Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

A Material Frame: Hard Recoils from Slow Force Carriers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gauge invariance can be relaxed by turning the longitudinal photon into a slow physical mode; the vacuum then absorbs momentum from charges, and xenon recoil searches already bound its speed below 10^-60.

desk verdict A genuinely new mechanism with a likely-correct central rate, but the smooth c_L→0 limit and the flagship Xe bound each rest on an input the paper does not fully defend—worth refereeing with those two gaps named. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27253 v1 pith:P5H6N7IU submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph hep-th

Francesco Serra This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords slowlongitudinalphotongaugeinvarianceviolationLorentzsymmetrybreakingCherenkovemissionhardrecoilsdarkmatterdirectdetectionpreferredframedecouplingbylowspeed
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper proposes a controlled way to relax gauge invariance: add a small gradient term (c_L^2/2)(div A)^2 so the longitudinal photon becomes a real, positive-energy mode that propagates at speed c_L << 1 in a preferred frame. The theory has a smooth c_L -> 0 limit, in which the new mode decouples and ordinary gauge theory returns, so the deformation introduces no new fields or scales. The central observation is that charged particles can Cherenkov-emit these slow modes at a rate proportional to c_L, but each emission transfers momentum of order the particle's momentum, like a nearly elastic recoil against the reference frame. That makes the signal rare but hard, and momentum-sensitive detectors become the sharpest probes: xenon recoil searches imply c_L <~ 10^-60, far stronger than speed-difference or energy-loss bounds. If true, the vacuum behaves as a material frame that can absorb momentum from charges, and gauge invariance is the perfectly transparent limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the longitudinal component of the photon, made physical via the Hamiltonian term (c_L^2/2)(div A)^2 in Weyl gauge (A_0 = 0). This single marginal deformation turns the would-be gauge mode into a gapless oscillator with dispersion omega = c_L k; residual Galilean higher-form symmetries protect it from acquiring a mass. A chain of identities carries the argument: integration by parts rewrites the coupling A_L . J as phi_dot J^0, so interactions carry an explicit c_L suppression; dressing charged fields as e^{-ie phi} psi makes that suppression manifest; and a Cherenkov-emission calculation gives the hard-recoil rate. The same machinery guarantees no strong coupling as c_L

What would settle it

Compute the Cherenkov matrix element for a xenon nucleus moving at beta ~ 10^-3 with a realistic nuclear form factor F(p ~ 30 MeV): if the form factor drives the emitted momentum below the few-keV detection threshold, the predicted recoil signal and therefore the 10^-60 bound disappear. Experimentally, a tonne-scale noble-liquid detector with low threshold and directional sensitivity would see or exclude the predicted few-keV nuclear recoils at the rate Gamma ~ (Z + Z^2 |F|^2) alpha c_L m_p.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that gauge invariance is not an exact structural requirement but the zero-speed limit of a stable, predictive theory of a slow longitudinal photon. Starting from the Hamiltonian with (c_L^2/2)(div A)^2, the longitudinal mode has dispersion omega = c_L k and is protected from acquiring a mass by a Galilean higher-form symmetry. Because its interactions are suppressed by c_L, the limit c_L -> 0 recovers QED observables; yet on-shell emission of the mode by a moving charge gives a rate Gamma = 4 alpha c_L (E_p - p^2/(3E_p)) with momentum transfer k of order p, so the recoil is nearly elastic in the preferred frame. Applied to bound states, the momentum transfer is capped by

Load-bearing premise

The flagship bound depends on the nuclear form factor F at roughly 30 MeV momentum transfer being order one, so that a xenon nucleus really deposits a few keV in a dark-matter detector; if that form factor suppresses the transferred momentum below threshold, the c_L <~ 10^-60 conclusion erodes without touching the point-particle kinematics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, every charged particle moving relative to the preferred frame is subject to rare, near-elastic momentum kicks, not gradual energy loss.
  • Ordinary gauge theory is recovered as the transparent limit of a family of theories with a material preferred frame, so gauge redundancy corresponds to an infrared degeneracy of soft modes.
  • The observational hierarchy runs from c_L ~ 10^-7 in precision tests and 10^-23 in cosmic-ray energy loss to 10^-60 in recoil searches, making momentum-sensitive systems the strongest probes.
  • At c_L ~ 10^-60, the longitudinal modes are effectively immobile and the only observable role of c_L is as a recoil-rate parameter, so the theory is experimentally equivalent to the Standard Model plus a rigid momentum-absorbing frame.
  • Future dark-matter exposures with lower thresholds and larger masses will improve the bound roughly linearly with exposure, continuing to test gauge invariance in this new regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as a template, the construction suggests that any would-be gauge mode could be made weakly physical by giving it a frozen speed, provided residual shift symmetries protect its mass; whether that template survives in non-abelian or gravitational settings, where ghosts may appear, is left open by the paper and is an editor's extension.
  • A directional, low-threshold noble-liquid detector could in principle separate these preferred-frame recoils from a dark-matter wind, because the recoil axis would track Earth's motion relative to the cosmic frame rather than the galactic halo; the expected rate at c_L < 10^-60 is extraordinarily small, so this is a long-shot but logically clean test.
  • The paper's classical Gauss-law violation produces charge tracks that, once the recoil bound is imposed, are unobservable; in a hypothetical world with larger c_L those tracks would mimic a millicharged background, offering a cross-check if anomalous low-energy events ever appear.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a deformation of QED in which the longitudinal component of the photon becomes a propagating, gapless degree of freedom with speed c_L, implemented by adding (c_L^2/2)(\nabla·A)^2 to the preferred-frame Hamiltonian (Eq. 5). The paper argues that the c_L→0 limit smoothly recovers ordinary gauge theory because all slow-mode interactions can be rewritten in terms of the speed-suppressed operator \dot\phi J^0 (Sec. 3). The main observable signature is Cherenkov emission of these slow modes: the rate is O(α c_L) (Eq. 38), but the momentum transfer remains of order the emitting particle's momentum, producing rare hard recoils. The author derives a hierarchy of constraints, with xenon nuclear-recoil searches giving c_L ≲ 10^{-60} (Eq. 63), and discusses classical Gauss-law violation, shadow charges, and extensions to Yang-Mills, gravity, and cosmology.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant contribution: it gives a controlled, technically natural Lorentz-violating deformation of gauge invariance with no new fields or mass scales, and it identifies a qualitatively new signature—rare hard recoils—that turns dark-matter detectors into probes of whether the vacuum can absorb momentum. The explicit computations of the Cherenkov rate, the ˙ϕ propagator, the tree-level exchange, and the one-loop self-energy are transparent and parameter-free in c_L, and the c_L-dependent power counting is clearly laid out. The 10^{-60} bound is a striking, falsifiable prediction. The main weaknesses are that the smooth decoupling limit is not yet demonstrated by a complete scattering observable, and the flagship bound depends on an unevaluated nuclear form factor.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–§4.2, Eqs. (25) and (41)] The decoupling limit is not yet demonstrated by a complete scattering observable. The ˙ϕ propagator in Eq. (25) is verified by the direct mode-sum computation in App. B, but the only virtual-exchange amplitude shown, Eq. (41), has a zero-energy limit M ≃ −ie²/Δk² that is independent of c_L. For a system at rest in the preferred frame, the suppression that underpins the decoupling claim is therefore absent; Sec. 4.2 handles this only by a boost/energy estimate. I request one explicit O(e²) S-matrix element, e.g. electron-electron scattering, that includes transverse, longitudinal, and any contact/Coulomb contributions and is shown to reproduce standard QED in both the static and boosted regimes as c_L→0. Every bound in Sec. 5 presupposes this limit.
  2. [§5.3, Eqs. (62)–(63)] The flagship bound c_L ≲ 10^{-60} uses Γ_Xe ≈ (Z + Z²|F(p)|²) α c_L m_p with |F(p)|² taken to be O(1) at p ≈ 30 MeV, but the form factor is not computed or estimated. Since the rate is linear in this combination, a suppression of |F|² by, say, 10^{-2}–10^{-4} shifts the bound by the same factor, and a stronger suppression could push the recoil below the nuclear-recoil detection threshold, undermining the detection logic. The paper should either evaluate F(p) from a standard nuclear charge distribution or quote Eq. (63) with an explicit dependence on the unknown form factor and an order-of-magnitude error budget, including the coherence assumption pR_B ≈ 1.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (46)] The claim that annihilation into slow modes has cross section σ₂ ∼ α²c_L^6 relies on a cancellation in the sum of the two diagrams, reducing the amplitude from αc_L^3 to αc_L^4. The paper states this cancellation without displaying the algebra. This is less central than the two issues above, but since the power-counting section presents Eq. (46) as a check of the general rules, the cancellation should be shown explicitly or relegated to an appendix with a clear statement of the assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (38)] The integration limits are printed as \int_{1}^{c_L E_p/p} d cosθ; as written the interval is empty. From Eq. (35) the range should be c_L E_p/p to 1. Please correct.
  2. [Eq. (48)] The statement that the imaginary part of the self-energy 'can be verified numerically' to coincide with the Cherenkov rate should be supported by at least a plot or an analytic expression; this is a checkable claim and the paper would be stronger with the verification shown.
  3. [Table 1] Several bounds in Table 1 are order-of-magnitude estimates built on explicit assumptions (e.g., form factor, boost of the preferred frame, detection efficiency). A column listing the key assumption for each row would prevent the hierarchy from being over-interpreted.
  4. [General presentation] There are numerous LaTeX spacing artifacts (e.g., 'F ormal', 'c2 L' in places) and inconsistent notation for the scalar potential φ before its definition in Sec. 3.1. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the central chain is self-contained, with one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation starts from the deformed Hamiltonian H = ∫[½E² + ½(∇∧A)² + (c_L²/2)(∇·A)²] (Eq. 5), obtains the longitudinal dispersion ω² = c_L²k² (Eq. 9), rewrites the interaction as eγ⁰φ̇ via the dressing Ψ = e^{-ieφ}ψ (Eqs. 27-28), computes the φ̇ propagator with a c_L² numerator (Eq. 25), and derives the Cherenkov rate Γ = 4αc_L(E_p − p²/3E_p) (Eq. 38). The experimental bounds in Sec. 5 then compare this rate to null or observed rates (e.g., Xe recoil null, Eqs. 62-63), with no parameter fitted to the target bound. Thus the signature calculation is not equivalent to its input by construction, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fit. The only author-overlap citation is [34] (Del Grosso, Kaplan, Serra), used for canonical quantization without Dirac brackets and for shadow-charge language (App. A, Sec. 7); this is a technical bookkeeping convenience, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem nor the source of the c_L predictions. The paper itself flags unresolved items—form-factor evaluation at p ≈ 30 MeV in Sec. 5.3, precise matching of the low-energy EFT in Sec. 4.5, and 'further explor[ation of] the structural aspects of this limit' in Sec. 8. These are correctness/robustness limitations, not circularity. Accordingly the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on one new parameter (c_L), a symmetry-protection claim without an anomaly check, an argued (not proven) smooth-limit mechanism, and an identification of the physical preferred frame. The dressing/power-counting sections relieve most circularity concern: rates are computed from the deformed Lagrangian and then bounded by null searches. The least-paid-for inputs are the assumed CMB-frame identification and the O(1) nuclear form factor that set the 10^-60 number.

free parameters (2)
  • c_L (slow longitudinal photon speed) = c_L ≲ 10^-60 (order-of-magnitude upper bound, not a positive fit)
    The dimensionless coefficient of (∇·A)²/2 in the Hamiltonian; the single new parameter. All rates scale as powers of c_L, and the experimental section sets order-of-magnitude upper bounds, the strongest from Xe recoil searches.
  • Nuclear form factor |F(p)|² at p ≈ 30 MeV = ≈ 1 (set to order one, with coherent Z² enhancement)
    Eq. (62): the Xe rate is written (Z + Z²|F|²)αc_L m_p with F implicitly O(1); the paper states it avoids evaluating F 'carefully'. The headline 10^-60 bound scales directly with this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Canonical/Hamiltonian formulation of QED in Weyl gauge with standard equal-time commutation relations (Apps. A, B).
    The deformation is defined in this framework; the treatment of gauge theory without Dirac brackets follows [34, 35].
  • domain assumption The Galilean higher-form shift symmetries Π^i_1 and Π^{ij}_2 (Eqs. 13-14) are exact symmetries of the quantum theory and protect the photon mass.
    Sec. 2.2: no anomaly check is performed. If these symmetries are anomalous in the presence of charged matter, a radiatively generated photon mass or running of c_L could alter the effective theory.
  • domain assumption Inclusive observables over slow modes have a smooth c_L→0 limit (KLN-type) and Ward identities suppress slow-mode couplings by c_L (Secs. 3.2-3.3, App. C).
    The decoupling claim rests on this. The paper shows that naive propagator arguments fail (Schwinger terms) and resolves the issue via field dressing; this is an argued and example-supported result, not a proof.
  • domain assumption The physical preferred frame is (close to) the CMB rest frame, so ground-based detectors move at β ~ 10^-3 relative to it.
    Needed for the Cherenkov emission by detector nuclei (Sec. 5.3) and used in the boosted-frame suppression estimate (Eq. 33). If the preferred frame tracked the detector rest frame, the flagship recoil signal would vanish.
invented entities (2)
  • Slow longitudinal photon (physical longitudinal mode, ω = c_L k) independent evidence
    purpose: The would-be gauge degree of freedom made dynamical; the mediator of hard momentum transfer between charged matter and the preferred frame.
    Not a new fundamental field — it is the longitudinal component of the existing photon promoted to a physical oscillator. It has a falsifiable handle: predicted Cherenkov recoils in momentum-sensitive detectors, currently bounded but not detected.
  • Preferred (material) reference frame independent evidence
    purpose: Rest frame of the slow modes; acts as a momentum sink — a 'nearly transparent material frame' that can absorb momentum from charges.
    Realized by the c_L(∇·A)² background. Its observable handle is the recoil spectrum; a khronon field realization is only sketched in Sec. 2.3. It is not a new dynamical field in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Material Frame: Hard Recoils from Slow Force Carriers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5H6N7IU

@misc{pith2026260727253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Material Frame: Hard Recoils from Slow Force Carriers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5H6N7IU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27253}
}
abstract

We modify the Standard Model by making the longitudinal component of the photon physical, propagating with small speed $c_L \ll 1$. This modification breaks gauge invariance and Lorentz symmetry, defining a preferred reference frame. No new fields or scales are introduced, and the photon mass is protected by a Galilean higher-form symmetry. The theory has a smooth $c_L\to0$ limit: the new modes decouple from standard matter and ordinary gauge theory predictions are recovered. Experimental constraints are severe. Charged particles Cherenkov-emit these slow modes, experiencing hard recoils against the preferred frame. The recoil rate decreases with $c_L$, but the momentum transfer remains of the order of the particle's momentum. Dark matter detectors, sensitive to keV-scale nuclear recoils, imply an order-of-magnitude bound $c_L \lesssim 10^{-60}$, tens of orders of magnitude stronger than speed-difference bounds. At such values, $c_L$ is better understood as a recoil-rate factor rather than a physically relevant speed. The slow modes, practically fixed in space, make the reference frame a material medium capable of absorbing momentum from charged particles.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly,Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 024028 [gr-qc/0007031]

    arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M.A. Luty and S. Mukohyama,Ghost condensation and a consistent infrared modification of gravity,JHEP05(2004) 074 [hep-th/0312099]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Weinberg,Photons and Gravitons inS-Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Photons and Gravitons inS-Matrix Theory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass,Phys. Rev.135(1964) B1049

    1964

  4. [4]

    Gupta,Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,Proc

    S.N. Gupta,Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,Proc. Phys. Soc. A63(1950) 681

    1950

  5. [5]

    Bleuler,A New method of treatment of the longitudinal and scalar photons,Helv

    K. Bleuler,A New method of treatment of the longitudinal and scalar photons,Helv. Phys. Acta23 (1950) 567

    1950

  6. [6]

    Proca,Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs,J

    A. Proca,Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs,J. Phys. Radium7(1936) 347

    1936

  7. [7]

    Stueckelberg,Theory of the radiation of photons of small arbitrary mass,Helv

    E.C.G. Stueckelberg,Theory of the radiation of photons of small arbitrary mass,Helv. Phys. Acta30 (1957) 209

    1957

  8. [8]

    Llewellyn Smith,High-Energy Behavior and Gauge Symmetry,Phys

    C.H. Llewellyn Smith,High-Energy Behavior and Gauge Symmetry,Phys. Lett. B46(1973) 233

    1973

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Cornwall, D.N

    J.M. Cornwall, D.N. Levin and G. Tiktopoulos,Derivation of Gauge Invariance from High-Energy Unitarity Bounds on the s Matrix,Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 1145

    1974

  2. [10]

    Gabadadze and L

    G. Gabadadze and L. Grisa,Lorentz-violating massive gauge and gravitational fields,Phys. Lett. B617 (2005) 124 [hep-th/0412332]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dvali, M

    G. Dvali, M. Papucci and M.D. Schwartz,Infrared Lorentz violation and slowly instantaneous electricity,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 191602 [hep-th/0501157]. 32

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Endlich, A

    S. Endlich, A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and J. Wang,The Quantum mechanics of perfect fluids,JHEP04 (2011) 102 [1011.6396]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Myers and M

    R.C. Myers and M. Pospelov,Ultraviolet modifications of dispersion relations in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 211601 [hep-ph/0301124]

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Collins, A

    J. Collins, A. Perez, D. Sudarsky, L. Urrutia and H. Vucetich,Lorentz invariance and quantum gravity: an additional fine-tuning problem?,Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 191301 [gr-qc/0403053]

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Will and K

    C.M. Will and K. Nordtvedt, Jr.,Conservation Laws and Preferred Frames in Relativistic Gravity. I. Preferred-Frame Theories and an Extended PPN Formalism,Astrophys. J.177(1972) 757

    1972

  8. [16]

    Csaki, J

    C. Csaki, J. Erlich and C. Grojean,Gravitational Lorentz violations and adjustment of the cosmological constant in asymmetrically warped space-times,Nucl. Phys. B604(2001) 312 [hep-th/0012143]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gripaios,Modified gravity via spontaneous symmetry breaking,JHEP10(2004) 069 [hep-th/0408127]

    B.M. Gripaios,Modified gravity via spontaneous symmetry breaking,JHEP10(2004) 069 [hep-th/0408127]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly,Einstein-Aether waves,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 024003 [gr-qc/0402005]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. Luty and J. Thaler,Universal dynamics of spontaneous Lorentz violation and a new spin-dependent inverse-square law force,JHEP07(2005) 029 [hep-ph/0407034]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M.A. Luty, S. Mukohyama and T. Wiseman,Dynamics of gravity in a Higgs phase,JHEP01(2007) 036 [hep-ph/0507120]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cheng, M.A

    H.-C. Cheng, M.A. Luty, S. Mukohyama and J. Thaler,Spontaneous Lorentz breaking at high energies, JHEP05(2006) 076 [hep-th/0603010]

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jacobson,Einstein-aether gravity: A Status report,PoSQG-PH(2007) 020 [0801.1547]

    T. Jacobson,Einstein-aether gravity: A Status report,PoSQG-PH(2007) 020 [0801.1547]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Horava,Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point,Phys

    P. Horava,Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 084008 [0901.3775]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov,Consistent Extension of Horava Gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.104 (2010) 181302 [0909.3525]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov,On the Extra Mode and Inconsistency of Horava Gravity,JHEP 10(2009) 029 [0906.3046]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov,Models of non-relativistic quantum gravity: The Good, the bad and the healthy,JHEP04(2011) 018 [1007.3503]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jacobson,Extended Horava gravity and Einstein-aether theory,Phys

    T. Jacobson,Extended Horava gravity and Einstein-aether theory,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 101502 [1001.4823]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky,CPT violation and the standard model,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 6760 [hep-ph/9703464]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Colladay and V.A

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

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kostelecky and M

    V.A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes,Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics,Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 056005 [hep-ph/0205211]

    2002 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kostelecky,Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,Phys

    V.A. Kostelecky,Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 105009 [hep-th/0312310]. 33

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kostelecky and N

    V.A. Kostelecky and N. Russell,Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,Rev. Mod. Phys.83 (2011) 11 [0801.0287]

    2011

  25. [33]

    Altschul, Q.G

    B. Altschul, Q.G. Bailey and V.A. Kostelecky,Lorentz violation with an antisymmetric tensor,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 065028 [0912.4852]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Del Grosso, D.E

    L. Del Grosso, D.E. Kaplan and F. Serra,Shadow sectors of gauge theories,2510.14079

  27. [35]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of gauge systems(1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini,The Galileon as a local modification of gravity,Phys. Rev. D 79(2009) 064036 [0811.2197]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Deffayet, S

    C. Deffayet, S. Deser and G. Esposito-Farese,Arbitraryp-form Galileons,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 061501 [1007.5278]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Tasinato,Cosmic Acceleration from Abelian Symmetry Breaking,JHEP04(2014) 067 [1402.6450]

    G. Tasinato,Cosmic Acceleration from Abelian Symmetry Breaking,JHEP04(2014) 067 [1402.6450]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett,Generalized Global Symmetries,JHEP02(2015) 172 [1412.5148]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Goldberger and P

    W.D. Goldberger and P. Tadi´ c,Quantum dynamics of perfect fluids,2512.23793

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lee and M

    T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg,Degenerate Systems and Mass Singularities,Phys. Rev.133(1964) B1549

    1964

  34. [42]

    Kinoshita,Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes,J

    T. Kinoshita,Mass singularities of Feynman amplitudes,J. Math. Phys.3(1962) 650

    1962

  35. [43]

    Kamefuchi, L

    S. Kamefuchi, L. O’Raifeartaigh and A. Salam,Change of variables and equivalence theorems in quantum field theories,Nucl. Phys.28(1961) 529

    1961

  36. [44]

    Coleman, J

    S.R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,Phys. Rev.177 (1969) 2239

    1969

  37. [45]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2., Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247

    1969

  38. [46]

    Caswell and G.P

    W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage,Effective Lagrangians for Bound State Problems in QED, QCD, and Other Field Theories,Phys. Lett. B167(1986) 437

    1986

  39. [47]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto,Effective field theory for ultrasoft momenta in NRQCD and NRQED,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.64(1998) 428 [hep-ph/9707481]

    1998 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Chadha and H.B

    S. Chadha and H.B. Nielsen,LORENTZ INV ARIANCE AS A LOW-ENERGY PHENOMENON,Nucl. Phys. B217(1983) 125

    1983

  41. [49]

    Giudice, M

    G.F. Giudice, M. Raidal and A. Strumia,Lorentz Violation from the Higgs Portal,Phys. Lett. B690 (2010) 272 [1003.2364]. [50]XENONcollaboration,Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 111302 [1805.12562]. [51]XENONcollaborat...

    2010 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,Phys

    T. Aoyama et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,Phys. Rept. 887(2020) 1 [2006.04822]. 34 [54]Muon g-2collaboration,Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 141801 [2104.03281]. [55]Muon g-...

    2020 arXiv

  43. [56]

    Parker, C

    R.H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. M¨ uller,Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the standard model,Science360(2018) 191

    2018

  44. [57]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa,Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,Nature588(2020) 61. [58]Pierre Augercollaboration,Observation of a Large-scale Anisotropy in the Arrival Directions of Cosmic Rays abov...

    2020 arXiv

  45. [59]

    Anchordoqui,Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays,Phys

    L.A. Anchordoqui,Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays,Phys. Rept.801(2019) 1 [1807.09645]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [60]

    Greisen,End to the cosmic ray spectrum?,Phys

    K. Greisen,End to the cosmic ray spectrum?,Phys. Rev. Lett.16(1966) 748

    1966

  47. [61]

    Zatsepin and V.A

    G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuzmin,Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays,JETP Lett.4(1966) 78

    1966

  48. [62]

    Coleman and S.L

    S.R. Coleman and S.L. Glashow,High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 116008 [hep-ph/9812418]

    1999 arXiv

  49. [63]

    Coleman and S.L

    S.R. Coleman and S.L. Glashow,Cosmic ray and neutrino tests of special relativity,Phys. Lett. B405 (1997) 249 [hep-ph/9703240]. [64]LHC Design Report Vol.1: The LHC Main Ring, Tech. Rep. (6, 2004), DOI

    1997 arXiv

  50. [65]

    Holzer et al.,Beam loss monitoring system for the LHC, in2005 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, no

    E.B. Holzer et al.,Beam loss monitoring system for the LHC, in2005 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, no. 2, pp. 1052–1056, 2005, DOI. [66]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [67]ATLAScollaborati...

    2005

  51. [68]

    Lorimer,Binary and Millisecond Pulsars,Living Rev

    D.R. Lorimer,Binary and Millisecond Pulsars,Living Rev. Rel.11(2008) 8 [0811.0762]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [69]

    Mack, J.F

    G.D. Mack, J.F. Beacom and G. Bertone,Towards Closing the Window on Strongly Interacting Dark Matter: Far-Reaching Constraints from Earth’s Heat Flow,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 043523 [0705.4298]

    2007 arXiv

  53. [70]

    Beardsmore and J.P

    G.R. Beardsmore and J.P. Cull,Crustal Heat Flow. A Guide to Measurement and Modelling., Cambridge University Press, New York(2001)

    2001

  54. [71]

    Lopes, G

    I.P. Lopes, G. Bertone and J. Silk,Solar seismic model as a new constraint on supersymmetric dark matter,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.337(2002) 1179 [astro-ph/0205066]

    2002 arXiv

  55. [72]

    Bertone and M

    G. Bertone and M. Fairbairn,Compact Stars as Dark Matter Probes,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 043515 [0709.1485]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [73]

    Prˇ sa, P

    A. Prˇ sa, P. Harmanec, G. Torres, E. Mamajek, M. Asplund, N. Capitaine et al.,Nominal values for selected solar and planetary quantities: Iau 2015 resolution b3,The Astronomical Journal152(2016) 41. [74]DarkSide-20kcollaboration,DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for ...

    2015 arXiv

  57. [78]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon and T. Volansky,Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 076007 [1108.5383]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [79]

    Moore, A.D

    D.C. Moore, A.D. Rider and G. Gratta,Search for Millicharged Particles Using Optically Levitated Microspheres,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 251801 [1408.4396]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [80]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov and Y.-D. Tsai,Millicharged particles in neutrino experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 071801 [1806.03310]. [81]ArgoNeuTcollaboration,Improved Limits on Millicharged Particles Using the ArgoNeuT Experiment at Fermilab,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(20...

    2019 arXiv

  60. [82]

    Pospelov and H

    M. Pospelov and H. Ramani,Earth-bound millicharge relics,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 115031 [2012.03957]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [83]

    Budker, P.W

    D. Budker, P.W. Graham, H. Ramani, F. Schmidt-Kaler, C. Smorra and S. Ulmer,Millicharged Dark Matter Detection with Ion Traps,PRX Quantum3(2022) 010330 [2108.05283]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [84]

    Arg¨ uelles Delgado, K.J

    C.A. Arg¨ uelles Delgado, K.J. Kelly and V. Mu˜ noz Albornoz,Millicharged particles from the heavens: single- and multiple-scattering signatures,JHEP11(2021) 099 [2104.13924]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [85]

    Carney, H

    D. Carney, H. H¨ affner, D.C. Moore and J.M. Taylor,Trapped Electrons and Ions as Particle Detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 061804 [2104.05737]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [86]

    E. Iles, S. Heeba and K. Schutz,Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments Are Sensitive to the Millicharged Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 121002 [2407.21096]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [87]

    Berlin, Z

    A. Berlin, Z. Bogorad, P.W. Graham and H. Ramani,Cavendish Tests of Millicharged Particles, 2510.25825

  66. [88]

    Kaplan, T

    D.E. Kaplan, T. Melia and S. Rajendran,The Classical Equations of Motion of Quantized Gauge Theories, Part 2: Electromagnetism,2307.09475

    arXiv

  67. [89]

    Isham,Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time,NATO Sci

    C.J. Isham,Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time,NATO Sci. Ser. C409(1993) 157 [gr-qc/9210011]

    1993 arXiv

  68. [90]

    Kaplan, T

    D.E. Kaplan, T. Melia and S. Rajendran,The Classical Equations of Motion of Quantized Gauge Theories, Part I: General Relativity,2305.01798

    arXiv

  69. [91]

    Del Grosso, D.E

    L. Del Grosso, D.E. Kaplan, T. Melia, V. Poulin, S. Rajendran and T.L. Smith,Cosmological Consequences of Unconstrained Gravity and Electromagnetism,2405.06374

    arXiv

  70. [92]

    Kulish and L.D

    P.P. Kulish and L.D. Faddeev,Asymptotic conditions and infrared divergences in quantum electrodynamics,Theor. Math. Phys.4(1970) 745. 36

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.