1: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

2: % TeV Astrophysics Constraints on Planck Scale Lorentz Violation

3: % T.A. JACOBSON, S. LIBERATI, D. MATTINGLY

4: % uses revtex4

5: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

6: \documentclass[prl,showpacs,showkeys,twocolumn,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

7: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

8: \usepackage{graphicx}

9: % Include figure files

10: %\usepackage{dcolumn}

11: % Align table columns on decimal point

12: \usepackage{bm}

13: % bold math

14: %\usepackage{enumerate}

15: % for implementing the enumerate environment with new enumeration

16: %\usepackage[backref,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}

17: % for implementing hyperreferences

18: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

19: \begin{document}

20: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

21: \title{TeV Astrophysics Constraints on Planck Scale Lorentz Violation}

22: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

23: \author{Ted Jacobson}

24: \email{jacobson@physics.umd.edu}

25: %\thanks{Supported by the US NSF}

26: %\altaffiliation{}

27: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,

28: College Park, MD 20742--4111, USA}

29: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

30: \author{Stefano Liberati}

31: \email{liberati@physics.umd.edu}

32: %\thanks{Supported by the US NSF}

33: %\altaffiliation{}

34: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,

35: College Park, MD 20742--4111, USA}

36: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

37: \author{David Mattingly}

38: \email{davemm@physics.umd.edu}

39: %\altaffiliation{}

40: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,

41: College Park, MD 20742--4111, USA}

42: %\thanks{This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-9800967.}

43: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

44: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

45: \date{14 December 2001; \LaTeX-ed \today}

46: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

47: \bigskip

48: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

49: \begin{abstract}

50: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

51: We analyze observational constraints from TeV astrophysics on Lorentz

52: violating nonlinear dispersion for photons and electrons without

53: assuming any {\em a priori} equality between the photon and electron

54: parameters. The constraints arise from thresholds for vacuum

55: \v{C}erenkov radiation, photon decay and photo-production of

56: electron-positron pairs.  We show that the parameter plane for cubic

57: momentum terms in the dispersion relations is constrained to an order

58: unity region in Planck units. We find that the threshold configuration

59: can occur with an asymmetric distribution of momentum for pair

60: creation, and with a hard photon for vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

61: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

62: \end{abstract}

63: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

64: \pacs{04.60.-m; 11.30.Cp; 98.70.Sa; hep-ph/0112207}

65: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

66: \keywords{Lorentz symmetry violations, special relativity, cosmic

67: rays, quantum gravity}

68: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

69: \maketitle

70: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

71: %\input epsf

72: %----------------------------------------------------------------

73: % Local defines

74: %----------------------------------------------------------------

75: \def\half{{1\over2}}

76: \def\L{{\mathcal L}}

77: \def\S{{\mathcal S}}

78: \def\d{{\mathrm{d}}}

79: \def\etal{{\emph{et al.}}}

80: \def\det{{\mathrm{det}}}

81: \def\tr{{\mathrm{tr}}}

82: \def\ie{{\emph{i.e.}}}

83: \def\eg{{\emph{e.g.}}}

84: \def\im{{\rm i}}

85: \def\bnabla{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}

86: \def\x{{\mathbf x}}

87: \def\aka{{\emph{aka}}}

88: \def\Choose#1#2{{#1 \choose #2}}

89: \def\etc{{\emph{etc.}}}

90: \def\gsim{\; \raisebox{-.8ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$}\;}

91: \def\lsim{\; \raisebox{-.8ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$}\;}

92: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

93: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

94: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

95: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

96: \def\vep{\varepsilon}

97: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

98: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}

99: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

100: \def\al{\alpha}

101: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}

102: \def\half{{1\over2}}

103: \def\L{{\mathcal L}}

104: \def\d{{\mathrm{d}}}

105: \def\p{{\mathbf{p}}}

106: \def\q{{\mathbf{q}}}

107: \def\k{{\mathbf{k}}}

108: \def\fp{{p_{\rm 4}}}

109: \def\fq{{q_{\rm 4}}}

110: \def\fk{{k_{\rm 4}}}

111: \def\det{{\mathrm{det}}}

112: \def\tr{{\mathrm{tr}}}

113: \def\aka{{\emph{aka}}}

114: \def\e{\epsilon}

115: \def\HRULE{{\bigskip\hrule\bigskip}}

116: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

117: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

118: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

119: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

120: %-----------------------------------------------------------------

121: There are several reasons to suspect that Lorentz invariance may be

122: only a low energy symmetry.  This possibility is suggested by the

123: ultraviolet divergences of local quantum field theory, as well as by

124: tentative results in various approaches to quantum gravity and string

125: theory~\cite{Kc,Acea,loopqg1,Alfaro:2000wd,Bruno:2001mw}.  Moreover,

126: Lorentz symmetry can only ever be verified up to some finite

127: observationally accessible velocity, which leaves untested an infinite

128: volume of the supposed symmetry group.

129: 

130: The possibility of Lorentz violation can be studied, without a

131: particular fundamental theory in hand, by considering its

132: manifestation in dispersion relations for particles. If rotational

133: invariance is preserved, it is natural to assume that deviations from

134: the Lorentz invariant dispersion relation $E^2(p)=m^2 + p^2$ can be

135: characterized at low energies by an expansion with integral powers of

136: momentum, $E^2 = m^2 + p^2 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n p^n$, where the

137: $a_n$ are coefficients with mass dimension $2-n$ which might be

138: positive or negative. [Throughout this letter $p$ denotes the absolute

139: value of the 3-momentum vector $\p$, and we use units with the low

140: energy speed of light in vacuum equal to unity.]  Different approaches

141: to quantum gravity suggest different leading order Lorentz violating

142: terms. The terms with $n\le4$ have mostly been considered so

143: far. Observations limit the coefficients $a_{1,2}$ to be extremely

144: small (see e.g.~\cite{Krev,CG,Stecker:2001vb} and references therein).

145: In this letter we shall assume they are precisely zero.

146: 

147: The cubic and higher order coefficients have negative mass dimension,

148: so if the Lorentz violation descends from the Planck scale $M_P=(\hbar

149: c^5/G)^{1/2}\simeq 1.22 \cdot10^{19}$ GeV, $a_n$ would be expected to

150: be of order $M_P^{2-n}$. In this case the Lorentz violation is

151: naturally suppressed, and the lowest order term would dominate all the

152: higher ones as long as the momentum is less than $M_P$, hence we shall

153: restrict to a single Lorentz violating term.  We thus consider the

154: constraints that high energy observations impose on dispersion

155: relations of the form

156: %

157: \begin{equation}

158: E_{a}^2 =  p_{a}^2+m^{2}_{a}  +

159:  \eta_{a} {p_{a}^n}/{M^{n-2}},

160:  \label{eq:pdr}

161: \end{equation}

162: %

163: where $a$ labels different fields and $n\ge 3$. We have introduced the

164: energy scale $M=10^{19}$ GeV $\sim M_P$ so that the coefficients

165: $\eta_a$ are dimensionless.  If the Lorentz violation comes from

166: quantum gravity effects, one would expect $\eta_a$ to be within a few

167: orders of magnitude of unity.  In the absence of a fundamental theory

168: one has no reason to expect any particular relation between the

169: coefficients $\eta_{a}$ for different particles, except perhaps that

170: they should all be of the same order of magnitude.  Since the

171: dispersion relation (\ref{eq:pdr}) is not Lorentz invariant, it can

172: only hold in one reference frame.

173: %

174: We assume along with all previous authors that this frame coincides

175: with that of the cosmic microwave background.  The velocity of the

176: earth relative to this frame is negligible for our purposes.

177: 

178: Observational consequences of the $\eta$ term in (\ref{eq:pdr}) may

179: seem out of reach because of the Planck scale suppression.  However

180: this is not so.  Dispersion relations like (\ref{eq:pdr}) produce

181: kinematic relations from energy-momentum conservation that differ from

182: the usual Lorentz invariant case.  As a result reactions can take

183: place that are normally forbidden, and thresholds for reactions are

184: modified.  One can expect deviations from standard threshold

185: kinematics when the the last two terms of (\ref{eq:pdr}) are of

186: comparable magnitude.  Assuming $\eta$ is of order unity this yields

187: the condition $p_{\rm dev}\sim (m_{a}^2 M^{n-2})^{1/n}$, which is

188: $\sim (m_{a}/m_e)^{2/3}\times 10$ TeV for $n=3$ and $\sim

189: (m_{a}/m_e)^{1/2}\times 10^4$ TeV for $n=4$, where $m_{e}$ is the

190: electron mass.  Although these energies are currently not achievable

191: in particle accelerators (except in the case of massive neutrinos

192: which however are too weakly coupled to provide constraints) they are

193: in the range of current astrophysical observations.  In fact, it has

194: been suggested by several

195: authors~\cite{CG,ACP,Mestres,Bertolami,Kifune,Kluzniak,Aloisio,Protheroe}

196: (see also \cite{Sigl} and references therein) that we may already be

197: observing deviations from Lorentz invariance via the possibly missing

198: Greisen, Zatsepin and Kuzmin (GZK) cut-off on cosmic ray protons with

199: ultra high energy greater than $7\times 10^{19}$

200: eV~\cite{GZKobservations}, and the possible overabundance of gamma

201: rays above 10 TeV from the blazar system Markarian

202: 501~\cite{Protheroe,Aharo2}.  Here we shall mostly not consider the

203: constraints imposed by asking Lorentz violation to explain these

204: puzzles.  Instead we restrict our attention to constraints imposed by

205: consistency with known phenomena (or lack thereof).

206: 

207: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

208: \emph{Observational constraints}:

209: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

210: Several studies of observational limits on Lorentz violating

211: dispersion relations have already been carried

212: out~\cite{CG,Stecker:2001vb,ACP,Mestres,Bertolami,Kifune,Kluzniak,Aloisio,Kostelecky:2001mb,Gleiser:2001rm,Brustein:2001ik},

213: with various different assumptions about the coefficients.  Our study

214: focuses on purely QED interactions involving just photons and

215: electrons.  We assume $n=3$, since the $n=4$ terms are suppressed by

216: another inverse power of $M$.  Unlike other studies, no {\it a priori}

217: relation between the coefficients $\eta_\gamma$ and $\eta_e$ is

218: assumed, and we combine all the different constraints in order to

219: determine the allowed region in the parameter plane.  To eliminate the

220: subscript $a$ we introduce $\xi\, :=\eta_\gamma$, $\eta\, :=\eta_e$,

221: and $m := m_{e}$.

222: 

223: The modified dispersion relations for photons and electrons in general

224: allow two processes that are normally kinematically forbidden: vacuum

225: \v{C}erenkov radiation, $e^-\rightarrow e^-\gamma$, and photon decay,

226: $\gamma\rightarrow e^+e^-$.  In addition the threshold for photon

227: annihilation, $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow e^+e^-$, is shifted.  The

228: vacuum \v{C}erenkov process is extremely efficient, leading to an

229: energy loss rate that goes like $E^2$ well above threshold.  Similarly

230: the photon decay rate goes like $E$.  Thus any electron or photon

231: known to propagate must lie below the corresponding threshold.

232: 

233: We consider constraints that follow from three considerations: (i)

234: Electrons of energy $\sim 100$ TeV are belived to produce observed

235: X-ray synchrotron radiation coming from supernova

236: remnants~\cite{Koyama}, and to also produce multi-TeV photons by

237: inverse-Compton scattering with these X-rays~\cite{Tanimori98,Naito}.

238: Assuming these electrons are actually present, vacuum \v{C}erenkov

239: radiation must not occur up to that energy~\footnote{

240: %------------------------------------------------------------------

241: The competing energy loss by synchrotron radiation is irrelevant for

242: this constraint. The rate of energy loss from a particle of energy $E$

243: due to the vacuum \v{C}erenkov effect goes like $-e^2 E^2$, while that

244: from synchrotron emission goes like $- e^4 B^2 E^2/m^4$ (using units

245: where $c=\hbar=1$). For a magnetic field of about one micro Gauss (as

246: those involved in supernova remnants) the synchrotron emission rate is

247: $40$ orders of magnitude smaller than the vacuum \v{C}erenkov rate.

248: }.

249: %----------

250: (ii) Gamma rays up to $\sim 50$ TeV arrive on earth from the Crab

251: nebula~\cite{Tanimori}, so photon decay does not occur up to this

252: energy.  (iii) Cosmic gamma rays are believed to be absorbed in a

253: manner consistent with photon annihilation off the infrared (IR)

254: background with the standard threshold~\cite{JStecker01}.  Observation

255: (iii) is not model independent, so the corresponding constraint is

256: tentative and subject to future verification.

257: 

258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

259: \emph{Modified kinematics}:

260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

261: The processes $e^-\rightarrow e^-\gamma$ and $\gamma\rightarrow

262: e^+e^-$ correspond to the basic QED vertex, but are normally forbidden

263: by energy-momentum conservation together with the standard dispersion

264: relations.  When the latter are modified, these processes can be

265: allowed.  To see this, let us denote the photon 4-momentum by

266: $k_{4}=(\omega_{k},\k)$, and the electron and positron 4-momenta by

267: $p_{4}=(E_{p},\p)$ and $q_{4}=(E_{q},\q)$.  For the two reactions

268: energy-momentum conservation then implies $p_{4}=k_{4}+ q_{4}$ and

269: $k_{4}=p_{4}+ q_{4}$ respectively.  In both cases, we have

270: $(p_{4}-k_{4})^2=q_{4}^2$, where the superscript ``2" indicates the

271: Minkowski squared norm.  Using the Lorentz breaking dispersion

272: relation Eq.~(\ref{eq:pdr}) this becomes

273: %

274: \begin{equation}

275: \xi k^3+\eta p^3-\eta q^3 =

276: 2M\left(E_{p}\omega_{k}-pk\cos\theta\right),

277: \label{Econs}

278: \end{equation}

279: %

280: where $\theta$ is the angle between $\p$ and $\k$.  In the standard

281: case the coefficients $\xi$ and $\eta$ are zero and the r.h.s.\ of

282: Eq.~(\ref{Econs}) is always positive, hence there is no solution.  It

283: is clear that non-zero $\xi$ and $\eta$ can change this conclusion and

284: allow these processes.

285: 

286: To derive the observational constraints one needs to determine the

287: threshold for each process, \ie\ the lowest energy for which the

288: process occurs.  Assuming monotonicity of all the dispersion relations

289: (for the relevant momenta $\ll M$) one can show~\cite{lettthr} that

290: all thresholds for processes with two particle final states occur when

291: the final momenta are parallel.  Moreover for two particle initial

292: states the incoming momenta are antiparallel.  This implies that at a

293: threshold $\theta=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{Econs}) and that in the

294: corresponding formula for the photon annihilation we shall consider

295: antiparallel photons and parallel leptons.  These geometries have been

296: assumed in previous works but to our knowledge they were not shown to

297: be necessary. In fact they are not necessary if the dispersion

298: relations are not monotonic. Details concerning the determination of

299: the thresholds are reported in~\cite{JLM01}.

300: 

301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

302: \emph{Vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation:}

303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

304: We find that an electron can emit \v{C}erenkov radiation in the vacuum

305: if $\eta>0$ or if $\eta<0$ and $\xi<\eta$.  Depending on the values of

306: the parameters, the threshold configuration can occur with a

307: zero-energy photon or with a finite energy photon.  These two cases

308: correspond to the following two threshold relations, respectively:

309: %

310: \begin{eqnarray}

311: &p_{\rm th}& =

312: \displaystyle{\left(\frac{m^2M}{2\,\eta}\right)^{1/3}}

313: \qquad\mbox{for $\eta > 0$ and $\xi\geq-3\eta$},

314: \label{Cerenkov1} \\

315: %&&\nonumber\\

316: &p_{\rm th}&=

317: \displaystyle{\left[-\frac{4\,m^2M\left(\xi+\eta\right)}

318: {\left(\xi-\eta\right)^2}\right]^{1/3}}

319: \:\:

320: %

321: \begin{array}{ll}

322: \mbox{for} & \xi<-3\eta<0, \\

323: &\\

324: \mbox{or} & \xi<\eta\leq 0.

325: \end{array}

326: \label{Cerenkov2}

327: \end{eqnarray}

328: %

329: The reaction is not allowed in the region where $\xi>\eta$ and

330: $\eta<0$.  Note that if $\xi=\eta$ only the solution~(\ref{Cerenkov1})

331: yields a finite threshold.

332: 

333: Electrons of energy $\sim 100$ TeV are indirectly observed via

334: X-ray synchrotron radiation coming from supernova

335: remnants~\cite{Koyama}.  Thus for example in the region of the

336: parameter plane where (\ref{Cerenkov1}) holds we obtain the

337: constraint $\eta<m^2M/2p_{\rm th}^3\sim 10^{-3}$.

338: 

339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

340: \emph{Photon decay:}

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: A photon can spontaneously decay into an electron-positron pair

343: provided $\xi$ is sufficiently great for any given $\eta$.  Contrary

344: to Lorentz-invariant kinematics of pair creation thresholds, we find

345: that the two particles of the pair do not always have equal momenta.

346: Photon decay is allowed above a broken line in the $\eta$--$\xi$

347: plane given by $\xi=\eta/2$ in the quadrant $\xi,\eta>0$ and by

348: $\xi=\eta$ in the quadrant $\xi,\eta<0$.  Above this line, the

349: threshold is given by

350: %

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: k_{\rm th}&=& \displaystyle{\left( \frac{8 m^2M}{2\xi-\eta}

353: \right)^{1/3}

354: \quad \quad \:\,\,\mbox{for $\xi\geq 0$}},\label{th1}

355: \\

356: k_{\rm th}&=&

357: \displaystyle{\left[ \frac{-8 m^2M\eta}{(\xi-\eta)^2} \right]^{1/3}}

358: \qquad \;\mbox{for $\eta<\xi<0$.}\label{th2}

359: \end{eqnarray}

360: %

361: The first relation (\ref{th1}) arises when the electron and

362: positron momenta are equal at threshold.  The second relation

363: (\ref{th2}) applies in the case of asymmetric distribution of

364: momenta.  Note that if $\xi=\eta$, the asymmetric threshold

365: disappears, leaving just the symmetric one.

366: 

367: The constraint we impose is that the threshold is above 50 TeV, the

368: highest energy of observed gamma rays from the Crab

369: nebula~\cite{Tanimori}.  The strength of the constraint is determined

370: by the smallness of the quantity $m^2M/k^{3}_{\rm max}$.  For $k_{\rm

371: max}=50$ TeV one gets $m^2M/k^{3}_{\rm max}\approx 0.02$.

372: 

373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

374: \emph{Photon annihilation:}

375: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

376: The standard threshold for a gamma ray to annihilate with an IR

377: background photon of energy $\e$ is $k_s=m^2/\e$.  In the presence of

378: dispersion the threshold relations take approximately the same form as

379: for photon decay, equations (\ref{th1},\ref{th2}), with the

380: replacement $\xi\rightarrow\xi^{'}$, where $\xi^{'}\equiv

381: \xi+4\e{M}/k_{\rm th}^2$. (Here we have used the fact that $\e$ is

382: much smaller than any other scale in the problem.) However, now these

383: relations correspond respectively to cubic and quartic polynomial

384: equations for $k_{\rm th}$ (since $\xi'$ is itself a function of

385: $k_{\rm th}^2$), and the condition that determines whether the

386: threshold is given by the symmetric (\ref{th1}) or asymmetric

387: (\ref{th2}) relation is more complicated. The detailed analysis can be

388: found in~\cite{JLM01}. Here we merely state the result. Rather than

389: fixing $\eta$, $\xi$ and $\e$ and solving the relations for $k_{\rm

390: th}$, we fix $\e$ and $k_{\rm th}$ and use the threshold relations to

391: solve for $\xi$ as a function of $\eta$. When $k_{\rm th}<1.5 k_s$ the

392: symmetric threshold applies for $\xi'>0$ and the asymmetric one

393: applies for $\eta<\xi'<0$. When $k_{\rm th}>1.5 k_s$ there is no

394: symmetric threshold, and the asymmetric one applies only for $\xi$

395: below the symmetric $k_{\rm th}=1.5 k_s$ line, $\xi=\eta/2 -

396: (16/27)(\e^3M/m^4)$. In the case $\xi=\eta$ the threshold

397: configuration is never asymmetric~\cite{JLM01}.

398: 

399: For the observational consequences it is important to

400: recognize that the threshold shifts are much more

401: significant at higher energies than at lower energies.

402: To exhibit this dependence, it is simplest to fix a

403: gamma ray energy $k$ and to solve for the corresponding

404: soft photon threshold energy $\e_{\rm th}$. Taking the

405: ratio with the usual threshold $\e_{{\rm th},0}$,

406: we find a dependence on $k$ at least as strong as $k^{3/2}$.

407: Introducing $k_{10}:=k/(10\,\mbox{TeV})$, we have

408: %

409: \begin{eqnarray}

410:  \frac{\e_{\rm th}}{\e_{{\rm th},0}}&=& 1+

411:   \frac{(\eta-2\xi)}{20}\,k^{3}_{10}

412:    \quad \qquad\: \:\:\:\,\mbox{for $\xi'\geq 0$},\label{eth1}\\

413:  \frac{\e_{\rm th}}{\e_{{\rm th},0}}&=&

414:   \frac{(\eta-\xi)}{10}\,k^{3}_{10}+\sqrt{-\frac{\eta}{5}\, k^{3}_{10}}

415:    \quad \mbox{for $\eta<\xi'<0$.}\label{eth2}

416: \end{eqnarray}

417: %

418: 

419: High energy TeV gamma rays from the blazars Markarian 421 and

420: Markarian 501 have been detected out to 17 TeV and 24 TeV

421: respectively~\cite{Mrk421,Aharo}.  Although the sources are not

422: well understood, and the intergalactic IR background is also not

423: fully known, detailed modeling shows that the data are consistent

424: with some absorption by photon annihilation off the IR background

425: (see e.g.~\cite{Mrk421,JStecker01,Aharo2} and references

426: therein).  However, while the inferred source spectrum for

427: Markarian

428: 501 is consistent with expectations for energies less than around

429: 10 TeV, above this energy there have been

430: claims~\cite{Protheroe,Aharo2} that far more photons than

431: expected are detected.  Nevertheless, recent analysis based on a

432: more detailed reconstruction of the IR background do not seem to

433: corroborate this point of view~\cite{JStecker01}.

434: 

435: Due to these uncertainties sharp constraints from photon annihilation

436: are currently precluded.  Instead, we just determine the range of

437: parameters $\xi,\eta$ for which the threshold $k_{\rm th}$ lies

438: between 10 TeV and 20 TeV for an IR photon of energy 0.025 eV with

439: which a 10 TeV photon would normally be at threshold. Based on current

440: observations it seems unlikely that the threshold could lie far

441: outside this range. (It has previously being proposed~\cite{ACP} that

442: raising this threshold by a factor of two could explain the potential

443: overabundance of photons over 10 TeV.)  Given the strong energy

444: dependence of the threshold shift in equations~(\ref{eth1}) and

445: (\ref{eth2}) this threshold raising would not be obviously in

446: disagreement with current observations below 10 TeV.

447: 

448: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

449: \emph{Combined constraints:}

450: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

451: Putting together all the constraints and potential constraints we

452: obtain the allowed region in the $\eta$--$\xi$ plane (see

453: Figure~\ref{fig:all}).  The photon decay and \v{C}erenkov constraints

454: exclude the horizontally and vertically shaded regions, respectively.

455: The allowed region lies in the lower left quadrant, except for an

456: exceedingly small sliver near the origin with $0<\eta\lsim 10^{-3}$

457: and a small triangular region ($-0.16\lsim\eta<0$, $0<\xi\lsim 0.08$)

458: in the upper left quadrant.  The range of the photon annihilation

459: threshold previously discussed falls between the two roughly parallel

460: diagonal lines. The upper diagonal line corresponds to the standard

461: threshold $k_{\rm s}=10$ TeV and the lower diagonal line to not more

462: than twice that threshold.  If future observations of the blazar

463: fluxes and the IR background confirm agreement with standard Lorentz

464: invariant kinematics, the region allowed by the photon annihilation

465: constraint will be squeezed toward the upper line ($k_{\rm th}= k_{\rm

466: s}$).  This would close off {\it all} the available parameter space

467: except for a region much smaller than unity around the

468: Lorentz-invariant values $\xi=0=\eta$.

469: 

470: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

471: \emph{Conclusions:}

472: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

473: We have shown that astrophysical observations put strong constraints

474: on the possibility of Lorentz-violating Planck scale cubic

475: modifications to the electron and photon dispersion relations.  The

476: constraints arise due to the effect these modifications have on

477: thresholds for various reactions.  We have also seen that the

478: threshold configurations with a final state electron-positron pair

479: sometimes involve unequal momenta for the pair, unlike what occurs for

480: all Lorentz-invariant decays. This can happen if $\xi\neq\eta$ and

481: $\xi,\eta<0$.

482: 

483: The allowed region in the $\eta-\xi$ plane includes $\xi=\eta=-1$,

484: which has been a focus of previous

485: work~\cite{ACP,Bruno:2001mw,Kifune,Kluzniak}. The negative quadrant

486: has most of the allowed parameter range. Note that in this quadrant

487: all group velocities are less than the low energy speed of light.

488: 

489: To further constrain the cubic case will require new observations.

490: Finding higher energy electrons would not help much, while finding

491: higher energy undecayed photons would squeeze the allowed region onto

492: the line $\xi=\eta$.  To shrink the allowed segment of this line using

493: the reactions we have considered would require observations confirming

494: the usual threshold for photon annihilation to higher precision.

495: 

496: Perhaps other processes could be used as well.  One might have hoped

497: that observations comparing the time of flight of photons of different

498: frequencies from distant sources such as gamma ray bursts and active

499: galactic nuclei would help constrain the absolute value of $\xi$ (see

500: e.g.~\cite{Acea,Elltof,schaefer}).  Unfortunately current observations

501: just yield $|\xi|\lsim 122$ for $n=3$.  This is an interesting

502: constraint but it is not competitive with the other ones already

503: considered here. (However the forthcoming Gamma Ray Large Area Space

504: Telescope (GLAST) mission may provide more stringent constraints of

505: this type~\cite{Norris99}.)  Another idea is to exploit the fact that

506: the reaction $\gamma \rightarrow 3 \gamma$ is kinematically allowed

507: with finite phase space and nonzero amplitude in the presence of

508: modified dispersion, unlike in the standard case.  This photon decay

509: channel occurs at {\it all energies} if $\xi>0$, i.e. it has {\it no

510: threshold}, so it might be thought to provide a very powerful

511: constraint on positive $\xi$.  Unfortunately, however, the amplitude

512: for this reaction is far too small to provide any useful

513: constraint~\cite{JLM01}.

514: 

515: It is interesting to consider the case of the possibly missing GZK

516: cutoff~\cite{GZKobservations}.  If the cutoff is really missing, it

517: has been proposed to explain this using Lorentz violating

518: dispersion~\cite{ACP,CG}.  The relevant protons are at such a high

519: energy --- over $10^{19}$ eV --- that it takes only tiny Lorentz

520: violating parameters $\eta_a$ in (\ref{eq:pdr}) to increase the

521: threshold by an amount of order unity or more. In particular, if one

522: assumes all coefficients $\eta_a$ are equal, this only requires $\eta$

523: negative and $|\eta|\gsim m_p^2M^{n-2}/p^n\sim 10^{-38 + 9n}$.  For

524: $n=3$ this is $10^{-11}$, and for $n=4$ it is still only $10^{-2}$.

525: Thus for both the $n=3$ and $n=4$ cases only very small values of

526: $\eta$ are needed to dramatically modify the GZK cutoff, so a shifted

527: cutoff could be explained by Lorentz-violating constants with our

528: constraints.  However recent data~\cite{Bahcall:2002wi,FLYeye02}

529: strongly support the existence of the GZK cutoff at its expected

530: (Lorentz invariant) value. If this is confirmed, the above analysis

531: shows that the GZK reaction provides very good constraints for

532: modifications up to $n=4$~\cite{JLM01}.

533: %

534: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

535: \begin{figure}[htb]

536: \vbox{ \vskip 8 pt

537: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3in]{total10}}

538: \caption{%

539: Combined constraints on the dimensionless photon and electron

540: parameters for the case $n=3$ ($\eta,\,\xi=1$ corresponds to the

541: dimensionful coefficient $M^{-1}=10^{-19}$ GeV${}^{-1}$ of the $n=3$

542: term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:pdr})).  The regions excluded by the photon decay

543: and \^{C}erenkov constraints are lined horizontally in blue and

544: vertically in red respectively.  The region between the two diagonal

545: green lines corresponds to a threshold between one and two times the

546: standard threshold (which is $10$ TeV for photon annihilation with an

547: IR photon of energy 0.025 eV).  The upper green line corresponds to

548: the unmodified threshold.  The shaded patch is the part of the allowed

549: region that falls between these photon annihilation thresholds. The

550: dashed line is $\xi=\eta$.~\label{fig:all}

551: \smallskip}

552: }

553: \end{figure}

554: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

555: %

556: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

557: 

558: \noindent

559: \emph{Acknowledgments:} The authors wish to thank G.~Amelino-Camelia,

560: A.~Celotti and F.~Stecker for helpful discussions.

561: %

562: %\noindent

563: This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-9800967.

564: %----------------------------------------------------------------

565: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

566: %----------------------------------------------------------------

567: % Warning to all: the blank lines between the references are

568: % essential to making the hyperref package work correctly.

569: % This lets us see where the references are used, or if they

570: % are *not* used. It also sets up hotlinks within the dvi

571: % document; these links are lost upon postscript conversion.

572: %----------------------------------------------------------------

573: %\usepackage[backref,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}

574: %----------------------------------------------------------------

575: % Note to the SLAC-Spires database maintenance crew:

576: % A lot of the references below do not appear on Spires.

577: % They have been marked with the ``citation = none'' tag,

578: % even if we could in principle track down the coden.

579: %--------------------------------------------------------------

580: 

581: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

582: \bibitem{Kc}

583: V.~A.~Kostelecky and S.~Samuel,

584: %``Spontaneous Breaking Of Lorentz Symmetry In String Theory,''

585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39}, 683 (1989).

586: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,683;%%

587: 

588: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

589: \bibitem{Acea}

590: %\cite{Amelino-Camelia:1998gz}

591: %\bibitem{Amelino-Camelia:1998gz}

592: G.~Amelino-Camelia \etal ,

593: %J.~R.~Ellis, N.~E.~Mavromatos, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and S.~Sarkar,

594: %``Potential Sensitivity of Gamma-Ray Burster Observations to Wave Dispersion in Vacuo,''

595: Nature {\bf 393}, 763 (1998).

596: [astro-ph/9712103].

597: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9712103;%%

598: 

599: %----------------------------------------------------------------

600: \bibitem{loopqg1}

601: R.~Gambini and J.~Pullin,

602: %``Nonstandard optics from quantum spacetime,''

603: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 124021 (1999).

604: %[gr-qc/9809038].

605: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9809038;%%

606: 

607: %----------------------------------------------------------------

608: %\cite{Alfaro:2000wd}

609: \bibitem{Alfaro:2000wd}

610: J.~Alfaro, H.~A.~Morales-Tecotl and L.~F.~Urrutia,

611: %``Quantum gravity corrections to neutrino propagation,''

612: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 2318 (2000); Idem,

613: % [gr-qc/9909079].

614: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9909079;%%

615: %\\

616: %\cite{Alfaro:2001rb}

617: %\bibitem{Alfaro:2001rb}

618: %J.~Alfaro, H.~A.~Morales-Tecotl and L.~F.~Urrutia,

619: %Ibidem,

620: %``Loop quantum gravity and light propagation,''

621: [hep-th/0108061].

622: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108061;%%

623: 

624: %----------------------------------------------------------------

625: %\cite{Bruno:2001mw}

626: \bibitem{Bruno:2001mw}

627: N.~R.~Bruno, G.~Amelino-Camelia and J.~Kowalski-Glikman,

628: %``Deformed boost transformations that saturate at the Planck scale,''

629: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 522}, 133 (2001).

630: %[hep-th/0107039].

631: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107039;%%

632: 

633: %----------------------------------------------------------------

634: \bibitem{Krev}

635: V.~A.~Kostelecky,

636: %{\em ``Recent results in Lorentz and CPT tests''},

637: [hep-ph/0005280].

638: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005280;%%

639: 

640: %----------------------------------------------------------------

641: \bibitem{CG}

642: S.~Coleman and S.~L.~Glashow,

643: %``High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance,''

644: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf 59}, 116008, (1999).

645: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9812418].

646: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812418;%%

647: 

648: %-------------------------------------------------------------

649: \bibitem{Stecker:2001vb}

650: F.~W.~Stecker and S.~L.~Glashow,

651: %``New tests of Lorentz invariance following from observations of the  highest energy cosmic gamma rays,''

652: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 16}, 97 (2001).

653: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0102226].

654: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102226;%%

655: 

656: %-------------------------------------------------------------

657: \bibitem{ACP}

658: G.~Amelino-Camelia and T.~Piran,

659: %``Planck-scale deformation of Lorentz symmetry as a solution to the

660: %UHECR  and the TeV-gamma paradoxes,''

661: {Phys.\ Rev.\ }D{\bf 64}, 036005 (2001).

662: %[astro-ph/0008107].

663: 

664: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

665: \bibitem{Mestres}

666: L.~Gonzalez-Mestres,

667: %{\emph ``Gamma and cosmic ray tests of special relativity''},

668: [astro-ph/0011181].

669: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0011181;%%

670: 

671: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

672: \bibitem{Bertolami}

673: O.~Bertolami,

674: %{\em ``Ultra-high energy cosmic rays and symmetries of spacetime''},

675: [astro-ph/0012462].

676: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012462;%%

677: 

678: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------=

679: \bibitem{Kifune}

680: T.~Kifune,

681: %``Invariance violation extends the cosmic ray horizon?,''

682: {Astrophys.\ J.\ } {\bf 518}, L21 (1999).

683: %[astro-ph/9904164].

684: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9904164;%%

685: 

686: %----------------------------------------------------------------

687: \bibitem{Kluzniak}

688: W.~Kluzniak,

689: %``Transparency of the universe to TeV photons in some models of quantum

690: %gravity,''

691: {Astropart.\ Phys.\ }{\bf 11}, 117 (1999).

692: %%CITATION = APHYE,11,117;%%

693: 

694: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

695: \bibitem{Aloisio}

696: R.~Aloisio, {\em et al.},

697: %``Probing the structure of space-time with cosmic rays,''

698: {Phys.\ Rev.\ }D{\bf 62}, 053010 (2000).

699: %[astro-ph/0001258].

700: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0001258;%%

701: 

702: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

703: \bibitem{Protheroe}

704: R.~J.~Protheroe and H.~Meyer,

705: %``An infrared background TeV gamma ray crisis?,''

706: {Phys.\ Lett.\ }B{\bf 493}, 1 (2000).

707: %[astro-ph/0005349].

708: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005349;%%

709: 

710: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

711: \bibitem{Sigl}

712: G.~Sigl,

713: %``Particle and astrophysics aspects of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays,''

714: {Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ }{\bf 556}, 259 (2000).

715: %[astro-ph/0008364].

716: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

717: 

718: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

719: \bibitem{GZKobservations}

720: %N.~Hayashida et al., Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 73}, 3491 (1994); \\

721: %Haverah Park Collaboration, M.A. Lawrence {\em et al.},

722: %J. Phys. G {\bf 17},733 (1991); \\

723: %S.~Yoshida et al., Astropart.~Phys. {\bf 3}, 105 (1995); \\

724: %Fly's Eye collaboration,

725: D.J. Bird \etal , Astrophys. J.  {\bf 424}, 144 (1995); \\

726: M.~Takeda \etal , Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 81}, 1163 (1998);

727: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

728: 

729: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

730: \bibitem{Aharo2}

731: F.~A.~Aharonian, A.~N.~Timokhin and A.~V.~Plyasheshnikov,

732: %{\em ``On the origin of highest energy gamma-rays from Mkn-501''},

733: [astro-ph/0108419].

734: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0108419;%%

735: 

736: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

737: \bibitem{Kostelecky:2001mb}

738: V.~A.~Kostelecky and M.~Mewes,

739: %``Cosmological constraints on Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,''

740: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 251304 (2001)

741: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0111026].

742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111026;%%

743: 

744: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

745: \bibitem{Gleiser:2001rm}

746: R.~J.~Gleiser and C.~N.~Kozameh,

747: %``Astrophysical limits on quantum gravity motivated birefringence,''

748: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 083007 (2001)

749: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0102093].

750: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0102093;%%

751: 

752: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

753: \bibitem{Brustein:2001ik}

754: R.~Brustein, D.~Eichler and S.~Foffa,

755: %``Probing the Planck scale with neutrino oscillations,''

756: [hep-ph/0106309].

757: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106309;%%

758: 

759: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

760: \bibitem{Koyama}

761: K.~Koyama \etal ,

762: % R.~Petre, E.V.~Gotthelf, U.~Hwang, M.~Natsuura, M.~Ozaki, and S.S.~Holt,

763: Nature {\bf 378}, 255 (1995).

764: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

765: 

766: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

767: \bibitem{Tanimori98}

768: T.~Tanimori {\em et al.}, ApJ {\bf 497}, L25 (1998).

769: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

770: 

771: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

772: \bibitem{Naito}

773: T.~Naito, T.~Yoshida, M.~Mori, T.~Tanimori,

774: %Radio to TeV gamma-ray emission from SN 1006 and shock acceleration around its rim

775: Astronomische Nachrichten {\bf 320}, 205 (1999).

776: 

777: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

778: \bibitem{Tanimori}

779: T.~Tanimori {\em et al.}, ApJ {\bf 492}, L33 (1998).

780: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

781: 

782: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

783: \bibitem{JStecker01}

784: O.~C.~de Jager and F.~W.~Stecker,

785: %{\em ``Extragalactic gamma-ray absorption and the intrinsic spectrum of Mkn 501 during the 1977 flare,''}

786: [astro-ph/0107103].

787: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107103;%%

788: 

789: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

790: \bibitem{lettthr}

791: D.~Mattingly, T.~Jacobson and S.~Liberati,

792: %{\em ``Thresholds in Lorentz breaking theories''},

793: To appear.

794: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

795: 

796: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

797: \bibitem{JLM01}

798: T.~Jacobson, S.~Liberati and D.~Mattingly,

799: %{\em ``Constraining Lorentz breaking dispersion relations via cosmological observations''},

800: To appear

801: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

802: 

803: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

804: \bibitem{Mrk421}

805: F.~Krennrich \etal ,

806: %{\em ``Cutoff in the TeV energy spectrum of Markarian 421 during strong flares in 2001''},

807: [astro-ph/0107113].

808: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107113;%%

809: 

810: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

811: \bibitem{Aharo}

812: F.~A.~Aharonian,

813: {\em A{\&}A} {\bf 349}, 11 (1999).

814: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

815: 

816: %----------------------------------------------------------------

817: \bibitem{Elltof}

818: J.~Ellis \etal ,Ê

819: %John; Farakos,ÊK.; Mavromatos,ÊN.ÊE.; Mitsou,ÊV.ÊA.; Nanopoulos,ÊD.ÊV.

820: ApJ {\bf 535}, 139 (2000).

821: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

822: 

823: %----------------------------------------------------------------

824: \bibitem{schaefer}

825: B. ~Schaefer,

826: %{\em ``Severe Limits on Variations of the Speed of Light with Frequency''},

827: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{82}, 4964 (1999).

828: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

829: 

830: %----------------------------------------------------------------

831: \bibitem{Norris99}

832: J.~P.~Norris \etal ,

833: %J.~T.~Bonnell, G.~F.~Marani and J.~D.~Scargle,

834: %``GLAST, GRBs, and quantum gravity,''

835: [astro-ph/9912136].

836: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9912136;%%

837: 

838: %----------------------------------------------------------------

839: \bibitem{Bahcall:2002wi}

840: J.~N.~Bahcall and E.~Waxman,

841: {\em ``Has the GZK cutoff been discovered?''},

842: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206217].

843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206217;%%

844: %----------------------------------------------------------------

845: \bibitem{FLYeye02}

846: The High Resolution Fly's Eye Collaboration,

847: {\em Measurement of the Spectrum of UHE Cosmic Rays by the FADC Detector of the HiRes Experiment},

848: [arXiv:astro-ph/0208301].

849: 

850: %----------------------------------------------------------------

851: \end{thebibliography}

852: %----------------------------------------------------------------

853: %----------------------------------------------------------------

854: \end{document}

855: %----------------------------------------------------------------

856: %----------------------------------------------------------------

857: