# Corollaries of Lorentz Invariance

• A
Gold Member
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?

## Answers and Replies

Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org
PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
I've commonly heard it said
Please give specific references.

Gold Member
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. ;)

PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
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.

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.

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.

PeterDonis
Mentor
2019 Award
In the absence of specific references, this thread is closed.