text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As is well known, in noncommutative field theory  the nonplanar parts of 1PI Green functions become singular when the noncommutativity spacetime parameter $`\theta `$ approaches zero . The corresponding singularities are called noncommutative IR divergences and, for the theories usually considered, are quadratic, linear or logarithmic in $`1/\theta `$. They arise from the contribution of large loop-momenta to nonplanar one-loop Feynman integrals which, being finite for nonvanishing $`\theta `$, become divergent if $`\theta 0`$. This simple but deep observation, first made in ref. , is known as UV/IR mixing and for $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ and gauge theories - takes a much stronger form, which we will refer to as strong UV/IR duality. Strong UV/IR duality states that the logarithmic noncommutative IR singularities in the nonplanar part of a 1PI Green function and the logarithmic UV divergences in its planar part are in one-to-one correspondence. UV/IR duality in this strong form seems not to be an artifact of perturbation theory, since in many instances it has been reobtained by taking the infinite tension limit of a suitable string amplitude for an open bosonic string on a magnetic $`B`$-field .

Noncommutative IR singularities pose serious problems for the existence of noncommutative field theories beyond one loop. They threaten renormalizability at higher loops (since locality of UV counterterms may be spoiled111As of today, the question of higher-loop renormalizability has been addressed mainly for $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$  and the Wess-Zumino model .) and may introduce tachyonic states    (associated to quadratic noncommutative IR singularities in 1PI two-point functions). In noncommutative gauge theories , quadratic and linear noncommutative IR singularities can be eliminated by introducing supersymmetry  . Indeed, in supersymmetric gauge theories, the supersymmetric partners of the gauge field provide nonplanar contributions which cancel the quadratic and linear noncommutative IR singularities in the nonsupersymmetric theories  . The supersymmetric theories thus become free of tachyonic instabilities and are left with the milder noncommutative logarithmic IR singularities. Furthermore, the results in ref.  imply that supersymmetric $`N=1`$ $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in the Yennie gauge becomes free of all noncommutative IR singularities at one loop.

The purpose of this paper is to study the noncommutative IR singularities of $`U(1)`$ complex scalar field theory, to investigate whether they satisfy UV/IR duality in the strong sense mentioned above, to explore spontaneous symmetry breaking as a mechanism to eliminate noncommutative IR singularities and to analyze how this enters the Goldstone theorem. To carry this investigation, we must first understand the UV renormalizability of the model. Although the latter should be by now well established, in our analysis we have found issues that have gone unnoticed in the literature and that are essential to understand the model’s spontaneous symmetry breaking and its $`U(1)`$ global invariance at the quantum level. We also report on them.

To be more explicit, consider complex scalar field theory on noncommutative Minkowski spacetime, defined classically by the action

$$S_{\mathrm{sym}}=d^4x\left[(_\mu \varphi ^{})(^\mu \varphi )V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M,\lambda ,\varphi ,\varphi ^{})\right],$$
(1.1)
where $`\varphi `$ is a complex scalar field and the potential $`V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ has the form

$$V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=M^2|\varphi |^2+\frac{\lambda _1}{4}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi +\frac{\lambda _2}{4}\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ,$$
(1.2)
with $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ two different coupling constants. Note that in the action one must allow for the two inequivalent noncommutative extensions $`\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$ of the commutative interaction term $`|\varphi |^4`$. The symbol $``$ denotes the Moyal product, defined for functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ as

$$\left(fg\right)(x)=f(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\theta ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{_\nu }\right)g(x),$$

where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant real antisymmetric matrix and our metric convention is $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+,,,)`$. We will restrict ourselves to magnetic-like matrices222In this way we do not run into problems with unitarity . $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, i.e. such that $`\theta ^{0i}=0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. For $`M^2>0`$, the only field configuration that minimizes the energy is $`\varphi _0=0`$ and the action (1.1) with potential (1.2) defines the symmetric phase of the classical theory. The global $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations that leave invariant the action take the form $`\varphi e^{i\alpha }\varphi `$, with $`\alpha `$ an arbitrary real constant. By contrast, for $`M^2<0`$, any field configuration $`\varphi _0`$ such that $`|\varphi _0|^2=v^2`$, with

$$v=\sqrt{\frac{2M^2}{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}},$$

minimizes the energy and classical spontaneous symmetry breaking takes place. Indeed, choosing $`\varphi _0=v`$ and expanding $`\varphi `$ about it as

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\pi +i\sigma )+iv,$$
(1.3)
the action can be written as

$$S_{\mathrm{br}}=d^4x\left[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \pi )(^\mu \pi )+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \sigma )(^\mu \sigma )V_{\mathrm{br}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\pi ,\sigma )\right],$$
(1.4)
where the potential $`V_{\mathrm{br}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\pi ,\sigma )`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{\mathrm{br}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\pi ,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}(2M^2)\sigma ^2+\frac{v(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi \pi \sigma +\sigma \sigma \sigma \right)\hfill \\ +\frac{\lambda _1}{4}\pi \pi \sigma \sigma \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{8}\pi \sigma \pi \sigma \hfill \\ +\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{16}\left(\pi \pi \pi \pi +\sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma \right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.5)
and $`M^2`$ has been replaced with $`M^2`$, so as to work with a positive $`M^2`$. The action (1.4) with potential (1.5) defines the nonsymmetric or broken phase of the classical theory. The global $`U(1)`$transformations that leave $`S_{\mathrm{br}}`$ invariant are obtained from $`\varphi e^{i\alpha }\varphi `$ and eq. (1.3); they read

$$\delta \pi =\alpha (\sigma +\sqrt{2}v)\delta \sigma =\alpha \pi .$$
(1.6)
As stated, we want to study the noncommutative IR singularities and their mixing with UV divergences in both phases.

Our main results and the organization of the paper are as follows. In section 2, we consider the symmetric phase and show that it is one-loop renormalizable for arbitrary $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ compatible with perturbation theory, being not necessary to take $`\lambda _2=0`$. We also give explicit expressions for the noncommutative IR singularities in the 1PI Green functions and prove that UV/IR duality in its strong form does not hold. Sections 3 to 5 are dedicated to study the broken phase. In particular, in section 3, we demonstrate that one-loop UV renormalization for the broken phase is consistent with the Ward identities only if $`\lambda _2=0`$. In section 4 we rederive the same result by analyzing the consistency of the nonplanar sector of the theory with the Ward identities. Section 5 presents explicit expressions for the noncommutative IR singularities in the 1PI Green functions of the broken phase. The expressions given there show that in the the broken phase there are no quadratic noncommutative IR singularities, that the selfenergy for the pion field $`\pi `$ is free of all noncommutative IR singularities and that the strong version of UV/IR duality does not hold. Also in section 5 we show that the pion mass, defined as the zero of the selfenergy, remains zero after one-loop radiative corrections, thus ensuring that the Goldstone theorem holds true at one loop for arbitrary magnetic $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Section 6 contains our conclusions.

Several related problems have been addressed in the literature. In ref.  the broken phase of the noncommutative global $`U(N)`$ model, with $`N>1`$ and $`\lambda _2=0`$, is considered and it is shown that the pion selfenergy vanishes for vanishing external momentum. Ref.  assumes $`\lambda _2=0`$ and proves that global $`O(2)`$ scalar field theory is one-loop renormalizable. Whereas these papers deal with the case $`\lambda _2=0`$, we focus on the case $`\lambda _20`$ and on noncommutative IR singularities and their implications. As concerns local models, ref.  proves the consistency of UV renormalization with the BRS identities for the local $`U(1)`$ model and calculates the beta functions. In turn, the one-loop renormalizability of the local $`U(2)`$ and $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ models is shown in ref. . It is worth noting that in the local models $`\lambda _2`$ is excluded classically, since $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$ is not invariant under local gauge transformations, while our analysis here shows that in the global model $`\lambda _2=0`$ follows from the symmetry requirements at the quantum level.

## 2 The symmetric phase: renormalization and noncommutative IR singularities

We first consider the symmetric phase, with classical action given by eq. (1.1) and (1.2). At one loop, the only 1PI Green functions with UV divergences are the field selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ and the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$. To regularize the theory and to account for the counterterms that will be necessary to subtract the UV divergences, we introduce an invariant cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by considering the ‘bare’ action

$$S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=d^4x\left[(_\mu \varphi _0^{})\left(1+\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^n(^\mu \varphi _0)V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M_0,\lambda _{10},\lambda _{20},\varphi _0,\varphi _0^{})\right]n2.$$
(2.7)
Note that the quadratic UV divergences in the one-loop tadpole are not regularized if $`n=1`$, so we must take $`n2`$. The potential $`V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M_0,\lambda _{1,0},\lambda _{2,0},\varphi _0)`$ is as in eq. (1.2) but with the renormalized quantities $`M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\varphi ,\varphi ^{}`$ replaced with bare quantities $`M_0,\lambda _{10},\lambda _{20},\varphi _0,\varphi _0^{}`$, defined by

$`\varphi _0=Z_\varphi ^{1/2}\varphi `$ (2.8)
$`Z_\varphi M_0^2=Z_{M^2}M^2Z_\varphi ^2\lambda _{10}=\lambda _1+\delta \lambda _1Z_\varphi ^2\lambda _{20}=\lambda _2+\delta \lambda _2.`$ (2.9)
The renormalization constants $`Z_\varphi `$ and $`Z_{M^2}`$ have the form

$$Z_\varphi =1+\delta z_\varphi Z_{M^2}=1+\frac{\delta M^2}{M^2},$$

with $`\delta \lambda _1,\delta \lambda _2,\delta z_\varphi `$ and $`\delta M^2`$ collecting all terms of order one or higher in $`\mathrm{}`$. The action $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ can be recast as

$$S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}+S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}},$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}`$ is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}=d^4x\left[(_\mu \varphi ^{})\left(1+\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^n(^\mu \varphi )V_{\mathrm{sym}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\varphi ,\varphi ^{})\right]$$
(2.10)
and the counterterms $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}}`$ read

$$S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}}=d^4x\left[\delta z_\varphi (_\mu \varphi ^{})(^\mu \varphi )\delta M^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \frac{\delta \lambda _1}{4}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi \frac{\delta \lambda _2}{4}\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi \right].$$
(2.11)
It is important to emphasize that $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are different coupling constants, so there is no reason for them to have the same running. In other words, $`\delta \lambda _1`$ and $`\delta \lambda _2`$ may be different. Eqs. (2.10) and (2.11) provide the Feynman rules depicted in fig. 1, where we have used the notation

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu pq=\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\mu q_\nu pp=\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta _\mu ^\tau p_\nu p_\tau .$$

Introducing sources $`J_0`$ and $`J_0^{}`$ for the fields $`\varphi _0^{}`$ and $`\varphi _0`$, we consider the generating functional

$$Z[J_0,J_0^{}]=e^{G_c[J_0,J_0^{}]}=[d\varphi _0][d\varphi _0^{}]\mathrm{exp}\left[iS_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}+iS_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}}+id^4x(J_0^{}\varphi _0+J_0\varphi _0^{})\right].$$
(2.12)
For $`J_0`$ we write $`J_0=Z_\varphi ^{1/2}J`$, so that $`J_0^{}\varphi _0=J^{}\varphi `$, and similarly for $`J_0^{}`$. To find the Ward identity associated to the $`U(1)`$ global symmetry, we follow the standard procedure: change variables $`\varphi e^{i\alpha }\varphi `$ in the integral in eq. (2.12), take into account that under this change $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ remains invariant and define the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ as the Legendre transform of $`W[J,J^{}]`$. This leads to the Ward identity

$$d^4x\left(\varphi \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi }\varphi ^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi ^{}}\right)=0.$$
(2.13)
Using for the effective action its expansion

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2n!}d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_nd^4y_1\mathrm{}d^4y_n\hfill \\ \times \varphi (x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (x_n)\varphi ^{}(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(y_m)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n,m)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;y_1,\mathrm{},y_m)\hfill \end{array}$$

in fields, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)`$ denotes the Green function of $`n`$ $`\varphi `$-fields and $`n`$ $`\varphi ^{}`$-fields, and going to momentum space, we obtain the following set of Ward identities for the 1PI Green functions:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n;q_1,\mathrm{},q_n)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_n;p_1,\mathrm{},p_n).$$
(2.14)
The quantum theory is defined by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`Z[J_0,J_0^{}]`$, or equivalently of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$. Hence, for the symmetric phase of the quantum theory to exist, the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit must be well defined. This means that, while preserving the Ward identities, it must be possible to choose order by order in perturbation theory the counterterms so as to cancel the divergences that appear in the 1PI Green functions when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. We are going to show that this is the case at one loop for all values of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ compatible with perturbation theory.

As already mentioned, the only 1PI Green functions with UV divergences at one loop are the field selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ and the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)`$. Let us first worry about the selfenergy. Its one-loop contribution is given by

(2.15)
where the regularized selfenergy $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{reg}}(p)`$ reads

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{reg}}(p)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\left(1+e^{ikp}\right)}{k^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^nM^2}.$$

The $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$-independent part of this integral gives the one-loop planar contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{P}(p)`$ to the field selfenergy, while the $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$-dependent part defines the nonplanar contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)`$. Computing their limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ (see the Appendix for details), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{P}(p)=\left(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{2}\right)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^nM^2}\hfill \\ {}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{2})[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)+M^2f_0]\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.16)
and

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)=\frac{\lambda _2}{2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ikp}}{k^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^nM^2}{}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i\lambda _2M^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{K_1(\sqrt{ppM^2})}{\sqrt{ppM^2}},$$
(2.17)
where

$$f_0=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{r}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2nr)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)}$$
(2.18)
and $`K_\nu ()`$ is the third Bessel function of order $`\nu `$. Note that, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the planar contribution diverges quadratically and the nonplanar contribution remains finite provided $`pp0`$. To cancel the UV divergences in $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{P}(p)`$ and thus render $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p)`$ UV finite, we adopt an MS type scheme and take for $`\delta z_\varphi `$ and $`\delta M^2`$

$$\delta z_\varphi =0\delta M^2=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{2}\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)\right].$$
(2.19)
For the one-loop correction to the 4-vertex

we proceed similarly. The regularized contribution $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ is the sum of the first three diagrams and can be decomposed

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)$$
(2.20)
in a planar part $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)`$ and a nonplanar part $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4)`$. The planar contribution contains all the divergences that arise when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, while the nonplanar contribution is well defined for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$. After some calculations, for the planar contribution we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}[(\lambda _1^2+\frac{\lambda _2^2}{4})\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1p_3+p_2p_4}{2}\right)\hfill \\ +\lambda _2(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{4})\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1p_2}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_3p_4}{2}\right)\left]\mathrm{ln}\right(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2})+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.21)
where “f.c.” collects finite, regular contributions for nonexceptional configurations of external momenta. In the MS type scheme that we have adopted, cancellation of UV divergences requires taking $`\delta \lambda _1`$ and $`\delta \lambda _2`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta \lambda _1=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(\lambda _1^2+\frac{\lambda _2^2}{4}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)\hfill \\ \delta \lambda _2=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda _2\left(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{4}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.22)
Thus far we have that the counterterms $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}}`$ with $`\delta z_\varphi `$, $`\delta M^2`$, $`\delta \lambda _1`$ and $`\delta \lambda _2`$ as in eqs. (2.19) and (2.22) cancel the divergences that occur in the one-loop 1PI diagrams generated by $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, thus ensuring that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ exists at one loop. Furthermore, since by construction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ satisfies the Ward identity (2.13) for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, and since the divergent contributions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ in the 1PI Green functions, given by eqs. (2.16) and (2.21), satisfy the Ward identities (2.14), the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ preserves the Ward identities. Hence the symmetric phase of the quantum theory exists at one loop. We stress that the symmetric phase is renormalizable at one loop for all values of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ compatible with perturbation theory, and that there is no need to assume $`\lambda _2=0`$. In other words, if one writes

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1+\delta \lambda _1=Z_{11}\lambda _1+Z_{12}\lambda _2\hfill \\ \lambda _2+\delta \lambda _2=Z_{21}\lambda _1+Z_{22}\lambda _2,\hfill \end{array}$$

the fact that $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are different coupling constants means that there are no requisites on the $`Z_{ij}`$ other than those arising from the Ward identities, and we have seen that these do not impose any. From eqs. (2.22) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_{11}=1+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\lambda _1\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)\hfill & Z_{12}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\lambda _2}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)\hfill \\ Z_{21}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\lambda _2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right)\hfill & Z_{22}=1+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{2\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

which are different among themselves. In sections 3 and 4, we will see that for the broken phase the Ward identities require $`\lambda _2=0`$.

Once we know that the symmetric phase of the theory exists at one loop, we move on to study the noncommutative IR singularities in the 1PI Green functions. The one-loop nonplanar contribution (2.17) to the selfenergy is well defined for $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$. For $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, however, it becomes singular. In fact, sending $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ in eq. (2.17) and using the results in the Appendix, we have

$$\underset{\theta ^{\mu \nu }0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(\theta ,p)\right]=\frac{i\lambda _2}{8\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{pp}+\frac{M^2}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}(ppM^2)2\mathrm{ln}2+2\gamma 1\right]\right\}.$$
(2.23)
The origin of these noncommutative IR singularities can be understood by looking at the integral expression for $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{NP}}(p)`$ in eq. (2.17). At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the integral is well defined if $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, but diverges quadratically if $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$. The contribution to the integral from arbitrarily high momenta $`k^\mu `$ is curbed by the noncommutativity of spacetime, with $`1/pp`$ acting as a regulator. This is precisely the UV/IR mixing argument , that for $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ and gauge theories - goes beyond this observation for nonplanar integrals and states that the logarithmic noncommutative IR singularities in the nonplanar part of a 1PI Green function and the logarithmic UV divergences in its planar part can be obtained from each other by replacing $`p_ip_i1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for all the external momenta $`p_i`$. This stronger form of UV/IR mixing does not hold here, since the planar part $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{P}(p)`$ of the selfenergy has UV logarithmic divergences proportional to $`\lambda _1`$, whereas the nonplanar part $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)`$ does not have contributions proportional to $`\lambda _1`$ \[see eqs. (2.16) and (2.17)\]. Without loss of generality, we can take a reference frame in which all the components of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ vanish except for

$$\theta ^{12}=\theta ^{21}\theta .$$
(2.24)
In this frame, and using the notation $`p^\mu =(p^0,\stackrel{}{p}_{},p^3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}=(p^1,p^2)`$, eq. (2.23) takes the form

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)\frac{i\lambda _2}{8\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{\theta ^2\stackrel{}{p}_{}^2}+\frac{M^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)\right],$$

where the symbol $``$ denotes that the limit $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0,\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ has been taken and that all finite contributions have been dropped. Besides the selfenergy, the four-vertex is the only other 1PI Green function that may develop noncommutative IR singularities in its nonplanar part. After some calculus, for the singular behaviour at $`\theta 0`$ of its nonplanar part, we obtain in the frame (2.24)

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}[\lambda _2(\lambda _1+\frac{3}{8}\lambda _2)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1p_3+p_2p_4}{2}\right)\hfill \\ +(\frac{3}{4}\lambda _1^2+\lambda _1\lambda _2+\frac{5}{8}\lambda _2^2)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1p_2}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{p_3p_4}{2})]\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.25)
It is clear that the replacement $`\theta ^2M^21/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ does not relate the noncommutative IR singularities in this equation with the UV divergences in the planar part given in eq. (2.21). We conclude that UV/IR duality in its strong form does not hold.

To finish our discussion of noncommutative IR divergences, we study if these introduce perturbative tachyonic instabilities as in nonsupersymmetric gauge theories. The dispersion relation up to one loop reads

$$p^2M^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p)=0.$$

For external momenta $`p^\mu `$ such that $`\lambda _2/ppM^2<<1`$, where perturbation theory is valid, the dominant part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p)`$ is the first term in eq. (2.23), so we write

$$p^2=M^2+\frac{\lambda _2}{8\pi ^2pp}+\mathrm{subleading}\mathrm{terms}.$$

Since $`pp`$ is positive definite, there are no perturbative tachyonic instabilities.

## 3 The broken phase: UV counterterms

We start writing an action analogous to $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$ for the symmetric phase which (i) generates through perturbation theory finite Green functions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, and (ii) is symmetric under global $`U(1)`$ transformations. To this end, we combine eqs. (2.8) and (1.3) so that

$$\varphi _0=Z_\varphi ^{1/2}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\pi +i\sigma )+iv\right],$$
(3.26)
substitute the latter in eq. (1.1), use eq. (2.9) and replace $`M^2`$ with $`M^2`$. This yields for $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}`$

$$S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}+S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}},$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}`$ is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}=d^4x\left[\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \pi )\left(1+\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^n(^\mu \pi )+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \sigma )\left(1+\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^n(^\mu \sigma )V_{\mathrm{br}}(M,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\pi ,\sigma )\right],$$
(3.27)
the counterterms $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$ read

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}=d^4x\{\frac{\delta z_\varphi }{2}(_\mu \pi )(^\mu \pi )+\frac{\delta z_\varphi }{2}(_\mu \sigma )(^\mu \sigma )\sqrt{2}v\delta _1\sigma \frac{\delta _1}{2}\pi ^2\frac{\delta _2}{2}\sigma ^2\hfill \\ \frac{v(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2)}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(\pi \pi \sigma +\sigma \sigma \sigma \right)\frac{\delta \lambda _1}{4}\pi \pi \sigma \sigma +\frac{\delta \lambda _1\delta \lambda _2}{8}\pi \sigma \pi \sigma \hfill \\ \frac{\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2}{16}(\pi \pi \pi \pi +\sigma \sigma \sigma \sigma )\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.28)
and $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ take the form

$`\delta _1=\delta M^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2}}(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2)`$ (3.29)
$`\delta _2=\delta M^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}v^2(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2).`$ (3.30)
It is straightforward to check that $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$ are both invariant under the $`U(1)`$ global transformations (1.6) and that their Feynman rules are those shown in figs. 2 and 3.

Introducing real sources $`J_\pi `$ and $`J_\sigma `$ for the fields $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ through

$$J=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(J_\pi +iJ_\sigma )J^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(J_\pi iJ_\sigma )$$

and substituting in eq. (2.12), we have for the generating functional for the Green functions of the fields $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$

$$Z[J_\pi ,J_\sigma ]=e^{G_c[J_\pi ,J_\sigma ]}=[d\pi ][d\sigma ]\mathrm{exp}\left\{iS_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}+iS_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}+id^4x\left[J_\pi \pi J_\sigma \left(\sigma +\sqrt{2}v\right)\right]\right\}.$$

To obtain the Ward identity that controls the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry at the quantum level, we follow the usual method: make the change (1.6) in the integral that defines $`Z[J_\pi ,J_\sigma ]`$, note that $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$ remain invariant under such a change and define the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\pi ,\sigma ]`$ as the Legendre transform of $`W[J_\pi ,J_\sigma ]`$. This yields the identity

$$d^4x\left(\sigma \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \pi }\pi \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \sigma }\right)=\sqrt{2}d^4x\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \pi }.$$
(3.31)
If we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n,m)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;y_1,\mathrm{},y_m)`$ the 1PI Green function of $`n`$ $`\pi `$-fields and $`m`$ $`\sigma `$-fields, the effective action can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\pi ,\sigma ]=\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!m!}d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_nd^4y_1\mathrm{}d^4y_m\hfill \\ \times \pi (x_1)\mathrm{}\pi (x_n)\sigma (y_1)\mathrm{}\sigma (y_m)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n,m)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;y_1,\mathrm{},y_m).\hfill \end{array}$$

Substituting this in eq. (3.31) and going to momentum space, we obtain the following set of Ward identities for the 1PI Green functions:

$$\begin{array}{c}m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n+1,m1)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,q_m;q_1,\mathrm{},q_{m1})\hfill \\ n\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n1,m+1)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1};q_1,\mathrm{},q_m,q_{m+1})\hfill \\ =\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n+1,m1)}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,0;q_1,\mathrm{},q_m).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.32)
It is important to note the zero momentum insertion on r.h.s. of the identities, since it will play a key part in our analysis in section 4. The same comments made for the symmetric phase concerning the quantum theory apply here. Namely, for the broken phase of the quantum theory to exist, one must make sure that it is possible to take order by order in perturbation theory the counterterms so as to render the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ of all 1PI Green functions finite, while preserving the Ward identities. In this section we show that this is possible at one loop only if $`\lambda _2=0`$.

The 1PI Green functions with UV divergences for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ in their planar parts are, in the notation introduced above,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,1)}(0)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}(p)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,2)}(q)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,1)}(p_1,p_2;q)\hfill & p_1+p_2+q=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,3)}(q_1,q_2,q_3)\hfill & q_1+q_2+q_3=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4,0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)\hfill & p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,2)}(p_1,p_2;q_1,q_2)\hfill & p_1+p_2+q_1+q_2=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,4)}(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)\hfill & q_1+q_2+q_3+q_4=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.33)
By the UV/IR mixing argument, these are also the only 1PI the Green functions whose nonplanar parts may develop singularities at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ when $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$. According to eq. (3.32), these functions satisfy the Ward identities

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,1)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}(0)`$ (3.34)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,2)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,1)}(p,0;p)`$ (3.35)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,1)}(p,q_1;q_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,3)}(p,q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,2)}(p,0;q_1,q_2)`$ (3.36)
$`3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,1)}(p_1,p_2;p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4,0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,0)`$ (3.37)
$`3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,2)}(p_1,q_1;q_2,q_3)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,4)}(p_1,q_1,q_2,q_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,3)}(p_1,0;q_1,q_2,q_3)`$ (3.38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4,0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,q)3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,2)}(p_1,p_2;p_3,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4,1)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,0;q).`$ (3.39)
We first look at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,1)}(0)`$. At one loop, it is given by

(3.40)
where the regularized contribution $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(0,1)}(0)`$ has the form

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(0,1)}(0)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(0,1)}(0)=\frac{v(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\frac{3}{D_\sigma (k)}+\frac{1}{D_\pi (k)}\right]$$
(3.41)
and we have defined

$`D_\pi (k)=k^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^n`$ (3.42)
$`D_\sigma (k)=k^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)^n2M^2.`$ (3.43)
Note that $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(0,1)}(0)`$ is purely planar and is quadratically divergent at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. To compute its large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit we use eqs. (A.2) and (A.3) in the Appendix and obtain

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(0,1)}(0)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(0,1)}(0){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}\sqrt{2}v(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}\frac{3}{2}M^2[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)f_0]\},$$
(3.44)
with $`f_0`$ as in eq. (2.18). It follows that, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,1)}(0)`$ to be finite, $`\delta _1`$ must be modulo finite terms

$$\delta _1=\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}\frac{3}{2}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)\right].$$
(3.45)
Next we consider the pion selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}(p)`$. At one loop, it receives contributions from the following 1PI diagrams

(3.46)
Using the Feynman rules, the contribution $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ can be written as the sum

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{reg}}^{(2,0)}(p)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)$$
(3.47)
of a planar part $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ and a nonplanar part $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$, given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\left\{\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p)\\ i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)\end{array}\right\}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}[\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{D_\pi (k)}\{\begin{array}{c}2\\ \mathrm{cos}(pk)\end{array}\}\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{D_\sigma (k)}\{\begin{array}{c}2\lambda _1\\ (\lambda _2\lambda _1)\mathrm{cos}(pk)\end{array}\}+\frac{2M^2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)}{D_\pi (k+p)D_\sigma (k)}\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ \mathrm{cos}(pk)\end{array}\}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.48)
At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the planar contribution diverges, while the nonplanar contribution remains finite if $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ . From eqs. (A.2), (A.3) and (A.4) we obtain for the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit of the planar contribution

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}\{(\lambda _1+\frac{\lambda _2}{2})\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}\hfill \\ \frac{3\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{2}M^2[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)f_0]+\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{2}M^2f(p^2)\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.49)
where $`f(p^2)`$ has the form

$$f(p^2)=1\left(1\frac{2M^2}{p^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{p^2}{2M^2}\right).$$
(3.50)
Since the UV divergences in the pion selfenergy are those in its planar part and are given by eq. (3.49), for the selfenergy to be finite, $`\delta z_\varphi `$ and $`\delta _1`$ must be modulo finite terms

$`\delta z_\varphi =0`$ (3.51)
$`\delta _1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\left(\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{2}}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)\right].`$ (3.52)
Eqs. (3.45) and (3.52) imply

$$\lambda _2=0.$$
(3.53)
In other words, if $`\lambda _20`$, there are no counterterms that consistently subtract the UV divergences in $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,1)}(0)`$ and $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$. Note that the structure of the counterterms in $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$, and in particular of those for $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0,1)}(0)`$ and $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2,0)}(p)`$, results from demanding global $`U(1)`$ invariance, so the condition $`\lambda _2=0`$ is a requirement of global $`U(1)`$ invariance.

We now set $`\lambda _2=0`$ and compute the UV divergences in the other Green functions on the list (3.33). Every 1PI Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m,n)}`$ on this list is at one loop the sum

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m,n)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(m,n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(m,n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}^{(m,n)}.$$
(3.54)
of three terms. The terms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(m,n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(m,n)}`$ collect the planar and nonplanar contributions of the corresponding 1PI diagrams formed with the Feynman rules for $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}`$, while the term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ct}}^{(m,n)}`$ is the counterterm contribution provided by $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$. At nonvanishing external momenta, only the planar part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(m,n)}`$ becomes divergent for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. Computing these divergences and summing to them the counterterm contribution we obtain

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,2)}(q){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)]+i(q^2\delta z_\varphi \delta _2)+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.55)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,1)}(p_1,p_2;q){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{iv}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2)\right]+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.56)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,3)}(q_1,q_2,q_3){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3iv}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_1q_2}{2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2)\right]+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.57)
$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(4,0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4),i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,4)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)__\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}\hfill \\ {}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{2}t_\theta (p_1,p_2,p_3)\left[\frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)(\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2)\right]+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.58)
$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,2)}(p_1,p_2;q_1,q_2){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1q_2+p_2q_1}{2}\right)[\frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)(\delta \lambda _1\delta \lambda _2)]\hfill \\ +i\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1p_2}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{q_1q_2}{2}\right)\left[\frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)\delta \lambda _1\right]+\mathrm{f}.\mathrm{c}.,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.59)
where $`t_\theta (p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ stands for

$`t_\theta (p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2+p_1p_3+p_2p_3}{2}}\right)`$ (3.60)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2+p_1p_3p_2p_3}{2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2p_1p_3p_2p_3}{2}}\right).`$
Note that to calculate the UV divergences of the Green functions above, among all the 1PI one-loop diagrams that contribute to a given Green function, we only need to consider those with at most two internal lines. The reason is that 1PI one-loop diagrams with three or more internal lines contain at least three propagators and thus their planar contributions are finite by power counting at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

For $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,2)}(q)`$ in eq. (3.55) to be finite, $`\delta z_\varphi `$ and $`\delta _2`$ must be given, modulo finite terms, by $`\delta z_\varphi =0`$ and

$$\delta _2=\frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}\frac{7}{2}M^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)\right].$$
(3.61)
In turn, modulo finite terms, eqs. (3.29), (3.30), (3.45) and (3.61) yield for $`\delta M^2`$ and $`\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2`$

$`\delta M^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)\right]`$ (3.62)
$`\delta \lambda _1+\delta \lambda _2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right).`$
The latter equation and (3.59) imply

$`\delta \lambda _2=0`$ (3.63)
$`\delta \lambda _1={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right).`$ (3.64)
To determine the finite terms in $`\delta M^2,\delta z_\varphi `$ and $`\delta \lambda _1`$, three renormalization conditions should be specified.

## 4 The broken phase II: Ward identities

In this section we rederive the condition $`\lambda _2=0`$ from the Ward identities (3.34)-(3.39). So let us assume that $`\lambda _20`$ and recall that the identities hold for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ and all $`\delta _1,\delta _2,\delta \lambda _1,\delta \lambda _2`$. With this in mind we look at the identity (3.34). Using the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,1)}(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$ in eqs. (3.40) and (3.46), the terms with $`\delta _1`$ cancel and we are left with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(0,1)}(0)=\sqrt{2}v\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)\right].$$
(4.65)
The contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(0,1)}(0)`$ on the l.h.s. is given in eq. (3.41), while for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)`$ on the r.h.s. we have from eq. (3.48) that

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{D_\pi (k)}+\frac{3\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{D_\sigma (k)}\right]}`$ (4.66)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{D_\sigma (k)}}.`$ (4.67)
It is clear from eqs. (3.41), (4.66) and (4.67) that eq. (4.65) is satisfied. This is no surprise since, as stated, the Ward identities hold for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$. The key point is that the identity (4.65) holds because there is a contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)`$ to the r.h.s. which is proportional to $`\lambda _2`$, diverges at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and is nonplanar. This indicates a mismatching in the planar $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ divergent contributions to both sides of the identity, or equivalently a mismatching in the UV divergences333This mismatching was calculated explicitly in section 3 \[see eqs. (3.44) and (3.49)\]. The argument given here precisely avoids computing it.. To subtract the UV divergences, we then have to add different counterterms to the right and left hand sides, in contradiction with the statement that the counterterms satisfy the Ward identities for arbitrary $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. Hence, to have a consistent subtraction procedure, we must get rid of the unwanted divergent contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)`$, and this implies taking $`\lambda _2=0`$. Note that after setting $`\lambda _2=0`$ we are left with

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)=0.$$

The argument just given generalizes to the other identities as follows. The invariance for arbitrary $`\delta _1,\delta _2,\delta \lambda _1`$ and $`\delta \lambda _2`$ of $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$ under global $`U(1)`$ transformations implies that the counterterms in fig. 3 satisfy the Ward identities. This means that the counterterm contributions to both sides of the identities cancel, so the identities become relations among planar and nonplanar parts of Green functions like that in eq. (4.65). As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the planar contributions to the l.h.s. of these relations become singular, while the nonplanar contributions remain finite. Thus, the divergences that arise for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ on the l.h.s. are of planar type. These divergences must be matched by only planar divergences on the r.h.s.; otherwise the UV divergences on the l.h.s. would not be balanced by the UV divergences on the r.h.s. and their subtraction would require different counterterms for each side. If all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ divergent contributions to the r.h.s. are to be planar, the nonplanar contributions to this side should remain finite for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. This, however, is not granted, since on the r.h.s. of the identities one of the external momenta, say $`p_e`$, vanishes and the nonplanar contributions given by nonplanar Feynman integrals with nonplanarity factor $`e^{ikp_e}`$ become divergent at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ if $`p_e=0`$. Hence, we must find conditions that rid the r.h.s. of the Ward identities of nonplanar contributions which for $`p_e=0`$ become divergent at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ Note that what we have precisely proved in our analysis above of the identity (3.34) is that the condition $`\lambda _2=0`$ ensures the finiteness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(0)`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. Setting $`\lambda _2=0`$, we have checked that all the nonplanar contributions to the r.h.s. of the identities (3.35)-(3.39) are finite for arbitrary $`\lambda _1`$, so no further condition is required.

The quantum theory being defined as the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit of the theory at finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ implies that the Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,1)}(0)`$ on the l.h.s. of the Ward identity (3.34) must be computed at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$ on the r.h.s. at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{},p0`$. In our analysis above of the identity (3.34), for the r.h.s. we have first set $`p=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$ and then sent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. Setting $`p=0`$ led to eqs. (4.66) and (4.67), and sending $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ to the discussion that follows them. There is, however, one other way to compute the renormalized Green function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{},p0`$; namely, to take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ at nonvanishing $`p`$ and then send $`p`$ to zero. For the quantum theory to be well defined, both procedures must yield the same result. Let us see that this is the case. To this end we consider again the Ward identity (3.34 and take first $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and then $`p0`$. The only contribution to the l.h.s. of the identity is the $`p`$-independent planar piece $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,1)}(0)`$, whose large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit gives a divergent contribution (which will be canceled by a suitable counterterm). The r.h.s., in turn, receives contributions from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$. Taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ at nonvanishing $`p`$ in the planar contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{P}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ gives eq. (3.49), and sending in it $`p`$ to zero yields a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-divergent $`p`$-independent contribution. Proceeding similarly with the nonplanar contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$, and after using the results in the Appendix, we obtain

$$\underset{p0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)=\frac{i\lambda _2}{16\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{2}{pp}+M^2\left[\mathrm{ln}(2M^2pp)\mathrm{ln}2+\gamma \frac{1}{2}\right]\right\}.$$
(4.68)
Summing the planar and nonplanar contributions to the r.h.s. of the identity, we get a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-divergent $`p`$-independent term (which will eventually be canceled by the appropriate counterterm) and a singular $`p`$-dependent piece $`1/pp`$ which will not be cancelled by a counterterm and is not on the l.h.s., since the l.h.s does not depend on $`p`$. To avoid this mismatching of singular $`p`$-dependent contributions so that the Ward identity holds, we must eliminate such $`p`$-dependence from the r.h.s., hence we must take $`\lambda _2=0`$. Furthermore, only after setting $`\lambda _2=0`$, the planar contributions to both sides of the identity, given by eqs. (3.49) and (3.44), match and the counterterm is the same for both sides of the identity (see section 3). Thus, sending $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ and then $`p0`$ leads to $`\lambda _2=0`$ and gives

$$\underset{p0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)=0.$$

We have repeated this analysis for the other Ward identities (3.35)-(3.39) and checked that, for $`\lambda _2=0`$ and arbitrary $`\lambda _1`$, the Green functions on the r.h.s. are free of divergences in $`p_e`$ and yield the same nonplanar contributions as if one first sets $`p_e=0`$ and then sends $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, $`p_\mathrm{e}`$ denoting the vanishing external momentum.

The difference with the Ward identities for the symmetric phase is the zero momentum insertion on the r.h.s. of the identities. At $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the zero momentum insertion produces UV divergences proportional to $`\lambda _2`$ that, being nonplanar, can not be locally subtracted. The condition $`\lambda _2=0`$ sets such divergences to zero. Noting that

* the Ward identities hold for all $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda _1`$ and that $`\lambda _2`$, and
* the only breakings at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ may arise from divergent contributions, and these preserve the identities if $`\lambda _2=0`$,

we conclude that the Ward identities hold for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ if $`\lambda _2=0`$. This ensures the one-loop existence of the quantum broken phase for $`\lambda _2=0`$.

## 5 The Broken phase III: noncommutative IR divergences and the Goldstone theorem

Here we give explicit expressions for the behaviour of the nonplanar parts of the Green functions in eq. (3.33) at small $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and show that there is no UV/IR duality in the strong sense. From section 3 we know that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(0,1)}(0)`$ does not have nonplanar contributions,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(0,1)}(0)=0.$$

The nonplanar part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(2,0)}(p)`$ is given by eq. (3.48) with $`\lambda _2=0`$. Using formuli (A.5), (A.9) and (A.11) to calculate its behaviour for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and small $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, we obtain

$$\underset{\theta ^{\mu \nu }0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)\right]=\frac{i\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{M^2}{2}f(p^2),$$
(5.69)
with $`f(p^2)`$ as in eq. (3.50). For the nonplanar parts of the other Green functions on the list (3.33), after some calculations and using the results in the Appendix, we have

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(0,2)}(q){\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}M^2\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$ (5.70)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,1)}(p_1,p_2;q){\displaystyle \frac{iv}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$ (5.71)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(0,3)}(q_1,q_2,q_3){\displaystyle \frac{3iv}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_1q_2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$ (5.72)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(4,0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(0,4)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}t_\theta (p_1,p_2,p_3){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$ (5.73)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,2)}(p_1,p_2;p_3,p_4){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_4+p_2p_3}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2),`$ (5.74)
where $`t_\theta (p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ is as in eq. (3.60).

Comparing these expressions with eqs. (3.44), (3.49) and (3.55)-(3.59), we see that the noncommutative IR singularities and the UV divergences can not be obtained from each other by replacing $`\theta ^2M^21/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, thus showing that there is no UV/IR duality in the strong sense. We also note that, unlike the symmetric phase, there are no quadratic noncommutative IR divergences. Indeed, the selfenergy of the $`\sigma `$-field only contains logarithmic noncommutative IR divergences, and the selfenergy of the $`\pi `$-field does not develop any noncommutative IR singularity at all. It is also clear from the equations above that the noncommutative IR singularities satisfy the Ward identities. This is no surprise, since we know from section 4 that the Ward identities hold and taking $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ amounts to setting $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i0`$ as external momentum configuration.

We finally want to study if the Goldstone theorem holds at one loop. To do this, we need the renormalized pion selfenergy. As is usual in the commutative case, we take as one of the renormalization conditions that the vacuum expectation value of the field $`\sigma `$ remains equal to its classical value, i.e. $`\sigma =v`$. This is equivalent to $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(1,0)}=0`$, which together with eqs. (3.40) and (3.44) completely specifies $`\delta _1`$ as

$$\delta _1=\frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}\frac{3}{2}M^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}\right)f_0\right]\right\}.$$

Substituting this in eq. (3.46), using (3.47)-(3.49) and summing the tree-level and one-loop contributions, we obtain for the renormalized pion selfenergy

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{(2,0)}(p)=p^2\frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{M^2}{2}f(p^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p),$$
(5.75)
where $`f(p^2)`$ is as in eq. (3.50) and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)$$

is the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit of the nonplanar contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}^{(2,0)}(p)`$ to the pion selfenergy. To compute $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)`$, we use eqs. (A.5), (A.6) and (A.7) in the Appendix for the three terms in (3.48) and obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{pp}}2M^2{\displaystyle \frac{K_1\left(\sqrt{2ppM^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2ppM^2}}}\right]`$ (5.76)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left\{t\alpha (1\alpha )p^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}t\alpha M^2{\displaystyle \frac{pp}{4t}}\right\}.`$
If we define the mass squared as the value of $`p^2`$ for which the selfenergy vanishes, to find the pion mass, we must solve the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{(2,0)}(p)=0`$. Note in this regard that the renormalized pion selfenergy is a regular function of $`p^2,M^2`$ and $`pp`$, so the equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{(2,0)}(p)=0`$ may in principle have $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$-dependent solutions with $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ and $`p^\mu 0`$. To solve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{(2,0)}(p)=0`$, we proceed by iteration and, since at tree level the solution is $`p^2=0`$, we write $`p^2=\lambda _1\delta p^2+O(\lambda _1^2)`$. Substituting this in eq. (5.75) and noting that $`f(p^2)0`$ for $`p^20`$, we are left with

$$\delta p^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p^2=0).$$
(5.77)
Setting $`p^2=0`$ in the second line in eq. (5.76) and performing the integral, it is straightforward to see that the two lines in eq. (5.76) cancel each other, so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NP}}(p^2=0)=0`$. The solution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}^{(2,0)}(p)=0`$, up to order $`\lambda _1`$, is then $`p^2=0`$ and the Goldstone theorem is preserved by one-loop radiative corrections. Note that the fact that the renormalized pion selfenergy is free of noncommutative IR singularities is essential for the Goldstone theorem to hold at one loop. Had the selfenergy developed noncommutative logarithmic IR singularities, these would have entered the mass as $`\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$, making it ill defined for small $`\theta `$.

## 6 Conclusion and discussion

We have studied the one-loop renormalizability, the noncommutative IR singularities and the UV/IR mixing in both the symmetric and the broken phases of noncommutative global $`U(1)`$ scalar field theory. We have considered the general case of two interaction terms in the classical action, $`\lambda _1\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi `$ and $`\lambda _2\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$, and used as regulator an invariant cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the symmetric phase, we have shown that the quantum theory exists at one loop for all values of the coupling constants $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ compatible with perturbation theory, and that there is no need to take $`\lambda _2=0`$. We have also given explicit expressions for the noncommutative IR singularities and checked that UV/IR duality does not hold in its strong form.

As concerns the broken phase, we have seen that the Ward identities imply that the quantum theory exists at one loop only if $`\lambda _2`$ vanishes. This is so because the Ward identities have a zero-momentum insertion term that for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yields UV divergent contributions proportional to $`\lambda _2`$ that can not be locally subtracted. To have a renormalizable theory, one must get rid of such contributions, and this requires $`\lambda _2=0`$. We have also given explicit expressions for the noncommutative IR singularities in the 1PI Green functions of the the broken phase and shown that there is no strong UV/IR duality. The situation as concerns noncommutative IR singularities, UV/IR duality and the Ward identities is different to those cases previously studied in the literature. Consider for example $`U(1)`$ gauge theory: since UV/IR duality holds and the UV divergences are consistent with the Ward identities, the logarithmic noncommutative IR singularities satisfy the Ward identities. For the case at hand, however, the UV divergences satisfy the Ward identities, there is no UV/IR duality and, yet, the noncommutative IR singularities satisfy the Ward identities.

Comparing the symmetric and the broken phases, we have seen that after spontaneous symmetry breaking the theory does not have quadratic noncommutative IR divergences. Furthermore, the pion selfenergy is free of noncommutative IR singularities of any type, which makes possible to formulate the Goldstone theorem for all $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Had UV/IR hold, the pion selfenergy would have contained noncommutative logarithmic IR singularities $`\mathrm{ln}(\theta M^2)`$ and these would have spoiled the theorem. Since the interaction term $`\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi `$ for which the broken phase makes sense at one loop is also invariant under local $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations, it would be interesting to investigate the implications of noncommutative IR singularities and UV/IR mixing for the Goldstone theorem in local models  .

## Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to C.P. Martín for many illuminating conversations and for reading the manuscript. He also acknowledges financial support from CICyT, Spain through grant No. PB98-0842.

## Appendix

In the computations we have performed in sections 2 to 5 we have encountered the following integrals:

$`I_\pi (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iqk}}{D_\pi (k)}}`$
$`I_\sigma (q,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iqk}}{D_\sigma (k)}}`$
$`I_{\pi \pi }(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iqk}}{D_\pi (k)D_\pi (k+p)}}`$ (A.1)
$`I_{\sigma \pi }(q,p,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iqk}}{D_\sigma (k)D_\pi (k+p)}}`$
$`I_{\sigma \sigma }(q,p,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{iqk}}{D_\sigma (k)D_\sigma (k+p)}}.`$
We are interested in their large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit. To compute it, we proceed as follows. We first Wick rotate to euclidean space, make the change $`kk\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and define $`\widehat{p}^\mu p^\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\widehat{M}M/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The integrals above then become functions of the dimensionless variables $`\stackrel{~}{q}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda },\widehat{p}^\mu `$ and $`\widehat{M}`$. Next we use algebraic identities like

$$\frac{1}{1+(k+\widehat{p})^2}=\frac{1}{1+k^2}\left[1\frac{\widehat{p}^2+2\widehat{p}k}{1+(k+\widehat{p})^2}\right]$$

or

$$\frac{1}{k^2(1+k^2)^n+2\widehat{M}^2}=\frac{1}{k^2+2\widehat{M}^2}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right)\frac{(k^2)^{r+1}}{k^2(1+k^2)^n+2\widehat{M}^2}\right]$$

to decompose every integral in a sum of integrals, whose limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ we study employing Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem. Finally we use Schwinger parameters to compute the integrals that give nonvanishing contributions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and rotate back to Minkowski spacetime. Following this procedure we obtain for $`q=0`$

$$I_\pi (0){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}$$
(A.2)
$`I_\sigma (0,M){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{n1}}2M^2[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)f_0]\}`$ (A.3)
$`I_{\pi \pi }(0,p){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)+1{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)}}\right]`$
$`I_{\sigma \pi }(0,p,M){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)+f(p^2)f_0\right]`$ (A.4)
$`I_{\sigma \sigma }(0,p,M){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2M^2}}\right)g(p^2)f_0\right],`$
where $`f_0`$ and $`f(p^2)`$ are as in eqs. (2.18) and (3.50) and $`g(p^2)`$ reads

$$g(p^2)=2\sqrt{18M^2/p^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{18M^2/p^2}+1}{\sqrt{18M^2/p^2}1}\right).$$

For $`q0`$, the results for $`I_\pi `$ and $`I_\sigma `$ are relatively simple,

$`I_\pi (q){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qq}}`$ (A.5)
$`I_\sigma (q,M){}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{iM^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(\sqrt{2qqM^2})}{\sqrt{2qqM^2}}},`$ (A.6)
whereas for $`I_{\pi \pi },I_{\sigma \pi }`$ and $`I_{\sigma \sigma }`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill I_{\pi \pi }(q,p)\\ \hfill I_{\sigma \pi }(q,p,M)\\ \hfill I_{\sigma \sigma }(q,p,M)\end{array}\}{}_{_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^{}}{}^{}\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}_0^1𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[t\alpha (1\alpha )p^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}tϵM^2\frac{qq}{4t}i\alpha qp\right],$$
(A.7)
with

$$ϵ=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{for}I_{\pi \pi }\hfill \\ \alpha \hfill & \mathrm{for}I_{\sigma \pi }\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \mathrm{for}I_{\sigma \sigma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.8)
To study the noncommutative IR singularities in the 1PI Green functions we need only the expressions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{},\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$. They can be easily computed and turn out to be

$`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}I_\sigma (q,M)={\displaystyle \frac{iM^2}{a\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qqM^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(2qqM^2)+\gamma \mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]`$ (A.9)
$`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}I_{\pi \pi }(q,p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}(qqp^2)+2\mathrm{ln}22\gamma +1\right]`$ (A.10)
$`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}I_{\sigma \pi }(q,p,M)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{ln}(2qqM^2)f(p^2)2,(\mathrm{ln}2\gamma )1]`$ (A.11)
$`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}I_{\sigma \sigma }(q,p,M)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}(2qqM^2)g(p)\mathrm{ln}2+\gamma 1\right].`$
Note e.g. that substitution of eqs. (A.5), (A.9) and (A.11) in (3.48) yields eq. (4.68).

Figure 1: Feynman rules for $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{sym}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{sym}}`$.

Figure 2: Feynman rules for $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{br}}`$.

Figure 3: Feynman rules for $`S_{\mathrm{ct},\mathrm{br}}`$.


format: text

text:
# MHD Models of Planetary Nebulae: Review

## 1. Introduction

When we discuss about MHD effects in planetary nebulae (PNe), it naturally appears a basic question, which magnetic field do we study ? One possibility is the ISM magnetic field (e.g. Heiligman 1980), even more if we are concerned with moving PNe (e.g. Soker & Dgani 1997). The next possibility is the internal or stellar magnetic field (Gurzadian 1962). It is important to start this review by quoting Aller (1958): “It has been pointed out by Minkowski and others that the structural appearance of many planetary nebulae strongly suggest the presence of magnetic fields. It seems unlikely that such magnetic fields are produced ab initio in the nebular shell. Rather, they must have existed in the outer envelope of the parent star. Certain red giants stars with magnetic fields may evolve in such a way that the expansion of the shell is largely governed by the presence of such a field. Magnetic effects may actually be more important than gas pressure differentials and radiation pressure in controlling the evolution of a planetary nebula ” .

The structural appearance of Planetary Nebulae (PNe) display a rich variety of shapes, and have been cataloged in a series of morphological classes: bipolar, elliptical, point-symmetric, irregular, spherical and quadrupolar (Chu, Jacoby & Arendt 1987; Schwarz, Corradi & Melnick 1992; Manchado et al. 1996ab). In contrast, except for a few cases, dust shells around AGB stars do not show signs of asphericity (Bujarrabal & Alcolea 1991; Kahane & Jura 1994). Thus, during the transition from the AGB to the post-AGB phase, one or more physical processes responsible for the shape of these objects must be initiated. The origin of aspherical nebulae still remains as one of the fundamental problems of PNe formation and evolution (see reviews by Pottasch 1984 and by Iben 1993).

However, Supernova Remnants (SNRs), which usually present morphologies extremely similar to PNe (e.g. Gaensler 1998, Fig. 1, 7, 11), have been commonly related with magnetic shaping. Obviously, this is due to the easy detection of magnetic fields in SNRs. The SNR field has evolved largely during past decades on the light of the MHD. Pionering work by Rees & Gunn (1974), followed up by more sophisticated models (e.g. Kennel & Coroniti 1984; Begelman & Li 1992) arrived to the concept of a pulsar wind bubble, in which, a relativistic pulsar wind containing a toroidal magnetic field (the fast wind) forms a surrounding bubble where the relativistic particles and the magnetic flux are accumulated (the hot bubble). Both regions are separated by a strong standing MHD shock (the reverse shock). Around the bubble, the material previously ejected by the explosion (the slow wind) is compressed in a thin shell (the swept-up shell). Both regions are separated by a contact discontinuity. The magnetic field inside the pulsar wind bubble is expected to be predominantly toroidal as a result of winding by the pulsar’s rotation. The reader clearly can see the analogy with the two-wind model proposed by Kwok, Purton & Fitzgerlad (1978) for PNe. In this sense, the matter ejected in the explosion will be identified as the superwind of PNe. Are PNe non-relativistic versions of SNRs ?

Recently, particular emphasis is being given to the explanation of aspherical planetary nebulae (PNe) due to the effects of the stellar magnetic field (e.g. see reviews by Livio 1997; and by López 1997, also this volume). In this approach, Chevalier & Luo (1994) have explored the effects of a rotating star with a magnetized, fast wind on the formation of aspherical bubbles, following a two-wind model scenario. They obtained aspherical steady-state PNe structures. More recently, with 2-D MHD simulations, Różyczka & Franco (1996) found that the time-dependent evolution of a magnetized shocked wind-region has a very complex behavior, and collimated outflows with jet-like features can be created. The 3-D computations performed by García-Segura (1997) corroborates that the magnetized shocked gas indeed creates jets, and the only difference between the 2-D and 3-D results is that the collimated outflow in 3-D is, as expected, likely subject to kink instabilities. Thus, magnetic effects could be responsible for the generation of aspherical PNe as well as collimated flows (jets) observed in some nebulae.

In this paper, we focus on some features that are addressed by several works on MHD. In § 2 we review different scenarios for the origin of magnetized winds. § 3 discusses the production of axisymmetric flows. § 4 describes the confinement of flows and the production of jets and ansae. § 5 address the linearly encreasing kinematics of the collimated outflows, § 6 give solutions for the special case of point-symmetric nebulae and § 7 address solutions for the periodic shells around PNe and proto-PNe.

## 2. The magnetized wind origin

Four major scenarios with three different types of wind driving mechanisms can be clearly identify:

A. Radiation driven wind + B-field : single or wide binary

This solution incorporates a magnetic field in the classical theory of Castor, Abbott & Klein (1975). It works for single stars, however, it is also appropriate for wide binary systems. Analytical solutions can be found in Ignace, Cassinelli & Bjorkman (1998), for the limit of weak magnetic fields, in which the fields are unimportant in accelerating the flow. Works under this scenario include Chevalier and Luo (1994), Różyczka & Franco (1996), García-Segura (1997), García-Segura et al. (1999, 2001), García-Segura & López (2000), Gardiner & Frank (2001), Dwarkadas et al. (2003). Solutions including a dipole magnetic field can be found in Matt et al. (2000).

B. Magnetic Field driven wind: single or wide binary

In this scenario, the wind is driven by magnetic pressure, and is the B-field the responsible for the mass-loss rate. The main idea of this scenario is that the field is generated at the stellar interior, which emerges by magnetic buoyance to the surface. This solution also works for wide binary systems. Works under this scenario include for example Pascoli (1992) and Blackman et al. (2001a).

C. Classical binary model: accretion in the secondary

The theory of MHD launched winds from accretion disk, where toroidal magnetic fields become finally dominant (e.g. Contopoulos 1995) is applied in this scenario. Several solutions differs in the accretion mode: accretion of the primary wind onto the secondary (e.g. Morris 1987, Mastrodemos & Morris 1998); Roche lobe overflow (e.g. Livio, Salzman, & Shaviv 1979; Livio & Soker 1988). See also review by Soker in this volume.

D. Alternative binary model: accretion in the primary after common envelope evolution

As in scenario C, magnetized winds are espected to be launched from an accretion disk. In this case, the disk is formed in the primary star. Recent works on this scenario are Reyes-Ruiz & López (1998) and Blackman et al.(2001b).

In either cases (scenarios A to D) the result is a magnetized wind, in which the toroidal component is dominant. The degree of self-collimation and the appearance of a jet, depends on several parameters.

## 3. Axisymmetric flows caused by a fast, magnetized wind

Axisymmetric flows can be produced by a magnetized wind with or without the existence of an equatorial density enhancement (EDE) (Begelman & Li 1992, Chevalier & Luo 1994, Różyczka & Franco 1996, García-Segura 1997, García-Segura et al. 1999, Matt et al. 2000). Solutions for the formation of EDEs by stellar rotation can be found in Bjorkman and Cassinelli (1993), Ignace et al. (1996,1998), and by dipole magnetic fields in Matt et al.(2000).

Since the magnetic field at the surface of a post-AGB star is transported out by its wind, and because of stellar rotation, the magnetic field in the wind is dominated by a toroidal component (e.g. Fig. 1 in Ignace et al.1998). The toroidal field carried by the fast wind can constrain the motion of the flow and an elliptical or bipolar nebula is produced even if the slow wind is spherically symmetric. The resulting toroidal field has a magnetic tension associated with it (Chevalier & Luo 1994; Contopoulos 1995). Thus, the general effect of the magnetic tension is the elongation of the nebula in the polar direction. The mechanism responsible for the elongation was described by Różyczka & Franco (1996), and only the basic points are listed here. First, the outer part of the magnetized shocked wind region becomes magnetically rather than thermally supported, i.e. the magnetic energy density becomes larger than the thermal energy density. The latter decreases due to the expansion of the nebula and due to the fact that work must be done against the tension of the toroidal field. Second, the tension of the toroidal field slows down the expansion in the direction perpendicular to the symmetry axis, while the expansion in the direction parallel to the axis proceeds almost unimpeded. Third, a flow in the shocked wind region toward the symmetry axis is initiated, leading to the formation of stagnation regions at the rotational axis. Note that at the reverse shock, there is a large gradient in the magnetic pressure because the toroidal field at the rotation axis is nule in the free expanding wind.

## 4. Confinement of flows: jets and ansae by pinch effect

The interaction of the two winds generates a wind-shocked region where the tension of the compressed B-field generates an important new feature: a pair of flows are induced (one at each hemisphere), that move the gas toward the polar regions and create a pair of collimated outflows at the poles (Różyczka & Franco 1996). As a consequence and because of the hoop stress of the toroidal field, a flow in the shocked wind region toward the symmetry axis is initiated and maintained, leading to the formation of stagnation regions at the axis and to the formation of jets. Note that this mechanism works out similarly to that of magnetic confinement experiments in plasma laboratories ( e.g. Tokamaks, plasma guns). The pinch effect is introduced for first time by Pascoli (1992) in the context of PNe.

The gas that arrives at the polar regions of the nebula can form relatively dense regions, depending of the radiative cooling conditions (García-Segura & López 2000), which may be identified with jets. Although the hoop stress is always present in this type of flows, not always the conditions are in favor to form observable jets. Such is the case of fast winds with very low mass-loss rates ($`10^810^9`$ M yr-1 ). In such conditions, the fast wind piles up at the poles, but the radiative cooling, proportional to $`n^2`$, is not sufficiently strong to allow the formation of visible jets, and ansae-like structures are formed instead. The result of varying the mass loss rate of the fast wind from large values to lower values is quite important for jet formation/detection. (García-Segura & López 2000).

Magnetically confined plasmas by toroidal fields can develop kink, sausage or neck instabilities (e.g. Jackson 1962), which can easily lead to the formation of blobs along the collimated plasma flow, giving the appearance of episodic jets. Another possibility is the MHD Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (Chandrasekar 1961) which, given the conditions of the collimated flow, is very likely to appear as well, probably combined with kink and neck instabilities.

## 5.  Linearly encreasing kinematics of the collimated outflows

A comparison of the morphologies in observed nebulae with those resulting from the computed models provides a first test of the model goodness. A second verification can be performed with the kinematics of nebulae and, specially, with the fast outflows/jets that have been reported for several PNe during this last decade. Examples with fast outflows ($`500`$ km s-1 or higher) are He 3-1475 (Riera et al.1995) and MyCn 18 (Bryce et al.1997). The observed large velocity values are hardly explained by invoking only hydrodynamical effects (Frank et al. 1996), since they are above the critical velocity of $`150`$ km s-1 for which interstellar shocks become adiabatic. Magnetohydrodynamical effects, on the other hand, are very efficient in forming these fast collimated outflows, as discussed in the previous sections.

A comparison of a MHD computation with the case of MyCn 18 (Bryce et al. 1997) is shown in García-Segura et al.(1999). The computed model agrees quite well with figure 3a in Bryce et al. (1997), although the model was not specifically intended to reproduce this nebula. The most remarkable feature is the approximately linear increase of the expansion velocity along the jet, that matches the actual echelle observations. This accelerative behavior is produced by the relaxation of the magnetic pressure in the shocked region.

## 6.  Solutions for point-symmetry

A particularly intriguing case in PNs morphologies are those that display point-symmetric structures. At first view, the point-symmetric morphological class does not look very important. But, a careful inspection to the statistically, complete sample of the IAC morphological catalog (Manchado et al.1996a) reveals 40 objects with some degree of point-symmetric features, which represent 19% of the total list (215) with a well defined morphology. Note that many of these nebulae are not classified as point-symmetric. In fact, they have been well classified inside the categories of bipolars and ellipticals, such as the case of the Dumbel nebula. This fact points in the direction that point-symmetry is a common feature related to any morphological class, instead of a separate group (Manchado et al.2000; see also Guerrero, Vázquez & López 1998). Such a large fraction of the sample (19%) suggest that the reason which produces point-symmetry should be very common indeed.

The most convincing solutions up to now, for the formation of point-symmetric nebulae require the existence of a binary system, and a magneto-hydrodynamical collimation of the wind, either for accretion disk winds (Livio & Pringle 1996; see also Mastrodemos & Morris 1998, Reyes-Ruiz & López 1998 and Blackman et al.2001b) or for stellar winds (García-Segura 1997, García-Segura & López 2000).

Since the toroidal magnetic field carried out by the wind, either stellar or coming from a disk (for the last one see Contopoulos 1995), is always perpendicular to the rotation axis of the central star/disk (see Figure 3 in García-Segura et al.2000), any kind of misalignment from the axis (wobbling instability, precession, steady tilt respect to the equatorial density enhancement) will produce “naturally” a point-symmetric nebula. In either case, it is easy to imagine the topology of the magnetic field lines in such scenarios, i.e., multiple rings centered and aligned along the “time-dependent” spin axis of the star/disk.

Close binaries are a necessary condition in Livio & Pringle (1996) , while wide binaries are a sufficient one in García-Segura (1997) and García-Segura & López (2000). As described in García-Segura et al. (2002), close binaries, either attached or detached, will be in favor of forming bipolars with point-symmetric features, while wide binaries will be in favor of ellipticals with point-symmetric features.

## 7. Periodic Shells

The multiple concentric rings, or arcs, that were recently discovered by the Hubble Space Telescope around a handful of planetary nebulae (PNe) is one of the most puzzling and unexpected results delivered by the HST (see Kwok, Su, & Hrivnak 1998; Hrivnak, Kwok & Su 2001; Terzian & Hajian 2000 and references therein). The best documented case of these systems of faint concentric rings (hereafter called HST rings) is displayed by NGC 6543 (Balick, Wilson & Hajian 2000). In reality, they are regularly spaced concentric shells, indicating quasi-periodic events with time intervals, assuming typical expansion velocities of AGB winds, in the range of 500 to 1500 years. Soker (2000) made a critical review of the mechanisms that have been proposed to explain them, and he indicates that mass-loss variations associated with solar-like magnetic cycles are perhaps the best alternative for their origin.

In a more recent paper, Simis, Icke & Dominik (2001) discuss a new non-magnetic alternative, and present detailed 1D hydrodynamical simulations for the acceleration of a dusty AGB wind. The stability of this process, however, is difficult to explore at the moment in 2-D or 3-D, and it is unclear if the compressions can truly create shells or if they only lead to inhomogeneities in these radiatively driven outflows. Thus, at present, one can consider that dusty flow oscillations (if they really exist) or solar-like magnetic cycles are two possible candidates to generate the HST rings.

In Soker’s (2000) view, the magnetic field plays no direct role in the evolution of the AGB wind, however temporal variation in the number of magnetic spots would be able to modify the mass-loss rate. The number of cool spots over the AGB surface, which could be preferred sites for dust formation, is controlled by the magnetic cycle. Thus, given that the mass-loss is driven by radiation pressure on dust grains, the same cycle may also regulate periodic variations in the mass-loss rate. In this interpretation, the magnetic field is a passive player with no dynamical effects, and the mass-loss rate simply follows the spot cycle activity. In addition, to make a logical association with bipolar PNe, he suggests that a stronger magnetic activity could be expected from dynamo amplification in binary systems.

García-Segura et al. (2001) developed a different point of view and explored some of the actual dynamical effects of a solar-like magnetic cycle. The possibility of a solar-like magnetic dynamo at the AGB phase has been recently discussed by Blackman et al. (2001a), and they conclude that dynamo amplification is likely to operate in rotating AGB stars. A logical extension of this result is that a solar-like activity, including dynamo and cycles, is also expected in some AGB stars. García-Segura et al. (2001) presented 2(1/2)D magnetohydrodinamic numerical simulations of the effects of a solar-like magnetic cycle, with periodic polarity inversions, in the slow wind of an AGB star. The stellar wind was modeled with a steady mass-loss at constant velocity. This simple version of a solar-like cycle, without mass-loss variations, was able to reproduce many properties of the observed concentric rings. The shells were formed by pressure oscillations, which drive compressions in the magnetized wind. These pressure oscillations were due to periodic variations in the field intensity. The periodicity of the shells, then, was simply a half of the magnetic cycle since each shell was formed when the magnetic pressure went to zero during the polarity inversion. Their results showed the importance of MHD effects in the formation of the HST rings and successfully reproduced their main features. This indicates that modulated mass-loss episodes are not really necessary to generate the rings.

### Acknowledgments.

I thank my colleges and friends J. Franco, J. A. López, N. Langer, M. Różyczka, A. Manchado, Y.-H. Chu, Y. Terzian, N. Soker, M. Peimbert and S. Torres-Peimbert for these six, amazing years of motivating work on PNe.

## References

Aller, L. H. 1958, AJ, 63, 47

Balick, B., Wilson, J. & Hajian, A. R. 2000, AJ, 121, 354

Begelman, M. C., & Li, Z.-Y. 1992, ApJ, 397, 187

Bjorkman, J. E., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1993, ApJ, 409, 429

Blackman, E. G., Frank, A., Markiel, J. A., Thomas, J. H. & Van Horn, H. M. 2001a, Nature, 409, 485

Blackman, E. G., Frank, A., & Welch, C. 2001b, ApJ, 546, 288

Bryce, M., López, J. A., Holloway, A. J., & Meaburn, J. 1997, ApJ, 487, L161

Bujarrabal, V. & Alcolea J., 1991, A&A, 251, 536

Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

Chandrasekar, S. 1961, “Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability”, London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, p. 481

Chevalier, R. A., & Luo, D. 1994, ApJ, 421, 225

Chu, Y.-H., Jacoby, G. H. & Arendt, R. 1987, ApJS, 64, 529

Contopoulos, J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 616

Dwarkadas et al. 2003, this volume

Frank, A., Balick, B., & Livio, M. 1996, ApJ, 471, L53

Gaensler, B. M. 1998, ApJ, 493, 781

García-Segura, G. 1997, ApJL, 489, L189

García-Segura, G., Langer, N., Różyczka, M., & Franco, J. 1999, ApJ, 517

García-Segura, G., López, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 544, 336

García-Segura, G., López, J. A., and Franco, J. 2001, ApJ, 560, 928

García-Segura, G., Franco, J., López, J. A., Langer, N., & Różyczka, M. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, eds. Joel H. Kastner, Noam Soker, Saul A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conference Series, 199, 235

García-Segura, G., Franco, J., López, J. A., Langer, N., & Różyczka, M. 2002, RMxAC, in press

Gardiner, T. A., & Frank, A. 2001, ApJ, 557, 250

Guerrero, M.A., Vázquez, R., & López, J.A. 1998, ApJ, 117, 967

Gurzadian, G. A. 1962, In Vistas in Astronomy, vol. 5, ed. A. Beer, Pergamon, New York, p. 40

Heiligman, G. M. 1980, M.N.R.A.S., 191,761

Hrivnak, B. J., Kwok, S. & Su, K. Y. L. 2001, AJ, 121, 2775

Iben, I. Jr. 1993, in IAU Symp. No 155 “Planetary Nebulae”, ed. R. Weinberger and A. Acker, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht), 587

Ignace, R., Cassinelli, C. P., & Bjorkman, J. E. 1996, ApJ, 459, 671

Ignace, R., Cassinelli, C. P., & Bjorkman, J. E. 1998, ApJ, 505, 910

Jackson, J. D. 1962, “Electrodynamics”, eds. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 482

Kahane, C. & Jura M., 1994, A&A, 290, 183

Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 694

Kwok, S., Purton, C. R. & Fitzgerald, P. M. 1978, ApJ 219, L125

Kwok, S., Su, K. Y. L., Hrivnak, B. J. 1998, ApJ, 501, L117

Livio, M. 1997, SSRv, 82, 389

Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 1996, ApJL, 465, 55

Livio, M., Salzman, J., & Shaviv, G. 1979, MNRAS, 188, 1

Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 746

López, J. A. 1997, in IAU Symp. No 180 “Planetary Nebulae”, eds. Habing & Lamers, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht), 197

Manchado, A., Guerrero, M., Stanghellini, L., & Serra-Ricart, M. 1996a, “The IAC Morphological Catalog of Northern Galactic Planetary Nebulae”, ed. Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias

Manchado, A., Stanghellini, L., & Guerrero, M. 1996b, ApJL, 466, L95

Manchado, A., Villaver, E., Stanghellini, L., & Guerrero, M. A. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, eds. Joel H. Kastner, Noam Soker, Saul A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conference Series, 199, 17

Mastrodemos, N., & Morris, M. 1998, ApJ, 497, 303

Matt, S., Balick, B., Winglee, R., & Goodson, A. 2000, ApJ, 545, 965

Morris, M. 1987, PASP, 99, 1115

Pascoli, G. 1992, PASP, 104, 350

Pottasch, S. R. 1984, “Planetary Nebulae. A Study of Late Stages of Stellar Evolution”, (D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht)

Rees, M. J., & Gunn, J. E. 1974, M.N.R.A.S., 167, 1

Reyes-Ruiz, M., & López, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 524, 952

Riera, A., García-Lario, P., Manchado, A., Pottasch, S. R., & Raga, A. C. 1995, A&A, 302, 137

Różyczka, M. & Franco, J. 1996, ApJL, 469, L127

Simis, Y. J. W., Icke, V., & Dominik, C. 2001, A&A, 371, 205

Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M., & Melnick, J. 1992, A&A Suppl, 96, 23

Soker, N. 2000, ApJ, 540, 436

Soker, N., & Dgani, R. 1997, ApJ, 484, 277

Terzian, Y., & Hajian, A. R. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, ed. J. H. Kastner, N. Soker, S. A. Rappaport, A.S.P. Conf. Series, 199, 33