Frequency variation for in vacuo photon propagation in the StandardModel Extension
Abstract
In the presence of Lorentz Symmetry Violation (LSV) associated with the StandardModel Extension (SME), we have recently shown the nonconservation of the energymomentum tensor of a lightwave crossing an ElectroMagnetic (EM) background field even when the latter and the LSV are constant. Incidentally, for a spacetime dependent LSV, the presence of an EM field is not necessary. Herein, we infer that in a particle description, the energy nonconservation for a photon implies violation of frequency invariance in vacuo, giving rise to a red or blue shift. We discuss the potential consequences on cosmology.
1 Introduction
The StandardModel (SM) describes through a Lagrangian three interactions among fundamental particles: ElectroMagnetic (EM), weak and strong. The SM is a very successful model but it neither includes massive neutrinos, nor incorporates the particles corresponding to a, yet to be found, dark universe. Furthermore, we remark that the photon is the only free massless particle in the SM.
An attempt to extend the SM is SuperSymmetry (SuSy); see [1] for a review. This theory predicts the existence of new particles that are not included in the SM. Anyway, the physics we describe herein is valid also in absence of a SuSy scenario. In this respect, the role of SuSy is solely the provision of a microscopic origin of the LSV.
The SM is assumed to be Lorentz Symmetry (LoSy)^{1} invariant. This prediction is likely valid only up to certain energy scales beyond which a LoSy Violation (LSV) might occur. There is a general framework known as the SM Extension (SME) [2, 3, 4], that allows us to test the lowenergy manifestations of LSV.
In two recent works [5, 6] on the SME, we have considered violations of LoSy, differing in the handedness of the Charge conjugationParityTime reversal (CPT) symmetry and in whether considering the impact of photinos on photon propagation. We came up with four classes. For the CPTodd classes (\(k^\mathrm{AF}_{\alpha }\) breaking vector) associated with the Carroll–Field–Jackiw (CFJ) model, the dispersion relations (DRs) and the Lagrangian show for the photon an effective mass, gaugeinvariant, and proportional to \({\vec k}^\mathrm{AF}\). The group velocity exhibits a deviation from the speed of light c. The deviation depends on the inverse of the frequency squared, as predicted by de Broglie [7]. For the CPTeven classes (\(k_\mathrm{F}^{\alpha \nu \rho \sigma }\) breaking tensor), when the photino is considered, the DRs display also a massive behaviour inversely proportional to a coefficient in the Lagrangian and to a term linearly dependent on \(k_\mathrm{F}^{\alpha \nu \rho \sigma }\). All DRs feature an angular dependence and lack LoSy invariance. Complex or simply imaginary frequencies and superluminal speeds may appear in defined cases. Furthermore, we have shown the emergence of birefringence. Finally, for both CPT sectors, we have pointed out the nonconservation of the photon energymomentum tensor in vacuo [6].
Hereafter, we deal with the latter result and give an order of magnitude of the energy change that light would undergo through propagation in a LSV universe. The energy variations, if losses, would translate into frequency damping if the excitation were a photon. Generally, the waveparticle correspondence, even for a single photon [8], leads us to consider that the nonconservation of energy corresponds to a photon energy variation and thereby a red or a blue shift.
Before stepping into the equations, we intend to present the physical reason for why the nonconservation arises even in case of a constant EM background and of a constant LSV breaking vector (the breaking tensor appears either under a derivative or coupled to a derivative of the EM background).
We recall that the CFJ equations of motion and the action are gaugeinvariant but they originate from a Lagrangian density which is not gaugeinvariant. Indeed, the gauge dependence of the Lagrangian density is a surface term to be neglected in the action. Conversely, gauge invariance is not acquired when processing the Lagrangian density of the classical massive electromagnetism of de BroglieProca.
Concerning the nonconservation, the action contains a contribution \(\epsilon ^{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }k^\mathrm{AF}_\kappa A_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }\), such that even if the EM background is constant, the corresponding background fourpotential is not, \(A_\beta = x^\alpha F_{\alpha \beta }\). Thereby, there is an explicit \(x^\alpha \) dependence at the level of the Lagrangian. This determines a source of energymomentum nonconservation, according to the Noether theorem. Otherwise put, there is an exchange of energymomentum between the photon and the EM background. The latter is external to the system and does not follow the dynamics dictated by the photon action.
We also remark that the fourcurl of \(k^\mathrm{AF}\) is zero. This guarantees gauge invariance of the action and, in a simply connected space, \(k^\mathrm{AF}\) may be expressed as the fourgradient of a scalar function.
2 Energymomentum nonconservation

The righthand side of Eq. (3) exhibits all types of terms that describe the exchange of energy between the photon, the LSV parameters, the EM background field and the external current, taking into account an \(x^\alpha \)dependence of the LSV parameters and of the EM background field.

In Eq. (3), the first two righthand side terms are purely Maxwellian.

The energymomentum tensor in Eq. (2) loses its symmetry, and thereby \(\theta _{0i}\ne \theta _{i0}\). This tells us that the momentum density \(\theta _{0i}\) does not correspond any longer to the extended Poynting vector \(\theta _{i0}\). Setting \(\rho = i\) in Eq. (3), we have \(\partial _{\alpha }\theta _{\ \rho }^{\alpha } = \partial _{0}\theta _{\ i}^{0} + \partial _{j}\theta _{\ i}^{j} = j^\nu f_{\nu i} + \cdots = j^0 f_{0 i} + j^k f_{k i} + \cdots \), so that the density of the Lorentz force appears at the righthand side. Therefore, we interpret \(\theta _{\ i}^{0}\) as the momentum density of the wave (the time derivative of the momentum provides the force).

We return to a comment made in the Introduction. In Eq. (3) the term \(k^\mathrm{AF}_{\alpha }\ ^{*}F^{\alpha \nu }f_{\nu \rho }\) is spacetime independent. Indeed, \(k^\mathrm{AF}_{\alpha }\) from the CFJ Lagrangian [9] depends on the fourpotential. By splitting the total field in background and photon fields, an explicit dependence on the EM background potentials appears now in the CFJ Lagrangian [10]. But, if the background field is constant, the background potential must necessarily show a linear dependence on \(x_\mu \) and translation invariance of the Lagrangian is thereby lost.

The term \(k_\mathrm{F}^{\alpha \nu \kappa \lambda }\left( \partial _{\alpha }F_{\kappa \lambda }\right) f_{\nu \rho }\), even if \(k_\mathrm{F}^{\alpha \nu \kappa \lambda }\) is constant, breaks translation invariance due to the spacetime dependence of the EM background field.

We finally notice that there is energy nonconservation even in absence of an EM background field and of an external current. This is due to the presence of LSV spacetime dependent terms.
Upper limits of the LSV parameters (the last value is in SI units). \(^\mathrm{a}\)Energy shifts in the spectrum of the hydrogen atom [11]; \(^\mathrm{b}\)Rotation of the polarisation of light in resonant cavities [11]; \(^\mathrm{c,e}\)Astrophysical observations [12]. Such estimates are close to the Heisenberg limit on the smallest measurable energy or mass or length for a given time t, set equal to the age of the universe; \(^\mathrm{d}\)Rotation in the polarisation of light in resonant cavities [11]. \(^\mathrm{f}\)Typical value [12]
\(\vec {k}^\mathrm{AF}\)  \(^\mathrm{a}\)  \(< 10^{10}\) eV \( = 1.6 \times 10^{29}\) J\(;~ 5.1 \times 10^{4}\) m\(^{1}\) 
\(\vec {k}^\mathrm{AF}\)  \(^\mathrm{b}\)  \(< 8\times 10^{14}\) eV \( = 1.3 \times 10^{32}\) J\(;~ 4.1 \times 10^{7}\) m\(^{1}\) 
\(\vec {k}^\mathrm{AF}\)  \(^\mathrm{c}\)  \(< 10^{34}\) eV \( = 1.6 \times 10^{53}\) J\(;~ 5.1 \times 10^{28}\) m\(^{1}\) 
\(k^\mathrm{AF}_0\)  \(^\mathrm{d}\)  \(< 10^{16}\) eV \( = 1.6 \times 10^{35}\) J\(;~ 5.1 \times 10^{10}\) m\(^{1}\) 
\(k^\mathrm{AF}_0\)  \(^\mathrm{e}\)  \(< 10^{34}\) eV \( = 1.6 \times 10^{53}\) J\(;~ 5.1 \times 10^{28}\) m\(^{1}\) 
\(k_\mathrm{F}\)  \(^\mathrm{f}\)  \(\simeq 10^{17}\) 
Table 1 provides the upper limits of the LSV terms.
3 Sizing the EM background field
For the magnetic fields, we refer to [13, 14].
a. Spatial dependence of the magnetic field in the Milky Way The interstellar magnetic field in the Milky Way has a strength of around 500 pT. It has regular and fluctuating components of comparable strengths. The Galactic disk contains the regular field, which is approximately horizontal and parallel, being spirally shaped with a generally small opening angle of about \(p = 10^{\circ }\). In cylindrical coordinates, \(B \simeq B_r \cdot e_r + B_\phi \cdot e_\phi \), with \(B_r = B_\phi \tan p\).
In the Galactic halo, the regular field is not horizontal, probably holding an Xshape, as observed in spiral galaxies. The fluctuating field varies over a whole range of spatial scales, from 100 parsecs down to very small scales.
b. Time dependence of the magnetic field in the Milky Way The regular field evolves over very long time scales such as 1 Gyr. It likely increases exponentially in time until an equipartition with kinetic energy is achieved. At that point, it saturates. Indeed the time derivative of the magnetic field obeys an equation containing spatial derivatives of B which coefficients of are independent of B until the counterreaction of the interstellar fluid smallscale turbulent motion comes into play. Physically, the galaxy largescale shearing of the poloidal field generates an azimuthal field, which in turn generates a poloidal field. The solution of this type of equation is indeed exponential in time. It is a dynamo mechanism.
The fluctuating field varies over much shorter time scales, probably 1 Myr.
c. Other galaxies External galaxies also possess interstellar magnetic fields with strengths of several hundred pT. While, in spiral galaxies the fields resemble those in our own Galaxy, there is absence of the regular component in elliptical galaxies, and solely fluctuating components are present.
d. Intergalactic space No certain conclusion can be drawn on the InterGalactic Medium (IGM). The medium between galaxies inside a cluster of galaxies hosts a fluctuating field with a typical strength of a few nT. The IGM outside of clusters of galaxies may also contain magnetic fields. Claims have been laid to the detection of such fields, but a confirmation is missing.
e. Electric field The interstellar and intergalactic media are good electric conductors, such that magnetic fields are frozen in the plasma. Thereby, the electric field is given by \({\vec {E}} \propto {\vec v}_p \times {\vec {B}}\), where \(v_p\) is the plasma velocity. In general, \(v_p \ll c\), thus \(E \ll B\) and thereby neglected herein. This assumption may not hold locally, and photons may pass through intense electric fields.
4 Sizing the energy nonconservation
In Eq. (4), we neglect the tensorial perturbation, \(k_\mathrm{F}\) on the basis that is less likely to condensate, taking an expectation value different from zero, in contrast to the vectorial CFJ perturbation. If we consider that SuSy is a viable path beyond the SM, in [15, 16], it is shown that \(k_\mathrm{F}\) emerges as the product of multiple SuSy condensates in contrast to \(k_\mathrm{AF}\), which consists of a single SuSy condensate; therefore the latter is dominating as compared to \(k_\mathrm{F}\).
On the other hand, independently from the considerations based on SuSy, we justify neglecting the \(k_\mathrm{F}\) term on other grounds. This term is quadratic in the field strength and in the frequency. The CFJ term instead contains a single derivative and thereby it is linear in the frequency. If we confine our investigation to low frequencies, as we do here, it is reasonable that the \(k_\mathrm{AF}\) term yields the dominating contribution. Instead, for very high frequencies, we expect that the \(k_{F}\) term dominates.
We assume the absence of IGM magnetic field fluctuations over long time scales, that amounts to considering only the time fluctuations in the emitting galaxy and in our Milky Way, estimated as \(10^{21}\) m in size. The first term is estimated as \(5\times 10^{10}/10^{21}\) Tm\(^{1}\), and thereby dropped henceforth. Under all these assumptions, the energy variation comes chiefly from the second term.
The \(k^\mathrm{AF}_{0}\) component of the LSV vector extends to the entire universe and thus it is not confined to a limited region. We need to integrate over the light travel time. For a source at \(z = 0.5\), the lookback time is \(t_{LB}= {5} \times 10^9\) yr = \(1.57 \times 10^{17}\) s [17], having taken a somewhat mean value among different values of the cosmological parameters (\(H_0 = 70\) km/s per Mpc Hubble–Humason constant, \(\Omega _m {= 0.3}\) matter density, \(\Omega _\Lambda {= 0.7}\) dark energy density). We set an arbitrary safe margin \(\varrho \), defined as positive, to take into account that the many magnetic fields, estimated at \(B = 5 \times 10^{10}  5 \times 10^{9}\) T each, and crossed by light from the source to us, have likely different orientations and partly compensate their effects on the wave energy.^{2}
We consider two numerical applications. For \(k^\mathrm{AF}_0 = 10^{10}\)m\(^{1}\), Table 1, and \({ \varrho } { ~\approx 10^{23}}\), which represents an extreme misalignment of the magnetic fields, or for \(k^\mathrm{AF}_0 = {5.1 \times 10^{28}}\)m\(^{1}\), Table 1, and \({ \varrho } { ~ \approx 10^{6}}\), we get \(\Delta \nu _{z=0.5}^{\nu = 486 \mathrm{THz}}\) in the range of \(10^{14}\) Hz. This would strongly influence the measurement of the redshift due to the expansion of the universe, since \(z_{LSV}\) would be comparable to \(z_c\). Instead, combining the astrophysical upper limit on the size of \(k^\mathrm{AF}_0\) with a value of \({ \varrho } \ll 10^{7}\), it will conversely produce a small effect.
5 Impact on cosmology
We have determined an expression for an LSV frequency shift. The size of the effect may be negligible for cosmology, but just of relevance for the foundations of physics. Nevertheless, the rough estimates in the previous section seem to point to a large impact. Here below, we consider that the LSV shift takes a value large enough to be considered, and thereby to be superposed to the cosmological redshift. Which interpretation should we adopt in analysing spectra from distant sources?
6 Conclusions, discussion and perspectives
We have introduced a new frequency shift for in vacuo propagation of a photon in a LSV scenario. The physical situation is as follows. We have neglected time variations of the LSV breaking terms and of the magnetic fields. Thus, the time averaging of the LSV shift differs from zero. Along the line of sight, the space averaging is also never zero, unless obviously there isn’t any LoSy breaking, or the magnetic field vectors perfectly cancel one another. But, for the observer, there is an angular dependence of the LSV frequency shift, due to the LSV itself. For each direction, there is a value of \(k^\mathrm{AF}_0\) and of \(\varrho \), and thereby a directiondependent LSV shift. The issue is whether the LSV shift is large enough to have an impact on the observations.
We certainly need to put stringent model independent observational and experimental upper limits to \(z_{LSV}\) through constraints on the LSV parameters and on the EM field values. We question whether the sign of \(z_{LSV}\), and thereby a red or blue shift, could not be determined a priori on the basis of perturbation theory. Undoubtedly, the orientations and scale lengths of the LSV parameters, as well as the photon path crossing multiple background EM fields differently oriented, render this shift very dependent on the trajectory.
We remark that the discrepancy between the luminosity distance derived with standard cosmology and the data, nowadays mostly explained by assuming dark energy, should be reviewed in light of this additional frequency shift.
Classic electromagnetism has been well tested, as general relativity. This has not impeded the proposition of alternative formulations of gravitation during last century, and lately to circumvent the need of dark matter and dark energy. We point out that revisiting astrophysical data with nonMaxwellian electromagnetism opens the door to radically new interpretations.
For instance, if we suppose that a static source bursts, and that at start it emits higher frequencies than at the end, this may mimic a time dilation effect from a receding source, if massive photons are considered. Indeed, for the CPTodd handedness classes associated with LSV which entail massive photons, the deviation from c of the group velocity is inversely proportional to the square of the frequency. Thereby, the photons emitted towards the end of the burst will employ more time than the initial photons to reach an observer. Incidentally, the dependence of the group velocity on the frequency allows us to set upper limits on the photon mass from Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) [19, 20, 21, 22, 23].
Generally, there is a continuous interest for testing nonMaxwellian electromagnetism, let it be massive or nonlinear. The official upper limit on the photon mass is 10\(^{54}\) kg [24]^{6}, but see [26] for comments on the reliability of such a limit and for an experiment with solar wind satellite data. While opening a new lowfrequency radioastronomy window with a swarm of nanosatellites would be desirable [22], terrestrial experiments are faster to implement [27]. Among the nonlinear effects, the last one to be detected is photon–photon scattering at CERN [28].
Footnotes
 1.
Poincaré has equally contributed to the establishment of these symmetries.
 2.
We have not considered the potential presence of a strong magnetic field at the source.
 3.
The spectral flux density is the quantity that describes the rate at which energy density is transferred by EM radiation per unit wavelength.
 4.
In radioastronomy, the jansky is a nonSI unit of spectral flux density equivalent to \(10^{26}\) W m\(^{2}\) Hz\(^{1}\).
 5.
For the frequency width, we have computed \(\frac{\Delta \lambda }{\lambda }=\frac{\Delta \nu }{\nu }\).
 6.
de Broglie estimated the photon mass lower than 10\(^{53}\) kg already in 1923 with a strike of genius [25].
Notes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank K. Ferrière (Toulouse) for the information on galactic and intergalactic EM fields; M. López Corredoira (La Laguna) and M. Nicholl (Edinburgh) for comments on SNs. Thanks are also due to L. P. R. Ospedal (CBPF) for long and fruitful discussions on aspects of LSV, to M. Makler (CBPF) for remarks on dark energy, and to J. Sales de Lima (São Paulo) for his interest. The anonymous referee provided constructive remarks.
References
 1.S.P. Martin, A super symmetry primer. (2016). arXiv:hepph/9709356v7
 2.D. Colladay, V.A. Kostelecký, CPT violation and the standard model. Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760 (1997)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 3.D. Colladay, V.A. Kostelecký, Lorentzviolating extension of the standard model. Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 4.S. Liberati, Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update. Class. Quantum Gravity 30, 133001 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 5.L. Bonetti, L.R. dos Santos Filho, J.A. HelayëlNeto, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, Effective photon mass from Super and Lorentz symmetry breaking. Phys. Lett. B 764, 203 (2017)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 6.L. Bonetti, L.R. dos Santos Filho, J.A. HelayëlNeto, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, Photon sector analysis of Super and Lorentz symmetry breaking: effective photon mass, birefringence and dissipation. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 811 (2018)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 7.L. de Broglie, La Mécanique Ondulatoire du Photon. Une Novelle Théorie de la Lumière (Hermann, Paris, 1940)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 8.A. Aspect, P. Grangier, Waveparticle duality for single photons. Hyperfine Interact. 37, 1 (1987)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 9.S.S. Chern, J. Simons, Characteristic forms and geometric invariants. Ann. Math. 99, 48 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field, R. Jackiw, Limits on a Lorentz and parityviolating modification of electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 11.Y.M.P. Gomes, P.C. Malta, Labbased limits on the Carroll–Field–Jackiw Lorentz violating electroynamics. Phys. Rev. D 94, 025031 (2016)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 12.V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 13.M. Alves, K. Ferrière, The interstellar magnetic field from galactic scales down to the heliosphere. in Proc. \(42^{\mathit{nd}}\) COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 2018. Abstract id. D1.2212630, 1422 July 2018 PasadenaGoogle Scholar
 14.K. Ferrière, Private communications on 4 December 2018 and 22 May 2019Google Scholar
 15.H. Belich, L.D. Bernald, P. Gaete, J.A. HelayëlNeto, The photino sector and a confining potential in a supersymmetric Lorentzsymmetryviolating model. Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2632 (2013)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 16.H. Belich, L.D. Bernald, P. Gaete, J.A. HelayëlNeto, F.J.L. Leal, Aspects of CPTeven Lorentzsymmetry violating physics in a supersymmetric scenario. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 291 (2015)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 17.E.L. Wright, A cosmology calculator for the World Wide Web. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 118, 1711 (2006)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 18.J.B. Oke, J.E. Gunn, Secondary standard stars for absolute spectrophotometry. Astrophys. J. 266, 713 (1983)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 19.L. Bonetti, J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, A.S. Sakharov, E.K. SarkisianGrinbaum, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, Photon mass limits from fast radio bursts. Phys. Lett. B 757, 548 (2016)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 20.X.F. Wu, S.B. Zhang, H. Gao, J.J. Wei, Y.C. Zou, W.H. Lei, B. Zhang, Z.G. Dai, P. Mészáros, Constraints on the photon mass with fast radio bursts. Astrophys. J. Lett. 822, L15 (2016)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 21.L. Bonetti, J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, A.S. Sakharov, E.K. SarkisianGrinbaum, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, FRB 121102 casts new light on the photon mass. Phys. Lett. B 768, 326 (2017)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 22.M.J. Bentum, L. Bonetti, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, Dispersion by pulsars, magnetars, fast radio bursts and massive electromagnetism at very low radio frequencies. Adv. Space Res. 59, 736 (2017)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 23.L. Shao, B. Zhang, Bayesian framework to constrain the photon mass with a catalog of fast radio bursts. Phys. Rev. D 95, 123010 (2017)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 24.M. Tanabashi, Particle Data Group, Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)Google Scholar
 25.L. de Broglie, Ondes et quanta. Comptes Rendus Hebd. Séances Acad. Sc. Paris 177, 507 (1923)Google Scholar
 26.A. Retinò, A.D.A.M. Spallicci, A. Vaivads, Solar wind test of the de Broglie–Proca massive photon with Cluster multispacecraft data. Astropart. Phys. 82, 49 (2016)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 27.J. Rosato, Retaining hypothetical photon mass in atomic spectroscopy models. Eur. Phys. J. D 73, 7 (2019)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
 28.M. Aaboud, et. al., and (the ATLAS Collaboration), Evidence for lightbylight scattering in heavyion collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Nat. Phys., 13, 852 (2017)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP^{3}