Undergrad Solutions that break the Lorentz invariance...?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Lorentz invariance violations in cosmology, specifically addressing how certain solutions to cosmological equations can break Lorentz symmetry while the underlying laws remain Lorentz invariant. An example provided is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which appears isotropic only in a specific Lorentz frame, demonstrating that particular solutions can exhibit non-invariance. The conversation clarifies that while the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, specific solutions, such as those involving matter and radiation, may not adhere to this symmetry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz invariance and its significance in physics.
  • Familiarity with cosmological equations and their solutions.
  • Knowledge of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and its properties.
  • Basic concepts of quantum field theory (QFT) and thermal equilibrium.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Lorentz invariance in general relativity.
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as a Lorentz scalar.
  • Study the role of temperature in quantum field theory at finite temperatures.
  • Investigate the distinctions between local and global Lorentz invariance in cosmological contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics interested in the nuances of Lorentz invariance and its implications for cosmological models and quantum field theory.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Solutions that break the Lorentz invariance...?
I was reading a discussion where some physicists participated* where the topic of Lorentz invariance violations occurring in cosmology is mentioned.

There, they mention that we can imagine a Lorentz-violating solution to the cosmological equations. What do they mean by that? Can anyone specify any example of such solutions (a solution which really breaks the Lorentz symmetry)?

They also said that we don't need a theory which violates the Lorentz invariance to have solutions that are not Lorentz invariant. What do they mean by that? Can you specify any example of such solutions (a solution which really breaks the Lorentz symmetry)?

Thank you

*(https://books.google.com/books?id=W...age&q=inhomogeneities violate lorentz&f=false)
 
Space news on Phys.org
You have to distinguish two very different things:

(1) The laws of physics are (locally) Lorentz invariant; but

(2) Particular solutions to the equations, in general, are not.

For example, the particular solution that describes our universe is not Lorentz invariant, because it includes lots of matter and radiation, and the matter and radiation has particular states of motion. The simplest example is the CMB, since it's everywhere; at any event in spacetime, the CMB only looks isotropic (the same temperature in all directions) in one particular Lorentz frame. So the CMB is not Lorentz invariant. But the underlying laws that govern the CMB and everything else are Lorentz invariant.

That is what they are talking about in the reference you give.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn, vanhees71 and topsquark
That claim is often made even in scientific papers and textbooks. Of course, a special-relativistic theory is Poincare invariant (and thus also Lorentz invariant). Your example of the cosmic microwave background is of course also Poincare invariant. It's simply electromagnetic radiation in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of about 2.725K. Now sometimes it's claimed that QFT at finite temperature "breaks Lorentz invariance", but that's of course not true. Of course, there is a special (in GR local) inertial frame distinguished by the physical situation, i.e., the rest frame of the CMBR, but this doesn't imply that somehow Poincare invariance is broken. You can formulate it manifestly covariant. You only have to take into account all "elements" you need for its description. We need temperature, which is a Lorentz scalar and the four-velocity ##u^{\mu}## of the observer relative to the (local) rest frame of the CMBR. Then the statistical operator can be written in manifestly covariant form,
$$\hat{R}=\frac{1}{Z} \exp[-u \cdot \hat{p}/(k_{\text{B}} T)], \quad Z=\mathrm{Tr} \exp[-u \cdot \hat{p}/(k_{\text{B}} T)].$$
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K