nc time seminar
DESCRIPTION
Modified from previous for different audience.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory:
Problems of nonlocal time
Tapio SalminenUniversity of Helsinki
Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory: A Confrontation of SymmetriesM. Chaichian, K. Nishijima, TS and A. Tureanu
On Noncommutative Time in Quantum Field TheoryTS and A. Tureanu
![Page 2: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Part 1Introduction
![Page 3: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeMotivation
Black hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates
Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)
Open string + D-brane theory with an antisymmetric Bij fieldbackground ⇒ noncommutative coordinates in low-energylimit
Seiberg and Witten (1999)
VA possible approach to Planck scale physics isQFT in NC space-time
![Page 4: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeMotivation
Black hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates
Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)
Open string + D-brane theory with an antisymmetric Bij fieldbackground ⇒ noncommutative coordinates in low-energylimit
Seiberg and Witten (1999)
VA possible approach to Planck scale physics isQFT in NC space-time
![Page 5: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeMotivation
Black hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates
Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)
Open string + D-brane theory with an antisymmetric Bij fieldbackground ⇒ noncommutative coordinates in low-energylimit
Seiberg and Witten (1999)
VA possible approach to Planck scale physics isQFT in NC space-time
![Page 6: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We generalize the commutation relations fromusual quantum mechanics
[xi , xj ] = 0 , [pi , pj ] = 0[xi , pj ] = i~δij
by imposing noncommutativity also betweenthe coordinate operators
[xµ, xν ] 6= 0
Snyder (1947); Heisenberg (1954);
Golfand (1962)
![Page 7: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We generalize the commutation relations fromusual quantum mechanics
[xi , xj ] = 0 , [pi , pj ] = 0[xi , pj ] = i~δij
by imposing noncommutativity also betweenthe coordinate operators
[xµ, xν ] 6= 0
Snyder (1947); Heisenberg (1954);
Golfand (1962)
![Page 8: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We take [xµ, xν ] = iθµν and choose the frame where
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
θµν does not transform under Lorentztransformations.
![Page 9: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We take [xµ, xν ] = iθµν and choose the frame where
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
θµν does not transform under Lorentz
transformations.
![Page 10: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Does this meanLorentz invarianceis lost?
![Page 11: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We take [xµ, xν ] = iθµν and choose the frame where
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
Translational invariance is preserved,but the Lorentz group breaks down to SO(1, 1)xSO(2).
=⇒ No spinor, vector, tensor etc representations.
![Page 12: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We take [xµ, xν ] = iθµν and choose the frame where
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
Translational invariance is preserved,
but the Lorentz group breaks down to SO(1, 1)xSO(2).
=⇒ No spinor, vector, tensor etc representations.
![Page 13: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Quantizing space-timeImplementation
We take [xµ, xν ] = iθµν and choose the frame where
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
Translational invariance is preserved,
but the Lorentz group breaks down to SO(1, 1)xSO(2).
=⇒ No spinor, vector, tensor etc representations.
![Page 14: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityMoyal ?-product
In noncommuting space-time the analogue of the action
S (cl)[Φ] =
∫d4x
[1
2(∂µΦ)(∂µΦ)− 1
2m2Φ2 − λ
4!Φ4
]can be written using the Moyal ?-product
Sθ[Φ] =
∫d4x
[1
2(∂µΦ) ? (∂µΦ)− 1
2m2Φ ? Φ− λ
4!Φ ? Φ ? Φ ? Φ
]
(Φ ?Ψ) (x) ≡[
Φ(x)ei2θµν
←−∂∂xµ
−→∂∂yν Ψ(y)
]y=x
![Page 15: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityMoyal ?-product
In noncommuting space-time the analogue of the action
S (cl)[Φ] =
∫d4x
[1
2(∂µΦ)(∂µΦ)− 1
2m2Φ2 − λ
4!Φ4
]can be written using the Moyal ?-product
Sθ[Φ] =
∫d4x
[1
2(∂µΦ) ? (∂µΦ)− 1
2m2Φ ? Φ− λ
4!Φ ? Φ ? Φ ? Φ
]
(Φ ?Ψ) (x) ≡[
Φ(x)ei2θµν
←−∂∂xµ
−→∂∂yν Ψ(y)
]y=x
![Page 16: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityThe actual symmetry
The action of NC QFT written with the ?-product, though itviolates Lorentz symmetry, is invariant under the twistedPoincare algebra
Chaichian, Kulish, Nishijima and Tureanu (2004)
Chaichian, Presnajder and Tureanu (2004)
This is achieved by deforming the universal enveloping of thePoincare algebra U(P) as a Hopf algebra with the Abeliantwist element F ∈ U(P)⊗ U(P)
F = exp
(i
2θµνPµ ⊗ Pν
)Drinfeld (1983)
Reshetikhin (1990)
![Page 17: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityThe actual symmetry
The action of NC QFT written with the ?-product, though itviolates Lorentz symmetry, is invariant under the twistedPoincare algebra
Chaichian, Kulish, Nishijima and Tureanu (2004)
Chaichian, Presnajder and Tureanu (2004)
This is achieved by deforming the universal enveloping of thePoincare algebra U(P) as a Hopf algebra with the Abeliantwist element F ∈ U(P)⊗ U(P)
F = exp
(i
2θµνPµ ⊗ Pν
)Drinfeld (1983)
Reshetikhin (1990)
![Page 18: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityTwisted Poincare algebra
Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged
[Pµ,Pν ] = 0[Mµν ,Pα] = −i(ηµαPν − ηναPµ)
[Mµν ,Mαβ] = −i(ηµαMνβ − ηµβMνα − ηναMµβ + ηνβMµα)
But we change the coproduct (Leibniz rule)
∆0(Y ) = Y ⊗ 1 + 1⊗ Y ,Y ∈ P∆0(Y ) 7→∆t(Y ) = F∆0(Y )F−1
and deform the multiplication
m ◦ (φ⊗ ψ) = φψ → m ◦ F−1(φ⊗ ψ) ≡ φ ? ψ
![Page 19: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityTwisted Poincare algebra
Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged
[Pµ,Pν ] = 0[Mµν ,Pα] = −i(ηµαPν − ηναPµ)
[Mµν ,Mαβ] = −i(ηµαMνβ − ηµβMνα − ηναMµβ + ηνβMµα)
But we change the coproduct (Leibniz rule)
∆0(Y ) = Y ⊗ 1 + 1⊗ Y ,Y ∈ P∆0(Y ) 7→∆t(Y ) = F∆0(Y )F−1
and deform the multiplication
m ◦ (φ⊗ ψ) = φψ → m ◦ F−1(φ⊗ ψ) ≡ φ ? ψ
![Page 20: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityTwisted Poincare algebra
Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged
[Pµ,Pν ] = 0[Mµν ,Pα] = −i(ηµαPν − ηναPµ)
[Mµν ,Mαβ] = −i(ηµαMνβ − ηµβMνα − ηναMµβ + ηνβMµα)
But we change the coproduct (Leibniz rule)
∆0(Y ) = Y ⊗ 1 + 1⊗ Y ,Y ∈ P∆0(Y ) 7→∆t(Y ) = F∆0(Y )F−1
and deform the multiplication
m ◦ (φ⊗ ψ) = φψ → m ◦ F−1(φ⊗ ψ) ≡ φ ? ψ
![Page 21: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Then what happensto representations,causality etc?
![Page 22: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityTwisted Poincare algebra
The representation content is identical to the correspondingcommutative theory with usual Poincare symmetry =⇒representations (fields) are classified according to theirMASS and SPIN
But the coproducts of Lorentz algebra generators change:
∆t(Pµ) = ∆0(Pµ) = Pµ ⊗ 1 + 1⊗ Pµ
∆t(Mµν) = Mµν ⊗ 1 + 1⊗Mµν
− 1
2θαβ [(ηαµPν − ηανPµ)⊗ Pβ + Pα ⊗ (ηβµPν − ηβνPµ)]
![Page 23: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityTwisted Poincare algebra
The representation content is identical to the correspondingcommutative theory with usual Poincare symmetry =⇒representations (fields) are classified according to theirMASS and SPIN
But the coproducts of Lorentz algebra generators change:
∆t(Pµ) = ∆0(Pµ) = Pµ ⊗ 1 + 1⊗ Pµ
∆t(Mµν) = Mµν ⊗ 1 + 1⊗Mµν
− 1
2θαβ [(ηαµPν − ηανPµ)⊗ Pβ + Pα ⊗ (ηβµPν − ηβνPµ)]
![Page 24: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityCausality
SO(1, 3)
Minkowski 1908
=⇒
O(1, 1)xSO(2)
Alvarez-Gaume et al. 2000
![Page 25: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Effects of noncommutativityCausality
SO(1, 3)
Minkowski 1908
=⇒
O(1, 1)xSO(2)
Alvarez-Gaume et al. 2000
![Page 26: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Part 2Noncommutative time
and unitarity
![Page 27: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Noncommutative timeString theory limits
Until now we have had all coordinates noncommutative
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
![Page 28: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Noncommutative timeString theory limits
The low-energy limit of string theorywith a background Bij field gives
θµν =
0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
This is referred to as space-like noncommutativity.
![Page 29: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Noncommutative timeString theory limits
This string theory is S-dual to another string theorywith an Eij background. There we would have
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0
The so called time-like noncommutativity.
However, it has been shown that the low-energy limitdoes not exist for these theories.
Seiberg and Witten (1999)
![Page 30: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Noncommutative timeString theory limits
This string theory is S-dual to another string theorywith an Eij background. There we would have
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0
The so called time-like noncommutativity.
However, it has been shown that the low-energy limitdoes not exist for these theories.
Seiberg and Witten (1999)
![Page 31: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Could you pleasestop talking
about strings?
![Page 32: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
But in the interaction picture it has beenshown that perturbative unitarity requires
θ′(p20 − p2
1) + θ(p22 + p2
3) > 0
Time-like noncommutativity → violation of unitarity
Gomis and Mehen (2000)
![Page 33: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
But in the interaction picture it has beenshown that perturbative unitarity requires
θ′(p20 − p2
1) + θ(p22 + p2
3) > 0
Time-like noncommutativity → violation of unitarity
Gomis and Mehen (2000)
![Page 34: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
But in the interaction picture it has beenshown that perturbative unitarity requires
θ′(p20 − p2
1) + θ(p22 + p2
3) > 0
Time-like noncommutativity → violation of unitarity
Gomis and Mehen (2000)
![Page 35: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
→ Forget about the interaction picture
and go to the Heisenberg picture.
However, using the Yang-Feldman approach one can show:
S†ψin(x)S = ψout(x) + g4(· · · ) 6= ψout(x)
Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
![Page 36: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
→ Forget about the interaction picture
and go to the Heisenberg picture.
However, using the Yang-Feldman approach one can show:
S†ψin(x)S = ψout(x) + g4(· · · ) 6= ψout(x)
Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
![Page 37: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Noncommutative timeUnitarity
We may still consider quantum field theories with
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
→ Forget about the interaction picture
and go to the Heisenberg picture.
However, using the Yang-Feldman approach one can show:
There is no unitary S-matrix.
Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
![Page 38: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Part 3Tomonaga-Schwingerequation & causality
![Page 39: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationConventions
We consider space-like noncommutativity
θµν =
0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
and use the notation
xµ = (x , a), yµ = (y ,b)
x = (x0, x1), y = (y0, y1)
a = (x2, x3), b = (y2, y3)
![Page 40: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationConventions
We consider space-like noncommutativity
θµν =
0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
and use the notation
xµ = (x , a), yµ = (y ,b)
x = (x0, x1), y = (y0, y1)
a = (x2, x3), b = (y2, y3)
![Page 41: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationConventions
We use the integral representation of the ?-product
(f ? g)(x) =
∫dDy dDz K(x ; y , z)f (y)g(z)
K(x ; y , z) =1
πD det θexp[−2i(xθ−1y + yθ−1z + zθ−1x)]
In our case the invertible part of θ is the 2x2 submatrix and thus
(f1 ? f2 ? · · · ? fn)(x) =∫da1da2 · · ·danK(a; a1, · · · , an)f1(x , a1)f2(x , a2) · · · fn(x , an)
![Page 42: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationConventions
We use the integral representation of the ?-product
(f ? g)(x) =
∫dDy dDz K(x ; y , z)f (y)g(z)
K(x ; y , z) =1
πD det θexp[−2i(xθ−1y + yθ−1z + zθ−1x)]
In our case the invertible part of θ is the 2x2 submatrix and thus
(f1 ? f2 ? · · · ? fn)(x) =∫da1da2 · · ·danK(a; a1, · · · , an)f1(x , a1)f2(x , a2) · · · fn(x , an)
![Page 43: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationIn commutative theory
Generalizing the Schrodinger equation in the interaction picture toincorporate arbitrary Cauchy surfaces, we get the
Tomonaga-Schwinger equation
iδ
δσ(x)Ψ[σ] = Hint(x)Ψ[σ]
A necessary condition to ensure the existence of solutions is
[Hint(x),Hint(x ′)] = 0 ,
with x and x ′ on the space-like surface σ.
![Page 44: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationIn commutative theory
Generalizing the Schrodinger equation in the interaction picture toincorporate arbitrary Cauchy surfaces, we get the
Tomonaga-Schwinger equation
iδ
δσ(x)Ψ[σ] = Hint(x)Ψ[σ]
A necessary condition to ensure the existence of solutions is
[Hint(x),Hint(x ′)] = 0 ,
with x and x ′ on the space-like surface σ.
![Page 45: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationIn noncommutative theory
Moving on to NC space-time we get
iδ
δCΨ[C]= Hint(x)?Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n?Ψ[C]
The existence of solutions requires
[Hint(x)?,Hint(y)?]= 0 , for x , y ∈ C ,
which can be written as[(φ ? . . . ?φ)(x , a), (φ ? . . . ? φ)(y ,b)
]=
=
∫ n∏i=1
da′i K(a; a′1, · · · , a′n)
∫ n∏i=1
db′i K(b; b′1, · · · ,b′n)
×[φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n)
]= 0
![Page 46: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationIn noncommutative theory
Moving on to NC space-time we get
iδ
δCΨ[C]= Hint(x)?Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n?Ψ[C]
The existence of solutions requires
[Hint(x)?,Hint(y)?]= 0 , for x , y ∈ C ,
which can be written as
[(φ ? . . . ?φ)(x , a), (φ ? . . . ? φ)(y ,b)
]=
=
∫ n∏i=1
da′i K(a; a′1, · · · , a′n)
∫ n∏i=1
db′i K(b; b′1, · · · ,b′n)
×[φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n)
]= 0
![Page 47: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationIn noncommutative theory
Moving on to NC space-time we get
iδ
δCΨ[C]= Hint(x)?Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n?Ψ[C]
The existence of solutions requires
[Hint(x)?,Hint(y)?]= 0 , for x , y ∈ C ,
which can be written as[(φ ? . . . ?φ)(x , a), (φ ? . . . ? φ)(y ,b)
]=
=
∫ n∏i=1
da′i K(a; a′1, · · · , a′n)
∫ n∏i=1
db′i K(b; b′1, · · · ,b′n)
×[φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n)
]= 0
![Page 48: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
The commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like
φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n−1)φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n−1)[φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′n)
]
All products of fields being independent,the necessary condition is[φ(x , a′i ), φ(y ,b′j)
]= 0
Since fields in the interaction picture satisfy free-field equations,this is satisfied outside the mutual light-cone:
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
![Page 49: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
The commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like
φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n−1)φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n−1)[φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′n)
]All products of fields being independent,
the necessary condition is[φ(x , a′i ), φ(y ,b′j)
]= 0
Since fields in the interaction picture satisfy free-field equations,this is satisfied outside the mutual light-cone:
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
![Page 50: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
The commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like
φ(x , a′1) . . . φ(x , a′n−1)φ(y ,b′1) . . . φ(y ,b′n−1)[φ(x , a′n), φ(y ,b′n)
]All products of fields being independent,
the necessary condition is[φ(x , a′i ), φ(y ,b′j)
]= 0
Since fields in the interaction picture satisfy free-field equations,this is satisfied outside the mutual light-cone:
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
![Page 51: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
All the hard work andwe end up withthe light-cone?
![Page 52: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
However, since a and b are integration variables in the range
0 ≤ (a2i′ − b2
j′)2 + (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 <∞
the causality condition is not in fact
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
![Page 53: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
However, since a and b are integration variables in the range
0 ≤ (a2i′ − b2
j′)2 + (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 <∞
the causality condition is not in fact
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
![Page 54: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
However, since a and b are integration variables in the range
0 ≤ (a2i′ − b2
j′)2 + (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 <∞
the necessary condition becomes
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 < 0
This is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under thestability group of θµν ,O(1, 1)× SO(2).
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 55: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
However, since a and b are integration variables in the range
0 ≤ (a2i′ − b2
j′)2 + (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 <∞
the necessary condition becomes
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 < 0
This is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under thestability group of θµν ,O(1, 1)× SO(2).
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 56: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
However, since a and b are integration variables in the range
0 ≤ (a2i′ − b2
j′)2 + (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 <∞
the necessary condition becomes
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 < 0
This is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under thestability group of θµν ,O(1, 1)× SO(2).
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 57: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
This is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under thestability group of θµν ,O(1, 1)× SO(2).
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 58: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
If we had taken
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
we would change
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 59: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
If we had taken
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
we would change
(x0 − y0)2 − (x1 − y1)2 − (a2i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
![Page 60: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
If we had taken
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
into
(a0i′ − b0
j′)2 − (a1
i′ − b1
j′)2−(a2
i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
![Page 61: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Tomonaga-Schwinger equationThe causality condition
If we had taken
θµν =
0 θ′ 0 0−θ′ 0 0 0
0 0 0 θ0 0 −θ 0
into
(a0i′ − b0
j′)2 − (a1
i′ − b1
j′)2−(a2
i′ − b2
j′)− (a3
i′ − b3
j′)2 < 0
→ No solution to the Tomonaga-Schwinger equationfor any x and y .
Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
![Page 62: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
In Sum
Requiring solutions to theTomonaga-Schwinger eq.→ light-wedge causality.
Unitarity & causalityviolated in theories with
noncommutative time.
![Page 63: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
In Sum
Requiring solutions to theTomonaga-Schwinger eq.→ light-wedge causality.
Unitarity & causalityviolated in theories with
noncommutative time.
![Page 64: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
In Sum
Requiring solutions to theTomonaga-Schwinger eq.→ light-wedge causality.
Unitarity & causalityviolated in theories with
noncommutative time.
![Page 65: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Thank you
Photo credits
everystockphoto.com“Meet Charlotte” @ slideshare.net
![Page 66: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Extra materialConfrontation of
symmetries
![Page 67: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesTwisted Poincare algebra
Writing down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 6= 0):
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M23) = ∆0(M23) = M23 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M23
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M03) = ∆0(M03)− θ
2(P0 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M12) = ∆0(M12) +θ
2(P1 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P1)
∆t(M13) = ∆0(M13)− θ
2(P1 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P1)
⇒ A hint of O(1, 1)xSO(2) invariance.
![Page 68: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesTwisted Poincare algebra
Writing down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 6= 0):
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M23) = ∆0(M23) = M23 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M23
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M03) = ∆0(M03)− θ
2(P0 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M12) = ∆0(M12) +θ
2(P1 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P1)
∆t(M13) = ∆0(M13)− θ
2(P1 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P1)
⇒ A hint of O(1, 1)xSO(2) invariance.
![Page 69: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesTwisted Poincare algebra
Writing down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 6= 0):
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M23) = ∆0(M23) = M23 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M23
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M03) = ∆0(M03)− θ
2(P0 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P0)
∆t(M12) = ∆0(M12) +θ
2(P1 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P1)
∆t(M13) = ∆0(M13)− θ
2(P1 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P1)
⇒ A hint of O(1, 1)xSO(2) invariance.
![Page 70: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesHopf dual algebra
The coproducts induce commutation relations in thedual algebra Fθ(G ):
[aµ, aν ] = iθµν − iΛµαΛνβθαβ
[Λµν , aα] = [Λµα,Λ
νβ] = 0; Λµα, a
µ ∈ Fθ(G )
aµ(e iaαPα
)= aµ; Λµν
(e iωαβMαβ
)= (Λαβ(ω))µν
Coordinates change by coaction, but [xµ, xν ] = iθµν is preserved
(x ′)µ = δ(xµ) = Λµα ⊗ xα + aµ ⊗ 1
[x ′µ, x′ν ]= iθµν
![Page 71: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesHopf dual algebra
The coproducts induce commutation relations in thedual algebra Fθ(G ):
[aµ, aν ] = iθµν − iΛµαΛνβθαβ
[Λµν , aα] = [Λµα,Λ
νβ] = 0; Λµα, a
µ ∈ Fθ(G )
aµ(e iaαPα
)= aµ; Λµν
(e iωαβMαβ
)= (Λαβ(ω))µν
Coordinates change by coaction, but [xµ, xν ] = iθµν is preserved
(x ′)µ = δ(xµ) = Λµα ⊗ xα + aµ ⊗ 1
[x ′µ, x′ν ]= iθµν
![Page 72: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesA simple example
Λ01 =
0BB@cosh α sinh α 0 0sinh α cosh α 0 0
0 0 1 00 0 0 1
1CCA
Λ23 =
0BB@1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 cos γ sin γ0 0 − sin γ cos γ
1CCA
Λ12 =
0BB@1 0 0 00 cos β sin β 00 − sin β cos β 00 0 0 1
1CCA
[aµ, aν ] = 0
[aµ, aν ] = 0
[a2, a3] = iθ(1− cosβ)
[a1, a3] = −iθ sinβ
![Page 73: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Confrontation of symmetriesA simple example
Λ01 =
0BB@cosh α sinh α 0 0sinh α cosh α 0 0
0 0 1 00 0 0 1
1CCA
Λ23 =
0BB@1 0 0 00 1 0 00 0 cos γ sin γ0 0 − sin γ cos γ
1CCA
Λ12 =
0BB@1 0 0 00 cos β sin β 00 − sin β cos β 00 0 0 1
1CCA
[aµ, aν ] = 0
[aµ, aν ] = 0
[a2, a3] = iθ(1− cosβ)
[a1, a3] = −iθ sinβ
![Page 74: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
By imposing a Lorentz transformationwe get accompanying noncommuting translationsshowing up as the internal mechanism by whichthe twisted Poincare symmetry keeps thecommutator [xµ, xν ] = iθµν invariant
![Page 75: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in commutative space
A commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentzrepresentation and is a function of xµ ∈ R1,3
It is an element of C∞(R1,3)⊗ V , where V is aLorentz-module. The elements are defined as:
Φ =∑
i
fi ⊗ vi , fi ∈ C∞(R1,3) , vi ∈ V
⇒ Action of Lorentz generators on a field requires the coproduct
Chaichian, Kulish, Tureanu, Zhang and Zhang (2007)
![Page 76: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in commutative space
A commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentzrepresentation and is a function of xµ ∈ R1,3
It is an element of C∞(R1,3)⊗ V , where V is aLorentz-module. The elements are defined as:
Φ =∑
i
fi ⊗ vi , fi ∈ C∞(R1,3) , vi ∈ V
⇒ Action of Lorentz generators on a field requires the coproduct
Chaichian, Kulish, Tureanu, Zhang and Zhang (2007)
![Page 77: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in commutative space
A commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentzrepresentation and is a function of xµ ∈ R1,3
It is an element of C∞(R1,3)⊗ V , where V is aLorentz-module. The elements are defined as:
Φ =∑
i
fi ⊗ vi , fi ∈ C∞(R1,3) , vi ∈ V
⇒ Action of Lorentz generators on a field requires the coproduct
Chaichian, Kulish, Tureanu, Zhang and Zhang (2007)
![Page 78: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in noncommutative space
In NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example:
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
If V is a Lorentz module in Φ =∑
i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on Φ
Our proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
⇒ Only transformations of O(1, 1)× SO(2) allowed
![Page 79: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in noncommutative space
In NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example:
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
If V is a Lorentz module in Φ =∑
i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on Φ
Our proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
⇒ Only transformations of O(1, 1)× SO(2) allowed
![Page 80: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in noncommutative space
In NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example:
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
If V is a Lorentz module in Φ =∑
i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on Φ
Our proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
⇒ Only transformations of O(1, 1)× SO(2) allowed
![Page 81: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Theory of induced representationsFields in noncommutative space
In NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example:
∆t(M01) = ∆0(M01) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1⊗M01
∆t(M02) = ∆0(M02) +θ
2(P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0)
If V is a Lorentz module in Φ =∑
i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on Φ
Our proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi
Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
⇒ Only transformations of O(1, 1)× SO(2) allowed
![Page 82: NC time seminar](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051611/54b784d24a7959db528b46b1/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
The fields on NC space-time live in C∞(R1,1 ×R2)⊗V ,thus carrying representations of the full Lorentz group,
but admitting only the action of the generators ofthe stability group of θµν, i.e. O(1, 1)× SO(2)