Conservation laws in classical Poisson field theories

M. J. Neves; O. Abla

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Conservation laws in classical Poisson field theories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Working within Lie-Poisson electrodynamics, this paper derives conservation laws for gauge, scalar, and Dirac fields and reports that the non-relativistic limit of the κ-Minkowski Dirac equation produces an orbital Zeeman coupling with a hy

desk verdict The conservation-law sections are competent, but the new Zeeman result drops a spin term and the NR reduction needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.09500 v2 pith:PCJYS4YJ submitted 2026-04-10 hep-th

O. Abla , M. J. Neves This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 81T7570S10 PACS 11.10.Nx11.30.-j

keywords PoissonelectrodynamicsLie-Poissonstructuresκ-MinkowskispacetimenoncommutativefieldtheoryDiracequationNoethertheoremenergy-momentumtensororbitalZeemaneffect

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 aims to show that the semiclassical, Lie-Poisson (noncommutative) version of classical electrodynamics supports the same Noether-based conservation laws as ordinary field theory—an energy-momentum tensor, a conserved charge, and a conserved four-momentum—once the action is weighted by the integrating factor M_A. It then applies this machinery to κ-Minkowski spacetime and claims that the non-relativistic limit of the deformed Dirac equation generates an orbital Zeeman term, a coupling between the particle's orbital angular momentum and an external magnetic field that vanishes in the commutative limit. This term leads to a predicted energy shift ΔE = −2κB0(1 + α²/32) for the first excited state of a hydrogen-like system, depending only on the noncommutativity parameter κ and the magnetic field B0. If correct, this gives a concrete, low-energy spectroscopic signature of spacetime noncommutativity, and a first step toward quantizing the theory.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Poisson gauge structure: a deformed gauge transformation δ_f A_μ, a covariant derivative D_μ acting on matter fields, and the integrating factor M_A(x) = exp(C^{μν}_μ A_ν) that makes the action gauge invariant. Noether's theorem applied to this action yields the conserved current J^μ and the energy-momentum tensor T^{μν}. For κ-Minkowski, the explicit form of the left- and right-invariant vector fields γ(A) and ρ(A0) gives the deformed derivatives D_tψ = ∂_tψ + κ A·∇ψ + {A_0, ψ} and D_iψ = e^{κ A0}(∂_iψ + {A_i, ψ}); inserting these into the Dirac equation and taking the non-relativistic limit produces the orbital Zeeman coupling κ(L·B)/2 in the coupled equations

What would settle it

Explicitly expand the square in Eq. (77) to first order in κ and compare with Eq. (78); if the coefficient of κ L·B or the p²/(8m²) term differs, the claimed energy shift (83) is wrong. Alternatively, compare the measured n=2 Zeeman slope of hydrogen, dΔE/dB0, with the standard value: the predicted extra slope −2κ(1 + α²/32) is the falsifiable signature; a null result bounds κ.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the Poisson gauge action S = ∫ d⁴x M_A(x) L(x), with M_A = exp(C^{μν}_μ A_ν), admits a Noether current J^μ = (∂L/∂(∂_μ A_ν))δA_ν − δx_ν T^{μν} and a continuity equation ∂_μ(M_A J^μ)=0, leading to conserved charge and momentum. For free scalar and Dirac fields in the adjoint representation, the same structure yields an energy-momentum tensor that is not symmetric once the Poisson structure is turned on. In the κ-Minkowski case, the deformed derivative components turn the Dirac equation into a coupled system whose non-relativistic reduction gives H_NR = p²/(2m) − κ(L·B) − κ p²/(8m²)(L·B). With the Coulomb potential added, first-order perturbation th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deformed Dirac action (56), together with the κ-Minkowski structures (62)–(63) and the non-relativistic reduction (77)–(78), correctly describes a charged fermion in an external magnetic field—despite the action having no minimal coupling to the gauge potential and the reduction's algebra never being shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the κ-Minkowski deformation is visible at low energies as an orbital Zeeman effect: the energy of a hydrogen-like state splits linearly with the applied magnetic field, with a slope fixed by κ.
The predicted splitting between the m=+1 and m=−1 levels of the n=2 state is exactly 2κB0(1 + α²/32), so a measurement of this splitting at known B0 would determine or bound κ.
The conservation laws derived here (charge Q = ∫d³r M_A J^0, momentum P^ν = ∫d³r M_A T^{0ν}) show that ordinary Noether reasoning survives in Lie-Poisson electrodynamics provided the M_A factor is included.
Because the L·B couplings vanish in the commutative limit κ→0, every new term is a genuine noncommutative correction; any experimental bound on the Zeeman shift also bounds the scale of spacetime noncommutativity.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves minimal coupling to the gauge potential out of the Dirac action; if a minimal-coupling extension is built as suggested in its outlook, the L·B term may receive additional spin-dependent contributions that shift the predicted ΔE. Testing this would require repeating the non-relativistic reduction with the interaction term included.
The same Noether formalism applied to other Lie-Poisson structures (e.g., spatial or light-like deformations) would be expected to produce anisotropies in the energy-momentum tensor and possibly anisotropic Zeeman couplings; this is a natural extension not explored here.
Because the paper's derivation from Eq. (77) to (78) is not shown, a direct symbolic expansion of ((σ·p − (κ/2)m r·(σ×B))²)/(2m + κ L·B/2) would settle whether the claimed coefficient −(1 + p²/(8m²)) is exact or a factor-of-two off; this is the quickest test of the central result.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper has two parts bolted together. The first is a clean application of Noether's theorem to Lie-Poisson electrodynamics, with the energy-momentum tensor and charges for scalar and Dirac fields. That part is largely a re-derivation of known results, but it is coherent and would be useful to people working in this corner of the field. The second part is the new physical claim: the non-relativistic limit of the κ-Minkowski Dirac equation gives an orbital Zeeman term. That part does not hold up as written.

The problem is in the unshown step from Eq. (77) to (78). I expanded the bracket using the same approximation the authors state (E ≃ m) and got H_NR = p²/2m − κ L·B − κ p²/(8m²) L·B − (κ/2) σ·B. The printed Hamiltonian is missing the spin-dependent term. It is the same order as the orbital term, so it cannot be discarded. The stress-test note claims the L·B coefficient is also off by a factor of two; I don't find that, but the spin term is real. The energy shift (83) survives only if you compare m_ℓ = +1 and −1 for the same spin projection, because the spin term cancels. The paper should have said this; as written, it gives incomplete energy levels and an incorrect Hamiltonian.

There are other soft spots. Eq. (73) appears to omit the Γ⁰E term needed to get the coupled equations (75); that looks like a typo, but it needs fixing. More fundamentally, the action (56) has no minimal coupling, and the Coulomb potential is added by hand in (79). The authors are open about the lack of minimal coupling, but this means the hydrogen-atom prediction is a toy model, not a derivation from the deformed action.

The conservation-law sections are solid; the headline result is not supported. I would send this to a referee because the formalism deserves scrutiny and the errors look correctable, but I would expect major revision. The community should get a version where the NR expansion is shown, the spin term is included, and the physical scope is stated honestly.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops conservation laws for Lie-Poisson electrodynamics and for matter fields coupled through the Poisson gauge-covariant derivative, using the integrating-factor action principle of Ref. [57]. After deriving Noether currents and energy-momentum tensors for the gauge field, real and complex scalars, and the Dirac field, the paper specializes to κ-Minkowski spacetime and studies the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation in a static magnetic background. The central new claim is that this limit produces an orbital Zeeman coupling, Eq. (78), and, after adding a Coulomb potential by hand, a magnetic-field-dependent energy shift in the first excited hydrogen-like state, Eq. (83).

Significance. If the result were correct, it would connect Poisson gauge theory to a concrete, falsifiable atomic-physics observable and would extend the conservation-law formalism of the theory. The paper does provide a systematic Noether construction in the presence of the integrating factor M_A, and the explicit κ-Minkowski expressions in Sec. 5 are a useful reference. However, the central new calculation is not supported by the equations as written: the step from Eq. (77) to Eq. (78) is not shown and appears algebraically inconsistent, the preceding Dirac equation appears to omit a leading Γ^0 E term, and the physical interpretation as a charged fermion in a magnetic field is at odds with the paper's own statement that minimal coupling is not included. The claimed energy shift is therefore not a consequence of the presented formalism.

major comments (3)

[§6, Eq. (77) to (78)] This is the load-bearing step of the paper, and it is not justified. Expanding the bracket in Eq. (77) to first order in κ, using S = σ·p − (κ/2m) r·(σ×B) and the denominator 2m + (κ/2)L·B, gives an additional spin-dependent term proportional to {σ·p, r·(σ×B)} and changes the coefficient of the L·B term relative to the printed result. The printed H_NR = p²/2m − κ(L·B) − κp²/(8m²)(L·B) is not obtained from Eq. (77) by any shown or standard manipulation. Since Eq. (83) is computed from Eq. (79), which uses Eq. (78), the numerical prediction does not follow from the formalism.
[§6, Eq. (73)–(75)] The deformed Dirac equation is written without the leading Γ^0 E term. Starting from (iΓ^μ D_μ − m)ψ = 0 with plane-wave Ansatz and A_0 = 0, the zeroth-order term should contain Γ^0 E. Eq. (73) contains only Γ^i p_i − m plus κ corrections. The coupled equations (75), which contain E ± m, therefore do not follow from (73). This is not a minor typo: the NR reduction and the Hamiltonian H_NR = E − m rely on those equations.
[§4 and §6, action (56) and Eq. (79)] The action (56) describes matter transforming in the adjoint representation of the Poisson gauge symmetry, and the paper explicitly states that minimal coupling is not included. The interaction with A_i enters through the Poisson bracket {A_i, ψ}, which vanishes in the commutative limit and is not the standard eA_iψ coupling of a charged fermion. Nevertheless, Sec. 6 treats A = (r×B)/2 as an external magnetic field acting on a hydrogen-like charged fermion and adds a Coulomb potential by hand in Eq. (79). Thus the Zeeman interpretation and the energy shift are not derived from the theory presented; they assume a physical coupling that the action does not contain. This limitation is acknowledged in the text, but the central claim still relies on it.

minor comments (5)

[§2] Typographical issues: “embbeding”, “satified”, and inconsistent use of “lagrangian” should be corrected.
[§3–§4] The Noether construction for matter fields leaves the gauge potential fixed, giving the extra term in Eq. (51). The conditions under which δA_ν is taken to vanish should be stated more explicitly, since the conservation law is conditional on this choice.
[§5] Eqs. (68)–(69) are long and appear without derivation; a brief indication of the κ-expansion used would improve readability.
[§5, Eq. (71)] The notation J_μ^D / Λ should be defined more carefully; it is not immediately clear that the charge density is independent of Λ.
[§6, Eq. (78)] The phrase “Considering just the linear terms in the κ-parameter” is not sufficient: the calculation should be shown explicitly, especially because the naive expansion does not reproduce the stated result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the NR Zeeman Hamiltonian is derived from the deformed Dirac equation, not fitted or assumed; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eqs. 56, 72-78) is an algebraic non-relativistic reduction of the deformed Dirac operator; the final Zeeman term is not obtained by fitting any data or by renaming a known result. The κ-Minkowski structures (61)-(63) are explicit inputs from the cited action-principle framework, and the derivatives (72) follow from the deformed derivative (12); the calculation does not assume the target Hamiltonian. The spectrum (83) is computed from the Hamiltonian (79) by standard perturbation theory, so it is a mathematical consequence rather than a circular equivalence. The paper explicitly states it is not exploring minimal coupling and notes that the interaction disappears in the commutative limit; this is a physical-validity limitation, not a circularity. Self-citations [47] and [54] appear only in final remarks for comparison and future work, not as load-bearing justification. The unshown step from Eq. (77) to (78) is an algebraic-gap/correctness concern, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the action-principle formalism imported from [57], the κ-Minkowski structures from earlier papers, and a static uniform-field ansatz. No new entities are introduced. The only input constant is κ, which is not fixed by the paper.

free parameters (1)

κ (noncommutative parameter) = not determined in this paper
The final energy shift is linear in κ, but the paper does not fit or bound κ; it is an input parameter of the κ-Minkowski spacetime.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Poisson electrodynamics action principle (Eq. 23) and the integrating factor M_A produce a consistent gauge-invariant action.
Section 2 relies on reference [57] for validity; no derivation is given in this paper.
domain assumption The κ-Minkowski structure constants (61) and the matrices γ(A), ρ(A) (62)-(63) define the deformed derivatives used in the Dirac equation.
Taken from earlier work [48,54]; the paper does not re-derive them.
domain assumption The static vector potential A=(r×B)/2 describes a uniform magnetic field, and the Coulomb potential can be added by hand to the non-relativistic Hamiltonian.
Section 6; the deformed action does not include minimal coupling, so this addition is ad hoc.
domain assumption The non-relativistic expansion keeps terms linear in κ and orders p²/m, while higher-order terms are neglected; E≈m in the Dirac equation.
Section 6, around Eqs. (76)-(78).
standard math Standard quantum-mechanical perturbation theory for the hydrogen atom applies to the Hamiltonian (79).
Section 6, after Eq. (79).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conservation laws in classical Poisson field theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PCJYS4YJ

@misc{pith2026260409500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conservation laws in classical Poisson field theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PCJYS4YJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.09500}
}

abstract

Poisson electrodynamics is the semiclassical limit of the full $U(1)$ non-commutative gauge theory, also known in recent literature as Poisson gauge theory. Two consolidated models for the theory studied in recent years, with a specific choice of non-commutative parameter, Lie-Poisson structures and constant ones, the later also known as the canonical, or Heisenberg case. In this paper, we present the theory considering the new building blocks related to symmetries and conservation laws, as a first step toward understanding the necessary mathematical tools to uncover some of the unknown pieces. We consider non-interacting examples of pure gauge fields, and classical Poisson field theories, related with real and complex scalar fields, as well as fermionic fields, using a constant spacelike deformation parameter. We show that the non-relativistic limit for the non-commutative Dirac equation introduces an orbital Zeeman coupling term for the fermionic fields, and the energy shift in the first excited state depends exclusively on the non-commutative parameter.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[57]

M. A. Kurkov,Action principle forκ-Minkowski noncommutativeU(1)gauge theory from Lie-Poisson electrodynamics, J. Phys. A59(2026), 145402

2026
[1]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts,The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields, Commun. Math. Phys.172(1995), 187

1995
[2]

R. J. Szabo,Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Spaces, Phys. Rep.378(2003), 207

2003
[3]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten,String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry, JHEP09(1999), 032

1999
[4]

V. O. Rivelles,Noncommutative field theories and gravity, Phys. Lett. B558(2003), 191- 196

2003
[5]

R. J. Szabo,Symmetry, Gravity and Noncommutativity, Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006), R199

2006
[6]

Freidel and E

L. Freidel and E. R. Livine,3D Quantum Gravity and Effective Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006), 221301

2006
[7]

M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov,Noncommutative field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.73 (2001), 977

2001

Show all 59 references

[8]

Kosinski, J

P. Kosinski, J. Lukierski and P. Maslanka,LocalD= 4field theory onκ-deformed Minkowski space, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 025004

2000
[9]

Chaichian, M

M. Chaichian, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Tureanu,Hydrogen Atom Spectrum and the Lamb Shift in Noncommutative QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.86(2001), 2716

2001
[10]

S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kosteleck´ y, C. D. Lane and T. Okamoto,Noncommu- tative Field Theory and Lorentz Violation, Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141601

2001
[11]

Chair and M

N. Chair and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari,Pair production by a constant external field in non- commutative QED, Phys. Lett. B504(2001), 141-146

2001
[12]

Chatillon and A

N. Chatillon and A. Pinzul,Light Propagation in a Background Field for Time-Space Noncommutativity and Axionic Noncommutative QED, Nucl. Phys. B764(2007), 95–108. 13

2007
[13]

Harikumar, T

E. Harikumar, T. Juri´ c and S. Meljanac,Geodesic equation inκ-Minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 045002

2012
[14]

Vitale and J

P. Vitale and J. C. Wallet,Noncommutative field theories onR 3 λ: Toward UV/IR mixing freedom, JHEP04(2013)

2013
[15]

V. G. Kupriyanov,A hydrogen atom on curved noncommutative space, J. Phys. A46 (2013), 245303

2013
[16]

Vitale,Noncommutative field theory onR 3 λ, Fortsch

P. Vitale,Noncommutative field theory onR 3 λ, Fortsch. Phys.62(2014), 825-834

2014
[17]

V. G. Kupriyanov,Dirac equation on coordinate dependent noncommutative space-time, Phys. Lett. B732(2014), 385

2014
[18]

Fresneda, D

R. Fresneda, D. M. Gitman and A. E. Shabad,Photon propagation in noncommutative QED with constant external field, Phys. Rev. D91(2015), 085005

2015
[19]

Dimitrijevic Ciric, N

M. Dimitrijevic Ciric, N. Konjik, M. A. Kurkov, F. Lizzi and P. Vitale,Noncommutative field theory from angular twist, Phys. Rev. D98(2018), no.8, 085011

2018
[20]

Lizzi, L

F. Lizzi, L. Scala and P. Vitale,Localization and observers inρ-Minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D106(2022), 025023

2022
[21]

Konjik, V

M D ´Ciri´ c, N. Konjik, V. Radovanovi´ c and R. J. Szabo,Braided quantum electrodynamics, JHEP08(2023), 211

2023
[22]

Fabiano, G

G. Fabiano, G. Gubitosi, F. Lizzi, L. Scala and P. Vitale,Bicrossproduct vs. twist quantum symmetries in noncommutative geometries: the case ofρ-Minkowski, JHEP08(2023), 220

2023
[23]

Dimitrijevic, L

M. Dimitrijevic, L. Jonke and L. Moller,U(1)gauge field theory onκ-Minkowski space, JHEP09(2005), 068

2005
[24]

Chaichian, P

M. Chaichian, P. Preˇ snajder, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Tureanu,Can Seiberg-Witten Map Bypass Noncommutative Gauge Theory No-Go Theorem?, Phys. Lett. B683(2010), 55-61

2010
[25]

Dimitretrijevi´ c and L

M. Dimitretrijevi´ c and L. Jonke,A twisted look on kappa-Minkowski:U(1)gauge theory, JHEP2011(2011), 080

2011
[26]

G´ er´ e, P

A. G´ er´ e, P. Vitale and J. C. Wallet,Quantum gauge theories on noncommutative three- dimensional space, Phys. Rev. D90(2014), 045019

2014
[27]

Blumenhagen, I

R. Blumenhagen, I. Brunner, V. Kupriyanov and D. L¨ ust,Bootstrapping noncommutative gauge theories fromL ∞ algebra, JHEP1805(2018), 097

2018
[28]

Mathieu and J

P. Mathieu and J. C. Wallet,Gauge theories onκ-Minkowski spaces: twist and modular operators, JHEP05(2020), 112

2020
[29]

Mathieu and J

P. Mathieu and J. C. Wallet,Twisted BRST symmetry in gauge theories on theκ- Minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), 086018. 14

2021
[30]

Hersent, P

K. Hersent, P. Mathieu and J. C. Wallet,Quantum instability of gauge theories onκ- Minkowski space, Phys. Rev. D105(2022), 106013

2022
[31]

Meier and S

T. Meier and S. J. van Tongeren,Quadratic Twist-Noncommutative Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023), 121603

2023
[32]

Maris and J

V. Maris and J. C. Wallet,Gauge theory onρ-Minkowski space-time, JHEP07(2024), 119

2024
[33]

V. G. Kupriyanov, F. Oliveira, A. Sharapov and D. Vassilevich,Non-commutative gauge symmetry from strong homotopy algebras, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57(2024), 095203

2024
[34]

Hersent, P

K. Hersent, P. Mathieu and J. C. Wallet,Gauge theories on quantum spaces, Phys. Rept. 1014(2023), 1-83

2023
[35]

G´ er´ e, P

A. G´ er´ e, P. Vitale and J. C. Wallet,SUq(2)lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D54(1996), 1054

1996
[36]

I. Y. Aref’eva and I. V. Volovich,Noncommutative gauge fields on Poisson manifolds, in the proceedings of the 14th Max Born Symposium: New Symmetries and Integrable Systems, (1999), p. 8–17

1999
[37]

Jurco, P

B. Jurco, P. Schupp and J. Wess,Noncommutative gauge theory for Poisson manifolds, Nucl. Phys. B584(2000), 784–794

2000
[38]

Kontsevich,Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, Lett

M. Kontsevich,Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, Lett. Math. Phys.66 (2003), 157–216

2003
[39]

V. G. Kupriyanov,Recurrence relations for symplectic realization of (quasi)-Poisson struc- tures, J. Phys. A52(2019), no.22, 225204

2019
[40]

V. G. Kupriyanov and R. J. Szabo,Symplectic embeddings, homotopy algebras and almost Poisson gauge symmetry, J. Phys. A55(2022) no.3, 035201

2022
[41]

V. G. Kupriyanov,Non-commutative deformation of Chern–Simons theory, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020), no.1, 42

2020
[42]

V. G. Kupriyanov and P. Vitale,A novel approach to non-commutative gauge theory, JHEP 2020(2020), 041

2020
[43]

V. G. Kupriyanov,Poisson gauge theory, JHEP2021(2021), 016

2021
[44]

O. Abla, V. G. Kupriyanov and M. Kurkov,On the L ∞ structure of Poisson gauge theory, J. Phys. A55(2022), no.38, 384006

2022
[45]

V. G. Kupriyanov, M. A. Kurkov and P. Vitale,Poisson gauge models and Seiberg-Witten map, JHEP2022(2022), 062

2022
[46]

Kurkov and P

M. Kurkov and P. Vitale,Four-dimensional noncommutative deformations ofU(1)gauge theory andL ∞ bootstrap, JHEP01(2022), 032. 15

2022
[47]

Abla and M

O. Abla and M. J. Neves,Effects of wave propagation in canonical Poisson gauge theory under an external magnetic field, EPL144(2023), 24001

2023
[48]

V. G. Kupriyanov, M. A. Kurkov and P. Vitale,Lie-Poisson gauge theories andκ- Minkowski electrodynamics, JHEP2023(2023), 200

2023
[49]

V. G. Kupriyanov, A. Sharapov and R. Szabo,Symplectic groupoids and Poisson electro- dynamics, JHEP2024(2024), 39

2024
[50]

Di Cosmo, A

F. Di Cosmo, A. Ibort, G. Marmo and P. Vitale,Symplectic realizations and Lie groupoids in Poisson Electrodynamics, [arXiv:2312.16308[hep-th]]

arXiv
[51]

V. G. Kupriyanov, M. A. Kurkov and A. Sharapov,Classical mechanics in noncommutative spaces: confinement and more, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), 1068

2024
[52]

Sharapov,On Poisson Electrodynamics With Charged Fields, J

A. Sharapov,On Poisson Electrodynamics With Charged Fields, J. Phys. A57(2024), 315401

2024
[53]

B. S. Basilio, V. G. Kupriyanov and M. A. Kurkov,Charged particle in Lie–Poisson elec- trodynamics, The European Physical Journal C85, 175 (2025)

2025
[54]

Abla and M

O. Abla and M. J. Neves,Poisson electrodynamics onκ-Minkowski space-time, Phys. Lett. B864(2025), 139385

2025
[55]

M. A. Kurkov,Light propagation inκ-Minkowski space-time: gauge ambiguities and in- variance, The European Physical Journal C85, 1231 (2025)

2025
[56]

Di Cosmo, V

F. Di Cosmo, V. Kupriyanov and P. Vitale,The electromagnetic field in Poisson gauge theory: the groupoidal approach, [arXiv:2510.04858 [hep-th]]
[58]

D. N. Blaschke, F. Gieres, M. Reboud and M. SchwedaThe energy-momentum tensor(s) in classical gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B912(2016) 192–223

2016
[59]

Greiner and J

W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt,Field Quantization(Springer, 1996). 16

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [57]

M. A. Kurkov,Action principle forκ-Minkowski noncommutativeU(1)gauge theory from Lie-Poisson electrodynamics, J. Phys. A59(2026), 145402

2026

[2] [1]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts,The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields, Commun. Math. Phys.172(1995), 187

1995

[3] [2]

R. J. Szabo,Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Spaces, Phys. Rep.378(2003), 207

2003

[4] [3]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten,String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry, JHEP09(1999), 032

1999

[5] [4]

V. O. Rivelles,Noncommutative field theories and gravity, Phys. Lett. B558(2003), 191- 196

2003

[6] [5]

R. J. Szabo,Symmetry, Gravity and Noncommutativity, Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006), R199

2006

[7] [6]

Freidel and E

L. Freidel and E. R. Livine,3D Quantum Gravity and Effective Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006), 221301

2006

[8] [7]

M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov,Noncommutative field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.73 (2001), 977

2001