Toward holographic reconstruction of bulk geometry from lattice simulations

Journal of High Energy Physics, Feb 2018

Enrico Rinaldi, Evan Berkowitz, Masanori Hanada, Jonathan Maltz, Pavlos Vranas

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FJHEP02%282018%29042.pdf

Toward holographic reconstruction of bulk geometry from lattice simulations

HJE Toward holographic reconstruction of bulk geometry from lattice simulations Enrico Rinaldi 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 h Evan Berkowitz 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 Masanori Hanada 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 Jonathan Maltz 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 Pavlos Vranas 1 2 4 8 9 10 11 Livermore CA 1 2 4 9 10 11 U.S.A. 1 2 4 9 10 11 0 The Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto University 1 Kitashirakawa Oiwakecho , Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502 , Japan 2 Stanford , CA 94305 , U.S.A 3 Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics, Stanford University 4 Forschungszentrum Julich , 52425 Julich , Germany 5 Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University 6 RIKEN-BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory 7 Institut fur Kernphysik and Institute for Advanced Simulation 8 Nuclear and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 9 Berkeley , CA 94720 , U.S.A 10 Yoshida Ushinomiyacho , Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501 , Japan 11 derivative given by (D A black hole described in SU(N ) gauge theory consists of N D-branes. By separating one of the D-branes from others and studying the interaction between them, the black hole geometry can be probed. In order to obtain quantitative results, we employ the lattice Monte Carlo simulation. As a proof of the concept, we perform an explicit calculation in the matrix model dual to the black zero-brane in type IIA string theory. We demonstrate this method actually works in the high temperature region, where the stringy correction is large. We argue possible dual gravity interpretations. Black Holes in String Theory; Lattice Quantum Field Theory; Gauge-gravity 1 Introduction 2 3 4 realized that the eigenvalue distribution of the matrices is closely related to the geometry [2{ 5]. From the point of view of superstring/M-theory, eigenvalues correspond to the positions of D-branes and various objects can be constructed simply as bound states of D-branes and open strings [6, 7]. The large-N volume reduction is then analogous to the emergence of higher dimensional branes from lower dimensional branes, e.g. D(p + 2)-branes from D(p)-branes via the Myers e ect [8]. Although such approaches have been successful for various purposes, they have not su ciently demonstrated how to understand the emergent geometry in holography [9{11] because it is necessary to understand how dimensions transverse to the branes emerge. Most of the recent studies concentrate on conformal eld theories dual to AdS spaces, and consider the construction of bulk local operators from non-local operators on the boundary [12{15]. In this paper, we propose | or rather, revisit | a simple method, { 1 { which is (at least seemingly) di erent and applicable to more generic theories. In fact, our strategy is very straightforward: we follow the old interpretation of refs. [6, 7, 16], and we solve the dynamics of gauge theory from rst principles. In the Matrix Theory proposal [7], gravitational interactions are obtained from the interactions between D0-branes. Therefore, by looking at the interactions in a speci c system of D0-branes | forming an extended object such as a black hole | together with a \probe" D0-brane whose position is moved by hand, it is possible to obtain the information about the geometry as the force acting on this probe. The same idea applies to any gauge theory which has D-brane origins, and has also played an important role for the discovery of gauge/gravity duality (see e.g. [ 17, 18 ]). In particular, the eigenvalues are expected to be reconstructed. Further studies along this line and related directions include refs. [19{27].1 Moreover, a similar idea has been studied in the context of entanglement entropy [28, 29], in order to see how the S5 of AdS5 S5 geometry emerges. In the past, there have also been attempts [30] to study the \internal" structure in a system of D0-branes, focusing on a region of parameter space (at high temperatures) where classical or semi -classical approaches are a good approximation for the dynamics. Our focus is a regime of temperatures where the gauge theory is strongly coupled, and, even though the probe brane approach described in this work is intuitively simple, it remains challenging because of the obvious di culties in calculating observables non-perturbatively. In this paper, we employ numerical Monte Carlo methods to overcome this di culty in the strongly coupled regime. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we consider the dynamics on the gauge theory side. Although the quantitative calculation is hard, without relying on numerics, a qualitative picture of the gauge theory calculation is provided. Physics captured by classical studies [30] and features added by the new full quantum treatment will be explained. In section 3 we use numerical Monte Carlo method to con rm this picture. In section 4, we list possible dual gravity interpretations of the calculation. Note that the parameter region we numerically studied corresponds to a rather stringy regime on the gravity side, and hence the dual gravity interpretation can be speculative. 2 The gauge theory picture In this section, we describe the proposed method to investigate how the black hole geometry can be detected directly in the gauge theory. Before discussing various interpretations of the dual gravity theory, we de ne the problem at hand in the gauge theory picture. As a concrete example, let us consider the matrix model of D0-branes,2 which is numerically tractable with reasonable computational resources. The Lagrangian of the theory is L = 1 2gY2 M ( Tr (DtXM )2 + [XM ; XM0 ]2 + i Dt + M h XM ; i ) ; (2.1) 1The Dp-brane probe has been considered in ref. [24]. 2Generalizations to higher dimensions are straightforward. { 2 { where XM (M = 1; 2; ; 9) are N N Hermitian matrices and (DtXM ) is the covariant i[At; XM ] and At is the U(N ) gauge eld. The gamma matrices M (M = 1; 2; ; 9) are the 16 16 left-handed part of the gamma matrices in (9 + 1)-dimensions. ( = 1; 2; ; 16) are N N real fermionic matrices. This Lagrangian is the dimensional reduction of 4D N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory to (0 + 1)-dimensions. We set the 't Hooft coupling 2 = gY M N to one unless is explicitly shown. Equivalently, all dimensionful quantities are measured in units of the 't Hooft coupling; for example the temperature T actually refers to the dimensionless combination 1=3T . In this section we will consider the micro-canonical ensemble in the theory with HJEP02(18)4 Minkowski signature, since we will eventually be interested in the black hole geometry in Minkowski space. When interpreted as the low-energy e ective description of open strings and D0-branes, the diagonal and o -diagonal elements of XM can be regarded as the D0-branes and open strings, respectively [6]. This theory can describe multiple objects (such as multi-graviton or black hole states) through block-diagonal matrices, where each block corresponds to a di erent object [7]. Interactions are then mediated by the quantum uctuations of o -diagonal elements. Let us consider a typical matrix con guration about the trivial vacuum, which is a bunch of N D0-branes. Separating one of the D0-branes, which is represented by the (N; N )-element of XM , from the bunch allows us to regard this D0-brane as a probe.3 The matrices are then of the form, XM = XBMH wM ! wyM xDM0 ; (2.2) where wM describes a small uctuation of the N -th row and column, which are interpreted as open string excitations between the probe xDM0 and the rest of the original bunch XBMH.4 When we interpret the diagonal element xDM0 to be the position of a D0-brane, we implicitly assume that the o -diagonal elements wM are small. One possible criterion for the smallness of wM , which we will adopt in this paper, is that O(w3) terms of the action are negligible and wM behaves as a harmonic oscillator. When w is so large that O(w3) terms are no longer negligible, corrections to this simple geometric picture [6] will be needed. Note that, even when no open string is excited, jwj cannot be exactly zero, due to the zero-point oscillations of the harmonic oscillator. The zero-point uctuations become large when the probe gets close to the bunch. Hence, even at zero temperature, the o -diagonal elements become large at short distances and it is probably not appropriate to interpret the diagonal elements as the positions of D0-branes. The crossover between these two regimes takes place when T 1. 3More precisely, we take the At = 0 gauge, in which the structure of the physical Hilbert space has a natural connection to open strings and D0-branes, and then separate the (N; N )-component from the others. 4Here we have used the subscript \BH" because, later in this paper, we will interpret the bunch as a black hole (black zero-brane) via gauge/gravity duality. { 3 { One subtle point associated with such zero-point uctuations is the interpretation of the bunch, XBH. It is highly non-commutative at any temperature. At high temperatures, the non-commutativity is dominated by thermal excitations of open strings, which invalidate a classical geometric picture on the gravity side. On the other hand, at su ciently low temperatures, the main source of the non-commutativity are the \zero-point oscillations"; then, while the diagonal elements may not be the positions of D0-branes,5 the classical geometry on the gravity side may still make sense because there are no open string excitations. In this paper we study only T & 1, because the crossover between these two regimes takes place at T 1. and the center of the bunch TNrXBM1H as Our approach in this paper is to de ne the distance between the probe D0-brane xDM0 and then numerically calculate the force applied by the bunch on the probe as a function of this particular distance. This allows us to obtain insights of the geometry from the dual gravity picture. Note that we take the large-N limit for a xed value of r and therefore wM and xDM0 can be treated as a \subsystem" interacting with a thermal bath described As the distance between the bunch and the probe varies, the force should behave as can be estimated as rbunch using rbunch rD 1 N 1 P9 rD 1 P9 N M=1 Tr(XM )2 E Short distance: the probe merges into the bunch of other D-branes. The o -diagonal elements wM and wMy condense and the \position" of the probe can not be de ned in a meaningful sense.7 We call this region the \bunch". The radius of the bunch E when the probe is absent, or M=1 Tr(XBMH)2 . The latter is a good estimate when N is large and it can be used in the presence of the probe, with the caveat that the distribution in the 9-dimensional space will be skewed in the direction of the probe when the acting force is large (we will comment on this later). In this paper we will use these two de nitions interchangeably. As we have mentioned above, rbunch is non-zero even at T = 0, due to quantum uctuations. At su ciently low temperatures the classical geometry on the gravity side may make sense even inside the bunch. 5At short distances, higher order terms can contribute and the o -diagonal elements do not behave as decoupled harmonic oscillators. Due to this, the simple \zero-point uctuations" picture may not be appropriate. However, in [39], in a similar theory (possessing 4 supercharges rather than 16), it was numerically observed that the higher order terms give only small contributions and \zero-point uctuations" picture is rather good. 6This is a re nement of the idea suggested in [ 32, 33 ]. 7This is similar to the phase transition in a related model studied in [34]. { 4 { Long distance: the force goes as f (T ) N r 8 [ 7, 36, 37 ], where the temperaturedependent prefactor f (T ) disappears at T = 0. Intermediate distance: here is where non-trivial dynamics can emerge. Firstly, o diagonal elements are not very large and the position of the probe makes approximate sense. As the probe approaches the bunch, open string excitations become increasingly important and numerical calculations of the force are required in order to understand this region. This is also where perturbative analysis is expected not to work. We expect the shape of the bunch to deform in response to the probe. In analogy with the Moon's tidal e ect on the Earth's oceans, we expect the bunch to 1 regime where, on the gravity side, 0 corrections will become important. When r . T , o -diagonal elements are highly excited and non-perturbative e ects become important. A strong attractive force is expected.8 When r & T , the o -diagonal elements are exponentially suppressed as they are too heavy and decoupled from the dynamics, making the one-loop approximation valid. The size of the bunch scales as rbunch T 1=4, see e.g. refs. [ 32, 33 ]. Therefore, the intermediate distance region is separated into two parts: T 1=4 . r . T and r & T . The emission of eigenvalues from r . T is entropically suppressed with a suppression factor e N , because an O(N ) number of o -diagonal elements must be suppressed simultaneously [ 32, 33 ].9 In the large-N limit, the eigenvalues cannot escape once they reach the region r . T . Following this reasoning, we call r T the trapping radius and denote this distance by rtrap. A schematic representation of the various distances at play is shown in gure 1. Classical simulations (e.g. see ref. [30]) should be a valid approximation to the full quantum theory at r T . Therefore, physics near the bunch, for example the thermalization of a black hole [31], can be understood based on results from classical simulations. However, the classical approximation breaks down at r & T , because the mass of strings | the energy quanta | becomes non-negligible compared to the energy scale T . In this region, for example, quantum e ects assist the evaporation of a black hole [ 32, 33 ]. The high-temperature picture should fail for T . 1, where rbunch and rtrap become of the same order. Below that point, we can immediately imagine two natural possibilities: either rtrap approaches rbunch and they coincide at T = 0 or rtrap coincides with rbunch at 1 and 1=p including the open strings. 8The same dynamics has been discussed in [35] as `moduli trapping'. 9The emission's suppression is also understood as follows. As we will demonstrate numerically in section 3, the attractive force is of order N . The mass of the brane is of order N , and hence the D0-brane must have an order one velocity in order to escape. However, the typical energy and velocity are of order N , respectively, because the energy is of order N 2 and there are order N 2 degrees of freedom { 5 { rbunch XBH w xD0 rtrap r HJEP02(18)4 open strings w that connect it to the black hole XBH , and the length scales r, rtrap, and rbunch. nite temperature. Regardless of the relationship between rtrap and rbunch, the force acting on the probe should cancel at T = 0 due to supersymmetry. In the rest of the paper we will show that our numerical results are consistent with these expectations. 3 The numerical demonstration In this section, we demonstrate the scenario described above by performing explicit calculations in the gauge theory. Although the force depends on the relative velocity between the black hole and the probe, we will concentrate on the case with zero relative velocity for a practical reason explained below. To begin, we modify the potential by adding terms which will x the distance between XBMH and xDM0, up to quantum direction. We add10 to the action rotational symmetry we can take the displacement of the probe to be along the M = 1 uctuations. If the black hole is not spinning then by L = c ( to the Lagrangian, in order to hold the probe D0-brane near the position R = (r0; ~0), where r0 is the coordinate in the M = 1 direction and ~0 is an eight-dimensional vector. Hence, we are introducing three new parameters, fc; c0; r0g. The last one, r0, is xed in each simulation to constrain the distance of the probe, while we vary the rst two in order to check that we are in a regime where the nal results are una ected by our choice (within our total statistical uncertainty). In particular, the last term is needed in order to remove the unphysical longitudinal oscillation modes of the open strings, and the value of c0 is taken to be rather large 100, and xed throughout our simulations. 10This deformation manifestly breaks U(N ) to U(N 1) U(1). In principle, we can make a gaugeinvariant analogue of this deformed potential, for example by xing the position of the largest eigenvalue of X1. We chose this speci c deformation because it is technically easy. { 6 { ; (3.2) An important remark is that, because of the interaction mediated by the o -diagonal elements and the quantum mechanical nature of the system, the measured distance according to our de nition in (2.3) will deviate from r0 in the M = 1 direction (and also slightly in the other directions). In the numerical simulation we measure the following expectation values rM=1 rM=2 TrXB1H TrXB2H N N 1 1 1 xD0 2 xD0 L where the second distance, which should be distributed around zero, is only used as a cross-check to monitor that the deformation in (3.1) is working as expected. In all our simulations, with varying values of c, we nd rM=2 0 and therefore we identify the distance in (2.3) with rM=1. At distance r, the force F between the probe and the bunch is canceled by the additional force coming from . Therefore we can de ne a force for each value of the input parameters, N , r0 and c, as F (N; r0; c) = 2c(r0 r) ; (3.3) up to higher order terms in r0 r, where, again, r is our primary observable that we identify with rM=1 in (3.2). Although this should be interpreted as the force at distance r, we took c su ciently large so that r and r0 are always very close. Hence we will regard it as the force at distance r0 when we show it later in the paper. In appendix A we show a typical example of our numerical simulations and we show the measured observables to demonstrate in details all the points above. Note that the force calculated in this manner does not contain the e ect of the velocity of the probe. Note also that the deformation on the dual gravity theory caused by this additional deformation term is not clear. We have introduced L only as a trick to determine the force on the gauge theory side. When we discuss the dual gravity interpretation, we will only consider the standard duality, in the absence of this modi cation term. With this deformation L, the con guration is made static. Therefore we can Wick rotate the system to Euclidean signature in order to measure the force.11 We perform the path integral in imaginary time by using Monte Carlo methods,12 so the result obtained corresponds to the canonical ensemble. At large-N , this should give the same result as the micro-canonical ensemble. We added the deformation term (3.1) to a lattice simulation code for the Monte Carlo String/M-theory Collaboration [38]. We studied T = 1:0; 1:5; 2:0 and 3:0 for matrices in SU(N ) with N = 6 to N = 16, and with a variety of lattice spacings determined by L, going from L = 8 to L = 24. The 't Hooft coupling = gY2 M N is set to 1. 11In the Euclidean theory at nite temperature, the gauge eld At cannot be set to zero. Instead we have used the static diagonal gauge, At = diag( 1; 2; ; N ), where i's are t-independent and satisfy 0 i < 2 T . 12Ofer Aharony suggested this numerical experiment to M. H. in 2009. At that time M. H. did not try it because the physical picture was not clear to him. M. H. thanks Ofer Aharony for the valuable advice. { 7 { 1) at T = 1:0 and T = 2:0. For the largest value of N we only have measurements at large r0, beyond the region of the peak. eak 1) 6 Fp N( 4 21 01 8 2 0 2 .0 iLnear ift uQadrtic ift =N12 L=10 21 01 eak 1) 6 Fp N( 4 8 2 0 2 .0 iLnear ift uQadrtic ift =N8 L=10 T .20 .05 .10 .15 .25 .30 .35 .05 .10 .15 .25 .30 .35 T .20 two panels correspond to two di erent temperatures, T = 1:0 and T = 2:0, and numerical results with N = 6; 8; 12 and 16 are included. Note that for the largest value of N , we do not have results around the peak of the force. From this numerical data of the force, we can identify interesting features pertaining to di erent distance regimes. At short distance, F=(N 1) takes positive values, which con rms the O(N ) attraction region described in the previous section. There is a peak at some distance rpeak, which we numerically determined as the interval encompassing the three largest values of the force. We also estimate the value of the maximal force Fpeak=(N 1) and its systematic uncertainty, due to nite r0 spacing, using the distance between the maximum and the third largest force (note that the statistical error is always much smaller than this systematic error). The maximal force is shown in gure 3 as a function of the temperature for N = 8 and N = 10 at xed lattice spacing L = 10. Simple extrapolations using linear and quadratic ansatze indicate that the data is consistent with a null maximal force at T = 0. In gure 4 we summarize the various distances, or \radii", at play in the system, for N = 8; 12 and L = 10. We can see, for example, that the peak of the force rpeak coincides, within uncertainties, with rbunch. This suggests that the force decreases once the probe { 8 { di erent N values are horizontally displaced for clarity. The values of rpeak and rtrap are only determined as intervals between di erent simulated values of r0: the former is determined by the interval containing the three largest values of the force, while the latter is determined by subsequent values of r0 where the force changes sign from positive to negative. merges into the bunch. It is easy to understand this feature of the data: when the probe approaches the origin from the right on the positive x1 side, outside the bunch, the probe is pulled only to the left, while in the bunch some D0-branes pull the probe in the opposite direction. At the center of the bunch r0 0, the force should cancel due to rotational symmetry. At an intermediate distance, after the peak, the force crosses zero. We identify this distance with rtrap and we conservatively de ne an uncertainty related to the interval containing the rst point where the force changes sign from positive to negative. As shown in gure 4, rtrap de ned this way behaves linearly with the temperature rtrap T at high temperature. By de nition, rtrap cannot be smaller than rpeak. In gure 4, rtrap goes closer to rpeak as the temperature decreases and it is consistent with rtrap = rpeak ' rbunch at T = 0. At r0 > rtrap, the force is repulsive and we will comment on the implications of this below. After the repulsive region, at very large r0, we expect F=(N 1) our data is not precise enough to distinguish this from zero. h (N 1 In gure 5 we plot the square radius of the bunch in the direction of the probe rM2=1 = 1) Tr(XB1H)2i and the one averaged over the orthogonal directions (M = 2 : : : 9). We note that, when the probe is far away, the two radii are consistent, while rM2=1 quickly grows to a maximum when the probe moves between rtrap and rpeak. This can be interpreted as a deformation of the bunch due to the interactions with the probe similar to a tidal e ect; in fact, when the force has a peak at rpeak, the bunch is quite prolate. When r0 . rpeak, the bunch relaxes back to a spherical shape and ultimately becomes oblate as r0 vanishes, although one should take care in this regime, as the geometrical interpretation 1=r08. However, becomes obscure. { 9 { h (N1 1) Tr(XB1H)2i (red) and the squared radius averaged over the eight orthogonal directions, 2 1 raverage = h 8(N 1) P9 M=2 Tr(XBMH)2i (green) as a function of the probe position r0. The radius of the bunch in M=1 is larger than the one in the orthogonal directions once the probe enters rtrap and grows to a maximum near rpeak. rtrap and rpeak are indicated by vertical colored bands, while 2 2 rM=1 and raverage are shown with error bands representing statistical uncertainties of the Monte Carlo simulations. The data is for N = 12, L = 10 and T = 2:0, but similar features are present for all parameters N ,L and T that we studied. The larger error bands on the M = 1 direction compared to the orthogonal direction re ects the fact that there are 8 orthogonal directions so we e ectively get a larger statistical sample for the orthogonal directions. Next, let us consider the size of the uctuation of the o -diagonal elements, X jwj2 1 8 X When jwM j is small enough that O(jwj3) and O(jwj4) terms in the Lagrangian are negligible, the o -diagonal elements behave as harmonic oscillators. In this case, P jwj2 becomes 1 11+ee rr==TT (for the derivation see appendix B). Note that we have treated the length of all open strings, connecting the probe brane and the bunch of eigenvalues, to be r; this is valid only when r is su ciently larger than rbunch. When taking into account the nite extent of rbunch, the harmonic oscillator formula should be replaced by PN i=1 1 2riN 11+ee rrii==TT , 1 where ri is the distance between i-th D0-brane in the bunch and the probe. Of course, due to the non-commutativity of the matrices, the \positions" of D0-branes, and hence the distances, are ambiguous; see [39] for detailed argument with numerical inputs. Here, for simplicity, we consider a 9-dimensional spherical surface (shell) and a 9-dimensional spherical volume (ball) of radius rbunch.13 13Adding the probe brane breaks the SO(9) symmetry. At each N; L and T , we could use samples with the largest values of r0, where the SO(9) symmetry is almost restored, to determine rbunch. In the following, for our plots at T = 2:0, we used the extrapolated continuum limit value rbunch = 1:96(6) for N = 12 and rbunch = 1:91(1) for N = 6. M=2 R dtjwM j2 measured on the lattice as a function of r0 for N = 12, T = 2 and various L. The continuum limit is obtained by extrapolating the nite-L points to L = 1 at each r0 where enough values for a robust estimate are present. Even when we can not take a reliable continuum limit, we show the xed-L results. The perturbative curve is obtained following the procedure in appendix B with rbunch = 1:96, N = 12 and T = 2. The continuum curve at r0 > 10 is agreeing nicely with the perturbative expectation, while an enhancement can be seen at smaller r0 . 5. In gure 6, the values of P jwj2 as a function of r0 are plotted together with the harmonic oscillator value estimated by including the e ects of the bunch and of thermal uctuations. A continuum limit is also performed by using simulations at di erent lattice spacings, from L = 8 to L = 24. For some values of r0 we are unable to reliably determine the continuum limit, but we still plot the individual results at xed lattice spacings. First of all, we can see that P jwj2 in the continuum limit is perfectly consistent with the harmonic oscillators behavior at r0 10. At smaller r0 distances the o -diagonal uctuations become larger than the perturbative estimate, which means many open strings are excited and nonperturbative e ects are becoming important. We emphasize that the notion of \the position of the probe" becomes obscure when open strings are non-perturbatively excited. Figure 6 and gure 7 suggests that the \geometry" becomes obscure approximately at r < rtrap. At r < rbunch, the \position" does not even make sense approximately. 3.1 Comments on the D0/D4 system The setup discussed above resembles the Berkooz-Douglas matrix model [40], which consists of the D0-brane matrix model plus a avor sector which describes the open strings stretched between D0-branes and D4-branes. This avor sector is analogous to the o -diagonal elements in our D0-brane probe setup. The mass of the strings is the distance between D0-branes and D4-branes, which is analogous to the distance between the bunch and the probe in our setup. The dual gravity picture is similar to the D3/D7 system [41] which is often used to study avor dynamics in AdS/CFT. measured on the lattice as a function of r0 for N = 6, T = 2 and various L. The continuum limit is obtained by extrapolating the nite-L points to L = 1 at each r0 where enough values for a robust estimate are present. Even when we can not take a reliable continuum limit, we show the xed-L results. The perturbative curve is obtained following the procedure in appendix B with rbunch = 1:91, N = 6 and T = 2. The continuum curve at r0 > 12 is agreeing nicely with the perturbative expectation. An enhancement can be seen at r0 . 5, though it is less clear compared with N = 12. This D0/D4 case has been studied in a series of papers [42{44]. The gravity analysis suggests that, like in the D3/D7 case, a phase transition takes place when the D4 comes close to the BH and touches the horizon; see e.g. [45{47]. The large-mass (long-distance) and small-mass (short-distance) regions are \decon ned" and \con ned" phases, respectively. (In the holographic QCD setup by the D3/D7, the gluons are always decon ned, but quarks can still have a con ned phase.) The order parameter is the condensation of the strings and, in the con ned phase, strings are highly excited. In [42{44], some gauge theory results based on Monte Carlo simulations are also shown. They did not nd a nice agreement with the dual gravity calculation at intermediate distance, but this could be attributed to 0 corrections, given their temperature range (T = 1:0 and T = 0:8). 4 Possible dual gravity interpretations In this section, we discuss what kind of possible dual gravity interpretations can be given for the results or our numerical simulations. Since we have studied only T 1, which is rather high temperature, the dual gravity theory is expected to su er from large stringy corrections. Hence the geometric interpretations simply inspired by supergravity may not be appropriate. In spite of this possible shortcoming, let us review the standard duality picture and discuss alternative interpretations of the emerging geometry. 4.1 The standard duality dictionary with 2 = gY M N In this paper, we consider the nite temperature dynamics near the 't Hooft limit (N ! 1 xed), to which the interpretation in the context of the gauge/gravity duality [48] can be applied. When all N eigenvalues are clumped up to form a bunch, the dual geometry is the near-extremal, near-horizon limit of the type IIA black zero-brane, whose metric in string frame is given by ds2 = 0 8 < : U 7=2 1 where U is the radial coordinate times ( 0) 1, which has the dimension of [mass], and U0 is the horizon. The 't Hooft coupling has the dimension of [mass]3. Note also that the curvature radius of S8 depends on the radial coordinate. The dilaton depends on the radial and is identi ed with the temperature of the matrix model. The energy of the black hole at nite temperature has been studied numerically on the matrix model side starting in [49]; see also [50{55]. Recent Monte Carlo results in the continuum and in nite-N limit [55] strongly support the validity of the duality, including the string corrections. From (4.1) and (4.3), we can see that the horizon shrinks in the string frame when the e ective dimensionless temperature 1=3T is large, while the horizon expands in Einstein frame due to the non-trivial behavior of the dilaton (4.2). Therefore, the 0-corrections become larger at higher temperature. At T = 0, the black zero-brane is extremal, i.e. the horizon and the singularity coincide. However, note that in the 't Hooft limit, N ! 1 is taken before T ! 0, and then in Einstein frame there is a parametrically large separation between the singularity and horizon. Note that the horizon scales as U0 T 2=5. The probe brane is believed to be described by the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action in this spacetime. 4.2 Where is the horizon? Now we discuss a few possible geometric interpretations and their advantages, disadvantages, and falsi ability. Before going into the details, let us clarify the assumptions regarding the holographic dictionary. Firstly, the duality between the real-time theories is only employed without the deformation term, L . The deformation L was employed on the gauge theory side just as a numerical trick to determine the force of the original theory in Minkowski signature without the deformation. In order to relate the original theory with Minkowski signature to string theory, we need neither the deformation nor the Euclidean theory. On the gravity side, we consider the motion of a probe D0-brane in the black zero-brane geometry. As can be seen from the arguments and calculations in the previous sections, { 13 { we have assumed that the (N 1) (N 1) block XBH corresponds to the black hole, and the probe D0-brane corresponds to the (N; N )-components of the matrices. We assumed TrXBH=(N 1) is the `center' of the black hole, in the sense that the distance between the probe and the black hole is de ned by jTrXBH=(N 1) xD0j. This interpretation can be made precise as long as the stringy e ects are not too large; when many of the open strings are excited (correspondingly, when the N -th row and column take large values), the notion of the localized probe becomes obscure. We have calculated the force when the relative velocity between the black hole and the probe is zero. Without knowing the velocity dependence, we cannot follow the motion of the probe precisely. Below we will assume that the velocity dependence does not change the behavior of the system drastically. For sake of clarity, let us repeat here an important di erence between the two temperature regions, T & 1 and T . 1, which we have brie y mentioned in section 2. On the gauge theory side, there are two di erent sources of the non-commutativity: the thermal excitations and the zero-point oscillations. The former corresponds to the actual stringy excitations on the gravity side, while the latter may not invalidate the classical gravity picture based on the smooth geometry. These two contributions should become of the same order at T 1. Our simulations have been performed for T & 1, where the bunch is dominated by the thermal excitations. Below, we will consider T & 1 in detail, and then brie y comment on T . 1. 4.2.1 Probably the most conservative interpretation in this high-temperature regime is that the entire bunch, 0 r rbunch, describes the horizon of the type IIA black zero-brane. If one believes that all the information about the black hole is encoded in the horizon, why don't we regard the entire bunch, which is the carrier of the information on the gauge theory side, with the horizon? This interpretation has some other advantages as well: If the gauge theory describes the system from the exterior observer's viewpoint, the light modes should appear near the horizon due to the redshift. The light strings between the bunch and the probe, which become massless when the probe reaches r = rbunch, are natural counterparts. See [ 34 ] for a related consideration for a solvable model. On the gravity side, the dynamics at the horizon naturally explains fast scrambling [56]. On the gauge theory side, the non-local interaction mediated by open strings is crucial for fast scrambling. Then 0 r rbunch, where the open strings condense, is a natural place where fast scrambling can take place. Note however that this argument may not exclude the possibility that r = rtrap is the horizon, because the open string excitations are enhanced for r rtrap. In this interpretation, the interior of the horizon cannot be seen from the eigenvalue distribution. This is an advantage when we consider the theory with Euclidean signature, whose gravity dual does not have an `interior'. A possible di culty of this interpretation is that the physical meaning of the distance scale rtrap is not clear. It may not be an immediate problem, especially in the D0-brane case, in which the 0-corrections are inevitable at nite temperature. We will come back to this point later. Note also that this di culty might be seen as good news because, in case one determines the existence/absence of such distance scale by studying the dynamics of the probe D-brane from string theory, it is possible to test this interpretation. In ref. [30], the spectrum of the Dirac operator acting on the fermion has been studied by means of semi-classical simulations. In such simulations, a (N 1) (N 1) matrix XBMH was generated and a `probe D0-brane' xDM0 was introduced by hand. The spectrum of the Dirac operator obtained from the matrix XM = XBMH 0 0 xDM0 ! (4.4) was then studied. Ref. [30] identi ed the horizon with the distance scale where the Dirac operator becomes gapless. This length scale is likely to be our rbunch. 4.2.2 T & 1: is rtrap the horizon? Another possibility is that rtrap is the horizon. This interpretation has some favorable features: When r is slightly above rtrap, the force is repulsive. This is not something expected in the interior of the black hole. It is natural to regard r > rtrap to be (at least a part of) the exterior. As mentioned above, the o -diagonal elements are highly excited when r < rtrap, although they do not condense until the probe goes to r rbunch. Such excitations can explain why the D-branes are trapped there; see section 2. Furthermore, when a D-brane is emitted to r > rtrap, the temperature of the black hole goes up [ 32, 33 ]. Note also that, if we identify rhorizon with rtrap, it is consistent with a conservative stance on possible stringy e ects | if stringy e ects should become relevant, it should be at r rhorizon. In [57], the force acting on a D0-brane probe outside the horizon was studied on the gravity side. At the level of supergravity, the force is attractive at any distance. When O(gs) corrections are taken into account, a repulsive force correction is added near the horizon. The e ects from the 0 corrections and the higher order terms in gs are not known. If rtrap is the horizon, then our result on the gauge theory side (O(N ) repulsion) suggests that the 0 corrections lead to a repulsion near the horizon. It provides us with the falsi ability of this interpretation.14 The disadvantages of this interpretation include the following: This distance scale makes sense in the Euclidean theory as well. Then this interpretation would mean that the dual Euclidean black hole geometry may somehow knows the black hole interior, which is against usual lore. 14We would like to thank Y. Hyakutake for the discussion concerning this point. If rtrap is the horizon, then the probe can pass through the horizon within a nite time in gauge theory. If we then identify the time in gauge theory with the exterior observer's time as usual, it suggests that the in-falling observer can go into the black hole within a nite time as seen from the exterior observer's clock.15;16 An important and subtle point related to the disadvantages mentioned in the end of section 4.2.2 is that, when r < rtrap, many strings are excited, hence it is not clear whether a smooth geometry can make sense there. (Clearly, for r rbunch, the geometry does not HJEP02(18)4 make sense.) If a smooth geometry does not make sense, the \interior" of the black hole may not make sense; it would be better to regard the entire region r < rtrap to be some `stringy stu ' which represents the horizon. Then the disadvantages mentioned above can be resolved. 4.2.4 Yet another possibility is the fuzzball (see e.g. [58] for a review). In this interpretation, space itself ends at r = rbunch (or r = rtrap) due to some stringy stu . At this moment we do not know how to distinguish this possibility from the scenarios suggested in section 4.2.1 and section 4.2.2. 4.2.5 T . 1: low-temperature region As we have commented before, at low temperature, a large non-commutativity does not necessarily mean the breakdown of smooth spacetime, as long as the thermal excitation on top of the quantum uctuation is not large; hence the geometry would make sense even at r < rbunch. The results of ref. [21] and ref. [39] seem to be consistent with this expectation. In this case it would be natural to expect that the horizon is hidden below rbunch, as discussed in ref. [21]. It ts well with the standard duality dictionary, in which the radial coordinate U in (4.1) is identi ed with r up to a constant multiplicative factor. Note that the horizon is at U0 T 2=5, as one can see from (4.3). As T becomes large, U0 T 2=5 increases. At T 1, it can become as large as rbunch and rtrap. Hence it would be natural to think that rbunch and rtrap at high temperature is related to the horizon. At this moment this is just a speculation as we have yet to study this scenario in the low temperature region. 15We would like to thank T. Banks for pointing out this problem. 16A possible resolution in the philosophy of the Matrix Theory Conjecture | everything is made of eigenvalues | is as follows. Suppose everything, including the in-falling and exterior observers, is made of eigenvalues. They communicate with each other by exchanging eigenvalues. As the in-falling observer goes parametrically close to rtrap, say the distance of order 1=N , stringy e ects turn on and make it hard to send eigenvalues to the exterior observer. Then the exterior observer would have to wait longer to receive the message. In this paper, we have studied the dynamics of eigenvalues in gauge theories, particularly in the D0-brane matrix model. We have performed explicit numerical calculations in high temperature region. There are two length scales, which we denoted by rtrap and rbunch, which may be related to the horizon on the gravity side. Our study of the high temperature region has pros and cons. The biggest pro is that the stringy e ect is large, and the largest con is that the stringy e ect is large. Stringy e ects are something we want to learn from gauge theory, but at the same time, when the stringy e ects are too large the gravity interpretation is not easy. As a next step, it is necessary to study a parameter region responsible for small stringy e ects. There are two natural approaches: (1) long distance, corresponding to far outside the bunch, regardless of the temperature, and (2) low temperature inside the bunch. The former is more straightforward as o -diagonal elements are suppressed. (Note that stringy e ects are large at long distance, but as long as we only look at the dynamics of the eigenvalues we expect the DBI action to provide an accurate description.) For the latter, we need to resolve the problem of the non-commutativity. One possible approach is to study D0/D4 system (section 3.1).17 Here, the masses of the avor sector speci es the position of the D4 at spatial in nity, and if the critical mass agrees with the dual gravity prediction it means that the D4 probe is actually described by the DBI action. We can also use the D1-probe in (1 + 1)-d SYM. Fixing the two end points far outside bunch and allowing the middle of the D1 to fall down into the bunch, the shape of the probe can be determined, (at least outside the bunch), and it is possible to test if the DBI action is valid there. In the correspondence between (p + 1)-dimensional SYM and the black p-brane [48], one can probe the geometry in the same way, by using Dp-branes; see e.g. refs. [23, 24]. An important di erence from the case of D0-branes is that various shapes can appear. Using lattice simulations, it should be possible to see a minimal surface directly. Other probes such as the D-instanton can also be useful. An important point, which is not apparent from the current analysis, is whether or not the horizon depends on the kind of probe. In the D0-brane quantum mechanics, the Schwarzschild black hole in eleven dimensions is expected to emerge in the M-theory parameter region, which is at much lower temperatures than the 't Hooft large-N limit. Also, 4D N = 4 SYM on S3 is expected to contain low-energy states describing the ten-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole [59]. On the gauge theory side, they should be described by bunches of eigenvalues of scalar elds (see e.g. refs. [60, 61]) and hence the method proposed in this paper can be applied; it is very important to study the emergent geometries in these cases. Another important direction is the time-dependence; see e.g. refs. [ 32, 33, 35 ] for previous attempts. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank O. Aharony, T. Banks, D. Kabat, F. Ferrari, G. Lifschytz, J. Maldacena, E. Martinec, Y. Nomura, D. O'Connor, K. Papadodimas, J. Pene17We would like to thank J. Maldacena for suggesting this approach. distance where the force becomes negative is r0 2 [9; 10]. dones, S. Shenker, H. Shimada, E. Silverstein, K. Skenderis, B. Sundborg, L. Susskind, and V. Filev for discussions and comments. The work of M. H. is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Sciences and Technology, Sports and Culture (MEXT) for Scienti c Research (No. 25287046 and 17K14285). The work of J. M. is supported by the California Alliance fellowship (NSF grant 32540). This work is supported in part by the DFG and the NSFC through funds provided to the Sino-German CRC 110 \Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD" (EB). E. R. is supported by a RIKEN Special Postdoctoral fellowship. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Computing was provided through the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Institutional Computing Grand Challenge program. A Numerical calculation of the force In this appendix we present a typical example of the numerical Monte Carlo simulations described in section 3. We take a representative set of parameters fN; L; T g = f8; 8; 3:0g where we have explicitly checked how the force F (N; r0; c) = 2c(r0 r) depends on c, according to the potential in (3.1). For N = 8, L = 8 and T = 3:0 we have used several values of c, going from 30 to 120, across the whole range of \constraining" distance r0. Remember from (3.1) that r0 is the distance along direction M = 1 where the constraining potential is centered, while c is the strength of the quadratic potential. A summary of the values of c used for this point in parameter space as a function of r0 is shown in gure 8. For larger values of c, the probe will be more tightly constrained around r0 in the M = 1 direction, and around zero in the perpendicular directions. We show the observables rM=1 and rM=2 in the left and right plots of gure 9, respectively. For each panel we report the Monte Carlo history and the histogram of the observables, after the initial 1000 samples are two observables rM=1 and rM=2 de ned in (3.2) at r0 = 7:0, for N = 8, L = 8 and T = 3:0. On each plot we show two values of c, c = 50 and c = 100. The blue dotted line in the left plot corresponds to r0 = 7, while on the right plot it corresponds to zero. r) measured for N = 8, L = 8 and T = 3:0 at two distances r0 and ve values of c. When distance is small (left panel) the value of c for which the force is independent of c must be larger than c = 30. When the distance is large (right panel) all values of c that we tried are equivalent within the statistical precision of our measurements. discarded for thermalization. The plot of rM=1 show that, for a potential centered around r0 = 7:0 in the M = 1 direction (and for N = 8, L = 8 and T = 3:0) the actual coordinate of the probe in such direction is very close to r0, and more so for larger c, as expected. Similarly for rM=2, the distribution of the samples is narrower around zero when c = 100 rather than c = 50, again con rming that our constraining potential is behaving correctly. For both values of c 2 f50; 100g the force near distance r0 is the same, because the expected shift of the probe r0 r is smaller for larger c, and the two e ects cancel in the force F = 2c(r0 r). This cancellation will break down if the potential is too shallow or the force is too strong | if the probe wanders far from the center of its potential. We observe deviations of this kind, for example, if c = 30 is used at small r0 = 4:0 or r0 = 5:0, where the force is large and positive. This is clearly exempli ed in gure 10. Typically, in the region where the force is attractive, between r0 = 0 and the transition to a repulsive 0.8 0.6 ) r 0 (r0.4 0 r0=4.0 r0=5.0 r0=11.0 r0=12.0 1/1 1/ 2 a function of 1=c. The slope of the linear relation de nes the force (r0 r) = F=2 1=c. A deviation from the linear behavior is present when the force is large and c is too small. The dotted lines represent the slopes for our typical choices of c = 100 in the small r0 regions and c = 50 in the large r0 region (circled points). force, we choose c = 100, while we settle on c = 50 in the region where the force is small or almost zero. Another equivalent way to look at this is to investigate the relation between (r0 r) and c at xed r0: our de nition of force will be correct in the region of c where the data is described by a linear function. We show the probe deviation from the center of the potential (r0 r) as a function of 1=c in gure 11, for the same four values of r0 reported in gure 10. We plot the force obtained from the relation F = 2c(r0 r) with c xed to the typical values reported above at di erent r0. Note again the deviation of the c = 30 measurements from the linear behavior when the force is large. B Behavior of o -diagonal elements p2N At long distances, the o -diagonal elements are approximated by harmonic oscillators. There are 8(N 1) complex d.o.f., and hence 16(N 1) harmonic oscillators. By writing wM;j = (xM;j+iyM;j) , the action for the o -diagonal part can be written as 9 N 1 X X M=2 i=1 2 2 2 x_ M;i + 2 y_M;i + r2x2M;i + 2 r2yM2;i 2 ! hy2i ' R dxe rx2 R dxx2e rx2 N 1 N N N 1 1 2r 11+ee rr==TT . up to the higher order terms. Note that we did not rescale r. Hence x and y are harmonic oscillators with m = 1 and ! = r. The ground state wave function is At su ciently long distances, jwj2 is approximated by zero-point uctuations, and hx2i = e x2=2; e y2=2. = 21r , hjwM;ij2i ' hx2i+hy2i = 2N1 r . Therefore, 81 P9 2N M=2 R dtjwM j2 ' 21r . When the excited modes are taken into account, this expression is modi ed to Because the bunch of D0-branes has nite size, there is a correction to the above expression. If one imagines the D0-branes to be distributed in a spherically symmetric manner, the average distance between them and the probe brane is larger than r. Hence the uctuation of the o -diagonal elements should be slightly smaller. We have numerically implemented two possible distributions for the D0-branes in the bunch to assess the corrections due to non-zero bunch size: an 8-dimensional sphere S8 of radius rbunch, a 9-dimensional ball of radius rbunch. The bunch e ects have been taken into account by replacing r with r rs, where rs is the position of a point randomly sampled according to the aforementioned two distributions, and by taking the average of the function over the whole sample. We have checked that the nal result does not change within the needed precision when the number of samples is large enough. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. [1] T. Eguchi and H. Kawai, Reduction of Dynamical Degrees of Freedom in the Large-N Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1063 [INSPIRE]. [2] G. Bhanot, U.M. Heller and H. Neuberger, The Quenched Eguchi-Kawai Model, Phys. Lett. B 113 (1982) 47 [INSPIRE]. Nucl. Phys. B 206 (1982) 440 [INSPIRE]. [3] D.J. Gross and Y. Kitazawa, A Quenched Momentum Prescription for Large-N Theories, [4] G. Parisi, A Simple Expression for Planar Field Theories, Phys. Lett. B 112 (1982) 463 [5] A. Gonzalez-Arroyo and M. Okawa, The Twisted Eguchi-Kawai Model: A Reduced Model for Large-N Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 2397 [INSPIRE]. [6] E. Witten, Bound states of strings and p-branes, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 335 [hep-th/9510135] [INSPIRE]. [7] T. Banks, W. Fischler, S.H. Shenker and L. Susskind, M theory as a matrix model: A Conjecture, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5112 [hep-th/9610043] [INSPIRE]. [8] R.C. Myers, Dielectric branes, JHEP 12 (1999) 022 [hep-th/9910053] [INSPIRE]. [9] G. 't Hooft, Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity, Conf. Proc. C 930308 (1993) 284 [gr-qc/9310026] [INSPIRE]. [10] L. Susskind, The World as a hologram, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377 [hep-th/9409089] [11] J.M. Maldacena, The Large-N limit of superconformal eld theories and supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231 [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113] [hep-th/9711200] eld theory, hep-th/9808016 [INSPIRE]. Theory, JHEP 10 (2009) 079 [arXiv:0907.0151] [INSPIRE]. AdS/CFT, JHEP 10 (2012) 165 [arXiv:1201.3664] [INSPIRE]. HJEP02(18)4 Phys. B 305 (1988) 545 [INSPIRE]. 3736 [hep-th/9705053] [INSPIRE]. calculus and the AdS/CFT correspondence in N = 4 superconformal eld theory, Nucl. Phys. B 552 (1999) 88 [hep-th/9901128] [INSPIRE]. [20] I.L. Buchbinder, A. Yu. Petrov and A.A. Tseytlin, Two loop N = 4 super Yang-Mills e ective action and interaction between D3-branes, Nucl. Phys. B 621 (2002) 179 [hep-th/0110173] [INSPIRE]. [hep-th/0410128] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1207.0886] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1311.4520] [INSPIRE]. [21] N. Iizuka, D.N. Kabat, G. Lifschytz and D.A. Lowe, Probing black holes in nonperturbative gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 024012 [hep-th/0108006] [INSPIRE]. [22] S.M. Kuzenko, Self-dual e ective action of N = 4 SYM revisited, JHEP 03 (2005) 008 [23] F. Ferrari, Emergent Space and the Example of AdS5XS5, Nucl. Phys. B 869 (2013) 31 matrix theory, JHEP 08 (2017) 140 [arXiv:1705.01128] [INSPIRE]. [28] A. Mollabashi, N. Shiba and T. Takayanagi, Entanglement between Two Interacting CFTs and Generalized Holographic Entanglement Entropy, JHEP 04 (2014) 185 [arXiv:1403.1393] [INSPIRE]. [29] A. Karch and C.F. Uhlemann, Holographic entanglement entropy and the internal space, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 086005 [arXiv:1501.00003] [INSPIRE]. [INSPIRE]. [INSPIRE]. [30] D. Berenstein and E. Dzienkowski, Numerical Evidence for Firewalls, arXiv:1311.1168 [31] C. Asplund, D. Berenstein and D. Trancanelli, Evidence for fast thermalization in the HJEP02(18)4 [hep-th/9610236] [INSPIRE]. [INSPIRE]. [41] A. Karch and E. Katz, Adding avor to AdS/CFT, JHEP 06 (2002) 043 [hep-th/0205236] attractive: Moduli trapping at enhanced symmetry points, JHEP 05 (2004) 030 [hep-th/0403001] [INSPIRE]. 77 (1996) 1004 [hep-th/9603127] [INSPIRE]. [38] M. Hanada, A simulation code prepared for the Monte Carlo String/M-theory Collaboration, downloadable at https://sites.google.com/site/hanadamasanori/home/mmmm. [39] T. Azeyanagi, M. Hanada, T. Hirata and H. Shimada, On the shape of a D-brane bound state and its topology change, JHEP 03 (2009) 121 [arXiv:0901.4073] [INSPIRE]. [42] V.G. Filev and D. O'Connor, A Computer Test of Holographic Flavour Dynamics, JHEP 05 (2016) 122 [arXiv:1512.02536] [INSPIRE]. [43] Y. Asano, V.G. Filev, S. Kovacik and D. O'Connor, The avoured BFSS model at high temperature, JHEP 01 (2017) 113 [arXiv:1605.05597] [INSPIRE]. [44] Y. Asano, V.G. Filev, S. Kovacik and D. O'Connor, A Computer Test of Holographic Flavour Dynamics II, arXiv:1612.09281 [INSPIRE]. [45] J. Babington, J. Erdmenger, N.J. Evans, Z. Guralnik and I. Kirsch, Chiral symmetry breaking and pions in nonsupersymmetric gauge / gravity duals, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 066007 [hep-th/0306018] [INSPIRE]. [46] C. Hoyos-Badajoz, K. Landsteiner and S. Montero, Holographic meson melting, JHEP 04 (2007) 031 [hep-th/0612169] [INSPIRE]. [47] D. Mateos, R.C. Myers and R.M. Thomson, Holographic phase transitions with fundamental matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 091601 [hep-th/0605046] [INSPIRE]. [48] N. Itzhaki, J.M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, Supergravity and the large-N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 046004 [hep-th/9802042] [INSPIRE]. supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at nite temperature, black hole thermodynamics from supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 191602 [arXiv:0811.3102] [INSPIRE]. black hole on a computer, Science 344 (2014) 882 [arXiv:1311.5607] [INSPIRE]. SYM with sixteen supercharges, arXiv:1503.08499 [INSPIRE]. duality conjecture for D0-branes at 086010 [arXiv:1603.00538] [INSPIRE]. [arXiv:1606.04951] [INSPIRE]. Schwarzschild black hole in AdS5 S5, JHEP 02 (2017) 012 [arXiv:1608.03276] [INSPIRE]. [hep-th/9802150] [INSPIRE]. [13] A. Hamilton , D.N. Kabat , G. Lifschytz and D.A. Lowe , Holographic representation of local bulk operators , Phys. Rev. D 74 ( 2006 ) 066009 [ hep -th/0606141] [INSPIRE]. [14] I. Heemskerk , J. Penedones , J. Polchinski and J. Sully , Holography from Conformal Field [15] I. Heemskerk , D. Marolf , J. Polchinski and J. Sully , Bulk and Transhorizon Measurements in [16] B. de Wit , J. Hoppe and H. Nicolai , On the Quantum Mechanics of Supermembranes, Nucl. [17] J.M. Maldacena , Probing near extremal black holes with D-branes , Phys. Rev. D 57 ( 1998 ) [18] A.A. Tseytlin and S. Yankielowicz , Free energy of N = 4 super Yang-Mills in Higgs phase and nonextremal D3-brane interactions , Nucl. Phys. B 541 ( 1999 ) 145 [ hep -th/9809032] [19] N. Dorey , T.J. Hollowood , V.V. Khoze , M.P. Mattis and S. Vandoren , Multi-instanton [24] F. Ferrari , D-Brane Probes in the Matrix Model, Nucl . Phys. B 880 ( 2014 ) 290 [25] I.L. Buchbinder , E.A. Ivanov and I.B. Samsonov , The low-energy N = 4 SYM e ective action in diverse harmonic superspaces , Phys. Part. Nucl . 48 ( 2017 ) 333 [26] J.H. Schwarz , Gauge Theories on the Coulomb branch , Subnucl. Ser . 52 ( 2017 ) 167 [27] V. Sahakian , Y. Tawabutr and C. Yan , Emergent spacetime & quantum entanglement in plane-wave matrix model , Phys. Rev. Lett . 107 ( 2011 ) 171602 [arXiv: 1104 .5469] [INSPIRE]. [32] E. Berkowitz , M. Hanada and J. Maltz , Chaos in Matrix Models and Black Hole Evaporation , Phys. Rev. D 94 ( 2016 ) 126009 [arXiv: 1602 .01473] [INSPIRE]. [33] E. Berkowitz , M. Hanada and J. Maltz , A microscopic description of black hole evaporation via holography , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 ( 2016 ) 1644002 [arXiv: 1603 .03055] [INSPIRE]. [34] F. Ferrari , Black Hole Horizons and Bose-Einstein Condensation , arXiv: 1601 .08120 [35] L. Kofman , A.D. Linde , X. Liu , A. Maloney , L. McAllister and E. Silverstein , Beauty is [36] U.H. Danielsson , G. Ferretti and B. Sundborg , D particle dynamics and bound states , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11 ( 1996 ) 5463 [ hep -th/9603081] [INSPIRE]. [37] D.N. Kabat and P. Pouliot , A Comment on zero-brane quantum mechanics , Phys. Rev . Lett. [40] M. Berkooz and M.R. Douglas , Five-branes in M(atrix) theory, Phys . Lett. B 395 ( 1997 ) 196 [49] K.N. Anagnostopoulos , M. Hanada , J. Nishimura and S. Takeuchi , Monte Carlo studies of Phys. Rev. Lett . 100 ( 2008 ) 021601 [arXiv: 0707 .4454] [INSPIRE]. [50] S. Catterall and T. Wiseman , Black hole thermodynamics from simulations of lattice Yang-Mills theory , Phys. Rev. D 78 ( 2008 ) 041502 [arXiv: 0803 .4273] [INSPIRE]. [51] M. Hanada , Y. Hyakutake , J. Nishimura and S. Takeuchi , Higher derivative corrections to [52] M. Hanada , Y. Hyakutake , G. Ishiki and J. Nishimura , Holographic description of quantum [54] M. Hanada , Y. Hyakutake , G. Ishiki and J. Nishimura , Numerical tests of the gauge/gravity nite temperature and nite N, Phys . Rev. D 94 ( 2016 ) [55] E. Berkowitz , E. Rinaldi, M. Hanada , G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki and P. Vranas , Precision lattice test of the gauge/gravity duality at large-N , Phys . Rev. D 94 ( 2016 ) 094501 [56] Y. Sekino and L. Susskind , Fast Scramblers, JHEP 10 ( 2008 ) 065 [arXiv: 0808 . 2096 ] [57] Y. Hyakutake , Quantum near-horizon geometry of a black 0-brane , PTEP 2014 ( 2014 ) [58] S.D. Mathur , The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review , Fortsch. Phys . 53 [59] E. Witten , Anti-de Sitter space and holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 ( 1998 ) 253


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FJHEP02%282018%29042.pdf

Enrico Rinaldi, Evan Berkowitz, Masanori Hanada, Jonathan Maltz, Pavlos Vranas. Toward holographic reconstruction of bulk geometry from lattice simulations, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018, 42, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2018)042