Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Nonperturbative Lorentz Violation and Field Quantization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a fermion theory with nonperturbatively large Lorentz violation—the $b_\mu$ theory—can be quantized and given a Fock space without invoking any preferred frame, but that the ground state cannot be uniquely identified…

desk verdict Solid nonperturbative quantization of the b_mu theory, but the ground-state ambiguity argument in Sec. V relies on states at exactly the branch-touching points where the paper's own Fock construction is singular. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19733 v1 pith:IHT52S6X submitted 2024-12-27 hep-th

Alan Kostelecky , Ralf Lehnert , Marco Schreck , Babak Seradjeh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.30.Cp03.70.+k11.10.-z11.30.-j11.30.Qc
keywords LorentzviolationCPTb_mutheoryfieldquantizationFockspacegroundstateWeylsemimetalsdispersionrelation
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 studies the free $b_\mu$ theory, a fermion field theory with a Lorentz- and CPT-violating background four-vector $b_\mu$ of mass dimension three, in the regime where $b_\mu$ is nonperturbatively large for all observers. It establishes that ordinary canonical quantization—Dirac constraint analysis followed by anticommutation relations—still succeeds in building a Fock space and enforcing microcausality, with no need for a preferred frame. It then argues that the usual criteria for selecting a ground state (stability, minimal energy, symmetry) fail to single out a unique vacuum in this theory. The resolution the paper proposes is that physical input beyond the free theory, specifically thermodynamical reasoning and a preferred rest frame, is required to identify the ground state. This matters because it addresses the longstanding concordance problem of whether observers in different states of motion can agree on the physical content of Lorentz-violating effective field theories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the free $b_\mu$ theory, a spin-$\tfrac12$ fermion with Lagrange density $\mathcal{L}_b = \tfrac12\bar\psi(i\partial\!\!\!/ - m - \gamma_5 b\!\!\!/)\psi + \text{h.c.}$, where the constant background $b_\mu$ gives the dispersion relation $(\lambda^2 - m^2 - b^2)^2 + 4b^2\lambda^2 - 4(\lambda\cdot b)^2 = 0$ with four real branches. The quantization is carried by a Dirac constraint analysis whose second-class constraints lead to the equal-time anticommutators $\{\psi_j(t,\vec{x}), \psi_k^\dagger(t,\vec{x}')\} = \delta_{jk}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x}')$; the Fock space then rests on the branch-uniformity assumption that all operators on a given dispersion branch are the same type, creation or annihilation. The ground-state analysis is carried by the little group of $b_\mu$ and the counting of $N=0$ Fock states invariant under it, together with the thermodynamic rest-frame vector $X^\mu$ that selects the physical vacuum.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to relax the branch-uniformity assumption and canonically quantize the same $b_\mu$ theory with mixed creation and annihilation assignments on a single dispersion branch; if any such assignment yields a Fock vacuum that is little-group invariant and has energy bounded below, the paper's claim that external thermodynamic input is necessary would be refuted. Alternatively, in a condensed-matter realization, one could engineer a Weyl-semimetal sample so that the lattice orientation relative to the thermal bath is varied during cooling, directly testing the predicted dependence of the ground state on the relative orientation of $b_\mu$ and $X^\mu$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the free $b_\mu$ theory with spacelike nonperturbative $b_\mu$, the four dispersion branches can be labeled in a coordinate-independent way: by the spin-type operator $S$ for massive fermions and by chirality for massless ones. Canonical quantization via second-class constraints yields standard anticommutators, and with the choice that each branch's operators are uniformly creation or annihilation operators, Feynman boundary conditions and a Fock space follow without a preferred frame. Nevertheless, the resulting spectrum contains negative-energy particle states in every frame with $b^0 \neq 0$, and the free theory admits six $N=0$ states invariant under the little group of $b_\mu$ that all satisfy the ordinary ground-state conditions. The paper concludes that no unique ground state can be selected without additional physics such as a thermal bath, which introduces a preferred four-vector $X^\mu$ and makes the vacuum depend on the relative orientation of $b_\mu$ and $X^\mu$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that thermodynamics is required to fix the vacuum rests on the assumption that on each dispersion branch every mode must be treated as either a creation operator or an annihilation operator; if that uniformity is relaxed, alternative quantum theories with different ground-state properties may exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantization and Fock-space construction for nonperturbative Lorentz violation require no preferred frame; standard Dirac constraint methods suffice.
  • Within the free theory, stability and symmetry conditions admit at least six distinct $N=0$ ground-state candidates, so the vacuum is not fixed by kinematics alone.
  • The physical ground state will generally depend on both $b_\mu$ and the preferred-frame four-vector $X^\mu$ introduced by a thermal bath; different relative orientations can yield different vacua.
  • In a Weyl semimetal, $b_\mu$ and $X^\mu$ are effectively frozen relative to each other through the lattice, which explains why a definite ground state is observed despite the underlying ambiguity.
  • For fundamental physics, the cosmological rest frame of the Big Bang supplies the external $X^\mu$ through interactions with the thermal bath, making the ground state phenomenologically unambiguous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The branch-uniformity assumption is a choice, and relaxing it could produce alternative Fock-space quantizations with different ground-state properties; the paper notes this possibility but does not explore it, so the conclusion that thermodynamics is necessary may be an artifact of that choice.
  • If thermodynamic selection is correct, then in regimes where no external bath or preferred frame exists—such as a truly isolated Lorentz-violating sector—the vacuum may be fundamentally ambiguous rather than uniquely determined by the field theory itself.
  • A quantitative extension would be to compute the finite-temperature partition function of the $b_\mu$ theory with $N$-conserving interactions and show that the $T \to 0$ limit selects a specific linear combination of the six little-group-invariant states, thereby making the thermodynamic-selection claim concrete.
  • The electret analogy drawn in the paper suggests a broader principle: Lorentz-violating vacua may be history-dependent, with cooling protocols or environmental preparation determining which of several stable states becomes the ground state.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes the free fermion b^mu theory with a constant spacelike Lorentz-violating background, in the regime where b^mu is nonperturbatively large in every observer frame. After classifying the four dispersion branches and their touching points (Sec. III), the authors perform a Dirac constraint analysis to quantize the model and construct a Fock space without introducing a preferred frame (Sec. IV). They obtain canonical anticommutators, microcausality, and normal-ordered momentum and charge operators, while noting that negative-energy states persist. In Sec. V they argue that conventional criteria (stability, energy positivity, maximal symmetry) do not select a unique ground state, and they propose that thermodynamic input involving an external frame, as in Weyl semimetals, is needed. The central claimed conclusions are that quantization and Fock-space construction are frame-independent, while ground-state identification is not.

Significance. If the Sec. IV construction is accepted, the paper gives a useful explicit resolution of a conceptual issue in the SME context: canonical quantization and microcausality survive even when energy positivity fails, and the apparent observer dependence is shifted into ground-state selection rather than into the quantization procedure. The paper is careful to reduce to standard Dirac theory in the b^mu -> 0 limit, and the self-contained constraint analysis is a strength. The connection to Weyl semimetals makes the thermodynamic proposal concrete. However, the Sec. V construction of candidate invariant ground states needs repair, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V; Secs. III and IV, Eqs. (12), (18), (20), (29)] The six candidate N=0 states are built from single-particle states with momenta proportional to b^mu, which are precisely the branch-touching momenta identified in Sec. III. At these points the plus and minus branches coalesce, the group velocity (14) is undefined, and the orthogonality argument (17) relying on nondegenerate eigenvalue branches breaks down; in the massless case the normalization (18) vanishes for one chirality. The anticommutators (29) are distribution-valued, and a sharp-momentum state is not a normalizable element of the Fock space constructed in Sec. IV. Exact little-group invariance also cannot be realized by any normalizable wave packet. The sixfold ground-state ambiguity is therefore not established by the paper's own construction; a regularization or an explicit limiting argument is needed.
  2. [Sec. IV, paragraph after Eq. (29)] The branch-uniformity condition, requiring all operators associated with a given branch to be of the same type (creation or annihilation), is introduced solely to avoid preferred frames. This is an added axiom rather than a consequence of the Dirac constraint analysis. If the condition is relaxed, operators on a branch may be assigned creation or annihilation character momentum-by-momentum, generating inequivalent Fock vacua with different stability properties. The paper's conclusion that thermodynamics is needed to fix the vacuum could be an artifact of this imposed uniformity. The authors should state the physical status of this assumption and analyze at least one alternative branch assignment.
  3. [Sec. V, invariant-state enumeration] The enumeration of invariant N=0 states is under-specified as written. The text says 'five single-particle states ... |0>, a fermion ...' but |0> is not a single-particle state, and the spin/helicity degrees of freedom are not displayed. Under a rotation about b^mu, a helicity eigenstate changes by a phase, so 'invariance' must mean ray invariance rather than vector invariance. With two spin states per momentum there are more than five one-particle objects, and the claimed six linearly independent N=0 combinations require explicit construction with phases included. Please provide a precise counting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, text near Eq. (13)] The phrase 'the the ordinary chirality operator' contains a duplicated article and should read 'the ordinary chirality operator.'
  2. [Eq. (30)] The symbol N_r^± is used both for the normalization in Eq. (18) and for the number operator in Eq. (30); these should be distinguished by different notation.
  3. [Sec. IV, text after Eq. (29)] The sentence 'The algebraic structure of the relations (IV)' refers to the anticommutators but cites the section number; it should refer to Eq. (29).
  4. [Sec. V] The word 'asymptoptic' should be 'asymptotic.'
  5. [Throughout] The paper would benefit from stating explicitly which results are established here and which are deferred to the companion paper Ref. [11], since Sec. V's thermodynamic construction is only sketched.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: quantization is a direct constraint quantization of a fixed free Lagrangian; the ground-state ambiguity is explicitly left open and deferred to external/thermodynamic input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The only inputs are the fixed Lagrange density (1), the spacelike background bmu, and textbook Dirac constraint quantization; no parameter is fitted to the conclusions. The Fock-space anticommutators (28)-(29), the momentum/charge operators (30)-(31), and the negative-energy statement follow by direct calculation from (11)-(12), and reduce to ordinary Dirac theory in the bmu -> 0 limit. Section V does not claim to derive a unique ground state from the free theory; it explicitly concludes 'This theoretical analysis neither leads to a unique ground state nor corresponds to a scenario with spontaneous symmetry breaking,' and it identifies thermodynamics as external input, with details deferred to the companion paper [11] and to Weyl-semimetal evidence. Self-citations ([10], [11], [73]) are contextual or deferential, not load-bearing for the central no-uniqueness result; no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior same-author work. A possible technical gap is that the Sec V little-group-invariant single-particle momenta proportional to bmu coincide with the Sec III branch-touching points (12), where the group velocity (14) and normalization (18) are singular; this is a correctness/rigor concern about the candidate-state counting, not a circular reduction, since no equation used as input is equivalent to the target conclusion by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted constants or new entities. It relies on the SME model parameters m and b_mu plus standard quantization techniques, and it explicitly invokes external preferred-frame physics (thermal or cosmological) to resolve the ground-state ambiguity. The main hand-chosen assumption is the branch-uniform operator assignment in the Fock-space construction.

free parameters (2)
  • fermion mass m
    Input parameter of the b_mu theory from the SME; not fitted in this paper. The central claims hold for arbitrary m.
  • Lorentz-violating background b_mu
    Spacelike vector input from the SME model; chosen nonperturbatively large for all observers to isolate the conceptual issues. Its magnitude is not fitted to data here.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Dirac constraint analysis and canonical quantization apply to the b_mu theory.
    Used in Sec. IV to derive the anticommutators (28) and the Fock-space construction.
  • standard math Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian H ensures the four dispersion branches are real valued.
    Invoked in Sec. II after Eq. (5) to justify real frequencies for any real wave vector.
  • domain assumption b_mu is spacelike, constant, and nondynamical.
    Assumed in Sec. II; allows a rest-frame analysis and connects to Weyl-semimetal realizations.
  • ad hoc to paper b_mu is nonperturbatively large for all observers.
    The paper deliberately chooses this regime in Sec. I to separate negative-energy issues from coordinate-change issues.
  • ad hoc to paper All operators associated with a given dispersion branch must be of the same type (creation or annihilation).
    Stated in Sec. IV before Eq. (30) as a requirement to avoid preferred frames; this shapes the Fock space and the ground-state ambiguity.
  • domain assumption Ground-state selection requires interactions with additional degrees of freedom plus an external preferred thermal frame.
    Assumed in Sec. V for the thermodynamic resolution; the implementation is deferred to companion paper [11].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonperturbative Lorentz Violation and Field Quantization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHT52S6X

@misc{pith2026241219733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonperturbative Lorentz Violation and Field Quantization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHT52S6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19733}
}
read the original abstract

Regimes of Lorentz-violating effective field theories are studied in which departures from Lorentz symmetry are nonperturbative. Within a free toy theory exhibiting Lorentz breakdown involving an operator of mass dimension three, it is shown that conventional methods suffice to achieve field quantization and Fock-space construction. However, the absence of an observer-invariant energy-positivity condition requires physical input beyond the free theory for the unambiguous identification of a ground state. An investigation of the role of thermodynamics in this context is instigated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Dispersion-relation branches for purely spacelike [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dispersion-relation branches for the massless case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Vacuum Cherenkov radiation for nonminimal dimension-5 Lorentz violation

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Isotropic dimension-5 Lorentz violation in fermions is constrained to below 1e-18 GeV^-1 (proton, m-type) and 3e-28 GeV^-1 (proton, a-type) by the absence of vacuum Cherenkov radiation in cosmic rays.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kostelecký and S

    V.A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    Kostelecký and R

    V.A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B359, 545 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Proc

    S. Weinberg, Proc. Sci. CD09, 001 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Kostelecký and R

    V.A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D51, 3923 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D55, 6760 (1997)

    1997

  6. [6]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Kostelecký, Phys

    V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Kostelecký and Z

    V.A. Kostelecký and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D103, 024059 (2021)

    2021

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Kostelecký and N

    V.A. Kostelecký and N. Russell, Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation , Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 11 (2011); arXiv:0801.0287v17 (2024)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Kostelecký and R

    V.A. Kostelecký and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D63, 065008 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Kostelecký, R

    V.A. Kostelecký, R. Lehnert, M. Schreck, and B. Seradjeh, arXiv:2412.18034

  4. [12]

    Belyaev, L

    A. Belyaev, L. Cerrito, E. Lunghi, S. Moretti, and N. Sherrill, arXiv:2405.12162

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Acevedo-López, Y

    A.J. Acevedo-López, Y. Ding, K. Iwasaki, and A.J. Vargas, Phys. Rev. D108, 076014 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Ding and M.F

    Y. Ding and M.F. Rawnak, Phys. Rev. D102, 056009 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Smorra and A

    C. Smorra and A. Mooser, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1412, 032001 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Ferrari, J.R

    A.F. Ferrari, J.R. Nascimento, and A.Yu. Petrov, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 459 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Ding, Symmetry11, 1220 (2019)

    Y. Ding, Symmetry11, 1220 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Smorraet al., Nature 575, 310 (2019)

    C. Smorraet al., Nature 575, 310 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Escobar, J.P

    C.A. Escobar, J.P. Noordmans, and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D97, 115030 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Smorraet al., Nature 550, 371 (2017)

    C. Smorraet al., Nature 550, 371 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Nagahamaet al., Nature Commun.8, 14084 (2017)

    H. Nagahamaet al., Nature Commun.8, 14084 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Schreck, Phys

    M. Schreck, Phys. Rev. D96, 095026 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Ding and V.A

    Y. Ding and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D94, 056008 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Noordmans, C.J.G

    J.P. Noordmans, C.J.G. Onderwater, H.W. Wilschut, and R.G.E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. D 93, 116001 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Berger, V.A

    M.S. Berger, V.A. Kostelecký, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D93, 036005 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Stadnik and V.V

    Y.V. Stadnik and V.V. Flambaum, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 110 (2015). 16

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kostelecký and A.J

    V.A. Kostelecký and A.J. Vargas, Phys. Rev. D92, 056002 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Robertset al., Phys

    B.M. Robertset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 081601 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Allmendingeret al., Phys

    F. Allmendingeret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 110801 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Robertset al., Phys

    B.M. Robertset al., Phys. Rev. D90, 096005 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Gomes, V.A

    A.H. Gomes, V.A. Kostelecký, and A.J. Vargas, Phys. Rev. D90, 076009 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Pecket al., Phys

    S.K. Pecket al., Phys. Rev. A86, 012109 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Fittante and N

    A. Fittante and N. Russell, J. Phys. G39, 125004 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Brownet al., Phys

    J.M. Brownet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 151604 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Gemmelet al., Phys

    C. Gemmelet al., Phys. Rev. D82, 111901(R) (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Altarevet al., Phys

    I. Altarevet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 081602 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Flambaum, S

    V. Flambaum, S. Lambert, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D80, 105021 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Altschul, Phys

    B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D79, 061702(R) (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Heckelet al., Phys

    B.R. Heckelet al., Phys. Rev. D78, 092006 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Bennettet al., Phys

    G.W. Bennettet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 091602 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Heckelet al., Phys

    B.R. Heckelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 021603 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Canèet al., Phys

    F. Canèet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 230801 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    Hou, W.-T

    L.-S. Hou, W.-T. Ni, and Y.-C.M. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 201101 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Humphreyet al., Phys

    M.A. Humphreyet al., Phys. Rev. A68, 063807 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Hugheset al., Phys

    V.W. Hugheset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 111804 (2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Phillipset al., Phys

    D.F. Phillipset al., Phys. Rev. D63, 111101 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    Bearet al., Phys

    D. Bearet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5038 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Bluhm, V.A

    R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecký, and C.D. Lane, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1098 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Dehmeltet al., Phys

    H. Dehmeltet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4694 (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    Mittlemanet al., Phys

    R.K. Mittlemanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2116 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Kostelecký and C.D

    V.A. Kostelecký and C.D. Lane, Phys. Rev. D60, 116010 (1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    Jackiw and V.A

    R. Jackiw and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3572 (1999)

    1999

  45. [53]

    Pérez-Victoria, Phys

    M. Pérez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2518 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Chung and P

    J.-M. Chung and P. Oh, Phys. Rev. D60, 067702 (1999)

    1999

  47. [55]

    Chung, Phys

    J.-M. Chung, Phys. Rev. D60, 127901 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    Chung, Phys

    J.-M. Chung, Phys. Lett. B461, 138 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Kostelecký, C.D

    V.A. Kostelecký, C.D. Lane, and A.G.M. Pickering, Phys. Rev. D65, 056006 (2002). 17

    2002

  50. [58]

    Altschul, Phys

    B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D69, 125009 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Altschul, Phys

    B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D70, 101701(R) (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    Lehnert, Phys

    R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D74, 125001 (2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    de Berredo-Peixoto and I.L

    G. de Berredo-Peixoto and I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Lett. B642, 153 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    Baeta Scarpelli, M

    A.P. Baeta Scarpelli, M. Sampaio, M.C. Nemes, and B. Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C56, 571 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Del Cima, D.H.T

    O.M. Del Cima, D.H.T. Franco, A.H. Gomes, J.M. Fonseca, and O. Piguet, Phys. Rev. D85, 065023 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    Kostelecký and M

    V.A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D88, 096006 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    Baeta Scarpelli, T

    A.P. Baeta Scarpelli, T. Mariz, J.R. Nascimento, and A.Y. Petrov, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2526 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Assuncao, T

    J.F. Assuncao, T. Mariz, and A.Y. Petrov, Eur. Phys. Lett.116, 31003 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Reis and M

    J.A.A.S. Reis and M. Schreck, Phys. Rev. D95, 075016 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Kostelecký and Z

    V.A. Kostelecký and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D99, 056016 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Gonçalves, M.M

    B. Gonçalves, M.M. Dias Júnior, and B.J. Ribeiro, Phys. Rev. D99, 096015 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Gómez, A

    A. Gómez, A. Martín-Ruiz, and L.F. Urrutia, Phys. Lett. B829, 137043 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    Porto and A.R

    J.S. Porto and A.R. Vieira, Eur. Phys. Lett.143, 64001 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Obukhov and G.E

    Y.N. Obukhov and G.E. Volovik, Phys. Rev. D109, 064076 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Kostelecký, R

    V.A. Kostelecký, R. Lehnert, M. Schreck, and B. Seradjeh, in preparation

  66. [74]

    Kostelecký, Phys

    V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Lett. B701, 137 (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    Kostelecký, N

    V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, and R. Tso, Phys. Lett. B716, 470 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Javaloyes and M

    M.A. Javaloyes and M. Sánchez, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.11, 1460032 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Russell, Phys

    N. Russell, Phys. Rev. D91, 045008 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    Foster and R

    J. Foster and R. Lehnert, Phys. Lett. B746, 164 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    Colladay and P

    D. Colladay and P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D92, 085031 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Schreck, Phys

    M. Schreck, Phys. Rev. D93, 105017 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Colladay, Phys

    D. Colladay, Phys. Lett. B772, 694 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    Silva, R.V

    J.E.G. Silva, R.V. Maluf, and C.A.S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. B798, 135009 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    Grushin, Phys

    A.G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. D86, 045001 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    Zyuzin, S

    A.A. Zyuzin, S. Wu, and A.A. Burkov, Phys. Rev. B85, 165110 (2012)

    2012

  77. [85]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, and Y.W. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 081602 (2016). 18

    2016

  78. [86]

    Koepernik, D

    K. Koepernik, D. Kasinathan, D.V. Efremov, S. Khim, S. Borisenko, B. Büchner, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B93, 201101(R) (2016)

    2016

  79. [87]

    Ruan, S.-K

    J. Ruan, S.-K. Jian, D. Zhang, H. Yao, H. Zhang, S.-C. Zhang, and D. Xing, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 226801 (2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    Changet al., Sci

    G. Changet al., Sci. Adv.2, e1600295 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    Wanget al., Phys

    X.-B. Wanget al., Phys. Rev. B96, 161112 (2017)

    2017

  82. [90]

    Y.J. Jin, R. Wang, Z.J. Chen, J.Z. Zhao, Y.J. Zhao, and H. Xu, Phys. Rev. B96, 201102(R) (2017)

    2017

  83. [91]

    S. Nie, G. Xu, F.B. Prinz, and S.-C. Zhang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.114, 10596 (2017)

    2017

  84. [92]

    Behrends, S

    J. Behrends, S. Roy, M.H. Kolodrubetz, J.J. Bardarson, and A.G. Grushin, Phys. Rev. B99, 140201 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    B.Q. Lv, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025002 (2021)

    2021

  86. [94]

    Bitaghsir Fadafan, A

    K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, A. O’Bannon, R. Rodgers, and M. Russell, JHEP04, 162 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, Y.W. Sun, and Y.L. Zhang, JHEP12, 066 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Kostelecký, R

    V.A. Kostelecký, R. Lehnert, N. McGinnis, M. Schreck, and B. Seradjeh, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023106 (2022)

    2022

  89. [97]

    Bruni, L.F

    R.C.L. Bruni, L.F. Ferreira, and D.M. Rodrigues, Phys. Rev. D108, 066010 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    Gómez, R.M

    A. Gómez, R.M. von Dossow, A. Martín-Ruiz, and L.F. Urrutia, Phys. Rev. D109, 065005 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Itzykson and J.-B

    C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980

    1980

  92. [100]

    Dirac, Can

    P.A.M. Dirac, Can. J. Math.2, 129 (1950)

    1950

  93. [101]

    Hanson, T

    A.J. Hanson, T. Regge, and C. Teitelboim,Constrained Hamiltonian Systems, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1976

    1976

  94. [102]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994

    1994

  95. [103]

    Callan, Jr., R.F

    C.G. Callan, Jr., R.F. Dashen, and D.J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B63, 334 (1976)

    1976

  96. [104]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 172 (1976)

    1976

  97. [105]

    Casimir, Kon

    H.B.G. Casimir, Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Proc.51, 793 (1948)

    1948

  98. [106]

    Milton, J

    K.A. Milton, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.37, R209 (2004)

    2004

  99. [107]

    Unruh, Phys

    W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  100. [108]

    Crispino, A

    L.C.B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G.E.A. Matsas, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 787 (2008). 19

    2008

  101. [109]

    Shuryak,The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter, World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics — Vol

    E.V. Shuryak,The QCD Vacuum, Hadrons and Superdense Matter, World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics — Vol. 71, 2nd ed., World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2004

    2004

  102. [110]

    Xuet al., Science 349, 613 (2015)

    S.-Y. Xuet al., Science 349, 613 (2015)

    2015

  103. [111]

    Shekharet al., Nature Phys.11, 645 (2015)

    C. Shekharet al., Nature Phys.11, 645 (2015)

    2015

  104. [112]

    Arnoldet al., Nature Commun.7, 1 (2016)

    F. Arnoldet al., Nature Commun.7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  105. [113]

    Liu,et al., Nature Materials15, 27 (2016)

    Z.K. Liu,et al., Nature Materials15, 27 (2016)

    2016

  106. [114]

    Gutmann, Rev

    F. Gutmann, Rev. Mod. Phys.20, 457 (1948). 20

    1948

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.