Special Relativity pp 279-298
Doubly Special Relativity as a Limit of Gravity
The anniversary of a great idea is usually a good occasion for critical reassessment of its meaning, influence, and future. In theoretical physics, where methodology, instead of hermeneutics, is based on Popperian conjectures and refutations scheme this last issue – the future – is, of course, the most important. Thus, in the course of the celebrations of the 100 anniversary of the Theory of Relativity, we are mostly interested in asking the questions: Is Special Relativity still to be regarded as the correct theory describing relativistic phenomena (particles and fields kinematics and dynamics) in flat space-time? Will it survive the next 100 years, and if not, which theory is going to replace it?
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky, “Lorentz-Violating Extension of the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9809521]; R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecky, and N. Russell, “CPT and Lorentz Tests in Hydrogen and Antihydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2254 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9810269]; R. Bluhm and V.A. Kostelecky, “Lorentz and CPT Tests in Spin-Polarized Solids,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1381 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9912542]; V.A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes; “Signals for Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 66, 056005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205211]; R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecky, C.D. Lane, and N. Russell, ”Probing Lorentz and CPT Violation with Space-Based Experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 125008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0306190]; R. C. Myers and M. Pospelov, ”Ultraviolet modifications of dispersion relations in effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 211601 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301124]; see also Robert Bluhm contribution to this volume.ADSGoogle Scholar
- 2.J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl and L. F. Urrutia, “Quantum gravity corrections to neutrino propagation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2318 [arXiv:gr-qc/9909079]; J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl and L. F. Urrutia, “Loop quantum gravity and light propagation,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 103509 [arXiv:hep-th/0108061]; J. Alfaro, M. Reyes, H. A. Morales-Tecotl and L. F. Urrutia, “On alternative approaches to Lorentz violation in loop quantum gravity inspired models,” Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 084002 [arXiv:gr-qc/0404113]; see also Luis Urrutia contribution to this volume.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 3.T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly, “Astrophysical bounds on Planck suppressed Lorentz violation,” arXiv:hep-ph/0407370.Google Scholar
- 4.T. Jacobson, S. Liberati and D. Mattingly, “Lorentz violation at high energy: concepts, phenomena and astrophysical constraints,” arXiv:astro-ph/505267.Google Scholar
- 5.L. Smolin, “Falsifiable predictions from semiclassical quantum gravity,” arXiv:hepth/0501091.Google Scholar
- 10.J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Introduction to doubly special relativity,” in Giovanni Amelino-Camelia and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, Planck Scale Effects in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Lecture Notes in Physics 669, Springer 2005 [arXiv:hepth/ 0405273].Google Scholar
- 18.J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Quantum kappa-Poincare algebra from de Sitter space of momenta,” arXiv:hep-th/0411154.Google Scholar
- 20.L. Freidel and A. Starodubtsev, “Quantum gravity in terms of topological observables,” arXiv:hep-th/0501191.Google Scholar
- 23.L. Smolin and A. Starodubtsev, “General relativity with a topological phase: An action principle,” arXiv:hep-th/0311163.Google Scholar
- 24.S. Alexander, “A quantum gravitational relaxation of the cosmological constant,” arXiv:hep-th/0503146.Google Scholar
- 31.J. Wess, “Deformed coordinate spaces: Derivatives,” arXiv:hep-th/0408080.Google Scholar