pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.17055 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-19 · ✦ hep-ph

The Lorentz-Violating effects in charged particle systems

E.Maciel , M. A. Anacleto , K.E.L. Farias , E. Passos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Lorentz violationStandard Model ExtensionPenning trapcyclotron frequencyDirac HamiltonianCPT-odd termeffective force
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lorentz violation adds a correction to the cyclotron frequency of charged particles in Penning traps.

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

The paper studies the relativistic motion of a spin-1/2 particle under a CPT-odd Lorentz-violating term taken from the Standard Model Extension. Starting from a modified Dirac Hamiltonian, the authors derive velocity and force operators through the Heisenberg equations and recover the classical limit with Ehrenfest’s theorem. The resulting effective force has the structure of a generalized Lorentz force. When this dynamics is applied to the electromagnetic fields of a Penning trap, the cyclotron frequency shifts by an amount proportional to the Lorentz-violating coupling, producing a detectable change in the particle orbit. Comparison with existing high-precision trap data then yields a numerical upper bound on the coupling strength.

Core claim

In the classical limit obtained from the modified Dirac Hamiltonian, the effective cyclotron frequency acquires a correction linear in the Lorentz-violating parameter. This shift alters the radius and period of the particle’s orbit inside the Penning trap, supplying a concrete experimental signature. Matching the size of the predicted shift against current experimental precision establishes the bound bar g k_AF ≲ 2.66 × 10^{-4} eV^{-1}.

What carries the argument

The effective cyclotron frequency obtained from the classical limit of the Heisenberg dynamics for the CPT-odd modified Dirac Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

The classical trajectory derived via Ehrenfest’s theorem from the quantum Hamiltonian directly produces the observable frequency shift in the Penning trap without substantial contamination from other effects.

What would settle it

A higher-precision measurement of the cyclotron frequency in a Penning trap that either detects a frequency shift of the predicted magnitude or shows no shift beyond the stated bound would confirm or rule out the correction.

read the original abstract

We investigate the relativistic dynamics of a spin half particle in the presence of a Lorentz-violating background within the framework of effective field theory. A modified Dirac Hamiltonian is considered, arising from a CPT odd coupling involving the Lorentz violating gauge tensor of the Standard Model Extension (SME). The velocity and effective force operators are derived from the Heisenberg equations of motion. Using Ehrenfest s theorem and the correspondence principle, we obtain the classical limit of the dynamics and identify an effective force exhibiting a generalized Lorentz force structure. This formalism is applied to a Penning trap system, known for its high precision measurements of charged particle properties. Our analysis shows that the effective cyclotron frequency acquires a correction due to the Lorentz violating term, leading to deviations in the particle trajectory and offering a potentially observable signature of Lorentz violation in precision experiments. By comparing our results with current bounds from high precision Penning traps, we establish an upper limit on the Lorentz violating coupling, $\bar{g}k_{AF}\lesssim 2.66 \times 10^{-4}\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ corresponds to LIV effects. This bound is compatible with the interpretation of an effective Lorentz violation, consistent with current observational constraints, and it reinforces the phenomenological nature of the term under consideration, in agreement with previous analyses based on cosmological birefringence and photon propagation in a Lorentz violating background.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the relativistic dynamics of a spin-1/2 particle under a CPT-odd Lorentz-violating coupling from the SME, starting from a modified Dirac Hamiltonian. It derives velocity and effective force operators via Heisenberg equations, takes the classical limit using Ehrenfest's theorem and the correspondence principle to obtain a generalized Lorentz force, applies this to a Penning trap to identify a correction to the cyclotron frequency, and extracts an upper bound ḡ k_AF ≲ 2.66 × 10^{-4} eV^{-1} by comparison with high-precision experimental data, claiming consistency with cosmological constraints.

Significance. If the central mapping from the modified quantum dynamics to an observable frequency shift holds, the work could furnish a new phenomenological bound on Lorentz-violating parameters using precision charged-particle experiments and highlight a potential signature in trajectory deviations. The result is presented as reinforcing existing constraints from photon propagation and birefringence, but its significance is limited by unresolved questions about the applicability to the full trap motion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Penning trap application and bound extraction] In the section deriving the effective cyclotron frequency from the classical limit (following application of Ehrenfest’s theorem to the modified Dirac Hamiltonian), the claim of a simple additive correction to ω_c = qB/m does not address the coupled cyclotron-magnetron-axial motion in the Penning trap’s quadratic electrostatic potential plus uniform B. The velocity- and spin-dependent LIV contributions may induce additional drifts or modify the effective potential; without an explicit solution of the coupled equations or demonstration that cross terms average to zero in the trap eigenstates, the numerical bound on ḡ k_AF cannot be reliably extracted from existing frequency measurements.
  2. [Classical limit via Ehrenfest’s theorem] The classical-limit derivation via Ehrenfest’s theorem and the correspondence principle (leading to the generalized Lorentz force) assumes that expectation values of the LIV term directly translate to observable deviations without significant higher-order or spin-dependent contributions. No verification is provided that these terms do not affect the trajectory in a manner that would alter the comparison to Penning-trap data.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the coupling constant is inconsistent (bar g k_AF in text vs. mathematical rendering); standardize throughout.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the bound is 'compatible with the interpretation of an effective Lorentz violation' and 'in agreement with previous analyses'; clarify whether the Penning-trap derivation is fully independent or relies on external constraints for its validity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major concerns point by point below, clarifying the approximations employed and indicating revisions that will strengthen the analysis of the Penning-trap application and classical limit.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the section deriving the effective cyclotron frequency from the classical limit (following application of Ehrenfest’s theorem to the modified Dirac Hamiltonian), the claim of a simple additive correction to ω_c = qB/m does not address the coupled cyclotron-magnetron-axial motion in the Penning trap’s quadratic electrostatic potential plus uniform B. The velocity- and spin-dependent LIV contributions may induce additional drifts or modify the effective potential; without an explicit solution of the coupled equations or demonstration that cross terms average to zero in the trap eigenstates, the numerical bound on ḡ k_AF cannot be reliably extracted from existing frequency measurements.

    Authors: We acknowledge the coupled nature of the Penning-trap motions. Our analysis extracts the leading-order correction to the cyclotron frequency from the generalized Lorentz force in the uniform magnetic field, with the quadratic electrostatic potential supplying the standard confining frequencies. For small LIV coupling, velocity-dependent contributions produce higher-order corrections that average over the well-separated trap eigenfrequencies and do not shift the extracted cyclotron frequency at the precision relevant to the bound. We will revise the manuscript to include an explicit demonstration that cross terms average to zero when evaluated in the trap eigenstates, thereby supporting the reliability of the bound. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The classical-limit derivation via Ehrenfest’s theorem and the correspondence principle (leading to the generalized Lorentz force) assumes that expectation values of the LIV term directly translate to observable deviations without significant higher-order or spin-dependent contributions. No verification is provided that these terms do not affect the trajectory in a manner that would alter the comparison to Penning-trap data.

    Authors: Ehrenfest’s theorem applied to the modified operators yields expectation values that correspond to classical trajectories via the correspondence principle. The LIV term enters the effective force at the order that produces the reported frequency correction; spin-dependent pieces are suppressed in the non-relativistic regime of the trap. We will add a short verification paragraph confirming that higher-order contributions remain negligible for the trajectory deviation used to compare with experimental frequency data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation of effective cyclotron frequency correction proceeds independently from modified Dirac dynamics to Penning-trap application

full rationale

The paper starts from a CPT-odd modified Dirac Hamiltonian in the SME framework, derives velocity and force operators via Heisenberg equations, applies Ehrenfest’s theorem plus correspondence principle to reach a classical generalized Lorentz force, and then inserts the resulting effective cyclotron frequency shift into the Penning-trap equations of motion. None of these steps is shown to be equivalent to its own input by definition, nor does any fitted parameter get relabeled as a prediction. The final numerical bound is obtained by external comparison to existing experimental precision limits rather than by internal construction or self-citation chain. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the paper’s stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim relies on the SME effective theory and standard quantum-to-classical correspondence; no new entities are introduced beyond the LV term from SME.

free parameters (1)
  • bar g k_AF
    This is the parameter being bounded rather than fitted to data in the paper.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Validity of the Standard Model Extension framework for describing Lorentz violation
    The modified Dirac Hamiltonian is based on CPT odd coupling in SME.
  • standard math Ehrenfest’s theorem applies to derive classical limit from quantum operators
    Used to obtain classical dynamics from Heisenberg equations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5782 in / 1560 out tokens · 56560 ms · 2026-05-18T05:31:19.932237+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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modern tests of Lorentz invariance,

    D. Mattingly, “Modern tests of Lorentz invariance,”Living Rev. Rel., vol. 8, p. 5, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update,

    S. Liberati, “Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 30, p. 133001, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,

    G. Amelino-Camelia, “Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,”Living Rev. Rel., vol. 16, p. 5, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, “Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 39, p. 683, 1989

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, “Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 58, p. 116002, 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,

    V. A. Kostelecky, “Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 69, p. 105009, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Lorentz violation in Dirac and Weyl semimetals,

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y, R. Lehnert, N. McGinnis, M. Schreck, and B. Seradjeh, “Lorentz violation in Dirac and Weyl semimetals,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 023106, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [9]

    Overview of the SME: Implications and phenomenology of Lorentz violation,

    R. Bluhm, “Overview of the SME: Implications and phenomenology of Lorentz violation,”Lect. Notes Phys., vol. 702, pp. 191–226, 2006. 9

    work page 2006

  9. [10]

    Irreducible cosmological backgrounds of a real scalar with a broken symmetry,

    F. D’Eramo, A. Tesi, and V. Vaskonen, “Irreducible cosmological backgrounds of a real scalar with a broken symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 9, p. 095002, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [11]

    Detecting dark-matter waves with a network of precision-measurement tools,

    A. Derevianko, “Detecting dark-matter waves with a network of precision-measurement tools,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 97, no. 4, p. 042506, 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [12]

    Self-energy screening effects in the g factor of li-like ions,

    V. Yerokhin, K. Pachucki, M. Puchalski, C. Keitel, and Z. Harman, “Self-energy screening effects in the g factor of li-like ions,”Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 2, p. 022815, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [13]

    Lorentz violation and synchrotron radiation,

    B. Altschul, “Lorentz violation and synchrotron radiation,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 72, p. 085003, 2005

    work page 2005

  13. [14]

    Limits on Violations of Lorentz Symmetry and the Einstein Equivalence Principle using Radio-Frequency Spectroscopy of Atomic Dysprosium,

    M. A. Hohensee, N. Leefer, D. Budker, C. Harabati, V. A. Dzuba, and V. V. Flambaum, “Limits on Violations of Lorentz Symmetry and the Einstein Equivalence Principle using Radio-Frequency Spectroscopy of Atomic Dysprosium,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 111, p. 050401, 2013

    work page 2013

  14. [15]

    Lorentz- and CPT-violating models for neutrino oscillations,

    J. S. Diaz and A. Kostelecky, “Lorentz- and CPT-violating models for neutrino oscillations,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 85, p. 016013, 2012

    work page 2012

  15. [16]

    Non-minimal coupling to a Lorentz-violating background and quantum-mechanical implications,

    H. Belich, T. Costa-Soares, M. M. Ferreira, Jr., and J. A. Helayel-Neto, “Non-minimal coupling to a Lorentz-violating background and quantum-mechanical implications,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 41, pp. 421–426, 2005

    work page 2005

  16. [17]

    Geometric phases modified by a Lorentz-symmetry violation background,

    L. R. Ribeiro, E. Passos, C. Furtado, and J. R. Nascimento, “Geometric phases modified by a Lorentz-symmetry violation background,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol. 30, p. 1550072, 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [18]

    Relativistic Landau-Aharonov-Casher quantization based on the Lorentz symmetry violation background,

    K. Bakke, H. Belich, and E. O. Silva, “Relativistic Landau-Aharonov-Casher quantization based on the Lorentz symmetry violation background,”J. Math. Phys., vol. 52, p. 063505, 2011

    work page 2011

  18. [19]

    NewCP T-even and Lorentz-violating nonminimal coupling in the Dirac equation,

    R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, Jr, E. O. Silva, E. Passos, and F. E. P. dos Santos, “NewCP T-even and Lorentz-violating nonminimal coupling in the Dirac equation,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 87, no. 4, p. 047701, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [20]

    Quantum Mechanics, Volume 2,

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, “Quantum Mechanics, Volume 2,”Quantum Mechanics, vol. 2, p. 626, 1986

    work page 1986

  20. [21]

    Merzbacher,Quantum Mechanics

    E. Merzbacher,Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, 1998

    work page 1998

  21. [22]

    R. L. Liboff,Introductory Quantum Mechanics. Pearson Education India, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [23]

    Die Glimmentladung bei niedrigem Druck zwischen koaxialen Zylindern in einem axialen Magnetfeld,

    F. M. Penning, “Die Glimmentladung bei niedrigem Druck zwischen koaxialen Zylindern in einem axialen Magnetfeld,” Physica, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 873–894, 1936

    work page 1936

  23. [24]

    Experiments with an isolated subatomic particle at rest,

    H. Dehmelt, “Experiments with an isolated subatomic particle at rest,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 62, pp. 525–530, 1990

    work page 1990

  24. [25]

    Precision mass spectroscopy of the anti-proton and proton using simultaneously trapped particles,

    G. Gabrielse, A. Khabbaz, D. S. Hall, C. Heimann, H. Kalinowsky, and W. Jhe, “Precision mass spectroscopy of the anti-proton and proton using simultaneously trapped particles,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 82, pp. 3198–3201, 1999

    work page 1999

  25. [26]

    New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED,

    G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, and B. C. Odom, “New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, p. 030802, 2006. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 99, 039902 (2007)]

    work page 2006

  26. [27]

    High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of the electron,

    S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel, and K. Blaum, “High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of the electron,”Nature, vol. 506, no. 7489, pp. 467–470, 2014

    work page 2014

  27. [28]

    A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment,

    C. Smorra, S. Sellner, M. J. Borchert, J. A. Harrington, T. Higuchi, H. Nagahama, T. Tanaka, A. Mooser, G. Schneider, M. Bohman,et al., “A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment,”Nature, vol. 550, no. 7676, pp. 371–374, 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [29]

    High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio,

    S. Ulmer, C. Smorra, A. Mooser, K. Franke, H. Nagahama, G. Schneider, T. Higuchi, S. Van Gorp, K. Blaum, Y. Matsuda, et al., “High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio,”Nature, vol. 524, no. 7564, pp. 196– 199, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [30]

    Challenging the standard model by high-precision comparisons of the fundamental properties of protons and antiprotons,

    S. Ulmer, A. Mooser, H. Nagahama, S. Sellner, and C. Smorra, “Challenging the standard model by high-precision comparisons of the fundamental properties of protons and antiprotons,”Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 376, no. 2116, p. 20170275, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [31]

    Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrodynamics,

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, “Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 41, p. 1231, 1990

    work page 1990

  31. [32]

    Radiatively induced Lorentz and CPT violation in electrodynamics,

    R. Jackiw and V. A. Kostelecky, “Radiatively induced Lorentz and CPT violation in electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 82, pp. 3572–3575, 1999

    work page 1999

  32. [33]

    Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, “Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 66, p. 056005, 2002

    work page 2002

  33. [34]

    Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,

    V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, “Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 83, pp. 11–31, 2011

    work page 2011

  34. [35]

    CPT violation and the standard model,

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, “CPT violation and the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 55, pp. 6760–6774, 1997

    work page 1997

  35. [36]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [37]

    Zangwill,Modern Electrodynamics

    A. Zangwill,Modern Electrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  37. [38]

    Schwinger, L

    J. Schwinger, L. L. DeRaad Jr, K. Milton, and W.-Y. Tsai,Classical Electrodynamics. CRC Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  38. [39]

    Constraints on Lorentz violation from clock comparison experiments,

    V. A. Kostelecky and C. D. Lane, “Constraints on Lorentz violation from clock comparison experiments,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 60, p. 116010, 1999

    work page 1999

  39. [40]

    Lorentz-violating QED and the origin of neutrino mass,

    J. S. D´ ıaz and F. R. Klinkhamer, “Lorentz-violating QED and the origin of neutrino mass,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 82, no. 4, p. 045002, 2010

    work page 2010

  40. [41]

    J. J. Sakurai,Advanced Quantum Mechanics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1967. Reprinted by Pearson Education India

    work page 1967

  41. [42]

    J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964

    work page 1964

  42. [43]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt,Quantum Electrodynamics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    work page 2008

  43. [44]

    Strange,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: With Applications in Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics

    P. Strange,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: With Applications in Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    work page 1998

  44. [45]

    The quantum theory of the electron,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “The quantum theory of the electron,”Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 117, pp. 610–624, 1928

    work page 1928

  45. [46]

    CPT and Lorentz tests in Penning traps,

    R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecky, and N. Russell, “CPT and Lorentz tests in Penning traps,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 57, pp. 3932– 10 3943, 1998

    work page 1998

  46. [47]

    Nonrelativistic quantum Hamiltonian for Lorentz violation,

    V. A. Kostelecky and C. D. Lane, “Nonrelativistic quantum Hamiltonian for Lorentz violation,”J. Math. Phys., vol. 40, pp. 6245–6253, 1999

    work page 1999

  47. [48]

    Geonium theory: Physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap,

    L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, “Geonium theory: Physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 233–311, 1986

    work page 1986

  48. [49]

    P. K. Ghosh,Ion Traps. Oxford University Press, 1995

    work page 1995

  49. [50]

    New measurement of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant,

    D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse, “New measurement of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 100, no. 12, p. 120801, 2008

    work page 2008

  50. [51]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm,

    B. Abiet al., “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 126, no. 14, p. 141801, 2021

    work page 2021

  51. [52]

    The Measurement of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon at Fermilab,

    I. Logashenkoet al., “The Measurement of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon at Fermilab,”J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 44, no. 3, p. 031211, 2015

    work page 2015

  52. [53]

    Classical solutions in a Lorentz-violating scenario of Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca electrodynamics,

    H. Belich, T. Costa-Soares, M. M. Ferreira, Jr., and J. A. Helayel-Neto, “Classical solutions in a Lorentz-violating scenario of Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca electrodynamics,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 42, pp. 127–137, 2005

    work page 2005

  53. [54]

    Penning-Trap Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation,

    Y. Ding, T. D. Olewiler, and M. F. Rawnak, “Penning-Trap Searches for Lorentz and CPT Violation,”Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 1703, 2021

    work page 2021

  54. [55]

    Lorentz-violating spinor electrodynamics and Penning traps,

    Y. Ding and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, “Lorentz-violating spinor electrodynamics and Penning traps,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 94, no. 5, p. 056008, 2016

    work page 2016

  55. [56]

    Search for ultrahigh energy photons using air showers,

    M. Risse and P. Homola, “Search for ultrahigh energy photons using air showers,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 22, pp. 749–766, 2007

    work page 2007

  56. [57]

    Ultraviolet modifications of dispersion relations in effective field theory,

    R. C. Myers and M. Pospelov, “Ultraviolet modifications of dispersion relations in effective field theory,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 90, p. 211601, 2003

    work page 2003