Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance

Mattingly, David

doi:10.12942/lrr-2005-5

Cited by 1,051 publications

(1,320 citation statements)

References 264 publications

(559 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,302

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[22,7,23,25], to place limits on the parameter ξ using certain observations in astrophysics. The outcome of some of these analyses was simply described in terms of limits on the parameter ξ, as if they were absolute limits, but we must here stress that, in light of the very explicit frame dependence of the Myers-Pospelov model, one of course cannot establish absolute limits on parameters.…”

Section: Comparison With Limits Previously Obtained Using Observationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Refs. [7,13,22,23,24,25]). We feel that the fact that our suggestion for testing Planck energy scale corrections in CMB polarization data is based on such a well-studied model should render our findings more significant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We feel that the fact that our suggestion for testing Planck energy scale corrections in CMB polarization data is based on such a well-studied model should render our findings more significant. Moreover, in the case of the Myers-Pospelov field theory it is relatively simple to establish which range of values of the single parameter of the model, ξ, would amount to introducing the effects at the Planck energy scale: the correction term in (1) is of dimension 5, so that the parameter ξ must be dimensionless, and several studies [7,12,22,23,24,25] have shown that quantization of space time at the Planck scale would lead to correction terms with ξ roughly of order 1 (|ξ| ∼ 1) in equation (1). This estimate of course must be handled prudently, since the arguments estimating that the scale of quantum-gravity effects should be given by the Planck scale allow a certain range of uncertainty: for example, most of these arguments rely crucially on the rather optimistic assumption of having no running of the gravitational coupling constant and no role for gravitational effects in the running of other coupling constants, but plausible estimates of how the renormalization-group flow might be affected by gravitational effects show [24,26] that the quantum-gravity scale may well differ by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude from the Planck scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A constraint on Planck-scale modifications to electrodynamics with CMB polarization data

Gubitosi

Pagano

Amelino‐Camelia

et al. 2009

J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We show that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) polarization data gathered by the BOOMERanG 2003 flight and WMAP provide an opportunity to investigate in-vacuo birefringence, of a type expected in some quantum pictures of space-time, with a sensitivity that extends even beyond the desired Planck-scale energy. In order to render this constraint more transparent we rely on a well studied phenomenological model of quantumgravity-induced birefringence, in which one easily establishes that effects introduced at the Planck scale would amount to values of a dimensionless parameter, denoted by ξ, with respect to the Planck energy which are roughly of order 1. By combining BOOMERanG and WMAP data we estimate ξ ≃ −0.110 ± 0.076 at the 68% c.l. Moreover, we forecast on the sensitivity to ξ achievable by future CMB polarization experiments (PLANCK, Spider, EPIC), which, in the absence of systematics, will be at the 1-σ confidence of 8.5 × 10 −4 (PLANCK), 6.1 × 10 −3 (Spider), and 1.0 × 10 −5 (EPIC) respectively. The cosmic variance-limited sensitivity from CMB is 6.1 × 10 −6 . † giulia

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Limits Previously Obtained Using Observationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A constraint on Planck-scale modifications to electrodynamics with CMB polarization data

Gubitosi

Pagano

Amelino‐Camelia

et al. 2009

J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But because the content of this review has been published in various forms elsewhere, we did not submit a full article. For further discussion of topics in this paper, and for references to the primary literature, we encourage readers to consult Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Will 1993) and to the "living" review articles by Mattingly (2005), Psaltis (2008), Stairs (2003) and Will (2006).…”

Section: General Relativity Vs Experiments 199mentioning

confidence: 99%

The confrontation between general relativity and experiment

Will¹

2009

Proc. IAU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We review the experimental evidence for Einstein's general relativity. A variety of high precision null experiments confirm the Einstein Equivalence Principle, which underlies the concept that gravitation is synonymous with spacetime geometry, and must be described by a metric theory. Solar system experiments that test the weak-field, post-Newtonian limit of metric theories strongly favor general relativity. Binary pulsars test gravitational-wave damping and aspects of strong-field general relativity. During the coming decades, tests of general relativity in new regimes may be possible. Laser interferometric gravitational-wave observatories on Earth and in space may provide new tests via precise measurements of the properties of gravitational waves. Future efforts using X-ray, infrared, gamma-ray and gravitational-wave astronomy may one day test general relativity in the strong-field regime near black holes and neutron stars. Keywords. gravitation, gravitational waves, relativitySince the late 1960s, when it was frequently said that "the field of general relativity is a theorist's paradise and an experimentalist's purgatory" the field of gravitational physics has been completely transformed, and today experiment is a central, and in some ways dominant component. The breadth of current experiments, ranging from tests of classic general relativistic effects, to searches for short-range violations of the inverse-square law, to a space experiment to measure the relativistic precession of gyroscopes, attest to the ongoing vigor of experimental gravitation.The great progress in testing general relativity during the latter part of the 20th century featured three main themes:• The use of advanced technology. This included the high-precision technology associated with atomic clocks, laser and radar ranging, cryogenics, and delicate laboratory sensors, as well as access to space.• The development of general theoretical frameworks. These frameworks allowed one to think beyond the narrow confines of general relativity itself, to analyse broad classes of theories, to propose new experimental tests and to interpret the tests in an unbiased manner.• The synergy between theory and experiment. To illustrate this, one needs only to note that the LIGO-Virgo Scientific Collaboration, engaged in one of the most important general relativity investigations -the detection of gravitational radiation -consists of over 700 scientists. This is big science, reminiscent of high-energy physics, not general relativity! Today, because of its elegance and simplicity, and because of its empirical success, general relativity has become the foundation for our understanding of the gravitational interaction. Yet modern developments in particle theory suggest that it is probably not the entire story, and that modifications of the basic theory may be required at some level.

show abstract

“…The experimental consequences depend on the surviving symmetry group and have been subject to numerous studies, see Refs. [6,7,8,9,10,11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spin dependent masses and symmetry

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Cohen and Glashow pointed out that all known experimental tests of relativistic kinematics are consistent with invariance of physics under the four-parameter subgroup Sim(2) of the Lorentz group. The massive one-particle irreducible representations of ISim (2), that is Sim(2) times spacetime translations, are all one-dimensional, labeled by spin along a preferred axis. Consequently particle theories based on this symmetry can accomodate lepton number conserving masses for left-handed neutrinos without the need to introduce sterile states. The same property of massive particle representations, however, also leads to the possibility that particle masses may be split within the diffferent spins of a representation of the ordinary Poincare group. In this article we investigate the low-energy structure of theories with spin dependent masses and comment on the bounds on such effects.

show abstract

Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance

Cited by 1,051 publications

References 264 publications

A constraint on Planck-scale modifications to electrodynamics with CMB polarization data

A constraint on Planck-scale modifications to electrodynamics with CMB polarization data

The confrontation between general relativity and experiment

Spin dependent masses and symmetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About