text:
# References

SU/4240-718

Noncommutative Geometry As A Regulator

Badis Ydri111E-mail: ydri@suhep.phy.syr.edu.

Physics Department , Syracuse University.
Syracuse , N.Y , 13244-1130 , U.S.A.

## Abstract

We give a perturbative quantization of space-time $`R^4`$ in the case where the commutators $`C^{\mu \nu }=[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]`$ of the underlying algebra generators are not central . We argue that this kind of quantum space-times can be used as regulators for quantum field theories . In particular we show in the case of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory that by choosing appropriately the commutators $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ we can remove all the infinities by reproducing all the counter terms . In other words the renormalized action on $`R^4`$ plus the counter terms can be rewritten as only a renormalized action on the quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ . We conjecture therefore that renormalization of quantum field theory is equivalent to the quantization of the underlying space-time $`R^4`$ .

1. Introduction

Noncommutative geometry  allows one to define the geometry of a given space in terms of its underlying algebra . It is therefore more general than the ordinary differential geometry in the sense that it enables us to describe algebraically the geometry of any space whether or not it is smooth and/or differentiable . It is generally believed that NCG can be used to reformulate if not to solve many problems in particle physics and general relativity such as the problem of infinities in quantum field theories and its possible connection to quantum gravity  . The potential of constructing new nonperturbative methods for quantum field theories using NCG is also well appreciated  . The recent major interest in NCG however was mainly initiated by the work of  on Yang-Mills theory on noncommutative torus and its appearance as a limit of the matrix model of M-theory . The relevance of NCG in string theory was further discussed in  .

Quantum field theories on noncommutative space-time was extensively analysed recently in the literature  and it was shown that divegences although not completely removed they are considerably softened . The reason is that the quantization of $`R^4`$ or $`R^2`$ by replacing the coordinate functions $`x^\mu `$ by the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ in the sense of  will only modify vertices in the quantum theory and not propagators . On compact spaces in the other hand such as the $`4`$sphere $`S^4`$  , the $`2`$ sphere $`S^2`$  and $`CP^2`$  divegences are automatically cancelled out when we quantize the space and that is because on comapct spaces (which was not the case on noncompact spaces) quantization leads to a finite number of degrees of freedom (points).

It is hoped that noncommutative geometry will shed new lights on the meaning of renormalization because it provides a very powerfull tools to formulate possible physical mechanisms underlying the renormalization process of quantum field theories . One such mecahnism which was developed by Deser  , Isham et al. and pursued in  is Pauli’s old idea that the quantization of gravity should give rise to a discrete structure of space-time which will regulate quantum field theories . As one can immediately see the typical length scale of Pauli’s lattice is of the order of Planck’s scale $`\lambda _p`$ which is very small compared to the weak scale and therefore corrections to the classical action will be very small compared to the actual quantum corrections. This idea however is still very plausible especially after the dicovery made in  of an UV-IR mixing which could be used in a large extra diemension-like activity to solve the above hierarchy problem .

The philosphy of this paper will be quite different . We will assume that space-time is really discrete and that the continuum picture is only an approximation . The discreteness however is not given a priori but it is a consequence of the requirement that the quantum field theory under consideration is finite . The noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is therefore expected to be a function of both the space-time and the Quantum field theory and it is completely determined by the finiteness requirement . This simply mean that the quantization of space-time is achieved by replacing the coordinate functions $`x^\mu `$ by the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ as in  but , and to the contrary to what was done in  , these operators will not satisfy the centrality conditions $`[X^\mu ,[X^\nu ,X^\alpha ]]=0`$ .

The paper is organized as follows : In section $`1`$ we introduce the star product  for the case where the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is not a constant . The necessary and sufficient condition under which this star product is associative turns out to be simply $`[X^\mu ,[X^\nu ,X^\alpha ]]=0`$ . The associativity requirement however is relaxed and allowed to be broken to the first order in this double commutator . This relaxation is necessary because one can check that we can not generalize  , by making the commutators $`[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]`$ not central , while simultaneously preserving associativity . The algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ where $`𝒜`$ is the algebra of functions on $`R^4`$ is then defined .

In section $`2`$ we quantize perturbatively the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ . In other words we find the homomorphism $`(𝒜,)(A,\times )`$ order by order in perturbation theory where $`A`$ is the algebra of operators generated by the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ . The star product becomes under quantization the nonassociative operator product $`\times `$ and the corresponding Moyal bracket becomes the commutator $`[.,.]_\times `$ . The difference between $`\times `$ and the ordinary dot product of operators is of the order of the double commutator$`[X^\mu ,[X^\nu ,X^\alpha ]]`$ . This is basically an example of deformation quantization  and in particular it shows explicitly the result of  that Doplicher et al. quantization prescription of space-time is a deformation quantization of $`R^4`$ . We rederive also the space-time uncertainty relations given in  . In section $`3`$ we construct a Dirac opertor on the quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ , write down the action integrals of a scalar field in terms of the algebra $`(A,\times )`$ as well as in terms of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ . Finiteness requirement is then used to fix $`\theta `$ in the two loops approximation of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory . Section $`4`$ contains conclusions and remarks .

2. The Star Product

2.1 Associativity

Let $`R^4`$ be the space-time with the metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(1,1,1,1)`$ . The algebra underlying the whole differential geometry of $`R^4`$ is simply the associative algebra $`𝒜`$ of functions $`f`$ on $`R^4`$ . It is generated by the coordinate functions $`x^\mu `$ , $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ . This algebra is trivially a commutative algebra under the pointwise multiplication . A review on how the algebra $`(𝒜,.)`$ captures all the differential geometry of $`R^4`$ can be found in  .

It is known that we can make the algebra $`𝒜`$ non-commutative if we replace the dot product by the star prduct  . The pair $`(𝒜,)`$ is then describing a deformation $`QR^4`$ of space-time which will be taken by definition to be the quantum space-time . The $``$ product is defined for any two functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ of $`𝒜`$ by

$$fg(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}C^{\mu \nu }(x)\frac{}{\xi ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }}f(x+\xi )g(x+\eta )|_{\xi =\eta =0}$$
(2.1)
where $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ form a rank two tensor $`C`$ which in general contains a symmetric as well as an antisymmetric part . It is assumed to be a function of $`x`$ of the form

$$C^{\mu \nu }(x)=\chi (x)(\theta ^{\mu \nu }+ia\eta ^{\mu \nu })$$
(2.2)
where $`\chi (x)`$ is some function of $`x`$ . $`\theta `$ is the antisymmetric part and it is an $`x`$-independent tensor . $`a`$ is as we will see the non-associativity parameter and it is determined in terms of the tensor $`\theta `$ as follows . The requirement that the star product $`(2.1)`$ is associative can be expressed as the condition that $`I=0`$ where $`I`$ is given by :

$$I=(e^{ipx}e^{ikx})e^{ihx}e^{ipx}(e^{ikx}e^{ihx}).$$
(2.3)
$`e^{ipx}`$ are the generators of the algebra $`𝒜`$ written in their bounded forms . Using the definition $`(2.1)`$ we can check that

$$e^{ipx}e^{ikx}=e^{\frac{i}{2}pCk}e^{i(p+k)x}$$
(2.4)
and therefore $`(2.3)`$ takes the form

$`Ie^{i(p+k+h)x}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}C^{\mu \nu }(x)h_\nu \frac{}{\xi ^\mu }}[e^{\frac{i}{2}pC(x+\xi )k+i(p+k)\xi }]|_{\xi =0}`$ (2.5)
$``$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}C^{\nu \mu }(x)p_\nu \frac{}{\xi ^\mu }}[e^{\frac{i}{2}kC(x+\xi )h+i(k+h)\xi }]|_{\xi =0}.`$
To see clearly what are the kind of conditions we need to ensure that the equation $`I=0`$ is an identity , we first expand both sides of $`(2.5)`$ in powers of $`C`$ and keep terms only up to the second order . It will then read

$$I=\frac{i}{4}\left[C^{\mu \nu }h_\nu p\frac{C}{x^\mu }kC^{\nu \mu }p_\nu k\frac{C}{x^\mu }h\right].$$
(2.6)
As we can clearly see the associativity of the star product at this order is maintaned if and only $`C^{\mu \nu }_\mu C=0`$ and $`C^{\nu \mu }_\mu C=0`$ . The two consequences of these two conditions are given by the equations $`a\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \chi =0`$ and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \chi =0`$ . The first equation is simply $`a=0`$ because the solution $`\chi =constant`$ will be discarded in this paper . The second equation in the other hand means as we can simply check that the noncommutativity matrix $`\theta `$ is singular , i.e $`det\theta =0`$ . We can aslo check that the two above conditions are necessary and sufficient to make the star product $`(2.1)`$ associative at all orders because of the identities $`\theta ^{\mu _1\nu _1}\theta ^{\mu _2\nu _2}..\theta ^{\mu _n\nu _n}_{\mu _1,\mu _2,..,\mu _n}^n\chi =0`$.

If we would like to avoid the singularity of the noncommutativity matrix $`\theta `$ we have then to relax the requirement of associativity . We can start by reducing the associativity of the star product $`(2.1)`$ by imposing only one of the above two conditions , say

$`C^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{C}{x^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$``$
$`C^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.7)
Before we analyze further this equation , we remark that this condition on the tensor $`C`$ will lead to the identities

$$C^{\mu _1\nu _1}C^{\mu _2\nu _2}..C^{\mu _n\nu _n}_{\mu _1,\mu _2,..,\mu _n}^nC^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(2.8)
$`(2.7)`$ will also lead to the equation

$$C^{\nu \mu }\frac{C}{x^\mu }=i^\nu \chi ^2\left[a\theta +ia^2\eta \right].$$
(2.9)
In order to have a very small amount of nonassociativity in the theory we will assume that $`a`$ is a very small parameter in such a way that only linear terms in $`a`$ are relevant . Putting $`(2.7)`$ and $`(2.9)`$ in $`(2.5)`$ will then give

$$I=\frac{ia}{2}(k\theta h)O(p,k+h,\chi ,\chi )e^{\frac{i\chi }{2}k\theta h}e^{i(p+k+h)x},$$
(2.10)
where $`O`$ is a function (which we will not write down explicitly )of the momenta p,k,h and of $`\chi `$ and all of its derivatives $`\{\chi \}`$ . This function $`O`$ is such that it vanishes identically if $`_\mu \chi =0`$ . In other words a trivial solution to the equation $`I=0`$ is $`\chi =constant`$ which we will discard in this paper . We would like to determine $`\chi `$ from the requirement that the quantum field theory which we will eventually write down on $`QR^4`$ is finite . So we will leave $`\chi `$ arbitrary at this stage . Clearly $`\chi `$ will be model depenedent and it can generally be put in the form

$$\chi (x)=\underset{n=1}{}\mathrm{}^n\chi _n(x)$$
(2.11)
where we don’t have a tree level term because by assumption this function will be entirely determined by the different infinities of the theory which are generally of higher orders in $`\mathrm{}`$ . In other words the zero order is absent in $`(2.11)`$ because QFT’s are usually finite at this order .

It is instructive to solve equation $`(2.7)`$ for $`\theta `$ in terms of $`\chi `$ . We assume that $`_\mu \chi 0`$ and rewrite the equation $`(2.7)`$ in the form $`C^{\mu \nu }_\mu \chi =\lambda e^\nu `$ where $`\lambda `$ is a small number and $`e`$ is a four-vector given by $`(1,0,0,0)`$ . Solving $`(2.7)`$ for $`\theta `$ will give the following equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{idetC}{a^3\frac{a}{2}_{\mu ,\nu 0}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^3}{_0\chi }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{detC}{a^2\theta ^{0i}ia\theta _{i\mu }\theta ^{0\mu }+\theta ^{jk}\sqrt{det\theta }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^3}{_i\chi }},`$ (2.12)
with

$$detC=\chi ^4[det\theta +a^4\frac{a^2}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }].$$
(2.13)
$`(ijk)`$ are the even permutations of $`(123)`$ and $`det\theta `$ is given by : $`det\theta =[\frac{1}{8}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }]^2`$ . The $`4`$ equations $`(2.12)`$ provide $`4`$ constraints on the tensor $`\theta `$ which reduce at limit $`\lambda 0`$ to one constarint given by

$$det\theta =a^4+\frac{a^2}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(2.14)
This is a generalization of the quantization conditions chosen in  . This equation however can be thought of as giving the nonassociativity parameter $`a`$ in terms of the noncommutativity matrix $`\theta `$ . The solution is

$$a=\left[\frac{1}{4}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{(\frac{1}{4}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu })^2det\theta }\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(2.15)
As we can see from the above analysis it is necessary and sufficient to choose $`\theta `$ in such a way that $`(2.15)`$ is a very small number in order for the associativity of the star product $`(2.1)`$ to be broken with the very small amount given by $`(2.10)`$ .

Using the $``$ product $`(2.1)`$ we can define the Moyal bracket of any two functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ by $`\{f(x),g(x)\}=fg(x)gf(x)`$ and in particular the Moyal bracket of two coordinate functions is given by

$$\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}=i\chi (x)\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.16)
For self-consistency this bracket should satisfy the Jacobi identity

$$\{x^\beta ,\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}\}+\{x^\nu ,\{x^\beta ,x^\mu \}\}+\{x^\mu ,\{x^\nu ,x^\beta \}\}=0,$$
(2.17)
but

$$\{x^\beta ,\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}\}=ia\chi (^\beta \chi )\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.18)
Clearly at the limit of associativity ($`a0`$) , equation $`(2.18)`$ is simply zero and therefore $`(2.17)`$ holds . We would like however to maintain Jacobi identity even for $`a0`$ . we then need to impose the following constraint on $`\theta `$

$$\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\mu \nu }+\theta ^{\alpha \nu }\theta ^{\beta \mu }+\theta ^{\alpha \mu }\theta ^{\nu \beta }=0.$$
(2.19)
which will make $`(2.17)`$ an identity . A class of solutions to the equation $`(2.19)`$ can be given by those antisymmetric tensors $`\theta `$ such that

$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }=a_\alpha ^\mu a_\beta ^\nu \theta _0^{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.20)
where $`a_\alpha ^\mu `$ are arbitrary real numbers , and $`\theta _0`$ is an antisymmetric tensor which satisfies

$$\theta _0^{\mu \nu }\theta _0^{\alpha \beta }=(\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\mu \beta }\eta ^{\nu \alpha }).$$
(2.21)
$`(2.19)`$ is the only constarint we need to impose on the tensors $`\theta `$ in order to have both the associativity requirement in the sense of $`(2.10)`$ and Jacobi identiy $`(2.17)`$ to be satisfied . By requiring that $`(2.16)`$ should lead to a certain kind of space-time uncertainty relations we can further restrict the allowed antisymmetric tensors $`\theta `$ as we will see in the next section .

2.2 The Algebra $`(𝒜,)`$

A general element $`f(x)`$ of $`𝒜`$ will be defined by

$$f(x)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )e^{ipx}$$
(2.22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a smooth continuous function of the 4-vector $`p`$ and of the fuzzyness function $`\chi `$ which satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(p,\chi )=\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )`$ . It is of the general form $`\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )=\stackrel{~}{f}_0(p,\chi )+a\stackrel{~}{f}_1(p,\chi )`$ . The $``$ product $`(2.1)`$ can then be rewritten as

$`fg(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}[\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )\stackrel{~}{g}(k,\chi )e^{\frac{i}{2}pCk}`$ (2.23)
$`+`$ $`a\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k,\chi )}{\chi }}O(p,k,\chi ,\chi )]e^{i(p+k)x}.`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p,\chi )e^{ipx}}.`$
$`O(p,k,\chi ,\chi )`$ is the function defined by the equation $`(2.10)`$ . The Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p,\chi )=\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p,\chi )_0+a\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p,\chi )_1`$ is given in the other hand by

$`\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}[\stackrel{~}{f}(pk,\chi )\stackrel{~}{g}(k,\chi )e^{\frac{i}{2}(pk)Ck}`$ (2.24)
$`+`$ $`a\stackrel{~}{f}(pk,\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(k,\chi )}{\chi }}O(pk,k,\chi ,\chi )].`$
The function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )`$ can always be expanded as : $`\stackrel{~}{f}(p,\chi )=_{n=0}a_n\overline{f}_n(\chi )\stackrel{~}{f}(p)`$ which suggests that $`(2.22)`$ can be rewritten in the form

$$f(x)=\underset{n=0}{}a_nf_n(x)$$
(2.25)
where

$$f_n(x)=\overline{f}_n(\chi )\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}_n(p)e^{ipx}.$$
(2.26)
$`f_n(x)`$ are the generators of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ written in a way which will allow us to see the classical limit defined by $`\chi 0`$ . In this limit they must generate the algebra $`(𝒜,.)`$ . Therefore the functions $`\overline{f}_n(\chi )`$ are such that they tend to a constant when $`\chi 0`$ . This constant can always be chosen to be $`1`$ .

2.3 Change of Generators Basis

Finally we would like to rewrite $`(2.16)`$ in way which will be more suitable for quantization . This will involve finding a basis $`z^\mu (x)`$ for which the Moyal bracket $`\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}`$ is in the center of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ , in other words $`\{x^\alpha ,\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}\}=0`$ . This is not the case for the basis $`x^\mu `$ as we can see from equation $`(2.18)`$ . We then must have $`\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }𝒞(x)`$ where $`𝒞(x)`$ is any function of $`x`$ which does commute (in the sense of Moyal bracket) with the elements of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ . To find such a basis we need first to find the central elements $`𝒞(x)`$ of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ . To this end we first remark that by using the equation $`(2.1)`$ the Moyal bracket of the generator $`x^\mu `$ with any function $`f(x)`$ is given by

$$\{x^\mu ,f\}=i\chi \theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{f}{x^\nu }.$$
(2.27)
It is then clear that the only obvious solutions to the equation $`\{x^\mu ,f\}=0`$ are the trivial ones , namely the constant functions . However choosing the central element $`𝒞(x)`$ to be a constant is not good because it will lead to a singular basis at $`\chi (x)=0`$ which can be seen from the fact that the Moyal bracket $`\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}`$ at $`\chi (x)=0`$ will then not vanish on the contrary to what happens to the Moyal bracket $`(2.16)`$ which clearly vanishes at $`\chi =0`$ . So we must find at least one central element which is not a constant function . The only clear way to find such an element is to use perturbation theory . We assume then that the quantum field theory which we will write on $`QR^4`$ is relevant only up to the $`\mathrm{}^N`$ order . The function $`\chi (x)`$ will then take the form

$$\chi (x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{}^n\chi _n(x)$$
(2.28)
and we would have that

$$\chi ^{N+1}(x)=0.$$
(2.29)
This last equation can be rewritten by using equation $`(2.27)`$ as

$$\{x^\mu ,\chi ^N\}=0,$$
(2.30)
in other words $`\chi ^N`$ is a central element of the algebra $`𝒜`$ in the $`\mathrm{}^N`$ approximation . Actually any combination of the order of $`\mathrm{}^N`$ is central as it can be seen from equations $`(2.27)`$ and $`(2.29)`$ . By choosing $`𝒞(\chi )=\chi ^N(x)`$ , the Moyal bracket of any two coordinates $`z^\mu (x)`$ and $`z^\nu (x)`$ will then read

$$\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}=i\chi ^N\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.31)
$`x^\mu `$ and $`z^\mu (x)`$ give equivalent descriptions of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ and therefore the quantization of $`(2.16)`$ is equivalent to the quantization of $`(2.31)`$ . It is obvious however that the quantization of $`(2.31)`$ is more straight forward than the quantization of $`(2.16)`$ . The new basis $`z^\mu (x)`$ can be found in terms of $`x^\mu `$ as follows . First we note that for the purpose of finding $`z^\mu `$ it is sufficent to work up to the second order in $`C`$ . the star product $`(2.1)`$ of any two functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ will read up to this order

$`fg(x)`$ $`=`$ $`f(x)g(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\chi (x)(\theta ^{\mu \nu }+ia\eta ^{\mu \nu }){\displaystyle \frac{f}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{x^\nu }}`$ (2.32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\chi ^2(x)(\theta ^{\mu \nu }+ia\eta ^{\mu \nu })(\theta ^{\alpha \beta }+ia\eta ^{\alpha \beta }){\displaystyle \frac{^2f}{x^\mu x^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{x^\nu x^\beta }},`$
and therefore the Moyal bracket of these two functions is

$$\{f,g\}=i\chi (x)\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{f}{x^\mu }\frac{g}{x^\nu }\frac{ia}{2}\chi ^2(x)\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^2f}{x^\mu x^\alpha }\frac{^2g}{x^\nu x^\beta }.$$
(2.33)
In particular the Moyal bracket of the two coordinates $`z^\mu (x)`$ and $`z^\nu (x)`$ is given by

$$\{z^\delta ,z^\sigma \}=i\chi (x)\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{z^\delta }{x^\mu }\frac{z^\sigma }{x^\nu }\frac{ia}{2}\chi ^2(x)\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^2z^\delta }{x^\mu x^\alpha }\frac{^2z^\sigma }{x^\nu x^\beta }.$$
(2.34)
Comapring $`(2.31)`$ and $`(2.34)`$ will then give that

$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{z^\delta }{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{z^\sigma }{x^\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{N1}\theta ^{\delta \sigma }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z^\mu }{x^\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (x)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\eta _\nu ^\mu .`$ (2.35)
$`(2.35)`$ define scaling transformations which depend on space-time points . A more thorough study of these transformations will be reported elsewhere . As we can clearly see the definition $`(2.35)`$ of the new basis $`z^\mu `$ in terms of $`x^\mu `$ will make the quadratic term in $`(2.34)`$ vanishes , and for that matter all terms which are higher orders in $`C`$ will also vanish. We would like now to rewritte $`(2.35)`$ in a form which is better suited for quantization . To this end we make use of the equation $`(2.27)`$ for the case where $`f=z^\nu `$ . We then obtain

$$\{x^\mu ,z^\nu \}=i\chi (x)^{\frac{N+1}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(2.36)
where we have used $`(2.35)`$ . Equation $`(2.36)`$ is actually $`(2.35)`$ only written in terms of Moyal bracket which under quantization will go to the commutator as we will see . For the coordinates $`z^\mu `$ the Jacobi identity $`\{z^\mu ,\{z^\nu ,z^\alpha \}\}+\{z^\alpha ,\{z^\mu ,z^\nu \}\}+\{z^\nu ,\{z^\alpha ,z^\mu \}\}=0`$ trivially follows from $`(2.31)`$ .

By using the equation $`(2.33)`$ we can find that the Moyal bracket of the generator $`z^\mu `$ with any function $`f`$ of $`𝒜`$ can be written as

$$\{z^\mu ,f\}=i\chi ^N\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{f}{z^\nu },$$
(2.37)
where we have made use of $`(2.35)`$ . The Moyal brackets $`(2.31)`$ and $`(2.37)`$ do clearly correspond to the star product

$$fg(z)=e^{\frac{i}{2}D^{\mu \nu }(z)\frac{}{\xi ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }}f(z+\xi )g(z+\eta )|_{\xi =\eta =0}$$
(2.38)
where now $`D^{\mu \nu }(z)=\chi ^N(\theta ^{\mu \nu }+ia\eta ^{\mu \nu })`$ . This star product however is completely equivalent to $`(2.1)`$ . It is simply the star product $`(2.1)`$ written in the basis $`z^\mu `$ . A general element of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ will be written in this basis as

$$f(z)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}(p)e^{ipz}$$
(2.39)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}(p)=\stackrel{~}{f}_0(p)+a\stackrel{~}{f}_1(p)`$ . The star product $`(2.38)`$ will then have the form

$`fg(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}(p)\stackrel{~}{g}(k)e^{\frac{i}{2}pDk}e^{i(p+k)z}}.`$ (2.40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p)e^{ipz}}.`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p)`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{f}(pk)\stackrel{~}{g}(k)e^{\frac{i}{2}(pk)Dk}.$$
(2.41)
In this case $`\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}(p)`$ is a function only of $`\chi ^N`$ and not of $`\chi `$ . However $`\chi ^N`$ is simply a constant in the $`\mathrm{}^n`$ approximation and therefore $`(2.40)`$ is of the same form as $`(2.39)`$ .

3. Quantum Space-Time

3.1 Quantization

We will now show that the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ does really describe a quantum space-time . In other words $`QR^4`$ is a space-time we obtain by quantizating $`R^4`$ in the following way . First of all we assume that the quantization of $`R^4`$ is completely equivalent to the quantization of its underlying algebra $`(𝒜,.)`$ . Then in analogy with Quantum Mechanics we will quantize $`(𝒜,.)`$ by the usual quantization prescription of replacing the coordinate functions $`x^\mu `$ by the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ so that the algebra of functions $`(𝒜,.)`$ is mapped to an algebra of operators $`(A,\times )`$ . If this algebra of operators $`(A,\times )`$ is to be describing the quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ it must be constructed in such a way that it will be homomorphic to $`(𝒜,)`$ . In other words we must construct a homomorphism $`𝒳`$ from $`(A,\times )`$ to $`(𝒜,)`$ which will map any element $`F(X)`$ of $`A`$ to the element $`(2.22)`$ of $`(𝒜,)`$ in such a way that the operator product $`F(X)\times G(X)`$ is mapped to the star product $`(2.23)`$ . We would then have

$$F(X)𝒳(F(X))=f(x)$$
(3.1)
together with

$$F(X)\times G(X)𝒳(F(X)\times G(X))=fg(x)$$
(3.2)
where $`g(x)`$ is the image of the operator $`G(X)`$ . In particular from $`(3.1)`$ the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ are mapped to the coordinate functions $`x^\mu `$ and from $`(3.2)`$ the Moyal bracket$`\{f,g\}`$ is mapped to the commutator $`[F,G]_\times =F\times GG\times F`$. As we will see the homomorphism $`𝒳`$ has no non trivial kernals and therefore the arrows in $`(3.1)`$ and $`(3.2)`$ can go the other way .

The product $`\times `$ which we will call the nonassociative operator product cannot be the ordinary dot product of operators because it is clear from the definition $`(3.2)`$ that $`\times `$ is nonassociative whereas the dot product of operators is trivially an associative product . We can assume however that it will reduce at the limit of $`a0`$ to the ordinary dot product of operators . The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the nonassociative product $`\times `$ and the ordinary dot product is of the order of $`a`$ and it is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(F,G)=\frac{F\times GF.G}{a}$$
(3.3)
where $`F.G`$ is defined by

$$𝒳(F(X).G(X))=Lim_{a0}fg(x)$$
(3.4)
The first step in constructing this homomorphism $`𝒳`$ is to impose on the coordinate operators $`X^\mu `$ commutation relations which are of the same form as $`(2.16)`$ . We then have

$$[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]_\times =iR\theta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(3.5)
where $`R`$ is an operator defined by

$$𝒳(R)=\chi (x).$$
(3.6)
In terms of the ordinary commutator , equation $`(3.5)`$ will simply read

$$[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]=iR\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3.7)
The contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X^\mu ,X^\nu )\mathrm{\Delta }(X^\nu ,X^\mu )`$ to this commutator is identically zero because $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X^\mu ,X^\nu )=\frac{R}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ .

The operator $`R`$ clearly does not commute with $`X^\mu `$ because

$$[R,X^\mu ]_\times =R^\mu $$
(3.8)
where $`R^\mu `$ are the elements of the algebra $`A`$ mapped to $`\{\chi ,x^\mu \}`$ , i.e

$$𝒳(R^\mu )=\{\chi ,x^\mu \}=i\chi \theta ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \chi $$
(3.9)
The equation $`(3.8)`$ will simply mean that the Jacobi identity

$$[X^\mu ,[X^\nu ,X^\alpha ]_\times ]_\times +[X^\alpha ,[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]_\times ]_\times +[X^\nu ,[X^\alpha ,X^\mu ]_\times ]_\times =0$$
(3.10)
is not satisfied unless we choose $`\theta `$ to satisfy $`(2.19)`$ .

In general the commutator of the generator $`X^\mu `$ with any element $`F(X)`$ of the algebra $`A`$ is found to be

$$[X^\mu ,F]_\times =\mathrm{\Delta }F$$
(3.11)
where by using $`(3.1)`$ and $`(3.2)`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the operator in $`A`$ mapped to $`\{x^\mu ,f\}`$ , i.e

$$𝒳(\mathrm{\Delta }F)=\{x^\mu ,f\}.$$
(3.12)
It is clear from this equation that the central elements of the algebra $`A`$ are either those operators which are mapped to the constant functions or the operator $`O`$ which is mapped to $`\chi ^N`$ . The operators mapped to the constant functions are clearly multiples of the identity operator $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ . The operator $`O`$ in the other hand is $`R^N`$ which can be seen as follows . By using equation $`(2.32)`$ we can prove that in the $`\mathrm{}^N`$ approximation we have that $`\chi (\chi (\chi (\chi ..(\chi \chi )))..)=\chi ^N`$ where we have $`N`$ factors in the product . This equation will become under quantization $`R^N+a_{m=0}^{N2}R^m\mathrm{\Delta }(R,R^{Nm1})=O`$ . However by using the definition $`(3.3)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , one can check that in the $`\mathrm{}^N`$ approximation the second term in the expression of $`O`$ is of the order of $`\mathrm{}^{N+1}`$ and therefore $`O=R^N`$ . The generators $`X^\mu `$ will then commute with $`R^N`$ , i.e

$$[X^\mu ,R^N]_\times =0.$$
(3.13)
In general $`X^\mu `$ will commute with any element of $`A`$ which is of the order of $`\mathrm{}^N`$ .

The fact that $`R`$ does not commute with the algebra $`A`$ makes the definition $`(3.5)`$ of quantum space-time not very useful when we try to construct explicitly the homomorphism $`𝒳`$ . To see this more clearly we first note that general elements $`F(X)`$ of the algebra $`A`$ are of the form

$$F(X)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}[\stackrel{~}{F}(p,R)e^{ipX}+e^{ipX}\stackrel{~}{F}^+(p,R)]$$
(3.14)
The nonassociative product of any two such elements $`F(X)`$ and $`G(X)`$ will involve four different terms because $`R`$ dose not commute with $`e^{(ipX)}`$ . So there is no an obvious way on how to map $`F(X)`$ given by $`(3.14)`$ to $`f(x)`$ given by $`(2.22)`$ or for that matter how to map $`F(X)\times G(X)`$ to the star product $`fg`$ .

For the purpose of quantization a better definition of quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ is such that the commutators of the generators are in the center of the algebra . We need then to find a basis $`Z^\mu `$ for which we have the commutators $`[Z^\mu ,Z^\nu ]_\times =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }𝒞`$ where $`𝒞`$ is a central element of the algebra $`A`$ . If $`Z^\mu `$ is the operator in $`A`$ mapped to the coordinate function $`z^\mu `$ introduced in $`(2.31)`$ then $`𝒞`$ will be simply given by $`R^N`$ . We would then have

$$[Z^\mu ,Z^\nu ]_\times =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }R^N.$$
(3.15)
The ordinary commutator will also be given by a similar equation $`[Z^\mu ,Z^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }R^N`$ because of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Z^\mu ,Z^\nu )=\frac{R^N}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ .

The definition of the operators $`Z^\mu `$ in terms of $`X^\mu `$ can be given by the equation

$$[X^\mu ,Z^\nu ]_\times =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }R_\times ^{\frac{N+1}{2}},$$
(3.16)
with

$$𝒳(R_\times ^{\frac{N+1}{2}})=\chi ^{\frac{N+1}{2}},$$
(3.17)
where We clearly have used the requirement that this equation should be mapped to $`(2.36)`$ .

The coordinate operators $`Z^\mu `$ are clearly unbounded and one would like to work with bounded operators . We will therefore consider instead the operators $`e^{ipZ}`$ as the generators of the algebra $`A`$ . A general element $`F(Z)`$ of $`A`$ will be defined by

$$F(Z)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{F}(p)e^{ipZ}$$
(3.18)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is a smooth continuous function of the $`4`$-vector $`p`$ which must satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{F}^+(p)=\stackrel{~}{F}(p)`$ in order for $`F(Z)`$ to be hermitian .

The product of any two elements $`F(Z)`$ and $`G(Z)`$ of $`A`$ can be found to be

$`F(Z)\times G(Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{F}(p)\stackrel{~}{G}(k)e^{\frac{iR^N}{2}p\theta k}e^{i(p+k)Z}}`$ (3.19)
$`+`$ $`a{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{F}(p)\stackrel{~}{G}(k)\mathrm{\Delta }(e^{ipZ},e^{ikZ})}.`$
where we have made use of Weyl formula :

$$e^{ipZ}e^{ikZ}=e^{i\frac{R^N}{2}p\theta k}e^{i(p+k)Z}.$$
(3.20)
3.2 Coherent States

Until now we did not define the homomorphism $`𝒳`$ explicitly and once this is done the quantization of $`R^4`$ will be completed . We claim that $`𝒳(F)`$ is defined as the map taking $`F`$ to its diagonal matrix element in the coherent states basis $`|x>`$  . If we are working in the basis $`(3.15)`$ instead of $`(3.5)`$ then $`𝒳(F)`$ is defined as the map taking $`F`$ to its diagonal matrix element in the coherent states basis $`|z>`$ . In order to define $`𝒳`$ we need first to introduce the coherent states basis $`|z>`$ . We start by performing a coordinates transformation to bring $`\theta `$ to the standard form $`B`$ given by

$$B=a\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\sigma _2& 0\\ 0& i\sigma _2\end{array}\right).$$
(3.21)
Where $`\sigma _2`$ is the pauli matrix . $`\theta `$ and $`B`$ are related by $`B=\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an $`SO(4)`$ transformation . Equation $`(3.15)`$ becomes under this transformation

$$[Q^\mu ,Q^\nu ]=iR^NB^{\mu \nu }.$$
(3.22)
Where $`Q^\mu `$ are the new coordinate operators and they are given in terms of $`Z^\mu `$ by the equations $`Q^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}Z^\nu `$ . The only non vanishing commutation relations in $`(3.22)`$ are $`[Q^0,Q^1]=[Q^2,Q^3]=iaR^N`$ and as we can see we have two commuting sets of conjugate variables $`(Q^0,Q^1)`$ and $`(Q^2,Q^3)`$ . Therefore we need to introduce only two commuting sets of creation and annhilation operators $`(a,a^+)`$ and $`(b,b^+)`$ . These creation and annhilation operators are defined by

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2aR^N}}}(Q^0+iQ^1)`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2aR^N}}}(Q^2+iQ^3).`$ (3.23)
The commutation relations $`(3.22)`$ in terms of these creation and annhilation operators read $`[a,a^+]=[b,b^+]=1`$ . A state $`|n>`$ ($`nZ_+`$) of the harmonic oscillator $`(a,a^+)`$ is defined by $`a^+|n>=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1>`$ and $`a|n>=\sqrt{n}|n1>`$ . In the same way a state $`|m>`$ ($`mZ_+`$) of the harmonic oscillator $`(b,b^+)`$ is defined by $`b^+|m>=\sqrt{m+1}|m+1>`$ and $`b|m>=\sqrt{m}|m1>`$ . Following  we can then introduce the coherent states $`|q^0q^1>`$ and $`|q^2q^3>`$ defined by the equations

$`|q^0q^1>`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{q_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4aR^N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^0+iq^1)^n}{(2aR^N)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{n!}}}|n>`$
$`|q^2q^3>`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{q_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4aR^N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^2+iq^3)^m}{(2aR^N)^{\frac{m}{2}}\sqrt{m!}}}|m>.`$ (3.24)
These coherent states can also be written as

$`|q^0q^1>`$ $`=`$ $`U(q^0,q^1)|0>`$
$`|q^2q^3>`$ $`=`$ $`U(q^2,q^3)|0>.`$ (3.25)
Where the operators $`U(q^0,q^1)`$ and $`U(q^2,q^3)`$ are given by

$`U(q^0,q^1)`$ $`=`$ $`exp({\displaystyle \frac{i}{aR^N}}(q^1Q^0q^0Q^1))`$
$`U(q^2,q^3)`$ $`=`$ $`exp({\displaystyle \frac{i}{aR^N}}(q^3Q^2q^2Q^3)).`$ (3.26)
These operators have the property that

$`U^1(q^0,q^1)(\alpha Q^0+\beta Q^1)U(q^0,q^1)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (Q^0+q^0)+\beta (Q^1+q^1)`$
$`U^1(q^2,q^3)(\alpha Q^2+\beta Q^3)U(q^2,q^3)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (Q^2+q^2)+\beta (Q^3+q^3).`$ (3.27)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are arbitrary complex numbers . This property simply means that the effect of $`U(q^0,q^1)`$ or $`U(q^2,q^3)`$ on the operators $`Q^0`$ and $`Q^1`$ or $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^3`$ is to translate them by the c-numbers $`q^0`$ and $`q^1`$ or $`q^2`$ and $`q^3`$ respectively . The operators $`U(q^0,q^1)`$ and $`U(q^2,q^3)`$ are therefore called translation operators . Finally a general coherent state of the theory is clearly given by

$$|q>=|q^0q^1>|q^2q^3>=U(q^0,q^1)U(q^2,q^3)|0>|0>.$$
(3.28)
Using the above structure we can then show the identity

$$<q|e^{ipQ}|q>=e^{ipq}e^{\frac{aR^N}{4}p^2}.$$
(3.29)
The proof goes as follows

$`<q|e^{ipQ}|q>`$ $`=`$ $`<q^0q^1|e^{i(p_0Q^0+p_1Q^1)}|q^0q^1><q^2q^3|e^{i(p_2Q^2+p_3Q^3)}|q^2q^3>`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`<0|e^Ae^Be^A|0><0|e^Ce^De^C|0>.`$
Where $`A=\frac{i}{aR^N}(q^1Q^0q^0Q^1)`$ , $`B=i(p_0Q^0+p_1Q^1)`$ , $`C=\frac{i}{aR^N}(q^3Q^2q^2Q^3)`$ and $`D=i(p_2Q^2+p_3Q^3)`$ . By using Weyl formula $`(3.20)`$ we can then compute that $`exp(A)exp(B)exp(A)=exp([A,B])exp(B)`$ . However $`[A,B]=i(p_0q^0+p_1q^1)`$ and therefore $`<0|exp(A)exp(B)exp(A)|0>=expi(p_0q^0+p_1q^1)<0|exp(B)|0>`$ . Using Weyl formula again we get that $`exp(B)=exp(\xi ^{}a^++\xi a)=exp(\frac{|\xi |^2}{2})exp(\xi ^{}a^+)exp(\xi a)`$ where $`\xi `$ is given by $`\xi =\sqrt{\frac{aR^N}{2}}(ip_0+p_1)`$ . The final result is $`<0|exp(A)exp(B)exp(A)|0>=exp(i(p_0q^0+p_1q^1))exp(\frac{aR^N}{4}(p_0^2+p_1^2))`$ . Similar calculation will give that $`<0|exp(C)exp(D)exp(C)>=exp(i(p_2q^2+p_3q^3))exp(\frac{aR^N}{4}(p_2^2+p_3^2))`$ . All of this put together gives $`(3.29)`$ . However the formula $`(3.29)`$ is clearly valid in any other basis and not only in the basis $`(3.22)`$ . Rotating back to the basis $`(3.15)`$ will then give

$$<z|e^{ipZ}|z>=e^{ipz}e^{\frac{a\chi ^N}{4}p^2},$$
(3.31)
where it is understood that $`𝒳^N`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`R^N`$ on the coherent state $`|z>`$ defined by $`|z>=U(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)|q>`$ . $`(3.31)`$ is the basic identity needed in defining the map $`𝒳`$ . To show this we rewrite $`(3.31)`$ in the following way

$$e^{\frac{a\chi ^N}{4}\frac{}{z^\mu }\frac{}{z_\mu }}(<z|e^{ipZ}|z>)=e^{ipz}.$$
(3.32)
We note that at at the limit of $`p0`$ this identity takes the form

$$<z|Z^\mu |z>=z^\mu .$$
(3.33)
Equation$`(3.32)`$ suggests that we define the homomorphism $`𝒳`$ by

$$F(Z)𝒳(F(Z))=e^{\frac{a\chi ^N}{4}\frac{}{z^\mu }\frac{}{z_\mu }}(<z|F(Z)|z>)=f(z).$$
(3.34)
Now putting $`(2.39)`$ and $`(3.18)`$ in $`(3.34)`$ and using $`(3.31)`$ we get that $`\stackrel{~}{f}(p)=\stackrel{~}{F}(p)`$ which simply means that $`𝒳`$ has no non trivial kernals . The homomorphism $`𝒳`$ needs also to satify the requirement

$$F\times G(Z)𝒳(F\times G(Z))=e^{\frac{a\chi ^N}{4}\frac{}{z^\mu }\frac{}{z_\mu }}(<z|F\times G(Z)|z>)=fg(z),$$
(3.35)
which can be checked by putting $`(2.40)`$ and $`(3.19)`$ in this last equation and using again $`(3.31)`$ .

3.3 Uncertainty Relations

A class of solutions to the the condition $`(2.14)`$ which was found to be the necessary and sufficient condition for the associativity to hold approximately in the sense of $`(2.10)`$ can be given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^4}}det\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^4}}(\stackrel{}{e}.\stackrel{}{b})^2=cosh^2\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2}}\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}(\stackrel{}{e}^2\stackrel{}{b}^2)=sinh^2\alpha ,`$ (3.36)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ are defined by

$$\theta =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& ie_1& ie_2& ie_3\\ ie_1& 0& b_3& b_2\\ ie_2& b_3& 0& b_1\\ ie_3& b_2& b_1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.37)
and $`\alpha `$ is a real number which can be taken to be a function of $`a`$ . The value $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to the case considered in  . From the above two equations $`(3.36)`$ we can find that

$$e^2b^2a^2$$
(3.38)
We would like now that the commutation relations $`(3.5)`$ lead to a certain space-time uncertainty relations . This will (in principle) further restrict the allowed antisymmetric tensors $`\theta `$ . Using the basic identity of quantum mechanics : $`\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{\Delta }b^2\frac{1}{4}|<[A,B]>|^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }a^2=<\mathrm{\Delta }A^2>=<A^2><A>^2`$ the space-time uncertainty relations are

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu )^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu )^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|<[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]>|^2={\displaystyle \frac{<R>^2}{4}}|\theta ^{\mu \nu }|^2`$
$``$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1^{i=3}}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }x^i)^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<R>^2}{4}}\stackrel{}{e}^2`$
$`and`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1i<j3}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }x^i)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x^j)^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<R>^2}{4}}\stackrel{}{b}^2.`$ (3.39)
By using the facts $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x^i)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x^i)^2`$ , $`(_{i<j}\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }x^j)^2_{i<j}(\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }x^j)^2`$ and the equation $`(3.38)`$ the above uncertainty relations will take the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0.{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{i=3}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }x^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1i<j3}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }x^i\mathrm{\Delta }x^j`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}.`$ (3.40)
where $`\lambda =a<R>`$ . These are the same uncertainty relations which were derived in  . We can conclude from the relations $`(3.40)`$ that quantum space-time has a cellular structure . The minimal volume ( the volume of one cell ) is $`(\sqrt{2\pi \lambda })^4`$ and therefore a finite volume $`V`$ of quantum space-time contains $`V/(\sqrt{2\pi \lambda })^4`$ states . An estimation of the fuzziness of space-time would determine or at least give a bound on $`\lambda `$ which will restrict further the allowed tensors $`\theta `$ .

4. Quantum Field Theories on $`QR^4`$

4.1 The Dirac Operator

Before we try to write action integrals on a given space we need always to define first the Dirac operator on it . This Dirac operator will provide the notion of derivations on this space and by constructing it we would have basically constructed Connes triplet associated to this space  . For $`QR^4`$ this triplet consists of a representation $`\mathrm{\Pi }(A)`$ of the algebra $`A`$ underlying the quantum space-time in some Hilbert space , the Dirac operator $`D`$ and the Hilbert space $`H`$ on which it acts . In the last section we have already constructed the representation $`\mathrm{\Pi }(A)`$ in terms of the coherent states basis $`|x>`$ . The corresponding Dirac operator in the other hand will be defined by

$$d^4xe^{\frac{a\chi }{4}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x_\mu }}(<x|[D,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times \times [D,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times |x>)=d^4x_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi ,$$
(4.1)
where $`\varphi `$ is any element of the algebra $`𝒜`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is its corresponding operator in $`A`$ . Clearly the ordinary Dirac operator $`𝒟`$ on $`R^4`$ given by $`𝒟=\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$ where $`\{\gamma ^\mu \}`$ is the Clifford algebra satsifying $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ , will satisfy $`(4.1)`$ in the limit $`\theta 0`$ . In other words it will satisfy the equation $`Tr[𝒟,\mathrm{\Phi }][𝒟,\mathrm{\Phi }]=d^4x_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$ . It is reasonable to assume that this Clifford algebra will not get modified under quantization of space-time so that we can write $`D`$ as

$$D=\gamma ^\mu D_\mu +aF.$$
(4.2)
This assumption can be justified by the fact that the $`\gamma ^{}s`$ are not elements of the algebra $`𝒜`$ and therefore quantizing the algebra will not quantize them . $`F`$ in $`(4.2)`$ is a connection arising from the nonassociativity of the underlying algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ and it is defined such that $`(4.1)`$ takes the form

$$d^4xe^{\frac{a\chi }{4}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x_\mu }}([D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times \times [D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times )=d^4x_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi .$$
(4.3)
Comparing $`(4.1)`$ and $`(4.3)`$ we can find that $`F`$ should satisfy the condition

$`Tr\left[\gamma ^\mu [D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }][F,\mathrm{\Phi }]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }([D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],[D_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }])\right]`$ $`=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ){\displaystyle d^4x\chi _\alpha ^\alpha (<x|[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }][D_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]|x>)},`$ (4.4)
where $`\frac{i}{2}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$ . A trivial solution to the equation $`(4.4)`$ is given by

$`[F,\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}[\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }]^1\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }([D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],[D_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }])[\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }]^1F_0`$
$`where`$
$`<x|F_0|x>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu )\chi _\alpha ^\alpha (<x|[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }][D_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]|x>).`$ (4.5)
$`D_\mu `$ are by definition the quantum derivations on $`QR^4`$ and they are given by

$$e^{\frac{a\chi }{4}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x_\mu }}(<x|[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times |x>)=_\mu \varphi .$$
(4.6)
By $`(3.34)`$ and $`(3.35)`$ , equation $`(4.6)`$ satisfies $`(4.3)`$ trivially . To find the quantum derivations $`D_\mu `$ we first have to reexpress the classical derivations in terms of the Moyal bracket and the star product introduced in section $`1`$ and once this is done the transition to the quantum derivations is quite straightforward . It simply consists of replacing the Moyal bracket by the commutator $`[,]_\times `$ and the star product by the nonassociative operator product $`\times `$ as explained in the last section . By using Moyal bracket $`(2.33)`$ any arbitrary vector field $`^\mu `$ should satisfy

$$\{^\mu ,\varphi \}=i\chi \theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha ^\mu _\beta \varphi ,$$
(4.7)
where $`\varphi `$ is any element of the algebra $`𝒜`$ . It is clear that we have to assume that $`^\mu `$ is of the order of $`\mathrm{}^{N1}`$ in order to have only the term written in equation $`(4.7)`$ . This vector $`^\mu `$ in the other hand will be defined by

$$\{^\mu ,\varphi \}=i\chi ^N\theta ^{\mu \beta }_\beta \varphi .$$
(4.8)
Comparing $`(4.7)`$ and $`(4.8)`$ we get that

$`_\alpha ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{N1}\eta _\alpha ^\mu `$
$``$
$`^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \chi ^{N1}𝑑x^\mu }+_0^\mu ,`$ (4.9)
where $`_0^\mu `$ is an x-independent vector . In terms of Moyal bracket this last equation $`(4.9)`$ will be rewritten as

$$\{x^\mu ,^\nu \}=i\chi ^N\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4.10)
Quantizing equation $`(4.8)`$ however will give that

$$[L^\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }R^N\times [D_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times $$
(4.11)
where we have used $`(4.6)`$ . This last equation can be iterated to give

$$[D_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times =iR^N\theta _{\mu \nu }^1[L^\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times +iaR^N\theta _{\mu \nu }^1\mathrm{\Delta }(R^N,R^N[L^\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]).$$
(4.12)
This is the definition of the quantum derivations $`D_\mu `$ and it is given in terms of the operators $`L^\mu `$ defined by

$$<x|L^\mu |x>=^\mu .$$
(4.13)
It must also satisfy

$$[X^\mu ,L^\nu ]_\times =iR^N\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4.14)
which follows from $`(4.10)`$ . Putting everything together the Dirac operator is then given by :

$$D=iR^N\theta _{\mu \nu }^1\gamma ^\mu L^\nu +a\delta D.$$
(4.15)
where

$$[\delta D,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times =[F,\mathrm{\Phi }]_\times +iR^N\theta _{\mu \nu }^1\mathrm{\Delta }(R^N,R^N[L^\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]).$$
(4.16)
The Dirac operator $`(4.15)`$ does act on the Hilbert space

$$H=AC^4$$
(4.17)
4.2 Renormalization And Causality

We define scalar fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ on the quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ to be elements of the algebra $`A`$ , they are given by $`(3.14)`$ or $`(3.18)`$ . Action integrals for such fields will have the form

$$S=d^4xe^{\frac{a\chi }{4}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x_\mu }}\left[<x|\frac{1}{2}[D,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]_\times \times [D,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]_\times \frac{m^2}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{g^4}{4!}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})\times (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})|x>\right].$$
(4.18)
The trace is taken over the coherent states basis $`|x>`$ . $`m`$ is the mass of the scalar field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ , $`g`$ is the strength of the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^4`$ interaction . These two parameters are assumed to be the physical parameters of the theory , in other words they are finite . The field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is mapped via the homomorphism $`𝒳`$ to an ordinary scalar field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ given by

$$\widehat{\varphi }(x)=e^{\frac{a\chi }{4}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{x_\mu }}(<x|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}|x>).$$
(4.19)
In terms of this new field the action $`(4.18)`$ will read

$$S=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu \widehat{\varphi }\frac{m^2}{2}\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi }\frac{g^4}{4!}(\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi })(\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi })],$$
(4.20)
The field $`\varphi `$ is a general element of the algebra $`(𝒜,)`$ which is of the form $`(2.22)`$ . It is clearly a function of $`\chi `$ which can always be put in the form

$`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\widehat{\varphi }(p,\chi )e^{ipx}}`$ (4.21)
$`=`$ $`\varphi +\mathrm{}\psi _1+\mathrm{}^2\psi _2+..+\mathrm{}^N\psi _N.`$
$`\varphi `$ is a scalar field which is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ and of the fuzzyness functions $`\chi _1`$ , $`\chi _2`$ ,…. $`\chi _N`$ ; in other words it is the (commutative) classical field of the theory . $`\psi _1`$ , $`\psi _2`$ ,.., $`\psi _N`$ , in the other hand , are scalar fields which are also independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ but do depend on $`\chi _1`$ , $`\chi _2`$ ,..,$`\chi _N`$ . Their dependence on $`\chi ^{}s`$ is such that they go to zero at the limit of all $`\chi _i0`$ . $`\psi _1`$ , $`\psi _2`$ , …$`\psi _N`$ are assumed to be finite and therefore the noncommutative field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is also finite . $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ can then be identified with the renormalized scalar field of the theory . For simplicity we will only consider the two-loop calculation of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory . In this case $`N=2`$ and we will have three scalar fields $`\varphi `$ , $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ and two fuzzyness functions $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ . The action $`(4.20)`$ in terms of these functions will read

$$S=S[\varphi ]+S[\varphi ,\psi _1,\psi _2].$$
(4.22)
For the moment we will only focus on the first term in $`(4.22)`$ . The action $`S[\varphi ]`$ depends only on the field $`\varphi `$ and it has the form

$$S[\varphi ]=d^4x+d^4x\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(4.23)
where

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2\frac{g^4}{4!}\varphi ^4,$$
(4.24)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\chi \mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi )}+{\displaystyle d^4x\chi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\varphi )}`$ (4.25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\chi (p)\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\chi (l)\chi (pl)\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\varphi ,p)}.`$
In $`(4.25)`$ and in all what will follow $`f(p)`$ is the Fourier transform of the function $`f(x)`$ and it is defined by $`f(p)=d^4xf(x)e^{ipx}`$ .

Although $`\varphi `$ is the classical field , we will show below that $``$ in $`(4.24)`$ generates exactly the renormalized action of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory , and as Eq $`(4.23)`$ suggests $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will generate the corresponding counter terms . $`\chi `$ will depend therefore on the classical lagrangians $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and the usual renormalization constants $`Z_1`$ , $`Z_3`$ and $`\delta m^2`$ . For consistency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ should not depend on $`\chi `$ which is the case as we can see from their explicit expressions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\varphi (k)[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}(pkk^2)(pkk^2+m^2)\varphi (pk)`$ (4.26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3ag^4}{4!}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}(ql)\varphi (pkql)\varphi (q)\varphi (l)].`$
And

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\varphi ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}\varphi (k)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(pkk^2+m^2)(pAkkAk)^2\varphi (pk)`$ (4.27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4s}{(2\pi )^4}\left[(qAs)^2+\frac{1}{2}[(pqs)A(q+s)]^2\right]}`$
$`\varphi (pkqs)\varphi (q)\varphi (s)],`$
where $`A=\theta +ia\eta `$ . For the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory it is known that in the first order of the quantum theory both the mass and the coupling constant need to be renormalized . In the second order however we need also a field renormalization . So we would have

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\chi ^{(1)}(p)\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}\delta m_1^2\varphi ^2\frac{g^4}{4!}Z_1^{(1)}\varphi ^4].$$
(4.28)
and

$`{\displaystyle }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}\chi ^{(2)}(p)\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\chi ^{(1)}(l)\chi ^{(1)}(pl)\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\varphi ,p)}=`$ (4.29)
$`{\displaystyle }`$ $`d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_3^{(2)}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta m_2^2\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4!}}Z_1^{(2)}\varphi ^4].`$
$`\chi ^{(1)}`$ and $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ are given by $`\chi ^{(1)}=\mathrm{}\chi _1`$ and $`\chi ^{(2)}=\mathrm{}^2\chi _2`$ . The action $`(4.23)`$ will then take the form

$$S[\varphi ]=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}Z_3_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{m^2+\delta m^2}{2}\varphi ^2\frac{g^4}{4!}Z_1\varphi ^4].$$
(4.30)
$`Z_3=1+Z_3^{(2)}`$ , $`Z_1=1+Z_1^{(1)}+Z_1^{(2)}`$ and $`\delta m^2=\delta m_1^2+\delta m_2^2`$ . Solving $`(4.28)`$ and $`(4.29)`$ for $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ will give

$`\chi ^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta m_1^2\varphi (p)`$ (4.31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4!}}Z_1^{(1)}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}\varphi (k)\varphi (l)\varphi (pkl)],`$
and

$`\chi ^{(2)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[Z_3^{(2)}p^2\delta m_2^2]\varphi (p)`$ (4.32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4!}}Z_1^{(2)}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}}\varphi (k)\varphi (l)\varphi (pkl)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\varphi ,p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\varphi ,p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\chi ^{(1)}(l)\chi ^{(1)}(pl)}.`$
Putting the action $`(4.30)`$ back into $`(4.22)`$ we get

$$S=S[\widehat{\varphi }]+S[\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1].$$
(4.33)
where $`S[\widehat{\varphi }]`$ is the action integral given by the equation $`(4.30)`$ with the substitution $`\varphi \widehat{\varphi }`$ ,i.e

$$S[\widehat{\varphi }]=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}Z_3_\mu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu \widehat{\varphi }\frac{m^2+\delta m^2}{2}\widehat{\varphi }^2\frac{g^4}{4!}Z_1\widehat{\varphi }^4].$$
(4.34)
This is exactly the standard renormalized action of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory with all of its counter terms . $`S[\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1]=d^4x(\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1)`$ in the other hand is given by

$`[\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}^2\chi _1}{2}}_\mu _\nu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu ^\nu \psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}^2m^2\chi _1}{2}}_\mu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu \psi _1`$ (4.35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}^2g^4\chi _1}{4}}\widehat{\varphi }^2_\mu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu \psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}^2g^4\chi _1}{4}}\widehat{\varphi }\psi _1_\mu \widehat{\varphi }^\mu \widehat{\varphi }`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}\delta m_1^2\widehat{\varphi }\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g^4Z_1^{(1)}}{6}}\widehat{\varphi }^3\psi _1.`$
As we can immediately remark , this action does not contain the field $`\psi _2`$ given in $`(4.21)`$ . So at this order of perturbations , $`\psi _2`$ is an arbitrary finite scalar field .

Clearly the finiteness requirement given by the equations $`(4.28)`$ and $`(4.29)`$ reduces considerably the noncausality of the field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ . However as we can see from $`(4.33)`$ , $`(4.34)`$ and $`(4.35)`$ this scalar field is still highly noncausal in the sense that its conjugate momentum , which follows from the action $`(4.33)`$ , is not given by the ordinary expression $`Z_3_0\widehat{\varphi }`$ . It does contain extra corrections coming from $`(4.35)`$ . Neverthless , one can construct a causal field $`\widehat{\varphi }_c`$ from $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ as follows . The action integral of $`\widehat{\varphi }_c`$ will be by definition given by

$$S[\widehat{\varphi }_c]=d^4x[\frac{1}{2}Z_3_\mu \widehat{\varphi }_c^\mu \widehat{\varphi }_c\frac{m^2+\delta m^2}{2}\widehat{\varphi }_c^2\frac{g^4}{4!}Z_1\widehat{\varphi }_c^4],$$
(4.36)
and it should be equal to $`(4.33)`$ ,i.e $`S[\widehat{\varphi }_c]=S`$ . The field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ in the other hand will be defined by

$$\widehat{\varphi }_c=\widehat{\varphi }+\mathrm{}^2\psi _2^{^{}}.$$
(4.37)
From $`(4.33)`$ and $`(4.36)`$ the field $`\psi _2^{^{}}`$ should satisfy

$$\mathrm{}^2\psi _2^{^{}}=\frac{(\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1)}{(^2+m^2+\frac{g^4}{6}\widehat{\varphi }^2)\widehat{\varphi }}.$$
(4.38)
The field $`\widehat{\varphi }_c`$ is causal but not necessarily finite . The field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ in the other hand is finite but not causal . Clearly the finite and causal scalar field theory which we can construct on $`QR^4`$ is such that $`\widehat{\varphi }_c=\widehat{\varphi }`$ . The solution to this condition is clealry $`\psi _2^{^{}}=0`$ which can be reexpressed as a constraint on the field $`\psi _1`$

$`(\widehat{\varphi },\psi _1)=0`$ (4.39)
The only consistent solution to this equation is the trivial one : $`\psi _1=0`$ . it is the only solution as we can check which is compatible with the field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ being finite .The class of fields $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ given by the equations $`(4.21)`$ and $`(4.39)`$ are the only both causal and fintie scalar fields which we can write down on $`QR^4`$ . The corresponding action integral is given by the equation $`(4.20)`$ or equivalently $`(4.34)`$ .

Remarks

It is very instructive to perform the following consistency check on our results . First remark that the commutation relations $`(2.16)`$ combined with the solutions $`(4.31)`$ and $`(4.32)`$ lead directly to the conclusion that the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ diverge , which definitely needs to be avoided in order to keep the finiteness of the field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ . The solution to this problem is to assume that the antisymmetric tensor $`\theta `$ scales in such a way that the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ remain well defined . We write then $`\theta =Z_\theta \theta _F`$ , and compute the commutation relations $`(2.16)`$ which will then take the form $`\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}=iZ_\theta [a_1Z_1^2+a_2\delta m^4+a_3Z_1+a_4\delta m^2+a_5Z_1\delta m^2+a_6Z_3+a_7]\theta _F^{\mu \nu }`$ . $`a_i=a_i(x)`$,$`i=1,7`$, are finite (computable) functions on $`R^4`$ . The minimal prescription that will keep this commutator from diverging is that $`Z_\theta =1/(Z_1^2\delta m^4Z_3)`$ . In other words $`\theta `$ measures directly the infinities of the field theory . We will leave the discussion on how really small is $`\theta `$ to a future communication .

The action $`(4.18)`$ or $`(4.20)`$ may be viewed as a classical action describing a $`\varphi ^4`$ theory of a (classical) noncommutative field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ living on a quantum space-time $`QR^4`$ . The noncommutativity effects of this theory were shown to be exactly the quantum effects of an ordinary quantum $`\varphi ^4`$ theory of a quantum (commutative) field $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ living on $`R^4`$ . This map between the noncommutative classical field theory and the commutative quantum field theory is consistent by construction because the two limits , the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ and the commutative limit $`\chi 0`$ , are identically the same .

5. Conclusion

* We showed that the renormalized scalar field action on $`R^4`$ plus its counter terms can be rewritten only as a renormalized action on $`QR^4`$ with no counter terms . This leads us to believe that renormalization of quantum field theory is in general equivalent to the process of quantizing the underlying space-time .
* Finding phenomenological consequences of NCG such as the correction to the Coulomb potential due to the noncommutativity of space-time will be very interesting because it will allow us to put bounds on the nature of space-time at the very short distances . Results will be reported elsewhere.
* Trying to include gravity as the source of the regularization and not merely as another term in the action is also under investigation . We would like that the commutation relations $`(2.15)`$ or $`(3.3)`$ to be a consequence of quantum gravity . A large extra dimension-like activity will be then used to make quantum gravity corrections of the same order as the quantum corrections . This will clearly involve going to higher dimensions .
* The connection of the quantum space-time constructed in this paper to ordinary lattices is also very important to such matters as confinement and asymptotic freedom .

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor A.P.Balachandran for his critical comments and remarks while this work was in progress. This work was supported in part by the DOE under contract number DE-FG02-85ER40231.


format: text

text:
# The zero kinetic energy electron effect in cold Rydberg gases

## Abstract

Cold, dense Rydberg gases produced in a cold-atom trap are investigated using spectroscopic methods and time-resolved electron counting. On the discrete Rydberg resonances we observe large trap losses and long lasting electron emission from the Rydberg gas ($`>`$30ms). Our observations are explained by quasi-elastic $`l`$-mixing collisions between Rydberg atoms and slow electrons that lead to the population of long-lived high-angular-momentum Rydberg states. These atoms thermally ionize slowly and with large probabilities, leading to the observed effects.

Laser-cooled atoms can be used to study highly excited Rydberg atoms  at both large densities and low atomic velocities. Due to the low velocity of the Rydberg atoms, ionizing Rydberg-Rydberg collisions that dominate the behavior of hot Rydberg gases  are largely suppressed. Therefore, the interactions between the Rydberg atoms, free electrons and ions result in a variety of novel phenomena that are specific to translationally cold Rydberg gases. Density-dependent effects have been observed in the resonant excitation transfer between cold Rydberg atoms . A minute increase of the frequency of the Rydberg excitation laser leads to the production of metastable cold plasmas rather than cold Rydberg gases . At a critical density corresponding to about one atom per atomic volume, Rydberg gases might undergo a Mott transition that would lead to a new kind of metastable matter . The formation of metastable Rydberg matter might proceed through an intermediate phase, in which the Rydberg population accumulates in long-lived high-angular-momentum (high-$`l`$) states . In the present paper, we show that in cold Rydberg gases high-$`l`$ Rydberg states are efficiently produced by a robust mechanism, which is, in a similar form, also at work in ZEKE (ZEro Kinetic Energy) electron - spectroscopy, a powerful technique that has revolutionized molecular spectroscopy .

In our periodically cycled experiment, 87Rb atoms are collected and cooled in a magneto-optic trap (MOT , see Fig. 1) for a time that could be varied between $`95`$ms and $`950`$ms. 1ms after the shutdown of the MOT a $`5\mu s`$ long diode laser pulse ($`\lambda =780`$nm) resonant with the $`5S_{1/2},F=25P_{3/2},F=3`$ transition is applied. While the $`780`$nm pulse is on, a blue dye laser pulse ($`\lambda 480`$nm, 10ns width, bandwidth $`15`$GHz, repetition rate 1Hz to 10Hz) excites $`ns`$\- and $`nd`$-Rydberg states from the intermediate $`5P_{3/2}`$-level. The maximum photon fluence of one blue pulse easily exceeds the saturation fluence at the photoionization threshold ($`7\times 10^{16}`$cm-2 at $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ion}}=479.1`$nm ). If the dye laser operates with the oscillator only, the broad-band ASE (amplified spontaneous emission) contained in the blue pulse is $`<1\%`$ of the pulse energy ($`50\mu `$J). With the dye amplifiers on, the ASE contains $`10\%`$ of the pulse energy, is about 5nm wide and centered at $`\lambda =478`$nm, which is above the ionization threshold. The pulsed dye laser is pumped by the 3rd harmonic of a Nd-YAG laser ($`355`$nm), a small fraction of which ($`<`$1mJ) can be diverted to partially ionize the atomic cloud before the blue laser pulse arrives. The Rydberg excitation causes a reduction of the ground-state population, which reduces the area density of ground-state atoms that we measure with a low-intensity probe laser pulse resonant on the $`5S_{1/2},F=25P_{3/2},F=3`$ transition. A microchannel-plate (MCP) detector located about $`10`$cm from the atomic cloud is used to detect electrons emitted from the Rydberg gas.

Fig. 2a) shows a trap-loss spectrum taken with a 10Hz repetition rate of the Rydberg excitation and with both the $`5S_{1/2}5P_{3/2}`$ and the Rydberg transition saturated. With the blue laser blocked, from one cycle to the next most atoms become recaptured by the MOT, and the average time the atoms remain trapped is $`2.5`$s. Thus, when the blue laser is unblocked, the atoms experience of order 25 excitation pulses before they leave the trap due to the loss mechanisms that are inherent to the MOT. In the continuum as well as on the discrete Rydberg resonances up to about $`70\%`$ of the atoms are removed by the Rydberg atom excitation. The trap-loss spectra are largely independent of the time at which the probe pulse is applied, even if the probe is applied during the lifetime of the excited Rydberg states. This shows that most of the observed trap loss is due to a permanent removal of atoms from the trap upon excitation. The removal is due to many blue pulses exciting the same atoms. We have used a simple model of the MOT loading dynamics to estimate the loss fraction $`X`$ due to a single Rydberg excitation event. In Fig. 2b), a floor of $`X1\%`$ is observed between the discrete Rydberg lines, which is due to direct photoionization by the above discussed $`10\%`$ ASE of the blue pulse. The discrete Rydberg lines peak at an $`X`$ of up to $`8\%`$ above the floor, a value that corresponds to one-third loss of the excited Rydberg atom population. Further, there is no significant change in $`X`$ at the continuum threshold. Our observations show that there is a process by which initially bound Rydberg atoms permanently leave the trap with an efficiency that rivals direct optical photoionization.

Two-body ionizing Rydberg-Rydberg collisions could, in principle, cause a trap loss. Based on an ionization cross section given in , a Rydberg atom velocity of $`0.1`$m/s, a lifetime of $`100\mu `$s ($`n40`$), and a Rydberg atom density of $`5\times 10^9`$cm-3 we estimate a collisional ionization probability of $`0.5\%`$ of the excited Rydberg population, corresponding to an $`X0.13\%`$. This figure, obtained for $`n=40`$, is too small for two-body ionizing Rydberg-Rydberg collisions to be the dominant source of trap loss.

To estimate the importance of thermally induced microwave ionization of the excited $`ns`$ and $`nd`$ Rydberg states, we have performed rate equation simulations of the population flow among the bound atomic states and the continuum. We use a basis $`(n,l)`$ of discrete levels up to $`n=100`$ with all allowed values of $`l`$ and the proper quantum defects, and a grid of 10100 continuum states $`(ϵ,l)`$ with energies up to $`ϵ=130`$meV and $`l=0,1,..,101`$. Due to isotropy, we can assume uniform distributions over the magnetic substates and use $`m`$-averaged transition rates . The obtained thermal ionization probabilities for an ideal 300K blackbody spectrum are displayed in Fig. 3.

While direct thermal ionization of the initially excited states does not cause enough ionization to explain the observed trap loss - see Fig. 3 \- it produces ions moving at about 1m/s and electrons with about $`8`$meV average kinetic energy; the latter figure results from the rate-equation calculations. Based on Fig. 3 and on the number of excited Rydberg atoms, we estimate that up to $`10^5`$ electron-ion pairs are created. If the blue laser is used with its amplifiers active, the ionizing ASE of the blue laser pulse adds a significant amount of additional electron-ion pairs (electron energy $`10`$meV). As a result, conditions are such that a metastable cold plasma is formed : a fraction of the electrons quickly evaporate, leaving behind a plasma with a net positive charge that acts as an electron trap. If, under our conditions, the initial number of electrons exceeds about 1000, the trap becomes deep enough to retain a fraction of the electrons . The net positive charge causes a slow Coulomb expansion, due to which all trapped electrons eventually evaporate. The electron storage time is thereby limited to of order $`100\mu `$s, which is long enough for the retained electrons to frequently collide with the main product of the laser excitation - the bound Rydberg atoms floating in the plasma. The collisions initiate a sequence of events we refer to as the ZEKE-effect.

In step $`A`$ of the ZEKE-effect (see Fig. 4), the atoms are promoted from their initial $`s`$ or $`d`$-states into a high-$`l`$-state by the electric-field sweep produced by a bypassing electron. The field sweep brings the initial Rydberg state in contact with a hydrogenic manifold of high-$`l`$ states, and state-mixing causes a quasi-elastic transition of the atom into a superposition of high-$`l`$ states. To model these collisions, we have numerically solved the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. For a given initial state $`|n_0,l_0,m_0`$, electron velocity $`v`$ and collision parameter $`b`$ the calculation yields a final probability $`P(n_0,l_0,v,b)`$ of finding the atom in the hydrogenic manifold, i.e. in a state with $`l4`$. For $`l_00`$, we run the calculation for the allowed values of $`m_0`$ and average the resultant probabilities over $`m_0`$. The cross section $`\sigma `$ for a transition into $`l4`$ is then defined as

$$\sigma (n_0,l_0,v)=_{b=0}^{b=\mathrm{}}P(n_0,l_0,v,b)2\pi b𝑑b$$
(1)
For $`l_0=0`$, 1 or 2 it is easy to determine an upper cutoff value for $`b`$ where $`P0`$. The range $`b<a_0n^2`$, where the neglected ionizing processes should become dominating , does not significantly contribute to $`\sigma `$.

Fig. 5 shows the results of our cross section calculations for the $`s`$ and $`d`$-states of two values of $`n`$. The drop of $`\sigma `$ at higher electron energy reflects the fact that the passage behavior of the Rydberg atoms in the Stark map (Fig. 4) turns diabatic. The $`s`$-states generally have cross sections about 2.5 times smaller than the cross sections of the nearest $`d`$-state. This reflects the diabatic crossing behavior of the $`s`$-state atoms with the lowest few states of the nearest hydrogenic manifold - note the narrow anticrossings in Fig. 4. For fixed electron energy, the cross sections approximately scale as $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}^5`$. The average values of $`l`$ of the atoms that made a transition into the hydrogenic manifold are of order $`n/2`$ (not shown).

The plasma volume ($`1`$mm3), the electron number ($`1000`$), the electron velocity ($`50000`$ m/s), the electron storage time ($``$100$`\mu `$s), and the cross sections depicted in Fig. 5 lead to the conclusion that the step $`A`$ in Fig. 4 happens with certainty for $`n`$ larger than about 20. The presence of the plasma that temporarily traps the electrons is crucial, as it keeps the electrons from leaving and causes them to frequently collide with the abundant, bound Rydberg atoms floating in the plasma. Collisions between Rydberg atoms and ions are ineffective, because the ions are very slow ($`1`$m/s), as are the Rydberg atoms themselves.

After step $`A`$ in Fig. 4, the weak but rapidly varying microfields generated by more distant electrons will be sufficient to further randomize the Rydberg population among the quantum-defect-free hydrogenic states (step $`B`$). Step $`B`$ is more probable than step $`A`$, but it is not required for the subsequent step $`C`$. Once all plasma electrons have evaporated, the only electric fields the Rydberg atoms are still exposed to are the fields generated by the very slowly moving ions. Therefore, we expect that the plasma dynamics and the internal dynamics of the Rydberg atoms decouple at about $`100\mu `$s after the excitation, thereby terminating the $`l`$-mixing.

Subsequently, while the cloud of high-$`l`$ Rydberg atoms produced by the steps $`A`$ and $`B`$ slowly expands, the atoms decay or thermally ionize on a slow time scale (step $`C`$ in Fig. 4). To model the overall dynamics of the Rydberg population, we have included an initial ”plasma phase” in our rate-equation simulations. During that phase, the populations in the $`n`$-manifolds and the nearby non-hydrogenic states are periodically averaged over the allowed $`l`$-values (with weights $`(2l+1)`$); after the “plasma phase” the averaging ceases. The obtained ionization probabilities are displayed in Fig. 3 for $`25\mu `$s and $`500\mu `$s long plasma phases. The ionization probabilities are stable against variations of the duration of the plasma phase and are large enough to explain the experimentally observed trap losses.

While in molecular spectroscopy the ZEKE-effect typically occurs for $`n>100`$ , we observe it down to low $`n`$. We believe that the large velocity of the charges that collide with the Rydberg atoms \- $`50000`$ m/s in our experiments - and our high degree of saturation of the $`l`$-mixing process explain this difference.

The discussed model is supported by the results described in the following. Using the MCP detector located near the atom trap, we have measured the thermal ionization rate vs. time (Fig. 6). When we excite discrete Rydberg levels, we find long-lived electron signals that extend beyond $`30`$ms and that only occur if the frequency of the blue laser is resonant with a discrete Rydberg line. The delayed electron signal, which is characteristic for the ZEKE-effect , is due to thermal ionization of high-$`l`$ Rydberg states.

Fig. 7 shows the electron count rate in a time-delayed counting window vs. the wavelength of the blue laser for conditions well below the saturation of the Rydberg transition. The clarity of the ionization threshold in the long-lived electron signal, which is typical for the ZEKE-effect , shows that the delayed electrons are linked to the initial optical excitation of bound Rydberg atoms. In Fig. 7a) the blue pulse is generated with the dye laser oscillator only, which has no significant ASE. Therefore, all electron-ion pairs that are created within about $`100\mu `$s from the Rydberg excitation originate in thermal ionization of the excited $`ns`$\- or $`nd`$-Rydberg atoms. Since the $`5Pns`$-photoexcitation cross sections are about six times smaller than the ones of the neighboring $`d`$-states, and since the thermal ionization probability of the $`s`$-states is only half that of the neighboring $`d`$-states (see Fig. 3), the thermal electron yield on the $`s`$-lines is less than one-tenth of the yield on the neighboring $`d`$-lines. Recalling that of order 1000 slow electrons are needed to form the essential cold-plasma electron trap - with some electrons left in it - it follows that there is a wide range of parameters where the ZEKE-signal should occur on the $`d`$-lines, but not on the neighboring $`s`$-lines. Fig. 7a), where the $`s`$-lines barely appear, shows one such case.

We have used two methods to force a ZEKE-signal on the $`s`$-lines in cases where it would normally not appear. In Fig. 7b) we have used the same parameters as in a), except that the blue laser pulse has been generated with a dye-laser amplifier being active. The pulse has then been attenuated to the same pulse energy as in a). The ASE produced by the amplifier creates enough slow electron-ion pairs to form the cold-plasma electron trap, independent of whether the coherent part of the laser excites $`d`$ or $`s`$ Rydberg atoms. As a result, we observe both $`s`$ and $`d`$ lines in the ZEKE-signal. In Fig. 7c), the blue laser pulse is the same as in a), i.e. it has no ASE, but we ionize a small fraction of the atoms by a UV laser pulse that hits the cloud a few ns before the blue laser pulse (see Fig. 1). The electrons produced by the UV pulse have an energy of about 1eV and therefore all leave. The remaining electron-free potential well captures any slow electrons that are subsequently produced. The comparatively few thermal electrons produced on the $`s`$-lines now don’t escape, as in the case of Fig. 7 a), but are trapped and trigger the ZEKE-effect (note the $`s`$-lines in Fig. 7c)).

In this paper we have shown that dense, cold Rydberg gases in a room-temperature thermal radiation field decay via the ZEKE-effect, which involves the quasi-elastic collisional production of high-$`l`$ Rydberg states and unusually slow thermal ionization. The effect hinges on the temporary existence of a cold plasma, which acts as a transient electron trap. The stability of the observed phenomenon makes it likely that it represents a generic decay pattern of cold, dense Rydberg gases. It appears likely that the spontaneous and efficient production of high-$`l`$ Rydberg states could aid the formation of condensed Rydberg matter . Since it has become apparent that the radiation temperature is one of the most important parameters of the system, we intend to perform future studies in a cryogenic enclosure with variable wall temperature.

Support by NSF is acknowledged. We thank Prof. P. Bucksbaum for inspiring discussions and generous loaning of equipment. Equipment from a DoE-funded project has temporarily been used.


text:
# Repulsive Dark Matter

## 1 Introduction

At the time of writing, the combination (“$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM ”) of cold dark matter, a Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum of initial fluctuations, and a small cosmological constant appears to be in good agreement with many observational constraints: the angular power spectrum of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, the large-scale distribution of galaxies and clusters, and the growth of present-day structures by gravitational instability (Bahcall et al., 1999, and references therein). Recently, however, it has become clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM overpredicts structure on small scales. N-body and hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy formation within the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model predict that the dark halos of galaxies should have singular cores (Navarro, Frenk, & White, 1996; Navarro & Steinmetz, 2000), contrary to observation (Carignan, 1985; Swaters, Madore, & Trewhella, 1999). A separate though related problem is that late accretion of dark matter clumps or satellite galaxies is likely to shred the disks of spirals (Toth & Ostriker, 1992; Klypin et al., 1999).

Clustering on small scales could be suppressed by an upper limit to the phase-space density of the dark-matter particles due either to thermal entropy or, if they are fermions, degeneracy pressure; the particle mass would have to lie in the range $`10^2\text{eV}<m<10^3\text{eV}`$ (Hogan & Dalcanton, 2000).

Another proposal is that the dark-matter particles are heavy ($`m\text{GeV}`$) but self-interacting (Spergel & Steinhardt, 1999). Since the simulations tend to produce a dark-matter velocity dispersion that decreases towards the center of the cusp, occasional collisions “heat” the central regions and produce a finite-density core, at least temporarily. Once the inner regions become roughly isothermal, the core will recollapse; the collision cross section must be chosen so that this does not happen within the age of the galaxy. This proposal seems unlikely to alleviate the second problem, *viz.* the damage to galactic disks.

This paper proposes a third solution to the problem of small-scale power: a Bose-Einstein condensate of dark matter particles, hence similar to the axion, but interacting *via* a repulsive potential of finite range. I show in §2 that cores would have a minimum size independent of their density or mass, and that the dark matter would behave as a superfluid. Such particles arise fairly naturally as quanta of a self-interacting scalar field (§3). For plausible choices of the minimum core size, the interaction energy per particle would have been comparable to the rest mass somewhat before the universe became matter-dominated, and at earlier times it would have a relativistic equation of state ($`p\rho /3`$), hence slightly increasing the effective number of degrees of freedom in the radiation field, but not enough to violate the constraints of primordial nucleosynthesis. With respect to the standard cold-dark matter spectrum, density fluctuations in the linear regime would be suppressed on comoving scales less than a few megaparsecs (§4).

While this work was being written up, I became aware that my colleague P. J. E. Peebles has been working along similar lines (Peebles & Vilenkin, 1999; Peebles, 1999, 2000). There is also closely related earlier work (Tkachëv, 1985, 1991). This seems to be a genuine case of convergent evolution, and the fact that independent groups arrived at similar results is perhaps reassuring in such a wildly speculative domain. I started with a nonrelativistic many-body view of these particles (§2) and then sought a relativistic framework for them (§3), whereas Peebles & Vilenkin (1999) seem to have proceeded in the opposite direction. With further development, the nonrelativistic but fully quantum-mechanical viewpoint may prove useful in studying the galactic dynamics of this form of dark matter.

## 2 Minimum dark-matter core radius

Suppose that nonrelativistic bosons interact *via* a a two-particle potential $`U(𝐫_1𝐫_2)`$ of finite range. The potential energy of $`N`$ such bosons in a common single-particle momentum state $`\psi (𝐫)=𝒱^{1/2}e^{i𝐩𝐫}`$ in volume $`𝒱`$ is

$$W_N=\frac{N(N1)}{2𝒱}\stackrel{~}{U}(0)\frac{N(N1)}{2𝒱}𝑑𝐫^{}U(𝐫^{}),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐩^{})`$ is the fourier transform of $`U(𝐫^{})`$, whose range is assumed to be small compared to the linear dimensions of $`𝒱`$. If $`N,𝒱\mathrm{}`$ at fixed number density $`n=N/𝒱`$, then the potential energy per unit volume is $`w(n)=n^2\stackrel{~}{U}(0)/2`$. For the moment, $`w(n)/nmc^2`$, the boson rest-mass energy.

Macroscopically, one has a polytropic gas of adiabatic index $`\gamma =2`$; in other words, the pressure is related to the mass density $`\rho mn`$ by

$$p=K\rho ^2,K=\stackrel{~}{U}(0)/2m^2.$$
(2)
If the gas is self-gravitating, there is a well-known spherical equilibrium with the density profile (Chandrasekhar, 1939):

$$\rho (r)=\rho (0)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(r/a)}{r/a},a=\sqrt{\frac{K}{2\pi G}}.$$
(3)
The radius of the sphere, $`\pi a`$, is independent of the central density $`\rho (0)`$, which determines the total mass, $`4\pi ^2a^3\rho (0)`$. Dark-matter halos do not have the profile (3), but this does not rule out the model. If the particles are not all in the same momentum state, then their relative motions make an additional contribution to the pressure, which allows the halo to have a power-law density profile outside the core. Indeed, axionic dark matter is usually assumed to be a Bose-Einstein condensate like the one considered here but without the repulsive interaction, so the pressure support of dark halos in that model is due entirely to relative motions. Still, since (2) gives the minimum pressure, (3) is the most compact possible equilibrium. The conventional definition of the the core radius in terms of the central density and its second derivative is $`r_c\left[3\rho (0)/\rho ^{\prime \prime }(0)\right]^{1/2}`$, thus $`r_{c,\mathrm{min}}=3a`$.

The nonrelativistic approximation breaks down when the pressure (2) is comparable to the rest mass density. This happens when $`\rho c^2/Ga^2\rho _{\mathrm{rel}}`$. If this bosonic dark matter dominates the total present-day mass density, then the mean mass density was equal to $`\rho _{\mathrm{rel}}`$ at redshift

$$1+z_{\mathrm{rel}}=\left(\frac{8\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{rel}}}{3\mathrm{\Omega }H_0^2}\right)^{1/3}2.1\times 10^5\mathrm{\Omega }_{0.3}^{1/3}h_{50}^{2/3}r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{kpc}}^{2/3},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }/0.3`$, $`h_{50}H_0/(50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{kpc}}=r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}/\mathrm{kpc}`$. The question how the dark matter behaves at higher redshifts is deferred to §§3-4. It suffices for now that $`1+z_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is comfortably larger than the redshift of matter-radiation equality (Peebles, 1993): $`1+z_{\mathrm{eq}}=1.8\times 10^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{0.3}h_{50}^2`$.

The interaction makes the gas a superfluid. If one particle is removed from the Bose-Einstein condensate and put into a single-particle state with momentum $`𝐩+𝐪𝐩`$, then the potential energy (1) is replaced by

$$W_{N1}+\frac{N1}{𝒱}\left[\stackrel{~}{U}(0)+\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐪)\right]=W_N+\frac{N1}{𝒱}\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐪).$$

The first term on the left is the interaction of the $`N1`$ particles in the condensate with one another, and the second is the interaction of the condensate with the extracted particle; the piece involving $`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐪)`$ is the exchange energy resulting from symmetrization of the $`N`$-particle wavefunction. I assume that the range of $`U(𝐫)`$ is sufficiently short so that $`\stackrel{~}{U}(𝐪)\stackrel{~}{U}(0)`$. The energetic penalty for removing a particle from the condensate is then approximately equal to the potential energy per particle pair, $`n\stackrel{~}{U}(0)`$. Thus if the condensate streams past an obstacle (an external potential) at speed $`v`$, scattering out of the condensate is impossible if the kinetic energy per particle is less than this energy penalty, *i.e.* if the relative velocity

$$v<\sqrt{2n\stackrel{~}{U}(0)/m}v_{\mathrm{crit}}(n).$$
(5)
Similarly, when two condensates of density $`n_{1,2}`$ and momenta $`𝐩_{1,2}`$ stream through one another, dissipation occurs only if $`|𝐩_1𝐩_2|\sqrt{2}mv_{\mathrm{crit}}(n_1+n_2)`$. This is not to say that the two streams do not interact, but rather that they interact only through the mean-field energy $`n_1n_2\stackrel{~}{U}(0)`$ per unit volume. Inside a core supported mainly by the repulsive interaction \[eq. (3)\], $`v_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is comparable to the virial velocity.

It will be interesting to study whether superfluid dark matter would have any distinctive consequences for galactic dynamics other than the minimum core size. Attention naturally focuses on dissipative processes, such as dynamical friction: *i.e.*, irreversible transfer of energy and momentum between the dark and baryonic matter *via* by their gravitational interaction (cf. Binney & Tremaine, 1987). In collisionless systems, dynamical friction involves upon single-particle resonances (e.g. Tremaine & Weinberg, 1984), much like Landau damping in plasmas. As long as the condition (5) is satisfied, however, a perturbing gravitational potential interacts coherently with the condensate, and all particles have the same resonant frequencies because they share a common macroscopic wavefunction. Thus for example, a rotating galactic bar may experience little drag against the dark matter; this may circumvent an important argument against dense dark halos in barred spirals (Debattista & Sellwood, 1998). The question will require a quantitative analysis, however, because even in the innermost parts parts of the galaxy, not all of the dark matter will be in the condensate.

## 3 Relativistic era

Dark matter with the properties described in §2 arise as quanta of a self-interacting relativistic scalar field $`\varphi `$ with lagrangian density

$$=\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +V(\varphi )\right).$$
(6)
Without loss of generality, the minimum of $`V(\varphi )`$ occurs at $`\varphi =0`$, and $`V(\varphi )=m^2\varphi ^2/2+\text{(higher powers)}`$. Potentials of the form

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\kappa \varphi ^4$$
(7)
are of particular interest, though one might want to add a constant $`V(0)=\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi G`$ to produce a present-day cosmological constant. In lowest-order perturbation theory, the interaction energy of a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N(0)`$ consisting of $`N`$ quanta at rest in volume $`𝒱`$ is, in Minkowski space,

$$\underset{𝒱}{}d^3𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }_N(0)|:\kappa \varphi ^4(𝐫,t):|\mathrm{\Psi }_N(0)=\frac{6\kappa }{(2m)^2}\frac{N(N1)}{𝒱},$$
(8)
and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{U}(0)=3\kappa /m^2`$.

Semiclassical methods give the same result, which is important because they are not restricted to perturbation theory. Thus if $`\varphi `$ were a spatially uniform classical field, then $``$ could be regarded as the lagrangian of a one-dimensional oscillator with an explicit time dependence *via* the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }\text{diag}(1,a^2,a^2,a^2)`$ in an Einstein-de Sitter universe. The momentum conjugate to $`\varphi `$ is $`\varpi =a^3\dot{\varphi }`$, the hamiltonian is

$$=\frac{\varpi ^2}{2a^3}+a^3V(\varphi ),$$

and the action in the oscillator is given by an integral over one complete cycle:

$$=\frac{1}{2\pi }\varpi 𝑑\varphi =\frac{a^3}{\pi \sqrt{2}}\sqrt{a^3V(\varphi )}𝑑\varphi .$$
(9)
Semiclassically, $``$ becomes the number of quanta per comoving volume, $`na^3`$, while $``$ becomes the energy per comoving volume, $`\rho a^3`$. (In this section, $`\rho `$ will be the total energy density, not the rest-mass density $`mn`$ of §2.) The definition (9) makes sense only when the oscillation frequency $`\omega =(/)_a`$ is much larger than the current Hubble expansion rate $`\dot{a}/a`$, in which case $``$ is an adiabatic invariant and hence $`na^3`$ is conserved. By direct expansion of the quadrature (9) to first order in $`\kappa `$ and inversion of series, one has

$``$ $`=`$ $`m+{\displaystyle \frac{3\kappa }{2m^2a^3}}^2+O(\kappa ^2^3)`$
$`\text{hence}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`mn+{\displaystyle \frac{3\kappa }{2m^2}}n^2+O(\kappa ^2n^3),`$ (10)
in agreement with previous results for the nonrelativistic (small-$`n`$) regime. In the opposite limit of large $`n`$, the quadrature (9) is dominated by $`\varphi m/\sqrt{\kappa }`$; neglecting the mass term in $`V(\varphi )`$, one has

$$\rho 3^{4/3}\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{8/3}(1/4)\kappa ^{1/3}n^{4/3}1.377\kappa ^{1/3}n^{4/3},$$
(11)
as if this were a *noninteracting* relativistic gas: $`p=(\rho 𝒱)/𝒱=\rho /3`$. Eq. (9) can be evaluated to an exact expression for $`n(\rho )`$ in terms of complete elliptic integrals.

We are now in a position to estimate the mass $`m`$ and average number density $`\overline{n}(z)`$ of these quanta. From eqs. (3) & (3), it follows that the minimum core radius $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}=3a`$ depends only upon $`m^4/\kappa `$ and fundamental constants, so

$$mc^2=\left(\frac{27\mathrm{}^3c^3\kappa }{4\pi Gr_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}^2}\right)^{1/4}10.7\kappa ^{1/4}r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{kpc}}^{1/2}\text{eV}.$$
(12)
Apart from the dimensionless coupling $`\kappa `$, this is the geometric mean of the Planck mass and the mass whose Compton wavelength is $`2\pi r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}`$. Furthermore, if this form of dark matter dominates the mass density today, then

$$\overline{n}(z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}}{m}(1+z)74.\kappa ^{1/4}r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{kpc}}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{0.3}h_{50}^2(1+z)^3\text{cm}^3.$$
(13)
Prior to the redshift (4) when particles followed the relativistic equation of state (11), they would have contributed a constant fraction of the total energy density, equivalent to an increase

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_\nu 0.14r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{kpc}}^{2/3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{0.3}h_{50}^2)^{4/3}$$
(14)
in the number of effectively massless neutrinos (assuming $`N_\nu 3`$), which is compatible with the constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis (Olive & Thomas, 1999).

## 4 DISCUSSION

We have seen that small-scale structure can be suppressed even if the dark matter is completely cold and bosonic, provided that it has a repulsive interaction. At first blush, the idea seems less natural than the alternatives—warm or degenerate fermionic dark matter—which have been much more widely discussed. I are not aware of a strong particle-physics motivation for matter with these properties.

Nevertheless, in working through the consequences of the basic idea, one is intrigued by some satisfying coincidences.

* From a nonrelativistic viewpoint (§2), the equation of state (2) results from a generic two-body interaction of finite range among massive bosons; relativistically, it emerges from the simplest nonlinear field theory (6)-(7).
* The nonrelativistic equation of state implies a characteristic lengthscale and a minimum dark-halo core radius. If this lengthscale is of order a kiloparsec, as the observations suggest (Hogan & Dalcanton, 2000), then the dark matter began to be nonrelativistic at the lowest possible redshift that growth of structure would permit, *viz.* $`z_{\mathrm{rel}}z_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The result (14) that the energy density in these hypothetical quanta would have been comparable to the energy density in photons at early times is really the same coincidence. Both are independent of $`\kappa `$ and $`m`$, because the relevant combination of these quantities is already fiexed by $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}`$ & $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

With regard to the second point, Peebles (2000) has estimated that the model may be a little too successful at suppressing small-scale power during the linear regime. Density fluctuations that come within the horizon before $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ not only do not grow, but actually decay, until their physical size is larger than the “Jeans length” $`a`$. He finds that this constraint is marginally inconsistent with the quartic model unless $`r_{\mathrm{c},\mathrm{min}}0.5\mathrm{kpc}`$. Pending more precise observations, however, one may be impressed that the model marginally survives this test without appeal to an adjustable parameter.111Peebles notes that slightly sub-quartic potentials $`V(\varphi )=m^2\varphi ^2/2+\kappa |\varphi |^q`$ with $`q3.7`$ would fit this constraint more comfortably. But one would have to sacrifice (i).

I thank David Spergel for provoking my interest in dark matter, Paul Steinhardt for technical advice, and especially Jim Peebles for wide-ranging discussions.