text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

After the discovery of the D-brane, our understanding of string theory has changed drastically. The development of D-brane physics leads to several proposals to formulate nonperturbative aspects of string theory. One of the notable properties of D-branes is that a system of $`N`$ coincident D-branes has collective coordinates which are described by $`N\times N`$ matrices and low energy dynamics of D-branes are described by $`U(N)`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. This idea leads to several kinds of matrix models which have been proposed for the constructive definition of string theory or M-theory. IIB matrix model is one of these proposals. It is a large $`N`$ reduced model of ten-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and the action has a matrix regularized form of the Green-Schwarz action of IIB superstring.

In the matrix model, eigenvalues of bosonic variables are interpreted as spacetime coordinates and matter and even spacetime are dynamically emerged out of matrices. Therefore noncommutative geometry appears naturally from the matrix model. The idea of the noncommutative geometry is to modify the microscopic structure of the spacetime. This modification is implemented by replacing fields on the spacetime by matrices. Yang-Mills theories in noncommutative space is first appeared within the framework of troidai compactification of the matrix model. In string theory, it is pointed out that the world volume theory on D-branes with a constant NS-NS two-form background is described by noncommutative Yang-Mills theory. It was shown that noncommutative Yang-Mills theories in flat backgrounds are obtained by expanding the matrix model around a flat noncommutative background. Fields on the background are appeared as the fluctuation around the background from the matrices. This implies the unification of spacetime and fields. Lattice version of noncommutative gauge theories is formulated in .

The IIB matrix model has only flat noncommutative backgrounds as classical solutions. To describe a curved spacetime and a compact spacetime is one of the important problems in matrix models. In our previous paper , we treat a two-dimensional fuzzy sphere in a matrix model and show that expanding the model around the fuzzy sphere solution leads to a supersymmetric noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere. Although ordinary matrix model does not have a fuzzy sphere as a classical solution, adding a Chern-Simons term to Yang-Mills reduced model enable us to describe a fuzzy sphere as a classical solution and a noncommutative gauge theory on it as discussed in . Owing to the extra term, the matrix model can describe a curved spacetime. In , $`N`$ D-branes action in nontrivial backgrounds is considered and Chern-Simons term appeared from D$`0`$-branes action in a constant RR three-form potential. Owing to the Chern-Simons term, D$`0`$-branes expand into a noncommutative fuzzy sphere configuration. However, it is not well understood how the extra term is generated from the IIB matrix model.

In this paper, we treat a fuzzy sphere and a fuzzy torus in a matrix model by the same manner as in . We start with a bosonic matrix model which is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A^\mu ,A^\nu ]+\lambda ^2A_\mu A^\mu \right).$$
(1)
$`A_\mu `$ are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices. $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionful parameter which depends on $`N`$. This is a reduced model, which is obtained by reducing the spacetime volume to a single point, of a four-dimensional bosonic Yang-Mills theory with a mass term222 We now comment on the mass term. This mass term corresponds to a negative mass. Therefore we cannot avoid an unstable mode which is originated from the negative mass term.. This model possesses $`SO(4)`$ symmetry and gauge symmetry expressed by the following unitary transformation,

$$A_\mu UA_\mu U^{}.$$
(2)
This model does not have translational symmetry of $`A_\mu `$ because of the mass term. In spite of this shortcoming, this model has an interesting property. The equation of motion of the action (1) is given by

$$[A_\nu ,[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]]+2\lambda ^2A_\mu =0.$$
(3)
This equation of motion 333This type of the equation of motion is considered in  in the context of the BFSS matrix model. To find solutions of this equation is related to the problem of embedding a compact two-dimensional surface into a three-dimensional sphere.  has two classical solutions with different topology. One is a two-dimensional fuzzy sphere and the other is a two-dimensional fuzzy torus (These solutions are explained in section 2 and section 3 respectively). Both solutions are constructed by embedding them into three or four-dimensional flat spacetime. Flat backgrounds do not exist for finite $`N`$, while sphere and torus 444 Another construction of torus is to impose a periodic boundary condition in a flat background. This construction make us introduce infinite copies of the original matrices. Therefore we cannot construct for finite $`N`$. backgrounds can exist for finite $`N`$. In the matrix model picture, $`N`$ represents the number of the quantum on the backgrounds ( or the number of D-instantons or D-particles). As a flat background with infinite extent has the infinite number of the quantum on it, it does not exist for finite $`N`$. On the other hand, since the area of compact backgrounds is finite, the solution of compact backgrounds can be constructed for finite $`N`$.

The goal of this paper is to consider a curved spacetime or a compact spacetime (a noncommutative sphere and a noncommutative torus) 555 Similar analysis in a tube configuration is shown in . in matrix models. We show that expanding the model around classical solutions leads to noncommutative gauge theories on the solutions.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 and 3 are devoted to the analysis of the noncommutative gauge theories on the fuzzy sphere and the fuzzy torus respectively. Section 2 is based on our previous paper . The relation between the model considered in the previous paper  and the model used in this paper is also discussed. Construction of a noncommutative torus in terms of unitary matrices is well known. As the eigenvalue of unitary matrices are distributed over $`S^1`$, compactness is naturally described in terms of unitary matrices. In section 3, we construct a fuzzy torus in terms of hermitian matrices by dividing a unitary matrix into two hermitian matrices. To investigate the noncommutative gauge theories on these two noncommutative manifolds, we consider two large $`N`$ limits. One is a commutative limit and another is a large radius limit. The first limit gives ordinary gauge theories on a commutative sphere and a commutative torus. On the other hand, the second limit gives a noncommutative gauge theory on a noncommutative flat space. Although these two gauge theories are same from the matrix model point of view, two large $`N`$ limits distinguish these gauge theories. We observe the difference of the symmetry ($`SO(3)`$ versus $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$) by taking a commutative limit. In section4, the behavior of gauge invariant operators on a noncommutative sphere and a noncommutative torus is investigated. Section 5 is devoted to summary and discussions.

## 2 Noncommutative gauge theory on noncommutative sphere

In this section, we treat a noncommutative sphere. The fuzzy sphere  can be constructed by introducing a cut off parameter $`N1`$ for angular momentum of the spherical harmonics. The number of independent functions is $`_{l=0}^{N1}(2l+1)=N^2`$. Therefore, we can replace the functions by $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices on the fuzzy sphere. Thus, the algebra on the fuzzy sphere becomes noncommutative.

A noncommutative gauge theory on a noncommutative sphere is considered in our previous paper. Chern-Simons term is added in this case. Since the construction of the noncommutative gauge theory is parallel between Chern-Simons term case and mass term case, we mainly follow our previous paper. A noncommutative sphere is constructed by embedding it into $`𝐑^3`$. It is represented by the following algebra,

$`[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=i\alpha ϵ_{ijk}\widehat{x}_k(i,j,k=1,2,3),`$ (4)
$`\widehat{x}_4=0.`$ (5)
$`A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu `$ satisfy (3) if we set $`\lambda ^2=\alpha ^2`$. Indices $`i,j,k`$ are used for $`1,2,3`$ and $`\mu ,\nu ,\tau `$ for $`1,2,3,4`$. We impose the following condition for $`\widehat{x}_i`$,

$$\widehat{x}_1\widehat{x}_1+\widehat{x}_2\widehat{x}_2+\widehat{x}_3\widehat{x}_3=\rho ^2.$$
(6)
This solution preserves $`SO(3)`$ symmetry. In the $`\alpha 0`$ limit, $`\widehat{x}_i`$ becomes commutative coordinates $`x_i`$:

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (7)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (8)
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (9)
where $`\rho `$ denotes the radius of the sphere. The metric tensor of the commutative sphere is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^2d\theta ^2+\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ (10)
$``$ $`\rho ^2g_{ab}d\sigma ^ad\sigma ^b.`$ (11)
Matrices $`\widehat{x_i}`$ can be constructed from the generators of the $`N`$-dimensional irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$ as

$$\widehat{x}_i=\alpha \widehat{L}_i$$
(12)
with

$$[\widehat{L}_i,\widehat{L}_j]=iϵ_{ijk}\widehat{L}_k.$$
(13)
The radius of the sphere is given by the quadratic Casimir of $`SU(2)`$ as

$$\rho ^2=\frac{N^21}{4}\alpha ^2.$$
(14)
The Plank constant on the fuzzy sphere, which represents the area occupied by the unit quantum on the fuzzy sphere, is given by

$$\frac{4\pi \rho ^2}{N}=\frac{N^21}{N}\pi \alpha ^2.$$
(15)
Now we show that an expansion of the model around the classical background (5) by the similar procedure as in  leads to a noncommutative Yang-Mills on a fuzzy sphere. We first consider $`U(1)`$ noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere. We expand the bosonic matrices around the classical solution (5) as

$`A_i=\widehat{x}_i+\alpha \rho \widehat{a}_i=\alpha \rho ({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}_i}{\rho }}+\widehat{a}_i)`$ (16)
$`A_4=\alpha \rho \widehat{\varphi }`$ (17)
$`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ are fields which propagate on the fuzzy sphere. A notable point is that the background $`\widehat{x}_i`$ and the fields $`\widehat{a}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ are dynamically generated from matrix $`A_i`$ and they are treated on the same footing.

We first study a correspondence between matrices and functions on a sphere. Ordinary functions on the sphere can be expanded by the spherical harmonics,

$`a(\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (18)
where

$$Y_{lm}=\rho ^l\underset{a}{}f_{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_l}^{(lm)}x^{a_1}\mathrm{}x^{a_l}$$
(19)
is a spherical harmonics and $`f_{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_l}`$ is a traceless and symmetric tensor. The traceless condition comes from $`x_ix_i=\rho ^2`$. The normalization of the spherical harmonics is fixed by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}Y_{lm}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi _0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}Y_{lm}=\delta _{l^{}l}\delta _{m^{}m}.$$
(20)
Matrices on the fuzzy sphere, on the other hand, can be expanded by the noncommutative spherical harmonics $`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$ as

$`\widehat{a}={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}a_{lm}\widehat{Y}_{lm}.`$ (21)
$`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$ is a $`N\times N`$ matrix and defined by

$$\widehat{Y}_{lm}=\rho ^l\underset{a}{}f_{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_l}^{lm}\widehat{x}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{x}^{a_l},$$
(22)
where the same coefficient as (19) is used. Angular momentum $`l`$ is bounded at $`l=N1`$ and these $`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$’s form a complete basis of $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices. From the symmetry of the indices, the ordering of $`\widehat{x}`$ corresponds to the Weyl type ordering 666 In , normal ordered basis is investigated by a stereographic projection from a sphere to a complex plane and Berezin type star product is obtained.. A hermiticity condition requires that $`a_{lm}^{}=a_{lm}`$. Normalization of the noncommutative spherical harmonics is given by

$$\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{Y}_{l^{}m^{}}^{}\widehat{Y}_{lm})=\delta _{l^{}l}\delta _{m^{}m}.$$
(23)
Let us consider a map from matrices to functions:

$$\widehat{a}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}a_{lm}\widehat{Y}_{lm}a(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(24)
This map is formally given as

$$a(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{N}\underset{lm}{}Tr(\widehat{Y}_{lm}^{}\widehat{a})Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(25)
and correspondingly a product of matrices is mapped to the star product on the fuzzy sphere:

$`ab(\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}Tr(\widehat{Y}_{lm}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b})Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }).`$ (26)
This product is noncommutative corresponding to the noncommutativity of matrices. The explicit form of this product is calculated in . Let us consider the product of the two spherical harmonics, $`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_{l^{}m^{}}`$. We have required that the maximal value of $`l`$ is $`N1`$. This product is expanded by the spherical harmonics and it contains $`\widehat{Y}_{l+l^{}}`$. We assume that $`N`$ is large such that $`l+l^{}`$ does not exceed $`N1`$. This assumption guarantees that the map (25) is one to one.

We next study derivative operators corresponding to the adjoint action of $`\widehat{L}_i`$. An action of $`Ad(\widehat{L}_3)`$ is calculated as

$$Ad(\widehat{L}_3)\widehat{a}=\underset{lm}{}a_{lm}[\widehat{L}_3,\widehat{Y}_{lm}]=\underset{lm}{}a_{lm}m\widehat{Y}_{lm}.$$
(27)
This property and $`SO(3)`$ symmetry gives the following correspondence:

$`Ad(\widehat{L}_i)L_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}ϵ_{ijk}x_j_k.`$ (28)
The Laplacian on the fuzzy sphere is given by

$$\frac{1}{\rho ^2}Ad(\widehat{L})^2\widehat{a}=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\underset{lm}{}a_{lm}[\widehat{L}_i,[\widehat{L}_i,\widehat{Y}_{lm}]]=\underset{lm}{}\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho ^2}a_{lm}\widehat{Y}_{lm}.$$
(29)
We can rewrite $`L_i`$ in terms of Killing vectors on the sphere as

$`L_i`$ $`=`$ $`iK_i^a_a.`$ (30)
The metric tensor is also given in terms of Killing vectors as

$`g^{ab}=K_i^aK_i^b.`$ (31)
The explicit forms of the Killing vectors are shown in the appendix.

$`Tr`$ over matrices can be mapped to the integration over functions as

$$\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{a})\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }a(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(32)
Let us expand the action (1) around the classical solution (5) and apply these mapping rules. The action becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4\rho ^4}{4}}\widehat{F}_{ij}\widehat{F}_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^3\rho ^2}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\widehat{F}_{ij}A_k{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}A_iA_i`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4\rho ^4}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}_i}{\rho }}+\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{\varphi }][{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}_i}{\rho }}+\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{\varphi }]){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{g^2}}TrA_\mu A_\mu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{4g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(F_{ij}F_{ij}+2[\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ][\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ]+\frac{4}{\rho ^2}\varphi ^2)_{}}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2g_{YM}^2}}ϵ_{ijk}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }((L_ia_j)a_k+\frac{\rho }{3}[a_i,a_j]a_k\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ijl}a_la_k)_{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2\rho ^2}}`$
where $`\widehat{F}_{ij}`$ is the field strength on the sphere and given by

$`\widehat{F}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2\rho ^2}}([A_i,A_j]i\alpha ϵ_{ijk}A_k)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}_i}{\rho }},\widehat{a}_j][{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}_j}{\rho }},\widehat{a}_i]+[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}iϵ_{ijk}\widehat{a}_k`$ (39)
and this is mapped to the following function

$`F_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}L_ia_j(\mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}L_ja_i(\mathrm{\Omega })+[a_i(\mathrm{\Omega }),a_j(\mathrm{\Omega })]_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}iϵ_{ijk}a_k(\mathrm{\Omega }).`$ (40)
Gauge covariance of $`F_{ij}`$ is manifest from the viewpoint of the matrix model and $`F_{ij}`$ becomes zero when the fluctuations are set to zero. $`()_{}`$ means that the products should be taken as the star product. The Yang-Mills coupling $`g_{YM}^2`$ is defined by

$$g_{YM}^2=\frac{4\pi g^2}{N\alpha ^4\rho ^2}.$$
(41)
Thus we have obtained U(1) noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere by expanding the matrix model around the fuzzy sphere solution and mapping the matrix model to the field theory.

We have so far discussed the $`U(1)`$ noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere. A generalization to $`U(m)`$ gauge group is realized by the following replacement:

$$\widehat{x}_i\widehat{x}_i\mathrm{𝟏}_m.$$
(42)
$`\widehat{a}`$ is also replaced as follows:

$$\widehat{a}\underset{a=1}{\overset{m^2}{}}\widehat{a}^aT^a,$$
(43)
where $`T^a(a=1,\mathrm{},m^2)`$ denote the generators of $`U(m)`$. Then we obtain a $`U(m)`$ noncommutative gauge theory by the same procedure as the $`U(1)`$ case:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{4g_{YM}^2}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(F_{ij}F_{ij}+2[\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ][\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ]+\frac{4}{\rho ^2}\varphi ^2)_{}}`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2g_{YM}^2}}ϵ_{ijk}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }((L_ia_j)a_k+\frac{\rho }{3}[a_i,a_j]a_k\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ijl}a_la_k)_{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{mN^2}{2\rho ^2}}`$
where $`tr`$ is taken over $`m\times m`$ matrices.

We next focus on the gauge symmetry of this action. The action (1) is invariant under the unitary transformation (2). Gauge symmetry of noncommutative gauge theories is included in the unitary transformation (2) of the matrix model. For an infinitesimal transformation $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\lambda })1+i\widehat{\lambda }`$ in (2) where $`\widehat{\lambda }=_{lm}\lambda _{lm}\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$, the fluctuation around the fixed background transforms as

$`\widehat{a}_i`$ $``$ $`\widehat{a}_i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}[\widehat{L}_i,\widehat{\lambda }]+i[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{a}_i].`$ (47)
After mapping to functions, we have local gauge symmetry

$`a_i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $``$ $`a_i(\mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}L_i\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega })+i[\lambda (\mathrm{\Omega }),a_i(\mathrm{\Omega })]_{}.`$ (48)
Let us discuss a scalar field which is a normal component of $`\widehat{a}_i`$. Three fields $`\widehat{a}_i`$ are defined in three dimensional space R3 and contain a gauge field on $`S^2`$ and a scalar field as well. We define it by

$`\widehat{\phi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha \rho }}(A_iA_i\widehat{x}_i\widehat{x}_i)`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{x}_i\widehat{a}_i+\widehat{a}_i\widehat{x}_i+\alpha \rho \widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i).`$ (50)
It transforms covariantly as an adjoint representation under the gauge transformation

$$\widehat{\phi }\widehat{\phi }+i[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\phi }].$$
(51)
Since the scalar field should become the radial component of $`\widehat{a}_i`$ in the commutative limit, a naive choice is $`\widehat{\phi }_0=(\widehat{x}_i\widehat{a}_i+\widehat{a}_i\widehat{x}_i)/2`$. For small fluctuations this field is the correct component of the field $`\widehat{a}_i`$ but large fluctuations of $`\widehat{a}_i`$ deform the shape of the sphere and $`\widehat{\phi }_0`$ can be no longer interpreted as the radial component of $`\widehat{a}_i`$. This is a manifestation of the fact that matrix models or noncommutative gauge theories naturally unify spacetime and matter on the same footing. An addition of the non-linear term $`\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i`$ makes $`\widehat{\phi }`$ transform correctly as the scalar field in the adjoint representation.

We now consider a commutative limit. From (15), the commutative limit is realized by

$`\rho =\text{fixed},g_{YM}=\text{fixed},N\mathrm{}.`$ (52)
In the commutative limit, the star product becomes the commutative product. The action becomes

$`S=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{4g_{YM}^2}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(F_{ij}F_{ij}+2[\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ][\frac{L_i}{\rho }+a_i,\varphi ]+\frac{4}{\rho ^2}\varphi ^2)}`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{2g_{YM}^2}}ϵ_{ijk}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }((L_ia_j)a_k+\frac{\rho }{3}[a_i,a_j]a_k\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ijl}a_la_k)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2\rho ^2}}.`$
Since the noncommutativity deforms the shape of the sphere as explained in the previous paragraph, the scalar field cannot be separated from the gauge field. In the commutative case, however, the scalar field $`\phi `$ and the gauge field are separable from each other as in

$`\rho a_i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`=K_i^ab_a(\mathrm{\Omega })+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{\rho }}\phi (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (56)
where $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`a=\theta ,\varphi `$. $`b_a`$ is a gauge field on the sphere. The field strength is expressed in terms of the gauge field $`b_a`$ and the scalar field $`\phi `$ as

$`F_{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}K_i^aK_j^bF_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho ^2}}ϵ_{ijk}x_k\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}x_jK_i^aD_a\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}x_iK_j^aD_a\phi `$ (57)
where $`F_{ab}=\frac{1}{i}_ab_b\frac{1}{i}_bb_a+[b_a,b_b]`$ and $`D_a=\frac{1}{i}_a+[b_a,]`$. The action in (55) is also rewritten as

$`S=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}tr{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }(K_i^aK_j^bK_i^cK_j^dF_{ab}F_{cd}+i2K_i^aK_j^bF_{ab}ϵ_{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{x_k}{\rho }}\phi `$ (62)
$`+2K_i^aK_i^b(D_a\phi )(D_b\phi )2\phi ^2`$
$`+2\rho ^2K_i^aK_i^b(D_a\varphi )(D_b\varphi )+4\rho ^2\varphi ^2`$
$`+4\rho ^2K_i^a{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{\rho }}(D_a\varphi )([\phi ,\varphi ])+2\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{\rho }}([\phi ,\varphi ])^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(iϵ_{ijk}K_i^aK_j^bF_{ab}\frac{x_k}{\rho }\phi \phi ^2)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}tr{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }(F_{ab}F^{ab}+8i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{g}}}F_{ab}\phi `$ (64)
$`+2(D_a\phi )(D^a\phi )8\phi ^2+2\rho ^2(D_a\varphi )(D^a\varphi )+4\rho ^2\varphi ^2+2\rho ^2([\phi ,\varphi ])^2)`$
where $`ϵ^{\theta \varphi }=ϵ^{\varphi \theta }=1`$. The gauge transformation (48) becomes

$`b_a`$ $``$ $`b_a_a\lambda `$ (65)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\phi `$ (66)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi `$ (67)
for $`U(1)`$ gauge group and

$`b_a`$ $``$ $`b_a_a\lambda +i[\lambda ,b_a]`$ (68)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\phi +i[\lambda ,\phi ]`$ (69)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi +i[\lambda ,\varphi ]`$ (70)
for $`U(m)`$ gauge group. For $`U(1)`$ gauge group case, (64) is simplified :

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }(F_{ab}F^{ab}+8i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{g}}}F_{ab}\phi `$ (72)
$`2(_a\phi )(^a\phi )8\phi ^22\rho ^2(_a\varphi )(^a\varphi )+4\rho ^2\varphi ^2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma \sqrt{g}(F_{ab}F^{ab}+8i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{g}}}F_{ab}\phi `$ (74)
$`+2\phi \mathrm{}\phi 8\phi ^2+2\rho ^2\varphi \mathrm{}\varphi +4\rho ^2\varphi ^2)`$
where

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{}{\theta })+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}$$
(75)
is the Laplacian on a unit sphere. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ has a negative mass term. This negative mass term is originated from the mass term in the action (1). Since $`\mathrm{}l(l+1)`$ respects $`SO(3)`$ symmetry, this action is $`SO(3)`$ invariant.

Let us investigate another large $`N`$ limit with $`\alpha `$ fixed. In this limit, the radius of the fuzzy sphere becomes large and the noncommutative sphere is expected to become a noncommutative plane. By virtue of the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry of the fuzzy sphere, we may consider the theory around the north pole without loss of generality. Around the north pole, $`\widehat{L}_3`$ can be approximated as $`\widehat{L}_3(N1)/2`$. By defining $`\widehat{L}_i^{}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N1}}\widehat{L}_i`$, the commutation relation (13) becomes

$$[\widehat{L}_1^{},\widehat{L}_2^{}]i.$$
(76)
By further defining $`\widehat{x}_i^{}=\alpha \widehat{L}_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_i^{}=\alpha ^1\epsilon _{ij}\widehat{L}_j^{}`$ $`(i,j=1,2)`$, we have

$$[\widehat{x}_1^{},\widehat{x}_2^{}]=i\alpha ^2,[\widehat{p}_1^{},\widehat{p}_2^{}]=i\alpha ^2,[\widehat{x}_i^{},\widehat{p}_j^{}]=i\delta _{ij}$$
(77)
and

$$\rho ^2=\widehat{x}_i^{}\widehat{x}_i^{}=\frac{2}{N1}\rho ^2=\frac{N+1}{2}\alpha ^2\frac{N}{2}\alpha ^2.$$
(78)
In the coordinates of $`\widehat{x}_i^{}`$, the Plank constant is given by

$$\frac{4\pi \rho ^2}{N}2\pi \alpha ^2.$$
(79)
We take the following limit to decompactify the sphere around the north pole,

$`\alpha =\text{fixed},\rho ^{}\mathrm{}(N\mathrm{}).`$ (80)
$`ab`$ which is defined in (26) becomes the Moyal product $`a_Mb`$ because of (76) and the Weyl type ordering property in (22). The following replacement holds in this limit,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2x}{4\pi \rho ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^{}}{4\pi \rho ^2}}`$ (81)
and the rotation around the $`1(2)`$ axis corresponds to the translation in the $`2(1)`$ direction around the north pole,

$$Ad(\widehat{p}_i^{})=\frac{1}{\rho ^{}}\epsilon _{ij}Ad(\widehat{L}_j)\frac{1}{i}_i^{}(i=1,2).$$
(82)
We can regard $`\widehat{a}_3`$ as the scalar field $`\widehat{\phi }`$ around the north pole. Since the mass term in the action (1) drops in this limit, the action becomes

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{2g^2}}Tr([\widehat{L}_1+\rho \widehat{a}_1,\widehat{L}_2+\rho \widehat{a}_2]^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{2g^2}}Tr(\rho \widehat{\phi }[\widehat{L}_i+\rho \widehat{a}_i,[\widehat{L}_i+\rho \widehat{a}_i,\rho \widehat{\phi }]])`$ (84)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{2g^2}}Tr(\rho \widehat{\varphi }[\widehat{L}_i+\rho \widehat{a}_i,[\widehat{L}_i+\rho \widehat{a}_i,\rho \widehat{\varphi }]]){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{2g^2}}Tr([\rho \widehat{\varphi },\rho \widehat{\phi }][\rho \widehat{\varphi },\rho \widehat{\phi }])`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^4}{2g^2}}(\rho ^{})^4\{Tr([\widehat{p}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{},\widehat{p}_1^{}+\widehat{a}_1^{}]^2)+Tr(\widehat{\phi }^{}[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\phi }^{}]])`$ (87)
$`+Tr(\widehat{\varphi }^{}[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\varphi }^{}]])Tr([\widehat{\varphi }^{},\widehat{\phi }^{}][\widehat{\varphi }^{},\widehat{\phi }^{}])\}`$
where we have defined $`\widehat{a}_i=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\widehat{a}_j^{}\epsilon _{ji}(i,j=1,2)`$, $`\widehat{\phi }=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\widehat{\phi }^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\widehat{\varphi }^{}`$. This action can be mapped to the following field theory action,

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^6N^2}{16\pi g^2}}\{{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}F_{12}(x)^2+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}(D_i\phi ^{}(x))(D_i\phi ^{}(x))`$ (89)
$`+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}(D_i\varphi ^{}(x))(D_i\varphi ^{}(x))+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}[\varphi ^{},\phi ^{}][\varphi ^{},\phi ^{}]\}_{},`$
where $`D_i=\frac{1}{i}_i^{}+[a_i^{},]`$ and $`F_{12}=\frac{1}{i}_1^{}a_2^{}\frac{1}{i}_2^{}a_1^{}+[a_1^{},a_2^{}]_{}`$. It is found that the Yang-Mills coupling is $`g_{YM}^2=4\pi g^2/N^2\alpha ^6`$. We thus obtained an action of a gauge theory on a noncommutative plane by taking a large $`N`$ limit with noncommutativity fixed from a gauge theory on a noncommutative sphere.

The gauge transformation (47) becomes

$`a_i^{}(x)`$ $``$ $`a_i^{}(x)_i^{}\lambda (x)+i[\lambda (x),a_i^{}(x)]_{}`$ (90)
$`\phi ^{}(x)`$ $``$ $`\phi ^{}(x)+i[\lambda (x),\phi ^{}(x)]_{}`$ (91)
$`\varphi ^{}(x)`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^{}(x)+i[\lambda (x),\varphi ^{}(x)]_{}.`$ (92)
In our previous paper, we consider a matrix model with Chern-Simons term. Before finishing this section, we remark on a difference between CS term and mass term. Action which is used in the previous paper is

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr(\frac{1}{4}[A_i,A_j][A^i,A^j]+\frac{2}{3}i\alpha ϵ_{ijk}A^iA^jA^k).$$
(93)
The difference is given by the following action,

$$S^{}=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr(\frac{2}{3}i\alpha ϵ_{ijk}A^iA^jA^k+\alpha ^2A_iA_i)$$
(94)
and it is mapped to the following field theory action as

$`S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{g_{YM}^2}}ϵ_{ijk}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }((L_ia_j)a_k+\frac{\rho }{3}[a_i,a_j]a_k\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{ijl}a_la_k)_{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{\rho ^2}}.`$ (95)
This represents a gauge invariant coupling between the gauge field and the scalar field. (Gauge invariance is manifest in (94).) In the commutative limit this becomes as follows

$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(iϵ_{ijk}K_i^aK_j^bF_{ab}\frac{x_k}{\rho }\phi \phi ^2)}`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(i\frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{g}}F_{ab}\phi \phi ^2)}.`$ (97)
In considering a field theory on a sphere, we may add a term of this type because gauge invariance is not lost. While a matrix model with Chern-Simons term leads to a supersymmetric gauge theory on a fuzzy sphere as discussed in , a matrix model with mass term does not.

## 3 Noncommutative gauge theory on noncommutative torus

In this section we consider the second classical solution of our model, a noncommutative torus. It is described naturally in terms of unitary matrices (by imposing a condition (98)). Since eigenvalues of unitary matrices are distributed over $`S^1`$, a compact spacetime appears naturally from the unitary matrices. In this section, in order to treat a compact spacetime in terms of hermitian matrices, we decompose a unitary matrix into two hermitian matrices. This corresponds to a treatment of a two-dimensional torus embedded into $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$.

The algebra on the fuzzy torus is generated by two unitary matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$ which satisfy the following relation,

$`UV=e^{i\theta }VU`$ (98)
where $`\theta =2\pi /N`$. It is well known that these two traceless unitary matrices are given by the following $`N\times N`$ clock and shift matrices,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& & & & \\ & \omega & & & \\ & & \omega ^2& & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & \omega ^{N1}\end{array}\right)V=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& & & 0\\ & 0& 1& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& & & & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(99)
where $`\omega =e^{i\theta }(\omega ^N=1)`$. $`U`$ and $`V`$ satisfy

$$U^N=V^N=1$$
(100)
and

$`UU^{}=U^{}U=1,VV^{}=V^{}V=1.`$ (101)
To embed two-dimensional torus into R4, we decompose these unitary matrices into hermitian matrices:

$`U`$ $``$ $`\widehat{y}_1+i\widehat{y}_2e^{i\widehat{u}}`$ (102)
$`V`$ $``$ $`\widehat{y}_3+i\widehat{y}_4e^{i\widehat{v}}`$ (103)
or

$`\widehat{y}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(U+U^{})\widehat{y}_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(UU^{})`$ (104)
$`\widehat{y}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V+V^{})\widehat{y}_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(VV^{}).`$ (105)
$`\widehat{w}R_1\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{z}R_2\widehat{v}`$ are introduced as noncommutative coordinates on the torus. From (98) and (103), $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ satisfy the following commutation relation:

$`[\widehat{u},\widehat{v}]={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}=i\theta .`$ (106)
This is the same relation as the usual flat case. Strictly speaking, such $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ does not exist for finite $`N`$ while $`U`$ and $`V`$ exist for finite $`N`$. (101) can be rewritten in terms of $`\widehat{y}_i`$ as

$`\widehat{y}_1^2+\widehat{y}_2^2=1,[\widehat{y}_1,\widehat{y}_2]=0,`$ (107)
$`\widehat{y}_3^2+\widehat{y}_4^2=1,[\widehat{y}_3,\widehat{y}_4]=0.`$ (108)
Commutation relations of $`\widehat{y}_i`$’s are represented by

$`[\widehat{y}_1,\widehat{y}_2]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (109)
$`[\widehat{y}_3,\widehat{y}_4]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (110)
$`[\widehat{y}_1,\widehat{y}_4]`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)\widehat{y}_4\widehat{y}_1+i\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{y}_3\widehat{y}_2`$ (111)
$`[\widehat{y}_2,\widehat{y}_3]`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)\widehat{y}_3\widehat{y}_2+i\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{y}_4\widehat{y}_1`$ (112)
$`[\widehat{y}_1,\widehat{y}_3]`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)\widehat{y}_3\widehat{y}_1i\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{y}_4\widehat{y}_2`$ (113)
$`[\widehat{y}_2,\widehat{y}_4]`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)\widehat{y}_4\widehat{y}_2i\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{y}_3\widehat{y}_1.`$ (114)
It can be shown that $`A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu R_a\widehat{y}_\mu `$ ($`a=1`$ for $`\mu =1,2`$ and $`2`$ for $`\mu =3,4`$) satisfy the equation of motion (3) if we set

$$\lambda ^2=\frac{\beta ^2}{2}R_a^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(115)
where $`a=2`$ for $`\mu =1,2`$ and $`a=1`$ for $`\mu =3,4`$. $`\beta `$ is a quantity which should be compared with $`\alpha `$ in the previous section. $`R_a(a=1,2)`$ are radii of two cycles of the torus. From (108), we obtain

$$\widehat{x}_1^2+\widehat{x}_2^2=R_1^2,\widehat{x}_3^2+\widehat{x}_4^2=R_2^2.$$
(116)
This classical solution preserves $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ symmetry. Hereafter we set $`R_1=R_2`$ for simplicity.

In the commutative limit, $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ becomes the commutative coordinates on the torus:

$`x_1=R\mathrm{cos}u,x_2=R\mathrm{sin}u,`$ (117)
$`x_3=R\mathrm{cos}v,x_4=R\mathrm{sin}v.`$ (118)
The metric tensor of the torus is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`R^2du^2+R^2dv^2`$ (119)
$``$ $`R^2g_{ab}d\sigma ^ad\sigma ^b.`$ (120)
The Plank constant, which represents the area occupied by the unit quantum on the torus, is given by

$$\frac{(2\pi R)^2}{N}=2\pi R^2\theta =N\beta ^2$$
(121)
In the second equality, we have assumed large $`N`$ such that $`\beta =R\theta `$.

We derive a $`U(1)`$ noncommutative gauge theory on a noncommutative torus by expanding the matrices around the classical solution:

$$A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu +R^2\theta \widehat{a}_\mu $$
(122)
where $`\widehat{a}_\mu `$ are propagating fields on the torus. Matrices on the fuzzy torus can expanded as

$`\widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{nm}e^{\frac{\pi i}{N}nm}U^nV^m`$ (123)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{nm}e^{in\widehat{u}+im\widehat{v}}`$ (124)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{nm}\widehat{Z}_{nm}.`$ (125)
$`\widehat{Z}_{nm}`$ forms a complete basis of $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices. $`a_{nm}^{}=a_{nm}`$ comes from a hermitian condition on $`\widehat{a}`$. The ordering of $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ corresponds to Weyl type ordering. Functions on the fuzzy torus is expanded in terms of the plane waves as

$`a(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{nm}e^{inu}e^{imv}`$ (126)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{nm}Z_{nm}(u,v).`$ (127)
where same momentum modes are used as (125). From the condition (100) which expresses the periodicity of the torus, the momentum $`n`$ and $`m`$ is bounded at $`N`$.

Now we consider a map from matrices to functions,

$$\widehat{a}a(u,v)$$
(128)
From (125) and (127), we obtain an explicit map from matrices to functions as

$$a(u,v)=\underset{nm}{}\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{Z}_{nm}\widehat{a})Z_{nm}(u,v).$$
(129)
The product of matrices is also mapped to the so called star product,

$$ab(u,v)=\underset{nm}{}\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{Z}_{nm}\widehat{a}\widehat{b})Z_{nm}(u,v).$$
(130)
To guarantee that this map is one to one, we take large $`N`$ limit such that typical $`n`$ is much smaller than $`N`$. (See also  for the correspondence between matrices and functions.) $`Tr`$ over matrices can be mapped to the integration over functions as

$$\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{a})\frac{dwdz}{(2\pi R)^2}a(w,z).$$
(131)
We next consider differential operators corresponding to the adjoint action of $`\widehat{x}_i`$. We first investigate the adjoint action of $`U`$ and $`V`$. It is calculated as

$`[U,\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}a_{nm}e^{\frac{\pi i}{N}nm}(1e^{im\theta })U^{n+1}V^m`$ (132)
$``$ $`e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)})ae^{iu}\theta _va,`$ (133)
$`[U^{},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}a_{nm}e^{\frac{\pi i}{N}nm}(1e^{im\theta })U^{n1}V^m`$ (134)
$``$ $`e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)})ae^{iu}\theta _va,`$ (135)
$`[V,\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}a_{nm}e^{\frac{\pi i}{N}nm}(1e^{in\theta })U^nV^{m+1}`$ (136)
$``$ $`e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)})ae^{iv}\theta _ua,`$ (137)
$`[V^{},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}a_{nm}e^{\frac{\pi i}{N}nm}(1e^{in\theta })U^nV^{m1}`$ (138)
$``$ $`e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)})ae^{iv}\theta _ua.`$ (139)
We have taken a large $`N`$ limit such that $`n\theta n/N1`$. After taking this large $`N`$ limit, compactness of the torus can not be observed. From these relations, we can obtain the adjoint action of $`\widehat{x}_i`$:

$`[\widehat{x}_1,\widehat{a}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}(e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)})+e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)}))a(u,v)`$ (140)
$``$ $`R\theta \mathrm{sin}u({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}})a(u,v),`$ (141)
$`[\widehat{x}_2,\widehat{a}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2i}}(e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)})e^{iu}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}v)}))a(u,v)`$ (142)
$``$ $`R\theta \mathrm{cos}u({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}})a(u,v),`$ (143)
$`[\widehat{x}_3,\widehat{a}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}(e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)})+e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)}))a(u,v)`$ (144)
$``$ $`R\theta \mathrm{sin}v({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}})a(u,v),`$ (145)
$`[\widehat{x}_4,\widehat{a}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2i}}(e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)})e^{iv}(1e^{i\theta (\frac{1}{i}u)}))a(u,v)`$ (146)
$``$ $`R\theta \mathrm{cos}v({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}})a(u,v).`$ (147)
These are expressed in terms of Killing vectors on the torus as

$`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{a}]`$ $``$ $`\beta [\widehat{T}_\mu ,\widehat{a}]`$ (148)
$``$ $`i\beta K_\mu ^a_aa(u,v)`$ (149)
$``$ $`\beta T_\mu a(u,v)`$ (150)
where $`\mu =1,2,3,4`$ and $`a=u,v`$. The metric tensor on the torus is also expressed in terms of the Killing vectors as

$`g^{ab}=K_i^aK_i^b.`$ (151)
The explicit forms of $`K_\mu ^a`$ are summarized in appendix. The Laplacian on the torus is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}(Ad(\widehat{x}))^2\widehat{a}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}\{R^2(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _v))+R^2(1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _u))\}a(u,v)`$ (152)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^2}}(_u^2+_v^2)a(u,v).`$ (153)
Then we expand the action (1) around the classical solution (105) as in (122) and apply these mapping rule. The action becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑zF_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }}`$ (165)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g_{YM}^2R^4}}{\displaystyle }dwdz\{R^2F_{13}(x_4a_2+a_4x_2)R^2F_{14}(x_3a_2+a_3x_2)`$
$`R^2F_{23}(x_4a_1+a_4x_1)+R^2F_{24}(x_3a_1+a_3x_1)`$
$`+(T_2a_1T_1a_2)(a_3x_4a_4x_3)`$
$`+(T_4a_1)x_2a_3(T_3a_1)x_2a_4(T_4a_2)x_1a_3+(T_3a_2)x_1a_4`$
$`+ia_4a_2x_4x_2+ia_3a_2x_3x_2+ia_4a_1x_4x_1+ia_3a_1x_3x_1\}_{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{YM}^2R^4}}{\displaystyle }dwdz\{2(x_1x_3a_1a_3+x_3x_1a_3a_1+x_1x_4a_1a_4+x_4x_1a_4a_1`$
$`+x_2x_3a_2a_3+x_3x_2a_3a_2+x_2x_4a_2a_4+x_4x_2a_4a_2)`$
$`+x_3a_1x_3a_1+x_1a_3x_1a_3+x_4a_1x_4a_1+x_1a_4x_1a_4`$
$`+x_3a_2x_3a_2+x_2a_3x_2a_3+x_4a_2x_4a_2+x_2a_4x_2a_4`$
$`+O(\theta )\}_{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{YM}^2R^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑za_\mu a_\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2R^2}}`$
where $`O(\theta )`$ contains terms which are proportional to $`\theta `$. $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength on the torus:

$`\widehat{F}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_1,A_2]),`$ (166)
$`\widehat{F}_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_1,A_3](\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)A_3A_1+i\mathrm{sin}\theta A_4A_2),`$ (167)
$`\widehat{F}_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_1,A_4](\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)A_4A_1i\mathrm{sin}\theta A_3A_2),`$ (168)
$`\widehat{F}_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_2,A_3](\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)A_3A_2i\mathrm{sin}\theta A_4A_1),`$ (169)
$`\widehat{F}_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_2,A_4](\mathrm{cos}\theta 1)A_4A_2+i\mathrm{sin}\theta A_3A_1),`$ (170)
$`\widehat{F}_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2R^4}}([A_3,A_4]).`$ (171)
These are gauge covariant and equal to zero when the fluctuating fields vanish. The Yang-Mills coupling is defined by

$$g_{YM}^2=\frac{(2\pi R)^2g^2}{\theta ^4R^8N}=\frac{g^2N^3}{(2\pi )^2R^6}.$$
(172)
We have so far discussed the $`U(1)`$ noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy torus. A generalization to $`U(m)`$ gauge group is realized by the same way as the sphere case.

Here we note the gauge transformation of this noncommutative gauge theory. The gauge symmetry of the noncommutative gauge theories is embedded in the unitary transformation of the matrix model. The gauge transformation in noncommutative gauge theories is obtained from the transformation around the fixed background. For $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\lambda })1+i\widehat{\lambda }`$ in (2), we obtain

$`\widehat{a}_\mu \widehat{a}_\mu i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}[\widehat{T}_\mu ,\widehat{\lambda }]+i[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{a}_\mu ].`$ (173)
After mapping to functions, we have local gauge symmetry

$`a_\mu (u,v)a_\mu (u,v)i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}T_\mu \lambda (u,v)+i[\lambda (u,v),a_\mu (u,v)]_{},`$ (174)
where $`T_\mu `$ is a derivative operator which is defined in (150).

In the same way as the fuzzy sphere case, two scalar fields which are transverse components of two cycles of the fuzzy torus is given as follows:

$`\widehat{\varphi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta R^2}}(A_1A_1+A_2A_2\widehat{x}_1\widehat{x}_1\widehat{x}_2\widehat{x}_2)`$ (175)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta R^2}}(A_3A_3+A_4A_4\widehat{x}_3\widehat{x}_3\widehat{x}_4\widehat{x}_4).`$ (176)
These scalar fields transform covariantly as adjoint scalars under the gauge transformation:

$`\widehat{\varphi }_1`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\varphi }_1+i[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\varphi }_1]`$ (177)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_2`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\varphi }_2+i[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\varphi }_2].`$ (178)
We then look at a gauge theory on a commutative torus. From (121), a commutative limit is taken by

$$R=\text{fixed},g_{YM}=\text{fixed},N\mathrm{}.$$
(179)
In this limit, $`O(\theta )0`$ and the star product becomes the ordinary product. Four fields $`a_\mu `$ contain a gauge field on $`T^2`$ and two scalar fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. In the commutative theory, we can separate $`a_\mu `$ in terms of Killing vectors and $`x_\mu `$ as

$`a_\mu (u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}K_\mu ^ab_a(u,v)+{\displaystyle \frac{x_\mu }{R^2}}\varphi _i(u,v).`$ (180)
where $`i=1`$ for $`\mu =1,2`$ and $`i=2`$ for $`\mu =3,4`$. Field strength in (171) can be rewritten in terms of the gauge field $`b_a`$ and the scalar fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ as

$`F_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D_v\varphi _1,`$ (181)
$`F_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}(x_2x_4F_{uv}x_2x_3(D_v\varphi _2)x_1x_4(D_u\varphi _1)+x_1x_3[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]),`$ (182)
$`F_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}(x_2x_3F_{uv}x_2x_4(D_v\varphi _2)+x_1x_3(D_u\varphi _1)+x_1x_4[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]),`$ (183)
$`F_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}(x_1x_4F_{uv}+x_1x_3(D_v\varphi _2)x_2x_4(D_u\varphi _1)+x_2x_3[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]),`$ (184)
$`F_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}(x_1x_3F_{uv}+x_1x_4(D_v\varphi _2)+x_2x_3(D_u\varphi _1)+x_2x_4[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]),`$ (185)
$`F_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}D_u\varphi _2,`$ (186)
where $`F_{uv}=\frac{1}{i}_ub_v\frac{1}{i}_vb_u+[b_u,b_v]`$ and $`D_a=\frac{1}{i}_a+[b_a,]`$. Then the action becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑z(2(D_a\varphi _1)(D^a\varphi _1)+2(D_a\varphi _2)(D^a\varphi _2)+2[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]^2+F_{ab}F^{ab})}`$ (188)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑zϵ^{ab}F_{ab}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑z(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑z(2(D_a\chi )(D^a\chi )+2(D_a\psi )(D^a\psi )+2[\chi ,\psi ]^2+F_{ab}F^{ab})}`$ (190)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}i}{g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑zϵ^{ab}F_{ab}\chi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{YM}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^4}}tr{\displaystyle 𝑑w𝑑z(\chi ^2\psi ^2)},`$
where $`ϵ^{uv}=ϵ^{vu}=1`$. In the second equality, we changed the variable as $`\chi =(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\psi =(\varphi _1\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$. In the commutative case, the gauge transformation becomes

$`b_a(u,v)`$ $``$ $`b_a(u,v)_a\lambda (u,v)+i[\lambda (u,v),b_a(u,v)]`$ (191)
$`\varphi _i(u,v)`$ $``$ $`\varphi _i(u,v)+i[\lambda (u,v),\varphi _i(u,v)](i=1,2)`$ (192)
for $`U(m)`$ case and

$`b_u(u,v)`$ $``$ $`b_u(u,v)_u\lambda (u,v)`$ (193)
$`\varphi _i(u,v)`$ $``$ $`\varphi _i(u,v)`$ (194)
for $`U(1)`$ case. (190) is further simplified for $`U(1)`$ gauge group,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_{YM}^2R^4}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{g}(F_{ab}F^{ab}4\sqrt{2}i\frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{g}}F_{ab}\chi +2\chi \mathrm{}\chi 2\chi ^2+2\psi \mathrm{}\psi +2\psi ^2)}`$ (195)
where

$$\mathrm{}=_u^2+_v^2$$
(196)
is the Laplacian on a unit torus. A tachyonic scalar field $`\psi `$ appeared. This tachyonic mode may be related to the instability of the matrix model. Since $`\mathrm{}(n^2+m^2)`$ respects $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ symmetry, this action is also invariant under $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ symmetry.

We next consider another large $`N`$ limit with $`\beta `$ fixed. In this limit, two radii of a torus become large and the noncommutative torus is expected to become a noncommutative plane. By virtue of the $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ symmetry we may consider the theory around $`\widehat{x}_1=R`$ and $`\widehat{x}_3=R`$. We rescale as $`\widehat{x}_i=\sqrt{\frac{N}{2\pi }}\widehat{x}_i^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta }}\widehat{x}_i^{}`$. The commutation relations (114) become

$$[\widehat{x}_2^{},\widehat{x}_4^{}]=i\beta ^2$$
(197)
and other commutation relations vanish. Defining $`\widehat{x}_i^{}=\beta \widehat{T}_i^{}`$, $`\widehat{p}_2^{}=\beta ^1\widehat{T}_4^{}`$ and $`\widehat{p}_4^{}=\beta ^1\widehat{T}_2^{}`$, we get

$$[\widehat{x}_2^{},\widehat{x}_4^{}]=i\beta ^2,[\widehat{p}_2^{},\widehat{p}_4^{}]=i\beta ^2,[\widehat{x}_2^{},\widehat{p}_2^{}]=i,[\widehat{x}_4^{},\widehat{p}_4^{}]=i.$$
(198)
In the coordinates of $`\widehat{x}_i^{}`$, the Plank constant is

$$\frac{(2\pi R^{})^2}{N}=2\pi \beta ^2,$$
(199)
where

$$R^2=\theta R^2=\frac{1}{\theta }\beta ^2.$$
(200)
We take the following limit which leads to a two-dimensional noncommutative plane,

$`\beta =\text{fixed},R^{}\mathrm{}(N\mathrm{}).`$ (201)
The following replacements hold in this case,

$$\frac{1}{N}Tr\frac{dwdz}{(2\pi R)^2}=\frac{dw^{}dz^{}}{(2\pi R^{})^2}=\frac{dx_2^{}dx_4^{}}{(2\pi R^{})^2}$$
(202)
and

$$Ad(\widehat{p}_i^{})\frac{1}{i}\frac{}{x_i^{}}$$
(203)
where we have used the fact that $`x_2Ru`$ and $`x_4R(v\pi ),(u,v\pi 1)`$.

We can regard $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_3`$ as $`\widehat{\varphi }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }_2`$ respectively. Since the mass term drops in this limit, the bosonic part of the action (1) becomes (only $`U(1)`$ case is treated for simplicity in the present discussions. )

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{2g^2}}Tr([\widehat{T}_2+R\widehat{a}_2,\widehat{T}_4+R\widehat{a}_4]^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{2g^2}}Tr(R\widehat{\varphi _1}[\widehat{T}_i+R\widehat{a}_i,[\widehat{T}_i+R\widehat{a}_i,R\widehat{\varphi _1}]])`$ (205)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{2g^2}}Tr(R\widehat{\varphi _1}[\widehat{T}_i+R\widehat{a}_i,[\widehat{T}_i+R\widehat{a}_i,R\widehat{\varphi _2}]]){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{2g^2}}Tr([R\widehat{\varphi _1},R\widehat{\varphi _2}][R\widehat{\varphi _1},R\widehat{\varphi _2}])`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{2g^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\theta }}})^4\{Tr([\widehat{p}_4^{}+\widehat{a}_4^{},\widehat{p}_2^{}+\widehat{a}_2^{}]^2)+Tr(\widehat{\varphi _1^{}}[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\varphi _1^{}}]])`$ (207)
$`+Tr(\widehat{\varphi _2^{}}[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},[\widehat{p}_i^{}+\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\varphi _2^{}}]])Tr([\widehat{\varphi _1^{}},\widehat{\varphi _2^{}}][\widehat{\varphi _1^{}},\widehat{\varphi _2^{}}])\}`$
where we have defined $`\widehat{a}_2=\sqrt{\theta }\widehat{a}_4^{}`$, $`\widehat{a}_4=\sqrt{\theta }\widehat{a}_2^{}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _1}=\sqrt{\theta }\widehat{\varphi _1^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi _2}=\sqrt{\theta }\widehat{\varphi _2^{}}`$. Repeated index $`i`$ takes $`2`$ and $`4`$. This action can be mapped to the following field theory action,

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^6N^2}{16\pi ^3g^2}}\{{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}F_{24}(x)^2+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}(D_i\varphi _1^{}(x))(D_i\varphi _1^{}(x))`$ (209)
$`+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}(D_i\varphi _2^{}(x))(D_i\varphi _2^{}(x))+{\displaystyle }d^2x^{}[\varphi _1^{},\varphi _2^{}][\varphi _1^{},\varphi _2^{}]\}_{},`$
where $`D_i=\frac{1}{i}_i^{}+[a_i^{},]`$ and $`F_{24}=\frac{1}{i}_2^{}a_4^{}\frac{1}{i}_4^{}a_2^{}+[a_2^{},a_4^{}]_{}`$. It is found that the Yang-Mills coupling is $`g_{YM}^2=4\pi ^3g^2/N^2\beta ^6`$. We thus obtained an action of a gauge theory on a noncommutative plane by taking a large $`N`$ limit with fixed noncommutativity from a gauge theory on a noncommutative torus.

The gauge transformation (174) becomes

$`a_i^{}(x)a_i^{}(x)_i^{}\lambda (x)+i[\lambda (x),a_i^{}(x)]_{}`$ (210)
$`\varphi _1^{}(x)\varphi _1^{}(x)+i[\lambda (x),\varphi _1^{}(x)]_{}`$ (211)
$`\varphi _2^{}(x)\varphi _2^{}(x)+i[\lambda (x),\varphi _2^{}(x)]_{}.`$ (212)
## 4 Gauge invariant operators on sphere and torus

It is shown in  that a gauge invariant operator in noncommutative gauge theories can have non-vanishing momentum which is proportional to the distance between the end-points of the path. (See also .) This section is devoted to the analysis of such gauge invariant operators on a sphere and a torus. We are treating two manifolds which have different topology, genus zero and genus one. The difference of the topology is discussed.

We first consider a gauge invariant operator on a noncommutative sphere. From (12) and (13), translation on sphere, that is rotation, is realized by the following unitary transformation

$$e^{i\widehat{L}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }\widehat{a}_i(\widehat{x}_i)e^{i\widehat{L}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }=\widehat{a}_i(\widehat{x}_i+ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _j\widehat{x}_k)$$
(213)
for infinitesimal small value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. This rotation is obtained from the gauge transformation (48) if we set $`\widehat{\lambda }=\widehat{L}_i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _i`$:

$$a_i(x)a_i(x)+i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _jL_ja_i(x)+\frac{1}{\rho \alpha }ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _jx_k.$$
(214)
Now let us study a gauge invariant operator on the sphere. For simplicity we consider a rotation in $`\widehat{x}_3=d=`$constant plane. The generator is $`\widehat{L}_3`$. A gauge invariant operator is made by covariantizing $`\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{L}_3\omega _3)`$ as

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\alpha }}A_3\omega _3).`$ (215)
We now rewrite this as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tre^{i(\widehat{L}_3+\rho \widehat{a}_3)\omega _3}`$ (216)
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tre^{i(\widehat{L}_3+\rho \widehat{a}_3)\frac{\omega _3}{n}}\mathrm{}e^{i(\widehat{L}_3+\rho \widehat{a}_3)\frac{\omega _3}{n}}`$ (217)
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tre^{i\widehat{L}_3\frac{\omega _3}{n}}e^{i\rho \widehat{a}_3\frac{\omega _3}{n}}\mathrm{}e^{i\widehat{L}_3\frac{\omega _3}{n}}e^{i\rho \widehat{a}_3\frac{\omega _3}{n}}`$ (218)
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e^{i\frac{\omega _3}{n}\rho \widehat{a}_3(\stackrel{}{x}+\frac{m}{n}\stackrel{}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{x})}e^{i\frac{\omega }{\alpha }\widehat{x}_3}`$ (219)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _3}}d\stackrel{~}{\omega }_3\rho a_3(\stackrel{}{x}+\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}\times \stackrel{}{x}))_{}e^{ik_3x_3}`$ (220)
where $`k_3=\omega _3/\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=(0,0,\omega _3)`$. Taking account of the fact that the value of $`x_3`$ takes the integer multiple of $`\alpha `$ (or the half integer multiple of $`\alpha `$), total length of the Wilson line is expressed in terms of $`k_3^{}=\omega _3^{}/\alpha =(\omega _32\pi )/\alpha `$:

$$l=2\pi \sqrt{\rho ^2d^2}n_{win}+\sqrt{\rho ^2d^2}\alpha k_3^{}.$$
(221)
$`n_{win}`$ is an integer and represent the winding number. This shows that this operator has the momentum which is proportional to the distance between two end-points up to winding modes and the direction of the momentum is orthogonal to the direction of the path. These are characteristic features of noncommutative gauge theories. $`l`$ becomes $`2\pi \sqrt{\rho ^2d^2}n_{win}`$ if we take the commutative limit. The contour becomes closed and $`l`$ vanishes when $`d`$ approaches $`\rho `$. This shows that the Wilson loops on a commutative sphere is contractable. On the other hand, Wilson loops on a torus show a different behavior as considered in the next part.

We next have a discussion of the noncommutative torus. Translation on the torus is generated by the unitary operators $`U`$ and $`V`$:

$`U\widehat{a}(\widehat{x})U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(\widehat{x}_1,\widehat{x}_2,\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{x}_3\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{x}_4,\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{x}_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{x}_4),`$ (222)
$`V\widehat{a}(\widehat{x})V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{x}_1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{x}_2,\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{x}_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{x}_2,\widehat{x}_3,\widehat{x}_4,).`$ (223)
This is also expressed in terms of $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$,

$`U\widehat{a}(\widehat{u},\widehat{v})U^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(\widehat{u},\widehat{v}+\theta ),`$ (224)
$`V\widehat{a}(\widehat{u},\widehat{v})V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(\widehat{u}\theta ,\widehat{v}),`$ (225)
where $`\theta =2\pi /N`$. These show that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are translation operators in the $`v`$ and $`u`$ direction on the torus by angle $`\theta `$ respectively. $`U^N=1`$ and $`V^N=1`$ are operators which perform full translation around two cycles of the torus.

For simplicity, we treat a Wilson line operator whose path is extended only with $`v`$ direction. The generalization to an arbitrary path is straightforward. Translation along $`v`$ direction is generated by the unitary operator $`U`$. A gauge invariant Wilson line operator is obtained by covariantizing the translation operator $`U`$ as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^MN}}Tr(A_1+iA_2)^M`$ (226)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^M`$ (227)
where $`MR\theta `$ is length of the path ($`M`$ is a integer). We rewrite it as follows and show that this operator can have momentum which is proportional to the distance between the two ends of the contour.

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}n}`$ (228)
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}}(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}}\mathrm{}(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}}`$ (229)
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+\left(\widehat{v}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}\theta \right)\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+\left(\widehat{v}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}2\theta \right)\right)`$ (231)
$`\mathrm{}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+\left(\widehat{v}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}n\theta \right)\right)U^M`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}Tr{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e^{\frac{M}{n}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+(\widehat{v}+\frac{M}{n}m\theta )}U^M`$ (232)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dwdz}{(2\pi R)^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^{M\theta }}Rd\stackrel{~}{v}e^{iu}a_+(v+\stackrel{~}{v})\right)_{}e^{ik_ww}`$ (233)
where $`k_w=M/R`$ and the following manipulation are done in the above calculations,

$`(U+R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}}`$ (234)
$`=`$ $`U^{\frac{M}{n}}(1+U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+)^{\frac{M}{n}}`$ (235)
$`=`$ $`U^{\frac{M}{n}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+\right)`$ (236)
$`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}U^{}R\theta \widehat{a}_+\left(\widehat{v}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{n}}\theta \right)\right)U^{\frac{M}{n}}.`$ (237)
We have assumed that $`R\theta =\beta `$ is small. The momentum which is carried by the Wilson line operator is not $`k_w`$ but also $`k_w^{}`$ which is defined by the following equation,

$`l`$ $`=`$ $`MR\theta =k_wR\beta `$ (238)
$`=`$ $`2\pi Rn_{win}+k_w^{}R\beta ,`$ (239)
because the space of $`w`$ looks like lattice with lattice spacing $`R\theta (=\beta )`$. $`n_{win}`$ represents the winding number. We find that the momentum is proportional to the distance between the two end-points of the contour up to winding modes and the direction of the path and the momentum is orthogonal. Although there seems to appear a extra factor $`e^{iu}`$ in front of $`a_+`$ in (233), it cancels with a factor which comes from $`a_+`$ in the commutative limit:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dwdz}{(2\pi R)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{l/R}𝑑\stackrel{~}{v}\left(ib_v(v+\stackrel{~}{v})+\varphi _1(v+\stackrel{~}{v})\right)\right)e^{ik_ww}}.`$ (240)
In the commutative limit the path becomes closed, that is $`l=2\pi Rn_{win}`$. This operator is the usual Polyakov loop operator. The path is not contractable and is classified by the winding number $`n_{win}`$.

## 5 Summary and discussions

In this paper, we have investigated two noncommutative gauge theories on a fuzzy sphere and a fuzzy torus in terms of a four-dimensional bosonic matrix model. By adding a mass term to the original matrix model, this matrix model can describe curved spacetime (fuzzy sphere and fuzzy torus). By expanding matrices into backgrounds and fields propagating on them, we obtained noncommutative gauge theories on the backgrounds. A characteristic feature of noncommutative gauge theories or the matrix model is that spacetime and fields are treated on the same footing and due to this properties, classical backgrounds are deformed by fields on them.

In the analysis of these noncommutative gauge theories, we discussed two large $`N`$ limits. One corresponds to a commutative limits and another corresponds to a large radius limits. From the matrix model point of view, these two gauge theories are equivalent. However, some differences appeared by taking two large $`N`$ limits. We first studied the commutative limit. By taking this limit, we can obtain commutative gauge theories. Comparing these two gauge theories, the difference of the symmetry appeared.

The advantage of the compact manifolds is that one can construct the solutions in terms of finite size matrices while a solution which represents a noncommutative plane cannot be constructed by finite size matrices. (From the viewpoint of the field theories, $`N`$ plays the role of the cut off parameter.) We have shown that gauge theories on a noncommutative plane are reproduced from gauge theories on a noncommutative sphere and a noncommutative torus in a large $`N`$ limit.

We also discussed gauge invariant operators on a sphere and a torus. It is well known that in noncommutative gauge theories, Wilson line operators can be gauge invariant by carrying momentum which is proportional to the distance between the two ends of the contour. In this paper we checked whether this fact holds on sphere and torus cases. Because these manifolds are compact, the Wilson lines on them have winding modes, which are topologically different in these two cases. One is contractable and another is noncontractable. The discussion of the topological feature is meaningful only in the commutative limit. Since the propagating fields deforms the classical background in noncommutative field theories, the concept of the topology in noncommutative field theories is different from commutative field theories. From the viewpoint of the matrix model, noncommutative field theories on these manifolds are equivalent. By taking the commutative limit, the difference of the symmetry or the difference of the topology appeared.

One of the future problems is to consider noncommutative gauge theories on the other noncommutative curved manifolds. The extension to higher dimensional manifolds is a interesting problem. Especially four dimensional case is one of them. Since construction of four-dimensional sphere in matrix models is already known in , it may be possible to do the same discussions as this paper. Other way of the extension to a curved manifold is to map onto a complex plane. As analyzed in our previous paper , we have obtained the normal ordered type basis on the fuzzy sphere by mapping onto a complex plane. After mapping to field theory, a product of functions are written by the Berezin product. The merits of using the Berezin product is that a star product of a noncommutative manifold is given if the Kähler potential of the manifold is given. Since the Käher potential is known for more general manifold, it may be interesting problem to consider more general curved manifolds from the matrix model point of view.

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to S.Iso for helpful discussions and reading the manuscript. In addition, we would like to thank Y.Kitazawa, K.Furuuchi and K.Wakatsuki for valuable comments and discussions.

## Appendix A Killing vectors

In this appendix, we summarize Killing vectors on $`S^2`$ and $`T^2`$.

### A.1 $`S^2`$

Killing vectors on $`S^2`$ are given by

$`L_i=iK_i^a_a`$ (A.1)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_1^\theta =\mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill & K_1^\varphi =\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill \\ K_2^\theta =\mathrm{cos}\varphi \hfill & K_2^\varphi =\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \\ K_3^\theta =0\hfill & K_3^\varphi =1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.2)
The metric tensor is written in terms of these vectors as

$`g^{ab}=K_i^aK_i^b.`$ (A.3)
$`K_i^a`$ further satisfy the following relation,

$$ϵ_{ijk}K_i^\theta K_j^\varphi \frac{x_k}{\rho }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}$$
(A.4)
where $`g=detg_{ab}`$.

### A.2 $`T^2`$

Killing vectors on $`T^2`$ are given by

$`T_\mu =iK_\mu ^a_a`$ (A.5)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}K_1^u=0\hfill & K_1^v=\mathrm{sin}u\hfill \\ K_2^u=0\hfill & K_2^v=\mathrm{cos}u\hfill \\ K_3^u=\mathrm{sin}v\hfill & K_3^v=0\hfill \\ K_4^u=\mathrm{cos}v\hfill & K_4^v=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.6)
The metric tensor is written in terms of these vectors as

$`g^{ab}=K_i^aK_i^b.`$ (A.7)


format: text

text:
# Temporal properties of short GRBs

## 1 Introduction

The temporal features of GRBs are among the more interesting clues on their origin. The temporal features of long bursts ($`T_{90}>2sec`$) were widely investigated (e.g. Norris 1995; Norris et al. 1996; Lee, Bloom & Scargle 1995; Beloborodov Stern & Svensson, 2000), while only a few works (Scargle, Norris & Bonnel 1997; Cline, Matthey & Otwinowski 1999) discuss the temporal structure of short ($`T_{90}<2sec`$) bursts. This is not surprising. Short bursts are much harder to analyze because of their significantly lower signal to noise ratios. We developed a new algorithm that is sensitive enough to identify pulses in short bursts. Using this algorithm we search here for subpulses in short bursts and determine their duration ($`\delta t`$). This enables us to set upper limits on the shortest time scale seen in the bursts to set limits on the variability of short bursts.

Sari & Piran (1997) and Fenimore, Madras, & Nayakshin (1996) have shown that angular spreading would smooth any variability produced by external shocks (unless the GRB production is very inefficient with the efficiency of the order of $`(\delta t_{min}/T)`$ defined below (Sari & Piran, 1997)). The critical parameter in this analysis is the ratio between the shortest time scale, on which the burst varies significantly, and the longest time scale in the burst. This motivates us to focus here on the ratio $`\delta t_{min}/T`$, where $`\delta t_{min}`$ is the minimal observed duration of an individual pulse and $`T`$ is the duration of the burst. High variability means low $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ ($`1`$) values while for smooth bursts $`\delta t_{min}/T1`$. Our aim is to explore whether short bursts can be produced by external shocks. However, our analysis is not directed by this motivation and the results concerning the variability of short bursts are valid independently of this motivation.

In the second part of this paper we compare the shortest time scales of long and short bursts. We analyze (using the same algorithm) the high resolution (TTE) data of long bursts. Unfortunately, this data is available only for the first 1-2 seconds of each burst, so we can analyze only a small fraction of each long burst. still we are able to demonstrate that very short time scales (10ms or less) are common.

Our analysis deals with statistically significant individual pulses. We define an observed peak in the light curve as the highest count rate within a series of counts that is statistically significant (more than 4 $`\sigma `$) above the counts at some time before and some time after it. Each peak corresponds to a pulse. The width of the pulse is determined by the width at a quarter of the maximum, or, rarely, by the minima between neighboring peaks if the counts do not drop below quarter of the maximum (see the Appendix for a detailed definition and for a discussion of the algorithm). An elementary pulse in the observed light curve must not necessarily correspond directly to an elementary emission event in the source. A single pulse in the light curve could, in principle, be composed of numerous emission events. In this case the emission process is even more variable then the observed light curve and the results we obtain here should be considered only as upper limits to the intrinsic variability of the sources.

We find that most short bursts (although not all of them) are highly variable ($`\delta t_{min}/T1`$) . When analyzing the high resolution data of long burst we find that the shortest time scales seen in long bursts are similar to those in short bursts. This result is limited to the highest resolution in which we analyzed the long bursts - 5ms. Such time scales were already observed in at least one long burst (Lee, Bloom & Petrosian 2000). We show here that these time scales are common.

In section 2 we describe the data samples considered in our analysis. We describe the results in section 3 and we discuss their implications in section 4. Our algorithm is described in the appendix.

## 2 The data samples

We examine bright short and long bursts from BATSE 4B-catalog. We use two BATSE data formats: the 64ms concatenate data and the TTE data (see Scargle (1998) for a detailed review). The 64ms concatenate data includes the photon counts of each burst, in a 64ms time bins, from a few seconds before the burst trigger till a few hundred of seconds after the trigger. The concatenate data includes also very early and very late data of the burst in a 1024ms resolution. We use only the 64ms resolution data. The TTE (Time Tagged Events) data includes the arrival time of each photon in a $`2\mu sec`$ resolution. This data contains only records of the first 1-2 seconds of each burst. Hence it contains whole short bursts, but only a fraction of long bursts. Both data formats have four energy channels. We use the sum of all the channels (in both formats), that is photon energy E $`>`$ 25Kev.

We consider several samples. We consider a sample of short bursts (denoted ‘short’) and a comparable sample of long bursts (denoted ’long’). However, the properties of the ’long’ sample cannot be compared directly with those of the ’short’ sample. The long bursts data is binned in longer time bins then the short bursts data. Therefore two equally intense bursts (one short and one long) would have a different signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). Hence, we generate a third sample denoted ’noisy long’ by adding noise to the ’long’ sample so that the S/N of the bursts in this sample would be comparable to the S/N of the ’short’ sample. Finally, in order to determine the shortest time scale in long bursts, we consider a sample of long bursts with a good TTE coverage of the first second. This sample is called ’high res long’.

### 2.1 The ’short’ data sample

There are about 400 records of short bursts in the BATSE 4B-catalog. However most of these bursts are too faint and it is impossible to retrieve their temporal features. Furthermore, not all short bursts have a good TTE coverage. There is a trade-off between the sample size, the resolution and the signal to noise ratio. We consider, here, a sample of the brightest 33 short bursts (peak flux in 64ms$`>`$4.37$`ph/(seccm^2)`$) with a good TTE data coverage. In order to get a reasonable signal to noise ratio we have binned this data into 2ms time bins. In this resolution the S/N of the brightest peak in the faintest burst (from our sample) is 4.7. As described in the appendix we consider a peak as statically significant only if it is more then 4$`\sigma `$ above the background. Hence this is the largest sample we could consider. The minimal recognized pulse width with this resolution is 4ms.

### 2.2 The ’long’ data samples

We need a sample of long bursts that could be compared to the ’short’ sample. The first sample we considered is a sample of 34 long bursts (called ’long’ sample) with the same 64ms peak fluxes (one to one) as the bursts in the ’short’ sample. This sample contain fairly bright long bursts, but not the brightest long bursts. This way we prevent differences that arise from different brightness.

However, the ’long’ sample cannot be compared directly with the ’short’ sample. The ’long’ sample is binned in 64ms bins while the ’short’ sample is binned into 2ms time bins. Therefore, assuming the same background noise level, the S/N of the ’long’ sample is larger by a factor of $`\sqrt{32}`$ then the S/N of the ’short’ sample. To obtain a comparable sample we produced another data sample (denoted ’noisy long’ sample). This data set is produced by adding noise to the ’long’ sample. We treat this sample as if the basic time bin is 2ms and add a Poisson noise accordingly. For a given long burst with counts $`C(t)`$ we generate a noisy signal, $`C_{noisy}(t)`$, using the following simple procedure. The noisy signal at time $`t`$, $`C_{noisy}(t)`$, is a Poisson variable ($`P_{(C_{noisy}(t)=i)}=\frac{\lambda (t)^i}{i!}e^{\lambda (t)}`$) with $`\lambda (t)C(t)/32`$. This noisy signal is smaller by a factor of $`64ms/2ms=32`$ than the original signal and its standard deviation is correspondingly smaller by a factor of $`\sqrt{32}`$ then the original standard deviation. There is a minor caveat in this procedure. The original signal contains its own noise, but since this original noise is smaller by a factor of $`\sqrt{32}`$ then the added noise, it is negligible. The S/N ratio of the new ’noisy’ sample is comparable to the S/N ratio of the ’short’ sample.

We use the ’noisy long’ sample to investigate the influence of the noise on the analyzed temporal properties. We do so by comparing the temporal properties of the *’long’* sample with the temporal properties of the ’noisy long’ *sample.* In this way we can estimate what was the original temporal structure of the ’short’ sample.

### 2.3 High-resolution long bursts

The comparison between the shortest time scales in long and short bursts requires the analysis of high-resolution long bursts. The only data with high enough resolution is the TTE data, which is available only for the first 1-2sec of the bursts. We have searched for long bursts that begin with a bright pulse during the first two seconds, also demanding that the counts would drop back to the background level during this time. This way the beginning of the light curve is not be dominated by a pulse longer then 2sec. We found 15 such bursts which we denoted as the ’high res long’ sample. We compared the first 1-2sec of these bursts with 15 short bursts with comparable peak fluxes (taken out of the ’short’ sample). The analysis of both groups is done in 5ms time bins. This sample is rather small and not randomly chosen, but this is the best sample one could get within the data limitation.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Attributes of long bursts pulses

We begin by estimating the duration, $`T`$, and the shortest pulse duration, $`\delta t_{min}`$, of the ‘long’ bursts. Fig. 1 shows $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ and $`\delta t_{min}`$ as a function of $`T`$. Fig. 1a shows that $`\delta t_{min}`$ and $`T`$ are not correlated111This implies, incidentally, that intrinsic effects and not cosmological red-shifts dominate spread in $`T`$ and $`\delta t`$. . Consequently, $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ is smaller for longer bursts. The value of $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ for the longer bursts are $`10^310^2`$. The gray areas are restricted because of the resolution. $`\delta t_{min}`$ is limited by the resolution, suggesting that the bursts are variable even on shorter time scales and therefore $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ is even smaller. This suggestion is confirmed later when we discuss the high resolution data (see sec. 3.4).

### 3.2 The effects of noise on the temporal structure

We turn now to the effect of noise on the time profile. We do so by comparing the attributes of the ’long’ sample with these of the ’noisy long’ sample (see 2.2). This procedure also tests our algorithm. Since we know the original signal (in the ’long’ sample) we can find out the efficiency of the algorithm in retrieving the attributes of the ’long’ sample out of the ’noisy long’ sample.

Fig. 2a represents all the pulses in the ’long’ and ’noisy long’ samples. The algorithm retrieves the basic features of the bursts out of the noisy sample. However, many pulses are ’lost’ because of the noise (only 30% of the ’long’ pulses are found in the ’noisy’ sample): (i) Some pulses are too weak to be distinguished within the amplified noise. (ii) Some pulses merge with others as the minimum between them are not statistically significant with the increased noise. The first effect does not affect the width of the pulses. However, the second one causes pulse widening. Therefore we expect fewer and wider pulses in the noisy sample. Both effects are seen clearly in Fig. 2. In the ’noisy’ sample there are 203 pulses with an average width of 1.62sec while in the original ’long’ sample there are 695 pulses with an average width of 1.39sec. The burst duration is affected by the noise as well, it becomes shorter. This happens when the first or the last pulses of the burst are lost.

These two effects (pulse widening and shorter burst duration) tend to increase the value of $`\delta t_{min}/T`$. Fig. 2b show that $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ increases by a factor of 10 in average, due to the noise. Thus the ratio $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ obtained from a noisy data can be considered as an upper limit to the real ratio.

### 3.3 Attributes of short bursts pulses

We have applied the same algorithm to the ‘short’ data sample. The pulses widths are shown as a function of the bursts duration in Fig 3 . The gray areas are not allowed because of the resolution ($`\delta t>4ms`$) or simply by ($`\delta tT`$). Fig 3b depicts the distribution of the pulses width, $`\delta t`$. One can see that typical values of $`\delta t`$ are 50-100 ms with no significant correlation with T (provided we delete the smooth single peaked bursts with $`\delta tT`$).

The pulse width found in this analysis is influenced by several effects. Some of this effects are due to our algorithm: First, few relatively close pulses could be seen by the algorithm as a single wide pulse. Second, the width of two pulses that are not well separated is determined by the minimum between the pulses. In this case the measured width of both pulses is shorter then their actual width.

There are also observational effects that influence the pulse width: First, as indicated in section 3.2, the pulses become wider by a factor of few because of the noise. Second, the resolution is limited. It is likely that the shortest pulses in the ’short’ sample are shorter then the best resolution of our data. Time scales shorter then the data resolution were already found in short bursts (Scargle, Norris & Bonnel 1997).

All the effects described above except one cause pulse widening. The exception is when two pulses overlap leading to a shortening of the estimated widths of both pulses. However, this effect rarely happens in our short bursts analysis. The S/N in this sample is very low, and the significance level we demand (4$`\sigma `$) is almost at the signal height (see sec. 2.1). Hence, a pulse determined by the algorithm is almost always well separated (otherwise the minimum between the pulse and its neighbor would be insignificant). Specifically 61 pulses out of the 65 pulses found in our sample are well separated: the minimum between pulses, on both sides, is lower than half of the maximum of the pulse. Thus, pulse widths are almost never underestimated. The combination of the other effects causes pulse widening. Hence our estimate of $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ , is only an upper limit.

Fig. 4 shows $`\delta t_{min}`$ and $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ for both groups ’short’ and ’noisy long’. In the ’short’ sample the median $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ is 0.25 while 35% of bursts have $`\delta t_{min}/T0.1`$ and 35% of the bursts show a smooth structure ($`\delta t_{min}/T=1`$). This result could mislead us to the conclusion that a significant fraction of the short bursts have a smooth time profile. But a look at the ’noisy long’ results show that also in this group more than 20% of the bursts are single pulsed, while there were no such bursts in the original ’long’ sample. Naturally, the bursts that loose the fine structure because of the noise are bursts with fewer original pulses. It is clear that short bursts have less pulses then long ones and therefore they are more “vulnerable” to this effect. Hence we conclude that at least one third of short bursts are highly variable ($`\delta t_{min}/T1`$) and it is very likely that another third (those bursts with $`0.1<\delta t_{min}/T<1`$)is variable as well. We cannot tell whether the smooth structure ($`\delta t_{min}/T=1`$) seen in a third of the short bursts is intrinsic or whether it arises due to the noise.

While we are mostly interested in this analysis in the pulse width, it is worth mentioning that the amplitude of the variations is large. In most (61 out of 65) cases, when there is no overlap of nearby pulses the number of counts drops to less than half of the maximal counts. Thus the pulse we describe are not only statistically significant, they also correspond to a significant (factor of 2) variation in the output of the source.

### 3.4 High resolution analysis of long bursts

We compare the time profile of the first seconds of 15 long bursts with the time profiles of 15 short bursts. Fig. 6 shows the light curves of a short burst and the first second of a long burst. The time scales of both bursts are quite similar. It is difficult to decide, on the base of these light curves alone, which one belongs to a short burst and which one is a fraction of a long one.

Fig. 7 shows the pulse widths histograms of the beginning of long bursts and of the short bursts. The time scales in both samples are quite similar in the range of 10-200ms. The long bursts have additional pulses in the range of 0.2-1sec. Long bursts contain, of course, longer pulses, but in the sample we considered we demanded that the counts would fall back to the background level within the TTE data. In this way we have limited the pulses width of the long bursts. Both histograms begin at 10-20ms, which is at the limit of the pulse width resolution (10ms). It is likely that both samples contain shorter time scales that cannot be resolved.

The counts variations within the pulses observed in the high resolution long bursts is high. In 41 out of 46 pulses, the photon counts drops to less than half of the maximal counts of the pulse on both sides. Therefore, like in short bursts, the statistically significant variations in the bursts reflects also a significant variation in the output of the source.

Walker, Schaefer & Fenimore (2000) performed a similar analysis of TTE data of 14 long bursts. They found only one long burst with very short time scales. The difference between the results arises from the different samples considered. Walker et al. (2000) considered the bursts with maximal total photon counts within the TTE burst record. We demanded that the counts will return close to the background level within the TTE record. Walker et al. (2000) criterion favors bursts that are active during the whole TTE record and therefore most of the bursts in their sample are dominated by a long and bright pulse.

This similarity between the short bursts and the fraction of long bursts raises the question whether it is possible that short bursts are actually only a small fraction, which is above the background noise, of long bursts. We have already seen that the noise cause us to loose pulses. Is it possible that a long burst with a single dominant, very intense pulse, (or a group of very close and intense pulses) will loose all its structure, apart for this intense pulse, due to noise and become a short burst. Fig. 8 rules out this option. It depicts the counts ratio between the most intense pulse and the second most intense pulse within long bursts. The graph shows that in 32 out of 34 bursts the second highest peak is more then third of the most intense peak and in 27 bursts the second peak is more than two thirds of the first. The noise cannot cause one pulse to disappear without the other. As these two peaks are usually separated by more than two seconds, the noise cannot convert a significant fraction of long bursts to short ones. Clearly the noise has some effect on the duration histogram and in a few cases the added noise converted long bursts into a short ones, but it certainly cannot produce the observed bimodality.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that most short bursts as well as most long bursts are multi-peaked and highly variable with $`\delta t_{min}/T1`$. These statistically significant variations involve generally a change of more than a factor of two in the count rate. 30% of the short bursts have a single pulse for which $`\delta t_{min}`$ is the same as the observed duration - $`\delta t_{min}T`$. These are smooth bursts. However, a comparison with the ’noisy long’ sample, shows that this might be an artifact of the low S/N in the short bursts sample. We also find significant variability on very short time scale in long GRBs. This reduces the values of the variability parameter $`\delta t_{min}/T`$ to $`10^310^4`$ in long bursts.

External shocks (at least simple models of external shocks) cannot produce variable bursts (Sari & Piran, 1997; Fenimore, Madras & Nayakshin, 1996). Our result suggests that most short bursts are produced via internal shocks. 30% of the short bursts are smooth. We cannot rule out the possibility that these bursts are produced by external shock. The observed very short time scales in long GRBs strengthen further the argument in favor of internal shocks in these bursts and requires more contrived and fine tuned external shocks models for variability.

Kobayashi, Piran & Sari (1997) have shown that internal shocks cannot convert all the relativistic kinetic energy to gamma-rays. The remaining kinetic energy is dissipated latter when the relativistic ejecta is slowed down by the surrounding medium. The resulting external shocks produce the afterglow. An essential feature of this internal-external shocks scenario is that the afterglow is not a direct extrapolation of the initial $`\gamma `$-ray emission. This model suggests (Sari, 1997) for long bursts an overlap between the GRB and initial phase of afterglow. This have been indeed observed in several cases as a build up of a softer component during the GRB and a corresponding transition in the spectrum of long GRBs to a soft x-ray dominated stage towards the end of the burst.

For short GRBs the internal-external scenario suggests that the afterglow will begin few dozen seconds after the end of a short burst that was produced by internal shocks (Sari, 1997). It also suggest that this afterglow will not be a direct extrapolation of the GRB (as the two are produced by different mechanisms). Thus we predict that for most short bursts there will be a gap between the burst and the beginning of the afterglow. We have already remarked that at this stage one cannot tell whether the remaining 30% smooth short bursts are produced by external or by internal shocks. This could be tested in the distant future with better data. However, there are clear predictions concerning the afterglow that could distinguish between the two possibilities. If these short GRBs are produced by internal shocks then we expect a clear gap between the end of the GRB and the onset of the x-ray afterglow. If on the other hand these short bursts are produced by external shocks then we predict that the afterglow would continue immediately with no interpretation after the GRB and its features would be a direct extrapolation of the properties of the GRB.

## Appendix -The algorithm

Our algorithm finds the peaks of the bursts. Each peak corresponds to a single pulse; a pulse is the basic event of the light curve. The algorithm is based on the algorithm suggested by Li & Fenimore (1996). Li & Fenimore define a time bin $`t_p`$ (with count $`C_p`$) as a peak if there are two time bins $`t_1<t_p<t_2`$ (with counts $`C_1,C_2`$ respectively) which satisfies a) $`C_pC_{1,2}>N_{var}\sqrt{C_p}`$ and b) $`C_p`$ is the maximal count between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. $`N_{var}`$ is a parameter that determines the significance of the peak.

There are two problems with this algorithm. First, this algorithm analyzes only data in a single time resolution (fixed time bin size). Therefore the algorithm looses long and faint pulses. A peak that does not satisfy the criterion described above in the raw data resolution could satisfy the criterion if the data resolution is lower (longer time-bins). This algorithm would miss such a pulse. Second, $`N_{var}`$ determines the trade-off between sensitivity and false peaks identification rate. When $`N_{var}`$ is low the algorithm finds false peaks as a result of the Poisson noise. When $`N_{var}`$ is high the algorithm misses real peaks. Finding false peaks is a severe problem during long periods of constant level Poisson noise, like the background (as will be explained shortly). Long bursts contain such periods (periods of only background noise). These periods are called quiescent times. In order to avoid false peaks in long bursts $`\text{N}_{\text{var }}`$must be large($`7`$), which means an insensitive algorithm. Short bursts contain less quiescent times, and of course shorter ones. But, short bursts contain much less pulses then long burst (three to four compared to an average of more than thirty) and much smaller S/N. Finding even one false peak could change the features of the burst drastically. Too insensitive algorithm could loose all the burst structure. In order to avoid false peaks in short bursts $`\text{N}_{\text{var }}`$must be at least as large as 5. As described in section 2.1, the S/N in some of the bright short bursts is smaller than 5. Such $`N_{var}`$ will prevent the algorithm from finding even one peak in these bursts.

We solved the first problem by analyzing the data in different resolutions. The results of the algorithm in different resolutions are merged into a single sample of peaks. We solved the second problem by restricting the search for peaks only to ‘Active Periods’. Active periods are periods with counts that correspond to source activity (we will define it later on).

There are few advantages for analyzing only active periods. The main one is that a lower $`N_{var}`$ can be used during these periods with smaller risk of finding false peaks. The risk of finding false peaks due to a Poisson noise depends on the time scale in which the original signal (i.e. without the noise) changes its count rate in the same order as the Poisson noise level. If the signal is constant (no real pulses), then this time scale is as long as the signal. If the constant signal is longer, it contains more time bins with the same level of Poisson noise counts. Hence, there is a larger chance of finding within these time-bins three time-bins, $`t_p`$, $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, that satisfy the criterion in Li & Fenimore algorithm. Then $`t_p`$ would become a false peak. On the other hand, if the signal is changing monotonically then the length of the signal is irrelevant. $`t_p`$, $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ must be within the period in which the signal changes at the same order as the Poisson noise level; there is no chance of finding $`t_2`$ with $`C_2`$ significantly below $`C_p`$ (if the signal is rising) out of this period. During the active periods the signal is changing rapidly (usually on time scales of seconds or less), and the Poisson noise is superimposed on steep slopes. In this case a false peak could only be found during the period in which the signal didn’t change compared to the noise level. There are much less time bins during this period and hence there are much less chance of finding false peaks.

The second advantage is that when an active period is found we almost certain that it is a part of the burst. This is important since one false peak in the ‘wrong’ place (for example hundred of seconds after the burst ended) can change the burst properties drastically. By analyzing only active periods we can use smaller $`N_{var}`$ (=4) and get a more sensitive and accurate algorithm.

Our algorithm works in several steps. First, it determines the background level of the signal (as a function of time). Then it finds an activity level, demanding a probability of 0.9 (per burst) that all the time bins with counts above this level (called ‘active bins’) correspond to source activity and not of the background Poisson noise (we demand that on every ten bursts there is, on average, a single false ‘active bin’). The activity level depends on the background and its value is between 4$`\sigma `$ to 5$`\sigma `$ above the background. From each active bin we search to the right and to the left until the count level drops to the background level on both sides. We call all these bins together an active period (from the time bin that the counts are above the background until the time bin that the counts reaches the background level again). In most cases a single active period includes many active bins and a burst may contain more then a single active period (see Fig 9). Note that if the algorithm misses an active period in one resolution, it can still find it in a different (lower) resolution, in which the noise level is lower.

Once the active periods of a given burst have been determined we apply the Li & Fenimore algorithm to the active periods (using Nvar=4) and determine the peaks. We repeat this procedure (finding the active periods and the corresponding peaks), several times for different time resolution. To obtain lower resolution data we convolve the original signal (in the basic time bins) with a Gaussian, whose width determines the resolution. Finally, after finding the peaks in different resolutions we merge those samples of peaks to a single sample (requiring that a peak must appear in at least two different resolutions). The merge is done by merging the highest resolution sample with the second highest one and then taking this merged sample and merging it with the third highest resolution sample and so on. On different resolutions the same peak could be found on different time bins. In each case two peaks on different resolutions are considered as a single one if the peak in one resolution falls between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ of the peak in the other resolution.

Each peak corresponds, of course, to a pulse. The pulse width ($`\delta t`$) is defined by two points (on each side of the peak) that are higher than the background by 1/4 of the peaks height or by the minimum between two neighboring peaks (if the latter is higher). The duration ($`T`$) of the burst is the time elapsed from the beginning of the first pulse till the end of the last pulse (so in single pulsed burst $`T=\delta t`$).

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by US-Israel BSF grant.