Expanding (3+1)-dimensional universe from a Lorentzian matrix model for superstring theory in (9+1)-dimensions

Sang-Woo Kim1 , Jun Nishimura2,3 , and Asato Tsuchiya4

Department of Physics, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan 2 KEK Theory Center, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan 3 Department of Particle and Nuclear Physics, School of High Energy Accelerator Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI), Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan 4 Department of Physics, Shizuoka University, 836 Ohya, Suruga-ku, Shizuoka 422-8529, Japan (Dated: August 2011; preprint: KEK-TH-1484, OU-HET-720-2011) We reconsider the matrix model formulation of type IIB superstring theory in (9+1)-dimensional space-time. Unlike the previous proposal in which the Wick rotation was used to make the model well-dened, we regularize the Lorentzian model by introducing infrared cutos in both the spatial and temporal directions. Monte Carlo studies reveal that the two cutos can be removed in the large-N limit and that the theory thus obtained has no parameters other than one scale parameter. Moreover, we nd that three out of nine spatial directions start to expand at some critical time, after which the space has SO(3) symmetry instead of SO(9).
PACS numbers: 11.25.-w; 11.25.Sq
1

arXiv:1108.1540v2 [hep-th] 7 Sep 2011

Introduction. One of the most fundamental questions concerning our universe is: why we live in (3+1)dimensional space-time, and why the universe is expanding. The aim of this Letter is to provide some evidence that these facts can be derived from a nonperturbative formulation of superstring theory in (9+1) dimensions based on matrix models. Motivated by recent developments in understanding the dynamics of the previously proposed Euclideanized model, we propose to regularize the SO(9, 1) symmetric Lorentzian model without Wick rotation. Our Monte Carlo results demonstrate, among other things, that three out of nine spatial directions start to expand in the early universe. We expect that what we are doing here is essentially a rst-principle calculation of the unied theory including quantum gravity. This may be contrasted with the quantum cosmology in the early 80s that aimed at describing the birth of the universe [1] within the mini-superspace approximation. More recently, a nonperturbative approach to quantum gravity has been pursued using the causal dynamical triangulation [2]. For earlier works that put forward the idea to use matrices for cosmology, see refs. [3, 4]. Matrix model for superstrings. Superstring theory not only provides a most natural candidate for a consistent theory of quantum gravity but also enables unied description of all the interactions and the matters. A crucial problem is that we do not yet have a well-established nonperturbative formulation, which would be needed in addressing dynamical issues such as the determination of space-time dimensionality [5]. In the 90s, there was a remarkable progress in understanding the nonperturbative aspects of superstring theory based on D-branes, which are semi-classical objects analogous to solitons in quantum eld theory. Most importantly, it was noticed that large-N matrices are the appropriate microscopic degrees of freedom which are

useful in formulating superstring theory in a nonperturbative manner [79]. In particular, the type IIB matrix model, which has manifest SO(10) symmetry, was proposed as a nonperturbative formulation of type IIB superstring theory in ten-dimensional space-time [8]. It was also realized that the ve types of superstring theory in ten dimensions are just dierent descriptions of the same theory. Therefore, it was speculated that the type IIB matrix model actually describes the unique underlying theory, although it takes the form that has explicit connection to perturbative type IIB superstring theory. In the type IIB matrix model, the space-time is represented by ten bosonic N N traceless Hermitian matrices [10]. The dynamical generation of four-dimensional space-time would therefore require the spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) of SO(10) down to SO(4). This issue was addressed by the Gaussian expansion method [1113]. Recently, systematic calculation of the free energy has been performed for SO(d) symmetric vacua with 2 d 7, and it is found that d = 3 gives the minimum [13]. Furthermore, the ratio of the space-time extent in the extended directions to that in the shrunken directions is shown to be nite. These results, if true, suggest the necessity for reconsidering the formulation in order to make any connection to the real world. Matrix model with SO(9,1) symmetry. Our starting point is the action S = Sb + Sf , where 1 Sb = 2 tr [A , A ][A , A ] , 4g 1 Sf = 2 tr ( C ) [A , ] , (1) 2g with A ( = 0, , 9) and ( = 1, , 16) being N N traceless Hermitian matrices. The Lorentz indices and are contracted using the metric = diag(1, 1, , 1). The 16 16 matrices are tendimensional gamma matrices after the Weyl projection,

2 and the unitary matrix C is the charge conjugation matrix. The action has manifest SO(9,1) symmetry, where A and transform as a vector and a Majorana-Weyl spinor, respectively. The type IIB matrix model, which has SO(10) symmetry, can be obtained from this action by the Wick rotation A0 = iA10 . The two models are interchangeable at the perturbative level, but the nonperturbative dynamics has only been discussed in the Euclidean model [14]. A crucial dierence is that the bosonic part of the action in the Euclidean model is positive denite, whereas in the Lorentzian model it is tr (F F ) = tr (F0i )2 + tr (Fij )2 , (2) quantum eld theories in Minkowski space. As is commonly done in integrating oscillating functions, we introduce the convergence factor e|Sb | and take the 0 limit after the integration. The partition function can then be rewritten as

Z=

dA
0

dr

1 tr (Ai )2 r eiSb |Sb | Pf M , N (5)

where the integration over A is assumed to be restricted by the constraint (4). After rescaling the variables A r1/2 A in the integrand, we integrate over r and get

where F = i[A , A ] are Hermitian matrices, and hence the two terms in (2) have opposite signs. We dene the partition function of the Lorentzian model by Z= dA d eiS = dA eiSb Pf M(A) , (3)

dr r
0

2 18 2 (N 1)1

er

(iSb |Sb |)

1 |S b |
18 2 4 (N 1)

, (6)

which diverges for Sb = 0. In order to cure this divergence, we introduce a constraint 1 tr (Ai )2 L2 N (7)

where the Pfaan Pf M(A) appears from integrating out the fermionic matrices . Note that in the Euclidean model, the Pfaan is complex in general, and its phase plays a crucial role in the aforementioned SSB of SO(10) symmetry [16, 17]. On the other hand, the Pfaan in the Lorentzian model is real. Therefore, the mechanism of SSB that was identied in the Euclidean model is absent in the Lorentzian model. In the denition (3), we have replaced the Boltzmann weight eS used in the Euclidean model by eiS . This is theoretically motivated from the connection to the worldsheet theory [8]. The partition function (3) can also be obtained formally from pure N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in (9 + 1) dimensions by dimensional reduction. Note, however, that the expression (3) is illdened and requires appropriate regularization in order to make any sense out of it. This is in striking contrast to the Euclidean model, in which the partition function is shown to be nite without any regularization [18, 19]. It turns out that the integration over A0 is divergent, 1 even if we x N tr (Ai )2 to a constant. In order to cure this divergence, we introduce a constraint 1 1 tr (A0 )2 tr (Ai )2 , N N (4)

in the original ensemble (5). Then the integration do1 main for r becomes [0, L2 ], and one obtains ( L 4 + 2 18 4 (N 1) instead of (6), where c is some constant. c |S b |) For suciently large L and N , we can practically replace it by the constraint Sb = 0. Thus we arrive at the model Z= dA 1 tr (F F ) C Pf M(A) N 1 1 tr (Ai )2 1 tr (A0 )2 N N

(8)

which is invariant under the scale transformation A A . Note that this constraint generically breaks SO(9,1) symmetry down to SO(9). In fact one can rewrite (4) in an SO(9,1) symmetric manner. From that point of view, imposing (4) corresponds to gauge xing the boost 1 0 )2 with A = O A symmetry by requiring that N tr (A be minimized with respect to O SO(9, 1). Let us note that eiSb in the partition function (3) is a phase factor just as in the path-integral formulation of

where (x) is the Heaviside step function. The constant C should be set to zero according to our derivation. If we consider the C < 0 case, the model (8) may be viewed as the matrix model motivated from the space-time uncertainty principle [20] with the regularization in the second line, which we nd to be necessary. Since the Pfaan Pf M(A) is real in the present Lorentzian case, the model (8) can be studied by Monte Carlo simulation without the sign problem. Note that this is usually not the case for quantum eld theories in Minkowski space. Monte Carlo results. We perform Monte Carlo simulation of the model (8) with C = 0 by using the Rational Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm [21], which is quite standard in recent simulations of quantum chromodynamics including the eects of dynamical quarks. In order to see the time evolution, we diagonalize A0 , and dene the eigenvectors |ta corresponding to the eigenvalues ta of A0 (a = 1, , N ) with the specic order t1 < < tN . In the large-N limit we have more and more eigenvalues of A0 within a xed range | t| t. Therefore we dene n n matri(ab) (t) t +a |Ai |t +b with 1 a, b n and ces A i n 1 t = n a=1 t +a for = 0, , (N n). These matrices represent the 9d space structure at xed time t.

3
1 i (t)2 . In Fig. 1 we plot the extent of space R(t)2 n tr A Since the result is symmetric under the time reection t t, we only show the results for t < 0. There is a critical , beyond which the peak at t = 0 starts to grow.

0.5 eigenvalues of Tij(t) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -2.5 -2 -1.5 t -1 -0.5 0

1.5 R(t)
2

=0.5 =1.0 =2.0 =4.0 =8.0

0.5

0 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 t -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

FIG. 2: The 9 eigenvalues of Tij (t) with N = 16 and n = 4 are plotted as a function of t for = 4.0. After the critical time tc , 3 eigenvalues become larger, suggesting that the SO(9) symmetry is spontaneously broken down to SO(3).

FIG. 1: The extent of space R(t)2 with N = 16 and n = 4 is plotted as a function of t for ve values of . The peak at t = 0 starts to grow at some critical .

Next we study the spontaneous breaking of the SO(9) symmetry. As an order parameter, we dene the 9 9 (positive denite) real symmetric tensor Tij (t) = 1 i (t)A j (t) , tr A n (9)

which is an analog of the moment of inertia tensor. The 9 eigenvalues of Tij (t) are plotted against t in Fig. 2 for = 4.0. We nd that 3 largest eigenvalues of Tij (t) start to grow, which suggests that the SO(9) symmetry is spontaneously broken down to SO(3) after the critical time tc . Note that R(t)2 is given by the sum of 9 eigenvalues of Tij (t). Mechanism of the SSB. The SSB of SO(9) looks mysterious at rst sight, but we can actually understand the mechanism quite intuitively. Let us consider the case in which is large. Then the rst term of (2) becomes a large negative value, and therefore the second term has to become large in order to satisfy the constraint on 1 tr (Ai )2 = 1, however, it is Sb . Due to the constraint N more ecient to maximize the second term of (2) at some xed time. The system actually chooses the middle point t = 0, where the suppression on Ai from the rst term of (2) becomes the least. This explains why the peak of R(t) at t = 0 grows as we increase . Let us then consider a simplied question: what is the 1 conguration of Ai which gives the maximum N tr (Fij )2 1 2 with xed N tr (Ai ) = 1. Using the Lagrange multiplier , we maximize the function G = tr (Fij )2 tr (Ai )2 . Taking the derivative with respect to Ai , we obtain 2 [Aj , [Aj , Ai ]] Ai = 0. This equation can be solved if

Ai = Li for i d, and Ai = 0 for d < i 9, where Li are the representation matrices of a compact semi-simple Lie algebra with d generators. Clearly d should be less than or equal to 9. It turns out that the maximum of 1 2 N tr (Fij ) is achieved for the SU(2) algebra, which has 1 repred = 3, with Li being the direct sum of the spin- 2 sentation and (N 2) copies of the trivial representation. This implies that the SO(9) symmetry is broken down to SO(3) symmetry. The spontaneous symmetry breaking can thus be understood as a classical eect in the limit. When we tune with increasing N as described below, quantum eects become important. We have con9 i (t)2 has rmed [22] that the n n matrix Q = i=1 A quite a continuous eigenvalue distribution, which implies that the space is not like a two-dimensional sphere as one might suspect from the classical picture. Removing the cutos. Let us briey discuss how one can remove the infrared cutos and L. We have obtained preliminary results [22], which suggest that the large-N scaling behavior of R(t) is obtained for = N p (p > 0) in the broken phase. Therefore the constraint (4) can be removed in the large-N limit. In this way, one obtains dierent scaling curves of R(t) for dierent . Let us choose the scale so that the size of the universe R(tc ) at the critical time becomes unity. We also shift the time so that the critical time becomes the origin. Then the extent of time is found to increase with in such a way that the results at xed time coincide. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3, where we nd a reasonable scaling behavior for N = 16 with = 2.0, 4.0, 8.0. The rescaling by R(tc ) corresponds to increasing L for larger . Thus the constraint (7) can be removed by taking the limit. The resulting theory has no parameter other than one scale parameter. The two lim-

4 its N and correspond to the continuum limit and the innite volume limit in eld theory, respectively. As one takes these two limits, the extent of time increases, and the size of the universe can become very large at later time. In fact, supersymmetry of the model plays an important role here [22].
10 8 R(t) /R(tc)
2

at Yukawa Institute. S.-W.K. is supported by Grant-inAid for Scientic Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (No. 20105002). J.N. and A.T. is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientic Research (No. 19340066, 19540294, 20540286 and 23244057) from JSPS.

=2.0 =4.0 =8.0

6 4

[1]

[2]
2

[3]
0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 (t-tc)/R(tc) 2 3 4

[4]

FIG. 3: Our data for R(t)2 in the broken phase shown in Fig. 1 are replotted against the shifted time t tc in units of the size of the universe R(tc ) at the critical time.

Summary. In this paper we have made a new proposal for the nonperturbative formulation of type IIB superstring theory in ten dimensions. Instead of making the Wick rotation to obtain a well-dened model, we introduce the infrared cutos on both the spatial and temporal directions. We nd that the two cutos can be removed in the large-N limit, and that the theory thus obtained has no parameters other than one scale parameter. The SO(9) symmetry breaks down to SO(3) at some critical time, and the size of the three-dimensional space increases with time. The cosmological singularity is naturally avoided due to noncommutativity. There are a lot of questions that should be addressed in our model. One of the most urgent questions is whether a local eld theory on a commutative space-time appears at the low energy scale. A possible way is to calculate correlation functions of the Wilson loop operators [23]. If this question is answered in the armative, we consider it very likely that our model really describes the birth of our universe from rst principles. The next step would be to show that the four fundamental interactions and the matter elds appear in our universe at later time. For that we need to change the scale from the Planck scale to the TeV scale, which may require constructing a framework similar to the renormalization group or the low energy eective theory. Acknowledgments. We thank H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, Y. Sekino and S. Yamaguchi for discussions. Computations were carried out on SR16000

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Electronic address: sang@het.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp Electronic address: jnishi@post.kek.jp Electronic address: satsuch@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 117, 25 (1982); Phys. Rev. D 30, 509 (1984); J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983). J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll, Phys. Rev. D 72, 064014 (2005). D. Z. Freedman, G. W. Gibbons, and M. Schnabl, AIP Conf. Proc. 743, 286 (2005); B. Craps, S. Sethi, and E. P. Verlinde, JHEP 0510, 005 (2005). T. Matsuo, D. Tomino, W. Y. Wen and S. Zeze, JHEP 0811, 088 (2008); S. R. Das and J. Michelson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 086005 (2005); M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 626, 202 (2005); B. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 632, 393 (2006); J. H. She, JHEP 0601, 002 (2006); E. J. Martinec, D. Robbins and S. Sethi, JHEP 0608, 025 (2006); T. Ishino and N. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B 638, 105 (2006); D. Klammer and H. Steinacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 221301 (2009); J. Lee and H. S. Yang, arXiv:1004.0745. See ref. [6] for a scenario based on string-gas cosmology. R. H. Brandenberger and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B316, 391 (1989). T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5112 (1997). N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and A. Tsuchiya, Nucl. Phys. B498, 467 (1997). R. Dijkgraaf, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. B500, 43 (1997). H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and T. Tada, Prog. Theor. Phys. 99, 713 (1999). J. Nishimura and F. Sugino, JHEP 0205, 001 (2002). H. Kawai, S. Kawamoto, T. Kuroki, T. Matsuo, and S. Shinohara, Nucl. Phys. B647, 153 (2002); T. Aoyama and H. Kawai, Prog. Theor. Phys. 116, 405 (2006). J. Nishimura, T. Okubo and F. Sugino, arXiv:1108.1293. See ref. [15] for a recent study of new classical solutions in the Lorenzian model. H. Steinacker, arXiv:1106.6153. J. Nishimura and G. Vernizzi, JHEP 0004, 015 (2000); Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4664 (2000). K. N. Anagnostopoulos and J. Nishimura, Phys. Rev. D 66, 106008 (2002). W. Krauth, H. Nicolai, and M. Staudacher, Phys. Lett. B 431, 31 (1998). P. Austing and J. F. Wheater, JHEP 0104 , 019 (2001). T. Yoneya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 97, 949 (1997). M. A. Clark, A. D. Kennedy, and Z. Sroczynski, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 140, 835 (2005). S.-W. Kim, J. Nishimura, and A. Tsuchiya, work in progress. M. Fukuma, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and A. Tsuchiya, Nucl. Phys. B510, 158 (1998).