1: 

2: \documentclass{svmult}

3: 

4: 

5: \usepackage{graphicx}    % standard LaTeX graphics tool

6:                          % when including figure files

7: 

8: 

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

11: % PLEASE, DO NOT  USE YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS AND STYLES. I HAVE COMPILED

12: % THE LIST OF THE MOST COMMON DEFINITIONS, SEE THE FOLLOWING LINES.

13: % USE THOSE OR SIMPLY WRITE THE FULL COMMAND.

14: %

15: % TNX LARISA

16: %

17: % PS

18: % If you absolutely must use your own definitions, 

19: % make it very exotic and mark them clearly, 

20: % and DO NOT, under any circumstances, change existing ones. 

21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: 

24: % equations

25: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

26: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

27: \def\nn{\nonumber}

28: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

29: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

30: \def\ba{\begin{array}}                  %array

31: \def\ea{\end{array}}

32: \newcommand{\q}{\quad}

33: \newcommand{\qq}{\qquad}

34: % hermitian conjugate

35: \def\dg{\dagger}     

36: % double dagger

37: \def\ddg{\ddagger}

38: % partial der.

39: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}

40: \newcommand{\pax}{\partial_x}

41: \newcommand{\pay}{\partial_y}

42: \newcommand{\paz}{\partial_z}

43: \newcommand{\pai}{\partial_i}

44: \newcommand{\paj}{\partial_j}

45: \newcommand{\pak}{\partial_k}

46: \newcommand{\pam}{\partial_\mu}

47: \newcommand{\pan}{\partial_\nu}

48: \newcommand{\parh}{\partial_\rho}

49: % ket & bra

50: \def\ket{\rangle}

51: \def\bra{\langle}  

52: % greek letters

53: \def\ve{\varepsilon}

54: \def\vf{\varphi}

55: \def\vr{\varrho}

56: \def\vs{\varsigma}

57: \def\vt{\vartheta}

58: \def\a{\alpha}

59: \def\b{\beta}

60: \def\c{\chi}

61: \def\e{\epsilon}

62: \def\f{\phi}

63: \def\F{\Phi}

64: \def\g{\gamma}

65: \def\G{\Gamma}

66: \def\h{\eta}

67: \def\j{\psi}

68: \def\J{\Psi}

69: \def\k{\kappa}

70: \def\l{\lambda}

71: \def\L{\Lambda}

72: \def\m{\mu}

73: \def\n{\nu}

74: \def\o{\omega}

75: \def\O{\Omega}

76: \def\p{\pi}

77: \def\th{\theta}

78: \def\Th{\Theta}

79: \def\r{\rho}

80: \def\s{\sigma}

81: \def\S{\Sigma}

82: \def\t{\tau}

83: \def\u{\upsilon}

84: \def\x{\xi}

85: \def\z{\zeta}

86: 

87: 

88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

89: 

90: 

91: 

92: %NEW ADDITIONS

93: 

94: 

95: 

96: \def\QEDp{{{\rm{QED}}_+}}

97: \def\QEDm{{{\rm{QED}}_-}}

98: \def\SW{{{\mbox {\small {SW}}}}}

99: \def\P*{{\Psi^*}}

100: \def\PL*{{\Psi_{\!L}^{*}}}

101: \def\PR*{{\Psi_{\!R}^{*}}}

102: \def\p*{{\psi^*}}

103: \def\lh{{\widehat \Lambda}}

104: \def\epsi{{\varepsilon}}

105: \def\eh{{\widehat \epsi}}

106: \def\*{\star}

107: \def\m*{{\star^{\mbox{${_{^{{\!{o{^{_{^{_{\!\!}}}}}p}}}}}$}}}}

108: \def\sm{{\star_{{\!\!}_-}}}

109: \def\psih{\widehat \psi}

110: \def\Psih{\widehat \Psi}

111: \def\Phih{{\widehat \Upsilon}}

112: \def\Fh{\widehat F}

113: \def\Ah{\widehat A}

114: \def\Dh{\widehat{D}}

115: \def\fmslashmio{\raisebox{0,5pt}{$\,\slash$} \hspace{- 7 pt} }

116: \def\Dsuh{\widehat{\fmslashmio D}}

117: \def\Sh{\widehat S}

118: \def\ell{{{\it l}}}

119: \def\Tcal{{\cal{T}}}

120: \def\Tr{{\rm{Tr}}}

121: \def\Lambdah{\widehat{\Lambda}}

122: \def\th{\theta}

123: \def\onehalf{{1 \over 2}}

124: \def\sma#1{\mbox{\footnotesize #1}}

125: \def\sL{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!L}}}

126: \def\sr{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!R}}}

127: \def\sLP{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!L}^P}}

128: \def\srP{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!R}^P}}

129: \def\sLC{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!L}^C}}

130: \def\srC{\sigma_{_{\!}\Psi_{\!R}^C}}

131: 

132: \def\sk{\vskip .4cm}

133: 

134: \def\stella[#1,#2]{[#1\stackrel{{\displaystyle\star}}{,}#2]}

135: \def\pp#1{\partial_#1}

136: 

137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

138: 

139: \begin{document}

140: 

141: \title*{Non-Commutative GUTs, Standard Model and 

142: $C,P,T$ properties from Seiberg-Witten map}

143: \titlerunning{NCGUTs, NCSM and C,P,T}

144: \author{Paolo Aschieri}

145: \institute{Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie

146: Avanzate, Universit\'a del Piemonte\\ Orientale, and INFN, Piazza

147: Ambrosoli 5, I-15100,  Alessandria, Italy\\

148: Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Physik F\"{o}hringer Ring 6,

149: D-80805 M\"{u}nchen\\

150: Sektion Physik,

151: Universit\"{a}t M\"{u}nchen Theresienstra\ss e 37, D-80333

152: M\"{u}nchen

153: \texttt{aschieri@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de}}

154: 

155: \maketitle

156: 

157: \begin{abstract}

158: \noindent

159: Noncommutative generalizations of Yang-Mills theories using

160: Seiberg-Witten map are in general not unique. We study these

161: ambiguities and see that 

162: $SO(10)$ GUT, at first order in the noncommutativity 

163: parameter $\th$, is unique and therefore is a truly 

164: unified theory, while $SU(5)$ is

165: not. We then present the noncommutative Standard Model

166: compatible with $SO(10)$ GUT.

167: We next study the reality, hermiticity and $C,P,T$ properties of 

168: the Seiberg-Witten map and of these noncommutative actions at all

169: orders in $\theta$.

170: This allows to compare the Standard Model discussed in \cite{SM} with the 

171: present GUT inspired one.

172: \end{abstract}

173: 

174: % ----------------------------------------------------------

175: 

176: \section{Introduction}

177: 

178: There are different examples of noncommutative theories,

179: we here concentrate on the case where noncommutativity

180: is described by a constant parameter $\theta^{\mu\nu}$.

181: The commutation relations among the coordinates read

182: $\stella[x^\mu,x^\nu]\equiv x^\mu\*x^\nu-x^\nu\* x^\mu=i\th^{\mu\nu}$,

183: where the star product between functions $f,g$ 

184: is given by $f\*g=f {_{\,}}e^{{i\over 2}{\th}^{\mu\nu}

185: {\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{\!\mu}}{\stackrel{\rightarrow}

186: {\partial}_{\!\nu}}} {_{\,}}g_{_{_{_{_{}}}}}$.

187: We do not claim that spacetime has exactly this noncommutativity, 

188: rather we are interested in investigating a mathematically

189: sound gauge theory based on this easiest noncommutative structure.

190: General aspects of this noncommutative theory will then probably 

191: be in common with more refined choices of $\th$. In particular the 

192: choice $\theta^{\mu\nu}=$ constant breakes the Lorentz group in a 

193: spontaneous 

194: way; in a bigger theory we would like to consider $\th^{\mu\nu}$ 

195: (or the related $B$ field)  dynamical and not frozen 

196: to a constant value, thus recovering Lorentz covariance. 

197: One can also consider gauge theories with $\th$ nondynamical

198: but frozen to a particular nonconstant value, 

199: linear in the coordinates, such that one has a (kappa) deformed 

200: Poincar\'e symmetry, see \cite{Wess}.

201: 

202: Using Seiberg-Witten map \cite{SW}, 

203: that relates commutative 

204: gauge fields to noncommutative ones in such a way that commutative 

205: gauge transformations are mapped in NC gauge transformations, one can

206: construct NC gauge theories with arbirary gauge groups 

207: \cite{Madore, Jurco1}.

208: %see also B.~Jur\v {c}o contibution to the proceedings. 

209: These theories are invariant under both commutative and noncommutative 

210: gauge transformations. Along these lines noncommutative 

211: generalizations of the 

212: standard model and GUT theories have been studied 

213: \cite{SM,A}.  

214: The SW map and the $\*$ product 

215: allow us to expand these noncommutative actions order by order in $\th$ 

216: and to express them in terms of ordinary commutative fields

217: so that one can then study the physics properties of these

218: $\th$-expanded commutative actions, see for ex. \cite{astron}.

219: % see also P.~Schupp  contribution to the proceedings.

220: 

221: It turns out that given a commutative YM theory, 

222: SW map and commutative/noncommutative gauge invariance 

223: are in general not enough in order to single out a unique 

224: noncommutative generalization of the

225: original YM theory. One can follow different criteria in order to

226: select a specific noncommutative generalization. We here focus on a

227: classical analysis, in particular imposing the constraint that 

228: the noncommutative generalization of the Standard Model should 

229: be compatible with noncommutative GUT theories. 

230: Another issue would be to single out a noncommutative SM or GUT that 

231: is well behaved at the quantum level. 

232: We refer to the problems relative to 

233: renormalization, see for ex. \cite{Wulkenhaar2}. On the other hand 

234: chiral gauge anomalies are absent in these models

235: \cite{Brandt}.

236: % see also F.~Brandt contribution to the proceedings.

237: 

238: \sk

239: In this talk, following \cite{A}, we present a general study of the ambiguities

240: that 

241: appear when constructing NCYM theories. We then see that at first order in 

242: $\th$ there is no ambiguity in $SO(10)$ NCYM theory. In particular 

243: no triple gauge bosons coupling  of the kind  $\th FFF$

244:  is present.

245: We further study the noncommutative SM compatible with $SO(10)$.

246: 

247: We next study the reality, hermiticity, 

248: charge conjugation, parity and time reversal properties of 

249: the SW map and of $\th$-expanded NCYM theories. 

250: This constraints the possible freedom in the choice of a

251: ``good'' SW map.

252: In \cite{Sheikh-Jabbari:2000vi} the $C,P,T$ properties of NCQED

253: were studied assuming the usual $C,P$ and $T$ transformations

254: also for noncommutative fields. 

255: We here  show that the usual

256: $C,P,T$ transformation on commutative spinors and nonabelian

257: gauge potentials imply, via SW map, the same $C,P,T$

258: transformations for the noncommutative spinors and gauge potentials.

259: We also see that $CPT$ is always a  symmetry of noncommutative

260: actions. In \cite{Chai} $CPT$ is studied more axiomatically.

261: 

262: The reality property of the SW map is then used to 

263: analyze the difference between the SM in \cite{SM} and the GUT inspired 

264: SM proposed here. 

265: It is a basic one, and can be studied also in a QED model. 

266: While in \cite{SM}, and in general in the literature,

267: left and right handed components of a noncommutative spinor field are 

268: built with the same SW map, we here use and advocate a different

269: choice: if noncommutative left handed fermions are built with the 

270: $+\th$ SW map then their right handed companions should be built with 

271: the $-\th$ SW map; this implies that both noncommutative $\psi_L$ and

272: $\psi^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_{~L}\equiv

273: -i\sigma_2{_{_{\,}}}{\psi_{_{\!}R}}^{^{_{_{_{\scriptstyle *}}}}}$

274: are built with the $+\th$ SW map.

275: In other words, with this choice, noncommutativity does not

276: distinguish 

277: between a left handed fermion and a left handed antifermion, but 

278: does distinguish between fermions with different chirality.

279: This appears to be the only choice compatible with GUT theories.

280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

281: 

282: \section{Seiberg-Witten map and NC particle models}

283: Consider an ordinary ``commutative'' YM action with  gauge group $G$, 

284: and one fermion multiplet,

285: $\,\int d^4x \,{-1\,\over 2 g^2}^{\,} 

286: \Tr(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})  + 

287: \overline{\Psi}  i

288: {\fmslashmio D} \Psi \,.$

289: This action is gauge invariant under 

290: $

291: \delta\Psi=i\rho_\Psi(\Lambda)\Psi\label{psi}

292: $

293: where $\rho_{\Psi}$ is the representation of $G$  determined by $\Psi$.

294: Following \cite{Jurco1}

295: the noncommutative generalization of 

296: this action is given by 

297: \beq

298: \Sh=\int d^4x \,{-1\,\over 2 g^2}^{\,} 

299: T^{\!}r(\Fh_{\mu\nu}\*\Fh^{\mu\nu})  + 

300: \overline{\widehat \Psi} \star i

301: \widehat{\fmslashmio D} \widehat \Psi \label{Action1multiplet}

302: \eeq

303: where the noncommutative field strength $\Fh$ is defined by

304: $

305: \widehat F_{\mu\nu}  = \pa_\mu\widehat A_\nu 

306: - \pa_\nu\widehat A_\mu  -i\s[\widehat A_\mu,\widehat A_\nu]\,.

307: $

308: The covariant derivative is given by

309: \beq

310: \widehat D_\mu \widehat\Psi = \pa_\mu \widehat\Psi 

311: - i \rho_\Psi(\widehat A_\mu)\star\widehat\Psi\,.

312: \label{covder}

313: \eeq

314: The action (\ref{Action1multiplet}) is invariant under the 

315: noncommutative gauge transformations 

316: \beq

317: \hat\delta\widehat\Psi = i \rho_\Psi(\widehat\Lambda) \star

318: \widehat\Psi ~~~,~

319: ~~\hat\delta \widehat A_\mu = \pa_\mu\widehat\Lambda 

320: + i\s[\widehat\Lambda,\widehat A_\mu]~.

321: \eeq

322: 

323: The fields $\Ah$, $\Psih$ and $\lh$ are functions of the commutative 

324: fields $A,\Psi, \Lambda$ and the noncommutativity parameter $\th$

325: via the SW map \cite{SW}. At first order in $\th$ we have

326: \begin{eqnarray}

327: \widehat A_\xi[A,\th] & = & A_\xi 

328: + \frac{1}{4} \theta^{\mu\nu}\{A_\nu,\pa_\mu A_\xi\} + 

329: \frac{1}{4} \theta^{\mu\nu}\{F_{\mu\xi},A_\nu\} +  \mathcal{O}(\theta^2)

330: \label{SWA}\\

331: \widehat\Lambda[\Lambda, A, \th]  &=&  \Lambda 

332: + \frac{1}{4} \theta^{\mu\nu}\{\pa_\mu \Lambda , A_\nu\}+ \mathcal{O}(\theta^2)\label{SWLambda}~\\

333: \widehat \Psi[\Psi,A,\th] & = & \Psi 

334: + \frac{1}{2} \theta^{\mu\nu}\rho_\Psi(A_\nu)\pa_\mu\Psi

335: +\frac{i}{8}\theta^{\mu\nu}[\rho_\Psi(A_\mu), \rho_\Psi(A_\nu)] \Psi + \mathcal{O}(\theta^2)

336:  \label{SWPsi}

337: \end{eqnarray}

338: In terms of the commutative fields 

339: the action (\ref{Action1multiplet}) is also invariant

340: under the ordinary gauge transformation 

341: $\delta A_\mu = \pa_\mu\Lambda  + i[\Lambda, A_\mu]$,

342: $\delta\Psi=i\rho_\Psi(\Lambda)\Psi$.

343: \sk

344: In (\ref{Action1multiplet}) the information on the gauge group $G$ 

345: is through the dependence of the noncommutative fields on the 

346: commutative ones. The commutative

347: gauge potential $A$ and gauge parameter $\Lambda$ are valued in the

348: $G$  Lie algebra, $A=A^aT^a, \L =\L^aT^a$; and from 

349: (\ref{SWA}), (\ref{SWLambda})

350: it follows that $\Ah$ and $\Lambdah$ 

351: are valued in the universal enveloping 

352: algebra of the $G$ Lie algebra. 

353: However, due to the SW map, the degrees of freedom of $\Ah$ are the same as that of $A$.

354: Similarly to $\Ah$, also $\Fh$ is valued in the universal enveloping 

355: algebra of $G$.

356: Now expression (\ref{Action1multiplet}) is ambiguous because 

357: in  $T^{\!}r(\Fh_{\mu\nu}\*\Fh^{\mu\nu})$ we have not specified 

358: the representation $\rho(T^a)$. 

359: We can render explicit the ambiguity in (\ref{Action1multiplet}) 

360: by writing

361: \beq

362: {1\over g^2}T^{\!}r(\Fh_{\mu\nu}\*\Fh^{\mu\nu})=

363: \sum_\rho c_\rho\Tr(\rho(\Fh_{\mu\nu})\*\rho(\Fh^{\mu\nu}))

364: \label{ambiguity}

365: \eeq

366: where the sum is extended over all unitary irreducible and

367: inequivalent representations $\rho$ of $G$. 

368: The real coefficients $c_\rho$ parametrize the ambiguity in 

369: (\ref{ambiguity}). They are constrained by 

370: requiring that in the commutative limit, 

371: $\th\rightarrow 0$, (\ref{ambiguity}) becomes the correctly normalized

372: commutative gauge kinetic term.

373: 

374: The ambiguity (\ref{ambiguity}) in the action (\ref{Action1multiplet})

375: can also be studied by expanding (\ref{ambiguity}) in terms of the

376: commutative fields $\Psi,A,F$.  At first order in $\th$ we have

377: \bea

378: \widehat{S}_{gauge}&=&

379: -\frac{1}{4g^2}\int \! d^4x 

380: \sum_{a=1}^{{\mbox{{\tiny{dim }}}}{\!G}}

381: F^a_{\mu \nu}F^{a\,\mu \nu}_{\!}\nonumber\\

382: & &\,+\,(_{\,}{\mbox{$\sum_\rho$} c_\rho D_\rho^{abc}}) \,\,\,

383: {\theta^{\mu \nu}\over 4}\!\int \!d^4x^{\,\,\,} {1\over 4}F^a_{\mu \nu}

384: F^b_{\rho \sigma} F^{c\,\rho \sigma}\, -\,F^a_{\mu \rho} F^b_{\nu \sigma}

385: F^{c\,\rho\sigma}~~~~~~~~~

386: \label{traccia}

387: \eea

388: where 

389: \beq

390: {1\over 2}D_\rho^{abc}\equiv\Tr(\rho(T^a)\{\rho(T^b),\rho(T^c)\})

391: = {\cal A(\rho)}\Tr(t^a\{t^b,t^c\})\equiv

392: {1\over 2}{\cal A(\rho)}d^{abc}\label{Dterm}~.

393: \eeq

394: Here $t^a$ denotes the fundamental representation, and we are

395: using that the completely symmetric $D_\rho^{abc}$ tensor in the

396: representation $\rho$ is proportional to the $d^{abc}$ one defined

397: by the fundamental representation. In particular 

398: for all simple Lie groups, except $SU(N)$ with $N\geq 3$, 

399: we have $D_\rho^{abc}=0$

400: for any representation $\rho$.

401: Thus from  (\ref{traccia}) we see that at first order in $\th$  

402: the ambiguity (\ref{ambiguity}) is present just for  $SU(N)$ Lie

403: groups.

404: % and it is equivalent to the choice

405: %of the real number $\sum_\rho c_\rho{\cal A(\rho)}$. 

406: \sk

407: Among the possible representations that one can choose in 

408: (\ref{ambiguity}) there are two natural ones. 

409: The fermion representation and the adjoint representation. 

410: The adjoint representation is particularly appealing if we just have a pure

411: gauge action, then, since only the structure constants appear in the

412: commutative gauge kinetic term $\sum_a F_{\mu\nu}^aF^{a\,\mu\nu}$, 

413: a possible choice is indeed to consider only the

414: adjoint representation. This is a minimal choice in the sense that in

415: this case only structure constants enter (\ref{ambiguity}).

416: (It can be shown \cite{A} that in this case the gauge action is even

417: in $\th$).

418: If we also have matter fields then from (\ref{covder})

419: we see that we must consider the particle representation  

420: $\rho_\Psi$ given by the multiplet $\Psi$ (and inherited by $\Psih$). 

421: In (\ref{ambiguity}) one could then make the minimal choice

422: of selecting just the $\rho_\Psi$ representation.

423: 

424: Along the lines of the above NCYM theories framework we now examine

425: the $SO(10)$, the $SU(5)$  and the Standard Model noncommutative 

426: gauge theories.

427: \sk

428: 

429: \noindent{\bf Noncommutative \mbox{\boldmath ${ SO(10)}~$}}

430: We consider only one fermion generation: the $16$-dimensional spinor representation of

431: $SO(10)$ usually denoted $16^+$ (no relevant new effects appear

432: considering all three families).

433: We write the left handed multiplet as 

434: \beq

435: \Psi_L^+=(u^i,d^i\,,\,-u^{{\scriptscriptstyle C}}_i\,,\,

436: d^{{\scriptscriptstyle   C}}_i\,,\,\nu,e^-\,,\,e^+\,,\,

437: -\nu^{\scriptscriptstyle  C})_L

438: \label{ml}

439: \eeq

440: where $i$ is the $SU(3)$ color index and 

441: $\nu^{\scriptscriptstyle  C}_{~L}=

442: -i\sigma_2{_{_{\,}}}{\nu_{_{\!}R}}^{^{_{_{_{\scriptstyle *}}}}}$

443: is the charge conjugate of the neutrino particle $\nu_R$ 

444: (not present in the Standard Model).

445: The gauge and fermion sector of noncommutative $SO(10)$ is then simply

446: obtained by replacing  $\Psih$ with $\Psih^+_L$ in (\ref{Action1multiplet}).

447: Notice that no linear term in $\th$, i.e. no cubic term in $F$ can appear. 

448: This is so because $SO(10)$ is anomaly free: $D_\rho^{abc}=0$ forall $\rho$.

449: In other words, at first order in $\th$, noncommutative $SO(10)$ gauge

450: theory is unique. 

451: \sk

452: \noindent{\bf Noncommutative \mbox{\boldmath ${ SU(5)}~$}}

453:  The fermionic sector of $SU(5)$ has the

454: ${\psi^{\scriptscriptstyle C}}_L$ multiplet 

455: that transforms in the $\overline{5}$ of $SU(5)$ and the 

456: $\chi_L$ multiplet that

457: transforms according to the $10$ of $SU(5)$. 

458: In this case we expect that the adjoint, the ${\overline 5}$

459: and the $10$ representations enter in (\ref{ambiguity}). 

460: In principle one can consider the coefficients

461: $c_{\overline 5}\not=c_{10}$, i.e. while the 

462: $({\psi^{\scriptscriptstyle C}}_L,\chi_L)$ 

463: fermion rep.

464: is $\overline 5\oplus 10$, in (\ref{ambiguity}) the weights

465: $c_\rho$ of the  ${\overline 5}$ and the $10$ can possibly 

466: be not the same.

467: It turns out that only if $c_{\overline 5}\not=c_{10}$ then  

468: $\sum_\rho c_\rho D_\rho^{abc}\not=0$ in (\ref{traccia}). 

469: We see that, already at first order in the noncommutativity 

470: parameter $\th$,  noncommutative $SU(5)$ gauge theory 

471: is not uniquely determined by the gauge coupling constant $g$, 

472: but also by the value of $\sum_\rho c_\rho D_\rho^{abc}$.

473: Thus $SU(5)$ is \emph{not} a truly unified

474: theory in a noncommutative setting.

475: It is tempting to set $c_{\overline 5}=c_{10}$ so that 

476: exactly the fermion representation ${\overline 5}\oplus 10$ enters 

477: (\ref{traccia}). We then have $\sum_\rho c_\rho D_\rho^{abc}=0$,

478: (however this relation is not protected by symmetries).

479: 

480: \sk 

481: \noindent {\bf (GUT inspired) Noncommutative Standard Model $~$}

482: One proceeds similarly for the SM gauge group. The full ambiguity of

483: the gauge kinetic term is given in \cite{A}.

484: About the fermion kinetic term, the fermion vector  

485: ${\widehat \Psi_L}$ is constructed from 

486: $\Psi_L=(u^i,d^i\,,\,-u^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_i\,,

487: \,d^{\scriptscriptstyle C}_i\,,\,\nu,e^-\,,\,e^+)_L$.

488: The  covariant derivative is as in (\ref{covder}), 

489: with $\Psi\rightarrow \Psi_L$ and with $A_\mu=A_\mu^A\Tcal^A$,

490: where $\{\Tcal^A\}=\{ Y,T^a_L,T^\ell_S\}$ are the generators of 

491: $U(1)\otimes SU(2)\otimes SU(3)$.

492: The fermion kinetic term is then as in  (\ref{Action1multiplet}).

493: This Standard Model is built using only left handed fermions and

494: antifermions. We call it GUT inspired because its noncommutative

495: structure can be embedded in $SO(10)$ GUT. Indeed $\Psi_L$ and 

496: $\Psi_L^+$  differ just by the extra neutrino 

497: $\nu^{\scriptscriptstyle  C}_{~L}=

498: -i\sigma_2{_{_{\,}}}{\nu_{_{\!}R}}^{^{_{_{_{\scriptstyle *}}}}}$;

499: moreover under an infinitesimal gauge transformation $\lh$,

500: all fermions in $\Psi_L$ transform with $\lh$ on the left.

501: This GUT inspired Standard Model differs from the one considered 

502: in \cite{SM}; indeed here we started from the chiral vector

503: $\Psi_L$, while there the vector $\Psi'=(u^i_L,d^i_L\,,\,u^i_R\,d^i_R\,,\,\nu_L,e^-_L\,,\,e^-_R)$

504: is considered. In the commutative case $\int \overline{\Psi'} 

505: {\fmslashmio D} \Psi'=\int \overline{\Psi_L}  

506: {\fmslashmio D} \Psi_L$ but in the noncommutative case (see later)

507: %Subection 4.1 (see also (\ref{er}) and the last lines of

508: %the next subsection),

509: this is no more true:  $\int \overline{\widehat{\Psi'\,}} \*

510: {\widehat{\fmslashmio D}} \widehat{\Psi'\,}\not=

511: \int \overline{\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}} \*

512: {\widehat{\fmslashmio D}}_{_{\,}} \widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}\,$;

513: if we change  $\th$ into $-\th$  in the right handed sector of 

514: $\int \overline{\widehat{\Psi'\,}} \*

515: {\widehat{\fmslashmio D}} \widehat{\Psi'\,}$, 

516: then the two expressions coincide.

517: 

518: Finally it is a natural choice to consider in the SM gauge kinetic term

519: only the adjoint rep. and the fermion rep.,

520: we then have  that at first order in $\theta$ there are no

521: modifications to the SM gauge kinetic term.

522: This is so because the fermion rep. is anomaly free:

523: $D_{\rho_{{_{\rm{fermion}}}}}^{A^{\,_{\!\!}}A'\!A''}=0$ 

524: and because for $U(1)$ the adjoint rep. is trivial.

525: 

526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

527: \sk

528: \noindent {\bf Higgs Sectors$~$}

529: While the noncommutative Higgs kinetic and potential

530: terms are given by 

531: \beq

532: %\int d^4x \,\bigg(\,

533: (\widehat D_\mu \widehat \phi)^\dagger

534: \star \widehat D^\mu \widehat \phi           

535: \,+\, \mu^2 {\widehat{\phi}}^{\,\dagger} \star  \widehat \phi - \lambda\,

536: \widehat{\phi}^{\,\dagger} \star  \widehat{\phi}

537: \star

538: {\widehat \phi}^{\,\dagger} \star {\widehat \phi}\,   ~,

539: %\bigg)

540: \eeq

541: a noncommutative version of the SM and GUT Yukawa

542: terms is not straighforward and requires the introduction of the

543: hybrid Seiberg-Witten 

544: maps  ${\widehat{{\quad}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!$ 

545: on fermions.

546: A typical noncommutative Yukawa term then reads

547: \beq

548: \widehat{\phi}^{{{\,}}\dagger} \*

549: \widehat{L_L}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\*

550: \widehat{e_R^*}+~herm. ~con_{\!}j.

551: \label{hsw}

552: \eeq

553: where 

554: $L_L^{}=\left({^{^{^{\!}}}}{_{_{_{\!\!}}}}\right.

555: {}^{^{\mbox{\sma{$\nu^{}_L $}}}}_{_{\mbox{\sma{$e^{}_L $}}}}

556: \left.{^{^{^{\!}}}}{_{_{_{\!\!\!}}}}\right)\,$.  

557: Under an infinitesimal $U(1)\otimes SU(2)\otimes SU(3)$ 

558: gauge transformation

559: $\Lambda$, 

560: ${\widehat{{L_L^{}}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!$ transforms as

561: $

562: \delta\,{\widehat{{L_L^{}}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!=

563: i\rho_\phi(\lh)\*{\widehat{{L_L^{}}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!

564: -i{\widehat{{L_L^{}}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!\*

565: \rho_{e_R^*}(\lh)

566: $.

567: We see that in the hybrid SW map $\lh$ appears both on the

568: left and on the right of the fermions, moreover

569: the representation of $\lh$

570: is inherited from the Higgs and fermions that sandwich 

571: ${\widehat{{L_L^{}}}}^{^{_{_{_{\!\!H}}}}}\!$.

572: The Yukawa term (\ref{hsw}) is thus  invariant under

573: noncommutative gauge transformations. Of course in the $\th\rightarrow

574: 0$ limit we recover the usual gauge transformation for the leptons.

575: An explicit formula for the hybrid SW map at first order in $\th$ is in 

576: \cite{SM, A}.

577: The Yukawa terms (\ref{hsw}) differ from those studied in \cite{SM}.

578: There the hybrid SW map is considered on $\phi$, in particular there

579: ${\widehat{\phi}}^{^{^{{{H}}}}}\!$ is not invariant under $SU(3)$

580: gauge transformations (and this

581: implies that in \cite{SM} gluons couple directly to the Higgs field).

582: 

583: The Higgs sector in the $SO(10)$ and $SU(5)$ models can be constructed

584: with similar techniques \cite{A}.

585: 

586: 

587: 

588: 

589: \sk

590: \section{Hermiticity and reality properties of SW map}

591: From (\ref{SWA}) we see that if $A$ is hermitian

592: then $ \Ah$ is also  hermitian.

593: Actually, to all orders in $\th$, $\Ah$ and $\lh$ 

594: can be chosen hermitian if $A$ and $\Lambda$ are hermitian. 

595: Otherwise stated,

596: SW map can be chosen to be compatible with hermitian conjugation.

597: Compatibility of SW map with complex conjugation reads,

598: \beq

599: \widehat{\P*}={\widehat{\Psi}}^{{^{\,\mbox{\scriptsize{$*$}}}}}

600: \label{conj}

601: \eeq

602: where 

603: $

604: \Psih= \SW [\Psi,\rho_\Psi(A), \th]

605: %\widehat{\U}\equiv \SW [\U,\rho_\U(A), \th]~~~,~~~~~~

606: %\widehat{\P*}\equiv \SW [\P*,\rho_\P*(A), - \th]

607: %\label{30}

608: $

609: denotes the SW map of $\Psi$ constructed with the representation 

610: $\rho_\Psi$ of the potential $A$, and the SW map of the complex

611: conjugate spinor $\P*$ is defined by 

612: \beq

613: \widehat{\P*}\equiv \SW [\P*,\rho_\P*(A), - \th]

614: \label{30}

615: \eeq

616: where $\rho_\P*$ is the representation conjugate to 

617: $\rho_\Psi$\footnote{ 

618: Given the group element $g=e^{i\Lambda}=e^{i\Lambda^aT^a}$ we have 

619: $\rho_{\Psi^*}(g)\equiv\overline{\rho_\Psi(g)}$ and, 

620: since 

621: $\L^a$,  $A^a$ are real, we have

622: $\rho_{\P*}(\L)=-\overline{\rho_\Psi(\L)}

623: {}~,~~\rho_\P*(A)=-\overline{\rho_\Psi(A)}\;

624: $.}. Notice that in (\ref{30}) the noncommutativity parameter $\theta$

625: appears with opposite sign w.r.t. the $\theta$ in the SW map of

626: $\Psi$.

627: Similarly to (\ref{conj}) we have 

628: $\widehat{\rho_\P* (A)}=-\overline{{\widehat{\rho_\Psi(A)\,}}}$ and

629: $\widehat{\rho_\P* (\L)}=-\overline{{\widehat{\rho_\Psi(\L)\,}}}$

630: where 

631: $\widehat{\rho_\P* (A)}\equiv\Ah[\rho_\P*(A),-\th]$ and 

632: $\widehat{\rho_\P* (\L)}\equiv\lh[\rho_\P*(A),\rho_\P*(\L),-\th]$.

633: {}The proof of (\ref{conj}) relies on showing that the SW differential

634: equations \cite{SW} (obtained by requiring

635: that gauge equivalence classes of  the  gauge

636: theory with noncommutativity 

637: $\th+\delta\th$, correspond to 

638: gauge equivalence classes of the gauge

639: theory with noncommutativity $\th$)

640: are themselves compatible with complex

641: conjugation \cite{A}. One proceeds similarly for 

642: the case of hermitian conjugation.

643: \sk

644: \noindent{\bf Noncommutativity and chirality$~$} We can now discuss a further ambiguity of noncommutative gauge theories, and

645: resolve it by requiring compatibility with grand unified theories.

646: {}For simplicity we consider noncommutative QED.

647: % however 

648: %the analysis immediately applies to general nonabelian gauge theories

649: %with fermionic matter.

650: Let $\psi$ be a $4$-component Dirac spinor, and

651: decompose it into its Weil spinors $\psi_L$ and $\psi_R$.

652: Their charge conjugate spinors are

653: $\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}=\psi^C_{~L}=-i\sigma_2\psi_R^{\,*}$

654: and  $\psi^{\;C}_{\!R}=\psi^C_{~R}=i\sigma_2\psi_L^{\,*}$.

655: Consider 

656: the  noncommutative left-handed spinor

657: $\widehat{\psi_L}=\SW [\psi_L,\rho_{\psi_L}(A),\th]~,$

658: we then have the $\mbox{\boldmath ${\pm}$}\th$ choice 

659: \beq

660: \widehat{\psi_R}=\SW [\psi_R,\rho_{\psi_R}(A),\mbox{\boldmath ${\pm}$}

661: \th]~

662: \label{choice}

663: \eeq

664: for the right handed one.

665: In the literature the choice $+\th$ is usually

666: considered so that for the $4$-component Dirac spinor $\psi$ we can

667: write  $\widehat{\psi}=\SW [\psi,A,\th]$, 

668: $\delta\widehat{\psi}=i\widehat{\Lambda}\*\widehat{\psi}$.

669: We here advocate the opposite choice ($-\th$) in (\ref{choice}).

670: Indeed from  (\ref{conj}) we have that 

671: $\widehat{\psi_{\!L}^{\;C}}=-i\sigma_2\,{\widehat{\psi_R}}^{\,*}$ and therefore

672: \beq

673: \widehat{\psi_R}=\SW [\psi_R,\rho_{\psi_R^{}}(A),-\th]~~~

674: \Longleftrightarrow~~~

675: \widehat{\psi_{\!L}^{\;C}}=\SW [{\psi_{\!L}^{\;C}},

676: \rho_{\psi_{\!L}^{\;C}}(A),+\th]

677: \label{equiv}

678: \eeq

679: so that with the $-\th$ choice in (\ref{choice}), 

680: both left handed fermions $\widehat{\psi_L}$,

681: $\widehat{{\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}}}$

682: are associated with $\th$ while the right handed ones $\widehat{\psi_R}$, 

683: $\widehat{{\psi^{\;C}_{\!R}}}$ are associated with $-\th$.

684: In GUT theories we have multiplets of definite chirality

685: and therefore this is the natural choice to

686: consider in this setting.

687: 

688: These observations allow us to compare  

689: QED$_+$ with  $\QEDm$, the two different QED theories obtained with the two

690: different $\pm\th$ choices (\ref{choice}). This difference 

691: immediately extends to the fermion kinetic terms 

692: of nonabelian gauge theories and allows us to compare the 

693: NCSM discussed in

694: \cite{SM} with the present GUT compatible one. We have (up to gauge kinetic terms)

695: $$

696: S_\QEDp \!

697: %=\int \overline{\widehat{\psi_{}}}\* i

698: %\widehat{\fmslashmio D} \widehat \psi_{}

699: =\int {\widehat{\psi_{\!L}}}^\dagger\* i

700: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}_{\,} \widehat \psi_{\!L}

701: \,+\,{\widehat{\psi_{\!R}}}^\dagger\* i

702: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}_{\,} \widehat \psi_{\!R}

703: ~~~,~~~

704: S_\QEDm\! =\int {\widehat{\psi_{\!L}}}^\dagger\* i

705: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}_{\,} \widehat \psi_{\!L}

706: \,+\,{\widehat{\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}}}^\dagger\* i

707: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}_{\,} \widehat{\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}}\:~~

708: $$

709: where the GUT inspired $\QEDm$ is obtained 

710: using the left handed spinor

711:  \(\left({^{^{^{\!}}}}{_{_{_{\!\!}}}}\right.

712: {}^{^{\mbox{\sma{$_{\psi_{\!L}^{} }$}}}}_{{\mbox{\sma{$^{\psi^C_{\!L} }$}}}}

713: \left.{^{^{^{\!}}}}{_{_{_{\!\!\!\!}}}}\right)\) 

714: so that $\widehat{\psi^C_{\!L}}

715: =\SW[\psi^C_{\!L},\rho_{\psi^C_{\!L}}(A),\th]$. 

716: Now from 

717: $\widehat{\psi_{\!L}^{\;C}}=-i\sigma_2\,{\widehat{\psi_R}}^{\,*}$

718: and from $\sigma$ matrix algebra we have

719: $\,\int {\widehat{\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}}}^\dagger\* i

720: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}_{\,} \widehat{\psi^{\;C}_{\!L}}=

721: \int {\widehat{\psi_{\!R}}}^{\!{{

722: \mbox{${_{^{{{o{^{_{^{_{\!\!}}}}}p}}}}}$}}}}

723: {}{^{\mbox{${}^\dagger$}}}\m* i

724: \widehat{\fmslashmio D}^{\!{{

725: \mbox{${_{^{{{^{\:{_{\!\!\!}}}}{o{^{_{^{_{\!\!}}}}}p}}}}}$}}}}

726: _{\,} \widehat{\psi_{\!R}}^{\!{{

727: \mbox{${_{^{{{o{^{_{^{_{\!\!}}}}}p}}}}}$}}}}

728: $,

729: where we have emphasized  that we are using the $-\th$ convention

730: in the SW map by writing 

731: ${~}\widehat{^{}}^{\!{{\mbox{${_{^{{\,\;{o{^{_{^{_{\!\!}}}}}p}}}}}$}}}}$ 

732: instead of ${~}\widehat{^{}}{~\,}$. 

733: We conclude that in order to obtain QED$_-$ from QED$_+$ we just need to 

734: change $\th$ into $-\th$ in the right handed fermion sector of

735: QED$_+$.

736: 

737: 

738: \section{$C,P,T$ properties of SW map and  of NCYM actions}

739: Using  compatibility of SW map with complex conjugation and the

740:  tensorial properties of SW map (i.e. that

741:  SW map preserves the space-time index)

742: one can study the properties of SW map with respect to the $C$, $P$

743:  and $T$ operations. In particular these same expressions as in the

744:  commutative case holds:

745: \beq

746: \widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}^{\:T}={-i\sigma_1\sigma_3

747: \widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}~~~,~~~

748: {\widehat{\Psi_{\!R}}^{\:T}}

749: ={-i\sigma_1\sigma_3\widehat{\Psi_{\!R}}}

750: ~~~,~~~

751: \Ah_{\,\mu}^{\textstyle{^{\;T}}}=(\Ah_0,-\Ah_i) 

752: \label{LT}

753: \eeq

754: {\vskip -2.5em}

755: \beq

756: {\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}^{\:C\!P}}=i\sigma_2{\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}^{*}

757:       ~~~,~~~

758: {\widehat{\Psi_{\!R}}^{\:C\!P}}=-i\sigma_2{\widehat{\Psi_{\!R}}}^{*} 

759: ~~~,~~~\Ah_{\,\mu}^{\textstyle{^{\;C\!P}}}

760: =(-\overline{\Ah_0},\overline{\Ah_i}) 

761: \label{LCP}

762: \eeq

763: where the action of the $P$ and $C$ operators on spinors is given by 

764: $$

765: \widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}^{\,P}=

766:  \SW[\Psi_{\!L}^{\,P},\rho_{\Psi_{_{\!}L}}^{}(A^P),\th^P,\partial^P,i]~~~,~~~

767: \widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}^{\,C}=

768: \SW[\Psi_{\!L}^{\,C},{(\rho_{\Psi_{_{\!}L}^{}}(A))^C},

769: \th^C,\partial,i]~,$$

770: while the time inversion is given by 

771: $

772: {\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}^{\:T}}

773: =\SW[\Psi_{\!L}^{{^{^{\,}}}T},

774: \rho_{\Psi_{\!L}^{{^{^{\,}}}T}}(A^T),

775: \th^T,\partial^T,-i]\,

776: $.

777: In these expressions we have written explicitly the dependence on the 

778: partial derivatives, and

779: the imaginary unit $i$ in the last slot marks that the coefficients in

780: the SW map are in general complex coefficients. 

781: The $-i$ in the last expression means that we are considering the

782: complex conjugates of the coefficients in the SW map, this is so

783: because $T$ is antilinear and multiplicative. 

784: Relations (\ref{LT}) and (\ref{LCP}) hold provided that $\theta^{\mu\nu}$

785: transforms under $C,P,T$  as a $U(1)$ field strenght $F_{\mu\nu}$.

786: If we choose $+\theta$ in (\ref{choice}) then parity and charge

787: conjugation sepatately assume the same expression as 

788: in the commutative case.

789: \sk

790: Now we discuss the transformations properties

791: of NCYM actions under $C,P$ and $T$. With the $+\th$

792: choice (\ref{choice}) we have that NCYM actions are 

793: invariant under $C,P$ and $T$ iff in the commutative limit they are 

794: invariant. On the other hand, with the $-\th$ choice

795: NCYM actions are invariant under $C_{\!}P$ and $T$ iff in the 

796: commutative limit they are invariant.

797: For the fermion kinetic term these statements are

798: a straighforward consequence of $\int {\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}^\dagger\*

799: {\fmslashmio\, \partial}{\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}

800: =\int {\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}^\dagger

801: {\fmslashmio \,\partial}{\widehat{\Psi_{\!L}}}$.

802: Since $\Fh$ transforms like $F$ under $C_{\!}P$ and $T$, and in the

803: $+\th$ case also under $C$ and $P$ separately,

804: the $C,P$,$T$ properties of the gauge kinetic term 

805: $\int T\!r(\Fh\*\Fh)=\int T\!r(\Fh\Fh)$ easily follow.

806: Inspection of the fermion gauge bosons interaction term

807: leads also to the same conclusion. 

808: 

809: 

810: We have studied the $C,P$ and $T$ symmetry properties of NCYM 

811: actions where $\th$ transforms under $C,P$ and $T$ 

812: as a field strenght.

813: Viceversa, {\sl if  we keep $\th$ fixed} under $C,P$ and $T$ 

814: transformations, we in general have that NCYM theories 

815: {\sl break}  $C,P$ and $T$ symmetries. 

816: %Notice however that in the $-\th$ case, if we keep  $\th$ fixed

817: %under $C$, then the SW map is well behaved under $C$, and $C$ is a symmetry 

818: %of a NCYM action if it is a symmetry of the corresponding commutative one

819: %and the gauge kinetic term $\int T^{\!}r(\Fh\Fh)$ is even in $\th$.

820: 

821: Finally a $U(1)$ 

822: field strenght is invariant under the combined $CPT$ transformation,

823:  and therefore $\th$ does not change. 

824: This implies that $CPT$ is always a  

825: symmetry of NCYM actions.

826: 

827: \sk

828: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments$~$}

829: %\noindent 

830: It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for the nice and 

831: stimulating

832: atmosphere at the conference and its efficient organization.

833: 

834: %ZZZZZZZZZZZ

835: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

836: 

837: %\cite{Dimitrijevic:2003pn}

838: \bibitem{Wess}

839: M.~Dimitrijevic, F.~Meyer, L.~Moller and J.~Wess,

840: ``Gauge theories on the kappa-Minkowski spacetime,''

841: arXiv:hep-th/0310116.

842: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310116;%%

843: 

844: 

845: %\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}

846: \bibitem{SW}

847: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,

848: %``String theory and noncommutative geometry'',

849: JHEP {\bf 9909}, 032 (1999)

850: [hep-th/9908142].

851: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908142;%%

852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

853: 

854: 

855: 

856: %\cite{Madore}

857: \bibitem{Madore}

858: J.~Madore, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

859: %``Gauge theory on noncommutative spaces'',

860: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16}, 161 (2000)

861: [hep-th/0001203].

862: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001203;%%

863: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

864: \\

865: %\cite{Jurco:2000ja}

866: B.~Jurco, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

867: %``Enveloping algebra valued gauge transformations for non-Abelian gauge  groups on non-commutative spaces,''

868: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 521 (2000)

869: [hep-th/0006246].

870: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006246;%%

871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

872: \bibitem{Jurco1}

873: %\cite{Jurco:2001rq}

874: %\bibitem{Jurco:2001rq}

875: B.~Jurco, L.~Moller, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

876: %``Construction of non-Abelian gauge theories on noncommutative spaces,''

877: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 383 (2001)

878: [hep-th/0104153].

879: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104153;%%

880: 

881: 

882: 

883: 

884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

885: 

886: \bibitem{SM}

887: X.~Calmet, B.~Jurco, P.~Schupp, J.~Wess and M.~Wohlgenannt,

888: %``The standard model on non-commutative space-time,''

889: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 363

890: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111115].

891: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111115;%%

892: 

893: %\cite{Aschieri:2002mc}

894: \bibitem{A}

895: P.~Aschieri, B.~Jurco, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

896: %``Non-commutative GUTs, standard model and C, P, T,''

897: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 651} (2003) 45

898: [arXiv:hep-th/0205214].

899: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205214;%%

900: 

901: 

902: 

903: 

904: %\cite{Schupp:2002up}

905: \bibitem{astron}

906: P.~Schupp, J.~Trampetic, J.~Wess and G.~Raffelt,

907: ``The photon neutrino interaction in non-commutative gauge field

908: theory  and astrophysical bounds,''

909: arXiv:hep-ph/0212292.

910: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212292;%%

911: 

912: %\cite{Buric:2004ms}

913: \bibitem{Wulkenhaar2}

914: M.~Buric and V.~Radovanovic,

915: %``Non-renormalizability of noncommutative SU(2) gauge theory,''

916: JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 040

917: [arXiv:hep-th/0401103].

918: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0401103;%%

919: 

920: %\cite{Brandt:2003fx}

921: \bibitem{Brandt}

922: F.~Brandt, C.~P.~Martin and F.~R.~Ruiz,

923: %``Anomaly freedom in Seiberg-Witten noncommutative gauge theories,''

924: JHEP {\bf 0307} (2003) 068

925: [arXiv:hep-th/0307292].

926: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307292;%%

927: 

928: 

929: 

930: 

931: %\cite{Sheikh-Jabbari:2000vi}

932: \bibitem{Sheikh-Jabbari:2000vi}

933: M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari,

934: %``Discrete symmetries (C,P,T) in noncommutative field theories,''

935: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 5265

936: [arXiv:hep-th/0001167].

937: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001167;%%

938: 

939: 

940: 

941: %\cite{Chaichian:2002vw}

942: \bibitem{Chai}

943: M.~Chaichian, K.~Nishijima and A.~Tureanu,

944: %``Spin-statistics and CPT theorems in noncommutative field theory,''

945: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 568}, 146 (2003)

946: [arXiv:hep-th/0209008]\\

947: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209008;%%

948: %\cite{Alvarez-Gaume:2003mb}

949: %\bibitem{Alvarez-Gaume:2003mb}

950: L.~Alvarez-Gaume and M.~A.~Vazquez-Mozo,

951: %``General properties of noncommutative field theories,''

952: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 668} (2003) 293

953: [arXiv:hep-th/0305093]\\

954: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305093;%%

955: %\cite{Mahajan:2003vs}

956: %\bibitem{Mahajan:2003vs}

957: N.~Mahajan,

958: %``PCT theorem in field theory on noncommutative space,''

959: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 569} (2003) 85

960: [arXiv:hep-th/0305105].

961: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305105;%%

962: 

963: 

964: \end{thebibliography}

965: \end{document}

966: 

967: 

968: 

969: %

970: \bibitem{Connes:1997cr}

971: A.~Connes, M.~R.~Douglas and A.~Schwarz,

972: ``Noncommutative geometry and matrix theory: Compactification on tori,''

973: JHEP {\bf 9802}, 003 (1998)

974: [arXiv:hep-th/9711162].

975: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711162;%%

976: 

977: %\cite{Chaichian}

978: \bibitem{Jabbari}

979: M.~Chaichian, P.~Presnajder, M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari and A.~Tureanu,

980: ``Noncommutative standard model: Model building,''

981: arXiv:hep-th/0107055.

982: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107055;%%

983: 

984: 

985: 

986: 

987: 

988: 

989: %\cite{Chu}

990: \bibitem{Chu}

991: C.~S.~Chu, V.~V.~Khoze and G.~Travaglini,

992: ``Noncommutativity and model building,''

993: arXiv:hep-th/0112139.\\

994: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112139;%%

995: %\cite{He:2002mz}

996: %\bibitem{He:2002mz}

997: X.~G.~He,

998: ``Strong, electroweak interactions and their unification with  noncommutative space-time,''

999: arXiv:hep-ph/0202223.\\

1000: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202223;%%

1001: %\cite{Ho:2001aa}

1002: %\bibitem{Ho:2001aa}

1003: P.~M.~Ho and H.~C.~Kao,

1004: ``Noncommutative quantum mechanics from noncommutative quantum field  theory,''

1005: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 151602 (2002)

1006: [arXiv:hep-th/0110191].

1007: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110191;%%

1008: 

1009: 

1010: \bibitem{ccphy}

1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205040;%%

1012: H.~Arfaei and M.~H.~Yavartanoo,

1013: ``Phenomenological consequences of non-commutative QED,''

1014: arXiv:hep-th/0010244.

1015: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010244;%%

1016: \\

1017: %\cite{Hewett:2000zp}

1018: %\bibitem{Hewett:2000zp}

1019: J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1020: ``Signals for non-commutative interactions at linear colliders,''

1021: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 075012

1022: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010354].

1023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010354;%%

1024: %\cite{Hinchliffe:2001im}

1025: %\bibitem{Hinchliffe:2001im}

1026: \\

1027: I.~Hinchliffe and N.~Kersting,

1028: ``CP violation from noncommutative geometry,''

1029: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 116007

1030: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104137].\\

1031: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104137;%%

1032: %\cite{Hinchliffe:2002km}

1033: %\bibitem{Hinchliffe:2002km}

1034: I.~Hinchliffe and N.~Kersting,

1035: ``Review of the phenomenology of noncommutative geometry,''

1036: arXiv:hep-ph/0205040.

1037: 

1038: 

1039: 

1040: %\cite{Behr}

1041: \bibitem{Behr}

1042: W.~Behr, N.~G.~Deshpande, G.~Duplancic, P.~Schupp, J.~Trampetic and J.~Wess,

1043: ``The Z $\to$ gamma gamma, g g decays in the noncommutative standard model,''

1044: arXiv:hep-ph/0202121.

1045: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202121;%%

1046: 

1047: 

1048: %\cite{Carlson:2001sw}

1049: \bibitem{Carlson:2001sw}

1050: C.~E.~Carlson, C.~D.~Carone and R.~F.~Lebed,

1051: ``Bounding noncommutative QCD,''

1052: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 201 (2001)

1053: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107291].

1054: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107291;%%

1055: 

1056: %\cite{Carlson:2001bk}

1057: \bibitem{Carlson:2001bk}

1058: C.~E.~Carlson and C.~D.~Carone,

1059: ``Discerning noncommutative extra dimensions,''

1060: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 075007 (2002)

1061: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112143].

1062: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112143;%%

1063: 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: %\cite{Seiberg:1999vs}

1067: \bibitem{SW}

1068: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,

1069: ``String theory and noncommutative geometry'',

1070: JHEP {\bf 9909}, 032 (1999)

1071: [hep-th/9908142].

1072: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908142;%%

1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1074: 

1075: 

1076: 

1077: %\cite{Madore}

1078: \bibitem{Madore}

1079: J.~Madore, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

1080: ``Gauge theory on noncommutative spaces'',

1081: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16}, 161 (2000)

1082: [hep-th/0001203].

1083: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001203;%%

1084: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1085: \\

1086: %\cite{Jurco:2000ja}

1087: %\bibitem{Jurco1}

1088: B.~Jurco, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

1089: ``Enveloping algebra valued gauge transformations for non-Abelian gauge  groups on non-commutative spaces,''

1090: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17}, 521 (2000)

1091: [hep-th/0006246].

1092: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006246;%%

1093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1094: 

1095: 

1096: %\cite{Jurco:2001rq}

1097: \bibitem{Jurco:2001rq}

1098: B.~Jurco, L.~Moller, S.~Schraml, P.~Schupp and J.~Wess,

1099: ``Construction of non-Abelian gauge theories on noncommutative spaces,''

1100: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 383 (2001)

1101: [hep-th/0104153].

1102: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104153;%%

1103: 

1104: \bibitem{hep2001}

1105: P.~Schupp,

1106: ``Non-Abelian gauge theory on noncommutative spaces,''

1107: PRHEP-hep2001/239 (2001)

1108: [hep-th/0111038].

1109: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0111038;%%

1110: 

1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{Wulkenhaar2}

1114: J.~M.~Grimstrup and R.~Wulkenhaar,

1115: ``Quantisation of theta-expanded non-commutative QED,''

1116: arXiv:hep-th/0205153.\\

1117: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205153;%%

1118: %\cite{Buric:2004ms}

1119: %\bibitem{Buric:2004ms}

1120: M.~Buric and V.~Radovanovic,

1121: %``Non-renormalizability of noncommutative SU(2) gauge theory,''

1122: JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 040

1123: [arXiv:hep-th/0401103].

1124: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0401103;%%

1125: 

1126: 

1127: 

1128: %\cite{Gracia-Bondia:2000pz}

1129: \bibitem{Martin}

1130: J.~M.~Gracia-Bondia and C.~P.~Martin,

1131: %``Chiral gauge anomalies on noncommutative R**4,''

1132: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 479} (2000) 321

1133: [arXiv:hep-th/0002171].

1134: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002171;%%

1135: 

1136: 

1137: %\cite{Bonora:2000he}

1138: \bibitem{Tomasiello}

1139: L.~Bonora, M.~Schnabl and A.~Tomasiello,

1140: ``A note on consistent anomalies in noncommutative YM theories,''

1141: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 485} (2000) 311

1142: [arXiv:hep-th/0002210].

1143: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002210;%%

1144: \\

1145: %\cite{Bonora:2001fa}

1146: %\bibitem{Bonora:2001fa}

1147: L.~Bonora and A.~Sorin,

1148: ``Chiral anomalies in noncommutative YM theories,''

1149: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 521} (2001) 421

1150: [arXiv:hep-th/0109204].

1151: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109204;%%

1152: 

1153: %\cite{Banerjee:2001un}

1154: \bibitem{Ghosh}

1155: R.~Banerjee and S.~Ghosh,

1156: ``Seiberg Witten map and the axial anomaly in noncommutative field  theory,''

1157: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 533} (2002) 162

1158: [arXiv:hep-th/0110177].

1159: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110177;%%

1160: 

1161: 

1162: \bibitem{Deshpande}

1163: %\cite{Deshpande:2001mu}

1164: %\bibitem{Deshpande:2001mu}

1165: N.~G.~Deshpande and X.~G.~He,

1166: %``Triple neutral gauge boson couplings in noncommutative standard model,''

1167: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 533} (2002) 116

1168: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112320].

1169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112320;%%

1170: 

1171: 

1172: %\cite{Acampora:1995rh}

1173: \bibitem{BU}

1174: F.~Acampora, G.~Amelino-Camelia, F.~Buccella, O.~Pisanti, L.~Rosa and T.~Tuzi,

1175: ``Proton decay and neutrino masses in SO(10),''

1176: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 108} (1995) 375

1177: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405332].

1178: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405332;%%

1179: 

1180: 

1181: %\cite{Barbieri:1980ag}

1182: \bibitem{Strocchi}

1183: R.~Barbieri, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, G.~Morchio and F.~Strocchi,

1184: ``Neutrino Masses In Grand Unified Theories,''

1185: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90} (1980) 91.

1186: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B90,91;%%

1187: 

1188: \bibitem{hep-th/9909139}

1189: T.~Asakawa and I.~Kishimoto,

1190: ``Comments on gauge equivalence in noncommutative geometry,''

1191: JHEP {\bf 9911} (1999) 024

1192: [arXiv:hep-th/9909139].

1193: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9909139;%%

1194: 

1195: 

1196: %\cite{Chu:1999qz}

1197: \bibitem{chu}

1198: C.~S.~Chu and P.~M.~Ho,

1199: ``Noncommutative open string and D-brane,''

1200: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 550} (1999) 151

1201: [arXiv:hep-th/9812219].

1202: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812219;%%

1203: 

1204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \end{thebibliography}

1208: \end{document}

1209: 

1210: