Separate experiments show no evidence of violation of Lorentz invariance

November 20, 2017 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Separate experiments show no evidence of violation of Lorentz invariance
Credit: C. Carreau/ESA, via Physics

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have conducted experiments designed to test Lorentz invariance; both report no violations. One of the teams used decades of data from lunar lasing experiments, the other data from experiments conducted over several years using superconducting gravimeters. Both teams have published papers in the journal Physical Review Letters describing their work and their findings.

When physicists conduct relativistic experiments that involve physical measurement, their findings should not rely on the orientation or speed of the place in which the experiments take place, according to the of . This principle is known as Lorentz invariance, and testing it is one of the ways of testing the theory of relativity itself. In this new effort, both research teams have tested the principle with the tightest constraints to date and both offer more accuracy than has been seen in the past.

One of the groups, with team members from Italy, France and U.S., used a half-century's worth of collected via lunar lasing—bouncing a beam off a mirror left on the moon's surface by manned Apollo missions. The data represents measurements of the moon's orbit around the Earth as well as its rotation. Using the data, they found it consistent with null coefficients, which meant no violations of Lorentz invariance were found. They also report that their study offered accuracy between 100 and 1000 times better than was possible in previous efforts.

The other group was made up of researchers at Carleton College in the U.S. They obtained data from other teams working over several years using superconducting gravimeters to conduct experiments. Such meters can be used to calculate gravitational acceleration by measuring the position of a superconducting sphere as it is levitated in a magnetic field. This team also reported that the coefficients they derived were all consistent with zero. They further note that their efforts were 10 times as accurate as prior efforts and that some of the results were the first of their kind ever obtained.

By placing ever tighter constraints when testing physics theories, researchers offer stronger proof that the principles that underlie basic theories such as relativity are sound.

Explore further: Still no violation of Lorentz symmetry, despite strongest test yet

More information: 1. A. Bourgoin et al. Lorentz Symmetry Violations from Matter-Gravity Couplings with Lunar Laser Ranging, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201102 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06294

ABSTRACT
The standard-model extension (SME) is an effective field theory framework aiming at parametrizing any violation to the Lorentz symmetry (LS) in all sectors of physics. In this Letter, we report the first direct experimental measurement of SME coefficients performed simultaneously within two sectors of the SME framework using lunar laser ranging observations. We consider the pure gravitational sector and the classical point-mass limit in the matter sector of the minimal SME. We report no deviation from general relativity and put new realistic stringent constraints on LS violations improving up to 3 orders of magnitude previous estimations.


2. Natasha A. Flowers et al. Superconducting-Gravimeter Tests of Local Lorentz Invariance, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.201101 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08495

ABSTRACT
Superconducting-gravimeter measurements are used to test the local Lorentz invariance of the gravitational interaction and of matter-gravity couplings. The best laboratory sensitivities to date are achieved via a maximum-reach analysis for 13 Lorentz-violating operators, with some improvements exceeding an order of magnitude.

Related Stories

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Einstein's relativity survives neutrino test

October 15, 2008

Physicists working to disprove "Lorentz invariance" -- Einstein's prediction that matter and massless particles will behave the same no matter how they're turned or how fast they go -- won't get that satisfaction from muon ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Long live the doubly charmed particle

May 25, 2018

Finding a new particle is always a nice surprise, but measuring its characteristics is another story and just as important. Less than a year after announcing the discovery of the particle going by the snappy name of Ξcc++ (Xicc++), ...

How can you tell if a quantum memory is really quantum?

May 23, 2018

Quantum memories are devices that can store quantum information for a later time, which are usually implemented by storing and re-emitting photons with certain quantum states. But often it's difficult to tell whether a memory ...

18 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2017
bouncing a beam off a mirror left on the moon's surface by manned Apollo missions

This is one of the weird things about the people who say the Apollo landings never happened: There's this mirror on the moon. You can shine a laser on it. You can measure that you get a laser back. How can they deny that it's there?
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2017
bouncing a beam off a mirror left on the moon's surface by manned Apollo missions

This is one of the weird things about the people who say the Apollo landings never happened: There's this mirror on the moon. You can shine a laser on it. You can measure that you get a laser back. How can they deny that it's there?


From what I've seen, they'll either say you can measure the laser reflection straight from the surface; no mirror required, or they'll complain that so few people have the specialized equipment required, that you can't trust the results (think conspiracehhh).
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2017
What?
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2017
This results are a bit annoying. But then I suppose it's better so than seeing us fall apart because of a basic law that is no longer law.
KBK
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2017
"superconducting gravimeters" were used.

This will lead to a null result. the signals being looked for are swamped, and sensitive to the field polarization of the hardware in use. You can't find something you don't know if the hardware involved is selective in excluding the potential results in specific ways, in the way your 'suspected phenomena' may function. Molecular lattice is polarized in form and integration. Same as looking for your keys under the light when you lost them out in the darkness and unknown.

Then the weasel words "null coefficient'. As tied to re-analysis of the laser data. Be very very careful here.

Heaviside removed the incredibly minuscule and complex field integration from Maxwell's original works. Lorentz removed the last bits.

When hardware is all molecular lattice based = false negatives.

Return to the original pre-Lorentz pre-Heaviside mathematics - develop theory and detection methods based on the true original works.
KBK
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2017
Importantly, by the time Einstein got there, the Math of Maxwell had long before been edited by Heaviside and well used in this modified form. Well established. Relativity theory used the edited mathematics. As did the developing world in all electrical and field analysis.

Thus hardware for detecting will confirm relativity. Not unexpected. Wrong hardware. Wrong mindset, wrong analysis. Wrong understanding of the potential phenomena.

Not the phenomena that the rarely seen and largely unknown original mathematics exposes as being there. which is all hinted at by observation ...and pushed for - by theories - by said observations.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2017
"... left on the moon's surface by manned Apollo missions."
https://en.wikipe...the_Moon
Includes several Russian ones, deployed by remote-controlled rovers...
billpress11
3 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2017
Quote from article: "Using the data, they found it consistent with null coefficients, which meant no violations of Lorentz invariance were found. They also report that their study offered accuracy between 100 and 1000 times better than was possible in previous efforts."

Question: Are they looking for a change in frequency depending upon the orientation of the earth and moon? If so, what I can't get is how could there be a difference because even if there would be a difference one way, wouldn't it be canceled out on the return?
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2017
This results are a bit annoying. But then I suppose it's better so than seeing us fall apart because of a basic law that is no longer law.

And gold turn to dust. Or mercury turn to dust. 0.o
Spaced out Engineer
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2017
Doesn't subcycle electrodynamics show that invariance can be attained?
https://www.natur...ure21024
Or does this not hold due to the squeezing being isomorphic to a fold, and thus being indeterminable?
Spaced out Engineer
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2017
Light can be slowed and shortest paths influence.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2017
From what I've seen, they'll either say you can measure the laser reflection straight from the surface; no mirror required,

In that case you could point the laser at any part of the surface - and that doesn't work
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2017
Dunno, the light as created by charge motion is the field, each field has a center. So the only characteristic of importance is the first and final oscillator. Each field is unique and fields don't affect fields. In fact, all that exists are these field centers we call charge. So define the complete path, each wavelet has a center, So did the center move with respect to the field to create an exact duplicate upon reflection, i.e. does that center observed create a spherical field relative to it's containment field or does the reflected field center have the velocity vector of the initiator? So we have the relative Velocity Vector of one object reflecting a beam from another object. If you are the source what you see is the beam relative to you, while the reflector sees a totally different action. Relative wavelength, so are you moving fast enough to obtain a measurable difference. Charge will comply to the relative field. Anyway, what are you trying to measure?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2017
Or are we still trying to make sense of nonsense, i.e. Limiting the speed of light? The constant will always be measured_wavelenght/measured_Period. So what you guys are doing is denying logic or you are really stupid. The original oscillator did not change. Take just use 1 loop, that loop created a wrinkle about that field center and is updated at ? with respect to that center! c? But what if that center has a relative velocity, +/-[0, Infinity]? Get it best can do for the speed relative to it's center as measured by me is Original_Wavelegth/Measured_Period! Because that's all the math can provide. Next is the directional vector, in an infinite universe that has existed for an infinite of time with an infinite pair of these centers; then, surely light and the light's vector then must be meticulously understood.
ddaye
not rated yet Nov 20, 2017
From what I've seen, they'll either say you can measure the laser reflection straight from the surface; no mirror required,

In that case you could point the laser at any part of the surface - and that doesn't work

The key is "you." Ordinary people don't have such lasers and detection equipment.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2017
Dunno, the light as created by charge motion is the field, each field has a center. So the only characteristic of importance is the first and final oscillator. Each field is unique and fields don't affect fields.


That's just nonsense, HF.
If a field did not affect another field, there would be no oscillations...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2017
Dunno, the light as created by charge motion is the field, each field has a center. So the only characteristic of importance is the first and final oscillator. Each field is unique and fields don't affect fields.


That's just nonsense, HF.
If a field did not affect another field, there would be no oscillations...

Fields only affect the field centers. Every field is unique; else, there would be no vision. No detail, ... or Coulomb's Law; nor imagination.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2017
So we can calculate or simulate the entire path. With measurement and calculations, which are correct? How many ways are there for you to be nearly theoretically correct? If we begin with each field; then, everything else is just supposition. For these are all that is Necessary and Sufficient, Logic!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.