Covariant Coordinate Transformations on Noncommutative Space
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CERN Document Server MIT-CTP-3208 BUHEP-01-29 Covariant Coordinate Transformations on Noncommutative Space R. Jackiw Center for Theoretical Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA 02139-4307, USA S.-Y. Pi Physics Department Boston University Boston MA 02215, USA Abstract We show how to define gauge-covariant coordinate transformations on a noncommut- ing space. The construction uses the Seiberg-Witten equation and generalizes similar results for commuting coordinates. 2 R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi Introduction Coordinate transformations in a gauge theory can be combined with gauge transformations. A \gauge-covariant coordinate transformation" is an especially interesting and useful com- bination of the two. Identified some years ago [1, 2], this combination has now arisen in discussions of noncommutative gauge theories [3]. In our paper we investigate the action of coordinate transformations on noncommutative vector gauge potentials (connections) and tensor gauge fields (curvatures). We establish that a noncommutative version of the gauge-covariant coordinate transformation is particularly appropriate in this context. In the next Section, we review the relevant construction for commutative non-Abelian fields. Then the noncommutative story for U(1) fields is explained in Section 2. 1 Coordinate Transformations for Commuting Gauge Fields Under a coordinate transformation µ µ µ x x0 = x0 (x) (1.1) → a covariant vector field A transforms as Aµ A0 → µ ∂xα Aµ0 (x0)= µ Aα(x) . (1.2) ∂x0 For infinitesimal transformations µ µ µ x0 (x)=x f (x) − µ µ µ µ δf x x0 x = f (x) . (1.3) ≡ − − (1.2) implies α ∂ ∂ α δf Aµ(x) Aµ0 (x) Aµ(x)=f (x) α Aµ(x)+ µ f (x) Aα(x)=Lf Aµ (1.4) ≡ − ∂x ∂x where the last equality defines the Lie derivative, Lf , of a covariant vector with respect to the (infinitesimal) transformation f. The composition law for the transformations is summarized by the commutator algebra µ µ [δf ,δg]x = δhx (1.5) [δf ,δg]Aµ = δhAµ (1.6) Covariant Coordinate Transformations on Noncommutative Space 3 where h is the Lie bracket of f and g: µ α µ α µ h = g ∂αf f ∂αg . (1.7) − Taking A to be a Hermitian non-Abelian potential/connection and defining the field strength/curvature F by Fµν = ∂µAν ∂ν Aµ i[Aµ,Aν] (1.8) − − we find that for any variation δ of A δFµν = DµδAν DµδAµ (1.9) − Dµ = ∂µ i[Aµ, ] . (1.10) − When the variation of A is as in (1.4), δf F becomes the appropriate Lie derivative α α α δf Fµν = f ∂αFµν + ∂µf Fαν + ∂νf Fµα = Lf Fµν . (1.11) Also the algebra (1.5){(1.7) is maintained: [δf ,δg]Fµν = δhFµν . (1.12) This of course is the entirely familiar geometrical story about coordinate transforma- tions. However, one may point out a defect: gauge covariance is not maintained. This is especially evident in (1.11) where the gauge-covariant F responds on the right side with an ordinary derivative, which is not gauge covariant. Further, the response (1.4) of the vector potential is noncovariant. This defect leads to further awkwardness. For example, derivation of conserved quantities associated with symmetries of dynamics by Noether's theorem pro- duces gauge-noninvariant entities that must be \improved" [4]. Also, recognizing symmetric connections and curvatures, i.e., configurations that are invariant under specific coordinate transformations, is obscured by the gauge dependence [5]. The gauge-covariant coordinate transformation is introduced to overcome the above- mentioned defect. Observe that (1.4) may be identically presented as α α α α δf Aµ = f ∂αAµ ∂µAα i[Aα,Aµ] + f ∂µAα + if [Aα,Aµ]+∂µf Aα − − α α = f Fαµ + Dµ(f Aα) . (1.13) The last element is recognized as a gauge transformation1. Thus if we supplement the diffeo- α morphism generated by f with a gauge transformation generated by Λf = f Aα (a freedom − on which we can rely in a gauge theory) we arrive at the gauge-covariant transformation ¯ α δf Aµ = f Fαµ . (1.14) 1 Formula (1.13) in the Abelian case is an instance of the well-known identity Lf = if d + dif ,whereif is the evaluation on the vector f. 4 R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi Moreover, when the above gauge-covariant response of A is used in (1.9), a gauge-covariant response is experienced by F : ¯ α α α δf Fµν = f DαFµν + ∂µf Fαν + ∂ν f Fµα (1.15) which again differs from the conventional Lie derivative expression (1.11) by a gauge trans- formation generated by Λf . We call (1.15) the gauge-covariant Lie derivative. Adoption of the transformation rules (1.14) and (1.15) simplifies the task of finding gauge-invariant conserved quantities [4], of recognizing symmetric configuration [5], and other advantages ensue as well [3]. However, the composition algebra is modified. One finds ¯ ¯ ¯ α β [δf , δg]Aµ = δhAµ + Dµ(g f Fαβ ) (1.16) ¯ ¯ ¯ α β [δf , δg]Fµν = δhFµν + i[g f Fαβ ,Fµν ] . (1.17) α β In both instances the algebra closes up to a gauge transformation generated by g f Fαβ . Thus the gauge-covariant coordinate transformation rules provide a representation up to gauge transformations of the coordinate transformations [6]. 2 Coordinate Transformations for Noncommuting Gauge Fields When coordinates do not commute, the formulas in the previous Section present questions about how factors should be ordered. We shall answer such questions by adopting simplifying Ans¨atze, and by some analysis. To begin, we presume that the relation (1.1) between x0 and x is at most linear; i.e., it α µ is affine. Then ∂x /∂x0 is constant and Eq. (1.2) may be taken over for a noncommuting vector field Aµ b ∂xα Aµ0 (x0)= µ Aα(x) . (2.1) ∂x0 b b (Below we shall find a second reason for restricting the the transformations to be affine.) Next we wish to derive the noncommutative analog to (1.4). We define the ordering of x within Aµ(x) by the Weyl procedure b ip x Aµ(x)= e− · aµ(p) . (2.2) Zp b Here aµ(p) is a classical, c-number function and the ordering of the noncommutative x is Covariant Coordinate Transformations on Noncommutative Space 5 defined by expanding the exponential. It follows that infinitesimally ip(x f) Aµ0 (x0) Aµ0 (x f)= e− − aµ0 (p) ≈ − Zp b b p f p f i · ip x i · = e 2 e− · e 2 aµ0 (p) Zp i ip x i 1+ p f e− · 1+ p f aµ0 (p) ≈ Zp 2 · 2 · 1 α 1 α A0 (x)+ f ∂αAµ + ∂αAµf . (2.3) ≈ µ 2 2 b b b That the second integral equals the first follows from the Baker-Hausdorff formula and the linearity of f in x. As a consequence of the above, we adopt (1.4) to the noncommutative case as 1 α α δf Aµ = 2 f ,∂αAµ ? + ∂µf Aα . (2.4) b b b Henceforth, we view all quantities as commuting c-numbers, but all products are \star" products, defined by i αβ θ ∂α∂0 (O1 ?O2)(x)=e 2 β O1(x)O2(x0) . (2.5) x0 x → In (2.4), the curly bracket is the \star" anticommutator; later we shall also use a square α bracket to denote the \star" commutator: [ , ]?. In the last entry of (2.4), ∂µf is x- independent, hence no star product is needed. Also we restrict the discussion to noncom- mutative U(1) gauge theories, where the potential responds to a gauge transformation as λ iλ iλ 1 Aµ A =(e ) ? (Aµ + i∂µ) ? (e )− → µ b b Aµ + ∂µλb i[Aµ,λ]? = Aµ + Dµλ (2.6) ≈ − Dµ = ∂bµ i[Aµ, ]? b b (2.7) − b and the field strength is constructed so that its response is covariant: Fµν = ∂µAν ∂νAµ i[Aµ, Aν]? (2.8) − − b b b b b λ iλ 1 Fµν (e ) ? Fµν ? (e )− → b Fµνb i[Fµν ,λ]? . (2.9) ≈ − b b Formula (2.4) suffers from noncovariance defects in two ways. First, as in the commu- tative case, the response involves the vector potential and is not gauge covariant. Second, multiplication by x (which is present in f α) is not covariant, in the sense that if Φ is a 6 R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi gauge-covariant quantity, xµ ? Φ is not. In order that covariance be preserved xµ should be µν α supplemented by θ Aν; that is, rather than multiplying by f one should multiply by b α α α βγ f = f + ∂βf θ Aγ . (2.10) There does not seem to be a wayb to remedy these twob defects if one remains with (2.1). But now we adopt the Seiberg-Witten viewpoint [7], and discover a way of constructing a covariant transformation law, which generalizes (1.14) to the noncommutative situation. In the Seiberg-Witten framework, we view A to be a function of θ and of the commuta- tive A (and its derivatives). This comes about becauseb the θ-dependence of Aµ is governed by the Seiberg-Witten equation b ∂Aµ 1 = Aα,∂βAµ + Fβµ (α β) . (2.11) ∂θαβ − 8 ? − ↔ b Since the equation is of the first order,b ab solutionb is determined by specifying an initial condition for A at θ =0,whichisjustA. Although we do not need to know the explicit solution to (2.11),b for definiteness we record it to lowest order in θ: 1 αβ Aµ = Aµ θ Aα ∂βAµ + Fβµ + .