Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Supersymmetric quantum matrix cosmology

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2015 Class. Quantum Grav. 32 235014

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/32/23/235014)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 14.139.190.82
This content was downloaded on 09/11/2015 at 18:34

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 Classical and Quantum Gravity
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 (13pp) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235014

Supersymmetric quantum matrix

cosmology
J L López1 and O Obregón
Departamento de Física, División de ciencias e Ingenieriías Campus León, Universidad
de Guanajuato, A.P. E-143, C.P. 37150, León, Guanajuato, México.

E-mail: jl_lopez@fisica.ugto.mx and octavio@fisica.ugto.mx

Received 13 May 2015, revised 11 August 2015

Accepted for publication 22 September 2015
Published 11 November 2015

Abstract
We exhibit a relation between the SU(2) invariant matrix model arising from
the quantization of the 11-dimensional supermembrane in the light cone gauge
and supersymmetric quantum cosmology. We use a Dirac-like gamma matrix
representation for the fermionic degrees of freedom and find explicit solutions
to reduced lower dimensional SU(2) matrix models for the zero energy states.
One of the solutions we encounter in the matrix model resembles exactly a
wave function found independently in the context of SUSY quantum cos-
mology; this allows us to give these regularized models a physical meaning
and shows a direct relation between the SU(2) matrix model and SUSY
quantum cosmology.

Keywords: supersymmetric quantum cosmology, supersymmetric gauge

theory, M(atrix) theory

1. Introduction

As is known, M-theory should be an 11-dimensional supersymmetric quantum theory from

which all superstring theories can be deduced and it can be connected also to 11-dimensional
supergravity. This comes from the fact that the five consistent theories of strings and 11D
supergravity are related through several types of dualities [1–5]. The conjecture was extended
in [6], showing that matrix theory is also meaningful for finite N, so the solutions to the matrix
model for finite N are relevant. In the context of this matrix theory, it has been claimed that
classical cosmological models can be deduced directly from it [7, 8] and specifically in [8],
using a homothetic ansatz, the authors were able to derive the Friedmann equations from the
bosonic sector of the classical Hamiltonian of matrix theory. By taking into account the
1
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

0264-9381/15/235014+13$33.00 © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1

Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

fermionic sector, it is then expected that a possible relation between matrix theory and SUSY
quantum cosmology could exist as well.
Another matrix model, related to the one of BFSS [1], was encountered in the quanti-
zation of the classical 11-dimensional supermembrane action in the light cone gauge (LCG)
[9–12]. In this type of supersymmetric models it is of great importance to find the zero energy
ground state solution [12–20]. The asymptotic form of the solutions for the reduced SU(2)
matrix model were studied in [12, 17–20] and perturbative states for general gauge groups
were studied in [14]. Also reduced lower dimensional models are considered and the exis-
tence of solutions for some particular cases were stated in [17]. Even though it is commonly
considered that the relevant case is the d = 9 dimensional model in the large N limit, the study
of reduced lower dimensional models could provide significant information and allows a
better understanding of the theory [9, 11, 18, 19, 21]. We show in this work that these reduced
models have physical relevance in the realm of SUSY quantum cosmology.
Our procedure is based on the following process. (i) We consider finite N matrix models;
(ii) the relevant operators are the supercharges and those related to the SU(N) symmetry [17];
(iii) the fermionic degrees of freedom are represented utilizing a Dirac-like gamma matrix
representation [22–24]. By means of this, the associated supercharges and the operators
related to the SU(N) symmetry become matrix differential operators acting on a multi-
component wave function. The fermionic degrees of freedom could also be represented by
differential operators [25–29]. In SUSY quantum cosmology it is supposed that these two
representations for the fermionic degrees of freedom should be equivalent; however, there has
not been any clear solid complete proof of this equivalence [28, 30]. It is similar to the use of
matrices by Heinsenberg and the differential equation by Schrödinger regarding quantum
mechanics. It was Dirac who proved the equivalence of these two formulations of quantum
mechanics. In SUSY quantum cosmology such a proof is missing [28, 30]. We will also make
further assumptions in the space of bosonic variables and freeze out some bosonic degrees of
freedom. Some of the models studied can be exactly solved, illustrating for us the kind of
ground state solutions to be expected for a larger N model and for a higher dimensional one.
The kind of reduction we make, namely fixing degrees of freedom, has been used in [9, 21]. It
should be noticed that already in standard quantum cosmology, based on a 3+1 partition of
space-time, Lorentz invariance is broken. This is further the case for the models we construct
by selecting some concrete gauges [31]. Besides, recently [33], to describe the quantum
dynamics of the supersymmetric Bianchi IX cosmological model [24], it has been proposed to
fix from the start the six degrees of freedom describing local Lorentz rotations of the tetrad,
allowing us to find nontrivial solutions to the quantum mechanical problem. At the same time
we show that some reduced matrix models correspond to exact SUSY quantum cosmology
models that arise from symmetry reductions in supergravity, mainly because one of the wave
function solutions obtained in our reduced models resembles a wave function solution
obtained in the superfield approach to supersymmetric quantum cosmology [34, 35]. It is then
argued that the matrix model we consider provides the relevant physical information, as
classical cosmology seems also to arise from bosonic matrix models [7, 8]. This is a parti-
cularly interesting result of our reduced matrix models and shows that these models are
consistently supersymmetric given that their corresponding SUSY cosmological models are
supersymmetric by construction [34, 35].
The work is organized as follows. First, in section 2, we show the matrix model and its
description as a supersymmetric SU(N) invariant quantum mechanical model. In section 3 we
illustrate the way in which we search for solutions in a two-dimensional reduced model and
for the SU(2) group and show a solution we obtain for some particular assumptions on the
bosonic variables. In section 4 we extend a four-dimensional model and show first that in this

2
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

extension we encounter, exactly, the reduced model guessed in [11] used to analyze the
spectrum of the matrix Hamiltonian of the quantum supermembrane action and then we
exhibit a solution to this extended model. In section 5 we show the interesting connection
between the solution to the extended four-dimensional model with SUSY quantum cosmol-
ogy and section 6 is devoted to conclusions.

2. Matrix model

The model arising from the quantization of the classical supermembrane action becomes a
model of supersymmetric quantum mechanics that can also be obtained from a dimensional
reduction of a super Yang–Mills theory with gauge group SU(N) [9, 13]. The Hamiltonian of
this matrix model [12] is given by

1 g2
H = p am p am + f f m fn f f m fn
2 4 abc b c ade d e
ig
- f Laa ( G m)ab f bm L cb ,
2 abc
m , n = { 1, 2, ¼ , 9} , a , b , c = { 1, 2, ¼ , N 2 - 1},
a , b = { 1, 2 ..., } , (1)

where f am and p am are the bosonic degrees of freedom and its related momenta respectively,
and f am are the components of the SU(N) valued matrices Fm given by Fm = f am t a where t a
are the basis group elements. Laa represent the fermonic degrees of freedom and Gm are m
Dirac matrices obeying the Clifford algebra {Gm , Gn} = 2dmn. The SU(N) group structure
constants are fabc. The algebra between the supercharges as a function of the total Hamiltonian
and the supercharges themselves are given by
{ Qa, Qb } = 2dab H + 2g ( Gn)ab fna Ga,
Qa = ( G mLa )a p am + igfabc ( Smn La )a f bm f nc , ( 2)
i
where Smn = - [Gm , Gn]. In the anticommutator of the supercharges, the operator
4
(constraint) related to the SU(N) invariance Ga appears, which in terms of the bosonic and
fermionic variables is given by
⎛ i ⎞
Ga = fabc ⎜ f bm p cm - Lba L ca ⎟ . (3)
⎝ 2 ⎠
Now we want to realize the quantization. And as we are working with a supersymmetric
quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian is the square of the supercharges and it is positive
semidefinite, the state Y which obeys H Y = 0 is automatically the ground state wave
function. Also, the ground state should be a gauge invariant state, it should satisfy
Ga Y = 0. The commutator and anticommutator relations for the bosonic and fermionic
degrees of freedom will be
⎡⎣ f m , p nb ⎤⎦ = idab d mn, { Laa, Lbb } = dab dab . (4)
a

The supercharges arise as the square root of the Hamiltonian, and as it can be seen in the
algebra equation (2), we can solve the equations Qa Y = 0 together with Ga Y = 0. Then
the ground state satisfying this will respect all the symmetries; gauge and exact
supersymmetry. The representation of the canonical momenta corresponding to f am is, as

3
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

¶
usual, p am = -i ¶fm , and given the algebra for the fermionic variables equation (4), we have
a
represented the Laa as matrices [22–24]. As can be seen, the Hamiltonian equation (1)
resembles one of some simple cosmological models [28]; motivated by the results in [7, 8] we
will explore whether it is possible to obtain solutions to equations (1, 2, 3) and search for their
possible relation with supersymmetric quantum cosmological models, but first we will need to
discuss the method for finding solutions.

3. The method of solution

To begin with, we will show how to find solutions to the ground state by solving the
corresponding equations Qa Y = 0 and Ga Y = 0 (the Hamiltonian constraint is then
satisfied) for a SU(2) symmetry; a = 1, 2, 3 and for a two-dimensional reduced model,
m = 1, 2. Hence, we will have six f am bosonic degrees of freedom and the same number for
the fermionic ones. In the variables Laa , a is a group index and the α index represents the
number of supercharges which is in accordance with the number of components of a spinor in
d dimensions. The dimension M of the square M × M matrix representation Laa depends on
the number of fermionic degrees of freedom. So, in this first toy model, M = 8. The
representation we use for the Laa matrices that satisfies equation (4) is the following
1 0 i 1 i 2
L11 = D , L12 = D , L21 = D,
2 2 2
i 3 i 4 i 5
L22 = D , L31 = D , L32 = D.
2 2 2
Dm = g m Ä s1, D4 = I Ä is 2, D5 = I Ä is 3,
m = 0, 1, 2, 3, (5)
where s i are the Pauli matrices, g m are the Dirac matrices in a Majorana representation and I is
the 4 × 4 identity matrix. For this model we choose the following two Gm matrices

G1 = ( ) 0 1 , G2 =
1 0 ( 1 0 .
0 -1 ) (6)

The two supercharges Qa of equation (2) are given by the following operators
Q1 = L11p12 + L21p 22 + L31p 32 + L12 p11 + L22 p12 + L32 p13
( ) ( ) (
- gL12 f12 f32 - f13 f 22 - gL22 f13 f12 - f11 f 32 - gL32 f11 f 22 - f12 f12 , )
Q2 = L11p11 + L21p12 + L31p13 - L12 p12 - L22 p 22 - L32 p 32
+ ( ) ( )
gL11 f12 f32 - f13 f 22 + gL21 f13 f12 - f11 p 32 + gL31 ( f11f22 - f12 f12 ), ( 7)

and the three operators Ga (a = 1, 2, 3) related with the SU(2) gauge symmetry are given by
G1 = f12 p13 + f 22 p 32 - f13 p12 - f32 p 22 - i ( L21L31 + L22 L32 ),
G 2 = f13 p11 + f32 p12 - f11 p13 - f12 p 32 - i ( L31L11 + L32 L12 ),
G 3 = f11 p12 + f12 p 22 - f12 p11 - f 22 p12 - i ( L11L21 + L12 L22 ). ( 8)
Using the matrix representation of equation (5), all of them are linear matrix differential
operators acting on an eight component wave function Y . We can restrict this model
even more, setting some of the bosonic variables equal to zero, or making some
identifications between them. These will give specific configurations. Using the

4
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

anticommutator of the supercharges in equation (2) and equation (6) we can see that it is not
always necessary to impose all of the three Ga operators, and that we can solve the problem
for one single operator Qα. For every Ga Y = 0, and Qa Y = 0, we have eight
coupled partial differential equations for the eight components of the wave function
Y = (y1, y2, y3, y4, y5, y6, y 7, y8 ). For example, the equation Q1 Y = 0 leads to the
eight equations

⎡ 3f f - p1 ⎤ y + ⎡ ip 2 - p1 + 3f f ⎤ y
⎣ 1 ( ) 3⎦ 1 ⎣ 3 ( )
1 2 ⎦ 2

+ ⎡⎣ p12 - 3f3 f ⎤⎦ y4 - ⎡⎣ ip12 + p 22¯ ⎤⎦ y8 = 0,
( )
⎡ 3f f - ip 2 - p1 ⎤ y + ⎡ p1 - 3f f ⎤ y
⎣ 2 ( ) 3 1⎦ 1 ⎣ 3 ( ) 1 ⎦ 2

+ ⎡⎣ p12 - 3f3 f ⎤⎦ y3 - ⎡⎣ ip12 + p 22 ⎤⎦ y7 = 0,
( )
⎡ p1 - 3f f ⎤ y + ⎡ 3f f - p1 ⎤ y
⎣ 2 ( )
3 ⎦ 2 ⎣ 1( ) 3⎦ 3

+ ⎡⎣ ip 32 + p11 - 3f2 f ⎤⎦ y4 + ⎡⎣ ip12 + p 22 ⎤⎦ y6 = 0,
( )
⎡ p1 - 3f f ⎤ y + ⎡ p1 - ip 2 - 3f f ⎤ y
⎣ 2 ( )
3 ⎦ 1 ⎣ 1 ( )
3 2 ⎦ 3

+ ⎡⎣ p13 - 3f1 f ⎤⎦ y4 + ⎡⎣ ip12 + p 22 ⎤⎦ y5 = 0,
( )

⎡⎣ p 2 - ip 2 ⎤⎦ y + ⎡ 3f f - p1 ⎤ y
( )
2 1 4 ⎣ 1 3⎦ 5
 
+ ⎡⎣ ip 32 - p11 + 3f2 f ⎤⎦ y6 + ⎡⎣ p12 - 3f3 f ⎤⎦ y8 = 0,
( ) ( )

⎡⎣ p 2 - ip 2 ⎤⎦ y - ⎡ ip 2 + p1 - 3f f ⎤ y
( )
2 1 3 ⎣ 3 1 2 ⎦ 5
⎡  ⎤ ⎡  ⎤
( ) ( )
+ ⎣ p13 - 3f1 f ⎦ y6 + ⎣ p12 - 3f3 f ⎦ y7 = 0,

⎡⎣ ip 2 - p 2 ⎤⎦ y + ⎡ p1 - 3f f ⎤ y
( )
1 2 2 ⎣ 2 3 ⎦ 6
 
+ ⎡⎣ 3f1 f - p13 ⎤⎦ y7 + ⎡⎣ ip 32 + p11 - 3f2 f ⎤⎦ y8 = 0,
( ) ( )

⎡⎣ ip 2 - p 2 ⎤⎦ y + ⎡ p1 - 3f f ⎤ y
1 2 1 ⎣ 2 ( )3 ⎦ 5
 
- ⎡⎣ ip 32 - p11 + 3f2 f ⎤⎦ y7 + ⎡⎣ p13 - 3f1 f ⎤⎦ y8 = 0,
( ) ( ) (9 )


where the functions fa (f ), a = 1, 2, 3, depend on the bosonic variables and give rise to the
potentials appearing in the Hamiltonian. These functions are given by
  
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
f1 f = f11 f 22 - f12 f12 , f2 f = f12 f32 - f13 f 22 , f3 f = f13 f12 - f11 f32 . (10))
We can then make the mentioned simplifications to find a model with a particular potential.
We have been able to manage these functions to generate some potentials corresponding to
cosmological models in the Hamiltonian equation (1), and have found solutions to the
corresponding wave functions. Here we show an example that illustrates the procedure. This
will be extended to find a model in section 4, that we identify in section 5 with a SUSY
cosmological model.

5
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

3.1. An exact solution

The following model is chosen in such a way that the bosonic part of the potential in its
corresponding Hamiltonian takes the form of a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, which is
f11 = x , f 22 = C , f12 = f13 = f12 = f32 = 0,
  
( ) ( )
f1 f = Cx , f2 f = 0, f3 f = 0. ( ) (11)

where C is a constant. Following the procedure described in section 3, we will have two
independent components, y1 and y2, for the wave function Y = (y1, y2, y2, y1, y1, y 2,
y2, y1 ). The explicit form of these two components is
3Cx 2 3Cx 2
y1 = (a + b) e 2 + ( a - b) e - 2 ,
3Cx 2 2
y2 = i (a + b) e 2 - i ( a - b) e - 3Cx
2 , (12)
where a , b are arbitrary constants. If we choose them to be a = -b, then we get a
normalizable wave function. We notice that these reduced lower dimensional models can
have exact normalizable solutions. It was demonstrated in [17] that with no restrictions on the
bosonic or fermionic variables, a normalizable zero energy solution does not exist for this
two-dimensional model but the results presented in this work show that these reduced models
can have normalizable solutions of physical relevance and have validity on their own. As we
consider reduced models, there is no contradiction with the theorem demonstrated in [17]. In
the next section we explore the solutions of an extension of the previous model. Our intention
is to show that in this extension we will find solutions that can be directly related to SUSY
quantum cosmology. In particular, this solution to equation (12) can already be related to the
SUSY closed FRW model [28, 32]. As expected, this solution also corresponds to the SUSY
cosmological model presented below, in section 5, for the case M = 0.

4. SU(2) four-dimensional extension

In the four-dimensional extension for the SU(2) group there are 12 bosonic variables f am ,
m = 1, 2, 3, 4. a = 1, 2, 3, and with d = 4 the number of supercharges is 4. The number
of fermionic variables is also 12 and the dimension M for the matrix representation of these
variables is M = 64. The (64 ´ 64) representation we choose for the twelve matrices Laa that
satisfies the algebra equation (4) is the following

(
L11 =  1 )
2 s1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L12 = ( 1 2 )s 2 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L13 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L14 = ( 1 2 )s 1 Ä s 2 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L21 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s1 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L22 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 2 Ä 1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L23 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s1 Ä 1 Ä 1,
L24 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 2 Ä 1 Ä 1,

6
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

(
L31 =  1 )
2 s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s1 Ä 1,
L32 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 2 Ä 1,
L33 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s1,
L34 = ( 1 2 )s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 3 Ä s 2, (13)

where s i, i = 1, 2, 3, are the Pauli matrices. The (4 ´ 4) Dirac representation for the Gm
matrices we use is
0 - I , G 2 = ⎛⎜ 0 - is 2 ⎞⎟ ,
G1 = (
-I 0 )⎝ is 2 0 ⎠
⎛ 3⎞
G3 = I 0 , G 4 = ⎜ 0 3 - is ⎟ .
( ) (14)
0 -I ⎝ is 0 ⎠
In this case I is the 2 × 2 identity matrix. In this extension we have a richer structure and we
can search for solutions with more interesting potentials. Using the matricial representation in
equation (13) we need to solve, again, systems of matricial partial differential equations. In
this case, every supercharge and gauge symmetry operator is a (64 ´ 64) operator matrix
acting on a 64 component wave function Y . In this extension we will also restrict ourselves
to solving some reduced models with particular assumptions on the bosonic degrees of
freedom.
As an example, we begin with the following model. We select two variables to be
different from zero, f11 = x, f 22 = y. In this particular model, we see from equation (2) and
equation (14) that it is not necessary to impose the restrictions Ga Y = 0 for any Ga. We
need then to solve, for example, Q1 Y = 0. As in the previous models the components of the
wave function can be identified and one gets a solution with just two independent components
y1, and y2. The independent components (y1, y2 ) appear finally coupled in only two dif-
ferential equations
¶y2 ¶y2
i + - 3xyy1 = 0,
¶x ¶y
¶y ¶y1
i 1 - + 3xyy2 = 0. (15)
¶x ¶y
These two coupled components (y1, y2 ) are related to the other six components of the wave
function in the following manner
y8 = iy1, y7 = iy2 , y19 = - iy2 ,
y20 = iy1, y21 = - y1, y22 = y2 . (16)
There are also other pairs of components coupled in the same way. Here we write all these
pairs of coupled components

( y1, y2 ), ( y3, y4 ), ( y9, y10 ), ( y11, y12 ),

( y33, y34 ), ( y35, y36 ), ( y41, y42 ), ( y43, y44 ). (17)

If we identify all these pairs as one, then all the rest of the components are related to the only
independent pair (y1, y2 ) in a similar way to in equation (16) and the wave function has only
two independent components. This, now exact, reduced model would correspond to the only

7
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

two-component one guessed in [11] to analyze the spectrum of the Hamiltonian equation (1).
Our quantization approach leads to similar features. For several possible choices of the
bosonic variables one gets trivial solutions but here we show solutions to some nontrivial
models. A similar procedure to that in [11] could be searched to analyze the spectrum of the
Hamiltonian equation (1) associated with the relevant solutions in connection with SUSY
quantum cosmology, namely, the solution to equation (12) and the exact solution that follows
equation (19).

4.1. Exact solution 2

The next one-dimensional model has a more interesting form, it has four bosonic components
and three of them are constants. The choice of variables is

f24 = x , f12 = f34 = C , f13 = D , (18)

where C and D are constants and the rest of the bosonic degrees of freedom are set to zero.
The conditions Ga Y = 0 are not required and the solution to Q1 Y = 0 leads to pairs of
coupled components, for instance (y1, y37 ) that can be placed in a two-dimensional base of
two eigenvectors in the form
⎛ y1 ⎞ 1 exp ⎡⎢ - 3 ⎛ C 2x - Dx ⎞ ⎤⎥ + C 1 exp ⎡⎢ 3 ⎛ C 2x - Dx 2 ⎞ ⎤⎥ .
2
⎜ ⎟ = C1
⎝ y37 ⎠ ( )
-i ⎣
⎜
⎝
⎟
2 ⎠⎦
2
i ⎣ ⎝()
⎜
2 ⎠⎦
⎟ (19)

The rest of the components are also coupled in the same way and give the same solution,
these pairs of coupled components are

( y1, y37 ), ( y2, y38 ), ( y3, y39 ), ( y4, y40 ), ( y5, y33 ),
( y6, y34 ), ( y7, y35 ), ( y8, y36 ),
( y9, y45 ), ( y10, y46 ), ( y11, y47 ), ( y12, y48 ), ( y13, y41),
( y14, y42 ), ( y15, y43 ), ( y16, y44 ),
( y17, y53 ), ( y18, y54 ), ( y19, y55 ), ( y20, y56 ),
( y21, y49 ), ( y22, y50 ), ( y23, y51), ( y24, y52 ),
( y25, y61), ( y26, y62 ), ( y27, y63 ), ( y28, y64 ),
( y29, y57 ), ( y30, y58 ), ( y31, y59 ), ( y32, y60 ).
It can be seen that there are only two independent eigenvector solutions, one of them is
normalizable and the other one is not. In the next section we will see that this solution can be
interpreted as the supersymmetric quantum solution of a cosmological model.

5. Connection with SUSY quantum cosmology

As was discussed in the introduction, it has been proposed that one can construct a cosmo-
logical model corresponding to matrix theory. In [7] the authors study the relation between
this matrix model and Newtonian cosmology. In [8], using a homothetic ansatz, the authors
were able to get the Friedmann equations from the classical equations of matrix theory. Here,
it is important to remark that in all these cosmological models, the fermionic sector is absent
and that they have been worked out only with classical matrix equations. We are dealing with
the quantization of the matrix model of the supermembrane, so we can expect that, given that

8
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

we are working with the quantization of a supersymmetric model, our solutions would be
related to the solutions that have been obtained in different approaches to SUSY quantum
cosmology [22–24, 34, 35]. As was pointed in [24], there are several ways to carry out the
quantization of a supersymmetric cosmological model. One of these options is to use the
superfield approach, generalizing the minisuperspace of the FRW cosmological model (and
other cosmological models of interest) introducing the corresponding superpartner coordi-
nates of time t  (t, h , h¯ ) and working with the supersymmetric generalization of the FRW
action in terms of the superfields corresponding to the scale factor and the lapse function,
respectively R (t )   (t, h , h¯ ) and N (t )   (t, h , h¯ ) [34, 35]. We can actually note that
one of our solutions resembles the supersymmetric cosmological solution found in [35] with
this last approach. From the supercharges and the SU(2) symmetry operators we can calculate
the Hamiltonian of every model we have solved using equation (2). For the solutions in the
extended four-dimensional model the Hamiltonians are (64 ´ 64) nondiagonal matrix
operators whose diagonal terms are related to its bosonic part. Let us first take a look at the
second solution of our extended model, equation (19), but identify now the variables and
constants in this case as
Mc k c3
f24 = R (t ) , f12 = f34 = , f13 = , (20)
3 3G
where κ is a constant, c is the speed of light and G is the gravitational constant. We will also
recover for this solution the constant  . The bosonic (diagonal) part of the Hamiltonian is
k c6 2 2M c 4 k
Hii = pR2 + R - R + M 2 c2 , i = 1, 2, ¼ , 64 (21)
G2 G
and the solution in equation (19) for the coupled (y1, y37 ) components of the wave function
becomes
⎛ y1 ⎞ 1 exp ⎡⎢ - ⎛ M c R - k c3 R 2⎞ ⎤⎥
⎜ ⎟ = c1
⎝ y37 ⎠ -i ( ) ⎜
⎣ ⎝  2G
⎟
⎠⎦
⎡ ⎛ Mc k c3 2 ⎞ ⎤
i ()
+ c 2 1 exp ⎢ ⎜
⎣⎝ 
R-
2G 
R ⎟ ⎥.
⎠⎦
(22)

Now we briefly review how this solution arose in the context of SUSY quantum cosmology.
Following [34, 35] we rewrite here the supersymmetric action of the FRW cosmological
model with a perfect fluid of barotropic equation of state p = gr. For the case of dust g = 0
and null cosmological constant L = 0 such action is given by
⎡ c2 ⎜⎛ dR ⎟⎞2 kc4 ⎤
S= ò ⎢- R
⎣ 2NG ⎝ dt ⎠
+N
2G
R - NM c2 ⎥ dt
⎦
(23)

where k = -1, 1, 0 is the curvature constant. N(t) and R(t) are the lapse function and the
scale factor respectively and M is the mass parameter of dust. This action as given is invariant
under reparametrizations of time [t  t + a (t )] when N (t ), R (t ) transform in the following
way
dR d (aN )
dR = a , dN = . (24)
dt dt
In the superfield formulation one introduces the superpartner coordinates of time in the
superspace t  (t, h , h¯ ). The superspace valued Taylor series expansion of the superfields is

9
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

 ( t , h , h¯) = N (t ) + ihy¯ (t ) + ihy

¯ (t ) + V (t ) hh¯ ,
 ( t , h , h¯) = R (t ) + ihl¯ (t ) + ihl
¯ (t ) + B (t ) hh¯ , (25)
where y (t ), y¯ (t ) are the complex gravitino, and V(t) is a U(1) gauge field. B(t) in the
superfield  (t, h , h¯ ) is an auxiliary degree of freedom and l (t ), l¯ (t ) are the fermionic
partners of the scale factor R (t ). The supersymmetric generalization of equation (23) is
⎡ c2 c3 k 2 ⎤
S= ò ⎢⎣ - 2G -1Dh¯ Dh  + 2G
 - M c⎥ dh dh¯ dt ,
⎦
(26)

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶
where Dh¯ = - - ih and Dh = + ih¯ are the supercovariant derivatives of the
¶h¯ ¶t ¶h ¶t
global ‘small’ supersymmetry of the generalized parameter corresponding to the time variable
t. When the canonical formalism is applied to the supersymmetric Lagrangian it was shown
[34, 35] that the classical total Hamiltonian is given by
i ¯ i 1
Hc = NH + yS - yS¯ + VF , (27)
2 2 2
where H is the Hamiltonian of the system, S and S̄ are the supercharges and F is a U(1)
rotation generator. N, ψ, ȳ and V are now Lagrange multipliers. H , S , S¯ and F are first class
constraints, hence the physical state wave functions Y (R) are obtained from the conditions
H Y (R) = 0, S Y (R) , S¯ Y (R) = 0, F Y (R) = 0. (28)
These constraints have a dependence on R(t) and l (t ), l¯ (t ). The explicit dependence of the
Hamiltonian and supercharges on this variables is the following
G 2 k c 4R M 2G c k ¯ MG ¯
H =- 2
pR - - + c2 M k - ll - ll,
2c R 2G 2R 2R 2cR 2
⎛ iG1 2 c2 k R1 2 MG1 2 ⎞
S = ⎜ 1 2 pR - + ⎟ l,
⎝ cR G 1 2 R1 2 ⎠
⎛ iG1 2 c2 k R1 2 MG1 2 ⎞ ¯
S¯ = ⎜ 1 2 pR + - ⎟ l,
⎝ cR G1 2 R1 2 ⎠
(29)
where pR is the canonical momentum of the variable R. As a consequence of the superalgebra
between the Hamiltonian and the supercharges, the physical states are found by applying only
the supercharge operators to the state wave function Y (R). Using a specific matrix
representation for the fermionic variables [35] Y (R) becomes a two component wave function
Y (R) = (Y1, Y2). The corresponding superquantum solutions [35] for these two components
are
⎡ ⎛ Mc k 2⎟⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ Mc k c3 2⎞ ⎤
Y1 = C exp ⎢ ⎜ R- R ⎥ , Y2 = C˜ exp ⎢ - ⎜ R- R ⎟ ⎥. (30)
⎣⎝  2G ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎝  2G ⎠ ⎥⎦
For M = 0, the bosonic part of the Hamiltonian constraint equation (29) results in a one-
dimensional linear operator corresponding to a harmonic oscillator operator, as is the case of
the model given by equations (11, 12). As is to be expected, the same solution arises if one
represents the fermionic degrees of freedom as differential operators [28, 32]. We can see that
our solution equation (22) and this one obtained in the superfield approach, equation (30), are
indeed the same. The only difference is that, in the matrix context, these exponentials appear
as a linear combination of two dimensional eigenvectors. The diagonal part of the matrix
Hamiltonian for every matrix model is associated with the bosonic sector of the system. If we

10
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

want to find the solution to H Y (R) = 0, we can rewrite the Hamiltonian constraint in
equation (29) and see that the bosonic part of this Hamiltonian, which is the one that does not
depend on the fermionic variables (l , l¯ ), is the same as the diagonal part of the matrix
Hamiltonian in equation (21) of our particular matrix model. We have then found the same
solution in SUSY quantum cosmology and in matrix theory. The behavior of the Y1
component is the expected when R  Rsup , where Rsup is the maximum radius of the
universe. One of the components converges as R  ¥ while the other one diverges, but the
convergent solution can be isolated with the right choice of constants. The scalar product of
the Y1 component in the measure R1 2 dR is normalizable and in both cases the norm of the
wave function can be defined with the inner product
Rsup
Y Y = ò0 Y †YR1 2 dR . (31)

This review revealed how to obtain a supersymmetric quantum solution for a particular
cosmological model in the superfield approach, and we were able to relate it to the exact
ground state solution of the matrix model of section 4.1. It was then important to show in
some detail how these supersymmetric quantum solutions are obtained and how they are
related with normalizable solutions in matrix theory. We want to remark, now that we have
shown the coincidence of the solutions, that this makes evident a certain connection between
solutions in matrix theory and solutions in cosmological models arising from supergravity.

6. Conclusions

We have considered the finite N matrix model arising from the quantization of the 11-
dimensional supermembrane. The fermionic degrees of freedom can be represented as dif-
ferential operators or, as we have chosen, as Dirac-like gamma matrices [22–24, 28, 30]. We
were able to find explicit ground state solutions, for lower dimensional reduced models, to the
SU(2) matrix model and show that these solutions can be normalizable. Our claim in this
work is that reduced models are physically relevant and that it is possible to search for the
zero energy states and find them explicitly. We found, for instance, that a model guessed and
investigated in [11] results as an exact submodel within our formalism and, more importantly,
a particular interesting result is the relation between one of our solutions in the extended
model with supersymmetric quantum cosmology. This guarantees that the reduced matrix
model is supersymmetric. We were motivated by the results in [7, 8] where the FRW cos-
mological models have been related with classical bosonic matrix theory. It was then expected
that, considering a matrix model containing both the fermionic and bosonic sectors, a relation
with SUSY quantum cosmology could also arise, and this is the principal result of the present
work. Putting this into perspective, we encounter interesting relations between several topics
connected with our work; on the one hand, the connection between reduced matrix theory
models and SUSY quantum cosmology, and on the other hand, in a recent work [33] the
authors show evidence of the conjecture relating supergravity and the dynamics of a spinning
particle moving in an infinite coset space by means of the quantum dynamics of the super-
symmetric Bianchi IX cosmological model [24], and the operational structure of the con-
straints revealed a hidden hyperbolic Kac–Moody structure. It would be of interest to be able
to identify reduced matrix model solutions associated to the Bianchi SUSY quantum cos-
mological models, in particular the Bianchi IX [24, 33], and by means of this, try to be able to
find a relation between the Kac–Moody structure and matrix theory. Besides, the method we
use can be applied to find the explicit form of the relevant normalizable ground state solutions

11
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

for finite N and higher dimensional models [17]. An analysis of our proposal regarding
several of these possible connections is a matter for future research and is beyond the scope of
this work.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank H Nicolai for useful comments on his own work and H Garciía Compeán,
R Cordero and O Loaiza-Brito for discussions on the Hamiltonian formulation and different
approaches of quantization in field and string theory. O Obregón was partially supported by
PROMEP, a CONACYT Grant and UG Grant. J L López was supported by CONACYT
Grant 43683.

References

[1] Banks T, Fischler W, Shenker S H and Susskind L 1997 M Theory as a Matrix Model: a Conjeture
Phys. Rev. D 55 5112
[2] Duff M J, Howe P, Inami T and Stelle K S 1987 Superstrings in D = 10 from supermembranes in
D = 11 Phys. Lett. B 191 70
[3] Duff M J, Minasian R and Liu J T 1995 Eleven dimensional Origin os string/String duality: a one
loop test Nucl. Phys. B 452 261
[4] Hull C M and Townsend P K 1995 Unity of Superstring Dualities Nucl. Phys. B 438 109
[5] Witten E 1995 String Theory Dynamics in Various Dimensions Nucl. Phys. B 443 85
[6] Susskind L 1997 Another conjecture about M(atrix) theory (arXiv:hep-th/9704080)
[7] Alvarez E and Meessen P 1998 Newtonian M(atrix) cosmology Phys. Lett. B 426 282
[8] Freedman D Z, Gibbons G and Schnabl M 2005 Matrix cosmology AIP Conf. Proc. 743 286
[9] de Wit B, Hoppe J and Nicolai H 1988 On the Quantum Mechanics of Supermembranes Nucl.
Phys. B 305 545
[10] de Wit B, Luscher M and Nicolai H 1989 The Supemembrane is Unstable Nucl. Phys. B 320 135
[11] Nicolai H and Helling R 1998 Supermembranes and M(atrix) Theory Trieste, Nonperturbative
aspects of strings, branes and supersymmetry 29 (arXiv: hep-th/9809103)
[12] Halpern M B and Schwartz C 1998 Asymptotic search for ground states of SU(2) matrix theory
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13 4367
[13] Claudson M and Halpern M B 1985 Supersymmetric ground State wave functions Nucl. Phys. B
250 689
[14] Samuel S 1997 Solutions of extended supersymmetric matrix models for arbitrary gauge groups
Phys. Lett. B 411 268
[15] Sethi S and Stern M 1998 D-brane bound state redux Commun. Math. Phys. 194 675
[16] Sethi S and Stern M 2000 The structure of the D0-D4 bound state Nucl. Phys. B 578 163
[17] Frohlich J, Graf G M, Hasler D, Hoppe J and Yau S-T- 2000 Asymptotic form of zero energy
wave functions in supersymmetric matrix models Nucl. Phys. B 567 231
[18] Hoppe J 2000 Zero energy states in supersymmetric matrix models Class. Quant. Grav. 17 1101
[19] Michishita Y and Trzetrzelewski M 2013 Towards the ground state of the supermembrane Nucl.
Phys. B 868 539
[20] Trzetrzelewski M 2007 Large N behavior of two dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills
quantum mechanics J. Math. Phys. 48 012302
[21] Boulton L, Garciía del Moral M P and Restuccia A 2015 Massless ground state for a compact SU
(2) matrix model in 4D (hep-th/1503.05462)
[22] Maciías A, Obregón O and Ryan M P 1987 Quantum cosmology: the supersymmetric square root
Class. Quant. Grav. 4 1477
[23] Macias A, Obregón O and Socorro J 1993 Supersymmetric quantum cosmology Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A 8 4291
[24] Obregón O and Ramiírez C 1998 Dirac like formulation of quantum supersymmetric cosmology
Phys. Rev. D 57 1015
[25] D’Eath P D, Hawking S W and Obregón O 1993 Supersymmetric Bianchi models and the square
root of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Phys. Lett. B 300 44

12
Class. Quantum Grav. 32 (2015) 235014 J L López and O Obregón

[26] Cheng A D Y, D’Eath P D and Moniz P V 1994 Quantization of the Bianchi type IX model in
supergravity with a cosmological constant Phys. Rev. D 49 5246
[27] D’Eath P D 1996 Supersymmetric Quantum Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[28] Vargas Moniz P 2010 Quantum Cosmology: the Supersymmetric Perspective: Fundamentals Lect.
Notes Phys. vol 1 (Berlin: Springer) 803
Vargas Moniz P 2010 Quantum Cosmology: the Supersymmetric Perspective: Advanced
Perspective Lect. Notes Phys. vol 2 (Berlin: Springer) 804
[29] Vargas Moniz P 2014 Supersymmetric quantum cosmology: a ‘Socratic’ guide Gen. Rel. Grav.
46 1618
[30] Kiefer C 2012 Quantum Gravity 3rd edn, Int. Series of Monographs on Physics vol 155 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press)
[31] Wiltshire D L 2000 An introduction to Quantum Cosmology Proc. Conf. on Cosmology
(Singapore: World Scientific)
[32] Socorro J 2002 Supersymmetric quantum solution for FRW cosmological model with matter Rev.
Mex. Fis. 48 112
[33] Damour T and Spindel P 2014 Quantum supersymmetric Bianchi IX cosmology Phys. Rev. D 90
103509
[34] Obregón O, Rosales J J and Tkach V I 1996 Superfield description of the FRW Universe Phys.
Rev. D 53 1750
[35] Ortiz C, Rosales J J, Socorro J, Torres J and Tkach V I 2005 Wave functions in Susy cosmological
models with matter Phys. Lett. A 340 51

13