pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.03556 · v2 · pith:KSTHY262new · submitted 2019-07-02 · ⚛️ physics.gen-ph

Distinctive electromagnetic signals caused by gravitational waves (of sub-solar mass primordial black hole binary mergers) interacting with galactic magnetic fields

Hao Wen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 10:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.gen-ph
keywords primordial black holesgravitational waveselectromagnetic counterpartsgalactic magnetic fieldsdark matter candidatesbinary mergersinterstellar medium
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational waves from sub-solar mass primordial black hole mergers produce electromagnetic signals of constant strength at Earth when interacting with Milky Way magnetic fields.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that gravitational waves from mergers of sub-solar mass primordial black hole binaries interact with galactic magnetic fields to create perturbed electromagnetic waves. For mergers inside the Milky Way, these electromagnetic signals reach Earth at fixed strengths of about 10 to the minus 12 Tesla and 10 to the minus 10 watts per square meter, independent of the source distance or the specific masses as long as the mass ratio stays the same. The frequencies are high enough to pass through the interstellar medium. A reader would care because these signals could act as a unique marker to identify primordial black holes separately from ordinary black holes. The work estimates that the same mass ratio always yields the same signal strength at Earth.

Core claim

For sub-solar mass PBH binary mergers within the Milky Way, the strengths of the perturbed EMWs turn into constant levels around 10^{-12} Tesla for magnetic components and around 10^{-10} Watt m^{-2} for energy flux densities at the Earth, generally for all cases of different PBH masses and not dependent on the distance of sources, with the same mass ratio giving the same strength despite different PBH masses or binary distances.

What carries the argument

Interaction of gravitational waves with widespread background galactic magnetic fields to produce perturbed electromagnetic waves at matching frequencies.

If this is right

  • The electromagnetic signals from Milky Way sources maintain constant strength regardless of distance.
  • Binaries with identical mass ratios produce identical electromagnetic signal strengths at Earth.
  • Sources outside the Milky Way yield distance-dependent but sometimes detectable signals.
  • Successful detection of these signals would offer direct evidence for the existence of primordial black holes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Searches for electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave events could target frequency bands corresponding to sub-solar mass mergers.
  • The distance-independent strength for galactic sources might help separate primordial black hole signals from other astrophysical phenomena.
  • This mechanism could provide a new probe of the galactic magnetic field structure using gravitational wave sources.

Load-bearing premise

Gravitational waves from the binary mergers interact with galactic magnetic fields to produce electromagnetic waves at the same frequencies and with the calculated constant strengths that propagate to Earth.

What would settle it

Direct measurement or detailed modeling of the electromagnetic wave amplitudes from such interactions showing variation with source distance or mass rather than constancy for Milky Way events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.03556 by Hao Wen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Examples of strengths of magnetic components and energ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Examples of strengths of magnetic components and energ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As a candidate of dark matter, and related to many fundamental physics issues, the primordial black hole (PBH) is a crucial topic. However, so far the existence of PBHs is still not confirmed, and currently running GW detectors are still not able to distinguish them from the normal astrophysical BHs. In this article, we propose that the GWs (of PBH binary mergers) could interact with the very widespread background galactic magnetic fields in the Milky way, to produce the perturbed electromagnetic waves (EMWs) with unique characteristics of frequencies, waveforms, spectra and polarizations. In order to be distinguished from astrophysical black holes, only the PBHs with masses less than the solarmass are considered here, and their binary mergers will radiate GWs in frequencies much higher above the plasma frequency of interstellar medium (ISM), so corresponding perturbed EMWs (in the same frequencies to such GWs) can propagate through the ISM until the Earth. Our estimations show that, for the sub-solar mass PBH binary mergers within the Milky way (disk or halo), the strengths of the perturbed EMWs turn into constant levels around 10^{-12} Tesla (for magnetic components) and around 10^{-10}Watt m^{-2} (for energy flux densities) at the Earth, generally for all cases of different PBH masses (and not dependent on the distance of sources), and the same mass ratio of the PBH binary gives the same strength (at the Earth) of perturbed EMWs despite different PBH masses (GW frequencies) or binary distances. Differently, for the PBH binary mergers outside the Milky way, the perturbed EMWs at Earth have lower strengths (and depend on the distance of sources), but for some part of distance range, they would also be detectable. If such EM signals and special EM counterpart of GWs from PBHs could be detected by space- or land-based EMWs detectors, it may provide direct evidence of the PBHs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that gravitational waves from sub-solar-mass primordial black hole binary mergers interact with galactic magnetic fields to generate perturbed electromagnetic waves (EMWs) at the same frequencies. For sources inside the Milky Way the perturbed EM signals are claimed to reach Earth with distance-independent constant amplitudes of order 10^{-12} T (magnetic component) and 10^{-10} W m^{-2} (energy flux), depending only on the binary mass ratio; outside the Galaxy the amplitudes are lower and distance-dependent. Detection of these signals is suggested as a possible EM counterpart that could confirm the existence of sub-solar PBHs.

Significance. If the interaction mechanism and the claimed distance-independent scaling can be derived from first principles, the result would constitute a novel, falsifiable EM signature for a dark-matter candidate. The frequency condition for propagation through the ISM is correctly identified as necessary, but the amplitude claim is non-standard and would, if substantiated, open a new observational channel for PBH binaries.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and the estimation section): the numerical values for constant EM amplitudes (~10^{-12} T and ~10^{-10} W m^{-2}) are stated without any derivation, explicit interaction equations, or error analysis. The distance-independent result requires that the GW–B-field coupling term produce an effective source whose amplitude exactly cancels the usual 1/D fall-off of the incident GW strain; this differential-equation or effective-source derivation must be supplied and shown to be independent of the modeling choices.
  2. [Abstract] The assertion that identical mass ratios yield identical Earth amplitudes irrespective of individual PBH masses (hence GW frequencies) or binary distances is presented as a derived result. No benchmark calculation, table of explicit values, or external calibration is given, leaving open the possibility that the quoted constants are fixed by internal modeling assumptions rather than by an independent physical mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the plasma-frequency threshold used and a citation to standard ISM parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments correctly identify that the abstract and estimation section would benefit from expanded explicit derivations of the claimed constant amplitudes and their independence on mass and distance. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to include the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the estimation section): the numerical values for constant EM amplitudes (~10^{-12} T and ~10^{-10} W m^{-2}) are stated without any derivation, explicit interaction equations, or error analysis. The distance-independent result requires that the GW–B-field coupling term produce an effective source whose amplitude exactly cancels the usual 1/D fall-off of the incident GW strain; this differential-equation or effective-source derivation must be supplied and shown to be independent of the modeling choices.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation of the distance-independent amplitudes must be shown explicitly. The result follows from the GW–background B-field interaction generating a perturbed EM source term whose strength, when integrated along the propagation path inside the galaxy, compensates the 1/D geometric dilution of the incident GW strain for sources within the Milky Way. The estimation section contains the scaling but lacks the full step-by-step differential-equation treatment and error analysis. In the revised manuscript we will add the explicit interaction equations, derive the cancellation of the 1/D factor, and include an error budget for the approximations (e.g., uniform B-field, neglect of plasma effects above the cutoff). revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The assertion that identical mass ratios yield identical Earth amplitudes irrespective of individual PBH masses (hence GW frequencies) or binary distances is presented as a derived result. No benchmark calculation, table of explicit values, or external calibration is given, leaving open the possibility that the quoted constants are fixed by internal modeling assumptions rather than by an independent physical mechanism.

    Authors: The claimed independence on individual masses (for fixed mass ratio) follows directly from the scaling of the GW strain and frequency with the component masses together with the linear response of the EM perturbation to the GW amplitude. However, the referee is correct that no benchmark table or explicit numerical checks are provided. We will add such a table in the revised version, computing the Earth amplitudes for several mass pairs sharing the same ratio but differing in total mass, frequency, and distance, thereby demonstrating that the constancy is a physical outcome rather than an artifact of the modeling choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation presented as estimation without exhibited reduction to inputs

full rationale

The abstract states that estimations yield distance-independent constant EM signal strengths (~10^{-12} T, ~10^{-10} W m^{-2}) for galactic sub-solar PBH mergers, independent of source distance except for mass ratio. No equations, differential equations, or explicit derivation steps are quoted that would demonstrate the result reduces by construction to modeling choices or fitted parameters (e.g., no Eq. X defined in terms of the target amplitude). No self-citations appear in the provided text. The frequency >> plasma frequency condition addresses propagation but does not address amplitude scaling. Without a quoted load-bearing step showing self-definition, fitted prediction, or imported uniqueness, the central claim cannot be flagged as circular per the rules requiring explicit reduction. The paper is treated as self-contained on the basis of the given information.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unshown interaction mechanism between GWs and galactic B-fields and on the assumption that the resulting EM signals propagate unattenuated at the quoted frequencies. No free parameters or invented entities are explicitly named in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption GWs from sub-solar PBH mergers have frequencies above the ISM plasma frequency so that perturbed EMWs propagate to Earth
    Stated in the abstract as the condition enabling detection.
  • domain assumption Interaction of GWs with galactic magnetic fields produces EMWs at identical frequencies with constant Earth-arriving strength independent of distance
    Core modeling premise underlying the numerical estimates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5905 in / 1391 out tokens · 31102 ms · 2026-05-25T10:15:28.886049+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    5: Similar to Figs

    The Table I gives 6 (a) (b) FIG. 5: Similar to Figs. 3 and 4, but for sub-solar PBH binary mergers outside the Milky way . Here, all cases have the same distance of binary mergers of 3 Mpc from the Earth. some concrete results for different parameters, and it is shown that the same mass ratio of the PBH binary gives the same strength (at the Earth) of pert...

    work page

  2. [2]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 168, 399 (1974)

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    B. Carr, F. K¨ uhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Postnov and N

    K. Postnov and N. Mitichkin, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 044 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Liu, Z.-K

    L. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063523 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Wang, Y.-F

    S. Wang, Y.-F. Wang, Q.-G. Huang, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Raidal, C

    M. Raidal, C. Spethmann, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerme, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2019, 018 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    C.-M. Deng, Y. Cai, X.-F. Wu, and E.-W. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123016 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Chen and Q.-G

    Z.-C. Chen and Q.-G. Huang, The Astrophysical Journal 864, 61 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123523 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Regimbau, M

    T. Regimbau, M. Evans, N. Christensen, E. Kat- savounidis, B. Sathyaprakash, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 151105 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Mandic, S

    V. Mandic, S. Bird, and I. Cholis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 201102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Li, L.-L

    X. Li, L.-L. Wang, and J. Li, The European Physical Journal C 77, 638 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Hayasaki, K

    K. Hayasaki, K. Takahashi, Y. Sendouda, and S. Nagataki, Publications of the Astronomical So- ciety of Japan 68 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 72, 082002 (2005) . 8

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    K. T. Inoue and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 021101 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    S. Wang, T. Terada, and K. Kohri, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103531 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Cai, T.-B

    R.-G. Cai, T.-B. Liu, and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043538 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Y.-F. Cai, X. Tong, D.-G. Wang, and S.-F. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081306 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    B. P. Abbott et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 851, L35 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    L. M. Widrow, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 775 (2002)

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    V. B. Braginsky, L. P. Grishchuk, A. G. Doroshke- vich, Y. B. Zeldovich, I. D. Novikov, and M. V. Sazhin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fi 65, 1729 (1973)

    work page 1973

  31. [31]

    Boccaletti, V

    D. Boccaletti, V. De Sabbata, P. Fortint, and C. Gualdi, Nuovo Cim. B 70, 129 (1970)

    work page 1970

  32. [32]

    W. K. DeLogi and A. R. Mickelson, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2915 (1977)

    work page 1977

  33. [33]

    Chen, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Report(SLAC-PUB-6666) , 379 (1994)

    P. Chen, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Report(SLAC-PUB-6666) , 379 (1994)

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    H. N. Long, D. V. Soa, and T. A. Tuan, Physics Letters A 186, 382 (1994)

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    F. Y. Li, M. X. Tang, J. Luo, and Y. C. Li, Phys. Rev. D 62, 044018 (2000)

    work page 2000

  36. [36]

    F. Y. Li, M. X. Tang, and D. P. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 67, 104008 (2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    F. Y. Li, R. M. L. Baker, Jr., Z. Y. Fang, G. V. Stepheson, and Z. Y. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 56, 407 (2008)

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    F. Y. Li, N. Yang, Z. Y. Fang, R. M. L. Baker, G. V. Stephenson, and H. Wen, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064013 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    F. Y. Li, H. Wen, and Z. Y. Fang, Chinese Physics B 22, 120402 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    J. Li, K. Lin, F. Li, and Y. Zhong, General Relativity and Gravitation 43, 2209 (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    H. Wen, F. Y. Li, and Z. Y. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104025 (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    H. Wen, F. Y. Li, Z. Y. Fang, and A. Beckwith, The European Physical Journal C 74, 2998 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    F. Y. Li, H. Wen, Z. Y. Fang, L. F. Wei, Y. W. Wang, and M. Zhang, Nuclear Physics B 911, 500 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Wen, F.-Y

    H. Wen, F.-Y. Li, J. Li, Z.-Y. Fang, and A. Beck- with, Chinese Physics C 41, 125101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Zheng, L

    H. Zheng, L. F. Wei, H. Wen, and F. Y. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064028 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    F.-Y. Li, H. Wen, Z.-Y. Fang, D. Li, and T.-J. Zhang, arXiv:1712.00766 [gr-qc] (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Zhang, Phys

    F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 94, 024048 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    J. D. E. Creighton and W. G. Anderson, Gravita- tional Wave Physics and Astronomy (WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH Co. KGaA, 2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Zhao et al., Progress in Astronomy 35, 316 (2017)

    W. Zhao et al., Progress in Astronomy 35, 316 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Abadie, B

    J. Abadie, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 173001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    J. M. Cordes, J. M. Weisberg, and V. Boriakoff, Astrophys. J. 288, 221 (1985) . 9

    work page 1985