Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: Time Modulations and Amplifications

Alexander Mead; Ariel Zhitnitsky; Ludovic Van Waerbeke; Md Shahriar Rahim Siddiqui; Xunyu Liang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: Time Modulations and Amplifications

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Axion Quark Nugget dark matter produces a relativistic axion flux at Earth with annual and daily modulations and rare burst amplifications large enough for broadband detectors to test.

desk verdict A genuine AQN model-prediction paper with concrete, testable signatures, but the key table has an undefined ε and the text disagrees with Table VI on ΔB/B; worth refereeing after small fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04675 v3 pith:VLO55GU7 submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Xunyu Liang , Alexander Mead , Md Shahriar Rahim Siddiqui , Ludovic Van Waerbeke , Ariel Zhitnitsky This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords axionquarknuggetsdarkmatterrelativisticaxionsannualmodulationdailylocalflashesbroadbanddetectionMonteCarlosimulation

topics Dark Matter

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 claims that the Axion Quark Nugget (AQN) dark matter model, in which macroscopic quark-matter nuggets are stabilized by axion domain walls, generates a flux of relativistic axions when antimatter AQNs annihilate inside Earth. Using Monte Carlo simulations of AQN trajectories through a layered Earth, it predicts a time-dependent energy flux $\langle E_a\rangle\Phi_a(t)\simeq 10^{14} A(t)$ eV/(cm$^2$ s), where $A(t)$ contains an annual modulation of 1--10%, a daily modulation of order 10%, Poisson statistical fluctuations of 20--60%, and rare local-flash amplifications of $10^2$--$10^4$. The axions have mean speed $\langle v_a\rangle\simeq 0.6c$, which distinguishes them from conventional non-relativistic galactic axions and gives broadband detectors a concrete temporal search strategy. The predicted flux and modulations are stated to be largely insensitive to the model's free parameters, so the time structure is a testable signature of the AQN framework.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the axion domain-wall relaxation: when an antimatter AQN annihilates baryonic matter, it loses mass and shrinks, shifting the equilibrium domain-wall configuration and exciting a mode that radiates propagating axions. The quantitative machinery is the mass-loss relation $dm/ds=-\sigma\rho$ with geometric cross-section $\sigma\simeq\pi R^2$, combined with the axion number estimate $\langle N_a\rangle\simeq (1/3)\Delta m c^2/\langle E_a\rangle\simeq \Delta m c^2/(4m_a)$, and the emission spectrum from the companion calculation giving $\langle v_a\rangle\simeq 0.6c$. These ingredients are integrated along Monte Carlo-generated trajectories through Earth's five-layer density profile, producing the heat-emission profile $q(r,\theta)$ whose asymmetry generates the daily modulation and whose local concentration generates the local-flash amplifications.

What would settle it

A year-long broadband axion search in the $10^{-6}$--$10^{-3}$ eV window sensitive to the predicted $10^{14}$ eV/(cm$^2$ s) flux should see a 10% daily modulation and occasional local flashes; observing no daily modulation while the annual modulation is present, or no 0.3-second flash at the predicted rate of roughly one per five years at amplification $10^3$, would rule out Eq. (2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (2): for the AQN model, the time-dependent axion energy flux at Earth's surface is $\langle E_a\rangle\Phi_a(t)\simeq 10^{14} A(t)$ eV/(cm$^2$ s), with $\langle E_a\rangle\simeq 1.3 m_a c^2$ and $\langle A(t)\rangle = 1$ when averaged over long times. The modulation factor $A(t)$ is composed of an annual modulation $\kappa_a$ of order 1--10%, a daily modulation $\kappa_d$ of order 10%, Poisson-driven statistical fluctuations of 20--60%, and rare local-flash bursts that amplify the signal by $10^2$--$10^4$ for short durations. The paper derives these numbers by simulating AQN trajectories through a five-layer model of Earth, using a geometric annihilation cross-section and the axion-emission spectrum from the domain-wall relaxation mechanism. It also states that the resulting energy flux and density are independent of axion mass in the window $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{eV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}$, unlike conventional galactic axions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole flux normalization rests on the assumption that every nucleus in the AQN's geometric path annihilates and that about one third of the liberated mass energy is emitted as axions; if either fraction is smaller, the flux, daily modulation, and local-flash rates all shrink in proportion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Detectors whose observable couples to the axion gradient rather than the axion density would see AQN-induced axions enhanced by roughly $10^3$ relative to cold galactic axions because the signal scales with axion velocity.
The predicted daily modulation of order 10% and the associated north--south spatial asymmetry provide a timing signature that can separate AQN axions from conventional halo axions and from most instrumental backgrounds.
Local flashes give a rare-event test: an amplification of $10^2$ should appear roughly once every two days as a signal lasting about one second, whereas an amplification of $10^4$ is a 0.1-second burst expected about once every five years.
The baseline flux and energy density are independent of axion mass across the stated window, so the prediction does not require fine-tuning of $m_a$.
Gravitational lensing by the Sun and planets does not amplify the AQN-induced axion flux under the standard halo model, so searches should target the modulation and burst signatures rather than lensing enhancements.

Reading between the lines

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

A null search at the predicted baseline flux would compress all three time signatures proportionally, so a single broadband run could bound the product of the annihilation fraction and the axion energy fraction.
The local-flash event-rate scaling $\propto A^{-3/2}$ is a parameter-free relation; after several flashes, comparing amplitudes with durations would test the geometric-cross-section assumption independently of the absolute flux.
The same simulation machinery could be applied to the neutrino channel produced by the same annihilation events, making the long-standing annual-modulation signal seen by underground detectors a quantitatively testable prediction rather than an independent anomaly.
Two detectors at similar latitude but separated in longitude could separate the globally coherent daily modulation from local, uncorrelated flashes, since the daily component rotates with Earth while bursts do not repeat.

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

Quick take: this is a model-prediction paper, not a data fit. It computes the axion flux from AQN dark matter passing through the Earth, including annual/daily modulation, Poisson fluctuations, and rare 'local flashes'. The daily modulation mechanism—the AQN cross-section shrinks as it loses mass, so it emits more axions on the wind-facing side of Earth—is new and physically clear. The local-flash estimates (amplification up to 10^2–10^4 for a nearby passage, with event rates in Table IV) are the most interesting output and are concrete enough for broadband axion detectors to take seriously. The gravitational lensing section is a useful service: it shows the earlier large-lensing claims require implausible colinear DM streams.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The stress-test note is right: Table VI is computed with ε = 1 and ε is never defined anywhere. If ε is an efficiency or the antimatter fraction, the headline flux Eq. (2) scales linearly down, and the Sec. VII claim that the predictions have 'little to no flexibility' overstates the case. Second, the text says ΔB/B ~ 0.1 in most cases, but Table VI lists 14–34%. One of those is a typo or a misreading, and it matters because the modulation amplitudes are normalized by that quantity. Third, the absolute flux rests on the geometric cross-section and the 1/3 axion energy fraction, both inherited from the authors' earlier work. That is not a fatal circularity—the predictions are new and falsifiable—but the normalization is less robust than the modulation shapes.

What the paper does well: the Monte Carlo is internally consistent, the simulated heat profile and Pa(θ) match the analytical daily-modulation estimate (14), the parameter sensitivity across the six model variants is modest (a factor of ~3 in flux, which they understate as 'insensitive'), and the local-flash rate formula (22) is a clean scaling relation. No code or data are shipped, so the 10^8-particle simulation can't be audited, but the equations are transparent enough to reimplement.

Who it's for: experimentalists planning broadband axion searches, and DM model-builders who want concrete AQN signatures. Even a skeptic of AQNs can extract the time-modulation formalism and the lensing correction.

Recommendation: accept for peer review. The required fixes are small: define ε, fix the ΔB/B mismatch, and release the code. The core predictions are testable and the paper is honest about its assumptions, which puts it ahead of many model-prediction papers.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies axion production from Axion Quark Nuggets (AQNs) crossing the Earth. After reviewing the AQN model and the domain-wall axion emission mechanism, the authors perform Monte Carlo simulations of AQN trajectories through a five-layer Earth, compute the heat/axion-emission profile and the surface axion flux, and quantify annual and daily modulations, Poisson statistical fluctuations, and rare 'local flash' burst amplifications. The central result, Eq. (2), is an energy flux of approximately 10^14 A(t) eV cm^-2 s^-1 with average axion energy <E_a> ≈ 1.3 m_a and average velocity <v_a> ≈ 0.6c; the time-dependent factor includes annual and daily modulations of order 1-10%, statistical fluctuations of 20-60%, and local-flash amplifications of 10^2-10^4. The paper also argues that gravitational-lensing amplification is negligible under the standard halo model.

Significance. If the normalization and model inputs hold, the paper gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction for a new relativistic-axion channel (v_a ≈ 0.6c) whose time structure is unique to the AQN dark matter model. The simulation machinery is described in enough detail to reproduce the heat-emission profile q(r,θ) and the surface angular distribution P_a(θ), and the internal consistency between Eq. (38) and Tables III and VI is a strength. The work also usefully identifies the daily modulation and local-flash effects as observables that distinguish AQN-induced axions from conventional galactic axions and WIMPs. However, the absolute flux and all derived amplitudes inherit several model inputs from earlier work, and the paper's robustness claims go beyond what is actually varied.

major comments (3)

[Table VI, Eq. (2), Eq. (38)] The parameter ε in the Table VI caption ('ε = 1 unless specified') is never defined anywhere in the text. This is load-bearing because every flux and density entry in Table VI, and therefore the normalization of Eq. (2), scales linearly with ε. Moreover, Sec. VI B states that 'only the AQNs made out of antiquarks will be annihilated underground' and mentions a numerical factor of 3/5, but Eq. (38) contains no such factor if Eq. (35) is the total AQN hit rate. The authors must define ε, specify whether Eq. (35) is the total or antiquark-only hit rate, and if necessary insert the antimatter fraction in Eq. (38) and rescale Tables III, IV, and VI. Without this, Eq. (2) cannot be interpreted as a central prediction rather than an upper limit.
[Sec. VII and Appendix D] The claim that the predictions have 'little to no flexibility' is stronger than the tables show. Table VI spans a factor of roughly 2.8 in the flux (from 3.46×10^13 to 9.67×10^13 eV cm^-2 s^-1), and the daily-modulation amplitude also varies substantially across the models, with <ΔB>/<B> ranging from 14.1% to 33.8%. The sensitivity study in Appendix D varies α and B_min, but it does not vary ε, the 1/3 energy fraction in Eq. (36), or the spectral parameter δ, which are precisely the quantities that set the absolute amplitude. The conclusions should report a range of predictions rather than claiming near-parameter-independence.
[Sec. IV C, Eq. (36)] The conversion of mass loss to axion number uses the factor 1/3 for the domain-wall energy fraction and ⟨E_a⟩ ≃ 1.3 m_a. These are model inputs inherited from Refs. [1, 47], not outputs of the present simulation. The paper should state explicitly that the energy flux and all modulation amplitudes scale linearly with the product of the annihilation efficiency and this energy fraction, and should comment on the theoretical uncertainty in these inputs. This is especially important because the manuscript presents the 1/3 fraction as fixed while later claiming that the results are insensitive to model parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. VI B] The first sentence of Sec. VI B contains a typo: 'obtianed' should be 'obtained'.
[Appendix D] The opening sentence of Appendix D contains a typo: 'senstive' should be 'sensitive', and the phrase 'argue that thee main resultss' has repeated letters.
[Table VI caption] The caption says 'ϵ = 1 unless specified', but no row in Table VI specifies a different value; if ε is not a physical parameter, the reference to it should be removed or explained.
[Fig. 2 and Sec. III E] The text and figures use both 63 degrees (Fig. 2) and 60 degrees (Fig. 4 and Sec. III E) for the angle between the DM wind and the ecliptic or celestial equator; the geometry should be stated consistently.
[References [66] and [67]] References [66] and [67] appear to be the same Abramowitz entry duplicated; the bibliography should be checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the predicted axion flux is a forward computation from AQN model inputs, with no parameter fitted to the axion signal being predicted.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain from Eqs. (12)-(38): the headline flux (2) is Eq. (38) evaluated with simulated mean mass loss and hit rate; neither quantity is fit to any axion signal. The baryon-charge distribution (Eqs. 7-8) is calibrated to solar-corona EUV and IceCube/ANITA constraints in prior work, i.e. external to the axion prediction. The spectrum (Eq. 29) and the 1/3 energy fraction in Eq. (36) are imported from same-group prior work [47], but they are stated model inputs whose assumptions do not include the Earth-flux result; this is self-citation providing independent model content, not a circular reduction. The annual and daily modulation factors, the estimate (14), and the local-flash ratio (19) are geometric/kinematic consequences of the same forward simulation, not fits to a held-out prediction. The undefined epsilon in the Table VI caption does not enter any equation, so no by-construction reduction can be exhibited; it is a documentation and correctness concern rather than a circularity. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by fitting, to its own predicted output.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central numbers rest on the AQN model rather than on independent, machine-checked inputs. The flux normalization uses a baryon-charge distribution fitted to EUV data, a chosen B_min, an assumed 1/3 axion energy fraction, and a spectrum parametrized by delta from earlier same-group work. The only external benchmarks are IceCube and ANITA constraints used to discard two of six size-distribution models. This means the model has some calibration power, but the new axion predictions are not parameter-free.

free parameters (4)

Power-law index alpha of AQN baryon-charge distribution = 2.5 / 2.0 / (1.2, 2.5)
Set by fitting extreme-UV solar corona observations in [2,40]; controls the mean baryon charge and therefore the AQN hit rate and mass-loss scale.
Minimum baryon charge B_min = 10^23 or 3 x 10^24
Chosen by hand; models with mean baryon charge at least 10^25 are retained to match IceCube and ANITA constraints, affecting flux normalization and fluctuation amplitudes.
Axion spectral parameter delta = 0.5
Introduced in [47] to sweep the uncertainty of the emitted axion velocity spectrum; the intermediate value is chosen, giving average axion velocity about 0.6c with about 20% spectral uncertainty.
Axion energy fraction per annihilated baryon mass = 1/3
Assumed from the AQN construction in Eq. (36); sets the absolute axion flux and all modulation amplitudes, and is not independently measured.

assumptions (6)

ad hoc to paper AQN dark matter exists as macroscopic quark or antiquark nuggets with baryon-charge distribution f(B) proportional to B^-alpha.
This is the core model assumption inherited from [35,2]; no direct observation establishes AQNs.
ad hoc to paper Annihilation of antimatter AQNs with Earth material excites the axion domain wall, and this excitation is radiated as free axions with the spectrum computed in [47].
Sec. II and Sec. IV B take the emission mechanism and spectrum from same-group papers without independent verification.
ad hoc to paper The AQN interaction cross-section is geometric, sigma approximately pi R^2, so every nucleus in the path is annihilated.
Eq. (24) from [2] controls mass loss and therefore the flux and all modulations.
domain assumption Axion emission is spherically symmetric in the AQN rest frame, keeping only the l=0 partial wave in Eq. (29).
Sec. IV B uses this to transform the rest-frame spectrum to the observer frame; corrections are estimated at about 0.1%.
domain assumption The dark-matter wind follows the Standard Halo Model with local density 0.3 GeV/cm3 and velocity dispersion around 110 km/s.
Used in the flux distribution (39) and in the gravitational lensing section; different local DM distributions would change phases and lensing.
domain assumption The Earth can be modeled as five uniform-density shells as in Table V.
Standard Earth-model data from [59], used to compute AQN trajectories and mass-loss profiles.

invented entities (1)

Axion Quark Nugget (AQN) dark matter object independent evidence
purpose: Postulated macroscopic quark or antiquark nugget with an axion domain-wall shell; annihilates inside Earth and emits the relativistic axions whose flux and modulations are computed.
AQNs are not directly detected, and their mass distribution is partly fitted to other anomalies. They do carry falsifiable handles beyond this paper, such as the predicted relativistic axion flux and the model's proposed explanations of 511 keV, EUV, DAMA, and EDGES, so independent_evidence is true but confirmation is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: Time Modulations and Amplifications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLO55GU7

@misc{pith2026190804675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: Time Modulations and Amplifications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLO55GU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04675}
}

abstract

We study the new mechanism of the axion production suggested recently in [1,2]. This mechanism is based on the so-called Axion Quark Nugget (AQN) dark matter model, which was originally invented to explain the similarity of the dark and visible cosmological matter densities. We perform numerical simulations to evaluate the axion flux on the Earth's surface. We examine annual and daily modulations, which have been studied previously and are known to occur for any type of dark matter. We also discuss a novel type of short time enhancements which are unique to the AQN model: the statistical fluctuations and burst-like amplification, both of which can drastically amplify the axion signal, up to a factor $\sim10^2-10^3$ for a very short period of time. The present work studies the AQN-induced axions within the mass window $10^{-6}{\rm\,eV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim10^{-3}\rm\,eV$ with typical velocities $\langle v_a\rangle\sim0.6c$. We also comment on the broadband detection strategy to search for such relativistic axions by studying the daily and annual time modulations as well as random burst-like amplifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04675 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Mechanism of daily modulation for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Cause of local flashes. Since the mean free path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Realistic gravitational deflection of AQN flux. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Amplification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Coordinate system used in flux distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Monte Carlo simulation of axion flux. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Probability density for the heat-emission profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: The azimuthal distribution of axion flux on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: Weak lensing and coherent velocity: Here the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: Strong deflection and dispersive velocity: Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: Summary of simulations. The heat emission profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

ADAMOS: Axion Daily Modulation Searches for Dark Matter at 20 GHz
hep-ex 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

ADAMOS, a proposed 20 GHz thin-shell haloscope, would reach g_aγγ≈4.4×10^-13 GeV^-1 in 30 days and simultaneously search for daily-modulated and transient axion signals.
RESPONSE TO Time Modulations and Amplifications in the Axion Search Experiments
hep-ph 2019-08 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper contends that Liang et al. (1908.04675) erroneously attribute three assumptions to refs [1] and [64], so their rejection of the invisible matter lensing mechanism is invalid.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

The deﬂection angle γ due to gravitational focusing is small, namely γ≪ 1

work page
[2]

local ﬂash

For this case we expect more heat (and therefore more axions) to be emitted in the upper hemisphere (the half sphere facing the AQN wind) than the lower one (the half sphere opposing the AQN wind). The diﬀerence can 4 This should be contrasted with conventional DM candidates which are microscopic fundamental particles characterized by a cross section that...

work page
[3]

invisible DM

The DM ﬂux is colinear. Assumption 1 requires that the bending angle caused by stars and planets is always very small. Assumption 2 strongly enforces the gravitational focusing as a result of (assumed) high level of coherency of the DM ﬂux when all particles move in a highly colinear way with the same direction. To strengthen the focusing eﬀect, Ref. [55]...

work page
[4]

Simple case: weak gravitational lensing and coherent velocity We ﬁrst analyze the simplest situation: a directed aligned ﬂux with one and the same velocity v, see Fig

work page
[5]

Wilczek, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

work page 1978
[6]

Realistic case: strong gravitational deﬂection and dispersive velocity In reality the AQN ﬂux is obviously dispersive and the gravitational deﬂection is large because of the ﬁxed 60 ◦ incident angle, see Fig. 4. To justify this realistic case, we ﬁrst consider the conﬁguration as shown in Fig. 12. We assume initially there is a small tilted angle δψ. We a...

work page
[7]

New mechanism producing axions in the AQN model and how the CAST can discover them

H. Fischer, X. Liang, Y. Semertzidis, A. Zhitnit- sky, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D98, 043013 (2018), arXiv:1805.05184 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[8]

Lawson, X

K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D100, 043531 (2019), arXiv:1905.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019

Show all 74 references

[9]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

1977
[10]

Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 40, 223 (1978)

S. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 40, 223 (1978)

1978
[11]

suﬃciently

Because of the good alignment, we expect the lens- ing is weak and the ampliﬁcation should reach a similar agreement with Refs. [55, 56]. 0 (Sun) Earth δθ R⊕ dLS ≫ 2GM⊙ v2 v z s θ b γ r dL = 1 AU FIG. 11: Weak lensing and coherent velocity: Here the ﬂux comes from far distance...
[12]

J. E. Kim, Physical Review Letters 43, 103 (1979)

1979
[13]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nuclear Physics B 166, 493 (1980)

1980
[14]

M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Physics Letters B 104, 199 (1981)

1981
[15]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980), [Yad. Fiz.31,497(1980)]

1980
[16]

Van Bibber and L

K. Van Bibber and L. J. Rosenberg, Physics Today 59, 30 (2006)

2006
[17]

S. J. Asztalos, L. J. Rosenberg, K. van Bibber, P. Sikivie, and K. Zioutas, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 56, 293 (2006)

2006
[18]

Sikivie, in Axions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol

P. Sikivie, in Axions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 741, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raf- felt, and B. Beltr´ an (2008) p. 19, astro-ph/0610440

2008 arXiv
[19]

G. G. Raﬀelt, in Axions, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 741, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raf- felt, and B. Beltr´ an (2008) p. 51, hep-ph/0611350

2008 arXiv
[20]

Sikivie, International Journal of Modern Physics A25, 554 (2010), arXiv:0909.0949 [hep-ph]

P. Sikivie, International Journal of Modern Physics A25, 554 (2010), arXiv:0909.0949 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[21]

L. J. Rosenberg, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112, 12278 (2015)

2015
[22]

D. J. E. Marsh, Physics Reports 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633

2016 arXiv
[23]

P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[24]

Ringwald, in Proceedings of the Neutrino Oscillation Workshop (NOW2016)

A. Ringwald, in Proceedings of the Neutrino Oscillation Workshop (NOW2016). 4 - 11 September, 2016. Otranto (Lecce, Italy) (2016) p. 81, arXiv:1612.08933 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[25]

Battesti et al

R. Battesti et al. , Phys. Rept. 765-766, 1 (2018), arXiv:1803.07547 [physics.ins-det]

2018 arXiv
[26]

I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[27]

M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

2018 arXiv
[28]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

1983
[29]

L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Physics Letters B 120, 133 (1983)

1983
[30]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, Physics Letters B 120, 137 (1983)

1983
[31]

Chang, C

S. Chang, C. Hagmann, and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D 59, 023505 (1999), hep-ph/9807374

1999 arXiv
[32]

Hiramatsu, M

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 105020 (2012), arXiv:1202.5851 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[33]

Hiramatsu, M

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 089902 (2012)

2012
[34]

Kawasaki, K

M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065014 (2015), arXiv:1412.0789 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Fleury and G

L. Fleury and G. D. Moore, JCAP 1, 004 (2016), arXiv:1509.00026 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[36]

Gorghetto, E

M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 07, 151 (2018), arXiv:1806.04677 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[37]

V. B. Klaer and G. D. Moore, JCAP 11, 049 (2017), arXiv:1708.07521 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[38]

Aghanim, Y

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J. P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Bou...

2018 arXiv
[39]

Sikivie, Physical Review Letters 51, 1415 (1983)

P. Sikivie, Physical Review Letters 51, 1415 (1983)

1983
[40]

Andriamonje, S

S. Andriamonje, S. Aune, D. Autiero, K. Barth, A. Belov, B. Beltr´ an, H. Br¨ auninger, J. M. Carmona, S. Ce- bri´ an, J. I. Collar, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, L. Di Lella, C. Eleftheriadis, J. Englhauser, G. Fanourakis, E. Fer- rer Ribas, H. Fischer, J. Franz, P. Friedrich, T. G...

2007
[41]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 10, 010 (2003), hep-ph/0202161

2003 arXiv
[42]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

1984
[43]

Madsen, Hadrons in dense matter and hadrosynthe- sis

J. Madsen, Hadrons in dense matter and hadrosynthe- sis. Proceedings, 11th Chris Engelbrecht Summer School, Cape Town, South Africa, February 4-13, 1998 , Lect. Notes Phys. 516, 162 (1999), [,162(1998)], arXiv:astro- ph/9809032 [astro-ph]

1999
[44]

V. V. Flambaum and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 023517 (2019), arXiv:1811.01965 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Zhitnitsky, JCAP 10, 050 (2017), arXiv:1707.03400 [astro-ph.SR]

A. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 10, 050 (2017), arXiv:1707.03400 [astro-ph.SR]

2017 arXiv
[46]

N. Raza, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103527 (2018), arXiv:1805.01897 [astro- ph.SR]

2018 arXiv
[47]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100295 (2019), arXiv:1804.07340 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[48]

Zhitnitsky, (2019), arXiv:1909.05320 [hep-ph]

A. Zhitnitsky, (2019), arXiv:1909.05320 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Liang and A

X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083502 (2016), arXiv:1606.00435 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[50]

S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 96, 063514 (2017), arXiv:1702.04354 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[51]

S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043008 (2018), arXiv:1711.06271 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[52]

S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 116017 (2019), arXiv:1903.05090 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Liang and A

X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D99, 023015 (2019), arXiv:1810.00673 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Budker, V

D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnit- sky, (2019), arXiv:1909.09475 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[55]

I. Stern, Proceedings, 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2016): Chicago, IL, USA, August 3-10, 2016 , PoS ICHEP2016, 198 (2016), arXiv:1612.08296 [physics.ins-det]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Zhong et al

L. Zhong et al. (HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. D97, 092001 (2018), arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[57]

D. F. Jackson Kimball et al. , (2017), arXiv:1711.08999 [physics.ins-det]

2017 arXiv
[58]

Barbieri, C

R. Barbieri, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, C. S. Gallo, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso, and C. C. Speake, Phys. Dark Univ. 15, 135 (2017), arXiv:1606.02201 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[59]

Freese, J

K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. Gould, Phys. Rev.D37, 3388 (1988)

1988
[60]

Freese, M

K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1561 (2013), arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[61]

B. R. Patla, R. J. Nemiroﬀ, D. H. H. Hoﬀmann, and K. Zioutas, Astrophys. J. 780, 158 (2014), arXiv:1305.2454 [astro-ph.EP]

2014 arXiv
[62]

Bertolucci, K

S. Bertolucci, K. Zioutas, S. Hofmann, and M. Maroudas, Phys. Dark Univ. 17, 13 (2017), arXiv:1602.03666 [astro-ph.SR]

2017 arXiv
[63]

Bertolucci, H

S. Bertolucci, H. Fischer, S. Hofmann, M. Maroudas, Y. Semertzidis, and K. Zioutas, (2019), arXiv:1908.07875 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[64]

De Rujula and S

A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nature (London) 312, 734 (1984)

1984
[65]

D. L. Anderson, Theory of the Earth (Blackwell Publications, Boston) also see, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior
[66]

Oelsner, L

G. Oelsner, L. Revin, E. Ilichev, A. Pankratov, H.-G. Meyer, L. Gronberg, J. Hassel, and K. L. S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 142605 (2013)

2013
[67]

S. K. Lamoreaux, K. A. van Bibber, K. W. Lehn- ert, and G. Carosi, Phys. Rev. D88, 035020 (2013), arXiv:1306.3591 [physics.ins-det]

2013 arXiv
[68]

Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 141801 (2016), arXiv:1602.01086 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[69]

Sikivie, N

P. Sikivie, N. Sullivan, and D. B. Tanner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 131301 (2014), arXiv:1310.8545 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[70]

Chaudhuri, K

S. Chaudhuri, K. Irwin, P. W. Graham, and J. Mardon, (2018), arXiv:1803.01627 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[71]

Cao and A

C. Cao and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D96, 015013 (2017), arXiv:1702.00012 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[73]

Abramowitz, in Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Applied Mathematics Series, edited by M

M. Abramowitz, in Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Applied Mathematics Series, edited by M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun (1972) p. 55

1972
[74]

DiLella and K

L. DiLella and K. Zioutas, Astropart. Phys. 19, 145 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207073 [astro-ph]

2003 arXiv
[75]

S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, A. H. G. Peter, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 011301 (2014), arXiv:1308.1953 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The deﬂection angle γ due to gravitational focusing is small, namely γ≪ 1

work page

[2] [2]

local ﬂash

For this case we expect more heat (and therefore more axions) to be emitted in the upper hemisphere (the half sphere facing the AQN wind) than the lower one (the half sphere opposing the AQN wind). The diﬀerence can 4 This should be contrasted with conventional DM candidates which are microscopic fundamental particles characterized by a cross section that...

work page

[3] [3]

invisible DM

The DM ﬂux is colinear. Assumption 1 requires that the bending angle caused by stars and planets is always very small. Assumption 2 strongly enforces the gravitational focusing as a result of (assumed) high level of coherency of the DM ﬂux when all particles move in a highly colinear way with the same direction. To strengthen the focusing eﬀect, Ref. [55]...

work page

[4] [4]

Simple case: weak gravitational lensing and coherent velocity We ﬁrst analyze the simplest situation: a directed aligned ﬂux with one and the same velocity v, see Fig

work page

[5] [5]

Wilczek, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

work page 1978

[6] [6]

Realistic case: strong gravitational deﬂection and dispersive velocity In reality the AQN ﬂux is obviously dispersive and the gravitational deﬂection is large because of the ﬁxed 60 ◦ incident angle, see Fig. 4. To justify this realistic case, we ﬁrst consider the conﬁguration as shown in Fig. 12. We assume initially there is a small tilted angle δψ. We a...

work page

[7] [7]

New mechanism producing axions in the AQN model and how the CAST can discover them

H. Fischer, X. Liang, Y. Semertzidis, A. Zhitnit- sky, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D98, 043013 (2018), arXiv:1805.05184 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Lawson, X

K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D100, 043531 (2019), arXiv:1905.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019