- 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

Prospective constraints on Lorentz violation from ultrahigh-energy photon detection

Grigory Rubtsov1,2,3, Petr Satunin1, and Sergey Sibiryakov1,4,5

  • 1Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 60th October Anniversary Prospect, 7a, 117312 Moscow, Russia
  • 2Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University, Vorobjevy Gory, 119991 Moscow, Russia
  • 3Novosibirsk State University, Pirogov street 2, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia
  • 4Physics Department, Theory Group, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
  • 5FSB/ITP/LPPC, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 123011 – Published 26 June, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123011

Abstract

We point out that violation of Lorentz invariance affects the interaction of high-energy photons with the Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field. In a certain parameter region this interaction becomes suppressed and the photons escape observation, passing through the atmosphere without producing air showers. We argue that a detection of photon-induced air showers with energies above 1019  eV, implying the absence of suppression as well as the absence of photon decay, will put tight double-sided limits on Lorentz violation in the sector of quantum electrodynamics. These constraints will be by several orders of magnitude stronger than the existing ones and will be robust against any assumptions about the astrophysical origin of the detected photons.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (50)

  1. R. U. Abbasi et al. (HiRes Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 101101 (2008).
  2. J. Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 061101 (2008).
  3. T. Abu-Zayyad et al. (Telescope Array Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 768, L1 (2013).
  4. K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966).
  5. G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966).
  6. G. Gelmini, O. E. Kalashev, and D. V. Semikoz, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 106, 1061 (2008).
  7. J. L. Puget, F. W. Stecker, and J. H. Bredekamp, Astrophys. J. 205, 638 (1976).
  8. D. Hooper, A. M. Taylor, and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 34, 340 (2011).
  9. K. Murase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 081102 (2009).
  10. G. I. Rubtsov et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 063009 (2006).
  11. M. Settimo et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), in Proceedings of 32nd ICRC, Beijing, 2011, http://www.ihep.ac.cn/english/conference/icrc2011/paper/.
  12. M. Risse, P. Homola, R. Engel, D. Góra, D. Heck, J. Pękala, B. Wilczyńska, and H. Wilczyński, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 171102 (2005).
  13. A. V. Glushkov, D. S. Gorbunov, I. T. Makarov, M. I. Pravdin, G. I. Rubtsov, I. E. Sleptsov, and S. V. Troitsky, JETP Lett. 85, 131 (2007).
  14. A. V. Glushkov, I. T. Makarov, M. I. Pravdin, I. E. Sleptsov, D. S. Gorbunov, G. I. Rubtsov, and S. V. Troitsky, Phys. Rev. D 82, 041101 (2010).
  15. J. Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 29, 243 (2008).
  16. T. Abu-Zayyad et al. (Telescope Array Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88, 112005 (2013).
  17. J. Alvarez-Muniz et al. (Pierre Auger, Telescope Array, and Yakutsk Collaborations), Eur. Phys. J. Web Conf. 53, 01009 (2013).
  18. S. R. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 405, 249 (1997).
  19. T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 67, 124011 (2003); Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 321, 150 (2006).
  20. S. Liberati, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 133001 (2013).
  21. D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998).
  22. V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011).
  23. M. Galaverni and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 021102 (2008); Phys. Rev. D 78, 063003 (2008).
  24. L. Maccione and S. Liberati, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2008) 027.
  25. F. W. Stecker and S. L. Glashow, Astropart. Phys. 16, 97 (2001).
  26. E. E. Antonov, L. G. Dedenko, A. A. Kirillov, T. M. Roganova, G. F. Fedorova, and E. Y. Fedunin, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73, 506 (2001) [J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett. 73, 446 (2001)].
  27. H. Vankov and T. Stanev, Phys. Lett. B 538, 251 (2002).
  28. M. Risse and P. Homola, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 749 (2007).
  29. G. Rubtsov, P. Satunin, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085012 (2012).
  30. P. Satunin, Phys. Rev. D 87, 105015 (2013).
  31. L. Maccione, S. Liberati, A. Celotti, and J. G. Kirk, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2007) 013.

  32. The computation carefully takes into account the modification of the Feynman rules in the model (5) compared to the LI case.

  33. Another process that can be responsible for the first interaction is the direct photonuclear reaction. However, its cross section is only 10 mb (1/50 of the BH cross section) for photons with energy 1019  eV [28].

  34. The large asymmetry between the momenta of the pair in the LV case implies that the energy of the leading particle almost does not degrade, which further suppresses the development of the shower. One expects that this effect will also enhance the fluctuations in the depth of the shower maximum. Not taking this into account leaves our bounds conservative.

  35. One can be more precise and ask how accidental cancellations between the three terms in (6) will affect the bounds. Note that the degeneracy between the first and the two other terms is lifted by detection of several photons with energies differing by a factor of a few. Thus, the bound on the parameter ϰ is robust. As for the parameters g, ξ, a straightforward analysis of Eqs. (8) reveals a degeneracy along the ray ξ=2g, g<0. Here, the prospective constraints get weaker and become −10−7≲ξ−2g≲10−4−g.

  36. B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 82, 016002 (2010).
  37. F. Aharonian et al. (HESS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170402 (2008).
  38. A. Abramowski et al. (HESS Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 34, 738 (2011).
  39. V. Vasileiou, A. Jacholkowska, F. Piron, J. Bolmont, C. Couturier, J. Granot, F. W. Stecker, J. Cohen-Tanugi, and F. Longo, Phys. Rev. D 87, 122001 (2013).
  40. S. Liberati, L. Maccione, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 151602 (2012).

  41. Cf. Ref. [42], which discusses the robustness of the constraints on LV following from the absence of the photon decay.

  42. F. R. Klinkhamer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105024 (2010).
  43. J. Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 27, 155 (2007).

  44. Strictly speaking, ΔX and its fluctuations can increase in the LV case, but accounting for this effect would make the constraints even stronger.

  45. P. Abreu et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), in Proceedings of 32nd ICRC, Beijing, 2011, http://www.ihep.ac.cn/english/conference/icrc2011/paper/.
  46. H. Tokuno et al. (Telescope Array Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 676, 54 (2012).

  47. The absolute probability of the photon interaction with the atmosphere cannot be constrained without an a priori assumption about the UHE photon flux, which we want to avoid.

  48. The bound on the positive values of ωLV again follows from the absence of vacuum photon decay.

  49. Note that the direction of degeneracy of the constraints (11) in the (g,ξ) plane is different from that appearing in the case of the BH process, cf. footnote [35].

  50. J. Abraham et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 79, 102001 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 123011– Published 26 June, 2014
  • Received 16 December 2013

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation