J.C. López–Domínguez*, O. Obregón*, C. Ramírez** and J.J. Toscano**
* Instituto de Física de la Universidad de Guanajuato, P.O. Box E–143, 37150 León Gto., México, e–mail: jlopez@fisica.ugto.mx, octavio@fisica.ugto.mx
** Facultad de Ciencias Físico Matemáticas, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, P.O. Box 1364, 72000 Puebla, México, e–mail: cramirez@fcfm.buap.mx, jtoscano@fcfm.buap.mx
Recibido el 1 de mayo de 2006
Aceptado el 1 de noviembre de 2006
]]> Abstract
The influence of higher dimensions in noncommutative field theories is considered. For this purpose, we analyze the bosonic sector of a recently proposed 6 dimensional SU(3) orbifold model for the electroweak interactions. The corresponding noncommutative theory is constructed by means of the Seiberg–Witten map in 6D. We find in the reduced bosonic interactions in 4D theory, couplings which are new with respect to other known 4D noncommutative formulations of the Standard Model using the Seiberg–Witten map.
Keywords: non–commutativity; extra dimensions.
Resumen
Se considera el efecto de la presencia de dimensiones extra en las teorías de campo no conmutativas. Para este propósito, se analiza el sector bosónico del recientemente propuesto modelo de orbifoldio SU(3) para las interacciones electro–débiles. La teoría no conmuntativa correspondiente se contruye utilizando el mapa de Seiberg–Witten en 6D. Encontramos en las interacciones bosónicas reducidas en la teoría de 4D acoplamientos que son nuevos con respecto a otras formulaciones no conmutativas conocidas en 4D del modelo estándar que utilizan el mapa de Seiberg–Witten.
Descriptores: No conmutatividad; dimensiones extra.
PACS: 11.10.Nx; 12.10.–g; 12.60.–i
]]> DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF
Acknowledgments
We thank H. García–Compeán for discussions. This work has been supported by CONACYT grant 47641 and Projects by PROMEP, UG and VIEP–BUAP 13/I/EXC/05.
References
1. M. Cvetic, G.W. Gibbons, and C.N. Pope, Nucl. Phys. B 677 (2004) 164, hep–th/0308026. [ Links ]
2. A. Salam and E. Sezgin, Phys. Lett. B 147 (1984) 47. [ Links ]
3. S. Randjbar–Daemi, A. Salam, E. Sezgin, and J. Strathdee, Phys. Lett. B 151 (1985) 351. [ Links ]
4. Y. Aghababaie, C.P. Burgess, S.L. Parameswaran, and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B 680 (2004) 389, hep–th/0304256. [ Links ]
5. Robert H. Brandenberger and S. Randjbar–Daemi, JHEP 0410:022 (2004), hep–th/0404228. [ Links ]
6. D.B. Fairlie, Phys.Lett. B 82 (1979) 97; [ Links ] N.S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B 158 (1979) 141; [ Links ] Y. Ne'eman, S. Sternberg, and D.B. Fairlie, Phys. Rep. 406 (2005) 303. [ Links ]
7. I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quiros, New J. Phys. 3 (2001) 20, hep–th/0108005. [ Links ]
8. C.A. Scrucca, M. Serone, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 669 (2003) 128, hep–ph/0304220. [ Links ]
9. C.A. Scrucca, M. Serone, L. Silvestrini, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 0402:049 (2004), hep–th/0312267. [ Links ]
10. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 9909:032 (1999), hep–th/9908142. [ Links ]
11. B. Jurco, L. Moller, S. Schraml, P. Schupp, and J. Wess, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 383, hep–th/0104153. [ Links ]
12. X. Calmet, B. Jurco, P. Schupp, J. Wess, and M. Wohlgenannt, Eur. Phys. J. C 23 (2002) 363, hep–ph/0111115. [ Links ]
13. Paolo Aschieri, hep–th/0404054. [ Links ]
14. I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quiros, Nucl. Phys. B 35 (2000) 583, hep–th/0004091. [ Links ]
15. M. Kontsevich, Lett. Math. Phys. 66 (2003) 157, q–alg/9709040. [ Links ]
16. M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder, M.M. Sheikh–Jabbari, and A. Tureanu, Eur. Phys. J. C 29 (2003) 413, hep–th/0107055. [ Links ]
17. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621; [ Links ] for a review, see J. Wudka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9 (1994) 2301. [ Links ] ]]>