1: \documentclass[twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \def\al{\alpha}

6: \def\be{\beta}

7: \def\ga{\gamma}

8: \def\de{\delta}

9: \def\ep{\epsilon}

10: \def\ve{\varepsilon}

11: \def\ze{\zeta}

12: \def\et{\eta}

13: \def\th{\theta}

14: \def\vt{\vartheta}

15: \def\io{\iota}

16: \def\ka{\kappa}

17: \def\la{\lambda}

18: \def\vpi{\varpi}

19: \def\rh{\rho}

20: \def\vr{\varrho}

21: \def\si{\sigma}

22: \def\vs{\varsigma}

23: \def\ta{\tau}

24: \def\up{\upsilon}

25: \def\ph{\phi}

26: \def\vp{\varphi}

27: \def\ch{\chi}

28: \def\ps{\psi}

29: \def\om{\omega}

30: \def\Ga{\Gamma}

31: \def\De{\Delta}

32: \def\Th{\Theta}

33: \def\La{\Lambda}

34: \def\Si{\Sigma}

35: \def\Up{\Upsilon}

36: \def\Ph{\Phi}

37: \def\Ps{\Psi}

38: \def\Om{\Omega}

39: \def\cA{{\cal A}}

40: \def\cB{{\cal B}}

41: \def\cC{{\cal C}}

42: \def\cE{{\cal E}}

43: \def\cl{{\cal L}}

44: \def\cL{{\cal L}}

45: \def\cO{{\cal O}}

46: \def\cP{{\cal P}}

47: \def\cR{{\cal R}}  

48: \def\cV{{\cal V}}

49: \def\mn{{\mu\nu}}

50: 

51: \def\fr#1#2{{{#1} \over {#2}}}

52: \def\half{{\textstyle{1\over 2}}}

53: \def\quar{{\textstyle{1\over 4}}}

54: %\def\frac#1#2{{\textstyle{{#1}\over {#2}}}}

55: 

56: \def\vev#1{\langle {#1}\rangle}

57: \def\bra#1{\langle{#1}|}

58: \def\ket#1{|{#1}\rangle}

59: \def\bracket#1#2{\langle{#1}|{#2}\rangle}

60: \def\expect#1{\langle{#1}\rangle}

61: \def\norm#1{\left\|{#1}\right\|}

62: \def\abs#1{\left|{#1}\right|}

63: 

64: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}

65:     \raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}}

66: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}

67:     \raise2pt\hbox{$>$}}}

68: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule height.#2pt

69:          \hbox{\vrule width.#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt

70:          \vrule width.#2pt}

71:          \hrule height.#2pt}}}}

72: \def\square{\mathchoice\sqr66\sqr66\sqr{2.1}3\sqr{1.5}3}

73: 

74: \def\prt{\partial}

75: \def\lrpartial{\raise 1pt\hbox{$\stackrel\leftrightarrow\partial$}}

76: \def\lrprt{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}}

77: \def\lrprtnu{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^\nu}}

78: \def\lrDmu{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D_\mu}}

79: \def\lrDnu{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D^\nu}}

80: \def\lrvec#1{ \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{#1} }

81: 

82: \def\Re{\hbox{Re}\,}

83: \def\Im{\hbox{Im}\,}

84: \def\Arg{\hbox{Arg}\,}

85: 

86: \def\hb{\hbar}

87: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}

88: 

89: \def\pt#1{\phantom{#1}}

90: \def\ni{\noindent}

91: \def\ol#1{\overline{#1}}

92: 

93: \def\a{$a_\mu$}

94: \def\b{$b_\mu$}

95: %\def\c{$c_{\mu\nu}$}

96: \def\d{$d_{\mu\nu}$}

97: \def\e{$e_\mu$}

98: \def\f{$f_\mu$}

99: \def\g{$g_{\la\mu\nu}$}

100: \def\H{$H_{\mu\nu}$}

101: \def\kaa{$(k_{A})_\mu$}

102: \def\kaf{$(k_{AF})_\mu$}

103: \def\kf{$(k_{F})_{\ka\la\mu\nu}$}

104: 

105: \def\ss{$s^{\mu\nu}$}

106: \def\tt{$t^{\ka\la\mu\nu}$}

107: \def\uu{$u$}

108: 

109: \def\aa{a_\mu}

110: \def\bb{b_\mu}

111: \def\cc{c_{\mu\nu}}

112: \def\dd{d_{\mu\nu}}

113: \def\ee{e_\mu}

114: \def\ff{f_\mu}

115: \def\ggg{g_{\la\mu\nu}}

116: \def\HH{H_{\mu\nu}}

117: \def\kkaa{(k_A)_\mu}

118: \def\kkaf{(k_{AF})_\mu}

119: \def\kkf{(k_{F})_{\ka\la\mu\nu}}

120: 

121: \def\sss{s^{\mu\nu}}

122: \def\ttt{t^{\ka\la\mu\nu}}

123: 

124: \def\beff{$(b_{\rm eff})_\mu$}

125: \def\ceff{$(c_{\rm eff})_{\mu\nu}$}

126: \def\keff{$(k_{F,{\rm eff}})_{\ka\la\mu\nu}$}

127: 

128: \def\hsy{h_{\mu\nu}}   

129: \def\chasy{ch_{\mu\nu}}   

130: 

131: 

132: \def\lrDmu{{\hskip -3 pt}\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D_\mu}{\hskip -2pt}}

133: 

134: \def\nsc#1#2#3{\om_{#1}^{{\pt{#1}}#2#3}}

135: \def\lsc#1#2#3{\om_{#1#2#3}}

136: \def\usc#1#2#3{\om^{#1#2#3}}

137: \def\lulsc#1#2#3{\om_{#1\pt{#2}#3}^{{\pt{#1}}#2}}

138: 

139: \def\tor#1#2#3{T^{#1}_{{\pt{#1}}#2#3}}

140: 

141: \def\vb#1#2{e_{#1}^{{\pt{#1}}#2}}

142: \def\ivb#1#2{e^{#1}_{{\pt{#1}}#2}}

143: \def\uvb#1#2{e^{#1#2}}

144: \def\lvb#1#2{e_{#1#2}}

145: 

146: 

147: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

148: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

149: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

150: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

151: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

152: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

153: \newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

154: 

155: \begin{document}

156: 

157: \title{The \v{C}erenkov effect in Lorentz-violating vacua}

158: 

159: \author{Ralf Lehnert}

160: %\email[Electronic mail: ]{rlehnert@ualg.pt}%

161: 

162: \author{Robertus Potting}%

163: %\email[Electronic mail: ]{rpotting@ualg.pt}%

164: 

165: \affiliation{CENTRA, Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, 

166: Universidade do Algarve, 

167: 8000-117 Faro, Portugal}

168: 

169: \date{August 25, 2004}

170: 

171: \begin{abstract}

172: The emission of electromagnetic radiation

173: by charges

174: moving uniformly in a Lorentz-violating vacuum

175: is studied.

176: The analysis is performed

177: within the classical Maxwell--Chern--Simons limit

178: of the Standard-Model Extension (SME)

179: and confirms the possibility of a \v{C}erenkov-type effect.

180: In this context,

181: various properties of \v{C}erenkov radiation

182: including the rate, polarization, and propagation features,

183: are discussed,

184: and the back-reaction on the charge

185: is investigated.

186: An interpretation

187: of this effect

188: supplementing the conventional one

189: is given.

190: The emerging physical picture

191: leads to a universal methodology

192: for studying the \v{C}erenkov effect

193: in more general situations.

194: \end{abstract}

195: 

196: \pacs{41.60.Bq, 11.30.Cp, 11.30.Er, 13.85.Tp}

197: 

198: \maketitle

199: 

200: 

201: 

202: \section{Introduction}

203: 

204: Recent years have witnessed 

205: substantial progress in quantum-gravity phenomenology: 

206: minute Lorentz and CPT violations 

207: have been identified 

208: as promising candidate signatures for Planck-scale physics \cite{cpt01}. 

209: At presently attainable energies, 

210: such signatures are described 

211: by an effective-field-theory framework 

212: called the Standard-Model Extension (SME) \cite{ck,grav,kl01}. 

213: The violation parameters in the SME 

214: can arise in various underlying contexts, 

215: such as strings \cite{kps}, 

216: spacetime-foam approaches \cite{lqg,kp03,klink}, 

217: noncommutative geometry \cite{ncft}, 

218: varying scalars \cite{vc,aclm}, 

219: random-dynamics models \cite{rd}, 

220: multiverses \cite{mv}, 

221: and brane-world scenarios \cite{bws}. 

222: The flat-spacetime limit of the SME 

223: has provided the basis for 

224: numerous analyses of Lorentz breaking 

225: including ones involving

226: mesons \cite{hadronexpt,kpo,hadronth,ak}, 

227: baryons \cite{ccexpt,spaceexpt,cane}, 

228: electrons \cite{eexpt,eexpt2,eexpt3}, 

229: photons \cite{cfj,photonexpt,photonth,cavexpt,km},

230: muons \cite{muons},

231: and the Higgs sector \cite{higgs};

232: neutrino-oscillation experiments 

233: offer the potential for discovery 

234: \cite{ck,neutrinos,nulong}. 

235: 

236: A Lorentz-violating vacuum 

237: acts in many respects 

238: like a nontrivial medium. 

239: For example, 

240: one expects the electrodynamics limit of the SME

241: to possess features 

242: similar to those of ordinary electrodynamics 

243: in macroscopic media \cite{ck}. 

244: Indeed, 

245: changes in the propagation of electromagnetic waves, 

246: such as modified group velocities and birefringence, 

247: have been predicted  

248: and used 

249: to place tight bounds on Lorentz violation \cite{cfj,km}.

250: Another conventional feature in macroscopic media, 

251: which is associated with fast charges, 

252: is the emission of \v{C}erenkov light 

253: \cite{cerh,cerexp,cerclass,cerquant}.

254: A similar mechanism, 

255: radiation of photons from charged particles

256: in certain Lorentz-breaking vacua, 

257: has been suggested in the literature \cite{vcr}. 

258: Because of the  close analogy 

259: to the conventional \v{C}erenkov case, 

260: this mechanism is sometimes called 

261: the ``vacuum \v{C}erenkov effect.''

262: This idea is widely employed

263: in cosmic-ray analyses

264: of Lorentz violation \cite{vcrtests}. 

265: The first complete theoretical discussion 

266: of the vacuum \v{C}erenkov effect---including 

267: a general methodology 

268: for extracting radiation rates 

269: in classical situations---has 

270: been performed in Ref.\ \cite{lp04}. 

271: This methodology has subsequently also been employed

272: in a non-electromagnetic context \cite{aclt04}.

273: 

274: The present work extends our previous analysis \cite{lp04}:

275: we give a more detailed derivation of the results  

276: and investigate additional important aspects 

277: of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation. 

278: More specifically, 

279: we provide an intuitive physical picture for the effect,

280: discuss the polarization and propagation properties 

281: of the emitted light, 

282: and study the back-reaction on the charge.  

283: Our analysis is performed 

284: within the classical Maxwell--Chern--Simons limit

285: of the SME's electrodynamics sector,  

286: but we expect our methodology and results

287: to be applicable in more general situations as well.

288: 

289: A more refined understanding 

290: of the \v{C}erenkov effect in conventional physics 

291: provides an additional motivation for our study. 

292: Recent observations at CERN 

293: involving high-energy lead ions \cite{cern} 

294: and experiments in exotic condensed-matter systems \cite{cms} 

295: have revived the interest in the subject \cite{certheo}. 

296: In particular, 

297: these experimental and theoretical investigations

298: have found evidence 

299: for unconventional kinematical radiation conditions, 

300: backward photon emission, 

301: and backward-pointing radiation cones

302: in such contexts. 

303: Since our methodology 

304: differs from the conventional one 

305: in several respects, 

306: it yields additional insight

307: into the ordinary \v{C}erenkov effect as well. 

308: For example, 

309: the presence of a fully relativistic Lagrangian, 

310: which incorporates dispersion, 

311: makes it feasible to work in the charge's rest frame 

312: simplifying the calculation.

313: In particular,

314: the exact emission rate for point particles

315: carrying an electromagnetic charge

316: and a magnetic moment

317: can be determined 

318: without the explicit field solutions. 

319: 

320: The outline of this paper is as follows.

321: Section \ref{basics} reviews some basics 

322: of the Maxwell--Chern--Simons model.

323: In Sec.\ \ref{concept}, 

324: we set up the problem 

325: in a model-independent way 

326: and extract the general condition 

327: for the emission of \v{C}erenkov light. 

328: The concrete calculation of the radiation rate 

329: in the Maxwell--Chern--Simons model

330: is performed in Sec.\ \ref{rate}.

331: Section \ref{back} discusses the back-reaction on the charge. 

332: In Sec.\ \ref{phase}, 

333: a complementary, 

334: purely kinematical approach for estimating radiation rates 

335: is presented. 

336: We comment briefly on experimental implications 

337: in Sec.\ \ref{exp}. 

338: The conclusions are contained in Sec.\ \ref{conc}. 

339: Appendix \ref{dr} provides supplementary material 

340: about the plane-wave dispersion relation. 

341: The wave polarizations are briefly discussed 

342: in Appendix \ref{pws}. 

343: In Appendix \ref{md}, 

344: we determine the radiation rate 

345: for a charged magnetic dipole.

346: 

347: 

348: 

349: \section{Basics}

350: \label{basics}

351: 

352: The renormalizable gauge-invariant photon sector of the SME 

353: contains a CPT-odd and a CPT-even operator 

354: parametrized by $(k_{AF})^{\mu}$ and $(k_F)^{\mu\nu\rh\si}$, respectively. 

355: Many components of these parameters 

356: are strongly constrained 

357: by astrophysical spectropolarimetry \cite{photonexpt}. 

358: However, 

359: further investigations remain to be of great interest both 

360: for a better understanding of massless Lorentz-violating fields 

361: and for the potential of complementary tighter bounds. 

362: In the present work, 

363: we consider the Chern--Simons-type $(k_{AF})^{\mu}$ modification.

364: The Maxwell--Chern--Simons model

365: resulting from such a modification 

366: has been studied extensively in the literature \cite{cfj,klink,mcsclass,mcsquant}.

367: The $(k_{AF})^{\mu}$ parameter has mass dimensions,

368: which leads to the more interesting case of nontrivial dispersion.

369: Note also 

370: that many characteristics of \v{C}erenkov radiation, 

371: such as rates and energy fluxes,

372: require at least one dimensionful model parameter. 

373: With only a dimensionless $(k_F)^{\mu\nu\rh\si}$,

374: the usual approach to the \v{C}erenkov effect 

375: involving an external nondynamical point source

376: might be problematic for obtaining a finite rate.

377: 

378: In natural units 

379: $c\hspace{-1pt} =\hspace{-1pt} \hbar\hspace{-1pt} =\hspace{-1pt} 1$,

380: the Maxwell--Chern--Simons Lagrangian

381: in the presence of external sources $j^{\mu}$

382: is

383: \beq

384: \cl_{\rm MCS} = 

385: -\fr{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}

386: +(k_{AF})_{\mu}A_{\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}

387: -A_{\mu}j^{\mu}, 

388: \label{lagr}

389: \eeq

390: where $F_{\mu\nu}=\prt_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\prt_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ 

391: denotes the conventional electromagnetic field-strength tensor 

392: and $\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}=\half\ve^{\mu\nu\rh\si}F_{\rh\si}$ its dual, 

393: as usual. 

394: Since we take $(k_{F})^{\mu\nu\rh\si}=0$, 

395: we can omit the subscript $AF$ 

396: of the Lorentz- and CPT-violating $(k_{AF})^{\mu}$ parameter 

397: and set $(k_{AF})^{\mu}\equiv k^{\mu}=(k^0,\vec{k})$. 

398: In this work, 

399: $k^{\mu}$ must \textit{not} be confused 

400: with the traditional notation of Fourier momenta.

401: A nondynamical fixed $k^{\mu}$ 

402: determines a special direction in spacetime. 

403: For example, 

404: certain features of plane waves propagating along $\vec{k}$ 

405: might differ from those of waves perpendicular to $\vec{k}$. 

406: Thus, particle Lorentz symmetry is violated \cite{ck,rl03}. 

407: However, 

408: note that the Lagrangian \rf{lagr} transforms as a scalar

409: under rotations and Lorentz boosts of the reference frame. 

410: This coordinate independence remains a fundamental principle 

411: regardless of particle Lorentz breaking. 

412: It guarantees 

413: that the physics is left unaffected 

414: by an observer's choice of coordinates 

415: and is therefore also called observer Lorentz symmetry \cite{ck,rl03}. 

416: This principle is essential for our discussion in Sec.\ \ref{concept}.

417: 

418: The Lagrangian \rf{lagr} yields the following

419: equations of motion for the potentials $A^{\mu}=(A^0,\vec{A})$: 

420: \beq

421: \left(\Box \et^{\mu\nu}-\prt^{\mu} \prt^{\nu}

422: -2\ve^{\mu\nu\rh\si}k_{\rh}\prt_{\si}\right)A_{\nu}

423: =j^{\mu} .

424: \label{oddeom}

425: \eeq

426: As in conventional electrodynamics, 

427: current conservation $\prt_{\mu}j^{\mu}=0$ 

428: emerges as a compatibility requirement. 

429: For completeness, 

430: we also give the modified Coulomb 

431: and Amp\`ere laws contained in Eq.\ \rf{oddeom}: 

432: \bea

433: \vec{\nabla}\!\cdot\!\vec{E}-2\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{B} & = & \rh ,\nonumber\\

434: -\dot{\hspace{-1pt}\vec{E}}+\vec{\nabla}\!\times\!\vec{B}

435: -2k_0\vec{B}+2\vec{k}\!\times\!\vec{E} & = & 

436: \hspace{1.5pt}\vec{\hspace{-1.5pt}\textit{\j}}\hspace{1pt} .

437: \label{oddmax}

438: \eea

439: The homogeneous Maxwell equations 

440: remain unchanged 

441: because the field--potential relationship is the usual one.

442: The potential $A^0$ is nondynamical, 

443: and gauge symmetry eliminates another component of $A^{\mu}$, 

444: so that Eq.\ \rf{oddeom} contains two independent degrees of freedom

445: paralleling the conventional Maxwell case. 

446: To fix a gauge,

447: any of the usual conditions on $A^{\mu}$, 

448: such as Lorentz or Coulomb gauge,  

449: can be imposed.

450: Note, however, 

451: that there are some differences 

452: between conventional electrodynamics and the present model 

453: regarding the equivalence of certain gauge choices.

454: A more detailed discussion 

455: of the degrees of freedom and the gauge-fixing process 

456: is contained in the second paper of Ref.\ \cite{ck}.

457: 

458: The tensor given by

459: \beq 

460: \Th^{\mu\nu}=-F^{\mu\al}F^{\nu}{}_{\!\al} 

461: +\fr{1}{4}\et^{\mu\nu}F^{\al\be}F_{\al\be} 

462: -k^{\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\al}A_{\al} 

463: \label{emtensor} 

464: \eeq

465: is associated with the energy and momentum 

466: stored in our modified electromagnetic fields. 

467: Here, 

468: $\et^{\mu\nu}$ denotes the usual metric with signature $-2$ 

469: in flat Minkowski space. 

470: Although the energy--momentum tensor is gauge dependent, 

471: it changes only by a 3-gradient 

472: under a gauge transformation

473: $A^{\mu}\rightarrow A^{\mu}+\prt^{\mu}\La$, 

474: so that the total 4-momentum obtained by a spatial integration 

475: remains unaffected. 

476: More generally, 

477: the action---and therefore the physics---is gauge invariant 

478: \cite{fn4}. 

479: As opposed to the conventional case, 

480: $\Th^{\mu\nu}$ cannot be symmetrized 

481: because its antisymmetric part 

482: is no longer a total derivative. 

483: It follows from the equations of motion \rf{oddeom} 

484: that the energy--momentum tensor \rf{emtensor} 

485: obeys 

486: \beq

487: \prt_{\mu}\Th^{\mu\nu}=j_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}. 

488: \label{emcurrent} 

489: \eeq

490: The presence of sources $j^{\mu}\neq 0$ implies

491: that $\Th^{\mu\nu}$ is not conserved,

492: as expected \cite{fn1}.

493: 

494: To find solutions of the equations of motion \rf{oddeom}

495: one can employ standard Fourier methods.

496: The modified Maxwell operator 

497: appearing in parentheses in Eq.\ \rf{oddeom}

498: is singular, 

499: as in the conventional case. 

500: This can be verified in Fourier space,

501: where the corresponding Minkowski matrix fails to be invertible. 

502: To circumvent this obstacle, 

503: we can proceed in Lorentz gauge, 

504: as usual.

505: Then,

506: Eq.\ \rf{oddeom} takes the form  

507: \beq

508: \left(-p^2 \et_{\nu\la}

509: +2i\ve_{\nu\la\rh\si}k^{\rh}p^{\si}\right)\hat{A\:\,}\!\!^{\la}

510: =\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}

511: \label{moddeom}

512: \eeq

513: in $p^{\mu}$ Fourier space.

514: Here, 

515: the caret denotes the four-dimensional Fourier transform, 

516: and the dependence of $\hat{A\:\,}\!\!_{\nu}$ and $\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}$

517: on the wave 4-vector $p^{\mu}=(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$ is understood.

518: Contraction of Eq.\ \rf{moddeom} 

519: with the tensor 

520: \beq

521: \hat{G}^{\mu\nu} \equiv -\fr{p^2 \et^{\mu\nu}

522: +2i\ve^{\mu\nu\rh\si}k_{\rh}p_{\si}

523: +4k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}{p^4+4p^2k^2-4(p\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\! k)^2}+4\hat{G}^{\mu\nu}_0 ,

524: \label{oddgreen}

525: \eeq

526: where

527: \beq

528: \hat{G}^{\mu\nu}_0 \equiv

529: \fr{(p\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!k)

530: (p^{\mu}k^{\nu}+k^{\mu}p^{\nu})

531: -k^2 p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{\big[p^4+4p^2k^2-4(p\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!k)^2\big]p^2},

532: \label{spurious}

533: \eeq

534: yields the Fourier-space solution

535: $\hat{A\:\,}\!\!^{\mu}=\hat{G}^{\mu\nu} \textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}$

536: of the equations of motion. 

537: This establishes that $\hat{G}^{\mu\nu}(p^{\mu})$

538: is a momentum-space Green function for Eq.\ \rf{moddeom}.

539: Transformation to position space

540: now gives the general solutions $A^{\mu}(x)$

541: of Eq.\ \rf{oddeom}:

542: \beq

543: A^{\mu}(x)=A^{\mu}_0(x)

544: +\int\limits_{C_\om}\fr{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\;\hat{G}^{\mu\nu}\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}

545: \exp (-ip\!\hspace{0.8pt} \cdot \! x),

546: \label{oddsln}

547: \eeq

548: where $x^{\mu}=(t,\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ 

549: denotes the spacetime-position vector 

550: and $A^{\mu}_0(x)$ satisfies Eq.\ \rf{oddeom} in the absence of sources.

551: As in the conventional case, 

552: the freedom in choosing $A^{\mu}_0(x)$ 

553: and the $\om$-integration contour $C_{\om}$

554: can be used to satisfy boundary conditions. 

555: 

556: The poles of the integrand in Eq.\ \rf{oddsln}

557: determine the plane-wave dispersion relation. 

558: With Def.\ \rf{oddgreen}, we obtain

559: \beq

560: p^4+4p^2k^2-4(p\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\! k)^2=0 .

561: \label{odddisp}

562: \eeq

563: This equation yields the wave frequency $\om$

564: for a given wave 3-vector $\vec{p}$.

565: It is known 

566: that this dispersion relation 

567: admits spacelike wave 4-vectors

568: for any nontrivial value of $k^{\mu}$ \cite{klink}. 

569: Such vectors

570: will turn out 

571: to be the driving entity 

572: for \v{C}erenkov radiation.

573: The roots of the dispersion relation \rf{odddisp} 

574: are discussed in Appendix \ref{dr}. 

575: Note that the $\hat{G}^{\mu\nu}_0$ term 

576: exhibits additional poles at $p^2=0$.

577: However,

578: this piece of the Green function

579: does not contribute to the physical fields: 

580: upon contraction of $\hat{G}^{\mu\nu}_0$ with $\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}$,

581: terms with $p\cdot\hspace{-0.8pt}\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}$ vanish due to current conservation.

582: The remaining term in Eq.\ \rf{spurious},

583: proportional to $p^{\mu}$, 

584: amounts to a total derivative 

585: and is therefore pure gauge. 

586: 

587: The contour plays a pivotal role in our study.

588: We choose the usual retarded boundary conditions, 

589: so that $C_{\om}$ passes above all poles on the real-$\om$ axis.

590: However, 

591: for timelike $k^{\mu}$

592: Eq.\ \rf{odddisp}

593: determines poles 

594: both in the lower and in the upper half plane.

595: Thus,

596: the Green function for timelike $k^{\mu}$ 

597: will in general be nonzero also in the acausal region $t<0$. 

598: This is consistent 

599: with earlier findings of microcausality violations 

600: in the presence of a timelike $k^{\mu}$ \cite{cfj,klink}. 

601: We remark 

602: that the Lorentz-violating modifications 

603: to the conventional Maxwell operator 

604: leave unchanged the structure of the highest-derivative terms

605: and are thus mild enough to maintain hyperbolicity. 

606: Therefore, 

607: the more general Fourier--Laplace method

608: can be employed to define a retarded Green function 

609: in the timelike-$k^{\mu}$ situation 

610: at the cost of introducing exponentially growing solutions. 

611: We disregard this possibility here 

612: and focus on the spacelike- and lightlike-$k^{\mu}$ cases. 

613: 

614: In the present context, 

615: it is convenient to implement the definition of the contour 

616: by shifting the poles at real $\om$ into the lower half plane.

617: To this end, 

618: we replace $\om\rightarrow\om+i\ve$ in the denominator

619: of the integrand in Eq.\ \rf{oddsln}. 

620: Here, 

621: $\ve$ is an infinitesimal positive parameter 

622: that is taken to approach zero after the integration. 

623: This prescription 

624: is reminiscent of the Fourier--Laplace approach,

625: where $\ve$ could in general also be finite. 

626: To ensure compatibility 

627: of the Fourier--Laplace transform

628: with the present Fourier methods 

629: in the limit $\ve\rightarrow +0$, 

630: the prescription $\om\rightarrow\om+i\ve$

631: must be implemented 

632: in each $p$ of the denominator.

633: 

634: 

635: 

636: \section{Conceptual considerations} 

637: \label{concept} 

638: 

639: Observer invariance of the Lagrangian \rf{lagr} implies

640: that the presence or absence of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation 

641: is independent of the coordinate system.

642: We can therefore proceed in a rest frame of the charge \cite{fn2}.

643: In such a frame, 

644: many conceptual issues become more transparent

645: and the calculations are simpler. 

646: For instance,

647: a condition for radiation is

648: that at least part of the energy--momentum flux

649: associated with the fields of the charge 

650: must escape to spatial infinity $|\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}|=r\to\infty$.

651: Thus, 

652: the modified energy--momentum tensor \rf{emtensor} 

653: must contain pieces 

654: that do not fall off faster than $r^{-2}$. 

655: Excluding a logarithmic behavior of the potentials, 

656: both $A^{\mu}$ and $F^{\mu\nu}$ 

657: should then exhibit

658: an asymptotic $r^{-1}$ dependence.

659: 

660: To some extent, 

661: this parallels the case 

662: of a local time-dependent 4-current distribution 

663: in conventional electrodynamics. 

664: For example, 

665: the fields of a rotating electric dipole 

666: behave like $r^{-1}\cos(\om t - |\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|r+\varphi)$

667: at large distances.

668: In this example,

669: $\om$ corresponds to the rotation frequency,

670: and $\varphi$ denotes a field-specific phase \cite{Jackson}.

671: Note 

672: that the fields oscillate both with time and with distance.

673: In the present case, 

674: however, 

675: we require the 4-current of a particle at rest 

676: to be stationary 

677: leading to time-independent fields. 

678: Radiation can then occur 

679: in the presence of terms oscillating 

680: with {\it distance only}. 

681: Such terms are absent in ordinary vacuum electrodynamics. 

682: In the present context, 

683: we must therefore investigate 

684: whether the Lorentz-violating modification of the fields 

685: associated with a particle at rest 

686: can exhibit such an oscillatory behavior. 

687: 

688: As a consequence of the presumed time independence 

689: in the particle's rest frame, 

690: the four-dimensional $p^{\mu}$ Fourier transform of the 4-current

691: is $\textit{\^{\j}}\hspace{1pt}^{\mu}(p^{\mu})=2\pi\de(\om)\textit{\~{\j}}\hspace{1pt}^{\mu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$,

692: where the tilde denotes the three-dimensional $\vec{p}$ Fourier transform.

693: Then, 

694: the charge's fields 

695: are generally determined 

696: by the inverse Fourier transform 

697: of an expression 

698: containing $1/D(0,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$, 

699: where $D(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})=0$

700: is the plane-wave dispersion relation. 

701: For example, 

702: in the present Maxwell--Chern--Simons model

703: Eq.\ \rf{oddsln} leads (up to homogeneous solutions) 

704: to the fields  

705: \beq

706: A^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}) = 

707: \int \fr{d^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}\;

708: \fr{N^{\mu\nu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})\textit{\~{\j}}\hspace{.5pt}_{\nu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})

709: \exp(i\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})}

710: {\vec{p}^{\,4}-4\vec{p}^{\,2}k^2-4(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k}-i\ve k_0)^2},

711: \label{Asoln}

712: \eeq

713: where we have set 

714: $N^{\mu\nu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})\equiv\vec{p}^{\,2}\et^{\mu\nu}

715: -2i\ve^{\mu\nu\rh s}k_{\rh}p_{s}

716: -4k^{\mu}k^{\nu}$ 

717: for brevity. 

718: Latin indices run from 1 to 3. 

719: Note 

720: that the previous prescription for the $\om$ integral

721: automatically defines the integral \rf{Asoln}

722: in the case of singularities.

723: 

724: Regardless of the presence of poles at real $\vec{p}$,

725: integrands containing 

726: $\exp(i\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})/D(0,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

727: suggest evaluation of the $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$ integral

728: with complex-analysis methods. 

729: The $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$ integration then gives 

730: certain residues of the integrand 

731: in the complex $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$ plane,

732: which typically contain the factor

733: $\exp (i\vec{p}_0\!\cdot\!\hspace{0.8pt}\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ 

734: in the dispersive case. 

735: Here, 

736: $\vec{p}_0$ denotes the location of a pole, 

737: e.g., 

738: $D(0,\vec{p}_0)=0$.

739: Note that for $\Re(\vec{p}_0)\neq \vec{0}$

740: the residues oscillate with distance, 

741: whereas $\Im(\vec{p}_0)\neq \vec{0}$ 

742: implies residues that exponentially decay 

743: with increasing $r$. 

744: The fields then typically display 

745: a qualitatively similar behavior 

746: because the remaining angular integrations

747: correspond merely to averaging the residues

748: over all directions. 

749: It follows 

750: that there can be emission of light 

751: for $\Re(\vec{p}_0)\neq \vec{0}$ 

752: and $\Im(\vec{p}_0)=\vec{0}$. 

753: In other words, 

754: we can expect vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation only

755: when there are real $p^{\mu}=(0,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

756: satisfying the plane-wave dispersion relation 

757: in the charge's rest frame.

758: 

759: This general result suggests

760: that the radiated energy is zero 

761: in the rest frame of the particle.

762: We will explicitly verify this

763: in the next section.

764: The above radiation condition requires 

765: the presence of spacelike wave 4-vectors $p^2<0$.

766: Note that such wave vectors

767: can be associated with negative frequencies

768: in certain frames.

769: However, 

770: this does not necessarily lead to positivity violations and instabilities

771: because the model could be the low-energy limit 

772: of an underlying positive-definite theory \cite{vc}. 

773: 

774: We continue by verifying 

775: that the requirement of spacelike wave 4-vectors $p^{\mu}=(0,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

776: in the charge's rest frame $\Si$

777: is consistent with the usual phase-speed condition

778: in the laboratory frame $\Si'$. 

779: In the conventional case,

780: \v{C}erenkov radiation can occur 

781: when the charge's speed 

782: equals or exceeds the phase speed 

783: $c\hspace{0.8pt}'_{ph}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\hspace{-0.8pt})

784: =|\om'\hspace{-1.5pt}|/|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\hspace{-1.5pt}|$

785: of light in the medium 

786: for some $\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\!$.

787: This clearly requires $c\hspace{0.8pt}'_{ph}

788: (\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\hspace{-0.8pt})<1$

789: implying $p^2\!\,=p'\!\!\cdot\! p'\!

790: =\om'^2-\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'^2<0$,

791: where we have used coordinate independence.

792: This first step establishes the need 

793: for spacelike wave vectors

794: for conventional \v{C}erenkov radiation.

795: Next,

796: we include the condition on the charge's speed

797: into our discussion.

798: The above vacuum \v{C}erenkov condition

799: also requires the specific form $p^{\mu}=(0,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

800: of the spacelike wave vectors in $\Si$.

801: If the charge moves with velocity $\vec{\be}'\!$ in $\Si'\!$,

802: the laboratory-frame components of such a wave 4-vector

803: are 

804: $(\vec{\be}'\!\!\cdot\!\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\!\!,

805: \vec{p}\hspace{1pt}')$,

806: where $\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\!=\vec{p}

807: +(\ga-1)(\vec{p}\hspace{-0.0pt}\cdot\hspace{-0.5pt}\vec{\be}'\hspace{-0.5pt})

808: \,\vec{\be}'\!/\vec{\be}'^2$

809: is the wave 3-vector in $\Si'\!$

810: and $\ga$ the relativistic gamma factor 

811: corresponding to $|\vec{\be}'\hspace{-1.2pt}|$.

812: This yields

813: the conventional condition

814: $c\hspace{0.8pt}'_{ph}

815: =|\vec{\be}'\!\!\cdot\!\hspace{0.8pt}\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\hspace{-1.2pt}|

816: /|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}'\hspace{-1.2pt}|

817: \le|\vec{\be}'\hspace{-1.2pt}|$.

818: 

819: The physics of \v{C}erenkov radiation 

820: can now be understood intuitively

821: as follows. 

822: In nontrivial vacua 

823: (e.g., fundamental Lorentz violation 

824: or conventional macroscopic media) 

825: the plane-wave dispersion relation

826: can admit real spacelike wave 4-vectors as solutions.

827: As opposed to the Lorentz-symmetric case,

828: the fields of a charge at rest 

829: can then contain time-independent spatially oscillating exponentials 

830: in its Fourier decomposition. 

831: Such waves can carry 4-momentum

832: to spatial infinity 

833: implying the possibility of net radiation. 

834: This conceptual picture also carries over to quantum theory,

835: where the field of a charge 

836: can be pictured 

837: as a cloud of photons of all momenta. 

838: In conventional QED, 

839: these photons are {\it virtual}. 

840: In the present context, 

841: however, 

842: {\it real} photons contribute as well. 

843: Consider, 

844: for example, 

845: the one-loop self-energy diagram for a massive fermion. 

846: One can verify 

847: that for photons with spacelike $p^{\mu}$ 

848: there are now loop momenta 

849: at which both 

850: the photon and fermion propagator are on-shell. 

851: Thus, 

852: the photon cloud of the fermion 

853: can contain real (spacelike) photons. 

854: Moreover, 

855: the diagram can be cut at the two internal lines, 

856: so that photon emission need not be followed by reabsorption 

857: and the photon can escape. 

858: 

859: The comparison with the wave pattern 

860: of a boat in calm water

861: might yield further intuition

862: (despite differences in the physics involved).

863: The boat represents the charge  

864: and surface waves on the water the electromagnetic field.

865: If the boat rests relative to the water,

866: waves are absent. 

867: A moving boat causes

868: wave patterns emanating from its bow.

869: An observer on shore 

870: sees a moving v-shaped wavefront 

871: with an  opening angle depending on the boat's speed. 

872: After the wavefront has passed,

873: the water level on shore oscillates with decaying amplitude.

874: A passenger on the boat sees

875: a static wave pattern: 

876: assuming no turbulence, 

877: the water surface behind the leading wave front

878: appears undulated in a time-independent way. 

879: In our case,

880: a similar wave pattern forms in the particle's rest frame.

881: For example, 

882: consider a point charge $\textit{\~{\j}}\hspace{1pt}^{\mu}=q(1,0)$. 

883: Equation \rf{Asoln} implies 

884: $(2\pi)^3A^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}) 

885: = qN^{\mu 0}(-i\vec{\nabla})I(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$,

886: where $I(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})\equiv

887: \int d^3\vec{p}\;\exp(i\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})\;

888: \big[\vec{p}^{\,4}-4\vec{p}^{\,2}k^2

889: -4(i\ve k_0-\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2\big]^{-1}$

890: determines the shape of the fields. 

891: The general behavior of $I(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ follows from Fig.\ \ref{fig1}

892: and is similar to that of the water waves discussed above.

893: Note the absence of a shock-wave singularity, 

894: as expected for nontrivial dispersion. 

895: 

896: \begin{figure}

897: \begin{center}

898: \includegraphics[width=0.8\hsize]{scer}

899: \end{center}

900: \caption{General field pattern of a point charge resting at the origin.

901: The function 

902: $|\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}|I_{\rm osc}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ is shown

903: for $\vec{r}$ in the $xz$ plane 

904: with $\vec{k}$ along the $z$ direction. 

905: This function was evaluated

906: by an analytical  $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$-type integration followed 

907: by numerical angular integrations. 

908: Uninteresting nonoscillatory pieces 

909: $I_{\rm non}$ have been subtracted for clarity, 

910: so that only the oscillatory part $I_{\rm osc}\equiv I-I_{\rm non}$ 

911: contributes to this plot. 

912: The wave pattern is resemblant 

913: to that caused by a boat moving in water. 

914: } 

915: \label{fig1} 

916: \end{figure} 

917: 

918: We finally remark 

919: that single-photon emission 

920: from a massive charged particle 

921: with conventional dispersion relation $p^2=m^2$ 

922: requires spacelike photon 4-momenta: 

923: the initial and final 4-momenta of the charge 

924: each determine a point on the mass-shell hyperboloid, 

925: and the photon momentum must connect these two points. 

926: The geometry of the hyperboloid 

927: is such that any tangent, 

928: and therefore any two points, 

929: determine a spacelike direction. 

930: Note 

931: that this is also consistent 

932: with the above loop-momentum considerations.

933: 

934: 

935: \section{Radiation rate}

936: \label{rate} 

937: 

938: The rate of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation 

939: can in principle be determined 

940: with the usual philosophy:

941: extraction of the $r^{-2}$ piece 

942: of the modified Poynting vector 

943: and integration over a spherical surface. 

944: However, 

945: the integral \rf{Asoln} 

946: seems to evade a systematic analytical study

947: (except in special cases),

948: so that the determination of the asymptotic fields 

949: is challenging. 

950: We have therefore employed a method 

951: for finding the total rate of radiation

952: that does not require

953: explicitly the far fields.

954: 

955: Integration of Eq.\ \rf{emcurrent} 

956: over an arbitrary volume $V$ 

957: and the divergence theorem imply 

958: \beq 

959: \int\limits_{\si} d\si^{l} \, \Th_{l\nu}

960: = \int\limits_{V}d^3\vec{r} \; j^{\mu}F_{\mu\nu}

961: - \fr{\prt}{\prt t} \int\limits_{V}d^3\vec{r} \; \Th_{0\nu}\; ,

962: \label{encons} 

963: \eeq 

964: where $\si$ is the boundary of $V$,

965: and $d\si^{l}$ denotes the associated surface element 

966: with outward orientation. 

967: Thus, 

968: the energy--momentum flux 

969: $\dot{P}_\nu=\int_{\si} d\si^{l} \, \Th_{l\nu}$

970: through the surface $\si$ 

971: originates from the 4-momentum 

972: generated by the source in the enclosed volume $V$ 

973: and the decrease of the field's 

974: 4-momentum in $V$, as usual.

975: 

976: We are interested in 4-currents 

977: describing particles. 

978: In this case, 

979: we write $j^{\mu}(x)=J^{\mu}(x)$, 

980: where $J^{\mu}=(J^0,\vec{J}\,)$

981: satisfies two general conditions 

982: in the particle's rest frame. 

983: First, 

984: the physical situation should be stationary 

985: implying the time independence both of

986: the 4-current and of the fields,

987: which eliminates the last term in Eq.\ \rf{encons}.

988: Moreover, 

989: current conservation simplifies to $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J}=0$,

990: so that the most general form of $J^{\mu}(x)$ is given by 

991: \beq 

992: J^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})=\big( \rh(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}),

993: \vec{\nabla}\!\times\!\vec{f}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})\big),

994: \label{currentansatz} 

995: \eeq

996: where $\rh(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ is  the charge density

997: and $\vec{f}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ is an arbitrary vector field.

998: For example,

999: the choices $\rh(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})=q\,\de(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$

1000: and $\vec{f}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})=\vec{\mu}\:\de(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$

1001: describe a point charge $q$ with magnetic moment $\vec{\mu}$

1002: situated at the origin.

1003: Second,

1004: a particle is associated

1005: with the concept of confinement to a small spacetime region,

1006: so that we require $J^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ to be localized

1007: within a finite volume $V_0$.

1008: Outside $V_0$, the 4-current is assumed to vanish rapidly.

1009: Then, 

1010: $\vec{f}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$

1011: can be taken as localized also. 

1012: However, 

1013: other choices for $\vec{f}$ 

1014: are possible 

1015: because adding gradients to $\vec{f}$

1016: leaves $J^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ unaffected.

1017: 

1018: The zeroth component of Eq.\ \rf{encons}

1019: describes the radiated energy $P^0$.

1020: With our above considerations for $J^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$,

1021: the Maxwell equation $\vec{\nabla}\!\times\!\vec{E}=0$,

1022: and the divergence theorem,

1023: this component of Eq.\ \rf{encons} becomes

1024: \beq

1025: \int\limits_{\si} d\vec{\si}\cdot\vec{S}

1026: = -\int\limits_{\si} d\vec{\si}\cdot(\vec{f}\!\times\!\vec{E})\; ,

1027: \label{poy}

1028: \eeq

1029: where we have defined the modified Poynting vector

1030: $\Th_{l0}=S_{l}=-S^{l}$.

1031: Since $\vec{f}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$ is localized,

1032: the right-hand side of Eq.\ \rf{poy} vanishes

1033: for $V$ large enough,

1034: so that energy cannot escape to infinity.

1035: It follows

1036: that the net radiated energy is always zero

1037: in the rest frame of the (prescribed external) charge.

1038: This is unsurprising

1039: because time-translation invariance

1040: is maintained in the rest frame.

1041: The spatial localization of the system

1042: then implies energy conservation.

1043: The $P^0$ flux through any closed surface

1044: must therefore vanish.

1045: As an important consequence of this result,

1046: any nonzero 4-momentum

1047: radiated by a prescribed external charge in uniform motion

1048: is necessarily spacelike.

1049: 

1050: Next, we investigate the rate $\dot{P}_s=\int_{\si}d\si^{l}\Th_{ls}$

1051: at which 3-momentum is radiated.

1052: The spatial components of Eq.\ \rf{encons}

1053: can be written as

1054: \beq

1055: \:\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=\int\limits_{V}d^3\vec{r} \;J^{\mu}\vec{\nabla} A_{\mu}\; .

1056: \label{3mom}

1057: \eeq

1058: Here, the necessary manipulations

1059: of the term containing $J^{\mu}$

1060: involve the divergence theorem

1061: and ignoring the resulting surface integral,

1062: which is justified

1063: by the presumed spatial localization.

1064: We continue

1065: by employing

1066: the general solution \rf{Asoln} for $A^{\mu}$

1067: and expressing $J^{\mu}$

1068: in terms of its Fourier expansion 

1069: in the variable $\vec{p}$.

1070: In the limit $V\rightarrow\infty$,

1071: the spatial integration yields

1072: momentum-space delta functions,

1073: and one obtains

1074: \beq

1075: {}\;\;\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=i\int\limits\fr{d^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}

1076: \;\fr{\tilde{J}^{\mu}(-\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})N_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})\tilde{J}^{\nu}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})}

1077: {\vec{p}^{\,4}-4\vec{p}^{\,2}k^2-4(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k}-i\ve k_0)^2}\;\vec{p}\; ,

1078: \label{restrate}

1079: \eeq

1080: as expected from Parseval's identity.

1081: Inspection shows

1082: that the integrand is odd in $\vec{p}$.

1083: Under the additional condition

1084: that the integrand remains nonsingular for all $\vec{p}$,

1085: the radiation rate vanishes.

1086: This condition is determined

1087: by the denominator of the integrand in Eq.\ \rf{restrate},

1088: which corresponds to the $\om=0$ case

1089: of the dispersion relation \rf{odddisp}.

1090: In a situation involving only timelike wave 4-vectors,

1091: which possess nonzero frequencies in any frame,

1092: regularity of the integrand is ensured

1093: precluding vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

1094: However,

1095: the presence of spacelike wave vectors in our model

1096: typically leads to singularities in the integrand in Eq.\ \rf{restrate}.

1097: Then,

1098: the $i\ve$ prescription

1099: plays a determining role for the value of the integral \rf{restrate}.

1100: 

1101: A sample charge distribution

1102: yields further insight. 

1103: The general case of a charged magnetic dipole 

1104: is treated in Appendix \ref{md}. 

1105: Here, 

1106: we focus 

1107: on the simpler example of $\vec{J}=\vec{0}$. 

1108: A position-space delta-function source for $\rh$ 

1109: leads to an undesirable asymptotic behavior

1110: of the integrand in Eq.\ \rf{restrate}.

1111: This suggests

1112: to consider a spherical charge $q$

1113: of finite size.

1114: We find the explicit form

1115: \beq

1116: \rh(r)=\fr{q }{4\pi\la^2 r}\exp(-r/\sqrt{2}\la)\sin(r/\sqrt{2}\la)

1117: \label{rho}

1118: \eeq

1119: to be mathematically tractable.

1120: The parameter $\la$ determines the size of the charge.

1121: For a quantum-mechanical particle of mass $m$,

1122: $\la$ might be associated with its Compton wavelength $\la\sim m^{-1}$.

1123: A point particle with delta-function charge distribution

1124: can be recovered in the limit $\la\rightarrow 0$.

1125: The Fourier transform

1126: of $\rh(r)$

1127: is given by $\tilde{\rh}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})=q/(\vec{p}^{\, 4}\la^4+1)$.

1128: 

1129: We perform the integral \rf{restrate}

1130: in spherical-type coordinates

1131: with $\vec{p}=l\;(\sin\th\cos\ph,\sin\th\sin\ph,\cos\th)$.

1132: It is convenient to choose

1133: the polar axis along $\vec{k}$

1134: and to select the integration domain

1135: $l\in [-\infty,\infty]$,

1136: $\th\in[0,\pi/2]$,

1137: and $\ph\in[0,2\pi]$.

1138: The $\ph$ integration is trivial.

1139: The $l$ integral can be evaluated

1140: with the residue theorem.

1141: Closing the contour above or below

1142: yields the same result.

1143: Note

1144: that the two dispersion-relation poles

1145: are shifted in the {\it same} imaginary direction:

1146: depending on the sign of $k_0$,

1147: both poles are either below or above the real-$l$ axis.

1148: The final integration over $\th$

1149: yields the following result:

1150: \beq

1151: \:\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=-

1152: \fr{{\rm sgn}(k_0)}{16\pi}\;\fr{q^2}{\la^2}\,

1153: {\rm tan}^{-1}(4k_0^2\la^2)\;

1154: \fr{k_0^2}{\vec{k}^{\,2}}\;\vec{e}_k\; ,

1155: \label{samplerate}

1156: \eeq

1157: where $\vec{e}_k$ denotes the unit vector in $\vec{k}$ direction.

1158: One can now take the limit $\la\rightarrow 0$

1159: to obtain the radiation rate for a point charge:

1160: \beq

1161: \:\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=-{\rm sgn}(k_0)\;

1162: \fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;

1163: \fr{k_0^4}{\vec{k}^{\,2}}\;\vec{e}_k\; .

1164: \label{pcrate}

1165: \eeq

1166: Note

1167: that nonzero rates are possible

1168: despite the antisymmetric integrand in Eq.\ \rf{restrate}.

1169: From a mathematical viewpoint,

1170: this essentially arises

1171: because the physical regularization prescription

1172: (i.e., the contour)

1173: fails to respect this antisymmetry.

1174: The presence of a nonzero flux

1175: in the above static case

1176: may seem counter-intuitive.

1177: However, similar situations in conventional physics

1178: can readily be identified.

1179: For example,

1180: a time-independent situation

1181: with constant non-parallel $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{B}$ fields

1182: is associated

1183: with the nonvanishing Poynting flux $\vec{S}=\vec{E}\!\times\!\vec{B}$.

1184: 

1185: In the present context,

1186: the absence of the vacuum \v{C}erenkov effect

1187: requires $k_0=0$ in the rest frame.

1188: It follows in particular

1189: that for lightlike $k^{\mu}$,

1190: a point charge never ceases to emit radiation.

1191: This is to be contrasted

1192: with the conventional case,

1193: which typically involves refractive indices

1194: that imply a minimal speed of the charge

1195: for the emission of radiation.

1196: The point is

1197: that vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation

1198: need not necessarily be a threshold effect.

1199: 

1200: For many applications,

1201: it is more convenient

1202: to express the radiation rate \rf{pcrate}

1203: in the laboratory frame.

1204: Although the required coordinate change is straightforward,

1205: the resulting expressions

1206: are not particularly transparent

1207: in the general situation.

1208: We therefore focus on

1209: the spacelike-$k^{\mu}$ case

1210: and consider

1211: an inertial frame

1212: in which $k_0'=0$ and $\vec{k}'\neq\vec{0}$

1213: (such a frame always exists).

1214: In what follows,

1215: we can suppress the primes for brevity

1216: because a confusion with the rest-frame components

1217: is excluded.

1218: For finite $\la$, we obtain

1219: \beq

1220: \dot{P}^{\mu}=

1221: \fr{q^2}{16\pi}\;

1222: \fr{\ga(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2\la^{-2}}

1223: {\vec{k}^{\,2}+\ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2}\;

1224: {\rm tan}^{-1}\!\big[ 4\la^2\ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}

1225: \cdot\!\vec{k})^2\big]

1226: \!K^{\mu} ,

1227: \label{labsamplerate}

1228: \eeq

1229: and the point-charge limit gives

1230: \beq

1231: \dot{P}^{\mu}=

1232: \fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;

1233: \fr{\ga^3(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^4}

1234: {\vec{k}^{\,2}+\ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2}\;

1235: K^{\mu} .

1236: \label{labpcrate}

1237: \eeq

1238: Here, $\vec{\be}$ is the 3-velocity of the charge

1239: in the laboratory

1240: and $\ga$ is the corresponding relativistic gamma factor.

1241: The overdot now denotes laboratory-time differentiation.

1242: The 4-direction

1243: \beq

1244: K^{\mu}\equiv\fr{{\rm sgn}(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})}

1245: {\sqrt{\vec{k}^{\,2}+\ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2}}\;

1246: { \ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k}) \choose

1247: \;\vec{k}+\ga^2(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})\vec{\be}\; }

1248: \label{dir}

1249: \eeq

1250: arises from transforming

1251: ${\rm sgn}(k_0)\vec{e}_k$.

1252: Vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation is absent

1253: for particle 3-velocities perpendicular to $\vec{k}$.

1254: In all other cases,

1255: both the radiated energy

1256: and the projection of the radiated 3-momentum onto the velocity

1257: are positive,

1258: which decelerates conventional charges

1259: in the chosen laboratory frame.

1260: 

1261: To determine the polarization of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation,

1262: we refer to the discussion of the plane-wave solutions in Appendix \ref{pws}.

1263: In the particle's rest frame,

1264: where the frequency of the emitted waves vanishes,

1265: Eq.\ \rf{EBfields} implies

1266: that the radiated electric field

1267: is purely longitudinal.

1268: In particular,

1269: plane waves emitted along $\vec{k}$

1270: are free of $\vec{E}$ fields,

1271: i.e., they are purely magnetic.

1272: Note

1273: that the energy--momentum tensor \rf{emtensor}

1274: in this case

1275: remains nonzero,

1276: so that such waves are also associated

1277: with a nontrivial momentum flux.

1278: 

1279: In our laboratory frame,

1280: where $k^0=0$,

1281: the emitted radiation

1282: is typically left or right polarized,

1283: which can be established as follows.

1284: Consider an emitted wave with a wave vector $\vec{p}$

1285: and select coordinates as in Appendix \ref{pws}.

1286: Equation \rf{EBfields} then yields

1287: \beq

1288: E_y=\fr{p^{\mu}p_{\mu}|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|}

1289: {2(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})

1290: (\vec{\be}\!\cdot\!\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})}iE_x,

1291: \label{pol}

1292: \eeq

1293: where we have used

1294: our result from the previous section

1295: that the 4-vector of a radiated wave

1296: is of the form $p^{\mu}=(\vec{\be}\!\hspace{0.5pt}\cdot\!\vec{p},\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$.

1297: The direction dependence of the polarization

1298: implied by Eq.\ \rf{pol}

1299: is depicted in Fig.\ \ref{ball}.

1300: We remark

1301: that conventional \v{C}erenkov radiation in isotropic media

1302: is linearly polarized in

1303: the plane spanned by $\vec{\be}$ and $\vec{p}$ \cite{ll}.

1304: 

1305: \begin{figure}

1306: \begin{center}

1307: \includegraphics[width=0.8\hsize]{sball}

1308: \end{center}

1309: \caption{Dependence of the polarization on direction.

1310: For vectors $\vec{p}$

1311: pointing in the clear (shaded) direction,

1312: the associated waves are right (left) polarized.

1313: The radiation exhibits linear polarization only

1314: when $\vec{p}$ lies on one of the dashed lines.

1315: Vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation may not be emitted

1316: into all directions.

1317: The wave 4-vector $p^{\mu}=(\vec{\be}\!\cdot\!\vec{p},\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

1318: is further constrained by the dispersion relation \rf{odddisp}.}

1319: \label{ball}

1320: \end{figure}

1321: 

1322: The conventional nondispersive \v{C}erenkov case

1323: is associated

1324: with a conical shock wave of opening angle

1325: $\al=\cos^{-1}(c_{ph}/|\vec{\be}|)$.

1326: The present model,

1327: however,

1328: is analogous to a dispersive situation,

1329: where no shock-wave singularity is expected \cite{cerclass,certheo}.

1330: This is supported by the plot in Fig.\ \ref{fig1}.

1331: The concept of a sharply defined \v{C}erenkov cone

1332: is therefore less useful in the present context.

1333: 

1334: The more interesting question

1335: regarding the magnitude of the wave 3-vector

1336: in a given radiation direction

1337: can be answered as follows.

1338: In general,

1339: the wave vector must satisfy both

1340: the dispersion relation and the \v{C}erenkov condition.

1341: In the laboratory frame,

1342: for example,

1343: the wave 4-vector needs to be of the form

1344: $(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\be},\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

1345: according to the discussion in the previous section.

1346: This yields the constraint equation

1347: \beq

1348: (\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})^2=\vec{p}^{\,2}+2\vec{k}^{\,2}

1349: -2\sqrt{(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2+\vec{k}^{\,4}}

1350: \label{cercone}

1351: \eeq

1352: for a wave 3-vector $\vec{p}$.

1353: Here,

1354: we have again chosen a spacelike $k^{\mu}$

1355: and selected a laboratory frame

1356: with $k^{\mu}=(0,\vec{k})$.

1357: We have further employed the dispersion-relation solution \rf{spacesol},

1358: where the sign choice is restricted

1359: by the \v{C}erenkov condition of spacelike $p^{\mu}$.

1360: For a fixed $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$,

1361: Eq.\ \rf{cercone} determines a

1362: (distorted)

1363: cone of possible emission directions.

1364: Explicitly, denoting the angle between $\vec\beta$ and $\vec p$ by

1365: $\alpha$ and the angle between $\vec p$ and $\vec k$ by $\theta$,

1366: it follows that

1367: \beq

1368: {\vec{\be}^2\cos^2\alpha-\sin^2\theta\over(\vec{\beta}^2\cos^2\alpha-1)^2}

1369: ={|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|^2\over 4|\vec{k}\hspace{1pt}|^2}.

1370: \label{cercone2}

1371: \eeq

1372: Note that in

1373: Eq.\ \rf{cercone2}

1374: cylindrical symmetry

1375: about the charge's velocity $\vec{\be}$ is generally lost,

1376: a direct consequence

1377: of rotation breaking due to a nonzero $\vec{k}$.

1378: It is interesting to consider the case 

1379: in which $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|\gg|\vec{k}\hspace{1pt}|$.

1380: Then, Eq.\ \rf{cercone2} gives

1381: \beq

1382: \gamma^{-2}+\sin ^2\alpha

1383: \simeq{2|\vec{\be}\!\cdot\!\vec{k}|\over|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|}

1384: \equiv\Lambda^2\ll 1.

1385: \eeq

1386: We conclude that $\gamma>\Lambda^{-1}$,  

1387: which amounts to a minimum speed of the charge

1388: for a given (large) emitted wave 3-vector, 

1389: consistent with the radiation condition in Sec.\ \ref{concept}. 

1390: Note also 

1391: that $\alpha<\Lambda$, 

1392: so that such radiation 

1393: has wave 3-vectors 

1394: within a small cone around $\vec\beta$. 

1395: 

1396: In a Lorentz-violating situation as well as in conventional dispersive media,

1397: the group velocity and the wave vector

1398: need not be aligned.

1399: It follows

1400: that for a fixed $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$

1401: the cone determined by Eq.\ \rf{cercone}

1402: does not necessarily coincide with the cone

1403: defined by the motion of the corresponding wave packets.

1404: At a given $|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|$,

1405: this

1406: would lead us

1407: to associate the group-velocity cone

1408: rather than the phase-speed cone

1409: with the actual motion of the corresponding emitted disturbance.

1410: However,

1411: such an interpretation would be misleading.

1412: The group velocity

1413: $\vec{v}_g(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})=\vec{\nabla}_{\!\vec{p}}\, \om$

1414: describes the motion of a wave packet centered at $\vec{p}$ only

1415: when {\it all} momenta $\vec{p}+d\vec{p}$

1416: in the vicinity of $\vec{p}$

1417: contribute to the wave packet.

1418: This is not the case

1419: in the present \v{C}erenkov situation

1420: due to the constraint \rf{cercone}.

1421: In the present case,

1422: the determination of the physical velocity

1423: associated with a disturbance

1424: must only involve momenta $\vec{p}$

1425: that satisfy Eq.\ \rf{cercone}.

1426: This corresponds to the projection of $\vec{v}_g(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})$

1427: onto the appropriate tangent plane

1428: of the 2-dimensional $\vec{p}\,$-space surface

1429: defined by Eq.\ \rf{cercone}.

1430: This becomes particularly clear

1431: in the charge's rest frame.

1432: Since only waves with $\om=0$ are emitted,

1433: differentiation of $\om$ with respect to a radiated $\vec{p}$

1434: must yield zero.

1435: This is consistent with the time independence of the situation:

1436: any wave pattern must be stationary in the rest frame.

1437: 

1438: 

1439: 

1440: 

1441: \section{Back-reaction on the charge}

1442: \label{back}

1443: 

1444: Until now,

1445: the radiating charge $q$ has been considered

1446: as an external prescribed source.

1447: However,

1448: in realistic situations

1449: total energy and momentum are conserved,

1450: so that the radiated 4-momentum

1451: must be supplied by the charged particle,

1452: which will then typically undergo accelerated motion.

1453: This,

1454: in turn,

1455: leads to additional power loss

1456: through the conventional mechanism

1457: described by Larmor's formula \cite{Jackson}.

1458: A more refined analysis

1459: must therefore

1460: include aspects of the particle's dynamics.

1461: Such an analysis

1462: is the topic of the present section.

1463: We simplify the situation

1464: by neglecting acceleration effects,

1465: so that the force acting on the charge

1466: is solely determined

1467: by the back-reaction of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

1468: 

1469: To avoid confusion with the wave vector $p^{\mu}$,

1470: we denote the charge's 4-momentum by $Q^{\mu}=(Q^0,\vec{Q})$.

1471: The mass and the 4-velocity of the particle

1472: are  $m$ and $u^{\mu}=\ga(1,\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})$,

1473: respectively.

1474: We now assume energy--momentum conservation for the \v{C}erenkov

1475: system,

1476: so that

1477: \beq

1478: \dot{Q}^{\mu}=-\dot{P}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt}).

1479: \label{ceom}

1480: \eeq

1481: Here,

1482: $\dot{P}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})$ is given by the rate formula \rf{labpcrate}.

1483: For particles with $Q^{\mu}=mu^{\mu}$,

1484: the relation \rf{ceom}

1485: yields their equation of motion

1486: in the form of a first-order differential equation for $\vec{\be}$,

1487: as usual.

1488: However,

1489: in quantum theory,

1490: for example,

1491: the Maxwell--Chern--Simons Lagrangian

1492: may induce a Lorentz-violating dispersion relation

1493: for the charge

1494: through radiative effects.

1495: Then,

1496: momentum and velocity of the particle

1497: need not necessarily be aligned any longer \cite{ck}.

1498: and more care is required.

1499: As a result of our methodology, 

1500: this issue turns out to be nontrivial

1501: even in the present classical context.

1502: Suppose the particle changes its 4-momentum

1503: by $dQ^{\mu}=-\dot{P}^{\mu}dt$

1504: through vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

1505: The method for determining $\dot{P}^{\mu}$ 

1506: discussed in the previous section

1507: then simultaneously fixes \textit{both} 

1508: the change in the charge's energy 

1509: and the corresponding change in its 3-momentum.

1510: We must therefore investigate

1511: the compatibility of our approach 

1512: with the charge's dispersion relation.

1513: 

1514: To answer this question,

1515: we start with the general momentum--velocity ansatz

1516: $Q^{\mu}=mu^{\mu}+q^{\mu}$,

1517: where $q^{\mu}$ is a Lorentz-violating correction

1518: that can depend on $u^{\mu}$.

1519: Time differentiation,

1520: subsequent contraction with $u_{\mu}$,

1521: and Eq.\ \rf{ceom} yield

1522: $m\dot{u}^{\mu}u_{\mu}+\dot{P}^{\mu}u_{\mu}+\dot{q}^{\mu}u_{\mu}=0$.

1523: Differentiation of $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=1$

1524: with respect to time establishes

1525: that $\dot{u}^{\mu}u_{\mu}$ is always zero.

1526: In the particle's rest frame,

1527: where the timelike component of $\dot{P}^{\mu}$

1528: and the spacelike components of $u_{\mu}$ vanish,

1529: one verifies

1530: that $\dot{P}^{\mu}u_{\mu}=0$.

1531: We are thus left with

1532: $\dot{q}^{\mu}u_{\mu}=0$

1533: as a constraint for our approach.

1534: Note that this condition

1535: is compatible with

1536: the conventional situation $q^{\mu}=0$,

1537: so that we are allowed to use $Q^{\mu}=mu^{\mu}$.

1538: We remark

1539: that the weakness of this constraint

1540: hinges upon our previous assumption \rf{currentansatz}

1541: of a time-independent current distribution

1542: in the charge's rest frame.

1543: For example,

1544: a rotating-dipole model

1545: of the charge

1546: would lead to energy emission

1547: in the center-of-mass frame,

1548: so that in general $\dot{P}^{\mu}u_{\mu}\neq 0$

1549: requiring a dispersion-relation modification.

1550: 

1551: We can now proceed using $Q^{\mu}=mu^{\mu}$.

1552: As mentioned above,

1553: this yields the differential equation

1554: \beq

1555: -\dot{P}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})=m\dot{u}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})

1556: \label{eceom}

1557: \eeq

1558: for $\vec{\be}(t)$,

1559: where $\dot{P}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})$

1560: is given by the rate formula \rf{labpcrate}.

1561: It turns out

1562: that this equation can be integrated analytically

1563: in the laboratory frame with $k^{\mu}=(0,\vec{k})$.

1564: The 4-force $-\dot{P}^{\mu}(\vec{\be}\hspace{1pt})$ on the charge

1565: vanishes in the spacelike direction(s) 

1566: orthogonal to $\vec{\be}$ and $\vec{k}$, 

1567: so that the particle's motion 

1568: remains confined 

1569: to the subspace spanned by $\vec{\be}$ and $\vec{k}$. 

1570: The relativistic Newton law \rf{eceom} contains

1571: therefore at most three nontrivial equations:

1572: \bea

1573: -\fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;\vec{k}^{\,2}\fr{\ga^5\be_{\|}^5}{(1+\ga^2\be_{\|}^2)^{3/2}}

1574: & = & m\fr{d}{dt}\ga,\nonumber\\ 

1575: -\fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;\vec{k}^{\,2}\fr{\ga^5\be_{\|}^5}{(1+\ga^2\be_{\|}^2)^{3/2}}

1576: \,\be_{\bot} 

1577: & = & m\fr{d}{dt}\ga\be_{\bot},\nonumber\\ 

1578: -\fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;\vec{k}^{\,2}\fr{\ga^3\be_{\|}^3}{(1+\ga^2\be_{\|}^2)^{1/2}}

1579: \,\be_{\|} 

1580: & = & m\fr{d}{dt}\ga\be_{\|}. 

1581: \label{cceom} 

1582: \eea 

1583: Here, $\be_{\|}$ and $\be_{\bot}$ 

1584: denote the respective magnitudes of the $\vec{\be}$-velocity components 

1585: parallel and perpendicular to $\vec{k}$, 

1586: so that $\ga^{-2}=1-\be_{\|}^2-\be_{\bot}^2$. 

1587: 

1588: Note

1589: that the three equations of motion \rf{cceom}

1590: determine two unknown functions,

1591: the velocity components 

1592: $\be_{\bot}(t)$ and $\be_{\|}(t)$. 

1593: Compatibility with the dispersion-relation constraint 

1594: discussed above guarantees 

1595: that only two of these equations are independent,

1596: as required by consistency.

1597: To see this explicitly, 

1598: note 

1599: that the first and the second 

1600: of the equations of motion \rf{cceom} 

1601: imply 

1602: \beq 

1603: \be_{\bot}(t)=\be_{\bot}=\text{const.}

1604: \label{perp} 

1605: \eeq

1606: Introducing the variable $\xi\equiv\ga\be_{\|}$

1607: one can now demonstrate

1608: that all three components of the equations of motion \rf{cceom} 

1609: lead to the same differential equation for $\xi$,

1610: and thus $\be_{\|}$, 

1611: given by 

1612: \beq 

1613: -\fr{q^2}{4\pi}\;\vec{k}^{\,2}\sqrt{1-\be_{\bot}^2}\fr{\xi^4}{1+\xi^2}

1614: = m\fr{d}{dt}\xi.

1615: \label{xiode}

1616: \eeq 

1617: This result establishes the dependency among the equations,

1618: and it is suitable for integration.

1619: We obtain 

1620: \beq 

1621: \fr{1}{\xi}+\fr{1}{3\xi^3}=\fr{t+t_0}{\ta}, 

1622: \label{para} 

1623: \eeq 

1624: where $\ta=4\pi m/q^2\vec{k}^{\,2}\sqrt{1-\be_{\bot}^2}$

1625: is the characteristic time scale 

1626: associated with the particle's motion. 

1627: The integration constant $t_0\ge0$ 

1628: is determined by the

1629: velocity of the particle

1630: at $t=0$.

1631: Note that as the time increases, 

1632: the parameter $\xi$, 

1633: and thus $\be_{\|}$, 

1634: decrease, 

1635: so that the charge is always slowed down 

1636: by vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation

1637: when viewed in our laboratory frame.

1638: 

1639: Although Eq.\ \rf{para} can be solved 

1640: analytically for $\be_{\|}(t)$, 

1641: the resulting expression is not particularly transparent. 

1642: We therefore consider certain limiting cases. 

1643: Suppose $\xi\gg 1$, 

1644: which corresponds to a fast-moving charge. 

1645: Then, 

1646: the $\xi^{-3}$ term in Eq.\ \rf{para} 

1647: can be neglected and one obtains 

1648: \beq 

1649: \be_{\|}(t)=\fr{4\pi m}{q^2\vec{k}^{\,2}}\;\fr{1}{\sqrt{(t+t_0)^2+\ta^2}}.

1650: \label{lxispeed} 

1651: \eeq 

1652: The corresponding distance $d_{\|}$ traveled parallel to $\vec{k}$ 

1653: is given by 

1654: \beq 

1655: d_{\|}(t)=\fr{4\pi m}{q^2\vec{k}^{\,2}}

1656: \left(\sinh^{-1}\fr{t+t_0}{\ta}-\sinh^{-1}\fr{t_0}{\ta}\right). 

1657: \label{lxidist} 

1658: \eeq 

1659: Since $d_{\bot}=\be_{\bot}t$,

1660: the trajectory is in general no longer a straight line. 

1661: The path of a fast charge 

1662: is determined 

1663: by a hyperbolic-sine function 

1664: with a characteristic scale size of $\be_{\bot}\ta$. 

1665: Such a curved trajectory 

1666: is a direct consequence 

1667: of the involved vacuum anisotropies. 

1668: 

1669: In the case of a charge moving 

1670: with a nonrelativistic $\be_{\|}$ 

1671: satisfying $\be_{\|}^2\ll 1-\vec{\be}^{\,2}$, 

1672: we have $\xi\ll 1$.  

1673: It follows 

1674: that the $\xi^{-1}$ term in Eq.\ \rf{para} 

1675: is negligible, 

1676: so that 

1677: \beq 

1678: \be_{\|}(t)=\fr{\ta^{1/3}\sqrt{1-\be_{\bot}^2}}

1679: {\sqrt{3^{2/3}(t+t_0)^{2/3}+\ta^{2/3}}}. 

1680: \label{sxispeed} 

1681: \eeq 

1682: This expression can be integrated analytically 

1683: to yield 

1684: \beq 

1685: d_{\|}(t)=\fr{2\pi m}{q^2\vec{k}^{\,2}}

1686: \left[h\left(3\fr{t+t_0}{\ta}\right)-h\left(3\fr{t_0}{\ta}\right)\right] 

1687: \label{sxidist} 

1688: \eeq 

1689: for the distance $d_{\|}$ traveled parallel to $\vec{k}$. 

1690: Here, the function $h$ is given by 

1691: \beq 

1692: h(\chi)\equiv\chi^{1/3}\sqrt{1+\chi^{2/3}}+\sinh^{-1}(\chi^{1/3}).

1693: \label{sxidisth} 

1694: \eeq 

1695: For large $t\gg\ta$, 

1696: the parallel distance traveled increases as $t^{2/3}$,

1697: so that not even asymptotically 

1698: a straight-line trajectory arises. 

1699: If one extrapolates these results 

1700: to the curved-spacetime situation, 

1701: it follows 

1702: that in the Einstein--Maxwell--Chern--Simons system \cite{grav}

1703: a conventional test charge 

1704: would not travel along traditional geodesics 

1705: despite the absence of external electromagnetic fields. 

1706: Such a violation of the equivalence principle 

1707: is seen to be closely tied to the presence of Lorentz breaking. 

1708: 

1709: 

1710: 

1711: \section{Phase-space estimate}

1712: \label{phase} 

1713: 

1714: A quantum-field treatment

1715: of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation

1716: would be desirable.

1717: However,

1718: such an analysis

1719: requires a completely satisfactory quantum theory

1720: of the model under consideration,

1721: a condition

1722: that is not met

1723: in most Lorentz-violating frameworks.

1724: In fact,

1725: many approaches to Lorentz breaking 

1726: lack a Lagrangian and are purely kinematical

1727: precluding even a classical analysis

1728: along the lines presented above.

1729: Although such models are theoretically less attractive,

1730: it is still interesting to investigate

1731: to which degree a modified dispersion relation by itself

1732: can give insight into vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

1733: 

1734: In quantum field theory, 

1735: the rate $\Ga$ for the decay of a particle $P_a$

1736: into two particles,

1737: $P_b$ and $P_c$,

1738: obeys

1739: \beq

1740: d\Ga=\fr{|{\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}|^2}{2E_a}(2\pi)^4

1741: \de^{(4)}(p_a^{\mu}-p_b^{\mu}-p_c^{\mu})d\Pi_bd\Pi_c.

1742: \label{gendecay}

1743: \eeq

1744: Here,

1745: ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}$ is the transition amplitude

1746: containing information about the dynamics of the decay.

1747: The remaining quantities are associated

1748: with the kinematics of the reaction process.

1749: They include phase-space elements $d\Pi_{s}$

1750: and various 4-momenta $p_s^{\mu}=(E_s,\vec{p}_s)$,

1751: where the subscript $s\in\{a,b,c\}$

1752: refers to the corresponding particle.

1753: In what follows,

1754: we take $P_a$ and $P_b$

1755: to be a charge $q$

1756: with conventional dispersion relation $p_a^2=p_b^2=m^2$.

1757: For comparison 

1758: with the classical result \rf{pcrate}, 

1759: we consider photons $P_c$ 

1760: with a dispersion relation 

1761: corresponding to that of classical plane waves 

1762: in the Maxwell--Chern--Simons model

1763: for lightlike $k^{\mu}$ \rf{lightsol}.

1764: In particular,

1765: we identify the wave frequency $\om$

1766: with the photon energy $E_c$.

1767: 

1768: To leading approximation,

1769: the determination of ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}$

1770: is expected to parallel that of the conventional case:

1771: contraction of the photon polarization 4-vector 

1772: with a $q\ga^{\mu}$-type vertex 

1773: sandwiched between two external-leg spinors.

1774: It follows 

1775: that the amplitude ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}$ 

1776: transforms as a coordinate scalar \cite{fn3}. 

1777: As an important consequence, 

1778: the rest-frame and the laboratory-frame amplitudes of a given decay 

1779: cannot differ by relativistic $\ga$ factors, 

1780: which could mask the true energy dependence of the reaction rate. 

1781: Note, however,

1782: that this does not imply 

1783: particle Lorentz symmetry in ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}$.

1784: Note also

1785: that ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}$ is typically energy dependent:

1786: with our normalization,

1787: the spinor components scale as the square root of their energy,

1788: and the components of photon polarization vectors are of order unity. 

1789: With these considerations, 

1790: we can take ${\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}=qE_aM$

1791: as the generic form of the amplitude \cite{kauf}.

1792: The dimensionless function $M$

1793: is determined by the model's dynamics

1794: and depends on external momenta 

1795: and the Lorentz-violating parameters. 

1796:  

1797: The decay rate $\Ga$, 

1798: defined as the coordinate-scalar transition probability per time,

1799: must pick up a time-dilation factor 

1800: under coordinate boosts. 

1801: On the right-hand side of Eq.\ \rf{gendecay}, 

1802: the $E_a^{-1}$ normalization 

1803: provides this transformation property, 

1804: so that the remaining part of this expression 

1805: is a scalar under observer transformations. 

1806: This implies 

1807: that the phase-space elements $d\Pi_s$ 

1808: must also transform as coordinate scalars 

1809: (see previous footnote \cite{fn3}). 

1810: For Lorentz-symmetric dispersion relations 

1811: and in our normalization, 

1812: $d\Pi$ is determined

1813: by the conventional relation $2E_{\vec{p}}\,(2\pi)^3d\Pi=d^3\vec{p}$,

1814: where $E_{\vec{p}}$ is a dispersion-relation root at $\vec{p}$.

1815: This applies only to the charge in the present example, 

1816: so that $d\Pi_b$ in Eq.\ \rf{gendecay} is conventional. 

1817: However, 

1818: for Lorentz-violating dispersion relations, 

1819: such as that of our photon, 

1820: this expression is no longer coordinate independent. 

1821: It can be verified 

1822: that for the 

1823: positive-energy,

1824: spacelike branches 

1825: of the present modified photon dispersion relation \rf{lightsol} 

1826: the phase-space element 

1827: \beq 

1828: d\Pi_c=\fr{d^3\vec{p}_c}{(2\pi)^32|\vec{p}_c+{\rm sgn}(k^0)\vec{k}|}

1829: \label{psel} 

1830: \eeq

1831: is observer invariant. 

1832: As discussed previously, 

1833: the kinematics of the \v{C}erenkov process

1834: requires spacelike photon 4-momenta, 

1835: so that Eq.\ \rf{psel} 

1836: is indeed the relevant one in the present context. 

1837: Note 

1838: that for zero $k^{\mu}$ 

1839: the conventional expression is recovered. 

1840: 

1841: With our above considerations

1842: Eq.\ \rf{gendecay} becomes

1843: \beq 

1844: d\Ga=\fr{q^2|M|^2m}{32\pi^2}

1845: \;\fr{\de^{(4)}(p_a^{\mu}-p_b^{\mu}-p_c^{\mu})\:d^3\vec{p}_b\:d^3\vec{p}_c}

1846: {\sqrt{\vec{p}_b^{\,2}+m^2}\;|\vec{p}_c+{\rm sgn}(k^0)\vec{k}|}

1847: \label{restdecay}

1848: \eeq

1849: in the charge's rest frame. 

1850: The $\vec{p}_b$ integration 

1851: can be performed straightforwardly. 

1852: For the $\vec{p}_c$ integral 

1853: we select spherical coordinates 

1854: with $\vec{k}$ along the polar axis.

1855: We denote the azimuthal and polar angles 

1856: by $\th$ and $\ph$, 

1857: respectively. 

1858: The limit of a nondynamical charge, 

1859: which is necessary for comparison 

1860: with the previous classical treatment, 

1861: can be recovered here for $m\to\infty$.

1862: Then, 

1863: the remaining delta function

1864: gives the constraint

1865: $|\vec{p}_c|=-2\:k^0\cos\th$. 

1866: We remark  

1867: that this condition implies zero-energy photons 

1868: as decay products 

1869: consistent with our previous dynamical analysis 

1870: in the classical context. 

1871: Note also 

1872: that this constraint restricts the angular integrations 

1873: to the upper or lower hemisphere depending on the sign of $k^0$. 

1874: The $|\vec{p}_c|$ integration

1875: now yields

1876: \beq 

1877: \fr{d\Ga}{d\Om}=-\fr{q^2|M|^2}{8\pi^2}k^0\cos\th

1878: \label{ddrate} 

1879: \eeq

1880: for the differential decay rate 

1881: in the charge's rest frame. 

1882: Here, $\Om$ denotes the solid angle.

1883: 

1884: For the remaining angular integrations,

1885: the functional dependence $M=M(\Om)$ is needed. 

1886: However, 

1887: we are interested 

1888: in a rough approximation for the decay rate only, 

1889: so that it appears reasonable 

1890: to replace $|M(\Om)|^2$

1891: by a constant $\overline{|M|^2}\sim{\cal O}(1)$ 

1892: corresponding perhaps 

1893: to a suitable angular average of $|M(\Om)|^2$. 

1894: Then, 

1895: an estimate for the total decay rate is given by 

1896: $\Ga\simeq(8\pi)^{-1}\overline{|M|^2}q^2|\vec{k}|$. 

1897: Noting  

1898: that $d\dot{P}^{\mu}=p^{\mu}(\Om)\,d\Ga$,

1899: the rate of momentum emission 

1900: can be determined similarly. 

1901: We obtain

1902: \beq 

1903: \:\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}\simeq-{\rm sgn}(k^0)

1904: \fr{q^2\overline{|M|^2}}{8\pi}\vec{k}^{\,2}\vec{e}_k

1905: \label{momdecay} 

1906: \eeq

1907: as an estimate for the net radiated momentum per time 

1908: in the charge's rest frame. 

1909: Comparison with Eq.\ \rf{pcrate} 

1910: obtained from the corresponding classical treatment reveals 

1911: agreement 

1912: (up to the indeterminate numerical factor $\overline{|M|^2}$) 

1913: with the above phase-space estimate \rf{momdecay}. 

1914: 

1915: This result demonstrates 

1916: that a careful kinematical analysis 

1917: of the \v{C}erenkov decay 

1918: can give a sensible estimate 

1919: for the rate of momentum emission. 

1920: Note, 

1921: however, 

1922: the assumptions involved: 

1923: equality of plane-wave and one-particle dispersion relations, 

1924: absence of additional symmetries suppressing the quantum amplitude, 

1925: and a nondynamical Lorentz-symmetric charge $m\rightarrow\infty$.

1926: We also emphasize 

1927: the importance of constructing invariant phase-space elements 

1928: in the present context. 

1929: 

1930: \section{Experimental outlook}

1931: \label{exp}

1932: 

1933: This section mentions some examples

1934: of potentially observable signatures

1935: for Lorentz violation

1936: in the context of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

1937: Such experimental effects

1938: can be grouped into two broad classes:

1939: detection of the emitted radiation itself 

1940: through its properties analyzed in Sec.\ \ref{rate} 

1941: and effects on the charge's motion

1942: discussed in Sec.\ \ref{back}.

1943: 

1944: Searches for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 

1945: are perhaps suggested 

1946: by the analogous discovery 

1947: of the conventional \v{C}erenkov effect. 

1948: In the present case, 

1949: a fast charged particle 

1950: should radiate left or right polarized waves 

1951: into directions determined by Eq.\ \rf{cercone}. 

1952: The phase-speed condition 

1953: and the dispersion relation (\ref{odddisp})

1954: imply that

1955: the maximum frequency

1956: emitted obeys

1957: $\om_{\textrm{max}}\lsim\ga^2\:{\cal O} (k^{\mu})$. 

1958: Here, $\ga$ is the boost factor 

1959: corresponding to the charge's speed 

1960: and ${\cal O} (k^{\mu})$ 

1961: denotes the typical size of $k^{\mu}$ components 

1962: in the laboratory frame, 

1963: which are observationally constrained by 

1964: ${\cal O} (k^{\mu})\lsim 10^{-42}\,$GeV \cite{mcsclass}. 

1965: Taking this bound to be saturated, 

1966: we find for the example a proton 

1967: at the end of the observed cosmic-ray spectrum ($10^{20}\,$eV) 

1968: that $\om_{\textrm{max}}$ 

1969: is of the order of $1.6\times 10^{4}\,$rad/s

1970: corresponding to a wavelength of $1.2\times 10^{5}\,$m.

1971: On a speculative note, 

1972: such radiation might perhaps be observable 

1973: in high-energy astrophysical jets 

1974: emitted in the direction of sight. 

1975: 

1976: The presence of Lorentz violation

1977: in electrodynamics

1978: can also affect the motion of particles

1979: via the vacuum \v{C}erenkov effect.

1980: For example,

1981: a high-energy charge

1982: would be slowed down

1983: due to the emission of radiation.

1984: This would lead to an effective cut-off

1985: in the cosmic-ray spectrum

1986: for primary particles carrying an electric charge

1987: or a magnetic dipole moment.

1988: This idea has been widely employed in the literature

1989: to place bounds on Lorentz breaking.

1990: In the present Maxwell--Chern--Simons model,

1991: which is already tightly constrained by other considerations,

1992: the energy-loss rate

1993: is suppressed by two powers

1994: of the Lorentz-violating coefficient $k^{\mu}$.

1995: However,

1996: it would be interesting

1997: to consider the dimensionless $k_{F}$ term in the SME:

1998: some of its components 

1999: are currently only bounded at the $10^{-9}$ level \cite{cavexpt},

2000: and a dynamical study paralleling the present one

2001: could yield less suppressed rates.

2002: 

2003: Another potential signature

2004: associated with the charge's motion

2005: is of statistical nature.

2006: Consider, 

2007: for instance, 

2008: Eq.\ \rf{labpcrate},

2009: which is valid in a laboratory frame

2010: with purely spacelike $k^{\mu}=(0,\vec{k})$.

2011: In this frame,

2012: particles with velocities $\vec{\be}$

2013: that are perpendicular to $\vec{k}$

2014: cease to radiate.

2015: Thus,

2016: the presence of a spacelike $k^{\mu}$

2017: during most of the cosmological history

2018: would constrain the average motion of charges

2019: to 3-velocities lying in a two-dimensional plane.

2020: This effect might be more efficient

2021: before electroweak symmetry breaking

2022: for two reasons.

2023: First,

2024: radiation is not yet decoupled from the matter,

2025: so that there are a large number of free charges

2026: that can be affected.

2027: Second, massless charged matter

2028: is associated with lightlike 4-momenta

2029: so that all wave frequencies

2030: can contribute to vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

2031: Investigations in such a context

2032: might therefore provide

2033: stringent complementary Lorentz-violation bounds.

2034: 

2035: 

2036: 

2037: \section{Conclusions}

2038: \label{conc}

2039: 

2040: Lorentz-violating vacua

2041: can arise in various approaches to fundamental physics

2042: and are described at low energies by the SME.

2043: In this paper,

2044: we have considered

2045: the physics of electrodynamics in such vacua,

2046: which exhibits close parallels

2047: to the conventional Maxwell case

2048: in macroscopic media.

2049: Our study has focused on vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation,

2050: which is the analogue of the usual \v{C}erenkov effect

2051: whereby light is emitted

2052: from charges moving uniformly

2053: with superluminal speeds in a medium.

2054: Although we have performed our analysis

2055: primarily within the classical Maxwell--Chern--Simons limit of the SME,

2056: we expect most results and our methodology

2057: to remain applicable

2058: in more general cases

2059: including non-electromagnetic ones.

2060: 

2061: In Sec.\ \ref{concept},

2062: we have developed a qualitative physical picture

2063: of the \v{C}erenkov effect for general situations

2064: that augments the usual one in macroscopic media.

2065: It also permits

2066: an alternative extraction the general radiation condition:

2067: energy--momentum transport to infinity,

2068: and thus radiation,

2069: can only occur

2070: when the fields fall of like $r^{-1}$.

2071: This in turn requires

2072: that purely spacelike wave 4-vectors

2073: satisfy the electromagnetic plane-wave dispersion relation

2074: in the charge's rest frame.

2075: 

2076: Based on this intuitive physical picture,

2077: we have developed a method

2078: complementing the conventional one

2079: for the determination of the 4-momentum flux

2080: associated with \v{C}erenkov radiation.

2081: The advantage of this procedure lies in the fact

2082: that it does not require the explicit knowledge of the far fields.

2083: In the Maxwell--Chern--Simons model,

2084: our method permits the calculation

2085: of the exact 4-momentum radiation rate

2086: for a prescribed point charge with magnetic moment.

2087: The corresponding polarization

2088: of the emitted vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation

2089: follows from Eq.\ \rf{pol}

2090: and is depicted in Fig.\ \ref{ball}.

2091: 

2092: Section \ref{back}

2093: has treated the effects

2094: of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation

2095: on the charge.

2096: Within our framework,

2097: the back-reaction

2098: provides a nontrivial constraint

2099: on the dispersion relation of the charge.

2100: For reasonable models of the charge's

2101: 4-current distribution,

2102: this constraint is mild enough

2103: to allow the conventional Lorentz-symmetric

2104: 3-momentum dependence of the energy.

2105: As part of our discussion,

2106: we have determined the modified

2107: trajectory of a point charge

2108: in the Maxwell--Chern--Simons model,

2109: which remains no longer a geodesic.

2110: This type of equivalence-principle violation

2111: appears generic

2112: in the presence of vacuum \v{C}erenkov radiation.

2113: 

2114: In some situations,

2115: useful insight into the \v{C}erenkov-radiation rate

2116: can be obtained

2117: by purely kinematical considerations.

2118: We have exemplified this in Sec.\ \ref{phase}

2119: by a detailed phase-space estimate

2120: that involves photons

2121: obeying the Maxwell--Chern--Simons

2122: plane-wave dispersion relation.

2123: We found

2124: that the construction of coordinate-independent phase-space elements

2125: in the presence of Lorentz breaking

2126: is an important nontrivial issue.

2127: when Lorentz symmetry is violated.

2128: 

2129: 

2130: 

2131: \acknowledgments

2132: We thank D.\ Sudarsky for discussion.

2133: This work was supported in part

2134: by the Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrof\'{\i}sica (CENTRA)

2135: and by the Funda\c{c}\~ao para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia (Portugal)

2136: under Grant No. POCTI/FNU/49529/2002.

2137: 

2138: 

2139: 

2140: \appendix

2141: 

2142: \section{Dispersion relation}

2143: \label{dr}

2144: 

2145: For a given wave 3-vector $\vec{p}$,

2146: the dispersion relation \rf{odddisp}

2147: determines the corresponding values for $\om$.

2148: In the lightlike-$k^{\mu}$ case,

2149: one obtains

2150: \beq

2151: \om^{(n)}_{\pm}=\pm|\vec{p}+(-1)^{n}\vec{k}|-(-1)^{n}k^0,

2152: \label{lightsol}

2153: \eeq

2154: where $n\in\{1,2\}$.

2155: For purely spacelike $k^{\mu}=(0,\vec{k})$,

2156: the plane-wave frequencies are given by

2157: \beq

2158: \om^{(n)}_{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\,2}+2\vec{k}^{\,2}

2159: +2(-1)^{n}\sqrt{\vec{k}^{\,4}+(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{k})^2}}.

2160: \label{spacesol}

2161: \eeq

2162: If $k^{\mu}=(k^0,\vec{0})$ is purely timelike,

2163: the solutions of the dispersion relation are

2164: \beq

2165: \om^{(n)}_{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\,2}+2(-1)^{n}k^0|\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}|}.

2166: \label{timesol}

2167: \eeq

2168: Note

2169: that branches determining spacelike wave 4-vectors

2170: occur in each of the canonical cases

2171: \rf{lightsol}, \rf{spacesol}, and \rf{timesol}.

2172: 

2173: For general $k^{\mu}$,

2174: the exact roots of the dispersion relation \rf{odddisp}

2175: can also be obtained straightforwardly.

2176: However,

2177: they are less transparent,

2178: so that we only give expressions

2179: that are correct to first order 

2180: in the Lorentz-violating parameter $k^{\mu}$.

2181: Without loss of generality

2182: we can rotate the coordinate system

2183: such that $p^{\mu}=(\om,0,0,p_z)$

2184: and $k^{\mu}=(k^0,|\vec{k}|\sin\th,0,|\vec{k}|\cos\th)$.

2185: The approximate solutions are then given by

2186: \beq

2187: \om^{(n)}_{\pm}=\pm p_z+(-1)^{n}(k^0\mp|\vec{k}|\cos\th).

2188: \label{gensol}

2189: \eeq

2190: We note that

2191: we have selected convenient labels for these first-order results,

2192: which do not necessarily correspond to the

2193: labels for the canonical cases discussed earlier.

2194: 

2195: In Fig.\ \ref{gendr},

2196: the plane-wave frequencies $\om^{(n)}_{\pm}$

2197: are plotted versus $p_z$ in some appropriate units

2198: for $k^0=1$, $|\vec{k}|=2$, and $\th=1/2$.

2199: The solid lines

2200: represent the four branches of the exact roots

2201: and the broken ones

2202: the corresponding first-order solutions \rf{gensol}.

2203: The interior of the $p^{\mu}$-space lightcone

2204: has been shaded.

2205: For a given nonzero wave 3-vector,

2206: there are two timelike and two spacelike wave 4-vectors

2207: satisfying the dispersion relation,

2208: as expected from the above discussion

2209: of the three canonical cases.

2210: \begin{figure}

2211: \begin{center}

2212: \includegraphics[width=0.8\hsize]{sgendr}

2213: \end{center}

2214: \caption{Sample solution of the plane-wave dispersion relation.

2215: The solid lines correspond to the exact roots.

2216: The first-order solutions are shown as broken lines.

2217: The shaded region represents

2218: the interior of the $p^{\mu}$-space lightcone.

2219: }

2220: \label{gendr}

2221: \end{figure}

2222: 

2223: \section{Plane-wave solutions}

2224: \label{pws}

2225: 

2226: A plane-wave ansatz $A^{\nu}(x)=A_p^{\nu}(p)\exp(-ip\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!x)$

2227: in Eq.\ \rf{oddeom}

2228: for $j^{\mu}=0$ gives

2229: \beq

2230: \left(p_{\mu} p_{\nu}-p^2 \et_{\mu\nu}

2231: +2i\ve_{\mu\nu\rh\si}k^{\rh}p^{\si}\right)A_p^{\nu}(p)

2232: =0.

2233: \label{feqom}

2234: \eeq

2235: In what follows,

2236: we adopt Lorentz gauge $p\!\cdot\!A=0$

2237: and the following coordinates:

2238: $\vec{p}=p_z\vec{e}_z$ and $\vec{k}=k_x\vec{e}_x+k_z\vec{e}_z$,

2239: where $\vec{e}_x$ and $\vec{e}_z$ are the usual unit vectors

2240: in the 1- and 3-direction, respectively.

2241: For $p^{\mu}$ satisfying the plane-wave dispersion relation \rf{odddisp},

2242: the polarization vectors

2243: \beq

2244: A_p^{\nu}(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})=\fr{g}{2p_z}

2245: \left(\begin{array}{c}

2246: 2k_xp_z\\ 2(k_0p_z-k_z\om)\\ -i(\om^2-p_z^2)\\ 2k_x\om

2247: \end{array}\right)

2248: \label{Avec}

2249: \eeq

2250: obey Eq.\ \rf{feqom}, where $g$ is a constant.

2251: 

2252: The electric field

2253: $\vec{E}(x)=\vec{E}_p(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})\exp(-ip\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!x)$

2254: and the magnetic field

2255: $\vec{B}(x)=\vec{B}_p(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})\exp(-ip\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!x)$

2256: of the plane wave

2257: are now determined

2258: by the conventional field--potential relationship,

2259: so that the polarization vectors are

2260: \bea

2261: \vec{E}_p(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}) & = & \fr{ig}{2p_z}

2262: \left(\begin{array}{c}

2263: 2\om(k_0p_z-k_z\om)\\ -i\om(\om^2-p_z^2)\\ 2k_x(\om^2-p_z^2)

2264: \end{array}\right),\nonumber\\

2265: \vec{B}_p(\om,\vec{p}\hspace{1pt}) & = & \fr{ig}{2}

2266: \left(\begin{array}{c}

2267: i(\om^2-p_z^2)\\ 2(k_0p_z-k_z\om)\\ 0

2268: \end{array}\right).

2269: \label{EBfields}

2270: \eea

2271: The physical fields are understood

2272: to be given by the real parts 

2273: of the resulting plane-wave expressions, 

2274: as usual.

2275: The magnetic field

2276: remains transverse 

2277: because the homogeneous equation $\vec{\nabla}\!\cdot\!\vec{B}=0$

2278: is unaltered.

2279: Note,

2280: however,

2281: that the electric field can exhibit

2282: longitudinal components.

2283: 

2284: In conventional optics,

2285: a plane wave is called left (right) polarized,

2286: when the electric-field vector

2287: rotates (counter)clockwise

2288: around the wave vector $\vec{p}$

2289: at a fixed point in space

2290: for an observer looking in the direction of propagation \cite{Jackson}.

2291: In the present context,

2292: we adopt the analogous definition

2293: involving the motion

2294: of the transverse electric-field component $\vec{E}_{\bot}$.

2295: One can then distinguish

2296: between elliptical polarization,

2297: and the limiting cases

2298: of linear and circular polarization,

2299: as usual.

2300: An important example

2301: is the case

2302: in which the wave vector $\vec{p}$

2303: is large compared to the components of $k^{\mu}$.

2304: Then, Eqs.\ \rf{gensol} and \rf{EBfields} give

2305: $E_y=\mp(-1)^{n} iE_x$,

2306: where the upper (lower) sign

2307: corresponds to waves of positive (negative) frequency.

2308: The longitudinal component of $\vec{E}$ vanishes in this limit.

2309: It follows

2310: that such waves exhibit the conventional circular polarizations.

2311: 

2312: Note

2313: that the above definition of polarization

2314: can fail in certain circumstances.

2315: For instance,

2316: it follows from Eq.\ \rf{EBfields}

2317: that zero-frequency waves,

2318: such as \v{C}erenkov radiation in the charge's rest frame,

2319: are associated with $\vec{E}_{\bot}=\vec{0}$.

2320: The electric field is then purely longitudinal

2321: (or zero)

2322: precluding any of the transverse polarizations.

2323: Although it leaves unaffected the polarization,

2324: we also remark that for waves with a phase speed $c_{ph}<1$

2325: the direction of propagation,

2326: which is involved in the polarization definition,

2327: is observer dependent.

2328: 

2329: \vspace{20pt}

2330: \section{Charged magnetic dipoles}

2331: \label{md}

2332: 

2333: In this appendix,

2334: we refine our model of the charged particle

2335: by including a magnetic moment $\vec{\mu}$

2336: into our analysis.

2337: This is phenomenologically interesting

2338: because all known electrically charged elementary particles

2339: carry nonzero spin,

2340: which is associated with a finite magnetic moment.

2341: Moreover,

2342: the $q=0$ limit of the model

2343: then describes the \v{C}erenkov effect

2344: in the presence of neutral particles

2345: with magnetic moments,

2346: such as neutrons.

2347: 

2348: The rest-frame current distribution $J^{\mu}$

2349: of a point magnetic dipole $\vec{\mu}$

2350: with charge $q$

2351: located at the origin

2352: is given by

2353: $J^{\mu}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})=\big(q\,\de(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt}),

2354: -\vec{\mu}\!\hspace{1.2pt}\times\!\vec{\nabla}\de(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})\big)$,

2355: as mentioned previously in the discussion of ansatz \rf{currentansatz}.

2356: To force convergence in certain intermediate steps of the calculation,

2357: we write $\de(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})=\lim_{\la\to 0}f(r,\la)$

2358: for the delta function,

2359: where

2360: \beq

2361: f(r,\la)=\fr{1}{4\pi\la^2 r}

2362: \exp(-r/\sqrt{2}\la)\sin(r/\sqrt{2}\la)

2363: \label{reg}

2364: \eeq

2365: paralleling the pure-charge case in Sec.\ \ref{rate}.

2366: We remark

2367: that the magnetic-moment definition

2368: $\vec{\mu}=\half\int\vec{r}\!\hspace{0.5pt}\times\!\vec{J}\:d^3r$

2369: in classical electrodynamics \cite{Jackson}

2370: is consistent

2371: with our choice of current

2372: for all $\la$.

2373: The charge density,

2374: and thus its Fourier image,

2375: remain unchanged

2376: relative to those used in Sec.\ \ref{rate}.

2377: The 3-current $\vec{J}(\vec{r}\hspace{1pt})$

2378: takes the form

2379: ${}\,\tilde{\!\vec{J}}(\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})=i(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\times\!\vec{\mu})

2380: (\la^4\vec{p}^{\,4}+1)^{-1}$

2381: in Fourier space.

2382: 

2383: Next,

2384: we use Eq.\ \rf{restrate}

2385: to obtain an explicit integral expression

2386: for the radiation rate in the dipole's rest frame:

2387: \begin{widetext}

2388: \beq

2389: \:\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=i\int \fr{d^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}

2390: \;\fr{\vec{p}^{\,2}\big[q^2-(\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\times\!\vec{\mu})^2\big]

2391: +4q\big[(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})

2392: (\vec{\mu}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{p}\hspace{1pt})

2393: -(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\mu})\vec{p}^{\,2}\big]

2394: -4\big[\vec{p}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\times\!\vec{\mu})\big]^2

2395: -4q^2k_0^2} 

2396: {\big[\vec{p}^{\,4}-4\vec{p}^{\,2}k^2

2397: -4(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.5pt}\cdot\!\vec{p}-i\ve k_0)^2\big]

2398: \big[\la^4\vec{p}^{\,4}+1\big]^2}\;\vec{p}\; .

2399: \label{dipolerateexp} 

2400: \eeq 

2401: \end{widetext}

2402: We perform this integration 

2403: in spherical-type coordinates

2404: with $\vec{p}=l\;(\sin\th\cos\ph,\sin\th\sin\ph,\cos\th)$.

2405: We select the polar axis along $\vec{k}$,

2406: and $\vec{\mu}$ lies in the $xz$ plane 

2407: such that $\vec{\mu}=|\vec{\mu}\hspace{.5pt}|\,(\sin\al,0,\cos\al)$.

2408: To apply complex-integration methods, 

2409: we chose the integration domain 

2410: $l\in [-\infty,\infty]$,

2411: $\th\in[0,\pi/2]$, 

2412: and $\ph\in[0,2\pi]$, 

2413: as before. 

2414: The $l$ integral can then be evaluated

2415: with the residue theorem. 

2416: 

2417: As discussed before,

2418: finite emission rates

2419: can arise only

2420: in the presence of poles at real $l$.

2421: Only the dispersion-relation part

2422: of the denominator in the integral \rf{dipolerateexp}

2423: with zeros at $l_{\pm}=\pm 2(k_0^2-\vec{k}^{\,2}\sin^2\th)^{1/2}$

2424: can lead to such poles.

2425: The corresponding values for $\th$

2426: that also lie within the above range of integration

2427: are determined by $(1-k_0^2/\vec{k}^{\,2})^{1/2}\le\cos\th\le 1$.

2428: In this case,

2429: the contour for the $l$ integration

2430: is fixed

2431: by the causal $i\ve$ prescription:

2432: up to an unimportant normalization of $\ve$,

2433: the poles are shifted to

2434: $l_{\pm}\to\, l_{\pm}-i\ve\,\text{sgn}(k_0)$.

2435: Suppose $k_0>0$,

2436: so that the contour passes above the real poles at $l_{\pm}$.

2437: We then choose to close the integration contour above

2438: encircling the poles at $l^{\pm}=(\pm 1 + i)/\sqrt{2}\la$

2439: with the respective residues $R^{\pm}(\la,\al,\th,\ph)$.

2440: It is now straightforward 

2441: to evaluate the $l$ integral 

2442: with the aid of the residue theorem.

2443: We obtain

2444: \beq

2445: {}\;\;\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=-

2446: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{\sqrt{1-k_0^2/\vec{k}^{\,2}}}^{1}

2447: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!d\cos\th

2448: \!\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\!d\ph\;

2449: \fr{R^{+}+R^{-}}{(2\pi)^{2}}

2450: \left(\begin{array}{c}\sin\th\cos\ph\\

2451: \sin\th\sin\ph\\

2452: \cos\th

2453: \end{array}

2454: \right).

2455: \label{pint}

2456: \eeq

2457: We remark

2458: that an analogous calculation in situations with $k_0<0$

2459: gives the same expression with the opposite sign

2460: provided the symmetries of the residues are taken into account.

2461: 

2462: For further progress, 

2463: we use the explicit form of the residues 

2464: $R^{\pm}(\la,\al,\th,\ph)$ 

2465: and take the point-particle limit $\la\to 0$. 

2466: This permits a closed-form 

2467: evaluation of the remaining angular integrals: 

2468: \begin{widetext}

2469: \beq 

2470: {}\;\dot{\!\!\vec{P}}=-\fr{{\rm sgn}(k_0)}{12\pi}\; 

2471: \fr{k_0^5}{|\vec{k}|^5}

2472: \left\{

2473: \left[3q^2 \vec{k}^{\,2}/k_0^2 +6q\,\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\mu}

2474: -\vec{\mu}^{\,2}k_0^2

2475: +5(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\mu})^2k_0^2/\vec{k}^{\,2}

2476: +10(\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\times\!\vec{\mu})^2\right]k_0\vec{k}

2477: -2\left[q\vec{k}^{\,2}/k_0^2+\vec{k}\!\hspace{0.8pt}\cdot\!\vec{\mu}\right]k_0^3\,\vec{\mu}\right\}.

2478: \label{drate} 

2479: \eeq 

2480: \end{widetext}

2481: Equation \rf{drate} 

2482: gives the exact expression 

2483: for the net momentum 

2484: radiated by a charged pointlike magnetic dipole 

2485: as measured in its rest frame. 

2486: In the $\vec{\mu}\to\vec{0}$ limit, 

2487: our previous result \rf{pcrate} 

2488: for a point charge is recovered. 

2489: The leading-order corrections

2490: to the point-charge rate \rf{pcrate}

2491: arising from the presence of the magnetic moment $\vec{\mu}$

2492: are suppressed

2493: by an additional power of $k^{\mu}$,

2494: as expected on dimensional grounds.

2495: Although heavily suppressed by four powers of $k^{\mu}$,

2496: the rate does remain nonzero

2497: in the pure-dipole limit $q\to 0$.

2498: 

2499: 

2500: 

2501: \begin{thebibliography}{xx}

2502: 

2503: \bibitem{cpt01}

2504: For an overview see, e.g.,

2505: {\it CPT and Lorentz Symmetry II},

2506: edited by V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y

2507: (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002).

2508: 

2509: \bibitem{ck}

2510: D.\ Colladay and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2511: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 6760 (1997);

2512: {\bf 58}, 116002 (1998).

2513: 

2514: \bibitem{grav}

2515: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 

2516: 105009 (2004).

2517: 

2518: \bibitem{kl01}

2519: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and R.\ Lehnert,

2520: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 065008 (2001).

2521: 

2522: \bibitem{kps}

2523: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and S.\ Samuel,

2524: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39}, 683 (1989);

2525: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 1811 (1991);

2526: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and R.\ Potting,

2527: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 359}, 545 (1991);

2528: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 381}, 89 (1996);

2529: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 046007 (2001);

2530: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y, M.J.\ Perry, and R.\ Potting,

2531: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 4541 (2000).

2532: 

2533: \bibitem{lqg} 

2534: R.\ Gambini and J.\ Pullin,

2535: in Ref.\ \cite{cpt01};

2536: J.\ Alfaro, H.A.\ Morales-T\'ecotl, and L.F.\ Urrutia,

2537: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 124006 (2002);

2538: D.\ Sudarsky, L.\ Urrutia, and H.\ Vucetich,

2539: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 231301 (2002);

2540: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 024010 (2003);

2541: G.\ Amelino-Camelia,

2542: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 17}, 899 (2002);

2543: Y.J.\ Ng,

2544: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A18}, 1073 (2003);

2545: R.C.\ Myers and M.\ Pospelov,

2546: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 211601 (2003);

2547: N.E.\ Mavromatos,

2548: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ B {\bf 214}, 1 (2004).

2549: 

2550: \bibitem{kp03} 

2551: See, however, 

2552: C.N.\ Kozameh and M.F.\ Parisi, 

2553: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 21}, 2617 (2004). 

2554: 

2555: \bibitem{klink}

2556: C.\ Adam and F.R.\ Klinkhamer, 

2557: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 607}, 247 (2001); 

2558: F.R.\ Klinkhamer and C.\ Rupp, hep-th/0312032. 

2559: 

2560: \bibitem{ncft} 

2561: S.M.\ Carroll \etal,

2562: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 141601 (2001);

2563: Z.\ Guralnik, R.\ Jackiw, S.Y.\ Pi, and A.P.\ Polychronakos,

2564: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 450 (2001);

2565: C.E.\ Carlson, C.D.\ Carone, and R.F.\ Lebed,

2566: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 201 (2001);

2567: A.\ Anisimov, T.\ Banks, M.\ Dine, and M.\ Graesser,

2568: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 085032 (2002);

2569: I.\ Mocioiu, M.\ Pospelov, and R.\ Roiban,

2570: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 107702 (2002);

2571: M.\ Chaichian, M.M.\ Sheikh-Jabbari, and A.\ Tureanu,

2572: hep-th/0212259;

2573: J.L.\ Hewett, F.J.\ Petriello, and T.G.\ Rizzo,

2574: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 036001 (2002).

2575: 

2576: \bibitem{vc} 

2577: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y, R.\ Lehnert, and M.J.\ Perry, 

2578: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 123511 (2003); 

2579: O.\ Bertolami, R.\ Lehnert, R.\ Potting, and A.\ Ribeiro, 

2580: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 083513 (2004). 

2581: 

2582: \bibitem{aclm}

2583: N.\ Arkani-Hamed, H.-C.\ Cheng, M.A.\ Luty, and S.\ Mukohyama,

2584: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 074 (2004). 

2585: 

2586: \bibitem{rd} 

2587: C.D.\ Froggatt and H.B.\ Nielsen, 

2588: hep-ph/0211106. 

2589: 

2590: \bibitem{mv} 

2591: J.D.\ Bjorken, 

2592: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 043508 (2003). 

2593: 

2594: \bibitem{bws} 

2595: C.P.\ Burgess \etal, 

2596: JHEP {\bf 0203}, 043 (2002); 

2597: A.R.\ Frey, 

2598: JHEP {\bf 0304}, 012 (2003); 

2599: J.\ Cline and L.\ Valc\'arcel, 

2600: JHEP {\bf 0403}, 032 (2004). 

2601: 

2602: \bibitem{hadronexpt}

2603: KTeV Collaboration,

2604: H.\ Nguyen, in Ref.\ \cite{cpt01};

2605: OPAL Collaboration,

2606: R.\ Ackerstaff \etal,

2607: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 76}, 401 (1997);

2608: DELPHI Collaboration,

2609: M.\ Feindt \etal,

2610: preprint DELPHI 97-98 CONF 80 (1997);

2611: BELLE Collaboration,

2612: K.\ Abe \etal,

2613: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 3228 (2001);

2614: BaBar Collaboration,

2615: B.\ Aubert

2616: \etal,

2617: hep-ex/0303043;

2618: FOCUS Collaboration,

2619: J.M.\ Link \etal,

2620: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 556}, 7 (2003).

2621: 

2622: \bibitem{kpo}

2623: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and R.\ Potting,

2624: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 3923 (1995).

2625: 

2626: \bibitem{hadronth}

2627: D.\ Colladay and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2628: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 344}, 259 (1995);

2629: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 6224 (1995);

2630: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and R.\ Van Kooten,

2631: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 5585 (1996);

2632: O.\ Bertolami \etal,

2633: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 178 (1997);

2634: N.\ Isgur \etal,

2635: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515}, 333 (2001).

2636: 

2637: \bibitem{ak}

2638: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2639: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 1818 (1998);

2640: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 016002 (2000);

2641: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 076001 (2001).

2642: 

2643: \bibitem{ccexpt}

2644: L.R.\ Hunter \etal,

2645: in {\it CPT and Lorentz Symmetry}, 

2646: edited by V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y 

2647: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999);

2648: D.\ Bear \etal,

2649: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 5038 (2000);

2650: D.F.\ Phillips \etal,

2651: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 111101 (2001);

2652: M.A.\ Humphrey \etal,

2653: Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 68}, 063807 (2003);

2654: Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 62}, 063405 (2000);

2655: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and C.D.\ Lane,

2656: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 116010 (1999);

2657: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 40}, 6245 (1999).

2658: 

2659: \bibitem{spaceexpt}

2660: R.\ Bluhm \etal,

2661: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 090801 (2002);

2662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 125008 (2003).

2663: 

2664: \bibitem{cane}

2665: F.\ Can\`e \etal,

2666: physics/0309070.

2667: 

2668: \bibitem{eexpt}

2669: H.\ Dehmelt \etal,

2670: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4694 (1999);

2671: R.\ Mittleman \etal,

2672: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 2116 (1999);

2673: G.\ Gabrielse \etal,

2674: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 3198 (1999);

2675: R.\ Bluhm \etal,

2676: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 2254 (1999);

2677: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 1432 (1997);

2678: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 3932 (1998).

2679: 

2680: \bibitem{eexpt2}

2681: B.\ Heckel,

2682: in Ref.\ \cite{cpt01};

2683: L.-S.\ Hou, W.-T.\ Ni, and Y.-C.M.\ Li,

2684: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 201101 (2003);

2685: R.\ Bluhm and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2686: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 1381 (2000).

2687: 

2688: \bibitem{eexpt3}

2689: H.\ M\"uller, S.\ Herrmann, A.\ Saenz,

2690: A.\ Peters, and C.\ L\"ammerzahl,

2691: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 116006 (2003);

2692: R.\ Lehnert,

2693: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 45}, 3399 (2004).

2694: 

2695: \bibitem{cfj}

2696: S.M.\ Carroll, G.B.\ Field, and R.\ Jackiw,

2697: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 1231 (1990).

2698: 

2699: \bibitem{photonexpt}

2700: M.P.\ Haugan and T.F.\ Kauffmann,

2701: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 3168 (1995);

2702: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and M.\ Mewes,

2703: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 251304 (2001).

2704: 

2705: \bibitem{photonth}

2706: H.\ M\"uller \etal,

2707: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 056006 (2003);

2708: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and A.G.M.\ Pickering,

2709: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 031801 (2003);

2710: G.M.\ Shore,

2711: Contemp.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44}, 503 (2003);

2712: Q.\ Bailey and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y, 

2713: hep-ph/0407252.

2714: 

2715: \bibitem{cavexpt}

2716: J.\ Lipa \etal,

2717: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 060403 (2003);

2718: H.\ M\"uller \etal,

2719: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91}, 020401 (2003);

2720: P.\ Wolf \etal,

2721: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\ {\bf 36}, 2352 (2004).

2722: 

2723: \bibitem{km}

2724: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and M.\ Mewes,

2725: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 056005 (2002).

2726: 

2727: \bibitem{muons}

2728: V.W.\ Hughes \etal,

2729: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 111804 (2001);

2730: R.\ Bluhm \etal,

2731: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 1098 (2000);

2732: E.O.\ Iltan,

2733: JHEP {\bf 0306}, 016 (2003).

2734: 

2735: \bibitem{higgs}

2736: E.O.\ Iltan,

2737: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 19}, 327 (2004);

2738: D.L.\ Anderson, M.\ Sher, and I.\ Turan,

2739: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 016001 (2004).

2740: 

2741: \bibitem{neutrinos}

2742: S.\ Coleman and S.L.\ Glashow,

2743: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 116008 (1999);

2744: V.\ Barger, S.\ Pakvasa, T.J.\ Weiler, and K.\ Whisnant,

2745: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 5055 (2000);

2746: J.N.\ Bahcall, V.\ Barger, and D.\ Marfatia,

2747: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 534}, 114 (2002);

2748: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and M.\ Mewes, hep-ph/0308300;

2749: S.\ Choubey and S.F.\ King, 

2750: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 586}, 353 (2004).

2751: 

2752: \bibitem{nulong}

2753: V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y and M.\ Mewes,

2754: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 016005 (2004);

2755: hep-ph/0406255.

2756: 

2757: \bibitem{cerh}

2758: O.\ Heaviside, Phil.\ Mag.\ {\bf 27}, 324 (1889).

2759: 

2760: \bibitem{cerexp}

2761: P.A.\ \v{C}erenkov,

2762: Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR {\bf 2}, 451 (1934); 

2763: S.I.\ Vavilov, 

2764: Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR {\bf 2}, 457 (1934).

2765: 

2766: \bibitem{cerclass}

2767: I.E.\ Tamm and I.M.\ Frank,

2768: Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR {\bf 14}, 107 (1937); 

2769: E.\ Fermi, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 57}, 485 (1940). 

2770: 

2771: \bibitem{cerquant}

2772: V.L.\ Ginzburg,

2773: J.\ Phys.\ U.S.S.R.\ {\bf 2},

2774: 441 (1940);

2775: J.M.\ Jauch and K.M.\ Watson,

2776: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 74},

2777: 950 (1948);

2778: {\bf 74},

2779: 1485 (1948);

2780: {\bf 75},

2781: 1485 (1949).

2782: 

2783: \bibitem{vcr}

2784: E.F.\ Beall,

2785: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 1}, 961 (1970).

2786: 

2787: \bibitem{vcrtests} 

2788: See, e.g., 

2789: S.\ Coleman and S.L.\ Glashow, 

2790: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 405}, 249 (1997); 

2791: T.\ Kifune,

2792: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 518}, L21 (1999);

2793: T.J.\ Konopka and S.A.\ Major, 

2794: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4}, 57 (2002); 

2795: T.\ Jacobson, S.\ Liberati, and D.\ Mattingly,

2796: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 124011 (2003); 

2797: T.\ Jacobson, S.\ Liberati, D.\ Mattingly, and F.W.\ Stecker, 

2798: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 021101 (2004);

2799: O.\ Gagnon and G.D.\ Moore,

2800: hep-ph/0404196.

2801: 

2802: \bibitem{lp04}

2803: R.\ Lehnert and R.\ Potting, 

2804: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., in press (hep-ph/0406128).

2805: 

2806: \bibitem{aclt04}

2807: N.\ Arkani-Hamed, H.-C.\ Cheng, M.A.\ Luty, and J.\ Thaler, 

2808: hep-ph/0407034.

2809: 

2810: \bibitem{cern} 

2811: V.P.\ Zrelov, J.\ Ru\v{z}i\v{c}ka, A.A.\ Tyapkin, 

2812: JINR Rapid Commun.\ {\bf 1-87}, 23 (1998). 

2813: 

2814: \bibitem{cms} 

2815: T.E.\ Stevens, J.K.\ Wahlstrand, J.\ Kuhl, and R.\ Merlin, 

2816: Science {\bf 291}, 627 (2001); 

2817: C.\ Luo, M.\ Ibanescu, S.G.\ Johnson, and J.D.\ Joannopoulos, 

2818: Science {\bf 299}, 368 (2003). 

2819: 

2820: \bibitem{certheo} 

2821: See, e.g., 

2822: G.N.\ Afanasiev, V.G.\ Kartavenko, and E.N.\ Magar, 

2823: Physica B {\bf 269}, 95 (1999); 

2824: I.\ Carusotto, M.\ Artoni, G.C.\ La Rocca, and F.\ Bassani, 

2825: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 064801 (2001). 

2826: 

2827: \bibitem{mcsclass}

2828: H.B.\ Belich, M.M.\ Ferreira, J.A.\ Helay\"el-Neto, and M.T.D.\ Orlando,

2829: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 025005 (2003).

2830: H.J.\ Belich, J.L.\ Boldo, L.P.\ Colatto, 

2831: J.A.\ Helay\"el-Neto, and A.L.M.A.\ Nogueira,

2832: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 065030 (2003).

2833: 

2834: \bibitem{mcsquant}

2835: R.\ Jackiw and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2836: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 3572 (1999);

2837: M.\ P\'erez-Victoria,

2838: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 2518 (1999);

2839: M.B.\ Cantcheff, C.F.L.\ Godinho, A.P.\ Ba\^eta Scarpelli, 

2840: and J.A.\ Helay\"el-Neto,

2841: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 065025 (2003);

2842: B.\ Altschul, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 125009 (2004);

2843: hep-th/0407172.

2844: 

2845: \bibitem{rl03}

2846: R.\ Lehnert,

2847: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 085003 (2003).

2848: 

2849: \bibitem{fn4}

2850: For situations involving gravity, 

2851: see Ref.\ \cite{grav}.

2852: 

2853: \bibitem{fn1} 

2854: We remark, 

2855: however, 

2856: that in unrealistic situations with spacetime constant $j^{\mu}$

2857: the right-hand side of Eq.\ \rf{emcurrent} 

2858: is given by the total divergence 

2859: $-\prt_{\mu}(\et^{\mu\nu}j\!\cdot\!A-j^{\mu}A^{\nu})$. 

2860: The expression in parentheses 

2861: can then be identified 

2862: with the energy--momentum tensor 

2863: associated with the field--source interaction. 

2864: In this case,

2865: the total 4-momentum

2866: stored both in

2867: the fields and in the interaction is conserved,

2868: as expected from translational symmetry.

2869: 

2870: \bibitem{fn2}

2871: We disregard microcausality violations.

2872: 

2873: \bibitem{Jackson}

2874: See, e.g.,

2875: J.D.\ Jackson,

2876: {\it Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd ed.}

2877: (Wiley, New York, 1975).

2878: 

2879: \bibitem{ll}

2880: See, e.g., 

2881: L.D.\ Landau, E.M.\ Lifshitz, and L.P.\ Pitaevski\u{\i}

2882: {\it Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, 2nd ed.} 

2883: (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1984). 

2884: 

2885: \bibitem{fn3}

2886: As in the conventional case, 

2887: we select coordinate-independent normalizations

2888: for spinors and polarization vectors.

2889: More general, coordinate-\textit{dependent} normalizations are possible 

2890: as long as they are compensated 

2891: by corresponding coordinate-dependent phase-space elements \cite{ck01}.

2892: However, 

2893: such choices would give meaningful rate estimates

2894: only when $|{\cal M}_{a\rightarrow b,c}|^2$ can be determined.

2895: 

2896: \bibitem{ck01}

2897: D.\ Colladay and V.A.\ Kosteleck\'y,

2898: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 209 (2001).

2899: 

2900: \bibitem{kauf}

2901: This amplitude estimate is consistent

2902: with a spacelike-$k^{\mu}$ result by C.\ Kaufhold

2903: (to appear).

2904: 

2905: \end{thebibliography}

2906: 

2907: \end{document}

2908: 

2909: 

2910: