1: \documentclass[showpacs,twocolumn,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsbsy,graphics,graphicx,epsfig,array,latexsym,booktabs}
3: \usepackage[colorlinks,hypertex]{hyperref}
4: \usepackage{ifthen,color,relsize,fancyvrb}%font size
5: \hypersetup{pdfpagemode=FullScreen,urlcolor=black,citecolor=blue}
6:
7: \setlength{\textwidth}{500pt}
8: \setlength{\textheight}{700pt}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{Probing $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation in noncommutative electroweak model}
12:
13: \author{Chien Yu Chen}
14: \email{d9522817@phys.nthu.edu.tw}
15: \affiliation{\small Department of Physics, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan}
16:
17: \preprint{\hepth{0808.2848}}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: If the twist $Poincar\acute{e}$ transformation is imposed on the
21: noncommutative spacetime, then $Lorentz$ invariance cannot be
22: applied on QFT. To data, noncommutative theory is one of the best
23: candidates to modify $Lorentz$ transformation. In this paper, we
24: argue parity violation under the process of $e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma
25: \gamma$ and make a detailed analysis of the difference behavior
26: of each helicity state on noncommutative spacetime. The effect
27: arises from the production of spin and magnetic fields. We check
28: the energy momentum conservation for all used couplings and
29: discover that if the electric field changes particle energy
30: spectrum, there is no symmetry violation as the field produces
31: a longitudinal state on the finial triple boson couplings.
32: \end{abstract}
33:
34: \keywords{Non-Commutative Geometry, Electromagnetic Processes and Properties}
35: \pacs{11.10.Nx, 12.60.Cn, 13.88.+e, 11.30.Er}
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39: $Lorentz$ symmetry constrains the transformation of spacetime from
40: boost and rotation. Many phenomena that cannot be predicted by the
41: standard model are expected to violate $Lorentz$ symmetry. The main
42: purpose of this paper is to concentrate on the effects
43: induced by the background magnetic field. In particular, we discuss the
44: parity asymmetry in $e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma\gamma$ with the content
45: of $Lorentz$ violation. The numerical results present that parity is
46: violated, while $CP$ symmetry still preserves in the next leading
47: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ patch with noncommutative background.
48:
49: Furthermore, $CP$ symmetry puts a constraint on the cross section.
50: Parity violated phenomena simultaneously violates the charge
51: conservation. This effect induces a slight space transilation, but
52: charge violated event changes the magnitude in total cross section. In
53: the viewpoint of quantum gravity, energy scale of $Lorentz$
54: violation is ranged in the Plank scale, $M_{PL} = 10^{19}~GeV$. In
55: this paper, we probe the effects of backgound field direction
56: on the total cross section. The scale $\Lambda_{C}$ and the colliding
57: energy level have been set to 1~$TeV$ and 800~$GeV$ respectively.
58: The total cross section fluctuation associates with
59: $70K_{Z\gamma\gamma}\cos\alpha_{B}$ ($fb$) in summing each
60: photon polarization, where $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ is a triple gauge
61: boson coupling, and $\alpha_{B}$ is the direction of background
62: magnetic field. The shift is miniscule in comparing with the standard
63: model cross section 5560 ($fb$).
64:
65: Moreover, due to the interaction between background magnetic field and
66: photons with oppsite polarization, the spin-magnetic interaction, $\vec{S}
67: \cdot\vec{B}$, produces a forward-backward asymmetry cannot be
68: predicted by the standard model. In calculations, the sensitive
69: phenomenon of the total cross section of central energy is pertaining
70: to the direction of background magnetic field. We observe that the
71: spin-magnetic interaction effect is changed under the relation, $<\vec{S}>
72: \cdot\vec{B}$ = $\pm\arrowvert B\arrowvert\cos\theta_{B_{Z}}$. The
73: principal frame takes along z-axis, and the total energy spectrum is proportional
74: to the $\theta_{B_{Z}}$ angle. By the way, the electric field is absent
75: due to the unitarity constraint.
76:
77: Most investigations tend to choose a preferred direction of the
78: isotropic and homogeneous earlier universe, i.e. by adding a nonlocal
79: four vector term in the Lagrange~\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}. The
80: field along the direction of the background field equally imposes a
81: constant direction rearranging the order of spacetime~\cite{Minwalla:1999px}.
82: There are some papers consider noncommutative scalar field in $fuzzy$
83: sphere~\cite{Panero:2006bx}, this spacetime considers the era of universe
84: earlier than cosmology scale. However, many theories with consistent
85: concepts are to define a preferred direction on the isotropic spacetime.
86: This is apparently to oppose the general assumption of $Lorentz$ symmetry.
87: Noncommutative field theory is one of the theories violates $Lorentz$
88: symmetry in putting a constant background field term in the
89: $Dirac~Born~Infeld$ action of the bosonic string~\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}.
90: The field influences the position between particles cannot be
91: exchanged on the same consequence.
92:
93: In the concept of noncommutive spacetime, there are three kinds of structure
94: ~\cite{Jurco:2000ja} considered: (1) canonical structure,
95: (2) Lie algebra structure, and (3) quantum space structure. It dominates
96: to decide a way by $\star$ production. We cannot think of a different description of the
97: gauge transformation into a different map. On the model building, unfortunately,
98: the noncommutative model has been restricted by the $\textit{No-Go Theorem}$
99: ~\cite{Chaichian:2001mu}. Only $U_{\star}(1)$ gauge group can
100: build into this spacetime. Separating the generator into U(1) gauge and $SU_{\star}(N)$
101: parts, the redefined relation between each particle can be formed a group to aside
102: a existence of condensed field. Requiring non-abelian
103: representation in considering enveloping algebra
104: ~\cite{Jurco:2000ja,Wulkenhaar:1999im}, it separates the
105: generators of different commutation relations and expands the
106: gauge representation of infinite $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformation.
107: Renormalization implies unitary constraint is satisfied in the field
108: theory and restricts $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is just considered
109: into first order.
110:
111: The UV/IR mixing commits the particle to propagate nonlocal space.
112: The mixed angular momentum from background constant direction and particle kinetic
113: momentum towards to renew the commutation form or split the $U(1)$ generation.
114: Due to slip the photon polarization under modifying commutation relation will absorb
115: some physical degrees of freedom into the lost generators, the complete physical field is
116: still in the unbroken gauge. Hereafter, the redefined angular momentum is considerable
117: to modify $U(1)$ gauge. We do not take the condensed picture in gauge boson, the couplings used
118: concentrate on the unbroken $U(1)$ generators with preserving chiral symmetry in fermion fields.
119: Hence, the behavior of finial photon polarization is the simple consequence of background nonlocal
120: vector condensation with particle polarizations.
121:
122: Expanding the origin nonabelian gauge theory in noncommutative
123: spacetime and considering the enveloping algebra modifies gauge
124: representation. Using $Seiberg~Witten$ map~\cite{Seiberg:1999vs, Martin:2002nr},
125: the origin gauge group of the standard model is extended by first order
126: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformation under noncommutative phase-like translation,
127: \begin{equation}
128: f(x) \star g(x)=f(x)exp\bigg(\frac{i}{2}
129: \overleftarrow{\partial_{\mu}}\theta^{\mu\nu}\overrightarrow
130: {\partial_{\mu}}\bigg)g(x).\nonumber
131: \end{equation}
132: Which are two function products of $\star$ deformed noncommutative
133: algebra. The gauge group is extended as $SU_{\star C}$(3)
134: $\otimes SU_{\star L}$(L)$\otimes U_{\star Y}$(1) with produced
135: background deformation by preserving gauge restriction. In the next section,
136: we briefly introduce gauge boson action using
137: enveloping algebra expansion~\cite{Jurco:2000ja}. Thereof,
138: all of the field theory involving $\theta_{\mu\nu}$
139: deformation comments the physics ordered phase, and contains the
140: information of earlier universe background magnetic and electric field.
141:
142: Using the properties of space and momentum exchange under Moyal space,
143: the $Lorentz$ group SO(1,3) is isomorphic to O(1,1)$\otimes$SO(2), where the
144: lost generators are residing in the hypersurface. It results from an
145: arbitrary generator and uniquely choose in the background field direction
146: and violates boost and rotation symmetry. These phenomena induce
147: parity symmetry violated effects. The common commutation relation
148: on the four vector spacetime is
149: \begin{equation}\label{eq1}
150: [x_{\mu}, x_{\nu}]_{\star} = i\theta_{\mu\nu}=i\frac{C_{\mu\nu}}
151: {\Lambda^{2}_{NC}},
152: \end{equation}
153: and
154: \begin{equation}\label{eq2}
155: C_{\mu\nu} = \left(\begin{array}{@{}cccc@{}}
156: 0 & E_{1} & E_{2} & E_{3}\\
157: -E_{1} & 0 & -B_{3} &B_{2}\\
158: -E_{2} & B_{3} & 0 & -B_{1}\\
159: -E_{3} & -B_{2} & B_{1} & 0
160: \end{array}\right),
161: \end{equation}
162: where $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ contains all the information of the background
163: field, such as the field strength tensor of electrodynamics. The cross
164: section is charge violated due to parity violation and $CP$
165: conservation of odd order theta deformation.
166:
167: However, the spin of any physics field interacts with background field
168: in odd order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformations. If we choose a preferred
169: direction on the homogeneous and isotropic spacetime, under the background,
170: parity does not remain a perfectly symmetry. Each particle helicity induces an
171: opposite contribution on coupling to the background field. Particle
172: energy spectrum is exchanged by the spin and background magnetic interaction.
173: Therefore, if the deviation of each helicity dispersion is the same, the
174: total parity violated phenomenon will be invisible. On the other hand,
175: each photon helicity induces an opposite contribution on forward-backward
176: asymmetry, the unpolarized electron initial beams will produce an
177: asymmetric deviation to each helicity of photon luminosity.
178:
179: \section{Brief review of noncommutative theory}
180: On the commutative spacetime we use the Seiberg-Witten map to
181: generate noncommutative theta deformed potential. The series ordered
182: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ expansion in enveloping algebra extends
183: the non-abelian gauge symmetry from $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$
184: to $SU_{\star L}$(L)$\otimes U_{\star Y}$(1)
185: ~\cite{Jurco:2000ja, Wulkenhaar:1999im}. The standard noncommutative
186: model is invariant under the gauge transformation builded by Hopf algebra
187: ~\cite{Wulkenhaar:1999im, Martin:2002nr, Zahn:2006wt} on Moyal
188: space~\cite{Wallet:2007em}. It supposes the existence of an infinitesimal
189: transformation generator $X$ with $\phi$ $\longmapsto$
190: X$\vartriangleright$$\phi$. The action of the field is multiplied
191: by a coproduct $\triangle$, denoted in
192: $\phi\otimes\psi\longmapsto\triangle$(X)$\vartriangleright$($\phi
193: \otimes\psi$).
194:
195: The translation of coproduction between the twist deformation
196: and the initial form,
197: \begin{equation}\label{eq3}
198: \triangle_{\theta}(X) = \mathfrak{F}^{-1}\triangle_{0}(X)\mathfrak{F} =
199: \mathfrak{F}^{-1}(X\otimes 1+1\otimes X)\mathfrak{F},
200: \end{equation}
201: and the noncommutative momentum translation representation,
202: \begin{equation}\label{eq4}
203: \mathfrak{F} = exp(-\frac{i}{2}\theta^{ij}p_{i}\otimes p_{j}),
204: \end{equation}
205: are defined by abelian gauge transformation. The coproduct of
206: Poincar$\acute{e}$ generator requires a consistent deformation
207: between two fields, $m_{0}(\phi\otimes\psi)$ = $\phi\cdot\psi$, and
208: isomorphic to $m_{\theta}(\phi\otimes\psi)$ = $\phi\star\psi$.
209: Therefore, the translation of the gauge symmetry under this rule is
210: similarly to take Eq.(2.1) and Eq.(2.2) into
211: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq5}
212: &X\vartriangleright m_{0}(\phi\otimes\psi) = m_{0}(\triangle_{0}(X)
213: \vartriangleright(\phi\otimes\psi ))\nonumber\\
214: &\longmapsto X\vartriangleright m_{\theta}(\phi\otimes\psi) =
215: m_{0}(\triangle_{\theta}(X)\vartriangleright(\phi\otimes\psi )).
216: \end{split}\end{equation}
217: We use this representation to prove photon polarization does
218: not be changed in the noncommutative spacetime. However,
219: if $\psi$ and $\phi$ are substituted for four vector momentum,
220: and $Pauli-Ljubanski$ polarization four vectors individually,
221: \begin{equation}\label{eq6}
222: \mathbb{W}^{\mu} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
223: J_{\nu\alpha}P_{\beta},
224: \end{equation}
225: in which $J_{\nu\alpha}$ is $Lorentz$ rotation and boosts
226: generator, $P_{\beta}$ is the momentum operator.
227:
228: Hence, after transformation it is easily shown that, for
229: chargless particle, $Lorentz$ tensor violates the origin
230: translation and rotation in isotropic and homogeneous spacestime.
231: On the other hand, if the field contains a charge, momentum
232: translation is violated along the background electric field
233: direction. Photon is a chargeless particle, the direction of translation
234: will not induce another degree of freedom to generate its mass.
235: In fact that noncommutative is translational invariance in
236: Eq.(2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Following above discussion, $m_{\theta}$
237: ($P_{\mu}\otimes P_{\nu}$ - $P_{\nu}\otimes P_{\mu}$) = 0
238: takes a constraint on $Pauli-Ljubanski$ polarization. The commutation
239: relations $m_{\theta}$($\mathbb{W}^{\mu}\otimes P^{\nu}$-
240: $P^{\nu}\otimes\mathbb{W}^{\mu}$) = 0, $P^{2}$ = $m^{2}$ and
241: $\mathbb{W}^{2}$ = $m^{2}$s(s+1) still retain the properties of
242: $Casimir$ operator, where m is particle mass along to the direction of
243: momentum and s is its polarization. For the massless case,
244: $\mathbb{W}^{2}$ = 0, and m = 0, photon does not contain a
245: longitudinal state even after momentum translation. Therefore,
246: gauge condition $m_{\theta}(P^{\mu}\otimes\mathbb{W}_{\mu})$ = 0
247: is still unchanged. However, the summation of polarization should
248: add a phase $\phi\thicksim\vec{B}\cdot(\vec{P}_{1}\times\vec{P}_{2})$
249: due to two gauge bosons product.
250:
251: The noncommutative gauge theory is very interesting in which
252: contains many degrees of freedom from choosing a
253: different representations of gauge kinetic term under trace technique.
254: On this way, we use the enveloping algebra to realize the
255: nonabelian group\cite{Jurco:2000ja}, and choose a minimal expression of
256: gauge expansion. By dividing the gauge kinetic term, one part is minimal
257: and another is non-minimal. The gauge action of noncommutative
258: electroweak model\cite{Calmet:2001na} is regarded as
259: \begin{equation}\label{eq7}
260: S_{gauge} = S^{minimal}_{gauge} + S^{nm-term}_{gauge},
261: \end{equation}
262: the minimal term is to expand the origin using
263: $Seiberg~Witten$ map. In order to consider a
264: triplet gauge boson couplings, hence, the non-minimal term is to choose
265: a different trace technique on the aspect of gauge boson
266: parameter to expand the gauge boson action,
267: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq8}
268: &S^{minimum}_{gauge} =\\
269: &- \frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\bigg{(}\frac{1}{2} A_{\mu\nu}A^{\mu\nu} +
270: Tr B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu} + Tr G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}\bigg{)}\\
271: &+ \frac{1}{4}g_{s}d^{abc}\theta^{\rho\sigma}\int d^{4}x\bigg{(}
272: \frac{1}{4}G^{a}_{\rho\sigma}G^{b}_{\mu\nu} - G^{a}_{\rho\mu}
273: G^{b}_{\sigma\nu}\bigg{)}G^{\mu\nu,c} + O(\theta^{2}),\nonumber
274: \end{split}\end{equation}
275: and
276: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq9}
277: &S^{nm-term}_{gauge} =\\
278: &g'^{3}k_{1}\theta^{\rho\sigma}\int d^{4}x\bigg{(}\frac{a}{4}A_{\rho\sigma}
279: A_{\mu\nu} - A_{\mu\rho}A_{\nu\sigma}\bigg{)}A^{\mu\nu}\\
280: &+ g'g^{2}k_{2}\theta^{\rho\sigma}\int d^{4}x\bigg{[}\bigg{(}\frac{a}{4}
281: A_{\rho\sigma}B^{a}_{\mu\nu} - A_{\mu\rho}B^{a}_{\nu\sigma}\bigg{)}
282: B^{\mu\nu,a} + c.p.\bigg{]}\nonumber\\
283: &+ g'g_{s}^{2}k_{3}\theta^{\rho\sigma}\int d^{4}x\bigg{[}\bigg{(}
284: \frac{a}{4}A_{\rho\sigma}G^{b}_{\mu\nu} - A_{\mu\rho}G^{b}_{\nu\sigma}
285: \bigg{)}G^{\mu\nu,b} + c.p.\bigg{]}\\
286: &+ O(\theta^{2}),\nonumber\\
287: \end{split}\end{equation}
288: the first one is the origin gauge boson kinetic term on
289: noncommutative spacetime, the parameter "a" is an extra gauge
290: degrees of freedom. In this paper, we set the constant parameter
291: to 3 by imposing renormalization and unitary conditions. Another
292: is non-minimal term, considering the freedom of different trace technique
293: on kinetic gauge field to construct the non-minimal version of
294: $mNCSM$ in using the different Seiberg-Witten map.
295:
296: Each triple gauge boson coupling is derived from the above action.
297: Extracting the couplings from the Lagrange, couplings of
298: $\gamma-\gamma-\gamma$ and $Z-\gamma-\gamma$ are presented
299: as follows,
300: \begin{equation}\label{eq10}
301: \mathfrak{L}_{\gamma\gamma\gamma} = \frac{e}{4}\sin2\theta_{W}
302: K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}\theta^{\rho\sigma}A^{\mu\nu}\big{(}
303: aA_{\mu\nu}A_{\rho\sigma} - 4A_{\mu\rho}A_{\nu\sigma}\big{)}
304: \end{equation}
305: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq11}
306: \mathfrak{L}_{Z\gamma\gamma} &= \frac{e}{4}\sin2\theta_{W}
307: K_{Z\gamma\gamma}\theta^{\rho\sigma}\big{[}2Z^{\mu\nu}
308: \big{(}2A_{\mu\rho}A_{\nu\sigma} - aA_{\mu\nu}A_{\rho\sigma}\big{)}
309: \nonumber\\
310: &+ 8Z_{\mu\rho}A^{\mu\nu}A_{\nu\sigma}
311: - aZ_{\rho\sigma}A^{\mu\nu}A_{\mu\nu}\big{]},
312: \end{split}\end{equation}
313: where the couplings $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$ and $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$
314: contain the gauge parameters, $g$, $g_{s}$, and $g'$.
315: Ref.\cite{Duplancic:2003hg} plots the range of
316: all these couplings and also makes more detailed analysis to give a constraint.
317: The couplings are composed by $g_{i}$, $i$ goes from 1 to 6. The $C$ and $P$
318: are violated in these couplings, but preserves $CP$ symmetry in non-planar
319: tree level diagram.
320:
321: On the Seiberg-Witten map, there are some kinds of coupling
322: induced by the connection of $\theta_{\mu\nu}$.
323: Following the electroweak model~\cite{Calmet:2001na}, the change
324: up to the first order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ modification uses the
325: enveloping algebra to extend the non-abelian gauge group. The
326: interesting coupling Z-$\gamma$-$\gamma$ violates the angular
327: momentum distribution\cite{Snyder:1946qz}, hence it is exactly forbidden
328: on the commutative standard model. Approximately, the branching radio
329: of Z $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ is 4$\times 10^{-8}$, and the range of
330: coupling are -~0.333$<K_{Z\gamma\gamma}<$0.095 and -~0.184$
331: <K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}<$-~0.419\cite{Duplancic:2003hg}. In this paper,
332: we set $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -~0.2, and $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$
333: = -~0.3 for convenient.
334:
335: In renormalization aspects, the triple coupling tensor
336: $\Theta^{\mu\nu\rho}$ is changed by choosing a different
337: map~\cite{Martin:2002nr, Kulish:2006jq}. However, the map produces
338: a geometric freedom in gauge sector. The triple gauge boson coupling tensor
339: is
340: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
341: &\Theta^{\mu\nu\rho}_{3}(a; k_{\mu 1},k_{\nu 2},k_{\rho 3}) =\\
342: &-(k_{1}\theta k_{2})\big[(k_{1} - k_{2})^{\rho}g^{\mu\nu} + (k_{2} - k_{3})^{\mu}
343: g^{\nu\rho} + (k_{3} - k_{1})^{\nu}g^{\rho\mu}\big]\\
344: &- \theta^{\mu\nu}[k^{\rho}_{1}(k_{2}k_{3}) - k^{\rho}_{2}(k_{1}k_{3})]
345: - \theta^{\nu\rho}[k^{\mu}_{2}(k_{3}k_{1}) - k^{\mu}_{3}(k_{2}k_{1})]\nonumber\\
346: &- \theta^{\rho\mu}[k^{\nu}_{3}(k_{1}k_{2}) - k^{\nu}_{1}(k_{3}k_{2})]\nonumber\\
347: &+ (\theta k_{2})^{\mu}[g^{\nu\rho}k^{2}_{3} - k^{\nu}_{3}k^{\rho}_{3}]
348: + (\theta k_{3})^{\mu}[g^{\nu\rho}k^{2}_{2} - k^{\nu}_{2}k^{\rho}_{2}]\nonumber\\
349: &+ (\theta k_{3})^{\nu}[g^{\mu\rho}k^{2}_{1} - k^{\mu}_{1}k^{\rho}_{1}]
350: + (\theta k_{1})^{\nu}[g^{\mu\rho}k^{2}_{3} - k^{\mu}_{3}k^{\rho}_{3}]\nonumber\\
351: &+ (\theta k_{1})^{\rho}[g^{\mu\nu}k^{2}_{2} - k^{\mu}_{2}k^{\nu}_{2}]
352: + (\theta k_{2})^{\rho}[g^{\mu\nu}k^{2}_{1} - k^{\mu}_{1}k^{\nu}_{1}]\nonumber\\
353: &+ \theta^{\mu\alpha}(ak_{1} + k_{2} + k_{3})_{\alpha}[g^{\nu\rho}(k_{3}k_{2})
354: - k^{\nu}_{3}k^{\rho}_{2}]\\
355: &+ \theta^{\nu\alpha}(k_{1} + ak_{2} + k_{3})_{\alpha}[g^{\mu\rho}(k_{3}k_{1})
356: - k^{\mu}_{3}k^{\rho}_{1}]\\
357: &+ \theta^{\rho\alpha}(k_{1} + k_{2} + ak_{3})_{\alpha}[g^{\mu\nu}(k_{2}k_{1})
358: - k^{\mu}_{2}k^{\nu}_{1}],
359: \end{split}\end{equation}
360: and
361: \begin{equation}
362: \theta^{\mu\nu\rho} = \theta^{\mu\nu}\gamma^{\rho} + \theta^{\nu\rho}
363: \gamma^{\mu} + \theta^{\rho\mu}\gamma^{\nu}.\nonumber
364: \end{equation}
365: Energy momentum conservation dictates that unitarity has
366: to be satisfied~\cite{Ohl:2003zd}. The coupling of gauge boson to matter
367: field preserves the gauge condition in energy momentum
368: conservation. Therefore, under the production of each
369: photon energy momentum $k^{\mu}_{1}$ and $k^{\nu}_{2}$ from the
370: above couplings, we obtain that energy momentum is
371: conserved when producing $k^{\rho}_{3}$ lagged momentum. Momentum
372: conservation in central mass frame is preserved on the coupling,
373: but the energy asymmetry is not conserved in electric field ambience.
374: The reason of the produced exotic energy is due to this coupling
375: proportional to the coupling constant multiplying the central energy.
376:
377: Following the discussion, if the process conatins triple gauge
378: boson coupling by electric field. The exotic longitudinal state
379: in charged matter current is naturally produced from the
380: shifted charge ranged in its mass. The finial triple gauge boson
381: coupling stores sufficient exotic energy transferring from gauge
382: boson propagator to generate the non-physical state in the
383: finial gauge boson luminosity.
384:
385: If we choose the central mass frame, the collider phenomenon
386: does not be changed in this frame, even if $Lorentz$ invariance is
387: violated. We choose $\theta^{0i}$ = 0, and set observer standing on the
388: incident event. However, $k^{1}_{\mu}\theta^{\mu\nu}k^{2}_{\nu}$ is
389: useless in the devotion without $\theta^{0i}$.
390: Moreover, numerical section we introduce how the first order
391: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformed term influences our results via
392: background magnetic field, $B^{i}$ = $\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk}\theta_{jk}$,
393: couples to photon polarization. The finial results of forward-backward
394: asymmetry is transparently indicated into parity violation effect.
395:
396: \section{$e^+e^-$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ physics}
397: We briefly review $e^{+}e^{-}$ $\to$ $\gamma\gamma$ process
398: on noncommutative U(1) model\cite{Baek:2001ty}. The U(1) NCQED
399: is a complete order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformed field theory with
400: containing even order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ perturbation expansion.
401: However, we read that the event number is like a sinuous function with
402: parity is preserved in spite of containing triple photon coupling. It is
403: well-known that noncommutative geometry is a nonlocal perturbative
404: theory. It is seeming a phase transition in spacetime coordinates.
405: This dramatic phenomenon is a complete background deformed effect.
406:
407: The unusual commutation relation induces a triple gauge boson coupling
408: on the electroweak model. Violating charge conservation, such as the
409: couplings $\gamma-\gamma-\gamma$ and $Z-\gamma-\gamma$, is
410: considered in amplitude\footnote{Because C($\gamma$) = C(Z) = -~1,
411: but preserves $CP$ symmetry}. U(1) gauge cannot produce parity violated
412: phenomenon without considering $Chern-Simons$ term in the Lagrange
413: or containing a non-equilibrium field in vacuum. There is no helicity violation
414: generated in this group if no parity violation effects taking
415: into account. The gauge field expansion are redefined as
416: \begin{equation}\label{eq12}
417: \hat A_{\mu} = A_{\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\theta^{\alpha\beta}A_{\alpha}
418: (\partial_{\beta}A_{\mu} + F_{\beta\mu}),
419: \end{equation}
420: and its strength field
421: \begin{equation}\label{eq13}
422: \hat F_{\mu\nu} = F_{\mu\nu} - \theta^{\alpha\beta}
423: (A_{\alpha}\partial_{\beta}F_{\mu\nu} + F_{\mu\alpha}F_{\beta\nu}),
424: \end{equation}
425: which it is a first order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ expansion, where the background
426: tensor is denoted by Eq.(1) and (2).
427:
428: The polarization sum is revised to be the transition involved into noncommutative
429: phase,
430: \begin{equation}\label{eq14}
431: \sum_{s}\epsilon^{\star s}_{\mu}(k)\star\epsilon^{s}_{\nu}(k) = -\big{(}g_{\mu\nu} - \frac{n_{\mu}k_{\nu}
432: +n_{\nu}k_{\mu}}{n\cdot k} + \frac{n^{2}k_{\mu}k_{\nu}}{(n\cdot k)^{2}}\big{)},
433: \end{equation}
434: the noncommutative phase in front of the polarization sum gives us a lots
435: clues of the coherent effect between photon polarization, but the induced
436: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ phase transition is useless on the collider process.
437: In fact, although the U(1) model does not contain parity violated source
438: without $Chern-Simons$, the odd order theta deformed term
439: will deviate on the loop process, such as magnetic dipole
440: moment and electric dipole moment~\cite{Riad:2000vy}.
441:
442: Physically speaking, the background magnetic field induces a spin-magnetic
443: effect, the term of charge violated coupling is simultaneously
444: violating parity symmetry. Even in U(1) model, the perturbative
445: expansion corrects all parity violated events on the odd order
446: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformation. The even order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$
447: deformations only contribute on the cross section magnitude.
448: Therefore, it easily discovers that parity violated
449: phenomenon on electron annihilation process is justified
450: from the order of $s\times\Lambda^{-2}_{C}$ in series expansion,
451: \begin{equation}\label{eq15}
452: \frac{d\sigma}{dzd\phi} = \frac{\alpha^{2}}{4s}\bigg{[}\frac{u}{t} + \frac{t}{u}
453: -4\frac{u^{2} + t^{2}}{s^{2}}\sin^{2}(\frac{k_{1}\theta k_{2}}{2})\bigg{]},
454: \end{equation}
455: which the last term is the same as the Compton process in exchanging
456: $p_{2}$ and $k_{1}$, where $u$ = $(p_{1} - k_{2})^{2}$,
457: $t$ = $(p_{1} - k_{1})^{2}$, and $s$ = $(p_{1} + p_{2})^{2}$.
458: These processes are only contributed by the background electric
459: field. It implies that the finial state photon does not interact
460: with the background magnetic field, and its deviation is coming
461: from the interaction between background electric field with
462: electric charge.
463:
464: We explore that electric field interaction with $e^{+}$
465: and $e^{-}$ on the opposite influence by multiplying a constant $b$
466: before of the imagine component in spinor vector polarization.
467: If we choose the electric field direction perpendicular to the
468: incoming incident, the event number is maximum distributioned.
469: Expectedly, $\alpha_{E}$ = 0 does not contain $\phi$ dependent
470: effect, because the preferred direction parallels to the incident
471: axis. On the noncommutative electroweak model, due to the unitarity
472: condition on the triple gauge boson coupling, we have to omit the
473: background electric field automatically. However, in the U(1) case,
474: the total cross section is proportional to the $\theta_{\mu\nu}$
475: second order term. If no preserced $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ odd order
476: term in the result, therefore, no symmetry properties can be found.
477:
478: Nonetheless, in noncommutative electroweak model, the term
479: retains in the finial result. Intuitively, the process generates parity
480: asymmetry effect. Following the diagrams
481: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
482: \centering
483: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{diagram}
484: \caption{The $e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma\gamma$ diagrams}
485: \label{fig:example}
486: \end{figure}
487: we write down the square amplitude and photon
488: polarization under the first order $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ deformation.
489: Consider each photon polarization in
490: \begin{equation}\label{equ16}
491: \epsilon_{1 \mu} = (0, 1, b\textit{i}, 0),\quad\epsilon_{2 \mu}
492: = (0, 1, -b\textit{i}, 0),\\
493: \end{equation}
494: and each incoming momentum and outgoing momentum,
495: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
496: p^{\mu}_{1} = (E,0,0,E)&,\quad p^{\nu}_{2} = (E,0,0,-E),\\
497: k^{\mu}_{1} = E(1, \sin\theta&\cos\phi, \sin\theta\sin\phi, 1),\\
498: k^{\mu}_{2} = E(1,-\sin\theta&\cos\phi,-\sin\theta\sin\phi,-1),
499: \end{split}\end{equation}
500: in which $b$ is + or - corresponding to right-handed and left-handed
501: circle polarization with the incident working on the background
502: \begin{equation}
503: \vec{B} = \frac{1}{\Lambda_{C}}(\sin\alpha\sin\beta, \sin\alpha\sin
504: \beta, \cos\alpha).
505: \end{equation}
506: It is convenient to analyze the contribution of each different
507: helicity.
508:
509: We consider, $\theta^{ij}$, space-space noncommutative
510: deformed spacetime. The total amplitude splites
511: into a zero term and a first order theta deformation,
512: \begin{equation}
513: \sigma_{tot} = \sigma_{0} + \sigma_{\theta~}
514: \tt{(theta~first~order~term)},\nonumber%
515: \end{equation}
516: the first part is the original commutative term and the second is
517: the first order theta deformed term. It contributes to the total
518: cross section with a free gauge freedom constant "a" and helicity
519: constant "b". The renormalization condition requires the
520: parameter "a" to be 3. The cross section zeroth and first order
521: term are as follows,
522: \begin{equation}\label{eq17}
523: \sigma_{0} = \frac{\alpha^{2}}{4s}\big(\frac{t}{u}+\frac{u}{t}\big),
524: \end{equation}
525: \begin{equation}\label{eq18}
526: \sigma_{\theta} = \frac{\alpha^{2}}{4s}\mathfrak{Re}\big[\sigma_{1}
527: + (a+1)\sigma_{2}\big],
528: \end{equation}
529: where
530: \begin{equation}\label{eq19}
531: \sigma_{1} = -\frac{i}{2}(\epsilon_{1}\theta\epsilon_{2})\bigg{[}
532: \frac{s^{2}b\triangle}{2} + sz(s\square-1)\bigg{]},
533: \end{equation}
534: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq20}
535: \sigma_{2} &= \frac{i}{2}s^{\frac{3}{2}}\triangle\sqrt{\frac{1-z^{2}}{2}}\\
536: &\bigg{[}\frac{(\epsilon_{1}\theta k_{1})(i\sin\phi - b\cos\phi)}
537: {1+z}+\frac{(\epsilon_{2}\theta k_{1})(i\sin\phi+b\cos\phi)}{1-z}\bigg{]},
538: \end{split}\end{equation}
539: and
540: \begin{equation}\begin{split}\label{eq21}
541: \triangle &= \frac{2K_{Z\gamma\gamma}C_{A}}{s-m^{2}_{Z}},\\
542: \square &= -\frac{2K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}\sin2\theta_{W}}{s}-
543: \frac{2C_{V}K_{Z\gamma\gamma}}{s-m^{2}_{Z}},\\
544: C_{V, f_{L}} &= T_{3,f_{L}} - 2Q_{f}\sin^{2}\theta_{w},\nonumber\\
545: C_{A, f_{L}} &=T_{3,f_{L}}.
546: \end{split}\end{equation}
547: The total decay rate is contributed from
548: complete theta second order modification. Hence, no asymmetry
549: phenomenon can be generated. Under the rotation of the background field
550: direction, the total decay rate is symmetrically rotated with the angular
551: momentum correlation between original axis and background unique direction. The
552: $Z^{0}\to\gamma\gamma$ decay~\cite{Duplancic:2003hg} is completely
553: forbidden by angular conservation and bosonic distribution.
554:
555: \section{Numerical Result}
556: In the numerical analysis, the influence of the background field direction
557: dominates the total cross section and differential cross section of each
558: helicity state. Each photon helicity interacts with the background
559: magnetic field in the opposite distribution. The asymmetry effects in the
560: finial helicity state are mutually canceled on the unpolarized cross
561: section. Moreover, concentrating on the result of the $\theta_{\mu\nu}$
562: deformed term, Eq.(16, 17, 18), we show that the $Z_{0}$ gauge boson mediator is
563: almost completely violating parity asymmetry. The contribution of the massless
564: gauge boson on each helicity state does not cause rapid changes. The cross
565: section is minutely varied, but, its behavior is dramatically changed on the
566: scattering process. Because the $Z^{0}$ gauge boson is working on a non-abelian
567: gauge and coupling to opposite helicity current by different distribution with the
568: mass approaching to 0.1 TeV.
569:
570: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
571: \centering
572: \includegraphics[width=3in]{UnIp.jpg}
573: \caption{The coupling constant $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.2,
574: where $E_{CE}$ = 800 GeV, $\Lambda_{C}$ = 1TeV. As the result
575: from $Z^{0}$ gauge boson couples to the matter current by
576: the different contribution, therefore it will contribute on the
577: unpolarized cross section. If $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = 0
578: the number of event approaches to QED result 442.74.}
579: \label{fig:example}
580: \end{figure}
581:
582: In Fig.(2), the contribution of the $Z^{0}$ gauge boson
583: process dominates the total cross section, and the results compare
584: with the unpolarized beam in setting $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = - 0.2.
585: The $Z^{0}$ gauge mediator produce a slight shift, but the photon
586: sector will not be changed. In the $SU_{L}(2)\otimes U_{Y}(1)$ model,
587: photon is a gauge boson coupling to each helicity current by the same
588: phenomenon. $Z^{0}$ gauge boson induces a different distribution
589: in the left-handed and right-handed currents. Therefore, on the
590: Left-Right symmetry model, $SU_{C}(3)\otimes SU_{R}(2)\otimes
591: SU_{L}(2)\otimes U_{Y}(1)$, the asymmetry effect wishes to disappear
592: on the unpolarized $Z^{0}$ channel. Due to unitary constraint on the gauge
593: sector, it should be conserved on the SU(N) group. Hence, Seiberg-Witten
594: map cannot give the other clues to allure us to do the work in extending
595: gauge sector from choosing larger $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ expansion.
596:
597: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
598: \centering
599: \includegraphics[width=3in]{UnII.jpg}
600: \caption{The coupling constant $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = 0 and -0.2,
601: and the central energy $E_{CM}$ = 800 GeV at $\Lambda_{C}$ = 1TeV
602: scale. As $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = 0, that will be as same as QED result,
603: 3.561 unit. In the polarized helicial state, the contribution of b = 1, and
604: b = -1 on the background field direction along the z-axis are the same.}
605: \label{fig:example}
606: \end{figure}
607: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
608: \centering
609: \includegraphics[width=3in]{FB.jpg}
610: \caption{The forward-backward asymmetry is mainly affected
611: by the cube vertex diagram, the $Z^{0}$ mediator gauge boson
612: contributed effect is actually very small. The coupling constants
613: $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.2, $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.3,
614: and cnetral energy $E_{CM}$ = 800 GeV at $\Lambda_{C}$ = 1TeV.}
615: \label{fig:example}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: The total cross section cannot be corrected with setting
619: $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$ = 0 in Fig.(3), since photon
620: is a complete U(1) gauge boson. In high energy level,
621: the main distribution presents along the z-axis. As to the $\phi$-axis,
622: the influence of the spin-magnetic interaction is very little influenced.
623: Visibly, the diagram, Fig.(3), is a perfect symmetry on the
624: limit point $\alpha$ = $\pi$. It is a result in assuming two
625: observers stand on the either sides of the event point.
626: They cannot get the same result as detecting the total cross
627: section of each photon helicity. The order of difference quality is associated
628: with the squared inverse of the $\Lambda_{c}$ parameter.
629: Throughout the F-B asymmetry discussion, we set the parameter
630: $\Lambda_{c}$ to 1 TeV, and the central energy is assumed to be 800 GeV.
631:
632: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
633: \centering
634: \includegraphics[width=3in]{AngDis.jpg}
635: \caption{The coupling constant $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.2 and 0, the
636: $\alpha$ = $\frac{\pi}{3}$ and $E_{CE}$ = 800GeV at $\Lambda_{C}$ =
637: 1TeV. The black dashline is the original QED prediction.}
638: \label{fig:example}
639: \end{figure}
640: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
641: \centering
642: \includegraphics[width=3in]{NIth.jpg}
643: \caption{The coupling $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.2, 0 and
644: $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.3, 0, where $\alpha$ =
645: $\frac{\pi}{3}$, $E_{CE}$ = 800GeV, and $\Lambda_{C}$ = 1TeV.
646: Comparing to the QED result, the coupling $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$
647: will be dominant in influency the slight shift effects.}
648: \label{fig:example}
649: \end{figure}
650:
651: The main idea of parity violation, Fig.(4)(5), is a spin-magnetic field
652: interaction. Which is contributed on the difference energy
653: distributions on the opposite sides of the event point. If spin orientation
654: is parallel to the background magnetic field, the energy distribution is maximally
655: contributed. In contrast, energy is diminished if the direction
656: between spin and background magnetic field is opposed with the angle depends
657: on the z-axis and the background preference. It is the reason
658: why we can get parity violation phenomena. The term of $\vec{S}\times\vec{B}$
659: gives us a different physics viewpoint to investigate the process.
660: This term clearly indicates spin cannot be perpendicular to
661: the background magnetic field. The difference of varying parity asymmetry
662: associates with the strength of background magnetic field.
663:
664: \begin{figure}[htbp] % figure placement: here, top, bottom, or page
665: \centering
666: \includegraphics[width=3in]{Energy.jpg}
667: \caption{The Unpolarized cross section, we set the coupling constant
668: $K_{Z\gamma\gamma}$ = -0.2, where the $\Lambda_{C}$ is set to
669: 5000 GeV. The energy spectrum is increasd by the spin-magnetic
670: production effect, gauge boson polarization coupling to the background
671: magnetic field on the event point will rearrange the distribution of
672: energy production.}
673: \label{fig:example}
674: \end{figure}
675:
676: Another, observable evidences, Fig.(6), are the quantity of event number
677: as to the z variable, z = $\cos\theta$. The helicity is contributed by
678: the parity asymmetry effects on finial result. We consider helicity state
679: $b$ = 1 and discuss, however, that another helicity state b = -1 is
680: shifted on the opposite side. If we set the $K_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$
681: coupling equals to zero then the signal is similarly unchanged, because
682: $Z^{0}$ boson is heavier than photon. Photon gauge boson contributes to the
683: finial result has perceived more than massive $Z^{0}$. The shift devotes
684: on the photon spin interacts with background magnetic field, and the
685: axis is perpendicular to the direction. The external distribution is perpendicular
686: to the axis of the magnetic field direction, because the effective term of
687: $\vec{S}\times\vec{B}$ generates a partial vector paralleling to the plane.
688:
689: The energy spectrum, Fig.(7), in ranging the central energy, the
690: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ expansion plays an important role on varying
691: the associated angle. The $\alpha$ = 0 generates a distribution at high energy
692: level because the polarization of the total cross section on the event point
693: is parallel to the beam axis. However, we have mentioned that if the
694: polarization is parallel to the magnetic field, thus, the result obtains the maximum
695: energy distribution function. Such as the concept of quantum mechanics,
696: the energy spectrum is decided by the eigenvalues of the global system.
697: Therefore, $\alpha$ = 0, on the event point, photon gain a maximum
698: energy distribution on the collision process. Its luminosity contains tiny
699: difference as to the movement of earth.
700:
701: \section{Conclusion}
702: We have briefly introduced how the background magnetic field influences
703: the electron annihilation to two photons process. A strong magnetic field
704: induces an interesting effect under the exotic massive gauge boson $Z^{0}$
705: and massless photon. However, parity violation is observed on the
706: further high energy level. $CP$ symmetry is still conserved on the triple
707: photon and $Z^{0}$ gauge boson coupling, due to these couplings violate
708: charge and parity asymmetry. Thus, the exotic term in the action deformed
709: by $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ expansion cannot induce the $CPV$ effects. However
710: , the energy spectrum, due to particle spin, interacts with magnetic field
711: to generate a difference energy distribution on the opposite sides around the
712: event point. The energy distribution dominantly induces the parity asymmetry
713: on the observer stage. Therefore, this process is a contribution of a better
714: understanding of further probing background field situation.
715:
716: \acknowledgments{We will thank Chao Qiang Geng, Xiao Gang He, and J. N.
717: Ng for useful discuss and the National Science Council of R.O.C. under
718: contact : NSC-95-2112-M-007-059-MY3 and National Tsing Hua University
719: under contact : 97N2309F1.}
720:
721: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
722: %1~\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}
723: \bibitem{Seiberg:1999vs}
724: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,
725: %``String theory and noncommutative geometry,''
726: JHEP {\bf 9909}, 032 (1999)
727: [arXiv:hep-th/9908142];
728: %%CITATION = JHEPA,9909,032;%%
729: N.~Seiberg, L.~Susskind and N.~Toumbas,
730: %``Strings in background electric field, space/time noncommutativity and a
731: %new noncritical string theory,''
732: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 021 (2000)
733: [arXiv:hep-th/0005040];
734: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0006,021;%%
735: A.~Abouelsaood, C.~G.~.~Callan, C.~R.~Nappi and S.~A.~Yost,
736: %``Open Strings In Background Gauge Fields,''
737: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 280}, 599 (1987).
738: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B280,599;%%
739:
740: %2~\cite{Minwalla:1999px}
741: \bibitem{Minwalla:1999px}
742: S.~Minwalla, M.~Van Raamsdonk and N.~Seiberg,
743: %``Noncommutative perturbative dynamics,''
744: JHEP {\bf 0002}, 020 (2000)
745: [arXiv:hep-th/9912072];
746: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0002,020;%%
747: A.~Micu and M.~M.~Sheikh Jabbari,
748: %``Noncommutative phi**4 theory at two loops,''
749: JHEP {\bf 0101}, 025 (2001)
750: [arXiv:hep-th/0008057];
751: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0101,025;%%
752: I.~Y.~Aref'eva, D.~M.~Belov, A.~S.~Koshelev and O.~A.~Rytchkov,
753: %``UV/IR mixing for noncommutative complex scalar field theory. II:
754: %Interaction with gauge fields,''
755: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 102}, 11 (2001)
756: [arXiv:hep-th/0003176];
757: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,102,11;%%
758: L.~Griguolo and M.~Pietroni,
759: %``Wilsonian renormalization group and the non-commutative IR/UV
760: %connection,''
761: JHEP {\bf 0105}, 032 (2001)
762: [arXiv:hep-th/0104217];
763: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0105,032;%%
764: T.~R.~Govindarajan, S.~Kurkcuoglu and M.~Panero,
765: %``Nonlocal regularisation of noncommutative field theories,''
766: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 21}, 1851 (2006)
767: [arXiv:hep-th/0604061].
768: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A21,1851;%%
769:
770: %3~\cite{Panero:2006bx}
771: \bibitem{Panero:2006bx}
772: M.~Panero,
773: %``Numerical simulations of a non-commutative theory: The scalar model on the
774: %fuzzy sphere,''
775: JHEP {\bf 0705}, 082 (2007)
776: [arXiv:hep-th/0608202].
777: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0705,082;%%
778:
779: %4~\cite{Jurco:2000ja}
780: \bibitem{Jurco:2000ja}
781: B.~Jurco, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,
782: %``Enveloping algebra valued gauge transformations for non-Abelian gauge
783: %groups on non-commutative spaces,''
784: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 521 (2000)
785: [arXiv:hep-th/0006246];
786: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C17,521;%%
787: J.~Madore, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,
788: %``Gauge theory on noncommutative spaces,''
789: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16}, 161 (2000)
790: [arXiv:hep-th/0001203];
791: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C16,161;%%
792: L.~Bonora, M.~Schnabl, M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari and A.~Tomasiello,
793: %``Noncommutative SO(n) and Sp(n) gauge theories,''
794: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 589}, 461 (2000)
795: [arXiv:hep-th/0006091];
796: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B589,461;%%
797: K.~Matsubara,
798: %``Restrictions on gauge groups in noncommutative gauge theory,''
799: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 417 (2000)
800: [arXiv:hep-th/0003294].
801: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B482,417;%%
802:
803: %5~\cite{Chaichian:2001mu}
804: \bibitem{Chaichian:2001mu}
805: M.~Chaichian, P.~Presnajder, M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari and A.~Tureanu,
806: %``Noncommutative gauge field theories: A no-go theorem,''
807: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 526}, 132 (2002)
808: [arXiv:hep-th/0107037].
809: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B526,132;%%
810:
811: %6~\cite{Wulkenhaar:1999im}
812: \bibitem{Wulkenhaar:1999im}
813: R.~Wulkenhaar,
814: %``Introduction to Hopf algebras in renormalization and noncommutative
815: %geometry,''
816: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ {\bf 596}, 313 (2002)
817: [arXiv:hep-th/9912221];
818: %%CITATION = LNPHA,596,313;%%
819: P.~Schupp,
820: %``Non-Abelian gauge theory on noncommutative spaces,''
821: [arXiv:hep-th/0111038].
822: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0111038;%%
823:
824: %7~\cite{Martin:2002nr}
825: \bibitem{Martin:2002nr}
826: C.~P.~Martin,
827: %``The gauge anomaly and the Seiberg-Witten map,''
828: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 652}, 72 (2003)
829: [arXiv:hep-th/0211164].
830: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B652,72;%%
831:
832: %8~\cite{Zahn:2006wt}
833: \bibitem{Zahn:2006wt}
834: J.~Zahn,
835: %``Remarks on twisted noncommutative quantum field theory,''
836: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 105005 (2006)
837: [arXiv:hep-th/0603231];
838: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,105005;%%
839: M.~Chaichian, P.~P.~Kulish, K.~Nishijima and A.~Tureanu,
840: %``On a Lorentz-invariant interpretation of noncommutative space-time and its
841: %implications on noncommutative QFT,''
842: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604}, 98 (2004)
843: [arXiv:hep-th/0408069].
844: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B604,98;%%
845:
846: %9~\cite{Wallet:2007em}
847: \bibitem{Wallet:2007em}
848: J.~C.~Wallet,
849: %``Noncommutative Induced Gauge Theories on Moyal Spaces,''
850: J.\ Phys.\ Conf.\ Ser.\ {\bf 103}, 012007 (2008)
851: arXiv:0708.2471 [hep-th].
852: %%CITATION = 00462,103,012007;%%
853:
854: %10~\cite{Calmet:2001na}
855: \bibitem{Calmet:2001na}
856: X.~Calmet, B.~Jurco, P.~Schupp, J.~Wess and M.~Wohlgenannt,
857: %``The standard model on non-commutative space-time,''
858: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 363 (2002)
859: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111115];
860: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C23,363;%%
861: B.~Melic, K.~Passek-Kumericki, J.~Trampetic, P.~Schupp and M.~Wohlgenannt,
862: %``The standard model on non-commutative space-time: Electroweak currents and
863: %Higgs sector,''
864: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 42}, 483 (2005)
865: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502249].
866: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C42,483;%%
867:
868: %11~\cite{Duplancic:2003hg}
869: \bibitem{Duplancic:2003hg}
870: G.~Duplancic, P.~Schupp and J.~Trampetic,
871: %``Comment on triple gauge boson interactions in the non-commutative
872: %electroweak sector,''
873: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32}, 141 (2003)
874: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309138];
875: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C32,141;%%
876: J.~Trampetic,
877: %``Signal for space-time noncommutativity: The Z --> gamma gamma decay in the
878: %renormalizable gauge sector of the theta-expanded NCSM,''
879: SFIN A {\bf 1}, 379 (2007)
880: [arXiv:0704.0559 [hep-ph]];
881: %%CITATION = 00483,A1,379;%%
882: M.~Buric, D.~Latas, V.~Radovanovic and J.~Trampetic,
883: %``The absence of the 4$\psi$ divergence in noncommutative chiral models,''
884: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 045031 (2008)
885: [arXiv:0711.0887 [hep-th]];
886: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,045031;%%
887: A.~P.~Balachandran and S.~G.~Jo,
888: %``Z^0 \to 2\gamma and the Twisted Coproduct of the Poincar\'{e} Group,''
889: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 22}, 6133 (2007)
890: arXiv:0704.0921 [hep-th];
891: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A22,6133;%%
892: W.~Behr, N.~G.~Deshpande, G.~Duplancic, P.~Schupp, J.~Trampetic and J.~Wess,
893: %``The Z --> gamma gamma, g g decays in the noncommutative standard model,''
894: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 29}, 441 (2003)
895: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202121].
896: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C29,441;%%
897:
898: %12~\cite{Snyder:1946qz}
899: \bibitem{Snyder:1946qz}
900: H.~S.~Snyder,
901: %``Quantized space-time,''
902: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 71}, 38 (1947).
903: %%CITATION = PHRVA,71,38;%%
904:
905: %13~\cite{Kulish:2006jq}
906: \bibitem{Kulish:2006jq}
907: P.~P.~Kulish,
908: %``Twists of quantum groups and noncommutative field theory,''
909: [arXiv:hep-th/0606056];
910: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0606056;%%
911: V.~Rivasseau,
912: %``Non-commutative renormalization,''
913: arXiv:0705.0705 [hep-th];
914: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.0705;%%
915: R.~J.~Szabo,
916: %``Symmetries and renormalization of noncommutative field theory,''
917: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 917}, 146 (2007)
918: [arXiv:hep-th/0701224].
919: %%CITATION = APCPC,917,146;%%
920:
921: %14~\cite{Ohl:2003zd}
922: \bibitem{Ohl:2003zd}
923: T.~Ohl, R.~Ruckl and J.~Zeiner,
924: %``Unitarity of time-like noncommutative gauge theories: The violation of
925: %Ward identities in time-ordered perturbation theory,''
926: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 676}, 229 (2004)
927: [arXiv:hep-th/0309021];
928: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B676,229;%%
929: J.~Gomis and T.~Mehen,
930: %``Space-time noncommutative field theories and unitarity,''
931: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 591}, 265 (2000)
932: [arXiv:hep-th/0005129];
933: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B591,265;%%
934: M.~Chaichian, A.~Demichev, P.~Presnajder and A.~Tureanu,
935: %``Space-time noncommutativity, discreteness of time and unitarity,''
936: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 767 (2001)
937: [arXiv:hep-th/0007156].
938: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C20,767;%%
939:
940: %15~\cite{Baek:2001ty}
941: \bibitem{Baek:2001ty}
942: S.~Baek, D.~K.~Ghosh, X.~G.~He and W.~Y.~P.~Hwang,
943: %``Signatures of non-commutative QED at photon colliders,''
944: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 056001 (2001)
945: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103068];
946: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,056001;%%
947: %\cite{Hewett:2000zp}
948: %\bibitem{Hewett:2000zp}
949: J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,
950: %``Signals for non-commutative interactions at linear colliders,''
951: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 075012 (2001)
952: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010354].
953: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,075012;%%
954: P.~Mathews,
955: %``Compton scattering in noncommutative space-time at the NLC,''
956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 075007 (2001)
957: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011332];
958: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,075007;%%
959: T.~G.~Rizzo,
960: %``Signals for noncommutative QED at future e+ e- colliders,''
961: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18}, 2797 (2003)
962: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203240].
963: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A18,2797;%%
964:
965: %16~\cite{Riad:2000vy}
966: \bibitem{Riad:2000vy}
967: I.~F.~Riad and M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari,
968: %``Noncommutative QED and anomalous dipole moments,''
969: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 045 (2000)
970: [arXiv:hep-th/0008132];
971: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0008,045;%%
972: N.~Kersting,
973: %``(g-2)(mu) from noncommutative geometry,''
974: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 527}, 115 (2002)
975: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109224].
976: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B527,115;%%
977: \end{thebibliography}
978:
979: \end{document}