Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Apartes de la Conferencia de la SJG del 14 y 21 de Enero de 2012Nonlinear electrodynamics and cmb polarization


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Apartes de la Conferencia de la SJG del 14 y 21 de Enero de 2012Nonlinear electrodynamics and cmb polarization

  1. 1. Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Nonlinear electrodynamics and CMB polarization This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. JCAP03(2011)033 ( View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: The article was downloaded on 22/03/2011 at 21:17 Please note that terms and conditions apply.
  2. 2. J ournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics An IOP and SISSA journalNonlinear electrodynamics and CMBpolarizationHerman J. Mosquera Cuestaa,b,c,d and G. Lambiasee,f JCAP03(2011)033a Departmento de F´ısica Universidade Estadual Vale do Acara´, u Avenida da Universidade 850, Campus da Betˆnia, CEP 62.040-370, Sobral, Cear´, Brazil a ab Instituto de Cosmologia, Relatividade e Astrof´ ısica (ICRA-BR), Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F´ ısicas, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150, CEP 22290-180, Urca Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazilc International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics Network (ICRANet), International Coordinating Center, Piazzalle della Repubblica 10, 065112, Pescara, Italyd International Institute for Theoretical Physics and Mathematics Einstein-Galilei, via Bruno Buozzi 47, 59100 Prato, Italye Dipartimento di Fisica “E.R. Caianiello”, Universit` di Salerno, a 84081 Baronissi (SA), Italyf INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy E-mail:, lambiase@sa.infn.itReceived July 1, 2010Revised January 23, 2011Accepted February 8, 2011Published March 22, 2011Abstract. Recently WMAP and BOOMERanG experiments have set stringent constraintson the polarization angle of photons propagating in an expanding universe: ∆α = (−2.4 ±1.9)◦ . The polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is reviewedin the context of nonlinear electrodynamics (NLED). We compute the polarization angle ofphotons propagating in a cosmological background with planar symmetry. For this purpose,we use the Pagels-Tomboulis (PT) Lagrangian density describing NLED, which has the form 1L ∼ (X/Λ4 )δ−1 X, where X = 4 Fαβ F αβ , and δ the parameter featuring the non-Maxwelliancharacter of the PT nonlinear description of the electromagnetic interaction. After lookingat the polarization components in the plane orthogonal to the (x)-direction of propagationof the CMB photons, the polarization angle is defined in terms of the eccentricity of theuniverse, a geometrical property whose evolution on cosmic time (from the last scatteringsurface to the present) is constrained by the strength of magnetic fields over extragalacticdistances.Keywords: CMBR polarisation, CMBR theory, extragalactic magnetic fields, cosmic mag-netic fields theoryc 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd and SISSA doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/033
  3. 3. Contents1 Introduction 12 Minimally coupling gravity to nonlinear electrodynamics 23 Cosmological setting: Space-time with planar symmetry −→ universe ec- centricity −→ polarization angle 4 JCAP03(2011)033 3.1 Space-time anisotropy and magnetic energy density evolution 4 3.2 Space-time eccentricity and polarization angle 5 3.3 Eccentricity evolution on cosmic time 6 3.4 Constraints on parameter Λ from extragalactic B strengths in an ellipsoidal Universe 74 Light propagation in NLED and birefringence 85 Stokes parameters, rotated CMB spectra and constraints on parameter Λ 9 5.1 Estimative of Λ 106 Discussion and closing remarks 111 IntroductionModifications to the standard (Maxwell) electrodynamics were proposed in the literature inorder to avoid infinite physical quantities from theoretical descriptions of electromagneticinteractions. Born and Infeld [1], for instance, proposed a model in which the infinite selfenergy of point particles (typical of Maxwell’s electrodynamics) are removed by introducingan upper limit on the electric field strength, and by considering the electron as an electricparticle with finite radius. Along this line, other models of nonlinear electrodynamics (NLED)Lagrangians were proposed by Plebanski, who also showed that Born-Infeld model satisfiesphysically acceptable requirements [2]. Consequences of nonlinear electrodynamics have beenstudied in many contexts, such a, for example, cosmological models [3], black holes andwormhole physics [4, 5], primordial magnetic fields in the Universe [8, 9, 11], gravitationalbaryogenesis [8], and astrophysics [12, 17]. In this paper we investigate the CMB polarization of photons described by nonlinearelectrodynamics. We compute the polarization angle of photons propagating in an expand-ing Universe, by considering in particular cosmological models with planar symmetry. Thepolarization angle does depend on the parameter characterizing the nonlinearity of electro-dynamics, which will be constrained by making use of the recent data from WMAP andBOOMERANG. This kind of investigations has received a lot of interest because they rep-resent a probe of models beyond the standard model, which may violate the fundamentalsymmetries such as CPT and Lorentz invariance [13, 14]. In what follows we will followthe main lines of the paper on “Cosmological CPT violation, baryo/leptogenesis and CMBpolarization” by Li-Xia-Li-Zhang [6]. –1–
  4. 4. 2 Minimally coupling gravity to nonlinear electrodynamicsThe action of (nonlinear) electrodynamics coupled minimally to gravity is 1 √ 1 √ S= d4 x −gR + d4 x −gL(X, Y ) , (2.1) 2κ 4πwhere κ = 8πG, L is the Lagrangian of nonlinear electrodynamics depending on the invariantX = 1 Fµν F µν = −2(E2 − B2 ) and Y = 4 Fµν ∗ F µν , where F µν ≡ µ Aν − ν Aµ , and 4 1∗ F µν = µνρσ F αβγδ = √ 1 ρσ is the dual bivector, and 2 −g εαβγδ , with εαβγδ the Levi-Civitatensor (ε0123 = +1). JCAP03(2011)033 The equations of motion are [9] µν µ (−LX F − LY ∗ F µν ) = 0 , (2.2)where LX = ∂L/∂X and LY = ∂L/∂Y , µ Fνλ + ν Fλµ + λ Fµν = 0. (2.3) After a swift grasp on this set of equations one realizes that is difficult to find solutionsin closed form of these equations. Therefore to study the effects of nonlinear electrodynamics,we confine ourselves to consider the abelian Pagels-Tomboulis theory [16], proposed as aneffective model of low energy QCD. The Lagrangian density of this theory involves only theinvariant X in the form δ−1 X2 2 L(X) = − X = −γX δ , (2.4) Λ8where γ (or Λ) and δ are free parameters that, with appropriate choice, reproduce the wellknown Lagrangian already studied in the literature. γ has dimensions [energy]4(1−δ) . Following Kunze [9], the energy momentum tensor corresponding to the Lagrangiandensity L(X) is given by 1 Tµν = LX gαβ Fµα Fβν + gµν L (2.5) 4πand the decomposition of the electromagnetic tensor with respect to a fundamental observerwith 4-velocity uµ (uµ uµ = −1) ˆ ˆ Fµν = 2E[µ uν] − ηµνςτ uς B τ . (2.6) ˆ ˆ The electric and magnetic fields are therefore given by Eµ = Fµν uν and Bµ =1 ν F κλ (η √2 ηµνκλ u αβγδ = −g εαβγδ ). The energy density turns out to be 1 L ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ρ = Tµν uµ uν = − (2δ − 1)Eα E α + Bα B α . (2.7) 8π XThe positivity of ρ (weak energy condition) imposes, in general, the constraint on δ. Forthe Lagrangian (2.4) one gets δ ≥ 1 . However, this condition can be relaxed because we 2shall consider cosmological scenarios in which the electric field is zero, and only the magneticfields survive (this is justified by the fact that during the radiation dominated era the plasmaeffects induce a rapid decay of the electric field, whereas magnetic field remains (see thepaper by Turner and Widrow in [23])). –2–
  5. 5. The equation of motion for the Pagels-Tomboulis theory follows from eq. (2.2) withY =0 µν µX µF = −(δ − 1) F µν . (2.8) XIn terms of the potential vector Aµ , and imposing the Lorentz gauge µ Aµ = 0, eq. (2.8)becomes µ ν µX µ A + Rνµ Aµ = −(δ − 1) ( µ Aν − ν Aµ ) , (2.9) Xwhere the Ricci tensor Rνµ appears because the relation [ µ , ν ]Aν = −Rµ Aµ . µ To proceed onward, we apply the geometrical optics approximation. This means thatthe scales of variation of the electromagnetic fields are smaller than the cosmological scales JCAP03(2011)033we consider next. In this approximation, the 4-vector Aµ (x) can be written as [18] Aµ (x) = Re (aµ (x) + bµ (x) + . . .)eiS(x)/ (2.10)with 1 so that the phase S/ varies faster than the amplitude. By defining the wavevector kµ = µ S, which defines the direction of the photon propagation, one finds that thegauge condition implies kµ aµ = 0 and kµ bµ = 0. It turns out to be convenient to introducethe normalized polarization vector εµ so that the vector aµ can be written as aµ (x) = A(x)εµ , εµ εµ = 1 . (2.11)As a consequence of (2.11), one also finds kµ εµ = 0, i.e. the wave vector is orthogonal to thepolarization vector. By making use of eq. (2.10), one obtains µX 2ikµ = [1 + Ω( )] , (2.12) Xwhere ik[α aβ] [α aβ] + O( 2 ) µk Ω≡ . −(k[α aβ] )2 + i 2k[α aβ] ( [α aβ] + ik[α aβ] ) + O( 2 )To leading order in , the term depending on the Ricci tensors can be neglected in (2.9).Inserting (2.10) into (2.9) and collecting all terms proportional to −2 and −1 , one obtains 1 2 : kµ kµ aσ = 2(δ − 1)kµ k[µ aσ] , (2.13) 1 µ σ : 2kµ a + aσ µk µ = −2(δ − 1)kµ [µ σ] a . (2.14) Taking into account the gauge condition kµ aµ = 0, the first equation implies 1 (2δ − 1)k2 = 0 → kµ kµ = 0 , ,provided δ = (2.15) 2hence photons propagate along null geodesics. Multiplying eq. (2.14) by aσ , and using (2.11)one obtains 1 µ µ σ µ µ k = −δk µ ln A + (δ − 1)kµ ε σε , 2so that eq. (2.14) can be recast in the form δ−1 σ kµ µε σ = Υ (2.16) δwhere Υσ ≡ kµ [ σ µ ε − (ερ µ σ ρ ε )ε ] . (2.17) –3–
  6. 6. 3 Cosmological setting: Space-time with planar symmetry −→ universe eccentricity −→ polarization angle3.1 Space-time anisotropy and magnetic energy density evolutionLet us consider cosmological models with planar symmetry, i.e., having a similar scale factoron the first two spatial coordinates. The most general line-element of a geometry with plane-symmetry is [19] ds2 = dt2 − b2 (dx2 + dy 2 ) − c2 dz 2 , (3.1)where b(t) and c(t) are the scale factors, which are normalized in order that b(t0 ) = 1 = c(t0 ) JCAP03(2011)033at the present time t0 . As eq. (3.1) shows, the symmetry is on the (xy)-plane. The coherenttemperature and polarization patterns produced in homogeneous but anisotropic cosmologicalmodels (Bianchi type with a Friedman-Robertson-Walker limit has been studied in [15]). The Christoffel symbols corresponding to the metric (3.1) are ˙ Γ0 = Γ0 = bb , Γ0 = cc , ˙ (3.2) 11 22 33 ˙ b c ˙ Γ1 = Γ2 = , Γ3 = . 01 02 03 b c The dot stands for derivative with respect to the cosmic time t. To make an estimate on the parameter δ, we have to investigate in more detail thegeometry with planar symmetry. As pointed out by Campanelli-Cea-Tedesco (CCT) in [20],the most general tensor consistent with the geometry (3.1) is µ µ T µ = diag(ρ, −p , −p , −p⊥ ) = T(I)ν + T(A)ν , ν µin which T(I)ν = diag(ρ, −p, −p, −p) is the standard isotropic energy-momentum tensor de- µscribing matter, radiation, or cosmological constant, and T(A)ν = diag(ρA , −pA , −pA . − pA )represents the anisotropic contribution which induces the planar symmetry, and can be givenby a uniform magnetic field, a cosmic string, a domain wall.1 In what follows, we shall con-sider a Universe matter dominated (p = 0) with planar symmetry generated by a uniformmagnetic field B(t). Magnetic fields have been observed in galaxies, galaxy clusters, and extragalactic struc-tures [22], and it is assumed that they may have a primordial origin [9, 23]. Due to thehigh conductivity of the primordial plasma, the magnetic field evolves as B(t) ∼ b−2 be-ing frozen into the plasma [21, 22] (see below). Denoting with ρB the magnetic fielddensity, the energy-momentum tensor for a uniform magnetic field can be written as µT(B) ν = ρB diag(1, −1, −1, −1). According to (2.7), we find that the energy density of the magnetic field is given by δ−1 B2 B2 ρB = . (3.3) 8π 2Λ4 1 Notice that the cases discussed in [20], i.e. the magnetic fields or the topological defects as responsible ofthe planar symmetry of the Universe, allow to explain the anomaly concerning the low quadruple amplitudeprobed by WMAP. The interesting analysis performed by CCT leads to the conclusion that an eccentricityat the decoupling of the order of e ∼ 10−2 is indeed able to explain the drastic reduction in the quadrupleanisotropy without affecting higher multiples of the angular power spectrum of the temperature anisotropies. –4–
  7. 7. The evolution law of the energy density ρB is given by [10] 4 ρB + ΘρB + 16πσab Πab = 0 , ˙ (3.4) 3where Θ is the volume expansion (contraction) scalar, σab is the shear, and Πab the anisotropicpressure of the fluid. In a highly conducting medium we still have with good approximationB ∼ b−2 provided that anisotropies can be neglected (this means that we neglect radiativeeffect of the primordial fluid).3.2 Space-time eccentricity and polarization angle JCAP03(2011)033We shall assume that photons propagate along the (positive) x-direction, so that kµ =(k0 , k1 , 0, 0) [7]. Gauge invariance assures that the polarization vector of photons has onlytwo independent components, which are orthogonal to the direction of the photons motion. ˆTherefore, we are only interested in how the components of the polarization vector (Iµ 2 andˆIµ3) change. It then follows that Υ σ defined in (2.17) assumes the form ˙ b c ˙ ˙ Υσ = −k0 δσ2 ε2 + δσ3 ε3 + bb(ε2 )2 + cc(εc )2 εσ ˙ (3.5) b c The components of Υσ given by (3.5) vanish in the case of a Friedman-Robertson-Walkergeometry. By defining the affine parameter λ which measures the distance along the line-element,kµ ≡ dxµ /dλ, one obtains that ε2 and ε3 satisfy the following geodesic equation (fromeq. (2.16)) dε2 ˙ b ˙ δ−1 0 b + k0 ε2 = − k ˙ + bb(ε2 )2 + cc(ε3 )2 ε2 ˙ dλ b δ b dε3 c˙ δ−1 0 c ˙ ˙ + k0 ε3 = − k + bb(ε2 )2 + cc(ε3 )2 ε3 ˙ dλ c δ cThese equations can be further simplified if one observes that k0 = dt/dλ 1 d ln(bε2 ) δ−1 ˙ b c˙ 0 D ln(bε2 ) = =− − + (cε3 )2 , (3.6) k dt δ b c 1 d ln(cε3 ) δ−1 c b ˙ ˙ 0 D ln(cε3 ) = =− − + (bε2 )2 . (3.7) k dt δ c bwhere D ≡ kµ µ. (3.8) ˙Moreover, the difference of the Hubble expansion rate b/b and c/c can be written as ˙ ˙ b c˙ 1 de2 − = 2 ) dt (3.9) b c 2(1 − ewhere we have introduced the eccentricity c 2 e(t) = 1− . (3.10) b –5–
  8. 8. The polarization angle α is defined as α = arctan[(cε3 )/(bε2 )]. Its time evolution isgoverned by equation δ−1 0 ˙ b c ˙ Dα − k − [(bε2 )3 + (cε3 )3 ] = 0 . (3.11) 2δ b c However, eqs. (3.6) and (3.7) implies that both bε2 and cε3 evolves as Ai + (δ − 1)fi (t),i = 2, 3 , where fi (t) is a function of time and Ai are constant of integration. Therefore, toleading order (δ − 1) eq. (3.11) reads ˙ JCAP03(2011)033 δ−1 K 0 b c ˙ Dα − k − + O((δ − 1)2 ) = 0 . (3.12) δ 2 b cwhere K = A2 + A3 . To compute the rotation of the polarization angle, one needs to evaluate α at two distinctinstants. In the cosmological context that we are considering is assumed that the referencetime t corresponds to the moment in which photons are emitted from the last scatteringsurface, and the instant t0 corresponds to the present time. One, therefore, gets2 δ−1 ∆α = α(t) − α(t0 ) = Ke2 (z) , (3.13) 4δwhere we have used e(t0 ) = 0 because of the normalization condition b(t0 ) = c(t0 ) = 1 andlog(1 − e2 ) ∼ −e2 . Notice that for δ = 1 or e2 = 0 there is no rotation of the polarization angle, as expected.Moreover, in the case in which photons propagate along the direction z-direction, so that¯ka = (ω0 , 0, 0, k), we find that the NLED have no effects as concerns to the rotation of thepolarization angle. As arises from (3.13), ∆α vanishes in the limit δ = 1, so that no rotation of thepolarization angle occurs in the standard electrodynamics, even if the background is describedby a geometry with planar symmetry. Moreover, even if δ = 1, ∆α still vanishes for anisotropic and homogeneous cosmology described by the Friedman-Robertson-Walker elementline (b = c) ds2 = dt2 − b2 (dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 ), because in such a case the eccentricity vanishes(this agrees with the fact that for this background the components of Υσ , eq. (3.5), are zero).3.3 Eccentricity evolution on cosmic timeThe time evolution of the eccentricity is determined from the Einstein field equations 1 d(ee) ˙ (ee)2 ˙ 2 dt + 3Hb (ee) + ˙ = 2κρB , (3.14) 1−e (1 − e2 )2 ˙where Hb = b/b. 2 Preliminary calculations [38] performed in terms of the electromagnetic field Fµν and of time evolution ofthe Stokes parameters I, Q, U, V (this approach is alternative to one presented in the section II of the paperwhere the analysis is performed in terms of the 4-potential Aµ ) yield again the result (3.13). Calculationsshow that the total flux I is not the same along the three spatial directions, as expected owing to the differentexpansion of the Universe along the x, y and z directions. Moreover the time evolution of the Stokes parametersturns out to be a mixture of each others, which reduce to standard results as δ = 1. The polarization angleis defined as 2α = arctan(U/Q). –6–
  9. 9. It is extremely difficult to exactly solve this equation. We shall therefore assume thatthe e2 -terms can be neglected. Since b(t) ∼ t2/3 during the matter-dominated era, eq. (3.14)implies (0) e2 (z) = 18Fδ (z)ΩB , (3.15)where we used 1 + z = b(t0 )/b(t), e(t0 ) = 0, and 3 3(1 + z)4δ−3 3 Fδ ≡ −2− + 2(1 + z) 2 . (3.16) (9 − 8δ)(4δ − 3) (9 − 8δ)(4δ − 3) (0)ΩB is the present energy density ratio JCAP03(2011)033 δ−1 2 δ−1 (0) ρB B 2 (t0 ) B 2 (t0 ) −11 B(t0 ) B 2 (t0 ) ΩB = = 10 , (3.17) ρcr 8πρcr 2Λ4 10−9 G 2Λ4with ρcr = 3Hb (t0 )/κ = 8.1h2 10−47 GeV4 (h = 0.72 is the little-h constant), and B(t0 ) is the 2present magnetic field amplitude. From eq. (3.13) then follows δ−1 ∆α = K e2 (zdec ) . (3.18) 4δwhere e(zdec )2 the eccentricity (3.15) evaluated at the decoupling z = 1100.3.4 Constraints on parameter Λ from extragalactic B strengths in an ellipsoidal UniverseTo make an estimate on the parameter δ, we need the order of amplitude of the presentmagnetic field strength B(t0 ). In this respect, observations indicate that there exist, incluster of galaxies, magnetic fields with field strength (10−7 − 10−6 ) G on 10 kpc - 1 Mpcscales, whereas in galaxies of all types and at cosmological distances, the order of magnitudeof the magnetic field strength is ∼ 10−6 G on (1-10) kpc scales. The present acceptedestimations is [22]3 B(t0 ) 10−9 G . (3.20)Moreover, for an ellipsoidal Universe the eccentricity satisfies the relation 0 ≤ e2 < 1. Thecondition e2 > 0 means Fδ > 0, with Fδ defined in (3.16). The function Fδ given by eq. (3.16)is represented in figure 1. Clearly the allowed region where Fδ is positive does depend onthe redshift z. On the other hand, the condition e2 < 1 poses constraints on the magneticfield strength. By requiring e2 < 10−1 (in order that our approximation to neglect e2 -termsin (3.14) holds), from eqs. (3.15)–(3.17) it follows B(t0 ) 9 × 10−8 G . (3.21) 3 The bound (3.19) is consistent with the estimation on the present value of the magnetic field strengthobtained from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). As before pointed out, the magnetic fields scales as B ∼ b−2where the scale factor does depend on the temperature T and on the total number of effectively massless −1/3degree of freedom g∗S as b ∝ g∗S T −1 [26]. The upper bound on the magnetic field at the epoch of theBBN is given by [27] B(TBBN ) 1011 G, where according to the standard cosmology TBBN = 109 K 0.1MeV.Referred to the present value of the magnetic field, the bound on B(TBBN ) becomes [20, 24] „ «2/3 „ «2 g∗S (T0 ) T0 B(t0 ) = B(TBBN ) 6 × 10−7 G , (3.19) g∗S (TBBN ) TBBNwhere T0 = T (t0 ) 2.35 × 10−4 eV and g∗S (TBBN ) g∗S (T0 ) 3.91 [26]. –7–
  10. 10. F∆ 73 000 72 800 z 1100 72 600 72 400 ∆ 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 JCAP03(2011)033 F∆ 1. 106 800 000 600 000 z 1100 400 000 200 000 ∆ 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 200 000 400 000Figure 1. In this plot is represented Fδ vs δ for δ ≤ 1 (upper plot) and δ ≥ 1 (lower plot). Thecondition that the eccentricity is positive follows for Fδ > 0. It must also be noted that such magnetic fields does not affect the expansion rate of theuniverse and the CMB fluctuations because the corresponding energy density is negligiblewith respect to the energy density of CMB.4 Light propagation in NLED and birefringenceIn this section we discuss the modification of the light velocity (birefringence effect) for themodel of nonlinear electrodynamics L(X, Y ). We shall follow the paper [32] (see also [2, 33]),in which is studied the propagation of wave in local nonlinear electrodynamics by making useof the Fresnel equation for the wave covectors kµ . The latter are related to phase velocity k0 ˆ ˆv of the wave propagation by the relation ki = ki , where ki are the components of the vunit 3-covector. Thus, in what follows we confine ourselves to the phase velocity. It isstraightforward to show that for the models under consideration (2.4) the group velocity isalways greater or equal to the phase velocity [32]. The main result in ref. [32] corresponds to the optic metric tensors µν √ g1 = X gµν + (Y + Y − X Z)tµν , (4.1) µν µν √ µν g2 = X g + (Y − Y − X Z)t , (4.2)which describe the effect of birefringent light propagation in a generic model for nonlinearelectrodynamics. The quantities X , Y, and Z are related to the derivatives of the LagrangianL(X, Y ) with respect to the invariant X and Y , and tµν = F µα F ν . α –8–
  11. 11. For our model, expressed by eq. (2.4), the quantities X , Y, and Z are given by 2 γ 2 δ2 2(δ−1) γ 2 δ2 X ≡ K1 = X , Y ≡ K1 K2 = (δ − 1)X 2(δ−1)−1 , Z = 0, 4 4 ∂L ∂2Lwhere K1 = 4 and K2 = 8 , while the metrics (4.1) and (4.2) are ∂X ∂X 2 µν µν g1 = K1 (K1 gµν + 2K2 tµν ) , g2 = K1 gµν . 2As a consequence, birefringence is present in our model. This means that some photons prop- JCAP03(2011)033agate along the standard null rays of spacetime metric gµν , whereas other photons propagatealong rays null with respect to the optical metric K1 gµν + 2K2 tµν . The velocities of the light wave can be derived by using the light cone equations (effectivemetric) µν µν g1 kµ kν = 0 and g2 kµ kν = 0 .It is worthwhile to report the general expression for the average value of the velocity scalar [32] 4 T 00 (Y + Zt00 ) 2 2Y 2 − X Z + Z(t00 )2 + 2YZt00 v2 = 1 + + S2 3 X + 2Yt00 + Z(t00 )2 3 [X + 2Yt00 + Z(t00 )2 ]2where T 00 = −t00 + X = (E2 + B2 )/2 (t00 = −E2 ), and S2 = δµν t0µ t0ν , where S = E × B γ γ γis the energy flux density. The subscript γ is introduced for distinguishing the photon fieldfrom the magnetic background. The value of the mean velocity has been derived averagingover the directions of propagation and polarization. For our model, we get v2 1 + (δ − 1)R + (δ − 1)2 S , (4.3) 4 T 00 4 S2 R≡ , S= 3 4X + 2(δ − 1)t00 3 [4X + 2(δ − 1)t00 ]2 The high accuracy of optical experiments in laboratories requires tiny deviations fromstandard electrodynamics. This condition is satisfied provided |δ − 1| 1. Moreover, thereare two aspects related to (4.3): • The average velocity does depend on (only) the parameter δ, so that γ or Λ in our model can be fixed independently. This task is addressed in the next section. • Because R is positive, one has to demand that δ − 1 < 0 in order that v 2 < 1.The above considerations hold for flat spacetime, and can be straightforwardly generalizedto the case of curved space time [32].5 Stokes parameters, rotated CMB spectra and constraints on parameter ΛThe propagation of photons can be described in terms of the Stokes parameters I, Q, U ,and V . The parameters Q and V can be decomposed in gradient-like (G) and a curl-like(C) components [30] (G and C are also indicated in literature as E and B), and characterizethe orthogonal modes of the linear polarization (they depend on the axes where the linear –9–
  12. 12. polarization are defined, contrarily to the physical observable I and V which are independenton the choice of coordinate system). The polarization G and C and the temperature (T ) are crucial because they allow tocompletely characterize the CMB on the sky. If the Universe is isotropic and homogeneousand the electrodynamics is the standard one, then the T C and GC cross-correlations powerspectrum vanish owing to the absence of the cosmological birefringence. In presence of thelatter, on the contrary, the polarization vector of each photons turns out to be rotated bythe angle ∆α, giving rise to T C and GC correlations. Using the expression for the power spectra ClXY ∼ dk[k2 ∆X (t0 )∆Y (t0 )], where X, Y =T, G, C and ∆X are the polarization perturbations whose time evolution is controlled by theBoltzman equation, one can derive the correlation for T , G and C in terms of ∆α [14]4 JCAP03(2011)033 Cl T C = ClT C sin 2∆α , Cl T G = ClT G cos 2∆α , (5.1) 1 Cl GC = C GG − ClCC sin 4∆α , (5.2) 2 l Cl GG = ClGG cos2 2∆α + ClCC sin2 2∆α , (5.3) CC Cl = ClCC 2 cos 2∆α + ClGG sin2 2∆α . (5.4) The prime indicates the rotated quantities. Notice that the CMB temperature powerspectrum remains unchanged under the rotation. Experimental constraints on ∆α have been put from the observation of CMB polariza-tion by WMAP and BOOMERanG [14, 25]. ∆α = (−2.4 ± 1.9)◦ = [−0.0027π, −0.0238π] . (5.5)The combination of eqs. (5.5) and (3.18), and the laboratory constraints |δ − 1| 1 allow toestimate Λ.5.1 Estimative of ΛTo estimate Λ we shall write B = 10−9+b G b 2, (5.6) 3/2 Fδ = 2z z = 1100 1. (5.7)The bound (5.5) can be therefore rewritten in the form 10−3 10−2 |δ − 1| , (5.8) A Awhere 4 δ−1 9K (0) −6+2b −56+2b GeV A≡ Fδ ΩB K 10 0.24 × 10 . (5.9) 14 ΛThe condition |δ − 1| 1 requires A 1. It turns out convenient to set A = 10a , a > O(1) . (5.10) 4 Notice that in ref. [29] the analysis did not include the rotation of the CMB spectra, and in ref. [30] theanalysis focused on only the TC and TG modes. Other approximated approaches to discuss the rotation anglecan be found in refs. [28, 31]. – 10 –
  13. 13. Log GeV Log GeV ∆ 1 10 7 35 7 ∆ 1 10 25 b 0 30 b 1 a 4 25 a 4 20 x 19 20 x 19 15 15 10 10 5 K K 22 026.2 22 026.2 22 026.3 22 026.3 2980.91 2980.92 2980.93 2980.94 Log GeV Log GeV 1000 ∆ 1 10 10 ∆ 1 10 10 JCAP03(2011)033 b 0 3000 b 1 500 a 7 a 7 2000 x 19 K 442 413 442 413 442 414 442 414 1000 x 19 500 K 59 874.1 59 874.1 59 874.1 59 874.1 59 874.2 59 874.2 1000 1000Figure 2. Λ vs K for different values of the parameter δ − 1, a and b. The parameter a is related tothe range in which δ − 1 varies, i.e. −10−3−a δ − 1 −10−2−a , while b parameterizes the magneticfield strength B = 10−9+b G. The red-shift is z = 1100. Plot refers to Planck scale Λ = 10Λx GeV,with Λx=P l = 19. Similar plots can be also obtained for GUT (ΛGUT = 16) and EW (ΛEW = 3)scales.From eqs. (5.9) and (5.10) it then follows 1 − 4(δ−1) −14+b/2 1 a−2b+6 Λ = 10 10 GeV , (5.11) Kor equivalently Λ b (−1) Log = −14 + + [a − 2b + 6 − LogK] . (5.12) GeV 2 4(δ − 1) The constant K can now be determined to fix the characteristic scale Λ. WritingΛ = 10Λx GeV, where Λx=P l = 19, ΛGUT = 16 and ΛEW = 3 for the Planck, GUT andelectroweak (EW) scales, respectively, eq. (5.12) yields 4(δ − 1)Λx K = 10a−2b+6− , ≡ 1. (5.13) 14 − b/2In figure 2 is plotted Log(Λ/GeV) vs K for fixed values of the parameters a, b and δ − 1.Similar plots can be derived for GUT and EW scales6 Discussion and closing remarksIn conclusion, in this paper we have calculated, in the framework of the nonlinear electro-dynamics, the rotation of the polarization angle of photons propagating in a Universe withplanar symmetry. We have found that the rotation of the polarization angle does depend on – 11 –
  14. 14. the parameter δ, which characterizes the degree of nonlinearity of the electrodynamics. Thisparameter can be constrained by making use of recent data from WMAP and BOOMERang.Results show that the CMB polarization signature, if detected by future CMB observations,would be an important test in favor of models going beyond the standard model, includingthe nonlinear electrodynamics. Some comments are in order. In our investigation we have assumed that the planar-symmetry is induced by a magnetic field. This is not the unique case. In fact, a planargeometry can also be induced by topological defects, such as cosmic string (cs) or domainwall (dw) [20]. In such a case, one has [20] 2 (0) 3 JCAP03(2011)033 e2 = Ωdw + 4(1 + z)3/2 − 7 , (6.1) 7 (1 + z)2 dwand 4 3 e2 = Ω(0) cs + 2(1 + z)3/2 − 5 , (6.2) 5 (1 + z) cs (0)where are the present energy densities, in units of critical density, of the domain wall Ω(dw,cs)and cosmic string. At the decoupling, one obtains (0) Ωdw e2 (zdec ) 10−4 , (6.3) 5 × 10−7 dwand (0) Ωcs e2 (zdec ) 10−4 . (6.4) 4 × 10−7 csThe analysis leading to determine the bounds on δ from CMB polarization goes along theline above traced. Moreover, a complete analysis of the planar-geometry is required to fix the parameterδ. From a side, in our calculations in fact we have assumed that the Universe is matterdominated. A more precise calculation should require to use (to solve (3.14)) the relation z 1 1+z t= dz , (6.5) H0 0 Ωm (1 + z)3 + ΩΛwhere Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7 and H0 = 72 km sec−1 Mpc−1 (z = 1100). From the other side,a complete study of the eq. (3.14) is necessary in order to put stringent constraints on theparameter δ. As closing remark, we would like to point out that the approach to analyze the CMBpolarization in the context of NLED that we have presented above can also be applied todiscuss the extreme-scale alignments of quasar polarization vectors [36], a cosmic phenomenonthat was discovered by Hutsemekers [34] in the late 1990’s, who presented paramount evidencefor very large-scale coherent orientations of quasar polarization vectors (see also Hutsemekersand Lamy [35]).5 As far as the authors of the present paper are awared of, the issue has 5 Hutsemekers and Lamy, and collaborators, have presented, in a long series of papers (not all cited here)published over the period 1998 to 2008, a tantamount evidence that the alignment of quasar polarizationvectors is a factual cosmological enigma deserving to be properly addressed in the framework of the standardmodel of cosmology. The papers quoted here are intended to call to the attention of attentive readers theparamount evidence presenting this cosmic phenomenon. – 12 –
  15. 15. remained as an open cosmological connundrum, with a few workers in the field having focusedtheir attention on to those intriguing observations. Nonetheless, we quote “en passant” thatin a recent paper [37] Hutsemekers et al. discussed the possibility of such phenomenon to beunderstood by invoking very light pseudoscalar particles mixing with photons. They claimedthat the observations of a sample of 355 quasars with significant optical polarization presentstrong evidence that quasar polarization vectors are not randomly oriented over the sky, asnaturally expected. Those authors suggest that the phenomenon can be understood in termsof a cosmological-size effect, where the dichroism and birefringence predicted by a mixingbetween photons and very light pseudoscalar particles within a background magnetic fieldcan qualitatively reproduce the observations. They also point out at a finding indicating that JCAP03(2011)033circular polarization measurements could help constrain their mechanism. Since cosmic magnetic fields have a typical strength of ∼ 10−7 − 10−8 G, on average,for a characteristic distance scale of 10-30 Mpc, it is our view that such phenomenology canbe understood in the framework of a nonlinear description of photon propagation (NLED)over cosmic background magnetic fields and the use of a planar symmetry for the space-time.Specifically, phenomena involving light propagation as dichroism and birefringence can beinscribed on to the framework of Heisenberg-Euler NLED, which predicts the occurrence ofbirefringence on cosmological distance scales. We plan to present such analysis in a forth-coming communication [38].AcknowledgmentsThe authors express their gratitude to the referee for relevant comments. The authors alsothank Prof. Xin-min Zhang, and Dr. Mingzhe Li for reading the manuscript and theirsuggestions. H.J.M.C. thanks ICRANet International Coordinating Center, Pescara, Italyfor hospitality during the early stages of this work. G.L. acknowledges the financial supportof MIUR through PRIN 2006 Prot. 1006023491− 003, and of research funds provided by theUniversity of Salerno. H.J.M.C. is fellow of the Ceara State Foundation for the Developmentof Science and Technology (FUNCAP), Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.References [1] M. Born, Modified Field Equations with a Finite Radius of the Electron, Nature 132 (1933) 282; On the Quantum Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 143 (1934) 410; M. Born and L. Infeld, Electromagnetic Mass, Nature 132 (1933) 970; M. Born and L. Infeld, Foundations of the New Field Theory, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 144 (1934) 425; W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons, Z. Phys. 98 (1936) 714 [physics/0605038]. J.S. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664 [SPIRES]. [2] S.A. Gutierrez, A.L. Dudley and J.F. Plebanski, Signals and discontinuities in general relativistic nonlinear electrodynamics, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 2835 [SPIRES]; J.F. Plebanski, Lectures on nonlinear electrodynamics, monograph of the Niels Bohr Institute, Nordita, Copenhagen (1968). [3] P.V. Moniz, Quintessence and Born-Infeld cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 103501 [SPIRES]; R. Garcia-Salcedo and N. Breton, Born-Infeld cosmologies, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 4341 [gr-qc/0004017] [SPIRES]; – 13 –
  16. 16. R. Garcia-Salcedo and N. Breton, Born-Infeld inflates Bianchi cosmologies, Class. Quant. Grav. 20 (2003) 5425 [hep-th/0212130] [SPIRES]; R. Garcia-Salcedo and N. Breton, Singularity-free Bianchi spaces with nonlinear electrodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) 4783; V.V. Dyadichev, D.V. Galt’tsov, A.G. Zorin and M.Yu. Zotov, NonAbelian Born-Infeld cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 084007; D.V. Vollick, Anisotropic Born-Infeld cosmologies, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35 (2003) 1511; L. Hollenstein and F.S.N. Lobo, Exact solutions of f(R) gravity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 124007 [arXiv:0807.2325] [SPIRES]; H.J.M. Cuesta, J.M. Salim and M. Novello, Cosmological redshift and nonlinear electrodynamics propagation of photons from distant sources, arXiv:0710.5188 [SPIRES]; K. Bamba and S. Nojiri, Cosmology in non-minimal Yang-Mills/Maxwell theory, JCAP03(2011)033 arXiv:0811.0150 [SPIRES]; K. Bamba and S.D. Odintsov, Inflation and late-time cosmic acceleration in non-minimal Maxwell-F (R) gravity and the generation of large-scale magnetic fields, JCAP 04 (2008) 024 [arXiv:0801.0954] [SPIRES]. [4] E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 5056 [gr-qc/9911046] [SPIRES]; E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, New regular black hole solution from nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 464 (1999) 25 [hep-th/9911174] [SPIRES]; E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Nonsingular charged black hole solution for nonlinear source, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999) 629 [gr-qc/9911084] [SPIRES]; N. Breton, Stability of nonlinear magnetic black holes, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 044015 [hep-th/0502217] [SPIRES]; K.A. Bronnikov, Regular magnetic black holes and monopoles from nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 044005 [gr-qc/0006014] [SPIRES]; A. Burinskii and S.R. Hildebrandt, New type of regular black holes and particlelike solutions from NED, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 104017 [hep-th/0202066] [SPIRES]; M. Cataldo and A. Garcia, Regular (2+1)-dimensional black holes within non-linear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 084003 [hep-th/0004177] [SPIRES]. [5] A.V.B. Arellano and F.S.N. Lobo, Evolving wormhole geometries within nonlinear electrodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 5811 [gr-qc/0608003] [SPIRES]; A.V.B. Arellano and F.S.N. Lobo, Non-existence of static, spherically symmetric and stationary, axisymmetric traversable wormholes coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 7229 [gr-qc/0604095] [SPIRES]; K.A. Bronnikov and S.V. Grinyok, Electrically charged and neutral wormhole instability in scalar-tensor gravity, Grav. Cosmol. 11 (2006) 75; F. Baldovin, M. Novello, S.E. Perez Bergliaffa and J.M. Salim, A nongravitational wormhole, Class. Quant. Grav. 17 (2000) 3265 [gr-qc/0003075] [SPIRES]. [6] M. Li, J.-Q. Xia, H. Li and X. Zhang, Cosmological CPT violation, baryo/leptogenesis and CMB polarization, Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 357 [hep-ph/0611192] [SPIRES]. [7] M. Li and X. Zhang, Cosmological CPT violating effect on CMB polarization, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 103516 [arXiv:0810.0403] [SPIRES]. [8] H.J. Mosquera Cuesta and G. Lambiase, Primordial magnetic fields and gravitational baryogenesis in nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 023013 [arXiv:0907.3678] [SPIRES]. [9] K.E. Kunze, Primordial magnetic fields and nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 023530 [arXiv:0710.2435] [SPIRES].[10] J.D. Barrow, R. Maartens and C.G. Tsagas, Cosmology with inhomogeneous magnetic fields, Phys. Rept. 449 (2007) 131 [astro-ph/0611537] [SPIRES]. – 14 –
  17. 17. [11] L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G.L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, Inflation-Produced Magnetic Fields in Nonlinear Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 043001 [arXiv:0710.2993] [SPIRES]; L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G.L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, Inflation-Produced Magnetic Fields in Rn F 2 and IF 2 models, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 123002 [arXiv:0802.2630] [SPIRES].[12] A.K. Harding, M.G. Baring and P.L. Gonthier, Photon-splitting Cascades in Gamma-Ray Pulsars and the Spectrum of PSR 1509-58, Astrophys. J. 476 (1997) 246; M.G. Baring and A.K. Harding, Radio Quiet Pulsars with Ultra-Strong Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J. Lett. 507 (1998) L55; M.G. Baring, Magnetic photon splitting: The S-matrix formulation in the Landau representation, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 016003 [hep-th/0003186] [SPIRES]; A.K. Harding and D. Lai, Physics of Strongly Magnetized Neutron Stars, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69 JCAP03(2011)033 (2006) 2631; H.J. Mosquera Cuesta and J.M. Salim, Nonlinear electrodynamics and the gravitational redshift of pulsars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 354 (2004) L55 [astro-ph/0403045] [SPIRES]; H.J. Mosquera Cuesta and J.M. Salim, Nonlinear electrodynamics and the surface redshift of pulsars, Astrophys. J. 608 (2004) 925 [astro-ph/0307513] [SPIRES]; H. J. Mosquera Cuesta, J. A. de Freitas Pacheco and J. M. Salim, Einstein’s gravitational lensing and nonlinear electrodynamics, Int. J. Math. Phys. A 21 (2006) 43; J-P. Mbelek, H. J. Mosquera Cuesta, M. Novello and J. M. Salim, Nonlinear electrodynamics and the Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft anomaly, Eur. Phys. Lett. 77 (2007) 19001.[13] J.-Q. Xia, H. Li and X. Zhang, Probing CPT Violation with CMB Polarization Measurements, Phys. Lett. B 687 (2010) 129 [arXiv:0908.1876] [SPIRES]; B. Feng, M. Li, J.-Q. Xia, X. Chen and X. Zhang, Searching for CPT violation with WMAP and BOOMERANG, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 221302 [astro-ph/0601095] [SPIRES].[14] G. Gubitosi, L. Pagano, G. Amelino-Camelia, A. Melchiorri and A. Cooray, A Constraint on Planck-scale Modifications to Electrodynamics with CMB polarization data, JCAP 08 (2009) 021 [arXiv:0904.3201] [SPIRES]; M. Das, S. Mohanty and A.R. Prasanna, Constraints on background torsion from birefringence of CMB polarization, arXiv:0908.0629 [SPIRES]; P. Cabella, P. Natoli and J. Silk, Constraints on CPT violation from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and three years polarization data: A wavelet analysis, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 123014; F.R. Urban and A.R. Zhitnitsky, The P-Parity odd Universe, Dark Energy and QCD, arXiv:1011.2425; G.-C. Liu, S. Lee and K.-W. Ng, Effect on Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization of Coupling of Quintessence to Pseudoscalar Formed from the Electromagnetism Field and Its Dual, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 161303; Y.-Z. Chu, D.M.Jacobs, Y. Ng and D. Starkman, It is hard to learn how gravity and electromagnetism couple, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 064022; S. di Serego Alighieri, Cosmological birefringence: An Astrophysical Test of Fundamental Physics, arXiv:1011.4865.[15] R. Sung and P. Coles, Temperature and Polarization Patterns in Anisotropic Cosmologies, arXiv:1004.0957 [SPIRES].[16] H. Pagels and E. Tomboulis, Vacuum of the Quantum Yang-Mills Theory and Magnetostatics, Nucl. Phys. B 143 (1978) 485 [SPIRES]; H. Arodz, M. Slusarczyk and A. Wereszcynski, Electrostatics of Pagels-Tomboulis effective model, Acta. Polon. B 32 (2001) 2155; M. Slusarczyk and A. Wereszcynski, On (2+1)-dimensional topologically massive nonlinear electrodynamics, Acta. Polon. B 34 (2003) 2623.[17] J.P. Mbelek and H.J. Mosquera Cuesta, Nonlinear electrodynamics and the gravitational redshift of pulsars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 389 (2008) 199. – 15 –
  18. 18. [18] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman Press, San Francisco (1973).[19] A.H. Taub, Empty space-times admitting a three parameter group of motions, Annals Math. 53 (1951) 472 [SPIRES].[20] L. Campanelli, P. Cea and L. Tedesco, Cosmic Microwave Background Quadrupole and Ellipsoidal Universe, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 063007 [arXiv:0706.3802] [SPIRES]; L. Campanelli, P. Cea and L. Tedesco, Ellipsoidal Universe Can Solve The CMB Quadrupole Problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 131302 [astro-ph/0606266] [SPIRES].[21] E.N. Parker, Cosmological Magnetic Fields, Oxford University Press, Oxford England (1979); Ya. B. Zeldovich, A.A. Ruzmaikin and D.D. Sokoloff, Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics, Gordon JCAP03(2011)033 & Breach, NY (1980).[22] M. Giovannini, The magnetized universe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13 (2004) 391 [astro-ph/0312614] [SPIRES]; L.M. Widrow, Origin of Galactic and Extragalactic Magnetic Fields, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 775 [astro-ph/0207240] [SPIRES]; D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe, Phys. Rept. 348 (2001) 163 [astro-ph/0009061] [SPIRES]; P.P. Kronberg, Extragalactic magnetic fields, Rep. Prog. Phys. 57 (1994) 325; A.D. Dolgov, Generation of magnetic fields in cosmology, hep-ph/0110293 [SPIRES]; J.-P. Valle´, Cosmic magnetic fields - as observed in the Universe, in galactic dynamos, and in e the Milk Way, New Astron. Rev. 48 (2004) 763.[23] M.S. Turner and L.M. Widrow, Inflation Produced, Large Scale Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2743 [SPIRES]; L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G.L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, Inflation-Produced Magnetic Fields in Nonlinear Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 043001 [arXiv:0710.2993] [SPIRES]; L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G.L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, Inflation-Produced Magnetic Fields in Rn F 2 and IF 2 models, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 123002 [arXiv:0802.2630] [SPIRES]; T. Vachaspati, Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Lett. B 265 (1991) 258 [SPIRES]; B.-l. Cheng and A.V. Olinto, Primordial magnetic fields generated in the quark-hadron transition, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2421 [SPIRES]; A.P. Martin and A.-C. Davis, The Stability of primordial magnetic fields produced by phase transitions, Phys. Lett. B 360 (1995) 71 [astro-ph/9507057] [SPIRES]; T.W.B. Kibble and A. Vilenkin, Phase equilibration in bubble collisions, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 679 [hep-ph/9501266] [SPIRES]; M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini and G. Veneziano, Primordial magnetic fields from string cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3796 [hep-th/9504083] [SPIRES]; M. Gasperini, A new mechanism for the generation of primordial seeds for the cosmic magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 047301 [astro-ph/0009476] [SPIRES]; M. Giovannini and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Primordial magnetic fields from inflation?, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 103512 [hep-ph/0004269] [SPIRES]; G.B. Field and S.M. Carroll, Cosmological magnetic fields from primordial helicity, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 103008 [astro-ph/9811206] [SPIRES]; B. Ratra, Cosmological ’seed’ magnetic field from inflation, Astrophys. J. Lett. 391 (1992) L1; E.A. Calzetta, A. Kandus and F.D. Mazzitelli, Primordial magnetic fields induced by cosmological particle creation, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 7139 [astro-ph/9707220] [SPIRES]; G. Lambiase and A.R. Prasanna, Gauge invariant wave equations in curved space-times and primordial magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063502 [gr-qc/0407071] [SPIRES]; G. Lambiase, S. Mohanty and G. Scarpetta, Magnetic field amplification in f(R) theories of gravity, JCAP 07 (2008) 019 [SPIRES]; – 16 –
  19. 19. R. Opher and U.F. Wichoski, Origin of Magnetic Fields in the Universe Due to NonminimalGravitational-Electromagnetic Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 787 [astro-ph/9701220][SPIRES];K. Bamba, Property of the spectrum of large-scale magnetic fields from inflation,Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 083516 [astro-ph/0703647] [SPIRES];K. Bamba, C.Q. Geng and S.H. Ho, Large-scale magnetic fields from inflation due toChern-Simons-like effective interaction, JCAP 11 (2008) 013 [arXiv:0806.1856] [SPIRES];F.D. Mazzitelli and F.M. Spedalieri, Scalar electrodynamics and primordial magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6694 [astro-ph/9505140] [SPIRES];W.D. Garretson, G.B. Field and S.M. Carroll, Primordial magnetic fields frompseudoGoldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5346 [hep-ph/9209238] [SPIRES];S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field and R. Jackiw, Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification JCAP03(2011)033of Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1231 [SPIRES];D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radiogalaxies and the cosmic microwave background, Phys. Lett. B 289 (1992) 67 [SPIRES];S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, A. Notari and A. Riotto, Large-scale magnetic fields from densityperturbations, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 043502 [astro-ph/0410687] [SPIRES];A.L. Maroto, Primordial magnetic fields from metric perturbations,Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 083006 [hep-ph/0008288] [SPIRES];E. Fenu and R. Durrer, Interactions of cosmological gravitational waves and magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 024021 [arXiv:0809.1383] [SPIRES];C.G. Tsagas, P.K.S. Dunsby and M. Marklund, Gravitational wave amplification of seedmagnetic fields, Phys. Lett. B 561 (2003) 17 [astro-ph/0112560] [SPIRES];C.G. Tsagas, Resonant amplification of magnetic seed fields by gravitational waves in the earlyuniverse, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 123509 [astro-ph/0508556] [SPIRES];A.D. Dolgov and D. Grasso, Generation of cosmic magnetic fields and gravitational waves atneutrino decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 011301 [astro-ph/0106154] [SPIRES];J.D. Barrow and C.G. Tsagas, Slow decay of magnetic fields in open Friedmann universes,Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 107302 [arXiv:0803.0660] [SPIRES];O. Bertolami and D.F. Mota, Primordial magnetic fields via spontaneous breaking of Lorentzinvariance, Phys. Lett. B 455 (1999) 96 [gr-qc/9811087] [SPIRES];T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, Large scale structure from wiggly cosmic strings,Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 1057 [SPIRES];M. Joyce and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Primordial magnetic fields, right electrons and the Abeliananomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1193 [astro-ph/9703005] [SPIRES];A. Dolgov and J. Silk, Electric charge asymmetry of the universe and magnetic field generation,Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3144 [SPIRES];A. Dolgov, Breaking Of Conformal Invariance And Electromagnetic Field Generation In TheUniverse, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2499 [hep-ph/9301280] [SPIRES];V.B. Semikoz and D.D. Sokoloff, Large-scale magnetic field generation by alpha-effect driven bycollective neutrino-plasma interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 131301 [astro-ph/0312567][SPIRES];J.H. Piddington, Pulsar and Magnetic Amplification, Aust. J. Phys. 23 (1970) 731;L.M. Widrow, Origin of Galactic and Extragalactic Magnetic Fields,Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 775 [astro-ph/0207240] [SPIRES];D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe,Phys. Rept. 348 (2001) 163 [astro-ph/0009061] [SPIRES];K. Enqvist, Primordial magnetic fields, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7 (1998) 331[astro-ph/9803196] [SPIRES];S. Koh and C.H. Lee, CMBR anisotropy with primordial magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 083509 [astro-ph/0006357] [SPIRES];J.D. Barrow, P.G. Ferreira and J. Silk, Constraints on a Primordial Magnetic Field,Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3610 [astro-ph/9701063] [SPIRES]; – 17 –
  20. 20. J.D. Barrow, Cosmological limits on slightly skew stresses, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7451 [gr-qc/9701038] [SPIRES]; M. Giovannini, Cosmic microwave background polarization, Faraday rotation and stochastic gravity-waves backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 3198 [hep-th/9706201] [SPIRES]; T. Kolatt, Determination of the Primordial Magnetic Field Power Spectrum by Faraday Rotation Correlations, Astrophys. J. 495 (1998) 564 [astro-ph/9704243] [SPIRES]; D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Revisiting Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields, Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 73 [astro-ph/9602055] [SPIRES]; P.J. Kernan, G.D. Starkman and T. Vachaspati, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 7207 [astro-ph/9509126] [SPIRES]; B.-l. Cheng, A.V. Olinto, D.N. Schramm and J.W. Truran, Constraints on the strength of primordial magnetic fields from big bang nucleosynthesis revisited, JCAP03(2011)033 Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4714 [astro-ph/9606163] [SPIRES]; B.-l. Cheng, D.N. Schramm and J.W. Truran, Constraints on the strength of a primordial magnetic field from big bang nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 5006 [astro-ph/9308041] [SPIRES]; G. Greenstein, Primordial Helium Production in “Magnetic” Cosmologies, Nature 223 (1969) 938.[24] H.R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1315.[25] J.-Q. Xia, H. Li, G.-B. Zhao and X. Zhang, Testing CPT Symmetry with CMB Measurements: Update after WMAP5, Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) L61 [arXiv:0803.2350] [SPIRES].[26] E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, The Early Universe, addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1990).[27] D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Revisiting Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields, Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 73 [astro-ph/9602055] [SPIRES].[28] W. Hu, U. Seljak, M.J. White and M. Zaldarriaga, A Complete Treatment of CMB Anisotropies in a FRW Universe, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 3290 [astro-ph/9709066] [SPIRES].[29] A. Lue, L.-M. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Cosmological signature of new parity-violating interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1506 [astro-ph/9812088] [SPIRES].[30] M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins, Statistics of Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7368 [astro-ph/9611125] [SPIRES].[31] B. Feng, H. Li, M.-z. Li and X.-m. Zhang, Gravitational leptogenesis and its signatures in CMB, Phys. Lett. B 620 (2005) 27 [hep-ph/0406269] [SPIRES].[32] Y.N. Obukhov and G.F. Rubilar, Fresnel analysis of the wave propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 024042 [gr-qc/0204028] [SPIRES].[33] M. Novello, V.A. De Lorenci, J.M. Salim and R. Klippert, Geometrical aspects of light propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 045001 [gr-qc/9911085] [SPIRES]; V.A. De Lorenci, R. Klippert, M. Novello and J.M. Salim, Light propagation in non-linear electrodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 134 [gr-qc/0005049] [SPIRES]; V.A. De Lorenci and M.A. Souza, Electromagnetic wave propagation inside a material medium: An Effective geometry interpretation, Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 417 [gr-qc/0102022] [SPIRES]; V.A. De Lorenci and R. Klippert, Analog gravity from electrodynamics in non-linear media, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 064027 [gr-qc/0107008] [SPIRES]; A. Corichi et al., Quantum collapse of a small dust shell, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 064006 [gr-qc/0109057] [SPIRES]; J.P.S. Lemos and R. Kerner, The Born-Infeld electromagnetism in Kaluza-Klein theory, Grav. Cosmol. 6 (2000) 49; – 18 –
  21. 21. I.T. Drummond and S.J. Hathrell, QED Vacuum Polarization in a Background Gravitational Field and Its Effect on the Velocity of Photons, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 343 [SPIRES]; J.I. Latorre, P. Pascual and R. Tarrach, Speed of light in nontrivial vacua, Nucl. Phys. B 437 (1995) 60 [hep-th/9408016] [SPIRES]; G.M. Shore, ’Faster than light’ photons in gravitational fields: Causality, anomalies and horizons, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 379 [gr-qc/9504041] [SPIRES]; W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Light propagation in non-trivial QED vacua, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 025004 [hep-ph/9804375] [SPIRES]; H. Gies, Light cone condition for a thermalized QED vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 105033 [hep-ph/9906303] [SPIRES]; D.I. Blokhintsev and V.V. Orlov, ??, Zh. Eksp. Fiz. 25 (1953) 513; M. Lutzky and J.S. Toll, Formation of Discontinuities in Classical Nonlinear Electrodynamics, JCAP03(2011)033 Phys. Rev. 113 (1959) 1649 [SPIRES]; H.S. Ibarguen, A. Garcia and J. Plebanski, Signals in nonlinear electrodynamics invariant under duality rotations, J. Math. Phys. 30 (1989) 2689 [SPIRES]; S.L. Adler, Photon splitting and photon dispersion in a strong magnetic field, Annals Phys. 67 (1971) 599 [SPIRES]; Z. Bialynicka-Birula and I. Bialynicki-Birula, Nonlinear effects in Quantum Electrodynamics. Photon propagation and photon splitting in an external field, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 2341 [SPIRES]; W.-y. Tsai and T. Erber, The Propagation of Photons in Homogeneous Magnetic Fields: Index of Refraction, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1132 [SPIRES]; M. Novello, S.E. Perez Bergliaffa and J. Salim, Nonlinear electrodynamics and the acceleration of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 127301 [astro-ph/0312093] [SPIRES].[34] D. Hutsemekers, Evidence for very large-scale coherent orientations of quasar polarization vectors, Astron. Astrophys 332 (1998) 410.[35] D. Hutsemekers and H. Lamy, The optical polarization of radio-loud and radio-intermediate broad absorption line quasi-stellar objects, Astron. Astrophys. 358 (2000) 835.[36] D. Hutsemekers, R. Cabanac, H. Lamy and D. Sluse, Mapping extreme-scale alignments of quasar polarization vectors, Astron. Astrophys. 441 (2005) 915 [astro-ph/0507274] [SPIRES].[37] D. Hutsemekers et al., Large-Scale Alignments of Quasar Polarization Vectors: Evidence at Cosmological Scales for Very Light Pseudoscalar Particles Mixing with Photons?, arXiv:0809.3088 [SPIRES].[38] H. J. Mosquera Cuesta and G. Lambiase, Effects of NLED on CMB physics, in preparation (2011). – 19 –