text:
# Noise limits in matter-wave interferometry using degenerate quantum gases.

## Abstract

We analyze the phase resolution limit of a Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer whose input consists of degenerate quantum gases of either bosons or fermions. For degenerate gases, the number of atoms within one de Broglie wavelength is larger than unity, so that atom-atom interactions and quantum statistics are no longer negligible. We show that for equal atom numbers, the phase resolution achievable with fermions is noticeably better than for interacting bosons.

Atom interferometers berman  offer a potential sensitivity that exceeds that of their optical counterparts by as much as $`Mc^2/\mathrm{}\omega 10^{10}`$ clauser ; scullydowling . Besides being useful for fundamental tests of quantum mechanics and precision measurements of fundamental constants, this property offers great promise for inertial navigation as well as for geophysical applications, tests of general relativity, etc. rotation1 ; gradiometer  In particular, recent years have witnessed significant experimental progress towards the development of atomic rotation sensors rotation1 ; rotation2 ; rotation3  with sensitivities now surpassing those of optical gyroscopes rotation1 . So far, experiments with atom interferometers in the spatial domain have always been carried out in the nondegenerate regime where quantum statistics and many-body interactions are negligible and the interference pattern is the sum of single atom interference patterns. This is true even in those situations where Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC’s) have been used as sources: in such cases, the interference experiments were performed after the atoms have been released from their trapping potentials and allowed to undergo a ballistic expansion in order to eliminate any mean-field effects, see for example torii ; gupta . Likewise, the theoretical analysis of the sensitivity of atom interferometers has also been confined to this regime. Refs. scullydowling ; dowling ; yurke  analyzed the quantum noise limit of a matter-wave Mach-Zehnder interferometer and showed that for uncorrelated inputs the phase resolution is $`1/\sqrt{N}`$, for bosons as well as for fermions. Here, $`N`$ is the total number of particles entering the interferometer. The phase resolution limit results from the intrinsic quantum fluctuations associated with the sorting of the particles by the beam splitters in the interferometer. The reason that bosons and fermions yield the same sensitivity in these treatments is a consequence of the assumption that the fermions are quasi-monochromatic, i.e. the fermions all occupy the same state. This can only be justified when the atomic wave functions do not overlap scullydowling .

Very much like the invention of the laser revolutionized optics and interferometry, it would seem desirable to extend the operation of matter-wave interferometer to truly quantum-degenerate atom sources. It is therefore important to extend these theoretical results to the case of highly degenerate beams of bosons or fermions for which $`\rho \lambda _d1`$, where $`\rho `$ is the atomic density and $`\lambda _d`$ is the de Broglie wavelength. In this limit, the effects of quantum statistics and of atom-atom interactions are no longer negligible, and it is expected that the sensitivity of the interferometer will decrease. For bosonic atoms, the interference pattern and phase sensitivity is degraded because of the atom-atom interactions, which give rise to a nonlinear phase shift as the atoms propagate along the arms of the interferometer. In contrast, for spin-polarized fermions — where $`s`$-wave scattering is absent for $`T0`$ — the phase sensitivity is degraded because the Pauli exclusion principle forces each of the atoms in the interferometer to occupy a different momentum state. Our central result is that contrary to what one might expect, the sensitivity of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer using a degenerate beam of fermions can be noticeably better than what can be achieved using a BEC.

Figure 1 shows the atomic Mach-Zehnder interferometer that we consider, with input ports $`A`$ and $`B`$. For convenience we assume that it can be treated as an effective one-dimensional system in which the propagation of the atoms transverse to the interferometer arms can be ignored. That is, we assume that the atoms are tightly confined in the directions transverse to the interferometer paths, with the same wave function $`\varphi _0(𝐫_{})`$. This holds when $`\mu <\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$ where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential for the bosons or fermions and $`\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$ is the spacing between the energy levels of the transverse wave functions, assumed to be harmonic. We introduce the annihilation (creation) operators $`\widehat{a_k}`$ $`(\widehat{a_k}^{})`$ and $`\widehat{b_k}`$ $`(\widehat{b_k}^{})`$ for atoms entering the input ports $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively, with momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$ directed along either the upper or lower interferometer path. They obey the commutation relations $`\widehat{a}_k\widehat{a}_k^{}^{}\pm \widehat{a}_k^{}^{}\widehat{a}_k=\delta _{k,k^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_k\widehat{b}_k^{}^{}\pm \widehat{b}_k^{}^{}\widehat{b}_k=\delta _{k,k^{}}`$ where the minus sign is for bosons and the plus sign is for fermions.

The beam splitters 1 and 2 are identical 50-50 beam splitters, which in the case of the first beam splitter has the action

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_{u,k}\\ \widehat{a}_{l,k}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& i& 1\\ & 1& i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_k\\ \widehat{b}_k\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\widehat{a}_{u,k}(\widehat{a}_{l,k})`$ are the operators for the upper (lower) paths of the interferometer. The mirrors $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ each result in a $`\pi /2`$ phase shift. The Hamiltonian governing the evolution of the Heisenberg operators in the two branches of the interferometer is

$$H=\underset{s=l,u}{}\underset{k}{}\mathrm{}\left(\omega _k+\omega _{}+\frac{1}{2}\chi (\widehat{a}_{s,k}^{}\widehat{a}_{s,k}1)\right)\widehat{a}_{s,k}^{}\widehat{a}_{s,k}$$

where $`\omega _k=\mathrm{}k^2/2M`$ and $`M`$ is the atomic mass. We recall that $`\chi 0`$ for spin-polarized fermions at $`T0`$, while for bosons $`\chi =(4\pi \mathrm{}a/M\mathrm{})𝑑𝐫_{}|\varphi _0(𝐫_{})|^4`$ , $`a`$ being the $`s`$-wave scattering length and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{l,u}`$. The Hamiltonian ignores momentum changing collisions, which for an initial state consisting of a weakly interacting BEC amounts to neglecting the quasiparticle fluctuations about the macroscopically occupied condensate mode. This is equivalent to a single-mode approximation for the condensate.

After the beams are recombined at the second beam splitter, the atoms are counted at detectors located at the output ports $`C`$ and $`D`$. The relevant observable is the difference in the number of counts,

$$\widehat{𝒩}=\widehat{N}_D\widehat{N}_C=\underset{k}{}\left(\widehat{d}_k^{}\widehat{d}_k\widehat{c}_k^{}\widehat{c}_k\right)$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{d}_k`$ and $`\widehat{c}_k`$ are the annihilation operators for the output ports $`D`$ and $`C`$, respectively.

In what follows, we consider only uncorrelated inputs where the initial quantum state can be written as the factorized product of Fock states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$. In this case, we recall that for noninteracting atoms occupying the same state, the expectation value of $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ is $`\widehat{𝒩}=(N_AN_B)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ where $`\theta `$ is the phase difference between the two interferometer paths and $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ are the number of atoms entering via the two input ports. Hence, $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ is a direct measure of $`\theta `$, with fluctuations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩}{|\widehat{𝒩}/\theta |}$$
(2)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩[\widehat{𝒩}^2\widehat{𝒩}^2]^{1/2}`$ scullydowling ; dowling ; yurke ; yurke2 . We now compare $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ for the cases of a single mode BEC and of a spin-polarized Fermi gas.

Bose-Einstein Condensate: Here we consider $`N_A`$ bosons entering port $`A`$ and $`N_B`$ entering port $`B`$ in a time $`\tau `$, each atom having velocity $`v_0=\mathrm{}k_0/m`$. As such, $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ represents the number of atoms counted in the interval $`\tau `$. The quantum state describing this incident beam is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\left(\widehat{a}_{k_0}^{}\right)^{N_A}\left(\widehat{b}_{k_0}^{}\right)^{N_B}|0/\sqrt{N_A!N_B!}.$$

We evaluate the moments of $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ by using an angular momentum representation for the bosonic operators yurke2 ; sakurai , $`2\widehat{J}_z=\widehat{a}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{a}_{k_0}\widehat{b}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{b}_{k_0}`$, $`2\widehat{J}_x=\widehat{a}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{b}_{k_0}+\widehat{b}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{a}_{k_0}`$, $`2i\widehat{J}_y=\widehat{a}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{b}_{k_0}\widehat{b}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{a}_{k_0}`$, and $`\widehat{J}^2=\widehat{N}/2(\widehat{N}/2+1)`$ where $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{a}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{a}_{k_0}+\widehat{b}_{k_0}^{}\widehat{b}_{k_0}`$. In this representation, the incident beam state is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|j,m`$, where

$$j=(N_A+N_B)/2,m=(N_AN_B)/2.$$

After some algebra one finds

$`\widehat{𝒩}`$ $`=`$ $`2md_{m,m}^{(j)}(\beta )\mathrm{cos}\theta +\left(\sqrt{(jm)(j+m+1)}d_{m+1,m}^{(j)}(\beta )+\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+1)}d_{m1,m}^{(j)}(\beta )\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$ (3)
$`\widehat{𝒩}^2`$ $`=`$ $`j(j+1)+m^2+f_{j,m}(2\beta )\mathrm{cos}(2\theta +\beta )+g_{j,m}(2\beta )\mathrm{sin}(2\theta +\beta ),`$ (4)
where

$`f_{j,m}(2\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(3m^2j(j+1))d_{m,m}^{(j)}(2\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(jm+2)(j+m1)(jm+1)(j+m)}d_{m2,m}^{(j)}(2\beta )`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(j+m+2)(jm1)(j+m+1)(jm)}d_{m+2,m}^{(j)}(2\beta ),`$
$`g_{j,m}(2\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(2m1)\sqrt{(jm+1)(j+m)}d_{m1,m}^{(j)}(2\beta )+(2m+1)\sqrt{(j+m+1)(jm)}d_{m+1,m}^{(j)}(2\beta ),`$ (6)
and $`d_{m^{},m}^{(j)}(\beta )=j,m^{}|\mathrm{exp}(i\beta \widehat{J}_y)|j,m`$ are the matrix elements of a rotation about the $`y`$-axis by an angle $`\beta =\chi (t_l+t_u)`$ . In these expression, $`\theta `$ is again the phase difference between the two interferometer paths,

$$\theta =\left(\omega _{k_0}+\omega _{}+\chi (N_A+N_B1)/2\right)(t_ut_l)+\beta /2,$$
(7)
where $`t_l=2\mathrm{}_l/v_0`$ ( $`t_u=2\mathrm{}_u/v_0`$) is the transit time for a point of constant atomic phase through the lower (upper) arm of the interferometer. Note that when $`\chi 0`$, $`d_{m^{},m}^{(j)}(0)=\delta _{m^{},m}`$ and our results agree with prior calculationsyurke2 .

The nonlinearity has a two-fold effect on the interference pattern. This is seen by noting that the phase acquired by an atom propagating along the upper or lower path is $`\widehat{\varphi }_s=(\omega _{k_0}+\omega _{}+\chi \widehat{a}_{s,k_0}^{}\widehat{a}_{s,k_0})t_s`$, and includes a self-phase modulation due to the other atoms traveling along the same path. However, the wave functions of the atoms entering the interferometer are coherently split between the two paths so that the effect of the nonlinearity is no longer a simple self-phase modulation when expressed in terms of the incident quantum fields,

$$\widehat{\varphi }_u\widehat{\varphi }_l=(\omega _{k_0}+\omega _{}+\chi \widehat{N}/2)(t_ut_l)\chi (t_u+t_l)\widehat{J}_y.$$

The phase difference includes a self-phase modulation proportional to half the total number, a simple consequence of the fact that the atoms are equally split between the two paths. However $`\widehat{\varphi }_s`$ also includes a term proportional to $`\widehat{J}_y`$. This results from the fact that the wave functions of the atoms entering the interferometer are coherently split between the two paths at the first beam splitter. Hence, the $`\widehat{J}_y`$ contribution is a result of the indistinguishability of the bosons that enter via the two input ports.

We remark that $`\theta =\widehat{\varphi }_u\widehat{\varphi }_l+\beta /2\chi (t_ut_l)/2`$ where the last two terms, $`\beta /2\chi (t_ut_l)/2`$, can be interpreted as a ”vacuum effect”, resulting from the non-commutativity of $`\widehat{a}_{s,k_0}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{s,k_0}^{}`$. Its main impact on $`\theta `$ is to replace $`NN_A+N_B`$ with $`N1`$, showing explicitly that the nonlinear phase shift vanishes if only one atom is present. The $`\beta /2`$ simply shifts the fringe pattern and is included in the definition of $`\theta `$ for convenience.

It is clear from Eqs. (3) and (4) and the definition of $`d_{m^{},m}^{(j)}(\beta )`$ that $`\beta j`$ is the critical parameter that determines the effect of the atom-atom interactions on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. Relevant values of $`\beta `$ can be estimated by assuming a typical chemical potential of $`\mu /\mathrm{}10^310^4s^1`$ and that $`\varphi _0(𝐫_{})`$ is the harmonic oscillator ground state for $`\omega _{}\mu /\mathrm{}`$. Taking the perimeter of the interferometer to be $`\mathrm{}_l+\mathrm{}_u`$ 1 cm and typical recoil velocities, $`v_0`$ 1-10 cm/s, gives $`\beta 10^3`$ for 87Rb or 23Na, so that $`\beta j1`$ typically.

The results of a numerical evaluation of Eqs. (3) and (4) are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. We find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is minimum at $`\theta =(2n+1)\pi /2`$ and exhibits sharp resonances at $`\theta =n\pi `$ where $`n`$ is an integer. These resonances disappear in the limit $`\beta 0`$. These features agree qualitatively with a perturbation expansion for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ to lowest order in $`\beta j`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\sqrt{\left[j(j+1)m^2\right]/2m^2}\left(1+(\beta j)^2(a(m,j)+b(m,j)\mathrm{cot}^2\theta )\right)`$ where $`a(m,j)`$ and $`b(m,j)`$ are positive definite and of order unity. Fig. 2 shows that for fixed $`N_A`$ the normalized phase fluctuations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\beta )/\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\beta =0)`$, increase with increasing $`N_B`$ and for fixed $`N`$, the nonlinearity also results in an increase in the phase fluctuations with increasing $`N_B`$. Figure 3 shows that for $`\beta 10^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ continues to scale as $`1/\sqrt{N_A}`$ when $`N_B=0`$ while for $`\beta >10^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ can actually show an increase with increasing $`N_A`$.

Fermi Gas: As with the bosons, we consider uniform beams of $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ fermions entering the interferometer via input ports $`A`$ and $`B`$ in a time $`\tau `$ at average velocities $`v_0`$. Their densities are $`n_A=N_A/v_0\tau `$ and $`n_B=N_B/v_0\tau `$, and the quantum state for the incident fermions is then given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\underset{|kk_0|k_{FA}}{}\widehat{a}_k^{}\underset{|kk_0|k_{FB}}{}\widehat{b}_k^{}|0$$

where $`k_{FA}=\pi n_A`$ and $`k_{FB}=\pi n_B`$ are the Fermi wave numbers for the two beams. We note from the definitions of $`k_{FA}`$ and $`k_{FB}`$ that there exists a new fundamental length scale, $`L_F=v_0\tau `$ that is important for the description of the fermions but was unimportant for the bosons. It represents the length of the two incident beams and can be interpreted as the quantization volume for the fermions.

$`\widehat{𝒩}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩^2`$ are now found to be

$`\widehat{𝒩}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \left[\overline{n}_AS(\overline{n}_A\theta /2)\overline{n}_BS(\overline{n}_B\theta /2)\right]/\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{n}_A\overline{n}_B\mathrm{cos}2\theta \left[\overline{n}_AS(\overline{n}_A\theta )\overline{n}_BS(\overline{n}_B\theta )\right]\right)/2\alpha `$
where $`S(x)=\mathrm{sin}(x)/x`$, $`\alpha =(2\pi /k_0)/L_F`$, $`\theta =k_0(\mathrm{}_u\mathrm{}_l)`$ is the phase difference obtained for a single atom with momentum $`\mathrm{}k_0`$, and we have taken $`N_A>N_B`$ without loss of generality. We have also introduced the dimensionless densities $`\overline{n}_A=2\pi n_A/k_0=2k_{FA}/k_0`$ and $`\overline{n}_B=2\pi n_B/k_0=2k_{FB}/k_0`$. They represent the number of atoms within the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _0=(2\pi )/k_0`$, so that quantum degeneracy corresponds to $`\overline{n}1`$. Note that $`\overline{n}`$ is also a measure of the degree of monochromaticity of the incident Fermi beam. Earlier treatments of fermion interferometers dealt with quasi-monochromatic beams that correspond to $`\overline{n}1`$.

We first restrict ourselves to the case $`\overline{n}_B=0`$. The phase uncertainty is then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_A}}}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\theta ^2(1\mathrm{cos}2\theta S(\overline{n}_A\theta ))}}{\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}(\theta \overline{n}_A/2)S(\overline{n}_A\theta /2)[\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\theta ]\right|}},`$
which shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1/\sqrt{N_A}`$. However, Eq. (8) also indicates that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is an increasing function of $`\theta `$ and hence of the path length difference. This is easily understood by noting that the individual phases contributing to the total interference pattern are uniformly distributed over the interval $`[\theta \delta \theta ,\theta +\delta \theta ]`$, where $`\delta \theta =k_{FA}|\mathrm{}_u\mathrm{}_l|=\overline{n}_A|\theta |/2`$. Consequently, for degenerate fermion beams with $`\overline{n}_A1`$, the interference pattern is undetectable for large path differences, $`|\theta |\pi `$. This will continue to hold when $`\overline{n}_B0`$.

Figure 4 shows the minimum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ for fixed $`\overline{n}_A`$ and various $`\overline{n}_B`$ plotted as a function of $`\sqrt{\alpha }1/\sqrt{N}`$. It is clear that the phase fluctuations continue to scale as $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. Moreover, a comparison with Fig. 2 shows that increasing the number of atoms entering via input port B does not result in as dramatic an increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ as with bosons. Whereas for bosons having only $`10\%`$ of the atoms enter via port B could result in an increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ by a factor of 5 or more for moderate values of $`\beta `$, having more than a third of the atoms enter via B now results in an increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ of less than a factor of 2.

Fig. 5 provides a direct comparison of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ for the BEC and Fermi beams when $`N_B=0`$. Remarkably, the phase resolution limit achievable with the Fermi gas is noticeably better than what can be achieved with even a noninteracting BEC. Moreover, increasing the fermions density enhances the phase resolution. Of course, this increase comes at the expense of a limited range of $`\theta `$ over which the interference pattern is discernible. For BECs, by contrast, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is independent of $`\theta `$ for $`\beta =0`$ and even for $`\beta 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is nearly constant except in the vicinity of the resonances.

In conclusion, we have examined the phase resolution limit for an atomic Mach-Zehnder using degenerate Bose and Fermi gases. Our results indicate that one can attain better phase resolution using Fermi gases at the expense of a limited range of path differences over which there is a discernible interference pattern.

This work is supported in part by the US Office of Naval Research, by the National Science Foundation, by the US Army Research Office, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and by the Joint Services Optics Program.


format: text

text:
# Violation of Bell’s inequality: criterion for quantum communication complexity advantage

## Abstract

We prove that for every Bell’s inequality and for a broad class of protocols, there always exists a multi-party communication complexity problem, for which the protocol assisted by states which violate the inequality is more efficient than any classical protocol. Moreover, for that advantage Bell’s inequality violation is a necessary and sufficient criterion. Thus, violation of Bell’s inequalities has a significance beyond that of a non-optimal-witness of non-separability.

Entanglement is the essential feature, which distinguishes the quantum from the classical schroedinger . On one hand, entangled states violate Bell inequalities, and thus rule out local realistic explanation of quantum mechanics bell . On the other hand, they enable certain communication and computation tasks to have an efficiency not achievable by the laws of classical physics nielsen .

Intuition suggests that these two aspects, the fundamental one, and the applicational one, could be intimately linked. Specifically, one could expect, that only the quantum communication protocol which makes use of an entangled state which violates some Bell’s inequality can have efficiency larger than any classical protocol. Otherwise one might expect that the efficiency of the protocol could be explainable by a local realistic model, and thus achievable in classical physics. This intuitive reasoning is supported by the result of Ref. scarani  where it was shown that violation of Bell’s inequality is a condition for the security of quantum key distribution protocols. Here we give another result which supports the intuitive reasoning: the violation of Bell’s inequalities is a necessary and sufficient criterion for the quantum communication complexity protocol to be more efficient than any classical one.

We shall discuss the following version of the communication complexity problems (such problems were introduced in Ref. yao ). Some input data are distributed over $`n`$ separated parties. Every party knows the local data, but not the data of the others. The party $`i`$ obtains an input string $`z_i`$. The goal is for each of them to determine the value of some function $`f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$, while exchanging a restricted amount of information. This restriction, in general, enables the parties to compute the function only with an error. Then the goal for all parties is to compute the function correctly with as high a probability as possible. An execution is considered successful, if the values determined by all parties are correct. Before they start the protocol, the parties are allowed to share (classically) correlated random strings, or any other data, which might improve the success of the protocols. They are allowed to process their data locally in whatever way.

The general question is whether and to what extent entanglement can be of advantage for solving such problems. It was shown that entanglement can improve the probability of success in communication complexity protocols beyond the limits which are classically possible buhrman ; buhrman1 ; brassard ; cleve ; grover1 . Specifically, Buhrman, Cleve and van Dam buhrman  found a two-party communication complexity problem, that can be solved with a higher probability of success than in any classical protocol, if the parties share entanglement. The quantum protocol was based on violation of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality chsh  by two-qubit maximally entangled state. Similarly, the quantum protocols of multi-party problems of Ref. buhrman ; buhrman1  were based on an application of the GHZ-type ghz  argument against local realism for multi-qubit maximally entangled states. In Ref. galvao  an equivalence between the CHSH and GHZ tests for three particles and the two- and three-party quantum protocols of Ref. buhrman , respectively, was shown. All these results indicate that there is a link between the quantum communication complexity protocols and the violation of Bell’s inequality.

However, the problems: (a) which quantum states are needed to achieve an improvement of the probability of success over any classical strategy and (b) what are the classes of functions for which this improvement is possible, are still open. We address the question (a) and (b) for a class of $`n`$-party communication complexity problems. We prove, that for any Bell’s inequality for $`n`$ qubits one can formulate at least one communication complexity problem with the following property. The success of the quantum protocol (i.e. which uses entangled states) is higher than in any classical protocol if and only if the $`n`$ qubits violate the Bell inequality. As exemplary applications we use the complete set of $`2^{2^n}`$ of $`n`$-qubit Bell’s inequalities for correlation functions ww ; zb . For this example we find a family of functions for which the improvement of the probability of success over classical strategies is possible. We also present extensions of these results.

Let us define the general $`n`$-party communication complexity problems to be considered:

* The $`i`$-th party receives a two-bit input string $`(x_i,y_i)`$. (For convenience the values of the bits are encoded as follows $`x_i=0`$ or $`1`$, and $`y_i=1`$ or $`1`$.)
* The distributed values for $`y_i`$ are chosen randomly and for the $`x_i`$’s in accordance with a certain probability distribution $`Q(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. Thus the inputs $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ can be (classically) correlated.
* After receiving the input strings each party is allowed to broadcast only one bit of information (denoted as $`e_i`$). It may reveal e.g. a part of the received string, or some locally produced result of computation or measurement.
* Finally each party attempts to give a value for the function $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)`$, with $`f=\pm 1`$. The execution of the protocol is successful when all parties arrive at the correct value of $`f`$. Their joint task is to maximize the probability of success.

We shall consider a specific sub-class of the above problems, for which there exists a real-valued function $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, such that

$$Q(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\frac{|g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|}{_{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}^1|g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|},$$
(1)
and

$$f=y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_nS[g(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)],$$
(2)
where $`S[g]=g/|g|=\pm 1`$ is the sign function of $`g`$.

We shall prove that for any Bell’s inequality for qubits there exists at least one problem from the above class, such that the probability of success in the quantum protocol (i.e. which uses an entangled state) is higher than in any classical one. This is so if, and only if, the entangled state used violates the Bell inequality for correlation functions

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}{\overset{1}{}}g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)B(n),$$
(3)
(this general form includes also inequalities not known yet). In Ineq. (3) $`E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a shorthand notation for the Bell-type correlation function $`E(O_{x_1}^1,\mathrm{},O_{x_n}^n)`$, for measurements on $`n`$ particles, which involve, at each local measurement station $`i`$, two alternative dichotomic observables $`O_0^i`$ and $`O_1^i`$, each of spectrum $`\pm 1`$.

We now present a broad class of classical protocols which will be considered here:

1. Each party $`i`$ calculates (e.g., with help of a computer) locally any function $`a_i(x_i,\lambda _i)`$, where $`\lambda _i`$ is any other parameter, or a set of parameters, on which the function $`a_i`$ may additionally depend. For example, $`\lambda _i`$ can be a random string of variables shared among the parties before they start the protocol. Each party $`i`$ broadcasts $`e_i=a_iy_i`$.
2. After the broadcast all parties put as the value of $`f`$ the number $`y_1\mathrm{}y_na_1\mathrm{}a_n`$, which is equal to the actual value of function $`f`$ for a certain fraction of cases (see below).

Let us calculate the probability of success achievable for the considered class of classical protocols. It is equal to the probability, $`P`$, that the product $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n`$ of the locally computed functions is equal to $`S[g]`$:

$$P=\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}{\overset{1}{}}Q(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)P_{x_1\mathrm{}x_n}\left(a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g]\right),$$
(4)
where $`P_{x_1\mathrm{}x_n}\left(a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g]\right)`$ is the probability that $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)]`$ if parties receive inputs $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$.

Next, we introduce a quantum competitor of the class of classical protocols considered above. The parties share $`n`$ entangled qubits. Each of them can perform measurements on the local qubit. The quantum protocol reads (Fig. 1):

1. If party $`i`$ receives $`x_i=0`$, she will measure her qubit with the local apparatus, which is set to measure a dichotomic observable $`O_0^i`$. Otherwise, i.e. for $`x_i=1`$, she measures a different observable $`O_1^i`$. We ascribe to the outcomes of the measurements the two values $`\pm 1`$. The actual value obtained by party $`i`$ will be denoted as $`a_i`$. It will serve the same role as the result of local computation in the classical protocol. Each party $`i`$ broadcasts $`e_i=a_iy_i`$.
2. After the broadcast all parties put as the value of $`f`$ the number $`y_1\mathrm{}y_na_1\mathrm{}a_n`$, which is equal to the actual value of function $`f`$ for a certain fraction of cases.

The probability of success in the quantum protocol is the probability, $`P`$, that the product $`_{i=1}^na_i`$ of the local measurement results is equal to $`S[g]`$. Thus, it can also be expressed by Eq. (4) where now $`P_{x_1\mathrm{}x_n}\left(a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g]\right)`$ is the probability that $`_ia_i=S[g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)]`$ if parties measure their qubits with the local apparatus set at $`O_{x_1}^1,\mathrm{},O_{x_n}^n`$.

It is essential to realize that the classical protocols introduced above are equivalent to a local realistic model of the quantum protocol because $`\lambda `$’s can be considered as local hidden variables, which can be shared between parties. We will now show that the combination of probabilities on the right-hand side of Eq. (4), in the case of a classical protocol, is bounded by the limits imposed by local realistic models. That is, the combination of probabilities in Eq. (4) satisfies a Bell-type inequality.

Note that the correlation function is given by $`E=P(_ia_i=1)P(_ia_i=1)`$ and therefore

$$E(x_1,..,x_n)=S[g](2P_{x_1\mathrm{}x_n}(a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g])1).$$
(5)
Using this one easily shows that the right hand side of Eq. (4) is proportional to the left hand side of Ineq. (3). One obtains

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n}{}}Q(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)P_{x_1\mathrm{}x_n}\left(a_1\mathrm{}a_n=S[g]\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B(n)}{|g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|}}\right).`$ (6)
If Ineq. (3) is violated, so is Ineq. (6), and vice versa. That is, the entanglement assisted protocol can result in a higher probability of a success than any classical one of the considered class, if and only if the respective Bell’s inequality is violated remark1 .

Let us now present some examples. The set of $`2^{2^n}`$ Bell’s inequalities of the form (3) was obtained in Ref. ww ; zb . There the class of functions $`g`$ is given by

$$g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n=1}{\overset{1}{}}S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)s_1^{x_1}\mathrm{}s_n^{x_n},$$
(7)
where $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=\pm 1`$ is a sign function and the bound is $`B(n)=2^n`$. There are $`2^{2^n}`$ different sign functions and correspondingly $`2^{2^n}`$ different functions $`g`$. The functions, which can lead to a greater success probability in the case of quantum protocols, are those which are associated with non-trivial Bell inequalities of the form (7), that is such ones which are violated by quantum predictions. Note that factorable functions, $`S(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=S_1(s_1)\mathrm{}S_n(s_n)`$ are therefore excluded from this family. In the following we give two explicit functions $`g`$ of the class (7). We only give the final results, as these follow from the general proof given above.

Consider $`S_{odd}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\left[(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_n)\frac{\pi }{4}\right]`$ for $`n`$ odd and $`S_{even}=\mathrm{cos}\left[(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_n)\frac{\pi }{4}\right]`$ for $`n`$ even. This implies for $`n`$ odd

$$g_{odd}=\sqrt{2^{n+1}}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}(x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_n)\right].$$
(8)
whereas for $`n`$ even one has

$$g_{even}=\sqrt{2^n}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}(x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_n)\right].$$
(9)
The probability distribution $`Q(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is such that with equal probability only the input strings $`x_i`$ which satisfy the condition that $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_n`$ is even are distributed. This specific type of problem was first considered by Buhrman et al buhrman ; buhrman1 . The quantum protocol rests on the violation of an inequality, which is equivalent to the Mermin inequality mermin ; belinskii . The maximal probability of success in the classical protocol is $`P_C^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n1}}}\right)`$ for $`n`$ odd, and $`P_C^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n2}}}\right)`$ for $`n`$ even. In the quantum case, with the use of $`n`$ qubits in the maximally entangled (GHZ) state, the task can be done with certainty for both cases, i.e. $`P_Q^{max}=1`$. Note that in both cases in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ the probability of success $`P_C^{max}\frac{1}{2}`$ as by a simple random choice, which drastically contrasts the certainty in the quantum protocol.

Next, suppose that the number $`n`$ of parties is even and consider $`S_{even}^{}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{\pi }{4}+(s_1+\mathrm{}+s_n)\frac{\pi }{4}\right]`$. This implies

$$g_{even}^{}=\sqrt{2^{n+1}}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}(x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_n)+\frac{\pi }{4}\right].$$
(10)
The success rate in the quantum protocol is now based on violation of an inequality equivalent to the one of Ardehali ardehali ; belinskii . The maximal probability of success in a classical protocol is $`P_C^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}\right)`$, whereas in the quantum protocol with the use of the maximally entangled state the probability reads $`P_Q^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)`$. Thus in this case one does not have certainty. However, because the Bell inequality defined by $`g_{even}^{}`$ is violated by the GHZ states by a higher factor than the one defined by $`g_{even}`$ (by $`\sqrt{2^{n1}}`$, instead of $`\sqrt{2^{n2}}`$) the quantum protocol is more resistant to the possible admixture of noise to the GHZ states.

The advantage of the quantum protocol associated with a given Bell inequality is a new measure of the strength of such an inequality. The last example shows that this measure favors GHZ-type contradictions for perfect correlations ($`g_{even}`$), making the factor by which the inequality is violated less important (compare $`g_{even}^{}`$).

Let us look at generalizations. Consider $`g`$ as given by $`\mathrm{cos}(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_n)`$ where inputs $`x_i`$ belong to a continuous set $`[0,2\pi )`$ (while $`y_i`$’s remain bits). The quantum protocol should now be adopted such that each party has a choice to measure her qubit in a continuous range of the settings of the apparatus. The protocol is based on violation of the functional Bell inequality for continuous range of the settings of the local apparatuses (for the derivation and magnitude of violation see marek ):

$$_{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_n)E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)4^n.$$
(11)
One can apply the general proof obtained above if one replaces $`_{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}^1`$ by $`_{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n=0}^{2\pi }𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_n`$ in the previous expressions. Thus, if and only if the state violates the functional Bell inequality (11) the quantum protocol will have a higher success rate than the classical one. The maximal probability of success in the classical protocol is $`P_C^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+(\frac{2}{\pi })^{n1}\right)`$, whereas in the quantum protocol with the use of $`n`$ qubits in maximally entangled state this probability is $`P_Q^{max}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\pi }{4}\right)`$. Similar results can be obtained for an arbitrary discrete number of settings at each side.

For a next generalization, suppose that the inputs $`y_i`$ have $`d`$ possible values and that the two-valued function $`S[g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)]`$ is replaced with a function which has $`d`$ possible values. Then the quantum protocol should be based on the violation of Bell’s inequalities for $`d`$-dimensional quantum systems (see collins ). Recently such a two-party protocol was proposed brukner .

We end with a remark. There are non-separable quantum states which do not violate any Bell’s inequality directly werner . This is often interpreted as implying that the violation of Bell’s inequalities is just a, even not optimal, entanglement witness, without any significant importance for the implementation in quantum information tasks. One cannot agree with such an interpretation (see also Ref. scarani ; acin ). The states which only after local operations and classical communication (LOCC) violate Bell’s inequalities popescu , cannot be in any way useful in the communication complexity problems considered here. Simply, any LOCC transformation requires more communication than it is permitted by the problems marek2 .

M.Ż. acknowledges KBN grant No. 5 P03B 088 20. The work is supported by the Austrian FWF project F1506, and by the European Commission, Contract-No. ERBFMRXCT96-0087, and is a part of the Austrian-Polish program ”Quantum Communication and Quantum Information IV” (2002-2003).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Suggestions on the possibility that Nature could allow for noncommuting spatial coordinates, came both from the past  and more recently in the realm of superstring theory studying low energy excitations of $`D`$-branes in a magnetic field .

This has stimulated investigations on the noncommutative (NC) versions of gauge field theories and on the behaviour of their quantized counterparts. Among these, Maxwell theory is perhaps the easiest example and one where a possible experimental test of this hypothesis could be realizable. Nevertheless, two main problems arise when one tries to implement Electromagnetism in a noncommutative geometry: the loss of causality due to the appearence of derivative couplings in the Lagrangian and, more fundamentally, the violation of Lorentz invariance exhibited by plane wave solutions . These problems have been discussed with a different approach in the framework of NC QED .

In this paper we show that both these problems may be avoided if one allows a nonzero ”electrical” component into the tensor $`\theta `$ of the noncommutation relations so including time as a NC coordinate. After application of the Seiberg-Witten map  the theory is perturbative in $`\theta `$ and classical plane waves turn out to be exact solutions. They no longer obey a superposition principle. Finally a sort of Electric-Magnetic duality comprehending $`\theta `$ and reminiscent of the known one in commutative Maxwell theory, appears between the fields in the equations of motion reinforcing the interpretation of $`\theta `$ as a sort of background primordial Electromagnetic field.

In Section 2 we fix notations and conventions, recall the definition of the S-W map  and show the explicit solution to second order in $`\theta `$.

In Section 3 we prove that the Lagrangian of the theory is polynomial to all orders in the perturbative parameter so that causality is preserved. The equations of motion are derived in Section 4 where evidence is also given of the mentioned duality.

In Section 5 a general iterative method of solving the equations of motion is outlined.

After proving that plane waves are solutions, the method is applied to the problem of plane wave superposition and to derive corrections to the Coulomb law.

The paper ends with some comments on the results found and on possible experimental settings aimed to directly measure noncommutativity.

## 2 The S-W map and second order expantions

In the following, a hat over a classical symbol will indicate the same quantity in its NC version. In this fashion, coordinates of flat noncommutative Minkowsky spacetime will be assumed to satisfy:

$$[\widehat{x}^\mu ,\widehat{x}^\nu ]_{}=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(2.1)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a real skew tensor whose components are set as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \theta ^{0i}& =& \epsilon ^i\hfill \\ \hfill \theta ^{ij}& =& ϵ^{ijk}\beta _k\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
Note that we do not impose $`\epsilon ^i=0`$. This means that time does not commute with spatial coordinates and $`\theta `$ is a constant tensor field. Besides $`\theta `$ we consider the usual Electromagnetic field whose NC action is given by:

$$\widehat{S}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }$$
(2.3)
The corresponding Lagrangian and field strenght are given by:

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ (2.4)
$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_{}`$ (2.5)
Here the star-product ($``$) between NC quantities is defined as usual:

$$\left(\widehat{f}\widehat{g}\right)\left(x\right):=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu ^{}}\widehat{f}\left(x\right)\widehat{g}\left(x^{}\right)_{|x=x^{}}$$
(2.6)
Also, the following conventions will be used for Electromagnetic fields:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E^i& =& F^{0i}\hfill \\ \hfill B_k& =& \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F^{ij}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
Now, according to Seiberg and Witten , every NC gauge theory $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ has a perturbative description in terms of the non commuting parameter $`\theta `$ and another commutative theory $`A_\mu `$ possessing the same degrees of freedom as the NC one. The relation between them is established by means of the Seiberg-Witten map:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\widehat{A}_\mu }{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}& =& \frac{1}{8}\{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{A}_\mu +\widehat{F}_{\beta \mu }\}_{}(\alpha \beta )\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{A}_{\mu |\theta =0}& =& A_\mu \hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
Solving the above equations means determine each piece of the perturbative expansions:

$`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu +\widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.9)
$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}`$ (2.10)
relating at every order in $`\theta `$ the NC quantities with their respective classical counterparts. As is well known , one obtains to first order:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}& =& \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha \left(_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu }\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(1\right)}& =& \theta ^{\gamma \delta }\left(F_{\mu \gamma }F_{\nu \delta }A_\gamma _\delta F_{\mu \nu }\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
Considering the second order corrections, we assume $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }𝔫_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ and substitute the whole expansion of $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ into (2.8). We realize that differentiating and then evaluating at $`\theta =0`$, we end with a recursive relation between second order and first order corrections and their $`\theta `$-derivatives. This leads to computation of the term $`𝔫`$. After careful rearrangements, the expression for the second order correction to $`A_\mu `$ is:

$$\widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }\left\{A_\gamma _\delta A_\alpha _\beta A_\mu +A_\gamma F_{\delta \alpha }F_{\beta \mu }+A_\alpha A_\gamma _\delta F_{\beta \mu }+\frac{1}{4}_\mu \left(A_\alpha A_\gamma _\delta A_\beta \right)\right\}$$
(2.12)
Similarly, via the relation $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(2\right)}=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu ^{\left(2\right)}+\theta ^{\gamma \delta }_\gamma \widehat{A}_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}_\delta A_\nu (\mu \nu )`$ one also computes:

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(2\right)}=\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }F_{\mu \gamma }F_{\delta \alpha }F_{\beta \nu }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }A_\gamma _\delta \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(1\right)}\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }A_\gamma \left(_\alpha A_\delta +A_\alpha _\delta \right)_\beta F_{\mu \nu }$$
(2.13)
## 3 The general structure

We discuss some properties valid to all orders in $`\theta `$ of the perturbative action obtained by means of the S-W map.

###### Proposition 3.1

The Lagrangian $`\widehat{}`$ corresponding to the action (2.3) via the S-W map is a polynomial in $`F`$ only (that is: it does not contain derivatives of $`F`$); furthermore the terms $`\widehat{}^{(n)}`$ of order $`n`$ in $`\theta `$ form a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`n+2`$ in $`F`$.

Proof :
From the S-W equation (2.8) we have:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }}{\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_\nu \{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{A}_\mu +\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\}_{}(\mu \nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}[\{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{A}_\mu +\widehat{F}_{\beta \mu }\}_{},\widehat{A}_\nu ]_{}`$ (3.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{A}_\nu +\widehat{F}_{\beta \nu }\}_{}]_{}(\alpha \beta )+\delta `$ (3.2)
Here $`\delta `$ is supposed to include all the terms arising whenever the derivation acts on the $`\theta s`$ appearing in the $``$ of the $``$ \- product; they always give rise to total derivatives in the Lagrangian density and so may be neglected. As a consequence, performing an arbitrary number of derivations and then putting $`\theta =0`$ shows that commutators of the type present in (3.2) give vanishing contributions.
Then all significant contributions are seen to come from the term $`\frac{1}{8}_\nu \{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{A}_\mu +\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\}_{}`$ which, evaluated at $`0`$ after $`k`$ derivations, produces an homogeneous polynomial of order $`k+1`$ in $`A`$ with $`k+1`$ derivatives (with respect to spacetime coordinates) equally distributed on each monomial. Finally, considering $`\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ at order $`n`$ in $`\theta `$, by the same argument, one obtains an homogeneous polynomial of order $`n+2`$ in $`A`$ with $`n+2`$ spacetime derivatives comparing in each monomial.
Now, since the Lagrangian density (obtained from the S-W map) is certainly invariant under the usual $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge transformations, every monomial can be rearranged, modulo integration by parts, so as to depend only on $`F`$ and possibly its derivatives. But being the number of derivatives exactly equal to the number of $`As`$ in every monomial, it follows that derivatives of $`F`$ cannot appear at all. QED

###### Corollary 3.1

The equations of motion of the $`U(1)`$ theory take the form:

$`_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=0`$ (3.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the sum of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`n+1`$ in $`F`$ and order $`n`$ in $`\theta `$ (i.e. written symbolically):

$`\stackrel{~}{F}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\theta ^nF^{n+1}`$ (3.4)
As we will see this property helps to derive a recursive algorithm for their resolution.

The main consequence of the structure (3.4) evidenced above, is that the equations of motion for the field strenght are of first order. This seems to suggest that the theory is causal even though not requiring time commutativity. In the literature, it is suspected that causality does not survive Noncommutativity . In our model though, after undertaking the SW map, the action has been manipulated and integrated by parts to render all terms explicitly gauge invariant. As a by-product, all higher order time derivatives have disappeared. In effect, this task is equivalent to add boundary terms to the Lagrangian: exactly those capable of giving causal consistency to the theory.

Probably this should be the right procedure to follow generally. Furthermore, the fact that preserving causality is no more consequence of imposing zero temporal components in $`\theta `$, allows to require that it can transform like a tensor in respect to the Lorentz group. It descends that Lorentz covariance is also preserved.

## 4 Equations of motion up to second order

Let us expand also the NC Lagrangian density (2.4) into pieces of increasing order in $`\theta `$:

$$\widehat{}=+\widehat{}^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}$$
(4.1)
The first term here coincides with the classical Maxwell Lagrangian while the other terms are its various corrections. More precisely:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\widehat{}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu \left(1\right)}F_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\widehat{}^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu \left(1\right)}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(1\right)}+2F^{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\left(2\right)}\right\}`$
Recall  that up to first order in $`\theta `$, the NC Lagrangian has the following form:

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\left(1\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)F^2+2\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }\right]$$
(4.2)
or, upon substitution according to our conventions (2.2) we have:

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+𝜷\text{B}𝜺\text{E}\right)\left(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2\right)\left(𝜷\text{E}+𝜺\text{B}\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)$$
(4.3)
Next, looking for the second order term, one finds with a little effort:

$`\widehat{}^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }\{F_\alpha ^\mu F_\beta ^\nu F_{\mu \gamma }F_{\nu \delta }+2F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \gamma }F_{\beta \nu }F_{\delta \alpha }+F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }F_{\delta \gamma }+`$ (4.4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F_{\beta \alpha }F_{\delta \gamma }F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\beta \gamma }F_{\alpha \delta }F^2\}`$
Here again, after substitution and accurate computation, you get:

$`\widehat{}^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B})(𝜷\text{E}+𝜺\text{B})(\text{E}\text{B})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B})^2(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2)+`$ (4.5)
$`+(𝜺𝜷)(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2)(\text{E}\text{B})(\text{E}\text{B})^2(𝜺^2𝜷^2)]`$
As already remarked, the second variation of $`\widehat{}`$ yields the usual equations of motion:

$$_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(4.6)
and eq.(3.4) leads us to write $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F+\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(1\right)}+\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(n\right)}\theta ^nF^{n+1}`$.

It is now tempting to regard each piece like this as a correction to the classical field strenght $`F`$ due to NC geometry. This is more properly done here than on the expansion (2.10) because we are referring to the equations of motion. Furthermore the interesting thing  is that denoting the content of the NC field $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ with an Electric displacement and Magnetic induction $`(\text{D},\text{H})`$ and restating the above expansion as:

D $`=`$ $`\text{E}+\text{D}^{\left(1\right)}+\text{D}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}`$
H $`=`$ $`\text{B}+\text{H}^{\left(1\right)}+\text{H}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}`$
where the classical fields $`(\text{E},\text{B})`$ in $`F`$ are recaptured as their zeroth order corrections $`(\text{D}^{\left(0\right)},\text{H}^{\left(0\right)})`$, then the equations of motion take the usual Maxwell form:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\text{B}}{t}+\times \text{E}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \text{B}& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.7)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\text{D}}{t}\times \text{H}& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill \text{D}& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.8)
Note that the first two are simply the Bianchi identities; the other two really describe the behaviour of NC Electromagnetism in empty space. Working with the first order correction to $`F`$ which is:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu \left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta F\right)F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\mu \nu }F^2+\theta _{\alpha \beta }F^{\mu \alpha }F^{\nu \beta }+\left(\theta ^{\mu \beta }F^{\alpha \nu }\theta ^{\nu \beta }F^{\alpha \mu }\right)F_{\alpha \beta }$$
(4.9)
we obtain for the NC fields the approximated expressions:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{D}& =& \left(1+𝜷\text{B}𝜺\text{E}\right)\text{E}\left(𝜷\text{E}+𝜺\text{B}\right)\text{B}\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2\right)𝜺\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)𝜷\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \text{H}& =& \left(1+𝜷\text{B}𝜺\text{E}\right)\text{B}+\left(𝜷\text{E}+𝜺\text{B}\right)\text{E}\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{E}^2\text{B}^2\right)𝜷+\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)𝜺\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.10)
Here the NC tensor $`\theta `$ has been assumed to represent a couple of fields ($`𝜺`$ , $`𝜷`$ ) in agreement with the conventions (2.2). The second order correction to $`F`$ reads explicitly:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu \left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_\delta ^\gamma F_{\gamma \beta }\left(\theta ^{\nu \delta }F_\alpha ^\mu \theta ^{\mu \delta }F_\alpha ^\nu \right)`$ (4.11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }F_\gamma ^\mu F_\beta ^\nu F_{\alpha \delta }+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \gamma }F_{\delta \alpha }\left(\theta ^{\nu \delta }F^{\mu \gamma }\theta ^{\mu \delta }F^{\nu \gamma }\right)+\theta ^{\mu \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \nu }F^{\delta \alpha }F_{\delta \gamma }F_{\alpha \beta }\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left(\theta F\right)\left(\theta ^{\gamma \beta }F_\gamma ^\mu F_\beta ^\nu +\theta ^{\nu \beta }F^{\mu \gamma }F_{\gamma \beta }\theta ^{\mu \beta }F^{\nu \gamma }F_{\gamma \beta }\right)+\theta ^{\gamma \beta }\theta ^{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \delta }F_{\delta \gamma }F_{\alpha \beta }\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\theta F\right)\left\{\theta ^{\mu \nu }F^2+\left(\theta F\right)F^{\mu \nu }\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\theta ^{\alpha \mu }\theta ^{\nu \delta }F_{\alpha \delta }F^2+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }F_{\alpha \delta }F_{\beta \gamma }F^{\mu \nu }\right)`$
This rather involved formula, when re-expressed in terms of the classical fields gives us the second order terms in $`\theta `$ to be added to the above:

$`\text{D}^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)^2𝜺^2\text{B}^2+\left(𝜺\text{B}\right)^2+\left(𝜺𝜷\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)\right]\text{E}`$ (4.12)
$`+\left[\left(𝜷\text{E}\right)\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\left(𝜺\text{B}\right)\left(𝜷\text{B}\right)+𝜷^2\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝜺𝜷\right)\left(\text{E}^2\text{B}\right)^2\right]\text{B}`$
$`+\left[\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\text{E}^2+\left(𝜷\text{E}\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)+\left(𝜷\text{B}\right)\text{B}^2\right]𝜺`$
$`+\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)𝜷+\left[\text{E}\left(𝜺\times \text{B}\right)\right]𝜷\times \text{E}`$
while for the magnetic induction we get:

$`\text{H}^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[𝜺^2\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)\left(𝜺\text{B}\right)\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\left(𝜺\text{E}\right)\left(𝜷\text{E}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝜺𝜷\right)\left(\text{E}^2\text{B}\right)^2\right]\text{E}`$ (4.13)
$`+\left[\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)^2𝜷^2\text{E}^2+\left(𝜷\text{E}\right)^2+\left(𝜺𝜷\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)\right]\text{B}`$
$`\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)𝜺+\left[\text{B}\left(𝜷\times \text{E}\right)\right]𝜺\times \text{B}`$
$`+\left[\left(𝜺\text{E}\right)\text{E}^2+\left(𝜺\text{B}\right)\left(\text{E}\text{B}\right)\left(𝜺\text{E}𝜷\text{B}\right)\text{B}^2\right]𝜷`$
We end this section observing that applying an Electric-magnetic duality directly on the classical fields and reversely on the noncommuting parameter in this way:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{E}& & \hfill \text{B}\\ \hfill \text{B}& & \hfill \text{E}\end{array}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝜺& & \hfill 𝜷\\ \hfill 𝜷& & \hfill 𝜺\end{array}$$
(4.14)
induces, up to second order, an ”Electric-magnetic duality” on the NC fields (4.10):

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{D}& & \hfill \text{H}\\ \hfill \text{H}& & \hfill \text{D}\end{array}$$
(4.15)
At present, the meaning of this symmetry is unclear and we suspect it remains true to all orders in the perturbative $`\theta `$ expansion.

## 5 Exact solutions and an iterative method

We seek solutions to the equations of motion:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{[\nu }F_{\mu \rho ]}& =& 0\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.1)
where:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=F+\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(1\right)}+\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}$$
(5.2)
with the structure $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(n\right)}\theta ^nF^{n+2}`$ already evident for example in eq. (4.9) and (4.11).

The most natural thing to suppose is that also a solution should be written as a sum:

$$F:=F^{\left(0\right)}+F^{\left(1\right)}+F^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}$$
(5.3)
with pieces $`F^{\left(k\right)}`$ now understood to be corrections to a solution $`F^{\left(0\right)}`$ to the classical Maxwell Equations i.e. $`_\nu F^{\left(0\right)\mu \nu }=0`$ plus the Bianchi identities. We will briefly state this as $`F^{\left(0\right)}=0`$. Furthermore, let $`|_k`$ be the operation of keeping, in a generic expression, all terms up to a given order $`k`$ in $`\theta `$, neglecting the others. Then extracting $`k`$-th order from (5.2) terms like this:

$$F|_k=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}F^{\left(i\right)}$$
(5.4)
will be present. Accounting for that, hypotesis (5.3) and the structure (3.4) we get:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}|_k=F|_k+\theta \left(FF\right)|_{k1}+\mathrm{}+\underset{k}{\underset{}{\theta \mathrm{}\theta }}\left(\underset{k+1}{\underset{}{F\mathrm{}F}}\right)|_0$$
(5.5)
Our purpose is to write down a recursive method of solving the noncommutative Maxwell equation $`\stackrel{~}{F}=0`$ having a classical solution $`F^{\left(0\right)}`$. This is realized order by order noting that $`\left(\stackrel{~}{F}\right)|_k=\stackrel{~}{F}|_k`$. Then taking first order into the recursive relation (5.5) we have:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}|_1=\left(F^{\left(0\right)}+F^{\left(1\right)}+\theta \left(FF\right)|_0\right)=0$$
(5.6)
Now, being $`F^{\left(0\right)}`$ a classical solution, we are led to solve the equation:

$$F^{\left(1\right)}=\left(\theta F^{\left(0\right)}F^{\left(0\right)}\right)$$
(5.7)
In exactly the same way, solutions correct up to second order come from:

$$F^{\left(2\right)}=\left[\theta \left(F^{\left(0\right)}F^{\left(1\right)}+F^{\left(1\right)}F^{\left(0\right)}\right)+\theta \theta F^{\left(0\right)}F^{\left(0\right)}F^{\left(0\right)}\right]$$
(5.8)
Generally, obtaining the $`k`$-th term in the expansion (5.3) always reduces to solving an equation of the form:

$$_\nu F^{\left(k\right)\mu \nu }=J^\mu [F^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},F^{\left(k1\right)}]$$
(5.9)
where the right member $`J^\mu `$ only involves all the $`k1`$ solutions computed in the previous steps. Now, deciding that each two form $`F^{\left(k\right)}`$ comes from a potential $`A^{\left(k\right)}`$ satisfying the Lorentz gauge constraint<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1It is easy to show that this can always be done order by order $`_\nu A^{\left(k\right)\nu }=0`$ then Eq.(5.9) becomes:

$`\mathrm{}A^\mu =J^\mu `$ (5.10)
This is immediately solved employing the Lienard-Wickert potentials. Then in principle we have got an authomatic tool capable of solving the equations of motion in full.

Let us focus, for example, on the single plane wave solution:

$$A_\mu =\zeta _\mu e^{ikx}$$
(5.11)
with $`k_\mu k^\mu =\zeta _\mu k^\mu =0`$ in the Lorentz gauge $`_\nu A^\nu =0`$. We have:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{\left(0\right)}=i\left(k_\mu \zeta _\nu k_\nu \zeta _\mu \right)e^{ikx}$$
(5.12)
This is a particular case because we will now show that it is an exact solution of eq.(5.1).

###### Lemma 5.1

Given an antisymmetric matrix $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, a null vector $`k^\alpha `$ and a family of vectors $`\{\zeta _{(i)}^\beta \}_{iI}`$ orthogonal to $`k^\alpha `$, then any combination of n copies of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, (n+1) vectors of the given family and (n+2) copies of $`k^\alpha `$ in which all indices but one are saturated, vanish.

Proof. Try to build a nonvanishing combination. In so doing, you cannot saturate the $`k`$ vectors with the $`\zeta `$ vectors due to ortogonality. Neither you can saturate two of them with one $`\theta `$ matrix due to its antisimmetry. You are obliged to use one only $`k`$ vector for each matrix, spending $`n`$ of them. Of the two remaining, one can be chosen as the free index but the other must necessarily be saturated with one of the $`\zeta `$ vectors or one of the $`\theta `$ matrices giving a vanishing result.  QED.

###### Proposition 5.1

Monochromatic plane waves solve the field equations (5.1) to every order in $`\theta `$.

Proof. Let us write the general monochromatic plane wave as:

$`A_\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \left(Kx\right)`$ (5.13)
with $`K^2=0`$ and $`K^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{}\left(Kx\right)=0`$ so that

$`F_{\mu \nu }=K_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{}\left(Kx\right)K_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{}\left(Kx\right)`$ (5.14)
Let $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(n\right)\mu \nu }`$ be the term of order $`n`$ in $`\theta `$; then $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(n\right)\mu \nu }`$ is the sum of terms obtained by contraction of $`n`$ copies of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, $`n`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ^{}`$, one copy of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`n+2`$ copies of $`K_\gamma `$. From the Lemma it follows that $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\left(n\right)\mu \nu }=0.`$ QED.
The previous property of monochromatic plane waves holds for any lagrangian having the assumed polynomial structure, independently of the fact that it has been derived from a NC theory using the SW map.

### 5.1 Plane wave superposition

While single plane waves turn out to be exact solutions of the field equations this is no longer valid even for a simple superposition like this:

$$A_\mu :=\zeta _\mu e^{ikx}+\zeta _\mu ^{}e^{ik^{}x}$$
(5.15)
corresponding to the classical solution (by linearity):

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{\left(0\right)}:=i\left(k_\mu \zeta _\nu k_\nu \zeta _\mu \right)e^{ikx}+i\left(k_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\zeta _{}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}k_{}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}\zeta _{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\right)e^{ik^{}x}$$
(5.16)
To find out its first order correction in the NC framework we must solve (5.7) yielding:

$`_\nu F^{\left(1\right)\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i\{[\left(kk^{}\right)_\theta \left(\zeta \zeta ^{}\right)\left(\zeta \zeta ^{}\right)_\theta \left(kk^{}\right)](k^\mu k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu })`$ (5.20)
$`\left[\left(k\zeta ^{}\right)_\theta \left(\zeta k^{}\right)\left(\zeta k^{}\right)_\theta \left(k\zeta ^{}\right)\right]\left(k^\mu +k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)`$
$`+2\left[\left(k\zeta ^{}\right)_\theta \left(kk^{}\right)\left(kk^{}\right)_\theta \left(k\zeta ^{}\right)\right]\zeta ^\mu `$
$`2[\left(\zeta k^{}\right)_\theta \left(kk^{}\right)\left(kk^{}\right)_\theta \left(\zeta k^{}\right)]\zeta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\}e^{i\left(k+k^{}\right)x}`$
where the following anti-symmetric inner product has been defined: $`\left(vw\right)_\theta :=v^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }w^\nu `$.

This equation can be solved assuming

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{\left(1\right)}=_\mu A_\nu ^{\left(1\right)}_\nu A_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}$$
(5.21)
and $`A^{\left(1\right)}`$ still satisfying an extended Lorentz gauge constraint $`_\nu A^{\left(1\right)\nu }=0`$.
Infact, rewriting eq. (5.20) in the form

$`\mathrm{}A_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}=iJ_\mu e^{i\left(k+k^{}\right)x}`$ (5.22)
we realize that $`J`$ is transverse to $`k+k^{}`$ as can be easily proved using the defining relations:

$`k^2=k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0k\zeta =k^{}\zeta ^{}=0`$ (5.23)
This means that if we put abruptely,

$`A_\mu ^{\left(1\right)}={\displaystyle \frac{iJ_\mu }{2kk^{}}}e^{i\left(k+k^{}\right)x}`$ (5.24)
this solves eq.(5.20) being also compatible with the extended Lorentz gauge.

Note that this corrected version of the superposition law could be used to reveal a refraction effect suffered by a ray of light in passing from an empty region to one in which a background static and uniform magnetic or electric field is present . The incoming and reflected rays propagating in the empty region, should be described by a superposition of waves agreeing with the refracted one in the transition region.

### 5.2 The Coulomb Law

All NC theories are characterized by a parameter $`\theta `$ which defines a natural scale of length. From a dimensional analysis, the corrections to the Coulomb law are of order $`\frac{1}{r^4}`$ but a complete power series expansion in $`\frac{\theta }{r^2}`$ is expected so that if $`L`$ is its convergence ratio (plausibely finite), then non-perturbative contributions should become relevant in the region $`r<\sqrt{\theta }L`$ where the perturbative description fails. We can make a sensible study of the NC corrections to the Coulomb law, considering the potential generated by a charged conducting sphere of radius $`r_0`$.
At $`0`$-th order the classical potential is

$`A^{(0)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{e}{r}dt\hfill & r>r_0\hfill \\ \frac{e}{r_0}dt\hfill & rr_0\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.25)
so that ($`\widehat{x}^i`$ is the radial versor)

$`F_{0i}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{r^2}}\widehat{x}^i\theta (rr_0)`$ (5.26)
At first order:

$`_\nu F^{(1)\mu \nu }=_\nu G^{\mu \nu }`$ (5.27)
with

$`G^{\mu \nu }:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\theta F)F^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }(FF)+\theta _{\alpha \beta }F^{\mu \alpha }F^{\nu \beta }+(\theta ^{\mu \beta }F^{\alpha \nu }\theta ^{\nu \beta }F^{\alpha \mu })F_{\alpha \beta }`$ (5.28)
A direct computation gives for the tensor $`G`$:

$`G^{0i}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^4}}\left[(ϵ\widehat{x})\widehat{x}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^i\right]\theta (rr_0)`$ (5.29)
$`G^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^4}}\left[(\widehat{x}^i\theta ^{jk}\widehat{x}^j\theta ^{ik})\widehat{x}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{ij}\right]\theta (rr_0)`$ (5.30)
so that

$`_\mu F^{(1)\mu \nu }=J^\nu `$ (5.31)
with

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^6}}(4\stackrel{}{ϵ}\stackrel{}{r};\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\beta })\theta (rr_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r_0^5}}(3/2\stackrel{}{ϵ}\stackrel{}{r};1/2\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\beta })\delta (rr_0)`$ (5.32)
We have solved numerically the equation 5.31 and we show in Figure 1 the equipotential level of the zeroth component of $`A^{(1)}`$ which is symmetrical under rotations about the direction of $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$.

The other components have a similar angular behaviour and their precise values depend on the direction and magnitude of $`\beta `$.
The corrections in Figure 1 give the modification of the Coulomb law in the case of a charged sphere. This interpretation would be well defined with $`r_0\sqrt{\theta }`$, being the perturbative solution valid almost everywhere, even inside the conducting sphere. But in the specific example considered in Figure 1 the sphere coincides with the excluded region, where the perturbative approach fails. This case suggests a different interpretation, as the NC correction to the Coulomb potential of a point-charge. In fact in NC theories it is intuitive to replace pointlike with extended object, whose typical length is $`\sqrt{\theta }`$.
The corrections to the potential violate the Gauss law and the spherical symmetry of the classical solution. As a consequence, we observe in the case of a conducting macroscopic sphere, that the potential inside the conductor is not constant. This remark suggests a way to test NC electrodynamics effects.

In Figure 2 we show the relative contribution of the corrections $`A^{(1)}`$ to the classical Coulomb potential $`A^{(0)}`$. The size of the corrections is already relevant (e.g. greater than 10 percent) at a length scale bigger by more than one order of magnitude w.r.t. to the one determined by the NC parameter.

## 6 Conclusions

In this work we have formulated an explicit perturbative realization of NC electrodynamics, which turns out to be causal and Lorentz invariant. The basic steps to obtain this result have been: the use of the SW map and a rearrangement of the action aimed to render every term explicitly gauge invariant, by use of careful integration by parts. The resulting expressions do not contain time derivatives of order higher than two, yielding authomatically a causal theory. This latter property is obtained without imposing any constraint on the NC parameter $`\theta `$, which can be chosen in full generality as a Lorentz tensor, leading to a Lorentz covariant theory.
We have studied the general structure of the Lagrangian, to all orders in the perturbative expansion. We have shown that the monochromatic plane wave is solution of the equations of motion to first  and even to all orders.
We developed an iterative method to solve the equations of motion. In particular we applied this method to study the corrections to the superposition law of plane waves and to the electrostatic potential of a spherically symmetric charge distribution. The most relevant qualitative feature of the NC corrections that we calculated is that they have a peculiar signature which makes them, at least in priciple, distinguishable from the classical corresponding effects. A possible test of the superposition law could be done by studying the reflection and rifraction of light on a magnetic field, using for instance the experimental setting described in . Furthermore, the deviations from the Coulomb law could be evidenced by measuring the charge distribution on the surface and the electric field inside an empty conducting sphere. Acknowledgements
We are grateful to D. Klemm for his participation in the initial stage of this work. This work was partially supported by INFN, MURST and by the European Commision RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which the authors are associated to the University of Torino.