Is Special Relativity Wrong?

New Physics?

Possible violations of Lorentz invariance are an ideal signal of new physics because nothing in the Standard Model of particle physics permits the violation of special relativity. Therefore, no conventional process could ever mimic or cover up a genuine signal of Lorentz violation.

Now before I move to the jest of the post, a little clarification and wonder before moving on to the opening statement.

This is taken from the article in the Guardian, and then is requoted below, where I will requote ,the quote of the quote.

Peter Woit quotes:)

Witten's attitude towards string theory seems to remain unchanged, he's quoted as saying:

"Critics of string theory say that it might be too big a step. Most physicists in other fields are simply agnostic and properly so," says Witten. "It isn't an established theory. My personal opinion is that there are circumstantial reasons to suspect that it's on the right track."

Now I mentioned the difficulties that I was having in regards to Smolin and the string perspective and coming to look at the way in which experimentation might be the end all answer to model assumptions? Alas in recognition of the validity, a quick departure everyone is having with what model they are firmly entrenched in? As far as I know, Peter Woit doesn't have a model?:) A healthy skeptic maybe like the amazing Randi, as in science's mode of operandi requim? The clarifications seem to becoming loud and clear.

Anyway on to an important question and where I thought Smolin was working. Sorry I could be wrong, but I am trying awfully hard to gain perspective.


Our basic premise is that minuscule apparent violations of Lorentz and CPT invariance might be observable in nature. The idea is that the violations would arise as suppressed effects from a more fundamental theory.

We have shown in our publications that arbitrary Lorentz and CPT violations are quantitatively described by a theory called the Standard-Model Extension, which is a modification of the usual Standard Model of particle physics and Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity.

So here is the thing that has sort of stump me. I know Smolin is a quantum gravity man, or this is what I had surmise and appreciated greatly from his book, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity." Well the thing is, if Smolin had stopped at SR then it is quite plain that he is attempting to define quantum grvaity scenario from this perspective?



Now comes the understanding of the image that I put on Lubos's site that he might have wondered, without anything to associate it with? Well wonder of all wonders.:) This is of course one of a few experiments the Alan has detailled for us.

• 
  observations of neutral-meson oscillations
  
• 
  observations of neutrino oscillations
  
• 
  clock-comparison tests on Earth and in space
  
• 
  studies of the motion of a spin-polarized torsion pendulum
  
• 
  spectroscopy of hydrogen and antihydrogen
  
• 
  comparative tests of QED in Penning traps
  
• 
  determination of muon properties
  
• 
  measurements of cosmological birefringence
  
• 
  tests with microwave cavities and lasers
  
• 
  observation of the baryon asymmetry
  

New Clock Comparison Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation

Ronald Walsworth and his Harvard-Smithsonian colleagues, in conjunction with theorist Alan Kostelecky at Indiana University, look at how atoms prepared in special magnetic states (the precision of their light emissions allow them to serve as “clocks”) vary in their timekeeping when moving at certain velocities (or "boosts") relative to the hypothetical Lorentz-symmetry-violating fields that may permeate the universe.