Cited by 378Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryAdvanced Frequency and Time Standards

Constraints on Lorentz violation from clock-comparison experiments

Open access
Kostelecký, V. Alan, Lane, Charles D.·1999·Physical Review D

Abstract

Constraints from clock-comparison experiments on violations of Lorentz and CPT symmetry are investigated in the context of a general Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model. The experimental signals are shown to depend on the atomic and ionic species used as clocks. Certain experiments usually regarded as establishing comparable bounds are in this context sensitive to different types of Lorentz violation. Some considerations relevant to possible future measurements are presented. All these experiments are potentially sensitive to Lorentz-violating physics at the Planck scale.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.60.116010

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar proton bounds have been estimated from the Berglund et al. experiment using the Schmidt model for nuclear structure, in which an individual nucleon is assumed to carry the entire nuclear angular momentum.

    “Similar bounds have been estimated [175] from the experiment of Berglund et al. [46] using the Schmidt model [251] for nuclear structure, where an individual nucleon is assumed to carry the entire nuclear angular momentum.”

    From Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance (2005) · cites this paper as [175]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kostelecký, V. A., & Lane, C. D.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
1999-11-12
Volume
60
Issue
11
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4918
OpenAlex
W2139721284
Cited by
378
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Frequency and Time Standards
Keywords
Lorentz violation, CPT symmetry, atomic clocks, Planck scale, experimental constraints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review