Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Geometrizing the Anomaly

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The gauge anomaly of a U(1) theory is a geometric obstruction: in a manifestly gauge-invariant field-strength formalism, the three-photon amplitude cannot be made independent of the Stokes surface.

desk verdict A conceptually interesting and mostly sound paper that recasts the U(1) gauge anomaly as Stokes-surface dependence in a field-strength formalism; it deserves peer review after fixing an index typo in Eq. (33) and clarifying a non-independent comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16998 v2 pith:RQBYNT2E submitted 2025-04-23 hep-th

Joshua Newey , John Terning , Christopher B. Verhaaren This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.15.-q12.20.-m11.40.-q
keywords fieldstrengthformalismgaugeanomalyStokessurfaceindependenceWardidentityaxialmagneticchargedyon
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, in a manifestly gauge-invariant formulation of QED built on the field strength, the gauge anomaly is not a failure of gauge invariance but a geometric obstruction: the three-photon amplitude depends on the arbitrary Stokes surface used to couple $F_{\mu\nu}$ to currents, and no choice of surface removes that dependence. The authors prove a precise equivalence: an amplitude is surface-independent if and only if the corresponding current satisfies the Ward identity, so anomaly cancellation in $U(1)$ gauge theories is the same condition as surface independence. They demonstrate the mechanism on the axial and gauge triangle anomalies and then compute the axial anomaly for electric, magnetic, and dyon fermions, including a $\theta$ term, reproducing duality and local two-potential results. A sympathetic reader would care because it recasts a quantum inconsistency as a purely geometric consistency requirement, and it provides a calculational tool that treats electric and magnetic charges symmetrically.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlocal field-strength–current coupling $\frac{e}{2}F^{\mu\nu}(J_\mu n_\nu-J_\nu n_\mu)/(n\cdot\partial)$, in which $n^\mu$ defines the Stokes surface spanning the current worldline. The argument runs through the polarization identity $\epsilon^{\mu\nu}(p)=\frac{n_\alpha}{n\cdot p}[p^\mu\epsilon^{\alpha\nu}-p^\nu\epsilon^{\alpha\mu}]$, valid for field-strength polarizations by the Bianchi identity, and its derivative consequence $\frac{\partial}{\partial n^\alpha}\mathcal{M}=\frac{n_\lambda}{(n\cdot p)^2}\epsilon^{\alpha\lambda}p_\nu M^\nu$. That formula converts surface independence into the Ward identity and lets the authors test triangle amplitudes by differentiating with respect to $n^\mu$; the three consistency equations that result have no simultaneous solution, which is the geometric statement of the gauge anomaly.

What would settle it

Take the three-photon amplitude for one Weyl fermion of charge $q\neq0$, convert it to the field-strength formalism, and evaluate the difference between two choices of the Stokes reference vector $n^\mu$. The paper's derivative equations predict a nonzero difference proportional to the anomalous triangle coefficients; a calculation showing exact $n$-independence for $q\neq0$ would falsify the geometric-anomaly claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in a manifestly gauge-invariant formalism in which the photon is described by $F_{\mu\nu}$ rather than $A_\mu$, the paper shows that the $U(1)$ gauge anomaly appears as an unavoidable dependence of the three-photon amplitude on the Stokes surface used to couple the field strength to currents. The central identity is a derivative formula: for a single-photon amplitude $\mathcal{M}=\epsilon^{\mu\nu}n_\mu M_\nu/(n\cdot p)$, one has $\partial\mathcal{M}/\partial n^\alpha = n_\lambda \epsilon^{\alpha\lambda}p_\nu M^\nu/(n\cdot p)^2$, so surface independence holds exactly when the Ward identity $p_\nu M^\nu=0$ holds. Applied to the left-handed Weyl triangle, this yields three surface-independence conditions whose consistency equations $\alpha-\beta=0$, $\beta+1=0$, $-\alpha+1=0$ have no common solution; hence, unless the sum of cubed charges vanishes, no Stokes surface makes the amplitude surface-independent. The paper also computes the axial anomaly for electric, magnetic, and dyonic fermions including a $\theta$ term, obtaining $-\left[\frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}\left(q+\frac{g\theta}{2\pi}\right)^2-\frac{b^2g^2}{8\pi^2}\right]F_{\mu\nu}{}^*F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{ebg}{4\pi^2}\left(q+\frac{g\theta}{2\pi}\right)F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$, and shows this agrees with duality-based and local two-potential calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every physical choice of Stokes surface is captured by the fixed reference vector $n^\mu$ (a positive real multiple attached to each point of the current worldline), and that two surfaces spanning the same worldline are physically equivalent; if some allowed surface is missed, or if the $n$-dependence of the nonlocal coupling is not purely a surface redundancy, the geometric interpretation of the anomaly would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, a $U(1)$ gauge theory is consistent in the field-strength formalism exactly when every physical amplitude is independent of the Stokes surface; gauge invariance never enters because the formalism is manifestly gauge invariant.
  • The Ward identity and surface independence are the same condition: any amplitude built from a conserved current is automatically $n$-independent, and any $n$-dependence signals a non-conserved current and hence an anomaly.
  • The usual anomaly-cancellation condition (the vanishing sum of cubed charges for Weyl fermions) follows from the impossibility of satisfying all three surface-independence equations at once.
  • Magnetic and dyonic fermions contribute to the axial anomaly with definite relative signs and theta dependence, summarized by the formula above, and the formalism resolves apparent sign conflicts with the local two-potential approach.
  • The $n$-derivative formula gives a direct diagnostic: compute $\partial\mathcal{M}/\partial n^\alpha$ instead of checking gauge invariance, which is especially useful in monopole theories where potential-formalism loop calculations are awkward.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The dictionary between Ward identities and surface independence suggests testing non-Abelian theories by differentiating amplitudes with respect to a surface vector and looking for irreducible dependence, though a non-Abelian field strength is only gauge-covariant and the geometric picture would need modification.
  • Editorial inference: If the anomaly really is irreducible surface dependence, worldline or lattice calculations that discretize Stokes surfaces should detect it by comparing amplitudes on two topologically distinct surfaces, giving a non-perturbative anomaly signature independent of triangle-diagram momentum integrals.
  • Editorial inference: The reference vector $n^\mu$ plays a role analogous to a spinor-helicity reference spinor, so the gauge anomaly in helicity-amplitude language should appear as an irreducible dependence on that reference; checking this explicitly would connect the two formalisms.
  • Editorial inference: Applying the $n$-derivative test to multiple coupled $U(1)$ gauge fields with kinetic mixing is a direct next step; the cancellation conditions may acquire cross terms between electric and magnetic sectors beyond the single-field result.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the manifestation of anomalies in a manifestly gauge-invariant field-strength formalism for QED developed by the authors in Ref. [11]. In this formalism the photon field strength couples not to the current but to a Stokes surface bounded by the current worldline, so the usual gauge redundancy is replaced by a choice of surface, parameterized by a reference vector n^μ. The authors derive a formula (Eq. (22)) showing that an amplitude is independent of n^μ exactly when the Ward identity holds, and use this to analyze both the axial anomaly and the three-photon (gauge) anomaly. For a theory of Weyl fermions, they show that the three-photon amplitude cannot be made surface independent for any choice of loop-momentum shift, and that this obstruction is equivalent to the usual U(1) anomaly condition. They also extend the axial anomaly calculation to magnetic and dyonic fermions, including the effects of a θ term, and show that their results agree with previous duality-based results (up to a stated typo in Ref. [38]) and with the Zwanziger formalism.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, the paper offers a genuinely new perspective: the U(1) gauge anomaly is not a failure of gauge invariance but a geometric obstruction to Stokes-surface independence in a manifestly gauge-invariant formalism. The axial anomaly results for electric, magnetic, and dyonic fermions, including θ dependence, are nontrivial and agree with earlier work. The paper is also careful to connect the field-strength formalism to the Zwanziger formalism, providing a useful cross-check. A particular strength is that the central claim is derived from an explicit identity (Eq. (21)) and a derivative formula (Eq. (22)) rather than being assumed. However, the central three-photon calculation as printed contains an uncontracted Lorentz index, so the main argument is currently not checkable as written; the fix appears straightforward.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (33) and Eqs. (35)–(37)] In Eq. (33), the term ε^{γδ}(p) n_3^γ ⟨J_ν^L J_β^L J_γ^L⟩ has an uncontracted Lorentz index δ. The index γ appears three times (in ε, n_3, and the current), while δ appears only once, so the right-hand side is a rank-one tensor rather than the scalar amplitude iM_L. The same free δ propagates into the derivative expressions (35)–(37), so the no-solution system (38) cannot be verified from the printed equations. The intended contraction is evidently ε^{γδ}(p) n_3^γ ⟨J_ν^L J_β^L J_δ^L⟩, and the subsequent argument appears valid after this correction. Because this index error sits in the central derivation of the paper's main claim, it must be corrected before the paper can be accepted.
  2. [Eq. (22)] The derivation of the derivative formula (22) is too compressed. Starting from Eq. (19), the differentiation of n_μ/(n·p) and the use of the identity (21) involve sign and index manipulations that are not shown, and the factors of i that appear in the intermediate lines are unexplained (they do not appear in Eq. (19)). The final result, surface independence iff p^ν M_ν = 0, is correct up to an overall sign convention, but the printed chain should display the steps explicitly and clarify the origin of the i factors, otherwise the reader cannot independently verify the master formula on which Sections 3.1 and 3.2 rely.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'calculate the axial and gauge anomalies explicitly in theories with both electrically and magnetically charged particles' overstates the content; the gauge anomaly calculation (Sec. 3.2) treats only electrically charged Weyl fermions, while the magnetic and dyonic discussion in Sec. 4 is specifically about the axial anomaly.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The factors of (1/i)^2 and the sign convention in the Feynman rule are introduced without explanation; a pointer to the conventions of Ref. [11] would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. 4, after Eq. (45)] The statement that the authors 'disagree with their published results by a factor of −2 on the F^{μν}F_{μν} term' in Ref. [38] and that this is 'simply a typo' should be accompanied by the specific equation number in Ref. [38] and a one-line demonstration, so that the cross-check is verifiable.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (62)–(66)] The step leading to ε^{μν} = − *ε_B^{μν} skips the sign handling of n_α ε_A^{να} = 0; writing out the contraction explicitly would prevent reader confusion.
  5. [Eq. (33)] After fixing the index contraction, the overall sign and the factor iM_L should be rechecked against the Feynman rule of Eq. (10).
  6. [References] Reference [13] should be 'C. M. Hull' rather than 'CM Hull'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the anomaly derivations are self-contained and use standard external inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The field-strength formalism and the identity in Eq. (20) are referenced to the authors' prior [11], but the equations are restated in the paper and are externally checkable; the anomaly calculations are not imported from that reference. The axial anomaly in Sec. 2.1 is evaluated directly from the stated Feynman rule and matches the standard result. The gauge anomaly in Sec. 3.2 starts from the standard Weyl three-point amplitude (Eq. (32), citing Schwartz [21]) and the standard anomalous Ward identities (27)-(29); the surface-dependence of Eq. (33) is then a direct consequence of the dictionary between potential and field-strength formalisms and the failure of those identities, not a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain. The dyon anomaly in Sec. 4 is computed from the same Feynman rules; the comparison with [38] is a check, and the paper explicitly corrects a typo there rather than adopting its result. The Zwanziger analysis is an equivalence transformation between formalisms, not a circular derivation. No prediction reduces to its input by construction; the printed index error in Eq. (33) is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the field strength formalism from [11], the equivalence of Stokes surfaces, the one-loop exactness of the axial anomaly, and the universality of the triangle loop function for all charge types. There are no fitted free parameters and no invented entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nonlocal field strength coupling in Eq. (8) is a valid quantization of U(1) QED and equivalent to the potential formalism.
    Taken from the authors' prior work [11]; used without re-derivation in all anomaly calculations.
  • domain assumption All Stokes surfaces spanning the same current worldline are physically equivalent, so physical amplitudes must be surface independent.
    States in Sec. 3; turns the anomaly into a surface-dependence obstruction.
  • domain assumption The axial anomaly is one-loop exact, so the triangle diagram is sufficient for electric, magnetic, and dyonic fermions.
    Used in Sec. 4 to extend perturbative results to magnetic charges and dyons.
  • domain assumption The fermion triangle loop function M_chi^{mu nu}(k,p) in Eq. (14) is the same for all charge types, with only the external polarization tensor dualized.
    Used in Eqs. (40) and (42); underlies the magnetic and dyon coefficients.
  • domain assumption The Witten effect gives a dyonic electric charge q + g theta/(2 pi) at low energy, which can be treated as a local charge.
    Used in Sec. 4 to include theta dependence in the axial anomaly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometrizing the Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQBYNT2E

@misc{pith2026250416998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometrizing the Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQBYNT2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16998}
}
read the original abstract

Recently a manifestly gauge invariant formalism for calculating amplitudes in quantum electrodynamics was outlined in which the field strength, rather than the gauge potential, is used as the propagating field. To demonstrate the utility of this formalism we calculate the axial and gauge anomalies explicitly in theories with both electrically and magnetically charged particles. Usually the gauge anomaly is identified as an amplitude that (in certain theories) fails to be gauge invariant, so it seems particularly enlightening to understand it in a manifestly gauge invariant formalism. We find that the three photon amplitude is still anomalous in these same theories because it depends explicitly upon the choice of the Stokes surface needed to couple the field strength to sources, so the gauge anomaly arises from geometric considerations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard Feynman rule (for a Dirac fermion) in potential formalism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feynman rule (for a Dirac fermion) in field strength formalism. The shaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A triangle diagram that contributes to the axial anomaly; the cross indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A triangle diagram that contributes to gauge anomalies. Other diagrams are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contributions to FµνF µν operator from dyonic fields. Each diagram is one of a pair, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contributions to Fµν ∗F µν operator involving one instance of θ. Each diagram is one of a pair, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contributions to Fµν ∗F µν operator involving one instance of θ. Each diagram is one of a pair, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Anomaly Constraints on Monopoles and Dyons,

    C. Csaki, Y. Shirman and J. Terning, “Anomaly Constraints on Monopoles and Dyons,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 125028,hep-th/1003.0448

    arXiv 2010

  2. [11]

    Schwinger vs Coleman: Magnetic Charge Renormalization

    J. Newey, J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, “Schwinger vs Coleman: Magnetic charge renormalization,” JHEP11(2024) 075,hep-th/2407.13823

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    T. Browne,The Garden of Cyrus or, The Qunicunciall, Lozenge, or Net-work Planta- tions of the Ancients, Artificially Naturally, Mystically Considered, 1st Edition (1658) Chapter III, Web edition maintained at the University of Chicago

    work page

  4. [2]

    Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, “Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev.115(1959) 485-491

    work page 1959

  5. [3]

    Scattering Amplitudes,

    H. Elvang and Y. t. Huang, “Scattering Amplitudes,”hep-th/1308.1697

    arXiv

  6. [4]

    Gauge invariant formulation of quantum electrodynamics,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “Gauge invariant formulation of quantum electrodynamics,” Can. J. Phys.33(1955) 650

    work page 1955

  7. [5]

    Quantum electrodynamics without potentials,

    S. Mandelstam, “Quantum electrodynamics without potentials,” Annals Phys.19 (1962) 1-24

    work page 1962

  8. [6]

    Quantum theory without electromagnetic potentials,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum theory without electromagnetic potentials,” Phys. Rev.125 (1962) 2189-2191

    work page 1962

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    Feynman rules for electromagnetic and Yang-Mills fields from the gauge independent field theoretic formalism,

    S. Mandelstam, “Feynman rules for electromagnetic and Yang-Mills fields from the gauge independent field theoretic formalism,” Phys. Rev.175(1968) 1580-1623

    1968

  2. [8]

    Perturbative QED in Terms of Gauge Invariant Fields,

    O. Steinmann, “Perturbative QED in Terms of Gauge Invariant Fields,” Annals Phys. 157(1984) 232

    1984

  3. [9]

    Spin and orbital angular momentum in gauge theories: Nucleon spin structure and multipole radiation revisited,

    X. S. Chen, X. F. Lu, W. M. Sun, F. Wang and T. Goldman, “Spin and orbital angular momentum in gauge theories: Nucleon spin structure and multipole radiation revisited,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 232002,hep-ph/0806.3166. 21

    2008 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Geometrical approach to the proton spin decomposition,

    C. Lorce, “Geometrical approach to the proton spin decomposition,” Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 034031,hep-ph/1205.6483

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Resolving the Weinberg Paradox with Topology,

    J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, “Resolving the Weinberg Paradox with Topology,” JHEP03(2019) 177,hep-th/1809.05102

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries,

    CM Hull, “Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries,” hep-th/2411.18741

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of Maxwell’s and Einstein’s equations,

    S. Weinberg, “Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of Maxwell’s and Einstein’s equations,” Phys. Rev.138(1965) B988-B1002

    1965

  8. [15]

    The Theory of Magnetic Poles,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “The Theory of Magnetic Poles,” Phys. Rev.74(1948) 817

    1948

  9. [16]

    Field Redefinitions Can Be Nonlocal,

    T. Cohen, M. Forslund and A. Helset, “Field Redefinitions Can Be Nonlocal,” hep-th/2412.12247

  10. [17]

    Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions,

    M. J. Strassler, “Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions,” Nucl. Phys. B385(1992) 145-184,hep-ph/9205205

    1992 arXiv

  11. [18]

    An Introduction to the worldline technique for quantum field theory calculations,

    C. Schubert, “An Introduction to the worldline technique for quantum field theory calculations,” Acta Phys. Polon. B27(1996) 3965-4001,hep-th/9610108

    1996 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Spurious Poles in the Scattering of Electric and Magnetic Charges,

    J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, “Spurious Poles in the Scattering of Electric and Magnetic Charges,” JHEP12(2020) 153,hep-th/2010.02232

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Quantum field theory,

    L. Ryder, “Quantum field theory,” Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  14. [21]

    Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model,

    M. D. Schwartz, “Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model,” Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2014

    2014

  15. [22]

    Magnetic anomaly coefficients for QCD axion couplings,

    A. V. Sokolov and A. Ringwald, “Magnetic anomaly coefficients for QCD axion couplings,” PoSEPS-HEP2021(2022) 178,hep-ph/2109.08503; A. V. Sokolov and A. Ringwald, “Electromagnetic Couplings of Axions,”hep-ph/2205.02605; A. V. Sokolov and A. Ringwald, “Generic Axion Maxwell Equ...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133(1931) no.821, 60-72. 22

    1931

  17. [24]

    The Magnetic Monopole Fifty Years Later,

    S. R. Coleman, “The Magnetic Monopole Fifty Years Later,” HUTP-82-A032

  18. [25]

    Renormalization of the QEMD of a Dyon Field,

    C. Panagiotakopoulos, “Renormalization of the QEMD of a Dyon Field,” Nucl. Phys. B212(1983) 118-130

    1983

  19. [26]

    Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B426(1994) 19, [Erratum-ibid. B430(1994) 485]hep-th/9407087; “Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmet...

    1994 arXiv

  20. [27]

    New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,

    P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, “New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B448(1995) 93-126,hep-th/9505062

    1995 arXiv

  21. [28]

    S-Duality and Helicity Amplitudes,

    K. Colwell and J. Terning, “S-Duality and Helicity Amplitudes,” JHEP03(2016) 068, hep-th/1510.07627

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Dark Monopoles andSL(2,Z) Duality,

    J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, “Dark Monopoles andSL(2,Z) Duality,” JHEP12 (2018) 123,hep-th/1808.09459

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Minicharges and Magnetic Monopoles,

    F. Brummer and J. Jaeckel, “Minicharges and Magnetic Monopoles,” Phys. Lett. B 675(2009) 360-364hep-ph/0902.3615

    2009 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Monopoles, strings and dark matter,

    C. Gomez Sanchez and B. Holdom, “Monopoles, strings and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 123524,hep-ph/1103.1632

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Bounding millimagnetically charged particles with magne- tars,

    A. Hook and J. Huang, “Bounding millimagnetically charged particles with magne- tars,” Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 055010,hep-ph/1705.01107

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Detecting Dark Matter with Aharonov-Bohm,

    J. Terning and C. B. Verhaaren, “Detecting Dark Matter with Aharonov-Bohm,” JHEP12(2019) 152,hep-ph/1906.00014

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Milli-magnetic monopole dark matter and the survival of galactic magnetic fields,

    M. L. Graesser, I. M. Shoemaker and N. T. Arellano, “Milli-magnetic monopole dark matter and the survival of galactic magnetic fields,” JHEP03(2022) 105, hep-ph/2105.05769

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Abelian instantons and monopole scattering,

    C. Cs´ aki, R. Ovadia, O. Telem, J. Terning and S. Yankielowicz, “Abelian instantons and monopole scattering,” JHEP11(2024) 165,hep-th/2406.13738

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Dyons of Chargeeθ/2π,

    E. Witten, “Dyons of Chargeeθ/2π,” Phys. Lett. B86(1979) 283

    1979

  30. [37]

    Disappearing Dyons,

    C. G. Callan, Jr., “Disappearing Dyons,” Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 2141. 23

    1982

  31. [39]

    Local Lagrangian quantum field theory of electric and magnetic charges,

    D. Zwanziger, “Local Lagrangian quantum field theory of electric and magnetic charges,” Phys. Rev. D3(1971) 880. 24

    1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.