text:
# Nuclear fission: The ”onset of dissipation” from a microscopic point of view

## 1 Introduction

It is of considerable interest to understand the temperature dependence of transport properties associated with slow collective motion of large scale. Fission is a prime example, and indeed, for this case there is growing experimental evidence  \-  that damping effectively increases with $`T`$. One often tries to characterize this feature by one parameter, the effective damping rate $`\eta `$ which is related to the equation of average motion for a locally defined damped oscillator

$$M\frac{d^2q}{dt^2}+\gamma \frac{dq}{dt}+Cq(t)=0,$$
(1)
through

$$\eta =\frac{\gamma }{2\sqrt{MC}}.$$
(2)
The $`q=QQ_0`$ measures the deviation of the collective variable $`Q`$ from some fixed value $`Q_0`$. In the following we will also need other combinations of inertia $`M`$, stiffness $`C`$ and friction $`\gamma `$, namely

$$\tau _{\text{coll}}=\frac{\gamma }{|C|}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{coll}}},\tau _{\text{kin}}=\frac{M}{\gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}}\text{and}\varpi ^2=\frac{C}{M}.$$
(3)
The $`\tau _{\text{coll}}`$ sets the scale for (local) relaxation of collective motion in a given potential of (local) stiffness $`C`$. The $`\tau _{\text{kin}}`$, on the other hand, measures the relaxation of the kinetic energy to the equilibrium value of the Maxwell distribution. Typically, for slow collective motion we expect this time to be smaller than the former. The limit of overdamped motion applies for $`\tau _{\text{kin}}\tau _{\text{coll}}`$. Using the $`\eta `$ introduced in (2) the following useful relation for their ratio is easily verified

$$2\eta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}}{\mathrm{}\varpi }=\varpi \tau _{\text{coll}}=\sqrt{\frac{\tau _{\text{coll}}}{\tau _{\text{kin}}}}.$$
(4)
For a positive stiffness ($`C>0`$) and underdamped motion, the $`\varpi `$ would be the frequency of the vibration and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}`$ its width. It should be noted that in the literature a different notation is sometimes used where $`\gamma `$ stands for $`\eta `$, and often the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}/\mathrm{}`$ is referred to as $`\beta `$.

To understand the dynamics in phase space one also needs the diffusion coefficients. At small temperatures they may deviate from the classic Einstein relation (see ), but these finer details will be neglected here. For such a situation the fission decay rate is commonly calculated within Kramers’ ”high viscosity” limit , for which the dependence on friction is given by

$$\frac{R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b)}{R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)}=\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}+\eta _b\right)^1.$$
(5)
Here, the index ”b” refers to the fact that the transport coefficients are to be calculated at the barrier. It has been reported, see e.g. Fig.5 of , experimental data to suggest, when analyzed on the basis of (5), the $`\eta `$ to be negligibly small at very low temperatures but to rise more or less sharply around $`T1\text{MeV}`$. This result is in qualitative agreement with microscopic calculations of the transport coefficients within linear response theory , although caution is still warranted here. Let us leave aside the fact that at lower temperatures the one dimensional potential may attain more structure than that found in one minimum and one barrier, which is the picture underlying formula (5) and which for the sake of simplicity shall be applied in the sequel. As will be demonstrated below, even then it is not permissible to entirely parameterize the truly complicated transport process by the single quantity $`\eta `$. Rather, other combinations of $`M,\gamma `$ and $`C`$ are needed for more realistic descriptions. Moreover, one should be guided by the theoretical fact, that not all transport coefficients are equally well accessible both theoretically as well as numerically, as is so for the inertia, for instance.

Unfortunately, when physicists address transport problems, all too often one disregards the importance of the inertia, and in particular its variation with the collective coordinate. Indeed, in studies based on the Caldeira-Leggett Hamiltonian (see e.g. ) or in applications of the Random Matrix Theory (see ) the inertia is the one of the unperturbed collective part of the total Hamiltonian, treated as an (unknown) parameter. In the case of nuclear physics the situation is more complicated. Firstly, there, no unperturbed inertia exists at all; it may only show up in the final effective equation of motion as one manifestation of the existence of collective dynamics. Secondly, the inertia $`M`$ may depend sensitively on the collective degree of freedom. This feature is already well known from the traditional case of undamped motion at zero thermal excitation . There is no a priori reason why this should be different at finite temperature, with perhaps two exceptions or modifications. With increasing $`T`$ the $`M`$ gets close to the liquid drop value , which only varies smoothly with $`Q`$ and which is quite small. Simultaneously the friction strength increases, so that one may quickly reach the situation of overdamped motion, for which no trace of the inertia can be seen anymore. Such features have been seen within the linear response approach (see ), but to the best of our knowledge no other transport model has so far addressed this question.

## 2 Rate formulas

Like in the analysis underlying  we want to make use of a simple formula for the decay rate. In slight modification of Kramers’  classic one we write111Since we are only looking at stationary situations we leave out the time dependent factor which sometimes is taken into account to simulate the ”transient time” it takes before the stationary current has built up.:

$$R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b)=\frac{\varpi _a}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{M_a}{M_b}}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T)\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right).$$
(6)
The indices ”$`a`$” and ”$`b`$” refer to the minimum and maximum of the potential $`V(Q)`$, located at $`Q_a`$ and $`Q_b`$, respectively. The $`E_b`$ stands for the height of the barrier $`E_b=V(Q_b)V(Q_a)`$. The factor $`\sqrt{M_a/M_b}`$, not contained in Kramers’ original work, is meant to account for the modification one gets for variable inertia. Notice, that this inertia both influences the current over the barrier as well as the number of ”particles” (phase space points) sitting in the well. Commonly both quantities are calculated with the same $`M`$ which then drops out; see e.g. eqs. (4.30) and (4.31) of . General reasons for the presence of this additional factor will be given in Appendix A. At first, in sect.A.1 we follow the more common derivation involving the construction of the densities at the barrier and at the minimum, which in sect.A.3 is reduced to the Smoluchowsky limit (see below). In sect.A.4 we follow the arguments of Strutinsky  which lead to exactly the same formula. Unfortunately, in  this feature is disguised by the very fact that in the final expression eq.(16), like in large parts of the derivation, primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged. It is for this reason that we feel compelled to redo the short calculation. The form (6) has recently been derived also in  by applying a generalized version of the ”Perturbed Static Path Approximation (PSPA)”.

Notice please that the dependence of the rate on the effective damping strength $`\eta _b`$ still is given by (5). Using the relation $`\varpi ^2=|C|/M`$ (see (3)) the limiting value at zero damping $`R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)`$ may be written in the two equivalent forms

$$R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)=\frac{\varpi _a}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{M_a}{M_b}}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T)\frac{\varpi _b}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T).$$
(7)
The influence of dissipation is visualized by plotting in Fig.1 the ratio $`R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b)/R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)`$.

In addition to the result of formula (5) we also show two other cases. Firstly, we show a simplified version of the low viscosity limit,

$$\frac{R_K^{l.v.}(\eta _b)}{R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\eta _b\frac{E_b}{T}.$$
(8)
It is valid for very small viscosity only (see eq.(11) below) and provided  the action for the motion on top of the barrier may be approximated by $`I(E_b)E_b/\varpi _b`$. As demonstrated in , for the nuclear case such a situation is found only at very small temperatures, much below the critical temperature for pair correlations to become important. Secondly, we explicitly indicate the limit the ratio (5) takes on for overdamped motion

$$\frac{R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b)}{R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)}=\frac{1}{2\eta _b}\text{for}\eta _b1.$$
(9)
Whenever the ”high viscosity limit” applies the influence of dissipation manifests itself in a reduction of the decay rate over the value given by (7). This deviation is claimed to allow for deducing a possible temperature dependence of dissipation through the ”measurable” rate. It must be noted, however, that for overdamped motion it is not the effective damping factor $`\eta _b`$ which one deduces. Indeed, overdamped motion is governed by the Smoluchowski equation in which no inertia appears (see Appendix A). But the latter not only is present in $`\eta _b`$ but in $`R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)`$ as well. A better way of writing the rate formula in this case is

$$R_{\mathrm{ovd}}=R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b1)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\frac{|C_b|}{\gamma _b}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T)\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\frac{1}{\tau _{\text{coll}}^b}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T).$$
(10)
Here, the time scale $`\tau _{\text{coll}}^b`$ appears which is relevant for overdamped motion across the barrier, see below. As can be inferred from Fig.1 this limit is actually given for values of $`\eta _b`$ just above unity. Notice, please, that it is only with the additional factor $`\sqrt{M_a/M_b}`$ included in (6), on top of Kramers’ classic version, that the inertia drops out in the overdamped limit.

A few comments are in order on the validity of the rate formulas of the high viscosity limit, for which the following assumptions must hold true:

* On the way from the minimum to the barrier the temperature must not change.
* The barrier must be sufficiently pronounced, first of all in the sense that its height be large as compared to the temperature, viz $`E_bT`$, for further details see sect.A.1.
* The effective damping rate must not be too small

$$\eta _b\frac{T}{2E_b},$$
(11)
otherwise formula (8) would have to be applied.

It may be quite a delicate matter to fix or calculate the temperature which is at stake here. For instance, a temperature $`T_{CN}`$ associated to the total available energy for the compound nucleus might be much larger, as for high initial thermal excitations the system may cool down by emissions of neutrons or $`\gamma `$’s before it fissions. Finally, we should like to remark once more that presently any possible quantum features are discarded, which might show up at low temperatures .

## 3 Microscopic transport coefficients

Evidently, the temperature dependence of the rate will greatly be influenced by that of the transport coefficients — on top of the influence through the Arrhenius factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E_b(T)/T)`$. Let us first look into results obtained applying linear response theory within the locally harmonic approximation , before we turn to discuss other forms used in the literature, like in . In this theoretical approach the transport coefficients of average motion are obtained by relating in the low frequency regime the strength distribution of a microscopically calculated response function $`\chi _{qq}(\omega )`$ to the one of the damped oscillator. The latter is defined as

$$\left(\chi _{\text{osc}}(\omega )\right)^1q(\omega )\left(M\omega ^2+i\gamma \omega C\right)q(\omega )=q_{\mathrm{ext}}(\omega ).$$
(12)
and thus may be obtained by adding to (1) the term $`q_{\mathrm{ext}}(t)`$ on the right and performing a Fourier transformation. For overdamped motion the response function turns into

$$\chi _{\mathrm{ovd}}(\omega )=\frac{i}{\gamma }\frac{1}{\omega +iC/\gamma }.$$
(13)
In accord with the remarks from above on the Smoluchowski limit no inertia appears anymore.

This approach permits one to calculate the transport coefficients as functions of shape and temperature for any given nucleus. The formulation is done in such a way that on top of shell effects and pairing (see  with references to previous works) collisional damping is accounted for as well (for a review see ). As one may imagine, such computations are quite involved, last not least because much knowledge is required about various aspects of the dynamics of complex nuclear systems. This is one of the reasons why as yet numerical computations have been done only for particular nuclei or for more schematic cases  \- , . Nevertheless, this experience may allow us to deduce some gross features which may be considered generic to a wider class of nuclear systems. This is what we are going to do below. It seems appropriate, however, to first add some general remarks concerning calculations based on the deformed shell model as an approximation to the general mean field.

The output of calculations of the type just mentioned contains much more detailed information than at present one may possibly relate to observable quantities. The coordinate dependence of the transport coefficients, for instance, is one prime example. Often in nuclear transport theories one simply has aimed at constant coefficients for inertia and friction. If calculated within the linear response approach, on the other hand, sizable variations with shape are seen. One may recall that a similar feature is already seen in the potential landscape, when calculated with the Strutinsky procedure, for instance. Besides the maxima and minima which are typical for gross shell effects one sees detailed fine structure. Such features may depend on peculiarities of the underlying shell model, and may thus be unphysical in nature already by that reason. For the dynamic transport coefficients themselves further implications arise from quasi-crossings of levels. To large extent such effects can be expected to become much weaker in a multidimensional treatment, which at present still is infeasible.

One should not forget that problems of this type are intimately related to the fact that transport coefficients of inertia, stiffness and friction are those of average motion, calculated on the level of the mean field. Finally, however, they are needed for an equation of motion of Fokker-Planck type which accounts for dynamical fluctuations. The latter will help to smooth out the variations of the transport coefficients in most natural way. Evidently, the problem at stake here reflects the general deficiency of mean field theory. In a more appropriate treatment one would be able to treat self-consistently both the mean field as well as its fluctuations. Since such a theory is not available we suggest some other, more pragmatic procedure. As described previously already, see e.g. , one may smooth static energies as well as the other transport coefficients with respect to their dependence on deformation. The averaging interval in $`Q`$ is to be chosen large enough to wash out the rapid fluctuations but small enough to preserve gross shell structures.

### 3.1 Shell effects on potential landscape

The static energy is calculated in the usual way as sum of a liquid drop part and the shell correction, both of which depend on temperature, for details see . An example of the deformation dependence of this potential energy is shown in Fig.2. The dotted curve represents the case of zero thermal excitation. On top of the typical gross shell structure fluctuations of smaller scale are recognized as well. Features of this type lead to the rapid variations of the transport coefficients we talked about above; for the local stiffness as the second derivative of the static energy this is immediately evident. As mentioned, we consider such fluctuations as unphysical, for which reason we like to remove them by averaging over an appropriate interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ but to keep the gross shell structure. For the free energy, for instance, the smoothing can be done in the following way:

$$(Q,T)_{\text{av}}=\frac{_i(Q_i,T)f_{\text{av}}(\frac{QQ_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q})}{_if_{\text{av}}(\frac{QQ_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q})}$$
(14)
The smoothing function $`f_{av}(x)`$ in (14) is taken to be that of the Strutinsky shell correction method and the $`Q_i`$ are some points in deformation space. The use of the Strutinsky smoothing function guarantees stability of the averaging procedure: the smooth component of the deformation energy is restored after smoothing again. This implies that the liquid drop part of the energy is unchanged by this averaging.

In the figure we also show the averaged potential corresponding to temperatures $`T=0,1,2`$ and $`3\text{MeV}`$. As to be expected, with increasing temperature the deformation energy becomes much smoother and the height of the fission barrier gets reduced. This is due to the reduction of shell effects, as well as to the temperature dependence of the liquid drop part. At temperatures above $`T3\text{MeV}`$ the shell effects have disappeared completely and the averaged deformation energy coincides with its liquid drop component. As seen from the figure, at smaller temperatures the shell correction, albeit averaged, does contribute to the deformation energy and, hence, to the stiffness. For example, at $`T=1\text{MeV}`$ the stiffness at the barrier (maximum of the deformation energy) is still several times larger than that of the liquid drop part.

It should be mentioned that in  a somewhat different (averaging) procedure was used. There the deformation energy was approximated by two parabolas and the stiffness (at the minimum and the barrier) was defined by the curvature of these parabola. In this way shell effects are washed out to larger extent, not only with respect to the fine structure but even with respect to gross shell features. Consequently, the stiffness defined in this way is rather close to the liquid drop stiffness.

### 3.2 Temperature dependence of transport coefficients

#### 3.2.1 Local stiffness

In the following we identify stiffness as the one corresponding to the free energy. Then we may write

$$C(T)=C_{\text{LDM}}+\delta C(T)$$
(15)
Here, $`\delta C(T)`$ represents the contribution from the shell correction, which disappears with increasing temperatures. To parameterize the latter feature we take over a formula of  to get

$$\delta C(T)=\delta C(T=0)\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{sinh}\tau }$$
(16)
with the shell correction parameter

$$\tau =2\pi ^2\frac{T}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{41\text{MeV}}{A^{1/3}}$$
(17)
being the average shell spacing. Above $`\tau _{\mathrm{shell}}35`$, which corresponds to a temperature of the order of

$$T_{\mathrm{shell}}(35)\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}2\text{MeV},$$
(18)
the $`\delta C(T)`$ practically vanishes, such that $`C(T)`$ attains its liquid drop value. Eventually, this $`C_{\text{LDM}}`$ may still be treated as $`T`$-dependent . Finally, we should recall our suggestion from above to average the transport coefficients over smaller intervals in $`Q`$. In this sense the $`\delta C(T=0)`$ is meant to only represent gross shell features.

#### 3.2.2 Local inertia

As mentioned already in the Introduction, one should expect the inertia to vary with temperature. It is more than tempting to assume a form similar to the one for the stiffness, namely

$$M(T)=M_{\text{LDM}}+\delta M(T)$$
(19)
in which the last term drops to zero like given in (16). Indeed, within the linear response approach a behavior of that type has been observed in a numerical study . There, the value reached at larger temperatures was given by that of irrotational flow, which for the present notation means to identify $`M_{\text{LDM}}=M_{\mathrm{irrot}}`$. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other theoretical model where such a transition is seen explicitly — although one must say that in phenomenological applications of transport models commonly the $`M_{\mathrm{irrot}}`$ is taken to represent the macroscopic value of inertia. At present the conjecture behind (19) still lacks a direct and general proof. However, in  the nucleonic response function has been studied applying Periodic Orbit Theory (POT). There it was seen that its ”fluctuating part” $`\delta \chi (\omega )`$ decreases with $`T`$ like the shell correction to the static energy. For slow collective motion the inertia is determined by the second derivative of this response function with respect to frequency calculated at $`\omega =0`$ (see App.B and eq.(B.8) in particular). Therefore, within such a model the ”shell correction” to the inertia was indeed proven to behave as claimed above, although several questions remain open. Amongst others, it is unclear to which extent this proof would get modified after considering ”collisional damping”. The latter cannot be treated within POT but should play a major role for the transition to hydrodynamic behavior. Possible reasons for rendering a microscopic approach quite difficult have been reported in . On the microscopic level they are related to the strength distribution for the local collective motion. The liquid drop model, on the other hand, represents motion of a system having a sharp surface, in contrast to microscopic calculations involving the diffuse surface of the mean field and, hence, of the density, for details see . Fortunately, however, at larger $`T`$ when the collisions become more and more important the motion gets strongly damped such that the inertia drops out anyway, see (13).

Because of these difficulties in microscopic computations we propose to fix the $`M(T)`$ through the vibrational frequency $`\varpi `$ and the local stiffness by the relation given in (3), namely $`M=|C|/\varpi ^2`$. For our version of Kramers’ rate formula this was easily achieved in using the second variant shown in (7).

#### 3.2.3 Vibrational frequency

At the extremal points of the potential landscape this frequency $`\varpi `$ is a well defined quantity. To some extent it is even accessible to experimental verification, at least for zero thermal excitation. At the minimum it may be associated with the energy of a collective mode (for very recent work on this subject see ) and for the barrier it influences the penetrability, as encountered for instance in neutron induced fission . Generally, the $`\mathrm{}\varpi `$ is believed to be of the order of $`1\text{MeV}`$. Indeed, numerical calculations for 224Th  show this to be quite insensitive to temperature; to lesser extent this is true also for the variation with shape and mass number. Altogether, for a first orientation the following choice seems appropriate

$$\mathrm{}\varpi _a\mathrm{}\varpi _b1\text{MeV}$$
(20)
with deviations being within a factor of 2 or less. This appears to be the case even when pairing is included at smaller $`T`$. In Fig.3

we take up the case of 224Th, again. The calculation is the same as reported in ; more details will be given below in sect.3.2.6. From the right panel it is seen that this conjecture is pretty much fulfilled.

#### 3.2.4 Ratio of friction to inertia

As said above, see eq.(3), the ratio $`\gamma /M`$ determines the inverse relaxation time to the Maxwell distribution. For underdamped motion this quantity also defines the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}`$ of the strength distribution. In Fig.3 we show it on the left hand panel as function of $`T`$. The dashed curve represents the following approximation, details of which are discussed in App.B, namely

$$\frac{\gamma }{M}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\mu ,T)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\pi ^2T^2}{1+\pi ^2T^2/c^2}\frac{0.6T^2}{1+T^2/40}\text{MeV}(T\mathrm{in}\text{MeV}).$$
(21)
As expected it represents the microscopic result quite well at smaller values of $`T`$ which correspond to smaller values of damping. Recall, please, that the overdamped limit is given already for values of the damping factor $`\eta _b`$ slightly above $`1`$, see Fig.1.. As can be inferred from Fig.3 and the estimate (20), this happens at temperatures above $`2\text{MeV}`$; mind that $`\eta =(\gamma /M)(2\omega )^1`$.

#### 3.2.5 Ratio of friction to stiffness

In Fig.4 we plot, as function of $`T`$, the time $`\tau _{\text{coll}}=\gamma /|C|`$, which measures the local relaxation in the coordinate. We may recall from (3) that for the overdamped case this is the only relevant time scale left. Its inverse determines the width of the strength distribution along the imaginary axis (see (13)). Likewise the decay rate (10) associated to the Smoluchowski equation is proportional to $`\tau _{\text{coll}}^1`$.

In Fig.4, again, the fully drawn line shows the microscopic result. The dashed curves represent an approximation, into which the following two features are incorporated, the decrease of the stiffness (as given in (15) and (16)) and the fact that with increasing $`T`$ the friction coefficient reaches a plateau . To combine both effects we chose a functional form similar to the one for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}`$ of (21) (see App.B) but with a different cut-off parameter $`c_{\mathrm{macro}}`$:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{coll}}=\frac{\gamma }{|C|}\frac{2}{\mathrm{}\varpi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{\pi ^2T^2}{1+\pi ^2T^2/c_{\mathrm{macro}}^2}\frac{0.6T^2}{1+\pi ^2T^2/c_{\mathrm{macro}}^2}\frac{\mathrm{}}{\text{MeV}}(T,c_{\mathrm{macro}}\mathrm{in}\text{MeV}),$$
(22)
with $`\mathrm{}\varpi 1`$ MeV. One should expect the $`\tau _{\text{coll}}`$ to reach a macroscopic limit like

$$\tau _{\text{coll}}|_{T_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{T}}}=\frac{\gamma (T)}{|C(T)|}|_{T_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{wall}}/2}{|C_{\text{LDM}}(T)|},$$
(23)
at larger temperatures. With a parameterization as in (22) the limit is obtained above $`T_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{T}}c_{\mathrm{macro}}/\pi `$, for which reason the $`c_{\mathrm{macro}}`$ would be given by

$$c_{\mathrm{macro}}^2=\frac{\mathrm{}\varpi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{2}\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{wall}}/2}{|C_{\mathrm{LDM}}(T)|}8.2\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{wall}}}{|C_{\mathrm{LDM}}(T)|}\frac{\text{MeV}^3}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(24)
Here, we accounted for results obtained by several previous numerical calculations, see e.g.. They showed that the value of friction at large $`T`$ is somewhat below the wall formula. The factor $`1/2`$ is only to be considered a rough rule of thumb. For the stiffness, on the other hand, the macroscopic limit evidently is given by the liquid drop model. As the microscopic calculation was done with a $`T`$-dependent $`|C_{\text{LDM}}(T)|`$ we chose the same one in this fit. In both curves the effects of pairing were included, which we are going to address now.

#### 3.2.6 The influence of pairing

This problem has recently been studied in . The fully drawn lines shown in the previous figures refer to such a calculation. Whereas in  one concentrated on the regime in which pairing is expected to be effective, the present results extend up to $`T=4\text{MeV}`$. Calculations in that regime had been reported before in . The underlying shell model is the same in both cases, but a different procedure is applied for the single particle width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. For the unpaired case the form (B.11) was used, for which the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\omega ,T)`$ leads to convolution integrals in the response functions. They are known to reduce the collective widths . In the paired case such a calculation is no longer feasible, for which reason there a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta },T)`$ had been assumed, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being the pairing gap. To have a more or less smooth transition to the unpaired case, we now approximate the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\omega ,T)`$ by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\mu ,\mathrm{\Delta },T)`$ which above the critical temperature for pairing reduces to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\mu ,T)`$ given in (B.13). For this reason our present friction coefficient may be overestimated slightly. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}/\mathrm{}=\gamma /M`$ the new results are shown in Fig.5,

where we concentrate on temperatures up to $`1\text{MeV}`$. To simulate the apparent effect of pairing to reduce friction we suggest the modified formulas

$$\frac{\gamma }{M}=f_{\mathrm{pair}}\frac{\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }=0)}{M(\mathrm{\Delta }=0)}f_{\mathrm{pair}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}(\mathrm{\Delta }=0)}{\mathrm{}}$$
(25)
and

$$\frac{\gamma }{|C|}=\tau _{\text{kin}}=f_{\mathrm{pair}}\tau _{\text{kin}}(\mathrm{\Delta }=0).$$
(26)
Here, $`f_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ parameterizes the decrease of friction due to pair correlations: An ansatz like

$$f_{\mathrm{pair}}=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(a(TT_0))},$$
(27)
may do with the following parameters: $`a=10\text{MeV}^1`$ and $`T_0=0.55\text{MeV}`$ at the barrier, and $`a=12\text{MeV}^1`$, $`T_0=0.48\text{MeV}`$ at the minimum. It was found that this choice fits best the microscopic results (with the functional form (25)). It is seen that these values vary with shape, which may be an indication that they are perhaps different for different nuclei. For a first orientation such details might be discarded. Then an average of the two values could be used both for $`a`$ and $`T_0`$. Finally, we should like to remark that this influence of pairing is most dramatic for friction, and much less so for $`M`$ and $`C`$. Therefore, we suggest to neglect the influence on the latter.

## 4 Temperature dependent decay rates

If one wants to gain information on the transport coefficients and their $`T`$-dependence, in particular, one needs to separate the influence of the pre-factors from the more or less trivial exponential part (the ”Arrhenius factor”). Commonly, this feature is then simply identified by Kramers’ conventional factor which only depends on $`\eta _b`$. A systematic study performed in  has revealed the appearance of a threshold temperature $`T_{\text{thresh}}`$ above which deviations from the statistical model are seen over a wide range of fissioning systems. Moreover, its ratio over the temperature dependent barrier heights $`E_{\text{Bar}}(T)E_b(T)`$ showed a remarkable insensitivity on mass number A. For later purpose it is more convenient to divide that ratio by two to get

$$\frac{T}{2E_b(T)}|_{\text{thresh}}0.13\text{from Fig. 4 of }\text{[26]}.$$
(28)
We are now going to view this result in the light of our microscopic transport coefficients. At first we shall concentrate on the ratio $`R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b)/R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)`$, to comment later on the $`T`$-dependence of the additional factors seen in (7), and which involve ratios of the inertias or stiffnesses.

### 4.1 Rate from microscopic transport coefficients

In Fig.6 we plot the normalized rates for the three cases shown already in Fig.1, but now as function of temperature as determined by our microscopic $`\eta (T)`$.

Various conclusions may be drawn from this figure:

* Above $`T0.60.7\text{MeV}`$ an ”onset of dissipation” is seen, indeed, in the sense of a decrease of the rate for the ”high viscosity” limit. The value of this ”threshold temperature” is in reasonable agreement with the $`T_{\text{thresh}}1.091.22`$ given in Tab.1 of  for 224Th.
* Moreover, from the right panel of Fig.5 together with the value for the frequency given in Fig.3 one may deduce for these temperatures the $`\eta _b`$ to be larger than the value of $`T/2E_b`$ given in (28). It then follows from (11) that the deviation from the statistical model is to be attributed to the high viscosity limit.
* This feature evidently is related to the disappearance of pair correlations at $`T0.5\text{MeV}`$. The curve for the ”low viscosity limit” demonstrates that below this temperature the former case should not be used at all (mind condition (11)).
* As indicated earlier, above $`T2\text{MeV}`$ the overdamped limit applies, for which we suggested to use formula (10).

### 4.2 Comparison with phenomenological models

In Fig.7 we compare the result shown in the previous figure (for formula (5)) with the one of a macroscopic picture, together with that suggested in . By the macroscopic model we mean to use the wall formula for friction, the liquid drop model for inertia (irrotational flow) as well as for the stiffness. In  the following functional form for $`\eta _b(T)`$ had been suggested:

$$\eta (T)=0.2+3T^2$$
(29)
It is seen that for such a $`T`$-dependence the onset of dissipation occurs quite abruptly and at rather small temperatures. One must have in mind, though, that the ratio plotted in Fig.7 is sensitive to the temperature at the barrier, as it is this one which determines the $`\eta _b`$. This fact might explain why the transition exhibited here through the dashed curve lies at smaller $`T`$ than discussed in . It can be said that for the other ansatz $`\eta (T)=0.2+5T`$ used as well the transition would occur at even smaller temperatures. The reason seems obvious: In these two forms the dissipation rate $`\eta `$ is much too large at small $`T`$ — at least too large as compared to our microscopic results. Indeed, as discussed above, at small temperatures pairing correlations require dissipation to vanish.

### 4.3 Relation to the statistical model

The rate of the high viscosity limit when extrapolated down to zero friction, $`R_K^{h.v.}(\eta _b=0)`$, corresponds to a variant of the transition state method, and thus to one  of the Bohr-Wheeler formula  (see also ). We demonstrate in sect.A.2 that this still holds true for the modified version of variable inertia. One must have in mind, however, that such an extrapolation may be meaningless as, by its very construction, the transition state method bases on the assumption of a complete equilibrium. The latter is given only if sizable friction forces provide sufficiently fast relaxation to this global equilibrium. Our result for the temperature dependence of friction then imply that any version of the transition state result must be taken with reservation when applied at small thermal excitations. At this point it would be too much to compare complicated evaluations of the Bohr-Wheeler formula with estimates of Kramers’ rate which have our microscopic transport coefficients as input. This must be subject of further studies.

What is feasible, however, is to compare our results with those of a statistical model, in which the Bohr-Wheeler formula  is approximated by

$$R_{stat}=\frac{T}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/T),$$
(30)
see e.g.. This approximate form comes up when in the Bohr-Wheeler formula  the level density at the barrier is identified as that of the total system, whereas in the correct expression the collective degree of freedom has to be excluded (see e.g.). That such an approximation may lead to erroneous results when interpreting data has been pointed out also in . We may briefly follow up this discussion by using our microscopic input.

The ratio $`R_K/R_{stat}`$ may be calculated for the three cases we looked at before, low and high viscosity limit as well as the overdamped limit. For ”high viscosity” one gets from (6) (mind (7)):

$$\frac{R_K^{h.v.}}{R_{stat}}=\frac{\mathrm{}\varpi _b}{T}\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right).$$
(31)
For overdamped motion, expression (10) leads to

$$\frac{R_K}{R_{stat}}=\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\frac{|C_b|}{\gamma _b}\frac{\mathrm{}}{T}.$$
(32)
The result (30) can be expected to deviate sizably from Kramers’ one. This is demonstrated in Fig.8 by the fully drawn line which represents the ratio given in (31). Here, the ”onset of dissipation” seemingly is even more pronounced, and the deviation starts at a much higher temperature. However, these effects are not only related to dissipation. Besides the more or less obvious fact of the prefactor in (30) being not identical to the frequency $`\mathrm{}\varpi _a\mathrm{}\varpi _b`$, there appears the square root of the ratios of the two stiffnesses. The latter is largely influenced by shell effects, which are known to be sensitive to variations of temperature. The implication of this feature on the ratio $`R_K/R_{stat}`$ is exhibited in Fig.8 by the dotted curve. Its deviation from the solid one is solely due to the stiffnesses being evaluated from the ($`T`$-independent) liquid drop model $`C_{\text{LDM}}(T=0)`$.

Obviously, the $`R_{stat}`$ becomes small at small temperatures, say below about $`0.5\text{MeV}`$. In this range nuclear friction is small, too, not only at the barrier but also inside the well (see Figs.3 and 4). Discarding any quantum effects, which in this regime may become important , one might then use Kramers’ low viscosity limit. As mentioned previously, any transition state result, however, does not apply, for which reason a comparison of both is meaningless. For the Bohr-Wheeler formula to be valid the system inside the well has to be in complete equilibrium . Such a situation is given only for sufficiently large damping.

### 4.4 Isotopic effects

In  different nuclei have been studied experimentally and analyzed with respect to a temperature dependence of the dissipation strength $`\eta _b`$ (called $`\gamma `$ there). In particular two isotopes of Thorium have been examined, namely 224Th and 216Th corresponding to neutron numbers of $`N=134`$ and $`126`$, respectively. The different behavior seen in experiment has been fully attributed to this $`\eta _b`$ and in this way very different values of $`\eta _b`$ have been found, together with a different increase with $`T`$. Evidently such features cannot be explained within a macroscopic picture. One needs to account properly for shell effects. From our experience with microscopic computations it seems unlikely that they would have such a big influence on friction alone. On the other hand, recalling that $`N=126`$ corresponds to a closed shell, it is evident that the stiffnesses for $`N=134`$ and $`126`$ will be quite different, in particular for the ground state minimum. This effect can be seen on the right panel of Fig.9, which shows the square root of the relevant ratios to be quite different for the two isotopes.

Moreover, it is easy to convince oneself that this effect is in the right direction. Indeed, as can be seen from (31), smaller values of this ratio $`\sqrt{C_a/|C_b|}`$ simulate larger values of $`\eta _b`$. Notice, please, that an excitation of about $`100\text{MeV}`$, as given in Fig.9 of , corresponds to a temperature of $`T2\text{MeV}`$. Finally, on the left panel in Fig.9 we show the full ratio as given by (32). Evidently, we are not able to fully explain the results shown in Fig.9 of , but this would have been asking too much, for various more or less obvious reasons.

## 5 Summary and discussion

One of our main goals was to suggest simple forms of the temperature dependence of those quantities which parameterize transport in collective phase space. These suggestions are based on simplified pictures for the intrinsic response combined with experience in microscopic computations within realistic approaches employing the deformed shell model. Rather than using the transport coefficients themselves we argued in favor of combinations which allow for a more direct physical interpretation.

These results were tested at the fission decay rate. To make our reasoning as transparent as possible, a simple one dimensional model was used, for which Kramers’ picture can be applied. This model is somewhat schematic, in so far as the potential is assumed to have one pronounced minimum and one pronounced barrier only, which follow more or less closely the form of two oscillators, one upright and one inverted. Different to the original work of Kramers and of many subsequent applications, our transport coefficients were allowed to vary along the fission path. In a first approximation this leads to a modification of Kramers’ original rate formula. For variable inertia, such a modification already appears necessary for the simple reason that for large damping one should reach the rate formula corresponding to the Smoluchowski equation. Still, the deviation from the undamped case is solely determined by the damping strength $`\eta _b`$ calculated at the barrier. However, for a complete understanding of temperature effects of the decay rate it does not suffice to concentrate only on this damping strength.

Of course, such a simple model for the static energy may not apply at all at (smaller) temperatures when shell effects lead to important deviations. It is unclear how one could generalize the formulas of Kramers and Bohr-Wheeler to realistic cases with two or perhaps three barriers having minima in between. To calculate the decay rate for such potentials it is perhaps simpler to use the more general description in terms of Fokker-Planck or Langevin equations. It may then also be possible to account better for the variations of the other transport coefficients with coordinate and temperature, namely inertia and friction. To the best of our knowledge so far in such calculations only the transport coefficients of macroscopic models have been used. However, the content of Fig.7 indicates that greater deviations can be expected for microscopic inputs.

Nevertheless, within our model we are able to clarify a few important points which must not be discarded even at temperatures at which shell effects do not really dominate the process.

* The transition to overdamped motion already occurs at temperatures around $`T2\text{MeV}`$. Then the decay rate should be calculated from the Smoluchowski equation.
* In this case no inertia appears any more. Thus neither the frequency $`\varpi `$ nor the effective width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{kin}}=\mathrm{}\gamma /M`$ (sometimes referred to as $`\mathrm{}\beta `$) play any role.
* The solely important quantities are the ratio of friction to stiffness, $`\gamma /C`$, and (for the decay rate) the ratio $`C_a/C_b`$ of the stiffnesses. Physically, the former determines the relaxation time for sliding motion in the potential, see (22). In passing we may note that it is essentially this time which determines the saddle to scission time, an effect not considered here. Notice that these stiffnesses are subject to large shell effects which may easily be accounted for by the shell correction method. As a first demonstration of this effect we have calculated the impact of these stiffnesses on the decay rate of the Thorium isotopes $`N=134`$ and $`N=126`$.
* In principle, the vibrational frequency $`\varpi `$ should be obtained from microscopic computations (for $`T<2`$ MeV). But a simple and quite fair estimate may be given by $`\mathrm{}\varpi _a\mathrm{}\varpi _b1\text{MeV}`$ (20), which is almost exact for the case of $`{}_{}{}^{224}\text{Th}`$. Evidently, the $`\varpi `$ may be greatly influenced by shell effects, but from our experience we claim that the deviations are within a factor of about two.
* Finally, we should like to briefly comment on the paper . There scaling rules have been derived for the case of the Smoluchowski equation, and based on phenomenological input. In the schematic model underlying the discussion a few assumptions had been made which are not in accord with microscopic results. First of all, the ratio of barrier height to temperature definitely decreases with $`T`$. Secondly, as the authors monitor themselves, a frequency at the barrier of the order of $`20\text{MeV}`$ is much too high. Together with the value used for $`\beta `$, namely $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{kin}}/\mathrm{}10^{22}\text{sec}^1`$ one gets an $`\eta _b`$ of $`0.2`$. This implies the motion around the barrier to be under damped rather than overdamped. Moreover, for several cases studied in this paper, the $`\eta _b`$ is seen to be of the order of or even smaller than $`T/2E_b`$. Thus, according to (11) not even Kramers’ high viscosity limit seems appropriate.

Let us turn now to very low temperatures, say to the regime where pairing correlations become important. They imply an additional reduction of dissipation, such that one may truly speak of the onset of dissipation when pair correlations disappear. It must be said though that this transition occurs at temperatures definitely smaller than those suggested in  \- . As mentioned earlier, one has to make sure, however, that one speaks of the same temperature. The one of the compound nucleus might be larger than the one the system still has when it passes the barrier.

It ought to be stressed that a small damping strength at small temperatures may have quite drastic implications. In case the ”high viscosity limit” still applies quantum corrections to the decay rate would lead to an increase of the latter . If, however, the dissipation strength falls below the limit given by (11) the nature of the diffusion process would change completely. Then dissipation is too weak to warrant relaxation to a quasi-equilibrium. This not only violates Kramers’ rate formula (for the high viscosity limit), or our extension of it, but also the Bohr-Wheeler formula becomes inapplicable. Moreover, so far no method exists of how one might incorporate collective quantum effects.

Finally we should like to indicate that our transport coefficients are not free of uncertainties in some of the parameters specifying our microscopic input. The most difficult one is found in the single particle width. It has been parameterized in  by referring to the optical model for nucleons in finite nuclei through a kind of local density approximation. There the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and its dependence on the nuclear density had been traced back to microscopic computations of the self energies in a generalized Brueckner type description. This implies an uncertainty of perhaps a factor of two in all formulas where the friction coefficient appears, as in (21) or (22) as well as in the $`\eta `$ of (4). Since any microscopic answer on such questions is extremely difficult, there is hope of narrowing down this uncertainty by more elaborate comparisons with experimental results.

## Appendix A Implications from a variable inertia

In Kramers’ seminal paper  the equation for the density in phase space was written and applied to the decay of a metastable system for the case of constant transport coefficients. In nuclear physics both the inertia as well as the friction coefficient vary with the collective coordinate. This has been accounted for already in early applications to heavy ion collisions, where globally Gaussian solutions (centered at the classical trajectories) were used to calculate reaction cross sections see e.g. . Written in compact form for one variable the transport equation should read:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{}{t}f(Q,P,t)=& [\frac{P}{M(Q)}\frac{}{Q}+\frac{}{Q}(\frac{P^2}{2M(Q)}+V(Q))\frac{}{P}\hfill \\ & +\frac{}{P}(\frac{P}{M(Q)}\gamma (Q)+D(Q)\frac{}{P})]f(Q,P,t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.1)
Neglecting any quantum effects, which might show up at small temperatures only , the diffusion coefficient is given by the classic Einstein relation $`D(Q)=\gamma (Q)T`$. A possible $`T`$-dependence of the transport coefficients has not been indicated explicitly. This is immaterial as long as we treat temperature as a fixed parameter, which is assumed to hold true in the entire paper. As is easily verified, one stationary solution of (A.1) is the distribution of global equilibrium,

$$f_{\text{eq}}(Q,P)=\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}(\beta (Q,P))$$
(A.2)
with the energy given by the classical Hamilton function

$$(Q,P)=\frac{P^2}{2M(Q)}+V(Q).$$
(A.3)
The reason is due to the following features: (i) The conservative part of the equation has the form of Liouville’s equation, namely

$$\frac{}{t}f(Q,P,t)=\{(Q,P),f(Q,P,t)\}.$$
(A.4)
(ii) The terms which represent dissipative and fluctuating forces are assumed independent of the momentum $`P`$, such that $`P`$ only appears quadratically in the kinetic energy. (iii) The choice of the diffusion coefficient by $`D(Q)=\gamma (Q)T`$ makes the second line of (A.1) vanish once applied to (A.2).

The structure of these equations not only allow for the proper equilibrium, it also warrants the continuity equation to be valid in the form

$$\frac{}{t}n(Q,t)+\frac{}{Q}j(Q,t)=0,$$
(A.5)
with the current and spatial densities being defined as

$$j(Q,t)=𝑑P\frac{P}{M(Q)}f(Q,P,t)$$
(A.6)
and

$$n(Q,t)=𝑑Pf(Q,P,t),$$
(A.7)
respectively. This is easily verified with the help of (A.1) exploiting partial integrations with respect to momentum $`P`$ (for which no ”surface terms” survive).

Both in Liouville’s equation as well as in the transport equation (A.1) a term appears which needs to be treated with special care. It is the one which results from the spatial derivative of the kinetic energy, and reads

$$\left(\frac{}{Q}\frac{P^2}{2M(Q)}\right)\frac{}{P}f(Q,P,t).$$
(A.8)
Indeed, this term is absent in the common derivation of the rate formula (see e.g. ), where always a constant inertia is assumed to be given. It may be noted that this term may imply difficulties with ”saddle point approximation”, as needed in Kramers’ stationary solution. Moreover, and more important for the present purpose, this term is also neglected in extracting the transport coefficients within the linear response approach. There, a locally harmonic approximation is exploited, which for the sake of simplicity is formulated only with respect to the coordinate. What that means may be visualized in the following way. Look at the Liouville part of the transport equation, in particular at the term which involves the derivative of the Hamilton function with respect to $`Q`$. First of all there is the ordinary force from the potential, which in the expansion around a $`Q_0`$ to harmonic order may be written as

$$\frac{}{Q}V(Q)K(Q)K(Q_0)C(Q_0)(QQ_0),$$
(A.9)
with the second derivative of the potential defining the local stiffness $`C(Q_0)`$. In addition there is the term

$$\left(\frac{}{Q}\frac{P^2}{2M(Q)}\right)=P^2\frac{}{Q}\left(\frac{1}{2M(Q)}\right)$$
(A.10)
which is of second order (namely in $`P`$). In a consistent treatment one would have to introduce a $`P_0`$ and expand all terms locally in collective phase space around the $`(Q_0,P_0)`$ to second order both in $`QQ_0`$ and $`PP_0`$ (see ). So far this has not been done when extrapolating transport coefficients from the microscopic linear response approach. This does not imply that our inertia may not change with the coordinate at all. It only means that the terms including its derivative have been discarded. With respect to the basic transport equation (A.1) this approximation may be phrased as

$$\left|\left(\frac{}{Q}\frac{P^2}{2M(Q)}\right)\frac{}{P}f(Q,P,t)\right|\left|\frac{}{P}\left(K(Q)+\frac{P}{M(Q)}\gamma (Q)\right)f(Q,P,t)\right|.$$
(A.11)
### A.1 Kramers’ decay rate formula extended to variable inertia

For reasons given above, we still want to make use of the condition (A.11). Nevertheless, it is necessary to re-derive an expression for the rate, which still is defined as

$$R=\frac{j_b}{N_a}.$$
(A.12)
To calculate the quantities involved we need a global solution $`f_{\text{glob}}(Q,P)`$ of equation (A.1) which corresponds to a small but finite, (quasi-)stationary current across the barrier. This current may be calculated from (A.6), with $`f(Q,P,t)`$ replaced by $`f_{\text{glob}}(Q_b,P)`$. The probability $`N_a`$ of finding the system inside the well at $`Q_a`$ may be calculated as follows

$$N_a=\underset{Q_a\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{Q_a+\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}𝑑Q𝑑Pf_{\text{glob}}(Q,P)=\underset{Q_a\mathrm{\Delta }}{\overset{Q_a+\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}𝑑Qn_{\text{glob}}(Q).$$
(A.13)
The integration range $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has to be smaller than $`Q_bQ_a`$ but large enough such that it contains the vast majority of the ensemble points sitting in the well. An approximation for $`f_{\text{glob}}(Q,P)`$ may be constructed by matching together at some intermediate point $`\overline{Q}`$ local solutions valid at the minimum $`Q_a`$ and at the barrier $`Q_b`$. The global solution $`f_{\text{glob}}(Q,P)`$ will have an overall normalization factor which drops out when calculating the rate from (A.12). The normalization of the local solutions $`f(QQ_a,P)`$ and $`f(QQ_b,P)`$, on the other hand, might be different. It has to be chosen in appropriate fashion such that both solutions match properly at $`\overline{Q}`$.

For a sufficiently high barrier the particles inside the potential well may be assumed to stay close to a local equilibrium associated to the temperature $`T`$. In case that the corresponding fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_a^{\text{eq}}`$ concentrate on a region around the minimum, the potential may be replaced by a harmonic oscillator and the associated local phase-space density may be approximated by:

$$f_a(Q,P)f(QQ_a,P)=𝒩_a\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \left(\frac{P^2}{2M_a}+V(Q_a)+\frac{C_a}{2}\left(QQ_a\right)^2\right)\right).$$
(A.14)
This is a reasonable estimate up to a $`\overline{Q}`$ with

$$\left(\overline{Q}Q_a\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_a^{\text{eq}}\frac{T}{C_a}.$$
(A.15)
Likewise, approximating the barrier by an inverted oscillator, the phase-space density may be represented by Kramers’ stationary solution  (neglecting any quantum effects, see e.g. )

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_b(Q,P)f(QQ_b,P)=& 𝒩_b\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \left(\frac{P^2}{2M_b}+V(Q_b)\frac{|C_b|}{2}(QQ_b)^2\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \times _{\mathrm{}}^{PA(QQ_b)}du\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma }}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{u^2}{2\sigma }),\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.16)
where

$$A=\frac{|C_b|}{\varpi _b\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)}\text{and}\sigma =TM_b\left(\frac{1}{\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)^2}1\right)$$
(A.17)
This latter solution must be joined to the one given by (A.14) in some intermediate region, say at $`\overline{Q}`$. It would be too much to require this to be possible for any $`P`$, in particular as we are not able to treat the inertia in continuous fashion, for reasons given above. However, as the rate is determined by the ratio of two quantities which are averaged over momentum it turns out sufficient to match only the reduced $`Q`$-space densities. Like suggested by (A.7), the latter are obtained by integrating out the momentum $`P`$ in (A.14) and (A.16) to get

$$n_a(Q)=𝒩_a\sqrt{2\pi M_aT}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \left(V(Q_a)+\frac{C_a}{2}(QQ_a)^2\right)\right)$$
(A.18)
and

$$n_b(Q)=𝒩_b\sqrt{\frac{\pi M_bT}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \left(V(Q_b)\frac{|C_b|}{2}(QQ_b)^2\right)\right)\left(1+\text{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{|C_b|}{2T}}(QQ_b)\right)\right)$$
(A.19)
To obtain the last expression identities for error functions have been applied. Still it is not of a form for which a condition like $`n_a(\overline{Q})=n_b(\overline{Q})`$ would make much sense. For this we need the additional assumption

$$|C_b|(\overline{Q}Q_b)^2T,$$
(A.20)
which renders the error-function in (A.19) close to unity. Then the two densities match smoothly at a $`\overline{Q}`$ satisfying

$$V(Q_a)+\frac{C_a}{2}(\overline{Q}Q_a)^2=V(Q_b)\frac{|C_b|}{2}(\overline{Q}Q_b)^2,$$
(A.21)
if only the normalization constants are chosen according to

$$𝒩_a=𝒩_b\sqrt{\frac{M_b}{M_a}}.$$
(A.22)
Now we are in the position to calculate the rate from (A.12). Plugging (A.22) into (A.14) the number of ”particles” at the minimum (A.13) becomes:

$$N_a𝒩_b\sqrt{2\pi M_bT}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi T}{C_a}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta V(Q_a))=𝒩_b\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi T\sqrt{\frac{M_b}{C_a}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta V(Q_a))$$
(A.23)
To get this simple expression it was assumed that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which in (A.13) defines the range of integration, is of the order of or larger than the fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2_a^{\text{eq}}`$ given in (A.15), such that the Gaussian integral can be calculated for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. The current at the barrier may be evaluated from (A.16) and (A.6) with $`Q=Q_b`$. After a lengthy but straight forward calculation involving identities for error-integrals, once more, one arrives at

$$j_b=𝒩_bT\sqrt{\frac{M_b}{|C_b|}}\varpi _b\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)\mathrm{exp}(\beta V(Q_b))$$
(A.24)
From (A.24) and (A.23) the decay rate (A.12) turns into

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_K^{h.v.}=& \frac{\varpi _b}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_b)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{\varpi _a}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{M_a}{M_b}}\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_b),\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.25)
confirming the expression (6) used in the text. We may note again that the result (A.25) was derived before in  within an extension of the Perturbed Static Path Approximation (PSPA).

Finally, we like to come back once more to the conditions (A.15) and (A.20) imposed before. They go along with the relation (A.21) for $`\overline{Q}`$ and the barrier height $`E_b=V(Q_b)V(Q_a)`$. The latter must then satisfy $`E_b=\frac{C_a}{2}(\overline{Q}Q_a)^2+\frac{|C_b|}{2}(\overline{Q}Q_b)^2T`$. It may be useful to visualize these relations with the help of the following schematic potential:

$$V(Q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V(Q_a)+\frac{C_a}{2}(QQ_a)^2\hfill & \text{for }Q<\overline{Q},\hfill \\ E_b+V(Q_a)\frac{|C_b|}{2}(QQ_b)^2\hfill & \text{for }Q>\overline{Q}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.26)
Choosing the $`\overline{Q}`$ according to $`\overline{Q}=(C_aQ_a+|C_b|Q_b)/(C_a+|C_b|)`$ the two parabolas match smoothly with a continuous first derivative. Possible errors related to (A.15) and (A.20) may easily be estimated from elementary properties of the error function.

### A.2 The relation to the transition state result

In transition state theory one assumes to be given a system that is totally equilibrized inside the barrier and for which at the barrier current only flows outward discarding any backflow. Within its most general version, the fission rate has been estimated by N. Bohr and J.A. Wheeler through their famous formula . There the equilibrium is the one of a micro canonical ensemble as represented by the density of states (of the total system at the minimum and of the intrinsic system at the barrier). To the extent that the micro canonical ensemble may be represented by a canonical one, with one and the same temperature at the minimum and at the barrier, the calculation of the rate can be done as follows, looking only at the collective degree of freedom. The outward current (at the barrier) is given by

$$j_b^{trans}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑P\frac{P}{M_b}f_{eq}(Q_b,P)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑P\frac{P}{M_b}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \frac{P^2}{2M_b}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(P).$$
(A.27)
Comparing with Kramers’s stationary solution shown in (A.16) one realizes  the only difference being the replacement of the Theta function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(P)`$ of (A.27) by the integral (for $`Q=Q_b`$) which appears in the second line of (A.16). Because of the following representation of the Theta function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(P)=\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^P𝑑u\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{u^2}{2\sigma }\right),$$
(A.28)
it is seen that (for finite temperature)

$$R_{trans}=R_K^{h.v.}(\eta =0).$$
(A.29)
This follows immediately with the help of the expression given for $`\sigma `$ in (A.17).

### A.3 The Smoluchowski limit

Performing in (A.25) the limit $`\eta _b1`$, with the effective damping rate defined by (2), one gets:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_K^{h.v.}& \frac{\varpi _b}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\frac{1}{2\eta _b}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_b)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\gamma _b}\sqrt{C_a|C_b|}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_b)\hfill \\ \hfill =& R_{\text{ovd}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.30)
This expression coincides with the formula (10) associated above with the Smoluchowski limit. As a matter of fact, this result can be obtained directly from the Smoluchowski equation

$$\frac{}{t}n(Q,t)=\frac{}{Q}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma (Q)}\frac{V(Q)}{Q}+\frac{T}{\gamma (Q)}\frac{}{Q}\right)n(Q,t)=\frac{}{Q}j(Q,t).$$
(A.31)
The calculation of the decay rate is quite easy in this case. Indeed, eq.(A.31) gives an explicit form of the $`j(Q,t)`$ as a function of the density $`n(Q,t)`$. Although in our case the friction coefficient varies with $`Q`$ the common derivation of the rate formula (see e.g. ) may be taken over without much difficulties.

Notice, please, that the transition from an equation like (A.1) to (A.31) only requires the $`\eta (Q)`$ to be large enough at any $`Q`$. Such a transition may be performed also in the case of a variable inertia, at least if condition (A.11) is fulfilled. In any case, in the overdamped limit the inertia has to drop out. We may note in passing that this transition is in accord with the locally harmonic approximation in the form discussed in sect.2.2.5 of . Following the arguments of sect.10.1 and 10.4 of  eq.(A.31) can strictly be derived from (A.1) neglecting the term (A.8).

### A.4 Strutinsky’s derivation of the rate formula

The essential idea exploited in  is written there below eq.(6). Different to the approach described in sect.A.1, the number of particles $`N_a`$ at the minimum is estimated by multiplying the density $`n_b(Q)`$ of Kramers’ stationary solution calculated at $`Q_a`$ by an ”effective length”, which in turn is determined by the mean fluctuation of the oscillator at this $`Q_a`$ times $`\sqrt{2\pi }`$, viz by

$$\sqrt{2\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }Q\right)_{\text{eq}}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi T}{C_a}}.$$
(A.32)
(The additional factor $`\sqrt{2\pi }`$ is required to ensure the appropriate measure needed for the normalization of a Gaussian). In this way one gets from (A.24) and (A.19)

$$R_K^{h.v.}=\frac{\varpi _b}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{C_a}{|C_b|}}\left(\sqrt{1+\eta _b^2}\eta _b\right)\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_b).$$
(A.33)
Here, it was assumed (i) that the $`Q_bQ_a`$ is sufficiently large such that in (A.19) the error function could be replaced by unity, and (ii) that the barrier height can be estimated as $`E_b(|C_b|/2)(Q_aQ_b)^2`$. The result (A.33) has the same form as given in (A.25). As explained earlier, it is equivalent to (6) or the second line of (A.25) which involve the inertias. This latter expression is identical to the one given in eq.(16) of  if one only interchanges there primed and unprimed quantities.

## Appendix B A schematic microscopic model

### B.1 The Lorentz-model for intrinsic motion

Let us assume that the nucleonic excitations can be parameterized by the response function (in this section we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\chi (\omega )=\overline{F^2}\left[\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\right]$$
(B.1)
Here, the average matrix element $`\overline{F^2}`$ of the one body operator $`\widehat{F}`$, which acts as the generator of collective motion, measures the overall strength of the distribution. The states reached by that coupling are centered at $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with an effective bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (measured here in units of $`\text{MeV}/\mathrm{}`$). For real frequencies the reactive and dissipative response functions, $`\chi ^{}`$ and $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$, are readily calculated noticing that they represent real and imaginary parts of $`\chi (\omega )=\chi ^{}(\omega )+i\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$. The static response is given by

$$\chi (0)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F^2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}=\chi ^{}(\omega =0).$$
(B.2)
It is useful to rewrite this (intrinsic) response function $`\chi (\omega )`$ in terms of the form of the oscillator response given in (12).

$$\chi (\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F^2}}{\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega (\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2)}=\frac{1/M_{\mathrm{int}}}{\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{int}}\omega \varpi _{\mathrm{int}}^2}.$$
(B.3)
In this way transport coefficients for intrinsic motion appear

$$M_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F^2}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{\Gamma },\varpi _{\mathrm{int}}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2.$$
(B.4)
Next we turn to the collective response. For the $`F`$-mode it is given by

$$\chi _{\text{coll}}(\omega )=\frac{\chi (\omega )}{1+k\chi (\omega )}=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\chi (\omega )}+k}=\frac{1/M_F}{\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_F\omega \varpi _F^2},$$
(B.5)
with the inverse coupling constant

$$\frac{1}{k}=C(0)+\chi (\omega =0);$$
(B.6)
and $`C(0)`$ being the stiffness of the free energy. The transport coefficients for the collective $`F`$-mode are:

$$M_F=M_{\mathrm{int}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_F=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{int}},C_FM_F\varpi _F^2=M_{\mathrm{int}}\varpi _{\mathrm{int}}^2+k$$
(B.7)
To get those for the $`Q`$-mode one needs to multiply these quantities by $`1/k^2`$. For slow modes it so turns out that to a good approximation the $`C(0)`$ in (B.6) may be neglected as compared to the $`\chi (0)`$. This leads to

$$M=\frac{1}{k^2}M_F\frac{\left(\chi (0)\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F^2}}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F^2}}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2\right)^2}=\frac{\chi (0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\chi ^{}}{\omega ^2}|_{\omega =0}.$$
(B.8)
In the last expression we have made use of (B.2). Last not least this has been done because the static response seems to be quite insensitive to the increase of temperature , at least for not too large $`T`$. The transformation from the $`F`$\- to the $`Q`$\- mode leaves ratios between transport coefficients unchanged. The collective width, the ratio between friction and inertia, thus becomes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{kin}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For friction this implies

$$\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{kin}}M=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}\chi (0)=\frac{\chi ^{\prime \prime }}{\omega }|_{\omega =0},$$
(B.9)
and for the stiffness one gets the expected result $`CC(0)`$, which follows because the $`C_F`$ of (B.7) can be written as

$$C_F=M_F\varpi _F^2=\frac{1}{\chi (0)}+k=\frac{C(0)}{\chi (0)\left(C(0)+\chi (0)\right)}\frac{C(0)}{\left(\chi (0)\right)^2}.$$
(B.10)
The second equation follows from (B.4) and (B.2).

Finally, we should like to note that for the schematic model with only one mode the inertia always is the one which defines the value of the energy weighted sum. Likewise, as one may see from (B.9) for friction and (to lesser extent) from (B.8) for the inertia, these transport coefficients are well represented by their ”zero frequency limits”.

### B.2 Benefits and shortcomings of this model

#### B.2.1 Weak damping

For this model weak damping is defined as $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. In this case static response and inertia turn into the expressions known from the so called ”degenerate model”  $`\chi (0)=2\overline{F^2}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`M=2\overline{F^2}/\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$. Notice that the inertia has the typical structure of the cranking inertia. For friction one gets $`\gamma =2\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{F^2}/\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$.

The degenerate model becomes most transparent if it is applied to the case that nucleons move in oscillator potentials, in particular if any spin dependent forces are neglected. Then the intrinsic excitation is given by $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }N\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Delta }N(41\text{MeV}/A^{1/3})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is the difference in the major quantum numbers of those states which are coupled through the multipole operator $`F`$. Whereas for the quadrupole there is only one possibility, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=2`$, this is no longer true for other multipoles, for which more than just one mode are possible. The same holds true as soon as a spin orbit force is introduced. Then even for the quadrupole transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0`$ are possible. It is them which lead to the low frequency modes we are typically interested in, as they resemble closest the fission mode. If one still likes to stick to the (degenerate or) Lorentz model — which only allows for one mode — the effective frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will only be a fraction of the shell spacing parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

#### B.2.2 Strong damping

It is tempting to apply this schematic model also to the extreme case of very strong damping when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes comparable to or larger than the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the typical intrinsic excitation. Plain confidence into the formula (B.9) would lead to $`\gamma (4/\mathrm{\Gamma })\chi (0)`$. This seems particularly intriguing if on the one hand the static response does indeed not change much with $`T`$, and if, on the other hand, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is associated to the widths the single particle states, as will be discussed below. According to (B.13) there might then be some range in which the friction force would show the typical $`1/T^2`$ dependence one expects for liquids in the ”collision dominated regime”, see also sect.5.3 of . However, we claim that for finite nuclei the situation is more complicated. Evidently, the effects of strong collisions are due to the increasing importance of residual interactions. But the latter imply other consequences as well, last and not least a mixing with more complicated states such that with increasing thermal excitations many particle - many hole states become more and more important. As has been demonstrated in previous papers, see e.g.  amongst others, this effect implies that high frequency modes shift to lower frequencies such that the typical mode at stake in the transport model gets more and more strength — implying that finally its inertia is given by the sum rule limit. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that this feature goes along with the disappearance of shell effects at $`T=T_{\mathrm{shell}}`$. This problem is addressed in the text.

#### B.2.3 Temperature dependence through collisional damping

Looking back at the intrinsic response function introduced in (B.1), one realizes that the only quantity which can be expected to change sensitively with excitation is the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To get some first orientation we may relate it to the single particle width. For a Fermi system the latter can be expected to be of the form  222Different to the notation used in  here energies are measured with respect to the Fermi surface $`\mu `$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\omega ,T)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{(\omega \mu )^2+\pi ^2T^2}{1+\left((\omega \mu )^2+\pi ^2T^2\right)/c^2},$$
(B.11)
with the parameters

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=0.03\text{MeV}^1\mathrm{and}c=20\text{MeV}.$$
(B.12)
For slow collective motion we may omit the frequency dependence and evaluate this width at the Fermi surface and put $`\omega \mu =0`$ in (B.11) . Along this approximation we may put

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{kin}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sp}}(\mu ,T)\frac{0.6T^2}{1+T^2/40}\text{MeV}(T\mathrm{in}\text{MeV}).$$
(B.13)
Evidently the correction term in the denominator only becomes important at temperatures of the order of $`T6\text{MeV}`$. This is already beyond that value were the other effects come into play we discussed in sect.B.2.2. For this reason the actual $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ is changed in the main text.

Finally we may note that our schematic model is not capable of accounting for pairing. The latter will modify the transport properties at temperatures below $`TT_{\mathrm{pair}}`$. This is discussed in the text.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and they are grateful to J. Ankerhold, B. Back, A. Kelic and M. Thoennessen for enlightening discussions. Two of us (F.A.I. and S.Y) would like to thank the Physik Department of the TUM for the hospitality extended to them during their stay.


format: text

text:
# Noncommutative Supersymmetric Field Theories *footnote **footnote *Updated version of a talk presented at the XXI Brazilian National Meeting on Particles and Fields, São Lorenço, MG, Oct. 23 - 26, 2000

## I Introduction

Although string theory is quite well understood in the perturbative regime its formulation in a background independent way is almost unknown. There are many reasons for that. String theory has too many degrees of freedom. It is quite difficult to handle all of them together. It also includes the gravitational field which may have quantum fluctuations. And there are many sources for nonlocality which is also troublesome in any theory. One way out of these difficulties is to consider limits of string theory which have some of the troubles raised above but not all of them. This may allow us to understand better some aspects of string theory without the complications of the full theory.

One such a limit is the zero slope limit of the D3-brane in the presence of a constant NS-NS field . The low energy effective theory is a quantum field theory deformed in terms of the Moyal product over space-time. In noncommutative field theories the usual product of fields is replaced by the Moyal product of fields giving rise to nonlocal field theories . Usually nonlocal field theories turn out to be not well defined but the nonlocality induced by the Moyal product is still tractable. It was found that the main characteristic of noncommutative field theories is the mixing of ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) divergences due to its nonlocal structure . As a consequence it is not clear that the properties of the usual commutative field theories are kept, without modifications, in their noncommutative counterparts. This gave rise to an intensive research of noncommutative field theories in Euclidean or Minkowski space-time.

One of the manifestations of the UV/IR mixing in the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory is as an infrared quadratic singularity in the propagator at one loop . Although renormalizable up to two loops  it becomes non-renormalizable at higher loop orders. Models involving a complex scalar field may be non-renormalizable even at one loop . So, noncommutativity seems to destroy the main characteristic of commutative field theories, i.e., their renormalizability.

In what follows we will discuss the inclusion of supersymmetry in such models and how it restores the renormalizability. We will concentrate on the Wess-Zumino model in $`3+1`$ dimensions  and the supersymmetric non-linear sigma model in $`2+1`$ dimensions . In this last case we will see that the noncommutativity also destroys the mechanism for dynamical mass generation of the fermionic sector, and we will show how supersymmetry helps to fix it.

## II Noncommutative Spaces

In quantum mechanics we have the usual commutation relations

$`[\widehat{q}^i,\widehat{p}^j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}g^{ij},`$ (1)
$`[\widehat{q}^i,\widehat{q}^j]`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{p}^i,\widehat{p}^j]=0.`$ (2)
It is natural to consider noncommutative coordinates with commutation relations

$$[\widehat{q}^i,\widehat{q}^j]=i\theta ^{ij},$$
(3)
where $`\theta _{ij}`$ is a constant of dimension $`L^2`$ which defines a noncommutativity scale. This breaks rotational (or Lorentz) symmetry but in the limit $`\theta 0`$ the symmetry is recovered. This is an example of a noncommutative space. It can be extended to space-time but we will consider noncommutativity only in the spatial coordinates since otherwise there are problems with unitarity .

We can understand heuristically how the UV and IR physics gets mixed. From Eq.(1) it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}^i\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}^jig^{ij}`$. In a similar way, from Eq.(3) it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}^i\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}^ji\theta ^{ij}`$ so we expect that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{q}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{p}`$. This means that high energy modes have drastic effects at large distances (or small energy processes). As we shall see, in quantum field theory this mixing manifests itself already at one loop level in the propagator of the fields.

Fields defined on such spaces are operator valued objects. It turns out to be more convenient to use fields which are not operator valued objects but just functions. This can be achieved through the use of the Weyl-Moyal correspondence

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{q})\varphi (x).$$
(4)
We associate to the operator valued field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{q})`$ a classical function $`\varphi (x)`$ through its Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p)`$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\widehat{q})=𝑑pe^{ip\widehat{q}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(p).$$
(5)
The operator valued field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\widehat{q})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\widehat{q})=𝑑p_1𝑑p_2e^{i(p_1+p_2)\widehat{q}\frac{1}{2}p_1^\mu p_2^\nu \theta _{\mu \nu }}\varphi _1(p_1)\varphi _2(p_2),$$
(6)
hence

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\widehat{q})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\widehat{q})\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)(x),$$
(7)
where

$$\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)(x)\left[e^{i\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{y^\nu }}\varphi _1(x)\varphi _2(y)\right]_{y=x},$$
(8)
is the Moyal (or star) product. Then we can work on a commutative space in which the usual product of field is replaced by the Moyal product. Notice that the derivatives in the definition Eq.(8) makes the Moyal product non-local. Also, the Moyal commutator of the commutative coordinates $`x^\mu `$ gives

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]_{MB}=x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\mu =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(9)
It can be easily verified the following properties of the Moyal product:

$$a)e^{ikx}e^{iqy}=e^{i(k+q)x}e^{ikq},$$
(10)
where $`kq=\frac{1}{2}k^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }q^\nu `$.

$$b)(fg)(x)=dkdq\stackrel{~}{f}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(q)e^{ikq}e^{i(k+q)x},$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are the Fourier components of $`f`$ and $`g`$, respectively.

$$c)[(fg)h](x)=[f(gh)](x).$$
(12)
$$d)dx(fg)(x)=dx(gf)(x)=dxf(x)g(x).$$
(13)
$$e)dx(f_1f_2\mathrm{}f_n)(x)=dx(f_nf_1\mathrm{}f_{n1})(x).$$
(14)
$$f)(fg)^{}=g^{}f^{}.$$
(15)
## III Noncommutative Scalar Field Theory

Let us consider the massive scalar field in $`D=3+1`$ dimensions , whose action is

$$S=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{m^2}{2}\varphi \varphi \frac{g^2}{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \right).$$
(16)
Using property d) it is seen that the propagator is not affected by the Moyal product. This is a generic property of noncommutative field theories. The vertex, however, must be symmetrized . In momentum space we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle }dk_1dk_2dk_3dk_4\delta (k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4)\times `$ (17)
$`[\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_1k_2)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_3k_4)+\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_1k_3)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_2k_4)+`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_1k_4)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_2k_3)]\varphi (k_1)\varphi (k_2)\varphi (k_3)\varphi (k_4).`$ (19)
Then, the one loop correction for the two-point function is

$$\frac{g^2}{3(2\pi )^4}d^4k\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(kp)\right)\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}.$$
(20)
The first term is the usual one loop mass correction of the commutative theory (up to a factor $`1/2`$) which is quadratically divergent. The second term is not divergent due to the oscillatory nature of $`\mathrm{cos}(kp)`$. This shows that the nonlocality introduced by the Moyal product is not bad and leaves us with the same divergence structure of the commutative theory. To take into account the effect of the second term we regularize the integral using the Schwinger parametrization

$$\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha e^{\alpha (k^2+m^2)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha }},$$
(21)
where a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was introduced. We find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=\frac{g^2}{48\pi ^2}[(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2})+\mathrm{})+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2m^2\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}{m^2})+\mathrm{})],$$
(22)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+\stackrel{~}{p}^2},\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu .$$
(23)
Note that when the cutoff is removed, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the noncommutative contribution remains finite providing a natural regularization. Also $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}`$ which diverges either when $`\theta 0`$ or when $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$.

The one loop effective action is then

$$d^4p\frac{1}{2}(p^2+M^2+\frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2(\stackrel{~}{p}^2+1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\frac{g^2M^2}{96\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{M^2(\stackrel{~}{p}^2+1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)+\mathrm{})\varphi (p)\varphi (p),$$
(24)
where $`M`$ is the renormalized mass. Let us take the limits $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$. If we take first $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2<<\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ showing that we recover the effective commutative theory

$$d^4p\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+M^2\right)\varphi (p)\varphi (p).$$
(25)
If, however, we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2>>\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}`$ and we get

$$d^4p\frac{1}{2}\left(p^2+M^2+\frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\frac{g^2M^2}{96\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{M^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right)\varphi (p)\varphi (p),$$
(26)
which is singular when $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$. This shows that the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ does not commute with the low momentum limit $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$ so that there is a mixing of UV and IR limits.

The theory is renormalizable at one loop order if we do not take $`\stackrel{~}{p}0`$. What about higher loop orders? Suppose we have insertions of one loop mass corrections. Eventually we will have to integrate over small values of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ which diverges when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. Then we find an IR divergence in a massive theory. This combination of UV and IR divergences makes the theory non-renormalizable.

There are also examples of non-renormalizable theories already at one loop order . For a complex scalar field with interaction $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$ it is found that the theory is one-loop non-renormalizable while $`\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi `$ gives a one loop renormalizable model.

Then the question is whether it would be possible to find a theory which is renormalizable to all loop orders. Since the UV/IR mixing appears at the level of quadratic divergences a candidate theory would be a supersymmetric theory because it does not have such divergences . As we shall see this indeed happens.

## IV NONCOMMUTATIVE WESS-ZUMINO MODEL

The noncommutative Wess-Zumino model in $`3+1`$ dimensions  has the action

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu A_\mu A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu B_\mu B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }i\overline{)}\psi ,`$ (27)
$`_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^2+mFA+mGB{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\overline{\psi }\psi ,`$ (28)
$`_g`$ $`=`$ $`g(FAAFBB+GAB+GBA`$ (30)
$`\overline{\psi }\psi A\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\psi B),`$
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are bosonic fields, $`F`$ and $`G`$ are auxiliary fields and $`\psi `$ is a Majorana spinor. The action is invariant under the usual supersymmetry transformations. They are not modified by the Moyal product since they are linear in the fields. The elimination of the auxiliary fields through their equations of motion produces quartic interactions. In terms of the complex field $`\varphi =A+iB`$ we get $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$ which is non-renormalizable in the noncommutative case. This casts doubts about the renormalizability of the model but as we shall see supersymmetry saves the day.

As usual, the propagators are not modified by noncommutativity due to the property d). They are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{AA}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p){\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵ}},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FF}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`p^2\mathrm{\Delta }(p),`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{AF}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FA}(p)=m\mathrm{\Delta }(p),`$ (33)
$`S(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\overline{)}pm}}.`$ (34)
Taking into account the symmetries the vertices are

$`FA^2\text{vextex:}`$ $`ig\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (35)
$`FB^2\text{vextex:}`$ $`ig\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (36)
$`GAB\text{vertex:}`$ $`2ig\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (37)
$`\overline{\psi }\psi A\text{vertex:}`$ $`ig\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (38)
$`\overline{\psi }\psi B\text{vertex:}`$ $`ig\gamma _5\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2).`$ (39)
The degree of superficial divergence for a generic 1PI graph $`\gamma `$ is then

$$d(\gamma )=4I_{AF}I_{BF}N_AN_B2N_F2N_G\frac{3}{2}N_\psi ,$$
(40)
where $`N_𝒪`$ denotes the number of external lines associated to the field $`𝒪`$ and $`I_{AF}`$ and $`I_{BF}`$ are the numbers of internal lines associated to the mixed propagators $`AF`$ and $`BF`$, respectively. In all cases we will regularize the divergent Feynman integrals by assuming that a supersymmetric regularization scheme does exist.

The one loop analysis can be done in a straightforward way. As in the commutative case all tadpoles contributions add up to zero. We have verified this explicitly. The self-energy of $`A`$ can be computed and the divergent part is contained in the integral

$$16g^2\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(kp))\frac{(pk)^2}{(k^2m^2)^3}.$$
(41)
The first term is logarithmically divergent. It differs by a factor 2 from the commutative case. As usual, this divergence is eliminated by a wave function renormalization. The second term is UV convergent and for small $`p`$ it behaves as $`p^2\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)`$ and actually vanishes for $`p=0`$. Then there is no IR pole. The same analysis can be carried out for the others fields. For $`F`$ we find that the divergent part is

$$4g^2\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(kp))\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}.$$
(42)
The first term is logarithmically divergent and can also be eliminated by a wave function renormalization. The second term diverges as $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)`$ as $`p`$ goes to zero. However its multiple insertions is harmless. For the fermion field the divergent part is similar to the former results and needs also a wave function renormalization. The term containing $`\mathrm{cos}(kp)`$ behaves as $`\overline{)}p\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)`$ and vanishes as $`p`$ goes to zero. Therefore, there is no UV/IR mixing in the self-energy as expected.

To show that the model is renormalizable we must also look into the interactions vertices. The $`A^3`$ vertex has no divergent parts as in the commutative case. The same happens for the other three point functions. For the four point vertices no divergence is found as in the commutative case. Hence, the noncommutative Wess-Zumino model is renormalizable at one loop with a wave-function renormalization and no UV/IR mixing.

To go to higher loop orders we proceed as in the commutative case . We derived the supersymmetry Ward identities for the n-point vertex function. Then we showed that there is a renormalization prescription which is consistent with the Ward identities. They are the same as in the commutative case. And finally we fixed the primitively divergent vertex functions. Then we found that there is only a common wave function renormalization as in the commutative case. In general we expect

$$\phi _R=Z^{1/2}\phi ,m_R=Zm+\delta m,g_R=Z^{3/2}Z^{}g.$$
(43)
At one loop we found $`\delta m=0`$ and $`Z^{}=1`$. We showed that this also holds to all orders and no mass renormalization is needed.

Being the only consistent noncommutative quantum field theory in $`3+1`$ dimensions known so far it is natural to study it in more detail. As a first step in this direction we considered the nonrelativistic limit of the noncommutative Wess-Zumino model . We found the low energy effective potential mediating the fermion-fermion and boson-boson elastic scattering in the nonrelativistic regime. Since noncommutativity breaks Lorentz invariance we formulated the theory in the center of mass frame of reference where the dynamics simplifies considerably. For the fermions we found that the potential is significatively changed by the noncommutativity while no modification was found for the bosonic sector. The modifications found give rise to an anisotropic differential cross section.

## V Noncommutative Gross-Neveu and Nonlinear Sigma Models

Another model where nonrenormalizability is spoiled by the noncommutativity is the $`O(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model. This model is perturbatively renormalizable in $`1+1`$ dimensions and $`1/N`$ renormalizable in $`1+1`$ and $`2+1`$ dimensions. In both cases it presents dynamical mass generation. It is described by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }_i\overline{)}\psi _i+\frac{g}{4N}(\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i)(\overline{\psi }_j\psi _j),$$
(44)
where $`\psi _i,i=1,\mathrm{}N`$, are two-component Majorana spinors. Since it is renormalizable in the $`1/N`$ expansion in $`1+1`$ and $`2+1`$ dimensions we will consider both cases. As usual, we introduce an auxiliary field $`\sigma `$ and the Lagrangian turns into

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }_i\overline{)}\psi _i\frac{\sigma }{2}(\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i)\frac{N}{4g}\sigma ^2.$$
(45)
Replacing $`\sigma `$ by $`\sigma +M`$ where $`M`$ is the VEV of the original $`\sigma `$ we get the gap equation (in Euclidean space)

$$\frac{M}{2g}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{M}{k_E^2+M^2}=0.$$
(46)
To eliminate the UV divergence we need to renormalize the coupling constant by

$$\frac{1}{g}=\frac{1}{g_R}+2\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{k_E^2+\mu ^2}.$$
(47)
In $`2+1`$ dimensions we find

$$\frac{1}{g_R}=\frac{\mu |M|}{2\pi },$$
(48)
and therefore only for $`\frac{1}{g_R}+\frac{\mu }{2\pi }>0`$ it is possible to have $`M0`$, otherwise $`M`$ is necessarily zero. No such a restriction exists in $`1+1`$ dimensions. In any case, we will focus only in the massive phase. The propagator for $`\sigma `$ is proportional to the inverse of the following expression

$$\frac{iN}{2g}iN\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{k(k+p)+M^2}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]},$$
(49)
which is divergent. Taking into account the gap equation the above expression reduces to

$$\frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]},$$
(50)
which is finite. Then there is a fine tuning which is responsible for the elimination of the divergence and which might be absent in the noncommutative case due to the UV/IR mixing.

The noncommutative model is defined by

$$S_{GN}=d^Dx\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi \frac{M}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{2}\sigma (\overline{\psi }\psi )\frac{N}{4g}\sigma ^2\frac{N}{2g}M\sigma \right].$$
(51)
Elimination of the auxiliary field results in a four-fermion interaction of the type $`\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _j`$. However a more general four-fermion interaction may involve a term like $`\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _i\psi _j`$. This last combination does not have a simple $`1/N`$ expansion and we will not consider it. The Moyal product does not affect the propagators and the trilinear vertex acquires a correction of $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)`$ with regard to the commutative case. Hence the gap equation is not modified, while the propagator for the $`\sigma `$ is now proportional to the inverse of

$$\frac{iN}{2g}N\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{k(k+p)+M^2}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]}.$$
(52)
Now the divergent part is no longer canceled and this turns the model into a nonrenormalizable one.

On the other side, the nonlinear sigma model also presents troubles in its noncommutative version. The noncommutative model is described by

$$=\frac{1}{2}\phi _i(^2+M^2)\phi _i+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \phi _i\phi _i\frac{N}{2g}\lambda ,$$
(53)
where $`\phi _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are real scalar fields, $`\lambda `$ is the auxiliary field and $`M`$ is the generated mass. The leading correction to the $`\phi `$ self-energy is

$$i\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(k+p)^2M^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k),$$
(54)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is the propagator for $`\lambda `$. As for the case of the scalar field this can be decomposed as a sum of a quadratically divergent part and a UV finite part. Again there is the UV/IR mixing destroying the $`1/N`$ expansion.

## VI Noncommutative Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model

The Lagrangian for the commutative supersymmetric sigma model is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \phi _i_\mu \phi _i+\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }_i\overline{)}\psi _i+\frac{1}{2}F_iF_i+\sigma \phi _iF_i+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \phi _i\phi _i\frac{1}{2}\sigma \overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\xi }\psi _i\phi _i\frac{N}{2g}\lambda ,$$
(55)
where $`F_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are auxiliary fields. Furthermore, $`\sigma ,\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ are the Lagrange multipliers which implement the supersymmetric constraints. After the change of variables $`\lambda \lambda +2M\sigma `$, $`FFM\phi `$ where $`M=<\sigma >`$, and the shifts $`\sigma \sigma +M`$ and $`\lambda \lambda +\lambda _0`$, where $`\lambda _0=<\lambda >`$, we arrive at a more symmetric form for the Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _i(^2+M^2)\phi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_i(i\overline{)}M)\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_i^2+M^2\phi _i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _0\phi _i^2`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda \phi _i^2+\sigma \phi _iF_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\xi }\psi _i\phi _i{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{N}{g}}M\sigma .`$ (57)
Now supersymmetry requires $`\lambda _0=2M^2`$ and the gap equation is

$$\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{i}{k^2M^2}=\frac{1}{g},$$
(58)
so a coupling constant renormalization is required. We now must examine whether the propagator for $`\sigma `$ depends on the this renormalization. We find that the two point function for $`\sigma `$ is proportional to the inverse of

$$\frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]},$$
(59)
which is identical to the Gross-Neveu case. Notice that the gap equation was not used. The finiteness of the above expression is a consequence of supersymmetry.

The noncommutative version of the supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi _i(^2+M^2)\phi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_i(i\overline{)}M)\psi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\phi _i\phi _i`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_i(\sigma \phi _i+\phi _i\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \overline{\psi }_i\psi _i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\xi }\psi _i\phi _i+\overline{\xi }\phi _i\psi _i)`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{NM\sigma }{g}}.`$ (62)
Notice that supersymmetry dictates the form of the trilinear vertices. Also, the supersymmetry transformations are not modified by noncommutativity since they are linear and no Moyal products are required.

The propagators are the same as in the commutative case. The vertices have cosine factors due to the Moyal product

$`\lambda \phi ^2\text{vertex:}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (64)
$`\sigma \phi F\text{vertex:}`$ $`i\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (65)
$`\overline{\psi }\psi \sigma \text{vertex:}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (66)
$`\overline{\xi }\psi \phi \text{vertex:}`$ $`i\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2).`$ (67)
We again consider the propagators for the Lagrange multiplier fields. Now the $`\sigma `$ propagator is modified by the cosine factors and is proportional to the inverse of

$$\frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]}.$$
(68)
It is well behaved both in UV and IR regions. The propagators for $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ are proportional to the inverse of

$$\frac{N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^2M^2]},$$
(69)
and

$$N\frac{(\overline{)}p+2M)}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^2M^2]},$$
(70)
respectively. They are also well behaved in UV and IR regions.

The degree of superficial divergence for a generic 1PI graph $`\gamma `$ is

$$d(\gamma )=D\frac{(D1)}{2}N_\psi \frac{(D2)}{2}N_\phi \frac{D}{2}N_FN_\sigma \frac{3}{2}N_\xi 2N_\lambda ,$$
(71)
where $`N_𝒪`$ is the number of external lines associated to the field $`𝒪`$. Potentially dangerous diagrams are those contributing to the self–energies of the $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ fields since, in principle, they are quadratic and linearly divergent, respectively. For the self-energies of $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ we find that they diverge logarithmically and they can be removed by a wave function renormalization of the respective field. The same happens for the auxiliary field $`F`$. The renormalization factors for them are the same so supersymmetry is preserved in the noncommutative theory. This analysis can be extended to the n-point functions. In $`2+1`$ dimensions we find nothing new showing the renormalizability of the model at leading order of $`1/N`$. However, in $`1+1`$ dimensions there some peculiarities. Since the scalar field is dimensionless in $`1+1`$ dimensions any graph involving an arbitrary number of external $`\phi `$ lines is quadratically divergent. In the four-point function there is a partial cancellation of divergences but a logarithmic divergence still survives. The counterterm needed to remove it can not be written in terms of $`d^2x\phi _i\phi _i\phi _j\phi _j`$ and $`d^2x\phi _i\phi _j\phi _i\phi _j`$. A possible way to remove this divergence is by generalizing the definition of 1PI diagram along the lines suggested in  for the commutative nonlinear sigma model. However the cosine factors do not allow us to use this mechanism which casts doubt about the renormalizability of the noncommutative supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model in $`1+1`$ dimensions.

## VII Conclusions

We have shown that it is possible to build consistent quantum field theories in noncommutative space. It seems that supersymmetry is an essential ingredient for renormalizability. The models studied here do not involve gauge fields and this considerably simplifies the situation. All vertices are deformed in the same way by the Moyal product and this was essential to analyze the amplitudes. With gauge fields the situation is much more complicated because the vertices are deformed in different ways. However, supersymmetric gauge theories may still have a better behavior.

## VIII Acknowledgments

This work was done in collaboration with H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes and A. J. da Silva. It was partially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and PRONEX under contract CNPq 66.2002/1998-99.