- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Generation of axionlike couplings via quantum corrections in a Lorentz-violating background

L. H. C. Borges1,*, A. G. Dias1,†, A. F. Ferrari1,‡, J. R. Nascimento2,§, and A. Yu. Petrov2,∥

  • 1Universidade Federal do ABC, Centro de Ciências Naturais e Humanas, Rua Santa Adélia, 166, 09210-170 Santo André, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • 2Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Caixa Postal 5008, 58051-970 João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil

  • *luizhenriqueunifei@yahoo.com.br
  • †alex.dias@ufabc.edu.br
  • ‡alysson.ferrari@ufabc.edu.br
  • §jroberto@fisica.ufpb.br
  • ∥petrov@fisica.ufpb.br
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 045005 – Published 12 February, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.045005

Abstract

Light pseudoscalars, or axionlike particles (ALPs), are much studied due to their potential relevance to the fields of particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. The most relevant coupling of ALPs from the viewpoint of current experimental searches is to the photon: in this work, we study the generation of this coupling as an effect of quantum corrections, which originated from an underlying Lorentz-violating background. Most interestingly, we show that the interaction so generated turns out to be Lorentz invariant, thus mimicking the standard ALP coupling to the photon that is considered in the experiments. This consideration implies that violations of spacetime symmetries, much studied as possible consequences of physics in very high energy scales, might infiltrate in other realms of physics in unsuspecting ways. Additionally, we conjecture that a similar mechanism can also generate Lorentz invariant couplings involving scalar particles and photons, playing a possible role in the phenomenology of Higgs bosons.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (36)

  1. J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010).
  2. A. Ringwald, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 116 (2012).
  3. R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977).
  4. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978).
  5. F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978).
  6. P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983); 52 695(E) (1984).
  7. J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979).
  8. M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980).
  9. M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. 104B, 199 (1981).
  10. A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980).
  11. J. Beringer et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).
  12. P. Svrcek and E. Witten, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2006), 051.
  13. A. Ringwald and A. Ringwald, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010).
  14. G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996), Chap. 5.
  15. J. K. Vogel, F. T. Avignone, G. Cantatore, J. M. Carmona, S. Caspi et al., arXiv:1302.3273, 2013
  16. R. Bahre, B. Dobrich, J. Dreyling-Eschweiler, S. Ghazaryan, R. Hodajerdi et al., JINST 8, T09001 (2013).
  17. D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998).
  18. V. A.Kostelecky and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011).
  19. D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Relativity 8, 5 (2005).
  20. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989).
  21. S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990).
  22. F. A. Brito, J. R. Nascimento, E. Passos, and A. Yu. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B 664, 112 (2008).
  23. T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, and A. Yu. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 125003 (2012).
  24. A. P. Baeta Scarpelli, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, and A. Yu. Petrov, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2526 (2013).
  25. M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, and A. J. da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 81, 045018 (2010).
  26. V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004).
  27. V. A.Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 015020 (2009).
  28. V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 096006 (2013).
  29. G. Gazzola, H. G. Fargnoli, A. P. Baêta Scarpelli, M. Sampaio, and M. C. Nemes, J. Phys. G 39, 035002 (2012).
  30. R. Jackiw and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3572 (1999).
  31. W. F. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 60, 085007 (1999).
  32. A. A. Andrianov, P. Giacconi, and R. Soldati, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2002) 030.
  33. O. M. Del Cima, J. M. Fonseca, D. H. T. Franco, and O. Piguet, Phys. Lett. B 688, 258 (2010).

  34. The classification of bμdμ as a scalar might require some clarification. It is important, when considering Lorentz-violating extensions of the Standard Model, to distinguish between observer and particle Lorentz transformations. Under the first of these, all Lorentz indices transform covariantly, while under the second, indices of fields, derivatives, and gamma matrices transform as usual, while bμ and dμ remain constant. Therefore, bμdμ is a genuine Lorentz scalar under observer Lorentz transformation because of the covariant contraction of indices, while it remains constant under particle Lorentz transformation because of the constancy of the bμ and dμ independently. Either way, the expression bμdμ is invariant, which justifies our slight abuse of nomenclature in simply calling it a scalar.

  35. Georges Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012).
  36. S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 045005– Published 12 February, 2014
  • Received 25 April 2013

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation