Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Quantum corrections to frame-dragging in scattering amplitudes

Jung-Wook Kim (김정욱)*

  • Centre for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom and Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA

  • *jung-wook.kim@qmul.ac.uk

Phys. Rev. D 106, L081901 – Published 19 October, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L081901

Abstract

Frame-dragging effect manifests itself as polarization direction rotation when linearly polarized electromagnetic/gravitational wave scatters from a spinning point source through gravitational interactions, an effect also known as the gravitational Faraday rotation. Treating general relativity as an effective field theory, the Faraday rotation angle and its quantum corrections are computed using scattering amplitudes. While the classical rotation angle is universal as expected from the equivalence principle, the quantum corrections are found to be different between electromagnetic and gravitational waves, supporting earlier studies that some formulations of the equivalence principle may need reformulation in the quantum regime.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (95)

  1. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 138, B988 (1965).
  2. R. P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, edited by F. B. Morinigo, W. G. Wagner, and B. Hatfield (Addison-Wesley, 1996).
  3. P. Benincasa and F. Cachazo, arXiv:0705.4305.
  4. J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2996 (1994).
  5. J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994).
  6. C. P. Burgess, Living Rev. Relativity 7, 5 (2004).
  7. I. B. Khriplovich and G. G. Kirilin, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 95, 981 (2002).
  8. N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D 67, 084033 (2003); 71, 069903(E) (2005).
  9. N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and P. Vanhove, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 111.
  10. N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061301 (2015).
  11. N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, L. Plante, and P. Vanhove, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2016) 117.
  12. J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, B. Garbrecht, and T. Konstandin, Phys. Lett. B 529, 132 (2002); 612, 311(E) (2005).
  13. N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue, and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D 68, 084005 (2003); 71, 069904(E) (2005).
  14. B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084030 (2006).
  15. B. R. Holstein, arXiv:gr-qc/0607054.
  16. B. R. Holstein and A. Ross, arXiv:0802.0716.
  17. M. B. Fröb, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2016) 051; 11 (2016) 176(E).
  18. D. Bai and Y. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064045 (2017).
  19. H.-H. Chi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 126008 (2019).
  20. H. Ishihara, M. Takahashi, and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D 38, 472 (1988).
  21. M. Nouri-Zonoz, Phys. Rev. D 60, 024013 (1999).
  22. M. Sereno, Phys. Rev. D 69, 087501 (2004).
  23. A. Brodutch and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. D 84, 121501 (2011).
  24. A. Farooqui, N. Kamran, and P. Panangaden, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 18, 659 (2014).
  25. A. A. Shoom, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084007 (2021).
  26. A. A. Deriglazov, Phys. Rev. D 104, 025006 (2021).
  27. C. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064072 (2022).
  28. Z. Li, W. Zhao, and X. Er, arXiv:2204.10512.
  29. W.-M. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, and J.-W. Kim, arXiv:2205.07305.
  30. D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein, Nucl. Phys. B877, 177 (2013).
  31. C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251101 (2018).
  32. Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 201603 (2019).
  33. Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2019) 206.
  34. Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 171601 (2021).
  35. V. Vaidya, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024017 (2015).
  36. B. Maybee, D. O’Connell, and J. Vines, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2019) 156.
  37. M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and P. Pichini, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2022) 156.
  38. F. Febres Cordero, M. Kraus, G. Lin, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, arXiv:2205.07357.
  39. A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2019) 056.
  40. M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2019) 156.
  41. N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 046.
  42. R. Aoude, K. Haddad, and A. Helset, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2020) 051.
  43. Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 065014 (2021).
  44. A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104024 (2019).
  45. M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, and J.-W. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2020) 074.
  46. D. Kosmopoulos and A. Luna, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2021) 037.
  47. R. Aoude and A. Ochirov, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 008.
  48. W.-M. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, and J.-W. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2022) 148.
  49. R. Aoude, K. Haddad, and A. Helset, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2022) 072.
  50. Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, A. Luna, R. Roiban, and F. Teng, arXiv:2203.06202.
  51. R. Aoude, K. Haddad, and A. Helset, arXiv:2205.02809 [Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
  52. G. Menezes and M. Sergola, arXiv:2205.11701.
  53. L. Cangemi and P. Pichini, arXiv:2207.03947.
  54. M.-Z. Chung, Y.-T. Huang, and J.-W. Kim, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020) 103.
  55. A particle’s position is ill-defined at the wavepacket scale. Another approach would be to reverse-engineer b from the deflection angle, which is the approach of Eq. (2).

  56. T. Rothman and S. Boughn, Found. Phys. 36, 1801 (2006).
  57. F. Dyson, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330041 (2013).
  58. H. Cheng and T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 666 (1969).
  59. H. D. I. Abarbanel and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 53 (1969).
  60. M. Levy and J. Sucher, Phys. Rev. 186, 1656 (1969).
  61. D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197, 81 (1987).
  62. D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, and G. Veneziano, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 03, 1615 (1988).
  63. D. N. Kabat and M. Ortiz, Nucl. Phys. B388, 570 (1992).
  64. R. Akhoury, R. Saotome, and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064036 (2021).
  65. A. Koemans Collado, P. Di Vecchia, and R. Russo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 066028 (2019).
  66. A. Brandhuber, G. Chen, G. Travaglini, and C. Wen, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 118.
  67. A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, N. Moynihan, D. O’Connell, A. Ross, M. Sergola, and C. D. White, arXiv:2112.07556.
  68. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B425, 217 (1994).
  69. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B435, 59 (1995).
  70. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B513, 3 (1998).
  71. Y. F. Bautista and A. Guevara, arXiv:1903.12419.
  72. The vector Aμ is manifestly invariant under the shift Sμ→Sμ+ξqμ/q2 of Ref. [50] where qμ=−k2μ−k3μ. The invariance of the amplitude under the shift is violated because the terms dependent on p1·S=0 are dropped when products of Levi-Civita tensors are reduced, while p1·q≠0. The exact shift invariance would be restored if all p1·S were kept. Further discussions can be found in updated versions of Ref. [29].

  73. While the canonical algebra satisfied by Sμν inherited from Jμν is tied to a different spin supplementary condition [74], the covariant one is chosen because the little group space is defined in the particle’s rest frame. Identifying spin operators as the rotation generators in the rest frame of the particle is equivalent to choosing the covariant spin supplementary condition.

  74. J. Steinhoff, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 523, 296 (2011).
  75. J. Ellis, Comput. Phys. Commun. 210, 103 (2017).
  76. The spinor notations follow that of Ref. [40] where incoming positive helicity states are associated with |p] spinors. Normalization for the Levi-Civita tensor is ε0123=+1.

  77. The use of four dimensional helicity scheme [78, 79] in dimensional regularisation of the loop integral is implicit, since four dimensional spinor variables were used to construct the integrand.

  78. Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B379, 451 (1992).
  79. Z. Bern, A. De Freitas, L. J. Dixon, and H. L. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 66, 085002 (2002).
  80. R. N. Lee, arXiv:1212.2685.
  81. R. N. Lee, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523, 012059 (2014).
  82. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L081901 for full integral coefficients.
  83. D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 137.
  84. A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, D. A. Kosower, and D. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056007 (2022).
  85. R. K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2008) 002.
  86. J.-W. Kim and M. Shim, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2021) 217.
  87. Since helicity nonpreserving amplitudes are present at tree level for graviton scattering, the eikonal should rather be treated as a matrix with δ± as diagonal entries and remainder terms should be calculated using matrix algebra [88, 89]. Separate treatment of δ+ and δ− is justified as helicity nonpreserving off-diagonal terms are suppressed at the considered order in (ωb)−1 (29).

  88. M. Accettulli Huber, A. Brandhuber, S. De Angelis, and G. Travaglini, Phys. Rev. D 102, 046014 (2020).
  89. X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena, and A. Zhiboedov, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 020.
  90. P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2021) 169.
  91. K. Haddad, Phys. Rev. D 105, 026004 (2022).
  92. As a curiosity, it is remarked that the quantum terms can be absorbed by redefining m→m′=m+ω, canceling the quantum remainder terms of the spinless sector at the same time. This may have connections to the difference between the on-shell mass and the classical mass [66]. However, the shift fails to cancel the quantum remainder terms of spin-linear sector.

  93. C. W. F. Everitt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221101 (2011).
  94. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 135, B1049 (1964).
  95. Z. Bern, H. Ita, J. Parra-Martinez, and M. S. Ruf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 031601 (2020).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation