# Is speed of light invariant in different inertial frame?

Don't get angry at me. I believe in special relativity just as any scientist would.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2687

I realize that actually I haven't done any experiments on my owns to test the invariance of the speed of light (not able to anyway).

There are some stories that the experiments's data had been "revised" so that they matched with the relativity's prediction.

I know it may sound meaningless or untrue, I want to know is there any trend or any action or any experiment in modern science that denies the invariance of the speed of light?

I THINK almost every physicists believe in the invariance of speed of light as people believe in God, since all the information about experiments just come from science journals (which, to some extent, can be manipulated).

-
And your question is? (Note that we have a policy of only discussing reputable (mainstream) theories. Some papers on the ArXiv which aren't even in TeX are, for better or worse, neither reputable nor mainstream) –  ACuriousMind Jul 6 at 17:13
Is there any trend or any action or any experiment in modern science that denies the invariance of the speed of light? –  Mr.T Jul 6 at 17:15
No. There is not. –  Danu Jul 6 at 17:15
I'm sorry, but as a student of physics it really does get old hearing over and over again that someone from some corner of the physics community has yet again managed in 'disproving' special (or general) relativity. There are not credible experiments that contradict Einstein's theory and until someone comes up with one (note that it has to be credible, i.e. reproducible etc.) it is best to just ignore these crackpots. –  Danu Jul 6 at 17:21
"I THINK almost every physicists believe in the invariance of speed of light as people believe in God, since all the information about experiments just come from science journals (which, to some extent, can be manipulated)." This comment exhibits an arrogance of ignorance. The invariance of the speed of light is continuously re-tested to precision that Michelson and Morley could only dream of as long as the gravitational wave interferometers (LIGO and the like) are running. And in particle accelerators the world over and by the timing of the eclipses of the Galilean moons and on and on. –  dmckee Jul 6 at 17:28

To newcomers to relativity it seems to be based on the invariance of the speed of light. While this has some historic significance, these days we regard Lorentz invariance as the fundamental principle, and a constant speed of any massless particle is then just a consequence of Lorentz invariance.

So your question could, and should, be written as the equivalent question:

is there any trend or any action or any experiment in modern science that denies Lorentz invariance?

And the answer is that yes indeed, Lorentz invariance has been questioned many times and continues to be questioned. Rather than attempt a review here let me just point you to the Wikipedia page on the subject.

While various speculative theories suggest there many be small violations of Lorentz invariance under extreme conditions, you should note that Lorentz invariance is at the very worst expected to be an exceedingly accurate approximation. Quantum field theory is based on Lorentz invariance and it has been tested to extremely high accuracy.

-
Ok that's somewhat an answer I'm expecting. –  Mr.T Jul 6 at 17:32
@Mr.T: see What is so special about speed of light? for more on how the constancy of the speed of light arises from Lorentz invariance –  John Rennie Jul 6 at 17:34
Actually I'm kind of feel like we are going from A to B then to A. Just from 2 priciples we have Special Relativity Then from SR we go to Quantum field theory... then from the modern framework we go to conclusion that indeed the speed of massless particle is invariant. –  Mr.T Jul 6 at 17:36
@Mr.T: The accuracy of QFT shows Lorentz invariance is not violated within the limits of experimental accuracy. That implies that the speed of light is constant within the limits of experimental accuracy. –  John Rennie Jul 6 at 17:41