Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

44
Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models Robertus Potting Physics Department, FCT University of the Algarve, Faro, Portugal, and CENTRA, Instituto Superior T´ ecnico University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal SME2021 Summer School, 30 May 2021

Transcript of Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Page 1: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Lorentz Violation:

mechanisms and models

Robertus Potting

Physics Department, FCTUniversity of the Algarve, Faro, Portugal, and

CENTRA, Instituto Superior TecnicoUniversity of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

SME2021 Summer School,30 May 2021

Page 2: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Outline

Models of quantum gravityString Field TheoryLoop Quantum GravitySpacetime foam

Noncommutative field theory

Varying space-time constantsA supergravity-inspired model

Bumblebee and cardinal modelsSymmetry vs. Broken SymmetryThe bumblebeeThe cardinal

Page 3: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String theory (1)

String theory:

• Fundamental theory of nature in which basic object isvibrating string

• Vibrational string states correspond to different particles

• can either consider open + closed strings, or only closedstrings

• Massless string spectrum includes graviton

• world sheet reparametrization invariance: 2d conformal fieldtheory

Page 4: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String theory (2)

String scattering amplitude:

String amplitude involves sum over all intermediate states:

Page 5: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String Field Theory

Action of Witten’s open string field theory (OSFT)

I (Φ) =1

2

∫Φ ⋆ QΦ+

g

3

∫Φ ⋆ Φ ⋆ Φ

Legenda:

• Φ ≡ Φ (xµ(σ), b(σ), c(σ)) is the string field

• ⋆: gauge invariant string field product;

• kinetic operator = open string BRST operator Q;

Gauge invariance:

δΦ = QΛ + gα′[Λ ⋆ Φ−Φ ⋆ Λ]

Page 6: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String field Theory (2)

Cubic vertex ”glues” free string propagators:

Perturbation theory around canonical vacuum Φ = 0 yieldsamplitudes of first-quantized string theory.

Page 7: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String field Theory (2)

Mode decomposition:

xµ(σ) = xµ0 +

√2

∞∑

n=1

xµn cos(nσ)

• x0: ”center of mass” of string

Can now expand string field in Fourier series of string modes:

|Φ〉 =[φ(x0) + Aµ(x0)α

µ−1 + i Bµ(x0)α

µ−2 + Bµν(x0)α

µ−1α

ν−1 + . . .

]|0〉

• αµ−n: string mode creation operators;

• |0〉 harmonic oscillator vacuum for xn coordinates

• φ: Scalar field (tachyon); Aµ: massless vector field; etc.

Page 8: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Solutions of String field Theory

Nontrivial static solutions of the SFT equations of motion:

1. ”canonical vacuum” Φ = 0• not local minimum ⇒ unstable• tachyonic mode in spectrum

2. Kostelecky and Samuel (1989): new numerical solution (leveltruncation)

• no physical open string excitations• ”true” stable vacuum

3. Kostelecky and Potting (1996): additional LV solutions

Page 9: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Interpretation of the solutions

Interpretation in terms of D-branes

1. ”True” vacuum interpreted by Sen (1999) as absence of anyD-brane

• canonical vacuum: space-filling D-25 brane

2. LV solutions presumably correspond to solutions involvinglower-dimensional D-branes

Boundary string field theory

• Alternative method to study D-brane solitons based on singlefield tachyon condensation

• Hashimoto and Murata (2012) numerically found large(infinite?) class of LV soliton solutions in BSFT

• physical interpretation still not clear

Page 10: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

String field Theory (3)

Cubic string field theory indicates couplings of the typeφTµ1...µnT

µ1...µn .

• φ acts as type of Higgs field;

• φ acquires vacuum expectation value;

• Could imply non-zero vacuum expectation values for thetensor fields Tµ1...µn ;

• Such energetically favorable configurations are Lorentzviolating

Page 11: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Superstring field theory

Lorentz-violating solutions may occur the same way in the contextof superstring field theory.

• two candidate theories for SUSY SFT;

• String field contains fermionic as well as bosonic sector;

• Both can be expanded in terms of component string fields.

Could expect solutions in which bosonic tensor componentsTµ1...µn acquire v.e.v., leading to effective LV interactions:

LI ⊃ λ

Mkpl

T · ψΓ(i∂)kχ+ h.c.

Γ: γ-matrix structure; Lorentz indices on T , Γ and (i∂)k havebeen suppressed.

Page 12: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

LQG

Loop Quantum Gravity is an attempt to reconcile standardquantum mechanics and standard general relativity.

• Ashtekar reformulation of GR (1986) admits loop solutions forWheeler-DeWitt eq.

• Loop solutions form basis of nonperturbativebackground-independent theory of quantum gravity

• quantum operators for area and volume have discretespectrum ⇒ spin networks: basis of states of quantumgeometry

• Canonical formulation with anomaly-free Hamiltonian(Thiemann)

• Presumably LQG should have GR as semiclassical limit

Page 13: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

LQG (2)

Physical consequences

• physical picture of space as a consequence of quantization:discrete, ”granular” space

• Planck size constitutes minimum distance

• Black hole entropy from LQG (S = A/4)• specific prediction for spectrum of evaporating BH

• Loop quantum cosmology• prediction of ”Big Bounce”, with observable consequences• cosmological perturbations around FLRW solution: quantum

background• predictions from LQG for primordial power spectrum (sources

of CMB anisotropies)

• possible violations of Lorentz invariance

Page 14: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

LQG (3)

Lorentz violation in LQG

• Discreteness of geometric operators might result in modifieddispersion relations for high-energy particles:E ≃ p +m2/(2p) ± ξp(p/Mpl)

n. Amelino-Camelia et.al., 1998

• Polymer-like structure of spacetime at microscales may alsolead to photon birefringence Gambini and Pullin, 1998

• Helicity-independent corrections to neutrino propagation. Alfaro

et.al., 1999

Page 15: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Spacetime foam

”Qualitative” idea: Wheeler, 1955

• As distance/time scales under consideration become smaller,the energy of virtual particles increases;

• According to GR, these virtual particles must curve spacetime

• At the Planck scale, one expects fluctuations to be largeenough to cause departures from smooth spacetime: foamyspacetime

• Without complete theory of quantum gravity, precise effectsnot clear.

Page 16: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Spacetime foam

Possible effects of spacetime foam:

• Non-deterministic motion of certain particles (i.e., photons)on Planck scale:

• Might expect energy-dependent stochastic fluctuations inparticle speed

• nontrivial Lorentz-violating effects on dispersion relation?

• Recent searches concentrated on looking for variations inmoment of arrival of photons of different energies emitted bya gamma ray burst

Page 17: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Noncommutative field theory

Noncommutative field theory: application of noncommutativemathematics to the spacetime of quantum field theory in which thecoordinate functions are noncommutative.

Commonly studied version has the ”canonical” commutationrelation:

[xµ, xν ] = θµν

θµν : antisymmetric tensor of dimension −2.

⇒ uncertainty relation for the coordinates similar to theHeisenberg uncertainty relation.

Page 18: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Noncommutative field theory

• Heisenberg and Hartland Snyder (1947) suggested usingnoncommutative field theory in order to renormalize UVinfinities.

• 1980’s: development of noncommutative geometry by A.Connes and other mathematicians.

• Connes, Douglas and Schwarz (1997): certaincompactifications of M-theory involve NC FT

• Seiberg and Witten (1999): open strings on D-branes inpresence of NS B-field satisfy noncommutative algebra.

• Minwalla et. al. (2000): IR/UV mixing phenomenon:low-energy expansion problematic. Possible solution bysupersymmetry.

Page 19: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Noncommutative QED

Define Moyal product:

f ⋆ g(x) ≡ exp(12 iθµν∂xµ∂yν )f (x)g(y)

∣∣x=y

.

One can now define noncommutative QED:

L = 12 i ψ ⋆ γ

µ↔

Dµ ψ −mψ ⋆ ψ − 1

4q2Fµν ⋆ F

µν .

where Fµν = ∂µAν − ∂νAµ − i [Aµ, Aν ]⋆, and

Dµψ = ∂µψ − i Aµ ⋆ ψ, with f ⋆↔

Dµ g ≡ f ⋆ Dµg − Dµf ⋆ g .

Page 20: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Lorentz violation

θµν : fixed background tensor

• transforms under observer Lorentz transformations;

• does not transform under particle Lorentz transformations;

• thus any NC field theory violates Lorentz invariance.

Physical interpretation?

• not obvious how to identify of physical quantities with NCoperators

• possible approach: Seiberg-Witten map. Maps NC field theoryto ordinary field theory. Seiberg, Witten, 1999

Page 21: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

NC field theories and the SME

Seiberg-Witten map yields usual commuting LV field theory withconstant background θµν tensor. Thus

• Any realistic noncommutative fied theory is physicallyequivalent to subset of SME.

• CPT is preserved.

Other features:

• θµν always accompanied by two derivatives ⇒ minimumdimension of LV operators is 5 or 6 (rather than 3 or 4).

• no difficulties with perturbative unitarity provided θµνθµν > 0

Page 22: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Seiberg-Witten mapSeiberg-Witten map to lowest order:

Aµ = Aµ − 1

2θαβAα(∂βAµ + Fβµ),

ψ = ψ − 1

2θαβAα∂βψ.

This yields the NC QED Lagrangian Carroll et.al., 2001

L =1

2iψγµ

Dµ ψ −mψψ − 1

4FµνF

µν

−1

8iqθαβFαβψγ

µ↔

Dµ ψ +1

4iqθαβFαµψγ

µ↔

Dβ ψ

+1

4mqθαβFαβψψ

−1

2qθαβFαµFβνF

µν +1

8qθαβFαβFµνF

µν .

Page 23: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Varying space-time constants

Consider the supergravity-inspired Lagrangian with dilaton field A

and axion field B Kostelecky, Lehnert, Perry (2002); Bertolami, Lehnert, R.P., Ribeiro (2004)

Lsg = −1

2

√gR − 1

4

√gMFµνF

µν − 1

4

√gNFµν F

µν

+√g(∂µA∂

µA+ ∂µB∂µB)/4B2 ,

where

M =B(A2 + B2 + 1)

(1 + A2 + B2)2 − 4A2,

N =A(A2 + B2 − 1)

(1 + A2 + B2)2 − 4A2.

Page 24: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Time-dependent couplings

• This model has been integrated in a cosmological model(Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe) coupled to dust.

• Equations of motion for A and B define their timedevelopment. See example in figure.

Page 25: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Time-dependent couplings

• Time development of A and B defines time development ofthe effective coupling constants M and N.

• Figure shows relative time variation of electromagneticcoupling.

Page 26: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Apparent Lorentz violation

Compare SG lagrangian with conventional electrodynamicslagrangian

Lem = − 1

4e2FµνF

µν − θ

16π2Fµν F

µν .

with e2 ≡ 1/M and θ ≡ 4π2N. Eqs. of motion:

1

e2∂µFµν −

2

e3(∂µe)Fµν +

1

4π2(∂µθ)Fµν = 0 .

For spacetime-dependent e and θ, obtain effectiveLorentz-violating lagrangian!

Page 27: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Masslessness from symmetry or broken symmetry

Gauge Symmetries

Generator of unbroken gauge symmetry ⇒ massless vectorboson

General Relativity

Diffeomorphism invariance ⇒ massless gravitons

Spontaneously Broken Global Symmetry

Spontaneously broken global symmetry ⇒ masslessNambu-Goldstone boson

Page 28: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

The Nambu-Goldstone theorem

Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model (1961)

L = i ψ /∂ψ +λ

4

((ψψ)(ψψ)− (ψγ5ψ)(ψγ5ψ)

)

invariant under ordinary and chiral phase rotations:

ψ → e iαψ, ψ → ψe−iα

ψ → e iαγ5ψ, ψ → ψe iαγ5 .

Mass term breaks chiral symmetry.But: possibility of chiral condensate 〈ψψ〉:

• Spontaneously breaks chiral symmetry

• Yields effective mass term

• Broken symmetry leads to massless Goldstone boson

Page 29: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

The Nambu-Goldstone theorem

Bjorken (1963): ”emergent photons”

L = ψ(i /∂ −m)ψ +G

2(ψγµψ)(ψγ

µψ)

• Nonvanishing fermion condensate carrying vacuum currentpossible

• Dynamics can be interpreted in terms of photon in temporalgauge

• Lorentz-violating effects assumed unphysical, can besuppressed by taking G very large

• Lattice simulations suggest that Lorentz-breaking fermioniccondensates can form in large N strongly-coupled latticegauge theories. (Tomboulis ’10, ’11)

Page 30: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

The Nambu-Goldstone theorem

Nambu (1968): QED in nonlinear gauge

L = −1

4FµνF

µν + ψ(i /∂ −m)ψ − eAµψγµψ

with Aµ subject to the constraint

A2µ = M2

• M 6= 0 implies Lorentz-violating expectation value for Aµ

• No Lorentz-violating physical effects assumed: constraintmerely implies Lorentz-violating choice of gauge

Page 31: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

(Effective) field theory without gauge invarianceAssume nonderivative potential for vector field: (Kostelecky,Samuel ’89; Krauss,

Tomboulis ’02; Bluhm, Kostelecky PRD’05; Nielsen et.al. ’07)

L = −1

4FµνF

µν − V (AµAµ) + Lmatter (ψ,Aµ)

Here V is a potential that has a local minimum for either timelikeor spacelike Aµ, at which we have the constraint

A2µ = ±M2

Example 1: Mexican hat potentialV (AµA

µ) = −µ2AµAµ + κ(AµA

µ)2

Example 2: Lagrange multiplier potentialV (AµA

µ) = λ(AµAµ ±M2)

Consequence: Aµ acquires vacuum expectation value Aµ

Page 32: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

photons as Nambu-Goldstone modes

Fluctuations of Aµ around vacuum expectation value:Aµ = Aµ + aµ Lagrangian for fluctuations:

L = −1

4fµν − V (Aµ, aµ)

Goldstone bosons identified by inifitesimal Lorentz transformationson vector vev’s:

aµ = −Θµν(x)Aν

with

Θµν =

0 β1 β2 β3−β1 0 θ3 −θ2−β2 −θ3 0 θ1−β3 θ2 −θ1 0

βi = βie

ik·x , θi = θieik·x

Page 33: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

photons as Nambu-Goldstone modes

Example: purely timelike vector with only A0 6= 0Three Goldstone bosons:

aµ = −Θµ0 =

0β1β2β3

Every choice of vev corresponds to a different gauge: temporal,axial, ...Three Goldstone bosons can be decomposed in:

• 2 transverse modes: kµǫtransµ = 0

• 1 longitudinal mode: ǫlongµ = kµ − AαaαAαAα

Page 34: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Stability issues

Stability issues

• Hamiltonian analysis Bluhm, Gagne, R.P., Vrublevskis (2008); Carroll et.al. (2009)

shows instabilities can occur when A2µ 6= M2 that involve the

longitudinal mode

• Constraining phase space such that A2µ = M2 can be done

consistently. Resulting model equivalent to electrodynamics infixed gauge Escobar, Martın-Ruiz (2017)

Page 35: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

photons as Nambu-Goldstone modes

Bumblebee Lagrangian:

• has no gauge invariance

• Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken

• Masslessness of vector field is direct consequence of Lorentzbreaking (Goldstone boson)

• Maxwell theory is “emergent” phenomenon

• Stability issues for non-Maxwell longitudinal mode

• Can be coupled to gravity → “eather” field

Page 36: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Spontaneous Lorentz violation: other models (1)

antisymmetric tensor field Bµν Altschul et. al. (2010)

L = − 1

12HλµνH

λµν − V (X1,X2)

• Hλµν = 3∂[λBµν]

• X1 = BµνBµν , X2 =12xǫ

λµντBλµBντ

• V breaks gauge invariance Bµν → Bµν + ∂[µΛν]

• V (X1,X2) has minimum for nonzero X1, X2: spontaneous LV

• Propagating Nambu-Goldstone modes: “phon” modes

• Hamiltonian analysis reveals singular behavior of the DOF onthe vacuum manifold Seifert (2019)

Page 37: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Spontaneous Lorentz violation: other models (2)

Nonlinear Electrodynamics (Plebanski’s first-order formulation)

L = −Pµν∂[µAν] − V (P ,Q)

• P = 14P

µνPµν , Q = 18ǫ

λµντPλµPντ

• Maxwell theory: V = −P ; Born-Infeld theory corresponds tononlinear V

• Idea: consider V with nontrivial local minima: spontaneousLVAlfaro, Urrutia (2010)

• Gauge invariance maintained → big advantage

• Choices of V exist corresponding to energetically stablesystem with spontaneous LVC. Escobar, RP (2020)

• Hamiltonian analysis yields singular behavior of the DOF onthe vacuum manifold C. Escobar, RP (2020)

• see talk by Carlos Escobar

Page 38: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Renormalization

Fixed points of Renormalization Group

• Interesting to consider behaviour of theory under (Wilson)renormalization group

• Gaussian fixed point exists that is UV stable in certaindirections of linearized RG flow (Altschul, Kostelecky ’05)

• These relevant directions of RG flow correspond toasymptotically free theory with nonpolynomial interactions,similar to behaviour for scalar fields (Halpern, Huang ’95)

• These potentials exhibit stable nontrivial minima for AµAµ,

implying ”spontaneous bumblebee potential” !

Page 39: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Cardinal model Kostelecky, R.P., 2005,2009; Carroll et.al. 2009

Consider symmetric 2-tensor h in flat Minkowski space:

L = 12 h

µνKµναβ hαβ + V (hµν , ηµν)

Kµναβ = ηµν∂α∂β + ηαβ∂µ∂ν + (−ηµνηαβ + 12ηµαηνβ + 1

2ηµβηνα)∂2

− 12ηµα∂ν∂β − 1

2ηνα∂µ∂β − 12ηµβ∂ν∂α − 1

2ηνβ∂µ∂α

• V : scalar potential built out of the 4 independent scalarsX1 = hµνηνµ, X2 = (h · η · h · η)µµ,. . .

• kinetic term invariant under hµν → hµν − ∂µΛν − ∂νΛµ;invariance broken by V !

• V acquires minimum for hµν = Hµν : spontaneous breaking ofLorentz symmetry

• Generally all six Lorentz generators are broken; Specialsituation may arise with three or five broken generators

Page 40: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Linearized “Cardinal” dynamics

At low energy, assume V can be approximated by sum ofdelta-functions that fix the 4 independent scalars: V =

∑4n=1

λn

nXn

Fluctuations around vev: hµν = Hµν + hµν

equation of motion:

Kµναβhαβ = GL(h)µν = 0

cardinal constraints:

hµµ = 0, Hµνhµν = 0, (HηH)µνhµν = 0, (HηHηH)µνhµν = 0

Low-energy dynamics of hµν -fluctuations around vev equal tolinearized general relativity (in axial-type “cardinal” gauge)!

Page 41: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Counting degrees of freedom

Propagating massless degrees of freedom

• Can be considered Nambu-Goldstone modes of spontanouslybroken Lorentz generators Eµα:

hµν = EµαHαν + EναHµα

• Equations of motion imply masslessness ∂2hµν = 0 andLorenz conditions ∂µhµν = 0

• Number of propagating massless degrees of freedom:6− 4 = 2

Page 42: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Comparison between bumblebee and cardinal model

Photon Graviton

# # massive modes 1 4

Equivalent gauge condition Temporal / axial Cardinal

Goldstone modes 3 6

# transverse modes 2 2

# longitudinal modes 1 4

Kinetic term Maxwell Einstein-Hilbert

Page 43: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Cardinal bootstrap Kostelecky, R.P., 2009

bootstrap procedure to nonlinear theory

• Proper theory of gravity should include coupling to theenergy-momentum tensor of gravitons to matter but also tothe energy-momentum tensor of gravitons itself.

• Leads to recursive “bootstrap” procedure, forcing theinclusion of cubic, quartic, ... graviton terms of the kineticterm. Resummation can be shown to lead to theEinstein-Hilbert action. Deser 1970

• Bootstrap procedure applied to the potential leads tointegrability conditions restricting the potential to set of veryparticular expressions.

Page 44: Lorentz Violation: mechanisms and models

Models of quantum gravity Noncommutative field theory Varying space-time constants Bumblebee and cardinal models

Thanks for your attention!