Generalized Uncertainty Principle as a Mechanism for CP Violation

Ezequiel Valero; Hector Gisbert; Victor Ilisie

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Generalized Uncertainty Principle as a Mechanism for CP Violation

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 Generalized Uncertainty Principle can turn QED's topological CP-protected density into a dynamical source of an electron electric dipole moment, with current data implying $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim 40$ TeV.

desk verdict The algebraic lift of topological protection is neat and likely correct, but the 40 TeV bound rests on an unshown one-loop estimate that is actually two-loop, so the paper's headline number is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20727 v1 pith:KHLQ47N6 submitted 2025-07-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Hector Gisbert , Victor Ilisie , Ezequiel Valero This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords generalizeduncertaintyprincipleminimallengthCPviolationelectricdipolemomentQEDthetatermtopologicalhigher-derivativeoperatorsquantumgravityphenomenology

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 claims that the Generalized Uncertainty Principle (GUP), implemented through the effective substitution $\partial_\mu\to\partial_\mu(1-\beta\Box)$, promotes the topological QED density $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ into the dynamical, CP-odd operator $\partial^\lambda F_{\mu\nu}\,\partial_\lambda\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$. Because this operator is no longer a total derivative, it contributes to physical amplitudes, and the paper argues that it generates a nonzero electron electric dipole moment. Using the 2023 upper bound on the electron EDM, the paper derives $\theta\beta\lesssim 7\times10^{-4}\ \mathrm{TeV}^{-2}$, which for $\theta\sim\mathcal O(1)$ translates to $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim 40\ \mathrm{TeV}$. If the mechanism is real, precision low-energy CP-violation measurements become a window onto minimal-length quantum gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GUP derivative substitution $\partial_\mu\to\partial_\mu(1-\beta\Box)$ applied to the field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ and its dual. Expanding to first order in $\beta$ and applying the product rule identity $(\Box F_{\mu\nu})\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}+F_{\mu\nu}(\Box\widetilde F^{\mu\nu})=\Box(F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu})-2(\partial_\lambda F_{\mu\nu})(\partial^\lambda\widetilde F^{\mu\nu})$, the paper isolates the non-total-derivative piece $\delta\mathcal L_{\rm CPV}=2\theta\beta\,\partial^\lambda F_{\mu\nu}\,\partial_\lambda\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$. That operator, together with the estimated mixing formula for the induced fermion EDM, carries the argument from a formal deformation to an experimentally testable bound.

What would settle it

Carry out an explicit Feynman-diagram calculation of the electron EDM generated by the operator (8) at its lowest nonvanishing order, counting photons and fermion lines in Figure 1; if the amplitude is zero, or if its magnitude departs from $e^3/(4\pi)^2\,\theta\beta\,m_e\log(\mu_{\rm high}^2/\mu_{\rm low}^2)$ by orders of magnitude, the paper's $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim 40$ TeV limit is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that GUP corrections break the topological protection of the QED $\theta$ term. In ordinary QED, $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ is a total derivative, so it is invisible to classical dynamics and perturbative amplitudes. Under the GUP substitution, the leading correction is $2\theta\beta\,\partial^\lambda F_{\mu\nu}\,\partial_\lambda\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ (up to total derivatives), which cannot be written as the divergence of a local current; it is C-even, P-odd, T-odd, and hence CP-odd. The paper claims this operator mixes into the fermion EDM operator, producing $d_\psi\sim e^3/(4\pi)^2\,\theta\beta\,m_\psi\log(\mu_{\rm high}^2/\mu_{\rm low}^2)$, and uses the measured electron EDM bound to place a lower limit on the GUP scale.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical bound rests on Eq. (10), a dimensional-analysis estimate, stated without derivation, of how strongly the new photon interaction induces an electron EDM; if that loop estimate is wrong, the quoted $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}>40$ TeV bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The QED $\theta$ term becomes observable: a nonzero electron EDM is predicted at a level controlled by the product $\theta\beta$, so EDM experiments directly constrain the GUP scale.
For natural $\theta\sim\mathcal O(1)$, the bound $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim40$ TeV is competitive with existing limits from 1S-2S hydrogen spectroscopy ($\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim10$ TeV), making low-energy CP tests a complementary quantum-gravity probe.
An order-of-magnitude improvement in eEDM sensitivity would strengthen the GUP-scale limit correspondingly, since $d_e\propto\beta\propto\Lambda_{\rm GUP}^{-2}$.
Applied to the QCD topological density $G^a_{\mu\nu}\widetilde G^{a\mu\nu}$, the same mechanism would induce hadronic and nucleon EDMs; the paper quotes $\Lambda_{\rm GUP}\gtrsim0.1$ TeV from an indirect charm-quark EDM limit.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the induced EDM grows linearly with fermion mass, future muon or tau EDM searches would probe the same $\theta\beta$ with enhanced sensitivity, even though current muon limits are much weaker than the electron bound.
The mechanism is not tied to the particular substitution used here: any minimal-length scheme that replaces $\partial_\mu$ by a higher-derivative operator will generically turn topological CP-odd densities into dynamical operators, so the same low-energy EDM route applies to other quantum-gravity-inspired deformations.
An explicit evaluation of the diagram shown in the paper is still needed: the graph drawn has three photon-fermion vertices and an open fermion line, so its true loop order may be two rather than one, which would alter the numerical factor in the EDM estimate and hence the derived scale.

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 knowing before you read it: the paper's core algebraic observation is clean and likely correct, but the single quantitative handle (Λ_GUP > 40 TeV) hangs entirely on Eq. (10), a loop estimate that is asserted, not computed, and whose stated one-loop character does not survive counting. I agree with the stress-test note here. In Fig. 1, the four-photon operator must feed three photon legs into the open fermion line to make a dipole with one external photon. Counting vertices: one four-photon insertion plus three photon-fermion vertices gives four vertices; internal lines are three photons and two fermion propagators, so L = 5 - 4 + 1 = 2 independent loops. That does not prove the effect is zero, but it means the claimed single (4π)^2 suppression is unjustified and the derived θβ bound is not supported. The paper would need a genuine diagrammatic or mixing calculation before the JILA constraint can be translated into Λ_GUP > 40 TeV.

What the paper does well: the maneuver from (2) to (8) is neat—deforming F and ⁱF with (1−β□), expanding, using the product rule, and dropping total derivatives leaves the genuinely non-topological ∂ᵏF∂ₖⁱF. The C, P, T bookkeeping is careful, and the argument that GUP can lift topological protection is a genuinely new idea compared with the cited literature. The authors also state their approximations (log = 1, θ ~ O(1)) instead of burying them.

The soft spots beyond Eq. (10): calling this an ab initio source of CP violation oversells it, because the effect is proportional to an arbitrary θ that the GUP deformation does not generate; if θ = 0, nothing happens. The substitution (2) is imported from the authors' own earlier paper [31] without independent derivation—that is not disqualifying, but it means the whole chain rests on an assumption the reader cannot check from this paper alone. The comparison with spectroscopy bounds is fair and appropriately modest.

This is a worthwhile Letters-style observation, not a finished phenomenological result. I would send it to a serious referee, mainly to force a real loop calculation; with that done, the paper could be publishable. As it stands, I would not cite the 40 TeV number, but I might use the operator-identity part.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the Generalized Uncertainty Principle, implemented through the derivative substitution ∂_μ → ∂_μ(1−β□), deforms the QED θ-term F_{μν} \tilde F^{μν} into the dimension-six operator ∂^λ F_{μν} ∂_λ \tilde F^{μν}. The authors argue that this operator is no longer topological, that it mixes at one loop into the fermion electric dipole operator, and that the JILA electron EDM bound implies θβ ≲ 7×10^{-4} TeV^{-2}, i.e. Λ_GUP ≳ 40 TeV for θ ∼ O(1). The paper is organized as a Letter: formal deformation, EDM estimate, and phenomenological bound.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism worked, the paper would establish a genuinely new low-energy probe of minimal-length quantum gravity, with a concrete falsifiable prediction for the electron EDM. The algebraic steps in Eqs. (5)–(8) are clearly presented, and the discrete symmetry analysis of the deformed operator is correct. However, the central physical claim fails: the operator in Eq. (8) is itself a total derivative, so the GUP deformation does not lift the topological protection. The quantitative EDM estimate is also asserted without derivation. The paper is therefore best read as a cautionary demonstration that naive derivative substitutions in topological densities can leave the topological character intact.

major comments (3)

[GUP-induced deformation of the topological term, Eq. (8)] The central claim after Eq. (8) that this operator "can no longer be written as the divergence of a local current" is incorrect. Writing O = ∂λFμν∂λ\tilde Fμν, one has O = ∂λ(Fμν∂λ\tilde Fμν) − Fμν□\tilde Fμν. With Fμν = ∂μAν − ∂νAμ and \tilde Fμν = ε^{μνρσ}∂ρAσ, the second term is Fμν□\tilde Fμν = 2∂μ(Aν ε^{μνρσ}∂ρ□Aσ), because ε^{μνρσ}∂μ∂ρ(□Aσ)=0. Hence O is a total derivative, and δL_CPV in Eq. (8) is a surface term. Consequently the GUP deformation does not break the topological character of the θ-term, the operator cannot contribute to physical amplitudes, and the EDM formula (10) and the bounds (13)–(14) do not follow.
[Electric dipole moments from GUP, Eq. (10)] Even if the operator in Eq. (8) were dynamical, the paper does not provide a derivation of Eq. (10). No Feynman integral, anomalous-dimension matrix element, or matching computation is shown, and the loop order of Fig. 1 is not specified; the caption asserts a one-loop result without a loop-momentum counting. Since the quoted bound Λ_GUP ≳ 40 TeV is obtained entirely by inserting Eq. (10) into the JILA limit, the quantitative conclusion is unsupported.
[Conclusions] The phrase "ab initio source of CP violation" is an overstatement: the coefficient θ of the original θ-term is an arbitrary input, and the GUP deformation merely makes this pre-existing parameter physical. The mechanism therefore does not explain the origin of CP violation; at most it predicts θβ-dependent observables once θ is assumed nonzero.

minor comments (4)

[GUP in Quantum Field Theory, text after Eq. (6)] There is a typo: "Althought" should be "Although" after Eq. (6).
[Figure 1] Figure 1 should show the explicit momentum routing and state the order in e and β at which the EDM is generated; as drawn, the loop count is ambiguous.
[Eq. (2)] The derivative substitution (2) is taken from Ref. [31] without discussion of scheme dependence or an independent derivation; a sentence justifying this EFT implementation would help.
[Eq. (12) and Eq. (13)] The bound (13) uses Eq. (12) with the logarithmic factor set to unity; the authors should state whether this is a conservative choice and how the bound changes if the log is included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No structural circularity: the GUP-induced CP-odd operator follows by algebra from the substituted derivative, and the JILA bound is used as an external constraint rather than an input; the main weakness (an unproven one-loop estimate in Eq. 10) is a computation gap, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: adopt the GUP substitution ∂_μ → ∂_μ(1 − β□) (Eq. 2), apply it to F_μν, expand the θ F tilde F term to leading order in β, and obtain δL_CPV = 2 θβ ∂^λ F_μν ∂_λ tilde F^μν (Eq. 8). This algebra in Eqs. (4)-(8) is self-contained and does not use the EDM result as an input. The substitution in Eq. (2) is cited to [29–31]; [31] is the authors' own prior work, but [29] and [30] are independent external references, and the substitution is not justified by appeal to the paper's own target conclusion. The EDM bound is obtained by combining the experimental JILA limit (Eq. 11) with the estimate in Eq. (10); the measured eEDM is used to constrain θβ, not to fit the operator coefficient, so this is a constraint rather than a circular prediction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The assumption θ ∼ O(1) is stated as an assumption and is not derived from the GUP, so it is an input rather than a circularly justified claim. The principal weakness is that Eq. (10) is presented as a one-loop mixing estimate without a Feynman integral or anomalous-dimension calculation, and the graph in Fig. 1 appears to contain at least two loops; this is a missing-support/correctness concern, not a circularity, because nothing in Eq. (10) is fitted to or defined in terms of the EDM bound it is used to constrain. Accordingly, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the score reflects only the presence of a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claim rests on a modeling choice for the GUP (Eq. 2), an assumed theta angle of order one, and an asserted, uncomputed EDM mixing formula (Eq. 10). The free parameters theta, beta, the log factor, and the O(1) prefactor all directly enter the quoted bound.

free parameters (4)

theta = assumed O(1)
Dimensionless CP-violating coupling of the QED theta term; the effect is proportional to theta, and the quoted Lambda_GUP bound assumes theta ~ O(1).
beta (or Lambda_GUP) = constrained: theta beta < 7e-4 TeV^-2
GUP parameter from Eq. (1), treated as a free scale in the EFT; the paper converts the eEDM bound into a constraint on beta.
Logarithmic enhancement log(mu_high^2/mu_low^2) = set to 1
The RG running factor in Eq. (10) is set to 1 as a conservative estimate; this is a hand-set choice that affects the numerical bound.
O(1) prefactor in Eq. (10) = unspecified, order one
The EDM estimate has an uncomputed O(1) coefficient, assumed to be one; the bound depends on this assumption.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The GUP substitution partial_mu -> partial_mu (1 - beta box), Eq. (2), is the correct EFT implementation of the GUP.
Adopted from refs [29-31], including the authors' own [31], without a derivation from a specific quantum gravity model; other GUP representations exist and would change the resulting operator.
domain assumption A nonzero QED theta term with theta ~ O(1) is present in the Lagrangian.
The CP violation is proportional to theta; the paper does not predict theta or explain why it should be nonzero or natural, it only assumes it is not suppressed.
ad hoc to paper The one-loop mixing formula Eq. (10) correctly gives the EDM induced by the four-photon operator.
The central numerical estimate is asserted rather than derived; no loop integral or anomalous dimension matrix is shown, and the stated loop order is questionable.
standard math F_mu nu tilde F^mu nu is a total derivative whose spacetime integral vanishes for fields vanishing at infinity.
Standard property of the Chern-Simons current, used in Eq. (3) to argue the undeformed theta term is unobservable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Uncertainty Principle as a Mechanism for CP Violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHLQ47N6

@misc{pith2026250720727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Uncertainty Principle as a Mechanism for CP Violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHLQ47N6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20727}
}

abstract

Within quantum electrodynamics we show that the Generalized Uncertainty Principle induces higher-derivative corrections that promote the topological invariant $F_{\mu\nu}\,\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ to the dynamical, non-topological operator $\partial^\lambda F_{\mu\nu}\,\partial_\lambda \widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$. We explore the resulting phenomenology, focusing on the generation of electric dipole moments. Our findings open a new low-energy window for testing quantum-gravity scenarios through precision measurements of charge-parity violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20727 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[31]

Valero, H

E. Valero, H. Gisbert, and V. Ilisie, (2025), arXiv:2505.06598 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[1]

C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957)

1957
[2]

A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967)

1967
[3]

R. L. Garwin, L. M. Lederman, and M. Weinrich, Phys. Rev. 105, 1415 (1957)

work page 1957
[4]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

1973
[5]

R. C. Casella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1128 (1968)

work page 1968
[6]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 657 (1976)

work page 1976
[7]

J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964)

1964

Show all 43 references

[8]

Cheung, Y.-n

K. Cheung, Y.-n. Mao, S. Moretti, and R. Zhang, The European Physical Journal C 85, 700 (2025)

2025
[9]

I. Y. Kobsarev, L. B. Okun, and Y. B. Zeldovich, Phys. Lett. B 50, 340 (1974)

1974
[10]

Baluni, Phys

V. Baluni, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2227 (1979)

1979
[11]

M. B. Gavela, P. Hern´ andez, J. Orloff, and O. P` ene, Mod- ern Physics Letters A 9, 795 (1994)

1994
[12]

Chupp, P

T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019), arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]

2019 arXiv
[13]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys. 318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231

2005 arXiv
[14]

Andreev et al

V. Andreev et al. (ACME), Nature 562, 355 (2018)

2018
[15]

M. V. Romalis, W. C. Griffith, and E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2505 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0012001

2001 arXiv
[16]

Alarcon et al

R. Alarcon et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Yang, M.-H

X. Yang, M.-H. Guo, J.-L. Yang, Q.-H. Li, and T.-F. Feng, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 243 (2025), arXiv:2502.11409 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[18]

V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and Y. V. Stad- nik, Phys. Rev. D 102, 035001 (2020)

2020
[19]

Banno, J

T. Banno, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, and N. Osamura, JHEP 02, 195, arXiv:2311.07817 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[20]

Balasubramanian, S

V. Balasubramanian, S. Das, and E. C. Vagenas, Annals Phys. 360, 1 (2015), arXiv:1404.3962 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Basilakos, S

S. Basilakos, S. Das, and E. C. Vagenas, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2010 (09), 027–027

2010
[22]

Bosso, S

P. Bosso, S. Das, and V. Todorinov, Annals Phys. 422, 168319 (2020), arXiv:2005.03771 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Buoninfante, G

L. Buoninfante, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and F. Scardigli, Physics Letters B 824, 136818 (2022)

2022
[24]

L. N. Chang, Z. Lewis, D. Minic, and T. Takeuchi, Ad- vances in High Energy Physics 2011, 1–30 (2011)

2011
[25]

Hossenfelder, Physical Review D 73, 10.1103/phys- revd.73.105013 (2006)

S. Hossenfelder, Physical Review D 73, 10.1103/phys- revd.73.105013 (2006)

2006 doi
[26]

Hossenfelder, Living Reviews in Relativity 16, 10.12942/lrr-2013-2 (2013)

S. Hossenfelder, Living Reviews in Relativity 16, 10.12942/lrr-2013-2 (2013)

2013 doi
[27]

Nozari and A

K. Nozari and A. Etemadi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 104029 (2012), arXiv:1205.0158 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[28]

Vagnozzi, R

S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y.-D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh, P. S. Joshi, K. Jusufi, M. Khodadi, R. K. Walia, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and C. Bambi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 40, 165007 (2023)

2023
[29]

Kober, Phys

M. Kober, Phys. Rev. D 82, 085017 (2010), arXiv:1008.0154 [physics.gen-ph]

2010 arXiv
[30]

Todorinov, P

V. Todorinov, P. Bosso, and S. Das, Annals Phys. 405, 92 (2019), arXiv:1810.11761 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[32]

Heisenberg, Z

W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927)

1927
[33]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 319, 83 (1993), arXiv:hep- th/9309034

1993
[34]

Kempf, G

A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 4 52, 1108 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9412167

1995 arXiv
[35]

A. F. Ali, S. Das, and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 678, 497 (2009), arXiv:0906.5396 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[36]

Pedram, Phys

P. Pedram, Phys. Lett. B 714, 317 (2012), arXiv:1110.2999 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[37]

Jackiw, Phys

R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2375 (1984)

1984
[38]

I. I. Balitsky and V. M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 267, 405 (1991)

1991
[39]

Engel, M

J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 71, 21 (2013), arXiv:1303.2371 [nucl- th]

2013 arXiv
[40]

T. S. Roussy et al. , Science 381, adg4084 (2023), arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

A. H. Gomes, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 225017 (2022), arXiv:2205.02044 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[42]

Bosso, G

P. Bosso, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and F. Wagner, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 195014 (2023), arXiv:2305.16193 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Gisbert and J

H. Gisbert and J. Ruiz Vidal, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115010 (2020), arXiv:1905.02513 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [31]

Valero, H

E. Valero, H. Gisbert, and V. Ilisie, (2025), arXiv:2505.06598 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957)

1957

[3] [2]

A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967)

1967

[4] [3]

R. L. Garwin, L. M. Lederman, and M. Weinrich, Phys. Rev. 105, 1415 (1957)

work page 1957

[5] [4]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

1973

[6] [5]

R. C. Casella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 1128 (1968)

work page 1968

[7] [6]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 657 (1976)

work page 1976

[8] [7]

J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964)

1964