# 1 The model

## 1 The model

Gauge theories on noncommutative spaces  are believed to be relevant to the quantization of D-branes in background $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ fields . The structure of such theories is similar to that of ordinary gauge theory except that the usual product of fields is replaced by a “star product” defined by

$`\varphi \chi =\varphi (X)\mathrm{exp}\{i\theta ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{}{X^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^\nu }}\}\chi (Y)`$ (1)   
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric constant tensor. The effect of such a modification is reflected in the momentum space vertices of the theory by factors of the form

$`\mathrm{exp}[i\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu ]e^{ipq}`$ (2)   
The purpose of this paper is to show how these factors arise in an elementary way. We will begin by describing a simple quantum mechanical system which is fundamental to our construction. We then consider string theory in the presence of a D3-brane and a constant large $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field. In the light cone frame the first quantized string is described by our elementary model. We use the model to compute the string splitting vertex and show how the factors in eq. (2) emerge. We then turn to the structure of the perturbation series for the non-commutative theory in infinite flat space. We find that planar diagrams with any number of loops are identical to their commutative counterparts apart from trivial external line phase factors.

Compactification, which can lead to entirely new features, is not studied in this paper.

### 1.1 The model at classical level

Consider a pair of unit charges of opposite sign in a magnetic field $`B`$ in the regime where the Coulomb and the radiation terms are negligible. The coordinates of the charges are $`\stackrel{}{x_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x_2}`$ or in component form $`x_1^i`$ and $`x_2^i`$. The Lagrangian is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left((\dot{x}_1)^2+(\dot{x}_2)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}ϵ_{ij}\left(\dot{x}_1^ix_1^j\dot{x}_2^ix_2^j\right){\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(x_1x_2)^2`$ (3)   
where the first term is the kinetic energy of the charges, the second term is their interaction with the magnetic field and the last term is an harmonic potential between the charges.

In what follows we will be interested in the limit in which the first term can be ignored. This is typically the case if $`B`$ is so large that the available energy is insufficient to excite higher Landau levels . Thus we will focus on the simplified Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}ϵ_{ij}\left(\dot{x}_1^ix_1^j\dot{x}_2^ix_2^j\right){\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(x_1x_2)^2`$ (4)   
Let us first discuss the classical system. The canonical momenta are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}p_i^1={\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{x}_1^i}}=Bϵ_{ij}x_1^j\hfill \\ p_i^2=Bϵ_{ij}x_2^j\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)   
Let us define center of mass and relative coordinates $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$`\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{X}=(\stackrel{}{x_1}+\stackrel{}{x_2})/2\hfill \\ \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(\stackrel{}{x_1}\stackrel{}{x_2})/2\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)   
The Lagrangian is

$`=m((\dot{X})^2+(\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }})^2)+2Bϵ_{ij}\dot{X}^i\mathrm{\Delta }^j2K(\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ (11)   
Dropping the kinetic terms gives

$`=2Bϵ_{ij}\dot{X}^i\mathrm{\Delta }^j2K(\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ (12)   
The momentum conjugate to $`X`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{X}^i}}=2Bϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }^j=P_i`$ (13)   
This is the center of mass momentum.

Finally, the Hamiltonian is

$`=2K(\mathrm{\Delta })^2=2K\left({\displaystyle \frac{P}{2B}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{K}{2B^2}}P^2`$ (14)   
This is the hamiltonian of a nonrelativistic particle with mass

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{K}}`$ (15)   
Evidently the composite system of opposite charges moves like a galileian particle of mass $`M`$. What is unusual is that the spatial extension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the system is related to its momentum so that the size grows linearly with $`P`$ according to eq. (13). How does this growth with momentum effect the interactions of the composite? Let’s suppose charge 1 interacts locally with an “impurity” centered at the origin. The interaction has the form

$`V(\stackrel{}{x}_1)=\lambda \delta (\stackrel{}{x}_1)`$ (16)   
In terms of $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ this becomes

$`V=\lambda \delta (X+\mathrm{\Delta })=\lambda \delta (X^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2B}}ϵ^{ij}P_j)`$ (17)   
Note that the interaction in terms of the center of mass coordinate is nonlocal in a particular way. The interaction point is shifted by a momentum dependent amount. This is the origin of the peculiar momentum dependent phases that appear in interaction vertices on the noncommutative plane. More generally, if particle 1 sees a potential $`V(x_1)`$ the interaction becomes

$`V\left(X{\displaystyle \frac{ϵP}{2B}}\right)`$ (18)   
### 1.2 Quantum level

The main problem in quantizing the system is to correctly define expressions like (18) which in general have factor ordering and other quantum ambiguities. In order to define them, let us assume that $`V`$ can be expressed as a Fourier transform

$`V(x)={\displaystyle 𝑑q\stackrel{~}{V}(q)e^{iqx}}`$ (19)   
We can then formally write

$`V(X{\displaystyle \frac{ϵP}{2B}})={\displaystyle 𝑑q\stackrel{~}{V}(q)e^{iq(X\frac{ϵP}{2B})}}`$ (20)   
The factor ordering is not ambiguous because

$`[q_iX^i,q_lϵ^{lj}P_j]=q_iq_lϵ^{lj}[X^iP_j]=0`$ (21)   
Consider the matrix element

$`k|\mathrm{exp}[iq(X{\displaystyle \frac{ϵp}{2B}})]|l`$ (22)   
where $`k|`$ and $`|l`$ are momentum eigenvectors. Using eq.(17) we can write this as

$`k|\mathrm{exp}[iqX]\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle \frac{qϵP}{2B}}]|l`$ (23)   
Since $`|l`$ is an eigenvector of $`P`$ this becomes

$`k|\mathrm{exp}[iqX]|l\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle \frac{qϵl}{2B}}]=\delta (kql)\mathrm{exp}[iqϵl/2B]`$ (24)   
The phase factor is the usual Moyal bracket phase that is ubiquitous in noncommutative geometry.

## 2 String theory in magnetic fields

Let us consider bosonic string theory in the presence of a D3-brane. The coordinates of the brane are $`x^0`$, $`x^1`$, $`x^2`$, $`x^3`$. The remaining coordinates will play no role. We will also assume a background antisymmetric tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ in the 1,2 direction. We will study the open string sector with string ends attached to the D3-brane in the light cone frame.

Define

$`x^\pm =x^0\pm x^3`$ (25)   
and make the usual light cone choice of world sheet time

$`\tau =x^+`$ (26)   
The string action is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _L^L}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{\tau }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{\sigma }}\right)^2+B_{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^i}{\tau }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^j}{\sigma }}\right)\right]`$ (27)   
We have numerically fixed $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the parameter $`L`$ can be identified with $`P_{}`$, the momentum conjugate to $`x_{}`$.

In what follows we will be interested in the limit $`B\mathrm{}`$. Let us make the following rescalings

$`\{\begin{array}{c}x^i={\displaystyle \frac{y^i}{\sqrt{B}}}\hfill \\ \tau =tB\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)   
Then

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _L^L}𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{t}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{\sigma }}\right)^2+ϵ_{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^i}{t}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^j}{\sigma }}\right)\right]`$ (31)   
Now for $`B\mathrm{}`$ we can drop the first term. Furthermore by an integration by parts and up to a total time derivative the last term can be written

$`ϵ_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{t}}y_j|_L^L`$ (32)   
Thus

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \left(\frac{y}{\sigma }\right)^2}+ϵ_{ij}\dot{y_i}y_j|_L^L`$ (33)   
Since for $`\sigma \pm L`$ the time derivatives of $`y`$ do not appear in $`S`$ we may trivially integrate them out. The solution of the classical equation of motion is

$`y(\sigma )=y+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{L}}`$ (34)   
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`y`$ independent of $`\sigma `$. The resulting action is

$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{L}}+\dot{y}ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\right]`$ (35)   
Evidently, the action is of the same form as the model in section 1 with $`B`$ and $`K`$ rescaled.

## 3 The interaction vertex

Interactions in light cone string theory are represented by string splitting and joining. Consider two incoming strings with momenta $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and center of mass positions $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$. If their endpoints coincide they can join to form a third string with momentum $`p_3`$. The constraints on the endpoints are summarized by the overlap $`\delta `$ function

$`\nu =\delta ((y_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1)(y_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_2))\delta ((y_2\mathrm{\Delta }_2)(y_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_3))\delta ((y_3\mathrm{\Delta }_3)(y_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_1))`$ (36)   
From eq. (29) we see that the center of mass momentum is related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by

$`P=ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (37)   
Inserting this in eq. (30) gives the vertex

$`\nu =\delta (y_1y_2+(ϵp_1+ϵp_2))\delta (y_2y_3+(ϵp_2+ϵp_3))\delta (y_3y_1+(ϵp_3+ϵp_1))`$ (38)   
To get the vertex in momentum space multiply by $`e^{i(p_1y_1+p_2y_2+p_3y_3)}`$ and integrate over $`y`$. This yields

$`\nu =e^{i(p_1ϵp_2)}\delta (p_1+p_2+p_3)`$ (39)   
This is the usual form of the vertex in noncommutative field theory. We have scaled the “transverse” coordinates $`x^1`$, $`x^2`$ (but not $`x^0`$, $`x^3`$) and momenta so that the $`B`$ field does not appear in the vertex. If we go back to the original units the phases in (39) will be proportional to $`1/B`$.

Evidently a quantum of noncommutative Yang Mills theory may be thought of as a straight string connecting two opposite charges. The separation vector $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is perpendicular to the direction of motion $`P`$.

Now consider the geometry of the 3-body vertex. The string endpoints $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$ define a triangle with sides

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_1=(uv)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_2=(vw)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_3=(wu)\end{array}`$ (43)   
and the three momenta are perpendicular to the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is straightforward to see that the phase

$`ϵ_{ij}p_iq_j/Bpq`$ (44)   
is just the area of the triangle times $`B`$. In other words, it is the magnetic flux through the triangle. Note that it can be of either sign.

More generally, we may consider a Feynman tree diagram constructed from such vertices. For example consider figure (1a). The overall phase is the total flux through the triangles A, B and C. In fact we can simplify this by shrinking the internal propagators to get figure (1b). Thus the phase is the flux through a polygon formed from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s of the external lines. The phase depends only on the momenta of the external lines and their cyclic order.

## 4 Structure of Perturbation Theory

In this section we will consider the effects of the Moyal phases on the structure of Feynman amplitudes in noncommutative Yang Mills theory. Let us first review the diagram rules for ordinary Yang Mills theory in ’t Hooft double-line representation.

The gauge propagator can be represented as a double line as if the gauge boson were a quark-antiquark pair as in figure (2). Each gluon is equipped with a pair of gauge indices $`i,j`$, a momentum $`p`$ and a polarization $`\epsilon `$ satisfying $`\epsilon p=\epsilon ^\mu p_\mu =0`$.

The vertex describing 3-gauge boson interaction is shown in figure (3). In addition to Kronecker $`\delta `$ for the gauge indices and momentum $`\delta `$ functions the vertex contains the factor

$`(\epsilon _1p_3+\epsilon _3p_2+\epsilon _2p_1)`$ (45)   
The factor is antisymmetric under interchange of any pair and so it must be accompanied by an antisymmetric function of the gauge indices. For a purely abelian theory the vertex vanishes when symmetrized.

Now we add the new factor coming from the Moyal bracket. This factor is

$`e^{ip_1p_2}=e^{ip_2p_3}=e^{ip_3p_1}`$ (46)   
where $`p_ap_b`$ indicates an antisymmetric product

$`\begin{array}{c}pq=p_\mu q_\nu \theta ^{\mu \nu }\\ \theta ^{\mu \nu }=\theta ^{\nu \mu }\end{array}`$ (49)   
Because these factors are not symmetric under interchange of particles, the vertex no longer vanishes when Bose symmetrized even for the Abelian theory.

The phase factors satisfy an important identity. Let us consider the phase factors that accompany a given diagram. In fact from now on a diagram will indicate only the phase factor from the product of vertices. Now consider the diagram in figure (4a). It is given by

$`e^{i(p_1p_2)}e^{i(p_1+p_2)p_3}=e^{i(p_1p_2+p_2p_3+p_1p_3)}`$ (50)   
On the other hand the dual diagram figure (4b) is given by $`e^{i(p_1(p_2+p_3)+p_2p_3)}`$. It is identical to the previous diagram. Thus the Moyal phases satisfy old fashioned “channel duality”. This conclusion is also obvious from the “flux through polygon” construction of the previous section.

In what follows, a “duality move” will refer to a replacement of a diagram such as in figure (4a) by the dual diagram in figure (4b).

Now consider any planar diagram with $`L`$ loops. By a series of “duality moves” it can be brought to the form indicated in figure (5) consisting of a tree with $`L`$ simple one-loop tadpoles.

Let us consider the tadpole, figure (6). The phase factor is just $`e^{iqq}=1`$. Thus the loop contributes nothing to the phase and the net effect of the Moyal factors is exactly that of the tree diagram. In fact all trees contributing to a given topology have the same phase, which is a function only of the external momentum. The result is that for planar diagrams the Moyal phases do not affect the Feynman integrations at all. In particular the planar diagrams have exactly the same divergences as in the commutative theory. Evidently in the large N limit noncommutative Yang Mills = ordinary Yang Mills.

On the other hand, divergences that occur in nonplanar diagrams can be regulated by the phase factors. For example consider the nonplanar diagram in figure (7). The Moyal phase for the diagram is

$`e^{ipq}e^{ipq}=e^{2ipq}`$ (51)   
and does not cancel. It is not difficult to see that such oscillating phases will regulate divergent diagrams and make them finite, unless the diagram contains divergent planar subdiagrams. Thus it seems that the leading high momentum behavior of the theory is controlled by the planar diagrams. Among other things it means that in this region the $`1/N`$ corrections to the ’t Hooft limit must vanish.

An interesting question arises if we study the theory on a torus of finite size . For an ordinary local field theory high momentum behavior basically corresponds to small distance behavior. For this reason we expect the high momentum behavior on a torus to be identical to that in infinite space once the momentum becomes much larger than the inverse size of the torus. However in the noncommutative case the story is more interesting. We have seen that high momentum in the 1,2 plane is associated with $`large`$ distances in the perpendicular direction. Most likely this means that the finite torus generically behaves very differently at high momentum than the infinite plane.

Indeed there is an exception to the rule that nonplanar diagrams are finite. If a line with a nonplanar self energy insertion such as in figure (7) happens to have vanishing momentum in the 1,2 plane then according to eq. (40) its phase will vanish. Thus for a set of measure zero, the nonplanar self energy diagram can diverge. This presumably leads to no divergences in infinite space when the line in question is integrated over. The situation could be different for compact noncommutative geometries since integrals over momenta are replaced by sums .

The fact that the large N limit is essentially the same for noncommutative and ordinary Yang Mills theories implies that in the AdS/CFT correspondence the introduction of noncommutative geometry does not change the thermodynamics of the theory . It may also be connected to the fact that in the matrix theory construction of Connes-Douglas-Schwartz and Douglas-Hull, the large N limit effectively decompactifies $`X^{11}`$ and should therefore eliminate dependence on the 3-form potential. However the argument is not straightforward since in matrix theory we are not usually in the ’t Hooft limit.

## Acknowledgements

L. S. would like to thank Steve Shenker for discussion.