text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the recent interesting developments in string theory is the appreciation of noncommutative geometry. The first paper which points out a relation between string theory and noncommutative geometry is . In the paper, string field theory was formulated in terms of noncommutative geometry. Some studies of D-branes show further relations between string theory and noncommutative geometry. A system of $`N`$ coincident D-branes is described by the $`U(N)`$ Yang Mills theory. In this theory, $`U(N)`$ adjoint scalars represent the transverse coordinates of this system. Since they are given by $`U(N)`$ matrices, this fact suggests that the spacetime probed by D-branes may be related to noncommutative geometry. Noncommutative geometry also appears within the framework of toroidal compactification of matrix model . It is discussed in  that the world volume theory on D-branes with NS-NS two form background is described by noncommutative gauge theory. These studies suggest that noncommutative geometry may play a fundamental role in string theory.

Matrix models are obtained by the dimensional reduction from Yang-Mills theory and concrete models  are proposed to study M theory and string theory. IIB Matrix Model  is one of these proposals. The action of this model is given by the dimensional reduction of ten-dimensional $`𝒩`$=1 $`U(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory to a point;

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A^\mu ,A^\nu ]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [A_\mu ,\psi ]\right),$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ is a ten dimensional Majorana-Weyl spinor field, and $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$ are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices. Indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ run over $`1`$ to $`10`$ and they are contracted by Euclidean metric $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. This model is expected to give the constructive definition of type IIB superstring theory .

In the matrix model, eigenvalues of bosonic variables are interpreted as spacetime coordinates, and matter and even spacetime may dynamically emerge out of matrices . Spacetime coordinates are represented by matrices and therefore noncommutative geometry is expected to appear. 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. A flat noncommutative background appears as a classical solution of the matrix model (1);

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=iC_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(2)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant second rank tensor. This solution preserves a part of supersymmetry. It was shown  that noncommutative Yang-Mills theories in the flat background are obtained by expanding the matrix model around the flat noncommutative background;

$$A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu +\widehat{a}_\mu (\widehat{x}).$$
(3)
Fields on the background appear as fluctuations around the background, this implying the unification of spacetime and fields.

It is important to study curved backgrounds since the matrix model is expected to be the theory of gravity. Especially how general covariance is embedded in the matrix model is a interesting problem. Some attempts to search general covariance in the matrix model are reported in . The IIB matrix model has only flat noncommutative backgrounds as classical solutions. In , we have considered a three dimensional supersymmetric matrix model with a third-rank Chern-Simons term. This model has a fuzzy two-sphere as a classical solution. A Fuzzy two-sphere111 There are many papers about fuzzy two-sphere. See, for example, . is obtained by introducing the coordinates satisfying the following relations,

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=i\alpha ϵ^{ijk}\widehat{x}_k,\widehat{x}_i\widehat{x}_i=\rho ^2,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionful constant. This algebra respects $`SO(3)`$ symmetry. These matrices are constructed from the $`SU(2)`$ algebra. The second condition is automatically satisfied by the quadratic Casimir. We showed in  that expanding the model around the fuzzy two-sphere solution leads to a noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere. In , a four dimensional bosonic matrix model with a mass term was considered. This model has two classical solutions, a fuzzy two-sphere and a fuzzy two-torus. Using this model, we analyzed noncommutative gauge theories on a fuzzy sphere and a fuzzy torus. A fuzzy torus is obtained by introducing two unitary matrices satisfying the following relation,

$$UV=e^{i\theta }VU.$$
(5)
It is natural to use the unitary matrices since the eigenvalues of them are distributed over circles. A fuzzy two-sphere and a fuzzy two-torus are constructed from finite dimensional matrices since the size of matrices represents the number of quanta on the noncommutative manifolds. On the other hand, a noncommutative plane (2) cannot be constructed by finite size matrices since the extension of the plane is infinite. It is desirable that a classical solution is described by a finite size matrix since $`N`$ is considered as a cutoff parameter in the matrix model.

As explained in the previous paragraph, $`N`$ plays the role of cutoff parameter in the case of the compact manifold. Let us consider fuzzy spheres as examples. When we introduce a cutoff parameter $`N1`$ for angular momentum in a two-sphere, the number of independent functions is $`_{l=0}^{N1}(_3H_l_3H_{l2})=_{l=0}^{N1}(2l+1)=N^2`$. Then we can replace the functions with $`N\times N`$ matrices, and algebras on the sphere become noncommutative. A generalization to a higher dimensional sphere is, however, not straightforward. Let us next consider a four-dimensional sphere. When we introduce a cutoff parameter $`n`$ for angular momentum, the number of independent functions is $`_{l=0}^n(_5H_l_5H_{l2})=(n+1)(n+2)^2(n+3)/12`$. This is not a square of an integer. In this case, we cannot construct a map from functions to matrices. We can restate this difficulty from the algebraic point of view. Algebras of a fuzzy four-sphere are constructed in , and the difference from the fuzzy two-sphere case is that the commutators of the coordinates do not close in the fuzzy four-sphere case. This fact makes the analyses of field theories on the fuzzy four-sphere difficult.

Recently there are some developments in this fields. In , the authors showed that the matrix description of a fuzzy four-sphere is given by $`SO(5)/U(2)`$ coset and a fuzzy two-sphere appears as a fiber on a four-sphere. The stabilizer group of this four sphere is not $`SO(4)`$ but $`U(2)`$. The authors in  considered the quantum Hall effect on a four dimensional sphere. It is well known that noncommutative geometry is naturally realized by the guiding center coordinates of the two-dimensional system of electrons in a constant magnetic field. Their system is considered as the generalizaion of the two-dimensional system, and is composed of particles moving in a four-dimensional sphere under the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field. The existence of Yang’s $`SU(2)`$ monopole  in the system makes the coordinates of particles moving in the four-dimensional space noncommutative. They showed that the configuration space of this system is locally $`S^4\times S^2`$. There are further analyses in  following these papers.

In this paper, we consider noncommutative gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere using a matrix model with a fifth-rank Chern-Simons term following these recent developments. In section two, we explain a matrix description of a fuzzy four-sphere based on . In section three, we consider a noncommutative gauge theory on fuzzy four-sphere using the matrix model. We expand the matrices around a classical solution of fuzzy four-sphere by the same way as (3). It is shown that the Hamiltonian of the quantum Hall system on the four-dimensional sphere appears from this matrix model. In section four, we consider a noncommutative gauge theory on a noncommutative four-dimensional plane by taking a large $`N`$ limit. We use a technique which is similar to Inönü-Wigner contraction. Section five is devoted to summary. We explain our convention for gamma matrices in Appendix A. In Appendix B, a matrix model with a mass term is considered.

Notations

Indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ run over $`1`$ to $`5`$ and $`1`$ to $`4`$ respectively. Indices $`i`$,$`j`$,$`k`$ run over $`1`$ to $`3`$ and they are used to parameterize internal two-dimensional spheres.

## 2 Fuzzy four-sphere construction

A fuzzy four-sphere is considered in . In this paper, we use the construction of  and briefly review it here. The fuzzy four-sphere is constructed to satisfy the following two conditions,

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{x}_\mu \widehat{x}_\nu \widehat{x}_\lambda \widehat{x}_\rho =C\widehat{x}_\sigma ,$$
(6)
and

$$\widehat{x}_\mu \widehat{x}_\mu =\rho ^2,$$
(7)
where $`\rho `$ is a radius of the sphere. This sphere respects $`SO(5)`$ invariance. Let us define matrices $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ as follows,

$$\widehat{x}_\mu =\alpha \widehat{G}_\mu ,$$
(8)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionful constant. These matrices are constructed from the $`n`$-fold symmetric tensor product of the five dimensional Gamma matrices 222Our notation is summarized in Appendix A.,

$$\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu 1\mathrm{}1+1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{}1+\mathrm{}+11\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)_{Sym},$$
(9)
where Sym means that we are considering the completely symmetrized tensor product. The dimension of this $`n`$-fold symmetrized tensor product space, that is the size of these matrices, is calculated as

$$N=_4H_n=_{n+3}C_n=\frac{1}{6}(n+1)(n+2)(n+3).$$
(10)
If we replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ with Pauli matrices, $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ becomes the coordinates of a fuzzy two-sphere, that is ($`n+1`$)-dimensional representation of $`SU(2)`$. After some calculations, we find that these matrices satisfy the following relations,

$$\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}=n(n+4)c,$$
(11)
and

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\nu ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\lambda ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\rho ^{(n)}=ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\widehat{G}_{\lambda \rho }^{(n)}=(8n+16)\widehat{G}_\sigma ^{(n)},$$
(12)
where

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\frac{1}{2}[\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)},\widehat{G}_\nu ^{(n)}].$$
(13)
(12) is also rewritten as

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2(n+2)}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_{\lambda \rho }^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\sigma ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2(n+2)}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{G}_\lambda ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\rho ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\sigma ^{(n)}.$$
(14)
If we take $`C`$ as

$$C=(8n+16)\alpha ^3,$$
(15)
(6) is satisfied. From (7) and (11), $`\rho `$ and $`\alpha `$ are related by

$$\rho ^2=\alpha ^2n(n+4)\alpha ^2c.$$
(16)
We also have the following relations

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\nu ^{(n)}=4\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)},$$
(17)
$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\widehat{G}_{\nu \mu }^{(n)}=4n(n+4)=4c,$$
(18)
and

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\widehat{G}_{\nu \lambda }^{(n)}=c\delta _{\mu \lambda }+\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\lambda ^{(n)}2\widehat{G}_\lambda ^{(n)}\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}.$$
(19)
Commutation relations of these matrices are given by

$`[\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)},\widehat{G}_{\nu \lambda }^{(n)}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{G}_\lambda ^{(n)}\delta _{\mu \lambda }\widehat{G}_\nu ^{(n)}\right),`$ (20)
$$[\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)},\widehat{G}_{\lambda \rho }^{(n)}]=2\left(\delta _{\nu \lambda }\widehat{G}_{\mu \rho }^{(n)}+\delta _{\mu \rho }\widehat{G}_{\nu \lambda }^{(n)}\delta _{\mu \lambda }\widehat{G}_{\nu \rho }^{(n)}\delta _{\nu \rho }\widehat{G}_{\mu \lambda }^{(n)}\right).$$
(21)
This is the $`SO(5)`$ algebra.

Here we comment on the physical meaning of $`N`$ and $`n`$ in brane interpretations. The authors of  discussed this fuzzy four-sphere as a longitudinal five-brane in the context of BFSS matrix model. They showed that $`N`$ and $`n`$ represents the number of D-particles and longitudinal five-branes respectively. We are considering $`n`$ overlapping longitudinal five-branes.

The area occupied by the unit quantum on the fuzzy four-sphere is

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{\frac{8}{3}\pi ^2\rho ^4n}{N}=\frac{16\pi ^2\rho ^4n}{(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)},$$
(22)
where $`8\pi ^2\rho ^4/3`$ is a area of the four-sphere, and we have $`N`$ quanta in this system. We must draw attention to the factor $`n`$. As discussed in the next section, a fuzzy two-sphere is attached to each point on the four-sphere , and there are $`n`$ quanta on the fuzzy two-sphere. Therefore the number of the quanta on the fuzzy four-sphere is $`N/n`$. This is a different feature from the fuzzy two-sphere (4) (or the fuzzy plane (2)). There is a degree of freedom at each point and there are $`N`$ points on the fuzzy two-sphere. On the other hand, there are $`nN^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ degrees of freedom at each point and there are $`n^2N^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ points on the fuzzy four-sphere. From the viewpoint of a noncommutative field theory on the fuzzy four-sphere, it is natural to interprete $`n`$ as the spin degree of freedom. (We explain this point in the next section.) Therefore fields on the fuzzy four-sphere have the spin, and the rank of it can be up to $`n`$.

Since we obtained the fuzzy four-sphere geometry, the next step is to investigate a field theory on it. The fact that the algebra of $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ does not, however, close makes investigations difficult. Functions on a usual classical four-sphere can be expanded by the spherical harmonics

$$a(x)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m_i}{}a_{lm_i}Y_{lm_i}(x),$$
(23)
where the spherical harmonics is given by

$$Y_{lm_i}(x)=\frac{1}{\rho ^l}\underset{a}{}f_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_l}^{(lm_i)}x^{a_1}\mathrm{}x^{a_l},$$
(24)
where $`m_i`$ denote relevant quantum numbers. $`f_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_l}`$ is a traceless and symmetric tensor. The traceless condition comes form $`x_ix_i=\rho ^2`$. Matrices corresponding to the above functions are

$$\widehat{a}(\widehat{x})=\underset{l=0}{}\underset{m_i}{}a_{lm_i}\widehat{Y}_{lm_i}(\widehat{x}),$$
(25)
where

$$\widehat{Y}_{lm_i}(\widehat{x})=\frac{1}{\rho ^l}\underset{a}{}f_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_l}^{(lm_i)}\widehat{x}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{x}^{a_l}.$$
(26)
Due to the relation (13), algebra among the matrix spherical harmonics does not close. This problem does not appear in the fuzzy two-sphere case. To overcome this difficulty, we have two strategies. The first one is to project out $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$  and the second one is to include $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ whose counterpart in a usual classical sphere does not exist. In  a product which closes without $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ is constructed. This product is, however, non-associative. Since the matrix algebra has associativity, we want to maintain associativity to use matrix models. On the other hand, if we include $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ to maintain associativity, the geometry which is constructed from $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes the coset manifold $`SO(5)/U(2)`$ . This coset is not $`S^4`$ but locally $`S^4\times S^2`$. Throughout this paper, we call a noncommutative space which is given by this coset a fuzzy four-sphere. In the next section, we consider a noncommutative gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere using a matrix model .

## 3 Matrix model and Noncommutative gauge theory on fuzzy four-sphere

To investigate a noncommutative gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere, we consider the following matrix model

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+\frac{\lambda }{5}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }A_\mu A_\nu A_\lambda A_\rho A_\sigma \right),$$
(27)
where $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{},\sigma `$ run over 1 to 5 and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ is the $`SO(5)`$ invariant tensor. $`A_\mu `$ are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices and $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionful constant which depends on $`N`$. The indices are contracted by the Euclidean metric $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. Our discussions are restricted only to the bosonic sector. This is a reduced model of Yang-Mills action with a fifth rank Chern-Simons term. The second term is also interpreted as a so called Myers term . In this interpretation, this action represents an effective action of D(-1)-branes in a constant R-R four-form background. Here we do not make use of such an interpretation.

This model has the $`SO(5)`$ symmetry and the following unitary symmetry;

$$A_\mu UA_\mu U^{}.$$
(28)
It also has the translation symmetry;

$$A_\mu A_\mu +c_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(29)
The equation of motion of this action is as follows,

$$[A_\nu ,[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]]+\lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }A_\nu A_\lambda A_\rho A_\sigma =0.$$
(30)
There are two classical solutions, firstly diagonal commuting matrices

$$A_\mu =diag(x_\mu ^{(N)},\mathrm{},x_\mu ^{(1)}),$$
(31)
and secondly a fuzzy four-sphere

$$A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu =\alpha \widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}.$$
(32)
$`\lambda `$ is determined by the condition that the matrix model has a classical solution of the fuzzy four-sphere. We easily find from (20) that $`\lambda `$ is determined as the following value,

$$\lambda =\frac{2}{\alpha (n+2)}.$$
(33)
We should notice that a system of two four-spheres is not a classical soliton since $`\lambda `$ depends on $`n`$.

Although we add the Chern-Simons term to the Yang-Mills action, a reduced model of the Yang-Mills action with a mass term also has a fuzzy four-sphere as a classical solution,

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+8\alpha ^2A_\mu A_\mu \right).$$
(34)
In this case, both of a two-sphere and a two-torus are also classical solutions. A matrix model with a mass term is investigated in . In this model, a system of multiple fuzzy four-spheres is a classical solution. We give some comments on this model in Appendix B.

We compare classical values of the action for two classical solutions. The value of the action (27) for (31) is

$$S=0$$
(35)
while

$$S=\frac{4\alpha ^2\rho ^2N}{5g^2}=\frac{4\rho ^4}{5g^2}\frac{N}{n(n+4)}$$
(36)
for (32). 333 We thank T. Azuma for pointing out a mistake in the previous version.  We conclude that the diagonal commuting matrix is more stable than the fuzzy four-sphere solution at the classical level. This stuation is opposite to the case of the action which has an additional third rank CS term. In this case, a fuzzy two-sphere is stable than the diagonal commuting matrix. Therefore it is interesting to investigate classical dynamics of these solutions in the present situation.

Let us consider noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy four-sphere. The idea is to expand the matrices around the classical solution as in . We expand the matrices as follows,

$$A_\mu =\widehat{x}_\mu +\alpha \rho \widehat{a}_\mu =\alpha \rho \left(\frac{1}{\rho }\widehat{G}_\mu +\widehat{a}_\mu \right).$$
(37)
We define $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }i\alpha G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i\alpha }{2}[\widehat{G}_\mu ,\widehat{G}_\nu ]$$
(38)
where $`\alpha `$ has dimension of length. $`i`$ is added to make $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$ hermitian. We have the following noncommutativity on the fuzzy four-sphere

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=2i\alpha \widehat{w}_{\mu \nu },$$
(39)
where $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{w}_{\lambda \rho }=\alpha (8n+16)\widehat{x}_\sigma .$$
(40)
We now comment on a classical sphere. It is obtained by a large $`n`$ limit with the fixed radius of the sphere $`\rho `$. In other words, it is the $`\alpha 0`$ limit with the fixed $`\rho `$. From (39), the coordinates commute each other in this limit:

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=2i\alpha \widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }O(\alpha \rho )0.$$
(41)
The coordinates $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$ also become commuting matrices:

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{w}_{\nu \lambda }]=0,$$
(42)
$$[\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu },\widehat{w}_{\lambda \rho }]=0.$$
(43)
Fields on a sphere are expanded by the spherical harmonics. A Fuzzy sphere is naturally introduced by giving a cutoff parameter for angular momentum. The spherical harmonics on the higher dimensional fuzzy sphere is considered in . The bases are classified by the $`SO(5)`$ representations and the matrices are expanded by the irreducible representations of $`SO(5)`$. The irreducible representation is characterized by the Young diagram. It is labeled by the row length $`(r_1,r_2)`$ in this case. 444 The representation of $`SO(5)`$ is summarized in . Only the representations with $`r_2=0`$ correspond to the classical sphere. Summing up the dimensions of all irreducible representations with the condition $`nr_1r_2`$ leads to the square of $`N`$. We write the spherical harmonics abstractly as follows,

$$\widehat{a}(\widehat{x},\widehat{w})=\underset{r_1=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{r_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_i}{}a_{r_1r_2\stackrel{~}{m}_i}\widehat{Y}_{r_1r_2\stackrel{~}{m}_i}(\widehat{x},\widehat{w}),$$
(44)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ denote relevant quantum numbers. It is important that we have a cutoff parameter for angular momentum $`r_1`$ at $`n`$ . If we set $`w_{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`\widehat{Y}_{r_1,\stackrel{~}{m}_i}`$ becomes the usual spherical harmonics (26). We need to assume that the fields depend not only on $`\widehat{x}`$ but also on $`\widehat{w}`$. If we consider a function corresponding to the above matrix,

$$a(x,w)=\underset{r_1=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{r_2,\stackrel{~}{m}_i}{}a_{r_1r_2\stackrel{~}{m}_i}Y_{r_1r_2\stackrel{~}{m}_i}(x,w),$$
(45)
a product of fields becomes noncommutative and associative. We note that the noncommutativity is produced by $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$. In this construction, $`\widehat{w}_{\mu \nu }`$ form fuzzy two-sphere algebras. This fact means that the noncommutativity on the fuzzy four-sphere is produced by the fuzzy two-sphere, as it will be shown later.

When we consider a field theory corresponding to the matrix model around the noncommutative background, an adjoint action of $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ is expected to become the following derivative operator;

$$Ad\left(\widehat{G}_\mu \right)2i\left(w_{\mu \nu }\frac{}{x_\nu }x_\nu \frac{}{w_{\mu \nu }}\right),$$
(46)
and adjoint action of $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes

$$Ad\left(\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\right)2\left(x_\mu \frac{}{x_\nu }x_\nu \frac{}{x_\mu }w_{\mu \lambda }\frac{}{w_{\lambda \nu }}+w_{\nu \lambda }\frac{}{w_{\lambda \mu }}\right),$$
(47)
where derivative of $`w_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined as

$$\frac{w_{\lambda \rho }}{w_{\mu \nu }}=\delta _{\mu \lambda }\delta _{\nu \rho }\delta _{\mu \rho }\delta _{\nu \lambda }.$$
(48)
The first two terms in (47) correspond to orbital parts and the last two terms correspond to isospin parts. We give a physical interpretation of these operators in (85).

We next show that a fuzzy two-sphere is attached to each point on the fuzzy four-sphere , and it leads to the spin of fields. We can always diagonalize a matrix $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ out of the five matrices. We diagonalize $`\widehat{x}_5=\alpha \widehat{G}_5`$ as in Appendix A. We can construct the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ algebra from the $`SO(4)`$ algebra which is a sub-algebra of the $`SO(5)`$ algebra;

$$[\widehat{N}_i,\widehat{N}_j]=iϵ_{ijk}\widehat{N}_k,$$
(49)
$$[\widehat{M}_i,\widehat{M}_j]=iϵ_{ijk}\widehat{M}_k,$$
(50)
$$[\widehat{M}_i,\widehat{N}_j]=0,$$
(51)
where

$`\widehat{N}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{23}\widehat{G}_{14}\right),\widehat{M}_1={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{23}+\widehat{G}_{14}\right),`$ (52)
$`\widehat{N}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{13}+\widehat{G}_{24}\right),\widehat{M}_2={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{13}\widehat{G}_{24}\right),`$ (53)
$`\widehat{N}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{12}\widehat{G}_{34}\right),\widehat{M}_3={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\widehat{G}_{12}+\widehat{G}_{34}\right).`$ (54)
$`G_{ab}`$ is written as

$`\widehat{G}_{23}=2i(\widehat{N}_1+\widehat{M}_1),\widehat{G}_{14}=2i(\widehat{N}_1\widehat{M}_1),`$ (55)
$`\widehat{G}_{13}=2i(\widehat{N}_2+\widehat{M}_2),\widehat{G}_{24}=2i(\widehat{N}_2\widehat{M}_2),`$ (56)
$`\widehat{G}_{12}=2i(\widehat{N}_3+\widehat{M}_3),\widehat{G}_{34}=2i(\widehat{N}_3\widehat{M}_3).`$ (57)
The Casimir of each $`SU(2)`$ algebra is calculated from (12), (18) and (19) as follows,

$`\widehat{N}_i\widehat{N}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(c+(2n+4)G_5+G_5^2\right)`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(n+G_5\right)\left(n+4+G_5\right),`$ (59)
and

$`\widehat{M}_i\widehat{M}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(c(2n+4)G_5+G_5^2\right)`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(nG_5\right)\left(n+4G_5\right).`$ (61)
Matrices $`\widehat{M}_i`$ and $`\widehat{N}_i`$ are realized by $`(n+G_5+2)/2`$ and $`(nG_5+2)/2`$ dimensional representation 555$`tr\widehat{N}_i`$ and $`tr\widehat{M}_i`$ represent two-brane charge in string theory interpretation. Since these are given by finite dimensional $`SU(2)`$ matrices, two-brane charge vanishes on each point on four-sphere.  of $`SU(2)`$ respectively. The point $`\widehat{G}_5=G_5`$ consists of $`(n+G_5+2)(nG_5+2)/4`$ eigenvalues. If we sum up the contributions from $`G_5=n,n2,\mathrm{},n+2,n`$ as

$$\underset{G_5=n}{\overset{G_5=n}{}}\left(\frac{n+G_5+2}{2}\right)\left(\frac{nG_5+2}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{6}(n+1)(n+2)(n+3),$$
(62)
we obtain the size $`N`$ of the matrix .

At the north pole, the Casimirs of $`\widehat{N}_i`$ and $`\widehat{M}_i`$ are given by

$`\widehat{N}_i\widehat{N}_i={\displaystyle \frac{n(n+2)}{4}}`$ (63)
and

$`\widehat{M}_i\widehat{M}_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (64)
respectively. Then we have a fuzzy two-sphere, which is given by the ($`n+1`$)-dimensional representation of $`SU(2)`$, at the north pole. The radius of the two-sphere is given by $`\sigma ^2=\alpha ^2n(n+4)/4`$ and it is comparable with that of the four-sphere, which is given by $`\rho ^2=\alpha ^2n(n+4)`$. Since the fuzzy four-sphere has $`SO(5)`$ symmetry, we can state that a fuzzy two-sphere, which is given by the ($`n+1`$)-dimensional representation of $`SU(2)`$, is attached to each point on the fuzzy four-sphere. We can regard this two-sphere as the internal two-dimensional space. Fields have quantum numbers corresponding to the $`SU(2)`$ angular momentum. We next show that these extra degrees of freedom can be interpreted as spins.

Generators of Lorentz transformation are given by $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$. Fields are transformed under the Lorentz transformation as follows

$`e^{i\widehat{G}_{ab}\omega _{ab}}\widehat{a}(\widehat{x},\widehat{w})e^{i\widehat{G}_{ab}\omega _{ab}}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{a}(\widehat{x},\widehat{w})+i\omega _{ab}Ad(G)_{ab}\widehat{a}(\widehat{x},\widehat{w})`$ (66)
$``$ $`a(x,w)+2i\omega _{ab}\left(x_a{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b}}x_b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_a}}w_{ac}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{cb}}}+w_{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{ca}}}\right)a(x,w)`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`a(x,w)+2i\omega _{ab}\left(x_a{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b}}x_b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_a}}\right)a(x,w)4i(\theta _i+\omega _i)ϵ_{ijk}N_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{N_k}}a(x,w)`$ (68)
where $`\theta _i=(\omega _{23},\omega _{31},\omega _{12})`$ and $`\omega _i=(\omega _{41},\omega _{42},\omega _{43})`$. Transformation from the third line to the fourth line is done at the north pole. It must be noted that such a rewriting is valid on each point on the sphere. The second term in the last equation shows the angular momentum part. The third term shows that the fields have spin angular momentum. The point is that the $`SU(2)`$ spin takes only the integer values, $`0`$, $`1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`n1`$, $`n`$. The rank of the spin is finite since the sizes of $`SU(2)`$ matrices $`\widehat{N}_i`$ are $`n+1`$.

When we do Taylor expansion, a field with respect to coordinates $`N_i`$,

$`a(x,w)`$ $`=`$ $`a(x,0)+N_{i_1}{\displaystyle \frac{a(x,N)}{N_{i_1}}}|_{N=0}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}N_{i_1}N_{i_2}\mathrm{}N_{i_n}{\displaystyle \frac{^na(x,N)}{N_{i_1}N_{i_2}\mathrm{}N_{i_n}}}|_{N=0}`$ (69)
$``$ $`a(x)+N_{i_1}\stackrel{~}{a}_{i_1}(x)+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}N_{i_1}N_{i_2}\mathrm{}N_{i_n}\stackrel{~}{a}_{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n}(x)`$ (70)
the first term is a scalar field and the $`m+1`$-th term represents a spin $`m`$ field. This expansion is done at the north pole. Because the noncommutativity is produced by the fuzzy two-sphere, the product between the scalar field has the spin degrees of freedom. If we remove the fuzzy two-sphere from the four-sphere, the product becomes commutative. Such a product is considered in  and it is commutative and non-associative.

We now consider an action of noncommutative gauge theory on the fuzzy four-sphere. It is obtained form the matrix model action (27) by expanding matrices around the classical solution corresponding to the fuzzy four-sphere as in (37);

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho )^4}{g^2}}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{9\lambda }{40(\alpha \rho )^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A_\lambda ,A_\rho ]A_\sigma `$ (72)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{16(\alpha \rho )^2}}f^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma \tau }[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]A_\lambda [A_\rho ,A_\sigma ]A_\tau ),`$
where

$`f^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu \lambda }ϵ^{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma \tau }`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`2\delta _{\mu \rho }\left(\delta _{\nu \sigma }\delta _{\lambda \tau }\delta _{\nu \tau }\delta _{\lambda \sigma }\right)2\delta _{\mu \sigma }\left(\delta _{\nu \rho }\delta _{\lambda \tau }\delta _{\nu \tau }\delta _{\lambda \rho }\right)+2\delta _{\mu \tau }\left(\delta _{\nu \rho }\delta _{\lambda \sigma }\delta _{\lambda \rho }\delta _{\nu \sigma }\right).`$ (74)
$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ is a gauge covariant field strength, which is defined by

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha \rho )^2}}\left([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+\lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }A_\lambda A_\rho A_\sigma \right)`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha \rho )^2}}\left([A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }[A_\lambda ,A_\rho ]A_\sigma \right)`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\widehat{G}_\mu ,\widehat{a}_\nu ][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\widehat{G}_\nu ,\widehat{a}_\mu ]+[\widehat{a}_\mu ,\widehat{a}_\nu ]`$ (78)
$`+\alpha \rho \lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\widehat{G}_{\lambda \rho }\widehat{a}_\sigma +[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\widehat{G}_\lambda ,\widehat{a}_\rho ]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\widehat{G}_\sigma +\widehat{a}_\sigma \right)\right).`$
Since $`A_\mu `$ is a covariant quantity (we explain in the next paragraph), the gauge covariance of $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ is manifest. The second and third terms in (72) give gauge invariant interaction terms.

The gauge symmetry in this noncommutative gauge theory comes from the unitary symmetry in the matrix model. For an infinitesimal transformation $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\lambda })1+i\widehat{\lambda }`$ in (28), a fluctuation around the fixed background transforms as

$`\delta \widehat{a}_\mu (\widehat{x},\widehat{w})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}[\widehat{G}_\mu ,\widehat{\lambda }(\widehat{x},\widehat{w})]+i[\widehat{\lambda }(\widehat{x},\widehat{w}),\widehat{a}_\mu (\widehat{x},\widehat{w})].`$ (79)
The corresponding transformation in the field theory is

$`\delta a_\mu (x,w)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\rho }}\left(w_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_\nu }}x_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{\mu \nu }}}\right)\lambda (x,w)+i[\lambda (x,w),a_\mu (x,w)]_{}.`$ (80)
It is known that this gauge transformation contains many degrees of freedom which do not exist in a ordinary commutative gauge theory. When we expand $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ as

$$\widehat{\lambda }=\lambda _0+ϵ^\mu \widehat{G}_\mu +ϵ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }+O\left(G^2\right),$$
(81)
the contribution from the second term gives the rotation (68) and the constant shift of the field in (79). (If we consider the theory around the north pole, $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{5a}`$ give rotation and translation respectively.)

Trace in the matrix model action (72) corresponds to the integration on the coset in the corresponding noncommutative field theory. It is noteworthy that this integral is taken over six-dimensional space, the fuzzy four-sphere and the internal two-dimensional space.

We now discuss the Laplacian. It is natural to use $`Ad(\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu })^2`$ as the Laplacian since it is the quadratic Casimir of $`SO(5)`$ and it is the generator of the rotation. We, however, have another choice $`Ad(\widehat{G}_\mu )^2`$. $`\widehat{G}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ form $`SO(5,1)`$ algebra. Both of $`Ad(\widehat{G}_\mu )^2`$ and $`Ad(\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu })^2`$ are the invariants of $`SO(5)`$. From the viewpoint of the matrix model, $`Ad(\widehat{G}_\mu )^2`$ appears naturally as the Laplacian since we are expanding the matrices around the coordinates $`\widehat{x}_\mu =\alpha \widehat{G}_\mu `$. After adding a gauge fixing term, the kinetic term becomes

$`S_{kinetic}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho )^4}{2g^2}}Tr\left(\widehat{a}_\nu [{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{G}_\mu }{\rho }},[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{G}_\mu }{\rho }},\widehat{a}_\nu ]]\right)`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\alpha \rho )^4}{g^2}}Tr(\widehat{a}_\tau ({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_\mu x_\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{x_\mu x_\nu }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_\mu x_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{4x_\mu }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_\mu }}`$ (84)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2w_{\mu \nu }x_\lambda }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_\nu w_{\mu \lambda }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_\nu x_\lambda }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{w_{\mu \nu }w_{\mu \lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{\mu \lambda }}{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{\mu \lambda }}})\widehat{a}_\tau ).`$
The first three terms correspond to the usual Laplacian of a four-sphere. Let us investigate the spectrum of the kinetic term. It is calculated as follows,

$$\frac{1}{4}[\widehat{G}_\mu ,[\widehat{G}_\mu ,\widehat{Y}_{r_1r_2}]]=\left(r_1(r_1+3)r_2(r_2+1)\right)\widehat{Y}_{r_1r_2}.$$
(85)
On the other hand, the spectrum of $`Ad(\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu })^2`$ is calculated as follows,

$$\frac{1}{8}[\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu },[\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu },\widehat{Y}_{r_1r_2}]]=\left(r_1(r_1+3)+r_2(r_2+1)\right)\widehat{Y}_{r_1r_2}.$$
(86)
The second term is regarded as a mass term from the four-dimensional point of view. It is found that the eigenvalue of $`Ad(G_\mu )^2`$ is identical with the eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian which appeared in the four-dimensional quantum Hall system . The Hamiltonian describes the system of a single particle moving on the four-dimensional sphere under the $`SU(2)`$ monopole background. Therefore $`Ad(\widehat{G}_\mu )`$ is interpreted as the covariant derivative under the $`SU(2)`$ monopole background.

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:

$$\widehat{x}_\mu \widehat{x}_\mu \mathrm{𝟏}_m.$$
(87)
$`\widehat{a}`$ is also replaced as follows:

$$\widehat{a}\underset{a=1}{\overset{m^2}{}}\widehat{a}^aT^a,$$
(88)
where $`T^a(a=1,\mathrm{},m^2)`$ denote the generators of $`U(m)`$.

## 4 Noncommutative gauge theory on noncommutative four-plane

In this section, we consider a noncommutative gauge theory on a noncommutative four-plane, which arises as a large $`N`$ limit from the fuzzy four-sphere. This limit corresponds to considering a subspace in this system. Let us consider a theory around the north pole, that is $`\widehat{x}_5\rho `$ ($`\widehat{G}_5\rho /\alpha n`$). By virtue of the $`SO(5)`$ symmetry, this discussion is without loss of generality.

As discussed in (63) and (64), a fuzzy two-sphere, which is given by the ($`n+1`$)-dimensional representation of $`SU(2)`$, is attached to the north pole. The commutation relation of $`\widehat{G}_a`$ is rewritten as

$$[\widehat{G}_a,\widehat{G}_b]=2\widehat{G}_{ab}=4i\eta _{ab}^i\widehat{N}_i.$$
(89)
The t’ Hooft symbol $`\eta _{ab}^i`$ 666 $`\eta _{ab}^i`$ satisfies $`\eta _{ab}^i\eta _{ab}^j=4\delta _{ij}`$ and $`\eta _{ab}^i\eta _{ac}^i=3\delta _{bc}`$. The nonzero values are $`\eta _{23}^1=\eta _{41}^1=\eta _{31}^2=\eta _{42}^2=\eta _{12}^3=\eta _{43}^3=1`$.  is introduced here as

$$\eta _{ab}^i=ϵ_{iab4}\delta _{ia}\delta _{4b}+\delta _{ib}\delta _{4a}$$
(90)
where $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$. It is interesting that the noncommutativity has an internal $`SU(2)`$ index, and it is used to label the spin indices of the fields. This equation (89) also appeared in . If we use the t’ Hooft symbol, the derivative of $`G_{ab}`$ is rewritten as

$$\frac{}{G_{ab}}=\frac{i}{2}\eta _{ab}^i\frac{}{N_i}.$$
(91)
Commutation relations (20) and (21) are rewritten around the north pole as follows,

$`[\widehat{G}_{ab},\widehat{G}_c]=2\left(\delta _{bc}\widehat{G}_a\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_b\right),`$ (92)
$`[\widehat{G}_{5a},\widehat{G}_b]=2\delta _{ab}n,`$ (93)
$`[\widehat{G}_{ab},\widehat{G}_{cd}]=2\left(\delta _{bc}\widehat{G}_{ad}+\delta _{ad}\widehat{G}_{bc}\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_{bd}\delta _{bd}\widehat{G}_{ac}\right),`$ (94)
$`[\widehat{G}_{5a},\widehat{G}_{5b}]=2\widehat{G}_{ab},`$ (95)
$`[\widehat{G}_{5a},\widehat{G}_{bc}]=2\left(\delta _{ab}\widehat{G}_{5c}\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_{5b}\right).`$ (96)
It is natural to regard $`\widehat{G}_{5a}`$ as the momentum matrices since they are canonical conjugate to $`\widehat{G}_a`$. If we define $`\widehat{p}_a=\alpha ^1i\widehat{G}_{5a}`$, the commutation relations become

$`[\widehat{x}_a,\widehat{x}_b]=2\alpha ^2\widehat{G}_{ab},`$ (97)
$`[\widehat{G}_{ab},\widehat{x}_c]=2\left(\delta _{bc}\widehat{x}_a\delta _{ac}\widehat{x}_b\right),`$ (98)
$`[\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{p}_b]=2\alpha ^2\widehat{G}_{ab},`$ (99)
$`[\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{G}_{bc}]=2\left(\delta _{ab}\widehat{p}_c\delta _{ac}\widehat{p}_b\right)`$ (100)
$`[\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{x}_b]=2i\delta _{ab}n.`$ (101)
From (19), we obtain

$$\alpha ^2\widehat{p}_a\widehat{p}_a=\frac{\widehat{x}_a\widehat{x}_a}{\alpha ^2}.$$
(102)
Momentum space also form the fuzzy four-sphere. Note that momentum matrices and coordinate matrices are different on the fuzzy four-sphere. In the fuzzy two-sphere case, they are given by the same matrices. They are different in general and we can see such examples in .

In order to take a large radius limit, we rescale matrices $`\widehat{G}_a`$, $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{a5}`$ as

$$\widehat{G}_a^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{G}_a,\widehat{G}_{ab}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{G}_{ab},\widehat{G}_{a5}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{G}_{a5}.$$
(103)
Then the commutation relation of $`\widehat{G}_a^{}`$ becomes

$$[\widehat{G}_a^{},\widehat{G}_b^{}]=\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\widehat{G}_{ab}^{},$$
(104)
or

$`ϵ^{abcd}\widehat{G}_a^{}\widehat{G}_b^{}\widehat{G}_c^{}\widehat{G}_d^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}ϵ^{abcd}\widehat{G}_{ab}^{}\widehat{G}_{cd}^{}=8.`$ (105)
After the rescaling, the commutation relations become as follows,

$`[\widehat{G}_a^{},\widehat{G}_{bc}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_b^{}\delta _{ab}\widehat{G}_c^{}\right),`$ (106)
$`[\widehat{G}_{5a}^{},\widehat{G}_b^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{ab},`$ (107)
and

$`[\widehat{G}_{ab}^{},\widehat{G}_{cd}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(\delta _{bc}\widehat{G}_{ad}^{}+\delta _{ad}\widehat{G}_{bc}^{}\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_{bd}^{}\delta _{bd}\widehat{G}_{ac}^{}\right),`$ (108)
$`[\widehat{G}_{5a}^{},\widehat{G}_{bc}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}}\left(\delta _{ab}\widehat{G}_{5c}^{}\delta _{ac}\widehat{G}_{5b}^{}\right).`$ (109)
The radius of the four-sphere in the rescaled coordinate is

$$\rho ^2=\widehat{x}_i^{}\widehat{x}_i^{}=\alpha ^2\frac{n(n+4)}{n}=\frac{1}{n}\rho ^2\alpha ^2n.$$
(110)
Area of each quantum in the rescaled coordinates is

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{\frac{8}{3}\pi ^2\rho ^4n}{N}=\frac{16\pi ^2\rho ^4n}{(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)}16\pi ^2\alpha ^4.$$
(111)
After rescaling, $`\alpha `$ represents a noncommutative scale. To decompactify the four-sphere, we will take $`\alpha =`$fixed and $`\rho ^{}\mathrm{}`$ (or $`n\mathrm{}`$) limit.

From (17), we have

$$\widehat{G}_{a5}\widehat{G}_5=4\widehat{G}_a\widehat{G}_{ab}\widehat{G}_b.$$
(112)
If we use this equation, $`\widehat{G}_{a5}`$ is written in terms of $`\widehat{G}_a`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$. Independent matrices are now $`\widehat{G}_a`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$.

We consider the adjoint actions of $`\widehat{G}_a`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ around the north pole,

$`Ad(\widehat{G}_a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{i}}\left(w_{ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{ab}^{}}}\right)`$ (113)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{i}}\left(w_{ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}x_b^{}\eta _{ab}^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{N_i^{}}}\right)`$ (114)
and

$`Ad\left(\widehat{G}_{ab}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(x_a{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b}}x_b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_a}}w_{ac}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{cb}}}+w_{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{ca}}}\right)`$ (115)
$`=`$ $`2\left(x_a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_a^{}}}w_{ac}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{cb}^{}}}+w_{bc}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{ca}^{}}}\right)`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`2\left(x_a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_a^{}}}\eta _{ac}^i\eta _{cb}^j\left(N_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{N_j^{}}}N_j^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{N_i^{}}}\right)\right).`$ (117)
The generators of Lorentz transformation are given by $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ and the translation generators are given by $`\widehat{G}_{5a}`$. In view of (112), translation generators are given by $`\widehat{G}_a`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$;

$`Ad\left(\widehat{G}_{a5}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left(4Ad\left(\widehat{G}_a\right)\widehat{G}_{ab}Ad\left(\widehat{G}_b\right)\widehat{G}_bAd\left(\widehat{G}_{ab}\right)\right)`$ (118)
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\rho ^2}}Ad\left(\widehat{G}_a\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho ^{}}}\widehat{G}_{ab}^{}Ad\left(\widehat{G}_b\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho ^{}}}\widehat{G}_b^{}Ad\left(\widehat{G}_{ab}\right)`$ (119)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{ab}^{}Ad\left(\widehat{G}_b\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{}}}\right).`$ (120)
If we ignore the $`O(1/\rho ^{})`$, the translation generator is related to the adjoint action of $`\widehat{G}_a`$.

Here we investigate the eigenvalues of the fuzzy two-sphere in the large $`n`$ limit. As commented in the previous section, the noncommutativity on the fuzzy four-sphere is produced by the fuzzy two-sphere. One of the three coordinates of the fuzzy two-sphere $`\widehat{N}_3`$ is diagonalized as follows

$$\widehat{N}_3=diag(n/2,n/21,\mathrm{},n/2+1,n/2).$$
(121)
When we take the large $`n`$ limit, the two-brane charge no longer vanishes. It is because the contributions from the north pole and the south pole in two-sphere do decouple in this limit. Then $`\widehat{N}_3`$ takes the value $`+n/2`$ or $`n/2`$ in the large $`n`$ limit. After taking the large $`n`$ limit, the noncommutativity $`G_{ab}^{}`$ becomes as follows

$$G_{12}^{}=i\mathrm{𝟏}(\text{or}i\mathrm{𝟏}),G_{34}^{}=i\mathrm{𝟏}(\text{or}i\mathrm{𝟏}),\text{other components are zero}.$$
(122)
Then we have obtained the six-dimensional noncommutative space,

$$[G_1^{},G_2^{}]=i\mathrm{𝟏},[G_3^{},G_4^{}]=i\mathrm{𝟏},[N_1^{},N_2^{}]=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(123)
We next study an action of noncommutative gauge theory on the noncommutative plane, which is obtained from the fuzzy four-sphere. The matrices $`A_a`$ are given by

$`A_a`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x}_a+\alpha \rho \widehat{a}_a`$ (124)
$`=`$ $`\alpha \widehat{G}_a+\alpha \rho \widehat{a}_a`$ (125)
$``$ $`\alpha \rho ^{}D_a^{},`$ (126)
where we have rescaled the field as $`\sqrt{n}\widehat{a}_\mu =\widehat{a}_\mu ^{}`$. $`Ad(D_a)`$ is the covariant derivative on the flat background. Gauge covariant field strength becomes

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`[D_\mu ^{},D_\nu ^{}]+(\alpha \rho ^{})\lambda ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }D_\lambda ^{}D_\rho ^{}D_\sigma ^{}`$ (127)
$`=`$ $`\left([D_\mu ^{},D_\nu ^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \rho ^{}2}{\alpha (n+2)}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }D_\lambda ^{}D_\rho ^{}D_\sigma ^{}\right)`$ (128)
$`=`$ $`\left([D_\mu ^{},D_\nu ^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\rho ^{}}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }[D_\lambda ^{},D_\rho ^{}]D_\sigma ^{}\right).`$ (129)
The action around the north pole becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{g^2}}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \rho ^{}}{\alpha (n+2)}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }D_\mu ^{}D_\nu ^{}D_\lambda ^{}D_\sigma ^{}D_\rho ^{}`$ (131)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho ^{})^2}{\alpha ^2(n+2)^2}}f^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma \tau }D_\mu ^{}D_\nu ^{}D_\lambda ^{}D_\rho ^{}D_\sigma ^{}D_\tau ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{g^2}}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho ^{}}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }[D_\mu ^{},D_\nu ^{}][D_\lambda ^{},D_\rho ^{}]D_\sigma ^{}`$ (133)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho ^{}}}\right)^2f^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma \tau }D_\mu ^{}D_\nu ^{}D_\lambda ^{}D_\rho ^{}D_\sigma ^{}D_\tau ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{4g^2}}Tr\left(\widehat{F}_{ab}\widehat{F}_{ab}+2[D_a^{},\widehat{\varphi }^{}][D_a^{},\widehat{\varphi }^{}]+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^{}}}\right)\right),`$ (134)
where we have rewritten $`\widehat{a}_5`$ as $`\widehat{\varphi }`$. The gauge transformation (79) is rewritten as follows,

$$\delta a_a^{}(x^{},w^{})=\frac{2}{\rho ^{}}\left(w_{ab}^{}\frac{}{x_b^{}}x_b^{}\frac{}{w_{ab}^{}}\right)\lambda (x^{},w^{})+i[\lambda (x^{},w^{}),a_a^{}(x^{},w^{})]_{}$$
(135)
where $`G_{ab}^{}=w_{ab}^{}/i\alpha `$ is given by (122).

We now investigate the kinetic term with $`O(1/\rho ^{})`$. (84) becomes as follows around the north pole,

$`S_{kinetic}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{2g^2}}Tr\left(\widehat{a}_b^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{G}_a}{\rho ^{}}},[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{G}_a}{\rho ^{}}},\widehat{a}_b^{}]]\right)`$ (136)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{g^2}}Tr(\widehat{a}_b^{}({\displaystyle \frac{w_{ab}^{}w_{ac}^{}}{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_b^{}x_c^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\rho ^2}}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}`$ (138)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\rho ^2}}w_{ab}^{}x_c^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_b^{}w_{ac}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}w_{ab}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{w_{ab}^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}x_b^{}x_c^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{w_{ab}^{}w_{ac}^{}}})\widehat{a}_b^{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\alpha \rho ^{})^4}{g^2}}Tr(\widehat{a}_b^{}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_a^{}x_a^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_a^{}x_c^{}\alpha ^2G_{a5}^{}G_{c5}^{}}{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_a^{}x_c^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\rho ^2}}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_b^{}}}`$ (140)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\rho ^2}}\eta _{ab}^i\eta _{ac}^jN_i^{}x_c^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_b^{}N_j^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\rho ^2}}N_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{N_i^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\alpha ^2\rho ^2}}x_b^{}x_b^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{N_i^{}N_i^{}}})\widehat{a}_b^{}),`$
where we have used the following relation,

$`G_{ab}^{}G_{bc}^{}=n\delta _{ac}G_a^{}G_c^{}G_{a5}^{}G_{5c}^{}.`$ (141)
The first three terms in (140) constitute the usual Laplacian of a four-sphere. Only the first term and the last term survive in $`\rho ^{}\mathrm{}`$ limit. 777The order of the first and last terms is $`O\left(1/\rho ^{}\right)`$ while that of the other terms is $`O\left(1/\rho ^2\right)`$. Note that $`x_a^{}x_a^{}O\left(\rho ^{}\right)`$.  It is interesting that the gauge field and the scalar field propagate in the six-dimensional space.

In this section, we have investigated a noncommutative gauge theory on a flat noncommutative background by taking a large radius limit of the fuzzy four-sphere around the north pole. This noncommutative plane has the Heisenberg algebra type noncommutativity and the symmetry of this plane is $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$. Although it is desirable to have $`SO(4)`$ symmetry, it is difficult to construct a noncommutative plane which has higher symmetry. This difficulty may be related to the quantization of Nambu bracket . If a noncommutative plane has $`SO(4)`$ symmetry, it is expected that the quantization of Nambu bracket is realized on it. Although some trials  are implemented, it is difficult to obtain consistent quantization of Nambu bracket.

## 5 Summary and Discussions

In this paper, we have investigated a noncommutative gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere using a five-dimensional matrix model. We considered a matrix model with a fifth-rank Chern-Simons term since this model has a fuzzy four-sphere as a classical solution. By dividing matrices into backgrounds and fields propagating on them, we obtained noncommutative gauge theories on the backgrounds. It is worth noting that we expanded matrices around the coordinates of the fuzzy four-sphere. This facts supports an idea that the eigenvalues of bosonic variables in the matrix model represents spacetime coordinates. A characteristic feature of noncommutative gauge theories or the matrix model is that spacetime and fields are treated on the same footing.

One of the difficulties to consider a noncommutative gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere is that algebra of the coordinates does not close. Because of this reason, we need extra degrees of freedom. By adding a fuzzy two-sphere at each point on the fuzzy four-sphere, we can solve this difficulty. These extra degrees of freedom are interpreted as spins. The maximum magnitude of the spin is related to the number of the quanta on a fuzzy two-sphere, which is comparable with number of the quanta on the fuzzy four-sphere.

It is well known that the quantum Hall system is an example of the noncommutative geometry. As is discussed in , the quantum Hall system on the four-dimensional sphere is constructed by considering a system of particles under a $`SU(2)`$ gauge field. From the kinetic term of the noncommutative gauge theory action on the fuzzy four-sphere, we have obtained the same eigenvalue as the Hamiltonian of the quantum Hall system.

The advantage of compact noncommutative manifolds is that one can construct them 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 cutoff parameter.) We showed that a gauge theory on a noncommutative plane were reproduced from a gauge theory on a fuzzy four-sphere by taking a large $`n`$ limit. This noncommutative plane has the Heisenberg algebra type noncommutativity and the symmetry is $`SO(2)\times SO(2)`$. It is difficult to construct a more symmetric noncommutative plane with maintaining the associativity.

We comment on the relation to the IIB matrix model. The second term in the action (27) is interpreted as Myers term from the viewpoint of a D-brane action. On the other hand, we might expect that this five-dimensional matrix model is obtained from IIB matrix model by integrating unnecessary matrices since this model has the same kinds of symmetries as IIB matrix model. It may be alternatively obtained by deforming IIB matrix model. There may be a new model which includes a fuzzy four-sphere as a classical solution and has supersymmetry. Such analyses will be future problems.

Acknowledgments

I am most grateful to S.Iso and Y.Kitazawa for reading the manuscript and helpful discussions. I also thank Y.Shibusa for valuable discussions.

## Appendix A Notations of Gamma matrices

This appendix is referred to . An explicit form of $`4\times 4`$ five-dimensional gamma matrices is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma _\mu \\ i\sigma _\mu & 0\end{array}\right),(\mu =1,2,3)`$ (A.3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1_2\\ 1_2& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (A.6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_2& 0\\ 0& 1_2\end{array}\right),`$ (A.9)
where $`\sigma _\mu `$ is the Pauli matrices. They satisfy the Clifford algebra:

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4,5).$$
(A.10)
The matrices $`\widehat{G}_\mu ^{(n)}`$ are constructed as in (9). In this notation, $`\widehat{G}_5^{(n)}`$ is diagonalized and the eigenvalues are

$$\widehat{G}_5^{(n)}=diag(n,n2,\mathrm{},n+2,n),$$
(A.11)
where the eigenvalue $`m`$ has the degeneracy $`((n+2)^2m^2)/4`$.

## Appendix B Matrix Model with mass term

Let us consider a five-dimensional matrix model with a mass term in this appendix while we considered a five-dimensional matrix model with a Chern-Simons term in the paper. We investigated a four-dimensional matrix model with a mass term in . The action is

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+8\alpha ^2A_\mu A_\mu \right),$$
(B.1)
where $`\mu `$,$`\nu `$ run over $`1`$ to $`5`$. The indices are contracted by $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. This model has several classical solutions. The first one is a fuzzy four-sphere;

$$\widehat{x}_\mu ^{S^4}=\alpha \widehat{G}_\mu (\mu =1,2,3,4,5),$$
(B.2)
the radius of the four-sphere is $`\rho _{S^4}^2=\alpha ^2n(n+4)`$. The second one is a fuzzy two-sphere.

$`\widehat{x}_\mu ^{S^2}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2}\alpha \widehat{L}_\mu (\mu =1,2,3),`$ (B.3)
$`=`$ $`0(\mu =4,5),`$ (B.4)
where $`\widehat{L}_\mu `$ is the $`N`$-dimensional irreducible representation of $`SU(2)`$ , and the radius of the two-sphere is given by $`\rho _{S^2}^2=2\alpha ^2(N^21)`$. A system of multiple fuzzy four-spheres is a classical solution while it is not in a model with a fifth rank Chern-Simons term. A system of a fuzzy four-sphere and a fuzzy two-sphere is also a classical solution;

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{x}_\mu ^{S^4}& 0\\ 0& \widehat{x}_\mu ^{S^2}\end{array}\right),(\mu =1,2,3)`$ (B.7)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{x}_\mu ^{S^4}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),(\mu =4,5).`$ (B.10)
Fuzzy two-torus is also a classical solution,

$$\widehat{x}_\mu ^{T^2}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}\right)}}\widehat{y}_\mu (\mu =1,2,3,4),$$
(B.11)
where

$$UV=e^{i\frac{2\pi }{N}}VU,U=\widehat{y}_1+i\widehat{y}_2,V=\widehat{y}_3+i\widehat{y}_4.$$
(B.12)
The values of the action for the fuzzy four-sphere (B.2) and the fuzzy two-sphere (B.4) are

$$S_{S^4}=\frac{31}{4g^2}n(n+4)N\alpha ^4$$
(B.13)
and

$$S_{S^2}=\frac{8}{g^2}N(N^21)\alpha ^4$$
(B.14)
respectively. Because the first one is $`O(n^6\alpha ^4/g^2)`$ and the second one is $`O(n^9\alpha ^4/g^2)`$, the second one has a lower classical action than the first one.