text:
# On the Meaning of the String-Inspired Noncommutativity and its Implications

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been a great interest in noncommutative theories of the canonical type. They are characterized by the following commutation relation

$$[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric constant tensor function of the coordinates.

During the latest years, a great deal of work and effort has been done in the direction of understanding this kind of noncommutativity and its implications in the context of quantum field theory and quantum mechanics (for good reviews see ). Part of the interest in these theories is due to the fact that noncommutativity is present in certain models of string theory , and M-theory . Another motivation comes from field theory itself. Semi-classical arguments, combining General Relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, also lead to noncommutative field theory . The study of these theories gives us the opportunity to understand interesting phenomena, like nonlocality and IR/UV mixing , new physics at very short distances , and possible implications of Lorentz violation .

But the interest in noncommutativity goes beyond formal manipulations. There are several lines of investigation on the possible phenomenology associated to the canonical noncommutativity, from cosmology and high energy scattering experiments to low energy precision tests .

The articles in this emerging branch of physics are growing up very fast. By carefully analyzing the literature in the area, it is possible to identify two primary research lines in canonical noncommutative quantum field theory. The first one presupposes a noncommutative spacetime from the beginning, being an intrinsic approach. It is closely related to the ideas of Connes noncommutative geometry . This is the line followed, for example, by Chaichian et all , Cho et all  and Wulkenhaar .

The second research line has its roots in a low-energy approximation of string theory in the presence of a strong background $`B`$ field . This is the approach assumed, for example, in  and followers. It is also the one adopted in this work. Therefore, we will refer to the noncommutative quantum field theory (NCQFT) and the associated noncommutative quantum mechanics (NCQM) always adopting this point of view.

The implications of considering noncommutativity as property of the spacetime have been a subject under discussion. As it can be seen in , NCQFT is supported by the use of the Feynman graph approach for its calculations. It was argued in , for example, that such kind of procedure would not be expected from a theory defined on a true noncommutative spacetime, which not a manifold, at least in the usual sense. At this point, it is important to take into account that NCQFT comes from string theory, which is based on a continuous manifold structure. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable to interpret it as commutative as long as spacetime is concerned. This naturally leads to the formulation of a question: what kind of noncommutativity can be behind NCQFT, if not the one of spacetime?

The first goal of this work is to present an answer to the question above, proposing an alternative interpretation for the string-inspired noncommutativity and discussing its implications for NCQFT and NCQM. As we shall see later, one of these implications is the need of reinterpreting the meaning of the wavefunction. Since the interpretation for the noncommutativity proposed in this work is entirely new, we feel the necessity to analyze more carefully the NCQFT and NCQM formulations until now available in the literature. This is quite related to our second goal, which is to explore the Schrödinger formulation of NCQFT and NCQM, whose advantages to discuss some fundamental questions, like the quantum/classical and noncommutative/commutative passages, will be underlined in our exposition.

The organization of this work is the following. In Section 2, we give a new interpretation for the meaning of the noncommutativity originated in the string theory context by tracing an intuitive parallel with the Landau problem. The Third Section deals with NCQFT in the Schrödinger picture and the discussion of the non-triviality to achieve its commutative and classical limits. The remaining of the work is on NCQM. In the Fourth Section, we show how to construct a consistent interpretation for NCQM in the Schrödinger formulation, a problem still now open in the literature. We also apply the method proposed in Section 3 to carry out an analysis of the formal structure of quantum mechanics and to determine the conditions for the achievement of its classical and commutative limits. Two simple examples of application are given in Section 5 to illustrate how the ideas proposed here work in concrete models. We end up in Section 6 with a general discussion and outlook.

## 2  The Meaning of Stringy Noncommutativity

Let us discuss the origin of the noncommutativity relation (1) and its interpretation. For simplicity, we will restrict our work to the case where $`\theta ^{oi}=0`$. To grasp some intuition, we will appeal for the similarity between the derivation of the canonical noncommutativity in the stringy context and the one present in the Landau problem when a system is projected onto its lowest Landau level . Though being exhaustively explored in the literature, this analogy has always been centered in what is the origin of the noncommutativity, and not in what it is about.

We start by analyzing the Landau problem. Consider a nonrelativistic particle moving on the $`xy`$ plane in the presence of a constant magnetic$`B`$ field pointing in the $`z`$-direction. The classical Lagrangian of the system is

$$L=\frac{1}{2}m\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{x}}^2+e\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{x}}\stackrel{}{A}\text{ ,}$$
(2)
where $`e`$ is the particle charge, $`m`$ is the particle mass, and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential. We are considering units where $`c=1.`$ The quantum Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2m}\widehat{\pi }^i\widehat{\pi }^i,$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\pi }^i=m\stackrel{}{\widehat{x}^i}=\widehat{p}^ie\widehat{A}^i`$ are the physical momenta and $`\widehat{p}^i`$ are the canonical momenta. Notice that the canonical momenta commute, while the physical momenta satisfy the commutation relation

$$[\widehat{\pi }^i,\widehat{\pi }^j]=i\mathrm{}eBϵ^{ij}.$$
(4)
To understand how the noncommutativity (1) arises in the model it is useful to define, in analogy with the classical case, the center-of-orbit operator, whose components are given by

$$\widehat{X}^i=\widehat{x}^i\frac{i}{eB}\widehat{\pi }^i.$$
(5)
These components can be shown to satisfy the commutation relation

$$[\widehat{X}^i,\widehat{X}^j]=i\frac{\mathrm{}ϵ^{ij}}{eB}=i\theta ^{ij},$$
(6)
where $`\theta ^{ij}=\left(\mathrm{}/eB\right)ϵ^{ij}`$. Notice that while $`[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]=0`$, the $`\widehat{X}^i`$ are not allowed to commute due to the presence of the term containing the magnetic field. The spacetime, on the other hand, is the same ordinary commutative one. In this scenario, the uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X^i\mathrm{\Delta }X^j\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left|\frac{ϵ^{ij}}{eB}\right|,$$
(7)
introduced by (6), must be understood as just being a consequence of the limitation on the information available about the $`X^i`$ coordinates in a process of measurement.

Now we consider the strong magnetic field limit. In this case, the system is projected onto the lowest Landau level. A rigorous prescription of how to work in this limit, which is achieved by solving the constraint $`\widehat{\pi }^i0`$ (using a projection technique), may be found in . On heuristic grounds, one can understand the projection onto the lowest Landau level as a process where the particles have their kinetic degrees of freedom frozen and are confined into their respective orbit centers . The particle coordinate observables in this limit clearly satisfy (6) as a consequence of the coincidence between $`\widehat{X}^i`$ and $`\widehat{x}^i`$, but there is no fundamental reason to believe that the spacetime coordinates will become noncommutative in this limit as a consequence of the projection. In reality the spacetime should be assumed as being unaltered, instead of becoming fuzzy or pointless.

Usually the relation (6) is achieved in the literature by dropping the kinetic term directly from the Lagrangian (2). If we write the vector potential as $`\stackrel{}{A}=(0,Bx,0),`$ and consider the $`B\mathrm{}`$ or $`m0`$ limits, we can discard the kinetic term and write the Lagrangian as

$$L=eBx\dot{y}.$$
(8)
In this Lagrangian, the $`x`$ and $`y`$ variables are canonically conjugate, and their respective quantum operators satisfy a commutation relation identical to (6),

$$[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{eB}ϵ^{ij}.$$
(9)
Notice that, when the discussion is directed from this point of view, the derivation of the canonical noncommutativity deviates attention from a fundamental point: the noncommutativity obtained as a consequence of projection onto the lowest Landau level (which enforces the identification between $`\widehat{X}^i`$ and $`\widehat{x}^i`$) ought to be in reality assumed as a property of the particle coordinate observables. This is the source of some confusion in the literature on the Landau problem, and also in the high-energy-physics articles on NCQFT that refer to it. For instance, take for example the following assertion found in  : “An example of a system where space-time coordinates do not commute is that of a particle in a strong magnetic field”. One could ask how a strong magnetic field in a laboratory could turn the spacetime noncommutative and thus destroy its pointwise structure.

The canonical noncommutativity originated from string theory in  is based on an approximation which similar to the one of the lowest Landau level just described. Consider open bosonic strings moving in a flat euclidean space with metric $`g_{\mu \nu },`$ in the presence of a constant Neveu-Schwarz $`B`$-field and with $`Dp`$ branes. The $`B`$-field probed by the open strings is equivalent to a constant magnetic field on the branes, and it can be gauged away in the directions transverse to the $`Dp`$ brane worldvolume. The worldsheet action is

$`S`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(g_{\mu \nu }_\eta X^\mu ^\eta X^\nu 2\pi i\alpha ^{}B_{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\eta \lambda }_\eta X^\mu _\lambda X^\nu \right)`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}g_{\mu \nu }_\eta X^\mu ^\eta X^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}B_{\mu \nu }X^\mu _tX^\nu \text{ ,}`$
where $`\alpha ^{}=l_s^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the string worldsheet, $`_t`$ is a tangential derivative along the worldsheet boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the $`X^\mu `$ is the embedding function of the strings into flat spacetime. If we consider the limit $`g_{\mu \nu }\left(\alpha ^{}\right)^20,`$ keeping $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ fixed , the bulk kinetic terms of (10) vanish. The worldsheet theory in this limit is topological. All that remains are the boundary degrees of freedom, which are governed by the action

$$S=\frac{i}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }B_{\mu \nu }X^\mu _tX^\nu .$$
(11)
If one regards (11) as a one dimensional action, and ignores the fact that the $`X^\mu \left(t\right)`$ are the endpoints of a string, then it can be considered as analogous to the action corresponding to the Lagrangian of the Landau problem (8). Under the approximation being considered, the $`X^\mu \left(t\right)`$ may be regarded as operators satisfying the canonical commutation relation

$$[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=\left(\frac{i}{B}\right)^{\mu \nu },$$
(12)
which is identical to the one of (1) by defining $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\left(1/B\right)^{\mu \nu }`$.

The close similarity between this heuristic derivation111We abbreviated the exposition to go directly to the point of interest of this work: the analogy of the stringy noncommutativity to the one of the Landau problem. This is an issue previously pointed out, for example, in , . A detailed discussion on the derivation of (1) would involve certain subtleties, and may be found in those references. and the one presented for the Landau problem suggests that the noncommutativity achieved by the approximation under consideration may be assumed to be of the particle coordinate observables, instead of the spacetime coordinates. At this point, it is interesting to quote that other noncommutative theories which emerged in the stringy context, known as noncommutative dipole theories , were presented that contain a noncommutativity also not of the spacetime coordinates. In these theories noncommutativity is an inherent property of the fields.

Although the great majority of papers on NCQFT consider the spacetime as being “pointless”, they use the basis of plane wave for their calculations in momentum space (see for example  and references therein) and interpret the space of Weyl symbols  as the physical position space. This is equivalent to allow the localization of information at individual points in the spacetime. The apparent contradiction in this procedure is clearly shown to be absent if we interpret the stringy spacetime that they are considering as commutative. It is important to keep in mind that the distinction between the intrinsic spacetime noncommutativity and the coordinate observable noncommutativity is not a question of metaphysics. Since the calculation of the Green functions in the first case must employ the procedure of averaging over localized states in the space of Weyl symbols  (which smears the pointwise information), the finiteness of the theories, as well as the measurable physical quantities, will differ according to the approach adopted for the noncommutativity.

Let us review the Weyl quantization procedure, considering stringy noncommutativity from the new point of view. For the case under consideration, it consists in the establishment of a map from the noncommutative space of the particle coordinate observables to the space of commutative coordinates by the use of the Moyal star product

$`\left(fg\right)(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}}{\displaystyle d^nkd^npe^{i(k_\mu +p_\mu )x^\mu \frac{i}{2}k_\mu p_\nu \theta ^{\mu \nu }}f(k)g(p)}`$
$`=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\xi ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }}f(x+\xi )g(x+\eta )|_{\xi =\eta =0}.`$ (13)
According to this technique, the representation of a given NCQFT originally valued on the space of noncommutative variables on the space of ordinary commutative functions is achieved by the replacement of the noncommuting variables in the arguments of the fields in the action by the commutative ones and the ordinary product of the fields by the Moyal product. Since the noncommutativity is assumed to be only of the particle coordinate observables, what the Weyl procedure does is just to represent the field theory originally valued on this noncommutative variables in function of the spacetime coordinates and canonical momenta. This will become particularly clear later, when we will consider NCQM.

Due to the property $`d^4xAB=d^4x`$ $`AB`$, the Hilbert (Fock) space of a noncommutative field theory can be chosen to be the same as the one of its commutative counterpart at the perturbative level , and the noncommutativity is manifest only through the interaction terms of the action. This gives us no surprise, since the difference of a commutative quantum field theory and its noncommutative counterpart is only the presence of the strong Neveu-Schwartz $`B`$-field in the background, acting to forbid the simultaneous measurement of all the position coordinates of the particles. Of course, the $`B`$ field does this by interacting with the quantum fields, and thus its presence must be encoded in the interaction terms of the action.

## 3 NCQFT and the Hamilton-Jacobi Theory

Here we discuss some aspects of the Schrödinger representation for NCQFT based on the canonical deformation of the algebra of the coordinate observables. A study of NCQFT in the Heisenberg and path integral formulations may be found in .

For simplicity, we will consider scalar field theories with action

$$S=d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(^\mu \phi _\mu \phi \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\phi ^2\right)V_{}\left(\phi \right)\right\}\text{ ,}$$
(14)
where $`V_{}\left(\phi \right)`$ is the usual commutative interaction part of the potential with the star product replacing the ordinary one. Since the discussion here is general, and the procedure presented can be applied to dimensions other than four, we will keep the potential as a generic real analytic one. Of course, the question of renormalizability must be taken into account when choosing the acceptable potentials . All the quantization procedures of the usual formalism developed for the commutative quantum field theory in the Schrödinger representation  are similar in the noncommutative case under consideration, which presupposes that $`\theta ^{0i}=0`$. We briefly present the aspects of the procedure that will be useful in this work.

The Hamiltonian corresponding to (14) is

$$H=d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\pi ^2+\left|\phi \right|^2+\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\phi ^2\right)+V_{}\left(\phi \right)\right\},$$
(15)
where $`\pi \left(x\right)=\dot{\phi }\left(x\right)`$ is the conjugate field momentum. The operators $`\widehat{\phi }\left(x\right)`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }\left(x\right)`$ satisfy the canonical equal-time commutators,

$`[\widehat{\phi }(\stackrel{}{x},t),\widehat{\pi }(\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=i\mathrm{}\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right),`$
$`[\widehat{\phi }(\stackrel{}{x},t),\widehat{\phi }(\stackrel{}{y},t)]`$ $`=[\widehat{\pi }(\stackrel{}{x},t),\widehat{\pi }(\stackrel{}{y},t)]=0\text{ .}`$ (16)
To work in a coordinate field representation, we shall consider a basis for the Fock space where the operator $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is time independent and diagonal $`\widehat{\phi }\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\varphi =\varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\varphi `$. In this basis, the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is represented by the time dependent wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]=\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$, and the momentum field operator $`\widehat{\pi }\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$ by $`i\mathrm{}\delta /\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$. The Schrödinger equation is written as

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]=d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{}^2\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)^2}+\left|\varphi \right|^2+\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\varphi ^2\right)+V_{}\left(\varphi \right)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t].$$
(17)
If we write the wavefunctional in its polar form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=R`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(iS/\mathrm{}\right)`$ and substitute it into (17), we obtain

$`\left[i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{t}}R{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}\right]e^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left[\frac{\delta ^2R}{\delta \varphi ^2}\frac{R}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }\right)^2+i\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta R}{\delta \varphi }\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }+\frac{R}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \varphi ^2}\right)\right]\right\}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}\left|\varphi \right|^2+\frac{m^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\varphi ^2+V_{}\left(\varphi \right)\right]Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}}`$ (18)
Dividing (18) by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and separating the real part, we find

$$\frac{S}{t}+d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }\right)^2+\left|\varphi \right|^2+\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\varphi ^2\right]+V\left(\varphi \right)\right\}+V_{nc}[\varphi ]+Q_K[\varphi ]=0,$$
(19)
where

$$V_{nc}[\varphi ]=d^3x\left\{\mathrm{Re}\left[V_{}\left(\varphi \right)\right]V\left(\varphi \right)\right\},$$
(20)
and

$$Q_K[\varphi ]=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2R}d^3x\frac{\delta ^2R}{\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)^2}.$$
(21)
Equation (19) is the ordinary Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the scalar field with two additional potentials $`V_{nc}`$ and $`Q_K.`$

The complete information contained in the functional Schrödinger equation is extracted only if we consider (19) and the other coupled equation that is obtained from the decomposition of (17) into its real and imaginary parts. Multiplying (18) by $`2R/\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left(iS/\mathrm{}\right)`$, taking the imaginary part, and doing some simplification using the properties of the star product, the equation obtained reads

$$\frac{R^2}{t}+d^3x\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }\left(R^2\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }\right)=0.$$
(22)
This expression must be interpreted as a continuity equation for the probability density $`R^2[\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}),t]`$ that the field configuration be $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ at time $`t`$. Notice that (19) and (22) constitute a set of nonlinear coupled equations. In practice, it is convenient to solve directly (17) and then obtain $`R`$ and $`S`$ from the wavefunctional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The advantage of decomposing the functional Schrödinger equation in a more complex system of two coupled equations is for the sake of its physical interpretation.

In what follows, we shall use the generalized Hamilton-Jacobi formalism introduced to perform an analysis of the conditions for a system achieve its classical and commutative limits. Before going on, however, it is necessary to define precisely what we mean for achieving these limits.

Finding the classical or commutative limit of a system is to establish the conditions that must be imposed on the environment, quantum numbers or physical constants in order to enforce the system to assume the behavior identical to the one of a classical or commutative analog. These conditions can be determined by analyzing equations (19) and (22). When we consider a solution to the equations (19) and (22), and imagine it as being substituted on them, the original set of equations must now be understood as a set of identities that are being trivially satisfied. The classical or commutative limits are achieved when the conditions are such that this set of equations (seen as a set of identities) assume the classical form or the quantum commutative form. Notice that, according to this criterion, the establishment of the adequate prescription for the achievement of the limits of each individual system must be done by accounting for the properties that characterize its physical state. The procedure proposed will thus lead to the determination of state dependent criteria, thought they can be written in an universal and compact form, as will be shown later.

The first interesting fact to be noticed once one adopts the prescription suggested here, is that the achievement of the classical limit will, in certain cases, occur under conditions that differ form the naive one, $`\mathrm{}0,`$ usually employed in many textbooks. Here, and in what follows, the symbol $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}AB\mathrm{"}`$ must be understood as taking a limit such that $`AB`$ is sufficiently small to be neglected in comparison with the other quantities which are relevant to the physical system under consideration. For example, $`\mathrm{}0`$ may be assumed to mean that $`\mathrm{}S_0`$, where $`S_0`$ is some characteristic action of the corresponding classical motion of the system . In the achievement of the classical limit starting from (19) and (22), we must take into account the fact that $`R`$ (and$`S`$) in principle depends on $`\mathrm{}`$, and hence in general the condition $`Q_K0`$ is not satisfied always when $`\mathrm{}0`$. A detailed discussion about the fallacy in adopting $`\mathrm{}0`$ as the universal criterion for the classical limit in the context of ordinary quantum mechanics and field theory containing examples is found in  and references therein.

An analogous reasoning can be applied when we consider the commutative limit. Although $`V_{nc}0`$ when $`\theta ^{ij}0`$, as can be seen from (13) and (20), this criterion may not be valid for the achievement of the commutative limit. This is a consequence of the fact that$`Q_K`$ may contain contributions generated by the noncommutativity that do not depend on $`\theta ^{ij}`$. On that case, taking $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ will not vanish them, do not conducting to the commutative limit. Moreover, since in principle the dependence of $`Q_K`$ on $`\theta ^{ij}`$ is arbitrary and totally state dependent, the possibility of $`Q_K`$ blowing-up when $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ must not be discarded. In reality this is expected to occur in some models.

When we consider a differential equation which is deformed depending on a set of parameters (for example $`\theta ^{ij}`$), the set of admissible solutions is richer than the original one corresponding to the undeformed equation. If we smoothly undo the deformation, part of the expanded set of solutions will of course suffer a process of homotopy, and in the end of it will be contained in the set of solutions of the original undeformed equation. But part of the same set will not present the same behavior, and may become unaltered, go to another limit outside the set of undeformed solutions, or blow-up.

In fact, it has been verified that in many of the perturbative loopwise calculations of NCQFT, some peculiar phenomena occurs when $`\theta ^{ij}0`$, like UV/IR mixing , which is responsible for the non-analytic behavior in the $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ limit, the blowing-up of the self-energy in some models , non-reduction of some gauge theories to the commutative counterparts , among others . In the quantum-mechanical context, it is interesting to quote the blowing-up of the energy spectra  and the appearance of wavefunctions representing extremely localized states . This states are particularly interesting as they present nonperturbative effects in $`\theta ^{ij}`$ at small distances. In addition, if one starts considering these (normalizable) wavefunctions and consider the limit where $`\theta ^{ij}`$ vanishes, they become Dirac delta functions, which are non-normalizable .

In what follows, we will turn operational the technique proposed for the determination of the classical and commutative limits by showing how it can be applied to perform an analysis of NCQFT. The origin of the quantum contributions on (19) is traced back to the action of the field momentum in its differential representation, $`\widehat{\pi }\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=i\mathrm{}\delta /\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right),`$ on the wavefunctional $`\mathrm{\Psi }=R\mathrm{exp}\left(iS/\mathrm{}\right)`$ in (17). When this equation is divided by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the real part is taken, the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation (19) is originated containing terms that cannot appear on the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation, where the field momentum is represented by $`\pi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\delta S/\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$. These terms are nonclassical, and thus must be responsible by the quantum effects. This is a simple and safe criterion for the identification of the quantum contributions.

In practice, it is not necessary to follow all the steps and write the Hamilton-Jacobi equation containing all its terms. When one wants to identify and compute the quantum effects corresponding to an specific part of the Schrödinger Hamiltonian, the procedure can be applied directly to the term under consideration to extract its quantum contributions, which are grouped to constitute its associated quantum potential. In equation (17), for example, the only term that has derivatives (here functional) acting on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is kinetic one. Thus, there will be only one quantum potential, which must be associated with this term and is given by

$`Q_K`$ $`=\mathrm{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\delta \varphi ^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }\right)^2}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2R}}{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{\delta ^2R}{\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)^2}}.`$ (23)
This reproduces (21), and is the expression used to define the quantum potential in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum theory222Usually, the polar decomposition of the wavefunctional and the associated Hamilton-Jacobi formalism are explored by the Bohmian community in the direction of establishing an ontological meaning for quantum field theory, with an additional assumption about the objective existence of quantum fields independent of the act of observation . This assumption, however, is not being considered in this work. The most general case where we intend that this method could be applied may not yet admit an ontological interpretation. .

It is possible to associate a quantum potential to each term or, according to the necessity, a group of terms involving derivatives in the Hamiltonian. To suppress its corresponding quantum effects, it is sufficient to impose the cancelation of its corresponding quantum potential as an equation. The classical limit of the theory is found when the sum of all the quantum potentials vanish. In this case the Hamilton-Jacobi equation looses its dependence on $`R`$ and on second and higher order derivatives of $`S`$, decouples from (22) and assumes its classical form, which is an equation exclusively for $`S`$. This is a general result, totally independent of the specific form of equation (19). By definition, the classical contributions are the ones obtained by the replacement $`\pi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\delta S/\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)`$, and thus do not contain any derivative of $`R`$ that could spoil the decoupling process of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Once (19) and (22) assume a form characteristic of the classical physics, the physical content of the system is the same of the classical field theory, and therefore the observable quantities, as well as the equations of evolution of their averages, will be indistinguishable of the ones of classical physics.

Having determined the criterion for the classical limit as $`Q_K0`$, let us concentrate our attention on the criterion for the commutative one. Since equation (22) is still in the ordinary commutative classical form, the discussion about how to achieve the commutative limit reduces to the analysis of the potentials $`Q_K`$ and $`V_{nc}`$ of (19). One safe way for the identification of the noncommutative effects present in $`Q_K`$ is to calculate the same quantum potential with respect to the analog wavefunctional corresponding to the associated commutative field theory and compare with it. This is done by defining the commutative quantum potential as

$$Q_c=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2R}d^3x\frac{\delta ^2R_c}{\delta \varphi \left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)^2},$$
(24)
where $`R_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ is the solution of (17) with $`\theta ^{ij}=0`$, that is , the solution of the commutative counterpart. The noncommutative contributions contained in $`Q_K`$ can thus be attributed to the functional

$$Q_{nc}=Q_KQ_c,$$
(25)
which we define as the noncommutative quantum potential.

When $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$, (19) becomes similar to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation corresponding to the conventional quantum field theory, assuring the noncommutative/commutative passage. This can happen in two ways:

1) $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$ is achieved by taking the limit $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ directly without any obstruction caused by the quantum effects represented by $`Q_{nc}`$. In this case the $`\theta ^{ij}`$ disappear completely from all terms of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. This is the most common approach and easy to understand in comparison with classical noncommutative field theory, where $`Q_{nc}`$ is absent the commutative limit is usually achieved by taking $`\theta ^{ij}0`$.

2) $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$ is achieved by varying a physical constant or parameter of the system, keeping $`\theta ^{ij}`$ unaltered. This approach is less common, but may be useful specially in cases where the first is not possible to be realized.

Two examples of application of the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism in the quantum mechanical context are presented an worked out in the end of the article.

## 4  Noncommutative Quantum Mechanics

Here, we discuss the implications of considering the coordinate observables of the particles as operators satisfying (1) for quantum mechanics. We shall show how to work in the Schrödinger formulation with a consistent interpretation for the wavefunction and how the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism of the previous section can be applied to give information about the formal structure of NCQM in comparison with the one of NCQFT.

### 4.1 Establishing the Foundations

As in the commutative theories, NCQM can be derived from NCQFT in its the low energy limit. A rigorous treatment for this derivation was done P. M. Ho and H. C. Kao in . For chargeless particles their noncommutative Schrödinger equation reduces to

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)+V(x^i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t).$$
(26)
By using the properties of the star product, the potential term of the Schrödinger equation can also be written as

$$V(x^i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)=V\left(x^i+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_j\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t).$$
(27)
The Hamiltonian is then

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V\left(x^i+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_j\right).$$
(28)
Thus, the noncommutative quantum mechanics is physically equivalent to a commutative quantum mechanics with new momentum dependent interactions, dictated by the replacement $`x^ix^i\theta ^{ij}\widehat{p}_j/2\mathrm{}`$ in the potential term. This can be assumed to be the Weyl correspondence for quantum mechanics, and has been widely used in the literature (see, for example ). However, the complete investigation of all of its consequences has not ever been done.

To understand physics that lies behind the correspondence above, we again appeal to the Landau problem, this time do not considering the projection onto the lowest Landau level. An analogy between the physical variables suggests that the shift $`x^ix^i\theta ^{ij}\widehat{p}_j/2\mathrm{}`$ caused by the external Neveu-Schwartz $`B`$ field is similar to the shift $`\widehat{p}^i\widehat{p}^ie\widehat{A}^i`$, which is caused by an external magnetic field in ordinary quantum mechanics. Since in the Landau problem the physical momentum is $`\widehat{\pi }^i=\widehat{p}^ie\widehat{A}^i,`$ according to the analogy, the physical position must be333The association of the $`\widehat{X}^i`$ with the observables corresponding to the physical coordinates of the particles was also proposed in , but following the same line of , which interpret the canonical positions $`x^i`$ just as auxiliary variables, do not having any physical interpretation. $`\widehat{X}^i=x^i\theta ^{ij}\widehat{p}_j/2\mathrm{}`$. This intuitively explains why the position observables must remain noncommuting after the Weyl correspondence is applied. This map is nothing but a representation of the noncommuting position observables in terms of the canonical momentum $`\widehat{p}^i`$ and canonical coordinates $`x^i`$, the latter having the meaning of being points of the real physical space.

Some physical intuition on the meaning of the canonical position variables can be obtained by considering the dipole picture . For the case of the NCQM under consideration, this consists in considering that, instead of a particle, the elementary object of the theory is a half dipole444In the context of this work, which considers point particles as the true elementary constituents of matter, the dipoles are assumed to be fictitious. whose extent is proportional to its momentum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i=\theta ^{ij}p_j/2\mathrm{}`$. One of the endpoints of the dipole carries its mass and is responsible for its interactions. The other extreme is empty. According to this intuitive view, the change of variables $`X^i=x^i\theta ^{ij}p_j/2\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a change of coordinates of the interacting extreme of the dipole $`X^i`$, where the corresponding physical particle is located, to its empty one $`x^i`$. Therefore, the effect of the background field, which acts to forbid the coordinates to commute, is compensated in this new commutative coordinate system obtained by change of variable that is dependent on the momentum and background intensity (remember $`\theta ^{ij}=(1/B)^{ij}`$). Although the simultaneous measurement of the observables $`\widehat{x}^i`$ is in principle possible, it is not sufficient for the determination of the physical position of the associated particle. As $`\widehat{x}^i`$ and $`\widehat{p}^i`$ do not commute, the knowledge of the three $`x^i`$ forbids the simultaneous determination of the three $`p^i`$ and thus the physical location of the particle.

The Hilbert space of states of noncommutative quantum mechanics is assumed to be the same of the commutative one , which is a remnant from a result of field theory discussed in the Second Section. By knowing the Hilbert space of states and the Schrödinger evolution equation for the wavefunction, it remains to show that this wavefunction admits the definition of a density of probability. The usual definition of probability density

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2$$
(29)
can be employed with some care in interpreting its meaning. The wavefunction here is valued on the canonical coordinates $`x^i`$, rather than on eigenvalues of the physical position observables $`\widehat{X}^i`$. Thus $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x},t)d^3x`$ must be interpreted as the probability of finding the canonical coordinate of the particle in the volume $`d^3x`$ around the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at time $`t`$.

To extract information on the physical coordinate position of the particles from the wavefunction, it is necessary to expand it in eigenfunctions of the position operators $`\widehat{X}^i=x^i+i\theta ^{ij}_j/2`$. Of course, since the $`\widehat{X}^i`$ do not commute, it is impossible to find a basis for all the spatial directions simultaneously. This is the simple manifestation of the fact that, although the spacetime is endowed with a pointwise structure, it is impossible to localize a particle on a given point of it in a measurement. The background Neveu-Schwartz field always acts conspiring against any attempt in this direction, enforcing the results of the measurements to obey the uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X^i\mathrm{\Delta }X^j\left|\theta ^{ij}\right|/2.$$
(30)
This solves the open question about the possibility of the existence of the wavefunction and how to interpret it  in the context of the string- inspired noncommutativity. Had we considered the wrong interpretation of the canonical position observables $`\widehat{x}^i`$ as the physical ones, the uncertainty relation (30) would be lost in the Schrödinger formulation. Of course, due to the smallness expected for $`\theta ^{ij},`$ in practice the noncommutative effects are not possible to be perceived by a direct verification of (30), which would demand an energy to work on a length scale far beyond the limits of validity of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, but through its indirect consequences for other observable quantities, like atomic energy spectrum , phase shifts on the Aharonov -Bohm effect , etc.

By differentiating (29) and using (26) we obtain

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2m}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\right)\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}V\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\left(V\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^{}\right),$$
(31)
where the term$`i\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)/2m`$ is well known from ordinary quantum mechanics and corresponds in that case to the current density $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. Notice that, since the canonical coordinates $`x^i`$ do not represent the physical coordinates of the particles, the fact that the usual continuity equation$`\rho /t+\stackrel{}{J}=0`$ is not satisfied does not mean that there is no local conservation law of probability. Such form of continuity equation would be expected only if $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2d^3x`$ had the meaning of probability of finding the particle in a volume $`d^3x`$ around the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at time $`t`$.

Actually, the extra term that appeared in (31) due to the noncommutativity is not responsible for any inconsistency of the theory, but its role must be understood. One way to justify its presence is to notice that it is essential in order to assure that the equivariance property  is satisfied by $`\rho =\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$. This means that if $`\rho (x^i,t_0)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t_0)\right|^2`$ at some time $`t_0`$, then $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ for all $`t`$. In other words, $`\rho (x^i,t)`$ preserves its form as a functional of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)`$ for all times. This property is trivially satisfied because the starting point for the derivation of the equation (31) was exactly the definition of $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ as the density of probability for an arbitrary time and the noncommutative Schrödinger equation. Thus it is the noncommutative Schrödinger equation itself that enforces the appearance of the noncommutative term in the local probability conservation law for a question of consistency. This term could called “equivariance correction”, and be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$. It should be expected, however, that when integrated over all the space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ vanish, as occurs with the term containing the divergence. This is a necessary condition for the global conservation of probability. By integrating equation (31) over the space and using the properties of the star product it is easy to verify that

$$\left(\frac{\rho }{t}+\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2m}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\right]\right)d^3x=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}V\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\left(V\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^{}\right]d^3x=0,$$
(32)
thanks to the antisymmetry of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$.

### 4.2 Analyzing From Hamilton-Jacobi Point of View

The Hamilton-Jacobi formalism associated with the NCQM is found by applying the same procedure previously discussed when considering the NCQFT. We write the wavefunction in its polar form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$, substitute into equation (26), and separate its real and imaginary parts. For the real part we obtain

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{\left(S\right)^2}{2m}+V+V_{nc}+Q_K+Q_I=0.$$
(33)
The three new potential terms are defined as

$$V_{nc}=V\left(x^i\frac{\theta ^{ij}_jS}{2\mathrm{}}\right)V\left(x^i\right),$$
(34)
$$Q_K=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(S\right)^2\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R}{R},$$
(35)
and

$$Q_I=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{V\left(x^i+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_j\right)\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)V\left(x^i\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS\right).$$
(36)
$`V_{nc}`$ is the potential that accounts for the noncommutative classical interactions, while $`Q_K`$ and $`Q_I`$ for the quantum effects. The origin of the $`Q_K`$ potential comes from the kinetic term of the Hamiltonian, closely related to the case of NCQFT discussed before. Its definition is identical to the one of the quantum potential in ordinary Bohmian mechanics , and here we will call it the kinetic quantum potential. The remaining term, $`Q_I`$, is the potential that accounts for the quantum effects that come from the interaction term, and thus should be called interaction quantum potential.

The imaginary part of the Schrödinger equation yields

$$\frac{R^2}{t}+\left(R^2\frac{S}{m}\right)+\frac{2R}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}\left(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S}V(Re^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S})\right)=0,$$
(37)
which is identical to equation (31) for probability conservation, now written in function of the $`R`$\- and $`S`$-fields.

Returning to the equation (33), we see that while$`V_{nc}`$ and $`Q_K`$ have their partners in NCQFT, $`Q_I`$, on the other hand, has no analog when a comparison is done with field theory. It could be written as $`Q_I(x^i,S,^iS,^{ij}S,^{ijk}S,\mathrm{},R,^iR,^{ij}R,^{ijk}R,\mathrm{})`$, keeping in mind, of course, that the higher derivative interactions come from a star product of $`V`$ with the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ field, and therefore $`Q_I`$ is not exactly an arbitrary function of $`x^i,S,R`$ and their partial derivatives. When $`V`$ is polynomial, $`Q_I`$ contains a finite number of derivatives, otherwise it will be infinite series containing derivatives of all orders, which characterizes a interaction nonlocal in space. This case can still be analyzed, at least perturbatively. A general discussion of how to handle mathematically nonlocal particle mechanics and field theory may be found in , and in the context of noncommutative theories in . The reason for the absence of the interaction quantum potential $`Q_I`$ in the case of NCQFT is that in that case there is no star product between the potential and the wavefunctional in the Schrödinger equation. In the case of quantum field theory, the potential term is valued on the star algebra and its product with the wavefunctional is the ordinary one, while, in the quantum mechanical case, the potential is valued on the ordinary algebra and multiplies the wave function with the star product.

Notice that, in case of considering quantum field theory with an external potential, it will be incorporated in the quadratic term of the Hamiltonian with the star product, but its product with the wavefunctional will still be the ordinary one. This point sets a difference between the implications of noncommutativity for high and low energy phenomena. At least in what concerns the structure of the equations in the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism, the complexity and richness of the new physics originated from the noncommutativity may be manifest in a more impressive way in the low energy processes.

### 4.3 The Classical and Commutative Limits

The most quoted criterion for finding the classical limit of a quantum-mechanical systems is $`\mathrm{}0`$. As pointed out when discussing the NCQFT, the adoption of this criterion as universal for the classical limit has several problems. For the determination of the commutative limit, the most employed criterion is $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ . However, arguments for its failure in the most general case were presented in the framework of NCQFT in the Third Section. The arguments presented there are still valid and reinforced here, where they become yet stronger by the presence of the additional quantum potential $`Q_I`$ and the equivariance correction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$. Among other criteria commonly used for the classical limit are high quantum numbers ($`n\mathrm{}`$), large mass ($`m\mathrm{}`$), and short de Broglie wavelength. All of these criteria are not universal, and can be obtained from the application for particular systems of the most general and systematic method based on the generalized Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. The latter, according to the case under consideration, provides the best choice as the parameter to vary.

The conditions for the attainment of the classical and commutative limits of a quantum-mechanical system can be obtained easily from the examination of the system of equations constituted by (33) and (37). For simplicity, we shall restrict our considerations to the case where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta 0`$, which will be the one of interest for the examples that follow. According to the prescription for the identification of the quantum effects proposed in Section 3, and applied in this subsection to NCQM, all the quantum manifestations of a given noncommutative quantum-mechanical system must be governed by $`Q_K`$ and $`Q_I`$ Thus, in the limit where $`Q_K+Q_I0`$ the system is expected to present a classical behavior.

By looking for the criteria for the commutative limit, however, we see that the conditions that must be imposed on the set $`\{V_{nc},Q_K,Q_I\}`$ are less trivial. While useful for the formal analysis comparing NCQM with NCQFT, the grouping of the quantum contributions in the two potentials $`Q_K`$ and $`Q_I`$ is not convenient for the identification of the noncommutative quantum effects. This can be done by following an approach similar to the one adopted for NCQFT. We define the noncommutative quantum contributions by

$$Q_{nc}=Q_K+Q_IQ_c,$$
(38)
where

$$Q_c=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R_c}{R_c}\text{ , }R_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_c}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ is the wavefunction obtained from the commutative Schrödinger equation containing the usual potential $`V(x^i)`$, that is, the equation obtained by making $`\theta ^{ij}=0`$ on (26) before solving it. The conditions to assure that (33) and (37) assume a form identical to the one corresponding to a commutative system are

$$V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0.$$
(39)
The condition for the classical limit can now be written as $`Q_c+Q_{nc}0,`$ and (33) as

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{\left(S\right)^2}{2m}+V+V_{nc}+Q_c+Q_{nc}=0.$$
(40)
## 5 Simple Applications

### 5.1 Noncommutative Harmonic Oscillator

Here we show a simple application of the ideas presented in the latter section. Consider a two dimensional noncommutative harmonic oscillator. In two dimensions, (1) can be written as

$$[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=i\theta ϵ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(41)
The Hamiltonian of the system is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(p_x^2+p_y^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}mw^2\left[\left(x\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}p_y\right)^2+\left(y+\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}p_x\right)^2\right],$$
(42)
where $`m`$ is the particle mass and $`w`$ the frequency of the associated commutative oscillator.

The corresponding Schrödinger equation in polar coordinates is

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)}{t}}`$ $`=H_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2\right)\left(_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}_\phi ^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)`$
$`+\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\theta w^2_\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}w^2r^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t).`$ (43)
By plugging $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)=e^{iEt/\mathrm{}}\psi _\theta (r,\phi )`$ into (43) we obtain the eigenvalue equation $`H_\theta \psi _\theta (r,\phi )=E_\theta \psi _\theta (r,\phi )`$. The solution of this eigenvalue equation is straightforward (see, for example ), and gives

$$\psi _\theta (r,\phi )=\psi _{n,\alpha ,\theta }(r,\phi )=\left(1\right)^n\sqrt{\frac{n!\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\pi \left(n+\left|\alpha \right|\right)!}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2}{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}r\right)^{\left|\alpha \right|}L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)e^{i\alpha \phi },$$
(44)
where $`L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)`$ are the Laguerre polynomials

$$L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\left(1\right)^n\left(\begin{array}{c}n+\left|\alpha \right|\\ nl\end{array}\right)\frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)^l}{l!},\text{ }\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^2=\frac{\left(\frac{mw}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2}{1+\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)^2}\text{ },$$
(45)
$`n=0,1,2,`$…is the principal quantum number, and $`\alpha =0,\pm 1,\pm 2`$… is the angular canonical momentum quantum number. The corresponding energy spectrum is

$$E_{n,\alpha ,\theta }=2\mathrm{}w\left(1\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\left(n+\frac{\left|\alpha \right|+1}{2}\right)\frac{m\theta w^2\alpha }{2}.$$
(46)
Let us consider the state where $`n=0`$, whose wavefunction is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\pi \left|\alpha \right|!}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2}{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}r\right)^{\left|\alpha \right|}e^{i\alpha \phi iEt/\mathrm{}}.$$
(47)
For this physical state, the corresponding $`V,V_{nc}`$, $`Q_c,`$ $`Q_{nc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ are

$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mw^2r^2`$
$`V_{nc}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\theta w^2\alpha }{2}}`$
$`Q_c`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mw^2r^2+\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}}`$ (48)
$`Q_{nc}`$ $`=\left[\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2}1\right]\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ $`=0.`$
A first inspection on the potentials shows that in the lowest energy state, characterized by $`\alpha =0`$ and $`r=0,`$ the zero point energy is given by

$$E_{0,0,\theta }=Q_c+Q_{nc}=\mathrm{}w\left(1\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},$$
(49)
exactly what would be expected from quantum potentials, which must account for all nonclassical behaviors.

According to the criteria proposed in the latter subsection, the condition for the classical limit is $`Q_c+Q_{nc}0`$, while for the commutative limit the condition is reduced to $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$. We start by the commutative limit. The sum $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}`$ can be written as

$$V_{nc}+Q_{nc}=\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{}w\alpha +\left[\sqrt{1\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)^2}1\right]\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+1\right).$$
(50)
The sum of other terms in the Hamiltonian of (40) is

$$\frac{\left(S\right)^2}{2m}+V+Q_c=\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+1\right)$$
(51)
In order that (50) be negligible when compared to (51), it is sufficient that the parameters $`m,w,\mathrm{}`$and $`\theta `$ satisfy $`mw\theta /2\mathrm{}1`$, or in other words, that $`\theta 2\mathrm{}/mw.`$ This is the precise meaning that must be attributed to $`\theta 0`$ in the case of the noncommutative harmonic oscillator. Once this condition is satisfied, all the observable quantities computed with the aid of the oscillator wavefunction, as expected values and also the spectrum, will be indistinguishable to the ones corresponding to its commutative counterpart.

There is a general comment that, what is important to recover the classical world, is the smallness of $`\mathrm{}`$ with respect to the physical quantities of the problem555In the notation adopted in this work, such a claim is written as $`\mathrm{}0`$.. As stated in when performing a theoretical analysis in Section 3, and reinforced in Subsection 4.3, that statement is ungrounded. By looking for the classical limit of the noncommutative harmonic oscillator, it is easy to see that there is no parameter to vary in order that the system assumes a classical behavior without canceling the interaction term, which would be a trivial and uninteresting choice. Since $`Q_c+Q_{nc}`$ contains a term, $`mw^2r^2/2`$, which do not depend on $`\mathrm{},`$ no matter how small, but non-null, this constant is considered, the quantum effects cannot be neglected. The classical limit of the harmonic oscillator in the context of ordinary commutative quantum mechanics is only achieved by constructing coherent states, which are superpositions of states containing different quantum numbers . For the case of NCQM, however, that procedure is non-trivial, and involves certain subtleties .

This example of application is useful to illustrate the spirit of the ideas defended in this work, that the commutative and classical limits of a system must be considered as realized on its physical states, rather on the equations of motion.

### 5.2 WKB Approximation in the Case of a One-Direction Interacting Potential

Here, we present an example to complete the one of the latter subsection in a discussion about noncommutative/commutative and quantum/classical passages. We shall show how the commutative limit may be obtained in certain cases by varying parameters other than $`\theta .`$

Consider a particle in two dimensional plane under the action of a one-direction interacting potential. The noncommutative Schrödinger equation is given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[\frac{\widehat{p}_x^2}{2m}+\frac{\widehat{p}_y^2}{2m}+V\left(x\frac{\theta \widehat{p}_y}{2\mathrm{}}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(52)
Writing the wavefunction as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)=e^{iEt/\mathrm{}+ik_yy}\psi (x),$$
(53)
we separate the variables, obtaining

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\psi }{dx^2}}+V\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{\theta k_y}{2}}\right)\psi `$ $`=E_x\psi `$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k_y}{2m}}`$ $`=E_y.`$ (55)
Performing a WKB approximation inserting the $`ansatz`$

$$\psi (x)=e^{i\varphi (x)/\mathrm{}},\text{ }\varphi =\varphi _0+\mathrm{}\varphi _1+\mathrm{}$$
(56)
on (54) we find, after simplification

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{WKB}^\pm (x,y,t)=\frac{C_\pm \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\pm 2m\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)^{1/2}𝑑x\left(E_x+E_y\right)t+\mathrm{}k_yy\right)\right]}{\left[2m\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)\right]^{1/4}},$$
(57)
where $`C_\pm `$ is a constant.

The conditions for the validity of this approximation are (see, for example, )

$`m\mathrm{}\left|\left(V+V_{nc}\right)^{}\right|/\left[2m\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)\right]^{3/2}`$ $`1,`$
$`m\mathrm{}^2\left|\left(V+V_{nc}\right)^{\prime \prime }\right|/\left[2m\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)\right]^2`$ $`1,`$
$`m\mathrm{}^3\left|\left(V+V_{nc}\right)^{\prime \prime \prime }\right|/\left[2m\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)\right]^{5/2}`$ $`1,`$ (58)
and so on for higher derivatives of $`\left(V+V_n\right)^{}=d\left(V+V_{nc}\right)/dx`$. The potentials corresponding to the wavefunction (57) are

$`V_{nc}`$ $`=V\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{\theta k_y}{2}}\right)V(x)`$
$`Q_c`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(E_xV\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}\left(E_xV\right)^{1/4}`$
$`Q_{nc}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}\left(E_xVV_{nc}\right)^{1/4}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(E_xV\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}\left(E_xV\right)^{1/4}`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ $`=0`$
Notice that $`\theta `$ appears multiplying$`k_y=k\mathrm{sin}\phi `$, where $`\phi `$ is the angle between the direction of motion and the direction where the potential acts. It can thus be chosen as our parameter to vary in order to measure the degree of deviation from the commutative behavior. Let us suppose that $`\theta `$ is sufficiently small (as it should be) in order that (30) be undetectable, but “big” enough to have some influence on other detectable quantities, such as energy spectrum, etc. If $`\phi `$ is small and renders $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}`$ negligible as compared to the other terms of the Hamiltonian in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the system assumes a commutative behavior. When the speed of the particle is sufficiently slow, this limit is achieved for relatively large angles.

From the conditions (58), one can infer that $`\left|Q_c+Q_{nc}\right|E_xVV_{nc}`$, and thus the wavefunction is semiclassical if they are satisfied. Observe that the turning points, where $`E_xVV_{nc}=0`$ and the approximation fails, are shifted in comparison with the ones of the analogous commutative problem due to the presence of $`V_{nc}.`$

## 6 Discussion and Outlook

In this work, we presented an alternative interpretation for the meaning of the canonical noncommutativity obtained from arguments of string theory. In order to justify our point of view on the validity of interpreting (1) as being realized just by the coordinate observables of the particles, and not by the spacetime itself, we discussed some of the aspects of the derivation of the noncommutativity in the Landau problem and in the string context. Arguments for the existence of a loophole in the usual interpretation of the results found in the literature were presented.

When we consider the stringy noncommutativity from the new point of view, the interpretation of the Weyl symbols as points of the spacetime, considered as senseless in , but adopted by the great majority of the string inspired articles, like , for example, is perfectly justified. Although these articles do not presuppose our interpretation for noncommutativity, their calculations are in accordance with it. The possible problem in the legitimacy of the use of the Feynman graph approach on noncommutative spaces, which was underlined in a discussion carried on in , is absent here, since NCQFT is assumed as being based on a commutative spacetime.

In the context of quantum mechanics, the implications of adopting the new point of view for noncommutativity are manifest into the foundations. The common assertion that the concept wavefunction does not make sense in noncommutative spaces  looses its validity for the stringy noncommutativity considered because it is not of the spacetime coordinates. The wavefunction, however, has a different meaning in NCQM than in its commutative counterpart. It is possible to define a consistent probability density given by the expression $`\rho =\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2`$, but the interpretation of $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x},t)d^3x`$ is that of being the probability of finding the canonical coordinate of the particle in the volume $`d^3x`$ around the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at time $`t`$.

Other related topic of interest discussed was the use of the Schrödinger formulation and the associated Hamilton-Jacobi formalism to perform an analysis of the structure of NCQFT and NCQM and their possible limiting behaviors. A formal analysis, comparing the potential terms according to the derivatives present in their definitions, revealed that NCQM is richer than NCQFT from this point of view. While the complete description of NCQFT can be done by considering the properties of the three potentials $`V,`$ $`V_{nc}`$ and$`Q_K`$, the corresponding one for NCQM is more complex, needing the four potentials $`V,`$ $`V_{nc}`$, $`Q_K,`$ $`Q_I`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ term present in the probability conservation equation.

The conditions for the attainment of the classical and commutative limits of NCQFT were determined as being $`Q_K=Q_c+Q_{nc}0`$ and $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$, respectively. For NCQM, our considerations were restricted to the case where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta 0`$, which was the one of interest for the examples of application presented. The conditions for the classical limit were found to be $`Q_K+Q_I=Q_c+Q_{nc}0`$, and for the commutative one $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$.

In the same way that $`\mathrm{}`$ must not be considered as the agent responsible for the quantum effects in ordinary and noncommutative field theories and quantum mechanics, $`\theta ^{ij}`$ must not be considered as the one responsible for the noncommutative manifestations in NCQFT and NCQM. Although achieving the commutative limit by setting $`\theta ^{ij}0`$ was possible in the examples presented, this route for the classical limit will not always be available when Hamiltonians containing more complicated potentials are considered . In these cases the formalism of this work may be useful in finding other routes for the attainment of the commutative behavior.

There is the immediate possibility to apply the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism present in this work to investigate the properties of some simple models of noncommutative scalar field theory or noncommutative quantum mechanical systems whose Hamiltonians possesses higher-order derivatives or are nonlocal, like, for example, the anharmonic oscillator and the hydrogen atom. The extension of the ideas presented here is in principle possible for other theories than the scalar field ones, like the noncommutative version of QED.

## Acknowledgments

The author is greatly indebted to Nelson Pinto Neto for valuable discussions, suggestions and for all the corrections on an earlier manuscript. We also acknowledge Ronaldo Penna Neves for discussions in the earlier stage of this work, and José Heläyel Neto for discussions, encouragement and suggestions on this manuscript. This work was financially supported by CAPES.


format: text

text:
# Implications of 2dFGRS results on cosmic structure

## 1 Aims and design of the 2dFGRS

The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) was designed to study the following key aspects of the large-scale structure in the galaxy distribution:

(1) To measure the galaxy power spectrum $`P(k)`$ on scales up to a few hundred Mpc, bridging the gap between the scales of nonlinear structure and measurements from the the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

(2) To measure the redshift-space distortion of the large-scale clustering that results from the peculiar velocity field produced by the mass distribution.

(3) To measure higher-order clustering statistics in order to understand biased galaxy formation, and to test whether the galaxy distribution on large scales is a Gaussian random field.

The survey is designed around the 2dF multi-fibre spectrograph on the Anglo-Australian Telescope, which is capable of observing up to 400 objects simultaneously over a 2 degree diameter field of view. For details of the instrument and its performance see http://www.aao.gov.au/2df/, and also Lewis et al. (2002).

The source catalogue for the survey is a revised and extended version of the APM galaxy catalogue (Maddox et al. 1990a,b,c); this includes over 5 million galaxies down to $`b_\mathrm{J}=20.5`$ in both north and south Galactic hemispheres over a region of almost $`10^4\mathrm{deg}^2`$ (bounded approximately by declination $`\delta +3^{}`$ and Galactic latitude $`b\stackrel{>}{}20^{}`$). This catalogue is based on Automated Plate Measuring machine (APM) scans of 390 plates from the UK Schmidt Telescope (UKST) Southern Sky Survey. The $`b_\mathrm{J}`$ magnitude system for the Southern Sky Survey is defined by the response of Kodak IIIaJ emulsion in combination with a GG395 filter, and is related to the Johnson–Cousins system by $`b_\mathrm{J}=B0.304(BV)`$, where the colour term is estimated from comparison with the SDSS Early Data Release (Stoughton et al. 2002) The photometry of the catalogue is calibrated with numerous CCD sequences and has a precision of approximately 0.15 mag for galaxies with $`b_\mathrm{J}=17`$–19.5. The star-galaxy separation is as described in Maddox et al. (1990b), supplemented by visual validation of each galaxy image.

The survey geometry is shown in Figure 1, and consists of two contiguous declination strips, plus 100 random 2-degree fields. One strip is in the southern Galactic hemisphere and covers approximately 75$`\times `$15 centred close to the SGP at ($`\alpha ,\delta `$)=($`01^h`$,$`30^{}`$); the other strip is in the northern Galactic hemisphere and covers $`75^{}\times 7.5^{}`$ centred at ($`\alpha ,\delta `$)=($`12.5^h`$,$`+0^{}`$). The 100 random fields are spread uniformly over the 7000 deg2 region of the APM catalogue in the southern Galactic hemisphere. At the median redshift of the survey ($`\overline{z}=0.11`$), $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ subtends about 20 degrees, so the two strips are $`375h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ long and have widths of $`75h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (south) and $`37.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (north).

The sample is limited to be brighter than an extinction-corrected magnitude of $`b_\mathrm{J}=19.45`$ (using the extinction maps of Schlegel et al. 1998). This limit gives a good match between the density on the sky of galaxies and 2dF fibres. Due to clustering, however, the number in a given field varies considerably. To make efficient use of 2dF, we employ an adaptive tiling algorithm to cover the survey area with the minimum number of 2dF fields. With this algorithm we are able to achieve a 93% sampling rate with on average fewer than 5% wasted fibres per field. Over the whole area of the survey there are in excess of 250,000 galaxies.

## 2 Survey Status

After an extensive period of commissioning of the 2dF instrument, 2dFGRS observing began in earnest in May 1997, and terminated in April 2002. In total, observations were made of 899 fields, yielding redshifts and identifications for 232,529 galaxies, 13976 stars and 172 QSOs, at an overall completeness of 93%. The galaxy redshifts are assigned a quality flag from 1 to 5, where the probability of error is highest at low $`Q`$. Most analyses are restricted to $`Q3`$ galaxies, of which there are currently 221,496. An interim data release took place in July 2001, consisting of approximately 100,000 galaxies (see Colless et al. 2001 for details). A public release of the full photometric and spectroscopic database is scheduled for July 2003.

The Colless et al. (2001) paper details the practical steps that are necessary in order to work with a survey of this sort. The 2dFGRS does not consist of a simple region sampled with 100% efficiency, and it is therefore necessary to use a number of masks in order to interpret the data. Two of these concern the input catalogue: the boundaries of this catalogue, including ‘drilled’ regions around bright stars where galaxies could not be detected; also, revisions to the photometric calibration mean that in practice the survey depth varies slightly with position on the sky. A futher mask arises from the way in which the sky is tessellated into 2dF tiles: near the survey edges and near internal holes, a lack of overlaps mean that the sampling fraction falls to about 50%. Finally, the spectroscopic success rate of each spectroscopic observation fluctuated according to the observing conditions. The median redshift yield was approximately 95%, but with a tail towards poorer data. The terminal stages of 2dFGRS observing were in fact devoted to re-observing these fields of low completeness; nevertheless, approximately 10% of fields have completeness lower than 80%. This variable sampling makes quantification of the large scale structure more difficult, particularly for any analysis requiring relatively uniform contiguous areas. However, the effective survey ‘mask’ can be measured precisely enough that it can be allowed for in analyses of the galaxy distribution.

## 3 Galaxy spectra and colours

Beyond the basic data of positions, magnitudes and redshifts, it is important on physical grounds to be able to divide the 2dFGRS database into different categories of galaxies. This has been done in two different ways. Spectral classification of 2dFGRS galaxies was performed by Folkes et al. (1999) and Madgwick et al. (2002). Principal component analysis was used to split galaxies into a superposition of a small number of templates. Not all of these are robust, owing to uncalibrated spectral distortions in the 2dF instrument, but it was possible to derive a robust classification parameter (termed $`\eta `$) from the templates, which effectively measures the emission-line strength (closely related to the star-formation rate). Galaxies were divided into four spectral classes; their mean spectra and separate luminosity functions are shown in Figure 2.

This classification method has the drawback that it cannot be used beyond $`z=0.15`$, where H$`\alpha `$ is lost from the spectra. Also, the fibres do not cover the whole galaxy (although Madgwick et al. 2002 show that aperture corrections are not large in practice). More recently, we have been able to obtain total broad-band colours for the 2dFGRS galaxies, using the data from the SuperCOSMOS sky surveys (Hambly et al. 2001). These yield $`B_\mathrm{J}`$ from the same UK Schmidt Plates as used in the original APM survey, but with improved linearity and smaller random errors (0.09 mag rms relative to the SDSS EDR data). The $`R_\mathrm{F}`$ plates are of similar quality, so that we are able to divide galaxies by colour, with an rms in photographic $`BR`$ of about 0.13 mag. The systematic calibration uncertainties are negligible by comparison, and are at the level of 0.04 mag. rms in each band. Figure 3 shows that the colour information divides ‘passive’ galaxies with little active star formation cleanly from the remainder, uniformly over the whole redshift range of the 2dFGRS.

As an immediate application, we can display the spatial distribution of 2dFGRS galaxies divided according to colour (Figure 4). The most striking aspect of this image is how closely both sets of galaxies follow the same structure. The passive subset display a more skeletal appearance, as expected owing to morphological segregation of ellipticals. A red-selected survey such as SDSS will appear more similar to the passive subset of the 2dFGRS, with relatively low sampling of the more active spectral type 2–4.

## 4 Redshift-space correlations

The simplest statistic for studying clustering in the galaxy distribution is the the two-point correlation function, $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$. This measures the excess probability over random of finding a pair of galaxies with a separation in the plane of the sky $`\sigma `$ and a line-of-sight separation $`\pi `$. Because the radial separation in redshift space includes the peculiar velocity as well as the spatial separation, $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$ will be anisotropic. On small scales the correlation function is extended in the radial direction due to the large peculiar velocities in non-linear structures such as groups and clusters – this is the well-known ‘Finger-of-God’ effect. On large scales it is compressed in the radial direction due to the coherent infall of galaxies onto mass concentrations – the Kaiser effect (Kaiser 1987).

To estimate $`\xi (\sigma ,\pi )`$ we compare the observed count of galaxy pairs with the count estimated from a random distribution following the same selection function both on the sky and in redshift as the observed galaxies. We apply optimal weighting to minimise the uncertainties due to cosmic variance and Poisson noise. The redshift-space correlation function for the 2dFGRS computed in this way is shown in Figure 5. The correlation-function results display very clearly two signatures of redshift-space distortions. The ‘fingers of God’ from small-scale random velocities are very clear, as indeed has been the case from the first redshift surveys (e.g. Davis & Peebles 1983). However, this is the first time that the large-scale flattening from coherent infall has been seen in detail. An initial analysis of this effect was performed in Peacock et al. (2001), and the final database was analysed by Hawkins et al. (2002).

The degree of large-scale flattening is determined by the total mass density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and the biasing of the galaxy distribution. On large scales, it should be correct to assume a linear bias model, with correlation functions $`\xi _g(r)=b^2\xi (r)`$, so that the redshift-space distortion on large scales depends on the combination $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}/b`$. This is modified by the Finger-of-God effect, which is significant even at large scales and dominant at small scales. The effect can be modelled by introducing a parameter $`\sigma _p`$, which represents the rms pairwise velocity dispersion of the galaxies in collapsed structures, $`\sigma _p`$ (see e.g. Ballinger et al. 1996). Considering both these effects, and marginalising over $`\sigma _p`$, the best estimate of $`\beta `$ and its 68% confidence interval according to Hawkins et al. (2002) is

$`\beta =0.49\pm 0.09`$ (1)
The quoted error is slightly larger than in Peacock et al. (2001): mainly, this reflects the decision of Hawkins et al. to concentrate on the better sampled volume at $`z<0.2`$, although a more detailed comparison with mock data also indicates that the previous errors were too small by a factor of about 1.2.

Our measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{0.6}/b`$ can only be used to determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if the bias is known. We discuss below two methods by which the bias parameter may be inferred, which in fact favour a low degree of bias. Nevertheless, there are other uncertainties in converting a measurement of $`\beta `$ to a figure for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The 2dFGRS has a median redshift of 0.11; with weighting, the mean redshift in Hawkins et al. is 0.15, and our measurement should be interpreted as $`\beta `$ at that epoch. The optimal weighting also means that our mean luminosity is high: it is approximately 1.4 times the characteristic luminosity, $`L^{}`$, of the overall galaxy population (Folkes et al. 1999; Madgwick et al. 2002). This means that we need to quantify the luminosity dependence of clustering.

## 5 Real-space clustering and its dependence on luminosity

The dependence of galaxy clustering on luminosity is an effect that was controversial for a number of years. Using the APM-Stromlo redshift survey, Loveday et al. (1995) claimed that there was no trend of clustering amplitude with luminosity, except possibly at the very lowest luminosities. In contradiction, the SSRS study of Benoist et al. (1996) suggested that the strength of galaxy clustering increased monotonically with luminosity, with a particularly marked effect for galaxies above $`L^{}`$. The latter result was arguably more plausible, based on what we know of luminosity functions and morphological segregation. It has been clear for many years that elliptical galaxies display a higher correlation amplitude than spirals (Davis & Geller 1976). Since ellipticals are also more luminous on average, as shown above, some trend with luminosity is to be expected, but the challenge is to detect it.

The difficulty with measuring the dependence of $`\xi (r)`$ on luminosity is that cosmic variance can mask the signal of interest. It is therefore important to analyse volume-limited samples in which galaxies of different luminosities are compared in the same volume of space. This comparison was undertaken by Norberg et al. (2001), who measured real-space correlation functions via the projection $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\sigma )=\xi (\sigma ,\pi )𝑑\pi `$, demonstrating that it was possible to obtain consistent results in both NGP and SGP. A very clear detection of luminosity-dependent clustering was achieved, as shown in Figure 6. The results can be described by a linear dependence of effective bias parameter on luminosity:

$`b/b^{}=0.85+0.15(L/L^{}),`$ (2)
and the scale-length of the real-space correlation function for $`L^{}`$ galaxies is approximately $`r_0=4.8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This trend is in qualitative agreement with the results of Benoist et al. (1996), but in fact these workers gave a stronger dependence on luminosity than is indicated by the 2dFGRS. Finally, with spectral classifications, it is possible to measure the dependence of clustering both on luminosity and on spectral type, to see to what extent morphological segregation is responsible for this result. Norberg et al. (2002) show that, in fact, the principal effect seems to be with luminosity: $`\xi (r)`$ increases with $`L`$ for all spectral types. This is reasonable from a theoretical point of view, in which the principal cause of different clustering amplitudes is the mass of halo that hosts a galaxy (e.g. Cole & Kaiser 1989; Mo & White 1996; Kauffman, Nusser & Steinmetz 1997).

Finally, these results would lead us to infer that the LF must change in strongly clumped regions, shifting to higher luminosities. Such an effect has been sought for many years, but always yielded null results. However, De Propris et al. (2002) have shown that $`L^{}`$ in rich clusters does obey a shift with respect to the global value, being brighter by $`0.28\pm 0.08`$ mag.

## 6 The 2dFGRS power spectrum

Perhaps the key aim of the 2dFGRS was to perform an accurate measurement of the 3D clustering power spectrum, in order to improve on the APM result, which was deduced by deprojection of angular clustering (Baugh & Efstathiou 1993, 1994). The results of this direct estimation of the 3D power spectrum are shown in Figure 7. This power-spectrum estimate uses the FFT-based approach of Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994), and needs to be interpreted with care. Firstly, it is a raw redshift-space estimate, so that the power beyond $`k0.2h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is severely damped by fingers of God. On large scales, the power is enhanced, both by the Kaiser effect and by the luminosity-dependent clustering discussed above. Finally, the FKP estimator yields the true power convolved with the window function. This modifies the power significantly on large scales (roughly a 20% correction). We have made an approximate correction for this in Figure 7. The precision of the power measurement appears to be encouragingly high, and the next task is to perform a detailed fit of physical power spectra, taking full account of the window effects. We summarize here results from this analysis (Percival et al. 2001).

The fundamental assumption is that, on large scales, linear biasing applies, so that the nonlinear galaxy power spectrum in redshift space has a shape identical to that ow linear theory in real space. We believe that this assumption is valid for $`k<0.15h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$; the detailed justification comes from analyzing realistic mock data derived from $`N`$-body simulations (Cole et al 1998). The model free parameters are thus the primordial spectral index, $`n`$, the Hubble parameter, $`h`$, the total matter density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and the baryon fraction, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Note that the vacuum energy does not enter. Initially, we show results assuming $`n=1`$; this assumption is relaxed later.

In order to compare the 2dFGRS power spectrum to members of the CDM family of theoretical models, it is essential to have a proper understanding of the full covariance matrix of the data: the convolving effect of the window function causes the power at adjacent $`k`$ values to be correlated. This covariance matrix was estimated by applying the survey window to a library of Gaussian realisations of linear density fields. Similar results were obtained using a covariance matrix estimated from a set of mock catalogues. It is now possible to explore the space of CDM models, and likelihood contours in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ are shown in Figure 8. At each point in this surface we have marginalized by integrating the likelihood surface over the two free parameters, $`h`$ and the power spectrum amplitude. Assuming a uniform prior for $`h`$ over a factor of 2 is arguably over-cautious, and we have therefore added a Gaussian prior $`h=0.7\pm 10\%`$. This corresponds to multiplying by the likelihood from external constraints such as the HST key project (Freedman et al. 2001); this has only a minor effect on the results.

Figure 8 shows that there is a degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ and the baryonic fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. However, there are two local maxima in the likelihood, one with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh0.2`$ and $`20\%`$ baryons, plus a secondary solution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh0.6`$ and $`40\%`$ baryons. The high-density model can be rejected through a variety of arguments, and the preferred solution is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh=0.20\pm 0.03;\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.15\pm 0.07.`$ (3)
The 2dFGRS data are compared to the best-fit linear power spectra convolved with the window function in Figure 8. This shows where the two branches of solutions come from: the low-density model fits the overall shape of the spectrum with relatively small ‘wiggles’, while the solution at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh0.6`$ provides a better fit to the bump at $`k0.065h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, but fits the overall shape less well. A preliminary analysis of $`P(k)`$ from the full final dataset shows that $`P(k)`$ becomes smoother: the high-baryon solution becomes disfavoured, and the uncertainties narrow slightly around the lower-density solution: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh=0.18\pm 0.02`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.17\pm 0.06`$.

It is interesting to compare these conclusions with other constraints. These are shown on Figure 8, assuming $`h=0.7\pm 10\%`$. Latest estimates of the Deuterium to Hydrogen ratio in QSO spectra combined with big-bang nucleosynthesis theory predict $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.001`$ (Burles et al. 2001), which translates to the shown locus of $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ vs $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$. X-ray cluster analysis predicts a baryon fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.127\pm 0.017`$ (Evrard 1997) which is within $`1\sigma `$ of our value. These loci intersect very close to our preferred model. Moreover, these results are in good agreement with independent estimates of the total density and baryon content from data on CMB anisotropies (e.g. Netterfield et al. 2001; Pryke et al. 2002).

Perhaps the main point to emphasise here is that the 2dFGRS results are not greatly sensitive to the assumed tilt of the primordial spectrum. We have used CMB results to motivate the choice of $`n=1`$, as discussed below, but it is clear that very substantial tilts are required to alter the conclusions significantly: $`n0.8`$ would be required to turn zero baryons into the preferred model.

The main residual worry about accepting the above conclusions is probably whether the assumption of linear bias can really be valid. In general, concentration towards higher-density regions both raises the amplitude of clustering, but also steepens the correlations, so that bias is largest on small scales. One way in which this issue can be studied is to use the split by colour introduced above. Figure 9 shows the power spectra for the 2dFGRS divided in this way. The shapes are almost identical (perhaps not so surprising, since the cosmic variance effects are closely correlated in these co-spatial samples). However, what is impressive is that the relative bias is almost precisely independent of scale, even though the passive subset is rather strongly biased relative to the active subset (relative $`b1.4`$). This provides some reassurance that the large-scale $`P(k)`$ reflects the underlying properties of the dark matter, rather than depending on the particular class of galaxies used to measure it.

## 7 Combination with the CMB and cosmological parameters

The 2dFGRS power spectrum contains important information about the key parameters of the cosmological model, but we have seen that additional assumptions are needed, in particular the values of $`n`$ and $`h`$. Observations of CMB anisotropies can in principle measure most of the cosmological parameters, and combination with the 2dFGRS can lift most of the degeneracies inherent in the CMB-only analysis. It is therefore of interest to see what emerges from a joint analysis.

These issues are discussed in Efstathiou et al. (2002). The CMB data alone contain two important degeneracies: the ‘geometrical’ and ‘tensor’ degeneracies. In the former case, one can evade the commonly-stated CMB conclusion that the universe is flat, by adjusting both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`h`$ to extreme values. In the latter case, a model with a large tensor component can be made to resemble a zero-tensor model with large blue tilt ($`n>1`$) and high baryon content. Efstathiou et al. (2002) show that adding the 2dFGRS data removes the first degeneracy, but not the second. This is reasonable: if we take the view that the CMB determines the physical density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, then a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ from 2dFGRS gives both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`h`$ separately in principle, removing one of the degrees of freedom on which the geometrical degeneracy depends. On the other hand, the 2dFGRS alone constrains the baryon content weakly, so this does not remove the scope for the tensor degeneracy.

On the basis of this analysis, we can therefore be confident that the universe is very nearly flat ($`|\mathrm{\Omega }1|<0.05`$), so it is defensible to assume hereafter that this is exactly true. The importance of tensors will of course be one of the key questions for cosmology over the next several years, but it is interesting to consider the limit in which these are negligible. In this case, the standard model for structure formation contains a vector of only 6 parameters:

$`𝐩=(n_s,\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_b,h,Q,\tau ).`$ (4)
Of these, the optical depth to last scattering, $`\tau `$, is almost entirely degenerate with the normalization, $`Q`$ – and indeed with the bias parameter; we discuss this below. The remaining four parameters are pinned down very precisely: using the latest CMB data plus the 2dFRGS power spectrum, we obtain

$`(n_s,\mathrm{\Omega }_ch^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,h)=(0.963\pm 0.042,0.115\pm 0.009,0.021\pm 0.002,0.665\pm 0.047),`$ (5)
or an overall density parameter of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.31\pm 0.05`$.

It is remarkable how well these figures agree with completely independent determinations: $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ from the HST key project (Mould et al. 2000; Freedman et al. 2001); $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.001`$ (Burles et al. 2001). This gives confidence that the tensor component must indeed be sub-dominant. For further details of this analysis, see Percival et al. (2002).

## 8 Matter fluctuation amplitude and bias

The above conclusions were obtained by considering the shapes of the CMB and galaxy power spectra. However, it is also of great interest to consider the amplitude of mass fluctuations, since a comparison with the galaxy power spectrum allows us to infer the degree of bias directly. This analysis was performed by Lahav et al. (2002). Given assumed values for the cosmological parameters, the present-day linear normalization of the mass spectrum (e.g. $`\sigma _8`$) can be inferred. It is convenient to define a corresponding measure for the galaxies, $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}`$, such that we can express the bias parameter as

$`b={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}}{\sigma _{8\mathrm{m}}}}.`$ (6)
In practice, we define $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}`$ to be the value required to fit a CDM model to the power-spectrum data on linear scales ($`0.02<k<0.15h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$). A final necessary complication of the notation is that we need to distinguish between the apparent values of $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}`$ as measured in redshift space ($`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^S`$) and the real-space value that would be measured in the absence of redshift-space distortions ($`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^R`$). It is the latter value that is required in order to estimate the bias.

A model grid covering the range $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_mh<0.3`$, $`0.0<\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.4`$, $`0.4<h<0.9`$ and $`0.75<\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^S<1.14`$ was considered. The primordial index was assumed to be $`n=1`$ initially, and the dependence on $`n`$ studied separately. For fixed ‘concordance model’ parameters $`n=1`$, $`k=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.02`$ and a Hubble constant $`h=0.70`$, we find that the amplitude of 2dFGRS galaxies in redshift space is $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^S(L_s,z_s)=0.94`$. Correcting for redshift-space distortions as detailed above reduces this to 0.86 in real space. Applying a correction for a mean luminosity of $`1.9L^{}`$ using the recipe of Norberg et al. (2001), we obtain an estimate of $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^R(L^{},z_s)=0.76`$, with a negligibly small random error. In order to obtain present-day bias figures, we need to know the evolution of galaxy clustering to $`z=0`$. Existing data on clustering evolution reveals very slow changes: higher bias at early times largely cancels the evolution of the dark matter. We therefore assume no evolution in $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}`$.

The value of $`\sigma _8`$ for the dark matter can be deduced from the CMB fits:

$`\sigma _8=(0.72\pm 0.04)\mathrm{exp}\tau ,`$ (7)
where the error bar includes both data errors and theory uncertainty. The unsatisfactory feature is the degeneracy with the optical depth to last scattering. For reionization at redshift $`8`$, we would have $`\tau 0.05`$; it is unlikely that $`\tau `$ can be hugely larger (e.g. Loeb & Barkana 2001). Although direct removal of this theoretical prejudice is desirable (and will be possible with future CMB data), it seems reasonable to assume that the true value of $`\sigma _8`$ must be very close to 0.76. Within the errors, this agrees perfectly with our $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{g}}^R(L^{},0)=0.76`$, implying that $`L^{}`$ galaxies are very nearly exactly unbiased. As we have seen, there are large variations in the clustering amplitude with type, so that this outcome must be something of a coincidence.

Finally, this conclusion of near-unity bias was reinforced in a completely independent way, by using the measurements of the bispectrum of galaxies in the 2dFGRS (Verde et al. 2002). As it is based on three-point correlations, this statistic is sensitive to the filamentary nature of the galaxy distribution – which is a signature of nonlinear evolution. One can therefore split the degeneracy between the amplitude of dark-matter fluctuations and the amount of bias. At the effective redshift and luminosity of their sample ($`z_s=0.17`$ and $`L=1.9L^{}`$), Verde et al. found $`b=1.04\pm 0.11`$. Although the corrections to zero redshift and to luminosity $`L^{}`$ are probably significant, this reinforces the point that on large scales there is no substantial difference in clustering between typical galaxies and the dark matter (small scales, of course, are another matter entirely).

## 9 Conclusions

The 2dFGRS is the first 3D survey of the local universe to achieve 100,000 redshifts, almost an order of magnitude improvement on previous work. The final database should yield definitive results on a number of key issues relating to galaxy clustering. For details of the current status of the 2dFGRS, see http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS. In particular, this site gives details of the 2dFGRS public release policy, in which approximately the first half of the survey data were made available in June 2001, with the complete survey database to be made public by mid-2003. Some key results of the survey to date may be summarized as follows:

(1) The galaxy luminosity function has been measured precisely as a function of spectral type (Folkes et al. 1999; Madgwick et al. 2002).

(2) The amplitude of galaxy clustering has been shown to depend on luminosity (Norberg et al. 2001). The relative bias is $`b/b^{}=0.85+0.15(L/L^{})`$.

(3) The redshift-space correlation function has been measured out to $`30h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Redshift-space distortions imply $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}/b=0.49\pm 0.09`$, for galaxies with $`L1.4L^{}`$.

(4) The galaxy power spectrum has been measured to high accuracy (10–15% rms) over about a decade in scale at $`k<0.15h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The results are very well matched by an $`n=1`$ CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh=0.18`$ and 16% baryons.

(5) Combining the power spectrum results with current CMB data, very tight constraints are obtained on cosmological parameters. For a scalar-dominated flat model, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.31\pm 0.05`$, and $`h=0.68\pm 0.04`$, independent of external data.

(6) Results from the CMB comparison imply a large-scale bias parameter consistent with unity. This conclusion is also reached in a completely independent way via the bispectrum analysis of Verde et al. (2002).

Overall, these results provide precise support for a cosmological model that is flat, with $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_b,\mathrm{\Omega }_c,\mathrm{\Omega }_v)(0.04,0.25,0.71)`$, to a tolerance of 10% in each figure. Although the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model has been claimed to have problems in matching galaxy-scale observations, it clearly works extremely well on large scales, and any proposed replacement for CDM will have to maintain this agreement. So far, there has been no need to invoke either tilt of the scalar spectrum, or a tensor component in the CMB. If this situation is to change, the most likely route will be via new CMB data, combined with the key complementary information that the large-scale structure in the 2dFGRS can provide.

## Acknowledgements

The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey was made possible by the dedicated efforts of the staff of the Anglo-Australian Observatory, both in creating the 2dF instrument, and in supporting it on the telescope.

## References

Ballinger W.E., Peacock J.A., Heavens A.F., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 877

Baugh C.M., Efstathiou G., 1993, MNRAS, 265, 145

Baugh C.M., Efstathiou G., 1994, MNRAS, 267, 323

Benoist C., Maurogordato S., da Costa L.N., Cappi A., Schaeffer R., 1996, ApJ, 472, 452

Benson, A.J., Frenk, C.S., Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Lacey, C.G., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1041

Burles S., Nollett K.M., Turner M.S., 2001, ApJ, 552, L1

Cole S., Kaiser N., 1989, MNRAS, 237, 1127

Cole S., Hatton S., Weinberg D.H., Frenk C.S., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 945

Colless M. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039

Davis M., Geller M.J., 1976, ApJ, 208, 13

Davis M., Peebles, P.J.E., 1983, ApJ, 267, 465

De Propris R. et al., 2002, astro-ph/0212562

Efstathiou G. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 330, L29

Evrard A., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 289

Folkes S.J. et al., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 459

Feldman H.A., Kaiser N., Peacock J.A., 1994, ApJ, 426, 23

Freedman W.L. et al., 2001, ApJ, 553, 47

Hambly N.C., Irwin M.J., MacGillivray H.T., 2001, MNRAS 326 1295

Hawkins E.J. et al., 2002, astro-ph/0212375

Kaiser N., 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1

Kauffmann G., Nusser A., Steinmetz M., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 795

Lahav O. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 961

Lewis I.J. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 279

Loeb A., Barkana R., 2001, ARAA, 39, 19

Loveday J., Maddox S.J., Efstathiou G., Peterson B.A., 1995, ApJ, 442, 457

Maddox S.J., Efstathiou G., Sutherland W.J., Loveday J., 1990a, MNRAS, 242, 43p

Maddox S.J., Sutherland W.J., Efstathiou G., Loveday J., 1990b, MNRAS, 243, 692

Maddox S.J., Efstathiou G., Sutherland W.J., 1990c, MNRAS, 246, 433

Madgwick D. et al., 2002, 333, 133

Mo H.J., White S.D.M., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347

Mould J.R. et al., 2000, ApJ, 529, 786

Netterfield C.B. et al., 2001, astro-ph/0104460

Norberg P. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 64

Norberg P. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 332, 827

Peacock J.A. et al., 2001, Nature, 410, 169

Percival W.J. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1297

Percival W.J. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1068

Pryke C. et al., 2002, ApJ, 568, 46

Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

Stoughton C.L. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 485

Verde L. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432