380

Sakurai, T. 1985, A&A, 152, 121

Sakurai, T. 1987, PASJ, 39, 821

Salpeter, E. E. 1964, ApJ, 140, 796

Sandage, A. R. 1965, ApJ, 141, 1586

Schmidt, M. 1963, Nat, 197, 1040

Schott, G. A. 1912, Electromagnetic Radiation and Reactions Arising from It, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613

Shibata, K., & Uchida, Y. 1985, PASJ, 37, 31

Shibata, K., & Uchida, Y. 1986, PASJ, 38, 631

Slipher, V. M. 1917, Lowell Obs. Bull., 3, 59

Tout, C. A., & Pringle, J. E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 604

Vlahakis, N., & Tsinganos, K. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 777

Young, T. 1802, Phil. Trans., 92, 36


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A large $`N`$ reduced model has been proposed as a nonperturbative formulation of type IIB superstring theory. It is defined by the action111In this paper, we take a metric convention $`\eta _{IJ}=\text{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$.:

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr(\frac{1}{4}[A_I,A_J][A^I,A^J]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^I[A_I,\psi ]).$$
(1.1)
It is a large $`N`$ reduced model  of ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory. Here $`\psi `$ is a ten dimensional Majorana-Weyl spinor field, and $`A_I`$ and $`\psi `$ are $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrices. It is formulated in a manifestly covariant way which enables us to study the nonperturbative issues of superstring theory. In fact we can, in principle, predict the dimensionality of spacetime, the gauge group and the matter contents by solving this model.

Among several issues on the matrix formulation of superstring, one is to answer which model should be regarded as the most fundamental one. This question can be compared to the universality in the lattice gauge theory. In this case, the most important symmetry we have to keep is the gauge symmetry and we know that various models with the gauge invariance are in the same universality class. In the case of matrix models, maximal supersymmetry may play the same role but it is not yet certain. Hence, it is meaningful to consider various matrix models, investigate their dynamics and make connections between them. If matrix models can describe the dynamics of space-time, we should be able to generate various space-time backgrounds from the same model, and in this respect universality in matrix models will be related to the background independence.

Another related issue is to construct a phenomenologically interesting model with chiral fermions in $`d=4`$. In string theory, there are several mechanisms to generate four-dimensional chiral fermions, including compactification with non-zero index of Dirac operator, D-branes wrapped on intersecting cycles, etc . In matrix models, we may similarly be able to consider corresponding mechanisms but no investigations have been performed yet.

In this paper we study a matrix model in $`𝐂^3/𝐙_3`$ orbifold background  . This model can be obtained from IIB matrix model by imposing some constrains. In particular we consider a model with four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills type supersymmetry. In matrix models, there is also an inhomogeneous supersymmetry as well, and the model has totally $`d=4`$ $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetries. This model is chiral since the chiral multiplets are in bi-fundamental representation of the gauge group. There are two types of classical solutions, corresponding to the Higgs branch and the Coulomb branch, respectively. The Higgs branch solution forms a triplet under $`𝐙_3`$ transformation and there are three images in $`𝐂^3`$ plane whose positions in $`d=4`$ directions are the same. On the other hand, the Coulomb branch solution is restricted on the orbifold fixed point and cannot move into $`𝐂^3`$ direction. The Coulomb branch solution is continuously connected to the Higgs branch solution at the orbifold singularity. When the Higgs branch solution comes on the orbifold singularity, the three images are liberated from each other and they can move independently into $`d=4`$ directions. As BPS solutions, the former represents ordinary D-branes with three mirror images by $`𝐙_3`$, and when they lie on the singularity they can move freely into the four dimensional direction as fractional branes.

We calculate one-loop effective action of the orbifold matrix model to clarify its correspondence to the interaction in type IIB supergravity in the orbifold background . Firstly we show that we can reproduce the correct supergravity interaction for classical solutions in the Higgs branch in orbifold background. Secondly the dynamics of fractional branes in the Coulomb branch is shown to be governed by the reduced model of $`d=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory instead of $`d=10`$ Yang-Mills theory. In string theory, fractional branes  have a charge of RR fields in the twisted sector and the interaction between them should have four-dimensional behaviour in the long distance. In this respect, it is qualitatively consistent with the string picture. But perturbatively the reduced model of $`d=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory does not reproduce the correct interactions mediated by massless fields in the twisted sector. (The induced interaction is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance instead of the expected quadratic power.) This discrepancy will be a limitation of perturbative calculations and it is not certain whether incorporation of nonperturbative effects can help it.

This model has smaller supersymmetries compared with IIB matrix model and it is not apparent if it is in the same universality class as IIB matrix model. But if it is, the orbifold matrix model must be obtained from IIB matrix model through condensation of some fields and so must be the reverse. These relations will also shed light on the issue how to realize four-dimensional chiral fermions from IIB matrix model. In this paper, we show that the orbifold matrix model in the Higgs phase with a large expectation value becomes IIB matrix model.

The organisation of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we give a brief review of IIB matrix model. In section 3, we construct orbifold matrix models, and particularly consider a model with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry of Yang-Mills type in $`d=4`$. In section 4, we analyse this orbifold matrix model. First we list several classical solutions with or without noncommutativity of backgrounds. Then we calculate one-loop effective action around these solutions and show that the result is partly consistent with the string theory. In section 5, we show that this model with a large Higgs vacuum expectation value becomes IIB matrix model. Section 6 is devoted to conclusions and discussions.

## 2 Brief Review of IIB Matrix Model

Action of the IIB matrix model is defined in (1.1). This model has $`𝒩=2`$ ten-dimensional supersymmetry if we regard the distribution of eigenvalues as space-time. Since this matrix model action can be obtained by reducing the original ten dimensional space-time to a single point, the action has the remnant of the supersymmetry of super Yang-Mills type:

$`\delta ^{(1)}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[A_I,A_J]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}ϵ,`$
$`\delta ^{(1)}A_I`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\psi .`$ (2.1)
In addition to this homogeneous symmetry, there is an inhomogeneous fermionic symmetry

$`\delta ^{(2)}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\xi ,`$
$`\delta ^{(2)}A_I`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.2)
If we take a linear combination of $`\delta ^{(1)}`$ and $`\delta ^{(2)}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(1)}+\delta ^{(2)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\delta ^{(1)}\delta ^{(2)}),`$ (2.3)
we obtain the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry algebra:

$`(\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵ^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_\xi ^{(j)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_\xi ^{(j)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵ^{(i)})\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵ^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_\xi ^{(j)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_\xi ^{(j)}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_ϵ^{(i)})A_I`$ $`=`$ $`2i\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\xi \delta _{ij}.`$ (2.4)
The $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry is a crucial element of superstring theory. It imposes strong constraints on the spectra of particles. Furthermore it determines the structure of the interactions uniquely in the light-cone string field theory. The IIB matrix model is a nonperturbative formulation which possesses such a symmetry. Therefore it has a very good chance to capture the universality class of IIB superstring theory. These symmetry considerations force us to interpret the eigenvalues of $`A_I`$ as the space-time coordinates.

The simplest classical solutions are those where all bosonic matrices are commutable and simultaneously diagonalisable. Since the distributions of the eigenvalues determine the extent and the dimensionality of spacetime, the structure of spacetime can be dynamically determined by the theory; Indeed, spacetime exits as a single bunch and no single eigenvalue can escape from the rest. Numerical simulations and analysis with various approximations have indicated that the Lorentz symmetry might be spontaneously broken .

The next simplest solutions are those with non-zero but c-number commutator $`[A_I,A_J]=i\theta _{IJ}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}`$. These solutions correspond to BPS-saturated backgrounds. Indeed, the solutions are invariant under transformations if we set $`\xi `$ equal to $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\theta _{IJ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{IJ}ϵ`$ in the $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetry (2.1) and (2.2). By expanding the matrix around this classical solution, we can obtain a supersymmetric noncommutative gauge theory .

Finally in this section, we comment on the calculation of the one-loop effective action in IIB matrix model and its interpretation in type IIB supergravity. In , it was shown that when the bosonic matrices are expanded around backgrounds having a block-diagonal form

$`A_\mu =X_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}d_{\mu (1)}+X_{\mu (1)}& \\ & d_{\mu (2)}+X_{\mu (2)}\end{array}\right),`$ (2.7)
the one-loop effective action becomes

$`W^{(12)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(d^{(1)}d^{(2)})^8}}`$ (2.8)
$`([(4n_2Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\nu \lambda }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\rho \mu }^{(1)})8n_2Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \rho }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \nu }^{(1)})`$
$`+2n_2Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)})+n_2Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(1)})`$
$`48Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)})Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \lambda }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\rho \mu }^{(2)})+12Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)})Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(2)})+(12)]`$
$`48Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\nu \lambda }^{(1)})Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \rho }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\rho \lambda }^{(2)})+6Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }^{(1)})Tr(\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda \rho }^{(2)}))`$
$`+O((1/(d^{(1)}d^{(2)})^9)`$
where $`f_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}=i[X_\mu ^{(i)},X_\nu ^{(i)}]`$ and we keep terms which vanish for finite $`N`$. (These terms play an important role in calculating interactions between objects with charges of antisymmetric fields such as D-branes.) Observing the tensor structures, we find the exchanges of massless particles in IIB supergravity corresponding to graviton, scalars and antisymmetric fields. In this paper, we perform similar calculations in the matrix model in orbifold backgrounds.

## 3 $`𝐂^3/𝐙_3`$ Orbifold Matrix Model

### 3.1 $`𝐙_3`$ Orbifolding

We now construct matrix models in $`𝐂^3/𝐙_3`$ orbifold background . The IIB matrix model consists of ten hermitian bosonic matrices $`A_I`$ ($`I=0,\mathrm{},9`$) and $`d=10`$ Majorana-Weyl fermionic matrices with sixteen components. We take complex coordinates for the six-dimensional transverse space and write them as $`B_i`$ (i=1,2,3),

$$B_1=A_4+iA_5,B_2=A_6+iA_7,B_3=A_8+iA_9.$$
(3.1)
We characterise the action of $`𝐙_3`$ group by three integers $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$. The $`𝐙_3`$ transformation is defined to act on these complex coordinates as $`B_i\omega ^{a_i}B_i`$. Different choices of these integers lead to different models with a different number of unbroken supersymmetries in $`d=4`$.

From the D-instanton point of view, since there are three images of each D-instanton, we have to extend the size of the matrices three times to represent these three mirror images. The $`𝐙_3`$ group rotates these three images. We write hermitian matrices as tensor products of $`3\times 3`$ matrices on which $`𝐙_3`$ acts and the rest. The $`3\times 3`$ matrices can be expanded in terms of ’t Hooft matrices,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \omega & \\ & & \omega ^2\end{array}\right),V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.2)
where $`UV=\omega VU`$. In a representation where the coordinates of each mirror image of D-instantons is diagonalized, the $`𝐙_3`$ transformation interchanges these diagonal blocks, and is expressed as $`MVMV^{}`$, where $`M`$ is $`A_I`$ or $`\psi `$. While this representation is geometrically clear, for later convenience, we take another representation where the $`𝐙_3`$ transformation is given as $`MUMU^{}`$.

We now impose $`𝐙_3`$ invariance conditions on matrices. The $`𝐙_3`$ condition for the gauge field ($`A_\mu `$, $`\mu =0,,,3`$) is

$$A_\mu =UA_\mu U^{}.$$
(3.3)
The off-diagonal blocks are projected out and only the diagonal blocks $`A_{\mu (i,i)}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, of $`3\times 3`$ matrices survive after this $`𝐙_3`$ projection. If the size of each block matrix is $`N\times N`$, these gauge fields are associated with $`U(N)^3`$ symmetry. The $`𝐙_3`$ invariance condition for the complex fields $`B_i`$ is given by

$$B_i=\omega ^{a_i}UB_iU^{}$$
(3.4)
and is written as $`a_i+ij=0(\text{ mod }3)`$ for $`(i,j)`$ blocks.

Fermionic matrices are similarly projected out by this $`𝐙_3`$ transformation. A convenient way to pick up $`𝐙_3`$ invariant components out of the original $`d=10`$ Majorana-Weyl fermionic matrix $`\psi `$ is to write it in lower dimensional Weyl-basis. Since $`d=10`$ chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{01\mathrm{}9}`$ is written as a product of lower dimensional chirality operators as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0123})(i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45})(i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67})(i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{89})`$, a positive chirality fermion $`\psi `$ in $`d=10`$ can be decomposed as a sum of the fermions $`\psi =_{i=0}^3(\psi _{L,i}+\psi _{R,i})`$ in the following table.

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }& i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0123}& i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45}& i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67}& i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{89}& & \text{Majorana}& b_i\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ +& +& +& +& +& \psi _{L,0}& \psi _0& (a_1+a_2+a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & +& +& & & \psi _{L,1}& \psi _1& (a_1a_2a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & +& & +& & \psi _{L,2}& \psi _2& (a_1+a_2a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & +& & & +& \psi _{L,3}& \psi _3& (a_1a_2+a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & \psi _{R,0}& (\psi _0)^c& (a_1a_2a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & +& +& \psi _{R,1}& (\psi _1)^c& (a_1+a_2+a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & +& & +& \psi _{R,2}& (\psi _2)^c& (a_1a_2+a_3)/2\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & +& +& & \psi _{R,3}& (\psi _3)^c& (a_1+a_2a_3)/2\end{array}$$
(3.5)
Since the $`d=10`$ charge conjugation interchanges left and right as $`(\psi _{L,i})^c=(\psi ^c)_{R,i}`$, a $`d=10`$ Majorana-Weyl fermion $`\psi `$ contains four independent complex degrees of freedom $`\psi _{L,i}`$, and the right-handed fermions are related to the left as $`\psi _{R,i}=(\psi _{L,i})^c`$. In the following we write $`\psi _{L,i}`$ without index $`L`$, and $`\psi _{R,i}`$ as its charge conjugation. Hence the fermionic $`3N\times 3N`$ matrix $`\psi `$ is decomposed as

$$\psi =\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}(\psi _i^A+(\psi _i^A)^c)T^A$$
(3.6)
where $`T^A`$’s are generators of $`3N\times 3N`$ hermitian matrices. Since the $`𝐙_3`$ transformation acts on each complex plane $`𝐂`$ in $`𝐂^3`$, $`𝐙_3`$ invariant condition depends on how each fermion transforms under rotations in each $`𝐂`$ plane. Hence, according to the eigenvalues of $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45}`$, $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67}`$ and $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{89}`$, each of the fermionic matrices is subject to the following $`𝐙_3`$ invariance condition:

$$\psi _i=\omega ^{b_i}U\psi _iU^{},$$
(3.7)
where the charges $`b_i`$’s are calculated from $`a_i`$’s as (3.5). Invariant blocks of $`3\times 3`$ matrices satisfy $`b_i+ij=0(\text{ mod }3)`$.

An action of the orbifold matrix model is given from the IIB matrix model action (1.1) by restricting the matrices by the $`Z_3`$ constraints (3.3), (3.4) and (3.7). First we rewrite the IIB matrix model action (1.1) in terms of the $`d=4`$ gauge field and the complex coordinate fields. The bosonic part of IIB matrix model action becomes

$$S_b=\frac{1}{4g^2}Tr\left([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]^2+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}[A_\mu ,B_i][A^\mu ,B_i^{}]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}([B_i,B_j^{}][B_i^{},B_j]+[B_i,B_j][B_i^{},B_j^{}])\right).$$
(3.8)
The $`Tr`$ is a trace over $`3N\times 3N`$ matrices. The bosonic part of the orbifold matrix model action is given by (3.8) where matrices are constrained by the conditions (3.3), (3.4). The potential term for $`B_i`$ field can be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}Tr(|\underset{i}{}[B_i,B_i^{}]|^2+2\underset{i,j}{}|[B_i,B_j]|^2)$$
(3.9)
and each term in this expression comes from the integration of D term and F term respectively in the superspace formalism. Comparing to the $`N\times N`$ IIB matrix model (1.1), the $`3N\times 3N`$ orbifold matrix model has three times as many as matrices.

The fermionic part of the IIB matrix model action (1.1) is rewritten in terms of the four dimensional fermions in the table (3.5) as

$$S_f=\frac{1}{2g^2}Tr(\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\psi _i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [A_\mu ,\psi _i]+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{(\psi _i)^c}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(i)}[B_i^{},\psi _0]+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{3}{}}|ϵ_{ijk}|\overline{(\psi _i)^c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}[B_j,\psi _k]+h.c.)$$
(3.10)
where we have defined complex gamma matrices

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4i\mathrm{\Gamma }^5),\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(1)}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^5),$$
(3.11)
and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(3)}`$. The fermionic part of the orbifold matrix model is given by (3.10) where fermionic matrices are restricted by the condition (3.7).

By $`𝐙_3`$ orbifolding, the original symmetry of IIB matrix model with size $`3N\times 3N`$ is generally reduced from $`SO(9,1)\times U(3N)`$ to $`SO(3,1)\times U(N)^3`$. $`𝐙_3`$ invariant fermion fields transform as bi-fundamental representations under the unbroken $`U(N)^3`$ gauge symmetry and the resulting gauge theory becomes a so-called quiver gauge theory. A subgroup of the transverse $`SO(6)`$ symmetry is also unbroken. It depends on the charge assignment $`a_i.`$ A model in the next subsection has unbroken $`U(3)`$ symmetry, which rotate three chiral superfields.

As for supersymmetry, we decompose the supersymmetry parameter $`ϵ`$ and $`\xi `$ of (2.1) and (2.2) into the lower dimensional Weyl basis in the table (3.5). If some of these supersymmetry parameters are invariant under the $`𝐙_3`$ transformation, they transform $`𝐙_3`$ invariant fields among themselves. Therefore, the number of zero charges of $`b_i(i=0,\mathrm{},3)`$ is the number of unbroken four dimensional supersymmetries. While in matrix models, we have inhomogeneous supersymmetries (2.2) as well as the Yang-Mills type (2.1), in this paper, we will name the model by the number of Yang-Mills type supersymmetry.

### 3.2 $`𝒩=1`$ Model

We particularly consider a model with $`𝐙_3`$ charge assignment $`a_i=2`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$, and accordingly $`b_0=0,b_i=2(i=1,2,3)`$. The $`𝐙_3`$ invariance conditions (3.3)(3.4)(3.7) can be satisfied if we restrict the matrices to the following form

$`A_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_\mu ^{(1)}& 0& 0\\ 0& A_\mu ^{(2)}& 0\\ 0& 0& A_\mu ^{(3)}\end{array}\right),B_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& B_i^{(2)}\\ B_i^{(3)}& 0& 0\\ 0& B_i^{(1)}& 0\end{array}\right),B_i^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& B_i^{(3)}& 0\\ 0& 0& B_i^{(1)}\\ B_i^{(2)}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (3.21)
$`\psi _0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\psi _0^{(1)}& 0& 0\\ 0& \psi _0^{(2)}& 0\\ 0& 0& \psi _0^{(3)}\end{array}\right),\psi _i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \psi _i^{(2)}\\ \psi _i^{(3)}& 0& 0\\ 0& \psi _i^{(1)}& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (3.28)
$`(\psi _0)^c=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\psi _0)^{c(1)}& 0& 0\\ 0& (\psi _0)^{c(2)}& 0\\ 0& 0& (\psi _0)^{c(3)}\end{array}\right),(\psi _i)^c=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& (\psi _i)^{c(3)}& 0\\ 0& 0& (\psi _i)^{c(1)}\\ (\psi _i)^{c(2)}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3.35)
Inserting these expansions into (3.8) and (3.10), we can obtain the explicit form of the action for the orbifold matrix model.

As we will see at the end of this subsection, this model has $`𝒩=1`$ Yang-Mills type supersymmetry. $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi _0`$ fields form a vector multiplet while $`B_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ fields make three chiral multiplets. The left and right handed fermions in the chiral multiplets ($`\psi _i`$ and $`(\psi _i)^c`$) are in different bifundamental representations of $`U(N)^3`$ and hence the model is chiral in $`d=4`$ and phenomenologically attractive. It is also interesting to consider other models with different charge assignments, symmetries, and chirality.

We can also write the $`𝐙_3`$ invariant fields as

$`A_\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}A_\mu ^aU^a,B_i={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}B_i^a(U^aV),`$ (3.36)
$`\psi _0={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}\psi _0^aU^a,\psi _i={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}\psi _i^a(U^aV),`$ (3.37)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are the ’t Hooft matrices (3.2). Since $`A_\mu `$’s are hermitian, $`(A_\mu ^a)^{}=A_\mu ^a`$. Charge conjugated and hermitian conjugated fields are expanded as

$`B_i^{}={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}B_i^a(V^{}U^a),`$
$`(\psi _0)^c={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}(\psi _0^a)^cU^a,(\psi _i)^c={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}(\psi _i^a)^c(V^{}U^a),`$
$`\overline{\psi _i}={\displaystyle \overline{\psi _i^a}(V^{}U^a)},\overline{(\psi _i)^c}={\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1,2}{}}\overline{(\psi _i^a)^c}(U^aV).`$ (3.38)
These expansions are more useful than the block representation (3.35) when we investigate this model in the next section.

Since only $`b_0`$ vanishes, there is one $`d=4`$ Yang-Mills type supersymmetry in this model. Inhomogeneous fermionic transformations (2.2) also make the orbifold matrix model action invariant only if the supersymmetry parameter $`\xi `$ is the $`\psi _0`$ type. The Yang-Mills type supersymmetry of this orbifold matrix model is given by

$`\delta ^{(1)}\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }+[B_i,B_i^{}])ϵ_0,`$ (3.39)
$`\delta ^{(1)}\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(|ϵ_{ijk}|[B_j^{},B_k^{}]\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(j)}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(k)}ϵ_0+2[A_\mu ,B_i]\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}(ϵ_0)^c),`$ (3.40)
$`\delta ^{(1)}A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{ϵ_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \psi _0+i\overline{(ϵ_0)^c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\psi _0)^c,`$ (3.41)
$`\delta ^{(1)}B_i`$ $`=`$ $`2i\overline{(ϵ_0)^c}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(i)}\psi _i.`$ (3.42)
The other supersymmetry is

$$\delta ^{(2)}\psi _0=\xi _0.$$
(3.43)
Here $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\xi _0`$ are supersymmetry parameters restricted to the $`\psi _0`$ type component in the table (3.5). Combining them similarly to (2.3), they become $`d=4`$ $`𝒩=2`$ space-time supersymmetry whose commutator gives translation of $`A_\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,,3`$). In matrix models, bosonic fields are interpreted as space-time coordinates and hence the above supersymmetry can be identified with the $`𝒩=2`$ four-dimensional space-time supersymmetry. In this paper, however, we call this model $`𝒩=1`$ orbifold matrix model, counting only the number of Yang-Mills type supersymmetries.

## 4 Investigations of $`𝒩=1`$ Orbifold Matrix Model

### 4.1 Classical Solutions

We now investigate the orbifold matrix model, especially $`𝒩=1`$ type model. Equations of motion can be obtained from the equations of motion of IIB matrix model $`[A_I,[A_I,A_J]]=0`$ by restricting $`A_I`$ to the $`𝐙_3`$ invariant parts. This is because the projected-out fields by $`𝐙_3`$ symmetry always enter in the action with another projected-out field.

We first search for commutable solutions $`[A_I,A_J]=0.`$ This equation can be written in terms of the $`𝐙_3`$ invariant components in the block representation (3.35) as

$`[A_\mu ^{(\alpha )},A_\nu ^{(\alpha )}]=0,`$ (4.1)
$`A_\nu ^{(1)}B_i^{(2)}B_i^{(2)}A_\nu ^{(3)}=A_\nu ^{(2)}B_i^{(3)}B_i^{(3)}A_\nu ^{(1)}=A_\nu ^{(3)}B_i^{(1)}B_i^{(1)}A_\nu ^{(2)}=0,`$ (4.2)
$`B_i^{(1)}B_j^{(3)}B_j^{(1)}B_i^{(3)}=B_i^{(2)}B_j^{(1)}B_j^{(2)}B_i^{(1)}=B_i^{(3)}B_j^{(2)}B_j^{(3)}B_i^{(2)}=0,`$ (4.3)
$`B_i^{(1)}B_j^{(1)}B_j^{(2)}B_i^{(2)}=B_i^{(2)}B_j^{(2)}B_j^{(3)}B_i^{(3)}=B_i^{(3)}B_j^{(3)}B_j^{(1)}B_i^{(1)}=0.`$ (4.4)
There are two types of solutions to these equations. The first type has generally non-vanishing v.e.v. of $`B_i`$ and corresponds to the Higgs branch of super Yang-Mills theory. In this case, $`A_\mu ^{(\alpha )}`$ must be independent of the block index ($`\alpha `$) and has the form

$$A_\mu ^{(cl)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_\mu & & \\ & X_\mu & \\ & & X_\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(4.5)
where $`X_\mu `$ are $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrices. The equation (4.2) can be satisfied if $`B_i^{(\alpha )}`$ is a diagonal matrix. To satisfy the last two equations (4.3) and (4.4), we further assume that $`B_i^{(\alpha )}`$ is independent of the block index ($`\alpha `$) and has the form

$$B_i^{(cl)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& B_i^{(2)(cl)}\\ B_i^{(3)(cl)}& 0& 0\\ 0& B_i^{(1)(cl)}& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& Z_i\\ Z_i& 0& 0\\ 0& Z_i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(4.6)
where $`Z_i`$ is an $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix. More generally, phases $`\theta ^\alpha `$ of $`B_i^{(\alpha )(cl)}`$ can be put differently as $`B_i^{(\alpha )(cl)}=e^{i\theta ^\alpha }Z_i`$ (where $`\theta ^\alpha `$ is an $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix). However, since they transform under $`U(1)^{3N}`$ subgroup of the $`U(N)^3`$ symmetry as

$$\theta _\alpha \theta _\alpha +(\varphi _{\alpha +1}\varphi _{\alpha 1}),$$
(4.7)
their relative phases can be gauged away. On the other hand, since the sum $`_{i=1}^3\theta _i`$ is invariant under these rotation, the common phase of $`Z_i`$ cannot be gauged away generally. We can only rotate the common phase of $`Z_i`$ by $`2\pi /3`$, which corresponds to changing the basis of $`3\times 3`$ matrices. Writing the above solution (4.5) and (4.6) in terms of $`U,V`$ expansion, we have

$$A_\mu ^{(cl)}=X_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3},B_i^{(cl)}=Z_iV.$$
(4.8)
The second type of solution forms a singlet under $`𝐙_3`$ rotation in $`𝐂^3`$ plane, and $`B_i`$ has vanishing vev. In this case, $`A_\mu ^{(cl)}`$ can be an arbitrary diagonal matrix

$$A_\mu ^{(cl)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_\mu ^{(1)}& & \\ & X_\mu ^{(2)}& \\ & & X_\mu ^{(3)}\end{array}\right)=\underset{a=0}{\overset{2}{}}X_\mu ^aU^a.$$
(4.9)
This type of solutions corresponds to the Coulomb branch in the super Yang-Mills. These solutions are restricted on the orbifold fixed point and cannot move into $`𝐂^3`$ direction. This branch is connected with the Higgs branch solutions at $`Z_i=0`$ and $`X_\mu ^{(1)}=X_\mu ^{(2)}=X_\mu ^{(3)}`$. When the Higgs branch solutions come to the orbifold fixed point, three images with the same four-dimensional coordinates are liberated, and become possible to move into $`d=4`$ direction independently from each other .

We then consider solutions with non-vanishing commutators $`[A_I,A_J]0`$. The first type (4.8) with the following commutators satisfies the equations of motion $`[A^I,[A_I,A_J]]=0`$:

$$[X_\mu ,X_\nu ]=iC_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},[Z_i,Z_j^{}]=D_{ij}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},[Z_i,Z_j]=E_{ij}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},[X_\mu ,Z_i]=F_{\mu ,i}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},$$
(4.10)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }`$, $`D_{ij}`$, $`E_{ij}`$ and $`F_{\mu ,i}`$ are c-number coefficients. If $`E_{ij}=F_{\mu ,i}=0`$, this solution becomes half BPS-saturated and preserves half of the supersymmetries. This solution corresponds to an ordinary D-brane.

The second type (4.9) is a classical solution if the commutator is proportional to a unit matrix

$$[X_\mu ^{(\alpha )},X_\nu ^{(\alpha )}]=iC_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}.$$
(4.11)
This solution is also half BPS-saturated if the coefficient $`C_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ is independent of the block index $`(\alpha )`$. An example is

$$X_0^{(\alpha )}=\widehat{p},X_1^{(\alpha )}=\widehat{q},X_2^{(\alpha )}=x_2^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N},X_3^{(\alpha )}=x_3^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}$$
(4.12)
where $`[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]=i`$. It describes three fractional D-strings whose $`x_2`$ and $`x_3`$ coordinates can be different. They are constrained in the $`z_i=0`$ plane.

### 4.2 Noncommutative Orbifold Field Theory

Expanding our orbifold matrix model around the classical solutions (4.10), we can obtain noncommutative field theory in the orbifold background. Here we set $`Z_i=0`$, for simplicity. We write the classical solution $`X_\mu `$ as $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ to emphasise the noncommutativity of coordinates. Matrices are expanded around this noncommutative background as

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{x}_\mu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(1)}& & \\ & \widehat{x}_\mu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(2)}& \\ & & \widehat{x}_\mu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{(3)}\end{array}\right).`$ (4.16)
All other matrices do not have classical background and are considered as fluctuating fields. All the fluctuating fields are written in terms of noncommutative plane waves in four dimensions as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a=\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(k)\mathrm{exp}(ik_\mu \widehat{x}_\mu ).$$
(4.17)
By inserting these expansions and adopting the same technique to derive noncommutative field theory from IIB matrix model , the orbifold matrix model becomes noncommutative orbifold field theory with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in $`d=4`$. 222 In these cases, $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ always enters in the action in a form of commutators. But if the background is also extended to the $`𝐂^3`$ direction and $`B_i`$ is expanded around noncommutative background $`\widehat{z}_i`$, the same technique cannot be applied to obtain noncommutative field theory, because we are faced with a problem that the operator $`\widehat{z}_i`$ enters into the action in a different form from commutators. Typically it is like $`(\widehat{z}_i\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\widehat{z}_i)`$ where the fluctuating fields are expanded in terms of the $`U,V`$ expansion. Hence, if we expand the fluctuating fields similarly, we cannot obtain an ordinary kinetic term. But by deforming the expansion basis of matrices from the ordinary noncommutative plane waves, we may be able to obtain well behaved field theory. A simple example of deformed plane wave is $`M=\mathrm{exp}(iw\widehat{a}^{})q^{a^{}a}\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{w}\widehat{a})`$. This satisfies $`aMqMa=iwM`$ where $`[a,a^{}]=1.`$ Deformation of plane waves will be related to the resolution of orbifold singularity by the introduction of noncommutativity. Detailed analysis is now under investigation.

If the background is replaced by a tensor product $`\widehat{x}_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_{n\times n}`$, the resulting noncommutative field theory acquires $`U(n)^3`$ gauge symmetry. This model contains $`d=4`$ vector multiplet ($`A_\mu ^a`$ and $`\psi _0^a`$) in an adjoint representation of $`U(n)^3`$ and three chiral multiplets ($`B_i^a`$ and $`\psi _i^a`$) in bi-fundamental representations. It is a chiral four dimensional theory. We may consider the number of chiral multiplets, three, as the number of generations (species) . The global symmetry $`U(3)`$, which is a subgroup of $`SO(6)`$ part in $`SO(9,1)`$, becomes the horizontal symmetry among generations. Phenomenological analysis of this model will be left for future work (see also ).

We then consider classical solutions (4.12). In this case, if the positions of three fractional D-strings are largely separated, chiral multiplets $`B_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ acquire large masses proportional to the distances, and only the vector multiplet survives in low energy. The low energy fields contain the same field contents as the $`d=4`$ super Yang-Mills gauge theory. Expanding around the D-string solution (4.12), the effective theory becomes $`d=2`$ noncommutative gauge theory obtained from the reduced matrix model of $`d=4`$ SYM theory. This is consistent at least qualitatively with the fact that fractional branes have charges of RR fields in twisted sector, which propagate in $`d=4`$ subspace of $`d=10`$.

### 4.3 Effective Action and Interaction between Diagonal Blocks

We now calculate the one-loop effective action of orbifold matrix model between two diagonal blocks by the background field method. To fix gauge invariance in the perturbative calculation, we add the gauge fixing term

$$S_{\text{gf}}=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr(\frac{1}{2}[A_I^{cl},\stackrel{~}{A}^I]^2+[A_I^{cl},b][A^{I,cl},c]),$$
(4.18)
where $`b`$ and $`c`$ are ghost fields and $`A_I^{cl}`$ includes background configurations of bosonic matrices. When we expand

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^{cl}+\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ,B_i=B_i^{cl}+\stackrel{~}{B}_i,$$
(4.19)
the quadratic part of the quantum fluctuation in the bosonic action becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}Tr([A_I^{cl},\stackrel{~}{A}_J][A^{I,cl},\stackrel{~}{A}^J]+2[A_I^{cl},A_J^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{A}^I,\stackrel{~}{A}^J])`$ (4.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}Tr([A_\mu ^{cl},\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ]^2+[A_\mu ^{cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_i][A^{\mu ,cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{}]+[B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ][B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_j][B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{}]+[B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{}][B_i^{cl},\stackrel{~}{B}_j])`$
$`+2([A_\mu ^{cl},A_\nu ^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{A}^\nu ]+[A_\mu ^{cl},B_i^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{}]+[A_\mu ^{cl},B_i^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{B}_i])`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([B_i^{cl},B_j^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{},\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{}]+[B_i^{cl},Z_j^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{B}_i,\stackrel{~}{B}_j])`$
$`+[B_i^{cl},B_j^{cl}][\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{},\stackrel{~}{B}_j]).`$
We first consider the background of the first-type classical solution (4.8) with arbitrary $`X_\mu `$ and $`Z_i`$. Bosonic matrices are expanded as

$$A_\mu =X_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3}+\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^aU^a,B_i=Z_iV+\stackrel{~}{B}_i^aU^aV.$$
(4.21)
Inserting these expansions into the action (4.20) and taking the trace over $`3\times 3`$ matrices constructed by $`U`$ and $`V`$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2g^2}}Tr([X_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^a][X^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{A}^{\nu ,a}]+[X_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a][X^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a]`$ (4.22)
$`+(Z_i\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^aZ_i)(\omega ^aZ_i^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^aZ_i^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((Z_i\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^aZ_i)(\omega ^aZ_i^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^aZ_i^{})`$
$`+(Z_i\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^aZ_i)(\omega ^aZ_i^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^aZ_i^{}))`$
$`+2([X_\mu ,X_\nu ][\stackrel{~}{A^{\mu ,a}},\stackrel{~}{A}^{\nu ,a}]`$
$`+[X_\mu ,Z_i](\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu ,a}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu ,a})+[X_\mu ,Z_i^{}](\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu ,a}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu ,a}))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([Z_i,Z_j]\omega ^a(\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{a,}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{a,}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{a,}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{a,})+[Z_i^{},Z_j^{}]\omega ^a(\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a))`$
$`+[Z_i,Z_j^{}](\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{a,}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{a,})).`$
Here $`Tr`$ is a trace over $`N\times N`$ after taking the $`3\times 3`$ part. Similarly the quadratic part in quantum fluctuation of the fermionic matrices becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{f,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2g^2}}Tr({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\overline{\psi _i^a}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [X_\mu ,\psi _i^a]+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\overline{(\psi _i^a)^c}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(i)}(Z_i^{}\psi _0^a\omega ^a\psi _0^aZ_i^{})`$ (4.23)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|ϵ_{ijk}|\overline{(\psi _i^a)^c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(\omega ^aZ_j\psi _k^a\omega ^a\psi _k^aZ_j))+h.c.`$
The last term survives due to the special property for the $`𝐙_3`$ orbifold matrix model, $`V^3=\mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3}.`$

We are interested in the induced interactions between backgrounds that are separated distantly and hence assume that $`X_\mu `$ and $`Z_i`$ are of $`2\times 2`$ block form

$`X_\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}X_{\mu (1)}& \\ & X_{\mu (2)}\end{array}\right),Z_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_{i(1)}& \\ & Z_{i(2)}\end{array}\right).`$ (4.28)
The difference between the c-number parts of two blocks, $`(_\mu (x_{\mu (1)}x_{\mu (2)})^2+_i|z_{i(1)}z_{i(2)}|^2)^{1/2}`$ is assumed to be much larger than the fundamental scale $`g^{1/2}`$ of the matrix model. In order to calculate interactions between these two blocks, we need to integrate over the fluctuations $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a`$ in the off-diagonal blocks;

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (12)}^a\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (21)}^a& \end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a\\ \stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a& \end{array}\right).`$ (4.33)
In the quadratic actions (4.22), (4.23), $`a=0`$ sector is always decoupled from $`a=1,2`$ sector. This $`a=0`$ part is the same as the quadratic part of the IIB matrix model action with a gauge fixing term around the background $`A_\mu =X_\mu ,B_i=Z_i.`$ Hence integration over $`a=0`$ sector gives the same contribution as the block-block interactions in IIB matrix model (2.8), which can be interpreted as exchanges of massless particles in $`d=10`$ type IIB supergravity. The typical form is

$$\frac{1}{((x_{\mu (1)}x_{\mu (2)})^2+|z_{i(1)}z_{i(2)}|^2)^4}\left(tr(f_{\mu \nu (1)}f_{\nu \lambda (1)})tr(f_{\mu \sigma (2)}f_{\sigma \lambda (2)})+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(4.34)
The contributions from the other sectors $`a=1,2`$ can be evaluated similarly. First expand further the actions (4.22), (4.23) in terms of block fields (4.28), (4.33). The bosonic part becomes (we drop the coefficient $`3/2g^2`$)

$`Tr((X_{\mu (1)}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu (12)}^a\stackrel{~}{A}_{\nu (12)}^aX_{\mu (2)})(X_{(2)}^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\nu ,a}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\nu ,a}X_{(1)}^\mu )`$
$`+(X_{\mu (1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^aX_{\mu (2)})(X_{(2)}^\mu (\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a)^{}X_{(1)}^\mu )`$
$`+(Z_{i(1)}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (12)}^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (12)}^aZ_{i(2)})(\omega ^aZ_{i(2)}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (21)}^a\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (21)}^aZ_{i(1)}^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((Z_{i(1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^aZ_{i(2)})(\omega ^aZ_{i(2)}^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a)^{}Z_{i(1)}^{})`$
$`+(Z_{i(1)}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a)^{}\omega ^a(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a)^{}Z_{i(2)})(\omega ^aZ_{i(2)}^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^aZ_{i(1)}^{}))`$
$`+2([X_{\mu (1)},X_{\nu (1)}](\stackrel{~}{A}_{(12)}^{\mu ,a}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\nu ,a}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(12)}^{\nu ,a}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\mu ,a})`$
$`+[X_{\mu (1)},Z_{i(1)}](\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_{(12)}^{\mu ,a}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a)^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\mu ,a})`$
$`+[X_{\mu (1)},Z_{i(1)}^{}](\stackrel{~}{A}_{(12)}^{\mu ,a}\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a\omega ^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a\stackrel{~}{A}_{(21)}^{\mu ,a}))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([Z_{i(1)},Z_{j(1)}]\omega ^a((\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a)^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a)^{})`$
$`+[Z_{i(1)}^{},Z_{j(1)}^{}]\omega ^a(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a))`$
$`+[Z_{i(1)},Z_{j(1)}^{}]((\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^a)^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(21)}^a\stackrel{~}{B}_{j(12)}^a(\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^a)^{})`$
$`+((1)(2),(12)(21))).`$ (4.35)
The fermionic part becomes

$`Tr({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\overline{\psi _{i(21)}^a}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (X_{\mu (2)}\psi _{i(21)}^a\psi _{i(21)}^aX_{\mu (1)})`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\overline{(\psi _{i(12)}^a)^c}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}}(Z_{i(2)}^{}\psi _{0(21)}^a\omega ^a\psi _{0(21)}^aZ_{i(1)}^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|ϵ_{ijk}|\overline{(\psi _{i(12)}^a)^c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(j)}(\omega ^aZ_{j(2)}\psi _{k(21)}^a\omega ^a\psi _{k(21)}^aZ_{j(1)}))`$
$`+((1)(2),(12)(21))+h.c.`$ (4.36)
Then we can classify the fluctuating fields into three classes:

1. Fields with $`a=0`$,
2. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (12)}^1(=(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (21)}^2)^{}),\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^1,\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(21)}^2`$,
3. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (12)}^2(=(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mu (21)}^1)^{}),\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^2,\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(21)}^1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(21)}^1`$.

The quadratic actions are decoupled into three parts, each of which contains only the fields in each class. Furthermore the quadratic action for each class becomes the same as the $`a=0`$ case (class 1) when we absorb the $`𝐙_3`$ phase $`\omega ^a`$ into $`Z_{i(2)}`$ and redefine fields as

$$\omega Z_{i(2)}Z_{i(2)},\omega \stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^1\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^1,\omega \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^1(i=1,2,3),$$
(4.37)
for class 2 fields, and

$$\omega ^2Z_{i(2)}Z_{i(2)},\omega ^2\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^2\stackrel{~}{B}_{i(12)}^2,\omega ^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{i(12)}^2(i=1,2,3).$$
(4.38)
for class 3 fields. Therefore, if the background is in the Higgs branch (4.21), we obtain the same block-block interactions as in IIB matrix model, except for the replacement of the typical interaction form (4.34) by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((x_{\mu (1)}x_{\mu (2)})^2+|z_{i(1)}\omega ^az_{i(2)}|^2)^4}}\left(tr(f_{\mu \nu (1)}f_{\nu \lambda (1)})tr(f_{\mu \sigma (2)}f_{\sigma \lambda (2)})+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (4.39)
The $`a0`$ terms can be interpreted as interactions between the first block and the $`𝐙_3`$ transformed mirror images of the second block. The tensor structure is the same as the IIB result (2.8) and each term can be interpreted as an interaction mediated by massless particles of type IIB supergravity in the untwisted sector in the orbifold background.

In the remainder of this subsection, we consider an effective action between Coulomb branch solutions or fractional branes in the same twisted sector. In matrix models, each twisted sector corresponds to each diagonal block matrices in (4.9). In string theory, fractional branes have charges of massless fields in the twisted sector, and the induced interaction is expected to have $`d=4`$ behaviour instead of $`d=10`$ behaviour. In the Coulomb branch, since the three fractional branes (4.12) can move freely into four-dimensional space-time, we can put them distantly from each other. Then the chiral multiplets including $`B_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ become massive (mass is proportional to the distances) and are decoupled in the low energy. Only the vector multiplet of $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi _0`$ survives. The low energy theory now becomes three decoupled reduced models of d=4 super Yang-Mills gauge theory. The effective interaction between fractional branes in the same twisted sector is therefore governed by this d=4 reduced model. This behaviour is qualitatively consistent with the supergravity point of view. But in the perturbative calculation, the effective interaction is inversely proportional to fourth power of the distances (instead of quadratic) and inconsistent with the expected power of the supergravity calculation. It is not certain if we can overcome this difficulty nonperturbatively.

## 5 Recovery of IIB Matrix Model

As we mentioned in the introduction, it is meaningful to make connection between IIB matrix model and the orbifold matrix model. If we can dynamically generate the orbifold matrix model from IIB matrix model, we could realize four-dimensional chiral fermion in IIB matrix model and we might also obtain some notion of universality class and background independence in matrix models. In this section we report their connection in the opposite direction that IIB matrix model can be obtained from the orbifold matrix model.

In the Higgs phase (4.8) with

$`A_\mu ^{(cl)}`$ $`=`$ $`X_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3}=0,`$
$`B_i^{(cl)}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_iV=z_i\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}V,`$ (5.1)
where $`z_i`$ are complex numbers and $`|z_i|^2g`$, $`a0`$ sector acquires a large mass and only $`a=0`$ sector survives. The resulting model becomes the IIB matrix model, and ten-dimensional Poincare invariance and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry of IIB matrix model are recovered. This result is quite natural because in the large $`z_i`$ limit, the orbifold singularity will become invisible, and fields connecting different mirror sectors will have large mass proportional to the vev $`|z_i|`$.

We expand the matrices around the classical solution (5.1) as

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^aU^a,`$
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`z_i\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}V+\stackrel{~}{B}_i^aU^aV,`$
$`\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0^aU^a,`$
$`\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _i^aU^aV,`$ (5.2)
and insert them into the orbifold matrix model action (3.8). We then obtain the quadratic term,

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=0,\pm 1}{}}|\omega ^a1|^2`$ (5.3)
$`\times Tr[2|z_i|^2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(4|z_i|^2\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a+2z_iz_j^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^az_iz_j\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^az_i^{}z_j^{}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=0,\pm 1}{}}|\omega ^a1|^2z_1^2Tr[\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{B}_1^a+\stackrel{~}{B}_1^a)(\stackrel{~}{B}_1^a+\stackrel{~}{B}_j^a)].`$
In the second line, we take $`z_1`$ real and $`z_2=z_3=0`$ by using the $`U(3)SO(6)`$ invariance of the orbifold matrix model. Similarly, (3.10) gives the quadratic fermionic term

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{f,2}=\frac{3}{g^2}\underset{a=0,\pm 1}{}(\omega ^a1)z_1(\overline{\psi _1^a}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(\psi _0^a)^c\omega ^a\overline{(\psi _3^a)^c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\psi _2^a)+h.c.$$
(5.4)
All of the $`a=0`$ modes are massless, while $`a0`$ modes acquire large masses of the order of $`z_1`$ except one mode, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{a=1}(\stackrel{~}{B}_1^{a=1})^{}`$. This is a Nambu-Goldstone mode associated with the symmetry breaking $`U(N)^3U(N)`$ induced by the vev (5.1). Indeed, the vacuum transforms under $`U(N)^3`$ as

$$[z_1\mathrm{𝟏}_{N\times N}V,i\theta ^aU^a]=iz_1(\omega ^a1)\theta ^aU^aV,$$
(5.5)
and $`B_1^a=iz_1(\omega ^a1)\theta ^a`$ satisfies the relation $`(B_1^a)^{}=B_1^a`$. As we will show in the remainder of this section, this Nambu-Goldstone mode disappears from the spectrum by the Higgs mechanism.

To discuss general structure of the action, we call the classical solution $`Z`$, massless modes in $`a=0`$ sector $`L`$, the above Nambu-Goldstone mode in $`a0`$ sector $`G`$, and massive modes in $`a0`$ sector $`M`$, in general. Then the triple and the quartic parts of the quantum fluctuation in the action have the following form, in general:

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\{ZLLL,ZLGG,ZGGG,ZLLM,ZLGM,ZGGM,O(M^2)\},`$ (5.6)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b,4}`$ $`=`$ $`\{LLLL,LLGG,LGGG,GGGG,O(M)\},`$ (5.7)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{f,3}`$ $`=`$ $`\{LLL,O(M)\}.`$ (5.8)
The $`LLLL`$ terms in (5.7) and $`LLL`$ terms in (5.8) are exactly same as the IIB matrix model action. The $`ZLLL`$ terms in (5.6) vanish because $`Z`$ and $`L`$ commute. The $`ZLLM`$ terms in (5.6) vanish after taking a trace of $`3\times 3`$ blocks because only $`M`$ is in $`a0`$ sector while $`Z`$ and $`L`$ are in $`a=0`$ sector.

Therefore, if we take unitary gauge, setting $`G=0`$, and integrate out the massive mode $`M`$, then we obtain the IIB matrix model action. If the $`ZLLM`$ terms were non-vanishing, these terms would induce new $`LLLL`$ terms, apart form the IIB matrix model action.

We can also see this Higgs mechanism in other gauges than the unitary gauge. In the large $`z`$ limit, the broken symmetry $`U(N)^3/U(N)`$ becomes the translational symmetry of the Nambu-Goldstone mode $`G`$. Therefore, the action, (5.6) and (5.7), should not depend on $`G`$, after we integrate out $`M`$. Indeed, $`ZLGG,ZGGG`$ terms in (5.6) vanish because

$$Tr[B_1,B_1^{}]^26z_1\underset{a=0,\pm 1}{}(1\omega ^a)Tr(\stackrel{~}{B}_1^a+\stackrel{~}{B}_1^a)[B_1,B_1^{}]^a,$$
(5.9)
and this kind of terms must include $`M`$. Furthermore, after $`M`$ is integrated out , the $`ZLGM,ZGGM`$ terms in (5.6) induce $`LLGG,LGGG,GGGG`$ terms, which cancel those terms in (5.7). This cancellation is easy to see in the $`ZZMM,ZGGM,GGGG`$ terms:

$`S_b`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4g^2}}|1\omega |^2Tr[2z_1^2M_1^{}M_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}z_1(M_1G^2+M_1^{}G^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G^2G^2]`$ (5.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4g^2}}|1\omega |^22Tr(z_1M_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}G^2)(z_1M_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}G^2),`$
where

$$G=\frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_1^1\stackrel{~}{B}_1^1}{\sqrt{2}},M_1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_1^1+\stackrel{~}{B}_1^1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(5.11)
In this way, in the large $`z_i`$ limit, the Nambu-Goldstone mode disappears from the spectrum, only $`a=0`$ sector survive, and the IIB matrix model is recovered from the orbifold matrix model .

Finally in this section, we will shortly discuss the vacuum structure of the orbifold matrix model. We have shown that the orbifold matrix model is reduced to IIB matrix model in the Higgs branch with a large scalar vev. Is this vacuum dynamically stable? In field theory, this vacuum preserves half of supersymmetry and it is perturbatively stable. In the case of matrix model, we can discuss more about the stability of the vacuum. As studied in , eigenvalues of bosonic matrices in IIB matrix model tend to gather and no single eigenvalue can escape from the others. The dynamics of the eigenvalues in orbifold matrix model will also share the same property and then three mirror images of each eigenvalue will be bounded around the fixed point. If this is true, the vacuum with large vev in the Higgs branch is not realized dynamically and IIB matrix model is not recovered dynamically from the orbifold matrix model. Instead the nonperturbative vacuum of the orbifold matrix model will be such that the orbifold singularity cannot be neglected and have phenomenologically more interesting properties. It is more interesting if we can show that the orbifold matrix model can be dynamically generated from IIB matrix model. We want to come back to this problem.

## 6 Conclusions and Discussions

In this paper, we have studied matrix models in orbifold background, in particular, $`𝐂^3/𝐙_3`$ orbifold with $`𝒩=1`$ four-dimensional supersymmetry. We find two types of classical solutions, the Higgs branch solution and the Coulomb branch solution. When the solutions have noncommutativity, they correspond to ordinary D-branes and fractional branes respectively. We then calculate the one-loop effective action around these solutions and show that in the former case we can correctly reproduce the supergravity result in the orbifold background. In the latter case, although we can obtain qualitatively consistent picture with the string theory, perturbative calculation does not reproduce the supergravity result. Finally we show that this model includes IIB matrix model in a special point of the perturbative moduli in a sense that the orbifold matrix model is reduced to IIB matrix model when the scalar fields $`B_i`$ have large expectation values in the Higgs branch.

There are several issues that are not studied in this paper. One of them is whether the orbifold matrix model is equivalent to the IIB matrix model. As we discussed in the introduction, various matrix models might be related to each other. Since IIB matrix model is obtained from the orbifold matrix model, we now want to show the reverse. That is to say, it is desirable if we can obtain the orbifold matrix model from IIB matrix model by some mechanism such as condensations of the fields. When we simply consider vacuum expectation values of scalar fields $`B_i`$ in IIB matrix model of size $`3N\times 3N`$, we cannot obtain four dimensional chiral theory. We have to violate parity and it is not yet known how we can twist the background to make the lower dimensional theory chiral. Perhaps we have to extend the size of IIB matrix model and consider parity violating condensation outside of the $`3N\times 3N`$ matrix. These are under investigations together with other mechanisms to generate four dimensional chiral fermions from IIB matrix model dynamically.

Another issue is resolution of the orbifold singularity by noncommutativity. As we briefly commented in the footnote 2, when we extend the space-time into the six dimensional transverse space, there is a singularity in the extended space. If we simply apply the same technique for deriving noncommutative field theories from matrix models as that used in IIB matrix model, we cannot obtain sensible field theory since the noncommutative coordinates enter into the action directly without commutators. But this problem will be overcome by adopting different type of noncommutative plane waves and this will be related to the resolution of singularity due to the noncommutativity of space. We discuss this problem in our future paper.

Acknowledgements

The work (H. Aoki and S. Iso) is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan. We thank N.Ishibashi for informing us of his thesis and J. Nishimura for discussions on dynamics of orbifold matrix models.