1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \input epsf.tex
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %\special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 175 120 translate
5: %60 rotate /Times-Roman findfont 90 scalefont setfont
6: %0 0 moveto 0.93 se}tgray (Draft 29 Jun 1999) show grestore}def end}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \overfullrule=20pt
9:
10: % Page dimensions
11: \newdimen\SaveWidth \SaveWidth=\textwidth
12: \newdimen\SaveHeight \SaveHeight=\textheight
13: \textwidth=6.5in
14: \textheight=8.9in
15: \advance\SaveWidth by -\textwidth
16: \advance\SaveHeight by -\textheight
17:
18: \divide\SaveWidth by 2
19: \divide\SaveHeight by 2
20: \advance\hoffset by \SaveWidth
21: \advance\voffset by \SaveHeight
22:
23: \def\ie{\it i.e.}
24: \def\eg{\it e.g.}
25: \def\edm{\it edm}
26: \def\etc{\it etc.}
27: \def\starprod{\star~\rm{product}}
28: \def\nc{\rm noncommutative}
29: \def\ncg{\rm noncommutative~geometry}
30: \def\ewviol{\rm {EW\!\!-\!breaking}}
31: \def\cpviol{CP ~\rm{violation}}
32: \def\cpviolng{CP ~\rm {violating}}
33: \def\susyviol{\slashword{SUSY}}
34: \def\lagrange{{ L}}
35: \def\etal{{\it et~al.}}
36: \def\topfraction{1.}
37: \def\bottomfraction{1.}
38: \def\textfraction{0.}
39: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}
40: \def\sgn{\mathop{\rm sgn}}
41: \def\etmiss{\slashchar{E}_T}
42: \def\fb{{\rm fb}}
43: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
44: \def\tG{{\tilde G}}
45: \def\ns{{\rm ns}}
46: \def\tell{{\tilde\ell}}
47: \def\ttau{{\tilde\tau}}
48: \def\fbi{{\rm fb}^{-1}}
49: \def\Meff{M_{\rm eff}}
50: \def\Msusy{M_{\rm SUSY}}
51: \def\lsp{{\tilde\chi_1^0}}
52: %\def\lsp{\vartheta}
53: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
54: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
55: \def\mhalf{m_{1/2}}
56: \def\tchi{\tilde\chi}
57: \def\tg{\tilde g}
58: \def\tq{\tilde q}
59: \def\Cgrav{C_{\rm grav}}
60: \let\badcite=\cite
61: \def\cite{~\badcite}
62: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
63: \def\Frac#1#2{{\displaystyle#1\over\displaystyle#2}}
64:
65: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
66: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
67: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
68: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
69: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
70: #1 % and print #1
71: \else % / is bigger
72: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
73: / % and print /
74: \fi}
75: %
76: % \def\cpviol{
77:
78: %\begin{picture}(25,0)(0,0)
79: %\put(0,0){ \scriptsize CP}
80: %\put(0,0){\line(4,1){22}}
81: %\end{picture}}
82: % }
83:
84:
85: \def\slashword#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
86: \dimen0=\wd0 %and get its size
87: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
88: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
89: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil\bf---\hfil}} %
90: #1 %
91: \else % / is bigger
92: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
93: / % and print /
94: \fi} %
95:
96:
97: % \vbig produces very (or variably) big delimiters. The syntax is
98: % \vbigl<delim><size> or \vbigr<delim><size>, where <delim> is any
99: % delimiter and <size> is any valid dimension in pt, cm, in,.
100: % There is also a \vbigm for (middle) relations.
101:
102: \catcode`@=11
103: \newdimen\vbigd@men % for \vbig
104:
105: \def\vbigl{\mathopen\vbig}
106: \def\vbigm{\mathrel\vbig}
107: \def\vbigr{\mathclose\vbig}
108:
109: \def\vbig#1#2{{\vbigd@men=#2\divide\vbigd@men by 2%
110: \hbox{$\left#1\vbox to \vbigd@men{}\right.\n@space$}}}
111: \catcode`@=12
112:
113:
114: % LaTeX citation with no brackets/superscript.
115: \catcode`@=11
116: \def\citenum#1{\csname b@#1\endcsname}
117: \catcode`@=12
118:
119: \def\dofig#1#2{\centerline{\epsfxsize=#1\epsfbox{#2}}}
120: \begin{document}
121: \begin{titlepage}
122: \rightline{TUHEP-TH-03144}
123:
124: \bigskip\bigskip
125:
126: \begin{center}{\Large\bf\boldmath
127: Nonsymmetric Gravity and Noncommutative Signals\footnotemark \\}
128: \end{center}
129: \footnotetext{ This work was supported by the Department of Physics at Tsinghua University.
130: }
131: \bigskip
132: \centerline{\bf N. Kersting$^{a}$,
133: and Y.L. Ma$^{a}$}
134: \centerline{{\it$^{a}$ Theoretical Physics Group, Department of Physics
135: Tsinghua University, Beijing P.R.C. 100084
136: }}
137: \bigskip
138:
139: \begin{abstract}
140:
141: Models in which the space-time metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not symmetric,
142: $\ie$ $g_{\mu\nu} \ne g_{\nu\mu}$ may make predictions in
143: scattering experiments, for example in a future $e^+e^-$ linear collider,
144: similar to those from
145: noncommutative field theory. We compute the differential cross sections
146: for pair annihilation, Bhabha and M$\o$ller scattering and
147: find that both nonsymmetric gravity theory(NGT) and
148: noncommutative field theory predict a similar
149: dependence of the
150: differential cross section on the azimuthal angle in agreement with
151: all known data, however in NGT Lorentz violation need
152: not be as severe. Astrophysical and cosmological tests may prove
153: very useful in
154: distinguishing these two theories.
155:
156:
157: \bigskip
158:
159: \end{abstract}
160:
161: \newpage
162: \pagestyle{empty}
163:
164: \end{titlepage}
165:
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167: \section{Introduction}
168: \label{sec:intro}
169:
170: If Nature violates isotropy of space or
171: commutivity among coordinate displacements, the basic assumptions
172: at the root of most of physics come into question and it becomes
173: imperative to parametrize
174: this violation, devising
175: tests to put limits on the parameters.
176: Two such parameterizations in this direction involve the theories of
177: noncommuting space coordinates\cite{Hinchliffe:2002km} and nonsymmetric
178: gravity\cite{Moffat:1995fc}. Particle physics experiments at
179: future hadronic or linear colliders may
180: provide good testing grounds for these theories.
181:
182: In nonsymmetric gravity theory (NGT) the metric of space-time is taken to be
183: nonsymmetric, $\ie$ $g_{\mu\nu} \ne g_{\nu\mu}$. In particular, we may write
184: \begin{equation}
185: \label{g-components}
186: g_{\mu\nu} = g_{(\mu\nu)} + g_{[\mu\nu]}
187: \end{equation}
188: decomposing $g$ into its symmetric and antisymmetric pieces.
189: The contravariant tensor $g^{\mu\nu}$ is defined as usual:
190: \begin{equation}
191: g^{\mu\nu}g_{\mu\rho} = \delta^\nu_\rho
192: \end{equation}
193: One can now go on to define a Lagrangian density as in general relativity,
194: ${\cal L} = \sqrt{-g} R$, where $g\equiv det(g_{\mu\nu})$ and
195: $R$ is the Ricci scalar, and derive field equations for $g_{(\mu\nu)}$
196: and $g_{[\mu\nu]}$. More details on this reformulation of general
197: relativiy can be found in \cite{Moffat:1995fc}.
198: There has been extensive work
199: analyzing the effects of $g_{[\mu\nu]}$ for black hole solutions of the
200: field equations, galaxy dynamics, stellar stability, and other phenomena
201: of cosmological and astrophysical relevance
202: \cite{Moffat:1997cc,Moffat:1995pi,Moffat:1996dq} where
203: $g_{(\mu\nu)}$ and $g_{[\mu\nu]}$ may be of comparable size.
204:
205:
206: In the context of particle physics however, we may start with the
207: assumption that the curvature of
208: space in the region of interest is small:
209: \begin{equation}
210: \label{g-defn}
211: g_{\mu\nu} \approx \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{(\mu\nu)} + a_{[\mu\nu]}
212: \end{equation}
213: where $\eta$ is the usual Minkowski metric and both\footnotemark~ $h$ and $a$
214: \footnotetext{Note that $a_{\mu\nu}$ cannot
215: be absorbed into $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ or $h$ by a redefinition of coordinates}
216: satisfy
217: $a_{\mu\nu}, h_{\mu\nu} \ll 1 ~\forall~ \mu,\nu$.
218: We further assume that these fields' dynamics are negligable in the
219: region of interest and we may treat them as background fields.
220: The effects of the symmetric tensor $h$ on particle physics in this
221: limit has been studied elsewhere
222: (see for example \cite{h-study,Gusev:1998rp,DiPiazza:2003zp}).
223: We would like to
224: focus our attention here on the effects
225: of the antisymmetric piece $a$.
226:
227: We therefore take $h=0$ and
228: $a_{\mu\nu} = {\cal O}(\epsilon) \ll 1 ~\forall~ \mu,\nu$.
229: To simplify computations, we take the form of $a$ to be
230: \begin{equation}
231: \label{a-form}
232: a_{\mu\nu} =
233: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
234: 0 & \epsilon & \epsilon & \epsilon\\
235: -\epsilon & 0 & \epsilon & \epsilon\\
236: -\epsilon & -\epsilon & 0 & \epsilon\\
237: -\epsilon & -\epsilon & -\epsilon & 0\\
238: \end{array} \right)
239: \end{equation}
240: In this scenario Eqn(\ref{g-defn}) states that the NGT is a perturbation of the
241: ordinary flat-space theory in the small parameter $\epsilon$.
242: This parameter
243: may depend on space-time, as one would expect from the metric theory
244: of General Relativity(GR), and from this point on we keep this dependance
245: implicit in all equations: $\epsilon \equiv \epsilon(x)$, with the
246: understanding that odd powers of $\epsilon$ appearing in physical
247: quantities may average to zero over sufficiently large\footnotemark
248: regions of space or time.
249: \footnotetext{The parameter $\epsilon$ might for example vary
250: appreciably only between the atomic and sub-micron
251: scales, justifying its approximate constancy at collider energies
252: in excess of several $GeV$}
253:
254: The theory of noncommutating space-time coordinates
255: has already received much attention
256: in the literature(see \cite{Hinchliffe:2002km} for an extensive review). Here
257: we briefly recall its key features.
258:
259: Noncommutative space-time is a deformation of ordinary space-time in which the
260: space-time coordinates $x_\mu$, representable by Hermitian operators $\widehat{x}_\mu$, do not
261: commute:
262: \begin{equation}
263: \label{nceqn}
264: [\widehat{x}_\mu,\widehat{x}_\nu]=i \theta_{\mu \nu}
265: \end{equation}
266: Here $\theta_{\mu \nu}$ is the deformation parameter: ordinary space-time is obtained in the
267: $\theta_{\mu \nu} \to 0$ limit. By convention
268: it is a real tensor antisymmetric
269: under $\mu \leftrightarrow \nu$.
270: To obtain a noncommuting version of a particular field theory,
271: one need only replace ordinary
272: products between fields with the so-called ``star product'' defined
273: as :
274: \begin{equation}
275: \label{star}
276: (f \star g)(x) \equiv e^{i \theta_{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu}^{y} \partial_{\nu}^{z}}
277: f(y) g(z) \mid_{y=z=x}
278: \end{equation}
279: In particular, one can transform the Standard Model into
280: a noncommutative Standard Model (ncSM).
281: Noncommuting coordinates are
282: found to follow naturally in the context of string theory, where
283: $\theta_{\mu \nu}$ is related to a background electric field.
284: The direction of this field explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance,
285: strongly constraining the size of $\theta_{\mu \nu}$.
286: Phenomenological constraints
287: on the
288: ncSM, ranging from Hydrogen spectra, $e^+e^-$ scattering, and various
289: CP-violating quantities\cite{Hinchliffe:2002km}
290: imply that the dimensionful parameters
291: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ should not exceed $1~(TeV)^{-2}$\footnotemark.
292: \footnotetext{In some considerations in nuclear physics
293: this limit can be pushed many orders of magnitude stronger,
294: however this assumes that
295: $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is constant over solar-system
296: scales\cite{Mocioiu:2001nz}}
297:
298: In this paper we demonstrate that some signals of NGT at a high
299: center-of-mass collider bear resemblance
300: to those of the ncSM.
301: We present some calculations in NGT of simple QED processes
302: in Section \ref{sec:predict}, showing that differential scattering
303: cross sections have an oscillatory dependance on the azimuthal
304: angle $\varphi$ similar to that in the ncSM. We also explicitly
305: show agreement of NGT with known data from various electron scattering
306: experiments.
307: In Section \ref{sec:constraints} we collect some results in a purely
308: general relativistic formulation, investigating classical constraints
309: on the theory from Newton's Laws and cosmological considerations.
310: Section \ref{sec:concl} contains our conclusions.
311:
312:
313:
314: \section{Predictions in Simple Processes}
315: \label{sec:predict}
316: \subsection{Pair Annihilation: $e^+e^- \to \gamma\gamma$}
317: Pair annihilation occurs to lowest order in $\alpha_{em}$ through
318: the two tree-level diagrams shown in Figure \ref{ann-fig}.
319: \begin{figure}[t]
320: \dofig{3.50in}{pair-diag.eps}
321: \caption{ \it The two lowest order diagrams for pair
322: annihilation.
323: \label{ann-fig} }
324: \end{figure}
325: As in the SM, the spin-averaged squared amplitude is written
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \label{pair-cross}
328: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
329: M}|^2&=&{e^4\over4}g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}\cdot
330: tr\bigg\{(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_1+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\mu
331: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_1\gamma^\nu-2\gamma^\mu p_1^\nu}{2p_1\cdot
332: k_1}+\frac{\gamma^\nu
333: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_2\gamma^\mu-2\gamma^\nu
334: p_1^\mu}{2p_1\cdot k_2}\bigg]\nonumber\\
335: &&\cdot(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_1+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\sigma
336: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_1\gamma^\rho-2\gamma^\rho p_1^\sigma}{2p_1\cdot
337: k_1}+\frac{\gamma^\rho
338: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash_2\gamma^\sigma-2\gamma^\sigma
339: p_1^\rho}{2p_1\cdot k_2}\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: with $m$ the electron mass. Recall the metric tensors are however not as in the SM, but
342: rather $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + a_{\mu\nu}$ with
343: $a_{\mu\nu}$ defined as in Eqn \ref{a-form}. We defer the
344: full calculation to the Appendix and simply state our result
345: for the differential cross section:
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{pair-cross}
348: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{pSM} + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p1}
349: + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p2}
350: \end{equation}
351: where
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{pSM} & = & \frac{\alpha^2}{ s}
354: \bigg[\frac{1 + \cos^2\theta}{\sin^2\theta}\bigg]\nonumber\\
355: &&\nonumber\\
356: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p1} &= &\epsilon\frac{\alpha^2}{s}
357: \bigg[\frac{2\cos\theta}{\sin^2\theta}+\frac{(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)}{\sin\theta}\bigg]\nonumber\\
358: &&\nonumber\\
359: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p2} &=& 2\epsilon^2 \frac{\alpha^2}{s}
360: \bigg[\frac{\cos^2\theta-3}{\sin^2\theta}+\frac{(1+\cos\theta)\sin2\theta}{\sin^4\theta}(\sin\varphi-\cos\varphi)-\frac{\sin2\theta}{\sin^2\theta}\cos\varphi\bigg] \nonumber\\
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: Here we are working in the high-energy limit ($ m_e \approx 0$)
363: and the usual angles $\theta$ and $\varphi$ parameterize photon direction
364: in the center of mass frame. We have written the ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$
365: and ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ contributions separately because we will later see
366: in Section \ref{sec:constraints} that constraints
367: on Lorentz violation strongly favor the scenario
368: where $\epsilon$ (but not necessarily $\epsilon^2$) average to
369: zero over small distances\footnotemark.
370: \footnotetext{We record these terms in the cross section in the event that
371: one wishes to work in a strongly Lorentz-violating theory.}
372: In this case the prediction of NGT for
373: the differential cross section is
374: $\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{pSM} + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p2}$.
375:
376: Recently the OPAL Collaboration\cite{Abbiendi:2003wv}
377: has analyzed pair annihilation
378: data at a center of mass energy near $200~GeV$. In Figure
379: \ref{opal-t-fig} we show their data
380: for the differential cross section $d\sigma /d \cos\theta$ and our
381: prediction $\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{pSM} + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{p2}$.
382: In this case, $\epsilon$ may be as large as $\approx 0.14$
383: without deviating more than $\sim~1~\sigma$ with the data.
384: \begin{figure}[t]
385: \dofig{3.50in}{opal-t.eps}
386: \caption{\it The OPAL data for $e^+e^- \to \gamma \gamma$
387: \cite{Abbiendi:2003wv}
388: shown against the predictions in the SM (solid line) and the
389: NGT (dashed line) in the case where odd powers of $\epsilon$ average
390: to zero. Here $\epsilon \approx 0.14$
391: \label{opal-t-fig} }
392: \end{figure}
393: Using this value of $\epsilon$ we predict the azimuthal
394: distribution in Figure \ref{opal-p-fig}, again showing the OPAL data
395: alongside the prediction from the SM (in this case a flat line).
396: As one can see from the figure, the data are consistent with
397: both the SM and NGT for this value of $\epsilon$.
398:
399:
400:
401: The prediction from noncommutative models similarly consists of
402: a negative correction to $d\sigma/d\cos\theta$ and an
403: oscillatory $d\sigma/d\varphi$ \cite{Hewett:2000zp}.
404: In this case the OPAL data are
405: consistent with $\theta_{\mu\nu}< (141~ GeV)^{-2}$, to which we
406: refer the reader to the original OPAL report for the details.
407:
408:
409: \begin{figure}[t]
410: \dofig{3.50in}{opal-p.eps}
411: \caption{\it Differential cross section in the azimuthal angle from
412: the OPAL data
413: shown against the predictions in the SM (solid line) and the
414: NGT (dashed line) for $\epsilon \approx 0.14$. An angular
415: cut of $cos\theta < 0.6$ was applied.
416: \label{opal-p-fig} }
417: \end{figure}
418:
419:
420:
421: \subsection{Bhabha Scattering: $e^+e^- \to e^+e^-$}
422: As seen in the previous section, the $d\sigma/d\cos\theta$
423: distribution for pair annihiliation served to constrain
424: $\epsilon$ more severely than the azimuthal distribution
425: $d\sigma/d\varphi$. Our aim in this and the following section
426: is to see whether other simple scattering processes can add
427: to this constraint.
428:
429: The Bhabha scattering amplitude receives contributions from
430: diagrams involving both the photon and the Z boson as shown
431: in Fig \ref{bha-diag}.
432: \begin{figure}[t]
433: \dofig{3.50in}{bha-diag.eps}
434: \caption{\it Tree-level diagrams for Bhabha scattering where
435: the gauge boson is either a photon or a $Z$.
436: \label{bha-diag} }
437: \end{figure}
438: However, it will be simplest to consider this process in the
439: energy range $m_e \ll \sqrt{s} \ll m_Z$ where we may ignore
440: the $Z$ diagrams and the electron mass.
441: In this limit the differential cross section
442: is approximately (see Appendix for details)
443: \begin{equation}
444: \label{bha-cross}
445: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{bSM} + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{b1}
446: + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{b2}
447: \end{equation}
448: where
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{bSM} & = & \frac{\alpha^2}{2 s}
451: \bigg[\frac{1 + \cos^4\theta/2}{\sin^4\theta/2}
452: + \frac{1}{2}(1 + \cos^2\theta) - 2 \frac{\cos^4\theta/2}{\sin^2\theta/2}
453: \bigg]\\
454: &&\\
455: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{b1} &= &\epsilon \frac{\alpha^2}{ s}
456: \left[ \frac{\cos^2\theta + 6 \cos\theta - 1}{\sin^2\theta/2}
457: + \sin\theta (\sin\varphi + \cos\varphi)\right]\\
458: &&\\
459: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{b2} &=& \epsilon^2 \frac{\alpha^2}{2 s}
460: \bigg[ \sin 2\theta (\sin\varphi + \cos\varphi) - \sin^2 \theta \\
461: &&\\
462: && - 2 \frac{ \cos^2 \frac{\theta}{2}}{\sin^4 \frac{\theta}{2}}
463: (\sin \theta (\sin\varphi + \cos\varphi) + \cos \theta + 1) \\
464: &&\\
465: && -4 \frac{ \cos^2 \frac{\theta}{2}}{\sin^2 \frac{\theta}{2}}
466: ( \sin\theta \cos\varphi - \cos\theta + 1) \bigg]\\
467: \end{eqnarray}
468: Again we see the characteristic oscillatory dependence on the
469: azimuthal angle, similar to the prediction from noncommutative
470: theories\cite{Hewett:2000zp}.
471: We can compare the prediction in Eqn \ref{bha-cross}
472: (setting $\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{b1}=0$)
473: with a measurement by the PLUTO
474: Collaboration\cite{Berger:1980rq} performed at $\sqrt{s}=9.4~GeV$ (see Figure
475: \ref{bhabha-t-fig}). We conclude that for
476: the case of $\epsilon = 0.14$ there is no
477: conflict with the data.
478:
479: \begin{figure}[t]
480: \dofig{3.50in}{bhabha-t.eps}
481: \caption{\it Bhabha scattering at $\sqrt{s}=9.4~GeV$ as measured by
482: the PLUTO Collaboration\cite{Berger:1980rq} plotted alongside the SM
483: prediction(solid line) and the
484: NGT prediction (dashed line) for $\epsilon \approx 0.14$.
485: \label{bhabha-t-fig} }
486: \end{figure}
487:
488:
489:
490:
491: \subsection{M$\o$ller Scattering: $e^-e^- \to e^-e^-$}
492: \label{subsec:moll}
493: Finally we consider the constraints from M$\o$ller scattering.
494: Now the differential cross section is (see Appendix)
495: \begin{equation}
496: \label{moll-cross}
497: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{mSM} + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{m1}
498: + \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{m2}
499: \end{equation}
500: where
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{mSM} &= & \frac{\alpha^2}{s}
503: \bigg[ 1 + \frac{1}{\sin^4\theta/2} + \frac{1}{\cos^4\theta/2}
504: \bigg]\\
505: &&\\
506: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{m1} &= &-2\epsilon\frac{\alpha^2}{s}
507: \bigg[ \frac{\cos^2\theta + 6 \cos\theta - 1}{\sin^2\theta/2}
508: + 4\frac{\sin^2 \theta/2}{\sin\theta}(\sin\varphi + \cos\varphi)\bigg]\\
509: &&\\
510: \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}_{m2} &=& -8\epsilon^2 \frac{\alpha^2}
511: {s \sin^4\theta}
512: \bigg[ \sin^4 \theta + \sin\theta \cos\theta
513: ((3+ \cos^2 \theta)\sin\varphi + (5 - \cos^2 \theta) \cos\varphi\bigg] \\
514: \end{eqnarray}
515: We note a dependence on $\varphi$ similar to that in the
516: other scattering processes and check the constraint from the
517: $\theta$ distribution:
518: Figure \ref{moller-t-fig} shows data taken at the Mark III linear
519: accelerator at SLAC\cite{Barber:1966}.
520: Again we see that the agreement between theory and experiment is excellent
521: for $\epsilon \approx 0.14$.
522: \begin{figure}[t]
523: \dofig{3.50in}{moller-t.eps}
524: \caption{\it M$\o$ller scattering at $\sqrt{s}=600~MeV$ at
525: Mark III\cite{Barber:1966} plotted on the SM
526: prediction(solid line) and the
527: NGT prediction (dashed line) for $\epsilon \approx 0.14$. The cross
528: section is plotted in inverse units of
529: $C_o \equiv \frac{1}{8}r_D^2 (\frac{m_e}{E})^2$.
530: \label{moller-t-fig} }
531: \end{figure}
532:
533:
534: \section{Constraints from General Relativity}
535: \label{sec:constraints}
536: We have seen in the previous sections that NGT
537: passes several
538: tests in experiments probing high energies. It is relevant
539: to inquire whether the theory likewise satisfies constraints
540: at energies corresponding to macroscopic or cosmological
541: scales. Thus we leave high energy physics to the side for the
542: moment and concentrate on constraints in the framework of
543: general relativity. Although a fair number of papers address this
544: question we will restrict ourselves to a discussion of only a few
545: of these.
546: \subsection{Newton's $2^{nd}$ Law}
547: Starting from the geodesic equation in GR,
548: \begin{equation}
549: \label{newton}
550: \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d \sigma^2}
551: + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\lambda}\frac{d x^\nu}{d \sigma}
552: \frac{d x^\lambda}{d \sigma} = 0
553: \end{equation}
554: and using the metric chosen in Eqn (\ref{a-form}), we obtain
555: for a particle in a conservative potential $U(x,y,z)$
556: the following equations of motion:
557: \begin{equation}
558: \label{newton-system}
559: m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}
560: \left(
561: \begin{array}{c}
562: x \\ y \\ z \\
563: \end{array}
564: \right)
565: =
566: \frac{1}{1 - \epsilon^4}\left(
567: \begin{array}{ccc}
568: -1 + \epsilon^2 & -\epsilon(1- \epsilon^2) & -\epsilon(1+ \epsilon)^2 \\
569: \epsilon(1- \epsilon^2) & -1+ \epsilon^2 & -\epsilon(1- \epsilon^2) \\
570: \epsilon(1- \epsilon)^2 & \epsilon(1- \epsilon^2) & -1+ \epsilon^2 \\
571: \end{array}
572: \right)
573: \left(
574: \begin{array}{c}
575: U_x \\ U_y \\ U_z \\
576: \end{array}
577: \right)
578: \end{equation}
579: where $U_i \equiv dU/dx^i$. Thus motion in a given direction is
580: influenced by the gradient of the potential in an orthogonal direction,
581: violating Newton's Second Law\footnotemark.
582: \footnotetext{Theories of noncommutating coordinates also
583: violate Newton's Second Law:
584: $\frac{d^2 x^i}{dt^2}= -\frac{dU}{dx^i}+
585: \theta^{ij}\frac{d^2 U}{dx^j dx^k}\frac{d x^k}{dt}$ is the prediction
586: in these theories\cite{Romero:2002ns}.}
587: That planets in the solar system move
588: on Keplerian orbits to an excellent approximation puts very stringent
589: constraints on such deviations from $F=ma$. Therefore, if
590: $\epsilon$ varies only slowly over solar-system distances, its magnitude
591: must be vanishingly small to match the observed trajectories of the
592: planets. On the other hand, if $\epsilon$ averages to
593: zero over much smaller distances($\eg$ sub-micron) then odd powers
594: of $\epsilon$ may be set to zero in Eqn (\ref{newton-system}). The
595: even powers of $\epsilon$ may be removed from off-diagonal entries
596: by a suitable coordinate rotation (see Appendix), reducing
597: Eqn (\ref{newton-system}) to the usual diagonal form.
598: This is the justification for setting odd powers of $\epsilon$
599: to zero in the scattering cross section formulae
600: in Eqns \ref{pair-cross}, \ref{bha-cross}, and \ref{moll-cross}.
601:
602:
603:
604: \subsection{Cosmology}
605: Strictly homogeneous and isotropic solutions of the NGT field equations
606: always reduce to the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker(FRW) solutions of
607: GR\cite{Moffat:1997cc}. Relaxing the homogeneous requirement
608: slightly ($\ie$ turning on $g_{[\mu\nu]}$) leads to the
609: approximate FRW metric
610: \begin{equation}
611: ds^2 = dt^2 -R^2(t)
612: \left(h(r)dr^2 + r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta~d\varphi^2)\right)
613: \end{equation}
614: where the field equations determine $h(r)$ as well as $b(r)$
615: in the following
616: equation involving the Hubble variable $H=\dot{R}/R$:
617: \begin{eqnarray}
618: H^2(t) + \frac{b(r)}{R^2(t)} &=& \Omega(r,t)H^2(t) \\
619: \Omega(r,t) &\equiv& \Omega_M(t) + \Omega_S(r,t) \\
620: \Omega_M(t) &=& \frac{8 \pi G \rho_M(t)}{3 H^2(t)}\\
621: \end{eqnarray}
622: Here $\Omega_M(t)$ is the usual matter density while $\Omega_S(r,t)$
623: is the contribution to density from $g_{[\mu\nu]}$.
624: Precise measurements of the curvature and density of the universe
625: can therefore put constraints on the magnitude of $g_{[\mu\nu]}$.
626:
627: Another way to constrain NGT is by measuring the polarization of
628: light arriving from distant cosmic sources\cite{Moffat:1997cc}.
629: This can be seen immediately from the electromagnetic action:
630: \begin{equation}
631: I_em \sim \int d^4 x
632: \sqrt{-g} g_{\mu\alpha}g_{\nu\beta} F^{\mu\nu}F^{\alpha\beta}
633: \end{equation}
634: upon expanding $g$ as in Eqn(\ref{g-components}). One can show
635: that terms like $\partial^iA^i\partial^jA^j, i\ne j$ arise
636: with no counterpart in ordinary electromagnetism. Such terms
637: imply a ``mixing'' between directions as light propagates,
638: leading to a distance-dependent polarization.
639: \subsection{Astrophysics}
640: Stellar collapse is predicted to differ markedly from the
641: standard GR prediction: namely, a collapsing star with mass
642: above the Chandrasekhar limit does not lead to a
643: black hole singularity\cite{Moffat:1995pi}. The collapse
644: is found to asymptotically reach a compact pseduo-stable state which,
645: like a black hole, emits larges amounts of thermal and gravitational
646: radiation, but no Hawking radiation. For practical purposes
647: therefore it may be difficult to distinguish this
648: object from a standard GR black hole.
649:
650: At galactic scales, NGT may provide an explanation for the
651: flat behaviour of rotation curves in spiral galaxies
652: alternative to the conventional theory that the galactic halo consists
653: of $90$ percent dark matter. NGT can alter Newtonian gravity at
654: galactic scales\cite{Moffat:1996dq},
655: predicting rotation curves in agreement with data,
656: without measurably affecting gravity at or below solar system scales.
657:
658: We stress that these and other cosmological or astrophysical
659: tests of NGT are just as important as ones performed at high
660: energy such as those considered in this paper. While the latter
661: tests bear results similar to those from noncommutative theories,
662: it is the former which can most clearly distinguish between the
663: two since NGT is a gravitational phenomenon whereas
664: noncommutivity in the conventional string theory context is not.
665:
666:
667: \section{Conclusions}
668: \label{sec:concl}
669:
670: We have seen in the preceding analysis that, in electron scattering
671: experiments, the predictions of NGT are similar to those from
672: theories of noncommuting coordinates. Although in both
673: theories the deviation of the differential cross section $d\sigma/d\theta$
674: from the SM prediction offers the strongest constraint, we suggest
675: that as experimental precision improves
676: the oscillatory behaviour of
677: $d\sigma/d\varphi$ should be the clearest prediction of these theories
678: since the SM background is flat.
679: We conclude that the OPAL data is consistent with both
680: a ncSM with $\theta_{\mu\nu} \sim (141~ GeV)^{-2}$ and
681: the particular NGT presented in this paper for values
682: of $\epsilon \sim~0.14$, implying that the metric of space-time
683: could be up to $2$ percent antisymmetric in the neighborhood
684: of terrestrial experiments. Precision data from PLUTO
685: and MarkIII confirm the latter bound on NGT.
686: However, in contrast to the parameter $\epsilon$,
687: which is dimensionless,
688: the parameter $\theta_{\mu\nu}$ is of mass dimension $-2$
689: and therefore should
690: cause deviations from the SM which
691: scale with the square of center-of-mass energy.
692: As more data
693: becomes available from high energy collider experiments such
694: as those planned at the LHC or a future $e^+ e^-$ linear collider,
695: noncommutative signals should therefore grow stronger and eventually
696: overtake those of NGT.
697:
698: From a theoretical perspective, NGT is a much cleaner theory than
699: the ncSM. The latter, aside from some difficulties in the gauge
700: sector, suffers from severe Lorentz violation and a still unsolved
701: problem in ultraviolet divergences\cite{Hinchliffe:2002km}.
702: Nonetheless, both theories represent interesting perturbations
703: of ordinary space-time. Mixing of space-time coordinates is
704: a common feature of both noncommutative theory and NGT,
705: though
706: the origin of this mixing arises from electromagnetism in the
707: former and gravity in the latter. Cosmological and astrophysical
708: phenomenology should therefore readily distinguish the two theories.
709: Work in this area has thus far been encouraging.
710:
711:
712:
713:
714:
715: \section*{Acknowledgements}
716: This work was supported by the Department of Physics at Tsinghua University.
717:
718:
719: \section*{Appendix}
720: \subsection*{Useful Identities}
721: The following is a partial list of contractions and
722: trace identities for gamma matrices contracted with $a_{\mu\nu}$.
723: \subsubsection*{contraction identities}
724: \begin{eqnarray}
725: \gamma_\mu &=& (\eta_{\mu\nu} + a_{\mu\nu})\gamma^\nu \\
726: \gamma^\mu\gamma_\mu &=& 4 + \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu \\
727: \gamma_\mu\gamma^\mu &=& 4 - \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu \\
728: \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma_\mu &=& -2 \gamma^\nu
729: - \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\rho}\gamma^\rho
730: + 2 \eta^{\nu\mu} a_{\mu\rho}\gamma^\rho \\
731: \gamma_\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\mu &=& -2 \gamma^\nu
732: + \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\rho}\gamma^\rho \gamma^\nu
733: + 2 \eta^{\nu\mu} a_{\mu\rho}\gamma^\rho \\
734: \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma_\mu &=& 4 \eta^{\nu\rho}
735: + \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\lambda}\gamma^\lambda
736: + 2(\gamma^\rho \eta^{\nu\mu} -
737: \gamma^\nu\eta^{\rho\mu}) a_{\mu\lambda}\gamma^\lambda \\
738: \gamma_\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\mu &=&
739: 4 \eta^{\nu\rho} -
740: \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\lambda}\gamma^\lambda \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho
741: +2( \eta^{\rho\mu} a_{\mu\lambda} \gamma^\lambda \gamma^\nu -
742: \eta^{\nu\mu} a_{\mu\lambda} \gamma^\lambda \gamma^\rho)\\
743: \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\sigma \gamma_\mu &=&
744: -2 \gamma^\sigma \gamma^\rho \gamma^\nu -
745: \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\sigma
746: \gamma^\mu a_{\mu\lambda}\gamma^\lambda
747: + 2( \gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho \eta^{\sigma\mu} -
748: \gamma^\nu\gamma^\sigma\eta^{\rho\mu}
749: + \gamma^\rho\gamma^\sigma
750: \eta^{\nu\mu})a_{\mu\lambda}\gamma^\lambda
751: \nonumber\\
752: \end{eqnarray}
753: \subsubsection*{trace identities}
754: \begin{eqnarray}
755: tr[\gamma^\mu a_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu] &=& 0 \\
756: tr[\gamma^\lambda a_{\lambda\mu}\gamma^\nu] &=&
757: 4 \eta^{\nu\rho}a_{\rho\mu}\\
758: tr[\gamma^\mu a_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu\gamma^\sigma \gamma^\tau] &=&
759: -8 \eta^{\sigma\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\tau} \\
760: tr[\gamma^\mu a_{\mu\nu}\gamma^\nu
761: \gamma^\rho\gamma^\sigma \gamma^\tau\gamma^\lambda] &=&
762: 8( -\eta^{\rho\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\sigma}\eta^{\tau\lambda}
763: + \eta^{\rho\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\tau}\eta^{\sigma\lambda}
764: - \eta^{\rho\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\lambda}\eta^{\sigma\tau}
765: \nonumber\\
766: &&
767: - \eta^{\sigma\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\tau} \eta^{\rho\lambda}
768: + \eta^{\sigma\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\lambda} \eta^{\rho\tau}
769: - \eta^{\tau\mu}a_{\mu\nu} \eta^{\nu\lambda} \eta^{\rho\sigma}
770: \nonumber\\
771: \end{eqnarray}
772:
773: \subsection*{Pair Annihilation}
774: To compute the pair annihilation cross section, we may
775: start from the expression for Compton scattering which is related
776: by crossing symmetry ($p_1 \to p, p_2 \to -p^\prime, k_1 \to -k,
777: k_2 \to k^\prime$):
778: \begin{eqnarray}
779: i{\cal
780: M}&=&\bar{u}(p^\prime)(-ie\gamma^\mu)\epsilon^\ast_\mu(k^\prime)\frac{i(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m)}{(p+k)^2-m^2}(-ie\gamma^\nu)\epsilon_\nu(k)u(p)\nonumber\\
781: &&+\bar{u}(p^\prime)(-ie\gamma^\nu)\epsilon_\nu(k)\frac{i(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash-k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime+m)}{(p-k^\prime)^2-m^2}(-ie\gamma^\mu)\epsilon^\ast_\mu(k^\prime)u(p)\nonumber\\
782: &=&-ie^2\epsilon^\ast_\mu(k^\prime)\epsilon_\nu(k)\bar{u}(p^\prime)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\mu(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m)\gamma^\nu}{(p+k)^2-m^2}+\frac{\gamma^\nu(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash-k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime+m)\gamma^\mu}{(p-k^\prime)^2-m^2}\bigg]u(p)
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: From here,
785: the cross section is
786: \begin{eqnarray}
787: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
788: M}|^2&=&{e^4\over4}g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}\cdot
789: tr\bigg\{(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\mu
790: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu p^\nu}{2p\cdot
791: k}+\frac{\gamma^\nu
792: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu-2\gamma^\nu
793: p^\mu}{2p\cdot k^\prime}\bigg]\nonumber\\
794: &&\cdot(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m)\bigg[\frac{\gamma^\sigma
795: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\rho+2\gamma^\rho p^\sigma}{2p\cdot
796: k}+\frac{\gamma^\rho
797: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\sigma-2\gamma^\sigma
798: p^\rho}{2p\cdot k^\prime}\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
799: &\equiv&{e^4\over4}\bigg[\frac{I}{(2p\cdot
800: k)^2}+\frac{II}{(2p\cdot k)(2p\cdot k^\prime)}+\frac{III}{(2p\cdot
801: k^\prime )(2p\cdot k)}+\frac{IV}{(2p\cdot k^\prime)^2}\bigg]
802: \end{eqnarray}
803: where the first trace is
804: \begin{eqnarray}
805: I&=&tr[(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime+m)(\gamma^\mu
806: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu
807: p^\nu)(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m)(\gamma_\nu
808: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu+2\gamma_\mu p_\nu)]\nonumber\\
809: \end{eqnarray}
810: First we consider the ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ contributions to this
811: amplitude.
812: In the computation we will need to insert the full expression
813: for $g_{\mu\nu}$ only; note that to leading order Dirac
814: propagators are unchanged,
815: $\eg$ $\Sigma_s u(p)\overline{u}_s(p)=
816: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m \equiv p^{\mu}\eta_{\mu\nu}\gamma^{\nu}+m$,
817: which is true even after radiative corrections.
818: After much Dirac algebra using the contraction and trace identities
819: above and taking the high energy limit $m=0$,
820: we find that $I$ has no ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ piece.
821: However the second trace,
822: \begin{eqnarray}
823: II&=&tr[(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime+m)(\gamma^\mu
824: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu+2\gamma^\mu
825: p^\nu)(p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash+m)(\gamma_\mu
826: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu-2\gamma_\nu p_\mu)]\nonumber\\
827: &=&tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
828: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu
829: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu
830: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-2tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
831: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
832: &&+mtr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
833: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu\gamma_\mu
834: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-2mtr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
835: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
836: &&+2tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu p^\nu
837: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu
838: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-4tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
839: p^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu
840: p_\mu]\nonumber\\
841: &&+2mtr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu p^\nu\gamma_\mu
842: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-4mtr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu p^\nu\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
843: &&+mtr[\gamma^\mu
844: k^\prime\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu\gamma_\mu
845: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-2mtr[\gamma^\mu
846: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
847: &&+m^2tr[\gamma^\mu k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu\gamma_\mu
848: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-2m^2tr[\gamma^\mu
849: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu\gamma_\nu
850: p_\mu]\nonumber\\
851: &&+2mtr[\gamma^\mu p^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu
852: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-4mtr[\gamma^\mu p^\nu
853: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
854: &&+2m^2tr[\gamma^\mu p^\nu\gamma_\mu
855: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-4m^2tr[\gamma^\mu p^\nu\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
856: &=&tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
857: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu
858: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu
859: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-2tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
860: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu p_\mu]\nonumber\\
861: &&+2tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu p^\nu
862: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\mu
863: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma_\nu]-4tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\mu
864: p^\nu p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash\gamma_\nu
865: p_\mu]\nonumber\\
866: \end{eqnarray}
867: yields
868: \begin{eqnarray}
869: II&=&\mbox{ordinary theory}\nonumber\\
870: &&-32\epsilon p^\prime\cdot pk\oslash k^\prime+16\epsilon(p\cdot
871: kp\oslash p^\prime +p^\prime\cdot pk\oslash p)
872: \end{eqnarray}
873: where we define
874: \begin{eqnarray}
875: p\cdot k &\equiv& p_\mu \eta^{\mu\nu} k_\nu \nonumber \\
876: p\oslash k &\equiv&
877: p_\mu \eta^{\mu\nu} a_{\nu\rho} \eta^{\rho\sigma} k_\sigma \nonumber \\
878: \end{eqnarray}
879: and ``ordinary theory'' refers to the SM ($\epsilon=0$).
880: The other traces are trivially obtained from the above:
881: \begin{eqnarray}
882: &&III=II\nonumber\\
883: &&IV=I(k\rightarrow-k^\prime)
884: \end{eqnarray}
885: Transforming to the pair annihiliation momenta by crossing
886: symmetry,
887: \begin{eqnarray}
888: p\rightarrow
889: p_1,p^\prime\rightarrow-p_2,k\rightarrow-k_1,k^\prime\rightarrow
890: k_2
891: \end{eqnarray}
892: we obtain
893: \begin{eqnarray}
894: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
895: M}|^2&\equiv&{e^4\over4}\bigg[\frac{I}{(2p_1\cdot
896: k_1)^2}-\frac{II}{(2p_1\cdot k_1)(2p_1\cdot
897: k_2)}-\frac{III}{(2p_1\cdot k_2 )(2p_1\cdot
898: k_1)}+\frac{IV}{(2p_1\cdot k_2)^2}\bigg]\nonumber\\
899: \end{eqnarray}
900: and
901: \begin{eqnarray}
902: II&=&III\nonumber\\
903: &=&\mbox{ordinary theory}\nonumber\\
904: &&-32\epsilon p_2\cdot p_1k_1\oslash k_2+16\epsilon(p_1\cdot
905: k_1p_1\oslash p_2 +p_2\cdot p_1k_1\oslash p_1)
906: \end{eqnarray}
907: \begin{eqnarray}
908: I&=&\mbox{ordinary theory}
909: \end{eqnarray}
910: \begin{eqnarray}
911: IV&=&\mbox{ordinary theory}
912: \end{eqnarray}
913: Define the kinematical variables $E, \theta, \varphi$ in the
914: center of mass frame:
915: \begin{eqnarray}
916: \label{kin-vars}
917: &&p_1=(E,E\hat{z})\nonumber\\
918: &&p_2=(E,-E\hat{z})\nonumber\\
919: &&k_1=(E,E\sin\theta\cos\varphi,E\sin\theta\sin\varphi,E\cos\theta)\nonumber\\
920: &&k_2=(E,-E\sin\theta\cos\varphi,-E\sin\theta\sin\varphi,-E\cos\theta)
921: \end{eqnarray}
922: It is now straightforward to derive the ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$
923: differential cross section:
924: \begin{eqnarray}
925: \frac{d
926: \sigma}{d\Omega}&=&\mbox{ordinary
927: theory}\nonumber\\
928: &&+\frac{\alpha^2\epsilon}{2E^2}\cdot\bigg[\frac{2\cos\theta}{\sin^2\theta}+\frac{(\sin\varphi+\cos\varphi)}{\sin\theta}\bigg]\nonumber\\
929: \end{eqnarray}
930: Now for ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$:
931: The first trace eventually reduces to
932: \begin{eqnarray}
933: I&=&32[p\cdot k p^\prime\otimes k+p^\prime\cdot kp\otimes
934: k-p^\prime\cdot pk\otimes k]\nonumber\\
935: &&-32p^\prime\oslash kp\oslash k -16tr(a^2)p^\prime\cdot kp\cdot k
936: \end{eqnarray}
937: where we introduce the notation $\otimes$:
938: \begin{eqnarray}
939: k\otimes p&=&k_\mu
940: \eta^{\mu\nu} a_{\nu\rho}\eta^{\rho\sigma}a_{\sigma\tau}
941: \eta^{\tau\lambda}p_\lambda =p\otimes k \nonumber\\
942: tr(a^2) &=& \eta^{\mu\nu} a_{\nu\rho}
943: \eta^{\rho\sigma}a_{\sigma\tau}\eta^\tau_{\cdot\mu} \nonumber\\
944: \end{eqnarray}
945: Similarly, the second trace is
946: \begin{eqnarray}
947: II&=&16\epsilon^2(k^\prime\otimes kp^\prime\cdot p+p^\prime\otimes
948: pk^\prime\cdot
949: k )\nonumber\\
950: \end{eqnarray}
951: Then the other traces follow easily as before:
952: \begin{eqnarray}
953: III&=&II=16\epsilon^2(k^\prime\otimes kp^\prime\cdot
954: p+p^\prime\otimes pk^\prime\cdot k )
955: \end{eqnarray}
956: \begin{eqnarray}
957: IV&=&I(k\rightarrow-k^\prime)=32[p\cdot k^\prime p^\prime\otimes
958: k^\prime+p^\prime\cdot k^\prime p\otimes
959: k^\prime-p^\prime\cdot pk^\prime\otimes k^\prime]\nonumber\\
960: &&-32p^\prime\oslash k^\prime p\oslash k^\prime
961: -16tr(a^2)p^\prime\cdot k^\prime p\cdot k^\prime
962: \end{eqnarray}
963: From the particular choice of $a$ in Eqn \ref{a-form}, we have
964: \begin{eqnarray}
965: a_{\nu\rho}\eta^{\rho\sigma}a_{\sigma\tau}
966: &=&
967: \left(
968: \begin{array}{cccc}
969: 3&2&0&-2\\
970: 2&1&0&-2\\
971: 0&0&1&0\\
972: -2&-2&0&1
973: \end{array}
974: \right)
975: \end{eqnarray}
976: whence it follows from the kinematical assignments that
977: \begin{eqnarray}
978: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
979: M}|^2&=&{\rm ordinary} + {\cal O}(\epsilon) +
980: 4e^4\epsilon^2\bigg[\frac{\cos^2\theta-3}{\sin^2\theta}+\frac{(1+\cos\theta)\sin2\theta}{\sin^4\theta}(\sin\varphi-\cos\varphi)-\frac{\sin2\theta}{\sin^2\theta}\cos\varphi\bigg]\nonumber\\
981: \end{eqnarray}
982: leading to the expression reported in Eqn \ref{pair-cross}.
983:
984:
985:
986:
987:
988:
989:
990:
991: \subsection*{Bhabha Scattering}
992: The two diagrams contributing (see Figure \ref{bha-diag})
993: interfere destructively,
994: with spin averaged squared amplitude
995: \begin{eqnarray}
996: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
997: M}|^2&=&
998: \frac{e^4}{4}\bigg[\frac{I}{(p+p^\prime)^4}
999: + \frac{II}{(k^\prime-p^\prime)^4}
1000: - \frac{III + IV}{(p+p^\prime)^2 (k^\prime-p^\prime)^2}
1001: \bigg] \nonumber\\
1002: I &\equiv& tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime \gamma^\mu
1003: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash \gamma^\sigma]
1004: tr[ k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash \gamma^\nu
1005: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime\gamma^\rho]g_{\mu\nu}g_{\rho\sigma}
1006: \nonumber\\
1007: II &\equiv& I(p \leftrightarrow k^\prime) \nonumber\\
1008: III &\equiv& tr[p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime \gamma^\mu
1009: p\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash \gamma^\rho
1010: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash \gamma^\nu
1011: k\hspace{-0.17cm}\slash^\prime \gamma^\sigma]g_{\mu\nu}g_{\rho\sigma}
1012: \nonumber\\
1013: IV &\equiv& III(p \leftrightarrow k^\prime) \nonumber\\
1014: \end{eqnarray}
1015: Then
1016: \begin{eqnarray}
1017: I &=& p^\prime_\alpha p_\beta (\eta^{\alpha \mu}\eta^{\beta \sigma}
1018: - \eta^{\alpha \beta}\eta^{\mu \sigma}+
1019: \eta^{\alpha \sigma}\eta^{\mu\beta})\oslash
1020: k_\lambda k^\prime_\tau
1021: (\eta^{\lambda \nu}\eta^{\tau \rho} -
1022: \eta^{\lambda \tau}\eta^{\nu \rho} +
1023: \eta^{\lambda \rho}\eta^{\nu \tau})g_{\mu\nu}g_{\rho\sigma}\nonumber\\
1024: &=& {\rm ordinary theory} + \nonumber\\
1025: && -2 \bigg[(p \oslash k^\prime)(p^\prime \oslash k)
1026: + (p^\prime \oslash k^\prime)(p \oslash k) +
1027: (k \cdot k^\prime)(p \otimes p^\prime)\bigg] \nonumber\\
1028: \end{eqnarray}
1029: ($\ie$ there is no ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ piece).
1030: By repeated use of the contraction identities noted earlier, one
1031: can further verify that
1032: \begin{eqnarray}
1033: III+IV &=& {\rm ordinary~theory} +
1034: 32 \bigg[ (p \cdot p^\prime)(k \oslash k^\prime) +
1035: (p^\prime \cdot k^\prime)(k \oslash p)
1036: + (p \cdot k^\prime) (p^\prime \otimes k) -
1037: (k \cdot p^\prime) (k^\prime \otimes p)\bigg]\nonumber\\
1038: \end{eqnarray}
1039: Using the kinematical assignments as in Eqn \ref{kin-vars},
1040: replacing $p_1 \to p, p_2 \to p^\prime, k_1 \to k, k_2 \to k^\prime$,
1041: the quoted cross section in the text follows straightforwardly.
1042:
1043:
1044: \subsection*{M$\o$ller Scattering}
1045: This can be obtained quickly from Bhabha scattering by
1046: substituting $p$ for $k$ and vice versa in the traces ( but not in
1047: the denominators). Hence
1048: \begin{eqnarray}
1049: {1\over4}\sum_{spins}|{\cal
1050: M}|^2&=&
1051: \frac{e^4}{4}\bigg[\frac{I}{(p+p^\prime)^4}
1052: + \frac{II}{(k^\prime-p^\prime)^4}
1053: - \frac{III + IV}{(p+p^\prime)^2 (k^\prime-p^\prime)^2}
1054: \bigg] \nonumber\\
1055: \end{eqnarray}
1056: where
1057: \begin{eqnarray}
1058: I &=& {\rm ordinary~theory} + \nonumber\\
1059: && -2 \bigg[(k \oslash k^\prime)(p^\prime \oslash p)
1060: + (p^\prime \oslash k^\prime)(k \oslash p) +
1061: (p \cdot k^\prime)(k \otimes p^\prime)\bigg] \nonumber\\
1062: II &=& I(k \leftrightarrow k^\prime) \nonumber\\
1063: III+IV &=& {\rm ordinary~theory} +
1064: 32 \bigg[ (k \cdot p^\prime)(p \oslash k^\prime) +
1065: (p^\prime \cdot k^\prime)(k \oslash p)
1066: + (k \cdot k^\prime) (p^\prime \otimes p) -
1067: (p \cdot p^\prime) (k^\prime \otimes k)\bigg]\nonumber\\
1068: \end{eqnarray}
1069: Making the same kinematical assignments as for Bhabha scattering,
1070: the quoted cross section in Section \ref{subsec:moll} follows.
1071:
1072:
1073: \subsection*{Preserving $F=ma$}
1074: Starting from Eqn(\ref{newton-system}), perform a rotation in
1075: the $x-z$ plane:
1076: \begin{equation}
1077: \label{rotated}
1078: \frac{d^2}{dt^2}
1079: \left(
1080: \begin{array}{c}
1081: x' \\ y' \\ z' \\
1082: \end{array}
1083: \right)
1084: =
1085: {\bf \Omega}
1086: \left(
1087: \begin{array}{c}
1088: U_x' \\ U_y' \\ U_z' \\
1089: \end{array}
1090: \right)
1091: \end{equation}
1092: where
1093: \begin{equation}
1094: {\bf \Omega} =
1095: \frac{1}{1 - \epsilon^4}\left(
1096: \begin{array}{ccc}
1097: \epsilon^2 - 1 - 4\epsilon^2 c_\theta s_\theta &
1098: \frac{1-\epsilon^4 }{1+\epsilon^2}\epsilon (s_\theta- c_\theta) &
1099: \epsilon( 1 + 2\epsilon(c^2_\theta - s^2_\theta) + \epsilon^2) \\
1100: -\frac{1-\epsilon^4 }{1+\epsilon^2}\epsilon (s_\theta- c_\theta) &
1101: -\frac{1-\epsilon^4 }{1+\epsilon^2} &
1102: -\frac{1-\epsilon^4 }{1+\epsilon^2}\epsilon (s_\theta+ c_\theta) \\
1103: -\epsilon( 1 + 2\epsilon(s^2_\theta - c^2_\theta) + \epsilon^2) &
1104: \epsilon\frac{1-\epsilon^4 }{1+\epsilon^2} &
1105: \epsilon^2 - 1 + 4\epsilon^2 c_\theta s_\theta \\
1106: \end{array}
1107: \right)
1108: \end{equation}
1109: Neglecting odd powers of $\epsilon$, this can clearly be brought
1110: to diagonal form by setting $ c_\theta = s_\theta$,
1111: $\ie$ rotating by 45 degrees.
1112:
1113:
1114: \bibliography{all.bib}
1115: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
1116:
1117: \end{document}
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121:
1122:
1123:
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133:
1134:
1135:
1136:
1137:
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145:
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150:
1151:
1152:
1153:
1154:
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163:
1164:
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168:
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172: