1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %
2: %%
3: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
5: %%
6: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
7: %%
8: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long
11: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.
12: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
13: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal
14: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
15: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
16: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
17: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
18: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
19: %\documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
20: \documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,groupedaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
21:
22: \usepackage{graphics}
23: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
24: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS
25: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line
26: % below if necessary.
27: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report
32: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.
33: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.
34: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults
35: % to display numbers if necessary
36: %\preprint{}
37:
38: %Title of paper
39: \title{A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics}
40:
41: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
42: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current
43: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail
44: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
45: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information
46:
47: \author{J. A. Lipa}
48: \email[]{jlipa@stanford.edu}
49: \author{J. A. Nissen}
50: \author{S. Wang}
51: \author{D. A. Stricker}
52: \author{D. Avaloff}
53:
54:
55: \affiliation{Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA}
56:
57: \date{\today}
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60: % insert abstract here
61: We describe the results of an experiment to test for spacetime
62: anisotropy terms that might exist from Lorentz violations. The
63: apparatus consists of a pair of cylindrical superconducting cavity-stabilized
64: oscillators operating in the TM$_{010}$ mode with one axis east-west
65: and the other vertical. Spatial anisotropy is detected by monitoring
66: the beat frequency at the sidereal rate and its first harmonic.
67: We see no anisotropy to a part in
68: $10^{13}$. This puts a comparable bound on four linear combinations of
69: parameters in the general Standard Model extension, and a weaker bound
70: of $<4 \times 10^{-9}$ on three others.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
74: \pacs{11.30.Cp, 03.30.+p}
75: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
76: %\keywords{}
77:
78: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
79: \maketitle
80:
81: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
82: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
83:
84: %\section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction}
85: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing
86: %\section{\label{}}
87:
88: %Define special character (circle) which
89: % is used for an Earth-base experiment.
90: %These go with calligraphic A,B
91: \def\om{\omega}
92: \def\fr#1#2{{{#1} \over {#2}}}
93:
94: Tests of spacetime anisotropy are generally divided into two main
95: classes, one involving angle dependent effects and the other absolute
96: velocity effects. Following Robertson \cite{Robertson}, a treatment of
97: potential Lorentz invariance violations involving idealized rods and
98: clocks was developed by Mansouri and Sexl \cite{Mansouri} who
99: considered the possibility of an anisotropic propagation velocity of
100: light relative to a preferred frame. In this model, if a laboratory is
101: assumed to be moving with a velocity $v$ at an angle $\theta$
102: relative to the axis of a preferred frame, the speed of light as a
103: function of $\theta$ and $v$ is given by
104: %=============================================================
105: \begin{eqnarray}
106: \frac{c{(\theta,v)}}{c} = 1 + \left({\frac{1}{2}} - \beta +
107: \delta\right)\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2\sin^2\theta \nonumber\\
108: + (\beta - \alpha -1) \left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2 \label{speedc}
109: \end{eqnarray}
110: %=============================================================
111: where $\alpha$ is the time dilation parameter, $\beta$ is the Lorentz
112: contraction parameter,and $\delta$ tests for transverse contraction.
113: In special relativity the last two terms on the right hand side of the
114: equation are zero. Classical Michelson-Morley experiments attempt to
115: measure the amplitude of the $\theta$-dependent term, while
116: Kennedy-Thorndyke experiments set limits on the amplitude of the
117: $\theta$-independent term. While useful to help categorize
118: experiments, this approach has a number of limitations. For example,
119: it fails to include effects on the measurement system itself and it
120: does not take into account the full range of anisotropies allowable in nature.
121: %---------------------------------------
122: %These go with calligraphic A,B
123: \def\om{\omega}
124: \def\fr#1#2{{{#1} \over {#2}}}
125: %---------------------------------------
126:
127: Recently Kosteleck\'y and Mewes \cite{Kostelecky} (KM) have pointed
128: out that in the Standard Model Extension (SME) that describes general
129: Lorentz violations \cite{Colladay}, additional terms may exist which
130: show signatures different from those expressed in Eq. (\ref{speedc}).
131: In particular, $\sin\theta$ and $\sin2\theta$ terms may exist
132: independent of $v$ which could be detectable in the experiments, as
133: well as terms first order in $v/c$. No systematic search for these
134: terms appears to have been undertaken
135: in the optical experiments conducted until now,
136: although a number of tests have been performed with fermions and
137: with astrophysical sources \cite{ref3}. Also, experiments involving the
138: Earth's rotation
139: typically use co-rotating frequency references which complicates the
140: analysis. A simple configuration that can be analyzed easily consists
141: of a pair of cylindrical microwave cavity resonators operating on
142: radial modes with their axes aligned in the east-west direction and
143: optimally at $45^{\circ}$ to the Earth's axis, as indicated in
144: Fig. 1. This apparatus will in general have a different sensitivity
145: to the coefficients of the Lorentz violating terms than an optical
146: cavity experiment because of the radial nature of the wave motions involved.
147: Each cavity will provide its own fractional offset signal $\delta \nu/ \nu$
148: from its unperturbed frequency.
149: The beat signal from such a pair,
150: $\Delta \nu/ \nu = \delta \nu_1/\nu - \delta \nu_2/\nu$, takes the general form
151: %=============================================================
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: \frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu} &=&
154: {\cal A}_{s}\sin\om t
155: +{\cal A}_{c}\cos\om t
156: \nonumber \\ &&
157: +{\cal B}_{s}\sin2\om t
158: +{\cal B}_{c}\cos2\om t + {\cal C} \label{beat}
159: \end{eqnarray}
160: %=============================================================
161: where the coefficients are linear combinations of potential Lorentz
162: violating terms in the SME and $2\pi/\omega$ is the Earth's sidereal
163: period. The term ${\cal C}$ has an annual variation that can be
164: neglected here.
165: In zero and first order of $v/c$ the quantities ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ contain
166: exclusively SME terms, while higher order terms would of course
167: include the more traditional effects described by Eq. (\ref{speedc}).
168: The cavity which is oriented in the east-west direction is maximally sensitive
169: to the second harmonic terms in Eq. (2), while the cavity oriented $45^{\circ}$
170: to the Earth's axis is maximally sensitive to the first harmonic terms
171: \cite{Kostelecky_52}.
172: A search for the lower order terms would probe for new physics that
173: might for example correspond to residual effects left over from the
174: birth of the universe. Because of the extreme sensitivity of modern cavity
175: resonators and clocks it is possible to put useful bounds on such
176: possibilities.
177:
178: When limited to the photon sector the Lagrangian describing
179: the SME can be written in the form \cite{noteref3}
180: %=============================================================
181: \begin{eqnarray}
182: L_{photon} = -{\frac{1}{4}} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - {\frac{1}{4}}
183: (k_F)_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu} F^{\kappa\lambda}F^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
184: + {\frac{1}{2}}(k_{AF})^\kappa \epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}A^\lambda F^{\mu\nu} \label{lagrange}
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: %=============================================================
187: Here $A_\mu$ are the photon fields,
188: $F_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$
189: and the coefficients $k_F$ and $k_{AF}$ control the magnitude of
190: the Lorentz violations. Stringent limits exist on the size of the
191: $k_{AF}$ term, but the CPT-even $k_F$ term is only partially
192: constrained \cite{Kostelecky}. KM define matrices
193: $\tilde{\kappa}_{e+}$, $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$, $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$
194: and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{tr}$ with elements that are
195: parity even and
196: parity odd combinations of the coefficients $k_{F}$.
197: These matrices arise naturally in the
198: analogous situation of wave propagation in a homogeneous anisotropic
199: medium. Astrophysical tests constrain $\tilde{\kappa}_{e+}$ and
200: $\tilde{\kappa}_{o-}$ at the $10^{-32}$ level \cite{astro}, while the
201: other matrices are currently only weakly constrained. These include
202: nine additional coefficients of $k_F$ of which eight are in principle accessible
203: via the present experimental configuration. Of these, four contribute
204: directly to a possible frequency shift and three at first order in
205: $v/c$, leading to high sensitivity tests.
206: Detailed expressions relating the coefficients of Lorentz violation to those
207: in Eq. (\ref{beat}) have been given by KM up to first order in $v/c$.
208: %***********************
209: \begin{figure}
210: \includegraphics{fig1_1}
211: \caption{\label{fig:epsart1}Ideal arrangement of two microwave
212: cavities relative to the Earth's rotational axis which maximizes
213: sensitivity to sidereal and twice-sidereal variations in the beat frequency.
214: Actual tilt angle is the latitude of the laboratory.}
215: \end{figure}
216: %***********************
217:
218: In our experiment we compare the frequencies of
219: two cylindrical superconducting microwave cavities
220: operating in the TM$_{010}$ mode \cite{Stein}
221: which gives sensitivity to the velocity of light in radial directions. One
222: cavity has its axis oriented to the local vertical
223: at our latitude of $37.4^{\circ}$ while the other axis is oriented to the local
224: horizontal in the east-west direction. The cavities are made
225: of niobium and are operated at
226: about 1.4K in conventional helium Dewars. Microwave synthesizers are
227: locked to the 8.6 GHz modes of the cavities using Pound frequency
228: discrimination systems, and the difference frequency is mixed with an
229: intermediate frequency oscillator to produce a beat signal in the
230: 20 - 30 Hz range. Data was collected at irregular intervals over a
231: 98-day period during a development program for a related experiment
232: to be performed in space \cite{Sumo}. Nine records were obtained, each
233: corresponding to a continuous segment of data at least 24 hrs long.
234: Frequency sampling was at one second intervals, with averaging of
235: 100 second segments before curve fitting was performed. An example of
236: one of the records is shown in Fig. 2(a). Typically the records were
237: collected after some other form of testing on the apparatus was
238: completed. This situation leads to arbitrary offsets of up to a few Hz
239: between the records. Also, mechanical disturbances occasionally gave
240: rise to a perceptible drift of the beat frequency amounting to a few
241: mHz per day. We therefore fitted each record with the function
242: %
243: %=============================================================
244: %\begin{equation}
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: \frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu} = \nu_0 + \nu_1t + {\cal A}_{s}\sin(\omega t) +
247: {\cal A}_{c}\cos(\omega t)\nonumber\\
248: + {\cal B}_{s}\sin(2\omega t) + {\cal B}_{c}\cos(2\omega t)\label{fitbeat}
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: %\end{equation}
251: %=============================================================
252: %
253: where $\nu_0$ and $\nu_1$ were additional free parameters. The
254: residuals from the fit to the record in Fig. 2(a) are shown in Fig. 2(b).
255: The values obtained for the coefficients of the sinusoidal terms are
256: listed in Table I along with the day of the record \cite{notetime}.
257: It can be seen that the amplitudes ${\cal A}_{s}$, ${\cal A}_{c}$, ${\cal B}_{s}$
258: and ${\cal B}_{c}$ are
259: in the low $10^{-13}-10^{-14}$ range, with no obvious trend with time.
260: XY plots of the sine and cosine coefficients are shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b).
261: To test for an alignment of the observed signals with inertial space
262: we also made the XY plots after phase shifting the sine and cosine
263: coefficients to sidereal time, obtaining the results in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d).
264: For these plots the time origin was also shifted to the 2002 vernal equinox.
265: No significant reduction of the scatter is evident.
266: %
267: %***********************
268: \begin{figure}
269: \includegraphics{fig2_1}
270: \caption{\label{fig:epsart2}(a) Example of a beat frequency record $\Delta \nu $ as a function of time.
271: $\Delta \nu $ is measured from 26 Hz. Line shows best fit with Eq. (\ref{fitbeat}).
272: (b) Residuals of data in (a) after subtraction of best fit.}
273: \end{figure}
274: %***********************
275: %
276:
277: A study of the behavior of the apparatus at other times disclosed a high
278: sensitivity of the signal from one of the
279: cavities to tilt which appears to be the dominant limit to
280: the experiment. A second effect was the stability of the temperature of the cavity.
281: This was
282: controlled to within $\pm 5\times 10^{-6}$ K using a germanium
283: resistance thermometer mounted on the
284: cavity and a servoed heater. The
285: dominant source of temperature fluctuation was the 1.4 K cooling
286: system. A proportional-integral temperature controller was used, but
287: thermal gradients within the cavity assembly could cause some
288: undetected coupling with room temperature. A ratio transformer bridge
289: was used for the germanium thermometer with a reference resistor at
290: 1.4 K. This configuration typically gives stabilities of better
291: than 1 $\mu$K. The temperature coefficient of the cavity frequency was
292: -28 Hz/K which would imply frequency offsets on the order of $\pm 0.15$ mHz,
293: but this could be amplified by thermal gradient effects. With servo
294: powers of the order $10^{-5}$ W, temperature differences of as much as
295: $5\times10^{-5}$ K would be expected in the cavity support structure.
296: A number of correlation studies were performed but only a modest
297: reduction of the amplitudes in Table I was obtained. Discussion of
298: this aspect of the analysis is lengthy and will be presented elsewhere.
299: We suspect that the signal amplitudes in Table I are dominated by mechanical
300: effects in the low temperature apparatus.
301: %
302: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
303: \begin{table}
304: \caption{\label{tab:table1}Coefficients of sinusoidal terms from best fits
305: to the raw data \cite{notetime}
306: with Eq. (\ref{fitbeat}). Uncertainties in the coefficients from the fit
307: are given in parentheses.}
308: \begin{ruledtabular}
309: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
310: Day&${\cal A}_{s}\times 10^{13}$&${\cal A}_{c}\times 10^{13}$&${\cal B}_{s}\times 10^{13}$&${\cal B}_{c}\times 10^{13}$\\
311: \hline
312: 1 & 0.731 (0.04) & 2.520 (0.04) & -0.216 (0.04) & -0.204 (0.04) \\
313: 3 & -0.081 (0.03) & 1.189 (0.03) & -1.680 (0.03) & 0.605 (0.03) \\
314: 18 & 3.699 (0.12) & 0.368 (0.12) & -1.817 (0.11) & 0.691 (0.12) \\
315: 26 & 2.286 (0.07) & 0.108 (0.07) & -0.950 (0.07) & 0.459 (0.07) \\
316: 59 & 2.503 (0.08) & -0.697 (0.09) & -1.347 (0.08) & 1.101 (0.08) \\
317: 78 & -0.329 (0.10) & 1.776 (0.13) & 0.535 (0.10) & -0.457 (0.11) \\
318: 80 & 1.006 (0.06) & 0.515 (0.06) & -0.156 (0.06) & -0.135 (0.06) \\
319: 95 & -0.809 (0.06) & 0.107 (0.06) & -0.212 (0.06) & 0.145 (0.06) \\
320: 98 & -0.306 (0.04) & -1.336 (0.04) & 0.823 (0.04) & -0.558 (0.04) \\
321: \end{tabular}
322: \end{ruledtabular}
323: \end{table}
324: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
325:
326: From the plots in Fig. 3 it seems reasonable to conclude that there is
327: no significant evidence for an inertially oriented frequency shift in
328: our experiment. Treating the variation of the observed signal
329: amplitudes as locally generated "noise" we can average the data in
330: each direction and derive bounds on any signal. Using the
331: coefficients from Figs. 3(c) and 3(d) we obtain
332: $\bar{\cal A}_{c} = -8.5\pm 10.4 \times 10^{-14}$,
333: $\bar{\cal A}_{s} = 4.2\pm 8.8 \times 10^{-14}$,
334: $\bar{\cal B}_{c} = -2.0\pm 4.3 \times 10^{-14}$ and
335: $\bar{\cal B}_{s} = 5.8\pm 5.9 \times 10^{-14}$ where the
336: errors correspond to the statistical 2$\sigma$ level. Because of
337: the likely presence of
338: unmodeled systematic effects and the small number of records, we consider the confidence
339: level in these results to be closer to the 60\% or 1$\sigma$ level.
340: The results imply that certain linear combinations of the $k_F$
341: coefficients are constrained at the $10^{-13}$ level.
342: For example, neglecting contributions of order $v/c$ and higher, the ${\cal A}_{s}$ term can be
343: written as
344: ${\cal A}_{s}^0 = 1/4 \sin2 \chi (3\tilde{\kappa}_{e+} + \tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{YZ}$ where $\chi$ is the
345: colatitude of the experiment \cite{notexyz}. Setting $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e+})^{YZ} = 0$ on
346: the basis of the extremely
347: tight astrophysical bound $< 10^{-32}$,
348: it is easy to show that ${\cal A}_{s}^0 = (1/16) \sin2\chi [(k_F)^{ZXYX} + (k_F)^{XZXY} - (k_F)^{ZXXY}
349: - (k_F)^{XZYX} - 4(k_F)^{0Y0Z}]$, which reduces to $\sin2\chi[(k_F)^{XYXZ} - (k_F)^{0Y0Z}]/4$.
350: Similar relations can be derived for the other amplitudes in Eq. (\ref{beat}).
351: Alternatively, the experiment can be viewed
352: as setting the following bounds on elements of the $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})$ matrix:
353: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{YZ} < 1.7 \pm 3.6 \times 10^{-13}$;
354: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XZ} < -3.5 \pm 4.3 \times 10^{-13}$;
355: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XY} < 1.4 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{-13}$;
356: $[(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XX} - (\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{YY}] < -1.0 \pm 2.1 \times 10^{-13}$.
357:
358: %***********************
359: \begin{figure}
360: \includegraphics{fig3_1}
361: \caption{\label{fig:epsart3}XY plots of best fit coefficients with Eq. (\ref{fitbeat}) for all records.
362: (a) ${\cal A}_{s}$ vs. ${\cal A}_{c}$, and (b) ${\cal B}_{s}$ vs. ${\cal B}_{c}$ using solar time;
363: (c) and (d): same as (a) and (b) but with sidereal phase shifts added to align results to inertial
364: space. Lines link the data points in time sequence.}
365: \end{figure}
366: %***********************
367: %
368:
369: As described by KM,
370: three more coefficients
371: are introduced at the level $v/c$, where $v$ is the velocity of the Earth around the
372: Sun. The additional term in ${\cal A}_{s}$ can be written as
373: %=============================================================
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: {\cal A}_{s}^1 = \frac{v}{4c} \sin2\chi \cos\Omega T[ \sin\eta(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{ZX}
376: - \cos\eta(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YX}] \label{AS}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: %=============================================================
379: where $2\pi/\Omega$ is the orbital period of the Earth, $T$ is the time measured from the
380: vernal equinox and $\eta$ is the angle between the Earth's orbital and
381: equatorial planes. Evaluating this expression for our situation we obtain
382: ${\cal A}_{s}^1 = 9.75\times 10^{-6} [(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YX} - 0.432(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{ZX}]$
383: where we have used the midvalue of $T$ over our data collection period.
384: Clearly this expression is dependent on the duration of the experiment.
385: In conjunction with ${\cal A}_{s}^0$ this term is also bounded at the level
386: of $4.2\times 10^{-14}$, implying a constraint
387: on the term inside the square brackets of $< 4.0 \pm 8.4 \times 10^{-9}$, assuming no cancellation
388: between the terms \cite{notesigma}. Similar expressions can be derived for the other
389: coefficients in Eq. (\ref{fitbeat}). For clarity, the entire
390: set of constraints obtained from
391: the measurements is given in Table II.
392: A more direct bound on the components of ${\cal A}_{s}^1$ could be
393: obtained by extending the data gathering period to a larger fraction of a year
394: when it would become reasonable to include the annual modulation terms in the fit
395: to the data.
396: At the present level, the experiment sets bounds of $ < 4 \times 10^{-9}$
397: on four expressions of the type in square brackets in Eq. (\ref{AS}).
398: We note that by mixing the experimental bounds, a cleaner separation of the
399: $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ components can be obtained.
400: %
401: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
402: \begin{table}
403: \caption{\label{tab:table2}Experimental constraints on coefficients in the SME assuming no
404: cancellation effects.}
405: \begin{ruledtabular}
406: \begin{tabular}{cc}
407: Constrained Quantity & Bound\\
408: \hline
409: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{YZ}$ & $ 1.7 \pm 3.6 \times 10^{-13}$ \\
410: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XZ}$ & $ -3.5 \pm 4.3 \times 10^{-13}$ \\
411: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XY}$ & $ 1.4 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{-13}$ \\
412: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{XX} - (\tilde{\kappa}_{e-})^{YY}$ & $ -1.0 \pm 2.1\times 10^{-13}$\\
413: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YX} - 0.432(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{ZX}$ & $ 4.0 \pm 8.4 \times 10^{-9}$\\
414: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{XY} - 0.209(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YZ}$ & $ 4.0 \pm 4.9 \times 10^{-9}$\\
415: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{XZ} - 0.484(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YZ}$ & $ 1.6 \pm 1.7 \times 10^{-9}$\\
416: $(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{YZ} + 0.484(\tilde{\kappa}_{o+})^{XZ}$ & $ 0.6 \pm 1.9 \times 10^{-9}$\\
417: \end{tabular}
418: \end{ruledtabular}
419: \end{table}
420: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
421:
422:
423: By restricting the Lagrangian in Eq. (\ref{lagrange}) to the photon sector, the model
424: omits a range of potential
425: effects from the material that makes up the apparatus. Within the full SME these
426: possibilities lead to considerable complexity, but KM argue that complete cancellation of
427: the photon sector effects is improbable due to the complexity of the forces involved.
428: In very recent work M\"uller \textit{et al}. \cite{Muller} have considered
429: these effects and find a small enhancement of the photon effects in the case of ionic crystalline
430: materials.
431:
432: In summary, we have set bounds at the $10^{-13}$ level on four combinations of parameters in the
433: SME, and bounds at the $10^{-9}$ level on four others. These bounds now constrain seven of the
434: nine unknown coefficients $k_F$ in the model.
435: We note that in a space-based version of this experiment \cite{Sumo}, substantially
436: greater sensitivity could be
437: achieved, perhaps approaching the $10^{-17}$ level for the four primary bounds.
438:
439: We wish to thank J. Turneaure and S. Buchman for support in the early phases
440: of the project, the NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research
441: for its support with Grants No. NAG3-1940
442: and No. NAG8-1439, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for Contract No. 1203716.
443:
444:
445: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
446:
447: \bibitem{Robertson} H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{21}, 378 (1949).
448:
449: \bibitem{Mansouri} R. Mansouri and R. U. Sexl, \textit{ Gen. Rel. and Grav.} \textbf{8}, 497 (1977). See also
450: D. Hils and J.L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{64},1697 (1990).
451:
452: \bibitem{Kostelecky} V. A. Kosteleck\'y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{66}, 056005 (2002).
453:
454: \bibitem{Colladay} D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck\'y, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{58}, 116002 (1998).
455:
456: \bibitem{ref3}This situation has been discussed in some detail in ref. 3.
457:
458: \bibitem{Kostelecky_52}The sensitivity of the experiment to cavity orientation
459: is described to first order in $v/c$ by Eq. (52) of Ref. 3.
460:
461: \bibitem{noteref3}We use the notation of ref. 3 where applicable.
462:
463: \bibitem{astro} V. A. Kosteleck\'y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 251304 (2001).
464:
465: \bibitem{Stein} S. R. Stein and J. P. Turneaure, Proc. IEEE \textbf{63}, 1249 (1975).
466:
467: \bibitem{Sumo}J. A. Lipa, J. A. Nissen, S. Wang, D. A. Stricker and D. Avaloff, Proceedings
468: of the 6th Symposium on Frequency Standards and Metrology, St. Andrews, 2001,
469: edited by P. Gill (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), p. 615.
470:
471: \bibitem{notetime}For these coefficients time is set to zero at the first midnight during
472: data collection. Day 1 corresponds to May 30, 2002.
473:
474: \bibitem{notexyz}The $XYZ$ coordinate system defined in Ref.[3] is Sun-centered and
475: has $X$ and $Y$ in the Earth's equatorial plane. The positive $X$-axis is in the direction
476: of the vernal equinox, which we took to be at midnight on March 20, 2002.
477:
478: \bibitem{notesigma}If a statistically significant signal was observed,
479: some progress could be made untangling the effects of the various contributions.
480:
481: \bibitem{Muller} H. M\"uller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters and
482: C. L\"ammerzahl, hep-ph/0212289 (2002).
483:
484: \end{thebibliography}
485:
486:
487: \end{document}
488:
489:
490: