Arxiv:1504.03636V2 [Gr-Qc] 25 May 2015 Fﬂtsaeie Yclaa N Otlc´ 9.Since Kosteleck´Y [9]

arXiv:1504.03636v2 [gr-qc] 25 May 2015 ffltsaeie yClaa n otlc´ 9.Since Kostelecký [9]. context and Colladay the by the in spacetime, proposed, violation, flat originally Lorentz of pos- was Ex- of its (SME), Standard-Model case of tension the the parametrization called parametrization, a In general have to violations. useful sible is it ciple, associated effects [8]. the structures symmetry- as geometrical nonmini- generalized and explicit with through by [7], mechanisms [6], arise breaking couplings could gravitational suggested violation been mal also Lorentz has noncommuta- it and that Moreover, [4], [5]. gravity geometries quantum tive for- string loop put like [3], been candidates, theory quantum-gravity have several violation mecha- by several Lorentz ward addition, generate its In to for nisms work. search of amount the an important spawned and short—has for relativity, violation, violations—Lorentz general of principles theory the where of evidence fails. uncovering to principles, of hope underlying is the its work, with through this relativity, encompasses general the- test which fundamental quantum-compatible and a more towards theory, a strategy gravity viable by A suggesting replaced [2]. realm, be ory quantum should the it to not that adaptable does it be However, to [1]. seem tests experimental ac- all of successfully for constant, inclusion counts cosmological the a and with matter consis- and, dark a structure, has mathematical principles, tent guiding Einstein’s incorporates ∗ [email protected] osseaial ettevldt fapyia prin- physical a of validity the test systematically To fundamental the of one is invariance Lorentz Local that theory gravity simplest the is relativity General ASnmes 11.30.Cp,04.80.Cc numbers: PACS level. phenomenological n,t ae thsn opligepaain hsppran paper This explanation. the compelling for no explanation has tal it date, to and, ogttedsrdeutoso oin oevr hog r a through the Moreover, of motion. features of problematic some equations sor, desired the gravi get the to that found also th is à showing It la studied, sectors. are nongravitational fields to dynamical the of redefinitions SE sawdl sdprmtiaino uhavoain I fo been have violation. effects a no such which for of coefficient parametrization elusive used an is widely there a is (SME) eeld h otipratcnlso fteppri that is paper the the of for conclusion explanation important most The revealed. oet ilto sacniaeqatmgaiysga,a signal, quantum-gravity candidate a is violation Lorentz .INTRODUCTION I. aaii n ht ntepeec fsaeieboundaries spacetime of presence the in that, and Palatini, nttt eCeca ulae,UiesddNcoa Aut Nacional Universidad Nucleares, Ciencias de Instituto hsc eatet nin nvriy loigo,I 4 IN Bloomington, University, Indiana Department, Physics oet ilto ntegaiysco:The sector: gravity the in violation Lorentz t uze ugsigta tmyb ikdt h approximatio the to linked be may it that suggesting puzzle, praoPsa 053 ..050 .. México D.F., 04510, C.P. 70-543, Postal Apartado t uze otcl hsqeto,svrlapoce r fol are approaches several question, this tackle To puzzle. t em hc hudaiea h hnmnlgcllvl are level, phenomenological the at arise should which term, uiBonder Yuri where t.Tepsiiiyo aigadtoa atrfields, matter additional by having denoted of possibility generically The ity. κ interm tion n h yaiso h M offiinsi determined is coefficients SME [12], the of spontaneously dynamics arise the must and violation Lorentz space- curved times, in identity, Bianchi the with inconsistencies hr h eeatfil stesaeiemetric spacetime the and is constant, field relevant cosmological the and where torsion vanishing with divided naturally be can sectors. it into physics, known ex- coefficient. all Lorentz-violating to SME contains tensions SME an the since called addition, coefficient, In controlling a a fields, and of addi- conventional consist with plus built terms operator, physics These Lorentz-violating known terms. all Lorentz-violating contains tional it therefore, pa- [11], SME 10. Ref. on in bounds found these collected set has are Still, to which which rameters, used of violation. been none have Lorentz experiments systems, for of evidence range cover- convincing experiments, wide many a motivated ing has SME the then, with ietycnrce ihteReancrauetensor are curvature coefficients Riemann SME the R with the contracted where gravity directly (mgSME) minimal the sector to SME restricted is attention particular, abc h ou fti ae stegaiainlSEsector, SME gravitational the is paper this of focus The theory field effective an as conceived is SME The stesadr opigcntn fgnrlrelativ- general of constant coupling standard the is ∗ d ySEsco a ecnitnl treated consistently be can sector SME ty oceey h gM cintksteform the takes action mgSME the Concretely, . k tohrSEcecet a emoved be can coefficients SME other at abcd S hr sn vdneo fundamental a of evidence no is there S mgSME lzswehrteei fundamen- a is there whether alyzes fruaina aco-yeten- Lanczos-type a as eformulation n.Ti skona the as known is This und. LV S dteSadr-oe Extension Standard-Model the nd S ti osbet orc t action its correct to possible is it , matter r h orsodn M offiinsand coefficients SME corresponding the are EH h rvttoa M sector, SME gravitational the n ( ,k g, ( g = o oad Méxicoónoma de = ) = ) = 45 S and USA 7405, S EH 2 2 S 1 1 t κ κ matter + φ puzzle Z Z sicue hog h ac- the through included is , S d d LV 4 4 ( stkna the at taken ns ,φ g, x x oe.Mainly, lowed. + √ √ S − − .Mroe,t avoid to Moreover, ). coef gk gR, t abcd puzzle + S R matter abcd , , g ab In . (3) (2) (1) 2 by Scoef = Scoef(g, k), which has produced some in- which is assumed to have vanishing divergence. The triguing results concerning the corresponding Nambu- energy-momentum tensor for the coefficients is defined Goldstone modes [13]. analogously, however, such a tensor typically has a The Riemann tensor can be decomposed (irreducibly) nonzero divergence. In fact, equation (8) together with by the Weyl tensor, Wabcd, the traceless Ricci tensor, the Bianchi identity yields T Rab = Rab gabR/4, and the curvature scalar, R. This − abcd ab 1 ab cdef cdea b decomposition induces a decomposition of k into u, κ aTcoef = g ak Rcdef 2 a k Rcde , ab abcd ab ∇ −2 ∇ − ∇ s , and t , where s is symmetric and traceless and (10) tabcd shares all the index symmetries of the Riemann ten- which can also be deduced by requiring Scoef to be dif- sor and is traceless. This allows us to verify that the abcd ab feomorphism invariant. Notice that, to obtain equation number of independent components of t , s , and u (8), one has to neglect several boundary terms, which is is, respectively, 10, 9, and 1. This number of compo- justified in section III A. nents adds up to 20, which coincides with the number of abcd We emphasize that, in contrast to what is done in independent components of k . The explicit relation most mgSME papers, we avoid taking approximations between kabcd and its irreducible pieces is and committing to a concrete Scoef. Specifically, we do abcd abcd 1 a[c d]b b[c d]a a[c d]b not assume a background geometry, nor we take partic- k = t + g s g s g g u. (4) ular boundary conditions, and we do not separate the 2 − − SME coefficients into a Lorentz-violating part and its Using the Riemann decomposition, it is possible to verify fluctuations. We do neglect quadratic terms in the SME that coefficients, which is justified by the empirical fact that abcd ab T abcd k Rabcd = uR + s R + t Wabcd. (5) Lorentz violation, in all relevant frames, is a small cor- − ab Interestingly, when taking the appropriate approxima- rection to conventional physics. tions to study the phenomenological implications of the The paper is organized as follows: Section II is the mgSME, every term containing tabcd vanishes [14], in core of the manuscript and it describes several analyses what has been called the t puzzle [15]. To shed light where spurious SME-like terms are generated by field re- on this issue, a concrete model in which tabcd is made of definitions. In section III alternative fundamental expla- 2-forms, was studied [16], but no physical effects from nations for the t puzzle are described, and in section IV tabcd were found. To date, the disappearance of the the conclusions of this work are given. Finally, Appendix effects associated with tabcd remains an open question. A describes the notation and conventions, and lists some This paper is motivated by such a mysterious disappear- results used in the paper. ance, and its main goal is to determine whether there is a fundamental origin for the t puzzle. As a byprod- II. FIELD REDEFINITIONS uct of this analysis, some important lessons concerning the gravitational SME sector were learned. In particular, the results reported here may become useful when build- It is well established that some SME coefficients arise, ing the nonminimal gravity SME sector, which includes from conventional physics, by redefining the dynamical terms with an arbitrary number of derivatives acting on fields [20]. Of course, these spurious coefficients cannot d produce new physical effects. The goal of this section is Rabc . In fact, experience from the nonminimal electro- magnetic [17], neutrino [18], and matter [19] SME sec- to investigate all possible gravity redefinitions to find the tors, shows that, to get the nonminimal extensions, it is unphysical coefficients in the mgSME. We start from SEH crucial to identify the physical degrees of freedom in the plus a matter and a coefficient action, and we perform all corresponding minimal sectors. possible redefinitions of the gravitational fields. The equations of motion arising from the variation of the action (1) with respect to φ, kabcd, and g , respec- ab A. Metric redefinition tively, are given by δS 0= matter , (6) In this subsection we investigate possible metric redef- δφ initions. For that purpose, we first need to find out how δScoef to relate two metric tensors. Let gab and gab be metric 0= Rabcd +2κ , (7) δkabcd tensors, then, there exist two sets of orthonormal basis, a a ab 1 ab cdef cde(a b) c(ab)d eµ and eµ , such that e G = g k Rcdef + k Rcde +2 c dk { } { } 2 ∇ ∇ a b a b ab ab e gabeµeν = ηµν = gabeµeν . (11) +κTcoef + κTmatter, (8) ν where Gab = Rab gabR/2 is the Einstein tensor and the (The notation is explained in thee Appendixe e A). Let Mµ − be an invertible spacetime-dependent matrix such that energy-momentum tensor associated with Smatter is a ν a eµ = Mµ eν . Then, ab 1 δSmatter Tmatter = , (9) ab a b cd 2√ g δgab e g = Mc Mdg , (12) − e 3

b a where Ma is such that, its components, in the eµ ba- B. Implications in other SME sectors ν ν sis (and its dual) coincide with Mµ . Observe that Mµ has, in principle, 16 independent components. However,e In this part of the paper we investigate the effects of the 6 degrees of freedom correspond to an SO(1, 3) rotation metric redefinition on the matter sector. This is achieved that leaves the metric invariant. Thus, we can restrict by writing a concrete Smatter in terms of gab. We begin ourselves to M ν Gl(4)/SO(1, 3), which has 10 inde- µ ∈ by studying the case where Smatter contains a gauge field, pendent components, as expected. which, for simplicity, is taken as a free U(1)e field Aa. In Let a be the derivative operator associated with gab, this case then, using∇ equation (A3) it is possible to see that e e 1 4 ac db Smatter(g, A)= d x√ gg g FabFcd, (18) g a b cd e −4 Z − √ gR = − Mc Mdg Rab( ) aCeb − pM h ∇ − ∇ | |e where Fab is the standard U(1) field strength e e f e e ef e + eCab + Cba Cef Cbe Caf , (13) ∇ − i Fab = aAb bAa. (19) ν ∇ − ∇ where M is the determinante of Mµ . At this point it is c tempting to replace Cab by its expression in terms of Recall that Fab is independent of the derivative operator, agbc, given in equation (A4), and integrate by parts to therefore, in terms of gab we get ∇get double derivatives. Then, the antisymmetric applica- e 1 e 4 g a b c d eg hf tion of such derivatives can be converted into a Riemann Smatter(g, A)= d x − M M M M g g −4 Z pM e f g h tensor. However, all the double derivatives obtained with | |e this procedure act symmetrically. By inspecting equation e FabFcd e e × (13) we can conclude that this redefinition allows us to 1 = d4x g gacgdb +2sacgdb generate the u and sab terms, but no tabcd term. Recall 4 − Z p− that M ν has 10 independent components, which coin- µ FabFcd, e e e e (20) cides with the number of independent components of u × and sab. where the metric redefinition (14) is used, and we work As it is well known in scalar-tensor theories [21], a u to first order in the SME coefficients. Comparing this term can be generated by a conformal transformation, with the corresponding part of the SME action [12], we which can be done without appealing to approximations. can verify that we have generated part of the term However, the redefinition involving sab is more compli- 1 cated, so we only work to first order in u and sab. At S d4x g(k )abcdF F . (21) SME 4 F ab cd this level of approximation, we can take ⊃− Z p− In particular, we obtain e b 1 b 1 cb Ma = 1+ u δa + gacs , (14) 2 2 abcd a[c d]b b[c d]a (kF ) = s g s g . (22) which implies that e − We turn to consider the effectse of thee metric redefini- −1 a b cd ab T M M M g Rab = (1 u)R + s R , (15) tion on matter fields. The action for a free Dirac fermion | | c d − ab ψ in a curved background is given by where the geometrice tensorse with ae tilde represente the corresponding tensors associated with g . With these ab 4 i a µ Smatter(g, ψ)= d xe e ψγ¯ ←→aψ mψψ¯ expressions, we can see that the Einstein-Hilbert action Z 2 µ ∇ − in terms of gab becomes e 4 i a ¯ µ ¯ 1 = d xe eµψγ ←→∂ aψ mψψ S = e d4x g (1 u)R + sabRT + T a , Z 2 − EH 2κ ab a Z p− h − ∇ i (16) 1 a µρσα ¯ β e e e e eµωaρσηαβǫ ψγ5γ ψ , (23) with −4 a b[a c] ab ab T = 2g Cbc = b(4g u s ), (17) where the notation is explained in Appendix A. Following − ∇ − the strategy outlined above, we want to write this action where, to get the second identity,e we use equation (A4). a e e in terms of gab, and the tetrad eµ associated with it. Let The last term in equation (16) is a total divergence, and, b c ωaµν = gbce ae , then under the appropriate assumptions, it can be ignored. eµ∇ ν e Observe that, even if it is not possible to discard such a b a b c e a −1 d e eµeωaρσe e= eµMb ωaρσ + gcdeµeρeσMb (M )f a term, it can be considered part of Scoef . After this is ab f g f done, we can conclude that u and s can be generated e aeMe + Me eeCage e . (24) from the Einstein-Hilbert action by a metric redefinition, × ∇ which is the main result of this subsection. Also, we have Note that, to first ordere in the SME coefficients, shown that no tabcd term can be produced with a metric b c e a −1 d f g f redefinition. gcdeµeρeσMb (M )f aMe + Me Cag (25) ∇ e e e e e 4 is symmetric under the interchange of µ and σ, and thus, that, if the linearized gravity limit is taken, the expres- it vanishes when contracted with ǫµρσα, therefore, sions provided here match the previously known results of Ref. 23. 4 e i b a µ So far we have analyzed metric redefinitions. However, Smatter(g, ψ)= d x e M ψγ¯ ←→aψ mψψ¯ , Z M 2 µ b ∇ − this study offers no solution to the t puzzle. To make sure | e | e e e (26) the t term cannot be generated with a field redefinition, where a is defined by equations (A5-A6) but with we must study the most general type of redefinitions. In ∇ ωaµν replacing ωaµν . The action (26) has the unpleas- particular, in the next subsection we analyze independent ant featuree of describing an SME Dirac fermion with redefinitions of the metric and the derivative operator. ae spacetime-dependent mass. However, rescaling the fermionic field by ψ = M χ yields | | p C. Palatini redefinitions 4 i b a µ Smatter(g,χ)= d xe e M χγ¯ ←→aχ mχχ¯ , Z 2 µ b ∇ − A remarkable feature of general relativity is that it is e e e e (27) possible to take the metric and the derivative operator This expression must be compared with the term in the as a priori independent variables, in what is known as SME action containing the cab coefficient, which, in terms the Palatini approach [24]. Inspired by this result, we a of the tetrad eµ and the Dirac fermion χ, reads [12] investigate the viability of performing independent redefinitions to the metric and the derivative operator in e 4 i b ac µ the mgSME. Since this redefinition is more general than SSME d xe − e g cbcχγ¯ ←→aχ. (28) ⊃ Z 2 µ ∇ the metric redefinition, it has the potential of generating a tabcd term. However, before doing this generalized re- e e e e By direct inspection we can verify that the cab coefficient definition, we need to prove that the mgSME action can generated by the metric redefinition is given by be treated àla Palatini. This is what we do next. Let ˆ a be a derivative operator that is independent of ∇ c 1 cd gab. Then, the mgSME action in a Palatini formalism is cab = gbcM = gabu + gacgdbs . (29) − a −2 1 4 ca b abce d ˆ SmgSME = d x√ g(g δd + gdek )Rabc ( ) As a last examplee we considere thee e QED interaction 2κ Z − ∇ term +Scoef + Smatter. (33) The equation of motion obtained from a metric variation 4 a µ Smatter(g, A, ψ)= d xee Aaψγ¯ ψ. (30) Z µ is 1 ab cd a(c d)b 0= g g g g Rcd( ˆ ) Under the metric redefinition we get 2 − ∇ 1 ab cdef g ˆ 4 e a b ¯ µ + g gfgk Rcde ( ) Smatter(g, A, ψ)= d x Mb eµAaψγ ψ. (31) 2 ∇ Z M | e | +kcde(aR b)( ˆ )+ κT ab + κT ab , (34) e e cde coef matter Moreover, we can rescale the fermionic field as before, ∇ where emphasis is made on the fact that R ( ˆ ) need obtaining ab not be symmetric. To get the equation of motion∇ associated with a variation of the derivative operator we define 4 a b µ c Smatter(g,A,χ)= d xeMb eµAaχγ¯ χ. (32) Cˆ as the connection linking a and ˆ a and we take Z ab ∇ ∇ Cˆc to be the independent physical field. Using an equa- e e e ab which allows us to verify that we recover the standard tion similar to equation (A3) for ˆ a, and assuming, as is ∇ U(1) gauge invariance. Observe that the term generated customary, that neither Scoef nor Smatter depend on the in this case must also be part of the SME, however, the derivative operator, we get interaction sectors of the SME have not been classified. de (a b) d(a b) ab d d(ab)e 0= g Cˆ δ 2g Cˆ + g Cˆ +2gcd ek From the analysis presented in this subsection we can de c − cd cd ∇ conclude that the u and sab coefficients generated by a d(ab)f ê dfe(a ˆb) 2gef k Ccd +2gcf k Cde. (35) metric redefinition also affect the matter sectors. Obvi- − To obtain an equation that can be compared with equa- ous modifications to this analysis can be used to cancel ˆc tion (8) we need to solve Cab as a function of gab and coefficients in one sector in favor of coefficients in other abcd sectors. In this sense it can be said that the mgSME co- k , and substitute it into equation (34). It is possible efficients u and sab can be moved into the matter sectors. to see that, to first order in the SME coefficients, the Note that, even in the absence of matter fields, u and sab connection satisfies are not completely unphysical since they appear in the ˆc c c 4 c defg Cab = gabgef δg 2ge(agb)f δg gef gg(aδb) dk . action term Scoef ; this was originally noticed in the con- − − 3 ∇ text of Einstein-Æther theory [22]. We want to remark (36) 5

Inserting this result into equation (34) allows us to ver- connection and, by analyzing some concrete redefinitions, ify that it coincides with equation (8). In addition, the it is possible to see that there is no clear advantage with equations of motion arising from Scoef and Smatter also respect to the standard Palatini approach. An interesting coincide since, by assumption, such actions are indepen- line of research that could be related to the t puzzle is to dent from the derivative operator. Therefore, we can study general canonical transformations, which calls for conclude that, to first order in the SME coefficients, the the mgSME Hamiltonian. This is technically involved, Palatini variation of the action (1) produces equivalent even in general relativity, and it is thus left for future equations of motion than the standard approach. work. We can now proceed to investigate the independent redefinitions of the metric and the derivative operator. Let us take the Palatini-Einstein-Hilbert action III. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

1 4 ab SPEH = d x√ gg Rab( ˆ ) (37) A. Boundary terms 2κ Z − ∇ as our starting point. Under a metric redefinition that It is well known that, when spacetime M has a bound- leaves the derivative operator unchanged, we get ary ∂M, the Einstein-Hilbert action needs to be corrected to produce the Einstein field equations by varying ab g a b cd the action, while keeping the derivatives of the metric √ gg Rab( ˆ )= − M M g Rab( ˆ ). (38) − ∇ pM c d ∇ variation at ∂M arbitrary. In general relativity, such a | |e correction is known as the York-Gibbons-Hawking term b e Clearly, it is possible to choose Ma as in equation (14) [25]. Moreover, in the phenomenological applications of to generate the u and sab terms. On the other hand, the mgSME, spacetime is conformally flat, which implies changing the derivative operator from ˆ a to ˘ a, without that it has a boundary. Thus, it is important to see if affecting the metric, yields ∇ ∇ the mgSME action can be corrected by a corresponding boundary term. This is what we do in this subsection. ab ˆ ab ˘ ˘ ˘c √ gg Rab( )= √ gg Rab( ) 2 [aCc]b For simplicity, we only consider spacetimes with non-null − ∇ − h ∇ − ∇ boundaries. ˘d ˘c +2Cb[aCc]d , (39) Consider the following piece of the mgSME action vari- i ation: ˘c where Cab is the connection relating the derivative op- 1 4 ca b abc d erators under consideration. Upon inspection, it can δSmgSME d x√ g(g δd + k d)δRabc be concluded that no SME terms are generated under ⊃ 2κ ZM − this redefinition. In fact, by converting the second term 1 4 cabd = d x√ g( c dk )δgab into a total divergence, this expression can be thought of κ ZM − ∇ ∇ as a standard Einstein-Hilbert-Palatini action plus terms 1 + d3x h n (ga[cgb]d + kcabd) δg quadratic in the connections that may be absorbed into κ c d ab Z∂M p| | ∇ Scoef. One could naively consider a redefinition where c c b 1 3 cabd C˘ = ˘ l , for a generic tensor l , to obtain terms d x h nc( dk )δgab, (41) ab ∇(a b) a −κ Z | | ∇ with two antisymmetric derivatives which, in turn, can ∂M p be written as a curvature tensor. However, such a redef- where na is the unit vector normal to ∂M, inition is not invertible, and thus, it does not leave the physics invariant. Finally, one can consider simultane- hab = gab nanb (42) ous and independent redefinitions of the metric and the ± derivative operator. This is the most general redefinition is the induced metric at ∂M (the sign depends on of the gravitational degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, it whether the boundary is spacelike or timelike), and h is is not particularly illuminating for our purposes. In fact, the determinant of the components of hab. We recognize such a redefinition gives the first term in equation (41) as one of the contributions to the equations of motion (8), and we note that the last ab g a b cd term is zero since the metric variation at ∂M vanishes by √ gg Rab( ˆ )= − M M g Rab( ˘ ) − ∇ pM c d ∇ assumption. However, the second term in equation (41) | |e h ˘ ˘c e ˘d ˘c does not vanish. 2 [aCc]b +2Cb[aCc]d , (40) c − ∇ i Let Kab = ha cnb be the extrinsic curvature of the boundary, then ∇ where no tabcd term is produced. In principle, it is also possible to study Palatini-like c d 1 c d δKab = h ndδCcb = h n dδgbc, (43) redefinitions in the language of tetrads by considering − a 2 a ∇ the spin connection ωaµν as an independent field from a eµ. However, it is not clear how to redefine the spin where the variation is done fixing δgab at ∂M. This result 6 allows us to write the integrand of the second term as (46), we obtain

a[c b]d cabd 1 d nc(g g + k ) dδgab S = d4x√ g uR + sabRT 4Habc W ∇ LV ab d abc 1 2κ Z − h− − ∇ i = (hab 2kcabdn n )ne δg c d e ab 1 4 ab T abc −2 ± ∇ = d x√ g uR + s Rab +4H aRbc . ab cabd 2κ Z − − ∇ = h 2ncndk δKab − ± ab cabd (47) = δ[ h 2ncndk Kab], (44) − ± Here, we have integrated by parts neglecting the surface where we use that the tangential derivatives of δgab van- term, and used the Bianchi identity in the form ish. Thus, to cancel the term (44), it is necessary to add to the action (1) the boundary piece d 1 dWabc = R g R. (48) ∇ −∇[a b]c − 6 c[a∇b] 1 ∆S = d3x h K 2n n kabcdK . The important point is that we have shown that an mgSME κ a d bc Z∂M p| | ± analytic tabcd coefficient can always be mapped into a (45) dimension-5 operator Habc acting on R . As noticed Observe that the first term in ∆S is the York- a bc mgSME in Ref. 15, such operators, in the nonrelativistic∇ weak- Gibbons-Hawking term, while the second depends on the gravity approximation, lead to pseudovector contribu- SME coefficient. Note that the equations of motion asso- tions in the gravitational force, which, in turn, generate ciated with the variation of the SME coefficients do not nonphysical self-accelerations. Thus, in realistic models, change by the presence of ∆S since those equations mgSME dimension-5 operators have to be removed. Observe that are obtained by varying the action with the coefficient a similar mechanism that relates coefficients of different fixed at the boundary. dimensions has been discovered in the nonminimal SME The remarkable conclusion is that, in the cases where fermion sector [19]. there are no additional metric-variation derivatives com- It is tempting to perform an additional integration ing from Scoef, the mgSME action can be corrected to by parts in equation (47) to get an effective coefficient cancel the contribution of the boundary terms, which is ab ab cab T seff = s 4 cH contracted with Rab. However, not a generic feature in geometric theories. For example, such an effective− ∇ coefficient depends, through the covari- this analysis can be repeated for actions that are non- ab ant derivative, on the metric. In addition, seff cannot be linear in Rabcd, like some terms in the nonminimal SME redefined away since the necessary redefinition would be sector, or an f(R) theory [26], and it is not hard to see noninvertible. that in such cases it is impossible to correct the action with a boundary term. In fact, the same conclusion can be reached when the f(R) is translated to the language C. Other ideas of a nonminimally coupled scalar field [27].

1. Initial value formulation

B. Lanczos-like tensor The equation of motion (8) includes, at most, two time derivatives of the metric. This is a desirable condition It has been shown [28] that, in 4 spacetime dimen- as it implies that the metric evolution only depends on sions, any analytic tensor with the index symmetries of its initial value and its initial time derivative. However, the Weyl tensor can be written in terms of derivatives of those are not the only conditions that a theory should a tensor Habc, which, in the particular case of the Weyl satisfy to have a proper evolution. In fact, any viable tensor, is called the Lanczos tensor [29]. In particular, physical theory should have a well-posed Cauchy prob- the tabcd coefficient can be written as lem, namely, given suitable initial data, which may be subject to constraints, the evolution should be unique, abcd de abc ce abd be cda t = g eH g eH + g eH causal, and continuous (for a formal description of such ae∇ cdb− ac∇ ebd ad∇ ebc conditions see Ref. 30). Notice that causality has been g eH + g eH g eH − bd∇ eac bc ∇ ead − ∇ studied in the SME, but only in a flat spacetime [31]. +g eH g eH . (46) ∇ − ∇ The goal of this part of the paper is not to study the Cauchy problem of the mgSME, but to pinpoint poten- abc bac [abc] abc where H = H , H = 0, gbcH = 0, and tial difficulties of such a research program, and to argue abc − abc cH = 0. Notice that H has 10 independent com- that such an analysis could reveal obstructions related to ∇ ponents, coinciding with the number of independent com- the t puzzle. ponents of any tensor sharing the index symmetries of the In general relativity, not all the components of the Ein- Weyl tensor. stein equations are evolution equations; some are dynam- If we replace tabcd, in the mgSME action, by equation ical constraints. Analogously, in the mgSME there are 7 several constraints, however, such relations are not sim- IV. CONCLUSIONS ply some components of the equations of motion. There- fore, to identify the constraints, it is necessary to perform We investigated possible fundamental reasons behind the Dirac algorithm [32], which, in turn, calls for the the t puzzle, none of which actually solves the problem. Hamiltonian formulation of the mgSME. As part of this However, during this process, several interesting conclu- analysis, one would need to verify that all the pieces of sions were reached, and some gaps in the understanding the action (1), including Scoef and Smatter, have a well- of the mgSME were closed. posed Cauchy problem. Remarkably, most natural ac- Field redefinitions have been used in several SME sec- tions for tensors of spin larger than 1 have an ill-posed abcd tors to pinpoint the coefficients that have physical im- Cauchy problem [30], and t cannot be built out of plications. Therefore, it was natural to undertake the tensors of spin smaller or equal to 1. Therefore, this anal- corresponding study in the gravitational sector. It was ysis will certainly impose restrictions on the dynamics of ab abcd demonstrated that the u and s coefficients can indeed t . be moved into other SME sectors through field redefinitions. This was done without appealing to the linearized gravity approximation, or other restricting assumptions, 2. Nondual basis except to work to linear order in the SME coefficients. In addition, it was proven that the mgSME can be treated The tensor operator of index contraction maps a (k,l) in a Palatini formalism. This, by itself, is an interest- tensor to a (k 1,l 1) tensor by selecting an upper ing result, which allowed us to analyze field redefinitions and lower tensor− entry,− inserting in them, one at a time, where the metric and the derivative operator are indepen- the components of a basis and its corresponding dual, dently redefined. However, even with these more general abcd and adding the resulting tensors. The idea reported in redefinitions, it is not possible to produce a t term. this part of the paper is to analyze if an SME-like term Since we proved that field redefinitions cannot solve arises from the Einstein-Hilbert action if the contractions the t puzzle, we investigated other explanations. First, it are done with a nondual basis. It turns out that such a was shown that boundary contributions that arise when abcd scheme generates a k Rabcd term, however, what plays varying the mgSME action can be canceled with a gener- the role of kabcd are some combinations of the inverse- alization of the well-known York-Gibbons-Hawking term. metric components, for which no mechanism to brake Also, rewriting the tabcd coefficient in terms of the deriva- local Lorentz invariance spontaneously is given. Thus, it tive of a Lanczos-like tensor helped us show that, at the is not possible to generate spurious SME coefficients by phenomenological level, such a coefficient could gener- using a nondual basis. ate unphysical self-accelerations, and that the tabcd term could be mapped onto a metric-dependent sab coefficient. On the other hand, the relevance of studying the Cauchy 3. Naive perturbative treatment problem for the mgSME is emphasized, together with some potential problems associated with tabcd. Finally, other ideas are explored, like the possibility that tabcd Here we present a perturbative treatment of the appears through a nondual basis, and that restrictions mgSME to show that such perturbations can impose con- could arise when analyzing the mgSME perturbatively. sistency conditions in lower-order equations. Let us take The results from this paper could become relevant abcd (0) (1) an ǫ out of k and write the metric as gab = gab +ǫgab , when trying to construct the nonminimal gravity SME where the zeroth order metric is a solution of Einstein sector. For example, the Palatini vs standard analysis equation with the matter fields acting as the source. Fur- suggests that the equivalence of those approaches could thermore, assume that in equation (7), the variation of not hold in the nonminimal extension. Furthermore, it is Scoef is of order ǫ. Thus, equation (7), at zeroth order mentioned that, for some nonminimal terms, it is impos- (0) in ǫ, yields Rabcd(gab ) = 0, forcing the matter fields to sible to modify the action to cancel the boundary-term behave as test fields, in contradiction to the previous as- effects. It should be stressed that much of the funda- sumptions. mental studies that are left out of this paper call for the If the irreducible components of kabcd are separately Hamiltonian formulation of the mgSME. Such a formu- considered, the restriction discussed above relaxes sig- lation could allow us to study generic canonical transfor- nificantly. For example, if only sab is considered, then mations, which can be thought of as more general field spacetime has to be Ricci flat, which allows the back- redefinitions, and thus have the chance of generating a ground geometry to be a vacuum solution of Einstein tabcd term. On the other hand, the dynamical constraints equations. On the other hand, if only tabcd is considered, of the mgSME, which are needed to analyze the Cauchy then the background geometry is forced to be confor- problem, are automatically obtained in the Hamiltonian mally flat. This analysis is only presented to show that, formalism. in the mgSME, perturbative treatments tend to generate Finally, we want to stress that the results of this pa- inconsistencies, which should be studied in each particu- per suggest that the t puzzle has no fundamental origin. lar case. The alternative is that the puzzle is an artifact of the 8 phenomenological approximations. Hence, it would be Note that, when a is the derivative operator associated interesting to search for the effects of tabcd in other phe- with a coordinate∇ system, namely, a partial derivative, c e nomenological situations and using different approxima- Cab becomes the Christoffel symbols and we get the tions. standard expression for the Riemann tensor. In addition, following the standard derivation of the Christoffel symbols, it is possible to show that ACKNOWLEDGMENTS c 1 cd Cab = g ( agbd + bgad dgab). (A4) I thank Alan Kosteleckýfor pointing the t puzzle out 2 ∇ ∇ − ∇ e e e to me and for many discussions on the subject. Also, I The spacetime geometry can be encoded by an or- benefited from interacting with A. Corichi, E. Montoya, a a b thonormal basis eµ, namely, a basis such that gabeµeν = M. Salgado, and D. Sudarsky. This work was supported ηµν , where Greek indexes should be understood as la- in part by U.S. DOE Grant No. DE-SC0010120 and by bels for the different elements of the basis, and ηµν is the Indiana University Center for Spacetime Symmetries. the matrix whose nonzero elements are diag( 1, 1, 1, 1). The spin connection encodes how tetrads in neighboring− tangent spaces are compared and are given by ωaµν = Appendix A: Notation and conventions b c gbceµ aeν . By the way, observe that the derivative operators∇ used in this paper differ from the derivative used We use the notation and conventions of Ref. 30. Specif- in most SME papers, like Ref. 12, since their derivative, ically, we work in 4 spacetime dimensions, we use a met- denoted by Da, annihilates the tetrads. It is also possible ric of signature 2, and we use Latin letters to denote to show that the determinant of the dual tetrad compo- − abstract indexes. Also, the derivative operator a is as- nents, e, is equivalent to √ g. ∇ µ − sociated with gab, namely, agbc = 0. Moreover, since The Dirac matrices γ follow the convention that several metrics are simultaneously∇ used, no indexes are γµ,γν = 2ηµν . The covariant derivative acting on raised or lowered by a metric. a{ Dirac} spinor− gives Any spacetime admits an infinite collection of deriva- i µν tive operators. It can be shown that the difference of any aψ = ∂aψ + ωaµν σ ψ, (A5) ∇ 4 two derivative operators, a and a, when acting on a ∇ ∇ i µν generic covector ωa, satisfies aψ¯ = ∂aψ¯ ωaµν ψσ¯ , (A6) e ∇ − 4 c ( a a)ωb = Cab ( , )ωc, (A1) with σµν = i[γµ,γν ]/2 and ψ¯ = ψ†γ0. For any derivative ∇ − ∇ − ∇ ∇ operator, it is customary to use the following notation: c e e where Cab is a tensor which is symmetric in its lower indexes. This condition can be generalized as A¯←→aB = A¯ aB ( aA¯)B. (A7) ∇ ∇ − ∇ a1... c a1... a1 c... µνρσ ( a a)T 1 = Cab1 Tc... + Cac Tb1... + . Finally, we introduce ǫ as the totally antisymmetric ∇ − ∇ b ... − − · · · ··· (A2) symbol such that ǫ0123 = 1 and γ = iγ0γ1γ2γ3. With e 5 The Riemann tensor is defined as the result of acting these definitions it is possible− to prove the following iden- twice with a derivative operator in an antisymmetric way. tity: Using the expression (A1), it is possible to obtain µ ρσ µρσα β γ , σ =2ηαβǫ γ5γ . (A8) d d d e d { } Rabc ( )= Rabc ( ) 2 C +2C C . (A3) ∇ ∇ − ∇[a b]c c[a b]e e e

[1] C.M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, (2014). tia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2318 (2000); J. Alfaro, H.A. [2] For a review see A. Ashtekar, Current Science 89, 2064 Morales-Técotl, and L.F. Urrutia, Phys. Rev. D 65, (2005). 103509 (2002); J. Alfaro, H.A. Morales-Técotl, and L.F. [3] V.A. Kosteleckýand S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, Urrutia, Phys. Rev. D 66, 124006 (2002); R.C. Myers 224 (1989); Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989); Phys. Rev. and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 211601 (2003); D 40, 1886 (1989); Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1811 (1991); J. Alfaro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 221302 (2005); J. Alfaro, V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B 359, 545 Phys. Rev. D 72, 024027 (2005). (1991); Phys. Lett. B 381, 89 (1996); V.A. Kostelecký, [5] S.M. Carroll, J.A. Harvey, V.A. Kostelecký, C.D. Lane, M.J. Perry, and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4541 and T. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 141601 (2001); (2000); V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D Z. Guralnik, R. Jackiw, S.Y. Pi, and A.P. Polychron- 63, 046007 (2001). akos, Phys. Lett. B 517, 450 (2001); C.E. Carlson, C.D. [4] R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124021 Carone, and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B 518, 201 (2001); (1999); J. Alfaro, H.A. Morales-Técotl, and L.F. Urru- A. Anisimov, T. Banks, M. Dine, and M. Graesser, Phys. 9

Rev. D 65, 085032 (2002); I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, and 91, 022006 (2015). R. Roiban, Phys. Rev. D 65, 107702 (2002); J.L. Hewett, [16] B. Altschul, Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. F.J. Petriello, and T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 66, 036001 D 81, 065028 (2010). (2002). [17] V.A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 015020 [6] A. Corichi and D. Sudarsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, (2009). 1685 (2005); Y. Bonder and D. Sudarsky, Class. Quan- [18] V.A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 85, 096005 tum Grav. 25, 105017 (2008); Rep. Math. Phys. 64, 169 (2012). (2009); AIP Conference Proceedings 1256, 157 (2010); [19] V.A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 096006 P. Aguilar, D. Sudarsky, and Y. Bonder, Phys. Rev. D (2013). 87, 064007 (2013). [20] V.A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 66, 056005 [7] M.D. Seifert, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124012 (2009); Phys. (2002); D. Colladay and P. McDonald, J. Math. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 201601 (2010); Phys. Rev. D 82, 125015 (N.Y.) 43, 3554 (2002); Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kost- (2010). elecký, Phys. Rev. D 70, 076006 (2004); R. Lehnert, [8] V.A. Kosteleckýand N. Russell, Phys. Lett. B 693, 2010 Phys. Rev. D 74, 125001 (2006); B. Altschul, J. Phys. A (2010); V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Lett. B 701, 137 (2011); 39, 13757 (2006); Y. Bonder, Phys. Rev. D 88, 105011 V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and R. Tso, Phys. Lett. B (2013). 716, 470 (2012); D. Colladay and P. McDonald, Phys. [21] V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig, and P. Nardone, Fundam. Cosmic Rev. D 85, 044042 (2012). Phys. 20, 121 (1999). [9] D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760 [22] B.Z. Foster, Phys. Rev. D 72, 044017 (2005). (1997); Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998). [23] V.A. Kostelecký and J.D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D 83, [10] V.A. Kosteleckýand N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 016013 (2011). (2011). [24] A. Palatini, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 43, 203 (1919); [11] V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3923 M. Tsamparlis, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 19, 555 (1977). (1995). [25] J.W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082 (1972); G.W. Gib- [12] V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004). bons and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977). [13] R. Bluhm and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 71, 065008 [26] A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, (2005); V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Gen. Rel. Grav. (2010); M.S. Madsen and J.D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B 37, 1675 (2005); N. Arkani-Hamed et al., JHEP 0507, 323, 242 (1989). 029 (2005); R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung, and V.A. Kostelecký, [27] L.G. Jaime, L. Patiño, and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 83, Phys. Rev. D 77, 065020 (2008); V.A. Kosteleckýand R. 024039 (2011). Potting, Phys. Rev. D 79, 065018 (2009); S.M. Carrol, H. [28] F. Bampi and G. Caviglia, Gen. Rel. Grav. 15, 375 Tam, and I.K. Wehus, Phys. Rev. D 80, 025020 (2009); J. (1983). Alfaro and L.F. Urrutia, Phys. Rev. D 81, 025007 (2010). [29] C. Lanczos, Rev. Mod. Phys., 34, 379 (1962). [14] Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 74, [30] R.M. Wald, General Relativity, (University of Chicago 045001 (2006); Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044004 Press, Chicago, 1984). (2009); Phys. Rev. D 82, 065012 (2010); R. Tso and [31] V.A. Kostelecký and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 63, Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 84, 085025 (2011); J.D. Tas- 065008 (2001). son, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124021 (2012). [32] P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, (Dover [15] Q.G. Bailey, V.A. Kostelecký, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D Publications, New York, 2001).