The M(Atrix) Model of M-Theory

  • Washington Taylor
Chapter
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (ASIC, volume 556)

Abstract

These lecture notes give a pedagogical and (mostly) self-contained review of some basic aspects of the Matrix model of M-theory. The derivations of the model as a regularized supermembrane theory and as the discrete light-cone quantization of M-theory are presented. The construction of M-theory objects from matrices is described, and gravitational interactions between these objects are derived using Yang-Mills perturbation theory. Generalizations of the model to compact and curved space-times are discussed, and the current status of the theory is reviewed.

Keywords

Matrix Theory Poisson Bracket Background Field Membrane Theory Compact Direction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Goldstone, unpublished; J. Hoppe, MIT Ph.D. thesis (1982); J. Hoppe, in proc. Int. Workshop on Constraint’s Theory and Relativistic Dynamics; eds. G. Longhi and L. Lusanna (World Scientific, 1987).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. de Wit, J. Hoppe and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys B305 [FS 23] (1988) 545.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. Shenker, and L. Susskind, “M Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture,” Phys. Rev D55 (1997) 5112, hep-th/9610043.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Banks, “Matrix Theory,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl 67 (1998) 180, hep-th/9710231.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, “Review of matrix theory,” hep-th/9712072.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Taylor, “Lectures on D-branes, gauge theory and M(atrices),” Proceedings of Trieste summer school 1997, to appear; hep-th/9801182.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Obers and B. Pioline, “U-duality and M-theory,” Phys. Rep 318 (1999) 113, hep-th/9809039.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Nicolai and R. Helling, “Supermembranes and M(atrix) theory,” hep-th/9809103.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. de Wit, “Supermembranes and super matrix models,” hep-th/9902051.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Banks, “TASI lectures on Matrix Theory,” hep-th/9911068.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Witten, “String Theory Dynamics in Various Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys B443 (1995) 85, hep-th/9503124.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend, Ann. of Phys 185 (1988) 330.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. J. Duff, “Supermembranes,” hep-th/9611203.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett B136 (1984) 367; Nucl. Phys B243 (1984) 285.ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. de Wit, K. Peeters and J. Plefka “Superspace geometry for supermembrane backgrounds,” hep-th/9803209.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Claudson and M. Halpern, Nucl. Phys B250 (1985) 689.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Flume, Ann. of Phys 164 (1985) 189.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Baake, P. Reinicke and V. Rittenberg, J. Math. Phys 26 (1985) 1070.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Fujikawa and K. Okuyama, “On a Lorentz covariant matrix regularization of membrane theories,” hep-th/9706027; “50(9, 1) invariant matrix formulation of supermembrane,” hep-th/9709044;.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. de Wit, M. Luscher and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys B320 (1989) 135.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Sethi and M. Stern, “D-brane Bound States Redux,” hep-th/9705046.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys B438 (1995) 109, hep-th/9410167.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. J. Duff, J. T. Liu and R. Minasian, Nucl. Phys B452 (1995) 261, hep-th/9506126.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett 367 (1996) 97, hep-th/9510086.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys B460 (1996) 506, hep-th/9510209.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett B76 (1978) 409.ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett B373 (1996) 68, hep-th/9512062.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. Susskind, “Another Conjecture about M(atrix) Theory,” hep-th/9704080.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. R. Douglas, D. Kabat, P. Pouliot, and S. Shenker, “D-Branes and Short Distances in String Theory,” Nucl. Phys B485 (1997) 85, hep-th/9608024.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. Prezas and W. Taylor, in preparation.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    N. Seiberg, “Why is the Matrix Model Correct?,” Phys. Rev. Lett 79 (1997) 3577, hep-th/9710009.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Sen, “DO Branes on Tr’ and Matrix Theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys 2 (1998) 51, hep-th/9709220.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Plefka and A. Waldron, “On the quantum mechanics of M(atrix) theory,” Nucl. Phys B512 (1998) 460, hep-th/9710104.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Porrati and A. Rozenberg, “Bound states at threshold in supersymmetric quantum mechanics,” hep-th/9708119.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Green and M. Gutperle, “D-particle bound states and the D-instanton measure,” hep-th/9711107.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Moore, N. Nekrasov and S. Shatashvili “D-particle bound states and generalized instantons,” hep-th/9803265.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    V. G. Kac and A. V. Smilga, “Normalized vacuum states in N = 4 supersymmetric quantum mechanics with any gauge group,” hep-th/9908096.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. Hanany, B. Kol and A. Rajaraman, “Orientifold points in M-theory,” JHEP 9910 (1999) 027, hep-th/9909028.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. R. Douglas, “Branes within Branes,” in Cargese 97: Strings, branes and dualities p. 267, hep-th/9512077.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Kabat and W. Taylor, “Spherical membranes in Matrix theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys 2, 181–206, hep-th/9711078.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. B. Fairlie, P. Fletcher and C. K. Zachos, “Trigonometric Structure Constants For New Infinite Algebras,” Phys. Lett B218, (1989) 203.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. B. Fairlie and C. K. Zachos, “Infinite Dimensional Algebras, Sine Brackets And SU(Infinity),” Phys. Lett B224, (1989) 101.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    D. B. Fairlie, P. Fletcher and C. K. Zachos, “Infinite Dimensional Algebras And A Trigonometric Basis For The Classical Lie Algebras,” J. Math. Phys 31, (1990) 1088.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    L. Cornalba and W. Taylor, “Holomorphic curves from matrices,” Nucl. Phys B536 (1998) 513–552, hep-th/9807060.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    T. Banks, N. Seiberg, and S. Shenker, “Branes from Matrices,” Nucl. Phys B497 (1997) 41, hep-th/9612157.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Y. Imamura, “A comment on fundamental strings in M(atrix) theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys 98 (1997) 677, hep-th/9703077.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    O. J. Ganor, S. Ramgoolam and W. Taylor, “Branes, Fluxes and Duality in M(atrix)-Theory,” Nucl. Phys B492 (1997) 191–204; hep-th/9611202.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Multiple Dp-branes in weak background fields,” hep-th/9910052.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Berkooz and M. R. Douglas, “Five-branes in M(atrix) Theory,” hep-th/9610236.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Castelino, S. Lee and W. Taylor, “Longitudinal 5-branes as 4-spheres in Matrix theory,” Nucl. Phys B526 (1998) 334–350, hep-th/9712105.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    H. Grosse, C. Klimcik, P. Presnajder, “On finite 4D quantum field theory in non-commutative geometry,” hep-th/9602115.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    T. Banks and A. Casher, Nucl. Phys B167 (1980) 215.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    V. P. Nair and S. Randjbar-Daemi, “On brane solutions in M(atrix) theory,” hep-th/9802187.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Angular momentum and long-range gravitational interactions in Matrix theory,” Nucl. Phys B532 (1998) 227–244, hep-th/9712159.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    D. Kabat and W. Taylor, “Linearized supergravity from Matrix theory,” Phys. Lett B426 (1998) 297–305, hep-th/9712185.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    R. C. Myers, “Dielectric-branes,” hep-th/9910053.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    L. Susskind, Talk at Strings ‘87.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    P. Berglund and D. Minic, “A note on effective Lagrangians in matrix theory,” Phys. Lett B415 (1997) 122, hep-th/9708063.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    M. Serone, “A Comment on the R4 Coupling in M(atrix) Theory,” Phys. Lett B422 (1998) 88, hep-th/9711031.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    E. Keski-Vakkuri and P. Kraus, “Short distance contributions to graviton-graviton scattering: Matrix theory versus supergravity,” hep-th/9712013.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    K. Becker and M. Becker, “On Graviton Scattering Amplitudes in M-theory,” Nucl. Phys B506 (1997) 48, hep-th/9712238.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    R. Helling, J. Plefka, M. Serone and A. Waldron, “Three graviton scattering in M-theory,” Nucl. Phys B559 (1999) 184; hep-th/9905183.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    L. F. Abbott, “Introduction to the background field method,” Acta Phys. Polon B13 (1982) 33; “The background field method beyond one loop,” Nucl. Phys B185 (1981) 189.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Supergravity currents and linearized interactions for matrix theory configurations with fermion backgrounds,” JHEP 9904 (1999) 013, hep-th/9812239.ADSGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    K. Becker and M. Becker, “A Two-Loop Test of M(atrix) Theory,” Nucl. Phys B506 (1997) 48–60, hep-th/9705091.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    M. Van Raamsdonk, “Conservation of supergravity currents from matrix theory,” Nucl. Phys B542 (1999) 262, hep-th/9803003.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    S. Hellerman and J. Polchinski, “Compactification in the Lightlike Limit,” hep-th/9711037.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    W. Taylor, “Adhering 0-branes to 6-branes and 8-branes,” Nucl. Phys B508 (1997) 122–132; hep-th/9705116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    V. Balasubramanian, D. Kastor, J. Traschen and K. Z. Win, “The spin of the M2-brane and spin-spin interactions via probe techniques,” hep-th/9811037.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    P. Kraus, “Spin-Orbit interaction from Matrix theory,” hep-th/9709199.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    S. Paban, S. Sethi and M. Stern, “Constraints from extended supersymmetry in quantum mechanics,” Nucl. Phys B534 (1998) 137, hep-th/9805018.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    J. Plefka, M. Serone and A. Waldron, “D = 11 SUGRA as the low energy effective action of Matrix Theory: three form scattering,” hep-th/9809070.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    K. Becker, M. Becker, J. Polchinski, and A. Tseytlin, “Higher Order Graviton Scattering in M(atrix) Theory,” Phys. Rev D56 (1997) 3174, hep-th/9706072.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    K. Becker and M. Becker, “Complete solution for M(atrix) Theory at two loops,” JHEP 9809:019 (1998), hep-th/9807182 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    S. Paban, S. Sethi and M. Stern, “Supersymmetry and higher-derivative terms in the effective action of Yang-Mills theories,” JHEP 9806:012 (1998), hep-th/9806028.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    S. Hyun, Y. Kiem and H. Shin, “Supersymmetric completion of supersymmetric quantum mechanics,” hep-th/9903022.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    M. Dine and N. Seiberg, “Comments on higher derivative operators in some SUSY field theories,” Phys. Lett B409 (1997) 239, hep-th/9705057.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    I. Chepelev and A. Tseytlin, “Long-distance interactions of branes: correspondence between supergravity and super Yang-Mills descriptions,” hep-th/9709087.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    E. Keski-Vakkuri and P. Kraus, “Born-Infeld actions from Matrix theory,” hep-th/9709122.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    V. Balasubramanian, R. Gopakumar and F. Larsen, “Gauge theory, geometry and the large N limit,” hep-th/9712077.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    I. Chepelev and A. Tseytlin, “On Membrane Interaction in Matrix Theory,” hep-th/9801120.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    M. Dine and A. Rajaraman, “Multigraviton Scattering in the Matrix Model,” hep-th/9710174.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Three-graviton scattering in Matrix theory revisited,” Phys. Lett B438 (1998), 248–254, hep-th/9806066.ADSGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Y. Okawa and T. Yoneya, “Multibody interactions of D-particles in supergravity and matrix theory,” Nucl. Phys B538 (1999) 67, hep-th/9806108.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Y. Okawa and T. Yoneya, “Equations of motion and Galilei invariance in D-particle dynamics,” hep-th/9808188.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    M. Dine, R. Echols and J. P. Gray, “Tree level supergravity and the matrix model,” hep-th/9810021.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    . J Polchinski and P. Pouliot, “Membrane Scattering with M-Momentum Transfer,” hep-th/9704029.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    N. Dorey, V. V. Khoze and M. P. Mattis, Nucl. Phys B502 (1997) 94–106, hep-th/9704197.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    T. Banks, W. Fischler, N. Seiberg, and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett B408 (1997) 111–116, hep-th/9610043.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    S. Hyun, Y. Kiem and H. Shin, “Effective action for membrane dynamics in DLCQ M-theory on a two torus,” Phys. Rev D59 (1999) 021901,hep-th/9808183.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    E. Keski-Vakkuri and P. Kraus, “M-momentum transfer between gravitons, membranes, and 5-branes as perturbative gauge theory processes,” hep-th/9804067.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    W. Taylor, “D-brane Field Theory on Compact Spaces,” Phys. Lett B394 (1997) 283; hep-th/9611042.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    J. Dai, R. G. Leigh, and J. Polchinski, Mod. Phys. Lett A4 (1989) 2073.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    E. Witten, “Bound States of Strings and p-Branes,” Nucl. Phys B460 (1996) 335, hep-th/9510135.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    A. Connes, M. R. Douglas and A. Schwarz, “Noncommutative geometry and Matrix theory: compactification on tori,” hep-th/9711162.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    M. R. Douglas and C. Hull, “D-branes and the noncommutative torus,” hep-th/9711165.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    P.-M. Ho, Y.-Y. Wu and Y.-S. Wu, “Towards a noncommutative approach to matrix compactification,” hep-th/9712201.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Y.-K. E. Cheung and M. Krogh, “Noncommutative geometry from 0-branes in a background B field,” Nucl. Phys B528, 185 (1998), hep-th/9803031.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String theory and noncommutative geometry,” JHEP 9909:032 (1999), hep-th/9908142.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    S. Sethi and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett B400 (1997) 265–268, hep-th/9702101.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    P. Aspinwall, “Some relationships between dualities in string theory,” hep-th/9508154.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett B360 (1995) 13, Erratum-ibid. B364 (1995) 252, hep-th/9508143.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    L. Susskind, “T-duality in M(atrix)-theory and S-duality in Field Theory,” hep-th/9611164.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    W. Fischler, E. Halyo, A. Rajaraman and L. Susskind, “The Incredible Shrinking Torus,” hep-th/9703102.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    M. Rozali, “Matrix theory and U-duality in seven dimensions,” hep-th/9702136.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    N. Seiberg, “Notes on Theories with 16 Supercharges,” hep-th/9705117.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    S. Kachru, A. Lawrence and E. Silverstein, “On the Matrix Description of CalabiYau Compactifications,” hep-th/9712223.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    M. R. Douglas, H. Ooguri and S. Shenker, “Issues in M(atrix) Theory Compactification,” Phys. Lett B402 (1997) 36, hep-th/9702203.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    M. R. Douglas, “D-branes in curved space,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys 1 (1998) 198, hep-th/9703056.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    M. R. Douglas, “D-branes and matrix theory in curved space,” hep-th/9707228.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    M. R. Douglas, A. Kato and H. Ooguri, “D-brane actions on Kaehler manifolds,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1 (1998) 237, hep-th/9708012.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    M. R. Douglas and H. Ooguri, “Why Matrix Theory is Hard,” Phys. Lett B425 (1998) 71, hep-th/9710178.ADSGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    G. Lifschytz, “DLCQ-M(atrix) Description of String Theory, and Supergravity,” hep-th/9803191.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    E. Cremmer and S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett B91 (1980) 61 MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    K. Millar and W. Taylor, in preparation.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, “Multiple DO-branes in weakly curved backgrounds,” hep-th/9904095.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    S. Sethi and M. Stern, “Supersymmetry and the Yang-Mills effective action at finite N,” hep-th/9903049.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    B. de Wit, V. Marquard and H. Nicolai, Comm. Math. Phys 128 (1990) 39.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    D. Lowe, “Constraints on higher derivative operators in the matrix theory effective Lagrangian,” hep-th/9810075.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    J. Polchinski, “M-theory and the light cone,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl 134 (1999) 158, hep-th/9903165.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    L. Susskind, “Holography in the flat space limit,” hep-th/9901079.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, “A Large-N Reduced Model as Superstring,” hep-th/9612115.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde, H. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys B500 (1997) 43–61, hep-th/9703030.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    J. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231, hep-th/9711200.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    T. Banks, W. Fischler, I. R. Klebanov and L. Susskind, “Schwarzschild black holes from Matrix theory,” hep-th/9709091.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    D. Kabat and G. Lifschytz, “Approximations for strongly coupled supersymmetric quantum mechanics,”, hep-th/9910001.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    M. B. Halpern and C. Schwartz, “Asymptotic search for ground states of SU(2) matrix theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys A13 (1998) 4367, hep-th/9712133.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    J. Frohlich, G. M. Graf, D. Hasler and J. Hoppe, “Asymptotic form of zero energy wave functions in supersymmetric matrix models,” hep-th/9904182.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Washington Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Theoretical Physics MITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations