# Eigenvalue Repulsion and Matrix Black Holes

## 1 Introduction

Since Matrix theory is conjectured to be the discrete light-cone quantization of M-theory, it is natural to use it as a way of investigating the quantum properties of black holes.

Banks, Fischler, Klebanov and Susskind (BFKS) and Martinec and Li, have studied black holes whose entropy, $`S`$, roughly the same as their light-like momentum, $`N`$ . They can be formed by reducing the energy of a highly excited cluster of D0 branes until the momentum of the individual D0 branes is the inverse of the cluster’s transverse size (saturating the Heisenberg uncertainty bound). The transverse size is found by setting the potential equal to the kinetic energy (in accord with the virial theorem). The choice of potential is crucial. The obvious choice, $`v^4/r^7`$, gives the Schwarzschild radius, $`R_s`$. However, at this point the expansion parameter for the potential is 1, so the expansion is on the verge of breaking down .

Nonetheless, once the correct radius is found, Matrix theory makes many correct predictions about black holes: the right mass for a given radius  and the correct long range gravitational potential between equal mass black holes . The constituents have the correct properties to be Hawking radiation . If the particles are treated with Boltzman statistics, the entropy is even correct .

The problem becomes more pronounced when $`NS`$. Simply replacing the D0 branes with bound states and using the $`v^4/r^7`$ potential fails to give correct results. Li identified other terms in the matix theory effective potential that could give the correct radius, but it is not clear why those terms would dominate . Li and Martinec get the correct results using $`v^4/r^7`$ to approximate processes that exchange longitudinal momentum .

Eigenvalue repulsion can be used to find the size of black holes without any knowledge of the potential. Using this size, all of the previous black hole results follow . Eigenvalue repulsion allows the results to be extended to $`NS`$. Because eigenvalue repulsion involves the off-diagonal elements of the matrices, it will be natural to treat the system with Boltzman statistics.

First, I describe eigenvalue repulsion in Matrix theory. Then I find the radius and energy at $`R=R_s`$ and discuss entropy in this case. Finally, I discuss $`RR_s`$. All factors of order one are ignored throughout.

## 2 Low energies and eigenvalue repulsion

To study black holes we need to understand matrix theory in the region where the energy per D0 brane is very low (much less than the plank energy). This will mean two things: First, remote D0 branes are not connected by strings (i.e. the off-diagonal elements between well separated D0 branes are in the ground state).

As the D0 branes get within $`l_\text{p}`$ of each other, the quantum fluctuations in the off diagonal elements connecting the D0 branes also become of order $`l_\text{p}`$, so the D0 branes are able to explore their full matrix degrees of freedom. This region is sometimes called the stadium. The second consequence of the low energy is that the wave-function must be almost constant across the width of the stadium since variations on this scale would require very large kinetic energies.

The flatness of the wave function in the stadium means that we can look to the theory of random matrices for intuition about how the system will explore the full matrix degrees of freedom. It is known that the statistics of random matrices strongly favors matrices with well separated eigenvalues, pushing the D0 branes to the edge of the stadium.

The role of eigenvalue repulsion can be made a bit more quantitative. In the stadium, the distance between two D0 branes is $`r^2=TrX^iX^i`$. For fixed $`r`$, this is the equation for a sphere in 27 dimensions (nine directions times the three independent generators of traceless, antihermitian, $`2\times 2`$ matrices). Since the wave function is relatively flat in this region, the probability that the D0 branes are a distance $`r`$ apart falls off like $`r^{26}`$. That is 18 powers of $`r`$ faster than the $`r^8`$ probability that one would expect for the nine spatial directions. This means that the wave function is strongly dominated by configurations which have the D0 branes near the edge of the stadium. There is no actual potential pushing the D0-branes apart, but this statistical effect is the Matrix Theory manifestation of eigenvalue repulsion.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The gauge symmetry does not affect this result. The gauge field degrees of freedom are removed by going to $`A=0`$ gauge. The assumption that the wave function is flat satisfies the requirement that the state be annihilated by the gauge generators. 

The situation is similar when $`N`$ D0 branes are present. When the separation between *any two* D0 branes falls below $`l_\text{p}`$, new matrix degrees of freedom open up and eigenvalue repulsion turns on. This causes the wave function to strongly favor configurations with size at least $`N^{1/9}l_\text{p}`$, one D0 brane per plank volume.

It has been shown that composite systems of D0 branes grow like $`N^{1/3}`$, much faster than the $`N^{1/9}`$ growth predicted by eigenvalue repulsion . However, this rapid growth is caused by fluctuations in very high energy, off-diagonal elements of the matrix connecting widely separated D0 branes. Only very high energy probes will be able to see these high frequency quantum fluctuations. Eigenvalue repulsion is a zero energy effect, so it should be seen by any probe. Similarly, a low energy probe will be captured by a black hole if its impact parameter is less than $`R_s`$, but a high energy probe (with energy much greater than the mass of the black hole) will be captured at a much greater distance.

## 3 Black holes at the BFKS point

A very highly excited clump of D0 branes has enough mass to create a black hole whose radius is larger than the light-like compactification radius. Lowering the system’s energy will slow the constituent D0 branes until the momentum saturates the Heisenberg uncertainty bound, i.e. the momentum of individual D0 branes is one over the size of the clump. This is the BFKS point . Using the size, $`N^{1/9}l_\text{p}`$, given by eigenvalue repulsion one can find the mean kinetic energy.

$`E_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\mathrm{}}}Tr\mathrm{\Pi }^i\mathrm{\Pi }^i`$ (1)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{R_s^2}}`$ (2)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{RR_s^7}{G_N}}`$ (3)   
We know from the virial theorem that the potential energy will be of the same order as the kinetic energy, so we do not need to know anything about its form.

Other than the form of the potential, this is exactly the system studied by previous authors. As they have observed, this system has the right relationship between mass and radius ,

$$M^2=E\frac{N\mathrm{}}{R}=\frac{R_s^{16}}{G_N^2},$$
(4)   
and gives the correct long range gravitational interaction for equal mass black holes . The constituent D0 branes have the right energy and momentum to be Hawking radiation, should they escape .

## 4 Entropy

To get the correct entropy the D0 branes must be treated with Boltzman statistics . This occurs because the wave function is dominated by states that break all of the gauge symmetry mixing remote D0 branes, even the permutation symmetry.

The large separation between the majority of D0 branes breaks the continuous symmetry down to the permutation symmetry. If all the D0 branes were far apart one could gauge transform all of the matrices into diagonal form simultaneously. Since this diagonalization would only be unique up to permutations, the permutation symmetries would be unbroken.

However, since neighboring D0 branes are near enough to explore the full matrix degrees of freedom, the off diagonal elements connecting them cannot be integrated out . The matrices cannot be simultaneously diagonalized, only put in band diagonal form.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 Here I am using “band diagonal” in a very general sense. The D0 branes will be connected to their nearest neighbors in all nine dimensions. There will be no way to write these matrices as two dimensional arrays with zeros away from the diagonal.  This breaks the permutation symmetry because a gauge transformation that permutes remote D0 branes would take the matrices out of band diagonal form.

For example, consider a situation where D0 branes $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are close together and $`e,f`$ and $`g`$ are close together, but the two sets are far apart. This will be represented by matrices like this (All the 1’s represent terms of order $`l_\text{p}`$, not literally 1):

$$X^i=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}& 1& & & & & & & & & \\ 1& x_a^i& 1& & & & & & & & \\ & 1& x_b^i& 1& & & & & & & \\ & & 1& x_c^i& 1& & & & & & \\ & & & 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& & & & \\ & & & & & 1& x_e^i& 1& & & \\ & & & & & & 1& x_f^i& 1& & \\ & & & & & & & 1& x_g^i& 1& \\ & & & & & & & & 1& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right]$$
(5)   
Permuting the $`b`$ and $`f`$ D0 branes takes the matrices out of band diagonal form:

$$U^{}X^iU=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}& 1& & & & & & & & & \\ 1& x_a^i& & & & & & 1& & & \\ & & x_f^i& & & & 1& & 1& & \\ & & & x_c^i& 1& & & 1& & & \\ & & & 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& & & & \\ & & 1& & & 1& x_e^i& & & & \\ & 1& & 1& & & & x_b^i& & & \\ & & 1& & & & & & x_g^i& 1& \\ & & & & & & & & 1& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right]$$
(6)   
where $`U`$ is the matrix permuting $`b`$ and $`f`$.

The symmetries mixing neighboring D0 branes is not broken at all. However, the number of near neighbors is of order one, so in doing statistical machanics for large $`N`$ the D0 branes should be treated as distinguishable.

This description is similar to the proposal of BFKS in which the D0 branes are tethered to a background configuration . Here, however, there is no firm distinction between the background and the excitations.

## 5 Beyond the BFKS point

At the BFKS point the constituent D0 branes have already saturated their uncertainty bound, so the energy of the system cannot be lowered by further reducing their momentum. They will have to band together into bound states. These bound states will have a larger mass (in the Matrix theory, they are of course massless in M-theory) and will be able to live in a smaller volume with less energy .

The arguments of the previous section would appear to apply to the bound states of Matrix theory, causing them to be seen by low energy probes as large objects. However, even in the large $`N`$ limit, these objects should not have hard interactions for impact parameters greater than $`l_\text{p}`$. Some miracle of the bound state wave function and supersymmetry must cause cancellations that allow the objects to pass through each other without interaction.

These miracles will not occur when the wave functions are excited. In eleven dimensions this corresponds to changing the supergravitons into black holes. Excitations will cause the graviton to break into a metastable collection of $`n`$ smaller gravitons. Each of these is unexcited, and is therefore still able to pass through the others without interaction. The distance at which the eigenvalue repulsion plays a role is still $`l_\text{p}`$.

Consider a system of two well separated bound states, consisting of $`m_1`$ and $`m_1`$ D0 branes each. They will break the $`U(m_1+m_2)`$ symmetry down to $`U(m_1)\times U(m_2)`$. There are $`m_1m_2`$ strings connecting them, each with 8 transverse, complex polarizations. The remaining $`U(m_1)\times U(m_2)`$ gauge symmetry and the $`O(8)`$ rotation symmetry about the axis of separation is enough to relate all of these off diagonal modes, so they must all have the same mass. The mass is given by the separation of the bound states exactly as in the case of two separated D0 branes. When the centers of the two bound states get within a distance $`l_\text{p}`$ of each other, all $`16m_1m_2`$ of these degrees of freedom open up, causing tremendous eigenvalue repulsion.

This bound state cluster picture closely mimics the description at the BFKS point, and has been studied by several previous authors (once the radius is found). Once the radius is found, many of the successes of $`N=S`$ can be carried over in a straightforward manner to $`NS`$. In particular, the mass to radius relationship is correct, the constituent bound states have the right properties to become Hawking radiation, and Boltzman statistics give the correct entropy .

The breaking of the statistics symmetries by off diagonal fluctuations should work for bound states exactly as it did for individual D0 branes, explaining the use of Boltzman statistics.

### 5.1 Newtonian Potential

As a demonstration, consider the potential between two static black holes of different masses.<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 This analysis is similar to the equal mass case studied by Banks et. al. , but differs from Gao and Zhang’s treatment .  We will assume that their separation is greater than $`R`$, where $`v^4/r^7`$ dominates the two body interactions.

It will be much more convenient to use the velocities of the bound states rather than their momenta. The mass of a bound state is $`\mathrm{}m/R`$. Since the bound states that make up a black hole have momenta $`\mathrm{}/R_s`$ the velocities are $`R/R_sm`$.

First, observe that the velocity of the constituent bound states is the boost parameter required to bring the black hole to the rest frame.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{P_{}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{ER}{N\mathrm{}}}`$ (7)   
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R^2R_s^7}{G_NmN\mathrm{}}}`$ (8)   
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{m^2R_s^2}}`$ (9)   
$`=v^2`$ (10)   
Black holes that are at rest relative to each other will be made of bound states with the same velocity, though not of the same momentum.

It will be useful to note:

$`M^2`$ $`=EP_{}=v^2P_{}^2`$ (11)   
$`M`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{vN\mathrm{}}{R}}`$ (12)   
Next, we find the energy shift due to the $`v^4/r^7`$ interaction. Since the velocities of the constituents are roughly the same in the two black holes, $`(v_1v_2)^4=v^4`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G_N\mathrm{}^2}{R^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}m_1m_2{\displaystyle \frac{(v_1v_2)^4}{r^7}}`$ (13)   
$`={\displaystyle \frac{G_N\mathrm{}^2}{R^3}}N_1N_2{\displaystyle \frac{v^4}{r^7}}`$ (14)   
$`=G_N{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2v^2}{Rr^7}}`$ (15)   
Finally, this can be used to find the potential. The potential is much smaller than the masses of the black holes.

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{R}}`$ $`=M^2=(M_1+M_2+V)^2`$ (16)   
$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(N_1+N_2)\mathrm{}}{R(M_1+M_2)}}`$ (17)   
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{v}}`$ (18)   
$`=G_N{\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{R^{}r^7}},`$ (19)   
where $`R^{}=R/v`$ is the compactification radius in the rest frame of the black holes.

## 6 Conclusions

Eigenvalue repulsion predicts the size of black holes without requiring knowledge of the effective potential between the constituent D0 branes, and suggests a mechanism for breaking the statistics symmetry of the constituents. However, this understanding is still rather primitive. Much work will have to be done even to turn the sketch presented here into a derivation of black hole thermodynamics.

Little has been said about the fermion degrees of freedom in this theory. Might supersymmetry cause terms that cancel the eigenvalue repulsion? This does not appear to happen. Supersymmetry requires that fermionic ground state energy cancels bosonic ground state energy. However, eigenvalue repulsion is purely statistical and is not affected by the fermionic states.

I would like to thank Jeff Harvey, Emil Martinec and Miao Li for helpful conversations about these matters.