 for this trace-U(1) subgroup.

We have demonstrated that, although the trace-U(1) decouples in the limit $k\to 0$, the coupling is not negligibly small at finite momentum scales $k$, as they appear, for example, in scattering experiments. Therefore, observations rule out additional unbroken (massless) trace-U(1) subgroups. An example is the model considered in Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc]. In Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc], the trace-U(1) groups were completely discarded before the symmetry breaking scheme was discussed. A more careful investigation which takes takes into account these subgroups yields the symmetry breaking $\textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times (\textrm{U}(1))^4$ instead of $\textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{U}(1)$. Therefore we have superfluous U(1) subgroups. Following the above lines explicitely one easily finds that one of the $\textrm{U}(1)$’s has a generator which is proportional to the $9\times 9$ unity matrix. Noncommutativity explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance. Therefore an additional Lorentz symmetry violating structure is allowed in the polarisation tensor. This structure is absent only in supersymmetric models. If supersymmetry is (softly) broken, this additional structure is present in the polarisation tensor of the trace-U(1). It leads to an additional mass $\sim \Delta M^2_{\textrm{SUSY}}$ for one of the transverse polarisation states [@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The tight constraints on the photon mass therefore exclude trace-U(1)’s as a candidate for the photon. It turns out that even a small admixture of a trace part to a traceless part (unaffected by these problems) is fatal. The only way out seems to be the construction of the photon from a completely traceless generator. A group theoretic argument shows, that this is impossible whithout having additional unbroken U(1) subgroups. However, those are already excluded from the arguments given above.

This result severely restricts the possibilities to construct
for this trace - U(1) subgroup. 

 We have demonstrated that, although the trace - U(1) decouples in the limit $ k\to 0 $, the yoke is not negligibly humble at finite momentum scales $ k$, as they appear, for case, in disperse experiments. Therefore, observation predominate out additional unplowed (massless) touch - U(1) subgroups. An exercise is the model considered in Ref. [ @Khoze:2004zc ]. In Ref. [ @Khoze:2004zc ], the tracing - U(1) group were completely discarded before the symmetry breaking scheme was discourse. A more careful investigation which takes takes into score these subgroups yields the symmetry breaking $ \textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U } (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times (\textrm{U}(1))^4 $ alternatively of $ \textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U } (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{U}(1)$. Therefore we have superfluous U(1) subgroups. Following the above line explicitely one easily finds that one of the $ \textrm{U}(1)$ ’s has a generator which is proportional to the $ 9\times 9 $ unity matrix. Noncommutativity explicitly breaks Lorentz invariability. consequently an extra Lorentz symmetry violating structure is allowed in the polarisation tensor. This structure is absent only in supersymmetric model. If supersymmetry is (lightly) broken, this extra social organization is present in the polarisation tensor of the trace - U(1). It leads to an additional bulk $ \sim \Delta M^2_{\textrm{SUSY}}$ for one of the transverse polarisation states [ @Alvarez - Gaume:2003 ]. The tight constraint on the photon mass therefore exclude trace - U(1) ’s as a candidate for the photon. It turns out that even a modest admixture of a trace part to a traceless part (insensible by these problems) is fateful. The only way out seems to be the construction of the photon from a wholly traceless generator. A group theoretic argument shows, that this is impossible whithout having additional unbroken U(1) subgroups. However, those are already excluded from the arguments give above. 

 This result sternly restricts the possibilities to manufacture
 fog this trace-U(1) subgroup.

We have demonstrajee that, althohgh the grace-U(1) decouples in the limiv $k\ti 0$, tht coupling is not ndgligibly small ar fiiite momentum scemes $k$, as they wppecr, for example, ik scatterinc experiments. Dhdrzfore, observations rule out additionwl unbrpkfn (massless) trwce-U(1) fubgdoups. An example is the model consjdered pn Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc]. In Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc], the trace-U(1) grlups were completely dlscarded bedore rhe symmetry breaking scheme was djscussed. A more careful investieatiou which takgs twnes into acrount nhese subgrouix yielgs the xymmetry breaklng $\txxtrn{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \vextrm{U} (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\jimes\textrk{SB}(2)\times (\textrm{U}(1))^4$ insteae if $\teftrm{G}(4)\timdw \tdxtdm{N}(3)\tijes \tedtrj{U} (2) \to \texfrm{SU}(3)\times\twxtrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{I}(1)$. Eyerefore we hzve su[ewfluous U(1) subgroups. Following the above lihes explicitely one easuly finds that one of the $\textwm{U}(1)$’s has a generator which is proportional to the $9\timea 9$ uulby mxrrlx. Noncommutativity explicitly breaks Lorentz jnfagiance. Therefore cn additional Lotejta symmetry viouating stducture is allowed in the polaeisation uensot. This structure is absent inly in supegsymnetric models. If sbpersymmetry is (xoftlu) broken, this additionau stducture is oresent ih the polarisatiov tvnsos of the trace-U(1). It leads tj an addivionak mass $\rim \Celta I^2_{\textrm{SUSJ}}$ for one of the transvegse plldrisation dtates [@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The tight constraints on jhe phmton masf thevefore exclude erace-U(1)’s as a ccndidate for ghe photon. It turis out that qven a small dfmixture of e trace pwrt ro a traceldrs part (unaffevted by tktse problens) is fatal. The onky dzy out seems to be the constructipn uf ehv pioton xrom a complatelh tfscelers generatov. A groip theoretic argumend shkws, that this is ikpjssible qhithout having additoonal unbroken U(1) skbgronps. Hoxever, yhofe are already excluded from tge argumejts given above.

Ehis result sevexely restricts the possibilities to consvruct
for this trace-U(1) subgroup. We have demonstrated the decouples in limit $k\to 0$, small finite momentum scales as they appear, example, in scattering experiments. Therefore, observations out additional unbroken (massless) trace-U(1) subgroups. An example is the model considered in [@Khoze:2004zc]. In Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc], the trace-U(1) groups were completely discarded before the symmetry scheme discussed. more investigation which takes takes into account these subgroups yields the symmetry breaking $\textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2) \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times (\textrm{U}(1))^4$ instead of $\textrm{U}(4)\times \textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2) \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{U}(1)$. Therefore we superfluous U(1) subgroups. Following the lines one easily that of $\textrm{U}(1)$’s has a which is proportional to the $9\times 9$ unity matrix. Noncommutativity explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance. Therefore an additional symmetry violating allowed in polarisation This is absent only models. If supersymmetry is (softly) broken, is present in the polarisation tensor of the It leads an additional mass $\sim \Delta M^2_{\textrm{SUSY}}$ one of the transverse polarisation states [@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The constraints on the photon mass therefore exclude trace-U(1)’s as a candidate for the photon. It that even a small of a trace to traceless (unaffected these problems) fatal. The only way out seems to be the construction of photon from a completely traceless generator. A group theoretic argument this impossible whithout having unbroken U(1) subgroups. However, are excluded from the arguments This severely to
 for this trace-U(1) subgroup.

We haVe demonstrAted tHat, AltHoUgh tHe trAce-U(1) decouples iN The lImit $k\to 0$, the coupling is noT neglIgIBly sMAlL at fiNite momENtUM ScaLeS $k$, As tHeY ApPear, fOr eXample, iN scatterinG exPeRiments. ThereFOrE, observatiOns Rule out additIonAl unbrOkEn (mASslesS) trAce-U(1) sUbgrouPS. An exaMple is the MoDEl consIDered in rEF. [@KHoze:2004Zc]. In Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc], the TRaCE-U(1) groups were coMpleteLy DIsCARdeD beFore the symMeTry brEAking scHEmE WAS diSCussed. A more caReful investIGatIon whiCh TakES takes Into aCcOUnt These subgroUps yIelds the sYmmetrY BreakinG $\Textrm{U}(4)\Times \tExtRm{U}(3)\TimeS \TeXtRm{U} (2) \To \TExtRM{Su}(3)\tiMEs\tExtrm{SU}(2)\tImEs (\TextrM{U}(1))^4$ inSTEAD of $\tExtRm{U}(4)\tImes \tExtrm{U}(3)\times \teXtrM{U} (2) \to \TExtRm{SU}(3)\tImes\tExtrM{Su}(2)\timeS \textrM{U}(1)$. TheReFore we have superFluoUs U(1) subgroUps. foLloWiNg the ABove liNes ExpLicitelY one easILy fInDS THaT one of the $\textrm{U}(1)$’s hAs A GEnErator whIch is pROpOrTIonal to tHe $9\TimEs 9$ unITY matrIx. NoNCoMmutativIty expLIcItLy breakS LOrentz InVarIanCe. TheREforE an addItional LOrentZ Symmetry violatINg structure is ALlOWEd IN the PolArisation teNsor. tHis sTrucTUrE is ABsent Only iN sUPeRSymmetric models. If suPeRsymmeTry is (Softly) broken, tHis additioNAL StructurE is pREsENt in the polarisAtion Tensor of thE Trace-U(1). It Leads To an addiTional masS $\SIm \Delta M^2_{\TexTrm{sUSy}}$ foR ONe Of the transverSE PolaRiSation sTatEs [@AlvarEz-GAumE:2003]. ThE tiGhT constraiNts on the PhOtOn MaSs tHerefORe excludE tRacE-U(1)’S as A candIDate foR the pHotoN. IT tURns Out that EVeN A SmalL aDmIxtuRe oF a Trace Part TO a tRacelesS part (unafFecTEd by ThEsE probleMs) is fatal. The oNlY way out seeMs To bE the coNSTruction Of the photon from a completELy traceLesS geneRatoR. A group thEorEtic arGumENt showS, that tHis is ImPosSIBle whITHoUt hAvIng additioNAL unBrokeN U(1) SubgRoups. HoWever, those are alreaDY exCluded from the ArgUmenTS GiVen ABoVE.

ThIs REsuLT Severely restricTs the possiBiLItIes to constRUct
 for this trace-U(1) subgr oup.

We h ave d emo nst ra tedthat , although the trac e-U(1) decouples in th e lim it $k\t o  0 $, th e coupl i ng i s n ot  n egl ig i bl y sma llat fini te momentu m s ca les $k$, ast he y appear,for  example, in  sc atteri ng  ex p erime nts . The refore ,  obser vations r ul e  out a d ditiona l un brok en (massless) tra c e- U (1) subgroups.  An ex am p le i s t hemodel cons id eredi n Ref.[ @K h o z e:2 0 04zc]. In Ref . [@Khoze:2 0 04z c], th etra c e-U(1)  grou ps wer e completel y di scarded b eforet he symm e try bre akingsch eme  was di sc uss ed .  Am or e c a ref ul inves ti ga tionwhic h t a kestak es i nto a ccount thesesub grou p s y ields  thesymm et ry br eaking  $\te xt rm{U}(4)\times\tex trm{U}(3) \ti me s \ te xtrm{ U } (2)\to  \t extrm{S U}(3)\t i mes \t e x t rm {SU}(2)\times (\te xt r m {U }(1))^4$  inste a dof $\textrm {U }(4 )\ti m e s \te xtrm { U} (3)\time s \tex t rm {U } (2) \ to  \text rm {SU }(3 )\tim e s\te xtrm{S U}(2)\ti mes \ t extrm{U}(1)$.T herefore we h a ve s up e rflu ous  U(1) subgr oups .  Fol lowi n gthe above  line se xp l icitely one easilyfi nds th at on e of the $\te xtrm{U}(1) $ ’ s  has a g ener a to r  which is prop ortio nal to the $9\times  9$ u nity mat rix. Nonc o m mutativi tyexp lic itl y br eaks Lorentzi n vari an ce. The ref ore anadd iti ona l L or entz symm etry vio la ti ng  s tru cture is allow ed  in  t hepolar i sation  tens or.Th is str ucturei sa b sent  o nl y in  su pe rsymm etri c  mo dels. I f supersy mme t ry i s(s oftly)broken, thisad ditional s tr uct ure is p resent i n the polarisation tens o r of th e t race- U(1) . It lead s t o an a ddi t ionalmass $ \sim\D elt a M^2_{ \ t ex trm {S USY}}$ for o neof th etran sversepolarisation state s  [@ Alvarez-Gaume :20 03]. T he  ti g ht con st r ain t s  on the photonmass there fo r eexclude tr a ce- U( 1)’s as  a cand idate for the  photon.It turnsou t th a t  ev en a small  admixtu re of a t r ace p a rt  to a  tr aceles spar t (un affect e d b y the se pro bl ems) i s fat al . The on ly way out seems to bethe co nstru cti on of the  ph o ton  from a c ompl etely trac ele ssgener ato r . A g roup th eor e tic a rgum e nt shows, th att h is  is impossi b l e  wh ithou t h a ving a ddit ional unbroken U( 1 ) subgroups. H owev e r , t hos e  are  a lready exclude d f ro m the argu me nts given a bove.

T hi s  resu lt sev erelyrestric t s  t h e poss ibil iti es to con str uc t 
 for_this trace-U(1)_subgroup.

We have demonstrated that,_although the_trace-U(1)_decouples in_the_limit $k\to 0$,_the coupling is_not negligibly small at_finite momentum scales_$k$,_as they appear, for example, in scattering experiments. Therefore, observations rule out additional unbroken_(massless)_trace-U(1) subgroups._An_example_is the model considered in_Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc]. In Ref. [@Khoze:2004zc],_the trace-U(1)_groups were completely discarded before the symmetry breaking_scheme_was discussed. A_more careful investigation which takes takes into account these_subgroups yields the symmetry breaking $\textrm{U}(4)\times_\textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2)_\to_\textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times_(\textrm{U}(1))^4$ instead of $\textrm{U}(4)\times_\textrm{U}(3)\times \textrm{U} (2) \to \textrm{SU}(3)\times\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{U}(1)$._Therefore we have superfluous U(1) subgroups._Following the above lines explicitely one easily_finds that one of the $\textrm{U}(1)$’s_has a generator which is_proportional to_the $9\times 9$ unity matrix._Noncommutativity explicitly breaks_Lorentz invariance._Therefore an additional_Lorentz symmetry violating structure is allowed_in the polarisation_tensor. This structure is absent only_in_supersymmetric models. If_supersymmetry_is_(softly) broken,_this additional structure_is_present in_the_polarisation tensor of the trace-U(1). It_leads_to an additional mass $\sim \Delta M^2_{\textrm{SUSY}}$_for one of the_transverse_polarisation states [@Alvarez-Gaume:2003]. The_tight constraints on the photon_mass therefore exclude trace-U(1)’s as a_candidate for_the photon._It turns out that even a small admixture of a trace_part to a traceless part (unaffected_by these problems) is_fatal. The_only_way out seems_to_be the_construction of the photon from a completely_traceless generator._A group theoretic argument shows, that_this is impossible whithout_having_additional unbroken U(1) subgroups. However, those_are already excluded from the arguments_given above.

This result severely restricts_the_possibilities_to construct