1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs975x65.tex : 10 October 2003
3: %% Text file to use with ws-procs975x65.cls written in Latex2E.
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
7: %% All rights are reserved.
8: %%
9: %% Proceedings Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in
10: %% Text Area: 8in (include runningheads) x 5in
11: %% Main Text is 10/13pt
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: %%
14:
15: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs975x65}
16: \documentclass{ws-procs975x65}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{Phenomenology of Space Time Fluctuations}
21:
22: \author{R. Aloisio\footnote{invited speaker}}
23:
24: \address{INFN - Laboratori Nazionali Gran Sasso \\
25: SS 17 bis, Assergi (AQ) Italy, \\
26: E-mail: roberto.aloisio@lngs.infn.it}
27:
28: \author{P. Blasi}
29:
30: \address{INAF - Osservatorio Astrofisico Arcetri \\
31: Largo E. Fermi 5, 50125 Firenze Italy\\
32: E-mail: blasi@arcetri.astro.it}
33:
34: \author{A. Galante}
35:
36: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di L'Aquila\\
37: Via Vetoio, 67100 Coppito (AQ) Italy\\
38: E-mail: angelo.galante@lngs.infn.it}
39:
40: \author{A.F. Grillo}
41:
42: \address{INFN - Laboratori Nazionali Gran Sasso \\
43: SS 17 bis, Assergi (AQ) Italy, \\
44: E-mail: aurelio.grillo@lngs.infn.it}
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \abstracts{
53: Quantum gravitational effects may induce stochastic fluctuations in the
54: structure of space-time, to produce a characteristic foamy structure.
55: It has been known for some time now that these fluctuations may have
56: observable consequences for the propagation of cosmic ray particles
57: over cosmological distances. While invoked as a possible explanation for
58: the detection of the puzzling cosmic rays with energies in excess of the
59: threshold for photopion production (the so-called super-GZK particles), we
60: demonstrate here that lower energy observations may provide
61: strong constraints on the role of a fluctuating space-time structure.
62: We note also that the same fluctuations, if they exist, imply that
63: some decay reactions normally forbidden by elementary conservation laws,
64: become kinematically allowed, inducing the decay of particles that are seen
65: to be stable in our universe. Due to the strength of the prediction, we are
66: led to consider this finding as the most severe constraint on the classes of
67: models that may describe the effects of gravity on the structure of space-time.
68: We also propose and discuss several potential loopholes of our approach,
69: that may affect our conclusions. In particular, we try to identify the
70: situations in which despite a fluctuating energy-momentum of the
71: particles, the reactions mentioned above may not take place.
72: }
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: In the last few years the hunt for possible minuscule violations of the
77: fundamental Lorentz invariance (LI) has been object of renewed interest,
78: in particular because it has been understood that cosmic ray physics has
79: an unprecedented potential for investigation in this field
80: \cite{kir,lgm,cam,colgla,noi,spain}. Some authors \cite{cam,colgla,berto}
81: have even invoked possible violations of LI as a plausible explanation to
82: some puzzling observations related to the detection of ultra high energy
83: cosmic rays (UHECRs) with energy above the so-called GZK feature \cite{gzk},
84: and to the unexpected shape of the spectrum of photons with super-TeV
85: energy from sources at cosmological distances.
86:
87: Both types of observations have in fact
88: many uncertainties, either coming from limited statistics of very rare events,
89: or from accuracy issues in the energy determination of the detected
90: particles, and most likely the solution to the alleged puzzles will come from
91: more accurate observations rather than by a violation of fundamental
92: symmetries.
93:
94: For this reason, from the very beginning we proposed \cite{noi} that
95: cosmic ray observations should be used as an ideal tool to constrain
96: the minuscule violations of LI, rather than as evidence for the need
97: to violate LI. The reason why the cases of UHECRs and TeV gamma rays
98: represent such good test sites for LI is that both are related to physical
99: processes with a kinematical energy threshold, which is in turn very sensitive
100: to the smallest violations of LI. UHECRs are expected to suffer severe
101: energy losses due to photopion production off the photons of the cosmic
102: microwave background (CMB), and this should suppress the flux of particles
103: at the Earth at energies above $\sim 10^{20}$ eV, the so called GZK feature.
104:
105: Present operating experiments are AGASA \cite{AGASA}
106: and HiRes \cite{Hires}, and they do not provide strong evidence either
107: in favor or
108: against the detection of the GZK feature \cite{demarco}. A substantial
109: increase in the statistics of events, as expected with the Auger project
110: \cite{Auger}
111: and with EUSO \cite{EUSO},
112: should dramatically change the situation and allow to detect
113: the presence or lack of the GZK feature in the spectrum of UHECRs. These
114: are the observations that will provide the right ground for imposing a
115: strong limit on violations of LI. For the case of TeV sources, the process
116: involved is pair production \cite{gamgam} of high energy gamma rays on
117: the photons of the infrared background. In both cases, a small violation
118: of LI can move the threshold to energies which are smaller than the
119: classical ones, or move them to infinity, making the reactions impossible.
120: The detection of the GZK suppression or the cutoff in the gamma ray
121: spectra of gamma ray sources at cosmological distances will prove that
122: LI is preserved to correspondingly high accuracy \cite{noi}.
123:
124: The recipes for the violations of LI generally consist of requiring an
125: {\it explicit} modification of the dispersion relation of high energy
126: particles, due to their propagation in the ``vacuum'', now affected by
127: quantum gravity (QG). This effect is generally parametrized by introducing
128: a typical mass, expected to be of the order of the Planck mass ($M_P$),
129: that sets the scale for QG to become effective.
130:
131: However, explicit modifications of the dispersion relation are not really
132: necessary in order to produce detectable effects, as was recently
133: pointed out in Refs. \cite{ford,ng1,ng2,lieu} for the case of propagation
134: of UHECRs. It is in fact generally believed that coordinate measurements
135: cannot be performed with precision better than the Planck distance (time)
136: $\delta x \geq l_P$, namely the distance where the metric of space-time
137: must feature quantum fluctuations.
138: A similar line of thought implies that an uncertainty in the measurement
139: of energy and momentum of particles can be expected, according with the
140: relation $\delta p \simeq \delta E \simeq p^2/M_P$. As discussed also in
141: Refs. \cite{ng1,ng2} the apparent problem of super-GZK particles
142: may find a solution also in the context of this uncertainty approach.
143:
144: We discuss here this appealing approach more in detail, by taking into
145: account the effects of the propagation of CRs in the QG vacuum in the
146: presence of the universal microwave background radiation. A fluctuating
147: metric implies that different measurements of the particle energy or
148: momentum may result in different outcomes. Therefore it becomes important to
149: define the probability that the {\it measured} energy (momentum) of a particle
150: is above some fixed value. Note that averaging
151: over a large number of measurements would yield the {\it classical} values
152: for the energy and momentum. The process of measurement mentioned above,
153: during the propagation of particles over cosmological distances occurs at
154: each single interaction of the particle with the environment. At each
155: interaction vertex, the fluctuating energy/momentum of the particle is
156: compared with the kinematic threshold for the occurrence of some physical
157: process (in our case the photopion production).
158: A clear consequence of this approach is that particles with classical energy
159: below the standard Lorentz invariant threshold have a certain probability of
160: interacting. In the same way, particles above the classical threshold have a
161: finite probability of evading interaction. We show here that the most striking
162: consequences of the approach described above derive from low energy particles
163: rather than from particles otherwise above the threshold for photopion
164: production.
165:
166: However, the possibility of a fluctuating energy and momentum is mainly
167: constrained by other processes that could arise. The fluctuations
168: of energy and momentum are responsible, infact, for decaying processes
169: otherwise impossible, typically prevented by energy and momentum conservation.
170: These decaying processes represent the most stringent test of the proposed
171: model. In the present paper we will discuss these decaying processes, showing
172: how they could arise. From a general point of view a particle
173: propagating in a fluctuating vacuum acquires an energy dependent fluctuating
174: effective mass (the fluctuating dispersion relations introduced in
175: \cite{noi2}) which may be responsible for kinematically forbidden decay
176: reactions to become kinematically allowed.
177:
178: If this happens, particles that are known to be stable would decay, provided
179: no other fundamental conservation law is violated (e.g.: baryon number
180: conservation, charge conservation). A representative example is that of the
181: reaction $p\to p+\pi^0$, that is prevented from taking place only due to
182: energy conservation. With a fluctuating metric, we find that if the initial
183: proton has energy above a few $10^{15}$ eV, the reaction above can take place
184: with a cross section typical of hadronic interactions, so that the proton
185: would rapidly lose its energy. Similar conclusions hold for the
186: electromagnetic process $p\to p+\gamma$.
187:
188: The fact that particles that would be otherwise stable could
189: decay has been known for some time now \cite{gmestres,liberati} and
190: in fact it rules out a class of non-fluctuating modifications of the
191: dispersion relations for some choices of the sign of the modification:
192: the new point here is that it does not appear to be possible to fix the
193: sign of the fluctuations, so that the conclusions illustrated above
194: seem unavoidable. This result represents the most striking test of the
195: fluctuating picture discussed in this paper and could in principle invalidate
196: the basis of the proposed model itself.
197:
198: The plan of the paper is the following: in \S 2 we discuss the effect of
199: fluctuations on the propagation of high energy particles, setting also the
200: computational framework of the paper.
201: In \S 3, we discuss, mainly from the astrophysical point of view, the
202: possibility of putting under experimental scrutiny some of the conclusions
203: reached in \S 2. In section \S 4 we will discuss the decays of stable
204: particles induced by fluctuations. Finally in section \S 5 we argue that the
205: comparison of our predictions with experimental
206: data indicates a strong inconsistency, implying that the framework of
207: quantum fluctuations currently discussed in most literature is in fact
208: ruled out. The strength of this conclusion leads us to try to identify
209: possible loopholes in our working assumptions. The ways to avoid the
210: dramatic effects of the fluctuating energy-momentum of a particle should
211: be mainly searched in the dynamics of Quantum Gravity.
212: These effects, in which our knowledge is poor to say the least, might
213: forbid processes even when these processes are kinematically allowed
214: due to the fluctuations in the energy and momentum.
215:
216: \section{The effect of Space-Time fluctuations on the propagation
217: of high energy particles.}
218:
219: While electroweak and strong interactions propagate through space-time,
220: gravity turns out to be a property of the space-time itself. This simple
221: statement has profound implications in the quantization of gravity. Our
222: belief that gravity can be turned into a quantum theory immediately implies
223: that the structure of space-time has quantum fluctuations itself.
224: Another way of rephrasing this concept is that space-time is expected to have
225: a granular (or foamy) structure, where however the size of space-time cells
226: fluctuates stochastically, thereby causing an intrinsic uncertainty in the
227: measurements of space-time lengths, and indirectly of energy and momentum of
228: a particle moving through space-time. The uncertainty appears on scales
229: comparable with the Planck scale (the quantization scale of gravity).
230:
231: It is generally argued that measurements of distances (times) smaller than
232: the Planck length (time) are conceptually unfeasible, since the process of
233: measurement collects in a Planck size cell an energy in excess of the Planck
234: mass, hence forming a black hole, in which information is lost.
235: This can be translated in different ways
236: into an uncertainty on energy-momentum measurements \cite{ng1,ng2}. The
237: Planck length is a good estimate of the uncertainty in the De Broglie
238: wave-length $\lambda$ of a particle with momentum $p$. Therefore
239: $\delta \lambda \approx l_P$, and $\delta p = \delta (1/\lambda) \approx
240: (p^2 l_P)=(p^2/M_P)$.
241:
242: Speculating on the exact characteristics of the fluctuations induced by
243: QG is beyond the scope of the present paper, and it would probably be
244: useless anyway, since the current status of QG approaches does not allow
245: such a kind of knowledge. We decided then to adopt a purely phenomenological
246: approach, in which some reasonable assumptions are made concerning the
247: fluctuations in the fabric of space-time, and their consequences for the
248: propagation of high energy particles are inferred. Comparison with
249: experimental data then possibly constrains QG models.
250:
251: Following \cite{ng1}, we assume that in each measurement:
252:
253: \begin{itemize}
254:
255: \item{the values of energy (momentum) fluctuate around their average values
256: (assumed to be the result theoretically recoverable for an infinite number
257: of measurements of the same observable):
258: \begin{equation}
259: E \approx {\bar E} + \alpha \frac{\bar{E}^2}{M_P}
260: \label{eq:Ebar}
261: \end{equation}
262: \begin{equation}
263: p \approx {\bar p} + \beta \frac{\bar{p}^2}{M_P}
264: \label{eq:pbar}
265: \end{equation}
266: with $\alpha, \beta$ normally distributed variables and $p$ the modulus
267: of the 3-momentum (for simplicity we assume rotationally invariant
268: fluctuations);}
269:
270: \item{the dispersion relation fluctuates as follows:
271: \begin{equation}
272: P_\mu g^{\mu\nu} P_\nu = E^2-p^2 + \gamma \frac{p^3}{M_P}=m^2
273: \label{eq:PmuPmu}
274: \end{equation}
275: and $\gamma$ is again a normally distributed variable.}
276:
277: \end{itemize}
278:
279: Ideally, QG should predict the type of fluctuations introduced above, but,
280: as already stressed, this is currently out of reach, therefore we assume here
281: that the fluctuations
282: are gaussian. Our conclusions are however not sensitive to this assumption:
283: essentially any symmetrical
284: distribution with variance $\approx 1$, within a large factor, would
285: give essentially the same results.
286: Furthermore we {\it assume} that $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$
287: are uncorrelated random variables; again, this assumption reflects our
288: ignorance in the dynamics of QG
289:
290: The fluctuations described above will in general derive from metric
291: fluctuations of magnitude $\delta g^{\mu\nu} \sim h^{\mu\nu} \frac{l_P}{l}$
292: \cite{cam,ng2}. Our assumption reflects the fact that, while the magnitude of
293: the fluctuation can be guessed, we do not make any assumption on its
294: tensorial structure $h^{\mu\nu}$.
295:
296: Our interest will be now concentrated upon processes of the type
297:
298: $$a+b\to c+d$$
299:
300: where we assume that a kinematic threshold is present; in the realm of
301: UHECR physics (a,b) is either ($\gamma, \gamma_{3K}$)
302: or ($p,\gamma_{3K}$) and (c,d) is ($e^+,e^-$) or ($N,\pi$).
303:
304: To find the value of initial momenta for which the reaction occurs we write
305: down energy-momentum conservation equations and solve them with the
306: help of the dispersion relations, as discussed in detail in \cite{noi}.
307:
308: The energy momentum conservation relations are (in the laboratory frame,
309: and specializing to the case in which the target (b) is a low energy
310: background photon for which fluctuations can be entirely neglected)
311: \begin{equation}
312: E_a+ \alpha_a \frac{E^2_a}{M_P} + \omega =
313: E_c+ \alpha_c \frac{E^2_c}{M_P}+ E_d + \alpha_d \frac{E^2_d}{M_P}
314: \label{eq:disp1}
315: \end{equation}
316: \begin{equation}
317: p_a+ \beta_a \frac{p^2_a}{M_P} - \omega =
318: p_c+ \beta_c \frac{p^2_c}{M_P}+ p_d + \beta_d \frac{p^2_d}{M_P}.
319: \label{eq:disp2}
320: \end{equation}
321: These equations refer to head-on collisions and collinear
322: reaction products, which is appropriate for threshold computations. Together
323: with the modified dispersion relations, these equations, after
324: some manipulations, lead to a cubic equation for the initial momentum
325: as a function of the momentum of one of products, and, after minimization,
326: they define the threshold for the process considered. In figure 1 we
327: report the distribution of thresholds in the $\approx 70 \%$ of cases
328: in which the solution is physical; in the other cases the kinematics
329: does not allow the reaction.
330:
331: This threshold distribution can be interpreted in the
332: following way: a particle with energy above $\sim 10^{15}$ eV has essentially
333: $70 \%$ probability of being above threshold, and therefore to be absorbed.
334: In the other $30 \%$ of the cases the protons do not interact.
335:
336: In (\ref{eq:disp1},\ref{eq:disp2}) the fluctuations are taken independently
337: for each particle, which is
338: justified as long as the energies are appreciably smaller than the Planck
339: energy. At that point it becomes plausible that different particles
340: experience the same fluctuations, or more precisely fluctuations of the
341: same region of space-time. It is instructive to consider this case in some
342: more detail: we introduce then the four-momenta (and dispersion
343: relations) of {\it all} particles fluctuating in the same way.
344: Specializing to proton interaction on CMBR, the equation which defines
345: the threshold $p_{th}$ is \cite{noi}:
346: \begin{equation}
347: \eta \frac{2 p_0^3}{(m_{\pi}^2+2m_{\pi}m_p) M_P}
348: \frac{m_{\pi}m_p}{(m_{\pi}+m_p)^2}
349: \left ( \frac{p_{th}}{p_0} \right ) ^3
350: + \left ( \frac{p_{th}}{p_0} \right ) -1 = 0
351: \end{equation}
352: where $\eta$ is a gaussian variable with zero average and variance
353: of the order of (but not exactly equal to) one, and $p_0$ is
354: the L.I. threshold (GZK). The threshold is the positive solution of
355: this equation.
356:
357: \begin{figure}[ht]
358: %\epsfxsize=10cm %width of figure - will enlarge/reduce the figures
359: %\epsfbox{fig3.eps}
360: %\figurebox{2cm}{3cm}{} %to have a box alone
361: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.8in\epsfbox{fluct.eps}}
362: \caption{Threshold distribution for $p \gamma_{3^oK} \to
363: N \pi$. In the $30\%$ of cases the reaction is not allowed.}
364: \end{figure}
365: \eject
366:
367: The coefficient of the cubic term is very large, of the
368: order of $10^{13}$ in this case, so that unless $\eta$
369: is $O(10^{-13})$,
370: we can write, neglecting pion mass
371: \begin{equation}
372: p_{th}\approx p_0 \left ( \frac{m_p^2 M_P}{\eta p_0^3}
373: \right )^{\frac{1}{3}}.
374: \label{eq:thre}
375: \end{equation}
376: When $\eta$ becomes negative, the above equation has no
377: positive root; this happens essentially in $50 \%$ of the cases.
378: Since the gaussian distribution is flat in a small interval
379: around zero, the distribution of thresholds for positive $\eta$
380: peaks around the
381: value for $\eta \approx 1$, meaning that the threshold moves almost
382: always down to a value of $\approx 10^{15}$ eV \cite{noi};
383: essentially the same result holds for fluctuations affecting only the
384: incident (highest energy) particle.
385: For {\it independent} fluctuations of final momenta,
386: the asymmetry in the probability
387: distribution of allowed thresholds arises from the fact that
388: even
389: exceedingly small negative values of the fluctuations lead
390: to unphysical solutions.
391:
392: Building upon our findings, we now apply the same calculations to
393: the case of UHECR protons propagating on cosmological distances.
394: An additional ingredient is needed to complete the dynamics of the
395: process of photopion production, namely the cross section. The rather
396: strong assumption adopted here is that the cross section remains the
397: same as the Lorentz invariant one, provided the reaction is
398: {\it kinematically} allowed. This implies that the interaction lengths
399: remain unchanged.
400:
401: In order to assess the situation of UHECRs, we first consider the
402: case of particles above the threshold for photopion production in
403: a Lorentz invariant world. According with eqs. (\ref{eq:disp1},
404: \ref{eq:disp2}),
405: in this case particles have a probability of $\approx 30 \%$ of being
406: not kinematically allowed to interact inelastically with a photon in the
407: CMBR. Therefore, if our assumption on the invariance of the interaction
408: length is correct, then each proton is still expected to make photopion
409: production, although with a slightly larger pathlength.
410:
411: The situation is however even more interesting for particles that are
412: below the Lorentz invariant threshold for the process of photopion
413: production. If the energy
414: is below a few $10^{18}$ eV, a galactic origin seems to be in good
415: agreement with measurements of the anisotropy of cosmic ray arrival
416: directions \cite{agasa_a,fly_a}. We will not consider these energies
417: any longer. On the other hand, at energies in excess of $10^{19}$ eV,
418: cosmic rays are believed to be extragalactic protons, mainly on the ground of
419: the comparison of the size of the magnetized region of our Galaxy and
420: the Larmor radius of these particles.
421: We take these pieces of information as the basis
422: for our line of thought. If the cosmic rays observed in the energy range
423: $E> 10^{19} \rm{eV}$ are extragalactic protons,
424: then our previous calculations apply and we may expect that these particles
425: have a $\sim 70\%$ probability of suffering photopion
426: production at each interaction with the CMB photons, even if their energy
427: is below the classical threshold for this process. Note that the pathlength
428: associated with the process is of the order of the typical pathlength for
429: photopion production (a few tens of Mpc), therefore we are here discussing
430: a dramatic process in which the absorption length of particles drops from
431: Gpc, which would be pertinent to particles with energy below
432: $\sim 10^{20}$ eV in a Lorentz invariant world, to several Mpc, with a
433: corresponding suppression of the flux.
434: What are the consequences for the observed fluxes of cosmic rays?
435: The above result implies that {\it all} protons with $E>10^{15}$ eV
436: are produced within a radius of
437: several tens of Mpc, and above this energy there is no dramatic change
438: of pathlength with energy.
439: There is no longer anything
440: special about $E \sim 10^{20}$ eV, and
441: any mechanism invoked to explain the flux of super-GZK particles must
442: be at work also at lower energies.
443:
444: The basic situation remains the same in the case of pair production as the
445: physical process under consideration. For a source at cosmological distance,
446: a cutoff is expected due to pair production off the far infrared background
447: (FIR) or the microwave background. Using the results in \cite{noi} we expect
448: that the modified thresholds are a factor $0.06$ ($0.73$) lower than the
449: Lorentz invariant ones for the case of interaction on the CMBR (FIR).
450: There is also a small increase in the pathlengths above the threshold,
451: which would appear exponentially in the expression for the flux. Therefore
452: there are two effects that go in opposite directions: the first moves the
453: threshold to even lower energies, and the second increases the flux of
454: radiation at Earth because of the increase of the pathlength.
455: It seems that geometry fluctuations do not provide an immediate explanation
456: of the possible detection of particles in excess of the expected ones from
457: distance sources in the TeV region. In any case the experimental evidence
458: for such an excess seems at present all but established.
459:
460: \section{Astrophysical observations}
461:
462: As discussed in the previous section fluctuations in the space-time metric
463: may induce a violation of Lorentz invariance that changes the thresholds for
464: the photopion production of a very high energy proton
465: off the photons of the CMBR, or for the pair production of a high energy
466: gamma ray in the bath of the FIR or CMBR photons.
467:
468: For the case of UHECRs interacting with the CMBR, we obtained a picture that
469: changes radically our view of the effect of QG on this phenomenon, as
470: introduced in previous papers: not only particles with energy above
471: $\sim 10^{20}$ eV are affected by the fluctuations in space-time, but also
472: particles with lower energy, down to $\sim 10^{15}$ eV seem to be affected
473: by such fluctuations. In fact the latter, as a result of a fluctuating
474: space-time, may end up being above the threshold for photopion production,
475: so that particles may suffer significant absorption. Our conclusion is that
476: all particles with energy in excess of $\sim 10^{15}$ eV eventually detected
477: at Earth would be generated at distances comparable with the pathlength
478: for photopion production ($\sim 100$ Mpc).
479: A consequence of this is that there is no longer anything special
480: characterizing the energy $\sim 10^{20}$ eV.
481:
482: Since the conclusion reached in the previous section is quite strong, it is
483: important to summarize in detail some tests that may allow to understand
484: whether the current or future astrophysical observations are compatible with
485: the scenario discussed in this paper.
486:
487: a) Future experiments \cite{Auger,EUSO}
488: dedicated to the detection of UHECRs will provide a
489: substantial increase in the statistics, so that the spectral features of
490: the UHECRs in the energy region $E>10^{19}$ eV can be resolved, and
491: further indications on the nature of primaries and their
492: possible extragalactic origin will be obtained. In particular
493: the present possible disagreement between
494: AGASA \cite{agasa_f} and HiRes \cite{Hires_a} will be clarified.
495:
496: One should also keep in mind that an evaluation of the expected flux in
497: terms of sources distributed as normal galaxies is
498: in contradiction with AGASA data by an amount ranging from $2$ to $6 \sigma$
499: depending on the assumed source spectrum \cite{blanton}.
500: Since the nature of the sources is not known, it is not
501: clear if their abundance within the absorption pathlength
502: is sufficient to explain the observed flux in presence of space-time
503: fluctuations, nor if they can induce observable anisotropies.
504:
505: In any case, in a Lorentz invariant framework a suppression in the flux
506: at $\sim 10^{20}$ eV is expected. If such a feature is
507: unambiguously detected in the UHECR spectrum, no much room would be left for
508: the fluctuations of space-time discussed in this paper, since in this scenario
509: nothing special happens around $10^{20}$ eV.
510: In quantitative terms \cite{noi}
511: this would imply a phenomenological bound on $l_P$
512: now interpreted as a parameter:
513: $l_P < 10^{-46}$ cm instead of
514: $l_P \approx 10^{-33}$ cm; in other words, only fluctuations with
515: variance $\approx 10^{-13}$, instead of $1$, would be allowed
516: \footnote{ Alternatively,
517: one can assume a more general form of fluctuations, i.e. $\delta E \approx
518: E (E/M_P)^{\alpha}$ and similar for momentum and dispersion relations
519: \cite{tom}. In this case the basic conclusions reached here remain unchanged.}
520:
521: b) According with our findings, all particles with energy in excess of
522: $\sim 10^{15}$ eV lose their energy by photopion production on cosmological
523: spatial scales, as a result of the metric fluctuations. This energy ends up
524: mainly in gamma rays, neutrinos and protons. The protons pile up in the
525: energy region right below $\sim 10^{15}$ eV. The gamma ray component
526: actually generates an electromagnetic cascade that ends up contributing
527: low energy gamma rays, in the energy band accessible to instruments like
528: EGRET \cite{EGRET} and GLAST \cite{GLAST}.
529: This cascade flux cannot be larger than the measured
530: electromagnetic energy density in the same band
531: $\omega_{cas}^{exp}=10^{-6}~eV/cm^{3}$ \cite{EGRET}. The cascade flux in our
532: scenario can be estimated as follows. Let $\Phi(E)=\Phi_0 (E/E_0)^{-\gamma}$
533: be the emissivity in UHECRs ($\rm{particles}/cm^3/s/GeV$). Let us choose the
534: energy $E_0=10^{10}$ GeV and let us normalize the flux to the observations
535: at the energy $E_0$. The total energy going into the cascade can be shown
536: to be $$\omega_{cas} \approx \frac{5\times 10^{-4}}{\gamma-2}~~
537: x_{min}^{2-\gamma} ~~\xi ~~eV ~cm^{-3},$$
538: where $\xi$ is the fraction of energy going into gamma rays in each
539: photopion production, and $x_{min}=(E_{th}/E_0)=10^{-4}$ for $E_{th}=
540: 10^{15}$ eV. It is easy to see that, for $\gamma=2.7$, the cascade bound
541: is violated unless $\xi \ll 10^{-3}$.
542:
543: One note of warning has to be sent concerning the development of the
544: electromagnetic cascade: the same violations of LI discussed here affect
545: other processes, as stressed in the paper. For instance pair production
546: and pion decay are also affected by violations of LI \cite{amepai}.
547: Therefore the possibility that the cascade limit is exceeded concerns
548: only those scenarios of violations of LI that do not inhibit appreciably
549: pair production and the decay of neutral pions.
550:
551: The protons piled up at energies right below $10^{15}$ eV, would be a
552: nice signature of this scenario, but it seems difficult to envision a
553: way of detecting these remnants. In fact, even a tiny magnetic field
554: on cosmological scales would make the arrival time of these particles to
555: Earth larger than the age of the universe. Moreover, even assuming an exactly
556: zero extragalactic magnetic field, these particles need to penetrate the
557: magnetic field of our own Galaxy and mix with the galactic cosmic rays,
558: making their detection extremely problematic if not impossible.
559:
560: Clearly a more detailed flux computation, taking into account propagation of
561: primaries as well as generation and propagation of the secondaries is needed
562: in order to assess in a more quantitative way observable effects of possible
563: metric fluctuations on UHECRs.
564:
565: Let us conclude this section sending a note of warning concerning
566: Eq. (\ref{eq:thre}), in this expression the dependence on the CMB photon
567: energy is washed out by the approximation done (we have neglected the pion
568: mass). From the physical point of view this corresponds to the appearence
569: of an effective mass (momentum dependent) of the proton due to the effect
570: of fluctuations. The effective mass of the proton may be responsible
571: for the decay of this particle. As we will discuss in the next section
572: the possibility of a decaying proton is a very stringent test for the
573: fluctuations picture much powerful than the astrophysical observations
574: discussed in the present section.
575:
576: \section{Decay of stable particles}
577:
578: Let us discuss in this section the most striking test of the models
579: that predict energy and momentum fluctuations. We will discuss here
580: the possibility that these fluctuations may induce particles decays otherwise
581: impossible. This possibility, already discussed in the framework of
582: non-fluctuating modifications of the dispersion relation
583: \cite{gmestres,liberati}, could in principle rule out the models with
584: fluctuations. In this section we will discuss the basic features of the
585: decays, leaving a detailed discussion of the implications and possible way
586: out to the next section.
587:
588: We will consider three specific decay channels, that illustrate
589: well, in our opinion, the consequences of the quantum fluctuations introduced
590: above. We start with the reaction
591: $$p\to p + \pi^0$$
592: and we denote with $p$ ($p'$) the momentum of the initial (final) proton, and
593: with $k$ the momentum of the pion. Clearly this reaction cannot take place
594: in the reality as we know it, due to energy conservation. However, since
595: fluctuations have the effect of emulating an effective mass of the particles,
596: it may happen that for some realizations, the effective mass induced to the
597: final proton is smaller than the mass of the proton in the initial
598: state, therefore allowing the decay from the kinematical point of view. Since
599: no conservation law or discrete symmetry is violated in this reaction, it
600: may potentially take place. For the sake of clarity, it may be useful to
601: invoke as an example the decay of the $\Delta^+$ resonance, which is
602: structurally identical to a proton, but may decay to a proton and a pion
603: according to the reaction $\Delta^+\to p+\pi^0$, since its mass is larger
604: than that of a proton. From the physical point of view, the effect of the
605: quantum fluctuations may be imagined as that of {\it exciting} the proton,
606: inducing a mass slightly larger than its own (average) physical mass.
607:
608: Following the discussion of the previous sections we expect to find that for
609: momenta above a given threshold, depending on the value of the random
610: variables, the decay may become kinematically allowed. In general, the
611: probability for this to happen has to be calculated numerically from the
612: conservation equations supplemented by the dispersion relations \cite{noi3}.
613:
614: Although a full calculation is possible, it is probably more instructive
615: to proceed in a simplified way, in which only the fluctuations in
616: the dispersion relation of the particle in the initial state are taken
617: into account. Neglecting the corresponding fluctuations in the final state
618: should not affect the conclusions in any appreciable way, unless the
619: fluctuations in the initial and final states are correlated (we will return
620: to this possibility at the end of section \S 5).
621:
622: In this approximation, the threshold for the process of proton decay to a
623: proton and a neutral pion can be written as follows (neglecting corrections
624: to order higher than $p/M_P$):
625:
626: \begin{equation}
627: \gamma \frac{2 p_{th}^3}{M_P}
628: -2 m_{\pi} m_p - m_{\pi}^2 =0,
629: \end{equation}
630: with solution
631: \begin{equation}
632: p_{th}= \left (\frac{(2m_p m_{\pi} + m_{\pi}^2 )M_P}{2 \gamma }
633: \right )^{\frac{1}{3}}.
634: \end{equation}
635: For negative values of $\gamma$, the above equation has no positive
636: root; this happens in $50\%$ of the cases. Since the gaussian distribution
637: is essentially flat in a small interval around zero, the distribution of
638: thresholds for positive $\gamma$ ({\it i.e. } in the remaining 50 $\%$ of the
639: cases) peaks around the value for $\gamma \approx 1$, meaning that the
640: threshold moves almost always down to a value of $\approx 10^{15}$ eV
641: \cite{noi,noi2}; essentially the same result holds for generic fluctuations
642: ({\it i.e.} not confined to the dispersion relations) affecting only the
643: incident particle, namely the one with the highest energy \cite{noi3}.
644:
645: The reason why the effects of fluctuations are expected to occur at such
646: low energies is that starting from that energy region the fluctuation term
647: becomes comparable with the rest mass of the particle. In fact the same
648: concept of rest mass of a particle may lose its traditional meaning at
649: sufficiently high energies \cite{lieu}.
650:
651: It can be numerically confirmed that {\it independent} fluctuations of
652: momenta (and/or of the dispersion relations) of the decay products are more
653: likely to make the decay easier rather than more difficult, due to the non
654: linear dependence of the threshold on the strength of fluctuations:
655: the probability that the decay does not take place is in fact $\approx 30 \%$.
656: In the remaining cases, the decay will occur if the momentum of the initial
657: proton is larger than $p_{th}$\cite{noi3}. The distribution of $p_{th}$
658: is essentially identical to the one reported in \S 2 for the photopion
659: production.
660:
661: All the discussion reported so far remains basically unchanged if similar
662: reactions are considered. For instance the reaction $p \to \pi^+ n$ is
663: kinematically identical to the one discussed above. For all these reactions,
664: we expect that once they become kinematically allowed, the energy loss
665: of the parent baryon is fast. For the case of nuclei, all the decays that do
666: not change the nature of the nucleon leave (A,Z) unchanged, so we do
667: not expect any substantial blocking effect in nuclei.
668:
669: Another reaction that may be instructive to investigate is the spontaneous
670: pair production from a single photon, namely \cite{noi3}
671: $$\gamma \to e^+ e^-.$$
672: In this case, following the calculations described above, we obtain the
673: following expression for the threshold:
674: \begin{equation}
675: p'_{th}= \left (\frac{4 m_e^2 M_P}{2 \gamma' },
676: \right )^{\frac{1}{3}}
677: \end{equation}
678: and $p'_{th}$ is of the order of $10^{13}$ eV.
679: Again, if the reaction becomes kinematically allowed, there does not seem
680: to be any reason why the reaction should not take place with a rate
681: dictated by the typical cross section of electromagnetic interactions.
682:
683: Finally, we propose a third reaction that in its simplicity may represent
684: the clearest example of reactions that should occur in a world in which
685: quantum fluctuations behave in the way described above. Let us consider
686: a proton that moves in the vacuum with constant velocity, and let us consider
687: the elementary reaction of spontaneous photon emission. In the Lorentz
688: invariant world the process of photon emission
689: is known to happen only in the presence of an external field that
690: may provide the conditions for energy and momentum conservation. However,
691: in the presence of quantum fluctuations, one can think of the gravitational
692: fluctuating field as such an external field, so that the particle can in fact
693: radiate a photon without being in the presence of a nucleus or some other
694: external recognizable field. The threshold for this process, calculated
695: following the above procedure, is
696: \begin{equation}
697: p_{th}'' \approx \left (\frac{m^2 M_P \omega}{\gamma''}
698: \right )^{\frac{1}{4}},
699: \end{equation}
700: where $\omega$ is the energy of the photon. This threshold approaches zero
701: when $\omega \to 0$: for instance, if $\omega=1$ eV, then $p_{th} \approx 300$
702: GeV for protons and $p_{th} \approx 45$ GeV for electrons. In other words there
703: should be a sizable energy loss of a particle in terms of soft photons.
704: This process can be viewed as a sort of bremsstrahlung emission of a charged
705: particle in the presence of the (fluctuating) vacuum gravitational potential.
706:
707: Based on the arguments provided in this section, it appears that all particles
708: that we do know are stable in our world, should instead be unstable at
709: sufficiently high energy, due to the quantum fluctuations described above.
710: In the next section we will take a closer look at the implications of the
711: existence of these quantum fluctuations, and possibly propose some plausible
712: avenues to avoid these dramatic conclusions.
713:
714: \section{Discussion and Outlook}
715:
716: If the decays discussed in the previous section could take place, our
717: universe, at energies above a few PeV or even at much lower energies
718: might be unstable, nothing like what we actually see.
719: The decays $$nucleon\to nucleon+\pi$$ would start to be kinematically allowed
720: at energies that are of typical concern for cosmic ray physics, while
721: the spontaneous emission of photons in vacuum might even start playing
722: a role at much lower energies, testable in laboratory experiments.
723: Without detailed calculations of energy loss rates it is difficult to
724: assess the experimental consequences of this process.
725:
726: For the nucleon decay, the situation is slightly simpler if we assume
727: that the quantum fluctuations affect only the kinematics but not the
728: dynamics, an assumption also used in in the photopion production study
729: \cite{noi2}. In this case one would expect
730: the proton to suffer the decay to a proton and a pion on a time scale of the
731: same order of magnitude of typical decays mediated by strong interactions.
732: This would basically cause no cosmic ray with energy above $\sim 10^{15}$
733: eV to be around, something that appears to be in evident contradiction
734: with observations
735: \footnote{From a phenomenological point of view, consistency
736: with experiments would require either that the variance of the fluctuations
737: considered above is ridiculously small ($<10^{-24}$) or, allowing more generic
738: fluctuations $\Delta l \propto l_P (l_P/l)^{\alpha}$, that a fairly large value
739: for $\alpha$ should be adopted \cite{noi2}.}.
740:
741: In the following we will try to provide a plausible answer to these three very
742: delicate questions:
743: \begin{enumerate}
744: \item If the particles were kinematically allowed to decay, and there
745: were no fundamental symmetries able to prevent the decay, would it
746: take place?
747:
748: \item Is the form adopted for the quantum fluctuations correct and if so,
749: how general is it?
750:
751: \item If in fact the form adopted for the fluctuations is correct, how
752: general and unavoidable is the consequence that (experimentally)
753: unobserved decays should take place?
754: \end{enumerate}
755:
756: Although the result that particles are kinematically allowed to
757: decay is fairly general, the (approximate) lack of relativistic
758: invariance forbids the computation of life-times \footnote{In fact
759: life-times can be in principle estimated in approaches in which it is
760: possible to make transformations between frames \cite{lieu,dsr,jap},
761: despite the lack of LI.}.
762: Two comments are in order: first, the phase space for the decays described
763: above, as calculated in the laboratory frame, is non zero and in fact
764: it increases with the momentum of the parent particle. The effect of
765: fluctuations can be seen as the generation of an effective (mass)$^2
766: \propto p^3/M_P$. A similar effect, although in a slightly different
767: context, was noted in \cite{colgla}.
768:
769: Second, we do not expect dynamics to forbid the reactions:
770: one must keep in mind that we are considering very small effects, at
771: momenta much smaller than the Planck scale. For instance the gravitational
772: potential of the vacuum fluctuations is expected to move quarks in a
773: proton to excited levels, not to change its content, nor the properties
774: of strong interactions.
775:
776: There is a subtler possibility, which must be taken very seriously in our
777: opinion, since it might invalidate completely the line of thought illustrated
778: above, namely that the quantum fluctuations of the momenta of the particles
779: involved in a reaction occur on time scales that are enormously smaller than
780: the typical interaction/decay times. This situation might resemble the
781: so called Quantum Zeno paradox, where continuously checking for the
782: decay of an unstable particle effectively impedes its decay.
783: This possibility is certainly worth a detailed study, that would however
784: force one to handle the intricacies of matter in a Quantum Gravity regime.
785: We regard this possibility as the most serious threat to the validity of
786: the arguments in favor of quantum fluctuations discussed in this paper
787: and in many others before it.
788:
789: Let us turn out attention toward the question about the correctness and
790: generality of the form adopted for the momentum fluctuations. It is
791: generally accepted that the geometry of space-time suffers profound
792: modifications at length (time) scales of the order of the Planck
793: length (time), and that this leads to the emergence of a minimum
794: measurable length. This may be reflected in a non commutativity of
795: space-time and in a generalized form of the uncertainty principle.
796:
797: The transition from uncertainty in the length or time scales to uncertainty
798: in momenta of particles is undoubtedly more contrived and deserves some
799: attention. The expressions in Eqs. (\ref{eq:Ebar},\ref{eq:pbar}) and
800: (\ref{eq:PmuPmu}) have been
801: motivated in various ways \cite{ford,ng1,noi2,lieu,camacho} in previous
802: papers. For instance, the condition $\Delta l \ge l_P$ seems to imply the
803: following
804: constraint on wavelengths $\Delta \lambda \ge l_P$, otherwise it would be
805: possible to design an experimental set-up capable of measuring distances with
806: precision higher than $l_P$. Therefore $\Delta p \propto \Delta (\lambda^{-1})
807: \propto l_P p^2$. Similar arguments have been proposed, all based to some
808: extent on the de Broglie relation $p \propto \lambda^{-1}$.
809:
810: There is certainly no guarantee that the de Broglie relation continues
811: to keep its meaning in the extreme conditions we are discussing, in
812: particular in models in which the coordinates and coordinate-momentum
813: commutators are modified with respect to standard quantum mechanics and
814: the representation of momentum in terms of coordinate derivatives generally
815: fails. For instance in a specific (although non-relativistic) example
816: \cite{kempf} the existence of a minimum length is shown to imply that
817: \begin{equation}
818: p = \frac{2}{\pi l_P} \tan \left ( \frac{\pi l_P}{2 \lambda}
819: \right ).
820: \end{equation}
821: In other words, the de Broglie relation may be modified in such a way that
822: a minimum wavelength corresponds to an unbound momentum.
823: Notice, however, that we are considering here the effects of these
824: modifications at length scales much larger than the Planck scale, where the
825: correction is likely to be negligible. In general, if $p \propto
826: \lambda^{-1}g(l_P/ \lambda)$ then $\Delta p \propto l_P p^2 +
827: p ~O(l_P^2 p^2)$. Hence, we do not expect that the result shown in the
828: previous Section is appreciably modified.
829:
830: Last but not least we notice that the fluctuations in the dispersion
831: relations can be easily derived from fluctuations of the (vacuum) metric in
832: the form given in \cite{camacho}:
833: \begin{equation}
834: ds^2 = (1+\phi)dt^2-(1+\psi)d{\bf r}^2
835: \end{equation}
836: where $ \phi, ~\psi $ are functions of the position in space-time.
837:
838: The fluctuations of the dispersion relation, Eq. (\ref{eq:PmuPmu}), follow
839: if $\phi \ne \psi$ ({\it i.e.} non conformal fluctuations), assuming at
840: least approximate validity of the de Broglie relation; if $\phi=\psi$ a
841: much milder modification (O($p m^2/M_P$)) follows.
842:
843: Having given plausibility arguments in favor of the form adopted for the
844: fluctuations, at least for the case of non conformal fluctuations, we are
845: left with the goal of proving an answer to the last question listed above,
846: namely does a decay actually occur once it is kinematically allowed?
847: Certainly the answer is positive if one continues to assume momentum and
848: energy conservation, and modifications of these conservation laws with
849: random terms of order $O(p^2/M_P)$ do not change this conclusion.
850: The question then is whether we are justified in assuming energy and momentum
851: conservation in the form used above. For instance, in the so-called Doubly
852: Special Relativity (DSR) \cite{dsr}, theories and in general in models with
853: deformed Poincare' invariance, the conservation relations may be
854: modified in a non trivial, non additive and non abelian way. For instance,
855: in the case of proton decay considered above, momentum conservation
856: may read as \cite{dsr,jap}
857: \begin{equation}
858: {\bf p}_p \approx {\bf p}'_{p}+(1+l_P E'_p) {\bf p}_{\pi}\quad\quad
859: {\rm or}
860: \quad\quad
861: {\bf p}_p \approx {\bf p}'_{\pi}+(1+l_P E'_{\pi}) {\bf p}_p.
862: \end{equation}
863: This certainly makes the probability of being above threshold smaller.
864: However in order to qualitatively modify our results this probability
865: should be in fact vanishingly small. For the case of {\it low} energy
866: cosmic rays, this probability should be of the order of a typical decay
867: time divided by the residence time of cosmic rays (mostly galactic at
868: these energies) in our Galaxy.
869:
870: We are led to conclude that allowing for modifications of the conservation
871: relations does not appear to improve the situation to the point that
872: the strong conclusions derived in the previous section can be avoided.
873: In the same perspective, cancellation between fixed modifications
874: of the dispersion relation and fluctuations (of the same order of
875: magnitude) does not seem a viable way to proceed.
876:
877: It is important however to notice that we have considered the above
878: fluctuations as independent. In a full theory one should take into account
879: possible correlations between fluctuations. The effect of correlations is
880: very important because it pushes to higher energies the fluctuation scale
881: of the particle momentum (energy). Let us discuss in more detail this point.
882: Quantum fluctuations of the momenta of the particles involved in a reaction
883: occour on time scales that are much smaller than the typical interaction
884: time. Particles during the interaction time experience a large number of
885: fluctuations, typically
886:
887: $$ N=\frac{\tau}{\tau_P}=\frac{1}{p\tau_P}=\frac{M_P}{p}~, $$
888: where we have used $\tau\sim 1/p$ for the interaction time scale and
889: $\tau_P\sim 1/M_P$ for the fluctuation time scale. Assuming independent
890: fluctuations of energy and momentum the fluctuation variance $\sigma$ will be
891:
892: $$ \sigma^2 = \frac{p^3}{M_P\sqrt{N}}=\frac{p^3}{M_P}
893: \left (\frac{p}{M_P} \right )^{1/2}~, $$
894: and the fluctuation variance becomes of the order of the proton mass
895: $\sigma\simeq m_p$ already at momentum $p\simeq 10^{17}$ eV.
896: In this case the situation resembles as discussed above and, for instance,
897: the decaying of the proton arises already at lower energies. Let us consider
898: now the case in which there is some degree of correlation in the momentum
899: (energy) fluctuations. In this case the fluctuation variance $\sigma$ will be
900:
901: $$ \sigma^2 = \frac{p^3}{M_P N^{\alpha}}=\frac{p^3}{M_P}
902: \left (\frac{p}{M_P} \right )^{\alpha}~, $$
903: where we have introduced the exponent $\alpha>1/2$ that parametrizes the
904: effect of correlations. In this case the fluctuation variance becomes of the
905: order of the proton mass at larger energies, namely $\sigma\simeq m_p$
906: at momentum of the order of
907:
908: $$ p\simeq M_P \left (\frac{m_p}{M_P} \right )^{\frac{2}{3+\alpha}}~. $$
909:
910: A detailed analysis of possible correlations
911: between fluctuations, namely an analytic determination of $\alpha$, is
912: impossible at this stage because it implies a better knowledge of the theory,
913: and in particular of the dynamics of the QG regime.
914:
915: Finally, a separate discussion is needed for those theories that
916: include the relativity principle (exemplified by DSR models). The DSR
917: theories are characterized by an extended Lorentz invariance \cite{dsr}
918: with two separate invariant scales: the light velocity and the Planck length.
919: Moreover, in the low energy limit of DSR, or for distances much larger
920: than the Planck length, the usual Lorentz invariance is recovered.
921:
922: Using these two characteristics of the DSR theories it is easy to proove that
923: particle kinematics in DSR is the same as in the usual Lorentz invariant
924: theories. This result holds in the case in which there are no fluctuations
925: of energy and momentum. In the most general case in which fluctuations of
926: energy and momentum are taken into account it is difficult to prove that the
927: situation remains unchanged. Nevertheless, if in DSR the relativity principle
928: remains at work also in the fluctuating case the DSR approach seems the most
929: promising in order to escape the particles decays discussed in this paper
930: that seems to invalidate all the other models.
931:
932: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
933:
934: \bibitem{kir}
935: D.A. Kirzhnits and V.A. Chechin, Sov. Jour. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 15}, 585 (1971).
936:
937: \bibitem{lgm}
938: L. Gonzalez-Mestres, Proc. 26th ICRC (Salt Lake City, USA), {\bf 1}, 179
939: (1999).
940:
941: \bibitem{cam}
942: G. Amelino Camelia, J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar
943: Nature {\bf 393} (1998) 763.
944:
945: \bibitem{colgla}
946: S. Coleman and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 116008 (1999).
947:
948: \bibitem{noi}
949: R. Aloisio, P. Blasi, P.L. Ghia and A.F. Grillo,
950: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 053010 (2000).
951:
952: \bibitem{spain}
953: J.M. Carmona, J.L. Cortes, J. Gamboa and F. Mendez,
954: {\it preprint} hep-th/0301248.
955:
956: \bibitem{berto}
957: O. Bertolami and C.S. Carvalho, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 103002 (2000);
958: O. Bertolami, {\it preprint} astro-ph/0012462.
959:
960: \bibitem{gzk}
961: K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 16}, 748 (1966);
962: G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuzmin, Pis'ma Zh. Ekps. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 4}, 114
963: (1966) [JETP Lett. {\bf 4}, 78 (1966)].
964:
965: \bibitem{AGASA}
966: N. Hayashida {\it et al.} [AGASA collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73},
967: 3491 (1994).
968:
969: \bibitem{Hires}
970: T. Abu-Zayyad {\it et al.} [Hires collaboration], astro-ph/0208243.
971:
972: \bibitem{demarco}
973: D. De Marco, P. Blasi and A.V. Olinto,
974: Astrop. Phys. {\bf 20}, 53 (2003).
975:
976: \bibitem{Auger}
977: J. Bl\"umer {\it et al.} [Auger Collaboration], J. Phys. {\bf G29} 867 (2003).
978:
979: \bibitem{EUSO}
980: EUSO space Observatory, http://www.euso-mission.org.
981:
982: \bibitem{gamgam}
983: A.I. Nikishov, Sov. Phys. - JETP {\bf 14}, 393 (1962);
984: P. Goldreich and P. Morrison, Sov. Phys. - JETP {\bf 18}, 239 (1964);
985: R.J. Gould and G.P. Schreder, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 16}, 252 (1966).
986:
987: \bibitem{ford}
988: L.H. Ford Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 38} 2941 (1999).
989:
990: \bibitem{ng1}
991: Y.J. Ng, D.S. Lee, M.C. Oh and H. van Dam,
992: Phys. Lett. {\bf B507} 236 (2001).
993:
994: \bibitem{ng2}
995: Y.J. Ng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf D11} 1585 (2002)
996: ({\it preprint} gr-qc/0201022).
997:
998: \bibitem{lieu}
999: R. Lieu, Astrophys. J. {\bf 568} L67 (2002).
1000:
1001: \bibitem{noi2}
1002: R. Aloisio, P. Blasi, A. Galante, P.L. Ghia and A.F. Grillo,
1003: Astrop. Phys. {\bf 19}, 127 (2003).
1004:
1005: \bibitem{gmestres}
1006: L. Gonzalez-Mestres, {\it preprint} hep-ph/9905430.
1007:
1008: \bibitem{liberati}
1009: T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly,
1010: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 081302 (2002).
1011:
1012: \bibitem{agasa_a}
1013: N.Hagashida {\it et al.}, Astrop. Phys. {\bf 10} 303 (1999).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{fly_a}
1016: D.J. Bird {\it et al.}, Ap. J. {\bf 511} 739 (1999).
1017:
1018: \bibitem{agasa_f}
1019: N. Sakay et al. Proceedings of 2001 ICRC.
1020:
1021: \bibitem{Hires_a}
1022: C.C.H. Jui {\it et al.}, Proceedings of 2001 ICRC.
1023:
1024: \bibitem{blanton}
1025: M. Blanton, P. Blasi and A.V. Olinto, Astrop. Phys. {\bf 15}, 275 (2001).
1026:
1027: \bibitem{tom}
1028: M. Jankiewicz, T.W. Kephart and T.J. Weiler, {\it preprint} hep-ph/0312221
1029:
1030: \bibitem{EGRET}
1031: P. Sreekumar {\it et al.} [EGRET collaboration],
1032: Astroph. J. {\bf 494} (1998) 523.
1033:
1034: \bibitem{GLAST}
1035: GLAST Tlescope, http://www-glast.stanford.edu.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{amepai}
1038: G. Amelino-Camelia, Phys. Lett. {\bf B528} (2002) 181.
1039:
1040: \bibitem{noi3}
1041: R. Aloisio, P. Blasi, A. Galante and A.F. Grillo,
1042: Astrop. Phys. {\bf 20}, 369 (2003).
1043:
1044: \bibitem{dsr}
1045: N.R. Bruno, G. Amelino-Camelia and J. Kowalski-Glikman,
1046: Phys. Lett. {\bf B522} 133 (2001). G. Amelino-Camelia,
1047: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf D11} 1643 (2002). G. Amelino-Camelia
1048: Nature {\bf 418} 34 (2002).
1049:
1050: \bibitem{jap}
1051: T. Tamaki, T. Harada, U. Miyamoto and T. Torii,
1052: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65} 083003 (2002).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{camacho}
1055: A. Camacho, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 35} 319 (2003).
1056:
1057: \bibitem{kempf}
1058: A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R.B. Mann, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52} 1108 (1995).
1059:
1060:
1061: \end{thebibliography}
1062:
1063: \end{document}
1064:
1065:
1066: