What's the relationship between RMS framework and the Lorentz group?

In summary, the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl framework is a well-known kinematic test theory for parameterizing deviations from Lorentz invariance. It is used to experimentally test for violations of Lorentz invariance, which is limited by group-theoretical theorems such as the Reciprocity Principle and the Lorentz Transformations. The underlying group structure of the RMS framework is still being studied and its relationship to the Lorentz group is not yet fully understood. However, it is an important tool for testing for violations of Lorentz invariance, which is a key concept in theoretical physics.
  • #1
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,302
1,472
TL;DR Summary
What is the relationship between the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl framework and the Lorentz group
The Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl framework, discussed in "Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance", https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2005-5?affiliation, is "a well known kinematic test theory for parameterizing deviations from Lorentz invariance."

I'm a bit confused on the relationship between this framework, which tests experimentally for Lorentz invariance, and the group-theoretical theorems discussed in a recent thread that limit the theoretical possiblities for covariant formulations of physics, as discussed in this now-closed PF thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-postulate-or-assumption.1052965/post-6905619

in particular the (paywalled) paper "V. Berzi and V. Gorini, Reciprocity Principle and the Lorentz
Transformations, Jour. Math. Phys. 10, 1518 (1969)", https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665000

I assume the RMS framework has some underlying group structure. The question is - is this underlying group structure the same or different than the Lorentz group? I've been perusing the Living Review article, which is rather long. Possibly it already contains the answer I seek, but I haven't been able to figure this out to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, I don't know enough group theory to answer the question myself from first principles :(.

A dumbed down version of the underlying and motivational question might be "If the Lorentz group and the Gallilean group are the only group-theoretical possibilities, what sort of test theory allows us to experimentally test for violations of Lorentz invariance?" The more specific question in the title of the thread is an attempt to answer this "fuzzier" question.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale

1. What is the RMS framework?

The RMS (Relativistic Many-Body Scattering) framework is a theoretical framework used in high-energy physics to describe the scattering of particles at high energies. It takes into account the effects of special relativity and quantum mechanics.

2. What is the Lorentz group?

The Lorentz group is a mathematical group that describes the symmetries of special relativity. It includes rotations and boosts in space and time, and is a fundamental concept in modern physics.

3. How are the RMS framework and the Lorentz group related?

The RMS framework is based on the principles of special relativity, which is described by the Lorentz group. The Lorentz group is used to transform between different reference frames, which is essential in understanding the behavior of particles in the RMS framework.

4. Why is the Lorentz group important in the RMS framework?

The Lorentz group is important in the RMS framework because it allows for the mathematical description of the behavior of particles at high energies. Without taking into account the effects of special relativity, the predictions of the RMS framework would not be accurate.

5. How does the Lorentz group affect the predictions of the RMS framework?

The Lorentz group affects the predictions of the RMS framework by allowing for the transformation of quantities such as energy and momentum between different reference frames. This is necessary to accurately describe the behavior of particles at high energies, which is the focus of the RMS framework.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
814
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
10K
Back
Top