pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08106 · v1 · pith:PMVHPYBLnew · submitted 2019-07-18 · ✦ hep-ph · gr-qc

Maximal Tests in Minimal Gravity

Jay D. Tasson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph gr-qc
keywords Lorentz violationgravityStandard-Model Extensionexperimental testsCPT symmetry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Recent tests have generated impressive reach in the gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews recent experimental tests probing possible Lorentz violation in gravitational physics through the Standard-Model Extension. It summarizes the achieved sensitivity and outlines the current layout of research in this sector. A sympathetic reader would care because these tests directly constrain how much space and time can deviate from perfect symmetry at laboratory and astrophysical scales. If the parameterization holds, the results limit classes of new physics that might otherwise appear in gravity.

Core claim

Recent tests have generated impressive reach in the gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension. This contribution to the CPT'19 proceedings summarizes this progress and maps the structure of work in the gravity sector.

What carries the argument

The gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension, a systematic parameterization of possible Lorentz-violating terms in gravitational interactions.

If this is right

  • Many coefficients for Lorentz violation in gravity are now bounded to very small values.
  • The map of tested versus untested sectors identifies clear targets for next experiments.
  • Continued work can systematically close off remaining possible violations in the gravity sector.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same experimental techniques might be adapted to search for related effects in other force sectors.
  • Tighter gravity bounds could be combined with particle-physics limits to test unified models of Lorentz violation.
  • If no signals appear, theorists may need to push expected violation scales well above current experimental reach.

Load-bearing premise

The Standard-Model Extension supplies the correct parameterization for Lorentz violations in gravity and the cited tests are interpreted correctly within it.

What would settle it

A future gravity experiment reporting a nonzero Lorentz-violating coefficient whose magnitude or form lies outside the existing SME bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08106 by Jay D. Tasson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Progress in SME gravity as of CPT’19. Light gray boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent tests have generated impressive reach in the gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension. This contribution to the CPT'19 proceedings summarizes this progress and maps the structure of work in the gravity sector.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a proceedings contribution to CPT'19 summarizing recent experimental tests in the gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension (SME). It asserts that these tests have generated impressive sensitivity reach and provides a map of the structure of ongoing work in the area, without presenting new derivations, data, or predictions.

Significance. If the summary of existing tests is accurate, the paper offers a compact organizational overview of progress in Lorentz-violation searches within the SME gravity sector. Its value is primarily archival and navigational for specialists rather than advancing new results; no machine-checked proofs, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions are introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and recommendation to accept the manuscript. As a proceedings contribution, the work is intended as a concise summary and organizational map of existing tests rather than a source of new derivations or data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; summary of external tests only

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings summary mapping progress in the gravity sector of the SME. It contains no derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or original predictions. All claims reference external tests and prior literature without any self-referential reduction or load-bearing self-citation chain. The central statement (impressive reach from recent tests) is a factual summary of outside results, not a constructed output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced because the paper is a summary of existing tests rather than a derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5529 in / 820 out tokens · 13851 ms · 2026-05-24T19:45:21.654850+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kosteleck´ y and N

    Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation, V.A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell, 2019 edition, arXiv:0801.0287v12

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Kosteleck´ y and S

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Kosteleck´ y, Phys

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Tasson, Rep

    For a review, see J.D. Tasson, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 062901 (2014); for a pedagogical introduction, see T.H. Bertschinger et al. , Symmetry 11, 22 (2018)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Tasson, JPS Conf

    For pedagogical discussion, see J.D. Tasson, JPS Conf. Pr oc. 18, 011002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Bailey and V.A

    Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D 74, 045001 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Kosteleck´ y and J.D

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and J.D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D 83, 016013 (2011); Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010402 (2009)

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Jennings, J.D

    R.J. Jennings, J.D. Tasson, and S. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 125028 (2015); J.D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124021 (2012); R. Tso and Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 84, 085025, (2011); Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044004 (2009)

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Mo et al

    G. Mo et al. , these proceedings; Q.G. Bailey et al. , in preparation

    work page

  11. [11]

    Le Poncin-Lafitte et al

    C. Le Poncin-Lafitte et al. , these proceedings

    work page

  12. [12]

    Ring Laser Gyroscope Tests of Lorentz Symmetry

    M.L. Trostel, S. Moseley, N. Scaramuzza, and J.D. Tasson , these proceedings, arXiv:1907.07071; S. Moseley, N. Scaramuzza, J.D. Tasson, and M.L. Trostel, arXiv:1907.05933

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  13. [13]

    Bailey, V.A

    Q.G. Bailey, V.A. Kosteleck´ y, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 91, 022006 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Kosteleck´ y and J.D

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and J.D. Tasson, Phys. Lett. B 749, 551 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Kosteleck´ y and M

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett. B 757, 510 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Kosteleck´ y and M

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett. B 779, 136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Nonminimal Lorentz Violation in Linearized Gravity

    M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104062 (2019); these proceedings, arXiv:1906.02267; K. O’Neal-Ault et al. , these proceedings

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Bailey and D

    Q.G. Bailey and D. Havert, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064035 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Shao et al

    C.-G. Shao et al. , these proceedings; C.-G. Shao et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011102 (2019); Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071102 (2016)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Shao, these proceedings, arXiv:1905.08405; L

    L. Shao, these proceedings, arXiv:1905.08405; L. Shao a nd Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084049 (2018)

    work page arXiv 1905

  21. [21]

    Recent Developments in Spacetime-Symmetry tests in Gravity

    Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065029 (2016); these proceedings, arXiv:1906.08657

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Shao and Q.G

    L. Shao and Q.G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Colladay, these proceedings

    D. Colladay, these proceedings

    work page

  24. [24]

    Noncommutative Gravity and the Standard-Model Extension

    C.D. Lane, these proceedings, arXiv:1906.01008; Q.G. B ailey and C.D. Lane, Symmetry 10, 480 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  25. [25]

    Bluhm, these proceedings; Symmetry 9, 230 (2017)

    R. Bluhm, these proceedings; Symmetry 9, 230 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Bonder, Phys

    Y. Bonder and C. Corral, these proceedings, arXiv:1905. 09850; N.A. Nilsson, K. O’Neal-Ault, and Q.G. Bailey, these proceedings, arXiv: 1905.10414

    work page arXiv 1905

  27. [27]

    Lorentz Violation and Riemann-Finsler Geometry

    B.R. Edwards, these proceedings, arXiv:1905.11562; B. R. Edwards and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Lett. B786, 319 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  28. [28]

    GINGER

    For discussion of a relevant system, see A.D.V. Di Virgil io, these proceedings, Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetr y (CPT’19), Indiana University, Bloomington, May 12–16, 2019 5 arXiv:1906.04156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Flowers, C

    N.A. Flowers, C. Goodge, and J.D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. Lett . 119, 201101 (2017); C.-G. Shao et al. , Phys. Rev. D 97, 024019 (2018)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    LIGO, Virgo, Fermi GBM, and INTEGRAL Collaborations, B. P. Abbott et al., Ap. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Samajdar, these proceedings, arXiv:1906.05933; LIG O and Virgo Collab- orations, B.P

    A. Samajdar, these proceedings, arXiv:1906.05933; LIG O and Virgo Collab- orations, B.P. Abbott et al. , arXiv:1903.04467. Note: the additional length of this document relative to the publishe d ver- sion is due to the addition of arXiv numbers in the references for pap ers in the proceedings volume

    work page arXiv 1906