format: text

text:
# References

December 2002

Bulk and brane gauge propagator
on 5d AdS black hole

Shin’ichi NOJIRI111nojiri@cc.nda.ac.jp and Sergei D. ODINTSOV222 odintsov@mail.tomsknet.ru. Also at ICREA and IEEC, Barcelona, Spain.

Department of Applied Physics
National Defence Academy, Hashirimizu Yokosuka 239-8686, JAPAN

$`\mathrm{}`$ Lab. for Fundamental Studies, Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 634041 Tomsk, RUSSIA

ABSTRACT

The bulk gauge fields on 5d AdS black hole are discussed. We construct the bulk (and the corresponding brane) gauge propagator when black hole has large radius. The properties of gauge and ghost propagators are studied in both, minkowski or euclidean signature. In euclidean formulation the propagator structure corresponds to the one of theory at finite temperature (which depends on coordinates). The decoupling of KK modes and localization of gauge fields on flat brane is demonstrated. We show that with such a bulk there is no natural solution of hierarchy problem.

PACS: 98.80.Hw,04.50.+h,11.10.Kk,11.10.Wx

1. Assuming that observable Universe is multi-dimensional one the fundamental question appears: What is the form (and number) of extra dimensions? Are they planar or orbifolded? Within the recent braneworld scenario  the most likely possibility for Universe is 5d AdS space. The braneworld scenario with bulk 5d AdS is very attractive as it may have the superstring origin. Moreover, in such picture the four-dimensional world represents the brane (where graviton and matter fields are trapped) embedded into AdS bulk. The nice way to solve the hierarchy problem on the brane appears.

Nevertheless, one can admit another choice for bulk manifold, for example, AdS black hole. Indeed, like pure AdS space the AdS black hole may be (part of) superstring vacuum. The phase transition which may be interpreted as confinement-deconfinement transition in AdS/CFT set-up may occur between pure AdS and AdS black hole. Moreover, the graviton is localized on the brane embedded in AdS black hole. Hence, it is very interesting to understand the properties of such bulk choice and their possible relation with the phenomenology of the unified theories.

In the present Letter we consider bulk abelian gauge fields in 5d AdS black hole. The bulk (brane) gauge propagator is constructed for large black hole with minkowskii or euclidean signature. The decoupling of KK modes and localization of gauge fields on flat brane is demonstrated. It is shown that unlike to pure AdS bulk there is no natural solution for hierarchy problem. Brief discussion of possible phase transition and its consequences for bulk QFT is given.

2. In order to consider the propagators, we start with the action of the abelian gauge theory in the 5-dimensional curved background:

$$S_0=\frac{1}{4}d^5x\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma },F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .$$
(1)
The gauge fixing action $`S_f`$ and the ghost action $`S_g`$ are:

$$S_f=\frac{1}{2\xi }d^5x\sqrt{g}\left(^\mu A_\mu \right)^2,S_g=d^5x\sqrt{g}b^\mu _\mu c.$$
(2)
Note that discussion of bulk gauge fields in AdS braneworlds has been given in refs.. As a curved background, we consider the Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter (SAdS) space with the flat horizon:

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dr^2+r^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2,\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }=\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^2}.$$
(3)
In the following, $`\xi =1`$. The simplest choice corresponds to the large black hole, that is, the horizon radius $`r_H=l^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}`$. We now define a new coordinate $`s`$ by $`s=rr_H`$, then $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }\frac{4r_H}{l^2}s`$, With new coordinate the action looks as

$`S{\displaystyle }d^5x[A_r\{{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^3}{2}}_t^2A_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2r_H^2}{l^2}}s\mathrm{}A_r+{\displaystyle \frac{8r_H^5}{l^4}}s_s^2\left(sA_r\right)\}`$
$`+A_t\{{\displaystyle \frac{r_Hl^4}{32s^2}}_t^2A_t{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^3}{2}}_s^2A_t{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{8s}}\mathrm{}A_t\}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^3}{s}}A_r_tA_t+A_i\{{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{8s}}_t^2A_i`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2r_H^2}{l^2}}_s\left(s_sA_i\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r_H}}\mathrm{}A_i\}+b\{{\displaystyle \frac{l^2r_H^2}{4s}}_t^2c+r_H\mathrm{}c+{\displaystyle \frac{4r_H^4}{l^2}}_s\left(s_sc\right)\}].`$
As we consider the plane waves in the $`t`$ and $`x^i`$ directions, we replace $`_t`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ by $`i\omega `$ and $`k^2`$, respectively. Then the equations of motion corresponding to the action (S0.Ex1) have the following form:

$`0=r_H^3\omega ^2A_r{\displaystyle \frac{4r_H^2k^2}{l^2}}sA_r+{\displaystyle \frac{16r_H^5}{l^4}}s_s^2\left(sA_r\right)+i{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^3\omega }{s}}A_t,`$ (5)
$`0={\displaystyle \frac{r_Hl^4\omega ^2}{16s^2}}A_tr_H^3_s^2A_t+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2k^2}{4s}}A_t+i{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^3\omega }{s}}A_r,`$ (6)
$`0={\displaystyle \frac{l^2\omega ^2}{8s}}A_i+{\displaystyle \frac{2r_H^2}{l^2}}_s\left(s_sA_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2r_H}}A_i,`$ (7)
$`0={\displaystyle \frac{l^2\omega ^2}{4r_Hs}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r_H^2}}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{4r_H}{l^2}}s_s\left(s_s\psi \right)\psi =b,c.`$ (8)
We should note the equations (7) and (8) for $`A_i`$, $`c`$ and $`b`$, respectively, are identical with each other. If one defines a new complex field $`B`$ by $`BsA_r+\frac{il^2}{4r_H}A_t`$, the equations (5) and (6) can be combined to give

$$0=_s^2B\frac{l^2k^2}{4r_H^3s}B+\frac{1}{s^2}\left(\frac{l^4\omega ^2}{16r_H^2}+\frac{l^2\omega }{4r_H}\right)B.$$
(9)
By further defining

$$B=s^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B},s=\frac{r_H^3}{l^2k^2}v^2,$$
(10)
we can rewrite (9) in the following form:

$$0=\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{B}}{dv^2}+\frac{1}{v}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{B}}{dv}\left\{1+\frac{\nu _B^2}{v^2}\right\}\stackrel{~}{B},\nu _B^21\frac{l^4\omega ^2}{4r_H^2}\frac{l^2\omega }{r_H},$$
(11)
which is the modified Bessel’s derivative equation. The solution is given by the linear combination of the modified Bessel functions $`I_{\mu _B}(v)`$ and $`K_{\mu _B}^{}(v)`$. Then the general solution for $`B`$ is given by

$$B=s^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\alpha _0I_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\beta _0K_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)\right].$$
(12)
Here $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\beta _0`$ are constants. On the other hand, defining $`v`$ by (10), Eq.(7) can be rewritten as

$$0=\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{A}_i}{dv^2}+\frac{1}{v}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{A}_i}{dv}\left\{1+\frac{\nu _A^2}{v^2}\right\}A_i,\nu _A^2=\frac{l^4\omega ^2}{4r_H^2},$$
(13)
whose solution is again given by the modified Bessel functions. In general, $`\nu _A`$ is imaginary. Then the general solution for $`A_i`$, and similarly the solutions for (8) are given by (with constant $`\alpha _{c,b}`$ and $`\beta _{c,b}`$, $`\psi =c,b`$)

$$A_i=\alpha _iI_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\beta _iK_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right),\psi =\alpha _\psi I_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\beta _\psi K_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right).$$
(14)
Putting two branes at $`s=s_1`$ and $`s=s_2`$ ($`0<s_1<s_2`$) one glues two bulk spaces whose boundaries are the branes and imposes $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Then the gauge and ghost fields should satisfy the following boundary conditions

$$\frac{A_i}{s}|_{s=s_{1,2}}=\frac{A_t}{s}|_{s=s_{1,2}}=\frac{c}{s}|_{s=s_{1,2}}=\frac{b}{s}|_{s=s_{1,2}}=A_r|_{s=s_{1,2}}=0.$$
(15)
In general, the boundary conditions at $`s=s_1`$ are not consistent with those at $`s=s_2`$. We denote the fields which satisfy the boundary conditions at $`s=s_a`$ ($`a=1,2`$) by $`A_{(a)\mu }`$, $`c_{(a)}`$, $`b_{(a)}`$, etc. Using the boundary conditions (15), the ratios between the coefficients in (12) and (14) can be determined as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)t}}{\beta _{(a)t}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\nu _B}{2}\right)K_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}K_{\nu _B1}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)}{\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\nu _B}{2}\right)I_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}I_{\nu _B1}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)r}}{\beta _{(a)r}}}={\displaystyle \frac{K_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)}{I_{\nu _B}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)}},{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)i}}{\beta _{(a)i}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)c}}{\beta _{(a)c}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)b}}{\beta _{(a)b}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(a)}}{\beta _{(a)}}},`$
$`\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{(a)}=\frac{\nu _A}{2}K_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}K_{\nu _A1}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)\hfill \\ \beta _{(a)}=\frac{\nu _A}{2}I_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)+\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}I_{\nu _A1}\left(\frac{lks_a^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)\hfill \end{array}.`$ (18)
Here $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\beta _0`$ in (12) are written as $`\alpha _{(a)0}=\alpha _{(a)t}+i\frac{l^2}{4r_H}\alpha _{(a)r}`$, $`\beta _{(a)0}=\beta _{(a)t}+i\frac{l^2}{4r_H}\beta _{(a)r}`$.

We now construct the propagators from the obtained classical solutions by following the procedure given in . One first constructs the propagator $`G_{ij}`$ for $`A_i`$:

$`G_{ij}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`N_1\delta _{ij}\left\{A_{(2)}(u)A_{(1)}(v)\theta (uv)+A_{(2)}(v)A_{(1)}(u)\theta (vu)\right\},`$
$`A_{(a)}(s)`$ $``$ $`\alpha _{(a)}I_{\nu _A}\left({\displaystyle \frac{lks^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\right)+\beta _{(a)}K_{\nu _A}\left({\displaystyle \frac{lka^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_H^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\right).`$ (19)
Here $`N`$ is a normalization constant determined later. We should note that the above propagator satisfies the boundary conditions, on both of the branes, corresponding to (15): $`\frac{G_{ij}(u,v)}{u}|_{u=s_{1,2}}=\frac{G_{ij}(u,v)}{v}|_{v=s_{1,2}}=0`$. As $`A_{(a)}`$ satisfies Eq.(7) one gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2\omega ^2}{8u}}G_{ij}(u,v)+{\displaystyle \frac{2r_H^2}{l^2}}_u\left(u_uG_{ij}(u,v)\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2r_H}}G_{ij}(u,v)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2r_H^2N}{l^2}}u\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_{(2)}(u)}{u}}A_{(1)}(u)A_{(2)}(u){\displaystyle \frac{A_{(1)}(u)}{u}}\right)\delta (uv).`$ (20)
Then one can find the quantity $`u\left(\frac{A_{(2)}(u)}{u}A_{(1)}(u)A_{(2)}(u)\frac{A_{(1)}(u)}{u}\right)`$ does not depend on $`u`$. We now can evaluate the quantity $`u\left(\frac{A_{(2)}(u)}{u}A_{(1)}(u)A_{(2)}(u)\frac{A_{(1)}(u)}{u}\right)`$ at $`u=s_1`$ by using the boundary condition (15) and the expressions in (S0.Ex3):

$$u\left(\frac{A_{(2)}(u)}{u}A_{(1)}(u)A_{(2)}(u)\frac{A_{(1)}(u)}{u}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\beta _{(1)}\alpha _{(2)}\alpha _{(1)}\beta _{(2)}\right).$$
(21)
In the last line, we have used a formula for the modified Bessel functions: $`I_\nu (z)K_{\nu 1}(z)+I_{\nu 1}(z)K_\nu (z)=\frac{1}{z}`$. Since the r.h.s. of Eq.(S0.Ex6) should be $`\frac{1}{2r_H^3}\delta (uv)`$ since $`\sqrt{g}=r_H^3`$, one finds the normalization constant should be $`N=\frac{l^2}{2r_H^5\left(\beta _{(1)}\alpha _{(2)}\alpha _{(1)}\beta _{(2)}\right)}`$.

We now consider the correlation functions for $`B`$. ¿From the action (S0.Ex1), we find the correlator $`G_{BB^{}}(u,v)`$ between $`B`$ and its complex conjugate vanishes. One should be careful for the fact that the boundary condition for $`A_r`$ is different from $`A_t`$ as in (15), we find the correlator between two $`B`$ is given by

$$G_{BB}(u,v)=\frac{l^4\left\{B_{(2)}(u)B_{(1)}(v)\theta (uv)+B_{(2)}(v)B_{(1)}(u)\theta (vu)\right\}}{4r_H^5\left(\beta _{0(1)}\alpha _{0(2)}\alpha _{0(1)}\beta _{0(2)}\right)}.$$
(22)
Denoting the correlators between two $`A_t`$’s, two $`A_r`$’s, $`A_t`$ and $`A_r`$ by $`G_{tt}(u,v)`$, $`G_{rr}(u,v)`$, $`G_{tr}(u,v)=G_{rt}(v,u)`$, respectively, one gets

$`G_{BB}(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{l^4}{16r_H^2}}G_{tt}(u,v)+uvG_{rr}(u,v)`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{il^2}{4r_H}}\left(uG_{rt}(u,v)+vG_{tr}(u,v)\right),`$
$`0=G_{BB^{}}(u,v)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{l^4}{16r_H^2}}G_{tt}(u,v)+uvG_{rr}(u,v)+{\displaystyle \frac{il^2}{4r_H}}\left(uG_{rt}(u,v)+vG_{tr}(u,v)\right).`$
Then

$`G_{tt}(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{8r_H^2}{l^4}}\mathrm{}G_{BB}(u,v),G_{rr}(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{uv}}\mathrm{}G_{BB}(u,v),`$
$`uG_{rt}(u,v)=vG_{tr}(u,v)={\displaystyle \frac{2r_H}{l^2}}\mathrm{}G_{BB}(u,v).`$ (24)
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ express the real and imaginary parts, respectively.

Let us investigate the behavior of the obtained Green functions on the branes. In order to investigate the Kaluza-Klein (KK) mode, we consider the case that $`\omega =0`$ and investigate where the poles of the Green functions exist with respect to $`k^2`$. We now consider $`G_{ij}(u,v)`$ with $`u=v=s_1`$ and $`\omega =0`$. Since $`\omega =0`$, $`\nu _A`$ in (13) vanishes. Since the radius $`r_H`$ is large, we can use the asymptotic expansion of the modified Bessel functions. Then we find the following expression of $`G_{ij}`$

$$G_{ij}(s_1,s_1)|_{\omega =0}\delta _{ij}\frac{2}{k^2r_H^2}\frac{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{l^2k^2}{8r_H^3}\left(s_1+s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}\right)}{s_1s_2+\frac{l^2k^2}{8r_H^3}\left(s_1^2s_2^2+2s_1s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}\right)}.$$
(25)
The propagator (25) has a pole at

$$k^2=0$$
(26)
and

$$k^2=m_1^2\frac{8r_H^3\left(s_1s_2\right)}{l^2\left(s_1^2s_2^2+2s_1s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}\right)}.$$
(27)
The pole (26) corresponds to the zero mode and that of $`k^2=m_1^2`$ (27) to the first KK mode. When $`k^20`$, the propagator behaves as

$$G_{ij}\frac{R_0\delta _{ij}}{k^2},R_0\frac{1}{r_H^2\left(s_1s_2\right)},$$
(28)
and when $`k^2m_1^2`$

$$G_{ij}\frac{R_1\delta _{ij}}{k^2+m_1^2},R_1\frac{1\frac{2\left(s_1s_2\right)\left(s_1+s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}\right)}{s_1^2s_2^2+2s_1s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}}}{r_H^2\left(s_1s_2\right)}.$$
(29)
$`R_0`$ and $`R_1`$ correspond to the square of the wave functions of zero mode and the first KK mode, respectively. Then $`R_0`$ and $`R_1`$ express the coupling of these modes on the brane. Eq.(28) indicates that the coupling of the KK mode might not be small. Eq.(27) tells, however, the mass of the KK modes is very large since we are considering the large black hole ($`r_H\mathrm{}`$). Then the KK modes decouple.

The above mass of the first KK mode (27) can be compared with the pure AdS case. By choosing the metric of the AdS as

$$ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_5}^2=\frac{l^2}{z^2}\left(dz^2dt^2+\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2\right),$$
(30)
we put two branes at $`z=z_1=l`$ and $`z=z_2`$. If $`z_1<z_2`$ and $`1/z_2`$ is the order of TeV, the brane at $`z=z_2`$ corresponds to the so-called TeV brane and that at $`z=z_1`$ to the Planck brane. Then the mass of the first KK mode is typically given by

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\frac{a}{z_2\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_1}\right)}}.$$
(31)
Here $`a`$ is a parameter describing the coupling of the gauge field to the TeV brane. Then if $`a0.1`$, the mass is weak scale. On the other hand, from (27), the mass corresponding to the first KK mode is given by

$$\widehat{m}_1^2=\frac{m_1^2}{r_H^2}=\frac{8r_H\left(s_1s_2\right)}{l^2\left(s_1^2s_2^2+2s_1s_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_2}{s_1}\right)}.$$
(32)
The denominator $`r_H^2`$ in $`\frac{m_1^2}{r_H^2}`$ comes from the factor $`r^2r_H^2`$ in front of $`_{i=1,2,3}\left(dx^i\right)^2`$ in the metric (3). If $`s_1s_2l`$ and they are of the order of the Planck length, the mass $`\widehat{m}_1`$ is $`\widehat{m}_1\frac{1}{l}\sqrt{\frac{r_H}{l}}`$. Then the mass is much larger than the Planck mass for the large black hole.

It is interesting to understand if the hierarchy problem with AdS BH can be solved in the same way as in . Naively as scale factor is almost constant for the large black hole, it would be difficult to realize the solution of hierarchy problem. Since $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }\frac{4r_H}{l^2}s`$, the metric looks as:

$$ds^2=\frac{4r_Hs}{l^2}dt^2+\frac{l^2}{4r_Hs}ds^2+r_H^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(33)
Then on the brane at $`s=s_a`$, if we redefine the coordinates by $`\stackrel{~}{t}=2t\sqrt{\frac{s_a}{r_H}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i=lx^i`$, the metric on the brane becomes flat

$$ds_{\mathrm{brane}}^2=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{3}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}dx^mdx^n\frac{r_H^2}{l^2}\left(d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(d\stackrel{~}{x}^i\right)^2\right).$$
(34)
We now consider the gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m`$ and the Higgs fields $`\varphi `$ whose action on the brane is given by

$`S_{\stackrel{~}{A},\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}(_m\varphi ^{}+ie\stackrel{~}{A}_m\varphi ^{})(_n\varphi ie\stackrel{~}{A}_n\varphi )`$ (35)
$`g^2(\varphi ^{}\varphi \lambda ^2)^2\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}\stackrel{~}{g}^{kl}F_{mk}F_{nl}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^4}{l^4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r_H^2}}\eta ^{mn}(_m\varphi ^{}+ie\stackrel{~}{A}_m\varphi ^{})(_n\varphi ie\stackrel{~}{A}_n\varphi )`$
$`g^2(\varphi ^{}\varphi \lambda ^2)^2\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^4}{r_H^4}}\eta ^{mn}\eta ^{kl}F_{mk}F_{nl}].`$
Here $`\eta _{mn}`$ is the metric of the flat minkowski space. The couplings $`e`$ and $`g`$ are of the order of the unity and $`\lambda `$ could be of the order of the Planck scale, which gives $`\lambda \frac{1}{l}`$. If we rescale the Higgs scalar field $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi =\frac{l}{r_H}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, the action (35) can be rewritten by

$`S_{\stackrel{~}{A},\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\eta ^{mn}(_m\varphi ^{}+ie\stackrel{~}{A}_m\varphi ^{})(_n\varphi ie\stackrel{~}{A}_n\varphi )`$ (36)
$`g^2(\varphi ^{}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2r_H^2}{l^2}})^2\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta ^{mn}\eta ^{kl}F_{mk}F_{nl}].`$
As the expectation value of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{\lambda r_H}{l}\frac{r_H}{l^2}`$ gives the mass of the gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m`$, in order that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }10^2`$ GeV, we have $`\frac{1}{r_H}10^{36}\left(\text{GeV}\right)`$, which may be unrealistic, and unfortunately may contradict with the assumption that the black hole is large. The problem has occured because we consider the brane outside the horizon where the warp factor becomes the large constant.

It is remarkable that the small $`k`$ behavior in (28) shows that the propagator behaves as $`1/r`$ in the position space, where $`r`$ is the distance between two points on the brane. The behavior is identical with usual propagator in four dimensions but not with that in five dimensions. Then (28) shows that the gauge fields are localized on the brane (for recent discussion of gauge fileds localization on brane embedded into pure AdS or dS bulks, see).

So far the brane was considered near the horizon. One may consider the brane near the singularity, say $`rl`$. Since we can regard the warp factor with $`r^2`$, the ratio of the scales on the brane and on the brane near the horizon, where $`r\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}l^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, is given by $`\frac{\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{l^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$. Then to reproduce the ratio of the Planck scale and the weak scale, we have $`\frac{\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{l^{\frac{1}{2}}}10^{17}`$. Since the mass $`M`$ of the black hole is given by $`M\frac{\mu }{\kappa ^2}`$ and if $`\kappa ^2l^3`$, we have $`M\frac{\mu }{l^3}10^{68}\frac{1}{l}`$. Since the Planck mass $`\frac{1}{l}`$ is $`10^5`$ gram, if the mass of the bulk black hole is macroscopic and given by $`10^{63}`$ gram $`=10^{60}`$ kg, the hierarchy might be realized. Of course, such huge black hole mass seems to be unrealistic and such effect may occur only if black hole quickly evaporate. Another possibility which we mention in the discussion is that hierarchy problem is solved with pure AdS bulk but then phase transition to AdS black hole occurs.

3. In this section, we Wick-rotate the metric (3) into the Euclidean signature. Then since the black hole has (Hawking) temperature, one arrives at the finite temperature theory. Especially for the large black hole, the euclidean bulk spacetime surely becomes flat.

As a background bulk space, the Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter space with the flat horizon is taken:

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dr^2+r^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2,\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }=\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^2}.$$
(37)
For the large black hole the horizon radius $`r_H=l^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}`$. We now define a new coordinate $`\sigma `$ by $`\sigma =rr_H`$, then $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }\frac{4r_H}{l^2}\sigma `$ and

$$ds^2\frac{4r_H}{l^2}\sigma dt^2+\frac{l^2}{4r_H\sigma }d\sigma ^2+r_H^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(38)
After Wick-rotating time coordinate and introducing new coordinate $`\theta `$ and $`\rho `$ by $`\theta =i\frac{2r_H}{l^2}t`$, $`\rho =l\sqrt{\frac{\sigma }{r_H}}`$, the metric (38) can be rewritten as

$$ds^2=\rho ^2d\theta ^2+d\theta ^2+r_H^2\underset{i=1,2,3}{}\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(39)
In order to avoid the orbifold singularity at $`\rho =0`$, the coordinate $`\theta `$ has a period of $`2\pi `$ : $`\theta \theta +2\pi `$. Then the spacetime is flat and locally $`R_2\times R_3R^5`$.

We now further rescale the coordinates $`x^i`$ by $`r_Hx^ix^i`$ and define a new field $`B`$ : $`BA_\theta +i\rho A_\rho `$. The part including only $`B`$ in the action has a $`U(1)`$ symmetry $`B\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }B`$ with constant parameter $`\varphi `$ of the transformation. As the coordinate $`\theta `$ has a period of $`2\pi `$, we can replace $`_\theta `$ by $`in`$. Here $`n`$ is an integer. Similarly, we replace $`_i`$ by $`k_i`$ as the Fourier transformation. Then the solutions of the equations of motion are given by the modified Bessel functions with integer index $`n`$ by a way similar to the previous section. We now assume that there are branes at $`\rho =\rho _1`$, $`\rho _2`$ ($`\rho _1<\rho _2`$). One considers two classes of solutions, which satisfy the following boundary conditions at one of the two branes ($`a=1,2`$): $`_\rho A_{(a)i}|_{\rho =\rho _a}=A_{(a)\theta }|_{\rho =\rho _a}=A_{(a)\rho }|_{\rho =\rho _a}=_\rho c_{(a)}|_{\rho =\rho _a}=_\rho b_{(a)}|_{\rho =\rho _a}=0`$. Here we have imposed the same boundary condition for $`A_\theta `$ and $`A_\rho `$ in order to preserve the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of $`B`$. Then we find

$`G_{ij}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{(2)}(u)A_{(1)}(v)\theta (uv)+A_{(2)}(v)A_{(1)}(u)\theta (vu)}{\beta _{(1)}\alpha _{(2)}\alpha _{(1)}\beta _{(2)}}}`$
$`G_{BB^{}}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{(2)}(u)B_{(1)}^{}(v)\theta (uv)+B_{(2)}^{}(v)B_{(1)}(u)\theta (vu)}{\beta _{(1)0}^{}\alpha _{(2)0}\alpha _{(1)0}\beta _{(2)0}^{}}}.`$ (40)
Here

$`A_{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{(a)}I_n(k\rho )+\beta _{(a)}K_n(k\rho ),`$
$`\alpha _{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`K_n^{}\left(k\rho _a\right)=K_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{k\rho }}K_n\left(k\rho _a\right),`$
$`\beta _{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`I_n^{}\left(k\rho _a\right)=I_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right){\displaystyle \frac{n}{k\rho }}I_n\left(k\rho _a\right).`$ (41)
The coefficients are given by $`\frac{\alpha _{(a)i}}{\beta _{(a)i}}=\frac{\alpha _{(a)c}}{\beta _{(a)c}}=\frac{\alpha _{(a)b}}{\beta _{(a)b}}=\frac{K_n^{}\left(k\rho _a\right)}{I_n^{}\left(k\rho _a\right)}=\frac{K_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right)+\frac{n}{k\rho }K_n\left(k\rho _a\right)}{I_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right)+\frac{n}{k\rho }I_n\left(k\rho _a\right)}`$, $`\frac{\alpha _{(a)\theta }}{\beta _{(a)\theta }}=\frac{\alpha _{(a)\rho }}{\beta _{(a)\rho }}=\frac{K_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right)}{I_{n1}\left(k\rho _a\right)}`$. Here $`\alpha _{(a)0}=\alpha _{(a)\theta }+i\alpha _{(a)\rho }`$ and $`\beta _{(a)0}=\beta _{(a)\theta }+i\beta _{(a)\rho }`$. We also find the propagator between two $`B`$ or two $`B^{}`$ vanishes.

We now consider the high energy behavior of the propagator when $`k`$, $`n\mathrm{}`$ but $`\frac{k}{n}`$ is finite. Using asymptotic expansion of Bessel functions one obtains

$`G_{ij}(u,v)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{4|n|}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{z_1^2}{1+\sqrt{1+z_1^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z_2^2}{1\sqrt{1+z_2^2}}}\right]^1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left(1+z_1^2\right)\left(1+z_2^2\right)}}{\left(1+z_u^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(1+z_v^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}}}`$
$`\times \left\{\mathrm{e}^{|n|\left(\eta _v\eta _u\right)}\theta (uv)+\mathrm{e}^{|n|\left(\eta _u\eta _v\right)}\theta (vu)\right\},`$
$`G_{BB^{}}(u,v)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4|n|}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{|n1|\left(\eta _v\eta _u\right)}\theta (uv)+\mathrm{e}^{|n1|\left(\eta _u\eta _v\right)}\theta (vu)}{\left(1+z_u^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(1+z_v^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}}}.`$ (42)
Here

$`z_a{\displaystyle \frac{k\rho _a}{n}},\eta _a\sqrt{1+z_a^2}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z_a}{1+\sqrt{1+z_a^2}}},`$
$`(a=1,2,u,v,\rho _u=u,\rho _v=v).`$ (43)
As a result, $`G_{ij}(u,u)`$, $`G_{BB^{}}(u,u)\frac{1}{|n|\sqrt{1+z_u^2}}=\frac{1}{u\sqrt{k^2+\frac{n^2}{u^2}}}`$. Then the behavior of the Green functions seems to be typical for theory at finite temperature. In fact, if we express the $`D`$-dimensional propagator at the finite temperature by $`D2`$ spacial momenta $`k_i`$ ($`i=1,2\mathrm{},D2`$) and 1 position $`x^{D1}`$ and further consider the case that $`x^{D1}=0`$, we obtain

$$\widehat{G}(k_1.k_2,\mathrm{},k_{D2},x^{D1}=0,n)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{_{i=1}^{D1}k_i^2+\frac{n^2}{\beta ^2}}},$$
(44)
which corresponds to above brane propagator. Here $`\beta `$ is the inverse of the temperature. We should also note that the brane temperature $`T=\frac{1}{\beta }`$ seems to be $`u`$-dependent, $`Tu`$. Then for two branes, the inner brane is hotter than the outer brane. There will be a thermal radiation from the inner brane to the outer brane.

It is interesting that there may appear the imaginary pole in the propagator. Let us investigate the propagator $`G_{ij}(u,v)`$ (S0.Ex15). Taking $`k=0`$ and extending $`n`$ to the complex continuum parameter, the propagator has a pole at $`n=0`$, which is the usual massless pole. Besides the pole, imaginary poles appear, where the denominator of propagator vanishes: $`n=i\frac{\pi N}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{z_1}{z_2}}`$, where $`N`$ is an integer. It is known that imaginary part of the propagator is related with the damping constant of the corresponding plasma state. The fact that poles depend on the extra coordinates may lead to the following conjecture. The (part of) background radiation (energy) may be due to the extra dimensions (if bulk is some black hole). The effect should be universal and applied to any type of matter. Hence, the temperature of hot matter may be presumably caused by the presence of bulk black hole. This may provide the means for estimations of length of extra dimension(s).

4. We presented the bulk and brane gauge propagator structure in AdS black hole bulk for both, euclidean and minkowski signatures of the metric. As it has been noted earlier for gravitons, it is demonstrated that there occurs localization of gauge fields on the brane embedded into 5d AdS black hole. It is shown that KK modes decouple. However, the solution of hierarchy problem when bulk is BH is not realistic.

Clearly, the study of gauge propagator is interesting in relation with possibility to apply it in diagrams for unified theories. Let us make several remarks in this connection. We may introduce interaction considering other bulk matter fields (scalars, spinors) or generalizing theory to non-abelian case. As one can see from (39), the spacetime is locally flat although there are boundaries corresponding to the branes. Since the renormalization is determined by the short distance behavior, the beta-functions are not changed from their flat values. In more than four spacetime dimensions, the gauge coupling constant has dimension. Then the beta-functions show power law behaviour except in four dimensions. If the spacetime dimension is less than four, the non-abelian gauge theory can be still asymptotic free but if the dimension is larger than four, there appears ultra-violet fixed point. (The extra orbifold dimensions may completely change the structure of even trivial brane (scalar) theory and number of fixed points appear or non-AF theory may become AF one). Then we will have a ultra-violet fixed point in the Schwarzschild-AdS background with large black hole. For pure AdS, the gauge theories can be asymptotic free even in five dimensions . Then there might be a phase transition from asymptotic free theory to asymptotic non-free theory at some critical horizon radius. (This may be another effect associated with AdS black hole, similar to Hawking-Page-Witten phase transition  interpreted as confinement-deconfinement phase transition via AdS/CFT. This phase transition has also D-brane interpretation .) In case of the Schwarzschild black hole in the Minkowski background, the larger black hole has the lower temperature but in case of Schwarzschild-AdS black hole with flat horizon, since the Hawking temperature is given by $`T_H=\frac{r_H}{\pi l^2}`$, the larger black hole has the higher temperature. Then the phase transition may be due to the temperature. The confinement would occur for asymptotic free gauge theories but would not occur for asymptotic non-free theories. Then the above phase transition, if it really exists, would correspond to the confinement-deconfinement phase transition.

Acknowledgments The work by S.N. is supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan under the grant n. 13135208.


text:
# Photon decay in a CPT-violating extension of quantum electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

The propagation of light in Maxwell theory with an extra CPT-violating Lorentz-noninvariant Chern–Simons-like term in the action has been studied both classically  and quantum mechanically . The Maxwell term and the Chern–Simons-like term are quadratic in the photon field. These terms combined lead to *birefringence*, even in empty space. Additional (Lorentz-invariant) higher-order photonic terms in the action could perhaps produce other effects such as the *decay* of photons. (See also Ref.  for a discussion of the decay of a massive Dirac fermion in theories with spontaneous Lorentz and CPT violation.)

The purpose of this paper is to study the process of photon decay in detail, expanding on the brief remark in Section 6 of Ref. . In order to concentrate on the essentials, we keep the theory as simple as possible. In fact, the theory we start from is just quantum electrodynamics—the theory of photons, electrons and positrons (see, e.g., Refs. ). It is, of course, known that the quantum effects of the electron-positron field lead to a quartic coupling of the photons (giving, e.g., light-by-light scattering), which is described by the quartic part of the so-called Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian .

The photon model considered in this article has only the Maxwell and quartic Euler–Heisenberg terms, together with a hypothetical spacelike Chern–Simons-like term which breaks Lorentz and CPT invariance. For the moment, the precise origin of this Chern–Simons-like term can be left open, but at least one possible mechanism has been identified  (see Ref.  for a review). A more extensive discussion of the possible origin and consequences of the Chern–Simons-like term can be found in Ref. , which also contains further references.

The outline of our paper is as follows. The model is presented in Section 2, together with some basic facts on the polarization states of the “photons.” The Lorentz noninvariance of the model allows for photon decay and the relevant kinematics is discussed briefly in Section 3. (Some technical details are relegated to Appendix A). The matrix element for a particular decay channel is then calculated in Section 4 and the corresponding partial decay width for a photon at rest is given in Section 5. (Numerical results for the phase space integral are presented in Appendix B). For this particular case, there is, in principle, one other decay channel available, but it does not contribute as shown in Section 6 with details relegated to Appendix C. The total decay rate of the particular photon state at rest is discussed in Section 7. The corresponding mean life time is expected to be large but finite.

## 2 Model

The Lagrangian density of the model considered in this paper is

$`=_0+_1,`$ (2.1)
where the free part $`_0`$ consists of the usual Maxwell term  and an additional Chern–Simons-like term ,

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}mϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\eta ^\mu A^\nu F^{\rho \sigma }.`$ (2.2)
Our conventions are $`(g_{\mu \nu })=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$, together with $`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`c`$ $`=`$ $`1`$.

The Chern–Simons-like term in Eq. (2.2) has a mass parameter $`m`$. (Experimentally, there are tight constraints  on this mass, $`m\text{ }<10^{33}\mathrm{eV}`$, as will be discussed further in Section 7.) The Chern–Simons-like term contains, in addition, a purely spatial “four-vector”

$`(\eta ^\mu )=(0,\widehat{\eta }^1,\widehat{\eta }^2,\widehat{\eta }^3),`$ (2.3)
in terms of a “three-vector” $`\widehat{\eta }`$ of unit length, $`|\widehat{\eta }|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=1`$. The parameters $`\eta ^\mu `$ are fixed once and for all, hence the quotation marks. In fact, the condition of having fixed parameters (coupling constants) $`\eta ^\mu `$ in the Lagrangian $`_0`$ effectively selects a class of preferred inertial frames; cf. Refs. .

In the following, we will also write the Maxwell field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`_\mu A_\nu `$ $``$ $`_\nu A_\mu `$ in terms of the electric and magnetic fields, $`E_kF_{k0}`$ and $`B_kϵ_{klm}F_{lm}/2`$ with $`ϵ_{123}=1`$. If the gauge needs to be fixed, we will use the radiation (Coulomb) gauge ,

$`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=0.`$ (2.4)
Further details on the photon propagation and the microcausality of the free theory (2.2)–(2.4) can be found in Ref. .

The interaction term $`_1`$ in Eq. (2.1) is taken to be the quartic Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{45M^4}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2+7\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\right)^2\right]`$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{45M^4}}\left[\left(|\stackrel{}{E}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|\stackrel{}{B}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^2+7\left(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}\right)^2\right],`$
where $`M`$ is a mass-scale and $`\alpha ^2`$ a dimensionless coupling constant. For quantum electrodynamics with electron mass $`M511\mathrm{keV}`$ and fine-structure constant $`\alpha 1/137`$, precisely this term appears in the one-loop effective gauge field action (the corresponding Feynman diagrams have a single electron loop with four external photon lines). The quartic Euler–Heisenberg term in the effective action is relevant for photon energies much less than $`M`$, which will be the case for the process discussed in the present paper (with photon energies less or equal to $`m`$). For further details on this effective action, see, e.g., Refs.  and references therein.

The free Lagrangian $`_0`$ in the radiation gauge gives rise to two modes of plane-wave solutions with polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})`$ and dispersion relations

$`\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{k})=\left(k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\sqrt{m^2+4k^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)^{1/2},`$ (2.6)
with $`k|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`k\mathrm{cos}\theta \stackrel{}{k}\widehat{\eta }`$. For generic wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, the unit vectors

$`\widehat{\xi }_1(\widehat{\eta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{k})/\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\widehat{\xi }_2(\widehat{k}\times \widehat{\eta })/\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|,`$ (2.7)
form an orthonormal tripod with positive orientation, $`\widehat{\xi }_1\times \widehat{\xi }_2=\widehat{k}`$. The polarization vectors of the two modes are then given by

$`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)}}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\xi }_1i(\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)\widehat{\xi }_2\right],`$ (2.8)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{k})\sqrt{m^2+4k^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }.`$ (2.9)
As usual, the free quantized photon field can be defined in terms of creation and annihilation operators,

$`\stackrel{}{A}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _+}}}[a_+(\stackrel{}{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}_+(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _+t+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (2.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _{}}}}[a_{}(\stackrel{}{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{}(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _{}t+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x})+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]).`$
The creation and annihilation operators have standard commutation relations,

$`[a_s(\stackrel{}{k}),a_t(\stackrel{}{l})]=[a_s^{}(\stackrel{}{k}),a_t^{}(\stackrel{}{l})]=0,[a_s(\stackrel{}{k}),a_t^{}(\stackrel{}{l})]=\delta _{s,t}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{l}),`$ (2.11)
for $`s,t\{+,\}`$. The Fock space of photon states is then readily constructed , starting from the vacuum state $`|0`$ with the property that $`a_s(\stackrel{}{k})|0=0`$ for any $`(\stackrel{}{k},s)`$.

The free electric and magnetic field operators can be expressed in the same way as Eq. (2.10), replacing the polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm `$ there by

$`\stackrel{}{f}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})`$ $``$ $`i\omega _\pm \stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm +m\left(\stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm (\widehat{k}\times \widehat{\eta })\right)\widehat{k}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)}}}`$ (2.12)
$`\times \left(2\omega _\pm ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\xi }_1i\omega _\pm (\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)\widehat{\xi }_2m\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)\widehat{k}\right)`$
for $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and by

$`\stackrel{}{b}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k})i\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{ϵ}_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{ik}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)}}}\left(2\omega _\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\xi }_2\pm i(\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm m)\widehat{\xi }_1\right)`$ (2.13)
for $`\stackrel{}{B}`$.

Before continuing with the quantized theory, it may be useful to consider the polarizations that result from Eqs. (2.12) and (2.13) for the classical electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave propagating *in vacuo* (see also Ref. ).

For $`\theta =0`$ (i.e., a wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$ in the preferred direction $`\widehat{\eta }`$), the $`+`$ and $``$ modes are circularly polarized. But the vectors $`\widehat{\xi }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }_2`$ from Eq. (2.7) are not well-defined at $`\theta =0`$. Instead, they may be defined by a limiting procedure, where the limit $`k_{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is performed for a wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}=k_{}\widehat{e}_{}+k_{}\widehat{\eta }`$. Here, $`\widehat{e}_{}`$ is an arbitrary unit vector perpendicular to $`\widehat{\eta }`$. The resulting vectors are $`\widehat{\xi }_1=\widehat{e}_{}`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }_2=\widehat{e}_{}\times \widehat{\eta }`$. Consequently, the $`+`$ mode is right-handed ($`R`$, negative helicity) and the $``$ mode is left-handed ($`L`$, positive helicity).

For $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$, both modes are elliptically polarized and the helicities remain the same ($`R`$/$`L`$ for $`+`$/$``$). As long as $`k\mathrm{cos}\theta m`$, the modes are essentially circularly polarized. In the opposite limit $`k\mathrm{cos}\theta m`$, both modes approach linear polarizations.

For $`\theta =\pi /2`$, the two modes behave somewhat differently. The $``$ mode becomes exactly linearly polarized, with $`\stackrel{}{f}_{}i\omega _{}\widehat{\xi }_1\widehat{k}`$. But the electric field for the $`+`$ mode has also a longitudinal component, $`\stackrel{}{f}_+i\omega _+\widehat{\xi }_2+m\widehat{k}`$. This longitudinal component is, however, relatively unimportant for frequencies $`\omega _+m`$.

For $`\pi /2<\theta <\pi `$, both modes are again elliptically polarized, but the helicities have changed ($`L`$/$`R`$ for $`+`$/$``$). For $`\theta =\pi `$, finally, both modes are circularly polarized, with helicities opposite to the $`\theta =0`$ case.

We now return to the quantized theory. The energy-momentum “tensor” of the free theory is given by

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\mu \rho }F^{\nu \sigma }g_{\rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}\eta ^\nu ϵ^{\mu \rho \sigma \tau }A_\rho F_{\sigma \tau }.`$ (2.14)
This tensor is conserved, $`_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=0`$, as may be checked with the help of the equations of motion,

$`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{\nu \rho \sigma \tau }\eta _\rho F_{\sigma \tau }.`$ (2.15)
The energy-momentum tensor (2.14) is, however, not symmetric, as long as $`m`$ is nonzero.

For the case of a purely spatial Chern–Simons “four-vector” $`\eta ^\mu `$, the corresponding field energy and momentum are

$``$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Theta }^{00}}={\displaystyle d^3x\frac{1}{2}\left(|\stackrel{}{E}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+|\stackrel{}{B}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)},`$ (2.16)
$`𝒫^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}}={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\left(\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)^i+\frac{m}{2}\widehat{\eta }^i\left(\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{A}\right)\right]}.`$ (2.17)
These operators in terms of the quantized free photon field must, of course, be normal-ordered . One finds after some algebra

$`::`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k\left[\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k})a_+^{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_+(\stackrel{}{k})+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_{}(\stackrel{}{k})\right]},`$ (2.18)
$`:\stackrel{}{𝒫}:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k\left[\stackrel{}{k}a_+^{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_+(\stackrel{}{k})+\stackrel{}{k}a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})a_{}(\stackrel{}{k})\right]}.`$ (2.19)
The energy eigenvalues, in particular, are nonnegative for the functions $`\omega _\pm `$ as given by Eq. (2.6).

Note, finally, that the Lagrangian (2.2), with fixed parameters $`\eta ^\mu =(0,\widehat{\eta })`$, is translation invariant but not rotation invariant. This implies that energy-momentum is conserved but not angular momentum.

## 3 Kinematics of photon decay

In this section, we study the kinematics for the decay of one initial photon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and energy $`\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{q})`$ into three final photons with energies $`\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_i)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, and total momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3=\stackrel{}{q}`$. The theory considered has been given in Section 2. In a first reading, it is possible to skip ahead to the last paragraph of this section, which summarizes the results.

For the usual Lorentz-invariant case ($`m=0`$), the total energy of the final state is minimal when all final momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ are parallel to the initial momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. The reason is that adding perpendicular momenta, $`\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ and $`_i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_i=0`$, increases the final energy, since $`\omega (\stackrel{}{k}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_i)>\omega (\stackrel{}{k}_i)`$.

The same does not hold in our case ($`m0`$). For infinitesimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}=0`$, we find

$`\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{k}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k})\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{k})\pm {\displaystyle \frac{m}{\omega _\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left(\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{\eta }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{\eta }\right),`$ (3.1)
which can be larger or smaller than $`\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{k})`$. This may then result in the lowering of the total energy of a given 3-photon final state, which can be shown as follows.

Assume that we start from a configuration where the final momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, are parallel to the initial momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, which has $`\stackrel{}{q}\widehat{\eta }0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}\times \widehat{\eta }0`$. Take the final particles 1 and 2 to have the same polarization ($`+`$ or $``$) and leave the polarization of the final particle 3 unspecified ($`\pm `$). Then add infinitesimal perpendicular momenta $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ to the final momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ and choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_1=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{k}_3=0`$, so that overall momentum conservation is maintained. According to Eq. (3.1), one of the first two final energies is increased and the other decreased (the third final energy is, of course, unchanged). Moreover, the total final energy for the $`(\pm )`$ case is decreased if the energy corresponding to the smaller momentum is decreased (for example, if $`|\stackrel{}{k}_1|<|\stackrel{}{k}_2|`$ then $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)|>|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)|`$). The same result is obtained for the $`(++\pm )`$ case, as long as $`|\stackrel{}{k}_j\widehat{\eta }|>m/\sqrt{2}`$ for $`j=1,2`$.

Still, it is worthwhile to study the case of parallel (collinear) final momenta in some detail. The frequencies $`\omega _\pm `$ may then be treated as functions of *scalar* variables, $`\omega _\pm =\omega _\pm (k_i)`$ for $`k_i|\stackrel{}{k}_i|`$. Assuming both $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ to be nonzero, one finds for the $``$ state that

$`\omega _{}(k_1+k_2)>\omega _{}(k_1)+\omega _{}(k_2),`$ (3.2)
except for the special case of $`\stackrel{}{k}_1\widehat{\eta }=\stackrel{}{k}_2\widehat{\eta }=0`$, for which Eq. (3.2) becomes an equality. As a consequence, the decay $``$ is allowed kinematically. This also implies that the decay $`+`$ is allowed, because $`\omega _+(q)>\omega _{}(q)`$.

For the $`+`$ state, on the other hand, the following inequality holds:

$`\omega _+(k_1+k_2)<\omega _+(k_1)+\omega _+(k_2),`$ (3.3)
again assuming nonzero $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. In this case, no immediate conclusions can be drawn from the inequality, because of relation (3.1). The inequalities (3.2) and (3.3) are proven in Appendix A.

Another kinematically allowed decay is $`++`$. This can be shown by establishing the following inequality for appropriate parallel momenta:

$`\omega _+(k_1+k_2+k_3)>\omega _+(k_1)+\omega _{}(k_2)+\omega _{}(k_3),`$ (3.4)
with the notation $`k_i|\stackrel{}{k}_i|`$. Unlike the inequalities (3.2) and (3.3), inequality (3.4) does not hold for arbitrary values of the $`k_i`$. Instead, some restrictions must be imposed on the momenta.

Concretely, assume that $`k_2m`$, $`k_2k_1`$ and $`k_3m`$, $`k_3k_1`$. Expanding the left-hand side of Eq. (3.4) up to first order in $`k_2+k_3`$ and the right-hand side up to first order in $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$, we find

$`\omega _+^1(k_1)\left(k_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2mk_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\sqrt{m^2+4k_1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}\right)(k_2+k_3)>\mathrm{sin}\theta (k_2+k_3).`$
Defining $`xm/k_1`$, this inequality can be written as

$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2x\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\sqrt{x^2+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}>\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\sqrt{x^2+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }\right)^{1/2}.`$
Both sides of the last inequality are manifestly positive. Squaring both sides and re-arranging them somewhat, we arrive at

$`x^2+2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{8x^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta }{x^2+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}>x{\displaystyle \frac{x^24\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\sqrt{x^2+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}.`$
This final inequality certainly holds if the left-hand side is larger than zero and the right-hand side smaller than zero. Writing $`b4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, the condition for the left-hand side gives

$`x^2<b(b1)/4+(b/4)\sqrt{b^22b+9}`$
and the condition for the right-hand side

$`x^2<b.`$
Both conditions can be fulfilled simultaneously, as long as $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 0`$. We might, for example, restrict the momenta, so that $`b>2`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta >1/2`$. Then both conditions are equivalent and give $`x<\sqrt{2}`$, which corresponds to $`k_1>m/\sqrt{2}`$. \[For the special case of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =0`$, the quantity $`\omega _+`$ ($`\omega _{}`$) is effectively the energy of a massive (massless) particle, which implies that the inequality (3.4) does not hold for small enough values of $`k_i/m`$.\]

The above discussion shows that the energy inequality (3.4) holds for certain restricted values of the final collinear momenta. By continuity, this energy inequality holds also if the final momenta deviate slightly from collinearity. Therefore, our restrictions are restrictions to certain *regions* in phase space and not restrictions to submanifolds of measure zero. As a consequence, the decay $`++`$ is allowed kinematically.

Altogether, we have shown that the three decay channels $``$, $`+`$ and $`++`$ are allowed kinematically. For the five other decay channels, we have not been able to find allowed regions in phase space, either analytically or numerically. These allowed regions in phase space perhaps do not exist, but this remains to be proven.

## 4 Matrix element $`+`$

We now calculate the matrix element for the decay of a $`+`$ polarization mode into three $``$ modes. To lowest order, there are two contributions to this matrix element from the quartic Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian. The first term in Eq. (2.5) gives the following contribution:

$`0|a_+(\stackrel{}{q}):{\displaystyle d^4x\left(|\stackrel{}{E}(x)|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}|\stackrel{}{B}(x)|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^2}:a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)|0=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\delta [\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)]\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$
$`\times \left[\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]^{1/2}`$
$`\times ([\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)][\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})]`$
$`+\left[\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]\left[\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\right]`$
$`+[\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)][\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})]).`$
(4.1)
The second term in Eq. (2.5) gives, with different combinatorics,

$`0|a_+(\stackrel{}{q}):{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}\left(\stackrel{}{E}(x)\stackrel{}{B}(x)\right)^2}:a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)a_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)|0=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\delta [\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)]\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$
$`\times \left[\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]^{1/2}\times 7/4`$
$`\times ([\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)][\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})]`$
$`+\left[\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\right]\left[\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\right]`$
$`+[\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)][\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_+^{}(\stackrel{}{q})]).`$
(4.2)
Unfortunately, the expressions involving the polarization vectors in Eqs. (4.1)–(4.2) are rather complicated and one would like to simplify them by using some type of small $`m`$ expansion. But such a procedure appears to be quite difficult and, in this paper, we keep the full expressions.

The probability for decay of a single $`+`$ state into three $``$ states can be calculated by integrating the square of the amplitude over the final momenta. The result will, however, be a *function* of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ and $`\widehat{q}\widehat{\eta }`$, for given $`m`$ and $`M`$. For this reason, we turn to a simpler problem in the next section, namely the decay of a $`+`$ state at rest.

## 5 Partial decay width for $`+`$

The decay probability for $`+`$ will be evaluated for the case of vanishing initial momentum, $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$. The energy $`\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})`$ for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ equals $`m`$ and the initial “photon” behaves like a massive particle at rest. The partial decay width is then obtained by squaring the matrix element of the previous section and integrating over the final momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$, for $`i=1\mathrm{}3`$. A combinatorial factor $`1/3!=1/6`$ must be inserted because of the three identical particles in the final state.

Purely on dimensional grounds, we can write the partial decay width to order $`\alpha ^4`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{512\pi ^5}}\kappa \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{45}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^9}{M^8}},`$ (5.1)
with a *single number* $`\kappa 0`$ to be determined.

The relevant phase space integral is defined as follows:

$`I_{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3k_1d^3k_2d^3k_3\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3)\delta [\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)m]}`$ (5.2)
$`\times \left[\omega _+(0)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]^1g(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3),`$
where the nonnegative function $`g`$ depends on the electric and magnetic polarization vectors. Specifically, the factor $`g`$ is given by the absolute value squared of the terms in large brackets in Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) for $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$,

$`g(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ $`=`$ $`|([\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)]\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(0)+\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}`$
$`\times ([\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_1)]\stackrel{}{f}_+^{}(0)\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\mathrm{})|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.`$
The expressions for $`\stackrel{}{f}_+(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_+(0)`$ will be given in the next section. Note that only the mass-scale $`m`$ appears in the integral (5.2), so that $`I_{}m^9`$.

A numerical calculation shows that the integrand of Eq. (5.2) is strictly positive over a finite region of phase space (see Appendix B). For the numerical constant $`\kappa `$ in the partial decay width (5.1), this implies

$`\kappa =\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\right)^2I_{}/m^9>0,`$ (5.4)
which is the main result of the present paper.

## 6 Partial decay width for $`++`$

The decay of an initial $`+`$ polarization state is in general more complicated than the decay of an initial $``$ state. But for initial momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ a major simplification occurs: the second decay channel $`++`$ no longer contributes, as will be demonstrated in this section.

The matrix element for $`++`$ decay follows from Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) by replacing *all* $``$ labels that occur in conjunction with $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ by $`+`$ labels. The energy delta function, for example, becomes

$`\delta [\omega _+(\stackrel{}{q})\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)].`$ (6.1)
The energy conservation condition for the decay of a $`+`$ photon at rest ($`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$) now takes the form

$`\left(\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_1)m\right)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)=0.`$ (6.2)
This relation holds only if all three final momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ are zero, because each of the three terms in the above equation is positive semi-definite and zero only for vanishing momentum. The conditions $`\stackrel{}{k}_i=0`$, for $`i=1,2,3`$, are restrictions to a lower-dimensional submanifold in phase space and have, therefore, measure zero. The resulting phase space integrals will lead to a zero contribution to the decay width, unless certain singularities of the phase-space integrand appear in the limit $`\stackrel{}{k}_i0`$. In the following, we will show that such infrared singularities are absent.

The phase-space integral in spherical polar coordinates $`k_i,\theta _i,\phi _i`$, for $`i=1,2,3`$, takes the form

$`I_+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \delta ^3(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3)\delta [\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_1)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)m]h(k_i,\theta _i,\phi _i)}`$ (6.3)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2k_3^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3d^3k_1dk_2dk_3d\theta _2d\theta _3d\phi _2d\phi _3}{\omega _+(0)\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_1)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)}},`$
where the nonnegative function $`h(k_i,\theta _i,\phi _i)`$ depends on the electric and magnetic polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{f}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_i)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_i)`$. Using the bounds $`\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k})m`$ and $`\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k})k\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ in the denominator and integrating over the momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$, we find for the phase-space integral

$`0I_+`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta [\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)m]h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j)}`$ (6.4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{k_2k_3dk_2dk_3d\theta _2d\theta _3d\phi _2d\phi _3}{m^2}},`$
where $`h`$ now depends on the polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{f}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_j)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_j)`$, for $`j=2,3`$, and the vectors $`\stackrel{}{f}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_\pm (\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$.

The integral in Eq. (6.4) has two potential sources of infrared singularities, the first of which is the factor $`h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j)`$. But it is not difficult to see that $`h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j)`$ is nonsingular in the limit $`k_j0`$. As $`h`$ depends only on the electric and magnetic polarization vectors, it suffices to demonstrate that these vectors are nonsingular in the infrared. Writing $`\stackrel{}{k}=k_{}\widehat{e}_{}+k_{}\widehat{\eta }`$ with $`\widehat{e}_{}`$ an arbitrary unit vector orthogonal to $`\widehat{\eta }`$, it can indeed be shown that

$`\underset{k0}{lim}\stackrel{}{f}_+(\stackrel{}{k})=im(\widehat{e}_{}i\widehat{e}_{}\times \widehat{\eta })`$ (6.5)
and

$`\underset{k0}{lim}\stackrel{}{f}_{}(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{k0}{lim}\stackrel{}{b}_+(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{k0}{lim}\stackrel{}{b}_{}(\stackrel{}{k})=0.`$ (6.6)
The second potential source of infrared singularities in the integral (6.4) is the energy delta function itself, if singularities of the type $`𝑑k\delta (k^2)`$ are produced. The proof that this does not happen is somewhat involved and is relegated to Appendix C.

Altogether, we find that the $`++`$ channel does not contribute to $`+`$ decay at vanishing initial momentum, $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, so that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^{(4)}=0.`$ (6.7)
For $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, no other channels contribute, besides the two channels already considered. The reason is energy conservation (cf. Section 2): the energy of an initial $`+`$ state at rest is $`m`$, whereas the energies of the final states $`++`$ and $`+++`$ are at least $`2m`$ and $`3m`$, respectively.

## 7 Total decay rate of a $`+`$ photon at rest

In this paper, we have studied the decay of photons in a relatively simple model, for which the Lagrangian (2.1) contains only the usual Maxwell and Euler–Heisenberg terms, together with a CPT-violating Chern–Simons-like term. The two mass parameters of the model are $`m`$, which enters the Chern–Simons-like term (2.2) linearly, and $`M`$, whose fourth power enters the Euler–Heisenberg term (2.5) inversely. The Euler–Heisenberg term has, in addition, an overall coupling constant $`\alpha ^2`$.

The photon of this model has two polarization states, labeled $`\pm `$, with energies and momenta given by Eqs. (2.6), (2.18) and (2.19). The total decay rate to order $`\alpha ^4`$ of a $`+`$ state at rest follows from the sum of the partial decay widths (5.1) and (6.7),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{512\pi ^5}}\kappa \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2}{45}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^9}{M^8}},`$ (7.1)
with a constant $`\kappa 0`$. A numerical calculation shows that $`\kappa `$ is nonvanishing and, most likely, not vastly different from $`1`$. \[See Eq. (5.4) and Appendix B.\]

As explained in Section 2, the model considered is part of the effective gauge field action of quantum electrodynamics with an additional Chern–Simons-like term. An order of magnitude estimate for the photon mean lifetime can then be obtained by writing

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{(4)}=\kappa \left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3\hspace{0.33em}10}^{336}\mathrm{yr}\right]^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{1/137}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{511\mathrm{keV}}{M}}\right)^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{10^{33}\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^9,`$ (7.2)
where for $`\alpha `$ and $`M`$ the values of the fine-structure constant and the electron mass have been inserted and for $`m`$ the experimental upper limit from polarization measurements on distant radio galaxies (see Refs.  and references therein). For $`m10^{35}\mathrm{eV}`$ as might be expected from the CPT anomaly , the photon lifetime would be larger by a factor of $`10^{18}`$.

The very large photon lifetime as indicated by Eq. (7.2) is perhaps not of direct relevance, at least for the current epoch in the history of the universe. There remain, however, fundamental questions about the formulation of this particular CPT-violating extension of quantum electrodynamics if certain photon states are no longer absolutely stable (cf. Ref. ).

## Acknowledgements

F.R.K. thanks M. Frank and J. Schimmel for help with the computer. C.A. acknowledges support from the Austrian START award project FWF-Y-137-TEC of N.J. Mauser.

## Appendix A Energy inequalities

In this appendix, we prove the energy inequalities (3.2) and (3.3) for parallel momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_1||\stackrel{}{k}_2`$. \[The $`\omega _{}`$ case has the additional conditions $`\stackrel{}{k}_j\widehat{\eta }0`$, for $`j=1,2`$.\] It is, in fact, not difficult to verify that these inequalities hold for sufficiently small $`k_j|\stackrel{}{k}_j|m`$. For the general case, we give a proof by contradiction.

Assume that the inequalities do *not* hold for all values of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. Then there must exist values for $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ with

$`\omega (k_1+k_2)=\omega (k_1)+\omega (k_2).`$ (A.1)
\[These special values of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ could, of course, be different for the $`+`$ and the $``$ case. But the proof is analogous in both cases and we treat both cases at once, writing $`\omega `$ for either $`\omega _+`$ or $`\omega _{}`$.\] The equality (A.1) can also be written as

$`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2)={\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k_1+k_2}}v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{k_1+k_2}}v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_2),`$ (A.2)
where $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k)\omega (k)/k`$ is the absolute value of the phase velocity.

Equation (A.2), now, holds only if one of the following three conditions is met:

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1)=v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_2)=v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2),`$
$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1)>v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2)\text{and}v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_2)<v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2),`$
$`(\mathrm{iii})`$ $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1)<v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2)\text{and}v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_2)>v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k_1+k_2).`$ (A.3)
Each of these conditions implies that $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}(k)`$ has an extremum somewhere in the momentum interval $`[\text{min}(k_1,k_2),k_1+k_2]`$. But this conclusion contradicts the simple observation that, for both $`\omega _+`$ and $`\omega _{}`$, the derivative of the phase velocity $`dv_{\mathrm{ph}}/dk`$ is nonzero for all positive values of $`k`$. \[The observation requires for the $`\omega _{}`$ case the additional condition $`\stackrel{}{k}\widehat{\eta }0`$.\] This then implies that the assumption above Eq. (A.1) must be incorrect and that the inequalities (3.2) and (3.3) hold for *all* positive values of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, as stated in the main text.

## Appendix B Numerical result for $`I_{}`$

In this appendix, we report on a numerical calculation of the integral $`I_{}`$, as defined by Eq. (5.2). A dimensionless quantity $`I`$ is obtained by setting $`II_{}/m^9`$. We can be relatively brief in describing our results since the calculation of a decay rate is well-known (see, e.g., Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of Ref. ). We proceed in four steps.

First, the integral over $`\stackrel{}{k}_3`$ is performed and the remaining six integration variables are taken to be the following dimensionless spherical coordinates:

$`k_1|\stackrel{}{k}_1|,k_2|\stackrel{}{k}_2|,\theta _1,\theta _2,\phi _\pm \phi _2\pm \phi _1,`$ (B.1)
with polar angles $`\theta _1,\theta _2[0,\pi ]`$ defined with respect to an axis in the preferred direction $`\widehat{\eta }`$ and azimuthal angles $`\phi _1,\phi _2[0,2\pi ]`$ in the plane orthogonal to this axis. The angles $`\phi _+`$ and $`\phi _{}`$ can be taken to run over $`[0,4\pi ]`$ and $`[\pi ,+\pi ]`$, respectively.

Second, the energy delta function effectively sets $`\phi _{}`$ to a fixed value,

$`\phi _{}=(12n)\mathrm{arccos}\chi ,`$ (B.2)
for a known function $`\chi =\chi (k_1,\theta _1,k_2,\theta _2)`$ and integer $`n=0`$ or $`1`$. Also, there are the constraints that both $`|\chi |`$ and $`\omega _{}(k_1,\theta _1)+\omega _{}(k_2,\theta _2)`$ must be less than 1, which can be implemented by introducing appropriate step functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1|\chi |)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\omega _{}(k_1,\theta _1)\omega _{}(k_2,\theta _2)]`$ into the integrand.

Third, the resulting integral has the following structure:

$`I={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_1𝑑k_2{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta _1𝑑\theta _2{\displaystyle _0^{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _+}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{1}{}}}|_{\phi _{}=(12n)\mathrm{arccos}\chi ;\stackrel{}{k}_3=\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2},`$ (B.3)
with the integrand

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left[k_1/\omega _{}(k_1,\theta _1)\right]\left[k_2/\omega _{}(k_2,\theta _2)\right]\mathrm{\Theta }[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\omega _{}(k_1,\theta _1)\omega _{}(k_2,\theta _2)]`$ (B.4)
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }\left(1\left|\chi (k_1,\theta _1,k_2,\theta _2)\right|\right)\left|\mathrm{sin}\phi _{}\right|^1g(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3),`$
where $`\omega _{}`$ and $`g`$ are dimensionless functions (i.e., the expressions of the main text with $`m1`$). The integral (B.3) is complicated, but its integrand is still nonnegative; cf. the definition (5).

Fourth, a numerical calculation with Mathematica  shows the integrand of Eq. (B.3) to be independent of $`\phi _+`$ and $`n`$. This effectively reduces the integral to a four-dimensional one and a numerical estimate gives

$`II_{}/m^9\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}.`$ (B.5)
From this estimate, one obtains the result (5.4) quoted in the main text.

The value (B.5) is to be considered preliminary. More work is needed to obtain an accurate result, both analytically (e.g., to make the independence of the azimuthal coordinate $`\phi _+`$ manifest) and numerically (e.g., to sample phase space efficiently).

## Appendix C Analytic result for $`I_+`$

In this appendix, we demonstrate the vanishing of the integral $`I_+`$ as defined by Eq. (6.3). We start with two preliminary steps. First, we introduce the following representation for the energy delta function:

$`\delta (\omega )=\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }a}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega ^2/a^2\right),a>0.`$ (C.1)
Second, we replace the nonnegative function $`h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j)`$ in the integral of Eq. (6.4) by the following bound:

$`h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j){\displaystyle \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}H(l,n)k_2^lk_3^n,`$ (C.2)
where $`H(l,n)`$ are appropriate nonnegative numbers. This bound may be understood from the observation that the factor $`h(k_j,\theta _j,\phi _j)`$ is the absolute square of a sum of terms of the type

$`[\stackrel{}{v}_1(\stackrel{}{k}_2)\stackrel{}{v}_2(\stackrel{}{k}_3)][\stackrel{}{v}_3(\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_3)\stackrel{}{v}_4(0)],`$ (C.3)
where each vector $`\stackrel{}{v}_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, is either an electric polarization vector $`\stackrel{}{f}_\pm `$ or a magnetic polarization vector $`\stackrel{}{b}_\pm `$, as defined by Eqs. (2.12) and (2.13). Using the energy bounds $`\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_j)k_j+m`$ and $`\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_j)k_j`$, each vector $`\stackrel{}{v}_i(\stackrel{}{k}_j)`$ can be shown to obey the following inequality:

$`\left|\stackrel{}{v}_i(\stackrel{}{k}_j)\right|\left|\stackrel{}{v}_{0,i}(\stackrel{}{k}_j)+k_j\stackrel{}{v}_{1,i}(\stackrel{}{k}_j)\right|,`$ (C.4)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}_{0,i}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_{1,i}`$ are uniformly bounded vectors (i.e., they never exceed a certain length). In the product (C.3), then, the momenta $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ show up at most quadratically, so that no powers higher than four occur in the absolute square of a sum of such terms. This explains the bound (C.2).

With these two steps, the bound (6.4) becomes

$`0I_+`$ $`\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{\pi }m^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_2𝑑k_3{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta _2𝑑\theta _3{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2𝑑\phi _3{\displaystyle \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}H(l,n)`$
$`\times k_2^{l+1}k_3^{n+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[\omega _+(\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3)m+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_2)+\omega _{}(\stackrel{}{k}_3)\right]^2/a^2\right).`$
Now change the momentum variables $`k_j`$ to $`k_j/a`$ and use the estimates $`\omega _+m`$ and $`[\omega _{}(k_2)+\omega _{}(k_3)]^2\omega _{}^2(k_2)+\omega _{}^2(k_3)`$. This gives

$`0I_+`$ $`\underset{a0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{3+l+n}}{\sqrt{\pi }m^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k_2𝑑k_3𝑑\theta _2𝑑\theta _3𝑑\phi _2𝑑\phi _3H(l,n)k_2^{l+1}k_3^{n+1}}`$ (C.6)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(k_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2k_2^2/m_a^2}`$
$`k_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _3k_3^2/m_a^2}),`$
with $`m_am/a`$. Since $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _j1`$, we finally arrive at

$`0I_+`$ $`\underset{m_a\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}H(l,n){\displaystyle \frac{m^{1+l+n}}{\sqrt{\pi }m_a^{3+l+n}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta _2𝑑\theta _3{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2𝑑\phi _3I_lI_n,`$
in terms of the dimensionless integrals

$`I_l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^{l+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(k^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^2}{2}}\sqrt{1+4k^2/m_a^2}\right).`$ (C.8)
The momentum integrals $`I_l`$, for $`l=0,\mathrm{},4`$, can be evaluated analytically with the help of Mathematica , but we are only interested in their asymptotic behavior for $`m_a\mathrm{}`$. Making the change of variables $`y=k^2/m_a`$ and Taylor expanding the square root in Eq. (C.8), we obtain

$`I_lc_lm_a^{1+l/2},\mathrm{for}m_a\mathrm{},`$ (C.9)
with positive coefficients $`c_l`$.

Inserting the asymptotic results for $`I_l`$ and $`I_n`$ into the bound (C), we get ($`\lambda `$ is a positive constant)

$`0I_+\lambda \underset{m_a\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{4}{}}}H(l,n)m^{1+l+n}c_lc_nm_a^{1l/2n/2}=0,`$ (C.10)
so that

$`I_+=0,`$ (C.11)
which implies Eq. (6.7) in the main text.