text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Although, physics on the noncommutative spaces has a long standing story , recently it has been re-motivated by string theory arguments . Apart from the string theory interests the field theories on such spaces, noncommutative field theories (NCFT’s), in their own turn are very interesting. Although being non-local, it has been argued that they can be treated as sensible field theories, and in the last two years there have been a lot of work devoted to the study of NCFT’s. The question of renormalizability of NCFT’s in general and in particular NC scalar and NC Yang-Mills (NCYM) theories have been addressed extensively  222 Because of the huge number of papers on this issue, hereby we apologize for all the related works which have not been quoted..

For the NC scalar theories it has been shown that real $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ theory in 4 dimensions is two loop renormalizable . The pure NCYM have been studied only in one loop level and shown to be renormalizable. The $`\beta `$-function of these theories (pure NCYM) is found to be the same as the corresponding commutative theory.

The problem of adding fermions (matter fields) has not been studied in detail. In particular, noncommutative version of QED, NCQED, has been discussed in . We emphasize that here we only consider spaces-like noncommutativities and not the time-like one (noncommutative space-times). In the latter case, it has been shown that the corresponding field theories are not unitary . However, for the light-like noncommutativity it has been shown that we still have a well-defined quantum theory .

In this work we study some details of NCQED. Working out the electron-photon interaction vertex in NCQED up to one loop, we find the so-called vertex functions and thereby we read off the anomalous magnetic moment. By explicit calculation we show that Ward identity is satisfied in the NCQED case. Since we have an extra suitable vector in our theory, there is some room for new type of magnetic moment which is spin independent and is proportional to the noncommutativity parameter.

As it has been discussed in  particles in the noncommutative gauge theories show electric dipole effects. We recall this property in the classical case, and also study one loop quantum corrections to the electric dipole moment.

The paper is organized as following. In section 2, we briefly review the preliminaries we need; we introduce noncommutative spaces and field theories in general and specify the NCQED by presenting its classical action and basic Feynman graphs. Then in section 3, we work out details of noncommutative electron-photon vertex at one loop level. In addition, renormalizing the corresponding graphs in the minimal subtraction (MS) scheme, we discuss the IR/UV mixing which is a characteristic of any NCFT. In section 4, using the renormalized vertex functions we find ”electromagnetic dipole” properties of noncommutative electron. We end this work by conclusions and remarks.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Noncommutative spaces

Usual quantum mechanics is formulated on commutative spaces satisfying the following commutation relations,

$`[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{P}_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}\text{and},`$
$`[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{X}_j]=0`$ , $`[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{P}_j]=0.`$ (2.1)
Then in order to describe a noncommutative space, the above commutation relations should be changed as,

$`[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{P}_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij},`$
$`[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{X}_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta _{ij}\text{and}`$
$`[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{P}_j]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.2)
where $`\theta _{ij}`$, is the noncommutative constant of dimension $`[M]^2`$. We can see that for theories on such spaces the Lorentz symmetry is explicitly violated however, it will be recovered in the $`\theta 0`$ limit. The above noncommutative theory can be expanded to include noncommuting space-time, i.e.

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.3)
These type of theories were studied in  and shown to suffer from the loss of unitarity, so for the purpose of our work here, we will only consider the noncommuting spaces. Since our field theory is better formulated through the path integral formulation, we can implement the noncommutivity of space into path integral formulation through what is known as the Weyl-Moyal correspondence 333In the following equations there are some obvious factors of $`2\pi `$ which we avoid them here. ,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{X})\mathrm{\Phi }(x);$$

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\alpha }e^{i\alpha \widehat{X}}\varphi (\alpha )𝑑\alpha ,`$
$`\varphi (\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i\alpha x}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)𝑑x},`$ (2.4)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`x`$ are real variables. Then,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\widehat{X})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha \beta }}e^{i\alpha \widehat{X}}\varphi (\alpha )e^{i\beta \widehat{X}}\varphi (\beta )𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta `$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\alpha \beta }}e^{i(\alpha +\beta )\widehat{X}\frac{1}{2}\alpha _\mu \beta _\nu [\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]}\varphi (\alpha )\varphi (\beta )𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta ,`$
hence

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\widehat{X})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\widehat{X})\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)(x),$$
(2.6)
$$\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)(x)\left[e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }_{\zeta \mu }_{\eta \nu }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\zeta )\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\eta )\right]_{\zeta =\eta =0}.$$
(2.7)
In other words, the noncommutative version of a field theory is obtained by replacing all the field products by the star product (2.7). It is easy to check that the Moyal bracket of coordinates defined by,

$$[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]_{MB}=x_\mu x_\nu x_\nu x_\mu ,$$
(2.8)
satisfies the commutation relations on the noncommutative spaces (2.3).

### 2.2 The Noncommutative QED

In this part we introduce the structure of the action for NCQED . We will notice that due to the presence of the star product and the Moyal brackets, the noncommutative U(1) is similar to non-Abelian gauge theories. As usual, the action for a gauge theory consists of two parts, the gauge fields and matter fields, fermions. To start with, we write the term for the gauge fields:

$$S_{YM}=d^4x\frac{1}{4e^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },$$
(2.9)
with

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_{MB}.$$
(2.10)
The above action enjoys the noncommutative U(1) symmetry, defined by

$`A_\mu A_\mu ^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`U(x)A_\mu U(x)^1+iU(x)_\mu U(x)^1,`$ (2.11)
$`U(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp(i\lambda )1+i\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda \lambda +\mathrm{}..`$ (2.12)
Under the above transformation, the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, transforms as

$$F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}=U(x)F_{\mu \nu }U(x)^1,$$
(2.13)
and hence

$$S_{YM}S_{YM}^{}=d^4x\frac{1}{4e^2}U(x)F_{\mu \nu }U(x)^1U(x)F^{\mu \nu }U(x)^1.$$
(2.14)
using,

$$U(x)U(x)^1=U(x)^1U(x)=1,$$

and the cyclic property of the star product under the integral (see appendix A), we conclude that (2.9) is invariant under the above defined gauge transformation. Also using the property that under the integral the star product is commuting, one can remove the star product between two $`F`$’s, then

$`S_{YM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\frac{1}{4e^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}.`$ (2.15)
In order to add the matter fields, we need the notion of covariant derivative, $`D_\mu `$, for which we demand that our fermionic sector is also invariant under the above mentioned noncommutative local gauge transformations. We notice that one can extend the local gauge transformations to fermions in the following two different ways,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)=U(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$
(2.16)
or

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}}(x)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}U(x)^1.$$
(2.17)
Therefore, one can define two covariant derivatives corresponding to two different fermions:

$$D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }iA_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },$$
(2.18)
or

$$D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}A_\mu .$$
(2.19)
From the above two equations we see that by taking the limit, $`\theta _{\mu \nu }0`$, the star product disappears and the two fermion fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)`$ will show different charges. In fact it has been shown that these two fermions are related by the noncommutative version of the charge conjugation .

So, altogether the full Lagrangian can be written as,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4e^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\overline{)}Dm)\mathrm{\Psi }+L_{gauge}+L_{ghost}\right)},`$ (2.20)
where we have also added the term $`L_{gauge}`$ for gauge fixing. Since the quadratic terms are the same as in the usual QED, we have the same gauge fixing term. The $`L_{ghost}`$ accounts for the ghost fields appearing in the gauge fixing procedure, similar to that of the non-Abelian gauge theories.

### 2.3 Feynman rules for NCQED

Using the property of the star product under the integral sign and that, the quadratic terms are not changed in the presence of the star product, we conclude that the propagators for the free fermion, gauge and the ghost fields are the same as in the case of usual QED, i.e.

$$\text{}=\frac{i}{\overline{)}pm+iϵ},$$
(2.21)
$$\text{}=\frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{i(p^2+iϵ)},$$
(2.22)
$$\text{}=\frac{1}{i(p^2+iϵ)},$$
(2.23)
where we were using the Feynman gauge.

For the interaction terms, we see that they are similar to those of non-Abelian gauge theories , in the sense that we get cubic and quadric interaction vertices for the gauge fields besides the usual vertices found usual QED. Here we just present the Feynman rules, to show their similarities and differences with the non-Abelian case.

$`=`$ $`ie\gamma ^\mu e^{\frac{i}{2}p_I\times p_F}`$
$`=`$ $`2e\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_1\times p_2\right)`$
$`\times [(p_1p_2)^{\mu _3}g^{\mu _1\mu _2}`$
$`+(p_2p_3)^{\mu _1}g^{\mu _2\mu _3}`$
$`+(p_3p_1)^{\mu _2}g^{\mu _3\mu _1}]`$
$`=`$ $`4ie^2[(g^{\mu _1\mu _3}g^{\mu _2\mu _4}g^{\mu _1\mu _4}g^{\mu _2\mu _3})`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_1\times p_2\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_3\times p_4\right)`$
$`[(g^{\mu _1\mu _4}g^{\mu _2\mu _3}g^{\mu _1\mu _2}g^{\mu _3\mu _4})`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_3\times p_1\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\times p_4\right)`$
$`[(g^{\mu _1\mu _2}g^{\mu _3\mu _4}g^{\mu _1\mu _3}g^{\mu _2\mu _4})`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_1\times p_4\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_2\times p_3\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2iep_F^\mu \mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_I\times p_F).`$ (2.24)
We observe that all vertices here are similar to those in non-Abelian gauge theories in which the structure constant is replaced by $`2sin(\frac{1}{2}p\times p^{})`$. This can be seen if we notice that the structure constants appear because of the commutation $`[A_a,A_b]=if_{abc}A^c`$ in non-Abelian theories. Hence we expect the appearance of the factor $`2sin(\frac{1}{2}p\times p^{})`$ as a consequence of the Moyal bracket, i.e.

$`[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_{MB}`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu `$ (2.25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4pd^4p^{}A_\mu (p)A_\nu (p^{})\left(e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}\right)e^{i(p+p^{}).x}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4pd^4p^{}2iA_\mu (p)A_\nu (p^{})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}p\times p^{})e^{i(p+p^{}).x}}.`$
## 3 Electron-photon vertex at one loop level

In the previous section we introduced the NCQED, and showed that in this theory there are new type of vertices similar to those found in non-Abelian gauge theories. In this section we perform explicit calculation of the vertex function for the photon-electron at the one loop level which are expected to contribute to the anomalous magnetic moment.

### 3.1 Vertex structure at the one loop level

In the case of NCQED and because of the three photon vertices, the electron-photon vertex receives contributions from the two diagrams of figure.1 .

The first diagram is similar to, what can also be found in the usual QED however, the second diagram is completely new. Now we proceed to write the analaytic expression of the first diagram,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(ie)^2e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik\times q}\frac{\gamma _\sigma }{k^2m_\gamma ^2+iϵ}\frac{\overline{)}p^{}\overline{)}k+m}{(p^{}k)^2m^2+iϵ}\gamma _\mu }`$ (3.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)}p\overline{)}k+m}{(pk)^2m^2+iϵ}}\gamma ^\sigma ,`$
where $`m_\gamma `$ is a photon mass accounting for the IR divergences.

Using the on mass shell conditions the numerator in the above expression may be written as

$$4\left\{\gamma _\mu \left[(p^{}k)(pk)\frac{k^2}{2}\right]+\overline{)}k(p^{}+pk)_\mu mk_\mu \right\}.$$
(3.2)
To compute the above integral, we replace the propagators by the Schwinger parameters:

$$\frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵ}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha e^{i\alpha _(p^2m^2+iϵ)}$$
(3.3)
and use the auxiliary integral,

$$\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik.(z\stackrel{~}{q})}\frac{1}{(k^2m_\gamma ^2)(k^22p^{}.k)(k^22p.k)}=$$

$$=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\frac{exp\left[\frac{i}{a}\left((\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+\left(\frac{(z\stackrel{~}{q})}{2}\alpha _2p^{}\alpha _3p\right)^2\right)\right]}{(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2},$$
(3.4)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_\nu =\theta _{\mu \nu }q^\mu ,$$
(3.5)
and $`a=\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3`$. The introduction of the factor $`e^{ik.z}`$ in the integrand allows us to obtain the required expression in the numerator of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ by differentiation . After symmetrization in $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ we obtain,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{i\pi }}e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{i}{a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}}{a^3}}exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}(\alpha _1am_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)\right]`$ (3.6)
$`e^{\frac{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}{a}}\{\gamma _\mu [ap^{}.p{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p+p^{})^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}{2a}}]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2a}}(p^{}+p)_\mu \alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu }{4a}}((p^{}+p)(\alpha _1+\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{q}).\stackrel{~}{q}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m(\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+2\alpha _3)\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu +((p^{}+p)(2\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)\stackrel{~}{q})_\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}}{4a}}\},`$
where we have inserted a UV regulator, $`exp\left(\frac{i}{a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)`$, with the following notation 444We should note that due to anti-symmetry of $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is negative valued.,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}}{4}}}.`$ (3.7)
After the Wick rotation, i.e $`\alpha _i\frac{\alpha _i}{i}`$, with the help of the following identity,

$$1=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \delta (\rho \alpha _i),$$
(3.8)
and rescaling $`\alpha _i\rho \alpha _i`$, (3.6) is obtained to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i})e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}\times \left(A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{B_\mu }{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu }{\rho ^2}}\right)`$ (3.9)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\rho exp(\rho (\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}),`$
where,

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu [p^{}.p{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^2)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2]+`$ (3.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)_\mu ,`$
$$iB_\mu =\frac{\gamma _\mu }{2i}+\frac{\gamma _\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q}}{2}(2\alpha _2\alpha _3)+\frac{m}{2}(1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu +\frac{1}{4}(\alpha _1+1)(p^{}+p)_\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q},$$
(3.11)
$$C_\mu =\frac{\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}}{8}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}}{4}.$$
(3.12)
Performing the integral over $`\rho `$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i})e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (3.13)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2A_\mu K_1(2\sqrt{X})}{\sqrt{X}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}+2B_\mu K_0(2\sqrt{X})+2\sqrt{X}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2C_\mu K_1(2\sqrt{X})\right),`$
where

$$X\frac{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2},$$

and $`K_0,K_1`$ are the modified Bessel functions of the first and second type respectively.

Now we consider the contribution from the second diagram, the analytic expression of which reads as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu =ie^2e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\left(1e^{ik.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip^{}\times p}\right)}{(k^2m^2)((p^{}k)^2m_\gamma ^2)((pk)^2m_\gamma ^2)}\times $$

$$\times \left\{\gamma _\nu (\overline{)}k+m)\gamma _\rho \left[g^{\mu \nu }(2p^{}pk)^\rho +g^{\nu \rho }(2kp^{}p)^\mu +g^{\rho \mu }(2pp^{}k)^\nu \right]\right\}.$$
(3.14)
Using the gamma matrices algebra and the on shell condition the numerator can be written as,

$$8mk_\mu 2\overline{)}k(p^{}+p+2k)_\mu +2\gamma _\mu (2p^{}.k+2p.kk^23m^2).$$
(3.15)
At this point we notice that (3.15) can be separated into two parts, one containing the phase $`e^{ik.\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, and the other not, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^b=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{b1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{b2}`$. First we perform the part containing the phase, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b2)}`$, then the other term, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b1)}`$, can be recovered easily.

Following the same spirit of the previous calculation, the auxiliary integral is introduced and then doing the Gaussian integral,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ik.(z+\stackrel{~}{q})}}{(k^2m^2)((p^{}k)^2m_\gamma ^2)((pk)^2m_\gamma ^2)}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}e^{\frac{i}{a}\left(\frac{z^2}{4}z.(\alpha _2p^{}+\alpha _3p\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{2})\right)}e^{\frac{i}{a}(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}`$
$`\times exp\left[i\left(m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}(m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}\right)\right],`$
Producing the numerator through the derivatives over the auxiliary field, a Wick rotation, rescaling the $`\alpha _i`$’s and finally inserting the identity $`1=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho }\delta (1\alpha _i)`$, the expression $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b2)}`$ is found to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b2)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i})e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\times {\displaystyle 𝑑\rho }`$ (3.17)
$`exp\left[\rho \left(m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}\right]`$
$`\times \left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu }{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu }{\rho ^2}}\right),`$
where now, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \text{and}\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu `$ are,

$`\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu \left[(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^23m^2m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2+\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2\right]+`$ (3.18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)_\mu ,`$
$$i\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu =\frac{3i}{2}\gamma _\mu +\frac{1}{2}(m\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu +\gamma _\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q})(2\alpha _2\alpha _3)\frac{\gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}}{4}(p^{}+p)_\mu (1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3),$$
(3.19)
$$\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu =\frac{\gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q_\mu }}{4}+\frac{\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}}{8}.$$
(3.20)
Integration over $`\rho `$ leads to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip^{}.p}\times `$ (3.21)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu K_1(2\sqrt{Y})}{\sqrt{Y}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}}+2\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu K_0(\sqrt{Y})+\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu \sqrt{Y}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2K_1(2\sqrt{Y})\right),`$
with

$$Y\frac{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}.$$
(3.22)
The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b1)}`$ term, can be easily recovered from the above expression by setting any term proportional to $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu `$) to zero. Then we have,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(b1)}=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)\left(\frac{2\overline{A}_\mu K_1(2\sqrt{Z})}{\sqrt{Z}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+2\overline{B}_\mu K_0(2\sqrt{Z})\right),$$
(3.23)
while $`Z`$ is now,

$`Z`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}.`$ (3.24)
and,

$`\overline{A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _\mu \left((\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^23m^2m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2+\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2\right)+`$ (3.25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha _1}{2}}(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)_\mu `$
$`\overline{B}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma _\mu .`$ (3.26)
### 3.2 Renormalization

Now we try to look at the divergences appearing in our diagrams. In the case of usual QED we have a logarithmic UV divergence, and the problem of IR divergence was fixed by introducing the photon a finite mass, $`m_\gamma `$. Looking at our expressions of the form factors , we see that they contain $`K_0`$, and $`K_1`$, and both of the functions contain either $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}`$ or $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ in their arguments. Taking the high energy limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}`$, or the low energy limit $`q0`$ simultaneously we see that all terms containing $`K_1`$ are finite, but there appear to be a logarithmic divergence due to $`K_0`$. Therefore, we recover the same logarithmic divergence of usual QED when taking the IR limit. The noncommutative QED was shown to be renormalizable up to the one loop level by adding the relevant counter terms , so we can safely drop the singular parts in $`K_0`$, and keeping only the finite parts. Now taking the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ limit, and dropping the divergent parts the renormalized Gamma functions can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu (UVren)}^{(a)}=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}\times $$

$$\times \left(\frac{A_\mu }{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}2B_\mu \gamma _{Euler}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2C_\mu \right),$$
(3.27)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu (UVren)}^{(b1)}=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)\times $$

$$\times \left(\frac{\overline{A}_\mu }{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}2\overline{B}_\mu \gamma _{Euller}\right),$$
(3.28)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu (UVren)}^{(b2)}=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\times $$

$$\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu }{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}2\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu \gamma _{Euller}+\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2\right).$$
(3.29)
Finally the full renormalized Gamma function for the electron-photon vertex at the one loop level is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu (UVren)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$ (3.30)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{A_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{A}_\mu (1e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}})}{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}`$
$`2\gamma _{Euler}(B_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}+\overline{B}_\mu \stackrel{~}{B}_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}})+`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(C_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}\stackrel{~}{C}_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}})).`$
In equation (3.30), we have given the UV - renormalized gamma function, but we can see that in the last term we still keep the cut-off in the expression, and this can be understood by the UV/IR mixing. In order this we will discuss both limits applied to this term, first considering the UV limit, i.e. $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}})`$, we see that the term is finite, but when taking the IR limit first, i.e. $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$, so it may seem that this term will lead to an IR divergence. However, $`C_\mu `$ terms contain two type of terms, both proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\stackrel{~}{q}^21`$, in the IR limit, this term will be totally irrelevant. One should note that order of taking the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}`$ and $`q0`$ is very important in our arguments; this is a generic feature of NCFT’s and is called IR/UV mixing . Hence the fully renormalized vertex function is,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu (ren)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$ (3.31)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{A_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{A}_\mu (1e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}})}{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}`$
$`2\gamma _{Euler}(B_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}+\overline{B}_\mu \stackrel{~}{B}_\mu e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}})).`$
For the moment we can see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ can be written in the form,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`E_1\gamma ^\mu +H_1(p^{}+p)^\mu +G_1\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu +E_2\gamma ^\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q}+H_3(p^{}+p)^\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}.`$ (3.32)
Collecting the different cofficients of $`\gamma ^\mu ,(p^{}+p)^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu ,\gamma ^\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu ,(p^{}+p)^\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}`$, we have

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i})\times \left(1e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`\{[{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^{}.p(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^2)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}{2(\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}}+\gamma _{Euller}]e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}`$
$`+`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\left((\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^23m^2m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2+\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2\right)}{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma _{Euller}}{2}}]\},`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)\left(1e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\right)}{m^2(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)+m_\gamma ^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}}\},`$
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}im\gamma _{Euller}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$
$`\times \left((1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}(2\alpha _2\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\right),`$
$$E_2=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }(i\gamma _{Euller})_0^1𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)\left(1e^{ip\times p^{}}\right)(2\alpha _2\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}$$

$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma _{Euller}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$ (3.33)
$`\left((2\alpha _2\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}+(1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{ip\times p^{}}\right).`$
In the next section we will study the physical significance of these factors.

The only comment we would like to make in this part is the appearance of extra factors of $`e^{ip\times p^{}}`$ in the above expressions. More precisely, our vertex function in the one loop level contains two different terms, one proportional to $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}`$ and the other proportional to $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}`$. This can be understood if we note that our thoery is not CP invariant and if we change the arrow of time in our diagrams we will find the same expression, but we also should change $`\theta `$ to $`\theta `$  .

## 4 The electron-photon vertex function

In this section we give a formal discussion of the electron-photon vertex structure found in NCQED. So, first we review the similar argument in the usual QED. The physical meaning of the different terms appearing in our vertex from the calculation in the previous section will be discussed later.

### 4.1 Electron-photon vertex in usual QED

In this section we briefly present the structure of the electron-photon vertex in the usual QED. Considering the radiative corrections to the vertex, it can be written in the following a diagrammatic form

where the shaded circle can be expressed as

$$\text{}=ie\overline{U}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p^{},p)U(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (q).$$
(4.1)
We observe that in the leading order of perturbation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \gamma ^\mu `$.

The list of available vectors and scalars is only consisting of $`(p_\mu ,p_\mu ^{},\gamma _\mu ,q^2,m,e)`$. So, the most general form of the vertex function can be written as 555We have not included $`\gamma ^5`$ because of the parity conservation.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =A\gamma ^\mu +B(p^{}+p)^\mu +C(p^{}p)^\mu ,$$
(4.2)
where A, B, C can be any scalars formed out of previous list. Appealing to Ward identity i.e. $`q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =0`$ , we get

$$0=A\overline{)}q+B(p^{}+p).q+C(p^{}p).q.$$
(4.3)
Since, $`\overline{U}(p^{})\overline{)}qU(p)=0,(p^{}+p).q=0\text{and}(p^{}p).q\overline{)}=0`$, we conclude that to satisfy the Ward identity, $`C=0`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ for QED takes the following form,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =A\gamma ^\mu +B(p^{}+p)^\mu ,$$
(4.4)
using the Gordon identity we can write the above expression as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =F_1(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +\frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu }{2m}F_2(q^2).$$
(4.5)
$`F_1(q^2)\text{and}F_2(q^2)`$ which usually are known as form factors, are functions of m, e and $`q^2`$ depending on the diagram. One can see that at the tree level we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \gamma ^\mu `$, hence $`F_1(q^2)=1\text{and}F_2(q^2)=0`$.

To give an interpretation to the above form factors we will couple this vertex to external slowly varying electric and magnetic fields at the tree level.

The electron electric charge Let us consider the Coulomb scattering cross section, from a slowly varying electric field, i.e. we can take the limit $`q^2=0`$. The corresponding scattering amplitude can be written as

$$iM=ieF_1(0)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(q)\xi ^{}\xi ,$$
(4.6)
where we have used the non-relativistic approximation for the spinor field,

$$U(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{p}.\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2m}\right)\xi \\ \left(1+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}.\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2m}\right)\xi \end{array}\right).$$
(4.7)
In the Born approximation $`V(x)=eF_1(0)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, hence we can identify $`F_1(0)`$ as the electric charge in units of e, and since $`F_1(0)=1`$ at the tree level, radiative corrections to $`F_1(q^2)`$ should vanish at $`q^2=0`$.

The electron magnetic moment We now repeat the analysis for an electron scattering from a static vector potential. The amplitude of scattering from this field is

$$iM=ie\left[\overline{U}(p^{})\left(\gamma ^iF_1+\frac{i\sigma ^{i\nu }}{2m}q_\nu F_2\right)U(p)\right]\stackrel{~}{A}^i(q).$$
(4.8)
Inserting the non-relativistic expansion for the spinors (4.7), and keeping terms first order in momenta we obtain,

$$iM=ie\xi ^{}\left(\frac{\sigma _k}{2m}[F_1(0)+F_2(0)]\right)\xi \stackrel{~}{B}^k(q),$$
(4.9)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{B}^k(q)=iϵ^{ijk}q_i\stackrel{~}{A}_j(q),$$
(4.10)
is the Fourier transform of the magnetic field produced by $`A(x)`$.

Again we interpret $`M`$ as the Born approximation to the scattering of the electron from a potential. The potential is just that of a magnetic moment interaction, $`V(x)=\mu .B(x)`$, where,

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=\frac{e}{m}[F_1(0)+F_2(0)]\xi ^{}\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\xi .$$
(4.11)
This expression for the magnetic moment of the electron can be rewritten in the standard form

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=g\left(\frac{e}{2m}\right)\stackrel{}{S},$$
(4.12)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ is the electron spin. The coefficient $`g`$ is

$$g=2[F_1(0)+F_2(0)]=2+2F_2(0).$$
(4.13)
Along our previous argument for the leading order of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, we see that to the leading order (classical level) the magnetic moment of a Dirac particle is 2.

### 4.2 Dipole moment at the tree level in NCQED

The calculation of the vertex function at the tree level goes exactly as in the case of usual QED, except for the extra phase $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}`$ appearing due to the star product, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}\gamma ^\mu ,`$ (4.14)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{q}}\gamma ^\mu .`$
Using a power expansion of the exponential and keeping only the first two terms, we see that the first term in the expansion which is $`\theta `$ independent gives rise to the usual result in QED, i.e. we get the same electric charge and magnetic dipole moment. The second term which is proportional to $`\theta `$ will give rise to an electric dipole moment and couples to the external electric field, $`E`$, as $`P.E`$, where

$$P_i=\frac{1}{2}e\stackrel{~}{p}_i=\frac{1}{2}e\theta _{ji}p_j.$$
(4.15)
This term will also contribute to higher-pole moments when coupled to an external electro-magnetic field.

### 4.3 The electron-photon vertex structure in NCQED

In the above we discussed the structure of the electron-photon vertex, in the case of usual QED. The list of vectors and scaler appearing in the vertex function was restricted to $`(\gamma ^\mu ,(p^{}+p)^\mu ,q^2,m,e).`$ In the case of NCQED, and due to the presence of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, our previous list of independent vectors and scalars will be extended to include three other scalars

$$\left(q^2,m,e,\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q},\gamma .\stackrel{~}{q},p.\stackrel{~}{q}\right),$$

and the list for the vectors will be

$$(\gamma ^\mu ,(p^{}+p)^\mu ,q^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu ).$$

The most general structure of the vertex function which is compatible with the Ward identity, is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`E\gamma ^\mu +H(p^{}+p)^\mu +G\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu ,`$ (4.16)
where E, F and G are scalars formed from the list of our previous scalars, except for $`\stackrel{~}{q}.\stackrel{~}{q}`$, which as discussed in the previous section will not appear in the first loop. Up to the one loop approximation the coefficients E, F and G may be expanded to be written as functions of $`q^2,p.\stackrel{~}{q}\text{and}\gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}`$. The form factors $`F_1(q^2)\text{and}F_2(q^2)`$ can be picked directly from $`E_1\text{and}H_1`$ using the Gordon identity. From the results of the previous calculations one can see that the only non-zero coefficients are $`E_1,E_2,H_1,H_3\text{and}G_1`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`E_1\gamma ^\mu +H_1(p^{}+p)^\mu +G_1\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu +E_2\gamma ^\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q}+H_3(p^{}+p)^\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}.`$ (4.17)
So what is left now is to give a physical interpretation to those coefficients proportional to $`\theta `$. We will use the non-relativistic limit, to compute $`\overline{U}(p^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu U(p)`$. Keeping terms up to second order of momentum we find,

* $`G_1`$, coefficients of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu `$:

This term will give a contribution to the magnetic moment. The corresponding effective interaction potential with the external magnetic filed is $`V(x)=\mu .B(x)`$, where

$$\stackrel{}{\mu }=\frac{G_1}{i}\stackrel{}{\theta },\theta _iϵ_{ijk}\theta _{jk}.$$
(4.18)
As we see this magnetic moment does not depend on spin.
* $`E_2`$, coefficients of $`\gamma ^\mu p.\stackrel{~}{q}`$:

This term will vanish in the non-relativistic limit, but it will give contribution to higher moments when higher orders of momentum are considered.
* $`H_3`$, coefficients of $`(p^{}+p)^\mu \gamma .\stackrel{~}{q}`$:

This term will give rise to an electric dipole moment of the form

$$P_i=2iH_3\stackrel{~}{p}_i.$$

Since we are going to work in the low momentum limit, we can use the series expansion of $`e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}},e^{i(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)p.\stackrel{~}{q}}\text{and}e^{ip^{}\times p}`$ and keep only the first term of the expansion. In this limit

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle }\alpha _i)\times `$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^{}.p(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)(p^{}+p)^2)+m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}{2(\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}}+\gamma _{Euller}\right],`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i}){\displaystyle \frac{m\alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)}{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}},`$
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}im\gamma _{Euller}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i})(\alpha _2+\alpha _31),`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{3i\gamma _{Euller}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1{\displaystyle \alpha _i}).`$ (4.19)
Now we can apply the Gordon identity to $`E_1`$ and $`H_1`$, and identify the form factors $`F_1(q^2)\text{and}F_2(q^2)`$ directly

$$F_1(q^2)=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1d\alpha _1d\alpha _2d\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)\times $$

$$\times \left[\frac{2m^2(1\alpha _2\alpha _3)q^2(1\alpha _2\alpha _3)m^2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}{2(\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2)}+\gamma _{Euller}\right],$$
(4.20)
and

$$F_2(q^2)=\frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }_0^1𝑑\alpha _1𝑑\alpha _2𝑑\alpha _3\delta (1\alpha _i)\frac{m^2\alpha _1(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)}{\alpha _1m_\gamma ^2+(\alpha _2+\alpha _3)^2m^2\alpha _2\alpha _3q^2}.$$
(4.21)
As it is seen, apart from the pre-factor, $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}`$, the (4.20), (4.21) expressions are exactly the same as the usual QED.

The integration over the Schwinger parameters in $`G_1,\text{and}H_3`$ terms can be easily performed,

$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{im\gamma _{Euller}}{6}}\right),`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{\frac{i}{2}p\times p^{}}}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3i\gamma _{Euller}}{4}}\right).`$ (4.22)
Altogether, we can write the interaction of a noncommutative electron and an external electromagnetic field in the form,

$$V(x)=e\mathrm{\Phi }+\mu .B+P.E,$$
(4.23)
where the first term is just a Coulomb potential, the second is the magnetic dipole moment and the last term is the electric dipole moment. The coefficients $`\mu `$ and $`P`$, in the low momentum approximation, and up to first loop are

$`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\left[(F_1(0)+F_2(0))\stackrel{}{S}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \gamma _{Euller}}{6\pi }}m^2\stackrel{}{\theta }\right],`$ (4.24)
$`\stackrel{}{P}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e(\stackrel{}{\theta }\times \stackrel{}{p})(1+3\alpha \gamma _{Euller})`$ (4.25)
## 5 Concluding remarks

In this work we have discussed some aspects of NCQED. First we introduced the theory by giving its action, and the corresponding basic Feynman graphs. We argued that the photon itself, similar to the moving noncommutative electron, even at classical level, shows some electric dipole effect. However, the dipole moment of the fermions compared to that of photon, is less by a factor of one half. This is due to the fact that in the NCYM action, the noncommutative effects appear as the Moyal-bracket, while in the fermionic sector it is just a star product.

Calculating the one loop contributions to the electron-photon vertex, we studied the electro-magnetic dipole moments of the electron. We showed that magnetic dipole moment of electron has now two parts, one spin dependent which will not receive any further corrections due to the noncommutativity, and the other spin independent, being proportional to $`\theta `$. In addition we also found the one loop contributions to the electric dipole moment.

Here we only studied the loop effects coming form the interaction vertex correction, however there are many other interesting phenomena coming from the vacuum polarization and corrections to propagators such as, Lamb shift, or the pair production threshold, which we postpone them to the future studies.

Acknowledgements

One of us, I.F. R. , would like to thank all the Professors of ICTP HEP Diploma Course, Ms. Concetta Mosca for her endless help throughout the year, UNESCO, the IAEA and Professor M.A. Virasoro, Director of ICTP, for their kind hospitality at the Centre during the Diploma course programme. M.M. Sh-J. would like to thank T. Krajewski for helpful comments.

This research was partly supported by the EC contract no. ERBFMRX-CT 96-0090.

## Appendix A Some useful identities in \*-product calculus

Let $`f,g`$ be two arbitrary functions on non-commutative $`R^d`$:

$$f(x)=f(k)e^{ik.x}d^dk,g(x)=g(k)e^{ik.x}d^dk.$$

Then

$$(fg)(x)=f(k)g(l)e^{ik\theta l/2}e^{i(k+l).x}d^dkd^dl,$$

where $`k\theta l=k^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }l^\nu `$. From the above relation it is straightforward to see:

1) $`gf=fg|_{\theta \theta }`$, and hence $`\{f,g\}_{M.B.}=fg|_\theta fg|_\theta `$ .

2) $`(fg)(x)d^dx=(gf)(x)d^dx=fg(x)d^dx`$ .

3) If we denote complex conjugation by $`c.c.`$, then

$`(fg)^{c.c.}=g^{c.c.}f^{c.c.}`$ .

If $`h`$ is another arbitrary function:

4) $`(fg)h=f(gh)fgh`$ .

5)$`(fgh)(x)d^dx=(hfg)(x)d^dx=(ghf)(x)d^dx`$ .

6) $`(fgh)|_\theta =(hgf)|_\theta `$ .

In other words the integration on the space coordinates, $`x`$, has the cyclic property, and it has all the properties of the $`Tr`$ in the matrix calculus.

From 2) we learn that the kinetic part of the actions (which are quadratic in fields) is the same as their commutative version. So the free field propagators in commutative and nnoncommutative spaces are the same.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the relevant concepts in an attempt to understand the mechanism of spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry111We shall only consider the theory with several light dynamical fermions ($`N_f2`$). in QCD is provided by instantons, i.e. topologically nontrivial solutions of the classical field equations which are both a local minimum of the classical action and localized in space-time. They are known to influence the local propagation properties of the light flavours (Instanton Liquid Model ).

What is not so clear is whether the global concept of the number of instantons minus anti-instantons for QCD in a finite box

$$\nu =\frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}G\stackrel{~}{G}𝑑x$$
(1)
plays a role, too. This is important, because in lattice studies involving dynamical fermions standard simulation algorithms tend to get “stuck” in a particular topological sector if the sea-quarks are taken sufficiently light222The phenomenon was first observed for HMC with staggered quarks . For Wilson type sea-quarks mobility between the topological sectors was reported to be sufficient for $`M_\pi /M_\rho >0.56`$, but the same problem emerges if $`\kappa `$ is tuned sufficiently close to $`\kappa _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ . and obviously one would like to know whether this affects physical observables. In other words, the question is whether non-ergodicities of the sample w.r.t. the topological charge as visible e.g. from the r.h.s. of Fig. 1 tend to afflict measurements performed on such a sample.

The correct sampling of the topological sectors is known to be crucial for quantities such as the $`\eta ^{}`$ mass, which depend directly on the distribution of topological charges via the explicit breaking of the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry . On the other hand, standard observables which do not relate to the $`U(1)_A`$ issue ($`M_\pi ,M_K,M_\eta ,M_\rho ,V_{q\overline{q}},\mathrm{}`$) are known not to depend on the global topological charge $`\nu `$ if the four-volume $`V`$ of the box is taken sufficiently large. An early investigation trying to assess the issue on a more quantitative level is the one by Leutwyler and Smilga . Their main observation is that for the case of pionic observables a complete answer can be given from purely analytic considerations for two extreme regimes of quark masses and box volumes, both of which involve the Leutwyler-Smilga (LS) parameter333$`V`$ is the four-volume of the box, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=lim_{m0}lim_V\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }\psi `$ (this order) is the chiral condensate in the chiral limit and $`m`$ is the (degenerate) sea-quark mass; note that both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`m`$ are scheme- and scale-dependent, but the combination is an RG-invariant quantity.

$$xV\mathrm{\Sigma }m.$$
(2)
Their first statement is that in a sufficiently small box ($`x1`$) the question whether the algorithm managed to tunnel between the various topological sectors at a sufficient rate shouldn’t emerge, because the partition function is completely dominated by the topologically trivial sector. In lattice language this amounts to the statement that the algorithm is not supposed to tunnel into a nontrivial sector anyways. Their second statement is that in the opposite regime ($`x1`$ plus a condition to be discussed below) the total topological charge is an irrelevant concept. This means, in lattice language, that the observable is unaffected by whichever “topological path” the simulation followed. From a lattice perspective, however, the analysis by Leutwyler and Smilga is not quite sufficient, as their paper doesn’t state explicitly whether a simulation in the small $`x`$ regime can be trusted, if the algorithm got stuck in a higher topological sector even though it was not supposed to get into it, and also because there is no statement about the situation in the intermediate ($`x1`$) regime, which might be interesting to use in dynamical simulations. Last but not least the relevance of the second condition in the LS-analysis for large $`x`$ (a condition which, as we shall see, is never fulfilled in QCD simulations) is not discussed.

Below numerical results will be used to elucidate in which regimes of box volumes and quark masses a standard observable like the heavy quark potential is indeed insensitive to the global topological charge and by which mechanism a dependence sneaks in if the “insensitive” regime is left. I start with a brief review of the approach taken by Leutwyler and Smilga, followed by an argument why the massive multi-flavour Schwinger model is a suitable testbed for numerical studies. Sections 4 through 6 present distinctive features by which the three LS-regimes differ from each other — both on a formal level (role being played by the functional determinant) and w.r.t. observables (Polyakov loop, heavy quark potential). The strategy used is to disentangle the complete sample into contributions from the individual topological sectors and to observe how the generating functional weights the fixed-$`\nu `$ expectation values to form the physical observable . I conclude with a few remarks on the potential relevance of the results for future QCD simulations.

## 2 Leutwyler-Smilga analysis for QCD

Here I shall briefly summarize the considerations by Leutwyler and Smilga regarding the distribution of topological charges for QCD in a finite box .

Leutwyler and Smilga start from the partition function for QCD with $`N_f2`$ degenerate light (dynamical) flavours on an euclidean torus

$$Z\underset{\nu 𝐙}{}DA^{(\nu )}det(D/+m)^{N_f}e^{(1/4){\scriptscriptstyle GG}}$$
(3)
where the integration is over all gauge potentials in a given topological sector and the quark fields have been integrated out. In (3) the Vafa Witten representation  for the functional determinant

$$det(D/+m)^{N_f}=\left(m^{|\nu |}\stackrel{}{}(\lambda ^2+m^2)\right)^{N_f}$$
(4)
may be used which splits the latter into a factor representing the contribution from the zero modes of the Dirac operator $`D/`$ on the given background times a chain of factors $`\pm \mathrm{i}\lambda +m`$ from the paired non-zero modes. Upon using the nontrivial input for the first few non-zero eigenvalues

$$\lambda _n\frac{n\pi }{V\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(5)
(which is just the familiar Banks Casher relation ) the primed factor in the decomposition (4) is seen not to depend on $`m`$ if $`x1`$, and hence

$$Z_\nu m^{|\nu |N_f}(x1).$$
(6)
This means that in the chiral symmetry restoration regime ($`x1`$) topologically nontrivial sectors are heavily suppressed w.r.t. the trivial one — in particular for small quark masses (in lattice units) and large $`N_f`$.

On the other hand, if the box volume is sufficiently large, the onset of chiral symmetry breaking gets manifest as the long-range Green’s functions get dominated by the Goldstone excitations and the theory is effectively described by a chiral lagrangian444References to all the subtle points (e.g. why in the particular case of the torus no boundary terms show up in $`L_{\mathrm{XPT}}`$) are found in .

$$Z_{SU(N_f)}DUe^{{\scriptscriptstyle L_{\mathrm{XPT}}}},L_{\mathrm{XPT}}=\frac{F^2}{4}UU^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}UM^{}+MU^{}$$
(7)
where the integration is over all smooth fields taking values in $`SU(N_f)`$, and standard chiral perturbation theory (XPT) to order $`O(p^2)`$ has been used555For a discussion in the framework of generalized chiral perturbation theory see .. In the representation (7) $`U=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}\varphi /F)`$ is the Goldstone manifold and $`M=\mathrm{diag}(m,\mathrm{},m)>0`$ the quark mass matrix; $`\mathrm{}`$ means a flavour trace, and $`F`$ is the pion decay constant to $`O(p^2)`$. The key observation by Leutwyler and Smilga is that if they take not only the box length sufficiently large for XPT to apply666$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{XPT}}`$ denotes a QCD intrinsic low-energy scale, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},\sqrt{\sigma },F_\pi `$. but also the quark masses sufficiently light

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{XPT}}}L\frac{1}{M_\pi }$$
(8)
the collective (constant mode) excitations are no longer suppressed, but provide the dominant contribution , i.e. (7) is approximately given by

$$Z𝑑U_0e^{V\mathrm{\Sigma }U_0M^{}+MU_0^{}/2}$$
(9)
where the path integral has collapsed into a simple group integral given by the Haar measure. From (9) one gets the contribution of the topological sector $`\nu `$ to the partition function in the standard way by substituting $`MMe^{\mathrm{i}\theta /N_f}`$ and Fourier transforming from $`\theta `$ to $`\nu `$, whence

$`Z_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle 𝑑U_0e^{\mathrm{i}\nu \theta }e^{V\mathrm{\Sigma }U_0e^{\mathrm{i}\theta /N_f}M^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}./2}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{U(N_f)}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{U}(det\stackrel{~}{U})^\nu e^{V\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{U}M^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}./2}`$
where in the last line $`U_0`$ and the factor $`e^{\mathrm{i}\theta /N_f}`$ have been combined into the $`U(N_f)`$ matrix $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. From (10) it follows that, if $`V\mathrm{\Sigma }m`$ is large, the dominant contribution to the group integral will come from the area where $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is in the vicinity of the identity matrix, which means that the determinant is approximatively one and hence $`Z_\nu `$ is independent of $`\nu `$. A refined analysis shows that this is true for $`\nu ^2V\mathrm{\Sigma }m/N_f`$, and the overall distribution is

$$Z_\nu e^{\frac{\nu ^2}{2\nu ^2}}\mathrm{with}\nu ^2=\frac{V\mathrm{\Sigma }m}{N_f}(x1).$$
(11)
I shall attach a few comments:

(i) It is worth noticing that the LS-classification of small, intermediate and large box volumes ($`x1,x1,x1`$) does not coincide with the usual classification on the lattice ($`LM_\pi ^1,LM_\pi ^1,LM_\pi ^1`$). Note also that one involves the masses of the sea-quarks, the other of the current-quarks.

(ii) The analysis by Leutwyler and Smilga covers the symmetry restoration regime ($`x1`$) and, on the other side, the regime where SSB is manifest, but the Goldstone bosons overlap the box ($`x1,LM_\pi ^1`$). The latter condition — besides not being useful because it prevents777Unless the current-quark mass is taken considerably heavier than the sea-quark mass. extraction of pionic observables — is, in fact, completely inaccessible in present days simulations: Putting numbers into eqn. (8) one gets

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{XPT}}200\mathrm{MeV}L3\mathrm{fm}M_\pi 20\mathrm{MeV}$$
(12)
which amounts to a sea-quark mass888Since $`M_\pi ^2m`$, a sea-pion which is lighter than the physical pion by a factor 7 amounts to a sea-quark mass 49 times smaller than the phenomenological value of $`(m_u+m_d)/2`$. For quark masses the usual conventions ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}},\mu =2\mathrm{GeV}`$) are adopted. of the order of $`70\mathrm{keV}`$. From this we conclude that, in order to be useful in dynamical QCD simulations, the result (11) must turn out to rely exclusively on the condition $`x1`$ being fulfilled, not on the r.h.s. of (8). In other words, our hope is that the latter turns out to be a purely technical condition, immaterial to the result (11).

(iii) Comparing the announcement of the results by Leutwyler and Smilga in the introduction to their considerations as sketched above, one might worry because the latter aims at the relative weight of the topological sectors in the partition function, whereas the introduction mentioned possible $`\nu `$-dependencies of observables. From a formal point of view one may argue that this is not an issue, because the LS-analysis goes through if the theory is coupled to tiny external sources, and infinitesimal sources are sufficient to produce Green’s functions and observables. Hence one expects that a strong dependence or approximate independence of the partition function w.r.t. $`\nu `$ transfers into a sensitivity or immunity of correlation functions and observables, but still one would desire to see this explicitly in numerical data.

## 3 Adaptation to 2-flavour QED(2)

The aim is to provide simulation data in the three LS-regimes $`x1`$, $`x1`$ and $`x1`$, while in addition fulfilling the usual condition $`L1/M_\pi `$, i.e. the opposite of the r.h.s. of (8).

A toy theory where the LS-issue can be studied at greatly reduced costs (in terms of CPU power) while maintaining all essential features is the massive multi-flavour Schwinger model, i.e. QED(2) with $`N_f2`$ light degenerate fermions. The physics of this theory resembles in many aspects QCD(4) slightly above the chiral phase transition, i.e. the chiral condensate vanishes upon taking the chiral limit and the expectation value of the Polyakov loop is real and positive. Furthermore, the required formal analogy holds true: Like in QCD the gauge fields in the continuum version of the Schwinger model quantized on the torus fall into topologically distinct classes , i.e. they can be attributed a topological index. The latter agrees with the number of left- minus right-handed zero-modes of the massless Dirac operator, i.e. the index theorem holds true .

There is, however, an (apparent) problem: As we have seen in the previous section, the physics in the large LS-regime ($`x1`$) is governed by the onset of SSB for the global $`SU(N_f)_A`$ flavour-group (though the box volume is still finite), but it is well known that in 2 dimensions no SSB with the associate production of Goldstone bosons takes place .

The reason why this apparent deficiency proves immaterial relates to the fact that the multi-flavour Schwinger model (with $`N_f`$ massless flavours) shows a second order phase transition with critical temperature $`T_c=0`$, a result due to Smilga and Verbaarschot . The theory is most appropriately seen as the limiting case of an extension where the axial flavour symmetry is explicitly broken, e.g. by tiny quark masses. In the strong-coupling limit999Note that in 2 dimensions the charge has the dimension of a mass. $`mg`$ the spectrum is found to involve a heavy particle with mass

$$M_+\sqrt{N_f}\frac{g}{\sqrt{\pi }}+O(m)$$
(13)
and $`N_f^21`$ light particles with mass

$$M_{}\mathrm{const}g^{1/(N_f+1)}m^{N_f/(N_f+1)}.$$
(14)
The state (13) is often called a “massive photon”, but it is more appropriately seen as the analogue of the $`\eta ^{}`$ in QCD, as it is the lightest flavour singlet and stays massive in the chiral limit. The states (14) are “Quasi-Goldstones” and we shall call them “pions”, but it is important to keep in mind that they differ from the usual “Pseudo-Goldstones” (as encountered in QCD) as they do not turn into true Goldstone bosons upon taking $`m0`$; they rather become sterile if the chiral limit101010Analogous phenomena are observed, if the axial flavour symmetry is broken by boundary conditions rather than quark masses: The chiral condensate (i.e. the “would be order parameter”) vanishes with a power-law dependence as the spatial box length is sent to infinity at zero temperature, but exponentially fast if the temperature is non-zero . is performed. That conforms with Coleman’s theorem  which forbids the existence of massless interacting particles in 2 dimensions. The point I shall stress is this: As long as the axial flavour symmetry is explicitly broken — which, in the following, is true, as sea-quarks are taken massive — the “Quasi-Goldstones” are, for practical purposes, as good as “Pseudo-Goldstones”; the difference shows only up upon taking the chiral limit. Hence even the large LS-regime, where long-range Green’s functions are dominated by pionic excitations, finds its analogue in the (massive) multi-flavour Schwinger model.

One more practical issue has to be resolved: The original definition (2) of the LS-parameter $`x`$ involves the quantity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. (the absolute value of) the chiral condensate in the chiral limit. The latter, however, is exactly zero, due to Coleman’s theorem. A practical way out of this is based on Smilga’s observation that upon combining (14) with the expression

$$|\overline{\psi }\psi |\mathrm{const}g^{2/(N_f+1)}m^{(N_f1)/(N_f+1)}$$
(15)
for the chiral condensate one gets the relation

$$m|\overline{\psi }\psi |\frac{0.388}{(2.008)^2}M_\pi ^2$$
(16)
where I have already plugged in the nonuniversal (i.e. $`N_f`$-dependent) constants for the 2-flavour case . Relation (16) being the QED(2) analogue of the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner PCAC-relation

$$m\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{1}{2}M_\pi ^2F_\pi ^2(N_f)$$
(17)
in QCD means that I may define the LS-parameter in the lattice studies presented below as

$$x\frac{0.388}{(2.008)^2}VM_\pi ^2(N_f=2)$$
(18)
as one may rewrite it in the case of QCD (to leading order in XPT)

$$x=\frac{1}{2}VM_\pi ^2F_\pi ^2(N_f)$$
(19)
in a way which involves just physical degrees of freedom111111Note that in order to determine $`x`$ in a lattice study through (19) one has to plug in $`M_\pi `$ and $`F_\pi `$ of the sea-pion, i.e. in practice of a pion constructed from current-quarks having exactly the same mass as their sea-partners..

In order to investigate the LS-issue, I have chosen to implement the Schwinger model with a pair of (dynamical) staggered fermions, using the Wilson gauge action $`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\beta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$. Since the staggered Dirac operator is represented by relatively small matrices (see below), I have decided to compute the determinants exactly, using the routines ZGEFA and ZGEDI from the LINPACK package.

I compare the three regimes $`x1,x1,x1`$ to each other using three dedicated simulations: I have chosen to vary the box volume at fixed $`\beta =1/(ag)^2=3.4`$ and fixed staggered quark mass $`m=0.09`$ (everything in lattice units). The three regimes are represented by the three volumes $`V=8\times 4,V=18\times 6,V=40\times 10`$, where always periodic boundary conditions in the first (spatial) direction and thermal boundary conditions in the second (euclidean timelike) direction have been used. The LS-parameter (18) takes the values $`x0.33,x1.12,x4.16`$ respectively, while the pion (pseudo-scalar iso-triplet) has a (common) mass121212The formula used is the prediction (14), which seems adequate since $`m/g0.1661`$. $`M_\pi =2.0080.542^{1/3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.09}^{2/3}=0.329`$ and hence a correlation length $`\xi _\pi =3.04`$ as to fit into the box (almost) in all three regimes – as is usual in a lattice context. Each time 3200 decorrelated (w.r.t. the plaquette) configurations have been generated.

For the type of investigation I am aiming at configurations must be assigned an index $`\nu `$. I have implemented both the geometric definition $`\nu _{\mathrm{geo}}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}U_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the field theoretic definition $`\nu _{\mathrm{fth}}=\kappa \nu _{\mathrm{nai}},\nu _{\mathrm{nai}}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ with the renormalization factor $`\kappa 1/(1S_{\mathrm{gauge}}/\beta V)`$ . A configuration is assigned an index only if the geometric and the field-theoretic definition, after rounding to the nearest integer, agree. This turned out to be the case for 3197, 3163, 2818 configurations, i.e. on a 99.9%, 98.8%, 88.1% basis on the small/intermediate/large lattice. This fraction being so high means that in practice an assignment can be done without cooling for the overwhelming majority of configurations. The remaining ones are just not assigned an index; they are used to compute the unseparated observable (e.g. the “complete” heavy quark potential; see below), the latter, however, turns out to be unaffected by whether they are included or not.

Having simulation data which are supposed to reflect the situation in the small/intermediate/large LS-regimes respectively, one may want to check the overall distribution of topological charges as encountered in the three runs. As one can see from the r.h.s. of Fig. 2, the overall distribution is noticeably different in the three regimes. The predictions by Leutwyler and Smilga for the two extreme cases $`(x1`$ and $`x1`$) seem to be well reproduced: For small $`x`$ the partition function $`Z`$ (and hence the sample) is dominated by $`Z_0`$, the contribution from the topologically trivial sector, whereas for large $`x`$ the distribution gets broad and seems compatible with a gaussian. It is worth mentioning that the latter holds true even though the pion did not overlap the box; rather the usual relation $`\xi _\pi L`$ applied. This is a first indication that the r.h.s. of (8) in the LS-analysis might indeed be a purely technical condition, immaterial to what they claim, namely that in the large $`x`$ regime the topological charge is “an irrelevant concept” or, in other words, that physical observables do not depend on $`\nu `$ if $`x1`$ .

## 4 Sectoral reweightings and renormalizations

Since the LS-issue is peculiar to the full (unquenched) theory, an attempt to understand by which mechanism the three regimes differ from each other may lead one to investigate how the functional determinant or specifically its contribution to the total action per continuum-flavour

$$S_{\mathrm{fermion}}=\mathrm{log}(det(D/+m))+\mathrm{const}$$
(20)
relates to the contribution from the gauge field and, in addition, how such a relationship might depend on the topological charge of the background. The idea is thus to study such a relationship sectorally, i.e. after the complete sample has been separated into subsamples with a fixed topological charge. Since the theory (at $`\theta =0`$) is P/CP-symmetric, the configurations from the sectors $`\pm \nu `$ may be combined into a single subsample characterized by $`|\nu |`$.

As one can see from the rightmost column of Fig. 3, the contribution per continuum flavour to the total action, $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}`$, shows a positive correlation with the gauge action $`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$. This means that, on a qualitative level, switching on the functional determinant amounts to an increase of $`\beta `$, which is a well-known feature in (full) QCD too. However, the correlation is weak, i.e. the “cigars” in the unseparated plots are thick. A key observation is that the correlation improves, if one separates the sample into subsamples with fixed $`|\nu |`$, as is done in Fig. 3. It is worth noticing that in general (i.e. without specifying the LS-regime) the best linear fit for $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}`$ as a function of $`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ depends (in offset and slope) on $`|\nu |`$. This means that, to a first approximation, the functional determinant results in an overall suppression of higher topological sectors w.r.t lower ones and to a sectorally different renormalization of $`\beta `$. As we shall see, these two features constitute the place where the three LS-regimes differ from each other.

First, we shall consider the offset of the regression line in the $`\nu =\pm 1`$ sectors compared to the line in the sector with $`\nu =0`$, as this is a measure how much extra suppression the first topologically nontrivial sector receives on average compared to the trivial one due to the functional determinant. From the first and second column in Fig. 3 one sees that this offset (and in general the offset between neighboring sectors) decreases with increasing $`x`$. This provides an explanation  for the broadening of the $`\nu `$-distribution inherent to passing from the small to the intermediate or from the intermediate to the large LS-regime (cf. Fig. 2). For $`x1`$ the offset $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}_1S_{\mathrm{fermion}}_0`$ is larger than the fluctuations in $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}`$ within the zero-charge sector, and this means means that in the small LS-regime the functional determinant acts as an almost strict constraint to the topologically trivial sector. For $`x1`$ the offset has roughly the same size as typical fluctuations of $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}`$ in the sector with $`\nu =0`$; as a result of this one can say that in the intermediate regime the functional determinant acts as a “soft constraint” to low-lying $`|\nu |`$ values. For $`x1`$ finally, $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}_1S_{\mathrm{fermion}}_0`$ is small compared to the fluctuations in each one of these sectors; hence no such effective description proves appropriate in the large LS-regime.

Passing on to the slope of the regression line in the correlation $`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}`$ versus $`S_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$, we notice from Fig. 3 that this slope decreases (in general) with increasing $`|\nu |`$. This means that the effective renormalization

$$\beta ^{(\nu )}\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\nu )}=(1+N_f\mathrm{slope}(\nu ))\beta ^{(\nu )}$$
(21)
due to the functional determinant is (in general) stronger for sectors with low absolute value of the net topological charge. This effect of sectoral dependence of the effective renormalization factor for $`\beta `$ diminishes with increasing $`x`$; eventually, in the large $`x`$ regime, it is completely gone.

Thus, the large LS-regime is unique, as the determinant results only in an overall suppression of higher topological sectors, but not in a sectoral dependence of $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (and hence, in 4 dimensions, of the lattice spacing in physical units). This seems consistent with the claim by Leutwyler and Smilga that physical observables do not depend on $`\nu `$ in the large $`x`$ regime, but it is of course not a sufficient condition for the latter to be true.

## 5 Sectoral heavy quark free energies

A quantity which is easily accessible in lattice studies and which might help to elucidate the physical meaning of the LS-classification is the Polyakov loop, i.e. the trace of a chain of link variables which winds once around the torus in the euclidean timelike direction. Its logarithm represents (up to a factor) the free energy of an external (“heavy”) quark which is brought into the system without possibility to influence it through back-reaction. As in the previous section the analysis shall be done sectorally, i.e. on classes of configurations with a fixed value of $`|\nu |`$.

The result of such an analysis for the Polyakov loop is displayed in Fig. 4. As one can see from the rightmost column, the expectation value $`L`$ on the “complete” (unseparated) sample decreases if the box volume is increased. What is more interesting is the following: The physical (unseparated) expectation value may be understood as a weighted mean

$$L=\underset{|\nu |0}{}p_{|\nu |}L_{|\nu |}$$
(22)
of sectoral expectation values $`L_{|\nu |}`$, where the factor $`p_{|\nu |}`$ reflects the combined weight of the sectors $`\pm \nu `$ in the histogram on the r.h.s. of Fig. 2. From the first line in Fig. 3 one notices that the sectoral expectation values for $`|\nu |=0,1`$ in the small LS-regime differ quite drastically on the scale set by the physical expectation value, i.e. $`|L_{|0|,x1}L_{|1|,x1}|/L_{x1}0.7`$. In the intermediate regime the analogous ratios for neighboring sectors (i.e. $`|L_{|0|,x1}L_{|1|,x1}|/L_{x1}`$ and $`|L_{|1|,x1}L_{|2|,x1}|/L_{x1}`$) happen to be smaller, but comparing the highest to the lowest available $`|\nu |`$, one finds again $`|L_{|0|,x1}L_{|2|,x1}|/L_{x1}0.7`$. Finally, in the large LS-regime, there is an almost perfect consistency between sectoral Polyakov loop expectation values for low-lying $`|\nu |`$ (i.e. $`|\nu |\{0,1,2\}`$), but there is no numerical evidence in favour of an overall consistency; if one builds the analogous ratio for the lowest and highest $`|\nu |`$ available, the quantity $`|L_{|0|,x1}L_{|3|,x1}|/L_{x1}`$ is found to be again of order one.

The Polyakov loop is the first example of a physical observable for which we see a difference between expectation values in neighboring sectors (for sufficiently low $`|\nu |`$ values) disappear upon taking the large $`x`$ limit. However, even in the large LS-regime no supporting evidence has been found that $`L_\nu `$ might be completely independent of $`\nu `$. It seems that $`L_{|\nu |}`$ proves sensitive on topology even in the large LS-regime when jumping from $`|\nu |_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`|\nu |_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

## 6 Sectoral heavy quark potentials

The second observable which has been evaluated for each sector separately is the heavy quark potential as determined from the correlator of two Polyakov loops — see Fig. 5 and Tabs. 1-3. The first thing to notice is that in each regime the physical potential (the one in the rightmost column in Fig. 5) bends to the right. This curvature is a direct indication of the screening brought by the dynamical fermions; the quenched potential is strictly linear131313Unlike in QCD(4) there is no $`1/r`$ short-distance tail; the one-photon exchange contributes a linear piece in 2 dimensions..

In the small LS-regime the sectoral potentials for $`\nu =0`$ and $`\nu =\pm 1`$ differ quite drastically. In this case the potential in the topologically trivial sector agrees (on a $`1\sigma `$ basis, cf. Tab. 1) with the potential on the full sample — as expected, since for $`x1`$ the partition function is dominated by $`Z_0`$. What might come as a surprise is that the error-bars in the first plot in the top line of Fig. 5 are smaller than those in the rightmost one, even though the configurations analyzed in the former case represent a subset of those used in the latter case. The reason, as we have seen, is that the complementary subset (the one comprising the configurations with $`\nu =\pm 1`$) provides measurement data which are inconsistent with the data won from the topologically trivial subset, but has a total weight which is too small to affect the complete ensemble average significantly (cf. the first plot in Fig. 2). Hence, in the small LS-regime, the tiny contribution from the higher topological sectors primarily adds some noise to a standard observable like the heavy quark potential. The practical recipe to get rid of this effect is to do by hand (for sufficiently small $`x`$) what the functional determinant does anyways in the limit $`x0`$: Cut away the higher topological sectors !

In the intermediate LS-regime the difference between the two sectoral potentials for $`\nu =0`$ and $`\nu =\pm 1`$ is smaller than in the previous regime, but the sectoral potentials are typically several $`\sigma `$ away from each other and even the potential in the topologically trivial sector lies significantly below the unseparated physical potential (cf. Tab. 2). From this we see that the sector with $`\nu =0`$ does not always yield the right result. The intermediate LS-regime shares thus with the small $`x`$ regime the uneasy property that different sectors give inconsistent values for physical observables, but unlike in the small $`x`$ regime, several sectors yield sizable contributions to the complete (physical) expectation value — hence perfect ergodicity w.r.t. $`\nu `$ is mandatory.

In the large LS-regime differences between expectation values measured on subsets of definite topological charge diminish further, if the latter differs only by one (“neighboring sectors”). On the other hand, in the large $`x`$ regime there is a multitude of topological sectors yielding sizable contributions to the physical expectation value, hence an obvious question is which effect will win in the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$. Hence, what we would like to know is whether the difference between the heavy quark potential on the subsets with the lowest and the highest (reasonably populated) $`|\nu |`$ will fade away, stay constant or grow if $`x`$ increases unlimitedly. From Tab. 3, one gets the impression that the difference between the two extreme fixed-$`|\nu |`$ expectation values persists in the large LS-regime. It seems that the statement by Leutwyler and Smilga that in the large $`x`$ regime the topological charge has vanishing influence on physical measurements is reproduced for sufficiently low $`|\nu |`$ values (in our case e.g. $`|\nu |\{0,1,2\}`$ but not necessarily for $`|\nu |=3`$). It is also worth noticing that the topologically trivial potential lies at least $`0.5\sigma `$ below the physical potential. Hence, a constraint to the topologically trivial sector seems permissible for $`x1`$, though in our simulation a constraint to the sectors $`|\nu |=1`$ would have been a better choice. Of course it is difficult to get definitive answers from numerical data; it may well be that our LS-value ($`x4.16`$) is still too small for the large $`x`$ behaviour to be fully pronounced. Nevertheless, the situation seems to be analogous to what we have seen in the case of the heavy quark free energy: Any differences between expectation values of neighboring sectors (with sufficiently low $`|\nu |`$) disappear upon taking the large $`x`$ limit. However, even in the large LS-regime no supporting evidence has been found that $`V_{q\overline{q}}_\nu `$ might be completely independent of $`\nu `$.

## 7 Summary

The massive multi-flavour Schwinger model has been used to test the statements by Leutwyler and Smilga about the (ir-)relevance of the topological charge for QCD in a finite box. It is expected that an analogous study for full QCD will result in figures which look, as far as qualitative issues go, exactly the same as the ones presented here and that, for this reason, the statements below are valid for QCD too. The key points are the following:

(i) The three LS-regimes show distinctive properties already on a formal level, by the way how the contribution per flavour to the total action (the sign-flipped logarithm of the one-flavour functional determinant) correlates with the contribution from the gauge field. Introducing the fermion determinant at fixed $`\beta `$ results in every regime in an overall suppression of higher topological sectors w.r.t. low-lying ones. For $`x1`$ this suppression is so strong that the functional determinant effectively acts as a constraint to the topologically trivial sector. In addition, the sea-flavours effectively result in a sectoral multiplicative renormalization of $`\beta `$ with a factor greater than 1. For small and intermediate $`x`$ this factor is found to decrease as a function of $`|\nu |`$, while in the large LS-regime the renormalization factor seems to be uniform for all topological sectors.

(ii) For the overall distribution of topological charges the predictions by Leutwyler and Smilga are well observed: In the regime $`x1`$ the partition function (and hence the sample) is entirely dominated by the topologically trivial sector, i.e. the histogram of topological charges essentially consists of a delta-peak at $`\nu =0`$. In the intermediate regime $`(x1)`$ the distribution is narrow but nontrivial, i.e. sizable contributions stem essentially from the sectors $`\nu =0,\pm 1,\pm 2`$. In the regime $`x1`$ the topological charge distribution gets broad and is approximated by a gaussian with width $`\nu ^2x/N_f`$.

(iii) In the small LS-regime ($`x1`$) the sectoral expectation value of an observable in the first topologically nontrivial sector (typically won from very few configurations) differs drastically from the analogous expectation value in the topologically trivial sector (represented by the overwhelming majority of configurations). This means that a simulation getting stuck at $`\nu =\pm 1`$ (or even higher) is absolutely disastrous to the result, i.e. tiny non-ergodicities w.r.t. the topological charge render an overall sample average meaningless. The good news is that in this regime the correct distribution is known and hence there is a simple remedy: A strict constraint to the topologically trivial sector proves beneficial.

(iv) The intermediate LS-regime ($`x1`$) is characterized by the distinctive feature that several mutually inconsistent sectors yield sizable contributions to a standard (i.e. not relating to the $`U(1)_A`$ issue) physical observable. This means that the intermediate regime is the one which is most delicate to simulate in: There is a strong sectoral dependence of physical observables, yet there is no simple recipe how to guarantee the correct sectoral weighting. In other words: Physical measurements on a sample won in the intermediate LS-regime do rely on the simulation algorithm having achieved perfect ergodicity w.r.t. the topological charge.

(v) In the large LS-regime ($`x1`$) sectoral averages seem consistent between neighboring topological sectors (for sufficiently low $`|\nu |`$), but no evidence has been found that measurements might be completely independent of $`\nu `$. It seems that jumping (within a well-distributed sample) from the lowest to the highest accessible $`|\nu |`$ may affect sectoral averages even in the large $`x`$ regime. This, if correct, means that the statement by Leutwyler and Smilga according to which “the topological charge is an irrelevant concept in the large $`x`$ regime”  should to be interpreted in the following way: In the large LS-regime physical observables are immune to modifications of the $`\nu `$-histogram which are small compared to its natural width $`(x/N_f)^{1/2}`$; they may, however, be sensitive to distortions which go beyond this limit. From a lattice perspective the implication is that the result of a full QCD simulation in the large $`x`$ regime may be trusted without hesitation as long as the algorithm did not get stuck in a sector with unreasonably high $`|\nu |`$, say at $`\nu =10`$ if the simulation was in the regime $`x40`$ and $`N_f=2`$.

(vi) In this work, the transition from the small to the intermediate and the large LS-regime has been made by adding more sites to the grid while keeping $`\beta ,m`$ fixed. It would be interesting to test the universality property, i.e. the claim that it is only the product $`V\mathrm{\Sigma }m`$  which decides on the regime.

(vii) It is worth emphasizing that in the large $`x`$ simulation used in this work the predictions by Leutwyler and Smilga turned out to be fulfilled even though the condition in the r.h.s. of (8) according to which the pion would overlap the box was not obeyed, but rather the opposite relation $`1/M_\pi L`$ would hold true, i.e. the pion would fit into the box, as is usual in a lattice context. Hence the r.h.s. of (8) seems to be a purely technical condition, immaterial to the result of the LS-analysis in the large $`x`$ regime.

(viii) From the fact that the massive multi-flavour Schwinger model follows the LS-classification even though it resembles QCD slightly above the chiral phase transition one is led to suspect that this classification might be more general, even within QCD, than its original derivation indicates. In other words: The conjecture is that the LS-classification may prove useful not only in the broken phase but also in the high-temperature phase of QCD — as long as one stays in the immediate vicinity of the phase transition, i.e. as long as pions keep being visible (i.e. keep dominating the long-range Green’s functions with pion-type quantum numbers; for a recent study see e.g. ). This, if correct, would imply that the version of the LS-parameter as given in eqn. (19) is more general141414Note that in the high-temperature phase $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, hence (2) is useless for $`T>T_c`$. then the original version (2).

(ix) The results of this investigation may be seen as an additional a-posteriori justification of the resources phenomenological lattice groups have been provided with in order to be able to study (full) QCD in the large $`x`$ regime151515This is the result of a private attempt to estimate $`x`$ in dynamical simulations aiming at the light hadron spectrum from published data (e.g. $`m_{\mathrm{sea}}`$ and $`a`$ in physical units).. In addition, they support attempts to develop algorithms which decorrelate the topological charge faster than standard HMC (see e.g. ), as this is necessary for trustworthy simulations in the intermediate LS-regime, towards which one moves when comparing different runs with increasing $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sea}}`$ in a fixed physical volume, or even more so, if $`\beta `$ is kept fixed. The fact that even in the large $`x`$ regime full QCD simulations may yield unreliable results upon generating extreme distortions in the topological charge distribution should be taken as a motivation to monitor $`\nu `$ in all phenomenological studies (i.e. not just with an observable relating to the $`U(1)_A`$ issue) and, for the time being, as a warning against pushing the sea-quark mass too light161616Here it is assumed that each algorithm has a critical $`M_\pi /M_\rho `$ (which may well depend on the actions used) beneath which it tends to get stuck (cf. footnote 1). (even when increasing the volume together with $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sea}}`$ so as to keep the product $`x=V\mathrm{\Sigma }m`$ fixed and large compared to 1). The latter constraint is certainly not a disaster, since there is a well-elaborate framework  which allows one to extrapolate from samples generated with a somewhat larger sea-quark mass down to the physical $`M_\pi /M_\rho `$. Hence it seems that our results do represent a little caveat but no real obstacle to future progress in Lattice QCD.

### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Steve Sharpe for fruitful physics discussions in an early phase of this work and Roland Rosenfelder for advice regarding presentation.