arxiv: v2 [hep-th] 3 Aug 2011

Transcription

1 A proposal for testing Quantum Gravity in the lab Ahmed Farag Ali, Saurya Das, and Elias C. Vagenas Theoretical Physics Group, Department of Physics, University of Lethbridge, 44 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada TK 3M4 and Research Center for Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, Academy of Athens, Soranou Efessiou 4, GR-57, Athens, Greece arxiv:7.364v [hep-th] 3 Aug Attempts to formulate a quantum theory of gravitation are collectively known as quantum gravity. Various approaches to quantum gravity such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, as well as black hole physics and doubly special relativity theories predict a minimum measurable length, or a maximum observable momentum, and related modifications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to a so-called generalized uncertainty principle GUP). We have proposed a GUP consistent with string theory, black hole physics and doubly special relativity theories and have showed that this modifies all quantum mechanical Hamiltonians. When applied to an elementary particle, it suggests that the space that confines it must be quantized, and in fact that all measurable lengths are quantized in units of a fundamental length which can be the Planck length). On the one hand, this may signal the breakdown of the spacetime continuum picture near that scale, and on the other hand, it can predict an upper bound on the quantum gravity parameter in the GUP, from current observations. Furthermore, such fundamental discreteness of space may have observable consequences at length scales much larger than the Planck scale. Because this influences all the quantum Hamiltonians in an universal way, it predicts quantum gravity corrections to various quantum phenomena. Therefore, in the present work we compute these corrections to the Lamb shift, simple harmonic oscillator, Landau levels, and the tunneling current in a scanning tunneling microscope. I. INTRODUCTION An intriguing prediction of various theories of quantum gravity such as string theory) and black hole physics is the existence of a minimum measurable length. This has given rise to the so-called generalized uncertainty principle GUP) or equivalently, modified commutation relations between position coordinates and momenta. The recently proposed doubly special relativity DSR) theories on the other hand, also suggest a similar modification of commutators. The commutators that are consistent with string theory, black holes physics, DSR, and which ensure [x i,x j ] = = [p i,p j ] via the Jacobi identity) have the following form [] see Appendix) [x i,p j ] = i δ ij α pδ ij + p ) ip j +α p ) ) δ ij +3p i p j ) p where α = α /M Pl c = α l Pl /, M Pl = Planck mass, l Pl 35 m = Planck length, and M Pl c = Planck energy 9 GeV. In one dimension, Eq.) gives to Oα ) x p [ α < p > +4α < p > ] [ α + ) p p +4α +4α p α ] p.) Commutators and inequalities similar to ) and ) were proposed and derived respectively in [ 9]. These in turn imply a minimum measurable length and a maximum measurable momentum - the latter following from the assumption that p characterizes the maximum momentum of a particle as well [], and also from the fact that DSR predicts such an maximum to the best of our knowledge, ) and ) are the only forms which imply both) x x) min α l Pl 3) p p) max M Plc. α 4) Next, defining see Appendix) x i = x i, p i = p i αp +α p ), 5) ahmed.ali@uleth.ca saurya.das@uleth.ca evagenas@academyofathens.gr The resultsofthis articledo not depend on thisparticular formof GUP chosen, and continue to hold for a large class of variants, so long as an Oα) term is present in the right-hand side of Eq.). with x i,p j satisfying the canonical commutation relations [x i,p j ] = i δ ij, it can be shown that Eq.) is satisfied. Here, p i can be interpreted as the momentum at low energies having the standard representation in position space, i.e. p i = i / x i ) and p i as that at higher energies.

2 It is normally assumed that the dimensionless parameter α is of the order of unity, in which case the α dependent terms are important only when energies momenta) are comparable to the Planck energy momentum), and lengths are comparable to the Planck length. However, if we do not impose this condition a priori, then this may signal the existence of a new physical length scale of the order of α = α o l Pl. Evidently, such an intermediate length scale cannot exceed the electroweak length scale 7 l Pl as otherwise it would have been observed) and this implies that α 7. Using Eq.5), a Hamiltonian of the form can be written as H = p +V r) 6) m H = H +H +Oα 3 ) 7) where H = p +V r) 8) m and H = α m p3 + 5α m p4. 9) Thus, we see that any system with a well-defined quantum or even classical) Hamiltonian H is perturbed by H, defined above, near the Planck scale. Such corrections extend to relativistic systems as well [], and given the robust nature of GUP, will continue to play a role irrespective of what other quantum gravity corrections one mayconsider. In otherwords, they arein somesenseuniversal. The relativistic Dirac equation is modified in a similar way and confirms the main results of our paper []. In this paper, we first study the effects of the above GUPcorrected Hamiltonian to a particle in a box, to Oα) in Sec. IA, and to Oα ) in Sec. IB, and show that they lead to virtually identical conclusions. In Sec. II, we study the effects of GUP-corrected Hamiltonian to the Landau levels. In Sec. III, we calculate the corrections due to GUP in the context of a simple harmonic oscillator. In Sec. IV, we study the effects ofgup on the Lamb shift. Furthermore, we compute the GUP corrections on the tunneling current in a scanning tunneling microscope for a step potential in Sec. V and for a potential barrier in Sec. VI. Finally, we summarize our results in the concluding section. A. Solution to order α In this subsection, we briefly review our work in []. The wave function of the particle satisfies the following GUPcorrected Schrödinger equation inside the box of length L with boundaries at x = and x = L), where V r) = outside, V = and ψ = ) Hψ = Eψ ) which is now written, to order α, as d ψ +k ψ +iα d 3 ψ = ) where d n stands for d n /dx n and k = me/. A trial solution of the form ψ = e mx yields m +k +iα m 3 = ) with the following solutionset to leading orderin α: m = {ik, ik,i/α }, where k = k+kα )and k = k kα ). Thus, the general wavefunction to leading order in l Pl and α is of the form ψ = Ae ik x +Be ik x +Ce ix/α. 3) Although the first two terms can be considered as perturbative corrections over the standard solutions, the appearance of the new oscillatory third term is noteworthy here, with characteristic wavelength 4πα and momentum /4α = M Pl c/4α [which is Planckian for α = O)]. This can be termed a nonperturbative solution as the exponent contains /α and results in the new quantization mentioned above. Note that however, as explained in [] and [], C scales as a power of α, and the new solution disappears in the α limit. Imposing the appropriate boundary conditions, i.e. ψ = at x =, L, with A assumed real without loss of generality, we get, to leading order, the following two series of solutions C = C e iθc ): L α = L α = L = nπ+qπ +θ C pπ+θ C 4) α l Pl L = nπ+qπ pπ, 5) α l Pl p q ±n N. These show that there cannot be even be a single particle in the box, unless its length is quantized as above. For other lengths, there is no way to probe or measure the box, even if it exists. Hence, effectively all measurable lengths are quantized in units of α l Pl. We interpret this as space essentially having a discrete nature. Note that the above conclusion holds for any unknown but fixed θ C, which, however, determines the minimum measurable length, if any. It is hoped that additional physically motivated or consistency conditions will eventually allow one to either determine or at least put reasonable bounds on it. The minimum length is α l Pl in each case. Once again, if α, this fundamental unit is the Planck length. However, current experiments do not rule out discreteness smaller than about a thousandth of a Fermi, thus predicting the previously mentioned bound on α. Note that similar quantization of length was shown in the context of loop quantum gravity in []. B. Solution to order α We extend the previous solution to include the α term in one dimension. Working to Oα ), the magnitude of

3 3 the momentum at high energies as given by Eq.5) reads p = p αp +α p ). 6) The wavefunction satisfies the following GUP-corrected Schrödinger equation d ψ +k ψ +i αd 3 ψ 5 α d 4 ψ = 7) where k = me/ and d n d n /dx n. Substituting ψx) = e mx, we obtain m +k +iα m 3 5α ) m 4 = 8) with the following solution set to leading order in α : m = {ik, ik, +i 5α, +i 5α }, where k = k + kα ) and k = k kα ). Thus, the most general solution to leading order in l Pl and α is of the form ψx) = Ae ik x +Be ik x +Ce +i)x/5α + De +i)x/5α. 9) Note again the appearance of new oscillatory terms, with characteristic wavelength πα, which as before, by virtue of C and D scaling as a power of α, disappear in the α limit. In addition, we absorb any phase of A in ψ so as A to be real. The boundary condition implies ψ) = ) A+B +C +D = ) and hence the general solution given in Eq.9) becomes ψx) = iasinkx)e iαk x C +D)e ik x + e ix 5α [Ce x 5α +De x 5α ]. ) If we now combine Eq.) and the remaining boundary condition we get ψl) = 3) iasinkl) = C +D)e i[αk L+k L] [ ] Ce L L 5α +De 5α e il 5α e iαk L.4) We can consider the exponentials e iαk L, otherwise, since they are multiplied with C or D, terms of higher order in α will appear. Therefore, we have C = C e iθc,d = D e iθd ) ] [ C e iθc + D e iθd ia sinkl) = e ikl [ ] C e iθc e L 5α + D e iθ D e L 5α e il 5α.5) Now, equating the real parts of Eq.5) remembering that A R), we have = C cosθ C +kl)+ D cosθ D +k L ) e L 5α C cosθc L L ) e 5α D cosθd L 5α 5α ).6) Notethat the thirdterm inthe righthandside dominates over the other terms in the limit α. Thus we arrive at the following equation to leading order cosl/5α θ C ) =. 7) This implies the quantization of the space by the following equation L 5α = p+)π +θ C, p N. 8) Once again, even though the α term has been included, the space quantization given in Eq.8) suggests that the dimension of the box, and hence all measurable lengths are quantized in units of α l Pl, and if α, this fundamental unit is of the order of Planck length. And as before, the yet undetermined constant θ C determines the minimum measurable length. II. THE LANDAU LEVELS Consider a particle of mass m and charge e in a constant magnetic field B = Bẑ, described by the vector potential A = Bxŷ and the Hamiltonian H = p ea) m 9) = p x m + p y m eb m xp y + e B m x. 3) Since p y commutes with H, replacing it with its eigenvalue k, we get H = p x m + mω c x k ) 3) mω c where ω c = eb/m is the cyclotron frequency. This is nothing but the Hamiltonian of a harmonic oscillator in the x direction, with its equilibrium position given by x k/mω c. Consequently, the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are given, respectively, by ψ k,n x,y) = e iky φ n x x ) 3) E n = ω c n+ ), n N 33) where φ n are the harmonic oscillator wavefunctions. The GUP-corrected Hamiltonian assumes the form [9] H = p ea m ) α m + 5α m p ea ) 4 p ea ) 3

4 4 = H 8m α H 3 + α m H 34) where in the last step we have used Eq.9). Evidently, the eigenfunctions remain unchanged. However, the eigenvalues are shifted by E ngup) = φ n 8m αh 3 +6 α mh φ n = 8m α ω c ) 3 n+ ) 3 + mα ω c ) n+ 35) ) which can be written as E ngup) n = 8m α ω c ) n+ ) + mα ω c ) n+ ). 36) For n=, we obtain the following relation E GUP) = m ωc ) M Pl c α + 5 m ω c) M Pl c α. 37) For an electron in a magnetic field of T, ω c 3 GHz E GUP) 6 α + 5 α. 38) Thus, quantum gravity/gup does affect the Landau levels. However, once again, assuming α renders the correction too small to be measured. Without this assumption, due to an accuracy of one part in 3 in direct measurements of Landau levels using a scanning tunnel microscope ST M) which is somewhat optimistic) [3], the upper bound on α becomes α < 3. 39) Note that this is more stringent than the one derived in previous works [9]. III. SIMPLE HARMONIC OSCILLATOR We now consider a particle of mass m. The Hamiltonian of the simple harmonic oscillator with the GUP-corrected Hamiltonian assumes the form Employing time-independent perturbation theory, the eigenvalues are shifted up to the first order of α by E GUP = ψ n H ψ n 4) where ψ n are the eigenfunctions of the simple harmonic oscillator and are given by ψ n x) = where ) n n! mω π ) 4 mω e mωx Hn H n x) = ) n dn x e dx ne x x) 4) 43) are the Hermite polynomials. The p 3 term will not make any contribution to first order because it is an odd function and thus, it gives a zero by integrating over a Gaussian integral. On the other hand, the p 4 term will make a nonzero contribution to first order. The contribution of the p 4 term to first order is given by and thus we get E ) GUP) = 5α m < ψ 4 d4 dx 4 ψ > 44) E ) GUP) = 5α 4 m γ π) γ dx e γx 3 6γx +γ x 4 ) 45) where γ is equal to mω. Byintegrating,wegettheshiftoftheenergytofirstorder of perturbation as follows or, equivalently, E ) = 5 8 ω mα 46) E ) = 5 4 ωmα. 47) We now compute the contribution of the p 3 term to second order of perturbation where E ) n = k n < ψ k V ψ n > n k 48) V = i α d3 3 m dx 3. 49) In particular, we are interested in computing the shift in the ground state energy to second order H = H +H = p m + mω x α m p3 + 5α p4. 4) E ) = k n < ψ k V ψ > k 5)

5 5 and for this reason we employ the following properties of the harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions, m n± n+ < ψ m x ψ n >= γ, m = n+ 5) n γ, m = n and measurement in the case of J/ψ [5] is at the level of 5. This sets the upper bound on α to be α < 7. 58) It should be stressed that this bound is in fact consistent with that set by the electroweak scale. Therefore, it could signal a new and intermediate length scale between the electroweak and the Planck scale. < ψ m x 3 ψ > = k,l < ψ m x ψ k >< ψ k x ψ l > IV. THE LAMB SHIFT < ψ l x ψ > 5) which is nonvanishing for the l,k,m) triplets:,,),,,), and,,3). Thus, the ground state energy is shifted by E ) = α 6 m m < ψ m d 3 dx 3 ψ > E m ). 53) Since the eigenfunction ψ >= ) mω /4e mω x π, we have d3 dx ψ 3 >= 3γ x γ 3 x 3) ψ >. By employing these into Eq.5), we get E ) = α 6 m γ4 m < ψ m 3x γx 3 ) ψ > E m ).54) Using Eqs.5) and 5), the energy shift finally takes the form or, equivalently, E ) E ) = α m ) 55) = α m = 4 α m ω. 56) It is noteworthy that there are some systems that can be represented by the Harmonic oscillator such as heavy meson systems like charmonium [4]. The charm mass is m c.3gev/c andthebindingenergyω ofthe system is roughly equal to the energy gap separating adjacent levels and is given by ω.3gev. The correction due to GUPcan be calculatedatthe second orderofα. Using Eqs.47) and 56), we found the shift in energy is given by E ) = α m ω MPl.7 c 39 α 57) Once again, assuming α renders the correction too small to be measured. On the other hand, if such an assumption is not made, the current accuracy of precision For the Hydrogen atom, V r) = k/r k = e /4πǫ = α c, e =electroniccharge). Tofirstorder,theperturbing Hamiltonian H, shifts the wavefunctions to [6] ψ nlm = ψ nlm + e n l m nlm ψ E n ) n l m 59) n {n l m } ={nlm} where n, l, m have their usual significance, and e n l m nlm ψ n l m H ψ nlm. Using the expression p = m[h +k/r] [8], the perturbing Hamiltonian reads H = α [ 8m) H + k ][ H + k ]. 6) r r So for GUP effect to α order, we have e n l m nlm = ψ n l m α ) p m p ψ nlm. 6) It follows from the orthogonality of spherical harmonics that the above are nonvanishing if and only if l = l and m = m [ e = iα ψ H + k ] ) ψ. 6) r r We utilize the following to calculate the shift in the energy: i) the first term in the sum in Eq.59) n = ) dominates, since E n = E /n E = e /8πǫ a = k/a = 3.6 ev, a = 4πǫ /me = 5.3 metre, m = electron mass =.5 MeV/c ), ii) ψ nlm r) = R nl r)y lm θ,φ), iii) R = a 3/ e r/a, and R = a ) 3/ r/a )e r/a, iv) Y θ,φ) = / 4π). Thus, we derive e = i α k a ψ r ψ 63) = i 8 α k 7a. 64)

6 6 Therefore, the first order shift in the ground state wavefunction is given by in the position representation) ψ r) ψ ) r) ψ) r) = e ψ r) E E = i 3 α k 8a E ψ r) 65) = i 64 α 8a ψ r). 66) Next, we consider the Lamb shift for the n th level of the hydrogen atom [7] E n ) = 4α 3m ln ) ψ nlm ). 67) α Varyingψ nlm ), theadditionalcontributionduetogup in proportion to its original value is given by E ) ngup) E ) n = ψ nlm) ψ nlm ) Thus, for the ground state, we obtain E ) GUP) E ) = 64 α 8a M pl c. 68). α. 69) The above result may be interpreted in two ways. First, if one assumes α, then it predicts a nonzero, but virtually unmeasurable effect of GUP and thus of quantum gravity. On the other hand, if such an assumption is not made, the current accuracy of precision measurement of Lamb shift of about one part in [8, 8], sets the following upper bound on α : α <. 7) It should be stressed that this bound is more stringent than the ones derived in previous examples [9], and is in fact consistent with that set by the electroweak scale. Therefore, it could signal a new and intermediate length scale between the electroweak and the Planck scale. V. POTENTIAL STEP Next, we study the one-dimensional potential step given by V x) = V θx) 7) where θx) is the usual step function. Assuming E < V, the Schrödinger equation to the left and right of the barrier are written, respectively, as d ψ < +k ψ < +iα d 3 ψ < = 7) d ψ > k ψ > +iα d 3 ψ > = 73) where k = me/ and k = mv E)/. Considering solutions of the form ψ <,> = e mx, we get m +k +iα m 3 = 74) m k +iα m3 = 75) with the following solution sets to leading order in α, each consisting of three values of m where x < : m = {ik, ik i, α } 76) x : m = {k, k, i α } 77) k = k+kα ), k = k kα ) 78) k = k iα k ), k = k +iα k ). 79) Therefore, the wavefunctions take the form ψ < = Ae ik x +Be ik x +Ce ix α, x < 8) ψ > = De k x +Ee ix α, x 8) where we have omitted the left mover from ψ >. Now the boundary conditions at x = consist of three equations instead of the usual two) d n ψ < = d n ψ >, n =,,. 8) This leads to the following conditions: A+B +C = D+E 83) ) = k D+ ie α 84) i k A k B + C α k A+k B + C α ) = E α ) k D. 85) Assuming C E Oα ), we have the following solutions to leading order in α B A = ik +k ik k, 86) D A = ik ik k, 87) E C α ) A = k ik k )+k ik +k )+k ik k ik).88) It can be easily shown that the GUP-corrected timedependent Schrödinger equation admits the following modified conserved current density, charge density and conservation law, respectively, [9] J = mi + α m ρ = ψ, ψ dψ dx ψdψ dx d ψ dx 3 dψ dx ) dψ ) dx, 89) J x + ρ t =. 9)

7 7 The conserved current is given as J = J +J = k A B ) m + α k A + B ) + C m αm. 9) The reflection and transmission coefficients are given by R = B α k A +α k = ik +k α k ik k +α k k +k = ) α k k +k ) 4α k) +α k =. 9) T = α k m D e kx + α k m D e kx 93) k m A +α k) =, 94) R+T =. 95) At this point we should note that GUP did not affect R and T up to Oα). VI. POTENTIAL BARRIER In this section we apply the above formalism to an STM and show that in an optimistic scenario, the effect of the GUP-induced term may be measurable. In an STM, free electrons of energy E close to the Fermi energy) from a metal tip at x =, tunnel quantum mechanically to a sample surface a small distance away at x = a. This gap across which a bias voltage may be applied) is associated with a potential barrier of height V > E [9]. Thus V x) = V [θx) θx a)] 96) where θx) is the usual step function. The wave functions for the three regions, namely, x, x a, and x a, are ψ,ψ, and ψ 3, respectively, and satisfy the GUP-corrected time-independent Schrödinger equation d ψ,3 +k ψ,3 +iα d 3 ψ,3 = d ψ k ψ +iα d 3 ψ = where k = me/ and k = mv E)/. The solutions to the aforementioned equations to leading order in α are ψ = Ae ik x +Be ik x +Pe ix/α 97) ψ = Fe k x +Ge k x +Qe ix/α 98) ψ 3 = Ce ik x +Re ix/α 99) where k = k + α k),k = k α k),k = k iα k ),k = k +iα k ) and A,B,C,F,G,P,Q,R are constants of integration. In the above, we have omitted the left mover from ψ 3. Note the appearance of the new oscillatory terms with characteristic wavelengths α, due to the third order modification of the Schrödinger equation. The boundary conditions at x =,a are given by d n ψ x= = d n ψ x=, n =,, ) d n ψ x=a = d n ψ 3 x=a, n =,,. ) If we assume that P Q R Oα ), we get the following solutions C A = ik k +k k +k k +k k a+k )e ik a e k +k )a k +ik )k +ik ) k ik )k ik ), ) B A = k +ik [e ik a k aca ] k, 3) ik F A = +ik k )e ik a k a C A, 4) + k k G A = ik k )e ik a+k ac A + k k. 5) From Eq.89), it follows that the transmission coefficient of the STM, given by the ratio of the right moving currents to the right and left of the barrier, namely, J R and J L, respectively, is to Oα) T = J R = C J L A α k B A 6) which gives using the solutions in Eqs.) and 3) the following final expression [ T = T +α k T ) ] 7) 6EV T = e ka 8) V where T is the standard STM transmission coefficient. The measured tunneling current is proportional to T usually magnified by a factor G), and using the following approximate but realistic) values [9] we get m = m e =.5 MeV/c, E V = ev a = m, I = 9 A, G = 9 δi I = δt T = 6, δi GδI = 6 A 9) where we have chosen α = and T = 3, also a fairly typical value. Thus, for the GUP-induced excess

8 8 current δi to give the difference of the charge of just one electron, e 9 C, one would have to wait for a time τ = e δi = 7 s ) or, equivalently, about 4 months, which can perhaps be argued to be not that long. In fact, higher values of α and a more accurate estimate will likely reduce this time, and conversely, current studies may already be able to put an upper bound on α. What is perhaps more interesting is the following relation between the apparent barrier height Φ A V E and the logarithmic) rate of increase of current with the gap, which follows from Eq.7) ΦA = dlni 8m da α k +k ) e ka. ) 8mkk ) Note the GUP-induced deviation from the usual linear ΦA vs dlni/da curve. The exponential factor makes this particularly sensitive to changes in the tip-sample distance a, and hence amenable to observations. Any such observed deviation may signal the existence of GUP and, thus, in turn an underlying theory of quantum gravity. VII. CONCLUSIONS In this work we have investigated the consequences of quantum gravitational corrections to various quantum phenomena such as the Landau levels, simple harmonic oscillator, the Lamb shift, and the tunneling current in a scanning tunneling microscope and have found that the upper bounds on α to be 3, 7, and from the first three respectively. The first one gives a length scale bigger than electroweak length that is not right experimentally. It should be stressed that the last three bounds are more stringent than the ones derived in the previous study [9], and might be consistent with that set by the electroweak scale. Therefore, it could signal a new and intermediate length scale between the electroweak and the Planck scale. On the other side, we have found that even if α, we still might measure quantum gravitational corrections in a scanning tunneling microscopic case as was shown in Eq. ). This is in fact an improvement over the general conclusion of [9], where it was shown that quantum gravitational effects are virtually negligible if the GUP parameter β, and appears to be a new and interesting result. It would also be interesting to apply our formalism to other areas including cosmology, black hole physics and Hawking radiation, selection rules in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanical systems etc. We hope to report on these in the future. Acknowledgments We thank A. Dasgupta, S. Hossenfelder, R. B. Mann and L. Smolin for interesting discussions. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. VIII. APPENDIX A. Proof for Eq. ) Since black hole physics and string theory suggest a modified Heisenberg algebra which is consistent with GUP) quadratic in the momenta see e.g. Ref. [] ) while DSR theories suggest one that is linear in the momenta see e.g. Ref. [] ), we try to incorporate both of the above, and start with the most general algebra with linear and quadratic terms [x i,p j ] = i δ ij +δ ij α p+α p i p j p +β δ ij p + β p i p j ). ) Assuming that the coordinates commute among themselves, as do the momenta, it follows from the Jacobi identity that [[x i,x j ],p k ] = [[x j,p k ],x i ]+[[p k,x i ],x j ] =. 3) Employing Eq.) and the commutator identities, and expanding the right hand side, we get summation convention assumed) = [[x j,p k ],x i ]+[[p k,x i ],x j ] = i α δ jk [x i,p] α [x i,p j p k p ] β δ jk [x i,p l p l ] β [x i,p j p k ]) i j) = i α δ jk [x i,p] α [x i,p j ]p k p +p j [x i,p k ]p +p j p k [x i,p ]) β δ jk [x i,p l ]p l +p l [x i,p l ]) β [x i,p j ]p k +p j [x i,p k ])) i j). 4) To simplify the right hand side of Eq.4), we now evaluate the following commutators i) [x i,p] to Op) Note that [x i,p ] = [x i,p p] = [x i,p]p+p[x i,p] 5) = [x i,p k p k ] = [x i,p k ]p k +p k [x i,p k ] = i δ ik +α pδ ik +α p i p k p ) p k +i p k δ ik +α pδ ik +α p i p k p ) to Op) using )) = i p i [+α +α )p]. 6) Comparing 5) and 6), we get [x i,p] = i p i p +α +α )p i ). 7) ii) [x i,p ] to Op)

9 9 Using where a α and b a. From Eq.) it follows that = [x i,i] = [x i,p p ] = [x i,p]p +p[x i,p ]8) it follows that [x i,p ] = p i [x i,p]p = i p p i p +α +α )p i ) p = i p i p 3 +α +α )p). 9) Substituting 7) and 9) in 4) and simplifying, we get = [[x j,p k ],x i ]+[[p k,x i ],x j ] = α α )p +α +β β ) ) jki ) where jki = p i δ jk p j δ ik. Thus one must have α = α α with α > ; The negative sign follows from Ref. [3] of our paper), and β = β + α. Since from dimensionalgroundsitfollowsthatβ α,forsimplicity, we assume β = α. Hence β = 3α, and we get Eq.) of this paper, namely, [x i,p j ] = i δ ij α pδ ij + p ip j p ) ) +α p δ ij +3p i p j ).) [x i,p j ] = [x i,p j +ap p j +bp p j ] = i δ ij +a[x i,p ]p j +p [x i,p j ]) +b [x i,p ]p p j +p [x i,p ]p j +p [x i,p j ] ).3) Next, we use the following four results to Oa) and [x i,p j ] = i in Eq.3): i) [x i,p ] = i p i p, which follows from Eq.7)when α i =, as well from the corresponding Poisson bracket. ii) p j = p j + ap ) + Oa ) p j + ap) [from Eq.)]. Therefore, p j pj +ap ap)p j. iii) p = p j p j ) = ap) p j p j ) / = ap)p. iv) p i p p j = ap)p i ap) p ap)p j = ap)p i p j p. Thus, Eq. 3) yields B. Proof for Eq. 5) We would like to express the momentum p j in terms of the low energy momentum p j such that [x i,p j ] = i δ ij ). Since Eq.) is quadratic in p j, the latter can at most be a cubic function of the p i. We start with the most general form consistent with the index structure p j = p j +ap p j +bp p j, ) [x i,p j ] = i δ ij +ia pδ ij +p i p j p ) + i b a )p i p j +i b a )p δ ij.4) Comparing with Eq.), it follows that a = α and b = α. In other words p j = p j αp p j +α p p j = p j αp +α p ) 5) which is Eq.5) in this paper. [] A. F. Ali, S. Das and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 678 9) 497 [arxiv: [hep-th]]. [] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 6 989) 4; M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B ) 65 [arxiv:hep-th/9367]; M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D ) 58 [arxiv:hep-th/93563]; M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B ) 83 [arxiv:hep-th/93934]; L.J. Garay, Int.J. Mod. Phys.A995) 45[arXiv:grqc/9438]; F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B ) 39 [arxiv:hep-th/9945]; S. Hossenfelder, M. Bleicher, S. Hofmann, J. Ruppert, S. Scherer and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B 575 3) 85 [arxiv:hep-th/356]; C. Bambi and F. R. Urban, Class. Quant. Grav. 5 8) 956 [arxiv: [gr-qc]]. [3] J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 ) 943 [arxiv:hep-th/9]; J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 7 5) 6 [arxiv:hepth/487]; S. Ghosh, P. Pal, Phys. Rev. D75 7) 5. [hep-th/759]. [4] G. M. Hossain, V. Husain, S. S. Seahra, Class. Quant. Grav. 7 ) 653 [arxiv:3.7 [gr-qc]]. [5] J. L. Cortes, J. Gamboa, Phys. Rev. D 7 5) 655 [arxiv:hep-th/4585]. [6] A. Kempf, G. Mangano, R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 5 995) 8 [arxiv:hep-th/9467]. [7] A. Kempf, J. Phys. A 3 997) 93 [arxiv:hepth/96445]. [8] F. Brau, J. Phys. A 3 999) 769 [arxiv:quantph/99533]. [9] S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8) 3 [arxiv: [hep-th]]; S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Can. J. Phys. 87 9) 33 [arxiv:9.768 [hep-th]]. [] R. J. Adler, P. Chen and D. I. Santiago, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33 ) [arxiv:gr-qc/68]; S. Basilakos, S. Das and E. C. Vagenas, JCAP 9 ) 7 [arxiv: [hep-th]]. [] S. Das, E. C. Vagenas and A. F. Ali, Phys. Lett. B 69 ) 47 [arxiv: [hep-th]].

10 [] C. Rovelli, L. Smolin, Nucl. Phys. B44 995) 593 [grqc/945]; A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav ) A55 [gr-qc/9646]; T. Thiemann, J. Math. Phys ) 337 [arxiv:gr-qc/9669] [3] J. W. G. Wildöer, C. J. P. M. Harmans, H. van Kempen, Phys. Rev. B ) R63. [4] J. W. Norbury, F. F. Badavi, L. W. Townsend, Am. J. Phys ) 3. [5] Particle Data Group Collaboration, W.-M. Yao et al., Review of particle physics, J. Phys. G 33 6). [6] B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, Quantum Mechanics Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, ), nd ed. [7] J. D. Bjorken, S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Mc-Graw Hill, New York, 964) p.6. [8] G. Newton, D. A. Andrews, P. J. Unsworth, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. Series A, Math. and Phys. Sc., 9, No ) 373. [9] J. A. Stroscio, W. J. Kaiser, Scanning Tunneling Microscopy, Academic Press, 993.