Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 47 references

Time-of-Flight Constraints on Neutrino Millicharge from Supernova Neutrinos in Galactic Magnetic Fields

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-20 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Supernova time-of-flight data can be reinterpreted as neutrino millicharge bounds down to the 10^{-19} e level.

desk verdict The paper reinterprets SN1987A and future supernova time-of-flight limits as millicharge bounds via a line-of-sight magnetic delay kernel, but the results depend on a smooth-field assumption that turbulence may undermine. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.26013 v2 pith:DYCJSLPQ submitted 2026-04-28 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Pedro Dedin Neto , AmirFarzan Esmaeili , Guilherme A. Nogueira , Pedro Cunha de Holanda , Ernesto Kemp This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords neutrinomillichargesupernovaneutrinostime-of-flightgalacticmagneticfieldsSN1987Amasspropagationelectromagneticinteractions
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationFoundation.AbsoluteFloorClosure
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 shows that a millicharged neutrino deflected by Galactic magnetic fields experiences a geometric time delay that scales with energy exactly as the delay from a nonzero neutrino mass. This shared E^{-2} dependence lets the authors translate existing and future supernova neutrino arrival-time limits directly into constraints on the neutrino millicharge. They replace the simple uniform-field estimate with a line-of-sight magnetic delay kernel that incorporates the actual structure of the Galactic field. A sympathetic reader would care because the method extracts new fundamental information from well-observed or soon-to-be-observed events without requiring new particle-physics experiments.

What carries the argument

The line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel that calculates the geometric time delay from Lorentz-force deflections and shares the E^{-2} scaling with mass-induced delays, allowing direct translation of time-of-flight limits.

What would settle it

Arrival-time data from a future Galactic supernova that, when analyzed with the line-of-sight magnetic kernel, yields a millicharge value larger than the paper's projected bound would directly contradict the claimed constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A millicharged neutrino propagating through magnetic fields experiences a small Lorentz-force deflection, which induces a geometric time delay. In the ultra-relativistic regime relevant for supernova neutrinos, this delay scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2} and thus shares the same leading energy dependence as the standard time-of-flight delay induced by neutrino mass. Motivated by this similarity, the authors propose a framework to reinterpret supernova time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. Both effects are expressed through a common E_ν^{-2} dispersion coefficient, and the millicharge-induced contribution is computed with a line-of-sight-dependent magneticdelay

Load-bearing premise

The millicharge-induced geometric time delay can be expressed with the same E^{-2} dispersion coefficient as the mass delay and computed accurately with the magnetic kernel without dominant interference from other propagation effects or magnetic field uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN1987A data translate into millicharge bounds near 10^{-17} e.
  • Next-generation Galactic supernova observations reach the low 10^{-19} e regime.
  • Optimistic detector sensitivity and sightline combinations approach 10^{-20} e.
  • The new bounds can be compared directly with other literature limits on neutrino millicharge.
  • Nonzero neutrino mass must be accounted for when interpreting the millicharge constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same translation could be applied to neutrinos from other distant sources that traverse magnetized regions.
  • Improved Galactic magnetic field maps would immediately tighten the derived millicharge limits.
  • Combined timing and flavor data from a single supernova burst might help separate mass and millicharge contributions.
  • The approach underscores the value of accurate propagation modeling for extracting neutrino electromagnetic properties.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes reinterpreting supernova neutrino time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. It observes that the geometric delay from Lorentz-force deflection in magnetic fields scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2} in the ultra-relativistic limit, sharing the leading energy dependence with the mass-induced delay. The authors introduce a line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel that extends the uniform-field approximation used for SN1987A, apply the translation to existing SN1987A limits and projected sensitivities for future Galactic core-collapse supernovae, and report millicharge bounds ranging from ∼10^{-17} e to the low-10^{-19} e regime (with optimistic sightlines reaching ∼10^{-20} e). The work also discusses the effect of nonzero neutrino mass on the interpretation.

Significance. If the central mapping holds, the paper supplies a practical framework for converting existing and forthcoming supernova timing data into competitive millicharge limits that improve upon current laboratory bounds by several orders of magnitude. The explicit construction of a LOS-dependent kernel represents a technical advance over prior uniform-field estimates, and the discussion of the interplay with neutrino mass provides a useful caveat for future analyses. The approach is falsifiable with next-generation detectors and Galactic sightline selection.

major comments (1)
  1. [Magnetic delay kernel] Magnetic delay kernel (description following the uniform-field extension): the kernel is constructed for a smooth, line-of-sight-integrated field and yields a coherent deflection scaling. The Galactic magnetic field, however, includes a turbulent component with coherence lengths ∼10–100 pc over a ∼10 kpc path. In the random-walk regime the excess path length scales as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E² rather than the L³ scaling implicit in the smooth kernel; this changes the effective E_ν^{-2} coefficient by a factor that depends on the uncertain turbulence spectrum and therefore renders the quoted numerical bounds (∼10^{-17} e to ∼10^{-20} e) sensitive to B-field modeling choices not quantified in the manuscript.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the millicharge delay 'shares the same leading energy dependence' as the mass delay; an explicit side-by-side definition of the common dispersion coefficient (including any overall prefactors) would make the translation step fully transparent.
  2. For the optimistic ∼10^{-20} e projection, specify which Galactic sightline models or detector configurations are assumed so that readers can assess the realism of the combination.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment concerning the magnetic delay kernel and the turbulent component of the Galactic magnetic field below. We have made revisions to the manuscript to incorporate a discussion of this issue.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Magnetic delay kernel (description following the uniform-field extension): the kernel is constructed for a smooth, line-of-sight-integrated field and yields a coherent deflection scaling. The Galactic magnetic field, however, includes a turbulent component with coherence lengths ∼10–100 pc over a ∼10 kpc path. In the random-walk regime the excess path length scales as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E² rather than the L³ scaling implicit in the smooth kernel; this changes the effective E_ν^{-2} coefficient by a factor that depends on the uncertain turbulence spectrum and therefore renders the quoted numerical bounds (∼10^{-17} e to ∼10^{-20} e) sensitive to B-field modeling choices not quantified in the manuscript.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that our magnetic delay kernel assumes a smooth, line-of-sight integrated field, leading to a coherent deflection with L^3 scaling. The presence of a turbulent component with coherence lengths of 10-100 pc over 10 kpc paths would indeed place the deflection in a random-walk regime, resulting in an excess path length scaling as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E². This alters the effective coefficient in the E_ν^{-2} term and introduces dependence on the turbulence spectrum, which was not quantified in the original submission. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include an explicit discussion of the turbulent contribution. We estimate that the random-walk delay is typically smaller than the coherent one for standard Galactic field parameters but can become comparable depending on the sightline and B_rms. We now present the bounds with an additional uncertainty factor associated with B-field modeling and discuss how future work could refine this using detailed turbulence simulations. This is a partial revision, as we have not performed a full re-calculation incorporating a specific turbulence model but have qualified the results accordingly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives the shared E_ν^{-2} scaling for millicharge geometric delay from Lorentz deflection and equates it to the mass delay via a common dispersion coefficient. It then computes a line-of-sight magnetic delay kernel as an explicit extension of the uniform-field case and applies the resulting mapping to independently established external SN1987A time-of-flight limits. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no parameter is fitted then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The numerical bounds are translations of prior external constraints rather than new fitted outputs. Magnetic-field modeling details affect correctness but do not create circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ultra-relativistic scaling of the magnetic delay and on the accuracy of Galactic magnetic field models used to build the line-of-sight kernel; no new free parameters are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption In the ultra-relativistic regime the millicharge-induced delay scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2}.
    This scaling is invoked to establish the shared E^{-2} dependence with the mass delay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-of-Flight Constraints on Neutrino Millicharge from Supernova Neutrinos in Galactic Magnetic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYCJSLPQ

@misc{pith2026260426013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-of-Flight Constraints on Neutrino Millicharge from Supernova Neutrinos in Galactic Magnetic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYCJSLPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.26013}
}
abstract

A millicharged neutrino propagating through magnetic fields experiences a small Lorentz-force deflection, which induces a geometric time delay. In the ultra-relativistic regime relevant for supernova neutrinos, this delay scales as $q_\nu^2 E_\nu^{-2}$, where $q_\nu$ and $E_\nu$ denote the neutrino millicharge and energy, respectively, and thus shares the same leading energy dependence as the standard time-of-flight delay induced by neutrino mass. Motivated by this similarity, we propose a framework to reinterpret supernova time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. We express both effects in terms of a common $E_\nu^{-2}$ dispersion coefficient and compute the millicharge-induced contribution using a line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel, extending the original SN1987A uniform-field estimate. Applying this translation to existing SN1987A limits and to projected sensitivities for future Galactic core-collapse supernova observations, we obtain bounds ranging from the $\sim 10^{-17}\, e$ level for SN1987A to the low-$10^{-19}\, e$ regime for next-generation Galactic bursts, with optimistic combinations of detector sensitivity and Galactic sightline approaching $\sim 10^{-20}\, e$. We compare these results with other bounds in the literature and discuss how nonzero neutrino mass affects the interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Galactic plane map of the regular JF12 magnetic field model in Galactocentric coordinates, with the selected lines view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decomposition of the magnetic kernel building view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of neutrino-millicharge bounds from dif view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For each sampled parameter set, we recompute the corresponding contribution to the effec- tive field strengthB2 eff(L, ℓ, b), and hence to the regular part of the time delay kernel

    Regular component To estimate the uncertainty on the regular field con- tribution to the kernel, we sample the JF12 regular field parameters around their published best fit values using independent Gaussian draws with widths given by the quoted1σerrors. For each sampled parameter set, we recompute the corresponding contribution to the effec- tive field st...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Stochastic components For the stochastic components, the time delay kernel depends on a transverse field variance together with a correlation length along the line-of-sight given by Eq. A30. In practice, this integral is evaluated numerically from the transverse correlation function estimated along the line-of-sight. For the turbulent field, we use theCRP...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Quantization of electric charge from anomaly constraints and a majo- rana neutrino,

    K. S. Babu and Rabindra N. Mohapatra, “Quantization of electric charge from anomaly constraints and a majo- rana neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D41, 271–277 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Electric Charge Quantization

    Robert Foot, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “Electric charge quantization,” J. Phys. G19, 361–372 (1993), [Erratum: J.Phys.G 19, 1067 (1993)], arXiv:hep-ph/9209259

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Charge Quantization in the Standard Model and Some of its Extensions,

    R. Foot, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “Charge Quantization in the Standard Model and Some of its Extensions,” Modern Physics Letters A5, 2721–2731 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    SimplestZ ′ model,

    Xiao-Gang He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “SimplestZ ′ model,” Phys.Rev.D44,2118–2132(1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), “Evidence for os- cillation of atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562–1567 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), “Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    First results from Kam- LAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance,

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), “First results from Kam- LAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep- ex/0212021

    2003

  2. [10]

    Neutrino elec- tromagneticinteractions: awindowtonewphysics,

    Carlo Giunti and Alexander Studenikin, “Neutrino elec- tromagneticinteractions: awindowtonewphysics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    How Charged Can Neutrinos Be?

    Sudip Jana, Michael Klasen, and Vishnu P. K, “How Charged Can Neutrinos Be?” (2025), arXiv:2504.20044 [hep-ph]

    2025

  4. [12]

    Electromagnetic properties and de- cays of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos in a general class of gauge theories,

    Robert E. Shrock, “Electromagnetic properties and de- cays of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos in a general class of gauge theories,” Nuclear Physics B206, 359–379 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    Elec- tromagnetic properties of neutrinos,

    C. Broggini, C. Giunti, and A. Studenikin, “Elec- tromagnetic properties of neutrinos,” Advances in High Energy Physics2012, 459526 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2012/459526

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Neutrino Electromagnetic Prop- erties,

    Carlo Giunti, Konstantin Kouzakov, Yu-Feng Li, and Alexander Studenikin, “Neutrino Electromagnetic Prop- erties,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 1–33 (2025), arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,

    Bob Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166, 196–198 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Limits on neutrino electromagnetic prop- erties: An update,

    G. G. Raffelt, “Limits on neutrino electromagnetic prop- erties: An update,” Phys. Rept.320, 319–327 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Updated bounds on milli-charged particles,

    Sacha Davidson, Steen Hannestad, and Georg Raffelt, “Updated bounds on milli-charged particles,” Journal of High Energy Physics2000, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0001179 [hep-ph]

    2000

  10. [18]

    Constraints on millicharged neutri- nos via analysis of data from atomic ionizations with ger- manium detectors at sub-keV sensitivities,

    Jiunn-Wei Chen, Hsin-Chang Chi, Hau-Bin Li, C. P. Liu, Lakhwinder Singh, Henry T. Wong, Chih-Liang Wu, and Chih-Pan Wu, “Constraints on millicharged neutri- nos via analysis of data from atomic ionizations with ger- manium detectors at sub-keV sensitivities,” Phys. Rev. D 90, ...

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    New constraint on neutrino magnetic moment and neutrino millicharge from LUX- ZEPLIN dark matter search results,

    M. Atzori Corona, W. M. Bonivento, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, and F. Dordei, “New constraint on neutrino magnetic moment and neutrino millicharge from LUX- ZEPLIN dark matter search results,” Phys. Rev. D107, 053001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05036 [hep-ph]

    2023

  12. [20]

    Light new physics and neutrino electro- magnetic interactions in XENONnT,

    Amir N. Khan, “Light new physics and neutrino electro- magnetic interactions in XENONnT,” Phys. Lett. B837, 137650 (2023), arXiv:2208.02144 [hep-ph]

    2023

  13. [21]

    New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from GEMMA experiment on neutrino magnetic moment,

    Victor B. Brudanin, Dmitry V. Medvedev, Alexander S. Starostin, and Alexander I. Studenikin, “New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from GEMMA experiment on neutrino magnetic moment,” Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275, 2605–2608 (2016), arXiv:1411.2279 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Neutrino charge constraints from scattering to the weak gravity conjecture to neutron stars,

    Arindam Das, Diptimoy Ghosh, Carlo Giunti, and Arun Thalapillil, “Neutrino charge constraints from scattering to the weak gravity conjecture to neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D102, 115009 (2020), arXiv:2005.12304 [hep-ph]

    2020

  15. [23]

    On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,

    G. T. Zatsepin, “On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.8, 333–334 (1968)

    1968

  16. [24]

    Supernova SN 1987a: 18 Months Later,

    David N. Schramm, “Supernova SN 1987a: 18 Months Later,” inDPF ’88: 1988 Meeting of the Division of Par- ticles & Fields of the APS(1989) pp. 599–622

    1988

  17. [25]

    Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A,

    Thomas J. Loredo and Don Q. Lamb, “Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A,” Phys. Rev. D65, 063002 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107260

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Neu- trino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission,

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Rossi-Torres, and F. Vissani, “Neu- trino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission,” Astropart. Phys.33, 287–291 (2010), arXiv:1002.3349 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Black Hole Formation in Core Collapse Supernovae and Time-of-Flight Measurements of the Neutrino Masses,

    John F. Beacom, R. N. Boyd, and A. Mezzacappa, “Black Hole Formation in Core Collapse Supernovae and Time-of-Flight Measurements of the Neutrino Masses,” Phys.Rev.D63,073011(2001),arXiv:astro-ph/0010398

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Constraints on neu- trino masses from a galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors,

    Enrico Nardi and Jorge I. Zuluaga, “Constraints on neu- trino masses from a galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors,” Nucl. Phys. B731, 140– 163 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412104. 13

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    AbsoluteνMass Measurement with the DUNE Experiment,

    Federica Pompa, Francesco Capozzi, Olga Mena, and Michel Sorel, “AbsoluteνMass Measurement with the DUNE Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121802 (2022), arXiv:2203.00024 [hep-ph]

    2022

  22. [30]

    Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming super- novae and scintillation detectors,

    George A. Parker and Michael Wurm, “Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming super- novae and scintillation detectors,” Phys. Rev. D109, 083041 (2024), arXiv:2311.10682 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  23. [31]

    Individual neutrino masses from a supernova,

    Peter B. Denton and Yves Kini, “Individual neutrino masses from a supernova,” Phys. Rev. D111, 103006 (2025), arXiv:2411.13634 [hep-ph]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Prospective Constraints on Neutrino Masses from a Core-Collapse Supernova,

    John Ellis, Hans-Thomas Janka, Nikolaos E. Mavro- matos, Alexander S. Sakharov, and Edward K. G. Sark- isyan, “Prospective Constraints on Neutrino Masses from a Core-Collapse Supernova,” Phys. Rev. D85, 105028 (2012), arXiv:1202.0248 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Electric Charge of the Neutrinos from SN1987A,

    G. Barbiellini and G. Cocconi, “Electric Charge of the Neutrinos from SN1987A,” Nature329, 21–22 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    A New Model of the Galactic Magnetic Field,

    Ronnie Jansson and Glennys R. Farrar, “A New Model of the Galactic Magnetic Field,” Astrophys. J.757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 [astro-ph.GA]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from ro- tation measures,

    M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, and F. R. Urban, “New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from ro- tation measures,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 191302 (2016), arXiv:1504.06546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Understanding and visualizing the statistical analysis of SN1987A neutrino data,

    Marcos V. dos Santos and Pedro Cunha de Holanda, “Understanding and visualizing the statistical analysis of SN1987A neutrino data,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 145 (2022), arXiv:2108.06448 [hep-ph]

    2022

  29. [37]

    Tests of relativity from SN1987A,

    Michael J. Longo, “Tests of relativity from SN1987A,” Phys. Rev. D36, 3276–3277 (1987)

    1987

  30. [38]

    A novel analytical model of the magnetic field configuration in the Galactic Center,

    Mehmet Guenduez, Julia Becker Tjus, Katia Ferrière, and Ralf-Jürgen Dettmar, “A novel analytical model of the magnetic field configuration in the Galactic Center,” Astron. Astrophys.644, A71 (2020), arXiv:1906.05211 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020

  31. [39]

    Search for millicharged particles in reactor neutrino ex- periments: A Probe of the PVLAS anomaly,

    S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, and A. Rubbia, “Search for millicharged particles in reactor neutrino ex- periments: A Probe of the PVLAS anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D75, 075014 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612203

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from limits on neutrino magnetic moment,

    Alexander Studenikin, “New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from limits on neutrino magnetic moment,” EPL107, 21001 (2014), [Erratum: EPL 107, 39901 (2014), Erratum: Europhys.Lett. 107, 39901 (2014)], arXiv:1302.1168 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Impact of the Dresden-II and COHERENT neutrino scattering data on neutrino electromagnetic proper- ties and electroweak physics,

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Impact of the Dresden-II and COHERENT neutrino scattering data on neutrino electromagnetic proper- ties and electroweak physics,” JHEP09, 164 (2022), arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    2022

  34. [42]

    Im- plications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A compar- ative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,

    ShivaSankar K. A., Anirban Majumdar, Dimitrios K. Pa- poulias, Hemant Prajapati, and Rahul Srivastava, “Im- plications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A compar- ative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,” Phys.Lett.B839,137742(2023),arXiv:2208.06415[hep- ph]

    2023

  35. [43]

    Electromagnetic Properties of the neutrino,

    Jeremy Bernstein, Malvin Ruderman, and Gerald Fein- berg, “Electromagnetic Properties of the neutrino,” Phys. Rev.132, 1227–1233 (1963)

    1963

  36. [44]

    Laboratory constraint on the electric charge of the neutron and the neutrino,

    Savely G. Karshenboim, “Laboratory constraint on the electric charge of the neutron and the neutrino,” Eur. Phys. J. D79, 28 (2025), arXiv:2406.19129 [hep-ph]

    2025

  37. [45]

    Millicharged neutrino with anomalous magnetic moment in rotating magnetized matter,

    Alexander I. Studenikin and Ilya Tokarev, “Millicharged neutrino with anomalous magnetic moment in rotating magnetized matter,” Nucl. Phys. B884, 396–407 (2014), arXiv:1209.3245 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    New bounds on light millicharged particles from the tip of the red-giant branch,

    Audrey Fung, Saniya Heeba, Qinrui Liu, Varun Muralid- haran, Katelin Schutz, and Aaron C. Vincent, “New bounds on light millicharged particles from the tip of the red-giant branch,” Phys. Rev. D109, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2309.06465 [hep-ph]

    2024

  39. [47]

    CRPropa 3.2: a pub- lic framework for high-energy astroparticle simulations,

    S. Aerdkeret al.(CRPropa), “CRPropa 3.2: a pub- lic framework for high-energy astroparticle simulations,” PoSICRC2023, 1471 (2023), arXiv:2308.09532 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed May 20, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.