Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

RGUP Corrections to Scalar and Fermionic Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A relativistic uncertainty principle changes scalar and fermionic field dynamics by a single rescaling factor.

desk verdict The RGUP corrections collapse to a trivial constant rescaling because the authors substitute the on-shell value of p^2 into the Lagrangian, and the printed scalar equation of motion is not even the Euler-Lagrange equation of the stated Lagrangian. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16043 v1 pith:GCVQIFWP submitted 2025-04-22 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

Gaurav Bhandari , S. D. Pathak , Vikash Kumar Ojha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords relativisticgeneralizeduncertaintyprincipleminimallengthStetsko-TkachukapproximationKlein-GordonequationDiracstress-energytensorspinconnectionquantumgravityphenomenology
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 asks what a Lorentz-invariant generalized uncertainty principle does to ordinary scalar and fermionic quantum fields. Using a linearized relativistic deformation of the momentum operator, it finds that every modified equation of motion, Hamiltonian, and stress-energy tensor is obtained from the standard one by a constant rescaling: the Klein-Gordon equation becomes $(1-2\beta(mc)^2)\partial^\mu\phi\,\partial_\mu\phi + V_{,\phi}(\phi)=0$, and the Dirac equation acquires an overall factor $(1-\beta(mc)^2)$ in its kinetic term. Since the correction is a pure number, all standard limits are automatic: $\beta=0$ returns the usual Lagrangians and $c\to\infty$ returns the non-relativistic GUP results. If correct, this gives a minimal way to transplant minimal-length effects into relativistic field theory without breaking Lorentz invariance or, in the curved case, the spin-connection structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the deformed momentum operator (2.10), $p^\mu=p_0^\mu(1+\epsilon\gamma^2 p_0^\rho p_{0\rho})$, with $\beta=\epsilon\gamma^2$. The Stetsko-Tkachuk approximation is the choice $\alpha=0$ in the covariant deformed algebra, which leaves position operators undeformed and reduces the RGUP to a momentum rescaling. The decisive step is the on-shell expansion (2.13), $p_0^\rho p_{0\rho}\simeq -(mc)^2-2\beta(mc)^4$, which converts the operator deformation into the constant factor $1-\beta(mc)^2$ that appears in every Lagrangian. All subsequent equations are obtained by pulling this factor through the Euler-Lagrange and Legendre manipulations.

What would settle it

Take the massless limit of the paper's construction: with $m=0$, the factor $(1-2\beta(mc)^2)$ is exactly 1, so the scalar Lagrangian (3.3) is identical to the standard one and no RGUP correction appears in massless scalar propagation; any computation of RGUP-corrected massless fields that shows $\beta$-dependence would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that incorporating the RGUP into field theory is not a derivative-level complication: once the deformed momentum $p^\mu = p_0^\mu(1+\beta p_0^\rho p_{0\rho})$ is combined with the on-shell dispersion relation, every appearance of a four-momentum in the scalar and fermionic Lagrangians is multiplied by the same constant $(1-\beta(mc)^2)$. This produces the modified Klein-Gordon equation (3.5), the modified Dirac equations (3.15)-(3.16), and correspondingly rescaled Hamiltonian and stress-energy tensors, while the scalar stress-energy tensor remains conserved. In curved spacetime, the same substitution is applied to the covariant derivative, so the spin connection is untouched and the modified fermionic dynamics follows by the same constant factor.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation depends on replacing the operator $p_0^\rho p_{0\rho}$ in the deformed momentum with its on-shell value $-(mc)^2$ inside field Lagrangians; if off-shell modes are kept, the correction becomes derivative-valued and the paper's constant-factor equations no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scalar Klein-Gordon equation, Hamiltonian density, and stress-energy tensor all acquire the factor $(1-2\beta(mc)^2)$, and the stress tensor stays conserved by the modified equation of motion.
  • The Minkowski-space Dirac equation is modified to $(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu - M - \beta i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu(mc)^2)\psi = 0$, with the Hamiltonian rescaled in the same way.
  • In curved spacetime, replacing $D_\mu$ by $D_\mu(1-\beta(mc)^2)$ preserves the spin connection, so the RGUP-modified fermionic dynamics remains gravitationally consistent.
  • Taking $c\to\infty$ recovers the known non-relativistic GUP Dirac equation, while $\beta=0$ returns the standard scalar and fermionic quantum field theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not state this, but because the substitution $p_0^\rho p_{0\rho}\simeq -(mc)^2$ is an on-shell replacement, the constant-factor picture applies on shell; keeping the off-shell identity $p_0^\rho p_{0\rho}=-\Box$ would turn the corrections into higher-derivative terms, a form the paper does not derive.
  • Also implicit: the scalar result is equivalent to a field-strength renormalization, where absorbing $(1-2\beta(mc)^2)$ into a rescaled field leaves the standard kinetic term, so observable effects would appear as shifts in masses and couplings rather than as new derivative structure.
  • A testable extension of the paper's construction would be to couple the deformed fields to gauge or gravitational backgrounds and compute $\beta$-dependent scattering amplitudes; this would show whether the single-factor simplification survives beyond the free-field level.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to incorporate the Relativistic Generalized Uncertainty Principle (RGUP) into scalar and fermionic field theories in Minkowski spacetime, with an extension to fermions in curved spacetime. Starting from the Stetsko-Tkachuk deformed momentum p_mu = p0_mu (1 + beta p0^rho p0_rho), the authors replace p0^rho p0_rho by its on-shell value -(mc)^2 (Eq. (2.13)) and then substitute p_mu -> p_mu (1 - beta (mc)^2) into the field Lagrangians (Eq. (3.2)). From this they derive modified Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations, conjugate momenta, Hamiltonians, and stress-energy tensors. The central advertised result is that RGUP produces order-beta corrections to field dynamics while preserving the standard structure and the beta -> 0 and c -> infinity limits.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would provide a compact 'Stetsko-Tkachuk approximation' route to RGUP corrections in field theory, potentially relevant to black hole thermodynamics and cosmology. The paper is commendably explicit about its central substitution and parameter choices. However, the central construction is invalid for off-shell field configurations: the dispersion relation Eq. (2.13) holds only for on-shell modes, and the printed scalar equation of motion is not the Euler-Lagrange equation of the printed Lagrangian. The fermionic corrections vanish identically in Minkowski spacetime because (mc)^2 is constant. The advertised physical conclusions therefore do not follow; the paper is best viewed as a cautionary example of applying a single-particle dispersion relation inside a field-theory action.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (3.5)] Eq. (3.5) is not the Euler-Lagrange equation obtained from Eq. (3.3). Varying L' = (1/2)(1 - 2 beta (mc)^2) partial_mu phi partial^mu phi - V(phi) with respect to phi gives (1 - 2 beta (mc)^2) box phi + V_phi(phi) = 0, not (1 - 2 beta (mc)^2) partial_mu phi partial^mu phi + V_phi(phi) = 0. The printed equation has the wrong kinetic structure; since Eq. (3.10) explicitly uses this equation to establish conservation of the stress-energy tensor, the conservation result is not actually derived. This is a load-bearing algebraic error, not a typo in a prefactor.
  2. [III.A, Eqs. (3.2) and (2.13)] The central replacement p_nu -> p_nu (1 - beta (mc)^2) uses the on-shell dispersion relation Eq. (2.13) inside the Lagrangian. In field theory, p0^rho p0_rho acts on field configurations as the operator -box, not as the c-number -(mc)^2; the two agree only for on-shell plane waves. If the operator is retained, the Lagrangian acquires higher-derivative terms of order beta (partial_mu phi)(box phi) or beta (box phi)^2 depending on operator ordering, and the Euler-Lagrange equation contains beta box^2 phi. Therefore the claim that RGUP merely rescales the kinetic term by a constant factor is unsupported; the physical content of the paper is an artifact of substituting an on-shell identity into an off-shell action.
  3. [III.B, Eqs. (3.15) and (3.16)] The fermionic 'RGUP corrections' in Minkowski spacetime vanish identically. Since (mc)^2 is a constant, partial_mu (mc)^2 = 0, so Eq. (3.12) reduces to L' = L_Dirac at first order in beta, Eq. (3.15) reads (gamma^mu partial_mu - Mi) bar_psi = 0, and Eq. (3.16) reads (i gamma^mu partial_mu - M) psi = 0. Consequently the modified Hamiltonian in Eq. (3.19) is exactly the standard Dirac Hamiltonian, and the claim that RGUP changes fermionic dynamics in flat spacetime is not established.
  4. [III.B.1, Eqs. (3.24) to (3.33)] The curved-spacetime fermionic analysis inherits the same on-shell substitution in Eq. (3.24), and it also has an additional issue: the covariant derivative of the constant (mc)^2 vanishes, so the deformed covariant derivative D_mu (1 - beta (mc)^2) is just a constant times the standard covariant derivative. Thus the Hamiltonian density in Eq. (3.31) and the stress-energy tensor in Eq. (3.33) are the standard quantities multiplied by a constant factor (1 - beta (mc)^2). The statement that 'spin connections maintain gravitational consistency' does not constitute a new result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (3.10)] The text refers to the 'modified KG equation Eq. (3.3)', but Eq. (3.3) is the Lagrangian density, not an equation of motion; the reference should be to Eq. (3.5), which itself needs correction as noted above.
  2. [II, Eqs. (2.5) and (2.10)] The notation p0^rho p0_rho is used ambiguously, sometimes as an operator and sometimes as its on-shell c-number; this ambiguity is the source of the paper's main technical error and should be clarified or removed.
  3. [III.B, Eqs. (3.15) and (3.16)] The two displayed Dirac equations contain inconsistent factors of i and unbalanced parentheses; they should be rewritten in a consistent notation before any further revision.
  4. [II, Eq. (2.14)] The non-relativistic limit is written as p^rho_0 p_0rho -> - (E/c)^2 + p_i0 p_0^i -> - hbar^2 nabla^2, which is dimensionally inconsistent and should be stated more carefully with the appropriate kinetic term for a non-relativistic particle.
  5. [References] The reference list contains several mismatches (e.g., [17] cites Ratra and Peebles for loop quantum cosmology, and [35] is an undated citation); these should be brought in line with the journal's style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modified field equations follow from an explicitly adopted RGUP deformed momentum, with no fitted input, load-bearing self-citation, or prediction that reduces to its own fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation starts from the RGUP deformed momentum operator p_mu = p0_mu(1 + beta p0^2) (Eq. 2.10) and the on-shell dispersion relation (Eq. 2.13), both presented as inputs drawn from the cited RGUP literature. Eq. (3.2) then explicitly adopts the modified derivative operator P_nu = partial_nu(1 - beta (mc)^2), and Eqs. (3.3), (3.12), and (3.25) are obtained by direct substitution into standard Lagrangians. There is no fitting of parameters to data, no quantity is renamed as a prediction after being used as the fit, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the choice of representation. The self-citations [32]-[36] and [45] are background references or joint attributions alongside external works [43,44]; the central deformed algebra is not justified exclusively by a self-citation. The main weaknesses of the paper are mathematical: the on-shell replacement p0^2 approximately equal to -(mc)^2 is imported into an off-shell field-theory action without justification, and Eq. (3.5) is not the Euler-Lagrange equation of Eq. (3.3). These are correctness concerns, not circularity, because the final equations are not used to support the input deformation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; its free parameters are the RGUP deformation constant beta and the arbitrary choice of representation parameters. The key axiom is the on-shell replacement of the operator p0^2 by -(mc)^2, which converts a genuinely higher-derivative deformation into a trivial constant rescaling.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (or epsilon gamma^2) = unspecified
    Dimensionless deformation parameter of the RGUP algebra (Eq. 2.7), taken as a positive constant. It encodes the Planck-scale correction strength but is not fitted to data; the paper only uses it as a small expansion parameter.
  • alpha, alpha-prime, xi (Stetsko-Tkachuk choice) = 0
    The general RGUP algebra (Eq. 2.2) has parameters alpha, alpha-prime, xi. The paper sets them all to zero to obtain the Stetsko-Tkachuk representation (Section II). This choice preserves relativity and simplifies the commutator, but it also removes position noncommutativity and is not independently justified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The deformed commutation relation [x_mu, p_nu] = i hbar (1 + epsilon gamma^2 p_rho p^rho) eta_mu_nu + 2 i hbar epsilon gamma^2 p_mu p_nu (Eq. 2.7)
    This RGUP algebra is taken as input from the relativistic GUP literature (refs [43,44]). The paper derives consequences from it without deriving the algebra itself.
  • domain assumption The physical momentum satisfies the standard dispersion relation p_rho p^rho = -(mc)^2 (Eq. 2.11)
    Used to convert the deformation p_mu = p0_mu (1 + epsilon gamma^2 p0^2) into the constant rescaling p_mu approximately p0_mu (1 - beta (mc)^2). This assumes the standard on-shell relation remains valid in the deformed theory.
  • ad hoc to paper On-shell replacement of the operator p0^rho p0_rho by -(mc)^2 inside field Lagrangians (Eq. 3.2)
    In a field theory, p0^rho p0_rho acting on a field is the d'Alembertian operator, not a number. Replacing it by the on-shell value -(mc)^2 collapses the deformation to a constant and is not justified; this assumption is load-bearing and invalid off-shell.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RGUP Corrections to Scalar and Fermionic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCVQIFWP

@misc{pith2026250416043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RGUP Corrections to Scalar and Fermionic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCVQIFWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16043}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the Relativistic Generalized Uncertainty Principle (RGUP) effects on scalar and fermionic fields using the Stetsko-Tkachuk approximation. Modified equations of motion, Hamiltonians, and stress-energy tensors are derived in Minkowski spacetime, incorporating quantum gravitational corrections that ensure a minimal observable length and revert to standard dynamics when corrections are absent. For fermionic fields in curved spacetime, spin connections maintain gravitational consistency. This framework, applicable to high-energy physics, black hole thermodynamics, and cosmology, integrates quantum gravity into relativistic field theories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An alternative interpretation of the Grioli gyroscope suspension points

    physics.class-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An asymmetric heavy gyroscope can regularly precess only when its suspension point lies on one of two lines marking where the intermediate and largest moments of inertia exchange order, with exactly two motions.

  2. Stark Energy Shifts due to Quantum Gravity in RGUP Algebra

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Applying the RGUP to the Stark effect yields beta-proportional energy shifts and an upper bound beta < 10^42 on the deformation parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The curved spacetime couterpart of γ matrices is γµ =eµ αγα and also satisfies, {γµ,γν} = 2gµν

    Fermionic field in Covariant form In the curved spacetime, Lagrangian density for fermionic field [47] is written as L = ei 2 ( ˜ψγµDµψ−Dµ ˜ψγµψ)−eM ˜ψψ, (3.20) wheree≡ det(eµ a),the determinant of the vierbein, which relates curved-space volume elements to flat-space. The curved spacetime couterpart of γ matrices is γµ =eµ αγα and also satisfies, {γµ,γν}...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Minimum length from quantum mechanics and classical general rel- ativity

    X. Calmet, M. Graesser, and Stephen D. Hsu, “Minimum length from quantum mechanics and classical general rel- ativity”, Phys. rev. lett. , 93, 211101(2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Relations between Newtonian Mechan- ics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics

    D. Savickas, “Relations between Newtonian Mechan- ics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics”, Am. J. Phys., 70, 798(2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    The quantum state of the universe

    D. Savickas, “The quantum state of the universe”, Nucl. Phys. B., 239, 257(1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Background dynamics of pre-inflationary scenario in Brans-Dicke loop quantum cosmology

    M. Sharma, T. Zhu and A Wang, “Background dynamics of pre-inflationary scenario in Brans-Dicke loop quantum cosmology”, Commun. Theor. Phys. , 71, 1205(2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Quantum gravity and minimum length

    L.J. Garay, “Quantum gravity and minimum length”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. , 10, 145(1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Quantum gravity, shadow states and quantum mechanics

    A. Ashtekar, S. Fairhurst and J.L. Willis, “Quantum gravity, shadow states and quantum mechanics”, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity , 20, 1031(2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Strings, loops and others: a critical survey of the present approaches to quantum gravity

    C. Rovelli, “Strings, loops and others: a critical survey of the present approaches to quantum gravity”, arXiv preprint gr-qc/9803024, (1998)

    arXiv 1998

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A stringy nature needs just two con- stants

    G. Veneziano, “A stringy nature needs just two con- stants”, Europhys. Lett., 2, 199 (1986)

    1986

  2. [10]

    String theory beyond the Planck scale

    D. J. Gross, P. F. Mende, “String theory beyond the Planck scale”, Nucl. Phys. B. , 303, 407 (1988)

    1988

  3. [11]

    Can spacetime be probed below the string size?

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, “Can spacetime be probed below the string size?”, Phys. Lett. B, 216, 41 (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    On the interpretation of minimal of mini- mal length in string theories

    T. Yoneya, “On the interpretation of minimal of mini- mal length in string theories”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. , 4, 16(1989)

    1989

  5. [13]

    String theory, supersymmetry, unification, and all that

    C. A. Mead, “String theory, supersymmetry, unification, and all that”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71, S112 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Doubly-special relativity: Facts, myths and some key open issues

    Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, “Doubly-special relativity: Facts, myths and some key open issues”, Symmetry,2, 230 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Lagrangian for doubly special relativity par- ticle and the role of noncommutativity

    S. Ghosh, “Lagrangian for doubly special relativity par- ticle and the role of noncommutativity”, Phys. Rev. D , 74,084019 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    A short review of loop quantum gravity

    A. Ashtekar and E. Bianchi, “A short review of loop quantum gravity”, Reports on Progress in Physics , 84, 042001(2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Loop quantum gravity

    C. Rovelli, “Loop quantum gravity”, Living Rev. Relativ., 11, 1(2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Loop quantum cosmology: an overview

    B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, “Loop quantum cosmology: an overview”, Phys.Rev. D, 37, 3406(1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    Hilbert space rep- resentation of the minimal length uncertainty relation

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, R.B. Mann, “Hilbert space rep- resentation of the minimal length uncertainty relation” 6 Phys. Rev. D , 52, 1108 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Minimal length uncertainty re- lation and ultraviolet regularization

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, “Minimal length uncertainty re- lation and ultraviolet regularization”, Phys. Rev. D , 55, 7909 (1997)

    1997

  13. [21]

    Tawfik and A.M

    A.N. Tawfik and A.M. Diab, ”A review of the generalized uncertainty principle”, Rep. Prog. Phys. , 78, 1326001 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    M. J. Lake, ”Generalised uncertainty relations and the problem of dark energy”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.13938, (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The most general form of deforma- tion of the Heisenberg algebra from the generalized un- certainty principle

    S. Masood et al. , “The most general form of deforma- tion of the Heisenberg algebra from the generalized un- certainty principle”, Phys. Lett. B , 763, 218(2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Covariant formulation of the generalized uncertainty principle

    R. Singh and D. Kothawala, “Covariant formulation of the generalized uncertainty principle”, Phys. Rev. D , 105,10(2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    On modified Weyl-Heisenberg algebras, non- commutativity, matrix-valued Planck constant and QM in Clifford spaces

    C. Castro, “On modified Weyl-Heisenberg algebras, non- commutativity, matrix-valued Planck constant and QM in Clifford spaces”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 39, 14205 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Modified black hole thermo- dynamics with generalized uncertainty principle

    Y. Ko, S. Lee, and S. Nam, “Modified black hole thermo- dynamics with generalized uncertainty principle”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 49, 1384 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Generalized uncertainty principle and quan- tum gravity phenomenology

    P. Bosso, “Generalized uncertainty principle and quan- tum gravity phenomenology”, University of Lethbridge (Canada), 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Phenomenological implications of the generalized uncertainty principle

    S.Das and E.C.Vagenas, “Phenomenological implications of the generalized uncertainty principle”,Canadian Jour- nal of Physics ,87, 233(2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    A proposal for test- ing quantum gravity in the lab

    A.F.Ali, S.Das, and E.C.Vagenas, “A proposal for test- ing quantum gravity in the lab”, Phys.Rev.D, 84, 44013(2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Discreteness of space from the generalized uncertainty principle

    A.F.Ali, S.Das, and E.C.Vagenas, “Discreteness of space from the generalized uncertainty principle”, Phys. Lett. B, 678, 497(2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Generalized uncertainty princi- ple and angular momentum

    P. Bosso and S. Das, “Generalized uncertainty princi- ple and angular momentum”, Annals of Physics , 383, 416(2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    J. L. Lopez, M. Sabido, C. Yee-Romero, ”Phase space deformations in phantom cosmology”, Phys. Dark Uni- verse, 19, 104(2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    GUP deformed background dynam- ics of phantom field

    G. Bhandari et al., “GUP deformed background dynam- ics of phantom field”, General Relativity and Gravitation, 56, 139 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Generalized uncertainty principle distorted quintessence dynamics

    G. Bhandari et al. , “Generalized uncertainty principle distorted quintessence dynamics”, Annals of Physics , 473, 169895 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Deformed algebraic structure of an- gular momenta: GUP perspective

    G. Bhandari et al., “Deformed algebraic structure of an- gular momenta: GUP perspective”, arXiv:2411.18901, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quantum Corrected Brans-Dicke Cosmology

    G. Bhandari et al. , “Quantum Corrected Brans-Dicke Cosmology”, International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics , 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Quantum Gravity Corrections to Hawking Radiation via GUP

    G. Bhandari et al. , “Quantum Gravity Corrections to Hawking Radiation via GUP”, arXiv:2407.19268, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    General- ized uncertainty principle corrections in Rastall-Rainbow Casimir wormholes

    E. Battista, S. Capozziello and A. Errehymy, “General- ized uncertainty principle corrections in Rastall-Rainbow Casimir wormholes”, The European Physical Journal C , 84, 1314 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gauge theories under incorporation of a generalized uncertainty principle

    M. Kober, “Gauge theories under incorporation of a generalized uncertainty principle”, Phys. Rev. D , 82, 085017(2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    GUP-based and Snyder non- commutative algebras, relativistic particle models, de- formed symmetries and interaction: a unified approach

    S. Pramanik and S. Ghosh, “GUP-based and Snyder non- commutative algebras, relativistic particle models, de- formed symmetries and interaction: a unified approach”, IJMP A, 28, 1350131(2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Frenkel electron on an arbitrary electromagnetic background and magnetic Zitterbewegung

    A.A. Deriglazov and A.M. Pupasov-Maksimov, “Frenkel electron on an arbitrary electromagnetic background and magnetic Zitterbewegung” Nuclear Phys. B , 885, 1(2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Conformal invariance in noncommutative geometry and mutually interacting Snyder particles

    S. Pramanik, S. Ghosh and P. Pal, “Conformal invariance in noncommutative geometry and mutually interacting Snyder particles”, Phys. Rev. D , 90, 105027(2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    General- ized uncertainty principle from quantum geometry

    S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase and G. Scarpetta, “General- ized uncertainty principle from quantum geometry”, In- ternat. J. Theoret. Phys. , 39, 15(2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    Relativistic gener- alized uncertainty principle

    V. Todorinov, P. Bosso and S. Das,“Relativistic gener- alized uncertainty principle”, Annals of Physics , 405, 91(2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Lorentz-covariant deformed algebra with minimal length

    C. Quesne, V.M. Tkachuk, “Lorentz-covariant deformed algebra with minimal length”, Czech. J. Phys. , 56, 1269 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Generalized uncertainty principle and the Zeeman effect: Relativistic corrections unveiled

    G. Bhandari, S. D. Pathak and M. Sharma, “Generalized uncertainty principle and the Zeeman effect: Relativistic corrections unveiled”, Nuclear Physics B, 116817 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Generalized Dirac equation and its symme- tries

    K. Nozari, “Generalized Dirac equation and its symme- tries”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 32, 302 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    Quantum fields in curved space

    N.D. Birrell, P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum fields in curved space”,Cambridge university press ,1984

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.