2^{0\,0} \sim \Delta M^2_{\rm susy},$[^2] as explained in [@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The presence of such $\Pi_2$ effects will lead to unacceptable pathologies such as Lorentz-noninvariant dispersion relations giving mass to only one of the polarisations of the trace-U(1) gauge field, leaving the other polarisation massless.

The presence of the UV/IR effects in the trace-U(1) factors makes it pretty clear that a simple noncommutative U(1) theory taken on its own has nothing to do with ordinary QED. The low-energy theory emerging from the noncommutative U(1) theory will become free at $k^2 \to 0$ (rather than just weakly coupled) and in addition will have other pathologies  [@Khoze:2004zc; @Khoze:2000sy; @Hollowood:2001ng; @Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. However, one would expect that it is conceivable to embed a commutative $\textrm{SU}(N)$ theory, such as e.g. QCD or the weak sector of the Standard Model into a supersymmetric noncommutative theory in the UV, but some extra care should be taken with the QED U(1) sector [@Khoze:2004zc]. We will show that the only realistic way to embed QED into noncommutative settings is to recover the electromagnetic U(1) from a [*traceless*]{} diagonal generator of some higher $\textrm{U}(N)$ gauge theory. So it seems that in order to embed QED into a noncommutative theory one should learn how to embed the whole Standard Model [@Khoze:2004zc]. We will see, however, that the additional trace-U(1) factors remaining from the noncommutative $\textrm{U}(N)$ groups will make the resulting low-energy theories unviable (at least for the general class of models considered in this paper).

In order to proceed we would like to disentangle the mass-effects due to the Higgs mechanism from the mass-effects due to non-vanishing $\Pi_2.$ Hence we first set $\Pi_2= 0$ (this can be achieved by starting with an exactly supersymmetric theory). It is then straightforward to show (see Sec. \[prove\]) that the Higgs mechanism alone cannot remove all of the trace-U(1) factors from the massless theory. More
2^{0\,0 } \sim \Delta M^2_{\rm susy},$[^2 ] as explained in [ @Alvarez - Gaume:2003 ]. The presence of such $ \Pi_2 $ effects will lead to impossible pathology such as Lorentz - noninvariant dispersion relations give multitude to only one of the polarisations of the tracing - U(1) bore field, leaving the other polarisation massless. 

 The presence of the ultraviolet / IR effects in the trace - U(1) factors makes it reasonably clear that a simple noncommutative U(1) hypothesis taken on its own have nothing to make with ordinary QED. The low - energy hypothesis emerging from the noncommutative U(1) theory will become complimentary at $ k^2 \to 0 $ (rather than merely weakly coupled) and in addition will have other pathologies   [ @Khoze:2004zc; @Khoze:2000sy; @Hollowood:2001ng; @Alvarez - Gaume:2003 ]. However, one would ask that it is conceivable to embed a commutative $ \textrm{SU}(N)$ theory, such as e.g. QCD or the weak sector of the Standard Model into a supersymmetric noncommutative theory in the UV, but some extra care should be taken with the QED U(1) sector   [ @Khoze:2004zc ]. We will show that the only realistic way to embed QED into noncommutative settings is to recover the electromagnetic U(1) from a [ * traceless * ] { } diagonal generator of some high $ \textrm{U}(N)$ gauge theory. indeed it seem that in order to embed QED into a noncommutative theory one should determine how to embed the whole Standard Model   [ @Khoze:2004zc ]. We will see, however, that the additional touch - U(1) factors remaining from the noncommutative $ \textrm{U}(N)$ groups will make the resulting low - department of energy theories unviable (at least for the general class of models considered in this paper). 

 In order to continue we would like to disentangle the mass - effects due to the Higgs mechanism from the mass - effect due to non - vanishing $ \Pi_2.$ Hence we first set $ \Pi_2= 0 $ (this can be achieved by starting with an exactly supersymmetric theory). It is then straightforward to express (see Sec. \[prove\ ]) that the Higgs mechanism entirely cannot remove all of the trace - U(1) factors from the massless theory. More
2^{0\,0} \sil \Delta M^2_{\rm susy},$[^2] as explxined in [@Alvaree-Gqume:2003]. Tie pressnce of ruch $\Pi_2$ effects will lead to ubacceknable pathologies sucf as Lorejtz-nonincarient dispersion rxmations givinf masv to only one on the polarhsations of tha grcce-U(1) gauge field, leaving the other pjlarisayiln massless.

The prexqnce of the UV/IR effects in the trace-U(1) factorv makes it prrtty clear that a simple nlncolmutative U(1) theory taken on ija orb has nothine to do wiuh ordinary SED. The low-energy theory emergivg frpm the nonxonmuhdtive U(1) theiry wpll become frcv at $k^2 \do 0$ (ratner than just eeanly coupled) and in additmon will have other kathologiev  [@Ihoze:2004zc; @Khoze:2000sy; @Hiloowoog:2001ng; @Dlvafwz-Gxumt:2003]. Hpwsver, oje xould expecf that it iw conceivable to emneq a commutativs $\textwm{FU}(N)$ theory, such as e.g. QCD or the weak stctor of the Standard Model unto a supersymmetric noncommueative theory in the UV, but some extra care shoulg be vayen wlth gye QED U(1) sector [@Khoze:2004zc]. We will show that the onjg teslistic way to embed QED onho goncommutativg settiufs is to recover the electrjmagnwtic U(1) frjm a [*traceless*]{} diagonal generatir of some hpghee $\textrm{U}(N)$ gauge tkeory. So it reemx thay in order to embed QED intk a noncommktative tgdory one should ueagn hmw to embed the whole Stanqard Modeo [@Khove:2004zc]. We dill see, hjwever, thah the additional trace-U(1) vactots remdining frol the noncommutative $\textrm{U}(N)$ gcpups will male thv resultiug low-cnergy theories unviable (at lgast for che geveral clasa of movels considewed in this pdker).

In order tm proceeq we wouod like go disentangle the mass-vfyects due to the Higgs mecheniso from the mass-eyyexts due to non-vsnirhigg $\Pm_2.$ Hensa we first sat $\Pk_2= 0$ (gnis cxn be achieyed by xtarting with an exawtly supersymmetric throvy). It is jhen strayghtforward tp show (see Sec. \[proge\]) thet the Higgx mgchanism alone cannot remove alm of the hrage-U(1) factors fwom bhe iassless tkeory. More
2^{0\,0} \sim \Delta M^2_{\rm susy},$[^2] as explained The of such effects will lead Lorentz-noninvariant relations giving mass only one of polarisations of the trace-U(1) gauge field, the other polarisation massless. The presence of the UV/IR effects in the trace-U(1) makes it pretty clear that a simple noncommutative U(1) theory taken on its has to with QED. The low-energy theory emerging from the noncommutative U(1) theory will become free at $k^2 \to (rather than just weakly coupled) and in addition have other pathologies [@Khoze:2004zc; @Hollowood:2001ng; @Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. However, one would that is conceivable embed commutative theory, such as QCD or the weak sector of the Standard Model into a supersymmetric noncommutative theory in the UV, some extra be taken the U(1) [@Khoze:2004zc]. We will the only realistic way to embed settings is to recover the electromagnetic U(1) from [*traceless*]{} diagonal of some higher $\textrm{U}(N)$ gauge theory. it seems that in order to embed QED a noncommutative theory one should learn how to embed the whole Standard Model [@Khoze:2004zc]. We however, that the additional factors remaining from noncommutative groups make resulting low-energy unviable (at least for the general class of models considered in paper). In order to proceed we would like to disentangle due the Higgs mechanism the mass-effects due to $\Pi_2.$ we first set $\Pi_2= can achieved an supersymmetric It is then straightforward show (see Sec. \[prove\]) that Higgs mechanism alone cannot factors from the massless theory. More
2^{0\,0} \sim \Delta M^2_{\rm susy},$[^2] as explaineD in [@Alvarez-gaume:2003]. the PreSeNce oF sucH $\Pi_2$ effects will LEad tO unacceptable pathologiEs sucH aS loreNTz-NoninVariant DIsPERsiOn ReLatIoNS gIving MasS to only One of the poLarIsAtions of the tRAcE-U(1) gauge fieLd, lEaving the othEr pOlarisAtIon MAssleSs.

THe preSence oF The UV/Ir effects iN tHE trace-u(1) Factors MAKeS it pRetty clear that a siMPlE Noncommutative u(1) theorY tAKeN ON itS owN has nothinG tO do wiTH ordinaRY Qed. tHe lOW-energy theory Emerging froM The NoncomMuTatIVe U(1) theOry wiLl BEcoMe free at $k^2 \to 0$ (RathEr than jusT weaklY Coupled) ANd in addItion wIll HavE othER pAtHolOgIEs  [@KHOzE:2004zc; @kHozE:2000sy; @HolloWoOd:2001Ng; @AlvArez-gAUME:2003]. HowEveR, one Would Expect that it iS coNceiVAblE to emBed a cOmmuTaTive $\tExtrm{Su}(N)$ theOrY, such as e.g. QCD or tHe weAk sector oF thE STanDaRd ModEL into a SupErsYmmetriC noncomMUtaTiVE THeOry in the UV, but some eXtRA CaRe should Be takeN WiTh THe QED U(1) seCtOr [@KHoze:2004ZC]. we wilL shoW ThAt the onlY realiSTiC wAy to embEd qED intO nOncOmmUtatiVE setTings iS to recovEr the ELectromagnetic u(1) From a [*tracelesS*]{} DiAGOnAL genEraTor of some hiGher $\TExtrM{U}(N)$ gAUgE thEOry. So It seeMs THaT In order to embed QED inTo A noncoMmutaTive theory one Should learN HOW to embed The wHOlE standard Model [@KHoze:2004zC]. We will see, HOwever, thAt the AdditionAl trace-U(1) fACTors remaIniNg fRom The NONcOmmutative $\texTRM{U}(N)$ gRoUps will MakE the resUltIng Low-EneRgY theories Unviable (At LeAsT fOr tHe genERal class Of ModElS coNsideREd in thIs papEr).

In OrDeR To pRoceed wE WoULD likE tO dIsenTanGlE the mAss-eFFecTs due to The Higgs mEchANism FrOm The mass-Effects due to nOn-Vanishing $\PI_2.$ HEncE we firST Set $\Pi_2= 0$ (thiS can be achieved by startinG With an eXacTly suPersYmmetric tHeoRy). It is TheN StraigHtforwArd to ShOw (sEE sec. \[prOVE\]) tHat ThE Higgs mechANIsm Alone CaNnot Remove aLl of the trace-U(1) factoRS frOm the massless TheOry. MORE
2^{0\,0} \sim \Delta M^2_{ \rm susy}, $[^2]  as  ex pl aine d in  [@Alvarez-Gau m e:20 03]. The presence of s uch $ \P i _2$e ff ectswill le a dt o  un ac ce pta bl e  p athol ogi es such  as Lorent z-n on invariant di s pe rsion rela tio ns giving ma ssto onl yone of th e p olari sation s  of th e trace-U (1 )  gauge field,l e av ingthe other polaris a ti o n massless.

T he pre se n ce o f t heUV/IR effe ct s int he trac e -U ( 1 )  fa c tors makes it  pretty cle a r t hat asi mpl e  nonco mmuta ti v e U (1) theorytake n on itsown ha s  nothin g  to dowith o rdi nar y QE D .Th e l ow - ene r gy  th e ory  emergin gfr om th e no n c o m muta tiv e U( 1) th eory will bec ome  fre e  at  $k^2  \to0$ ( ra therthan j ust w ea kly coupled) an d in  addition  wi ll  ha ve  othe r  patho log ies   [@Kho ze:2004 z c;@K h o z e: 2000sy; @Hollowood :2 0 0 1n g; @Alva rez-Ga u me :2 0 03]. How ev er,  one w ouldexpe c tthat itis con c ei va ble toem bed aco mmu tat ive $ \ text rm{SU} (N)$ the ory,s uch as e.g. QC D  or the weaks ec t o ro f th e S tandard Mod el i n to a  sup e rs ymm e tricnonco mm u ta t ive theory in the U V,  but s ome e xtra care sho uld be tak e n with the  QED U( 1 ) sector [@Kho ze:20 04zc]. Wew ill show  that  the onl y realist i c  way toemb edQED  in t o  n oncommutative s etti ng s is to  re cover t heele ctr oma gn etic U(1)  from a[* tr ac el ess *]{}d iagonalge ner at orof so m e high er $\ text rm {U } (N) $ gauge th e o ry.So  i t se ems  t hat i n or d erto embe d QED int o a nonc om mu tativetheory one sh ou ld learn h ow  to  embed t he whole  Standard Model [@Khoze : 2004zc] . W e wil l se e, howeve r,that t hea dditio nal tr ace-U (1 ) f a c torsr e ma ini ng  from then o nco mmuta ti ve $ \textrm {U}(N)$ groups wil l  ma ke the result ing  low - e ne rgy th e ori es unv i a ble (at least f or the gen er a lclass of m o del sconside red inthisp aper).
In order  to proce ed  wew o uld  like to d isentang le the ma s s-eff e ct s due  to  the H ig gsmecha nism f r omthe m ass-ef fe cts du e tono n-vanish ing $\Pi_2.$ Hence we f irst s et $\ Pi_ 2= 0$ (th isc anbe achiev ed b y starting  wi than ex act l y sup ersy m me tri c  theo ry). It is the n  s tra i g ht forward tos h o w ( see S ec. \[prov e\])  that the Higgs m e chanism alonecann o t  re mov e  all  o f the trace-U( 1)fa c t ors from  t he massless  theory.  M o re
2^{0\,0} \sim_\Delta M^2_{\rm_susy},$[^2] as explained in_[@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The_presence_of such_$\Pi_2$_effects will lead_to unacceptable pathologies_such as Lorentz-noninvariant dispersion_relations giving mass_to_only one of the polarisations of the trace-U(1) gauge field, leaving the other polarisation_massless.

The_presence of_the_UV/IR_effects in the trace-U(1) factors_makes it pretty clear that_a simple_noncommutative U(1) theory taken on its own has_nothing_to do with_ordinary QED. The low-energy theory emerging from the noncommutative_U(1) theory will become free at_$k^2 \to 0$_(rather_than_just weakly coupled) and_in addition will have other pathologies_ [@Khoze:2004zc; @Khoze:2000sy; @Hollowood:2001ng; @Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. However, one_would expect that it is conceivable to_embed a commutative $\textrm{SU}(N)$ theory, such_as e.g. QCD or the_weak sector_of the Standard Model into_a supersymmetric noncommutative_theory in_the UV, but_some extra care should be taken_with the QED_U(1) sector [@Khoze:2004zc]. We will show that_the_only realistic way_to_embed_QED into_noncommutative settings is_to_recover the_electromagnetic_U(1) from a [*traceless*]{} diagonal generator_of_some higher $\textrm{U}(N)$ gauge theory. So it_seems that in order_to_embed QED into a_noncommutative theory one should learn_how to embed the whole Standard_Model [@Khoze:2004zc]. We_will see,_however, that the additional trace-U(1) factors remaining from the noncommutative $\textrm{U}(N)$_groups will make the resulting low-energy_theories unviable (at least_for the_general_class of models_considered_in this_paper).

In order to proceed we would like_to disentangle_the mass-effects due to the Higgs_mechanism from the mass-effects_due_to non-vanishing $\Pi_2.$ Hence we first_set $\Pi_2= 0$ (this can be_achieved by starting with an_exactly_supersymmetric_theory). It is then straightforward_to show (see Sec. \[prove\]) that_the Higgs mechanism_alone cannot remove all of the trace-U(1)_factors_from the massless theory. More