text:
# ILL-(TH)-00-11 hep-th/0102158 Observations on non-commutative field theories in coordinate space

## 1 Introduction

A great deal of effort has recently gone into the study of field theories on non-commutative spaces, partly due to the realization that non-commutative geometries are an important aspect of D-brane physics . There are many interesting features, including a relation between UV and IR physics . A basic problem in any field theory is that of identifying the physical observables. In the case of gauge theories on non-commutative spaces, this is of particular interest and there are proposals for a class of such operators built out of Wilson lines. As well, there have been many discussions of the renormalization properties of these theories (see for example Refs. ).

In this paper, we will have several goals. A primary motivation for us in thinking about non-commutative field theories has been to come to some understanding of the UV/IR correspondence. In particular, non-commutative field theories apparently force us to give up on our Wilsonian thinking that is so familiar in standard field theories. What should replace our Wilsonian intuition? If Wilsonian reasoning fails, in what sense can we demonstrate the renormalizability or even the existence of a field theory?

To begin such explorations, we build field theory observables directly in position space. In ordinary regulated field theories, local operators should be thought of as smeared over a region whose size is determined by the regulator. Beginning with this idea, we find that it is possible to carry it over to the non-commutative case. An advantage of this formalism is that it is straightforwardly extended to theories with gauge symmetry and supersymmetry. There are aspects to this problem which have been discussed previously; in particular, the non-commutative coordinates are covariantized with respect to the symmetry group. Thus in a non-commutative field theory, the notion of “local operator” is replaced by integrals over non-commutative space with covariantized smearing distributions. We will refer to these operators as pseudo-local.

Having constructed pseudo-local operators, one can consider the coordinate space correlation functions. These theories are characterized by the correlation functions of operators inserted at various positions, and since position is not an invariant concept in non-commutative field theories, we need to decide on a choice of correlation functions. It is natural to take these to correspond to the insertion of pseudo-local operators. We note that this is the most useful setup in order to study the gravity–field theory correspondence for these theories.

As we stated, a motivation to understand these correlation functions comes from an attempt to define these theories at the quantum level. In a Wilsonian setup, a field theory is renormalizable if there is a UV fixed point of the renormalization group. Otherwise we just have an effective field theory which is valid below some scale, and all possible operators that are consistent with the symmetries of the theory are generated by integrating out the heavy modes. Given the non-commutativity scale as the origin for the UV/IR correspondence, one might wonder if this approach makes any sense at all beyond the non-commutativity scale. One may need new degrees of freedom in the ultraviolet. In the Wilsonian approach, these new degrees of freedom can be integrated out and their effects will be apparent in the effective action.

The existence of this UV fixed point may be studied by looking at the universality of the singularities in the correlation functions of composite operators. As these theories are non-commutative, one can expect that as field theories they should correspond to some new universality class in the UV. Our results show that these theories are truly non-local in the variables used to study them. We find singular behavior in correlation functions at large distances in the non-commutative directions and short distances in commutative directions, even in the free field limit. These are long-range correlations in the non-commutative directions. Given these correlations, one has a very hard time imagining how to perform a ‘block spin’ renormalization procedure. The geometric picture of the RG flow as exploring shorter distances on a lattice breaks down in the four dimensional sense. Thus, non-commutative field theories are not Wilsonian in a standard sense. The passage from coordinate to momentum space is non-trivial in the sense that large distance does not necessarily correspond to small momentum.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe how to construct gauge invariant observables which are position dependent. We then describe how to extend this formalism to the construction of chiral gauge invariant observables. Algebraic details may be found in an appendix. In Section 3 we describe how to construct multi-trace operators which are position dependent, and we comment on how to interpret effective actions with insertions of these operators. The net result is that they can not be considered to be ‘local’ actions, and to change them into this form it is necessary to introduce auxiliary fields. These auxiliary fields are determined by a commutative geometry associated to the non-commutative geometry, and thus may be interpreted as auxiliary closed string states.

Next, in Section 4, we discuss quantum aspects of the insertion of single trace operators, how certain divergences may be removed and how the single trace composite operators inevitably mix with multitrace operators (if we attempt to interpret renormalization in a Wilsonian setting).

In Section 5 we study the correlation functions of two simple operators inserted at different places. We show that the correlation functions can have ultraviolet divergences at long distances on non-commutative coordinates, and short distances in the commuting coordinates. These singularities are reminiscent of dimensionally reduced theories with a continuum spectrum of massive states (such as in a non-compact compactification).

## 2 Gauge invariant observables: an algebraic approach

In a commutative field theory, we are interested in gauge invariant observables; in particular, we usually think of inserting operators at specific values of the coordinates and thus build local operators. For non-commutative field theories, there is no invariant meaning of placing an operator at $`x`$, as the coordinates do not commute.

Let us begin with a few comments on commutative field theories. Even in a (regulated) commutative field theory, one cannot place operators closer than the scale at which the regularization is performed. It is more natural instead to take operators which do not have $`\delta `$-function support at the point, but are rather smeared over a non-locality scale set by the regulator, and they are thus insensitive to the ultraviolet beyond the regularization scale. A natural operator defined near a point $`y`$ in a regulated theory, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(y)`$, is thus understood as a convolution of an operator $`𝒪(x)`$ with a distribution $`f`$ whose support is of a scale set by the regulator. Hence we write

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(y)=𝑑x𝒪(x)f(xy)$$
(1)
with $`f`$ a normalized (smooth) distribution. Removing the regulator is equivalent to localizing $`f`$ towards a distribution with $`\delta `$-function support.

Now, this construction may be carried over directly to non-commutative field theories where $`x`$ is non-commutative: the allowable functions of $`x`$ are the smooth distributions, and there is an integration operation. We introduce a distribution $`f`$ of compact support (vanishing sufficiently fast at infinity), defined through a power-series expansion and an ordering prescription. The resulting operators will be referred to as pseudo-localized, or simply by the acronym plops.

For gauge field theories, the above procedure in non-commutative variables does not work directly as $`x`$ is not gauge invariant, but may be modified very simply. We simply replace $`x_j`$ by $`\widehat{x}^j=x^j+b^{ij}A_j(x)`$, which transforms covariantly under gauge transformations (see the appendix for a more complete discussion111This replacement has been also discussed elsewhere; see Refs. .). Notice that the $`x`$ are unbounded operators and $`A`$ is compact, so the spectrum of $`\widehat{x}`$ is essentially the spectrum of $`x`$ perturbed by a small amount. Thus, any integral which converges for $`x`$ will have the same asymptotics as the integral written with $`\widehat{x}`$ replacing $`x`$.

Now since $`\widehat{x}`$ transforms covariantly under gauge transformations, we can replace

$$f(xy)f(\widehat{x}y)$$
(2)
Here $`y`$ is a parameter and is taken as a commutative variable. It is a parameter in the distribution formal power series, and may be moved around by translation $`xxa`$. Since $`\widehat{x}`$ transforms in the adjoint of the gauge group, the above procedure is well defined if we also trace over the gauge group after inserting $`f(\widehat{x}y)`$. All operators which we can integrate are then in the adjoint of the gauge group. The definition of a pseudo-local operator is thus

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_f(y)=𝑑x\text{tr}𝒪(x)f(\widehat{x}y)$$
(3)
for any $`𝒪(x)`$ which transforms in the adjoint representation, and any choice of distribution $`f`$. (The $``$-product should be understood throughout.) We will also occasionally refer to these operators as single-trace.

Now, in order to define these operators, we have had to make a choice of distribution $`f`$. The construction has the virtue that in the limit $`b0`$, we recover the gauge invariant commutative plops, and changing $`f`$ will amount to a change of regularization in the resulting commutative field theory. In general, there is an issue of overcompleteness. In practice, one would make some suitable choice of distributions $`f`$, perhaps chosen to be as localized as possible (such as a coherent state or $`\delta `$-function distribution).

We have discussed here the construction of gauge-invariant operators in position space. It is important to compare this construction to the other examples of gauge invariant observables that are known, such as those involving open Wilson loops . In fact, the Wilson line construction is a special case of the above formalism, where we take222We thank A. Hashimoto for raising this question and helping us in the computation. See also Ref. .

$$f_k(y)=\mathrm{exp}(iky).$$
(4)
Notice that $`f_k`$ is maximally non-local and gives rise to the Fourier transform necessary for a formulation in momentum space. For many applications however, it is more appropriate to work directly in coordinate space. We will see several such applications later in this paper. In the following subsection, we note that the formalism may be carried over in a simple fashion to chiral superspace.

### 2.1 Supersymmetry and Chiral observables

In this section, we demonstrate that the formalism presented above may be supersymmetrized. A chiral state is annihilated by half of the supersymmetries, say $`\overline{Q}`$. In ordinary superspace, recall that the function $`x^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }`$ is chiral, as the variation of $`x^\mu `$ under supersymmetry is compensated by the second term. Thus any power series in $`x^{},\theta `$ is annihilated by $`\overline{D}`$. This may be extended to pseudo-local operators by replacing $`x`$ by $`x^{}`$; if the operator $`𝒪`$ is chiral, then the integral

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(y,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=𝑑x𝒪(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })f(yx^{})$$
(5)
will be chiral. This is because $`\overline{D}`$ acts as a derivation, and thus satisfies the Leibnitz rule.

Now, we would like to produce chiral gauge invariant observables in non-commutative field theories. For the non-commutative case we had to modify $`x`$ to make a gauge covariant operator $`\widehat{x}`$. A naive replacement of $`x^{}x^{}+bA`$ gives us a gauge covariant operator, but we lose the chirality of the integral. However, we may build a superspace function $`\widehat{x}^{}`$ which is both gauge covariant and chiral by a simple additional modification. We will present the result in the constrained superfield formalism.

We will study this by first introducing conjugate variables so that $`\overline{D}`$ may be written in terms of a commutator. This is quite natural in the case of non-commutative geometry. The conjugate spinors will be referred to as $`\eta _\alpha `$, $`\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, and satisfy

$`\{\eta _\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}=i\delta _\alpha ^\beta `$ (6)
$`\{\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\beta }}\}=i\delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }}`$ (7)
They (anti)-commute with all the other (extended) superspace variables.

The superspace chiral derivatives become

$$D_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }=[(\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}+i(\theta \sigma ^\mu )_{\dot{\alpha }}p_\mu ),\mathrm{\Phi }]_\pm ,D_\alpha =[(\eta _\alpha +i(\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta })_\alpha p_\mu ),\mathrm{\Phi }]_\pm $$
(8)
Let us write the spinors on the right hand side of eqs. (8) as $`\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}`$, $`\eta _\alpha ^{}`$. Chiral operators are defined as those which commute with $`\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}`$. The $`\overline{\eta }^{}`$ do not commute with $`x`$, but they do commute with $`x^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }`$ and with $`\theta `$.

Covariantization procedes by introducing gauge superfields

$$\widehat{\eta }_\alpha ^{}=\eta _\alpha ^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ,\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}=\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\dot{\alpha }}\widehat{p}_\mu =p_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu $$
(9)
These are constrained by requiring that the algebra is unmodified

$$\{\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{},\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_{\dot{\beta }}^{}\}=\{\widehat{\eta }_\alpha ^{},\widehat{\eta }_\beta ^{}\}=0,\{\widehat{\eta }_\alpha ,\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}\}=2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \widehat{p}_\mu $$
(10)
We will solve these constraints directly. In the non-commutative case, we must also covariantize

$$\widehat{x}^\mu =x^\mu +b^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu $$
(11)
We will require that this is chiral

$$[\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}^{},\widehat{x}^\mu ]=0$$
(12)
and gauge covariant.

We will work at linearized order, although it is straightforward to generalize. The constraints (10) may be solved by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =[\eta _\alpha ^{},\mathrm{\Omega }]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\dot{\alpha }}=[\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]$$
(13)
We then find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =i_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\sigma }_\mu ^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }[\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{},[\eta _\alpha ^{},\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]]$$
(14)
These are standard results and are unmodified here.

The chirality constraint (12) has solution

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu =i_\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu $$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ is covariantly chiral. The superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ may be chosen such that the lowest component of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu `$ is $`A_\mu `$.

These results may be presented in the Wess-Zumino gauge; another possibility is to use a complexified gauge transformation to set $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$, the chiral gauge. In this gauge, the chirality constraint is unmodified, and we find that $`\widehat{x}^\mu =x^\mu +b^{\mu \nu }a_\nu (x^{},\theta )`$, explicitly chiral. This is covariant under a restricted class of chiral gauge transformations. In more general gauges, a gauge transformation is required to bring $`\widehat{x}^{}`$ back to this form.

These results should allow calculations to be done in supersymmetric non-commutative field theories. The single trace operators presented above are expected to correspond to supergravity fields in the large $`N`$ limit, by the AdS/CFT . Also, the formalism is important in that the renormalization properties, and existence, of interacting supersymmetric theories are expected to be in better shape.

## 3 Multi-Trace Operators and “Effective” Actions

The operators that we have discussed above are by construction single trace. We can algebraically construct multi-trace pseudo-local operators by taking products of the single trace plops. These are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{MT,f_1,f_2,\mathrm{}f_n}(y)=\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{1f_1}(y)\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{2f_2}(y)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{nf_n}(y)$$
(16)
If written in terms of integrals over the non-commutative space, this operator looks non-local as we get multiple integrals, one for each trace.333 One can construct more general multitrace pseudolocal operators by further smearing the relative insertion of the operators, but the spirit of the construction of operators is the same. This discussion is at this point classical, but we will return to quantum issues later.

It is interesting to contemplate the fate of a Wilsonian formalism in this coordinate space language. To this end, we might suppose that we have a notion of an effective action at a given momentum scale. As we evolve this scale, the generic form of the action will involve an infinite set of plops, including multi-trace operators. This is inevitable: we expect this in ordinary gauge theories and therefore in non-commutative gauge theories as well. In fact, these multi-trace operators are the source of the UV-IR correspondence and the apparent loss of a Wilsonian action.

The point is as follows. Since the effective action is non-local (in the strongest sense we are defining locality by requiring the number of non-commutative integrals to be equal to one), it is natural to attempt to make it look local at the expense of introducing new degrees of freedom. In the case of double-trace operators, this is particularly simple: the degrees of freedom are “wormhole parameters.” A simple pseudo-local double-trace operator takes the form

$$𝑑y\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{12}(y)=𝑑y𝑑x𝒪_1f_1(\widehat{x}y)𝑑x𝒪_2f_2(\widehat{x}y)$$
(17)
We may introduce auxiliary fields as Lagrange multipliers in the path integral such that the action can be written

$$𝑑yb_1(y)b_2(y)i𝑑yb_1(y)\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_1(y)ib_2(y)\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_2(y)$$
(18)
and a functional integral over the $`b(y)`$ is understood. Notice that the $`b`$ are functions of commutative variables $`y`$, and one can think of $`𝑑yb_1(y)\widehat{f}(xy)=\stackrel{~}{f}_b(\widehat{x})`$ as a new distribution with which we are convoluting the operator $`𝒪_1`$. As the $`b`$ see a commutative geometry and as they couple to single trace operators in the field theory, one can think of them as closed string auxiliary fields by combining the ideas of . This result matches nicely with the infrared divergences encountered in .

Thus the action for double-trace operators is of the form

$$𝑑yb_1(y)b_2(y)+𝑑x𝒪_1(x)\stackrel{~}{f}_{1,b_1}(\widehat{x})+𝑑x𝒪_1(x)\stackrel{~}{f}_{2,b_2}(\widehat{x})$$
(19)
which looks local from the non-commutative field theory perspective as having one integral over non-commutative space, and hence can be interpreted as a ’local’ action. Notice that in this manner, operators which we would have called non-local can be made to look local in the sense of having only one integral over the non-commutative plane at the expense of introducing new degrees of freedom.

For triple trace operators and beyond one can add extra polynomial terms in the $`b(y)`$. Upon integrating out the auxiliary fields we will be left with a power series in multitrace operators.

## 4 Understanding composite plops

The analysis we have done so far is classical: the operators $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(y)`$ need to be defined at the quantum level. In the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(y)`$ we made the substitution $`x\widehat{x}`$, which involves the connection. As the operators are all inserted at the same point (since in a single trace operator we only integrate over one variable) we expect to find divergences that would normally be associated to contact terms. The structure of these divergences is also apparent in the work of  where they were understood in terms of the diagrammatic expansion of the Wilson loop in a power series in the connection. Thus to define these operators quantum-mechanically we need to regularize the operators in some scheme. (In supersymmetric field theories these difficulties might be avoided if we use operators which are protected by supersymmetry. The formalism of Section 2.1 would be helpful in such computations.)

There are really two separate issues here. We can distinguish the singularities of the operator $`𝒪`$ (perhaps fixed via a normal ordering procedure) from that of the singularities between two single-trace operators.

In this section we will try to understand the structure of plops which have self-contractions. This is necessary if we want to understand the renormalizability of a bare action and the structure of counterterms required to render a theory finite at a given order in perturbation theory. There is a point to be mentioned here which is important. The connection enters in the definition of the operators, and if we want to calculate Feynman diagrams when we contract the connection, the propagators carry a factor of $`g^2`$. Thus, if we are renormalizing by taking power series in the couplings, only a finite number of contractions are needed at each order in $`g`$. For our calculation we will take the leading tree level contributions, and hence the connection will not play any role at all.

We begin by considering the operator $`\varphi ^2(y)`$. In a commutative theory, we might define this by point-splitting, subtracting the short-distance pole. More generally, we can write

$$\varphi (y)^2=𝑑zK(z,y)\varphi (z)\varphi (y)$$
(20)
for some suitable kernel $`K`$. For example, we could choose the kernel such that the short-distance singularity is integrable. In the non-commutative case, we interpret this as a definition of $`(\text{tr}\varphi )^2`$.

As for $`\text{tr}\varphi ^2`$, we would, at least classically, have written

$`\varphi ^2(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\varphi ^2(x)f(xy)}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑k_1𝑑k_2e^{ik_1x}e^{ik_2x}\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)f(xy)}`$ (22)
We propose that quantum mechanically, we write the same expressions. With some manipulations, we have

$$\varphi ^2(y)=𝑑x𝑑k_1𝑑k_2e^{i(k_1+k_2)x}e^{ik_1k_2}f(xy)\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)$$
(23)
As momenta are commutative parameters, we can subtract the pole in $`\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)`$ as in commutative field theory. Thus we write

$$\varphi ^2(y):=𝑑x𝑑k_1𝑑k_2e^{i(k_1+k_2)x}e^{ik_1k_2}f(xy):\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2):$$
(24)
It is important to note that composite operators thus defined already contain Moyal phases.

Other composite operators may be normal-ordered in a similar fashion and include in general both planar and non-planar subtractions. For example, consider the composite pseudo-local operator $`\varphi ^4(y)`$ (within a $`\varphi ^4`$ theory). We start with

$`\varphi ^4(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑k_3𝑑k_4\text{tr}\left[\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)\varphi (k_3)\varphi (k_4)\right]}`$ (25)
$``$ $`e^{i(k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4)y}e^{ik_1k_2+i(k_1+k_2)k_3+i(k_1+k_2+k_3)k_4}`$ (26)
For simplicity we will take the distribution $`f`$ to be a $`\delta `$-function.

After a little work, we find

$`\text{tr}(\varphi ^4)(y)`$ $`=`$ $`:\text{tr}(\varphi ^4(y)):+\text{planar contractions}`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle d^dk\left(\frac{1}{kk+1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^{1d/2}\text{tr}(\varphi (k))\text{tr}(\varphi (y+bk))e^{iky}}`$
The planar terms are proportional to $`:\text{tr}\varphi ^2(y):`$. In the non-planar term that we have written explicitly, we have dropped finite numerical constants for simplicity and taken the mass $`m0`$.

The point that we wish to emphasize here is that double-trace operators necessarily appear in the definition of composite operators. If we attempted to interpret these equations as the starting point for a renormalization group approach to composite operators, then we conclude that single trace plops mix with multi-trace plops. This same behaviour occurs if we attempt to construct a Wilsonian action–we are unable to write a local, single-trace action.

## 5 Correlation functions of plops

In this section, we will consider tree level correlation functions of pseudo-local operators. We will find that much of what is known about non-commutative field theories is already visible at tree level–one does not need to look at loop effects to uncover the relevant physics. We will consider correlation functions $`\varphi ^n(0)\overline{\varphi }^n(y)`$.444Again, we will simplify the computations by taking $`f(xy)=\delta (xy)`$. Also, we now consider complex scalar fields.

Let us first consider the correlation function with $`n=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(0)\stackrel{~}{\overline{\varphi }}(y)`$. A simple computation shows that this is planar, and thus is the same in both commutative and non-commutative theories.

Now consider the composite operator $`\varphi ^2(0)`$. As discussed in the last section, we have

$$\varphi ^2(0)=𝑑k_1𝑑k_2e^{ik_1k_2}\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)$$
(28)
Now we want to calculate the correlation between this operator and $`\overline{\varphi }^2(y)`$ which is similarly defined:

$$\overline{\varphi }^2(y)=𝑑k_1^{}𝑑k_2^{}e^{ik_1^{}k_2^{}}\overline{\varphi }(k_1^{})\overline{\varphi }(k_2^{})e^{i(k_1^{}+k_2^{})y}$$
(29)
Clearly, the correlation function has two distinct contractions. One of these is planar while for the non-planar contraction we find:

$$𝑑k_1𝑑k_2\frac{e^{2ik_1k_2}e^{i(k_1+k_2)y}}{(k_1^2+m^2)(k_2^2+m^2)}$$
(30)
Regularizing,555As is standard, the short distance regularization is done by modifying propagators $`\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha e^{\alpha (k^2+m^2)1/(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha )}`$. we can rewrite this as

$$𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta 𝑑k_1𝑑k_2e^{2ik_1k_2}e^{i(k_1+k_2)y}e^{\alpha (k_1^2+m^2)}e^{\beta (k_2^2+m^2)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\beta }}$$
(31)
Now, we do the integrals over $`k_1,k_2`$, and we separate the distance into $`a=(a_{NC},r)`$, to distinguish separation along the non-commutative directions and along the commutative directions. We will assume that there are precisely two non-commutative directions; the generalization is straightforward. As the integral is Gaussian, it is easy to perform and (modulo numerical factors) gives

$$𝑑\alpha 𝑑\beta \frac{1}{\alpha \beta +b^2}\frac{1}{(\alpha \beta )^{(d2)/2}}e^{\alpha m^2\beta m^2\frac{\alpha +\beta }{\alpha \beta +b^2}\frac{a_{NC}^2}{4}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha }+\frac{1}{\beta }\right)\left(\frac{r^2}{4}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}$$
(32)
As $`b0`$ while holding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed, this goes smoothly to the commutative field theory limit. For finite $`b`$, we can examine the behavior of the integral using a saddle-point approximation, and consider various limits. From the form of the integral it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`1/r`$ behave the same way: thus large momenta and small commutative distance are the same. Distance in the non-commutative directions behaves quite differently however. In particular, at large $`b`$, $`a_{NC}`$ no longer acts like a UV cutoff, but instead $`a_{NC}^2/4b^2`$ behaves as a mass.

The nature of the saddle point depends on whether $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are large or small with respect to the non-commutative parameter. If $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are large, then $`b`$ is not important for the evaluation of the saddle point, and the result reproduces the commutative field theory limit. This is true if $`\frac{r^2}{4}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ is large in units of the non-commutative distance.

If $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are very small, then $`b`$ is important, and the relevant saddle point is obtained by the Taylor expansion of $`\frac{\alpha +\beta }{\alpha \beta +b^2}\frac{a_{NC}^2}{4}`$ around $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$, and we get instead a contribution to the mass which is proportional to $`a_{NC}^2`$. The asymptotic form of the expression is proportional to

$$\varphi ^2(0)\overline{\varphi }^2(a,r)\frac{e^{2r\sqrt{m^2+a^2/4b^2}}}{b^2r^{d4}}$$
(33)
Thus for $`r`$ small (even when $`a_{NC}`$ is very large) the correlation function has singular behaviour no matter what the value of $`a_{NC}`$ is, although it is suppressed as we let $`a_{NC}`$ get larger.

This singularity is like the one corresponding to a $`d2`$ dimensional field theory, as if the non-commutative directions are compactified, and with an effective mass given by $`m_{eff}^2=m^2+a^2/4b^2`$. The fact that this singularity is present signals that there are long-distance correlations along the non-commutative directions. In an ordinary field theory long-distance correlations are attributed to massless modes propagating in these directions, thus it is not surprising that when we do loop diagrams we get ’infrared’ singularities that would normally be associated to the effects of propagation of such modes.

The effective two-dimensional mass associated to a mode with momentum $`k`$ along the non-commutative directions is $`m^2+k^2`$. Thus the behavior of the correlation function is associated to a mode such that $`bka`$. Indeed, for the rigid dipole picture  of the non-commutative modes, the effective distance between the ends of the dipoles at such momentum between points zero and $`a`$ can be approximately zero. This is how we can interpret the above singularity. The UV degrees of freedom are large, they grow in size with the momentum. Thus localized (regularized) operators become larger in size as we send the cutoff scale to infinity.

It should be noted that the theory is more complicated than a simple dimensional reduction however. There are still the planar graphs which behave like ordinary particle graphs in $`d`$ dimensions. The correct statement is that the degrees of freedom $`\varphi (k)`$ are dipoles.

This is perhaps the clearest way in which we can see that the theory fails to be Wilsonian. As we increase the momentum, we are not necessarily exploring shorter distances, so the connection between the regulator and the coarse graining of the geometry fails. The structure of singularities fails to be universal in the standard sense. We find UV divergences at long distances, where we expect only IR physics.

Notice that the above calculation is independent of whether the theory is supersymmetric or not. Even with a lot of supersymmetry, these strong correlations will not disappear; instead the behavior of the correlation functions will be protected by supersymmetry. If we take the cutoff to be related to a very small momentum scale with respect to the non-commutativity scale, the effects of the non-commutative parameter are unimportant, and the theory behaves like ordinary $`d`$-dimensional field theory. That is, the $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$ singularity is cut off by the regulator scale, and as $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are large compared to $`b`$, $`b`$ is not important. In this sense we can recover ordinary field theory results in the infrared if we take the momentum cutoff scale to zero. This is in accordance with the supergravity solutions corresponding to $`N=4,d=4`$ SYM on a non-commutative plane .

Clearly, the interesting behavior is for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, when one is trying to understand the ultraviolet structure of the theory. The main result here is that the singularity structure makes part of the theory behave like a dimensionally reduced field theory.

If one is to do a Wilsonian analysis at all, it might be best to consider it only along the directions that are Lorentz invariant. The non-commutative directions should be treated as being compactified on a non-compact space, in a spirit similar to the Randall-Sundrum scenarios , as the mass parameter $`a`$ is a continuous one. In this vein notice that for four dimensions, we get a singularity that behaves like $`\mathrm{log}(r)`$ at short distances. If we integrate over $`r`$ to make a term in the effective action the measure will render these terms finite, so one can still call the theory renormalizable, but not in a Wilsonian interpretation.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we have given a procedure to build gauge invariant operators on a non-commutative field theory where the operators are position dependent, that is, they have a local character. We have also extended this construction to build chiral pseudo-local gauge invariant observables in supersymmetric non-commutative field theories.

The construction of states gives an overcomplete basis of operators, and also allows us to build multi-trace pseudo-local observables. In other treatments of these multi-trace operators higher $`_n`$ products are introduced. We feel that the presentation given here is intuitively more appealing, although it is not clear that one can write an effective action economically. This depends on the choice of basis for the functions which one uses in the convolutions.

We have studied some correlation functions of these operators at the free field theory level. Already these exhibit the UV/IR correspondence. We have found that there are ‘non-planar’ contributions to correlation functions of operators which are separated by large distances in the non-commutative directions and short distance in the commutative directions which give rise to UV singularities. These behave as if the theory is (partially) dimensionally reduced. As such, the theories fail to behave like standard Wilsonian field theories, the structure of UV singularities in correlation functions of operators do not conform to the geometrical picture of block-spin renormalization. The singularities in principle can give rise to infinities and renormalization of multi-trace operators when we integrate over the position of these operators, but we have found no such behavior in four dimensions. For higher dimensional field theories one can get UV singularities this way, but the theories are already non-renormalizable and one needs to introduce new physics in the ultraviolet of the theory in any case.

Given the complicated structure of the correlation functions, one might still ask if there is some other universal singular behavior in the correlation functions which might give us some operational definition of non-commutative field theories and their renormalizability. This new structure might account for a new way to understand operator product expansions and rescue in some sense the Wilsonian approach to renormalization, which has proved so useful in other contexts, and which at this moment seems unable to cope with the problem of non-commutative field theories. These issues are currently under investigation and a more detailed account will appear elsewhere .

Acknowledgments: We wish to thank E. Fradkin, A. Hashimoto, M. van Raamsdonk, S. Shenker and L. Susskind for valuable discussions. Work supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy, grant DE-FG02-91ER40677.

## Appendix A Appendix: Algebraic notes

We are considering non-commutative field theories with spacelike non-commutativity in four dimensions. The non-commutativity is given by

$$[x^i,x^j]=ib^{ij}$$
(34)
with $`b^{ij}`$ antisymmetric and real.

It is well-known that functions are then multiplied using the Moyal product

$$f(x)g(x)=\mathrm{exp}(ib^{ij}_i_j^{})f(x)g(x^{})|_{x^{}=x}.$$
(35)
One should be careful to consider what are allowable functions on the non-commutative space. The $`x`$ are coordinates of the non-commutative space, and they generate the ring of functions. However, the $`x`$ are not in the ring of allowable functions on the space, as they correspond to unbounded non-normalizable operators. We take the allowable functions to be the ring of formal power series in the $`x`$ which are convergent and decay sufficiently fast at infinity, that is, a Schwarz space for the algebra generated by the $`x`$. For this to be a $`^{}`$ algebra, we need to complete it. The functions can be represented by operators in a Hilbert space $``$, and they are all compact. The completion is done with the following norm

$$f,g=d^2xf^{}(x)g(x)=\text{tr}_{}(\widehat{f}^{}\widehat{g})$$
(36)
where $`\widehat{f},\widehat{g}`$ are the representative operators of the functions $`f,g`$. We require $`|f|<\mathrm{}`$ with the above norm, so the operators in the ring of functions are square integrable. In particular, the ring of operators contains all finite matrices.

We denote by $`G`$ a finite Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, which is finite dimensional. On a commutative space $``$ we can consider tensoring the algebra of smooth functions on $``$ with $`𝒢`$. We call these the infinitesimal gauge transformations. As the functions commute, the commutator of two infinitesimal gauge transformations closes on the Lie algebra of infinitesimal gauge transformations.

On a non-commutative space one can try to mimic this construction, but one runs into problems. Let us consider this possibility. The infinitesimal gauge transformations are given by sums of the form

$$(x)=\underset{a}{}f_a(x)_a=f_a(x)_a$$
(37)
with $`_a`$ the generators of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. We think of $`(x)`$ as an operator acting on some Hilbert space and the Lie bracket is the commutator of two of these. We must interpret $``$ in terms of the enveloping algebra of $`𝒢`$ in order to make sense of the product.

The commutator of two of these generators is given by

$`[,^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`f_a(x)_af_b^{}(x)_bf_b^{}(x)_bf_a(x)_a`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f_a(x)f_b^{}(x)+f_b^{}(x)f_a(x))[_a,_b]`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f_a(x)f_b^{}(x)f_b^{}(x)f_a(x))(\{_a,_b\})`$
now, $`[_a,_b]=f_{abc}_c`$, so the first term in the above expression is in the Lie algebra, but the second one can only be in the Lie algebra if $`\{_a,_b\}𝒢`$. Usually this term belongs to the enveloping algebra of $`𝒢`$, but not to the Lie algebra and thus there is a technical problem in defining non-commutative gauge theories.

This problem may be resolved by using the enveloping algebra of $`𝒢`$ and requiring a finiteness condition on the representation. For simple $`𝒢`$ it acts on the field as the ring of $`n\times n`$ matrices for some $`n`$, and the gauge group is $`U(n)`$.666Other gauge groups may also be obtained, but they require a more complicated structure

Fields transform as irreducible representations of the Lie algebra either by matrix multiplication on the left or the right. Thus the only allowable representations have to be either left modules of the ring of $`n\times n`$ matrices tensored with the algebra of allowable functions, or they are right modules or bimodules of this algebra. That is, the fields transform in the fundamental, antifundamental or adjoint of the gauge group.

If we forego the $`𝒢`$ simple condition, then one can get product groups $`_iU(n_i)`$. For each $`U(n_i)`$ factor a field can transform as a left module or a right module, but it cannot be a left module under two of the $`U(n_i)`$, as the $`x`$ do not commute. Thus matter can only transform in adjoints under one group, and as left-right modules under two different gauge groups. This is exactly the type of spectrum that one can get for D-branes at singularities, so any non-commutative field theory is described by some quiver diagram (not necessarily associated to an orbifold). For each node in the quiver diagram we have an associated projector $`P_i`$ which commutes with the Lie algebra of gauge transformations, and projects onto the direct summand associated to the node.

The gauge transformations thus act on fields as

$$\delta \varphi =_L\varphi \varphi _R$$
(41)
where $`L,R`$ denotes the transformation under the gauge group operating on the left or right of the field $`\varphi `$ belonging to the $`(n_L,\overline{n}_R)`$ representation of the gauge group, and the matrix multiplication is implicit.

The covariant derivative will be given by a commutator

$$D_j\varphi =_j\varphi [iA_j,\varphi ]$$
(42)
with $`A_j`$ a Lie algebra valued allowable function. This is a compact way of writing

$$D_j\varphi =_j\varphi iA_{jL}\varphi +i\varphi A_{jR}$$
(43)
In terms of the projectors for the nodes in the quiver diagram associated to the field theory we have

$$P_L\varphi =\varphi P_R=\varphi $$
(44)
for a field $`\varphi `$ which corresponds to an arrow from the node associated to $`P_L`$ to the node associated to $`P_R`$ and also we have

$$A_L=P_LA=AP_L$$
(45)
for the connections and we can do similarly for gauge transformations.

Consider the case where the only non-trivial commutation relation is $`[x^2,x^3]=ib`$. The derivative operators in the $`2,3`$-directions are equivalent to commutators

$`D_3\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ib}}[\varphi ,x_2+bA_3]`$ (46)
$`D_2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ib}}[\varphi ,x_3bA_2]`$ (47)
The operators $`\widehat{x}^\mu =x^\mu +b^{\mu \nu }A_\nu `$ are gauge covariant (they transform in the adjoint representation), which one may show explicitly by direct computation. The non-homogeneous term in the transformation of $`A`$ is compensated because $`x`$ does not commute with the gauge transformations. The commutator of these gives us

$$[\widehat{x}_2,\widehat{x}_3]=ibib^2F_{23}$$
(48)
with $`F`$ the curvature of the gauge group in the $`2,3`$ directions, which is an allowable function. It can be shown that

$$[D_2,D_3](\varphi )=i\left(F_{23}\varphi \varphi F_{23}\right)$$
(49)
The variables $`\widehat{x}_j`$ are the tools that we need to build gauge invariant observables.


format: text

text:
# Probing the Evolution of Gas Mass Fraction with Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect

## 1. Introduction

Clusters of galaxies, being perhaps the largest gravitationally bound structures in the universe, are expected to contain a significant amount of baryons of the universe. Moreover, due to their large angular sizes, observational estimates of their total mass $`M_T`$, the gas mass $`M_g`$ and hence the gas mass fraction ($`f_g`$ $`=\frac{M_g}{M_T}`$) are easier. These estimates can be used as probes of large scale structure and underlying cosmological models. For example, the cluster $`f_g`$ would give a lower limit to the universal baryon fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Determination of $`f_g`$ has been done by numerous people (White & Fabian, 1995; Mohr et al. 1999; Sadat & Blanchard, 2001) and the values are in agreement within the observational scatter. A point to be noted here is that the estimated $`f_g`$ depends on the distance to the cluster (i.e $`f_g`$ $`d_{ang}^{3/2}`$ ). Hence, if $`f_g`$ is assumed to be constant, then in principle, one can use the ‘apparent’ evolution of $`f_g`$ over a large redshift range to constrain cosmological models (Sasaki 1996 ).

The question as to whether there is any evolution (or constancy) of gas mass fraction, however, is still debatable, with claims made either way. For example, Schindler (1999) has investigated a sample of distant clusters with redshifts between 0.3 to 1 and conclude that there is no evolution of the gas mass fraction. Similar conclusion has been drawn by Grego et al. (2000). On the contrary, Ettori and Fabian (1999) have looked at 36 high-luminosity clusters, and find evolution in their gas mass fraction (in both sCDM and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universes). See also David et al. , 1995; Tsuru et al. 1997; Allen & Fabian, 1998; Mohr et al. 1999). Observations suggest that, though $`f_g`$ of massive clusters ($`T_e\stackrel{>}{_{}}5KeV`$) appears to be constant, low mass clusters with shallower potential wells may have lost gas due to preheating and/or post-collapse energy input (David et al. 1990, 1995; Ponman et al. 1996; Bialek et al. 2000). It is also well known that ICM is not entirely primordial and there is probably continuous infall of gas, thereby, increasing $`f_g`$ with time. Thus, there is considerable debate regarding the evolution of gas mass fraction.

The intracluster medium (ICM) has been probed mainly through X-ray observations, but also through the so called Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (Zel’dovich & Sunyaev, 1969) in the last decade (see Birkinshaw 1999 for a review). The SZE effect from clusters is a spectral distortion of the CMB photons due to inverse Compton scattering by the hot ICM electrons, with its magnitude proportional to the Compton $`y`$-parameter, given by $`y=\frac{k_B\sigma _T}{m_ec^2}n_eT_e𝑑l`$. Here, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzman constant, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson scattering cross section, $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, and $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$ are the ICM electron density and the temperature. Using bolometric SZE measurements, the $`f_g`$ has been obtained for a number of clusters (see Birkinshaw 1999). Recently, Grego et al. (2000) have made interferometric observations of SZE from a sample of 18 clusters. A major advantage of SZE over X-ray measurements is, SZE does not suffer from the $`(1+z)^4`$ ‘cosmological dimming’, which makes SZE an useful probe of evolution of cluster gas mass fraction.

Other than the targeted SZE observations, non-targeted ‘blank sky’ surveys of SZE are one of the main aims of future satellite and ground based small angular scale observations (Holder & Carlstrom, 1999; or with AMiBA ). Once the power spectrum is extracted from observations, comparison can be made with theory, to constrain cosmological parameters and relevant cluster scale physics. The SZE power spectrum as a cosmological probe has been well studied (Refregier et al. , 1999; Komatsu & Kitayama, 1999), although its use as a probe of ICM has seldom been looked at.

Keeping such surveys in mind, in this Letter, we look at the SZE power spectrum as a probe of the ICM. We show it to be a very sensitive probe of the evolution (or constancy) of $`f_g`$ . Measurements of the primary anisotropy would give us ‘precise’ values of cosmological parameters (like $`h,\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$). Hence, for our calculations, we assume that we know the values of cosmological parameters and do not worry about their effect on the SZE power spectrum. Any feature of the SZE power spectrum is attributed to specific cluster physics (like gas content). We note that this method of probing $`f_g`$ is not biased from any selection effect that can occur while doing pointed SZE observations of X-ray selected clusters of galaxies, and hence is more desirable.

Current observations of primary CMB anisotropies suggest a flat universe with a cosmological constant (Padmanabhan and Sethi, 2000). For our calculations, we take a flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35,\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$ and $`h=0.65`$ as our fiducial model.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we discuss the distribution of clusters and model the cluster parameters. In §3, we compute the Poisson and clustering power spectrum from SZE and, finally, we discuss our results and conclude in §4..

## 2. The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect power spectrum

### 2.1. Distributing the galaxy clusters

We set up an ensemble of galaxy clusters with masses between $`10^{13}M10^{16}`$ M, using the abundance of collapsed objects as predicted by a modified version of the Press-Schechter (PS) mass function (Press & Schechter 1974) given by Sheth and Tormen (1999). The lower mass cutoff signifies the mass for which one expects a well developed ICM. The gas mass is supposed to sit in the halo potential and are distributed in the same manner. Note, the results are not sensitive to either lower or upper cutoff. We probe up to redshifts of 5. Most of the power, however, comes from objects distributed at $`z\stackrel{<}{_{}}1`$..

We use the transfer function of Bardeen et al. (1986), with the shape parameter given by Sugiyama (1995) and the Harrison - Zel’dovich primordial spectrum to calculate the matter power spectrum $`P_m`$(k). The resulting $`COBEFIRAS`$ normalised (Bunn & White, 1997) mass variance ($`\sigma _8`$) is 0.9 for our fiducial model.

### 2.2. Modelling the cluster gas

We assume the ICM to follow a $`\beta `$-profile with $`\beta =2/3`$ for simplicity. The other physical parameters of the clusters are determined using the virial theorem and spherical collapse model. We closely follow Colafrancesco & Vittorio (1994) in our modelling. We have for the gas density, $`n_e(r)=n_{e,0}\left(1+\frac{r^2}{r_c^2}\right)^{3\beta /2}.`$ We take the gas to be extended up to $`R_v=pr_c`$ with $`p=10`$. The central gas density, $`n_{e,0}`$ is given by $`n_{e,0}=f_g\frac{2\rho _0}{m_p(1+X)}`$ where $`X=0.76`$ is the average proton mass fraction and $`\rho _0`$ is the central gas mass density. To account for the fact that there is a final cutoff in the gas distribution we introduce a Gaussian filter at the cluster edge $`R_v`$ given by $`n_e(r)n_e(r)e^{r^2/\xi R_v^2}`$, where $`\xi =4/\pi `$ is the fudge factor.

We parametrize the gas mass fraction as

$$f_g=f_{g0}\left(1+z\right)^s\left(\frac{M}{10^{15}h^1M_{}}\right)^k,$$
(1)
where the normalization is taken to be $`f_{g0}=0.15`$, is based on local rich clusters. We look at combinations of both mass and redshift dependence for a range of evolutionary models. In particular, we look at a case of strong evolution given by $`k=0.5,s=1`$ (Colafrancesco & Vittorio, 1994); $`k=0.1,s=0.5`$ (as suggested by Ettori and Fabian, 1999); $`k=0.1,s=0.1`$ (weak evolution); $`k=0`$ (no mass dependence) and $`s=0`$ (no redshift dependence).

For the core radius $`r_c`$ and the temperature, we use

$`r_c(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,M,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1.69h^1Mpc}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+z}}\times `$
$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^{15}h^1M_{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{178}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_c}}\right]^{1/3},`$
$$k_BT_e=7.76\beta ^1\left(\frac{M}{10^{15}h^1M_{}}\right)^{2/3}(1+z)KeV.$$
(3)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)`$ is the cluster overdensity relative to the background.

Putting everything in, we have the temperature distortion to be $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(\theta )}{T_{\mathrm{cmb}}}=g(x)y(\theta )`$, with

$$y(\theta )=\left(\frac{\sigma _Tn_{e0}r_\mathrm{c}k_\mathrm{B}T_e}{m_ec^2}\right)\times \frac{\pi e^{1/\xi p^2}}{\sqrt{1+\left(\theta /\theta _\mathrm{c}\right)^2}}\mathrm{Erfc}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+(\theta /\theta _\mathrm{c})^2}{\xi p^2}}\right).$$
(4)
The angular core radius $`\theta _c=r_c/d_{ang}`$. The spectral form of the thermal SZ effect is given by

$$g(x)=\frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x1)^2}\left[xcoth(x/2)4\right],$$
(5)
where $`x=h\nu /k_BT_{cmb}`$. This specific spectral dependence of the thermal SZ effect can be used to separate it out from other CMB anisotropies (Cooray et al. , 2000).

## 3. Computing the power spectrum

The fluctuations of the CMB temperature produced by SZE can be quantified by their spherical harmonic coefficients $`a_{lm}`$, which can be defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(𝐧)=T_0^1_{lm}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(𝐧)`$. The angular power spectrum of SZE is then given by $`C_l=<|a_{lm}|^2>`$, the brackets denoting an ensemble average. The power spectrum for the Poisson distribution of objects, can then be written as (Cole & Kaiser 1988, Peebles 1980)

$$C_l^{Poisson}=_0^{z_{max}}𝑑z\frac{dV(z)}{dz}_{M_{min}}^{M_{max}}𝑑M\frac{dn(M,z_{in})}{dM}|y_l(M,z)|^2,$$
(6)
where $`V(z)`$ is the comoving volume and $`dn/dM`$ is the number density of objects.

Since these fluctuations occur at very small angular scales, we can use the small angle approximation of Legendre transformation and write $`y_l`$ as the angular Fourier transform of $`y(\theta )`$ as $`y_l=2\pi y(\theta )J_0[(l+1/2])\theta ]\theta d\theta `$ (Peebles 1980, Molnar & Birkinshaw 2000).

In addition to Poisson power spectra, one would expect contribution to a ‘correlation power spectrum’ from the clustering of the galaxy clusters. Following Komatsu and Kitayama (1999), we estimate the clustering angular power spectrum as

$`C_l^{Clustering}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{z_{max}}}dz{\displaystyle \frac{dV(z)}{dz}}P_m\times `$
$`\left[{\displaystyle _{M_{min}}^{M_{max}}}𝑑M{\displaystyle \frac{dn(M,z_{in})}{dM}}b(M,z_{in})y_l(M,z)\right]^2,`$
where $`b(M,z)`$ is the time dependent linear bias factor. The matter power spectrum, $`P_m(k,z)`$, is related to the power spectrum of cluster correlation function $`P_c(k,M1,M2,z)`$ through the bias, i.e $`P_c(k,M1,M2,z)=b(M1,z)b(M2,z)D^2(z)P_m(k,z=0)`$ where we adopt $`b(M,z)`$ given by $`b(M,z)=(1+0.5/\nu ^4)^{0.060.02n}(1+(\nu ^21)/\delta _c)`$ (Jing 1999 for details). This expression for the bias factor matches accurately the results of N-body simulations for a wide range in mass. In the above equation $`D(z)`$ is the linear growth factor of density fluctuation, $`\delta _c=1.68`$ and $`\nu =\delta _c/\sigma (M)`$.

## 4. Results and Discussions

We study the power spectrum of SZE from clusters of galaxies, under the assumption of a ‘precise’ and ‘a priori’ knowledge of the cosmological parameters. We also assume that in the $`l`$-range of relevance, thermal SZE from clusters of galaxies are the dominant contributors to the temperature anisotropy. The other secondary anisotropies are either smaller in strength or contribute at even higher $`l^{}s`$ or have different spectral dependence (Aghanim et al. , 2000; Majumdar et al. , 2000).

We have plotted the Poisson SZE power spectrum in Fig1, left panel. Clearly, the primary feature distinguishing a non-evolutionary constant $`f_g`$ model from an evolutionary one is the position of the peak. The model with a constant $`f_g`$ peaks at a higher $`l`$-value and also has greater power. The constant $`f_g`$ model peaks at $`l4000`$. This result is in agreement with that of Komatsu & Kitayama (1999). If one assumes that there is no evolution of $`f_g`$ with redshift (i.e s=0), the peak is at $`l1100`$, whereas in the case of no dependence on mass (k=0), the peak is at $`l2500`$. Based on EMSS data (David et al. , 1990), Colafrancesco & Vittorio (1994) (and also Molnar & Birkinshaw 2000) model $`f_g`$ with k=0.5 & s=1. For this case, we see that the turnover is at a very low $`l900`$. Assuming a mild evolution (k=0.1, s=0.1), we get the peak at $`l2100`$. We also show results for (k=0.5, s=0.5) and (k=0.1, s=0.5). The last parametrization is based on the recent analysis of $`ROSAT`$ data by Ettori & Fabian (1999). It is evident that the difference, in the $`l`$-value of the peak of the constant $`f_g`$ scenario from an evolutionary one, can range between $`l15003200`$.. The position of the peak thus is a strong distcriminatory signature of any evolution of $`f_g`$ .

It is easy to understand the shift in the peak of the SZE power spectrum. Let us consider the case s=0, i.e. $`f_g`$ depends only on total mass. From Eqn.(1), this means an enhanced reduction of $`f_g`$ of smaller mass clusters relative to the larger masses and so a reduction of power at larger $`l^{}s`$, (since smaller masses contribute at larger $`l`$). Hence, the peak shifts to a lower $`l`$. For the case k=0, (i.e only redshift dependence), we now have structures at high $`z`$ contributing less to the power (than without a redshift dependence). Since from PS formalism, less massive structures are more abundant at high $`z`$, this negative dependence of $`f_g`$ on redshift cuts off their contribution more than the more massive clusters. Hence, once again there is less power at high $`l`$ and the peak shifts to lower $`l`$-value. The parametrization of Eqn. (1) affects the larger masses less, as evident from almost equal power seen at $`l\stackrel{<}{_{}}600`$, for all models. The net effect is a reduction of power at smaller angular scales, and hence a shift in the position of the peak to a smaller multipole value.

We note that, these results are irrespective of the arguments given (see Rines et al. , 1999) to explain any possible evolution of $`f_g`$ . In their case, they assume $`f_g`$ to be constant and relies on the cosmology to change the angular diameter distance, so that there is an ‘apparent’ change in $`f_g`$ . In such a case, if there is ‘actually’ even a slight evolution of $`f_g`$ , then one can still account for it with a non-evolutionary model, by simply changing the cosmological parameters. Our method does not assume a priori any constancy (or evolution) of $`f_g`$ and tries to look for it.

In Fig1, right panel, we show the SZE clustering power spectrum. For all models, it falls of at a smaller $`l`$ w.r.t Poisson power spectrum. Since for clustering, the peak depends on the average inter-cluster separation, which is fixed once the cosmology is fixed, there is no appreciable spread of the peaks in $`l`$-space. The only difference is in their relative power w.r.t each other which depends on the total gas mass available to distort the CMB. Addition of the clustering power spectrum to the Poisson case results in slight shift of the peaks to lower $`l`$’s.

It maybe possible to measure the power spectrum of SZE with the ongoing and future high angular resolution CMB observations. In principle, observations with SUZIE, OVRO, BIMA and ATCA can probe the range in $`l`$ from $`10007000`$ and a frequency range of $`2350`$ GHz. The SZE power spectrum would also be measured with increased precision by the proposed ALMA and AMiBA (which is geared for blank sky surveys).

Finally, let us comment on the validity and robustness of our results. In Fig2, we show results for an open universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.35,h=0.65`$). It is clearly seen that the difference in the peak position of constant $`f_g`$ and evolutionary models remain far apart (Infact, for same parameters of $`k=0.5,s=1`$, the difference increases to $`4500`$ from that of $`3000`$ in a flat universe). It is seen that the turnover of the SZE power spectrum is insensitive to the mass cutoff, since main contribution to the anisotropy comes from clusters with $`10^{14}M_{}<M<10^{15}M_{}`$. In Fig2, we also indicate the effect of having a more compact gas distribution with $`p=7`$. We see that shift in the peaks are negligible (though the height is reduced a little) and an uncertainty as to how far the gas extends is not major. The use of a single $`\beta `$ to model the full gas distribution introduces little error, though a $`\beta `$-model fits the inner cluster regions better. This is because the major contribution to the anisotropy comes from around the core region, and increasing $`\beta `$ slightly decreases the overall distortion, without touching the peak. Also, a modified $`MT`$ relation (more suitable for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) does not change the conclusions of this paper (although amplitude of distortion slightly changes). For a more detailed analysis, however, one should take better observationally supported gas density and temperature profiles (see Yoshikawa & Suto, 1999). These points will be discussed in greater detail in a future publication.

In conclusion, we have computed the angular power spectrum of SZE from clusters of galaxies. We have shown the position of the peak of the power spectrum to bear a strong discriminatory signature of different $`f_g`$ models. One of the goals of arc minute scale observations of the CMB anisotropy is to measure the SZE power spectrum from blank sky surveys. Such observational results can be used to constrain $`f_g`$ models. This also has the added advantage of being devoid of uncertainties that can creep in through ‘selection biases’ in estimating the $`f_g`$ using pointed studies of X-ray selected galaxy cluster. Our method, thus, provides a powerful probe of evolution (or constancy) of gas mass fraction and can potentially resolve the decade long debate.

The author wishes to thank Joe Mohr and Biman Nath for critical comments, Sunita Nair and Dipankar Bhattacharya for valuable suggestions and Pijush Bhattacharjee for encouragements. He also wishes to thank the Raman Reseach Institute, Bangalore. After the completion of this work, we learnt about a complimentary work by Carlstrom & Holder (2001) which looks at changes in gas profiles due to preheating and its effect on SZE.


text:
# A Method for Deriving the Dirac Equation from the Relativistic Newton’s Second Law

## Abstract

The derivation becomes possible when we find a new formalism which connects the relativistic mechanics with the quantum mechanics. In this paper, we explore the quantum wave nature from the Newtonian mechanics by using a concept: velocity field. At first, we rewrite the relativistic Newton’s second law as a field equation in terms of the velocity field, which directly reveals a new relationship connecting to the quantum mechanics. Next, we show that the Dirac equation can be derived from the field equation in a rigorous and consistent manner.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Bz, 03.65.Pm, 11.10.Cd

In the past century, many attempts were made to address to understand the quantum wave nature from the classical mechanics, however, much of the connection with the classical physics is rather indirect. In this paper, we propose a concept: velocity field, and show that the Dirac equation may be derived from the relativistic Newton’s second law in terms of the velocity field in a rigorous manner.

According to the Newtonian mechanics, in a hydrogen atom, the single electron revolves in an orbit about the nucleus, its motion can be described with its position in an inertial Cartesian coordinate System $`S:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=ict)`$. As the time elapses, the electron draws a spiral path (or orbit), as shown in Fig.1(a) in imagination.

If the reference frame $`S`$ rotates through an angle about the $`x_2`$-axis in Fig.1(a), becomes a new reference frame $`S^{}`$, there will be a Lorentz transformation linking the frames $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. Then in the frame $`S^{}`$, the spiral path of the electron tilts with respect to the $`x_4^{}`$-axis with the angle as shown in Fig.1(b). At one moment, for example, $`t_4^{}=t_0`$ moment, the spiral path pierces many points at the plane $`t_4^{}=t_0`$ , for example, the points labeled $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ in Fig.1(b), these points indicate that the electron can appear at many points at the time $`t_0`$, in agreement with the concept of the probability in quantum mechanics. This situation gives us a hint for deriving quantum wave nature from the Newtonian mechanics.

Because the electron pierces the plane $`t_4^{}=t_0`$ with 4-vector velocity $`u`$, at every pierced point we can label a local 4-vector velocity . The pierced points may be numerous if the path winds up itself into a cell about the nucleus (due to a nonlinear effect in a sense), then the 4-vector velocities at the pierced points form a 4-vector velocity field. It is noted that the observation plane selected for the piercing can be taken at an arbitrary orientation, so the 4-vector velocity field may be expressed in general as $`u(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=ict)`$, i.e. the velocity $`u`$ is of a function of position.

At every point in the reference frame $`S^{}`$ the electron satisfies the relativistic Newton’s second law

$$m\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu $$
(1)
the notations consist with the convention. Since the Cartesian coordinate system is a frame of reference whose axes are orthogonal to one another, there is no distinction between covariant and contravariant components, only subscripts need be used. Here and below, summation over twice repeated indices is implied in all case, Greek indices will take on the values 1,2,3,4, and regarding the mass $`m`$ as a constant. As mentioned above, the 4-vector velocity $`u`$ can be regarded as a 4-vector velocity field, then

$$\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{u_\mu }{x_\nu }\frac{dx_\nu }{d\tau }=u_\nu _\nu u_\mu $$
(2)
$$qF_{\mu \nu }u_\nu =qu_\nu (_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )$$
(3)
Substituting them back into Eq.(1), and re-arranging these terms, we obtain

$`u_\nu _\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (qA_\nu )`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mu_\nu u_\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu (mc^2)`$
$`=`$ $`u_\nu _\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )`$
Using the notation

$$K_{\mu \nu }=_\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )_\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )$$
(5)
Eq.(4) is given by

$$u_\nu K_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(6)
Because $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ contains the variables $`_\mu u_\nu `$, $`_\mu A_\nu `$, $`_\nu u_\mu `$ and $`_\nu A_\mu `$ which are independent from $`u_\nu `$, then a solution satisfying Eq.(6) is of

$`K_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (7)
$`_\mu (mu_\nu +qA_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu (mu_\mu +qA_\mu )`$ (8)
The above equation allows us to introduce a potential function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in mathematics, further set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi `$, we obtain a very important equation

$$(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )\psi =i\mathrm{}_\mu \psi $$
(9)
where $`\psi `$ representing the wave nature may be a complex mathematical function, its physical meanings will be determined from experiments after the introduction of the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$.

Multiplying the two sides of the following familiar equation by $`\psi `$

$$m^2c^2=m^2u_\mu u_\mu $$
(10)
which is valid at every point in the 4-vector velocity field, and using Eq.(9), we obtain

$`m^2c^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`mu_\mu (i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi `$ (11)
$`=`$ $`(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(mu_\mu \psi )[i\mathrm{}\psi _\mu (mu_\mu )]`$
$`=`$ $`(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi `$
$`[i\mathrm{}\psi _\mu (mu_\mu )]`$
According to the continuity condition for the electron motion

$$_\mu (mu_\mu )=0$$
(12)
we have

$$m^2c^2\psi =(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi $$
(13)
It is known as the Klein-Gordon equation.

On the condition of non-relativity, the Schrodinger equation can be derived from the Klein-Gordon equation (P.469).

However, we must admit that we are careless when we use the continuity condition Eq.(12), because, from Eq.(9) we obtain

$$_\mu (mu_\mu )=_\mu (i\mathrm{}_\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi qA_\mu )=i\mathrm{}_\mu _\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi $$
(14)
where we have used the Lorentz gauge condition. Thus from Eq.(10) to Eq.(11) we obtain

$`m^2c^2\psi `$ $`=`$ $`(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )(i\mathrm{}_\mu qA_\mu )\psi `$ (15)
$`+\mathrm{}^2\psi _\mu _\mu \mathrm{ln}\psi `$
This is of a complete wave equation for describing accurately the motion of the electron. The Klein-Gordon equation is a linear equation so that the principle of superposition remains valid, however with the addition of the last term of Eq.(15), Eq.(15) turns to display chaos.

In the following we shall show the Dirac equation from Eq.(9) and Eq.(10). From Eq.(9), the wave function can be given in integral form by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi =_{x_0}^x(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu +\theta $$
(16)
where $`\theta `$ is an integral constant, $`x_0`$ and $`x`$ are the initial and final points of the integral with an arbitrary integral path. Since the Maxwell’s equations are gauge invariant, Eq.(9) should preserve invariant form under a gauge transformation specified by

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +_\mu \chi ,\psi ^{^{}}\psi $$
(17)
where $`\chi `$ is an arbitrary function. Then Eq.(16) under the gauge transformation is given by

$`\psi ^{^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}(mu_\mu +qA_\mu )𝑑x_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\theta \right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}q\chi \right\}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\psi \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}q\chi \right\}`$
The situation in which a wave function can be changed in a certain way without leading to any observable effects is precisely what is entailed by a symmetry or invariant principle in quantum mechanics. Here we emphasize that the invariance of velocity field is hold for the gauge transformation.

Suppose there is a family of wave functions $`\psi ^{(j)},j=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N,`$ which correspond to the same velocity field denoted by $`P_\mu =mu_\mu `$, they are distinguishable from their different phase angles $`\theta `$ as in Eq.(16). Then Eq.(10) can be given by

$$0=P_\mu P_\mu \psi ^{(j)}\psi ^{(j)}+m^2c^2\psi ^{(j)}\psi ^{(j)}$$
(19)
Suppose there are matrices $`a_\mu `$ which satisfy

$$a_{\nu lj}a_{\mu jk}+a_{\mu lj}a_{\nu jk}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{lk}$$
(20)
then Eq.(19) can be rewritten as

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`a_{\mu kj}a_{\mu jk}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}`$
$`+(a_{\nu lj}a_{\mu jk}+a_{\mu lj}a_{\nu jk})P_\nu \psi ^{(l)}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}|_{\nu \mu ,when\nu =\mu ,lk}`$
$`+mc\psi ^{(j)}mc\psi ^{(j)}`$
$`=`$ $`[a_{\nu lj}P_\nu \psi ^{(l)}+i\delta _{lj}mc\psi ^{(l)}][a_{\mu jk}P_\mu \psi ^{(k)}i\delta _{jk}mc\psi ^{(k)}]`$
Where $`\delta _{jk}`$ is the Kronecker delta function, $`j,k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. For the above equation there is a special solution given by

$$[a_{\mu jk}P_\mu i\delta _{jk}mc]\psi ^{(k)}=0$$
(22)
There are many solutions for $`a_\mu `$ which satisfy Eq.(20), we select a set of $`a_\mu `$ as

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`4,a_\mu =\gamma _\mu (\mu =1,2,3,4)`$ (23)
$`\gamma _n`$ $`=`$ $`i\beta \alpha _n(n=1,2,3),\gamma _4=\beta `$ (24)
where $`\gamma _\mu ,\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the matrices defined in the Dirac algebra(P.557). Substituting them into Eq.(22), we obtain

$$[ic(i\mathrm{}_4qA_4)+c\alpha _n(i\mathrm{}_nqA_n)+\beta mc^2]\psi =0$$
(25)
where $`\psi `$ is an one-column matrix about $`\psi ^{(k)}`$.

Let index $`s`$ denote velocity field, then $`\psi _s(x)`$ whose four component functions correspond to the same velocity field $`s`$ may be regarded as the eigenfunction of the velocity field $`s`$, it may be different from the eigenfunction of energy. Because the velocity field is an observable in a physical system, in quantum mechanics we know that $`\psi _s(x)`$ constitute a complete basis in which arbitrary function $`\varphi (x)`$ can be expanded in terms of them

$$\varphi (x)=C(s)\psi _s(x)𝑑s$$
(26)
Obviously, $`\varphi (x)`$ satisfies Eq.(25). Eq.(25) is well known as the Dirac equation.

Alternatively, another method to show the Dirac equation is more traditional: At first, we show the Dirac equation of free particle by employing plane waves, we easily obtain Eq.(25) on the condition of $`A_\mu =0`$; Next, adding electromagnetic field, plane waves are valid in any finite small volume with the momentum of Eq.(9) when we regard the field to be uniform in the volume, so the Dirac equation Eq.(25) is valid in the volume even if $`A_\mu 0`$, plane waves constitute a complete basis in the volume; Third, the finite small volume can be chosen to locate at anywhere, then anywhere have the same complete basis, therefore the Dirac equation Eq.(25) is valid at anywhere.

Of course, on the condition of non-relativity, the Schrodinger equation can be derived from the Dirac equation (P.479).

By further calculation, The Dirac equation can arrive at the Klein-Gordon equation with an additional term which represents the effect of spin, this term is just the last term in Eq.(14) in a sense.

But, do not forget that the Dirac equation is a special solution of Eq.(LABEL:20), therefore we believe there are some quantum effects beyond the Dirac equation.

We do not know exactly what kind of the path of the electron in a hydrogen atom is, so the illustration of Fig.1 is an imaginary one for visualizing the motion of the electron. But we know that the electron path will pierce many points at any observation time plane like $`t_4^{}=t_0`$ for arbitrary reference frame $`S^{}`$ if the path or orbit exists in the 4-dimensional space-time, the points may be numerous. Therefore there is a 4-vector velocity field for the motion of the electron. The 4-vector velocity field is a key concept for our deduction.

It follows from Eq.(9) that the path of particle is analogous to ”lines of electric force” in 4-dimensional space-time. In the case that the Klein-Gordon equation is valid, i.e. Eq.(12) is valid, at any point, the path can have but one direction (i.e. the local 4-vector velocity direction), hence only one path can pass through each point of the space-time. In other words, the path never intersects itself when it winds up itself into a cell about the nucleus. No path originates or terminates in the space-time. But, in general, the divergence of the 4-vector velocity field does not equal to zero, as indicated in Eq.(14).

In the Minkowski’s space, every particle has its 4-vector velocity with the same magnitude $`|u|=ic`$. We now consider a situation where the electron revolves about the nucleus in the 2D plane $`x_1x_4`$ as shown in Fig.2. The first question: how the electron surpasses the nucleus when both the electron and nucleus have their own 4-vector velocities with the same magnitude $`|u|=ic`$ ? According to the theorem of relativistic addition of velocities, when the electron revolves the nucleus at the light speed with respect to the nucleus, no matter what speed of the nucleus is, the electron speed seem still being at the light speed in laboratory reference system. The second question: the electron will intersects itself path in the plane, for example, point P in Fig.2, how to explain ? Certainly, because of the intersection, the electron collides with itself, there is the divergence of 4-vector velocity field at every point, as indicated by Eq.(14). This new character profoundly accounts for the quantum wave natures such as spin effect.

In conclusion, the path of the electron of hydrogen atom should wind up itself into a cell about the nucleus in 4-dimensional space-time, therefore there is a 4-vector velocity field for describing the motion of the electron. In terms of the 4-vector velocity field, the relativistic Newton’s second law can be rewritten as a wave field equation. By this, the Klein-Gordon equation, Schrodinger equation and Dirac equation can be derived from the relativistic Newtonian mechanics on different conditions, respectively.