text:
# Supersymmetry and the Systematics of T-duality Rotations in Type-II Superstring Theories

## 1 Introduction:

Let us denote the massless NS-NS background fields by $`G_{MN},B_{MN}`$ and $`\varphi `$, and the R-R n-form field strengths by $`F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}^{(n)}`$, where $`n`$ is $`even`$ in type-IIA and $`odd`$ in type-IIB theory. It is customary to define two sets of R-R potentials, which we denote by $`C_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}^{(n)}`$ and $`C_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}^{(n)}`$. Denoting by $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐂`$ the sums of n-forms $`_{n=1}^{n=9}F^{(n)}`$ and $`_{n=0}^{n=8}C^{(n)}`$ (similarly for $`𝐂^{}`$), the relations among them can be written as

$$𝐅=d𝐂H𝐂=\mathrm{e}^Bd𝐂^{}$$
(1)
Here, $`H=dB`$ and the two sets of potentials are related by $`𝐂^{}=𝐂\mathrm{e}^B`$. Also we denote the two gravitinos, the two dilatinos and two supersymmetry transformation parameters by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$, $`\lambda _\pm `$ and $`ϵ_\pm `$, respectively. In type-IIA theory the fermions labelled by $`\pm `$ have opposite chiralities, while in type-IIB they have the same chirality.

Let $`X^M,(M=0,\mathrm{}9)`$ denote the space-time coordinates and consider background field configurations which are independent of the $`d`$ coordinates $`X^i,(i=1,\mathrm{}d)`$, but may vary with the remaining $`10d`$ coordinates $`X^\mu ,\mu =0,d+1,\mathrm{}9`$. The T-duality group $`O(d,d)`$ acts on these backgrounds such that the equations of motion, when restricted to $`X^i`$-independent fields, remain invariant. The transformation of NS-NS fields under this group is well known and can be obtained in a variety of ways. Here we describe a systematic procedure, developed in , for obtaining the transformations of R-R field strengths and potentials. As a by-product, one also obtains the transformations of the gravitinos, dilatinos and supersymmetry parameters. In the last section, we describe an application of the results to the coupling of non-Abelian D-brane charges to R-R backgrounds .

The transformation of R-R potentials $`C^{(n)}`$ under a single T-duality was first obtained in  in the effective low-energy theory. More recently, the case of single T-duality in the presence of supersymmetry has also been considered in . In  it was observed that the potentials $`C^{(n)}`$ transform in the spinor representations of the T-duality group, verified directly in . Also, see . However, this cannot be used to obtain the transformation of $`C^{(n)}`$ and $`F^{(n)}`$ under the non-trivial elements of the full T-duality group.

### 1.1 Supersymmetry Transformations

We obtain the transformations of massless R-R and R-NS fields under non-trivial $`O(d,d)`$ transformations, by demanding compatibility between T-duality and space-time supersymmetry. In type-II theories, this leads to the invariance of the equations of motion.

Not all terms in the supersymmetry transformations are needed for the analysis. To see the basic structure, let us first consider type-II superstring theories in flat space. The two space-time supersymmetry transformations $`\delta _\pm `$ act independently on the left $`(+)`$ and right $`()`$ moving sectors of the worldsheet by interchanging Ramond states $`|R_\pm `$ with Neveu-Schwarz states $`|NS_\pm `$. For example, schematically, we can write

$`\delta _{}|NS_+,R_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|NS_+,NS_{}ϵ_{},`$
$`\delta _+|R_+,NS_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|NS_+,NS_{}ϵ_+,`$
$`\delta _{}|R_+,NS_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|R_+,R_{}ϵ_{}.`$
If we know the action of the T-duality group on the NS-NS sector, then, demanding compatibility with supersymmetry, the first two equations determine the T-duality transformations of the R-NS sector and those of $`ϵ_\pm `$. One can then use the third equation to determine the T-duality transformation of the R-R sector.

In the presence of background fields, the supersymmetry transformations are more complicated. However, terms with the lowest powers of fermions still retain the flat-space structure. For example, for the gravitinos $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$, corresponding to the above three equations we have

$`\delta _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ $`=`$ $`(_M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{Mab}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})ϵ_{}+\mathrm{},`$ (2)
$`\delta _+\mathrm{\Psi }_{+M}`$ $`=`$ $`(_M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{Mab}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab})ϵ_++\mathrm{},`$ (3)
$`\delta _{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{+M}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(8)}}e^\varphi \overline{)\text{F}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Mϵ_{}+\mathrm{}.`$ (4)
Here, $`W_{Mab}^\pm =w_{Mab}^\pm \frac{1}{2}H_{Mab}`$ are the torsionful spin-connections and $`a,b`$ are the 10-dimensional Lorentz frame indices. $`\overline{)\text{F}}`$ is a bispinor constructed out the R-R field strengths as

$$\overline{)\text{F}}=\underset{n}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}^{(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}.$$
(5)
The dots “$`\mathrm{}`$” in equations (2)-(4) represent terms containing cubic powers of the spinors. We do not write these out explicitly but emphasize that their contribution will be accounted for in the final results. The strategy now is to first work out the transformation of $`W_{Mab}^\pm `$ under non-trivial elements of the duality group. Then from equations (2) and (3) we obtain the corresponding transformation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$ and $`ϵ_\pm `$. In turn, these can be used in (4) to find the transformation of $`\overline{)\text{F}}`$. Let us first review the transformation of the metric under the duality group.

### 1.2 T-duality of the Metric

Not all elements of the T-duality group $`O(d,d)`$ transform the background fields non-trivially. In fact, $`GL(d,R)`$ transformations of the coordinates $`X^i`$, as well as constant shifts in $`B_{ij}`$ are subgroups of the T-duality group. These are the trivial elements. The rest act non-trivially and are symmetries of the equations of motion only when the fields do not depend on the $`d`$ coordinates $`X^i`$. Let us parameterize the $`O(d)\times O(d)`$ subgroup of $`O(d,d)`$ by matrices $`𝒮O(d)`$ and $`O(d)`$. All non-trivial elements fall in this subgroup and are parameterized by $`𝒮`$ and $``$ with $`𝒮`$. The case $`𝒮=(=𝒪,\mathrm{say})`$ is equivalent to a coordinate transformation $`X^i𝒪_j^iX^j`$ and belongs to the $`O(d)`$ subgroup of $`GL(d,R)`$, already classified as trivial. We will be interested in the transformation of fields under the $`O(d)\times O(d)`$ subgroup parameterized by the $`d`$-dimensional matrices $`𝒮,`$. In order to write the transformation of the 10-dimensional fields in a compact way, it is convenient to enlarge these to 10-dimensional matrices $`S`$ and $`R`$ simply by adding the identity matrix for the extra dimensions. By definition, these satisfy $`S_K^M\widehat{\eta }^{KL}S_L^N=\widehat{\eta }^{MN}`$, similarly for $`R`$. Here $`\widehat{\eta }`$ is the flat metric with respect to which the orthogonal groups are defined.

The transformation of the metric $`G_{MN}`$ under the $`O(d)\times O(d)`$ subgroup can be written in two equivalent ways  ,

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^1=Q_{}G^1Q_{}^T=Q_+G^1Q_+^T,$$
(6)
where the matrices $`Q_{\pm N}^M`$ are given by

$`Q_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(S+R)+(SR)\eta ^1(G+B)\right],`$ (7)
$`Q_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(S+R)(SR)\eta ^1(GB)\right].`$ (8)
From the structure of $`S`$ and $`R`$ one can see that

$$(Q_\pm )_j^\mu =0,(Q_\pm )_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu ,$$
(9)
with similar equations for $`Q_\pm ^1`$. We do not write down the transformations of other NS-NS fields.

### 1.3 The Local Lorentz Twist

To couple fermions to gravity one introduces vielbeins $`e_a^M`$ through $`G^{MN}=e_a^M\eta ^{ab}e_b^N`$. The observation that the T-duality transformation of the metric can be written in two equivalent ways means that there are two possible vielbeins in the dual theory,

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{()a}^M=Q_N^Me_a^N,\stackrel{~}{e}_{(+)a}^M=Q_{+N}^Me_a^N.$$
(10)
They are related by a Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{(+)b}^M=\stackrel{~}{e}_{()a}^M\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a=e_M^a(Q_{}^1Q_+)_N^Me_b^N.$$
(11)
In string theory, the vielbeins $`e_M^a`$ and the associated local Lorentz frame can originate in either the right-, or the left- moving sector of the worldsheet theory. Depending on this origin, the vielbeins transform to either $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{e}_+`$. Alternatively, as implied by (11), we can choose a single set of vielbeins, say, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{()}`$, for both the right and left moving sectors, but assume that the associated local Lorentz frames are now twisted with respect to each other by an amount $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a`$. Below, we show that this local Lorentz twist, induced by the action of the T-duality group, can be undone by absorbing it into the Ramond sector. This, in turn, dictates the transformation of the space-time spinors and R-R fields.

## 2 T-duality and Supersymmetry

Now we have the ingredients needed to analyse the effect of T-duality on the supersymmetry variations (2)-(4). First we need the transformation of the spin-connections $`W_M^\pm `$. In the dual theory, we denote these by $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{()M}^\pm `$. The subscript $`()`$ indicates that they are defined with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{()}`$. One can show that

$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{()Mab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{Nab}^{}(Q_+^1)_M^N,`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{(+)Mab}^+`$ $`=`$ $`W_{Nab}^+(Q_{}^1)_M^N.`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{()M}^+`$ can now be easily obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{(+)M}^+`$ by noting that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{(+)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{()}`$ are related by a Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (11). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denote the spinor representation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^b.$$
(14)
Then, using (9)-(14), one sees that the duality transformations of the spinorial covariant derivatives, $`D_M^\pm =_M+\frac{1}{4}W_{Mab}^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}`$ are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{()M}^{}=(Q_+^1)_M^ND_N^{},$$
(15)
$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{()M}^+=\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{D}_{(+)M}^+\mathrm{\Omega }^1=(Q_{}^1)_M^N\mathrm{\Omega }D_N^+\mathrm{\Omega }^1.$$
(16)
### 2.1 Transformation of Spinors

Using the transformation of the spinorial covariant derivatives above, in the supersymmetry variations (2) and (3), one obtains the T-duality action on the supersymmetry parameters $`ϵ_\pm `$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{}=ϵ_{},\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_+=\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ_+.$$
(17)
As for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$, it seems that their transformation is determined only up to terms cubic in the spinors. There are two sources of 3-spinor corrections: i) equations (2) and (3) contain 3-spinor terms that we have not taken into account, ii) the T-duality transformations $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$ and $`\delta _\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{\pm M}`$ differ by 3-spinor terms since $`\delta _\pm Q_{}`$ and $`\delta _\pm \mathrm{\Omega }`$ are both quadratic in the spinors. It turns out that contributions of type i and ii cancel each other and the T-duality action on the gravitinos is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N(Q_+^1)_M^N,`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{+M}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Psi }_{+N}(Q_{}^1)_M^N.`$ (19)
The absence of 3-spinor corrections can be confirmed by verifying that they are not allowed by the supersymmetry variations of the NS-NS fields. This means that T-duality does not mix terms with different space-time fermion numbers.

A similar analysis of the supersymmetry variations of the dilatinos gives

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\left[Q_{}^1(SR)\widehat{\eta }^1\right]^{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_j,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\lambda _++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\left[Q_+^1(SR)\widehat{\eta }^1\right]^{ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_{+j}\right).`$
### 2.2 The R-R Field Strength Bispinor

In the $`O(d,d)`$ transformed theory, the supersymmetry variation (4) becomes

$$\delta _{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{+M}=\frac{1}{2(8)}e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{)\text{F}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{()M}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(20)
Then, using (17) and (19) along with the dilaton transformation, $`e^{\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\sqrt{detQ_{}}`$, one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{\overline{)\text{F}}}=\sqrt{detQ_{}}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{)\text{F}},$$
(21)
where now,

$$\stackrel{~}{\overline{)\text{F}}}=\underset{n}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\stackrel{~}{F}_{N_1\mathrm{}N_n}^{(n)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{()}^{M_1\mathrm{}M_n},$$
(22)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{()}^M=Q_N^M\mathrm{\Gamma }^N`$. To find the transformation of the component field strengths $`F^{(n)}`$, as well as those of the associated R-R potentials $`C^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$, we need the explicit form of the spinor representation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the Lorentz twist $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 3 Transformations of R-R Fields

The T-duality group $`O(d,d)`$ has elements with determinant $`+1`$ and $`1`$. A representative of the latter class is a single T-duality with respect to a coordinate, say $`X^9`$. This is a $`𝐙_2`$ transformation which corresponds to the choice $`S=1`$, $`R_N^M=\delta _N^M2\delta _9^M\delta _N^9`$. It interchanges type-IIA and type-IIB theories . The elements with determinant $`+1`$, of course, form the group $`SO(d,d)`$ which acts within type-IIA or type-IIB theory. We consider these two cases separately.

### 3.1 The Single T-duality Case

For a single T-duality, say, along $`X^9`$, the spinor representation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=a\sqrt{G_{99}^1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9.$$
(23)
Here, $`a`$ is an arbitrary sign that we choose to be $`+1`$ in going from IIA to IIB and $`1`$ vice versa, so that the transformation squares to $`+1`$. Using this in (21), one obtains

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{9i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=F_{i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n1)}+(n1)G_{99}^1G_{9[i_2}F_{9i_3\mathrm{}i_n]}^{(n1)},`$
$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=F_{9i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n+1)}nB_{9[i_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{9i_2\mathrm{}i_n]}^{(n)}.$$
(24)
Relation (1) between the $`F^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ then gives

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_{9i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=C_{i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n1)}(n1)G_{99}^1G_{9[i_2}C_{9i_3\mathrm{}i_n]}^{(n1)},`$
$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=C_{9i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n+1)}nB_{9[i_1}\stackrel{~}{C}_{9i_2\mathrm{}i_n]}^{(n)},$$
(25)
as first obtained in . The transformation of $`C^{(n)}`$ can be obtained using $`𝐂^{}=𝐂\mathrm{e}^B`$, as

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{9i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=C_{i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n1)},\stackrel{~}{C}_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n)}=C_{9i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^{(n+1)}.$$
(26)
Now we make three simple observations that will greatly simplify things in the next subsection:

* Under a single T-duality, $`F^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ transform in the same way, up to a sign. The sign difference disappears when considering even number of single T-dualities.
* The transformation of $`C^{(n)}`$ is independent of $`G_{MN}`$ and $`B_{MN}`$. Hence, it transforms in the same way as $`C^{(n)}`$ would in the flat-space $`G_{MN}\widehat{\eta }_{MN}`$, $`B_{MN}0`$.
* Being $`n`$-forms, $`F^{(n)}`$, $`C^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ transform in the same way under $`GL(d,R)`$ transformations of the coordinates $`X^i`$, in particular, under its $`SO(d)`$ subgroup.

### 3.2 The $`SO(d,d)`$ Case

The spinor representation of the Lorentz twist induced by an $`SO(d,d)`$ transformation of the backgrounds is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=2^{\frac{d}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{det(𝒬_{}+𝒬_+)}{det𝒬_{}}}\AE (\frac{1}{2}𝒜^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}).$$
(27)
Here, $`𝒬_\pm `$ stand for the $`d\times d`$ blocks of $`Q_\pm `$ spanned by the index $`i`$, and $`\AE `$ stands for an exponential-like expansion with the products of all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices antisymmetrized. The $`𝒜^{ij}`$ appearing above is given by

$$𝒜^{ij}=\left[\widehat{\eta }_d(\mathrm{𝟏}_d𝒮^1)^1(\mathrm{𝟏}_d+𝒮^1)+\right]_{ij}^1.$$
(28)
Substituting (27) in (21) one obtains

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{M_1\mathrm{}M_n}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{d}{2}}\sqrt{det(𝒬_{}+𝒬_+)}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{[d/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{2p}{}}}`$ (29)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^p}{p!2^p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2p)!}{(2pr)!}}{}_{}{}^{n}C_{r}^{}𝒜^{[i_1i_2}\mathrm{}𝒜^{i_{2p1}i_{2p}]}`$
$`G_{i_1N_1}\mathrm{}G_{i_rN_r}F_{i_{2p}\mathrm{}i_{r+1}N_{r+1}\mathrm{}N_n}]`$
$`\times (Q_{}^1)_{[M_1}^{N_1}\mathrm{}(Q_{}^1)_{M_n]}^{N_n},`$
where, $`{}_{}{}^{n}C_{r}^{}`$ are the binomial expansion coefficients.

### 3.3 Transformation of Potentials $`C^{(n)}`$

Unlike the case of a single T-duality, the transformation of $`C^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ cannot be easily worked out by using equation (1). However, these can be obtained by a simple construction combined with the three observations made in subsection 3.1.

Any non-trivial $`SO(d,d)`$ transformation can, in principle, be constructed as a combination of single T-duality transformations and appropriately chosen coordinate rotations. To see this, let $`\widehat{r}`$ denote a unit vector in $`d`$ dimensions. Any $`O(d)`$ rotation, say $``$, can be decomposed as a product of reflections $`T_{r_k}`$ about planes perpendicular to properly chosen axes $`\widehat{r}_k`$, i.e., $`=T_{r_n}\mathrm{}T_{r_1}`$. Equivalently, it can be written as a product of reflections $`T_i`$ about planes perpendicular to the coordinate axes $`\widehat{x}^i`$, and properly chosen rotations $`𝒪_k`$ that rotate the coordinate axes $`\widehat{x}^i`$ into the reflection axes $`\widehat{r}_k`$. Also setting $`𝒮`$ to a product of the rotations $`𝒪_k`$, we get

$$=T_{i_n}𝒪_{k_n}\mathrm{}T_{i_1}𝒪_{k_1},𝒮=𝒪_{k_n}\mathrm{}𝒪_{k_1}.$$
(30)
Then the non-trivial $`O(d,d)`$ transformation implemented by $``$ and $`𝒮`$ corresponds to a sequence of single T-duality transformations with $`_i=T_i`$, $`𝒮_i=1`$, intertwined with coordinate rotations $`_k=𝒮_k=𝒪_k`$.

This construction implies that the non-trivial $`SO(d,d)`$ transformations of $`F^{(n)}`$ in (29) can, at least in principle, be constructed by applying a succession of single T-dualities (24) and coordinate rotations, using the decomposition (30).

As emphasized in subsection 3.1, $`F^{(n)}`$ and $`C^{(n)}`$ transform in the same way under a single T-duality (the sign difference is immaterial for even number of T-dualities). They also transform in the same way under coordinate rotations. Therefore, if we construct the action of an $`SO(d,d)`$ element on $`C^{(n)}`$, by using its decomposition in terms of single T-dualities and rotations, then we will end up with the same equation as for $`F^{(n)}`$, i.e.,(29), but now with $`F^{(n)}`$ replaced by $`C^{(n)}`$. In terms a bispinor $`\overline{)\text{C}}`$, defined analogously to (5), the transformation is

$$\stackrel{~}{\overline{)\text{C}}}=\sqrt{Q_{}}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{)\text{C}}.$$
(31)
Needless to say, this formula is also valid for non-trivial $`O(d,d)`$ transformations.

### 3.4 Transformation of Potentials $`C^{(n)}`$

As observed in subsection 3.1, a single T-duality acts on $`C^{(n)}`$ in the same way as it would act on $`C^{(n)}`$ in a flat space with $`B_{MN}0`$ and $`G_{MN}\widehat{\eta }_{MN}`$. Furthermore, both potentials transform in the same way under coordinate rotations. The decomposition (30) then implies that non-trivial $`O(d,d)`$ transformations of $`C^{(n)}`$ are given by the same formula as that for $`C^{(n)}`$ with $`B_{MN}=0`$ and $`G_{MN}`$ set to $`\widehat{\eta }_{MN}`$.

This result can also be written in a compact form similar to equation (31). For this, let us define a set of $`SO(1,9)`$ Gamma matrices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^M`$ by

$$\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^M,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^N\}=\widehat{\eta }^{MN}.$$
(32)
The hat indicates that $`\widehat{\eta }`$ is an auxiliary flat metric while the actual space-time metric is still $`G_{MN}`$. Now we construct the spinor representation of the Lorentz twist $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ in this auxiliary flat space. This is obtained from the expression (27) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by replacing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$ and setting $`B_{ij}=0`$. Furthermore, we can combine the $`C^{(n)}`$ into an $`SO(1,9)`$ bispinor $`\widehat{\overline{)\text{C}}^{}}`$,

$$\widehat{\overline{)\text{C}}}^{}=\underset{m}{}\frac{(1)^m}{m!}C_{M_1\mathrm{}M_m}^{(m)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{M_1\mathrm{}M_m}.$$
(33)
Then the non-trivial $`SO(d,d)`$ transformations of $`C^{(n)}`$ can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\widehat{\overline{)\text{C}}}}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\widehat{\overline{)\text{C}}}.$$
(34)
## 4 An Application: D-brane Couplings by Clifford Multiplication

The Abelian theory on a single D-brane couples to the background R-R potentials by exterior multiplication $`𝒞^{}e^{}`$, where $`𝒞^{}`$ is the pull-back of $`𝐂^{}`$ to the worldvolume and $``$ is the Abelian gauge field strength. In the non-Abelian case the interaction also involves the scalar products of the non-Abelian scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and the R-R potentials. Furthermore, the factors of $`X^i/\xi ^\alpha `$ appearing in the pull-back of $`C^{(n)}`$ in the static gauge are replaced by the gauge covariant derivatives $`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ . These new interactions are written in the static gauge and moreover the replacement of the pull-back by a non-Abelian covariant derivative obscures the geometric description of the D-brane as an embedded surface.

The construction in the last section allows us to go beyond the static gauge and write a covariant and geometric expression that includes the new couplings . This is achieved by replacing the exterior product by a Clifford multiplication defined with respect to the flat metric $`\widehat{\eta }`$ as in (32). To see this, note that the degree of a D-brane volume form increases/decreases under a single T-duality transverse/parallel to the brane. Thus, they behave very much like the $`C^{(n)}`$ in (26) and it makes sense to construct a volume bispinor $`\widehat{\overline{)\text{V}}}`$ similar to (33),

$`\widehat{\overline{)\text{V}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\widehat{\overline{)\text{V}}}^{(p+1)}={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{p+1}}{(p+1)!}}T_{(p)}`$ (35)
$`\times \mathrm{d}X^{L_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}X^{L_{p+1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{L_1\mathrm{}L_{p+1}}.`$
Moreover, the worldvolume gauge fields $`𝒜_\alpha (\xi )`$ and transverse scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I(\xi )`$ can be combined into a $`1`$-form $`A_M(X(\xi ))`$ such that

$$𝒜_\alpha =A_MX^M/\xi ^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }^I=A_M\widehat{\eta }^{MN}a_N^I.$$
(36)
Here, $`X^M/\xi ^\alpha `$ and $`a_I^M`$ span the tangent and normal bundles to the worldvolume ($`I`$ is an orthonormal frame index). Let $`F`$ denote the field strength of $`A`$ and $`𝐘=e^F`$. We can also define a bispinor for the generalized D-brane charges,

$$\widehat{\overline{)\text{Y}}}=\underset{n}{}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}Y_{N_1\mathrm{}N_n}^{(n)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{N_1\mathrm{}N_n}.$$
(37)
It is now easy to write a covariant expression for the Dp-brane couplings to all R-R potentials in terms of a Clifford product,

$$I_{WZ}^{(p+1)}=\mathrm{Str}_{𝒲^{(p+1)}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{11}\overline{\widehat{\overline{)\text{V}}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{11}\widehat{\overline{)\text{C}}}^{}\widehat{\overline{)\text{Y}}}\right),$$
(38)
where $`\mathrm{Str}`$ is the symmetrized gauge trace and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ is a trace over the spinor index. The integral over $`𝒲^{(p+1)}`$ restricts the expression to the Dp-brane worldvolume.

The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrix multiplication and tracing can be carried out and leads to the component form for the generalized WZ action, including the new interactions. In the static gauge, ($`X^\mu =\xi ^\mu `$, $`X^i=X^i(\xi )`$ it reduces to the known form in . The generalized pull-backs discussed above appear as part of the restriction of $`F_{MN}`$ to the D-brane which, using (36), gives

$`D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X^M}{\xi ^\alpha }}(F_{MN})\widehat{\eta }^{NL}a_L^I`$ (39)
$`=_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^I+\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha J}^I\mathrm{\Phi }^J+[𝒜_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }^I].`$
The appearance of the normal bundle connection $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha J}^I=a_M^I_\alpha a_J^M`$ here is a reflection of the covariance of the formalism. However, it does not yet contain the contribution from curved backgrounds for which it may be necessary to consider the gravitational couplings of the brane.

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of the International Conference on “Supersymmetry and Quantum Field Theory” (Kharkov, July 25-29, 2000) for the invitation and hospitality.


format: text

text:
# On the interpretation of Michelson–Morley experiments

## 1 Introduction

The Michelson–Morley experiment  is one of the most famous physics experiments ever performed, and it has a unique place in both the history and the empirical foundations of Special Relativity. Originally conceived as a test for the existence of the ether, a medium that was to carry electromagnetic waves and whose rest frame would realize Newton’s absolute space, the experiment’s failure to detect the expected anisotropy of the speed of light in a frame moving through the ether presented physicists with the puzzle eventually solved by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity . Subsequently, Robertson developed a kinematical test theory  in which he could show that the null results of the Michelson–Morley and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments in combination with the result of the time–dilation experiment of Ives and Stilwell thoroughly tested the validity of Special Relativity.

The original Michelson–Morley experiment  exploited an interferometer in which a light beam was split into two beams propagating back and forth along perpendicular paths of equal length. It was expected that when the interferometer was rotated interference of the recombined beams would show the effects of an anisotropy of the speed of light caused by the Earth’s motion through the ether. The experiment’s failure to detect this effect had an impact on physicists of the day that is difficult to appreciate fully now.

Modern realizations of the Michelson–Morley experiment generally exploit microwave cavities. For example, Brillet and Hall  mounted such a cavity on a rotating table. Any orientation dependence of the speed of light would lead to a corresponding orientation dependence of the frequency of microwaves resonant with the cavity. The null result of the Brillet–Hall experiment, which looked for such dependence, constrains any anisotropy of the speed of light to be less than a part in $`10^{15}`$, that is, $`\delta c/c10^{15}`$. Proposed space–based versions of the Michelson–Morley experiment called SUMO  and OPTIS , which exploit cryogenic and room–temperature cavity resonators, respectively, are capable of tightening this already impressive constraint by several orders of magnitude. The prospect of such precise new tests motivates our reexamination of their meaning for the empirical foundations of Special Relativity.

Elementary considerations establish that the angular frequencies of electromagnetic waves resonant within a cavity of length $`L`$ are $`\omega =ck`$, where $`k=\pi n/L`$, $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, denotes the wave number of the resonant wave. Clearly, any orientation dependence of the speed of light, $`c=c(\vartheta )`$, leads to a corresponding orientation dependence of the resonant frequencies,

$$\omega (\vartheta )=c(\vartheta )\frac{n\pi }{L}.$$
(1)
See Fig. 1 for a simple experimental setup sensitive to this sort of dependence.

From the form of (1) it is clear that an orientation dependence of the length of a cavity would also contribute to an orientation dependence of resonant frequencies. In this Letter we show that consistent, physically motivated dynamical models can predict both an orientation dependence of the length of solid bodies and an anisotropy of the speed of light, thus, complicating the interpretation of the results of Michelson–Morley experiments. For the particular model we analyze below that these competing influences on a cavity’s resonant frequencies can conspire to cancel. However, we also show that this cancellation is negligible in Michelson–Morley experiments performed to date or in proposed new versions of the experiment. The familiar interpretation of the results of these experiments remains valid.

In the following we describe the dynamical model that is the basis for our analysis, show that it predicts both an anisotropic speed of light and an orientation dependent length of crystalline structures and demonstrate that only when both of these effects are accounted for does one obtain a reliable interpretation of the results of Michelson-Morley experiments.

## 2 An alternative model of electrodynamics

Designing and interpreting the results of experimental tests of Special Relativity requires that one consider consistent, physically reasonable alternatives to familiar relativistic dynamics. In proposing an alternative electrodynamics based on modified Maxwell equations we aim to explore the consequences of conceivable departures from special relativistic physics. We make no special claim for the correctness of any particular alternative that we consider. We do show that these alternatives can lead not only to an anisotropic speed of light but also to an anisotropy in the electromagnetic interactions that affects the structure of solids. Only when both of these effects are accounted for does one obtain a reliable interpretation of the results of Michelson–Morley experiments.

### 2.1 The modified Maxwell equations

A constructive approach to Maxwell’s equations  suggests the following general structure for equations of motion governing the dynamics of the electromagnetic field,

$$4\pi j^a=\underset{\text{structure of null cones}}{\underset{}{\chi ^{abcd}_bF_{cd}}}+\underset{\text{mass–term}}{\underset{}{\chi ^{acd}F_{cd}}}.$$
(2)
Here $`F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a`$ denotes the tensor of electromagnetic field strengths with $`A_a`$ the electromagnetic 4–potential. Recent speculations regarding modifications of electrodynamics induced by quantum gravity are consistent with this general structure (2), see  for a review.

The first term on the right–hand side of (2) governs the propagation of field discontinuities and thus defines the light–cones. The factor $`\chi ^{abc}`$ in the second term acts like a sort of tensorial photon mass. It gives rise to dispersion and to a Yukawa–like form of the field of a point charge (see below). Note that equation (2) is manifestly gauge invariant. In contrast, models of a massive photon based on the Proca equation break gauge invariance .

In this Letter we consider the following simple case of the equations (2),

$$4\pi j^b=_aF^{ab}+\theta _aF^{ab},$$
(3)
where $`\chi ^{abcd}=\eta ^{a[c}\eta ^{d]b}`$ and $`\chi ^{acd}=\eta ^{ad}\theta ^c`$ with $`\eta ^{ab}`$ the usual Minkowski metric $`\eta ^{ab}=\text{diag(+ – – –)}`$. The factor $`\theta _a`$ acts like a sort of vectorial photon mass, though it might reflect properties of the vacuum or the value of a background field rather than an intrinsic property of the photon . Because of the empirical successes to date of the familiar Maxwell’s equations, we expect the magnitudes of the components $`\theta _a`$ to be small in a laboratory in the Earth’s neighborhood.

A 3+1 decomposition of our modified Maxwell equations (3) yields

$`4\pi \rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑬+𝜽𝑬`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}𝒋`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}_t𝑬+\mathbf{}\times 𝑩{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\theta _0𝑬+𝜽\times 𝑩.`$ (5)
where, as usual, $`E_i=F_{0i}`$ and $`B_i=F_{jk}`$, for cyclic $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$, and where the units of $`\theta _0`$ and $`𝜽`$ are $`\text{sec}^1`$ and $`\text{m}^1`$, respectively. The physical significance of the speed–of–light parameter $`c`$ is discussed below. Note that, in general, charge is not conserved. However, this implies no inconsistency of our model  and is, conceivably, a desirable feature in brane worlds where matter can tunnel to the bulk .

Experimental constraints on a hypothetical photon mass are quite severe. The tightest constraint from a laboratory experiment is $`m10^{47}\text{g}`$, see , while the constraint $`m10^{48}\text{g}`$ is inferred from measurements of the earth’s magnetic field. Recent astrophysical observations of electromagnetic radiation of vastly different frequencies emitted by GRBs imply the constraint $`m10^{49}\text{g}`$, see . We see below that these constraints on $`m`$ are equivalent to constraints on $`|𝜽|\mathrm{}/(2c)`$.

We are interested in laboratory experiments conducted within limited regions of spacetime so we will treat $`\theta _a`$ as constant in the following. In the case of timelike $`\theta _a`$ there is a preferred frame in which only the $`\theta _0`$ component is nonzero and in which electrodynamics is isotropic. In a frame moving with velocity $`𝒘`$ relative to this preferred frame $`𝜽`$ is roughly $`\theta _0𝒘`$. This case falls within the range of possibilities considered kinematically by Robertson . The case of a spacelike $`\theta _a`$, in which there is a preferred frame in which $`\theta _0`$ vanishes and electrodynamics is intrinsically anisotropic, does not.

### 2.2 Plane electromagnetic waves

The wave equation that follows from (3) is

$$4\pi _{[a}j_{b]}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{}F_{ba}+\theta ^c_cF_{ba}\right).$$
(6)
For a plane wave, $`F_{ab}=F_{ab}^0e^{ik_cx^c}`$, it implies the dispersion relation

$$\eta ^{ab}k_ak_b+i\theta ^ak_a=0.$$
(7)
Solving for the wave’s angular frequency we find

$$\omega =\frac{i}{2}\theta ^0\pm c\sqrt{𝒌^2i\theta ^{\widehat{a}}k_{\widehat{a}}\frac{1}{4}(\theta ^0)^2}.$$
(8)
which, in the physically interesting limit of small $`\theta _a`$, is approximately

$$\omega \pm c|𝒌|\left(1+\frac{1}{8|𝒌|^2}((𝜽\widehat{𝒌})^2c^2\theta _0^2)\right)\frac{i}{2}\left(\theta ^0\pm c𝜽\widehat{𝒌}\right).$$
(9)
Notice the possibility of weak damping or anti–damping of plane waves and of both isotropic and anisotropic dispersion.

The group velocity corresponding to the dispersion relation (9) is

$$𝒄_\mathrm{g}=c\mathbf{}_𝒌\text{Re}\omega =c\widehat{𝒌}\left(1+\frac{1}{8|𝒌|^2}\left(c^2\theta _0^23(𝜽\widehat{𝒌})^2\right)\right)+c\frac{𝜽\widehat{𝒌}}{4|𝒌|^2}𝜽+𝒪(\theta ^3/|𝒌|^3).$$
(10)
Its modulus is

$$c_\mathrm{g}=c+\frac{c}{4|𝒌|^2}\left(c^2\theta _0^2(𝜽\widehat{𝒌})^2\right).$$
(11)
The phase velocity implied by (9) is also anisotropic and depends on wavelength,

$$c_\mathrm{p}=\frac{\text{Re}\omega }{|𝒌|}c+\frac{c}{8|𝒌|^2}((𝜽\widehat{𝒌})^2c^2\theta _0^2).$$
(12)
In the limit of small wavelengths both the group and phase velocities approach $`c`$ so that this parameter has a clear operational meaning.

### 2.3 The field of a point charge

For a point charge $`q`$ at rest $`𝒋=0`$ and the modified Maxwell equations (4) and (5) take the form

$`4\pi q\delta (𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑬+𝜽𝑬`$ (13)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\times 𝑩+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}_t𝑬{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\theta _0𝑬+𝜽\times 𝑩.`$ (14)
Interestingly, when $`\theta _0`$ is nonzero there is no static solution to these equations because of charge nonconservation. In that case, $`\frac{d}{dt}q=\theta _0q`$ which implies a corresponding time dependence of the electric field, $`\frac{d}{dt}𝑬=\theta _0𝑬`$. Consequently, the terms in (14) involving the electric field cancel, so that $`𝑩=0`$. We can then solve equation (13) by introducing a scalar potential, $`𝑬=\mathbf{}\varphi `$, to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +𝜽\mathbf{}\varphi =4\pi q\delta (𝒙).$$
(15)
The solution of this equation is

$$\varphi (𝒙)=q\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}(𝜽𝒙+|𝜽|r)}}{r}=q\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|r(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}{r},$$
(16)
where $`r=|𝒙|`$ and $`\vartheta `$ is the angle between $`𝜽`$ and the position vector $`𝒙`$. Note the anisotropic, Yukawa–like character of this potential when $`|𝜽|0`$.

The corresponding electric field is

$$𝑬(𝒙)=q\mathbf{}\varphi (𝒙)=qe^{\frac{1}{2}(𝜽𝒙+|𝜽|r)}\left(\frac{𝒙}{r^3}+\frac{1}{2}\left(𝜽+|𝜽|\frac{𝒙}{r}\right)\frac{1}{r}\right).$$
(17)
## 3 The structure of ionic solids

In Michelson–Morley experiments light propagates back and forth along interferometer arms or back and forth within a resonant cavity. Since such structures are made of solids whose properties reflect the electromagnetic interaction between atoms we must consider the effect our modification of the Maxwell equations has on the structure of Michelson–Morley experimental apparatus. In this Letter we do so by considering the illustrative case of ionic crystalline solids. In this section we show that the our modified Maxwell equations can predict an orientation dependence of the separation between crystal planes and, thus, of the length of ionic solids.

As a simple model of an ionic crystal we take an infinite chain of alternating positive and negative ions with charges of magnitude $`q`$. To calculate this crystal’s structure we proceed as in . Our scalar potential (16) governs the electric interaction between ions. To stabilize the crystal there must also be a repulsive potential which we model by $`\lambda e^{r/\rho }`$ where $`\rho >0`$ and $`\lambda >0`$ are parameters characterizing, respectively, the potential’s range and strength. Fundamentally, this stabilizing potential is a reflection of the Pauli exclusion principle . While one could consider the effect of conceivable modifications of quantum physics on the outcomes of Michelson–Morley experiments, here we consider only effects caused by our modifications of the Maxwell equations. Therefore, we take the parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ to be independent of $`\theta _a`$.

The total energy for an ion in our infinite model crystal is

$$U=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda e^{nr/\rho }+(1)^nq^2\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|nr(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}{nr}\right)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\lambda e^{nr/\rho }+(1)^nq^2\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|nr(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}{nr}\right),$$
(18)
where $`\vartheta `$ denotes the angle between our ionic chain and the vector field $`𝜽`$. The sum is easily computed,

$$U=\frac{2\lambda }{1e^{r/\rho }}\frac{q^2}{r}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|r(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}\right)\frac{q^2}{r}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|r(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}\right).$$
(19)
The logarithms yield the Madelung constant which, in this case, depends on $`𝜽`$. The energy expression above reduces to the familiar result in the case $`𝜽=0`$.

The equilibrium condition that determines the separation, $`R`$, between ions (crystal planes) is

$$0=\frac{dU(r)}{dr}|_R.$$
(20)
This is an implicit equation for $`R`$,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{R/\rho }}{\left(1e^{R/\rho }\right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{R^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝜽|(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}{1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}}`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{R^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝜽|(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}{1+e^{\frac{1}{2}|𝜽|R(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )}}}.`$
which we can simplify because we are interested in the case of small $`|𝜽|R`$ and because $`R/\rho `$ is large, implying $`\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{e^{R/\rho }}{\left(1e^{R/\rho }\right)^2}\frac{1}{\rho }e^{R/\rho }`$. To leading order in $`|𝜽|R`$ the simplified equation is

$$R^2\left(e^{R/\rho }+\frac{q^2}{32}\frac{\rho }{\lambda }|𝜽|^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )\right)=q^2\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}2.$$
(22)
To determine the fundamental scale $`R`$ it is convenient to introduce $`R_0`$, the fundamental scale in the case $`𝜽=0`$,

$$R_0^2e^{R_0/\rho }=q^2\frac{\rho }{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}2.$$
(23)
Then, $`R=R_0+\delta R`$ and solving for $`\delta R`$ to leading order we obtain

$$\frac{\delta R}{R_0}=\frac{1}{32}\frac{\rho R_0|𝜽|^2}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta ),$$
(24)
where the charge $`q`$ has been eliminated by using (23).

Clearly, when $`|𝜽|`$ is nonzero the fundamental crystal scale $`R=R_0+\delta R`$ is orientation dependent. The overall length $`L`$ of a solid with $`n`$ crystal planes is

$$L(\vartheta )=nR_0\left(1+\frac{\delta R}{R_0}\right)=L_0\left(1+\frac{1}{32}\frac{\rho R_0|𝜽|^2}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )\right),$$
(25)
where $`L=nR`$ and $`L_0=nR_0`$.

Note, in passing, that such orientation dependence of the length of solids implies that the spatial coordinates we have been using do not have the physical meaning one might have expected. This is of no real concern since we will computing physical observables that are, in effect, the result of a direct comparison of a body’s extension to an electromagnetic wavelength. Note, too, that one might have chosen to consider the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom as a fundamental standard of length. This has also been shown to depend on parameters of test theories encompassing modified Maxwell equations .

## 4 Predicting the outcome of a Michelson–Morley experiment

### 4.1 Interferometer experiments

The phase difference monitored in an interferometric Michelson–Morley experiment is $`\varphi =\omega \mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ denotes the difference in time for propagation at the phase velocity along the interferometer’s two arms. This is influenced by any anisotropy of the phase velocity of light as well as by any orientation dependence of the lengths of the interferometer’s arms.

Our Eq.(12) gives the phase velocity as

$$c_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )=c+\frac{c}{8|𝒌|^2}(|𝜽|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta c^2\theta _0^2)$$
(26)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the angle between the interferometer arm the wave is propagating along and $`𝜽`$. Our Eq.(25) gives the length of each of the interferometer’s arms as a function of its angle relative to $`𝜽`$. Consequently, the observed phase shift as a function of the angle $`\vartheta `$ of a chosen arm is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L(\vartheta )}{c_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(\vartheta +\frac{\pi }{2})}{c_\mathrm{p}(\vartheta +\frac{\pi }{2})}}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_0|𝜽|^2}{8c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho R_0}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\omega ^2}}\right)(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta \mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta )+𝒪(|𝜽|^4).`$
Notice that even when $`|𝜽|0`$ it is conceivable that there will be no interference signal. It is possible for the effects of the anisotropic phase velocity and the orientation dependence of the length of the interferometer’s arms to cancel at a particular frequency, namely, the one that satisfies

$$\frac{1}{\omega ^2}\frac{1}{4c^2}\frac{\rho R_0}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}=0.$$
(28)
Typical crystals have $`\rho 0.1R_0`$ and $`R_010^{10}\text{m}`$ implying a cancellation frequency of

$$\omega =2c\sqrt{\frac{0.8\mathrm{ln}2}{0.1R_0^2}}=1.4\times 10^{19}\text{Hz}.$$
(29)
Since interferometric Michelson–Morley experiments are performed with visible light having frequencies much lower than this the cancellation of competing effects is not a problem in practice.

### 4.2 Resonant cavity experiments

The frequency monitored in a resonant–cavity Michelson–Morley experiment is influenced by any anisotropy of the phase velocity of light as well as by any orientation dependence of the cavity’s length. The phase velocity governs the relationship between the resonant radiation’s frequency and wavelength while the cavity’s length determines the resonant wavelength.

For a standing wave in a cavity we have

$$|𝒌(\vartheta )|=\frac{\pi n}{L(\vartheta )},$$
(30)
where $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ is the number of half wavelengths in the standing wave. The corresponding resonant angular frequencies are

$`\omega (\vartheta )`$ $`=`$ $`|𝒌(\vartheta )|c\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8|𝒌|^2}}(|𝜽|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta \theta _0^2)\right)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi nc}{L_0}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{L_0^2}{32\pi ^2n^2}}\theta _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho R_0|𝜽|^2}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝜽|^2}{32}}({\displaystyle \frac{L_0^2}{\pi ^2n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho R_0}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}})\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )+𝒪(|𝜽|^4).`$
The amplitude of the fractional variation in resonant frequency as the cavity rotates relative to $`𝜽`$ is, therefore,

$$\frac{\delta \omega }{\omega }=\frac{|𝜽|^2}{16}\left(\frac{L_0^2}{\pi ^2n^2}\frac{\rho R_0}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}\right).$$
(32)
Once again, even when $`|𝜽|0`$ it is conceivable that the effects of an anisotropic speed of light and of an orientation dependence of the length of solid bodies can cancel. In this case the condition for cancellation is

$$\frac{L_0^2}{\pi ^2n^2}=\frac{\rho R_0}{\mathrm{ln}2\left(12\rho /R_0\right)}1.8\times 10^{21}m^2.$$
(33)
For a mean cavity length of, say, $`L_030\text{cm}`$ this implies $`n2.3\times 10^9`$. The corresponding mean resonant frequency is $`\nu _0=cn/(2L_0)1.1\times 10^{18}\text{Hz}`$. Since resonant cavity Michelson–Morley experiments are performed with microwaves having frequencies much lower than this the cancellation of competing effects is not a problem in practice.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

The design and the interpretation of the results of experimental tests of Special Relativity demand consideration of consistent, physically reasonable alternatives to familiar relativistic dynamics. One can only design experiments to search for differences between the predictions of special relativistic and alternative dynamics when one has determined the predictions of both.

In this Letter we have shown that the alternative model of electrodynamics based on the modified Maxwell equations (3) can predict both an anisotropic speed of light and an orientation dependence of the length of solid bodies. This combination of predictions complicates the interpretation of interferometric and resonant–cavity Michelson–Morley experiments because, in principle, the effect of orientation dependence of the lengths of interferometer arms and cavity resonators can cancel the effect of an anisotropic speed of light. Both effects must be accounted for to obtain a reliable interpretation of the results of a Michelson–Morley experiment.

We have used the simplest possible model of ionic crystals to estimate the orientation dependence of the lengths of solid bodies predicted by the modified electrodynamics (3). While estimates based on more sophisticated models of other types of solids need to be made, our estimates suggest that for this modified dynamics the effect of an anisotropic speed of light dominates that of orientation dependence of the length of solid bodies in past and proposed Michelson–Morley experiments. For example, the precise microwave experiment of Brillet and Hall  employed a glass–ceramic cavity 0.305 m long operated at a resonant frequency of roughly $`10^{14}`$ Hz. Taking the estimates of the previous section as an indication of the order of magnitude of any predicted orientation dependence of the length of the glass–ceramic cavity, even though it is not an ionic solid body, we see that the operating frequency is four orders of magnitude below that for which the effect of orientation dependent cavity length would be large enough to compensate for the effect of the predicted anisotropic speed of light. Similar considerations establish that the effect of orientation dependent cavity length is negligible in the proposed SUMO  and OPTIS  experiments. We note that the prediction (32) and the target precision of these proposed experiments suggests that they will be able to impose the constraint $`|𝜽|0.3\text{m}^1`$. Note that is not competitive with astrophysical constaints .

We will discuss other predictions of the alternative electrodynamics (3) elsewhere . Similar analyses can be performed for the more general model (2) which can predict birefringence and can be expected to predict more complicated orientation dependence of the speed of light and the lengths of solid bodies.

One final remark, the results of Hughes–Drever experiments like  provide some justification for our assumption in section 3 that quantum physics remains intrinsically isotropic in the alternative models of dynamics we have considered. Such experiments can, for example, be shown to tightly constrain any anisotropy of the inertial masses of particles that appear in the Schrödinger equation .

## Acknowledgement

C.L. thanks Ken Nordtvedt, Gerhard Schäfer, and Stephan Schiller for very useful discussions and the Optikzentrum of the University of Konstanz, where part of this work was written, for financial support.