Stability, causality, and Lorentz and CPT violation

Physical Review D

Volumn 63, Issue 6, 2001, Pages

  Kostelecký, V Alan ^a   Lehnert, Ralf ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; ELEMENTARY PARTICLE; ENERGY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; QUANTUM MECHANICS; QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0034909525     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.065008     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. W. Pauli, Phys. Rev. 58, 716 (1940).
2. J. S. Bell, Birmingham University thesis, 1954;
3. G. Luders, Det. Kong. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Mat.fysiske Meddelelser 28, 5 (1954);
4. W. Pauli, in Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, edited by W. Pauli (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955).
5. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989);
6. V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B359, 545 (1991);
7. Phys. Lett. B 381, 89 (1996).
8. V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3923 (1995);
9. and in Gamma Ray-Neutrino Cosmology and Planck Scale Physics, edited by D. B. Cline (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993) (hep-th/9211116).
10. D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760 (1997);
11. 58, 116002(1998).
12. R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecky, and N. Russell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1432 (1997);
13. Phys. Rev. D 57, 3932 (1998).
14. G. Gabrielse et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3198 (1999).
15. R. Mittleman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2116 (1999).
16. H. G. Dehmelt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4694 (1999).
17. S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990).
18. R. Jackiw and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3572 (1999).
19. See also M. Pérez-Victoria, ibid. 83, 2518 (1999);
20. J. M. Chung, Phys. Lett. B 461, 138 (1999).
21. V. A. Kostelecky and C. D. Lane, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116010 (1999);
22. J. Math. Phys. 40, 6245 (1999).
23. L. R. Hunter et al., in CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, edited by V. A. Kostelecky (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
24. R. E. Stoner, in CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, edited by V. A. Kostelecky (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
25. D. Bear et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5038 (2000).
26. R. Walsworth et al., physics/0007063.
27. R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1381 (2000).
28. B. Heckel et al., presented at the International Conference on Orbis Scientiae 1999, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1999.
29. R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecky, and N. Russell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2254 (1999).
30. D. F. Phillips et al, physics/0008230.
31. R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecky, and C. D. Lane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1098 (2000).
32. V. W. Hughes et al., presented at the Hydrogen II Conference, Tuscany, Italy, 2000.
33. D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Lett. B 344, 259 (1995);
34. Phys. Rev. D 52, 6224 (1995);
35. V. A. Kostelecky and R. Van Kooten, ibid. 54,5585 (1996);
36. V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1818 (1998);
37. Phys. Rev. D 61, 016002 (2000).
38. KTeV Collaboration, Y. B. Hsiung et al., FERMILAB-CONF-99-313-E (1999), to be published in the proceedings of the 1999 Chicago Conference on Kaon Physics, Chicago, Illinois, 1999.
39. OPAL Collaboration, R. Ackerstaff et al., Z. Phys. C 76, 401 (1997);
40. DELPHI Collaboration, M. Feindt et al., DELPHI 97-98 CONF 80, 1997
41. O. Bertolami et al., Phys. Lett. B 395, 178 (1997).
42. S. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 59, 116008 (1999).
43. O. Bertolami and C. S. Carvalho, Phys. Rev. D 61, 103002 (2000).
44. V. Barger, S. Pakvasa, T. Weiler, and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5055 (2000).
45. Similar results are likely to hold for any SO(2,1) violation in (2+l)-dimensional theories. See, e.g., Y. Hosotani, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2022 (1995);
46. A. A. Andrianov et al, ibid. 59, 025002 (1999).
47. A third type of transformation boosting and rotating both the particle fields and the coefficients within a fixed inertial frame can also be defined [5]. It is distinct from the others and is sometimes called an (inverse) active Lorentz transformation.
48. See, e.g., P. Lancaster and M. Tismenetsky, The Theory of Matrices, 2nd ed. (Academic, Orlando, 1985).
49. One obstacle is that the dispersion relation is a fourth-order polynomial in \°. The expressions for the eigenenergies typi-cally contain quartic roots involving X and the coefficients for Lorentz violation. A fourth-order term can therefore generate a first-order energy correction. Another difficulty is that the momentum is a variable. For example, even if the momentum component pz in the z direction occurs only at second order, when large it may dominate other first-order terms.
50. See, e.g., D. M. Gitman and I. V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1990).
51. See, e.g., G. Sansone and J. Gerretsen, Lectures on the Theory of Functions of a Complex Variable, Vol. 1 (Noordhoff, Groningen, 1960).
52. Note that what we are calling the light cone may be unrelated to the properties of light in the present case. In the standardmodel extension, the appropriate cone is defined by the behavior of observables under observer Lorentz transformations. This is determined by the spontaneous nature of the Lorentz violation, which preserves the Minkowski metric associated with the fundamental theory at the Planck scale. Nonetheless, for simplicity we keep the terminology light cone. Note also that throughout this paper the dispersion relations are in momentum space, so all references are to the energy-momentum light cone rather than the spacetime light cone.
53. The coefficients c in the Lagrangian (1) are defined to be traceless, so a model with only a nonzero COQ might appear inappropriate. However, the effect of a nonzero trace in cbv is merely to scale the normalization of the Dirac field [5]. For example, a model with a nonzero foo=c describes physics similar to a model with cw=3c/4, Cjj=c/4, j =-1,2,3. The former choice has been adopted in the text to simplify the presentation.
54. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 224 (1989);
55. Phys. Rev. D 40, 1886 (1989).
56. If COQ is positive, the issues with stability can be eliminated by multiplication with the exponential factor exp(-cm\l) instead. Thus, consistency in the cm model can be achieved through exponential suppression of this type only for one sign of ce at a time. Note that it is common to find field theories in which consistency allows only a particular range for a parameter in the Lagrangian. For example, stability requires that the squared-mass term in a scalar field theory have only one sign.
57. E. Martinec, Class. Quantum Grav. 10, L187 (1993);
58. D. Lowe, Phys. Lett. B 326, 223 (1994);
59. D. Lowe, L. Susskind, and J. Uglum, ibid. 327, 226 (1994);
60. H. Hata and H. Oda, ibid. 394, 307 (1997).
61. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B268, 253 (1986).
62. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 207, 169 (1988);
63. Nucl. Phys. B336, 263 (1990);
64. Phys. Rev. D 42, 1289 (1990);
65. Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2238 (1990);
66. 66, 1811 (1991).
67. V. A. Kostelecky, R. Potting, and M. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4541 (2000);
68. V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D 63, 046007 (2001).