text:
# Comparative Dielectric Behavior of PbFe1/2Ta1/2O3 and NaNbO3:Gd Relaxor-Like Crystals

## 1 Introduction

Relaxor properties of heterogeneous ferroelectrics are still intriguing although the main phenomenon, the diffuseness of the temperature dielectric-permittivity peak, was discovered long ago . It is now established that one of the important features of relaxors is the polar-regions formation and these regions grow with decreasing temperature and reach their maximal sizes at the ferroelectric or glass-type phase transition .

New information, rather useful for understanding the relaxor properties, was recently obtained from neutron scattering which establishes the existence of a soft ferroelectric mode above the Burns temperature $`T_d`$, and below the freezing temperature $`T_g(T_d>T_g)`$, . In the intermediate temperature range, the “waterfall phenomenon” is seen  which reflects the absence of transverse optical mode below a definite wave vector. Another new idea stemmed from the diffuse scattering of neutrons in relaxors suggesting a uniform displacement of the ions in polar regions along with optical displacements . We use these findings to establish the order parameter in the relaxor state.

The present study considers the dielectric behavior of PbFe1/2Ta1/2O3 (PFT), and NaNbO3:Gd (NaNbGd) crystals which have some common features (the diffuseness of the temperature dielectric peak) as well as some differences. In PFT, the extrapolated Curie-Weiss temperature, $`T_{CW}`$, is above the temperature of dielectric permittivity maximum, $`T_m`$, hinting that a ferroelectric phase transition would occur if the crystal were homogeneous. The heterogeneities in the crystal prevent the appearance of the ferroelectric phase and lead to changes in the temperature dependence of dielectric permittivity characteristic of the relaxor state below $`T_{CW}`$ . We connect these changes with the appearance of a new order parameter corresponding to a nanodomain structure and show an example of such a structure within a model considering a heterogeneous material consisting of slabs (for the sake of simplicity) having different elastic and dielectric properties. In contrast with PFT, we find that $`T_{CW}`$is lower than $`T_m`$ and another order parameter appears at $`T_m`$ in NaNbGd.

## 2 Experimental

PbFe1/2Ta1/2O3(PFT), and NaNbO3:Gd (NaNbGd) crystals were grown by the flux method. The crystals obtained had an isometric (edge dimensions 0.5 -2 mm) form with the sides parallel to the {100} planes of the perovskite prototype lattice. The details of the crystal preparation and characterization have been described elsewhere .

The dielectric studies were carried out in the 103 -106Hz range in the course of both heating and cooling at the rate about 2 -3 K/min with the aid of the R5083 and E7-12 capacitance bridges. Aquadag electrodes for dielectric measurements were deposited on the opposite faces of the as-grown crystals.

## 3 PbFe1/2Ta1/2O3

At high temperatures PFT has the cubic perovskite structure in which the B-perovskite-position is occupied by the approximately randomly distributed Fe3+ and Ta5+ ions. This random distribution influences the displacements of the Pb ions and can result in the appearance of polar clusters whose interactions and growths can trigger a phase transition into a glassy or ordered phase. Fig. 1 shows the real part of the dielectric permittivity of the PFT crystal measured at different frequencies in the 103 -106Hz range. The strong frequency dispersion of $`\epsilon `$ observed at temperatures well above $`T_d`$ is likely to be due to conductivity . In addition to the known $`\epsilon `$(T) curves for PFT crystals  and ceramics , besides a diffused and frequency-dependent $`\epsilon `$(T) maximum typical of relaxors, an inflection is observed in the $`\epsilon `$(T) curve at temperature $`T_{ip}`$, which is 30-40 K lower then $`T_m`$. The frequency dispersion of $`\epsilon `$ is less pronounced at temperatures below this inflection than above it. Such behavior is similar to that observed in PbSc1/2Ta1/2O3 and PbSc1/2Nb1/2O3  at the spontaneous transition from the relaxor to normal ferroelectric state (see also ), but for PFT, it can be also connected with a glass-type phase transition which appears due to percolation of polarization , or antiferromagnetic phase transition  (recent results on Rietveld refinement of the neutron diffraction data  does not show any symmetry changes in PFT from room temperature down to 10 K when the superstructure due to the antiferromagnetic ordering is taken into account).

The fit of the Curie-Weiss law to the high temperature side of the $`\epsilon `$(T) curve measured at a high frequency (Fig. 2) provides the extrapolated Curie-Weiss temperature $`T_{CW}`$ 310 K which is substantially higher than $`T_m`$. In the same figure we show the difference between the experimental $`1/\epsilon `$ curve and the Curie-Weiss fit. It is seen that this difference has two portions where it behaves approximately linearly with temperature. One of the portions intersects the temperature axis at temperature $`T_\eta `$ which approximately equals $`T_{CW}`$, while the other, seen at lower temperatures, intersects the $`T`$ axis at a temperature which is close to the value $`T_{VF}246\text{K}`$ obtained from the Vogel-Fulcher fit of the $`T_m`$ dependence on frequency.

The fact that $`T_\eta T_{CW}`$ hints to identify a new order parameter appearing at this temperature with local polarization. It is consistent with the idea that in PFT, at some temperature, $`T_d`$, there appear polar regions ($`T_d`$ is higher than $`T_{CW}`$ because of the diffusness of the phase transition that we will discuss in detail in Section 5). At the same temperature the dielectric permittivity starts deviating from the Curie-Weiss law.

It was rigorously shown in Ref.  that, in the heterogeneous media consisting of a ferroelectric slab and dielectric layers (dead layers) the ferroelectric region gets broken into 1800 domains in order to decrease the depolarization field (see Section 6 where we consider the rigorous solution for similar inhomogeneous problem: two ferroelectric slabs separated by dielectric interfacial layers). On this basis we propose the appearance of such (possibly short-range) randomly oriented domain structure in the relaxor state below $`T_d`$. We will discuss the consistency of this idea with other experiments in Section 7.

## 4 NaNbO3:Gd

NaNbO3 exhibits an antiferroelectric phase transition at 6300 K . When being doped with Gd at small concentrations the temperature of this phase transition decreases and the width of the temperature hysteresis increases. We discussed these trends in Ref.  assuming the (1-x) NaNbO3–(x)Gd1/3NbO3 solid solution formation. At $`x0.12`$ the thermal hysteresis abruptly disappears and a diffused hysteresis-free dielectric peak remains at higher concentrations (Fig. 3). We regarded this behavior in Ref.  to the appearance of a concentration phase transition into the relaxor-like state. However there are features which are different in comparison with ordinary relaxors.

First of all we find that that the $`T_{CW}`$ found from the Curie-Weiss fit of the high-temperature side of the dielectric permittivity is much lower than $`T_m`$ (Fig. 4). This makes scenario described in the previous section not suitable for the experimental data for NaNbGd and another scenario should be developed. In the next Section we will consider a reason for the diffusness of the phase transition. We will show that, in spite of the different meaning of the order parameter $`\eta `$ for PFT and NaNbGd, the diffuseness of the dielectric permittivity peak in these two cases can have similar origin.

## 5 Landau-type theory of the diffuseness of the phase transitions in PFT and NaNbGd

In Ref.  we considered the strain and average square of local polarization as concomitant order parameters to an antiferroelectric order parameter. The addition of Gd results in the appearance of some distorted polar regions. The order parameter which is connected with these regions and responsible for the deviation from the Curie-Weiss behavior can have different meaning in different materials. For example, it can be the average square of polarization or local deformation or, if one thinks about the electronic subsystem, the degree of electron localization. In the case of PFT this order parameter can correspond to the magnitude of the local polarization in the nanodomain structure. In NaNbGd it can be an antiferroelectric order parameter. We use for this order parameter the notation $`\eta `$, we assume that it is scalar or a tensor of the second kind, which in the product with $`P^2`$ gives a scalar, and we write Landau Free energy expansion:

$$\begin{array}{c}F=F_0+\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha +qu\right)P^2+\frac{1}{4}\beta P^4+\frac{1}{6}\gamma P^6+\frac{1}{2}\lambda P^2\eta +\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2}A\eta ^2+\frac{1}{3}B\eta ^3ku\eta +cu^2EP(\sigma _0+\sigma )u+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =a(TT_{CW})`$, $`A=b(TT_\eta )`$. Here $`T_\eta T_{CW}`$; $`u`$is strain and $`\sigma _0`$ is internal stress (caused by Gd in the case of NaNbGd).

The equilibrium solutions for this Free energy are simple:

$$\begin{array}{c}1.P=0,\eta =0\hfill \\ 2.P=0,\eta =\frac{A+\sqrt{A^2+4kuB}}{2B}\hfill \\ 3.\eta =\frac{A+\sqrt{A^2+4B(ku+\lambda P^2)}}{2B},\hfill \\ P^2=\frac{\alpha +qu+\lambda \eta \pm \sqrt{\left(\alpha +qu+\lambda \eta \right)^24\beta \gamma }}{2\gamma }\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Here $`u`$ is the strain found from the equilibrium condition (it is always finite because of the stress $`\sigma _0`$; the electrostriction contribution to the Hamiltonian quP2 simply shifts the Curie-Weiss temperature and changes the value of the nonlinearity constant $`\beta )`$. The first phase is stable at high temperatures. Then, at lower temperatures, the phase 2 becomes stable, with the order parameter $`\eta `$, and, at even lower temperatures, the third phase, where the ferrolectric order parameter (here we do not pay much attention to the difference between the glass-type and ferrolectric solutions as we are mostly interested in the relaxor state) coexists with the order parameter $`\eta `$. The values of $`\eta `$ and $`P`$ can be found from the solution of equations (11.3).

In order to find the dielectric permittivity one can write the equilibrium condition with respect to $`P`$:

$$\left(\alpha +qu\right)P+\beta P^3+\gamma P^5+\lambda P\eta =E$$
(3)
By taking the derivative of this equation with respect to $`E`$ one can find

$$\chi =\frac{1}{\epsilon _0}\frac{P}{E}=\frac{1}{\epsilon _0}\frac{1}{\alpha +qu+3\beta P^2+5\gamma P^4+\lambda \eta }$$
(4)
For the phase (2) in (2) $`P=`$0 and $`\lambda \eta =\lambda b\left(\sqrt{x^2+\delta }x\right)/2B`$ where $`x=(TT_\eta )`$, $`\delta =2ku/b`$. In this case (4) takes the form

$$\epsilon =\frac{1}{\epsilon _0}\frac{1}{\alpha +qu+\lambda b\left(\sqrt{x^2+\delta }x\right)/2B}$$
(5)
From experimental data we found $`\epsilon _0\lambda \eta `$ which is simply the difference between $`1/\epsilon `$ and the high temperature Curie-Weiss dependence $`\left(1/\epsilon \right)_{CW}=\epsilon _0\left(\alpha +qu\right)`$. A fit of the expression $`\epsilon _0\lambda \eta =\epsilon _0\lambda b\left(\sqrt{x^2+\delta }x\right)/2B`$ to the experimentally obtained $`1/\epsilon \left(1/\epsilon \right)_{CW}`$ for NaNbGd is shown in Fig. 5 (Notice that the same quality fit and the same results were obtained from the fit of (5) to the corresponding experimental curve). We find that this fit obtained with $`\epsilon _0a=3.286110^6\pm 3.7810^9`$, $`T_{CW}=185.75\pm 1.84`$ K, $`\epsilon _0\lambda b/2B=3.9110^6\pm 310^8`$ K-1, $`T_\eta =308.4\pm 0.6`$ K and $`\delta =1084.4\pm 54`$ K2 is rather good and explains the deviation of the dielectric permittivty from the Curie-Weiss law by the appearance of the new order parameter below $`T_\eta `$ and by the existence of local stresses. We have obtained a similar good fit for PFT (Fig. 5) at the values: $`\epsilon _0\lambda b/2B=7.1610^6\pm 1.210^7`$ K-1, $`T_\eta =T_{CW}=295.6\pm 1.0`$ K and $`\delta =1450.6\pm 80`$ K2. From these data the appearance of the quadratic temperature dependencies of $`\epsilon (T)`$ at the maximal position becomes clear: it appears due to the expansion of the square root in expression (3) with respect to $`x`$ for small $`x`$. Hence we regard the diffuseness of the temperature maximum of the dielectric permittivity in NaNbGd to local quenched stresses and fields produced by the Gd impurities in the matrix of NaNbO3 and local polar fields produced by the random distribution of Fe and Ta at the B-sites in PFT.

## 6 A model for structural inhomogeneity

We propose a model for structural inhomogeneity based on the recent finding by Bratkovskiy and Levanyuk  who studied a short-circuited ferroelectric slab with dead layers. Consider short-circuited ferroelectric slabs of the width $`f`$(for the sake of simplicity we consider two slabs) divided by dielectric interfacial layers with the width $`d_0`$ at the boundaries of the whole system (were the system has metalic contacts) and with the width $`d`$ in the middle (see Fig. 6).

We show that the strain can be excluded from the equations by the ordinary minimization procedure. Let us consider the term describing the electrostriction effect together with the corresponding elastic contribution: $`H_{elast}(r)=c_{\alpha \beta \alpha \beta }u_{\alpha \beta }^2/2q_{zz\alpha \beta }u_{\alpha \beta }P_zP_z`$ where $`u_{\alpha \beta }(r)`$ is a component of the strain and $`P_z(r)`$ is a component of local polarization (at finite values of the local polarization one may consider a piezoelectric effect instead of the electrostriction one taking into account that $`(P_s+\delta P)^2P_s^2+2P_s\delta P)`$. Minimizing this Hamiltonian with respect to the strain component one immediately obtains: $`u_{\alpha \beta }=q_{zz\alpha \beta }P_zP_z/c_{\alpha \beta \alpha \beta }`$ (at finite local polarizations $`u_{\alpha \beta }=d_{z\alpha \beta }P_z/c_{\alpha \beta \alpha \beta }`$ where $`d`$is a piezoelectric coefficient depending on the direction of the local polarization). It implies that the strain can be excluded from the total Hamiltonian for problems with zero or constant stress. Then, we look for a lowest energy solution with possible spatial alternation of polarization for ferroelectrics which are improper ferroelastics. Detailed solution is worked out in Appendix A.

The macroscopic field energy (see Appendix, expression (A8)) is represented in the form

$$f_M=F_M/LS=f_{M0}+\frac{1}{2}A\sigma _0^2E^{}\sigma _0$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the average charge on the ferroelectric-dielectric boundary; the coefficients are given in Appendix A. The effective field $`E^{}`$ differs from the average field $`E=U/\epsilon _tL`$ by the factor $`2\epsilon _t^2f/\epsilon _{2z}L`$ where $`U`$ is applied voltage, $`\epsilon _t`$ is the total dielectric permittivity obtained treating the system as a series of the capacitors, $`\epsilon _{2z}`$ is the dielectric permittivity of the ferroelectric slab. This factor is small only when $`f`$(thickness of the ferroelectric clab) is very small. This fact implies that the effective acting field $`E^{}`$ conjugated with $`\sigma _0`$ for the thick ferroelectric layers and thin dielectric interfacial layers is largely enhanced with respect to the average field that makes it possible to change the polarization by very small dc fields.

On the basis of these results we predict the appearance of the alternating domains in the ferroelectric slabs separated by dielectric layers in lamellar structures. Perhaps some evidence for this was found in the KTaO3/KNbO3 superstructure  although this has not been understood well yet.

The equilibrium value of the macroscopic charge at the boundaries $`\sigma _0`$ corresponds to the minimum of the macroscopic Free energy: $`\sigma _0=U\epsilon _8/8\pi L_g`$ ($`\epsilon _g`$ is the dielectric permittivity of the capacitors corresponding only to the dielectric interfacial layers, $`L_g`$ is the total width of the dielectric layers along thefield). Correspondingly, the derivative of this charge with respect to field gives

$$\frac{d\sigma _0}{dE}=\frac{L\epsilon _g}{8\pi L_g}$$
(7)
It is seen that this derivative is large if the total relative length of the dielectric interfacial layers $`L_g/L`$ is small. This result is consistent with that obtained in  for one ferroelectric slab having dead layers. There can be some variations of the dielectric region’s widths but only their total relative width is important. We point out that this contribution to the dielectric permittivity arises only from the domain walls movements due to the voltage $`U`$which results in change in total polarization, hence on $`\sigma _0`$.

We now relate the stripe-like solution to experimentally observable quantities. For a given solution of local polarization, we obtain local strains through the minimization of energy with respect to local strain  as described at the beginning of this section. The local strains are then used to obtain the acoustic-like (collective motions of atoms in the unit cell) atomic displacements $`d_\alpha \left(r\right)`$ through the relation: $`u_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d_\alpha }{r_\beta }+\frac{d_\beta }{r_\alpha }\right)`$. For simplicity, we restrict here to analysis in 2 dimensions.

In addition to the solution with polarization in the domain perpendicular to the plane of the strip (the transverse case T) described in this section, we consider a longitudinal (L) case where the polarization is in the plane of stripe and along the direction perpendicular to the domain wall. Note that the polarization in the adjacent domains is opposite in sign, giving 1800-type domain walls separating them. The polarization is along (1-1) and (-11) directions for the transverse case and along (2) and (-1-1) directions in the longitudinal case, and the strip itself runs along (2) direction. In Figure 7, we show contourplots of atomic displacements, local strains and local polarization for the two cases. It is clear that the atomic displacements in the transverse case are almost constant at the boundaries between polar domains and the embedding dielectric. In contrast, we find large accumulated local strains at the domain walls for the longitudinal case, making it costly in energy.

We use atomic displacements $`d_\alpha `$(acoustic modes) and polarization $`P_\alpha `$(optical modes) in Eq. (2) of  to obtain inelastic scattering intensity plots, displayed in Fig. 8. The scattering plots for both T and L resemble those shown in Figure 4 of Ref. . The atomic displacements $`d_\alpha `$ corresponding to the acoustic modes (inhomogeneous strain) in our analysis corresponds to the uniform shifts that Ref.  uses to model their data. Our results that the patterns are rather similar for both T and L cases implies that more than one kind of atomic displacements or structures could be used to model experimental results and that the stripe-like solutions for the inhomogeneity is consistent with the experimental observation.

## 7 Discussion & Summary

We have presented new experimental data on perovskite crystals which show diffuse temperature dielectric anomalies. We presented a Landau-type theory of this diffuseness by considering local stresses produced by inhomogeneities. In the case of PFT the principal finding is that the extrapolated Curie temperature $`T_{CW}`$ is larger than $`T_m`$ and coincides with the temperature $`T_\eta `$. Following the recently proposed idea describing alternating domains in a heterogeneous media consisted of a ferroelectric thin film having thin dead layers or an epitaxial film grown on a substrate  we propose that similar (but, most likely, short-range and random) structures appear in relaxors below $`T_d`$. We provided a rigorous solution for an extended heterogeneous media, two ferroelectric slabs divided by dielectric interfacial layers, and obtained that this lamellar structure also must have alternating domains in the ferroelectric slabs. We showed that the contribution of the domain wall movements into the dielectric permittivity in such a system is governed by the relative ratio of the total width of the dielectric layers and does not depend on the distribution of the widths over the layers. We also computed strains, displacements and inelastic scattering intensity of such a domain structure which are in line with recent experiments . The assumption that there are only two main kinds of the regions, ferroelectric and dielectric, is consistent with the experimental finding showing the existence of two different transverse optical modes corresponding to a two-band structure of heterogeneous binary compounds .

The alternating domain structure proposed is consistent with many experiments. Indeed, for instance, the “waterfall phenomenon”  could be related in this case to (nanoscale) domains, the domain size determines the critical wave vector below which the waterfall phenomenon is observed. The coupling between local strain and polarization in alternating domains leads to atomic displacements consistent with the inelastic scattering results  and the observation of strong interaction between acoustic and optical modes . A strong coupling between the ferroelectric fluctuations and domain wall fluctuations leads to strong damping of ferroelectric fluctuations below the critical wave vector.

We have shown that in the model of the domain structure considered the contribution of the domain walls movements into dielectric response is especially large in the case when the relative width of the dielectric layers in the direction of the field is small and it is consistent with the recent theoretical result obtained for a ferroelectric thin film having dead layers . The universal relaxation recently observed in PMN even at temperatures larger than $`T_m`$  can now be understood on the basis of the irreversible domain wall movements  (the movements of the domain walls until there exists an electric field without further restoration after switching the field off). The Debye-type relaxation of domain walls is expected in the cases when there is a strong restoring field and this is also consistent with the existence of a strong dispersion at $`T_m`$ . The dielectric permittivity can now be found on the basis of the theory considering the phonons coupled to relaxators . This coupling in addition to the domains’ freezing can explain the experimentally evidenced deviation from the Arrhenius law . Some contribution to the dielectric permittivity from the Maxwell-Wagner mechanism is also possible.

Formation of the proposed alternating domain structure is not hampered by the depolarization field which is unfavorable for the formation of lone polar regions in a dielectric media . The cooperative appearance of the alternating polar regions make them energetically more favorable than the lone separated polar regions . We should stress that the lone polar regions (for example in chemical clusters) can also exist and contribute to the dielectric permittivity in the presence of free electrons that compensate the depolarization fields ; the change of polarization in this case is caused by both the local ionic dipole reorientations  and by the compensating charge movements.

A picture emerging from the data analysis is the following. At $`T_d`$ there appear precursors of the alternating nanodomain structure with a short range alternation of the local polarization. The maximal possible wave vector of this domain structure just corresponds to the critical wave vector seen in the “waterfall” phenomenon . The dielectric permittivity of relaxors is high due to the large ferroelectric fluctuations and due to domain walls movements (see also ). At some temperature, known as the freezing temperature, the nanodomains become very large most probably due to the polarization percolation  and are frozen thereafter or a ferroelectric phase transition can take place. This scenario seems to be valid in the case of PMN and other classic relaxor materials as well.

In the case of NaNbGd $`T_{CW}`$ lies below $`T_m`$, and the presence of the diffused temperature dielectric permittivity maximum, in our opinion, is due to the local stresses and local fields produced by the Gd impurities. The large difference between $`T_\eta `$ and $`T_{CW}`$ in this case hints that the new order parameter appearing at $`T_\eta `$ has nothing to do with ferroelectric domain structure, also resulting in much smaller permittivity.

## 8 Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate discussions with Gehring, Shirane, Bokov, and Bratkovskiy. The study has been partially supported by RFBR grants 01-02-16029 and 01-03-33119.

## Appendix A

The Poisson equation inside each of the slabs can be written in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _{1x}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{1y}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{1z}^{\prime \prime }=0;\phi _{5x}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{5y}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{5z}^{\prime \prime }=0;\phi _{3x}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{3y}^{\prime \prime }+\phi _{3z}^{\prime \prime }=0;\hfill \\ \epsilon _{2x}\phi _{2x}^{\prime \prime }+\epsilon _{2y}\phi _{2y}^{\prime \prime }+\epsilon _{2z}\phi _{2z}^{\prime \prime }=0;\epsilon _{2x}\phi _{4x}^{\prime \prime }+\epsilon _{2y}\phi _{4y}^{\prime \prime }+\epsilon _{2z}\phi _{4z}^{\prime \prime }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Here $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _3`$ are the dielectric permittivities in the dielectric layer at the boundary of the system and in the middle respectively; $`\epsilon _{2z},\epsilon _{2x},\epsilon _{2y}`$ are the dielectric permittivities in the ferroelectric slab in the corresponding directions; $`\phi _i`$ is the potential in the i-th slab, $`\phi _{i\alpha }^{}`$ and $`\phi _{i\alpha }^{\prime \prime }`$ are the first and the second derivatives with respect to $`\alpha `$. The boundary conditions between the slabs at the voltage $`U`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _{2z}\phi _{2z}^{}(f/2)\epsilon _1\phi _{1z}^{}(d_0)=4\pi \sigma ;\epsilon _3\phi _{3z}^{}(d/2)\epsilon _{2z}\phi _{2z}^{}(f/2)=4\pi \sigma \hfill \\ \epsilon _{2z}\phi _{4z}^{}(f/2)\epsilon _3\phi _{33z}^{}(d/2)=4\pi \sigma ;\epsilon _1\phi _{5z}^{}(d_0)\epsilon _{2z}\phi _{41z}^{}(f/2)=4\pi \sigma \hfill \\ \phi _1(0)=U/2;\phi _1(d_0)=\phi _2(f/2);\phi _2(f/2)=\phi _3(d/2);\hfill \\ \phi _3(d/2)=\phi _4(f/2);\phi _4(f/2)=\phi _5(d_0);\phi _5(0)=U/2\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where the general solutions are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _1(z,q_x,q_y)=C_{11}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}k_1z}{\mathrm{sinh}k_1d_0}+C_{12}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(k_1z)}{\mathrm{cosh}(k_1d_0)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<z<d_0\hfill \\ \phi _2(z_2,q_x,q_y)=C_{21}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(k_2z_2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(k_2f/2)}+C_{22}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(k_2z_2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(k_2f/2)},f/2<z_2<f/2\hfill \\ \phi _3(z_3,q_x,q_y)=C_{31}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(k_3z_3)}{\mathrm{sinh}(k_3d/2)},d/2<z_3<d/2\hfill \\ \phi _4(z_4,q_x,q_y)=C_{41}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(k_2z_4)}{\mathrm{sinh}(k_2f/2)}+C_{42}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(k_2z_4)}{\mathrm{cosh}(k_2f/2)},f/2<z_4<f/2\hfill \\ \phi _5(z_5,q_x,q_y)=C_{51}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}k_1z_5}{\mathrm{sinh}k_1d_0}+C_{52}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(k_1z_5)}{\mathrm{cosh}(k_1d_0)},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<z_5<d_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Here $`z_2=z+d_0+f/2`$, $`z_3=z_2+f/2+d/2`$. The interfacial charge can be represented as a wave corresponding to alternating domains in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions placed in the checkboard (it is close to the honeycomb structure) or stripe-type style:

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma (x,y)=\underset{q_x,q_y}{}\sigma (q_x,q_y)e^{q_xx+q_yy}\hfill \\ \sigma =\frac{2P_s}{iq_xT_x}\left(1e^{iq_xa_{x1}}\right)\delta _{q_y0},q_x0,stripes\hfill \\ \sigma =\frac{4P_s}{q_xT_xq_yT_y}\left(1e^{iq_xa_{x1}}\right)\left(1e^{iq_ya_{1y}}\right),q_x^2+q_y^20;checkboard\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Here $`P_s`$ is the local polarization magnitude inside domains; at zero wave vector $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ where $`\sigma _0`$ can be found from the equilibrium condition which we will derive below. The lengths of the domains in the $`x`$and $`y`$directions ($`a_{\alpha 1}`$ and $`a_{\alpha 2}`$ where $`\alpha =x,y`$ for polarization up and down, $`T_\alpha =a_{\alpha 1}+a_{\alpha 2})`$ depend on the electric field magnitude.

Above we considered only the case when the polarization in the ferroelectric slabs is parallel, as, in the antiparallel case, the energy of the system is larger. The solution of the above equations in this case has the following symmetry conditions: $`C_{42}=C_{22};C_{41}=C_{21}`$; $`C_{52}=C_{12};C_{51}=C_{11}`$. From the equality of the potentials at the interfaces (see conditions (A2)) one obtains: $`C_{31}=C_{21}C_{22};C_{11}=C_{21}+C_{22}C_{12}`$; $`C_{12}=0`$ at $`q_x^2+q_y^20`$ and $`C_{12}=U/2`$ at $`q_x^2+q_y^2=0`$. From the Poisson equations in (A2) we have $`C_{21}F_1C_{22}F_2C_{11}G_0=4\pi \sigma `$ and $`C_{31}G_1C_{21}F_1C_{22}F_2=4\pi \sigma `$, where $`G_0=\epsilon _1k_1\mathrm{coth}\left(k_1d_0\right)`$, $`G_1=\epsilon _3k_3\mathrm{coth}\left(k_3d/2\right)`$, $`F_1=\epsilon _{2z}k_2\mathrm{coth}\left(k_2f/2\right)`$, $`F_2=\epsilon _{2z}k_2\mathrm{tanh}\left(k_2f/2\right)`$. Excluding $`C_{31}`$and $`C_{11}`$ one has:$`(F_1+G_0)C_{21}(F_2+G_0)C_{22}=4\pi \sigma C_{12}G_0`$, $`(F_1+G_1)C_{21}(F_2+G_1)C_{22}=4\pi \sigma `$. Under these conditions we obtained the following solution (only one coefficient will be necessary for the Free energy calculation) for $`q_x^2+q_y^20`$

$$C_{21}=\frac{4\pi \sigma \left(2F_2+G_0+G_1\right)}{(F_1+G_0)(F_2+G_1)+(F_1+G_1)(F_2+G_0)}$$
(12)
and for $`q_x^2+q_y^20`$:

$$C_{21}=\left(4\pi \sigma \frac{L_g}{\epsilon _g}+U\right)\frac{\epsilon _tf}{2\epsilon _{2z}L}$$
(13)
Here $`L/\epsilon _t=L_g/\epsilon _g+L_f/\epsilon _{2z}`$, $`L_g/\epsilon _g=d/\epsilon _3+2d_0/\epsilon _1`$, $`L_f=2f`$.

The $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ can be found from the Poisson equations: $`k_1^2=k_3^2=q_x^2+q_y^2,\epsilon _{2z}k_2^2=\epsilon _{2x}q_x^2+\epsilon _{2y}q_y^2`$. Finally one obtains the Free energy in the form:

$$F=F_02S\underset{q_x,q_y}{}C_{21}\sigma (q_x,q_y)\frac{S\epsilon _tU^2}{8\pi L}$$
(14)
where $`S`$ is the surface area covered by the domains. The first term includes the Landau expansion with respect to polarization, domain wall energy and the energy connected with the appearance of polarization under the bias field; the second term describes the electrostatic energy of the boundaries; and the last term describes the capacitor energy due the bias field.

From (14) the macroscopic field energy (the terms corresponding to $`q_x^2+q_y^2=0`$) can be represented in the form

$$f_M=F_M/LS=f_{M0}+\frac{1}{2}A\sigma _0^2E^{}\sigma _0$$
(15)
where $`f_{M0}=\epsilon _tU^2/8\pi L^2`$, $`A=8\pi L^1\left(\epsilon _{2z}/L_f+\epsilon _g/L_g\right)^1`$, $`E^{}=\epsilon _tL_fU/\epsilon _{2z}L^2`$.

The alternating domain period can be now found from the equilibrium condition for the alternating field contribution to the Free energy

$$F_{alt}=\frac{Nf\mathrm{\Delta }SP_s^2}{a}+\underset{q_x^2+q_y^20}{}\frac{8\pi S\sigma ^2\left(2F_2+G_0+G_1\right)}{\left(F_1+G_0\right)\left(F_2+G_1\right)+\left(F_1+G_1\right)\left(F_2+G_0\right)}$$
(16)
where $`N=`$4 in the case of the checkboard order ($`a=a_{x1}=a_{x2}=a_{y1}=a_{y2})`$ and $`N=`$2 in the case of the striped domains ($`a=a_{x1}=a_{x2};a_{y1}=a_{y2}=\mathrm{})`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the characteristic domain wall width.

Especially simple solution can be obtained in the case when the dielectric and ferroelectric layers are thick in comparison with the domain width  and $`\epsilon _{2x}=\epsilon _{2y}`$:

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{Nf\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\epsilon _{2g}+\epsilon _1\right)\left(\epsilon _{2g}+\epsilon _3\right)}{64\xi \left(2\epsilon _{2g}+\epsilon _1+\epsilon _3\right)}}$$
(17)
where $`\epsilon _{2g}=\sqrt{\epsilon _{2z}\epsilon _x}`$; $`\xi `$ does not depend on $`a`$and for the checkboard order we have:

$$\frac{\pi ^4\xi }{4}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\left(2i+1\right)^2\left(2j+1\right)^2\sqrt{\left(2i+1\right)^2+\left(2j+1\right)^2}}0.813$$
(18)
In the case of the striped domains

$$\frac{\pi ^2\xi }{2}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\left(2i+1\right)^3}1.0518$$
(19)
The domain width increases with dielectric permittivity and the thickness of the ferroelectric slab.

In the case of thin dielectric interfacial layers and comparatively thick ferroelectric slabs in the stripe-type order and at $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _3=\sqrt{\epsilon _{2z}\epsilon _{2x}}`$, $`d/`$2$`=d_0`$ the problem can be reduced to the case considered in Ref. , and the final result is

$$a=0.95d\mathrm{exp}\left(0.4\frac{a_K^2}{d^2}\right)$$
(20)
where $`a_K`$ is the Kittel domain size parameter which coincides with (17). This expression shows that the domains extremely rapidly grow when the relative size of the dielectric interfacial layers in the direction of field becomes thinner.

## Figure captions

Figure 1. $`\epsilon `$’(T) dependencies for the PFT crystal, measured at different frequencies.

Figure 2. Temperature dependencies of $`\epsilon `$ (1) and 1/$`\epsilon `$’ (2) measured at 106Hz for the PFT crystal. Curve 3 shows the difference between the experimental $`1/\epsilon `$ dependence and the Curie-Weiss fit of $`1/\epsilon `$ . Straight solid lines are guides to the eye.

Figure 3. Temperature dependencies of $`\epsilon `$ measured at 103, 104,105, 106Hz. for 0.88NaNbO3-0.12Gd1/3NbO3 crystal.

Figure 4. Temperature dependencies of $`\epsilon `$ and 1/$`\epsilon `$ measured at 105Hz for 0.88NaNbO3-0.12Gd1/3NbO3 crystal and the difference between the experimental $`1/\epsilon `$ dependence and the Curie-Weiss fit of $`1/\epsilon `$. Straight solid lines are guides to the eye.

Figure 5. The fit of the model expression to the experimental data.

Figure 6. The model lamellar structure consisted of ferroelectric and dielectric slabs.

Figure 7.Contourplots of (a) atomic displacements $`d_x(r)`$, $`d_y(r)`$, (b) local strains $`u_{xx}(r)`$, $`u_{yy}(r)`$, (c) $`u_{xy}(r)`$ and local polarization $`P_x(r)`$ for the alternating domain-stripe solutions of the model inhomogeneous ferroelectric in 2-dimension.

Figure 8. Contourplot of the inelastic scattering intensity for the alternating domain-stripe solution discussed in Section 6.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The first gauge model of gravity  was built just two years after birth of the gauge theory itself. But the initial attempts to construct the gauge theory of gravity by analogy with the gauge models of internal symmetries encountered a serious difficulty – establishing the gauge status of the metric (tetrad) field and choosing the gauge group. In , gravity was described in the framework of the gauge model of the Lorentz group, but tetrad fields were introduced arbitrarily. To eliminate this drawback, representing tetrad fields as gauge fields of the translation group was attempted -, but to no effect. At first, the canonical lift of vector fields on a manifold $`X`$ to the tangent bundle $`TX`$ , , which is actually the generator of general covariant transformations of $`TX`$, was considered as generators of the translation gauge group. A horizontal lift of vector fields on $`X`$ using a linear connection on $`TXX`$ was proposed for the same role . The tetrad field was later identified with the translation part of an affine connection on the tangent bundle $`TXX`$. Any such connection is a sum of a linear connection and a tangent-valued form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^\alpha (x)dx^\lambda _\alpha ,$$
(1)
but this form and the tetrad field are two different mathematical objects , . We note that form (1) keeps appearing in one of the variants of the gauge theory of gravity as a nonholonomic frame . At the same time, it turned out that translational connections describe distortion in the gauge theory of dislocations ,  and in the analogous gauge model of the ”fifth force” , .

Difficulties of constructing the gauge theory of gravity by analogy with the gauge theory of internal symmetries resulted from the gauge transformations in these theories belonging to different classes. In the case of internal symmetries, the gauge transformations are just vertical automorphisms of the principal bundle $`PX`$ leaving its base $`X`$ fixed. On the other hand, gravity theory is built on the principal bundle $`LX`$ of the tangent frames to $`X`$ and tensor bundles to $`X`$ associated with it. They belong to the category of bundles $`TX`$ for which diffeomorphisms $`f`$ of the base $`X`$ canonically generate automorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ of the bundle $`T`$. These automorphisms are called holonomic automorphisms or general covariant transformations. All gravitational Lagrangians are constructed to be invariant under general covariant transformations, which are therefore gauge transformations of gravity theory. Nonholonomic (e.g., vertical) automorphisms of the principal bundle $`LX`$ can also be considered, but most gravitational Lagrangians are not left invariant under these transformations.

In the persistent attempts to represent the terad field as a gauge field, the presence of Higgs fields in addition to the matter and gauge fields in the gauge theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking was overlooked. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a quantum effect when the vacuum is not invariant under the transformation group. In terms of the classical gauge theory, spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs if the structure group $`G`$ of the principal bundle $`PX`$ is reducible to a closed subgroup $`H`$, i.e., there exists a principal subbundle of the bundle $`P`$ with the structure group $`H`$ , -. Such a reduction occurs if and only if the quotient bundle $`P/HX`$ admits a global section. Moreover, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between reduced subbundles $`P^hP`$ with the structure group $`H`$ and global sections $`h`$ of the quotient bundle $`P/HX`$ . The latter are treated as classical Higgs fields.

The idea of the pseudo-Riemannian metric as a Higgs-Goldstone field appeared while constructing nonlinear (induced) representations of the group $`GL(4,𝐑)`$, of which the Lorentz group is a Cartan subgroup , . When the gauge theory was formulated in terms of bundles, the very definition of the pseudo-Riemannian metric on a manifold $`X`$ as a global section of the quotient bundle

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{PR}=LX/SO(1,3)X$$
(2)
led to its physical interpretation as a Higgs field responsible for the spontaneous space-time symmetry breaking \[10, , . The geometric principle of equivalence postulating the existence of a reference frame in which Lorentz invariants are defined on the whole space-time manifold is the theoretical justification of such symmetry breaking . In terms of bundles, this means that the structure group $`GL(4,𝐑)`$ of the frame bundle and the bundles associated with it is reduced to the Lorentz group.

The physical reason for space-time symmetry breaking is the existence of Dirac fermionic matter, whose symmetry group is the universal two-sheeted covering $`L_s=SL(2,𝐂)`$ of the proper Lorentz group $`L=SO^{}(1,3)`$. The Dirac spin structure on a space-time manifold $`X`$ is defined as a pair $`(P^h,z_\mathrm{s})`$ of a principal bundle $`P^hX`$ with the structure group $`L_s`$ and the fiberwise morphism

$$z_s:P^hLX$$
(3)
to the frame bundle $`LX`$ , . Any such morphism can be factored using a morphism

$$z_h:P^hL^hX,$$
(4)
where $`L^hX`$ is a principal subbundle of the frame bundle $`LX`$ with the structure group being the Lorentz group $`L`$.

We assume in what follows that $`X`$ is a four-dimensional oriented (simply connected, smooth, separate, locally compact, countably infinite, i.e., paracompact) manifold with a coordinate atlas $`\{(U_\zeta ,x^\lambda )\}`$ and that $`LX`$ is the bundle of oriented tangent frames to $`X`$ with the structure group $`GL_4=GL^+(4,𝐑)`$. Then there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the abovementioned reduced bundles $`L^hX`$ with the structure group $`L`$ and global sections $`h`$ of the quotient bundle

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=LX/LX$$
(5)
with a typical fiber $`GL_4/L`$. In other words, the restriction of the bundle $`LX\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`h(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is isomorphic to $`L^hX`$. Bundle (5) is a two-sheeted covering of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{PR}`$ given by (2). Its global section $`h`$ is called the tetrad field. It is represented by a collection of local sections $`h_\mu ^a(x)`$ of the reduced subbundle $`L^hX`$, which are called tetrad functions. Any tetrad field uniqiely determines a pseudo-Riemannian metric on $`X`$ such that the well-known identity

$$g_{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^ah_\nu ^b\eta _{ab},$$
(6)
holds, where $`\eta `$ is the Minkowski metric. A Dirac spin structure on the space-time manifold thus uniquely determines a pseudo-Riemannian metric on it.

The existnece of a Dirac spin structure also imposes severe restrictions on the topology of the space-time manifold $`X`$ , . Because compact space-time does not satisfy any casuality principle, we assume in what follows that the manifold $`X`$ is not compact. Then it is parallelizable, i.e., the frame bundle $`LXX`$ is trivial. In this case, all spin structures $`P^h`$ on $`X`$ are mutually isomorphic although this isomorphism is not canonical.

Let $`S^hX`$ denote the spinor bundle associated with the principal bundle $`P^h`$. Its sections describe Dirac fermionic fields in the presence of a tetrad field $`h`$. The problem is that in the presence of different tetrad fields, the fermionoc fields are represented by sections of different bundles with no canonical isomorphisms between them. Moreover, to define the Dirac operator on the sections of the bundle $`S^h`$, we must specify a representation

$$dx^\lambda \gamma _h(dx^\lambda )=h_a^\lambda (x)\gamma ^a$$
(7)
of coframes $`\{dx^\lambda \}`$ tangent to the space-time manifold $`X`$ by Dirac matrices. But these representations are not equivalent for different tetrad fields $`h`$. The Higgs nature of the classical tetrad field manifests itself here. A Dirac field on the space-time manifold can only be considered paired with a definite tetrad field.

In particular, because morphism (3) is factored using morphism (4), the whole existing fermionic matter represented by sections of some spinor bundle over $`X`$ uniquely fixes the Lorentz structure $`L^hX`$ and tetrad field $`h`$ (pseudo-Riemannian metric $`g`$) on $`X`$, this being independent of the fermionic field dynamics. Therefore, this tetrad field (pseudo-Riemannian metric) is not determined by any differential equations and is a background field. Consequently, it cannot be idetified with the gravitational field, and a background geometry is present in the gravity theory. This considerations motivate us to regard two variants of the gauge theory of gravity.

In the first variant , -, the gravitational field is identified with the tetrad field, and we consider the composite bundle

$$S\mathrm{\Sigma }X,$$
(8)
where $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the spinor bundle associated with the principal bundle $`LX\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the structure group being the Lorentz group $`L`$. The idea of this construction is that for any section $`h`$ of the tetrad bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$, the restriction of the bundle $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`h(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is isomorphic to the spinor bundle $`S^hX`$, whose sections are fermionic fields in the presence of a tetrad gravitational field $`h`$. Therefore, sections of bundle (8) describe the totality of fermionic and gravitational fields.

The second variant ,  uses the fact that if $`Q`$ is a group bundle associated with $`LX`$, then there exists a morphism

$$\rho :Q\times \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(9)
that assigns to any tetrad field $`h`$ a background tetrad field $`h_0`$ and a section $`q`$ of the bundle $`QX`$, the latter section being identified with the gravitational field. In this approach, Dirac fermionic fields are described by sections of the bundle $`S^{h_0}X`$, and their dynamics in the presence of gravitational field $`q`$ appears as motion in the effective tetrad field $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$.

We define the configuration space, Dirac operator, and Lagrangians for both variants of the gauge theory of gravity.

## 2 Lorentz structure

As already stated, the theory of gravity is built as a gauge theory on the principal bundle $`LXX`$ of oriented frames tangent to the space-time $`X`$ with the structure group $`GL_4`$. We say a few words about this bundle. Any element of it can be represented in the form $`H_a=H_a^\mu _\mu `$, where $`\{_\mu \}`$ is the set of holonomic bases of the tangent bundle $`TX`$ and $`H_a^\mu `$ are the matrix elements of the representation of the group $`GL_4`$ in $`𝐑^4`$. The latter serve as coordinates on the bundle $`LX`$ with the transition functions

$`H_a^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{x^\mu }{x^\lambda }}H_a^\lambda .`$
In these coordinates, the right action of the structure group $`GL_4`$ on $`LX`$ becomes

$$R_g:H_a^\mu H_b^\mu g^b{}_{a}{}^{},gGL_4.$$
(10)
The frame bundle $`LX`$ is equipped with a canonical $`𝐑^4`$-valued 1-form

$$\theta _{LX}=H_\mu ^adx^\mu t_a,$$
(11)
where $`\{t_a\}`$ is a fixed basis for $`𝐑^4`$ and $`H_\mu ^a`$ are elements of the inverse matrix.

As in any gauge theory, connections on the principal frame bundle $`LX`$ are the gauge fields in the gravity theory. They are in one-to-one correspondence with linear connections $`K`$ on the tangent bundle $`TX`$ (or just on $`X`$). In the holonomic coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,\dot{x}^\lambda )`$ on $`TX`$, these connections are given by the tangent-valued forms

$$K=dx^\lambda (_\lambda +K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\dot{x}_{}^{\nu }\dot{}_\mu )$$
(12)
and are represented by sections of the quotient bundle

$$C=J^1LX/GL_4X,$$
(13)
where $`J^1LX`$ is the manifold of first-order jets of sections of the bundle $`LXX`$ . The bundle of connections $`C`$ is equipped with the coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\nu }{}_{\alpha }{}^{})`$ such that the coordinates $`k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\nu }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}K=K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\nu }_\alpha `$ of any section $`K`$ are the coefficients of corresponding linear connection (12). We stress that the bundle of connections $`C`$ given by (13) is not associated with the frame bundle but also admits general covariant transformations.

As already mentioned, the metric (tetrad) field is introduced in the gauge theory of gravity by specifying the Lorentz structure. The subbundle $`L^hX`$ of the frame bundle $`LX`$ with the structure group $`L`$, where $`h`$ is a global section of quotient bundle (5), is called the Lorentz structure on the space-time manifold $`X`$.

The tetrad field $`h`$ determines the atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }^h=\{(U_\zeta ,z_\zeta ^h)\}`$ of the frame bundle $`LX`$ such that local sections $`z_\zeta ^h`$ of the bundle $`LX`$ take values in the Lorentz subbundle $`L^hX`$ and have Lorentz transition functions. They are called the tetrad functions and have the form $`h_a^\mu =H^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}z_\zeta ^h`$. Tetrad functions induce the local tetrad form

$`z_\zeta ^h\theta _{LX}=h_\lambda ^adx^\lambda t_a`$
on $`X`$, where $`\theta _{LX}`$ is canonical form (11) on $`LX`$. This tetrad form in turn determines tetrad coframes

$`h^a=h_\mu ^a(x)dx^\mu ,xU_\zeta ,`$
on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}X`$ of $`X`$. In particular, identity (6) becomes $`g=\eta _{ab}h^ah^b`$. The metric $`g`$ is thus reduced to the Minkowski metric with respect to the Lorentz atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }^h`$ and is an example of Lorentz invariants in the geometric equivalence principle.

We now consider gauge fields in the presence of the Lorentz structure. Connections on the Lorentz bundle $`L^hX`$ have the form

$$A_h=dx^\lambda (_\lambda +\frac{1}{2}A_\lambda {}_{}{}^{ab}\epsilon _{ab}^{}),$$
(14)
where $`\epsilon _{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}{}_{d}{}^{}=\eta _{ad}\delta _b^c\eta _{bd}\delta _a^c`$ are the generators of Lorentz group. We call them Lorentz connections. Taking the property of equivariance with respect to right action (10) of the structure group on the principal bundle into account, we can extend any Lorentz connection on $`L^hX`$ to a connection on the frame bundle $`LX`$ thus determining a linear connection $`K`$ (see (12)) on $`X`$ with coefficients

$$K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=h_\nu ^k_\lambda h_k^\mu +\eta _{ka}h_b^\mu h_\nu ^kA_\lambda {}_{}{}^{ab}.$$
(15)
We can formulate the converse statement. According to the known theorem , a linear connection on $`X`$ is a Lorentz connection if and only if its holonomy group reduces to the Lorentz group. At the same time, it can be shown ,  that on any Lorentz subbundle $`L^hX`$, any linear connection $`K`$ given by (12) determines a Lorentz connection $`A_h`$ given by (14) with the coefficients

$$A_\lambda {}_{}{}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\eta ^{kb}h_\mu ^a\eta ^{ka}h_\mu ^b)(_\lambda h_k^\mu h_k^\nu K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}).$$
(16)
This allows using general connections independent of any spin structure in a gravity theory with fermionic fields.

## 3 Universal spin structure

Because the first homotopic group of the group space $`GL_4`$ equals $`𝐙_2`$, there exists a universal covering group $`\stackrel{~}{GL}_4`$ of the group $`GL_4`$ such that the diagram

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{GL}_4& & GL_4\\ \text{}& & \text{}\\ L_s& \stackrel{z_L}{}& L\end{array}`$
is commutative. The group $`\stackrel{~}{GL}_4`$ has a spinor representation whose elements, called ”world” spinors, were proposed for describing fermions in gravity theory . But this representation is infinite-dimensional. We therefore choose another way.

We consider the two-sheeted covering $`\stackrel{~}{LX}X`$ of the frame bunde $`LX`$, which is a principal bundle with the structure group $`\stackrel{~}{GL}_4`$ , , . Because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\stackrel{~}{LX}/L_\mathrm{s}`$, the bundle

$$\stackrel{~}{LX}\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(18)
is a principal bundle with the structure group $`L_s`$. Therefore, the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{LX}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{z}}{}& LX\hfill \\ & & \\ & \mathrm{\Sigma }& \end{array}$$
(19)
is valid, which gives the spin structure on the tetrad bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This spin structure is unique and has the following property -. For any global section $`h`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ given by (5), the restriction of principal bundle (17) to $`h(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is isomorphic to the principal bundle $`P^h`$ given by (3) with the structure group $`L_s`$. Therefore, spin structure (18) is said to be universal.

We consider the spinor bundle $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ associated with (17). Similarly to the preceding, if $`h`$ is a section of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$, then the restriction $`h^{}S`$ of the bundle $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`h(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a subbundle of the composite bundle $`SX`$ given by (8) and is isomorphic to the spinor bundle $`S^h`$ associated with $`P^h`$. We note that $`SX`$ is not a spinor bundle. In particular, holonomic automorphisms of the frame bundle $`LX`$ unambigously extend to $`\stackrel{~}{LX}`$ and induce general covariant transformations of the bundle $`SX`$ -.

We construct the Dirac operator on the spinor bundle $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that its restriction to the subbundle $`S^h`$ of the bundle $`SX`$ reproduces the Dirac operator of fermionic fields in the presence of a tetrad field $`h`$ and a general linear connection $`K`$ on $`X`$. We recall that connections on the spinor bundle $`S^hX`$ are associated with connections on the principal bundle $`P^h`$ and are in one-to-one correspondence with Lorentz connections on $`L^hX`$. It follows that any Lorentz connection $`A_h`$ given by (14) determines the spinor connection

$$A_h=dx^\lambda (_\lambda +A^{ab}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}L_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B}_A),L_{ab}=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma _a,\gamma _b],$$
(20)
on the bundle $`S^h`$ equipped with the coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,y^A)`$ relative to the Lorentz atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }^h=\{h_\lambda ^a\}`$ of the bundle $`L^hX`$ extended to $`P^h`$. Consequently, an arbitrary linear connection $`K`$ given by (12) on $`X`$ induces a Lorentz connection on $`L^hX`$ with coefficients (16) and correspondingly a spinor connection

$$K_h=dx^\lambda [_\lambda +\frac{1}{4}(\eta ^{kb}h_\mu ^a\eta ^{ka}h_\mu ^b)(_\lambda h_k^\mu h_k^\nu K_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{})L_{ab}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B}_A]$$
(21)
on $`S^h`$ , , . Spinor connection (19) determines the covariant differential

$$D:J^1S^hT^{}XS^h,D=(y_\lambda ^AA^{ab}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}L_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B})dx^\lambda _A,$$
(22)
on $`S^h`$, where $`J^1S^h`$ with coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,y^A,y_\lambda ^A)`$ is the manifold of jets of sections of the fibre bundle $`S^hX`$. On the bundle $`S^h`$, the covariant differential $`D`$ given by (21) in composition with representation (7) determines the Dirac operator

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_h=\gamma _hD:J^1S^hT^{}XS^hS^h,`$ (23)
$`y^A\mathrm{\Delta }_h=h_a^\lambda \gamma ^{aA}{}_{B}{}^{}(y_\lambda ^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{ab}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}L_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B})`$
of fermionic fields in the presence of a background tetrad field $`h`$ and a general linear connection $`K`$.

We now turn to the bundle $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and spinor bundle $`Y`$ over the product $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times C`$ induced from it, where $`C`$ is the bundle of general linear connections (13). The bundle $`Y`$ is equipped with the coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,y^A,\sigma _\mu ^a,k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{})`$, where $`(x^\lambda ,\sigma _\mu ^a)`$ are coordinates on the tetrad bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that the coordinates $`\sigma _\mu ^ah`$ of any section $`h`$ are tetrad functions $`h_\mu ^a`$. ̵ࠧThe manifold of jets $`J^1Y`$ of the bundle $`Y\mathrm{\Sigma }\times CX`$ is the configuration space of the complete system of fermionic, tetrad, and gauge fields in the gauge theory of gravity where the tetrad field and corresponding pseudo-Riemannian metric are identified with the gravitational field. Dirac operator on this configuration space has the form -

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_Y=\gamma _\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{D}:J^1YT^{}X\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}SS,`$
$`y^B\mathrm{\Delta }_Y=\sigma _a^\lambda \gamma ^{aB}{}_{A}{}^{}[y_\lambda ^A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\eta ^{kb}\sigma _\mu ^a\eta ^{ka}\sigma _\mu ^b)(\sigma _{\lambda k}^\mu \sigma _k^\nu k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{})L_{ab}{}_{}{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B}].`$ (24)
It satisfies the requirement stated above and coincides with Dirac operator (22) when restricted to $`h(X)\times K(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }\times C`$ for a background tetrad field $`h`$ and a linear connection $`K`$.

The Lagrangian of the gauge theory of gravity on the configuration space $`J^1Y`$ can be chosen in the form of a sum

$$L=L_D+L_{AM}$$
(25)
of the Dirac Lagrangian

$`L_D=\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma _q^\lambda [y_A^+(\gamma ^0\gamma ^q)^A{}_{B}{}^{}(y_\lambda ^B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\eta ^{kb}\sigma _\mu ^a\eta ^{ka}\sigma _\mu ^b)(\sigma _{\lambda k}^\mu \sigma _k^\nu k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{})L_{ab}{}_{}{}^{B}{}_{C}{}^{}y_{}^{C})`$
$`(y_{\lambda A}^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\eta ^{kb}\sigma _\mu ^a\eta ^{ka}\sigma _\mu ^b)(\sigma _{\lambda k}^\mu \sigma _k^\nu k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{})y_C^+L_{ab}^+{}_{}{}^{C}{}_{A}{}^{}(\gamma ^0\gamma ^q)_{}^{A}{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B}]`$ (26)
$`my_A^+(\gamma ^0)^A{}_{B}{}^{}y_{}^{B}\}\sqrt{\sigma },\sigma =det(\sigma _{\mu \nu }),`$
and the Lagrangian

$`L_{AM}(R_{\mu \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{},\sigma ^{\mu \nu }),\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\sigma _a^\mu \sigma _b^\nu \eta ^{ab},`$
of the affine-metric theory expressed via the curvature tensor of the linear connection

$$R_{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}=k_{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}k_{\mu \lambda }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}+k_\mu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\epsilon }{}^{}k_{\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{\epsilon }{}_{\beta }{}^{}k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\epsilon }{}^{}k_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\epsilon }{}_{\beta }{}^{}.$$
(27)
It is easy to see that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_D}{k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }_\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{_D}{k_\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }_\lambda }}=0.`$
Therefore, Dirac Lagrangian (25) depends only on the torsion tensor $`k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}k_\nu {}_{}{}^{\mu }_\lambda `$ of the linear connection. Moreover, full Lagrangian (24) is invariant under nonholonomic gauge transformations

$`k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+V_\lambda \delta _\nu ^\mu ,`$
i.e., has the so-called projective freedom.

## 4 Goldstone gravitational field

We consider the group bundle $`QX`$ associated with $`LX`$ whose typical fiber is the group $`GL_4`$ acting on itself via the adjoint representation. It is equipped with the coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,q^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{})`$ as a subbundle of the tensor bundle $`TXT^{}X`$ and admits a canonical section $`q_0(x)=_\mu dx^\mu `$. The canonical left action $`Q`$ on any bundle associated with $`LX`$ is given. In particular, action (9) on the tetrad bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the form

$`\rho :(x^\lambda ,q^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{},\sigma _a^\mu )(x^\lambda ,q^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{}\sigma _{a}^{\mu }).`$
We now fix the tetrad field $`h`$ and let $`\mathrm{Ker}_h\rho `$ denote the set of those elements of the group bundle $`Q`$ which leave $`h`$ invariant. This is a subbundle of the bundle $`Q`$. We let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h`$ denote the quotient of the bundle $`Q`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{Ker}_h\rho `$. This bundle with the coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a^\mu =q^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}h_{a}^{\nu }`$ is isomorphic to the bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ equipped with the Lorentz structure of the bundle associated with $`L^hX`$. As a result, we can define ,  the representation

$`\gamma _Q:(\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\times T^{}X)\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_h}{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\times S^h)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\times S^h),`$
$`\gamma _Q:(\stackrel{~}{\sigma },dx^\mu )q^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}h_{a}^{\nu }\gamma ^a=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a^\mu \gamma ^a.`$ (28)
Therefore, we can interpret the section $`\stackrel{~}{h}h`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h`$ as an effective tetrad field and $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{h}_a^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_b^\nu \eta _{ab}`$ as an effective metric. We note that $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is not a new tetrad field and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is not a new metric, because the covectors $`\stackrel{~}{h}^a=\stackrel{~}{h}_\mu ^adx^\mu `$ are realized by $`\gamma `$-matrices in the same representation as the covectors $`h^a=h_\mu ^adx^\mu `$ and Greek indices are raised and lowered by the background metric $`g^{\mu \nu }=h_a^\mu h_b^\nu \eta _{ab}`$.

We thus obtain a variant of the relativistic theory of gravity (RTG) ,  in the case of a background tetrad field $`h`$ and a dynamic gravitational field $`q`$, which can be inerpreted as a Goldstone field in the framework of gauge theory. We construct the Dirac operator and the full Lagrangian of the gauge theory with a Goldstone gravitational field.

We consider the spinor bundle $`S^h`$ associated with the backgrounf tetrad field $`h`$, and spinor connection $`K_h`$ given by (20) on $`S^hX`$ induced by the linear connection $`K`$ given by (12) on $`X`$. Using the covariant differential $`D`$ (see (21)) determined by this connection and the representation $`\gamma _Q`$ given by (27), we can construct the Dirac operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_Q=q^\lambda {}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{a}^{\mu }\gamma ^aD_\lambda .$$
(29)
Under restriction to the canonical section $`q_0(X)`$, Dirac operator (28) reduces to the Dirac operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h`$ given by (22) on $`S^h`$ for fermionic fields in the presence of a background tetrad field $`h`$ and a linear connection $`K`$.

We thus obtain an extension of the RTG where the Godstone gravitational field $`q`$, the general linear connections $`K`$, and the Dirac fermionic fields in the presence of a background field $`h`$ appear as dynamic variables. The manifold of jets $`J^1Z`$ of the bundle

$`Z=Q\times C\times S^h,`$
parametrized by the coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,q^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{},k_\lambda {}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{},y^A)`$ serve as the configuration space of such a model. The full Lagrangian on this configuration space can be chosen in the form of a sum

$`L=L_{AM}+L_q(q,g)+L_D`$
of the Lagrangian $`L_{AM}`$ of the affine-metric theory expressed via the components of curvature tensor (26) contracted using the effective metric $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_a^\mu \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_b^\nu \eta ^{ab}`$, the Lagrangian $`L_q`$ of a Goldstone gravitational field $`q`$ in which contraction is performed using the background metric $`g`$, and the Dirac Lagrangian $`L_D`$ given by (25) in which the tetrad gravitational field $`\sigma `$ is replaced with the effective tetrad field $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. In particular, setting

$`L_{AM}=(\lambda _1R+\lambda _2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2},L_q=\lambda _3g_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{1/2},L_D=0,`$
where $`R=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }R^\alpha _{\mu \alpha \nu }`$, we recover the usual Lagrangian of the RTG.


text:
# References

Space-Based Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation 111From the 2002 NASA/JPL Workshop for Fundamental Physics in Space, Dana Point, CA, May 2002.
Neil Russell

Physics Department, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855, U.S.A.
email: nrussell@nmu.edu
In this proceedings, a summary is presented of recent research investigating ways in which high-precision atomic clocks on the International Space Station could search for violations of Lorentz and CPT symmetry. Space-based searches offer certain experimental advantages over Earth-based experiments investigating these symmetries. The results are based on work published in Physical Review Letters, volume 82, article 090801, 2002.

1. Introduction
This contribution to the proceedings of the 2002 NASA/JPL Workshop on Fundamental Physics in Space summarizes recent research  aimed at using atomic clocks and other apparatus on the International Space Station to search for violations of Lorentz and CPT symmetry at the Planck scale. We consider generalities relating to experiments mounted on spacecraft and consider some tests that could be performed using clocks planned for installation on the International Space Station (ISS). This work was done in collaboration with Robert Bluhm, Alan Kostelecký, and Charles Lane.

Lorentz symmetry is a feature of the standard model of particle physics. A considerable body of research exists investigating the possible violation of Lorentz symmetry, however. From the theoretical view, the motivation for this effort lies in discovering new physics beyond the standard model. From the experimental side, the rapidly improving sensitivities of various experiments may reveal previously unresolved effects. Recent theoretical work on Lorentz and CPT symmetry includes the development of a framework that allows for general minuscule violations of these symmetries in the context of particle physics. This framework is known as the standard-model extension .

Associated with the standard-model extension is a range of literature discussing a variety of theoretical issues, as well as a growing number of experimental results bounding possible effects. The violation of Lorentz symmetry  may arise in the context of string theory, and may be accompanied also by CPT violation . Violation of Lorentz and CPT symmetry has also been discussed in the context of supersymmetry , and noncommutative field theory . The standard-model extension is expected to be the low-energy limit of some fundamental underlying theory, and so the violations would most likely be suppressed by ratios involving the low-energy mass and the 1019-GeV Planck mass. The broad applicability of the standard-model extension to all areas of physics is an attractive feature. Among the interesting implications is a possible mechanism for generating the baryon asymmetry in the universe . For the neutral mesons, some bounds on standard-model extension parameters exist for the neutral K and D mesons, and results are anticipated for the neutral B system . The symmetry properties of these meson systems have interesting analogue models in classical mechanics . In the photon sector, data from distant cosmological sources places stringent bounds on Lorentz symmetry . In the lepton sector, recent results have come from a muonium experiment, and from anomaly-frequency comparisons of oppositely-charged muons at CERN and BNL . Earlier work considered electron-positron comparisons using Penning traps . Impressive results are possible with a spin-polarized torsion pendulum .

Of particular relevance here are clock-comparison experiments with atoms and ions . Such experiments can identify spectral lines with resolutions at the Planck scale . The general principle of a clock-comparison experiment is to search for violations of rotational symmetry by monitoring the frequency variations of a Zeeman hyperfine transition as the quantization axis changes direction. Usually, the frequencies of two different clocks are monitored as the laboratory rotates with the Earth. To avoid issues with signals travelling between two different locations, the clocks are co-located. Placing such an experiment in a satellite may produce results slightly better than have been achieved on earth, and this proceedings aims to consider some of the issues associated with this possibility.

2. Clocks and Inertial Frames
Atomic transitions can be measured with great precision and so are suitable candidates for time standards. In conventional physics with constant laboratory conditions, these clock frequencies are constant quantities. However, in the standard-model extension with Lorentz and CPT violation, some Zeeman hyperfine transitions are shifted in frequency . For an experiment operating on such a transition, these shifts are controlled at leading order by parameters denoted in the clock reference frame as $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_3^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_q^w`$. Here, the superscript $`w`$ is $`p`$ for the proton, $`n`$ for the neutron, and $`e`$ for the electron. These quantities are particular combinations of the basic coefficients $`a_\mu ^w`$, $`b_\mu ^w`$, $`c_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`e_\mu ^w`$, $`f_\mu ^w`$, $`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }^w`$ appearing in the standard-model extension, and are related to expectation values in the underlying fundamental theory. For example,

$$\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w=b_3^wm_wd_{30}^w+m_wg_{120}^wH_{12}^w,$$
(1)
where $`m_w`$ is the mass of the particle of type $`w`$ and the subscripts are indices defined in a reference frame with the $`3`$ direction defined as the clock quantization axis.

In the case of an Earth-based laboratory, the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_3^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_q^w`$ are not fixed, but vary in time due to the sidereal rotation of the Earth with period $`23\mathrm{h}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}56}\mathrm{min}2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The mathematical form of this time dependence can be found by considering the transformation from the laboratory frame containing the clock, with coordinates numbered $`(0,1,2,3)`$, to a suitable nonrotating frame with coordinates $`(T,X,Y,Z)`$. Ideally, an inertial nonrotating frame is required, but for practical purposes any frame sufficiently inertial for the desired experimental sensitivity may be selected. Frames associated with the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, or the cosmic microwave background radiation would be possible choices for the inertial frame.

In earlier literature, the nonrelativistic transformation from the clock frame to the nonrotating frame has been considered . In the case of space-based experiments, leading-order relativistic effects are of interest. An Earth-centered choice of reference frame must then be rejected for such relativistic investigations because it is inertial over a limited time scale of perhaps a few days. Frames centered on the Sun, the galaxy, or the microwave background are approximately inertial over thousands of years, and are all acceptable for experiments. The choice of frame must be stated when reporting bounds on components of coefficients of Lorentz violation, since the numerical values will be frame-dependent.

A good choice of reference frame for our purposes is one centered on the Sun. So, we select the spatial origin on the Sun, the $`\widehat{Z}`$ unit vector parallel to the Earth’s rotation axis, the $`\widehat{X}`$ unit vector in the equatorial plane pointing at the celestial vernal equinox, and $`\widehat{Y}`$ completing the right-handed system. The origin of the time variable $`T`$ is taken to be the vernal equinox in the year 2000, using a clock located at the spatial origin. In this system, the Earth orbits about the Sun in a plane tilted at an angle of $`\eta 23^{}`$ relative to the $`XY`$ plane.

An adequate geometrical description of the orbital configuration can be obtained by approximating the Earth’s orbit as a circular trajectory with angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and speed $`\beta _{}`$. In addition, a satellite orbit about the Earth is approximated as circular with angular frequency $`\omega _s`$ and speed $`\beta _s`$. We use $`\zeta `$ to denote the angle between $`\widehat{Z}`$ and the axis of the satellite orbit. We denote by $`\alpha `$ the right ascension angle of the ascending node of the orbit. In the case of the ISS, $`\alpha `$ precesses by a few degrees per day.

Time intervals on a clock in a satellite are dilated when seen from the inertial Sun frame. Relative to the Sun-based frame, the clock velocity is $`\stackrel{}{V}(T)=d\stackrel{}{X}/dT`$, where the position vector $`\stackrel{}{X}(T)`$ of the clock is determined by positions of the Earth and the spacecraft. This vector $`\stackrel{}{V}(T)`$ is needed to obtain an accurate conversion between the times in the laboratory and in the Sun frame. In principle, effects such as perturbations in this vector and in the gravitational potential should be included in this description. In practice, these corrections may be neglected because the experiments involve comparing two clocks within the same satellite, which are essentially at the same location. In this case, standard relativity predicts identical rates of advance of the clocks. However, in the presence of Lorentz and CPT violation, clocks composed of different atomic species will be differently affected, despite being co-located .

Pertinent issues exist concerning the optimal orientation of the clock quantization axis relative to the geometric configuration of the system. If the clock apparatus is fixed within the satellite, the flight mode of the satellite will determine the clock quantization axis relative to the Sun frame. For this proceedings, we focus on a flight mode with quantization axis tangential to the circular satellite trajectory about the Earth. We choose the clock reference frame with 3 axis parallel to the satellite motion about the Earth, 1 axis pointing towards the center of the Earth, and 2 axis perpendicular to the satellite orbital plane. This configuration would be possible with some clock experiments on the ISS. The results outlined here are specific examples, but we note that other modes of flight and quantization-axis configurations can be handled by the methods discussed here. It is important to note that sensitivity to some components is only possible with specific quantization-axis orientations.

Experiments searching for Lorentz and CPT violation in the context of the standard-model extension are aimed at measuring the tensor-like parameters $`a_\mu ^w`$, $`b_\mu ^w`$, $`c_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`e_\mu ^w`$, $`f_\mu ^w`$, $`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }^w`$ in our standard solar reference frame. Measurements made in the laboratory frame must be transformed to the Sun-based frame by taking into account the relevant rotation and boost $`\stackrel{}{V}(T)`$. This means that the components of the coefficients for Lorentz violation in the clock frame must be expressed in terms of components in the Sun-based frame. To give an example, the transformation of the component $`b_3^w`$ is

$`b_3^w`$ $`=`$ $`b_T^w\{\beta _s\beta _{}[\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}T(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ (2)
$`+\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T)\mathrm{cos}\eta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}T`$
$`\times (\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}T\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T]\}`$
$`b_X^w(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T+\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$
$`b_Y^w(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T\mathrm{cos}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$
$`+b_Z^w\mathrm{sin}\zeta \mathrm{cos}\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=TT_0`$ is the time interval measured from an agreed reference time $`T_0`$. This transformation ignores effects such as the Thomas precession, holding only up to leading order in the velocities. The above result for $`b_3^w`$ has to be included with the transformations for the other coefficients to get the full result for the observable parameter $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$ in the Sun frame. The other coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_3^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d^w`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_q^w`$ are found by a similar method. The expressions that result depend on combinations of basic coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation, on trigonometric functions of various angles, on frequency-time products, on $`\beta _{}`$, and on $`\beta _s`$.

3. Signal Features
Satellite-based experiments offer accessibility to all the spatial components of the basic coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation. This eliminates a major constraint due to the fixed rotation axis for Earth-based experiments, preventing sensitivity to various spatial components. For instance, ground-based experiments sensitive to the laboratory-frame parameter $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$ would in turn be sensitive only to the nonrotating-frame components $`\stackrel{~}{b}_X^w`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_Y^w`$. They can therefore bound only a limited subset of components of $`b_\mu ^w`$, $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }^w`$. This limitation would be overcome by a satellite platform. In the case of most satellites, the orbital axis is tilted relative to the Earth’s rotation axis, and the orientation of this orbital axis precesses about the steady axis of the Earth. This precession makes the other spatial directions accessible to satellite tests.

Another attractive feature of the satellite platform for experiments is the relatively short orbital period. Since the satellite orbital period $`2\pi /\omega _s`$ for low-altitude satellites is much less than a sidereal day, data can be collected in a substantially reduced period. In the case of the ISS, the 92-minute orbital period translates into a data-collection period approximately 16 times shorter than on Earth, where the orbital period is about 24 hours. This could contribute to better results since it would reduce the sensitivity loss due to clock instabilities over time. One interesting advantage of this reduced experimental time is due to the fact that the Earth’s velocity vector would remain essentially constant over the experimental duration. This makes it possible to analyze the leading-order relativistic effects due to the speed $`\beta _{}1\times 10^4`$ of the Earth relative to the Sun. Such tests are not possible with ground-based experiments, because they require several months of data, during which time the velocity of the Earth changes significantly. The analysis would be considerably simplified by the fact that the Earth could be regarded as an inertial reference frame. Direct extraction of leading-order relativistic effects would be possible.

The observations above show that many types of Lorentz and CPT violation that are unconstrained to date would be accessible in space-based experiments. As an example, consider a clock-comparison experiment with sensitivity to the observable $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$ for particle species $`w`$. In the Sun-based frame and for each $`w`$, this observable is a linear combination of the basic coefficients $`b_\mu ^w`$, $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }^w`$ for Lorentz violation, numbering 35 independent observable components if the effect of field redefinitions is allowed for. Whereas a conventional ground-based experiment is sensitive to 8 of these, the same type of experiment mounted on a space platform would be sensitive to all 35. Another approach to overcoming constraints on accessible coefficients would be to construct a suitably-oriented rotating base for a ground-based experiment. This option is not pursued here, since the current work is aimed at understanding sensitivities of experiments planned for the ISS.

For ground-based experiments, some relativistic Lorentz and CPT coefficients are suppressed by the boost factor of the Earth, $`\beta _{}`$. In comparison, space-based clock-comparison experiments would also be sensitive to first-order relativistic effects proportional to the boost factor of the satellite, $`\beta _s`$. In Earth-based experiments, investigating the corresponding effects of the lab motion relative to the Earth’s center would be impractical. Such effects would also be further suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _s`$, which is about $`6\times 10^2`$ in the case of the ISS.

A somewhat unexpected effect exists among the order-$`\beta _s`$ corrections. It is found that in space-based experiments a dipole shift can lead to a potentially detectable signal with frequency $`2\omega _s`$. This is not seen in the nonrelativistic analysis of Earth-based clock-comparison experiments, where signals with the double frequency $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ occur only for quadrupole shifts. To better understand this, consider the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$, which nonrelativistically is the third component of a vector and would lead only to a signal with frequency $`\omega _s`$. This parameter $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$ contains the component $`d_{03}`$, however, which in a relativistic approach behaves like a two-tensor at leading order in $`\beta _s`$, and would therefore lead to a signal at frequency $`2\omega _s`$. We give an example: when the Earth is near the northern-summer solstice, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^w`$ in the Sun-based frame has a double-frequency term that goes like $`\mathrm{cos}(2\omega _s\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ with coefficient $`C_2`$ containing the following spatial components of $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$:

$`C_2`$ $``$ $`\beta _s{\displaystyle \frac{m}{8}}[\mathrm{cos}2\alpha (3+\mathrm{cos}2\zeta )(d_{XX}^wd_{YY}^w)`$ (3)
$`+(1\mathrm{cos}2\zeta )(d_{XX}^w+d_{YY}^w2d_{ZZ}^w)`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}2\zeta (\mathrm{cos}\alpha (d_{YZ}^w+d_{ZY}^w)\mathrm{sin}\alpha (d_{ZX}^w+d_{XZ}^w))`$
$`+(3+\mathrm{cos}2\zeta )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha (d_{XY}^w+d_{YX}^w)].`$
This shows that all observable spatial components of $`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$could be accessed through appropriate monitoring of the $`2\omega `$ frequency.

3. Experiments on Earth Satellites
The ISS will house a number of high-precision clocks and other oscillators capable of testing fundamental physics in the coming years. Instruments slated for installation include H masers, laser-cooled Cs and Rb clocks, and superconducting microwave cavity oscillators . Among the experimental advantages of the ISS are the orbital parameters $`\beta _s3\times 10^5`$ and $`\zeta 52^{}`$, which correspond to a speed and orbital plane outside the scope of Earth-based experiments. In addition, experiments on the ISS would be conducted in a microgravity environment with reduced environmental disturbances, and these features are expected to lead to sensitivity gains compared with ground-based clocks. The analysis presented in this proceedings is valid for tests with all these clocks, but not for the oscillators, which are discussed elsewhere .

In our discussion, we consider a canonical configuration with a signal clock being compared to a co-located reference clock. The signal clock is sensitive to leading-order Lorentz and CPT violation, while the reference clock, for example an H maser tuned to its clock transition $`|1,0|0,0`$, is insensitive to such effects.

Hydrogen Masers
A hydrogen maser operating on the transition $`|1,\pm 1|1,0`$ would be one possible signal clock. A recent ground-based experiment used a double-resonance technique to monitor this transition frequency , which is sensitive to the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^e`$ in the clock frame. The sensitivity to relatively clean parameter combinations is a consequence of the simplicity of the hydrogen system as compared with atoms such as Rb or Cs used in atomic clocks. Mounting this experiment on the ISS would mean that an experimental run of only about a day would suffice to obtain data roughly equivalent to four months of data taken on Earth with a similar experiment on a fixed base. For both $`w=e`$ and $`w=p`$, all spatial components of $`b_\mu ^w`$, $`m_w`$$`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`m_w`$$`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$, $`H_{\mu \nu }^w`$ could be sampled by exploiting the orbital inclination ($`\zeta 0`$) and by repeating the experiment at a later time when orbital precession corresponds to a significantly different value of $`\alpha `$. Making the assumption of a 500 $`\mu `$Hz sensitivity, equalling that attained in Earth-based experiments, several presently unbounded components would be probed at the level of about $`10^{27}`$ GeV, and others at about $`10^{23}`$ GeV. We also estimate that cleaner bounds on certain spatial components of $`m_w`$$`d_{\mu \nu }^w`$, $`m_w`$$`g_{\lambda \mu \nu }^w`$at the level of about $`10^{23}`$ GeV could be obtained by searching for a signal at the double frequency $`2\omega _s`$. In all, about 50 components of coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation that are currently unbounded could be tested at the Planck scale.

Cesium Clocks
In the case of a laser-cooled 133Cs clock, a reference frequency could be provided by the usual clock transition $`|4,0|3,0`$, which is insensitive to Lorentz and CPT violation. A Zeeman hyperfine transition such as $`|4,4|4,3`$ would be needed to provide a signal. Since 133Cs has an unpaired electron, this atom has sensitivity to electron parameters similar to that of the H maser. In the Schmidt model, the 133Cs nucleus is a proton with angular momentum 7/2, giving sensitivity to all clock-frame parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_q^p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_3^p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d^p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_q^p`$, and yielding both dipole and quadrupole shifts. We note that components tested would include $`c_{\mu \nu }^p`$. Repeating results achieved in an Earth-based experiment would imply a sensitivity level of about 50 $`\mu `$Hz  on the $`|4,4|4,3`$ transition. A similar experiment on the ISS would potentially run for a period reduced by a factor of 16. Furthermore, measurements of the double-frequency signal $`2\omega _s`$ would probe the spatial components of $`c_{\mu \nu }^p`$ at the $`10^{25}`$ level, and other components at about the $`10^{21}`$ level. We estimate that about 60 components of coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation would be accessible at the Planck-scale.

Rubidium Clocks
Experiments with 87Rb are similar in many ways to ones with 133Cs. The clock transition $`|2,0|1,0`$, is insensitive to Lorentz and CPT violation, and so is a suitable reference signal. A Zeeman hyperfine transition such as $`|2,1|2,0`$ is a potential signal transition. Like H and 133Cs, 87Rb has an unpaired electron, an is therefore sensitive to similar electron parameters as discussed for those systems. The sensitivity to proton parameters is also similar to that for 133Cs, up to factors of order unity, because the Schmidt nucleon for 87Rb is a proton with angular momentum 3/2. An advantage from the theoretical viewpoint is the magic neutron number, which aids in calculational reliability and leads to cleaner results . A considerable range of Lorentz and CPT bounds could be envisaged for 87Rb with ideas along these lines.

Other Spacecraft
Lorentz and CPT tests could be done with on a variety of space platforms. Missions where the speeds of the craft with respect to the Sun are larger than the speed $`\beta _s`$ for Earth-orbiting satellites are of particular interest. One possibility is the proposed SpaceTime  experiment, which would attain $`\beta 10^3`$ on a trajectory sweeping from Jupiter in towards the Sun. This mission will fly 111Cd+, 199Hg+, and 171Yb+ ion clocks in a craft rotating several times per minute. This rotation rate would offer the possibility of gathering data for a Lorentz and CPT test in as little as 15 minutes. The clock transitions $`|1,0|0,0`$ are insensitive to Lorentz and CPT violation for all three clocks, and so could be used as reference signals. Zeeman hyperfine transitions such as $`|1,1|1,0`$ are sensitive to Lorentz- and CPT-violating effects in the standard-model extension and could provide signal clocks. In the context of the Schmidt model, all three clocks are sensitive to the neutron parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}_3^n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_3^n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_d^n`$ in the clock frame. Such experiments would be of particular interest because none of the above neutron parameters can be probed with the proposed ISS experiments. Several tests for Lorentz and CPT violation would be possible by seeking variations in the signal-clock outputs at the spacecraft rotation frequency $`\omega _{ST}`$ and also at $`2\omega _{ST}`$. Experiments in this category would gain an order of magnitude advantage over Earth-based or Earth-orbit experiments because of their larger boost factors.

4. Discussion
The standard-model extension is a microscopic theory predicting possible minuscule Lorentz- and CPT-violating effects in physical systems. Some of the experimental challenges facing measurements of such effects can be overcome by mounting experiments on satellites orbiting the Earth. In particular, atomic clocks planned for the International Space Station will be able to exploit the relatively high rotation rates of the ISS as well as the relatively high speed relative to the Earth to gain sensitivity to relativistic effects within the context of the standard-model extension. Other experiments of interest in this context include satellite-mounted microwave oscillators.

5. Acknowledgments
I thank Robert Bluhm, Alan Kostelecký, and Chuck Lane for their collaboration on this work. This work was partially supported by a grant from Northern Michigan University.

References