pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.05338 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-05 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Constraints on millicharged particles from thunderstorms on the Solar system planets

Ekaterina Dmitrieva , Petr Satunin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords millicharged particlesSchwinger mechanismthunderstormsSaturn atmosphereplanetary lightningBose enhancementPauli blockingconstraints on new particles
0
0 comments X

The pith

Saturn's thunderstorms impose the strongest limits on millicharged particle charges, reaching q > 10^{-24} for bosons.

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

The authors treat thunderclouds in planetary atmospheres as large capacitors that can discharge through either lightning or the production of millicharged particles via the Schwinger mechanism. Using satellite observations of lightning activity, they calculate the conditions under which mCP production would dominate and prevent normal lightning, thereby deriving bounds on the particle charge and mass. For more complex layered cloud structures that form potential wells, they incorporate Bose enhancement for scalar particles and Pauli blocking for fermions to refine the production rates. The most stringent results emerge from Saturn, where the data under the layered assumption yields q > 10^{-24} for bosonic millicharged particles. A sympathetic reader would care because this uses natural high-electric-field environments across the solar system to probe hypothetical particles that might constitute dark matter or signal new physics.

Core claim

We investigate the production of millicharged particles by the Schwinger mechanism in thunderstorms in the atmospheres of different planets in the Solar system. We consider a thundercloud as a giant capacitor that can be discharged in two ways: either by lightnings or by mCP production. Taking into account the observation of lightning strikes, we establish the constraints on the charge and mass of mCPs. We examine two types of cloud configurations: a simple arrangement of two clouds, and a more complex layered structure that gives rise to potential wells. In the latter case, we take into account the effects of Bose enhancement for scalar mCPs, and Pauli blocking for fermionic ones. The best

What carries the argument

Schwinger pair production in thundercloud electric fields modeled as capacitors, with layered structures creating potential wells for enhanced or suppressed production rates.

If this is right

  • Lightning observations on Saturn exclude bosonic millicharged particles with charges q greater than 10^{-24} times the electron charge when layered cloud structures are assumed.
  • Constraints from other planets such as Earth and Jupiter are derived but are weaker than those from Saturn.
  • The inclusion of Bose enhancement tightens the bounds for bosonic particles compared to the simple two-cloud model.
  • These astrophysical constraints complement laboratory searches by probing very small charges in natural electric field configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar modeling could be applied to exoplanets with detected lightning to extend the constraints beyond our solar system.
  • The method connects atmospheric electricity phenomena directly to tests of physics beyond the Standard Model.
  • If millicharged particles exist at the boundary of these bounds, they might influence the frequency or intensity of planetary lightning in observable ways.

Load-bearing premise

Thunderclouds act as capacitors whose discharge can be dominated by millicharged particle production rather than lightning, with layered structures producing potential wells where quantum statistics apply.

What would settle it

An observation or detailed simulation showing that for millicharged particles with q = 10^{-24}, the Schwinger production rate in Saturn's thunderclouds would not suppress lightning as predicted by the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05338 by Ekaterina Dmitrieva, Petr Satunin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two cloud thunderstorm. Discharge of thunder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The layered structure of charged thunderclouds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The constraints on the charge q of bosonic mCP from the thunderstorms in the atmospheres of Solar system planets, in case of Bose enhancement. The sloping line corre￾spond the bound value qE = m2 for Schwinger suppression. 10-20 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 q m [eV] Earth Venus Saturn Saturn (Pauli b.) BBN Earth (Bose) W D RG SZ NS SN1987A … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The constraints on the charge q from the thunder￾storms in the atmospheres of Solar system planets, in case of non-layered cloud structure (the corresponding lines refers to Earth, Venus and Saturn), in case of fermionic mCP and layered cloud structure (Pauli blocking effect), and current experimental constraints: SN1987A [43, 45, 63], Big-bang nu￾cleosynthesis (BBN) [43, 63], Earth(Bose) is constraints fr… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the production of millicharged particles (mCPs) by the Schwinger mechanism in thunderstorms in the atmospheres of different planets in the Solar system. We consider a thundercloud as a giant capacitor that can be discharged in two ways: either by lightnings or by mCP production. Taking into account the observation of lightning strikes, we establish the constraints on the charge and mass of mCPs. We examine two types of cloud configurations: a simple arrangement of two clouds, and a more complex layered structure that gives rise to potential wells. In the latter case, we take into account the effects of Bose enhancement for scalar mCPs, and Pauli blocking for fermionic ones. We use the observational data of planetary atmospheres obtained by satellite missions to establish constraints on the charge and mass of mCP particles. The best constraints came from the observation of thunderstorms in Saturn's atmosphere under an assumption of layered cloud structure: $q > 10^{-24}$ for bosonic mCPs. These constraints for bosons are, to the best of our knowledge, the best in the literature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript models planetary thunderclouds as capacitors that discharge either via observed lightning or via Schwinger production of millicharged particles (mCPs). Using satellite data on lightning and atmospheric parameters from Solar system planets, it derives constraints on mCP charge q and mass m, with the strongest result being a lower bound q > 10^{-24} for bosonic mCPs from Saturn's layered cloud structures (incorporating Bose enhancement).

Significance. If the discharge-competition logic and bound directions hold after correction, the work would supply novel, competitive limits on bosonic mCPs by exploiting planetary-scale electric fields and quantum-statistical effects in potential wells. The approach of treating layered clouds as producing regions where Bose enhancement modifies the Schwinger rate is conceptually interesting and could extend existing laboratory and astrophysical bounds if the quantitative mapping from lightning observations to excluded regions is made explicit and consistent.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the reported lower bound q > 10^{-24} for bosonic mCPs from Saturn observations inverts the expected direction. Lightning observations require that mCP Schwinger production did not dominate discharge; because the Schwinger rate rises sharply with q (exp(-π m²/(q E)) for fermions, analogous for bosons), this excludes large q (upper bound) rather than small q. Bose enhancement in potential wells increases the rate but does not reverse the inequality. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Modeling of cloud configurations] Modeling section (cloud capacitor and layered structure): the assumption that thunderclouds discharge primarily via mCP production for certain q ranges, and that layered structures create potential wells where Pauli blocking or Bose enhancement quantitatively alters the rate, lacks explicit derivation, error propagation, or verification that the computed rates reproduce observed lightning frequencies. The free parameters (cloud electric field strength, geometry) are not varied to show robustness of the quoted bound.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Schwinger rate formulas] Notation for the Schwinger exponent and the precise definition of the potential-well depth should be stated explicitly with equation numbers to allow direct comparison with standard formulas.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below and have made revisions to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the reported lower bound q > 10^{-24} for bosonic mCPs from Saturn observations inverts the expected direction. Lightning observations require that mCP Schwinger production did not dominate discharge; because the Schwinger rate rises sharply with q (exp(-π m²/(q E)) for fermions, analogous for bosons), this excludes large q (upper bound) rather than small q. Bose enhancement in potential wells increases the rate but does not reverse the inequality. This is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this critical point regarding the bound direction. Upon careful reconsideration of the discharge competition logic, we agree that the observation of lightning strikes implies that the Schwinger production rate of mCPs must not have exceeded the rate that would prevent the buildup to lightning discharge. Since the production rate increases with larger q, this indeed leads to an upper bound on q rather than a lower bound. The Bose enhancement for bosons in potential wells increases the rate further, reinforcing the exclusion of larger q. We will revise the abstract, main text, and conclusions to correctly report upper bounds on q (e.g., q < 10^{-24} for the Saturn case). This correction ensures the bound direction is accurate while preserving the scientific approach of the work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Modeling of cloud configurations] Modeling section (cloud capacitor and layered structure): the assumption that thunderclouds discharge primarily via mCP production for certain q ranges, and that layered structures create potential wells where Pauli blocking or Bose enhancement quantitatively alters the rate, lacks explicit derivation, error propagation, or verification that the computed rates reproduce observed lightning frequencies. The free parameters (cloud electric field strength, geometry) are not varied to show robustness of the quoted bound.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the modeling section would benefit from greater explicitness. In the revised manuscript, we will include detailed derivations of the capacitor model for both simple two-cloud and layered configurations, showing how potential wells form and how Bose enhancement (for scalars) and Pauli blocking (for fermions) modify the Schwinger pair production rate. We will add calculations demonstrating consistency with observed lightning frequencies by comparing the mCP discharge timescale to the observed lightning intervals. Additionally, we will perform a parameter variation study, scanning over plausible ranges of electric field strengths and cloud geometries derived from satellite data, and propagate uncertainties to show the robustness of the resulting constraints. These additions will make the quantitative mapping from observations to bounds fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; bounds derived from external satellite observations

full rationale

The paper models thunderclouds as capacitors and uses independent satellite data on planetary atmospheres and lightning strikes as inputs to compute Schwinger production rates for mCPs, including Bose enhancement in layered structures. The output constraints (e.g., q > 10^{-24} for bosons from Saturn) are computed results of this physical modeling rather than redefinitions or statistical fits that reduce to the input data by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing for the central claim, no ansatzes are smuggled, and no uniqueness theorems from prior author work are invoked to force the result. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QED pair production extended to millicharged particles plus domain assumptions about cloud electric fields and discharge competition; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • cloud electric field strength
    Taken from planetary atmosphere models and satellite data; value not specified in abstract
  • cloud geometry parameters
    Assumed for both simple and layered configurations to set potential wells
axioms (2)
  • standard math Schwinger pair production applies to millicharged particles in strong electric fields
    Standard QED mechanism extended to particles with fractional charge
  • domain assumption Thunderclouds behave as capacitors that discharge either by lightning or by mCP production
    Core modeling premise stated in abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5484 in / 1365 out tokens · 46768 ms · 2026-05-15T15:14:13.907595+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Constraints on millicharged particles from thunderstorms on the Solar system planets

    This was the first evidence of lightning on Saturn, and these signals were named Saturn Electrostatic Dis- charges (SEDs). The SED was investigated in detail by Cassini and Voyager 2 [13]. Them are characterized by energies∼10 12J, which is one of the most powerful light- ning in the Solar System [14]. The first optical detection of lightning on Saturn wa...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    A. G. Opp, Pioneer 10 mission: Sum- mary of scientific results from the en- counter with jupiter, Science183, 302 (1974), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.183.4122.302

    work page doi:10.1126/science.183.4122.302 1974

  3. [3]

    Wallace, M

    L. Wallace, M. Prather, and M. Belton, The thermal structure of the atmosphere of jupiter, The Astrophys- ical Journal193, 481 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Kohlhase and P

    C. Kohlhase and P. A. Penzo, Voyager mission descrip- tion, Space science reviews21, 77 (1977)

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    A. Cook, T. Duxbury, G. Hunt,et al., First results on jovian lightning, Nature280(1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    H. N. Becker, J. W. Alexander, S. K. Atreya, S. J. Bolton, M. J. Brennan, S. T. Brown, A. Guillaume, T. Guillot, A. P. Ingersoll, S. M. Levin,et al., Small lightning flashes from shallow electrical storms on jupiter, Nature584, 55 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Scarf, D

    F. Scarf, D. Gurnett, W. Kurth, R. Anderson, and R. Shaw, An upper bound to the lightning flash rate in jupiter’s atmosphere, Science213, 684 (1981)

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Gierasch, A

    P. Gierasch, A. Ingersoll, D. Banfield, S. Ewald, P. Helfenstein, A. Simon-Miller, A. Vasavada, H. Bren- eman, D. Senske, G. I. Team,et al., Observation of moist convection in jupiter’s atmosphere, Nature403, 628 (2000)

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    Seiff, D

    A. Seiff, D. B. Kirk, T. C. Knight, J. D. Mihalov, R. C. Blanchard, R. E. Young, G. Schubert, U. Von Zahn, G. Lehmacher, F. S. Milos,et al., Structure of the atmo- sphere of jupiter: Galileo probe measurements, Science 272, 844 (1996)

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    Https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/

    work page

  11. [11]

    S. J. Bolton, J. Lunine, D. Stevenson, J. Connerney, S. Levin, T. Owen, F. Bagenal, D. Gautier, A. Inger- soll, G. Orton,et al., The juno mission, Space Science Reviews213, 5 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    M. H. Wong, I. Kolmaˇ sov´ a, F. A. Oyafuso, M. Imai, S. Mizumoto, S. M. Levin, R. G. Sankar, A. A. Simon, S. Brueshaber, G. S. Orton,et al., Radio pulse power distribution of lightning in jupiter’s 2021–2022 stealth superstorms, AGU Advances7, e2025AV002083 (2026)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    J. W. Warwick, J. B. Pearce, D. R. Evans, T. D. Carr, J. J. Schauble, J. K. Alexander, M. L. Kaiser, M. D. Desch, M. Pedersen, A. Lecacheux, G. Daigne, A. Boischot, and C. H. Barrow, Plan- etary radio astronomy observations from voy- ager 1 near saturn, Science212, 239 (1981), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.212.4491.239

    work page doi:10.1126/science.212.4491.239 1981

  14. [14]

    Fischer, D

    G. Fischer, D. A. Gurnett, W. S. Kurth, F. Akalin, P. Zarka, U. A. Dyudina, W. M. Farrell, and M. L. Kaiser, Atmospheric electricity at saturn, Space Science Reviews 137, 271 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Luque, D

    A. Luque, D. Dubrovin, F. J. Gordillo-V´ azquez, U. Ebert, F. C. Parra-Rojas, Y. Yair, and C. Price, Cou- pling between atmospheric layers in gaseous giant planets due to lightning-generated electromagnetic pulses, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics119, 8705 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    U. A. Dyudina, A. Ingersoll, S. Ewald, C. Porco, G. Fis- cher, W. Kurth, and R. West, Detection of visible light- ning on saturn, Geophysical Research Letters37(2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Seiff, J

    A. Seiff, J. Schofield, A. Kliore, F. Taylor, S. Limaye, H. Revercomb, L. Sromovsky, V. Kerzhanovich, V. Mo- roz, and M. Y. Marov, Models of the structure of the atmosphere of venus from the surface to 100 kilometers altitude, Advances in Space Research5, 3 (1985)

    work page 1985

  18. [18]

    Ksanfomaliti, Discovery of frequent lightning dis- charges in clouds on venus, Nature284, 244 (1980)

    L. Ksanfomaliti, Discovery of frequent lightning dis- charges in clouds on venus, Nature284, 244 (1980)

    work page 1980

  19. [19]

    Ksanfomaliti, N

    L. Ksanfomaliti, N. Vasilchikov, O. Ganpantserova, Y. Petrova, A. Suvorov, G. Filippov, O. Yablonskaya, and L. Yabrova,Electrical discharges in the atmosphere 7 of Venus, Tech. Rep. (1979)

    work page 1979

  20. [20]

    Scarf, W

    F. Scarf, W. Taylor, C. Russell, and L. Brace, Lightning on venus: Orbiter detection of whistler signals, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics85, 8158 (1980)

    work page 1980

  21. [21]

    M. A. Williams, E. P. Krider, and D. M. Hunten, Plan- etary lightning: Earth, jupiter, and venus, Reviews of Geophysics21, 892 (1983)

    work page 1983

  22. [22]

    Krasnopolsky, On lightnings in the venus atmosphere according to the venera 9 and 10 data, Cosmic Res18, 22 (1980)

    V. Krasnopolsky, On lightnings in the venus atmosphere according to the venera 9 and 10 data, Cosmic Res18, 22 (1980)

    work page 1980

  23. [23]

    Hansell, W

    S. Hansell, W. Wells, and D. Hunten, Optical detection of lightning on venus, Icarus117, 345 (1995)

    work page 1995

  24. [24]

    Ignatiev, V

    A. Ignatiev, V. Kuzmin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Is the electric charge conserved?, Physics Letters B84, 315 (1979)

    work page 1979

  25. [25]

    L. B. Okun, LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?, Sov. Phys. JETP56, 502 (1982)

    work page 1982

  26. [26]

    Holdom, Two u(1)’s and e charge shifts, Physics Let- ters B166, 196 (1986)

    B. Holdom, Two u(1)’s and e charge shifts, Physics Let- ters B166, 196 (1986)

    work page 1986

  27. [27]

    Localized U(1) Gauge Fields, Millicharged Particles, and Holography

    B. Batell and T. Gherghetta, Localized U(1) gauge fields, millicharged particles, and holography, Phys. Rev. D73, 045016 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512356

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    S. A. Abel and B. W. Schofield, Brane anti-brane kinetic mixing, millicharged particles and SUSY breaking, Nucl. Phys. B685, 150 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0311051

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    S. A. Abel, M. D. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and A. Ringwald, Kinetic Mixing of the Photon with Hidden U(1)s in String Phenomenology, JHEP07, 124, arXiv:0803.1449 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Unified Lepton-Hadron Symme- try and a Gauge Theory of the Basic Interactions, Phys. Rev. D8, 1240 (1973)

    work page 1973

  31. [31]

    Georgi, The State of the Art—Gauge Theories, AIP Conf

    H. Georgi, The State of the Art—Gauge Theories, AIP Conf. Proc.23, 575 (1975)

    work page 1975

  32. [32]

    Preskill, MAGNETIC MONOPOLES, Ann

    J. Preskill, MAGNETIC MONOPOLES, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.34, 461 (1984)

    work page 1984

  33. [33]

    Wen and E

    X.-G. Wen and E. Witten, Electric and Magnetic Charges in Superstring Models, Nucl. Phys. B261, 651 (1985)

    work page 1985

  34. [34]

    G. Shiu, P. Soler, and F. Ye, Milli-Charged Dark Matter in Quantum Gravity and String Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241304 (2013), arXiv:1302.5471 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    D. E. Brahm and L. J. Hall, U(1)-prime DARK MAT- TER, Phys. Rev. D41, 1067 (1990)

    work page 1990

  36. [36]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu, and H.-B. Yu, Hidden Charged Dark Matter, JCAP07, 004, arXiv:0905.3039 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, and W. Xue, Millicharged Atomic Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D85, 101302 (2012), arXiv:1201.4858 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Y. Gong, H. Tian, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Probing mil- licharged dark matter with magnetometer coupled to cir- cuit, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280412 (2025), arXiv:2504.09630 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Jaeckel and S

    J. Jaeckel and S. Schenk, Challenging the Stability of Light Millicharged Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D103, 103523 (2021), arXiv:2102.08394 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    V. A. Rubakov and D. S. Gorbunov,Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot big bang theory (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, P. Crivelli, D. V. Kirpichnikov, L. M. Bueno, A. S. Zhevlakov, H. Sieber, and I. V. Voronchikhin, Probing millicharged particles with NA64µand LDMX, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 140 (2026), arXiv:2505.04295 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Minicharged Particles at Accelerators: Progress and Prospects

    M. de Montigny, P.-P. A. Ouimet, J. Pinfold, A. Shaa, and M. Staelens, Minicharged Particles at Accelerators: Progress and Prospects, (2023), arXiv:2307.07855 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and E. Vitagliano, Self-Interacting Dark Sectors in Supernovae Can Behave as a Relativistic Fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251004 (2024), arXiv:2404.07714 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Updated Bounds on Milli-Charged Particles

    S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raffelt, Up- dated bounds on millicharged particles, JHEP05, 003, arXiv:hep-ph/0001179

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Berlin and K

    A. Berlin and K. Schutz, Helioscope for gravitationally bound millicharged particles, Phys. Rev. D105, 095012 (2022), arXiv:2111.01796 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, Super- nova 1987A Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors, Mil- licharged Particles, the QCD Axion, and an Axion-like Particle, JHEP09, 051, arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Phenomenology and cosmology of millicharged particles and experimental prospects for their search

    A. Lepidi,Phenomenology and cosmology of millicharged particles and experimental prospects for their search, Lau- rea thesis, L’Aquila U. (2007), arXiv:0809.4854 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  48. [48]

    Cruz and M

    A. Cruz and M. McQuinn, Astrophysical plasma insta- bilities induced by long-range interacting dark matter, JCAP04, 028, arXiv:2202.12464 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  49. [49]

    A. Arza, Y. Gong, J. Shu, L. Wu, Q. Yuan, and B. Zhu, Geomagnetic Signal of Millicharged Dark Matter, (2025), arXiv:2501.14949 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Resonant production of millicharged scalars in $k^2>0$ electromagnetic wave background

    E. Dmitrieva and P. Satunin, Resonant production of mil- licharged scalars in kˆ2>0 electromagnetic wave back- ground, (2025), arXiv:2510.25505 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Berlin, R

    A. Berlin, R. Harnik, Y.-Y. Li, and B. Xu, Millicharged Condensates on Earth, (2024), arXiv:2404.16094 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion, Physical Review82, 664 (1951)

    J. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polariza- tion, Physical Review82, 664 (1951)

    work page 1951

  53. [53]

    Li and M

    X. Li and M. B. Voloshin, Electric discharge in vacuum by minicharged particles, Mod- ern Physics Letters A29, 1450054 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732314500540

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732314500540 2014

  54. [54]

    Berlin and A

    A. Berlin and A. Hook, Searching for Millicharged Par- ticles with Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavities, Phys. Rev. D102, 035010 (2020), arXiv:2001.02679 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Kouvaris and I

    C. Kouvaris and I. M. Shoemaker, Millicharged Particle Production in Pulsars via the Schwinger Effect, (2025), arXiv:2511.04763 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    K. L. Aplin and G. Fischer, Lightning detection in plan- etary atmospheres, Weather72, 46 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Y. Yair, G. Fischer, F. Sim˜ oes, N. Renno, and P. Zarka, Updated review of planetary atmospheric electricity, Space science reviews137, 29 (2008)

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    A. Nagy, A. Balogh, T. Cravens, M. Mendillo, and I. M¨ uller-Wodarg,Comparative Aeronomy, Space Sci- ences Series of ISSI (Springer New York, 2008)

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    Electrical processes in planetary atmospheres

    K. Aplin, M. Airey, and E. Warriner-Bacon, Electri- cal processes in planetary atmospheres, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05597 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Nikishov, Barrier scattering in field theory removal of klein paradox, Nuclear Physics B21, 346 (1970)

    A. Nikishov, Barrier scattering in field theory removal of klein paradox, Nuclear Physics B21, 346 (1970)

    work page 1970

  61. [61]

    Klein and J

    A. Klein and J. Rafelski, Bose condensation in supercrit- ical external fields charged condensates, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei284, 71 (1978). 8

    work page 1978

  62. [62]

    T. D. Cohen and D. A. McGady, The Schwinger mechanism revisited, Phys. Rev. D78, 036008 (2008), arXiv:0807.1117 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical physics: vol- ume 5, Vol. 5 (Elsevier, 2013)

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    Astrophysical Bounds on Milli-Charged Particles in Models with a Paraphoton

    S. Davidson and M. E. Peskin, Astrophysical bounds on millicharged particles in models with a paraphoton, Phys. Rev. D49, 2114 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9310288

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  65. [65]

    Late time CMB anisotropies constrain mini-charged particles

    C. Burrage, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Late time CMB anisotropies constrain mini-charged par- ticles, JCAP11, 002, arXiv:0909.0649 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Novel Astrophysical Probes of Light Millicharged Fermions through Schwinger Pair Production

    M. Korwar and A. M. Thalapillil, Novel Astro- physical Probes of Light Millicharged Fermions through Schwinger Pair Production, JHEP04, 039, arXiv:1709.07888 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    N. R. Council,The Earth;s Electrical Environment(The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1986)

    work page 1986

  68. [68]

    Heidler, W

    F. Heidler, W. Zischank, Z. Flisowski, C. Bouqueg- neau, and C. Mazzetti, Parameters of lightning current given in iec 62305-background, experience and outlook, in 29th International Conference on Lightning Protection, Vol. 23 (2008) p. 26

    work page 2008

  69. [69]

    M. A. Uman and E. P. Krider, A review of natural light- ning: Experimental data and modeling, IEEE Transac- tions on electromagnetic compatibility , 79 (2007)

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    Williams, B

    E. Williams, B. Boldi, A. Matlin, M. Weber, S. Hodanish, D. Sharp, S. Goodman, R. Raghavan, and D. Buechler, The behavior of total lightning activity in severe florida thunderstorms, Atmospheric Research51, 245 (1999)

    work page 1999

  71. [71]

    F. J. P´ erez-Invern´ on, A. Luque, and F. J. Gordillo- V´ azquez, Three-dimensional modeling of lightning- induced electromagnetic pulses on venus, jupiter, and saturn, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 122, 7636 (2017)

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Robledo-Martinez, H

    A. Robledo-Martinez, H. Sobral, and A. Ruiz-Meza, Space charge effects and arc properties of simulated light- ning on venus, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics116(2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    V. D. Kumar, J. P. Pabari, K. Acharyya, and C. Russell, Venus lightning: Estimation of charge and dimensions of charge regions for lightning initiation, Icarus365, 114473 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Dubrovin, A

    D. Dubrovin, A. Luque, F. Gordillo-Vazquez, Y. Yair, F. Parra-Rojas, U. Ebert, and C. Price, Impact of light- ning on the lower ionosphere of saturn and possible gen- eration of halos and sprites, Icarus241, 313 (2014)

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    Santer and A

    R. Santer and A. Dollfus, Optical reflectance polarimetry of saturn’s globe and rings: Iv. aerosols in the upper atmosphere of saturn, Icarus48, 496 (1981)

    work page 1981

  76. [76]

    Sanz-Requena, S

    J. Sanz-Requena, S. P´ erez-Hoyos, A. S´ anchez-Lavega, A. Antu˜ nano, and P. G. Irwin, Haze and cloud structure of saturn’s north pole and hexagon wave from cassini/iss imaging, Icarus305, 284 (2018)

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    Y. S. Aglyamov, J. Lunine, H. N. Becker, T. Guillot, S. G. Gibbard, S. Atreya, S. J. Bolton, S. Levin, S. T. Brown, and M. H. Wong, Lightning generation in moist convec- tive clouds and constraints on the water abundance in jupiter, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets126, e2020JE006504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Bagenal, T

    F. Bagenal, T. Dowling, and W. McKinnon,Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, Cambridge Plane- tary Science No. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  79. [79]

    Y. Yair, Z. Levin, and S. Tzivion, Lightning generation in a jovian thundercloud: Results from an axisymmetric numerical cloud model, Icarus115, 421 (1995)

    work page 1995

  80. [80]

    C. C. Porco, E. Baker, J. Barbara, K. Beurle, A. Brahic, J. A. Burns, S. Charnoz, N. Cooper, D. D. Dawson, A. D. Del Genio,et al., Imaging of titan from the cassini space- craft, Nature434, 159 (2005)

    work page 2005

Showing first 80 references.