text:
# 1 Multiloop NCOS and Reggeon Formalism

## 1 Multiloop NCOS and Reggeon Formalism

The first basic ingredient for the construction of string amplitudes in the operator formalism are the commutation relations for the string modes. As usual, these commutation relations can be derived from the the tree level world–sheet action. We consider an open string ending on a D-brane in presence of a constant $`B`$-field. The open string mode expansion is

$$X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=x_0^\mu +2\alpha ^{}\left(p_0^\mu \tau p_0^\nu F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\sigma \right)+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{e^{\mathrm{i}n\tau }}{n}\left(\mathrm{i}a_n^k\mathrm{cos}n\sigma a_n^\nu F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }\mathrm{sin}n\sigma \right),$$
(1)
where $`F=BdA`$ is the modified Born-Infeld field strength. Canonical quantization yields the following commutation relations

$`[a_n^\mu ,x_0^\nu ]=[a_n^\mu ,p_0^\nu ]=[p_0^\mu ,p_0^\nu ]=0,`$ (2)
$`[a_m^\mu ,a_n^\nu ]=mM^{1\mu \nu }\delta _{m+n},[x_0^\mu ,p_0^\nu ]=iM^{1\mu \nu },[x_0^\mu ,x_0^\nu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu },`$ (3)
where $`M_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\left(Fg^1F\right)_{\mu \nu }`$ is the open string metric and

$$\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }=\left(\frac{1}{g+F}g\frac{1}{gF}\right)^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1}{g+F}F\frac{1}{gF}\right)^{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
are the symmetric and antisymmetric part of the matrix $`\left(\frac{1}{g+F}\right)^{\mu \nu }=\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}`$. Although these commutation relations were derived at the tree level, they are valid at all loops  and therefore one can use them directly to construct the higher loop string amplitudes. Due to the limitation of vertex operator formalism to go beyond 1-loop, it is necessary to introduce the Reggeon vertex formalism for string amplitudes.

The basic object in the Reggeon formalism is the 3-Reggeon vertex which describes, at the tree level, the interaction among three generic string states

$$V_{3;0}^\theta \left(\zeta \right)=\frac{dp}{\sqrt{detM}}p,0;q=3|:\mathrm{e}^{\left\{_0𝑑z\left(X^v\left(\zeta +z\right)_zX\left(z\right)c^v\left(\zeta +z\right)b\left(z\right)+b^v\left(\zeta +z\right)c\left(z\right)\right)\right\}}:.$$
(5)
Here the bra indicates the vacuum of the emitted string with momentum $`p`$ and the label $`q=3`$ specifies the ghost number. $`X^v`$ is the virtual propagating string. $`X`$ and $`X^v`$ both have an expansion of the form (1) with commutations relations given by (2), (3), while the virtual and the external strings simply commute among themselves. Notice that that (5) is almost identical to the standard 3-Reggeon vertex in the trivial background $`B=0`$. The only modification with the respect to the usual case is the appearence of a factor of $`detM`$ in the measure of momentum integrals which is due to the fact that the open string metric is flat, but non trivial111We thank O. Andreev for pointing out to us this fact. In Ref.  this factor was absent because the noncommutative Reggeon-Vertices and amplitudes were written in terms of rescaled string coordinates, as we do in the following Section 3.1.. More generally one has to modify the usual ($`B=0`$) normalizations every time the volume of the space seen by the open strings appears: for instance, the open string vacuum has to be normalized as $`0|0=\sqrt{detM}V`$ and, thus, the generic momentum state satisfies $`p|p^{}=\sqrt{detM}\delta ^d\left(pp^{}\right)`$. However, even if (5) is formally unchanged, it contains a non-trivial dependence on $`B`$ through the mode expansion (1) and the new commutation relations (2), (3). It should also be stressed that the zero-mode $`x_0`$ (or $`y_0`$ if the interaction is at $`\sigma =\pi `$) appears only in the expansion of the virtual string and this is the only source of the non-trivial dependence on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. We will employ the usual physical states having ghost number $`1`$; thus, the $`(b,c)`$ system is not affected by the background field $`F`$ and one recovers the well-known results for the ghost contributions. Because of this, in what follows, ghosts will no longer be mentioned, and we will focus only on the $`F`$-dependent modifications coming from the orbital part.

The tree level $`N`$-Reggeon vertex is obtained by simply multiplying $`N`$ $`3`$-Reggeon vertices in different positions $`\zeta `$, but with the common propagating string $`X^v`$. Finally one takes the vacuum expectation value in the Hilbert space of the propagating string in order to obtain a symmetric object in the $`N`$ external states. The new $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependent part comes when one collects together the zero mode factors. In particular, if the external legs of all the original 3-Reggeon vertices are emitted from the border $`\sigma =0`$, one obtains the new phase factor

$$e^{ip^1x_0}\mathrm{}e^{ip^Nx_0}=e^{\frac{i}{2}_{r<s}^Np^r\mathrm{\Theta }p^s},$$
(6)
where momentum conservation has been used. As a result, we obtain the $`N`$-Reggeon vertex with all legs emitted from the $`\sigma =0`$ border

$$V_{N;0}^\mathrm{\Theta }=\sqrt{detM}V_{N;0}^0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}p^i\mathrm{\Theta }p^j\right),$$
(7)
where $`p_\mu ^i`$ is the momentum operator of the $`i`$-th leg, in the direction flowing towards the boundary. Here $`V_{N;0}^0`$ indicates the $`N`$-Reggeon vertex derived for the usual “commutative” case $`F=0`$ in . This vertex is a bra in the direct product of the $`N`$ distinct Fock spaces for the external strings; like the $`3`$-Reggeon vertex, it gives the scattering amplitude when the external legs are saturated with physical states. Note that the momentum dependent phase factor is exactly the same modification as the one introduced by the Moyal $``$-product in the tree level vertex of a noncommutative field theory .

The $`h`$-loop $`N`$-Reggeon vertex in the presence of a constant $`F`$-field can be constructed by sewing together pairs of legs in a tree level ($`N+2h`$)-Reggeon vertex. The sewing is achieved by using the BRST invariant operator $`P\left(x\right)`$, which is a function of $`L_0`$ and $`L_{\pm 1}`$ and of the ghosts. Since $`L_n`$ does not involve the zero modes $`x_0`$, we conclude that the string propagator $`P\left(x\right)`$ and the sewing procedure are not modified by the presence of $`F`$-field. Therefore the only new feature for $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ is in the zero modes part of the Reggeon vertex. And we obtain

$$V_{N;h}^\mathrm{\Theta }=\sqrt{detM}\stackrel{~}{V}_{N;h}^0\underset{I=1}{\overset{h}{}}\frac{dp^I}{\sqrt{detM}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{I,J=1}{\overset{h}{}}p_\mu ^IA_{IJ}^{\mu \nu }p_\nu ^J+\underset{I=1}{\overset{h}{}}B_I^\mu p_\mu ^I+C\right),$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{N;h}^0`$  contains the ghost contribution and only the nonzero mode piece of the orbital part of $`N`$-Reggeon vertex in absence of background. Here

$$A_{IJ}^{\mu \nu }=A_{}^{0}{}_{IJ}{}^{\mu \nu }i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }𝒥_{IJ},B_I^\mu =B_{}^{0}{}_{I}{}^{\mu }i\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }P_{I\nu },C=C^0\frac{i}{2}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}p^i\mathrm{\Theta }p^j,$$
(9)
where $`p_I`$ are the loop momenta with loop indices $`I=1,\mathrm{}h`$; $`p_i`$ are the external momenta with legs labelled by $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$; $`𝒥_{IJ}`$ is the intersection matrix for the internal loops; $`P_I`$ is the sum of the external momenta leaving the $`I^{th}`$ loop, and $`\mu ,\nu `$ stands for the spacetime indices. $`A^0,B^0,C^0`$ are independent of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and are given by ,

$`A_{}^{0}{}_{IJ}{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha ^{}\left(2\pi i\tau _{IJ}\right)\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu },B_{}^{0}{}_{I}{}^{\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0}𝑑zX^{\left(i\right)\mu }\left(z\right){\displaystyle _{z_0}^{V_i\left(z\right)}}\omega _I,`$ (10)
$`C^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0}𝑑zX^{\left(i\right)}\left(z\right)p_0^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{ln}V_i^{}\left(z\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0}𝑑yX^{\left(i\right)}\left(z\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[V_i\left(z\right)V_j\left(y\right)\right]X^{\left(j\right)}\left(y\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0}𝑑yX^{\left(i\right)}\left(z\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E(V_i\left(z\right),V_j\left(y\right))}{V_i\left(z\right)V_j\left(y\right)}}\right)X^{\left(j\right)}\left(y\right),`$
where, due to (2) and (3), all indices are contracted by the open string metric $`M^1`$. Here $`V_i\left(z\right)`$ is chosen to satisfy $`V_i^1\left(z\right)=0`$ for $`z=z_i`$. $`\omega _I`$ is the normalized Abelian differential and $`\tau _{IJ}`$ is the period matrix and $`E(z,w)`$ is the prime form. Their explicit expressions in term of the Schottky parameters can be found in .

Note that all the dependence in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is localized in the zero modes loop momentum integration. Carrying out the loop momentum integration, one obtains finally

$$V_{N;h}^\mathrm{\Theta }=\left[\sqrt{detM}\right]^{1h}\stackrel{~}{V}_{N;h}^0\frac{1}{\sqrt{det\frac{A}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}B^TA^1B+C\right),$$
(11)
where the determinant is taken over the space of Lorentz and loop indices $`\left(\mu I\right)`$. The effects of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are summarized elegantly in (9).

Modifications of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to the string amplitude

As an illustration of how $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ modify the string amplitude, it is instructive to recall the explicit form of the higher loop string amplitude for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$. For example, the string amplitude for $`M`$-gauge bosons can be obtained by saturating the $`V_{M;h}^{\mathrm{\Theta }=0}`$ with $`M`$ external gluon states. Using the explicit formula (10), one obtains

$`A_M^{\left(h\right)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_M)=C_h𝒩_0^M{\displaystyle }\left[dm\right]_h{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^Md\rho _i/\rho _i}{dV_{abc}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}2\alpha ^{}p_i^\mu p_j^\nu \left(G_{\mu \nu }(\rho _i,\rho _j)\right)`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}ϵ_i^\mu \rho _i_{\rho _i}G_{\mu \nu }(\rho _i,\rho _j)p_j^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_i^\mu \rho _i\rho _j_{\rho _i}_{\rho _j}G_{\mu \nu }(\rho _i,\rho _j)ϵ_j^\nu \right)\right],`$
where only terms linear in each polarization should be kept. In the general case of having other external states, one need to change correspondingly the form of the second line in (12), however the first line is universal. Here in (12) $`dV_{abc}=d\psi _ad\psi _bd\psi _c\left(\psi _a\psi _b\right)^1\left(\psi _a\psi _c\right)^1\left(\psi _b\psi _c\right)^1`$ is the projective invariant volume element, where $`\psi _a,\psi _b,\psi _c`$ are any three of the $`M`$ punctures $`\rho _i`$ or of the $`2h`$ fixed points $`\xi _\mu `$, $`\eta _\mu `$ of the generators of the Schottky group. The normalization constants $`𝒩_0`$ and $`C_h`$ are given by  and one can check that their functional form is unmodified by the presence of $`F`$

$$𝒩_0=\sqrt{2}g_o\left(2\alpha ^{}\right)^{\frac{d2}{4}},C_h=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{dh}}g_o^{2h2}\frac{1}{\left(2\alpha ^{}\right)^{d/2}},$$
(13)
where $`g_o`$ is the open string coupling. To relate the open string coupling $`g_o`$ with the closed string coupling $`g_s`$, one can study the factorization of the annulus diagrams. In Ref.  the relation between the two couplings is explicitely written in terms of the volume $`V`$ seen by the open strings (see Eq. (3.10)). As we have already said, in the presence of a background $`F`$-field $`V`$ has to be replaced by $`\sqrt{detM}V`$. Thus from the result of  one can derive the $`F`$-dependence of $`g_o`$

$$g_o\left(detM\right)^{1/8}g_s\left[det\left(1+F\right)\right]^{1/4}g_s,$$
(14)
which gives an implicit dependence on $`F`$ to all of the above open string quantities. This relation was derived in  by looking at the Born-Infeld actions. Here we give a string derivation of this relation within the operator formalism. The measure factor $`\left[dm\right]_h`$ for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ is given by

$$\left[dm\right]_h=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{h}{}}\left[\frac{dk_\mu d\xi _\mu d\eta _\mu }{k_\mu ^2\left(\xi _\mu \eta _\mu \right)^2}(1k_\mu )^2\right][det(2\pi i\alpha ^{}\tau _{IJ})]^{d/2}\underset{\alpha }{}{}_{}{}^{}\left[\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1k_\alpha ^n)^d\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1k_\alpha ^n)^2\right].$$

where $`k_\mu `$ are the multipliers and $`\xi _\mu `$, $`\eta _\mu `$ are the fixed points of the Schottky generators of the surface ; the primed product over $`\alpha `$ denotes a product over conjugacy classes of elements of the Schottky group, where only elements that cannot be written as powers of other elements must be included. Three of $`2h+M`$ parameters $`\xi _\mu `$, $`\eta _\mu `$ and $`\rho _i`$ can be fixed using an overall projective invariance of the amplitude. The fixing of this invariance introduces the projective invariant volume element $`dV_{abc}`$ in (12). Including the “multipliers” $`k_\mu `$, one is left with $`3h3+M`$ variables, the correct number of independent moduli for a Riemann surface of genus $`h`$ with $`M`$ punctures.

When $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is turned on, the shift in (9) for $`A,B,C`$ modify the exponent of (11). This part of the modification may be summarized in terms of a modified Green function depending on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. In addition, the shift in $`A`$ gives rise to a $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ dependent measure factor $`\sqrt{det\left(A/2\right)}`$ in (11). Notice that in the particular case of the $`h`$-loop bubble backbone with no intersections $`𝒥=0`$, the $`detM`$ factors cancel out and the $`F`$-dependence is completely determined by that of $`g_0`$ and by the universal factor $`\sqrt{detM}`$ present in (8),

$$V_{0;h}^\mathrm{\Theta }=\left[det\left(1+F\right)\right]^{\frac{1+h}{2}}\times V_{0;h}^0.$$
(15)
For $`h=1`$, this agrees with the computation of , and, in the general case, we recover the result of .

## 2 One-loop Amplitudes and Green Function

Having the general form (11) of the multiloop Reggeon vertex, it is straightforward to write down explicitly the 1-loop amplitude and extract the 1-loop Green function.

First, there is no modification to $`A^0`$ and the modification to $`C^0`$ is simply the usual field theory Filk phase. The 1-loop measure is given by

$$\left[dm\right]_1\frac{_{i=1}^Md\rho _i/\rho _i}{dV_{abc}}=\underset{i=2}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{d\rho _i}{\rho _i}\frac{dk}{k^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{2}\right)^{d/2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1k^n\right)^{2d}$$
(16)
where $`k`$ is the multiplier of the annulus in the Schottky representation. We have exploited the projective invariance to fix $`\rho _1=1,\eta =0,\xi =\mathrm{}`$ in (16). Since the measure is not modified, the 1-loop amplitude can be written in the familiar form (12) with all the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependence taken care of by the Green function. Thus we concentrate on the effects from the shift of $`B^0`$. The one-loop Abelian differential is $`\omega =dz/z`$. With the convenient choice of $`V_i\left(\rho \right)=\rho +\rho _i`$, we have

$$B_{}^{0}{}_{I}{}^{\mu }=\underset{rI_1I_2}{}^{r\mu }\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{ln}\left|\rho +\rho _r\right|\text{with}^{r\mu }\left(\rho \right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0𝑑\rho X^{\left(r\right)\mu }\left(\rho \right),$$
(17)
where $`^{r\mu }`$ is an operator in which the integration is carried out on any function that multiply it on the right. One obtains finally

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2A}}B^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{ln}k}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{r<s}{r,sI_1I_2}}{}}^r\left(\rho \right)^s\left(\rho ^{}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2\right|{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +\rho _r}{\rho ^{}+\rho _s}}|`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{rI_1}{sI_2}}{}}^r\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{\Theta }^s\left(\rho ^{}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left|(\rho +\rho _r)(\rho ^{}+\rho _s)\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{rI_1}{sI_2}}{}}^r\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{\Theta }^2^s\left(\rho ^{}\right)),`$
where $`I_1,I_2`$ denote the two boundaries of the annulus. The second line contains all the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependence of the one-loop $`N`$-Reggeon vertex $`V_{N;1}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Written in terms of the Schottky representation of the annulus, the planar and nonplanar open string Green functions are

$`G_P^{\mu \nu }(\rho ,\rho ^{})=I_0^P\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }}{4\alpha ^{}}}ϵ\left(\rho \rho ^{}\right),`$ (19)
$`G_{NP}^{\mu \nu }(\rho ,\rho ^{})=I_0^{NP}\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^2\right)^{\mu \nu }}{8\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}k}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left|\rho \rho ^{}\right|}{\mathrm{ln}k}},`$ (20)
where the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-independent piece is given by

$$I_0^P(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\rho /\rho ^{}}{2\mathrm{ln}k}+\mathrm{ln}\left|\sqrt{\frac{\rho }{\rho ^{}}}\sqrt{\frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }}\right|+\mathrm{ln}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\frac{\left(1k^n\rho /\rho ^{}\right)\left(1k^n\rho ^{}/\rho \right)}{\left(1k^n\right)^2}\right|$$
(21)
for the planar case, while for non–planar contractions one has

$$I_0^{NP}(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\left|\rho /\rho ^{}\right|}{2\mathrm{ln}k}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\left|\rho \right|}{\left|\rho ^{}\right|}}+\sqrt{\frac{\left|\rho ^{}\right|}{\left|\rho \right|}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\frac{\left(1+k^n\left|\rho /\rho ^{}\right|\right)\left(1+k^n\left|\rho ^{}/\rho \right|\right)}{\left(1k^n\right)^2}\right|.$$
(22)
In the last term of the nonplanar Green function in (20), positive sign is taken when $`\rho >0,\rho ^{}<0`$ and negative sign is taken for the opposite case $`\rho ^{}>0,\rho <0`$.

### 2.1 Remarks on the Green function

In the above, the open string amplitudes and the open string Green function in the presence of $`B`$-field were obtained directly using the basic commutation relations (2), (3) and the Reggeon formalism. A different approach of using the closed string Green function as input was adopted at the one loop level  to calculate the open string amplitude. The idea is to obtain the open string Green function by letting the arguments of the closed string Green function to approach the boundary and then use it as input (in, e.g. (12)) to calculate the open string amplitude. However as discussed in , there are ambiguities associated with this approach.

1. Approaching the boundary

We first recall the procedure of  in obtaining the boundary correlator, in particular its antisymmetric part, from the bulk. The boundary correlator obtained there is

$$𝒢^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,\tau ^{}):=X^\mu \left(\tau \right)X^\nu \left(\tau ^{}\right)=\alpha ^{}\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}(\tau \tau ^{})^2+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }ϵ(\tau \tau ^{}),$$
(23)
where $`M^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are given in (4). The antisymmetric piece was obtained from the term

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}\frac{z\overline{z}^{}}{\overline{z}z^{}}$$
(24)
in the bulk correlator by letting $`z,z^{}`$ to approach the boundary in an appropriate manner. Notice that restricting the arguments $`z,z^{}`$ directly to the real axis yields $`\mathrm{ln}1=2n\pi i`$ instead of the moduli dependent piece in (23). Note also that there is no uniform shift one can perform to the bulk correlator so that (23) is obtained when restricted to the boundary. A limiting procedure must be adopted. We also remark that radial ordering (on $`\left|z\right|`$) is employed for operators in the bulk, while a time ordering on $`\tau `$ is employed on the boundary. The two orderings agree on the positive $`\tau `$ axis, but is opposite to each other on the negative axis.

Thus there is a certain ambiguity in the antisymmetric part of (23) relating to the choice of the branch cut of the $`ln`$. This ambiguity can be fixed easily at the tree level and the form (23) is the correct one.

2. Choices of closed string Green functions

As noted in , there is an additional source of ambiguity at one loop: there is a freedom in the definition of the closed string Green function.

At the one loop level, it was first noted by  that it is not possible to strictly impose on the Green function the same boundary condition as imposed on the string coordinates ($`\sigma =0,\pi `$)

$$_\sigma X^\mu +_\tau X^\nu F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }=0,\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},p,$$
(25)
and hence there is a certain degree of freedom in the choice of what constraint is satisfied by $`G`$. If one insists on

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})=2\pi \alpha ^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }\delta (z,z^{})$$
(26)
then since $`_{}Gds=2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ that is fixed by the Gauss theorem, one obtains the following set of compatible boundary conditions

$$\frac{}{r}G_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})\frac{i}{r}\frac{}{\theta }F_\mu {}_{}{}^{\lambda }G_{\lambda \nu }^{}(z,z^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{a}\beta \hfill & \text{ at }r=a,\hfill \\ \frac{\alpha ^{}}{a}\left(1\beta \right)\hfill & \text{ at }r=b,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`\beta `$ is arbitrary. The choice $`\beta =0`$ was first derived by  using the method of image and was used in  in the computation of the tachyon amplitudes, while the choice $`\beta =1/2`$ was adopted in . One can also introduce a background charge so that a Green function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})=2\pi \alpha ^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }\delta (z,z^{})+\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}}{A},$$
(28)
where $`A=\pi \left(b^2a^2\right)`$ is the area of the annulus, satisfying the boundary condition

$$\frac{}{r}G_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})\frac{i}{r}\frac{}{\theta }F_\mu {}_{}{}^{\lambda }G_{\lambda \nu }^{}(z,z^{})=0,r=a,b$$
(29)
can be constructed. This closed string Green function was used in  to derive the open string Green function and in computing the 2 point function for noncommutative photons. The origin of this freedom in defining the Green function was analyzed from the point of view of the boundary state approach in , where the closed string Green functions was derived from the closed string worldsheet with boundary states inserted so as to create an open string worldsheet. There it was noted that the freedom in the definition of the closed string Green function is related to a freedom in interpreting the tachyon amplitudes in terms of contributions from the closed string Green function and contributions from the self-contraction $`𝒞`$. A shifted

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{}(z,z^{})=G_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})+_{\mu \nu }(z,z^{})$$
(30)
with a $``$ satisfying certain conditions  gives the same closed string tachyon amplitude. The reason that $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ can gives the same tachyon amplitude is because of momentum conservation. For higher closed string states, the Green function may also be contracted with other available quantum numbers like polarization which doesn’t have a conservation law. So the shift is indeed possible only for tachyon amplitudes. For the amplitude of higher massive closed string states, it is (19) and (20) which are to be used. As was shown in , they can be obtained from an appropriate limiting procedure of the bulk Green function that solves (28) and (29). Other form of Green function gives incorrect amplitudes.

This kind of ambiguity persists at higher loops. While it can be fixed easily at the tree level, it is more subtle at the loop level. When one go to higher loop, there are many more boundaries and the above mentioned ambiguities with the Green function will be much harder to resolve .

At tree and the 1-loop level, all the effects of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be summarized in terms of a modified Green function. One may therefore also use other approaches to obtain the Green function and use it as input in, for example (12), to calculate the string amplitude. However this is no longer the case for two and higher loops. As we mentioned above, there are new modifications to the measure that is not presented at the tree and 1-loop level. We stress that this $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependent modification to the measure cannot be obtained from the Green function approach. The advantage of the Reggeon operator formalism  is that one obtains the string amplitude (11) in one step and there is no need to isolate a Green function from it, which is where the ambiguities lie.

## 3 Field Theory Limit

The relations between string and field theory amplitudes have been thoroughly studied since the early days of dual models . It turned out that string amplitudes contain very precise information on various perturbative quantities of different field theories. In fact, even using the simple bosonic string as a starting point, it is possible to recover, with a suitable definition of the low energy limit, the results of the usual Feynman diagrams for scalar , Yang–Mills  or gravity  field theories (see also the references in these papers).

In this section we briefly review the basic steps allowing to derive field theories amplitudes from string expressions like the one in (12). In fact, the same procedure normally used to recover the Feynman diagrams of commutative theories can be also applied to the results derived in the previous sections. Of course the background $`F`$-field of the string calculations is now related to the appearance of the non commutative parameters $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the field results. However, the algorithm one uses to perform the low energy limit is essentially not affected by the presence of the $`F`$-field : all important modifications related to the new feature of noncommutativity are already encoded in the string result and in particular in Eq. (9).

It is usually said that field theory results are recovered from string amplitudes simply by taking the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. Of course, this prescription has to be suitably interpreted to yield sensible answers. First, $`\alpha ^{}`$ is a dimensionful parameter and what the above limit really means is that the typical energy scale of the external states is very small in comparison with the string scale ($`\alpha ^{}p_ip_j0`$). Moreover, it is not possible to blindly perform this limit on the amplitudes. In fact, string results are written as integrals over the moduli space of the Riemann surface representing the world–sheet. Also, the integrand contains various divergences which make the limiting procedure delicate. However, the general idea underlying the derivation of field amplitudes from string ones is to obtain also the answer for field diagrams in an integral form. In fact, the world–sheet moduli are strictly related to the usual Schwinger parameters introduced in diagrammatic perturbative computations. Moreover, only the corners of moduli space where the integrand diverges contribute to the field theory limit. Thus, a single string amplitude decomposes in a sum of different contributions coming from different corners of the full integration region. It turns out that each of these terms encodes the result of all Feynman diagrams of a given topology (for instance, in the Yang–Mills case the string approach automatically sums the contribution of ghost and gluon propagation).

Summarizing the low energy limit on string amplitudes is basically done in three steps:

* First it is necessary to express in terms of string quantities all the parameters appearing in the lagrangian of the field theory one wants to reproduce. The dictionary between the two sets of parameters can be easily derived by looking at the simplest diagram in both theories; for instance, by matching the $`3`$-point amplitudes, one can usually find the relation between the string and the field theory coupling constants.
* Then one has to focus on the different relevant corners of the region of integration. In each case, the string moduli are transformed into Schwinger parameters with a relation of the type $`t=\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}f\left(z\right)`$, for some function $`f`$ which may depend on the details of the worldsheet parameterization.
* Finally one can send $`\alpha ^{}0`$, but has to keep all field theory parameters finite (even if they are dimensionful, like the Schwinger proper parameters)

### 3.1 Taking the field theory limits

As it turns out, there are two ways one can derive the field theory limit. In , the Seiberg-Witten limit

$$\alpha ^{}ϵ,gϵ^2,Fϵ$$
(31)
with $`ϵ0`$ is considered so that

$$M_{\mu \nu }=\left(Bg^1B\right)_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1}{F}\right)^{\mu \nu }$$
(32)
are fixed in this limit. They show that in this limit the tree level, amplitudes which can be computed from (7), yields the result of a noncommutative field theory in a metric $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ and with the noncommutative parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ given by (32). For example,

$$S=\sqrt{detM}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+V_\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right].$$
(33)
Since $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are finite in this limit, all our multiloop formula also have a well defined limit. On the other hand, if one prefers (see for example ), one can also rescale the string coordinates by a factor $`\widehat{X}^\mu =X^\nu (gF)_\nu ^\mu `$ and use $`\widehat{X}`$ to construct the corresponding string amplitude. For example, at the tree level, one gets

$$\widehat{𝒢}^{\mu \nu }(\tau ,\tau ^{}):=\widehat{X}^\mu \left(\tau \right)\widehat{X}^\nu \left(\tau ^{}\right)=\alpha ^{}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}(\tau \tau ^{})^2+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }ϵ(\tau \tau ^{}),$$
(34)
where

$$\theta :=\left(g+F\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(gF\right)=2\pi \alpha ^{}F$$
(35)
and the metric $`g`$ is the closed string metric. For higher loops, one simply has to replace everywhere (e.g. in (9), (10), (19), (20) ) $`\left(M^1\right)^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ by $`g^{\mu \nu },\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ in the string theoretic expressions. Thus one can also take the following noncommutative field theory limit

$$\alpha ^{}ϵ,g\text{ fixed},F1/ϵ.$$
(36)
so that

$$g_{\mu \nu },\theta ^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}F^{\mu \nu }$$
(37)
are fixed in the limit. In this limit, the noncommutative field theory

$$S=\sqrt{detg}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+V_\theta \left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right],$$
(38)
in a background metric $`g`$ and with noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$ is resulted. We stressed that the two limits are complitely equivalent. No matter which limit one takes, there is always a pair of parameters (metric and the noncommutative parameter) in the string amplitude, and the field theory limit is always taken in such a way that they remain finite. In the end, we obtain a field theory with a background metric and a noncommutative parameter.

### 3.2 Examples

In what follows, we aim at producing a field theory limit with a flat Minkowskian metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, which is more often considered in the literatures of noncommutative quantum field theory. This can be most easily achieved from a string theory having a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and using the rescaled $`\widehat{X}`$ to construct the string amplitudes. The field theory noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is then related to the string moduli $`F`$ by equation (35).

In order to give some concrete examples, we will now consider two Feynman diagrams of the noncommutative scalar theory with cubic interaction in six dimensions. We will focus first on the non–planar contribution to the 2–point function at one loop and then on the non–planar 2-loop vacuum bubble. Many other examples are thoroughly described in  also for scalar theories with quartic interactions and for Yang–Mills theory. Eq. (12) can be used also as a starting point for studying scalar (i.e. tachyon) amplitudes simply by setting all the polarizations $`ϵ_i`$ to zero. If we fix $`\rho _1=1`$ on the first border and the second puncture on the other border $`\rho _2[1,k]`$, we have to use in the master formula the non–planar Green function (19), obtaining

$$A_{2,1}^{\mathrm{NP}}(p_1,p_1)=\frac{\alpha ^{2d/2}}{\left(4\pi \right)^{d/2}}\frac{g_3^2}{4}_0^1\frac{dk}{k}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha ^{}m^2\mathrm{ln}k}\left(\mathrm{ln}k\right)^{d/2}_1^k\frac{d\rho _2}{\rho _2}\mathrm{e}^{\left[2\alpha ^{}p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }G_{\mathrm{NP}}^{\mu \nu }(1,\rho _2)\right]},$$
(39)
where we have already translated the string coupling constant into field theory one by using the relation $`g_3=2^{5/2}g_{\mathrm{op}}\left(2\alpha ^{}\right)^{\frac{d6}{4}}`$, found from the matching of the $`3`$-point functions. As usual, the logarithmic divergences in the integrand are related to the dimensionful Schwinger parameters via a factor of $`\alpha ^{}`$. In particular, at 1-loop one always associates $`\mathrm{ln}k`$ to the total length of the loop by taking, $`\mathrm{ln}k=T/\alpha ^{}`$ where $`T`$ has to be kept finite as $`\alpha ^{}0`$. In this limit $`k`$ goes to zero exponentially which means shrinking the annulus to a one-loop Feynman graph. After having replaced string quantities with field theory ones, the $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependence of (39) simplifies and the whole amplitude is just proportional to a single power of $`\alpha ^{}`$. This means that, in order to have a finite answer for our field theory limit, it is necessary to introduce one more Schwinger parameter. Since we want to reproduce the irreducible diagram, we perform the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit by keeping fixed also $`t_2`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\rho _2=t_2/\alpha ^{}`$ and get

$$A_{2,1}^{\mathrm{NP}}(p_1,p_1)=\frac{g_3^2}{4}\frac{1}{\left(4\pi \right)^{d/2}}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dT}{T^{d/2}}\mathrm{e}^{m^2T}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{exp}\left[p_1^2t_2\left(1\frac{t_2}{T}\right)+p_1^\mu p_1^\nu \frac{\theta _{\mu \nu }^2}{4T}\right].$$
(40)
Thus we recover the standard Schwinger proper time integral, but with the additional factor typical of the noncommutative diagrams. As noted in , for $`\stackrel{~}{p}^20`$ this serves as an effective UV cutoff and is at the origin of the UV/IR mixing.

In the above example the non-planarity of the diagram is related to the insertion of the external legs. From the string point of view this follows from the fact that the two insertions are done on the two different borders of the annulus. In field theory this means that the two 3-point vertices in the graph have different cyclical orientation (and so the Filk phase has opposite sign). At one loop, this kind of non–planarity is the only possible one. As we saw in the previous string calculation, at multiloop level a new feature appears, namely the internal legs can intersect and bring a non–trivial modification of the string measure (11). A first simple check of this string result is to show that, at low energies, it can reproduce the result of noncommutative Feynman diagrams.

The simplest field theory displaying this feature is the irreducible vacuum bubble that is obtained by sewing together two $`3`$–point vertices with different relative orientations. As in the above $`1`$–loop diagram, the two Filk factors combine and give an additional phase factor $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}r\theta q}`$ with the respect to the usual computation. However, now we have to integrate over both momenta contracted with $`\theta `$. Carrying out the $`r`$ integral, we obtain

$$A_{0,2}^{\mathrm{NP}}=𝑑q\frac{dt_i}{l^{d/2}}\mathrm{e}^{m^2_it_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{l}\left[q^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta }^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}q^\nu \right]\right),$$
(41)
where $`t_i`$ are the Schwinger parameters related to the three propagators, $`l:=t_2+t_3`$. Finally $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$ is the following diagonal matrix

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \right)_{\mu \nu }:=\delta _{\mu \nu }\left(t_1t_2+t_1t_3+t_2t_3\right)\frac{\theta _{\mu \nu }^2}{4},$$
(42)
which matches exactly the leading contribution in the multiplier of the expression for $`A_{IJ}^{\mu \nu }`$ in (9), once the string parameters have been translated in Schwinger proper times .

## 4 Some Remarks on UV/IR

In this paper, we studied open string amplitudes in the presence of a constant $`B`$-field. We derived from first principles a closed expression (11) for the $`N`$-Reggeon vertex encoding the presence of the non-trivial background. From this Reggeon vertex one can generate all string loop diagrams by the usual techniques. Then we considered the field theory limits ((32) and (36)) which, at disk level, give rise to the star-product and to noncommutative Lagrangians. In the same limits, the multiloop open string amplitudes derived from the new Reggeon vertex reduces to the loop diagrams of a noncommutative field theory. Moreover, as in the commutative case, the matching of the string and the field theory calculations is evident at the level of integrands and is diagram by diagram. These observations are further evidence that non commutative field theories can be embedded in string theory in a consistent way.

However within this point of view, there is still one important point which deserves a better understanding, that is the UV/IR mixing . In fact, if string theory provides a microscopical definition for noncommutative field theories, then in principle one should be able to apply Wilson approach and obtain a low energy action describing the physics in the IR. However, in the noncommutative case, one typically finds that (for $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2`$) there are massless poles which do not correspond to any degree of freedom present in the effective action.

There have been various different proposals to explain this puzzle from a string point of view. A possibility is that other string states, besides those of open strings, are not compltely decoupled either because in the non planar diagrams open strings can never be really point-like  or because closed strings play a relevant role , see also . However, even if this is true, it has not been possible so far to identify clearly the nature of the states entering in the effective action. Another possibility is that the UV/IR is just an artifact of the perturbative expansion. For instance, the pure scalar field theory we considered can be embedded easily in the bosonic open string theory, which is tachyonic (here we expanded around the usual flat vacuum). However, it is by now clear that open string tachyon can condense giving rise to stable vacua and it is possible that a field theory limit around these new vacua is not pathological. On the other hand UV/IR mixing can also be presented in supersymmetric gauge theories which can be embedded in perfectly consistent string models. Perturbative analysis of supersymmetric gauge theory with focus on aspects of UV/IR can be found in . From the knowledge accumulated on the commutative gauge theory, it is perhaps not surprising that nonperturbative contribution may modifies substantially the physics in the IR and may provide a cure to the UV/IR mixing. Recently the case of noncommutative pure $`N=2`$ Yang-Mills theory has been analyzed beyond the perturbative level , and particularly in . It seems that the contribution of instantons makes the IR behvior less pathological.

Acknowledgments

The results presented here are based on . We would like to thank A. Bilal and S. Sciuto for their collaboration. This work has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, by the European Union under RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131.


format: text

text:
# Interference due to Coherence Swapping

## A Summary of physics of parametric down conversion

If one shines a strong linearly polarised monochromatic laser beam, or a quasi-monochromatic laser light pulse, on a suitably cut and oriented birefringerent crystal endowed with a high quadratic nonlinearity some pump photons spontaneously fission into pairs of photons of lower frequency (for historical reasons called signal and idler). The process is quasi elastic. Thus the frequencies of pump photon, $`\omega `$, signal, $`\omega _s`$, and idler, $`\omega _i`$, satisfy $`\omega \omega _s+\omega _i`$ (for the pulsed pump this relation still holds, however in this case the pulse frequency is not precisely defined). Photons can be observed only at so-called phase matched directions at which all emission processes within the full illuminated zone of the crystal interfere constructively: $`𝐤_p𝐤_s+𝐤_i,`$ i.e., the emissions are strongly correlated directionally (again, for the pulsed case $`𝐤_p`$ is not precisely defined). Due to the dependence of the speed of light on frequency, phase matching within a crystal cannot occur for all frequencies, and all emission directions, and thus into a given direction only specific frequencies are emitted.

Consider a pulsed pump. We assume that the probability of a multiple emission from a single PDC is low, the laser pulse is not too short, i.e., the nonmonochromaticity of the pulse will not blur too much the strong angular correlation of the emissions (due to the effective energy and momentum conservation within the crystal). Thus, the photons can be still described as emitted in specified, very well defined directions.

Under the approximations that: (i) one has perfect phase matching and only two phase matched directions are singled out; (ii) the idler and signal frequencies satisfy perfect energy conservation conditions with the pump photons, which is described by a sharply peaked at the origin function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\omega \omega _i\omega _s)`$ which approaches Dirac’s delta for $`L\mathrm{}`$ ($`L`$ symbolically represents the crystal’s size); (iii) the pump pulse is described as a classical wave packet (no-depletion) with one single direction for all wave vectors (the frequency profile of the pulse will be denoted by $`V(\omega )`$), the state of the photon pair emerging from the PDC source (plus the filtering system) via the beams $`a`$ and $`d`$ can be written as

$`|\psi _{ad}=`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2𝑑\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\omega _0\omega _1\omega _2)g(\omega _0)}`$ (13)
$`\times f_a(\omega _1)f_d(\omega _2)|\omega _1;a|\omega _2;d,`$ (14)
where, e.g., the ket $`|\omega ;e`$ describes a single photon of frequency $`\omega `$ in the beam $`e`$, the function $`g`$ represents the spectral content of the pulse, $`f_e`$ is the transmission function of the filtering system in the beam $`e`$ (a pinhole and/or a filter).

The amplitude to detect a photon at time $`t_x^{}`$ by a detector monitoring the beam $`x^{}`$ and another one at time $`t_y^{}`$ by a counter in the beam $`y^{}`$, provided the initial photon state was, say, $`|\psi _{xy}`$, can be written as $`A_{xy}(t_x^{},t_y^{})=(t_x^{};x^{}|t_y^{};y^{}|)|\psi _{xy}`$, where $`|t;b=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}𝑑\omega e^{i\omega t}|\omega ;b`$ . The elementary amplitudes of the detection process have a simple, intuitively appealing, form

$$A_{xy}(t_x,t_y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}𝑑tG(t)F_x(t_xt)F_y(t_yt),$$
(16)
where the functions denoted by capitals are the Fourier transforms: $`H(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}𝑑\omega e^{i\omega t}h(\omega )`$, for $`h=f`$ or $`g`$. The convolution of the filter functions in (16) reveals one of the basic properties of the PDC radiation: the time correlation between the detection of the idler and the corresponding signal photon is entirely determined by the bandwidth of the detection system. E.g. this implies that in the limit of no filtering, when the functions $`F(t)`$ are approaching $`\delta (t)`$, the time correlation extremely sharp (of the order of femtoseconds), what can be illustrated by somewhat mathematically incorrect limiting case of (16), namely $`G(t_x)\delta (t_xt_y),`$ (in reality, one also has to take into account the phase matching function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and this imposes a sharp but finite time correlation for the PDC process. However, just a single filter will blur this correlation to around the inverse of the filter’s bandwidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T1/\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (the coherence time of the filtered radiation). The function $`G(t)`$ represents the temporal shape of the laser pulse and its presence in the formula simply indicates that (barring retardation) the signal and idler can be produced only when the pulse is present in the crystal.

If the birefringent crystal is cut in such a way that the so called type I phase matching condition is satisfied, both PDC photons are of the same polarisation (if the pump beam is an ordinary wave the down converted photons are extraordinary). Due to the phase matching condition (A) (single) photons of the same frequency are emitted into cones centred at the pump beam. By picking photons from a specially chosen cone one can have PDC radiation with both photons of equal frequency $`\frac{1}{2}\omega _p`$. The selection can be done by a suitable pinhole arrangement in a diaphragm behind the crystal and/or with the use of filters.

## B Proposed observation of coherence swapping

We take two separate down conversion crystals, A, B, however pumped by the same pulsed laser. The pump beam is beam-split in such a way that the pulses enter both crystals at exactly the same moment of time. We choose emission directions from the two crystals in such a way that the emitted photons are degenerate in frequency.

From time to time both sources emit spontaneously a pair of photons each. We direct the idlers from each source to two trigger detectors. The role of these trigger firings is the following one: if both trigger detectors fire we know that the sources emitted additionally one signal photon each. In front of both trigger detectors one finds two identical filters. Their role is to the define the coherence time of the detected radiation.

We place two 50-50 beam splitters, $`BS_1`$, $`BS_2`$, and direct to the first one the signal of the source A, and to the second one the signal of the source B. Each photon enters its beam splitter via one input port. Of course, upon leaving the beam splitters, both photons are in a coherent superposition of being in one or the other exit beam of the beam splitter.

We direct one output of each beam splitter into one of the input ports of yet another beam splitter, $`BS_3`$, behind which we place two detectors. If only one of the detector fires, and this firing is due to one photon only, then the other photon is in a coherent superposition of being in one or the other exit beam (not fed into $`BS_4`$) of the primary beam splitters $`BS_1`$, $`BS_2`$. If one wants to have just one superposition state in beams $`a`$ and $`d`$, one should introduce a phase shift of $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ in one of the beams, depending on which of the detectors behind the beam splitter M fired (this can be thought to be the ‘classical communication’ component here, if one seeks parallels of this experiment with the teleportation process).

The source must be pulsed in order to warrant that the parts of wave packets of the two photons that impinge on the BSM overlap in the exit beams of it. Only in this way have the required total erasure of the information: which of the sources contribute to the click at behind $`BS_3`$. This warrants the required superposition (coherence) to form in the other two beams. One can test all this in an interference experiment on the beams.

The visibility of the obtained interference behind a device which is composed of a phase shifter and a beamsplitter, $`BM_4`$, can be obtained in the following simple way. One assumes that the filters in beams leading to the trigger detectors (behind $`BS_3`$) are identical, and that the functions have the following structure: $`F_f(t)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\omega _p^ot}|F_f(t)|`$, $`G(t)=e^{i\omega _p^ot}|G(t)|`$, where $`\omega _p^o`$ is the central frequency of the pulse, then interference fringes in the joint probability to have joint counts in four detectors, that is the two trigger detectors, one of the detectors behind BSM, and one of the detectors behind BSX, behaves as $`1V\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ with the visibility $`V`$ given by

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{d^4t|A_{ad}(t_a,t_d)A_{bc}(t_b,t_c)A_{bd}(t_b,t_d)A_{ac}(t_a,t_c)|}{d^4dt_|A_{ad}(t_a,t_d)A_{bc}(t_b,t_c)|^2}},`$ (17)
where $`d^4t=dt_adt_bdt_cdt_d`$.

If one specifies, for simplicity, all the functions as gaussians, $`exp\left[\frac{1}{2}(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })^2/\sigma ^2\right]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the mid frequency and $`\sigma `$ the width, the formula for the visibility reads:

$$V=\left(\frac{\sigma _p^2}{\sigma _p^2+\sigma _f^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(18)
where $`\sigma _p^2`$ is the pulse frequency spread, $`\sigma _f^2`$ it the width of the filters.

The feasibility of this scheme has already been tested in the teleportation and entanglement swapping experiments , .

5. Conclusions

To conclude, we have proposed a new way of generating coherence between independent paths of two different quantum systems. The process of measurement, which was thought to be a hindrance to coherence, can be suitably designed to create coherence. Using coherence swapping method, one can swap the effect of flux line to a distant site. Finally, we have proposed an optical realisation of coherence swapping method. The phenomenon seems to be the simplest possible process involving interference of independent sources of quantum particles. Much simpler than entanglement swapping or teleportation, however it shares with them the basic property: possibility of a state preparation at a remote place with the use of wave vector collapse and classical transfer of information (this latter feature is inherently associated with the conditional nature of the interference behind $`BS_4`$). One can generalise the concept of coherence swapping for multi path and muliti particle interference set ups similar to the idea of entanglement swapping for multiparticles . We hope that this will open up the possibility of studying the wave particle duality and quantum erasure for independent particles.

Acknowledgement: AKP wishes to thank Sam Braunstein and P. van Loock for discussions. He thanks EPSRC for the financial support to carry out the research. MŻ was supported by the University of Gdansk Grant No BW/5400-5-0032-0.


text:
# 1 The Feynman diagram giving rise to Δ𝑎_𝜇 and 𝑙_𝑖→𝑙_𝑗𝛾 in the leptonic Higgs doublet model, where the photon can be attached to any charged line.

hep-ph/0102304

LMU-01-03

Nearly Bi-Maximal Neutrino Mixing, Muon g-2 Anomaly and Lepton-Flavor-Violating Processes

Zhi-zhong Xing 111Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn

Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100039, China

## Abstract

We interpret the newly observed muon g-2 anomaly in the framework of a leptonic Higgs doublet model with nearly degenerate neutrino masses and nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing. Useful constraints are obtained on the rates of lepton-flavor-violating rare decays $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$ as well as the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion ratio $`R_{\mu e}`$. We find that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )`$ and $`R_{\mu e}`$ depend crucially on possible non-zero but samll values of the neutrino mixing matrix element $`V_{e3}`$, and they are also sensitive to the Dirac-type CP-violating phase. In particular, we show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )/m_\tau ^5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )/m_\mu ^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )/m_\tau ^5`$ are approximately in the ratio $`1:2|V_{e3}|^2:2|V_{e3}|^2`$ if $`|V_{e3}|`$ is much larger than $`𝒪(10^2)`$, and in the ratio $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2:(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2:(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2`$ if $`|V_{e3}|`$ is much lower than $`𝒪(10^3)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ are the corresponding mass-squared differences of atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations.

Recently the Muon g-2 Collaboration has reported a precise measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment ,

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=\frac{g_\mu ^{}2}{2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}11659202}(16)\times 10^{10},$$
(1)
which deviates from the standard-model (SM) prediction by 2.6$`\sigma `$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}43}(16)\times 10^{10}.$$
(2)
To interpret the nonvanishing and positive value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, a lot of scenarios of new physics have been proposed . In Ref. , Ma and Raidal emphasized that the new physics responsible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ and other lepton-flavor-violating processes (e.g., $`\mu e\gamma `$) might be related to that responsible for non-zero neutrino masses indicated by the evidence of neutrino oscillations. They illustrated this important point in the framework of a leptonic Higgs doublet model  with nearly degenerate neutrino masses and bi-maximal lepton flavor mixing, and found that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )/m_\mu ^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )/m_\tau ^5`$ are proportional respectively to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ correspond to the mass-squared differences of solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

In this paper we take the same Higgs doublet model to examine whether the interesting relations such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )/m_\mu ^5(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2`$ keep unchanged, if the bi-maximal neutrino mixing pattern ($`|V_{e3}|=0`$) is replaced by the nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing pattern ($`|V_{e3}|0`$). The latter is more realistic to fit various neutrino oscillation data, and it can accommodate large CP violation which might be observable in the future long-baseline neutrino experiments. While $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ are insensitive to non-zero but small $`|V_{e3}|`$, we find that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )`$ and the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion ratio $`R_{\mu e}`$ do depend crucially upon the magnitude of $`|V_{e3}|`$. The simple relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )/m_\mu ^5(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )/m_\tau ^5(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2`$ may still hold, if $`|V_{e3}|`$ is much lower than $`𝒪(10^3)`$. If $`|V_{e3}|`$ is much larger than $`𝒪(10^2)`$, however, the rates of $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$ will all be proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2`$. Our new results illustrate that an accurate determination of $`|V_{e3}|`$ from neutrino oscillations is desirable, in order to predict or constrain the rates of lepton-flavor-violating rare decays and to fix the Dirac-type CP-violating phase in the lepton mixing matrix.

Let us concentrate on the leptonic Higgs doublet model proposed in Ref. . The neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$, defined in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, can be derived from the following Lagrangian through a simple seesaw mechanism:

$$\frac{1}{2}M_iN_{i\mathrm{R}}^2+h_{ij}\overline{N}_{i\mathrm{R}}\left(\nu _j^{}\eta ^0l_{j\mathrm{L}}\eta ^+\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(3)
The typical Feynman diagram giving rise to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ and $`l_il_j\gamma `$ is shown in Fig. 1. Following Ma and Raidal , we assume that the masses of three $`N_\mathrm{R}`$’s are equal, and the coupling matrix $`(h_{ij})`$ takes the form

$$(h_{ij})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}h_1& 0& 0\\ 0& h_2& 0\\ 0& 0& h_3\end{array}\right)V^\mathrm{T},$$
(4)
where $`h_i`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) are the eigenvalues of $`(h_{ij})`$, and $`V`$ is the neutrino mixing matrix in the chosen flavor basis. The neutrino mass eigenvalues $`m_i`$ can then be calculated by using the seesaw relation $`M_\nu =(h_{ij})^\mathrm{T}(h_{ij})/M`$, where $`M`$ is the heavy mass scale common for three $`N_\mathrm{R}`$’s. Explicitly one obtains $`m_i=4h_i^2\eta ^0^2/M`$. Different from Ref. , the neutrino mixing matrix $`V`$ is taken to be nearly bi-maximal in this paper:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}& is\\ \\ \frac{A}{2}& \frac{A^{}}{2}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \\ \frac{A^{}}{2}& \frac{A}{2}& \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`s\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`c\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, and $`A=1+is`$ . The mixing angle $`\theta `$ measures a slight coupling between solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The current experimental constraint on the magnitude of $`s`$ is $`s0.2`$, obtained from CHOOZ and Palo Verde reactor experiments of neutrino oscillations . Note that only the Dirac-type CP-violating phase (of a special but instructive value $`90^{}`$) has been taken into account in $`V`$, since the Majorana-type phases have no effect on the rare processes to be discussed subsequently.

For simplicity, we follow Ref.  to make two more assumptions: (a) the masses of three light neutrinos are nearly degenerate, i.e., $`m_3m_2m_1m`$ or equivalently $`h_3h_2h_1h`$; and (b) the univeral mass of $`N_\mathrm{R}`$’s is identical to the mass of $`\eta `$. While assumption (b) helps to make the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ as large as possible within the model under consideration, assumption (a) is necessary for the suppression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ relative to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. Calculating Fig. 1, one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =\underset{i}{}\frac{|h_{i\mu }|^2}{192\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_\eta ^2}.$$
(6)
With the help of Eqs. (4) and (5) as well as the assumptions made above, we can simplify Eq. (6) and arrive at

$$m_\eta \frac{m_\mu }{2\sqrt{3\pi \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu }}\sqrt{\alpha _h^{}},$$
(7)
where $`\alpha _h^{}h^2/(4\pi )`$. Using the $`90\%`$ confidence-level limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu >215\times 10^{11}`$ , we then obtain $`m_\eta <371\sqrt{\alpha _h}`$ GeV, a mass scale which is not far away from being discovered or ruled out in the future high-energy collider experiments . Furthermore, the branching ratio of $`l_il_j\gamma `$ is found to be

$$B(l_il_j\gamma )\frac{\alpha }{3072\pi G_\mathrm{F}^2m_\eta ^4}\left|\underset{k}{}(h_{kl_i}h_{kl_j}^{})\right|^2B(l_il_j\nu _i\overline{\nu }_j)$$
(8)
in the leptonic Higgs doublet model, where $`\alpha =1/137`$, and the relevant assumptions have been taken into account. For rare decays $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$, we obtain

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(h_{i\tau }h_{i\mu }^{}\right)\right|^2`$ $``$ $`c^4h^4{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2}{m^4}},`$
$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(h_{i\mu }h_{ie}^{}\right)\right|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}h^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2}{m^4}}+4s^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2}{m^4}}\right],`$
$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(h_{i\tau }h_{ie}^{}\right)\right|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}h^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2}{m^4}}+4s^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2}{m^4}}\right],`$ (9)
in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2|m_2^2m_1^2|10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2|m_3^2m_1^2||m_3^2m_2^2|10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ are the mass-squared differences of solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations , respectively. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )`$ will get comparable contributions from the terms associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$, if $`s𝒪(10^2)`$ holds. For larger values of $`s`$, the second term may dominate over the first term, leading to the following interesting relationship:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )}{m_\mu ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`c^2:2s^2:2s^2.`$
If the value of $`s`$ is much lower than $`𝒪(10^3)`$, we will arrive at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )}{m_\mu ^5}}:{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )}{m_\tau ^5}}`$ (11)
$``$ $`2c^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2:(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2:(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2)^2.`$
This result is consistent with that obtained by Ma and Raidal  in the bi-maximal neutrino mixing case with $`s=0`$. It becomes transparent that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )`$ are dependent crucially upon the magnitude of $`s`$. In contrast, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ is insensitive to small values of $`s`$, no matter whether neutrino mixing is bi-maximal or nearly bi-maximal.

For illustration, we calculate $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`B(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ as functions of the neutrino mass $`m`$ and the flavor mixing parameter $`s`$, and plot the numerical results in Fig. 2, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2=3\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$, and $`\alpha _h/m_\eta ^2=(371\mathrm{GeV})^2`$ have been typically input. The chosen value of $`\alpha _h/m_\eta ^2`$ implies that the relevant results shown in Fig. 2 should be understood as lower bounds in the case of nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing. Note that the branching ratio of $`\tau e\gamma `$ can straightforwardly be obtained from that of $`\mu e\gamma `$, as the relationship $`B(\tau e\gamma )=B(\mu e\gamma )B(\tau e\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_e)`$ with $`B(\tau e\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_e)17.83\%`$ hold . From Fig. 2 one can see that $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$ will be close to its current experimental upper limit of $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ , if $`m0.2\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`s0`$ or if $`m1\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`s0.1`$. Because of $`s0.2`$ , no fine tuning is required to achieve $`B(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$ for $`m2\mathrm{eV}`$. Neutrinos of $`m(12)`$ eV may have important cosmological implications . To accommodate the nonobservation of the neutrinoless double beta decay in the scenario of neutrino masses under discussion, additional Majorana phases should be included into the neutrino mixing matrix $`V`$ .

Finally it is worth mentioning that the leptonic Higgs doublet model can also lead to the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion in nuclei. The relevant assumptions made above allow us to simplify the formula of the $`\mu `$-$`e`$ conversion ratio $`R_{\mu e}`$ given in Ref. . We then obtain

$$R_{\mu e}\frac{\alpha ^5m_\mu ^9Z_{\mathrm{eff}}^4Z|\overline{F}_p(p_e)|^2}{18432\pi ^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{capt}}q^4m_\eta ^4}\left|\underset{i}{}\left(h_{i\mu }h_{ie}^{}\right)\right|^2,$$
(12)
where $`q^2m_\mu ^2`$, $`Z_{\mathrm{eff}}=11.62`$, $`\overline{F}_p=0.66`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{capt}}=7.1\times 10^5\mathrm{s}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{Al}`$ . Comparing between $`R_{\mu e}`$ and $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$, one may easily find that they depend upon $`m`$ and $`s`$ in the same way. The magnitude of $`R_{\mu e}`$ is smaller than that of $`B(\mu e\gamma )`$ by two orders.

In summary, we have discussed the muon g-2 anomaly and the lepton-flavor-violating rare decays in the framework of a leptonic Higgs doublet model with nearly degenerate neutrino masses and nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing. We demonstrate the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\gamma )`$ and $`R_{\mu e}`$ to possible non-zero but small values of $`|V_{e3}|`$. It is obvious that they are also sensitive to the Dirac-type CP-violating phase in $`V`$, which has been taken to be $`90^{}`$ in our specific nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing pattern. One may of course apply other nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing patterns  to the models giving rise to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$. We expect that new and more precise data to be accumulated from a variety of experiments on neutrino oscillations and lepton-flavor-violating rare decays will help to pin down the self-consistent models (even the true theory) of neutrino masses, lepton flavor mixing and CP violation.

The author is indebted to X. Calmet for many discussions and partial involvement at the early stage of this work. He is also grateful to H. Fritzsch for useful comments and warm hospitality in University Munich, where this paper was finished.