1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******

2: %

3: %   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 3.0 distribution.

4: %   Version 3.0 of REVTeX, November 10, 1992.

5: %

6: %   Copyright (c) 1992 The American Physical Society.

7: %

8: %   See the REVTeX 3.0 README file for restrictions and more information.

9: %

10: %

11: %

12: % \documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}

13: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,epsf]{revtex}

14: 

15: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}

16: %\begin{document}

17: %\draft

18: 

19: \hyphenation{di-men-sion-al}

20: \def \half {{1\over 2}}

21: \newcommand{\sss}{{\scriptscriptstyle }}

22: \newcommand{\sperp}{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}

23: \def\Square{{\vbox {\hrule height 0.6pt\hbox{\vrule width 0.6pt\hskip 3pt

24:         \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt \vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule height 0.6pt}}}

25: \def\eV{\hbox{eV}}

26: \def\TeV{\hbox{TeV}}

27: \def\roughly#1{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em

28: \lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

29: \def\lsim{\roughly<}

30: \def\gsim{\roughly>}

31: \def\pref#1{(\ref{#1})}

32: \def\nn{\nonumber}

33: \def\eq{\begin{equation}}

34: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

35: \def\eqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

36: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

37: \def\cG{{\cal G}}

38: \def\bk{{\bf k}}

39: \def\bp{{\bf p}}

40: \def\scA{{\cal A}}

41: \def\scB{{\cal B}}

42: \def\scC{{\cal C}}

43: \def\scD{{\cal D}}

44: \def\scE{{\cal E}}

45: \def\eps{\epsilon}

46: \def\veps{\varepsilon}

47: \def\dsl{\hbox{/\kern-.6600em$D$}}

48: \def\psl{\hbox{/\kern-.6600em$P$}}

49: \def\qsl{\hbox{/\kern-.5600em$Q$}}

50: \def\ksl{\hbox{/\kern-.5600em$k$}}

51: \def\g{\gamma}

52: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

53: \def\a{\alpha}

54: \def\phm{{\phantom{-}\,}}

55: \def\phl{\; {\phantom{\cal L}}}

56: 

57: %% Please only comment out this line

58: \documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}

59: \begin{document}

60: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse%

61: \endcsname

62: \rightline{McGill-01/26, UW/PT 01-27, {\tt hep-th/0201082}} \vspace{3mm}

63: 

64: \draft

65: \title{Loop-Generated Bounds on Changes to the Graviton Dispersion Relation}

66: 

67: \author{C.P.~Burgess,${}^{a}$ J. Cline,${}^a$, E. Filotas${}^a$,

68: J. Matias,${}^b$ and G.D. Moore${}^c$}

69: 

70: \address{${}^a$ Physics Department, McGill University,

71: 3600 University Street, Montr\'eal, Qu\'ebec, Canada H3A 2T8.\\

72: ${}^b$ IFAE, Universitat Aut\`onoma de Barcelona, Spain.\\

73: ${}^c$ Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.}

74: %

75: \maketitle

76: 

77: \begin{abstract}

78: {We identify the effective theory appropriate to the propagation

79: of massless bulk fields in brane-world scenarios, to show that the

80: dominant low-energy effect of asymmetric warping in the bulk is to

81: modify the dispersion relation of the effective 4-dimensional

82: modes. We show how such changes to the graviton dispersion

83: relation may be bounded through the effects they imply, through

84: loops, for the propagation of standard model particles. We compute

85: these bounds and show that they provide, in some cases, the

86: strongest constraints on nonstandard gravitational dispersions.

87: The bounds obtained in this way are the strongest for the fewest

88: extra dimensions and when the extra-dimensional Planck mass is the

89: smallest. Although the best bounds come for warped 5-D scenarios,

90: for which $M_5$ is $O(\hbox{TeV})$, even in 4 dimensions the

91: graviton loop can lead to a bound on the graviton speed which is

92: comparable with other constraints.}

93: \end{abstract}

94: %

95: %

96: \pacs{PACS numbers:

97: 11.10.Kk, 04.50.+h}

98: ]

99: 

100: %

101: %

102: %%%%%%%%%%%\narrowtext  %<- CLH to get two columns a la PRD

103: % aim for around 700 lines

104: 

105: \section{Introduction}

106: 

107: Although physics in more than the traditional four dimensions has been

108: long speculated to be important for describing phenomena at energies

109: above the electroweak scale, the idea is presently enjoying additional

110: scrutiny because of two more recent developments.

111: 

112: First came the

113: understanding of the strong-coupling limit of string theory in terms

114: of 11-dimensional supergravity interacting on spaces with boundaries

115: \cite{HW}. Together with the realization that observable particles

116: can be trapped on these boundaries, or on D-branes, this understanding

117: freed the string scale from the Planck mass, allowing it to be

118: as low as the weak scale \cite{ADD} or at intermediate or

119: grand-unified scales \cite{OtherScales}. Such low string scales

120: allow extra dimensions to be comparatively large, and so (potentially)

121: to have much richer implications at experimentally accessible energies.

122: 

123: Second came the observation that even very small extra dimensions

124: might also have interesting low-energy implications if their geometries

125: are `warped' \cite{RSI,RSII}. In this framework, the four-dimensional metric

126: has a nontrivial dependence on position in the extra dimensions,

127: allowing four-dimensional properties like masses and couplings to

128: depend in an interesting way on an observer's position within the

129: extra dimensions.

130: 

131: Although not required by either approach, the broader class of

132: geometries which are allowed once observable particles are

133: confined to a brane includes many configurations which violate

134: Lorentz invariance within the observable four dimensions by

135: picking out a preferred frame \cite{Lorentz,DRV}, such as by

136: having gravitating objects displaced from our brane in the extra

137: dimensions. For example, within the warped framework one can have

138: a 5D line element of the form

139: %

140: \eq \label{ads}

141:     ds^2 = -(\a+\Delta) dt^2 + \a d\vec x^{\,2} + {dr^2\over

142:     \a+\Delta}

143: \eeq

144: %

145: where $t,$ $\vec{x}$ are 4 dimensional time and space, $r$ is the

146: extra dimension, $\a(r) = r^2/l^2$ and $\Delta(r) = - \mu/r^2 +

147: Q^2/r^4$. If $\mu=Q=0$ this is anti-de Sitter space with curvature

148: radius $l$, and there is no Lorentz violation.  But if $\mu\neq

149: 0$, it is the AdS-Reissner-N\"ordstrom metric with a singularity

150: at $r=0$ and a speed of light which varies with $r$ as $c^2(r)=1+

151: {\Delta\over\a}$. There is a preferred frame with 4-velocity

152: $u^\mu = (1,0,0,0)$ in these coordinates.  In this example, the

153: preferred frame is not due to visible matter, but rather the

154: presence of a ``black brane'' at $r=0$ which is displaced from our

155: brane in the extra dimension. {\it A priori} its effects need not

156: be small, and could cause observable phenomena.

157: 

158: Very strong limits exist on the size of various Lorentz-violating

159: effects involving ordinary particles \cite{LVBounds,Glashow}, so

160: one expects these to provide the most stringent tests of any

161: Lorentz-violation effects predicted in the brane-world scenario.

162: Although this expectation is borne out, the surprise in these

163: scenarios is always the comparative difficulty of finding good

164: constraints in the event that the only known particle living in

165: the bulk is the graviton, since so little is directly known about

166: the graviton's properties. Some comparatively weak limits do

167: exist, coming from Parameterized Post-Newtonian tests of General

168: Relativity within the solar system \cite{WillBook,Will}, and from

169: its success in describing the energy loss of the binary pulsar,

170: 1913+16 \cite{Will,Taylor,Carlip}.

171: 

172: Much stronger limits on changes to the graviton dispersion

173: relation may also be obtained if they permit high-energy particles

174: to \v Cerenkov radiate gravitons. In this case bounds may be obtained

175: from our observation of very high energy particles in cosmic rays.

176: Assuming these cosmic rays to be protons -- as the best evidence

177: indicates \cite{protvsphot} -- the constraint $(c_p - c_g)/c_p <

178: 10^{-15}$ was obtained in this way \cite{MN}, strongly restricting the

179: case where the graviton velocity, $c_g$, is smaller than that of the

180: proton, $c_p$.

181: 

182: Our purpose in this paper is to provide a complementary constraint

183: for the case where protons cannot radiate gravitons, and so the

184: above bound does not apply. We obtain our constraint by computing

185: some of the Lorentz-violating effects which are implied for

186: fermions and photons by radiative corrections involving gravitons.

187: Because the bounds on such corrections for electrons and photons

188: are extremely good, we are able to infer reasonably strong bounds

189: on Lorentz violation in the graviton sector.

190: 

191: We find two kinds of effects, each of which depends on physics at

192: different scales. We find the one-loop graviton-induced

193: contributions to particle phase velocities to be highly suppressed

194: by the mass of the particle involved. This sensitivity is stronger

195: the higher the number of dimensions the graviton sees. The photon

196: and electron are particularly insensitive to this kind of

197: correction. Because they are so mass-dependent, the largest

198: contributions to light particles are often due to higher-loop

199: graphs within which a one-loop graviton-induced modification to

200: the propagation of a heavy particle (like a $W$ boson or top

201: quark) is inserted. This makes predictions sensitive to the

202: ultraviolet structure of the theory.

203: 

204: Graviton loops also change light-particle dispersion relations

205: by introducing contributions which involve higher powers of the

206: particle momentum. We compute these and find that they

207: can be generically less ultraviolet sensitive

208: than are changes to particle phase velocities. Interestingly, the

209: low-energy contributions of this form ({\it i.e.} the contributions

210: due to the massless 4D graviton) are already large enough to provide

211: interesting bounds.

212: 

213: We organize our presentation as follows. In the next section we

214: discuss in general terms how Lorentz-violating effects enter into

215: the low-energy 4D theory at energies well below the

216: compactification scale. This is the regime of interest for

217: experiments, and is {\it not} the regime in which one can consider

218: bulk particles to be moving on ballistic trajectories through the

219: extra dimensions. Then in section III we discuss the fermion and

220: photon self energies in general, to identify which features are

221: required in order to make comparison with experiments. Section IV

222: follows with the calculation of the graviton loop, and the

223: derivation of the induced Lorentz violation amongst visible

224: brane-based particles. Given the mass dependence of the results

225: of Section IV, Section V gives conservative estimates as to the

226: size which might be expected for photons, electrons and protons.

227: Section VI describes the bounds on Lorentz violation for these

228: particles, and computes the bound which may be inferred indirectly

229: on the strength of Lorentz violation in the gravity sector. Our

230: conclusions are summarized in section VI, and some of the

231: cumbersome intermediate results are gathered into two appendices.

232: 

233: \section{The 4d Effective Picture}

234: 

235: In the brane-world picture photons and electrons usually are

236: constrained to move on our four-dimensional brane, while gravitons are

237: free to explore the higher-dimensional bulk surrounding space. It is

238: intuitive in this kind of picture that brane and bulk particles might

239: propagate differently, since bulk particles might be free to take

240: `shortcuts' through the extra dimensions which are forbidden to

241: brane-bound particles \cite{Shortcuts}. This possibility has been

242: proposed to be, in some instances, a virtue in that it may provide a

243: novel way to address some cosmological problems \cite{DRV,CosmoShort}.

244: 

245: Although this kind of ballistic picture is appealingly intuitive,

246: it is not really appropriate for the low energies at which tests of

247: the dispersion relation actually take place. Experimental tests only involve

248: the one graviton which we see in 4 dimensions, and so only involve

249: the very lowest Kaluza-Klein (KK) state. By contrast, assigning the graviton

250: localized trajectories in the extra dimensions presupposes a localized

251: wave packet in these dimensions, which cannot be constructed purely

252: from the lowest-energy mode.

253: 

254: We briefly detour in this section to describe how extra-dimensional

255: Lorentz-violation appears in the low-energy effective Lagrangian

256: which describes the lowest KK mode. Although we start by using the

257: simplest example of a scalar field, the conclusions we draw will be

258: shown to be equally valid for higher spin fields.

259: 

260: \subsection{A Scalar Field}

261: Consider, therefore, a bulk scalar field, $\Phi(x,y)$, where $x^\mu$

262: labels the 4 dimensions parallel to the brane, and $y^m$ labels

263: the $n$ various transverse dimensions. The four-dimensional field

264: content is obtained by resolving $\Phi$ into a basis of modes

265: in the extra dimensions:

266: %

267: \eq

268: \Phi(x,y) = \sum_k \varphi_k(x) \, u_k(y),

269: \eeq

270: %

271: where the basis functions, $u_k(y)$, are eigenfunctions of the

272: appropriate kinetic/mass operator: $\Delta u_k = \omega_k \, u_k$.

273: 

274: The kinetic 4D action for the KK modes, $\varphi_k(x)$, is

275: obtained by inserting the mode expansion into the higher-dimensional

276: action and integrating the result over the

277: extra dimensions. Using an assumed form for the extra-dimensional

278: background metric:

279: %

280: \eq

281: \cG_{MN} = \pmatrix{ g_{\mu\nu}(x,y) & 0 \cr

282: 0 & h_{mn}(y) \cr}

283: \eeq

284: %

285: one finds in this way:

286: %

287: \eqa

288: S &=& -\, \frac12 \int d^{\,4}x \, d^{\,n}y \; \sqrt{-\cG} {\cG}^{MN}

289: \partial_M \Phi \partial_N \Phi \nonumber\\

290: &=& - \, \frac12 \int d^{\,4}x \; \sqrt{-G} \,

291: G^{\mu\nu}_{kl} \; \partial_\mu \varphi_k \partial_\nu \varphi_l

292: + \cdots

293: \eeqa

294: %

295: where $\cG = \det{\cG_{MN}}$, {\it etc.,} and the effective

296: four dimensional metric governing the kinetic terms is

297: %

298: \eq

299: \label{EffG}

300: \sqrt{-G}\, G^{\mu\nu}_{kl}(x) := \int d^{\,n} y\;

301: \sqrt{-gh}\,  g^{\mu\nu}(x,y) \; u^*_k(y) \,

302: u_l(y).

303: \eeq

304: 

305: The main point is that the metrics (plural since there is a

306: different metric for each choice of the indices $k,l$) defined by

307: eq.\ \pref{EffG} differ, in general, from the induced metric on

308: the brane, $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, which appears in the kinetic term

309: for fields which are trapped on a brane. For instance, for a brane

310: defined by the surface $y=y_0$ the induced metric is simply

311: $\gamma_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}(x,y_0)$. This is ultimately the

312: source of Lorentz-violating effects due to the bulk metric.

313: 

314: If we focus purely on the massless four-dimensional

315: mode, which we label by $k=0$, then we must integrate

316: out the other, more massive, KK modes. The kinetic term 

317: for the massless field,

318: $\varphi = \varphi_0(x)$, contains the metric

319: $G^{\mu\nu} = G^{\mu\nu}_{00}$ which may differ

320: from the induced metric on the brane, $\gamma^{\mu\nu}$.

321: In the rest of this paper we will focus on the implications

322: of this difference.

323: 

324: Two limits of the metric $G^{\mu\nu}$ bear highlighting.

325: First, in the absence of warping of the bulk metric

326: ({\it i.e.,} if $g^{\mu\nu}(x)$ is independent of $y$)

327: eq.\ \pref{EffG} becomes:

328: %

329: \eqa

330: \sqrt{-G}\, G^{\mu\nu}_{kl} &=& \sqrt{-g} \, g^{\mu\nu}(x)

331: \int d^{\,n}y \; \sqrt{h} \, u^*_k \, u_l \nn\\

332: &=& \delta_{kl} \; \sqrt{-g} \, g^{\mu\nu}(x), \eeqa

333: %

334: where the second line uses the orthonormality condition

335: of the basis modes, $u_k(y)$. In this case bulk and

336: brane modes see the same metric, for branes defined by

337: surfaces $y=y_0$.

338: 

339: Second, in the absence of a preferred frame in the

340: bulk metric (such as the AdS metric used by Randall

341: and Sundrum) the metrics $G_{\mu\nu}$ and $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$

342: must be conformal to one another ({\it i.e.,}

343: $G_{\mu\nu}(x) = f(x) \, \gamma_{\mu\nu}(x)$),

344: since Lorentz invariance implies they must both locally

345: be proportional to the Minkowski space metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$.

346: 

347: \subsection{The 4D Graviton} A similar story gives the influence of

348: Lorentz-violating effects on the propagation of low-energy gravitons

349: within the effective theory below the compactification scale (or the

350: AdS curvature scale, in the case of RS-II-like models without

351: compactification \cite{RSII}), although the details are a bit more

352: complicated due to gauge invariance. Our purpose here is to identify

353: the leading contributions of Lorentz violations in the higher-energy

354: theory to graviton propagation in the low-energy 4D theory, and to show

355: that they always may be cast in terms of an appropriate shift of the

356: background metric.\footnote{We thank M. Pospelov for helpful

357: conversations on this point.}

358: 

359: We assume: ($i$) our interest is in energies very low compared to

360: the compactification scale, allowing a treatment in terms of the

361: low-energy 4D effective theory; ($ii$) there is only a single

362: massless spin-2 graviton mode in this effective theory, and

363: ($iii$) that the dominant effect of the higher-dimensional theory

364: is to break Lorentz invariance but not translation invariance or

365: rotational invariance (in the preferred frame). Under these

366: circumstances the 4D effective theory

367: involves an effective 4D metric field coupled to an order

368: parameter, $u_\mu$, which defines the preferred frame. The

369: assumptions of unbroken rotational invariance imply $u_\mu$ is

370: timelike, and we rescale it so that it is normalized, satisfying

371: $g^{\mu\nu} u_\mu u_\nu = -1$.

372: 

373: On grounds of general covariance, the 4D effective theory with

374: the fewest derivatives has the form:\footnote{Our metric is

375: `mostly plus', and we follow Weinberg's curvature conventions

376: \cite{GravCosm}.  Momentum 4-vectors are upper case ($P$),

377: the spatial vector is boldface (${\bf p}$), the magnitude of the spatial

378: piece is lowercase ($p$).}

379: %

380: \eq \label{d4DEH} {\cal L} = -\, {1 \over 2 \kappa_4^2} \;

381: \sqrt{-g} \Bigl[ R + a \; R^{\mu\nu} \, u_\mu u_\nu \Bigr] +

382: \dots \, ,\eeq

383: %

384: for some dimensionless constant $a$. Here the ellipses indicate

385: higher-derivative terms, and we have not written a cosmological

386: constant term, which we assume to be negligible. (We shed no light

387: in this paper on the vexing cosmological constant problem.) 

388: Here $\kappa_4^2 = 8 \pi \, G_4 = 1/M_4^2$, where

389: $G_4$ and $M_4$ are the usual 4D Newton's constant and

390: (rationalized) Planck mass: $M_4 \sim 2 \times 10^{18}$ GeV. In

391: order of magnitude we expect $a \sim \kappa^2_4 \Lambda^2$, where

392: $\Lambda$ is the scale associated with the Lorentz-violating

393: effects at higher energies. Clearly $a$ is naturally very small to

394: the extent that $\Lambda$ is much smaller than the 4D Planck

395: scale.

396: 

397: The main point now follows. The second term of eq.\ \pref{d4DEH}

398: may be completely absorbed by performing the following field

399: redefinition:

400: %

401: \eq \label{fieldredef} g_{\mu\nu} \to g_{\mu\nu} - \, {a \over 2}

402: \; \Bigl[ g_{\mu\nu} + 2 \, u_\mu u_\nu \Bigr] . \eeq

403: %

404: After having performed this redefinition (and a constant rescaling

405: of the metric), graviton fluctuations about flat space are

406: described performing the expansion $g_{\mu\nu}(x) = G_{\mu\nu} + 2

407: \kappa_4 \, h_{\mu\nu}(x)$, in eq.\ \pref{d4DEH}, using

408: %

409: \eq \label{metricform} G_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} - \delta c_g^2

410: \, u_\mu u_\nu, \eeq

411: %

412: where $\eta_{\mu\nu} = \hbox{diag} (-1,1,1,1)$ is the usual

413: Minkowski metric, $u_\mu = \eta_{\mu\nu} u^\nu$, and $\delta

414: c_g^2$ is a small quantity which we shall see has the

415: interpretation as a change in the maximum propagation speed,

416: $c_g$, of the graviton. The field $h_{\mu\nu}$ here is the

417: canonically-normalized field describing graviton propagation.

418: 

419: Just as was the case for the scalar field, the leading effect of

420: higher-energy Lorentz violation is in this way seen to be a

421: modification of the background metric through which the graviton

422: propagates.

423: 

424: As a concrete illustration of this general argument, we can

425: compute the effective 4-D gravitational metric corresponding to

426: eq.\ (\ref{ads}), treating the Lorentz-violating term as a

427: perturbation.  The 4D effective gravitational action can be

428: obtained by expanding the 5D action $S$ to linear order in $\delta

429: g_{\mu\nu} = (-\mu/r^2+Q^2/r^4)u_\mu u_\nu$, and integrating over

430: the extra dimension.  If we write

431: %

432: \eq

433:     ds^2 \cong {r^2\over l^2}

434:     \left( g_{\mu\nu}(x) - {l^2\over r^2}\delta g_{\mu\nu}

435:     \right) dx^\mu dx^\nu +  {l^2\over r^2} dr^2

436: \eeq

437: %

438: (the correction $\Delta(r)$ in $g_{rr}$ can be neglected to leading order

439: in $\Delta$) then\footnote{For a warped metric of the form $ds^2 =

440: a(r)g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + b(r) dr^2$, the reduction of the

441: gravitational action from 5D to 4D is $S = -\frac12 M_5^3

442: (\int a\sqrt{b}\,dr)\sqrt{-g}R$, where $R$ is the Ricci scalar constructed

443: from the 4D part of the metric, $g_{\mu\nu}$.}

444: %

445: \eqa

446:     \delta  S &=& \frac12 M_5^3 \left(\int_{r_1}^{r_2} dr\,

447:     {r\over l}\cdot{l^2 \over r^2}\left[-{\mu\over r^2}+{Q^2\over r^4}

448:     \right]\right)

449:     \nonumber\\

450:     &&\times\sqrt{-g}\left(R^{\mu\nu}-\frac12 g^{\mu\nu}R\right) u_\mu u_\nu

451: \eeqa

452: %

453: The upper limit of integration corresponds to the position of one

454: brane, and the lower limit might be that of another brane, or else

455: the position of an event horizon where $\a(r_1)+\Delta(r_1)=0$, if

456: there is only a single brane.  Comparing to the preceding

457: discussion, we see that the graviton sees a metric of the form

458: (\ref{metricform}), with

459: %

460: \eq

461:     \delta c_g^2 \sim {\int_{r_1}^{r_2} dr\,

462:     {l \over r}\left[-{\mu\over r^2}+{Q^2\over r^4}

463:     \right] \over \int_{r_1}^{r_2} dr\, {r\over l} }

464: \eeq

465: %

466: Interestingly, the sign of $\delta c_g^2$ can be positive or negative,

467: depending on the relative sizes of black brane mass and charge.

468: 

469: \subsection{Physical Implications}

470: The physical significance of the metric, $G_{\mu\nu}$, appearing

471: in the kinetic term of a field within the effective theory, is most

472: easily seen by working within the geometrical-optics

473: approximation. Within this approximation, the propagating field is

474: written in the form $\varphi(x) = A(x) \, \exp[i P_\mu x^\mu]$,

475: with $A(x)$ assumed to be much more slowly-varying than is the

476: phase, $P_\mu x^\mu$. With this choice the field equation,

477: $(G^{\mu\nu} \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu - m^2)\varphi = 0$ is

478: equivalent to the dispersion relation: $G^{\mu\nu} \, P_\mu P_\nu

479: + m^2 \approx 0$, or equivalently the normal vectors, $P_\mu$, of

480: the surfaces of constant phase are timelike (or null, if $m=0$)

481: vectors of the metric $G^{\mu\nu}$.

482: 

483: If the (four-dimensional) wavelength of the mode is much smaller

484: than the (four-dimensional) radius of curvature of the background

485: fields, then the motion of these wave packets is along the

486: geodesics of the 4D-metric $G_{\mu\nu}$. Clearly these

487: trajectories and dispersion relations generically differ for

488: fields which have different metrics in their kinetic terms.

489: 

490: The statement is slightly weaker for massless particles, since

491: the latter move along null geodesics of their respective

492: metrics. Consequently, their trajectories only differ if the two

493: metrics are not conformal to one another. In particular,

494: differences in the trajectories of massless particles are not

495: observable (in the geometric-optics limit) in the absence of a

496: preferred frame in the bulk or on the brane.

497: 

498: \section{Loops: General Considerations}

499: We now turn to the general implications for fermions and photons

500: of loop-generated Lorentz-violating effects. Motivated by the

501: considerations of the previous section, we imagine from here on

502: that all brane fields -- {\it i.e.,} all experimentally observed

503: elementary particles except for the graviton --  see only the

504: induced metric on the brane, which we take to be flat and Lorentz

505: invariant: $\gamma_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} = \hbox{diag}

506: (-1,1,1,1)$. By contrast, the metric appearing within the kinetic

507: terms of any low-energy bulk fields -- which we take to be just

508: the graviton -- involves the Lorentz-violating metric of

509: eq.\ \pref{metricform}. This is the dominant low-energy source of

510: Lorentz violation in the effective theory, and it is the only type

511: of Lorentz violation whose implications we shall follow.

512: 

513: In general, loops involving virtual bulk states communicate the

514: news of Lorentz violation to the brane fields, and our task is to

515: compute the size of this effect. In this section we address

516: general issues which follow purely from the assumption that

517: $G^{\mu\nu} = \hbox{diag}(-1/c_g^2,1,1,1)$ encodes all

518: Lorentz-violating effects, and return in later sections to the

519: explicit calculation of these effects from graviton loops.

520: 

521: Since we know from direct bounds that Lorentz-violating bulk

522: effects are small (more about this later), we take $c_g = 1 +

523: \eps$ with $\eps \ll 1$. Because of the very strong constraints

524: already known for $c_g < 1$ \cite{MN} our primary interest in what

525: follows is in positive $\eps$. In view of the direct bounds

526: arising from solar-system and binary-pulsar tests of general

527: relativity we imagine $\eps \lsim 10^{-6}$\footnote{A weaker

528: bound, $\eps \lsim 10^{-3}$, is required if only terrestrial 

529: bounds, or the gravitational radiation rate of the binary pulsar are used. 

530: The stronger limit follows from angular momentum conservation 

531: for the Sun, as inferred by requiring the ecliptic and solar equatorial 

532: planes not to precess relative to one another throughout the

533: history of the solar system \cite{Nordtvedt,WillBook,Will}.}.

534: 

535: \subsection{Photon Propagation}

536: We identify in this section those parts of the graviton-induced

537: vacuum polarization which have implications for the dispersion

538: relation of transversely-polarized photons.

539: 

540: We first write the most general form for the vacuum polarization

541: which can be built from the tensors $\eta_{\mu\nu}$,

542: $G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu} + (1-c_g^2) u_\mu u_\nu$ and the

543: momentum 4-vector, $P_\mu$, which is consistent with symmetry

544: ($\Pi^{\mu\nu} = \Pi^{\nu\mu}$) and transversality ($P_\mu \,

545: \Pi^{\mu\nu} = 0$). The most general form is:

546: %

547: \eqa \label{GenPi} \Pi^{\mu\nu} &=& A\; \left(\eta^{\mu\nu} -

548: {P^\mu P^\nu \over P^2} \right) + B \; \Bigl[ u^\mu u^\nu \\

549: && \quad \left. + {(P\cdot u)^2 \over P^4} \, P^\mu P^\nu  - \,

550: {(P \cdot u) \over P^2} \, (P^\mu u^\nu + P^\nu u^\mu) \right],

551: \nn \eeqa

552: %

553: where at this point $A$ and $B$ are arbitrary functions of the two

554: independent variables, $P^2$ and $P\cdot u$.

555: 

556: The dispersion relation is found by searching for the zero

557: eigenvalues of the inverse propagator, $\Delta^{\mu\nu} =

558: \Delta_0^{\mu\nu} + \Pi^{\mu\nu}$ where $\Delta_0^{\mu\nu} = -

559: (P^2 \, \eta^{\mu\nu} - P^\mu P^\nu)$. In particular, our interest

560: is only in those which are transverse (orthogonal to the pure

561: gauge directions). Working in the rest frame, $u^\mu = (1,0,0,0)$,

562: and taking the photon momentum to point in the $z$-direction ({\it

563: i.e.,} $P^\mu = (\omega,0,0,p)$), we therefore require that

564: $\Delta^{\mu\nu}=0$ in the directions $\mu,\nu = x,y$.

565: 

566: A simple calculation using eq.\ \pref{GenPi} shows that this

567: implies:

568: %

569: \eq \omega^2 - p^2 + A(\omega,p) = 0. \eeq

570: %

571: Since $A$ is perturbatively small, it suffices to write the

572: dispersion relation as $\omega = \omega_0 + \omega_1$, where

573: $\omega_0 = p$, and to evaluate $A$ with $\omega=\omega_0$. This

574: leads to the present section's main result:

575: %

576: \eq \label{phDispCond} \omega_1 = - \, {1 \over 2 \omega_0} \;

577: A(\omega_0,p). \eeq

578: 

579: As we shall find, $A$ admits an expansion at low energies in

580: powers of $P^2$ and $u\cdot P$, leading to the form

581: %

582: \eq A(\omega_0,p) = \alpha \, p^2 + \beta \, p^4 + \dots \, , \eeq

583: %

584: where rotational invariance precludes the appearance of odd powers

585: of $p$. Using this in eq.\ \pref{phDispCond} and comparing the

586: result with the general 4D photon dispersion relation

587: %

588: \eq \label{PhForm} \omega^2(p) = p^2 c_\gamma^2 + b_\gamma \,

589: p^{4} + O(p^6) \, . \eeq

590: %

591: we readily identify

592: %

593: \eq c_\gamma^2 = 1 - \alpha, \qquad b_\gamma = - \beta \, . \eeq

594: 

595: \subsection{Fermion Propagation}

596: We next ask how loop contributions to fermion self-energies can

597: modify fermion dispersion relations. We work within the rest frame

598: defined by $u^\mu$. Writing the inverse electron propagator as $S

599: = S_0 + \Sigma$, with $S_0 = - ( i \psl + m)$, we see that to

600: leading order in perturbation theory the zeroes of $S$ satisfy

601: $P^\mu = (E,\bp)$, where $E= E_0 + E_1$ with $E_0 = \sqrt{p^2 +

602: m^2_0}$ and:

603: %

604: \eq

605: \label{DispCond}

606: i \g^0 E_1 = - \Sigma(E_0,\bp).

607: \eeq

608: 

609: For small $\bp$, $\Sigma$ has the expansion

610: %

611: \eqa \label{GenSigma}

612: \Sigma(E_0,\bp) &=& \scA + \scB(i \vec\g

613: \cdot \bp) +

614: \scC \, p^2 \nn\\

615: && \qquad + \scD\, p^2 (i \vec\g \cdot \bp) + \scE \, p^4 +

616: \cdots \eeqa

617: %

618: and so eq.\ \pref{DispCond} implies a dispersion relation

619: of the form

620: %

621: \eq \label{disprel} E_f^2 = m^2_f + p^2\, c_f^2 + b_f \, p^4 +

622: \cdots \eeq

623: %

624: with

625: %

626: \eqa

627: m_f &=& m_0 - \scA + \cdots \\

628: c^2_f &=& 1 - 2(\scB + m_0 \, \scC) + \cdots \\

629: b_f &=& - 2 (\scD + m_0 \, \scE) + \cdots \eeqa

630: %

631: In these last three equations the subscript $f$ denotes the

632: fermion species, and the ellipses indicate higher-order

633: contributions.

634: 

635: Since it is the quantities $c_f^2$ and $b_f$ which we wish to

636: compare with experiments, the implications of graviton loops may

637: be obtained by computing the coefficients $\scB$ through $\scE$.

638: 

639: \section{Loops: Graviton Calculations} In this section we compute the

640: one-loop self energy which is obtained when a fermion or photon

641: emits and reabsorbs a virtual graviton, as in figs.\ 1 and 2. We

642: present our results in three steps. First, since the integrals

643: involved strongly diverge in the ultraviolet, we make some general

644: remarks about the correct way to treat these divergences before

645: describing the calculations themselves. We then evaluate the

646: graviton loop in two steps, motivated by the picture that Lorentz

647: violation is arising from field configurations within the

648: extra-dimensional bulk. First we consider loops involving only the

649: lowest KK mode: the massless 4D graviton. These loops have the

650: virtue of only involving known particles and couplings, and so the

651: results we obtain are comparatively robust. They describe the

652: graviton contributions within the effective 4D theory, well below

653: the compactification scale, $M_c \sim 1/r$, where $r$ is a measure

654: of the linear size of the extra dimensions. In the case of a

655: single noncompact extra dimension, the effective theory is good

656: below the bulk curvature scale $\sqrt{-\Lambda_5/M_5^3}$, where

657: $\Lambda_5$ is the bulk cosmological constant and $M_5$ is the 5-D

658: gravity scale.

659: 

660: Next, we compute the contributions of gravitons in the effective

661: theory between $M_c$ and the scale $M_l > M_c$ associated with the

662: extra-dimensional Lorentz violating physics. Since the theory is

663: extra-dimensional in this energy range, this involves calculating

664: the loop contributions of higher KK graviton modes. In order to do

665: this we make several simplifying assumptions about the nature of

666: the extra-dimensional Lorentz violation, which we believe suffices

667: for the purposes of establishing the order of magnitude of the

668: extra-dimensional result.

669: 

670: \subsection{Ultraviolet Divergences}

671: In $d$ spacetime dimensions the gravitational coupling has

672: dimension $\kappa_d \sim M_d^{1-d/2}$, where $M_d$ is the

673: $d$-dimensional Planck mass. On dimensional grounds we therefore

674: expect the most divergent contribution to one-loop brane-particle

675: dispersion relations to be

676: %

677: \eq c^2 - 1 \sim \kappa_d^2 \, \Lambda^{d-2}, \qquad b \sim

678: \kappa_d^2 \, \Lambda^{d-4},  \eeq

679: %

680: where $\Lambda$ is the ultraviolet cutoff scale.

681: 

682: As is usual within an effective theory, this indicates that the

683: result is most sensitive to the most energetic degrees of freedom

684: in the problem, suggesting that calculations within the full

685: theory would produce results that are of order $c^2 -1 \sim

686: \kappa_d^2 \, M^{d-2}$ and $b \sim \kappa_d^2 \, M^{d-4}$, where

687: $M$ might be the mass of a heavy particle which was integrated out

688: to produce the low-energy effective theory.

689: 

690: As we shall see, the above mass-dependence is roughly right,

691: although some care is required due to the appearance of power-law

692: divergences \cite{BL}. Care is required because, although the

693: renormalization group ensures that the coefficient of large

694: logarithms like $\log(M)$ in observable quantities like $c^2 -1$

695: or $b$ may be read off from the coefficients of log divergences

696: (like $\log(\Lambda)$) within the effective theory, the same is

697: not true for higher (power-law) divergences. As a result in this

698: section we ignore all power divergences, and compute only the

699: log-divergent parts of the results. If the results do not have log

700: divergences (as will be the case with an odd number of extra

701: dimensions), then we compute only the finite parts of the loops.

702: 

703: Neglecting the power divergences minimizes the Lorentz symmetry

704: violation which is seen by particles on the brane, and so leads to

705: conservative conclusions. It corresponds to considering the theory

706: in which brane-bound particles respect Lorentz invariance at the

707: energy scale where the theory becomes 4 dimensional. We return in

708: Section V to the issue of contributions which are proportional to

709: positive powers of large mass scales, $M$, by considering higher

710: loops which explicitly involve more massive virtual particles. We

711: shall there see that naive power-counting estimates do correctly

712: reproduce the $M$ dependence of the results, but miss important

713: dimensionless loop factors.

714: 

715: In practice the finite and log-divergent terms are most easily

716: obtained within dimensional regularization, within which power-law

717: divergences do not arise. We have computed our results both using

718: dimensional regularization and using an explicit ultraviolet

719: cutoff, however, and have verified that the answers obtained are

720: the same in both cases.

721: 

722: \subsection{Four-dimensional Graviton}

723: The Feynman rules for fermions and gravitons in the absence of

724: Lorentz-violating effects are standard, and are obtained by

725: linearizing the Dirac-Einstein-Hilbert action in curved space,

726: %

727: \eq \label{DEHAction} {\cal L} = - \sqrt{-g} \, \left[ {1 \over 2

728: \kappa_4^2} \; R + \overline\psi (\dsl + m) \psi + {1 \over 4} \;

729: F_{\mu\nu} \, F^{\mu\nu} \right], \eeq

730: %

731: about flat space: $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + 2 \kappa_4 \,

732: h_{\mu\nu}$. As before $\kappa_4$ denotes the rationalized 

733: Planck mass in 4D: $M_4 \sim 10^{18}$ GeV. $h_{\mu\nu}$

734: represents the canonically-normalized graviton field. A recent

735: statement of the resulting Feynman rules can be found in

736: references \cite{GRW,HLZ}.

737: 

738: As we have argued in previous sections, we know that the only

739: Lorentz-violating modification to these rules consists in

740: replacing the Minkowski metric, $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, with the

741: nonstandard metric, $G_{\mu\nu}$, when linearizing the first term

742: in eq.~\pref{DEHAction} to obtain the graviton propagator. In de

743: Donder gauge this gives:

744: %

745: \eq \label{GravProp} G_{\mu\nu:\alpha\beta}(Q) =

746: {P_{\mu\nu:\alpha\beta} \over G^{\lambda\rho}\, Q_\lambda Q_\rho -

747: i\veps} \, , \eeq

748: %

749: where

750: %

751: \eq P_{\mu\nu:\alpha\beta} = \half \left( G_{\mu\alpha}\,

752: G_{\nu\beta} + G_{\mu\beta} \, G_{\nu\alpha} - G_{\mu\nu} \,

753: G_{\alpha\beta} \right) ,\eeq

754: %

755: and $\veps$ -- not to be confused with $\eps = c_g-1$ -- is the

756: infinitesimal which ensures the propagator satisfies Feynman

757: boundary conditions. The fermion propagators and vertices arise on

758: the brane, and so use only the usual Minkowski metric.

759: 

760: \subsubsection{The Photon Vacuum Polarization}

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: \medskip

765: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{photon.eps}}

766: {\small

767: Figure 1. Graviton contribution to photon vacuum polarization.}

768: \medskip

769: 

770: 

771: After Wick rotation, the one-loop Feynman graph in which a virtual

772: graviton is emitted and reabsorbed by the photon (fig.\ 1) leads

773: to the following expression for the photon vacuum polarization:

774: %

775: \eq \Pi^{\mu\nu} = \left( {\kappa_4 \over 2} \right)^2 \int {d^4 Q

776: \over (2\pi)^4} \; {N^{\mu\nu} \over D} , \eeq

777: %

778: where $D = (P-Q)^2 \; G^{\alpha\beta}Q_\alpha Q_\beta$ and

779: %

780: \eq N^{\mu\nu} = V^{\mu\lambda:\alpha\beta}(P,P-Q) \;

781: {V_\lambda}^{\nu: \sigma\rho}(P-Q,P) \; P_{\alpha\beta:\sigma\rho}

782: \, . \eeq

783: %

784: Appendix A gives explicit expressions for the vertex functions,

785: $V^{\alpha\beta:\mu\nu}(P,Q)$. In these expressions all dependence

786: on the metric $G^{\mu\nu}$ is explicit, and the brane metric,

787: $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, is to be used to perform any implicit index

788: contractions, such as in $(P-Q)^2$.

789: 

790: Evaluating this expression (we used the programs FORM and

791: MATHEMATICA to perform the tensor contractions), Taylor expanding

792: in powers of $\eps = c_g - 1$ and performing the momentum integral

793: gives the following expression for the coefficient function, $A$,

794: of eq.\ \pref{GenPi}:

795: %

796: \eq A(\omega_0, p) = {304 \over 15} \; \lambda_4 \, \eps^2 \, p^4

797: + O(\eps^3), \eeq

798: %

799: where $\lambda_4 = (\kappa_4/8\pi)^2 \; {\cal L}$. Here ${\cal L}

800: = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) = 2/(4-n)$, where the first equality is

801: evaluated using an ultraviolet cutoff, $\Lambda$, and the second

802: regularizes by continuing the spacetime dimension, $n$, away from

803: 4. $\mu$ is an arbitrary scale. We ignore the finite part of the

804: integral relative to its log-divergent part.

805: 

806: Comparison with the general expressions provided earlier gives the

807: following dispersion coefficients:

808: %

809: \eq \label{phresult}

810: c_\gamma^2 - 1 = 0, \qquad \qquad b_\gamma =

811: -\, {304\over 15} \, \lambda_4 \, \eps^2. \eeq

812: 

813: 

814: \subsubsection{The Fermion Self-Energy}

815: 

816: 

817: \medskip

818: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{fermion.eps}}

819: {\small

820: Figure 2. Graviton contribution to fermion self-energy.}

821: \medskip

822: 

823: 

824: We proceed in a similar way for the changes to the fermion self

825: energy. Evaluating the one-loop Feynman graph using the graviton

826: propagator of eq.\ \pref{GravProp}, and Wick-rotating to Euclidean

827: momenta, leads to the following expression for the fermion self

828: energy:

829: %

830: \eq \Sigma_4 = - \left ( {\kappa_4\over 2} \right)^2 \int {d^4 Q

831: \over (2\pi)^4} \; {N_1 \over D}, \eeq

832: %

833: where

834: %

835: \eqa \label{None}

836: N_1 &=& \frac12 \, G_{\mu\nu} \, \gamma^\mu [-i

837: (\psl - \qsl) + m] \gamma^\nu \nn\\

838: &&\qquad\qquad \times \; G_{\alpha\beta}(2 P - Q)^\alpha

839: (2P - Q)^\beta, \nn\\

840: D &=& G^{\lambda\rho} P_\lambda P_\rho \; [(P-Q)^2 + m^2]. \eeqa

841: %

842: Again all dependence on the metric $G^{\mu\nu}$ is explicit, and

843: the brane metric, $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, is used to perform the implicit

844: index contractions in $(P-Q)^2$ and $\psl$. To derive this we used

845: the simple vertex function $(k_1+k_2)_\mu \gamma_\nu +

846: (k_1+k_2)_\nu \gamma_\mu$ of ref.\ \cite{GRW} for the

847: fermion-fermion-graviton coupling rather than the more complicated

848: one of \cite{HLZ}, which includes an extra term $(i\ksl_1+i\ksl_2

849: +2m)\eta_{\mu\nu}$. The neglect of this extra term is justified --

850: even within loop graphs -- because it vanishes if the fermion

851: field equations are used. This ensures that it is an irrelevant

852: operator, in the sense that it can be removed by performing a

853: field redefinition of the fermion of the form $\delta \psi \propto

854: {h^\mu}_\mu \; \psi$.

855: 

856: We have evaluated this integral to the lowest two orders in the

857: small parameter $\eps = c_g - 1$, using the programs

858: FORM/MATHEMATICA to

859: keep track of the various 4-vectors in the problem. We

860: find the following results for the logarithmically-divergent part

861: of the coefficients $\scA$ through $\scE$ of eq.\ \pref{GenSigma}:

862: %

863: \eqa \scA_4 &=&  m^3 \lambda_4 \; \left(4 + 13 \eps + {33\over 2}

864: \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

865:  \scB_4 &=&  m^2 \lambda_4 \; \left(4 \eps + 10 \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

866:  \scC_4 &=&  {m \lambda_4\over 3}  \; \left(16 \eps + 35 \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

867:  \scD_4 &=&   \lambda_4 \; \left(6 \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

868:  \scE_4 &=& 0 + ... \; . \eeqa

869: %

870: where as before $\lambda_4 = (\kappa_4/8\pi)^2 \; {\cal L}$, with

871: ${\cal L} = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) = 2/(4-n)$.

872: 

873: These imply the following contributions to the dispersion relation

874: of eq.\ \pref{disprel}:

875: %

876: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=& -{2 m_f^2 \lambda_4 \over 3} \; \left[ 28 \eps +

877: 65 \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

878: b_f &=& - \lambda_4 \left[ 12 \eps^2 + ... \right] \eeqa

879: %

880: For the case of interest, $\eps > 0$, we see that $c_f^2 < 1$

881: corresponding to fermions propagating {\it slower} than light. It

882: follows that (for a given momentum, $p$) the fermion energy is

883: depressed compared to the photon energy for small $p$.

884: 

885: Notice that the coefficients $b_f$ and $b_\gamma$ both first arise

886: at $O(\eps^2)$, and so their sign (which is negative for both)

887: does not depend on the sign of $\eps$. Furthermore, these terms

888: satisfy $b_f > b_\gamma$. These terms therefore act to raise the

889: fermion energy relative to the photon, and so act in the opposite

890: direction of the effect of $c_f < c_\gamma$ (when $\eps

891: > 0$).

892: 

893: \subsection{Higher-dimensional Gravitons}

894: %

895: We may now estimate the contributions of the higher KK graviton

896: modes to the propagation of brane-based fermions. Rather than

897: doing so by performing a sum over a tower of 4-D KK states, we

898: proceed by directly performing the loop graph using

899: higher-dimensional gravitons.

900: 

901: The first step is to specify what the higher-dimensional metric is

902: about which the graviton fluctuation is to be considered. In

903: principle this should be the metric which describes the

904: gravitational field of the object or objects in the bulk, whose

905: presence gives rise to the preferred frame which violates Lorentz

906: invariance. Since the explicit form for such metrics is rarely

907: known, we proceed by a more approximate route.

908: 

909: Our approximation is based on the observation that

910: higher-dimensional graviton loops are ultraviolet sensitive,

911: with their dominant contributions arising from the circulation of

912: very short-wavelength modes. So long as the wavelength of these

913: modes is much shorter than the radii of curvature of the

914: background Lorentz-violating metric, it should be sufficient to

915: replace the background metric by one which is approximately flat,

916: but Lorentz-violating. In particular, this should be sufficiently

917: accurate for our purposes of estimating the order-of-magnitude of

918: the resulting loop-generated contributions to fermion propagation

919: on the brane.

920: 

921: Accordingly we imagine the higher-dimensional graviton to

922: propagate about a flat metric in which there is a preferred frame

923: defined by an approximately constant $d$-vector, $u^\mu$. Such a

924: metric is again described by eq.\ \pref{metricform}, although with

925: $G_{\mu\nu}$ now being $d$-dimensional.

926: 

927: Linearizing the extra-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action about

928: this metric -- $g_{ab} = G_{ab} + 2 \kappa_d \, h_{ab}$ -- we find

929: the following $d$-dimensional graviton propagator in de Donder

930: gauge:

931: %

932: \eq \label{GravPropd} G_{\mu\nu:\alpha\beta} = {\half \left(

933: G_{\mu\alpha}\, G_{\nu\beta} + G_{\mu\beta} \,

934: G_{\nu\alpha}\right) - {1\over d-2} \; G_{\mu\nu} \,

935: G_{\alpha\beta} \over G^{\lambda\rho} P_\lambda P_\rho -i\veps} \,

936: . \eeq

937: %

938: Again $\veps$ in this expression is the infinitesimal which

939: enforces Feynman boundary conditions. The quantity $\kappa_d$ is

940: related to the $d$-dimensional Newton's constant and Planck mass

941: by $\kappa_d^2 = 8 \pi G_d = (1/M_d)^{d-2}$. We take the fermions

942: and photons to move on a 3-brane, for which the induced metric is

943: the usual Minkowski metric.

944: 

945: \subsubsection{The Photon Vacuum Polarization}

946: Computing the photon vacuum polarization with this propagator

947: gives no correction to the photon dispersion relation at low

948: energies, if the number of dimensions exceeds the usual four.

949: This can be understood purely in terms of dimensional analysis,

950: and the fact that we are computing only the finite or log-divergent

951: contributions. The one-loop contributions to the photon

952: self-energy have two graviton vertices, so they are proportional

953: to $\kappa^2_d = M_d^{-(d-2)}$. Since the log-divergent and finite parts do not

954: involve powers of the cutoff $\Lambda$, the only quantity which

955: can be used to make a dimensionally correct answer is the photon

956: momentum, $p$. Thus the result is proportional to $\kappa_d^2

957: \, p^{d}$.  This gives a $p^4$ correction to the dispersion relation,

958: but only if $d=4$. For $d>4$ the correction always gives only a higher

959: than quartic power of $p$. (Section V discusses the physics of the

960: power-divergent contributions to $c_\gamma^2 - 1$ and $b_\gamma$.)

961: 

962: \subsubsection{The Fermion Self-Energy}

963: Evaluating the one-loop fermion self-energy graph using the

964: $d$-dimensional graviton propagator of eq.\ \pref{GravPropd}, and

965: Wick-rotating to Euclidean momenta, leads to the following

966: expression for the fermion self energy:

967: %

968: \eq \Sigma_d = - \left ( {\kappa_d\over 2} \right)^2 \int {d^d Q

969: \over (2\pi)^d} \; \left( {N_1 + N_2 \over D} \right), \eeq

970: %

971: where $N_1$ is as given by eq.\ \pref{None} and

972: %

973: \eqa N_2 &=& C_d \, \Bigl\{ [i(\psl {-} \qsl) {+} m ]

974: G_{\mu\nu} \, (2 P {-} Q)^\mu (2 P {-} Q)^\nu \nn\\

975: && \; \, -2i G_{\alpha\beta} \gamma^\alpha (2 P {-} Q)^\beta

976: G_{\lambda\rho} (P {-} Q)^\lambda (2P {-} Q)^\rho \Bigr\},\eeqa

977: %

978: with $C_d =  (d-4)/[2(d-2)]$.

979: 

980: Evaluating the integral in powers of $\eps = c_g - 1$ gives an

981: ultraviolet divergent result. We have evaluated the result using

982: both dimensional regularization and an explicit cutoff, and have

983: verified that the coefficients of the logarithmically-divergent

984: and pole terms are the same in both cases. For odd dimensions the

985: integrals are finite in dimensional regularization, and we have

986: verified that the result agrees with the finite part when

987: evaluated with an ultraviolet cutoff.

988: 

989: We are led in this way to the following expressions for the

990: quantity $c_f^2 - 1$ for dimensions $d=5$ through 10. (We give the

991: quantities $\scA$ through $\scE$ in Appendix B.):

992: %

993: \eqa c_f^2 {-}1 &=&  \!\phm m_f^3 \, \lambda_5  \: \left[ \frac{110}{9} \,

994: \eps + \frac{239}{9} \, \eps^2 + ... \right],  \quad (d=5)\nn\\

995: &=&\!  \phm m_f^4 \, \lambda_6  \: \left[ \frac{\: 48\: }{5}

996: \, \eps + \frac{\; 99 \;}{5} \, \eps^2 + ... \right],  \quad (d=6)\nn\\

997: &=&\! -\, m_f^5 \, \lambda_7  \: \left[ \frac{616}{75}

998: \, \eps + \frac{244}{15} \, \eps^2 + ... \right],   \quad (d=7) \nn\\

999: &=&\! -\, m_f^6 \, \lambda_8  \: \left[ \frac{464}{63}

1000: \, \eps + \frac{890}{63} \, \eps^2 + ... \right],  \quad (d=8)

1001: \nn\\

1002: &=&\!  \phm m_f^7 \, \lambda_9  \: \left[ \frac{333}{49}

1003: \, \eps + \frac{\!1245\!}{98} \, \eps^2 \!+ ... \right],  \quad (d=9) \nn\\

1004: &=&\! \phm m_f^8 \, \lambda_{10\!} \left[ \frac{115}{18} \, \eps +

1005: \frac{421}{36} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \quad (d=10). \! \eeqa

1006: %

1007: Here the quantities $\lambda_d$ are defined in terms of the

1008: couplings $\kappa_d$ by:

1009: %

1010: \eqa \lambda_5 = {\kappa_5^2\over (8 \pi)^2}, \phl \quad \;\;

1011: \lambda_6 &=& {2\kappa_6^2\over (8 \pi)^3} \; {\cal L}, \quad \;\;

1012: \lambda_7 \,= {\kappa_7^2 \over 6(4\pi)^3}, \\

1013: \lambda_8 = {2\kappa_8^2 \over (8 \pi)^4} \; {\cal L}, \quad \;\;

1014: \lambda_9 &=& {\kappa_9^2\over 15 (4 \pi)^4}, \quad \;\;

1015: \lambda_{10\!\!} = {4\kappa_{10}^2 \over 3(8 \pi)^5} \; {\cal L}.

1016: \nn \eeqa

1017: %

1018: As before ${\cal L} = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2)$ when a cutoff is

1019: used, or ${\cal L} = 2/(d-n)$ in dimensional continuation of $n$

1020: away from $n=d$.

1021: 

1022: Notice that the corrections to $c_f^2$ which are implied in this

1023: way are not universal in size for all fermions, being suppressed

1024: by powers of $m_f$ for lighter fermions.

1025: 

1026: The corresponding higher-order dispersion coefficient, $b_f$, is

1027: similarly:

1028: %

1029: \eqa b_f &=&   \phm m_f \, \lambda_5 \,\left[ \frac{26}{3} \, \eps^2 +

1030: ... \right]  , \qquad (d=5) \nn\\

1031: &=&   \phm m_f^2 \, \lambda_6 \,\left[ \frac{36}{5} \, \eps^2 + ...

1032: \right] , \qquad (d=6) \nn\\

1033: &=& -\, m_f^3 \, \lambda_7 \,\left[ \frac{32}{5} \, \eps^2 + ... \right],

1034: \qquad (d=7) \nn\\

1035: &=& -\, m_f^4 \, \lambda_8 \,\left[ \frac{\! 124 \!}{21} \, \eps^2 \!+ ...

1036: \right] , \qquad (d=8) \nn\\

1037: &=&  \phm m_f^5 \, \lambda_9 \,\left[ \frac{39}{7} \, \eps^2 + ...

1038: \right] , \qquad (d=9) \nn\\

1039: \label{bfeqs}

1040: &=&  \phm m_f^6 \, \lambda_{10\!\!} \left[ \frac{16}{3} \, \eps^2 + ...

1041: \right] , \qquad (d=10) . \eeqa

1042: %

1043: Just as we saw for $d=4$, $b_f$ always arises at second order in

1044: $\eps$, and so its sign is completely determined in our

1045: calculation. As we shall see, the best bound on this coefficient

1046: arises when $b_f > b_\gamma \approx 0$.

1047: 

1048: The above expressions were derived specifically with the scenario

1049: of large, flat extra dimensions in mind.  However we can also

1050: interpret at least the 5D result in terms of a warped extra

1051: dimension.  This has more interesting consequences than the flat

1052: case, where the quantum gravity scale would have to exceed

1053: $M_5\gsim 10^8$ GeV in order to  comply with sub-millimeter tests

1054: of gravity \cite{adelberger}.  In the warped case, even if

1055: $M_5\sim M_p$, the KK gravitons couple to the  TeV brane with TeV

1056: strength, and they have a mass gap of order TeV.   In this model,

1057: we live on a ``TeV brane'' at $r=r_1$, displaced from the ``Planck

1058: brane'' at $r=r_2$ such that ${r_1\over r_2}\sim 10^{-16}$ in

1059: accordance with solving the hierarchy problem.  As far as the

1060: contributions from the ultraviolet graviton loops are concerned,

1061: this looks like quantum gravity with a scale of $M_5\sim$ TeV. The

1062: TeV mass gap protects low energy gravity from any observable

1063: distortion, but not so the loop effects from momenta $p\gg$ TeV.

1064: 

1065: \section{Real-World Complications}

1066: %

1067: A further step is required before these results can be compared

1068: with the experimental limits on the dispersion relations of real

1069: particles. This step involves identifying which low-energy

1070: particles produce the largest contributions to any given

1071: dispersion relation.\footnote{We thank M.~Pospelov for making many

1072: very useful suggestions for this and the next sections.}

1073: 

1074: There are two reasons why this additional step is required. First,

1075: we would like to apply the above calculations to protons, for

1076: which the experimental limits are the strongest. Unfortunately,

1077: our calculations treat all fermions as elementary, and so can only

1078: apply directly to the proton for scales below roughly $m_p \sim 1$

1079: GeV. (Notice these low energies may nonetheless be described by an

1080: extra-dimensional effective theory within ADD-type scenarios.) For

1081: higher energies, we must apply our calculations to the constituent

1082: quarks and gluons, and infer from these how the proton dispersion

1083: is affected. Unfortunately, the resulting strong-interaction

1084: uncertainties prohibit us from following in more detail the $O(1)$

1085: factors and signs of the results, limiting us to an

1086: order-of-magnitude analysis for the proton.

1087: 

1088: The second reason for being careful in applying our results is the

1089: strong dependence which they have on the relevant fermion masses. In

1090: particular, it may be that larger contributions are obtained for light

1091: particles (like electrons and photons) by embedding the

1092: graviton-induced Lorentz-violating contributions of heavier particles

1093: (like top quarks) within additional loops. This is how we will recover

1094: the larger contributions that might have naively been obtained by

1095: keeping the power divergences of the graviton loop graphs.

1096: 

1097: \subsection{Photons}

1098: %

1099: Our result for the photon dispersion relation is particularly

1100: simple, with $c_\gamma = 1$ for all $d$, and $b_\gamma \ne 0$ only

1101: for $d=4$. This simplicity is largely due to our concentrating on

1102: the finite and log-divergent contributions, however, which

1103: suggests that larger contributions may be found at the

1104: (comparatively cheap) expense of introducing additional loops.

1105: 

1106: For instance, at two loops the photon vacuum polarization acquires

1107: contributions by inserting a Lorentz-violating graviton

1108: self-energy within a charged-fermion loop (fig.\ 3). Assuming all

1109: charged fermions to be brane-bound, and so 4-dimensional, we

1110: estimate the following results for the photon: $c_\gamma^2 -1 \sim

1111: \left( {\alpha \over 4 \pi} \right) \, (c^2_f - 1)$, giving

1112: %

1113: \eqa \label{phest}

1114: c_\gamma^2 -1 &\sim& \left( {\alpha \over 4 \pi}

1115: \right) \left( {\eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right) \; \left( {m_f

1116: \over

1117: M_d} \right)^{d-2} \\

1118: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 1\times 10^{-10} \, \left( {\eps \times

1119: 10^{3}} \right) \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_4} \right)^2 & (d=4)\cr

1120: 2 \times 10^{-11} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1121: { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right)^3 & (d=5) \cr

1122: 3 \times 10^{-13} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1123: { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^4 & (d=6) \cr} \right.  \, ,\nn \eeqa

1124: %

1125: where $[d/2]$ denotes the integer part of $d/2$ and we use the

1126: heaviest known elementary particle, the top quark ($m_t = 175$

1127: GeV), for numerical purposes. Although this is still negligibly

1128: small for $d=4$, we shall see that the $d>4$ result can be large

1129: enough to provide new constraints on $\eps$ if $M_d$ is not too

1130: far above the TeV range.

1131: 

1132: A similar contribution arises to $b_\gamma$, although because of

1133: the weaker dependence on $m_f$ the price of a loop factor,

1134: $\alpha/4\pi$, is not worthwhile when $d=4$, where the direct

1135: one-loop result of eq.~\pref{phresult} is larger. We expect,

1136: then

1137: %

1138: \eqa \label{phestbd4} b_\gamma M_4^2 &=& - \, {304\over 15} \left(

1139: {\eps \over 8 \pi} \right)^2 \qquad (d = 4)\\

1140: &=& -3 \times 10^{-8} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}}

1141: \right)^2\eeqa

1142: %

1143: in four dimensions, where the numerical result uses the

1144: conservative estimate $\log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) \sim 1$.

1145: 

1146: For $d>4$ we estimate the two-loop result by $b_\gamma \sim \left(

1147: {\alpha \over 4 \pi} \right) \, b_f$, and so find:

1148: %

1149: \eqa \label{phestb} b_\gamma M_d^2 &\sim& \left( {\alpha \over 4

1150: \pi} \right) \left( {\eps^2 \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]} }

1151: \right) \; \left( {m_f \over M_d} \right)^{d-4} \qquad (d>4)\\

1152: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 7 \times 10^{-13} \, \left( {\eps \times

1153: 10^{3}} \right)^2 \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right) & (d=5)

1154: \cr 1 \times 10^{-14} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right)^2 \,

1155: \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^2 & (d=6) \cr} \right.  \, ,\nn

1156: \eeqa

1157: %

1158: with $m_t$ being used for the fermion mass. The sign of $b_\gamma$

1159: and $c_\gamma^2 -1$ are not determined by these estimates

1160: (although they are certainly calculable within a more careful

1161: evaluation of Fig.~(3).

1162: 

1163: \medskip

1164: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{vacpol.eps}}

1165: {\small

1166: Figure 3. Two loop contribution to photon vacuum polarization from

1167: top quark and graviton.}

1168: 

1169: \subsection{Electrons}

1170: The next-cleanest application of the above analysis is to

1171: electrons, since so far as we know these are elementary and so our

1172: earlier results may be directly applied. Again taking the

1173: conservative estimate $\log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) \sim 1$, we find that

1174: the direct graviton-loop contribution to the electron dispersion

1175: relation is

1176: %

1177: \eqa \label{eldir} c_e^2 - 1 &\sim& { \eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}}

1178: \; \left( {m_e

1179: \over M_d} \right)^{d-2}, \nn\\

1180: b_e &\sim& {\eps^2 \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]} \, M_d^2} \; \left( {m_e

1181: \over M_d} \right)^{d-4}, \eeqa

1182: %

1183: where $d$ counts the number of spacetime dimensions seen by the

1184: graviton within the effective theory at scales $\mu < \Lambda \sim

1185: 1$ TeV.

1186: 

1187: This should be compared with the result of inserting more massive

1188: particles into higher loops. For instance, a loop with a W boson and

1189: neutrino, with the graviton coupling to the W (fig.\ 4)

1190: gives the alternative contribution

1191: %

1192: \eqa \label{elest} c_e^2 -1 &\sim& \left( {\alpha_w \over 4 \pi}

1193: \right) \left( {\eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right) \; \left(

1194: {m_w \over M_d} \right)^{d-2} \\

1195: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 1\times 10^{-10} \, \left( {\eps \times

1196: 10^{3}} \right) \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_4} \right)^2 & (d=4)\cr

1197: 3 \times 10^{-12} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1198: { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right)^3 & (d=5) \cr

1199: 6 \times 10^{-14} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1200: { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^4 & (d=6) \cr} \right.  \, ,\nn \eeqa

1201: %

1202: using $m_w = 80$ GeV, and $\log(\Lambda^2/mu^2) = 1$.

1203: This last contribution (for $d \ge 4$) is always larger than the

1204: direct one, eq.\ \pref{eldir}, because $(m_e/m_w)^{d-2} \sim (6

1205: \times 10^{-6})^{d-2} \ll (\alpha_w /4 \pi) \sim 3\times 10^{-3}$.

1206: 

1207: \medskip

1208: \centerline{\epsfxsize=2.5in\epsfbox{electron.eps}} {\small Figure

1209: 4. Two-loop contribution to electron self-energy from W boson

1210: and graviton, which can dominate over the one-loop graph

1211: with gravitons alone, Fig.\ 2.}

1212: \medskip

1213: 

1214: The higher-loop result can also provide a larger estimate for

1215: $b_e$, to wit:

1216: %

1217: \eqa \label{elestb} b_e M_d^2 &\sim& \left( {\alpha_w \over 4 \pi}

1218: \right) \left( {\eps^2 \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]} }

1219: \right) \left( {m_w \over M_d} \right)^{d-4} \qquad (d\ge 5)\\

1220: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 4 \times 10^{-13} \, \left( {\eps \times

1221: 10^{3}} \right)^2 \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right) & (d=5)

1222: \cr 9 \times 10^{-15} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right)^2 \,

1223: \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^2 & (d=6) \cr} \right.  \, .\nn

1224: \eeqa

1225: %

1226: This dominates the direct one-loop result for all $d \ge 5$,

1227: because $(m_e/m_w)^{d-4} \sim (6 \times 10^{-6})^{d-4} \ll

1228: (\alpha_w /4 \pi) \sim 3\times 10^{-3}$.

1229: 

1230: When $d=4$ the direct one-loop result wins, for which the results

1231: of the previous section give

1232: %

1233: \eqa \label{elestbd4} b_e M_4^2 &=& - 12 \left( { \eps \over 8

1234: \pi } \right)^2 \qquad (d= 4) \\

1235: &=& -2 \times 10^{-8} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^3} \right)^2 .\nn\\

1236: \eeqa

1237: 

1238: 

1239: \subsection{Protons}

1240: %

1241: The direct calculation of section III applies directly for the

1242: proton only within the effective theory below a GeV, because it is

1243: only within this theory that the proton may be considered to be

1244: elementary. For higher scales the relevant degrees of freedom are

1245: quarks and gluons, for which we must estimate the size of

1246: Lorentz-violating effects.

1247: 

1248: The Lorentz-violating gluon and quark contributions may be estimated using our

1249: photon and electron results, eqs.~\pref{phest} and \pref{elest}, giving:

1250: %

1251: \eqa \label{glest}

1252: c_g^2 -1 &\sim& \left( {\alpha_s \over 4 \pi}

1253: \right) \left( {\eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right) \; \left( {m_t

1254: \over M_d} \right)^{d-2} \nn\\

1255: c_q^2 -1 &\sim& \left( {\alpha_w \over 4 \pi}

1256: \right) \left( {\eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right) \; \left(

1257: {m_w \over M_d} \right)^{d-2} \eeqa

1258: %

1259: where $\alpha_s$ is the QCD coupling, which we take to be $0.119$.

1260: From this we estimate the

1261: proton result to be

1262: %

1263: \eqa \label{prest}

1264: c_p^2 -1 &\sim& \hbox{Max}(c_g^2 -1,c_q^2 -1) \nn\\

1265: &\sim& \left( {\alpha_s \over 4 \pi}

1266: \right) \left( {\eps \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right) \; \left( {m_t

1267: \over M_d} \right)^{d-2} \nn\\

1268: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 2\times 10^{-9} \, \left( {\eps \times

1269: 10^{3}} \right) \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_4} \right)^2 & (d=4)\cr

1270: 3 \times 10^{-10} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1271: { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right)^3 & (d=5) \cr

1272: 4 \times 10^{-12} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right) \, \left(

1273: { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^4 & (d=6) .\cr} \right. \nn \eeqa%

1274: 

1275: The loop contributions to $b_p$ can also dominate for large

1276: numbers of dimensions, but not for $d=4$. We have the higher-loop

1277: contribution

1278: %

1279: \eqa \label{prestb} b_p M_d^2 &\sim& \left( {\alpha_s \over 4 \pi}

1280: \right) \left( {\eps^2 \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]} }

1281: \right) \; \left( {m_f \over M_d} \right)^{d-4} \qquad (d\ge 5)\\

1282: &\sim& \left\{ \matrix{ 1 \times 10^{-11} \, \left( {\eps \times

1283: 10^{3}} \right)^2 \, \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_5} \right) & (d=5)

1284: \cr 1 \times 10^{-13} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^{3}} \right)^2 \,

1285: \left( { \hbox{TeV} / M_6} \right)^2 & (d=6) \cr} \right.  \, ,\nn

1286: \eeqa

1287: %

1288: when $m_f = m_t$.

1289: 

1290: By contrast, for $d=4$ it is the direct one-loop result which

1291: dominates. In this case we have a result for fermions which is

1292: largely insensitive to the fermion mass:

1293: %

1294: \eqa \label{prestbd4} b_f M_4^2 &=& - 12 \left( { \eps \over 8

1295: \pi } \right)^2 \qquad (d= 4) \\

1296: &=& -2 \times 10^{-8} \, \left( {\eps \times 10^3} \right)^2 \, .

1297: \nn \eeqa

1298: %

1299: For low-energy gravitons in the effective theory below the proton

1300: mass, the proton may be considered to be elementary and

1301: eq.~\pref{prestbd4} can be directly applied to the proton itself.

1302: 

1303: For higher-energy gravitons, eq.~\pref{prestbd4} would instead be

1304: applied to the light quarks, and the result for the proton would

1305: be obtained by taking the matrix element for the resulting

1306: effective quark operator, such as ${\cal O}_{\rm eff} = \eps^2 \,

1307: u^\mu u^\nu u^\alpha u^\beta \; \overline{q} \gamma_\mu

1308: \partial_\nu \partial_\alpha \partial_\beta \, q$, within the

1309: proton. On dimensional grounds this would produce the same result

1310: as eq.~\pref{prestbd4}, but potentially with a different numerical

1311: coefficient. For concreteness, when comparing with the observables

1312: we use eq.~\pref{prestbd4} including the numerical factor obtained

1313: for an elementary proton.

1314: 

1315: Notice that the above estimates suggest that so long as

1316: higher-loop contributions dominate, a hierarchy is to be expected:

1317: $| c_p^2 -1 | \gg | c_\gamma^2 - 1 | \sim | c_e^2 - 1|$. The same

1318: would {\it not} be expected to apply for $|b_p|, |b_\gamma|$ and

1319: $|b_e|$ when $d=4$, however.

1320: 

1321: \section{Experimental Constraints}

1322: %

1323: We now turn to the experimental constraints which can be imposed

1324: on the quantities $c^2 -1$ and $b$. Because we are interested in

1325: order-of-magnitude bounds, we derive constraints on each of these

1326: quantities as if they had arisen in the absence of the other. That

1327: is, we consider bounds on $c^2 -1$ while taking $b =0$ and vice

1328: versa. This is justified unless there is an unnatural cancellation

1329: between the contributions of these quantities to physical

1330: observables.

1331: 

1332: \subsection{Existing Bounds on $c_f^2 - c_\gamma^2$}

1333: %

1334: Good bounds exist on a difference between the propagation speeds

1335: of fermions and photons. Among those which do not depend on the

1336: sign of $c_f -c_\gamma$ are \cite{Glashow}:

1337: %

1338: \eqa |c_f - c_\gamma | &<& 6 \times 10^{-22} \qquad \hbox{Atomic

1339: spectroscopy} \nn\\

1340: |c' - c|_{\mu e} &<& 4 \times 10^{-21} \qquad \mu \to e\gamma

1341: \nn\\

1342: |c_{\sss KL} - c_{\sss KS}| &<& 3 \times 10^{-21} \qquad K-\overline{K}

1343: \quad\hbox{oscillations} . \eeqa

1344: %

1345: In the second bound $c'$ denotes a particular combination of the

1346: Lorentz-violating couplings in flavor space, whose details are

1347: not important in what follows.

1348: 

1349: Although these bounds apply to both signs of $c^2 -c_\gamma^2$,

1350: they are also subject to specific assumptions which need not apply

1351: to our calculation. For instance the $\mu\to e\gamma$ bound

1352: assumes the existence of Lorentz-violating terms which also

1353: violate lepton number, while the bounds involving neutral kaons

1354: require strangeness violation in addition to Lorentz-violation.

1355: Since the loops which would produce both type of flavor-symmetry

1356: violations from Lorentz-violation in the graviton sector are

1357: further suppressed by masses and mixing angles, we do not consider

1358: these bounds further.

1359: 

1360: The bounds from atomic spectroscopy are usually derived under the

1361: assumption that all matter particles share the same maximum

1362: propagation speed which differs from that of the photon -- {\it

1363: i.e.,} $c_f \ne c_\gamma$ is independent of $f$. Nevertheless

1364: these bounds are likely also to apply if $c_f$ differs for

1365: electrons and nucleons. Although we use the bound of

1366: ref.~\cite{Glashow} in what follows, we regard a more careful

1367: analysis of constraints which are implied by these experiments to

1368: be worth pursuing.

1369: 

1370: If we apply these bounds directly to protons, we find $|c_p^2 -

1371: c_\gamma^2| < 6 \times 10^{-22}$. Using our previous estimates for

1372: the proton, eq.~\pref{prest}, and our expectation (see above) that

1373: $c_p^2$ differs from unity by more than does $c_\gamma^2$, we find

1374: comparison with the bound implies,

1375: %

1376: \eq \eps < \left( {4 \pi \over \alpha_s} \right)

1377: \; (4 \pi)^{[d/2]} \, \left( {M_d \over m_t} \right)^{d-2}

1378: 10^{-21}. \eeq

1379: 

1380: This is stronger than the direct bound $\eps

1381: <10^{-6}$\footnote{Using the weaker bound $\eps < 10^{-3}$ makes

1382: the limits for $M_d$ larger by a factor of $10^{3/(d-2)}$.} only

1383: if

1384: %

1385: \eq {M_d \over \hbox{TeV}} < 0.2 \; \left[ {10^{13} \over (4

1386: \pi)^{[d/2]}} \right]^{1/(d-2)} \sim \left\{ \matrix{3\times 10^4

1387: & (d=4) \cr 700 & (d=5) \cr 46 & (d=6) } \right. .\eeq

1388: %

1389: The bound so obtained is not useful for $d=4$. With extra

1390: dimensional gravitons the bound becomes useful only when $M_d$ is

1391: very small. It is only of borderline interest for the ADD

1392: scenario, for which $d=6$ but $M_6 > 50$ TeV is required from

1393: stellar-cooling bounds \cite{ADDBounds}. (We do not quote here the

1394: stronger limits coming from the non-observance of gamma-ray decay

1395: products \cite{ADDGBounds}, or which apply for supersymmetric

1396: models \cite{LED}, because these may be evaded depending on

1397: model-dependent details.)

1398: 

1399: The bound {\it is} competitive, however, for the warped 5D model

1400: described below eq.\ (\ref{bfeqs}), where $M_5$ is effectively the

1401: TeV scale.

1402: 

1403: \subsection{\v Cerenkov Bounds on $b_f$ and $c_f^2 -1$}

1404: 

1405: We next consider constraints from high-energy cosmic rays,

1406: typically protons or photons.  Their observation precludes the existence of

1407: processes which would too-efficiently deplete the energy of these

1408: particles. Since the particles involved are at higher energies, these

1409: processes are more sensitive to the higher-momentum coefficients,

1410: $b_f, b_\gamma$, than are low-energy laboratory limits.

1411: 

1412: Lorentz-violation can introduce dangerous processes by allowing decays

1413: in vacuum of the form $p \to p\gamma$ or $\gamma \to e^+ e^-$ or

1414: $\gamma \to p \overline{p}$. Such decays are precluded by energy

1415: and momentum conservation in Lorentz-invariant systems, but {\it

1416: are} allowed given Lorentz-violating dispersion relations. For

1417: instance, the process $p \to p \gamma$ becomes allowed if the

1418: dispersion relation raises the energy of the proton at a given

1419: momentum more than it does for the photon. Similarly, the process

1420: $\gamma \to e^+ e^-$ can occur if the photon energy is raised more

1421: than the electron's at a given momentum.

1422: 

1423: As applied to changes in the maximum propagation speed, the

1424: resulting bounds are therefore one-sided, in the sense that they

1425: are only relevant for one sign of $c_p - c_\gamma$ or $c_\gamma -

1426: c_e$. For protons the strong one-sided bound obtained from $p \to

1427: p\gamma$ requires $c_p > c_\gamma$. Similarly, for $\gamma \to e^+

1428: e^-$ or $\gamma \to p \overline{p}$, $c_e < c_\gamma$ and $c_p <

1429: c_\gamma$ are required to use the one-sided bound.

1430: 

1431: Keeping in mind that our estimates of the previous sections imply

1432: $|\delta c_p^2| \gg |\delta c_\gamma^2 | \sim | \delta c_e^2 |$, we

1433: find the limits obtained in this way for electrons and protons are

1434: %

1435: \eqa -2 \times 10^{-8} < c_p^2 - c_\gamma^2 \sim c_p^2 -1 &<& 2 \times 10^{-23} \nn\\

1436: c_e^2 - c_\gamma^2 &>& -6 \times 10^{-15}. \eeqa

1437: %

1438: In order of magnitude, these bounds are obtained by demanding that

1439: $|c_f^2 -c_\gamma^2 |< m_f^2/E^2$ where $m_f$ is the relevant

1440: fermion mass, $E$ is the energy of the observed cosmic ray, and

1441: the bound only applies to the appropriate sign of $c_f^2 -

1442: c_\gamma^2$. The bound from $\gamma \to f \overline{f}$ is weaker

1443: than that from $p \to p \gamma$ because the most energetic cosmic

1444: ray proton has $E \sim 10^{8}$ TeV, while the most energetic

1445: observed gamma ray has $E \sim 50$ TeV.

1446: 

1447: A similar bound also applies to the parameter $b_f$, which

1448: controls the dispersive part of the dispersion relation, eq.\

1449: \pref{disprel}. For $p \to p\gamma$ the bound then applies only if

1450: $b_p > b_\gamma$ and for $\gamma \to f \overline{f}$ it requires

1451: $b_f < b_\gamma$. When the bound applies, it is of order $|b_f -

1452: b_\gamma | < m_f^2/E^4$.

1453: 

1454: We find in this way the constraints

1455: %

1456: \eqa -(5 \times 10^{8} \; \hbox{GeV})^{-2} < &b_p - b_\gamma& < (3

1457: \times 10^{22} \;

1458: \hbox{GeV})^{-2} \nn\\

1459: &b_e - b_\gamma & > - (1 \times 10^{12} \; \hbox{GeV})^{-2} .

1460: \eeqa

1461: 

1462: \subsubsection{$b_p > b_\gamma$}

1463: Consider first the case $b_p > b_\gamma$, for which the best bound

1464: applies. For $d>4$ we compare this to the order-of-magnitude of

1465: the higher-loop results, with the resulting expectation $|b_p| \gg

1466: |b_\gamma|$. Using eq.~\pref{prestb} for $b_p$, as discussed in

1467: the previous section, and assuming the sign of the result is the

1468: one relevant for the bound's applicability, we obtain the limit

1469: %

1470: \eq \eps < \left[ {(4 \pi)^{[(d+2)/2]}\over{\alpha_s}} \, \left( {M_d \over \ m_t}

1471: \right)^{(d-4)} \right]^{1/2} \; \left( { M_d \over 3 \times

1472: 10^{22} \; \hbox{GeV} } \right). \eeq

1473: 

1474: This is an improvement over $\eps < 10^{-6}$ if

1475: %

1476: \eqa {M_d \over \hbox{TeV}} &<& \left[ { 3 \times 10^{13} \,  \ (

1477: {0.175})^{(d-4)/2} \sqrt{{\alpha_s}\over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]+1}}}

1478: \right]^{2/(d-2)} \nn\\

1479: &<& \left\{ \matrix{ 2 \times 10^{7}&(d=5) \cr 9 \times

1480: 10^4&(d=6)\cr 6 \times 10^4 & (d=7) \cr 800 &(d=8)\cr 300

1481: &(d=9)\cr 70&(d=10) \, .} \right. \eeqa

1482: %

1483: (An improvement on the bound $\eps < 10^{-3}$ is obtained for

1484: $M_d$ which can be a factor $10^{6/(d-2)}$ larger.) We see the

1485: bound can be competitive for all $d$, provided $M_d$ is in the

1486: lower end of its allowed range. It is particularly strong for the

1487: ADD ($d=6$) and warped RS ($d=5$) cases, for which $M_d$ is in the

1488: TeV range.

1489: 

1490: To apply the bound to $d=4$ we instead use the one-loop result,

1491: for which the numerical factors and sign are known from our

1492: previous calculation (provided that the high-energy quark

1493: contribution does not dominate that for the low-energy proton, as

1494: discussed above). Although $b_p$ which is obtained is negative,

1495: the bound nonetheless applies because for $d=4$ we know that

1496: $b_\gamma$ is also negative, with $b_f > b_\gamma$ ({\it c.f.}

1497: eqs.~\pref{phestbd4} and \pref{prestbd4}).%

1498: \footnote{

1499: In fact, at the energies under consideration the graviton should resolve

1500: the proton as a number of partons, each carrying a small momentum

1501: fraction $x \ll 1$.  Since the importance of the

1502: dispersive term grows with momentum as

1503: $p^2$, there will be a suppression $\sim x_{\rm av}^2$.  Hence,

1504: compared to the photon, the effective $b$ for the proton may be close to

1505: zero.}

1506: We find

1507: %

1508: \eq \label{d4bound} b_p - b_\gamma = 10^{-8} \, {(\eps \times

1509: 10^3)^2 \over M_4^2} < (3 \times 10^{22} \; \hbox{GeV})^{-2} \eeq

1510: %

1511: which, using $M_4 = 2 \times 10^{18}$ GeV, implies $\eps < 7

1512: \times 10^{-4}$ --- a result which is competitive with the

1513: terrestrial bound, $\eps < 10^{-3}$, when $\eps > 0$, but is not

1514: as good as the bound $\eps \lsim 10^{-6}$ obtained from the

1515: conservation of angular momentum of the sun (see the footnote on

1516: page 5).

1517: 

1518: \subsubsection{$b_p < b_\gamma$}

1519: If $b_p < b_\gamma$, then the best bound comes from the process

1520: $\gamma \to p\overline{p}$, which does not give a bound even as

1521: good as $\eps < 10^{-3}$ for any $d$ given the constraint $M_d >

1522: 1$ TeV.

1523: 

1524: \subsection{$b_e < b_\gamma$}

1525: 

1526: The bound when $b_e < b_\gamma$ is not strong enough to be

1527: interesting for $d=4$, so we consider only higher dimensions.

1528: Since the order-of-magnitude result for the electron has $|b_e|

1529: \sim |b_\gamma|$ we have

1530: %

1531: \eq b_\gamma \sim {\eps^2  \over {(4 \pi)^{[d/2]} \, M_d^2}} \;

1532: \left( {m_t \over M_d} \right)^{d-4}\; \,\left({\alpha \over

1533: 4\pi}\right),\eeq

1534: %

1535: and so, if $b_\gamma - b_e > 0$ the bound becomes:

1536: %

1537: \eq \eps < \left[ {(4 \pi)^{[d/2]+1}\over {\alpha}} \left( {M_d

1538: \over \ m_t} \right)^{(d-4)} \right]^{1/2} \; \left( { M_d \over

1539: 10^{12} \; \hbox{GeV} } \right). \eeq

1540: %

1541: For $M_d > 1$ TeV this is never better than $\eps < 10^{-6}$, but

1542: it represents progress relative to $\eps < 10^{-3}$ if

1543: %

1544: \eqa {M_d \over \hbox{TeV}} &<& \left[ { \, 10^{6} \ (

1545: {0.175})^{(d-4)/2} \sqrt{\alpha \over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]+1}}} \,

1546: \right]^{2/(d-2)} \\

1547: &=&  \left\{\matrix{ 90 & (d=5)\cr 10 &(d=6)} \right. \, ,\eeqa

1548: %

1549: which is only of interest for 5D warped scenarios.

1550: 

1551: \subsection{Direct Bounds on $b_\gamma$ }

1552: The observation of cosmologically distant gamma rays from

1553: gamma-ray bursters can provide a bound on $|b_\gamma|$ which is

1554: similar in strength to the one just obtained, but applies equally

1555: well to both signs of the result. Ref.~\cite{Ellis} argues that

1556: the absence of dispersion in these signals provides a sensitivity

1557: to changes in the photon dispersion which can be as small as

1558: %

1559: \eq |b_\gamma| < {( 9\times 10^{11} \; \hbox{GeV})^{-2}},\eeq

1560: %

1561: which would correspond to

1562: %

1563: \eq \eps < \left[ {(4 \pi)^{[d/2]+1}\over{\alpha}} \, \left( {M_d

1564: \over \ m_t} \right)^{(d-4)} \right]^{1/2} \; \left( { M_d \over

1565: 10^{11} \; \hbox{GeV} } \right). \eeq

1566: 

1567: This is better than $\eps < 10^{-3}$ provided

1568: %

1569:  \eqa {M_d \over \hbox{TeV}} &<& \left[ { 10^{5} \,  \ (

1570: {0.175})^{(d-4)/2} \sqrt{{\alpha}\over (4 \pi)^{[d/2]+1}}}

1571: \right]^{2/(d-2)} \nn\\

1572: &=& \left\{ \matrix{ 20 &(d=5) \cr 3 &(d=6)} \right. \eeqa

1573: %

1574: which is comparable in strength to what was found above.

1575: 

1576: \section{Conclusions}

1577: %

1578: Brane-world scenarios allow the possibility of potentially strong

1579: preferred-frame effects arising from extra-dimensional bulk

1580: physics, and suggest these effects may be limited to the graviton

1581: sector. Depending on their sign, the magnitude of such changes to

1582: graviton dispersion can be comparatively large because of the

1583: graviton's extremely weak interactions. Motivated by this

1584: observation, we have explored how gravitational Lorentz-violation

1585: in a brane-world picture influences the properties of observable

1586: particles. We obtain the following results:

1587: 

1588: \bigskip

1589: 

1590: {\it 1.} We analyze how Lorentz violation in extra dimensions

1591: arises within the low-energy four-dimensional field theory which

1592: is obtained once the extra dimensions are integrated out. We find

1593: the leading contributions to be the appearance of potentially

1594: different metrics in the kinetic terms which govern the

1595: propagation of the various low-energy particles. If

1596: preferred-frame effects dominate violations of translation or

1597: rotation invariance (in the preferred frame) then in flat space

1598: the metric seen by particle type `$k$' may be written

1599: %

1600: \eq G_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + (1 - c_k^2) \, u_\mu u_\nu \eeq

1601: %

1602: where $u^\mu$ is the (approximately constant) 4-velocity which

1603: defines the preferred frame. $c_k$ may be interpreted as the

1604: maximum propagation speed of this particle type.

1605: 

1606: {\it 2.} If subleading contributions at low energies are also

1607: included, then more complicated changes to the dispersion relation

1608: become possible. For low momenta these dispersion relations become

1609: $E_k^2 = p^2 c_k^2 + b_k p^4 + \dots$ in the preferred frame. The

1610: next-to-leading coefficient $b_k$ causes dispersive propagation if

1611: it is nonzero. (Odd powers of $p$, like $p^3$, typically do not

1612: arise in the dispersion relation since they are usually forbidden

1613: by selection rules like rotation invariance in the preferred

1614: frame.)

1615: 

1616: {\it 3.} Strong observational constraints exist which preclude

1617: large differences between the values $c_k$ and $b_k$ for photons

1618: and other particles. The strongest of these come from the absence

1619: of a dependence on the Earth's velocity through space in atomic

1620: spectra, and from the absence of \v Cerenkov-like decays of

1621: very-high-energy cosmic rays.

1622: 

1623: {\it 4.} We compute how graviton loops can bring the news of

1624: Lorentz violation in the graviton sector to other particles for

1625: which stronger constraints exist. We do so quite generally at low

1626: energies for the purely massless 4D graviton (the lowest KK mode).

1627: We also compute these loops for the entire KK tower of gravitons,

1628: in the approximation that the dominant contribution comes from

1629: gravitons whose wavelengths are much shorter than are the typical

1630: curvature scales of the extra-dimensional metric.

1631: 

1632: {\it 5.} We find that one-loop contributions for photons from

1633: graviton-induced Lorentz violation are small. Keeping the finite

1634: and log-divergent parts, we find gravitons do not induce any

1635: change at all in the photon maximum propagation speed, $c_\gamma$.

1636: The purely 4D graviton induces a dispersive term, $b_\gamma \sim

1637: (c_g - 1)^2 /M_p^2$. The contribution of the rest of the KK

1638: graviton tower to the photon energy tends to be suppressed by

1639: further powers of the photon momenta, and so is not important at

1640: low energies. Unfortunately this makes the strong constraints on

1641: photon properties based on gamma-ray bursts and dispersion in

1642: quasar signals \cite{Ellis} largely irrelevant to this kind of

1643: Lorentz violation.

1644: 

1645: {\it 6.} Using the same approximations, we find fermions acquire

1646: changes to their low-energy dispersion relations with an amount

1647: which varies strongly with the fermion's mass. Among the three

1648: most abundant particles in everyday life -- electrons, protons and

1649: photons -- this predicts by far the biggest effects for protons.

1650: Contributions to $c_k -1 $ are linear in $c_g -1 $ (if $c_g$ is

1651: the graviton maximum speed) while those to $b_k$ are quadratic in

1652: $c_g - 1$.

1653: 

1654: {\it 7.} The strong mass dependence makes the results very

1655: sensitive to the high-energy spectrum of the theory, since heavy

1656: particles embedded in higher loops can produce larger

1657: contributions to low-energy Lorentz-violating effects than do the

1658: direct graviton loops. An estimate of this effect using the top

1659: quark or $W$-boson as the heavy particle suggests that protons

1660: receive larger contributions than do photons or electrons.

1661: 

1662: {\it 8.} We find that current atomic constraints on $c_k - 1$ for

1663: observable particles can provide limits on $c_g - 1$ which are

1664: competitive with the direct bound $c_g - 1 \lsim 10^{-6}$ arising

1665: from post-Newtonian corrections in the solar system, but only if

1666: $d=5$ or 6 and if the higher-dimensional Planck mass, $M_d$, is as

1667: close as possible to the TeV scale. For instance, for a warped

1668: $d=5$ model with $M_5 \sim 10$ TeV, we find $|c_g - 1| < 3 \times

1669: 10^{-15}\, (M_5/\hbox{TeV})^3$. For $c_g > 1$ this is an

1670: improvement over the direct bound $c_g - 1 < 10^{-6}$ provided

1671: $M_5 < 700$ TeV.

1672: 

1673: {\it 8.} We find that stronger constraints on $c_g - 1$ arise from

1674: limits on $b_k - b_\gamma$, depending on the dimension of the

1675: extra-dimensional spacetime, and on how low the $d$-dimensional

1676: Planck scale, $M_d$, is. Lower values of $M_d$ lead to better

1677: bounds, which can go up to values of order $M_d \sim 10^7$ TeV

1678: (for $d=5$), provided that $b_p > b_\gamma$. The sign of this

1679: quantity is important, because the bounds which are most

1680: constraining are those which are based on the absence of

1681: too-efficient energy-loss mechanisms for the highest energy cosmic

1682: rays (which we take to be protons), and the decay channel $p \to

1683: p\gamma$ is only open if $b_p > b_\gamma$. Strikingly, purely

1684: 4-dimensional graviton loops can give contributions with the right

1685: sign, and which are large enough to produce bounds which are of

1686: order $\eps < 7 \times 10^{-4}$. This makes them comparable with

1687: those from obtained from terrestrial experiments and the binary

1688: pulsar.

1689: 

1690: \bigskip

1691: 

1692: Perhaps our most surprising result is that, in some regimes,

1693: graviton loops are already being constrained by observational

1694: data. This is yet another striking way in which the brane-world

1695: picture can run against pre-brane-world intuition.

1696: 

1697: \vspace{1 cm}

1698: \begin{center}

1699: {\bf Acknowledgements}

1700: \end{center}

1701: 

1702: We would like to acknowledge fruitful conversations with Debajyoti Chauduri, 

1703: Maxim Pospelov and Xerxes Tata. C.B. wishes to acknowledge

1704: discussions with Detlef Nolte and Witold Skiba at an early point

1705: in this research. J.M. acknowledges discussions with A.Pomarol.

1706: The research of C.B., J.C. and E.F. has been

1707: supported in part by N.S.E.R.C. of Canada and F.C.A.R. of

1708: Qu\'ebec. J.M acknowledges  support by CICYT Research Project

1709: AEN99-0766, MCyT  and the Theory Group of McGill

1710: University.

1711: 

1712: \section{Appendix A}

1713: In this appendix we record the expressions for the Feynman rule

1714: for the photon-graviton vertex, as obtained from the

1715: Einstein-Maxwell action, eq.\ \pref{DEHAction}. One finds:

1716: %

1717: \eqa \label{vertices} V^{\alpha\beta:\mu\nu}(P,Q) &=& (P^\mu Q^\nu

1718: + P^\nu Q^\mu) \, \eta^{\alpha\beta} \nn\\

1719: && \quad + (P^\beta Q^\alpha - P\cdot Q \, \eta^{\alpha \beta}) \,

1720: \eta^{\mu\nu} \nn\\

1721: && \quad - (P^\mu Q^\alpha - P\cdot Q \, \eta^{\mu\alpha} ) \,

1722: \eta^{\nu \beta} \nn\\

1723: && \quad - ( P^\beta Q^\mu - P\cdot Q \, \eta^{\mu\beta} ) \,

1724: \eta^{\nu\alpha} \nn\\

1725: && \quad - P^\nu Q^\alpha \, \eta^{\mu\beta} - P^\beta Q^\nu \,

1726: \eta^{\mu\alpha} , \eeqa

1727: %

1728: which has the required symmetry properties:

1729: %

1730: \eq V^{\alpha\beta:\mu\nu}(P,Q) = V^{\alpha\beta:\nu\mu}(P,Q) =

1731: V^{\beta\alpha:\mu\nu}(Q,P). \eeq

1732: 

1733: \section{Appendix B}

1734: We here record in more detail the results of the fermion

1735: self-energy calculation, using a graviton loop in $d$ dimensions.

1736: 

1737: \subsection{d=5}

1738: %

1739: For five spacetime dimensions evaluation of the graviton loop

1740: gives

1741: %

1742: \eqa \scA_5 &=& - m^4 \lambda_5 \; \left(\frac{25}{9} + \frac{74}{9}

1743: \, \eps + {85\over 9} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1744:  \scB_5 &=&  - m^3 \lambda_5 \; \left(\frac{35}{18} \, \eps + \frac{839}{180} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1745:  \scC_5 &=& - m^2 \lambda_5  \; \left(\frac{25}{6}\, \eps + \frac{517}{60}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1746:  \scD_5 &=& - m \lambda_5 \; \left(\frac{101}{30} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1747:  \scE_5 &=& -\lambda_5 \; \left(\frac{29}{30} \, \eps^2 + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1748: %

1749: where $\lambda_5 = (\kappa_5/8\pi)^2$. The result is finite in

1750: dimensional regularization because one-loop results in odd

1751: dimensions always are with this regularization scheme. This result

1752: agrees with the finite part as computed by directly cutting off

1753: the momentum integrals and ignoring the divergent terms (none of

1754: which are logarithmically divergent).

1755: 

1756: These lead to the dispersion relation of eq.\ \pref{disprel}:

1757: %

1758: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=&  m_f^3 \lambda_5  \; \left[ \frac{110}{9} \,

1759: \eps + \frac{239}{9} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1760: b_f &=&   m_f \, \lambda_5 \left[ \frac{26}{3} \, \eps^2 + ...

1761: \right] \eeqa

1762: %

1763: Notice that both of these results are positive (provided $\eps >

1764: 0$).

1765: 

1766: \subsection{d=6}

1767: %

1768: For six spacetime dimensions the graviton loop gives

1769: %

1770: \eqa \scA_6 &=& - m^5 \lambda_6 \; \left(\frac{9}{4} + \frac{25}{4}

1771: \, \eps + {53\over 8} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1772:  \scB_6 &=& - m^4 \lambda_6 \; \left(\frac{6}{5} \, \eps + \frac{83}{30} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1773:  \scC_6 &=& - m^3 \lambda_6  \; \left(\frac{18}{5}\, \eps + \frac{107}{15}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1774:  \scD_6 &=& - m^2 \lambda_6 \; \left(\frac{34}{15} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1775:  \scE_6 &=& - m \lambda_6 \; \left(\frac{4}{3} \, \eps^2 + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1776: %

1777: where $\lambda_6 = 2\kappa_6^2/(8\pi)^3 \, {\cal L}$. As before

1778: ${\cal L} = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) = 2/(6-n)$, when evaluated with

1779: an ultraviolet cutoff, $\Lambda$, and in dimensional

1780: regularization.

1781: 

1782: These lead to the $d=6$ results:

1783: %

1784: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=&  m_f^4 \, \lambda_6  \; \left[ \frac{48}{5}

1785: \, \eps + \frac{99}{5} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1786: b_f &=&  m_f^2 \, \lambda_6 \left[ \frac{36}{5} \, \eps^2 + ...

1787: \right] \eeqa

1788: %

1789: Again both results are positive for $\eps > 0$.

1790: 

1791: \subsection{d=7}

1792: %

1793: Next, seven spacetime dimensions:

1794: %

1795: \eqa \scA_7 &=&  m^6 \lambda_7 \; \left(\frac{49}{25} +

1796: \frac{26}{5} \, \eps + {129\over 25} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1797:  \scB_7 &=&  m^5 \lambda_7 \; \left(\frac{21}{25} \, \eps + \frac{131}{70} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1798:  \scC_7 &=&  m^4 \lambda_7  \; \left(\frac{49}{15}\, \eps + \frac{263}{42}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1799:  \scD_7 &=&  m^3 \lambda_7 \; \left(\frac{59}{35} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1800:  \scE_7 &=&  m^2 \lambda_7 \; \left(\frac{53}{35} \, \eps^2 + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1801: %

1802: where $\lambda_7 = \kappa_7^2/[6(4\pi)^3]$, and is finite when

1803: evaluated in dimensional regularization.

1804: 

1805: These lead to the $d=7$ results:

1806: %

1807: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=& - m_f^5 \, \lambda_7  \; \left[ \frac{616}{75}

1808: \, \eps + \frac{244}{15} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1809: b_f &=& - m_f^3 \, \lambda_7 \left[ \frac{32}{5} \, \eps^2 + ...

1810: \right] \eeqa

1811: %

1812: Here both results are negative for $\eps > 0$.

1813: 

1814: \subsection{d=8}

1815: %

1816: For eight spacetime dimensions we have

1817: %

1818: \eqa \scA_8 &=&  m^7 \lambda_8 \; \left(\frac{16}{9} +

1819: \frac{41}{9}

1820: \, \eps + {77\over 18} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1821:  \scB_8 &=&  m^6 \lambda_8 \; \left(\frac{40}{63} \, \eps + \frac{173}{126} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1822:  \scC_8 &=&  m^5 \lambda_8  \; \left(\frac{64}{21}\, \eps + \frac{239}{42}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1823:  \scD_8 &=&  m^4 \lambda_8 \; \left(\frac{4}{3} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1824:  \scE_8 &=&   m^3 \lambda_8 \; \left(\frac{34}{21} \, \eps^2 + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1825: %

1826: where $\lambda_8 = 2\kappa_8^2/(8\pi)^4 \, {\cal L}$. As before

1827: ${\cal L} = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) = 2/(8-n)$, when evaluated with

1828: an ultraviolet cutoff, $\Lambda$, and in dimensional

1829: regularization.

1830: 

1831: These lead to the $d=8$ results:

1832: %

1833: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=& - m_f^6 \, \lambda_8  \; \left[ \frac{464}{63}

1834: \, \eps + \frac{890}{63} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1835: b_f &=& -  m_f^4 \, \lambda_8 \left[ \frac{124}{21} \, \eps^2 + ...

1836: \right] \eeqa

1837: %

1838: Here both results are negative for $\eps > 0$.

1839: 

1840: \subsection{d=9}

1841: %

1842: For $d=9$ we have

1843: %

1844: \eqa \scA_9 &=&  -\,m^8 \lambda_9 \; \left(\frac{81}{49} +

1845: \frac{202}{49}

1846: \, \eps + {181\over 49} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1847:  \scB_9 &=& -\, m^7 \lambda_9 \; \left(\frac{99}{196} \, \eps +

1848:  \frac{3755}{3528} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1849:  \scC_9 &=& -\, m^6 \lambda_9  \; \left(\frac{81}{28}\, \eps +

1850:  \frac{2665}{504}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1851:  \scD_9 &=& -\, m^5 \lambda_9 \; \left(\frac{277}{252} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1852:  \scE_9 &=& -\, m^4 \lambda_9 \; \left(\frac{425}{252} \, \eps^2 + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1853: %

1854: where $\lambda_9 = \kappa_9^2/[15 (4\pi)^4]$.

1855: 

1856: These lead to the results:

1857: %

1858: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=&  m_f^7 \, \lambda_9  \; \left[ \frac{333}{49}

1859: \, \eps + \frac{1245}{98} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1860: b_f &=&  m_f^5 \, \lambda_9 \left[ \frac{39}{7} \, \eps^2 + ...

1861: \right] \eeqa

1862: %

1863: Here both results are positive for $\eps > 0$.

1864: 

1865: \subsection{d=10}

1866: %

1867: Finally, for ten spacetime dimensions:

1868: %

1869: \eqa \scA_{10} &=& -\,m^9 \lambda_{10} \; \left(\frac{25}{16} +

1870: \frac{61}{16}

1871: \, \eps + {105\over 32} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1872:  \scB_{10} &=& -\,m^8 \lambda_{10} \; \left(\frac{5}{12} \, \eps +

1873:  \frac{103}{120} \, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1874:  \scC_{10} &=& -\, m^7 \lambda_{10}  \; \left(\frac{25}{9}\, \eps +

1875:  \frac{449}{90}\, \eps^2 + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1876:  \scD_{10} &=& -\, m^6 \lambda_{10} \; \left(\frac{14}{15} \, \eps^2

1877:  + ...\right) ,\nn\\

1878:  \scE_{10} &=& -\, m^5 \lambda_{10} \; \left(\frac{26}{15} \, \eps^2

1879:  + ... \right)\; . \eeqa

1880: %

1881: where $\lambda_{10} = 4\kappa_{10}^2/[3(8\pi)^5] \, {\cal L}$, and

1882: ${\cal L} = \log(\Lambda^2/\mu^2) = 2/(10-n)$, when

1883: evaluated with an ultraviolet cutoff, $\Lambda$, and in

1884: dimensional regularization.

1885: 

1886: These lead to the $d=10$ results:

1887: %

1888: \eqa c_f^2 -1 &=&  m_f^8 \, \lambda_{10} \; \left[

1889: \frac{115}{18} \, \eps + \frac{421}{36} \, \eps^2 + ... \right], \nn\\

1890: b_f &=&  m_f^6 \, \lambda_{10} \left[ \frac{16}{3} \, \eps^2 +

1891: ... \right] \eeqa

1892: %

1893: $\eps > 0$ ensures that both results in this case are positive.

1894: 

1895: 

1896: 

1897: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1898: 

1899: \bibitem{HW}

1900: P.~Horava and E.~Witten,

1901: %``Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity on a Manifold with Boundary,''

1902: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 475}, 94 (1996)

1903: [hep-th/9603142];

1904: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603142;%%

1905: P.~Horava and E.~Witten,

1906: %``Heterotic and type I string dynamics from eleven dimensions,''

1907: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460}, 506 (1996)

1908: [hep-th/9510209].

1909: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510209;%%

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{ADD}

1912: I.~Antoniadis,

1913: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''

1914: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990);

1915: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%

1916: J.~D.~Lykken,

1917: %``Weak Scale Superstrings,''

1918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3693 (1996)

1919: [hep-th/9603133];

1920: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603133;%%

1921: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

1922: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''

1923: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)

1924: [hep-ph/9804398];

1925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%

1926: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

1927: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

1928: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)

1929: [hep-ph/9803315];

1930: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

1931: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

1932: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with  sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''

1933: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999)

1934: [hep-ph/9807344].

1935: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%

1936: 

1937: \bibitem{OtherScales}

1938: E.~Witten,

1939: %``Strong Coupling Expansion Of Calabi-Yau Compactification,''

1940: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 471}, 135 (1996)

1941: [hep-th/9602070];

1942: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602070;%%

1943: K.~Benakli,

1944: %``Phenomenology of low quantum gravity scale models,''

1945: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 104002 (1999)

1946: [hep-ph/9809582];

1947: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809582;%%

1948: C.~P.~Burgess, L.~E.~Iba\~nez and F.~Quevedo,

1949: %``Strings at the intermediate scale or is the Fermi scale dual to the  Planck scale?,''

1950: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 447}, 257 (1999)

1951: [hep-ph/9810535].

1952: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810535;%%

1953: 

1954: \bibitem{RSI}

1955: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1956: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''

1957: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)

1958: [hep-ph/9905221].

1959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{RSII}

1962: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1963: %``An alternative to compactification,''

1964: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999)

1965: [hep-th/9906064].

1966: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%

1967: 

1968: \bibitem{Lorentz}

1969: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich and C.~Grojean,

1970: %``Gravitational Lorentz violations and adjustment of the cosmological  constant in asymmetrically warped spacetimes,''

1971: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 312 (2001)

1972: [hep-th/0012143];

1973: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012143;%%

1974: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich and C.~Grojean,

1975: %``The cosmological constant problem in brane-worlds and gravitational  Lorentz violations,''

1976: gr-qc/0105114;

1977: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0105114;%%

1978: C.~Grojean, F.~Quevedo, G.~Tasinato and I.~Zavala C.,

1979: %``Branes on charged dilatonic backgrounds: Self-tuning, Lorentz  violations and cosmology,''

1980: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 005 (2001)

1981: [hep-th/0106120].

1982: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106120;%%

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{DRV}

1985: A.~C.~Davis, C.~Rhodes and I.~Vernon,

1986: %``Branes on the horizon,''

1987: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 015 (2001)

1988: [hep-ph/0107250].

1989: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107250;%%

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{LVBounds}

1992: S.~K.~Lamoreaux, J.~P.~Jacobs, B.~R.~Heckel, F.~J.~Raab and E.~N.~Fortson,

1993: %``New Limits On Spatial Anisotrophy From Optically Pumped He-201 And Hg-199,''

1994: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57}, 3125 (1986);

1995: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,3125;%%

1996: R.~S.~Van Dyck, P.~B.~Schwinberg and H.~G.~Dehmelt,

1997: %``New High Precision Comparison Of Electron And Positron G Factors,''

1998: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 59} (1987) 26;

1999: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,26;%%

2000: S.~M.~Carroll, G.~B.~Field and R.~Jackiw,

2001: %``Limits On A Lorentz And Parity Violating Modification Of Electrodynamics,''

2002: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 1231 (1990);

2003: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1231;%%

2004: G.~Gabrielse, D.~Phillips, W.~Quint, H.~Kalinowsky, G.~Rouleau and W.~Jhe,

2005: %``Special Relativity And The Single Anti-Proton: Fortyfold Improved Comparison Of Anti-P And P Charge To Mass Ratios,''

2006: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 74} (1995) 3544;

2007: %%CITATION = PRLTA,74,3544;%%

2008: J.~F.~Wardle, R.~A.~Perley and M.~H.~Cohen,

2009: %``Observational Evidence Against Birefringence over Cosmological Distances,''

2010: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 1801 (1997)

2011: [astro-ph/9705142];

2012: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812418;%%

2013: R.~Bluhm, V.~A.~Kostelecky and N.~Russell,

2014: %``CPT and Lorentz tests in hydrogen and antihydrogen,''

2015: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82}, 2254 (1999)

2016: [hep-ph/9810269];

2017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810269;%%

2018: V.~A.~Kostelecky and C.~D.~Lane,

2019: %``Constraints on Lorentz violation from clock-comparison experiments,''

2020: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 116010 (1999)

2021: [hep-ph/9908504];

2022: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908504;%%

2023: V.~A.~Kostelecky,

2024: %``Theory and tests of CPT and Lorentz violation,''

2025: hep-ph/9904467;

2026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904467;%%

2027: R.~Cowsik, G.~Rajalakshmi and B.~V.~Sreekantan,

2028: %``Cosmic Ray Bounds On Violation Of Lorentz Invariance,''

2029: {\it Prepared for 26th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 99), Salt Lake City, Utah, 17-25 Aug 1999};

2030: D.~Bear, R.~E.~Stoner, R.~L.~Walsworth, V.~A.~Kostelecky and C.~D.~Lane,

2031: %``Limit on Lorentz and CPT violation of the neutron using a two-species  noble-gas maser,''

2032: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85}, 5038 (2000)

2033: [physics/0007049];

2034: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 0007049;%%

2035: D.~F.~Phillips, M.~A.~Humphrey, E.~M.~Mattison, R.~E.~Stoner, R.~F.~Vessot and R.~L.~Walsworth,

2036: %``Limit on Lorentz and CPT violation of the proton using a hydrogen  maser,''

2037: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 111101 (2001) [physics/0008230];

2038: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 0008230;%%

2039: J.M.~Carmona and J.L.~Cortes, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B494} (2000) 75-80,

2040: hep-th/0012028;

2041: %

2042: T.~Jacobson, S.~Liberati and D.~Mattingly, UMD preprint

2043: hep-ph/0112207.

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Glashow}

2046: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9705142;%%

2047: S.~R.~Coleman and S.~L.~Glashow,

2048: %``Cosmic ray and neutrino tests of special relativity,''

2049: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 405}, 249 (1997) [hep-ph/9703240];

2050: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703240;%%

2051: %``High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance,''

2052: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 116008 (1999) [hep-ph/9812418].

2053: 

2054: 

2055: \bibitem{WillBook}

2056: C.~M.~Will, {\it Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics,

2057: 2nd Edition}, (Cambridge University Press, 1993).

2058: 

2059: \bibitem{Will}

2060: For a recent summary of experimental bounds on deviations from General

2061: Relativity, see

2062: C.~M.~Will,

2063: %``The confrontation between general relativity and experiment: A 1998  update,''

2064: gr-qc/9811036;

2065: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9811036;%%

2066: C.~M.~Will,

2067: %``The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,''

2068: Living Rev.\ Rel.\  {\bf 4}, 4 (2001)

2069: [gr-qc/0103036].

2070: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0103036;%%

2071: 

2072: 

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{Taylor}

2075: P.~M.~Mcculloch, J.~H.~Taylor and L.~A.~Fowler,

2076: %``Gravitational Radiation And The Binary Pulsar. (Talk),''

2077: {\it  In *Perth 1979, Proceedings, Gravitational Radiation, Collapsed Objects and Exact Solutions*, 5-11.(See Conference Index)};

2078: J.H. Taylor and P.M. McCulloch, {\it Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.}

2079: (1980) 442;

2080: J.H. Taylor and J.M. Weisberg, {\it Ap. J.} (1982)

2081: 908.

2082: 

2083: \bibitem{Carlip}

2084: S.~Carlip,

2085: %``Aberration and the Speed of Gravity,''

2086: Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 267}, 81 (2000)

2087: [gr-qc/9909087].

2088: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9909087;%%

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{protvsphot}

2091: M.~Nagano and A.~A.~Watson,

2092: %``Observations And Implications Of The Ultrahigh-Energy Cosmic Rays,''

2093: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 72}, 689 (2000);

2094: %%CITATION = RMPHA,72,689;%%

2095: F.~Halzen, R.~A.~Vazquez, T.~Stanev and H.~P.~Vankov,

2096: %``The highest energy cosmic ray,''

2097: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 3}, 151 (1995).

2098: %%CITATION = APHYE,3,151;%%

2099: 

2100: \bibitem{MN}

2101: G.~D.~Moore and A.~E.~Nelson,

2102: %``Lower bound on the propagation speed of gravity from gravitational  Cherenkov radiation,''

2103: JHEP {\bf 0109}, 023 (2001)

2104: [hep-ph/0106220].

2105: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106220;%%

2106: 

2107: \bibitem{Shortcuts}

2108: R.~R.~Caldwell and D.~Langlois,

2109: %``Shortcuts in the fifth dimension,''

2110: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 129 (2001)

2111: [gr-qc/0103070];

2112: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0103070;%%

2113: E.~Abdalla, B.~Cuadros-Melgar, S.~S.~Feng and B.~Wang,

2114: %``The shortest cut in brane cosmology,''

2115: hep-th/0109024.

2116: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109024;%%

2117: 

2118: \bibitem{CosmoShort}

2119: J.~W.~Moffat,

2120: %``Superluminary universe: A Possible solution to the initial value problem in cosmology,''

2121: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ D {\bf 2}, 351 (1993)

2122: [gr-qc/9211020];

2123: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9211020;%%

2124: M.~A.~Clayton and J.~W.~Moffat,

2125: %``A scalar-tensor cosmological model with dynamical light velocity,''

2126: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 177 (2001)

2127: [gr-qc/0101126];

2128: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0101126;%%

2129: D.~J.~Chung and K.~Freese,

2130: %``Can geodesics in extra dimensions solve the cosmological horizon  problem?,''

2131: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 063513 (2000)

2132: [hep-ph/9910235];

2133: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910235;%%

2134: %``Cosmological challenges in theories with extra dimensions and remarks  on the horizon problem,''

2135: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 023511 (2000)

2136: [hep-ph/9906542];

2137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906542;%%

2138: A.~Albrecht and J.~Magueijo,

2139: %``A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,''

2140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 043516 (1999)

2141: [astro-ph/9811018];

2142: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9811018;%%

2143: P.~P.~Avelino and C.~J.~Martins,

2144: %``Does a varying speed of light solve the cosmological problems?,''

2145: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459}, 468 (1999)

2146: [astro-ph/9906117];

2147: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906117;%%

2148: S.~Liberati, B.~A.~Bassett, C.~Molina-Paris and M.~Visser,

2149: %``Chi Variable-Speed-Of-Light Cosmologies,''

2150: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 88}, 259 (2000)

2151: [astro-ph/0001481];

2152: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0001481;%%

2153: J.~D.~Barrow and J.~Magueijo,

2154: %``Solving the flatness and quasi-flatness problems in Brans-Dicke  cosmologies with a varying light speed,''

2155: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 16}, 1435 (1999)

2156: [astro-ph/9901049].

2157: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9901049;%%

2158: 

2159: \bibitem{GravCosm}

2160: S. Weinberg, {\it Gravitation and Cosmology}, John Wiley \& Sons,

2161: 1972.

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{Nordtvedt}

2164: K. Nordtvedt, Astrophys. J. 320 (1987) 871.

2165: 

2166: %\cite{BL}

2167: \bibitem{BL}

2168: C.~P.~Burgess and D.~London,

2169: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69} (1992) 3428; Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}

2170: (1993) 4337 [hep-ph/9203216].

2171: %On Anomalous Gauge Boson Couplings and Loop Calculations

2172: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,3428;%%

2173: %``Uses and abuses of effective Lagrangians,''

2174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9203216;%%

2175: 

2176: \bibitem{GRW}

2177: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,

2178: %``Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,''

2179: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544}, 3 (1999)

2180: [hep-ph/9811291].

2181: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811291;%%

2182: 

2183: \bibitem{HLZ}

2184: T.~Han, J.~D.~Lykken and R.~J.~Zhang,

2185: %``On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions,''

2186: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 105006 (1999)

2187: [hep-ph/9811350].

2188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811350;%%

2189: 

2190: \bibitem%[adelberger]

2191: {adelberger}

2192: {C.~D.~Hoyle, U.~Schmidt, B.~R.~Heckel,

2193: E.~G.~Adelberger, J.~H.~Gundlach, D.~J.~Kapner and H.~E.~Swanson,

2194: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 1418 (2001) [hep-ph/0011014].

2195: }

2196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011014;%%

2197: 

2198: \bibitem{ADDBounds}

2199: S.~Cullen and M.~Perelstein,

2200: %``SN1987A constraints on large compact dimensions,''

2201: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 268 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903422];

2202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903422;%%

2203: V.~D.~Barger, T.~Han, C.~Kao and R.~J.~Zhang,

2204: %``Astrophysical constraints on large extra dimensions,''

2205: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 461}, 34 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905474];

2206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905474;%%

2207: C.~Hanhart, J.~A.~Pons, D.~R.~Phillips and S.~Reddy,

2208: %``The likelihood of GODs' existence: Improving the SN 1987a constraint on

2209: the size of large compact dimensions,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 509},

2210: 1 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0102063];

2211: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102063;%%

2212: S.~Hannestad and G.~Raffelt,

2213: %``New supernova limit on large extra dimensions,''

2214: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 051301 (2001)

2215: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103201].

2216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103201;%%

2217: 

2218: \bibitem{ADDGBounds}

2219: L.~J.~Hall and D.~R.~Smith,

2220: %``Cosmological constraints on theories with large extra dimensions,''

2221: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 085008 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9904267];

2222: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904267;%%

2223: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

2224: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with

2225: sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,'' Phys.\

2226: Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9807344].

2227: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%

2228: 

2229: \bibitem{LED} D.~Atwood, C.~P.~Burgess, E.~Filotas, F.~Leblond,

2230: D.~London and I.~Maksymyk,

2231: %``Supersymmetric large extra dimensions are small and/or numerous,''

2232: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 025007 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007178].

2233: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007178;%%

2234: 

2235: \bibitem{Ellis}

2236: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~Farakos, N.~E.~Mavromatos, V.~A.~Mitsou and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

2237: %``Astrophysical probes of the constancy of the velocity of light,''

2238: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 535}, 139 (2000)

2239: [astro-ph/9907340].

2240: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9907340;%%

2241: 

2242: \end{thebibliography}

2243: 

2244: \end{document}

2245: