1260: Phenomenology of Antigravity in

N = ,  Supergravity

Stefano Bellucci (bellucci@lnf.infn.it)

INFN-Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy

arXiv:hep-ph/9710562v1 31 Oct 1997

Abstract. N = 2, 8 supergravity predicts antigravity (gravivector and graviscalar)

fields in the graviton supermultiplet. Data on the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, tests
of the equivalence principle and searches for a fifth force yield an upper bound of or-
der 1 meter (respectively, 100 meters) on the range of the gravivector (respectively,
graviscalar) interaction. Hence these fields are not important in non-relativistic as-
trophysics (for the weak-field limit of N = 2, 8 supergravity) but can play a role near
black holes and for primordial structures in the early universe of a size comparable
to their Compton wavelengths.

The quest for a unified description of elementary particle and gravity theories
led to local supersymmetry [1]. The large symmetry content of supergravity
yields, in spite of its lack of renormalizability, powerful constraints on physical
observables, e.g. anomalous magnetic moments [2].
It has been shown that a clear case for antigravity theories arises, when
considering N > 1 supergravity theories [3, 4]. Combining laboratory data
together with geophysical and astronomical observations has provided us re-
strictions on the antigravity features of some extended supergravity theories
[5, 6]. This can have important consequences for high precision experiments
measuring the difference in the gravitational acceleration of the proton and
the antiproton [7]. A review of earlier ideas about antigravity is found in [8].
The N = 2, 8 supergravity multiplets contain, in addition to the graviton,
a vector field Alµ [9], [10, 11]. This field, which we refer to as the gravivector,
carries antigravity, because it couples to quarks and leptons with a positive
sign and to antiquark and antileptons with a negative one. The coupling is
proportional to the mass of the matter fields and vanishes for self-conjugated
particles. The other antigravity field is the scalar σ entering the N = 8
supergravity multiplet [3, 4]. We refer to it as the graviscalar.
We are bound, in force of the result of the Eötvös experiment, to take a
nonvanishing mass for the field Alµ [3, 4].

1 p
ml = = 4πGN mφ hφi , mφ = hφi , (1)
Rl
where the Higgs mechanism has been invoked.
The presence of the gravivector in the theory introduces a violation of the
equivalence principle on a range of distances of order the Compton wavelength
Rl . At present, the equivalence principle is verified with a precision |δγ/γ| <
 2 S. Bellucci

3 × 10−12 [12].1 This number was used in [6], in order to constrain the v.e.v.
of the scalar field φ, and therefore its mass mφ > 15 (31) GeV, N=2 (8). The
above constraint on the field that gives to the gravivector its mass corresponds
to an upper bound of order 1 m for Rl [6].
It is worth to remind the reader that there are interesting connections
between antigravity in N = 2, 8 supergravities and CP violation experiments,
0
via the consideration of the K 0 –K system in the terrestrial gravitational field
[3].2 However, the present experiments on CP violations yield bounds on the
range of the gravivector field which are less stringent than those obtained
from the tests of the equivalence principle [5].
The null results of the search for possible deviations from Newton’s law
reported in [15] forbid values in the following ranges [6]:

82 GeV < mφ < 376 GeV (N = 2) , (2)

46 GeV < mφ < 461 GeV (N = 8) . (3)

A high precision test of the equivalence principle in the field of the Earth
is currently under planning in Moscow [16]. The precision expected to be
achieved in this experiment is |δγ/γ| < 3 × 10−15 . In the case that the new
experiment verifies the equivalence principle with the expected accuracy, the
limits on mφ would be pushed to mφ > 0.5 (1) TeV, N = 2 (8). 3
If supersymmetry is unbroken, the violation of the equivalence princi-
ple due to the graviscalar of N = 8 supergravity takes the form of a uni-
versal spatial dependence in the effective (gravitational) Newton’s coupling,
GN = GN (r) [4]. However there are corrections due to the breaking of super-
symmetry - which we hope to account for in a forthcoming publication - and
those depend on the composition of the material. If we neglect them for the
time being, then there is no effect of σ in Eötvös-like experiments, where the
acceleration difference between two bodies of different composition is mea-
sured. In this case it is still possible to constrain the effective range of the
σ-mediated interaction, analyzing data from the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16
[17], constraints from the observations searching for a fifth force [18], and
some of the experiments aimed at testing Newton’s inverse square law [15].
In this way we got the following bounds on the Compton wavelength of the
graviscalar: Rσ < 0.15 cm, 70 m< Rσ < 100 m [6].
1
The equivalence principle is advocated in a recent proposal of a consistent quantum
gravity [13].
2
For a low-energy theorem in gravity coupled to scalar matter, see e.g. [14].
3
A caveat concerning our results on the gravivector is that the presence of a U (1)
symmetry for the D = 4 extended supergravity theory obtained by dimensional
reduction from a higher dimension implies a mass for this field of order the Planck
mass [10]. In this particular instance it is unlikely that experimental limits on
the gravivector have any physical application (aside perhaps from applications to
inflationary models, if it were possible to use a vector field instead of a scalar). We
plan to come back to this issue in a further study.
 1260: Antigravity phenomenology 3

There have been many papers on the effects of non-Newtonian gravity

in astrophysics, in particular those due to a fifth force like the one obtain-
able from N = 2, 8 supergravity in the weak field limit (see references in
[8]).4 However, the upper bounds of order 1 m (100 m) on the Compton
wavelength Rl (Rσ ) of the gravivector (graviscalar) field found in [6] imply
that antigravity effects induced by the extended supergravity theories do not
play any role in nonrelativistic astrophysics, since the length scales involved
in stellar,5 galactic and supergalactic structures dominated by gravity are
much larger than Rl and (Rσ ).
This supergravity-induced antigravity could affect, in principle, processes
that take place in the strong gravity regime, where smaller distance scales are
involved. Examples of these situations are processes occurring near black hole
horizons or in the early universe, when the size of the universe is smaller than,
or of the order of, Rl and (Rσ ). The relevance of the supergravity-induced
antigravity in such situations will be studied in future publications.
Our final remark concerns a point that apparently went unnoticed in the
literature on supergravity: the detection of gravitational waves expected in a
not too far future will shed light on the correctness of supergravity theories.
In fact, after the dimensional reduction is performed, the action of the theory
contains scalar and vector fields as well as the usual metric tensor associated
to spin 2 gravitons [4]. These fields are responsible for the presence of po-
larization modes in gravitational waves, whose effect differs from that of the
spin 2 modes familiar from general relativity. Therefore, extended supergravi-
ties and general relativity occupy different classes in the E(2) classification of
gravity theories [23]. The extra polarization states are detectable, in principle,
in a gravitational wave experiment employing a suitable array of detectors
[23]. However, it must be noted that a detailed study of gravitational wave
generation taking into account the antigravity phenomenon is not available
at present. Such a work would undoubtedly have to face the remarkable dif-
ficulties well known from the studies of gravitational wave generation in the
context of general relativity.
We are grateful to G.A. Lobov for drawing our attention to the ITEP ex-
periment. We acknowledge useful comments by C. Kounnas and G. Veneziano.

References

[1] P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rep. C68 (1981) 189.

4
The effect of the cosmological constant is shadowed by Newtonian-gravity effects
[19, 20]. Large-scale topology-changing configurations can suppress its effect also
for 1-loop scalar-QED, see e.g. [21].
5
The conclusion that the stellar structure is unaffected by antigravity might change
if the non-Newtonian force alters the equation of state of the matter composing the
star [22].
4 S. Bellucci

[2] S. Ferrara and E. Remiddi, Phys. Lett. B53 (1974) 347; F. del Águila, A.
Mendez and F.X. Orteu, Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 70; S. Bellucci, H.Y.
Cheng and S. Deser, Nucl. Phys. B252 (1985) 389; F. del Águila et al.,
preprint UG-FT-71/96, hep-ph/9702342.
[3] J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B 88 (1979) 265.
[4] J. Scherk, in Supergravity, Proc. 1979 Supergravity Workshop at Stony
Brook, eds. P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D.Z. Freedman (North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1979) p. 43.
[5] S. Bellucci and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2922.
[6] S. Bellucci and V. Faraoni, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 55.
[7] N. Beverini et al., CERN report CERN/PSCC/86–2 (1986); N. Jarmie,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 24/25 (1987) 437; P. Dyer et al.,
Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 40/41 (1989) 485; R.E. Brown,
J.B. Camp and T.W. Darling, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B
56/57 (1991) 480.
[8] M.M. Nieto and T. Goldman, Phys. Rep. 205 (1991) 221; erratum 216
(1992) 343.
[9] C.K. Zachos, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 329.
[10] J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 82 (1979) 60; ibid., Nucl.
Phys. B 153 (1979) 61.
[11] E. Cremmer, J. Scherk, and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 84 (1979) 83.
[12] Y. Su et al., Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3614.
[13] S. Bellucci and A. Shiekh, preprint LNF-97/003 (P), gr-qc/9701065;
ibid., LNF-97/012 (P), gr-qc/9703085.
[14] A. Akhundov, S. Bellucci and A. Shiekh, Phys. Lett. B 395 (1997) 16,
gr-qc/9611018.
[15] R. Spero et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1645;
J.K. Hoskins et al., Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 3084; M.U. Sagitov et al.,
Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 245 (1979) 567; V.K. Milyukov, Sov. Phys.
JETP 61 (1985) 187.
[16] S.M. Kalebin, Preprint ITEP 93-26 (in Russian).
[17] R.A. Hulse, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66 (1994) 699; J.H. Taylor,Jr., ibid., 711.
[18] C. Talmadge and E. Fischbach, in: 5th Force-Neutrino Physics, Proc.
XXIII Rencontre de Moriond, eds. O. Fackler and J. Tran Thanh Van
(Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-Yvette, 1988).
[19] E. Elizalde and S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B333 (1994) 331.
[20] S. Bellucci, preprint LNF-97/016 (P), hep-th/9704039, to appear in
Phys. Rev. D.
[21] S. Bellucci and D. O’Reilly, Nucl. Phys. B364 (1991) 495.
[22] M.M. Nieto et al., Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 3684; 3688; 3694; P. De Leon,
Can. J. Phys. 67 (1989) 845.
[23] D.M. Eardley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 884; Phys. Rev. D 8
(1973) 3308; see also C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravita-
tional Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981).