A Corollaries of Lorentz Invariance: Overview & Explanation

ohwilleke
Gold Member
Messages
2,647
Reaction score
1,605
I've commonly heard it said that Lorentz invariance is equivalent to saying that special relativity is obeyed, although I also recall discussions arguing that this is not precisely and technically correct, although the two concepts heavily overlap.

I also understand that Lorentz invariance has a number of non-obvious corollaries that could be used either as alternative tests of Lorentz invariance violation or alternatively could be used assuming Lorentz invariance to make conclusions about physical systems. But, I don't recall what any of those non-obvious corollaries are.

Could someone clarify either of these points?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ohwilleke said:
I've commonly heard it said

Please give specific references.
 
I think I read it a post at a widely read physics blog, but don't recall if it was Sabine's or Lubos's or 4Gravitons or someone else's (not something for a popular readership like Discovery or Quanta or Popular Science or Science News), either in the main post or the comments, written by someone who practices in the field (the blog author). Honestly, I think it was Sabine's Backreaction blog, but I can't find the original place where I read it, which is why I asked here. It could be that I am confusing this with Poincare invariance and generalized co-variance or something like that.

Re the corollaries of Lorentz invariance, it was in the body text of an arXiv preprint that I accidentally erased the bookmark to, hence again, a question here. I also think I recall seeing it in preprints about testing for Lorentz invariance with neutrino bursts from supernovas, but again, don't have a reference at hand.

In both cases, I wish I had more specific references, but the wetware doesn't do precision citation. Maybe if I get an upgrade in my next life. ;)
 
ohwilleke said:
I think I read it a post at a widely read physics blog

Sorry, but (a) without a specific source it's impossible to comment, and (b) this wouldn't be a valid source anyway.

ohwilleke said:
Re the corollaries of Lorentz invariance, it was in the body text of an arXiv preprint that I accidentally erased the bookmark to, hence again, a question here

Sorry, but again, without a specific reference it's impossible to comment as the question is much too broad.

ohwilleke said:
I wish I had more specific references, but the wetware doesn't do precision citation

Understood, but the limits of PF discussion are what they are. I would suggest searching arxiv looking specifically for papers on tests of Lorentz invariance.
 
In the absence of specific references, this thread is closed.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
9K
Replies
53
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top