Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Why emergence of gravity in matrix theories is entropic

Vatche Sahakian*

  • *Contact author: sahakian@hmc.edu, sahakian.physics.hmc.edu

Phys. Rev. D 112, 126023 – Published 26 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/1d5g-2c3n

Abstract

Matrix theories exhibit the phenomenon of spacetime emergence in certain regimes of their dynamics. In this work, I posit that the key to this emergence is a hierarchy between two timescales; very slow modes that an observer measures plus a chaotic cloud of very fast modes. This then leads to a natural operator algebra for measurements for the slow modes and an associated density matrix for the full system. I show that this density matrix implies the same gravitational potential energy that has been identified previously in the literature; furthermore, I show that the corresponding emergent gravitational force is nothing but the entropic force associated with the entropy of the fast modes of the system. I also demonstrate that the posited regime corresponds to distances being super-Planckian in the dual 11-dimensional supergravity.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (34)

  1. T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5112 (1997).
  2. D. E. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena, and H. S. Nastase, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2002) 013.
  3. D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B 425, 351 (1998).
  4. L. Susskind, arXiv:hep-th/9704080.
  5. N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3577 (1997).
  6. O. Tafjord and V. Periwal, Nucl. Phys. B517, 227 (1998).
  7. H. K. Lee, T. McLoughlin, and X.-k. Wu, Nucl. Phys. B728, 1 (2005).
  8. E. P. Verlinde, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2011) 029.
  9. A. Fuster and J. W. van Holten, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 46, 102303 (2005).
  10. J. W. Van Holten, Lect. Notes Phys. 659, 99 (2005).
  11. E. A. Mazenc and D. Ranard, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2023) 111.
  12. A. P. Balachandran, T. R. Govindarajan, A. R. de Queiroz, and A. F. Reyes-Lega, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022301 (2013).
  13. B. M. G. B. J. Dalton, J. Goold, and M. D. Reid, arXiv:1506.06906.
  14. C. Y. She and H. Heffner, Phys. Rev. 152, 1103 (1966).
  15. A coherent state is one with ΔXΔP=minimum and maximal entropy while the first and second moments of position and momentum are fixed. For an excellent review of this subject, see [16].

  16. N. Wheeler (to be published).
  17. E. J. Martinec and V. Sahakian, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124005 (1999).
  18. V. Sahakian, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2001) 037.
  19. J. Polchinski, String Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998).
  20. H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993).
  21. Note also that this technique can be employed to build up an analytical perturbation series in HR; as we will be interested in strongly coupled dynamics, I do not develop this direction here.

  22. The energy is a function of X0 and does not depend on P0. In Matrix theories with supersymmetry, the contribution from the fermions typically adds momentum dependence as well. We would correspondingly need an expanded version of this equation.

  23. S. R. Das, A. Kaushal, S. Liu, G. Mandal, and S. P. Trivedi, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 225.
  24. S. R. Das, A. Kaushal, G. Mandal, and S. P. Trivedi, J. Phys. A 53, 444002 (2020).
  25. H. R. Hampapura, J. Harper, and A. Lawrence, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 231.
  26. This idea was inspired by previous computations [27, 28]. I also note some similarities of our proposal with some of the suggestions in the work of [29].

  27. V. Sahakian, Phys. Rev. D 100, 086015 (2019).
  28. C. Gray, V. Sahakian, and W. Warfield, J. High Energy Phys. 21 (2020) 072.
  29. V. Gautam, M. Hanada, A. Jevicki, and C. Peng, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2023) 003.
  30. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995).
  31. Y. Sekino and L. Susskind, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2008) 065.
  32. It is interesting to see the role of the measuring process in the emergence phenomenon. For example, an infinitely accurate position measurement, ξ→0, would lead to the zero temperature limit at constant entropy. Looking at the quadratic part of the effective Hamiltonian (35), the eigenfrequencies can be found to be ω1=gξ(d−1)/2 for two modes (d being the dimension of the target space), and d−2 modes with ω2=g2ξ(d−1)/2+g2X02≃gX0. ω1→0 is typically identified with the zero modes arising from commuting matrices, a well-known instability of BFSS Matrix theory [18, 33, 34]. We see that, using a more realistic measurement paradigm that introduces coherent states also naturally regularizes this instability.

  33. V. Sahakian, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2001) 038.
  34. J. M. Maldacena, G. W. Moore, and N. Seiberg, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2001) 046.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation