Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Below the Schwinger critical magnetic field value, quantum vacuum and gamma-ray bursts delay

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Below the critical field, the QED vacuum acts as a medium that can delay GRB photons by hours, so observed time lags need not imply Lorentz invariance violation.

desk verdict A standard QED refractive index gets misapplied with a factor-of-1000 arithmetic error and an unrealistic 10^6 T intergalactic field, so the headline 2.4-hour GRB delay collapses. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11080 v1 pith:FOT75JOF submitted 2025-01-19 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-th

Iver H. Brevik , Moshe M. Chaichian , Anca Tureanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords quantumvacuumeffectEuler-Heisenbergeffectivetheorynonlinearelectrodynamicsgamma-rayburstdelaycriticalmagneticfieldCherenkovradiationLorentzinvarianceviolationrefractiveindex
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

Below the critical magnetic field $B_{\rm crit}=10^9$ T, the quantum vacuum is not empty: the Euler–Heisenberg correction to the Maxwell Lagrangian adds a $B^4$ term, and the vacuum behaves like an ordinary optical medium with refractive index greater than unity. The paper shows that photons therefore travel slower than $c$, and that a gamma-ray burst crossing 3 Gpc through a $10^6$ T field would arrive 2.4 hours after neutrinos, which do not feel the field. The authors argue that such delays, comparable to those reported by neutrino telescopes, can be explained by standard QED and so are not evidence for Lorentz invariance violation. They also derive a Cherenkov threshold for ultra-high-energy protons in the magnetic vacuum. If right, the result removes the need for new physics in interpreting GRB–neutrino time lags.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Euler–Heisenberg effective theory of nonlinear electrodynamics, whose leading correction to the Maxwell Lagrangian is $L' = e^4 H^4/(360\pi^2 m^4)$. Differentiating with respect to $H$ gives a vacuum magnetization $M\propto H^3$, which translates into field-dependent permeability and permittivity tensors. From these the authors define the small parameter $d = 7e^2(B_0/B_{\rm crit})^2/90$; everything follows from it: the refractive index $n_\perp=1+d$, the photon speed reduction $v=c(1-d)$, the GRB delay $\tau = Dd/c$, and the Cherenkov threshold $n\beta=1$ for protons. The parameter's smallness encodes the requirement $B_0\ll B_{\rm crit}$.

What would settle it

Measure the average magnetic field along a GRB line of sight through Faraday rotation or synchrotron bounds: if it is at the commonly quoted nanotesla-to-microtesla level, the predicted delay over 3 Gpc is far below one second, so a magnetic-vacuum explanation cannot produce the observed hours-long lag. Conversely, a confirmed simultaneous GRB–neutrino event with no photon lag under a measured $10^6$ T field would contradict the paper's Eq. (35).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the Euler–Heisenberg effective Lagrangian with $L' = e^4 H^4/(360\pi^2 m^4)$ in a static background field $B_0$, the paper derives scalar permeability $\mu = 1 + 2e^4 H^2/(45\pi m^4)$ and permittivity $\varepsilon = 1 + 5e^4 H^2/(45\pi m^4)$, hence a refractive index $n_\perp = 1 + d$, with $d = 7e^2(B_0/B_{\rm crit})^2/90$. The photon speed becomes $v = c(1-d)$, and the time delay over distance $D$ is $\tau \approx D d/c$. For $B_0 = 10^6$ T and $D = 3$ Gpc this gives $\tau = 8.7\times10^6$ s = 2.4 hours. Because $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$ are frequency-independent, the magnetic vacuum is nondispersive, in contrast to plasma dispersion and to most LIV models, which makes the proposed delay independent of photon energy. The paper concludes that observed GRB–neutrino delays can be accommodated by conventional QED once a strong magnetic field is present along the line of sight.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-hour delay rests on assuming a uniform $10^6$ Tesla magnetic field fills the entire 3 Gpc path of the gamma-ray burst; no such intergalactic field is observed, and if the true average field is much smaller the delay becomes negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed hour-scale GRB–neutrino delays can be produced by standard QED in a strong magnetic vacuum, so they do not by themselves demonstrate Lorentz invariance violation.
  • The delay scales as $B_0^2 D$: a $10^6$ T field over 3 Gpc gives 2.4 hours, whereas a 100 $\mu$G intergalactic field changes the photon speed by only about one part in $10^{39}$.
  • Near magnetars, where fields reach $10^9$–$10^{11}$ T over roughly $10^9$ cm scales, the estimated delay spans $8.7\times(10^2\text{--}10^{18})$ s depending on how many magnetars lie along the line of sight.
  • Since the magnetic vacuum is nondispersive, the predicted delay is independent of photon energy, unlike plasma dispersion and typical LIV models; this gives a clean observational signature.
  • Protons with energies above $10^{15}$ eV can trigger Cherenkov radiation in fields above about $6.5\times10^5$ G, offering another probe of the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The specific 2.4-hour number is an upper-bound illustration rather than a realistic prediction, because a uniform $10^6$ T field over cosmological distances is far above current bounds on intergalactic fields; the paper's own magnetar estimate is the more physically grounded case.
  • The energy independence of the magnetic-vacuum delay means that combining multi-energy GRB light curves with neutrino arrival times could cleanly separate this mechanism from LIV, which predicts energy-dependent delays.
  • Because $n_\perp\neq n_\parallel$, the mechanism predicts a small polarization-dependent arrival-time splitting; searching for such a split in bright GRBs would test the vacuum-birefringence interpretation directly.
  • A vacuum Cherenkov signature from ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in magnetar fields, if observed, would confirm that the vacuum refractive index is real rather than a bookkeeping device; absence would constrain the effective theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the refractive index n = 1 + d for photons propagating in a static, subcritical magnetic field from the Euler–Heisenberg effective Lagrangian, with d = (7 e^2/90)(B0/Bcrit)^2 (Eqs. (19) and (23)), and applies it to three physical situations: the reduction of the speed of light in interstellar space, the time delay of gamma-ray bursts traveling cosmological distances, and Cherenkov emission by ultra-high-energy protons. The central quantitative claim is that for an assumed average magnetic field B0 = 10^6 T (10^10 G) extending uniformly over D = 3 Gpc, the GRB delay is τ = 8.7 × 10^6 s = 2.4 hours (Eq. (35)), which the authors state can explain GRB–neutrino delays without invoking Lorentz invariance violation. The paper also estimates a delay range for propagation through magnetar vicinities, argues that the induced medium is nondispersive, and concludes that GRB delay observations do not constitute evidence for LIV because simultaneous emission of the GRB and neutrino bursts is not established.

Significance. The core QED step is standard and parameter-free: the Euler–Heisenberg correction is taken from the established literature and is not fitted to the observed delays. If the assumed magnetic field configuration were actually realized, the delay formula would be transparent and falsifiable, and the Cherenkov threshold estimate in Section III C provides a concrete additional prediction. However, the headline quantitative result rests on an observationally unsupported premise—a uniform 10^6 T intergalactic field over 3 Gpc—and contains an arithmetic error in the conversion of seconds to hours. With realistic intergalactic magnetic fields at nanogauss levels or below, the authors' own Eq. (34) gives a delay many orders of magnitude too small to explain any observed GRB–neutrino delay. The general point that GRB–neutrino comparisons require the assumption of simultaneous emission has independent merit, but it does not rescue the paper's central claim that standard QED quantitatively explains the observed delays. The manuscript is therefore of limited significance as a research contribution, although the basic Euler–Heisenberg derivation may be useful pedagogically.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III B, Eq. (35)] The conversion in Eq. (35) is arithmetically wrong: 8.7 × 10^6 seconds is approximately 100 days, not 2.4 hours. Since 2.4 hours equals 8.64 × 10^3 seconds, the stated time is overestimated by roughly a factor of 1000. For the same d and D, a delay of 2.4 hours would require D ≈ 3 Mpc rather than the 3 Gpc used in the text. This error is repeated in the abstract, in Introduction item (ii), and in Section IV, so the headline claim of a multi-hour delay is not even internally consistent.
  2. [§III B, Eq. (32)] The assumption that B0 = 10^10 G = 10^6 T is uniform over the entire 3 Gpc photon trajectory is observationally unsupported. Intergalactic magnetic fields are constrained to nanogauss levels or below, roughly 16–19 orders of magnitude weaker than the assumed value. Inserting B0 = 10^-9 G and D = 3 Gpc into the authors' own Eq. (34) gives a delay of order 10^-31 seconds, which is completely negligible. The authors themselves state after Eq. (35) that the 10^6 T assumption 'seems to be too strong', and no other field configuration is provided that would yield an observationally relevant delay. This premise is load-bearing for the paper's quantitative conclusion that standard QED explains GRB–neutrino delays.
  3. [§IV, item 1 and Eq. (36)] The discussion in Section IV conflates the uniform-field delay with the magnetar-based estimate. It states that for an average field of 10^6 T the delay lies in the range τ = 8.7 × (10^2 to 10^18) s, but Eq. (36) is the magnetar estimate whose endpoints the authors admit are 'far from being realistic' because the number of intervening magnetars and their field profiles are unknown. The 10^6 T uniform-field case, by contrast, gives the single value of Eq. (35), not a range. The conclusion that standard physics explains the observed delays therefore rests on an unconstrained range of parameters rather than on a quantitative prediction.
  4. [Footnote 4 and §II] Footnote 4 introduces an energy dependence that contradicts the paper's repeated claim that the induced medium is nondispersive. The footnote states that for E = 1 GeV the delay times calculated for E = 100 GeV must be reduced by a factor of 100, while Section II and Section IV, item 3 state that the refractive index is independent of frequency. The validity criterion eBω/m^3 ≪ 1 means the leading-order Euler–Heisenberg result cannot be trusted for the 100 GeV photons for which Eq. (35) is quoted. If one restricts to 1 GeV photons, the footnote itself requires a 100-fold smaller delay, further weakening the claimed observable effect.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (9) and (23)] Equation (9) contains an extra factor π in the denominator compared with Eq. (23); the footnote after Eq. (9) acknowledges a discrepancy with Ref. [1], but the main text never states which expression is used in the numerical results, and the two formulas would give different numerical delays.
  2. [§III A] The comparison between the magnetic-field velocity reduction and the plasma velocity reduction is made inconsistently: the plasma case uses E = 100 GeV, while the magnetic-field case is only trusted at E = 1 GeV according to footnote 4; the two effects should be compared at the same photon energy.
  3. [References] Reference [28] combines two unrelated papers, the IceCube search for neutrino emission from pulsar wind nebulae and an ATLAS measurement of light-by-light scattering; the second citation appears misplaced and should be separated or removed.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Tro ndheim', 'Hel sinki', and 'diffeormorphism'; these should be corrected before any resubmission.
  5. [§IV, item 1] The statement that the 10^6 T case produces the range τ = 8.7 × (10^2 to 10^18) s is misleading; the range belongs to Eq. (36), while Eq. (35) gives a single value, so the text should refer to Eq. (35) for the uniform-field scenario.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the delay claim is a parameter-free QED consequence of an explicitly stated, admittedly extreme field assumption.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is: take the standard Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian from the external textbook Ref. [1]; derive d = (7e^4/90m^4) B0^2 in Eq. (19); obtain the refractive index n = 1 + d in Eq. (23); convert to velocity reduction v = c(1 - d) in Eq. (24); and compute the delay tau = D*d/c in Eq. (34). Every step is a stated algebraic consequence of the preceding formula, and the QED coefficient is taken from the established literature, not from the authors' own prior work. The input B0 = 10^10 G in Eq. (32) is introduced as an explicit assumption ('make a crucial assumption that this magnetic field is constant over the entire photon trajectory'), not as a parameter fitted to observed gamma-ray-burst or neutrino delays. The magnetar-based estimate in Eq. (36) is likewise explicitly labeled unrealistic because the number of magnetars and their fields are unknown. The self-citations [19] and [20] are used only for comparison with other conventional dispersive media; they are not load-bearing for the QED delay result. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Thus the 'prediction' does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The observations that 8.7e6 s equals roughly 100 days rather than 2.4 hours, and that a 10^6 T field over 3 Gpc is observationally unsupported, are correctness and input-realism concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate rests on two hand-picked parameters (B0 and D) plus a static-homogeneous-field axiom. The QED coefficient itself is parameter-free, so the ledger is dominated by the astrophysical assumptions, not by new physics.

free parameters (3)
  • Average intergalactic magnetic field B0 = 10^6 Tesla = 10^10 Gauss
    Chosen by hand as a 'rough estimate' in Section III B; the authors admit it is 'too strong' compared with known intergalactic fields. The delay scales as B0^2, so this choice drives the headline result.
  • Effective distance D = 3 Gpc
    Adopted from Ref. [20] as a 'large value' for cosmological distance; a reasonable but arbitrary choice for a GRB source.
  • Magnetar number density and field profile = None
    Unknown inputs for the magnetar scenario; the paper gives only a wide range, not a determinate estimate.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian is the correct low-energy limit of QED for static magnetic fields below the Schwinger critical value.
    Used in Eq. (3) to derive the refractive index; a standard result from quantum electrodynamics.
  • domain assumption The weak-field expansion eB/m^2 << 1 and the perturbative validity condition eBω/m^3 << 1 apply.
    The paper's Eq. (18) and footnote 4 impose these conditions; the latter fails for 100 GeV photons, limiting the claimed delay calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic field is static and homogeneous along the entire photon path.
    Stated as a 'crucial assumption' in Section III B; required to integrate the local refractive index into a global delay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Below the Schwinger critical magnetic field value, quantum vacuum and gamma-ray bursts delay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOT75JOF

@misc{pith2026250111080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Below the Schwinger critical magnetic field value, quantum vacuum and gamma-ray bursts delay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOT75JOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11080}
}
abstract

A magnetic field above the Schwinger critical value $B_{\rm crit} = 10^9$ Tesla is much higher than any magnetic field known by now in the interstellar bulk except in the vicinity of observed magnetars with magnetic fields between $10^9$ and $10^{11}~$Tesla. Above the critical magnetic field, calculated by Schwinger in the lowest order perturbation in quantum electrodynamics (QED), one reaches the threshold for electron-positron pair creation, which has interesting consequences. Therefore, finding out whether one could encounter some consequences of interest also for the values of the magnetic field below the Schwinger critical point, we invoke the next higher-order effect in QED, which is emerging from the Quantum Vacuum Effect. The latter is equivalent to the use of the Euler-Heisenberg effective theory in nonlinear electrodynamics, where the Lagrangian has a term with a higher power, $B^4$. In this case, in the region $B<B_{\rm crit}$, we show that interesting effects appear, among them the Cherenkov radiation and the reduction in the speed of light. The latter effects appear because of the quantum vacuum mimicking a medium. We also present quantitative arguments for such a close analogy. As a rough estimate, we show that the time delay $\tau$ of gamma-ray bursts (GRB) having traveled through the entire cosmological distances in an average strong magnetic field such as $10^6~$Tesla, reaches an experimentally considerable value of $\tau = 2.4$ hours. In the vicinity of magnetars, the magnetic field is much stronger, of the order of $10^9-10^{11}$ Tesla. However, in this case the linear scale of GRB trajectory through such regions would be much smaller. For the latter, we give an estimate for the number of the magnetars along the trajectory and also for the delay. Finally, we shall dwell on the recently raised issue in the literature, namely the Lorentz invariance violation (LIV).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Euler-Heisenberg action for a $U(1)\times U(1)$ dyon quantum electrodynamics

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    One-loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian for U(1)×U(1) dyon QED produces hybrid refractive indices and vacuum birefringence that reduce exactly to ordinary QED when magnetic charge vanishes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    7 × (102 − 1018) seconds

    As we have shown, taking as an example the average magnetic field through which the gamma-ray burst has traveled through the cosmological distance s to be 10 6 Tesla, then they delay compared with the neutrinos to reach the Earth by a time in the range of τ = 8 . 7 × (102 − 1018) seconds. Although a value as 10 6 Tesla may look high, nevertheless it is wel...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the previous works [19] and [20], the dispersion of light and its de lay were carefully studied by considering the effects of different media, electron-pos itron, CMB and the axion plasmas, existing within the cosmic distances. The results in [19] and [2 0] showed that, while the time delay of GRB by the CMB medium was the largest compared with the other...

    work page

  3. [3]

    According to the dispersion relation in matter-filled media studied in [19] and [20], as well as in any dispersive medium, the more energetic the GRB, the less the delay - in other words, the more energetic GRB reach us earlier than the less energ etic ones. Contrary to that, the strong magnetic field considered in the present Letter p roduces out of the qu...

    work page

  4. [4]

    As a noncomprehesive list of references we mention [29–36], and references therein

    Irrespective of the experimental observations of delay in GRB a nd also inspired by the results such as in [27] and [28], there has been a remarkable activity, both on the theoretical and phenomenological possible occurrence of LIV at high energies. As a noncomprehesive list of references we mention [29–36], and references therein. We notice that in all t...

    work page

  5. [5]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982), Secs. 129,130. 6 We should keep in mind that, if the Lorentz invariance of the Special R elativity is violated, then it auto- matically implies that the diffeormorphism invariance of the General Re lativity is also broken. Therefore, the Eintein...

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarizati on

    J. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarizati on. Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    work page 1951

  7. [7]

    European Southern Observatory, 23 September 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Consequences of Dirac theory of the positron (translated). Zeitschr. Physik 98, 714 (1936)

    work page 1936

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    S. L. Adler, Photon splitting and photon dispersion in a s trong magnetic field. Annals of Physics 67, 599 (1971)

    1971

  2. [10]

    Bialynicki-Birula and I

    Z. Bialynicki-Birula and I. Bialynicki-Birula, Nonlin near effects in quantum electrodynamics. Photon propagation and photon splitting in an external field . Phys. Rev. D 2, 2341 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    J. E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Polarization phenomena in v acuum nonlinear electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D 3, 618 (1971)

    1971

  4. [12]

    Dittrich and H

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Light propagation in nontrivial QED vacua. Phys. Rev. D 58, 025004 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    Demozzi, V

    V. Demozzi, V. Mukhanov and H. Rubinstein, Magnetic field from inflation? JCAP 08 (2009) 025

    2009

  6. [14]

    Chaichian, S

    M. Chaichian, S. S. Masood, C. Montonen, A. Perez Martin ez and H. Perez Rojas, Quantum magnetic and gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 5261 [arXiv:hep-ph/9911218 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Erber, Photon pair creation in intense magnetic fields

    W.-Y.Tsai and T. Erber, Photon pair creation in intense magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. D 10, 492 (1974)

    1974

  8. [16]

    Erber, Propagation of photons in homog eneous magnetic fields: Index of refraction

    W.-Y.Tsai and T. Erber, Propagation of photons in homog eneous magnetic fields: Index of refraction. Phys. Rev. D 12, 1132 (1975)

    1975

  9. [17]

    Karbstein, Photon polarization tensor in a homogene ous magnetic or electric field, Phys

    F. Karbstein, Photon polarization tensor in a homogene ous magnetic or electric field, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 8, 085033, arXiv:1308.6184 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Karbstein, Vacuum Birefringence at the Gamma Factor y, Annalen Phys

    F. Karbstein, Vacuum Birefringence at the Gamma Factor y, Annalen Phys. 534 (2022) 3, 2100137, arXiv: 2106.06359 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera and A. F. Shabad, Covariant d ecomposition and polarizational selection rules for interaction among photons in a moving me dium. Forthscr. Physik 32, 261 (1984)

    1984

  12. [20]

    A. E. Shabad, Photon propagation in a supercritical mag netic field. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 98, 186 (2004). 17

    2004

  13. [21]

    Karbstein, All-Loop Result for the Strong Magnetic F ield Limit of the Heisenberg-Euler Ef- fective Lagrangian, Phys.Rev.Lett

    F. Karbstein, All-Loop Result for the Strong Magnetic F ield Limit of the Heisenberg-Euler Ef- fective Lagrangian, Phys.Rev.Lett. 122 (2019) 21, 211602, arXiv:1903.06998 [hep-th]; Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 199902 (2024)

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    I. A. Batalin and A. E. Shabad, Green’s function of a phot on in a constant homogeneous electromagntic field of general form. Soviet Physics JETP 33, 483 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    Chaichian, I

    M. Chaichian, I. Brevik and M. Oksanen, Can the gamma-ra y bursts traveling through the interstellar space be explained without invoking the drast ic assumption of Lorentz invariance violation?, 40th Int. Conf. on High Energy Phys (ICHEP 2020). Proceedings of S cience, Vol. 39...

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Brevik, M

    I. Brevik, M. Chaichian and M. Oksanen, Dispersion of li ght traveling through the interstellar space, induced and intrinsic Lorentz invariance violation , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 926 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    A. J. Macleod, A. Noble and D. A. Jaroszynski, Cherenkov radiation from the quantum vacuum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 161601 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev. Mod. P hys. 93, 015004 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Noordhuis, A

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, C. Weniger and S. J. Witte, Axio n Clouds around Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041015 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    J. S. Heyl and L. Hernquist, Birefringence and dichrois m of the QED vacuum, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30 6485 (1997)

    1997

  21. [29]

    Lee, Cherenkov radiation in a strong magnetic fiel d

    C.-Y. Lee, Cherenkov radiation in a strong magnetic fiel d. Phys. Lett. B 810, 135794 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Erber, High-energy electromagnetic conversion pro cesses in intense magnetic fields

    T. Erber, High-energy electromagnetic conversion pro cesses in intense magnetic fields. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 626 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    Adrian-Martınez et al

    S. Adrian-Martınez et al. [ANTARES], Stacked search fo r time shifted high energy neutrinos from gamma ray bursts with the ANTARES neutrino telescope, E ur. Phys. J. C 77, 20 (2017) [arXiv:1608.08840 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. IceCube, Search for High-Energy Neu trino Emission from TeV Pulsar Wind Nebulae, Astrophys. J. 898, 117 (2020) [arXiv:2003.12 071 [astro-ph.HE]]. Measurement of light-by-light scattering and search for axion-like par ticles with 2.2 nb −1 of Pb+Pb data wit...

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar, Tests of quantum gravity from observations of gamma-ray bur sts, Nature 393, 763 (1998) [astro-ph/9712103]. 18

    1998 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. R. Ellis, K. Farakos, N. E. Mavromatos, V. A. Mitsou an d D. V. Nanopoulos, A search in gamma-ray burst data for nonconstancy of the Astro phys. J. 535, 139 (2000) [astro-ph/9907340]

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jacob and T

    U. Jacob and T. Piran, Neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts a s a tool to explore quantum- gravity-induced Lorentz violation, Nature Phys. 3, 87 (200 7) [hep-ph/0607145]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    N. E. Mavromatos, String Quantum Gravity, Lorentz-Inv ariance Violation and Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 5409 (2010) [arXiv:1010. 5354 [hep-th]]

    2010

  29. [37]

    Rodriguez Martinez and T

    M. Rodriguez Martinez and T. Piran, Constraining Loren tz violations with gamma-ray bursts, JCAP 04, 006 (2006) [astro-ph/0601219]

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hanlin Song and Bo-Qiang Ma, Energy-dependent intrins ic time delay of gamma-ray bursts on testing Lorentz invariance violation, Phys.Lett.B 856 ( 2024) 138951, arXiv:2408.14719 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Piran and D

    T. Piran and D. D. Ofengeim, Lorentz invariance violati on limits from GRB 221009A, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.8, L081501 [arXiv:2308.03031 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. [LHAASO], Stringent Tests of Lorentz Invariance Violation from LHAASO Observations of GRB 221009A, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.7, 071501 [arXiv:2402.06009 [astro-ph.HE]]. 19

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.