4.7 Article

Testing local Lorentz and position invariance and variation of fundamental constants by searching the derivative of the comparison frequency between a cryogenic sapphire oscillator and hydrogen maser

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 81, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.022003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cryogenic sapphire oscillator at the Paris Observatory has been continuously compared to various hydrogen masers since 2001. The early data sets were used to test local Lorentz invariance in the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl (RMS) framework by searching for sidereal modulations with respect to the cosmic microwave background, and represent the best Kennedy-Thorndike experiment to date. In this work, we present continuous operation over a period of greater than six years from September 2002 to December 2008 and present a more precise way to analyze the data by searching the time derivative of the comparison frequency. Because of the long-term operation we are able to search both sidereal and annual modulations. The results give P-KT = beta(RMS) - alpha(RMS) - 1 = -1.7(4.0) x 10(-8) for the sidereal and -23(10) x 10(-8) for the annual term, with a weighted mean of -4.8(3.7) x 10(-8), a factor of 8 better than previous. Also, we analyze the data with respect to a change in gravitational potential for both diurnal and annual variations. The result gives beta(H-Maser) - beta(CSO) = -2.7(1.4) x 10(-4) for the annual and -6.9(4.0) x 10(-4) for the diurnal terms, with a weighted mean of -3.2(1.3) x 10(-4). This result is 2 orders of magnitude better than other tests that use electromagnetic resonators. With respect to fundamental constants a limit can be provided on the variation with ambient gravitational potential and boost of a combination of the fine structure constant (alpha), the normalized quark mass (m(q)), and the electron to proton mass ratio (m(e)/m(p)), setting the first limit on boost dependence of order 10(-10).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据