1: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
3:
4:
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
7: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
8: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
9:
10: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
11: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\mk}{{\mathbf k}}
16: \def\dup{\;\raise1.0pt\hbox{$'$}\hskip-6pt\partial\;}
17: \def\ddn{\;\overline{\raise1.0pt\hbox{$'$}\hskip-6pt\partial}\;}
18: \newcommand{\f}{\begin{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\ff}{\end{equation}}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: %\preprint{IC-????}
24:
25: \title{Anomalous CMB polarization and gravitational chirality}% Force line breaks with \\
26:
27: \author{Carlo R. Contaldi$^1$, Jo\~ao Magueijo$^1$ and Lee Smolin$^2$}%
28: % \email{contaldi@imperial.ac.uk}
29: \affiliation{%
30: $^1$Theoretical Physics, Imperial College, Prince
31: Consort Road, London, SW7 2BZ, U.K.}%
32: %\homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}
33: \affiliation{$^2$Perimeter Institute, 31 Caroline St N, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5,
34: Canada}
35: %Second institution and/or address\\
36: %This line break forced% with \\
37: %}%
38:
39: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
40: % but any date may be explicitly specified
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We consider the possibility that gravity breaks parity, with left and
44: right handed gravitons coupling to matter with a
45: different Newton's constant and show that this would affect their zero-point
46: vacuum fluctuations during inflation. Should there
47: be a cosmic background of gravity waves, the effect would translate into
48: anomalous CMB polarization. Non-vanishing $TB$ (and $EB$)
49: polarization components emerge, revealing interesting experimental
50: targets. Indeed if reasonable chirality is present a TB
51: measurement would provide the easiest way to detect
52: a gravitational wave background. We speculate on the theoretical
53: implications of such an observation.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
57: % Classification Scheme.
58: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
59: %display desired
60: \maketitle
61:
62: {\it Introduction} The fact that the standard model is chiral, allied
63: with the belief that all the forces of nature should be unified, leads to the natural suggestion that
64: gravity itself might be chiral~\cite{steph,lee}.
65: Furthermore, the formulation of relativity due to Cartan and
66: Kibble~\cite{kibble}, as well as its development in the Ashtekhar
67: formalism~\cite{rovelli}, shows that gravity has a definite propensity
68: for chirality due to the presence of terms in the action exhibiting odd
69: parity. The extent of parity violation, however, remains
70: unresolved, both at the classical and quantum
71: levels~\cite{freidel,Randono,rovellipar}. In this letter we explore
72: some implications of gravitational chirality that would improve the
73: prospects of gravitational wave detection in CMB experiments.
74:
75: Following the successes in CMB temperature anisotropy mapping, the
76: future of CMB physics now lies in improving polarization
77: measurements~\cite{zaldarriaga,polrev1,polrev2}. Polarization can
78: be decomposed into electric ($E$) and magnetic ($B$) modes, with positive
79: and negative parities respectively. Correlators between these modes
80: and with the temperature ($T$) may be obtained, and in the absence of
81: parity violation the only non-vanishing quadratic correlators are $TT$,
82: $TE$, $EE$ and $BB$. Scalar perturbations (i.e. density fluctuations) are
83: known to seed $E$-mode polarization only, and so affect $TT$, $TE$ and $EE$
84: correlators. Tensor modes, the hallmark of a gravitational wave
85: background, are needed in order to generate $B$-mode polarization. For
86: this reason it has been suggested that a $BB$ measurement would be a
87: choice method for a first detection of gravitational waves. The
88: effect, however, is predicted to be very small, presenting a major
89: experimental challenge, particularly when galactic foregrounds are
90: considered.
91:
92: But what if parity is violated by gravity? Then one could expect a
93: non-vanishing $TB$ correlator. This correlation may provide the
94: easiest way to detect $B$-mode polarization---and by implication
95: gravitational waves---for the same reason that $TE$ correlations are
96: easier to measure than $EE$ ones \cite{wmap1pol}:
97: they correlate something big ($T$)
98: with something small ($E$ or $B$), rather than two smaller quantities
99: ($EE$ or $BB$).
100: The proposed $TB$ measurement means nothing short of catching two
101: pigeons with one stone. Should gravity be
102: chiral {\it and} should there be a gravitational wave background it
103: would be easier to detect them together, via their combined effects,
104: rather than separately. The catch: if at least one of these two
105: premises is violated then no effect is expected. Either premise on its
106: own would not lead to $TB$, and a lack of $TB$ measurement would not
107: disprove either. What is at stake, however, is of such importance
108: that we believe the issue deserves to be investigated further,
109: experimentally and theoretically. We speculate towards the end of
110: the paper on the theoretical implications of gravitational parity violation.
111:
112: {\it Parity breaking in linearized gravity and the implications for inflation}
113: We first consider the implications of chiral symmetry breaking
114: in {\it linearized } gravity for the production
115: of gravitational waves during inflation. We shall show that a
116: chiral imprint would be left in the gravitational wave background,
117: with dramatic implications for CMB polarization.
118: Consider a metric of the form $g_{\mu\nu}=a^2(\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu})$.
119: Usually the second order action may be written as
120: \begin{equation}\label{haction}
121: S=\frac {1}{64 \pi G}\int a^2 (\dot h^{ij}\dot h_{ij} - h^{ij,k}
122: h_{ij,k}) \; d^3x,
123: \end{equation}
124: %(where we have restored the factors of $8\pi G$ for clarity)
125: and with expansion
126: \begin{equation}
127: h_{ij}=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3 2 k^0}\sum _{r=L,R}
128: A^r(\mathbf k) \epsilon _{ij}^r h(k,\eta) e^{i{\mathbf k}\cdot{\mathbf x}}
129: + h.c. \, ,
130: \end{equation}
131: the action and Hamiltonian break into left and right components, each
132: real on its own. Circular polarization states in a frame aligned
133: with $\mathbf k$ have tensors:
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: \epsilon^{R/L}_{ij}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt2} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
136: 0&0&0\\
137: 0&1&\pm i\\
138: 0&\pm i&-1\end{array}\right),
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: and the split in $S$ can be traced to the orthonormality conditions
141: for these tensors.
142:
143: For $k\eta\ll 1$ we choose boundary condition
144: $h\rightarrow e^{-i\omega \eta}$, but more generally in
145: an expanding universe we have equation:
146: \begin{equation}\label{veqn}
147: v''+{\left(k^2-\frac{a''}{a}\right)} v=0,
148: \end{equation}
149: with $v(k)\propto a h$.
150: The usual calculation of inflationary vacuum quantum fluctuations
151: relies on the fact that the action becomes a regular scalar field action
152: with normalizations:
153: %\begin{equation}
154: $v={a h}/{\sqrt {32 \pi G}}$.
155: %\end{equation}
156: Canonical quantization inside the horizon supplies a
157: vacuum fluctuation that can then be followed outside the horizon
158: with the textbook result \cite{mukh,liddle}.
159:
160: There is nothing in the linearized theory
161: that prevents us from attributing a different gravitational constant
162: to R and L gravitons. They are genuinely independent degrees
163: of freedom and (\ref{haction}) could be replaced by
164: \begin{equation}
165: S=\frac{s^R}{64\pi G^R}+\frac{s^L}{64\pi G^L},
166: \end{equation}
167: leading to a Hamiltonian:
168: \begin{equation}
169: H=\frac{1}{64\pi}\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3 2k^0} \sum_{r=L,R}
170: \frac{k^0}{G_r}{\left(A^\dagger_r({\mathbf k})A_r({\mathbf k})+
171: \frac{1}{2}\right)}.
172: \end{equation}
173: Canonical quantization can be studied as usual and a vacuum
174: fluctuation found, from the boundary condition inside
175: the horizon, and followed until it freezes out. We find
176: the straightforward modification of the standard result:
177: \begin{equation}\label{eq:power}
178: P_{R/L}(k)k^3=\frac{4 G^{R/L}}{\pi}H^2_{|k=aH},
179: \end{equation}
180: which is scale-invariant when the background is close to de~Sitter
181: with $H$ constant. A crucial modification in the normalizations,
182: however, slips into the CMB polarization calculation. For reasons
183: to be made obvious later, we shall parametrize this asymmetry by:
184: \begin{equation}\label{Gform}
185: G^{R/L}=\frac{G}{1\mp \frac{1}{\gamma}}
186: %\approx G{\left(1\pm
187: %\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)},
188: \end{equation}
189: A large $|\gamma|$ means no measurable chirality. The sign of $\gamma$
190: matters and $\gamma>0$ means stronger gravity for R gravitons.
191: If $|\gamma|<1$ then gravity becomes repulsive for one of the
192: R/L modes. For $|\gamma|=1$ the coupling constant for one of
193: the modes diverges and we can ignore the other mode.
194:
195:
196:
197: It is important to note that for linear polarization the basis change
198: induced by the transformation ${\mathbf k} \rightarrow -\mathbf k$ is
199: such that $\epsilon^+_{ij}(-\mk) =\epsilon_{ij}^+(\mk)$ and
200: $\epsilon^\times_{ij}(-\mk) =-\epsilon_{ij}^\times(\mk)$. This results
201: in reality conditions $h_+(\mk)=h_+^\star(-\mk)$ and
202: $h_\times(\mk)=-h_\times^\star(-\mk)$. Using the relation
203: %\begin{equation}
204: $h_{R/L}=({h^+\mp i h^\times})/{\sqrt 2}$,
205: %\end{equation}
206: this implies the separate reality conditions
207: $h_R(\mk)=h_R^{\star}(-\mk)$ and
208: $h_L(\mk)=h_L^\star(-\mk)$
209: In the inflationary setting we have described we therefore have:
210: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:prpl}
211: {\langle h_R(\mk)h^\star_R(\mk ')\rangle}&=&\delta(\mk-\mk')P_R(k),\nonumber\\
212: {\langle h_L(\mk)h^\star_L(\mk ')\rangle}&=&\delta(\mk-\mk')P_L(k),\nonumber\\
213: {\langle h_R(\mk)h^\star_L(\mk ')\rangle}&=&0
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: and
216: obviously $P_R(k)\neq P_L(k)$ does not contradict the reality conditions.
217: %To facilitate comparison with similar work performed in the context of
218: %quantum gravity theories a comment is in order.
219: %This is because with our
220: %definitions for L and R we have for the SO(3,1) connection
221: %$\omega^+=\omega^L+\omega^{R\star}$ and $\omega^-=\omega^{L\star} +\omega^R$,
222: %where $\star$ means
223: %complex conjugation. Thus the reality condition for $\omega$
224: %follows directly from the separate reality conditions for R and L,
225: %but these are {\it not} the self-dual, anti-self-dual modes.
226: %Contrary to notation, therefore, the $\gamma$ that appears in what
227: %follows is not the Immirzi parameter of the Lorentzian theory (although
228: %it would be for the euclidean theory). However it must be related to
229: %it in a suitably modified theory.
230:
231: %{\bf The
232: %component can be decomposed into two independent polarization states
233: %as $h_{ij} = h_+e^+_{ij} + h_\times e^\times_{ij}$ where the
234: %polarization matrices are defined in the plane orthogonal to the
235: %momentum direction ${\bf e}^+ = {\bf \hat e}_1 \otimes {\bf \hat e}_1
236: %- {\bf \hat e}_2 \otimes {\bf \hat e}_2$ and ${\bf e}^\times = {\bf
237: % \hat e}_1 \otimes {\bf \hat e}_2 + {\bf \hat e}_1 \otimes {\bf \hat
238: % e}_1$. The helicity basis appropriate to the explicit parity
239: %asymmetry discussed in this work is related to these as
240: %$h_R=(h_+-ih_\times)\sqrt{2}$ and $h_L=(h_++ih_\times)\sqrt{2}$ with
241: %explicit parity dependence $h_R({\bf k}) = - h_R(-{\bf k})$ and
242: %$h_L({\bf k}) = h_L(-{\bf k})$ .
243: %}
244:
245:
246:
247: {\it CMB polarization in chiral gravity}
248: We now examine the impact of such chirality upon the CMB.
249: Linear polarization of the
250: radiation is described by the three Stokes parameters $I$, $Q$, and
251: $U$. The $I$ component is invariant under right handed rotations
252: $\psi$ about the line of sight vector ${\bf \hat n}$ while $Q$ and $U$
253: components transform as $Q'=Q\cos 2\psi + U\sin 2\psi$ and $U'=-Q\sin
254: 2\psi + U\cos 2\psi$. We can construct two fields with spin-2 symmetry
255: on the sky from the $Q$ and $U$ parameters and rotate as
256: %\begin{equation}
257: $(Q\pm iU)'({\bf\hat n})= e^{\mp2i\psi}(Q\pm iU)({\bf\hat n})$.
258: %\end{equation}
259: On the sky the spin-2 fields can be decomposed onto the basis of
260: spin-2 weighted spherical harmonic functions $_{\pm 2}Y_{\ell m}({\bf
261: \hat n})$ as
262: %\begin{equation}
263: $ (Q\pm iU)({\bf\hat n}) = \sum_{\ell m} a_{\pm 2, \ell m} \,{}_{\pm
264: 2}Y_{\ell m}({\bf
265: \hat n})$.
266: %\end{equation}
267: Polarization induced by Thompson scattering of a plane wave
268: perturbation is best considered in the local frame ${\bf \hat
269: e}_1,{\bf \hat e}_2,{\bf \hat e}_3 $ whose axis ${\bf \hat e}_3$ is
270: aligned with plane wave vector ${\bf k}$
271: \cite{polnarev,kosowsky}. In the aligned frame only the
272: $Q$ Stokes parameter is generated and its magnitude is proportional
273: to $(1-\mu^2)e^{\pm im\phi}$ where $\mu$ is
274: the angle between the plane wave and the outgoing photon momentum $\mu
275: = {\bf \hat k}\cdot {\bf \hat n}$, $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of
276: the wavevector and $m =0, \,1,\, 2$ for scalar, vector and tensor
277: sources respectively. The induced polarization can then be
278: rotated and averaged over the whole sky to obtain the tensor generated
279: spin-2 fields \cite{polnarev} e.g. for the tensor sources;
280: \begin{eqnarray}
281: (Q\pm iU)({\bf \hat n},{\bf k}) = \left[(1\mp \mu)^2e^{i2\phi}h_R({\bf
282: k}) \right.+ \hspace{1.3cm} \nonumber\\
283: \left.(1\pm \mu)^2e^{-i2\phi}h_L({\bf
284: k}) \right]\Delta_P(\mu,k),
285: \end{eqnarray}
286: where $\Delta_P(\mu,k)$ are the tensor polarization source functions
287: for the perturbation to the photon phase space density
288: \cite{bond} and are obtained as solutions of the full
289: Einstein-Boltzmann system.
290:
291: It is convenient to define two rotationally invariant, spin-0 fields
292: by acting twice on the spin-2 fields with spin raising and lowering
293: operators $\dup$ and $\ddn$ \cite{zaldarriaga}
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: E({\bf \hat n}) &=& - \frac{1}{2}\left[ \dup^2(Q+ iU)({\bf \hat n})
296: + \ddn^2(Q- iU)({\bf \hat n})\right],\nonumber\\
297: B({\bf \hat n}) &=& \frac{i}{2}\left[ \ddn^2(Q+ iU)({\bf \hat n})
298: - \dup^2(Q- iU)({\bf \hat n})\right].
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: The two rotationally invariant fields have opposite parity with
301: respect to fields with opposite spin. Scalar perturbations give
302: $\dup^2(Q+ iU) = \ddn^2(Q- iU)$ since the the spin-2 fields generated
303: have no parity dependence. Thus scalars do not source the $B$
304: field. Tensors however generate the parity sensitive $B$-field due to
305: the extra $e^{\pm i2\phi}$ dependence.
306:
307: Solving for the $E$, $B$ and $T$ fields at late time and expanding
308: onto spherical harmonic coefficients $a_{\ell m}^{T,E,B}$ one can define
309: the present day angular power spectra $C^{XY}_\ell =1/(2\ell+1)\sum_m
310: \vev{a^X_{\ell m}a^{Y\, \star}_{\ell m}} $ for all correlations of the
311: three fields. Here we list only the cross-correlation spectra which
312: are of particular interest
313: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:spectra}
314: C^{TE}_\ell &=& 8\pi \int d k
315: P^+(k)\Delta^T_\ell(k,\eta_0)\Delta^E_\ell(k',\eta_0),\nonumber\\
316: C^{TB}_\ell &=& 8\pi \int d k
317: P^{-}(k)\Delta^T_\ell(k,\eta_0)\Delta^B_\ell(k',\eta_0),\nonumber\\
318: C^{EB}_\ell &=& 8\pi \int dk
319: P^{-}(k)\Delta^E_\ell(k,\eta_0)\Delta^B_\ell(k',\eta_0),
320: \end{eqnarray}
321: where the $\Delta^X_\ell(k,\eta_0)$ are the Legendre expanded
322: radiation transfer functions integrated to the present time. The
323: functions $P^+(k)=P_R(k)+P_L(k)$ and $P^-(k)=P_R(k)-P_L(k)$ are the sum and
324: difference of the $R$
325: and $L$ mode power spectra (\ref{eq:prpl}) under the assumption of isotropy.
326: Following
327: (\ref{eq:power}) we can write
328: \begin{equation}
329: P^+(k) = \frac{P_h(k)}{\left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma2}\right)}\ \ \mbox{and}
330: \ \ P^-(k) = \frac{P_h(k)}{2\gamma\left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma2}\right)},
331: \end{equation}
332: where $P_h(k)$ is a reference spectrum for the combination of the two
333: gravitational modes for the standard case ($\gamma\rightarrow
334: \infty$). As shown in (\ref{eq:spectra}) any tensor contribution to
335: the $TB$ and $EB$ cross-correlation spectra vanishes for the standard
336: parity invariant case. Thus any non-zero $TB$ and $EB$ signal would be
337: an unambiguous indication of new parity breaking physics either in the
338: primordial gravitational wave spectrum \cite{kamionkowskitb} or from
339: effects along the line of sight that rotate the polarizations
340: \cite{Xia}.
341:
342:
343:
344:
345: {\it Results} Standard line of sight, Einstein-Boltzmann codes (e.g. CAMB
346: \cite{lewis}\footnote{http://camb.info}) can be easily modified to include
347: the calculation of the
348: $TB$ and $EB$ spectra and in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra} we show the tensor
349: sensitive combinations obtained for a model with $\gamma=10$ and
350: tensor to scalar ratio $r=0.1$.
351: Searching for such a unique signal in the cross-correlation spectra
352: offers some observational advantages. As mentioned previously the $TB$
353: signal is larger than the pure $BB$ correlation but also does not suffer
354: from
355: noise bias in the absence of noise correlations between total
356: intensity and polarization sensitive measurements. In addition the
357: $TB$ spectrum is free of any ambiguities induced by the coupling of
358: $E$ and $B$-modes due to cut--sky effects in multipole space.
359: \begin{figure}[t]
360: \centering
361: \includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{spectra.eps}
362: \caption{Tensor contribution to the $TB$ (solid, black), $BB$ (dashed,
363: red), and $EB$ (dotted, blue) spectra for a standard $\Lambda$CDM
364: model with tensor to scalar ratio $r=0.1$ and chirality
365: parameter $\gamma = 10$.}\label{fig:spectra}
366: \end{figure}
367:
368:
369:
370: Observationally, the strength of the effect is determined by both the
371: amplitude of the gravitational wave background, usually denoted by the
372: ratio of primordial tensor-to-scalar spectra normalizations
373: $r=A_h/A_S$, and the value of our parity breaking measure
374: $\gamma$. The ratio of quadrupole power of the two, opposite parity
375: tensor contributions can be approximated as $C_2^{TB}/C_2^{BB}\approx
376: \alpha_2/\gamma$, where $\alpha_2$ is a depends on the exact
377: cosmology and $\alpha_2\sim 200$ for a standard $\Lambda$CDM model. In
378: this case the $TB$ contribution will be larger than the $BB$ one for
379: $\gamma < 102$. Alternatively we can examine the overall amplitude of
380: the effect by comparing to the scalar contribution to the total
381: intensity spectrum
382: \begin{equation}
383: \frac{C_2^{TB}}{C_2^{TT(S)}} \approx \beta_2\,
384: \frac{r}{\gamma}\frac{1}{(1-\frac{1}{\gamma2})} \sim 1\times 10^{-3} \,
385: \frac{r}{\gamma},
386: \end{equation}
387: for $\gamma \gg 1$ and where $\beta_2\sim 1\times 10^{-3}$ is again a
388: reference value for a
389: standard $\Lambda$CDM model.
390:
391: CMB results have not yet reached the sensitivity required to impose
392: interesting limits but most polarisation experiments are now reporting
393: the parity violating spectra $TB$ and $EB$ in addition to the usual
394: four since these also provide useful consistency checks on
395: instrumental and analysis methods. The best constraint so far are from
396: the latest WMAP 5-year results \cite{wmap5}
397: \footnote{http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov} which observed a $TB$
398: quadrupole $\ell(\ell+1)C_\ell^{TB}/2\pi \approx 1.26 \pm 0.87 \mu K^2$. This
399: can be interpreted broadly as a 3-$\sigma$ upper bound of $-1.5 < C_2^{TB} <
400: 4 \mu K^2$ which translates into a limit of $\gamma-1> 0.4\,r$
401: and $\gamma+1<- 0.15\,r$ (where for simplicity we
402: ignored the $|\gamma|<1$ possibility).
403: We are still in the regime $|\gamma| \rightarrow
404: 1$, but
405: future data will give much more stringent constraints of $\gamma
406: \gg 1$; or else provide a detection.
407:
408:
409: {\it Motivating chiral gravity}
410: What would be the theoretical implications of such an observation?
411: While linearized gravity is all that is needed to deduce a spectrum for tensor fluctuations during inflation, it is generally assumed that that theory is a linearization of a classical non-linear gravitational theory, which is general relativity or a closely related modification. General relativity is parity symmetric, so it is pertinent to ask how radical the modifications of its principles need be to allow parity asymmetry in the form of $G_L \neq G_R$.
412:
413:
414: Chiral gravitation has been associated with a Chern-Simons
415: term~\cite{cs,Xia,kamionkowskitb} coupled to a dilaton, or the presence of
416: spinors~\cite{rovelli,freidel,Randono}. But none of these mechanisms induce parity breaking at leading order in the graviton propagator, as is implied by $G_L \neq G_R$. But the possibility of such a leading order effect can be motivated
417: from several considerations including Euclidean gravity and the fact that $CP$ violating instanton effects are expected to arise in a path integral quantization of chiral actions such as the JSS and Plebanski actions~\cite{Soo}. Note also that in the linearized calculation presented
418: above all that may be needed from the full theory is parity violation
419: in the action, as opposed to the field equations, since we're only
420: concerned with the {\it quantum} zero-point fluctuations.
421: Several
422: actions in use, such as the $JSS$ and Holtz actions, already have this property.
423:
424: We {\it sketch} how this may come about, leaving details to~\cite{future}.
425: Let us consider the Euclidean action:
426: \begin{equation}\label{holst}
427: S=\frac{1}{32\pi G}\int {\left( \epsilon_{abcd}
428: e^a\wedge e^b \wedge R^{cd}
429: -\frac{2}{\gamma} e_a\wedge e_b\wedge R^{ab}\right)},
430: \end{equation}
431: where $e_a$ is the tetrad, $R_{ab}$ the curvature
432: and $\gamma$ is the Immirzi parameter
433: (we'll use latins for the SO(4) group index).
434: Introducing the area form $\Sigma_{ab}=e_a\wedge e_b$
435: the action can be written in terms of 2-forms as
436: \begin{equation}
437: S=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int \Sigma^{ab}\wedge{\left(\star R_{ab}-\frac{1}{\gamma}
438: R_{ab}\right)}.
439: \end{equation}
440: where $\star$ represents the dual form.
441: %(This is the Plebanski action without the usual
442: %Lagrange multiplier,
443: %so this is not equivalent to theory (\ref{holst}); yet such a
444: %theory has a metric~\cite{future}).
445: Splitting into self-dual and anti-self-dual components,
446: we have $S=S^++S^-$ with the illuminating result
447: \begin{equation}\label{plebs}
448: S^\pm=\frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int \Sigma^{ab\pm}\wedge R^\pm_{ab}
449: {\left(\pm 1-\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)},
450: \end{equation}
451: (here $F^\pm=(F\pm \star F)/{2}$ and
452: $\star F^{\pm}=\pm F^\pm$).
453: Thus, if $\gamma$ is real, we find a shift in
454: the gravitational constant for + and -
455: with a formula identical to (\ref{Gform}) used in our phenomenology.
456: It is tempting to translate this argument into SO(3,1) to conclude
457: that a {\it pure imaginary} Immirzi parameter would shift $G$ for
458: + and - modes (see~\cite{Randono} for closely related work).
459: However this is where
460: we lose connection with our work, because the + and -
461: modes are no longer R and L (which are real). We are currently working
462: on a suitable modification of the standard theory~\cite{future} that
463: does connect with the phenomenology in this Letter.
464:
465:
466: Should chirality be required to appear in the classical field
467: equations the implications could be even more dramatic.
468: In~\cite{future} we shall demonstrate the following lemma.
469: Consider theories of gravity in $3+1$ dimensions which are, i) Functions of frame fields $e_\mu^a$ and a lorentzian connection $\omega_\mu^{ab}$ plus ordinary matter degrees of freedom. ii) Diffeomorphism invariant. ii) Invariant under local lorentz transformations. iii) The field equations expressed in terms of $e^a_\mu$ and $\omega_\mu^{ab}$ contain terms at most first order in derivatives. These in general have parity asymmetric actions, nonetheless, the linearization of the field equations around deSitter spacetime are those of
470: general relativity (with $G_L =G_R$).
471: The implication is that if $TB$ were observed and this were due to a chiral effect in the linearized classical field equations,
472: then one of the very reasonable
473: assumptions in this lemma would have to be violated.
474:
475:
476:
477: {\it Conclusion}
478: From the point of view of
479: grand unification it would make much more sense if gravity were
480: chiral~\cite{steph}.
481: We have shown that
482: should gravity be chiral at leading order in the linearized approximation, it would be easiest to
483: detect gravitational waves precisely by making use of their chirality.
484: Current observations are not yet suitably sensitive, yet the future is bright.
485: But what other effects might gravitational chirality
486: have? One should bear in mind that the parameter
487: $\gamma$ could be dynamical, with chirality active during
488: inflation (when gravity waves were produced) but switched off
489: nowadays. $TB$ observations would then be the only way in which the
490: theory could be constrained. If, however, gravitational chirality is
491: still present nowadays other interesting observational targets emerge,
492: which we mention in closing. The effect would appear in the quadrupole
493: formula for gravity wave emission, leading to different intensities
494: for L and R. In the case of the millisecond pulsar by symmetry any
495: polarization bias in one direction would be matched by the reverse
496: bias in the opposite direction. The total power emitted would
497: therefore be the same, but a small ``rocket effect'' would be present.
498: The issue of chirality in a gravity wave background has also been
499: discussed in the context of direct gravitational wave
500: detection~\cite{gravpol}. Most existing experiments are polarization
501: myopic, but this could change in future experiments. Other effects on
502: the CMB should also be studied, in the context of specific quantum gravity
503: theories, such as the emergence of circular polarization.
504:
505:
506: {\it Acknowledgements} We'd like to thank Chris Isham, Andrew Jaffe,
507: Ettore Majorana, Marco Peloso, Simone Speziale and Toby Wiseman for
508: helpful comments.
509:
510: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
511: \bibitem{steph}S. Alexander, arXiv:0706.4481.
512: \bibitem{lee}L. Smolin, arXiv:0712.0977.
513: \bibitem{kibble}T. Kibble, J. Math. Phys. 2, 212-221, 1961.
514: \bibitem{rovelli}C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, CUP, Cambridge 2004.
515: \bibitem{freidel}L. Freidel, D. Minic and T. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev. D72: 104002, 2005.
516: \bibitem{Randono}A. Randono, gr-qc/0504010; hep-th/0510001
517: \bibitem{rovellipar}A. Perez and C. Rovelli, Phys.Rev. D73: 044013, 2006.
518: \bibitem[Zaldarriaga \& Seljak (1997)]{zaldarriaga} Zaldarriaga, M., \& Seljak, U.\ 1997, \prd, 55, 1830
519: \bibitem{polrev1}A. Challinor, astro-ph/0403344; astro-ph/0502093.
520: \bibitem{polrev2}Y. Lin and B. Wandelt, Astropart.Phys. 25, 151, 2006.
521: %\bibitem{polrev4}
522: \bibitem[Kogut et al.(2003)]{wmap1pol} Kogut, A., et al.\ 2003,
523: \apj Supp., 148, 161
524: \bibitem{cs}S. Alexander and M. Peskin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96: 081301, 2006.
525: \bibitem{kamionkowskitb}A. Lue, L. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Phys.Rev.Lett. 83, 1506, 1999.
526: \bibitem[Xia et
527: al.(2008)]{Xia} Xia, J.-Q., Li, H., Wang, X., \& Zhang, X.\ 2008, Astron. \& Astroph., 483, 715
528: \bibitem{future} C. R. Contaldi, J. Magueijo, L. Smolin, in preparation.
529: \bibitem[Mukhanov(2005)]{mukh} Mukhanov, V.\ 2005, Physical
530: foundations of cosmology, by V.~Mukhanov.~Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
531: University Press, 2005, pp348 ff
532: \bibitem[Liddle \& Lyth (2000)]{liddle} Lewis, A., Challinor, A.,
533: \& Lasenby, A.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 473, p.153
534: \bibitem[Lewis et al. (2000)]{lewis} Lewis, A., Challinor, A.,
535: \& Lasenby, A.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 473
536: \bibitem[Polnarev (1985)]{polnarev} Polnarev, A.~G.\ 1985, Astronomicheskii Zhurnal,
537: 62, 1041
538: \bibitem[Kosowsky (1996)]{kosowsky} Kosowsky, A.\ 1996, Annals of
539: Physics, 246, 49
540: \bibitem[Bond
541: \& Efstathiou(1984)]{bond} Bond, J.~R., \& Efstathiou, G.\ 1984,
542: \apj Letters, 285, L45
543: \bibitem[Nolta et al.(2008)]{wmap5} Nolta, M.~R., et al.\
544: 2008, arXiv:0803.0593
545: \bibitem{gravpol} N. Seto and A. Taruya, ArXiv0801.4185.
546: \bibitem{Soo}C. Soo, Phys. Rev. D52: 3484, 1995.
547: \end{thebibliography}
548: %\bibliography{measure}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.
549: \end{document}
550: %
551: % ****** End of file apssamp.tex ******
552: