text:
# Strongly coupled N=1 SYM theory on the lattice

## Abstract

We propose a strong coupling expansion as a possible tool to obtain qualitative and quantitative informations about N=1 SYM theory. We point out the existence of a mapping between strongly coupled lattice N=1 SYM theory and a generalized SO(4) antiferromagnetic spin system.

Though far from the scaling regime, the strong coupling limit of lattice gauge theory exhibits confinement and chiral symmetry breaking and has often been used as a computational scheme for understanding qualitative features of continuum theories such as QCD. Strongly coupled lattice gauge theories are intimately related to quantum spin systems . In Ref.  Smit showed that the strong coupling effective hamiltonian of QCD regularized with Wilson fermions is a generalized $`U(4N_f)`$ antiferromagnet.

N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills ($`SYM`$) theory is characterized by the non-perturbative phenomena of $`QCD`$, such as color confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. The main motivation of our analysis is to understand if the low energy degrees of freedom of strongly coupled N=1 $`SYM`$ theory can be described by some sort of antiferromagnetic spin model.

The seminal work by Seiberg  produced an avalanche of investigations of supersymmetric theories in a hope of unravelling the mysteries of quark confinement. Further twist in developments came from the work of Maldacena  who managed to connect strongly coupled SYM theories with weakly coupled supergravity. At the same time efforts have been made to give some “experimental” confirmations to the exciting theoretical advances ( for models see e.g. ).

However, well known difficulties prevent a definition of supersymmetric theories on the lattice, such as the lack of lattice generators of the Poincaré group and the unbalance between fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom (fermion doubling). The Wilson term cures this problem, but it generates a bare mass term for the gluinos, which breaks explicitely both chiral symmetry and supersymmetry ($`SUSY`$). Curci and Veneziano  proposed to regularize on the lattice $`SYM`$ theories using Wilson fermions and claimed that $`SUSY`$, like chiral symmetry, should only be recovered in the continuum limit. For $`SYM`$ theory it is particularly fortunate that the chiral limit and the $`SUSY`$ limit are one and the same. Consequently, many $`MC`$ simulations of N=1 $`SYM`$ theory have been performed in the last few years using Wilson fermions (for a recent review see e.g. ). A pioneering study of N=1 $`SYM`$ theory in the strong coupling and large $`N_c`$ limit was performed in  using the Euclidean formalism and the hopping parameter expansion in terms of random walks. Since the strong coupling regime is far from the continuum limit, it is not guaranteed that the strongly coupled lattice gauge theory, when extrapolated to the continuum, would recover $`SUSY`$. However, the hope is that the strongly coupled lattice theory could capture the gross features of the continuum strongly coupled $`SYM`$ theory. Therefore, we propose a strong coupling approach to N=1 $`SYM`$ theory in the hamiltonian formalism of lattice gauge theory using Wilson fermions and we show that the theory is effectively described by an $`SO(4)`$ antiferromagnet.

The N=1 $`SU(N_c)`$ $`SYM`$ lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\lambda }^a\gamma _\mu D_\mu ^{ab}\lambda ^b+\frac{1}{4g^2}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+\frac{\theta }{32\pi ^2}F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a$$
(1)
where the fermions obey the Majorana condition $`\lambda =\gamma _0\overline{\lambda }^\text{t}`$. The axial global symmetry $`U(1)_A`$ is broken by instantons to discrete $`Z_{2N_c}`$ symmetry, which in turn is broken to $`Z_2`$ symmetry by a gaugino condensate. Correspodingly, there will be $`N_c`$ vacua which are distinguished by the phase of the condensate $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda =C\mathrm{\Lambda }^3e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{N_c}},k=0,\mathrm{},N_c1.`$ One can add a gaugino mass term $`m_g\overline{\lambda ^a}\lambda ^a`$ to the SYM lagrangian (1) turning the model into a softly broken SYM theory . This is the theory which lattice practitioners simulate.

In the Wilson formulation, the lattice action corresponding to Eq. (1) reads

$$S=\frac{2N_c}{g^2}\underset{P}{}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{N_c}\text{Tr}\text{Re}U_P\right)+S_F$$
(2)
where the gluino action is

$`S_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\text{Tr}[\overline{\lambda }(x){\displaystyle \frac{\left(\gamma _\mu \widehat{r}\right)}{2}}U_\mu (x)\lambda (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ (3)
$`\text{h.c.}]+{\displaystyle }_x\text{Tr}\overline{\lambda }(x)(m_g+4\widehat{r})\lambda (x)`$
and the trace Tr is only over color. In $`QCD`$ regularized on the lattice with Wilson fermions it is possible to introduce the $`\theta `$-vacua dependence in the lattice action via the $`\widehat{r}`$ Wilson term . Since the action (3) must be periodic in the $`\theta `$ angle with period $`2\pi `$, if one defines $`\widehat{r}=re^{i\theta \gamma _5/N_c}`$ it is manifest that under a $`U(1)_A`$ rotation of the gluino field only the $`Z_{2N_c}`$ symmetry is preserved.

The hamiltonian of the theory ( rescaled by $`g^2/2`$ ) can be written as

$$H=H_E+ϵ^2H_B+ϵ(H_h+H_m)$$
(4)
where $`ϵ=1/g^2`$ is the strong coupling expansion parameter, $`g\mathrm{}`$. In Eq.(4) $`H_E=_xE_{x,k}^aE_{x,k}^a`$ is the chromo-electric hamiltonian where $`k=1,2,3`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N_c^21`$ and $`H_B=_P\text{Tr}\text{Re}U_P`$ is the chromo-magnetic hamiltonian. $`H_B`$ is of order $`ϵ^2`$ and we shall neglect its contribution in our expansion, since it would contribute only at the fourth order. Therefore $`H_E`$ is the unperturbed hamiltonian that selects the vacuum of the theory and $`H_h+H_m`$ is the perturbation. The hopping hamiltonian $`H_h=i_x\left[H_h^F(x)H_h^B(x)\right]`$ in Eq. (4) is written in terms of the forward and backward hopping hamiltonians $`H_h^F=(H_h^B)^{}`$

$$H_h^F=\underset{x}{}\text{Tr}[\lambda ^\text{t}(x+\widehat{k})(\gamma _0\widehat{r}+\alpha _k)U_k(x)^{}\lambda (x)U_k(x)]$$
(5)
and $`H_{m_g}=2_x\text{Tr}\left[\lambda ^\text{t}(x)\gamma _0\left(m_g+4\widehat{r}\right)\lambda (x)\right]`$ is the gluino mass hamiltonian.

The ground state of $`H_E`$, $`|0`$, is defined by $`E_k^a=0`$ for every link, $`H_E|0=0`$, and is highly degenerate, since by applying an arbitrary number of times meson-like or baryon-like operators

$$M^\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\frac{1}{2}[\lambda _\alpha ^{a\text{t}}(x),\lambda _\beta ^a(x)]\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \beta }$$
(6)
$$B_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N_c^21}}(x)=ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{N_c^21}}\lambda _{\alpha _1}^{a_1}(x)\mathrm{}\lambda _{\alpha _{N_c^21}}^{a_{N_c^21}}(x)$$
(7)
one does not change the energy of the eigenstates of $`H_E`$. In Eq.(6) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a matrix of the Dirac Clifford algebra and in Eqs.(6,7) the greek indices are Dirac indices. The lowest energy state of $`H_E`$ has to be a color singlet. The empty vacuum $`|e.v.`$ is an eigenstate of $`H_E`$ without gluinos $`\lambda _x^a|e.v.=0`$. At a given site a color singlet may be formed either by leaving the site unoccupied or by creating on it a baryon-like color singlets by applying the operator $`B_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N_c^21}}^{}`$ (7). The fermion density operator (Eq.(6) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{𝟏}`$) is

$$\rho (x)=[\lambda _\alpha ^{a\text{t}}(x),\lambda _\alpha ^a(x)]/2=n(x)2(N_c^21)$$
(8)
where $`n(x)=\lambda _\alpha ^{a\text{t}}(x)\lambda _\alpha ^a(x)`$. The singlet creation operator (7) is symmetric in the Dirac indices and therefore it carries an irreducible representation of $`SU(N_c)`$ with a Young tableau with $`N_c^21`$ columns and one row. Since Fermi statistics does not allow two fermions with the same quantum numbers on the same site, we can at most have four singlets on a given site. Therefore, the allowed representations of the $`SO(4)`$ algebra on one site are the empty singlet and those with Young tableaux of $`N_c^21`$ columns and 1,2,3,4 rows respectively, which are distinguished by the fermion numbers $`\rho (x)=(N_c^21)(\nu 2)`$, $`\nu =0,1,2,3,4`$. In order to reproduce the spectrum of a relativistic theory, we constraint the fermion states to be half filled, i.e. for a ground state of $`H_E`$, $`_x\rho (x)=0`$. The states are labelled by the fermion density $`\rho (x)`$ and by the vector in the corresponding $`SO(4)`$ representation at each site and are degenerate.

At the first order in the strong coupling expansion the only non zero contribution is given by the gluino mass $`E_0^{(1)}=0|H_{m_g}|0`$, since $`0|H_h|0=0`$. The ground state degeneracy is removed at the second order in the strong coupling expansion

$$E_0^{(2)}=20|H_h^F\frac{1}{H_E}H_h^B|0$$
(9)
Using the commutation relation $`[H_E,H_h]=N_cH_h`$ and integrating over the link variables , one can write $`E_0^{(2)}=J_{x,k}\lambda _\alpha ^{a\text{t}}(x+\widehat{k})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^k\lambda _\beta ^b(x)\lambda _\gamma ^{b\text{t}}(x)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\gamma \delta }^k\lambda _\delta ^a(x+\widehat{k})`$, where $`J=1/2N_c(N_c^21)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k=\gamma _0\widehat{r}+\alpha _k`$. Let us first consider the limit $`r=0`$. In this limit the spectrum of the lattice naive Majorana fermions exhibits doublers which explicitly break “supersymmetry”, since the lattice theory possess eight times more fermion states than boson states. The doublers cancel the triangle anomaly, that on the contrary is manifest at finite $`r`$ through explicit chiral symmetry breaking . Therefore, the axial $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is preserved and instead of $`N_c`$ we expect only one vacuum. However, this limit is particular instructive because the structure of the theory becomes much simpler and we believe that one can obtain useful informations to extrapolate to the $`r0`$ case. For $`r=0`$ it is particularly convenient the spin diagonalization of the Majorana fermion fields $`\lambda (x)=(\alpha _1)^{x_1}(\alpha _2)^{x_2}(\alpha _3)^{x_3}(\alpha _4)^{x_4}\underset{¯}{\lambda }(x)`$. In term of the transformed fields $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }`$, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ matrices reduce to sign factors and therefore the effective hamiltonian up to order $`ϵ^2`$ becomes the spin hamiltonian

$$H_{\text{eff}}=H_{m_g}+H_J$$
(10)
where $`H_{m_g}=2m_g_xϵ(x)\underset{¯}{\lambda }^{a\text{t}}(x)\gamma _0\underset{¯}{\lambda }^a(x)`$ and

$$H_J=J\underset{x,k}{}\left[\rho (x)\rho (x+\widehat{k})+S_{\alpha \beta }(x)S_{\beta \alpha }(x+\widehat{k})\right]$$
(11)
In Eq. (11) $`ϵ(x)=(1)^{x_1+x_2+x_3}`$, we dropped a constant term and we introduced the $`SO(4)`$ spin operators ($`\alpha \beta `$) $`S_{\alpha \beta }(x)=\frac{1}{2}[\underset{¯}{\lambda }_\alpha ^{a\text{t}}(x),\underset{¯}{\lambda }_\beta ^a(x)]`$. The effective hamiltonian (10) conserves the gluino number locally, $`[\rho (x),H_{\text{eff}}]=0`$, while at higher orders in the strong coupling expansion $`H_{\text{eff}}`$ contains also the baryon-like field (7) with nearest neighbor couplings such that the gluino number is only conserved globally. Therefore, $`\rho (x)`$ is a good quantum number to classify the states of the hamiltonian (10). The generators $`S_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ commute with $`\rho (x)`$ and the subspace with given $`\rho (x)`$ transforms according to an irreducible representation of $`SO(4)`$. The ground states of the hamiltonian (10) are generalized Néel states, where the spin points in one direction (e.g. the $`\gamma _0`$ direction) on the even sites and in the opposite direction on the odd sites. The condensate $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda =1/V_xϵ(x)M^{\gamma _0}(x)`$ is non-zero on a Néel state and chiral symetry is spontaneously broken. The $`r0`$ case is more complicated, however with a Fierz rearrangement  one can express the effective hamiltonian in terms of meson-like operators (6) and again one obtains a generalized $`SO(4)`$ antiferromagnet which will now have more than one ground state depending on the magnitude of $`m_g`$ and $`r`$. Perturbing around the $`r`$=0 antiferromagnetic vacuum, one could compute the condensate and the mass spectrum.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The technique of Monte Carlo modelling of light scattering in spatially resolved nebulae has proven very useful in the field of astrophysics. This stochastic method works by generating millions of photons and allowing them to propagate in random directions, undergoing single or multiple scattering into directions sampled from a theoretical or empirical probability distribution function. Those photons which eventually escape the bounds of the system are mapped on to a grid using their location and direction after the last scattering. This grid then represents a 2-D image, such as that obtained with a telescope using an optical CCD camera or an infrared array camera.

Monte Carlo modelling is used to investigate the physical structure and composition of both the dusty nebulae surrounding YSOs, which are stars in the process of formation, and protoplanetary nebulae and planetary nebulae (PPNe and PNe), which surround stars near the end of their life cycle that have ejected their outer atmospheres. Another application is imaging and spectroscopic modelling of electron scattering for hot stars with an ionised stellar wind eg. , but in this paper only imaging and polarimetric imaging models of scattering by dust are considered.

Until recently published models considered only spherical dust grains, using the Mie theory to generate the appropriate amplitude and Stokes matrices for scattering in different directions. Such models have been successful in explaining most of the major observed features of YSOs eg. ,,,,,. However several features of the linear and circular polarisation data have not been successfully reproduced by models using spherical grains (see Section 2), so a number of researchers have begun to incorporate scattering by aligned non-spherical particles (hereafter dichroic scattering) into their codes. Wolf, Voshchinnikov and Henning published the first demonstration of such a model, incorporating dichroic scattering but not fully treating the effect of dichroic extinction on the polarisation state. Such a model is strictly applicable only to the optical thin case (eg. a planetary nebula). Whitney and Wolff have made a detailed investigation of the effect of dichroic scattering and extinction on images and linear and circular polarisation maps, applied to spherical clouds and to YSOs for the case that the particles are uniformly aligned with a magnetic field along the axis of the system. The code presented here is conceptually similar to , so this paper deal mainly with results and details of the algorithm which were not already covered by those authors.

## 2 Limitations of spherical grain treatment and applications of non-spherical grains

Models with spherical grains can successfully reproduce most features of imaging data but are less successful with polarimetric data. Specific examples where previous Monte Carlo work either fails to match data or leads to a misleading match to data are:

1) The phase function (distribution of scattered light) in imaging data. Spheres and even spheroids tend to overestimate the amount of back-scattering since their symmetry leads to constructive interference at deflection angles near 180 which are unlikely to occur for realistic grains with imperfect symmetry. A consequence is that the grain size distribution inferred by fitting an observed phase function is likely to include too many large grains (since large grains back-scatter less). This error may have occurred in recent papers on the dust ring around the GG Tau A binary YSO system (,).

2) The circular polarisation (CP) produced by spherical grains is very low and arises only from multiple scattering if the source of radiation is essentially unpolarised, as is the case for most stars. Observations of high infrared circular polarisation in YSOs (up to 20%, eg. ,;,) require the presence of significantly non-spherical grains, which can produce high polarisation via both single and multiple scattering or by dichroic extinction of linearly polarised light.

3) Near infrared linear polarisation (LP). The extended regions of aligned vectors seen in a minority of YSOs eg. L1551 IRS5, IRAS 04361+2547, IRAS 04239+2436 and YLW16a (,) have not been reproduced with Monte Carlo models using spherical grains. Such models have more success (at least qualitatively) in reproducing the thin region of aligned vectors or ’polarisation disk’ seen more frequently in YSOs by a combination of multiple scattering and instrumental blurring of the polarisation pattern due to limited spatial resolution.

In addition, long standing direct evidence for emission from non-spherical grains at a range of temperatures and distances from YSOs is provided by the many published observations of linear polarisation at wavelengths $`5<\lambda <1500\mu `$m (eg. ,). At these wavelengths scattering becomes unimportant due to the small size parameter (and hence low albedo) of grains which predominate in the disks and envelopes around YSOs. This has been modelled in detail by Aitken et al.. The size parameter is defined as $`x=2\pi a/\lambda `$.

The motivation for modelling with non-spherical grains stems from the important information that can be extracted from polarisation data. In the astrophysical context it is routine to infer the direction of the tangential component of the magnetic field in the interstellar medium or near a YSO from linear polarisation data. The magnetic field is thought to play a major role in the star formation process but this is poorly understood. Observations of magnetic field structure in the central regions of the circumstellar envelope of a YSO could potentially provide valuable tests of different theoretical models of star formation via the collapse of a large molecular cloud. While the mechanism for dust grain alignment is often unclear, eg. ,,,, it is generally accepted that the alignment is such that the rotation axis giving the largest moment of inertia is on average parallel to the magnetic field. Linear polarimetry in mid-infrared and sub-mm wavebands permits a direct measurement of the direction of tangential component of the magnetic field along the line of sight to a star but it is generally not possible to map the magnetic field in circumstellar matter, due to poor spatial resolution in the sub-mm and the small size of the emitting region in the mid-infrared (see  in this issue). In the near infrared YSOs often display bright extended nebulae which can be observed at high signal to noise. Monte Carlo modelling of the linear and circular polarisation produced by dichroic scattering and extinction in this waveband is at present the only way that the magnetic field structure can be studied on scales of tens to hundreds of astronomical units (AU), so this should be pursued despite the complexity of the problem.

Another important application of this type of Monte Carlo model is to the possible connection between high circular polarisation in YSOs and the origin of biomolecular homochirality . The homochirality of DNA and amino acids in terrestrial organisms may well have an extraterrestrial cause (this is supported by data from meteorites, eg. ) and it is thought to be a prerequisite for the origin of life. Circularly polarised light in star forming regions is one possible explanation for an extraterrestrial origin of homochirality. The relevant waveband for this hypothesis is the near ultraviolet: photons at these wavelengths can preferentially dissociate organic molecules with left handed or right handed (L or D) chiral structure, depending on the CP state. It is very difficult to observe YSOs in this waveband, owing to the very high optical depth of the ambient medium, so Monte Carlo simulations are the only way to investigate the degree of CP at the relevant wavelengths.

## 3 The code and dust grain model

The algorithm incorporates several measures to improve efficiency which have been developed by others who work with stochastic models, see eg. ,  and references therein. In this work we model a homogeneous sphere and an axisymmetric 2-D disk $`+`$ envelope distribution of matter which is a simple model of a YSO (see Figure 1). Non-axisymmetric 3-D systems can be modelled with only a minor modification of the code (see ), but such models are far more computationally intensive since output photons must then be binned in the azimuthal ordinate as well as polar viewing angle. A unique 3-D solution is hard to identify with 2-D imaging and polarisation data, though observations at several wavelengths provide some depth perception by penetrating to a range of optical depths.

The 2$`\times `$2 amplitude matrix used in the phase function and the 4$`\times `$4 Stokes matrix which provides the new Stokes vector of each photon after scattering are pre-calculated using the T-matrix codes of Mishchenko (see http://www.giss.nasa.gov/crmim). The complexity of the code is increased compared to the treatment for spheres because all 4 elements of the amplitude matrix and all 16 elements of the Stokes matrix are non-zero. At present the Monte Carlo code works only with oblate spheroids, whose appearance does not change with rotation about the axis of greatest inertia. However, it can treat an arbitrary magnetic field structure. The quadruple precision version of Mishchenko’s code ’amplq.new.f’ is required for ultraviolet work with grains which are highly flattened (at least in the astronomical context) with axis ratio of 3:1 and have equivalent surface area sphere radii up to 0.75 $`\mu `$m, which may be suitable for dust in the envelopes around YSOs. For longer wavelengths the double precision version ’ampld.new.f’ is used. The Stokes matrix elements are then used to calculate the 3 non-zero elements of the 4$`\times `$4 extinction matrix which modifies the polarisation state of each photon during flight between scatterings (see , , ). The phase function, Stokes matrix elements and extinction matrix elements are stored as look-up tables in the code, usually sampled at intervals of 2 (essential for ultraviolet work at large size parameters) or sometimes 4 for work at small size parameters ($`x<1`$), appropriate in the infrared. The Mishchenko code is used to produce matrix elements averaged over a distribution of grain sizes for the full range of polar scattering angles (deflection angle, $`D`$) and the full range of azimuthal and polar grain orientation angles ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$).

The algorithm proceeds as follows:

(i) Millions of ’unpolarised photons’ with Stokes vector $`(IQUV)=(1,0,0,0)`$ are generated at random points on the stellar surface or a hot accretion disk and are assigned random directions of flight. Real polarised photons could be used but unpolarised photons are more efficient, representing the average of many polarised photons, like a classical light wave.

(ii) Each photon steps along its path, gathering optical depth until it is absorbed or scattered after a reaching a randomly generated optical depth ($`\tau =ln(1R)`$, for random number $`0<R<1`$) or else escapes the system. To improve efficiency, photons are not allowed the albedo-dependent chance to be absorbed and discarded until several scatterings have occurred. Instead the ’weight’ or importance of the photons is reduced by multiplying the Stokes vector by the albedo, until Stokes $`I<10^3`$, at which point the weight is held constant and absorption occurs is a random manner.

(iii) Treatment of the Stokes vector upon scattering. The azimuthal scattering angle of the photon, $`\gamma `$, is set at zero for purposes of calculating the new Stokes vector after scattering, since $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha `$ are not independent, i.e. the azimuthal grain orientation is calculated relative to the azimuthal deflection angle. This provides an essential saving in the size of the Stokes matrix look-up tables, which is permissible since the Stokes vector is rotated into the scattering plane for the calculation, and then rotated back into the systemic frame, as described by Hovenier and van der Mee, and in , :

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}I\\ Q\\ U\\ V\end{array}\right)_{scat}=𝐋(\pi \sigma _2)𝐙𝐋(\sigma _1)\left(\begin{array}{c}I\\ Q\\ U\\ V\end{array}\right)_{inc}`$ (1)

where the Stokes matrix $`𝐙=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Z_{11}& Z_{12}& Z_{13}& Z_{14}\\ Z_{21}& Z_{22}& Z_{23}& Z_{24}\\ Z_{31}& Z_{32}& Z_{33}& Z_{34}\\ Z_{41}& Z_{42}& Z_{43}& Z_{44}\end{array}\right)`$

and $`𝐋`$ is the simple rotation matrix described in those papers, acting on the rotation angles $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. These angles and their signs are as defined by . The definition of LP position angle is also as defined in that work and in . The position angle is zero along the projection of the symmetry axis of the system on to the plane perpendicular to the Poynting vector. Position angle increases in a clockwise rotation from the point of view of the distant observer, so this is a left handed definition if the thumb points along the Poynting vector. If the zero angle is regarded as due north this is an increase to the west (in the astronomical, upward looking sense of west, opposite to the terrestrial sense). This is opposite to the usual astronomical observational convention of polarisation increasing from north through east but we retain it for consistency with previous modelling work. Positive Stokes V corresponds to left handed CP, with the thumb indicating the Poynting vector. This definition follows that of , since the T-matrix codes of Mishchenko are used. This is opposite to the definition of .111The sense of positive V was erroneously stated as right handed in the published version of this paper, but plots of positive and negative V remain correct.

(iv) Determination of scattering direction. Upon scattering the polar and azimuthal deflection angles of the photon ($`D`$, $`\gamma `$) are randomly sampled from the full scattering phase function by rejection sampling. $`\gamma `$ is a left handed rotation about the direction of the Poynting vector, with the zero of $`\gamma `$ parallel to the position angle of LP. The new direction of flight in the systemic frame is then calculated by transforming to the frame defined by the incident photon. The phase function is dependent on the grain orientation angles ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$) and the linear and circular polarisation state of the incident photon (see Appendix).

(v) During flight, the polarisation state of each photon is modified at each step by the dichroic extinction of the medium. To do this the Stokes vector is rotated into the plane defined by the magnetic field (with which the grains are aligned) and the direction of flight (Poynting vector), modified as shown below and then rotated back into the systemic frame. Thus dichroic extinction by an arbitrary magnetic field structure can be treated using only 3 independent non-zero elements of the $`4\times 4`$ extinction matrix, after the manner described by , see eqs.(2-5). For computational purposes this is more efficient than calculating the full extinction matrix in the manner expressed by , which incorporates the rotations.

$`I_{k+1}=0.5\times \{(I_k+Q_k).exp[n(K_{11}+K_{12})\delta s]+(I_kQ_k).exp[n(K_{11}K_{12})\delta s]\}`$ (2)

$`Q_{k+1}=0.5\times \{(I_k+Q_k).exp[n(K_{11}+K_{12})\delta s](I_kQ_k).exp[n(K_{11}K_{12})\delta s]\}`$ (3)

$`U_{k+1}=exp[nK_{11}\delta s].\{U_kcos(nK_{34}\delta s)V_ksin(nK_{34}\delta s)\}`$ (4)

$`V_{k+1}=exp[nK_{11}\delta s].\{V_kcos(nK_{34}\delta s)+U_ksin(nK_{34}\delta s)\}`$ (5)

$`K_{11}`$, $`K_{12}`$ and $`K_{34}`$ are the 3 independent elements of the extinction matrix, evaluated at grain orientation ($`\alpha ,\beta )=(0,\beta )`$. The $`k`$ subscript denotes the $`k`$th step of the photon along the path, $`\delta s`$ is the physical length of the step and $`n`$ is the number density of grains.

(vi) Those photons which eventually escape the system are output into file bins corresponding to the full range of polar viewing angles (0 to 180). In 2-D axisymmetric models all photons are assumed to be output into the observer’s azimuthal viewing angle. This means that the azimuthal coordinate of each photon is not specified when the photon is generated and the code only calculates the change in azimuthal coordinate during flight. For systems which have mirror symmetry about the equatorial plane the equivalence of the output into the northern and southern hemispheres is a useful test of the code. A separate program is then used to map the photons on to a 2-D image grid, using the location and direction of the photon at last scattering. For each grid element the the 4 Stokes components are summed for all photons mapped on to that element. This generates the raw $`(I,Q,U,V)`$ model output maps. For comparison with real data the raw $`(I,Q,U,V)`$ maps are then convolved with a point spread function appropriate for the observations. Accurate measurement and selection of the point spread function is crucial for useful modelling in cases where the optical depth to the central star $`\tau 6`$, since the strong central flux peak (which is often highly polarised by dichroic extinction) tends to modify or obscure features arising from scattered flux.

This algorithm is very similar to that developed in  and both groups chose to employ the Mishchenko code to provide the input matrices. The codes of the two groups have been bench tested against each other for the case of the uniform axial magnetic field, applied to both uniform spherical clouds and axisymmetric 2-D disk $`+`$ envelope distributions of matter suited to YSOs. The only significant known differences are: (a) the algorithm in  can handle precessing oblate or prolate spheroids, whereas this code uses only perfectly aligned oblate spheroids at present; (b) this algorithm can handle arbitrary magnetic field structures, whereas  dealt only with the case of an axial field. Any other differences are believed to be trivial, though the source codes have not been compared. The precision of the code is determined by the length of photon steps in stage (ii) and the sampling frequency of the look up tables. It can be altered to suit the desired spatial resolution and angular binning of the output maps. The necessary precision for a given application is best determined empirically. We note that bench testing is highly desirable for computations with non-spherical particles, since the many of the symmetries in photon output which can be relied upon to test computation with spheres no longer apply, particularly if the magnetic field is non uniform. The algorithm was coded in Fortran 77, and can be run in series or in parallel. Nearly 100% parallelisation efficiency is achieved by evenly distributing the photons between CPUs. The parallel code is compiled with the Silicon Graphics MIPSpro Fortran 77 compiler but it should run in series with any compiler compatible with Fortran 77. The program speed depends mainly on the complexity of the structure of circumstellar matter: for complicated systems like a YSO the move from spherical grains to non-spherical grains does not significantly increase the run time. The large look up tables lead to far greater RAM requirements, however, and a sampling of the matrices at intervals of 1 would be beyond the capacity of most desktop PCs at present.

All simulations shown in this paper are run for a wavelength of 2.2 $`\mu `$m and a grain mixture consisting of (1) silicate particles (n=1.7 - 0.03i) with equivalent surface area radii in the range 0.005 to 0.35 $`\mu `$m, and (2) small amorphous carbon particles (n=2.77-0.80i) in the size range 0.005 to 0.030 $`\mu `$m. All particles are oblate with a 3:1 axis ratio. For both grain types the size distribution is given by $`n(r)r^{3.5}`$. The maximum grain size of 0.35 $`\mu `$m is towards the lower end of the plausible range in YSOs, comparing with the widely adopted maximum size of 0.25 $`\mu `$m for interstellar dust. The choice of a mixture of grains with fairly small size parameters contributes to the exotic behaviour of CP in the results shown here (see Section 4.2). The scattering is dominated by the shiny silicates but the absorptive amorphous carbon particles serve to reduce the albedo to approximately 0.16. This mixture is used as a compromise between possible dielectric and highly absorptive mixtures. The true composition of circumstellar dust near YSOs is uncertain but is known to include water ice and CO ice (eg. ), believed to be deposited in mantles around a silicate core. The ices are likely to have only a small imaginary component of refractive index, like the silicate used here, but the mantles may have metallic inclusions. In the models shown here the opacity of the grain mixture is set to unity and absorbed into the product of opacity and the mass density of the medium.

## 4 Model Results

### 4.1 Homogeneous Sphere with a uniform magnetic field

The spatially resolved (I,Q,U,V) map of a sphere illuminated by a point source at its centre has been discussed by  for the case of 2:1 prolate and oblate spheroids with varying degrees of alignment. Their results are reproduced by this code (considering only perfectly aligned oblate grains, which show the strongest effects of non-spherical symmetry). Here some additional features arising from 3:1 grains are noted which arise in the case of fairly high optical depth.

Stokes I: A sphere can appear as a bipolar nebula. In  it is described how an optically thin sphere appears slightly elongated along the axis of the magnetic field, due to the greater optical depth and hence larger scattered flux along the axis (Figure2(a)). For the case of high optical depth the effect of enhanced scattering by grains located along the axis is outweighted by the strong extinction in that direction, which prevents light from reaching the upper and lower parts of the sphere, as shown in Figure 2(b). Thus the sphere appears fairly round near an optical depth of unity and the image becomes elongated perpendicular to the magnetic field at high optical depth. Here it is shown that for 3:1 grains with an optical depth $`\tau =10`$ along the axis from the source to the edge of the sphere, the greater extinction along the axis squashes the flux distribution so much that it becomes bipolar. In this model the optical depth perpendicular to the axis is $`\tau =2.9`$ from source to edge of sphere. The bipolar structure begins to appear at $`\tau =5`$.

Stokes Q and U: For flattened grains the linear polarisation pattern departs from the centrosymmetric pattern commonly observed in circumstellar nebulae. In this model (Figure 3(a-b)) vectors oriented along the magnetic field axis are defined as having a position angle of zero, i.e. positive Q and zero U. The scattered electric vector is enhanced in the plane containing the two long axes of the grains, leading to enhanced negative Q at low optical depth (i.e. vectors perpendicular to the axis). At high optical depth the effect of dichroic extinction becomes more important, preferentially absorbing photons with a negative Q, and leading to a vector pattern dominated by positive Q. The Stokes U component is absorbed more than positive Q, so at high optical depth the vectors have an axial orientation, parallel to the magnetic field. This is described in more detail by .

Stokes V and U: The sense of circular polarisation can reverse several times between the centre and edge of the sphere Non-spherical grains readily produce high levels of CP. In the more familiar case of spherical grains the CP is weaker and the pattern is quadrupolar: the sense of CP alternates between adjacent quadrants of the image of a spherical cloud, with zero CP along the vertical and horizontal diameters. This has been observed in several YSO nebulae (eg. ) and is simply due to alternations in the sign of the Stokes U component as perceived in the scattering plane.

At low optical depth, spheroidal grains produce the same quadrupolar pattern as spheres (Figure 4(a)). However at high optical depth dichroic extinction plays a prominent role in modifying the Stokes vector after scattering (equns. (4-5)). In the case shown (Figure 4(b-c) the CP produced by scattering is quite high so V/I is large at the edges of the image, where dichroic extinction has little effect on the polarisation state due to the short path length to the edge of the system after scattering. The CP falls as the line of sight moves inward due to conversion of Stokes V to Stokes U as the path length for dichroic extinction of the scattered light increases. If the path length is long enough (as in Figure 4(b-c)) then Stokes V will reverse in sign one or more times between the centre and edge of the image as Stokes V is converted to U, then to negative V, then to negative U, then back to positive V and so on. The behaviour of Stokes U is easy to understand. Dichroic extinction introduces a phase difference between the electric field components parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field axis, generating CP. CP is maximised when the phase difference, $`\delta `$, is 90, declines to zero when $`\delta =180^{}`$, and has the opposite sign for $`\delta >180^{}`$, peaking at $`270^{}`$ and so on at $`450^{}`$ and $`630^{}`$ etc. Reversals in Stokes V were also noted by  for the case of 2:1 grains, though their origin was not discussed. The effect of the reversals in U on the LP vector plot (Figure 3(b)) is fairly subtle: the vector pattern is dominated by Q at high optical depth, so the vectors merely twitch slightly to either side of the vertical as the sign of U changes.

While Figure 4(b-c) shows the effects of mutual interconversion of Stokes U and Stokes V initially produced by scattering, there may be cases where scattering produces little CP, eg. if grains are not aligned, or if the Z41 Stokes matrix element happens to be small. The observed CP may then be produced almost entirely by dichroic extinction by aligned grains in the foreground.

In summary, CP can be produced either by scattering of initially unpolarised light (both single and multiple scattering) or by dichroic extinction of linearly polarised light. At high optical depth the latter is likely to be the more important mechanism.

### 4.2 A Young Stellar Object with a uniform axial magnetic field

Model results for an embedded YSO are shown in Figure 5(a-d). The circumstellar matter has the following components, illustrated in Figure 1.

(i) an accretion disk of radius 400 AU in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, with density as in  (their eq.(5)), for the case of steady accretion. For such a disk the volume density declines with radius as $`r^{15/8}`$ and and the scale height increases with radius $`r^{9/8}`$. The disk also has a small inner hole of radius 2$`\times 10^{10}`$ m, which is a factor 20 larger than the adopted stellar radius.

(ii) a large, equatorially condensed envelope of radius 5000 AU. This has the following density distribution:

$`\rho _{env}=CR^{3/2}(1/(\mu ^k+0.05))`$

where C is a free parameter (3.7$`\times 10^6`$ Kg m-3/2 in this case), $`R`$ is the 3-D radius for the natural system of cylindrical polar coordinates defined by the disk and rotation axis ($`R=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}`$) and $`\mu =|z/R|`$. The index $`k`$ determines the degree of equatorial condensation and is set to 2.0 here. This density distribution was derived empirically following previous comparison of observations and models. Many other algebraic forms could be chosen.

(iii) an evacuated conical bipolar cavity with opening angle of 90 and radius of 50 AU in the disk plane.

The behaviour of the four Stokes components is similar to that seen in the homogeneous sphere at high optical depth. The main differences are: (a) that the image is less strongly affected by the non-spherical shape of the grains, since its bipolar or cometary appearance  is determined more by the envelope and cavity structure of the system (Figure 1); (b) the radial sign changes in Stokes U and V between the centre and edge of the image are confined to a small central region, since the density of the envelope (and hence optical depth) is greatest near the centre of the system. The azimuthal sign changes between quadrants remain prominent however.

The radial sign reversals in Stokes U occur at slightly larger radii than those of Stokes V, but would be difficult to observe since the LP pattern is dominated by Stokes Q in the central region. The radial sign reversals in Stokes V are certainly observable in principle via imaging polarimetry at high spatial resolution, eg. with Adaptive Optics. However, the sign reversals will only be seen if the grains have a fairly large axis ratio, so that the dichroic component of optical depth ($`n(s)K_{34}𝑑s`$) reaches $`\pi /2`$ before the total optical depth ($`n(s)K_{11}𝑑s`$) becomes high enough to make observation impossible. This is is most likely to occur for dielectric or weakly absorptive substances at size parameters $`x<1`$, where the ratio $`K_{34}/K_{11}`$ is high, and may exceed unity. The number of radial sign reversals in U and V is reduced if the maximum size of the silicate grains is increased from 0.35 to 0.75 $`\mu `$m (not shown) but the reversals still occur. The grains would also need to be well aligned with a magnetic field which is reasonably uniform on the observed spatial scales. Dichroic extinction appears to be ubiquitous in YSOs, judging by observation of the less embedded systems such as T Tauri stars where the central source is seen directly (eg. ). The degree of LP produced by dichroic extinction is usually $`<10\%`$ in T Tauri stars, but can be much higher in more embedded systems, exceeding 30% in extreme cases such as IRAS 04361+2547 (also known as TMR-1), see . In such systems it is possible that these sign reversals could be observed, but if not their absence will act as a constraint on models of the dust grain shapes and the density of the nebula.

### 4.3 Changing the magnetic field: a YSO with a uniform toroidal field

The structure of the magnetic field in YSO nebulae is expected to be axial on scales of thousands of AU due to preferential collapse of the parent molecular cloud core along the field lines towards a flattened envelope and disk structure. This is confirmed by observations of LP produced by emission from non-spherical grains at millimetre and sub-mm wavelengths, as noted in Section 2. At smaller distances from the protostar the magnetic field is likely to be pinched in by the infall of the circumstellar envelope and may also be twisted by the rapid rotation of the inner accretion disk, eg. .

Here we simply show (Figure 6) that for a uniform toroidal magnetic field structure the LP vector pattern near the centre is rotated through $`90^{}`$ relative to the axial magnetic field case so that the vectors mostly lie in the plane of the accretion disk. This is the expected result for LP dominated by dichroic extinction. In reality the magnetic field may only become toroidal very close to the centre of the system. Test models (not shown) indicate that in such a case this inner magnetic field structure can lead to a rotation of the LP vectors in the middle of the image, relative to those further out, providing a useful diagnostic of magnetic field structure. However, in the case of high optical depth (i.e. the younger, more embedded YSOs) this inner structure might be obscured from view by the dichroic extinction of grains aligned with the nearly axial magnetic field in the outer parts of the envelope. This topic will be investigated in future papers by fitting models to data on individual YSOs.

### 4.4 Implications for the connection with biomolecular homochirality

The Stokes V plot for a YSO Figure 5(c) shows that high degrees of CP can be emitted in some directions, as required for efficient asymmetric photolysis of prebiotic molecules in star forming regions. However, Figure 5(c) is an infrared simulation. At UV wavelengths the phase function for scattering by sub-micron sized grains becomes highly forward throwing, and the flux emerging from the axisymmetric model system is dominated by photons which have been deflected through small angles and therefore have weak CP and LP (only a few percent after single scattering). The axisymmetry of the idealised 2-D system will also produce zero net CP due to the opposite contributions from adjacent quadrants but this is a not a serious problem since many asymmetric nebulae are known eg. Cha IRN . The hypothesis of Bailey seems to require fairly high (though at present poorly quantified) degrees of UV CP. Hence, a contribution to CP from the dichroic extinction mechanism discussed here may be required, which will be a topic for a future investigation. Another possibility is generation of CP by optically active carbonaceous molecules, perhaps associated with the almost ubiquitous $`2175\AA `$ interstellar absorption peak.

## 5 Conclusions

Monte Carlo models incorporating dichroic scattering and extinction are likely to prove a valuable tool for the study of dusty nebulae. The results shown here are in good agreement with recently published results using a similar algorithm , though the larger axis ratio employed here (3:1 rather than 2:1) leads to some interesting new results at high optical depth, caused by dichroic extinction. The large number of model parameters (eg. grain size distribution, shape, degree of alignment and any spatial variation in these) means that it will often be necessary to make run a large number of simulations in order to fit observational data. The model polarisation maps shown here contain many complicated features, even though very simple magnetic field structures have been used. Further abstract investigation of the effects of non-spherical grains therefore seems warranted, as well as comparison with observation.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Tim Gledhill, Allan McCall and Antonio Chrysostomou for helpful discussions about dichroic scattering. I also thank Barbara Whitney and Mike Wolff for invaluable bench testing and discussion of the Monte Carlo codes. The simulations shown here were run on MIRACLE, the SGI Origin 2000 computer at the Hiperspace Centre at University College, London. The author acknowledges support by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC).

## 6 Appendix - the Phase Function for Spheroids

The phase function for spheroids may be derived from the first line of the Stokes matrix:

(A1) $`I_{sc}=Z_{11}I+Z_{12}Q+Z_{13}U+Z_{14}V`$

where the (real) Stokes matrix elements $`Z_{ij}(\alpha ,\beta ,D,0)`$ are functions of grain azimuthal orientation angle $`\alpha `$ (defined as a right-handed rotation about the Poynting vector relative to the azimuthal deflection angle, $`\gamma `$), the grain polar orientation angle $`\beta `$ and photon deflection angle $`D`$. The Stokes matrix elements $`Z_{ij}`$ are formed from non-linear combinations of the complex amplitude matrix elements $`S_{ij}(\alpha ,\beta ,D,\gamma )`$, with $`\gamma `$ set to zero in the $`S_{ij}`$ and $`Z_{ij}`$ elements. (We adopt the sign conventions of  for the matrix elements since these are used in the Mishchenko code.):

$`Z_{11}=0.5\times (|S_{11}|^2+|S_{12}|^2+|S_{21}|^2+|S_{22}|^2)`$; $`Z_{12}=0.5\times (|S_{11}|^2|S_{12}|^2+|S_{21}|^2|S_{22}|^2)`$

$`Z_{13}=Re(S_{11}S_{12}^{}+S_{22}S_{21}^{})`$; $`Z_{14}=Im(S_{11}S_{12}^{}S_{22}S_{21}^{})`$

The coordinate system of  is used so $`\gamma `$ is a left handed rotation about the Poynting vector. Since $`\gamma `$ is set to zero in the matrix elements, the orientation of the Stokes vector must be defined relative to $`\gamma `$, with $`\gamma =0`$ corresponding to deflection in the plane containing the linear polarisation vector and Poynting vector of the incident photon. Again, following , the Stokes vector is a left handed rotation about the Poynting vector.

This leads to the relations:

$`Q=I\times LPcos(2\gamma )`$ $`(LP=\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}/I)`$

$`U=I\times LPsin(2\gamma )`$

$`V=I\times CP`$ $`(CP=V/I)`$

These relations between the three azimuthal angles ($`\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$ and direction of LP) in the reference frame of the incident photon are illustrated in Figure 7.

Eq.(A1) then rearranges to:

$`\text{(A2)}I_{sc}d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`I_{in}\{(1LP)/2\times (|S_{11}|^2+|S_{12}|^2+|S_{21}|^2+|S_{22}|^2)`$
$`+LP\times [(|S_{22}|^2+|S_{12}|^2)sin^2(\gamma )+(|S_{11}|^2+|S_{21}|^2)cos^2(\gamma )`$
$`+sin(2\gamma )Re(S_{11}S_{12}^{}+S_{22}S_{21}^{})]`$
$`CP\times Im(S_{11}S_{12}^{}S_{22}S_{21}^{})\}d\mathrm{\Omega }`$
giving the scattered intensity per unit solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Eq.(A2) may also be derived directly from the amplitude matrix by separating the electric field amplitudes into components parallel and perpendicular to the scattering plane, after the method used by  to derive the simpler phase function appropriate for Mie scattering by spheres.

Eq.(A2) is equivalent to the following probability density function:

$`\text{(A3)}P(D,\gamma )dDd\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`sin(D)\{(1LP)/2\times (|S_{11}|^2+|S_{12}|^2+|S_{21}|^2+|S_{22}|^2)`$
$`+LP\times [(|S_{22}|^2+|S_{12}|^2)sin^2(\gamma )+(|S_{11}|^2+|S_{21}|^2)cos^2(\gamma )`$
$`+sin(2\gamma )Re(S_{11}S_{12}^{}+S_{22}S_{21}^{})]`$
$`CP\times Im(S_{11}S_{12}^{}S_{22}S_{21}^{})\}dDd\gamma /I_{max}(\alpha ,\beta ,LP,CP)`$
where $`I_{max}(\alpha ,\beta ,LP,CP)`$ is the intensity at the most probable scattering direction ($`D,\gamma `$) which is different for each combination of $`(\alpha ,\beta ,LP,CP)`$. This term is used to normalise the probability density function relative to unity.

Eq.(A3) is sampled by rejection sampling: values of both $`D`$ and $`\gamma `$ are randomly generated and then accepted if $`P(D,\gamma )`$ is greater than a third random number R ($`0<R<1`$). This method requires calculation of $`I_{max}(\alpha ,\beta ,LP,CP)`$ for each possible combination of incident ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, LP and CP). Eq.(A2) must often therefore be calculated for all values of all six variables to do this, and the peak values stored in a look-up table. For large size parameters it may be assumed that the most probable deflection angle will always be small, which reduces the number of calculations required. Rejection sampling is inefficient for highly forward throwing phase functions. However, even at size parameters up to 20 the run time of the code is not affected, since it is dominated by the computation of the photon location and Stokes vector as it moves in many small steps along its path, not by the scattering calculation.

Eq.(A3) is usually sampled every every 2 in each of the 4 angles, every 2% in LP and every 20% in CP, which generally has only a small effect on the phase function via conversion of some of the incident Stokes V to the direction-dependent Stokes U. This leads to 150 billion calculations of Eq.(A2), which takes about an hour on an SGI Origin 2000 computer, running with several CPUs in parallel. This speed is achieved by simplifying Eq.(A2) by pre-calculating components of the equation at the same time that the matrix elements are first calculated using a slightly modified version of the Mishchenko code, ampld.new.f. For small size parameters ($`x<1`$) the 4 angles and LP may be sampled a factor of 2 less often, which reduces the number of iterations of A2 by a factor of 32.

## 7 References

 Woods, JA. Winds in Cataclysmic Variables. D. Phil thesis, Univ. Oxford, 1991.

 Knigge C, Woods JA, Drew JE. The application of Monte Carlo methods to the synthesis of spectral line profiles arising from accretion disc winds. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1995, 273, 225

 Whitney BA, Hartmann L. Model scattering envelopes of young stellar objects. I - Method and application to circumstellar disksAstrophys J 1992, 395, 529

 Whitney BA, Hartmann L. Model scattering envelopes of young stellar objects. II - Infalling envelopes. Astrophys J 1993, 402, 605

 Fischer O, Henning Th, Yorke HW. Simulation of polarization maps. 1: Protostellar envelopes. Astron Astrophys 1994, 284, 187

 Fischer O, Henning Th, Yorke HW. Simulation of polarization maps. II. The circumstellar environment of pre-main sequence objects. Astron Astrophys 1996, 308, 863

 Lucas PW, Roche PF. Butterfly star in Taurus: structures of young stellar objects. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1997, 286, 895

 Lucas PW, Roche PF. Imaging polarimetry of class I young stellar objects. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1998, 299, 699

 Wolf S, Voshchinnikov NV, Henning Th. Multiple scattering of polarized radiation by non-spherical grains: First results. Astron Astrophys 2002, 385, 365

 Whitney BA, & Wolff M. Scattering and Absorption by Aligned Grains in Circumstellar Environments. Astrophys J 2002, 574, 205

 Silber J, Gledhill TM, Duch ne G, M nard F. Near-Infrared Imaging Polarimetry of the GG Tauri Circumbinary Ring. Astrophys J 2000, 536, L89

 Krist JE, Stapelfeldt KR, Watson AM. Hubble Space Telescope/WFPC2 Images of the GG Tauri Circumbinary Disk. Astrophys J 2002, 570, 785

 Bailey J, Chrysostomou A, Hough JH, Gledhill TM, McCall A, Clark S, Menard F, Tamura M. Circular Polarization in Star-Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality. Science 1998, 281,672

 Chrysostomou A, Gledhill TM, Menard F, Hough JH, Tamura M, Bailey J. Polarimetry of young stellar objects - III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 2000, 312,103

 Menard F, Chrysostomou A, Gledhill TM, Hough JH, Bailey J. High Circular Polarization in the Star Forming Region NGC 6334: Implications. In: Lemarchand G, Meech K, editors. Bioastronomy 99: A New Era in the Search for Life in the Universe. proc. ASP Conf. Proc. 2000, vol 213, p355. (San Francisco: ASP)

 Clark S, McCall A, Chrysostomou A, Gledhill T, Yates J, Hough J. Polarization models of young stellar objects - II. Linear and circular polarimetry of R Coronae Australis. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 2000, 319, 337

 Aspin C, Casali MM, Walther DM. Infrared Imaging and Polarimetry of Star Forming Regions. In: Reipurth B, editor. Low Mass Star Formation and Pre-Main Sequence Objects. ESO Conf. Work. Proc. 1989, 33, p349

 Aitken DK, Wright CM, Smith CH, Roche PF. Studies in mid-infrared spectropolarimetry. I - Magnetic fields, discs and flows in star formation regionsMonthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1993, 262, 456

 Tamura M, Hough JH, Hayashi SS. 1 Millimeter Polarimetry of Young Stellar Objects: Low-Mass Protostars and T Tauri Stars. Astrophys J 1995, 448, 346

 Aitken DK, Efstathiou A, McCall A, Hough JH. Magnetic fields in discs: what can be learned from infrared and mm polarimetry?. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 2002, 329, 647

 Purcell EM. Suprathermal rotation of interstellar grains. Astrophys J 1979, 231, 404

 Roberge WG. Grain Alignment in Molecular Clouds. In: Roberge WG, Whittet DCB, editors. Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium. ASP conf. series 1995, vol.97, p401.

 Lazarian A. Mechanical Alignment of Suprathermal Grains. In: Roberge WG, Whittet DCB, editors. Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium. ASP conf. series 1995, vol.97, p425.

 Lazarian A. Physics of Grain Alignment. In: Franco J, Terlevich L, L pez-Cruz O, Aretxaga I, editors. Cosmic Evolution and Galaxy Formation: Structure, Interactions, and Feedback. ASP Conf. Proc. 2000, vol. 215, p69.

 Hough JH., Aitken DK. Polarimetry in the infrared: what can be learned?. J Quant Spectrsoc Radiat Transfer, this issue, 2002

 Cronin JR, Pizzarello S. Enantiomeric excesses in meteoritic amino acids. Science 1997, 275, 951

 Whitney BA. Thomson scattering in a magnetic field. PhD thesis, Wisconsin Univ., Madison, 1989.

 Martin PG. Interstellar polarization from a medium with changing grain alignment. Astrophys J 1974, 187, 461

 Mishchenko MI, Hovenier JW, Travis LD. Light Scattering by Nonspherical Particles: Theory, Measurements, and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, 2000.

 Hovenier JW, van der Mee CVM. Fundamental relationships relevant to the transfer of polarized light in a scattering atmosphere. Astron Astrophys 1983, 128, 1

 Voshchinnikov NV, Karjukin VV. Multiple scattering of polarized radiation in circumstellar dust shells. Astron Astrophys 1994, 288, 883

 Code AD, Whitney BA. Polarization from scattering in blobs. Astrophys J 1995, 441, 400

 Preibisch Th, Ossenkopf V, Yorke HW, Henning Th. The influence of ice-coated grains on protostellar spectra. Astron Astrophys 1993, 279, 577

 Pollack JB, Hollenbach D, Beckwith S, Simonelli DP, Roush T, Fong W. Composition and radiative properties of grains in molecular clouds and accretion disks. Astrophys J 1994, 421, 615

 Chrysostomou A, Menard F, Gledhill TM, Clark S, Hough JH, McCall A, Tamura M. Polarimetry of young stellar objects - II. Circular polarization of GSS 30. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1997, 285, 750

 Sato S, Tamura M, Nagata T, Kaifu N, Hough J, McLean IS, Garden RP, Gatley I. Infrared polarimetry of dark clouds. II - Magnetic field structure in the Rho Ophiuchi dark cloud. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1988, 230, 321

 Galli D, Shu FH. Collapse of Magnetized Molecular Cloud Cores. I. Semianalytical Solution. Astrophys J 1993, 417,220

 Galli D, Shu FH. Collapse of Magnetized Molecular Cloud Cores. II. Numerical Results. Astrophys J 1993, 417,243

 Ageorges N, Fischer O, Stecklum B, Eckart A, Henning Th. The Chamaeleon Infrared Nebula: A Polarization Study with High Angular Resolution. Astrophys J 1996, 463, L101

 Gledhill TM, Chrysostomou A, Hough JH. Linear and circular imaging polarimetry of the Chamaeleon infrared nebula. Monthly Not Royal Astron Soc 1996, 282, 1418

## 8 Figure Captions

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a Young Stellar Object. The magnetic field is vertical and parallel to the rotation axis of the system. The density of the envelope declines monotonically with distance from the protostar and distance from the disk plane. The density spans several orders of magnitude, as indicated by the wrapped greyscale shading. The cavity is taken to be evacuated.

Figure 2: Images of a Homogeneous Sphere with vertical magnetic field. (a) $`\tau =0.5`$, showing slight vertical elongation. (b) $`\tau =10`$, showing horizontal elongation and a bipolar structure in the central region. Optical depth is less along horizontal paths than vertical paths due to 3:1 oblate shape of the aligned grains.

Figure 3: Linear Polarisation vector maps for a Homogeneous Sphere. (a) $`\tau =0.5`$, showing LP dominated by dichroic scattering. (b) $`\tau =5`$, showing LP dominated by dichroic extinction. The magnetic field is vertical and the long axes of the grains are horizontal. 100% polarisation corresponds to a vector length of 0.8 pixels. The direct flux from the central source at the (0,0) position is not included here.

Figure 4: Stokes V and U reversals for a Homogeneous Sphere. Bright regions correspond to positive U and V, dark regions to negative U and V. (a) at $`\tau =0.5`$ a simple quadrupolar pattern is seen. This is similar to that produced by spheres but the CP is much higher, reaching 30%. (b) A denser sphere ($`\tau =3`$) produces a radial reversal in the sense of CP due to dichroic extinction. CP oscillates between 0 and 20%, near the middle, and exceeds 40% at the edge. (c) Stokes U for the ($`\tau =3`$) case, illustrating the exchange between U and V, giving 2 radial reversals in the sign of U.

Figure 5: A YSO with a uniform axial magnetic field (see Figure 1). The axis ratio of the grains remains 3:1. The YSO is viewed in the equatorial plane. and appears bipolar in Stokes I due to the high optical depth of the envelope in that plane. The image (a) shows geometrical limb brightening at the walls of the evacuated cavity. The vector map (b) shows vertical vectors near the middle due to strong dichroic extinction of light in the dense central regions. The pattern is more centrosymmetric near the edges, being dominated by scattering there. (c) and (d) Stokes V and U both reverse sign over short distances in the dense central region. The effect of the reversals in U can be seen as the radial vectors in (b) approximately halfway from the middle to the edge of the plot. Raw, unsmoothed model output is shown here to reveal the fine spatial details. CP exceeds 50% at peak.

Figure 6: A YSO with a uniform toroidal (horizontal) magnetic field. The vector pattern in the central region is rotated through $`90^{}`$ relative to the axial field case (Figure 5(b)).

Figure 7: Illustration of some of the angles associated with the phase function. The polarisation vector, azimuthal grain angle and azimuthal deflection angle lie in the plane perpendicular to the incident photon’s Poynting vector. $`\alpha `$ is a right handed rotation but $`\gamma `$ is a left handed rotation.

## 9 Figures


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Gauge theories on noncommutative spaces have recently found some interest in mathematical high energy physics. Most of the work concentrated on noncommutative spaces, for which the commutator of two coordinates is constant: $`[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]=i\theta ^{ij}`$. From the point of view of gauge theory this space is nice, since the algebra relations of the derivatives do not get deformed (up to possible constants in the commutator of two derivatives). This allows for example to write for the gauge transformation of the components of the gauge potential $`\delta A_i=_i\mathrm{\Lambda }+i\mathrm{\Lambda }A_iiA_i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; i.e. only the noncommutative $``$-product has to be used instead of the commutative point-wise product. The reason for this is the unchanged Leibniz rule.

However, for more general noncommutative spaces the derivatives – if they exist – and also the Leibniz rule change. A case for which differential calculi have been worked out is the structure of $`q`$-deformed quantum spaces . It has the advantage, that not only the space is deformed, but also the symmetries of the space get deformed. In this paper we treat gauge theory on these spaces by introducing covariant derivatives. The case of a general non-Abelian gauge group is dealt with by constructing a Seiberg-Witten map, i.e. a map which connects the gauge theory on the noncommutative space with gauge theory on a commutative space . For this purpose we use the $``$-product formalism; in particular the derivatives become in this formulation power series in the deformation parameter.

We start with recalling some definitions and properties of $`q`$-deformed spaces , mainly to fix the notation (which we took form ). We think of quantum spaces as being defined by the commutation relations of their coordinates $`\widehat{x}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}^N`$, which are quadratic in our case:

$$P_{}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}\widehat{x}_{}^{k}\widehat{x}^l=0,P_{}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}.$$
(1)
This means, that we consider the algebra of formal power series in the elements $`\widehat{x}^i`$ modulo the ideal generated by the relations (1):

$$𝒜_{\widehat{x}}\frac{[[\widehat{x}^1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}^N]]}{P_{}\widehat{x}\widehat{x}}$$
(2)
as defining the “noncommutative space”. The matrix $`P_{}`$ is the ($`q`$-deformed) anti-symmetric projector appearing in the projector decomposition of the $`\widehat{R}`$-matrix of the respective quantum group:

$`GL_q,SL_q`$ $`:`$ $`\widehat{R}=qP_+q^1P_{}`$
$`SO_q,SP_q`$ $`:`$ $`\widehat{R}=qP_+q^1P_{}+q^{1N}P_0`$ (3)
with $`P=1`$; the $`\widehat{R}`$-matrix fulfills the Yang-Baxter equation:

$$\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}=\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23},$$
(4)
where we used the notation $`\widehat{R}_{12j_1j_2j_3}^{i_1i_2i_3}\widehat{R}_{j_1j_2}^{i_1i_2}\delta _{j_3}^{i_3}`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{23j_1j_2j_3}^{i_1i_2i_3}\delta _{j_1}^{i_1}\widehat{R}_{j_2j_3}^{i_2i_3}`$. The parameter $`q=e^h`$ is the deformation parameter; for $`q1`$ one recovers the undeformed commutative space. Given the $`\widehat{R}`$-matrix, the quantum group $`G_q`$ itself is defined by the relations of its (noncommutative) algebra of functions, which is generated by $`u_i^j;i,j:1,\mathrm{},N`$:

$$\widehat{R}_{kl}^{ij}u_m^ku_n^l=u_k^iu_l^j\widehat{R}_{mn}^{kl}.$$
(5)
The noncommutative algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ is a comodule algebra of the respective quantum group; and it is a module algebra of the dual of the quantum group, namely of the deformed enveloping algebra $`U_q(g)`$ of the Lie-algebra related to the respective group. The deformed enveloping algebra is generated by the so called $`L`$-functionals $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^+`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^{}`$, $`i,j=1\mathrm{}N`$, which satisfy

$$\widehat{R}_{ij}^{lk}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ks}^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{}}_{lt}^\pm =\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{jl}^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ik}^\pm \widehat{R}_{kl}^{ts}.$$
(6)
and for which holds: $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^+=0`$ for $`j<i`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^{}=0`$ for $`j>i`$.

There exist two well known covariant, w.r.t. the (co-)action of the quantum group, differential calculi for these quantum spaces:

$`d\widehat{x}^id\widehat{x}^j`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\pm 1}\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}d\widehat{x}^kd\widehat{x}^l`$
$`\widehat{x}^id\widehat{x}^j`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\pm 1}\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}d\widehat{x}^k\widehat{x}^l`$ (7)
Here the exponents $`+1`$ and $`1`$ correspond to the first and the second differential calculus respectively. The associated derivatives $`\widehat{}_i`$ ($`d=d\widehat{x}^i\widehat{}_i`$) fulfill

$`P_{}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\widehat{}_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`\widehat{}_i\widehat{x}^j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _i^j+q^{\pm 1}\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{ik}{}^{jl}\widehat{x}_{}^{k}\widehat{}_l`$
Since in the $`q1`$ limit $`\widehat{R}_{ik}^{jl}`$ goes to $`\delta _k^j\delta _i^l`$, this is clearly a deformation of the usual differential calculus. Defining

$$P_S1P_{}$$
(9)
the commutation relations among the differentials can be written as

$$P_{S}^{}{}_{ij}{}^{kl}d\widehat{x}^id\widehat{x}^j=0.$$
(10)
## 2 Realization on functions

In the following we realize the whole noncommutative algebra, including coordinates $`\widehat{x}`$, partial derivatives $`\widehat{}`$ and the deformed enveloping algebra $`U_q(g)`$, as operators acting on the noncommutative coordinate algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$. I.e. we ask for operators on the algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ of coordinates, such that the above relations hold. To distinguish between the elements $`\widehat{a}`$ of the algebra and the corresponding mappings, we will denote the latter by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{a}`$:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{a}:𝒜_{\widehat{x}}𝒜_{\widehat{x}}.$$
(11)
For explicit formulas we use a basis of the algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$. Due to the Yang-Baxter equation such a basis is for example given by ordered monomials in the case of $`q`$-deformed quantum spaces :

$$\{(\widehat{x}^1)^{i_1}(\widehat{x}^2)^{i_2}\mathrm{}(\widehat{x}^N)^{i_N}|i_n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}.$$
(12)
Clearly, the coordinates $`\widehat{x}^i`$ act on functions by multiplication:

$$(\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^if)(\widehat{x})\widehat{x}^if(\widehat{x}).$$
(13)
In terms of a basis this means essentially a reordering.

The quantum group $`G_q`$ coacts on coordinates, which on the other hand also form a vector representation of the deformed enveloping algebra $`U_q(g)`$. Using the $`L`$-functionals $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm `$ as generators of $`U_q(g)`$ these operations are connected:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm \widehat{x}^k=\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm ,u_k^l\widehat{x}^l=\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{il}{}^{kj}\widehat{x}_{}^{l}.$$
(14)
Here we have used the right coaction $`\widehat{x}^m\widehat{x}^lu_m^l`$, and the dual pairing $`,:G_q\times U_q(g)`$, which gives rise to a left action $``$, and which is related to the action according to the vector representation. “Related” means that there might be an additional $`q`$-factor, if the $`R`$-matrix is not exactly given by the $`R`$-matrix $`R_{VV}`$ of the fundamental vector representation of the $`q`$-deformed enveloping algebra. This is the case in the example we treat below, in which $`R=q^{\frac{1}{2}}R_{VV}`$. Since the coproduct of $`U_q(g)`$ is known:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm )=\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ik}^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kj}^\pm ,$$
(15)
the action of the operators $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm `$, i.e. of $`U_q(g)`$, on functions (polynomials in the coordinates $`\widehat{x}^i`$) is determined.

The commutation relations between the coordinates and the $`L`$-functionals are obtained by a crossed product construction, that is $`a\widehat{x}=(a_{(1)}\widehat{x})a_{(2)}`$ in our case:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ik}^\pm \widehat{x}^m=\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{il}{}^{mj}\widehat{x}_{}^{l}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{jk}^\pm .$$
(16)
Here $`\widehat{R}^{+1}`$ appears in the $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}^+\widehat{x}`$-relations and $`\widehat{R}^1`$ in the $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}^{}\widehat{x}`$-relations, cf. Eqn. (14). Again, there might be an additional factor in front of $`\widehat{R}`$ according to the relation between $`R`$ and $`R_{VV}`$. With this at hand the action on a polynomial in $`\widehat{x}`$ can be obtained as follows: multiply the function from the left with some $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm `$, commute this $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm `$ and all $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}^\pm `$ obtained during this process to the whole right, set all $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kk}^\pm `$ equal to $`1`$ and skip all terms with a $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kl}^\pm ,kl`$ on the right.

For the partial derivatives we first determine the commutation relations between differentials $`d\widehat{x}^i`$ and functions $`f(\widehat{x})`$. We treat the first differential calculus and start with relation (1):

$`\widehat{x}^id\widehat{x}^j`$ $`=`$ $`q\widehat{R}_{kl}^{ij}d\widehat{x}^k\widehat{x}^l`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`q\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kj}^+,u_i^ld\widehat{x}^k\widehat{x}^l`$
$`=`$ $`qd\widehat{x}^k\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kj}^+\widehat{x}^i.`$
To keep track of the $`q`$ on the right hand side we extend our algebra by a scaling operator111It corresponds to the scaling operator which one uses to construct real momentum operators . $`\widehat{U}`$ for which holds:

$$\widehat{U}\widehat{x}^i=q\widehat{x}^i\widehat{U},\widehat{U}\widehat{}_i=q^1\widehat{}_i\widehat{U},\widehat{U}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm =\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm \widehat{U}.$$
(18)
On functions the scaling operator is realized by

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{U}f(\widehat{x})=f(q\widehat{x})`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{U}(fg)=(\stackrel{ˇ}{U}f)(\stackrel{ˇ}{U}g).`$ (19)
If we take into account the coproduct (15) of the $`L`$-functionals, or in other words the quasitriangularity of the deformed enveloping algebra, we arrive at

$$f(\widehat{x})d\widehat{x}^j=d\widehat{x}^k(\widehat{U}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kj}^+)f(\widehat{x})d\widehat{x}^k(B_k{}_{}{}^{j}f(\widehat{x})).$$
(20)
Where we defined the operator

$$B_i{}_{}{}^{j}=\stackrel{ˇ}{U}\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^+,$$
(21)
which fulfills

$$B_i{}_{}{}^{j}(fg)=(B_i{}_{}{}^{k}f)(B_k{}_{}{}^{j}g)$$
(22)
and

$$\widehat{R}_{ij}^{lk}B_k{}_{}{}^{s}B_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}=B_j{}_{}{}^{l}B_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\widehat{R}_{kl}^{ts}$$
(23)
due to the same relations for the $`L`$-functionals. This means, that the $`B_i^j`$ form a realization of the quantum group.

If we had started with the second differential calculus, we would have obtained $`B_i{}_{}{}^{j}=\stackrel{ˇ}{U}^1\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^{}`$, where we extended the algebra by the inverse of $`U`$.

Applying $`d=d\widehat{x}^i\widehat{}_i`$ to a function we define the realization $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ of the partial derivatives on functions $`f`$ as follows:

$$df=d\widehat{x}^i[(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_if)+(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}f)\widehat{}_j].$$
(24)
We obtain therefore the Leibniz rule

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i(fg)=(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_if)g+(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}f)(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_jg).$$
(25)
Eqn. (22) ensures that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i(f(gh))=\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i((fg)h)`$, which must hold since the algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ of coordinates is associative.

Eqn. (24) shows, that the explicit formulas for the action of the derivatives $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ on functions $`f(\widehat{x})`$ can be obtained in the same way as described above for the $`L`$-functionals. Namely, commute $`\widehat{}_i`$ from the left side to the right side of $`f(\widehat{x})`$ and forget about terms with some derivative $`\widehat{}`$ on the right.

Since the differential calculus is covariant w.r.t. the quantum group, we obtain for the commutation relation between the $`L`$-functionals and the derivatives:

$$\widehat{}_m\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{lj}^\pm =\widehat{R}^{\pm 1}{}_{lm}{}^{ik}\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{kj}^{\pm }\widehat{}_i.$$
(26)
As above for the coordinates, we have $`\widehat{}\widehat{\mathrm{}}^+=\widehat{R}^{+1}\widehat{\mathrm{}}^+\widehat{}`$ and $`\widehat{}\widehat{\mathrm{}}^{}=\widehat{R}^1\widehat{\mathrm{}}^{}\widehat{}`$ respectively. Using Eqn. (21) we therefore obtain:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_mB_l{}_{}{}^{j}=q\widehat{R}_{lm}^{ik}B_k{}_{}{}^{j}\stackrel{ˇ}{}_{i}^{}.$$
(27)
The action on products of functions (25) can be interpreted as comultiplication:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(_i)`$ $`=`$ $`_i1+B_i{}_{}{}^{j}_j`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(U)`$ $`=`$ $`UU`$
One can show, that this together with (15) and the counit

$$\epsilon (\mathrm{}_{ij}^\pm )=\delta _{ij},\epsilon (_i)=0,\epsilon (U^{\pm 1})=1$$
(29)
defines a bialgebra structure on the algebra generated by $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^\pm `$, $`_i`$ and $`U^{\pm 1}`$. Since the action of the antipode of $`U_q(g)`$ on the $`L`$-functionals is known, we can equip this bialgebra easily with a antipode $`S`$ to get a Hopf algebra:

$$S(U^{\pm 1})=U^1,S(_i)=S(B_i{}_{}{}^{k})_k.$$
(30)
Indeed, in this way we get two bialgebra structures, since we have either $`B_i{}_{}{}^{j}=U\mathrm{}_{ij}^+`$ or $`B_i{}_{}{}^{j}=U^1\mathrm{}_{ij}^{}`$, depending on which differential calculus we use. The relations among $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^\pm `$, $`_i`$ and $`U^{\pm 1}`$ are the same in both cases. However, the algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ of coordinates, on which this algebra acts in two different ways, is only a module algebra of this bialgebra if one chooses the appropriate comultiplication.

Below we will connect the gauge theory on the noncommutative space with gauge theory on commutative spaces. This will be done using $``$-products . For the construction of a $``$-product resembling a given algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ we use the basis for which we have obtained the action of all operators above. To be specific we take the basis (12), i.e. normal ordering. We define a map $`W`$ (“quantization”) from the algebra of $`N`$ commuting variables $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^N`$ to $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ by

$$W\left((x^1)^{i_1}\mathrm{}(x^N)^{i_N}\right)(\widehat{x}^1)^{i_1}\mathrm{}(\widehat{x}^N)^{i_N}.$$
(31)
The requirement, that this map is an algebra homomorphism defines a $``$-product for polynomials of commuting variables:

$$W(fg)W(f)W(g).$$
(32)
Since in the case of quantum spaces $`W`$ is clearly invertible (due to the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt property), the $``$-product exists. This $``$-product can be written in terms of a formal power series of differential operators with formal parameter $`h\mathrm{ln}q`$. Formally we can extend it to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(^N)[[h]]`$.

Furthermore we are able to translate not only the product of functions, but also operators acting on the noncommutative algebra $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$. Given some operator $`\stackrel{ˇ}{O}`$ on $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$ this is done by

$$W(\stackrel{ˇ}{O}f)\stackrel{ˇ}{O}W(f).$$
(33)
Therefore we get for all the operators $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{ij}^\pm ,\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i,\stackrel{ˇ}{U}^{\pm 1}`$ defined above, corresponding differential operators acting on $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions on $`^N`$. These operators are power series in the deformation parameter (and fulfill by definition the algebra relations of $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^\pm ,_i,U^{\pm 1}`$).

As an illustration we consider the $`q`$-deformed two-dimensional plane (Manin-plane), which has a $`SL_q(2)`$-symmetry. For more complicated examples see . The well known $`\widehat{R}`$-matrix is given by

$$\widehat{R}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}q& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda & 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& q\end{array}\right)$$
(34)
where $`\lambda =qq^1`$. If we consider the first differential calculus ($`\widehat{x}^id\widehat{x}^j=q\widehat{R}_{kl}^{ij}d\widehat{x}^k\widehat{x}^l`$) we obtain the following relations:

$`\widehat{x}^1\widehat{x}^2=q\widehat{x}^2\widehat{x}^1`$ (35)
$`\widehat{}_1\widehat{}_2=q^1\widehat{}_2\widehat{}_1`$
$`\widehat{}_1\widehat{x}^1=1+q^2\widehat{x}^1\widehat{}_1+q\lambda \widehat{x}^2\widehat{}_2,\widehat{}_1\widehat{x}^2=q\widehat{x}^2\widehat{}_1`$
$`\widehat{}_2\widehat{x}^1=q\widehat{x}^1\widehat{}_2,\widehat{}_2\widehat{x}^2=1+q^2\widehat{x}^2\widehat{}_2`$
For the relations between the coordinates and the $`U_q(sl_2)`$-generators one has to take into account a $`q^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ due to the relation between the $`R`$-matrix (34) and the $`R`$-matrix for the vector representation $`R_{VV}`$. This implies $`\widehat{U}\widehat{x}^i=q^{\frac{3}{2}}\widehat{x}^i\widehat{U}`$; using the second differential calculus would however require a scaling by $`q^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. We obtain ($`\mathrm{}_{21}^+=0`$):

$`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\widehat{x}^1=q^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x}^1\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+,\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+\widehat{x}^1=q^{\frac{1}{2}}(q\widehat{x}^1\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{12}^++\lambda \widehat{x}^2\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+),\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+\widehat{x}^1=q^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x}^1\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\widehat{x}^2=q^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x}^2\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+,\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+\widehat{x}^2=q^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x}^2\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+,\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+\widehat{x}^2=q^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{x}^2\widehat{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+`$ (36)
For the explicit realization on functions we take the basis $`(\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$. The, in this case simple, calculations yield:

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_1\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{n+2m1}[n](\widehat{x}^1)^{n1}(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$ (37)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_2\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{n+m1}[m](\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^{m1}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\frac{1}{2}(nm)}(\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda q^{\frac{1}{2}(mn)}[n](\widehat{x}^1)^{(n1)}(\widehat{x}^2)^{(m+1)}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\frac{1}{2}(nm)}(\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{21}^{}\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda q^{\frac{1}{2}(nm)+1}[m](\widehat{x}^1)^{(n+1)}(\widehat{x}^2)^{(m1)}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{U}\left((\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m\right)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\frac{3}{2}(n+m)}(\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$
In these equations $`\lambda =qq^1`$ and $`[n]=\frac{q^nq^n}{qq^1}`$ are defined as usual.

Using the basis $`(\widehat{x}^1)^n(\widehat{x}^2)^m`$, $`n,m`$, the $``$-product is found to be

$$fg=q^{y^1\frac{}{y^1}x^2\frac{}{x^2}}f(x^1,x^2)g(y^1,y^2)|_{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{y^1x^1}{y^2x^2}}$$
(38)
In the case of the higher-dimensional $`GL_q`$\- and $`SL_q`$-quantum planes the $``$-product is quite simple and very similar to the 2-dimensional. For Euclidian quantum spaces however the formulas become complicated .

The derivatives $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ and the $`B_i^j`$ operators become ($`_i=\frac{}{x^i}`$):

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_1f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda x^1}}q^{2x^2_21}(q^{2x^1_1}1)f`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_2f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda x^2}}q^{x^1_11}(q^{2x^2_2}1)f`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{B}_1{}_{}{}^{1}f`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2x^1_1+x^2_2}f`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{B}_1{}_{}{}^{2}f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{x^1}}q^{2x^2_2}(q^{2x^1_1}1)f`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{B}_2{}_{}{}^{2}f`$ $`=`$ $`q^{x^1_1+2x^2_2}f`$ (39)
Using $`\frac{1}{x}f(x_x)=f(x_x+1)\frac{1}{x}`$, it is easy to check explicitly, that the algebra relations are really satisfied. I.e. the algebra is realized by differential operators acting on $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions on $`^N`$.

## 3 Covariant derivatives

In the following we treat gauge theory on quantum spaces by constructing covariant derivatives.

We assume that an infinitesimal gauge transformations of a field $`\psi (\widehat{x})`$, which belongs to a representation of the gauge group, is given by:

$$\delta \psi (\widehat{x})=i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{x})\psi (\widehat{x}).$$
(40)
One might think of the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{x})`$ as a matrix and of $`\psi (\widehat{x})`$ as a column vector, both with entries in $`𝒜_{\widehat{x}}`$; see below, section 4.

We require $`\delta (𝒟_i\psi )=i\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒟_i\psi )`$ for the covariant derivation of a field and make for this purpose the ansatz:

$$𝒟_i\psi E_i{}_{}{}^{j}(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_jiA_j)\psi .$$
(41)
Where we introduced a gauge field $`A_i`$ and a “vielbein” field $`E_i^j`$ which we assume to be invertible:

$$E_i{}_{}{}^{k}e_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}=\delta _i^j=e_i{}_{}{}^{k}E_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}.$$
(42)
From the requirement of covariance under gauge transformations we obtain:

$`\delta E_i{}_{}{}^{j}=i\mathrm{\Lambda }E_i{}_{}{}^{j}iE_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{j}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`\delta A_i=\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }+i(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}\mathrm{\Lambda })A_jiA_i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (43)
The inverse of the vielbein transforms according to

$$\delta e_i{}_{}{}^{j}=i(B_i{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{\Lambda })e_k{}_{}{}^{j}ie_i{}_{}{}^{j}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(44)
For $`j<i`$ the operators $`B_i^j`$ vanish for the above choice (21). Therefore it is compatible with the transformation law (3) to choose $`E_i{}_{}{}^{j}0e_i^j`$ for $`j<i`$. With this choice it is easy to express $`e_i^j`$ in terms of $`E_i^j`$.

To obtain tensors we apply two covariant derivatives to a field. Using the definition (41) and the relation (8) for the partial derivatives, we arrive at

$$𝒟_i𝒟_j\psi =G_{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}𝒟_{k}^{}𝒟_l\psi +T_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}𝒟_{k}^{}\psi +F_{ij}\psi .$$
(45)
Where $`G_{ij}^{kl}`$, the torsion $`T_{ij}^k`$ and the field strength $`F_{ij}`$ transform as tensors:

$$\delta G_{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },G_{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}],\delta T_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },T_{ij}{}_{}{}^{k}],\delta F_{ij}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },F_{ij}].$$
(46)
Explicitly one finds the following expressions for these tensors:

$`G_{ij}^{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`E_i{}_{}{}^{m}(B_m{}_{}{}^{r}E_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n})P_S{}_{nr}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{ts}(B_s{}_{}{}^{u}e_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{l})e_u^k`$
$`T_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`[(𝒟_iE_j{}_{}{}^{m})G_{ij}{}_{}{}^{rn}(𝒟_rE_n{}_{}{}^{m})]e_m^k`$
$`iF_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`E_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{r}E_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n})[(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_rA_n)+i(B_r{}_{}{}^{u}A_{n}^{})A_u`$ (47)
$`P_S{}_{nr}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{ts}((\stackrel{ˇ}{}_sA_t)+i(B_s{}_{}{}^{u}A_{t}^{})A_u)]`$
$`=`$ $`E_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{r}E_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n})P_{}{}_{nr}{}^{ts}(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_sA_t+i(B_s{}_{}{}^{u}A_{t}^{})A_u)`$
The covariant derivative $`𝒟_iE_j^k`$ of the vielbein, which appears in the expression for the torsion $`T_{ij}^k`$, turns out to be

$$𝒟_iE_j{}_{}{}^{k}=E_i{}_{}{}^{m}\left[(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_miA_m)E_j{}_{}{}^{k}+iq(B_m{}_{}{}^{r}E_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n})\widehat{R}_{nr}{}_{}{}^{ts}(B_s{}_{}{}^{k}A_{t}^{})\right].$$
(48)
The zeroth order contribution in the expansion of $`F_{ij}`$ in powers of $`h`$ clearly reduces to its usual commutative counterpart, at least up to a normalization.

We assume that the field strength is anti-symmetric, where anti-symmetric has to be understood in a $`q`$-deformed sense:

$$P_{}{}_{ji}{}^{rn}F_{nr}^{}=F_{ij}.$$
(49)
Then, inspecting the explicit expression for the field strength (3), one finds that this requirement is fulfilled, if the following relation for the vielbein field holds:

$$E_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{r}E_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n})P_{}{}_{nr}{}^{ts}=P_{}{}_{ji}{}^{rn}E_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{s}E_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}).$$
(50)
This condition is covariant under gauge transformations. Since $`P_S=1P_{}`$, it holds in the same way for $`P_S`$. If it holds the expressions for the tensors $`G_{ij}^{kl}`$ and $`T_{ij}^k`$ simplify as follows:

$`G_{ij}^{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`(1P_{})_{ji}^{lk}`$
$`T_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`P_{}{}_{ji}{}^{nr}(𝒟_rE_n{}_{}{}^{m})e_m{}_{}{}^{k},`$ (51)
which leads to

$$P_{}{}_{kl}{}^{ij}𝒟_{j}^{}𝒟_i=T_{lk}{}_{}{}^{m}𝒟_{m}^{}+F_{lk}.$$
(52)
If we define

$$e^id\widehat{x}^je_j^i$$
(53)
the condition (50) implies on the level of differentials

$$P_S{}_{ij}{}^{kl}e_{}^{i}e^j=0.$$
(54)
It is also possible to consider finite gauge transformations:

$$\psi (\widehat{x})\psi ^{}(\widehat{x})=G(\widehat{x})\psi (\widehat{x}).$$
(55)
The related transformations of the gauge and vielbein fields are

$`E_i^{}^j`$ $`=`$ $`GE_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{j}G_{}^{1})`$
$`A_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_iG)G^1+(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}G)A_jG^1.`$ (56)
Clearly, this reduces to Eqn. (3) for $`G=1+i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ infinitesimal small. Accordingly pure gauge fields are given by

$`E_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`G(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}G_{}^{1})`$
$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`i(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_iG)G^1=i(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}G)(\stackrel{ˇ}{}_jG^1).`$ (57)
For these fields the field strength $`F_{ij}`$ and the torsion $`T_{ij}^k`$ vanish. Also the relation (50) is satisfied.

## 4 Seiberg-Witten map

In this section we connect, for an arbitrary non-Abelian gauge group, gauge theories on noncommutative spaces with gauge theories on commutative spaces . This means, that we will express the transformation parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the gauge field $`A_i`$ and the vielbein $`E_i^j`$ in terms of the commutative gauge parameter and field $`a_i`$. We follow the cohomological approach of . For this purpose we introduce a ghost field which is a Lie algebra-valued Grassmannian field: $`c=c_aT^a,\{c_a,c_b\}=0,[T^a,T^b]=if^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}T_{}^{c}`$. As usual the BRST transformations of the respective fields read:

$`sc`$ $`=`$ $`ic^2`$
$`sa_i`$ $`=`$ $`_ic+i[c,a_i]`$
$`s\psi `$ $`=`$ $`ic\psi .`$ (58)
Where $`_i`$ is the usual derivative of commuting variables. The BRST operator $`s`$ is nilpotent $`s^2=0`$ and commutes with the $``$-product, the quantum derivatives $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ and the operators $`B_i^j`$.

The noncommutative gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is replaced by a noncommutative ghost field $`C`$, which becomes a functional of the commutative gauge field $`a_i`$ and ghost field $`c`$. The relation to be fulfilled by $`C`$ is

$$sC=iCC$$
(59)
Once this is solved for $`C`$, one uses the Eqns:

$`sE_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`iCE_i{}_{}{}^{j}iE_i{}_{}{}^{k}(B_k{}_{}{}^{j}C)`$
$`sA_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_iC+i(B_i{}_{}{}^{j}C)A_jiA_iC`$
$`s\psi `$ $`=`$ $`iC\psi `$ (60)
to determine $`E_i^j`$, $`A_i`$ and $`\psi `$. It is easily seen, that these relations are consistent with the nilpotency of the BRST operator $`s`$. The fields $`C`$, $`A_i`$, $`E_i^j`$ are formal power series in the deformation parameter $`h\mathrm{ln}q`$:

$$C=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^nC^{(n)}[c,a_l],A_i=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^nA_i^{(n)}[a_l],E_i{}_{}{}^{j}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^nE^{(n)}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}[a_l],$$
(61)
where each $`C^{(n)}[c,a_l]`$ is a local functional of $`c`$ and $`a_l`$; the gauge potential $`A_i^{(n)}[a_l]`$ and the vielbein $`E^{(n)}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}[a_l]`$ are local functionals of the commutative gauge field $`a_l`$. Furthermore we require for the zeroth order contributions

$$C^{(0)}=c,A^{(0)}{}_{i}{}^{}=a_i,E^{(0)}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}=\delta _i^j,$$
(62)
which implies, that we obtain the usual commutative gauge theory in the limit $`h0`$.

Solving Eqns. (59) and (4) one finds, that the ghost field $`C`$, the gauge field $`A_i`$ and the vielbein $`E_i^j`$ have to take values in the enveloping algebra of the Lie-algebra of the gauge group .

It turns out, that at each level the Eqns. (59) and (4) can be written in the form (e.g. for the ghost field)222Notice, that this $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is different from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (coproduct) used in section 2. There should be no confusion, since the context is different.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C^{(m)}=Z^{(m)},\mathrm{\Delta }si[c,]$$
(63)
with $`[,]`$ being the graded commutator. $`Z^{(m)}`$ depends on the lower order terms $`C^{(n)},n<m`$ (as do $`A^{(n)}_i`$ and $`E^{(n)}{}_{i}{}^{}^j`$ respectively) only. The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a graded derivation, its square is zero:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0.$$
(64)
Therefore for Eqn. (63) to possess a solution the following consistency relation must hold:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Z^{(m)}=0.$$
(65)
This is indeed the case, as was shown for the ghost field in . By a similar calculation this can also be shown for $`A_i`$ and $`E_i^j`$, which should fulfill (4). However, one now has to take into account, that the operators $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ and $`B_i^j`$ are power series in the deformation parameter $`h`$.

The existence of the Seiberg-Witten map depends therefore on the triviality of the respective cohomology classes of the coboundary operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since in  a homotopy operator ($`K`$, $`K\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }K=1`$) was constructed, this is indeed the case.

The cohomological approach makes it clear, that there is at each order some freedom in the solution of the Eqns. (59), (4); namely, if $`C^{(m)}`$ is a solution of (63), then $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{(m)}=C^{(m)}+\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, with $`H`$ an arbitrary expression of the gauge field $`a_i`$, is also a solution.

For the example of the 2-dimensional quantum plane we obtain the following solutions to first nontrivial order . The noncommutative gauge parameter has to fulfill

$$\mathrm{\Delta }C^{(1)}=ix^1x^2_2c_1c;$$
(66)
which has as solution

$$C=c+h\frac{i}{2}x^1x^2\left[(_2c)a_1a_2(_1c)\right]+𝒪(h^2).$$
(67)
In the case of the vielbein and the gauge potential one has to expand the derivates $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_i`$ and the operators $`B_i^j`$ using the expressions (2) as a power series in $`h`$. E.g. $`E^{(1)}{}_{1}{}^{}^1`$ must fulfill

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(1)}{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=i(2x^1_1c+x^2_2c).`$ (68)
Which is easily solved:

$`E_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`1ih(2x^1a_1+x^2a_2)+𝒪(h^2)`$
$`E_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`ih2x^2a_1+𝒪(h^2)`$
$`E_2^1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`E_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`1ih(x^1a_1+2x^2a_2)+𝒪(h^2)`$ (69)
Using the ansatz

$$A_i=a_i+hA_i^{(1)}+𝒪(h^2)$$
(70)
and the first order solution (67) of the ghost field $`C`$, one obtains as possible solution to the second of the Eqns. (4):

$`A_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(2x^2_2+x^1_1)a_1+i2x^2a_1a_2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x^2a_2a_1+ix^1a_1a_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x^1x^2\left[f_{12}a_1+_2a_1a_1a_2_1a_1\right]`$
$`A_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(x^1_1+x^2_2)a_2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x^1a_2a_1+ix^2a_2a_2`$ (71)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}x^1x^2\left[a_2f_{12}a_2_1a_2+_2a_2a_1\right].`$
Where we used the commutative field strength $`f_{12}=_1a_2_2a_1i[a_1,a_2]`$.

## 5 Derivatives vs. Coordinates

For a general noncommutative space it is possible to formulate gauge theory by using covariant coordinates . Therefore one might ask, if there is a connection between the formulations using derivatives and coordinates respectively.

For example, in the case of the canonical noncommutative structure

$$[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{x}^j]=i\theta ^{ij},\theta ^{ij}$$
(72)
it is easily seen, that, for $`\theta ^{ij}`$ invertible, the identification

$$\widehat{}_i=i\theta _{ij}\widehat{x}^j,\text{with }\theta _{ij}=(\theta ^1)_{ij}$$
(73)
is algebraical consistent, if one allows for noncommuting derivatives $`[\widehat{}_i,\widehat{}_j]=i\theta _{ij}`$. The respective gauge fields are then simply related by

$$A_{\text{coord}}^i=i\theta ^{ij}A_{\text{deriv},j}.$$
(74)
At least for some $`q`$-deformed quantum spaces such relations between derivatives and coordinates also exist; but they are more complicated. These relations include in general also the scaling operator $`U`$ and the generators $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^\pm `$ of the deformed enveloping algebra $`U_q(g)`$, and furthermore the algebra must be extended by the inverses of certain of its elements.

For $`q`$-deformed Euclidean spaces (i.e. spaces covariant under $`SO_q`$) it is possible to express the differential $`df`$ of a function as a commutator :

$$(1q)df=[\omega ,f]\frac{q^2}{1+q^2}[\widehat{r}^2d(\widehat{r}^2),f].$$
(75)
Where $`\widehat{r}^2=g_{ij}\widehat{x}^i\widehat{x}^j`$ is the $`q`$-deformed length, which is central in the algebra of the coordinates and (co-)invariant under the action of the quantum group. Its differential can be written as $`d(\widehat{r}^2)=D_{kl}d\widehat{x}^k\widehat{x}^l`$, with $`D_{kl}=(1+q^1)g_{kl}`$. Now, assuming that there are some operators $`C_i^l`$ such that $`f(\widehat{x})\widehat{x}^l\widehat{x}^iC_i^lf(\widehat{x})`$, we obtain

$$[\omega ,f]=\frac{1}{1+q}d\widehat{x}^k[D_{kl}\frac{\widehat{x}^l}{\widehat{r}^2}\frac{1}{\widehat{r}^2}D_{ml}\widehat{x}^iC_i^lB_k{}_{}{}^{m}]f,$$
(76)
which implies

$$\widehat{}_k=\frac{1}{1q^2}\frac{1}{\widehat{r}^2}(D_{kl}\widehat{x}^lD_{ml}\widehat{x}^iC_i^lB_k{}_{}{}^{m}).$$
(77)
Even for our example, the Manin plane, which is not Euclidean, one can read off the following identifications from Eqns. (37):

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_1`$ $`=`$ $`+\lambda ^1\stackrel{ˇ}{V}^2\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{11}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^2}}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1\stackrel{ˇ}{V}^2\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{21}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^1}}.`$ (78)
Here we used $`\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{ˇ}{U}^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. Algebraical consistency ($`\stackrel{ˇ}{}_1\stackrel{ˇ}{}_2=q^1\stackrel{ˇ}{}_2\stackrel{ˇ}{}_1`$) would however require an additional relation between the $`L`$-functionals and the coordinates. This requirement is fulfilled, if one expresses the operators $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{21}^{}`$ as follows:

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{12}^+`$ $`=`$ $`q^2(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+q^2\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\stackrel{ˇ}{V}^2)\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^1}}`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{21}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`q^2(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{22}^+q^2\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{}}_{11}^+\stackrel{ˇ}{V}^2)\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{ˇ}{x}^2}}.`$ (79)
## 6 Remarks and Conclusions

Of course, the whole gauge theory can be formulated by using directly differential forms . As usual the covariant derivation and the gauge potential are then given by

$$D\psi d\psi +A\psi ,Ad\widehat{x}^iA_i.$$
(80)
The gauge potential is transforming according to

$$\delta A=d\mathrm{\Lambda }+i[\mathrm{\Lambda },A].$$
(81)
Which agrees with (3), if one takes into account that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }d\widehat{x}^i=d\widehat{x}^j(B_j{}_{}{}^{i}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. For the field strength one has

$$iF=dAiAA,\delta F=i[\mathrm{\Lambda },F].$$
(82)
The torsion is related to the covariant derivation

$$De^jde^ji[A,e^j]$$
(83)
of the vielbein field $`e^j=d\widehat{x}^ie_i^j`$.

However, if one works with $``$-products and has given a trace of the algebra (which we denote as $``$ and where trace means in particular $`fg=gf`$), it seems to be more natural to use the field strength as defined in (3), since it transforms as $`\delta F_{ij}=i[\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{,}F_{ij}]`$ and therefore for example

$$\text{Tr}F_{ij}F^{ij}$$
(84)
is invariant under gauge transformations (Tr is a trace over the generators of the gauge group). In this way gauge invariant theories can be constructed .

In any case, this example shows, that if one wants to use some sort of “vielbein” in a noncommutative geometry, this vielbein has to transform nontrivially under gauge transformations.

Above, in section 4, we constructed the Seiberg-Witten map for the vielbein requiring that it reduces to $`1`$ in the $`h1`$ limit: $`E^{(0)}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}=\delta _i^j`$. One could assume a $`x`$-dependent zeroth order term: $`E^{(0)}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}=\epsilon _i^j(x)`$. In this case a Seiberg-Witten map also exists. E.g. a first order solution is:

$`E^{(1)}{}_{1}{}^{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _1^1(2x^1a_1+x^2a_2)ix^1x^2(a_2_1\epsilon _1^1a_1_2\epsilon _1^1)`$ (85)
$`E^{(1)}{}_{1}{}^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _1^2(x^1a_1+2x^2a_2)ix^1x^2(a_2_1\epsilon _1^2a_1_2\epsilon _1^2)i2x^2\epsilon _1^1a_1`$
$`E^{(1)}{}_{2}{}^{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _2^1(2x^1a_1+x^2a_2)ix^1x^2(a_2_1\epsilon _2^1a_1_2\epsilon _2^1)`$
$`E^{(1)}{}_{2}{}^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _2^2(x^1a_1+2x^2a_2)ix^1x^2(a_2_1\epsilon _2^2a_1_2\epsilon _2^2)i2x^2\epsilon _2^1a_1`$
For the action of the matter fields one needs also fields $`\overline{\psi }`$ transforming according to $`\delta \overline{\psi }=i\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$\delta \overline{\psi }=i\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Lambda },𝒟_i\overline{\psi }=E_i{}_{}{}^{j}(_j\overline{\psi }+i(B_j{}_{}{}^{k}\overline{\psi })A_k).$$
(86)
A Seiberg-Witten map can be constructed along the above lines.

It would be interesting, to know if one can express the gauge field in terms of the vielbein (or the vielbein in terms of the gauge field). Inverting the Seiberg-Witten map for $`A_i`$ (70) and inserting $`a_i[A_j]`$ in the expression for the vielbein (4) this seems to be possible. Also the question arises, whether there are gauge and vielbein fields without torsion, apart from pure gauge fields. The Seiberg-Witten map does not give torsion free fields unless the commutative field strength $`f_{12}`$ vanishes:

$$T_{12}{}_{}{}^{1}=ihx^1f_{12}+𝒪(h^2),T_{12}{}_{}{}^{2}=2ihx^2f_{12}+𝒪(h^2).$$
(87)
Furthermore, our results demonstrate, at least for special cases, that for algebras corresponding to a nonconstant Poisson-tensor $`\theta ^{ij}`$ it is possible to construct covariant derivatives. Also some sort of Seiberg-Witten map exists. Having in mind general coordinate transformations, which clearly lead to nonconstant Poisson-structures, it would be interesting to know, if there exists a formulation which works for the generic case and uses derivatives. Or, if one has to go back to covariant coordinates, which always exist, but don’t possess a nice commutative limit.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank J. Wess for useful discussions, B. Zumino for comments on the manuscript and the Theoretical Physics Group of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for kind hospitality.

This work was supported by the Max-Planck-Society, Germany. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.