Talk:Modern searches for Lorentz violation

Modern?[edit]

What exactly makes a search for Lorentz violation 'modern'? (I fear that this article may not properly define its scope, which may cause problem with the future development of the article.)T R 05:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many review articles, such as that of Mattingly, who used the term "modern" or "recent" and "new" for those tests. The difference is mainly their aim to detect quantum gravity induced Lorentz violations (such as a modified dispersion relation), and also the classical experiments have been repeated with new experimental techniques. I've modified the introduction to make this more clear. --D.H (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorentz symmetry?[edit]

The term "Lorentz symmetry" is used but not defined. I know SR pretty good, and I've never heard of it. Someone define it in the article please?

I imagine that it refers to Lorentz invariance, but it's not immediately obvious how symmetry fits into it. Presumably it has to do with "in every symmetry, some quantity is preserved", but the term needs explanation.

--Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tests, terms like "violations of Lorentz invariance" and "violations of Lorentz symmetry" mean the same (for explanation see Lorentz covariance etc. ). --D.H (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of claim on LLR and its proof of SR[edit]

I am quite surprised to read this: "For instance, Zoltán Lajos Bay and White (1981) demonstrated the empirical foundations of the Lorentz group and thus special relativity by analyzing the planetary radar and LLR data. I have read his paper, which is from 1981, before it was established that the meter is defined depending on the speed of light, which makes most measurements quite conventional and proportional."
His paper is clearly outdated and he makes claims about light isotropy proven with high accuracy. New research has clearly indicated that we can talk today of the constant two-way speed of light and that Generalized Lorentz Transformations apply just as well for anisotropic speed of light as long as the two-way speed is constant. There are plenty of referenced on the Wiki page about the One-Way Speed of Light. So unless a better and more recent research is provided, I propose to completely remove this phrase.