• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
NC time seminar
 

NC time seminar

on

  • 285 views

Modified from previous for different audience.

Modified from previous for different audience.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
285
Views on SlideShare
285
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    NC time seminar NC time seminar Presentation Transcript

    • Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory: Problems of nonlocal time Tapio Salminen University of Helsinki Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory: A Confrontation of Symmetries M. Chaichian, K. Nishijima, TS and A. Tureanu On Noncommutative Time in Quantum Field Theory TS and A. Tureanu
    • Part 1Introduction
    • Quantizing space-time MotivationBlack hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP ) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)
    • Quantizing space-time MotivationBlack hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP ) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)Open string + D-brane theory with an antisymmetric Bij fieldbackground ⇒ noncommutative coordinates in low-energylimit Seiberg and Witten (1999)
    • Quantizing space-time MotivationBlack hole formation in the process of measurement at smalldistances (∼ λP ) ⇒ additional uncertainty relations forcoordinates Doplicher, Fredenhagen and Roberts (1994)Open string + D-brane theory with an antisymmetric Bij fieldbackground ⇒ noncommutative coordinates in low-energylimit Seiberg and Witten (1999) A possible approach to Planck scale physics is QFT in NC space-time
    • Quantizing space-time ImplementationWe generalize the commutation relations from usual quantum mechanics [ˆi , xj ] = 0 , [ˆi , pj ] = 0 x ˆ p ˆ [ˆi , pj ] = i δij x ˆ
    • Quantizing space-time ImplementationWe generalize the commutation relations from usual quantum mechanics [ˆi , xj ] = 0 , [ˆi , pj ] = 0 x ˆ p ˆ [ˆi , pj ] = i δij x ˆ by imposing noncommutativity also between the coordinate operators [ˆµ , x ν ] = 0 x ˆ Snyder (1947); Heisenberg (1954); Golfand (1962)
    • Quantizing space-time ImplementationWe take [ˆµ , x ν ] = iθµν x ˆ and choose the frame where   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =   0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0
    • Quantizing space-time ImplementationWe take [ˆµ , x ν ] = iθµν x ˆ and choose the frame where   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =   0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 θµν does not transform under Lorentz transformations.
    • Does this meanLorentz invarianceis lost?
    • Quantizing space-time ImplementationWe take [ˆµ , x ν ] = iθµν x ˆ and choose the frame where   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =   0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0
    • Quantizing space-time Implementation We take [ˆµ , x ν ] = iθµν x ˆ and choose the frame where   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =   0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 Translational invariance is preserved,but the Lorentz group breaks down to SO(1, 1)xSO(2).
    • Quantizing space-time Implementation We take [ˆµ , x ν ] = iθµν x ˆ and choose the frame where   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =   0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 Translational invariance is preserved,but the Lorentz group breaks down to SO(1, 1)xSO(2). =⇒ No spinor, vector, tensor etc representations.
    • Effects of noncommutativity Moyal -productIn noncommuting space-time the analogue of the action 1 µ 1 λS (cl) [Φ] = d 4x (∂ Φ)(∂µ Φ) − m2 Φ2 − Φ4 2 2 4! can be written using the Moyal -product
    • Effects of noncommutativity Moyal -product In noncommuting space-time the analogue of the action 1 µ 1 λ S (cl) [Φ] = d 4x (∂ Φ)(∂µ Φ) − m2 Φ2 − Φ4 2 2 4! can be written using the Moyal -product 1 µ 1 λS θ [Φ] = d 4x (∂ Φ) (∂µ Φ) − m2 Φ Φ − Φ Φ Φ Φ 2 2 4! ← − → − i ∂ ∂ θµν ∂x (Φ Ψ) (x) ≡ Φ(x)e 2 µ ∂yν Ψ(y ) y =x
    • Effects of noncommutativity The actual symmetryThe action of NC QFT written with the -product, though itviolates Lorentz symmetry, is invariant under the twistedPoincar´ algebra e Chaichian, Kulish, Nishijima and Tureanu (2004) Chaichian, Preˇnajder and Tureanu (2004) s
    • Effects of noncommutativity The actual symmetryThe action of NC QFT written with the -product, though itviolates Lorentz symmetry, is invariant under the twistedPoincar´ algebra e Chaichian, Kulish, Nishijima and Tureanu (2004) Chaichian, Preˇnajder and Tureanu (2004) sThis is achieved by deforming the universal enveloping of thePoincar´ algebra U(P) as a Hopf algebra with the Abelian etwist element F ∈ U(P) ⊗ U(P) i µν F = exp θ Pµ ⊗ Pν 2 Drinfeld (1983) Reshetikhin (1990)
    • Effects of noncommutativity Twisted Poincar´ algebra e Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged [Pµ , Pν ] = 0 [Mµν , Pα ] = −i(ηµα Pν − ηνα Pµ )[Mµν , Mαβ ] = −i(ηµα Mνβ − ηµβ Mνα − ηνα Mµβ + ηνβ Mµα )
    • Effects of noncommutativity Twisted Poincar´ algebra e Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged [Pµ , Pν ] = 0 [Mµν , Pα ] = −i(ηµα Pν − ηνα Pµ )[Mµν , Mαβ ] = −i(ηµα Mνβ − ηµβ Mνα − ηνα Mµβ + ηνβ Mµα ) But we change the coproduct (Leibniz rule) ∆0 (Y ) = Y ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Y , Y ∈ P ∆0 (Y ) → ∆t (Y ) = F∆0 (Y )F −1
    • Effects of noncommutativity Twisted Poincar´ algebra e Effectively, the commutation relations are unchanged [Pµ , Pν ] = 0 [Mµν , Pα ] = −i(ηµα Pν − ηνα Pµ )[Mµν , Mαβ ] = −i(ηµα Mνβ − ηµβ Mνα − ηνα Mµβ + ηνβ Mµα ) But we change the coproduct (Leibniz rule) ∆0 (Y ) = Y ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Y , Y ∈ P ∆0 (Y ) → ∆t (Y ) = F∆0 (Y )F −1 and deform the multiplication m ◦ (φ ⊗ ψ) = φψ → m ◦ F −1 (φ ⊗ ψ) ≡ φ ψ
    • Then what happensto representations,causality etc?
    • Effects of noncommutativity Twisted Poincar´ algebra eThe representation content is identical to the correspondingcommutative theory with usual Poincar´ symmetry =⇒ erepresentations (fields) are classified according to theirMASS and SPIN
    • Effects of noncommutativity Twisted Poincar´ algebra eThe representation content is identical to the correspondingcommutative theory with usual Poincar´ symmetry =⇒ erepresentations (fields) are classified according to theirMASS and SPINBut the coproducts of Lorentz algebra generators change: ∆t (Pµ ) = ∆0 (Pµ ) = Pµ ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Pµ∆t (Mµν ) = Mµν ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ Mµν 1 − θαβ [(ηαµ Pν − ηαν Pµ ) ⊗ Pβ + Pα ⊗ (ηβµ Pν − ηβν Pµ )] 2
    • Effects of noncommutativity CausalitySO(1, 3) Minkowski 1908
    • Effects of noncommutativity Causality =⇒SO(1, 3) O(1, 1)xSO(2) Minkowski 1908 ´ Alvarez-Gaum´ et al. 2000 e
    • Part 2Noncommutative time and unitarity
    • Noncommutative time String theory limitsUntil now we have had all coordinates noncommutative   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0
    • Noncommutative time String theory limits The low-energy limit of string theory with a background Bij field gives   0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0This is referred to as space-like noncommutativity.
    • Noncommutative time String theory limitsThis string theory is S-dual to another string theory with an Eij background. There we would have   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0 The so called time-like noncommutativity.
    • Noncommutative time String theory limitsThis string theory is S-dual to another string theory with an Eij background. There we would have   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0 The so called time-like noncommutativity.However, it has been shown that the low-energy limit does not exist for these theories. Seiberg and Witten (1999)
    • Could you please stop talking about strings?
    • Noncommutative time UnitarityWe may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0
    • Noncommutative time UnitarityWe may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 But in the interaction picture it has been shown that perturbative unitarity requires 2 2 2 2 θ (p0 − p1 ) + θ(p2 + p3 ) > 0
    • Noncommutative time Unitarity We may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 But in the interaction picture it has been shown that perturbative unitarity requires 2 2 2 2 θ (p0 − p1 ) + θ(p2 + p3 ) > 0Time-like noncommutativity → violation of unitarity Gomis and Mehen (2000)
    • Noncommutative time UnitarityWe may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 → Forget about the interaction picture and go to the Heisenberg picture.
    • Noncommutative time Unitarity We may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 → Forget about the interaction picture and go to the Heisenberg picture.However, using the Yang-Feldman approach one can show: S † ψin (x)S = ψout (x) + g 4 (· · · ) = ψout (x) Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
    • Noncommutative time Unitarity We may still consider quantum field theories with   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 → Forget about the interaction picture and go to the Heisenberg picture.However, using the Yang-Feldman approach one can show: There is no unitary S-matrix. Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
    • Part 3Tomonaga-Schwinger equation & causality
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation Conventions We consider space-like noncommutativity   0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  θµν =  0 0 0 θ   0 0 −θ 0
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation Conventions We consider space-like noncommutativity   0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  θµν =  0 0 0 θ   0 0 −θ 0 and use the notation x µ = (˜, a), y µ = (˜ , b) x y x = (x 0 , x 1 ), y = (y 0 , y 1 ) ˜ ˜ a = (x 2 , x 3 ), b = (y 2 , y 3 )
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation Conventions We use the integral representation of the -product (f g )(x) = d D y d D z K(x; y , z)f (y )g (z) 1K(x; y , z) = exp[−2i(xθ−1 y + y θ−1 z + zθ−1 x)] πD det θ
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation Conventions We use the integral representation of the -product (f g )(x) = d D y d D z K(x; y , z)f (y )g (z) 1 K(x; y , z) = exp[−2i(xθ−1 y + y θ−1 z + zθ−1 x)] πD det θIn our case the invertible part of θ is the 2x2 submatrix and thus(f1 f2 · · · fn )(x) = da1 da2 · · ·dan K(a; a1 , · · · , an )f1 (˜, a1 )f2 (˜, a2 ) · · · fn (˜, an ) x x x
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation In commutative theoryGeneralizing the Schr¨dinger equation in the interaction picture to o incorporate arbitrary Cauchy surfaces, we get the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation δ i Ψ[σ] = Hint (x)Ψ[σ] δσ(x)
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation In commutative theoryGeneralizing the Schr¨dinger equation in the interaction picture to o incorporate arbitrary Cauchy surfaces, we get the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation δ i Ψ[σ] = Hint (x)Ψ[σ] δσ(x) A necessary condition to ensure the existence of solutions is [Hint (x), Hint (x )] = 0 , with x and x on the space-like surface σ.
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation In noncommutative theory Moving on to NC space-time we get δ i Ψ[C]= Hint (x) Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n Ψ[C] δC The existence of solutions requires
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation In noncommutative theory Moving on to NC space-time we get δ i Ψ[C]= Hint (x) Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n Ψ[C] δC The existence of solutions requires [Hint (x) , Hint (y ) ]= 0 , for x, y ∈ C , which can be written as
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation In noncommutative theory Moving on to NC space-time we get δ i Ψ[C]= Hint (x) Ψ[C] = λ[φ(x)]n Ψ[C] δC The existence of solutions requires [Hint (x) , Hint (y ) ]= 0 , for x, y ∈ C , which can be written as(φ . . . φ)(˜, a), (φ . . . φ)(˜ , b) = x y n n = dai K(a; a1 , · · · , an ) dbi K(b; b1 , · · · , bn ) i=1 i=1 × φ(˜, a1 ) . . . φ(˜, an ), φ(˜ , b1 ) . . . φ(˜ , bn ) = 0 x x y y
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionThe commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like φ(˜, a1 ) . . . φ(˜, an−1 )φ(˜ , b1 ) . . . φ(˜ , bn−1 ) φ(˜, an ), φ(˜ , bn ) x x y y x y
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionThe commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like φ(˜, a1 ) . . . φ(˜, an−1 )φ(˜ , b1 ) . . . φ(˜ , bn−1 ) φ(˜, an ), φ(˜ , bn ) x x y y x y All products of fields being independent, the necessary condition is φ(˜, ai ), φ(˜ , bj ) = 0 x y
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionThe commutators of products of fields decompose into factors like φ(˜, a1 ) . . . φ(˜, an−1 )φ(˜ , b1 ) . . . φ(˜ , bn−1 ) φ(˜, an ), φ(˜ , bn ) x x y y x y All products of fields being independent, the necessary condition is φ(˜, ai ), φ(˜ , bj ) = 0 x ySince fields in the interaction picture satisfy free-field equations, this is satisfied outside the mutual light-cone: (x 0 − y 0 )2 − (x 1 − y 1 )2 − (ai2 − bj2 ) − (ai3 − bj3 )2 < 0
    • All the hard work andwe end up withthe light-cone?
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionHowever, since a and b are integration variables in the range 0 ≤ (ai2 − bj2 )2 + (ai3 − bj3 )2 < ∞ the causality condition is not in fact
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionHowever, since a and b are integration variables in the range 0 ≤ (ai2 − bj2 )2 + (ai3 − bj3 )2 < ∞ the causality condition is not in fact (x 0 − y 0 )2 − (x 1 − y 1 )2 − (ai2 − bj2 ) − (ai3 − bj3 )2 < 0
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionHowever, since a and b are integration variables in the range 0 ≤ (ai2 − bj2 )2 + (ai3 − bj3 )2 < ∞ the necessary condition becomes
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionHowever, since a and b are integration variables in the range 0 ≤ (ai2 − bj2 )2 + (ai3 − bj3 )2 < ∞ the necessary condition becomes (x 0 − y 0 )2 − (x 1 − y 1 )2 < 0
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality condition However, since a and b are integration variables in the range 0 ≤ (ai2 − bj2 )2 + (ai3 − bj3 )2 < ∞ the necessary condition becomes (x 0 − y 0 )2 − (x 1 − y 1 )2 < 0This is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under the stability group of θµν ,O(1, 1) × SO(2). Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality conditionThis is the light-wedge causality condition, invariant under the stability group of θµν ,O(1, 1) × SO(2). Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality condition If we had taken   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality condition If we had taken   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 we would change(x 0 − y 0 )2 − (x 1 − y 1 )2 − (ai2 − bj2 ) − (ai3 − bj3 )2 < 0 Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality condition If we had taken   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 into(ai0 − bj0 )2 − (ai1 − bj1 )2 −(ai2 − bj2 ) − (ai3 − bj3 )2 < 0 Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008) Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
    • Tomonaga-Schwinger equation The causality condition If we had taken   0 θ 0 0  −θ 0 0 0  θµν =  0  0 0 θ  0 0 −θ 0 into(ai0 − bj0 )2 − (ai1 − bj1 )2 −(ai2 − bj2 ) − (ai3 − bj3 )2 < 0 → No solution to the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation for any x and y . Salminen and Tureanu (2010)
    • In Sum
    • In SumRequiring solutions to theTomonaga-Schwinger eq. → light-wedge causality.
    • In SumRequiring solutions to theTomonaga-Schwinger eq. → light-wedge causality. Unitarity & causality violated in theories with noncommutative time.
    • Thank you Photo credits everystockphoto.com“Meet Charlotte” @ slideshare.net
    • Extra material Confrontation of symmetries
    • Confrontation of symmetries Twisted Poincar´ algebra eWriting down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 = 0):
    • Confrontation of symmetries Twisted Poincar´ algebra eWriting down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 = 0): ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 ∆t (M23 ) = ∆0 (M23 ) = M23 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M23 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2 θ ∆t (M03 ) = ∆0 (M03 ) − (P0 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P0 ) 2 θ ∆t (M12 ) = ∆0 (M12 ) + (P1 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P1 ) 2 θ ∆t (M13 ) = ∆0 (M13 ) − (P1 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P1 ) 2
    • Confrontation of symmetries Twisted Poincar´ algebra eWriting down the coproducts of Lorentz generators (only θ23 = 0): ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 ∆t (M23 ) = ∆0 (M23 ) = M23 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M23 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2 θ ∆t (M03 ) = ∆0 (M03 ) − (P0 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P0 ) 2 θ ∆t (M12 ) = ∆0 (M12 ) + (P1 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P1 ) 2 θ ∆t (M13 ) = ∆0 (M13 ) − (P1 ⊗ P2 − P2 ⊗ P1 ) 2 ⇒ A hint of O(1, 1)xSO(2) invariance.
    • Confrontation of symmetries Hopf dual algebraThe coproducts induce commutation relations in the dual algebra Fθ (G ): [aµ , aν ] = iθµν − iΛµ Λν θαβ α β [Λµ , aα ] = [Λµ , Λν ] = 0; ν α β Λµ , aµ ∈ Fθ (G ) α αP αβ M aµ e ia α = aµ ; Λµ e iω ν αβ = (Λαβ (ω))µ ν
    • Confrontation of symmetries Hopf dual algebra The coproducts induce commutation relations in the dual algebra Fθ (G ): [aµ , aν ] = iθµν − iΛµ Λν θαβ α β [Λµ , aα ] = [Λµ , Λν ] = 0; ν α β Λµ , aµ ∈ Fθ (G ) α αP αβ M aµ e ia α = aµ ; Λµ e iω ν αβ = (Λαβ (ω))µ νCoordinates change by coaction, but [xµ , xν ] = iθµν is preserved (x )µ = δ(x µ ) = Λµ ⊗ x α + aµ ⊗ 1 α [xµ , xν ]= iθµν
    • Confrontation of symmetries A simple example 0 1 cosh α sinh α 0 0 B sinh α cosh α 0 0 CΛ01 =@ B C 0 0 1 0 A 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 B 0 1 0 0 CΛ23 =B @ 0 C 0 cos γ sin γ A 0 0 − sin γ cos γ 0 1 1 0 0 0 B 0 cos β sin β 0 CΛ12 =@ B C 0 − sin β cos β 0 A 0 0 0 1
    • Confrontation of symmetries A simple example 0 1 cosh α sinh α 0 0Λ01 B sinh α =@ B cosh α 0 0 C C [aµ , aν ] = 0 0 0 1 0 A 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 B 0 1 0 0 C [aµ , aν ] = 0Λ23 =B @ 0 C 0 cos γ sin γ A 0 0 − sin γ cos γ 0 1 1 0 0 0 B 0 cos β sin β 0 C [a2 , a3 ] = iθ(1 − cos β)Λ12 =@ B C 0 − sin β cos β 0 A [a1 , a3 ] = −iθ sin β 0 0 0 1
    • By imposing a Lorentz transformationwe get accompanying noncommuting translationsshowing up as the internal mechanism by whichthe twisted Poincar´ symmetry keeps the ecommutator [xµ , xν ] = iθµν invariant
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in commutative spaceA commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentzrepresentation and is a function of x µ ∈ R1,3
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in commutative spaceA commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentzrepresentation and is a function of x µ ∈ R1,3It is an element of C ∞ (R1,3 ) ⊗ V , where V is aLorentz-module. The elements are defined as: Φ= fi ⊗ vi , fi ∈ C ∞ (R1,3 ) , vi ∈ V i
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in commutative space A commutative relativistic field carries a Lorentz representation and is a function of x µ ∈ R1,3 It is an element of C ∞ (R1,3 ) ⊗ V , where V is a Lorentz-module. The elements are defined as: Φ= fi ⊗ vi , fi ∈ C ∞ (R1,3 ) , vi ∈ V i⇒ Action of Lorentz generators on a field requires the coproduct Chaichian, Kulish, Tureanu, Zhang and Zhang (2007)
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in noncommutative spaceIn NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example: ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in noncommutative spaceIn NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example: ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2If V is a Lorentz module in Φ = i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on Φ
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in noncommutative spaceIn NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example: ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2If V is a Lorentz module in Φ = i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on ΦOur proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008)
    • Theory of induced representations Fields in noncommutative spaceIn NC space we need the twisted coproduct, for example: ∆t (M01 ) = ∆0 (M01 ) = M01 ⊗ 1 + 1 ⊗ M01 θ ∆t (M02 ) = ∆0 (M02 ) + (P0 ⊗ P3 − P3 ⊗ P0 ) 2If V is a Lorentz module in Φ = i fi ⊗ vi , vi ∈ V , the Pµ ofM02 cannot act on ΦOur proposition: Retain V as a Lorentz-module but forbid allthe transformations requiring the action of Pµ on vi Chaichian, Nishijima, Salminen and Tureanu (2008) ⇒ Only transformations of O(1, 1) × SO(2) allowed
    • The fields on NC space-time live in C ∞ (R1,1 × R2 ) ⊗ V ,thus carrying representations of the full Lorentz group, but admitting only the action of the generators of the stability group of θµν , i.e. O(1, 1) × SO(2)