October 7, 2010 Photon and Graviton Mass Limits Alfred Scharff Goldhaber∗,† and Michael Martin Nieto† ∗C. N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794-3840 USA and †Theoretical Division (MS B285), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Efforts to place limits on deviations from canonical formulations of electromagnetism and gravity have probed length scales increasing dramatically over time. Historically, these studies have passed through three stages: (1) Testing the power in the inverse-square laws of Newton and Coulomb, (2) Seeking a nonzero value for the rest mass of photon or graviton, (3) Considering more degrees of freedom, allowing mass while preserving explicit gauge or general-coordinate invariance. Since our previous review the lower limit on the photon Compton wavelength has improved by four orders of magnitude, to about one astronomical unit, and rapid current progress in astronomy makes further advance likely. For gravity there have been vigorous debates about even the concept of graviton rest mass. Meanwhile there are striking observations of astronomical motions that do not fit Einstein gravity with visible sources. “Cold dark matter” (slow, invisible classical particles) fits well at large scales. “Modified Newtonian dynamics” provides the best phenomenology at galactic scales. Satisfying this phenomenology is a requirement if dark matter, perhaps as invisible classical fields, could be correct here too. “Dark energy” might be explained by a graviton-mass-like effect, with associated Compton wavelength comparable to the radius of the visible universe. We summarize significant mass limits in a table. Contents B. Einstein’s general theory of relativity and beyond? 20 C. Nonzero graviton mass: Is it possible? 21 I. Introduction 2 1. Early considerations 21 A. How to test a theory 2 B. Photons 3 2. Recent considerations 22 C. Gravitons 4 D. More perspectives on gauge and general-coordinate D. Perspectives on gauge and general-coordinate invariance 23 invariance 4 V. Phenomenology of deviations from GR 24 II. Electromagnetic theories 5 A. Power-law deviation from Coulomb’s form 5 A. Inverse square law 24 B. Photon mass from the Proca equation 5 1. Inverse square law on large scales 24 C. Conservation of electric charge 7 2. Small/large extra dimensions and “fat/thin” D. Gauge invariance, its apparent violation and ultimate gravitons 25 restoration 8 B. Speed of gravity 25 E. Higgs mechanism, or hidden gauge invariance 9 1. Temperature effect 10 1. Conceptual questions 25 2. Large-scale magnetic fields and the photon mass 11 2. Dispersion in gravitational waves 26 3. Empirical and formal considerations on the Abelian 3. Shapiro time delay and the speed of gravity 26 Higgs mechanism 11 arXiv:0809.1003v5 [hep-ph] 5 Oct 2010 C. Cold dark matter (CDM) versus modified Newtonian F. Zero-mass limit and sterile longitudinal photons 12 dynamics (MOND) 27 III. Secure and speculative photon mass limits 13 1. Cold dark matter 27 A. Local experiments 13 2. Proposed modifications of GR 28 1. Electric (“Cavendish”) experiment 13 3. Cluster collisions 29 2. Magnetic (Aharonov-Bohm) experiment 13 3. Temperature effect 13 4. Status of cold dark matter (CDM) versus modified 4. Dispersion, radio waves, and the Kroll effect 14 Newtonian dynamics (MOND) 30 B. Solar system tests 14 D. The challenge for cold dark matter 31 1. Planetary magnetic fields 14 E. Out to the far reaches of the universe 32 2. Solar wind 15 C. Cosmic tests 15 VI. Discussion and Outlook 33 1. Fields on galactic scales 15 2. The Lakes method 16 A. Conclusions 33 3. Pursuing the Higgs effect 18 B. Prospects 34 D. Photon dispersion as a lead into gravity 18 E. The primacy of length over all other measures 18 Acknowledgments 35 IV. Gravitational theories 18 A. Newton’s law of gravity 19 References 35 2 I. INTRODUCTION teresting experiment and observation for mass or “mass- like” effects indeed is restricted to the long-distance and Photons and gravitons are the only known free parti- low-frequency scales already mentioned. cles whose rest masses may be exactly zero.1 This bald statement covers a rich and complex history, from New- ton and Gauss, through Maxwell and Einstein, and even A. How to test a theory up to the present. During that development, the ma- trix of interlocking concepts surrounding the notions of Let us begin by seeking a broad perspective on what it photon and graviton rest mass, or more generally, long- means to probe, not merely the validity but also the ac- distance, low-frequency deviations from Maxwell electro- curacy of a theory. The canonical view of theory-testing dynamics and Einstein gravity, has become increasingly is that one tries to falsify the theory: One compares its elaborate. predictions with experiment and observation. The pre- There are many similarities between the photon and dictions use input data, for example initial values of cer- graviton cases, but also striking differences. We literally tain parameters, which then are translated by the theory see photons all the time, as only a few photons of visi- into predictions of new data. If these predicted data agree ble light are enough to activate one ‘pixel’ in a human with observation within experimental uncertainties (and retina. Besides that, conspicuous electromagnetic wave sometimes also uncertainties in application of the the- phenomena play an enormous role in modern physics. ory), then the theory has, for the moment, passed the For gravity the situation is radically different. Even test. One may continue to look for failures in new do- gravitational waves are in a situation analogous to that of mains of application, even if the incentive for doing so neutrinos during the first 25 years after their proposal by declines with time. Pauli, when their emission could be inferred from loss of Of course, without strong ‘ground rules’ it is impossi- energy, momentum, and angular momentum in beta de- ble to falsify a theory, because one almost always can find cay, but they hadn’t yet been detected in an absorption explanations for a failure. So, in fact no scientific theory experiment. Binary pulsar systems exhibit energy loss either may be disproved or proved in a completely rigor- well accounted-for by radiation of gravitational waves, ous way; everything always is provisional, and continual but experiments underway to detect absorption of such skepticism always is in order. However, based on a strong waves have not yet achieved positive results. Even if this pattern of success a theory can earn trust at least as great were accomplished sometime soon, the chances of ever as in any other aspect of human inquiry. detecting individual quanta – gravitons – seem remote The above is an essential, but we believe only par- indeed, because graviton coupling to matter is so enor- tial, view of how theories gain conviction. At least three mously weak. important additional factors may help to achieve that These are not the only differences. For electrodynam- result. ics, the history has been one of increasingly sensitive null First, a striking, even implausible, prediction is borne experiments giving increasingly stringent constraints on out by experiment or observation. Examples of this in- a possible mass. Nevertheless, theories describing such clude ‘Poisson’s spot’, Poisson’s devastating attack on a mass seem well-developed and consistent, even if not the notion that light is a wave phenomenon, because this esthetically appealing. On the other hand, for gravity, would require that the shadow of a circular obstacle have there are long-distance effects which some argue provide a bright spot in its center. The discovery of the spot by evidence supporting modification of Einstein’s formula- Arago provided the conceptual equivalent of a judo ma- tion. At the same time, the theoretical basis for a gravita- neuver, using the opponent’s own impulse to overcome tional phenomenon analogous to photon mass has come him. Another example is the assertion by Appelquist under severe attack. All this means that, with respect and Politzer in the summer of 1974 that the existence to the issue of deviations, currently there is much more of a heavy quark carrying the quantum number ‘charm’ dynamism for gravity than for electrodynamics. would imply the existence of a positronium-like spec- trum, meaning very sharp resonances in electron-positron Even though quantum physics gave shape to the con- scattering. When the J/ψ was discovered at BNL and cept of mass for electrodynamics and gravitation, the ob- SLAC in November of that year, the outlandish predic- vious implication of a dispersion in velocity with energy tion of Appelquist and Politzer suddenly was the best ex- for field quanta, or even for waves, is beyond our capacity planation, in good part because it was the only one that to detect with methods identified so far. This is thanks had been stated boldly beforehand (though only pub- to the very strong limits already obtained based on es- lished afterwards). sentially static fields. Thus, the domain of potentially in- A second way in which a theory gains credence is by fecundity: People see ways to apply the idea in other con- texts. If many such applications are fruitful, then by the 1 Gluons, the gauge particles of quantum chromodynamics, are time initial experimental verification is rechecked there believed to have no bare mass. However, they are not seen in may be little interest, because the theory already has be- isolation, meaning they cannot be observed as free particles. come a foundation stone for a whole array of applications. 3 An example from our subject here is the transfer of the experimental approach and precision (Section III). 1/R2 force law from gravity to electricity, in a specula- tive leap during the 1700s.