Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Testing Antimatter Couplings with Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Matter-only experiments can place bounds on antimatter couplings.

desk verdict A solid, carefully derived paper that makes the core claim stick — matter spectroscopy constrains antimatter couplings through velocity-suppressed terms — but the headline bounds rest on a restricted coupling choice and on comparison limits the authors themselves call naive. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07656 v1 pith:7ZMPAMUN submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph physics.atom-ph

Joerg Jaeckel , Lucas Puetter This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords LorentzviolationCPTantimattercouplingsscalar-mediatedforceshydrogenspectroscopyantihydrogenhighlychargedionsstellarcoolingbounds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper shows that a light scalar whose couplings to fermions mix an ordinary scalar with a time-like Lorentz-violating vector becomes, in the non-relativistic limit, a particle that couples to matter with strength $g^+_F = g_F + I^F_0$ and to antimatter with strength $g^-_F = g_F - I^F_0$. Because relativistic corrections let the 'wrong' coupling enter at relative order $v^2/4$, ordinary hydrogen spectroscopy already carries information about positron and antiproton couplings, and fast beams or highly charged ions amplify this effect. Using hydrogen, antihydrogen, and hydrogen-like heavy-ion data, the paper derives the strongest existing bounds for scalar masses $m_\phi \gtrsim 400$ keV on the four products $g^\pm_p g^\pm_e$. A sympathetic reader would care because it opens a route to test matter-antimatter asymmetry in a dark sector without needing dedicated antimatter experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the split coupling $g^\pm_F = g_F \pm I^F_0$ that arises from the interaction $G^F = g^F + I^F_0\gamma^0$ with $I^F_j=0$ in the CMB frame, which makes the scalar look matter-selective or antimatter-selective in the non-relativistic limit. The mechanism that carries the argument is velocity suppression: the small Dirac components of the bound electron (order $Z\alpha/2$ in $F/G$) and the CMB boost factors $c_\pm=(\gamma_{\mathrm{CMB}}\pm 1)/2$ inject the opposite-sign couplings at relative order $v^2/4$ and $v^2_{\mathrm{CMB}}/4$. The radial integrals $I_G$ and $I_F$ of the large and small components with the Yukawa exponential encode the scalar-mass dependence, and the rank of the Fisher matrix of the fitted transition frequencies controls which beam-velocity classes are needed to separate the four coupling products.

What would settle it

Measure the 1S-2S or Lamb shift in hydrogen beams at two clearly separated velocities, say $v_{\mathrm{exp}}\sim 0.003$ and $0.01$, and check that the part of the residual assigned to $g^+_p g^-_e$ scales as $v_{\mathrm{exp}}^2/4$ while the $g^+_p g^+_e$ part stays constant; a null result or any different velocity dependence would falsify the suppression hierarchy that is the paper's central mechanism. A second falsifier is a search for the predicted $\sim 10^{-7}$ sidereal modulation of transition frequencies from the CMB boost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distinction between 'matter' and 'antimatter' couplings of the scalar is not an intrinsic property but a low-velocity artefact. In a frame where the vector coupling is purely time-like, the combinations $g^\pm_F = g_F \pm I^F_0$ describe coupling to particles and antiparticles in the non-relativistic limit. Relativistic effects, however, mix them: in the hydrogen energy shift (Eq. (2.20)) the products involving $g^-_p$ or $g^-_e$ appear suppressed by $v^2_{\mathrm{CMB}}/4$ or $v^2/4$ relative to the dominant $g^+_p g^+_e$ term, while the antihydrogen shift (Eq. (2.24)) is dominated by $g^-_p g^-_e$ with the opposite admixtures. This velocity hierarchy lets matter-based measurements constrain antimatter couplings, and a least-squares fit to spectroscopic data yields limits on all four coupling products, with the strongest bounds for $m_\phi \gtrsim 400$ keV. The paper also estimates astrophysical bounds and finds they are competitive or stronger, particularly for antimatter couplings, despite stars being made of matter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Lorentz-violating coupling is exactly a time-like vector in the cosmic microwave background frame, so the combinations $g\pm I_0$ cleanly split matter from antimatter couplings; the authors flag this restriction as the simplest choice, and the analysis also assumes the scalar does not couple to muons and that protons and neutrons couple equally in heavy-ion and stellar estimates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Antimatter couplings can be tested with matter-only data: hydrogen transitions measured at beam velocities $v_{\mathrm{exp}}\gtrsim v_{\mathrm{CMB}}$ break the degeneracy among the four products and bound $g^-_p g^-_e$ and $g^-_p g^+_e$ without any antihydrogen.
  • Adding the fast-beam Lamb-shift and fine-structure transitions restores a full-rank Fisher matrix; without them cold hydrogen alone contributes only two independent directions and cannot separate $g^+_p g^+_e$ from $g^-_p g^+_e$.
  • For scalar masses $m_\phi \gtrsim 400$ keV the derived limits are the strongest to date on all four products $g^\pm_p g^\pm_e$.
  • Hydrogen-like heavy ions, with electron velocities $Z\alpha$ and beam velocities near $0.3$-$0.7$, give the best bounds on $g^+_N g^-_e$ and $g^-_N g^+_e$ and extend the reach to larger masses.
  • Astrophysical energy-loss estimates from red giants, horizontal branch stars, and white dwarfs constrain even the antimatter couplings, and are estimated to be competitive with or stronger than the spectroscopic limits at low masses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims: the velocity-suppression mechanism is generic, so precision spectroscopy of any simple atom, molecule, or ion with controlled velocity could be turned into an antimatter-coupling probe; optimizing beams around $v_{\mathrm{exp}}\sim 0.1$ could push the $g^-$ products several orders of magnitude below current hydrogen limits.
  • The frame dependence implies a testable modulation: because the CMB-boost factors enter at $v^2_{\mathrm{CMB}}/4\sim 10^{-7}$, a sufficiently precise comparison of the same transition at different times of day or year should show a small sidereal or seasonal shift with the predicted scaling if this mechanism is real.
  • The muonic-hydrogen proton radius is assumed uncontaminated; a cross-check with an independent proton-radius determination would test whether the extracted bounds are biased, and if the scalar couples to muons the hydrogen-only bounds would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a light scalar field coupled to Standard Model fermions through a scalar plus a time-like vector Lorentz-violating coupling, with spatial vector components set to zero in the CMB frame. It defines non-relativistic matter and antimatter couplings g±_F = g_F ± I^F_0, derives first-order energy shifts for hydrogen, antihydrogen, and hydrogen-like heavy ions, and performs a correlated least-squares fit to published transition frequencies to constrain the four products g±_p g±_e as functions of the scalar mass. The central claims are that antimatter couplings can be constrained using matter-only spectroscopy and that the resulting bounds are the strongest to date for m_phi ≳ 400 keV.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a conceptually interesting and practically useful result: it shows that CPT/Lorentz-violating couplings that distinguish matter from antimatter can be probed in ordinary matter through velocity-suppressed relativistic corrections, complementing direct antihydrogen spectroscopy. The technical core is solid: the Dirac treatment uses the full small-component structure, the antihydrogen spinors are derived by charge conjugation, the least-squares procedure is closed-form, and the covariance matrix includes experimental, theoretical, and input-constant correlations (Section 3.3, Appendix C, Table 3). The paper also makes falsifiable predictions and uses public data. However, as detailed below, the headline claims are stated more broadly than what the restricted model and the rough comparison bounds actually support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Appendix A.1, Eq. (A.12)] The matter/antimatter interpretation rests on restricting the general coupling in Eq. (2.2) to G^F = g^F + I^F_0 γ^0 with I^F_j = 0 in the CMB frame. All four fitted products and the velocity hierarchy in Eq. (2.20) are defined through this restriction. The full laboratory-frame potential in Eq. (A.12) contains additional terms involving the spatial components I^F_j, including parity-odd and spin-dependent structures. The text states that these are 'subdominant', but no quantitative estimate is given for their matrix elements in the specific transitions used, in particular the beam-velocity transitions 3 and 4 that are essential for lifting degeneracies in Section 4.2. The paper should either compute or bound these omitted contributions for the relevant states, or explicitly reframe the abstract and conclusions as applying to this restricted coupling sector rather than to the general Lorentz-violating scalar sector advertised in the introduction.
  2. [Section 5.1 and abstract claim of 'strongest bounds to date'] The abstract and Section 4.1 (Figure 2) claim the strongest bounds to date for m_phi ≳ 0.4 MeV. This claim is not fully supported because the laboratory comparison bounds are introduced in Section 5.1 with the caveat that they were 'translated very naively, without a careful treatment of the relevant velocities'. Similarly, the astrophysical bounds in Section 5.2 are order-of-magnitude estimates with an O(1) parameter η and neglected interference terms. Direct comparison with such estimates cannot establish a 'strongest bounds to date' statement unless the translation is checked or the claim is softened to state that the bounds are the strongest within the considered model and under stated assumptions.
  3. [Sections 3.2 and 4.3] The interpretation of the ion bounds as proton-electron bounds requires assumptions that are stated locally but not carried into the headline claims. Section 3.2 adopts the muonic-hydrogen proton radius while assuming that the scalar does not couple to muons, and Section 4.3 assumes equal proton and neutron couplings, so the ion results constrain g±_N g±_e rather than g±_p g±_e. Without these assumptions, the comparison in Figure 4 between nucleon-electron products and proton-electron products, and the related conclusions in Section 6, do not follow. These assumptions should be made explicit in the abstract and conclusions, or the relevant plots relabeled accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.5] There is a typo: 'due the the presence' should read 'due to the presence'.
  2. [Section 4.3] The word 'antihydrorgen' appears in the caption of Figure 4 and should be corrected to 'antihydrogen'.
  3. [Table 1, row 15] The entry for the 2P1/2 - 2P3/2 antihydrogen transition is written as '10.88(19)×10^3' in a column labeled MHz; adding 'MHz' inside the entry would remove ambiguity about whether the exponent applies to kHz or MHz.
  4. [Section 5.1] The references describing the electron-neutron bounds appear to be mismatched: [82] is titled 'Probing New Long-Range Interactions by Isotope Shift Spectroscopy' while the text attributes a (g−2)_e plus neutron-scattering combination to this reference and isotope-shift spectroscopy to [83]. Please check the mapping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coupling products are fit outputs from independent spectroscopic data; the model restriction is a scoping choice, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The energy shifts in Eqs. (2.19)-(2.20), (2.23)-(2.24), and (4.1) follow from the Lagrangian (2.1)-(2.2) and the Dirac spinors of hydrogen, antihydrogen, and hydrogenic ions; they are not assumed from the data. The four products g±_p g±_e are outputs of a least-squares fit to published transition frequencies (Table 1) against independent Standard Model theory [67], with a standard covariance treatment. The velocity hierarchies v^2/4 and v^2_CMB/4 are derived from the Dirac small-component ratio F/G ~ Zalpha/2 and the CMB boost c_- ~ v^2_CMB/4, so the sensitivity to antimatter couplings is not an input assumption. The restriction to scalar and timelike-vector couplings with I_j^F = 0 is an explicit model choice (Section 2.1: 'we restrict our discussion to the scalar and vector couplings for simplicity and in particular choose I_j^F = 0'; 'We leave the discussion of the other coefficients to future work'). This limits the headline claim to the restricted sector and is a scoping/correctness caveat, not circularity. Self-citations appear in the comparison bounds ([40] is a full RG emissivity calculation; [45,51,57,98] are in preparation), but the main spectroscopic results rely on external experimental and theoretical inputs, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a definition or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's quantitative output is a set of upper limits, so the ledger is dominated by the fitted coupling products (the outputs) and model assumptions inherited from the prior framework of Altschul [36]. The central mechanism, that relativistic small components and the CMB-frame boost expose antimatter couplings in matter experiments, has no fitted parameters; it follows from the Dirac equation and the velocity hierarchy v_e ~ alpha > v_CMB. The adjustable inputs are the scanned scalar mass, the O(1) astrophysical fudge parameter eta, and the domain assumptions listed above.

free parameters (6)
  • m_phi, scalar mass = scanned, roughly 1 eV to 10^9 eV
    Model parameter regulating the Yukawa range; bounds are presented as functions of it rather than fitted.
  • g+_p g+_e = best fit ~0; 95% CL bound in Fig. 2
    Matter-matter coupling product; extracted from the hydrogen/antihydrogen fit (Section 3.3).
  • g+_p g-_e = best fit ~0; bound suppressed by v_e^2/4 ~ 10^-5
    Matter proton with positron coupling; enters via the small-component radial integral I_F.
  • g-_p g+_e = best fit ~0; bound suppressed by v^2_CMB/4 or v^2_exp/4
    Antiproton with electron coupling; enters via the boost factor in Eq. (2.20).
  • g-_p g-_e = best fit ~0; bound comparable to g+_p g+_e via antihydrogen
    Antimatter-antimatter product; dominant in the antihydrogen energy shift, Eq. (2.23).
  • eta = O(1), taken as 1
    Fudge factor in the astrophysical emissivity bilinear estimate, Eq. (5.2); the translated stellar bounds scale with it.
assumptions (9)
  • ad hoc to paper The new scalar couples to each SM fermion F through G^F = g^F + I^F_0 gamma^0 with I^F_j = 0 in the CMB frame; other Lorentz structures in Eq. (2.2) are set to zero.
    Model restriction in Section 2.1; the matter/antimatter split g+- = g +/- I_0 and all derived bounds depend on it.
  • domain assumption The CMB rest frame is the frame in which the Lorentz-violating vector coupling is purely time-like.
    Section 2.2; defines the couplings and gives the boost into the lab frame, Eq. (2.4).
  • standard math CPT invariance of a local relativistic QFT implies Lorentz invariance, so CPT-violating couplings are Lorentz-violating (CPT theorem).
    Invoked in the Introduction with refs. [24,25]; motivates the model.
  • domain assumption The nucleon (proton) is non-relativistic in the interaction vertex while the electron is treated with relativistic Dirac wave functions.
    Appendix A and Section 2.4; valid for hydrogen; for heavy ions the nucleons have v ~ 0.2 and the authors note the non-relativistic treatment is an approximation (Section 4.3).
  • standard math The radial integrals satisfy I_F/I_G ~ v^2/4 with v the electron velocity (Z alpha scaling).
    From the Dirac small-component solution, Section 2.5, Eq. (2.22); the central suppression hierarchy of the paper.
  • domain assumption The proton rms charge radius from muonic hydrogen is unaffected by the new scalar; the scalar does not couple to muons.
    Section 3.2, explicit assumption; contamination would shift the theory values for the 1S-2S anchor transition.
  • domain assumption Protons and neutrons couple equally (g+/-_p = g+/-_n = g+/-_N) in the highly charged ion and stellar analyses.
    Sections 4.3 and 5.2; needed to convert electron-proton products into electron-nucleon products for heavy ions and stars.
  • ad hoc to paper Astrophysical emissivity estimates are captured by the O(1) parameter eta with interference and intrinsic-nucleon-velocity effects neglected.
    Section 5.2, Eqs. (5.2)-(5.5) and footnote 8; the translated stellar bounds are order-of-magnitude only.
  • domain assumption Theory uncertainty of the 6P_j hydrogen states is subdominant to that of 2S_1/2.
    Section 3.2, stated assumption because ref. [67] does not provide 6P uncertainties.
invented entities (1)
  • Light scalar phi with Lorentz-violating vector coupling (Eq. (2.1))
    purpose: Mediates the new Yukawa potential that distinguishes matter and antimatter couplings; the object of all bounds in the paper.
    The particle is inherited from Altschul [36] and is not detected here; the paper only constrains its coupling products, so there is no positive independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing Antimatter Couplings with Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZMPAMUN

@misc{pith2026260807656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing Antimatter Couplings with Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZMPAMUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07656}
}
abstract

We investigate how scalar-mediated potentials with Lorentz-violating couplings to Standard Model fermions affect spectroscopic observables in atoms and highly charged ions. Suitable combinations of an ordinary scalar and a time-like component of a Lorentz violating vector coupling allow for a split into "matter" and "antimatter" couplings, at least in the non-relativistic limit. By considering hydrogen and antihydrogen spectra, we access both matter and antimatter couplings. While relativistic effects alone lift degeneracies in ordinary hydrogen, providing indirect access to antimatter couplings, comparisons with antihydrogen measurements lead to significantly improved sensitivity to the antimatter couplings. In highly charged ions, enhanced relativistic effects further amplify the sensitivity, compensating for reduced experimental precision and larger theoretical uncertainties. We obtain the strongest bounds to date for scalar masses $m_\phi \gtrsim 400\:\mathrm{keV}$. For comparison, we estimate astrophysical constraints on the same parameter space, providing strong bounds even on antimatter couplings, despite stars being predominantly composed of matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Allowed parameter space for non-relativistic matter and antimatter couplings of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bounds on the absolute values of the products of electron and proton couplings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between bounds at 95% CL originating from hydrogen data alone (dotted) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between bounds at 95% CL originating from highly charged ion data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagrams relevant for a scalar-boson-mediated Lorentz-violating potential with scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,”Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133no. 821, (1931) 60–72

    1931

  2. [2]

    Search For Trapped Antihydrogen

    C. D. Anderson, “The Positive Electron,”Phys. Rev.43(1933) 491–494. [3]AEGIS ProtoCollaboration, A. Kellerbaueret al., “Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B266(2008) 351–356. [4]ALPHACollaboration, G. B. Andresenet al., “Search For Trapped Antihydrogen,” Phys. Lett. B695(2011) 95–104,arXiv:1012.4110 [ph...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1933

  3. [10]

    New High Precision Comparison of electron and Positron G Factors,

    R. S. Van Dyck, P. B. Schwinberg, and H. G. Dehmelt, “New High Precision Comparison of electron and Positron G Factors,”Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 26–29. [11]BASECollaboration, C. Smorraet al., “A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment,”Nature550no. 7676, (2017) 371–374. 29 [12]ALPHACollaboration, M. Ahmadiet al., “Investigation of ...

    1987

  4. [13]

    Precision spectroscopy of the hyperfine components of the 1S–2S transition in antihydrogen,

    C. J. Bakeret al., “Precision spectroscopy of the hyperfine components of the 1S–2S transition in antihydrogen,”Nature Phys.21no. 2, (2025) 201–207

    2025

  5. [14]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, “The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 405–437,arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [15]

    Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, “Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,”Rev. Mod. Phys.90no. 2, (2018) 025008,arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [16]

    Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,

    J. Beachamet al., “Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,”J. Phys. G47no. 1, (2020) 010501,arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [17]

    Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report,

    P. Agrawalet al., “Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report,”Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 11, (2021) 1015,arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 89 references
  1. [18]

    New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter,

    D. Antypaset al., “New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter,” arXiv:2203.14915 [hep-ex]

  2. [19]

    Axion Dark Matter,

    C. B. Adamset al., “Axion Dark Matter,” inSnowmass 2021. 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [20]

    Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report,

    C. Antelet al., “Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 12, (2023) 1122,arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [21]

    Spin-dependent exotic interactions,

    L. Conget al., “Spin-dependent exotic interactions,”Rev. Mod. Phys.97no. 2, (2025) 025005,arXiv:2408.15691 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [22]

    WISPedia – the WISPs Encyclopedia,

    C. Albertuset al., “WISPedia – the WISPs Encyclopedia,”arXiv:2602.09089 [hep-ph]

  6. [23]

    The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,

    A. Arzaet al., “The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,”arXiv:2603.03433 [hep-ph]

  7. [24]

    On the Equivalence of Invariance under Time Reversal and under Particle-Antiparticle Conjugation for Relativistic Field Theories,

    G. Luders, “On the Equivalence of Invariance under Time Reversal and under Particle-Antiparticle Conjugation for Relativistic Field Theories,”Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med.28N5no. 5, (1954) 1–17

    1954

  8. [25]

    Pauli,Exclusion Principle, Lorentz Group and Reflection of Space-Time and Charge, pp

    W. Pauli,Exclusion Principle, Lorentz Group and Reflection of Space-Time and Charge, pp. 459–479. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1988

    1988

  9. [26]

    The genesis of the CPT theorem,

    A. S. Blum and A. Mart ´ ınez de Velasco, “The genesis of the CPT theorem,”Eur. Phys. J. H47no. 1, (2022) 5

    2022

  10. [27]

    Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, “Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,”Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 683

    1989

  11. [28]

    CPT and strings,

    V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, “CPT and strings,”Nucl. Phys. B359(1991) 545–570. 30

    1991

  12. [29]

    Nonstandard optics from quantum space-time,

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, “Nonstandard optics from quantum space-time,”Phys. Rev. D 59(1999) 124021,arXiv:gr-qc/9809038

    1999 arXiv

  13. [30]

    Low-energy limits on the antisymmetric tensor field background on the brane and on the non-commutative scale,

    I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, and R. Roiban, “Low-energy limits on the antisymmetric tensor field background on the brane and on the non-commutative scale,”Phys. Lett. B489 (2000) 390–396,arXiv:hep-ph/0005191

    2000 arXiv

  14. [31]

    Noncommutative field theory and Lorentz violation,

    S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kostelecky, C. D. Lane, and T. Okamoto, “Noncommutative field theory and Lorentz violation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141601, arXiv:hep-th/0105082

    2001 arXiv

  15. [32]

    Loop quantum gravity and light propagation,

    J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, and L. F. Urrutia, “Loop quantum gravity and light propagation,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 103509,arXiv:hep-th/0108061

    2002 arXiv

  16. [33]

    Spacetime-varying couplings and Lorentz violation,

    V. A. Kostelecky, R. Lehnert, and M. J. Perry, “Spacetime-varying couplings and Lorentz violation,”Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 123511,arXiv:astro-ph/0212003

    2003 arXiv

  17. [34]

    Spontaneous Lorentz violation and nonpolynomial interactions,

    B. Altschul and V. A. Kostelecky, “Spontaneous Lorentz violation and nonpolynomial interactions,”Phys. Lett. B628(2005) 106–112,arXiv:hep-th/0509068

    2005 arXiv

  18. [35]

    Radiatively Induced Lorentz and Gauge Symmetry Violation in Electrodynamics with Varying alpha,

    A. Ferrero and B. Altschul, “Radiatively Induced Lorentz and Gauge Symmetry Violation in Electrodynamics with Varying alpha,”Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 125010, arXiv:0910.5202 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [36]

    Lorentz and CPT Violation in Scalar-Mediated Potentials,

    B. Altschul, “Lorentz and CPT Violation in Scalar-Mediated Potentials,”Phys. Rev. D 87no. 4, (2013) 045012,arXiv:1211.6614 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [37]

    Lorentz Violation and the Yukawa Potential,

    B. Altschul, “Lorentz Violation and the Yukawa Potential,”Phys. Lett. B639(2006) 679–683,arXiv:hep-th/0605044

    2006 arXiv

  21. [38]

    Renormalization of Scalar and Yukawa Field Theories with Lorentz Violation,

    A. Ferrero and B. Altschul, “Renormalization of Scalar and Yukawa Field Theories with Lorentz Violation,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 065030,arXiv:1104.4778 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [39]

    Lorentz Violation in Fermion-Antifermion Decays of Spinless Particles,

    B. Altschul, “Lorentz Violation in Fermion-Antifermion Decays of Spinless Particles,” Phys. Rev. D89no. 11, (2014) 116007,arXiv:1403.2751 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [40]

    Limits on new Lorentz-violating bosons,

    P. Carenza, J. Jaeckel, G. Lucente, T. K. Poddar, N. Sherrill, and M. Spannowsky, “Limits on new Lorentz-violating bosons,”JHEP08(2025) 213,arXiv:2502.05263 [hep-ph]

    2025

  24. [41]

    Lorentz and CPT tests with hydrogen, antihydrogen, and related systems,

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and A. J. Vargas, “Lorentz and CPT tests with hydrogen, antihydrogen, and related systems,”Phys. Rev. D92no. 5, (2015) 056002, arXiv:1506.01706 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [42]

    CPT violation and the standard model,

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, “CPT violation and the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 6760–6774,arXiv:hep-ph/9703464

    1997 arXiv

  26. [43]

    Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, “Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 116002,arXiv:hep-ph/9809521

    1998 arXiv

  27. [44]

    Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,

    V. A. Kostelecky, “Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,”Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 105009,arXiv:hep-th/0312310. 31

    2004 arXiv

  28. [45]

    Jaeckel, G

    J. Jaeckel, G. Lucente, and L. Puetter. In preparation

  29. [46]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics: The Astrophysics of Neutrinos, Axions, and Other Weakly Interacting Particles. University Of Chicago Press, 1996.https://wwwth.mpp.mpg.de/members/raffelt/mypapers/Stars.pdf

    1996

  30. [47]

    Direct limits on the interaction of antiprotons with axion-like dark matter,

    C. Smorraet al., “Direct limits on the interaction of antiprotons with axion-like dark matter,”Nature575no. 7782, (2019) 310–314,arXiv:2006.00255 [physics.atom-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [48]

    Searching for Exotic Interactions between Antimatter,

    L. Cong, F. Ficek, P. Fadeev, Y. V. Stadnik, and D. Budker, “Searching for Exotic Interactions between Antimatter,”arXiv:2503.07161 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [49]

    Direct limits on the axion-antiproton couplings – ion trap methods and CPT-violating physics

    J. Haagner, “Direct limits on the axion-antiproton couplings – ion trap methods and CPT-violating physics.”. Master thesis, Heidelberg University 2025

    2025

  33. [50]

    Bounds on new CPT violating axion-like bosons that couple predominantly to antimatter

    K. Souissi, “Bounds on new CPT violating axion-like bosons that couple predominantly to antimatter.”. Bachelor thesis, Heidelberg University 2026

    2026

  34. [51]

    Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove,

    C. de Jonge, J. Jaeckel, L. Puetter, and K. Souissi. In preparation. [52]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove,”Astron. Astrophys.571(2014) A27, arXiv:1303.5087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [53]

    M. E. Rose and W. Holladay,Relativistic electron theory. American Institute of Physics, 1961

    1961

  36. [54]

    G. W. Drake,Springer handbook of atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  37. [55]

    Testing Exotic Electron-Electron Interactions with the Helium Ionization-Energy Anomaly,

    L. Cong, F. Ficek, R. Abdullin, M. G. Kozlov, and D. Budker, “Testing Exotic Electron-Electron Interactions with the Helium Ionization-Energy Anomaly,” arXiv:2602.09743 [physics.atom-ph]

  38. [56]

    Axion-Exchange Contribution to the Energy of Lithium-Like Ions,

    R. R. Abdullin, A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, M. G. Kozlov, A. D. Moshkin, and D. V. Chubukov, “Axion-Exchange Contribution to the Energy of Lithium-Like Ions,” arXiv:2605.12444 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [57]

    Moretti, C

    M. Moretti, C. de Jonge, J. Jaeckel, C. Keitel, and Z. Harman. In preparation

  40. [58]

    Improved Measurement of the Hydrogen 1S - 2S Transition Frequency,

    C. G. Partheyet al., “Improved Measurement of the Hydrogen 1S - 2S Transition Frequency,”Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 203001,arXiv:1107.3101 [physics.atom-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [59]

    Two-photon frequency comb spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen,

    A. Grinin, A. Matveev, D. C. Yost, L. Maisenbacher, V. Wirthl, R. Pohl, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Udem, “Two-photon frequency comb spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen,”Science 370no. 6520, (2020) abc7776

    2020

  42. [60]

    A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the proton charge radius,

    N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, A. C. Vutha, and E. A. Hessels, “A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the proton charge radius,”Science 365no. 6457, (2019) 1007–1012. 32

    2019

  43. [61]

    Separated oscillatory field measurement of hydrogen 2S1/2 - 2P3/2 fine structure interval,

    E. W. Hagley and F. M. Pipkin, “Separated oscillatory field measurement of hydrogen 2S1/2 - 2P3/2 fine structure interval,”Physical Review Letters72no. 8, (1994) 1172–1175

    1994

  44. [62]

    Precision measurement of the 1S ground-state Lamb shift in atomic hydrogen and deuterium by frequency comparison,

    M. Weitz, A. Huber, F. Schmidt-Kaler, D. Leibfried, W. Vassen, C. Zimmermann, K. Pachucki, T. W. Hansch, L. Julien, and F. Biraben, “Precision measurement of the 1S ground-state Lamb shift in atomic hydrogen and deuterium by frequency comparison,” Phys. Rev. A52(1995) 2664–2681

    1995

  45. [63]

    The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen,

    A. Beyeret al., “The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen,”Science 358no. 6359, (2017) 79–85

    2017

  46. [64]

    Sub-part-per-trillion test of the Standard Model with atomic hydrogen,

    L. Maisenbacher, V. Wirthl, A. Matveev, A. Grinin, R. Pohl, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Udem, “Sub-part-per-trillion test of the Standard Model with atomic hydrogen,” Nature650no. 8103, (2026) 845–851,arXiv:2602.14980 [physics.atom-ph]

    2026

  47. [65]

    Measurement of the 2S1/2-8D5/2 Transition in Hydrogen,

    A. D. Brandt, S. F. Cooper, C. Rasor, Z. Burkley, D. C. Yost, and A. Matveev, “Measurement of the 2S1/2-8D5/2 Transition in Hydrogen,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128no. 2, (2022) 023001,arXiv:2111.08554 [physics.atom-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [66]

    Aspects of 1S-2S spectroscopy of trapped antihydrogen atoms,

    C. Ø. Rasmussen, N. Madsen, and F. Robicheaux, “Aspects of 1S-2S spectroscopy of trapped antihydrogen atoms,”J. Phys. B50no. 18, (2017) 184002. [Erratum: J. Phys. B 51 no. 9, (2018) 099501]

    2017

  49. [67]

    CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2022,

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, “CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2022,”Rev. Mod. Phys.97no. 2, (2025) 025002, arXiv:2409.03787 [hep-ph]. [68]ALPHACollaboration, R. Akbariet al., “Four ppm measurement of the antihydrogen...

    2025 arXiv

  50. [69]

    Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants,

    S. G. Karshenboim, “Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants,”Phys. Rept.422(2005) 1–63,arXiv:hep-ph/0509010

    2005 arXiv

  51. [70]

    Ramsey Spectroscopy of the 2S1/2 Hyperfine Interval in Atomic Hydrogen,

    R. G. Bullis, C. Rasor, W. L. Tavis, S. A. Johnson, M. R. Weiss, and D. C. Yost, “Ramsey Spectroscopy of the 2S1/2 Hyperfine Interval in Atomic Hydrogen,”Phys. Rev. Lett.130no. 20, (2023) 203001

    2023

  52. [71]

    Codata internationally recommended 2022 values of the fundamental physical constants

    “Codata internationally recommended 2022 values of the fundamental physical constants.”https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/. Covariance and correlation data from least-squares adjustment

    2022

  53. [72]

    Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S−2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen,

    A. Antogniniet al., “Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S−2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen,”Science339(2013) 417–420

    2013

  54. [73]

    Bethe logarithms for hydrogen up ton= 20, and approximations for two-electron atoms,

    G. W. F. Drake and R. A. Swainson, “Bethe logarithms for hydrogen up ton= 20, and approximations for two-electron atoms,”Phys. Rev. A41(1990) 1243–1246

    1990

  55. [74]

    Radiative energy shifts induced by local potentials,

    U. D. Jentschura, “Radiative energy shifts induced by local potentials,”J. Phys. A36 (2003) L229–L236,arXiv:hep-ph/0305066. 33

    2003 arXiv

  56. [75]

    Two-loop Bethe logarithms for non-S levels,

    U. D. Jentschura, “Two-loop Bethe logarithms for non-S levels,”Phys. Rev. A74(Dec,

  57. [76]

    Precise theory of levels of hydrogen and deuterium: The coulomb vacuum polarization correction,

    S. Kotochigova and P. Mohr, “Precise theory of levels of hydrogen and deuterium: The coulomb vacuum polarization correction,” 2005. Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2005

  58. [77]

    Perturbation approach to the self-energy of non-S hydrogenic states,

    E.-O. Le Bigot, U. D. Jentschura, P. J. Mohr, P. Indelicato, and G. Soff, “Perturbation approach to the self-energy of non-S hydrogenic states,”Phys. Rev. A68(2003) 042101, arXiv:physics/0304068

    2003 arXiv

  59. [78]

    Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis

    G. Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis. Oxford university press, 1998

    1998

  60. [79]

    T. W. Anderson,An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3 ed., 2003

    2003

  61. [80]

    A spin-mechanical quantum chip for exploring exotic interactions,

    L. Wu, S. Lin, X. Kong, M. Wang, J. Zhou, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, L. Zhang, and J. Du, “A spin-mechanical quantum chip for exploring exotic interactions,”Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.120no. 36, (2023) e2302145120

    2023

  62. [81]

    Constraints on exotic spin-dependent interactions between matter and antimatter from antiprotonic helium spectroscopy,

    F. Ficek, P. Fadeev, V. V. Flambaum, D. F. Jackson Kimball, M. G. Kozlov, Y. V. Stadnik, and D. Budker, “Constraints on exotic spin-dependent interactions between matter and antimatter from antiprotonic helium spectroscopy,”Physical Review Letters 120no. 18, (May, 2018) 183002

    2018

  63. [82]

    Probing New Long-Range Interactions by Isotope Shift Spectroscopy,

    J. C. Berengutet al., “Probing New Long-Range Interactions by Isotope Shift Spectroscopy,”Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 091801,arXiv:1704.05068 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [83]

    Probing new spin-independent interactions through precision spectroscopy in atoms with few electrons,

    C. Delaunay, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, and Y. Soreq, “Probing new spin-independent interactions through precision spectroscopy in atoms with few electrons,”Phys. Rev. D 96no. 11, (2017) 115002,arXiv:1709.02817 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [84]

    Constraining Yukawa-type interaction and coupling constant of axionlike particles to nucleons from recent measurement of the Casimir–Polder interaction,

    G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko, “Constraining Yukawa-type interaction and coupling constant of axionlike particles to nucleons from recent measurement of the Casimir–Polder interaction,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 5, (2025) 483,arXiv:2511.19276 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Eur.Phy...

    2025

  66. [85]

    High-resolution X-ray emission study for Xe54+ on Xe collisions,

    M. O. Herdrich, D. Hengstler, M. Keller, J. Geist, C. Sch¨ otz, M. Krantz, A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, T. Gassner, P.-M. Hillenbrand,et al., “High-resolution X-ray emission study for Xe54+ on Xe collisions,”The European Physical Journal D77no. 7, (2023) 125

    2023

  67. [86]

    Measurement of the ground-state lambshift of hydrogenlike uranium at the electron cooler of the ESR,

    H. Beyer, G. Menzel, D. Liesen, A. Gallus, F. Bosch, R. Deslattes, P. Indelicato, T. St¨ ohlker, O. Klepper, R. Moshammer,et al., “Measurement of the ground-state lambshift of hydrogenlike uranium at the electron cooler of the ESR,”Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules a...

    1995

  68. [87]

    QED tests with highly-charged ions,

    P. Indelicato, “QED tests with highly-charged ions,”J. Phys. B52no. 23, (2019) 232001, arXiv:1909.06274 [physics.atom-ph]. 34

    2019 arXiv

  69. [88]

    Quantum electrodynamics in strong electric fields: The ground-state lamb shift in hydrogenlike uranium,

    A. Gumberidze, T. St¨ ohlker, D. Bana´ s, K. Beckert, P. Beller, H. Beyer, F. Bosch, S. Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen,et al., “Quantum electrodynamics in strong electric fields: The ground-state lamb shift in hydrogenlike uranium,”Physical review letters94no. 22, (2005) 223001

    2005

  70. [89]

    Lamb shift ofn= 1 andn= 2 states of hydrogen-like atoms, 1≤Z≤110,

    V. Yerokhin and V. Shabaev, “Lamb shift ofn= 1 andn= 2 states of hydrogen-like atoms, 1≤Z≤110,”Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data44no. 3, (2015) 033103,arXiv:1506.01885 [physics.atom-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [90]

    Goeppert Mayer and J

    M. Goeppert Mayer and J. H. D. Jensen,Elementary theory of nuclear shell structure. John Wiley & Sons, 1955

    1955

  72. [91]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure, Vol. 1. W. A. Benjamin Inc., 1969

    1969

  73. [92]

    Collective 0 − vibrations in even spherical nuclei with tensor forces,

    J. Blomqvist and A. Molinari, “Collective 0 − vibrations in even spherical nuclei with tensor forces,”Nucl. Phys. A106(1968) 545–569

    1968

  74. [93]

    Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects,

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, “Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects,”JHEP02(2017) 033,arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [94]

    Stellar limits on scalars from electron-nucleus bremsstrahlung,

    S. Bottaro, A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, “Stellar limits on scalars from electron-nucleus bremsstrahlung,”JCAP07(2023) 071,arXiv:2303.00778 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [95]

    Supernova bounds on new scalars from resonant and soft emission,

    E. Hardy, A. Sokolov, and H. Stubbs, “Supernova bounds on new scalars from resonant and soft emission,”JHEP04(2025) 013,arXiv:2410.17347 [hep-ph]

    2025

  77. [96]

    Leading Bounds on Micrometer to Picometer Fifth Forces from Neutron Star Cooling,

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Lella, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano, “Leading Bounds on Micrometer to Picometer Fifth Forces from Neutron Star Cooling,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135 no. 21, (2025) 211003,arXiv:2506.19906 [hep-ph]

    2025

  78. [97]

    Stellar limits on light CP-even scalar,

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, “Stellar limits on light CP-even scalar,” JCAP05(2021) 014,arXiv:2010.01124 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [98]

    Beyer, C

    K. Beyer, C. de Jonge, and J. Jaeckel. In preparation

  80. [99]

    New Macroscopic Forces?,

    J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek, “New Macroscopic Forces?,”Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 130. 35

    1984

  81. [2006]

    062517,arXiv:physics/0612251 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.