Electric and magnetic axion quark nuggets, their stability and their detection

M. Sempe; O. Santillan

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 106 references

Electric and magnetic axion quark nuggets, their stability and their detection

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A ferromagnetic axion quark nugget is destabilized by Schwinger pair production at surface fields above about $10^{11}$ T—just below the previously proposed $10^{12\pm1}$ T.

desk verdict A short phenomenological letter with a genuinely new idea: axion walls convert the putative ferromagnetic field into an electric field near the Schwinger limit, pointing to demagnetization and a falsifiable Milky Way electron flux—but the central field estimate is an acknowledged ansatz, unverified by the paper's own appendix solution. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09409 v5 pith:LKOKGDDC submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

O. Santillan , M. Sempe This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 14.80.Va95.35.+d12.20.-m

keywords axionquarknuggetsferromagnetismSchwingerpairproductiondomainwalldarkmatteraxion-photoncouplingcriticalmagneticfieldelectron-positronpairs

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 asks what would happen if the quark nuggets proposed as dark-matter candidates also carry a ferromagnetic field, and it concludes that the combination with an axion domain wall is self-limiting. In an axion background, a strong magnetic field induces an electric field proportional to the axion–photon coupling; for surface fields of roughly $10^{11}$ T and above, that electric field reaches the Schwinger critical value and copiously creates electron–positron pairs. Since the ferromagnetic field proposed in earlier work is $B_0 \sim 10^{12\pm1}$ T, such nuggets sit directly on the edge of stability. The authors conclude that magnetized axion quark nuggets cannot be the dark matter we observe today: they either evaporate or, more likely, shed their induced electric and magnetic fields and return to the ordinary unmagnetized state. Because a surviving magnetized population would produce a huge high-energy electron flux in the Milky Way, the absence of that flux supports the conclusion that the magnetized state does not persist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the axion–photon interaction $L_{a\gamma} = g_{a\gamma\gamma} a\, \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}$, which turns the axion domain wall into a source of electric charge through the modified Gauss law $\nabla\cdot\mathbf{E} = -g_{a\gamma\gamma}\nabla\cdot(a\mathbf{B})$. Working in the approximation that the wall profile and the magnetic field keep their original shapes, the paper obtains the ansatz $E = -g_{a\gamma\gamma} a B$. The Schwinger formula (2.10) for pair creation, its collinear-field generalization (2.12), and the inhomogeneous Sauter-field result then convert this electric field into a critical surface magnetic field $B_c \sim 10^{11}$ T.

What would settle it

Solve the full coupled axion–Maxwell equations (2.4)–(2.8) for a spherical ferromagnetic nugget with a realistic domain-wall profile and a surface field of $10^{12}$ T, without assuming the profile keeps its shape; if the computed electric field stays below $E_c$, the instability claim fails. Observationally, a measurement of a steady $10^4$ GeV electron flux at the rate predicted for magnetized nuggets (about $10^{20}$ s$^{-1}$ per kpc$^3$) would contradict the paper's conclusion that such nuggets cannot persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a ferromagnetic axion quark nugget is unstable to Schwinger pair production. Inside the nugget the axion profile $a(r)$ and the ferromagnetic field $B(r)$ induce an electric field $E = -g_{a\gamma\gamma} a B$. Using the standard QCD axion parameters $10^9$ GeV $< f_a < 10^{12}$ GeV, the authors estimate $E \sim \alpha B$; setting $E$ equal to the Schwinger critical field $E_c = m_e^2/e$ yields a critical magnetic field $B_c \sim 10^{11}$ T. This lies at or below the surface field $B_0 \sim 10^{12\pm1}$ T of reference [16] and also close to the anomaly-driven fields of [17]–[19]. Including the enhancement of the pair-creation rate when $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are collinear, and allowing for spatial inhomogeneity of the Sauter form, leaves the critical field essentially unchanged. The authors therefore argue that the ferromagnetic state cannot be the endpoint of axion quark nugget evolution: pair production will either evaporate the nugget or, as they conjecture, switch off the electric and magnetic fields, leaving the non-magnetized axion quark nuggets of the earlier literature.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the ansatz $E = -g_{a\gamma\gamma} a B$: if plasma screening, the curl of $aB$, or the back-reaction of the produced pairs leaves the actual electric field far below that value at $B \sim 10^{12}$ T, then the quoted critical field $B_c \sim 10^{11}$ T is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the ferromagnetic state is unstable as argued, axion quark nuggets cannot be dark matter in a magnetized form; the dark-matter population must consist of the unmagnetized nuggets.
A surviving magnetized population today would produce an electron flux of order $10^{20}$ s$^{-1}$ per kpc$^3$ at energies up to $10^4$ GeV, which is already ruled out by observations; the instability conclusion explains the absence of that flux.
The tropospheric cross section for magnetized nuggets is enhanced relative to unmagnetized ones but remains within dark-matter collision bounds, so the proposed acoustic and crater searches would not be excluded even if the magnetized state existed.
The same pair-production mechanism sets a natural magnetization ceiling: any object carrying an axion domain wall and a surface field above about $10^{11}$ T must shed its field on a pair-production timescale.

Reading between the lines

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

One testable extension is to compute the time-dependent discharge of the magnetic field under pair production; the resulting decay lifetime as a function of $B_0$ and $f_a$ could be compared with cosmic-ray electron limits.
The mechanism may generalize to other axion-coupled compact objects, suggesting a generic upper bound on surface magnetic fields wherever axion domain walls and ferromagnetic matter coexist.
If the instability is confirmed in a full coupled-field solution, it would strengthen the case that the ferromagnetic phase proposed for ordinary quark nuggets cannot be imported directly into axion quark nugget models without a dynamical quenching mechanism.

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

Dear Colleague,

The thing to know: this short phenomenological letter has a genuinely new idea. The authors take Tatsumi's ferromagnetic quark nuggets, wrap them in an axion domain wall (the Zhitnitsky construction), and argue that the axion coupling converts the internal B ~ 10^12±1 T into an electric field E = -g_{aγγ} a B. With a ~ O(f_a) and g_{aγγ} ~ α/(π f_a), that gives E ~ 2αB, sitting right at the Schwinger critical value. Pair production then either evaporates the nugget or, as the authors prefer, destroys the ferromagnetic state. The most useful consequence is the Milky Way electron flux argument: magnetized nuggets surviving today would dump a huge flux of ~10^4 GeV electrons into the galactic electron gas, which is observationally excluded. That is a genuine conditional constraint on an exotic dark matter candidate, and I believe it is not in the cited literature.

Credit where due: the scaling is transparent, there are no fitted parameters (B0, f_a, m_a are all imported from cited work), and the paper states its approximations rather than burying them. Several conclusions are explicitly labeled as conjectures.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress test points. Eq. (2.9) is an ansatz, not a derived solution. For a spherical wall and essentially uniform B, ∇×(aB) ≠ 0, so the naive E violates ∇×E = 0. The paper acknowledges this and assumes the profiles are 'adapted,' and the heuristic arguments about the axion-driven current being α² suppressed address the back-reaction on B, not the curl correction to E itself. Strikingly, Appendix A solves the actual Poisson equation for the chosen profiles and obtains a multipole potential, but the authors never evaluate those integrals numerically or compare the resulting field with Eq. (2.9). The central estimate B_c ~ 10^11 T is therefore unverified, with the ingredients for checking it sitting in the paper's own appendix. This is not necessarily wrong—at order of magnitude, a surface-charge source on a thin wall could well give a comparable E—but it is load-bearing and currently open.

Smaller issues: the numerical check for QED nonlinear corrections in Section 2.3 is asserted but not documented, and the surrounding argument ends in a conjecture after admitting the weak-field expansion breaks down. The detection sections (troposphere, craters) mostly restate VanDevender's magnetopause model without a new quantitative result. And the imported ferromagnetic field B0 ~ 10^12±1 T from Tatsumi is itself an unverified premise, though the paper is explicit about that.

Who this is for: people working on axion quark nuggets, strangelets, or Schwinger pair production in inhomogeneous fields. It deserves a serious referee: the main fix is finite (evaluate the Appendix A field or justify Eq. (2.9) as a local approximation), and the Milky Way constraint is a sharp consequence worth testing. I would not cite it myself until that evaluation is done.

Best,

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers axion quark nuggets that, following Tatsumi, may be ferromagnetic with surface fields B0 ~ 10^12±1 T. In the axion-Maxwell system the authors posit an induced electric field E = -g_{aγγ} a B (Eq. 2.9), estimate that E reaches the Schwinger critical field for B ~ 10^11 T, and conclude that such nuggets would undergo intense electron-positron pair production unless the magnetized state is never realized or quickly decays. They also estimate the tropospheric interaction cross section via a magnetopause analogy and argue that persistent magnetized nuggets would generate an unobserved high-energy electron flux from the Milky Way electron gas, so the ferromagnetic state with an axion wall is disfavored as dark matter. Detection channels (acoustic pulses in water, air showers, AMS) are briefly discussed.

Significance. If the central estimate B_c ~ 10^11 T were established, the paper would make a sharp, falsifiable claim: ferromagnetic axion quark nuggets with B0 ~ 10^12±1 T are at or beyond the Schwinger instability threshold, which would either eliminate them as dark matter candidates or require a fast depolarization mechanism. The paper is honest about its assumptions, makes no parameter fitting of its own, and imports B0, f_a, m_a, and wall properties from the cited literature. The formal apparatus in the appendix (multipole solution, WKB pair-production integrals) goes beyond a simple dimensional analysis. However, the central physical input is the unverified ansatz Eq. (2.9), and the paper itself concedes the coupled profile problem is unsolved; the heuristic arguments in Section 2.3 are explicitly conjectural.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Eq. (2.9)] Eq. (2.9) is the load-bearing relation of the paper, but it is not a solution of the static Maxwell equations for the profiles used. For a radially varying axion profile a(r) and a magnetic field of the form (2.1) or (1.24), ∇×(aB) = a'(r) r̂×B is generically nonzero, so E = -g a B violates ∇×E = 0 (Eq. 2.5). The text acknowledges this immediately after Eq. (2.9) and then assumes the profiles are 'adapted' so the relation holds; no such solution is exhibited. Appendix A in fact solves a different boundary-value problem for a spherical wall and obtains multipole potentials (Eqs. (1.28)-(1.41)) that do not reduce to Eq. (2.9), and no numerical comparison of the two fields is provided. Since all subsequent Schwinger-rate estimates use Eq. (2.9), the critical field B_c ~ 10^11 T is not established. The authors should either solve the coupled axion-Maxwell system, at least in the static approximation, or derive an upper or lower bound on the true E inside the wall and show that the Schwinger exponent remains within an order of magnitude at B0 ~ 10^12 T.
[Section 2.3] The argument that QED nonlinearities do not suppress E below E_c is not a derivation. The weak-field expansion (2.16) is used to assert a numerical check, but the paper immediately notes that the relevant fields are outside the regime of validity for B ~ 10^11 T. The subsequent strong-field estimate (2.19) is truncated to n,m = 0,1 without a demonstrated error bound, and the 'contradiction' invoked in the final paragraph is conditional: if E were small the corrections would be small, and if the corrections were small the classical picture would hold and E would be large. This does not exclude a classical solution with E < E_c, because the classical solution is not Eq. (2.9) unless the curl condition is satisfied. The paragraph states this is a conjecture, but the conjecture is load-bearing for the stability conclusion and should be replaced by a controlled calculation or explicitly removed from the central claim.
[Section 2.2] The pair-production calculation uses the vacuum Schwinger rate with unscreened E, but if the rate is as large as claimed the produced e+e- plasma will dynamically screen the electric field on a timescale that may shut off further production; the paper does not estimate this backreaction. Without it, the statement that the nugget is 'at the verge of stability' is incomplete. The authors should estimate the plasma conductivity or field-screening time, or specify that the result applies only to the initial instant before screening develops.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and general text] The abstract contains 'the the nugget evaporates', Section 2.3 contains 'These linearities', and Section 3 uses 'nuclearity' for 'nugget'; the manuscript should be proofread carefully.
[Section 2.1] The comparison between |Ja| and J says the axion current is 'fourth orders of magnitude larger' than J ~ 10^12±1 TeV m_a, but the preceding estimate |Ja| ~ (1/137)^2 m_a B implies it is smaller by about four orders of magnitude; please correct this and the units.
[Section 2.2] The coefficient in E = 4cB/137 is not derived and is inconsistent with E = -g a B for a ≈ 2πf_a, which gives |E| ≈ 2cB/137; please reconcile this with the later statement E ∼ αB.
[Appendix A] Eqs. (1.25) and (1.39) in the appendix contain apparent typographical errors (an undefined variable x, 'RT rans', unbalanced parentheses); the appendix should be checked carefully.
[Section 3.2] The statement that each electron acquires energy eE/m_a and the resulting flux N ~ 10^20/s should specify the assumed unscreened value of E and the effective interaction volume; otherwise the bound is hard to reproduce.
[Section 4] The sentence 'the critical value remains also unaltered' overstates the inhomogeneity analysis, which shows only that the inhomogeneity parameter is small and that E0 cannot be much larger than E_c; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the critical-field estimate follows from an explicit Maxwell-axion ansatz plus externally cited inputs, and the target conclusion is not used as an input.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: import the ferromagnetic surface field B0 ~ 10^12±1 T from ref. [16]; import the axion profile and parameters f_a, m_a from the axion-quark-nugget literature [1]-[15],[42]-[50]; write the axion-modified Maxwell equations (2.4)-(2.8); adopt E = -g_{aγγ} a B as the induced electric field while explicitly acknowledging the condition ∇×(aB)=0; feed this E into the standard Schwinger rate to solve for B_c ~ 10^11 T; and compare B_c with B0. None of the imported quantities is tuned to force the comparison, and B0 is not used in the calculation of B_c. The paper's own caveat that (2.9) 'may be non true if ∇ × (aB) ≠ 0 ... unless the profile a and the magnetic field B(r) are adapted' flags a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity, since the instability claim is not an input to the derivation. The QED-nonlinearity discussion is explicitly framed as a conjecture, and there is no self-citation chain on which the central result depends. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted in this paper; all inputs, including B0 from ref [16], the f_a and m_a windows from refs [42]-[46], and the Milky Way densities, are imported from prior literature. The central claim depends on these imported values, which are tracked as axioms rather than fitted parameters. No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the ferromagnetic axion quark nugget is a composite state assembled from previously proposed ingredients.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Axion quark nuggets with an axion domain wall exist with baryon numbers 10^23 < N_B < 10^32 and axion decay constant 10^9 GeV < f_a < 10^12 GeV (refs [1]-[15]).
The entire calculation is conditional on this object existing; the paper does not model nucleosynthesis or formation itself.
domain assumption Quark nuggets can be ferromagnetic with surface field B0 ~ 10^12±1 T, as claimed in ref [16] or from anomaly terms in refs [17]-[19].
The paper explicitly declines to defend ferromagnetism and imports it from cited work; if the ferromagnetic state does not exist the central result is vacuous.
ad hoc to paper The coupled axion Maxwell system can be approximated by the homogeneous solution E = -g_{aγγ} a B with negligible backreaction on the wall and on B (Eq. 2.9 and following paragraph).
This is the load-bearing ansatz. The paper notes the curl consistency condition is not guaranteed and assumes no deformation instead of solving.
standard math The axion modified Maxwell equations (2.4)-(2.8) with L_a = g_{aγγ} a E·B are the correct low energy description.
Standard axion electrodynamics; not derived in the paper.
standard math Schwinger pair production formulas applied to a uniform or Sauter electric field describe electron positron creation in the wall, including the collinear B enhancement of ref [70].
Standard QED result; the paper applies known formulas with order-of-magnitude inputs.
ad hoc to paper QED Euler-Heisenberg nonlinearities do not suppress the electric field below the critical value (Section 2.3 conjecture).
The paper states the arguments are not complete proofs and conjectures the outcome; the weak-field expansion fails for the field values in question.
domain assumption The magnetopause cross-section model of ref [20] applies to the magnetized nugget and the induced electric field does not substantially deform the stopping radius (Eq. 3.21).
The detection cross section is carried over from prior work under an additional electric-pressure estimate.
domain assumption Milky Way electron density n_e ~ 1 cm^-3 and local dark matter density 0.3 GeV cm^-3 characterize the galactic environment (Section 3.2).
Standard astrophysical inputs used to convert the acceleration estimate into an unobserved flux bound.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric and magnetic axion quark nuggets, their stability and their detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKOKGDDC

@misc{pith2026190809409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric and magnetic axion quark nuggets, their stability and their detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKOKGDDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09409}
}

read the original abstract

The present work studies the dynamics of axion quark nuggets introduced in \cite{zhitnitsky} and exploited in the works \cite{zhitnitsky2}-\cite{zhitnitsky13}. The new feature considered here is the possibility that these nuggets become ferromagnetic. This possibility was pointed out in \cite{tatsumi}, although ferromagnetism may also take place due some anomaly terms found in \cite{son}-\cite{son2}. The purpose of the present letter however, is not to give evidence in favor or against these statements. Instead, it is focused in some direct consequences of this ferromagnetic behavior, if it exists. The first is that the nugget magnetic field induces an electric field due to the axion wall, which may induce pair production by Schwinger effect. Depending on the value of the magnetic field, the pair production can be quite large. A critical value for such magnetic field at the surface of the nugget is obtained, and it is argued that the value of the magnetic field of \cite{tatsumi} is at the verge of stability and may induce large pair production. The consequences of this enhanced pair production may be unclear. It may indicate that the the nugget evaporates, but on the other hand it may be just an indication that the intrinsic magnetic field disappears and the nuggets evolves to a non magnetized state such as \cite{zhitnitsky}-\cite{zhitnitsky13}. The interaction of such magnetic and electric nugget with the troposphere of the earth is also analyzed. However, if the magnetic field does not decay before the actual universe, then this would lead to high energy electron flux due to its interaction with the electron gases of the Milky Way. This suggests that these magnetized quarks may be a considerably part of dark matter, but only if their hypothetical magnetic and electric fields are evaporated.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

Zhitnitsky JCAP 0310 (2003) 010

A. Zhitnitsky JCAP 0310 (2003) 010

2003
[2]

Oaknin and A

D. Oaknin and A. Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 023519

2005
[3]

Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev

A. Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 043515

2006
[4]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 17

2013
[5]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063521

2017
[6]

Liang and A

X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 083502

2016
[7]

S. Ge, X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 043 008

2018
[8]

Zhitnitsky Physics of the Dark Universe 22 (2018), 1

A. Zhitnitsky Physics of the Dark Universe 22 (2018), 1

2018

Show all 106 references

[9]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Physics of the Dark Universe ( 2019) 100295

2019
[10]

N. Raza, L. van Waerbeke and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 103527

2018
[11]

Fischer, X.Liang, Y

H. Fischer, X.Liang, Y. Semertzidis, A. Zhitnitsky and K. Zioutas Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 043013

2018
[12]

van Waerbeke and A

L. van Waerbeke and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 0 43535

2019
[13]

Flambaum and A

V. Flambaum and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 0435 35

2019
[14]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky JCAP 02 (2017) 049

2017
[15]

S. Ge, K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 1 16017

2019
[16]

Tatsumi Phys

T. Tatsumi Phys. Lett. B 489 (2000) 280

2000
[17]

Son and A

D. Son and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 074018

2004
[18]

Son and M

D. Son and M. Stephanov Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 014021

2008
[19]

Melitski and A

M. Melitski and A. Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 0450 11. 25

2005
[20]

Pace VanDevender, A

J. Pace VanDevender, A. VanDevender, T. Sloan, C. Swaim , P. Wilson, R.Schmitt, R. Zakirov, J. Blum, J. Cross Sr. and Niall McGinley Scientiﬁc Reports 7 ( 2017) 8758

2017
[21]

A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D4 (1971) 1601

1971
[22]

Witten Phys

E. Witten Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 272

1984
[23]

Atreya, A

A. Atreya, A. Sarkar. and A. Srivastava Phys. Rev. D 90 (2 014) 045010
[24]

S. A. Chin and A. K. Kerman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 129 2

1979
[25]

J. D. Bjorken and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 23 53

1979
[26]

Alcock and E

C. Alcock and E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 1273

1985
[27]

Bhattacharyya et al

A. Bhattacharyya et al. Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 083509

2000
[28]

Lugones and J

G. Lugones and J. Horvath Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 063509

2004
[29]

Madsen Phys

J. Madsen Phys. Rev. Lett 61 (1988) 2909

1988
[30]

Madsen Nucl

J. Madsen Nucl. Phys. B 24 (1991) 84

1991
[31]

Madsen and H

J. Madsen and H. Heiselberg and K. Riisager, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 2947

1986
[32]

Alcock and A

C. Alcock and A. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 1233

1989
[33]

Sumiyoshi and T

K. Sumiyoshi and T. Kajino , in Proceedings of the Intern ational Workshop on Strange Quark Matter in Physics and Astrophysics, eds. J. Madsen and P. Hae nsel, Nucl. Phys. B. Proc. Supp.24, 80 (1991)

1991
[34]

Madsen and M

J. Madsen and M. Olesen, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 1069

1991
[35]

Olesen and J

M. Olesen and J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2313

1993
[36]

Masperi and M

L. Masperi and M. Orsaria, Physics of Particles and Nucl ei Letter 1 (2004) 48

2004
[37]

Applegate and C

J. Applegate and C. Hogan Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3037

1985
[38]

Schaeﬀer, P

R. Schaeﬀer, P. Delbourgo-Salvadora and J. Audouze Natu re 317 (1985) 407

1985
[39]

F. Bloch Z. Phys. 57 (1929) 545

1929
[40]

Lam Phys

J. Lam Phys. Kondens. Materie 15 (1972) 46

1972
[41]

Chakrabarty Phys

S. Chakrabarty Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 1306

1996
[42]

Sikivie Lect

P. Sikivie Lect. Notes Phys. 741 (2008) 19

2008
[43]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. Wise and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120 (19 83) 127. 26
[44]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler Phys.Lett. B120 (1983) 137

1983
[45]

Sikivie, Phys

L.Abbot and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133

1983
[46]

Dicus, E

D. Dicus, E. Kolb, V. Teplitz, and R. Wagoner Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 1829

1978
[47]

Bardeen and S

W. Bardeen and S. Tye, Phys. Lett. 74B (1978) 580

1978
[48]

Peccei and H

R. Peccei and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440; P hys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791

1977
[49]

M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki Phys. Lett. B 104 (1 981) 199; A. Zhitnitsky Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31 (1980) 260

1980
[50]

Shifman, A

M. Shifman, A. Vainstein and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 1 66 (1980) 493; J. Kim Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103

1980
[51]

Lyth and E

D. Lyth and E. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 532; Phys. L ett. B283 (1992) 189

1992
[52]

Planck Collaboration: P. A. R. Ade et all, Astron. Astro phys. 571 (2014) A22

2014
[53]

Garcia-Bellido and J

M.Beltran, J. Garcia-Bellido and J. Lesgourgues Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 103507

2007
[54]

Alford, K

M. Alford, K. Rajagopal, T. Schfer and A. Schmitt Review s of Modern Physics. 80 (2008) 4

2008
[55]

Alford, K

M. Alford, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek Physics Letters B . 422 (1998) 247

1998
[56]

G. V. Dunne, C. Schubert Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 105004

2005
[57]

G. V. Dunne, H. Gies, C. Schubert and Q. Wang Phys. Rev. D 7 3 (2006) 065028

2006
[58]

G. V. Dunne, Q. Wang Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 065015

2006
[59]

D. D. Dietrich, G. V. Dunne J. Phys. A 40 (2007) F825

2007
[60]

C. K. Dumlu, G. V. Dunne Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 125023

2011
[61]

Ilderton, G

A. Ilderton, G. Torgrimsson and J. Wardh Phys. Rev. D 92 ( 2015) 065001

2015
[62]

Ilderton, G

A. Ilderton, G. Torgrimsson and J. Wardh Phys. Rev. D 92 ( 2015) 025009

2015
[63]

Ilderton JHEP 09 (2014) 166

A. Ilderton JHEP 09 (2014) 166

2014
[64]

Hebenstreit, A

F. Hebenstreit, A. Ilderton and M. Marklund Phys. Rev. D . 84 (2011) 125022

2011
[65]

Kim and D

S. Kim and D. Page Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 105002

2002
[66]

Kim and D

S. Kim and D. Page Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 065020

2006
[67]

A. I. Nikishov, Sov. Phys. JETP 30 (1970) 660 (1970); Nuc l. Phys. B 21 (1970) 346. 27

1970
[68]

Chervyakov and H

A. Chervyakov and H. Kleinert Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 0650 10

2009
[69]

Kleinert, R

H. Kleinert, R. Ruﬃni and S. Xue Phys .Rev. D 78 (2008) 025 011

2008
[70]

Tanji Ann

M. Tanji Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 1691

2009
[71]

W. Su, M. Jian, Z. Lv, R. Grobe and Q. Su Phys. Rev. A 86 (201 2) 013422
[72]

Ruﬃni, G

R. Ruﬃni, G. Vereshchagin, and S. Xue, Phys. Rep. 487 (20 10) 1
[73]

Ruﬃni and S

R. Ruﬃni and S. Xue, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 49 (2006) S715

2006
[74]

Kleinert, E

H. Kleinert, E. Strobel, and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D. 88 ( 2013) 025049

2013
[75]

Karbstein Phys

F. Karbstein Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 085033

2013
[76]

Karbstein, L

F. Karbstein, L. Roessler, B. Dbrich and H. Gies Int. J. M od. Phys. Conf. Ser. 14 (2012) 403

2012
[77]

Karbstein and R

F. Karbstein and R. Shaisultanov Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 1 13002

2015
[78]

Adorno, A

T. Adorno, A. Gitman and D. Shabad ”Magnetic response fr om constant backgrounds to Coulomb sources” arXiv:1710.00138

arXiv
[79]

B.Dbrich, H. Gies, N. Neitz and F. Karbstein Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 025022

2013
[80]

B.Dbrich, H. Gies, N. Neitz and F. Karbstein Phys. Rev. L ett. 109 (2012) 131802

2012
[81]

H. Gies, F. Karbstein and C. Kohlfrst Phys. Rev. D 97 (201 8) 036022
[82]

J. Koga, M. Murakami, A. Areﬁev and Y. Nakamiya Matter an d Radiation at Extremes 4 (2019) 034401

2019
[83]

Evans and J

S. Evans and J. Rafelski Phys. Lett. B 791 (2019) 331

2019
[84]

F. Karbstein ”The quantum vacuum in electromagnetic ﬁe lds: From the Heisenberg-Euler ef- fective action to vacuum birefringence ” in ”Quantum Field T heory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks” July 2016

2016
[85]

Gies and F

H. Gies and F. Karbstein JHEP 03 (2017) 108

2017
[86]

Ripoche and J

P. Ripoche and J. Heyl Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 083004

2019
[87]

De Rujula and S

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

1984
[88]

Burdin, M

S. Burdin, M. Fairbairn, P. Mermod, D. Milstead, J. Pinf old, T. Sloan, W. Taylor Phys. Rep. 582 (2015) 1

2015
[89]

Porter, M

N. Porter, M. Cawley, D. Fegan, G. MacNeill and T. Weekes Irish Astron. J. 18, 193196 (1988). 28

1988
[90]

Abraham, J. et al. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. Phys. Res. A620 (2010) 227

2010
[91]

Aartsen et al

IceCube Collaboration M. Aartsen et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 7 5 (2015) 492

2015
[92]

McGlaun, S

M. McGlaun, S. Thompson and M. Elrick, CTH: A three-dime nsional shock wave physics code. Int. J. Impact Eng. 10 (1990) 351

1990
[93]

Crocket SESAME Database: Equation-of-State tabula r data for the thermodynamic properties of materials

S. Crocket SESAME Database: Equation-of-State tabula r data for the thermodynamic properties of materials. http://www.lanl.gov/ org/padst e/adtsc/theoretical/physics-chemistry- materials/sesame-database.php, (1999) (Date of access: 2 4/06/2017)

1999
[94]

Madsen Phys

J. Madsen Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014026

2005
[95]

Madsen J

J. Madsen J. Phys. G 31 (2005) S833

2005
[96]

Aguilar et al

M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rept. 366 ( 2002) 331

2002
[97]

Sandweiss, J

J. Sandweiss, J. Phys. G 30, S51 (2004)

2004
[98]

Lawson Phys

K. Lawson Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 103520

2011
[99]

H.Tokuno et al.,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 676 (2012) 54

2012
[100]

Pshirkov International Journal of Modern Physics D 25 (2016)1650103

M. Pshirkov International Journal of Modern Physics D 25 (2016)1650103

2016
[101]

P. B. Price and M. H. Salamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 1226

1986
[102]

Ambrosio et al MACRO collaboration Eur

M. Ambrosio et al MACRO collaboration Eur. Phys. J. C 13 (2000) 453

2000
[103]

B. Wandelt. et al. Self-interacting dark matter. Ch. 5 in Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe, from 4th Intl. Symp., Marina del Rey, CA, USA, February 2325, 2000, (ed. Cline, D. B.) 263274. (Springer, 2001). htt ps://arxiv.org/ abs/astro-ph/000...

2000 arXiv
[104]

Rafelski, L

J. Rafelski, L. Labun and J. Birrell PRL 110 (2013) 1111 02

2013
[105]

Liang and A

X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 023015

2019
[106]

Iwazaki Phys

A. Iwazaki Phys. Lett. B 489 (2000) 353. 29

2000

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Zhitnitsky JCAP 0310 (2003) 010

A. Zhitnitsky JCAP 0310 (2003) 010

2003

[2] [2]

Oaknin and A

D. Oaknin and A. Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 023519

2005

[3] [3]

Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev

A. Zhitnitsky Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 043515

2006

[4] [4]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 17

2013

[5] [5]

Lawson and A

K. Lawson and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063521

2017

[6] [6]

Liang and A

X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 083502

2016

[7] [7]

S. Ge, X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 043 008

2018

[8] [8]

Zhitnitsky Physics of the Dark Universe 22 (2018), 1

A. Zhitnitsky Physics of the Dark Universe 22 (2018), 1

2018