\kappa-deformed spin-1/2 field

Andrea Bevilacqua; Giacomo Rosati; Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman; Tadeusz Adach; Wojciech Wi\'slicki

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

\kappa-deformed spin-1/2 field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The κ-deformed Dirac field admits a Poincaré-invariant action whose charges close the standard Poincaré algebra; charge conjugation is broken, and a deformed time reversal restores CPT.

desk verdict A credible spin-1/2 extension of the kappa-deformed field program whose central consistency claim (Poincaré algebra closure) is asserted rather than demonstrated; send to a referee who will check the brackets. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18336 v2 pith:PB2SLCU6 submitted 2025-07-24 hep-th gr-qc

Tadeusz Adach , Andrea Bevilacqua , Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman , Giacomo Rosati , Wojciech Wiślicki This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc

keywords κ-deformedDiracfieldκ-Minkowskispacetimeκ-PoincaréalgebraNoetherchargeschargeconjugationCPTsymmetrydeformedtimereversalnoncommutativetheory

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 extends the κ-deformed field-theory program from scalars to spin-1/2 fields. It constructs an action for a Dirac fermion on κ-Minkowski spacetime, based on the 5D bicovariant differential calculus and the classical basis of κ-Poincaré, and shows that this action is invariant under deformed Poincaré transformations. The associated Noether charges — momentum, rotations, boosts — close the ordinary Poincaré algebra, establishing the theory's internal consistency. The authors then show that the undeformed charge conjugation maps the action to a different action, so C-symmetry is broken at the level of both the action and the charges; ordinary CPT is broken, but a naturally deformed time reversal restores an exact combined CPT symmetry. This matters because it makes concrete predictions for Planck-scale-induced asymmetries between particles and antiparticles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the 5D bicovariant differential calculus on κ-Minkowski spacetime together with the 'classical basis' of the κ-Poincaré algebra, in which the symmetry algebra is undeformed while all deformation sits in the coalgebra. Within this calculus, the paper selects the single ordering $L^\kappa_3 = -\psi^T (i\gamma^{\mu T} \overset{\leftarrow}{\partial}_\mu - m) \star \bar\psi^T$ among four naive Dirac Lagrangian candidates, rejecting orderings whose spatial integration by parts produces gamma-matrix boundary terms on the time slice that would spoil time independence of Noether charges. The antipode map $S(p)$ of the momentum-space group encodes the asymmetry between particle and antiparticle momenta, and it is this asymmetry that breaks charge conjugation; the deformed time reversal $T_\kappa$, acting through antipode-compatible conjugation, compensates the C-breaking and restores $CPT_\kappa$.

What would settle it

Build the analogous Dirac action using a 4D differential calculus on κ-Minkowski instead of the 5D one used here; if its Noether charges still close the Poincaré algebra and the action is C-invariant, the paper's claim that C-breaking is unavoidable would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the κ-deformed setting, the Dirac field can be described by the action $S_\kappa = -\int d^4x\, \psi^T (i\gamma^{\mu T} \overset{\leftarrow}{\partial}_\mu - m) \star \bar\psi^T$, which is invariant under deformed Poincaré transformations generated by the Noether charges $P^\kappa_\mu$, $M^\kappa_j$, $N^\kappa_j$ given in Eqs. (60), (70), and (73). Those charges close the standard, undeformed Poincaré algebra, as expected in the classical basis. The undeformed charge conjugation operator $C$ sends $S^\kappa_3$ to a different action $S^\kappa_2$ (equivalent up to integration by parts), so C is not a symmetry of the action or of the charges; the same is then true for ordinary $CPT$. A deformed time reversal $T_\kappa$ proposed earlier for the scalar field transforms $S^\kappa_3$ into $S^\kappa_2$ as well, so the combined $CPT_\kappa$ is restored even though $C$ and $T$ are individually broken.

Load-bearing premise

The entire result depends on assuming that the 5D version of noncommutative differentiation on κ-Minkowski spacetime, rather than any of the alternative 4D versions used elsewhere in the literature, is the physically correct way to deform the Dirac equation; with a 4D calculus the conclusions about the action, its charges, and broken charge conjugation would not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The deformed Dirac equation derived from the action coincides with the one previously obtained for energy-independent gamma matrices, so the action provides the missing variational principle for that equation.
The Noether charges form the standard Poincaré algebra, so at the level of one-particle states the deformed theory retains the usual Lorentz structure while shifting the dispersion of antiparticles relative to particles.
Charge conjugation is broken for both the action and the charges, with particle and antiparticle momentum spaces related by the antipode $S$; the breaking grows with momentum and vanishes at rest, so particle and antiparticle masses remain equal.
Ordinary $CPT$ is violated, but the deformed time reversal $T_\kappa$ restores an exact $CPT_\kappa$, giving a concrete, testable distinction between two discrete-symmetry prescriptions.
In processes like $J/\psi \to e^+e^-$ or $J/\psi \to \mu^+\mu^-$, helicity flips of the lepton and antilepton are predicted to differ by an energy deficit $\Delta E = |\mathbf{p}|^2/\kappa$, though the required energy resolution is orders of magnitude beyond current experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

If the incompatibility between Poincaré invariance and charge conjugation is a general feature of Hopf-algebra deformations with curved momentum space, then any κ-model that claims C-invariance must be using a different calculus or basis — a fact that could be tested by comparing dispersion relations for particles and antiparticles across models.
The selection of the ordering $L^\kappa_3$ over $L^\kappa_2$ follows from a consistency requirement (time-independence of charges), which suggests that in deformed first-order theories the operator ordering is not a convention but is fixed by the calculus; the same criterion could be applied to gauge and higher-spin extensions.
Because the two discrete-symmetry prescriptions are physically distinct — one breaking CPT, the other preserving a deformed CPTκ — the framework points to a sharp experiment: compare lepton and antilepton helicity flip thresholds in decays like $J/\psi\to e^+e^-$, which would discriminate the two prescriptions even though the absolute energy shifts are currently too small to measure.

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

Worth a referee, but the referee's main job will be to check the one thing the paper asserts instead of shows: the closure of the Poincaré charge algebra.

What is genuinely new is the explicit action (37), the Noether charges (60), (70), (73), and the symplectic structure (74). The paper is honest that the Dirac equation itself comes from Agostini et al. [29]; the new content is the action and the Noether analysis around it. The discrete symmetry section is also clearly executed: C maps S3 to S2, while P and the undeformed T are symmetries, so CPT is broken in the usual sense, and the deformed T_kappa restores it. That is a clean extension of the scalar-field result. The boost computation in Appendix B is spelled out in real detail for the a-a contribution, and the spinor identities are handled carefully.

The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test. Section III.D states that the charges close the standard Poincaré algebra, but no bracket is actually computed. “Performing the calculation, it can be shown” plus a footnote to [19] is thin, especially given the structure of the charges: the p4/κ and p3+/k3 factors, the antiparticle modes written in terms of S(p), and the asymmetric symplectic brackets in (75). Whether the cancellation in {N_i, N_j} works is the nontrivial content of the paper, and the reader is asked to take it on faith. Appendix B similarly dismisses the mixed boost term (B22) with a reference to the undeformed case; the actual vanishing of that term is not displayed. That is a genuine gap, not a manufactured one.

Two smaller points. The exclusion of L1 and L4 is argued by asserting that boundary terms containing γ^i make the canonical Noether charges time-dependent; the argument is plausible but only sketched, and it determines which action is physical. Also, the paper leans heavily on the companion paper [19] for deformed delta identities and the 5D calculus. That is normal within an ongoing program, but a referee who wants to verify the algebra will need both papers in hand.

None of this sinks the paper. The framework choice is stated openly, the construction is not circular—the action is explicit and the charges are computed rather than assumed—and the phenomenological remarks are explicitly preliminary, so they do not affect the verdict. The central consistency claim is unverified but checkable.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with a specific request to verify the Poincaré algebra closure, or to include at least one non-trivial bracket computation in the text or an appendix.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a κ-deformed action for a free spin-1/2 field, following the authors' previous work on κ-deformed scalar fields. The action, given in Eq. (37), is written in the transposed-ordering form L^κ_3, and the paper derives the associated Noether charges for translations, rotations, and boosts (Eqs. (60), (70), and (73)), using the 5D bicovariant differential calculus and the classical basis of the κ-Poincaré algebra. The central claims are that these charges close the standard Poincaré algebra (Section III.D) and that, while charge conjugation is broken, a deformed time-reversal operation restores a version of CPT symmetry (Section IV.B). The paper also sketches a phenomenological application involving helicity flips in lepton-antilepton pairs.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this is a substantive step for κ-Minkowski field theory: it provides the first explicit κ-deformed Dirac action with computed Noether charges, extends the scalar-field pattern of particle-antiparticle momentum-space asymmetry to fermions, and gives a concrete, in-principle falsifiable prediction in Section V about helicity-flip asymmetries of order |p|^2/κ. The explicit action, mode expansions, and charge expressions are useful concrete data for the field. The main strength is the detailed algebraic machinery in the appendices, but the paper's headline consistency claim—that the charges close the Poincaré algebra—is asserted rather than demonstrated in the main text.

major comments (3)

[Section III.D, Eq. (75)] The claim that the charges (60), (70), and (73) 'close exactly the standard Poincaré algebra' is not verified in the manuscript. The only support is the sentence 'Performing the calculation, it can be shown' and a footnote referring to [19] and the undeformed case. This is not a proof, and the structure of the charges makes the claim nontrivial: the a-mode and b-mode symplectic brackets in (75) carry different momentum-dependent factors (p3_+/κ^3 vs. 1), the antiparticle sector is written in terms of S(p), and the boost charge (73) contains extra imaginary terms proportional to p_j. Whether cancellations occur in brackets such as {N_i,N_j}, {N_i,P_j}, and {M_i,P_j} is exactly the load-bearing content of the paper's central consistency claim. Please display at least the representative bracket computations, or provide a reproducible symbolic-verification file.
[Section III, after Eq. (36)] The exclusion of the two alternative orderings L^κ_1 and L^κ_4 rests on the assertion that 'if such a term is present, the canonical Noether charges are not time-independent.' No calculation is shown for these cases. Since the paper's choice of L^κ_3 as the physical deformed Dirac action depends on this claim, at least one explicit computation of a charge from L^κ_1 or L^κ_4 should be given, or the statement should be softened to a conjecture.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B22)] The vanishing of the mixed boost term N^κ_ba is asserted as 'less obvious than in the case of N^κ_aa' and then declared zero 'on the same grounds' as the undeformed term. But the deformed expression in (B21) contains extra factors p3_+/κ^3 and p3_{S+}/κ^3 and is evaluated at S(p), so the cancellation is not apparent without the explicit γ-matrix identities. Since time-independence of the boost charge requires this cancellation, please display the actual computation or provide a clear reference to a published derivation that covers this deformed case.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (42)-(44)] The notation ω_{S(p)} should be defined explicitly: since S(p) is a four-momentum, it should be stated whether ω_{S(p)} means the positive-energy solution of the mass-shell condition for the momentum S(p), and how it relates to ω_p and to S(ω_p).
[Footnote 6] The footnote 'The calculation is very similar to the undeformed case, (see [19] for further details)' is not an adequate replacement for the actual bracket computation, and [19] is an arXiv preprint whose treatment of fermionic charges is not demonstrated in the present text.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors and inconsistencies, including 'surprsing' in Section III.D, 'preliminarly' and 'succesful' in Section V, and 'transofrmations' in Section III.C; these should be corrected in a revised version.
[Section IV.A.1, Eq. (77)] The statement that (77) is 'up to integration by parts' equivalent to S^κ_2 should be made precise: the surface terms vanish only under specific asymptotic conditions on the fields, and it would be useful to state those conditions explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deformed action and Noether charges are derived from an explicit action and symplectic form, while the deferred Poincaré-algebra check is a verification gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

I find no circular reduction in the paper's derivation chain. The deformed spin-1/2 action is written explicitly in Eq. (37), and the charges (60), (70), and (73) are obtained by inserting the mode expansions into the boundary term of the varied action, with the most involved boost calculation shown in Appendix B. The symplectic form (74) and the Poisson brackets (75) are derived from the presymplectic current, not assumed. The breaking of charge conjugation is obtained by an explicit computation: the C-transformed action is shown in Eq. (77) to equal S2 rather than S3, and the fields' mode expansions are then adjusted accordingly. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is identified with an input by construction. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' earlier framework — the 5D bicovariant calculus and classical basis from [20], and deformed-product identities from [19] — but these are stated framework assumptions, not the target results. The one genuine weakness is Section III.D: the claim that the charges close the standard Poincaré algebra is supported by the sentence 'Performing the calculation, it can be shown' and a footnote referring to [19], without displaying any of the required Poisson brackets. This is an incomplete verification, but it is not circularity: the text does not reduce the closure statement to the definitions or to a prior result of the same paper. Under the hard rule requiring a quoted Eq.-to-Eq. reduction or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central results rest on a chain of imported structures from the authors' own prior program: kappa-Minkowski with the 5D calculus, the classical basis, and the star-product identities. The only new free parameter is the deformation scale kappa, fixed by the framework as the Planck scale. The action choice among four candidates is a modeling decision made for consistency of Noether charges. No new particles or forces are introduced; the deformed time reversal is a redefinition of a discrete symmetry, not a new entity.

free parameters (1)

kappa (deformation scale)
The deformation scale kappa is introduced as the energy scale of noncommutativity, identified with the Planck scale. It is not fitted in this paper; it is a model input from the kappa-Minkowski framework. Listed for completeness as a parameter the physics depends on.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The kappa-Minkowski spacetime commutation relations [x_0, x_i] = i/kappa x_i define the spacetime and its star-product.
This is the foundational assumption of the whole paper, stated in Appendix A. The star product, Weyl map, and deformed momenta all follow from it.
domain assumption The physically relevant symmetry algebra is the kappa-Poincare algebra in the classical basis [25], realized through the 5D bicovariant differential calculus [37,38,20].
The paper explicitly relies on this choice and notes alternative 4D calculi exist in the literature (footnote 5). The form of the derivatives, coproducts, and the deformed Leibniz rule (eq. 34-36) all depend on this choice.
domain assumption The Weyl map and star-product identities from [15,20,19] are correct, including the twisted cyclicity formula and deformed delta identities used in Eqs. (93)-(95).
These identities are imported from previous work and used as computational tools without re-derivation. The deformed time-reversal result depends on them.
standard math The spin-statistics theorem applies, with fermionic fields anticommuting, and the algebra quantization follows from the symplectic form.
Invoked in Sec. II via reference [36], used to set the anticommutators (32) which are needed for the charge algebra.
ad hoc to paper The action S^kappa_3 with the chosen ordering is a valid description of a free spin-1/2 field in kappa-Minkowski, and the discarded orderings L^kappa_1 and L^kappa_4 are not physical because they break time-independence of Noether charges.
The choice of L^kappa_3 among the four candidate actions is justified by an argument that L^kappa_1 and L^kappa_4 contain problematic boundary terms, stated in Sec. III as 'It can be shown'. This is a structural modeling choice that determines the rest of the paper's results.
domain assumption Gamma matrices are undeformed and energy-independent in the deformed theory.
Imported from [29], the paper states 'the gamma matrix structure is unaffected by the deformation' in Sec. III. The mode expansions and charge computations all assume this.

invented entities (2)

The 5-dimensional derivative direction x_4 with momentum component p_4 and derivative \partial_4
purpose: The fifth dimension-like direction from the 5D bicovariant calculus is needed to formulate the deformed derivatives and the deformed particle/antiparticle momentum relation.
This is an auxiliary mathematical structure from the chosen differential calculus. It is not an independent physical entity with its own observable; it is used to define the momentum-space geometry and the deformed plane waves.
Deformed time reversal T_kappa with the momentum-space conjugation operation denoted by double-dagger independent evidence
purpose: A modified definition of time reversal, applied to the field as T_kappa^{-1} psi(t,x) T_kappa = eta_T T psi^double-dagger(-t,x), where the double-dagger maps plane waves e^{-ipx} to e^{iS(p)x}. It is introduced to restore CPT symmetry.
This is a proposed definition rather than a new physical particle or field. It has a falsifiable consequence: in this prescription T and C are individually broken while combined CPT is exact, which is empirically distinct from the alternative prescription in which T is unbroken and CPT is broken. However, the paper does not offer a quantitative observable capable of distinguishing them at current precision; the suggested J/psi decay test is declared experimentally inaccessible now.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of \kappa-deformed spin-1/2 field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PB2SLCU6

@misc{pith2026250718336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: \kappa-deformed spin-1/2 field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PB2SLCU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18336}
}

abstract

In this paper, we investigate the Poincar\'e and discrete symmetries of a $\kappa$-deformed spin-$\tfrac12$ field, extending recent results obtained for scalar fields. We construct an action that is Poincar\'e invariant and analyze its consequences within the deformed framework. Our results confirm the findings of our recent analysis of the $\kappa$-deformed scalar field, where we established that there is no action invariant under both Poincar\'e symmetry and charge conjugation in the $\kappa$-deformed case, while $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetry can be restored through a natural deformation of time reversal. Furthermore, we present an explicit calculation of the Noether charges associated with Poincar\'e symmetry and show that their algebra closes, demonstrating the internal consistency of the theory.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[29]

Scalar field theory on kappa-Minkowski spacetime and translation and Lorentz invariance

S. Meljanac and A. Samsarov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26(2011), 1439-1468 doi:10.1142/S0217751X11051536 [arXiv:1007.3943 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[19]

Quantum Gravity Phenomenology and Particle Physics

A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman and W. Wislicki, “Quantum Gravity Phenomenology and Particle Physics,” [arXiv:2310.05080 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

Notice that the rotation charges are time-independent, which proves the rotational invariance of the theory

Rotation charge Following the undeformed case, we postulate δMkψT =ϵ ijk xi⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT + 1 4ψTγjTγiT (68) To compute the charge we plug this variation into the first term of (67) and integrate over space, which gives us the following expression for the rotation charge: Mk κ =− Z d3x δMkψT ⋆Π 0 =− Z d3xϵijk xi⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT ⋆Π 0 + 1 4ψTγjTγiT ⋆Π 0 =−i Z d3x d...

work page
[2]

minimally deformed

Boost charge In the case of boosts, we have the transformation δNjψT = −x0⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT +xj⋆ κ ∆+ ∂0ψT + 1 2ψTγjTγ0T (71) Plugging into (67), we obtain the following expression for the boost charge: Nj κ =i Z d3x d3pp2ωp d3qp2ωqq4/κx[0⋆ κ ∆+ ∂j] h uT s (p)as pe−ipx +v T s (−S(p))b†s pe−iS(p)x i ⋆ h u∗ s′(q)a†s′ q e−iS(q)x +v∗ s′(−S(q))bs′ qe−iqx i 15 − i 2 ...

work page
[3]

Charge conjugation We define the action of charge conjugation on the deformed Dirac field as C†ψ(t,x)C=η CC ¯ψT (t,x)C † ¯ψ(t,x)C=η ∗ CψT (t,x)C† (76) whereη C is an overall phase we will subsequently ignore andCis a fixed matrix, which we take to be the standard choiceC=iγ 2γ0. The above definition should be understood off- shell, since, as we will now s...

work page
[4]

Parity Following the same approach as forC, we define the action ofPin the standard way P†ψ(t,x)P=η PPψ(t,−x)P † ¯ψ(t,x)P=η ∗ P ¯ψ(t,−x)P† (82) whereP=γ 0. We find that the mechanism ofP-symmetry is not affected by the deforma- tion, and the action is easily shown to be invariant: P−1Sκ 3P= Z dtd3xψT (t,−x)P†(iγµT← −∂µ−m)⋆P ¯ψT (t,−x) = Z dtd3xψT (t,−x)(i...

work page
[5]

Bridging high and lowenergies in search of quantumgravity(BridgeQG)

Time reversal - undeformed Lastly, we consider the standard time reversal transformation, which we define to act on the field as T†ψ(t,x)T=η TTψ(−t,x)T † ¯ψ(t,x)T=η ∗ T ¯ψ(−t,x)T†,(84) T†iT=−i(85) 19 where we takeT=−γ 1γ3. Much like in the case of parity, the symmetries of the action and charges are not affected by the deformation under this prescription,...

work page 2019
[6]

Introduction to Effective Field Theory,

C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2020,

work page 2020

Show all 53 references

[7]

Relativity in space-times with short distance structure governed by an observer independent (Planckian) length scale,

G. Amelino-Camelia, “Relativity in space-times with short distance structure governed by an observer independent (Planckian) length scale,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11(2002), 35-60 [arXiv:gr-qc/0012051 [gr-qc]]

2002 arXiv
[8]

Doubly special relativity,

G. Amelino-Camelia, “Doubly special relativity,” Nature418(2002), 34-35 doi:10.1038/418034a [arXiv:gr-qc/0207049 [gr-qc]]

2002 arXiv
[9]

Deformations of Spacetime Symmetries: Gravity, Group-Valued Momenta, and Non-Commutative Fields,

M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Deformations of Spacetime Symmetries: Gravity, Group-Valued Momenta, and Non-Commutative Fields,” 2021, 33

2021
[10]

Q deformation of Poincaré algebra,

J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg, A. Nowicki and V. N. Tolstoi, “Q deformation of Poincaré algebra,” Phys. Lett. B264(1991), 331-338

1991
[11]

New quantum Poincaré algebra and k deformed field theory,

J. Lukierski, A. Nowicki and H. Ruegg, “New quantum Poincaré algebra and k deformed field theory,” Phys. Lett. B293(1992), 344-352

1992
[12]

Classical quantum mechanics of free kappa relativistic systems,

J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg and W. J. Zakrzewski, “Classical quantum mechanics of free kappa relativistic systems,” Annals Phys.243(1995), 90-116 [arXiv:hep-th/9312153 [hep-th]]

1995 arXiv
[13]

Bicrossproduct structure of kappa Poincaré group and noncommuta- tive geometry,

S. Majid and H. Ruegg, “Bicrossproduct structure of kappa Poincaré group and noncommuta- tive geometry,” Phys. Lett. B334(1994), 348-354 [arXiv:hep-th/9405107 [hep-th]]

1994 arXiv
[14]

De sitter space as an arena for doubly special relativity,

J. Kowalski-Glikman, “De sitter space as an arena for doubly special relativity,” Phys. Lett. B 547(2002), 291-296 [arXiv:hep-th/0207279 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[15]

Doubly special relativity and de Sitter space,

J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Doubly special relativity and de Sitter space,” Class. Quant. Grav.20(2003), 4799-4816 [arXiv:hep-th/0304101 [hep-th]]

2003 arXiv
[16]

Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel.16(2013), 5 doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-5 [arXiv:0806.0339 [gr-qc]]

2013 arXiv
[17]

Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review,

A. Addazi, J. Alvarez-Muniz, R. Alves Batista, G. Amelino-Camelia, V. Antonelli, M. Arzano, M. Asorey, J. L. Atteia, S. Bahamonde and F. Bajardi,et al.“Quantum gravity phenomenology at the dawn of the multi-messenger era—A review,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125(2022), 103948 [arX...

2022 arXiv
[18]

White Pa- per and Roadmap for Quantum Gravity Phenomenology in the Multi-Messenger Era,

R. Alves Batista, G. Amelino-Camelia, D. Boncioli, J. M. Carmona, A. di Matteo, G. Gu- bitosi, I. Lobo, N. E. Mavromatos, C. Pfeifer and D. Rubiera-Garcia,et al.“White Pa- per and Roadmap for Quantum Gravity Phenomenology in the Multi-Messenger Era,” [arXiv:2312.00409 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[20]

κ-deformed complex fields and discrete symmetries,

M. Arzano, A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman, G. Rosati and J. Unger, “κ-deformed complex fields and discrete symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.10, 106015 [arXiv:2011.09188 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[21]

κ-deformed complex scalar field: Con- served charges, symmetries, and their impact on physical observables,

A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman and W. Wislicki, “κ-deformed complex scalar field: Con- served charges, symmetries, and their impact on physical observables,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.10, 105004 [arXiv:2201.10191 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Deformation-induced CPT violation in 34 entangled pairs of neutral kaons,

A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman and W. Wislicki, “Deformation-induced CPT violation in 34 entangled pairs of neutral kaons,” Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.1, 016011 [arXiv:2404.03600 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Complex scalar field inκ-Minkowski noncommutative spacetime,

T. Adach, “Complex scalar field inκ-Minkowski noncommutative spacetime,” [arXiv:2505.12115 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[24]

Asymmetry in momentum space: restoring CPT invariance ofκ-field theory,

T. Adach, A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman and G. Rosati, “Asymmetry in momentum space: restoring CPT invariance ofκ-field theory,” [arXiv:2507.16187 [hep-th]]
[25]

Field theory on kappa-Minkowski space re- visited: Noether charges and breaking of Lorentz symmetry,

L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Field theory on kappa-Minkowski space re- visited: Noether charges and breaking of Lorentz symmetry,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23(2008), 2687-2718 [arXiv:0706.3658 [hep-th]]

2008 arXiv
[26]

Local D = 4 field theory on kappa de- formed Minkowski space,

P. Kosinski, J. Lukierski and P. Maslanka, “Local D = 4 field theory on kappa de- formed Minkowski space,” Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 025004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.025004 [arXiv:hep-th/9902037 [hep-th]]

2000 arXiv
[27]

Coproduct and star product in field theo- ries on Lie algebra noncommutative space-times,

G. Amelino-Camelia and M. Arzano, “Coproduct and star product in field theo- ries on Lie algebra noncommutative space-times,” Phys. Rev. D65(2002), 084044 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.084044 [arXiv:hep-th/0105120 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[28]

Hopf algebra description of noncommuta- tive space-time symmetries,

A. Agostini, G. Amelino-Camelia and F. D’Andrea, “Hopf algebra description of noncommuta- tive space-time symmetries,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19(2004), 5187-5220 [arXiv:hep-th/0306013 [hep-th]]

2004 arXiv
[30]

The Classical basis for kappa deformed Poincare (super)algebra and the second kappa deformed supersymmetric Casimir,

P. Kosinski, J. Lukierski, P. Maslanka and J. Sobczyk, “The Classical basis for kappa deformed Poincare (super)algebra and the second kappa deformed supersymmetric Casimir,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A10(1995), 2599-2606 [arXiv:hep-th/9412114 [hep-th]]

1995 arXiv
[31]

A group theoretic description of theκ-Poincaré Hopf algebra,

M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “A group theoretic description of theκ-Poincaré Hopf algebra,” Phys. Lett. B835(2022), 137535 [arXiv:2204.09394 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Deformed discrete symmetries,

M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Deformed discrete symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B760 (2016), 69-73 [arXiv:1605.01181 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[33]

From kappa Poincaré algebra to kappa Lorentz quasi- group: A Deformation of relativistic symmetry,

J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg and W. Ruhl, “From kappa Poincaré algebra to kappa Lorentz quasi- group: A Deformation of relativistic symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B313(1993), 357-366

1993
[34]

Dirac spinors for doubly special relativity and kappa Minkowski noncummutative space-time,

A. Agostini, G. Amelino-Camelia and M. Arzano, “Dirac spinors for doubly special relativity and kappa Minkowski noncummutative space-time,” Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004), 2179-2202 35 [arXiv:gr-qc/0207003 [gr-qc]]

2004 arXiv
[35]

κ-deformed Dirac Equation,

E. Harikumar and M. Sivakumar, “κ-deformed Dirac Equation,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A26(2011), 1103-1115 [arXiv:0910.5778 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[36]

On theκ-Dirac Oscillator revisited,

F. M. Andrade, E. O. Silva, M. M. Ferreira and E. C. Rodrigues, “On theκ-Dirac Oscillator revisited,” Phys. Lett. B731(2014), 327-330 [arXiv:1312.2973 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[37]

GeometrizingtheKlein–GordonandDiracequations in doubly special relativity,

S.A.Franchino-ViñasandJ.J.Relancio, “GeometrizingtheKlein–GordonandDiracequations in doubly special relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav.40(2023) no.5, 054001 [arXiv:2203.12286 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[38]

κ-deformed scalar field,

A. Bevilacqua, “κ-deformed scalar field,” [arXiv:2311.00014 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[39]

Covariant phase space with boundaries,

D. Harlow and J. Q. Wu, “Covariant phase space with boundaries,” JHEP10(2020), 146 [arXiv:1906.08616 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Symplectic geometry and Noether charges for Hopf algebra space-time symmetries,

M. Arzano and A. Marciano, “Symplectic geometry and Noether charges for Hopf algebra space-time symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 081701 [arXiv:hep-th/0701268 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[41]

Quantum field theory,

M. Srednicki, “Quantum field theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2007,

2007
[42]

Noncommutative differential calculus on the kappa Minkowski space,

A. Sitarz, “Noncommutative differential calculus on the kappa Minkowski space,” Phys. Lett. B349(1995), 42-48 [arXiv:hep-th/9409014 [hep-th]]

1995 arXiv
[43]

Relativistic and Newtonian kappa space-times,

J. A. de Azcarraga and J. C. Perez Bueno, “Relativistic and Newtonian kappa space-times,” J. Math. Phys.36(1995), 6879-6896 [arXiv:q-alg/9505004 [math.QA]]

1995 arXiv
[44]

A short introduction toκ-deformation,

J. Kowalski-Glikman, “A short introduction toκ-deformation,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) no.35, 1730026 [arXiv:1711.00665 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[45]

Classification of differential calculi onUq(b+), classical limits, and duality

R. Oeckl, “Classification of differential calculi onUq(b+), classical limits, and duality” J. Math. Phys.40(1999) 3588

1999
[46]

Covariant four dimensional differential calculus inκ-Minkowski,

G. Rosati, “Covariant four dimensional differential calculus inκ-Minkowski,” Phys. Lett. B 828(2022), 137016 [arXiv:2111.12756 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[47]

Generalizing the Noether theorem for Hopf-algebra spacetime symmetries,

A. Agostini, G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, A. Marciano and R. A. Tacchi, “Generalizing the Noether theorem for Hopf-algebra spacetime symmetries,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A22(2007), 1779-1786 [arXiv:hep-th/0607221 [hep-th]]

2007 arXiv
[48]

Noncommutative space-time of doubly special relativity theories,

J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Noncommutative space-time of doubly special relativity theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12(2003), 299-316 [arXiv:hep-th/0204245 [hep-th]]

2003 arXiv
[49]

Lorentz invariant field theory on kappa- Minkowski space,

M. Arzano, J. Kowalski-Glikman and A. Walkus, “Lorentz invariant field theory on kappa- Minkowski space,” Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010), 025012 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/2/025012 36 [arXiv:0908.1974 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[50]

Generalized Weyl systems and kappa Minkowski space,

A. Agostini, F. Lizzi and A. Zampini, “Generalized Weyl systems and kappa Minkowski space,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A17(2002), 2105-2126 [arXiv:hep-th/0209174 [hep-th]]

2002 arXiv
[51]

Doubly special relativistic spacetime picture and the phenomenology of Planck-scale-modified time dilation,

G. Amelino-Camelia, G. Gubitosi, P. Pellecchia, M. Refuto and G. Rosati, “Doubly special relativistic spacetime picture and the phenomenology of Planck-scale-modified time dilation,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.10, 106006 [arXiv:2506.08111 [gr-qc]]

2025
[52]

Measurement ofthe SMCmuon beam polarization using the asymmetry in the elastic scattering off polarized electrons,

SpinMuon Collaboration, D. Adams et. al., “Measurement ofthe SMCmuon beam polarization using the asymmetry in the elastic scattering off polarized electrons,” Nucl. Instr. Meth. A443 (2000), 1-19, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)01017-7

2000 doi
[53]

Adeva et al., ”Measurement of the polarization of a high-energy muon beam“, Nucl

Spin Muon Collaboration, B. Adeva et al., ”Measurement of the polarization of a high-energy muon beam“, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A343(1994) 363-373, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(94)90213-5

1994 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Scalar field theory on kappa-Minkowski spacetime and translation and Lorentz invariance

S. Meljanac and A. Samsarov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26(2011), 1439-1468 doi:10.1142/S0217751X11051536 [arXiv:1007.3943 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[2] [19]

Quantum Gravity Phenomenology and Particle Physics

A. Bevilacqua, J. Kowalski-Glikman and W. Wislicki, “Quantum Gravity Phenomenology and Particle Physics,” [arXiv:2310.05080 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [1]

Notice that the rotation charges are time-independent, which proves the rotational invariance of the theory

Rotation charge Following the undeformed case, we postulate δMkψT =ϵ ijk xi⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT + 1 4ψTγjTγiT (68) To compute the charge we plug this variation into the first term of (67) and integrate over space, which gives us the following expression for the rotation charge: Mk κ =− Z d3x δMkψT ⋆Π 0 =− Z d3xϵijk xi⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT ⋆Π 0 + 1 4ψTγjTγiT ⋆Π 0 =−i Z d3x d...

work page

[4] [2]

minimally deformed

Boost charge In the case of boosts, we have the transformation δNjψT = −x0⋆ κ ∆+ ∂jψT +xj⋆ κ ∆+ ∂0ψT + 1 2ψTγjTγ0T (71) Plugging into (67), we obtain the following expression for the boost charge: Nj κ =i Z d3x d3pp2ωp d3qp2ωqq4/κx[0⋆ κ ∆+ ∂j] h uT s (p)as pe−ipx +v T s (−S(p))b†s pe−iS(p)x i ⋆ h u∗ s′(q)a†s′ q e−iS(q)x +v∗ s′(−S(q))bs′ qe−iqx i 15 − i 2 ...

work page

[5] [3]

Charge conjugation We define the action of charge conjugation on the deformed Dirac field as C†ψ(t,x)C=η CC ¯ψT (t,x)C † ¯ψ(t,x)C=η ∗ CψT (t,x)C† (76) whereη C is an overall phase we will subsequently ignore andCis a fixed matrix, which we take to be the standard choiceC=iγ 2γ0. The above definition should be understood off- shell, since, as we will now s...

work page

[6] [4]

Parity Following the same approach as forC, we define the action ofPin the standard way P†ψ(t,x)P=η PPψ(t,−x)P † ¯ψ(t,x)P=η ∗ P ¯ψ(t,−x)P† (82) whereP=γ 0. We find that the mechanism ofP-symmetry is not affected by the deforma- tion, and the action is easily shown to be invariant: P−1Sκ 3P= Z dtd3xψT (t,−x)P†(iγµT← −∂µ−m)⋆P ¯ψT (t,−x) = Z dtd3xψT (t,−x)(i...

work page

[7] [5]

Bridging high and lowenergies in search of quantumgravity(BridgeQG)

Time reversal - undeformed Lastly, we consider the standard time reversal transformation, which we define to act on the field as T†ψ(t,x)T=η TTψ(−t,x)T † ¯ψ(t,x)T=η ∗ T ¯ψ(−t,x)T†,(84) T†iT=−i(85) 19 where we takeT=−γ 1γ3. Much like in the case of parity, the symmetries of the action and charges are not affected by the deformation under this prescription,...

work page 2019

[8] [6]

Introduction to Effective Field Theory,

C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2020,

work page 2020