Theoretical Physics

Gravitational Law in Extra

Dimensions

SA104X Degree Project in Engineering Physics

KTH Stockholm

Michael Bhlmann
890724-T296
mbu@kth.se

Supervisor: Tommy Ohlsson

Department of Theoretical Physics

Royal Institute of Technology KTH
Stockholm, Sweden

May 21, 2013

 Abstract
Some recent theories which try to amend shortcomings of current models in physics suggest
the existence of additional dimensions. Such extra dimensions would modify the inverse
square law of gravity.
A short overview over gravitational theory is presented and some of the extensions to
general relativity and models which use extra dimensions, so-called KaluzaKlein theories
are discussed. A derivation of the correction to Newtons gravitational law due to extra
dimensions is performed and yields an additional term of Yukawa-type. We determine its
interaction range and strength and derive the gravitational constant in the extra dimensional
space. Experiments which probe Newtons inverse square law are presented and recent
results and constraints on corrections of Yukawa-type are discussed.
This report is part of my bachelor degree project in theoretical physics at KTH.
Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 Development of Gravitational Theory 6

2.1 Newtonian Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Beyond General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Extradimensional Theories 9
3.1 KaluzaKlein Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1 UED: Universal extra dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2 ADD Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3 RS Model: Warped extra dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 String Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4 Gravitational Law in Extra Dimensions 12

4.1 Derivation of the gravitational law in (4 + n) dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 General form of the potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2 Limit cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.3 Deviation from Newtons Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.4 Compactication on spheres and warped extra dimensions . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 Experimental Evidence 19
5.1 Types of experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.1 Astronomical measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.2 Etvs-type experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3 Cavendish-type experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.4 Casimir force measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 Constraints obtained by current experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6 Summary 23

A Appendix 24

3
1. Introduction
The aim of physics is to model our world under all kind of dierent circumstances ranging
from the smallest scales in particle physics up to the evolution of stars, galaxies and the
universe as a whole. Such descriptions of our nature are obtained by doing observations and
experiments and trying to t these data to mathematical models. The models are veried
against other experiments and depending on the result discarded, improved or veried again.
During the last centuries more precise descriptions of nature, which are valid within a longer
range of circumstances, have been obtained by this process. The precession of the perihelion
of Mercury for example can correctly be described by general relativity but not by Newtons
gravitational law and the predictions of the Standard Model were experimentally conrmed
with good precision.
However there are some observations which can not be described by the Standard Model.
By measuring rotation curves of galaxies it was shown that the mass in the galactic plane
must be more than the material that could be seen [5]. This kind of matter is nowadays
known as dark matter, but the Standard Model does not predict any kind of such matter.
Also it is not known why gravity is such a weak force compared to the other fundamental
interactions. This is also known as the hierarchy problem.
Another problem within the Standard Model is related to the mass of neutrinos, namely
that they are supposed to be massless, whereas observations of neutrino avor oscillations
indicate that this is not the case [11]. The Standard Model also does not include gravitational
interaction.
In order to overcome these shortcomings of the Standard Model physicists proposed
many dierent extensions. Two of the most famous examples are supersymmetry models
[19], where each particle has a heavy so-called superpartner, and grand unied theories which
have the goal of describing all the interaction in the Standard Model as a manifestation of
a single unied interaction [18].
Another approach which has been made is the introduction of additional spatial dimen-
sions, so-called extra dimensions. Even though we only perceive three spatial and one time
dimension, there could be more than those, provided that the extra dimensions are hidden
from us by some mechanism. The introduction of extra dimensions can account for some of
the shortcomings of the Standard Model, as we will see.
As written above, physicists do experiments to verify their models. We will see that
the introduction of extra spatial dimensions leads to deviations in the gravitational law.
Hence one way of testing our world on extra dimensions is to measure the gravitational
force with high precision. In this way constraints on the nature of the extra dimensions can
be obtained and certain models can be discarded.

This report will give a short overview on extradimensional theories, their implications on
gravity and the current experimental situation. The outline is as follows. We will start in
chapter 2 with a short historical review on how our understanding of gravitation developed
during the last centuries. We will also discuss why physicists are looking for theories beyond

4
1. INTRODUCTION

general relativity and with what kind of attempts they have come up with.
In chapter 3 we will focus on a few modern theories which use extra dimensions and
point out some of the implications they bring along. We then move on to the main topic of
this report, the derivation of the gravitational law in extradimensional spaces (chapter 4).
We look at dierent limit cases and compare dierent kind of models and geometries for the
additional dimensions.
In chapter 5 we will discuss dierent kind of experiments which probe nature for de-
viations in the gravitational law and what constraints they set on the existence of extra
dimensions.
Finally in chapter 6 we will summarize the results of the previous chapters and draw
our conclusions.

5
2. Development of Gravitational
Theory
Modern research on gravitation began with Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and his observations
on falling objects. Galileo showed that all objects accelerate equally fast under gravitation,
which stood in contradiction with the Aristotelian belief that heavy objects fall faster.
However, a mathematical description of this phenomenon was only available about a century
later thanks to Newton.

2.1. Newtonian Gravitation

The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton [24] revolutionized not
only the understanding of gravitation but physics and mathematics as a whole. The initial
reason for Newton to write it was a question from the English astronomer and physicists Ed-
mond Halley about whether an inverse square force directed towards the Sun could account
for the elliptical orbits of the planets [15].
In order to answer this question he rst had to develop mathematical tools (today
known as calculus) and a new theory of mechanics, basing on the three newtonian laws.
Using those ideas Newton showed in his principa that a body upon which an inverse square
force is acting indeed moves on an ellipse and obeys the laws that Kepler had discovered by
observation.
Not only did Newton explain the orbits of the planets, but he also showed that the
same force was responsible for the orbit of the Moon, the tides in the sea and the fall of
an apple o a tree. The gravitational force is an universal force which aects everything
that has mass. Experimental data revealed that the force between two point-like objects
is proportional to their (gravitational) masses m1 and m2 and inverse proportional to the
square of the relative distance r. Introducing a proportionality constant G, the gravitational
constant, we can write the force as
m1 m2
F = G r, (2.1)
r2
where r points from the rst object to the second.
We can write the gravitational force as the gradient of a potential which makes cal-
culations easier, since we are only dealing with a scalar eld instead of a vector eld. In
the following sections we will denote the classical newtonian potential as V4 since it is the
potential of the 4-dimensional space-time1 . It reads
G 4 m1 m2
V4 (r) = , (2.2)
r
1
Actually this potential is just an approximation for a at space-time with a weak gravitational eld, see
section 2.2.

6
2. DEVELOPMENT OF GRAVITATIONAL THEORY

where G4 = G is the gravitational constant in the 4-dimensional space-time. In chapter 4

we are going to see that when we introduce more dimensions, the gravitational constant will
also change.
Many people asked themselves whether the gravitational force is a pure inverse square
law and why this might be the case. In 1873 the French mathematician Joseph Louis
Franois Bertrand proved using perturbation theory, that only the inverse square law and
Hookes law (harmonic oscillator) produce stable and closed orbits of the planets [6] which
agreed with astronomical observations. Furthermore several experiments have been done
(see chapter 5) to probe Newtons theory and for most of the circumstances it seems to
hold rather precisely. However, the anomalous advance of Mercurys perihelion could not
be explained until Albert Einstein came up with his famous theory of general relativity.

2.2. General Relativity

In 1905 Albert Einstein published his theory on special relativity which greatly changed our
understanding of space and time. It made the laws of electromagnetism valid in all inertial
frames, i.e. it removed the need of an absolute reference frame in which electromagnetic
waves travel through a so-called aether. Two years later Einstein started thinking about
how to incorporate gravity into the relativistic framework. In a thought-experiment he
argued that free fall is inertial motion and that there is an equivalence of a gravitational
eld and the corresponding acceleration of the reference frame. This argument is called the
equivalence principle.
Until 1915 Einstein continuously developed his theory of general relativity and incorpo-
rated new mathematical tools like Riemannian dierential geometry developed by Bernhard
Riemann in the late 19th century. In 1915 he published his general theory of relativity in
the form in which it is used today [9]. In this theory gravitation itself is not a miraculous
force by itself but an eect of the distortion of space-time by matter, aecting the inertial
motion of other matter. The interaction of gravity with matter is described by the Einstein
eld equations, a set of ten partial dierential equations.
Einstein predicted that light would bend in the neighborhood of a massive object and
time would run slower in a strong gravitational eld, which both has been experimentally
veried [15]. He also successfully calculated the advance of the perihelion of mercury, yet
the theory only started to be widely used after 1960 when physicists began to understand
the concept of black holes [15].
Einsteins theory incorporates Newtons gravitational law as a limit case of weak gravi-
tational elds and large distances. The inverse square law appears naturally with no other
exponent than 2 possible.

2.3. Beyond General Relativity

After the success of unifying special relativity with gravity physicists tried to unify other
fundamental theories and forces. In 1921 Theodor Kaluza extended General Relativity to
ve dimensions in order to include electromagnetism in the same theoretical framework [12].
Continuing in this direction, Oscar Klein proposed a few years later that the fourth spatial
dimension is curled up into a small, unobservable circle. In this so-called KaluzaKlein (KK)
theory, the gravitational curvature of the extra spatial dimension behaves as an additional
force similar to electromagnetism. By separating the resulting equation both Einsteins eld

7
2. DEVELOPMENT OF GRAVITATIONAL THEORY

equations and Maxwells equation can be retrieved. These and other models of electromag-
netism and gravity were pursued by Albert Einstein in his (unsuccessful) attempts at a
classical unied eld theory (see [12] for an overview of the dierent approaches considered
by Einstein).
In the sixties Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg successfully devel-
oped a unied theory of electromagnetism and weak interaction, the so-called electroweak
theory [14]. Since then the electroweak theory became a template for further attempts at
unifying forces. Several proposals for so-called Grand Unied Theories have been made,
although none is currently universally accepted. A problem for experimentally verifying
such theories is that very high energies are involved which are beyond the reach of current
accelerators.
A main diculty is the formulation of a quantum gravity theory. Currently, there is
still no complete and consistent quantum theory of gravity, although several models have
been suggested (for a historical overview see [27]). One candidate is string theory and M-
theory (section 3.2), where point particles are exchanged with one dimensional strings in
an 11-dimensional space. String theory promises to be a unied description of all particles
and interactions, however the huge number of solutions, called string vacua, and the lack of
possibilities to verify the theory, is criticised [29].

8
3. Extradimensional Theories
3.1. KaluzaKlein Theories
Nowadays people use KaluzaKlein theory (KK theory) to refer to any theory with extra
spatial dimensions. In this section we will shortly discuss what kind of dierent Kaluza
Klein theories exist and which implications the existence of extra dimensions would have.
A general feature of KK theories is the so-called compactication of the additional
dimensions. The extra dimensional space is not innite as the 4-dimensional space-time,
but can be described as a compact manifold. For example we can wind up each of the extra
dimensions on a circle with radius Ri , in which way we obtain a generalized torus. Or we can
consider the extra dimensions to form a generalized sphere. One possibility for explaining
why we cannot perceive the hypothetical extra dimensions is that the compactication scale
is simply too small in order to directly notice them.

3.1.1. UED: Universal extra dimensions

The universal extra dimensions (UED) model was proposed in 2001 by Thomas Appelquist,
Hsin-Chia Cheng and Bogdan Dobrescu [2]. It describes a higher-dimensional version of the
SM where all particles are allowed to propagate in the extra dimensions.
Since particles have more freedoms to move they will also have additional contributions
to their kinetic energy. However, we cannot observe the motion of the particles along the
extra dimensions and thus we would interpret this kinetic energy as an additional part of its
rest energy, i.e. its mass. In compact spaces a particle can only obtain discrete momenta.
This implies that for a Standard Model (SM) particle, where the particle is assumed to be
at rest in the extra dimensions, discrete versions with higher rest mass exist. These heavier
particles are called KK particles and each SM particle has its own KK tower of heavier
versions.
For example if we consider n extra dimensions compactied on a torus each with radius
R and a SM particle with rest mass m, the rest masses of its corresponding KK particles
are [20]

l2
m2l = m2 + , (3.1)
R2
where l is called the KK number. This equation can be generalized to the case where we
have dierent radii Ri . By using an integer vector l Zn the mass of the KK particle can
be written as
n
li2
m2l 2
=m + . (3.2)
i=1
Ri2

We will see this equation again in chapter 4.

9
3. EXTRADIMENSIONAL THEORIES

An experimental bound on the size of the compactication radius R is given by the

fact that those KK states have not been detected in collider experiments in the TeV energy
range. Their masses would thus have to be greater than a few TeV, which implies a strong
constraint on the compactication radius, i.e R Ecollider
1
1020 m. It is very unlikely to
nd experimental evidence in such tiny dimensions.
Each particle is also assigned an additional conserved number, the KK parity which can
be +1 (even KK number) or 1 (odd KK number) [21]. Hence all the SM particles have
KK parity +1 (KK number is 0). The lightest KK particles (those with a KK number of
1) have a parity of -1 and are stable, because the only decay which is allowed by energy
conservation would be a decay into SM particles. But SM particles have the opposite parity
and thus the decay is forbidden. This property makes the lightest KK particles possible
dark matter candidates, so-called KaluzaKlein dark matter, and is a basic motivation for
the UED model.

3.1.2. ADD Model

The ADD model was rst proposed in 1998 by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and
Gia Dvali [3]. It assumes that the SM particles are conned to a 4-dimensional subspace,
a so-called brane, which corresponds to the classical 4-dimensional space-time. A theory
conning our world into a brane is called a braneworld theory.
Since SM particles only live in the brane they cannot penetrate the space outside of
it, the so called bulk. Hence there are also no KK particles as in the UED model and
dimensions are allowed to be larger. The ADD model is also referred as the model with
large extra dimensions.
Gravity itself is not part of the SM and therefore can penetrate the whole space. Within
this model the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the other fundamental forces
could be explained by the fact that it is spread out in a larger space.
In the ADD model, the n extra dimensions are usually compactied on the n-dimensional
torus T n and for simplicity it is assumed that all radii have the same value [20].

3.1.3. RS Model: Warped extra dimensions

In 1999 Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum proposed a 5-dimensional model, the so-called
RS model [25]. It is similar to the ADD model described above but in the RS model the
additional dimension is not at as in the ADD-model, but curved. This is why it is said to
have warped extra dimensions. The extra dimension is compactied on a circle where the
upper half is identied with the lower half. The particles are conned to the two points where
the two halves meet, i.e. on each of these two boundary points stands a four dimensional
world like the one were living in. By imposing the principles of general relativity on this
setup, a natural explanation on the weakness of gravity, i.e. the hierarchy problem, arises.

3.2. String Theory

Another framework which uses extra dimensions is string theory (see e.g. [4]). However it is
very dierent from the extra dimensional theories mentioned above. In string theory point
particles are exchanged by one dimensional objects called strings. The dierent particles
that we can observe are dierent quantum states of the strings. To be mathematically

10
3. EXTRADIMENSIONAL THEORIES

consistent, additional dimensions have to be introduced. Those are usually compactied on

a very small scale.
Dierent versions of string theory have been developed, but nowadays the so-called M-
theory is the one considered most, as it contains all the other theories as limiting cases.
M-theory itself incorporates eleven dimensions and is a candidate for a theory of everything,
as it is a self-contained mathematical model which describes all the fundamental interactions
and dierent types of matter.
As already mentioned in section 2.3, many physicists are criticising string theory as it
lacks veriability and predicts an innite amount of solutions.

11
4. Gravitational Law in Extra
Dimensions
4.1. Derivation of the gravitational law in (4 + n) dimensions
In this section we derive the corrections to the gravitational force due to compactied extra
dimensions. We follow the derivation performed in [16], but with some more details and
clarications.
Let (n + 4) be the dimension of our extended space time, where we have n extra dimen-
sions denoted by yi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n. In this derivation we assume that the extra dimensions
are compactied on a n-dimensional torus T n . A more generic solution an arbitrary n-
dimensional compact manifold is described in [16] and some results are shortly mentioned
in subsection 4.1.4.
We will start with the examination of the gravitational potential in (4 + n) dimensions
of a massive object in the Newtonian limit (at space-time, (3 + n) spacial and one time-like
dimension) and then impose compactication on the result.

4.1.1. General form of the potential

Let us assume that we have a massive point-like object with mass M at position r =
(x, y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ), where x is the coordinate in the three base dimensions, and let us derive
the gravitational potential at the origin. We can write the distance to the object as r = | r| =
2
n 2 1/2
(x + i=1 yi ) . We assume that the gravitational potential of the object must satisfy the
(n + 3) dimensional Poisson equation

n+3 Vn+4 = 4 Gn+4 = 4 Gn+4 M 3+n (

r) , (4.1)

which is equal to zero as long as r

is not zero.
We assume that the resulting potential is spherical symmetric, hence all the derivatives
along the non-radial directions become zero. The laplacian in (n + 3) dimensions then reads

2 N 1
n+3 = 2
+ . (4.2)
r r r
By simply plugging in we can verify that
Gn+4 M
Vn+4 = (4.3)
|
r |n+1

is a solution to equation (4.1).

However, the solution does not satisfy our boundary conditions. We want it to be
periodic in yi , i.e. we want it to be independent under the shifts yi yi + 2Ri . This can

12
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

be obtained by writing equation (4.3) as

Gn+4 M
Vn+4,c = n (n + 1)/2
, (4.4)
mZn (x2 + i=1 (yi 2Ri mi )2 )

where m is a vector in the n-dimensional lattice Zn . We use the index c for the potential
to indicate that this is the potential in the compactied space.

4.1.2. Limit cases

We can shortly check the result by looking at very large Ri s, i.e. at the limit Ri >> |x|. In
that case only the term with m = 0 survives, since for all the other terms the denominator
goes to innity and we get equation (4.3) back.
Let us look at the other case when the Ri s are small compared to |x|. We substitute
zm = y 2Rm , where Rm = (R1 m1 , R2 m2 , . . . , Rn mn ). Note that the zm lie on a lattice
and each cell of that lattice has the volume (2R1 )(2R2 ) . . . (2Rn ) = ST n , which is the
volume of the n-dimensional torus. Now we can rewrite the potential as

Gn+4 M 1 Gn+4 M 1
Vn+4,c = (n + 1)/2
ST n (n + 1)/2
dn z,
ST n 2 2
mZ (x + zm )
ST n 2
Rn (x + z )2

where we used that the volume of the torus is small compared to x. We can further calcu-
late this integral by switching to spherical coordinates and using the surface of the (n-1)-
dimensional unit sphere S n1 given by SS n1 = 2 n/2 (n/2)1 :
( )
Gn+4 M SS n1 z n1 Gn+4 M SS n1 ( n2 ) 1
Vn+4,c dz =
ST n 0 (x2 + z 2 )
(n + 1)/2
ST n 2 ( n+1
2
) x
Gn+4 M SS n 1
= (4.5)
2 ST n x
Comparing equation (4.5) with the classical gravitational potential in three dimensions, we
see that the relation between G4+n and the standard gravitational constant G4 is given by
2 ST n
G4+n = G4 . (4.6)
SS n

4.1.3. Deviation from Newtons Law

To obtain a more accurate result we have to start again with equation (4.4). We use a
special form of the poisson summation formula to simplify the n-dimensional sum. The
general formula is given and proved in Appendix A.
In our case x = yi and L = 2Ri . We can apply the formula for all n extra dimensions
to get

Gn+4 M iym eiym
Vn+4,c = e 2 + y 2 )(n + 1)/2
dn y,
ST n mZn Rn (x

where we introduced m := ( mR1

1
,..., mn
Rn
). Note that |m|2 is exactly the additional mass
term of the KK particle as occurring in equation (3.2).

13
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

We can switch to spherical coordinates, with y denoting the radius and 1 , . . . , n1

denoting the angles, where 1 is the angle between y and m. The integral only depends on
y and 1 . Thus we can perform the integral over all the other angles and get the surface of
the (n-2)-dimensional unit sphere SS n2 . Then the potential looks like

Gn+4 M SS n2 iym y n1
Vn+4,c = e dy 2 2 )(n + 1)/2
d1 eiy|m| cos 1 sinn2 (1 ) .
ST n (x + y
mZn 0
|0 {z }
(I)

Let us focus on the last integral. Using the formula 8.411 (7) from [13] we can write it as
n
( n2 + 12 ) ( 21 ) 2 2 ( n1 )
J n2 1 (y|m|) y 2 +1
n
2 2
(I) = ( ) n2 J n2 (y|m|) = n
1
y|m| 2 2 2|m| 2
2
n n
2 22
n +1
= n
1
J n
1 (y|m|) y 2 ,
SS n2 |m| 2 2

where J n2 1 (z) is the the Bessel function of order ( n2 1). The potential becomes

Gn+4 M 2 2 2 eiym
n n n
y 2 J n2 1 (y|m|)
Vn+4,c = dy 2 .
|m| 2 1 0
n
ST n (x + y 2 )(n + 1)/2
mZn | {z }
(II)

We can calculate the integral using formula 6.565 (3) from [13]

|m| 2 1 ex|m|
n

(II) = n
2 2 ( n+1
2
)x
SS n (n+1)/2
Putting everything together and remembering that G4 = G4+n 2ST n
= G4+n ((n + 1)/2)ST n
we
obtain
G4 M x|m| iym G4 M x|m|
Vn+4,c = e e = e , (4.7)
x mZn x mZn

where in the last step we set y = 0 for further simplifying the result.
We can get a rst approximation by taking only the largest terms, i.e. the summands
with |m| = 0 and |m| = 1. This corresponds to the 0th and 1st KK state (see section 3.1).
We get
G4 M ( Rx
)
Vn+4,c 1 + 2dm e m , (4.8)
x
where Rm is the largest compactication radius and dm the corresponding degeneracy, i.e.
how many compact dimensions with radius Rm exist.

4.1.4. Compactication on spheres and warped extra dimensions

How compactication is done on any arbitrary compact manifold using representations of
fundamental groups is described in [16]. If we compactify the n extra dimensions on a
n-sphere with radius R instead of an n-torus we obtain a slightly dierent result:
G4 M ( )
Vsphere = 1 + (n + 1)e nr/R . (4.9)
x

14
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

Another type of model considers non-compact but warped extra dimensions (see RS model,
subsection 3.1.2). In this case an approximation to the gravitational potential is given
by [25]:
( )
G4 M 2
Vwarped = 1+ 2 2 , (4.10)
x 3k x

where 1/k is the so-called warping scale.

4.2. Discussion
In this section we will shortly summarize the results in the previous section and visualize
them in order to compare the dierent approximations and see how the potential depends
on the structure of the extra dimensions.
We showed the following behavior of the gravitational potential for a point-like mass in
a toroidal compactied potential:

As x R, that is the compactication radius is tiny small compared to the inter-

acting distance, the potential is the same as the classical 4-dimensional potential in
equation (2.2). The extra dimensions seem to be non-existent.

As x R, that is the compactication radius is very large compared to the inter-

acting distance, the potential is the same as the potential in a space where the extra
dimensions are not compactied, see equation (4.3)

As x R we derived an approximation of the potential which has an additional

exponential term that depends on the geometry of the extra dimensions and the com-
pactication scale.

For compactied extra dimensions the approximation of the potential of a point-like mass
M can be written as
G4 M ( )
V =
x
1 + e / . (4.11)
x
The additional exponential term in the potential is also called Yukawa potential after the
theoretical physicist Hideki Yukawa (1907-1981). Here is called the interaction strength
of the force and the interaction length. For toroidal compactication we obtained in the
previous section

= 2dm = Rm , (4.12)

where Rm is the largest radius of the torus and dm its multiplicity. For spherical compacti-
cation it can be shown that [16]

n
=n+1 = . (4.13)
R
Non-compactied but warped extra dimensions behave like 1/x3 for x 1/k.

15
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

We also derived a connection between the 4-dimensional and (4+n)-dimensional gravi-

tational constant for toroidal compactication:

2 ST n n
G4+n = G4 G4 Ri (toroidal) (4.14)
SS n i=1

n
G4+n = G4 2 Ri (spherical). (4.15)
i=1

The derivation of the second equation for spherical compactication can be found in [16].
In the next step we will graphically compare the dierent limiting cases and our ap-
proximation with the exact result. For simplicity we choose n = 1 for our extra dimension
and compactify it on a circle with radius R. To avoid to choose a specic R we divide our
equations by R and express the distance in x/R and the potential in V R/M G4 = V (x)/V4 (R).
The resulting potential is drawn in Figure 4.1. We can see that the exact solution
(equation (4.7)) behaves as 1/x for x R (classical potential in a 4-dimensional space-
time) and 1/x2 for x R (classical potential in a 5-dimensional space-time) as expected.
Our approximation obtained in equation (4.8) describes the exact solution quite well in the
region around x = R. This region is also where we would expect to see rst deviations in
experiments, thus it is justied to use this approximations for the evaluation of experimental
data.
In a next step we investigate how the potential changes if we change the number of
extra dimensions and their geometry. We compare toroidal and spherical compactica-
tion both in two and three dimensions and contrast it with the potential of warped extra
dimension(equation (4.10)).
Figure 4.2 shows the dierent potentials. For toroidal compactication it is assumed
that all extra dimensions have the same compactication radius and for the warped extra
dimensions k is assumed to be 1/R.
We see that for all the models the potential starts deviating from the classical potential
in about the same region. More extra dimensions lead to a faster decrease as x gets smaller
whereby the eect is larger for toroidal compactication than for spherical. Warped extra
dimensions behave very similarly to compactied ones in the region where x R. Since
possible deviations in experiments would be observed in this region, it would be very hard
to determine the properties of the extra dimensions.

16
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

. .Exact: (4.7)
101 . .Newton in 4d: (2.2)
. .Newton in 5d: (4.2)
. .Approximation: (4.8)
normalized potential: V /V4 (R)

100 .

101
.
100 101
normalized distance: x/R

Figure 4.1.: Comparison of dierent approximations to the exact result in the region where
x R for toroidal compactication with n = 1. The approximation of equa-
tion (4.8) describes the behavior for x R quite well.

17
4. GRAVITATIONAL LAW IN EXTRA DIMENSIONS

103
. .Newton in 4d
. .n = 2 toroidal compactication
. .n = 3 toroidal compactication
. .n = 2 spherical compactication
102 . .n = 3 spherical compactication
normalized potential: V /V4 (R)

. .warped extradimensions

101

100 .

101 .
101 100 101
normalized distance: x/R

Figure 4.2.: Comparison of dierent geometries of the extradimensional space. Compactied

extra dimensions behave quite similarly, which makes it hard to experimentally
determine the geometry of the extradimensional space. The potential for warped
extra dimensions behaves as 1/x3 for x R.

18
5. Experimental Evidence
5.1. Types of experiments
There are several types of experiments which can be used to test the Newtonian gravita-
tional law on dierent interaction distances. In this section we shortly introduce the most
important experiments, starting at largest scales.

5.1.1. Astronomical measurements

The most obvious test of gravity that comes to our mind is the observation of planetary
orbits. This kind of observations have been done for a long time with increasing precision,
resulting in rigid constraints on hypothetical deviations from Newtons inverse square law
respectively general relativity.
A very interesting experiment is the LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) [1, 10]. The LLR data
consists of range measurements from telescopes on Earth to reectors placed on the Moon
by American astronauts and unmanned Soviet lander. The precision is in the range of a few
centimetres, which allows a very exact measurement of the orbit of the Moon. This data
can be compared to predictions by theory, where we also have to include general relativistic
eects and the non-spherical gravitational potential of the Earth [1].

5.1.2. Etvs-type experiments

In Etvs-type experiments the dierence between inertial and gravitational mass of an
object is measured. This kind of experiments are done to verify the equivalence principle
stated by General Relativity (see section 2.2). The existence of an additional force term
which is not proportional to the objects mass would lead to a dierence beween the gravi-
tational mass and the inertial mass of the object [22]. Therefore the results of Etvs-type
experiments set certain constraints on hypothetical deviations from Newtons gravitational
law1 .
The classical setup of the Etvs experiment are two dierent masses on the opposite
side of a rod. The rod itself is hung up with a thin bre. In the reference frame of the earth
the forces acting on the system are the string tension, gravitation and the centrifugal force.
The gravitational force is depending on the gravitational mass whereas the centrifugal force
is caused by the rotating reference frame and thus depends on the inertial mass. Assuming
that we are not doing the experiment at the equator or at the poles there will be a net torque
on the system if the inertial mass is not proportional to the gravitational mass. Hence the
rod will start to rotate and this rotation can be detected.

1
Here I do not agree with this statement of one of my sources [22]. The Yukawa-type potential we derived
in the previous chapter is in fact proportional to the gravitational masses, hence in my opinion this kind
of deviation could not be detected by this experiment. A statement by V. M. Mostepanenko was not
available before the deadline of this project

19
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

The rst experiment of this type was started in 1885 by the Hungarian physicist Lornd
Etvs (18481919) and has been greatly improved since then. The relative dierence
between the two masses is constraint to be less than 1011 [26].

5.1.3. Cavendish-type experiments

In these types of experiments the deviations of the gravitational force from Newtons law
are directly measured. The rst experiment of this kind was performed by Henry Cavendish
in 1798 [8]. It was the rst measurement of the gravitational force and the gravitational
constant in a laboratory.
Cavendish used a torsion balance made of a rod with two spheres attached on both ends.
This torsion balance was placed in between two other, heavier spheres which deected
the torsion balance until it was in equilibrium. By measuring the deection Cavendish
determined the density of the earth from which he further could calculate the gravitational
constant.
Nowadays similar experiments can be performed with much higher precision, using lasers
to determine the deection and a more complicated set-up. In this way the gravitational
law can be veried over a large distance range and constraints on possible deviations can
be set (see for example [28]).

5.1.4. Casimir force measurement

The Casimir eect is a phenomenon occurring between uncharged metal plates placed a
few micrometers apart in vacuum [17]. The eect was predicted by Casimir in 1948 [7]
and can be described by quantum eld theory in which all the fundamental elds, such as
the electromagnetic eld, are quantized at every point in space. At the most basic level,
the eld at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator. Since the quantized simple
harmonic oscillator has a non-zero lowest possible energy E0 = 2
(the so-called zero-point
energy), the vacuum itself contains energy. By placing the two metal plates, we constrain
the allowed frequencies of the oscillator, resulting in a lower energy density within the plates.
As the system tries to be in the state with the lowest energy, a force is pulling the two plates
together. This force is known as the Casimir force and is the dominant background force
at separations of a few micrometers and below [23].
By measuring the force acting between the two plates or other, more complex geometrical
objects, and comparing them to theoretical values, we can set constraints on other force
terms like the Yukawa term in the gravitational law.

5.2. Constraints obtained by current experiments

Results of recent experiments are presented in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 where each line
represents the constraints obtained by a single experiment. The regions of (,) above the
curves are ruled out, since the corresponding deviation of the force would have been larger
than the error of the experiment2 . Regions below the curves lie in the uncertainty region of
the experiment and cannot be ruled out.
Figure 5.1 is reproduced from [10], gure 2.13. The constraints on the far right are
obtained by planet observations and the big bump is set by the LLR experiment (see sub-

2
Usually the border is set to 2 which yields a 95% concence level

20
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

102
101
100 .
predicted for 1 extra dimension
101
102
interaction constant

103
104 excluded by experiment
105
106
107
108 permitted area
109
1010
1011 .0
10 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015
interaction range [m]

Figure 5.1.: Constraints on the interaction range and interaction constant obtained by
various large scales experiments and measurements. The dotted lines show the
expected values for the ADD model with one extra dimension. They are in
the ruled out area, meaning that this model is experimentally excluded. The
constraint lines are reproduced from gure 2.13 in [10].

section 5.1.1). The constraints more on the left are large scale geophysical experiments and
measurements.
Figure 5.2 shows laboratory results. For references to the corresponding experiments
see [22] for curves 1-5, 7 and 8 (same enumeration) and [23] for curve 6 (corresponds to curve
2 in Fig 1). The other, newer experiments discussed in [23] do not improve the constraints.
Curves 1 and 2 show the best Etvs-type experiments whereas 3 and 4 are obtained by
Cavendish-type experiments. All the experiments which give insights on smaller interaction
ranges (5-8) measure the Casimir force and compare it to theory.
We see that for large interaction lengths the constraints on are very strong. When
we draw the expected values of (equation (4.12) for 1 n 11) into the diagram we
can already exclude interaction lengths above 1mm. But as decreases the constraints get
weaker and allow the existence of extra dimensions.
For the ADD model it is possible to get a rough estimate on the compactication scale
R depending on the number of extra dimensions by comparing Planck scales for the ADD
model (see [20, 22]):
R 10 n 17 cm.
32
(5.1)
For one extra dimension we nd that R 1015 cm and according to equation (4.12) =
R and = 2. By looking at Figure 5.1 we see that this possibility is excluded by the

21
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

1028
. .Etvs experiments
8 . .Cavendish experiments
1023 . .Casimir force experiments

1018
interaction constant

7
6
1013
excluded by experiment
10 8 5

predicted by theory
103 4
3 .
2
102 1
permitted area 3

107 .9
10 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 101 102 103 104
interaction range [m]

Figure 5.2.: Constraints on the interaction range and interaction constant obtained
by various laboratory experiments. Lines 1 and 2 follow from Etvs, lines
3 and 4 from Cavendish type experiments. Lines 5-8 are obtained from the
measurements of the Casimir force. Values for and in the region above the
curves are ruled out by these experiments.
Curves 1-5, 7 and 8 are reproduced from [22] (same enumeration) and curve 6
from [23] (corresponds to curve 2 in Fig 1).

experiments and thus the existence of only one extra dimension is not possible at least with
the models considered here.
Considering n = 2 we obtain 1mm and = 4. Those values are slightly above the
curves in Figure 5.2, but because our is only a rough estimate this possibility cannot be
ruled out. If however n = 3 we have 5nm and = 6 (if we assume that all dimensions
have the same compactication scale). These numbers lie in the permitted area and hence
models with three or more extra dimensions do not conict with recent experiments.
It is not possible to obtain similar constraints for the UED model, since the expected
values for the interaction range are below 1020 m (see subsection 3.1.1). Experiments
which measure the gravitational force on such tiny distances are still far away in the future
if it will be possible at all.

22
6. Summary
We saw how our understanding of gravity evolved during the last centuries and why physi-
cists are looking for theories beyond current models. The introduction of extra dimensions
might account for phenomenons which we cannot describe with current models, like dark
matter. Currently there are several models of extra dimensions under discussion, each with
certain advantages.
We derived the gravitational potential in an extradimensional space and then imposed
toroidal compactication on it. We studied several limiting cases and did a rst approxi-
mation which yielded an additional term to the Newtonian potential of Yukawa type. The
resulting potential has the form
G4 M ( )
V =
x
1 + e / ,
x
with G4 the common gravitational constant, the interaction strength and the interaction
length. By our derivation of toroidal compactication we obtained = 2dm and = Rm
where Rm is the largest compactication radius and dm the amount of dimensions with
compactication radius Rm . We also shortly looked at the parameters for other geometries
of the extra dimensional space.
Several experiments have been performed which probe Newtons inverse square law on
dierent length scales. We looked at some dierent types of experiments, namely those of
Etvs type, Cavendish type, measurement of the Casimir force and astronomical measure-
ments and we saw how they constrain the interaction strength and range parameter of the
Yukawa potential.
Due to the constraints set by those experiments, the ADD model with only one addi-
tional dimension can be ruled out. Models with more than one extra dimensions however
cannot be excluded by the current data.
Coming experiments are expected to further strengthen the constraints, especially on
very short interaction lengths.

23
A. Appendix
Poisson Summation Formula
In the derivation of the gravitational potential we used a specic form of the Poisson sum-
mation formula which I want to proof here.

Theorem. Assume f (x) S(R) is a Schwartz function. Then

1 2ikx
f (x + L n) = f (k)e L (A.1)
mZ
|L| kZ

where f(k) is the Fourier transform of f (x).

Proof. Dene h(x) := nZ f (x + Ln). h(x) is a periodic function with period L, hence we
can write it as its Fourier series. The Fourier coecients are
L
1
h(x)e L dx
2imx
hm =
|L| 0

1 L 
f (x + Ln)e L dx
2imx
=  y = x + Ln
|L| nZ 0

1 L(n+1 (y+Ln)
2im L 1 2imy
= f (y)e dy = f (y)e L dy
|L| nZ Ln |L| R
1
= f (m)
|L|

Thus we can write h(x) as

2ikx 1 2ikx
h(x) = hk e L = f (k)e L
kZ
|L| kZ

24
Bibliography
[1] E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and A.E. Nelson. Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-
Square Law. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 53(1):77121, December
2003.

[2] Thomas Appelquist, Hsin-Chia Cheng, and Bogdan Dobrescu. Bounds on universal
extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D, 64(3):035002, June 2001.

[3] Nima ArkaniHamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Gia Dvali. The hierarchy problem and
new dimensions at a millimeter. Phys. Lett. B, 429(3-4):263272, June 1998.

[4] K Becker, M Becker, and J H Schwarz. String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern
Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

[5] Gianfranco Bertone. Particle dark matter observations, models and searches. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009.

[6] Joseph Louis Franois Bertrand. Thorme relatif au mouvement dun point attir vers
un centre xe. C. R. Acad. Sci., 77:849853, 1873.

[7] H. B. G. Casimir. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. Proc.
K. Ned. Akad. Wet., 51:793 795, 1948.

[8] Henry Cavendish. Experiments to Determine the Density of the Earth. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 88:pp. 469526, 1798.

[9] Albert Einstein. The basics of general relativity theory. Ann. Phys., 49(7):769822,
1915.

[10] Ephraim Fischbach and Carrick L Talmadge. The Search for Non-Newtonian Gravity.
Aip-Press Series. Springer New York, New York, NY, 1999.

[11] Y. Fukuda et al. Evidence for Oscillation of Atmospheric Neutrinos. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
81(8):15621567, August 1998.

[12] Hubert F. M. Goenner. On the History of Unied Field Theories. Living Rev. Relativ.,
7(2), 2004.

[13] I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Table of
Integrals, Series, and Products Series. Elsevier Science, 7th edition, 2007.

[14] D Griths. Introduction to Elementary Particles. Physics Textbook. Wiley, 2008.

[15] S. W. Hawking and W. Israel. Three hundred years of gravitation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York, 1987.

25
Bibliography

[16] A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos. Deviations from the 1/r2 Newton law due to extra dimen-
sions. Phys. Lett. B, 472(1-2):3944, January 2000.

[17] Steven K Lamoreaux. Casimir Force. Scholarpedia, 6(10):9746., revision #121747,

2011.

[18] Paul Langacker. Grand unied theories and proton decay. Phys. Rep., 72(4):185385,
June 1981.

[19] Stephen P. Martin. A Supersymmetry Primer. hep-ph/970, September 1997.

[20] Henrik Melbus. Particle Phenomenology of Compact Extra Dimensions. Doctoral

thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, 2012.

[21] Henrik Melbus and Tommy Ohlsson. Delving into extra dimensions. Phys. World,
25(9):27 30, 2012.

[22] V. M. Mostepanenko. Experimental status of corrections to Newtons gravitational law

inspired by extra dimensional physics. Braz. J. Phys., 34:211216, 2004.

[23] V. M. Mostepanenko, V. B. Bezerra, G. L. Klimchitskaya, and C. Romero. New con-

straints on Yukawa-type interactions from the Casimir eect. Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. A,
27(15):1260015, June 2012.

[24] Isaac Newton. PhilosophiNaturalis Principia Mathematica. The Royal Society.

[25] Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum. An Alternative to Compactication. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 83(23):46904693, December 1999.

[26] P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, and R. H. Dicke. The equivalence of inertial and passive
gravitational mass. Ann. Phys., 26:442517, 1964.

[27] Carlo Rovelli. Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity. June 2000.

[28] S. Smullin, A. Geraci, D. Weld, J. Chiaverini, S. Holmes, and A. Kapitulnik. Constraints

on Yukawa-type deviations from Newtonian gravity at 20 microns. Phys. Rev. D,
72(12):122001, December 2005.

[29] Peter Woit. String Theory: An Evaluation. February 2001.

26