arxiv: 2605.02869 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · ✦ hep-ex · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Magnetic Monopoles -- From Dirac to the Large Hadron Collider

Vasiliki A. Mitsou

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex hep-ph

keywords magnetic monopolesDirac quantizationgrand unified theoriesLHC searchescosmic ray experimentsmagnetic chargeparticle detection

0 comments

The pith

Strong theory predicts isolated magnetic poles but extensive searches at the LHC and elsewhere have not found them.

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

The paper reviews the theoretical case for magnetic monopoles, beginning with Dirac's 1931 quantization condition that ties electric charge to the existence of magnetic charge, and extending to grand-unified-theory predictions that monopoles should appear at high energies. It then traces the long history of experimental efforts to detect them through cosmic-ray observations and accelerator-based searches. The central focus is the current status at the Large Hadron Collider, where dedicated analyses have set limits but reported no detections. A sympathetic reader cares because the continued absence of monopoles either constrains the scale of unification or points to gaps in how we model magnetic charge.

Core claim

The paper states that there are strong theoretical arguments in favour of monopoles' existence, rooted in Dirac quantization and GUT predictions, but that in spite of extensive searches in cosmic and collider experiments, including at the LHC, they are yet to be found.

What carries the argument

The Dirac quantization condition, which requires that the product of electric and magnetic charges be an integer multiple of a fundamental unit, together with the production and detection signatures (ionization, magnetic trapping, and high-energy pair production) used in cosmic-ray and collider experiments.

If this is right

Non-observation at the LHC directly constrains the allowed mass and charge values for monopoles that could be produced in proton-proton collisions.
Cosmic-ray searches extend the reach to higher energies and lower fluxes than collider experiments can access.
Any future detection would simultaneously confirm the Dirac condition and provide a new probe of early-universe physics.
Continued null results would force theorists to explain why monopoles are either absent or hidden at accessible energies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If monopoles remain undetected at higher LHC luminosities, models that tie them tightly to unification scales may need additional suppression mechanisms.
The complementarity between cosmic and collider searches suggests that a joint analysis framework could tighten overall bounds without new hardware.
Absence of monopoles might indirectly affect predictions for other topological defects, such as cosmic strings, that share similar theoretical origins.

Load-bearing premise

If monopoles exist with masses and magnetic charges inside the ranges already probed by current detectors, the experimental techniques deployed would have produced a detectable signal.

What would settle it

A clear observation, in LHC data or a cosmic-ray detector, of a particle that deposits energy consistent with a magnetic charge and passes all background-rejection cuts used in the reviewed analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02869 by Vasiliki A. Mitsou.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Ionisation energy loss dE/dx in various materials as a function of velocity β for HIPs possessing an electric charge of 68.5e (left) and magnetic charge of 1gD (right), based on 3 and 4, respectively. For low-β magnetic charges (right), estimates from Ref. [53] are used. From [54]. Through the ionisation process and excitation of atoms, liquid or plastic scintillators, gas detectors, and nuclear track dete… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Breaking of the polymeric bonds by a crossing charged particle. The damaged region forms a latent track around the particle trajectory. From [61] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Simplified schematic view of a dc SQUID (not to scale). When a MM or a sample passes through the detection coil (green) coupled to a SQUID, a net supercurrent is registered in the SQUID ring. When a dc SQUID is biased with a constant current, Ib, the temporal average voltage across the SQUID is modulated with a periodicity of Φ0, as shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Typical I–V curve and SQUID transfer function (flux-to-voltage response) illustrating periodicity with applied magnetic flux. The current value is between the I–V curve for integer (nΦ0) (red) and odd half-integer ((n+1/2)Φ0) (blue) values of Φ. The working point where the voltage is almost linearly dependent on Φ is shown (thick purple). The major background for these experiments are small changes in … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Schematic diagram of MM catalysis of proton decay p → e + + π 0 , via the Callan–Rubakov mechanism, whereby baryon number violation is mediated by super heavy gauge bosons of the pertinent GUT theory in the presence of a MM. of Cherenkov radiation would occur. The catalysis cross section depends on the monopole– nucleon relative velocity as σcat = (σ0/β)F(β), where F(β) is a correction factor relevant for… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Historical summary of MM flux limits as a function of MM mass for an initial MM velocity of 10−3 , valid for uniform or isotropic velocity distribution. The (now obsolete) lines marked “uniform” and “clumped” are associated to the overclosure of the Universe discussed at the beginning of Section 4.1. The “direct search” limit, applicable for 3 × 10−4 ≲ β ≲ 2 × 10−2 , are superseded by more stringent one… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Magnetic-charge SQUID measurements obtained by scanning lunar-rock samples collected during Apollo expeditions to the Moon. From Ref. [136]. Another widely used, yet less known nowadays, method is the extraction technique, which involves the application of strong (≥ 5 T) magnetic field to samples, sufficient to dislodge the bound MMs, accelerate them to an appropriate velocity and identify them via the h… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Device for extracting monopoles from a sample, passing them through a detection system, and collecting them. The sample is placed in the centre of the magnet coil. During the magnetic-field rise time, the MM will migrate upwards/downwards through a Lexan™ sheet into a “retarder” sheet of iron. There, it will be trapped until a critical field value is reached, at which time the MM is extracted from the ir… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: 90%-CL upper limits on GUT MM flux versus velocity view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Summary on 90% CL singly charged monopole flux upper limits from ANTARES view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Experimental upper limits at 90% CL on 1gD-MM flux in terms of the MM velocity β multiplied by the Lorentz factor γ. Shown are limits from MACRO [148] (blue), IceCube [157] (purple), RICE [177] (green), Auger [176] (brown), and a preliminary result for H.E.S.S. [179] (magenta). From Ref. [147]. Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) are large parabolas designed to detect Cherenkov light produ… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Upper limits on the flux of nonrelativistic MMs depending on the speed β and catalysis cross section σcat of the IC-59 analysis and IC-86/DeepCore analysis from IceCube. The dashed lines are limits published by MACRO [186]. MACRO 1 is an analysis developed for MMs catalysing the proton decay. MACRO 2 is the standard MACRO analysis, sensitive to MMs ionising the surrounding matter. Additionally, the Ice… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Super-Kamiokande-obtained 90% CL upper limits on the MM flux as a function of MM velocity, βM. Also shown are flux limits obtained by various direct detection experiments: Kamioka track etch [162], Mica [146], and the MACRO final result [152], as well as ones from indirect observations: the Parker bound [124,125], limits from neutron star observations [190], and the Kamiokande experimental results. A c… view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Monopole M pair production diagrams in colliders. (a) Drell–Yan production. The fermion f can be quarks, e.g. in a hadron collider, or leptons (e ±, µ±). (b) Photon fusion. The photons may radiate off colliding fermions or nuclei, e.g. in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions. 5 This βˆ parameter is totally unrelated to the monopole velocity β discussed in Section 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Monopole-related diphoton production: (a) monopolium view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Indirect constraints on MMs of charge ngD from D∅. The curved bands represent the theoretical cross sections with their uncertainties [45] for MM spin, S = 0, 1/2, and 1. From the 95% CL experimental upper limit on the cross section (horizontal line), the lower limits on MM mass divided by n at each spin value are derived (arrows). From [252]. pair production threshold [262], whereas direct searches take… view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: A typical simulated MM event with mass 11 GeV and charge g = 40e from TASSO. The s − z view of one of the tracks is shown, where z is the beam axis and s is the orthogonal-to-z axis in the plane defined by the two trajectories. The track is fitted with a parabola. Adapted from [286]. It is stressed that this method, unlike all other techniques, requires no additional detection apparatus for a collider exp… view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Upper limits on the cross section for spin-1/2 MM pair production in e +p collisions from H1, as a function of MM mass for magnetic charges of 1gD, 2gD, 3gD, and 6gD or more. From [287]. 5.3.4 Towards the Large Hadron Collider Nowadays, searches for monopoles produced at the highest available energies in hadron–hadron collisions are being carried out in pp and UPC collisions at the LHC [211] by the MoEDAL… view at source ↗

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: MoEDAL SQUID analysis results: Magnetic pole strength (in units of Dirac charge, gD) measured through the induced persistent current in the 2,400 27Al samples of the MMTs exposed to 13 TeV pp collisions in 2015–2017 with every sample scanned twice [303]. MoEDAL pioneered monopole searches in several ways. It considered for the first time spin-1 MMs [302] and the PF production mechanism [215, 302–304]. Th… view at source ↗

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Exclusion region for a MM search via the Schwinger effect in the CMS beam pipe exposed to Pb– Pb collisions during LHC Run 1. The green-shaded region shows the MoEDAL MMT Run-2 limits [307]. The inset zooms in on the lowcharge region. The limit from indirect searches for MMs produced by neutron stars [225] is also shown. From [308]. In 2019, the CMS collaboration officially donated its Run-1 beam pipe t… view at source ↗

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: ATLAS HIP search. 2D distribution of discriminators fHT and w for data and a signal model (green). The signal (A) and control (B, C and D) regions are shown. From [322]. 7 The ATLAS TRT transition-radiation feature aimed to provide particle identification capabilities [323, 324]. The accompanying two-threshold design of its readout electronics [325] produced a serendipitous sensitivity to highly ionnis… view at source ↗

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: MM mass limits obtained by MoEDAL [305] and ATLAS [322] with view at source ↗

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: ATLAS upper limits on 1-gD MM-pair production cross-section in Pb– Pb UPC at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV. The grey solid line (black dashed line) represents observed (expected) limits, whereas the green (yellow) shaded bands are ±1σ (±2σ) intervals. The observed limits by MoEDAL at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV (blue line) and the FPA and LCFA model predictions (dashed/dotted lines) for both √ sNN values are also shown. From [3… view at source ↗

**Figure 26.** Figure 26: Summary of MM bounds on the reference cross-section view at source ↗

read the original abstract

One of the basic properties of magnetism is that a magnet has always two poles, north and south, which cannot be separated into isolated poles, the magnetic monopoles. There are strong theoretical arguments in favour of monopoles' existence, but in spite of extensive searches they are yet to be found. In this review article, after highlighting briefly the theoretical foundations of monopoles, a historical overview of experimental endeavours to observe them is given, with emphasis on the state-of-the-art of searches in cosmic and collider experiments and in particular the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a review that recaps Dirac's argument and monopole searches up to the LHC but adds no new results or analysis.

read the letter

This review paper recaps the theoretical arguments for magnetic monopoles from Dirac's quantization condition through grand unified theories and then summarizes the experimental searches, with focus on the LHC. It introduces no new results or frameworks. It does a solid job of providing a historical overview and connecting the theory to the current experimental status in one document. The structure is straightforward and the emphasis on collider searches aligns with the hep-ex context. For someone looking to understand why monopoles are still interesting despite decades of null results, this pulls the key ideas together. The main drawback is its nature as a pure review. There are no new derivations, data, or reinterpretations, so its contribution is limited to how well it synthesizes the literature. The abstract and stress-test indicate it sticks to established points without overreaching, which is appropriate but means it won't shift the field. Any concerns would be about whether the cited experimental limits are the most recent ones available. This paper would suit readers new to the subject or those needing a compact reference on monopole motivations and search techniques. Specialists in the area are unlikely to find fresh information. I would bring it to a reading group on beyond-Standard-Model topics. I would not cite it in my own work for original content. It deserves serious refereeing if the target journal accepts review articles, as the material is grounded and the topic remains relevant.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review article that briefly recapitulates the theoretical foundations for magnetic monopoles (Dirac quantization condition and GUT-scale predictions), then surveys the history of experimental searches in cosmic-ray and collider environments, with emphasis on the current status of LHC searches (including MoEDAL and other experiments). The central statement is that strong theoretical motivations exist yet no monopoles have been observed despite extensive efforts.

Significance. As a concise, up-to-date compilation of established theory and null experimental results, the review would serve as a useful reference for the hep-ex community, particularly for newcomers or for contextualizing ongoing LHC analyses. The absence of new derivations or claims means its value lies in synthesis rather than novelty; credit is due for the clear separation of theoretical motivations from experimental limits.

minor comments (3)

[§2] §2 (theoretical foundations): the discussion of the Dirac quantization condition could usefully cite the original 1931 paper alongside modern reviews to aid readers tracing the historical development.
[§4] §4 (LHC searches): the text states that 'extensive searches' have returned null results; a short table summarizing the most recent mass/charge limits from ATLAS, CMS, and MoEDAL (with reference numbers) would improve clarity and allow direct comparison.
[Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion both use the phrase 'yet to be found'; a minor rephrasing to 'have not been observed' would align better with the experimental language used in the body.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our review article and the recommendation for minor revision. The report correctly identifies the manuscript as a concise synthesis of theoretical motivations for magnetic monopoles and the status of experimental searches, with emphasis on LHC results. No specific major comments were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper compiles external results with no internal derivations

full rationale

The manuscript is explicitly a review that recaps Dirac quantization, GUT predictions, and historical experimental searches drawn from the cited literature. No new equations, parameter fits, predictions, or uniqueness theorems are derived within the paper itself; the text contains no load-bearing steps that reduce by construction to its own inputs or self-citations. All claims rest on externally established results without renaming, smuggling ansatzes, or re-presenting fitted quantities as novel outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and introduces no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities; it relies on long-established theoretical concepts and experimental results from the prior literature.

axioms (1)

standard math Dirac's 1931 quantization condition relating magnetic charge to electric charge
Invoked in the theoretical foundations section as the original motivation for monopoles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5379 in / 1194 out tokens · 53936 ms · 2026-05-08T02:09:46.219042+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

288 extracted references · 163 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Curie,Sur la possibilit´ e d´ existence de la conductibilit´ e magn´ etique et du magn´ etisme libre, J.Phys

P. Curie,Sur la possibilit´ e d´ existence de la conductibilit´ e magn´ etique et du magn´ etisme libre, J.Phys. Theor. Appl.3(1)(1894) 415
[2]

P. A. M. Dirac,Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133(1931) 60

1931
[3]

P. A. M. Dirac,The theory of magnetic poles,Phys. Rev.74(1948) 817

1948
[4]

Preskill,Magnetic monopoles,Ann

J. Preskill,Magnetic monopoles,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.34(1984) 461

1984
[5]

Y. M. Shnir,Magnetic monopoles, Text and Monographs in Physics. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005, 10.1007/3-540-29082-6

work page doi:10.1007/3-540-29082-6 2005
[6]

Rajantie,Introduction to magnetic monopoles,Contemp

A. Rajantie,Introduction to magnetic monopoles,Contemp. Phys.53(2012) 195 [1204.3077]

work page arXiv 2012
[7]

N. E. Mavromatos and V. A. Mitsou,Magnetic monopoles revisited: models and searches at colliders and in the Cosmos,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2030012 [2005.05100]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

’t Hooft,Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories,Nucl

G. ’t Hooft,Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B79(1974) 276

1974
[9]

A. M. Polyakov,Particle spectrum in quantum field theory,JETP Lett.20(1974) 194

1974
[10]

Y. M. Cho and D. Maison,Monopoles in Weinberg–Salam model,Phys. Lett. B391(1997) 360 [hep-th/9601028]

work page arXiv 1997
[11]

Y. M. Cho, K. Kimm and J. H. Yoon,Mass of the electroweak monopole,Mod. Phys. Lett. A31 (2016) 1650053 [1212.3885]

work page arXiv 2016
[12]

Cho,Physical implications of electroweak monopole,Phil

Y. Cho,Physical implications of electroweak monopole,Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A377 (2019) 20190038

2019
[13]

Arunasalam and A

S. Arunasalam and A. Kobakhidze,Electroweak monopoles and the electroweak phase transition, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 444 [1702.04068]

work page arXiv 2017
[14]

Ellis, N

J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and T. You,The price of an electroweak monopole,Phys. Lett. B 756(2016) 29 [1602.01745]

work page arXiv 2016
[15]

N. E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar,Finite-energy dressed string-inspired Dirac-like monopoles, Universe5(2018) 8 [1812.00495]

work page arXiv 2018
[16]

Farakos, G

K. Farakos, G. Koutsoumbas, N. E. Mavromatos and A. Zarafonitis,On internal mechanical properties of electroweak magnetic monopoles and their effects on stability,Eur. Phys. J. ST, to appear(2026) [2506.04872]

work page arXiv 2026
[17]

N. E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar,On the stability of Born–Infeld-regularised electroweak monopoles,Eur. Phys. J. ST, to appear(2026) [2602.01921]

work page arXiv 2026
[18]

Hung,Topologically stable, finite-energy electroweak-scale monopoles,2003.02794

P. Hung,Topologically stable, finite-energy electroweak-scale monopoles,2003.02794. Magnetic Monopoles – From Dirac to the Large Hadron Collider35

work page arXiv 2003
[19]

Ellis, P

J. Ellis, P. Q. Hung and N. E. Mavromatos,An electroweak monopole, Dirac quantization and the weak mixing angle,Nucl. Phys. B969(2021) 115468 [2008.00464]

work page arXiv 2021
[20]

P. Q. Hung, V. A. Mitsou and M. Staelens,Signatures and probes of mirror mesons at colliders, Eur. Phys. J. ST, to appear(2026)

2026
[21]

J. S. Schwinger,A magnetic model of matter,Science165(1969) 757

1969
[22]

Witten,Dyons of chargeeθ/2π,Phys

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

1979
[23]

C. P. Dokos and T. N. Tomaras,Monopoles and dyons in the SU(5) model,Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 2940

1980
[24]

W. S. L’Yi, Y. J. Park, I. G. Koh and Y. D. Kim,Analytic dyon solution in SU(N) grand unified theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 1229

1982
[25]

Bjoraker and Y

J. Bjoraker and Y. Hosotani,Stable monopole and dyon solutions in the Einstein–Yang–Mills theory in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter space,Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 1853 [gr-qc/9906091]

work page arXiv 2000
[26]

Sen,Kaluza–Klein dyons in string theory,Phys

A. Sen,Kaluza–Klein dyons in string theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 1619 [hep-th/9705212]

work page arXiv 1997
[27]

Dabholkar, J

A. Dabholkar, J. Gomes and S. Murthy,Counting all dyons inN= 4string theory,JHEP05 (2011) 059 [0803.2692]

work page arXiv 2011
[28]

Tomboulis and G

E. Tomboulis and G. Woo,Soliton quantization in gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B107(1976) 221

1976
[29]

Hasenfratz and D

P. Hasenfratz and D. A. Ross,Anomalous angular momenta in a quantized theory of monopoles, Nucl. Phys. B108(1976) 462

1976
[30]

N. H. Christ, A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg,Canonical formalism for gauge theories with application to monopole solutions,Nucl. Phys. B114(1976) 61

1976
[31]

Barriola and A

M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin,Gravitational field of a global monopole,Phys. Rev. Lett.63(1989) 341

1989
[32]

P. O. Mazur and J. Papavassiliou,Gravitational scattering on a global monopole,Phys. Rev. D 44(1991) 1317

1991
[33]

N. E. Mavromatos and J. Papavassiliou,Singular lensing from the scattering on special space-time defects,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 68 [1712.03395]

work page arXiv 2018
[34]

A. K. Drukier and S. Nussinov,Monopole pair creation in energetic collisions: is it possible?, Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 102

1982
[35]

N. E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar,Magnetic monopoles from global monopoles in the presence of a Kalb–Ramond field,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 104025 [1607.01315]

work page arXiv 2017
[36]

N. E. Mavromatos and S. Sarkar,Regularized Kalb–Ramond magnetic monopole with finite energy,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 125010 [1804.01702]

work page arXiv 2018
[37]

Chatzifotis, N

N. Chatzifotis, N. E. Mavromatos and D. P. Theodosopoulos,Global monopoles in the extended Gauss-Bonnet gravity,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 085014 [2212.09467]

work page arXiv 2023
[38]

Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov,On the concentration of relic magnetic monopoles in the Universe,Phys. Lett. B79(1978) 239

1978
[39]

Nambu,String-like configurations in the Weinberg–Salam theory,Nucl

Y. Nambu,String-like configurations in the Weinberg–Salam theory,Nucl. Phys. B130(1977) 505

1977
[40]

C. T. Hill,Monopolonium,Nucl. Phys. B224(1983) 469

1983
[41]

V. K. Dubrovich and N. A. Sushko,Magnetic monopoles in the early Universe: pair production, Astrophysics46(2003) 422

2003
[42]

Vento,Hidden Dirac monopoles,Int

V. Vento,Hidden Dirac monopoles,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23(2008) 4023 [0709.0470]

work page arXiv 2008
[43]

L. N. Epele, H. Fanchiotti, C. A. Garcia Canal and V. Vento,Monopolium: the key to monopoles,Eur. Phys. J. C56(2008) 87 [hep-ph/0701133]

work page arXiv 2008
[44]

L. N. Epele, H. Fanchiotti, C. A. G. Canal and V. Vento,Monopolium production from photon fusion at the Large Hadron Collider,Eur. Phys. J. C62(2009) 587 [0809.0272]

work page arXiv 2009
[45]

I. F. Ginzburg and A. Schiller,Search for a heavy magnetic monopole at the Tevatron and CERN LHC,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 6599 [hep-ph/9802310]

work page arXiv 1998
[46]

I. F. Ginzburg and A. Schiller,The visible effect of a very heavy magnetic monopole at colliders, Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 075016 [hep-ph/9903314]

work page arXiv 1999
[47]

Giacomelli and L

G. Giacomelli and L. Patrizii,Magnetic monopole searches,ICTP Lect. Notes Ser.14(2003) 121 [hep-ex/0302011]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2003
[48]

Bethe,Theory of the passage of fast corpuscular rays through matter,Annalen Phys.5(1930) 325

H. Bethe,Theory of the passage of fast corpuscular rays through matter,Annalen Phys.5(1930) 325. 49.Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

1930
[49]

S. P. Ahlen,Stopping power formula for magnetic monopoles,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 229

1978
[50]

Derkaoui, G

J. Derkaoui, G. Giacomelli, T. Lari, A. Margiotta, M. Ouchrif, L. Patrizii et al.,Energy losses of magnetic monopoles and of dyons in the Earth,Astropart. Phys.9(1998) 173. 36 Vasiliki A. Mitsou

1998
[51]

Kazama, C

Y. Kazama, C. N. Yang and A. S. Goldhaber,Scattering of a Dirac particle with chargeZeby a fixed magnetic monopole,Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2287

1977
[52]

S. P. Ahlen and K. Kinoshita,Calculation of the stopping power of very low velocity magnetic monopoles,Phys. Rev. D26(1982) 2347

1982
[53]

De Roeck, A

A. De Roeck, A. Katre, P. Mermod, D. Milstead and T. Sloan,Sensitivity of LHC experiments to exotic highly ionising particles,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1985 [1112.2999]

work page arXiv 2012
[54]

Patrizii and M

L. Patrizii and M. Spurio,Status of searches for magnetic monopoles,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65(2015) 279 [1510.07125]

work page arXiv 2015
[55]

S. P. Ahlen and G. Tarle,Can grand unification monopoles be detected with plastic scintillators?, Phys. Rev. D27(1983) 688

1983
[56]

S. D. Drell, N. M. Kroll, M. T. Mueller, S. J. Parke and M. H. Ruderman,Energy loss of slowly moving magnetic monopoles in matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.50(1983) 644

1983
[57]

F. M. Penning, ¨Uber ionisation durch metastabile atome [On the ionization of metastable atoms],Naturwissenschaften15(1927) 818

1927
[58]

Giacomelli,Magnetic monopoles,Riv

G. Giacomelli,Magnetic monopoles,Riv. Nuovo Cim.7N12(1984) 1

1984
[59]

Nikezic and K

D. Nikezic and K. Yu,Formation and growth of tracks in nuclear track materials,Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports46(2004) 51

2004
[60]

R. L. Fleischer, P. B. Price and R. M. Walker,Nuclear tracks in solids,Sci. Am.220N6(1969) 30. 62.SLIMcollaboration,Search for massive rare particles with the SLIM experiment, in10th ICATPP Conference on Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications, pp. 199–203, 2008, DOI [0712.1438]

work page arXiv 1969
[61]

Kalliokoski,Increased sensitivity in optical scanning of irradiated CR39 foils with liquid thin films,Eur

M. Kalliokoski,Increased sensitivity in optical scanning of irradiated CR39 foils with liquid thin films,Eur. Phys. J. ST, to appear(2026)

2026
[62]

Constantinescu, H

V. Constantinescu, H. Brˆ anzas,, F. Daniel and G. Tordai,Automated thermal scanning installation of nuclear track detector plates: design and preliminary results,Eur. Phys. J. ST, to appear(2026)

2026
[63]

J. S. Viglietti, M. S. Espain, R. F. D´ ıaz, L. A. Nieto, M. Szewc, G. C. Bernardi et al.,From nuclear track characterization to machine learning based image classification in neutron autoradiography for boron neutron capture therapy,PLOS ONE18(2023) 1

2023
[64]

Nikaido, Y

F. Nikaido, Y. Abe, T. Minami, K. Kuramoto, T. Yasui, K. Sakai et al.,3D track extraction from a fluorescent nuclear track detector via machine learning and an application to diagnostics of laser-driven ions,Review of Scientific Instruments95(2024) 103302

2024
[65]

Taguchi, T

T. Taguchi, T. Minami, T. Hihara, F. Nikaido, T. Asai, K. Sakai et al.,Automation of etch pit analyses on solid-state nuclear track detectors with machine learning for laser-driven ion acceleration,Review of Scientific Instruments95(2024) 033301. 68.MoEDALcollaboration,Machine-learning for etch-pit identification in nuclear track detectors at MoEDAL,in pr...

2024
[66]

Cecchini et al.,Calibration with relativistic and low velocity ions of a CR39 nuclear track detector,Nuovo Cim

S. Cecchini et al.,Calibration with relativistic and low velocity ions of a CR39 nuclear track detector,Nuovo Cim. A109(1996) 1119

1996
[67]

Cecchini, L

S. Cecchini, L. Patrizii, Z. Sahnoun, G. Sirri and V. Togo,Energy losses of magnetic monopoles in aluminum, iron and copper,1606.01220

work page arXiv
[68]

Kalliokoski et al.,Calibration of solid state nuclear track detectors for rare event searches, JINST20(2025) P03014 [2503.09495]

M. Kalliokoski et al.,Calibration of solid state nuclear track detectors for rare event searches, JINST20(2025) P03014 [2503.09495]

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Patrizii and Z

L. Patrizii and Z. Sahnoun,Nuclear track detectors in particle, astroparticle and nuclear physics, Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl56(2010) 9

2010
[70]

Ostrovskiy and J

I. Ostrovskiy and J. Pinfold,Solid state breakdown counter for magnetic monopole and other highly ionizing particles searches,1410.5521

work page arXiv
[71]

L. W. Alvarez, M. Antuna, R. A. Byrns, P. H. Eberhard, R. E. Gilmer, E. H. Hoyer et al.,A magnetic monopole detector utilizing superconducting elements,Rev. Sci. Instrum.42(1971) 326

1971
[72]

R. L. Fagaly,Superconducting quantum interference device instruments and applications,Review of Scientific Instruments77(2006) 101101

2006
[73]

V. A. Rubakov,Superheavy magnetic monopoles and proton decay,JETP Lett.33(1981) 644

1981
[74]

V. A. Rubakov and M. S. Serebryakov,Anomalous baryon number nonconservation in the presence of SU(5) monopoles,Nucl. Phys. B218(1983) 240

1983
[75]

C. G. Callan, Jr.,Monopole catalysis of baryon decay,Nucl. Phys. B212(1983) 391

1983
[76]

Houston, T

N. Houston, T. Li and C. Sun,A new solar neutrino channel for grand-unification monopole searches,JCAP10(2018) 034 [1803.02835]. Magnetic Monopoles – From Dirac to the Large Hadron Collider37

work page arXiv 2018
[77]

T. W. B. Kibble,Topology of cosmic domains and strings,J. Phys. A9(1976) 1387

1976
[78]

T. W. B. Kibble,Some implications of a cosmological phase transition,Phys. Rept.67(1980) 183

1980
[79]

Preskill,Cosmological production of superheavy magnetic monopoles,Phys

J. Preskill,Cosmological production of superheavy magnetic monopoles,Phys. Rev. Lett.43 (1979) 1365

1979
[80]

Vilenkin and E

A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic strings and other topological defects. Cambridge University Press, 7, 2000

2000

Showing first 80 references.