\section{Introduction}
Matrix theory \cite{Banks1} is one of the most promising ideas for
a nonperturbative definition of M theory. There are many hints
that confirms the validity of this conjecture, for example, this theory can
reproduce the leading order scattering amplitude for gravitons in eleven
dimensional low energy supergravity without momentum transfer in the
longitudinal direction (for example \cite{Becker,Okawa,Taylor4}).
We also have a good knowledge of what happens
when one compactifies this theory on a $p$ dimensional torus for
$p<6$. \cite{Suskind,Obers,Sen,Seiberg1,Seiberg2}
This theory also reproduces all five string theories
 \cite{Motl,Seiberg3,Dijkgraaf,Motl2,Krogh}

On the other hand, there are many unresolved problems. Eleven
dimensional Lorenz invariance is still mysterious, the theory is defined
in a fixed background. Processes with longitudinal momentum transfer
between gravitons has not been calculated and this process would be
rather useful for proving Lorenz invariance. The other serious problem
is that matrix theory is not well understood for more complicated
backgrounds (for example the $p$-torus with $p>6$).

One of the most interesting problems where matrix theory can be
tested is the quantum mechanical description of black holes. This is because
matrix theory, as a candidate for a nonperturbative definition of M
theory, must be able to describe these black holes and indeed this
have been done in many papers (for example \cite{Banks2},
\cite{Martinec}). In these approaches, a remarkably simple model for
Schwarzschild black holes was presented in that the Schwarzschild black
hole is described as a collection of $N$ D0 branes, and the basic
properties of these black holes comes from a statistical study of this
system. In this approach it is important to have these branes
distinguishable in order to obtain the correct formula for the entropy. In
order to obtain distinguishable D0 branes, we must specify some
background, which completely breaks the residual symmetry of the
matrix model, which is the group of permutation of $N$ objects
\(S_N \). More precisely, when we take the Matrix theory Lagrangian,
which describes a system of N D0 branes, this is 0+1 SYM theory with
gauge group U(N). If we want to describe the sector of the theory with
$N$ well separated D0 branes, then we must break the gauge group into
\(U(1)^N \), but the configuration is still invariant under the group of
permutations \( S_N \) which results in the quantum statistic
properties of gravitons (more in \cite{Banks3}), But when we specify some
classical background, this completely breaks the residual symmetry and we
obtain a system of $N$ distinguishable particles \cite{Banks2}.

In \cite{Banks2}, Schwarzschild black holes were studied in
the regime \(S\sim N\), which simply means that the black hole
consists of N distinguishable particles which each carry a
longitudinal momentum \(P_-=1/R \), where R is the radius of the
longitudinal direction in the DLCQ quantization of M theory.

An interesting proposal was made in \cite{Ohta}, where the
statistical properties of Schwarzschild black holes were obtained
{}from first principles in Matrix theory. Because, as the authors
argued, since matrix theory is a candidate for a nonperturbative
description of M theory, it has to be possible to determine from first
principles the properties of all gravitational objects included in
this regime. In their paper, the thermodynamic properties were
calculated from the statistical partition function of Matrix theory
for a particular sector of this theory. The background was chosen to
describe a collection of N classical D0 branes and then they
calculated the partition function by integrating out off diagonal
modes. Subsequently they estimated the basic thermodynamic properties
of this system by the same procedure as was used in \cite{Banks2} for
estimating mean values of characteristic parameters. After this was
done, they obtained the same relation between entropy, mass and
Schwarzschild radius for black hole as in classical gravity and as in
the work \cite{Banks2} without the initial assumption that \( S \sim N
\). In the conclusions of \cite{Ohta}, they suggested a similar way to
count the properties of Schwarzschild black hole also in the regime \(
S<<N \) and they furthermore suggested that in this regime the D0
branes can form membrane-like degrees of freedom.

The regime \( S<<N \) was previously investigated in the paper
\cite{Martinec}
and there it was proposed that the D0 branes would condense into K
clusters, where \(K \sim S \). In this situation these clusters must
also exchange longitudinal momentum among themselves and this
interaction must also be included into the effective potential between
these clusters (as usual in matrix theory, it is difficult to
calculate this potential directly, so the potential has to be
estimated). Doing this they were able to obtain the correct value for
the entropy and the mass of a Schwarzschild black hole in the regime
\( S << N \).

In the present paper we will  calculate the macroscopic properties of
Schwarzschild black holes precisely in this regime \( S<<N \) in a way
similar to the one suggested in \cite{Ohta}, so this paper should be
seen as a continuation of \cite{Ohta}. The generalization consists
in taking more complicated backgrounds with more than two objects
(there are K extended objects), which are far away from each other.
We take a background consisting of K clusters of D0 branes
where the longitudinal momentum of the $i$-th cluster is \(P_-=N_i/R
\). We will compute the statistical sum, and after estimating the mean
values of velocity of each object, the distance between the objects
and other parameters according to \cite{Banks2}, we obtain a value for
the entropy \(S \sim K \). This had to be assumed in \cite{Martinec}, but
here it emerges directly from theory. However, we cannot
obtain directly from this approach the correct macroscopic quantities
(mass, entropy, Schwarzschild radius) for black holes due to the fact
that when we count the one loop statistical partition function, we obtain
an effective potential which does not include exchange of longitudinal
momentum between clusters. When we estimate this potential in the
same way as in \cite{Martinec} we obtain correct value of mass,
entropy and Schwarzschild radius for a Schwarzschild black
hole. Certainly it would be interesting to obtain this potential
directly from matrix theory, but we do not know how this could be done.

We also have to worry about the fact that membranes in Matrix theory
are not stable objects unless they are infinite or wound around some
non-trivial cycles. The infinite membranes are not good to construct
finite size black holes from but we will show that the stable compact
membranes wound on non-trivial cycles, which are described by a $3+1$
dimensional SYS theory, can be used to show that the same statements
hold for Schwarzschild black holes in eight dimensions.

This paper is organized as follows. In the first part we choose a
general background and expand the action for matrix theory around it giving
us the action for the fluctuating fields. In the second part
we evaluate the partition function to one loop order. In the third part
we use our general partition function for a particular
example. Namely, we consider K clusters of D0 branes and we will try
to evaluate the characteristic macroscopic properties of a collection
of these clusters in order to confirm the conjecture \cite{Martinec} that
Schwarzschild black hole in the regime \( S<<N \) can be described as
a collection of K clusters. In the fourth part we calculate this
partition function for matrix theory compactified on a three torus and
as a particular example we take a collection of K membranes wound
around two compact directions and again we obtain the correct formula
for entropy and mass of a Schwarzschild black hole.

\section{General background in matrix theory}
We start with the standard action in {\it DLCQ M theory}, which is
{\it 0+1 SYM} with gauge group $U(N)$
\begin{eqnarray}
 S=\int dt   \frac{\kappa}{2}\left [ \mathrm{Tr} D_t X^n D_t X^n   +
  \frac{\kappa}{4}g^2\mathrm{Tr}\left[X^i,X^j\right]\left[X^i,X^j\right]
  \right.
  & & \nonumber \\
           +\left.\frac{\kappa}{2} \mathrm{Tr} \left( i \theta^T D_t
  \theta+g \theta^T \gamma_n\left[X^n,\theta\right] \right)\right ] &
  & \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
D_tX^n=\partial_t  X^n-i g [ \stackrel{\sim}{A},X^m ] \, ,
 D_t \theta= \partial_t \theta -i g [ \stackrel{\sim}{A}, \theta ]
 \end{equation}
where \( \kappa=\frac{1}{R}\)\, ,\, \(g=M^3R\)  with {\it M} being the
Plank mass and {\it R} being the radius of the compact light-like
circle. Also, \( \gamma^n\) are {\it SO(9)} gamma matrices
in the Majorana representation, so they are real, symmetric and obey
the relation $ \{ \gamma^m , \gamma^n \}=2
\delta_{mn}$, and \(\theta\) is thus a real 16 component spinor. Our
fields also transform in the adjoint representation
of the gauge group {\it U(N)} so all matrices must be hermitian.

In order to evaluate the partition function, we must go to Euclidean
time, so we make the transformation
\begin{equation}
\tau = i t \,  ,  A= - i\stackrel{\sim}{A}
\end{equation}
After this transformation we obtain the Euclidean form of the action
\begin{eqnarray}\label{act}
S_E=\int d\tau \left[\frac{\kappa}{2}\mathrm{Tr} D_{\tau} X^n D_{\tau}
  X^n- \frac{\kappa g^2}{4} \mathrm{Tr} \left[X^n,X^m \right]
 \left[ X^n,X^m\right]\right. \nonumber  \\
  + \left.\frac{\kappa}{2} \mathrm{Tr}
  \left( \theta^T  D_{\tau}\theta-g \theta^T
  \gamma^m [X^m,\theta]\right) \right] \nonumber  \\
\end{eqnarray}
where \(D_{\tau}X^n=\partial_{\tau}X^n -i g [A, X^n]\) and similarly
for fermions.

We would like to evaluate the partition function, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta)=\int\left[path\right]\exp (-\int_0^{\beta} L_E)
\end{equation}
This function can be evaluated in two steps. To begin with we specify
some background which is described by a classical configuration in
Matrix theory and we evaluate the effective action about this background.
Then, following \cite{Banks2}, we estimate various mean values appropriate for
a background describing a Schwarzschild black hole in eleven
dimensions and insert them in the action to find the quantities we are
interested in. After the evaluation, we find that this model do not
completely describe a Schwarzschild black hole for $N>>S$ and then we
explain why it is so.

We begin by computing the 1 loop effective action for an arbitrary
background. To this end we divide the field from (\ref{act}) into two parts:
\begin{equation}\label{5}
X^i=\frac{1}{g}B^i+Y^i
\end{equation}
where $X^i$ is the classical background and $Y^i$ is a quantum
fluctuation. We take background values of fermionic fields and ghosts
fields to be zero.
 Because our Lagrangian is the Lagrangian of SYM theory,
it is gauge invariant and we need to fix the gauge to make the
calculation.
We will use a gauge fixing of the form
\begin{equation}
-\partial_{\tau} A+i [B^n,Y^n] = 0,
\end{equation}
which means that we will also have ghosts present in the
Lagrangian. After expanding the action around the background we obtain
the following Lagrangian (in the following, partial derivative means
derivative with respect to Euclidean time \(\tau\) ):
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\mathrm{boson}}=\frac{\kappa}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\partial B^i \partial B^i +
 \frac{\kappa g^2}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left[B^n,B^m\right]\left[B^n,B^m\right]+
 &  & \nonumber \\
 + \kappa \mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2} \partial Y^i \partial Y^i-2i
 \partial B^i \left[A,Y^i \right] \right.
 -\frac{1}{2}\left[A,B^m\right]
 \left[A,B^m\right] - & &   \nonumber \\
 - \frac{1}{2}\left[B^n,Y^n\right]\left[B^m,Y^m\right]
 - \frac{1}{2}\left[B^n,Y^m\right]\left[B^n,Y^m\right] & & \nonumber \\
 -\frac{1}{2}\left[B^n,B^m\right]\left[Y^n,Y^m\right] -
 \left. - \frac{1}{2}\left[B^n,Y^m\right]\left[Y^n,B^m\right]\right)
  & & \nonumber \\
L_{\mathrm{fermi}}= \frac{ \kappa}{2} \mathrm{Tr}\left( \theta^T \partial_{\tau}
 \theta -\theta^T \gamma_m \left[B_n, \theta \right] \right)
 L_{\mathrm{ghost}}=\kappa \mathrm{Tr}\left( -\overline{c} \partial^2 c +\overline{c}
 \left[ B^m, \left[B^m,c \right] \right] \right)
\end{eqnarray}
where the ghost field \(\overline{c}\, , c\) are
two real and independent fermionic fields in the adjoint representation of
the gauge group {\it U(N)}.

   Now we take the background matrices in the following form
\begin{equation}
 B^m=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
         B^m_1 & 0    &...    & 0    \\
          0 & B^m_2    &...    & 0    \\
          0 & 0    &...    & 0    \\
          0 &  0  & ...   & B^m_k   \\
\end{array} \right) \end{equation}
All other background fields (including gauge field \(A \) ) are chosen
 to be zero.
 The fluctuating fields have the form
\begin{equation}
  A=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
         0 & A_{12} & A_{13} &...& A_{1K} \\
         A^{\dagger}_{12} & 0 & A_{23} &... & A_{2K} \\
         ... & ... & ...&... & ...\\
         A^{\dagger}_{1K} & A^{\dagger}_{2K} &...& A^{\dagger}_{K,K-1} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right)\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
 Y^m=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
        0 & Y^m_{12} & Y^m_{13} & ... & Y_{1K} \\
        Y^{\dagger m}_{12} & 0 & Y^m_{23} &... &  Y^m_{2K} \\
         ...& ... & ... & ... & ...\\
         Y^{\dagger m}_{1K} & Y^{\dagger m}_{2K} &... &
         Y^{\dagger m}_{K,K-1} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right) \end{equation}
where \(X_m\, ,\, m=1\ldots K \) are matrices of  order \( N_m \times N_m
\) and \(Y_{NM} \, ,\, M=1\ldots K-1\, ,\, N=1\ldots K \) are matrices  of
order \( N_M \times N_N\). The fermionic matrix is a fluctuating matrix of the
 form

\begin{equation}
 \theta =\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
    0 & \theta_{12} & \theta_{13} & ... & \theta_{1K} \\
    \theta^{\dag}_{12} & 0 & \theta_{23} & ... & \theta_{1K} \\
         ... & ...& ...& ...& ... \\
    \theta^{\dag}_{1K} & \theta^{\dag}_{2K} & ...& \theta^{\dag}_{K,K-1} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
We also have ghost fields in the form:
\begin{equation}
c=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
                      0 & c_{12} & c_{13} & \dots & c_{1K} \\
                      c^{\dagger}_{12} & 0 & c_{23} & \dots & c_{2K} \\
                      \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\
                      \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\
      c^{\dagger}_{1K} & c^{\dagger}_{2K} & \dots & c^{\dag }_{K,K-1} & 0  \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
and the same matrix for \(\overline{c}\), where  the matrices {\it c} are
replaced with \( \overline{c} \). These matrices with indexes \(M,N \) have the
same number of rows and columns as the matrix \(Y_{MN} \).

This form of the matrices of the fluctuating fields is appropriate
for evaluating the one loop effective action because the diagonal
fluctuating fields decouple in the expansion of the Lagrangian at the
quadratic level.
Inserting these matrices in the Lagrangian and after straightforward
but tedious algebra we obtain the following Lagrangian for the
fluctuating fields:
\begin{equation}
L_{boson}=\kappa \left(\sum_{M<N,N=1}^K
  \left[\dot{Y}^{\dag a}_{MN}\dot{Y}^a_{MN}
  +Y^{\dag a}_{MN} \left(M^{ab}_{MN} \right)^2 Y^b_{MN}\right] \right)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
 Y_{MN}^{\dag a}=(Y^a_{MNij})^{*}
\end{equation}
is a matrix of order \(N_M \times\ N_N \) , which means that \(i=1
\ldots N_M, j=1\ldots N_N \)
and the index {\it a} goes
{}from \(0 \dots  9\) where its zeroth part comes from the field {\it A} and

\begin{equation}
 \left( M^{ab}_{MN} \right)^2=M^{ab}_{{MN}_0} +M^{ab}_{{MN}_1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M^{ab}_{{MN}_0}=K^2_{MN} \delta^{ab} ,  M^{ab}_{{MN}_1} =-2 i F^{ab}_{MN}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
 K^i_{MN}=B^i_M \otimes 1_{N_N \times N_N}
  -1_{N_M \times N_M} \otimes{ B^{i}}^T_{MN}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
 F^{i0}_{MN}=-F^{0i}_{MN}=\dot{K}^i_{MN} ,\ ,
  F^{ij}_{MN}=i [ K^i_{MN},K^j_{MN} ]
\end{equation}
and by the product between vectors and matrices we mean it in a two
index formulation:
\begin{equation}
Y^{\dag} CY=({Y}_{ij})^{*}C_{ij,kl}Y_{kl}
\end{equation}
For the fermions we obtain the following result:
\begin{equation}
L_{fermi}=\kappa \sum_{M<N,N=1}^K\left[ \theta^{\dag \,T}_{MN}
\dot{\theta}_{MN}- \theta^{\dag \,T}_{MN} \gamma^n K^n_{MN}
 \theta_{MN} \right]
\end{equation}
where \(\theta^{\dag \,T} \theta=({\theta}^T )^{*}_{ij}
\theta_{ij} \) , because the operation of transposition is related to
the spinor index.

Finally we obtain the contribution from the ghosts:
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{ghost}=\sum_{M<N,N=1}^K \left[ -\overline{c}^{\dag}_{MN}
\partial^2 c_{MN}+\overline{c}^{\dag}_{MN}K^2_{MN}c_{MN}
+\right. & & \nonumber \\
 \left. +c^{\dag}_{MN}\partial^2 \overline{c}_{MN}
-c^{\dag}_{MN}K^2_{MN} \overline{c}_{MN} \right]  & & \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Evaluation of the effective action}

In the following we would like to calculate the one loop
effective action. Because this subject is well known in the
literature \cite{Tseytlin,Taylor1,Taylor2}, we only briefly
recapitulate basic facts. Firstly, because our effective action is
a thermal effective action, we must specify boundary condition in the
thermal direction for various fields which are in the action. We have:
\begin{equation}
\Phi (0)=\pm \Phi(\beta)
\end{equation}
where the upper sign is for the bosons (\(Y^i\)) and the lower one for
the fermions ( \( \theta \,, c, \overline{c}\) ).
We use these formulas for evaluating some integrals:
\begin{eqnarray}
\int [ Y] [ Y^{*} ] \exp( (Y^a)^{*} M^{ab} Y^b)
& =& \det(M)^{-1} \ (\mathrm{for \ bosons}) \nonumber \\
\int [C][ C^{*}] \exp(C^{*}N C )
& = & \det(N) \quad (\mathrm{for \ fermions}) \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
so
\begin{equation}
\exp{(-\Gamma_1)}=\prod_{M<N,N=1}^K \left(XYZ \right)_{MN}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
X_{MN} & = & {\det(-\partial^2+ M_{MN})}^{-1} \nonumber \\
Y_{MN} & = & {\det(-\partial^2 + K^2_{MN})}^2 \nonumber \\
Z_{MN} & = & {\det( \partial-\gamma^n K^n_{MN})}^1  \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
In these traces we must sum over matrix indices, Lorenz indices or
spinor indices and we must integrate over \(\tau \)  with
appropriate boundary condition. Also, the ghost determinant has exponent
{\it 2}, because we have two equivalent ghosts fields.

As was explained in \cite{Periwal}, the leading order effective action
can be obtain in an adiabatic approximation
\begin{equation}
\det(-\partial^2+\omega(\tau)^2) \sim \exp{( \int_{0}^{\beta} \omega(t) dt)}
\end{equation}
We must convert the determinant for fermions into a determinant which
is second order in time derivatives. This can be done by using the fact
that \(\det(\partial +\gamma^n K^n)=\det( \partial-\gamma^n K^n) \),
which gives us
\begin{equation}
F^2=\det(\partial -\gamma^j K^j)\det( \partial +\gamma^i K^i)
 =\det( \partial^2-\frac{1}{2}[K^i,K^j]\gamma^{ij} )
\end{equation}
where \( \gamma^{ij}=\frac{1}{2} [\gamma^i, \gamma^j ] \).

{}From this adiabatic approximation we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eaction}
\Gamma_1  = -\ln{( \prod_{M<N,N=1}^K (BGF)_{MN})}=  & & \nonumber \\
 =-\sum_{M<N,N=1}^K \left[\ln{({\det(B)}^{-1})}
+\ln{({\det(G)}^2)}+\ln{(\det(F)}\right]  = & & \nonumber \\
= \sum_{M<N,N=1}^K \left[ \int_0^{\beta}
\mathrm{Tr}( \omega^B(t)_{MN}-\frac{1}{2}\omega^F(t)_{MN}-2 \omega^G(t))
\right]  &  &  \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
  {\omega^B(t)}^2_{MN}=M^2(t)_{MN} \ , \ {\omega^F(t)}^2_{MN}
=K^2_{MN}\otimes 1_{16 \times 16}-\frac{i}{2}
F^{ij}_{MN}\gamma^{ij}  \nonumber \\
 \ {\omega^G(t)}^2_{MN}=K^2(t)_{MN} & & \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
In this trace we must sum over spinor or Lorenzian indices and the trace
 in the matrices  \(M_{MNij}\) is over the \( i , j \) indices.
Now we must evaluate this effective action. This will be done following
\cite{Taylor1}. We must divide, the various \(\Omega(t)\) into two
parts, the first part which scales as a function of distance between
two long separate object and the rest. This can be done in the
following way; for bosons:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Omega(t)^{ab}}^2_{MN}={M_0}^{ab}_{MN} +{ M_1}^{ab}_{MN} \nonumber \\
M(t)^{ab}_{0MN}=K(t)^2_{MN} \delta^{ab}
& , &  M(t)^{ab}_{1MN}=-2 i F^{ab}_{MN} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
for fermions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(t)^2_{MN}=M(t)_{0MN}+M(t)_{1MN} & &  \nonumber \\
M(t)_{0MN}=K(t)^2_{MN} \otimes 1_{16 \times 16}
& , &  M(t)_{1MN}= \partial K(t)^n_{MN} \gamma^n
- \frac{1}{2} F^{ij}_{MN} \gamma^{ij}  \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
We must go over to the proper time representation :
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr} \sqrt{M(t)_{0MN} +M(t)_{1MN}}=- \frac{1}{2\sqrt{ \pi}}
\mathrm{Tr} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{d \tau}{{ \tau}^{ \frac{3}{2}}}
\exp(-\tau \left( M(t)_0 +M(t)_1\right))
\end{equation}
The integral can now be evaluated by the help of a Dyson perturbative
series. Because we know, that \(M_1\) is much smaller than \(M_0\), we
can take the latter as a perturbative term, and the former as a
background around which we expand. It corresponds to the standard
Dyson formula free Hamiltonian. We take (in the following we will
not write out the dependence of these terms on t, because in the proper
time representation these terms are constant. We also will not write
various indices, because these are not important in what follows)
\begin{eqnarray}
U(s)=\exp^{-s(M_0+N_1)} ,  \  U(s)_0= \exp^{ -sM_0} & & \nonumber  \\
V(s)=U(-s)_0U(s) \ , \ \frac{dV(s)}{ds}=-M(s)_1V(s) \, \
M(s)_1=\exp^{i s M_0} M_1 \exp^{-i s M_0} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(s)=1- \int_{0}^s M(s_1)_1ds_1+\int_0^s M(s_2)
\int_0^{s_2}M(s_1)_1ds_1ds_2 \dots \\
U(s)=U(s)_0 V(s) , \ \mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{M_0+M_1}
=-\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}}\mathrm{Tr} \int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{ds}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}} U(s)  \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}

Zero order:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr}_L(1_{10 \times 10})-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}_L(1_{16 \times 16} )-2=0
\end{equation}
where in evaluating we divide the trace into two parts, one over the
Lorenz indices and the other over the matrix indices. In the following
we will not write indices of type \(MN\), because as we can see from
(\ref{eaction}),
the effective action is linear in indexes \(M,N \) so that we can
simply calculate
for one matrix with index \(MN\) and then sum over \(M,N \).
 We see that to zeroth order these contributions are
zero.
To first order, we have contributions from boson and fermion respectively:
\begin {equation}
\mathrm{Tr}_LM(s)_{1B}-\mathrm{Tr}_LM(s)_{1F}=
  -2 i F^{aa}+\partial K^n \mathrm{Tr} \gamma ^n
  -\frac{i}{2} F^{ij} \otimes \mathrm{Tr} \gamma^{ij} =0
\end{equation}
This is due to the basic properties of the gamma matrices \ ( \(\mathrm{Tr}
\gamma^n=0\) ) and the antisymmetry of tensor \(F^{ab}\).

To second order, we obtain the following term in the effective action:
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}}\mathrm{Tr}_G \int_0 ^{\infty}
  \frac{ds}{s^{ \frac{3}{2}}} \exp^{-sM_0}
  \mathrm{Tr}_L\left( \int_0^s ds_1M(s_1) \int_0^{s_1} ds_2 M(s_2)\right)
\end{equation}
The bosonic term has the form:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr}_L(M(s_1)_1M(s_2)_1)=8\dot{K}(s_1) \dot{K} (s_2) -4 F^{ij}(s_1)F^{ij}(s_2)
\end{equation}
and the fermionic term has the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Tr}_L(M(s_1)_1M(s_2)_2)=  \nonumber \\
  = \left( \dot{K}^n(s_1) \gamma^n -\frac{i}{2} F^{ij}(s_1)
  \gamma^{ij} \right) \left( \dot{K}^m(s_2)\gamma^m
  -\frac{i}{2}F^{kl}(s_2) \gamma^{kl} \right) =   \nonumber \\
 =  \dot{K}^n(s_1) \dot{K}^m(s_2)\delta^{mn} -\frac{1}{4}
  F^{ij}(s_1) F^{kl} (s_2) \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^{ij} \gamma^{kl} )  =   \nonumber \\
 =   16 \dot{K}(s_1) \dot{K} (s_2) -8 F^{ij}(s_1)F^{ji}(s_2)   \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
so fermionic and bosonic contribution cancel each other.
To third order we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\pi}}
  \int_0^{\infty}\frac{ds}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}}
  \exp^{-sM_0}\int_0^s ds_1 M(s_1)_1\int_0^{s_1}ds_2 M(s_2)_1
  \int_0^{s_2}ds_3 M(s_3)ds_3
\end{equation}
which for bosons means:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Tr}_L\left(M(s_1)_1 M(s_2)_1 M(s_3)_1\right) = \nonumber \\
=8 i \left(-\dot{K}^i(s_1)F_{ij}(s_2)
 \dot{K}^j(s_3)-F^{ij}\dot{K}^j(s_2)\dot{K}^i(s_3)-\right. \nonumber \\
\left. -\dot{K}^j(s_1) \dot{K}^i(s_2)F^{ij}(s_3)+
  F^{ij}(s_1)F^{jk}(s_2)F^{ki}(s_3) \right) \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
and for fermions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Tr}_L\left(M(s_1)_1M(s_2)_1M(s_3)_1\right)
=\mathrm{Tr}_L\left(\dot{K}^n \gamma^n- \frac{i}{2}F^{ij}
 \gamma^{ij} \right) (s_1) \times
 \nonumber \\
\times \left(\dot{K}^m \gamma^m -\frac{i}{2}
 F^{kl}\gamma^{kl} \right) (s_2) \left( \dot{K}^p
 \gamma^p-\frac{i}{2}F^{op} \gamma^{op} \right)(s_3)=  \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where the trace is now over spinor indices. After some algebra we
obtain the following result for the fermions:
\begin{equation}
=\left(-16 i F^{ij}F^{jk}F^{ki}- 16i
 \dot{K}^i F^{ij}\dot{K}^j -16i F^{ij}\dot{K}^i
 \dot{K}^j +16 i F^{ij}F^{jk}F^{ki} \right)(s_1)(s_2)(s_3)
\end{equation}
so again, to third order, fermionic and bosonic term cancel each other.
 The first nontrivial term we obtain at fourth order, so
when we take the leading terms of \(M_1(s)\), which is independent of
\(s\), we obtain the following result
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathrm{Tr}_{L \ boson}\left( M(s_1)_1M(s_2)_1M(s_3)_1M(s_4)_1\right)_
  {MN} \nonumber \\
-\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Tr}_{L \ fermi}\left(M(s_1)_1 M(s_2)_1
  M(s_3)_1 M(s_4)_1\right) _{MN}=  \nonumber \\
=F_{MN}=\mathrm{Str}(24 F_{oi}F_{oi}F_{oj} F_{oj}
  -24 F_{0i} F_{oi} F_{jk} F_{jk}  -  \nonumber \\
-96 F_{oi} F_{oj} F_{ik}F_{kj} +24F_{ij} F_{jk}F_{kl}
  F_{li} -6 F_{ij}F_{ij} F_{kl} F_{kl} ) \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathrm{Str}$, meaning the symmetric trace, is defined as an average
over all ordering in indices \(ij\) and to leading order we may
replace \(M_0\) in the exponential function in our Dyson series by the
term \(r_{MN} \) so after a simple integration, and because the trace
is independent to leading order in \(s\) we obtain the final form for
the effective
potential:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1=\frac{-5}{128}\sum_{M<N , \ N=1}^K \int_0^{\beta}
  \frac{dt}{r^7_{MN}} \mathrm{Str} F(t)_{MN}
\end{equation}
This is the final result, which can be used for studying the thermodynamic
properties of Schwarzschild black holes.

\section{Schwarzschild black holes}

We will follow \cite{Banks2} in supposing that we have some bound state
corresponding to some classical object in matrix theory which move in
any bounded region in space time and then we will try to evaluate the
thermodynamic characteristics of this system. We will take our background
in the form of \(K\) clusters of \(D0 \) branes which are
far away from each other and we will suppose that their  quantum
mechanical properties are not important for obtaining the leading
order result. So we will take the background in the following form:
\begin{equation}
X^m= \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
(v^m_1 \beta +r^m_1) \otimes 1_{N_1\times N_1} & 0   \\
0 & (v^m_2 \beta +r^m_2) \otimes 1_{N_2 \times N_2} &  0  \\

0 &   \dots & ( v^m_K \beta +r^m_K) \otimes 1_{N_K \times N_K} \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
where \(r_i^m \) describes position of the cluster in time \(\beta=0 \)
and where \(v^m_i \) is the velocity of the cluster and \(m=1 \dots 9
\). By choosing a background of this form we do not care about the
proper structure of the bound state (cluster) of these
particles. Inserting these background matrices into the effective
action we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_0=\beta \sum_{M=1}^K \frac{1}{2R} N_M v^2_M
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1=-\frac{15}{16} \sum_{M<N, N=1}^K \int_0^{\beta} dt
 \frac{N_NN_Mv^4_{MN}}{(v^2_{MN}{t}^2+r^2_{MN})^{\frac{7}{2}}}
\end{equation}
Now we must make a scale transformation, because this effective action
has been evaluated for background matrices \(B^n\) and these are
related to the physical coordinates and physical velocities through
the following transformations:
\begin{equation}
B^i=gX^i, \ g=M^3_p R, \ v \rightarrow g v, \ \Gamma_1
 \rightarrow \frac{1}{g^3} \Gamma_1
\end{equation}
After this transformation we obtain as a final result:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma= \Gamma_0 + \Gamma_1=\beta  \sum_{N=1}^K \frac{N_N v^2_N}{2R}
-\frac{15 l^9_P}{16 R^3}\sum_{M<N, \ N=1}^K \int_0^{\beta}
dt \frac{N_MN_M v^4_{MN}}{(v^2_{MN} {t}^2 + r^2_{MN} )^{\frac{7}{2}}}
\end{equation}
Now we would like to evaluate some thermodynamic properties for this
ensemble. We will suppose that these clusters live in some bounded
region in space-time and that the radius of this  region is
\(R_s\). Since these clusters must live in this region, their thermal
average value must obey the following conditions:
\begin{equation}
\left < |r_{MN}| \right > \sim \left< |v_{MN}| \right>
 \beta \sim \left<|v_M| \right> \beta \sim R_s
\end{equation}
where \( \beta \) is the inverse temperature of the black hole.
The cluster must obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which in
our situation says
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left<N_M \right>}{R} \left< |v_M| \right> R_s \sim 1
\end{equation}
because the momentum of the cluster (as can be derived from the
Lagrangian, using Noether's theorem, since our Lagrangian is invariant
under translation) is
\begin{equation}
 P^i_M= \frac{N_M v_M}{R}
\end{equation}
We can also suppose that all clusters have on the average the same
value of longitudinal momentum \(P_-\), which tells us that
\begin{equation}
\left<N_M \right> \sim \frac{N}{K}
\end {equation}
When we combine all these facts, we obtain following average values:
\begin{equation}
\left<|v_M|\right> \sim \left< |v_{MN} | \right>
\sim \frac{RK}{N R_s} ,\  \beta \sim \frac{R^2_s N}{RK}
\end{equation}
Now, since these average values have been estimated, we can start to
count the statistical properties of this ensemble. We have
\begin{equation}
Z( \beta)=\sum_{over parametrs} exp ^{-(\Gamma_0 +\Gamma_1)}
=\left<exp^{-(\Gamma_0+ \Gamma_1)( \beta)} \right>
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left< E \right>= -\frac{ \partial \ln Z( \beta) }{ \partial \beta }
  =\left< \frac{ \partial ( \Gamma_0 +\Gamma_1 ) }{ \partial \beta } \right>
\end{equation}
when we apply our average values, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{energy}
\left<E \right> \sim \frac{R K^2 N}{2 R^2_s N^2}
-\frac{15 G_{11} R K^4}{32 N^2 R^{11}_s}
\end{equation}
The Helmholtz free energy is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F=-\frac{\ln Z( \beta) }{ \beta} =  \nonumber \\
=\left< \sum_{N=1}^K \frac{N_N v^2_N}{2R}
-\frac{15 G_{11}}{16 R^3} \sum_{M<N, N=1}^K \frac{1}{\beta}
\int_0^{\beta}dt
\frac{N_NN_Mv^4_{MN}}{(v^2_{MN}t^2+r^2_{MN})^{\frac{7}{2}}}
\right> \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
{}From this free energy we can obtain the entropy:
\begin{eqnarray}
S={\beta}^2 \frac{\partial F(\beta) }{ \partial \beta }
= \left< \frac{15 G_{11}}{16 R^3} \sum_{M<N,N=1}^K \int_0^{\beta}
\frac{N_NN_M v^4_{NM}}{(v^2_{MN} t^2 +r^2_{MN})^{\frac{7}{2}}}
- \right. \nonumber \\
- \left. \beta \frac{15 G_{11}}{16 R^3} \sum_{M<N, N=1}^K
\frac{N_NN_M}{(v^2_{MN} {\beta}^2+r^2_{MN})^{\frac{7}{2}}}
\right> \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting our average values into the previous term, we obtain the
entropy in the following form
\begin{equation}
S \sim \frac{G_{11} K^3 N^2} {R^9_s N^3}
\end{equation}
In order to obtain the value for the radius \(R_s\), we apply the
virial theorem, which has the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{radius}
\left<E_{\mathrm{kin}} \right> \sim \left< E_{\mathrm{pot}} \right>
 \rightarrow \nonumber \\
\rightarrow \frac{R K^2 N}{R^2_s N^2} \sim \frac{ G_{11}
R K^3}{N^2 R^{11}_s } \rightarrow R_s \sim
\left( \frac{K^2 G_{11}}{N} \right)^{\frac{1}{9}} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
When we use the previous result for estimating the entropy, we obtain
\begin{equation}
S \sim K << N
\end{equation}
So our result confirms the conjecture of \cite{Martinec}, that
Schwarzschild black holes in region \(S << N \) can be described as a
bound state of \( K \) clusters, but this is not the end of the story.

When we insert (\ref{radius}) into (\ref{energy}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
 E \sim R G^{-\frac{2}{9}}_{11} K^{ \frac{14}{9}} N^{-\frac{7}{9}}
\end{equation}
and when we use the relation between mass and light-cone energy, we
obtain a final result for the mass of a Schwarzschild black hole:
\begin{equation}
M^2=2 P_-E \rightarrow M \sim \left( G^{-1}_{11}
 N \right)^{\frac{1}{9}} K^{\frac{7}{9}}
\end{equation}
which certainly is not the correct result, since mass is a function of
the number \(N \), but mass is a macroscopic quantity which
cannot depend on microscopic parameters. The reason why we cannot
obtain a correct result lies in our ignorance of the process of
longitudinal momentum exchange. But this is difficult problem in
matrix theory, which cannot be resolved with our simple result. But
if we follow \cite{Martinec} and estimate the interaction term in
the way that was used in that paper we obtain
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{pot}} \sim -\frac{N}{K} \left< \Gamma_1 \right>
\end{equation}
so the average value of the energy is
\begin{equation}\label{energy1}
\left<E \right> \sim \frac{R K^2N}{2 R^2_s N^2}
-\frac{15 N G_{11} R K^4}{32 K N^2 R^{11}_s}
\end{equation}
and when we apply virial theorem to (\ref{energy1}), we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{radius1}
R_s \sim \left( G_{11} K \right) ^{\frac{1}{9}}
\end{equation}
When we count entropy in the same way as before, we obtain
\begin{equation}
S \sim \frac{G_{11} N^3 K^3}{R^9_sK N^3} \sim \frac{G_{11} K^2}{R^9_s} \sim K
\end{equation}
and the energy
\begin{eqnarray}
\left< E \right> \sim \frac{R K^2 N}{2 R^2_s N^2}
-\frac{15 G_{11} N K^4 R}{32 K N^2 R^{11}_s } \sim \nonumber \\
\sim \frac{R}{N} \left( \frac{K^8}{G_{11}}\right )^{\frac{2}{9}} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
and the  mass of Schwarzschild black hole becomes
\begin{equation}\label{mass1}
M=\sqrt{ \frac{N}{R} E} \sim \left( \frac{K^8}{G_{11}}\right)^{\frac{2}{9}}
\end{equation}
and finally, when we insert (\ref{mass1}) into (\ref{radius1}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{radius2}
R_s \sim \left(G_{11} M \right)^{\frac{1}{8}}
\end{equation}
which is the correct result for the Schwarzschild radius as a function
of the mass of the black hole. Finally, we will determine the temperature of
the Schwarzschild black hole. To begin with we write the transformation
rule in DLCQ for a transformation in the longitudinal direction:
\begin{equation}
[M_{+-},P_+]= i P_+ , \ [M_{+-}, P_-] =-i P_-
\end{equation}
which means, that these two quantities scale with relatively inverse
coefficient under this transformation. And because temperature
transforms as an energy, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_-=k P_{0-} \rightarrow k=\frac{P_-}{P_{0-}} , \ (P_-=\frac{N}{R},
  \ P_{0-}=\frac{M}{ \sqrt{2}} ) \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{ \beta} =k^{-1} T_0 \rightarrow T_0=
  \frac{ \sqrt{2} N}{R M \beta} \sim \frac{1}{R_s} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
again this is a correct result.

\section{Objects in Matrix theory on a torus}

So far we have described only flat eleven dimensional matrix theory
and general configuration matrix objects in this theory. We would
like to confirm the conjecture of \cite{Ohta}, that the
Schwarzschild black hole in the regime \(S<<N \) can be described
as a collection of S membranes. However, there is a
problem. The previous effective action is certainly valid formally,
but cannot describe extended objects in matrix theory for finite
N. This is because these objects are described by commutator  \(
F^{ij}=i [K^i,K^j ] \) terms, of which the trace is certainly
zero for finite matrices. These extended objects should therefore be
described by infinite matrices, but this is not the end of the story.
Even classically, membranes are stable only if they are
infinite, or if they are living on some compact manifold. Finite
membranes in flat space-time will eventually collapse into a point in
the classical case, but when their size will be of the order of the
Planck scale, the quantum mechanical properties will be important so
then we must study the whole system as a quantum mechanical system
which is described by a special \(0+1\) SYM with gauge group \(U(N)\)
and this is a rather difficult problem.
On the other hand, classical infinite
membranes cannot serve as a model for Schwarzschild black hole.
In order to describe a statistical ensemble of stable extended
objects (for example membranes), we must take these extended objects as
being infinite or we must wind them on some compact dimension. In
order to describe a membrane, which is finite, we must take  Matrix
theory on a compact manifold,
and the simplest way is to compactify Matrix theory on a p-torus,
which by the standard prescription \cite{Taylor3}
is the same as SYM on the dual p-torus. In the following we will study
membranes which are wound over a 3-torus so Matrix theory is described
by 3+1 SYM with gauge group \(U(N) \), for a system with total longitudinal
momentum \( P_-=  \frac{N}{R} \).
The bosonic part of this Lagrangian has the form:
\begin{equation}\label{lag}
L= \frac{1}{g^2} \int d^{p}\tilde{x} \mathrm{Tr}( -\frac{1}{4} F_{ \mu \nu}
F^{ \mu \nu}
+ \frac{(D_{\mu} \phi)^2}{2} + [ { \phi} ^i ,{ \phi}^j ]^2 )
\end{equation}
where the integration is over the dual 3 torus of size (for simplicity
all compact dimensions have the same size) $\Sigma = \frac{ 2 \pi
l^3_p}{R L}$. Here \(R \) is the radius of the longitudinal direction
and \(L\) is the radius of the compact dimension of the original torus. Greek
indices run over \(0 \dots 3\) and over \( i,j =4 \dots 9\). In
the Yang-Mills theory, the coupling constant is
\begin{equation} \label{coupling}
 g^2= \frac{l^3_p}{L^3} .
\end{equation}
We would like to show how the action for the membrane arise from the
previous Lagrangian since the generalization for more membranes is
straightforward. (It simply consists in breaking gauge group \(U(N) \)
into \( U(N_1) \times U(N_2) \times \dots U(N_K) \), where each
subgroup describes one particular membrane.)

We would like to describe a membrane moving in the fourth direction,
and which is wound in the first and second direction. In order to
describe this membrane we take a classical background in the following
way. We suppose that \( \phi \) are position independent and that
there are no Wilson lines \( \oint A_{ \mu} d x^{ \mu} =0 \). Then the
kinetic term for the scalar field reduces to the form \[ \frac{1}{g^2}
\tilde{V} \dot{ \phi} ^2 \] where \( \tilde{V} \) is the volume of the
dual torus which is related to the volume of the original torus V through
the standard form $ \tilde{V} = \frac{l^9_p (2 \pi )^3}{R^3 V }$. We
must also relate this scalar field with the physical momentum
of the membrane in the fourth direction. This also means that the only
nonzero field is \( \phi _4 \), all the others are zero. We take this
field to be of the form :
\begin{equation}\label{back}
\dot{ \phi^i}= K^i \otimes 1_{N \times N}
\end{equation}
The unknown constant K can be determined from this condition. The
action with (\ref{lag}) is invariant under the transformation:
\begin{equation}
 \phi ^{'i}= \phi^i  + b^i \otimes 1_{N \times N}
\end{equation}
where \(b^i\) is an arbitrary constant. This invariance
 is nothing but Poincare translation symmetry in the
transversal space. By using standard Noether methods we obtain
conserved quantities which are just the moment in the transverse
dimensions:
\begin{equation}\label{impuls}
P^i=  \frac{1}{g^2}\int \mathrm{Tr} \dot{ \phi^i} dx= \frac{1}{g^2}
  \tilde{V} \mathrm{Tr} \dot{ \phi^i}
\end{equation}
and finally, when we insert our background ansatz (\ref{back}) into
(\ref{impuls}) and using (\ref{coupling}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{K N L^3 l^9_p (2 \pi )^3}{l^3_p R^3 L^3}
\Rightarrow K=P \left( \frac{R}{l^3_p (2 \pi )^3} \right)^2 \frac{1}{P_-}
\end{equation}
As a check, we may insert (\ref{back}) into the Hamiltonian, which has
the form
\begin{equation}\label{hamiltonian}
H=\frac{1}{g^2} \int \mathrm{Tr} ( \frac{1}{4} F_{ \mu \nu} F^{ \mu \nu }
 + \frac{1}{2} \dot{ \phi } ^2)
\end{equation}
and if we for the moment leave out the gauge field term, we obtain
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{g^2} \mathrm{Tr} \dot{ \phi}^2  \tilde{V} =\frac{P^2 R}{N} = \frac{P^2}{P_-}
\end{equation}
which is the correct result.

In order to describe a membrane, we must also have a non-vanishing
value of magnetic flux and when the membrane is wound on the first and
second direction, this flux is
\begin {equation}
\frac{1}{2 \pi } \int \mathrm{Tr} F_{12} dx^{1}dx^{2}=n
\end{equation}
where the integral is over the first and second dimension and \( n\)
is an integer. Again, when our background configuration is independent
of the space coordinates, we obtain the following value for \( F_{12} \)
\begin{equation}
F_{12}= \frac{n}{N} \frac{ 2 \pi}{ \Sigma ^2} = \frac{n}{N}
 \frac{ R^2 L^2 }{2 \pi l^6_p}
\end{equation}
and when we insert the previous result into (\ref{hamiltonian}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2g^2} F^2_{12} \tilde {V}= \frac{R}{2N} n^2 ( 2 \pi )
 \frac{L^4}{l^6_p}= \frac{ 2 \pi M^2}{2P_-}
\end{equation}
{}from which we obtain the correct mass of a membrane which is \(n \)
times wound around the first and second direction.
\begin{equation}\label{mass}
M= \frac{L^2n}{l^3_p}
\end{equation}
Now when we take the background in the following form:
\begin{equation}
F_{12}= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
F^1 \otimes 1_{N_1 \times N_1} & 0 & \dots  & 0 \\
0 & F^2 \otimes 1_{N_2 \times N_2}  & \dots & 0 \\
\dots & \dots & \dots  & \dots \\
0 & \dots & \dots & F^K \otimes 1_{N_K \times N_K } \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
where we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int \mathrm{Tr} F^i_{12} = \frac{1} {2 \pi} \tilde{V}NF^i =n^i
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\phi ^4= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
 k^1t \otimes 1_{N_1 \times N_1} & 0 & \dots & 0 \\
0 & k^2t\otimes 1_{N_2 \times N_2 } & \dots & 0 \\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\
0 & \dots & \dots & k^Kt \otimes 1_{N_K \times N_K }
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
and insert it into the effective action, we obtain the effective
action for K membranes in the form:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_0= \beta \sum_{i=1}^K ( \frac{P^2_i}{2P_{i-}} +\frac{2 \pi
M^2_i}{2 P_{i-}} )
\end{equation}
We express this effective action in momentum variables because this is
more appropriate for compactification (we can take the momentum to be
finite), but from (\ref{mass}) we see that in the limit \( L
\rightarrow 0 \), mass goes to zero, so that the membrane looks like
it lives in a non-compact dimension as a D0 brane.

Now we may start to analyze the effective potential between the K
membranes described by the previous background. This
potential was obtained in a previous work \cite{Tseytlin}, which
in our case, $3+1 \; SYM$,  takes the form:
\begin{equation}\label{potencial}
\Gamma_1= - \sum_{M<N,N=1}^K \frac{a}{r^4_{MN}}\int_0^{ \beta}d
 \tilde{x} \mathrm{Str}(F_{MN})
\end{equation}
where the minus sign is due to the fact that we are calculating the finite
temperature effective potential which means that we are working in
Euclidean signature and
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{MN}=\left(24F_{oi}F_{oi}F_{oj}F_{oj}
 - 24F_{oi}F_{oi}F_{jk}F_{jk}\right. &  & \nonumber \\
-96F_{oi}F_{oj}F_{ik}F_{kj} +24F_{ij}F_{jk}F_{kl}F_{li} & &  \nonumber \\
\left. -6F_{ij}F_{ij}F_{kl}F_{kl} \right)_{MN} & & \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
For our background we obtain these nonzero terms
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{12MN}=F_{12M} \otimes 1_{N \times N} +1_{M \times M}
    \otimes F^T_{12N} \nonumber \\
F_{04MN}=\dot{ \phi }_{4M} \otimes 1_{N \times N} - 1_{M \times M}
  \otimes \dot{ \phi}_{4N} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
When we insert this background into (\ref{potencial}) and using
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr}\left( A_M \otimes A_N B_M \otimes B_N \dots \right)
  =\mathrm{Tr} \left(A_MB_M \dots \right) \mathrm{Tr} \left(A_NB_N \dots \right)
\end{equation}
and using the fact that for a commuting background (such as in our case)
$\mathrm{Str}$ is the same as an ordinary trace, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_1= -\frac{A G_8}{R} \sum_{M<N, N=1}^N \int_0^{ \beta}dt
  \frac{P_{-M}P_{-N}}{r_{MN}^4} \times \nonumber \\
\times \left[ \left( \frac{P_M}{P_{-M}}- \frac{P_N}{P_{-N}}
  \right)^2 - \frac{L^2}{(2 \pi)^2} \left( \frac{n_N}{N_N}
  +\frac{n_M}{N_M} \right)^2 \right] ^2 \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where \( A\) is a numerical constant, which is not important for our
purposes $G_8=\frac{l^9_p}{L^3}$, and the meaning of the other
symbols was explained in the previous part where we considered one
simple membrane. Again we see that in the limit $L \rightarrow 0$
the last term in the effective potential is zero, so again this
effective action reduces to the effective action of K D0 branes in
eight dimensions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma= \Gamma_0 + \Gamma_1 = \nonumber \\
 \beta \sum_{i=1}^K \frac{P^2_i}{P_{-i}}-\frac{AG_8}{R}
  \int_0^{\beta}dt \frac{P_{-M}P_{+N}}{r(t)^4_{MN}}
  \left( \frac{P_M}{P_{-M}}- \frac{P_N}{P_{-N}} \right)^4 \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
We see that again this configuration describe an ensemble of K D0
particles, so that the analysis will be the same as in the previous
case or as in \cite{Martinec}, so that we will not repeat this
analysis there.

\section{Conclusion}
In the previous parts we have done some simple calculations in
Matrix theory. The basic goals of this paper was to confirm the conjecture
in \cite{Ohta}, that a Schwarzschild black hole in the regime $ N>>S $ can be
described as a collection of K membranes which each has a longitudinal momentum
$ P_-\sim N/KR $. This goal was achieved in the sense that we managed
to derive, from first principles, that the entropy is proportional to
the number of membranes. By estimating the correct potential
energy between these clusters we also managed to derive the correct
values for the other parameters of the black hole.
We also showed that the same results hold when we use membrane
constituents that are stable against collapse, namely, which are wound
around some compact manifold.

Clearly, it would be of great interest to also calculate the potential
between the clusters from first principles. This, however, is a
process that involves longitudinal momentum transfer which is a
notoriously difficult problem in matrix theory so we will leave this
problem for the future.

\section*{Acknowledgements }

 I would like to thank Rikard von Unge and Zde\v{n}ek Kopeck\'{y} for
helpful discussions.


\section{Introduction}

A path integral formulation of quantum gravity includes in its
simplest version an integration over all four-dimensional geometries
of a given fixed topology, the weight of each geometry being the
Boltzmann weight of a suitable action. An attempt to implement such a
path integral representation is known as {\it dynamical
triangulation}. The integration over geometries is approximated by a
summation over all triangulations constructed from equilateral
simplices of side-length $a$, and the continuum limit is obtained by
letting $a \to 0$ for a suitable choice of bare coupling constants in
the action \cite{aj,am}.

This model has been analyzed in a series of papers, both with and
without coupling to scalar fields. Originally the hope was that an
observed second order phase transition could be used to define a
non-perturbative theory of quantum gravity, but a closer examination
revealed that the transition was (weakly) first order \cite{bbkp}.
Motivated by an effective theory of quantum gravity, which showed that
the gauge fields coupled very strongly to the infrared sector of
gravity \cite{amm}, the coupling between Abelian gauge fields and
simplicial quantum gravity was introduced and studied using the
non-compact version of the gauge field \cite{bbkptt}.  We shall refer
to this version of the model as AGM (Abelian gauge model).  Indeed,
for the first time a significant coupling between matter and gravity
was observed, and a new phase, named the ``crinkled'' phase was
observed. It appeared to be different from the so-called ``crumpled''
and ``elongated'' phases observed that far, and which both seemed
irrelevant for a continuum limit of quantum gravity. The crinkled
phase had a negative entropy exponent $\gamma$ and a fractal dimension
$d_{H} \approx 4$. However, it was later shown that most of the
properties of this new phase could be obtained by a simple change in
the measure of the path integral \cite{bbkptt1}, and since such a
change is of ultra-local nature it is unlikely to provide a faithful
representation of the ideas relating the trace anomaly to the infrared
behaviour of quantum gravity, assuming conformal invariance.

While the change in measure seems to capture most of the
gravitational physics associated with the coupling of
Abelian matter fields to simplicial quantum gravity,
the two theories are  of course not equivalent, as emphasized
in \cite{bbkptt,bbkptt1}. One can explore
the full consequences of the Abelian gauge fields coupled to
simplicial quantum gravity by Monte Carlo simulations.
Such studies were performed in
\cite{bbkptt} and a few ambiguities as to the nature of
the transition to the crinkled phase and of the crinkled
phase itself remained. For this reason and as a matter of
principle it is valuable to have an independent simulation
of the system.

In the non-compact formulation the Abelian gauge action is
Gaussian. There exist well-known methods relating low-dimensional
Gaussian theories on a direct lattice to their {\it dual} versions.
The methods developed on regular lattices work equally well on
dynamical lattices and we shall make use of the concept of duality to
relate theories defined on direct and dual lattices. This relation
will highlight why the originally chosen way of coupling gauge fields
to geometry produced results almost identical to a simple measure
term. It will show that this is the result of a somewhat unfortunate
choice of action, and that the ``real'' Abelian degrees of freedom
couple to simplicial quantum gravity more or less as ordinary massless
scalar fields, i.e.\ they do not influence the phase structure of pure
simplicial quantum gravity, at least for the number of independent
Abelian fields used so far.  From this point of view the crinkled
phase observed so far is {\it entirely} due to the insertion of an
ultra-local measure factor. Further, the way we implement the coupling
between the gauge fields and geometry allows us to introduce new
effective actions which might change the phase diagram of matter
coupled to gravity.

Another possibility, not studied in this paper would be to go to the
compact formulation of the gauge action. In this case, at least in
principle, one may expect a phase transition between the confined and
deconfined phases. Numerical results for the three-dimensional case
suggest however that such a transition disappears, at least for a
single $U(1)$ field \cite{renken}.  Whether some new physics may
emerge for more fields or for the non-Abelian gauge fields remains an
open problem.

\section{The model}\label{themodel}
Let $T$ be an abstract triangulation of a four-dimensional manifold.
Let $T^{*}$ be the simplicial complex dual to $T$ and $N_{d}$ denote
the number of $d$-dimensional sub-simplices in $T$.  $N_4$ is the
total volume of the manifold.  We shall compare two possible methods
of introducing the (non compact) Abelian gauge fields on such a
manifold.

The first possibility, which we call the $T$ implementation, would be
to put the (complex) matter fields at the vertices in $T$ and the
$U(1)$ gauge potentials $A_{IJ}=-A_{JI}$ on the (oriented) links (IJ)
of the triangulation $T$, with $I$, $J$ numbering the vertices of the
triangulation. At each vertex I we can perform the gauge
transformation $\chi_I$ and the gauge fields transforms as
\begin{formula}{ad1i**}
A_{IJ} \to A_{IJ}+\chi_I-\chi_J.
\end{formula}
Let us now choose a spanning tree in the complex $T$, i.e.\ a
connected graph of links with no loops. The number of links in the
spanning tree is $N_{0}-1$. Making use of the gauge transformation
\rf{ad1i**} we can perform the gauge fixing of all the gauge
potentials on the spanning tree, reducing them to zero.  The resulting
number of degrees of freedom is $N_1-N_0+1$.  In principle there is
nothing wrong with this implementation where the matter fields live on
the vertices. However, the number of the degrees of freedom both of
the matter fields and the gauge fields has no simple relation to the
volume of the manifold.  For the scalar fields this number is
proportional to the number of vertices $N_{0}$ (and not $N_{4}$),
which can grow as $N_{4}^{\a}$, where $\a \le 1$. In cases where one
has a sensible thermodynamic limit it should not matter which way the
coupling between matter and gravity is done, but since
``pathological'' triangulations can occur, and even dominate for some
choices of gravitational coupling constants, this choice of
implementation may have troubles with defining the extensive
quantities, like the average action etc.

The alternative possibility, which we call the $T^*$ implementation,
is to choose the $U(1)$ gauge potentials $A^*_{ij}$ to live on the
oriented links $l^*_{ij}$ of the dual graphs, connecting simplices
with labels $i$ and $j$.  Each dual link corresponds to an interface
between the neighbouring simplices.  As usual $A^*_{ji} = -A^*_{ij}$
and there are $N_3={5\over 2} N_4$ such fields.  This formulation is
in accordance with most simulations of matter fields coupled to
gravity. The matter fields are usually associated with the
four-simplices (are located in the ``centers'' of the four-simplices)
and their derivatives are calculated as differences formed between the
values of the fields in neighbouring four-simplices, i.e. they are
associated with the dual links.  The reason for choosing such an
implementation, apart from being convenient in numerical simulations,
is that the naive counting of field degrees of freedom will be
proportional to the four-volume $N_{4}$.  This property holds also for
the gauge degrees of freedom.  At each simplex we can perform a gauge
transformation $\chi^*_i$ and the gauge fields transform as
\begin{formula}{ad1*}
A^*_{ij} \to A^*_{ij}+\chi^*_i-\chi^*_j.
\end{formula}
Let us now choose a spanning tree in the complex $T^*$.  The number of
links in the spanning tree is $N_{4}-1$. One can gauge $A^*_{ij}=0$
for all links in the spanning tree. This leaves us with
$N_{3}-N_{4}+1= {3\over 2}N_4 +1$ physical degrees of freedom for the
gauge field. The nice feature is that this number depends only on the
volume $N_4$.

In both implementations the independent degrees of freedom can be
parametrized by the gauge invariant (oriented) plaquette variables.
In the $T$ implementation these are oriented triangles $t_{IJK}$ and
the plaquette variables satisfy:
\begin{formula}{plaq}
P(t_{IJK})= A_{IJ} + A_{JK} + A_{KI}.
\end{formula}
The plaquettes are not independent variables. Because of the Abelian
nature of the gauge fields $P(t_{IJK})$ are unchanged under the cyclic
permutation of $I,J,K$ and change sign when the orientation of the
plaquette is inversed. For each triangulation one has to define the
positive orientation for the plaquette variables to avoid the double
counting.  By construction the flux through any closed two-dimensional
surface is zero. The number of independent such surfaces is (in case
the topology is that of the 4-sphere, which we will assume)
\begin{formula}{ad3}
N(S)=N_{3}-N_{4}+1.
\end{formula}
This is the number of independent Bianchi identities we can write
down.  By Euler's relation for the 4-sphere it leaves precisely
$N_{1}-N_{{0}}+1$ independent plaquettes, and the Jacobian for
changing from independent gauge fields to plaquette variables is one
\cite{halpern}:
\begin{formula}{ad4}
\int \prod_{l \in T} \d A_l \prod_{l'\in ST} \delta(A_{l'}) \;
F(P(A)) =
\int \prod_{t} \d P(t) \prod_{s \in S} \delta(\sum_{t\in s} P(t))
\;F(P).
\end{formula}
In eq.\ \rf{ad4} $ST$ denotes a spanning tree in $T$ and $S$ denotes
the set of $N(S)$ independent two-dimensional surfaces where the
Bianchi identities are enforced.  $l$ and $t$ are respectively links
and triangles of the manifold and we assume that the definition of the
positive orientation of links and triangles was uniquely chosen.
Notice that in this implementation each elementary gauge loop
(plaquette) has a length three, however each gauge potential
contributes to a number of neighbouring triangles which is a
non-trivial local geometric characteristic of the system.

Similar discussion can be made in the $T^*$ implementation.  The dual
plaquettes constructed from a $D$-dimensional triangulation can be
labelled by the $(D-2)$-dimensional sub-simplices in the
$D$-dimensional triangulation, which are ``encircled'' by the
associated dual plaquette. In four dimensions we shall label dual
plaquettes by the triangles they encircle.  The geometric properties
of the two gauge-invariant objects $P(t_i)$ and $P^*(t_i)$ are however
different: The length of the plaquette $P^*(t_i)$ is now $o(t_i)$,
where $o(t_i)$ is the order of the triangle $t_i$, or the number of
four-dimensional simplices sharing this triangle. As before we have to
choose a positive orientation, and the plaquette variable is unchanged
when the corresponding loop is rotated and changes sign, when it is
inverted. Each gauge potential $A^*_{ij}$ contributes to exactly four
dual plaquette variables.  Like in the $T$ implementation we can
parametrize the system by the plaquette variables $P^*(t_i)$,
satisfying a set of the Bianchi identities.

To this point we did not specify the model we want to consider.  Let
us start with the $T^*$ implementation.  The plaquette variables are
the sums of gauge fields associated with the oriented (dual) links
`encircling' the triangles $t_i$ in $T$:
\begin{formula}{2.0}
P^*(t_{i})= \sum_{\a} A^*(l^*_{\a}),
\end{formula}
where the orientation of the (dual) links follows that of the
plaquette and as discussed above $t_{i} \in T$ can be viewed as dual
to the plaquette. To keep the discussion general let us at this point
assume only that the gauge action is Gaussian and assumes a form:
\begin{formula}{2.1}
S^*_{g}(T,A^*) = \sum_{i} \b_i P^{*2}(t_{i}),
\end{formula}
where $\b_i$ are positive, local, geometry-dependent coefficients.  We
shall argue below what seems to be the most natural choice of $\b_i$.

With this notation the partition function can be written as
\begin{formula}{2.1a}
Z = \sum_{T} \frac{1}{C_T} \mbox{e}^{-\kappa^*_4 N_4(T) +\kappa^*_2 N_2(T)}
\int \prod_{l^*} \d A^*_{l^*} \prod_{l'^* \in ST^*} \delta (A_{l'^*})\;
\mbox{e}^{-S^*_g (T,A^*)},
\end{formula}
where $ST^*$ is a spanning tree in $T^*$.

We shall now construct the dual version of this model.
We can write
\begin{formula}{2.2}
\exp(-\b_i P^{*2}(t_i)) =
\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi\b_i}} \int dp(t_i) \;
\exp\Bigl(-\frac{p^{2}(t_i)}{\b_i}+2ip(t_i) P^*(t_{i})\Bigr).
\end{formula}
Using this integral representation of the plaquette, as
well as the standard integral of the $\delta$-function:
\begin{formula}{ad6}
\prod_{l' \in ST^*} \delta (A^*_{l'}) =
\int \prod_{l' \in ST^*} \frac{\d \a_{l'} \;\mbox{e}^{2 i \a_{l'} A^*_{l'}}}{\pi}
\end{formula}
the integration
over the $A^*$-fields in $T^*$ can be performed,
giving rise to a set of delta functions:
\begin{formula}{2.3}
\prod_{l^*} \pi \delta( \a_{l^*}+\sum_{t_{i} \ni l'^*} p(t_{i})),
\end{formula}
where the product is over the dual links $l^*$, and $\a_{l^*} =0$ if
the dual link $l^*$ does not belong to the chosen spanning tree.
Notice that the sum in the argument of each $\delta$ function has
exactly four terms.  Performing the $\a_{l^*}$ integration in \rf{ad6}
eliminates $N_4(T)-1$ of the $N_3(T)$ $\delta$-functions in
\rf{2.3}. The remaining $N_3(T)-N_4(T)+1$ $\delta$-functions can be
viewed as the Bianchi identities for the $N_2(T)$ variables $p(t_i)$.
Since there are $N_2(T)-(N_3(T)-(N_4(T)-1))$ independent variables
$p(t_i)$, we can implement the Bianchi identities by introducing
$U(1)$ gauge fields $A_l$ living on the links of the triangulation
$T$, rewriting $p(t_i) = P(t_i) = \sum_{l\in t} A_l$.  Independent
gauge transformations can be done at vertices, and after gauge fixing
we are left with $N_1(T)-(N_0(T)-1)$ independent $A_l$ fields, i.e.\
precisely the same as the number of independent $p(t_i)$ fields.

We end up this discussion by writing down the identity valid for each
triangulation:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{dualexpr}
\int \prod_{l^*} \d A^*_{l^*} \prod_{l'^* \in ST^*} \delta (A_{l'^*})\;
\mbox{e}^{-S^*_g (T,A^*)} &=& \pi^{-\frac{1}{2}N_2
+ \frac{3}{2}N_4 +1}\; \mbox{e}^{-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{t_i} \ln \b_i}  \\ \nonumber
&\times&\int \prod_{l} \d A_{l} \prod_{l' \in ST} \delta (A_{l'})\;
\mbox{e}^{-S_g (T,A)},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{formula}{dualaction}
S_g(T,A)= \sum_{t_i} \frac{P^2(t_i)}{\b_i}
\end{formula}
and $P(t_i)$ is the oriented plaquette variable \rf{plaq} expressed in
terms of the fields $A_l$ living on the links of the triangulation $T$.
For the partition function \rf{2.1a} we get
\begin{formula}{2.1e}
Z = \sum_{T} \frac{\pi}{C_T} \mbox{e}^{-\kappa_4 N_4(T)
+\kappa_2 N_2(T) -\frac{1}{2} \sum \ln \b_i}
\int \prod_{l} \d A_{l} \prod_{l' \in ST} \delta (A_{l'})\;
\mbox{e}^{-S_g (T,A)},
\end{formula}
where $ST$ is a spanning tree in $T$ and
\begin{formula}{2.1c}
\kappa_4 = \kappa^*_4 - {3\over 2}\ln \pi,~~~{\rm and}~~~\kappa_2 =\kappa^*_2 -\frac{1}{2} \ln \pi.
\end{formula}
Thus, apart from a shift $\kappa_4\to \kappa^*_4-\frac{3}{2} \ln \pi$ and
$\kappa_2\to \kappa^*_2- \frac{1}{2} \ln \pi $,
the two models are dual up to the weight factor $-\frac{1}{2} \sum \ln \b_i$.

The choice of the action parameters $\b_i$ should be made at this
point.  One can argue that it is natural to choose $\b_i=1/o(t_{i})$,
where $o(t_{i})$ is the order of the triangle. In the $T^*$
implementation $o(t_{i})$ is also the length of the boundary of the
plaquette dual to $t_i$, and, assuming the plaquette to be flat, also
proportional to it's area.  Since $P^*(t_i)$ signifies the flux of the
plaquette dual to $t_i$, the field strength is proportional to
$P^*(t_i)/o(t_i)$, while the volume element associated with $t_i$
likewise is proportional to $o(t_i)$. This argument assumes that the
plaquette is a flat two-dimensional object with a constant field
strength. This needs not be the case, so another possible choice could
be $\b_i=1/o^{\a}(t_{i})$ with some power $\a$ different from $1$,
which leaves space for some non-trivial geometry of plaquettes.

The model for a single non-compact Abelian gauge field can readily be
generalized to $n_g$ copies. For a given triangulation, $T$, these
models will be non-interacting, but summing over all triangulations
one introduces interactions between the copies, mediated by the
geometry, as well as interactions between geometry and the matter
fields.  The final action we use can thus be written as
\begin{formula}{2.6}
S_g^* = \sum_{i,k} \frac{P^{*2}(t_i,k)}{o^\a (t_i)},
\end{formula}
where the index $k$ numbers the copies of Abelian gauge fields and takes
values $1,\ldots,n_g$. If $\a=1$ the model
is dual to the original AGM model  except for a measure factor
\begin{formula}{2.6a}
\frac{1}{2} n_g \sum_t \ln o(t)
\end{formula}
for each triangulation and a shift in the gravitational
and cosmological constants by
\begin{formula}{2.6b} \kappa_4 \to \kappa_4+\frac{3n_g}{2} \ln \pi~~~{\rm and}~~~
\kappa_2 \to \kappa_2 +\frac{n_g}{2} \ln \pi.
\end{formula}
We call this version of the model the dual Abelian gauge model (DAGM).

We can make two remarks at this point:
\begin{itemize}
\item The whole derivation made explicitly use of the fact that the
topology of the manifold is that of a four-sphere. For different
topologies the duality relations become slightly more complicated and
new degrees of freedom appear, related to the possible topologically
non-trivial boundary conditions for the gauge potentials.
\item Similar discussion can be made in the three and the
two-dimensional cases. In three dimensions in the $T^*$ implementation
the dual of a plaquette is a link. The duality relates the gauge
theory on dual plaquettes to a massless bosonic theory, where the
bosonic field live on vertices, again up to a ultra-local measure
term.  The $T$ implementation will have it's dual in the form of a
massless scalar field living in the centers of the simplices. In two
dimensions the duality transformation permits to integrate out the
gauge field completely, leaving only the measure term.
\end{itemize}

\section{The algorithm}\label{algorithm}

The algorithm describing numerical simulations of the four-dimensional
simplicial gravity was described in many papers. Here we shall not
repeat details concerning the five geometric ``moves'' which became a
standard. There are however some peculiarities of the present
simulation, which make the updating in the gauge sector rather
non-trivial.

In order to perform a Monte Carlo simulation of the model we found it
convenient to work directly with the gauge invariant plaquettes rather
than the gauge fields themselves.  Occasionally we shall need the
gauge fields and we shall then reconstruct them from the plaquette
variables. This is necessary only in order to control round-off
errors, which eventually will lead to a violation of the Bianchi
identities.  The geometric ``moves'' create and destroy simplices. In
effect also the new gauge potentials, located at the interfaces
between simplices are created and destroyed. Since the gauge action is
Gaussian we shall use the heat bath method to generate the new
variables. In order to find the detailed balance condition it is
always necessary to compare the ``move'' and it's inverse.

The addition of the new gauge potentials does not create any problems
and can be handled in a way closely resembling that of the Gaussian
scalar fields. The procedure has two steps: in the first step we
decide if the move will be performed. If the answer is yes we proceed
to the second step, where the new gauge potentials are generated from
a (multi-dimensional) normal distribution.  In the process the old
plaquette variables are modified and new plaquette variables
appear. The Gaussian form of the gauge potential guarantees that both
the modified and new plaquettes will remain restricted in value. The
acceptance probability for the first step can be expressed in terms of
the gauge invariant plaquette variables. In the second step the values
of new gauge potentials are generated, but only the gauge invariant
information (the plaquette variables) is stored.

Situation may be quite different when we try the inverse operation
deleting some gauge potentials. If we would decide to store the values
of the potentials and simply subtract these values from plaquettes,
the resulting change in the gauge action could become arbitrarily
large. The reason is that only the gauge invariant combinations of the
gauge potentials are physical (and in the Monte Carlo simulation
restricted by the gauge action), while the gauge potentials themselves
may become large unless some form of the gauge fixing is
imposed. Introducing the gauge fixing (a spanning tree) is however a
global problem and therefore maintaining the gauge condition in the
numerical simulation, where the geometry is dynamical would be very
costly and impractical. We have developed a different approach, which
is again a modification of the heat bath algorithm. In the first step
we decide if the inverse move will be performed. In order to find the
acceptance we integrate over all possible gauge choices of the gauge
potentials to be deleted.  The resulting formula is local and
expressible in terms of the gauge invariant quantities. If the inverse
move is accepted we proceed to the second step, where the potentials
to be deleted are generated from the appropriate normal
distribution. After the inverse move only the gauge invariant
information is stored.

In the program the situation is slightly more complicated. In order to
maintain the detailed balance at each move we have to consider the
acceptance for both the move and it's inverse. Also the geometric
moves used in the four dimensional updating of geometry in general are
rather complicated and in each move some gauge potentials are created,
while other are destroyed. We shall report more details about the
updating procedure in the appendix.

\section{Observables and measurements}\label{obs}

Basic observables in simplicial quantum gravity have already been
discussed in a number of articles. Since we are here interested in
gauge fields it would be natural to measure gauge invariant
observables. An obvious gauge invariant quantity is the correlator $
\left\langle F^2_{\mu\n}(r) F^2_{\l\rho}(0)\right\rangle$, where the average is over all
geometries with $S^4$ topology and with points separated a geodesic
distance $r$. The gauge field itself is just Gaussian, so the
propagator in flat space is trivially calculated.  In quantum
space-time, where we average over all geometries , it is not clear
precisely how the propagator will fall off with the geodesic
distance. In fact, the motivation for this study was to test if the
gauge fields had a stronger interaction with geometry than the scalar
fields investigated so far. In \cite{abj} it was shown how to extract
the {\it connected} correlator for matter fields coupled to simplicial
quantum gravity. However, in order to obtain a non-trivial result of
interest for continuum physics it is first necessary to identify a
point in the combined coupling constant space of gravity and gauge
theory where we can take an interesting continuum limit. In the
following we concentrate on this necessary first step. Thus we study
the $\kappa_2,\kappa_4$ phase diagram of the theory for different values of
the parameter $\a$ in eq.\ \rf{2.6}. For a given value of $\kappa_2$ there
exists a critical point $\kappa_4$ where an infinite volume limit can be
obtained.  At this critical point one can measure geometric quantities
like the entropy exponent $\gamma$, which describes the distribution of
baby universes, and one can measure the fractal dimension of
space-time.  As is standard in the measurements of the fractal
dimension in simplicial quantum gravity studies, one operates with
two, in principle independent, definitions of the fractal dimension.
A ``short distance'' fractal dimension, $d_h$, measures how the volume
$V(r)$ of spherical balls of geodesic radius $r$ grows with increasing
$r$ as long as $r$ is much smaller than the average radius $R$ of the
universe:
\begin{formula}{xz1}
V(r) \sim r^{d_h}~~~{\rm for}~~~r \ll R.
\end{formula}
A ``cosmological'' fractal dimension is defined by the way
``macroscopic'' distances scale with the cosmological constant
or with the average space-time volume. For instance
\begin{formula}{xz2}
V(r) \sim r^{d_h-b} F\Bigl(\frac{r}{V^{1/d_H}}\Bigr),
\end{formula}
where $F(x) \sim x^b$ for $x \to 0$. In the four-dimensional gravity
models studied so far one has always found that $d_h\!=\!
d_H$. Although there exist models \cite{c-2} of fractal structures
where $d_h \!\neq \! d_H$, one expects that $d_H=d_h$ if a sensible
thermodynamic limit exists \cite{www,ajw}.

Since the transition between the branched polymer phase and the
crumpled phase of four dimensional gravity is characterized by the
appearance of singular vertices of very high order, we also study the
distribution of the order of vertices, links, and triangles in order
to characterize the various phases we observe.

\subsection{$\a =1$}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in \epsfysize=2.67in \epsfbox{k2vk4_comp.eps}}
\caption{The $(\kappa_2,\kappa_4)$ diagram of the AGM and that of the dual model
(DAGM) studied in this paper. Error bars are smaller than the point
size and the line is only to guide the eye. $n_g=3$ and $N_4=4000$.}
\label{f:1}
\end{figure}
Since the model \rf{2.6} for $\a \!=\! 1$ is dual to the original AGM
model if we include the weight factor \rf{2.6a} and make the shift
\rf{2.6b}, we can as a calibration reproduce the $\kappa_2,\kappa_4$ diagram
of AGM. This is shown in fig.\ \ref{f:1} for the number of gauge
fields $n_g\!=\! 3$. We see perfect agreement.  As a general statement
we also see approximately the same values of $\gamma$ and $d_h$ as
observed in the AGM model, thus verifying the results obtained in
these investigations.  It is illustrated in Table\ \ref{t:1}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l |l|}
\hline
$\kappa_2$ & $\gamma$     & $d_h$    \\
\hline
 4.0  & -0.30(1) & 3.95 (5) \\
 4.5  & -0.12(1) & 3.57 (3) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Measurements of $\gamma$ and $d_h$  for
the DAGM model. $n_g=3$ and $N_4=4000$.}
\label{t:1}
\end{table}
Our measurements were made on the $N_4=4000$ system with $n_g=3$. It
was therefore possible to measure only $d_h$ (and not $d_H$) by using
standard techniques \cite{ajw,aau,c-2}. The number $n_V(r)$ of
$4$--simplices at distance $r$ from a given $4$--simplex was measured
and a fit was made to the function $C(r+a)^{d_h-1}$ where $a$ is the
so--called ``shift''. $r$ is the ``$4$--simplex distance'' which is a
measure of the geodesic distance between $4$--simplices. The use of
the shift permits us to estimate $d_h$ even for this moderate size of
the system as can be seen in fig.\ \ref{f:2}. A slight modification of
the shift $a$ results in a much poorer fit for small $r$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in \epsfysize=2.67in \epsfbox{BKP_dh.eps}}
\caption{The logarithmic derivative of the two point function
$n_V(r)$. Here $x=(r+a)/V^{1/d_h}$ where $V\equiv N_4$.
For a suitable choice of the shift
$a$ a power law defining $d_h$ can be obtained.}
\label{f:2}
\end{figure}

However, the important point is that for $\a = 1$ and {\it without}
the measure term one moves directly from the crumpled phase and into a
branched polymer phase. There is no trace of any crinkled phase and
the interaction between the gauge fields and geometry is as weak as
the interaction between scalar fields and geometry observed in
\cite{xxx}, provided that the gauge fields are coupled to simplicial
gravity in a way consistent with the way the scalar fields were
coupled to the geometry in \cite{xxx}, as discussed in detail in the
beginning of sec.\ \ref{themodel}.

In table \ref{tab1} we present the results of the computer simulations
for the number of gauge copies $n_g=3$ and $6$. The value of $\kappa_2$ is
chosen so large that one is well away from the crumpled phase. We
studied systems with volume $N_4= 4000, 8000$ and $16000$.  Our
results are summarized in Table\ \ref{tab1}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l |l| l | l |l |}
\hline
$n_g$ & $N_4$ & $\kappa_2$ & $\gamma$ & $d_h$  & $d_H$ \\
\hline
3 &  4000  & 4.5  & 0.49 (1) & 2.1 (2)&  2.03(7) \\
  &  8000  & 4.5  & 0.51(1)  &        &          \\
  &  16000 & 4.5  & 0.483(4) &        &          \\
\hline
6 &  4000 & 7.0   & 0.44 (1) & 2.2 (2)&  2.05(6) \\
  &  8000 & 7.0   & 0.47 (2) &        &          \\
  &  16000& 7.0   & 0.470(5) &        &          \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Measurements of $\gamma$, $d_h$ and $d_H$ when $\a\!=\! 1$}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
In fig.\ \ref{f:3} and fig.\ \ref{f:4} we show the computation of
$d_H$ and $d_h$ from the scaling properties of $n_V(r)$. $d_H$ is
computed as described in \cite{aau,c-2} using the relation
$n_V(r)=V^{1-1/d_H}F_1((r+a)/V^{1/d_H})$. We determine $d_H$ and $a$
from the optimal ``collapsing'' of the $n_V(r)$ distributions. $d_h$
is obtained as for the DAGM model described above. We observe that the
expected scaling holds very well and that the values for $d_h$ and
$d_H$ are consistent with being the same.

We have also measured the connected part of curvature--curvature and
action--action correlators (we refer to \cite{abj}  for the details).
One expects for two observables $A_i$, $i=1,2$ that
\begin{formula}{gA}
G^{1A_i}(r) = \vev{A_i} G^{11}(r+\delta_{A_i})\, ,
\end{formula}
and that the connected part of the correlator is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gAAc}
G^{A_1A_2}_c(r)&\equiv&   G^{A_1A_2}(r) - \vev{A_1} G^{1 A_2}(r +\delta_{A_1})
- \vev{A_2} G^{1 A_1}(r +\delta_{A_2})\\ \nonumber
&+&\vev{A_1}\vev{A_2}
 G^{11}(r+\delta_{A_1}+\delta_{A_2})\, .
\end{eqnarray}
In the above formulas ``$1$'' refers to the unity operator and
$G^{11}(r)\equiv n_V(r)$.  In the case of curvature--curvature
correlator we determine the best $\vev{A_i}$ and $\delta_i$ by
collapsing $G^{1A_i}(r)$ with $G^{11}(r)$. We use these values in
\rf{gAAc} in order to produce the plot in fig.\ \ref{f:5}. Similarly
we proceed for the action--action correlator.  Observe that
curvature--curvature fluctuations are short range and independent of
the system size. The same is true for action--action correlators which
fall off at the same scale as the curvature--curvature ones. Identical
plots are obtained for the AGM model so we conclude that the measure
factor does not smoothen the configurations enough for the fields to
fluctuate at large scales.  The observed behaviour means that using
the scaled distances the correlations become ultra-local. Similar
pattern was observed in the crinkled and crumpled phases. This remains
in the qualitative agreement with the curvature-curvature correlations
measured in pure gravity \cite{bs}, where the definition of the
connected correlator was different.

The value for $\gamma$ as well as those of $d_h$ and $d_H$ are consistent
with those of ordinary branched polymers.  The branched polymer
interpretation is also corroborated by the fact that $\left\langle N_0 \right\rangle/N_4
\approx 1/4$ which is the upper kinematic bound expected from branched
polymers, plus the fact that we see no vertices of high order.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{g3collapse.eps}
            \epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{g6collapse.eps}}
\caption{Calculation of $d_H$ using finite size scaling of
$n_V(r)$. The left figure corresponds to $n_g=3$, $\kappa_2=4.5$,
$d_H=2.03$  and the right one to  $n_g=6$, $\kappa_2=7.0$,
$d_H=2.05$.}
\label{f:3}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{g3nvlogd.eps}
            \epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{g6nvlogd.eps}}
\caption{Calculation of $d_h$ for $n_g=3$, $\kappa_2=4.5$ (left) and
$n_g=6$, $\kappa_2=7.0$ (right). Here we use $x=(r+a)/V^{1/d_h}$.
The shifts $a$ are $-0.5$ and $-1.5$ respectively. }
\label{f:4}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{RRc.eps}
            \epsfxsize=3.1in \epsfysize=3.1in \epsfbox{SSc.eps}}
\caption{The connected curvature-curvature (left) and action-action
(right) correlation functions. $n_g= 6$ and $k_2= 7.0$. The $n_g= 3$
plots are falling on top of the $n_g= 6$.}

\label{f:5}
\end{figure}

\subsection{$\a \neq 1$}

With the negative results of the above subsection in mind we turn to
the more general action \rf{2.6} with $\a \neq 1$ in a search for new
and potentially interesting fixed points from the point of view of
continuum physics. By performing the duality transformation for a
general $\a$ we obtain an action
\begin{formula}{3.1}
\sum_{t} \Bigl( \sum_{k=1}^{\n_g}o^\a(t) p^2(k,t)\Bigr) +\frac{\a n_g}{2}
\ln o(t).
\end{formula}
Thus there is a possibility that a choice of negative $\a$ might bring
us to a phase resembling or being identical to the crinkled phase,
since the negative weight factor will imitate the situation
encountered in the AGM model. We show the result of the measurements
for the number of gauge fields $n_g \!=\! 3$ and $\a\!=\! \!-\! 0.5$ and
$\!-\! 1$. The value of $\kappa_2$ is chosen such that we avoid the crumpled
phase.

The results of the measurements of $\gamma$ and $d_h$ is shown in Table\
\ref{t:2}.  There is a clear tendency for the values to $\gamma$ and $d_h$
to drift from the branched polymer values toward the crinkled values,
in accordance with expectations. Some limited statistics that we
obtained for the $\a=-1.5$ model suggest that $\gamma$ becomes even more
negative. We have taken this as evidence that we see not really new
physics with the modified weights, but rather an effective change in
measure, more or less in the same way as the original AGM model
differs from our model by measure term.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l| l |l|}
\hline
$\a$ & $\gamma$     & $d_h$    \\
\hline
 -0.5  &  0.30(2) & 2.65 (3) \\
 -1.0  & -0.51(1) & 3.5  (2) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Measurements of $\gamma$ and $d_h$  for
$\a < 0 $. $n_g=3$, $N_4=4000$ and $\kappa_2=4.5$.}
\label{t:2}
\end{table}

\section{Discussion}

Gauge fields contribute far more to the conformal anomaly than scalar
fields. Thus they are expected to play an important role in effective
models of four-dimensional quantum gravity where the (infrared)
dynamics is dictated by the conformal anomaly \cite{amz}. The
conjectured scaling behavior of these model are quite similar to the
observed (pseudo) scaling behavior observed in four-dimensional
simplicial quantum gravity, and this led to the expectation that gauge
fields might couple stronger to geometry than the scalar fields used
so far. So far, computer simulations have revealed only a weak
coupling between the scalar fields and the geometry, and the presence
of scalar fields have not led to any quantitative change in the phase
diagram of simplicial quantum gravity.

The first Monte Carlo simulations of simplicial quantum gravity
coupled to gauge fields seemed to be in accordance with the above
philosophy. Indeed, for the first time one observed a genuine
back-reaction of the matter fields on the quantum geometry.  However,
as already remarked in the original article \cite{bbkptt} and verified
in detail later \cite{bbkptt1}, major part of the interaction between
geometry and the matter could be accounted for by the term
\begin{formula}{4.1}
S_{eff}= \frac{n_{g}}{2} \sum_{t} \ln(o(t)),
\end{formula}
where $o(t)$ denotes the order of the triangle $t$. This term is an
ultra-local measure term and it is (as already remarked in
\cite{bbkptt}) unlikely that it contributes to the infrared dynamics
related to the conformal anomaly in the model proposed in
\cite{amz,amz1}. However, it still left us with the puzzle why gauge
fields seemingly interact so much stronger with geometry than ordinary
scalar fields.

In the work presented here we have verified the original results
obtained in the AGM model by an independent Monte Carlo simulation
working with gauge fields on the lattice dual to that of the of the
AGM model. In addition we have shown that there is {\it no} major
difference between the interaction of scalar fields with geometry and
the interaction of gauge fields with geometry. In fact, if the gauge
fields are coupled to geometry in a way consistent with the way the
scalar fields were coupled to geometry, the gauge and the scalar
fields have similar weak coupling to the geometry.  We have explained
how the weight factor \rf{4.1} arose in the transformation from gauge
fields living on the dual links of a triangulation to gauge fields
living on the links themselves.

Turning the arguments around, our results lead to the prediction that
scalar fields living on the vertices of four-dimensional
triangulations will couple as strongly to the geometry as the gauge
fields in the AGM model.

We extended that gauge field model coupled to geometry by modifying
the weight given to each plaquette, in order to explore further the
phase-space structure of matter coupled to geometry.  However, the
only new phase we could identify is presumably identical to the
crinkled phase already found in the AGM model. The weight generated by
the transformation from the dual links to the ordinary links of a
triangulation gave support to this interpretation.

\section*{Appendix}

All moves require modification of some plaquettes by introducing new
dual links into plaquettes or by destroying the dual links. Finding
probabilities for the moves resembles the problem of the Gaussian
scalar fields, however the gauge invariance of the action requires
some important changes to maintain the detailed balance and at the
same time to keep the acceptance reasonable.  In this section we shall
discuss the case of one gauge potential and the parameter $\alpha =
1$.\

Let us first describe the process of introducing new degrees of
freedom.  For simplicity let us discuss only the situation of the
move, where a new vertex is added in the center of a simplex. There
are now 10 new gauge potentials. We consider only the part of the
gauge action involved in the move.  Before the move is attempted we
have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{up0}
\exp (-S_A(p_i)) =
\exp (-\sum_i^{10} \b_i p_i^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\b_i=1/o(t_i)$ and $p_i$ are the {\em external plaquette}
variables.  The modified action becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{up}
\exp (-S_B(p_i,x_i)) =
\exp (-\sum_i^{10} \b'_i (p_i+x_i)^2 -\b' \sum_{i,j} x_i M_{ij} x_j)
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_i$ are new fields, $\b'_i$ are the new weights, typically
$\b'_i=1/(o(t_i)+1)$, the matrix $M_{ij}$ contains the geometric
information about ten new {\em internal plaquettes} formed in the
move.  These new plaquettes $\Pi_k$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_k = \sum U_{kj}x_j\\
M_{ij}=\sum_k U_{ki}U_{kj}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U_{ki}$ are $\pm 1$ or zero reflecting the orientation of the
$x_i$ fields. The internal plaquettes have always the order three, so
$\b'=1/3$ typically.  When performing the move we shall have to
\begin{itemize}
\item decide whether we make the move or not and
\item if yes -- generate the new fields with the distribution resulting from
(\ref{up}).
\end{itemize}
Let us define
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N}_B(p_i)&=&\int \prod dx_i \exp(-S_B(p_i,x_i)) =\nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi^{10}}{{\rm det}({\bf Q})}}
\exp(-\bar{S}_B(p_i)),\label{up1} \\
Q_{ij}&=& \b'~ M_{ij} + \b'_i~ \delta_{ij}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{S}_B(p_i)$ is the {\em global minimum} of $S_B(p_i,x_i)$
with respect to $x_i$. This minimum can of course be explicitly
calculated in terms of $p_i$ and the matrix ${\bf Q}^{-1}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{S}_B(p_i)=\sum_i \b'_i p_i^2 -\sum_{ij}p_iQ^{-1}_{ij}p_j.
\end{eqnarray}

The quantity $w_B(p_i,x_i)=\exp(-S_B(p_i,x_i))/{\cal N}_B(p_i)$ is a
normalized Gaussian distribution of the $x_i$ fields. Let ${\cal P}_B=
\pi_B{\cal N}_B$ be the probability that the move will be performed
and, if accepted, the new fields be generated with this distribution.
It is easy to check that the transition probability $P(A \to B)$
satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{up2}
\exp(-S_A)P(A \to B)&=& \exp(-S_A){\cal P}_B w_B(p_i,x_i)\\ \nonumber
 &=& \pi_B \exp(-S_A - S_B).
\end{eqnarray}
The form (\ref{up2}) will be useful in order to discuss the detailed
balance condition.  The important point is that the only non-trivial
quantity, ${\cal N}_B(p_i)$ can be calculated also in the new
configuration \{$P_i = p_i+x_i,\Pi_k$\}. Using (\ref{up1}) we can
express $\bar{S}_B$ as a {\em global minimum} of $\sum_i \b'_i
(P_i+y_i)^2+\b'\sum_k(\Pi_k+\sum_j U_{kj}y_j)^2$ with respect to the
shifted variables $y_i$. The only difference is the shift of variables
and the value of the minimum is unchanged. This property is very
important, because we shall have to calculate ${\cal N}_B$ both for
the move and it's inverse.

Let us now discuss the inverse move: we destroy 10 internal plaquettes
$\Pi_k$ and modify values of 10 external plaquettes, eliminating 10
gauge fields produced before. The naive proposition would be to store
the gauge fields $x_i$ and simply to delete them. The gauge fields
however have no gauge invariant values so the transition performed
this way would depend on the particular gauge choice - in fact even if
plaquette variables are small (because of the Gaussian weights) the
gauge fields may become large and in effect the transition may be
blocked completely.

In the program we use a different approach. Rather than storing the
gauge fields we try to reconstruct them when needed. When trying to
delete fields $x_i$ we have first to decide what gauge choice we make.
In other words we shall study the change $P_i \to p_i=P_i-x_i$ where
$x_i$ satisfy the set of gauge--invariant constraints $\sum
U_{ki}x_i=\Pi_k$.  Notice that not all these constraints are
independent because of the Bianchi identities between the ten
plaquettes $\Pi_k$.  Only six of them have to be used, reducing the
number of independent degrees of freedom to four.  As before let us
consider only the part of the action engaged in the move.  Before the
move is attempted we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{down0}
\exp(-S_B(P_i,\Pi_k))=\exp(-\sum_i^{10}\b'_i~P^2_i-\b'~\sum_k^{10}\Pi^2_k)
\end{eqnarray}
 After the
move we have:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{down}
\exp(-S_A(P_i,x_i))=\exp(-\sum_i^{10} \b_i (P_i-x_i)^2),
\end{eqnarray}
As before we shall have to
\begin{itemize}
\item decide if we perform the move and
\item if yes, perform it, {\em i.e.} choose some values of $x_i$ following
from (\ref{down}).
\end{itemize}
Let me define as before:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)&=&\int \prod_i^{10} dx_i
\prod_k^6 \delta(\Pi_k - \sum U_{kj}x_j)
\exp(-S_A(P_i,x_i), \nonumber \\
 &=&\sqrt{\frac{\pi^4}{{\rm det} {\bf N}}}\exp(-\bar{S}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)),
\label{down1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the matrix ${\bf N}$ depends only on $\b_i$ and
$\bar{S}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)$ is the {\em conditional minimum} of
$S_A(P_i,x_i)$ with gauge--invariant set of conditions imposed on the
$x_i$ fields. The integration in (\ref{down1}) can be viewed as
integration over all possible gauge choices for the fields $x_i$. It
is simple to give the explicit formula for $\bar{S}_A$ in terms of
$P_i,\Pi_k$ and the matrix ${\bf N}^{-1}$. We shall not write it
here. Let us however note that ${\cal N}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)$ can be also
calculated in the new configuration $\{P_i,\Pi_k\} \to \{p_i,0\}$
using a simple relation ${\cal N}_A(P_i,\Pi_k) = {\cal N}_A(p_i,0)$.

The quantity $w_A(P_i,\Pi_k,x_i)=\exp(-S_A(P_i,x_i)/{\cal
N}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)$ is a normalized probability for $x_i$ satisfying the
gauge-invariant constraints.  As before let us choose the probability
${\cal P}_A = \pi_A {\cal N}_A(P_i,\Pi_k)$ to be the probability of
performing the move. If accepted we generate four independent $x_i$
from the distribution $w_A$. The remaining six can be calculated using
the constraints. We can check that the transition probability $P(B \to
A)$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{down2}
\exp(-S_B)P(B \to A) = \pi_A \exp(-S_A - S_B).
\end{eqnarray}

Equations (\ref{up2}) and (\ref{down2}) can be used to write the
detailed balance condition:
\begin{eqnarray}
\exp(-S_A)P(A \to B) = \exp(-S_B)P(B \to A) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
meaning
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\pi_B}{\pi_A}&=&1 \nonumber \\
{\rm or}~~\frac{{\cal P}_B}{{\cal P}_A}
&=&\frac{{\cal N}_B}{{\cal N}_A}. \label{dbc}
\end{eqnarray}
As usual, this form of the detailed balance condition suggests that in
order to maximize the acceptance we need to know both ${\cal N}_B$ and
${\cal N}_A$.The generalization to the case of more gauge fields and
$\alpha \ne 1$ is trivial.

The same method can be used to calculate the weights for other
moves. The general rule is that we need to consider at the same time
both the move and it's inverse.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
J.J. would like to acknowledge a partial support by the Polish Government
Project (KBN) grants 2~P03B~00814 and  2~P03B~01917. J.A., K.A. and J.J
 thank MaPhySto, Centre for Mathematical Physics and Stochastics, funded
by a grant from The Danish National Research Foundation, for financial support.