Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 100 references

The paper argues that the absence of observed deviations from General Relativity in current gravitational-wave data already constrains vectorial non-metricity, with atomic clocks and gravitational-wave detectors serving as complementary pro

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:41 UTC pith:2HQTQ4CP

load-bearing objection The advertised LIGO/Virgo constraint on Weyl non-metricity is off by four orders of magnitude in its own estimate: the 'subdominant' kinetic term is larger than the detector sensitivity, so the paper's main bound is not supported. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.19407 v2 pith:2HQTQ4CP submitted 2026-01-27 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Atomic clocks and gravitational waves as probes of non-metricity

Mohsen Khodadi , Emmanuel N. Saridakis This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th MSC 83C3583D05 PACS 04.30.-w04.50.Kd
keywords non-metricityWeyl geometrygravitational wavesatomic clockssecond clock effectWeyl field strengthbackreactionmodified gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that spacetime non-metricity, the failure of parallel transport to preserve length, can be tested with instruments that already exist. Working in Weyl geometry, the authors show that the observable signature of a Weyl vector field is the flux of its field strength through a closed loop, making the effect gauge-invariant and path-dependent. Atomic clocks acting as physical rulers put the Weyl coupling below about 10^-9 to 10^-10 if the field is light. Gravitational waves do not directly excite the Weyl field at linear order, but the field's own energy-momentum tensor backreacts on wave propagation and produces an extra strain; the absence of such a strain in current detector data then bounds α²ω̄₀ below about 10^-69 GeV. If right, non-metricity need not show up in local laboratory experiments and can still be probed through the dynamical sector of gravity.

Core claim

The central claim is that vectorial non-metricity leaves a clean, gauge-invariant imprint: lengths transported around closed loops change by a factor set by the enclosed flux of the Weyl field strength Fμν, so the fractional length difference is ΔL/L ≈ -(α/2)∬ Fμν dSμν. Atomic-clock comparisons place an upper bound α ≲ 10^-9–10^-10 for a light Weyl field, while heavy fields are Yukawa-suppressed and evade clock tests. In Weyl quadratic gravity, linearized gravitational waves do not directly source the Weyl field through curvature or connection couplings, but treating the Weyl field as dynamical with its own energy-momentum tensor produces a backreaction: an anomalous strain correction domina

What carries the argument

The machinery is Weyl geometry's non-metricity condition, which changes the norm of a transported vector by an exponential of the line integral of the Weyl gauge field. The observable is the closed-loop integral, converted by Stokes's theorem into a flux of the gauge-invariant field strength Fμν = ∂μων - ∂νωμ; this is the object atomic clocks constrain. For gravitational waves, the mechanism is backreaction: the Weyl field's energy-momentum tensor sources the linearized Einstein equation, with a kinetic term oscillating at twice the wave frequency and a mass term from the effective-mass sector, producing the anomalous strain corrections 4ϵ₀²/(Mp²Rω) and 96πα²ω̄₀ϵ₀/(Rω³). The effective mass o

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational-wave constraint leans on treating the kinetic backreaction term 4/(Rω) as subdominant; for the paper's own numbers (R=400 Mpc, f=100 Hz) that term is about 10^-19, far above the 10^-23 strain floor, so the advertised α²ω̄₀ < 10^-69 GeV only follows if the Weyl fluctuation amplitude is assumed smaller than Planck-scale.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eq. (4.34) at the paper's fiducial numbers: 4/(Rω) ≈ 1.6×10^-19 for R=400 Mpc and f=100 Hz, compared with h_min ≈ 10^-23. Since the kinetic term exceeds the detector floor by four orders of magnitude, the claim that it is subdominant fails on the paper's own numbers; a reader can settle the issue with this one-line substitution. Conversely, a gravitational-wave event showing an anomalous strain component at twice the wave frequency, at the level predicted by the kinetic backreaction term, would confirm the proposed channel.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Atomic clocks rule out light, effectively massless Weyl fields with coupling above roughly 10^-9 to 10^-10; heavy Weyl fields are naturally hidden from terrestrial clock tests.
  • Current ground-based gravitational-wave data already require α²ω̄₀ ≲ 10^-69 GeV, meaning either the Weyl coupling, the background field, or both must be very small.
  • Next-generation ground-based detectors would push the bound to about 10^-74 GeV, and space-based detectors to about 10^-85 GeV, probing non-metricity orders of magnitude below current limits.
  • Direct sourcing of the Weyl field by gravitational waves is absent at linear order, so searches should target the backreaction strain rather than curvature-mixing effects.
  • Non-metricity can evade local, quasi-static laboratory searches yet remain visible in the dynamical response of the gravitational sector.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A path the paper leaves implicit: the backreaction mechanism is generic for dynamical vector fields in gravity, so comparable null-detection bounds may transfer to other massive-vector extensions of General Relativity without Weyl-specific assumptions.
  • A testable extension: placing atomic clocks on well-separated satellite orbits would enclose much larger flux surfaces and could push the light-field coupling bound well below the terrestrial 10^-9–10^-10 range, if clock-comparison systematics allow.
  • A conceptual extension: because the observable is a flux integral, the clock test is insensitive to how matter couples locally to the connection; the same gauge-invariant strategy could be adapted to non-vectorial non-metricity theories, where the length-transport law differs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that vectorial non-metricity in Weyl geometry can be probed by atomic clocks and gravitational waves. It derives a gauge-invariant observable—the flux of the Weyl field strength through a closed loop—and uses it to obtain an atomic-clock bound α ≲ 10^{-9}–10^{-10} for a light Weyl field (Eq. 3.6). For gravitational waves, after showing in Appendices A and B that linearized vacuum GWs do not directly source the Weyl field, the paper includes the Weyl field's energy-momentum tensor as a source for the metric perturbation and derives an anomalous strain. Requiring this strain to lie below LIGO/Virgo sensitivity yields the headline constraint α²ω̄0 ≲ 10^{-69} GeV (Eq. 4.38), with projected improvements for ET and DECIGO. The central claim is that existing GW null results already provide a powerful probe of dynamical non-metricity.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, the paper would establish a new, quantitative link between non-metricity and GW astronomy, and the complementary clock and GW bounds would be of interest to the metric-affine gravity community. The paper has genuine strengths: the gauge-invariant formulation via the Weyl field strength is clean; the explicit demonstration in the appendices that curvature and connection couplings do not source the Weyl field at linear order is a useful negative result; and the overall strategy of using precision metrology and GW data to constrain non-metricity is well motivated. However, the advertised GW constraint is not derivable from the paper's own equations, and the atomic-clock bound rests on an unproved estimate. The central quantitative claims therefore do not survive scrutiny.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C, Eqs. (4.34)–(4.36)] The claim that the first term in Eq. (4.35) is 'subdominant' is numerically false for the quoted parameters. With ϵ0=Mp, R=400 Mpc, and f=100 Hz, 4/(Rω)=4c/(R·2πf)≈1.6×10^{-19}, which exceeds the quoted hmin≈10^{-23} by four orders of magnitude. Eq. (4.36), and hence the headline bound (4.38), therefore does not follow from the stated assumptions. Deriving (4.38) requires the additional, unstated assumption ϵ0≲0.01Mp; because the mass-term constraint (4.37) is linear in ϵ0, reducing ϵ0 to make the kinetic term acceptable weakens the advertised bound by the inverse factor. With arbitrary ϵ0, the data constrain the product α²ω̄0ϵ0, not α²ω̄0.
  2. [§IV.B, Eqs. (4.20)–(4.23)] The Weyl perturbation is assumed to be a monochromatic plane wave with k²=0, but ϵμ obeys the Proca equation (4.14) with effective mass m_eff, which requires k²=m_eff². The vanishing of (∂αϵβ)(∂αϵβ) in Eq. (4.22) and the simplified kinetic source (4.23) rely on k²=0. Using the on-shell condition changes the kinetic contribution, so the source term (4.25) is not consistently derived from the linearized field equations.
  3. [§III, Eq. (3.3)] The 'conservative estimate' for the Earth-sourced Weyl field strength is asserted without derivation, and the Yukawa suppression factor f(mωR⊕) is left unspecified. The atomic-clock bound (3.6) is linear in this estimate; without a derivation of Eq. (3.3)—for example from the Proca equation sourced by Earth's mass distribution—the quoted α≲10^{-9}–10^{-10} is not an independent, robust constraint.
  4. [§IV.B, Eqs. (4.26)–(4.29)] The retarded-integral estimate replaces the source by a localized region of size L∼ω^{-1}. However, the assumed Weyl perturbation is a free, spatially homogeneous plane wave, not a localized source; the integral in Eq. (4.26) over an infinite plane wave is not well defined by the 'localized source' approximation. Moreover, Appendices A and B show that linearized GWs do not source ϵμ, so the assumed ambient plane wave has no causal connection to the binary merger whose noise floor hmin is used in (4.33). The comparison is therefore not a direct constraint on non-metricity from GW150914-type events.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C] Notation is inconsistent: Eq. (4.32) uses h_total and h_GR^0, while Eq. (4.33) refers to Δh_new without defining it relation to the terms in (4.32).
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (4.29), (4.31)] The equations use natural units (c=ℏ=1) without stating this explicitly. Restoring c changes the numerical value of 4/(Rω) to 4c/(Rω) in SI units; the paper should state the unit convention.
  3. [Table I] The mass thresholds mix units: 'mω ≪ 1/R⊕' is written with R⊕ in meters, while 'mω >~ eV' uses natural units. The conversion between inverse meters and eV should be stated.
  4. [References] Reference [47] appears to have a typo in the arXiv number (2306.137142); other references should be checked for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the clock and GW constraints are derived from Weyl-geometry transport equations and an external prior mass relation, not from the quantities they are said to predict.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The path-dependent length ratio in Eqs. (2.14)-(2.16) follows from the Weyl non-metricity condition, parallel transport, and Stokes' theorem; it is not defined in terms of the final clock or GW bounds. The atomic-clock constraint, Eq. (3.6), is obtained by inserting a conservative estimate for the Weyl-field flux and the measured clock sensitivity; α is not fitted to the claimed prediction. The gravitational-wave bound, Eqs. (4.37)-(4.38), is derived by solving the inequality |Δh_new| ≲ h_min with the sourced-wave expression (4.32), and that expression is obtained from perturbed Einstein equations and a Proca-like plane-wave ansatz, rather than being constructed to reproduce h_min. The relation m_ω = α M_p sqrt(3/2) is imported from Ghilencea's prior independent work [7,9], not from the present authors' own self-citations. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [73,87,90-97]) concern context and motivation and are not load-bearing for the central constraints. The main weakness is a quantitative/numerical inconsistency: the paper drops the 'subdominant' kinetic term 4/(Rω), which is actually ~1.6×10^-19 at the quoted parameters, far above h_min ≈ 10^-23, so Eq. (4.36) implicitly requires an unstated small-ϵ0 assumption. This is an under-determination and consistency issue, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particle or force is invented: the Weyl vector field, its mass, and its background value are all taken from the pre-existing Weyl-quadratic-gravity framework. The key added assumptions are the amplitude choice ϵ0=Mp and the ad hoc Earth field-strength estimate, both of which are tunable inputs rather than independently evidenced entities.

free parameters (5)
  • α (Weyl gauge coupling) = constrained: α<10⁻⁹–10⁻¹⁰ (massless limit, clocks)
    Central model parameter; the paper claims to constrain it but does not determine it from first principles.
  • m_ω (Weyl boson mass) = m_ω = α M_p √(3/2), imported from Stueckelberg mechanism [7,9]
    Mass enters the Yukawa suppression and the GW mass term; the value is taken from prior literature, not derived here.
  • ω̄_0 (background Weyl field amplitude) = unknown; GW constraint is on α²ω̄0 < 10⁻⁶⁹ GeV
    Free background value; without it the GW bound does not constrain α alone.
  • ϵ_0 (Weyl perturbation amplitude) = set to M_p in Section IV.C
    Chosen by hand as maximal. At ϵ0=Mp the kinetic backreaction alone violates hmin; smaller values weaken the advertised bound.
  • f(m_ω R_⊕) (Yukawa suppression factor) = unspecified; implicitly 1 in the massless limit
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq. (3.3); the atomic-clock bound depends on it, but its functional form is never given.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Non-metricity is purely vectorial: ∇~λgμν = -α ωλ gμν
    Eq. (2.1); restricts to Weyl geometry and excludes non-vectorial f(Q) non-metricity.
  • domain assumption Physical rulers carry zero Weyl charge and obey dL/L = -α/2 ωλ dxλ
    Eq. (2.6), taken from Appendix B of reference [9]; needed for the atomic-clock mapping.
  • domain assumption Weyl quadratic gravity action L=√g[(1/κ²)C̃² + (1/(4!ξ²))R̃² - (1/4)F²]
    Eq. (4.3); the dynamical model used for the GW section, imported from prior Weyl-quadratic-gravity literature.
  • domain assumption Flat background with constant or vanishing ω̄ satisfies T̄^(ω)_μν=0
    Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6); for flat background this requires ω̄αω̄α=0, which permits a lightlike constant vector but constrains the background.
  • domain assumption Stueckelberg mass relation m_ω = α M_p √(3/2)
    Quoted below Eq. (4.31) from references [7,9]; used to convert the mass-term correction into the advertised bound.
  • ad hoc to paper Weyl fluctuation is a monochromatic plane wave with k²=0
    Eq. (4.20); conflicts with the Proca dispersion k²=m_eff² from Eqs. (4.14)-(4.16), and is used to simplify the source.
  • ad hoc to paper Earth's Weyl field strength is bounded by (GM⊕/(R⊕c²))×(A/R⊕²)×f(mωR⊕)
    Eq. (3.3); asserted as a conservative estimate without derivation from the Weyl field equations; carries the entire atomic-clock bound.
  • domain assumption Detector strain thresholds hmin≈10⁻²³, 10⁻²⁵, 10⁻³⁰ apply to the backreaction correction
    Used in Eqs. (4.35)-(4.40); questionable because the correction is a free ambient wave, not part of a compact-binary waveform.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17332 in / 17219 out tokens · 192474 ms · 2026-08-03T07:41:50.040557+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Non-metricity provides a natural extension of Riemannian geometry, yet its experimental signatures remain largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate how spacetime non-metricity can be probed through high-precision observations, focusing on atomic clocks and gravitational waves as complementary tools. Working within Weyl geometry as a minimal realization of vectorial non-metricity, we formulate observable effects in a gauge-invariant manner and show that they are associated with path-dependent length transport governed by the Weyl field strength. We derive constraints from atomic-clock experiments and demonstrate that, although gravitational waves do not directly source the Weyl field at linear order, its dynamical contribution induces a backreaction on gravitational-wave propagation, leading to an anomalous strain. As a result, the absence of deviations from General Relativity in current gravitational-wave observations already places meaningful and strong constraints on dynamical non-metric degrees of freedom, within the phenomenological classical framework considered.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 75 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke and Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rept.258, 1-171 (1995) [arXiv:gr- qc/9402012 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Blagojevic,Gravitation and gauge symmetries, CRC Press, (2002)

    M. Blagojevic,Gravitation and gauge symmetries, CRC Press, (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Puetzfeld and Y

    D. Puetzfeld and Y. N. Obukhov, Phys. Rev. D76, 084025 (2007) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D79, 069902 (2009)] [arXiv:0707.2819 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Iosifidis, [arXiv:1902.09643 [gr-qc]]

    D. Iosifidis, [arXiv:1902.09643 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  5. [5]

    Weyl, Sitzungsber

    H. Weyl, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1918, 465 (1918)

    1918

  6. [6]

    Scholz, [arXiv:1111.3220 [math.HO]]

    E. Scholz, [arXiv:1111.3220 [math.HO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    D. M. Ghilencea, JHEP03, 049 (2019) [arXiv:1812.08613]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    D. M. Ghilencea, Phys. Rev. D101, no.4, 045010 (2020) [arXiv:1904.06596]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    D. M. Ghilencea, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.2, 176 (2023) [arXiv:2203.05381 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Sola, Phys

    J. Sola, Phys. Lett. B228, 317-324 (1989)

    1989

  11. [11]

    P. D. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Phys. Rev. D44, 417-423 (1991)

    1991

  12. [12]

    La, Phys

    D. La, Phys. Rev. D44, 1680-1684 (1991)

    1991

  13. [13]

    Elizondo and G

    D. Elizondo and G. Yepes, Astrophys. J.428, 17-20 (1994) [arXiv:9312064]

    1994

  14. [14]

    K. A. Bronnikov and J. C. Fabris, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 831-842 (1997) [arXiv:9603037]

    1997

  15. [15]

    Edery and M

    A. Edery and M. B. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D58, 024011 (1998) [arXiv:9708233]

    1998

  16. [16]

    Klemm, Class

    D. Klemm, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3195-3201 (1998) [arXiv:9808051]

    1998

  17. [17]

    Boulanger and M

    N. Boulanger and M. Henneaux, Annalen Phys.10, 935-964 (2001) [arXiv:0106065]

    2001

  18. [18]

    Pireaux, Class

    S. Pireaux, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 4317-4334 (2004) [arXiv:0408024]

    2004

  19. [19]

    Pireaux, Class

    S. Pireaux, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1897-1913 (2004) [arXiv:0403071]

    1913

  20. [20]

    E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D74, 023002 (2006) [arXiv:0605504]

    2006

  21. [21]

    Edery, L

    A. Edery, L. Fabbri and M. B. Paranjape, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 6409-6423 (2006) [arXiv:0603131]

    2006

  22. [22]

    F. S. N. Lobo, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 175006 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Sultana and D

    J. Sultana and D. Kazanas, Phys. Rev. D81, 127502 (2010)

    2010

  24. [24]

    Percacci, New J

    R. Percacci, New J. Phys.13, 125013 (2011) [arXiv:1110.6758]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Dengiz and B

    S. Dengiz and B. Tekin, Phys. Rev. D84, 024033 (2011) [arXiv:1104.0601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    M. R. Tanhayi, S. Dengiz and B. Tekin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064016 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Sultana, D

    J. Sultana, D. Kazanas and J. Levi Said, Phys. Rev. D86, 084008 (2012) [arXiv:1910.06118]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Deruelle, M

    N. Deruelle, M. Sasaki, Y. Sendouda and A. Youssef, JHEP09, 009 (2012) [arXiv:1202.3131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    J. L. Said, J. Sultana and K. Z. Adami, Phys. Rev. D 85, 104054 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0860]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Cattani, M

    C. Cattani, M. Scalia, E. Laserra, I. Bochicchio and K. K. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D87, no.4, 047503 (2013) [arXiv:1303.7438]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    J. T. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. D90, no.2, 025027 (2014) [arXiv:1310.0526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Quiros, [arXiv:1401.2643]

    I. Quiros, [arXiv:1401.2643]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Y. S. Myung and T. Moon, JCAP08, 061 (2014) [arXiv:1406.4367]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Cusin, S

    G. Cusin, S. Foffa, M. Maggiore and M. Man- carella, Phys. Rev. D93, no.4, 043006 (2016) [arXiv:1512.06373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    J. R. Mureika and G. U. Varieschi, Can. J. Phys.95, no.12, 1299-1306 (2017) [arXiv:1611.00399]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Oda, Eur

    I. Oda, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.5, 284 (2017) [arXiv:1610.05441]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    A. F. Zinhailo, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.12, 992 (2018) [arXiv:1809.03913]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    D. M. Ghilencea and H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. D99, no.11, 115007 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09174]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Gomes and O

    C. Gomes and O. Bertolami, Class. Quant. Grav.36 (2019) no.23, 235016 [arXiv:1812.04976 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    D. M. Ghilencea, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.6, 510 (2021) [arXiv:2007.14733]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Takizawa, T

    K. Takizawa, T. Ono and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D102, no.6, 064060 (2020) [arXiv:2006.00682]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Jawad, Z

    A. Jawad, Z. Khan and S. Rani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.1, 71 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Y. Xu, T. Harko, S. Shahidi and S. D. Liang, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.5, 449 [arXiv:2005.04025 [gr- qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Geiller, C

    M. Geiller, C. Goeller and C. Zwikel, JHEP09, 029 (2021) [arXiv:2107.01073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    J. Z. Yang, S. Shahidi and T. Harko, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.12, 1171 (2022) [arXiv:2212.05542]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Harko and S

    T. Harko and S. Shahidi,f(R, L m) gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.3, 219 [arXiv:2202.06349 [gr- qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    A. Hell, D. Lust and G. Zoupanos, JHEP08, 168 (2023) [arXiv:2306.137142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin and S. Zell, Phys. Rev. D104, no.12, 124014 (2021) [arXiv:2108.05897]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Roumelioti, S

    D. Roumelioti, S. Stefas and G. Zoupanos, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.6, 577 (2024) [arXiv:2403.17511]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    I. D. Gialamas and K. Tamvakis, [arXiv:2410.16364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    M. M. Lima and C. Gomes, Universe10(2024) no.11, 433 [arXiv:2410.01856 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Momennia, [arXiv:2502.03706 [gr-qc]]

    M. Momennia, [arXiv:2502.03706 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Khodadi and T

    M. Khodadi and T. Harko, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.11, 1325 [arXiv:2509.15838 [gr-qc]]. 12

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Lima and C

    M. Lima and C. Gomes, Gravity,” [arXiv:2509.15317 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Kusano, M

    R. Kusano, M. Y. Asuncion and K. Horne, [arXiv:2510.05701 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Gomes, J

    C. Gomes, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.3027(2025), 012024 [arXiv:2506.16532 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, no.2, 637-701 (2015)

    2015

  58. [58]

    J. P. Uzan, Living Rev. Rel.14, 2 (2011) [arXiv:1009.5514 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kim- ball, A. Derevianko and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.2, 025008 (2018) [arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Aasiet al.[LIGO Scientific], Class

    J. Aasiet al.[LIGO Scientific], Class. Quant. Grav.32 (2015), 074001 [arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016) [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.16, 161101 (2017) [arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [63]

    Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys

    R. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.10, 101102 [arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    and Cosmic Explorer [65] are expected to reach sensitivities of orderh min ∼10 −25. Assuming the same source distance and a characteristic frequency f≃10 Hz, one finds α2 ¯ω0 <∼ 10−74 GeV,(4.39) representing an improvement of roughly five orders of magnitude relative to current constraints. 8 TABLE I. Summary of experimental constraints on vectorial non-m...

  65. [65]

    Sathyaprakash, M

    B. Sathyaprakash, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Ajith, B. Allen, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, S. Aoudia, K. Arun and P. Astone,et al.Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012), 124013 [erratum: Class. Quant. Grav. 30(2013), 079501] [arXiv:1206.0331 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    Evans, R

    M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Biscoveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisenstein and A. Gruson,et al.[arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Kawamura, M

    S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, M. Musha, I. Kawano, J. Yokoyama, T. Tanaka, K. Ioka and T. Akutsu,et al.PTEP2021(2021) no.5, 05A105 [arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    E. N. Saridakiset al.[CANTATA], Springer, (2021), [arXiv:2105.12582 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    J. M. Nester and H. J. Yo, Chin. J. Phys.37, 113 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9809049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  70. [70]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg and T. S. Koivisto, JCAP08, 039 (2018) [arXiv:1803.10185 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Reine Infinitesimalgeometrie

    Weyl, H. Reine Infinitesimalgeometrie. Math Z 2, 384–411 (1918)

    1918

  72. [72]

    Romero(Paraiba U.), J.B

    C. Romero(Paraiba U.), J.B. Fonseca-Neto(Paraiba U.), M.L. Pucheu(Paraiba U.), Class.Quant.Grav. 29 (2012) 155015 [arXiv:1201.1469]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    J. T. Wheeler, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, no.7, 80 (2018) [arXiv:1801.03178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Kouniatalis and E

    G. Kouniatalis and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 260 (2025) [arXiv:2411.14380 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    V. V. Flambaum, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22, 4937-4950 (2007) [arXiv:0705.3704 [physics.atom-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  76. [76]

    W. F. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, S. A. Sch¨ affer, K. Beloy, D. Nicolodi, R. C. Brown, N. Hinkley, G. Mi- lani and M. Schioppo,et al.Nature564, no.7734, 87-90 (2018) [arXiv:1807.11282 [physics.atom-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, J. C. J. Koelemeij, D. J. Wineland and T. Rosenband, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, no.7, 070802 (2010) [arXiv:0911.4527 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  78. [78]

    Schiller, A

    S. Schiller, A. Gorlitz, A. Nevsky, S. Alighanbari, S. Vasilyev, C. Abou-Jaoudeh, G. Mura, T. Franzen, U. Sterr and S. Falke,et al.[arXiv:1206.3765 [quant- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    Delva, N

    P. Delva, N. Puchades, E. Sch¨ onemann, F. Dilssner, C. Courde, S. Bertone, F. Gonzalez, A. Hees, C. Le Poncin-Lafitte and F. Meynadier,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.23, 231101 (2018) [arXiv:1812.03711 [gr- qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    [arXiv:2410.22973 [physics.atom-ph]]

    International Clock, Oscillator Networking (ICON) Collaboration: Anne Amy-Kleinet al. [arXiv:2410.22973 [physics.atom-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.