text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, Berenstein, Maldacena, and Nastase (BMN)  argued that the IIB superstring theory on pp-wave background with RR-flux is dual to a sector of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills thoery containing operators with large $`R`$-charge $`J`$. The arguement was based on the exact solvability of the Green-Schwarz strings on pp-wave background obtained from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ in the Penrose limit . In BMN limit, the effective ’t Hooft coupling is $`\lambda ^{}=g_{YM}^2N/J^2`$. Under this limit, the duality allows one to compute the free string spectrum from the perturbative super Yang-Mills theory. Moreover, it was shown in  and  that in BMN limit some non-planar diagrams of arbitrary genus survive, so besides the effective ’t Hooft coupling is $`\lambda ^{}`$, the string interactions in pp-wave also involve genus parameter $`g_2=J^2/N`$. In , it was proposed that the interaction amplitude for a single string to split into two strings (or two strings joining into one string) is related to the three point function of the corresponding operators in the dual CFT, and $`g_2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$ was identified with the effective coupling between a wide class of excited string states on the pp-wave backgound. By this proposal, the authors in  computed the second order correction to the anomalous dimension of the BMN operator from free planar three point functions and found exact agreement with the computation of the torus contributions to the two point function. Other related discussions on the string interaction on pp-wave backgound can be found in .

More recently, Verlinde proposed a string bit model  for interacting strings on the pp-wave background in terms of the supersymmetric quantum mechanics with a symmetric product target-space , . In this interacting string bit model, the ’t Hooft coupling is $`\lambda ^2=g_{YM}^2N`$, but the effective string coupling is identified with the genus parameter $`g_2=J^2/N`$. In , Verlinde presented some evidence that this effective interacting string bit model would reproduce the complete perturbation expansion of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in the BMN limit. In , Verlinde made an assumption that the three-point function in the string bit model should be identified with that in the free SYM theory, so it would be interesting to see how we can use the operetor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to verify this assumption, and whether we can reproduce the results derived from the perturbation expansion of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in the BMN limit, which would give a consistency check for the interacting string bit model on pp-wave background.

Motivated by the above, in the present paper we construct the string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ in the Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model so as to calculate the three point functions and the matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian from the interacting string bit model. The Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model is decomposed into the direct sum of the Hilbert spaces of the twisted sectors , and each twisted sector describes the states of several strings, so the construction of the string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ can be realized by the fact that the vacuum state of a twisted sector corresponds to a ground state twist operator. We show that the three point functions and the matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian derived from the interacting string bit model up to $`g_2^2`$ order precisely match with those computed from the perturbative SYM theory in BMN limit. In our calculation, instead of assuming that the three-point function in the string bit model is the same as that in the free SYM theory, we derive this by exploiting the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that is, we carry out our calculation from the first principles of the the quantum mechanical orbifold model.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review some basic results for the interacting string bit model. In Section 3, we develope some approach to consistently construct the string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ in the Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model. In Section 4, the three point functions and the matrix elements between single and double string states at the order $`g_2`$ and the matrix element between two single string states at the order $`g_2^2`$ are calculated from the interacting string bit model. In Section 5, we present our summary and discussion.

## 2 The interacting string bit model

Let us recapitulate some basic results for the interacting string bit model . One can introduce $`J`$ copies of supersymmetric phase space coordinates $`\{p_n^i,x_n^i,\theta _n^a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a\}`$, with $`n=1,\mathrm{},J`$, satisfying canonical commutation relations

$`[p_n^i,x_m^j]=i\delta ^{ij}\delta _{mn},\{\theta _n^a,\theta _m^b\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{ab}\delta _{mn},\{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_m^b\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{ab}\delta _{mn}.`$ (1)
These $`J`$ copies can be regarded as obtained by the quantization of the $`J`$-th symmetric product $`\mathrm{Sym}_J`$ of the plane wave target space $``$. The Hilbert space of this quantum mechanical orbifold can be decomposed into the direct sum of “twisted sectors”

$`={\displaystyle \underset{[\gamma ]}{}}_{[\gamma ]}`$ (2)
labeled by conjugacy classes $`[\gamma ]`$ of the symmetric group $`S_J`$ described by

$$[\gamma ]=(1)^{J_1}(2)^{J_2}\mathrm{}(s)^{J_s}$$
(3)
where $`J_n`$ is the multiplicity of the cyclic permutation $`(n)`$ of $`n`$ elements. In each twisted sector, one should keep only the states invariant under the centralizer subgroup $`C_g`$ of $`g`$

$$C_g=\underset{n=1}{\overset{s}{}}S_{J_n}\times Z_n^{J_n}$$
(4)
where each factor $`S_{J_n}`$ permutes the $`J_n`$ cycles $`(n)`$, while each $`Z_n`$ acts within one particular cycle $`(n)`$.

The Hilbert space $`_{[\gamma ]}`$ of each twist sector can be decomposed into the grade $`J_n`$-fold symmetric tensor products of the Hilbert speces $`_n`$ which correspond to the cycles of length $`n`$

$$_{\{J_n\}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{s}{}}S_{J_n}_n=\underset{n=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(\underset{J_ntimes}{\underset{}{_n_n\mathrm{}_n}}\right)^{S_{J_n}}$$
(5)
where the space $`_n`$ is $`Z_n`$ invariant subspace of the Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model of $`16n`$ bosonic fields $`p_n^i`$ and $`x_n^i`$, and $`16n`$ fermionic fields $`\theta _n^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a`$. The resulting Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model is a sum over multi-string Hilbert spaces .

Consider the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}`$ that implement a simple transposition of two string bits via

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nm}X_m=X_n\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nm},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nm}X_k=X_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{nm}km,n$$
(6)
with $`X_n=\{p_n^i,x_n^i,\theta _n^a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n^a\}`$. By acting with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}`$ on a given multi-string sector, we get a different multi-string sector via

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}:_\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\text{with }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma \left(mn\right).$$
(7)
When two sites $`m`$ and $`n`$ in the sector $`\gamma `$ correspond to one single string with length $`J`$ or two separate ones with lengths $`J_1`$ and $`(JJ_1)`$, the new sector $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ corresponds to either splitting the single string in two pieces of length $`(mn)`$ and $`(Jm+n)`$, or joining the two strings to one of length $`J`$.

The light-cone supersymmetry generators and Hamiltonian of the free string theory are ,

$$Q_0=Q_{\dot{a}}^{(0)}+\lambda Q_{\dot{a}}^{(1)},\stackrel{~}{Q}_0=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}}^{(0)}\lambda \stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}}^{(1)},H_0=H^{(0)}+\lambda H_\gamma ^{(1)}+\lambda ^2H_\gamma ^{(2)}$$
(8)
with

$`Q_{\dot{a}}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(p_n^i\gamma _i\theta _nx_n^i(\gamma _i\mathrm{\Pi })\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n),Q_{\dot{a}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)\gamma _i\theta _n`$
$`H^{(0)}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_{i,n}^2+x_{i,n}^2)+2\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n),H_\gamma ^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{i}(\theta _n\theta _{\gamma (n)}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\gamma (n)})`$ (9)
$$H_\gamma ^{(2)}=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{2}(x_{\gamma (n)}^ix_n^i)^2$$
(10)
and111From , and , we know that for free string, the $`\lambda ^2`$ is identified as $`\frac{gN}{2\pi }`$ with $`g_{YM}^2=4\pi g`$, so the parameter $`\lambda ^2`$ should be $`\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{8\pi ^2}`$, which is different from that in  with extra factor $`\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}`$.

$$\lambda ^2=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{8\pi ^2}.$$
(11)
The inner product that realizes the combinatorics of the free gauge theory amplitudes in the string bit language takes the form

$$\psi _1|\psi _2_{g_2}=\psi _1|S|\psi _2_0$$
(12)
where $`S`$ is defined as $`S=e^{g_2\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{1}{J^2}\underset{m<n}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}.$$
(13)
The free supersymmetry generators can be split into two terms

$$Q_0=Q_0^>+Q_0^<$$
(14)
and the general supersymmetry generators to all orders in $`g_2`$ are assumed to be

$$Q_0=Q_0^>+S^1Q_0^<S$$
(15)
where the $`>`$ superscript indicates the terms that contain fermionic annihilation operators only, while $`<`$ denotes terms with only fermionic creation operators. The interacting light-cone Hamiltonian can be extracted from the supersymmetry algebra

$$\delta ^{IJ}\{Q_I^{\dot{a}},Q_J^{\dot{b}}\}=\delta ^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}H+J^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}$$
(16)
where $`J^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}`$ is a suitable contraction of gamma matrices with the $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ Lorentz generators $`J^{ij}`$ .

The matrix elements of $`H`$ can be defined by

$$\psi _2|(\delta ^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}H+J^{\dot{a}\dot{b}})|\psi _1_{g_2}=\delta ^{IJ}\psi _2|S\{Q_I^{\dot{a}},Q_J^{\dot{b}}\}|\psi _1_0$$
(17)
from which the first and second order interaction terms can be read off

$$H_1=g_2(U_1+U_2),H_2=g_2^2(V_1+V_2+V_3)$$
(18)
with

$$U_1=H_0\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }H_0,U_2=Q_0^>\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_0^<$$
(19)
and

$$V_1=\frac{1}{2}(H_0\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2H_0),V_2=\frac{1}{2}Q_0^>\mathrm{\Sigma }^2Q_0^<,V_3=[Q_0^>,\mathrm{\Sigma }][\mathrm{\Sigma },Q_0^<]$$
(20)
Here we should point out that $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are derived from the bosonic matrix elements of $`H`$ .

## 3 Construction of the string states in the interacting string bit model

To construct the twisted vacuum states, let us first introduce the ground state twist operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n)}`$ that translates the string bit $`X_I`$ within the individual string $`(n)`$ by one unit

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n)}X_I=X_{I+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n)}I=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(21)
The untwisted vacuum state $`|0>`$ is defined by

$$a_m^i|0>=0,\beta _m^a|0>=0$$
(22)
with

$`x_m^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_m^i+a_m^{i+})p_m^i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_m^ia_m^{i+})`$
$`\theta _n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta _n+\beta _n{}_{}{}^{+})\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n{}_{}{}^{+})`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n^+\right)\stackrel{~}{\theta }_n\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\beta _n\beta _n^+\right).`$
and the untwisted vacuum state $`|0>`$ is normalized as

$$<0|0>=1.$$
(24)
Then the twisted vacuum state $`|n>`$ is defined as

$$|n>=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n)}|0>$$
(25)
with

$$a_m^i|n>=0,\beta _m^a|n>=0,<n|n>=1$$
(26)
which can be easily seen from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n)}`$.

The arbitrary group element $`\gamma S_J`$ has the decomposition

$$(n_1)(n_2)\mathrm{}(n_l)$$
(27)
where each cycle of length $`n_\alpha `$ has a definite set of indices ordered up to a cyclic permutation and generates the action of the subgroup $`Z_{n_\alpha }`$. Due to this decomposition, the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma )}`$, $`V_\gamma `$ can be expressed

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma )}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(n_\alpha )},V_\gamma =\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{l}{}}V_{(n_\alpha )}$$
(28)
where $`V_\gamma `$ is the operator defined in the twisted sector $`_\gamma `$ .

To define an invariant operator $`V_{[\gamma ]}`$, we first introduce the operator $`V_\gamma `$ corresponding to a fixed element $`\gamma S_J`$. Under the group action, $`V_\gamma `$ transforms into $`V_{h^1\gamma h}`$ , so the invariant operator $`V_{[\gamma ]}`$ is the sum over all operators from a given conjugacy class

$$V_{[\gamma ]}=\frac{1}{J!}\underset{hS_J}{}V_{h^1\gamma h}.$$
(29)
Any correlation function of the operators invariant under centralizer subgroup $`C_g`$ should be invariant with respect to the global action of the symmetric group

$$<V_{g_1}V_{g_2}\mathrm{}V_{g_l}>=<V_{h^1g_1h}V_{h^1g_2h}\mathrm{}V_{h^1g_lh}>$$
(30)
and the correlation function

$$<V_{g_1}V_{g_2}V_{g_3}>$$
(31)
does not vanish only if222We should also include $`g_1g_2g_3=1`$, however, the action of the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}`$ on the Hilbert space is defined $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}:_\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma (mn)`$, so only $`g_3g_2g_1=1`$ is selected .

$$g_3g_2g_1=1.$$
(32)
The one-string state operator $`O_p^J`$ considered in

$$O_p^J=\frac{1}{\sqrt{JN^{J+2}}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}e^{2\pi ipl/J}Tr(\varphi Z^l\psi Z^{Jl})$$
(33)
should be identified in the interacting string bit model as

$$O_p^J=\frac{1}{J}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J}{}}a_k^+e^{2\pi ipk/J}\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}b_l^+e^{2\pi ipl/J}\right)$$
(34)
which describes the one-string state and is invariant under the centralizer subgroup $`Z_J`$.

To construct the invariant state $`|O_p^J>`$, we introduce the operator $`O_{p,\gamma _1}^J`$

$$O_{p,\gamma _1}^J=\frac{1}{J}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J}{}}a_{\gamma _1(k)}^+e^{2\pi ipk/J}\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}b_{\gamma _1(l)}^+e^{2\pi ipl/J}\right)$$
(35)
where $`\gamma _1`$ indicates one-cycle, i.e., one-string state. The operator $`O_{p,\gamma _1}^J`$ is invariant under the transformation of the centralizer subgroup $`Z_J`$, and normalized as

$$<0|O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}O_{p,\gamma _1}^J|0>=1.$$
(36)
Then the invariant single string state $`|O_p^J>`$ can be defined as

$$|O_p^J>=\frac{\alpha }{J!}\underset{hS_J}{}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^J\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}|0>$$
(37)
where $`\alpha `$ is the normalization factor which can be determined by

$$<O_p^J|O_p^J>=1.$$
(38)
By the centralizer subgroup $`Z_J`$, the normalization of the state $`|O_p^J>`$ determines

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{J!}{J}}.$$
(39)
The two-string state operator $`O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}`$ can be constructed as

$$O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}=\frac{1}{J_1}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J_1}{}}a_{\gamma _2(k)}^+e^{2\pi iqk/J_1}\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{J_1}{}}b_{\gamma _2(l)}^+e^{2\pi ipl/J_1}\right)$$
(40)
where $`\gamma _2`$ is decomposed as $`(J_1)(J_2)`$ with $`J_2=JJ_1`$, that is, two cycles, and the operator $`O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}`$ is invariant under the transformation of the centralizer subgroup $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$. Then the invariant two-string state $`|O_q^{J_1}>`$ can be described as

$$|O_q^{J_1}>=\frac{\beta }{J!}\underset{hS_J}{}O_{q,h^1\gamma _2h}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _2h)}|0>.$$
(41)
The normalization of the state $`|O_q^{J_1}>`$ gives

$$\beta =\sqrt{\frac{J!}{J_1(JJ_1)}}$$
(42)
where we have used the centralizer subgroup $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$. The two-string state (41) corresponds to the state in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory  and

$$\frac{1}{J_1N^{J_1+2}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{J_1}{}}e^{2\pi iql/J_1}Tr(\varphi Z^l\psi Z^{J_1l})|0>.$$
(43)
The other type two-string state operator $`O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2}`$ can be constructed by

$$O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{J_1(JJ_1)}}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{J_1}{}}a_{\gamma _2(k)}^+\right)\left(\underset{l=J_1+1}{\overset{J}{}}b_{\gamma _2(l)}^+\right)$$
(44)
which is invariant under the transformation of the centralizer subgroup $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$, and normalized as

$$<0|O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2+}O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2}|0>=1.$$
(45)
The corresponding normalized and invariant two-string state is

$$|O_0^{J_1J_2}>=\frac{\beta }{J!}\underset{hS_J}{}O_{0,h^1\gamma _2h}^{J_1J_2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _2h)}|0>$$
(46)
where the centralizer subgroup $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$ is exploited. The two-string state $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>`$ corresponds to the following state in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory  and

$$\frac{1}{N^{J+2}}Tr(\varphi Z^{J_1})Tr(\psi Z^{JJ_1})|0>.$$
(47)
Up to now, we have constructed the consistent string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ in the interacting string bit model. In the next section, we will use them to calculate the three point functions and the matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian in $`g_2`$ and $`g_2^2`$ order.

## 4 Three point functions and matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian in $`g_2`$ and $`g_2^2`$ order

Exploiting the above constructed string states, we first consider the three point function between the single string state $`|O_p^J>`$ and the two-string state $`|O_q^{J_1}>`$ induced by the action $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$C_{pqx}={}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}$$
(48)
with $`x=J_1/J`$.

Inserting (13), (35) and (41) into (48), we have

$`C_{pqx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{(J!)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{h,h^{}S_J}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^{J+}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (49)
$``$ $`O_{q,h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma _2h^{}}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma _2h^{})}|0.`$
By exploiting (30), the three point function (49) can be recast into

$`C_{pqx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J^2\sqrt{JJ_1(JJ_1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{hS_J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m<n}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^{J+}`$ (50)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _2)}|0.`$
Since the state $`|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}`$ is two-string state, to obtain the single string state $`|O_p^J_J`$, the variables $`m`$ and $`n`$ should take the following values

$$1mJ_1,,J_1+1nJ$$
(51)
and the above three-point function can be rewritten as

$`C_{pqx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2\lambda ^2}{J^2\sqrt{JJ_1(JJ_1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{hS_J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=J_1+1}{\overset{J}{}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^{J+}`$ (52)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{mn}O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _2)}|0.`$
Applying the centralizer subgroup $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$, Eq. (52) can be reduced to

$`C_{pqx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(JJ_1)}{J^2\sqrt{JJ_1(JJ_1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{hS_J}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^{J+}`$ (53)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{J_1J}O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _2)}|0.`$
By the centralizer subgroup $`Z_J`$ and the condition (32), we arrive at

$`C_{pqx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(JJ_1)}{J}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _1)}O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}`$ (54)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{J_1J}O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _2)}|0`$
with

$$\gamma _2\gamma _{J_1J}\gamma _1=1.$$
(55)
To simplify the following the calculation, we choose

$$\gamma _1=(1,2,3,\mathrm{}J1,J)$$
(56)
then (55) gives

$$\gamma _2^1=\gamma _{J_1J}\gamma _1=\left(\underset{J_1times}{\underset{}{123\mathrm{}J_12,J_11,J}}\right)\left(\underset{JJ_1times}{\underset{}{J_1,J_1+1,\mathrm{}J2,J1}}\right)$$
(57)
and the operators $`O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}`$ and $`O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}`$ are simply given by

$`O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}}a_m^+e^{2\pi ipm/J}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{}}}b_l^+e^{2\pi ipl/J}\right)`$
$`O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J_1}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J_11}{}}}a_m^+e^{2\pi iqm/J_1}+a_J^+\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{J_11}{}}}b_l^+e^{2\pi iql/J_1}+b_J^+\right)`$ (58)
where we have used the fact that the operators $`O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}`$ and $`O_{q,\gamma _2}^{J_1}`$ are invariant under the transformation of the centralizer subgroup $`Z_J`$, $`Z_{J_1}Z_{J_2}`$ respectively.

Plugging (58) into (54), we get

$$C_{pqx}=\frac{1}{J^2}\sqrt{\frac{JJ_1}{JJ_1}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\pi px}{\mathrm{sin}\pi (\frac{p}{J}\frac{q}{J_1})}$$
(59)
where we have used the relation $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma _1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{J_1J}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma _{J_1J}}|0=1`$ which can be derived by (7) and (55).

In the BMN limit, $`\frac{p}{J}`$, $`\frac{q}{J_1}`$ are very small , so (59) can be written as

$$C_{pqx}=\sqrt{\frac{1x}{Jx}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\pi px}{\pi ^2(p\frac{q}{x})^2}$$
(60)
which agrees with the three point function calculated from the perturbative SYM theory . Here we should stress that the three-point function calculated from the interacting string bit model is (59). Only in the case of the small $`\frac{p}{J}`$ and $`\frac{q}{J_1}`$, the (59) can be rewritten as (60).

The other three-point function including the operator $`O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2}`$ can be calculated in the way like for $`C_{pqx}`$

$`C_{px}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{(J!)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{h,h^{}S_J}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h^1\gamma _1h)}O_{p,h^1\gamma _1h}^{J+}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$``$ $`O_{0,h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma _2h^{}}^{J_1J_2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\gamma _2h^{})}|0.`$
In the similar way, we have

$`C_{px}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(JJ_1)}{J}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _1)}O_{p,\gamma _1}^{J+}`$ (62)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{J_1J}O_{0,\gamma _2}^{J_1J_2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\gamma _2)}|0.`$
Inserting (13), (58), (44), (56), (57) into (62), we obtain that

$$C_{px}={}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\pi px}{\pi ^2\sqrt{J}p^2}$$
(63)
which is exactly the same as that derived from the perturbative SYM theory .

The matrix element of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ between the single string states represents the one-loop contribution due to successive splitting and joining, which can be obtained by factorization

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }^2|O_q^J_{J}^{}=\underset{k,x}{}C_{pkx}C_{qkx}+\underset{x}{}C_{px}C_{qx}=2A_{pq}$$
(64)
where the explicit form of $`A_{pq}`$ is given in  and .

Now let us consider the matrix element between single and double string states at $`g_2`$ order, which corresponds to an operator mixing term in the gauge theory. From (18), we have

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_1|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}=g_2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|U_1|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}+g_2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|U_2|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}$$
(65)
where $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ are defined in (19).

The string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ are eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, the first term in (65) can be easily obtained by exploiting (60)

$$g_2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|U_1|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}=g_2\lambda ^{}(p^2+\frac{q^2}{x^2})C_{pqx}$$
(66)
where $`C_{pqx}`$ is the three point function defined in (60).

To calculate the second term in (65)

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|U_2|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}=g_2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|Q_{\gamma _1}^>\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_{\gamma _2}^<|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}$$
(67)
we give the explicit form for $`Q_{\gamma _1}^>`$ and $`Q_{\gamma _2}^<`$

$`Q_{\gamma _1}^<`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\left[(a_{m+1}^i+a_{m+1}^i)(a_m^i+a_m^i)\right]\gamma ^i\beta _m^{}`$
$`Q_{\gamma _2}^>`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\beta _m\gamma ^i[(a_{m+1}^i+a_{m+1}^i)(a_m^i{}_{}{}^{}+a_m^i)]`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`(\beta _{J_11}\beta _{J1})\gamma ^i\left[(a_J^i+a_J^i)(a_{J_1}^i+a_{J_1}^i)\right]`$
where we have identified the last site $`m=J`$ with the 0-th site $`m=0`$. Then the second term can be recast into

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|Q_{\gamma _1}^>\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_{\gamma _2}^<|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}=X_1+X_2$$
(69)
with

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`g_2\lambda ^2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}}(a_{m+1}^ia_m^i)\gamma ^i\beta _m\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\beta _n^{}\gamma ^i(a_{n+1}^ia_n^i)`$
$`+`$ $`(\beta _{J_1}^{}\beta _{J1}^{})\gamma ^i(a_J^ia_{J_1}^i))|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}`$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`g_2\lambda ^2{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J}{}}}(a_{m+1}^ia_m^i)\gamma ^i\beta _m\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{J}{}}}\beta _n^{}\gamma ^i(a_{n+1}^ia_n^i)`$ (70)
$`+`$ $`(\beta _{J_1}^{}\beta _{J1}^{})\gamma ^i(a_J^ia_{J_1}^i))|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}.`$
After taking the inner product and keeping track of the action of the centralizers, we have333When we calculate $`X_2`$ some contribution from normal ordering arises, which corresponds to a vacuum fluctuation and can be cancelled by the hopping terms in the Hamiltonian .

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{pq}{x}}C_{pqx}`$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{pq}{x}}C_{pqx}`$ (71)
where (60) has been used in the calculation.

Inserting (66), (69) and (71) into (65), we have

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_1|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}=g_2\lambda ^{}(p^2+\frac{q^2}{x^2}\frac{pq}{x})C_{pqx}.$$
(72)
Similary, we have

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_1|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}=g_2\lambda ^{}p^2C_{px}.$$
(73)
In gauge theory, the mixing between single and double trace operators is ,

$$O_p^J(0):\overline{O}_q^{J_1}\overline{O}^{J_1}:(x)=g_2C_{pqx}(1\lambda ^{}\mathrm{ln}(x\mathrm{\Lambda })^2(p^2+\frac{q^2}{x^2}\frac{pq}{x}))$$
(74)
which precisely matches (72).

Finally, we calculate the matrix element between two single string states at $`g_2^2`$ order

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_2|O_q^J_{J}^{}={}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_1|O_q^J_{J}^{}+{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_2|O_q^J_{J}^{}+{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_3|O_q^J_{J}^{}$$
(75)
where $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ and $`V_3`$ are defined in (20).

From (19) and (20), we see $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ have similar structure to $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ with replacing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$. By exploiting the factorization (64), we find

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_1|O_q^J_{J}^{}=g_2^2\lambda ^{}(p^2+q^2)A_{pq},{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_2|O_q^J_{J}^{}=g_2^2\lambda ^{}pqA_{pq},$$
(76)
where $`A_{pq}`$ is the matrix element of the interaction term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ defined in (64).

The matrix element $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_3|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$ can be expressed by the factorization

$`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_3|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2^2{\displaystyle \underset{r,J_1}{}}{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}{}_{J_1J_2}{}^{}O_r^{J_1}|[Q_0^>,\mathrm{\Sigma }]Q_0^<|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$ (77)
$``$ $`g_2^2{\displaystyle \underset{r,J_1}{}}{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|[Q_0^>,\mathrm{\Sigma }]Q_0^<|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}{}_{J_1J_2}{}^{}O_r^{J_1}|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$
$`+`$ $`g_2^2{\displaystyle \underset{J_1}{}}{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}{}_{J_1J_2}{}^{}O_0^{J_1J_2}|[Q_0^>,\mathrm{\Sigma }]Q_0^<|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$
$``$ $`g_2^2{\displaystyle \underset{J_1}{}}{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|[Q_0^>,\mathrm{\Sigma }]Q_0^<|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}{}_{J_1J_2}{}^{}O_0^{J_1J_2}|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$
where in the large $`J`$, we have used the relation $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },[\mathrm{\Sigma },Q_0^>]]=0`$.

By exploiting (66), (69) and (71), (77) can be written as

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|V_3|O_q^J_{J}^{}=g_2^2\lambda ^{}\underset{r,x}{}(p(\frac{r}{x}p)\frac{r}{x}(r\frac{r}{x}))C_{prx}C_{qrx}g_2^2\lambda ^{}\underset{x}{}p^2C_{px}C_{qx}=\frac{g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}B_{pq}$$
(78)
where the explicit form of $`B_{pq}`$ can be found in  and . Inserting (76) and (78) into (75), we arrive at

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_2|O_q^J_{J}^{}=g_2^2\lambda ^{}((p^2+q^2pq)A_{pq}+\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}B_{pq})$$
(79)
which agrees with the result obtained from perturbative Yang-Mills calculation ,

$${}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J(0)\overline{O}_q^J(x)_{J}^{}=(\delta _{pq}+g_2^2A_{pq})[1(p^2+q^2pq)\lambda ^{}\mathrm{ln}(x\mathrm{\Lambda })^2]\frac{g_2^2\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}B_{pq}\mathrm{ln}(x\mathrm{\Lambda })^2.$$
(80)
From (60), (63), (72), (73) and (79), we find that the three-point functions $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|\mathrm{\Sigma }|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}`$, the matrix elements $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_1|O_q^{J_1}_{J_1J_2}^{}`$, $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_1|O_0^{J_1J_2}_{J_1J_2}^{}`$, $`{}_{J}{}^{}O_p^J|H_2|O_q^J_{J}^{}`$ obtained from the interacting string bit model precisely match to those derived from the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM thoery. Instead of identifying the three-point function in the string bit model with those in the free SYM theory , in the above we have exploited the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to carry out our calculation.

## 5 Summary

So far, we have developed new approach to consistently construct the string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ in the Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model in order to calculate the three-point functions, and the matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian from the interacting string bit model. Since the Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical orbifold model can be decomposed into the direct sum of the Hilbert spaces of the twisted sectors, and each twisted sector describes the states of several strings, the construction of the string states $`|O_p^J>_J`$, $`|O_q^{J_1}>_{J_1J_2}`$ and $`|O_0^{J_1J_2}>_{J_1J_2}`$ has been realized by the fact that the vacuum state of a twisted sector can be described by the ground state twist operator. We have shown that for the three-point functions, and the matrix elements of the light-cone Hamiltonian up to $`g_2^2`$ order, the results obtained by interacting string bit model precisely match with those computed from the perturbative SYM theory in BMN limit. We should emphasize that in our calculation, instead of assuming that the three-point functions in the string bit model are the same as those in the free SYM theory, we have derived those from the first principles of the the quantum mechanical orbifold model.

In (1), we have introduced $`J`$ copies of supersymmetric phase space coordinates, and the operator $`O_p^J`$ is identified in the interacting string bit model as (34). In  and , it was shown that the sum should start from $`l=0`$ instead of $`l=1`$ and this small difference has drastic consequences. In particular the operator with sum beginning at $`l=1`$ does not reduce to a chiral primary for $`p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Thus the operator $`O_p^J`$ should be defined

$$O_p^J=\frac{1}{J}\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{J}{}}a_k^+e^{2\pi ipk/J}\right)\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{J}{}}b_l^+e^{2\pi ipl/J}\right).$$
(81)
One may wonder if our results would be changed by introducing $`J+1`$ copies of supersymmetric phase space coordinates, and the operator $`O_p^J`$ instead defined as (81), but after some calculation, we find that is not the case. In the above, the interacting string bit model has been constructed by the harmonic osillators. It would be interesting to construct the interacting string bit model in terms of Cuntz osillators  and see whether both approaches match with each other. We hope to return to these issues in near future.

## Acknowledgments

I thank M. Walton for useful discussion. This work was supported by NSERC.


format: text

text:
# Membrane pinning on a disordered substrate

## Abstract

We investigate interactions between an elastic membrane and a substrate characterized by quenched positional disorder in the height function. We show that the positional disorder transforms the standard secondary DLVO minimum into two separate states: the hovering state characterized by a planar membrane at a finite separation from the interface and a pinned state where the membrane follows closely the asperities of the substrate and is as a consequence quite corrugated. The transition between the two states is continuous and depends on the parameters of the underlying DLVO potential as well as the parameters describing the quenched height-height correlation function of the substrate.

pacs87.16.DgMembranes, bilayers, and vesicles pacs68.15.+eLiquid thin films

In the DLVO theory one usually assumes that when a membrane or in general an elastic manifold interacts with a rigid substrate, the membrane is modelled as flat and the substrate is envisioned as featureless . This leads in a straightforward manner to the secondary minimum of the DLVO theory and to an equilibrium spacing between the membrane and the substrate. Taking into account the elastic degrees of freedom of a membrane can alter this picture drastically, leading to the emergence of Helfrich interaction which may induce an unbinding transition of the membrane. This transition has been clearly shown to be a consequence of the interplay between elastic fluctuations of the membrane and DLVO interactions between the membrane and the substrate . In the present work we are motivated by recent experiments on deposited lipid multilayers on atomically smooth vs. rough surfaces .

These experiments reveal differences in equilibrium lamellar spacings of lipid multilayers in proximity of a substrate that seem to correlate with molecular roughness of the substrate . In order to lay ground for understanding effects of this type it is desirable to relax the model constraint of a featureless substrate and treat it supposedly more realistically as exhibiting (quenched) disorder in the height function. We will analyze the consequences of this new model of a substrate interacting with a membrane and show that it modifies the simplified DLVO conclusions in the sense that the original secondary DLVO minimum now splits into two separate states, characterised by the way the membrane is (de)coupled to the substrate. We call these states the hovering state and the pinned state. The former one is characterized by a membrane in a flat configuration hovering a certain finite distance above the substrate and is directly related to the standard DLVO secondary minimum. The latter one is characterized by a corrugated membrane that basically follows the asperities of the quenched positional disorder of the substrate and is altogether missing from the standard DLVO theory. We stress that our description is unifying in the sense that it combines aspects of mean-field theory , which focuses on the nature of the pinned state; and a straight-forward generalization  of Li and Kardar’s  Gaussian fluctuation theory, which allows for a hovering state determined by the parameters of the DLVO interaction potential. Specifically, we find that for sufficiently strong disorder, the membrane indeed prefers the mean-field pinned state considered by Swain and Andelman. Because of the increased role of substrate disorder fluctuations, in weakly disordered systems the properly self averaged free energy can give way to a hovering state where the membrane is depinned, residing in a minimum related to but different from the usual DLVO minimum, as predicted by Gaussian fluctuation theory.

We introduce our approach by first specifying the model of the membrane and the substrate that interact via a DLVO potential with (for matters of convenience) hydration and van der Waals terms. Formally our analysis owes a lot to investigations of effects of the disorder on polymerized membranes that have been analyzed in a variety of contexts . It is based on the assumption of a Gaussian substrate height distribution function and the application of the $`1/d`$ expansion method 111Strictly speaking what we use is actually a $`1/(d2)`$ expansion. to evaluate the complicated partition function stemming from the replicated Hamiltonian.

The Hamiltonian of a flexible membrane described in the usual Monge parameterization $`u(𝝆)`$, where $`𝝆=(x,y)`$ is a 2D coordinate vector, above a substrate characterized by the height function $`\zeta (𝝆)`$, where $`\zeta (𝝆)`$ is a quenched disorder field describing the profile of the substrate, is composed of three contributions. First of all we have the elastic energy of the membrane, then the interaction free energy per unit surface area between the membrane and the substrate $`V(u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))`$ of the general DLVO form, and finally the free energy contribution of an external force per unit surface area $`\pi `$ pushing the membrane towards the substrate. The total free energy or equivalently the mesoscopic Hamiltonian thus assumes the form

$$[u(𝝆)]=\frac{1}{2}d^2𝝆d^2𝝆^{}𝒦(𝝆,𝝆^{})u(𝝆)u(𝝆^{})+d^2𝝆V(u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))+d^2𝝆\pi (u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆)).$$

Usually one takes for the elastic part the classical Canham - Helfrich - Evans ansatz $`𝒦(𝝆,𝝆^{})=\mathbf{}^4K_c\delta ^2(𝝆𝝆^{})`$, where $`K_c`$ is the bending modulus of the membrane, while the interaction part is composed of the attractive and repulsive DLVO ingredients. Since the interaction part of the Hamiltonian is in general non-linear it is convenient to introduce the following new variable $`B(𝝆)=(u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))^2`$ at every $`𝝆`$ via a functional constraint

$`\delta [B(𝝆),g(𝝆)]`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}d^2𝝆g(𝝆)\left((u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))^2B(𝝆)\right).`$
Clearly the auxiliary field $`g(𝝆)`$ plays a role akin to the self-energy part of the Green function. The two auxiliary fields $`B(𝝆)`$ and $`g(𝝆)`$ just introduced, play the role of fixing the local constraint $`(u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))^2=B(𝝆)`$. They also show up in the partition function where one has to eventually take the trace over these auxiliary fields together with $`u(𝝆)`$. The partition function can thus be written as

$`𝒵[\zeta (𝝆)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟u(𝝆)𝒟B(𝝆)𝒟g(𝝆)e^{\beta ([u(𝝆)]+\delta [B(𝝆),g(𝝆)])}}.`$
The average over the quenched disorder distribution, assuming the self-averaging property of the free energy, is defined to be of the form

$$\overline{(\mathrm{})}=𝒟\zeta (𝝆)(\mathrm{})𝒫[\zeta (𝝆)],$$

where by assumption the disorder probability distribution function $`𝒫(\zeta (𝝆))`$ that characterises the quenched disorder in the height function of the substrate is given by a Gaussian ansatz

$$𝒫[\zeta (𝝆)]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}d^2𝝆d^2𝝆^{}𝒢(𝝆,𝝆^{})\zeta (𝝆)\zeta (𝝆^{})\right).$$

The free energy, after being averaged also over the quenched disorder distribution, is obtained finally as

$$=kT\overline{\mathrm{log}𝒵[\zeta (𝝆)]}=kT\underset{n0}{lim}\frac{\overline{𝒵^n[\zeta (𝝆)]}1}{n}.$$
(1)
With these preliminaries the free energy Eq. 1 can be evaluated via the standard Edwards-Anderson replica trick , where the replicated Hamiltonian $`_n`$ is composed of the replicated elastic term

$$\frac{1}{2}_{i=0}^nd^2𝝆d^2𝝆^{}𝒦(𝝆,𝝆^{})u_i(𝝆)u_i(𝝆^{}),$$

where $`i`$ is the index of the replica, the replicated constraint on the variable $`B_i(𝝆)`$ that now reads

$$\frac{1}{2}_{i=0}^nd^2𝝆g_i(𝝆)\left((u_i(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆))^2B_i(𝝆)\right),$$

and finally of the replicated interaction and external “source” terms

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}d^2𝝆V(B_i(𝝆))+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}d^2𝝆\pi (u_i(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆)).$$

Since we now have Gaussian integrals over the variables $`u_i(𝝆),\zeta (𝝆)`$ we can evaluate them explicitely, while the functional integrals over the auxiliary fields $`B_i(𝝆),g_i(𝝆)`$ can be evaluated on the saddle-point level, with the proviso that there is no replica symmetry breaking. This constitutes the essence of the $`1/d`$ expansion.

After performing all the indicated integrations and taking the $`n0`$ limit, the free energy can be obtained as a sum of the mean-field part 222Not to be confused with the mean-field approach introduced in . The term mean-field is used here strictly as it pertains to the $`1/d`$ expansion. and a fluctuation part. The mean-field part is

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝝆\pi u_0(𝝆)}+\frac{1}{2}d^2𝝆d^2𝝆^{}\chi (𝝆,𝝆^{})u_0(𝝆)u_0(𝝆^{})`$
where the mean-field $`u_0(𝝆)`$ is obtained via minimization of $`_0`$ with

$$\chi (𝝆,𝝆^{})=𝒦(𝝆,𝝆^{})+\delta ^2(𝝆𝝆^{})g(𝝆).$$

The fluctuation part of the free energy is concurrently obtained as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{kT}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝝆𝒢^1(𝝆,𝝆)g(𝝆)}{\displaystyle \frac{kT}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝝆d^2𝝆^{}\chi ^1(𝝆,𝝆^{})𝒢^1(𝝆^{},𝝆)g(𝝆)g(𝝆^{})}`$ (2)
$``$ $`\frac{1}{2}d^2𝝆g(𝝆)B(𝝆)+d^2𝝆V(B(𝝆)).`$
On the $`1/d`$ expansion level the auxiliary fields contribute only at the saddle point. The saddle point equations are now obtained simply by minimizing Eq. 2 with respect to $`B(𝝆)`$ and $`g(𝝆)`$. We will not reproduce the general rather awkward form of these equations but will concentrate on a rather particular solution characterized by $`u_0=const.`$ and $`B=const.`$, implying also $`g=const.`$. In addition to this we will limit ourselves to the conceptually most interesting case of vanishing external confining force, i.e. $`\pi =0`$.

Assuming that the system is homogeneous in the $`𝝆`$ plane we can introduce the Fourier transforms of all the relevant quantities that allow us to write the mean-field equations in a rather simple form

$$u_0\chi (𝐐=0)=u_0g=0.$$
(3)
The saddle point for $`B`$ is obtained straightforwardly as

$$\frac{V(B)}{B}=\frac{1}{2}g,$$

while the saddle point for $`g`$ can be derived in the form

$$B=u_0^2+kT\underset{𝐐}{}\frac{𝒦(𝐐)^2}{𝒢(𝐐)(𝒦(𝐐)+g)^2}.$$

This set of equations has two fundamentally different solutions describing the state of the elastic membrane interacting with a disordered substrate.

1. a hovering state, with $`u_00,g=0`$, characterized by

$$\frac{V(B)}{B}=0\mathrm{with}B=u_0^2+kT\underset{𝐐}{}𝒢^1(𝐐).$$
(4)
2. and a pinned state, with $`u_0=0,g0`$, characterized by

$$\frac{V(B)}{B}=\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{with}B=kT_𝐐\frac{𝒦(𝐐)^2}{𝒢(𝐐)(𝒦(𝐐)+g)^2}.$$
(5)

Obviously, in order to progress we have to assume a certain form for the quenched disorder correlation function. As a simplest approximation we take a spatially short range coupling $`𝒢(𝝆,𝝆^{})=G\delta ^2(𝝆𝝆^{})`$, implying $`𝒢(𝐐)=G`$. Thus we have in the hovering state

$$\frac{V(B)}{B}=0\mathrm{with}u_0^2=BB_c,$$
(6)
where we introduced $`B_c=kT_𝐐𝒢^1(𝐐)=\frac{kT}{G}\frac{Q_{max}^2}{4\pi }`$, that obviously depends on the upper wavevector cutoff in the Fourier space. The first of the above equations determines $`B`$ as a function of the parameters of the DLVO potential (e.g. Hamaker constant, hydration interaction strength etc.). The second one gives the dependence of $`u_0`$ on these parameters.

In order to understand the physical nature of the two phases, we evaluate the average of the separation between the substrate and the membrane that can be obtained as

$$S^1d^2𝝆\overline{<\left(u(𝝆)\zeta (𝝆)\right)>}=u_0.$$

Clearly $`u_0`$ quantifies the disorder averaged separation between the membrane and the substrate. For a finite $`u_0`$ the membrane hovers a finite separation away from the substrate. In order to characterize the hovering state further we evaluate the average square of the deviation from a unit normal to the membrane in the $`z`$ direction given to the lowest order as $`\delta 𝐧(𝝆)\mathbf{}_{}u(𝝆)`$,

$$p^2=S^1d^2𝝆\overline{<\delta 𝐧^2(𝝆)>}=\frac{kTg^2}{2G}\underset{𝐐}{}\frac{Q^2}{(𝒦(𝐐)+g)^2}=\frac{kT}{16\pi }\frac{g}{GK_c}.$$
(7)
Thus in the hovering state with $`g=0`$ not only is the membrane decoupled from the substrate and hovers above it, but is also flat on the average since the mean disorder averaged squared deviation from the normal, $`p^2`$, equals zero at a finite separation $`u_0`$ (see figure).

Obviously the hovering solution exists only for $`B>B_c`$. The hovering line in the “phase diagram” thus ends at the value of the interaction parameters where the solution of $`\frac{V(B)}{B}=0`$ also satisfies $`B=B_c`$. $`u_0`$ thus behaves as an order parameter of a second order phase transition, and $`B`$ behaves as the temperature.

Furthermore the surface density of the adhesion free energy ($`U`$) in the hovering state is given by

$$U=min\left\{\frac{}{S}\right\}=V(B)=V(u_0^2+B_c).$$

This obviously differs from the standard secondary minimum of the DLVO theory, determined from $`\frac{V(u_0)}{u_0}=0`$, with $`U=V(u_0)`$. The free energy in the hovering state is thus not given by the value of the DLVO potential at the minimum $`V(u_0)`$, but at a (much smaller) value of $`V(u_0^2+B_c)`$, since $`V`$ is a decreasing function of its argument above its minimum.

In the hovering state the membrane is obviously in close proximity (“contact”) of the substrate only for a fraction of its total surface area. This effective contact area ($`S_c`$) can be estimated  from

$$\frac{S_c}{S}=\frac{V(u_0^2+B_c)}{V(u_0^2)}.$$

In view of the discussion presented above, this ratio is smaller then one if $`V`$ is a decreasing function of its argument above its minimum value.

For the pinned state, with $`𝒦(𝐐)=Q^4K_c`$, we obtain the following expression to the lowest order in the wavevector cutoff $`Q_{max}`$

$$\frac{V(B)}{B}=\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{with}B=B_c\frac{3kT}{16G}\sqrt{\frac{g}{K_c}},$$

where $`B_c`$ is defined in the same way as in the hovering state. The adhesion free energy in the pinned state, defined in complete analogy with the hovering state, is given by

$$U=V(B)+\frac{kTK_c}{4\pi G}\left(\frac{g}{K_c}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}=V(B)+\frac{16^3}{4\pi 3^3}\frac{K_cG^2}{(kT)^2}\left(B_cB\right)^3.$$

In the pinned state the membrane is thus coupled to the substrate and follows it closely, being always in its close proximity since $`u_0=0`$ (see figure). It thus exhibits a very corrugated configuration. This follows again from Eq. 7 since in the pinned state $`p^20`$. We note that for non-zero external driving force $`\pi `$ the system is always in the pinned state.

The adhesion energy in both states is nowhere in general equal to its DLVO counterpart. Both, the hovering as well as the pinned states carry in the free energy the signature of the substrate disorder in the height-height correlations. Only in the limit of vanishing disorder, or in the language of our model as $`G\mathrm{}`$, does the hovering state approach the DLVO secondary minimum in a continuous fashion, while the pinned state simply disappears.

In order to gain further insight into the nature of the hovering and the pinned states we investigate the phase diagram for a particular typical choice of the DLVO interaction potential augmented by the Helfrich undulation interaction. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the DLVO part is given by the sum of the hydration and van der Waals interactions while the Helfrich interaction is assumed to have the same form as between a flexible membane and a flat substrate , thus

$$V(u)=Ae^{u/\xi }\frac{H}{12\pi u^2}+\frac{6\pi ^2(kT)^2}{256K_cu^2}$$
(8)
where $`A`$ is the magnitude and $`\xi `$ the range of the hydration interaction, and treat the Hamaker constant $`H`$ as a variable tuning parameter. The above form of the total interaction energy between a membrane and a substrate would be strictly valid only for a membrane fluctuating near a flat substrate. However Swain and Andelman note  that the form of the Helfrich interaction should not be far off from the one in the above expression even for a rough substrate. We assume this is the case when we analyze the phase diagram for a membrane near a disordered substrate. This assumption would however have to be tested via a more sophisticated and hopefully more accurate approach.

Without the disorder the interaction potential Eq. 8 leads to an unbinding transtion at the critical value of the Hamaker constant equal to $`H_c=\frac{72\pi ^3(kT)^2}{256K_c}`$. When $`H`$ approaches this value the secondary DLVO minimum is displaced towards infinity and we have a continuous unbinding of the membrane. Adding disorder to this scenario we instead obtain a modified phase diagram as presented on the figure. There is now a window corresponding to the hovering state (the former DLVO secondary minimum) in between the pinned and the unbound state of the membrane. The dimensions of this window depend on the value of $`𝒢`$ that characterizes the intensity of the substrate disorder. In the limit of no disorder $`𝒢\mathrm{}`$ with $`B_c0`$ the hovering window is expanded to the whole axis $`H>H_c`$ and is tranformed back into the standard DLVO secondary mimimum.

The disorder usually does not figure in the theories of membrane substrate interactions. The present work is basically a plea for a change of this perspective. There obviously exist phenomena, where ignoring the disordered nature of the substrate does not, even qualitatively, lead to the correct physical picture. In this sense the DLVO theory has to be ammended.

Acknowledgement

MEMPHYS - Center for Biomembrane Physics of the University of Southern Denmark is funded by the Danish Natural Science Research Council.