The RMS framework is incomplete, as it says nothing about dynamics or how given clocks and rods
relate to fundamental particles. In particular, the coordinate transformation of Equation (16) only has
meaning if we identify the coordinates with the measurements made by a particular set of clocks and rods.
If we chose a different set of clocks and rods, the transformation laws may be completely different.
Hence it is not possible to compare the RMS parameters of two experiments that use physically
different clocks and rods (for example, an experiment that uses a cesium atomic clock versus an
experiment that uses a hydrogen one). However, for experiments involving a single type of clock/rod
and light, the RMS formalism is applicable and can be used to search for violations of Lorentz
invariance in that experiment. The RMS formalism can be made less ambiguous by placing it into a
complete dynamical framework, such as the standard model extension of Section 4.1.1. In fact, it
was shown in [179
] that the RMS framework can be incorporated into the standard model
extension.
Most often, the RMS framework is used in situations where the velocity is small compared to
.
We therefore expand
in a power series in
,
![]() |
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2005-5 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |