Arxiv:2105.08659V2 [Gr-Qc] 25 May 2021 Ntdyscsooy Ecndﬁei Ysyn H Cos- the the Saying by Is It Principle Deﬁne Mological Can We Cosmology

arXiv:2105.08659v2 [gr-qc] 25 May 2021 ntdyscsooy ecndfiei ysyn h cos- the the saying by is it principle define mological can We cosmology. today’s in in- equations field Einstein’s. modified of adopt stead will field we gravitational i.e., other equations, relativ- adopt cosmological and general the assumption relax beyond principle will we model gravity, bumblebee gravitational cosmo- the ity, a the in fluids. on perfect Here, of based means an by is description equations matter-energy field model, the Einstein’s bang alongside principle, big logical the or model si h al nvre ieteScsWleeet[]or [6] effect Sachs-Wolfe the like universe, the early origin On the whose anisotropies in universe. of is sources recent of are the there causes in hand, the other CMB of and the examples system in According solar are anisotropies the effect universe. of [5] early motion Sunyaev-Zel’dovich the the [1], in ones textbooks those or to whether present-day anisotropies, are the that There for in sources model. of standard lot the a for problem real a always directions. space different for indi- cosmic temperatures would different reliable: cate anisotropies absolutely (CMB) longer background no cosmo- microwave the is that principle suggest be logical observers 4] [3, would falling observations However, universe precise freely observers. recent our those say, for world, isotropic to and same homogeneous is the That describe phe- would same 2]. same the the [1, matter universe, speaking, nomena no philosophically same or, the us), laws describes (like physics is, observer he/she falling where freely or observer † ∗ 1 lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades r.v.maluf@fisica.ufc.br address: Electronic o aypol,iflto sas osdrda nrdeti ingredient an considered model. also standard is inflation people, many For sw ad h omlgclpicpei cornerstone a is principle cosmological the said, we As ΛCDM the namely cosmology, in model standard The si elkon nstoisi h M ontmean not do CMB the in anisotropies known, well is As ly h oeo oreo nstoisadpoue pref cosmolog a a produces and with anisotropies agreement of bumbl source in a the of not for role is the value f plays which expectation mechanism geometry, a vacuum I of nonzero Bianchi examples a are backgro assuming models the by as Bumblebee cosmology, it. I Bianchi to a coupled assume we purpose, that ewrs oet ymtyBekn,Csooy omcMi Cosmic Cosmology, qu Breaking, the Symmetry using Lorentz field Keywords: radiation. bumblebee background the microwave on cosmic bound violatio the upper of symmetry an Lorentz assume the to try from come would anisotropies nti ok ubee edi dpe nodrt generate to order in adopted is field bumblebee a work, this In .INTRODUCTION I. ooi oéArloVll,199 E 71-0 oo eC de Poços 37715-400 CEP 11999, Vilela, Aurélio José Rodovia ubee eda oreo omlgclanisotropies cosmological of source a as field Bumblebee 2 belief nttt eCêcaeTcooi,Uiesdd eea de Federal Universidade Tecnologia, e Ciência de Instituto 1 apsd ii otlz E ..63,64570-Brazil - 60455-760 6030, C.P. CE, - Fortaleza Pici, do Campus nvriaeFdrld er UC,Dpraet eFísic de Departamento (UFC), Ceará do Federal Universidade codn owihany which to according .V Maluf V. R. 1, ∗ the n n uin .S Neves S. C. Juliano and d 1 h he ietoa ubeprmtr.Bti the in But parameters. to Hubble related directional equation differential three each constants the from integration out to come direc- due that each is among parameter gen- Hubble difference the are tional the In three context, restored. those relativity is all metric eral FLRW When the ones, direction. factors, identical The spatial scale each different for three model. one defines standard spacetime the I in Bianchi adopted (FLRW) Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson- Walker geom- flat a the Such generalizes etry [19–23]. relativity general beyond contexts direction. space each for the Hubble met- one directional I On parameters, independent Bianchi three the provides is gravity. geometry which the field ric, said, bumblebee modified we as the the hand, see, other from will come As field equations geometry. special use the a will to and we coupled equations in anisotropies, field Therefore, cosmic gravitational small modified describe has radiation. to which and de- order field, matter the bumblebee since between invariance the or coupling field, symmetry Lorentz a the to broken due is origin radiation CMB mechanism. the breaking in symmetry anisotropies Lorentz ori- the a or of using source by part a a propose we for article, Maartens gin this of in means However, approach by [18]. model-independent them quantify the and of anisotropies Following those of think [13–16]). Refs. the Russell inho- (see using like by mechanism CMB, even and the inflationary voids in built local anomalies been evil spacetimes, those have mogeneous of solve Proposals to axis [12]. order spot the in cold [8], the the those moments and of Among [9–11], alignment octopole the [7]. and have is quadrupole we universe anomalies, anisotropies our or those isotropic anisotropies or of reality how not) the on or on known, and debate artefacts intense fully statistical an (as not is not there are say, origin to is whose that anisotropies there supposedly, still However, are period. inflationary the even h inh emtyhsbe tde nseveral in studied been has geometry I Bianchi The whose anisotropies CMB for source a suggest we Then rwv akrud omlgclPrinciple Cosmological Background, crowave re xs hs rcino h cosmic the of fraction a Thus, axis. erred tal. et .I h atpr fteatce we article, the of part last the In n. n emty n ubee field bumblebee a and geometry, und rteLrnzsmer violation symmetry Lorentz the or clpicpe h ubee field bumblebee the principle, ical befil.We ope othe to coupled When field. ebee duoeadotpl moments octopole and adrupole 1] eaotteBaciIgoer to geometry I Bianchi the adopt we [17], omlgclaiorpe.For anisotropies. cosmological 2, † la,M,Brazil MG, aldas, Alfenas, a, tal. et 2 bumblebee gravity, as we propose here, such a difference deviations from the standard model equations. in each directional Hubble parameter appears because of the bumblebee field, when such a quantum field assumes a nonzero vacuum expectation value (VEV). The A. The gravitational field and the bumblebee field idea is that the bumblebee field in the VEV breaks spon- equations taneously the Lorentz symmetry in the decoupling period, when matter and radiation decouple. Thus, in the Bumblebee models are vector or tensor theories that in- model developed here, a part of the cosmic anisotropies clude some mechanism for describing spontaneous break- is due to the Lorentz violation from the decoupling pe- ing of the Lorentz and diffeomorphism symmetries within riod. But before the present time or from the decoupling a gravitational context. These models have a potential to the present time, our model is a small deviation from term V which leads to nontrivial VEVs for the fields con- the FLRW universe as it is convenient in order to agree figurations, affecting, for example, the dynamics of other with the data. Therefore, the key feature of the model fields coupled to the bumblebee field, preserving geomet- present here is the Lorentz symmetry or invariance vio- ric structures and conservation laws that are compati- lation, which would produce cosmological anisotropies. ble with a usual pseudo-Riemannian manifold adopted The possibility of the Lorentz invariance violation in in general relativity [24, 33]. the gravitational context was initially discussed by Kost- The simplest model involving a single vector field Bµ elecký [24] in 2004. In that seminal work, a no-go theo- (the bumblebee field) coupled to gravity in a torsion-free rem was presented stating that explicit Lorentz-violation spacetime is described by the action theories, containing fixed and nondynamical background fields, do not preserve geometric constraints and funda- 4 1 ξ µ ν SB = d x√ g R + B B Rµν mental conservation laws in general relativity. One way ˆ − 2κ 2κ to get around these difficulties is to consider some sponta- 1 B Bµν V (BµB b2)+ , (1) neous Lorentz symmetry breaking mechanism, something −4 µν − µ ± LM which works like the Higgs mechanism, by adding a potential term to the Lagrange density able to generate a where κ = 8πG/c4 is the gravitational coupling con- non-trivial vacuum state, where either vector or tensorial stant, and ξ is a coupling constant, accounting for the fields assume nonzero VEVs. nonminimum interaction between the bumblebee field A mechanism like the bumblebee has been applied in and the Ricci tensor or geometry (with mass dimension black hole physics and cosmology. In black hole physics, [ξ]= M −2 in natural units) [34, 35]. Other important in- a Schwarzschild-like [25, 26] and both a Schwarzschild-de gredients are B ∂ B ∂ B , or the bumblebee field µν ≡ µ ν − ν µ Sitter-like and a Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter-like space- strength, and the Lagrange density M , which describes times [27] were built. In Ref. [28] other types of black the matter-energy content, somethingL very necessary in holes were obtained as well. In cosmology, consequences a cosmological model. of the bumblebee field in the FLRW geometry were stud- As we said, the potential V (X) in the action (1) is re- ied [29, 30], and works on the Gödel universe were pre- sponsible for triggering a nonzero VEV for the bumblebee sented in Refs. [31, 32] in the same context of Lorentz field and the metric, i.e., violation. As far as we know, using the Bianchi I metric in this context is the first attempt in that direction. Bµ Bµ = bµ, gµν gµν , , (2) → h i → h i This article is structured as follows: in Sec II we present both the modified gravitational field equations thereby it breaks spontaneously both the Lorentz and the diffeomorphism symmetry. For a smooth potential V of in bumblebee gravity and the Bianchi I geometry in that µν 2 X, the vacuum condition X = bµ g bν b = 0 implies context. In Sec. III we quantified anisotropies, solving h i ± ′ the field equations for a universe made up of radiation, that the potential and its derivative satisfy V = V = 0, where gµν is the VEV of the inverse metric. It is worth matter and the bumblebee field. Then we use the CMB h i 2 data from Planck Collaboration in order to constrain the noticing that the quantity b is a positive real number, and the sign implies that b is timelike or spacelike, bumblebee field (and the coupling constant) by means of ± µ the CMB multipoles. The final remarks are given in Sec. respectively. A priori IV. , field excitations around the vacuum solutions (2) can happen, leading then to the emergence of mass- less Nambu-Goldstone modes and massive modes [33, 36]. Undoubtedly, establishing the phenomenological roles of II. BIANCHI I COSMOLOGY IN BUMBLEBEE these modes in the cosmological context is an interesting GRAVITY issue, but it is beyond the scope of this work. For the present purposes, we will assume that the field excita- In this section, the bumblebee model is introduced. tions are turned off and that both the bumblebee field The modified field equations in that context will be solved and the metric are frozen at their VEVs as using the Bianchi I metric as our Ansatz. Friedmann- like equations will be obtained and conceived of as small B = b , g = g , (3) µ µ µν h µν i 3 where, in general, bµ and gµν are functions of the space- where dot means derivative with respect to the tempo- time position. h i ral coordinate t or the cosmic time. From different val- The sought-after gravitational field equations in the ues for each directional Hubble parameter, one has an bumblebee gravity can be directly obtained by varying anisotropic cosmology. the action (1) with respect to the metric tensor gµν , For the matter-energy content, we assume the perfect while keeping the bumblebee field Bµ totally fixed. That fluid description in this article, that is to say, the energy- is, with that procedure we have the following modified momentum tensor for matter fields is described and given gravitational field equations: by the well-known expression: B M p (t) Gµν =κ Tµν + Tµν M M T = ρM (t)+ uµuν + pM (t)gµν , (8) µν c2 ′ α 1 αβ =κ 2V BµBν + Bµ Bνα V + BαβB gµν − 4 with ρM (t) and pM (t) playing the role of the density and 1 α β α α pressure, respectively, of the matter-energy content (ex- + ξ B B R g B B R B B R µ 2 αβ µν − µ αν − ν αµ cluding the bumblebee field). The four-vector u is the 1 1 four-velocity of the fluid, and, in particular for the metric + (BαB )+ (BαB ) signature adopted here, u uµ = c2. It is worth empha- 2 α µ ν 2 α ν µ µ ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ sizing that the perfect fluid is isotropic,− and anisotropy 1 1 2 (B B ) g BαBβ + κT M . comes from the bumblebee field. Contrary to works in −2∇ µ ν − 2 µν ∇α∇β µν bumblebee gravity in which black holes in vacuum space- (4) times were studied, in a realistic cosmological context

′ matter fields do matter. Gµν is the Einstein tensor, the operator means deriva- B Our goal is to choose a particular bumblebee field that tive with respect to the potential argument, and Tµν and plays the role of a source of cosmic anisotropies. Without M Tµν are, respectively, the energy-momentum tensor of the loss of generality, a suitable choice for the bumblebee bumblebee field and of the matter field. field, when it assumes the VEV, is written as In order to solve the very nonlinear Eq. (4), it is necessary to choose a metric Ansatz—the Bianchi I metric Bµ = bµ = (0,b(t), 0, 0), (9) in this article—and a bumblebee field. The explicit form of the potential V is irrelevant because we are going to in which the field component in the x1 direction is just t- dependent. As we said, the VEV for the bumblebee field work in the VEV of the field, thus it preserves the vac- µ 2 uum condition V = V ′ = 0. is nonzero and its norm is constant, that is, bµb = b . Lastly, the action (1) also delivers an equation of mo- Thus, from the Bianchi I metric (6), we have tion for the bumblebee field. By varying that action, in b(t)= ba (t). (10) this time with respect to the bumblebee field, we have 1 µ 2 Besides the condition V (bµb b ) = 0, for the sake µν ′ ν ξ µν ′ − µB =2 V B BµR , (5) of simplicity, we adopt V = 0 as well, excluding con- ∇ − 2κ tributions from the potential derivative. For Lagrange- multiplier potentials, as discussed in Ref. [27], V ′ can as the equation of motion for the field B . Besides, for µ contribute to the equations of motion. But, as we will the sake of simplicity, we suppose here that the matter see, even with V ′ = 0 one has the bumblebee field playing sector does not couple with the bumblebee field. the role of a source for anisotropies. With the choice (9), the modified field equations give B. The Friedmann-like equations us the following energy-momentum tensor for the bumblebee field, namely The Bianchi I model or cosmology, which generalizes ρ c2 − B the flat FLRW geometry, is given by the metric or line µ p T B =  1  , (11) element ν p2  p  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  3  ds = c dt + a1(t) dx1 + a2(t) dx2 + a3(t) dx3, (6) − with in the (t, x1, x2, x3) coordinates. Here, a1(t),a2(t), and 2 2 2 ℓH1 (κ + ξ) ℓH1 a3(t) are directional scale factors, they indicate different ρBc = p2 = p3 = and p1 = , expansion rates for each spatial direction. Therefore, in 2ξc2 −(κ ξ) 2ξc2 − such a spacetime, the Hubble parameter is defined in each (12) 2 spatial direction, i.e., where ℓ = ξb , the parameter that accounts for Lorentz- violation effects, is commonly called Lorentz-violating ′ a˙i(t) parameter, and ρB and p s are the density and pres- Hi = , with i=1,2,3, (7) ai(t) sure, respectively, of the bumblebee field. As we can 4 see, the bumblebee energy-momentum tensor exhibits its The matter-energy conservation provides another im- µν µν anisotropic feature due to fact that p1 = p2 = p3. The portant equation. Using ν (TB +TM ) = 0 and the con- bumblebee field modifies the x1 direction.6 This will get dition (13), we have the following∇ relation for the energy- even more evident from the directional Hubble param- momentum tensor components of the matter fields: eters. Therefore, even adopting a perfect fluid description for the matter-energy content, anisotropies would pM ρ˙M = 3H ρM + 2 . (20) arise from the bumblebee field as indicated in the energy- − c momentum tensor (11). Therefore, as we mentioned, the bumblebee field does not The metric (6) also provides an equation from the bum- interact with the matter fields in this case. blebee equation of motion (9). It is worth noting that the Adding up the spatial components of the modified field strength Bµν is not identically zero according to the gravitational field equations, Eqs. (17)-(19), with the bumblebee field (9). There are two nonzero components, ˙ aid of both the temporal component (16) and the useful namely B01 = B10 = b(t). Therefore, by using (5) and relation the spacelike bumblebee− field (9), one has 3 κH2 2 2 ˙ 1 Hi =9H 2 (H1H2 + H1H3 + H2H3) , (21) H1 +3HH1 =0, (13) − − (κ ξ) Xi=1 − which it will be useful for the next calculations. The we obtain the Friedmann-like equation for the mean Hub- parameter H stands for mean of the Hubble parameter, ble parameter: i.e., ˙ 2 1 1 1 1 H +3H =4πG ρM + ρB 2 pM + p1 . (22) H = (H + H + H ) . (14) 3 − c 3 3 1 2 3 From Eq. (16), we calculate all three equations for Related to H, another useful quantity is the volume fac- the directional Hubble parameters with the aid of Eqs. tor , which is written as a function of either the scalar (17)-(19) and the mean Hubble parameter (22). Such factorV or the mean of Hubble parameter, i.e., equations are written as ˙ 1 2 = a1a2a3 or V = H. (15) κc 2 2κp1 V 3 H˙1 +3HH1 = ρM c pM + , (23) V 2 − (κ + ξ) With the gravitational field equations (4), the bumble- κc2 2κp H˙ +3HH = ρ c2 p 1 , (24) bee field equation (13), and the Bianchi I geometry (6), 2 2 2 M − M − (κ + ξ) we obtained the Friedmann-like equations in the bumble- 2 bee gravity adopted here. Then the µ = ν = 0 compo- κc 2 2κp1 H˙3 +3HH3 = ρM c pM . (25) nent of the modified gravitational field equations leads 2 − − (κ + ξ) to It is possible to eliminate H1 (expressed by the com- H1H2 + H1H3 + H2H3 =8πG (ρM + ρB) , (16) ponent p1 of the energy-momentum tensor of the bumblebee field) of each directional Hubble parameter using and the spatial components read the bumblebee equation (13) and the Hubble parameter 2 2 2 for the x1 direction (23), thus H = ξc (κ ξ)(ρM c 8πG 1 − − ˙ ˙ 2 2 pM )/(ℓκ +2ξ). As a result, fortunately, we are able to H2 + H3 + H2 + H3 + H2H3 = (pM p1) , − c2 − see each equation for the directional Hubble parameters (17) as a small deviation from the FLRW metric. That is to 8πG say, by doing that we have the sough-after equations for H˙ + H˙ + H2 + H2 + H H = (p + p ) , 1 3 1 3 1 3 − c2 M 2 each directional Hubble parameter written as a deviation (18) from FLRW: 8πG ˙ ˙ 2 2 pM H1 + H2 + H1 + H2 + H1H2 = 2 (pM + p3) . H˙ +3HH =4πG (1 δ) ρ , (26) − c 1 1 − M − c2 (19) ˙ pM H2 +3HH2 =4πG (1 + δ) ρM 2 , (27) As we clearly see, the corresponding equation for the µ = − c ˙ pM ν = 1 component, that is Eq. (17), is different from other H3 +3HH3 =4πG (1 + δ) ρM 2 , (28) directional components, Eqs. (18) and (19), due to the − c bumblebee field. By making ℓ = 0 and, consequently, with the dimensionless positive constant δ given by ρB = p1 = p2 = p3 = 0, one has the usual components of the Friedmann-like equations for the Bianchi I cosmology ℓκ δ = 1. (29) in the Einsteinian context. ℓκ +2ξ ≪ 5

Hence, the bumblebee influence on the spacetime geom- Eqs. (31)-(32) is a small deviation from the FLRW met- etry is decoded in the parameter δ. And, consequently, ric. It is worth pointing out that the factor (1 δ) can the equation for the mean Hubble parameter takes also not be absorbed into the constant G, turning the± solu- a friendly form given by tion (31)-(32) into the FLRW metric. As we have minus delta for the H1 component and plus delta for the H2 δ p ˙ 2 M and H3 components, the difference of space directions is H +3H =4πG 1+ ρM 2 . (30) 3 − c irremovable. As we can see from Eqs. (26)-(28), the equations for the components H2 and H3 are identical. On the other III. CONSTRAINING THE BUMBLEBEE FIELD hand, for the component H1, Eq. (26) provides a differ- USING COSMIC ANISOTROPIES ent solution compared to Eqs. (27)-(28). Thus, the difference among the Hubble parameter components comes In this section, we use recent values for the CMB multi- from the component in the x1 direction, which could be poles provided by the Planck Collaboration [3, 4] in order seen as a preferred axis. Contrary to the Bianchi I cos- to constrain the bumblebee field. Following Russell et al. mology in the Einsteinian context, anisotropies have the [17], the main idea here is to describe the cosmological field Bµ as its source in the bumblebee gravity adopted expansion from the decoupling period until the present here. With δ = 0, one has the Einsteinian context and time. As we said, we assume that the Lorentz invariance identical differential equations for each directional Hub- or symmetry is spontaneously broken during the decou- ble parameter. Then, in that case, in the general rela- pling between matter and radiation, producing then a tivity realm, as indicated in Ref. [17], anisotropies come small deviation from the FLRW metric. Our conventions out of different integration constants from each Hubble and notation follow closely those ones of Ref. [17] in parameter differential equation. Here, we point out to which the Bianchi I spacetime was studied in the general the bumblebee vector field as a source (among others) of relativity realm. anisotropies. As mentioned in Introduction, the Lorentz violation is µ 2 triggered by the potential V (bµb b ) when the bumble- A. Quantifying anisotropies bee field assumes its VEV. We can− observe the Lorentz symmetry violation looking at Eqs. (26)-(28) and their differences, which come from the term that contains the We intend to produce a cosmological solution in which the universe turns into an isotropic world at least as Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ. The Lorentz violation is translated into a preferred direction, the x direction in t t0, in which t0 indicates the present time or the 1 age→ of the universe. That is, a universe described by our case, and the bumblebee field as its origin. Solutions of (26)-(28) are written as Eqs. (31)-(32) emerges from the decoupling anisotropi- cally and becomes isotropic as t t . Our interest here → 0 t is from the decoupling to the present time, where we had 1 ′ pM ′ H1(t)= K1 + µ(t )4πG (1 δ) ρM dt , a matter-dominated universe. Like Russell et al. [17], µ(t) ˆ − − c2 focusing on that period means that we can ignore the in- (31) fluence of the dark energy or, equivalently, put aside the for the component in the x direction, and 1 cosmological constant in the modified field equations (4). t According to Refs. [37, 38], a criterion to provide 1 ′ pM ′ Hj (t)= Kj + µ(t )4πG (1 + δ) ρM dt , isotropization of the Bianchi I model is given by the re- µ(t) ˆ − c2 lation (32) for j = 2, 3 or the components in the x and x direc- ai 2 3 lim = constant > 0, for i =1, 2, 3, (34) tions, respectively. In these equations, Ki with i =1, 2, 3 t→∞ a represent the mentioned integration constants. And the 1/3 1/3 function µ(t) is defined as with a = (a1a2a3) = , being known as the volume factor defined in Eq.V (15) inV terms of the mean t Hubble parameter. Spacetimes that satisfy (34) become µ(t) = exp 3H(s)ds . (33) ˆ isotropic during the late-time expansion. That is, a metric like (6) will turn into an isotropic metric if Eq. (34) In order to have the bumblebee field as source or origin is true. In particular, for constant = 1, we have a FLRW of the anisotropies of the model, we choose K1 = K2 = metric in the present time. Such a criterion in Eq. (34) K3 = 0 in the equations above. Then the geometry de- is also called isotropization. Like Ref. [17], we relax the scribed by Eqs. (31)-(32) presents the planar symmetry isotropization condition and assume that (34) is valid as in the x2 x3 plane, and the anisotropic feature of that t t0, producing then an almost isotropic universe to- spacetime− comes from δ. For δ 1, one has a small day.→ deviation from isotropy, and as the≪ integration constants As we have a flat FLRW or, at most, a small deviation K1, K2, and K3 are set to zero, the geometry given by from that spacetime in the today’s observations [3, 4], we 6 assume that the total density parameter is given by B. Solving the Friedmann-like equations

2 ρT 3H0 The basic idea here is to build a solution of (31) and ΩT = = 1 with ρc = , (35) ρc 8πG (32) for a universe made up of matter and radiation that evolves into a matter-dominated universe. Thus, follow- in agreement with a spatially flat Bianchi I spacetime (6), ing Russell et al. [17], we do not take in consideration where ρT and ρc are the total density and the critical dark energy. Here we assume that the bumblebee field density, respectively, and H0 is the present-day (mean) and, consequently, the Lorentz violation is triggered at Hubble factor. the decoupling. Hence, tiny fingerprints of the symme- Following Russell et al. [17], who worked on the Ein- try breaking would be in the CMB translated into tiny steinian context, we adopt optical scalars in order to anisotropies. Therefore, anisotropies from the Lorentz quantify the anisotropic feature of the Bianchi I metric violation would be due to an event whose beginning is in the bumblebee gravity context. Such scalars can be found in the decoupling period, contrary to the dipole defined by anisotropy and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect that are present-day effects. 3 1 H2 H2 The decoupling period is identified to an event right A i − , (36) after the mater-radiation equality, given by the redshift ≡ 3 H2 Xi=1 zeq 3300. Then our spacetime evolves dynamically from≃ a two-component universe (matter and radiation) to where A is the mean anisotropy parameter, and a matter-dominated one. The bumblebee field would be a third component in this model. However, as we interpret 2 µν 3 2 (26)-(28) as a small deviation form the FLRW, the entire σ σµν σ = AH (37) ≡ 2 contribution from the bumblebee field is decoded in the factor δ. is the shear scalar defined in terms of the shear tensor Having said that, radiation and matter are decoupled, σµν . The shear tensor is related to the distortion of a then their equations of state can be written as spatial region, that is to say, an initially spherically sym- metric configuration of objects (for example, particles) 1 p = ω ρ c2 = ρ c2 and p = ω ρ c2 =0, (40) turns into to an ellipsoidal shape due to the anisotropic r r r 3 r m m m feature of the spacetime, such that σ2 indicates the local distortion rate. It is important to note that both, A and with, as it is clear, ωr = 1/3 and ωm = 0. Using (30), σ2, should be small quantities at the present time. In the dynamics of the Bianchi I in the bumblebee gravity particular, as we will point out, A is given by the tiny can be evaluate from parameter δ (the deviation from the standard metric), 4 and σ2 goes to zero as t t . ˙ 2 κc δ 2 → 0 Hrm +3Hrm = 1+ ρr + ρm , (41) Another important scalar adopted here is the expan- 2 3 3 sion scalar, associated with the expansion rate/Hubble parameter by in the radiation-matter universe (Hrm is the mean directional Hubble parameter for a universe made up of radiation and matter). It is appropriate to write the Θ=3H, (38) densities in terms of their today’s values. Following [17], we are going to build the directional Hubble parame- which, as we will see, alongside the shear scalar com- ters in this context from the total volume of those pe- pounds an interesting relation to measure the amount of riods (radiation-matter content and matter-dominated anisotropy in a given spacetime. universe). For that purpose, Eq. (20) provides useful In this article, the main relation relation in order to relations between both ρM = ρr + ρm and the Hubble quantify anisotropies will be the ratio between shear and parameter (and consequently the volume factor) given expansion scalars. According to Maartens et al. [18], by such a ratio can be directly related to the CMB data via

ρ˙r = 4Hrmρr andρ ˙m = 3Hrmρm, (42) σ 5 3 − − | µν | < ǫ +3ǫ + ǫ , (39) Θ 3 1 2 7 3 which, after integration, lead to the normalized densities, i.e., with σ = (σ σµν )1/2 and ǫ , ǫ , and ǫ indicating µν µν 1 2 3 4 | | 3 limits on the CMB dipole, quadrupole, and octopole, re- rm,0 spectively. It is worth emphasizing that the relation (39) ρr =ρr,0 V , (43) rm is a model-independent approach and, as we will see, it V will provide an upper bound on the magnitude of the ρ =ρ Vrm,0 , (44) m m,0 bumblebee ﬁeld. Vrm 7 where the deﬁnition of , indicated in Eq. (15), was ∆ = 0.02 V 8 used. Here ρr,0 and ρm,0 are the present-day values for 7 7 H1t0 6 H2t0 = H3t0 0 5 t the radiation and matter densities, respectively, rm is i V H 4 the volume factor of a universe made up of both radiation 6 3 2 and matter, and rm,0 is the normalized present-day vol- 1 5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 V D 4 ume factor ( rm,0 = 1). It is worth mentioning that the tt0 V 10 normalized densities are very useful in order to compare ´

@ 4 0 t parameters to the recent data. According to Eq. (35), i H they are given by density parameters and the present-day 3 value for the (mean) Hubble parameter, namely 2 2 2 3H0 3H0 ρ = Ω and ρ = Ω . (45) 1 r,0 8πG r,0 m,0 8πG m,0 5. ´ 10-6 5. ´ 10-5 1. ´ 10-4

The above relations are valid due to assumption that the tt0 geometry studied here is asymptotically FLRW as t t . 0 ∆ = Following Russell et al. [17], ﬁrstly we are going→ to 0.17 8 obtain the volume for a universe made up of matter and H1t0 7 6 H2t0 = H3t0 0 t radiation and then the corresponding Hubble parameter i 4 H 6 or each directional Hubble parameter. From Eq. (41), it 2 follows that 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

D 5 4 2 tt0 δ 3H0 9 2 10 ¨ ´ rm 1+ Ωr,0 + H0 Ωm,0 =0. (46) @ 4 1/3 0 t V − 3 rm 2 i H V 3 Multiplying (46) with ˙ rm gives us V 2 δ 2 ˙ 2 2 3 rm 9H0 1+ Ωr,0 rm +Ωm,0 rm =0, (47) 1 V − 3 V V 5. ´ 10-6 5. ´ 10-5 1. ´ 10-4 whose approximate solution is written in terms of the tt0 volume of a matter-dominated universe plus the volume of the period in which radiation and matter had equal densities, also known as radiation-matter equality, that Figure 1: Directional Hubble parameters Hi(t), for i = 1, 2, 3. is to say, the volume factor reads Here we adopt exaggerated values for δ in order to emphasize the effect of the deviation from the FLRW metric. Time goes −6 3 from the decoupling (t/t0 ≃ 10 ) to the present time t = t0 9 δ 2 2 Ωr,0 rm 1+ H Ωm,0t +5 = m +5 rme, in the secondary graphic. As we can see, larger values of δ V ≃ 4 3 0 Ω V V m,0 increase differences among the directional Hubble parameters. (48) in which Ω /Ω 10−4. It is easy to obtain the r,0 m,0 ∼ corresponding mean Hubble parameter from Eq. (48): With all directional Hubble factors available, the corre- 2 1 sponding normalized scale factors are straightforwardly Hrm . (49) obtained: ≃ 3t Vrme 1+5 Vm 1 2 3 (1−δ) t 1 t0 As we can see, for a matter-dominated universe, m a  −  V ≫ 1(t)= 1 Vrme , (53) rme, thus one has the well-known Hubble parameter for − 1+5 V 2  Vm  such a period, i.e., Hrm Hm = 3t . ≃   1 With the mean Hubble factor for a radiation plus mat- 2 3 (1+δ) t ter universe, given by Eq. (49), we are able to find out the 1 t0 a a  −  factor (33) and solve the directional Hubble parameters 2(t)= 3(t)= 1 rme . (54) − 1+5 V (31) and (32). By doing that, we have  Vm    3 µ(t)=4Ω rm, (50) Assuming that δ 1, it is possible to express the m,0V ≪ normalized scale factors as a1(t) FLRW + δ1 and and, consequently, a (t) = a (t) FLRW + δ , in which≃ δ and δ stand 2 3 ≃ 2 1 2 2 m t0 for small deviations from the FLRW metric. As we can H1t0 = (1 δ) V , (51) see in Fig. 2, such deviations firstly grow with time and 3 − rm t V secondly decreases in order to provide an almost FLRW 2 m t0 H t = H t = (1 + δ) V . (52) metric. Before the present day or t = t0, the difference 2 0 3 0 3 t Vrm among scale factors can be as small as δ is. 8

∆ = 0.01 δ using the Planck data. Before that, we are going to cal- 1 culate, from the directional Hubble parameters (51)-(52), the mean anisotropic parameter (36). It follows that 0.8 8δ2 A = 2 . (56) 0.6 (3 + δ) L t H i a As we can see, the mean anisotropy parameter A is con- 0.4 stant during the period studied here. However, its value is very small as we are going to see after constraining δ. 0.2 On the other hand, the shear scalar is a time-dependent a 1HtL parameter, whose ﬁnal form, for the geometry studied a2HtL = a3HtL 0 here, reads 1. ´ 10-6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 tt0 H2Ω tδ σ2 =3 0 m,0 . (57) ∆ = 0.1 rm 1 V From Fig. 3, one sees that the shear scalar decreases as

0.8 t increases. For the time present, its value is very small. Lastly, the expansion scalar (38) is straightforwardly obtained from the directional Hubble parameters and the 0.6 mean Hubble parameter. It reads L t H i a 2 0.4 9 δ H Ω t Θ= 1+ 0 m,0 . (58) 2 3 Vrm 0.2

a1HtL Accordingly, Θ decreases with time as well. Hence the a2HtL = a3HtL optical scalars are tiny quantities in the present-day uni- 0 1. ´ 10-6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 verse as we would expect it. With those scalars, the square ratio between the shear and the expansion scalar tt 0 reads simply

2 2 Figure 2: Normalized scale factors ai(t) and their dependence σ 4δ = 2 , (59) on δ, the parameter that deviates the solution (53)-(54) from Θ 3(3+ δ) the FLRW spacetime. Here we adopt exaggerated values for δ in order to emphasize the effect of the deviation from the which is constant (very small) with time. ≃ −6 FLRW metric. Time goes from the decoupling (t/t0 10 ) In order to constrain δ and, consequently, the bumble- to the present time t = t0. bee field, we follow Refs. [39, 40] in which the Maartens et al. [18] approach, mentioned in Eq. (39), was adapted to the COBE data. Here, like Ref. [17], we apply the Planck Hence the criterion for the isotropization of our solu- data in that model-independent approach. Firstly, the tion is valid for t t . That is, → 0 ratio between the shear and the expansion scalars should a be given in terms of averages. The limits on the dipole ǫ1, lim i =1, for i =1, 2, 3, (55) t→t0 a quadrupole ǫ2 and octopole ǫ3 in Eq. (39) are then written as averages from the root-mean-square (rms) values 1/3 1/3 2 with a = (a1a2a3) = . The isotropization occurs of the multipole moments, namely during a matter-dominatedV universe even after triggering 2 the bumblebee field in the decoupling. A slight devia- 2 (2l + 1)(2l)! ∆Tl ǫl = 2 , (60) tion from isotropy is view in Figs. 1-2 (deviation which h i 2l (l!) T0 depends on δ) after the decoupling. Then the universe converges to an almost FLRW universe. where ... means now average, l stands for the multipole parameterh i (l = 1 for dipole, l = 2 for quadrupole, and l = 3 for octopole), and T0 =2.725 K is the average tem- C. Upper bound on the bumblebee field using the perature of the CMB radiation. According to Stoeger et CMB data 2 2 2 2 al. [39], ∆T2 = Qrms and ∆T3 = Orms are, for example,

With either the directional Hubble parameters or the scale factors, we can quantify anisotropies and try to con- 2 2 strain the bumblebee ﬁeld or the deviation from isotropy This is the corrected form for hǫli published in the erratum [40]. 9

∆ = 10-4 which give us an upper limit on the average of (39), that 9 ∆ = 10-5 is to say, ∆ = 10-6

D σ 1 µν −5 - < 4.5 10 . (65) s 6 | |

22 Θ × - 10 ´ @ With the aid of Eq. (59), the above inequality then leads Σ 3 to an upper bound on the deviation from isotropy of the solution (31)-(32), given by the parameter δ, i.e.,

−4 0 δ < 10 (66) 1. ´ 10-6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 tt 0 is the upper limit on the amount of anisotropy. In order for the model presented here to be in agreement with the Figure 3: Shear scalar for some values of δ, parameter which CMB data and the statement that our universe is almost deviates the geometry from the FLRW. Time goes from the isotropic, the deviation from the FLRW metric should be −6 decoupling (t/t0 ≃ 10 ) to the present time t = t0. The a tiny quantity as we read in Eq. (66). dependence of the amount of shear on the parameter δ gets With an upper bound on δ, we are able to constrain evident in this graphic. the norm of the bumblebee field in the VEV, due to the definition of the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ = ξb2. It squares of the rms quadupole and octopole amplitudes, follows from (29) that 2 respectively. Also ∆Tl are squares of the rotationally b2 < 1039 kg m s−2 1051 eV2. (67) invariant rms multipole moments in the usual Legendre ∼ polynomial expansion of the two-point correlation function of the temperature anisotropy, they are written as Alternately, adopting the best upper bound on the Lorentz-violating parameter to date (according to Ref. +l [25], it is ℓ< 10−15), we are able to constrain, for the first 2 1 2 ∆Tl = alm , (61) time in the literature, the coupling constant ξ. Thus, we 4π | | mX=−l have ξ < 10−54kg−1m−1s2 10−67 eV−2 for that constant. ∼ in such a way that alm are the coefficients of the expansion in spherical harmonics of the CMB difference of temperature in a given direction. However, as mentioned in Ref. [39], the CMB data, in general, is presented by IV. FINAL REMARKS means of power spectrum graphics. Thus, we need to relate the averages of the ǫ’s values with the CMB power Using the Bianchi I geometry in a Lorentz symme- spectrum. Indeed, the coefficient ∆T 2 is related to the l try breaking context gave us a source for cosmological power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies by Dl anisotropies. The model presented here is able to be conceived of as a small deviation from the standard cos- 2 2l +1 ∆T = l. (62) mology. It assumes an anisotropic description of space- l 2l (l + 1)D time, by means of the Bianchi I metric instead of the Therefore, substituting Eq. (62) into Eq. (60), now we FLRW metric, and a source for anisotropies, the bum- have a relation between averages of ǫ’s and the power blebee field. With values for the CMB quadrupole and spectrum. octopole moments, we showed that it is possible to think For our considerations, following Refs. [17, 39], we turn of the model presented in this article as a small deviation from the FLRW metric. off the dipole term (ǫ1 = 0), for it is a term whose origin is the solar system motion. And according to the Planck The Lorentz violation is assumed to be triggered from Collaboration [3, 4], the values of the power spectrum for the decoupling period between radiation and matter the quadrupole and octopole moments are when the bumblebee field assumes the VEV. Hence, the bumblebee field vector points toward a given direction, 300 µK2 and 1000 µK2 . (63) producing then different directional Hubble parameters D2 ≃ D3 ≃ and a preferred axis. From the mentioned CMB mul- Using that values in Eq. (62) and, consequently, in Eq. tipoles, we constrained the bumblebee field or its VEV (60), one has the average for the coefficients of the for- and the coupling constant between that field and the ge- mula (39), namely ometry. As far as we know, it is the very first attempt at constraining the bumblebee field using cosmological ǫ =1.1 10−5 and ǫ =2.6 10−5, (64) observations. h 2i × h 3i × 10

Acknowledgments nação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento RVM thanks Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desen- Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Grant no 307556/2018- volvimento Científico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP), Coorde- 2) for the financial support.

[1] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, New phys. Space Sci. 317, 79 (2008). York, 2014). [22] V. Rikhvitsky, B. Saha and M. Visinescu, Astrophys. [2] J. C. S. Neves, Found. Sci. 25, 857 (2020). Space Sci. 339, 371 (2012). [3] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. As- [23] S. Carloni, S. Vignolo and L. Fabbri, Class. Quant. Grav. trophys. 594, A11 (2016). 30, 205010 (2013). [4] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. As- [24] V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004). trophys. 641, A1 (2020). [25] R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, E. B. Santos, [5] R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Astrophys. Space Phys. Rev. D 97, 104001 (2018). Sci. 7, 20 (1970). [26] İ. Güllü and A. Övgün, arXiv:2012.02611. [6] R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, Astrophys. J. 147, 73 [27] R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044002 (1967). (2021). [7] D. Saadeh, S. M. Feeney, A. Pontzen, H. V. Peiris and J. [28] O. Bertolami, J. Páramos, Phys. Rev. D 72, 044001 D. McEwen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 131302 (2016). (2005). [8] C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. [29] D. Capelo, J. Páramos, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104007 (2015). D 70, 043515 (2004). [30] K. O’Neal-Ault, Q. G. Bailey and N. A. Nilsson, Phys. [9] H. K. Eriksen et al., Astrophys. J. 605, 14 (2004). Rev. D 103, 044010 (2021). [10] F. K. Hansen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, Mon. Not. [31] A. F. Santos, A. Y. Petrov, W. D. R. Jesus and J. R. Roy. Astron. Soc. 354,641 (2004). Nascimento, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, 1550011 (2015). [11] K. Land and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 071301 [32] W. D. R. Jesus and A. F. Santos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (2005). 35, 2050050 (2020). [12] P. Vielva, E. Martínez-González, R. B. Barreiro, J. L. [33] R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 71, 065008 Sanz, and L. Cayón, Astrophys. J. 609, 22 (2004). (2005). [13] K. Land and J. Magueijo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [34] Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 74, 367, 1714 (2006). 045001 (2006). [14] K. T. Inoue and J. Silk, Astrophys. J. 648, 23 (2006). [35] R. V. Maluf, V. Santos, W. T. Cruz, and C. A. S. [15] J. F. Donoghue, K. Dutta and A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D 80, Almeida, Phys. Rev. D 88, 025005 (2013). 023526 (2009). [36] R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung, V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D [16] T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, JCAP 08, 021 (2008). 77, 065020 (2008). [17] E. Russell, C. B. Kılınç and O. K. Pashaev, Mon. Not. [37] K. A. Bronnikov, E. N. Chudaeva and G. N. Shikin, Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 2331 (2014). Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 3389 (2004). [18] R. Maartens, G. F. R. Ellis and W. R. Stoeger, S. J., [38] B. Saha, Phys. Rev. D 74, 124030 (2006). Phys. Rev. D 51, 1525 (1995). [39] W. R. Stoeger, M. E. Araujo and T. Gebbie, Astrophys. [19] S. Alexeyev, A. Toporensky and V. Ustiansky, Phys. J. 476, 435 (1997). Lett. B 509, 151 (2001). [40] W. R. Stoeger, M. E. Araujo and T. Gebbie, Astrophys. [20] B. Saha, Phys. Rev. D 74, 124030 (2006). J. 522, 559 (1999). [21] V. U. M. Rao, T. Vinutha and K. V. S. Sireesha, Astro-