it is generally expected that in a full description of quantum gravity the geometry of space - time at small scales will not resemble that of a manifold .
the nature of this `` quantum geometry '' is one of the fundamental issues in the search for a quantum theory of gravity .
one argument for quantum geometry is that quantum field theories give our best descriptions of microscopic physics , yet they must be regularized in order to yield meaningful predictions .
the trouble being that quantum field theory suffers from ultra - violet divergences due to physical processes occurring at arbitrarily large momenta , or equivalently , arbitrarily small distances .
some fundamental regularization that fixes these divergences can probably be interpreted as a modification of geometry at extremely short distances , perhaps even such that the concept of arbitrarily small distances is meaningless .
another argument extends heisenberg s classic _ gedankenexperiment _ in support of the uncertainty relations .
the observation of structures at very small distances requires radiation of very short wavelength and correspondingly large energy . attempting to observe a sufficiently small structure
would thus require such a high concentration of energy that a black hole would be formed and no observation could be made .
if this is so , then distances below about the plank scale are unobservable  and thus operationally meaningless .    if short distances are meaningless , then perhaps precise locations are as well .
this suggests the possibility of uncertainty relations between position and position , analogous to the standard ones between position and momentum ; this has been argued on physical grounds ( see @xcite , or @xcite for a review ) and from string theory ( see @xcite ) . an uncertainty relation between , say , @xmath4-position and @xmath5-position ,
would mean that the @xmath4 and @xmath5 coordinates do not commute .
since coordinates are just functions on space(-time ) this suggests that the algebra of functions on space might not be commutative ( see @xcite ) . that is the fundamental idea of noncommutative geometry .    in noncommutative geometry ( see @xcite ) , familiar geometric concepts ( metric , measure , bundle , etc . )
are reformulated in an entirely algebraic way .
this allows the generalization of geometry by replacing the algebra of functions on space with a noncommutative algebra .
it may be that such a noncommutative generalization of ordinary geometry can describe the true quantum geometry of space - time .
as i will explain , noncommutativity is no guarantor of regularization ( see also @xcite ) . in this paper
, i will discuss a specific class of noncommutative geometries which do have the requisite regularization property .
these models are not physically realistic ; they generalize euclidean ( space ) rather than lorentzian ( space - time ) geometry ( a sin shared by lattice models ) and they are not gauge theories .
however , it is plausible that more realistic models may share some of the characteristics of these ones .
although regularization in these geometries is quite manifest , a toolkit for coaxing actual predictions from field theory there has been lacking . my aim here is to present an approximation technique for field theory calculations in this regularization .
this will show the leading order effects of noncommutativity on quantum field theory .
the existing theory of noncommutative geometry ( see @xcite ) is largely inspired by the so - called gelfand theorem . according to this theorem
, there is an exact correspondence between commutative c@xmath6-algebras and locally compact topological spaces . for any locally compact topological space
, the algebra of continuous functions vanishing at @xmath7 is a commutative c@xmath6-algebra , and any commutative c@xmath6-algebra can be realized in this way .
this suggests that c@xmath6-algebras in general should be considered as noncommutative algebras of `` continuous functions '' , and thus that the category of c@xmath6-algebras is the category of noncommutative topologies .
the next step is to go from noncommutative topology to noncommutative geometry ; the most versatile noncommutative version of a riemannian metric is given by a dirac operator .
on an ordinary manifold , taking the commutator of the dirac operator , @xmath8 , with a differentiable function gives @xmath9_- = i\gamma^jf_j \mbox.\ ] ] taking the norm of this gives @xmath10_-\rvert } = { \lvert\nabla f\rvert}$ ] ; thus , the dirac operator can detect the maximum slope of a function . from this , a construction for the distance between two points can be obtained ( see @xcite ) .
this shows that the dirac operator contains all information of the riemannian metric .
it also knows which functions are differentiable , smooth , lipschitz , etc .
a c@xmath6-algebra with a dirac operator thus constitutes a noncommutative riemannian geometry . using a couple of additional structures
, it is possible to characterize noncommutative riemannian manifolds axiomatically ( see @xcite ) .
unfortunately , it is only known how to do this for what amounts to metrics of _ positive definite _ signature .
this does not allow for the noncommutative generalization of space - time .
another problem with these noncommutative manifolds is that they _ do not _ tend to regularize quantum field theory .
a variation of noncommutative geometry that does have this property is matrix geometry ( see @xcite ) . in matrix geometry
, every structure has only finite degrees of freedom .
unfortunately , there is no axiomatic characterization of matrix geometries , as for noncommutative manifolds .
the problem of characterizing noncommutative space - time is daunting ( see @xcite ) .
the trouble is that the analytic properties of the dirac operator which are essential in the positive - definite case are not there in space - time . with everything finite ,
all analytic considerations evaporate in the case of matrix geometry , suggesting that the problem of noncommutative space - time might be solvable once matrix geometry is better understood .
most existing applications of noncommutative geometry to physics have concerned connes - lott models . in these ( with
the question of space - time deferred ) a simple type of noncommutative manifold provides an interesting interpretation of the standard model of particle physics .
in particular , the higgs field and gauge bosons are unified .    here
, i am pursuing a different way of applying noncommutative geometry to physics .
i am following @xcite and exploring the regularization effects of matrix geometry .
i will begin in sec .
[ regularization ] by discussing what it takes to regularize quantum field theory and describing the geometric quantization construction that is the basis of my approach .    in sec .
[ regularized.action ] , i discuss how to construct the action functional in this regularization , in slightly greater generality than has previously been discussed explicitly .
this is followed by a brief speculation on convergence when the regularization is removed .
perturbation theory in this regularization has not been described in detail before ; i present this in sec .
[ feynman ] .    in sec .
[ scales ] , i explain ( heuristically ) how the infra - red and ultra - violet cutoff scales are balanced around the noncommutativity scale . in particular
, the ultra - violet cutoff only exists when there is an infra - red cutoff .    in sec .
[ flat ] , i describe the weyl quantization of flat space and the effect of this on quantum field theory , giving a geometric algorithm for the modification . this is a prelude to the main result of this paper .
i present , in sec .
[ deformation ] , an approximation technique for perturbative calculations in this regularization .
i illustrate exact and approximate calculations with a few examples in sec .
[ examples ] , and in sec .  [ divergences ] , i discuss the effect on noncommutativity on degrees of divergence .
a euclidean quantum field theory can be defined by a path integral over the space of classical field configurations . given an action functional @xmath11 $ ] , the vacuum expectation value of some functional , @xmath12 $ ] , of the quantum fields is defined by z0f [ ] 0:= _ f [ ] e^-s [ ] , [ pathint]where the partition function , @xmath13 , is a normalizing factor such that @xmath14 .
the celebrated divergences which plague quantum field theory are primarily due to the fact that the space of classical field configurations , @xmath15 , is infinite - dimensional ; this leaves the functional integral measure @xmath16 formal and awkwardly ill - defined .    in the usual treatment of quantum field theory ,
perturbative feynman rules are derived from the formal path integral .
unfortunately , these feynman rules typically lead to infinite results . in order to get meaningful results from computations ,
the feynman rules are usually regularized _
ad hoc_. this is quite effective for perturbative calculations since the details are independent of the choice of regularization .    however , reality is not a perturbation .
physical phenomena such as quark confinement are not reflected in strictly perturbative theories .
a complete description of reality will presumably involve a nonperturbative regularization . in a euclidean quantum field theory , a nonperturbative regularization
is implemented at the level of the path - integral rather than perturbation theory .
one approach to regularization is to replace the original space of field configurations with some finite - dimensional approximation ; this essentially guarantees a finite theory .
if @xmath17 is a single scalar field on a compact manifold , @xmath18 , then the space of field configurations is the algebra of smooth functions , @xmath19 . where algebra goes , other structures will surely follow ; for this reason , and simplicity , i shall largely restrict attention to a scalar field . to regularize
, we would like to approximate @xmath20 by a finite dimensional algebra .
the standard approach is to use the algebra of functions on some finite set of points  a lattice  which approximates @xmath18 .
unfortunately , a lattice is symmetry s mortal enemy .
if the space @xmath18 possesses a nontrivial group of isometries , it would be desirable to preserve these as symmetries in the regularized theory ; but for instance , in a lattice approximation to @xmath1 , the best possible approximation to the @xmath21-symmetry is the 60-element icosahedral group .
we can maintain much greater symmetry with noncommutative approximating algebras .
geometric quantization provides a method of constructing noncommutative approximations .
as the name suggests , geometric quantization was originally intended as a systematic mathematical procedure for constructing quantum mechanics from classical mechanics .
geometric quantization applies to a symplectic manifold ( originally , phase space ) with some additional structure ( a `` polarization '' ) .
the terminology of quantization is unfortunate here , since i am concerned with quantum field theory .
insofar as geometric quantization goes here , the manifold is not to be interpreted as phase space , the hilbert spaces are not to be interpreted as spaces of quantum - mechanical states , and the algebras do not consist of observables . in this paper , `` quantization '' and `` quantum ''
have nothing to do with each other .    here
i shall use geometric quantization with a `` complex polarization '' . for a compact khler  manifold , @xmath18
, this generates a sequence of finite - dimensional matrix algebras @xmath22 which approximate the algebra @xmath20 in a sense that i shall explain below .
a khler  manifold is simultaneously a riemannian , symplectic , and complex manifold .
these structures are compatible with each other , such that raising one index of the symplectic 2-form , @xmath23 , with the riemannian metric gives the complex structure . ]
i shall assume , for a length @xmath25 ( roughly , the size of @xmath18 ) , that the integral of @xmath26 over any closed 2-surface is an integer ; this implies the existence of a line bundle ( 1-dimensional , complex vector bundle ) , @xmath27 , with a connection @xmath28 and curvature @xmath29 . if @xmath18 is simply connected , then @xmath27 is unique .
there is also a unique fiberwise , hermitian inner product on @xmath27 compatible with the connection . given two sections @xmath30 ,
their inner product is a function @xmath31 .
compatibility with the connection means that for smooth sections , @xmath32 . using the fiberwise inner product ,
we can construct a global inner product , : = _
| .[inner.product]it is an elementary property of any khler  manifold that the riemannian volume form can also be written in terms of the symplectic form as @xmath33 , where @xmath34 .
a holomorphic section of @xmath27 is one satisfying the differential equation @xmath35 , or in index notation @xmath36 .
the space of holomorphic sections @xmath37 is finite dimensional , and the inner product , , makes it a hilbert space .    with this notation and structure ,
i can now present the geometric quantization construction .
the tensor power bundle @xmath38 is much like @xmath27 ; it is a line bundle with an inner product , but with curvature @xmath39 .
as @xmath40 increases , the spaces of holomorphic sections are increasingly large , finite - dimensional hilbert spaces , @xmath41 the dimension of @xmath42 grows as a polynomial in @xmath40 ( given by the riemann - roch formula , eq .  ) .
the algebra @xmath22 is now defined as @xmath43 that is , the space of @xmath44-linear maps from @xmath42 to itself  in other words , matrices over @xmath42 .
the inner product on @xmath42 gives @xmath22 an involution ( hermitian adjoint ) @xmath45 ; this makes @xmath22 a finite - dimensional c@xmath6-algebra .
the collection of algebras @xmath46 alone knows nothing of @xmath18 . in order to connect @xmath22 with @xmath18
, we will need a structure such as the toeplitz quantization map @xmath47 . for any function @xmath48 ,
the matrix @xmath49 is defined by giving its action on any @xmath50 .
since @xmath51 is a section of @xmath52 , the product @xmath53 is also a ( not necessarily holomorphic ) section of @xmath38 . using the inner product we can project @xmath53 orthogonally back to @xmath42 and
call this @xmath54 .
this implicitly defines @xmath55 .
if @xmath18 were a phase space then @xmath49 would be interpreted as the quantum observable , @xmath56 , corresponding to @xmath57 .
the toeplitz maps have the important property of being _ approximately _ multiplicative ; that is , for any two continuous functions on @xmath18 , @xmath58    according to rieffel @xcite , quantization should be expressed in terms of a continuous field of c@xmath6-algebras .
a continuous field @xmath59 of c@xmath6-algebras over a compact topological space @xmath60 is essentially a vector bundle whose fibers are c@xmath6-algebras ( see @xcite ) .
the space of continuous sections @xmath61 is a c@xmath6-algebra .
for every point @xmath62 , the evaluation map from @xmath61 onto the fiber over @xmath63 is a @xmath64-homomorphism ( a c@xmath6-algebra map ) .
the product of a continuous function on @xmath60 with a continuous section of @xmath59 is again a continuous section of @xmath59 .
a continuous field of c@xmath6-algebras is completely specified by describing its base space , its fibers , and which sections are continuous .    the geometric quantization of @xmath18 leads to a natural continuous field of c@xmath6-algebras , @xmath59 .
the fibers of @xmath59 are each of the algebras @xmath22 and @xmath65 .
this is one algebra for every natural number @xmath66 , plus one extra .
the notion is that the sequence of algebras @xmath67 tends toward @xmath65 , so the natural topology for the base space is the one - point compactification @xmath68 , in which @xmath7 is the limit of any increasing sequence .
the field @xmath59 is implicitly defined by the requirement that for every @xmath48 , there exists a section @xmath69 whose evaluation at @xmath40 is @xmath49 and at @xmath7 is @xmath57 .
the existence of this continuous field is the sense in which the algebra @xmath22 approximates @xmath65 , but we can do better than this .
there is a sense in which @xmath22 approximates the algebra of smooth functions @xmath19 . as i discussed in @xcite ,
the field @xmath59 has a further structure as a sort of _ smooth _ field of c@xmath6-algebras .
obviously , our base space , @xmath70 is not a manifold .
however , there is a reasonable notion of smooth functions on @xmath70
. we can identify @xmath70 with the homeomorphic set @xmath71 , and define the smooth functions @xmath72 as those which are restrictions of smooth functions on @xmath73 .
equivalently , a smooth function on @xmath70 is one which can be approximated to arbitrary order by a power series in @xmath74 .
the smooth structure of @xmath59 is given by a dense @xmath64-subalgebra @xmath75 of `` smooth '' sections .
the product of a smooth function on @xmath70 with a smooth section of @xmath59 is again a smooth section of @xmath59 .
the evaluation of any smooth section at @xmath7 is a smooth function on @xmath18 .
the algebra @xmath76 is essentially defined by the condition that any smooth function @xmath77 gives a smooth section @xmath78 .      some of the simplest spaces to work with are homogeneous spaces  those such that any point of @xmath18 is equivalent to any other point under some isometry . in a homogeneous space with semisimple symmetry group , @xmath79
, we can do many calculations by simply using group representation theory .
the homogeneous khler  manifolds with semisimple symmetry group are the _
coadjoint orbits_.    a coadjoint orbit of a lie group , @xmath79 , is simply a homogeneous space that is naturally embedded in the dual space , @xmath80 , of the lie algebra , @xmath81 , of @xmath79 .
the coadjoint orbits of @xmath79 are classified by positive weight vectors of @xmath79 .
weight vectors are naturally embedded in @xmath80 , and corresponding to the weight vector @xmath82 is its @xmath79-orbit @xmath83 , the set of images of @xmath82 under the action of elements of @xmath79 .    in the case of @xmath84 , the space @xmath85 is 3-dimensional , and the coadjoint orbits are the concentric 2-spheres around the origin .
the weight , @xmath82 , is simply a positive number , the radius .
the geometric quantization of a coadjoint orbit is especially simple and respects the action of the symmetry group , @xmath79 .
the hilbert space , @xmath42 , constructed in the geometric quantization of @xmath83 carries an irreducible representation of @xmath79 .
namely , the representation with `` highest weight '' @xmath86 .    in the case of @xmath87 , the hilbert space , @xmath42 , carries the representation of spin @xmath88 .
the algebras are again defined by @xmath89 .
again , we need to tie these together into a smooth field , @xmath59 , of c@xmath6-algebras . in the case of a coadjoint orbit , this can be done by using the lie algebra structure rather than the toeplitz quantization maps .
let s briefly consider what can be said about @xmath59 , given only the collection of algebras @xmath46 .
the restriction of @xmath59 to @xmath90 is a rather trivial continuous field ; since @xmath91 is discrete , any section is continuous .
a section of @xmath59 over @xmath91 is nothing more than a sequence of matrices , one taken from each @xmath22 .
the bounded sections of @xmath59 over @xmath91 ( norm - bounded sequences ) form a c@xmath6-algebra .
so , you see , we already knew the restriction of @xmath59 to @xmath91 .    since @xmath42 carries a @xmath79-representation , there is a linear map @xmath92 , taking lie brackets to commutators .
because the representation is irreducible , the image of @xmath81 is enough to generate the entire associative algebra @xmath22 .
in fact , @xmath22 can be expressed in terms of generators and relations based on this .
let @xmath93 be a basis of self - adjoint generators of the complexified lie algebra , @xmath94 .
the @xmath95 s can be thought of as sections of @xmath59 over @xmath91 , but they are unbounded sections , because their norms diverge linearly with @xmath40 .
we can get bounded sections by dividing by @xmath40 .
the operators @xmath96 are noncommutative embedding coordinates for the coadjoint orbit , @xmath83 , of radius @xmath97 .
i would like to work with a coadjoint orbit of radius @xmath25 , so i define x_i:=j_i .[x ] we can construct @xmath98 as the c@xmath6-subalgebra of bounded sections of @xmath59 over @xmath91 that is generated by the @xmath99 s .
this implicitly defines @xmath59 as a continuous field .
the algebra @xmath22 can be expressed in terms of the generators @xmath95 or @xmath99 and three types of relations . in the @xmath87 case ,
the @xmath95 s are the three standard angular momentum operators , and @xmath100 .
the first relations are the commutation relations that define the lie algebra . in the @xmath87-case ,
these are @xmath101_-=ij_3 $ ] and cyclic permutations thereof . in terms of the @xmath99 s
these relations have a factor of @xmath74 on the right hand side , as @xmath102_-=\frac{i}2rn^{-1}x_3 $ ] . in the limit of @xmath103 ,
the relations simply become that the @xmath99 s commute .
the second relations are casimir relations .
these enforce that the various casimir operators have the correct eigenvalues . in the @xmath87-case , there is only one independent casimir , the quadratic one .
the relation is @xmath104 , or in terms of the @xmath99 s , @xmath105 .
the third relations are the serre relations .
these enforce finite - dimensionality . in the @xmath87-case , this can be expressed as @xmath106 .
the serre relations are equivalent to the requirement that @xmath22 is a c@xmath6-algebra , and become redundant in the @xmath103 limit .
heuristically at least , in the case of @xmath87 , as @xmath103 , the relations become that the @xmath99 s commute and satisfy @xmath107 .
clearly , this does generate the algebra of functions on @xmath1 of radius @xmath25 .
in general , as @xmath103 , the @xmath99 s commute and satisfy polynomial relations which determine the relevant coadjoint orbit .    only a few facts about the smooth structure of @xmath59 will be needed later .
specifically , the @xmath99 s and @xmath74 are smooth sections , and any smooth section vanishing at @xmath108 is a multiple of @xmath74 .
for a single real scalar field , @xmath109 , the general , unregularized action functional is s [ ] : = _ , [ general.action ] where @xmath110 is the volume form on @xmath18 , and @xmath111 is a lower - bounded polynomial self - coupling .
complex conjugation on @xmath19 corresponds to the adjoint on @xmath22 , so our approximation to the space of real functions on @xmath18 will be the subspace @xmath112 of self - adjoint elements . to construct the regularized theory , we need a regularized action defined on @xmath113 that approximates .
let s be precise about what it means to approximate an action functional in this way .
we need a sequence of action functionals , @xmath114 , which converge to the unregularized action @xmath115 .
this is nontrivial to define because these are functionals on different spaces .
let @xmath116 be an arbitrary , self - adjoint , smooth section , and denote its evaluations as @xmath117 ; the sequence @xmath118 can be considered to converge well to the smooth function @xmath119 .
my definition for convergence of @xmath120 is simply that for any such @xmath17 , @xmath121 \mbox.\ ] ]    several ingredients are needed to construct a regularized action .
the simplest is the product .
it is the most elementary property of geometric quantization that multiplication in @xmath19 is approximated by multiplication in @xmath22 .
the normalized trace on @xmath22 approximates the normalized integral on @xmath18 .
that is , for any @xmath122 , @xmath123    the unregularized kinetic term can be written in terms of the laplacian , @xmath124 , using the elementary identity , @xmath125 mimicking this , we can safely write the regularized kinetic term as @xmath126 \mbox,\ ] ] since in fact , _ any _ quadratic functional can be written in this form .    in the coadjoint orbit case , which i will mainly discuss ,
the laplacian is simply a multiple of the quadratic casimir operator .
however , the discussion in this section will apply equally to any khler  manifold for which a suitable approximate laplacian can be constructed . for this reason
, i will write the approximate laplacian as @xmath127 until a more explicit form is required for examples .
the regularized action approximating is ( using @xmath128 ) s_n ( ) = .[regact]this regularized action was originally formulated by grosse , klimk , and prenajder @xcite in the special case of @xmath1 ; however , the corresponding perturbation theory has not previously been discussed in detail .      using the action
, we can now define the regularized theory using a path integral formula , z0f ( ) 0:= _ _ n^ f ( ) e^-s_n ( ) d.[pathint2]this is formally identical to eq .  , but it differs in that it is not merely a formal expression . the measure @xmath129 is simply the lebesgue measure on the finite - dimensional vector space @xmath113 . because @xmath130 increases at least quadratically in all directions , eq .
is finite for all polynomial functionals @xmath131 .    in the standard lattice regularization ,
it is necessary to verify that a theory is sufficiently well behaved in the `` continuum limit '' as the regularization is removed .
the limit of removing the regularization in the present case is the commutative limit , @xmath103 . at this stage
, it is not entirely clear what the correct definition of convergence in the commutative limit should be .
certainly , renormalization is necessary .
that is , the bare mass , @xmath132 , and coupling constants ( the coefficients in @xmath111 ) must depend on @xmath40 , and the field @xmath17 must also be renormalized by an @xmath40-dependent factor .
some condition of convergence is then applied to the sequence of renormalized , regularized theories
.    a plausible form of the convergence condition is in terms of the one - particle irreducible generating functionals , @xmath133
. these are functions @xmath134 , derived from the path - integral . if the generating functionals are renormalized so that @xmath135 , then the condition may be that for any smooth , self - adjoint section @xmath116 , with evaluations @xmath117 , the sequence @xmath136 is convergent .
the derivation of feynman rules from the path integral can now proceed in essentially the standard , heuristic way ( see , e.  g. , @xcite ) , except that now it is not just a formal calculation .      before we can discuss perturbation theory on a noncommutative space
, we must first understand what green s functions are from an algebraic perspective .
i begin in greater generality than just a scalar field .    in general
, the space of classical field configurations , @xmath15 , need not be a vector space .
such is the case for nonlinear @xmath137-models .
however , for a free field theory , @xmath15 is always a vector space .
since we are going to apply perturbation theory about a free field theory , we must assume that @xmath15 is a vector space here .
a green s function is the vacuum expectation value of a product of fields .
an expectation value of a quantum field @xmath138 is an element of the space of classical field configurations , @xmath15 , since @xmath138 is thought of as a quantum field valued in @xmath15 .
an expectation value of a product of two fields is an element of the ( real ) tensor product @xmath139 . carrying on like this
, we see that a @xmath140-point green s function is an element of the real tensor power @xmath141 .
the use of real tensor products here is actually not restrictive ; for a complex field , @xmath17 , a real tensor product will include all possible combinations of @xmath17 and its conjugate field .
actually , i am overoptimistically allowing a great deal to fall into the ambiguity in a tensor product of infinite dimensional spaces .
in the case of a real scalar field , @xmath142 , so the tensor product @xmath139 should intuitively be a space of functions of two points on @xmath18 .
indeed , a 2-point green s function for a scalar field is a function of two points ; however , it has a singularity where the points coincide .
this shows that the tensor product needs to be interpreted liberally .
fortunately this issue is irrelevant to the case at hand .
once @xmath15 is finite - dimensional , there is no ambiguity in the tensor product .    in discussing divergences
, one deals primarily with one - particle - irreducible ( 1p.08emi ) green s functions .
these can be constructed as derivatives of an @xmath73-valued generating functional on @xmath15 .
this shows immediately that a @xmath140-point , 1p.08emi   greens function is a linear map from @xmath141 to @xmath73 .
one - particle - irreducible green s functions thus live in the dual space of the corresponding ordinary green s functions .    because of the coefficient in front of the action
, there are powers of ( in the case of ) @xmath143 coming from the vertices and propagators .
if , instead of setting @xmath144 , we had kept explicit factors of @xmath145 , then the combination @xmath146 multiplying the action would be the only appearance of @xmath145 in the functional integral .
this means that the overall power of @xmath147 for a feynman diagram is the same as the overall power of @xmath145  namely , the number of loops plus @xmath148 .
actually , implicit in most action functionals is an inner product on @xmath15 .
this means that @xmath15 can be more or less naturally identified with a subspace of @xmath149 in general , and with all of @xmath149 when it is finite - dimensional .
this inner product on @xmath15 tends to suffer an ambiguity of normalization .
the most natural inner product of two functions is given by multiplying them and integrating .
the most natural inner product on @xmath22 is given by multiplying matrices and taking the trace .
unfortunately , these inner products disagree when we pair @xmath148 with itself . in @xmath65 that gives @xmath150 ; in @xmath22 it gives @xmath151 .
we must correct the inner product on @xmath22 by a factor of @xmath147 , for consistency with that on functions .
the natural form of the 1p.08emi  green s functions is not actually the most useful normalization for comparison with the results of standard perturbation theory . in practice
, we deal with ordinary feynman diagrams in momentum space .
the quantities we usually deal with are not the momentum - space green s functions themselves , but have an overall , momentum - conserving @xmath152-function divided out .
consider 2-point green s functions in a scalar theory . in momentum space , with the @xmath152-function divided out , these are simply functions of a single momentum .
multiplying two such functions in momentum space corresponds to convolution of green s functions . in this normalization ,
a 2-point green s function is a convolution operator ; that is a linear map @xmath153 .    in general ,
a @xmath140-point 1p.08emi  green s function in this normalization is a linear map @xmath154 . in the regularized theory ,
this change simply amounts to dividing our amplitudes by @xmath147 .
this simplifies the feynman rules slightly , so that the overall power of @xmath147 is now simply the number of loops .
i ll now specialize to the theory given by the action , although most of the considerations are more general . as usual
, the action splits into a free part ( the first two terms ) and an interaction part ( the @xmath111 term ) .
the free part gives the propagator @xmath155 ; each monomial of @xmath156 gives a vertex whose valence is the degree of the monomial .
a vertex of valence @xmath157 essentially represents the trace of a product of @xmath157 matrices .
the term corresponding to a standard feynman diagram is a sum of terms with different orderings of the products .
it is convenient to represent these subterms diagrammatically . for each vertex
, the multiplicands correspond to incoming edges . because only the cyclic order matters in a trace , we only need to indicate a cyclic order to the edges .
this is easily done graphically by drawing the vertex in the plane .
the order of multiplication is indicated by the counterclockwise order of the attached edges .
the distinct terms are thus labeled by `` framings '' of the feynman diagram in the plane .    in ordinary quantum field theory involving a real field
, there are symmetry factors to deal with .
the contribution of a given diagram is divided by the number of its symmetries . in this case
there is an additional type of combinatorial factor present .
since a given ordinary feynman diagram corresponds to several framed diagrams , these framed diagrams are weighted by coefficients adding up to @xmath148 .
determining these coefficients is a matter of enumerating the cyclic orientations of all vertices , and sorting the resultant framings into equivalence classes .    to express the exact feynman rules , it is convenient to adapt the notation invented by t  hooft for discussing the large @xmath40 limit of @xmath158-gauge theories ( see @xcite ) . in that diagrammar , the gluon propagator is represented by a double line ( two directed lines in opposite directions ) .
an outgoing arrow indicates an upper index and an ingoing arrow indicates a lower index .
the way lines are connected indicates how indices are contracted . in these diagrams
, the two lines of a gluon propagator do not touch .
this is appropriate , since they really have nothing to do with each other .
the propagator is not just invariant under @xmath158 , but under 2 separate actions of @xmath158 corresponding to the 2 separate edges .    in the present context ,
however , the notation needs to be modified .
the propagator is not invariant under arbitrary unitary transformations ; it is only invariant under the isometries of @xmath18 ( if there are any ) .
the two lines of the propagator are thus no longer independent , and i indicate this by linked double lines as shown in fig  [ propagator ] .    ]
the upper indices ( outgoing arrows ) are factors of @xmath42 , while the lower indices ( ingoing arrows ) are factors of @xmath159 .
each factor of @xmath160 thus gives an upper and a lower index , or an incoming and an outgoing arrow .    ]
figure  [ doubled ] shows a more complicated doubled diagram .
note that no distinction is made between overcrossings and undercrossings .
a reader might reasonably question that this is truly a regularization of _ real _ scalar field theory .
after all , the subspace @xmath112 is not closed under multiplication , so why should these feynman rules respect this subspace ? the issue is whether the green s functions are self - adjoint , in the obvious sense for elements of a tensor power of @xmath22 .
in fact , a given ( framed ) feynman diagram may not be self - adjoint . however , its adjoint is the mirror - image diagram , which is another framing of the same diagram and therefore contributes to the same green s function .
this makes the green s functions themselves self - adjoint , order - by - order in perturbation theory .
this is a convenient point at which to introduce some further notation .
there are three different length scales that are pertinent to quantum field theory on a quantized , compact space , and there are parameters characterizing each of these scales .
i have already introduced the length @xmath25 .
this characterizes the overall size of the manifold @xmath18 .
it is relevant to quantum field theory as the infra - red cutoff scale ; that is , there do not exist modes of wavelength more than about @xmath25 .
the second parameter , @xmath161 , characterizes the scale of noncommutativity . as i have mentioned ( sec .
[ gq ] ) , geometric quantization was originally intended as a tool for deriving quantum mechanics from classical mechanics , so there is an analogy between some constructions here and in that problem . in this analogy , @xmath162 corresponds to @xmath145 . like a classical phase space
, the khler   manifold @xmath18 has a poisson bracket .
the poisson bracket of two differentiable functions on @xmath18 is defined as @xmath163 , where the poisson bivector , @xmath164 , is in turn the inverse of the symplectic form in the sense that @xmath165 .
the analogy continues with commutation relations , @xmath166_- = -i{\kappa}t_n(\{f , g\ } ) + { \mathcal{o}}^{2}({\kappa } ) \mbox,\ ] ] or heuristically , @xmath167_-\approx -i{\kappa}\{f , g\ }   \mbox.\ ] ] note that @xmath162 has the dimensions of an area ; this balances the two derivatives occurring in the poisson bracket .
in quantum mechanics , noncommutativity of observables leads to uncertainty relations .
likewise , noncommutativity here should intuitively lead to uncertainty relations between coordinates ( _ roughly _ , something like @xmath168 ) .
this suggests that the best that we can specify a point is to an uncertainty of the order @xmath169 in all directions .
naively , we might conclude from this that @xmath18 is broken up into `` cells '' of this size and that the noncommutativity effects an ultraviolet cutoff at the mass scale @xmath170 , but this is not so .
actually , if we divide @xmath18 into cells of size about @xmath169 , then the number of cells will be about @xmath151 .
using the fact that the todd class , @xmath171 is equal to @xmath148 plus higher degree cohomology classes , the riemann - roch formula shows , _ n= _ te^ = + ^1-n ( ) .[riemann - roch]this shows that these cells correspond to the degrees of freedom of @xmath42 rather than of the scalar field .
but what is the ultra - violet cutoff scale really ?
the number of degrees of freedom associated to a scalar field is @xmath172 , so the volume belonging to each degree of freedom is @xmath173 the length scale of this cutoff is thus of the order @xmath174 , or as a mass ( inverse length ) , @xmath175    the noncommutativity scale set by @xmath162 is the geometric mean between the infra - red and ultra - violet scales .
if we attempt to remove the infra - red cutoff ( decompactify the space ) by sending @xmath176 without @xmath162 diverging , then we must let @xmath177 .
in other words , if the infra - red cutoff is taken away , then the ultra - violet cutoff goes away .
this implies that noncommutativity only achieves an ultra - violet cutoff in the presence of an infra - red cutoff !
that will be proven in sec .
[ flatqft ] .
this is in marked contrast to lattice regularization .
for one thing , an unbounded lattice can certainly achieve an ultra - violet cutoff . in a lattice , there is a sharply defined minimum separation between points ( the lattice spacing ) ; this is also the scale of the ultra - violet cutoff . on a quantized space
, there is a fuzzy minimum observable distance , but this is much larger than the length scale of the ultra - violet cutoff .
just because a computation is well - defined and possible in principle , does nt necessarily mean it is easy or practicable .
doing exact calculations on coadjoint orbits requires working with representations of the symmetry group . while this is better than working on a space with no symmetry at all , it is not as easy as working on flat space . for flat space , calculations in quantum field theory
are considerably simplified by the fact that momentum space is a vector space .
locally , any manifold looks like flat space .
topologically , this is the very definition of a manifold .
geometrically , this is the content of einstein s principle of equivalence .
if we are concerned with issues of small - scale physics ( like renormalization ) then it would be nice to do calculations in the simplified setting of flat space and not worry about the global structure of our manifold .
the heuristic arguments of sec .  [ scales ] have already indicated that things are not so simple .
we can not ignore global structure , because ultra - violet regularization is dependent upon the global property of compactness .
nevertheless , i will introduce in sec .
[ deformation ] an approximation technique which takes advantage of the local resemblance to flat space .
before i can describe this approximation i must discuss flat space itself .
specifically , i will discuss quantized flat space , which does not have the effect of regularizing quantum field theory , but does modify it in a relevant way .      if we `` zoom in '' around any point of a symplectic ( or even poisson ) manifold
, then it will resemble a flat , affine space , with a poisson bracket determined by a constant poisson bivector , @xmath164 , as @xmath178 although the symplectic case is what we are really interested in , there is no need to assume that @xmath164 is nondegenerate in this section .
a tensor product of two functions on the flat space @xmath179 is naturally regarded as a function on @xmath180 .
the multiplication map @xmath181 is equivalent to the diagonal evaluation map , @xmath182 so that @xmath183 .
if we regard @xmath164 as a second order differential operator on @xmath180 , then the poisson bracket can be expressed as @xmath184    with this notation , the weyl product corresponding to @xmath164 is defined as @xmath185 if we treat this as simply a formal power series in @xmath162 , then @xmath186 is an associative product .
the space @xmath187 $ ] is defined to consist of formal power series in @xmath162 whose coefficients are smooth functions on @xmath179 .
the formal deformation quantization algebra @xmath188 is @xmath187 $ ] with the product @xmath186 .
unfortunately , if we insert an arbitrary pair of smooth functions into eq .  , the series will typically diverge .
fortunately , there is a sufficiently large space of functions for which @xmath186 does converge , that we can construct a sensible , concrete quantization of @xmath179 from this .    the archetypal functions for which eq .
is convergent are plane - wave functions .
the weyl product of two plane - wave functions is simply e^-ipx * _ e^-iqx = e^i2\{p , q}e^-i(p+q ) x , [ expprod]using the shorthand @xmath189 since this combination will occur frequently .
this notation is justified by the fact that if we think of @xmath190 and @xmath191 as linear functions on @xmath179 , then @xmath192 really is their poisson bracket .
the `` good '' subalgebra @xmath193 consists of those functions whose dependence on @xmath162 is entire , and whose fourier transforms ( on @xmath179 ) are compactly supported .
@xmath194 is algebraically closed , and consists of _ convergent _ power series in @xmath162 , so we can actually assign @xmath162 a concrete value .
the mathematically sanctioned way to assign @xmath162 a concrete value , @xmath195 , is to quotient @xmath194 by the ideal generated by @xmath196 .
the quotient algebra @xmath197 can then be completed to a c@xmath6-algebra .
this is the concrete weyl quantization of @xmath179 at @xmath195 .
this is the same algebra that would be obtained by geometric quantization .
if we tried to construct the concrete weyl algebra directly from @xmath198 , we would have failed because the ideal generated in @xmath198 by @xmath196 is all of @xmath198 .
the quotient @xmath199 is thus trivial
.      we can construct perturbative quantum field theory on quantized @xmath179 .
the derivation of feynman rules is formally the same as on a quantized compact space ; because of noncommutativity , we still have to distinguish cyclic orderings of edges around vertices .
however , there will again be divergent feynman diagrams which demand regularization ; thus justifying the claim that ultra - violet regularization is contingent upon infra - red regularization .    in terms of momentum space ,
the feynman rules for vertices are modified by momenta dependent phase factors .
these can be understood geometrically . in momentum space , which is dual to the position space @xmath179 , the bivector @xmath164 becomes a 2-form .
the @xmath200 in eq .
is precisely the flux of @xmath201 through the triangle formed by @xmath190 and @xmath191 ( see fig .  [ triangle ] ) .    ]    for a valence @xmath157 vertex draw an @xmath157-sided polygon in momentum space such that the difference of the ends of a side is equal to the ingoing momentum of the corresponding propagator line .
momentum conservation requires that the momenta add up to @xmath202 , which ensures that the polygon is closed .
decomposing the polygon into triangles shows that the phase associated to the vertex is @xmath162 times the flux of @xmath201 through the polygon .
note that this polygon is only fixed modulo an overall translation .
in conventional euclidean real scalar field theory , the amplitudes are real ; the same is true here
. we must again remember to sum over all framings of a feynman diagram .
the phases lead to cosines of products of momenta .
if the evaluation of a feynman diagram involves phases depending on internal momenta , then the resulting oscillatory integral may give a finite result where there once was a divergence .
however , consistent with the heuristic argument about @xmath177 in sec .
[ scales ] , this will not eliminate all divergences .
]    planar diagrams remain just as divergent as those for commutative @xmath179 .
the following proof is equivalent to that already given by filk @xcite ; however ,
i interpret it geometrically rather than in terms of `` special graph - topological properties of cocycles '' .
consider a planar feynman diagram @xmath203 , such as that shown in fig .
we can construct a dual polygonalization ( 2-dimensional cw - complex ) @xmath204 .
this has a vertex for each open space in the planar rendering of @xmath203 , including both spaces enclosed by internal edges and spaces between external edges .
the edges of @xmath204 are in one - to - one correspondence with the edges of @xmath203
. the 2-cells ( polygons ) of @xmath204 correspond to the vertices of @xmath203 . just as for a single vertex
, we can embed @xmath204 in momentum space so that the separation between adjacent vertices of @xmath204 is the momentum associated to the connecting edge .
equivalently , we can construct a polygon for each vertex of @xmath203 ( as above ) and fit these together . the total phase associated to @xmath203
is then given by the total flux of @xmath205 through all polygons of @xmath204 .
however , @xmath164 is a constant  and thus closed  differential form , so the the flux only depends on the shape of the boundary of @xmath204 in momentum space .
thus , the phase only depends on the momenta of the external lines .
indeed the phase is the same as if the external lines entered a single vertex .
a generalization of this construction to non - planar diagrams will be employed in sec .
[ divergences ] .
the deformation quantization of @xmath179 in sec .
[ qflat ] is the archetype of a more general construction ( see @xcite for overview ) . in the formal deformation quantization of a manifold @xmath18 ,
the product @xmath186 is a formal power series in @xmath162 whose terms are bidifferential operators on @xmath18 ( as in eq .  ) . just as for flat space ,
the algebra @xmath206 is equivalent as a vector space to the space , @xmath207 $ ] , of formal power series in @xmath162 with smooth functions as coefficients .    in general , a deformation quantization
can always be constructed to fit @xmath167_-=-i{\kappa}\{f , g\ } \mod { \kappa}^2 \mbox,\ ] ] for any poisson bracket on @xmath18 ; see @xcite .
a deformation quantization can also be derived from a geometric quantization .
geometric quantization can be loosely thought of as making the product of functions on @xmath18 variable ( dependent on @xmath162 ) ; the corresponding deformation quantization is the result of asymptotically expanding the product as a power series in @xmath162 .
as i explained in @xcite , this algebra can be constructed from the smooth field of c@xmath6-algebras , @xmath59 , given by geometric quantization .
the parameter @xmath162 is itself a smooth function on @xmath70 and vanishes at the point @xmath108 .
in fact , any smooth section of @xmath59 which vanishes at @xmath7 is a multiple of @xmath162 .
the space of smooth sections which vanish to order @xmath208 at @xmath7 is thus @xmath209 ; this is a 2-sided ideal . in the quotient algebra @xmath210 ( the algebra of `` jets '' about @xmath7 )
, the variability of the product is preserved to order @xmath211 .
these quotient algebras naturally form an algebraic inverse system . taking the algebraic inverse limit
gives the deformation quantization algebra corresponding to @xmath59 , @xmath212      we have just seen how to construct a deformation quantization from the geometric quantization . in sec .
[ qflat ] , i described the opposite process  reconstructing the geometric quantization from a deformation quantization  in the case of flat space .
this involved a `` good '' subalgebra @xmath193 .
it may or may not be possible to make an analogous construction in all cases , but it can be done for coadjoint orbits . in this section
i will describe a good subalgebra of @xmath213 .
let @xmath59 be the smooth field given by geometric quantization of the coadjoint orbit @xmath83 .
the sections defined in eq .
are smooth sections , @xmath214 .
since smooth sections form an algebra , any product of @xmath99 s , or linear combination thereof , is also a smooth section .
such sections form a subalgebra i denote @xmath215 , the polynomial sections . since this is a subalgebra of the smooth sections , there is , for each @xmath208 , a natural homomorphism _ ( , ) ^(,)/^j+1 .[inclusion.quotient]the kernel of this is just @xmath216 , which vanishes as @xmath217 .
when the @xmath217 limit is taken , becomes a natural , injective homomorphism , @xmath218 thus , @xmath215 is a subalgebra of both @xmath98 and @xmath198 . in the identification of @xmath213 with @xmath219 $ ] as a vector space
, @xmath215 corresponds to @xmath220 $ ] , the space of polynomials in @xmath162 whose coefficients are polynomial functions on @xmath83 .
this is the good subalgebra i wanted .    in @xmath198 , @xmath221 is invertible , so the ideal it generates is all of @xmath198 ; thus we can not assign @xmath162 a concrete value in @xmath198 . on the other hand ,
the functions of @xmath162 in @xmath215 are all polynomials ; therefore , @xmath221 is not invertible and generates a nontrivial ideal in @xmath215 .
we can meaningfully take the quotient algebra , @xmath222    in terms of the generators and relations representation of @xmath22 in sec .
[ coadjoint ] , the quotient algebra @xmath223 is what we get by discarding the serre relations .
there is therefore a natural surjective homomorphism e:_n^-14mu_n.[truncation]by characterizing the kernel of @xmath224 , we can effectively reconstruct the geometric quantization from the deformation quantization . as a @xmath79-representation , @xmath223 is indistinguishable from the space of polynomial functions on @xmath83
; this is the direct sum of all irreducible @xmath79-representations appearing in @xmath225 . in @xmath22 ,
this lattice of irreducible representations is cut off ; @xmath22 is finite - dimensional .
the kernel of @xmath224 is spanned by those @xmath79-representations which occur in @xmath225 , but not in @xmath22 .
this is the key to doing approximate calculations .
imagine that @xmath25 is very large .
if we sit at some point of @xmath83 , then the region around us appears very close to the flat space @xmath226 ( where @xmath227 ) .
we would like to describe the geometric quantization of @xmath83 in this approximation , but the geometric quantization of the noncompact space @xmath226 is very different from that of compact @xmath83 .
their deformation quantizations , however , are similar , because the deformation quantization product is constructible locally from bidifferential operators .
the geometric quantization of @xmath83 can be approximated using the weyl quantization of @xmath226 , and an approximation for the cutoff on representations .
i refer to this as the deformation approximation      if we are concerned with some field theory on a quantized coadjoint orbit then we would like to exploit the deformation approximation and the relationship with flat space in order to approximate the values of feynman diagrams for large @xmath40 . to accomplish this , we must characterize the kernel of the surjective homomorphism @xmath224 in in terms of momentum space .
consider the case of @xmath1 . as an @xmath87-representation
, @xmath228 contains all the irreducible representations of integer spin . on the other hand
, @xmath22 is the direct sum of representations of integer spin @xmath229 .
the kernel of @xmath224 consists of those representations of @xmath87 which are contained in @xmath228 but not @xmath22 .
that means modes whose spin exceeds @xmath40 .
the laplacian on @xmath1 with radius @xmath25 is @xmath230 , so the eigenvalue on a spherical harmonic with spin @xmath231 is @xmath232 .
it is thus possible to characterize @xmath233 in terms of the laplacian : @xmath233 is spanned by the eigenfunctions of @xmath127 with eigenvalue greater than @xmath234 .
now take the flat space approximation . in terms of momentum space ,
an eigenvalue of @xmath127 is simply the magnitude - squared of a momentum vector .
modes with momentum greater than @xmath235 belong to the kernel of @xmath224 .
we can approximate the algebra @xmath22 by the weyl product on @xmath236 , with modes of momentum greater than @xmath235 set to @xmath202 .
as i have said , geometric quantization can be thought of as a modification of the product . in the feynman rules , products occur at the vertices .
_ ab initio _
, one might expect that the feynman rules for the deformation approximation would differ from the flat space feynman rules only at the vertices .
however , it is actually more convenient to shift some of the modification to the propagators . in the deformation approximation for @xmath1 ,
the product of a sequence of plane - wave functions is equal to their weyl product , _ if _ all the momenta have magnitude @xmath237 , otherwise the product is @xmath202 . in terms of the feynman rules
, this translates into restricting ( `` cutting off '' ) momentum integration to the region in which all momenta have magnitude @xmath237 .    in general ,
the cutoff can be more complicated .
momenta are restricted to some region of size @xmath235 .
this `` shape '' of the cutoff depends on the particular coadjoint orbit being considered , although it is significantly limited by symmetry . in our approximation of zooming in around one point of @xmath83
, there is still a symmetry group of rotations about that point ( isotropies ) .
momentum space carries a representation of the isotropy group , and the cutoff must be invariant under this .
this is a difference with lattice regularization ; that is much more arbitrary because features of the cutoff are not constrained by symmetry ; here , there is no arbitrariness .    as examples
, i shall consider the coadjoint orbits of dimension @xmath238 .
there are really only three of these : @xmath1 , @xmath239 , and @xmath3 .
for @xmath1 we have just seen that the cutoff shape is @xmath240 , a disc of radius @xmath235 , which is the only convex shape allowed by symmetry anyway . for @xmath2 ,
the cutoff shape derives from that of @xmath1 and is clearly @xmath241 . for @xmath3
, the cutoff can again be characterized by the laplacian ; it is @xmath242 , a ball of radius @xmath235 .
again , this is the only convex shape allowed by symmetry .
the feynman rules in the deformation approximation are a modification of those for quantized flat space .
the cutoff is implemented by modifying the propagator .
i summarize the feynman rules here .    for each internal edge carrying momentum @xmath190
, there is a propagator s(p ) = , [ cutoff.propagator]where @xmath243 is a step function , equal to @xmath148 inside the cutoff and @xmath202 outside .    to each independent closed loop in the diagram , there is an integration over the corresponding momentum and a factor of @xmath244 , where @xmath245 is the dimension of the space .
a diagram may contain vertices of valence @xmath157 if the potential , @xmath111 , contains a monomial of degree @xmath157 .
to each such vertex there is a coupling constant factor coming from the coefficient of the monomial .
there is also a phase factor given by the flux of @xmath205 through a polygon in momentum space formed by the momenta entering the vertex .
as always , the momenta entering a vertex add up to @xmath202 .
as with the exact feynman rules , there are combinatorial factors coming from the symmetries of the diagram , and from the numbers of alternative framings .
as examples , i shall consider ( in progressively diminishing detail ) the evaluation of some one - particle - irreducible feynman diagrams for the @xmath0 model on quantized coadjoint orbits of small dimension .    in this case ,
the potential is @xmath246 , so all vertices are of valence 4 and carry a factor of @xmath247 .    on a coadjoint orbit
, the cutoff laplacian can be expressed in terms of the appropriately normalized quadratic casimir operator as @xmath248 .
this has the insurpassable property that @xmath249 .
the propagator is thus @xmath250      the first diagram to consider is the planar , 1-loop propagator correction , fig .
[ diag1 ] .
planar , one - loop propagator correction . ]
ordinarily , this diagram would have a symmetry factor of @xmath251 .
however , only 2 out of 6 framings are equivalent to this diagram .
therefore , there is an overall combinatorial factor of @xmath252 .
this is about the only diagram that can easily be evaluated exactly .
the doubled diagram is shown in fig .
[ ddiag1 ] .
.[ddiag1 ] ]    notice that the bottom line is detached from the rest of the diagram ; this shows that the diagram factorizes as the tensor product of the identity on @xmath159 with some linear map from @xmath42 to @xmath42 .
this must be @xmath79-invariant , and since @xmath42 is an irreducible @xmath79-representation , this map must be proportional to the identity .
in other words , the diagram must evaluate to a number .    to determine this number , close up the upper part of fig .
[ ddiag1 ] and divide by @xmath253 ( a circle ) to normalize .
the factor of @xmath151 cancels the factor from the feynman rules .
closing up the diagram amounts to taking a trace .
the exact evaluation is thus @xmath254    now turn to the deformation approximation .
because the diagram is planar , the phase factor can only depend on external momenta , but because there is only one external momentum , there is no phase factor .
indeed , the diagram is independent of the external momentum  it is simply a number , as in the exact evaluation . in the deformation approximation , @xmath255      for the exact evaluation , it remains to calculate the trace of the propagator @xmath256 .
this is an @xmath87-invariant linear operator on the algebra @xmath22 . as an @xmath87 representation
, @xmath22 is the direct sum of the irreducible representations of integer spin @xmath202 through @xmath40 .
the spin @xmath231 subspace has dimension @xmath257 , and on that subspace the quadratic casimir reduces to @xmath258 . using @xmath259 , the exact evaluation is @xmath260 however , this is precisely the @xmath261-part midpoint approximation to the integral _ 0^n+1 dt = [ approxs2a ] .
now evaluate fig .
[ diag1 ] in the deformation approximation .
the momentum cutoff is a disc of radius @xmath235 .
this gives @xmath262 \label{approxs2b}\mbox.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in order for the deformation approximation to be valid , we must assume that @xmath263 .
this means simply that the compton wavelength ( the distance , @xmath264 , determined by the bare mass ) should be much smaller than the universe and that @xmath132 should be much smaller than the cutoff mass .
we need not assume that @xmath132 is smaller than the noncommutativity scale . using the formula for the leading correction to the midpoint approximation , we can find the leading order correction to ; this is @xmath265 so , in this case , the deformation approximation indeed converges if we take @xmath266 .      as an @xmath267-representation
, the algebra @xmath22 decomposes into a direct sum of irreducible subspaces numbered @xmath202 through @xmath40 .
the @xmath231 subspace has dimension @xmath268 , and the quadratic casimir reduces to @xmath269 . for @xmath3 of circumference @xmath270 ,
the volume is @xmath271 .
the exact evaluation of fig .  [ diag1 ] is , @xmath272    as i have said , the momentum cutoff for @xmath3 is a ball of radius @xmath235 .
so , in the deformation approximation , @xmath273      \label{planarcp } \mbox.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the resemblance to eq .
is hopefully apparent .      here , the exact evaluation is the double sum , @xmath274    the cutoff shape is the more complicated @xmath241 .
this gives the deformation approximation as , @xmath275      \label{planarss } \mbox.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this demonstrates the effect of the cutoff shape . for @xmath276 , the results of eq.s and differ by a factor of @xmath277 .
the only reason for this difference is the nontrivial cutoff shape for @xmath2 .
the only nonplanar 1-loop propagator correction is shown in fig .
[ diag2 ] .    ]
this is equivalent to all 4 out of 6 other framings of the original diagram ; so , the combinatorial factor is @xmath278 .
the doubled diagram is shown in fig .
[ ddiag2 ] .
.[ddiag2 ] ]    observe that fig .
[ ddiag2 ] is really just the bare propagator ( fig .
[ propagator ] on p.  ) with the lines rearranged .
the evaluation of fig .
[ ddiag2 ] is @xmath279 times the propagator with the @xmath42 s exchanged .
because this is a nonplanar diagram , there is a nontrivial phase factor .
this makes the evaluation more interesting . with external momentum @xmath190 ,
it is ( again using the brace notation of eq .  )
@xmath280    where @xmath281 is the fourier transform of the cutoff propagator and @xmath24 is the complex structure ( a @xmath282-rotation ) .
equation is independent of any details of the propagator ; eq .   used rotational invariance .
it seems that rearranging lines in the doubled diagram corresponds to rotating by @xmath24 and taking a fourier transform .
since the propagator is @xmath87-invariant , it can be written as a linear combination of projectors on irreducible representations .
the rearranged version is also invariant and can also be so decomposed .
calculating the rearrangement comes down to transforming between these two decompositions .
the coefficients for this transformation are the famous 6-@xmath208 symbols ( see @xcite ) .
since the value of this diagram is an invariant linear operator on @xmath22 , it can most conveniently be described by giving its eigenvalues on the irreducible subspaces of @xmath22 .
the evaluation of fig .
[ ddiag2 ] , acting on the spin @xmath231 subspace is @xmath283 this corresponds to evaluating with external momentum , @xmath190 , of magnitude @xmath284 .
following eq .  , the deformation approximation for fig .
[ ddiag2 ] is , @xmath285    if we take @xmath177 while keeping @xmath162 fixed , then this becomes a hyperbolic bessel function , @xmath286 .
this has a logarithmic singularity at @xmath287 , and falls off exponentially for large @xmath190 . aside from @xmath287
, it is finite .
this means that this diagram , unlike the previous , planar diagram , is actually regularized by noncommutativity alone .
the deformation approximation gives , @xmath288    if we take @xmath177 , this becomes @xmath289 . as in 2 dimensions , this falls off exponentially .
the singularity is of the form @xmath290 , which is rather mild in 4 dimensions .
there are several distinct framings of the one - loop vertex correction diagram .
one of these is shown in fig .
[ diag3 ] .    ]    the external momenta are all incoming ; the internal momentum @xmath191 is directed counterclockwise . by momentum conservation ,
@xmath291 .
the phase associated to this diagram can be split into two factors .
the first , @xmath292}$ ] is the same as for a bare vertex with the external edges oriented in this way .
the second factor is @xmath293 .    except for the combinatorial factors , the evaluation of fig .
[ diag3 ] in the deformation approximation is e^2 s(q ) s(p_1+p_2-q ) e^i\{p_1,q } d^2nq .[diag3val]@xmath294 again denotes the cutoff propagator .
note that this essentially amounts to a fourier transform of the product of propagators . in four dimensions ,
the 1-loop vertex correction is divergent , but if we take @xmath177 with @xmath162 fixed then remains finite except at @xmath295
let s consider how these amplitudes diverge when regularization is removed . actually ,
since there are both infra - red and ultra - violet cutoffs ( controlled by @xmath25 and @xmath235 ) , there are many possible ways to remove the cutoffs , one - by - one or simultaneously .
as i have said , what has been described is far from a realistic physical model . despite this
, we can optimistically juxtapose this model with reality and hope that some properties of the model are pertinent to reality .
the kind of noncommutativity considered here has not yet been noticed in experiments .
this means that the noncommutativity scale set by @xmath162 is , at best , about the smallest length scale explored by current experiments . on the other hand
, @xmath25 should be something like the size of the universe  a far larger scale , so @xmath40 must be _ very _ large .
this shows that the cutoff mass , @xmath235 should be well beyond the scale of @xmath162 and thus far beyond the reach of experiments .
the approximation relevant to physical predictions of noncommutativity is thus the limit of @xmath177 with @xmath162 fixed .
note that this means simultaneously taking @xmath176 ; in other words , we remove the ultra - violet and infra - red cutoffs in unison . in this limit ,
the quantized compact space becomes , at least formally , quantized flat space .
we should thus expect this limit of field theory to be described by field theory on quantized flat space .
as i have claimed , and the above examples have corroborated , nonplanarity of a feynman diagram tends to decrease its degree of divergence . in the standard regularizations ,
the ultra - violet divergences are associated with the loops in the feynman diagram .
it appears that the divergences when @xmath177 with @xmath162 fixed are associated more closely with the loops in the doubled diagram  index loops , in the terminology of t  hooft @xcite .
the number of index loops is always less than or equal to the number of loops in the original diagram .
although an arbitrary framed feynman diagram , @xmath203 , may not fit into the plane , it will always fit onto some oriented surface .
such a surface , @xmath296 , can be constructed systematically by filling in a 2-cell for each line in the doubled diagram .
it will have the topology of a riemann surface with at least one puncture ; each external leg of @xmath203 ends at a puncture .
our first example , fig .
[ diag1 ] , is planar ; thus @xmath296 is the plane ( equivalently , a sphere with 1 puncture ) . for both fig s
[ diag2 ] and [ doubled ] , @xmath296 is a torus with 1 puncture . for fig .
[ diag3 ] , @xmath296 is a sphere with 2 punctures .    by construction ,
an index loop is always contractible in @xmath296 .
we can make this more precise using homology .
the group @xmath297 is trivial because @xmath296 is not closed ; the group @xmath298 is trivial because @xmath296 is obtained from @xmath203 by attaching 2-cells . inserting these facts into the long exact sequence for the pair @xmath299 , gives the short exact sequence , @xmath300 the group @xmath301 is generated by the 2-cells in @xmath296 that do not touch punctures ; these are in one - to - one correspondence with the index loops .
the group @xmath302 classifies the loops of @xmath203 .
the group @xmath303 classifies incontractible loops in @xmath296 .
these are all free groups , so the sequence splits ( unnaturally ) .
the loops of @xmath203 can therefore be divided into index loops and incontractible loops of @xmath296 .    consider some loop @xmath304 in @xmath203 which is incontractible in @xmath296 , and examine what happens when we integrate over the momentum , @xmath190 , circulating around @xmath304 .
if we leave the momenta in @xmath203 otherwise fixed and then add @xmath190 at each edge of @xmath304 . ] , then the part of the phase which depends on @xmath190 will be of the form @xmath305 , where @xmath191 is a linear combination of the other momenta in @xmath203 .
in fact , @xmath191 is the momentum flowing across @xmath304 .
the other part of the feynman integrand depending on @xmath190 is the product of propagators on the edges of @xmath304 ; each of these has the form @xmath306
^ 2+m^2)^{-1}$ ] . taking the integral over @xmath190 effectively means taking the fourier transform of this product of propagators .
the result may have an integrable singularity at @xmath307 ( an infra - red divergence because @xmath176 ) , but is otherwise finite , and falls of exponentially .
this means that integration over @xmath190 does not contribute to the ultra - violet divergence ; moreover , if @xmath191 is also an internal momentum , then integration over @xmath191 will not contribute to the divergence either .
the other important limit is the commutative limit .
this is when @xmath25 is fixed , but @xmath308 and @xmath177 . in light of the deformation approximation
, it appears that the behavior in this limit will be very much like that of the most elementary regularization , a simple momentum cutoff .
for a single , complex scalar field , the general @xmath309-invariant action is s[]:=_,[complex.action]where @xmath310 is some real polynomial , lower bounded on the positive axis .
the standard perturbation theory for this complex scalar field is not much different from that of the real field .
every edge of a feynman diagram is now directed , and each vertex must have an equal number of ingoing and outgoing edges .    the regularized action corresponding to this is a simple generalization of the real case .
the only new ingredient is the fact that complex conjugation in @xmath20 corresponds to the hermitian adjoint in @xmath22 .
the regularized version of is s_n ( ) : = .[complex.regact ]    in every product inside the trace in eq .  , @xmath17
alternates with @xmath311 . as a consequence , in the framed diagrams , ingoing and
outgoing edges alternate around each vertex . except for this restriction ,
the feynman rules for the complex field are formally the same as for a real field .
this restriction has an interesting interpretation in terms of the doubled diagram .
there are really two types of lines in the doubled diagram , those on the left of a directed edge in the original diagram , and those on the right .
the restriction is simply that left edges only connect to left edges and right to right .
so far , i have only discussed topologically trivial scalar fields .
a section of a nontrivial vector bundle is not a function , so sections of a vector bundle are not approximated by the algebra @xmath22 . as i have argued in @xcite , the noncommutative generalization of a vector bundle is a ( finitely generated , projective ) module of an algebra , so the geometric quantization of a vector bundle should be a module of @xmath22 .
for the matrix algebra @xmath312 , any module is of the form , @xmath313 , a space of linear maps from some vector space to @xmath42 .
i present a general construction in @xcite . in the simplest case
 a holomorphic vector bundle  @xmath314 ; this generalizes @xmath315 .
the simplest action for a nontrivial vector field is a trivial generalization of , although it requires a fiberwise , hermitian inner product on @xmath111 .
the action is simply with @xmath316 and inner products understood between successive @xmath311 s and @xmath17 s .    for the regularized fields ,
the inner product on @xmath111 leads to an inner product on @xmath317 ; because of this , for @xmath318 , we can define the product @xmath319 to be an element of @xmath22 .
the regularized action for a nontrivial field is just with @xmath318 .    in the doubled diagrams , the left and right lines are now truly distinct .
left lines correspond to @xmath42 ; right lines correspond to @xmath317 .
the complex scalar field really just wanted to be twisted .
there is not much to be said about topologically nontrivial fields in the deformation approximation . from a local perspective ,
a nontrivial vector bundle is just a vector bundle with a fixed background gauge field . in the limit as @xmath176 , this gauge field vanishes .
fermi statistics do not pose any particular obstacle in this regularization scheme .
however , the kinetic terms for fermion action functionals may be more difficult to construct than that for bosons . whereas constructing a cutoff laplacian is elementary on coadjoint orbits
, it is less obvious how to deal with the dirac operator .
even on @xmath1 , there may be trouble .
when the spinor bundle on @xmath1 is quantized by my prescription , the left and right chiral subspaces have different dimensions .
this means that there does not exist a cutoff dirac operator which both anti - commutes with the chirality operator ( @xmath320 ) and has no kernel .
in fact , the difference of the dimensions of the left an right subspaces grows linearly with @xmath40 ; so , if we require the dirac operator to anti - commute with the chirality operator , then the size of the kernel will diverge as @xmath103 .    whether these problems can be circumvented , or whether they are really problems at all , remains to be seen .
in all this i have largely dwelt on the regularization effects of noncommutativity . however ,
if there are effects of noncommutativity which are directly detectable by experiment , then these will probably be tree - level effects .    in field theory on quantized flat space , the phase factors from different framings add up to a sum of cosines of products of momenta .
this can , for instance , cause the amplitudes for processes with certain combinations of momenta , to vanish .
this paper is essentially my thesis in physics at penn .
state ; i would thus like to thank the members of my committee : lee smolin , abhay ashtekar , shyamoli chauduri , and paul baum .
this material is based upon work supported in part by nsf grant phy95 - 14240 , by a gift from the jesse phillips foundation , and by the eberly research fund of the pennsylvania state university .