arxiv: 2512.21445 · v1 · submitted 2025-12-24 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Fundamental Physics in 2025: Status, Decisive Targets, and Path Forward

Slava G. Turyshev

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords fundamental physicsStandard ModelGeneral RelativityLambda-CDMdark matterdark energyquantum gravityexperimental roadmap

0 comments

The pith

Fundamental physics is the operational search for microscopic laws that reproduce the Standard Model, General Relativity, and Lambda-CDM while explaining their anomalies.

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

The paper defines fundamental physics as the program of identifying microscopic degrees of freedom, symmetries, and dynamical laws that reproduce the Standard Model, General Relativity, and Lambda-CDM in their known regimes. It must also account for phenomena these models leave unexplained, such as dark matter, neutrino masses, baryogenesis, and dark energy, while resolving inconsistencies like quantum gravity and the cosmological constant problem. The review surveys current evidence for baseline parameters, lists concrete anomalies, and examines theoretical approaches including effective field theories and quantum information methods. It maps observables to energy scales, notes statistical and systematic limits, and calls for sensitivities needed for progress, ending with a roadmap based on decision points rather than fixed projects.

Core claim

Fundamental physics today is best defined operationally as the program of identifying the microscopic degrees of freedom, symmetries, and dynamical laws that reproduce the Standard Model of particle physics, General Relativity, and the Lambda-CDM cosmological model in their regimes of validity, and explain the observed phenomena that these baseline theories do not account for, while resolving conceptual inconsistencies and providing predictive unification.

What carries the argument

The operational definition of fundamental physics as the program to reproduce baseline models and resolve anomalies, supported by a staged roadmap organized by decision points and cross-checks.

If this is right

Mapping each observable to specific energy scales and couplings will determine which experiments can deliver decisive data.
Addressing dominant statistical and systematic limitations will set the sensitivity thresholds needed for progress on each anomaly.
Evaluating theoretical directions such as amplitude programs and quantum information approaches will show which can address unification and inconsistencies.
Organizing the roadmap by decision points and cross-checks allows adaptive updates as new data arrive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If improved measurements alone resolve some anomalies, the urgency for entirely new microscopic structures could decrease.
Integrating quantum information methods with gravitational problems may reveal connections between black hole information and measurement issues in quantum theory.
Space-based platforms and astronomical messengers could supply cross-checks unavailable in ground experiments, altering priority lists.

Load-bearing premise

The anomalies and inconsistencies necessarily require new microscopic degrees of freedom or symmetries beyond refinements or improved measurements within the existing Standard Model, General Relativity, and Lambda-CDM frameworks.

What would settle it

A high-precision observation that fully accounts for dark matter through direct detection of a specific candidate particle or that shows Lambda-CDM predictions holding without deviation at new scales would test whether new microscopic degrees of freedom are actually required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21445 by Slava G. Turyshev.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Baseline theory framework (SM+GR+ΛCDM) and the empirically motivated “missing ingredients“ and conceptual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic “translation chain“ corresponding to Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Fundamental physics today is best defined operationally: it is the program of identifying the microscopic degrees of freedom, symmetries, and dynamical laws that (i) reproduce the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, General Relativity (GR), and the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model in their regimes of validity, and (ii) explain the observed phenomena that these baseline theories do not account for (dark matter, neutrino masses, baryogenesis, dark energy), while resolving conceptual inconsistencies (quantum gravity, naturalness, the cosmological constant problem, the measurement problem in quantum theory, information in black holes) and providing predictive unification. This review first lays out the SM+GR+$\Lambda$CDM baseline, the best current evidence for its parameters, and the concrete anomalies and missing ingredients. It then surveys the most relevant theoretical directions (effective field theories; amplitude/positivity programs; lattice and many-body methods; symmetry-based model building; cosmological EFTs; quantum information approaches to QFT/gravitation) and the experimental/observational landscape, including ground and space platforms, astronomical messengers, and in-situ tests. Throughout we emphasize: (a) how each observable maps to energy scales and couplings; (b) the dominant statistical and systematic limitations; (c) the sensitivity required for decisive progress. A staged roadmap is given only after the technical review, organized by decision points and cross-checks rather than by specific projects.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This review frames fundamental physics operationally around matching SM+GR+Lambda-CDM while targeting anomalies, and it organizes existing knowledge into a sensitivity-focused roadmap without new derivations or data.

read the letter

This paper is a broad survey that starts with an operational definition of fundamental physics as the program to reproduce the Standard Model, general relativity, and Lambda-CDM in their valid regimes while addressing gaps like dark matter, neutrino masses, baryogenesis, dark energy, and issues such as quantum gravity and the cosmological constant problem. It then reviews the baseline models with their current parameters, lists the anomalies, covers theoretical approaches including effective field theories, amplitude and positivity programs, lattice methods, symmetry-based model building, cosmological EFTs, and quantum information methods, and maps experimental platforms from ground and space to specific observables and required sensitivities. The staged roadmap organized by decision points and cross-checks rather than fixed projects is a practical touch that could help coordinate work across subfields. What it does well is consistently tying observables back to energy scales, statistical limits, and the precision needed for decisive tests, which gives a concrete sense of where progress can be made. The synthesis draws on consensus literature without introducing new equations or predictions, so its value is in the organization and emphasis on cross-checks. The soft spots are minor but real for a review of this type. It treats the listed anomalies as requiring new microscopic degrees of freedom or symmetries, which is presented as the current program rather than a proven necessity; some gaps might close with refinements or better measurements alone. Accuracy depends entirely on how faithfully the cited sensitivities and limitations are represented, and any rapid shifts in the field would date sections quickly. No load-bearing claims are derived internally, so there is little risk of circularity. This is the sort of paper that works for researchers or students who want a consolidated map of priorities across particle physics, gravity, and cosmology before picking a specific direction. Specialists in one area will still need the original papers, but the cross-field view and focus on decisive observables make it worth reading. It deserves peer review as a review article because the structure is clear and the emphasis on sensitivities could be useful if the citations check out.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines fundamental physics operationally as the program of identifying microscopic degrees of freedom, symmetries, and dynamical laws that reproduce the Standard Model, General Relativity, and ΛCDM in their regimes of validity while explaining anomalies (dark matter, neutrino masses, baryogenesis, dark energy) and resolving conceptual inconsistencies (quantum gravity, naturalness, cosmological constant problem, measurement problem, black-hole information). It reviews the baseline models and their parameters, surveys theoretical directions (EFTs, amplitude/positivity programs, lattice methods, symmetry-based model building, cosmological EFTs, quantum-information approaches), maps observables to energy scales and required sensitivities, and presents a staged roadmap organized by decision points and cross-checks rather than specific projects.

Significance. As a review drawing on established consensus, the paper offers a clear, technically grounded synthesis that links observables to energy scales and highlights dominant statistical/systematic limitations. The emphasis on sensitivity requirements and cross-checks in the roadmap provides a useful organizing framework for prioritizing future work, even without new derivations or data.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction state the operational definition clearly, but a brief explicit contrast with earlier definitions of 'fundamental physics' (e.g., reductionist vs. effective) would sharpen the framing without lengthening the text.
[Experimental/observational landscape] In the experimental landscape section, the mapping of messengers to energy scales is useful; adding a compact summary table of required sensitivities (e.g., for dark-energy equation-of-state or neutrino-mass hierarchy) would improve readability and quick reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment, clear summary of the manuscript's scope, and recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in review article

full rationale

The manuscript is a review surveying the SM+GR+ΛCDM baseline, listed anomalies, and theoretical/experimental directions. It advances no new derivation chain, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions that could reduce to its own inputs. The operational definition of fundamental physics is presented as a definitional stance rather than a derived claim. No self-citation is load-bearing for any uniqueness theorem or ansatz; all referenced results are external consensus models. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review takes the validity of the Standard Model, General Relativity, and Lambda-CDM as established baselines without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond standard physics, or invented entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The Standard Model, General Relativity, and Lambda-CDM accurately describe phenomena in their respective regimes of validity
Invoked in the opening definition of fundamental physics as the baseline to be reproduced and extended.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5556 in / 1320 out tokens · 21340 ms · 2026-05-16T19:39:02.987610+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Fundamental physics today is best defined operationally: it is the program of identifying the microscopic degrees of freedom, symmetries, and dynamical laws that (i) reproduce the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, General Relativity (GR), and the ΛCDM cosmological model...
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Effective field theories (EFT) is the most important practical theoretical framework... SMEFT Wilson coefficients... positivity conditions on low-energy amplitude derivatives.

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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Dark Energy After DESI DR2: Observational Status, Reconstructions, and Physical Models
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0

DESI DR2 data reveals a mild mismatch for flat LambdaCDM in CMB-calibrated fits, with evolving dark energy models like CPL improving the fit in a dataset-dependent manner sensitive to supernova calibration residuals a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 154 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 12 internal anchors

[1]

Photons Electromagnetic observations constrain fundamental physics primarily through propagation effects (dispersion and birefringence), high-resolution spectroscopy (searches for variations of constants), and the CMB as a calibrated snapshot of the primordial perturbations. a. Spectroscopy and variation of constants.Quasar absorption systems and molecula...

work page
[2]

J-factor

High-energy astrophysical probes of dark sectors (beyond GW/cosmology) High-energy photons, cosmic rays, and neutrinos constrain dark sectors in ways that are complementary to direct detection: they probeannihilation/decayandportal-mediated productionrather than elastic scattering. The fundamental-physics content is encoded in an emission model, an astrop...

work page
[3]

sensitivity

Neutrinos Astrophysical neutrinos probe both particle physics and dense-matter astrophysics in regimes that cannot be reproduced on Earth. The core strength is thelever arm: long baselines and extreme energies/densities, with complementary systematics compared to laboratory beams. a. Low-energy (solar, atmospheric, accelerator-connected) neutrinos.These c...

work page
[4]

astronomical signal

Gravitational waves Gravitational waves (GWs) are both a new messenger and a precision tool for strong-field gravity. They constrain the propagation sector (speed, dispersion, extra polarizations), the generation sector (inspiral/ringdown consistency with Kerr), and cosmology (standard sirens) [ 121]. The “astronomical signal” aspect is crucial: interpret...

work page
[5]

fifth-force

Equivalence principle and inverse-square law The weak equivalence principle (WEP) is commonly quantified by the E¨ otv¨ os parameter for two test bodies, η≡2 a1 −a 2 a1 +a 2 ≃ ∆a g ,(60) while short-range deviations from Newtonian gravity are often parameterized by a Yukawa correction V (r) = −(Gm1m2/r) 1 +α e −r/λ . MICROSCOPE reached |η| ∼ 10−15 for com...

work page
[6]

antigravity

Antimatter gravity: free fall of antihydrogen Testing whether neutral antimatter falls with the same acceleration as matter probes the universality of free fall in a qualitatively new regime and constrains exotic long-range forces (e.g. vector forces coupled to baryon/lepton number) that could masquerade as “antigravity” in some effective descriptions. Th...

work page
[7]

height differences of order centimeters on Earth (∆ U∼g ∆h)

Gravitational redshift with clocks The gravitational redshift between two potentials differs by ∆f f ≃ ∆U c2 .(62) Thus a clock comparison at 10−18 fractional frequency corresponds to sensitivity to potential differences ∆U/c2 ∼ 10−18, i.e. height differences of order centimeters on Earth (∆ U∼g ∆h). Space missions enable much larger ∆ U modulation across...

work page
[8]

clock cosmology / DM

Time/frequency transfer: fiber, free-space, and satellite links A global clock network requires transfer stability at or below clock instability. State-of-the-art fiber frequency transfer reaches fractional instabilities at or below 10 −19 in favorable conditions (demonstrations include ∼ 3 × 10−19 in deployed fiber contexts [133] and ∼ 3 × 10−19 on long-...

work page 2025
[9]

(2)Stability(Allan deviation): σy(τ) ∼σ 0/√τ at short times, until limited by oscillator noise, environment, or systematics

Optical clocks: Performance metrics Two key metrics: (1)Systematic uncertainty(accuracy): fractional bias control, now at or below 10 −18 in leading systems. (2)Stability(Allan deviation): σy(τ) ∼σ 0/√τ at short times, until limited by oscillator noise, environment, or systematics. Quantum projection noise (QPN) gives σQPN y (τ)∼ 1 Q r Tc N τ ,(64) where ...

work page
[10]

Systematics budgets (representative) Dominant shifts include blackbody radiation (BBR), lattice Stark shifts (for lattice clocks), Zeeman shifts, density shifts, probe light shifts, and relativistic Doppler/gravity potentials. Achieving 10 −19 class accuracy generally requires: (1) sub-Kelvin effective BBR environment knowledge (or cryogenic operation), (...

work page
[11]

Physics enabled Precision clocks allow for a series of important experiments, including (1) tests of GR redshift at unprecedented precision; (2) constraints on time variation of constants (laboratory limits have reached ≲ 10−18/yr in some analyses [137]); (3) searches for ultralight DM via oscillating constants and transient events [ 14]; (4) detection of...

work page
[12]

For a coherently oscillating scalar fieldϕwith massm ϕ, ϕ(t)≃ϕ 0 cos(mϕt), ϕ 0 ≃ √2ρDM mϕ ,(65) whereρ DM is the local dark-matter density

Ultralight fields with clocks: oscillations and transients A particularly quantitative mapping exists between clock performance and couplings of ultralight bosonic fields that may constitute some or all of the dark matter [14]. For a coherently oscillating scalar fieldϕwith massm ϕ, ϕ(t)≃ϕ 0 cos(mϕt), ϕ 0 ≃ √2ρDM mϕ ,(65) whereρ DM is the local dark-matte...

work page
[13]

Large momentum transfer (LMT) increases keff

Basic phase scaling For a light-pulse Mach-Zehnder AI measuring accelerationa, ∆ϕ≃k eff a T2,(68) so shot-noise-limited acceleration sensitivity is δa∼ 1 keffT 2√ N ,(69) with N detected atoms and interrogation time T . Large momentum transfer (LMT) increases keff. Microgravity enables largerTwithout large apparatus, potentially giving orders-of-magnitude...

work page
[14]

Dominant systematics and noise sources For a three-pulse (0 , T, 2T ) light-pulse interferometer, inertial signals enter through the sensitivity function g(t), giving a phase response to platform accelerationa(t) alongk eff, ∆ϕa =k eff Z 2T 0 dt g(t)a(t), g(t) = ( t0< t < T, 2T−t T < t <2T, (70) and an acceleration-noise variance σ2 ϕ ≃k 2 eff Z ∞ 0 d f S...

work page
[15]

instrument performance

Physics enabled Long-baseline atom interferometers function as differential accelerometers and gradiometers. The same phase response used for inertial sensing can be mapped onto new-physics observables through controlled changes of species, internal states, geometry, and source-mass configurations. a. Equivalence-principle and composition tests.Using two ...

work page 2025
[16]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

work page 2024
[17]

Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020)

work page 2018
[18]

C. M. Will, The confrontation between general relativity and experiment, Living Rev. Relativ.17, 4 (2014)

work page 2014
[19]

S. G. Turyshev, U. E. Israelsson, M. Shao, N. Yu, A. Kusenko, E. L. Wright, C. W. F. Everitt, M. Kasevich, J. A. Lipa, J. C. Mester, R. D. Reasenberg, R. L. Walsworth, N. Ashby, H. Gould, and H. J. Paik, Space-Based Research in Fundamental Physics and Quantum Technologies, IJMPD16, 1879 (2007)

work page 2007
[20]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, PRL116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016
[21]

Touboulet al., MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle, PRL129, 121102 (2022)

P. Touboulet al., MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle, PRL129, 121102 (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Collaboration), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, PRL135, 011802 (2025)

J. Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Collaboration), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, PRL135, 011802 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

Akeret al.(KATRIN Collaboration), Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data, Science 388, 180 (2025)

M. Akeret al.(KATRIN Collaboration), Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data, Science 388, 180 (2025)

work page 2025
[24]

T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, I. Kozyryev, M. Hofmeister, C.-H. Nguyen, D. DeMille, and J. M. Doyle, An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment, Science381, 46 (2023)

work page 2023
[25]

The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory

I. Brivio and M. Trott, The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[26]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10(2010), 085

work page 2010
[27]

Adams, N

A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, Analyticity and an IR Obstruction to UV Completion, JHEP10(2006), 014

work page 2006
[28]

Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, PRL43, 1566 (1979)

S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, PRL43, 1566 (1979). 42

work page 1979
[29]

S. G. Turyshev, Solar-System experiments in the search for dark energy and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D112, 123003 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel, New Test of the Gravitational 1 /r2 Law at Separations down to 52µm, PRL124, 101101 (2020)

work page 2020
[31]

A. G. Riesset al., JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection Biases, the Hubble Tension, and Improved Constraints on Dark Energy (2024), arXiv:2408.11770 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[32]

A. G. Riesset al., SH0ES: JWST/HST Cepheids in NGC 4258 and Improved Local Measurements of the Hubble Constant (2025), arXiv:2509.01667 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

W. L. Freedman, Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective, ApJ919, 16 (2021)

work page 2021
[34]

K. C. Wonget al.(H0LiCOW Collaboration), H0LiCOW XIII. A 2.4 per cent measurement of H0 from lensed quasars: 5.3σtension between early- and late-Universe probes, MNRAS498, 1420 (2020)

work page 2020
[35]

Treuet al., Strong lensing time-delay cosmography in the 2020s, Astron

T. Treuet al., Strong lensing time-delay cosmography in the 2020s, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.30, 8 (2022)

work page 2022
[36]

B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature551, 85 (2017)

work page 2017
[37]

A. H. Wrightet al.(KiDS), KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, Astron. Astrophys.703, A158 (2025)

work page 2025
[38]

Andreev, D

V. Andreev, D. G. Ang, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. R. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, A. D. West, E. P. West, X. Wu,et al.(ACME Collaboration), Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron, Nature562, 355 (2018)

work page 2018
[39]

Abelet al.(nEDM Collaboration), Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, PRL124, 081803 (2020)

C. Abelet al.(nEDM Collaboration), Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, PRL124, 081803 (2020)

work page 2020
[40]

Calabreseet al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models, J

E. Calabreseet al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models, J. Cosmology & Astroparticle Phys.2025, 063 (2025)

work page 2025
[41]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes, ApJ985, 203 (2025)

work page 2025
[42]

Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC

M. Cepeda, S. Gori, P. Ilten, M. Kado, F. Riva,et al., Higgs physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs 10.23731/CYRM-2019-007.221 (2019), arXiv:1902.00134 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.23731/cyrm-2019-007.221 2019
[43]

Colladay and V

D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, CPT violation and the standard model, Phys. Rev. D55, 6760 (1997)

work page 1997
[44]

Colladay and V

D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

work page 1998
[45]

V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004)

work page 2004
[46]

Gubitosi, F

G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, The effective field theory of dark energy, JCAP02(2013), 032

work page 2013
[47]

Bloomfield, ´E

J. Bloomfield, ´E. E. Flanagan, M. Park, and S. Watson, Dark energy or modified gravity? An effective field theory approach, JCAP08(2013), 010

work page 2013
[48]

Bellini and I

E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, Maximal freedom at minimum cost: linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity, JCAP07(2014), 050

work page 2014
[49]

Cheung, P

C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, The Effective Field Theory of Inflation, JHEP03 (2008), 014

work page 2008
[50]

Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

work page 1986
[51]

J. F. Donoghue, General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory: The Leading Quantum Corrections, Phys. Rev. D50, 3874 (1994)

work page 1994
[52]

D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, PRL71, 1291 (1993)

work page 1993
[53]

Engelhardt and A

N. Engelhardt and A. C. Wall, Quantum Extremal Surfaces: Holographic Entanglement Entropy beyond the Classical Regime, JHEP01(2015), 073

work page 2015
[54]

Penington, Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020), 002

G. Penington, Entanglement Wedge Reconstruction and the Information Paradox, JHEP09(2020), 002

work page 2020
[55]

Almheiri, N

A. Almheiri, N. Engelhardt, D. Marolf, and H. Maxfield, The entropy of bulk quantum fields and the entanglement wedge of an evaporating black hole, JHEP12(2019), 063

work page 2019
[56]

Almheiri, R

A. Almheiri, R. Mahajan, J. Maldacena, and Y. Zhao, The Page curve of Hawking radiation from semiclassical geometry, JHEP03(2020), 149

work page 2020
[57]

G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. D34, 470 (1986)

work page 1986
[58]

Pearle, Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization, Phys

P. Pearle, Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization, Phys. Rev. A39, 2277 (1989)

work page 1989
[59]

Bassi, K

A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 471 (2013)

work page 2013
[60]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Gravity, PRL119, 240401 (2017)

work page 2017
[61]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity, PRL119, 240402 (2017)

work page 2017
[62]

Monti, HL-LHC projections for the Higgs self-coupling (Indico/FNAL), Indico presentation at Fermilab (2025)

F. Monti, HL-LHC projections for the Higgs self-coupling (Indico/FNAL), Indico presentation at Fermilab (2025)

work page 2025
[63]

FCC Collaboration, FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 474 (2019)

work page 2019
[64]

CEPC Study Group, CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 – Physics & Detector (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]. 43

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[65]

H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y. Gao, A. Hoang, S. Kanemura, J. List, H. Logan, A. Nomerotski, M. Perelstein, F. Petriello, S. Pinkert, M. Planer, J. Reuter, S. Su, N. Walker, J. Wang, K. Yokoya, and J. Yu, The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report – Volume 2: Physics (2013), arXiv:1306.6352 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[66]

CLIC Collaboration and CLICdp Collaboration, The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) – 2018 Summary Report (2018), arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[67]

Muon Colliders

J.-P. Delahayeet al., Muon Colliders (2019), arXiv:1901.06150 [physics.acc-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[68]

Aaltonenet al.(CDF Collaboration), High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector, Science376, 10.1126/science.abk1781 (2022)

T. Aaltonenet al.(CDF Collaboration), High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector, Science376, 10.1126/science.abk1781 (2022)

work page doi:10.1126/science.abk1781 2022
[69]

Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at s=7 TeV, EPJ C84, 1309 (2024)

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at s=7 TeV, EPJ C84, 1309 (2024)

work page 2024
[70]

CMS Collaboration, W-boson mass measurement with the CMS detector (2025) (2025), arXiv:2412.13872 [hep-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[71]

Particle Data Group, Mass and Width of theWBoson (2025)

work page 2025
[72]

A. D. Sakharov, Violation of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, and Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe, JETP Lett.5, 24 (1967)

work page 1967
[73]

D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Electroweak baryogenesis, New J. Phys.14, 125003 (2012)

work page 2012
[74]

MEG II Collaboration, New limit on the µ+ →e +γ decay with the MEG II experiment (2025), arXiv:2504.15711 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[75]

Mu2e Technical Design Report

L. Bartoszeket al.(Mu2e), Mu2e Technical Design Report (2015), arXiv:1501.05241 [physics.ins-det]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[76]

NA62 Collaboration, Observation of the K+ →π +ν¯νdecay and measurement of its branching ratio, JHEP2025(2), 191

work page
[77]

KOTO Collaboration, Search for theK L →π 0ν¯νDecay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment, PRL134, 081802 (2025)

work page 2025
[78]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays, PRL131, 051803 (2023)

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays, PRL131, 051803 (2023)

work page 2023
[79]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ →K +ℓ+ℓ− and B0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B+ →K +ℓ+ℓ− and B0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays, Phys. Rev. D108, 032002 (2023)

work page 2023
[80]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of the branching fraction ratio R K at large dilepton invariant mass, JHEP2025(7), 198

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Measurement of the branching fraction ratio R K at large dilepton invariant mass, JHEP2025(7), 198

work page

Showing first 80 references.