Arxiv:1006.4106V2 [Gr-Qc] 24 Jan 2011 Inta Ossetter Fqatmgaiya the at Gravity Quantum of Realiza- Local Scale Theory the Is Planck Consistent GR a Frames

Home , Sagnac effect

arXiv:1006.4106v2 [gr-qc] 24 Jan 2011 inta ossetter fqatmgaiya the at gravity quantum of realiza- local scale theory The is Planck consistent GR a frames. that in falling tion freely matter in of invariance property couplings foundational Lorentz gravitational A the scales. distance of of range wide over phenomena a gravitational classical of description rate ftesbet ese otnwoinepninfor expansion post-newtonian a aspects seek We experimental and subject. is the theoretical goal of both Our elucidate vi- couplings. to Lorentz matter-gravity for literature involving searches the lacking for olation in been gap prospects this the has address investigate we theory and work, this field In effective date. of of to violation context study Lorentz the the general for in into a allowing insights field, couplings gravitational of matter-gravity the source of primary properties a been historically post- [8]. parametrized formalism the results of (PPN) tests context newtonian These the of in breadth performed impressive GR treat- [7]. of the a regime complement using and post-newtonian enlarge [4–6] the con- performed this in been in ment recently violations have Lorentz searches text Several gravitational [3]. purely theory for field effective and in classified be enumerated can violations matter- Lorentz for couplings, scales. and gravity interactions macroscopic gravitational impossibility purely on for the effects Both and gravitational level screening microscopic of weakness the comparative at spacetime the gravity Minkowski of including in reasons, ones several than for study to challenging [2]. being years violation recent Lorentz in for undertaken with [1] symmetry, searches Lorentz scales sensitive of observable numerous studies in at interest revived violation has Lorentz of ifestations eea eaiiy(R skont rvd naccu- an provide to known is (GR) Relativity General lhuhteculn ewe atradgaiyhas gravity and matter between coupling the Although more are violation Lorentz of signals Gravitational eahee neitn rna-uueeprmnsa h le the at experiments near-future or existing sensitivi in Numerous achieved light. be of vio solar properties CPT studies, gravitational antimatter and the principle, Lorentz equivalence measu weak of gravimeter the signals including in observations, observable gravity bum and identify a under experiments to for falling presented used freely is is example body illustrative test An a established. of backg Minkowski develope trajectory and is the Lorentz-violating method a perturbative about systematic fluctuations A cl obtained. th the and are violation, hamiltonian quantum Lorentz Standard nonrelativistic minimal the for coupled effects, coefficients gravitationally the the from in derived order leading At 10 odate. to m h rvttoa opig fmte r tde ntepre the in studied are matter of couplings gravitational The 15 P .INTRODUCTION I. eti offiinsaeuiul eetbei gravitatio in detectable uniquely are coefficients Certain . Dtd UE 4,Jn 00 eso ulse nPy.Rev Phys. in published version 2010; June 544, IUHET (Dated: ≃ 10 hsc eatet nin nvriy loigo,I 4 IN Bloomington, University, Indiana Department, Physics 19 atrgaiyculnsadLrnzviolation Lorentz and couplings Matter-gravity e ol nuetn man- tiny induce could GeV .Aa otlc´ n a .Tasson D. Jay Kostelecký and Alan V. asadteeyealn oecmlt erhsusing searches complete couplings. more matter-gravity enabling observa- sig- thereby and measurable and experimental prospective nals our identifying of of variety scenarios, implications wide the tional a explore to in possible seek analysis vi- from also Lorentz We effects with for olation. associated and modes bodies long-range source additional of and composition test the allowing from the violation, effects Lorentz un- Lorentz-violating moving of for presence body also test the a in of gravity der trajectory the for equation the pctm.I at oprtvl ag gravitational large comparatively fact, In Minkowski Lorentz spacetime. in unobservable for intrinsically coefficients are that operator to violation introduce sensitivity couplings offering These structures with- violation. and with CPT both out couplings, matter-gravity in olation violation Lorentz follows. of signals what de- certain feature in for also This role SME symmetry. crucial a CPT the plays of so breaking [10], general violation scribes theory Lorentz field Under with effective in comes violation. violation Lorentz CPT multiplied assumptions, for mild operator coefficient controlling Lorentz-violating a a transformations by of den- coordinate scalar consists general a and is observer density under Lagrange sity SME the Lorentz in violating symmetry term Each violation Lorentz couplings. analyze matter-gravity to in this [3], adopts (SME) Standard- Extension paper gravity gravitational Model present the in as The known violation framework, [9]. general CPT physics signals particle and observable and Lorentz comprehen- describing Planck-scale a theory for of point field starting effective suitable there- sive a combination as This serves (SM). GR fore Model of Standard combination successfully the field-theoretic can and the using scales analyzed energy particle be accessible and at gravitational phenomena established gravity, of theory nti ok u ou so rvttoa oet vi- Lorentz gravitational on is focus our work, this In quantum satisfactory a of lack current the Despite ist offiinsfrLrnzvoaincan violation Lorentz for coefficients to ties sse bevtos n netgtosof investigations and observations, -system sia yaisfrts n orebodies source and test for dynamics assical eet,lbrtr n aelt et of tests satellite and laboratory rements, MdlEtnin o spin-independent For Extension. -Model lbemdl h eea methodology general The model. blebee on.Teps-etna ercand metric post-newtonian The round. otetsalmti n coefficient and metric small treat to d eaiitcqatmhmloinis hamiltonian quantum relativistic e h rsneo oet ilto are violation Lorentz of presence the e fprsi 10 in parts of vel a erhsadrmi unmeasured remain and searches nal ec fLrnzadCTviolation. CPT and Lorentz of sence aini ait fgravitational of variety a in lation D . 45 U.S.A. 7405, 83 103(2011)) 016013 , 3 ont at in parts to down 2

Lorentz violation in nature could have remained unde- field theory. One technical issue is extracting a mean- tected in searches to date because gravity can provide ingful quantum theory in the presence of gravitational a countershading effect [11], so this line of investigation fluctuations. We resolve this issue via a judicious field has a definite discovery potential. Several searches for redefinition, which yields a hamiltonian that is hermi- gravitational Lorentz violation have led to constraints on tian with respect to the usual scalar product for wave SME coefficients for Lorentz violation with sensitivities functions and that reduces correctly to known limiting down to parts in 109 [4–6, 12], and additional constraints cases. We construct the relativistic quantum hamilto- can be inferred by reanalysis of data from equivalence- nian at leading order in Lorentz violation and gravity principle tests [11]. fluctuations. For the spin-independent terms, we per- The nature of the Lorentz violation plays a crucial role form a Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation to obtain the in determining the physics of matter-gravity couplings. nonrelativistic hamiltonian. Section IV treats the classi- In Riemann geometry, externally prescribing the coef- cal dynamics corresponding to the quantum theory. The ficients for Lorentz violation as fixed background con- point particle action is presented and the structure of test figurations is generically incompatible with the Bianchi and source bodies is discussed. The equations of motion identities and hence problematic [3]. This issue can be for a test particle and the modified Einstein equations are avoided via spontaneous Lorentz breaking [1], in which a derived. We describe the methodology for handling coef- potential term drives the dynamical development of one ficient and metric fluctuations. Combining the results de- or more nonzero vacuum values for a tensor field. This termines the Lorentz-violating trajectory of a test body. mechanism implies the underlying Lagrange density is The results are illustrated in Sec. V in the context of a Lorentz invariant, so the coefficients for Lorentz violation special class of models of spontaneous Lorentz violation are expressed in terms of vacuum values and can there- known as bumblebee models. fore serve as dynamically consistent backgrounds satis- The remaining research sections of the paper, Secs. fying the Bianchi identities. The presence of a potential VI-XI, concern implications of our theoretical analysis driving spontaneous Lorentz violation implies the emer- for experiments and observations. Section VI contains gence of massless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes [13] as- basic facts concerning frame choices and outlines the sociated with field fluctuations along the broken Lorentz canonical Sun-centered frame used for reporting mea- generators [14]. If the potential is smooth, massive modes surements. We also consider the sensitivities to coef- can also appear [15]. Some features of the NG and mas- ficients for Lorentz violation that can be attained in sive modes are generic, while others are specific to details practical situations. Section VII treats laboratory tests of the model being considered. In any case, the nature of near the surface of the Earth using neutral bulk mat- these modes plays a key role in determining the physical ter, neutral atoms, or neutrons. The theoretical descrip- implications of spontaneous Lorentz violation. tion of these tests is presented to third post-newtonian For the purposes of the present work, the presence of order, and some generic features of the test-body mo- NG modes is particularly crucial because they can cou- tion are discussed. A wide variety of gravimeter and ple to matter and can transmit a long-range force. A equivalence-principle tests is analyzed for sensitivities to careful treatment of these modes is therefore a prereq- coefficients for Lorentz violation that are presently un- uisite for studies of Lorentz violation in matter-gravity constrained. Satellite-based searches for Lorentz viola- couplings. In what follows, we develop a methodology to tion using equivalence-principle experiments are studied extract the dominant Lorentz-violating effects in matter- in Sec. VIII. A generic situation is analyzed, and the gravity couplings irrespective of the details of the un- results are applied to major proposed satellite tests. Sec- derlying model for spontaneous Lorentz violation. In ef- tion IX treats gravitational searches using charged par- fect, the NG modes are treated via a perturbation scheme ticles, antihydrogen, and particles from the second and that takes advantage of symmetry properties of the un- third generations of the SM. Estimated sensitivities in derlying Lagrange density to eliminate them in favor of future tests are provided, and illustrative toy models for gravitational fluctuations and background coefficients for antihydrogen studies are discussed. Searches for Lorentz Lorentz violation. This treatment allows leading Lorentz- violation using solar-system observations are described violating effects from a large class of plausible models to in Sec. X. We consider measurements of coefficients for be handled in a single analysis. Lorentz violation accessible via lunar and satellite rang- The portion of this paper developing theoretical issues ing and via studies of perihelion precession. Section XI spans Secs. II-V. It begins in Sec. II with a review of the addresses various tests involving the effects of gravita- SME framework. We present the field-theoretic action, tional Lorentz violation on the properties of light. We describe its linearization, and discuss observability issues analyze the Shapiro time delay, the gravitational Doppler for the coefficients for Lorentz violation. We also describe shift, and the gravitational redshift, and we consider the two notions of perturbative order used in the subse- the implications for a variety of existing and proposed quent analysis, one involving Lorentz and gravitational searches of these types. Finally, in Sec. XII we summa- fluctuations and the other based on a post-newtonian ex- rize the paper and tabulate the various estimated actual pansion. Section III concerns the relativistic and nonrel- and attainable sensitivities to coefficients for Lorentz and ativistic quantum mechanics arising from the quantum CPT violation obtained in the body of this work. 3

Throughout the paper, we follow the conventions of In the present context, the action of the covariant deriva- Refs. [3] and [7]. In particular, the Minkowski metric is tive Dµ on ψ is diagonal with entries ( 1, +1, +1, +1). Greek indices are 1 ab − Dµψ ∂µψ + iω σabψ. (4) used for spacetime coordinates, while Latin indices are ≡ 4 µ used for local Lorentz coordinates. Appendix A of Ref. It is convenient to introduce the symbol [3] provides a summary of most other conventions. Note 1 ab (ψDµ) ∂µψ iω ψσab (5) that parentheses surrounding index pairs in the present ≡ − 4 µ work denote symmetrization with a factor of one-half. for the action of the covariant derivative on the Dirac- conjugate field ψ. The action (3) contains the covariant derivative in a combination defined by II. FRAMEWORK ↔ a a a χΓ Dµ ψ χΓ Dµψ (χDµ)Γ ψ. (6) ≡ − The focus of this work is the study of relativity viola- The symbols Γa and M appearing in the action (3) are tions in realistic matter-gravity interactions. The basic defined by field theory of relevance concerns a single fermion field ψ a a νa µ b νa µ b coupled to dynamical gravity and incorporating Lorentz Γ γ cµν e e γ dµν e e γ5γ ≡ − b − b and CPT violation. In this section, we summarize the µa µa 1 νa λ µ bc eµe ifµe γ5 gλµν e e e σ (7) action for the model, describe the linearization proce- − − − 2 b c dure, discuss conditions for the observability of effects, and and present the perturbation scheme developed for the µ a µ a 1 µ ν ab M m + aµe γ + bµe γ γ + Hµν e e σ . (8) analysis to follow. ≡ a a 5 2 a b The first term of Eq. (7) leads to the usual Lorentz- invariant kinetic term for the Dirac field, while the first A. Action term of Eq. (8) leads to a Lorentz-invariant mass. A term of the form im5γ5 could also appear in M, but here we suppose it is absorbed into m via a chiral field redefini- The theory of interest is a special case of the gravi- tion. The coefficient fields for Lorentz violation a , b , tationally coupled SME [3]. The action can be written µ µ c , d , e , f , g , H typically vary with space- as µν µν µ µ λµν µν time position. The coefficient field Hµν is antisymmet- ′ ric, while gλµν is antisymmetric in λµ. Note the use of S = SG + Sψ + S . (1) an uppercase letter for Hµν , which avoids confusion with the metric fluctuation hµν . The CPT-odd operators for The first term in this expression is the action SG containing the dynamics of the gravitational field, including any Lorentz violation are associated with the coefficient fields aµ, bµ, eµ, fµ, and gλµν . coefficients for Lorentz violation in that sector. The geo- λ metric framework is a Riemann-Cartan spacetime, which The form of the action (3) implies the torsion T µν κ enters the fermion action only via minimal coupling. This allows both the Riemann curvature tensor R λµν and the λ coupling has the same form as that of the coefficient field torsion tensor T µν . To incorporate fermion-gravity in- bµ, so the effects of minimal torsion can be incorporated teractions, the vierbein formalism [16] is adopted, with µ ab into a matter-sector analysis by replacing bµ with the the vierbein e a and the spin connection ωµ taken as effective coefficient field the fundamental gravitational objects. In the limit of 1 αβγ zero torsion and Lorentz invariance, S reduces to the (beff )µ bµ + T ǫαβγµ. (9) G ≡ 8 Einstein-Hilbert action of General Relativity, Note that nonminimal torsion couplings can be incorporated into the more general coefficient fields appearing 1 4 SG d x (eR 2eΛ), (2) in the full SME. Nonminimal torsion couplings and their → 2κ − Z experimental constraints are discussed in Ref. [17]. The final term in Eq. (1) is the action S′ containing the where κ 8πGN , e is the vierbein determinant, and Λ is the cosmological≡ constant. dynamics associated with the coefficient fields for Lorentz violation. Addressing possible contributions from this The second term in Eq. (1) is the action S for the ψ sector is the subject of Sec. IVC. fermion sector of the SME. In this work, we limit attention to terms in this sector with no more than one derivative, which is the gravitationally coupled analogue B. Linearization of the minimal SME in Minkowski spacetime. In this limit, the action Sψ for a single Dirac fermion ψ of mass m can be written as For the purposes of this work, it suffices to consider weak gravitational fields in a Minkowski-spacetime back- ↔ 4 1 µ a ground. Under these circumstances, the Latin local in- Sψ = d x( iee ψΓ Dµ ψ eψMψ). (3) 2 a − dices can be replaced with Greek spacetime indices, so Z 4 the weak-field forms of the metric, vierbein, and spin C. Observability connection can be written as A given coefficient for Lorentz violation can lead to gµν = ηµν + hµν , observable effects only if it cannot be eliminated from σ 1 eµν = ηνσe ηµν + hµν + χµν , the Lagrange density via field redefinitions or coordinate µ ≈ 2 ρσ choices [3, 18–25]. In this subsection, we outline some ωλµν = ηµρηνσωλ 1 1 implications of this fact relevant to the present work. ∂λχµν ∂µhλν + ∂ν hλµ ≈ − 2 2 1 + 2 (Tλµν + Tµλν Tνλµ) . (10) − 1. Field redefinitions The quantities χµν contain the six Lorentz degrees of freedom in the vierbein. One result of key interest here is that matter-gravity The coefficient fields for Lorentz violation are expected couplings can obstruct the removal of some coefficients to acquire vacuum values through spontaneous Lorentz that are unphysical in the Minkowski-spacetime limit. breaking. An arbitrary coefficient field tλµν... can there- For example, in the single-fermion theory in Minkowski fore be expanded about its vacuum value tλµν..., spacetime, the coefficient aµ aµ for Lorentz and CPT violation in Eq. (8) is unobservable≡ because it can be tλµν... = tλµν... + t7 λµν..., (11) eliminated by the spinor redefinition where the fluctuation t7 λµν... includese massless NG modes ψ(x) exp[if(x)]ψ(x) (14) → and massive modes [14, 15]. The vacuum value tλµν... ≡ µ tλµν... is called the coefficiente for Lorentz violation. One with f(x) = aµx . However, in Riemann or Riemann- h i can instead choose to expand the contravariant coefficient Cartan spacetimes we have aµ aµ + aµ, so this redefi- ≡ 7 field tλµν..., nition typically leaves the four components of the fluctuation a7 µ in the theory. Instead, the redefinition (14) with λµν... e tλµν... = t + tλµν..., (12) an appropriate f(x) can be used to move one component of thee coefficient field aµ into the other three, unless aµ is λµν... µν constant or the total derivative of a scalar [3]. Note that where t is related to tλµν... bye raising with η . The in the presence of gravity this freedom may be insufficient reader is cautioned that the relation between t7 λµν... and λµν... to eliminate any components of the coefficient aµ because the index-lowered version tλµν... of t involves terms the components of the fluctuation a7 µ can depend on all containing contractions of tλµν... with hµν . Thise paper four components of aµ through the equations of motion. uses the expansion (11) ande gives expressionse in terms of This line of reasoning shows that gravitationale couplings t7 λµν.... provide a unique sensitivity to the coefficient aµ, which To provide a smooth match between our analysis and can be exploited in various experiments [11]. eprevious work on the matter sector of the SME in Another type of field redefinition can be written in the Minkowski spacetime and on the gravitational sector in generic form [3] asymptotically Minkowski spacetime, we make two assumptions about the coefficients for Lorentz violation. ψ(x) [1 + v(x) Γ]ψ(x), (15) First, we assume they are constant in asymptotically in- → · a a ab ertial cartesian coordinates, where Γ represents one of γ , γ5γ , σ and v(x) is a complex function carrying the appropriate local Lorentz ∂αtλµν... =0. (13) indices. This can be viewed as a position-dependent component mixing in spinor space. Field redefinitions of this This preserves translation invariance and hence type can be used to demonstrate the leading-order equiv- energy-momentum conservation in the asymptoti- alence of observable physical effects due to certain coeffi- cally Minkowski regime. It also ensures that our barred cients for Lorentz violation. An example relevant in the coefficients correspond to the usual coefficients for present context is a redefinition involving a real vector Lorentz and CPT violation investigated in the minimal va(x). Together with assumption (13), this redefinition SME in Minkowski spacetime [18]. Second, we assume can be used to show that at leading order in Lorentz vi- that the vacuum values t are sufficiently small to be λµν... olation the coefficients aµ and eµ always appear in the treated perturbatively. This is standard and plausible, combination since any Lorentz violation in nature is expected to be small. These two assumptions suffice for most (aeff )µ aµ meµ, (16) of the analysis that follows. To obtain the leading ≡ − Lorentz-violating corrections to hµν without specifying up to derivatives of fluctuations. Combining this result a dynamical model for the coefficient fields for Lorentz with the above discussion of the redefinition (14) shows violation, one further assumption is required, which is that observables involving gravitational couplings offer presented in Sec. IV C. the prospect of measuring (aeff )µ. 5

Related ideas can be used to simplify the weak-field Alternatively, one could perform the coordinate transfor- limit of the theory (3). In particular, the antisymmet- mation ric part χµν of the vierbein can be removed everywhere ′ except for possible contributions to fluctuations of the xµ xµ = xµ + cµ xν , (20) → ν coefficient fields, by applying the field redefinition which instead redefines the fermion-sector background 1 µν metric to be ηµν and at leading order produces the ef- ψ(x) exp[ 4 iχµν (x)σ ]ψ(x) → − α 1 µν 1 µν αβ fective photon-sector coefficient 2cµν + (kF ) µαν . This 1 iχµν σ χµν χαβσ σ ψ(x). ≈ − 4 − 32 coordinate choice is equally valid for analysis, and as be- (17) α fore the orthogonal combination 2cµν (kF ) µαν is unobservable. − Note that this redefinition takes the form of a Lorentz Similar results apply for experimental searches for transformation on ψ but that the other fields in the La- Lorentz violation involving comparisons of different grange density remain unaffected. Note also that in the fermion species. Labeling the species by w, each has absence of Lorentz violation χµν can be removed entirely, a coefficient cw . Then, for example, the effective metric a fact compatible with the interpretation in Ref. [14] of µν for any one species X can be reduced to ηµν by a co- the role of χµν in Lorentz-violating theories. In the re- X ordinate transformation with cµν of the form (20). The mainder of this work, we assume the redefinition (17) has resulting effective coefficients for the remaining species been performed on the Lagrange density, so that quan- w X a µ involve the differences cµν cµν , which in this coordinate tities such as Γ , M, and e a are understood to acquire scheme become the relevant− observable combinations of no contributions from χµν except possibly through the coefficients. fluctuations of the coefficient fields for Lorentz violation. In the gravity sector, the situation is more involved because a geometrically consistent treatment of Lorentz violation generically requires the incorporation of effects 2. Coordinate choices from the NG modes to ensure the Bianchi identities are satisfied [3]. It turns out that the 10 relevant coefficient The observability of certain combinations of coeffi- components in the gravity sector are the vacuum values cients for Lorentz violation is also affected by the freedom sµν of the coefficient fields sµν in the gravity-sector SME to make coordinate choices. Intuitively, the key point is Lagrange density that any one sector of the SME can be used to define the scales of the four coordinates, to establish the meaning 1 µν gravity es Rµν . (21) of isotropy, and to set the synchronization scheme. The L ⊃ 16πGN freedom therefore exists to choose the sector in which the effective background spacetime metric takes the form of We find that at leading order the transformation (19) α generates an accompanying shift sµν sµν (kF ) , the Minkowski metric ηµν . This implies that in any ex- → − µαν while the transformation (20) produces the shift sµν perimental configuration there are always 10 unobserv- → able combinations of coefficients for Lorentz violation. sµν +2cµν . As an illustration, consider the SME restricted to the One way to obtain these results is to consider the single-fermion and photon sectors [18, 22]. In the fermion leading-order effect of a metric shift on the equations of sector, the 10 relevant coefficient components are the vac- motion, and then to match to the known results [7] for uum values cµν of the coefficient fields cµν in Eq. (7) be- observable effects in a post-newtonian expansion. Con- cause these coefficients enter Sψ in the same way as the sider, for example, the restriction of the SME to the metric. In the photon sector, the SME Lagrange density Einstein-Hilbert action and the single-fermion action Sψ contains a term with nonzero cµν only. At leading order, the coordinate transformation (20) removes cµν from the fermion action 1 κλ µν at the cost of introducing a metric shift gµν gµν 2cµν photon 4 e(kF )κλµν F F , (18) L ⊃− in the Einstein-Hilbert term. The resulting→ equations− and the 10 relevant coefficient components can be shown of motion involve the Einstein tensor Gµν (g 2c) with α − to be the trace (kF ) µαν . At leading order, the coordi- shifted argument, which can be written in terms of the nate transformation Einstein tensor Gµν (g) for the original metric and an ef- c fective energy-momentum tensor φµν . We find µ µ′ µ 1 αµ ν x x = x 2 (kF ) αν x (19) → − c Gµν (g 2c) = Gµν (g) φ , − − µν redefines the background metric to take the form ηµν in c αβ α 1 φ 2(ηµν c Rαβ 2c R + cµν R the photon sector. The effective metric in the fermion µν ≈ − (µ ν)α 2 αβ sector is then also changed, with the observable coeffi- +c Rαµνβ ). (22) α cient combination becoming cµν + (kF ) µαν /2. The or- α c c thogonal combination 2cµν (kF ) µαν is thus unobserv- The trace-reversed form Φµν of φµν matches the post- − s able in any experiments involving only these two sectors. newtonian term Φµν arising from Eq. (21) and given 6 explicitly as Eq. (24) of Ref. [7] with the combination initial stage would complicate the ensuing analysis, so in sµν replaced by 2cµν . The transformation (20) there- what follows we often write results in terms of hµν while fore produces the shift sµν sµν +2cµν , as claimed. commenting as needed on the post-newtonian counting. A similar line of reasoning→ verifies the claimed shift To preserve a reasonable scope, this work focuses on α sµν sµν (kF ) µαν for the coordinate transformation dominant perturbative effects involving both Lorentz vi- (19).→ − olation and gravity. We next discuss the relevant pertur- To keep expressions compact throughout this work, we bative orders required to achieve this goal. choose to work with coordinates satisfying Consider first contributions from the fluctuation t7 λµν...

α of the coefficient fields. The detailed structure of t7 λµν... (kF ) µαν =0. (23) depends on the nature of the action S′ in Eq. (1). Ine the To obtain results valid for arbitrary coordinate choices, scheme adopted here, t7 λµν... can be viewed as a seriese in the following substitutions can be applied throughout: tλµν... and hµν of the form (0,0) (0e,1) (1,0) (1,1) w w 1 α t7 λµν... = t7 + t7 + t7 + t7 + .... (25) c c + (kF ) , λµν... λµν... λµν... λµν... µν → µν 2 µαν α sµν sµν (kF ) µαν . (24) For spontaneous Lorentz breaking, t includes mas- → − e e e e 7 λµν...e sive modes and massless NG modes [15, 26]. In this work, We emphasize that all coordinate choices are equivalent we suppose the massive modes eithere are frozen or have for theoretical work or for data analysis, with the choice negligible degree of excitation. Incorporating their possi- (23) adopted here being purely one of convenience. ble effects into the analysis of matter-gravity phenomena would be of potential interest but lies beyond our present scope. In contrast, the massless NG modes play a key D. Perturbation scheme role in what follows. Their fate can include identification with the photon in Einstein-Maxwell theory [14], with the In this work, we are interested in experimental searches graviton in GR [27, 28], or with a new force [11, 29, 30], for Lorentz violation involving gravitational effects on or they can be absorbed in the torsion via the Lorentz- matter. Many of these searches involve test particles Higgs effect [14]. In some models the NG modes can be moving in background solutions to the equations of mo- interpreted as composite photons [31] or gravitons [32]. tion for gravity and for the coefficient fields. Since the We consider below the perturbative orders required for gravitational fields involved are weak and since no com- the various possibilities. pelling evidence for Lorentz violation exists to date, any Suppose first the NG modes correspond to photons, or effects are expected to be small. We can therefore focus more generally to a known force field other than grav- attention on perturbative modifications to the behavior (0,0) ity. The term t7 λµν... then contains conventional Lorentz- of test particles. This subsection describes the scheme we invariant terms describing this field in Minkowski space- use to track perturbative orders in the construction of the (0,1) time, while t7 λµν...e contains conventional leading-order relativistic quantum hamiltonian and in the subsequent gravitational interactions with the field. Effects from developments. both these termse are therefore part of the conventional Perturbative effects on physical observables can arise (1,0) description of the force. The term t describes possi- through modifications to the background coefficient fields 7 λµν... ble Lorentz violations in Minkowski spacetime involving t for Lorentz violation and to the background gravi- λµν... the known field, many of which are tightly constrained by tational field g , or directly through modifications to the e µν experiments [2]. For the purposes of this work, which fo- equation of motion for the test particle. The analysis of cuses on Lorentz violation involving gravity, we can take these effects is simplified by introducing an appropriate this term as experimentally negligible. The dominant notion of perturbative order. Several ordering schemes (1,1) are possible. In this work, we adopt a scheme that tracks term of interest is therefore t7 λµν..., which lies at O(1,1). If the NG modes correspond to gravitons as, for ex- the orders in the coefficients for Lorentz violation tλµν... and in the metric fluctuation h . The overall pertur- ample, in the cardinal modele [27], then the expansion µν (0,1) bative order of a given term in an equation is denoted (25) contains no terms at O(m,0). The term t7 λµν... cor- as O(m,n), where m represents the order in tλµν... and responds to the gravitational fluctuations hµν , and its n the order in hµν . Within this scheme, the fluctua- effects are part of the conventional descriptione of gravity. (1,1) tions t7 λµν... of the coefficient fields for Lorentz violation The dominant term of interest is therefore again t7 λµν.... are viewed as secondary quantities that are determined If instead the NG modes correspond to a presently un- (0,0) (0,1) via theire equations of motion in terms of the coefficients observed force field, then t7 λµν... and t7 λµν... describee un- for Lorentz violation and the gravitational field. There is observed Lorentz-invariant effects in Minkowski space- also a subsidiary notion of order associated with the usual time and in leading-order gravitationale e couplings. These post-newtonian expansion of hµν itself. We denote a pth- modes must therefore be eliminated from the analy- order term in this latter expansion as PNO(p). However, sis prior to interpretation of observations, via solving performing an explicit post-newtonian expansion at the the equations of motion or otherwise. In what follows, 7 we suppose this elimination has been performed where Lorentz-invariant part of the hamiltonian can therefore (1,0) be truncated at O(0,2), while the Lorentz-violating part needed. The term t7 λµν... describes possible Lorentz violation in Minkowski-spacetime involving the unknown can be truncated at O(1,1). To maintain consistent post- field. For present purposes,e we take this term to be exper- newtonian counting, the O(0,2) terms must be limited to imentally negligible, although in principle it might offer a PNO(5), while the O(1,1) terms are limited to PNO(3). novel way to access certain types of presently unobserved Next, note that for laboratory and solar-system tests interactions at exceptional sensitivities. The remaining the variations in hµν over the experimental scale L are (1,1) small compared to hµν , ∂αhµν hµν /L . For exam- term t7 λµν... displayed in Eq. (25) describes the dominant | | ≪ | | Lorentz-violating gravitational effects involving the un- ple, the typical value of the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the Earth is g 10−32 GeV, which is knowne interaction. As discussed in Sec. II C 1, certain tiny compared to the ratio of≃ the gravitational poten- Lorentz-violating effects are observable only in the pres- −9 tial hµν 10 and the size of a typical laboratory ence of gravity, and so under suitable circumstances ob- | | ≃ 15 −1 (1,1) experiment L 10 GeV . Terms in the relativis- servable experimental signals from t7 λµν... could arise [11] ≃ tic hamiltonian proportional to derivatives of hµν can despite the tight existing experimental constraints [33] therefore be limited to O(0,1). Finally, note that prod- on the direct observation of additionale interactions due (0,0) (0,1) ucts of Lorentz-violating terms lead to higher-order ef- to the lower-order terms t7 λµν... and t7 λµν.... In scenarios fects with operator structures matching ones already ap- with an unobserved force, we must therefore also allow (1,1) pearing in the fermion sector of the Minkowski-spacetime for O(1,1) effects involvinge t7 λµν.... e SME. These are already accessible in nongravitational ex- The remaining possibility is that NG modes are ab- periments. It therefore suffices for our purpose to restrict sorbed into the torsion. Toe handle this case, note that attention to terms at leading order in Lorentz violation. the matter-sector role of minimal torsion can be treated To summarize, the construction of the perturbative rela- in parallel with the coefficient field bµ for Lorentz vio- tivistic quantum-mechanical hamiltonian can be limited lation according to Eq. (9). Existing experimental con- to terms at perturbative orders O(0,1), O(1,0), O(1,1), straints on minimal torsion components are tight, lying and O(0,2), except for terms involving derivatives of the −27 −31 below 10 -10 GeV [17, 34, 35], so effects involving gravitational fields, which can be limited to O(0,1). minimal torsion can be treated in the same way as those corresponding to a presently unobserved force field. We can therefore limit attention to O(1,1) effects as before. III. QUANTUM THEORY In principle, any nonminimal torsion components can be treated in a similar fashion because they play a role analogous to coefficient fields in the nonminimal SME, but This section studies the quantum mechanics associated effects of this type lie beyond our present scope. with the fermion action Sψ in Eq. (3). We begin in Sec. III A by addressing the issue of the unconventional time Consider next the metric fluctuation hµν . For appli- dependence arising from the Dirac equation derived from cations to gravitational tests with matter, hµν can be treated as a background field obtained by solving the Sψ. The relativistic quantum-mechanical hamiltonian H appropriate equation of motion, which is the modified is then obtained in Sec. III B, and the relevant parts of Einstein equation in the presence of Lorentz violation. It the nonrelativistic limit HNR are extracted in Sec. IIIC. can therefore be viewed as the sum of a Lorentz-invariant (0,1) piece hµν with a series of corrections of increasing per- A. Time dependence turbative order in tλµν...,

(0,1) (1,1) (2,1) hµν = hµν + hµν + hµν + .... (26) In the weak-ﬁeld limit, the Lagrange density ψ for the action (3) takes the schematic form L When we specify the perturbative order of an expression µ µ µ µ containing hµν in what follows, it is understood that the 1 = 2 i[ψ(γ +C )∂µψ (∂µψ)(γ +C )ψ] ψDψ, (27) correct terms from the above series are included. L − − For a given expression, establishing the relevant per- where Cµ and D represent spacetime-dependent opera- turbative order for our analysis typically involves a com- tors without derivatives acting on ψ. These operators bination of experimental restrictions and theoretical con- satisfy the conditions siderations. As an illustration, we outline here the reasoning establishing the appropriate perturbative orders (γ0Cµ)† = γ0Cµ, (γ0D)† = γ0D, (28) in the construction of the relativistic quantum hamilto- µ nian. First, note that terms quadratic in hµν involve and C is perturbative. PNO(4) and higher. Since the sensitivity of current lab- The Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from Eq. (27) oratory and solar-system tests lies at the PNO(4) level, yield a Dirac equation with unconventional time depen- we must keep these terms but can discard terms cu- dence, bic in hµν and ones involving the product of coeﬃcients 0 0 j j 1 µ for Lorentz violation with terms quadratic in hµν . The i(γ + C )∂ ψ = [ i(γ + C )∂j i∂µC + D]ψ. (29) 0 − − 2 8

This equation differs from the standard Dirac form by 2. Parker method the presence of C0, which impedes the interpretation of the operator acting on ψ on the right-hand side as the Another method has been presented by Parker [39] in hamiltonian. In this subsection, two approaches address- the context of field theory in curved spacetime. It in- µ ing this issue at first order in C are discussed. volves multiplying the Dirac equation by a suitable factor that removes the unconventional time dependence to the desired order in Cµ. The resulting hamiltonian is 1. Field-redefinition method hermitian with respect to a modified scalar product. Applying this method at first order in Cµ requires left- One method for constructing the hamiltonian has been multiplying both sides of Eq. (29) with γ0(1 C0γ0). The developed in the context of the SME in Minkowski space- ensuing hamiltonian can be written as − time [36–38]. It uses an appropriate field redefinition ˆ (0) (1) at the level of the action to ensure the Dirac equation Hψ = H + Hψ , (36) emerges with conventional time dependence. In typical applications, the field redefinition is defined perturba- where H(0) is given in Eq. (32) and the first-order cor- tively at the desired order in Cµ. rection in Cµ is For present purposes, it suffices to work at first order (1) 0 j 0 0 0 j 1 0 µ 0 0 0 in Cµ. The appropriate field redefinition is H = iγ C ∂j +iγ C γ γ ∂j iγ ∂µC γ C γ D. ψ − − 2 − (37) ψ = Aχ, A 1 1 γ0C0. (30) ≡ − 2 The subscript ψ indicates an operator acting on the orig- The resulting hamiltonian can be written as inal spinor ψ. (0) (1) In this method, the modified Dirac equation implies a Hχ = H + H , (31) χ modified continuity equation and hence requires a mod- where H(0) is the hamiltonian in the absence of Cµ, given ified scalar product. At first order in Cµ, the continuity by equation is (0) 0 j 0 H = iγ γ ∂j + γ D. (32) † 0 0 † 0 j j − ∂0[ψ (1 + γ C )ψ]+ ∂j [ψ γ (γ + C )ψ]=0, (38) (1) µ The correction Hχ is first order in C and takes the and the probability density can be identified as the com- form bination ψ†(1 + γ0C0)ψ. The corresponding scalar prod- (1) 0 j 1 0 0 j 1 0 j 0 H = iγ (C C γ γ + γ γ C )∂j uct is χ − − 2 2 1 j 0 0 j 2 i(γ ∂j C + γ ∂j C ) 3 † 0 0 − ψ1, ψ2 P = d x ψ1(1 + γ C )ψ2. (39) 1 γ0(C0γ0D + Dγ0C0). (33) h i − 2 Z The subscript χ serves as a reminder that the operator (1) ˆ Provided Hψ is time independent, the hamiltonian Hψ acts on the spinor χ. Note that the hamiltonian Hχ is is hermitian with respect to this modified scalar prod- hermitian with respect to the usual scalar product in flat uct and so quantum-mechanical calculations can proceed. space, When C0 is time dependent, hermiticity with respect to the product (39) can be restored by adding an extra term χ ,χ = d3x χ†χ . (34) h 1 2if 1 2 [40]. We thereby obtain the hermitian hamiltonian Z This implies, for example, that energies can be calculated 1 0 0 Hψ = iγ ∂0C + Hˆψ (40) in the usual way. 2 Some physical insight into the field-redefinition method at first order in C0. is obtained by noting that the combination γµ +Cµ takes the generic form µ µ µ a 3. Comparison γ + C = E aγ , (35) µ where E a can be interpreted as an effective inverse vier- µ The hamiltonians Hχ in Eq. (31) and Hψ in Eq. (40) bein. It reduces to the conventional inverse vierbein e a typically have different forms. For our present purposes, in the purely gravitational case but includes coefficients however, they are physically equivalent because they give for Lorentz violation when Lorentz symmetry is broken. rise to the same eigenenergies at first order. This suggests that the field-redefinition method can be To demonstrate this, first note that the difference ∆H interpreted as transforming the problematic situation of between the two hamiltonians can be written as a fermion on an effective manifold with vierbein com- 0 (1) (1) (0) (0) ponents E a into the physically equivalent but tractable ∆H = Hχ Hψ = H A AH , (41) theory of a different fermion field on a manifold with vier- − − 0 0 bein components E a = δ a, in which the hamiltonian is where A is given by Eq. (30). This can be shown by ma- hermitian with respect to a conventional scalar product. nipulation of the field redefinition and the Dirac equation 9 or verified by direct calculation. The physical quantities The first-order correction to the conventional hamilto- of interest are the eigenenergies. These are obtained as nian H(0,0) arising from Lorentz violation can be written (1) perturbations E to the unperturbed values E(0), cal- (1,0) j j 0 χ,ψ H = a0 me0 +2ic(j0)∂ (mc00 iej ∂ )γ culable at first order as − − − j 0 k 0 j f j ∂ γ γ + [aj + i(c ηjk + cjk)∂ ]γ γ − 5 00 (1) (0) (1) (0) j k j E = ψ ,H ψ f , (42) +( b 2id ∂ )γ + (iH j +2g ∂ )γ ψ,χ h ψ,χ i − 0 − (j0) 5 0 j(k0) k 1 kl0 0 j [bj + i(djk∂ + d00∂j ) mg ǫjkl]γ5γ γ (0) − − 2 where ψ are solutions to the unperturbed Schrödinger 1 kl j ( H ǫjkl + mdj )γ γ equation H(0)ψ(0) = E(0)ψ(0). However, the expectation − 2 0 5 l00 km 1 lmk j value of ∆H is zero in this scalar product, so the first- iǫjlm(g η + g )∂kγ γ . (46) − 2 5 order perturbations to the energies are identical for both This result matches the one previously obtained for the hamiltonians. SME in Minkowski spacetime [37] when the change in The above first-order result suffices for the present metric signature is incorporated. When minimal torsion work, although we anticipate equivalence also holds at is included in the analysis, its background value enters higher orders in a complete analysis. For our purposes, Eq. (46) through the replacement bµ (beff )µ specified the field-redefinition method proves technically and con- by Eq. (9). It can be constrained through→ a reinterpreta- ceptually easier because the hamiltonian is hermitian tion of experiments searching for nonzero bµ [17, 34, 35]. with respect to the usual scalar product. We therefore An interesting issue is the extent to which the gravita- adopt the field-redefinition method in the remainder of tional and inertial effects in Eq. (45) mimic the Lorentz- this work, and all references to H implicitly refer to Hχ. violating effects in Eq. (46). For example, in a rotat- j 0k 0 l ing frame of reference the term ∂ h ǫjklγ5γ γ /4 in Eq. (45) contains a coupling of the rotation to the spin of B. Relativistic hamiltonian the particle with the same operator structure as the 0 j term bj γ5γ γ in Eq. (46). At this order, a frame rotation− can therefore mimic potential signals arising The relativistic hamiltonian for the action Sψ in Eq. from a nonzero coefficient bj for Lorentz and CPT vi- (3) can be obtained via the field-redefinition method. At olation. This effect has been observed in tests with a the appropriate perturbative order, we find the operator spin-polarized torsion pendulum [41]. The same term in A of Eq. (30) takes the form Eq. (45) also contains gravitomagnetic effects that are in principle observable in tests searching for bµ if sufficient 1 0 0 a 0 3 (0,1) (0,1) 0 A = 1 2 γ ee aΓ γ 4 e e γ sensitivity is reached. Certain Lorentz-violating effects − − − can be separated from gravitational and inertial effects h 3 (0,1) µ 3 µ 0 ν e h µγ h µh ν γ γ γ − 4 0 − 16 0 0 because the former generate time-varying signals due to 3 (0,1) 0 3 0 0 µ µ 0 0 the motion of the Earth and can have flavor dependence, e Γ h µ Γ γ γ + γ γ Γ . − 2 − 8 0 but a complete separation may be problematic. (43) i The O(1,1) contribution to H can be separated as

(1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) Implementing the field redefinition and varying the trans- H = Hh + Ha + Hb + Hc + Hd formed Lagrange density results in a Dirac equation from (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) +He + Hf + Hg + HH . (47) which the hamiltonian H can be identified. (1,1) The hamiltonian H can be split into pieces according Here, the term Hh arises from Lorentz-violating cor- to perturbative order, rections to the metric fluctuation hµν . It is given by H(1,1) = ih(1,1)∂j 1 mh(1,1)γ0 H = H(0,0) + H(0,1) + H(1,0) + H(1,1) + H(0,2). (44) h j0 − 2 00 1 (1,1) (1,1) 0 k j + 2 i(hjk + h00 ηjk)γ γ ∂ . (48) (0,0) The component H is the conventional hamiltonian (1,1) for the Lorentz-invariant Minkowski-spacetime limit of The other terms in H are labeled according to the the theory. The first-order Lorentz-invariant piece is type of coefficient for Lorentz violation involved. The contributions involving the four-component coefficients (0,1) 1 0 k j j 1 0 aµ and bµ of mass dimension one are H = i(hjk + h ηjk)γ γ ∂ + ihj ∂ mh γ 2 00 0 − 2 00 1 j 0k 0 l 1 j (1,1) j 1 1 k 0 j + ∂ h ǫ γ γ γ + i∂ h Ha = a0 a hj0 + aj 2 aj h00 2 a hjk γ γ 4 jkl 5 2 j0 7 − 7 − − 1 k 0 j (49) + 4 i(∂j h00 + ∂ hjk)γ γ . (45) and e e It represents the first-order correction to the conventional (1,1) j H = b7 + b hj γ hamiltonian H(0,0) arising from gravitational and inertial b − 0 0 5 1 1 k 0 j effects. + b7 j bj h00 b hjk γ γ5γ , (50) e− 2 − 2 e 10 respectively. In the latter equation, effects from minimal O(1,1). For most purposes, it is necessary to find expres- torsion are included via the replacement bµ (beff )µ sions for these fluctuations prior to using the hamiltonian given in Eq. (9). → H in a given analysis. This issue is addressed further in The contributions involving the dimensionless coeffi- Sec. IV C, where the spin-independent coefficient fluctu- cients cµν and dµν are ations (a7 eff )µ and c7 µν are considered in more detail. The remaining piece of the hamiltonian H lies at per- (1,1) 1 H = i c ηjk + ckj + c (h ηjk hjk) turbative order O(0,2) and represents the second-order c 7 00 7 2 00 00 − e e l0 1 1 Lorentz-invariant contribution from gravitational and in- +2c h ηjk + ck hj cj hk (l0) 4 0 0 − 4 0 0 ertial effects. It takes the form e 1 e l l l 0 k j clj h η + h cklh γ γ ∂ 2 00 k k j (0,2) 1 1 l0 1 − − H = i h h ηjk + hl h ηjk h hjk (j0) jk jk 8 00 00 2 0 − 4 00 2i c7 + c(k0)h +c hk0 ∂j 3 l 0 k j jk − hjlh γ γ ∂ ihk h ∂j 1 j0 0 − 8 k − 0 mc7 00 + 2 c00h00 +2c(j0)h γ (51) 1 1 j0 0 − m h h + hj h γ . (57) e − 8 00 00 2 0 and e (1,1) (j0) jk (jk) C. Nonrelativistic hamiltonian Hd = 2i d7 + d(k0)h + d hk0 γ5∂j 1 k0 0 j +i d7 00 + d00h00 +2d k h γ γ5γ ∂j e 2 ( 0) Most experimental tests of interest in this work 1 1 1 +id7 kj + dk0hj0 dj0hk0 d00hjk are nonrelativistic. In this section, we use a Foldy- e 4 − 4 − 2 1 l l l 0 k j Wouthuysen transformation [42] to extract from the rel- dlj h00η k + h k dklh j γ γ5γ ∂ e− 2 − ativistic hamiltonian H the parts of the nonrelativistic j0 1 j0 j0 k +m d7 ηjk d hjk dkj h γ γ hamiltonian HNR relevant for the subsequent analyses. − 2 − 5 1 j0 k0 l The Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation is a system- im d h ǫjklγ , (52) − 4 e atic procedure for determining the nonrelativistic content respectively. The dimensionless four-component coeffi- of certain relativistic quantum-mechanical hamiltonians. For a massive four-component Dirac fermion, the trans- cients eµ and fµ generate the expressions formation generates a series expansion in powers of the (1,1) 1 1 k 0 j fermion momentum. In the present case, the transfor- H = i ej + e0hj0 ej h00 e hjk γ ∂ e 7 4 − 2 − mation can be implemented as usual, but care must be j 1 0 j me + me hj + me hj γ γ (53) − 7 0 0 4 0 0 taken to keep track of both the order in momentum and e the perturbative order O(m,n) in coefficients for Lorentz and e violation and in gravitational fluctuations. (1,1) 1 1 k 0 j Performing the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation for H = f7 j + f hj f j h f hjk γ γ ∂ , f − 4 0 0 − 2 00 − 5 the complete hamiltonian H of Eq. (44) is cumbersome (54) and also unnecessary for our scope because most attained e sensitivities to spin couplings are unlikely to be improved while the dimensionless coefficient gλµν leads to by studying the suppressed effects from gravitational cou-

(1,1) 1 l0 l l plings. However, only limited sensitivity currently exists H = 2g gl h ηjk g h 2g h g 7 k(j0) − 4 00 − l(j0) k − k(l0) j to spin-independent effects controlled by the coefficients l0 k j +2gk(jl)h γ ∂ aµ and eµ because these are unobservable for baryons and e charged leptons in Minkowski spacetime. In the remain- +i gl00ηjk 1 gklj 1 gk00 h ηjl hjl 7 − 2 7 − 2 00 − der of this work we focus on general spin-independent ef- 1 ln jk 1 jk0 l0 gn h η g h fects, which are associated with the coefficients a , c , − 2 00 − 4 µ µν e l(n0) e jk 1 kl0 j0 1 klj and eµ. Since the minimal torsion coupling also involves +2g hn η g h + g h 0 − 8 4 00 spin, this focus implies also disregarding nonrelativistic 1 kln j 1 knj l m + g h g h ǫklmγ5γ ∂j effects due to torsion, effectively restricting attention to 2 n − 2 n 1 jk0 km0 j jkm 0 l the limiting Riemann geometry. Although beyond our m g + g h + g hm0 ǫjklγ γ5γ − 2 7 m current scope, a Foldy-Wouthuysen analysis incorporat- 1 k0 0 j 1 jk0 l0 + 2 migjk0h γ γ + 8 mg h ǫjkl γ5. (55) ing spin-dependent effects could lead to additional tor- e sion sensitivities beyond those obtained via searches for Finally, the antisymmetric coefficient Hµν of mass dimen- bµ [3, 17, 34, 43]. sion one contributes In the relativistic quantum theory, the upper two com- (1,1) 1 jk jm k 1 jk l ponents of the four-component wave function describe H = H7 H h H h ǫjklγ γ H − 2 − m − 2 00 5 the particle while the lower two describe the antiparti- 1 k0 k0 j cle. The hamiltonian H can be separated into an odd i H7 j0 + 2 H hjk + Hjkh γ. (56) − e part containing terms that mix the upper and lower O In the above expressions,e the fluctuations of the various components and an even part that involves no mix- coefficient fields appear in H only at perturbative order ing. The idea of the Foldy-WouthuysenE method is to 11

find a momentum-dependent unitary transformation S The corrections of primary interest for our purposes lie in the Hilbert space such that the 4 4 hamiltonian at perturbative order O(1,1). The contribution from aµ iS −iS × H = e He is 2 2 block diagonal. The leading and eµ can be written in terms of the effective coefficient × 2 2 block of H then represents the desired nonrela- (aeff )µ introduced in Eq. (16), and it takes the form tivistice× hamiltonian H . The full transformation S is NR (1,1) 0k 1 j k H = (a ) + (a )kh (a ) hjkp obtained at the desirede level of accuracy via an iterated NR,aeff 7 eff 0 eff − m eff series of incremental transformations reducing the off- 1 1 j diagonal content to the appropriate order. + (aeff )j (aeff )j h00 p . (63) em 7 − 2 We proceed by separating the hamiltonian H into an (m,n) (m,n) The O(1,1) contribution from c can be written odd part and an even part at each per- e µν O0 E0 turbative order O(m,n). A subscript is used to specify (1,1) 1 0k HNR,c = m c7 00 + 2 c00h00 +2c(k0)h the iteration number of the transformation, with 0 corre- − 0k k j sponding to the zeroth iteration. The relativistic hamil- 2 c7 (j0) + c(jk)h c(0k)hj p tonian H can therefore be written as − e − 1 1 1 0l (0,0) (0,1) (1,0) (1,1) e2 c7 00ηjk + c7 jk + 4 c00h00ηjk + c(l0)h ηjk H H = mγ0 + + + + −m 0 ≡ O0 O0 O0 O0 (0,0) (0,1) (1,0) (1,1) 1 1 l j k + + + + . (58) e 2 cjkh00e 2 c00hjk 2c(jl)h k p p , E0 E0 E0 E0 − − − The Foldy-Wouthuysen sequence is then defined itera- (64) tively as while the O(1,1) contribution from Lorentz-violating ef- iS −iS fects on the metric fluctuation is Hn+1 = e Hne ∞ (1,1) 1 (1,1) (1,1) k 1 (1,1) 2 1 HNR,h = 2 mh00 h0k p h00 p = [iSn, [iSn, [iSn, H ] ]], (59) − − − 4m k! ··· 0 ··· k=0 1 (1,1) j k k commutations with iSn h p p . (65) X −2m jk where | {z } The remaining contribution to HNR is the O(0,2) con- 0 tribution involving quadratic products of hµν . This can iγ n S = − O . (60) be written as n 2m (0,2) 1 0j 1 jk H = m h j h + h h + h j h pk At each stage, the sum on k is truncated once the ap- NR − 2 0 4 00 00 0 1 propriate order in momentum and small quantities is 1 1 0l 16 h00h00ηjk + 4 h0lh ηjk reached. The iteration continues until the hamiltonian −m is even at the desired order. Here, we proceed to O(1,1) 1 1 l j k h00hjk hjlh k p p . (66) in the small quantities and to second order in the momen- − 4 − 2 tum, which requires three iterations and yields a hamiltonian H3. IV. CLASSICAL THEORY The desired spin-independent contributions to the nonrelativistic hamiltonian HNR can be separated according to perturbative order and origin as For many analyses of Lorentz violation in matter- gravity couplings, a classical description suffices. This HNR H3 section considers the classical limit of the quantum the- ≡ (0,0) (0,1) (1,0) ory discussed above, focusing on the limit involving the = HNR + HNR + HNR coefficient fields (aeff )µ and cµν . A suitable classical rela- (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (0,2) +HNR,aeff + HNR,c + HNR,h + HNR . (61) tivistic action for a point particle is presented, and its application to modeling test and source bodies is described. (0,0) The modified Einstein equation and the equation for the Here, HNR is the conventional Minkowski-spacetime hamiltonian. The conventional Lorentz-invariant contri- trajectory of a test body are obtained. We also discuss (0,1) the treatment of the coefficient fluctuations (a ) , c butions HNR due to the metric fluctuation can be writ- 7 eff µ 7 µν ten as and the procedure for determining the background gravitational field in the presence of Lorentz violation. 1 e e H(0,1) = 1 mh(0,1) h(0,1)pk h(0,1)p2 NR − 2 00 − 0k − 4m 00 1 h(0,1)pj pk. (62) A. Particle action −2m jk (1,0) The classical action S corresponding to the action S The leading-order perturbation H due to Lorentz c NR of Eq. (1) can be written as violation and independent of hµν is identical to the ′ Minkowski-spacetime result given as Eq. (4) of Ref. [37]. Sc = SG + Su + S . (67) 12

As before, SG describes the gravitational dynamics, while sion. This follows from the adoption of (aeff )µ with lower S′ contains the dynamics associated with the coefficient index as the coefficient field, which implies that the con- µ fields for Lorentz violation. The partial action Su is the traction (aeff )µu in Eq. (68) contains no metric. Work- µ classical relativistic point-particle limit of the action Sψ ing with (aeff ) instead is possible but less convenient. µν for the fermion sector. In this subsection, we discuss Su It would produce a contribution to Tu along with cor- and extend it to describe test and source bodies. responding changes in the contributions to the energy- momentum tensor T ′µν associated with S′, leading to the same physical results. 1. Point particle

At leading order in Lorentz violation, we ﬁnd 2. Test and source bodies

µ ν µ Su = dλ m (gµν +2cµν )u u (aeff )µu . The experiments and observations considered in this − − − work involve bodies B acting as test bodies T or as Z q (68) sources S. Many of these bodies consist of atoms or In this expression, the particle path xµ = xµ(λ) is µ µ macroscopic matter rather than individual particles. It is parametrized by λ, and u = dx /dλ is the four-velocity therefore useful to extend the point-particle action (68) of the particle. As usual, a gauge choice for λ is required B to an action Su for a body B. This requires consideration to fix the path-reparametrization invariance and to de- of several issues. fine the proper time of the particle on shell. We adopt One issue arises because the interactions involved in here the conventional proper-time interval binding electrons, protons, and neutrons into atoms µ ν and macroscopic matter contribute additional Lorentz- dτ = gµν dx dx . (69) − violating effects. This issue appears also in the study The leading-order formp (68) of the classical action can of fermion-sector SME coefficients in the Minkowski- be deduced in several ways. At the intuitive level, the spacetime limit [45]. However, for the gravitational tests term involving (aeff )µ has the same structure as the usual of interest here, it is reasonable to assume that these in- coupling of a classical relativistic particle to an electro- teraction effects are small compared to the propagation magnetic 4-potential, and this is consistent with the cou- effects. pling of aµ in the field-theory action (3). Similarly, the Another issue arises from the spacetime dependence coefficient cµν enters Eq. (68) as a shift in the metric, of the coefficient fields (aeff )µ and cµν , which implies which is compatible with the way it appears in the field Lorentz-violating effects may vary over the region filled theory (3). In a different vein, the contributions from cµν by the body. Most of the test bodies we consider are to the relativistic particle action have previously been small, so it is reasonable to approximate the coefficient discussed in the context of the photon sector [22], where fields as constant across the extent of the body. This the appearance of cµν as a metric shift is related to the corresponds to the usual approximation of constant met- coordinate choices discussed in Sec. II C 2. The valid- ric fluctuation hµν across a test body. However, some of ity of the action (68) can also be verified by extracting the source bodies we consider are comparatively large, so the leading-order terms from the all-orders expression ob- some variation of the coefficient fields over the source is tained by construction of the exact relativistic dispersion plausible. This could produce Lorentz-violating effects of relation [44]. In the present context, we can demonstrate various types, including possible dependence on the mass explicitly that the action (68) reproduces the correspond- moments of the body. In what follows, we suppose that ing terms in the nonrelativistic hamiltonian HNR gener- the variation of the coefficient fields is sufficiently mild ated from the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation as Eq. and smooth that these effects can be neglected for the (61). This involves expanding the action (68) to the bodies we consider. A more comprehensive treatment of appropriate orders in velocities and Lorentz violation, this issue would be of potential interest but lies outside extracting the conjugate 3-momentum, constructing the our present scope. corresponding hamiltonian, and matching it to HNR in With the above assumptions and for most purposes in Eq. (61). These methods all confirm that Eq. (68) is this work, a given body B can be modeled as a composite the correct leading-order form of the relativistic classical particle with constituents located at a single spacetime action. point and having the same 4-velocity, held together by µν The energy-momentum tensor Tu for the point parti- binding energy. The body B can then be assigned an cle can be derived from the action (68) by variation with effective mass mB, expressed in terms of its constituent respect to the metric, as usual. We obtain particles as µ ν 4 ′ mu u δ (x x (τ)) B w w ′B T µν = dτ − , (70) m = N m + m . (71) u α β − √g 1 2cαβu u w Z − X where the proper-time intervalp is given by Eq. (69). Note Here, w ranges over the particle species forming the body that no contributions from (aeff )µ appear in this expres- B. For example, w can be taken to include the electron e, 13

′B the proton p, and the neutron n whenever B is an atom or so the resulting size of (c )µν may well be of the same w w made of ordinary macroscopic matter. The symbol N order as (c )µν and cannot be neglected. denotes the number of particles of type w in the body, Given the above discussion, we conclude that the and m′B represents the contribution to the mass from the leading-order approximation to the classical action SB binding energy. In practice, the exact values of N w are u for a body B can be written in the simple form readily obtained for test bodies on the atomic or molec- ular scale, while estimating N w for macroscopic test and source bodies in the laboratory is straightforward. When B B B µ ν considering the Earth as the source body, we adopt the Su dλ m (gµν + 2(c )µν )u u p ≈ − − estimates N e = N N n =1.8 1051 based on recent Z q ⊕ ⊕ ≈ ⊕ × B µ studies of the bulk Earth composition [46]. The differ- (aeff )µu , (76) n p 49 − ence N⊕ N⊕ 10 is primarily due to the iron core. The radial− variation≃ in neutron content is neglected in B B B what follows, although it might be of interest in more where m , (aeff )µ, and (c )µν are given by Eqs. (71), detailed studies. (73), and (74), respectively. In this expression, uµ is Similarly, the Lorentz-violating properties of B can the 4-velocity of the body B, which follows a world line B be represented via effective coefficient fields (aeff )µ and parametrized by λ. This form is convenient for calcula- B (c )µν for the body. These can be viewed as the sum of tional purposes. Note, however, that the derivation es- vacuum values and coefficient fluctuations, tablishes validity of this form of the action only at leading B order in (c )µν . B B B B B B (aeff )µ = (aeff )µ + (a7 eff )µ, (c )µν = (c )µν + (c7 )µν , (72) The model action (76) for a body B suffices for most in parallel with the point-particle case. The form of the situations of interest in this work. In a few cases where e B e the body acts as a gravitational source S, it is also useful action (68) implies that the coefficient field (aeff )µ takes the form to incorporate dominant effects arising from its rotation. For this purpose, we treat S as rigid at leading order and B w w ′B assume that the distribution of electrons, protons, and (aeff )µ = N (aeff )µ + (aeff )µ, (73) w neutrons is approximately uniform throughout it. For the X bodies we consider, this assumption is good to within an ′B where (aeff )µ is a possible coefficient field associated with order of magnitude. The density ρ of S can be taken as B the binding energy that contributes to (aeff )µ. Also, ex- the mass per unit volume and approximated as uniform. panding the action Su for small Lorentz violation shows For large source bodies such as the Earth, some results B that at leading order the body coefficient field (c )µν can could in principle also depend on spherical moments of be taken as inertia [7], but these effects are neglected here. The angular velocity ~ω of rotation is defined in the frame at rest 1 relative to S with origin at the center of mass, which can (cB) = N wmw(cw) + m′B(c′B) , (74) µν mB µν µν be identified with the location of S. w ! X ′B where (c )µν is associated with the binding energy. ′B ′B The two contributions (aeff )µ and (c )µν describe Lorentz violation arising from the particles associated with the forces binding together the body B. These par- B. Equations of motion ticles are primarily gravitons, gluons, or photons and are associated with boson fields, for which the CPT-violating terms are expected to be small or zero. In the mini- The primary experimental observables arising from the mal SME, no such terms exist for gravitons, while for classical theory involve the relative motion of particles. photons and gluons they can reasonably be assumed to To investigate the motion of a test particle in the pres- µ vanish [3]. Also, the relevant photon coefficient (kAF ) ence of gravitational sources, the modified Einstein equa- is constrained well below levels relevant for this work [2]. tion must be solved for the background metric and the Possible CPT-violating contributions from other sea par- equation for the particle trajectory must be found. In ticles largely cancel due to particle-antiparticle pairings this subsection, we derive the equations of motion from or are suppressed in loops involving weak interactions. the action (67) in terms of the metric fluctuation hµν B B ′B and the coefficient fluctuations (a )µ, (c )µν . The issue We therefore approximate the contributions from (aeff )µ 7 eff 7 as negligible, of expressing these fluctuations in terms of the vacuum B B values (aeff )µ, (c )µν for a givene distributione of matter ′B (aeff )µ 0, (75) is addressed in the following subsection, Sec. IV C. We ≃ conclude the present subsection with comments about in this work. In contrast, all the force fields have CPT- the implications of Lorentz violation for the equivalence ′B even terms that can be expected to contribute to (c )µν , principle. 14

1. Modified Einstein equation written as x¨µ = Γ µ uαuβ Varying the action (67) in Riemann spacetime with re- − (0,1) αβ spect to the metric yields the modified Einstein equation Γ µ uαuβ +2ηµγ (cT) Γ δ uαuβ − (1,1) αβ (γδ) (0,1) αβ α β γ δ µ µ α β µν T T µν µν ′µν +2(c )(αβ)Γ(0,1) γδu u u u + ∂ (c )αβu u G = TG + κTu + κT , (77) 7 µγ T α β T α β γ µ 2η ∂α(c7 )(γβ)u u ∂γ (c7 )(αβ)u u u u where Gµν is the Einstein tensor and the terms on the − − e 1 µ T µβ T α right-hand side form the energy-momentum tensor. The T [∂ (a7 eff )α η ∂α(a7 eff )β]u , (78) µν −m e − e contribution TG arises from Lorentz violation in the µν µ pure-gravity sector. The energy-momentum tensor Tu where each dot onex representse a derivative using the for the matter is given in Eq. (70). The remaining energy- proper-time interval (69). The superscript T denotes momentum contribution T ′µν arises from the dynamics quantities associated with the test particle. The first of the coefficient fields for Lorentz violation and is deter- term on the right-hand side is the usual geodesic contri- ′ µ mined by S . bution, where Γ(0,1) αβ is the linearized Christoffel sym- Taking the covariant divergence of Eq. (77) and us- bol. A Christoffel symbol with subscript (1,1) also ap- ing the Bianchi identities shows that the geometry re- pears in Eq. (78). It is defined as the linearized Christof- quires the total energy-momentum tensor to be locally (1,1) fel symbol with hµν replaced by hµν . This introduces conserved. The theory can be consistent only if this re- matter-sector coefficients associated with the gravita- sult is compatible with the explicit form of the energy- tional source, along with any gravity-sector coefficients momentum tensor. This requires careful accounting of that may be included in the analysis. contributions from the massless NG modes arising from Once the forms of hµν , (a7 eff )µ, and c7 µν are established, the spontaneous Lorentz breaking [3]. In the general case, Eq. (78) can be used to determine to O(1,1) the motion of these modes are contained in the fluctuations t . 7 λµν... a classical test particle in ae curved bute asymptotically flat For the pure-gravity sector, the relevant analysis is spacetime with nonzero coefficients for Lorentz violation given in Refs. [3, 7] and can be subsumede as needed aµ, eµ, and cµν . Obtaining expressions for hµν , (a7 eff )µ, in the present context. For the matter sector, the NG and c7 µν is the subject of Sec. IVC. modes produce no relevant contribution to the energy- Although unnecessary for the present work, we can µν e momentum tensor Tu at the post-newtonian order ap- commente in passing about the effects of nongravitational propriate for the tests considered here. The key point interactions on the particle trajectory. Any such interac- is that the leading Lorentz-violating effects of coefficient tions can be viewed as introducing an additional contri- µ fluctuations t7 λµν... arise at PNO(2) or beyond, as shown bution α to the right-hand side of Eq. (78). Using the in Sec. II D. Since these fluctuations are accompanied perturbation scheme of Sec. II D, this additional acceler- µ µ by an additionale factor of GN in the modified Einstein ation α can be expanded as a sum over terms α(m,n), equation (77), they affect the metric only at PNO(4) or one at each perturbative order O(m,n). Notice that, al- beyond. However, for the tests considered below it suf- though the interaction itself is nongravitational, contri- fices to work at PNO(3) for Lorentz-violating terms, so butions to αµ with n = 0 can be induced from grav- B B (m,n) 6 the coefficient fluctuations (a7 eff )µ and (c7 )µν appearing itational couplings in the interaction sector. Similarly, µν µ in Tu can be neglected in Eq. (77). Lorentz-violating contributions to α can originate ′µν (m,n) In contrast, the contributionse to T earising from the from coefficients for Lorentz violation in the interaction dynamics of the coefficient fluctuations t7 λµν... are of po- sector. If we also expandx ¨µ as tential relevance in solving the modified Einstein equa- µ µ µ µ µ tion for the metric. The specific effectse associated with x¨ =x ¨(0,0) +¨x(0,1) +¨x(1,0) +¨x(1,1) + ..., (79) B B the coefficients (a7 eff )µ and (c7 )µν are derived in Sec. IV C. then we obtain the following additional terms for the particle 4-accelerationx ¨µ: e e x¨µ αµ , (0,0) ⊃ (0,0) 2. Particle trajectory x¨µ αµ , (0,1) ⊃ (0,1) x¨µ αµ 2ηµα(cT) αβ The equation of motion for a classical test particle T is (1,0) ⊃ (1,0) − (αβ) (0,0) obtained by varying the action (67) with respect to the T α β µ 2(c )(αβ)α(0,0)u u , particle position 4-vector xµ. In the absence of Lorentz − x¨µ αµ 2ηµα(cT) αβ violation, this is the geodesic equation. However, in the (1,1) ⊃ (1,1) − (αβ) (0,1) presence of Lorentz violation, the trajectories of test par- 2(cT) αα uβuµ +2hµα(cT) αβ ticles T no longer match the geodesics of the spacetime. − (αβ) (0,1) (αβ) (0,0) µα T β Expanding to O(1,1), the equation of motion can be 2η (c )(αβ)α . (80) − 7 (0,0) e 15

The trajectory at O(1,n) is affected both directly by respond directly to local Lorentz violation, and since µ µ α(1,n) and indirectly by combinations of α(0,n) with the Lorentz violation can be position dependent, the devia- coefficients for Lorentz violation. The origin of the indi- tions from geodesic motion described by Eq. (78) can rep- rect terms can be traced to the additional factor of 2cµν resent violations of these broader equivalence principles in the action (68) relative to the conventional proper-time arising in more than one way. Several related philosoph- interval (69). ical issues remain open, including classifying violations of various equivalence principles according to properties of the coefficients for Lorentz violation and identifying 3. Implications for the equivalence principle implications for relations such as the Schiff conjecture [8, 47]. We note also in passing that comments analogous to those above bear on the philosophical issue of The deviations from geodesic motion implied by Eq. whether theories with matter-sector couplings to spon- (78) can be species dependent because the couplings to taneous Lorentz violation constitute metric theories of the coefficient fields (a ) and c can vary with parti- eff µ µν gravity. cle flavor. This leads to apparent violations of the weak equivalence principle (WEP), which stipulates that the motion of uncharged test particles is independent of in- C. Coefficient and metric fluctuations ternal structure or composition [8]. One implication of this observation is that experiments To solve the equation of motion (78) for the trajectory designed to test the WEP are also sensitive to (a )µ and eff of a test particle, explicit expressions for the metric fluc- cµν . Since all the WEP violations implied by Eq. (78) are accompanied by effects associated with the breaking tuation hµν and the coefficient fluctuations (a7 eff )µ, c7 µν of rotation and boost symmetries, the experimental sig- are required. Within a specific model with known action S′ for the coefficient fields, these expressions can be natures associated with (aeff )µ and cµν typically differ e e from those in other scenarios for violations of the WEP. obtained by direct calculation. An illustration of this is The latter portion of this work discusses in some detail provided in Sec. V. However, in the interest of general- the role that experiments testing the WEP can play in ity, it is useful to establish results valid for a large class searches for Lorentz violation. of models. In this subsection, we outline a procedure to The flavor dependence of the coefficient couplings leads obtain expressions for hµν and for the generic coefficient ′ to the philosophical question of whether spontaneous fluctuations t7 λµν... when S is largely unknown, and we Lorentz violation in the matter sector violates the WEP obtain explicit results for hµν , (a7 eff )µ, and c7 µν applicable or merely mimics violations of the WEP. The issue hinges to the equatione of motion (78). These results are used on the interpretation of the term ‘uncharged test parti- in later sections of this work in establishinge e experimental cle.’ In models with spontaneous Lorentz violation in signatures for Lorentz violation. the matter sector, the NG modes couple to test particles and so mediate an interaction. This interaction can be identified with Einstein-Maxwell electrodynamics [14], 1. Methodology GR gravity [27], an effect on torsion [14], or a new force [11, 29, 30]. If the term ‘uncharged’ is taken in the re- Consider first the metric fluctuation hµν . In the per- strictive sense to mean that the test particle is unaffected turbation scheme of Sec. II D, the expansion of hµν takes by standard forces such as electrodynamics, then the tra- the form (26). To determine the test-particle trajectory jectory deviations of ‘uncharged’ test particles caused by at order O(1,1) via Eq. (78), it is necessary to obtain (0,1) (1,1) nonzero (aeff )µ and cµν coefficients represent violations explicit expressions for hµν and hµν . of the WEP. If instead the term ‘uncharged’ indicates (0,1) The Lorentz-invariant contribution hµν can be ob- the test particle cannot have nongravitational couplings tained in the usual way as the leading-order solution of any kind, then no violations of the WEP occur. How- of the Einstein equation, taking the Lorentz-invariant ever, in this latter case ‘uncharged’ test particles may part of the energy-momentum tensor as the source. To be nonexistent in the matter sector of the SME, where PNO(3), the standard solution can be written in har- generically all particles experience nonzero (aeff )µ and monic coordinates as cµν coefficients. We emphasize that the above discussion (0,1) (0,1) j (0,1) jk is a matter of philosophical classification only, without h00 = 2U, h0j = 4V , hjk =2Uδ , (81) impact on the practical issue of using tests of the WEP − to search for Lorentz violation via the deviations from where U and V j are the usual post-newtonian potentials geodesic motion described by Eq. (78). defined as The WEP is subsumed in certain other equivalence ρ(~x′,t) principles, such as the Einstein equivalence principle or 3 ′ U = GN d x ′ , the strong equivalence principle. These incorporate also ~x ~x Z | −′ | j ′ aspects of local Lorentz invariance and local position j 3 ′ ρ(~x ,t)v (~x ,t) V = GN d x . (82) invariance. Since nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ, cµν cor- ~x ~x′ Z | − | 16

In these expressions, the density ρ(~x′,t) and the 3- At PNO(2) and in the absence of Lorentz violation, velocity vj (~x′,t) are properties of the source in the chosen the relevant force between S and T can be directly iden- asymptotic inertial frame. As described in Sec. IV A 2, it tified as mx¨j . At higher order and in the presence of suffices in this work to use the approximation (76) for the Lorentz violation, it is simpler to impose conservation of B source-body action Su , so the energy-momentum tensor the total 4-momentum, dPµ/dt = 0. In principle, Pµ can takes the generic form (70). be found by adding the conjugate momenta of S and T (1,1) The Lorentz-violating component hµν can conve- obtained from the two-body action. In practice, for the niently be viewed as a sum over individual contributions perturbative order to which we work, it suffices to obtain arising from each coefficient field for Lorentz violation, the conjugate momentum for T alone and require antisymmetry of its time derivative under the exchange of S , , (1,1) (1,1) (1 1) (1 1) (1,1) hµν = (ha )µν + (h )µν + ... + (h )µν . (83) b H and T. The constraints fixing the fluctuations t7 λµν... arise This means each coefficient can be treated in turn. How- from the µ = j components of dPµ/dt = 0, all at PNO(3) ever, the procedure for determining a particular contri- except for terms at PNO(4) involving the velocitiese of bution can take different paths depending on the type of both S and T. We remark in passing that extending this gravitational coupling of the coefficient field. treatment to higher perturbative orders requires also in- A simple case arises for any coefficient field tλµν... that corporating back-reaction effects on the metric, including is minimally coupled to gravity. Then, only the vac- gravitational radiation. uum values tλµν... in the expansion (11) contribute to the The above procedure holds for coefficient fields that µν energy-momentum tensor Tu of the source at the rele- are minimally coupled to gravity. If nonminimal curva- (1,1) ′ vant order. The key point is that the solution for hµν ture couplings also occur in S , then additional terms µν at PNO(3) arises from the combination κTu , which it- involving the coefficient fields tλµν... can appear in the self already lies at PNO(2). However, as discussed in energy-momentum tensor and hence can affect the mod- Sec. II D, the coefficient fluctuations of interest here are ified Einstein equation. The curvature couplings inter- (1,1) t7 λµν... and also lie at PNO(2). These fluctuations there- twine the kinetic contributions from hµν and t7 λµν..., so (1,1) (1,1) fore cannot contribute to hµν below PNO(4). As a re- t7 λµν... can contribute to the solution for hµν at PNO(3). e (1,1) To proceed without specifying S′, we thereforee need ad- sult, hµν can be found directly by solving the modified Einstein equation with attention limited to the vacuum editional information about t7 λµν.... values tλµν.... In the present work, the necessary information can We note in passing that this procedure is consistent be extracted from the generale structure of the equation with the no-go result for explicit Lorentz violation in of motion for tλµν... and the symmetries of the theory. gravity [3] even though tλµν... can be interpreted as a When linearized, this equation of motion can be writ- coefficient for explicit breaking. This is because we are ten as the sum of a differential operator acting on t7 λµν... working to O(1,1) and PNO(3), for which Dαtλµν... and a source term at most linear in h . The differential ∼ µν O(ht) O(1,1). As a result, the covariant deriva- operator can involve arbitrary powers of tλµν... bute is in- tive of ∼κT µν is compatible with the Bianchi identities (1,1) u dependent of hµν . The contributions t7 of interest are D Gµν = 0 at this perturbative order. In effect, the λµν... µ at O(1,1) and hence are linear in both t and h . At comparatively low perturbative order implies that a con- λµν... µν (1,1) e stant vacuum value remains consistent with the geometry this order, the solution for t7 λµν... can therefore be writ- of spontaneous Lorentz breaking. It is also noteworthy ten as a sum of terms, each containing up to one power that an independent contribution from T ′µν may exist of hµν along with some numbere n of powers of tλµν... in that satisfies local conservation and hence is compatible the numerator and n 1 powers of tλµν... in the denom- − (1,1) with the Bianchi identities to the relevant perturbative inator. This expansion of t7 λµν... in terms of tλµν... and order. This would also represent a consistent theory, al- hµν is constrained by two requirements. One arises from beit a different one. The two theories involving the co- the restriction of t7 λµν... to NGe modes, which must main- efficient field (aeff )µ with minimal and with nonminimal (1,1) tain the extremum of the action. The solution for t7 λµν... gravitational couplings provide an illustration of this, as e is discussed in the next subsection. must therefore obey the NG conditions at O(1,1). The (1,1) e In the simple case with minimal coupling, once hµν second is the requirement that t7 λµν... must transform as has been found, it remains only to determine the direct expected under diffeomorphisms, as a consequence of the contributions to the equation of motion (78) arising from spontaneous nature of the symmetrye breaking and the re- (1,1) quirement of observer general coordinate invariance [48]. the fluctuations t . For this purpose, we can apply 7 λµν... It turns out that these two restrictions suffice to express the requirement that the system of the source S and the (1,1) t7 in terms of tλµν... and hµν in the cases of interest test body T conservese the total 4-momentum Pµ. For a λµν... two-body system, this implies the force law must be an- here. e (1,1) tisymmetric upon exchange of S and T. Otherwise, the Once the expression for t7 λµν... has been found, hµν can forces on each body due to the other would violate New- be obtained by combining information from the modi- ton’s third law, and the system would self-accelerate. fied Einstein equation ande the trajectory equation. The 17 modified Einstein equation yields directly the piece of showing that the NG modes associated with c7 µν play no hµν arising from tλµν... in the energy-momentum tensor. role at this perturbative order. (1,1) The results (84) and (85) complete the determination Inserting this result and the expression for t7 λµν... in the e trajectory equation and imposing conservation of the to- of the trajectory equation for the coefficient field cµν . j tal 4-momentum of the source and test body as before For a given source S, the potentials U and V can be e S T (1,1) calculated explicitly. The effects of (c )µν and (c )µν determines the missing piece of hµν arising from t7 λµν.... In both minimal and nonminimal cases, the net re- on the trajectory of the test body T can therefore be sult of the above procedure is a form of the trajectory investigated in various regimes of experimental interest. e This line of reasoning is pursued beginning in Sec. VI. equation in which hµν and t7 λµν... can be replaced with specified gravitational potentials and the vacuum values tλµν.... The solution of the trajectory equation can then e 3. Fluctuations and (aeff ) proceed. In the next two subsections, we apply these µ methods to obtain the relevant contributions to the fluc- For the coefficient field (aeff )µ, the case of minimal cou- tuations from the coefficient fields (aeff )µ and cµν . pling to gravity is of lesser interest. The modified Ein- stein equation is unaffected because (aeff )µ is absent from 2. Fluctuations and cµν the energy-momentum tensor (70). Also, only (a7 eff )µ enters the trajectory equation. Since it is indistinguishable from an electromagnetic field, it provides no relevant con- The treatment of the coefficient field cµν provides an e example involving the comparatively simple case of min- tributions at O(1,1). We therefore expand the treatment imal coupling to gravity. Although nonminimal curva- to the case of nonminimal curvature couplings, for which (aeff )µ becomes measurable [11]. In effect, the fluctua- ture couplings to cµν could be considered, these are of lesser interest in the context of searches for Lorentz vi- tions (a7 eff )µ become observable by virtue of their nonminimal gravitational couplings. olation because direct signals from cµν already appear Followinge the procedure of Sec. IV C 1, the first step for minimal coupling. We therefore neglect nonminimal (1,1) couplings to cµν here. In this subsection, the relevant is to obtain an expression for the fluctuations (a7 eff )µ (1,1) originating from the source S using the NG condition contributions to the metric fluctuation (h ) are ob- c µν and the requirement of diffeomorphism covariance. At tained to third post-newtonian order, and effects from e O(1,1), the NG condition can be written as c7 µν at O(1,1) are considered. Following the procedure outlined in the previous sub- (1,1) B µ 1 B µν B (a7 eff )µ (aeff ) = 2 (aeff )µh (aeff )ν . (86) esection, we begin with the modified Einstein equation (77). The relevant energy-momentum tensor for the (1,1) source S is given by the expression (70) expanded to lead- We find thate the contributions to (a7 eff )µ consistent with this equation and with diffeomorphism covariance ing order in Lorentz violation and with cµν replaced by S take the form (c )µν . Solving for the metric fluctuation to PNO(3), we e obtain in harmonic gauge (1,1) 1 B ν 1 B ν (a7 eff )µ = 2 αhµν (aeff ) 4 α(aeff )µh ν + ∂µΨ (87) (1,1) S S j − (hc )00 = 2(c )00U + 4(c )(j0)V , (1,1) S j in harmonic coordinates. Here, the constant α is calcu- (h ) j = 4(c ) V , e c 0 − 00 lable but varies with the specifics of the theory, typically (1,1) S jk (hc )jk = 2(c )00Uδ . (84) being determined in terms of the coupling constants that control the nonminimal couplings. The function Ψ con- A consistent expansion to PNO(3) requires only PNO(1) S tains effects proportional to hµν and (a )µ that are un- (1,1) (1,1) eff terms in (hc )0j and none in (hc )jk, but we dis- physical by virtue of the discussion in Sec. II C 1, so it is (1,1) play PNO(3) terms in (hc )0j and PNO(2) terms in disregarded in what follows. (1,1) At this stage, the result (87) can be combined with the (hc ) because they are useful in part of the analysis jk modified Einstein equation and the trajectory equation to follow. (1,1) The next step is to examine the contributions to the to determine the contributions to hµν proportional to (aS ) . Working at PNO(3), we find these contributions equation of motion (78) from c7 µν at O(1,1). The conju- eff µ gate momentum can be extracted from the action (68) can be written in harmonic gauge as with (aeff )µ set to zero. Conservation of the total 4- e (1,1) 2 S S j S j momentum Pµ of the system is ensured by the require- (ha )00 = [2α(aeff )0U + α(aeff )j V α(aeff )j W ], ment that its time derivative be antisymmetric under the m − 1 exchange of the source S and the test body T. We find (h(1,1)) = [α(aS ) U + α(aS ) U jk a 0j m eff j eff k that Pµ is conserved to PNO(3) without contributions S j S j from c . This establishes the PNO(3) result α(aeff )0V α(aeff )0W ], 7 µν − − 2 (1,1) (1,1) S jk S jk ∂ c =0, (85) (ha )jk = [ α(aeff )0Uδ + α(aeff )0U ]. (88) e λ 7 µν m −

e 18

Paralleling the case of the coefficient field cµν , we have action (2), with cosmological constant chosen as Λ = 0 (1,1) kept here PNO(3) terms in (ha ) j and PNO(2) terms for this illustrative case. The term SBu represents the 0 ′ (1,1) matter-bumblebee coupling, while S contains the bum- in (h ) as a convenience for the analysis to follow. B a jk blebee dynamics, including the potential V triggering In Eq. (88), U and V j are the post-newtonian potentials spontaneous Lorentz violation. defined in Eq. (82). Additional potentials U jk and W j For the classical lagrangian describing the matter- also appear, defined by Bu bumblebee coupling, we chooseL the expression ′ ′ j ′ k jk 3 ′ ρ(~x ,t)(~x ~x ) (~x ~x ) U = GN d x − − , µ ν µ ~x ~x′ 3 Bu = m (gµν +2ζ2BµBν )u u + ζ1Bµu . Z L − − ′ | −′ | ′ j ′ k ρ(~x ,t)vk(~x ,t)(~x ~x ) (~x ~x ) q (91) W j = G d3x′ − − . N ~x ~x′ 3 Z | − | Here, ζ and ζ are coupling constants that can vary with (89) 1 2 the particle species. Where needed in what follows, we The results (87) and (88) fix the form of the contribu- distinguish the coupling constants for a source body S and a test particle T by superscripts: ζS, ζT, ζS, ζT. tions involving the coefficient field (aeff )µ to the equation 1 1 2 2 of motion (78). Modifications of the trajectory of a test Note that the lagrangian (91) could be viewed as the body T arising from nonzero values of the coefficients point-particle limit of a quantum field theory, in parallel S T with the derivation for the general theory (68). (a )µ and (a )µ can therefore be studied at third post- eff eff For the Lagrange density e ′ determining the dynam- newtonian order. The resulting experimental signals are LB discussed starting in Sec. VI. ics of the bumblebee field, we take ′ 1 µν µ ν e = eB Bµν eV + σ eB B Rµν , (92) LB − 4 − 1 V. EXAMPLE: BUMBLEBEE MODEL where the field strength is Bµν = ∂µBν ∂ν Bµ. The − coupling constant σ1 is sometimes written σ1 = ξ/2κ in In this section, we examine a specific model and the literature [3, 15]. The potential V has the form demonstrate how it fits into the general theory developed µ 2 above. This discussion is included solely for illustrative V = V (B Bµ b ), (93) purposes and is inessential to the development of the pa- ± per. In particular, the analyses of experimental signals where b2 is a real number. Where a definite form is in subsequent sections are independent of this specific needed in the calculations to follow, we adopt for sim- model, so the reader can proceed directly to Sec. VI if plicity the smooth quadratic potential desired. µ 2 2 V = λ(B Bµ b ) /2. (94) ± A. Bumblebee model In any event, the potential is assumed to induce a nonzero vacuum expectation value for the bumblebee field, which Bumblebee models are theories in which spontaneous we denote by bµ Bµ following standard usage, where µ µ 2 ≡ h i Lorentz violation is induced by a potential V (B ) for a b bµ = b . Denoting the bumblebee fluctuation about µ ∓ vector field B [49]. As an illustration of the general the- the vacuum value by B7 µ, we can expand oretical treatment of Sec. IV, we consider here a specific and comparatively simple bumblebee model and study its Beµ = bµ + B7 µ (95) matter-gravity couplings. A discussion of generic models of vacuum-valued vectors coupled to gravity including in parallel with Eq. (11). e references to the substantial early literature can be found A match can be made between the bumblebee action in Sec. III A of Ref. [15], while some more recent papers (90) and the general action (67) by identifying the various are listed in Ref. [50]. Discussions of various stability coefficient fields for Lorentz violation with specific com- issues with these models are given in Ref. [51]. binations of the bumblebee field. The term Bu corre- L The action SB for the specific bumblebee model of in- sponds to nonzero coefficient fields (aeff )µ and cµν , given terest here can be written as by S = S + S + S′ B G Bu B (aeff )µ = ζ1Bµ, 4 4 ′ 1 α = d x e G + dτ Bu + d x e . cµν = ζ2(BµBν 4 gµν BαB ). (96) L L LB − Z Z Z (90) It is also necessary to introduce an additional scalar field k, defined as The form of this action corresponds to that of the general 1 α action (67). The term SG is the usual Einstein-Hilbert k = 2 ζ2BαB , (97) 19 which normally can be disregarded in the SME context and the modified Einstein equation. These results suffice because it is Lorentz invariant. In the presence of k, the to determine the trajectory equation for a test particle in general action (68) is slightly modified, with lagrangian terms of the vacuum value bµ of the bumblebee model. now given by the expression Comparison to the general SME-based approach developed in Sec. IV yields an explicit match for (aeff )µ, cµν , µ ν µ u = m (gµν + kgµν +2cµν )u u + (aeff )µu . k in terms of the couplings ζ1, ζ2, σ1 and the vacuum L − − value b . q (98) µ

′ µν The term B yields nonzero coeﬃcient ﬁelds s and u in the pure-gravityL sector, given by [7] 1. Bumblebee equation

µν µ ν 1 α µν s = ξB B ξBαB g , Consider ﬁrst the equation of motion for the bumble- − 4 u = 1 ξB Bα. (99) bee ﬁeld, which follows from varying the action SB. At 4 α the perturbative order of interest, this equation takes the

Note that in this model only a single field Bµ underlies form all the coefficient fields (aeff )µ, cµν , k, sµν , and u. It fol- µ ′ µ S ∂ Bµν = 2V bν 2σ b Rµν + ζ jν + ..., (100) lows that searches for Lorentz violation that are sensitive − 1 1 to any one of these coefficient fields could provide infor- where mation constraining the others, at least in part. This special feature of the bumblebee model may not extend 4 ′ jν = dτ uνδ (x x ) (101) to models with more complicated field structure. Note − also that the coefficient field k in the matter sector is a Z species-dependent analogue of the coefficient field u in is the source 4-current at the relevant order. In Eq. (100), the gravity sector. A nonzero value of k can introduce the prime on V denotes a derivative with respect to the apparent WEP violations. Since these are Lorentz invari- argument, while the ellipsis indicates that source terms S ant, the resulting phenomenology lacks the various time proportional to ζ2 exist but provide no observable con- dependences that characterize WEP violations resulting tributions to the order at which we work. Adopting the from Lorentz breaking. smooth quadratic potential (94) and the expansion (95), the bumblebee equation can be written

µ B. Solving the Model (ηµν 2 ∂µ∂ν 4λbµbν )B7 = − − α β α S 2λbν b b hαβ 2σ1b Rαν + ζ1 jν . (102) Given the action (90), we can illustrate by direct calcu- − e− lation the correspondence between results from the bum- The idea is to solve this expression for the fluctuations blebee model and ones from the general SME-based ap- µ B7 so they can be eliminated from the analysis as needed. proach developed in Sec. IV. For this purpose, it suffices The solution can be obtained in momentum space with to work at lowest nontrivial order in the couplings ζ , ζ , 1 2 thee propagator chosen as a suitable Green function [7]. and σ . We focus here on observable effects arising from 1 The appropriate bumblebee propagator is the identifications of (aeff )µ, cµν , and k in Eqs. (96) and µν (97). Observable effects involving s and u as defined µν µ ν ν µ α 2 ν µ µν η (b p + b p ) (4λb bα + p )p p in Eq. (99) are studied in Ref. [7]. K (p) = + − p2 p2b pα − 4λp2(b pα)2 The basic goal is to predict effects such as trajectory α α (103) deviations for given values of (aeff )µ and cµν . As discussed in Sec. IV C 3, observability of (a ) involves eff µ in momentum space. Note that the additional poles in nonminimal couplings, so in the present context we can this and following expressions can be understood as a expect dominant effects from (a ) to be proportional eff µ consequence of residual gauge freedom to the order at to the product ζ σ . In contrast, dominant observable 1 1 which we work [52]. Using this propagator, we find the effects from c are generated directly from ζ . µν 2 solution We remark in passing that the special bumblebee α β model considered here is experimentally viable provided pµb b hαβ the sizes of ζ1 and ζ2 are compatible with existing con- B7 µ(p)= α +(B7 σ1 )µ(p)+(B7 ζ1 )µ(p)+(B7 ζ2 )µ(p), 2b pα straints on long-range spin-independent forces [33]. The (104) proportionality of (aeff )µ to ζ1σ1 implies the model can e e e e where (B7 σ1 )µ(p), (B7 ζ1 )µ(p), and (B7 ζ2 )µ(p) are contribu- yield Lorentz-violating effects involving large bµ that are S S detectable only in gravitational experiments [11]. tions to B7 µ(p) proportional to σ1, ζ1 , and ζ2 respectively. e e S S e In this subsection, working at the appropriate pertur- In the limit of vanishing ζ1 and ζ2 , the solution (104) re- bative order and taking the newtonian limit where useful, duces toe the known result [7] once the conversion from µ we obtain and solve the bumblebee equation of motion B7 µ to B described in Sec. II B is implemented.

e e 20

Explicitly, the quantity (B7 σ1 )µ is given in momentum Inserting the solution for Bµ at the appropriate order, space by [7] the modiﬁed Einstein equation (107) can be solved. To match the analysis in the general SME-based method of e α σ1bµR σ1pµR σ1pµb bαR Sec. IV the harmonic gauge must be used. At zeroth or- (B7 σ1 )µ(p) = 2 + α + 2 α − p 4λb pα p b pα der in Lorentz violation, the conventional metric is repro- α α β duced. For simplicity in this illustrative model, we limit e 2σ1b Rαµ 2σ1pµb b Rαβ + 2 2 α . (105) consideration at the next order to the newtonian limit for p − p b pα B7 µ. This avoids possible complications from the residual

For the piece proportional to ζ1, we obtain gauge invariance, while permitting a complete match to thee results of the SME method. S S ν S ν ζ1 jµ ζ1 bµp jν ζ1 pµb jν The solution for the metric can be constructed directly (B7 ζ1 )µ(p) = 2 + 2 α + 2 α from the trace-reversed form of the modified Einstein − p p pαb p pαb S α ν S ν equation (107). Using the NG condition e ζ1 bαb pµp jν ζ1 pµp jν 2 β 2 α 2 . (106) µ − p (pβb ) − 4λ(pαb ) 1 µ ν bµB7 = 2 b b hµν (109) The remaining term in Eq. (104), which contains contri- and the bumblebee equatione (102), we can write butions proportional to ζS, is irrelevant to the order at 2 α S which we work. Rµν =2σ1κ[b ∂α∂(µBν) ζ1 b(µjν)]+ κ(SBu)µν , (110) − We emphasize that the explicit solution (104) for the where (SBu)µν is the trace-reversed version of the energy- bumblebee fluctuation B7 µ is obtained by direct calcu- momentum tensor (108). In the newtonian limit, the lation from the action SB. This calculation depends first term on the right-hand side is higher-order in time on knowledge of the bumblebeee dynamics as described derivatives and so is negligible. by the Lagrange density (92). In contrast, the general Expanding (SBu)µν to the appropriate order, we find SME-based method presented in Sec. IV to obtain an that the O(1,1) modifications of the metric fluctuation arbitrary coefficient fluctuation t7 λµν... replaces the need h00 are given in terms of the bumblebee vacuum value bµ for complete knowledge of SB with the judicious use of by perturbation theory, the NG constraint,e diffeomorphism 2G b invariance, and Newton’s third law. h(1,1) = (4σ ζS + ζSmb ) N 0 . (111) 00 1 1 2 0 r The first term arises from the bumblebee fluctuations via 2. Modified Einstein equation the nonminimal couplings and is the bumblebee analogue of Eq. (88). The second term arises directly from the Varying the action with respect to the metric yields energy-momentum tensor (TBu)µν of the source S and the modified Einstein equation. At leading order in B7 µ corresponds to Eq. (84). To complete the match to the and lowest order in hµν , this equation takes the form general SME analysis of Sec. IV, it remains to apply this e result to determine the deviations from geodesic motion α α Gµν = 2σ1κ[b ∂α∂(µBν) + b(µ∂α∂ν)B b(µ2Bν) of a test particle T. − α β ′ ηµν b ∂α∂βB ]+2κV bµbν + κ(TBu)µν , − (107) 3. Particle trajectory where contributions from Bµ are understood to be limited to the appropriate perturbative order. Note that V ′ The equation of motion for a test point particle T in the contributes at most through massive modes at this order, presence of the bumblebee field Bµ and the metric hµν so it plays no role in the present context. can be obtained by varying the action SBu with respect to xµ. At leading order in the fluctuations, this yields The matter-sector contribution (TBu)µν to the energy- momentum tensor can be written µ µ α β µ µ x¨ = Γ(0,1) αβu u +¨xζ1 +¨xζ2 , (112) 4 ′ − muµuν δ (x x (τ)) (TBu)µν = dτ − . (108) µ S α β where Γ is the linearized Christoffel symbol. The − 1 2ζ2 bαbβu u (0,1) αβ Z − µ µ µ termsx ¨ζ1 andx ¨ζ2 represent contributions tox ¨ propor- This explicit expression isp the bumblebee analogue of the T T tional to ζ1 and ζ2 , respectively. The above equation is general form (70). As expected, terms proportional to the bumblebee analogue of the equation of motion (78) S ζ1 are absent from Eq. (108), confirming that minimal obtained for the general SME analysis in Sec. IV. µ couplings cannot generate Lorentz violation of the (aeff )µ The explicit form of the quantityx ¨ζ1 takes the form type in the modified Einstein equation. In this model, the only nonzero observables proportional to ζS arise through T 1 µ µ α β ζ1 µν α x¨ = (Γζ1 ) u u g (∂ν B7 α ∂αB7 ν )u , (113) the bumblebee fluctuations (106). ζ1 − αβ −mT − e e 21

µ S where (Γζ1 ) αβ contains terms proportional to ζ1 that subsequent section addresses a particular class of exper- enter via Lorentz-violating corrections to the metric. The imental searches. Section VII examines tests with ordi- piece of B7 µ contributing to this equation at the relevant nary neutral matter in Earth-based laboratories, while order can be written as Sec. VIII studies satellite-based searches with ordinary e ν 1 α matter. Section IX considers more exotic laboratory and (B7 σ1 )µ = σ hµν b σ bµh + ... (114) 1 − 2 1 α satellite-based tests, including ones using charged parti- in harmonic coordinates, where the ellipsis represents cles, antimatter, and particles beyond the first genera- terms thate play no role within our approximations. The tion. Section X addresses solar-system observations, in- latter equation is the bumblebee analogue of the SME cluding lunar and satellite ranging and measurements of perihelion precession. Finally, Sec. XI considers signals result (87) for the coefficient fluctuation (a7 eff )µ, and as expected it yields contributions to the trajectory equa- from photon-gravity couplings. T tion proportional to the product σ1ζ1 . e The quantityx ¨µ can be written ζ2 A. Frames µ µ α β T µν λ α β x¨ = (Γζ2 ) u u +2ζ η bν bλΓ u u ζ2 − αβ 2 (0,n) αβ T α β µ ν λ T µ α β A substantial advantage of the SME framework is the +2ζ2 bαbβΓ(0,1) νλu u u u +2ζ2 bα∂ B7 βu u ability to compare signals for Lorentz violation across T µν α β a wide variety of experiments and observations. To fa- 2ζ η (bν ∂αB7 β + bβ∂αB7 ν )u u − 2 e cilitate these comparisons, it is useful to report search T α β µ ν 2ζ bα∂ν B7 βu u u u , (115) results in a canonical inertial frame. − 2 e e µ S In Minkowski spacetime, the canonical frame is a Sun- where (Γζ2 ) αβ contains terms proportional to ζ2 that enter via Lorentz-violatinge corrections to the metric. In centered celestial-equatorial frame [21], which is approx- this equation, only the first term in Eq. (104) produces a imately inertial over the time scales of most searches. In this frame, the Z axis is aligned with the rotation axis relevant contribution to the fluctuation B7 µ in the present of the Earth, while the X axis points from the Earth context, which matches the SME result (85) for the co- to the Sun at the vernal equinox. The origin of the time efficient fluctuation c7 µν . e coordinate T is the time when the Earth crosses the Sun- At this stage, we can verify the conservation of total centered X axis at the vernal equinox. 4-momentum of thee system of the source S and test body For post-newtonian investigations involving gravita- T, as described in Sec. IV C 1. Substituting for B7 µ and tional effects in the solar system, the canonical frame is (1,1) h00 in the trajectory equation reveals the antisymmetry identified with an asymptotically Minkowski frame that under interchange of S and T required to satisfy Newton’se is comoving with the rest frame of the solar system and third law. We can also complete the correspondence be- that coincides with the canonical Sun-centered frame [7]. tween the bumblebee model and the general SME-based In this Sun-centered frame, cartesian coordinates are de- analysis of Sec. IV by making the identifications noted by Ξ J α = 2σ1, (aeff )µ = ζ1bµ, x = (T,X ) = (T,X,Y,Z) (117) 1 2 1 2 cµν = ζ2bµbν + 4 ζ2ηµν b , k = 2 ζ2b , (116) and are labeled with capital Greek indices. Also, we write which can be obtained by matching Eqs. (111) and (114) eΞ = (eT , eJ ) (118) to the SME results (84), (88), and (87). for the corresponding coordinate basis vectors. Various types of observers appear in the analyses be- VI. EXPERIMENTAL BASICS low, including ones at rest in an Earth-centered frame, in a laboratory frame, in a satellite frame, and others. The corresponding frames are specified as needed in the sec- In the remainder of this paper, we apply the theoret- tions that follow. Among the sets of basis vectors having ical framework developed above to explore some experi- generic applicability are one for an observer at rest in the mental prospects for detecting Lorentz violation through Sun-centered frame and a related one for an observer in matter-gravity couplings. As before, we adopt coordi- uniform motion relative to the Sun-centered frame. We nates satisfying the condition (23), which produces sim- summarize these two sets briefly here. plified expressions without the photon-sector coefficients α For an observer at rest at the point (T, X~ ) in the Sun- (kF ) µαν . The primary focus is on signals involving the J w w centered frame, dX /dT = 0. Suitable basis vectors are coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν . Certain effects associated denoted as eµ with µ = (t, j), and they can be written with the coefficient sµν in the pure-gravity sector are also considered. as [7] In the present section, we provide some basic infor- e T 1 ~ e t = δ t[1 + hT T (T, X) + PNO(4)] T , mation broadly applicable to searches for Lorentz viola- 2 J 1 K J ej = δ [eJ h (T, X~ )eK ]+ δ hTJ (T, X~ )eT . tion, including an outline of frame conventions and a dis- j − 2 J j cussion of sensitivities to coefficient combinations. Each (119) 22

This basis is orthonormal. interactions have been used to provide access to observ- Ξ w If the observer is in motion with four-velocity u in ables involving differences of two coefficients (a )µ with the Sun-centered frame, then an appropriate set of basis w including second- and third-generation quarks [53, 54]. vectors can be taken as eµˆ withµ ˆ = (t,ˆ ˆj), where the Flavor oscillations can also be used to constrain the coef- e Ξ components ( tˆ) are identified with the four-velocity, ficients aµ in the neutrino sector, where they form 3 3 e Ξ Ξ × ( tˆ) = u . This basis is given by [7] matrices in flavor space [55]. However, to date gravitational couplings have been used to obtain sensitivity e t 1 2 e j e tˆ = δ tˆ(1 + 2 v ) t + v j, only to limited combinations of the 12 independent components of the SME coefficients (ae) , (ap) , (an) for e = δj vkR e + δj (δkl + 1 vkvl)R e , (120) µ µ µ ˆj ˆj kj t ˆj 2 lj k electrons, protons, and neutrons [11, 12]. These coefficients are otherwise unconstrained and could be com- where vj is the coordinate velocity of the observer in paratively large, so they offer interesting prospects for the frame (119), and Rjk implements the appropriate further investigation in gravitational tests. rotation. This basis is also orthonormal. In the present context, we can extend the single bound w In applying the above equations, the relevant contribu- on (a )µ given in Ref. [11] by taking advantage of the w tions to the metric fluctuation and the observer velocity result of Sec. IIC1 that (a )µ always appears at leading w w can be obtained from the modified Einstein equations and order with (e )µ in the combination (aeff )µ given by Eq. from the equation of motion of the observer. Note that (16). Using this result immediately yields a constraint w the results typically depend on coefficients for Lorentz vi- on three of the independent components of (aeff )µ for olation. Also, some simplifying assumptions can usually electrons, protons, and neutrons, given as be adopted without loss of generality. For example, in e p n −11 certain laboratory experiments the contributions to the α(a )T +α(a )T 0.8α(a )T < 1 10 GeV (121) | eff eff − eff | × metric fluctuation hΞΛ sourced by the energy-momentum at the 90% confidence level. tensor of the Sun can safely be neglected. w We remark in passing that the above definition of the In contrast, many of the coefficients (c )µν are read- Sun-centered frame could be sharpened in various ways, ily observable in nongravitational experiments. Nonethe- less, gravitational tests offer additional opportunities to such as allowing for the precession and nutation of the w Earth, establishing the vernal equinox via the centroids achieve sensitivities to (c )µν , including some compo- of bodies, and incorporating the motion of the Sun with nents that are unmeasured to date. For electrons, protons, and neutrons, there are 27 independent observable respect to the center of the solar system. Some of these w symmetric coefficients (c )µν . A compilation of existing effects may allow additional sensitivities to Lorentz vio- w lation via the resulting time dependence of the standard limits on (c )µν for different flavors w is given in Ref. [2]. frame. Note also that the notion of parallelism used in The coefficients sµν lie in the pure-gravity sector the Minkowski-spacetime definition of the Sun-centered of the minimal SME and therefore can be measured frame is inapplicable in the context of curved spacetime. only in the gravitational context. The corresponding One way to address this latter issue is to define the Z post-newtonian corrections to the gravitational field are known [7, 56]. Constraints on most of the nine in- axis so that ezˆ aligns with the spin axis of the Earth after dependent components of sµν have been obtained us- Eqs. (119) and (120) with Rjk = 0 and the appropriate velocity are applied. For the various searches considered ing a variety of techniques, including among others in this work, the standard definition of the Sun-centered perihelion-precession studies, lunar laser ranging, atom- frame suffices. A more complete investigation of these interferometer gravimetry, and laboratory and space- issues is of potential interest but lies beyond our present based experiments [4–7]. All these analyses disregard scope. matter effects. In this work, we show that Lorentz violation in the matter sector can contribute in different ways to signals involving the coefficients sµν . w w For all the coefficients (aeff )µ, (c )µν , sµν , the effects B. Sensitivities of interest here involve gravitational couplings to matter. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the best sensitiv- In the following sections, we consider the observational ities to Lorentz violation are associated with couplings to w w effects of the coefficients (aeff )µ, (c )µν in the matter dominant gravitational effects. This suggests that tests sector and sµν in the pure-gravity sector. This subsection with high sensitivity to Newton gravity are of particular offers some comments about attainable sensitivities to interest. As described in Sec. IVB3, the flavor depen- these coefficients. dence of the coefficients for Lorentz violation implies that w Measurement of the coefficients (aeff )µ is of particular WEP tests also lie in this category. interest because they are virtually unexplored to date. Many of the signals sought in gravity tests require an- The existence of the field redefinitions described in Sec. cillary measurements of time and distance. These typ- w IIC1 means that observation of effects from (aeff )µ re- ically involve matter in some form, and they may in- quires either flavor-changing physics or gravitational cou- troduce additional Lorentz-violating effects beyond those plings. At the level of quarks, the flavor-changing weak comprising the direct signal of interest. However, most 23 of these additional effects are negligible in the present by their difference in species content. However, incor- context because the corresponding coefficients are tightly porating the binding energy in the analysis introduces constrained via tests in Minkowski spacetime [2], whereas the last two terms in Eq. (122), revealing that the effects e p n sensitivities in gravitational tests are typically substan- of (aeff )µ + (aeff )µ and (aeff )µ vary differently with the tially reduced by the weak gravitational field. Among content of the bodies. This allows the possibility of in- e p n the coefficients of interest in the present work, this is- dependent measurements of (aeff )µ + (aeff )µ and (aeff )µ. w w sue is relevant only to (c )µν because (aeff )µ and sµν Note that the sensitivity of such measurements is typi- are unobservable in Minkowski-spacetime tests and be- cally an order of magnitude less than that of measure- e+p−n cause we adopt the coordinate choice (23) making unob- ments of (aeff )µ due to the appearance of ratios of α ′ servable the photon-sector coefficients (kF ) µαν . Among the form m /m. w w the coefficients (c )µν for ordinary matter, the neutron- Next, consider combinations of the coefficients (c )µν . n B sector coefficients (c )µν are the least well constrained For a body B, the effective coefficient (c )µν is a dimen- at present. Their effects may therefore be important for sionless quantity given by Eq. (74). As discussed in Sec. certain tests, in which case a detailed analysis of the mea- IV A 2, nonzero Lorentz-violating contributions from the ′B surement method may be necessary. binding energy given by the coefficients (c )µν are ex- Another consideration relevant for identifying sensitiv- pected to exist, along with the usual binding-energy con- ities in tests with atoms or bulk matter is the role of the tributions m′ to the body mass. It turns out that these contributions from binding energy. In some cases, ac- Lorentz-violating contributions impede the use of bind- counting for these contributions can disentangle effects ing energy to extract additional independent sensitivities w from different coefficients, thereby producing additional to combinations of the coefficients (c )µν . To see this, independent sensitivities. This can occur when coeffi- consider two neutral bodies as before, and expand the cients from two or more sectors are involved, either di- analogue of Eq. (122) to get rectly within a WEP test or indirectly via comparison of results obtained for different bodies. In the remain- w w N1 N2 w w der of this subsection, we discuss this possibility for the m (c )µν = w w m1 − m2 coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν in turn. w w X Consider first combinations of the coefficients (a )µ. p n n p eff N1 N2 N1 N2 n p e+p−n Following the discussion in Sec. IV A 2, a body B has − m m (c )µν B m1m2 an effective coefficient (aeff )µ given by Eqs. (73) and p ′ p ′ N1 m2 N2 m1 p e+p (75). The dimensionless quantity relevant for a test is + − m (c )µν B B m m (aeff )µ/m , and comparisons involving two bodies there- 1 2 n ′ n ′ fore appear as the difference of two quantities of this N1 m2 N2 m1 n n + − m (c )µν form. For two neutral bodies involving bound electrons, m1m2 protons, and neutrons, this difference can be expanded p ′ ′1 p ′ ′2 N m (c )µν N m (c )µν as follows: +(me + mp) 2 1 − 1 2 m1m2 w w n ′ ′1 n ′ ′2 N1 N2 w n N2 m1(c )µν N1 m2(c )µν (aeff )µ = +m − , (124) m − m w 1 2 m1m2 X p n n p N1 N2 N1 N2 n e+p−n − m (aeff )µ where we introduce m1m2 p ′ p ′ N1 m2 N2 m1 e+p e + − (aeff )µ e+p m e p m1m2 (c )µν = p (c )µν + (c )µν , n ′ n ′ m N m N m n e p + 1 2 2 1 (a ) . (122) e+p−n e+p m + m n − eff µ (c )µν = (c )µν (c )µν . (125) m1m2 − mp Here, the numbers of particles of species w for the two e+p−n w w ′ ′ When binding-energy effects are neglected, (c )µν bodies are N1 , N2 , and m1, m2 are the binding-energy contributions to the masses m1, m2 of the two bodies, as becomes the only observable combination of the coeffi- w defined in Eq. (71). Also, we define cients (c )µν in gravitational tests comparing two bodies. Including the binding-energy terms as in Eq. (124) e+p e p shows that bodies with different species content can ex- (aeff )µ = (aeff )µ + (aeff )µ, e p hibit distinct effects. Although it seems unlikely that e+p−n e+p m + m n ′ (a )µ = (a )µ (a )µ. (123) nonzero effects at order m /m in a variety of bodies would eff eff − mn eff cancel sufficiently well to evade detection altogether, the ′B When the contributions from binding energy are ne- appearance of the unknown coefficients (c )µν makes it e+p−n glected in Eq. (122), the linear combination (aeff )µ of infeasible at present to extract unambiguous independent w w coefficients becomes the sole observable involving (aeff )µ measurements on combinations of the coefficients (c )µν in a comparison of two bodies, with the effect scaled using binding-energy effects. 24

VII. LABORATORY TESTS Table I provides a list of some conventions adopted in this section for the analyses of laboratory tests. Many of This section considers some sensitive laboratory tests the quantities are self-explanatory. The laboratory speed with ordinary neutral bulk matter, neutral atoms, and VL is due to the rotation of the Earth and depends on the neutrons performed on or near the surface of the Earth. laboratory colatitude χ. The relative time T⊕ involves The basic theory for these tests is developed in Sec. VII A, a convenient choice of origin, measured from any instant while Secs. VIIB, VIIC, VIID, and VIIE consider sig- when they ˆ axis in the laboratory frame and the Y axis of nals and sensitivities attainable in a variety of terrestrial the Sun-centered frame coincide. Using T⊕ instead of the searches. More exotic laboratory tests with charged par- canonical time T in the Sun-centered frame introduces a ticles, antimatter, and particles beyond the first genera- phase ψ in the analysis. The angle ζ is defined in terms of tion are considered in Sec. IX. the component accelerations axˆ, azˆ of a test body along Terrestrial experiments seeking gravitational Lorentz xˆ,z ˆ in the laboratory frame, violation using ordinary matter can be classified either −1 as gravimeter tests or as WEP tests. In gravimeter tests, ζ = tan (axˆ/azˆ). (126) the basic idea is to seek variations either in the gravita- At leading order, ζ is approximated by the ratio of the tional force on a test body or in its gravitational accel- usual Newton centripetal and gravitational accelerations, eration. The corresponding signals originate in the time ζ 10−3. It represents the angular deviation from the dependence of laboratory coefficients for Lorentz viola- vertical≃ at the location of the laboratory of a plumb line tion induced by the rotation of the apparatus and the or of a test body in free fall. rotation and revolution of the Earth. These signals can be interpreted as an effective time variation of the New- Table I. Notation for laboratory tests. ton gravitational constant GN . In WEP tests, the idea is to compare either the gravitational force between two dif- Quantity Definition ferent bodies or their relative gravitational acceleration. R mean Earth-Sun distance The corresponding signals, which can be instantaneous R mean Earth radius or time-varying, are sensitive to differences between the ⊕ coefficients associated with different species of matter. Ω meanEarthorbitalfrequency Lorentz violation can introduce deviations from New- ω mean sidereal frequency ton’s second law, so the distinction between force and ωe apparatus rotation frequency acceleration can be important. This distinction implies V⊕ =ΩR mean Earth orbital speed the two classes of gravimeter and WEP tests can each be VL laboratory rotational speed further subdivided into two categories, force-comparison T relative time tests and free-fall tests. The basic idea of a free-fall test ⊕ is to search for a time or composition dependence in the η inclination of Earth orbit gravitational acceleration of a freely falling test body by χ laboratory colatitude monitoring its motion. The idea of a force-comparison ψ = ω(T⊕ T ) phase induced by T⊕ 2 − test is to balance the gravitational force experienced by ζ ω R⊕/ sin(2χ)g deviation angle a test body with a second force, investigating changes in ≈ the equilibrium arising from the time or species dependence of the laboratory coefficients for Lorentz violation. A. Theory The force comparison can be achieved either by using a seesaw arrangement to balance the gravitational forces on test bodies of different composition, which constitutes The relevant observables for laboratory tests of Lorentz a force-comparison WEP test, or by using a nongravi- symmetry in gravity are the motions of test bodies rel- tational force to counter the gravitational force on the ative to the Earth and relative to each other. These test body, which represents a force-comparison gravime- observables can be obtained from the action for a test ter test. body, evaluated at the appropriate post-newtonian order We thus have four categories of possible laboratory and expressed in laboratory coordinates. B tests with ordinary matter. In what follows, each is Consider the action Su for a test body given in Eq. considered in a separate subsection. Free-fall gravime- (76), with the gravitational field of the Earth acting as (3) ter tests, including searches with freely falling corner the source S. The corresponding lagrangian La,c describ- cubes and with atom interferometers, are considered in ing the motion of the test body T at PNO(3) can be Sec. VIIB. Force-comparison gravimeter tests using me- constructed by expanding SB with B T. The solution u ≡ chanical and superconducting gravimeters are studied in for the metric fluctuation hµν at this order is obtained VII C. Free-fall WEP tests, which come in a wide vari- from the general expressions (81), (84), and (88), with ety of forms, are considered in Sec. VII D. Finally, force- the Earth treated as a rigid rotating source S as described comparison WEP tests are discussed in Sec. VIIE, with in Sec. IV A 2. In what follows, we neglect the gravita- focus on a torsion-balance configuration. tional fields of other bodies such as the Sun, although in 25 a more detailed treatment these could be incorporated the laboratory frame acquire implicit dependences on the using similar methods. laboratory speed VL and on the sidereal frequency ω, For laboratory searches, it is convenient to begin cal- which arise from the rotation of the Earth. culations in an Earth-centered frame with coordinates The inclusion of the Earth’s rotation in the analysis µ denoted by x˜ = (t,˜ x,˜ y,˜ z˜). At leading order, the spatial implies the laboratory frame is noninertial. The struc- components of the Earth-centered basis are taken to co- ture of the first few terms in Eq. (127) reveals that iner- ˜ T incide with those of the Sun-centered frame, and t = T . tial forces in the laboratory couple to (c )µˆνˆ, which can In the Earth-centered frame, we find result in nongravitational Lorentz-violating effects comparable in size to the gravitational ones of interest. We (3) 1 T T T La,c = 2 m 1 + (c )t˜t˜ + 2(c )t˜˜j v˜j vk˜vk˜ therefore incorporate these nongravitational effects in our T T subsequent analyses. In practice, this means effects pro- +m (c )˜jk˜v˜j vk˜ 2 −3 portional to the centrifugal acceleration ω R⊕ 10 g G mSmT 2α 2α must be considered. ≈ + N 1+ (aT ) + (aS ) r mT eff t˜ mS eff t˜ In what follows, we consider effects up to and including h α S PNO(3). The leading PNO(3) effects are proportional to + S (aeff )˜j v˜j m the speed V⊕ of the Earth as it revolves about the Sun −4 S 2 T S T and are of order gV⊕ 10 g, where g = GN m /R for +(c )t˜t˜ + (c )t˜t˜ + 2(c ) t˜˜j v˜j ⊕ ( ) a laboratory on the surface≈ of the Earth. This yields sen- T i w GN m S sitivity to various components of the coefficients (aeff )µ + α(aeff )˜j x˜j xk˜vk˜ w r3 and (c )µν . For some laboratory tests, it is advanta- S T geous to consider also PNO(3) effects proportional to the GN m m 2 2α T α S + 3 R⊕ǫ˜jk˜˜lωk˜x˜l T (aeff )˜j + S (aeff )˜j smaller speed VL of the laboratory due to the rotation of 5r m m −6 h the Earth, which are of order gVL 10 g. The benefit + 2(cS) , (127) ≈ (t˜˜j) arises in two ways. First, inclusion of the boost VL intro- w i duces effects proportional to (aeff )µ that vary sidereally where r = √x˜j x˜j . This expression contains the conven- w instead of annually. This offers access to (aeff )µ for mea- tional Newton kinetic and potential terms for a test body surements conducted on comparatively short time scales, T moving in the gravitational field of S, along with a se- albeit at a sensitivity reduced by about two orders of B ries of corrections that depend on the coefficients (aeff )µ˜ magnitude. Second, certain laboratory tests have greater B and (c )µ˜ν˜. Some of these additional terms are motional, sensitivity to forces in thex ˆ andy ˆ directions than to ones analogous to centrifugal effects, and some are gravita- w in thez ˆ direction. The inclusion of effects from (aeff )µ tional, including ones analogous to gravitomagnetic ef- w and (c )µν that are proportional to VL can then intro- fects. Effects from the Earth’s motion about the Sun duce new sensitivities or improve existing ones. are implicitly included via the dependence of (aB ) and eff µ˜ So far, modifications to the trajectory of the test body (cB) on the orbital speed V . This dependence can µ˜ν˜ ⊕ arising from the coefficients s have been disregarded. be made explicit by expressing the coefficients in Sun- µν However, it is straightforward to incorporate these in centered coordinates instead of Earth-centered ones. the lagrangian at PNO(2) because the coordinate choices To obtain results applicable to laboratory tests, the re- made here are consistent with those of Ref. [7] at this sult (127) must be transformed from the Earth-centered perturbative order. In the laboratory frame, we find the frame to the laboratory frame. We denote the laboratory µˆ ˆj PNO(2) contribution from sµν to the lagrangian of the coordinates by x , where the spatial coordinates x are test body can be written taken to coincide with the standard SME conventions for a laboratory on the surface of the Earth [21]. In the lab- (2) T 1 3 L = m g(szxxˆ + szyyˆ szzzˆ s zˆ). (130) oratory, thex ˆ axis points South, they ˆ axis points East, s ˆˆ ˆˆ − 2 ˆˆ − 2 tˆtˆ and thez ˆ axis points towards the local zenith. To the (2) required post-newtonian order, t˜ = tˆ and the coordinate It turns out that Ls suffices to achieve sensitivity to location of the laboratory in the Earth-centered frame sµν at PNO(3). The point is that the leading PNO(3) can be written [7] effects are proportional to V⊕, while inclusion of effects proportional to VL offers no additional benefit in this ~ ξ = R⊕(sin χ cos(ω⊕T + φ), sin χ sin(ω⊕T + φ), cos χ). case for the tests we consider. The coefficients sµν are (128) species independent, so they are unobservable in WEP The transformation between the two sets of spatial coor- (2) tests. Moreover, inspection of Ls reveals that the coef- dinates can therefore be written ficients sµˆνˆ already vary at the sidereal frequency through the transformation to the Sun frame. x˜j = ξ˜j + R˜jˆj xˆj , (129) (3) In the laboratory frame, the PNO(3) lagrangian La,c,s where R˜jˆj is the relevant rotation between the bases of obtained from Eq. (127) and incorporating effects from the laboratory and the Earth-centered frames. Note that sµˆνˆ via Eq. (130) is somewhat lengthy in form. As an B B Eq. (129) implies the coefficients (aeff )µˆ and (c )µˆνˆ in illustration of its structure and implications, we can re- 26

(2) strict attention to its PNO(2) limit La,c,s. We find B. Free-fall gravimeter tests L(2) = 1 mT(1 + (cT) )x ˙ x˙ + mT(cT) x˙ x˙ a,c,s 2 tˆtˆ ˆj ˆj ˆjkˆ ˆj kˆ In this subsection, we consider laboratory tests that T 2α T 2α S monitor the motion of a test body in free fall near the m g 1+ (a )ˆ + (a )ˆ − mT eff t mS eff t surface of the Earth. The equation of motion for the h T S 3 1 test body can be obtained from the PNO(3) lagrangian + (c )ˆˆ + (c )ˆˆ + sˆˆ + szˆzˆ z tt tt 2 tt 2 (3) La,c,s described in Sec. VII A. Its explicit form is lengthy. T i +m g(szˆxˆx + szˆyˆy). (131) However, all information relevant for present purposes is Varying this result yields the Euler-Lagrange equations of contained in its solution expressed to the desired pertur- motion, which we can express in the form of the modified bative order. This solution can be written in the form force law 1 2 xˆj = (xo)ˆj + (vo)ˆj t + 2 aˆj t , (135) Fˆj = mˆjkˆx¨kˆ. (132) where the test body has initial position ~xo and initial ve- At this perturbative order, the inertial and gravitational locity ~vo. The quantities of interest in searches for grav- forces acting on the test particle are given by itational Lorentz violation are the components aˆj of the T acceleration of the test body in laboratory coordinates. Fxˆ = m gszˆxˆ, For purposes of data analysis and reporting sensitiv- F = mTgs , yˆ zˆyˆ ities to coefficients for Lorentz violation, it is useful to 2α 2α T T S express the acceleration components aˆ in a form that Fzˆ = m g 1+ (aeff )tˆ + (aeff )tˆ j − mT mS displays explicitly the time variation and the dependence h T S 3 1 on particle species. In free-fall gravimeter tests, the time + (c )tˆtˆ + (c )tˆtˆ + stˆtˆ + szˆzˆ , 2 2 variation appears at frequencies 0, ω,2ω, ω Ω, 2ω Ω, i(133) and Ω, which are collectively labeled as n in what± follows.± while The dependence on particle species arises from the composition of the test and source bodies. It is characterized T T T T mˆjkˆ = m 1 + (c )tˆtˆ δˆjkˆ +2m (c )(ˆjkˆ) (134) by the label w, which ranges over e, p, n for ordinary matter. is the effective inertial mass. These results reveal the generic feature that the gravitational force Fˆ acquires tiny corrections both along j Table II. Amplitudes for the acceleration axˆ. thez ˆ direction and perpendicular to it. Also, the response of the test body deviates slightly from the di- Amplitude Phase rection of the applied force because the effective inertial T w w w w w mass mˆjkˆ depends on the coefficients (c )µˆνˆ. In princi- A0 = m sin χ cos χ[(c )XX + (c )YY 2(c )ZZ ] 0 ple, some of these effects are detectable in sensitive labo- w w w 2 w − Aω =2m (c )(XZ) cos2χ + 5 VLα(aeff )Y cos χ ψ ratory tests, and the corresponding signals are discussed ′w 1 w w w A = VL α(a )Y +2m (c ) cos χ ψ using PNO(3) results in the following subsections. ω 5 eff (TY ) Bw =2mw(cw) cos2χ 2 V α(aw ) cos χ ψ Some coefficients appear in combinations that are chal- ω (Y Z) 5 L eff X ′w 1 w −w w lenging to separate in laboratory tests. This is true, Bω = 5 VL α(aeff )X +2m (c )(T X) cos χ ψ T T w −1 w w w for example, of the coefficients α(a ) and (c ) . A = m ((c )XX (c )YY ) sin 2χ 2ψ eff T T T 2ω 2 w w w − Consider for simplicity the scenario with only isotropic B2ω = m (c )(XY ) sin 2χ 2ψ Lorentz violation in the Sun-centered frame, where w w w A = m V⊕(c )(T X) sin η cos2χ ψ the nonzero coefficients are α(aT ) and (cT) = ω+Ω − eff T T T Bw = mwV (cw) sin η 3(cT) = 3(cT) = 3(cT) . In the laboratory ω+Ω ⊕ (TY ) XX YY ZZ − w T T T T (c )(T Z)(1 cos η) cos2χ ψ frame, (aeff )tˆ α(aeff )T and (c )tˆtˆ (c )T T up to boost − − ≈ ≈ Aw = mwV (cw) sin η cos2χ ψ factors. These coefficients therefore cannot be readily ω−Ω ⊕ (T X) w − w w separated in gravimeter tests, which depend on time vari- Bω−Ω = m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η ations from anisotropic effects. Moreover, inspection of − w + (c )(T Z)(1 + cos η) cos2χ ψ the PNO(2) lagrangian (131) reveals that if 3α(aT ) = eff tˆ Aw = 1 mwV (cw) (1 cos η) sin 2χ 2ψ T T T T 2ω+Ω 2 ⊕ (TY ) m (c )tˆtˆ then the contributions of α(aeff )tˆ and (c )tˆtˆ to w −1 w w − B = m V⊕(c ) (1 cos η) sin 2χ 2ψ the effective inertial and gravitational masses are identi- 2ω+Ω 2 (T X) − T T T w 1 w w cal. The combination α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3 therefore A2ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 + cos η) sin 2χ 2ψ − w 1 w w cannot be readily separated in conventional WEP tests B2ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 + cos η) sin 2χ 2ψ either. Note that WEP tests comparing a particle and its w −w w AΩ = m V⊕ (c )(TY ) cos η antiparticle can in principle evade this difficulty because − w T 2(c )(T Z) sin η sin 2χ 0 the sign of α(a )T differs between the two. Another pos- − eff Bw = mwV (cw) sin 2χ 0 sibility would be to compare matter with light, an option Ω ⊕ (T X) considered further in Sec. XI. 27

w ′w w ′w Table III. Amplitudes for the acceleration ayˆ. The amplitudes Cn , Cn , Dn , Dn depend on particle w w Amplitude Phase species through the coefficients (aeff )µ, (c )µν and are listed in Table III, along with the corresponding phases. w The remaining amplitudes Cn, Dn are obtained from C , w w w n C = m VL(c )(T Z) sin 2χ 0 w w w 1 0 Dn using the substitutions m 1, (c )ΣΞ 2 sΣΞ, Cw =2mw(cw) cos χ and (aw ) 0, disregarding contributions→ proportional→ ω (Y Z) eff Ξ → 2 w w w 2 to VL as before. 5 VLα(aeff )X +2m VL(c )(T X) sin χ ψ ′w − 1 w w C = VL α(a )X + 2(c ) ψ ω − 5 eff (T X) Dw = 2mw(cw) cos χ For thez ˆ component of the acceleration, we obtain ω (XZ) − w w 2 2 w +2m VL(c )(TY ) sin χ 5 VLα(aeff )Y ψ ′w 1 w w − w D = VL 2m (c ) + α(a )Y ψ ω − 5 (TY ) eff Cw =2mw(cw) sin χ 2ψ 2 2 2ω (XY ) azˆ = g + ω R⊕ sin χ w w w w − w w D2ω = m ((c )XX (c )YY ) sin χ 2ψ N − − N w ⊕ ′w 1 w w w + g En + En + 3 En cos(ωnT + ψn) Cω+Ω = m V⊕ (c )(T Z)(1 cos η) mT mS − n,w (cw) sin η cos χ ψ X h − (TY ) N w N w Dw = mwV (cw) sin η cos χ ψ + F w + ⊕ F ′w + 1 F sin(ω T + ψ ) . ω+Ω ⊕ (T X) T n S n 3 n n n w w w m m C = m V⊕ (c ) (1 + cos η) ω−Ω − (T Z) i + (cw) sin η cos χ ψ (138) (TY ) Dw = mwV (cw) sin η cos χ ψ ω−Ω ⊕ (T X) w w w C2ω+Ω = m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 cos η) sin χ 2ψ w w w − D2ω+Ω = m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 cos η) sin χ 2ψ The amplitudes Ew, E′w, F w, F ′w depend on particle w w w − n n n n C = m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ w w 2ω−Ω species via the coefficients (aeff )µ, (c )µν . The ampli- w − w w D = m V⊕(c ) (1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ tudes E , F are independent of species and given in 2ω−Ω − (TY ) n n terms of the coefficients sµν . All these amplitudes and their phases are provided in Table IV. For thex ˆ component of the acceleration, some calculation yields an expression of the form In principle, the results of a free-fall laboratory test 2 using any gravimeter can be analyzed with the above axˆ = ω R⊕ sin χ cos χ equations. The dominant effects appear at different fre- N w N w +g Aw + ⊕ A′w + 1 A cos(ω T + ψ ) quencies for different coefficients, so the time scale of data mT n mS n 3 n n n taking in a given experiment affects the breadth of its n,w X h reach in coefficient space. Also, each signal frequency can w N w N w ⊕ ′w 1 be expected to have distinct systematics. For example, + T Bn + S Bn + 3 Bn sin(ωnT + ψn) . m m dominant effects from the coefficients (aeff )J occur at the i (136) annual frequency Ω, for which seasonal systematics are relevant. Note that all the Lorentz-violating effects can w ′w w ′w In this equation, the amplitudes An , An , Bn , Bn con- be accessed at or near the sidereal frequency ω, although w w tain the coefficients for Lorentz violation (aeff )µ, (c )µν in some cases at reduced sensitivity. and hence depend on particle species. These amplitudes and their associated phases are listed in Table II. The re- At least two kinds of devices can be classified as free- maining amplitudes An, Bn contain the coefficients sµν fall gravimeters: falling corner cubes, and matter inter- from the gravitational sector, which are independent of ferometers. Falling corner cubes, which typically are the composition of the test body. These amplitudes can sensitive only to the direction of the free-fall motion, w w be obtained from the amplitudes An , Bn by the sub- are used to monitor time variations of the gravitational w w 1 w stitutions m 1, (c )ΣΞ sΣΞ, and (a )Ξ 0, field for geodesy and other geophysical purposes [57]. → → 2 eff → disregarding contributions proportional to VL. In principle, they are of interest for free-fall gravimeter They ˆ component of the acceleration can be decom- tests of Lorentz violation. However, matter interferome- posed similarly. We find ters presently carry several advantages over falling corner cubes in this context. They are slightly more sensitive, N w N w a = g Cw + ⊕ C′w + 1 C cos(ω T + ψ ) some types can sense accelerations in more than one di- yˆ mT n mS n 3 n n n n,w rection, and the composition of the test body can be X h w w determined more readily. We therefore focus on matter N w N⊕ ′w 1 + D + D + Dn sin(ωnT + ψn) . interferometers in this subsection, revisiting the use of mT n mS n 3 i both falling corner cubes and interferometers in the con- (137) text of free-fall WEP tests in Sec. VIID. 28

Table IV. Amplitudes for the acceleration azˆ. Matter interferometers, which permit quantum- Amplitude Phase mechanical laboratory measurements of the motion of falling matter, have attained impressive sensitivities to gravitational acceleration [58] and to rotational accelera- w w w w 2 E0 = 2α(aeff )T +2m (c )ZZ cos χ tions via the Sagnac effect [59]. In the context of gravita- − w w w 2 + m ((c )XX + (c )YY ) sin χ 0 tional Lorentz violation, matter interferometry has been ′w w w w used to measure combinations of the coefficients sµν and E0 = 2α(aeff )T m (c )T T 0 − − α w w w 4 w (kF ) µαν [5] based on the gravimeter analysis of effects Eω =2m (c )(XZ) sin 2χ 5 VLα(aeff )Y sin χ ψ ′w 4 w −w w from the pure-gravity sector of the SME [7]. Here, we Eω = 5 VL 3α(aeff )Y + m (c )(TY ) sin χ ψ w − w w 4 w extend the latter analysis to include effects from the co- F =2m (c )(Y Z) sin 2χ + VLα(a )X sin χ ψ w w ω 5 eff efficients (a )µ, (c )µν and generalize it to other inter- ′w 4 w w w eff Fω = 5 VL 3α(aeff )X + m (c )(T X) sin χ ψ ferometer configurations. Ew = mw((cw) (cw) ) sin2 χ 2ψ The basic idea of a matter interferometer is to place the 2ω XX YY w w w − 2 matter in a superposition of spatially separated quantum F2ω =2m (c )(XY ) sin χ 2ψ w w w states, which may acquire a measurable relative phase. Eω+Ω = m V⊕(c )(T X) sin η sin 2χ ψ w − w w In the gravitational tests considered here, the behavior F = m V⊕ (c ) sin η ω+Ω − (TY ) of the interferometer is close to the classical limit, and (cw) (1 cos η) sin 2χ ψ − (T Z) − a convenient way to perform the analysis is to proceed Ew = mwV (cw) sin η sin 2χ ψ ω−Ω ⊕ (T X) semiclassically via path integration along the classical w − w w motion [58, 60]. The phase difference between the final Fω−Ω = m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η − w states can then be viewed as a sum of three contribu- + (c )(T Z)(1 + cos η) sin 2χ ψ tions: the phase difference acquired from the momentum Ew = mwV (cw) (1 cos η) sin2 χ 2ψ 2ω+Ω ⊕ (TY ) transfers used to control the beams, the phase difference w −w w − 2 F2ω+Ω = m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 cos η) sin χ 2ψ accumulated from the classical action along the different w w w − 2 E2ω−Ω = m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ paths, and in some configurations a phase difference com- w w w 2 F2ω−Ω = m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ ing from a final separation of the states. It turns out that w − w w the dominant effect for acceleration sensing is the phase EΩ =2V⊕α((aeff )Y cos η + (aeff )Z sin η) w w 2 difference acquired through momentum transfers. Since 2m V⊕ (c ) cos η sin χ − (TY ) leading-order Lorentz-violating motional effects appear + 2(cw) sin η cos2 χ 0 (T Z) as modified accelerations, the phase difference from the E′w =2V α((aw ) cos η + (aw ) sin η) Ω ⊕ eff Y eff Z momentum transfers is the relevant contribution in the w w w +2m V⊕((c )(TY ) cos η + (c )(T Z) sin η) 0 present context. w w w w 2 For definiteness, suppose the interferometer paths FΩ = 2V⊕α(aeff )X +2m V⊕(c )(T X) sin χ 0 ′w − w w w trace a parallelogram. This includes the limiting case of FΩ = 2V⊕α(aeff )X 2m V⊕(c )(T X) 0 −1 2 −1 2 temporal path separation, where the parallelogram has E0 = 2 sZZ cos χ 4 (sXX + sYY ) sin χ zero area. Other shapes could also be analyzed using the − 3 − 2 sT T 0 equation of motion (135). In the Lorentz-invariant case, − 1 Eω = s sin 2χ ψ the standard result for the phase shift due to the Earth’s − 2 (XZ) 1 gravitational field is ∆φ = k gτ 2, where ~k is the magni- Fω = 2 s(Y Z) sin 2χ ψ zˆ − 1 2 tude of the momentum transfer in the beam splitter and E2ω = 4 (sXX sYY ) sin χ 2ψ −1 − 2 τ is the time of flight between impulses. With Lorentz F2ω = 4 s(XY ) sin χ 2ψ − 1 violation present, we find the phase shift ∆φ takes a sim- Eω+Ω = 4 V⊕s(T X) sin η sin 2χ ψ ilar form but with the Newton gravitational acceleration 1 Fω+Ω = 4 V⊕ s(TY ) sin η replaced by the accelerations in Eq. (135), giving s T Z (1 cos η) sin 2χ ψ − ( ) − ∆φ = k a τ 2. (139) E = 1 V s sin η sin 2χ ψ ˆj ˆj ω−Ω 4 ⊕ (T X) 1 Fω−Ω = 4 V⊕ s(TY ) sin η The signal frequencies associated with Lorentz viola- + s (1 + cos η) sin 2χ ψ tion can be identified by substitution of the expressions (T Z) 1 2 (136)-(138) for the acceleration components aˆ. Note E ω = V⊕s (1 cos η) sin χ 2ψ j 2 +Ω 4 (TY ) − that Lorentz-violating effects on the atomic energy lev- F = 1 V s (1 cos η) sin2 χ 2ψ 2ω+Ω 4 ⊕ (T X) els could generate additional contributions to the phase − 1 − 2 E2ω−Ω = 4 V⊕s(TY )(1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ difference but are already tightly constrained in other ex- −1 2 F2ω−Ω = 4 V⊕s(T X)(1 + cos η) sin χ 2ψ periments and so can typically be neglected. Note also 1 2 that possible Lorentz-violating effects varying with the EΩ = V⊕ s(TY ) cos η( 2 sin χ + 3) + s sin η(cos2 χ + 3) 0 particle spins, which are described explicitly by the rel- (T Z) 1 2 ativistic hamiltonian of Sec. III B, are disregarded here F = V⊕s ( sin χ +3) 0 Ω − (T X) 2 as outside our present scope. A comprehensive investigation of their implications for matter interferometry may 29 be of interest [61]. given force-comparison gravimeter can be extracted from (3) Several atom interferometers currently or recently op- the PNO(3) lagrangian La,c,s discussed in Sec. VII A. erating are relevant to free-fall gravimeter searches for Since macroscopic bodies are involved, the analysis must Lorentz violation. An impressive sensitivity of about include an assessment of their composition. Note also 1 10−10g to the vertical acceleration was achieved by that conventional intuition from Newton’s second law × Peters, Chung, and Chu [58]. In another apparatus, a can be misleading because the effective inertial masses −9 w differential-acceleration sensitivity of 3 10 g/√Hz has depend on the coefficients (c )µν , as discussed following been demonstrated [62]. An interferometer× designed for Eq. (134). experiments in space is expected to achieve sensitivity Superconducting gravimeters have already been pro- of about 3 10−9g in ground operations [63]. Initial × posed as suitable devices for measuring the gravity-sector sensitivities to accelerations in each direction of about coefficients sµν for Lorentz violation [7]. Here, we ex- −7 6 10 g after 10 minutes of averaging have been at- tend this discussion to include effects from the coefficients tained× in a device using highly parabolic trajectories w w (aeff )µ and (c )µν . The analysis proceeds directly from [64]. Recent estimates suggest that future measurements (3) the PNO(3) lagrangian L by noting that the device is of vertical acceleration could achieve sensitivities at the a,c,s designed to maintainx ¨ = 0. The applied force required level of about 10−15g [65]. ˆj to hold this constraint can be taken as the relevant ob- Given this information and the phase shift (139), we servable and can be written can use Tables II, III, and IV to obtain crude estimates for attainable sensitivities to coefficients for Lorentz violation in existing or near-future atom interferometers. Fzˆ′ = Fzˆ cos ζ + Fxˆ sin ζ, (140) With present capabilities, sensitivities at the level of parts in 105 could in principle be obtained to combi- where ζ is the deviation angle defined in Eq. (126). To w maintain consistent counting of small effects, we restrict nations of the coefficients α(aeff )J , J = X,Y,Z and of several currently unconstrained components of the coef- terms independent of velocity to first order in ζ and terms w n ficients (c )ΣΞ, including (c )(TJ) for the neutron. The containing a power of velocity to zeroth order in ζ. relevant signals are associated with the Earth’s boost as it We find that the relevant contributions to the force Fzˆ′ revolves about the Sun, so they exhibit an annual period- can be decomposed by frequency as icity. The next generation of atom interferometers could in principle improve this sensitivity to parts in 1010. The T 3 2 T Fzˆ′ = m g(1 ζ tan χ ζ ) m g boost of the laboratory due to the Earth’s rotation pro- − − 2 − w w vides sensitivities that have sidereal periodicities instead N w N⊕ ′w 1 G + E + Gn cos(ωnT + ψn) but that are weaker by a factor of about 100. Note that × mT n mS n 3 n=06 ,w " the boost suppressions could in principle be avoided for X w w certain coefficients, including presently unbounded com- N w N⊕ ′w 1 n + Hn + Fn + Hn sin(ωnT + ψn) , binations involving (c )ZZ , by the use of an interferome- mT mS 3 # ter sensitive to the accelerations axˆ, ayˆ that is placed on a rotating turntable. Note also that individual sensitivi- (141) ties to neutron coefficients can in principle be extracted by performing atom interferometry with different neutral where constant effects that are unobservable in supercon- atoms having distinct proton-to-neutron ratios. Another ducting gravimeters are neglected. In this expression, the w w possibility with weaker existing sensitivity includes neu- amplitudes Gn , Hn and their phases are given in Table ′w ′w tron interferometry [66], which could provide indepen- V, while En and Fn are listed in Table IV. The remain- dent and clean bounds on neutron coefficients. ing amplitudes Gn and Hn can be expressed in terms of amplitudes given in Tables II and IV as

C. Force-comparison gravimeter tests Gn = Anζ + En, Hn = Bnζ + Fn. (142)

Another class of gravimeter tests is based on the idea The frequency decomposition (141) can be examined of countering the gravitational force with an appropri- to extract crude estimates of attainable sensitivities to ate electromagnetic force. Force-comparison gravimeter Lorentz violation. In this way, we estimate that the tests can be performed with gravimeters based on sys- w w presently unbounded coefficients α(aeff )J and (c )(TJ) tems of springs and masses [57] and with superconduct- could be measured at the level of parts in 107 using ex- ing gravimeters [57, 67, 68]. At present, the latter de- isting data from superconducting gravimeters [68]. Im- vices have sensitivities competitive with those of exist- proved sensitivities are likely to be attainable in a dedi- ing atom interferometers. Certain experiments studying cated experiment of this type. short-range gravity may also offer relevant sensitivities [69]. The signals for gravitational Lorentz violation in a 30

Table V. Amplitudes for the force Fzˆ′ . The relevant observable for free-fall WEP tests is the ′ Amplitude Phase relative position ∆ˆz of two test bodies 1 and 2 in a given w w w drop. It can be written as Gω =2m ζ(c )(XZ) 4 w w w ′ 1 2 1 1 2 2 VLα(a )Y sin χ 2m VL(c ) sin χ ψ ∆ˆz = (vo) ′ (vo) ′ tˆ+ a ′ a ′ tˆ . (145) − 5 eff − (TY ) zˆ − zˆ 2 zˆ − zˆ Hw =2mwζ(cw) ω (Y Z) This relative position varies with the canonical time T . + 4 V α(aw ) sin χ +2mwV (cw) sin χ ψ 5 L eff X L (T X) Decomposing by frequency yields the expression w w w w G2ω = m ζ((c )XX (c )YY ) 2ψ w w w − N w N w H2ω =2m ζ(c )(XY ) 2ψ ∆ˆz′ = 1 2 T 2 w w w m1 − m2 GΩ =2V⊕α((aeff )Y cos η + (aeff )Z sin η) n,w w w 2 X w w +2m V⊕ (c )(TY ) cos η sin χ [In cos(ωnT + ψn)+ Jn sin(ωnT + ψn)]. + 2(cw) sin η cos2 χ 0 × (T Z) (146) w w w w 2 H =2V⊕α(a )X +2m V⊕(c )(T X) sin χ 0 Ω eff w w The amplitudes In and Jn can be expressed as For tests of short-range gravity and certain other ap- Iw = Awζ + Ew, J w = Bwζ + F w, (147) plications, it is useful to consider the standard case of n n n n n n w w w w two point masses m1 and m2 at coordinate locations ~x1 where An , Bn are listed in Table II and En , Fn are and ~x2. With this setup, the modified Newton potential given in Table IV, along with the associated phases ψn. V at PNO(2) in the laboratory frame can be obtained w w In Eq. (146), the quantities N1 and N2 are the numbers (3) from La,c,s. We find of particles of type w appearing in the test bodies 1 and 2, respectively, while m1 and m2 are the corresponding GN m1m2 2α 2α conventional masses. V = 1+ (a1 ) + (a2 ) − ~x ~x m eff tˆ m eff tˆ The frequency decomposition (146) of the signal (145) | 1 − 2| 1 2 ˆ ˆ ˆˆ can be used to provide rough estimates of attainable sen- +(c1) + (c2) + 1 xˆj xˆksjk , (143) tˆtˆ tˆtˆ 2 sitivities to Lorentz violation in existing or near-future free-fall WEP tests. We combine values for the fractional wherex ˆ = (~x ~x )/ ~x ~x . This modified poten- 1 2 1 2 acceleration sensitivity ∆a/a discussed in Refs. [65, 70– tial exhibits the− usual inverse-distance| − | dependence, and 75] with the result (146) to compile some estimates in Ta- it generalizes Eq. (137) of Ref. [7]. The corresponding ble VI. In this table, the first row lists the fractional accel- modified Newton force typically has a component per- eration sensitivity, while each of the other rows concerns pendicular to the unit vectorx ˆ, while obtaining the ac- a particular combination of coefficients. For brevity, in celerations requires determining also the effective iner- the first column we adopt the notations tial masses. As usual, any motion of the masses relative to the Sun-centered frame implies time dependence of (aeff )Y +Z = (aeff )Y cos η + (aeff )Z sin η, the laboratory-frame coefficients. In principle, the above w w w w (c )Q = (c )XX + (c )YY 2(c )ZZ , (148) modified Newton potential could be used in conjunction − with integration or finite-element methods to determine w w along with those introduced in Eqs. (123) and (125). We the effects of the coefficients (aeff )µ, (c )µν , sµν on the follow common procedure in the literature [2] by taking behavior of two interacting bodies. w w w w (c )T T , (c )XX (c )YY , and (c )Q as the relevant inde- − w pendent combinations of the traceless coefficients (c )ΣΞ. Each column in Table VI lists estimated attainable sen- D. Free-fall WEP tests sitivities on the moduli of various quantities in specified types of free-fall WEP test, expressed to the nearest or- In this subsection, we consider WEP tests in which der of magnitude. Values listed with neither brackets signals for Lorentz violation can be sought by monitoring nor braces are limits based on published data that are the relative motion of two freely falling bodies of different implied by our present analysis. Values shown in brack- composition. Typical free-fall WEP tests are sensitive to ets are our estimate of sensitivities that could in principle motion along the direction of the net acceleration azˆ′ . be obtained from a suitable reanalysis of existing data. This acceleration is the combination Values shown in braces represent our estimate of sensitivities attainable using data from future tests. azˆ′ =azˆ cos ζ +axˆ sin ζ (144) The second column of the table concerns free-fall WEP tests using falling corner cubes [70, 71]. In the second of the component accelerations (136) and (138), weighted entry of this column, we present a single bound on the by the deviation angle ζ given in Eq. (126). In what time-independent portion of the signal implied by exist- follows, terms containing both a boost factor and a factor ing data. The remainder of this column lists crude es- of ζ are treated as higher order and negligible, as in the timates of sensitivities that could be attained through previous subsection. sidereal and annual analysis of the same data. 31

The third and fourth columns of the table list sensitiv- free-fall WEP tests performed at different colatitudes χ. ities from free-fall WEP tests using atom interferometry. Independent sensitivities can also be achieved via other In the second entry of the third column, we present a sin- techniques. One possibility is positronium interferometry gle bound extracted from existing data [72]. The fourth [77], which via comparison with ordinary matter could column concerns proposals for future tests with atom in- yield a bound on different linear combinations of (aw ) terferometers [65], based on the idea that the relative eff T and (cw) . Also, some independent measurements can vertical acceleration of two different atoms may be mea- T T be extracted by combining results from free-fall WEP sured using a simultaneous dual-species fountain [76]. tests with those from the force-comparison WEP tests The remaining columns of the table concern other pro- discussed below. posed free-fall WEP tests. Crude estimates are provided of the sensitivities that might be achieved in the Principle The next generation of the POEM experiment [73] is of Equivalence Measurement (POEM) [73], via balloon the proposed Sounding Rocket POEM (SR-POEM) [78], drops in the General Relativity Accuracy Test (GReAT) which is a WEP test designed to measure to 10−16 the rel- [74], and using the Bremen drop tower [75]. ative acceleration of freely falling test bodies on a sound- In the table, the estimates for the coefficients listed in ing rocket during certain phases of its flight. Although n the second and third rows and for (c )Q in the penul- not terrestrial, this experiment can also be analyzed us- timate row all arise from the time-independent compo- ing the methods presented here. A competitive sensitiv- nent of the data. A nonzero signal for any of these mea- ity is anticipated for measurements of the combination e+p−n p e+p−n surements would therefore be challenging to distinguish α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3 of isotropic coefficients. from other potential sources of WEP violation. Note Obtaining sufficient− data to resolve the periodic changes that obtaining the independent sensitivities in the third necessary for sensitivity to other coefficient combinations and penultimate rows requires combining data taken in would be challenging.

Table VI. Sensitivities for free-fall WEP tests. Falling Atom Tossed Balloon Drop Coefficient cornercube interferometry masses drop tower combination [70, 71] [72] [65] [73] [74] [75] ∆a −10 −7 −17 −14 −15 −12 a 10 10 10 10 10 10 e+p−n 1 p e+p−n { }{ }{ }{ } α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T 1 2− 1 n n −8 −5 −15 −12 −13 −10 + ( 2 cos χ 6 )m (c )Q 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n 1− p e+p−n { −15 }{ −12 }{ −13 }{ −10 } α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T ...... 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n − −4 { −11 }{ −8 }{ −9 }{ −6 } α(aeff )X [10 GeV] ... 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n −4 { −11 }{ −8 }{ −9 }{ −6 } α(aeff )Y +Z [10 GeV] ... 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n −2 { −9 }{ −6 }{ −7 }{ −4 } α(aeff )Y [10 GeV] ... 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n −2 { −9 }{ −6 }{ −7 }{ −4 } α(aeff )Z [10 GeV] ... 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV n { −15 }{ −12 }{ −13 }{ −10 } (c )Q ...... 10 10 10 10 { }{ }{ }{ } (cn) [10−4] ... 10−11 10−8 10−9 10−6 (TJ) { }{ }{ }{ }

E. Force-comparison WEP tests compare gravitational forces on parts of the Earth having different compositions [81], although present sensitivities to coefficients for Lorentz violation are likely to be some- Typical force-comparison WEP tests can be viewed what weaker. as comparing the motion of two or more bodies joined through electromagnetic forces with that predicted by For the torsion pendulum, a simple model of the bob an equation of the modified form (132). The predicted is a dumbbell viewed as a rod with test bodies 1 and 2 motion depends on the details of the configuration, so a placed on each end. The two test bodies are composed unified analysis for all force-comparison WEP tests is im- of different materials, and the bob is suspended by a tor- practical. Here, we consider as an illustration a sensitive sion fiber attached at the midpoint between them. The existing force-comparison WEP test based on a torsion resulting pendulum is typically rotated in the laboratory pendulum [33, 79]. Exceptional sensitivity to Lorentz vi- to improve the modulation of the signal. The relevant ob- olation can be achieved using a torsion pendulum with a servable in such tests is the twist angle θ(T ) of the torsion spin-weighted bob [35, 41, 80], but here we treat instead fiber. This angle can be calculated from the Newton sec- a bob with a dipolar composition. We remark in pass- ond law as modified by the presence of Lorentz violation. ing that another interesting option for force-comparison At zeroth order in Lorentz violation, the pendulum WEP tests is the use of superconducting gravimeters to hangs at an angle ζ from the local vertical in the labo- 32 ratory given by Eq. (126). Lorentz-violating corrections plicity, we assume here that the bob is suspended at a to ζ exist, but these make no contribution to the signal point P equidistant between the centers of mass of the to the order at which we work. This angle represents test bodies and that the test bodies are constructed to the equilibrium position for the swing mode of the pen- ensure the dumbbell is perpendicular to the torsion fiber. dulum. Lorentz-violating modifications to this position In the absence of Lorentz violation, this implies equality could drive small excitations of the swing mode, but ex- of the two masses m1 and m2. However, in the presence periments tuned to the torsion mode are typically com- of Lorentz violation, m1 and m2 differ at leading order in paratively insensitive to other modes [79]. the coefficients for Lorentz violation. As the pendulum The orientation of the bob about the axis perpendicu- rotates, this difference could shift the dumbbell orienta- lar to both the torsion fiber and to the dumbbell dipole tion away from its equilibrium point and generate small moment can also be considered. This is the equilibrium excitations of the wobble mode about P . Again, experi- position for the wobble mode of the pendulum. For sim- ments are comparatively insensitive to this mode.

Table VII. Amplitudes for torsion-pendulum tests.

Amplitude Phase αn 2 1 w w w w w ω R⊕ 2 Kωe = (m (c )XX + m (c )YY 2α(a )T ) 1+ sin χ sin 2χ φ − 2 − eff g 1 w w 1 w w Kωe+Ω = 2 V⊕α((aeff )Y cos η + (aeff )Z sin η) sin 2χ + 2 m V⊕(c )(TY ) cos η sin 2χ φ −1 w 1 w w Lωe+Ω = 2 V⊕α(aeff )X sin 2χ + 2 m V⊕(c )(T X) sin 2χ φ − 1 w w 1 w w Kωe−Ω = 2 V⊕α((aeff )Y cos η + (aeff )Z sin η) sin 2χ + 2 m V⊕(c )(TY ) cos η sin 2χ φ 1− w 1 w w Lωe−Ω = 2 V⊕α(aeff )X sin 2χ 2 m V⊕(c )(T X) sin 2χ φ −2 w w ω R⊕ 2 2 gVLα w K e = m (c ) 1 cos χ sin χ 2 (a ) (1 + cos χ) φ + ψ ω +ω (XZ) g 5ω R⊕ eff Y − 2 − w w ω R⊕ 2 2 gVLα w L e = m (c ) 1 cos χ sin χ 2 (a ) (1 + cos χ) φ + ψ ω +ω (Y Z) g 5ω R⊕ eff X − − 2 − w w ω R⊕ 2 2 gVLα w K e = m (c ) 1 cos χ sin χ + 2 (a ) (1 cos χ) φ ψ ω −ω (XZ) g 5ω R⊕ eff Y − 2 − − w w ω R⊕ 2 2 gVLα w L e = m (c ) 1 cos χ sin χ + 2 (a ) (cos χ 1) φ ψ ω −ω (Y Z) g 5ω R⊕ eff X − 2 − − 1 w w w ω R⊕ 3 Kωe+2ω = 2 m ((c )XX (c )YY ) sin χ + sin χ cos χ + g sin χ cos χ φ +2ψ − − 2 w w ω R⊕ 3 Lωe+2ω = m (c )(XY ) sin χ + sin χ cos χ + g sin χ cos χ φ +2ψ 2 1 w w w ω R⊕ 3 Kωe−2ω = 2 m ((c )XX (c )YY ) sin χ sin χ cos χ g sin χ cos χ φ 2ψ − − 2 − − w w ω R⊕ 3 Lωe− ω = m (c ) sin χ sin χcos χ sin χ cos χ φ 2ψ 2 (XY ) − − g − 1 w w 2 Kωe+ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(T X) sin η sin χ φ + ψ 1− w w w 2 Lωe+ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η (c )(T Z)(1 cos η) sin χ φ + ψ 1 w w − 2 − K e = m V (c ) sin η sin χ φ + ψ ω +ω−Ω 2 ⊕ (T X) 1− w w w 2 Lωe+ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η + (c )(T Z)(1 + cos η) sin χ φ + ψ 1 w w 2 K e = m V (c ) sin η sin χ φ ψ ω −ω+Ω 2 ⊕ (T X) −1 w w w 2 − Lωe−ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η + (c )(T Z)(1 + cos η) sin χ φ ψ − 1 w w 2 − K e = m V (c ) sin η sin χ φ ψ ω −ω−Ω 2 ⊕ (T X) −1 w w w 2 − Lωe−ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕ (c )(TY ) sin η (c )(T Z)(1 cos η) sin χ φ ψ −1 w w − − − K e = m V (c ) (1 cos η) sin χ(1 + cos χ) φ +2ψ ω +2ω+Ω 2 ⊕ (TY ) 1 w w − Lωe+2ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 cos η) sin χ(1 + cos χ) φ +2ψ 1 w w − Kωe+2ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 + cos η) sin χ(1 + cos χ) φ +2ψ −1 w w Lωe+2ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 + cos η) sin χ(1 + cos χ) φ +2ψ − 1 w w Kωe−2ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 + cos η) sin χ(cos χ 1) φ 2ψ 1− w w − − Lωe−2ω+Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(T X)(1 + cos η) sin χ(cos χ 1) φ 2ψ 1 w w − − Kωe−2ω−Ω = 2 m V⊕(c )(TY )(1 cos η) sin χ(cos χ 1) φ 2ψ 1 w w − − − Lωe− ω− = m V⊕(c ) (1 cos η) sin χ(1 cos χ) φ 2ψ 2 Ω 2 (T X) − − − To analyze the torsion mode, it is convenient to express (133), giving the relevant contributions to the difference m1 m2 of − w w w w w the test-body masses in a form displaying the dependence m1 m2 = (N N ) (2α(a )T + m (c )T T ) . − − 1 − 2 eff on particle species. This form can be obtained from Eq. w X (149) 33

At leading order in Lorentz violation, the oscillations of attained sensitivity to the differential acceleration of Be the system are determined by the second-order differen- and Ti test bodies at the level of 10−15 ms−2 [33] is the tial equation experimental basis for our limit (121), which extends an earlier bound [11] to include the coefficients eµ. In the d2θ dθ I +2γI + κθ = τ, (150) remainder of this subsection, we revisit this issue to in- dT 2 dT corporate the slightly weaker constraints from torsion- where γ is the torsional damping constant and κ is the pendulum experiments using Al, Be, Cu, and Si test bod- w torsional spring constant. The moment of inertia I can ies [79], and we consider implications of nonzero (c )µν . w be taken as First, suppose (c )µν = 0. Inclusion of data from tests with different materials permits the extraction of some 2 ′ I = (m1 + m2)r0 + I , (151) independent sensitivities to neutron coefficients and to combinations of electron and proton coefficients. This where r is the distance from P to the test bodies and I′ is 0 treatment relies on differences in binding energy be- the moment of inertia of the remaining matter comprising tween the materials involved, so the signal sensitivity of the dumbbell. The torque τ includes Lorentz-violating −15 −2 2 −3 −2 10 ms relative to ω R⊕ 3 10 ms is sup- effects and is determined by the forces on the test bodies ≃ × (3) pressed both by the typical material-dependence factor calculated from the PNO(3) lagrangian La,c,s. w w −2 of (N1 N2 ) 10 appearing in Eq. (152) and by The damping term in Eq. (150) ensures that free oscil- another− order of≃ magnitude from the binding-energy dif- lations vanish in the steady state. The time dependence ference. By combining available Be-Ti and Al-Be data of the steady-state solution is therefore determined by the [79] we obtain the estimated bounds rotations of the pendulum relative to the Sun-centered e+p −10 frame. Neglecting possible torques other than those im- α(aeff )T < 10 GeV, (3) | | plied by La,c,s, the steady-state solution can be written n ∼ −10 α(aeff )T < 10 GeV, (153) in frequency-decomposed form as | | ∼ w w w 2 valid for (c )µν = 0. (N N ) ω R⊕r0 w θ(T ) = 1 − 2 If instead nonzero coefficients (c )µν are present, then 2 2 2 2 2 n,w I (ω0 ωn) +4γ ωn we obtain the estimated bound X − e p−n Kpn sin(ωnT + βn + αn) α(a + ) 1 mp(ce+p−n) 1 mn(cn) < 10−11 GeV. × eff T 3 T T 6 Q | − − | ∼ (154) +Ln cos(ωnT + βn + αn) , (152) The contributions due to the spatial neutron coefficient 2 2 n where βn = 2γωn/(ω ω ) and where αn is a phase (c ) cannot be disentangled from those due to the tem- 0 − n Q fixing the relationship between the time coordinate in poral components at this order in the analysis. However, the turntable frame and the Sun-centered time T . The this separation becomes feasible when the result (154) amplitudes Kn, Ln and the phase αn are given in Table is combined with the limit achieved via free-fall WEP VII. With the exception of the first row in the table, these tests given in row 2 of Table VI. We thereby obtain the signals for Lorentz violation are distinguished from other constraints potential sources of WEP violation by their characteristic e+p−n 1 p e+p−n −8 α(a )T m (c )T T < 10 GeV, time dependence. | eff − 3 | n ∼ −8 In the above analysis, the assumption of a steady- (c )Q < 10 . (155) state solution implies the pendulum motion is governed | | ∼ by leading-order Lorentz violation, while the torque τ As discussed following Eq. (125), the possibility of w is taken as the only relevant source of Lorentz viola- (c )µν -type Lorentz-violating effects in the binding en- tion. Note that Lorentz-violating contributions to the ergy impedes its direct use in extracting independent e+p 1 p e+p n moment of inertia I can be neglected here because they sensitivities to α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T and α(aeff )T 1 p n | − | | − enter only at higher order. These are a manifestation 3 m (c )T T . of the angular-momentum nonconservation that accom- In addition| to the constraints (153), (154), and (155), panies Lorentz violation, and they are analogous to the other new bounds could be placed on the moduli of cer- Lorentz-violating contributions to the effective inertial tain coefficients for Lorentz violation by reanalyzing the mass in the modified Newton second law (132). In prin- time dependence of the data obtained in the experiments ciple, the rotation of the apparatus in the laboratory in- of Refs. [33, 79] using the result (152). Crude estimates 2 troduces similar effects proportional to cJK and ωe r0. of these sensitivities are given in Table VIII. These are These may be comparable in magnitude to effects listed obtained disregarding binding-energy considerations but 2 in Table VII that are suppressed by ω R⊕V⊕, but they making the strong assumption that all relevant frequen- offer no additional advantage in terms of sensitivity and cies in Table VII can be studied in the data. Allowing for so are disregarded here. binding-energy effects could yield independent sensitivi- The above analysis can be used to extract constraints ties to the neutron coefficients and to a combination of on Lorentz violation from the results of the torsion- proton and electron coefficients, both reduced by roughly pendulum WEP tests reported in Refs. [33, 79]. The a factor of 10. 34

Table VIII. Sensitivities for torsion-pendulum tests. ξ2 in the table are defined relative to the basis vectors of Coefficient Sensitivity the Earth-centered frame. The notation for properties of n −7 the test masses 1 and 2 follows that of Sec. VIB. c(TJ) [10 ] e+p−n −8 α(aeff )X [10 GeV] Table IX. Notation for satellite-based WEP tests. e+p−n −7 α(aeff )Y +Z [10 GeV] Quantity Definition e+p−n −8 α(aeff )Y [10 GeV] R⊕ mean Earth radius e+p−n −7 α(aeff )Z [10 GeV] V⊕ mean Earth orbital speed rJ Earth-satellite separation

ωs satellite orbital frequency VIII. SATELLITE-BASED WEP TESTS ωr satellite rotational frequency ξ inclination of satellite orbit Space-based platforms offer certain advantages in tests 1 of gravity [82] and searches for Lorentz violation [83]. ξ2 longitude of satellite-orbit node The long free-fall times that may be attainable on θ1 phase fixing satellite location at T =0 a drag-free spacecraft make satellite-based WEP tests θ2 phase fixing satellite orientation at T =0 particularly attractive. Several proposals are in an advanced stage of development, including the Micro- Establishing the signal arising from nonzero coeffi- Satellite à traˆınée Compensée pour l’Observation du cients for Lorentz violation requires the transformation Principe d’Equivalence (MicroSCOPE) [84], the Satellite from the Sun-centered frame to a frame comoving with Test of the Equivalence Principle (STEP) [85], and the the satellite. The satellite frame serves as the equiva- Galileo Galilei (GG) mission [86]. A WEP reach similar lent of the laboratory frame for terrestrial searches. We to that of STEP has also been suggested for the Grand denote coordinates in the satellite frame by xµˆ. Unification and Gravity Explorer (GaUGE) mission [87]. Since the satellite orbit is inclined relative to the Earth- The basic idea underlying these missions is to mon- centered frame, it is also useful to introduce an interme- itor the relative motion of test bodies made of differ- diate frame aligned with the satellite orbit and hence ent materials as they orbit the Earth in a satellite. In rotated with respect to the Earth-centered frame. The ′ the presence of nonzero coefficients for Lorentz violation intermediate coordinates are denoted by xµ . The rota- w w j′ ˜j (aeff )µ and (c )µν , the orbits of the test bodies become tion transformation from x to x can be written as the material dependent. In this section, we determine the re- matrix sulting apparent WEP violations and then obtain crude w w estimates of the sensitivities to (aeff )µ and (c )µν attain- cos ξ2 cos ξ1 sin ξ2 sin ξ1 sin ξ2 ˜jk′ − able in MicroSCOPE, STEP, and GG. R = sin ξ cos ξ cos ξ sin ξ cos ξ (156) 1  2 1 2 − 1 2  0 sin ξ cos ξ  1 1  A. Theory   using the angles ξ1 and ξ2 defined in Table IX. The connection between the satellite coordinates and The basic observable for a satellite-based WEP test is the Earth-centered coordinates can be written the differential local acceleration between the test bodies. The typical design goal is to achieve excellent sensi- ˜j ˜jk′ k′ˆl ˆl k′ x = R1 (R2 x + xs ). (157) tivity to one or two components of this acceleration. For present purposes, we can idealize the situation as a pair k′ Here, xs is the world line of the satellite in the in- of test bodies aboard a satellite traveling in a circular or- termediate coordinate system. This world line can be bit. In what follows, we allow for the possibility that the parametrized as test bodies are also rotating about an axis perpendicular both to the direction of motion of the satellite and to the k′ xs = (r cos(ωsT + θ1), r sin(ωsT + θ1), 0) , (158) direction of acceleration sensitivity. Some notation relevant for our analysis of satellite- where r is the magnitude of the Earth-satellite separa- based WEP tests is summarized in Table IX. Paralleling tion. The satellite therefore orbits in the x′-y′ plane. the analysis of terrestrial experiments in Sec. VII A, it k′ˆl Also, in Eq. (157) the rotation R2 of the satellite is is convenient to introduce an Earth-centered frame with given by the matrix coordinates xµ˜ = (t,˜ x,˜ y,˜ z˜), chosen so that t˜ = T and so that the spatial components match those of the Sun- cos(ωrT + θ2) sin(ωrT + θ2) 0 centered frame at leading post-newtonian order. The k′ˆl − R = sin(ω T + θ ) cos(ω T + θ ) 0 . (159) Earth-centered coordinates can be related to the Sun- 2  r 2 r 2  0 01 centered ones as discussed in Sec. VIA. The angles ξ1,     The axis of the satellite rotation is therefore alongz ˆ. 35

Table X. Amplitudes for satellite-based WEP tests. Amplitude phase

2 w w w ωR⊕α cos ξ2 w w Pωr = m rωs (c )(TY ) sin ξ1 + (c )(T X) cos ξ1 + 5r (aeff )X cos ξ1 + (aeff )Y sin ξ1 θ2 w w w w Qωr = m rωsh (c )(T X) sin ξ1 cos ξ2 (c )(TY )icos ξ1 cos ξ2 h(c )(T Z) sin ξ2 i 2 − − ωR⊕α w w + h (a )X sin ξ (a )Y cos ξ i θ 5r eff 1 − eff 1 2 w h w i w Pωr+ωs =2m cos ξ2 cos2ξ1(c )(XY ) + sin ξ2 sin ξ1(c )(Y Z) 1 w w w h + sin 2ξ cos ξ ((c )YY (c )XX ) + sin ξ cos ξ (c ) θ + θ 2 1 2 − 2 1 (XZ) 1 2 w 2 2 2 1 2 w w 1 2 w w w Qωs ωr = m (cos ξ cos ξ sin ξ + sin ξ )((c )XX (c )YY )+ sini ξ ((c )XX + (c )YY 2(c )ZZ ) + 2 1 − 1 2 2 − 2 2 − h cos ξ sin 2ξ (cw) + sin ξ sin 2ξ (cw) + sin 2ξ (1 + cos2 ξ )(cw) θ + θ − 1 2 (Y Z) 1 2 (XZ) 1 2 (XY ) 1 2 w 2 2 1 2 1 w w Qωs−ωr = m cos ξ sin ξ + cos ξ + ((c )XX (c )YY ) i 1 2 2 2 2 − 1 2 w w w w h sin ξ2 ((c )XX + (c )YY 2(c )ZZ )+2(c )YY − 2 − 2 w w w w + sin 2ξ1 1 cos ξ2 (c )(XY ) sin ξ1 sin 2ξ2(c )(XZ) + cos ξ1 sin 2ξ2(c )(Y Z) 2α(aeff )T θ1 θ2 − − 2 − − w w w 3ωR⊕α cos ξ2 w w i P ωs−ωr = m rωs (c ) cos ξ + (c ) sin ξ (a )X cos ξ + (a )Y sin ξ 2θ θ 2 − (T X) 1 (TY ) 1 − 5r eff 1 eff 1 1 − 2 w h w w i wh i Q2ωs−ωr = m rωs (c )(TY ) cos ξ1 cos ξ2 (c )(T X) sin ξ1 cos ξ2 + (c )(T Z) sin ξ2 2 − 3ωR⊕α w w h (a )X sin ξ (a )Y cos ξ i 2θ θ − 5r eff 1 − eff 1 1 − 2 w 2 2 2 w P ωs ωr = m V⊕ h cos ξ sin ξ cos ξ cosiη cos ξ cos2ξ sin η sin ξ cos ξ (c ) Ω+ + 1 − 1 2 − 2 1 − 2 1 (T X) w h + sin ξ1 sin ξ2 (cos ξ2 cos η) (c ) T Z − ( ) + cos ξ + cos ξ cos2 ξ sin η sin ξ 2cos η cos ξ cos ξ sin ξ (cw) θ + θ 1 1 2 − 2 − 1 2 1 (TY ) 1 2 w 2 w i QΩ+ωs+ωr = m V⊕ 2cos ξ1 cos ξ2 sin η sin ξ2 cos ξ2 cos η cos ξ1(1 + cos ξ2) sin ξ1(c ) T X − − ( ) 2 2 w h cos2ξ1 cos ξ2 sin η cos ξ1 sin ξ2 cos ξ2 + cos η(1 cos ξ1 sin ξ2) (c ) TY − − − ( ) w (cos ξ1 sin η sin ξ2 cos η cos ξ1) sin ξ2(c )(T Z) θ1 + θ2 − − − w 2 2 w 1 2 w 1 w P ωs−ωr = m V⊕ 1 sin ξ sin ξ (c ) + sin 2ξ sin ξ (c )i sin ξ sin 2ξ (c ) Ω+ − 1 2 (T X) 2 1 2 (TY ) − 2 1 2 (T Z) w h αV⊕(a )X i θ1 θ2 − eff − w 1 2 w Q ωs−ωr = m V⊕ cos η sin 2ξ sin ξ sin η sin ξ sin 2ξ (c ) Ω+ − 2 1 2 − 1 2 (T X) 1 2 2 w h+ 2 sin η cos ξ1 sin 2ξ2 + (1 sin ξ2 cos ξ1)cos η (c )(TY ) 2 1 − w w w + sin η sin ξ + cos η cos ξ sin 2ξ (c ) + αV⊕ (a )Z sin η + (a )Y cos η θ θ 2 2 1 2 (T Z) eff eff 1 − 2 w 2 2 w 1 2 w 1 w PΩ−ωs+ωr = m V⊕ (1 sin ξ1 sin ξ2)(c )(T X) + sin 2ξ1 sin ξ2(c i)(TY ) sin ξ1 sin 2ξ2(c )(T Z) i − 2 − 2 w h αV⊕(a )X i θ + θ − eff − 1 2 w 1 2 w Q −ωs ωr = m V⊕ sin η sin ξ sin 2ξ cos η sin 2ξ sin ξ (c ) Ω + 2 1 2 − 1 2 (T X) 1 2 2 w h 2 sin η cos ξ1 sin 2ξ2 + cos η(1 cos ξ1sin ξ2) (c )(TY ) − 2 1 − w w w sin η sin ξ + cos η cos ξ sin 2ξ (c ) + αV⊕ (a )Z sin η + (a )Y cos η θ + θ − 2 2 1 2 (T Z) eff eff − 1 2 w 2 2 2 i h w i PΩ−ωs−ωr = m V⊕ cos ξ1 sin ξ1 cos ξ2 + sin η cos ξ1sin ξ2 + cos η cos2ξ1 cos ξ2 (c ) T X − ( ) 1 2 w h+ 2 sin 2ξ1(1 + cos ξ2) + sin η sin ξ1 sin ξ2 + cos η sin 2ξ1 cos ξ2 (c )(TY ) + 1 sin 2ξ + cos η sin ξ sin ξ (cw) θ θ 2 2 2 1 (T Z) − 1 − 2 w 1 1 2 w QΩ−ωs−ωr = m V⊕ sin 2ξ1 cos ξ2 + sinη sin ξ1 sin 2ξ2 +i cos η sin ξ1(1 + cos ξ2) (c )(T X) − 2 2 1 2 2 2 w h+ cos2ξ1 cos ξ2 + sin η cos ξ1 sin ξ2 cos η(sin ξ1 cos ξ1 cos ξ2) (c ) TY 2 − − ( ) 2 1 w + cos ξ1 sin ξ2 + sin η sin ξ2 + cos η cos ξ1 sin 2ξ2 (c )(T Z) θ1 θ2 2 − − i 36

For our purposes, it suffices to obtain explicitly the used to obtain rough estimates of the reach of these ex- local differential acceleration ∆axˆ of the test bodies in periments for studies of Lorentz violation. For this pur- w w thex ˆ direction. We have pose, we take the quantity N1 /m1 N2 /m2 appearing −2 − −1 2 in Eq. (162) to be of order 10 GeV , which is the xˆ d ∆ˆx xˆ xˆ best available value with the Pt-Ir, Be, and Nb test bod- ∆a = ∆atidal + ∆aLV + .... (160) ≡ dtˆ2 ies presently proposed for STEP. Note that the bounds scale linearly with this difference, so a careful choice of The first term on the right-hand side of this expression test-body material can maximize sensitivity to Lorentz is the conventional Newton tidal term. It takes the form violation. Moreover, combining results for different test xˆ 3 2 materials can yield additional independent sensitivities. ∆a = ω cos(2ωrT 2ωsT + θ θ ) tidal − 2 s − 2 − 1 Note also that the experimental reach may vary with the 2 1 2 choice of orbit. For definiteness, we suppose the sines +ωr + 2 ωs ∆ˆx. (161) and cosines of ξ1 and ξ2 are of order one. Our crude estimates for attainable sensitivities to the The second term in Eq. (160) contains Lorentz-violating moduli of (aw ) and (cw) for MicroSCOPE and STEP contributions to the differential acceleration. It can be eff µ µν are presented in Table XI. In each row, the listed sensi- written tivities are obtained under the assumption that all coef- N w N w ficients vanish except those appearing in the first entry. ∆axˆ = rω2 1 2 (162) LV s m m The key factor underlying the difference in reach for the w,n 1 − 2 X various coefficient combinations is the boost entering the Pn sin(ωnT + αn)+ Qn cos(ωnT + αn) . relevant amplitude in Table X. Amplitudes containing V⊕ × are suppressed by roughly 10−4, while those containing −5 rωs are suppressed by about 10 . As before, the braces The amplitudes Pm, Qm and the corresponding phases are provided in Table X. Finally, the ellipsis in Eq. indicate the estimated sensitivities involve data from fu- (160) represents higher-order general-relativistic correc- ture tests. tions and Lorentz-violating effects at the same post- xˆ newtonian order as ∆atidal. The latter are typically of lesser interest. If desired, the differential acceleration C. Galileo Galilei ∆ayˆ alongy ˆ can be obtained by performing the transformation ωrT ωrT π/2 on Eq. (160). Certain design features of GG [86] differ from those → − of MicroSCOPE and STEP in ways that are significant for studies of Lorentz violation. Although GG also uses B. MicroSCOPE and STEP coaxial cylindrical test bodies, it is sensitive to accelerations in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylin- Within our idealized scenario, MicroSCOPE [84] and ders. Also, the cylinders are rotated about their axis at STEP [85] can be analyzed in parallel. Each apparatus a comparatively high frequency of about 2 Hz. consists of a pair of cylindrical test bodies made of differ- In applying the generic analysis of Sec. VIII A to GG, ent material but having a common symmetry axis. The it is convenient to take the cylinder axes to lie along test bodies are free to move along this axis. In satellite zˆ. The experiment is then sensitive to accelerations in coordinates, this direction lies alongx ˆ and is perpendic- thex ˆ-ˆy plane. The differential acceleration ∆axˆ along ular both to the direction of motion of the satellite and xˆ is given in Eq. (160), while ∆ayˆ can be obtained by to the axis of the satellite rotation. adjusting the phase θ2. 2 −17 One prosaic origin of relative motion of the test bodies The sensitivity goal of GG is ∆a/rωs < 10 . In along thex ˆ direction could be the influence of tidal forces Table XI, we present rough estimates of the correspond- w on a misalignment of the two centers of mass, which ing reach for measurements of the coefficients (aeff )µ and xˆ w would lead to the acceleration ∆atidal in Eq. (160). This (c )µν for Lorentz violation, obtained using the result can be separated from the acceleration due to WEP vi- (162). The values for GG in the table are based on the olations stemming from Lorentz-invariant sources, which same assumptions as those discussed above for Micro- enters with the characteristic frequency ωs ωr. Here, SCOPE and STEP. This includes the material-dependent − xˆ we are interested in a WEP-violating acceleration ∆aLV factor, with the proposed materials for the GG test bod- w w arising from the coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν for Lorentz ies being Be and Cu. The boost factors leading to the violation. This can be distinguished from both the above varying sensitivities for GG listed in the table are also effects through careful separation of the frequencies as- of the same order of magnitude as for the other satellite sociated with the amplitudes in Table X, except for the experiments. amplitude Qωs−ωr . We remark in passing that the comparatively high ro- The sensitivity goals of MicroSCOPE and STEP are tation rate for the GG cylinders could introduce addi- 2 −15 2 −18 ∆a/rωs < 10 and ∆a/rωs < 10 , respectively. tional Lorentz-violating effects. Typically, the presence w These sensitivities and the results in Table X can be of nonzero (c )µν introduces modifications to the effec- 37 tive moment of inertia of a body. This can affect the dy- detected by the GG apparatus that senses the test-body namical balance of the system, which can lead to observ- location. Notice that the signals would be independent able signals. For example, potential effects of this type of gravity. They may be detectable using sophisticated on the timing of pulsar signals have been used to con- terrestrial dynamical-balancing equipment, perhaps in- n strain some combinations of (c )µν [88]. In the present cluding that used in the Galileo Galilei on the Ground context, the observable signals could include a material- (GGG) experiment [89]. The investigation of these ef- dependent Lorentz-violating wobble varying at the satel- fects represents an interesting open question for future lite frequency and at the Earth’s orbital frequency. It is work. conceivable that these Lorentz-violating effects could be

Table XI. Sensitivities for satellite-based WEP tests. Coefficient MicroSCOPE GG STEP e+p−n 1 p e+p−n −13 −15 −16 α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV −e+p−n { −9 }{ −11 }{ −12 } α(aeff )X 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n { −9 }{ −11 }{ −12 } α(aeff )Y +Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n { −7 }{ −9 }{ −10 } α(aeff )Y 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n { −7 }{ −9 }{ −10 } α(aeff )Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV n { −13 }{ −15 }{ −16 } (c )Q 10 10 10 { }{ }{ } (cn) 10−9 10−11 10−12 (TJ) { }{ }{ }

IX. EXOTIC GRAVITATIONAL TESTS the photon modes are interpreted as NG bosons from w spontaneous Lorentz breaking and in which (aeff )µ re- In this section, we offer a few remarks about some mains physically observable, such as nonminimally cou- gravitational searches for Lorentz violation using mate- pled bumblebee electrodynamics [14]. rial test bodies other than neutral bulk matter, neutral One candidate technique to measure gravitational ef- w atoms, or neutrons. These more exotic searches typically fects from the coefficients (aeff )µ is charged-particle in- present unique experimental challenges, but they could terferometry. Electron interferometry has been used to provide access to combinations of coefficients for Lorentz measure the Sagnac effect at the 30% level [90], while ion violation that are awkward or impossible to isolate and interferometry is under investigation as a practical tool measure in other searches discussed in this paper. Here, for sensitive tests of Coulomb’s law [91]. In the present we briefly consider tests with electrons and ions, studies context, electron or ion interferometry offers an interest- with antihydrogen, and experiments using particles from ing alternative prospect to the free-fall tests with neu- the second and third generation of the SM. tral matter discussed in Sec. VII. For a given geometry, the observed phase shift can be determined using the methods of Sec. VII B. In the limit of interest here, the A. Tests with electrons and ions vertical acceleration azˆ of the electron or ion T in the gravitational field of the Earth S is given at PNO(2) by

Measurements of the gravitational acceleration of 2gα T 2gα S azˆ = g (aeff )tˆ (aeff )tˆ. (163) charged matter remain of definite theoretical interest be- − − mT − mS cause the WEP and other foundational aspects of gravity As before, the PNO(3) version of this acceleration can are comparatively poorly tested in this regime. In this be frequency decomposed relative to the Sun-centered subsection, we consider possible signals from studies of frame, with the corresponding amplitudes depending on w charged electrons or ions. Given the experimental chal- the coefficients (aeff )µ as given in Table IV. lenges of these tests and their limited attainable sensi- In principle, a charged-particle interferometer can be w tivities, we restrict attention here to effects from (aeff )µ, used for free-fall gravimeter tests of the type discussed setting other coefficients to zero for simplicity. in Sec. VIIB or for free-fall WEP tests as in Sec. VIID. w In the context of searches for Lorentz violation, grav- A free-fall gravimeter test is insensitive to (aeff )T and w itational tests with charged matter offer unique access has only boost-suppressed signals from (aeff )J , so a sub- w to the coefficients (aeff )µ. For example, measurements of stantial improvement over the existing reach of charged- this kind can disentangle coefficients for Lorentz violation matter interferometers would be required to achieve a in the proton and electron sectors. They can also detect sensitivity compatible with perturbative consistency. In certain countershaded effects that are otherwise invisi- contrast, a free-fall WEP test is directly sensitive to w w ble. In particular, some models have coefficients (aeff )µ (aeff )T but requires a simultaneous measurement with proportional to electric charge, which would evade de- two test bodies. One option along these lines could be a tection in searches with neutral test bodies [11]. This direct comparison with neutral matter via a falling corner possibility is a natural consequence for theories in which cube or an atom interferometer. 38

Another approach to gravitational tests with charged particle T is an electron, when the sum of the forces matter is to study the motion of charged particles in a (Fgrav)zˆ and (Fem)zˆ leaves only the last three terms in vertical metallic drift tube. This setup is accompanied by Eq. (165). In practice, however, the reported reach of gravitationally induced electric forces caused by the sag- drift-tube experiments to date is insufficient to achieve ging of the tube [92], along with a variety of challenging useful sensitivity in gravimeter tests. A WEP test relat- systematics. An experiment of this type with electrons ing a drift-tube setup to an independent gravimeter may [93] confirmed that the gravitational forces on the elec- be of more interest. For a given experiment, specific sen- trons in the tube and on the electrons within the metal sitivities can be estimated using the analyses presented are comparable to about 10%. An analogous experiment in Sec. VII. involving cold antiprotons [94] was designed to achieve a A third methodology for investigating gravitational w sensitivity of 0.1% to the gravitational acceleration [95]. Lorentz violation from nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ could These measurements are all experimentally challenging, conceivably be to adopt as the gravimeter a device that and their interpretation is theoretically subtle [96]. wholly confines charged particles. For example, a single In the present context of gravitational Lorentz viola- charged particle can be trapped for long periods using w tion involving the coefficients (aeff )µ, intuition for the a Penning trap [97]. Measuring gravitational effects in theoretical implications of ballistic tests of this type can this way is ambitious, as can be appreciated from the be gained by considering the idealized case and working size of the quantity meg/e 6 10−12 V/m. Nonethe- at PNO(2). We suppose a test particle T of charge qT less, the feasibility| of gravitational|≃ × measurements with moves along the symmetry axis of a vertical cylindrical trapped antiprotons at a sensitivity of about 1% has been metallic drift tube with body comprised of a lattice of suggested, using a gravity-induced shift of radial orbits ions of type I and conduction electrons e. Disregarding [98]. This would also lead to sensitivity to the coefficients w applied fields, stray fields, and various systematics, the (aeff )µ via an analysis similar to those discussed above. overall conventional force on the particle T is the sum of the direct gravitational force on T from the Earth S and the net force on T from the electromagnetic field B. Tests with antimatter arising from the gravitationally induced sagging of the tube. The presence of nonzero coefficients (aw ) intro- eff µ The study of antimatter offers another realm in which duces corrections to both these forces. At PNO(2), the to search for Lorentz and CPT violation. Antihydro- gravitational force on T is given by gen has been detected [99, 100] and produced in copi- T ous amounts [101], while prospects for studies of trapped T T m S (Fgrav)zˆ = m g 2gα(aeff )tˆ 2gα S (aeff )tˆ, cold antihydrogen are excellent [102]. Antihydrogen spec- − − − m troscopy could yield special sensitivity to nongravita- (164) tional SME coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation [103], and the experiment for Atomic Spectroscopy And while the vertical component of the force on T from the Collisions Using Slow Antiprotons (ASACUSA) expects gravitationally induced electric field is to achieve sensitivities of parts in 10−7 to the predicted T e shifts in hyperfine transitions [104]. q e e m S (Fem)zˆ = m g +2gα(aeff )ˆ +2gα (aeff )ˆ To study the interaction of gravity and antimatter, var- e t mS t ious ideas for measuring the gravitational acceleration T I q I I m S of antihydrogen have been advanced. Among them are +γ m g +2gα(a )ˆ +2gα (a )ˆ . e eff t mS eff t methods involving trapped antihydrogen [105], antihy- (165) drogen interferometry [106], antihydrogen free fall from an antiion trap [107], and tests in space [108]. One ap- In these expressions, me and mI are the masses of an proved project, the Antimatter Experiment: Gravity, In- electron and an ion in the tube lattice, respectively, while terferometry, Spectroscopy (AEGIS) [109], has an intero- e and qI are the corresponding charges. The factor γ is ferometric design with an initial sensitivity goal of 1% to a constant, set by the properties of the metal lattice. In the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen. Eq. (165), the first three terms arise from the sagging In the context of gravitational Lorentz and CPT vi- of the electrons in the tube walls, while the last three olation, these experiments offer the prospect of special w w are proportional to the dilation derivative of the work sensitivities to the coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν . The function for the metal and originate in the longitudinal key point is that a CPT transformation has the net ef- w w compression of the lattice. These expressions reduce to fect of reversing the sign of (aeff )µ while leaving (c )µν w standard ones when the coefficients (aeff )µ vanish. unchanged. As a result, experiments with antihydrogen Although the expressions (164) and (165) hold in an could in principle observe distinctive and novel behav- idealized situation, they suffice to demonstrate in princi- iors. Moreover, when compared with similar measure- ple that experiments of this type are sensitive to nonzero ments on hydrogen, the results would offer the opportu- w coefficients (aeff )µ, even when these coefficients are un- nity for clean separation of effects. For instance, free-fall detectable with neutral matter. This is also true if the WEP tests comparing hydrogen and antihydrogen could 39

e+p yield independent sensitivity to (c )T T . In general, the The IIM involves spin-dependent operators for Lorentz theoretical treatment of prospective free-fall gravimeter and CPT violation in Minkowski spacetime. In this or WEP tests with antihydrogen follows the same path work, the focus is on the gravitational couplings of w w as described in Sec. VII, except with the sign of (aeff )µ spin-independent operators with coefficients (aeff )µ and w reversed throughout. (c )µν . At the end of Sec. VIII A, we remark on the dif- The literature contains numerous attempts to place ficulty of observing with matter any signals depending T T T indirect limits on the possibility of unconventional on the combination α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3 of isotropic antimatter-gravity interactions, many of which are re- coefficients. Here, we consider− some implications for an- viewed and critiqued in Ref. [110]. In the present con- timatter gravity of a specific toy model, the isotropic text, the SME offers a general field-theoretic approach ‘parachute’ model (IPM), in which unobserved combina- that can elucidate aspects of this issue and provide new tions of this type provide the dominant source of Lorentz- insights about possible limitations on effects. We next violating effects and could yield significant a priori differ- present an explicit toy model that evades some previous ences in the gravitational accelerations of hydrogen and indirect limits on large unconventional effects in antihy- antihydrogen. drogen. To construct the IPM, consider the Lagrange density of For simplicity, we choose to work within the isotropic the SME in the Sun-centered frame S, with nonzero co- w w limit of the SME. In any specified inertial frame O, a sub- efficients restricted to (aeff )T and isotropic (c )ΣΞ. Fol- set of Lorentz-violating operators in the SME Lagrange lowing the derivation in the early sections of this work, density preserves rotational symmetry. Setting the coef- we can extract the PNO(3) effective classical lagrangian ficients of all other operators to zero produces an inter- for a test particle T moving in the gravitational field of esting limiting case. The frame O then becomes a pre- a source S. This can be written in the suggestive form ferred frame, since the rotation invariance is broken in T S ′ GN m m any frame O boosted with respect to O. Physical effects L = 1 mTv2 + g g , (167) of Lorentz violation are then isotropic in O but not in O′. IPM 2 i r The frame O could in principle be identified as the rest T T frame U of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), where mi is the effective inertial mass of T, while mg S the Sun-centered frame S, or any other desired choice. and mg are the effective gravitational masses of T and Isotropic models of this type are sometimes called ‘fried- S, respectively. All these effective masses are defined in w w chicken’ models because of their popularity and simplic- terms of the coefficients (aeff )T , (c )T T for Lorentz vio- B ity. lation and the body masses m of Eq. (71). We find

In Minkowski spacetime, toy isotropic models can be B B 5 w w¯ w w used to show that Lorentz- and CPT-violating effects mi = m + 3 (N + N )m (c )T T , w could in principle be substantially larger in antihydro- X B B w w¯ w w gen than hydrogen. One example is the isotropic ‘in- mg = m + (N + N )m (c )T T visible’ model (IIM) [111], which is defined in the CMB w X frame U and yields effects challenging to see in searches w w¯ w +2α(N N )(a )T , (168) with ordinary matter. Denoting coordinates in U by − eff (T ′,X′, Y ′,Z′), the IIM assumes the only nonzero co- p where B is either T or S. These expressions adopt the efficients for Lorentz violation are (b )T ′ and isotropic w w¯ p notation N and N for the number of particles and an- (d ) ′ ′ obeying the simple condition Ξ Ξ tiparticles of type w, respectively, while as before mw is p p p (b )T ′ = km (d )T ′T ′ (166) the mass of a particle of type w. Note that for a given body the passive and active gravitational masses are for a suitable choice of constant k. In the Sun-centered identical, reflecting the preservation of Newton’s third frame S, this one-parameter model generates nonzero law in the model. p p coefficients (b )J and (d )JT . The dominant signals in For electrons, protons, and neutrons, the IPM is de- terrestrial experiments with hydrogen appear in the hy- fined by the three conditions p perfine structure and involve the combination (b )J p p − w 1 w w m (d )JT , which vanishes for suitable k. These experi- α(aeff )T = 3 m (c )T T , (169) ments can therefore detect only effects suppressed by at where w ranges over e, p, n. Since there are three inde- least one power of the boost of the Earth around the Sun, pendent conditions on six real parameters, this produces which is about 10−4 and requires an experiment sensitive a three-parameter IPM. The condition (169) ensures that to annual modulations. In contrast, the dominant effects for a matter body B the effective inertial and gravita- in experiments with antihydrogen involve the combina- p p p tional masses are equal, tion (b )J +m (d )JT , which produces unsuppressed signals in the hyperfine structure. The IIM thus provides a B B mi = mg (matter), (170) toy field-theoretic scenario in which observable effects in antihydrogen are at least 10,000 times greater than those and hence no Lorentz-violating effects appear in gravita- in hydrogen or other nonrelativistic neutral matter. tional tests to PNO(3) using ordinary matter. However, 40 for an antimatter test body T this condition fails, gravitational force that is independent of mass and can vary with flavor. Indeed, the binding forces are largely mT = mT (antimatter), (171) i 6 g conventional in the IPM, and the gravitational responses of hydrogen and antihydrogen are primarily determined so observable signals arise in comparisons between the by the flavor content of the valence particles. It is even gravitational responses of matter and antimatter or be- conceivable in principle that a large gravity effect could tween different types of antimatter. Ensuring the valid- be associated purely with the positron, as occurs in the ity of perturbation theory requires that the coefficients IPM when only (ae ) is nonzero and satisfies the con- α(aw ) = mw(cw) /3 are perturbatively small relative eff T eff T T T dition (169). A careful treatment of this issue in the to mw. With theoretically conceivable values perhaps w IPM would require consideration of radiative effects in- even as large as 0.5m , the gravitational accelerations of w w volving (aeff )T , (c )T T , and other SME coefficients for hydrogen and antihydrogen might differ at the 50% level. Lorentz violation [18, 114], perhaps imposing the condi- Rather than a serious effort at a realistic theory, the tion (169) only after renormalization. In any case, the IPM is constructed as a simplistic playground within essential points illustrated with the IPM remain valid: which to explore field-theoretic limitations on unconven- the gravitational response of a body can be independent tional properties of antimatter and antihydrogen. In the of mass, can vary with flavor, and can differ between next few paragraphs we treat it as such, briefly address- particles and antiparticles. ing some concerns about unconventional signals in this context. The gravitational response of antimatter could in One issue is whether energy remains conserved when principle also be restricted by the results of experi- matter and antimatter have different gravitational in- ments studying kaons [115] and other neutral-meson sys- teractions [112]. For the analysis of the SME in the tems, which are natural interferometers mixing strong- present work, this issue is moot because an explicit interaction particle and antiparticle eigenstates via weak- conserved energy-momentum tensor exists. As an il- interaction effects. When analyzed in the context of lustration, consider the gedanken experiment in which the SME in Minkowski spacetime, neutral-meson mix- a particle-antiparticle pair is lowered in a gravitational ing places tight constraints on certain differences of the w field, converted to a photon pair, raised to the original lo- coefficients (aeff )µ for w ranging over several quark fla- cation, and finally reconverted to the particle-antiparticle vors [53, 54]. However, these constraints have no dom- pair. In generic scenarios the particle, antiparticle, and inant implications for leptons or for baryons, which in- photons each provide different contributions to the en- volve three valence quarks rather than a quark and an ergy and so problems can arise. However, in the IPM antiquark as in mesons. Moreover, the neutral-meson these complications are avoided. The photons make no constraints necessarily involve valence s, c, and b quarks, contribution because they are conventional, partly via which are largely irrelevant for protons and neutrons. In the coordinate choice (23). The particle and antiparticle the presence of gravitational interactions, the same line w of reasoning holds, with the flavor dependence of Lorentz do contribute to the energy via the coefficient (aeff )T , but the two contributions cancel. Contributions involving the and CPT violation leading to the conclusion that the w IPM evades restrictions from meson oscillations. coefficient (c )T T exist and combine during the lowering procedure, but the definition (70) of the conserved energy We can also use the IPM to illustrate a type of con- w also contains (c )T T and so the net change remains zero straint on more realistic model building arising from at the end of the experiment. The resolution of this and the extensive searches for Lorentz and CPT violation in other illustrative scenarios is less transparent when more Minkowski spacetime. The key point is that the mixing nonzero coefficients for Lorentz violation are present, but of Lorentz-violating operators under rotations and boosts the existence of a conserved energy-momentum tensor en- can imply indirect limits on some coefficients. In the w sures that no contradictions arise. IPM, for example, the coefficient (aeff )T is unobservable Another attempt to argue against the possibility of an in Minkowski spacetime, as discussed in Sec. II C, but anomalous antimatter response to gravity is based on the certain nongravitational experiments could in principle w large binding-energy content of baryons, atoms, and bulk obtain boost-suppressed sensitivity to (c )T T for some w matter [113]. For hydrogen and antihydrogen, a modern w via measurements of the coefficients (c )JK . As one version of the argument could proceed by first noting illustration, a measurement with a Cs-Rb double foun- that the quarks in hydrogen contain only about 10% of tain clock over a total of five weeks in the spring and fall the mass with most of the remainder contained in the of 2005 achieved a sensitivity of parts in 1025 on some p gluon and sea binding, and then concluding that since combinations of the coefficients (c )JK [116]. This sug- the binding forces are comparable for hydrogen and an- gests that continuing an experiment of this type over a tihydrogen their gravitational response cannot differ by longer period could attain parts in 1017 on the coefficient p more than about 10%. This type of reasoning implic- (c )T T by analyzing the data allowing for the Earth’s or- −4 itly assumes that the gravitational response of a body is bital boost V⊕ 10 . Similarly, a careful analysis of determined by its mass and hence also by its binding en- multiple searches≃ for Lorentz violation involving the elec- e ergy. However, as shown generically in Sec. VIIIA, the tron sector could be used to measure (c )T T at the level w 15 coefficient (aeff )T in the IPM leads to a correction to the of parts in 10 [117]. Although these types of nongrav- 41

N N itational studies remain to be performed, they could in where m is the mass of N and (aeff )µ is its effective co- principle place experimental limits on the magnitude of efficient for Lorentz and CPT violation. Assuming N is the anomalous gravitational response of antihydrogen in composed of first-generation particles, the existing con- the IPM and possibly also in more realistic models. We straints on coefficients [2] imply that for most models it remark in passing that these kinds of constraints nonethe- is a good approximation to neglect all but the first term less leave considerable room for realistic model building, on the right-hand side of this equation. For CPT-even ef- in particular when operators of arbitrary dimension are fects, the relevant observable combination of coefficients incorporated in the framework [118]. is e µ e µ+e−N µ m e m + m N (c )µν = (c )µν + (c )µν (c )µν . C. Tests with matter beyond the first generation mµ − mµ (173) Most studies of fermion-gravity couplings to date have Again, only the first term is likely to be significant in involved particles from the first generation of the SM. practice. Similar expressions hold for muonic hydrogen, However, the SME coefficients for Lorentz and CPT with the replacements e p for the superscripts and violation can differ between sectors, so investigations µ µ (a ) (a ) for the→ muon coefficient for Lorentz of higher-generation matter-gravity couplings are of in- eff µ eff µ violation.→ − dependent interest. Since fermion masses and hence Searches for Lorentz-violating gravitational couplings fermion-gravity couplings typically increase with the gen- of other second- and third-generation particles could also eration, it is conceivable that an unconventional gravita- be countenanced. The typically short lifetimes of these tional coupling may be more readily identified in grav- particles can in principle be overcome by boosting, so ac- itational tests with higher-generation matter. Compar- celerator experiments are likely to provide the best lab- atively few results exist for the coefficients (aw ) and eff µ oratory prospects. Studying the gravitational infall of (cw) for particles w beyond the first generation [2], so µν particles of extraterrestrial origin in the context of free- there is considerable room for measurements of effects fall WEP searches might be a source of additional con- involving gravity couplings. straints. The comparatively long lifetime of the muon makes it The physical mixing of uncharged particles of differ- an interesting candidate for gravitational tests of Lorentz ent flavors w offers an interesting alternative method to violation with second-generation particles. Several muon achieve sensitivity to the coefficients (aw ) . Examples coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation have already eff µ already yielding SME constraints on Lorentz and CPT been measured [119], but the sensitivities are largely lim- violation include the interferometric oscillations of neu- ited to spin-dependent effects. Measurements of Lorentz- tral mesons [53, 54] and of neutrinos [55]. Particle mixing violating gravitational couplings of the muon could be implies nondiagonal terms in the propagator matrix, so achieved via muonium interferometry, with an estimated field redefinitions of the type (14) cannot be used to re- initial reach of 10% [120]. Interferometry with muonic move the coefficients (aw ) from the theory. Differences hydrogen may also be possible [121]. In principle, these eff µ between the coefficients (aw ) then become observable experiments could yield first measurements of some com- eff µ even in Minkowski spacetime, offering sensitivity to ef- ponents of the coefficients (aµ ) and (cµ) in the muon eff µ µν fects that would otherwise be undetectable. For instance, sector. In particular, free-fall WEP tests using muo- the recent observation of anomalous CP-violating effects nium interferometry to search for Lorentz and CPT vio- in B-meson oscillations [122] could originate in one or lation offer the prospect of direct sensitivity to the co- more nonzero coefficients (aw ) for Lorentz and CPT efficients (aµ ) and (cµ) . In contrast, performing eff T eff T T T violation in the quark sector, since these control CP- free-fall gravimetric tests with muonium interferometry odd but T-even operators that contribute to the effective is unlikely to be useful in the near future because the hamiltonian for the mixing [54]. Spin-independent CPT- dominant signals appear at annual frequencies and are odd Lorentz violation involving coefficients such as (aw) suppressed by the boost V . µ ⊕ could also underlie the observed baryon asymmetry in the Consider for definiteness a free-fall WEP experiment Universe [123]. comparing the gravitational acceleration of muonium In terms of the perturbative counting scheme of Sec. with that of neutral matter N. Muonium is a bound II D, the existing SME studies using neutral-meson and system containing an antimuon and an electron, so its neutrino oscillations lie at O(1,0). Incorporating leading- spin-independent Lorentz-violating gravitational proper- order gravitational couplings along the lines in this pa- ties are determined by the coefficients (aµ ) , (cµ) , eff µ µν per would introduce O(1,1) oscillation effects, including (ae ) and (ce) . Following the line of− reasoning in Sec. eff µ µν species-dependent modifications of the meson or neu- VI B, we find that the dominant observable combination trino trajectories with characteristic time dependences of coefficients for CPT-odd effects in a free-fall WEP ex- similar to the WEP-violating effects discussed in Sec. periment is VII D. Possible O(1,0) contributions to the oscillations µ e µ+e−N µ e m + m N can be distinguished from O(1,1) ones via the depen- (a )µ = (a )µ +(a )µ (a )µ, (172) eff − eff eff − mN eff dences on energy, baseline, flavor, and time. The advent 42 of neutrino-oscillation experiments with long and very that arise from nonzero Lorentz violation in the pure- long baselines of order 100-1000 km and corresponding gravity sector of the minimal SME have been established changes in gravitational potential along the beams may [7] and used to constrain some of the coefficients sµν [4]. offer particularly interesting options for free-fall WEP Here, we seek to extend these results to include dominant tests of Lorentz and CPT violation of this type. A effects from nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν . detailed consideration of these possibilities would be a Where possible in this subsection, we follow the con- worthwhile subject for future investigation. ventions of Ref. [7]. A summary of our notation is given in Table XII. The flavor dependence of the matter-gravity couplings leads to composition-dependent factors in some X. SOLAR-SYSTEM TESTS of the equations to follow. To simplify these expressions, it is useful to define the eight combinations Studies of the motion of bodies within the solar sys- w w w tem provide an important source of information about n1 = N1 + N2 , gravitational couplings to matter. In this section, we in- w w w n2 = N1 N2 , vestigate the effects of nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ and − w w w N1 N2 cµν for Lorentz violation in two solar-system contexts: n = M + , 3 m m lunar and satellite laser ranging, and perihelion preces- 1 2 w w sion. The analysis here neglects effects that act merely w N2 N1 n4 = M , to scale the mass of the gravitational source. These are m2 − m1 unobservable using solar-system observations alone, but w 1 w w they may be detectable in combined measurements using n = (m1N + m2N ), 5 M 2 1 photon tests. This latter issue is revisited in Sec. XI. 1 nw = (m N w m N w) , 6 M 1 2 − 2 1 w m2 w m1 w A. Lunar and satellite laser ranging n7 = N1 + N2 , m1 m2 1 m2 m2 Lunar and satellite laser ranging provides a sensitive nw = 2 N w 1 N w . (174) 8 M m 1 − m 2 test of gravitational physics. The relevant orbital per- 1 2 turbations to the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth

Table XII. Notation for laser-ranging tests. Quantity Deﬁnition

m1 satellite mass w N1 number of particles of species w in the satellite m2 Earth mass w N2 number of particles of species w in the Earth M = m1 + m2 total Earth-satellite mass δm = m m Earth-satellite mass diﬀerence 2 − 1 mn mass of the nth perturbing body M⊙ Sun mass w N⊙ number of particles of species w in the Sun J r1 satellite position J r2 Earth position J J J r = r1 r2 = (x,y,z) Earth-satellite separation, of magnitude r = ~r1 ~r2 J − J J | − | R = (m1r1 + m2r2 )/M position of Newton center of mass for Earth-satellite system 3 Ω⊕ = GN M⊙/R mean Earth orbital frequency J J J J v = vp1 v2 = dr /dT relative Earth-satellite velocity J − J J V = (m1v1 + m2v2 )/M velocity of Newton center of mass for Earth-satellite system

The primary observable in laser-ranging tests is the fluctuations from (aeff )µ and cµν can be found in Sec. J coordinate acceleration aES of the relative Earth-satellite IV C, while those from sµν are given in Ref. [7]. separation. Working in the Sun-centered frame, we can obtain this acceleration from the equation of motion (78). The relevant contributions to the coefficient and metric Incorporating perturbative effects of other bodies including the Sun, the coordinate acceleration can be writ- 43 ten The first two terms are the ones of interest in the present

J work and are discussed below. The last two depend on d2r J J J J J J the coefficient sµν , with a arising from the Earth- aES =aN +aT +aQ +aLV + .... (175) s,ES ≡ dT 2 J satellite system and as,tidal involving perturbations due The first three terms in this expression involve effects to other bodies. The explicit form of these two quantities independent of Lorentz violation. They represent the is provided in Ref. [7]. acceleration due to the Newton gravitational field of the Earth-satellite system, the Newton tidal quadrupole term, and the quadrupole moment of the Earth, respectively. Their explicit form is given in Ref. [7]. The leading Lorentz-violating contributions to the accelera- J J tion are represented by the fourth term aLV. This term The term aaeff ,c,ES in Eq. (176) provides the Lorentz- can itself be split into four pieces, violating acceleration of the Earth-satellite system from the matter-gravity couplings (aeff )µ and cµν . It takes the J J J J J aLV =aaeff ,c,ES +aaeff ,c,tidal +as,ES +as,tidal. (176) form

G aJ = N 2nwα(aw ) rJ nwmw(cw) rJ +2nwmwηJK (cw) rL aeff ,c,ES r3 3 eff T 1 T T 7 (KL) w − − X h w w K J w w JK L w w K J w w w J K 2n α(a )K V r 2n α(a )K η vLr +2n α(a )K v r +2n m (c ) V r − 3 eff − 2 eff 2 eff 7 (TK)

w w w K J w w w K J w w JK w L 2n m (c ) V r +2n m (c ) v r +2n m η (c ) VLr − 1 (TK) 6 (TK) 7 (TK)

w w w JK w L w w w J K 2(n 2n )m η (c ) vLr +2n m (c ) v r . (177) − 6 − 8 (TK) 8 (TK) i J In principle, aaeff ,c,ES also acquires contributions proportional to R⊕ω, but these are neglected here because they are typically suppressed compared to effects proportional to V J and vj . J In Eq. (176), the term aaeff ,c,tidal contains the Lorentz-violating tidal acceleration involving (aeff )µ and cµν , which arises from perturbing bodies. When the satellite is taken as the Moon, the dominant tidal contributions are due to the Sun and can be written N w 2 aJ = Ω2 ⊙ (2α(aw ) + mw(cw) ) nwα(aw ) 3rLRˆ RˆJ rJ aeff ,c,tidal ⊕ m eff T T T M 1 eff T L w ⊙ − − X nh w i w 2 w w J m w JK w L m w JK w M L L + n α(a )T R 2 n η (c )KLR 2 n η (c ) 3r RˆM Rˆ r M 4 eff − M 4 − M 7 (KL) − w m w JK w w JK w w J w w J w L 2 2n η VL(c ) 2n η vL(c ) + n V (c ) n v (c ) R − M 4 (TK) − 7 (TK) 4 (TL) − 7 (TL) w h w i N⊙ w J[K L] N⊙ w δm J[K L] J[K L] M +4 α(a )K η v RL 4 α(a )K η v + η V 3r RˆM RˆL rL m eff − m eff M − ⊙ ⊙ w m w JK w w JK w 2 2n η VL(c ) +2n η vL(c ) − M 7 (TK) 8 (TK) h w J w w J w M L L + n V (c ) + n v (c ) 3r RˆM Rˆ r . (178) 7 (TL) 8 (TL) − i o

If instead the satellite is artificial, then there are tidal The Lorentz-violating coordinate accelerations given effects from both the Sun and the Moon. However, these by Eqs. (177) and (178) exhibit some interesting fea- are suppressed relative to the Earth-satellite acceleration tures. The first two terms in Eq. (177) and the first (177). term in Eq. (178) are composition-dependent scalings of 44 the corresponding Newton accelerations. These terms to other bodies including the Moon [126]. These studies are therefore detectable only by comparison to results primarily seek secular changes in the gravitational force. obtained using satellites of different compositions. Also, Although secular changes in coupling constants can re- J unlike the contributions as,tidal obtained in Ref. [7], here sult from Lorentz violation [127], the signals of interest in the tidal acceleration (178) from the Sun on the Moon- the present context are periodic. Reanalysis of existing −1 Earth system involves nontrivial WEP violations because data to seek periodic effects in GN dGN /dt would yield the Moon and the Earth fall differently towards the Sun sensitivities to Lorentz violation estimated to be some- w w when the coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν are nonzero. It is what less than lunar laser ranging but involving different w w also interesting to note that the tidal acceleration (178) combinations of (aeff )µ and (c )µν . contains contributions at PNO(2) that are independent We conclude this subsection with some comments of rJ and hence are enhanced at this order relative to about the coordinate location RJ of the center of mass other contributions by a factor of R/r. This too is a of an Earth-satellite system. Boost invariance normally consequence of the WEP violations arising from (aeff )µ. ensures this location is fixed, but the presence of Lorentz Similar terms appear at PNO(3) as well. violation means it can be time dependent, although the A typical experiment measures the time of flight for effect may be unobservable via laser ranging. Neglecting laser photons to travel from the Earth to a reflector on the effects of other bodies and working at PNO(3), the the satellite and back. To analyze the results, the laser- Lorentz-violating contributions to the equation of motion ranging data can be fitted by incorporating Eq. (175) and for the center of mass of the Earth-satellite system can other conventional perturbing effects into an appropriate be written as the sum modeling code. An alternative approach is to perform an R¨J R¨J + R¨J + R¨J (179) analytical perturbative expansion along the lines of the ⊃ aeff c s one performed for the sµν contributions in Ref. [7] and w w of contributions from (aeff )µ, (c )µν , and sµ. Explicitly, then match to the data. This latter method is adopted we find in Ref. [4] to constrain combinations of the coefficients s . 2G nwηJK α(aw ) v rL µν R¨J = N 5 eff K L , (180) In the present context, we can obtain crude estimates aeff r3 w w w of sensitivities to (aeff )µ and (c )µν attainable in lunar X laser ranging via either of these procedures, by using which contains only PNO(3) effects involving the internal term-by-term comparison of the accelerations (177) and motion of the system. The second term in Eq. (179) is (178) to the accelerations aJ and aJ obtained for s,ES s,tidal w 2GN m1m2m the coefficient sµν in Ref. [7]. With the precision already R¨J = c M 2r3 achieved in lunar laser ranging [124], we thereby find es- w 10 X timated sensitivities at parts in 10 to combinations of 1 w w J w JK w L w 6 n (c )T T r + n η (c )KLr (c )(JK) and sJK , and parts in 10 to various combina- × 2 2 2 w w tions of (a )J , (c )(TJ) and sTJ . Actual measurements h JK w w w L eff +η (c ) TK (n VL + n vL)r at roughly these levels can be expected to result from ( ) 2 5 w w K w K J a reanalysis of existing data. A significant further im- +(c )(TK)(n2 V + n5 v )r provement is likely to be possible using data from the w w J w J K +(c ) (n V + n v )r . (181) Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-Ranging Opera- (TK) 2 5 tion (APOLLO) [125]. Assuming that millimeter rang- i The first two terms are at PNO(2) and reflect the modi- ing is achieved as expected and disregarding probable fication of the effective Newton inertial mass in the pres- substantially improved statistics, we anticipate competi- ence of nonzero c , while the remaining terms are at tive estimated sensitivities of 10−7 GeV on various com- µν PNO(3). The ones proportional to V J arise as a result binations of α(aw ) and α(aw ) , and a sensitivity eff X eff Y +Z of the system boost in the Sun-centered frame, and those of 10−7 on (cn) , where the notation of Eq. (148) is (TJ) proportional to vJ are due to the internal motion of the used and the dependence on the coefficients s has been µν system. The last term in Eq. (179) is omitted for simplicity. Ranging to artificial satellites with orbit orientations ¨J GN m1m2 JK L J K different from that of the Moon can yield sensitivity to Rs = 3 3η sTK vLr sTK v r w Mr − additional independent linear combinations of (aeff )µ and h K J J K L w sTK v r +3sTK r vLrˆ rˆ , (c )µν . Typically, the reach of satellite ranging is ex- − pected to be about an order of magnitude less than lunar (182)i laser ranging. Other possibilities for gravitational tests of Lorentz violation include ranging to objects orbiting bod- which again consists only of PNO(3) effects proportional ies other than the Earth. For example, the time variation to the internal motion of the system. Note that all these −1 GN dGN /dt of the Newton gravitational constant has contributions introduce an oscillatory motion for the cen- been constrained by ranging data to the Viking landers ter of mass, and their presence is required by momentum on Mars, to the Mariner 9 spacecraft orbiting Mars, and conservation. 45

B. Perihelion precession This shows that the frequency n and semimajor axis a of the unperturbed elliptic motion are related according to The presence of nonzero coefficients (a ) and c for eff µ µν 2 3 w w w w w Lorentz violation leads to corrections to the motion of a n a = GN M +2n3 α(aeff )0 +n1 m (c )00 . (186) w test body in a gravitational field. These corrections can X h i be calculated from the equation of motion (78) and from Note that the right-hand side of this expression depends the expressions for the coefficient and metric fluctuations on the composition of the planet and the Sun. given in Sec. IV C. In this subsection, we determine the The orientation of the orbit can be specified using three effect of nonzero (aeff )µ and cµν on the perihelion pre- unit vectors ~k, P~ , and Q~ . The first is chosen perpendic- cession for planetary orbits. We follow the treatment of ular to the orbit, the second points from the focus to the Ref. [7], which obtains the perihelion shift arising from perihelion, and the third completes the orthonormal set. nonzero SME coefficients sµν . Our notation matches that Their explicit form in terms of orbital elements is given of Table XII and Eq. (174) in Sec. X A, with the labels 1 in Eq. (116) of Ref. [7]. In terms of this basis set, the and 2 representing the planet and Sun, respectively. unperturbed elliptical orbit can be expressed as The derivation of the perihelion precession used here relies on the method of osculating elements [128], in a(1 e2) ~r = − (P~ cos f + Q~ sin f), (187) which the instantaneous motion of the planet is treated 0 1+ e cos f as part of an ellipse. The ellipse is characterized using the standard Kepler orbital elements, and the motion of where e is the eccentricity and f is the true anomaly. ′j the planet is described by specifying them as a function The perturbing acceleration a consists of the terms of time. The relevant orbital elements in the present case in Eq. (184) that are absent from Eq. (185), are the angle ω between the line of ascending nodes and d2rj d2rj the semimajor axis of the ellipse, the longitude Ω of the a′j = 0 . (188) ascending node, and the inclination i with respect to the dt2 − dt2 ecliptic. These are specified in the reference coordinate The time dependence of the orbital elements can be ex- system, which can be taken as the Sun-centered frame tracted from this equation via the method of osculating for the planetary orbits considered here. More generally, elements. The general procedure is to insert the unper- the reference frame is related to the Sun-centered frame turbed solution (187) for ~r into the expression (188) for by a rotation and possibly a boost, as discussed in Sec. a′j, to project the result as desired, and to integrate over V E 5 of Ref. [7]. The physical quantity relevant for the the true anomaly. perihelion precession is the change per period ∆˜ω of the To obtain the perihelion precession, the final results perihelion angleω ˜ with respect to the equinox. In terms for the orbital elements ω and Ω must be combined ac- of the basic orbital elements,ω ˜ can be expressed as cording to Eq. (183). After some calculation, we obtain the expression ω˜ = ω + Ωcos i. (183) 2 (e 2ǫ) w w w w ∆˜ω = 2π − n m ((c )QQ (c )P P ) For the cases of interest here, the angle i can be assumed Me4 7 − small. w X 2 The secular changes in the orbital elements arising 2na(e ǫ) w w w w − (n6 2n8 )m (c )(0Q) from (aeff )µ and cµν can be obtained by considering the −e3M√1 e2 − relative acceleration of the planet and the Sun, which has − w w the form +n2 α(aeff )Q (189) d2rj G N w w j w w w j for the shift in the perihelion per orbit. Here, the sub- 2 = 3 M +2n3 α(aeff )0r + n1 m (c )00r dt − r scripts P and Q on the coefficients for Lorentz violation w h jk Xw w w l w w jk l ~ ~ 2η n m (c ) r +2n α(a )kη vlr indicate projections along the directions P and Q, re- − 7 (kl) 2 eff w w k j w w w k j spectively. The quantity ǫ is the eccentricity function, 2n α(a )kv r 2n m (c ) v r 2 − 2 eff − 6 (0k) defined by ǫ =1 √1 e . jk w w w w l − − +2η (n 2n )m (c ) vlr The result (189) reveals that the perihelion precession 6 − 8 (0k) w w w j k depends on the orbit orientation through the projections 2n m (c )(0k)v r . (184) ~ − 8 of the coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν along the directions P i and Q~ . Also, the factors scaling the coefficients in Eq. The unperturbed ellipse is given as the solution ~r0 of the (189) vary with the composition of the orbiting body. Kepler-type equation This means that the orbits of different planets or, more generally, different satellites are affected by different lin- d2rj G 0 = N M +2nwα(aw ) + nwmw(cw) rj . ear combinations of coefficients for Lorentz violation. It dt2 r3 3 eff 0 1 00 − w is therefore valuable to consider data from multiple sys- X h (185)i tems so that independent measurements can be obtained. 46

To illustrate the sensitivities that can be achieved, we Mercury and 0.4′′ C−1 for the Earth [8, 130]. Taking the consider explicitly the perihelion precessions of Mercury error bars to be upper bounds on the perihelion shifts in and of the Earth. Substituting the relevant orbital data Eq. (190), we obtain the order-of-magnitude constraints for the two planets into Eq. (189) in turn, taking the plan- −3 e p −4 n etary mass as small compared to the solar mass m⊙, and s + 10 [(a ) + (a ) ]+10 (a ) | ' eff ' eff ' eff ' incorporating the results for the coefficients sµν obtained 10−4(ce) 10−1(cp) 10−1(cn) < 10−9 GeV, in Eq. (190) of Ref. [7], we find the overall perihelion − ' − ' − '| ˙ ˙ −2 e p −3 n ∼ shifts ω˜' of Mercury and ω˜⊕ of the Earth are given in s⊕ + 10 [(a )⊕ + (a )⊕]+10 (a )⊕ | eff eff eff units of arc seconds per century C by the expressions −4 e −1 p −1 n −8 10 (c )⊕ 10 (c )⊕ 10 (c )⊕ < 10 GeV. − − − | ∼ 7 107′′ (192) ω˜˙ × s ' ≈ C ' w w w ′′ w N m Assuming a model with nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ only, 1 108 N ' + × 3 10−3 ⊙ (aw ) (cw) , this yields the approximate constraints C m eff ' m ' w × ⊙ − ' X e p n −6 7′′ (aeff ) + (a ) +0.1(aeff ) < 10 GeV, ˙ 2 10 | ' eff ' '| ω˜⊕ × s⊕ e p n ∼ −6 ≈ C (aeff )⊕ + (aeff )⊕ +0.1(aeff )⊕ < 10 GeV. (193) 4 107′′ N w N wmw | | ∼ + × 3 10−2 ⊙ (aw ) ⊕ (cw) . C m eff ⊕ m ⊕ w × ⊙ − ⊕ Similarly, assuming a model with nonzero coefficients X (cw) only and making use of existing limits on c for (190) µν µν protons and electrons [2], we obtain the approximate con- The combinations of coefficients for Lorentz violation ap- straints pearing in these equations are defined as n −8 n −7 (c )' < 10 , (c )⊕ < 10 . (194) w w | | ∼ | | ∼ (aeff )' = α(aeff )Q, (aw ) = α(aw ) , A careful reanalysis of the existing data for multiple bod- eff ⊕ eff Q ies in the solar system could yield sharper sensitivities. w w w −3 w (c ) [(c )QQ (c )P P ] 6 10 (c ) , ' ≈ − − × (0Q) The result (193) represents first constraints on the spa- w w w −2 w tial coefficients α(aw ) . A sense of the maximal attained (c )⊕ [(c )QQ (c )P P ] 5 10 (c ) , eff J ≈ − − × (0Q) w −3 sensitivity to the nine components in α(aeff )J can be ob- s (sP P sQQ) 6 10 s , ' ≈ − − × (0Q) tained by taking each component in turn to be the only −2 nonzero one. Extracting these sensitivities requires the s⊕ (sP P sQQ) 5 10 s . (191) ≈ − − × (0Q) ~ ~ explicit form of the vectors Q' and Q⊕. The relevant or- ◦ Note that the subscripts P , Q here represent projections bital elements in heliocentric coordinates are ω' 29 , that differ for Mercury and the Earth. ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ≃ ◦ Ω 48 , i 7 and ω⊕ 103 , Ω⊕ = 0 i⊕ = 0 . The chemical composition of the Sun is believed to ' ≃ ' ≃ ≃ Converting to the Sun-centered frame using a counter- be over 70% hydrogen and about 27% helium by mass clockwise rotation by η 23.5◦ about the X axis yields [129]. The factors in Eq. (190) that depend on the so- ≃ e lar composition can therefore be estimated as N⊙/m⊙ = p −1 n −1 Q~ 0.97eX +0.15eY +0.18eZ, N /m⊙ 0.9 GeV and N /m⊙ 0.1 GeV . As ' ⊙ ≃ ⊙ ≃ ≃ − can be seen from Eq. (191), these factors suffice for plac- ~ e e e w Q⊕ 0.97 X 0.21 Y 0.10 Z. (195) ing approximate bounds on the coefficients (aeff )µ from ≃ − − − knowledge of the perihelion precessions. The composi- Taking each component α(aw ) as the only nonzero coef- tion of Mercury is believed to be about 70% iron and eff J ficient in turn yields the order-of-magnitude sensitivities about 30% rocky material [129], so the analogous ratios e p −1 for Mercury are roughly N /m' = N /m' 0.4 GeV e −6 ' ' ≃ α(aeff )X < 10 GeV, n −1 | | and N /m 0.6 GeV . For the Earth, using Ref. e e ∼ −5 ' ' ≃ α(a )Y , α(a )Z < 10 GeV, | eff | | eff | [46] and following the discussion of Sec. IV A 2, we find p ∼ −6 e p n −1 α(aeff )X < 10 GeV, N⊕/m⊕ = N⊕/m⊕ N⊕/m⊕ 0.5 GeV . However, | | ≈ ≃ p p ∼ −5 for the approximate bounds obtained below on the co- α(a )Y , α(a )Z < 10 GeV, | eff | | eff | efficients cµν , it suffices that the composition-dependent n ∼ −5 α(a )X < 10 GeV, factors for the planets are of order 10−1 GeV−1. | eff | n n ∼ −4 We are now in a position to place constraints on some α(aeff )Y , α(aeff )Z < 10 GeV. (196) w | | | | combinations of the coefficients (aeff )µ, cµν , and sµν by ∼ adopting the established error bars in the existing data These results are the maximal sensitivities achieved to ′′ −1 w for perihelion shifts. These error bars are 0.043 C for date on the coefficients α(aeff )J . 47

XI. PHOTON TESTS The wave 4-vector can be linearized as pµ = pµ + δpµ, (199) In this penultimate section, we consider searches for gravitational Lorentz violation involving the trajectories where the first term is the zeroth-order wave vector and of photons. With the coordinate choice (23) adopted in the second term contains gravitational corrections. Our this work, photons follow null geodesics. The signals of interest here lies in the O(1,1) contributions to δpµ. interest therefore arise from the modifications to the met- The basic procedure is to insert the modifications (84) ric, which are associated with Lorentz-violating matter- and (88) of the metric arising from matter-sector effects gravity couplings of the source body and in certain cases into the general expressions obtained in Ref. [131]. We also of the clocks and rods used for measurements. consider in turn Lorentz-violating contributions to the Photon tests for Lorentz violation involving the coef- Shapiro time delay, to the gravitational Doppler shift, to ficients sµν in the pure-gravity sector of the SME have the gravitational redshift, and to the null redshift, and been studied in Refs. [7, 131]. Here, this analysis is ex- we compare the results to the effective mass of a gravita- w tended to include the matter-sector coefficients (aeff )µ tional source as measured by orbital tests. We also offer w and (c )µν . The treatment and notation of Ref. [131] is some comments about the implications of the results for adopted where possible. Some quantities relevant for the various experiments. analysis are listed in Table XIII.

Table XIII. Notation for photon tests. A. Shapiro time delay Quantity Definition µ xE = (tE , ~rE) coordinates of event E In this subsection, we obtain the Lorentz-violating rE magnitude of ~rE modifications to the Shapiro time delay of a light signal µ as it passes from a source to a detector in the presence of x = (tP , ~rP ) coordinates of event P P a massive body such as the Sun. The one-way time delay rP magnitude of ~rP µ tP tE can be determined by integrating δp along the R~ = ~rP ~rE zeroth-order light trajectory − − path and applying the null condition, Rˆ = R/R~ unit vector along R~ lP R = R~ magnitude of R~ 1 µ ν tP tE = R + hµν p p dλ. (200) | j | 2 j ˆj ˆ − −lE b = rP R ~rP R impact-parameter vector Z − · ~ b magnitude of b Inserting the Lorentz-violating metric modifications (84) mS mass of source body and (88) and integrating, we find the delay can be written lP = ~rP Rˆ λ at P in the form · lE = ~rE Rˆ λ at E − · tP tE = R + (tP tE )GR τE proper time of E − − +(tP tE)aeff ,c + (tP tE)s. (201) τP proper time of P − − µ µ uE = dxE /dτE 4-velocity of E Here, R is the zeroth-order time difference. The second µ µ u = dx /dτP 4-velocity of P term is the standard GR contribution, which at O(0,1) P P and PNO(2) takes the form ~v = d~rE /dt 3-velocity of E

~w = d~rP /dt 3-velocity of P S rE + rP + R (tP tE)GR =2GN m ln . (202) νE frequency at E − rE + rP R − νP frequency at P The third term of Eq. (201) consists of contributions In what follows, we consider various effects on a light from Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings associ- signal as it travels from an emission event E to a space- ated with the source body S. At O(1,1) and PNO(2), time point P located near a massive body. The light path these contributions are can be specified parametrically as xµ = xµ(λ), where λ (t t ) = is the path parameter. The wave 4-vector pµ of the ray P E aeff ,c − α α tangent to the path is 2G mS (aS ) + (aS ) Rˆj + (cS) N mS eff 0 mS eff j 00 µ µ dx r + r + R p = , (197) ln E P dλ × rE + rP R − and it obeys the conditions S S j lE lP GN α((a ) + (a )j Rˆ ) + µ − eff 0 eff r r dx µ α β E P = Γ αβp p , dλ − S k rE rP µ ν GN α(aeff )kb − . (203) p p gµν = 0. (198) − r r E P 48

The final term in Eq. (201) arises from gravitational B. Gravitational Doppler shift Lorentz violation involving the coefficient sµν and is given in Ref. [131]. When light passes near a massive body, it suffers a In typical time-delay measurements, an observer emits frequency shift as well as a time delay. In this and the a light signal at E that is reflected at the spacetime point subsequent subsections, we consider the corrections to ′ P and subsequently detected by the observer at E . The the frequency shift due to the matter-sector coefficients round-trip coordinate travel time ∆t, which is related to (aeff )µ and cµν . the measured proper time ∆τE by the factor dτE /dt, can The relevant quantity is the ratio of frequencies ob- be written to O(1,1) and PNO(2) as served at the two events E and P , 2 ˆ µ ∆t =2R(1+v ~v R)+(∆t)GR +(∆t)aeff ,c +(∆t)s. νP (u pµ)P − · = ν . (208) (204) νE (u pµ)E The zeroth-order term in this expression incorporates Lorentz-violating corrections to the trajectory of the At PNO(3), this can be written as emitter, which here can depend on particle species. These 2 νP 1 v 1 ~w Rˆ νP can in principle be determined by modeling the relevant = − − · 1+ . (209) 2 ˆ orbits along the lines of the treatment in Sec. X and Ref. νE 1 w 1 ~v R ! " νE g# r − − · [7]. The second term in Eq. (204) contains the leading GR corrections, Here, the term labeled g contains gravitational effects involving both the Doppler shift and the redshift,

S rE + rP + R ∆tGR =4GN m ln . (205) νP νP νP rE + rP R = + . (210) νE νE νE − g DS RS The third term in Eq. (204) contains the leading contri- This subsection treats the gravitational Doppler shift, butions from nonzero (aeff )µ and cµν , while the redshift effects are discussed in the next sub- α section. ∆t = 4G mS (aS ) + (cS) aeff ,c N mS eff 0 00 Corrections to the gravitational Doppler shift (νP /νE)DS depending on the coefficients (aeff )µ, cµν , rE + rP + R ln and sµν can be obtained by inserting into Eq. (31) of × rE + rP R − Ref. [131] the modifications to the metric from Eqs. (84) S lE lP and (88), along with those due to sµν given in Ref. [7]. 2GN α(aeff )0 + . (206) − rE rP Near conjunction, we find that the dominant effects take the form The last term of Eq. (204) contains corrections involving S νP 4GN m α α the coefficient sµν and is given in Ref. [131]. Note that S S ˆj 1+ S (aeff )0 + S (aeff )j R contributions from the coefficients (a ) and s cancel νE DS ≈ b m m eff j 0j in the round-trip expression, a result that can be traced S db νP to the parity-odd nature of the corresponding Lorentz- +(c )00 + , (211) dt νE DS,s violating operators. Note also that the time-delay signal changes over two relevant time scales, the conjunction where the last term contains the contributions from sµν time b/v and the typically longer orbital time r/v, which found in Ref. [131]. enables separation of the zeroth-order and gravitational Typical searches measure the round-trip frequency effects. shift, The dominant Lorentz-violating corrections to ∆t are S proportional to the logarithm in Eq. (206). The primary δν 8GN m α S S db = 1+ S (aeff )0 + (c )00 effect of the Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings is ν DS b m dt S therefore to scale the factor of GN m in the usual GR δν time delay (205). The scaling can be interpreted as an + . (212) ν DS,s effective value (GN M)TD for the source body relevant for time-delay tests, Note that the effects from parity-odd operators again cancel. The coefficients (aeff )0, c00, and s00 associated S α S S (GN M)TD = GN m 1+ S (aeff )0 + (c )00 + s00 . with isotropic Lorentz violation in the chosen inertial m S (207) frame act to scale the factor GN m in the usual expres- This scaling is unobservable in time-delay tests alone. sion for the gravitational Doppler shift, leading to an However, we show in what follows that other tests can effective value (GN M)DS given by S yield different effective values of GN m , so suitable com- α (G M) = G mS 1+ (aS ) + (cS) + s . parisons can reveal signals for Lorentz violation. This N DS N mS eff 0 00 00 prospect is considered in Sec. XI E below. (213) 49

The scaling (213) is unobservable in Doppler-shift tests numerous clock-comparison experiments performed with alone. This result for (GN M)DS is identical in form to both clocks at the same gravitational potential [2]. To that of the time-delay value (GN M)TD in Eq. (207). the order at which we work, the redshift can then be expanded as

(0,1) (1,1)S (1,1)T C. Gravitational redshift ν ν ν ν P = P + P + P , ν ν ν ν E RS E RS E RS E RS The Lorentz-violating contributions to the term (215) (νP /νE)RS in Eq. (210) for the gravitational redshift can where the term at O(0,1) is the conventional redshift, the be viewed as subdominant to the time delay or Doppler term at O(1,1) labeled by S contains Lorentz-violating shift because they occur at the slow time scale. How- corrections from the gravitational source, and the last ever, in dedicated redshift measurements, the Lorentz- term labeled by T involves O(1,1) contributions from the violating gravitational redshift can appear as the dom- clocks. For our present purposes, it suffices to work at inant effect. In this subsection, we discuss Lorentz- PNO(2). violating modifications to the usual gravitational redshift For an ideal clock, the Lorentz-violating contributions and effects in null-redshift tests. to the first two terms in Eq. (215) can be calculated by To place in context the results in this subsection, we inserting into the usual redshift equation the modifica- note that clocks can be used to perform three distinct tions (84) and (88) to the metric from the coefficients types of gravitational tests that are often convolved in (aeff )µ and cµν , along with the corrections from Ref. [7] the literature under the term ‘redshift tests.’ The first involving the coefficients sµν . This gives type, which measures the traditional gravitational red- ν (0,1) ν (1,1)S shift, involves two clocks held at different gravitational P + P potentials whose frequency is compared using light or ν ν E RS E RS some other signal passing between them. This type of (0,1) (1,1) test is discussed in Sec. XIC1 below. The second type of 1 (h )E (h )E = − 00 − 00 . (216) test is called a null-redshift test, and it involves monitor- v (0,1) (1,1) u 1 (h00 )P (h00 )P ing the frequencies of two clocks of different composition u − − t as they move together through the gravitational poten- Expanding to PNO(2) and keeping leading-order terms tial. This is discussed in Sec. XI C 2. The third kind of in Lorentz violation, we obtain the conventional PNO(2) test involves synchronizing two clocks and then moving result, one of them around a closed path in the gravitational po- (0,1) tential. The signal in this case is the accumulated phase νP re rp = G mS − , difference between the clocks. An example of this ‘twin- ν N r r paradox’ redshift test is the free-fall gravimeter measure- E RS e p ment with interferometers discussed in Sec. VIID. These together with the correction three kinds of tests produce related signals in GR. How- ever, they can yield distinct sensitivities in a more gen- ν (1,1)S 2α r r P = G mS (aS ) + (cS) e p eral context such as the SME, as is demonstrated in what N S eff 0 00 − νE RS m rerp follows. ν + P . (217) ν E RS,s 1. Modified redshift The last term contains the contributions from sµν given in Ref. [131]. The term (νP /νE)RS in Eq. (210) for the gravitational For the remaining term in Eq. (215), the situation is redshift can be understood as the product more complicated because the clock frequency must be calculated directly and typically depends on the struc- ν dt dτ P = E , (214) ture and composition of the clock. Moreover, although ν dτ dt E RS P our interest is at O(1,1), all three of the perturbative contributions O(1,0), O(0,1), O(1,1) must be treated due to of the factors relating proper and coordinate times for the appearance of cross terms in the calculation. For the clocks at the two points E and P . Each factor is de- convenience, we can express the last term in Eq. (215) in termined by the dispersion relation for the corresponding the form clock, which depends on coefficients for Lorentz violation (1,1)T via its material composition and on the Lorentz violation νP S re rp associated with the gravitational field. = GN m ξclock − , (218) νE rerp For simplicity in what follows, we assume the sending RS and receiving clocks are identical. This eliminates the where ξclock is a function of the coefficients for Lorentz need to consider O(1,0) effects, which have been sought in violation associated with the clock. If the clock’s ticking 50 rate is set by its inertial properties, as is the case for most from the zeroth-order one by the following simple replace- atomic clocks, then ξclock can be expected to depend on ments for the proton and electron mass: w the coefficients (c )µν . If the clock’s ticking rate depends intrinsically on the local gravitational acceleration, as oc- 1 1 3 5 p 13 p p p 1 2 h00 + 3 (c )00 + 6 (c )00h00 , curs for a pendulum clock, then ξclock can be expected to m → m − w 1 1 depend on the coefficients (aeff )µ. In general, the value 3 5 e 13 e e e 1 2 h00 + 3 (c )00 + 6 (c )00h00 . of ξclock can depend on both sets of coefficients, m → m − (221) w w ξclock = ξclock (aeff )µ, (c )µν . (219) Also, the source term in the Maxwell equations is cor- The key point is that different clocks have different ξclock rected by the vierbein determinant e, and the result according to the details of their construction and flavor can be obtained by a simple replacement for the proton content. charge, Combining the above results, we see that the domi- p nant Lorentz-violating effects for the gravitational red- p q p q q (1 h00). (222) shift can be represented as an effective value (GN M)RS → e ≈ − S implementing a scaling of GN m , in parallel with the results for the time delay and the gravitational Doppler It follows that the calculation of interest can be directly shift. We obtain performed by implementing the above replacements in the standard result for the Bohr energy levels. This yields S 2α S S 5 (GN M)RS = GN m 1+ S (aeff )0 + (c )00 + 3 s00 m E E 1 1 h → − 2 00 +ξclock . (220) 1 + [mp(ce) + me(cp) ]( 5 1 h ) . mp + me 00 00 3 − 2 00 This represents an unobservable scaling in any particular redshift test, but comparing redshift tests performed (223) with different clocks could yield access to differences in The modification (218) to the gravitational redshift is ξ . Moreover, the result for (G M) differs from clock N RS therefore given by both the time-delay value (GN M)TD in Eq. (207) and the Doppler-shift value (G M) in Eq. (213), so comparing , N DS ν (1 1)T 2G mS results from different tests could yield independent sen- P N p e e p = p e (m (c )00 + m (c )00) S νE −3(m + m ) sitivities to (aeff )0 that are inaccessible in other searches RS with ordinary matter. This prospect is considered in Sec. re rp − (224) XI E. × rerp We remark in passing that for certain special models the observable redshift effects in (GN M)RS may be when the clock transitions are those of the Bohr levels of hidden in WEP tests. A simple example is provided by hydrogen. This implies the result the isotropic parachute model discussed in Sec. IXB. By virtue of Eq. (169), the effective inertial and gravitational 2 p e e p ξH,Bohr = (m (c )00 + m (c )00). (225) masses in this model are equal for a test body made of −3(mp + me) ordinary matter, so no signals are observable in WEP w The value of ξclock for a realistic clock can be obtained tests. However, the presence of nonzero (c )µν implies via calculation if the hamiltonian describing the clock is a nonzero rescaling of (GN M) , which is observable by RS known. comparing to (GN M)TD or (GN M)DS. Signals from this model could also arise in the null-redshift tests discussed in Sec. XI C 2 below. 2. Null redshift We conclude this subsection with an illustrative calculation of ξclock for a simplified clock based on transitions between the Bohr levels of hydrogen, for which Another Lorentz-violating signal can be accessed by (1,1)T comparing two clocks of different types as they explore we determine (νP /νE)RS and ξclock ξH,Bohr assuming both the clocks and the gravitational≡ source are at the gravitational potential together. This type of mea- rest. This calculation is straightforward due to the spher- surement is called a null-redshift test [132]. ical symmetry and the zero velocity, and also because Consider comparing the frequencies of two clocks A a simple match exists between the zeroth-order hamil- and B having different values ξclock = ξA and ξclock = ξB (0,0) that are located at a point P with gravitational potential tonian h and the kinetic contributions to the sum P h(1,0) + h(0,1) + h(1,1) of the perturbative corrections pre- h00. The frequency ratio is given by sented in Sec. IIIC. By matching these expressions, we P (0) find that the kinetic portion of the hamiltonian in the νA 1 P νA = 1+ 2 (ξA ξB)h00 (0) , (226) presence of gravity and Lorentz violation can be obtained νB − νB ! 51 where the superscript (0) denotes a frequency at a hy- Making no additional assumptions about the masses of pothetical zero gravitational potential hµν = 0. This the source and test bodies, we find P frequency ratio depends inseparably on the potential h00 at point P and the ratio in zero potential. 2α S 2α T 5 (GN M)OB = GN M 1+ (aeff )0 + (aeff )0 + s00 When the same two clocks are moved to a point Q at mS mT 3 Q mS 2 mT mT 2 mS potential h00, the frequency ratio takes a new value. If 3 S 3 T + − (c )00 + − (c )00 . the values ξA and ξB differ, then so do the frequency M M ratios at P and Q. The ratio of frequency ratios then (229) shifts away from 1 and is given by To obtain an expression that is more readily compa- P Q νA νB 1 Q P rable to the effective values of (GN M) measured in pho- =1 2 (ξA ξB)(h00 h00). (227) ton tests, we note that mT mS under typical circum- νB νA − − − stances. The above result then≪ reduces to The shift is an observable, and it depends on the differ- S 2α S S 5 ence ∆ξAB = ξA ξB and also on the potential difference (GN M)OB = GN m 1+ S (aeff )0 + (c )00 + 3 s00 between P and Q−. m S 2α T 2 T For a gravitational source with h = 2GN m /r at 00 + T (aeff )0 3 (c )00 . (230) PNO(2), we obtain m − P Q This expression for (GN M)OB contains a linear combina- νA νB S (rP rQ) tion of coefficients for Lorentz violation that is indepen- =1 GN m ∆ξAB − . (228) ν ν − r r dent of the three combinations (G M) , (G M) , B A P Q N TD N DS and (GN M)RS obtained for photon tests. Some com- Unlike the other Lorentz-violating photon effects dis- ments about tests with this result are provided in the S cussed here, all of which represent scalings of GN m , next subsection. this result is a qualitative change from conventional gravity. It is also strictly a gravitational effect, vanishing in Minkowski spacetime. E. Experiments Since the shift varies with spacetime position, it exhibits features analogous to violations of local position in- The above subsections show that each type of photon variance, which have been the subject of numerous stud- test of Lorentz symmetry is sensitive to an effective value ies [8]. In the present case, these features arise from the of GN M that contains a combination of coefficients for Lorentz-violating flavor dependence of the clock mate- Lorentz violation. The time-delay value (GN M)TD is rial. Note also that the observable (228) contains the given by Eq. (207), and it depends on the coefficients same information as the result of two separate redshift S S α(a )0, (c )00, and s00. The gravitational Doppler shift tests performed with different clocks but the same gravi- eff involves the value (GN M)DS in Eq. (213) and involves tational source. This can be verified by inspection of the the same combination of the three coefficients. The value effective value (G M) in Eq. (220). Some relevant N RS (GN M)RS for the gravitational redshift is given by Eq. experiments are described in Sec. XI E. (220), which contains a different combination of coefficients and varies also with ξclock. All three of these photon tests yield sensitivities differing from those in orbital D. Comparison to effective orbital mass tests, which involve the value (GN M)OB in Eq. (230) T that depends also on the test-body coefficients α(aeff )0 T The preceding subsections reveal that the Lorentz- and (c )00. Note that no qualitatively new signals are in- violating contributions to the Shapiro time delay, the volved in any of these cases, since the effects are merely gravitational Doppler shift, and the gravitational redshift scalings of established physics. In contrast, the null- are all controlled by the effective value of GN M for the redshift observable given in Eq. (227), which depends gravitational source. In the context of the solar-system on the difference of clock quantities ∆ξAB , represents tests discussed in Sec. X, rescalings of GN M also occur a qualitative departure from conventional gravitational but can be disregarded as unobservable. Here, we deter- physics. mine the effective value of GN M relevant to observations Comparisons of the time-delay value (GN M)TD or of orbiting bodies, (GN M)OB. the Doppler-shift value (GN M)DS to the redshift value For Lorentz violation involving the coefficients (aeff )µ (GN M)RS for the same source body can be used to ob- and cµν , the secular changes in the orbital elements for tain sensitivity to combinations of coefficients for Lorentz the trajectory of an orbiting body are given by Eq. (184). violation. High-quality data for the time delay and the The analogous result for the coefficients sµν is given in gravitational Doppler shift have been obtained by track- Eq. (162) of Ref. [7]. Inspecting these equations, we can ing the Cassini spacecraft [133] in the gravitational field deduce the effective reduced mass of the source and test of the Sun. Proposed missions such as the Astrodynam- bodies and hence extract the effective value (GN M)OB. ical Space Test of Relativity using Optical Devices (AS- 52

TROD) [134], the Mercury Orbiter Radio-science Exper- Satellites carrying two different clocks offer interesting iment (MORE) [135], the Search for Anomalous Gravita- prospects for improved null-redshift searches for Lorentz tion using Atomic Sensors (SAGAS) [136], and the Solar violation. Since the attainable sensitivities improve with System Odyssey (SSO) [137] have the potential to im- the gravitational potential difference according to Eq. prove these measurements using the Sun as the gravita- (227), it is desirable to acquire elliptical orbits. The tional source, while the Beyond Einstein Advanced Co- Space-Time Asymmetry Research (STAR) program [142] herent Optical Network (BEACON) [138] could sharpen presently under development proposes to compare two results using the Earth as the gravitational source. An- different clocks on a satellite traveling in an elliptical or- other relevant recent proposal involves the use of very- bit. This mission could improve sensitivities to ξclock by long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) [139] to measure the an order of magnitude or more relative to ground-based deflection of radio waves from distant sources by solar- tests. Improved sensitivities may also be possible by com- system objects. The sensitivity of this measurement to paring clocks aboard the proposed SAGAS spacecraft. Lorentz violation is likely to be comparatively weaker but Note also that experiments in highly elliptical orbits can may be offset by the enhanced access to independent co- be expected to have increased sensitivity to anisotropic efficient combinations offered by multiple measurements effects on the redshift produced by sJK . and perhaps by access to anisotropic effects involving spa- Provided effects due to ξclock are excluded, either tial components of sµν . through independent experiments or by using a clock Redshift tests permit sensitivities to effects controlled with ξclock = 0, then the dependence of (GN M)RS on by ξclock. These can be isolated either by comparing sep- S (aeff )T implies that measurements of the gravitational arate redshift tests performed with different clocks in redshift can be compared with other photon tests per- the same gravitational source or more directly by null- formed with the same gravity source to obtain indepen- redshift tests, in which the signal depends on the differ- w dent sensitivities to (aeff )T . The Gravity Probe A (GPA) ence ∆ξAB between two clocks A, B and vanishes in the mission [143], which used the Earth as the gravity source, absence of gravity. The results of some investigations of confirmed the conventional gravitational redshift to parts local position invariance can be reinterpreted as measure- in 104. This result could eventually be combined with ments of ∆ξAB. For example, a recent Earth-based test proposed time-delay or Doppler-shift measurements of comparing a hydrogen maser with a Cs fountain [140] the BEACON type to yield sensitivity to the coefficient obtained a sensitivity that corresponds to the bound S (aeff )T for the Earth. Improved tests of the gravitational redshift are also proposed for the Atomic Clock Ensem- ξ ξ < (0.1 1.4) 10−6, (231) | H − Cs| ± × ble in Space (ACES) [144], SAGAS, and STAR missions. With the Sun as the gravity source instead, the Galileo while another comparing a hydrogen maser with a cryo- space probe obtained sensitivity to deviations for the genic sapphire oscillator [141] yields the measurement gravitational redshift at the level of parts in 102 [145]. ξ ξ = ( 2.7 1.4) 10−4. (232) Given knowledge of ξclock for the Galileo clock, this re- H − CSO − ± × sult could be combined with the Cassini results to yield S These results offer a benchmark for currently attainable sensitivity to the coefficient (aeff )T for the Sun. If feasible, a redshift test performed directly with Cassini would sensitivities to ξclock. The two experiments involve different clocks and hence likely different sensitivities to the be of interest in this respect. Other gravitational sources w could also be used. For example, the gravitational red- coefficients (c )µν . Calculating the specific constraints w shift was measured to parts in 102 using Saturn as the on (c )µν and possibly other coefficients for Lorentz violation from these and other tests is an interesting open source during the flyby of Voyager [146]. Time-delay or project. Note that Earth-based searches of this type typ- Doppler-shift data could therefore permit sensitivity to ically take advantage of the annual and diurnal variations the coefficient (aeff )T for Saturn. in the gravitational potential of the Sun as experienced Combinations of photon tests with measurements of in the laboratory. In searches using the annual variation, the effective orbital mass are also of interest. In the it is challenging and perhaps impossible to disentangle limit of zero matter-sector Lorentz violation, the result gravitational effects of nonzero ξclock from other Lorentz- (230) for (GN M)OB has been combined with Eq. (207) violating effects in Minkowski spacetime. However, di- for (GN M)TD to extract sensitivity to sT T [131]. How- urnal searches can distinguish the two types of effects ever, with nonzero coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν , the effec- because the Minkowski-spacetime signals occur at the tive value (GN M)OB involves properties of the test body sidereal frequency instead. Note also that other clock- as well as the source. Note that these appear in the famil- T T T comparison tests normally viewed as sensitive to SME iar combination α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3 discussed in Secs. coefficients in Minkowski spacetime may also have sensi- VII and IXB. The WEP− tests considered in this work tivity to ξclock. One intriguing possibility is that suitable constrain the degree to which this combination can differ e choices of clocks could separate effects from (c )T T and between neutrons and neutral combinations of electrons p (c )T T , which would then lead to independent sensitivi- and protons, but only through the indirect arguments e p ties to (aeff )T and (aeff )T , a result otherwise challenging involving binding energy described in Sec. VI B. In con- to achieve. trast, comparing GN M factors for measurements with 53 orbiting bodies and for photon tests offers the opportu- ize our focus to the study of spin-independent Lorentz- n T n nity to obtain direct sensitivity to α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3 violating effects, which are governed by the coefficient e+p T e+p − fields (a ) , c and the metric fluctuation h . The and α(aeff )T m (c )T T /3. Comparisons with sen- eff µ µν µν sitive gravimeters− may also be of interest in this respect. nonrelativistic quantum hamiltonian for this case is ob- We remark in passing that proposed sensitive experi- tained in Sec. III C using the standard Foldy-Wouthuysen ments to measure gravitational light bending, including procedure. the Laser Astrometric Test of Relativity (LATOR) [147] Measurements of gravity-matter couplings typically and the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) [148], are are performed at the classical level. Section IV con- likely to have signals affected by Lorentz violation. The structs the classical theory associated with the quantum- attainable sensitivities can be expected to be similar to mechanical dynamics of matter involving nonzero (aeff )µ, those discussed above, but the analysis of this possibility cµν , and hµν . The behavior of test and source bodies in lies beyond our present scope. the presence of Lorentz violation is the subject of Sec. IV A. Working from the action for a point particle, we provide expressions for the mass and for the effective co- XII. SUMMARY efficients for Lorentz violation for a test or source body, along with the effective action (76) describing the dy- This work studies the gravitational couplings of matter namics of the body. These results enable the derivation in in the presence of Lorentz violation. The framework for Sec. IV B of the modified Einstein equation and the equa- the investigation is the fermion sector of the gravitation- tion (78) for the trajectory of a test particle. To apply ally coupled minimal SME in a post-newtonian expan- this equation in practice requires knowledge of the coeffi- sion. Our primary goal is to develop a suitable method- cient and metric fluctuations. In Sec. IV C, we develop a ology for searches for Lorentz and CPT violation that systematic methodology for calculating this information exploit the couplings of matter to gravity, incorporating in perturbation theory and obtain general expressions for in particular effects that are challenging or impossible to the coefficient and metric fluctuations to O(1,1) in terms detect in Minkowski spacetime. of various gravitational potentials and the background Section II presents the basic formalism for the work. coefficient values (aeff )µ and cµν . The action for the gravity-matter system is given in Sec. To illustrate the application of the general formalism, II A, and the linearization procedure is outlined in Sec. we consider in Sec. V a specific class of bumblebee mod- IIB. Some types of Lorentz violation are unobservable els, which are theories with a vector field driving spon- in principle. This issue is discussed in Sec. II C, which taneous Lorentz breaking. The action for the bumble- also fixes the coordinate choice (23) used in this work. bee field Bµ is given in Sec. VA, where a match at the The metric and coefficient fields for Lorentz violation can field-theoretic level to the general formalism of earlier fluctuate about their background values, and the corre- sections is made and the coefficient fields (aeff )µ and cµν sponding interactions must be incorporated in analyses are identified in terms of Bµ and the metric. In Sec. VB, of experiments. In Sec. IID, we develop general per- we explicitly solve the model at the relevant order in perturbative techniques to analyze these fluctuations. Two turbation theory, extract the modified Einstein equation, notions of perturbative order are introduced. One is de- and derive the equation for the trajectory of a test parti- noted O(m,n) and tracks the orders in Lorentz violation cle. The results are shown to match those obtained using and in gravity, while the other is denoted PNO(p) and the general formalism developed in the earlier sections. tracks the post-newtonian order. The goal of this work is The largest portion of the paper is devoted to a dis- to investigate dominant terms involving Lorentz violation cussion of experiments and observations that can achieve in gravity, which are at O(1,1). sensitivity to the coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν . Section Section III studies the quantum theory of the gravity- VI presents some general material broadly applicable to matter system. Starting from the field-theoretic action, searches for Lorentz violation. Various choices of refer- we construct the relativistic quantum mechanics in the ence frame and their relationship to the canonical Sun- presence of gravitational fluctuations and Lorentz viola- centered frame are discussed in Sec. VI A. Attainable tion. Formulating the quantum theory for matter in the sensitivities to the coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν in any mea- presence of gravitational fluctuations is a standard chal- surement procedure are constrained by certain generic lenge. In Sec. III A, we present a solution to this problem features. Section VIB considers some of these, includ- via a field redefinition, which yields a hamiltonian that ing the role of binding energy in impeding or aiding the is hermitian with respect to the usual scalar product for analysis of WEP tests for signals of Lorentz violation. wave functions. We then use this procedure in Sec. III B A major class of searches for Lorentz violation involves to extract the explicit form of the relativistic hamiltonian laboratory tests with ordinary neutral bulk matter, neu- involving all coefficients for Lorentz violation in the min- tral atoms, and neutrons. Section VII treats this topic. imal QED extension. The result forms the appropriate The PNO(3) lagrangian describing the dynamics of a test starting point for general investigations of Lorentz and body moving near the surface of the Earth in the presence CPT violation in matter-gravity couplings. To maintain of Lorentz violation is considered in Sec. VII A. Expres- a reasonable scope in this work, we subsequently special- sions are given in an Earth-centered frame and the trans- 54 formation to the laboratory frame is outlined. The re- from ones comparing forces. In Sec. VIIB, we consider sulting description of laboratory signals for gravitational free-fall gravimeter tests such as falling corner cubes and Lorentz violation includes effects from the matter-sector atom interferometry. Force-comparison gravimeter tests coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν and ones from the gravity- using equipment such as superconducting gravimeters are sector coefficients sµν obtained in Ref. [7]. It reveals studied in Sec. VII C. An important potential signal for that the gravitational force acquires tiny corrections both gravitational Lorentz violation arises from the flavor de- along and perpendicular to the usual free-fall trajectory pendence of the effects, which implies signals in WEP near the surface of the Earth, while the effective iner- tests. A variety of free-fall WEP tests is considered in tial mass of a test body becomes a direction-dependent Sec. VIID, while force-comparison WEP tests with a tor- quantity. These effects can be sought in numerous lab- sion pendulum are treated in Sec. VIIE. For all the tests oratory experiments. Since the standard relationship considered, the possible signals for Lorentz violation are between force and acceleration is modified, it is useful decomposed according to their time dependence, and es- to distinguish tests measuring gravitational acceleration timates of the attainable sensitivities are obtained.

Table XIV. Summary of actual and attainable sensitivities in past or present tests. Coeﬃcient Gravimeter Free-fall Force-comparison Solar combinations WEP WEP system

e+p −7 −3 −7 α(aeff )X [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] ... e+p −7 −3 −6 α(aeff )Y +Z [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] ... e+p −5 −7 α(aeff )Y [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... e+p −5 −6 α(aeff )Z [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... e+p −7 † −10 † α(aeff )T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −7 −3 −7 α(aeff )X [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] ... n −7 −3 −6 α(aeff )Y +Z [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] ... n −5 −7 α(aeff )Y [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... n −5 −6 α(aeff )Z [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... n −7 † −10 † α(aeff )T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p−n −7 −4 −8 −6 α(aeff )X [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] e+p−n −7 −4 −7 −6 α(aeff )Y +Z [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] [10 GeV] e+p−n −5 −8 α(aeff )Y [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... e+p−n −5 −7 α(aeff )Z [10 GeV] ... [10 GeV] ... e+p−n 1 p e+p−n −8 ‡ −8 ‡ α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p−n − 1 p e+p−n α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T 1 2 − 1 n n −8 + ( 2 cos χ 6 )m (c )Q ... 10 GeV ...... e+p−n −1 p e+p−n α(aeff )T 3 m (c )T T 1 n n − −11 6 m (c )Q ...... 10 GeV ... −e p n −6 † (aeff )' + (aeff )' +0.1(aeff )' ...... 10 GeV e p n −6 † (aeff )⊕ + (aeff )⊕ +0.1(aeff )⊕ ...... 10 GeV n −7 −4 −7 −6 (c )(TJ) [10 ] [10 ] [10 ] [10 ] n −8‡ −8‡ (c )Q ... 10 10 ... n −8† (c )' ...... 10 n −7† (c )⊕ ...... 10

Section VIII considers satellite-based WEP tests, olation, and we consider idealized scenarios for several which offer interesting prospects for improved sensitiv- proposed satellite-based WEP tests. Based on the de- ities to Lorentz violation. In this context, the signal for sign reach of the missions, we estimate the sensitivities Lorentz violation is an anomalous time variation of the that could be achieved to various combinations of the relative local acceleration between two test bodies of dif- matter-sector coefficients (aeff )µ and cµν . fering composition located on the satellite. We derive the frequency decomposition of the signal for Lorentz vi- Studies of the gravitational couplings of charged particles, antimatter, and second- and third-generation par- 55 ticles present distinct experimental challenges but can The interaction of photons with gravity offers a differ- yield sensitivities to Lorentz and CPT violation that are ent arena in which to seek Lorentz and CPT violation. otherwise difficult or impossible to achieve. Section IX Section XI is devoted to this topic. We consider signals addresses some of these possibilities, including charged- arising in measurements of the photon time delay, studies particle interferometry, ballistic tests with charged par- of the gravitational Doppler and redshifts, and compar- ticles, gravitational experiments with antihydrogen, and isons of the behaviors of photons and massive bodies. A signals in muonium free fall. For antihydrogen experi- variety of existing and proposed experiments on space- ments, simple toy models are introduced to illustrate as- craft offer interesting prospects for these measurements. pects of their discovery potential and to address attempts Tables XIV and XV collect estimated sensitivities to w w to place indirect limits on possible effects. the matter-sector coefficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν obtained Traditional tests of gravity couplings to matter include from many of the measurements discussed in this work. observations of the motion of bodies within the solar These tables disregard possible effects from the pure- system. Section X contains a discussion of the signals gravity coefficients sµν that could in principle be relevant accessible via lunar and satellite laser ranging and via to solar-system tests. Table XIV concerns existing data, measurements of the precession of the perihelion of or- while Table XV tabulates future prospects. One result biting bodies. A reanalysis of existing data from lunar omitted from these tables is the generalization (121) of laser ranging could yield interesting sensitivities to some the constraint obtained in Ref. [11] using data from force- combinations of the matter-sector coefficients (aeff )µ and comparison WEP tests with a torsion pendulum. In Sec. cµν . We use the established advance of the perihelion VII E, multiple data sets are combined to separate this for Mercury and for the Earth to obtain constraints on constraint into the two limits (153), and both of these combinations of (aeff )µ, cµν , and sµν . are included in Table XIV instead.

Table XV. Summary of attainable sensitivities in future tests. Coeﬃcient Free-fall Free-fall Satellite Solar combinations gravimeter WEP WEP system

e+p −10 −10 −11 α(aeff )X 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p −10 −10 −11 α(aeff )Y +Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p −8 −8 −9 α(aeff )Y 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p −8 −8 −9 α(aeff )Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p −14 † −15 † α(aeff )T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −10 −10 −11 α(aeff )X 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −10 −10 −11 α(aeff )Y +Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −8 −8 −9 α(aeff )Y 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −8 −8 −9 α(aeff )Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n −14 † −15 † α(aeff )T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p−n −10 −11 −12 −7 α(aeff )X 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n −10 −11 −12 −7 α(aeff )Y +Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV e+p−n −8 −9 −10 α(aeff )Y 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p−n −8 −9 −10 α(aeff )Z 10 GeV 10 GeV 10 GeV ... e+p−n α(aeff )T 1 p e+p−n −15 −16 3 m (c )T T ... 10 GeV 10 GeV ... n− −10 −11 −12 −7 (c )(TJ) 10 10 10 10 n −15 −16 (c )Q ... 10 10 ...

The formalism and the analytical results for gravita- measurements have already yielded impressive sensitivi- w tional signals of Lorentz violation presented in this work ties to various components of (c )µν [2]. The estimated w w apply to the nonzero matter-sector coefficients (aeff )µ, attainable sensitivities to (c )µν derived in this work are w n (c )µν and in some cases also to the gravity-sector coef- therefore primarily restricted to components of (c )µν , ficients sµν . Comparatively little is known about the co- for which existing constraints are weaker. Tables XIV w efficients (aeff )µ, and scenarios exist in which they could and XV reflect these facts, containing mostly entries for w be countershaded, having large values while still escaping combinations of the coefficients (aeff )µ along with some w notice in searches to date [11]. However, nongravitational results for (c )µν . 56

Table XIV summarizes actual sensitivities or estimated ment cannot attain the indicated sensitivity, but instead attainable ones using data from past or present measure- only a linear combination of coefficients with multipliers ments. The table is based on the calculations presented controlled by composition and orientation factors. Note in this work and includes only sensitivities below parts that elsewhere in this work the convention is to display in 102. Each entry in the first column of this table rep- values of future sensitivities in braces, but this conven- resents a linear combination of coefficients that is acces- tion is suppressed in Table XV because all entries are of sible in principle via existing searches. Each of the other this type. Note also that further improvements in the- four columns contains our estimates for sensitivities that oretical techniques and experimental design in all types could be achieved in the listed class of tests, expressed of searches, including ones not listed in Table XV such to the nearest order of magnitude. Values in these four as exotic gravitational tests or photon tests, are expected columns that are shown without brackets represent order- to yield additional interesting prospects for future attain- of-magnitude sensitivities implied by our present analysis able sensitivities. to the modulus of the coefficient combination displayed. Taken together, Tables XIV and XV reveal excellent Values appearing in brackets in the table represent our es- prospects for using matter-gravity couplings to seek ef- timate of sensitivities that could in principle be obtained fects of Lorentz violation. The opportunities for mea- from a suitable reanalysis of existing data. An obelisk suring the countershaded coefficients (aw ) at sensitive ( ) following a value indicates a limit attainable under eff µ levels are of particular interest in this context, as these the† assumption that either (aw ) or (cw) is negligibly eff µ µν coefficients typically cannot be detected in nongravita- small or vanishes. A diesis ( ) indicates a sensitivity that tional searches. Indeed, the spatial components of (aw ) is attained by combining data‡ from two different classes eff µ remain essentially unconstrained to date. The tests pro- of experiments, and this sensitivity is placed in each of posed here can be performed with existing or near-future the two corresponding columns in the table. technology, and they offer a promising new arena for Table XV contains future attainable sensitivities to the searches for signals from the Planck scale. moduli of various combinations of the matter-sector co- w w efficients (aeff )µ and (c )µν , as estimated in previous sections of this work. The structure of this table is similar to that of Table XIV. The listed entries are based on the Acknowledgments best design reach and are given to the nearest order of magnitude. For each class of search, we assume enough measurements have been performed to achieve the maxi- This work was supported in part by the Department mum number of independent sensitivities. The reader is of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40661 and by the cautioned that for certain coefficients a single measure- Indiana University Center for Spacetime Symmetries.

[1] V.A. Kosteleckýand S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 010402 (2009). (1989); V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B [12] L. Carbone, H. Panjwani, C.C. Speake, T.J. Quinn 359, 545 (1991). and C.J. Collins, in T. Damour, R.T. Jantzen, and R. [2] Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation, V.A. Kost- Ruffini, eds., Proceedings of the Twelfth Marcel Gross- eleckýand N. Russell, 2010 edition, Rev. Mod. Phys., mann Meeting on General Relativity, World Scientific, in press [arXiv:0801.0287v3]. Singapore, 2010. [3] V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004). [13] Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960); J. Goldstone, [4] J.B.R. Battat, J.F. Chandler, and C.W. Stubbs, Phys. Nuov. Cim. 19, 154 (1961); J. Goldstone, A. Salam, and Rev. Lett. 99, 241103 (2007). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 127, 965 (1962). [5] K.-Y. Chung, S-w. Chiow, S. Herrmann, S. Chu, and [14] R. Bluhm and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 71 065008 H. Müller, Phys. Rev. D 80, 016002 (2009); H. Müller, (2005). S.-w. Chiow, S. Herrmann, S. Chu, and K.-Y. Chung, [15] R. Bluhm et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 065020 (2008). Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 031101 (2008). [16] R. Utiyama, Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956); T.W.B. Kib- [6] W.M. Jensen, S.M. Lewis, and J.C. Long, in V.A. Kost- ble, J. Math. Phys. 2, 212 (1961). elecký, ed., CPT and Lorentz Symmetry IV, World Sci- [17] V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and J.D. Tasson, Phys. entific, Singapore, 2008; J.M. Overduin, ibid. Rev. Lett. 100, 111102 (2008). [7] Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 74, [18] D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 55, 045001 (2006). 6760 (1997); Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998). [8] C.M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational [19] D. Colladay and P. McDonald, J. Math. Phys. 43, 3554 Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. (2002). [9] V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3923 [20] M.S. Berger and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 65, (1995). 091701(R) (2002). [10] O.W. Greenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 231602 (2002). [21] V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 66, [11] V.A. Kosteleckýand J.D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 056005 (2002). 57

[22] Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 70, JCAP 0912, 018 (2009). 076006 (2004). [51] S.M. Carroll, T.R. Dulaney, M.I. Gresham, and H. [23] B. Altschul, J. Phys. A 39 13757 (2006). Tam, Phys. Rev. D 79, 065011 (2009); R. Bluhm, N.L. [24] R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 75, 041301 (2007). Gagne, R. Potting, and A. Vrublevskis, Phys. Rev. D [25] V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 80, 77, 125007 (2008); M.D. Seifert, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015020 (2009); Ap. J. Lett. 689, L1 (2008). 064002 (2007). [26] C. Armendariz-Picon, A. Diez-Tejedor, and R. Penco, [52] G. Leibbrandt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1067 (1987). JHEP 1010, 079 (2010). [53] KTeV Collaboration, H. Nguyen, in V.A. Kostelecký, [27] V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Potting, Gen. Rel. Grav. 37, ed., CPT and Lorentz Symmetry II, World Scientific, 1675 (2005); Phys. Rev. D 79, 065018 (2009). Singapore, 2002 [hep-ex/0112046]; A. Di Domenico, [28] S.M. Carroll, H. Tam, and I.K. Wehus, Phys. Rev. D KLOE Collaboration, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 171, 012008 80, 025020 (2009). (2009); FOCUS Collaboration, J.M. Link et al., Phys. [29] N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. Luty, and J. Thaler, Lett. B 556, 7 (2003); BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert JHEP 0507, 029 (2005). et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 131802 (2008); hep- [30] B. Altschul et al., Phys. Rev. D 81, 065028 (2010). ex/0607103. [31] Y. Nambu, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. Extra 190 (1968); [54] V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1818 (1998); J.D. Bjorken, Ann. Phys. 24, 174 (1963); P.G.O. Fre- Phys. Rev. D 61, 016002 (1999); Phys. Rev. D 64, und, Acta Phys. Austriaca 14, 445 (1961); W. Heisen- 076001 (2001); V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Van Kooten, berg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 269 (1957); P.A.M. Dirac, Phys. Rev. D 82, 101702 (R) (2010). Proc. R. Soc. Lon. A209, 291, (1951). [55] MINOS Collaboration, P. Adamson et al., Phys. Rev. [32] Z. Berezhiani and O.V. Kancheli, arXiv:0808.3181; P. Lett. 101, 151601 (2008); LSND Collaboration, L.B. Kraus and E.T. Tomboulis Phys. Rev. D 66, 045015 Auerbach et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 076004 (2005); M.D. (2002); D. Atkatz, Phys. Rev. D 17, 1972 (1978); H.C. Messier (SK), in V.A. Kostelecký, ed., CPT and Lorentz Ohanian, Phys. Rev. 184, 1305 (1969); P.R. Phillips, Symmetry II, World Scientific, Singapore, 2005; V.A. Phys. Rev. 146, 966 (1966). Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 69, 016005 [33] S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T.A. Wagner, J.H. Gund- (2004); Phys. Rev. D 70, 031902 (2004); Phys. Rev. D lach, and E.G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 70, 076002 (2004); T. Katori et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, (2008). 105009 (2006); V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and K. Whis- [34] I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Rep. 357, 113 (2002). nant, Phys. Lett. B 653, 267 (2007); J.S. D´ıaz et al., [35] B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, C.E. Cramer, T.S. Cook, Phys. Rev. D 80, 076007 (2009). S. Schlamminger, and U. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 78, [56] Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 82, 065012 (2010). 092006 (2008). [57] I. Marson and J.E. Faller, J. Phys. E 19, 22 (1986). [36] R. Bluhm et al., Phys. Rev. D 57, 3932 (1998). [58] A. Peters, K.Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Nature 400, 849 [37] V.A. Kosteleckýand C.D. Lane, J. Math. Phys. 40, (1999); Metrologia 38, 25 (2001). 6245 (1999). [59] T.L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M.A. Kasevich, [38] V.A. Kosteleckýand R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 63, Class. Quantum. Grav. 17, 2385 (2000); T.L. Gus- 065008 (2001). tavson, P. Bouyer, and M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [39] L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D 22, 1922 (1980). 78, 2046 (1997). [40] X. Huang and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D 79, 024020 [60] P. Story and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Phys. II France 4, (2009). 1999 (1994). [41] B.R. Heckel, C.E. Cramer, T.S. Cook, E.G. Adelberger, [61] Special forms of spin-dependent Lorentz violation in S. Schlamminger, and U. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 matter interferometers have been discussed in J. Au- 021603 (2006). dretsch, U. Bleyer, and C. Lämmerzahl, Phys. Rev. A [42] L.L. Foldy and S.A. Wouthuysen, Phys. Rev. 78, 29 47, 4632 (1993). (1950). [62] J.M. McGuirk, G.T. Foster, J.B. Fixler, M.J. Snadden, [43] B. Goncalves, Y.N. Obukhov, and I.L. Shapiro, Phys. and M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033608 (2002). Rev. D 80, 125034 (2009). [63] N. Yu, J.M. Kohel, J.R. Kellogg, and L. Maleki, Appl. [44] V.A. Kosteleckýand N. Russell, Phys. Lett. B 693, 443 Phys. B 84, 647 (2006). (2010). [64] B. Canuel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 010402 (2006). [45] V.A. Kostelecký and C.D. Lane, Phys. Rev. D 60, [65] S. Dimopoulos, P.W. Graham, J.M. Hogan, and M.A. 116010 (1999). Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 111102 (2007); Phys. [46] C.J. Allègre, J.-P. Poirier, E. Humler, and A.W. Hof- Rev. D 78, 042003 (2008). mann, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 134, 515 (1995). [66] H. Kaiser et al., Physica B 385-386, 1384 (2006). [47] L.I. Schiff, Am. J. Phys. 28, 340 (1960). [67] R.J. Warburton and J.M. Goodkind, Astrophys. J. 208, [48] The breaking of general coordinate invariance is studied 881 (1976). in M.M. Anber, U. Aydemir, and J.F. Donoghue, Phys. [68] S. Shiomi, arXiv:0902.4081. Rev. D 81, 084059 (2010). [69] A.A. Geraci, S.J. Smullin, D.M. Weld, J. Chiaverini, [49] V.A. Kosteleckýand S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1886 and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. D 78, 022002 (2008); (1989); Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 224 (1989). R.S. Decca, D. López, E. Fischbach, G.L. Klimchit- [50] M.D. Seifert, Phys. Rev. D 81, 065010 (2010); Phys. skaya, D.E. Krause, and V.M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124012 (2009); J. Alfaro and L.F. Urru- Rev. D 75, 077101 (2007); D.J. Kapner, T.S. Cook, E.G. tia, Phys. Rev. D 81, 025007 (2010); J.L. Chkareuli, Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, B.R. Heckel, C.D. Hoyle, C.D. Froggatt, and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B 821, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007); 65 (2009); C. Armendariz-Picon and A. Diez-Tejedor, J.C. Long, H.W. Chan, A.B. Churnside, E.A. Gulbis, 58

M.C.M. Varney, and J.C. Price, Nature 421, 922 (2003); fine Int. 100, 153 (1996). T.J. Quinn, C.C. Speake, S.J. Richman, R.S. Davis, and [99] PS210 Collaboration, G. Baur et al., Phys. Lett. B 368, A. Picard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111101 (2001). 251 (1996). [70] K. Kuroda and N. Mio, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3903 (1990). [100] E862 Collaboration, G. Blanford, D.C. Christian, K. [71] T.M. Niebauer, M.P. McHugh, and J.E. Faller, Phys. Gollwitzer, M. Mandelkern, C.T. Munger, J. Schultz, Rev. Lett. 59, 609 (1987). and G. Zioulas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3037 (1998). [72] S. Fray, C.A. Diez, T.W. Hänsch, and M. Weitz, Phys. [101] ATHENA Collaboration, M. Amoretti et al., Nature Rev. Lett. 93, 240404 (2004). 419, 456 (2002); ATRAP Collaboration, G. Gabrielse [73] R.D. Reasenberg, in V.A. Kostelecký, ed., CPT and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 213401 (2002). Lorentz Symmetry II, World Scientific, Singapore, 2005. [102] ALPHA Collaboration, G. Andresen et al., Phys. Rev. [74] V. Iafolla, S. Nozzoli, E.C. Lorenzini, I.I. Shapiro, and Lett. 98, 023402 (2007); ATRAP Collaboration, G. V. Milyukov, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 2327 (2000). Gabrielse et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 113002 (2007). [75] H. Dittus and C. Mehls, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 2417 [103] R. Bluhm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2254 (1999). (2001). [104] B. Juhász and E. Widmann, Hyperfine Int. 193, 305 [76] H. Marion et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 150801 (2003). (2009). [77] M.K. Oberthaler, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 192, 129 [105] G. Gabrielse, Hyperfine Int. 44, 349 (1988); N. Beverini, (2002). V. Lagomarsino, G. Manuzio, F. Scuri, and G. Torelli, [78] R.D. Reasenberg and J.D. Phillips, Class. Q. Grav. 27, Hyperfine Int. 44, 357 (1989); R. Poggiani, Hyperfine 095005 (2010). Int. 76, 371 (1993). [79] Y. Su, B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, [106] T.J. Phillips, Hyperfine Int. 109, 357 (1997); AGE Col- M. Harris, G.L. Smith, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. laboration, A.D. Cronin et al., Letter of Intent: Anti- D 50, 3614 (1994). matter Gravity Experiment (AGE) at Fermilab, Febru- [80] L.-S. Hou, W.-T. Ni, and Y.-C.M. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. ary 2009. 90, 201101 (2003); R. Bluhm and V.A. Kostelecký, [107] J. Walz and T.W. Hänsch, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 561 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1381 (2000). (2004); P. Pérez, L. Liszkay, B. Mansoulié, J.M. Rey, [81] S. Shiomi, Phys. Rev. D 78, 042001 (2008). A. Mohri, Y. Yamazaki, N. Kuroda, and H.A. Torii, [82] For reviews of space-based tests of relativity see, for ex- Letter of Intent to the CERN-SPSC, November 2007. ample C. Lämmerzahl, C.W.F. Everitt, and F.W. Hehl, [108] F.M. Huber, E.W. Messerschmid, and G.A. Smith, eds., Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers . . . : Testing Rela- Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 2457 (2001). tivistic Gravity in Space, Springer, Berlin, 2001. [109] AEGIS Collaboration, A. Kellerbauer et al., Nucl. Instr. [83] R. Bluhm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 090801 (2002); Meth. B 266, 351 (2008). Phys. Rev. D 68, 125008 (2003). [110] M.M. Nieto and T. Goldman, Phys. Rep. 205, 221 [84] P. Touboul, M. Rodrigues, G. Métris, and B. Tatry, (1991). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Series IV, [111] V.A. Kostelecký, unpublished (2003). 2, 1271 (2001). [112] P. Morrison, Am. J. Phys. 26, 358 (1958). [85] T.J. Sumner et al., Adv. Space Res. 39, 254 (2007). [113] L.I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 254 (1958), Proc. Natl. [86] A.M. Nobili et al., Exp. Astron. 23, 689 (2009). Acad. Sci. 45, 69 (1959). [87] G. Amelino-Camelia et al., Exp. Astron. 23, 549 (2008). [114] R. Jackiw and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. Lett. [88] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 75, 023001 (2007). 82, 3572 (1999); M. Pérez-Victoria, JHEP 0104, 032 [89] G.L. Comandi et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 034501 (2001); V.A. Kostelecký, C.D. Lane, and A.G.M. Pick- (2006). ering, Phys. Rev. D 65, 056006 (2002); V.A. Kostelecký [90] F. Hasselbach and M. Nicklaus, Phys. Rev. A 48, 143 and A.G.M. Pickering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 031801 (1993); R. Neutze and F. Hasselbach, Phys. Rev. A 58, (2003); B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 69, 125009 (2004); 557 (1998). Phys. Rev. D 70, 101701 (2004); B. Altschul and V.A. [91] B. Neyenhuis, D. Christensen, and D.S. Durfee, Phys. Kostelecký, Phys. Lett. B 628, 106 (2005); H. Be- Rev. Lett. 99, 200401 (2007). lich, T. Costa-Soares, M.M. Ferreira, and J.A. Helayel- [92] L.I. Schiff and M.V. Barnhill, Phys. Rev. 151, 1067 Neto, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 127 (2005); T. Mariz, J.R. (1966); A.J. Dessler, F.C. Michel, H.E. Rorschach, and Nascimento, E. Passos, R.F. Ribeiro, and F.A. Brito, G.T. Trammell, Phys. Rev. 168, 737 (1968); C. Herring, JHEP 0510, 019 (2005); G. de Berredo-Peixoto and Phys. Rev. 171, 1361 (1968); L.I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. B I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. B 642, 153 (2006); P. Arias, 1, 4649 (1970). H. Falomir, J. Gamboa, F. Méndez, and F.A. Schapos- [93] F.S. Witteborn and W.M. Fairbank, Phys. Rev. Lett. nik, Phys. Rev. D 76, 025019 (2007); D. Colladay and 19, 1049 (1967); Rev. Sci. Instrum. 48, 1 (1977). P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 75, 105002 (2007); Phys. [94] T. Goldman and M.M. Nieto, Phys. Lett. B 112, 437 Rev. D 77, 085006 (2008); Phys. Rev. D 79, 125019 (1982). (2009); M. Gomes, T. Mariz, J.R. Nascimento, E. Pas- [95] M.H. Holzscheiter et al., Nucl. Phys. A 558, 709c sos, A.Yu. Petrov, and A.J. da Silva, Phys. Rev. D 78, (1993). 025029 (2008); D. Anselmi, Ann. Phys. 324, 874 (2009); [96] T.W. Darling, F. Rossi, G.I. Opat, and G.F. Moorhead, Ann. Phys. 324, 1058 (2009). Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 237 (1992). [115] M.L. Good, Phys. Rev. 121, 311 (1961). [97] L.S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 233 [116] P. Wolf, F. Chapelet, S. Bize, and A. Clairon, Phys. (1986). Rev. Lett. 96, 060801 (2006). [98] V. Lagomarsino, V. Lia, G. Manuzio, and G. Testera, [117] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 82, 016002 (2010). Phys. Rev. A 50, 977 (1994); V. Lagomarsino, G. [118] V.A. Kosteleckýand M. Mewes, in preparation. Manuzio, G. Testera, and M.H. Holszscheiter, Hyper- [119] G.W. Bennett et al., Muon g–2 Collaboration, Phys. 59

Rev. Lett. 100, 091602 (2008); B. Altschul, Astropart. [133] B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 Phys. 28, 380 (2007); V.W. Hughes et al., Phys. Rev. (2003). Lett. 87, 111804 (2001); R. Bluhm et al., Phys. Rev. [134] T. Appourchaux et al., Exp. Astron. 23, 491 (2009). Lett. 84, 1098 (2000). [135] L. Iess and S. Asmar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 2117 [120] K. Kirch, arXiv:physics/0702143. (2007). [121] B. Lesche, Gen. Rel. Grav. 21, 623 (1989). [136] P. Wolf et al., Exp. Astron. 23, 651 (2008); S. Rey- [122] D0 Collaboration, V.M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, naud, C. Salomon, and P. Wolf, Space Sci. Rev. 148, 032001 (2010). 233 (2009). [123] O. Bertolami et al., Phys. Lett. B 395, 178 (1997); G. [137] B. Christophe et al., Exper. Astron. 23, 529 (2008). Lambiase, Phys. Rev. D 72, 087702 (2005); J.M. Car- [138] S.G. Turyshev, B. Lane, M. Shao, and A. Girerd, Int. mona, J.L. Cortés, A. Das, J. Gamboa, and F. Méndez, J. Mod. Phys. D 18, 1025 (2009). Mod. Phys. Lett. A21, 883 (2006); S.M. Carroll and J. [139] S.B. Lambert and C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, Astron. Astro- Shu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103515 (2006). phys. 499, 331 (2009). [124] J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev, and H.D. Boggs, Phys. [140] N. Ashby, T.P. Heavner, S.R. Jefferts, T.E. Parker, A.G. Rev. Lett. 93, 261101 (2004). Radnaev, and Y.O. Dudin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070802 [125] T.W. Murphy et al., Pub. Astron. Soc. Pac. 120, 20 (2007). (2008). [141] M.E. Tobar, P. Wolf, S. Bize, G. Santarelli, and V. [126] J. Müller and L. Biskupek, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, Flambaum, Phys. Rev. D 81, 022003 (2010). 4533 (2007); R.W. Hellings et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, [142] R. Byer, Space-Time Asymmetry Research, Stanford 1609 (1983). University proposal, January 2008. [127] V.A. Kostelecký, R. Lehnert, and M.J. Perry, Phys. [143] R.F.C. Vessot et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 2081 (1980). Rev. D 68, 123511 (2003). [144] L. Cacciapuoti and C. Salomon, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. [128] V.A. Brumberg, Essential Relativistic Celestial Mechan- 172, 57 (2009). ics, Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1991. [145] T.P. Krisher, D.D. Morabito, and J.D. Anderson, Phys. [129] P. Moore, The Data Book of Astronomy, Institute of Rev. Lett. 70, 2213 (1993). Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2000. [146] T.P. Krisher, J.D. Anderson, and J.K. Campbell, Phys. [130] C.M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity 4, 4 (2001) [gr- Rev. Lett. 64, 1322 (1990). qc/0510072]. [147] S.G. Turyshev and M. Shao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, [131] Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044004 (2009). 2191 (2007). [132] C.M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2330 (1974); J.P. [148] S.C. Unwin et al., Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific 120, 38 Turneaure, C.M. Will, B.F. Farrell, E.M. Mattison, and (2008). R.F.C. Vessot, Phys. Rev. D 27 , 1705 (1983).