Best yet test of Lorentz invariance

October 25, 2010

The more crucial a physical law is, the more important it is to keep testing it. One of the most important laws formulated in the last century or so is Albert Einsteinэs principle of invariance, which says that there is no preferred reference system or orientation in the universe.

A hypothetical violation of this principle might come about through the intervention of some not-yet-known force field.

The field would manifest itself by the simultaneous violation of three basic symmetries in nature, called CPT: charge conjugation (a symmetry which says that nature treats matter and antimatter alike), parity inversion (which says that nature can’t differentiate between left and right), and time inversion (a symmetry which holds that movies of microscopic interactions should look alike even if you reverse the order running from front to back).

In other words, looking for violation of Lorentz invariance is equivalent to looking for violations of CPT invariance.

Michael Romalis and his colleagues at Princeton look for the faint magnetic influence the hypothetical field would have on matter by watching two species of atoms – potassium and helium-3 – which are contained in a rotating vessel.

The whole lab is of course attached to the Earth, which itself rotates daily and orbits the Sun. All of these motions, carefully accounted for, should leave behind a trace of a difference for the two atomic species if an extra field exists.

The result of the latest round of observations improves by a factor of 30 the constraint on the existence of the hypothetical Lorentz-violating field.

"This is a rather dramatic improvement in CPT and Lorentz tests," says Romalis. "Our new technique also has the potential for much larger improvements in the future, so there are more limits to come."

Michael Romalis will present the findings at Frontiers in Optics (FiO) 2010/Laser Science XXVI -- the 94th annual meeting of the Optical Society (OSA). The presentation, "New Limit on Lorentz and CPT Violation for Neutrons," will take place on Thursday, Oct. 28.

Provided by Optical Society of America search and more info website

4.9 /5 (15 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Question
Oct 25, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
Doesn't the direction in which we launch satellites
indicate a preferred frame of reference? We also launch satellites using the using the earth's rotation around the sun to our advantage. Certainly we would use the rotation of our galaxy to our advantage if we sent a spaceship to other stars in our galaxy or to other galaxies. Is there any place in our universe where we couldn't use our proper motion to our advantage?
Grizzled
Oct 25, 2010

Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
No. What they want to establish is whether or not there is an abolute system of coordinates. That is, can you say that taking into account the movement of earth, Sun, Galaxy etc you can come up with some "true" velocity your piece of equipment is moving through space. Or even simpler - which direction is truly "up"?
Question
Oct 25, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
The direction I can understand but the true "speed" I cannot. I must be over looking something but two other factors indicate that there is a preferred frame of reference, the Sagnac Effect and the apparent velocity we are moving in the Comic Background Radiation.
epsi00
Oct 25, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
"which direction is truly "up""
well you fill a glass with water then you turn it upside down. it will certainly tell you which way is up and which is down. water does not flow "up". No?
Quantum_Conundrum
Oct 25, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
"which direction is truly "up""
well you fill a glass with water then you turn it upside down. it will certainly tell you which way is up and which is down. water does not flow "up". No?


Perhaps he should have made a better choice of words.

Which direction is the "top" of the galaxy?

Which direction is the "top" of the universe?

However, "up" is also relative, because the direction that is "up" on one side of the earth is actually "down" on the opposite side of the earth. It is only if you define "up" with respect to a polar coordinate centered on the earth's CoG that you obtain consistency, in which case, "up" is simply any vector pointing away from the center of the earth.

Oh yeah, to my knowledge, no version of relativity correctly describes an observer on the surface of a planet or other object, because no version of relativity even considers the problem of the spinning observer. They deal only with uniform linear motion or linear acceleration.
Grizzled
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
apparent velocity we are moving in the Comic Background Radiation.


I presume you meant Cosmic radiation :-)

But no, that only means that we move in relation to that radiation. It still doesn't make that reference frame somehow better than others. In particular, all physical phenomena should have the same outcome regardless in which system you look at them.

Consider the example in another question - about the water pouring out of a glass. The end result (glass is empty) remains the same even if you stand on your head (so that subjectively it flows towards your head so would appear to go "up" in your coordinate system).
CTD1
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: 1.1 / 5 (11)
looking for violation of Lorentz invariance is equivalent to looking for violations of CPT invariance
It would mean, LI is equivalent to CPTI, which I'm not perfectly sure about. And I'm not sure, if observation of atoms (i.e. the matter) in rotating vessel is equivalent to observation of LI (which deals with radiation).
genastropsychicallst
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Not-yet-known = ozon, to be read at my website.
toyo
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
I can't help thinking, on reading this article, what would the Climate Warming Alarmists make of the scientists that continue to test for potential violations of such an old, established scientific principle?
What would they call them, surely "skeptics" or "deniers" would be too kind, maybe "heretics" or even "lunatics"? :-))
Shootist
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
Oh yeah, to my knowledge, no version of relativity correctly describes an observer on the surface of a planet or other object, because no version of relativity even considers the problem of the spinning observer. They deal only with uniform linear motion or linear acceleration.


Which is why, IIRC, the initial solutions found when applying Relativity to Mercury's precession were incorrect. The math failed to account for both Earth's rotation, and its movement through space.
genastropsychicallst
Oct 26, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
... field is a comma ...
mg1
Oct 27, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Well the universe is strange for a start, for one thing when "normal" things explode the debris tends not to clump and then rotate in small chunks as it whistles away in all directions.

But if i were a guessing id say you could determine top and bottom if the space into which the universe is expanding into was not expanding equally. You could probably discern this easily over time by seeing from which directions the "oldest" light comes from and form a 3d "distorted" shape from that.

Youd probably have some weird shape for the universe which would change shape as more data was added over time. But eventually you have a rough shape of the universe.

Once youve smoothed a few edges, and lobbed in a general definition of top being the furthest away youd end up with a nice map and the absolute geometry system of the universe youre after.
Decimatus
Oct 30, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I can't help thinking, on reading this article, what would the Climate Warming Alarmists make of the scientists that continue to test for potential violations of such an old, established scientific principle?
What would they call them, surely "skeptics" or "deniers" would be too kind, maybe "heretics" or even "lunatics"? :-))


They call them scientists, just like every other person who uses logic, reason, and scientific method to determine how and why things work.
Ravenrant
Nov 01, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
If there is no frame of reference in the universe what is the earth dragging around that caused the mikelson morly effect? Which also seems to me that it would affect any experiment like this.
geordie_macdonald
Nov 03, 2010

Rank: not rated yet
If we assigned a clock to every possible frame of reference, and could measure every clock then would the frame of reference with the fastest running clock (as per time dilation) be sitting at the origin of the universe?

Is this essentially what they are looking for?
CSharpner
Nov 04, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If there is no frame of reference in the universe what is the earth dragging around that caused the mikelson morly effect? Which also seems to me that it would affect any experiment like this

The Michaelson-Morley experiments have been repeated ad-nauseum with accuracies reaching 2 X 10^-13 with no effect detected. The aether-dragging solution proposed by Stokes was proven to be contradictory. To date, all experiments that attempt to detect our speed through the "aether" have failed. Special Relativity explains that all distances, speeds, and time references are relative and that the universe has no "preferred" frame of reference.
CSharpner
Nov 04, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If we assigned a clock to every possible frame of reference, and could measure every clock then would the frame of reference with the fastest running clock (as per time dilation) be sitting at the origin of the universe?

The fastest running clock is always your local, stationary clock (ignoring gravity, for the moment). If you and I are passing each other, rapidly, in space, your clock is slower than mine (from my point of view) and my clock is slower than yours (from your point of view). We're both right because time is relative. Faster clocks tick slower... or stated more accurately, things that move, relative to an observer, appear to be aging slower than the observer. This is true for all observers, including those that appear to be moving from your point of view (because, from THEIR point of view, THEY'RE stationary and YOU'RE moving).

So, to answer your question, "Yes" and "No". If there's no center of the universe, then all points are the center, in a way. But no.
Rank 4.9 /5 (15 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Paradox of motion implies discrete space?
    created1 hour ago
  • acceleration decceleration
    created3 hours ago
  • Spiral motion and the centripetal force
    created3 hours ago
  • Uniform Circular Motion
    created4 hours ago
  • freely accesible translations
    created5 hours ago
  • Potential difference and terminal potential difference
    created6 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?

(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...

Physics / General Physics

created 11 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (6) | comments 17 | with audio podcast feature

Thousands of invisibility cloaks trap a rainbow

Many people anticipating the creation of an invisibility cloak might be surprised to learn that a group of American researchers has created 25 000 individual cloaks.

Physics / General Physics

created 2 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Slip-and-slide power generators

Researchers from Vestfold University College in Norway have created a simple, efficient energy harvesting device that uses the motion of a single droplet to generate electrical power.

Physics / General Physics

created 3 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Excitons: Exotic particles, chilled and trapped, form giant matter wave

Physicists have trapped and cooled exotic particles called excitons so effectively that they condensed and cohered to form a giant matter wave.

Physics / General Physics

created 9 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1 | with audio podcast

Sound increases the efficiency of boiling

Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...

Physics / Soft Matter

created 3 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0


HyperSolar shows dirty water no barrier to power world

(Phys.org) -- The Santa Barbara, California, company, HyperSolar, is set to transparently share the ups and downs of its research experiences toward the company’s ultimate vision, successfully producing ...

Asteroid nudged by sunlight: Most precise measurement of Yarkovsky effect

Scientists on NASA's asteroid sample return mission, Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx), have measured the orbit of their destination asteroid, ...

New mapping of Mars shows western Medusae Fossae formation older than once thought

(Phys.org) -- Recent geologic mapping of the Medusae Fossae Formation on Mars—an intensely eroded deposit near the northern edge of the cratered highlands—has revealed a wider distribution of its ...

Organic carbon from Mars, but not biological

Molecules containing large chains of carbon and hydrogen--the building blocks of all life on Earth--have been the targets of missions to Mars from Viking to the present day. While these molecules have previously ...

In nanorod crystal growth, nanoparticles seen as artificial atoms

In the growth of crystals, do nanoparticles act as "artificial atoms" forming molecular-type building blocks that can assemble into complex structures? This is the contention of a major but controversial theory ...

First direct observation of oriented attachment in nanocrystal growth

Berkeley Lab researchers have reported the first direct observation of nanoparticles undergoing oriented attachment, the critical step in biomineralization and the growth of nanocrystals. A better understanding ...