text:
# State permutations from manipulation of near level-crossings.

## I Introduction

Two central concerns of quantum information theory are representation of data through occupancy of quantum states and the manipulation of these data. Roughly speaking, for these purposes, we desire systems that have the two properties:

1) When the system is left alone it should have some eigenstates that are quite localized, in the sense that the occupancy of such a state identifies a property of a localized physical element (e.g., a particular spin being up or down, or a state of a single atom being in one energy level or the other. )

2) There is a simple mechanics for applying a signal from the outside that will move the system from one of these “localized” states to another.

In this paper we discuss two models that show some interesting potentialities for this program. The first is a novel and rather idealized “spin chain” type of model; the second is an “atoms-in-a cavity” model, still quite idealized, that has been discussed at some length in several previous works by other authors.

All of the models that we shall consider (and some others in the literature) have a unifying feature that can be stated as a nearly-general property of a class of Hamiltonians. We define this class as follows:

a) We picture the states as points distributed in a space, and connect each pair of points that correspond to a non-vanishing matrix element of $`H`$. We consider only cases in which each point is connected to a few neighbors. A natural extension that will be required for the atoms-in-a-cavity discussion is to include the “environment” as one of the points in the space, with dissipative links to it from some of the other states.

b) Now let there be two scales of strength in these connections, strong (S) and weak (W). If there are small neighborhoods, or blocs, in this space in which all connections, as well as the diagonal elements, are weak, then there will generally be energy eigenfunctions that are nearly confined to these blocs. This can be seen by treating the weak links to the outside perturbatively after diagonalizing the weak bloc in the absence of connections to the outside. Since the denominators in this perturbation are generally of strong order and the numerators of weak order, the perturbation will make little difference to the state. We can characterize the perturbation of the state as being of order $`\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{S}`$. Likewise, we note that although other weak blocs somewhere else in the space of states will indeed have energies of weak scale, we are in general protected from a small denominator by the fact that we must go through a weak link to get from the first bloc into an intervening strong bloc, and then another weak link to get to the second weak bloc, where we would find energies of the weak order characterizing the first bloc. Thus the largest term with a dangerous denominator would generally be of order $`\mathrm{W}^2/\mathrm{SW}`$. (The dissipative connections to the environment in the atoms-in-a-cavity model to be considered later will come to be classified as, effectively, a set of additional strong links.)

The above statement is, to be sure, neither a theorem nor an unfamiliar kind of conclusion. In much more sophisticated work on infinite systems much is known about the relations between disorder and localization. But we will show that the result above, tempered as it is with “generally” (meaning “most of the time”) is a very useful design criterion for systems that meet the objectives enunciated at the beginning of this paper.

We will begin by considering cases where the strong bloc consists of two states connected by a single strong link, such that the Hamiltonian is of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& S\\ S& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
and the eigenvalues of the two energy eigensates are $`\pm S`$. Adding weak scale connections to other states, will make only a small perturbation to these eigenstates. We may generalise this to chains of an arbitrary even number of states connected by strong links of similar size – all the eigenvalues will be of order strong. However, if we have an odd number of states, there will always be a zero eigenvalue, for example, three states connected via a Hamiltonian of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& S_{12}& 0\\ S_{12}& 0& S_{23}\\ 0& S_{23}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
will have eigenvalues $`\{0,\pm \sqrt{S_{12}^2+S_{23}^2}\}`$. Due to the presense of a zero eigenvalue, adding weak scale links to states outside of this bloc will greatly perturb the eigenstates. We regain of a set of eigenvalues, all of strong order, however, if we introduce either a coupling $`S_{13}`$ between the 1st and the 3rd states, or diagonal elements of strong scale. Dissipative connections, for example, would enter as imaginary diagonal terms.

Once we have reason to take a weak bloc as isolated, we then wish to address the movements of probability through the action of time dependent external interventions. In the first chain-of-spins model that we shall present, with five sites, this will take the form of a bias signal to be applied to the middle site, which is changed slowly enough for adiabaticity of a kind to be realized. The actual state transformations that we discuss can be regarded as fairly elaborate “avoided-crossing” phenomena. In the atoms-in-a-cavity models of Refs. beige1 , beige2 , and pachos  that we consider, after noting how the creation therein of a decoherence-free subspace can be qualitatively understood using the strong-weak picture, we demonstrate an adiabatic method of manipulation by tuning and detuning that is different from the pulsed, and exactly-timed, laser techniques that are suggested in these references.

The remainder of this paper is structured thus: The next section analyses spin-chain models with a W and S hierarchy of nearest-neighbor couplings and time-dependent biases on selected sites. Section III then re-examines atoms-in-a-cavity models, while Sec. IV provides further discussion and a conclusion.

## II Spin-chain models

Our first example uses a chain of five spins. We take the spins to be numbered consecutively from left to right, with pure exchange interactions built of the operators between adjacent spins $`i`$ and $`j`$,

$$h^{(i,j)}=\sigma _+^{(i)}\sigma _{}^{(j)}+\sigma _{}^{(i)}\sigma _+^{(j)}.$$
(3)
We choose the Hamiltonian

$$H=g_1h^{(1,2)}+\lambda h^{(2,3)}+\lambda h^{(3,4)}+g_2h^{(4,5)}+f(t)[\sigma _z^{(3)}1],$$
(4)
where we have added a single time-dependent term involving the operator of the middle spin $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(3)}`$. We refer to the function $`f(t)`$ as the bias on site #3. Since this Hamiltonian commutes with the operator $`_i\sigma _z^{(i)}`$, we can operate within the set of five states with four of the spins up and one spin down. The S-W structure comes from taking $`\lambda g_1,g_2`$, and $`g_1g_2`$. When $`f(t)=0`$, this choice has the effect of creating eigenstates of $`H`$ that are very nearly the following,

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`(+)()/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`()()/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`(),`$
$`\psi _4`$ $`=`$ $`()(+)/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\psi _5`$ $`=`$ $`()()/\sqrt{2}.`$ (5)
We understand these combinations qualitatively by noting that they would be the exact $`f=0`$ eigenstates if the small coupling $`\lambda `$ were set to zero, and that, treating $`\lambda `$ as a perturbation, the link between the pairs of states (#1,#2) and (#4,#5) is of order $`\lambda ^2`$.

Now we ask the question: Of the 120 permutations on this set of five states, how many can we implement by applying a small series of simple pulses in $`f(t)`$? In forming these pulses we shall tailor $`f(t)`$ to the permutation that is sought, but we shall insist that $`f(t)`$ begins at and ends at the value zero. By a permutation we mean just the reshuffling of the states, modulo phase. This demand effectively rules out setting relative phases, which would require fine-tuning in any system that is to be considered over a period of time. The answer to the question is “all 120”.

The method uses adiabatic avoided-level-crossing dynamics, with an additional feature that can be embodied in the above Hamiltonian, namely, that the bias on the weakly coupled site can be changed suddenly, without affecting the state of the system appreciably, at all times when the system is far from any (near) level-crossing. As an example, we choose the parameters $`g_1=30`$, $`g_2=60`$, $`\lambda =1`$, and begin by defining two bias operations $`f(t)`$,

$`f_a(t)=(tt_0)\theta [tt_0]\theta [t_0+\tau t]U_a(t_0),`$
$`f_b(t)=f_a(t)U_b(t_0).`$ (6)
The signal begins at $`t=t_0`$, grows linearly until $`t=t_0+\tau `$ when it is switched off abruptly. We take $`\tau =20`$ in the applications that follow. Any bias $`f_\alpha (t)`$ defines a transformation,

$$U_\alpha (t_0)=T[\mathrm{exp}(i_{t_0}^{t_0+\tau }𝑑t^{}H(t^{}))].$$
(7)
We will show footnote1  that the operation $`U_a`$ effects the permutation $`13`$, while $`U_b`$ effects $`23`$. The turn-off of the bias at $`t=t_0+\tau `$ leaves the state at time $`t=t_0+\tau `$ evolving with the Hamiltonian of Eq. (4) with $`f=0`$, so that we are prepared to apply another signal to get a compound of the permutations. Thus we can write,

$$U_{12}[U_a(2\tau )][U_b(\tau )][U_a(0)],$$
(8)
where the time arguments emphasize that the transformations are to be executed serially over a total time of $`3\tau `$. Using the composition property of permutations $`132313=12`$, we see that $`U_{12}`$ just interchanges states #1 and #2, leaving #3 alone. The basis for anticipating the actions of both the individual and compound transformations can be shown in an averted level-crossing diagram based on Eq. (4) with the bias function given by,

$$f(t)=f_a(t)+f_b(t\tau )+f_a(t2\tau ).$$
(9)
Figure 1 shows plots of the energy levels for the first three states as they evolve under the above successive changes of the bias.

To show that the states really follow these paths, we construct the matrix $`U(t)=T[\mathrm{exp}(i_0^t𝑑t^{}H(t^{}))]`$ by directly solving the Schrödinger equation with the time-dependent bias of Eq. (9). In Figs. 2 and 3, we plot $`|1,2,3|U(t)|1|^2`$ and $`|1,2,3|U(t)|2|^2`$ against time in this solution, giving the expected behavior, $`|U(3\tau )|^2=|U_{12}|^2`$ with negligible contamination either from non-adiabaticity in the region of small level separation, or from transitions induced in any of the three sudden changes. The plots show clearly the effects of each of the constituent transitions in turn, giving rise to the factorization indicated in Eq. (8).

To implement the transformations involving states #4 and #5, we introduce four more bias functions,

$`f_c(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\tau t)\theta (\tau t)\theta (t)U_c352,`$
$`f_d(t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_c(t)U_d341,`$
$`f_e(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\tau t/2)\theta (\tau t)\theta (t)U_e34,`$
$`f_f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`f_e(t)U_f35,`$ (10)
where, for simplicity, we have chosen $`t_0=0`$. By straightforward multiplication of the operations in Eqs. (6) and (10), we obtain $`U_dU_a14`$, $`U_cU_b25`$, $`U_aU_fU_a15`$, $`U_bU_eU_b24`$, $`U_eU_fU_e45`$. These five composite operations, together with $`U_aU_bU_a12`$ and the four single pulse operations $`U_a,U_b,U_e,U_f`$, give all of the simple interchanges. All permutations can be built from these interchanges, although in most cases it would be more efficient to draw on the cycle-of-three permutation operators $`U_c`$ and $`U_d`$ as well, or on further primary pulse shape variants that directly embody other operators.

Now we consider longer chains with nearest neighbor couplings,

$$H_0=\underset{i=j+1}{}g_{i,j}h^{(i,j)}E_0,$$
(11)
where $`g_{i,j}`$ are coupling coefficients, and $`E_0`$ is the energy that gives $`H_0=0`$ for the case of all spins up. We again adopt two scales of coupling strength: S and W. As an example, we consider the pattern of couplings $`\{g_{1,2},g_{2,3},g_{3,4},\mathrm{}\}`$ to be {S, W, W, S, W, W, S, W, W, …}. Under this scheme, the states #3,#6,#9… are only weakly coupled to their neighbors.

As before, we take only states with one spin down and the remainder up. With the W coupling constants turned off, the eigenvalues of the states in which the down spin occupies one of the large blocs, i.e., {(#1,#2), (#4,#5), (#7,#8) …}, come in pairs of $`\pm g_{i,i+1}`$. We assume that the S couplings are sufficiently irregular so that the differences in energies between nearest strong blocs, e.g., $`g_{1,2}g_{4,5}`$, are still of the strong (S) scale. When we add the W couplings, the eigenvectors will remain almost localized, as can be seen from a perturbation expansion. In general, as argued previously, small energy differences between two non-adjacent blocs are not a concern, since as we move across $`n`$ additional weak links we can tolerate energy denominators that are smaller by a factor of $`(g_W/g_S)^{2n}1`$.

Thus for most cases the eigenvectors can be arranged in a list $`\{(\xi _1,,,,\mathrm{}),(\eta _1,,,,\mathrm{}),(,,,,,\mathrm{}),(,,,\xi _2,,\mathrm{}),(,,,\eta _2,,\mathrm{}),(,,,,,,,\mathrm{}),\mathrm{}\}`$. Here, the $`\xi `$’s and $`\eta `$’s stand for the symmetric and anti-symmetric two-component eigenstates of the strong blocs with one spin up and the other down. If the system begins with all of its amplitude in one bloc, the amplitude will stay almost within that bloc under the evolution governed by $`H_0`$.

Now, generalizing the earlier five-site example, we can ask whether biases placed at every third site, #3, #6, #9, …, which are weakly coupled both to the right and to the left, have the capability of moving information around the whole system. We have looked at an eight-site example, with independently manipulable biases at sites #3 and #6. In complete analogy with the five-site case, we find it is easy, for example, to move one of the (#1,#2) eigenstates successively to the blocs (#3), (#4,#5), (#6), (#7,#8), again by numerically solving the Schrödinger equation for the system.

As a qualitative summary of these outcomes, we restate and sharpen some of the remarks in the introduction:

(1) If we have a chain of blocs of states connected, one to another, through an intermediary state that is weakly coupled to both blocs, the dynamics within the blocs will be nearly self-contained. That is, if the probability is localized within a particular bloc at a particular time, in the form of any superposition of the eigenstates belonging to that bloc, then the probability will remain in that bloc. Likewise, a bloc of several states in which the mutual couplings and the diagonal elements are weak will, in general, not admix appreciably with strongly coupled states to its left or right.

(2) By putting controllable biases on a weak connection site to bring the energy of an associated level to (nearly) coincide with a level in an adjacent strong bloc, shifts of probability from bloc to bloc can be implemented in an orderly and complete fashion.

## III Atoms-in-a-cavity models

An exact analogue to the above mechanics for moving a system from one state to another can be applied to some models of atoms-in-a-cavity type that have been the subject of a series of recent papers. As an example, we consider the model of Ref.beige1 , with two identical atoms in a cavity, and a dynamics that is effectively confined to three states, which form a decoherence free subspace (DFS).

In this model, the two atoms have three levels, $`\{0,1,2\}`$, and are placed in a cavity tuned exactly to the $`12`$ level spacing, with the atoms separately addressable by weak laser fields that drive Rabi oscillations. The cavity mode, if excited, is also allowed to escape through conversion to photons at a partially transmitting wall. This is the only decohering process. The connection scheme for the relevant states is depicted in Fig.4.

The excitation of the cavity mode from the states in the chain that are coupled thereto are the S links, denoted by fat double arrows. The thin double arrows are W links, and the double arrows leading to D represent the cavity mode leakage to the outside. All W links come from the laser interactions, which are three-fold: on atom #2, an exactly tuned $`02`$ signal and an exactly tuned $`12`$ signal; on atom #1, just an exactly tuned $`12`$ signal, $`180^{}`$ out of phase with the corresponding signal on the other atom.

The structure shown in Fig. 4 has a general property in common with the models discussed above; there is a bloc within which all connections are weak,

$$|1,1_0|a_0|1,0_0,$$
(12)
characterized in Ref.beige1  as a DFS. The existence of this DFS is explained qualitively in the diagram of Fig.4. In this model both the cavity mode coupling (thick arrows connecting states) and the cavity mode decay (labelled $`D`$) are of order “strong”. The cavity mode decay is necessary for obtaining the DFS, since in its absence the strongly coupled block by itself

$$|1,1_2|s_1|2,2_0$$
(13)
has a zero eigenvalue. With the dissipative links, $`D`$, included through imaginary diagonal terms in the Hamiltonian matrix, all three eigenvalues are of “strong” level, and are thus approximately decoupled from the three states $`\{|1,1_0,|a_0,|1,0_0\}`$ which form a DFS, as emphasized in Ref.beige1 .

Ref.beige1  proceeds from this observation to the construction of a CNOT gate in which the transformation of states is effected by means of accurately timed laser pulses. We now demonstrate the action of an alternative mechanism for the controlled transformation of the states, following an exact analogue of the protocol used in the first example in this paper. In this mechanism the applied laser fields are slowly changed in frequency, rather than turned on and off.

To show this, we first write an effective Hamiltonian operating within the bloc of Eq. (12), as given in Ref.beige1 , but allowing the laser frequencies to be detuned by a small amount,

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}[e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_At}|1,0_0a|_0e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_Bt}|a_01,1|_0]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(14)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Rabi frequency, and the detunings of the $`02`$ and $`12`$ lasers are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ respectively. Transition probabilities in the indicated basis will be unaffected by the transformation (acting in the atomic space only), $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Lambda }t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, where

$`2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B)|1,01,0|+(\mathrm{\Delta }_B\mathrm{\Delta }_A)|aa|`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B)|1,11,1|,`$
giving the new effective Hamiltonian,

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}[|1,0_0a|_0|a_01,1|_0]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(16)
This is exactly the first example of the present paper, with the five states reduced to three by taking only the symmetric states in place of the (#1,#2) and (#4,#5) complexes. We may thus interchange the states, exactly as before, by adiabatically varying the detunings. For example, by adiabatically changing the combination $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$, while keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ constant, we can effect the interchange of the states $`|1,1_0`$ and $`|1,0_0`$, thus performing a CNOT operation.

The full set of equations describing the evolution of all the states depicted in Fig.4 is given below, where we have used the Hamiltonian from Ref.beige1  and added detuning as in Eq.16:

$`\dot{c}_{|a_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left(c_{|10_0}c_{|11_0}+c_{|22_0}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B\right)c_{|a_0},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|10_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left(c_{|a_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}c_{|2,0_0}+c_{|s_0}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B\right)c_{|10_0},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|11_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}c_{|a_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B\right)c_{|11_0},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|s_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}c_{|10_0}+\sqrt{2}gc_{|11_1},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|11_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}gc_{|s_0}\kappa c_{|11_1},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|s_1}`$ $`=`$ $`g\left(c_{|22_0}\sqrt{2}c_{|11_2}\right)\kappa c_{|s_1},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|22_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left(c_{|a_0}\sqrt{2}c_{|20_0}\right)gc_{|s_1},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|20_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}c_{|10_0}\sqrt{2}c_{|22_0}\right)gc_{|10_1}`$
$`\dot{c}_{|10_1}`$ $`=`$ $`gc_{|20_0}\kappa c_{|10_1},`$
$`\dot{c}_{|11_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}gc_{|s_1}2\kappa c_{|11_2}.`$ (17)
In these equations, $`g`$ is the parameter setting the strong scale depicted by the fat double-arrows in Fig. 4, while $`\kappa `$ sets the (strong) scale of the dissipative links $`D`$ to the environment (decay of cavity modes).

We have solved this set of equation numerically, to demonstrate the interchange of states $`|10_0|11_0`$. We begin with a steady situation in which detuning parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ are substantially greater than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the initial state is (very stably) either $`|1,1_0`$ or $`|1,0_0`$. Then the detuning is manipulated, using simultaneous slow changes of both laser frequencies in order to interchange these two states, in a process similar to those described in section II. The evolution is shown graphically in Fig.5. By contrast, Ref.beige1  uses the perfectly tuned case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}=0`$, and takes $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ until a pulse turn-on time. The pulse is then turned off at exactly the time for the interchange $`|1,0_0|1,1_0`$ to have occurred under the influence of precession alone. In either method, the transformation represents a CNOT gate, the states $`|0,1_0`$ and $`|0,0_0`$ being frozen due to the S-W effect. Note that our implementation does not require accurate timing of applied fields.

## IV Discussion and conclusion

We have shown that in systems with appropriate arrangements of strong (S) and weak (W) couplings, variable potentials applied to a relatively small number of sites can efficiently effect state permutations for spin chains with pure-exchange coupling. Using the same approach, we found a new way to implement a CNOT gate in an atoms-in-a-cavity model discussed by previous authors beige1 .

A number of models similar to that of Ref. beige1  can be found in the recent literature itano ; block ; beige2 ; facchi ; pachos ; jane . For many of these cases, the generic S-W paradigm developed in the present paper provides a unified basis for understanding how isolated subspaces are generated.

As our final comment we note that the S-W non-dissipative links, and decay-induced dissipation – the two cases specifically studied here – are not the only means by which subspaces can become mutually isolated. For instance, Ref. stodolsky  and many subsequent works have discussed cases in which rapid incoherent scattering can freeze a system in a single state or subspace of states.

## Acknowledgements

NFB was supported Fermilab (operated by URA under DOE contract DE-AC02-76CH03000) and by NASA grant NAG5-10842, RRV by the Australian Research Council and YYYW by the DOE grant DE-FG02-84ER40163.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence states that the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory with 16 supersymmetries is equivalent to IIB string theory quantized around the $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times S^5`$ background . Recently, it has been shown that in some large charge limits of the field theory, corresponding to Penrose limits of spacetime, the worldsheets of fundamental closed strings in spacetime can be explicitly reconstructed from Yang-Mills fluctuations . These results explicitly realize the long-standing goal of showing that Yang-Mills theories with many colours have a description in terms of closed string theories . The purpose of this paper is to show how open strings also emerge from supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, by quantizing fluctuations around states of large R-charge and displaying their worldsheets.111Recently  showed how open strings emerge from gauge theories dual to string theories that have open strings in the perturbative spectrum. In these cases, the dual field theory has quarks marking the endpoints of open string worldsheets. Here we are interested in situations in which open strings emerge in pure supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory as fluctuations around states dual to D-branes in spacetime. D-branes in pp-wave backgrounds and open strings propagating on them have been studied in . In  branes were found in the matrix model associated to pp-wave backgrounds. For earlier discussion of open strings in SU(N) gauge theory, see

Open strings arise in string theory as the phonons of D-branes and so we seek the Yang-Mills descriptions of D-brane states of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times S^5`$. Since most stable D-branes in AdS are infinite in size they are also infinitely massive, and so represent superselection sectors of the Yang-Mills. However, $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times S^5`$ also admits giant gravitons, namely finite-energy spherical D3-branes localized at the origin of AdS and propagating on the sphere . If $`G`$ coincident D3-branes of the same size are present in the system, the open strings running between them should realize, at low energies, a $`U(G)`$ gauge theory on the $`S^3\times R`$ worldvolume of the giants.

Giant graviton states of spacetime are created in Yang-Mills theory by determinant and sub-determniant operators as proposed in  and confirmed in . In Sec. 2 we show how Yang-Mills theory reproduces the spectrum of small fluctuations of giant gravitons. We discuss the emergence of the $`G^2`$ degrees of freedom expected when $`G`$ giants nearly coincide. In Sec. 3 we display a Penrose limit in which the open strings propagating on giants can be quantized simply. Taking the corresponding large charge limit in Yang-Mills theory, we reconstruct the open string worldsheets from field theory degrees of freedom, and show that the field theory and string spectra match up to an $`O(g_s)`$ correction which we expect arises from open string one-loop effects in the pp-wave background. In all these matches of spectra, energies in spacetime are mapped onto conformal dimensions of operators in the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory. As we will see, the relevant operators are generically not BPS, but nevertheless their dimensions do not grow in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit.

Since we have a complete second-quantized formulation of $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills, this theory is supposed to give us a non-perturbative description of strings. If this is really so, various subsectors of the theory should contain the holographic duals to all possible string backgrounds. How do we find these subsectors and the gravitational backgrounds that they describe? Past experience with the M(atrix) model of M theory , the AdS/CFT correspondence , and pp-wave backgrounds  has suggested that large-charge, low-energy limits of string theory can give rise to holographic relations between field theories and string backgrounds. Likewise, in Sec. 4 we argue that our results, coupled with the observations in , suggest that different large charge limits of Yang-Mills give rise in the infrared to theories dual to different backgrounds for strings.

## 2 Spherical D3-branes and Their Fluctuations

#### Scalar fluctuations:

The best semiclassical description of a graviton with angular momentum of order $`N`$ on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ is in terms of a large D3-brane wrapping a 3-sphere and moving with some velocity . This is the giant graviton. The transition from a graviton mode in a spherical harmonic to a macroscopic brane is explained by the Myers effect  in the presence of flux on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$. In $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$, the radius of the spherical D3-brane is $`\rho ^2=lR^2/N`$, where $`l`$ is the angular momentum on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ of the state, $`R`$ is the radius of the sphere, and $`N`$ the total 5-form flux through the 5-sphere. Since the radius of the D3 brane giant graviton is bounded by the radius $`R`$ of the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$, there is an upper bound on the angular momentum $`lN`$.

The spectrum of small fluctuations of the giant graviton was calculated in . When the giant graviton expands into an $`\mathrm{S}^3`$ on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$, it has six transverse scalar fluctuations, of which four correspond to fluctuations into $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ and two are fluctuations within $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ . These vibration modes can be written as a superposition of scalar spherical harmonics $`Y_k`$ on the unit $`S^3`$. In  it was found that the frequencies of the four modes corresponding to fluctuations in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ with wave-functions $`Y_k`$ are given by

$$\omega _k=\frac{k+1}{R}$$
(1)
Similarly, the two vibration mode frequencies corresponding to fluctuations in $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ are

$$\omega _k^{}=\frac{k}{R},\omega _k^+=\frac{k+2}{R}$$
(2)
#### Giants and their scalar fluctuations from CFT:

In , it was shown that giant gravitons are dual to states created by a family of subdeterminants:

$$O_l=\mathrm{subdet}{}_{l}{}^{}Z\frac{1}{l!}ϵ_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_la_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{Nl}}ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_la_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{Nl}}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}Z_{j_2}^{i_2}\mathrm{}Z_{j_l}^{i_l}$$
(3)
(So $`O_N`$ is the same as the determinant of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.) Here, $`Z=\varphi ^5+i\varphi ^6`$ is a complex combination of two of the six adjoint scalars in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory.222The $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ in the bulk can be described by $`X_1^2+\mathrm{}X_6^2=R^2`$. The operator $`O_N`$ in (3) corresponds to a giant graviton moving in the $`X^5,X^6`$ plane. The trajectory of such a giant will trace out a circle of radius $`(1\frac{l}{N})R`$ in this plane. Notice that the maximal giant with $`l=N`$ is not really moving on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$. Its angular momentum arises from the Chern-Simons interaction on its worldvolume and the background flux. These subdeterminants have a bounded R-charge, with the full determinant saturating the bound. The bound on the R-charge is the field theory explanation of the angular momentum bound for giants. A giant graviton is a 1/2 BPS state of the CFT and breaks the SO(6) R-symmetry of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory down to U(1) $`\times `$ SO(4). The U(1) corresponds to the plane of motion of the giant gravitons while the SO(4) corresponds to the rotation group of the $`\mathrm{S}^3`$ worldvolume of the giants. Under the U(1) $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ have charges $`\pm 1`$ while the other scalars $`\varphi ^i`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}4`$) of the Yang-Mills theory are neutral. The giant gravitons in (3) therefore carry a $`U(1)`$ charge $`l`$ and, being protected operators, their conformal dimensions are $`\mathrm{\Delta }=l`$. Under the SO(4), Z is neutral, but the $`\varphi ^i`$ transform as a 4.

To map the fluctuations of a giant graviton to the CFT, we can replace $`Z`$ in (3) by other operators, along lines similar to  for the dibaryon in the theory of D3-branes at a conifold singularity. The resulting operator should carry the same U(1) charge $`l`$ as the giant. Therefore, their conformal dimension in the free limit should take the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=l+\omega R`$ where $`\omega `$ is appropriate fluctuation frequency in (1) or (2).333Recall that giant gravitons in global AdS map onto states of Yang-Mills theory on $`\mathrm{S}^3\times R`$ and that energy in spacetime maps to energy $`E`$ in the field theory. Using the state-operator correspondence, the energy of states on $`\mathrm{S}^3\times R`$ maps to the dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=RE`$ of operators on $`R^4`$, which we will typically discuss. Finally, since the scalar vibrations of giants are in the $`Y_k`$ scalar spherical harmonics of $`S^3`$, i.e. the symmetric traceless representation of $`SO(4)`$, it is natural to use operators formed by the symmetric traceless products of the four scalars $`\varphi ^i`$, ($`i=1,2,3,4`$).

Suppose $`O^k`$ is the $`k`$th symmetric traceless product of $`\varphi ^i`$. Consider the operators:

$$𝒪_m^k=ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_la_1\mathrm{}a_{nl}}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_la_1\mathrm{}a_{nl}}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{l1}}^{i_{l1}}(D_mZO^k)_{j_l}^{i_l}$$
(4)
$`𝒪_m^k`$ are operators with U(1) charge $`l`$, in the $`k`$th symmetric traceless representation of SO(4), and have dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=l+k+1`$. The index $`m=1\mathrm{}4`$ refers to the four Cartesian directions of $`R^4`$ in radial quantization of $`\mathrm{S}^3\times R`$. Clearly, $`𝒪_m^k`$ has the quantum numbers to match the AdS polarized fluctuations with spectrum (1). (Note that unlike (3) we have not normalized these operators to have unit two-point functions.)

Now consider

$`𝒪_{}^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_li_{l+1}a_1\mathrm{}a_{nl1}}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_lj_{l+1}a_1\mathrm{}a_{Nl1}}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_l}^{i_l}(O^k)_{j_{l+1}}^{i_{l+1}}`$ (5)
$`𝒪_+^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{l+3}a_1\mathrm{}a_{nl3}}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_{l+3}a_1\mathrm{}a_{nl3}}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_l}^{i_l}Z_{j_{l+1}}^{i_{l+1}}\overline{Z}_{j_{l+2}}^{i_{l+2}}(O^k)_{j_{l+3}}^{i_{l+3}}`$ (6)
These operators have U(1) charge $`l`$, are in $`k`$th symmetric traceless representation of SO(4), and have conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=l+k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=l+k+2`$. Clearly we have found operators with quantum numbers matching the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ polarized fluctuations whose spectrum is (2). (Again, we have not chosen to normalize these operators to have unit two-point functions.) Note that the operators (5,6) cannot be constructed for the maximal giant graviton, i.e., when $`l=N`$. The corresponding analysis of fluctuations in  leads to a similar conclusion since the relevant equations are ill-defined for the maximal giant.

In general, most fluctuations of giant gravitons are not BPS  and so we expect anomalous dimensions to develop quantum mechanically. From the spacetime point of view these would be studied by finding solutions to the open-string loop corrected equations of motion of a D-brane. (The DBI action used in  included all $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections at disk order but not string loop corrections.) Since these corrections are hard to compute in spacetime it is interesting to examine them in the field theory. In the appendix we show that the interactions of $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills do produce anomalous dimensions for (4,5,6), but, surprisingly, these corrections do not grow with $`N`$. As shown in the appendix the anomalous dimension is $`(J1)g_s/\pi `$. At weak coupling and large $`N`$, therefore, these are non-BPS operators whose dimensions are protected from large corrections.

#### Multiple giants from Yang-Mills:

Consider a CFT states made by the product of $`G`$ identical giant graviton operators. This should represent $`G`$ giants of the same size moving in concert on the $`\mathrm{S}^5`$. Such a group of giants should have $`G^2`$ strings stretching between them. At low energies these string should give rise to a $`U(G)`$ gauge theory living on the worldvolume of the spherical D3-branes. The spectra that we described above we derived from fluctuations of a single giant, and therefore apply to the $`U(1)^G`$ part of this low-energy gauge theory. Below we will display candidate operators dual to the expected $`6G^2`$ scalar fluctuations of the branes. In the quadratic limit relevant to small fluctuations all of these will have the same spectrum as we see below. (Again, there are small quantum corrections to the spectrum that are negligible in the large N limit.)

For simplicity consider two maximal giant gravitons, corresponding to the product of two determinants in the CFT $`det_1Zdet_2Z`$. Here we have introduced labels analogous to Chan-Paton indices for each of the determinants representing a giant graviton. Taking $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ to be coordinates on the $`\mathrm{S}^3`$ on which the Yang-Mills theory is defined, we could define the operator $`detZ(x_1)detZ(x_2)`$ so that it makes sense to treat them as distinguishable in this way. After constructing the operators of interest to us as described in the text we later let $`x_1x_2`$. For each of the operators $`𝒪_{m,+,}^k`$ describing scalar fluctuations on a single giant we might expect four operators here. Two of these would correspond to separate vibrations of each of the two giants and should be given by $`𝒪_{11;m,+,}^k𝒪_{1;m,+,}^kdet_2Z`$ and $`𝒪_{22;m,+,1}^kdet_1Z𝒪_{2;m,+,}^k`$ where $`𝒪_{i;m,+,}^k`$ is a fluctuation on giant $`i`$ as described above. Two of the fluctuations would arise from off-diagonal components of the U(2) matrices, which in turn arise from strings going between the two branes. It is natural that these vibrations should arise from operators that intertwine the gauge indices in the two determinants:

$`𝒪_{12;}^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(O^k)_{l_N}^{i_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_N}^{k_N}`$ (7)
$`𝒪_{21;}^k`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{l_N}^{i_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}Z_{l_{N1}}^{k_{N1}}(O^k)_{j_N}^{k_N}`$ (8)
Here the $`O^k`$ are the symmetric traceless products of scalars mentioned earlier. The other operators $`𝒪_{ij;+,m}^k`$ are written similarly. The indices that we introduced on the two determinants have played the role of Chan-Paton factors of open strings stretched between two giants. It appears that the four operators we find have a natural interpretation as the expected operators from the adjoint representation of $`U(2)`$ group. However, there is a subtlety. When $`x_1x_2`$, $`O_{12,}^k=O_{21,}^k`$ and $`O_{11,}^k=O_{22,}^k`$ by an exchange of dummy indices. What is more, it can be shown that in this limit the operators $`O_{11,}^k=NO_{12,}^k`$ also. This is surprising at first because $`O_{12}`$ intertwines indices between two determinants, but this fact can be shown as follows. First, observe that (7) is zero when $`l_Nj_N`$. In this case there exists an $`l_x=j_n`$ where $`1xN1`$, and so the sum overs the permutations of $`k_1,\mathrm{}k_N`$ gives zero. We are left with $`l_N=j_N`$ in which case the operator is unchanged by switching these two indices. Thus $`O_{11;}^k`$ is proportional to $`O_{12;}^k`$. The proportionality factor between these operators is $`N`$ because the former has $`N^2`$ choices of $`j_N,l_N`$, while requiring $`l_N=j_N`$ leaves $`N`$ choices.

In fact this is exactly what we should expect since coincident D-branes are identical and there is no difference between the strings running between different pairs of branes; the change of dummy variables relating (7) and (8) when $`x_1x_2`$ is an example of this. To display the four strings running between two branes we have to separate the branes from each each other. The generalization of this discussion to $`G`$ giants and the associateed $`G^2`$ degrees of freedom from the adjoint of $`U(G)`$ is obvious.

There is some issue as to whether multiple less-than-maximal giant gravitons are described by a product of subdeterminant operators or by a sudeterminant of products (see ). Above we restricted ourself to the largest giants for which this issue does not arise since the determinant of products is the product of determinants. It would be interesting to test our proposal that fluctuations of strings between branes are described by intertwined operators, by taking one of them to be a maximal giant and another to be a smaller one. Strings running between such branes are stretched and should have a corresponding gap in their spectra. It would be interesting to test this by trying to match the vibrational energies of strings stretched between the maximal and next-to-maximal sized giants.

## 3 Open string world sheets from CFT

### 3.1 Penrose limits for open strings

We will see that for open strings moving with a large angular momentum on the giant graviton D3 brane, we can construct the open string world sheet in the $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. To that end, we start by looking at the geometry seen by such an open string. The $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ metric is:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2[dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+d\psi ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`d\phi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi d\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\phi d\xi ^2`$
where $`R=(4\pi \alpha ^2gN)^{1/4}`$ is the AdS scale. Consider the near maximal giant graviton at $`\theta \pi /2`$ which is moving in the $`\psi `$ direction.444Strictly speaking, the maximal giant is at rest and all its angular momentum comes from the five-form flux. The world volume of the giant spans $`(t,\phi ,\eta ,\xi )`$ and the giant graviton is at $`\rho =0`$ and $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$. We want to find the geometry seen by an open string ending on the giant graviton, moving rapidly in the $`\eta `$ direction at the equator of $`\mathrm{S}^3`$ given by $`\phi =0`$. We define light cone coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\pm =\frac{t\pm \eta }{2}`$, a new coordinate $`\chi =\frac{\pi }{2}\theta `$, and focus on the region near $`\rho =\chi =\phi =0`$ by rescaling:

$$x^+=\stackrel{~}{x}^+,x^{}=R^2\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\rho =\frac{r}{R},\chi =\frac{y}{R},\phi =\frac{u}{R},R\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
In this limit, the metric becomes,

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}(\stackrel{}{r}^2+\stackrel{}{y}^2+\stackrel{}{u}^2)(dx^+)^2+d\stackrel{}{y}^2+d\stackrel{}{u}^2+d\stackrel{}{r}^2$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ parameterize points on two $`R^2`$s and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ parameterizes points on $`R^4`$. The 5-form flux that supports the $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ background becomes

$$F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=\mathrm{Const}\times \mu $$
(11)
in this limit, thereby breaking the $`SO(8)`$ isometry of the metric (10) to SO(4) $`\times `$ SO(4). We find that the open string sees the standard pp wave geometry. The light cone action becomes ,

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}dt_0^{2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+}d\sigma [_\tau X^I_\tau X_I_\sigma X^I_\sigma X_I\mu ^2X^IX_I+2i\overline{S}(/+\mu \mathrm{\Pi })S]$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1234}`$ and $`S`$ is a Majorana spinor on the worldsheet and a positive chirality spinor $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬`$ under SO(8) which is the group of rotations in the eight transverse directions. The $`X^I`$ tranform as $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐯`$ under this group. The fermionic term in the action breaks the SO(8) symmetry that is otherwise present to SO(4) $`\times `$ SO(4). The open strings we are interested in have Neumann boundary conditions in the light cone directions $`x^\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions in the six transverse directions parameterized by $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}`$.

$$_\sigma X^\alpha =_\tau X^i=0$$
(13)
where $`\alpha =7,8`$. The coordinates used in (10), $`\stackrel{}{u}=(x^7,x^8)`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}=(x^5,x^6)`$. Such open strings were quantized by Dabholkar and Parvizi in . Here, we quote their results. The spectrum of the light cone Hamiltonian ($`Hp_+`$) is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`E_0+E_𝒩`$
$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =7,8}{}}\overline{a}_0^\alpha a_0^\alpha 2iS_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{56}S_0+e_0\right)`$
$`E_𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\omega _na_n^ia_n^i+i{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\omega _nS_nS_n\right).`$ (14)
where we have defined the bosonic and fermionic creation and annihilation operators $`a_n^i`$ and $`S_n`$ as in . Here $`e_0=1`$ is the zero point energy for the D3 brane and

$$\omega _n=\mathrm{sign}(n)\sqrt{\left(\frac{n}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}\right)^2+\mu ^2}.$$
(15)
There are only two bosonic zero modes coming from two directions in light cone gauge which have Neumann boundary conditions (these would have been momentum modes but in the pp wave background, the zero mode is also a harmonic oscillator). The fermionic zero mode is $`S_0`$ which transforms in $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬`$ of SO(8).

The D3 brane occupies $`x^+,x^{},x^7,x^8`$ and has six transverse coordinates $`x^1\mathrm{}x^6`$. In the light cone, only an SO(2)U subgroup of the SO(1,3) symmetry of the D3 brane world volume is visible. In addition, the SO(6) group transverse to the D3-brane is broken down to SO(2)$`{}_{Z}{}^{}\times `$ SO(4) by the 5-form background flux. Hence we have the embedding

$$SO(8)SO(2)_Z\times SO(2)_U\times SO(4)$$
(16)
The spinor $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬`$ decomposes as

$$\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐬(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}$$
(17)
where the superscripts denote SO(2)$`{}_{Z}{}^{}\times `$ SO(2)U, and we have written SO(4) representations as representations of SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2). The fermionic zero modes $`S_0`$ can be arranged into fermionic creation and annihilation operators:

$`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha S_{0\alpha }^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ , $`\lambda _\alpha S_{0\alpha }^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$
$`\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}S_{0\dot{\alpha }}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ , $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}S_{0\dot{\alpha }}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ (18)
The commutation relations are

$$\{\overline{\lambda }_\alpha ,\lambda ^\beta \}=\delta _\alpha ^\beta ,\{\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\beta }}\}=\delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}.$$
(19)
The energy contribution from the zero mode oscillators is given by

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`m(\overline{a}_0^7a_0^7+\overline{a}_0^8a_0^8+\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \lambda ^\alpha \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}\lambda ^{\dot{\alpha }}+1)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`m(\overline{a}_0^7a_0^7+\overline{a}_0^8a_0^8+\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \lambda ^\alpha +\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}1)`$ (21)
as in . We choose $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ as creation operators.555This convention differs from  but is convenient for us. The vacuum state is invariant under SO(4) $`\times `$ SO(2)U and carries charge $`1`$ under SO(2)Z:

$$a_0^r|1,0=0,\lambda ^\alpha |1,0=0,\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}|1,0=0$$
(22)
Other modes with zero worldsheet momentum ($`n=0`$) are contructed by acting with creation operators $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha `$, $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\overline{a}_0^r`$ . The vacuum state $`|1,0`$ has $`E_0=1`$ and carries $`1`$ units of angular momentum in the $`x^5x^6`$ direction. Since the maximal giant graviton that we are considering carries angular momentum $`N`$ in this direction, we see that $`N1`$ is the total angular momentum of the giant and the ground state of its open strings in our Penrose limit. Likewise the fermionic contribution to the energy ground state lowers it to $`N1`$ from the value $`N`$ for the maximal giant. Below we will present the complete perturbative spectrum of the string quantized in this way and map all the states to operators of $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory.

### 3.2 Open string world sheet in SYM

String theory in global $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory on $`\mathrm{S}^3\times R`$. States in spacetime map to states of the field theory, and by the state-operator correspondence for conformal theories, are related to operators on $`R^4`$. The global symmetry of the theory is SO(4) $`\times `$ SO(6) where SO(4) is the rotation group of $`R^4`$ corresponding to the SO(4) appearing in (16). SO(6) is the R-symmetry group, corresponding to the rotation group of $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ in the bulk spacetime. The Yang-Mills theory has six adjoint scalar fields $`\varphi ^1\mathrm{}\varphi ^6`$ which transform as the fundamental of SO(6). The complex combinations $`Z=\varphi ^5+i\varphi ^6`$, $`Y=\varphi ^3+i\varphi ^4`$, $`U=\varphi ^1+i\varphi ^2`$ are charged under three different SO(2) subgroups of SO(6), SO(2)Z,Y,U, which correspond to rotations in three independent planes of the bulk $`\mathrm{S}^5`$. We will denote charges under these SO(2) groups as $`J_{Z,Y,U}`$. As we have discussed, giant gravitons carry a charge of order $`N`$ under SO(2)Z, and are created by subdeterminant operators. The Penrose limit of open strings on giants corresponds to strings moving in the spacetime direction corresponding to $`Y`$. We will propose a field theory description of the worldsheets of open strings on the maximal giant graviton.

We will denote the conformal dimenion of the operators dual to such strings by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=N+\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(23)
where the additive $`N`$ arises because the background giant has this dimension. Mapping the data of the Penrose limit to the field theory we find that the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the excitation above the giant and $`SO(2)_Y`$ charges of these states are related to the lightcone Hamiltonian (14) of strings as

$$H=p_+=2p^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}NJ_Y.$$
(24)
We are going to consider states of fixed $`p_+`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y`$. Likewise the other lightcone momentum maps as

$$p_{}=2p^+=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+J_Y}{R^2},$$
(25)
where $`R`$ is the AdS scale. Note that to have a fixed non-zero value of $`p_{}`$, $`J_Y`$ must be of order $`\sqrt{N}`$. The contribution to Hamiltonian from higher oscillator modes of the lightcone string (15) then translates into 666We have set $`\mu =1`$ to make the comparison with field theory.

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}NJ_Y)_n=(\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y)_n=\omega _n=\sqrt{1+\frac{\pi gNn^2}{J_Y^2}}$$
(26)
in the Yang-Mills theory up to small corrections that vanish at large $`N`$.

#### The ground state:

From the previous section, the ground state of strings on maximal giants carries SO(2)Z charge $`1`$ and lightcone energy $`1`$. So the overall state including the giant carries an SO(2)Z charge $`N1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y=1`$. Furthermore, we achieve the Penrose limit by considering states with SO(2)Y charge $`J`$ of order $`\sqrt{N}`$. To describe the ground state of the string we therefore seek an operator that is a modification of the $`detZ`$ creating the maximal giant which has the charges just listed. A suitable candidate is:

$$ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(YY\mathrm{}Y)_{j_N}^{i_N}|G_N;1,0$$
(27)
where we have inserted a product of $`J`$ Ys in place of one Z. (We have chosen not to normalize this operator to have a unit two-point function.) The notation $`|G_N;1,0`$ indicates a single maximal giant graviton with an open string in its ground state as defined in (22). The Zs create the D3 brane giant graviton and, as we show below, the string of Ys explicitly reconstructs the worldsheet of open string propagating on a giant in a Penrose limit.The absence of a trace on the indices of the product of Ys will be responsible for making this an open string worldsheet, and in the presence of multiple giants, Chan-Paton factors will emerge from the ability to intertwine these indices between different giant operators.

The operator (27), just like the small fluctuations (4,5,6), is not BPS and therefore receives quantum corrections to its dimension. Surprisingly, as we show in the Appendix, these corrections do not grow with $`N`$ and lead to an anomalous dimension of $`(J1)g_s/\pi `$. This extra piece is very small compared to the BMN anomalous dimension $`\frac{g_sN}{J^2}`$ if we take $`g_2=\frac{J^2}{N}`$ small to suppress the non-planar contributions anomalous dimensions . Nevertheless, the anomalous dimension of our operator differs from the prediction from the spacetime calculation of Dabholkar and Parvizi  by $`(J1)g_s/\pi `$. This difference, being of $`O(g_s)`$, suggests a loop open-string effect. Perhaps the interesting phenomenon of a non-BPS operator acquiring only a small anomalous dimension occurs because of the restoration of supersymmetries in the pp-wave limit .

#### Rest of the zero modes:

The remainder of the zero modes on the string worldsheet arose from the ground state (22) by the action of the creation operators $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha `$, $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\overline{a}_0^r`$. In Yang-Mills theory we can construct operators corresponding to these states by inserting into the string of the Ys the two scalars $`\varphi ^{1,2}`$ and four of the 16 gaugino components of $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills which have SO(2)Y charge $`J_Y=1/2`$ and SOZ charge $`J=1/2`$. These gaugino components in which we are interested transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ under the SO(4) = SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) rotation group of four dimensional Yang-Mills and so we will collect into two spinors $`\psi _\alpha `$ and $`\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}`$. This matches the charges carried by the four creation operators $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ identified on the lightcone string worldsheet in (18). So we identify the string worldsheet zero mode creation operators with operator insertions into (27) as follows:

$`\overline{a}_0^{7,8}`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{1,2}`$
$`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha ,\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $``$ $`\psi _\alpha ,\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (28)
For example,

$$\overline{\lambda }_\alpha |G_N;1,0ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{J_Y}{}}Y^l\psi _\alpha Y^{J_Yl}\right)_{j_N}^{i_N}$$
(29)
Each action of a zero mode operator on the lightcone string vacuum adds a similar sum to the dual field theory operator. It is interesting to see a detailed match between field theory operators and the quantum numbers for states created by acting by worldsheet fermionic zero modes. Each of these operators takes the form $`\frac{1}{N!}ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}𝒱_{j_N}^{i_N}`$ with $`𝒱`$ given as below:

| State | Rep. | $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y`$ | $`𝒱`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(1,0)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`Y^{J_Y}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha |1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ | $`0`$ | $`_{l=0}^{J_Y}Y^l\psi _\alpha Y^{J_Yl}`$ |
| $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ | 0 | $`_{l=0}^{J_Y}Y^l\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}Y^{J_Yl}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \overline{\lambda }_\beta |1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(0,1)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`_{l_1,l_2=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _\alpha Y^{l_2}\psi _\beta Y^{J_Yl_1l_2}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})^{(0,0)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`_{l_1,l_2=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _\alpha Y^{l_2}\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}Y^{J_Yl_1l_2}`$ |
| $`\lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}\lambda _{\dot{\beta }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(1,1)}`$ | $`1`$ | $`_{l_1,l_2=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}Y^{l_2}\psi _{\dot{\beta }}Y^{J_Yl_1l_2}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}\lambda _{\dot{\beta }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ | $`2`$ | $`_{l_i=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _\alpha Y^{l_2}\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}Y^{l_3}\psi _{\dot{\beta }}Y^{J_Y{\scriptscriptstyle l_i}}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \overline{\lambda }_\beta \lambda _{\dot{\beta }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ | $`2`$ | $`_{l_i=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _\alpha Y^{l_2}\psi _\beta Y^{l_3}\psi _{\dot{\beta }}Y^{J_Y{\scriptscriptstyle l_i}}`$ |
| $`\overline{\lambda }_\alpha \overline{\lambda }_\beta \lambda _{\dot{\alpha }}\lambda _{\dot{\beta }}|1,0`$ | $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})^{(1,0)}`$ | $`3`$ | $`_{l_i=0}^{J_Y}Y^{l_1}\psi _\alpha Y^{l_2}\psi _\beta Y^{l_3}\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}Y^{l_4}\psi _{\dot{\beta }}Y^{J_Y{\scriptscriptstyle l_i}}`$ |

The superscripts denote charges under SO(2)$`{}_{Z}{}^{}\times `$SO(2)U and we have indicated the energy of fluctuations above the giant graviton which itself has energy $`N`$. As in the case of the string ground state, anomalous dimensions arising from interactions between the Zs and the other fields do not grow in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit (see the Appendix). As above, anomalous dimension is shifted by $`(J1)g_s/\pi `$ presumably matching a one-loop open string effect that was not considered in . Anomalous dimensions do not arise due to interactions between $`\varphi ^{1,2}`$ and Y or between $`\psi `$ and Y because of the symmetrization of fields within the string of Ys.

#### Higher oscillators and string spectrum from $`𝒩=4`$ theory:

To construct the higher oscillator states of open strings in analogy with  we can insert operators representing string fluctuations into the worldsheet represented by the string of Ys in (27). (Again we choose not to normalize these operators here to have a unit two point function.) A phase depending on the position of insertion into the string of Ys represents the oscillator level. In effect, the phases reconstruct the Fourier representation of a momentum state on the string worldsheet in position space along the string. The operators we can insert include those in (28) corresponding to the directions in which the open string has Neumann boundary conditions. For example:

$$a_n^7|G_N;1,0ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{J_Y}{}}Y^l\varphi ^1Y^{J_Yl}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi nl}{J_Y})\right)_{j_N}^{i_N}$$
(30)
In addition, although there are no zero modes in directions with Dirichlet boundary conditions for the open string, there are higher oscillator excitations. These will correspond to insertions of

$`\overline{a}^i`$ $``$ $`D_iYi=1\mathrm{}4`$
$`\overline{a}^{5,6}`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{5,6}`$ (31)
with a position dependent phase $`\mathrm{sin}(\frac{n\pi l}{J_Y})`$:

$$a_n^5|G_N;1,0ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{J_Y}{}}Y^l\varphi ^5Y^{J_Yl}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi nl}{J_Y})\right)_{j_N}^{i_N}$$
(32)
The higher fermionic oscillators correspond to similar insertions of $`\psi _\alpha `$ and $`\psi _{\dot{\alpha }}`$ with similar phases. Note that the phase $`\frac{\pi nl}{J_Y}`$ is half of the phase appearing in the closed string construction of . This is necessary to correctly reproduce the open string spectrum from field theory.

All operators constructed as in (30,32) carry charge $`J_Y`$ under SO(2)Y and so to compare the string spectrum (26) to the field theory we need only compute the conformal dimension of the operator. Although the interactions between Zs and the operators within the string of Ys continue to be suppressed as for the zero modes (see the Appendix), the presence of phases in (30,32) leads to anomalous dimensions that we must compute in order to match the spectrum (26. Below we will work with the example (30) but an identical story applies to all the other operators. (We leave out most of the details of the calculation since it is exactly parallel to the work in .)

To start it is useful to expand the energies (26) in a power series in $`gN/J_Y^2`$:

$$\omega _n=(\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y)_n=1+\frac{\pi gNn^2}{2J_Y^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(33)
The classical dimension of (30) is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=N1+J_Y+1=N+J_Y`$. In the interacting theory anomalous dimensions will develop. To study this we have to compute correlation functions of (30). Even in the free limit, there are many non-planar diagrams in these correlators which are not suppressed even at large $`N`$ because the operator itself has dimension comparable to $`N`$ . However, within any diagram the interactions between the Ys and themselves is dominated by planar sub-diagrams because $`J_Y\sqrt{N}`$ and because when $`N`$ is large nonplanarity only becomes important when more that $`N^{2/3}`$ fields are involved . The free contractions between Zs and themselves and the Ys and themselves give rise to the classical dimension of the operators. Interactions between Ys and Zs are discussed in the Appendix and give rise to an anomalous dimension of $`(J1)g_s/\pi `$. As above, we expect this shift to be related to a one-loop open string effect in the pp-wave spacetime.

If we introduce an additional operator $`O`$ within the string of Ys as in (30), there will be further interactions between $`O`$ and Y which we will discuss here. There are also interactions between $`O`$ and Z, which, as we show in the Appendix, lead to small corrections that vanish in the large $`N`$ limit. The diagrams connecting $`O`$ and $`Y`$ arise because of the 4 point vertex in the $`𝒩=4`$ theory. For the operator (30) the relevant vertex is:

$$g_{YM}^2\text{tr}([Y,\varphi ^1][\overline{Y},\varphi ^1]$$
(34)
This can lead to diagrams which exchange the position of $`\varphi `$ and Y in the string of Ys in (30) while leaving the Zs untouched. Summing all such diagrams is a computation almost identical to Appendix A of . The only difference arises from the different position dependent phase in relating the higher oscillators to operators as in (30). The result is:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }J_Y)_n=1+\frac{\pi gNn^2}{2J_Y^2}$$
(35)
This correctly reproduces the first order correction to the energy in (33). In fact, the full square root in (26) can be straighforwardly reproduced by iterating the interaction along the lines of Appendix A in . (Again, the interaction between the $`Z`$s and the other fields will shift the $`1`$ to $`1+(J1)g_s/\pi `$ as discussed earlier.)

In Sec. 2 we discussed how the $`G^2`$ low energy fluctuations of $`G`$ coinciding giants can arise from states with mutiple determinants with intertwined indices (see the discussion around (7) and (8)). A similar construction in the Penrose limit of G coinciding D3-branes yields strings stretched between each pair of branes. The spectra of each of these strings is identical and is reproduced as above. The presence of a Chan-Paton factor labelling the string endpoints is confirmed by point-splitting the location of the determinant operators in Yang-Mills theory. At low energies these strings must give rise to a new $`U(G)`$ gauge theory. Note, however, that only gauge-invariant operators built from this theory will be visible unless the $`U(G)`$ is broken by separating the branes. This is related to the observation in Sec. 2 that when the branes coincide, all the $`G^2`$ operators describing fluctuations of the multiple giants become identical.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper we have shown how open strings can emerge in pure supersymmetric SU(N) Yang-Mills theory as fluctuations around very heavy states with energy of order N, which map onto spherical D-branes in $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$. In a large momentum limit we have explicitly constructed the open string worldsheet and its spectrum of oscillations from Yang-Mills theory. This shows that the large N limit of SU(N) Yang-Mills theory cannot be described as a closed string theory alone – open strings are also needed.

The emergence of open strings in this way sheds an interesting light on the difficult problem of achieving a background independent formulation of M theory. $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills theory is a second-quantized theory and is supposed to give us a non-perturbative definition of string theory. If this is really so all the different backgrounds of string theory, and their holographic duals should somehow emerge from different sectors of Yang-Mills theory. Our results in this paper point to one interesting way in which this can happen: large charge limits of Yang-Mills theory give rise to new holographic dualities. Consider SU(N) theory in a state obtained by acting with $`GN`$ sub-determinants. This theory is dual to $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ with length scale $`R_N=(4\pi \alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g_sN)^{1/4}`$ and $`G`$ giant gravitons. After back-reaction the resulting spacetimes are charged black holes of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ whose singularity can be understood as a condensate of giant gravitons  (also see ). Since the number of D3 brane giants exceeds the number of background branes creating the spacetime, we expect that near the giants, a new $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ will emerge with length scale $`R_G=(4\pi \alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g_sG)^{1/4}`$ and an SU(G) holographic dual. Evidence for this was given in  from considerations of black hole entropy. From the perspective of the dual SU(N) theory, we expect that in a sector with $`GN`$ subdeterminants fluctuations give rise to a new SU(G) gauge theory in the infrared. The results of this paper suggest how this happens. The open strings running between the giant gravitons in AdS space emerge explicitly from the Yang-Mills theory as we have indicated. In the appropriate limit these strings will give rise to a new SU(G) Yang-Mills theory dual to the large-charge limit of the charged $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ black holes.

The above discussion and  suggest that in a sector where SU(N) Yang-Mills theory carries an R-charge $`JN`$, the convenient holographic description is in terms of operators on the worldvolume of D3-brane giants that are present in the system. Curiously, from the point of view of the original Yang-Mills dual to $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, the giant worldvolume is some sort of “internal” direction, as is the entire $`\mathrm{S}^5`$ on which the giant rotates. If there were a way to see the 3-brane worldvolume explicitly in Yang-Mills theory, just as string worldsheets are explicit in Penrose limits, this intuition could be made precise. Note that in the pp-wave limit of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$  , there are two $`R^4`$ factors, one coming from the AdS space and the other from the sphere. Interestingly, the pp-wave limit, as a sector of Yang-Mills with R-charge of order $`\sqrt{N}`$ is somehow halfway to the point where giant gravitons dominate the physics of AdS. In effect, as the R-charge increases, the infrared of the Yang-Mills theory on $`\mathrm{S}^3\times R`$ that is dual to $`\mathrm{AdS}_5\times \mathrm{S}^5`$ interpolates to the holographic dual to pp-waves  and then back to a new Yang-Mills theory now defined on a different sphere.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Samir Mathur and Steve Corley for useful conversations and communications. We thank David Berenstein, Bo Feng, Oleg Lunin for discussions of calculations in the Appendix. A.N. thanks the Michigan center for theoretical physics for hospitality and the organizers of the Mathematics and Physics of extra dimensions workshop. This work was supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-95ER40893.

## Appendix A Protected dimensions in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit

The operator corresponding to the open string ground state in (27),

$$𝒪=ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}$$
(36)
is not BPS with respect to the $`𝒩=4`$ algebra. As such, its dimension is not protected. In particular, it can develop an anomalous dimension due to an interaction between the Y and Zs. In this appendix, we will show that such an anomalous dimension does not grow in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit relevant to pp-waves.

The relevant part of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi g_s}d^4x\text{tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+D_\mu ZD^\mu \overline{Z}+D_\mu YD^\mu \overline{Y}+[Z,\overline{Z}][Y,\overline{Y}]2[Z,Y][\overline{Z},\overline{Y}]\right)$$
(37)
Where $`\text{tr}([Z,\overline{Z}][Y,\overline{Y}])`$ is the D-term potential, and $`2\text{tr}([Z,Y][\overline{Z},\overline{Y}])`$ is the F-term potential. According to the argument in Appendix B in , The D-term and gluon exchange cancel at one loop order (this is based on techniques in previous papers  ), so we only need to consider the contributions from F-term. The scalar propagators are

$$Z_i^j(x)\overline{Z}_k^l(0)=Y_i^j(x)\overline{Y}_k^l(0)=\delta _i^l\delta _k^j\frac{2\pi g_s}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{|x|^2},$$
(38)
The two point function can be written as the sum of a free and an one-loop interacting part:

$$𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)=𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)_f+𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)_i.$$
(39)
The free part is straightforward to calculate. The result is:

$$𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)_f=(N1)!N!^2\frac{1}{|x|^{2(N+J1)}}N^{J1}(\frac{2\pi g_s}{4\pi ^2})^{N+J1}\frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}},$$
(40)
where $`C(N1)!N!^2N^{J1}(\frac{2\pi g_s}{4\pi ^2})^{N+J1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(N+J1)`$. The factor of $`(N1)!`$ counts the number of contractions between the Zs, $`N!^2`$ is the result of contracting four $`ϵ`$ tensors in pairs and $`N^{J1}`$ results from $`J1`$ loops from contracting the Ys planarly.

The interacting part receives contributions from F-term potential

$$V_F=2\text{tr}([Z,Y][\overline{Z},\overline{Y}])=2\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Z}\overline{Y}+YZ\overline{Y}\overline{Z}ZY\overline{Y}\overline{Z}YZ\overline{Z}\overline{Y})$$
(41)
The calculation of the one-loop interactive part is to insert the operator $`\frac{1}{2\pi g_s}V_F`$, then integrate the three point function over the position of the inserted operator. First we consider inserting $`\frac{1}{\pi g_s}\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Y}\overline{Z}(y))`$,

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Y}\overline{Z}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi g_s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{4\pi ^2}}\right)^{N+J+1}|x|^4{\displaystyle d^4y\frac{1}{|y|^4|xy|^4}}`$
$`\times ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}\overline{Z}_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{Z}_{l_{N1}}^{k_{N1}}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Y}\overline{Z}):`$
we extract the log divergent piece

$$|x|^4d^4y\frac{1}{|y|^4|xy|^4}=4\pi ^2\mathrm{log}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(42)
and the large N power piece

$`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}\overline{Z}_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{Z}_{l_{N1}}^{k_{N1}}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Z_b^aY_c^b\overline{Y}_d^c\overline{Z}_a^d:`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta _{l_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{l_{N2}}^{i_{N2}}\delta _{j_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{j_{N2}}^{k_{N2}}\delta _a^{i_{N1}}\delta _{j_{N1}}^d\delta _b^{k_{N1}}\delta _{l_{N1}}^a(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Y_c^b\overline{Y}_d^c:`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!^3(\delta _a^a\delta _{i_N}^{l_N}\delta _a^{l_N}\delta _{i_N}^a)(\delta _b^d\delta _{k_N}^{j_N}\delta _{k_N}^d\delta _b^{j_N})(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Y_c^b\overline{Y}_d^c:`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^3(N2)!^3(\text{tr}(Y^J\overline{Y}^J):\text{tr}(Y\overline{Y}):\text{tr}(Y^J:Y\overline{Y}:\overline{Y}^J))`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^3(N2)!^3(JN^{J+1})`$
where in the last step the first term dominate and gives $`JN^{J+1}`$ (The factor of $`J`$ comes from $`J`$ ways of contracting). So

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Y}\overline{Z}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{Jg_s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{log}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (44)
Similarly

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(YZ\overline{Z}\overline{Y}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{Jg_s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{log}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (45)
Now we consider inserting $`\frac{1}{\pi g_s}\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Z}\overline{Y}(y))`$,

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Z}\overline{Y}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi g_s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{4\pi ^2}}\right)^{N+J+1}|x|^4{\displaystyle d^4y\frac{1}{|y|^4|xy|^4}}`$
$`\times ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}\overline{Z}_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{Z}_{l_{N1}}^{k_{N1}}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Z}\overline{Y}):`$
where the large N power piece is

$`ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}Z_{j_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_{N1}}^{i_{N1}}(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}\overline{Z}_{l_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{Z}_{l_{N1}}^{k_{N1}}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Z_b^aY_c^b\overline{Z}_d^c\overline{Y}_a^d:`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}ϵ^{l_1\mathrm{}l_N}`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta _{l_1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{l_{N2}}^{i_{N2}}\delta _{j_1}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{j_{N2}}^{k_{N2}}\delta _b^{k_{N1}}\delta _{l_{N1}}^a\delta _d^{i_{N1}}\delta _{j_{N1}}^c(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Y_c^b\overline{Y}_a^d:`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!^3(\delta _d^a\delta _{i_N}^{l_N}\delta _d^{l_N}\delta _{i_N}^a)(\delta _b^c\delta _{k_N}^{j_N}\delta _{k_N}^c\delta _b^{j_N})(Y^J)_{j_N}^{i_N}(\overline{Y}^J)_{l_N}^{k_N}:Y_c^b\overline{Y}_a^d:`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!^3\text{tr}(Y^JY\overline{Y}^J\overline{Y})`$
$`=`$ $`(N1)^2(N2)!^3(N^{J+2})`$
So

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(ZY\overline{Z}\overline{Y}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{log}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (47)
Similarly

$`{\displaystyle d^4y𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)(\frac{1}{\pi g_s})\text{tr}(YZ\overline{Y}\overline{Z}(y))}={\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{log}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (48)
So the total contribution by summing (44)(45)(47)(48) is

$$𝒪(x)𝒪^{}(0)_i==\frac{2(J1)g_s}{\pi }\frac{C}{|x|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{log}|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(49)
So the anomalous dimension is $`(J1)\frac{g_s}{\pi }`$. It is interesting to note when $`J=1`$, the anomalous dimension cancels. It is what we should expect, since when $`J=1`$ this operator is half BPS operator representing giant graviton in a slightly different direction.

#### Anomalous dimensions for operators corresponding to small fluctuations

In Section 2, we proposed operators (4,5,6) corresponding to small fluctuations of spherical D3 branes, and mapped the dimension of these operators to the excitation spectrum obtained in . Being non-BPS, these operators can develop anomalous dimensions. A calculation almost identical to the one above reveals that the anomalous dimensions of these operators are given by the above $`(J1)\frac{g_s}{\pi }`$ plus terms that are at most of order $`\frac{g_s}{N^2}`$ and are therefore suppressed in the large $`N`$ limit.


text:
# Asymptotically exact dispersion relations for collective modes in a confined charged Fermi liquid

thanks: On leave from Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology, Zelenograd, 103498, Russia

## Abstract

Using general local conservations laws we derive dispersion relations for edge modes in a slab of electron liquid confined by a symmetric potential. The dispersion relations are exact up to $`\lambda ^2q^2`$, where $`q`$ is a wave vector and $`\lambda `$ is an effective screening length. For a harmonic external potential the dispersion relations are expressed in terms of the exact static pressure and dynamic shear modulus of a homogeneous liquid with the density taken at the slab core. We also derive a simple expression for the frequency shift of the dipole (Kohn) modes in nearly parabolic quantum dots in a magnetic field.

The examples of importance of a collective motion of particles range from such old problems as energy losses by fast particles in solids to modern studies of a collective response in semiconductor nanostructures and interaction of clusters and molecules with intense laser radiation. However, only a few exact features of collective dynamics in spatially inhomogeneous many-body systems have been found up to now. The most known result is the Generalized Kohn Theorem (GKT) GKT  or the Harmonic Potential Theorem in a more general formulation HPT . This theorem has been extensively used for construction of approximations for exchange-correlation (xc) potential in Time Dependent Density-Functional Theory (TDDFT) (see e.g. Ref. TDDFT,  and references therein).

In this paper we present another asymptotically exact result which, in some sense, can be viewed as an extension of GKT. We derive the exact dispersion relations for the dipole and monopole plasma modes in a slab of a charged Fermi liquid confined by a symmetric external potential. This result opens a possibility for a direct experimental determination of the dynamic shear modulus of an electron liquid. It can also help to control the accuracy of approximations used to describe dynamics of inhomogeneous systems. It has also direct implications for the theory of surface plasmons in simple metals. In addition we derive a few asymptotically exact relations for dipole modes in quantum dots (QD) and wires in a homogeneous magnetic field.

The collective motion of an arbitrary interacting system obeys the exact local conservation laws:

$`_tn+_\mu nv_\mu =0,`$ (1)
$`mnD_tv_\mu +en(𝐯\times 𝐇)_\mu +_\nu P_{\mu \nu }+n_\mu U=0,`$ (2)
where $`D_t=_t+v_\nu _\nu `$, $`n`$ is the density of particles, $`𝐯=𝐣/n`$ is the velocity, $`U=U_{\text{ext}}+U_\text{H}`$ is a sum of the external and Hartree potentials, $`𝐇`$ is the external static magnetic field and $`P_{\mu \nu }`$ is the exact (generally unknown) stress tensor.

Introducing the displacement vector $`𝐮`$ as $`v_\mu =_tu_\mu `$, we derive from Eq. (2) the linearized equation of motion

$`mn_0_t^2u_\mu `$ $`+`$ $`en_0(_t𝐮\times 𝐇)_\mu `$ (3)
$`+`$ $`_\nu \delta P_{\mu \nu }+n_0_\mu \delta U+\delta n_\mu U_0=0,`$
where $`\delta n=_\mu n_0u_\mu `$, $`\delta P_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\delta U`$ are deviations of the density, the stress tensor and the potential from their equilibrium values $`n_0`$, $`P_{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}`$ and $`U_0`$ respectively. Eigenfrequencies of Eq. (3) define the exact excitation energies of a system.

Let us first consider the dipole modes of a finite system confined in D dimensions by the potential $`U_{\text{ext}}`$ in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field $`𝐇`$. Integration of Eq. (3) leeds to the following exact equation for the dipole moment per particle $`𝐝=\frac{1}{N}𝐮n_0𝑑𝐱`$

$$m\omega ^2d_\mu =i\omega e(𝐝\times 𝐇)_\mu \frac{1}{N}n_0u_\nu _\mu _\nu U_{\text{ext}}d𝐫.$$
(4)
This equation, commonly called the dynamical force sum rule Sorbello , shows the exact decoupling of the center-of-mass and relative motions for an external potential of the form $`U_{\text{ext}}=\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^2x_\mu x_\nu `$ GKT ; HPT . In this case the dipole (Kohn) modes correspond to the rigid motion with the displacement $`𝐮=𝐝=const`$ being the solution to the Newton equation HPT

$$m(\omega ^2\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^2)d_\nu =i\omega e(𝐝\times 𝐇)_\mu .$$
(5)
In practice one often deals with the quasiparabolic QD, where the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}`$ of the confining potential from the parabolic one is small (see Ref. QD,  and references therein). The perturbative treatment of Eq. (4) shows that to the first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}`$ the dipole moment still satisfies Eq. (5) but with the renormalized dynamical matrix $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mu \nu }^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^2`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^2=\frac{1}{N}n_0\frac{^2}{x_\mu x_\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}𝑑𝐫$$
(6)
The corrections to the Kohn-mode frequency has been extensively studied experimentally and theoretically (using approximate many-body methods) QD . The importance of Eq. (6) in this context is that it exactly accounts for the many body effects at the linear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}`$ level. Therefore it can be helpful for studying correlation phenomena such as Wigner crystallization in a few-electron QD (see e.g. Ref. WC-FL, ) by means of far-infrared photoabsorption. The transition to the correlated state, which can be tuned by a magnetic field, changes the density distribution $`n_0`$ and consequently affects the frequency shift according to Eq. (6).

Another useful relation for a dipole mode can be obtained for a system of $`N`$ charged particles confined by a D-dimensional potential (D$`=3,2,1`$) with a spherical (dot), cylindrical (wire) or a slab geometry (we consider the case $`𝐇=0`$). We assume that $`n_0(r)`$ acquires a constant value $`\overline{n}`$ inside a system and vanishes at infinity. The length $`\lambda _0`$ of the density variation at the boundary is assumed to be smaller than the system size $`a`$, which is defined in such a way that the rectangular density distribution $`\overline{n}\theta (ar)`$ provides the correct number of particles $`N`$. Noting that the density fluctuation $`\delta n(𝐫)`$ for the dipole mode is localized at the length scale $`\lambda _\delta a`$ near the system edges, we obtain from Eq. (4) the following result

$$\omega ^2\omega _p^2/D=\frac{1}{ma^D}_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\delta n}(r)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}}{r}r^{D1}𝑑r,$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\delta n}(r)=\delta n(r)/_0^{\mathrm{}}\delta n(r)𝑑r`$ is the normalized radial part of the density fluctuation and $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}=U_{\text{ext}}U_{\text{har}}`$, where the harmonic potential $`U_{\text{har}}=m\omega _p^2r^2/2D`$ corresponds to the same equilibrium density in the internal region ($`\omega _p^2=4\pi e^2\overline{n}/m`$). It is noteworthy that $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}`$ can be arbitrary lage in the edge region as the smallness of the right hand side in Eq. (7) is controlled by $`\lambda _\delta /a`$.

Equation (7) describes the the frequency shift relative to the classical value $`\omega _p/\sqrt{D}`$. The shift is either positive or negative depending on whether $`U_{\text{ext}}`$ is “harder” or “softer” than $`U_{\text{har}}`$. It obviously vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}=0`$ in accordance with GKT. Since $`\delta n(z)`$ has an imaginary part, the collective mode decays due to Landau damping.

For a wire or a slab geometry Eq. (7) gives the frequency at zero wave vector $`𝐪`$. Now we consider a general case $`𝐪0`$, which requires a local treatment of the basic Eq. (3).

Consider a slab with a given sheet density $`N_s`$ confined in $`z`$-direction by a symmetric potential $`U_{\text{ext}}(z)`$. The equilibrium stress tensor can be written as $`P_{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}=P_0(z)\delta _{\mu \nu }+\pi _{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}(z)`$, where $`P_0=\frac{1}{3}\text{Tr}P_{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}`$ is the exact pressure and $`\pi _{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}`$ is a traceless tensor which describes quantum effects. The symmetry requires that $`P_{zj}^{\text{eq}}=0`$ for $`j=x,y`$ and $`P_{zz}^{\text{eq}}=P_{}=P_0+\pi _0`$, $`P_{xx}^{\text{eq}}=P_{yy}^{\text{eq}}=P_{}=P_0\pi _0/2`$.

The equilibrium density $`n_0(z)`$ satisfies the balance equation (the static version of Eq. (2))

$$_zP_{zz}^{\text{eq}}+n_0_zU_0=0,$$
(8)
where $`U_0=U_{\text{ext}}+U_\text{H}`$ and $`U_\text{H}`$ is related to $`n_0`$ by the Poisson equation

$$_z^2U_\text{H}=4\pi e^2n_0.$$
(9)
Combining the relation $`\delta n=_\mu n_0u_\mu `$ and Eq. (3) and considering the plane wave solution $`e^{i(\omega t\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}_{})}`$ we arrive at equation for the density fluctuation $`\delta n_{𝐪,\omega }(z)`$ (indexes $`𝐪,\omega `$ are suppressed below)

$`m\omega ^2\delta n+_z^2\delta P_{zz}`$ $``$ $`q_kq_j\delta P_{kj}+2q_j_z\delta P_{zj}`$
$`+_z\delta n_zU_0`$ $`+`$ $`_zn_0_z\delta Uq^2n_0\delta U=0,`$ (10)
where $`\delta U`$ satisfies the equation

$$\left(_z^2q^2\right)\delta U(z)=4\pi e^2\delta n(z).$$
(11)
Up to this point all transformations are exact. From now on we consider the equilibrium density $`n_0(z)`$ that satisfies the assumption used in the derivation of Eq. (7) note1 .

For a slab geometry the width $`2a`$ is defined as follows

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}n_0(z)𝑑z=2a\overline{n}=N_s.$$
(12)
Let us choose the origin at the slab “edge” so that the center of the slab is at $`z=a`$. Equation (12) implies that the density $`n_0(z)`$ at $`z>a`$ can be represented in the form $`n_0(z)=\overline{n}\theta (z)+\mathrm{\Delta }n_0(z)`$, where $`_a^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }n_0(z)𝑑z=0`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0(z)`$ is localized at the length scale $`\lambda _0`$.

Our assumption allows to determine the asymptotic form of the stress tensor in the slab interior where $`n_0(z)\overline{n}`$ and the gradients of the density vanish. Here $`\pi _{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}0`$ and the equilibrium stress tensor reduces to the pressure $`P_{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}\overline{P_0}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ (all quantities marked with a bar refer to the slab interior). In the same region the local nonequilibrium correction to the stress tensor $`\delta P_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by the asymptotic expression

$$\delta P_{\mu \nu }=\overline{K}_\omega \delta _{\mu \nu }𝐮\overline{\mu }_\omega \left(_\mu u_\nu +_\nu u_\mu \frac{2}{3}\delta _{\mu \nu }𝐮\right)$$
(13)
Within the limits of Landau Fermi liquid theory the bulk ($`\overline{K}_\omega `$) and the shear ($`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$) moduli are real and can be expressed in terms of Landau parameters Vignale2 ; TP . In general $`\overline{K}_\omega `$ and $`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$ have imaginary parts which are related to internal viscosities Vignale2 .

Now we focus on two collective modes at the edges of the slab. These are the lowest antisymmetric (dipole) and symmetric (monopole) plasma oscillations. At $`q0`$ the dipole mode corresponds to the oscillations across the slab (which is the Kohn mode in the case of a parabolic confinement), whereas the monopole mode is a periodic in $`q`$-direction compression and expansion of the slab (2D plasmon). At $`2qa>1`$ the both modes merge into two surface plasmons.

We derive the dispersion relations for these modes with an accuracy $`\lambda ^2q^2`$ for arbitrary values of the parameter $`aq`$, where $`\lambda =\mathrm{max}\{\lambda ,\lambda _\delta \}`$. Let us define an intermediate length scale $`a>l\lambda `$ and integrate Eq. (10) over the region $`(l,\mathrm{})`$. The result of the integration is

$`\omega ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{2}}\left(1\pm e^{2qa}\right)\left[1qz\stackrel{~}{\delta n}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}\right]`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\mu }_\omega }{\overline{n}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta P_{}}{\delta n}}D\right]+O(\lambda ^3q^3),`$
where $`\mathrm{}=_l^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}𝑑z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta n(z)}=\delta n(z)/\delta n`$. The upper(lower) sign corresponds to the dipole(monopole) mode and the function $`D`$ is defined as follows

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi e^2\{\overline{n}\theta (z)z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`|zz^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }n_0(z)\stackrel{~}{\delta n(z^{})}e^{2qa}z\mathrm{\Delta }n_0\}`$
Since both $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0`$ and $`\delta n`$ vanish at $`z\lambda l`$, all integrals in Eqs. (14) and (15) are independent of the lower limit. Equation (14) is, in fact, an implicit dispersion relation.

To simplify integrals $`z\delta n`$ and $`z^2\delta n`$ in Eqs. (14), (15), we multiply Eq. (10) by $`z`$ and $`z^2`$ respectively and integrate over $`z`$ from $`l`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. After calculations we arrive at the following equations

$`m(\omega ^2`$ $``$ $`\omega _p^2)z\stackrel{~}{\delta n}=\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`4\pi e^2q\left(1e^{2qa}\right)z\mathrm{\Delta }n_0+O(\lambda ^2q^2),`$
$`m(\omega ^2/2`$ $``$ $`\omega _p^2)z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}=\delta P_{}/\delta n`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`z\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}D+O(\lambda q),`$
Using Eqs. (14)-(17) and introducing the notation

$$f_\pm =1\pm e^{2qa},$$

we obtain the dispersion relations in the final form

$$\omega _{}^2=\frac{\omega _p^2}{2}f_\pm +\frac{q}{m}\frac{f_\pm }{f_{}}\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}+\frac{q^2}{m}(A_{}+B_{})$$
(18)
with the following coefficients in the second-order term

$`A_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}f_\pm }{\omega _pf_{}}}\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}\right]^2z\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}},`$ (19)
$`B_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\mu }_\omega /\overline{n}+(\delta P_{}+\delta P_{})/\delta n`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`2\pi e^2\left(2z\mathrm{\Delta }n_0f_\pm z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}f_{}\right).`$
Let us analyze Eqs. (18)-(20) in more detail.

If $`U_{\text{ext}}`$ differs from the harmonic potential the main contribution to the dispersion comes from the first two terms in the right hand side of Eq. (18). In the limit $`2qa1`$ the lower mode becomes a 2D plasmon with the universal dispersion $`\omega _+^2=2\pi e^2N_sq/m`$. On the contrary, the frequency of the higher (dipole) mode

$$\omega _{}^2\omega _p^2=qa\omega _p^2+\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}/am$$
(21)
contains a non-universal shift which is proportional to the inverse width of the slab. At $`q=0`$ Eq. (21) recovers the result of Eq. (7) for D=1. However a close inspection of Eqs. (14)-(17) shows that, for a dipole mode, they are consistent only for $`q>\lambda /a^2`$, which seemingly makes the limit $`q0`$ inaccessible. Yet in the region $`1>qa>\lambda /a`$, where Eqs. (14)-(17) are applicable, the dispersion Eq. (21) is a linear function of $`q`$ which is shifted by a constant as given in Eq. (7). Thus, despite Eqs. (14)-(17) are ill defined at $`q0`$, the resulting dispersion relations, Eq. (18), are correct up to $`q=0`$.

In the opposite limit $`2qa1`$ ($`f_\pm 1`$) both modes merge into antisymmetric and symmetric combinations of surface plasmons at two slab surfaces with the same frequency $`\omega _{}=\omega _S`$

$$\omega _S^2=\omega _p^2/2+q\stackrel{~}{\delta n}_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}/m.$$
(22)
In a particular case of the jellium edge $`_z\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}=m\omega _p^2z\theta (z)`$ and we recover the result

$$\omega _s^2=\omega _p^2/2q\omega _p_0^{\mathrm{}}z\stackrel{~}{\delta n}𝑑z,$$
(23)
obtained in Ref. Liebsch,  using the dynamical force sum rule.

The intriguing feature of Eqs. (18)-(20) is a very special role of the harmonic potential. Both the linear term in Eq. (18) and one of the second order coefficients $`A_{}`$, Eq. (19), vanish if $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{ext}}(z)=0`$ Schaich . This is obviously related to GKT GKT . The existence of the exact GKT mode with $`\omega =\omega _p`$ at $`q=0`$ can be easily observed via direct substitution of the rigid-shift solution: $`u_\mu (𝐫,t)=\delta _{\mu z}u_z(t)`$, and

$$\delta n(𝐫,t)=u_z_zn_0,\delta P_{\mu \nu }(𝐫,t)=u_z_zP_{\mu \nu }^{\text{eq}}$$
(24)
into Eqs. (3) and (11) at $`q=0`$ with $`U_{\text{ext}}=U_{\text{har}}`$. Interestingly, the solution Eq. (24) remains asymptotically valid at finite $`q`$ for both modes under consideration. Substituting Eq. (24) with $`u_z=u_z(t)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}_{}}`$ into Eqs. (3) and taking into account the Poisson equation for $`\delta U`$ we obtain the equation

$$_t^2u_z(t)+2\pi e^2\overline{n}\left(1\pm e^{2qa}\right)u_z(t)+O(qz)=0,$$
(25)
which shows the validity of the rigid-motion solution in the region $`z1/q`$ near the edges of the slab. This observation allows to simplify the remaining coefficient $`B_{}`$ \[Eq. (20)\] in Eq. (18). Using Eq. (24) we find that the integrals of the stress tensor fluctuations (the second term in Eq. (20)) are reduced to the equilibrium pressure per particle in the internal region

$$\delta P_{}/\delta n=\delta P_{}/\delta n=\overline{P}_0/\overline{n},$$
(26)
whereas the integral $`z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}`$, which enters the last term in Eq. (20), is transformed to the form

$$2\pi e^2\overline{n}z^2\stackrel{~}{\delta n}=4\pi e^2z\mathrm{\Delta }n_0.$$
(27)
The right hand side of Eq. (27) is, in fact, the potential of a double layer which is formed by the density distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_0(z)`$. On the other hand, the integration of the balance equation Eq. (8) leads to the following exact relation of the double layer potential to the pressure per particle inside the slab

$$4\pi e^2z\mathrm{\Delta }n_0=\overline{P}_0/\overline{n}.$$
(28)
Substituting Eqs. (26)-(28) into Eqs. (20) and (18) we obtain explicit dispersion relations for collective modes in a parabolically confined system

$$\omega _{}^2=\frac{\omega _p^2}{2}f_\pm +\left(\frac{2\overline{P}_0}{m\overline{n}}f_\pm +\frac{2\overline{\mu }_\omega }{m\overline{n}}\right)q^2.$$
(29)
In the surface plasmon regime ($`2qa>1`$, $`\omega _{}=\omega _S`$) this equation simplifies further as

$$\omega _s^2=\omega _p^2/2+2q^2\left(\overline{P}_0+\overline{\mu }_\omega \right)/m\overline{n}=\omega _p^2/2+v_S^2q^2.$$
(30)
This equation relates the dispersion of plasma modes to the exact pressure $`\overline{P}_0`$ and shear modulus $`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$ of a homogeneous electron liquid at a given temperature $`T`$ and density $`\overline{n}`$. Equation (29) shows the absence of Landau damping up to $`O(\lambda ^2q^2)`$. The attenuation is due to the internal viscosity (the imaginary part of $`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$) which is related to the multi-pair excitations. From exact results Eqs. (29) or (30) we can easily obtain the dispersion in any particular approximation. For example, in Random Phase Approximation (RPA), which assumes Hartree approximation at the static level, we have $`\overline{\mu }_\omega =\overline{P}_0`$ TP  and, therefore, $`v_S^2=4\overline{P}_0/m\overline{n}`$ (i.e. $`\frac{4}{5}v_F^2`$ at $`T=0`$). This is times $`4/3`$ of the corresponding coefficient in the RPA bulk plasmon dispersion.

As the exact pressure $`\overline{P}_0(\overline{n})`$ is presently available from Monte-Carlo calculations, Eq. (29) opens a direct access to the complex dynamic shear modulus $`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$ in the range $`0<\omega <\omega _p/\sqrt{2}`$. To determine $`\overline{\mu }_\omega `$ one has to measure the dispersion of plasma modes in a wide parabolic quantum wells using e.g. the grating technique grating . To access the quadratic part of the dispersion, which is governed by the shear stress, one needs thinner grating and, possibly, wider wells than those used in Ref. grating, . Such measurements would allow a direct comparison to recent many-body calculations Conti .

As any exact result, Eq. (29) should help to control the consistency of approximate methods such as different hydrodynamical approaches Bloch ; Dobson1 ; TP  or TDDFT schemes with approximate xc kernels $`f_{\text{x}c}`$ TDDFT .

Let us consider hydrodynamics first. Since the dispersion Eq. (29) is controlled by the shear stress, any hydrodynamics with a diagonal stress tensor $`\delta P_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ Bloch ; Dobson1  does not reproduce the correct dispersion coefficient. In the adiabatic hydrodynamics Bloch  also the dispersion of bulk plasmon is wrong. This problem is removed in the theory of Ref. Dobson1, , which is however valid only for 1D motion, where the tensor structure of $`\delta P_{\mu \nu }`$ is irrelevant. The generalized hydrodynamics of Ref. TP,  gives the exact result since it reproduces the correct structure of $`\delta P_{\mu \nu }`$.

Similar arguments apply to different approximations for $`f_{\text{x}c}`$ in TDDFT. The kinetic part of $`\mu `$, which is equal to the pressure of Kohn-Sham particles, is reproduced correctly. The xc part is, however, $`f_{\text{x}c}`$-dependent. For example, the adiabatic approximation gives no additional xc contribution to the shear stress which is completely a non-adiabatic effect. The consistent result can be obtained using the approximate xc kernel of Ref. Vignale1, . The correct asymptotic form of the stress tensor Eq. (13) was, in fact, one of the requirements in the derivation of this approximation. The dispersion of surface plasmons is an example of physical situation where this asymptotic requirement leads to an observable effect.

The work of I.T. was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and in part by the Russian Federal Program “Integration”.