yeah... 118 years later since the publication of SR, Einstein still standing to debunk all attemps to debunk him... Lorentz invariance really hard core and more formally, the Lorentz group! any1 out there can compare this absolute precision of 0.1−0.8% to the thickness of human hair?
------
Bounds on Lorentz-violating couplings are extracted, and found to be compatible with Lorentz invariance with an absolute precision of 0.1−0.8%
. This search can also be interpreted as a precision test of special relativity with top quarks, improving precision by two orders of magnitude over a previous such measurement.
------
cds.cern.ch/record/2859658

Searches for violation of Lorentz invariance in $\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\overline{t}}$ production using dilepton events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13\,\mathrm{TeV}$

Violation of Lorentz invariance is searched for using top quark pair ($\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\overline{t}}$) production in proton-proton collisions at the LHC, at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Events containing one electron and one muon collected with the CMS detector are analyzed in a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $77.4\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. A measurement of the differential normalized cross section for $\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\overline{t}}$ production as a function of sidereal time is performed. Potential violation of Lorentz invariance is introduced as an extension of the standard model (SM), with an effective field theory predicting the modulation of the $\mathrm{t}\mathrm{\overline{t}}$ cross section with sidereal time. Bounds on Lorentz-violating couplings are extracted, and found to be compatible with Lorentz invariance with an absolute precision of $0.1{-}0.8\%$. This search can also be interpreted as a precision test of special relativity with top quarks, improving precision by two orders of magnitude over a previous such measurement.

cds.cern.ch

the idea of violating Lorentz invariance has been around even in the late 1990s
arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809521

Lorentz-Violating Extension of the Standard Model

In the context of conventional quantum field theory, we present a general Lorentz-violating extension of the minimal SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) standard model including CPT-even and CPT-odd terms. It can be viewed as the low-energy limit of a physically relevant fundamental theory with Lorentz-covariant dynamics in which spontaneous Lorentz violation occurs. The extension has gauge invariance, energy-momentum conservation, and covariance under observer rotations and boosts, while covariance under particle rotations and boosts is broken. The quantized theory is hermitian and power-counting renormalizable, and other desirable features such as microcausality, positivity of the energy, and the usual anomaly cancellation are expected. Spontaneous symmetry breaking to the electromagnetic U(1) is maintained, although the Higgs expectation is shifted by a small amount relative to its usual value and the $Z^0$ field acquires a small expectation. A general Lorentz-breaking extension of quantum electrodynamics is extracted from the theory, and some experimental tests are considered. In particular, we study modifications to photon behavior. One possible effect is vacuum birefringence, which could be bounded from cosmological observations by experiments using existing techniques. Radiative corrections to the photon propagator are examined. They are compatible with spontaneous Lorentz and CPT violation in the fermion sector at levels suggested by Planck-scale physics and accessible to other terrestrial laboratory experiments.

arxiv.org
Follow

loosely call m the rest mass of the particle and Lorentz symmetry says that this property of the particle is invariant as we apply lorentz group of transformations on the components of the four-momentum. that is, this mass stays as it is for an observer regardless of his motion relative to the particle he is watching. the thing i’m a little curious about is that what happens if lorentz symmetry breaks for as far as i am concerned, lorentz symmetry keeps the kinematics simple and my belief is that this kind of simplicity is unbreakable!

any1 out there who wants to know how is rest mass distinguished from "relativistic" mass this wiki entry helps... i must point out that i am usually inclined to call rest mass as invariant mass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.