1: \documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
2: %
3: %******************DEFINITIONS FOR FIGURES******************
4: % These should work on Mac's and Unix machines. You need epsf.def.
5: \input epsf.tex
6: \def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
7: % Null macro in case the ones above don't work.
8: %\def \DESepsf(#1 width #2){\bf #1 here: just uncomment the macro.}
9: %******************END DEFINITIONS*************************
10: %
11: \begin{document}
12: %
13: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{}}}
14: \draft
15: \title{
16: Signatures of Non-commutative QED at Photon Colliders}
17: %
18: \author{Seungwon Baek, Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Xiao-Gang He and W-Y. P. Hwang}
19: \address{
20: Department of Physics, National Taiwan University,
21: Taipei, Taiwan.
22: }
23:
24: \tightenlines
25:
26: \date{ March, 2001}
27: \maketitle
28: \begin{abstract}
29: In this paper we study non-commutative (NC) QED signatures at
30: %Next Generation Linear
31: photon colliders
32: through pair production of charged leptons$(\ell^+ \ell^-)$ and charged
33: scalars$(H^+ H^-)$.
34: %pair production processes.
35: %using $\gamma \gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-$
36: %and $\gamma \gamma \to H^*(scalar) H(scalar)$
37: %processes.
38: %These processes are particularly useful in studying the
39: %NC properties because these processes, at the lowest order,
40: %are purely QED processes which are
41: %free from contaminations due to weak interactions of which the NC
42: %properties are not clear at present.
43: The NC corrections for the fermion pair production can be easily
44: obtained since NC QED with fermions has been extensively studied in
45: the literature.
46: NC QED with scalars is less studied. To obtain the cross section for
47: $H^+H^-$ productions, we first investigate the structure
48: of NC QED with scalars,
49: and then study the corrections due to the NC geometry to the ordinary
50: QED cross sections. Finally by folding in the
51: photon spectra for a $\gamma \gamma$ collider with laser back-scattered
52: photons from the $e^+ e^-$ machine, we obtain $95\%$ CL lower
53: bound on the NC scale using the above two processes.
54: %with fixed $e^+e^-$ energy $\sqrt{s}$.
55: We find that, with $\sqrt{s}
56: = 0.5,\;1.0$, and $\;1.5$~TeV and integrated luminosity $L = 500(fb^{-1})$,
57: the NC scale up to 0.7, 1.2, and 1.6 TeV can be probed, respectively,
58: while, for monochromatic photon beams, these numbers become 1.1, 1.7,
59: 2.6 TeV, respectively.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \pacs{}
63:
64: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{}}}
65:
66: %\maketitle
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: The property of space-time has fundamental importance in
71: understanding the law of nature. Non-commutative (NC) quantum
72: field theory provides an alternative to the ordinary quantum field
73: theory which may shed some light on the detailed structure of
74: space-time and have been studied in the past~\cite{snyder}.
75: Recently NC quantum field theory and its applications
76: has also developed within string theories where it arises
77: in low energy excitations of D-branes in the presence of certain
78: $U(1)$ background field and has received a lot of
79: attention~\cite{nc_string}. A simple way to modify the commutation relation
80: for the ordinary space-time $x$ is defined, with the modified
81: space-time coordinate $\hat X$, as
82:
83: \begin{eqnarray}
84: [\hat X_\mu, \hat X_\nu] = i \theta_{\mu\nu} = {i\over \Lambda^2}
85: c_{\mu\nu}.
86: \label{eq:NCgeo}
87: \end{eqnarray}
88: In the above the parameter $\Lambda$ which has the dimension of energy
89: signifies the scale where NC effects become relevant.
90: $c_{\mu\nu}$ is a real anti-symmetric matrix with elements of order
91: one which commute with the space-time coordinate $x^\mu$.
92:
93: Phenomenologically
94: the NC scale $\Lambda $ can take any value, the likely one being
95: of the order of the Planck scale $\overline{\rm M_{Pl}}$. However,
96: the recent studies in the area of large extra dimensions show
97: that gravity becomes strong at the TeV scale~\cite{extra}, and also one might
98: see some stringy effects at this scale. Hence, it is
99: justified if one takes the scale of $\Lambda$ to be of the order
100: of TeV scale. If this is the case, then whether NC geometry has
101: anything to do with reality has to be tested experimentally.
102: In this context the Next Generation $e^+e^-$ Linear Collider(NLC)
103: will be an ideal machine to probe such new physics effects. The
104: $e^+e^-$ version of NLC can be modified to give $e^-e^-$, $e\gamma$
105: and $\gamma\gamma$ mode of collider. Some of the authors have already
106: studied the NC effects at NLC~\cite{arfaei,rizzo}.
107:
108: In this paper we study signatures of NC Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
109: at $\gamma \gamma$ colliders. $\gamma\gamma $ colliders can be very
110: sensitive to certain new physics beyond the standard model~\cite{jika}.
111: We also find that $\gamma\gamma$ colliders can provide interesting information
112: about the scale $\Lambda$ of non-commutative geometry. Two processes
113: $\gamma\gamma\to \ell^+\ell^-$ and $\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-$ will be studied
114: in detail. These processes are particularly interesting in studying the
115: non-commutative QED effects because at leading order they are
116: purely QED processes, eliminating problems associated with difficulties
117: to have a full gauge theory for $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L \times
118: U(1)_Y$. This is because that only U(N) group can be gauged
119: consistently with NC geometry~\cite{matsubara}.
120: The gauge group of the standard model has to be enlarged in the presence
121: of NC geometry, Eq.~(\ref{eq:NCgeo}).
122: If weak interaction is involved,
123: then there is problem to identify NC effects such as the process
124: $e^- e^- \to e^- e^-$ where exchange of Z boson also contributes~\cite{rizzo}.
125:
126:
127: The paper is organized as follows. In section II we study the
128: $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+\ell^-$ process in NC QED with monochromatic
129: photon beams and laser back-scattered photon beams for three values of
130: center-of-mass energies $0.5$~TeV, $1$~TeV and $1.5$~TeV~\cite{nlc_rev}.
131: We obtain $95\%$ CL lower bound which can be probed on the NC scale
132: $\Lambda $.
133: In section III we study
134: the non-commutative scalar QED. We first derive the corresponding
135: Feynman rules and use them to obtain $95\%$ CL lower bound on $\Lambda$ from
136: $\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-$ process.
137: Finally in section IV, we summarize our results.
138:
139: \section{ $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ IN NC QED}
140: In this section we study the effects of NC QED in the
141: $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ process.
142: NC QED with fermions has been studied extensively~\cite{arfaei}.
143: The Feynman rules relevant are shown in Fig.~1 and the Feynman diagrams
144: for $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ are shown in Fig.~2. It is
145: clear from the Feynman rules and as well as from Fig.~2 that there are
146: extra contributions to the ordinary QED. The ordinary
147: QED vertex is modified to have a momentum dependent phase factor. Apart from
148: this there are completely new triple and quartic photon
149: vertices making the NC QED
150: like a non-abelian gauge theory. The origin of phase factors in the
151: vertices can be traced back to the famous Weyl-Moyal
152: correspondence~\cite{riad} which we
153: will state later. These new contributions to
154: the existing vertices result in
155: deviations from the ordinary QED predictions. We obtain the unpolarized
156: differential cross section for
157: $\gamma(k_1)\gamma(k_2) \to \ell^-(p_1) \ell^+(p_2)$ process
158: in the massless limit, as
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: {d\sigma\over dz d\phi} = {\alpha^2\over 2 \hat s}
161: \bigg[{\hat u\over \hat t} +
162: {\hat t\over \hat u} - 4 {\hat t^2+\hat u^2\over s^2}
163: \sin^2 \delta \bigg],
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: where the NC phase is $\delta = (\frac{k_1\cdot\theta\cdot k_2}{2})$.
166: $\hat s=(k_1+k_2)^2=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $\hat t=(k_1-p_1)^2 = (k_2-p_2)^2$
167: and $\hat u = (k_1-p_2)^2 = (k_2-p_1)^2$ are the standard Mandelstam variables.
168: In the $\gamma\gamma $ center-of-mass frame,
169: $\hat t$ and $\hat u$ can be further written in terms of
170: $\hat s$ and the angle $\hat{\theta}$
171: between $\vec k_1$ (the z-direction) and $\vec p_1$ with
172: $\hat t = -\frac{\hat s}{2}(1-z)$, $\hat u=-\frac{\hat s}{2}(1+z)$,
173: where $z = \cos \hat{\theta}$. The angle $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle.
174: So, the NC effect in the $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+\ell^-$ process lies in the
175: even function $\sin^2\delta$ of $\delta$ and one can recover the ordinary QED
176: result by taking the
177: limit $\delta \rightarrow 0 $. The phase $\delta$ arises from the $s$-channel
178: triple photon vertex diagram and also from the interference between the
179: $s t$-channel and $s u$-channel diagrams.
180:
181:
182: The cross sections are only sensitive to the
183: NC parameter $c_{0z}$ because the corrections only depend
184: on $\sin^2({1\over 2}k_1\cdot \theta \cdot k_2)$ which is equal to
185: $\sin^2[(\hat{s}/4)(c_{0z}/\Lambda^2)]$.
186: Because of this the cross section does not depend on the azimuthal
187: angle $\phi$ and will be integrated over in the cross section from now on.
188: In our later discussions, we will
189: set $c_{0z} =1$ and study the sensitivity to the NC scale $\Lambda$.
190:
191:
192: Now we study the cross-section as a function of the NC scale $\Lambda$.
193: In obtaining the cross-section we sum over three leptonic ($e,\mu,\tau$)
194: generations. We also assume that the identification efficiencies for $e$
195: and $\mu$, and $\tau$ to be $100\%$ and $60\%$ respectively. One should note
196: that, due to the neglect of small lepton masses, there are singularities in
197: the cross section when $z=\pm 1$. To avoid these singularities, we demand that
198: the rapidity $\mid \eta_{\ell}\mid $ of each lepton should be less than 1.
199: This choice of rapidity cut corresponds to an angular cut $\mid z\mid < 0.76 $
200: on each leptons.
201: In Fig. 3 we plot the variation of this cross-section with $\Lambda$ for
202: a monochromatic (line with $\odot$ )
203: photon collider with energy $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}=1$ TeV.
204: The adjacent solid line represents ordinary QED cross-section.
205: It can be seen that the ordinary QED gets negative
206: contribution from NC QED, and as the NC scale $\Lambda$ increases the
207: NC QED result asymptotically approaches to the ordinary QED one.
208:
209: To study the possible sensitivity of NLC to the NC scale $\Lambda$ we perform
210: $\chi^2(\Lambda)$ fit assuming that statistical errors are Gaussian and that
211: there are no systematic errors. $\chi^2(\Lambda)$ is given by
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: \chi^2 = L {(\sigma_{NC}(\Lambda) - \sigma_{SM})^2\over \sigma_{SM}},
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: where $L$ is the integrated luminosity, $\sigma_{SM}$ is the
216: ordinary QED total
217: cross-section and $\sigma_{NC}(\Lambda)$ is the NC QED cross-section.
218: By demanding $\chi^2 \geq 4$, we obtain the lower bound
219: on the NC scale $\Lambda$ at $95\%$ CL. We denote this bound by
220: $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$.
221: We take three machine energies $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-} = 0.5$,
222: 1.0 and 1.5~TeV, for illustrations. In the case of monochromatic photon
223: collider, $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma} = \sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$.
224:
225:
226: In Fig. 4 we show the scale $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$ as a function
227: of $L$ from $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+\ell^-$
228: process. The solid lines in Fig. 4 represent
229: % the $95\%$ CL on $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$
230: as a function of integrated
231: luminosity $L$ for monochromatic photon beams. Higher the
232: $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$ larger the value of $\Lambda$ can be probed for a
233: fixed integrated luminosity. This behavior can be understood from the nature of
234: the NC correction term which goes as $\sim s/\Lambda^2$ to this process.
235:
236: Till now, we have discussed about the monochromatic photon beams. However, it
237: is very difficult to obtain such a beam in practice.
238: A realistic method to obtain high energy photon beam is
239: to use the laser back-scattering technique on an electron
240: or positron beam which produces abundant
241: hard photons nearly along the same direction as the original
242: electron or positron beam. The photon beam energy obtained this way is
243: not monochromatic. The energy spectrum of the back-scattered photon is
244: given by~\cite{ginzburg}
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: f(x)&=& {1\over D(\xi)} [1-x+{1\over 1-x} - {4x\over \xi(1-\xi)} +
247: {4x^2\over \xi^2(1-x)^2}],\nonumber\\
248: D(\xi)&=& (1-{4\over \xi}-{8\over \xi^2})\ln(1+\xi) + {1\over 2} +
249: {8\over \xi} - {1\over 2(1+\xi)^2}.
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: where $x$ is the fraction of the energy of the incident $e^\pm$ beam. The
252: parameter $\xi$ is determined to be $2(1+\sqrt{2})$ by requiring that
253: the back-scattered photon to have the largest possible energy, but does not
254: interfere with the incident photon to create unwanted $e^+e^-$ pair which
255: sets $x_{max} = \xi/(1+\xi) \approx 0.828$.
256: The cross section at such a $\gamma \gamma$ collider with the
257: $e^+ e^-$ collider center of mass frame energy
258: $\sqrt{s}$ is given by
259:
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: \sigma = \int^{x_{max}}_{x_{1min}}dx_1 f(x_1)
262: \int^{x_{max}}_{x_{2min}} dx_2 f(x_2)\int^{z_{max}}_{z_{min}} dz
263: {d\sigma(x_1x_2 s, z)\over dz}.
264: \end{eqnarray}
265:
266: To avoid the singularities at $z=\pm 1$ in $\gamma \gamma\to \ell^+ \ell^-$,
267: we make a cut on the rapidity of each lepton
268: in the laboratory frame to be less than 1 and also a cut on the lepton
269: energy such that
270: the minimal values for $x_{1,2}$ to be
271: $x_{1,2min} =0.5$.
272: With this choice of cuts we show the variation of cross-section
273: with $\Lambda$ in Fig. 3. The dotted lines represent the NC QED cross-section,
274: while the adjacent solid lines correspond to the ordinary QED results.
275: Compared to the monochromatic case, the cross-section decreases. Naively one
276: would expect the other way around
277: because the cross-section decreases with energy.
278: However, due to the cut on $x_{1,2min}$, certain portion of the scattering
279: is also cut off which results in a smaller cross-section.
280:
281: In Fig. 4 we present $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$
282: as a function of $L$ with dashed line. In this case, for a given
283: $\sqrt{s}$ and integrated luminosity, the $95\%$ CL lower bounds are
284: weaker than that of monochromatic photons.
285: For example, at $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-} =1$ TeV
286: and assuming the integrated luminosity
287: $L = 500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ the $95\%$ CL lower bound can be probed
288: on $\Lambda$ is 1.2 TeV.
289: While in the monochromatic case, the corresponding bound is 1.6 TeV.
290: This is due to the fact that the available $\gamma\gamma $
291: center-of-mass energy is not fixed but has an energy spectrum,
292: which suppresses the NC effect.
293: %with $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma} \sim 80\% \sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$.
294:
295: \section {$ \gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^- $ in NC scalar QED}
296:
297: NC QED with scalars are less studied. In order to study $\gamma
298: \gamma \to H^+ H^-$, we first construct the NC QED Lagrangian with
299: scalars in the following. The Lagrangian in the ordinary quantum
300: field theory relevant to $\gamma\gamma \to H^+H^-$ is given by
301:
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: L = (D^\mu H^-)^* (D_\mu H^-) - m^2_H H^+ H^-,
304: \end{eqnarray}
305: where $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i e A_\mu$ is the covariant
306: derivative.
307:
308: When the above Lagrangian is formulated with non-commutative coordinates,
309: there are corrections.
310: NC quantum field theory can be easily studied using the Weyl-Moyal
311: correspondence replacing the product of two fields
312: $A(\hat X)$ and $B(\hat X)$ with NC coordinates by~\cite{riad}
313:
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: A(\hat X) B(\hat X) \to A(x)*B(x) = [e^{{i\over 2}
316: \theta_{\mu\nu}\partial_{x}^\mu\partial_{y}^\nu} A(x)
317: B(y)]_{x=y},
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: where $x$ and $y$ are the ordinary coordinates, and
320: $\partial_x = \partial/\partial x$, $\partial_y = \partial/\partial y$.
321:
322: Under an infinitesimal local gauge transformation $\lambda(x)$, the
323: transformation law for $H$ is given by
324:
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: ReH^-(x) &\to& ReH^-(x) - \cos ({1\over 2} \theta_{\mu\nu}
327: \partial_{x}^{\mu} \partial_{y}^{\nu})
328: \lambda(x) Im H^-(y)|_{x=y}\nonumber\\
329: &-&\sin({1\over 2}\theta_{\mu\nu}
330: \partial_{x}^{\mu}\partial_{y}^{\nu}) \lambda(x) Re
331: H^-(y)|_{x=y},\nonumber\\
332: Im H^-(x) &\to& Im H^-(x) +\cos({1\over 2}
333: \theta_{\mu\nu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}\partial_{y}^{\nu}) \lambda(x) Im
334: H^-(y)|_{x=y}\nonumber\\
335: & -& \sin({1\over 2}
336: \theta_{\mu\nu}\partial_{x}^{\mu}\partial_{y}^{\nu}) \lambda(x)
337: ReH^-(y)|_{x=y}.
338: \end{eqnarray}
339:
340: Writing the Lagrangian in NC geometry, one obtains the tree level
341: NC QED with scalars. We have
342:
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: L = (\partial_\mu H^+ + ie H^+*A_\mu)*(\partial^\mu H^- - ie A^\mu * H^-)
345: - m^2_H H^+*H^-.
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: Due to the NC properties, the ordering of the fields in the above
348: equation is important and should not be misplaced.
349: From this Lagrangian one obtains the Feynman rules given in Fig. 5. The
350: structure shows some similar momentum dependent phase factor as in the
351: NC QED with fermions.
352: The Feynman diagrams for $\gamma\gamma\to H^+ H^-$ are shown in Fig. 6.
353: In this case also we get an additional contribution to the normal QED
354: process from an extra $s$-channel diagram, which has a non-abelian kind
355: of structure. The amplitude for this process can be expressed as
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: iM &=& 2 i e^2 \epsilon^\mu(k_1) \epsilon^\nu(k_2) e^{{i\over 2}p_1\cdot
358: \theta\cdot p_2}\nonumber\\
359: &\times& \bigg[
360: { i\over s} \sin\left({k_1\cdot \theta\cdot k_2 \over 2}\right)
361: \Big((u-t)g_{\mu\nu} +
362: %(k_1+2k_2)_\mu
363: 2 k_{2\mu}
364: (p_1-p_2)_\nu -
365: %(2k_1+k_2)_\nu
366: 2 k_{1\nu}
367: (p_1-p_2)_\mu \Big)\nonumber\\
368: &+&
369: \cos\left({k_1\cdot \theta\cdot k_2 \over 2}\right) g_{\mu\nu} +
370: e^{-{i\over 2} k_1\cdot \theta\cdot k_2}
371: {2 p_{1\mu} p_{2\nu}\over t -m^2_H}
372: %(2p_1-k_1)_\mu (k_2-2p_2)_\nu\nonumber\\
373: + e^{{i\over 2}k_1\cdot\theta\cdot k_2}
374: {2 p_{2\mu} p_{1\nu} \over u-m^2_H}
375: %(k_1-2p_2)_\mu (2p_1-k_2)_\nu
376: \bigg].
377: \end{eqnarray}
378:
379: In obtaining the cross section one should be careful about
380: the non-abelian nature of the triple photon vertex since more than one
381: gauge bosons are involved, that is one should treat the photon polarization
382: sum with care to make sure that Ward identities are satisfied and also
383: to guarantee that the unphysical photon polarization states do not appear.
384: We have worked with two methods with the same final results,
385: one using explicit
386: transverse photon polarization vectors, and another using~\cite{book}
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: \sum_\lambda \epsilon^\mu(\lambda) \epsilon^{\nu*}(\lambda)
389: =-\bigg [g^{\mu\nu} -\frac{n^\mu k^\nu+n^\nu k^\mu}{(n.k)}
390: +\frac{n^2k^\mu k^\nu}{(n.k)^2} \bigg ].
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: where $n$ is any arbitrary $4$-vector and $k$ is the photon $4$-momentum.
393: The same technique has been applied in the above charged lepton pair
394: production study.
395: The unpolarized differential cross section in the
396: $\gamma\gamma $ center-of-mass frame is given by
397: %\begin{eqnarray}
398: %{d\sigma\over dz d\phi} &=& { \alpha^2\over 32 \hat s}\sqrt{1-{4m^2_H\over \hat s}}
399: %[ ({\hat s^2-4m^2_H s
400: %-(\hat u-\hat t)^2\over (\hat u-m^2_H)(\hat t-m^2_H)} - 2)^2 +4]\nonumber\\
401: %&\times& [1-(1-{(\hat u-\hat t)^2\over
402: %\hat s^2} ) \sin^2 \delta],
403: %\end{eqnarray}
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: {d \sigma \over dz d\phi} &=& {\alpha^2 \hat{\beta} \over 4 \hat{s}} \;
406: \bigg[
407: \frac{(m_H^2 + \hat{t})^2}{(m_H^2 - \hat{t})^2}
408: +\frac{(m_H^2 + \hat{u})^2}{(m_H^2 - \hat{u})^2}
409: +\frac{8m_H^4}{(m_H^2 - \hat{t})(m_H^2 - \hat{u}) } \bigg] \nonumber\\
410: &\times&\bigg[ 1-4 \frac{(m_H^2 - \hat{t})(m_H^2 - \hat{u})}{\hat{s}^2}
411: \sin^2\delta \bigg].
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: where the NC phase $\delta$ has been defined earlier,
414: $\hat t = m^2_H - \frac{\hat s}{2}(1 - \hat \beta z) $,
415: $\hat u = m^2_H - \frac{\hat s}{2}(1 + \hat \beta z) $, and
416: $\hat \beta = \sqrt{1 -4 m^2_H/\hat s}$ is velocity of the charged scalar.
417: In this case also, in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0$, one obtains the
418: pure QED result. Again this process depends only on $c_{0z}/\Lambda$.
419:
420: The scalars are similar to charged Higgses in multi-Higgs models.
421: However the decay products are not clear because the minimal Standard Model
422: for electroweak interactions have to be extended with NC geometry. The
423: charged scalar decay products may be modified. We will assume that the decay
424: products of $H$ are similar to the charged Higgs scalars in multi-Higgs models
425: and can be studied experimentally.
426: One may also formulate NC QED with composite charged scalars, such as
427: $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$ which will be commented on later.
428:
429: The variation of unpolarised cross-section with $\Lambda$ for
430: scalar mass $m_H = 100$~GeV at $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}=1$
431: TeV is also shown in
432: Fig. 3 for both monochromatic (line with dark boxes)
433: and laser back-scattered (dashed lines) photon beams. The corresponding
434: ordinary QED contributions, are also depicted by the solid lines.
435: From this figure it can be seen that the ordinary QED gets negative
436: contribution from NC QED like the $\gamma \gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-$ process
437: , and as the NC scale $\Lambda$ increases the NC QED contribution
438: asymptotically approaches to the ordinary QED result.
439: It is interesting to note that the cross-section in the back-scattered case is
440: larger than that of monochromatic one, unlike the $\gamma\gamma\to \ell^+ \ell^-$
441: case discussed earlier. This is because that in this case no cut on
442: the final product energy is applied, therefore all contributions are included.
443: However, the monochromatic case still has larger
444: deviation between the ordinary and non-commutative QED as can be seen
445: in Fig. 3.
446:
447: Now we discuss our results on $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$
448: for $\gamma \gamma \to H^+ H^-$ with monochromatic photon beams.
449: We use two charged scalar masses,
450: $m_H = 100$~GeV and $200$~GeV, for illustrations.
451: We display $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$
452: as a function of $ L$ by the solid lines in the Fig.7 (a)
453: ($m_H= 100$~GeV) and Fig.7 (b)($m_H = 200$~GeV). The numbers adjacent to each
454: curve correspond to monochromatic photon collider.
455: It is clear from these
456: two figures that %the $95\%$ CL lower bound on
457: $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$ does
458: depend on the scalar mass. The lighter the mass,
459: the larger the scale one can explore
460: for a given $\sqrt{s}$ and integrated luminosity.
461: For example, with $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma \gamma}=1$ TeV,
462: %the $95\%$ CL bounds on
463: $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$ are 1.53 TeV for $m_H = 100$~GeV
464: and $1.48$~TeV for $m_H = 200$~GeV, respectively.
465: Like the dilepton final state, here also, one can probe larger
466: value of $\Lambda$ if one goes to higher energies.
467:
468: The results for the laser back-scattered photon beams are also shown
469: in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) by the dotted lines.
470: In the case, there are no singularities at $z=\pm 1 $. Therefore we will
471: let $z$ vary within the full allowed range,
472: that is with $z_{min} = -1, z_{max} = 1 $. The integration lower limits for
473: $x_1$ and $x_2$ are: $x_{1min} = 4m^2_H/sx_{max}$
474: and $x_{2min} = 4m^2_H/sx_1$. The maximum value of $x_1$ and $x_2$ has been
475: already mentioned in section II. Using Eqn.(3) we then obtain
476: % $95\%$ C.L lower bound on
477: $\Lambda^{\rm lower}$ as a function of integrated luminosity $L$ which
478: is shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 7. As before, we study this case also
479: for two values of scalar masses 100 GeV and 200 GeV.
480: We see that the bounds which can be probed on the scale
481: are in the range of 0.8 to 1.2, 0.7 to 1.0, and 0.4 to 0.6 TeV for
482: $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma} =1.5$, 1.0, and 0.5 TeV, respectively.
483: These
484: bounds are slightly lower than that %can be
485: obtained in $\gamma\gamma\to
486: \ell^+\ell^-$.
487:
488: If the theory is applicable to
489: composite particles such as $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$,
490: %with the same parameters,
491: the NC scale that can be probed with $L=500$ fb$^{-1}$ is
492: 1.5 TeV (1.2 TeV) for monochromatic (back-scattered) photon beams for
493: $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}=1$ TeV ($\sqrt{s}_{e^+ e^-}=1$ TeV).
494: Of course it may be difficult to carry out such experiments with
495: energies as high as what we are considering.
496:
497: In the above discussions we have used tree level cross sections, especially
498: our reference ordinary cross sections $\sigma_{SM}$. There are loop
499: contributions which may lead to the change of $\chi^2$ compared with
500: when tree cross sections
501: are used. However, the loop corrections are much smaller than the
502: NC corrections for $\chi^2$ as large as 4. The bounds we obtained are
503: for NC corrections to good approximations.
504:
505: \section{Conclusions}
506: In summary, we have examined the feasibility of observing the
507: experimental signature of non-commutative QED by studying
508: dilepton and pair of charged scalars productions at high energy
509: photon collider. We have parametrized the effect of NC QED by
510: an anti-symmetric matrix $c_{\mu\nu}$ and an overall NC scale
511: $\Lambda $. We found that in our processes only $c_{0z}$ contributes.
512: Throughout our analysis we have set this parameter to 1 and studied the
513: sensitivities of $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+\ell^-$ and
514: $\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-$ processes on the NC scale $\Lambda$.
515:
516: We first studied the sensitivity for
517: monochromatic $\gamma\gamma $ colliders.
518: The variation of $\sigma (\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-)$
519: and $\sigma (\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-)$ with the NC scale $\Lambda$ at
520: $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma}= 1$ TeV were obtained.
521: We found that there are visible deviations between ordinary and NC QED
522: predictions for small $\Lambda$, but when $\Lambda$ becomes larger,
523: $\sigma_{NC}$ asymptotically approaches $\sigma_{SM}$.
524: %beyond the $\Lambda = 1 - 1.5 $ TeV
525: %$\sigma_{NC} \rightarrow \sigma_{SM} $.
526: We also obtained $95 \%$ CL lower limit which can be probed
527: on $\Lambda$ from above mentioned
528: two processes as functions of the integrated luminosity $L$. It turned out
529: that higher the available center-of-mass energy larger the
530: NC scale $\Lambda$ one can probe.
531: We found that with $\sqrt{s}_{\gamma\gamma} = 0.5,\;1.0$, and $\;1.5$~TeV and
532: integrated luminosity $L = 500(fb^{-1})$
533: the NC scales can be probed up to 1.1, 1.7, and 2.6 TeV,
534: respectively.
535:
536: Next we considered more realistic case, where, the photon beams
537: are obtained by laser back-scattered from $e^\pm$ beams.
538: In this case, the available $\gamma \gamma $ center-of-mass
539: energy has an spectrum with a maximum energy around $80\%$ of the
540: $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$. In general bounds on the scale that can be probed
541: become lower.
542: We have observed that for $ \sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}
543: = 0.5,\;1.0$, and $\;1.5$~TeV, with the integrated luminosity
544: $L = 500(fb^{-1})$, the NC scales up to 0.7, 1.2, and 1.6 TeV can be probed,
545: respectively.
546:
547: In both monochromatic and laser back scattered photon collider cases, the bounds
548: on $\Lambda$ can be probed using $\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-$ are slightly
549: lower than that can be obtained using $\gamma\gamma\to \ell^+\ell^-$.
550:
551: \acknowledgements
552: This work was supported in part by National Science Council
553: under the grants NSC 89-2112-M-002-016 and NSC 89-2112-M-002-062, and
554: in part by the Ministry of Education Academic Excellent Project
555: 89-N-FA01-1-4-3.
556: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
557: \newpage
558: \begin{figure}[htb]
559: \centerline{ \DESepsf(fig1.eps width 20cm)}
560: \vspace*{-6.in}
561: \caption { Feynman rules for NC QED with fermions. }
562: %\label{figure}
563: \end{figure}
564: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
565: \newpage
566: \begin{figure}[htb]
567: \centerline{ \DESepsf(Fig2.ps width 20cm)}
568: \vspace*{-6.in}
569: \caption { Feynman diagram for $\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+\ell^-$ in the
570: presence of NC QED.}
571: %\label{figure}
572: \end{figure}
573: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
574: \newpage
575: \begin{figure}[htb]
576: \centerline{ \DESepsf(cs-lam.ps width 14cm)}
577: \vspace*{-2.in}
578: \caption { Variation of $\sigma (\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-) $ and
579: $\sigma (\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-) $ with the NC scale $\Lambda$
580: at $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-} =1$~ TeV NLC machine. The notations are following:
581: $(i)$ $ \sigma (\gamma\gamma \to \ell^+ \ell^-) $ with
582: monochromatic and with laser back-scattered photon beams
583: are represented by the curve with $ \odot $ and with dotted lines respectively.
584: The solid lines adjacent to these correspond to commutative QED
585: contribution. $(ii)$ $\sigma (\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-) $ with
586: monochromatic and with laser back scattered photon beams
587: are represented by the curve with dark boxes and with dashed lines
588: respectively. The solid lines adjacent to these correspond to ordinary QED
589: contribution. For this we have fixed the scalar mass $m_H = 100$~GeV.}
590: %\label{figure}
591: \end{figure}
592:
593: \newpage
594: \begin{figure}[htb]
595: \centerline{ \DESepsf(dilep.ps width 12cm)}
596: \smallskip
597: \caption {$95\%$ CL lower bound on $\Lambda $ can be probed
598: as a function of integrated
599: luminosity from $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$ process.
600: The solid lines are using monochromatic photon beams, while the dashed
601: lines are with back-scattered photons. The numbers adjacent to each curve
602: represents the $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$. }
603: %\label{figure}
604: \end{figure}
605: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
606: %\newpage
607: \begin{figure}[htb]
608: \centerline{ \DESepsf(Fig3.ps width 20cm)}
609: \vspace*{-6.in}
610: \caption { Feynman rules for NC scalar QED.}
611: %\label{figure}
612: \end{figure}
613: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
614: \newpage
615: \begin{figure}[htb]
616: \centerline{ \DESepsf(Fig4.ps width 20cm)}
617: \vspace*{-6.in}
618: \caption { Feynman diagram for $\gamma\gamma \to H^+ H^-$ in the
619: presence of NC QED.}
620: %\label{figure}
621: \end{figure}
622: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
623: \newpage
624: \begin{figure}[htb]
625: \centerline{ \DESepsf(addfig.ps width 12cm)}
626: %\smallskip
627: %\vspace*{-6in}
628: \caption {$95\%$ CL lower bound on $\Lambda $ can be probed
629: as a function of integrated
630: luminosity from $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow H^+ H^-$ process for
631: $m_H = 100$ GeV $(a)$ and $200$ GeV $(b)$. The solid lines are using
632: monochromatic photon beams, while the dashed lines are with
633: back-scattered photons. The numbers adjacent to each curve represents the
634: $\sqrt{s}_{e^+e^-}$. }
635: %\label{figure}
636: \end{figure}
637: %*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
638:
639: \newpage
640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
641: \def\pr#1,#2,#3 { {\em Phys.~Rev.} ~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }
642: \def\prd#1,#2,#3{ {\em Phys.~Rev.} ~{\bf D#1}, #2 (#3) }
643: \def\prl#1,#2,#3{ {\em Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} ~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }
644: \def\plb#1,#2,#3{ {\em Phys.~Lett.} ~{\bf B#1}, #2 (#3) }
645: \def\npb#1,#2,#3{ {\em Nucl.~Phys.} ~{\bf B#1}, #2 (#3) }
646: \def\prp#1,#2,#3{ {\em Phys.~Rept.} ~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }
647: \def\zpc#1,#2,#3{ {\em Z.~Phys.} ~{\bf C#1}, #2 (#3) }
648: \def\epj#1,#2,#3{ {\em Eur.~Phys.~J.} ~{\bf C#1}, #2 (#3) }
649: \def\mpl#1,#2,#3{ {\em Mod.~Phys.~Lett.} ~{\bf A#1}, #2 (#3) }
650: \def\ijmp#1,#2,#3{{\em Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.}~{\bf A#1}, #2 (#3) }
651: \def\ptp#1,#2,#3{ {\em Prog.~Theor.~Phys.}~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }
652: \def\jhep#1,#2,#3{ {\em Journal of High Energy Physics}~{\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }
653: %....................................................................%
654:
655: \begin{references}
656: \bibitem{snyder}
657: %H.~S.~Snyder, \pr71,38,{1947}; {\em ibid},
658: %\pr72,68,{1947};
659: H.~S.~Snyder, {\em Phys.~Rev.}~{\bf 71},38 (1947);
660: {\em ibid},~{\bf 72},68 (1947);
661: \bibitem{nc_string} A.~Connes, {\it Non-commutative Geometry}, Academic Press,
662: (1994);
663: M.~Li and T.~Yoneya, \prl78,1219,{1997};
664: C.-S. Chu and P.-M. Ho, \npb550,151,{1999}.
665: A. Connes, M.R. Douglas and A. Schwarz, \jhep9802,003,{1998};
666: M.R. Douglas and C. Hull, \jhep9802,008,{1998};
667: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten, \jhep9909,032,{1999};
668: M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, \plb455,129,{1999} ;
669: J.L.F. Barbon and E. Rabinovici, \plb486,202,{2000};
670: R. Gopakumar, J. Maldacena, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, \jhep0006,036,{2000};
671: D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, \prd62,066004,{2000};
672: N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, hep-th/0005040;
673: D.J. Gross, A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, hep-th/0008075;
674: T. Pengpan and X. Xiong, hep-th/0009070;
675: %\cite{Petriello:2001mp}
676: %\bibitem{Petriello:2001mp}
677: F.~J.~Petriello,
678: %``The Higgs mechanism in non-commutative gauge theories,''
679: hep-th/0101109.
680: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101109;%%
681:
682: \bibitem{extra}
683: %V.~Rubakov and M.~Shaposhnikov, \plb125,136,{1984};
684: Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and Gia Dvali, \plb429,263,{1998} ;
685: %A.~Barnaveli and O.~Kancheli, {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 573 (1990);
686: I.~Antoniadis, \plb246,377,{1990};
687: I.~Antoniadis, C.~Mu\~noz and M.~Quiros, \npb397, 515,{1993};
688: I.~Antoniadis, K.~Benakli and M.~Quiros, \plb331,313,{1994};
689: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Dvali, \plb463,257,{1998}.
690: %E.A.~Mirabelli, M.~Perelstein and M.E.~Peskin, \prl82,2236,{1999};
691: %K.~Cheung and W.-Y.~Keung, \prd60,112003,{1999};
692: %S.~Cullen and M.~Perelstein, \prl83,268,{1999};
693: %T.~Han, D.~Rainwater and D.~Zeppenfeld, \plb463,93,{1999};
694: %T.G. Rizzo, \prd59,115010,{1999};
695: %K.~Agashe and N.G.~Deshpande, \plb456,60,{1999};
696: %T.G.~Rizzo, \prd60,115010,{1999};
697: %J.L.~Hewett, \prl82,4765,{1999};
698: %P.~Mathews, S.~Raychaudhuri and K.~Sridhar, \plb450,343,{1999};
699: %K.Y.~Lee, H.S.~Song, J.H.~Song, and C.~Yu, \prd60,093002,{1999};
700: %P.~Mathews, S.~Raychaudhuri and K.~Sridhar, \plb455,115,{1999};
701: %C.~Balasz, H.J.~He, W.W.~Repko, C.P.~Yuan, and D.A.~Dicus, \prl83,2112,{1999};
702: %K.Y.~Lee, H.S.~Song and J.H.~Song, \plb464,82,{1999};
703: %T.G.~Rizzo, \prd60,075001,{1999};
704: %P.~Mathews, P.~Poulose and K.~Sridhar, \plb461,196,{1999};
705: %A. Gupta, N.K. Mondal and S. Raychaudhuri, , hep-ph/9904234;
706: %D.~Atwood, S.~Bar-Shalom and A.~Soni, Riverside preprint
707: %UCRHEP-T258 (Jun 1999), hep-ph/9906400;
708: %K.~Cheung, \prd61,015005,{2000};
709: %D.~Atwood, S.~Bar-Shalom and A.~Soni, Brookhaven preprint BNL-HET-99/11,
710: % hep-ph/9903538;
711: %P. Das, S. Raychaudhuri, IITK preprint IITK-HEP-99-53 (1999), hep-ph/9908205.
712: %D.K.~Ghosh, P.~Poulose and K.~Sridhar, \mpl15,475,{2000};
713: %Xiao-Gang~He, \prd61,036007,{2000};
714: %P.~Mathews, S.~Raychaudhuri and K.~Sridhar, \jhep0007,008,{2000};
715:
716: \bibitem{arfaei}C.~P.~Martin, D.~Sanchez-Ruiz, \prl83,476,{1999};
717: M.~Hayakawa, \plb478,394,{2000}, hep-th/9912094,{\em ibid},
718: hep-th/9912167; Ihab. F. Riad and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, \jhep0008,045,{2000};
719: M. Chaichian, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Tureanu, e-print hep-th/0010175;
720: H. Arfaei and M. H. Yavartanoo, e-print hep-th/0010244;
721:
722: \bibitem{rizzo}J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo, hep-ph/0010354,\\
723: Prakash Mathews, hep-ph/0010354.
724:
725: \bibitem{jika}
726: G.V. Jikia, and Yu.F. Pirogov, \plb,283,135,{1992};
727: L.-Z. Sun and Y.-Y. Lin, \prd,54,3563,{1996};
728: Surajit Chakrabarti, Debajyoti Choudhury, Rohini M. Godbole, and
729: Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya, \plb434,347,{1998};
730: D. K. Ghosh, Prakash Mathews, P. Poulose, and K. Sridhar,
731: \jhep9911,004,{1999};
732: Prakash Mathews, P. Poulose, and K. Sridhar, \plb461,196,{1999};
733: Xiao-Gang He, \prd60,11501,{2000};
734: Debajyoti Choudhury, and Anindya Datta, \npb592,35,{2001}.
735:
736: \bibitem{matsubara} K. Matsubara, \plb482,417,{2000}.
737:
738: \bibitem{nlc_rev} Hitoshi Murayama and Michael Peskin,
739: Ann.~Rev.~Nucl.~Part.~Sci.~{\bf 46}, 533 (1996);
740: E.~Accomando {\em et. al.} \prp299,1,{1998}.
741:
742: \bibitem{riad} Ihab. F. Riad and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, \jhep0008,045,{2000}.
743:
744: \bibitem{ginzburg} I. Ginzburg et al.,
745: Nucl. Instr. Methods {\bf 202}, 57(1983).
746:
747: \bibitem{book} R. Field, Applications of Perturbative QCD, Addison-Wesley,
748: 1989.
749:
750: \end{references}
751:
752: \end{document}
753: