text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This paper studies the perturbative aspects of spontaneous symmetry breaking in noncommutative gauge theories. Non-commutative field theories have been the subject of great activity recently (see, for example, references \[1-34\]), since being found to arise naturally in limits of string theory formulated in the presence of background gauge fields . Later works have treated non-commutative field theories as objects worthy of study independent of their string theory origins, a point of view adhered to in this paper.

A hallmark of these theories is the mixing of UV and IR divergences ; UV divergences in the commutative theory can become IR divergences in the noncommutative theory. This calls into question the renormalizability of non-commutative field theories. Several papers have explicitly shown that such theories as $`\varphi ^4`$ and U(N) gauge theories, when formulated on a non-commutative space, are one loop renormalizable . However, results in the literature  have shown that non-commutativity renders impossible the continuum renormalization of the spontaneously broken linear sigma model. They find that Goldstone’s theorem is violated at the one loop level, and the Goldstone mode obtains a mass dependent upon the theory’s UV cutoff. The situtation in spontaneously broken gauge theories seems to also merit investigation, as both an interesting question and as a preface to any attempts to embed the Standard Model within a non-commutative framework. In particular, the gauge dependence of the spontaneously broken theory should be checked, as the analog of the problem seen in  would be a gauge dependent shift of one of the masses in the theory. In this paper we examine the non-commutative Abelian Higgs model at the one-loop level. We work in an arbitrary $`R_\xi `$ gauge, and show that the resulting BRST invariance of the action holds when one loop corrections are calculated by finding a counterterm set capable of removing the divergences from the 1PI functions. We find that the physical couplings and masses are gauge-independent. Upon taking the gauge coupling to zero, we obtain a continuum renormalization of the broken O(2) linear sigma model, contradicting the results in . We show that the proper ordering of the NC generalization of $`|\varphi |^4`$ term in the globally symmetric theory is that consistent with the local realization of the symmetry. We then summarize some of the properties of the theory, such as the beta functions for the various couplings and violations of the discrete symmetries $`P`$, $`C`$, and $`T`$ for certain types of non-commutativity.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the essential ideas of non-commutative (NC) field theory; for a more detailed introduction the reader is referred to the references in the bibliography. Section 3 reviews the commutative Abelian Higgs model, concentrating upon setting up the counterterm structure and upon defining gauge independent physical parameters. We discuss this in detail as similar definitions will be used when discussing the NC model. In section 4 we construct the NC Abelian Higgs model, and show by explicit calculation that the theory is renormalizable. We present our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 Field Theories on NC Spaces

The essential idea of NCQFT is a generalization of the usual d-dimensional space, $`R^d`$, associated with commuting space-time coordinates to one which is non-commuting, $`R_\theta ^d`$. In such a space the conventional coordinates are represented by operators which no longer commute:

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ represents a real anti-symmetric matrix. NCQFT can be phrased in terms of conventional commuting QFT through the application of the Weyl-Moyal correspondence

$$\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})A(x),$$
(2)
where $`A`$ represents a quantum field with $`\widehat{X}`$ being the set of non-commuting coordinates and $`x`$ corresponding to the commuting set. However, in formulating NCQFT, one must be careful to preserve orderings in expressions such as $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})\widehat{B}(\widehat{X})`$. This is accomplished with the introduction of the Moyal product, $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})\widehat{B}(\widehat{X})=A(x)\times B(x)`$, where the effect of the commutation relation is absorbed into the cross. Introducing the Fourier transform pair

$`\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha e^{i\alpha \widehat{X}}a(\alpha )}`$
$`a(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{i\alpha x}A(x)},`$ (3)
with $`x`$ and $`\alpha `$ being real n-dimensional variables, allows us to write the product of two fields as

$`\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})\widehat{B}(\widehat{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta e^{i\alpha \widehat{X}}a(\alpha )e^{i\beta \widehat{X}}b(\beta )}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta e^{i(\alpha +\beta )\widehat{X}\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^\mu \beta ^\nu [\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]}a(\alpha )b(\beta )}.`$
We thus have the correspondence

$$\widehat{A}(\widehat{X})\widehat{B}(\widehat{X})A(x)\times B(x),$$
(5)
provided we identify

$$A(x)\times B(x)\left[e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }_{\zeta \mu }_{\eta \nu }}A(x+\zeta )B(z+\eta )\right]_{\zeta =\eta =0}.$$
(6)
Note that propagators are identical on commutative and NC spaces because quadratic forms remain unchanged:

$`{\displaystyle d^4x\varphi (x)\times \varphi (x)}={\displaystyle \varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\right\}\varphi (x)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{}}\right\}\varphi (x)}={\displaystyle d^4x\varphi (x)\varphi (x)},`$ (7)
since $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is antisymmetric.

## 3 Commutative Abelian Higgs Model

Here we review the commutative Abelian Higgs model in some detail, as much of our construction will carry over into the non-commutative case. The commutative Abelian Higgs model begins with the Lagrangian

$$_{AH}=\frac{1}{4}(F_{\mu \nu })^2+\left|_\mu +igA_\mu \right|^2+\mu ^2\left|\varphi \right|^2\frac{\lambda }{6}\left|\varphi \right|^4,$$
(8)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. This Lagrangian is invariant under the gauge transformation

$`\varphi e^{ie\alpha (x)}\varphi ,`$
$`A_\mu A_\mu _\mu \alpha .`$ (9)
The potential

$$V[\varphi ]=\mu ^2\left|\varphi \right|^2\frac{\lambda }{6}\left|\varphi \right|^4$$

has minima at

$$\left|\varphi _{min}\right|^2=\nu ^2=\frac{3\mu ^2}{\lambda }.$$
(10)
Expanding

$$\varphi =\nu +\frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{i\sigma }{\sqrt{2}},$$
(11)
we arrive at the Lagrangian

$`_{AH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(F_{\mu \nu })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \sigma )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu h)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2h^2`$ (12)
$`+MA^\mu _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda \nu }{6}}h^3{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\lambda \nu }{6}}h\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12}}h^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24}}h^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\sigma ^2A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}h^2A^2+ghA^\mu _\mu \sigma g\sigma A^\mu _\mu h`$
$`+\sqrt{2}g^2\nu hA^2.`$
The Higgs field has acquired a mass $`m^2=2\lambda \nu ^2/3`$, while the gauge boson has acquired a mass $`M^2=2g^2\nu ^2`$. We will work in an $`R_\xi `$ gauge, so to this we add the gauge fixing and ghost Lagrangians

$$_{gf}+_{gh}=\frac{1}{2\xi }(_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma )^2\overline{c}\left(^2+\xi M^2+\xi gMh\right)c,$$
(13)
which cancels the $`A\sigma `$ cross term. The Feynman rules can be found in . The total Lagrangian $`_{AH}+_{gf}+_{gh}`$ is invariant under the BRST transformation

$`\delta h`$ $`=`$ $`g\sigma c\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`Mc\mathrm{\Theta }+ghc\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu c\right)\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta \overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma \right)\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta c`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (14)
To study the renormalizability of the theory we define the following counterterms relating the bare and physical quantities:

$`A_B^\mu =Z_A^{1/2}A^\mu ,\varphi _B=Z_\varphi ^{1/2}\varphi ,\mu _B^2=Z_\varphi ^1Z_\mu \mu ^2,`$
$`\lambda _B=Z_\varphi ^2Z_\lambda \lambda m_D^{4d},g_B=Z_A^{1/2}Z_ggm_D^{2d/2},`$ (15)
where $`m_D`$ is a constant with dimensions of mass used to account for units in dimensional regularization. Note that if we expand

$$\varphi =\nu +\frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{i\sigma }{\sqrt{2}},\nu ^2=\frac{3\mu ^2}{\lambda }$$

as before, we will no longer be expanding around the minimum of the potential; the higgs tadpole will acquire a nonzero value. It is convenient, though unnecessary, to introduce a new counterterm $`Z_\nu `$, expand

$$\varphi =Z_\nu \nu +\frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{i\sigma }{\sqrt{2}},$$
(16)
and fix $`Z_\nu `$ by requiring the higgs tadpole to vanish. We could, if desired, refrain from introducing $`Z_\nu `$, and include the Higgs tadpole in the calculation of other Green’s functions. Depending upon the gauge in which we work, $`Z_\nu `$ will be UV divergent. Although it may seem strange to be expanding the scalar field around an infinite gauge-dependent vev, the expansion point is not a physical obervable, so no contradiction arises. This procedure is discussed in . We now take the Lagrangian in eq. (8), written in terms of bare quantities, and insert the physical quantities and counterterms, while expanding the field $`\varphi `$ as in eq. (16). Our new Lagrangian contains two pieces: the Lagrangian of eq. (12) written in terms of the physical parameters, and the counterterm Lagrangian, which is used to subtract the divergences in the physical Green’s functions. The counterterm Lagrangian generated from the original Lagrangian plus $`_{gf}`$ is

$`_{AH+gf}^{cnt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\nu m^2\left(Z_\nu Z_\mu Z_\nu ^3Z_\lambda \right)h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Z_\nu ^2Z_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_\mu 1\right)h^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m^2\left(Z_\nu ^2Z_\lambda Z_\mu \right)\sigma ^2`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(Z_\varphi 1\right)(_\mu h)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(Z_\varphi 1\right)(_\mu \sigma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(Z_\lambda 1\right)\lambda h^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(Z_\lambda 1\right)\lambda \sigma ^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(Z_\lambda 1\right)\lambda h^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}}\left(Z_\nu Z_\lambda 1\right)\lambda \nu h^3{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}}\left(Z_\nu Z_\lambda 1\right)\lambda \nu h\sigma ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_A}{4}}\left(F_{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\sqrt{2}\left(Z_gZ_\varphi Z_\nu 1\right)g\nu A^\mu _\mu \sigma +\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^2Z_\nu ^21\right)g^2\nu ^2A^2`$
$`+\left(Z_\varphi Z_\nu Z_g^21\right)g^2\nu hA^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^21\right)g^2\sigma ^2A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^21\right)g^2h^2A^2`$
$`+\left(Z_\varphi Z_g1\right)gA^\mu \left[h_\mu \sigma \sigma _\mu h\right].`$
This expression uses the fact that $`_{gf}`$ is already written in terms of the physical parameters and fields. To determine the counterterms for $`_{gh}`$, we first note that the Higgs-ghost interaction is super-renormalizable, and therefore doesn’t need a counterterm. Returning to the gauge transformation of eq. (9) written in terms of the unbroken fields, and expanding as in eq. (16), we arrive at the counterterm Lagrangian

$$_{gh}^{cnt}=\left(Z_\nu 1\right)\xi M^2\overline{c}c.$$
(18)
The super-renormalizability of the Higgs-ghost interaction means that we do not need to introduce a wave-function renormalization constant for the ghost field. The new Lagrangian is invariant under a “renormalized” BRST symmetry, which is identical to eq. (14) with $`MZ_\nu M`$ in the $`\delta \sigma `$ transformation.

The terms listed above illustrate the subtlety involved with the renormalization of spontaneously broken theories; a limited number of counterterms are needed to subtract a large number of divergences. The above theory is renormalizable in spite of these difficulties. An explicit one loop calculation reveals the counterterms

$`Z_g=1,Z_A=1{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2ϵ}},Z_\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}},Z_\nu =1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}},`$
$`Z_\lambda =1+{\displaystyle \frac{5\lambda }{24\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{4\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{4\pi ^2ϵ}},Z_\mu =1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}},`$ (19)
where $`ϵ=4d`$ can account for the one loop divergences in this theory, and we have used the minimal subtraction prescription.

In preparation for our discussion of the NC case, let us discuss how to obtain gauge-independent couplings and masses. Eq. (15) gives the relations between the bare couplings and physical couplings; solving the equations for the physical couplings in terms of the bare couplings and renormalization constants, and inserting the expressions of eq. (19) for the renormalization constants, gives $`\xi `$ independent expressions for the physical couplings. The calculation of the physical couplings at various renormalization points is facilitated by finding their beta functions. We find the following values:

$`\beta (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`m_D{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{5\lambda ^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda g^2}{4\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{4\pi ^2}}`$
$`\beta (g^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_D{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{24\pi ^2}}.`$ (20)
These quantities are in agreement with those found in . We can solve these differential equations to find the relations between physical couplings at various renormalization points; for example, we find

$$g^2=\frac{g_0^2}{1\frac{g_0^2}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_D}{m_{D0}}\right)},$$
(21)
where $`g_0`$ is the coupling at the renormalization point $`m_{D0}`$. Similarly for the masses, we have the following relations between bare and physical masses:

$`m_B^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\lambda _B\nu _B^2=Z_\mu Z_\varphi ^1m^2`$
$`M_B^2`$ $`=`$ $`2g_B^2\nu _B^2=Z_g^2Z_A^1Z_\mu Z_\varphi Z_\lambda ^1M^2`$ (22)
Note that $`\nu _B=3\mu _B^2/\lambda _B`$; $`Z_\nu `$ just defines the shift of the expansion point, and does not enter this expression. We can check that these lead to gauge independent definitions of the physical masses; calculation yields

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_B^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}\right]`$
$`M^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_B^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{5g^2}{12\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{4\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}\right],`$ (23)
where the bare masses are infinite in order to cancel the $`1/ϵ`$ poles. The important point is the gauge independence of these results; we will find that the same definitions of the physical parameters give gauge independent results in the NC theory.

## 4 Non-commutative Abelian Higgs Model

### 4.1 Setup of NC Symmetry Breaking in U(1)

We now examine the non-commutative extension of the Abelian Higgs model, following the procedure introduced in the previous section. Non-commutative U(1) gauge theory coupled to a complex scalar field is defined by the Lagrangian

$$_{AH}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }\times F^{\mu \nu }+D_\mu \varphi \times (D^\mu \varphi )^{}+\mu ^2\left|\varphi \right|^2\frac{\lambda }{6}\varphi ^{}\times \varphi \times \varphi ^{}\times \varphi ,$$
(24)
where $`D_\mu \varphi =_\mu \varphi +igA_\mu \times \varphi `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +ig\left(A_\mu \times A_\nu A_\nu \times A_\mu \right)`$. With $`U(x)=e^{ig\alpha (x)}`$, the action is invariant under the gauge transformation

$$\varphi U\times \varphi ,\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\times U^1,A_\mu U\times A_\mu \times U^1+\frac{i}{g}(_\mu U)\times U^1.$$
(25)
Note that of the two possible noncommutative generalizations of $`\left|\varphi \right|^4`$, $`\varphi ^{}\times \varphi \times \varphi ^{}\times \varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}\times \varphi ^{}\times \varphi \times \varphi `$, only the first is consistent with local gauge invariance as defined by the transformation of eq. (16) We examined the theory with the potential $`f\varphi ^{}\times \varphi \times \varphi ^{}\times \varphi +(1f)\varphi ^{}\times \varphi ^{}\times \varphi \times \varphi `$ and found that the theory is one-loop renormalizable only if $`f=1`$ (See also the discussion following eq. (28)). The minimum of the potential $`V[\varphi ]`$ is the same as in the commutative theory, and as quadratic forms are unchanged by the noncommutativity, the Higgs particle and gauge boson acquire the same masses as in the commutative theory. Expanding around the minimum $`\nu `$, we arrive at the Lagrangian

$`_{AH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }\times F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu h)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \sigma )^2M\sigma _\mu A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2A^2`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2h^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\nu }{6}}h\times h\times h{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\nu }{6}}h\times \sigma \times \sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24}}h\times h\times h\times h{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24}}\sigma \times \sigma \times \sigma \times \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}h\times h\times \sigma \times \sigma `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12}}h\times \sigma \times h\times \sigma +gMh\times A_\mu \times A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2h\times h\times A_\mu \times A^\mu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2\sigma \times \sigma \times A_\mu \times A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g^2[h,\sigma ]\times A_\mu \times A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}gA_\mu \times [h,^\mu h]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}gA_\mu \times [\sigma ,^\mu \sigma ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gA_\mu \times \{h,^\mu \sigma \}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gA_\mu \times \{\sigma ,^\mu h\},`$
where we have used the notation $`[x,y]=x\times yy\times x`$ and $`\{x,y\}=x\times y+y\times x`$. To this we add the gauge-fixing and ghost Lagrangians

$`_{gf}+_{gh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}(_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma )^2\overline{c}\left(^2+\xi M^2\right)c{\displaystyle \frac{\xi gM}{2}}\overline{c}\{c,h\}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi gM}{2}}\overline{c}[c,\sigma ]+ig\overline{c}^\mu [c,A_\mu ];`$
to obtain the ghost Lagrangian we simply insert the BRST transformation of eq. (28) into the gauge- fixing condition

$$F[A,\sigma ]=_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma .$$

The full Lagrangian $`_{AH}+_{gf}+_{gh}`$ is found to be invariant under the BRST transformation

$`\delta h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\{c,\sigma \}\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}[c,h]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`Mc\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\{c,h\}\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}[c,\sigma ]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_\mu c\right)\mathrm{\Theta }+ig[c,A_\mu ]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta \overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma \right)\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta c`$ $`=`$ $`igc\times c\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (28)
Note that upon replacing $`c\mathrm{\Theta }\alpha `$ in the transformation laws for $`h`$, $`\sigma `$, and $`A_\mu `$, the above reduce to the infinitesimal transformations found in eq. (25). Let us carefully show how to obtain the transformations of $`h`$ and $`\sigma `$. The infinitesimal form of eq. (25) is

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{^{}}=\varphi +ig\alpha \times \varphi `$
$`\varphi ^{}`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{^{}}=\varphi ^{}ig\varphi ^{}\times \alpha ,`$ (29)
where the prime indicates the transformed field. Written in terms of $`h`$ and $`\sigma `$, these become

$`\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(h^{^{}}+i\sigma ^{^{}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(h+i\sigma \right)+ig\nu \alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}}\alpha \times \left(h+i\sigma \right)`$
$`\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(h^{^{}}i\sigma ^{^{}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(hi\sigma \right)ig\nu \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(hi\sigma \right)\times \alpha .`$ (30)
Adding and subtracting these give the transformations of $`h`$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively.

The Feynman rules for the NC Abelian Higgs model derived from the Lagrangians of eqs. (26-27) are presented in the appendix, where we introduce the notation $`pq=p^\mu q^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }/2`$. Note the presence of new interactions, such as the $`A2h`$ and $`2Ah\sigma `$ vertices, since the terms containing commutators vanish in the commutative limit. These arise from the violation of charge conjugation symmetry, as will be shown in the next several paragraphs.

Let us now briefly discuss the role of the discrete symmetries $`P`$, $`C`$, and $`T`$ in this theory; the presentation will very closely follow that in . The transformations of the fields under the various symmetries can be derived from the requirement that the commutative Lagrangian of eq. (12) be invariant under any of the symmetries; the results are

$`PhP^1=h`$ $`ChC^1=hThT^1=h`$
$`P\sigma P^1=\sigma `$ $`C\sigma C^1=\sigma T\sigma T^1=\sigma `$
$`PA^\mu P^1=A_\mu `$ $`CA_\mu C^1=A_\mu TA^\mu T^1=A_\mu .`$ (31)
We must now determine whether the interactions introduced by the non-commutativity respect these symmetries. Although the matrix $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is just a set of real parameters and is not affected by any of the transformations, it will be useful to indicate the transformations of the various $`\theta `$ parameters that would lead to an invariant NC Lagrangian, as in .

Parity: The net effect of parity on the NC Lagrangian is to change the Moyal product as follows:

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\theta _{0i}}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}+\frac{i\theta _{ij}}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}\underset{j}{\overset{}{}})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\theta _{0i}}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}+\frac{i\theta _{ij}}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}\underset{j}{\overset{}{}}).$$
(32)
Hence, the NC theory is $`P`$ invariant only if $`\theta _{0i}=0`$. The theory would be parity invariant if we also took $`\theta _{0i}\theta _{0i}`$.

Charge Conjugation: Charge conjugation leaves all but four terms of the Lagrangian invariant: the terms in eq. (26) containing commutators and the term leading to the triple gauge photon vertex, which also contains a single commutator. These acquire a minus sign under $`C`$. Charge conjugation invariance is therefore violated for any non-zero value of $`\theta `$; the $`A2h`$, $`A2\sigma `$, $`3A`$, and $`2Ah\sigma `$ vertices arising from the commutator terms in the Lagrangian explicitly show this violation. We could maintin $`C`$ invariance by requiring $`C\theta _{\mu \nu }C^1=\theta _{\mu \nu }`$.

Time Reversal: The net effect of the time reversal invariance on the NC Lagrangian is to change the Moyal product,

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\theta _{0i}}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}+\frac{i\theta _{ij}}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}\underset{j}{\overset{}{}})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\theta _{0i}}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}\frac{i\theta _{ij}}{2}\underset{i}{\overset{}{}}\underset{j}{\overset{}{}}).$$
(33)
The theory is time reversal invariant only if $`\theta _{ij}=0`$. $`T`$ invariance could be maintained by requiring $`T\theta _{ij}T^1=\theta _{ij}`$.

We can see from these transformations that the theory is $`CPT`$ invariant for all $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`CP`$ invariant only if $`\theta _{ij}=0`$. This leads to the question of whether theories with $`\theta _{ij}0`$ might be used as models of CP violation in particle physics, a point raised in . We make no attempt to address this question, as it would require the non-commutative extension of the electroweak theory, but do provide a rough estimate of the size of such effects, obtained by considering the $`C`$ violating process $`Ahh`$. A short calculation reveals a partial width of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }M\frac{M^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4},$$
(34)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the energy scale associated with the non-commutativity. We will not attempt to study further the phenomonology of NC theories; preliminary discussions can be found in

To study the renormalization of the theory we introduce the same wave-function and coupling constant rescalings as in eq. (15). As the ghost-gauge boson vertex contains factors of momenta, we must also introduce the ghost wave-function renormalization

$$c_B=Z_cc.$$
(35)
The counterterm Lagrangian $`_{AH}^{cnt}`$ obtained from eq. (26) is the same as that of eq. (17) with multiplication replaced by the Moyal product and the anti-commutators of eq. (26) accounted for appropriately. In addition, there are new counterterms for the three and four-point gauge boson vertices, and for the new interactions represented by commutators of eq. (26). As the counterterm Lagrangian is rather long we will not write it explicitly; it is apparent how to obtain it, and the counterterms for each vertex are presented in section 4.2. The ghost counterterm Lagrangian, $`_{gh}^{cnt}`$, is

$`_{gh}^{cnt}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Z_c1\right)^2c\xi \left(Z_cZ_gZ_\nu 1\right)M^2\overline{c}c+i\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)g\overline{c}^\mu [c,A_\mu ]`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi gM}{2}}\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)\overline{c}\{c,h\}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi gM}{2}}\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)\overline{c}\{c,\sigma \}.`$
The entire Lagrangian, $`_{gh}+_{gh}^{cnt}+_{AH}+_{AH}^{cnt}+_{gf}`$, is now invariant under the renormalized BRST transformation

$`\delta _Rh`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_cZ_gg}{2}}\{c,\sigma \}\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{iZ_cZ_gg}{2}}[c,h]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta _R\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`Z_cZ_gZ_\nu Mc\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_cZ_gg}{2}}\{c,h\}\mathrm{\Theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{iZ_cZ_gg}{2}}[c,\sigma ]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta _RA_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`Z_c\left(_\mu c\right)\mathrm{\Theta }+iZ_cZ_gg[c,A_\mu ]\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta _R\overline{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}\left(_\mu A^\mu \xi M\sigma \right)\mathrm{\Theta }`$
$`\delta _Rc`$ $`=`$ $`iZ_cZ_ggc\times c\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (37)
which arises from the BRST invariance of the Lagrangian written in terms of bare fields. To demonstrate that this BRST invariance holds at the one-loop level, we must find a set of renormalization constants that can simultaneously remove the divergences from every 1PI function; we do this below.

### 4.2 Calculation of NC divergences

Below we present the somewhat lengthy list of the UV divergent parts of the 1PI functions; the diagrams contributing to each are summarized in the appendix. A quick glance at the appendix will convince the reader of our wisdom in not including the intermediate stages in these calculations. We use dimensional regularization with $`d=4ϵ`$, and the MS prescription. As we are interested only in the UV divergences any loop integral containing $`\mathrm{exp}(ipk)`$, where $`k`$ is the loop momentum, will be ignored, as it is damped for large $`k`$ when a convergence factor is included. We include the counterterms that must account for each divergence. Only the distinct vertices are listed; for example, the $`4h`$ and $`4\sigma `$ UV divergences, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4h}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4\sigma }`$, are identical, and only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4h}`$ is given. Similarly, the following pairs of vertices are identical: the $`2A2\sigma `$ and the $`2A2h`$, and the $`2hA`$ and the $`2\sigma A`$. We have also checked that 1PI functions for which no counterterms appear, such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{hA}`$, are UV finite. Note that the momenta and indices appearing in the expressions below are the same as those appearing in the relevant Feynman rules in the appendix.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda \nu m^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi \lambda \nu M^2}{24\sqrt{2}\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3igM^3}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\nu m^2}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[Z_\nu Z_\mu Z_\nu ^3Z_\lambda \right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^2p^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2p^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7i\lambda m^2}{48\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^2M^2}{4\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi \lambda M^2}{24\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2m^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`im^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Z_\nu ^2Z_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_\mu 1\right]+ip^2\left(Z_\varphi 1\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3h}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)+\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_3)+\mathrm{cos}(p_3p_2))[{\displaystyle \frac{i\nu \lambda ^2}{18\sqrt{2}\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^3M}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2}\xi \nu \lambda g^2}{24\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{2}\nu \lambda }{3}}(Z_\nu Z_\lambda 1)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4h}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}(p_3p_4)+\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_3)\mathrm{cos}(p_2p_4)+\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_4)\mathrm{cos}(p_3p_2)\right)`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda ^2}{36\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^4}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi \lambda g^2}{12\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda (Z_\lambda 1)}{3}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^2p^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2p^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda m^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^2M^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2m^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{im^2}{2}}\left[Z_\nu ^2Z_\lambda Z_\mu \right]`$
$`+ip^2\left(Z_\varphi 1\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{h2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda ^2\nu \sqrt{2}}{36\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^3M}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi \lambda g\nu \sqrt{2}}{24\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda \nu \sqrt{2}}{3}}\left(Z_\lambda Z_\nu 1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2h2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`(2\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}(p_3p_4)\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_3+p_2p_4))[{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda ^2}{36\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^4}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi \lambda g^2}{12\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda }{3}}(Z_\lambda 1)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2hA}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[p_1p_2\right]_\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3g^3}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}\left(1\xi \right)+g\left(Z_gZ_\varphi 1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2h2A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}(p_3p_4)g_{\mu \nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^4}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}+2ig^2\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^21\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{h\sigma 2A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}(p_3p_4)g_{\mu \nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^4}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}+2ig^2\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^21\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{h\sigma A}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[p_1p_2\right]_\mu \mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3g^3}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}\left(1\xi \right)+g\left(Z_gZ_\varphi 1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{h2A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)g_{\mu \nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^3M}{4\pi ^2ϵ}}+2igM\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^2Z_\nu 1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\sigma A}`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2M}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2M}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}+M\left(Z_\varphi Z_gZ_\nu 1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{c\overline{c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ig^2p^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2p^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}+ip^2\left(Z_c1\right)i\left(Z_cZ_gZ_\nu 1\right)\xi M^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{c\overline{c}A}`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^3}{4\pi ^2ϵ}}+2g\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{c\overline{c}h}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi ^2g^3M}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}i\xi gM\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{c\overline{c}\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(p_1p_2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi ^2g^3M}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}i\xi gM\left(Z_cZ_g1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2A}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_{\mu \nu }p^2p_\mu p_\nu \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}\right]+ig_{\mu \nu }\left(Z_\varphi Z_g^2Z_\nu ^21\right)M^2`$
$`i\left(Z_A1\right)\left[g_{\mu \nu }p^2p_\mu p_\nu \right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(p_1p_2)\left\{\left(p_1p_2\right)_\rho g_{\mu \nu }+\left(p_2p_3\right)_\mu g_{\nu \rho }+\left(p_3p_1\right)_\nu g_{\mu \rho }\right\}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{5g^3}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi g^3}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+2g\left(Z_AZ_g1\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4A}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{sin}(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}(p_3p_4)[g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }]+\mathrm{sin}(p_3p_1)\mathrm{sin}(p_2p_4)`$ (38)
$`\times [g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }g_{\mu \rho }g_{\nu \sigma }]+\mathrm{sin}(p_1p_4)\mathrm{sin}(p_2p_3)[g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \sigma }]\}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{ig^4}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\xi g^4}{\pi ^2ϵ}}4ig^2\left(Z_AZ_g^21\right)\right]`$
We remind the reader of the relations $`m^2=2\lambda \nu ^2/3`$, $`M^2=2g^2\nu ^2`$, and $`M^2/m^2=3g^2/\lambda `$, which are used in showing that the renormalization constants listed below can remove these divergences. We would also like to point out that our expressions for individual diagrams agree with  when applicable. An interesting feature of these results is that individual diagrams were not necessarily proportional to the momentum dependent phase present in the vertices. This is particularly striking in the $`4A`$ vertex; it contains a very non-trivial Lorentz index and phase factor structure, and receives contributions from a very large number of diagrams, none of which are proportional to the necessary factor. This point was also emphasized in , who found the same behavior in pure NC U(N) gauge theories in arbitrary Lorentz gauges.

There are a very limited number of renormalization constants that must account for a large number of divergences; we find, however, that the following set suffices:

$`Z_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{8\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{4\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{8\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_A`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_g`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}`$
$`Z_c`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi g^2}{16\pi ^2ϵ}}.`$ (39)
The relations between the divergent pieces of the 1PI functions established by the BRST symmetry of eq. (28) account for the renormalizability. The same definitions as in the commutative theory give the following beta functions and physical masses:

$`\beta (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`m_D{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda g^2}{4\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{8\pi ^2}}`$
$`\beta (g^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_D{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{m_D}}={\displaystyle \frac{7g^4}{8\pi ^2}}`$
$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_B^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{8\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}\right]`$
$`M^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_B^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\pi ^2ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^4}{4\pi ^2\lambda ϵ}}\right].`$ (40)
The U(1) coupling remains asymptotically free, as in the free NC U(1) theory. As in the commutative case, we are able to define gauge independent couplings and masses.

We can also use these results to discuss spontaneously broken global symmetries in NC field theories. Upon removing the gauge field and gauge-scalar couplings from our Lagrangian, and making the gauge transformation global, we are left with the broken O(2) linear sigma model. The remaining renormalization constants are $`Z_\varphi `$, $`Z_\mu `$, and $`Z_\lambda `$ (with $`\xi =g=0`$); the familiar wave-function, mass, and coupling constant renormalizations that are found in textbooks . Our results show that the continuum renormalization of this model is possible, contradicting results found in . While in the case of global symmetries both NC generalizations of $`|\varphi |^4`$ discussed below eq. (25) are consistent with the symmetry, our result indicates that the proper ordering is the one also consistent with a local realization of the symmetry. This is the only choice that leads to a one-loop renormalizable theory. We imagine that such considerations in choosing non-commutative extensions of commutative interactions hold generally.

## 5 Conclusion

We have found that the relations between counterterms which are necessary to renormalize spontaneously broken U(1) gauge theory occur in the noncommutative version of the theory; the BRST symmetry of the Lagrangian holds at the one-loop level. Upon taking the gauge field couplings to zero we obtain a consistent continuum renormalization of the broken O(2) linear sigma model, in disagreement with  (see also ). In the O(2) linear sigma model, both NC generalizations of the $`|\varphi |^4`$ preserves the symmetry; however, renormalization requires us to pick the one also consistent with the local symmetry. We are not familiar with any discussions in the literature regarding how to choose NC extensions of commutative actions when some symmetry does not dictate a choice. However, we believe that the problem of ordering ambiguities arising from NC extensions of global symmetries can be solved by demanding that the local symmetry also hold. Note that this wouldn’t have dictated a choice of scalar potential in , as either $`|\varphi |^4`$ generalization is consistent when working in the adjoint representation.

We have only discussed a single simple case in this paper, that of a U(1) NC gauge theory coupled to a complex scalar field in the fundamental representation. Important generalizations are to consider different scalar representations, fermion contributions, and arbitrary U(N) groups. While we have nothing to say about the first two, we believe that the generalization to U(N) will be successful. The remarkable interplay between diagrams required to renormalize the $`4A`$ vertex, seen here in the scalar sector and in the gauge sector for general U(N) in  seems to indicate the consistency of these models.

The work in this paper should be regarded as a “proof of principle” that spontaneously broken NC gauge theories are consistent. The non-commutativity of space-time at small scales is an exciting possible modification of fundamental physics. Our result provides a step towards a NC version of the Standard Model; the work in , and the presence of tree level CP violation noted here and in , indicates that it might lead to interesting physics. Hopefully this paper will direct interest towards exploring this route.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the following people: JoAnne Hewett for reading the manuscript and offering many helpful suggestions, Michael Peskin for reading an earlier version and finding a critical error, Tom Rizzo for numerous discussions and insightful comments, and Darius Sadri for discussions concerning discrete symmetries in particle physics. This work was supported in part by a NSF graduate research fellowship.

Appendix A: Feynman rules

Appendix B: 1PI diagramatic contributions

We present here the topologies contributing to the various 1PI divergences. To save space only the distinct topologies are given; diagrams related to shown diagrams by crossing symmetries are not listed.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Hadron multiplicities per unit rapidity at SPS energy show an approximate scaling with the number of participants. This property is known as “wounded nucleon model” (WNM) . However, a precise determination of the ratio $`dN^{ch}/d\eta (\eta ^{}=0)/n_{part}`$, both at CERN-SPS  and at RHIC , shows a steady increase from peripheral to central collisions. This increase is larger at RHIC energies, where the data show no saturation for the most central bins.

It is a widespread belief that “soft” processes lead to a scaling in $`n_{part}`$ while “hard” ones lead to a scaling with the number $`n`$ of binary collisions. While, this is the case for total cross-sections, it is not so for single particle inclusive cross-sections. If one neglects the effects of shadowing (i.e. nuclear effects in structure functions associated to triple Pomeron interactions), there is a theorem known as Abramovski, Gribov, Kancheli (AGK) cancellation , based on general principles, according to which $`d\sigma ^{ch}/dy`$ scales with $`n`$ at mid-rapidities and asymptotic energies. The best way to understand this cancellation is to illustrate it with a model that satisfies these general principles, namely the Glauber model.

Let us consider for simplicity $`pA`$ scattering. The cross-section for $`n`$ inelastic collisions of the proton with $`n`$ nucleons of the target is given by the probabilistic expression

$$\sigma _n^{pA}(b)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{A}{n}\right)\left(\sigma _{pp}T_A(b)\right)^n\left(1\sigma _{pp}T_A(b)\right)^{An}.$$
(1)
where $`T_A(b)`$ are nuclear profile functions normalized to unity. Using this equation it is easy to see that

$$\sigma _{in}^{pA}=d^2b\underset{n=1}{\overset{A}{}}\sigma _n^{pA}(b)A^{2/3}.$$
(2)
However, for the non-diffractive inclusive cross-section one has

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{pA}}{dy}d^2b\underset{n=1}{\overset{A}{}}n\sigma _n^{pA}(b)A^1.$$
(3)
Thus, one obtains the behaviour $`A^1`$ typical of hard processes.

The derivation of (3) assumes that the inclusive cross-section for $`n`$ inelastic collisions is $`n`$ times the corresponding one for a single collision (or, more generally, that the hadronic plateau produced in an inelastic collision does not depend on the number of inelastic collisions). Clearly, such a condition is only true at mid-rapidities and for asymptotic energies. A basic idea in the WNM is that a nucleon (here the projectile), when wounded once, looses its ability to produce extra particles in further collisions. This may be valid at low energies, when the projectile undergoes successive collisions with the nucleons of the target. However, at high energies, the space-time development of the interaction implies that the $`n`$ collisions are “parallel”, i.e. they originate from different constituents of the projectile wave function and take place simultaneously. (Technically, it means that one is dealing with non-planar diagrams). This is the so-called Glauber-Gribov model . A more detailed discussion can be found in .

As discussed above, at finite energies the constraints of energy-momentum conservation lead to a violation of the AGK cancellation. The dual parton model (DPM)  and the quark gluon string model (QGSM) , while obeying AGK cancellation at mid rapidities and asymptotic energies, contain an “educated guess” on its violation at finite energies. These models are based on the quark-gluon content of hadrons in the framework of the Glauber-Gribov model, and on the large $`N`$ expansion of non-perturbative QCD. The charged multiplicities per unit rapidity are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{AA}^{ch}}{dy}}(y,b)=n_A(b)\left[N_\mu ^{qq^Pq_v^T}(y)+N_\mu ^{q_v^Pqq^T}(y)+(2k2)N_\mu ^{q_s\overline{q}_s}\right]+`$
$`\left(n(b)n_A(b)\right)\left(2kN_\mu ^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y)\right).`$ (4)
Here $`P`$ and $`T`$ stand for the projectile and target nuclei,

$$n(b)=\sigma _{pp}d^2sA^2T_A(s)T_A(bs)/\sigma _{AA}(b)\sigma _{pp}A^2T_{AA}(b)/\sigma _{AA}(b)$$
(5)
is the average number of binary collisions and

$$n_A(b)n_{part}(b)/2=d^2sAT_A(s)[1\mathrm{exp}(\sigma _{pp}AT_A(bs)]/\sigma _{AA}(b)$$
(6)
the average number of participants of nucleus $`A`$. $`k`$ is the average number of inelastic collisions in $`pp`$ and $`\mu (b)=kn(b)/n_A(b)`$ is the average total number of collisions suffered by each nucleon. The first term in (1) is the plateau height in a $`pp`$ collision, resulting from the superposition of $`2k`$ strings, multiplied by $`n_A`$. Since in DPM there are two strings per inelastic collision, the second term, consisting of strings stretched between sea quarks and antiquarks, makes up a total number of strings equal to $`2kn`$.

The hadronic multiplicities of the strings in (1) are obtained from a convolution of momentum distribution function and fragmentation functions (eqs. (3.1) to (3.4) of ). The former are given  by a product of Regge propagators times a delta function of energy conservation:

$$\rho _{kn}(x_1,x_{2kn};x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{2kn1})=c_{kn}x_1^{1/2}x_{2kn}^{3/2}x_2^1\mathrm{}x_{2kn1}^1\delta (1\underset{i=1}{\overset{2kn}{}}x_i)$$
(7)
Here $`x_1`$ and $`x_{2kn}`$ denote the $`x`$–values of the valence quark and diquark, respectively, $`x_2\mathrm{}x_{2kn1}`$ those of the sea quarks and antiquarks and $`c_{kn}`$ is obtained by normalizing $`\rho _{kn}`$ to unity. The momentum distribution of a single constituent is obtained by integrating (7) over the $`x_i`$’s of all others. In order to regularize the singularities at $`x_i0`$ all $`x_i`$ ($`i2kn`$) in eq. (7) are replaced by  $`\overline{x}_i=(x_i^2+4\mu ^2/s)^{1/2}`$ with $`\mu ^2`$ = 0.1 GeV2. This introduces a free parameter $`\mu `$ in the model. The diquarks and quark fragmentation functions into charged particles were determined from $`e^+e^{}`$ and/or $`pp`$ data. They are given by

$`zD_{qq}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`1.12(1z)^3`$ (8)
$`zD_{q_v}=zD_{q_s}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1.12}{1.35}}{\displaystyle \frac{1.3(1z)^2+0.05}{10.5z}}`$
Finally, we have taken for the threshold of $`qqq`$ strings $`s_0=(m_p+m_\pi ^T)^2`$ and for the one of $`q\overline{q}`$ strings $`s_0=(2m_\pi ^T)^2`$, with $`m_\pi ^T`$ = 0.33 GeV. The value of $`k`$ can be determined in a generalized eikonal model. Alternatively, we can fix it in such a way that the plateau in $`pp`$ agrees with the experimental value of $`dN^{ch}/dy(y^{}=0)`$ for non-diffractive events. These two determinations are consistent with each other .

Note that at asymptotic energies, when the plateau height of all strings coincides (i.e. $`N^{qqq_v}(y=0)N^{q\overline{q}_s}(y^{}=0))`$ one recovers the AGK cancellation, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{AA}^{ch}}{dy}}(b,y^{}=0)n(b)2kN^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y^{}=0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2T_{AA}(b)}{\sigma _{AA}(b)}}\sigma _{pp}^{ND}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{pp}^{ND}}{dy}}(y^{}=0)={\displaystyle \frac{A^2T_{AA}(b)}{\sigma _{AA}(b)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{pp}^{ND}}{dy}}(y^{}=0).`$ (9)
Already at RHIC energies, where $`N^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y^{}0)`$ is substantially smaller than $`N^{qqq}(y^{}0)`$, the last term of (1) turns out to dominate. However, energy conservation constraints produce a decrease of $`N_\mu ^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y^{}=0)`$ with increasing centrality and, thus, the scaling in the number of binary collisions is not reached. Since the $`pp`$ rapidity plateau $`dN_{pp}^{ND}/dy=(1/\sigma _{pp}^{ND})d\sigma _{pp}^{ND}/dy`$ refers to non-diffractive events, for consistency we have to use also the non-diffractive cross-section $`\sigma _{pp}^{ND}`$ (rather than the inelastic one) in the determination of $`n_A`$ and $`n`$, in order to recover eq. (1) asymptotically222Conventionally one uses instead $`\sigma _{inel}`$. In this case one should also use the $`pp`$ multiplicity for inelastic events. Since the latter is about 10 % smaller than the non-diffractive one , the two effects tend to compensate with each other and only a small difference remains in the calculated multiplicities..

We can now compute the centrality dependence of hadronic multiplicities. We present first the results obtained in the absence of shadowing, at three different energies : $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$, 130 and 200 GeV. The corresponding non-diffractive cross-sections are  $`\sigma _{ND}=26`$, 33 and 34 mb, respectively. We take $`k=1.4`$, 2.0 and 2.2, corresponding to $`dN_{pp}^{ND}/dy=1.56`$, 2.72 and 3.04 . The values of the charged multiplicities $`N_\mu ^{qqq}(y^{}=0)`$ and $`N_\mu ^{q\overline{q}}(y^{}=0)`$ of the individual strings calculated in DPM, are listed in Table 1. The results are shown in Fig. 1 (solid line) and in Figs. 2-3 (dashed lines). At SPS we obtain a mild increase of the multiplicity per participant consistent333The opposite claim was made in  based on a model which is an over-simplified version of DPM. with the results of the WA98 collaboration  (see Fig. 1). This increase gets stronger with increasing energies (Figs. 2 and 3).

It should be noted that the absolute value of the multiplicity at SPS energies determined in DPM has some uncertainty. First, the excess of $`K^+`$ and $`p`$ over $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ is not properly taken into account in the above calculation. Second, the value of the multiplicity in the $`q_s\overline{q}_s`$ strings is affected by the value of its threshold. The latter has much less effect at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ and 200 GeV. However, shadowing corrections, which are negligibly small at SPS energies, become important at RHIC and have to be taken into account. This introduces some uncertainty at RHIC energies (see below).

As emphasized in , shadowing corrections in Gribov theory are universal, i.e. they apply both to soft and hard processes. They are closely related to the size of diffractive production and, thus, are controlled by triple Pomeron diagrams . In the recent papers  it was shown, that, when unitarity corrections are consistently taken into account, one can describe hard diffraction at HERA and soft one (photoproduction) with the same value of the triple Pomeron coupling. This value agrees with the one in ref.  and will be used in the following calculation. The reduction of the multiplicity resulting from shadowing corrections is given by the ratio

$$R_{AB}(b)=\frac{d^2sf_A(s)f_B(bs)}{T_{AB}(b)}$$
(10)
where

$$f_A(b)=\frac{T_A(b)}{1+AF(s)T_A(b)}.$$
(11)
Here the function F is given by the integral of the ratio of the triple Pomeron cross-section $`d^2\sigma ^{PPP}/dydt`$ at $`t=0`$ over the single Pomeron exchange cross-section $`\sigma _p(s)`$ :

$$F(s)=4\pi _{y_{min}}^{y_{max}}𝑑y\frac{1}{\sigma _P(s)}\frac{d^2\sigma ^{PPP}}{dydt}|_{t=0}=C\left[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{max})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{min})\right]$$
(12)
with $`y=\mathrm{}n(s/M^2)`$, where $`M^2`$ is the squared mass of the diffractive system. For a particle produced at $`y_{cm}=0`$, $`y_{max}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}n(\frac{s}{m_N^2})`$ and $`y_{min}=\mathrm{}n(R_Am_N/\sqrt{3})`$. Using the parameters of   we get : $`C=0.31`$ fm2.

The values of the shadowing corrections at each impact parameter $`R(b)`$ in $`Au`$-$`Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV are shown in Table 1. Our results including shadowing are shown by the upper lines of the dark bands in Figs. 2 and 3.

It should be stressed that our calculations refer to $`dN/dy`$ while the first RHIC measurements   refer to $`dN/d\eta `$. The latter is, of course, smaller at mid rapidities. This difference is negligibly small as SPS where the laboratory pseudo-rapidity variable is used. However, at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ and 200 GeV, where $`\eta _{cm}`$ is used instead, their ratio is as large as 1.3 444The increase of $`<p_T>`$ with centrality is predicted to be rather small at RHIC . Thus, we have used the same 1.3 reduction factor for all centralities.. This value is substantially larger than the value of 1.1 quoted in .

Our results for the centrality dependence of $`dN/d\eta `$ per participant at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV are shown in Fig. 4 (upper line of the dark band) and compared with the PHENIX data. As we see, the centrality dependence is quite well reproduced. However, the absolute values are about 15 % higher than the data.

It should be stressed that the values of $`R`$, eq. (10) are quite large (see Table 2). As pointed out in  they have a rather large uncertainty at RHIC energies. An alternative calculation of $`R`$ in ref. , based on a formalism that reproduces the nuclear effects in DIS on nuclei, led to values of shadowing about 15 % larger than the ones obtained here. Clearly, with these larger values of the shadowing corrections we would obtain a quantitative agreement with the PHENIX data.

Multiplying the values of $`R_{AuAu}(b)`$ in Table 2 by a factor 0.85 we obtain the lower lines of the dark bands in Figs. 2-4. These bands can be regarded as an estimate of the uncertainties on the values of the calculated multiplicities due to uncertainties in the shadowing corrections. Note that these uncertainties affect mostly the absolute values of the multiplicities – while their centrality dependence is determined quite unambigously within our model.

The multiplicity per participant at SPS energies increases by 1.15 between $`b=10`$ fm and $`b=0`$. The corresponding increase at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV and 200 GeV is 1.30 and 1.31, respectively. As a consequence of this saturation, the rise of the central plateau in $`Au`$-$`Au`$ collisions between these two energies is close to the one in $`pp`$ collisions – an interesting prediction of our model.

We would like to compare our results with the ones obtained in other approaches. Many Monte Carlos based on or inspired by DPM or QGSM do contain a term proportional to the number of binary collisions. However, in other approaches  such a term is associated with minijets. Of course minijets are produced at high energies. They have been incorporated in DPM and modify the $`p_T`$ dependence of the model . However, they do not affect the multiplicities, since they play the same role as $`q_s`$-$`\overline{q}_s`$ strings and the total number of such strings is controlled by unitarity. A comparison with  shows that, while in this approach the multiplicity is given by a linear combination of $`n(b)`$ and $`n_{part}(b)`$, with coefficients independent of $`b`$, in our case these coefficients decrease with increasing centrality. More important, in our approach these coefficients are calculated while in  they are fitted to the data at each energy.

An interesting estimate of the centrality dependence of charged multiplicities in high density QCD  has been presented in . Surprisingly the result at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV is almost identical to the one based on the minijet picture obtained in . However, this result relys entirely on the logarithmic dependence of the gluon structure function of the nucleon on the saturation scale $`Q_s^2`$, used in  (see last paper of ref.  for a discussion on this point). It is also interesting to remark that the centrality dependence of the multiplicity per participant in the minijet model  gets stronger with increasing energy – due to an increase of the minijet fraction. On the contrary, in high density QCD the effect is the opposite one, namely, the (partonic) multiplicity per participant depends less and less on centrality when energy increases555This is due to the fact that the geometrical factor $`\rho _{part}(b)`$ in $`Q_s^2`$, which depends strongly on centrality, is independent of energy, while the factor $`xG(x)`$, which depends on impact parameter very mildly, increases with $`s`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{}nQ_s^2\mathrm{}n[xG(x)]`$ at very high energies.. This is an interesting prediction of the high density QCD saturation model. However, in the RHIC energy range, from $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ to 200 GeV, this effect is negligeably small and the centrality dependence of the multiplicity per participant is the same at these two energies. Interestingly, the same result is obtained in DPM when shadowing corrections are taken into account.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Y. Dokshitzer, A. Kaidalov, A. Krzywicki, A. Mueller, C. Pajares, C. Salgado and D. Schiff for interesting discussions. D.S. thanks Fundación Barrie de la Maza for financial support.

Figure Captions :

Figure 1. The values of $`dN^{ch}/dy/n_{part}`$ versus $`n_{part}`$ for $`PbPb`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV in the range $`0.5<y_{cm}<0.5`$ computed from eqs. (1) to (6), compared with the WA98 data  for $`dN/d\eta /n_{part}`$. The difference between $`dN/d\eta `$ and $`dN/dy`$ is very small since the laboratory pseudo-rapidity is used (see main text).

Figure 2. The values of $`dN^{ch}/dy/(0.5n_{part})`$ for $`Au`$-$`Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV in the range $`0.35<y_{cm}<0.35`$ computed from eqs. (1) to (6) (dashed line). The upper line in the dark band, is obtained after shadowing corrections computed from eqs. (10)-(12). The lower one is obtained with a different determination of the shadowing corrections (see main text).

Figure 3. Same as Fig. 2 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV.

Figure 4. Same as Fig. 2 for $`dN^{ch}/d\eta _{c.m.}`$. The dashed line (results without shadowing) has been omitted here. The PHENIX data  are also shown (black circles and shaded area).

Table Caption :

Values of $`N_\mu ^{qqq}`$ and $`N_\mu ^{q\overline{q}}`$ in eq. (1) at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV computed in DPM at different values of the impact parameter. The values correspond to charged particles per unit rapidity in the range $`0.35<y_{cm}<0.35`$. The corresponding shadowing corrections $`R_{AuAu}(b)`$ computed from eqs. (10-12) are given in the third column.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

| $`b`$ (fm) | $`N^{qqq}`$ | $`N^{q\overline{q}}`$ | $`R_{AuAu}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | 0.859 | 0.345 | 0.656 |
| 2 | 0.861 | 0.347 | 0.657 |
| 4 | 0.867 | 0.351 | 0.664 |
| 6 | 0.875 | 0.358 | 0.681 |
| 8 | 0.887 | 0.368 | 0.712 |
| 10 | 0.903 | 0.381 | 0.763 |
| 12 | 0.921 | 0.397 | 0.843 |

Table 1