You are on page 1of 20

Nuclear Physics B217 (1983) 125-144

(~ North-Holland Publishing Company


Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, England

The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and NORDITA DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark

Received 25 October 1982

It is proposed that the various symmetries observed in nature be regarded as infrared attractive
fixed points of a large class of theories which are not endowed with these symmetries a priori.
That this hypothesis is feasible is explicitly demonstrated for the case of Lorentz invariance. The
strategy is to consider a suitable non-covariant model of electrodynamics, and to show by calculating
the relevant /3-functions that this model simulates Lorentz invariance better and better as the
energy scale is progressively lowered.

1. Introduction
F r o m time to time p e o p l e have speculated a b o u t the possible d e e p e r origin of
the symmetries we o b s e r v e in nature [1, 2]. With the a d v e n t of g r a n d unified theories
[3] certain symmetries, such as the conservation of b a r y o n n u m b e r for example,
are no longer r e g a r d e d as f u n d a m e n t a l ; rather, these symmetries a p p e a r as almost
" a u t o m a t i c " c o n s e q u e n c e s of o u r " l o w - e n e r g y " world [4]. T h e y are thus expected
to be b r o k e n at high energies. W e find such an explanation of symmetries very
satisfying. W e would therefore like to p r o p o s e the point of view that all the o b s e r v e d
symmetries in n a t u r e be r e g a r d e d as " l o w - e n e r g y " or " i n f r a r e d " properties of a
large class of theories which are not e n d o w e d with the symmetries in question a
priori. A m o n g s t the m o s t i m p o r t a n t symmetries we seek to explain in this way are
those of L o r e n t z and gauge invariance [5].
T h e present p a p e r is quite m o d e s t in scope, and is only i n t e n d e d as a first step
in substantiating the a b o v e philosophy, T h e s y m m e t r y we choose to c o n c e n t r a t e
u p o n is L o r e n t z invariance. O u r strategy is to consider a m o d e l which incorporates
the usual attributes of gauge invariance and renormalizability, but which is not
L o r e n t z invariant. This m o d e l - w h i c h we call massless n o n - c o v a r i a n t electrody-
namics - will be explained in detail in sect. 2. In sects. 3 and 4 we study the b e h a v i o u r
of the various couplings of the m o d e l as a function of the e n e r g y scale. W e then
e n d e a v o u r to show in sect. 5 that as the e n e r g y scale is lowered the m o d e l simulates
L o r e n t z invariance with an increasing degree of accuracy. Thus, we h o p e to have
p r o v i d e d a possible " d e r i v a t i o n " of the L o r e n t z invariance of o u r physical theories;

126 S. Chadha, H.B. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance

according to this point of view this symmetry is simply a generic infrared property
of a rather large class of Lagrange functions.
Most of the work reported in this p a p e r was done about five years ago but
remained unpublished [6]*. In the meantime, however, several related works have
already appeared. A m o n g s t these we would like to mention at least an extension
of the present work to include non-abelian gauge fields by Nielsen and Ninomiya
[7], as well as attempts to " d e r i v e " gauge invariance within a similar philosophical
f r a m e w o r k independently by Iliopoulos, Nanopoulos and T o m a r a s [8], and by
F6rster et al. [9].

2. Description of the m o d e l - massless non-covariant electrodynamics
In this section we will write down the Lagrange function of the model we wish
to use for our calculations. W e shall assume that this Lagrange function is gauge
invariant and renormalizable - but not, of course, Lorentz invariant. More explicitly,
by gauge invariance we m e a n that the primitive interaction term is obtained from
the free Lagrange function by the use of the minimal substitution (i.e. by replacing
every derivative by a covariant derivative), whereas by renormalizability we imply
that the Lagrange function m a y only contain terms whose mass dimensions are
~<4. Furthermore, for simplicity, it is also useful to assume that the model is chiral
invariant whence the electron is considered massless. U n d e r these circumstances,
then, the action for non-interacting photon and electron fields is given by

W . . . . int(J, ~/) = [ (dx)[Jt'At, +TlY°to+~LP. . . . ant(Art, tO)], (1)

~CCnon_int(mv,,tO) = -4r/ rt,~ro, ~ -:qs~/ y e~ 2

H e r e J~' and rl are the photon and electron sources respectively, with A~ and tO
the corresponding fields. The objects e +~a and e ~-~ denote vierbeins which are taken
to be different for the two different helicities of the fermion. The usual requirement
of translational invariance of the action (which we would like to preserve) implies
that the coupling constants r/ , e~_~, and eEa are space-time independent**.
Let us now m a k e a few comments about the non-interacting Lagrange function
given in eq. (2). In writing this expression we have of course assumed that the

* See also [5, 6@
** Notation: We employ the Majorana representation of the y matrices: 30 is imaginary and antisym-
metrical while the 3,k are imaginary and symmetrical. 3'5 30 132y3 is real. The matrix

specifies the charge matrix. The spinors ~ and tO are real eight component anticommuting objects.

Chadha.. however. it becomes equal to rI""XF. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 127 world is four-dimensional so that the i n d e x / z runs from 0 to 3.. 6]). Thus.e. ~ A . are absent in the Lagrange function.~ the only relevant part of 7 / " ~ is that which is antisymmetric in the indices ~u and ptr.) (the Woo term [5. (2) is the most general gauge invariant and renormalizable term we may write down. + OvA. .~Ax where 7/""x is totally antisymmetric and has the dimension of mass**. In virtue of the antisymmetry of the field strength F. that in eq.B. (3) It is now possible to argue that. terms involving three or four photon fields do not occur since they are never gauge invariant and renormalizable (i. S. Woo is thanked for some discussion and correspondence on this term (especially by H. the usual summation convention with respect to repeated indices is observed. we must assume that terms linear in A . Of other possible terms which might have been included in the Lagrange function we simply disregard those terms which are linear in the photon field A . We are thus left with a total of 20 independent coupling constants in We may also remark that the photon Lagrange function in eq. It should be remembered.N. . ** H. The special case when . for example. of dimension ~<4) at the same time. and it is therefore not possible to raise or lower indices with impunity.v. This term is obviously invariant under the abelian gauge transformations A .~.B.q. if we choose the appropriate sign for the temporal derivative things may be arranged such that this term makes an arbitrarily large negative contribution to the energy of the vacuum.~ is proportional to the antisymmetric symbol e"V"~ may be ignored since it does not contribute anything to the action (after a certain permissible integration by parts has been performed). Deser et al. Moreover. Furthermore. which do not change the field strength F. This term is both gauge invariant and renormaliz- able (in fact superrenormalizable)***. *** The possible effects of such a term in three-dimensional theories have recently been examined by S. But a possible troublesome term is of the form ~7""hF. The vacuum is therefore unstable and perturbation theory about such a vacuum is not valid. (2) certain indices occur upstairs ("contra- variant") and others downstairs ("covariant") simply to ensure that the noncovariant Lagrange function resembles the covariant one as closely as possible*.C.Ax ~ rl°ik (OoAj)Ak + rlijk (oiAj)Ak . In the temporal gauge (A0 = 0). In making * Thus. H. the coordinates are treated as "contravariant'" vectors whereas the momenta are treated "covariantly". at least in this gauge. and symmetric in the interchange of the pairs tzv ~--~po-. [10]. But the space in which we are working is not endowed with any particular metric a priori. however. The reason for this is that the presence of such terms would imply that photons are spontaneously emitted and absorbed by the vacuum even in the absence of sources. to ensure that one may perturb about the usual vacuum (with vanishing field expectation values).

0 = .7. Fortunately.such dimensionful couplings would domin ate all others which is contrary to experiment. If we define the " h a t t e d " m o m e n t a iO+~ =--eU+op.. . The construction of a sensible theory therefore demands that a term such as "1/.. (2). (8) we have >v ~ ~ A A2 g+ P.t a p. (5) F r o m the last equation we easily conclude that the non-covariant fermion propaga- tion function. 2 2 IX. It is useful at this point to introduce a more compact notation in terms of which all the expressions of the non-covariant theory formally look very similar to those of the usual covariant theory.1. g~-"=e_ae bg . H . i.P~ where g+"" and g"_~ are the metrics associated with the two different helicities of the fermion: =e+~e+bg . C h a d h a .Pv gabp+aP+b=--P+.. (4) 1 +iqy5 ~-e"-a 1 . There is then. Thus at "low e n e r g i e s " .~e .. B .P~ g P. (6). eq.128 S. This is so precisely because the correspond- ing coupling constants carry the dimensions of mass. G ~ ) (p). . they would thus have to be proportional to some fundamen tal mass in the theory and in our case this would have to be s ome t hi ng like the Planck mass.i q y s ] ( l ~ y" e"+. (7) ab g being the usual minkowskian metric (1. iO-~ ------e ~-oP. may be written as G~ ~(~) = 1 + iqy5 (-3'/%) + 1_ -iqv5 _ (-vt~-) A2 . (10) 2 /3z+ 2 p where all scalar products are now understood to be with respect to the "trivial" * It should be emphasized that the presence of superrenormalizable couplings in the Lagrange function would be catastrophic for the success of our programme. . .p.01"v°'~Fo. 1-iqy52 Y. the only term we are left with is the one that we have written down in eq.i n the infrared r e g i m e . . k~v (9) g P~P~ =gab~ aP-b ~ 2 so that the fermion propagation function. Details of this a rgume nt will be published elsewhere. finally. Nielsen / L o r e n t z invariance this statement we have ignored the equations of constraint on the field A . it is possible to show that the terms under discussion cannot occur at least on a lattice. G~(p) _ 1 +iqy52 3'~. no lowest energy state in the theory at least classically. T h e stationarity of the non-interacting action W . properly speaking..-1). vAx should be absent from the Lagrange function*. (6) g + P.tvAF .) = J " . Thus.. i] 0 ._G~+~(p)+G ? ~(p).e+. is given by a /.P.1.t implies the following free field equations: O.

e~ae±19 = 8 ~ (11) and if we define the " h a t t e d " coordinates Aa -la ~* . We shall work only in the approximation where the breaking of Lorentz invariance is small so that we employ perturbation theory in the deviation away from a suitably defined "covariant" limit. In an obvious symbolic notation.~a " la .x ') denotes the " c o v a r i a n t " (with respect to the metric h .D+~. and with g"~ if we are considering positive helicity fermions. we will identify h"" with g~Y if we are dealing with fermions of negative helicity. we observe that. =e ..(dr+) = (dr_). ) + I (d. . We may therefore write livpo" ~vp~ n""°" = rico. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 129 metric... S. x+=e+.. (17) we can conclude that a formal solution of D (') +. . e±b -=8b..O2g "~ + 26rt""°=O. in which the coordinates x and x ' are treated as continuous matrix labels. ) = D + .x ' ) . with the substitution ( x _ x . returning to our immediate problem of obtaining the photon propagation function. H. Thus.x .~(x_. . (16) and the corresponding 6rt""°'~ is to be regarded as small.o). (14) Let us now turn our attention to the free non-covariant photon propagation function D ~ (x . (15). the photon field equation becomes (O"O ~ .x . a e ± .Oo)A. p. .~ (x .(1)O~(1) a. Chadha. for instance. if the vierbeins are normalized in the sense that det e+ = 1 = det e . we easily obtain that (dx) = (d£+) = (d£__). ) propaga- tion function of the photon in an arbitrarily specified gauge. (15) where rtcov ""P~ is defined with respect to some arbitrary convenient metric h "".) (18) where D+. Now. (12) then Aa ~ Aa p . (dp) -.(~-x .a X • (13) Furthermore.v(x-x ) is supplied by the integral equation r~(n) ~ +/.)O+.. +&7 . ~'po- rtco~ = l ( h " ° h v~ _ h " ~ h . X " =p+aX+ = p . In actual calculations we will m a k e several different choices of the metric h'*~ according to the convenience of doing the calculation at hand.~ = J " .)28rl=o..B. (17) F r o m eq. v ( x _ x . For future reference we may also r e m a r k that if e21 denotes the inverse of e±: -la .

. (19) The formal solution of this matrix equation is D(+~) = [1 -D+28.ieqA~. (25) The final action expression then becomes W = I (dx)[J"A" + ~Y°~O+~(4J..D+(k)+D+(k)h. n o n . (22) In the course of our calculations we shall employ the Feynman gauge for the "covariant" photon propagation function D + ~ ( k ) . ... Chadha. (21) n=0 In m o m e n t u m space this expansion yields.B. D +( nu) ~ ( k ) -_ O + ~ . Scale-dependent vierbeins e ~.h~.. ) ] .i n t ( A . (A) Our purpose in this section is to define certain scale-dependent vierbeins e % (A). H. ~ ( k ) = h.~2r3rf~c3V~k~k~. (24) An interaction between photons and charged particles in this model is introduced in the usual way by replacing every derivative in the non-interacting action by a covariant derivative: O~ ~ O~ .kok. We now proceed to investigate some of the consequences of this primitive interaction. 1 D + . up to and including terms linear in &q. . (23) in this gauge eq.130 S. ~ ( k ) + D + ~ ( k ) 2 6 n ~/3-y8 kokvD+~(k)+. (18) may be transcribed into D(+") = D+ +D+26T/(1/i)O(1/i)OD ~ .(k)=h..~ (D+26~(1/i)O(1/i)O)"D+. t/t) +j'~A. (22) becomes D+. . ~) = = ~ . (28) is the electric current in this model.1(1/i)O(1/i)O] 1D+.D+(k)+ ' " ". (26) where 5g(A.~ . (27) and / " ( x ) = ~ u y y eq e ~ + a ~ "-~ t~(X).v hO~. and to calculate the variation of these quantities with respect to the energy scale .~.~D+(k) = h. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance eq.. 3. (20) which is a compact statement of the expansion D~+"~=. A .

a.) )(X--X')TbeV_b~(X'). which supplies us with the modification to the charged particle propagation function. consider only the first of these in detail. Chadha. (27) and (28) enables us to write the v.. Transforming this term to momentum space. Nielsen / Lorentz &variance 131 O.. expression. (29) We will now substitute the expression for the non-covariant photon propagation function ~+. we will identify the arbitrary metric h. in the first term of the v. M o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e c h a r g e d p a r t i c l e p r o p a g a t i o n f u n c t i o n . and with g_~.a. however. 1. and employing eq.) of the diagram displayed in fig. k( P P O_ Fig.a. (2rr)4 (2rr)40(-P)Y Y e+.(x-x ~ (~) t )G+* (e ) ( x . ~e2 1 (dp) (dk) o a ~.~v of eq. (24). A.(x-x')G~ .n(') into eq. the calculation of the two terms in eq. (24) with g+.a.B... we obtain for this part of the v. v (30) where P=p+k.2D+. 1.D+(k)g+.x r )y b e+b~P(x v p ) +~e 2 f (dx)(dx')O(x )y oy ~e-aD+g. corresponding to this diagram as ~e2f (dx)(dx)tp(x)y ..D+(k)G+ + (p)ybe~_b~(P) +2ae2 f (dp) (dk) o ~ . (e) (27r)4 (27r)4 t~(-P)y y e+ag+.g+8~D+(k)G+ (e+) (p)y be+bO(P). Apart from this minor subtlety. in doing so. H.~ X 26n+a/3"t~ kok~.. (31) . The primitive interaction incorporated in eqs. (29) is completely analogous. (29). To do this we must calculate the vacuum amplitude (v. therefore. (. S. o y a e+. we will. in the second term.. however.

but it will not make any contribution to the renormalization of the vierbein e+~. = gabe+.a. the entire scale dependence of the vierbein is contained in the second term in (36). eq.l d . H.)4 (~-~)4O(-P+)Y q-le28x +cab I (d/J+) (d/~+) A o 1 ^ . (3 7) we have =re ox + y~lmyb.. 1 "ya~++k+ck+d-~+ (-y/J+) /J2+ TbO(P+) (36) Also used in writing (36) is eq. ot~V6 l a . (32) Since --la --lb g+~.. (34) from the usual momentum space to the space of the "hatted" momenta (cf. We thus know from any text-book calculation of the relativistic mass operator [11] that this term only produces a modification of the residue at the pole of the electron propagation function. so this is the only term which we will consider in the following. 1 2 I (d/J+) (d/~+) 1 (-y/J+) l+iqyso(t~+ ) ~e (2rr)" ~ ¢~(-/~+)Y°V~/~2 /Jz+ W 2 (2~. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance and the suffix + on 6rt is simply a reminder of the fact that this quantity is the deviation from "covariance" defined with respect to the metric g+~V: n ~o. Chadha.P ) y ° y a D + ( k ) e ~+ceV+dkt3kvD+(k)G~ +) (P)'Yb~(P) (34) where we have used the abbreviation 6xacdb . Denoting the additional action contribution from this term by i } f (dx)(dx')~O (x)'y °M(8'7 ~(x .P ) y ° y " D + ( k ) G ~ ~ (p)ya~O(P) 1 2~ a~db ~ (dp) ( d k ) + ~e o x + j (277.~ = ½(g~Og[ _g+.a. . becomes 2~e2 f (2rr)4 (dp) (2~r)4 (dk) ~ O ( .B.l b =zoo1+ e+~e+t3e+ re+8 • (35) We will now transcribe the expression eq. Substituting the non-causal forms of the electron and photon propagation functions from eqs.l c . (38) .x')gt (x').~¢. In this notation the first term in this expression is formally identical to the corresponding quantity in the usual relativistic massless electrodynamics.~ g+V°)+6n+~'~°~ . (14) expressing the equality of the momentum volume elements of the hatted and unhatted spaces.. (33) being inverse to the metric g +"~.132 S. e+. (6) and (23) we obtain for the v. the v. " In fact. (8)).)4( ~ f ~ ( .

Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 133 with L~ r (dr) fcfd [-Y(/~-/~)] (39) J (2~. enables us to express Icd in the form 1 (d/~) L~ = f f0 dul(1 --U)[--gcd(1 --U)y~ +u'ycpa + U'yd/~c] x[ 1 a2 / + (-~)4 Jo du2u2(l-u) (--YP)PcPd(~c2+a2)3 i 36(4rr)2 (gcdYfi + Ycfid + YdPc) . (39). Chadha. Thus. The second integral. however. so it is permissible to perform a naive change of the integration variable/~-/~u ~/~ in this term. this does not cause any confusion. (41). (43) in which q is an arbitrary vector and a is any constant.q)2 + a 2]3 = z (gcdq~+ gdrqc + grcqd) f (dk) +qcqdqrf (dk) 1 (217")4 (k2+a2) 3 i . (41) is only logarithmically divergent. (44) . Substituting eq. (42) The first integral in eq. (41) where a 2 =/32 u (1 . contains an apparent linear divergence. S.u ) . We now proceed to simplify the integral Ld employing the usual techniques [11].)4 (f2)~ (t~_f)~ For notational simplicity we have dropped the suffix + from the momentum variables in eq. (43) into eq.12(4rc)2(gcdqr+gdrqc +grcqd). using the formula 1 [*1 alL/ (40) ala2 J0 [alu+a2(1-u)] 2' we may write (d/~) r' 2/~fl~a(-y/~) +r (d/~) r' 2LKrd(Y/~) Ic. and performing some elementary manipulations. ll. but this is easily shown to be absent by the use of the formula I(dk) kckdkr 1 1 a2 (27r)4 [(k .B.~= I (2zr)4 Jo du[(l~_~u)2 +a2]3 j(T )4jo du[(l~_fiu)2 +a2]3.

B.134 S.blgab (Tcpd "q-TdPc )){ (/~2 + a2)2 . . Chadha. te 21~toX+ .17 = 1 . we shall assume that all quantities in eq.gadPc )-4. db +OX+ o adcb.e. The modified electron propagation function that emerges is 1 71M~8"+'(0) .Ig~b (gacPd -].' (0)) = T ae+. . in addition to being symmetric in c and d (by construction.-a2) 3 + I ~ Io' dU2U2(1--U)2{--gabTO+TaOb+TbOa}O~Ob(~2+a2) 3 i -~ 36(4~) 2 {--gabgcdTO -. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance Now.(/~2 -4.gbdPc ) 1 a2 } -. ab + oox +adcb. . this expression must be sandwiched between the matrices ya and 3'6 to obtain the mass operator M(8"+~(0): M~8. YPTb = --YaYb YO -. Eventually the limit A-+ oo is to be taken. That this is so follows simply because 6X~5 db inherits the various symmetry properties of 6r/"~vS. Consequently. (46) and then by effectively replacing YaYb everywhere by -gab. Furthermore. In this way we obtain the following expression for M~a'+~(0): (d/~ 1 -~-gcd ( TaPb -'}-]/bOa )} -. (50) \ dp. . i. (45) may be simplified by first using Y .+I(0 ) = . a possible set of normalization conditions is specified by ( G (e')--l(p)) h = 0 (49) (/d(~G ~ ' . (47) are bare quantities.UTa (gbcPd -}.(a.c a T b . the quantity TalcdYb in eq. / Here e ~a (h) is the vierbein at the renormalization scale h. and in d and b.Pb + Y b ~ ) + Ta (gbcPd + gbdPc ) + Tb (gacPd ÷ gadPc )}]. and is symmetric in the simultaneous interchange of [ac]. ll.). and the angular brackets .) Y J. . (45) We observe that the object ~tOX+ a.gab (%Pd + TdO~) + &d (T. 6X~ Cab is antisymmetric in a and c. . (48) (-~+'(0) T0 TP TP T/3+M(a'+~(0) This propagation function must be normalized in some suitable way.2 yapb . (47) To regularize this logarithmically divergent expression we simply cut off all divergent integrals at some large scale /~2 = A 2. ). according to eq. since L d is symmetrical in c and d). (38).~+[db]. is also automatically symmetrical in a and b.

Chadha. The second equation provides us with the object of interest: the scale dependent vierbein.+) (f. the normalization conditions become (M(~'+)(/~))x = 0.\ ~ p.B. for this purpose let us write the inverse electron propagation function as ~e+)-i (13) ~ yt0 +M(8"+)(/:3) ----y/3 + (M(8~+)(/3))A + /\d / ( 8 "~+ ) ( f ) ~/ p. A) at the scale A to be M(8"+) (/3. (51) f(d/3 )E8 (/32 . (55) by yb and taking the trace we obtain . eq. A). \ ~ ] /A J" (56) Only the logarithmic divergence contained in (dM(~'~)(/3)/dpu)A is of interest to us. (49) and (50) are more conveniently expressed directly in terms of the mass operator M(8"+)(f). ao 8x~db log (A/A) 12rr x [--gobg~dyfe "+f+ gcd (Tae ~+b+ ybe'2. (47)).( 2)O(p) (O(f))~ . from eq. S. div. ll. (47) this divergence is easily extracted to be / d M (6rt+)(l~) ' log.[ e"+°(h) = e ~ o ( A ) . . Now. Eqs.]/b Ix At. substituting eq.~Y~(gb~e"+ d + g b d e +c ) __ 12.) 1 .A 2) for any arbitrary quantity 0(/3). (49) and (50).)x denote an average over the euclidean momenta defined by • (df)E6(f2-. This is simply a confirmation of the expected fact that the chiral invariance of this model forbids any mass renormalization. (53) Using eq.( M ( 8 " + ) ( f ) ) .. (52) where we have defined the mass operator M(~'+)(/3. (54) o. +U(8. Multiplying eq. . (55) Since M I~'+) (/3) only involves terms which are either linear or trilinear in f (cf. (47) this quantity is easily verified to be finite in this renormalization scheme. ~x 1 (57) (gace+d gade+c)+~gab(yce~d +yde~c)] . (52) into eqs.~ tr y . A ) = M ( ~ ' + ) ( f ) . Ye+°(a)+\ ~ / =ye+o(A). the first of these equations is automatically satisfied. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 135 (.

].ce ~u + gaae +e) -. (32).~ B A . The substitution of eq. (14) it has been assumed that the bare vierbeins are normalized in the sense of det e_~(A)= 1.. (63) a completely analogous calculation for the positive helicity electron (the second t e r m in eq. For this purpose we use the formula det (A + B ) = det A[1 + t r (A-1B) +~{tr (A-aB)} = . (59) where 6e ~r(A ) = e ~r(A ) ..e ~. we shall return to them in sect.~ = l (g DOg.2g. ( A ) . (61) we have also replaced the bare coupling ao with the coupling a at the scale A which is permissible since we are only working to the lowest order in the coupling. With a similar definition of 8r/ .x (48n+ .~ X + log(A/A)[4g. (64) 0 log 2t 3~" where all the contractions are now with respect to the metric g"". This is calculated from the formula g~V (h) =.e ~r(A). In deriving eq.~t(A )gtr'e +r (A) + 6e +t.o. In eq. ~A~+ O~o a c d b ¢t ~x e+"f(A)= +f~ ) ~ .g"-~6n-'×.~ 37r with 6r/+ defined as in eq." . rt . yields g~"(A) = g+~ v ( a ) + ~ a ( 4 6 r / + " f -g"+~6rl+×. (60) A straightforward calculation.. (29)) would yield Og"" (A ) a (46n ". 5. (62) and (64) are the main results of this section.(~t). Eqs. H.B. We would like to check that this normalization is maintained also for the e ~ (A). (61) ~xv The dots and crosses indicate contraction of indices with respect to the metric g + .~ _ g.136 S. (58) More useful for our future purposes than the scale dependent vierbein is the associated metric at the scale h. (62) log .a B ) + . (57) into eq. Differentiating eq.×) .. ~t u b~ ty .g + 8n+ ×). (61) we have finally ag~_v(A) a .~g ~o) + 6rl ~P'~ .~bgcde+f(A)--4gcd(g.. A last r e m a r k concerns the normalization of the vierbeins e~.×)log (A/A). (56) supplies us with . (58).. Chadha.e "+f(A )g~'e +r' (h) g ~v (A) + 6e . (65) .. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance In this expression c~0 denotes the bare electromagnetic coupling constant.~te+b +gble+a) /x bt /x /~ + 2gaf (gbce +d + gbae ~c) + 2gbf (g. using eq.~ (g~te +a + guje +c)].. • .(A )g~'e ~.~ t r ( A .

The appropriate form of the negative helicity electron propagation function is given by x ° > x '° : G ~ ~'(x . 2. As in the previous section we will only consider the case where a negative helicity fermion goes round in the loop. in turn. It then follows from eq. Vacuum polarization diagram.B.w~ e i~(~ ~'~(-'y~) 2 2 (68) where (d/~) dw~ . 2.) 1 + iqy5 i f d. 4.x . (66) which. H.x ' ) 1 + iqy5 G ~ ( x . the case of a positive helicity fermion is entirely analogous. (58) that det e±(h) = det e±(A). the normalization of the vierbeins e":o(A) and of the associated metrics g~"~(A) is indeed independent of the scale A. (69) 0÷ °(t° 0_ Fig. implies det g±(h) = det g±(A).~(A) In this section we shall consider the vacuum polarization diagram shown in fig. . Scale dependence of the coupling constants ~/u-o. Chadha. The calculation of this diagram in the non-covariant model is very simple.(2rr)32/3o. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 137 valid for any two matrices A and B. s. 2. (67) Hence. In the interests of exhibiting a new calculational procedure we shall perform a causal calculation of fig.

a.~e 2 f a M 2 d~o# e ~-aA 1 . Nielsen / Lorentz invariance and the suffix + (on both/:3 and £) is suppressed as usual. We now proceed to define the effective coupling constants r/~"~(a). . Let us split the range of M 2 integration at some arbitrary point A2 where 1/~2[>>A2. Chadha. /~2 = _ M 2 (72) is the spectral mass.B.~(x lFo.e +~A a. expression becomes formally identical to the corresponding quantity in the relativistic case. (73) With the notation Ala .¼)F.~ ) J ab ( M )2e +u~ k 2 .138 S. it thus supplies us with the following additional action expression [12]: a £ ~ d M 2 (d/~) ~2 6~ -. (77) .2m)2 M 2 (2~r) 4 l~2+M2-is (-¼)Fab(-/~)Fab(/~)' (75) in which we have already added a suitable contact term which performs a subtraction at the arbitrary point /~2= 0. Then the action (75) becomes approximately a £ )t2 dM2 ( ~ 4 & 2m)2 M 2 (--~)Fab(--l~)Fab(1~) a f ~ d M 2 (d/~) /~2 6-re . H. and given the electron a small fictitious mass m to avoid certain divergences which are of no present interest to us. ( k *) (70) in which /~ =fi +/~' (71) is the m o m e n t u m exchanged between the photon sources. and jab(M2 ) = I d~°° dw°'(2~')36(~" -P -fi') tr [y~(_y~)yb(_y/~...~(x ) . ( .~ M z (2rr) 4 l~2 + M 2 . The vacuum amplitude representing the causal exchange of two particles between extended photon sources is then 1 .i e (-¼)F°b(-/~)Fab(/~)" (76) If we now write ~ ff (dk )n ~"o" (A )(. - (74) this v.)].

(a)-g(%~(a)g{~)(a)]+6rl"~°~(a.(A)g~.~(x)] 0¢ r oo d M 2 (dk) /~2 6rr Jx~ ~ (~)4 fc2+Ma ie (--1)Fab(--[~)Fab([~)' (78) in which all reference to spectral masses below A 2 has disappeared..~2 (g_ g _g. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 139 a more complete action for the electromagnetic field is given by f (dx)[J'(x)A. But before doing this.o. (83) These equations together specify the behaviour of the model under a change of scale. (79) we have from the definition (77) that Ot (g+p.*~. The recovery of Lorentz invariance as an infrared p h e n o m e n o n We are now in a position to demonstrate that the non-covariant model under consideration looks more and m o r e covariant the smaller is the scale a at which it is viewed.g>O). and additionally the replacement . (81) is modified to 0 f 1 . Chadha. (62) and (64) remain unaltered.v(x)Fo... but eq.(x) -¼ ~ ~ ' ~ (a)F.Og~_g~. Since (--])F~b(--l~)Fab(l~)= (dx)~(g+ g+ -g+ g+ )(-~)F...~o~ ~ 4 rl"V°~.(x). let us m a k e a slight notational change by absorbing the coupling constant e into the definition of the photon field. In this new notation eqs.g +~o"g+vp ) log (.o .(a)).g~.o v~ _ (g+ g+ _g~.~ -o 1 . and differentiating. we obtain finally Or/"v"¢ (a) a .o -~ . B .gVO). Then there is no e in the definition of the vertex but there is a factor of e2 multiplying the photon propagation function. Let us now consider the noncovariant model at some energy scale A.U2m) (80) 6ir Adding to eq..~ OlogA [ e ~ rl (A)J _ 24~. 2 (g+ g+ _ g + g+ )_2__~.. and proceed to write rl"V°~(a)=½Eg'~v°.g+O)_ (g~.~(x)Fo.~ "1 1 .. S. (84) . however. (80) another similar contribution from the positive helicity 5. H . (81) O log ~ 6~r 6~ This equation provides us with the scale variation of the effective couplings rl'~°~ (A). (82) e is necessary..

For fixed r/""P~ this is given by ] r I~p ~ vtr bu0 v~ ~ttT vp Ix~ vp dSr/"~°~( A. More -g~'~g"P) (90) The second term on the left-hand side of this equation vanishes by virtue of eq. (g(~)g(v)-g~v)g(~)) + 2 e ~ Lal--~-gA"g('~ +g(~qaloga aloga " g ( ' ) . (87) up to the omission of small terms of the second order.g(v)~g(v)~pg(v)8~tSrl ASrl (A.~ p.)~.. (89) In this equation let us first contract/xp and vcr with the metric g(v)(A). This reduces it to 0 1 1 1 )] 1 I~p vo. (85) we require that ~/3").s ~ .g + g+ )-2-~--22(g'2Pg~-'~-g.~Og¢v>..140 S. (88) the contraction being with respect to the stated photon metric g(v)(A).. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance The choice of the "photon metric" g(-.. ) ~ j + a f 1 an. Eq. 0.n. (88): g(:"~'og")~'~ OlogA L e .2 g¢~. and substituting for r/"vP~(h ) from eq. 24rr 2 (g+ g+ .× . .. (86) then implies the condition t~r/"f (A.(a) is made in such a way as to minimize the deviation from covariance with respect to this metric.. g(v)(A )) = 0.~(g.vp (a)l] o1--QTg. g(v)(A))]fixedn.~alogh e2(hlis~"°Og(v)'P=Oologh--. g(v)(A)). (91) ...'~g~-P) . (84).a logoh [ le~~ 8r/ . vpo- g(v).2 ~ 2 g(-y)~pg(v)~..~. Returning now to eq. under a small change in the metric g(v)(A ) -+ g(v)(A ) + dg(v)(A ).. g(v)(A)) = -~tg(vcag~v) + Ag(v)'g~v) --g(v)Ag~v) --dg(v) "g(v)].~ 8r/ J .×]..g + g + ) . (86) where dSr/"~°~(A.~(g+ g+ .e ~ l 8rl.B. Chadha. we obtain alogh . (83). teSX7 . H. kuY vp 1 I~p ~cr - 24. g(v)(A)) denotes the accompanying change in r$r/"~P~(A.

6g (A) = g_(A)-g(~)(A). the term 8r/uvp~ = g+.g(~)ag + ~ f 1 u. with the definitions 6g+(A)=g+(A)-g(v)(X).B. 1 UP vo ~cr vp 1 UP vo" UO" vp --24~..og(v>.~ 8r/ J -. substituting eqs.(g_ g .vo. (94) which simply asserts that the effective coupling e (A) is infrared free.o. . (90).g + g+ )=(g+~pSg+u~)(g+ g+ .~ up 1 2 up vo" up vcr .l 4rr2g(~qe2(A)Olog A +g+"oOlog A [ e . (89) then gives 1 1 Og(~ O F 1 . g+~ ) _ 2 _ _ ~ 2 (gEOg"-" -gE'~g ~°) .) a-q (a)J 1 1 _ 24"n"2 (g+u.o-g +~o (99) . Eq.g + g+ ) ----12 + terms of the second order of smallness.~ [Sg + g(. o . g +. Next let us contract ix0 with the metric g(~) leaving the indices v and o" free. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 141 However. (89).6g + g(~ .g + g+ ) = 3 g + .tto" vp v.6gU°'g('~') .) + g(~)Sg + ..g g_ )..g + g+ )-2-~-~Tr2g(v)u.w a log A a log A e2(A) 6n u'P~ (97) may be neglected as being of the second order of smallness in Lorentz invariance breaking since according to eq.~ "1 + 6ge°g(~v~ + g(Uv°~6gL°". finally. (95) The right-hand side may be simplified by using /*p vo" Uo" vp /-tO vo" Uo" l~p Vo" vo" g(v)up(g+ g+ . lag+"~(a) + 6g~ ~(A)]. (98) 8 log A 3rr And. S.6 g + .g(~)g(~]. ) ( g + ~ . Chadha. (95) that UV 0g~v) o~(a) -. (94) and (98) into eq.S g + ~ ) ( g + g+ .(g+ g+ . (62) ag+u. We thus obtain from eq. u.g + g+ ) = ( g + ./O log A is proportional to o~Sr/+. Furthermore. we obtain 1 01ogA = 67r 2.6 g + . (92) the terms on the right-hand side yield /~p v~ ~ vp ~p v~ /. we have 1 uo v.o" vp 12rr2 [g(~g(~) . Inserting these various simplifications into eq.tor vp g(v)~. (96) and a similar equation for the g_ metric.g{~6g ~P] + [ e ~ .2g(v)up(g+ g+ .. and neglecting second order terms. H. (93) together with an exactly similar equation in which g+ is replaced by g_.

(102) the magnitude of the second term does not evolve with h. (32).× = 0. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance In the second braces on the left hand side of this equation we may effectively replace g(v) by either g+ or g_ as appropriate since what is neglected thereby are terms of the second order of smallness.B.2e2(h) [ g ~ ) ( h ) g ( ~ ( h ) . that a ' 0 i~voo" ( a ) ~ aT] txv.× = 0 .g + a g + . (99) that a [e2~a'0~v°~(h)]=O (101) a log h This equation is important since it shows that. From eqs. . g~+~(h). We shall now show that in the infrared limit all the three metrics g(~)""(h).~(h)_½[g. not sufficient to demonstrate that genuine Lorentz invariance has been achieved in the infrared. For this purpose we begin by rewriting eqs.~ a n (h). whereas that of the first "covariant" term increases as h decreases simply because e(A) decreases.a g + "~ • g2O]. (62) and (64) become Og~" (h ) 4a 81ogh 3zr fig+"~(A) ' (107) 8g~_~(h) 4a ag~V(h).~. ) ( h ) ] + e . (63) and (84) we derive. (84)) 1 1 ~o 1 . .( g + I~p g+uo" ..g ~ ( h ) g ( ~ .g +I~o"6g+v p .o.x 8"0+ "Y = . up to the neglect of second order terms. For that we must examine the evolution of the fermion metrics g±(h) vis-a-vis the photon metric as a function of the scale h.. we readily obtain • ~p . (106) In consequence eqs..g(v)g(v)) . (105) 6"0 ' . if at a certain scale h (cf.~ ) "0"~°~(h).s t g + og+ +6g'+ ° • g+ .a g +I~o"g+~p ). Con- sequently the "covariant" term increasingly dominates the "non-covariant" term in the infrared limit.. This effect is. ..142 S.#. ~ = -Sg"~ ~ .Ofig~. vo~ e 2(. g~_ge. eq. vo ) . u~ (100) With a similar equation for the g_ metric we deduce from eq.. (108) 0 log h 3~r .~ +ageO . (103) and (104) with the metrics g+ and g respectively. To within the same approximation. Chadha.~()t)~a'0. and gE"(h) tend to some common metric g~""(h). (62) and (64). we also have I~p vo- (g(v)g(v) I~O" v p .ag~_O _8g. 8"0_×. 6"q+ .( g +I~p 6g+ +ag+I~P g+vo" . (104) Contracting eqs. (103) 8"0. .. however.g+I~O-g+v p ) . :~o. g~O]. H.a g + .oo" (l~x 1 r ta.~o.

[Sg ~+"(a) + 8gU_"(h)] = 2a [8g+~. (109) 8 log h 37r aSg~'(h) a + 5a 8g~. (110) OlogA 3rr 8g~v(A) 3rr Adding and subtracting these two equations yields . It should also be emphasized that in arriving at the above conclusion we have assumed that the initial deviation from covariance is small so that the differences between the metrics g+(h). This behaviour is crucially dependent on the signs of the exponents of h in eqs. (114) where a"~ and b"~ are arbitrary constant matrices. The main conclusion is that as h decreases the model becomes more and more covariant with respect to the acquired common metric gc. to the lowest order in the coupling.v A-~0: g~v)(A)-~[g+ ( h ) + g (A)]+0. (98). Chadha. The immediate implications of these equations. Nielsen / Lorentz invariance 143 where.(h). S. The neglect of the h dependence of a enables us to write g~_V(h ) + g"_~(h ) . These equations.2g("v~ (h ) = a~Vh 2~/~ . (115) p.B. (112) These equations hold separately for every matrix element. 6. g_(h). (116) then permit us to conclude that all the metrics g(v). we just omit the scale dependence of a. g+. and may be easily integrated.u 1 ~v p.. H. these in turn depend not only on the signs of the various/3-functions but also on their relative magnitudes. (111) a log h 77" alog~[Sg~"(h)-8g~_~(a)]= [SgU+"(h)-Sg~_"(A)]. in conjunction with eq. (113) g ~ " ( A ) . Conclusion This essentially concludes our discussion of massless non-covariant electrody- namics. h~O: g~-~(a)-g~"(X)-->O. and g tend to some common metric gc in the infrared. (113) and (114).g~"(A) = b~tVA 4 a / 3 " r . may be transformed into the more useful form which expresses the scale dependence of the deviations 6g~"(A) rather than that of the metrics g~""(A) themselves: aSg"+" (a) _ 5a O/ 8g~+"(a ) +~-~ Sg"-" (a ) . . and g(~)(h) may be treated perturbatively. (h) + tSg~"(a)].

B. D.P. 1973). 48 (1982) 1306 [16] H. Ann.K. Unger (Birkh~iuser. 1981).R. D26 (1982) 287 [5] H. The character of physical law (MIT Press. Phys. in International Conference on High Energy Physics. within the c o n t e x t of the p r e s e n t m o d e l a n d its n o n . References [1] R. we w o u l d like to m e n t i o n s o m e o t h e r works in the l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with the possible v i o l a t i o n of L o r e n t z i n v a r i a n c e at high energies. Pitaevskii. r e l e v a n t to p r o t o n decay. Nielsen and M. Zovko (North-Holland.N. S. Sulak.A. 1980) [3] J. of Phys. Ellis. ed. Zee.s y s t e m . Rudaz. such v i o l a t i o n in p r o t o n decay will n o t in fact be d e t e c t a b l e . Phys. Amsterdam. Nielsen and I. in Fundamentals of quark models. LAPP-TH-48 (1981) [4] S. Lett. W e w o u l d like to t h a n k all m e m b e r s of the particle t h e o r y g r o u p at the Niels B o h r I n s t i t u t e for their c o n s t a n t e n c o u r a g e m e n t and.a b e l i a n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n [7]. Barbour and A. Nielsen. Feynman. 94B (1980) 141 [9] D. Rev. Nucl. A d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these a n d o t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n a l aspects of L o r e n t z b r e a k i n g has r e c e n t l y b e e n u n d e r t a k e n by Pi6ek a n d N i e l s e n [16]. Lett. L. Hai-Yang Cheng and E. N a n o p o u l o s a n d R u d a z [13]. Fischbach. u t t e r incredulity. sources and fields. (1979) p. Phys. Galliard. in Part. A t d i s t a n c e scales of the o r d e r of 10 -28 cms. Jackiw and S. ed. Lifschitz and L. vol.B. Phys. Geneva. Dadi~.M. Wolff (Addison-Wesley. Nielsen. Davies (Scottish Universities Summer School in Physics Publications. Chadha. 1979. Nucl. I. Wheeler. D. F6rster. I. 384 [7] H.B.C.144 S. p o i n t out the i n t e r e s t i n g fact that. Nanopoulos and T. Ninomiya. Phenomenology of unified gauge theories. Lett. 4-3 [13] J. 1977). 94B (1980) 135 [10] S. B o t h of us are grateful to P e t e r Scharbach for his helpful r e m a r k s o n the m a n u s c r i p t . Niels Bohr Institute report (1977). Nielsen / Lorentz invariance Finally. Phys. ed. Templeton. 1981) [6] S. 140 (1982) 372 [11] E. for c o m p l e t e n e s s .B. Leveille. B176 (1980) 61 [14] A.T. G. CERN. and D. Tomaras.P. [6a] J. Phys. 1980. Phys. and N. Nielsen and M.V. Lett. 1974) § 116 [12] J. D25 (1982) 1864 [15] S. Schwinger. Phys. I.J. Ellis et al. ed. 114B (1982) 141. Phys.G. sect. Iliopoulos. H. R. occasionally. Deser. H. M. Gaillard. II (Addison-Wesley. Geneva. gratefully a c k n o w l e d g e s the c o n t i n u i n g hospitality of the N B I e x t e n d i n g over a n u m b e r of years.M. in Some strangeness in the proportion. T h e r e have e v e n b e e n some experi- m e n t a l o b s e r v a t i o n s [15] which m i g h t suggest a possible b r e a k d o w n of L o r e n t z i n v a r i a n c e in the K .P. Nucl. Ellis. Rev. Andri6. Rev. Relativistic quantum theory (part 2) (Pergamon. Pi6ek.V. a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y by Z e e [14]. In particular. B211 (1983) 269 .H.B. H. J. Chadha and H. Iliopoulos. B141 (1978) 153 [8] J. CERN TH 3174. Aronson. Particles. 1967) [2] J. Nanopoulos and S. this possibility has b e e n raised b y Ellis. in The Second Workshop on Grand unification.B. Ninomiya. Weinberg. Bock. Phys.