On the self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories

Leandro A. Lessa; Manoel M. Ferreira Junior; Renan B. Magalh\~aes

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 3 cited by

On the self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories

T0 review · 3 major / 2 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 The paper claims that freezing Lorentz-violating fields at their vacuum values turns their field equations into geometric constraints, and that several reported bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond compact-object solutions violate those constraints…

desk verdict A useful and mostly correct consistency audit of published bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond compact objects; the no-go claims need to be explicitly conditional on the potential's derivative at the VEV. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01374 v2 pith:JWTZB6ZS submitted 2025-05-02 gr-qc

Leandro A. Lessa , Renan B. Magalhães , Manoel M. Ferreira Junior This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1583D05 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.-s11.30.Cp

keywords LorentzviolationspontaneoussymmetrybreakingbumblebeegravityKalb-Ramondfieldcompactobjectsgeometricconstraintsblackholeswormholes

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

Self-consistent solutions in Lorentz-violating gravity must satisfy the Einstein equations, the matter equations, and the equations of motion of the fields that break Lorentz symmetry. This paper shows that when those fields—the bumblebee vector field and the antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond tensor field—are frozen at their vacuum expectation values with zero field strengths, their equations of motion turn into purely geometric constraints on the metric. Applying those constraints to static, spherically symmetric compact objects, the paper concludes that the tideless wormhole of Ref. [50], the compact-star interior of Ref. [51], the modified black hole of Ref. [52], and the wormhole of Ref. [53] are not self-consistent solutions of the models in which they were reported. The same test leaves several earlier black-hole solutions intact, so it filters out a class of metrics rather than ruling out compact objects altogether.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the frozen-vacuum assumption together with the constraint equations it produces. The bumblebee field is a vector $B_\mu$ with a nonzero vacuum expectation value; the Kalb-Ramond field is an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor $B_{\mu\nu}$ with a nonzero vacuum value. 'Frozen' means the field is locked to the configuration (14) or (27) while its field strength vanishes: $b_{\mu\nu}=0$ and $h_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=0$. In that case the left-hand sides of Eqs. (5) and (6) vanish, so the field equations become conditions on the Ricci scalar, Ricci tensor, and Riemann tensor—Eqs. (15) and (28)—and, for spherical symmetry, reduce to the second-order differential constraints (16) and (29) on $A(r)$ and $\Omega(r)$. These constraints are the filter that admits or excludes each metric.

What would settle it

Find any static, spherically symmetric solution of the full system (4)-(6) that reproduces one of the criticized metrics—for instance the tideless wormhole of Ref. [50]—without vanishing field strengths, or show that the left-hand side of Eq. (5) or (6) actually vanishes on that metric; either would refute the claim that Eq. (16) or (29) is a mandatory condition on all solutions in those models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a compact-object metric in these models must pass a consistency test that most prior derivations skipped. For the static spherically symmetric line element $ds^2=-A(r)dt^2+dr^2/B(r)+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)$, written with $B(r)=A(r)/\Omega^2(r)$, and for the frozen vacuum configurations $b_\mu=(0,b\Omega(r)/\sqrt{A(r)},0,0)$ and the Kalb-Ramond background of Eq. (27), the bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond field equations reduce to the geometric constraints (16) and (29) when the field strengths vanish. A candidate black hole, star, or wormhole must satisfy these constraints in addition to the Einstein equations. The paper shows that four published solutions fail the test, while the vacuum black holes of Refs. [30], [33], [31], and [32] satisfy it, and it identifies classes of tideless wormholes that the constraints permit.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the Lorentz-violating fields are exactly frozen at the specific vacuum configurations (14) and (27) with zero field strengths; if a criticized solution uses a different vacuum profile, has a nonvanishing field strength, or lets the fields evolve dynamically, the geometric constraints need not apply and the inconsistency conclusion can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Solving the Einstein equations or a modified Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation is no longer sufficient: every reported solution must also satisfy the Lorentz-violating field equations, which in the frozen vacuum state become the geometric constraints (16) and (29).
In the Einstein-bumblebee model with a potential that extremizes at the vacuum, the allowed redshift functions are Schwarzschild-like, $A(r)=a_1-a_2/r$, or, for a linear potential, Kottler-like, $A(r)=\tilde a_1-\tilde a_2/r-\omega^2\tilde\Lambda_e r^2/3$; this matches the known black-hole solutions of Refs. [30] and [33].
Tideless wormholes are forbidden in the Einstein-bumblebee model with only the Ricci-tensor coupling ($\tilde\xi_1=0$) when the potential extremizes, but become possible when the Ricci-scalar coupling is present, with shape functions $s(r)=a^{1-\beta}r^\beta$ ($\beta<1$) or a constant shape function.
In the antisymmetric rank-2 model, the constraint admits the Kalb-Ramond black holes of Refs. [31] and [32] but rules out the modified black hole of Ref. [52] and the wormhole of Ref. [53].
Tideless wormholes in the Riemann-coupled antisymmetric rank-2 model are automatically consistent when the potential extremizes (the $\xi_3$ term drops out), which keeps the reported wormhole of Ref. [35] viable and would also permit an Ellis-Bronnikov-type shape $s(r)\propto a^2/r$.

Reading between the lines

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

This consistency test should be extended beyond static spherical symmetry: in rotating or time-dependent metrics the same frozen-vacuum field equations become partial differential constraints, and it is an open question which families survive.
Because several inadmissible solutions have been used in studies of shadows, lensing, or quasinormal modes, those observable predictions may need to be rebuilt on the surviving self-consistent metrics; the paper does not perform that rebuilding.
The no-go result is conditional on the frozen-vacuum geometry, so letting the fields carry nonvanishing field strengths or coupling them to matter is a plausible route to recover some of the excluded solutions; the paper mentions charged black-hole examples of this route.
The constraints effectively classify all static spherically symmetric metrics compatible with each background vacuum configuration, which suggests that a systematic solution-generating program for these models is within reach.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper deserves a serious read: it checks the field equations of the bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond models for a number of published compact-object solutions and finds that several do not satisfy them. The constraints in Eqs. (16) and (29) are new and correctly derived, and the paper is right that satisfying the Einstein equations alone is not enough. It also uses known consistent solutions as a control, which strengthens the argument.

The main soft spot is the conditionality of the no-go results. The constraints contain ⟨Ṽ_Y⟩ and ⟨V_X⟩, the potential derivatives at the VEV. The paper clearly derives the inadmissibility for the case where the potential extremizes at the VEV, and it even shows that linear potentials allow some tideless wormholes. But the summary statements about Refs. [50] and [53] drop the qualifier. The abstract says these solutions are 'physically inadmissible' without noting that this holds for an extremizing potential and zero field strength. The paper would be more accurate if it explicitly verified which potential each criticized reference used, rather than implying the result is unconditional. This is a fixable presentation issue, not a mathematical error.

The algebra leading from the field equations to the metric constraints is not shown in full; the reader has to re-do a few lines. My spot checks agree with the published expressions, so this is a minor presentation gap.

The paper assumes the frozen VEV with vanishing field strengths, exactly the ansatz used in the criticized papers. That assumption is reasonable, but the authors should make sure they have correctly identified the VEV profiles in every target paper. I take the self-citation point to be fine: the paper audits solutions that include one of its own author's earlier papers, which is honest.

Bottom line: the central argument holds. The constraints are correct, the control cases check out, and the paper identifies a genuine gap in the literature. With the qualifiers made explicit, it deserves publication. I would send it to a referee and expect acceptance after minor revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops consistency criteria for static, spherically symmetric compact-object solutions in two Lorentz-violating gravity models: Einstein-bumblebee gravity and Einstein gravity coupled to an antisymmetric rank-2 (Kalb-Ramond) field. Assuming the Lorentz-violating fields are frozen at their vacuum expectation values with vanishing field strengths, the authors reduce the Lorentz-violating field equations to purely geometric constraints on the metric functions. They derive these constraints explicitly for the metric ansatz with B(r)=A(r)/Ω²(r), and apply them to several published solutions. They find that the tideless wormhole of Ref. [50] and the interior solution of Ref. [51] are inconsistent in the bumblebee model, and that the modified black hole of Ref. [52] and the wormhole of Ref. [53] are inconsistent in the Kalb-Ramond model, while other known black hole solutions pass the test. The paper also identifies classes of self-consistent tideless wormholes for certain parameter choices.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper provides a valuable consistency framework that challenges several existing solutions in Lorentz-violating gravity, potentially preventing incorrect phenomenology based on those solutions. The derivation is straightforward and the paper includes useful control checks, such as verifying that known consistent black holes satisfy the constraints. However, the applicability of the no-go claims to the specific criticized papers depends on the self-interaction potential chosen in those papers, which the manuscript does not verify. The central framework is sound and the missing checks appear fixable, so the paper is likely to be of interest to the Lorentz-violation community after revision.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Eq. (16) and discussion of Ref. [50]] The no-go claim for the tideless wormhole of Ref. [50] is derived under the assumption that the bumblebee potential extremizes at the vacuum expectation value, so that ⟨Ṽ_Y⟩=0. The paper does not verify that Ref. [50] actually used such a potential. This matters because the paper's own analysis shows that for a linear potential (⟨Ṽ_Y⟩=λ/2) the same model admits tideless wormholes with ξ̃1=0 and shape function s(r)=s_2 r + r^3 κλ/(2ξ̃2). The statement that the Ref. [50] wormhole 'cannot be cast as a solution of this model' is therefore valid only for the extremizing-potential subcase; the authors need to check the potential used in Ref. [50] and either confirm the assumption or qualify the conclusion.
[Section V, Eq. (30) and Ref. [52]] The conclusion that the modified black hole of Ref. [52] does not satisfy the geometric constraint is obtained from Eq. (30) with ⟨V_X⟩=0 (extremizing potential). The paper does not state or verify the potential used in Ref. [52]. Since Eq. (32) shows that a linear potential changes the allowed form of A(r) by adding a Kottler-like term, the inadmissibility claim must be checked against the actual potential of that model. Without this check, the claim as stated is underdetermined.
[Section V, Eq. (34) and Ref. [53]] The same potential-dependence issue applies to the tideless wormhole of Ref. [53]. The no-go result is derived for ⟨V_X⟩=0, but the paper does not cite the potential used in Ref. [53]. The authors should either verify that the potential extremizes at the VEV or restrict the claim to the extremizing case; otherwise the statement that the wormhole 'cannot be cast as a solution of this model' is not supported.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and Section VI] The abstract states that 'several previously reported solutions ... are physically inadmissible' without the caveat that the result is conditional on the potential extremizing at the VEV; this overstates the findings and should be tempered.
[Equations (16) and (29)] The notation ⟨Ṽ_Y⟩ and ⟨V_X⟩ is used for the VEV of the potential derivative; a brief explicit definition of these symbols at their first appearance would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric constraints are derived from the Lorentz-violating field equations with explicit frozen-VEV assumptions, and the criticized solutions are test inputs rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the actions in Eqs. (2) and (3), it varies to obtain the Lorentz-violating field equations (5) and (6). It then inserts explicit frozen vacuum configurations, Eqs. (14) and (27), with vanishing field strengths, and derives the geometric constraints (16) and (29). These constraints are not fitted to any target solution; no parameter is tuned after the fact to produce the stated no-go results. The criticized metrics are then substituted into the constraints as test cases. The paper's own self-citations, notably Refs. [52] and [53], are the solutions being audited, not evidence used to justify the constraints; the field-equation starting points are external to the authors' previous work. The paper also explicitly tracks parameter dependence, showing, for example, that extremizing versus linear potentials change the admissible shape functions. This makes the results conditional on stated assumptions rather than circular. The main caveat, that the paper does not independently verify the potential derivative at the VEV used in every criticized reference, is a possible factual overreach or correctness risk, not a circularity of derivation. The derivation chain is not equivalent to its inputs, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or couplings. Its conclusions depend on the standard bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond actions with fixed coupling constants and on the frozen vacuum assumption used in the prior compact object literature. No numbers are fitted to data.

free parameters (4)

xi_tilde_1, xi_tilde_2
Non-minimal curvature couplings of the bumblebee field in the action (2). They are model parameters, not fitted here; the consistency conclusions are conditional on their values.
xi_1, xi_2, xi_3
Non-minimal curvature couplings of the antisymmetric rank-2 tensor in the action (3). They are model parameters, not fitted here.
b^2 (VEV norm)
Sets the magnitudes of the background VEVs and enters l_V and l_T. It is an input from the Lorentz-violating model, not fitted in this paper.
lambda (linear potential coefficient)
Coefficient of the linear self-interaction potential. It appears in the allowed metric families for both models and is treated as a model parameter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The actions (1)-(3) and field equations (4)-(6) are the correct classical equations for the bumblebee and Kalb-Ramond gravity models.
All constraints are derived from these equations; if the models contain additional terms, the constraints would change.
domain assumption The Lorentz-violating fields are frozen at their vacuum expectation values with vanishing field strengths in the vacuum state (b_mu_nu = 0, h_alpha_beta_gamma = 0).
This assumption, stated in Eq. (8), is what turns the field equations into the geometric constraints used to judge prior solutions.
domain assumption The relevant compact objects are static and spherically symmetric, with metric (9) and Morris-Thorne wormhole metric (10).
The constraint equations are written specifically for these families of metrics.
standard math The contracted Bianchi identity ensures separate conservation of matter and Lorentz-violating energy-momentum tensors.
Used to interpret the consistency conditions through energy-momentum conservation.
domain assumption For the 'quadratic potential' cases, the self-interaction potential extremizes at the vacuum state, giving <V_Y> = 0 or <V_X> = 0.
This is the standard assumption used in the prior solutions that the paper audits.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWTZB6ZS

@misc{pith2026250501374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the self-consistency of compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWTZB6ZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01374}
}

read the original abstract

Self-consistent solutions in Lorentz-violating gravity theories require the simultaneous satisfaction of: (i) the corresponding Einstein field equations, (ii) the matter field equations, and (iii) the Lorentz-violating field equations. In vacuum states, the dynamics of Lorentz-violating tensor fields may reduce to geometric constraints, potentially precluding entire classes of compact objects. These constraints are crucial for ensuring physical consistency in Lorentz-violating frameworks, as they eliminate metric families incompatible with the anisotropies induced by spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking. We investigate the criteria governing the emergence of these geometric constraints and analyze their consequences. Our analysis establishes a consistency framework for evaluating compact objects in these theories, demonstrating that several previously reported solutions in Lorentz-violating gravity models are physically inadmissible.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Black holes and neutron stars in massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

In massive Hellings-Nordtvedt theory, a nonzero vector vacuum asymptotically forbids both curvature-vector couplings at once, and the A²R sector yields Schwarzschild-like black holes plus neutron stars that can deviat...
Beyond general relativity: gravitational waves in non-minimally coupled theories
gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A generalized propagation parameterization for gravitational-wave strains is extended to O(H²) and O(H′), then mapped to Kalb-Ramond, axion-dilaton–Chern-Simons–Gauss-Bonnet, and U(1) dark-photon models.
Particle dynamics and optical appearance of charged spherically symmetric black holes in bumblebee gravity
gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For charged bumblebee black holes, the photon sphere and shadow radii decrease with the Lorentz-violation parameter and charge, producing distinct photon-ring appearances under thin disk emission.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[50]

¨Ovg¨un, K

A. ¨Ovg¨un, K. Jusufi, and I. Sakallı, Exact traversable wormhole solution in bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D99(2), 024042 (2019)

work page 2019
[53]

L. A. Lessa, R. Oliveira, J. E. G. Silva, and C. A. S. Almeida, Traversable wormhole solution with a background Kalb–Ramond field, Annals Phys.433, 168604 (2021)

work page 2021
[51]

J. C. Neves and F. G. Gardim, Stars and quark stars in bumble- bee gravity, Annals of Physics475, 169950 (2025)

work page 2025
[52]

L. A. Lessa, J. E. G. Silva, R. V . Maluf, and C. A. S. Almeida, Modified black hole solution with a background Kalb–Ramond field, Eur. Phys. J. C80(4), 335 (2020)

work page 2020
[1]

Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge university press, 2004

C. Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge university press, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Mattingly, Modern tests of lorentz invariance, Living Re- views in relativity8(1), 1–84 (2005)

D. Mattingly, Modern tests of lorentz invariance, Living Re- views in relativity8(1), 1–84 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Liberati and L

S. Liberati and L. Maccione, Lorentz Violation: Motivation and new constraints, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science59(1), 245–267 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class

E. Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 63 references

[5]

Ghosh, S

R. Ghosh, S. Nair, L. Pathak, S. Sarkar, and A. S. Sengupta, Does the speed of gravitational waves depend on the source ve- locity?, Physical Review D108(12), 124017 (2023)

2023
[6]

Addazi et al., Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review, Prog

A. Addazi et al., Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103948 (2022)

2022
[7]

Liang, R

D. Liang, R. Xu, X. Lu, and L. Shao, Polarizations of gravita- tional waves in the bumblebee gravity model, Physical Review D106(12), 124019 (2022)

2022
[8]

Gupta et al., Possible causes of false general relativity vio- lations in gravitational wave observations, (5 2024)

A. Gupta et al., Possible causes of false general relativity vio- lations in gravitational wave observations, (5 2024)

2024
[9]

V . A. Kosteleck `y and S. Samuel, Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string theory, Physical Review D39(2), 683 (1989)

1989
[10]

V . A. Kosteleck`y and S. Samuel, Phenomenological gravita- tional constraints on strings and higher-dimensional theories, Physical Review Letters63(3), 224 (1989)

1989
[11]

Alfaro, H

J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, and L. F. Urrutia, Quantum gravity corrections to neutrino propagation, Physical Review Letters84(11), 2318 (2000)

2000
[12]

Alfaro, H

J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, and L. F. Urrutia, Loop quan- tum gravity and light propagation, Physical Review D65(10), 103509 (2002)

2002
[13]

S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V . A. Kosteleck`y, C. D. Lane, and T. Okamoto, Noncommutative field theory and Lorentz viola- tion, Physical Review Letters87(14), 141601 (2001)

2001
[14]

Ho ˇrava, Quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point, Physical Re- view D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology79(8), 084008 (2009)

P. Ho ˇrava, Quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point, Physical Re- view D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology79(8), 084008 (2009)

2009
[15]

V . A. Kosteleck`y and R. Potting, CPT, strings, and meson fac- tories, Physical Review D51(7), 3923 (1995)

1995
[16]

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

2004
[17]

V . A. Kosteleck `y and N. Russell, Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation, Reviews of Modern Physics83(1), 11–31 (2011)

2011
[18]

J. D. Tasson, What do we know about Lorentz invariance?, Reports on Progress in Physics77(6), 062901 (2014)

2014
[19]

Q. G. Bailey, A. Kosteleck ´y, and R. Xu, Short-range gravity and Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. D91(2), 022006 (2015)

2015
[20]

V . A. Kosteleck`y and M. Mewes, Testing local Lorentz invari- ance with short-range gravity, Physics Letters B766, 137–143 (2017)

2017
[21]

Eling and T

C. Eling and T. Jacobson, Black holes in Einstein-aether theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity23(18), 5643 (2006)

2006
[22]

Barausse, T

E. Barausse, T. Jacobson, and T. P. Sotiriou, Black holes in Einstein-aether and Ho ˇrava-Lifshitz gravity, Physical Re- view D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology83(12), 124043 (2011)

2011
[23]

Barausse, T

E. Barausse, T. P. Sotiriou, and I. Vega, Slowly rotating black holes in Einstein-æther theory, Physical Review D93(4), 044044 (2016)

2016
[24]

Blas and S

D. Blas and S. Sibiryakov, Ho ˇrava gravity versus thermody- namics: the black hole case, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology84(12), 124043 (2011)

2011
[25]

Barausse and T

E. Barausse and T. P. Sotiriou, Slowly rotating black holes in Hoˇrava-Lifshitz gravity, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology87(8), 087504 (2013)

2013
[26]

J. Oost, S. Mukohyama, and A. Wang, Spherically symmet- ric exact vacuum solutions in Einstein-aether theory, Universe 7(8), 272 (2021)

2021
[27]

Eling and T

C. Eling and T. Jacobson, Spherical solutions in Einstein-aether theory: Static aether and stars, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23(18), 5625 (2006)

2006
[28]

Lin and W.-L

K. Lin and W.-L. Qian, Ellis drainhole solution in Einstein- Æther gravity and the axial gravitational quasinormal modes, The European Physical Journal C82(6), 529 (2022)

2022
[29]

Mazza and S

J. Mazza and S. Liberati, Regular black holes and horizonless ultra-compact objects in Lorentz-violating gravity, Journal of High Energy Physics2023(3), 1–30 (2023)

2023
[30]

Casana, A

R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, and E. B. Santos, Ex- act Schwarzschild-like solution in a bumblebee gravity model, Phys. Rev. D97(10), 104001 (2018)

2018
[31]

Yang, Y .-Z

K. Yang, Y .-Z. Chen, Z.-Q. Duan, and J.-Y . Zhao, Static and spherically symmetric black holes in gravity with a background Kalb-Ramond field, Phys. Rev. D108(12), 124004 (2023)

2023
[32]

W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Static neutral black holes in Kalb- Ramond gravity, JCAP09, 017 (2024)

2024
[33]

R. V . Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Black holes with a cosmological constant in bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D103(4), 044002 (2021)

2021
[34]

P. Ji, Z. Li, L. Yang, R. Xu, Z. Hu, and L. Shao, Neutron stars in the bumblebee theory of gravity, Physical Review D110(10), 104057 (2024). 9

2024
[35]

R. V . Maluf and C. R. Muniz, Exact solution for a traversable wormhole in a curvature-coupled antisymmetric background field, Eur. Phys. J. C82(5), 445 (2022)

2022
[36]

Bluhm, S.-H

R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung, and V . A. Kostelecky, Spontaneous Lorentz and Diffeomorphism Violation, Massive Modes, and Gravity, Phys. Rev. D77, 065020 (2008)

2008
[37]

V . A. Kosteleck `y and R. Potting, Gravity from spontaneous Lorentz violation, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Grav- itation, and Cosmology79(6), 065018 (2009)

2009
[38]

T. P. Sotiriou, Ho ˇrava-Lifshitz gravity: a status report, inJour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 283, page 012034, IOP Publishing, 2011

2011
[39]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Mukohyama, Minimal theory of massive gravity, Physics Letters B752, 302–305 (2016)

2016
[40]

Herrero-Valea, The status of Ho ˇrava gravity, The European Physical Journal Plus138(11), 968 (2023)

M. Herrero-Valea, The status of Ho ˇrava gravity, The European Physical Journal Plus138(11), 968 (2023)

2023
[41]

Bluhm and V

R. Bluhm and V . A. Kostelecky, Spontaneous Lorentz viola- tion, Nambu-Goldstone modes, and gravity, Phys. Rev. D71, 065008 (2005)

2005
[42]

L. A. Lessa, J. E. G. Silva, and C. A. S. Almeida, The bumble- bee field excitations in a cosmological braneworld, EPL141(2), 29001 (2023)

2023
[43]

L. A. Lessa and J. E. G. Silva, Einstein–Bumblebee-dilaton black hole solution, Eur. Phys. J. C83(11), 1035 (2023)

2023
[44]

L. A. Lessa and J. E. G. Silva, Einstein–Bumblebee-dilaton black hole in Lifshitz spacetimes, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2), 194 (2024)

2024
[45]

Altschul, Q

B. Altschul, Q. G. Bailey, and V . A. Kostelecky, Lorentz vio- lation with an antisymmetric tensor, Phys. Rev. D81, 065028 (2010)

2010
[46]

A. A. Filho, J. Nascimento, A. Y . Petrov, and P. Porf´ırio, Vac- uum solution within a metric-affine bumblebee gravity, Physi- cal Review D108(8), 085010 (2023)

2023
[47]

Ara ´ujo Filho, J

A. Ara ´ujo Filho, J. Nascimento, A. Y . Petrov, and P. Porf ´ırio, An exact stationary axisymmetric vacuum solution within a metric-affine bumblebee gravity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(07), 004 (2024)

2024
[48]

Bluhm, Spacetime symmetry breaking and Einstein- Maxwell theory, Physical Review D92(8), 085015 (2015)

R. Bluhm, Spacetime symmetry breaking and Einstein- Maxwell theory, Physical Review D92(8), 085015 (2015)

2015
[49]

Bluhm and A

R. Bluhm and A. ˇSehi´c, Noether identities in gravity theories with nondynamical backgrounds and explicit spacetime sym- metry breaking, Physical Review D94(10), 104034 (2016)

2016
[54]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in Spacetime and Their Use for Interstellar Travel: A Tool for Teaching General Relativity, American Journal of Physics56, 395–412 (1988)

1988
[55]

Visser, Lorentzian wormholes

M. Visser, Lorentzian wormholes. from einstein to hawking, Woodbury (1995)

1995
[56]

R. N. Izmailov and K. K. Nandi, Novel features of Schwarzschild-like black hole of Lorentz violating bumblebee gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity39(21), 215006 (2022)

2022
[57]

Panotopoulos and A

G. Panotopoulos and A. ¨Ovg¨un, Strange quark stars and con- densate dark stars in Bumblebee gravity, Nuclear Physics B , 116956 (2025)

2025
[58]

Grumiller, Model for Gravity at Large Distances, Physical Review Letters105, 211303 (2010)

D. Grumiller, Model for Gravity at Large Distances, Physical Review Letters105, 211303 (2010)

2010
[59]

Gogberashvili and A

M. Gogberashvili and A. Girgvliani, General Spherically Sym- metric Solution of Cotton Gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 025010 (2024)

2024
[60]

H. G. Ellis, Ether Flow through a Drainhole: A Particle Model in General Relativity, Journal of Mathematical Physics14, 104– 118 (1973)

1973
[61]

K. A. Bronnikov, Scalar-Tensor Theory and Scalar Charge, Acta Phys. Polon. B4, 251–266 (1973)

1973
[62]

Liu, W.-D

J.-Z. Liu, W.-D. Guo, S.-W. Wei, and Y .-X. Liu, Charged spher- ically symmetric and slowly rotating charged black hole solu- tions in bumblebee gravity, The European Physical Journal C 85(2), 145 (2025)

2025
[63]

Duan, J.-Y

Z.-Q. Duan, J.-Y . Zhao, and K. Yang, Electrically charged black holes in gravity with a background Kalb–Ramond field, The European Physical Journal C84(8), 798 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [50]

¨Ovg¨un, K

A. ¨Ovg¨un, K. Jusufi, and I. Sakallı, Exact traversable wormhole solution in bumblebee gravity, Phys. Rev. D99(2), 024042 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [53]

L. A. Lessa, R. Oliveira, J. E. G. Silva, and C. A. S. Almeida, Traversable wormhole solution with a background Kalb–Ramond field, Annals Phys.433, 168604 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [51]

J. C. Neves and F. G. Gardim, Stars and quark stars in bumble- bee gravity, Annals of Physics475, 169950 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [52]

L. A. Lessa, J. E. G. Silva, R. V . Maluf, and C. A. S. Almeida, Modified black hole solution with a background Kalb–Ramond field, Eur. Phys. J. C80(4), 335 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [1]

Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge university press, 2004

C. Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge university press, 2004

work page 2004

[6] [2]

Mattingly, Modern tests of lorentz invariance, Living Re- views in relativity8(1), 1–84 (2005)

D. Mattingly, Modern tests of lorentz invariance, Living Re- views in relativity8(1), 1–84 (2005)

work page 2005

[7] [3]

Liberati and L

S. Liberati and L. Maccione, Lorentz Violation: Motivation and new constraints, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science59(1), 245–267 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [4]

Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class

E. Berti et al., Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015)

work page 2015