Corollaries of Lorentz Invariance: Overview & Explanation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Lorentz invariance and its relationship to special relativity, as well as the non-obvious corollaries associated with Lorentz invariance. Participants seek clarification on these points and inquire about specific references related to the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Lorentz invariance is often said to be equivalent to special relativity but suggests that this equivalence may not be entirely accurate, indicating a potential overlap between the two concepts.
  • Another participant expresses a desire for specific references to support claims about Lorentz invariance and its corollaries.
  • A participant recalls reading about Lorentz invariance in a physics blog but cannot remember the specific source, mentioning that it may have been related to Poincare invariance or generalized co-variance.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of specific references, with one participant stating that without them, it is challenging to engage meaningfully in the discussion.
  • There is a suggestion to search arXiv for papers on tests of Lorentz invariance as a way to find relevant information.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a lack of consensus on the equivalence of Lorentz invariance and special relativity, and there is disagreement regarding the necessity of specific references for meaningful discussion. The conversation remains unresolved regarding the corollaries of Lorentz invariance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the absence of specific references, which affects the ability to engage with the claims made about Lorentz invariance and its corollaries.

ohwilleke
Gold Member
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,638
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K