Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Influence of Oscillating Magnetic Fields on the Electric Dipole Moment of Radical Pairs in Cryptochrome Based Magnetoreception

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the electric dipole moment of a cryptochrome radical pair is modulated by combined static and oscillating magnetic fields in an orientation-dependent way, with the strongest disruption at 24 degrees matching bird diso

desk verdict Useful parameter scan for a dipole-moment radical-pair model, but the 24° behavioral match is a post hoc fit, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20546 v1 pith:E5J3FEGO submitted 2026-07-13 physics.bio-ph quant-ph

Ali Soltanmanesh , Mahboobe Sehati , Sareh Rostami , Abolfazl Bahrampour , Alireza Bahrampour This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phquant-ph
keywords magnetoreceptionradicalpairmechanismcryptochromeelectricdipolemomentoscillatingmagneticfieldsspin-orbitcouplingaviancompassquantumbiology
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

This paper is trying to establish that the electric dipole moment of a cryptochrome radical pair, not just its spin state, is the quantity through which Earth's field and superimposed radiofrequency noise affect avian magnetoreception. The authors extend a dipole-based radical-pair model by adding a time-dependent magnetic field to the static geomagnetic field and solving the spin dynamics with dissipation. They find that the dipole response is strongly orientation-dependent, nearly unchanged when the oscillating field is parallel to the static field, strongly modulated when perpendicular, and exceptionally sensitive at a 24-degree relative angle, matching behavioral reports of bird disorientation at 24 degrees. A sympathetic reader would care because the dipole moment is a physically measurable output that could bridge quantum spin dynamics and biological signaling, and because the 24-degree match is a concrete quantitative point of contact with experiment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electric dipole moment p = Σ e r_i, computed as the expectation value ⟨Px⟩ of the radical-pair state. The Hamiltonian combines hyperfine coupling (I·A·S1), Zeeman interaction with the combined static plus oscillating field (γB·(S1+S2)), and spin-orbit coupling Σ ζ_j L_j·S_j; because the Hilbert space is spin-based and finite, position operators are written with ladder operators under the rotating-wave approximation, so spin-orbit evolution is reflected in the dipole magnitude. The governing equation is the von Neumann/Lindblad master equation with spin-lowering collapse operators for dissipation. The auxiliary quantity P_diff = Px(B_noise=0) − Px isolates the field-

What would settle it

Compute the dipole moment from an ab initio cryptochrome radical-pair Hamiltonian with explicit hyperfine tensors and a derived position operator; if the angular profile no longer shows a distinct 24-degree anomaly, or if a behavioral experiment with ~100 nT RF at 24 degrees leaves bird orientation intact, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that spin-orbit coupling lets magnetic-field-driven spin dynamics alter the spatial distribution of charge in a cryptochrome radical pair, so the expectation value of the electric dipole moment Px becomes a magnetosensitive observable. With a 4.6 µT static field and an oscillating field of varied frequency, intensity, and orientation, the calculations show that a perpendicular RF field produces large amplitude modulation of Px while a parallel field produces almost none; intensity is the controlling parameter, with low-MHz frequencies having the largest effect; and environmental dissipation, included via a Lindblad master equation, preserves and

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that spin-orbit coupling, handled with ladder operators and the rotating-wave approximation in a finite spin Hilbert space, genuinely maps electronic spin dynamics onto a calculable electric dipole moment; the paper also simplifies to a single spin-1/2 nucleus and a spin-1 orbital model. If that mapping or simplification is not physically faithful to cryptochrome, the 24-degree agreement is a coincidence of an abstract model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radiofrequency disruption of the avian compass should be strongly geometry-dependent: parallel RF leaves the dipole response nearly identical to the static-field case, while perpendicular and 24-degree orientations perturb it.
  • At a 24-degree orientation with environmental dissipation, the model predicts disruption at field intensities as low as ~100 nT, far below typical Earth-field strength.
  • The effect is frequency-selective: low-MHz oscillations are registered by the radical pair, while high frequencies average out and produce little response.
  • Dissipation does not wash out the signal; it makes the 24-degree anomaly more pronounced and sharpens the intensity threshold.
  • A dipole-based readout gives the radical-pair mechanism a concrete output quantity that could be engineered into bioinspired magnetic-field sensors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension — If the spin-orbit-to-dipole mapping is quantitatively faithful, then spectroscopic probes of charge displacement in cryptochrome (e.g., Stark shifts or transient absorption) should show the same 24-degree angular anomaly under RF illumination.
  • Extension — Because the model truncates to one spin-1/2 nucleus and a spin-1 orbital space, a realistic full-hyperfine calculation could move the special angle; locating the predicted anomaly in a richer model is a direct, checkable next step.
  • Extension — A paired behavioral test could discriminate geometry from intensity: at equal RF intensity, the model predicts disorientation at 24 degrees but near-normal orientation at 90 degrees, a difference that could be tested with the same birds.
  • Extension — The paper's neglect of inter-radical exchange and dipolar interactions leaves open the possibility that the exact anomaly angle in vivo differs from 24 degrees; if it does, the mechanism survives but the Hamiltonian needs revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-mechanical model of a cryptochrome radical pair in which the observable of interest is the electric dipole moment rather than the usual singlet/triplet reaction yield. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) includes hyperfine, Zeeman, and spin-orbit terms; the external field is the sum of a static geomagnetic field and an oscillating RF field; the environment is treated with a Lindblad master equation (Eqs. 5-7). Numerical results are presented for the time evolution of the electric-dipole expectation value as a function of RF frequency, intensity, and orientation relative to the static field. The principal claim is that the model reproduces the bird disorientation reported by Ritz et al. [26] at a relative angle of 24 degrees, and the paper concludes that these results support radical-pair-based magnetoreception.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would contribute to a debated area by proposing a dipole-moment observable for RF-disruption studies. The broad qualitative result that perpendicular RF fields perturb the dipole moment more than parallel fields, and that low-MHz fields are more effective than high-frequency fields, is consistent with existing radical-pair literature and is a useful qualitative observation. However, the quantitative "24-degree agreement" is not established: the position operator is not derived, no parameter values are given, the angle is selected post hoc from the behavioral experiment, and no code or data are provided. The current version is therefore not a reliable test of the radical-pair magnetoreception hypothesis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (4) and following paragraph] The entire behavioral comparison rests on the electric dipole moment, but the position operator r_i is never defined. The statement that 'the position operators are written using ladder operators and the rotating wave approximation' is an assertion, not a derivation. In a finite spin-based Hilbert space one must specify how r_i acts on the spin/orbital basis, verify Hermiticity, and relate the spin-1 operator L_j in Eq. (2) to r_i. Without this, the computed P_x values are not connected to a physical charge displacement; the 24-degree agreement is therefore not a test of cryptochrome magnetoreception.
  2. [Section III.A, Figs. 11-13] The 24-degree comparison is not an independent prediction. The angle is taken from the behavioral experiment [26], and only that configuration is simulated. No scan over the relative orientation angle (alpha in Eq. (3)) is shown, so the reader cannot tell whether 24 degrees is distinguished in the model or is one of many angles at which a large P_diff response occurs. The claim that 'the significant disruption at 24° in our results is consistent with experimental findings' requires a plot of the disruption metric versus the full angle range, ideally with robustness to parameter choices. As presented, the agreement is post hoc and could be coincidental.
  3. [Section II, Eqs. (2), (5)-(7)] The model is not reproducible as specified. No numerical values are given for the anisotropic hyperfine tensor A, the spin-orbit constants zeta_j, or the dissipation rate Gamma, and the initial state of the spin-1 orbital degree of freedom is not stated. In addition, the model uses a single spin-1/2 nucleus; given that the introduction cites [18] as evidence that a significant number of hyperfine interactions are required, the one-nucleus truncation needs justification. Without these elements the numerics in Figs. 2-13 cannot be checked, and the effect of the spin-orbit term on the dipole moment cannot be evaluated.
  4. [Section IV] The conclusion that 'the birds behavioral studies are in complete agreement with our findings' is not supported by a quantitative comparison. The experiments in [26] measure behavioral disorientation; the model computes P_x or P_diff, but no mapping from these expectation values to a behavioral outcome (e.g., threshold, integrated response, or dose-response curve) is specified. A qualitative agreement at a preselected angle is insufficient to 'support radical pair-based magnetoreception' without such a mapping.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains 'such as24◦ degree', which should be '24 degrees'. Also, 'time-dependent magnetic field noise' is misleading, since Eq. (3) uses a monochromatic coherent oscillating field, not stochastic noise.
  2. [Eq. (8)] P_diff is written as an operator relation, but the text compares expectation values. The notation should be <P_x(B_noise=0)> - <P_x>, and the evaluation time should be specified.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption 'Convergence of the expectation value of <P_diff> versus time' is unclear. P_diff is oscillatory; the time-averaged or steady-state quantity that is converging should be defined.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The angles (theta, phi) and (alpha, beta) are introduced but not given values or ranges, so it is unclear which configurations are simulated beyond the stated theta=pi/2 and the 24-degree case.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'behavioral' (Abstract, Section IV), 'Erth's' (Section IV), 'dirst' (Section II), 'steay' (Section III), 'magentic' (Section III), and 'inclinationa' (Section III).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No formal circularity; 24-degree match is a post hoc consistency check, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the von Neumann/Lindblad equations with the Hamiltonian (2) and field (3), computes the dipole moment expectation via (4)-(8), and then compares P_diff at selected orientations with behavioral data. No equation is constructed from the target result. The 24-degree comparison (Section III.A) uses the experimentally reported angle [26] as an input; the paper states 'We have likewise investigated the behavior and changes in the electric dipole moment at this specific angle' and later 'The significant disruption at 24° in our results is consistent with experimental findings regarding bird disorientation at the same angle.' That is a postdiction/selection issue, not a formal circularity: the enhanced dipolar response at 24° is a nontrivial computed output, not a parameter fitted to force agreement. The model's observable does rely on the authors' prior work [20] ('we extended our previous work [[20]]'), and the mapping from spin-orbit dynamics to the dipole moment is only asserted ('the position operators are written using ladder operators and the rotating wave approximation'), so that part is under-specified and self-citation-loaded. But the central spin dynamics under static+oscillating fields is computed in this paper and depends on external parameters from the literature (field values, frequencies), not on the behavioral outcome. Thus no step reduces to its input by construction. Score 2 reflects the self-citation and postdiction concerns without treating them as definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central behavioral claim rests on a self-contained spin model whose key couplings and dissipation rate are not specified, plus a hand-picked 24-degree angle. The only axioms from standard math are the master equations; the rest are domain assumptions from prior radical-pair literature or ad hoc simplifications introduced for this calculation.

free parameters (4)
  • Anisotropic hyperfine tensor A = not stated
    Controls singlet-triplet mixing; no numerical values given in the paper, though the central spin dynamics depend on it.
  • Spin-orbit coupling constants zeta_j = not stated
    Eq. (2) includes zeta_j L_j dot S_j; the dipole moment readout depends on these, but values are absent.
  • Dissipation rate Gamma = not stated
    Lindblad collapse operator amplitude in Eq. (6); no numerical value or temperature justification provided.
  • Relative angle 24 degrees of oscillating field = 24 degrees (chosen from Ritz et al. 2004)
    Selected to match the behavioral experiment rather than derived from the model; central to the 'agreement' claim (Section III.A).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The radical-pair mechanism in cryptochrome underlies avian magnetoreception.
    Taken from prior literature (Schulten et al. 1978; Hore & Mouritsen 2016); the paper does not test this premise.
  • standard math The von Neumann and Lindblad master equations govern the open-system spin dynamics.
    Standard quantum mechanics; used in Eqs. (1) and (5).
  • ad hoc to paper Position/dipole operators can be represented by ladder operators in a finite spin-based Hilbert space under the rotating wave approximation, so that spin-orbit evolution directly changes the dipole moment.
    Section II asserts this mapping without derivation; it is the core bridge between spin dynamics and the observable.
  • ad hoc to paper One spin-1/2 nucleus and a spin-1 orbital model sufficiently represent cryptochrome's radical pair.
    Section II: 'to simplify the calculations, only one nucleus with spin-1/2 is assumed... the orbital angular momentum is modeled as a spin-1 system'. This simplification is load-bearing for the behavioral comparison.
  • domain assumption The experimental report Ritz et al. (2004) correctly identifies 24 degrees as the disorientation angle in birds.
    Used as the benchmark; the paper does not independently verify the behavioral result.
invented entities (1)
  • Spin-1 orbital angular momentum model
    purpose: Provides three sublevels for 'transitions between ground and excited states' so that spin-orbit coupling changes the dipole moment.
    An abstract modeling device introduced in Section II; no independent physical measurement supports it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of Oscillating Magnetic Fields on the Electric Dipole Moment of Radical Pairs in Cryptochrome Based Magnetoreception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5J3FEGO

@misc{pith2026260720546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of Oscillating Magnetic Fields on the Electric Dipole Moment of Radical Pairs in Cryptochrome Based Magnetoreception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5J3FEGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20546}
}
read the original abstract

Radical pairs induced by light-driven reduction of cryptochrome protein constitute a spin dependent mechanism that is accompanied by an electric dipole moment and is found to be sensitive to external magnetic fields. In this research, to investigate for the further proof of such model, the simultaneous effect of the Earth's static magnetic field and the time-dependent magnetic field noise on the electric dipole moment of the radical pair has been studied within the quantum mechanical framework. The effect of the external magnetic field discussed in different angles regarding the Earth magnetic field within various frequencies and magnitudes. The sensitivity of the system behavior to the external magnetic field frequencies and magnitudes, vastly differs among the changes in the magnetic field angle to the Earth's static field. Furthermore, the sensitivity studied under the effect of the environmental noise. The relative spatial orientation of the two magnetic field components plays an important role in the time evolution of the electric dipole moment. Also, deeper discussions on specific relative orientations of the external magnetic fields, such as 24 degree, shows that the quantum model of radical pairs which is based on dipole moment, is in agreement with the results of the birds behavorial studies. These findings provide new insights into the sensitivity of the radical pair model to the combination of magnetic fields and may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of magnetoreception and the advancement of bioinspired magnetic sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic depiction of the photoexcitation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time evolution of the expectation value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Time evolution of the expectation value ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Convergence of the expectation value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variations of the electric dipole moment versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Time evolution of the expectation value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Variations of the electric dipole moment versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Steady-state electric dipole moment variations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Time evolution of the expectation value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Steady-state electric dipole moment variations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Variations of the electric dipole moment versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    P. J. Hore. Upper bound on the biological effects of 50/60 hz magnetic fields mediated by radical pairs.eLife, 8: e44179, 2019. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44179

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.44179 2019

  2. [20]

    Phillips

    Rachel Muheim and John B. Phillips. Effects of low-level rf fields reveal complex pattern of magnetic input to the avian magnetic compass.Scientific Reports, 13:19970,

  3. [18]

    investigated the effect of broadband radiofrequency magnetic fields on the magnetic orientation of Eurasian blackcaps. Their results showed that in the frequency range of 75–85 MHz, their orientation ability was dis- rupted, indicating that at a minimum one of the radicals involved in the radical pair model must have a significant number of hyperfine inte...

  4. [1]

    Identifying cellular and molecular mechanisms for magnetosensation

    Benjamin L Clites and Jonathan T Pierce. Identifying cellular and molecular mechanisms for magnetosensation. Annual review of neuroscience, 40(1):231–250, 2017

    2017

  5. [2]

    Over 50 years of behavioural evidence on the mag- netic sense in animals: what has been learnt and how? The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 232(2): 269–278, 2023

    Will T Schneider, Richard A Holland, and Oliver Lin- decke. Over 50 years of behavioural evidence on the mag- netic sense in animals: what has been learnt and how? The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 232(2): 269–278, 2023. 9

    2023

  6. [3]

    Swenberg, and Albert Weller

    Klaus Schulten, Charles E. Swenberg, and Albert Weller. A biomagnetic sensory mechanism based on magnetic fieldmodulatedcoherentelectronspinmotion.Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie Neue Folge, 111:1–5, 1978

    1978

  7. [4]

    The radical pair mechanism and the avian chemical com- pass: Quantum coherence and entanglement.Inter- national Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(19):1327– 1341, 2015

    Yiteng Zhang, Gennady P Berman, and Sabre Kais. The radical pair mechanism and the avian chemical com- pass: Quantum coherence and entanglement.Inter- national Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(19):1327– 1341, 2015

    2015

  8. [5]

    The magnetic compass of birds: the role of cryptochrome.Frontiers in physiology, 12:667000, 2021

    Roswitha Wiltschko, Christine Nießner, and Wolfgang Wiltschko. The magnetic compass of birds: the role of cryptochrome.Frontiers in physiology, 12:667000, 2021

    2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [6]

    Magne- toreception in birds.Journal of the Royal Society Inter- face, 16(158):20190295, 2019

    Roswitha Wiltschko and Wolfgang Wiltschko. Magne- toreception in birds.Journal of the Royal Society Inter- face, 16(158):20190295, 2019

    2019

  2. [7]

    Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetorecep- tion in american cockroach.Journal of Experimental Bi- ology, 212(21):3473–3477, 2009

    Martin Vácha, Tereza Puzová, and Markéta Kvícalová. Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetorecep- tion in american cockroach.Journal of Experimental Bi- ology, 212(21):3473–3477, 2009

    2009

  3. [8]

    Finding a worm’s internal compass.Elife, 4:e09666, 2015

    Catharine H Rankin and Conny H Lin. Finding a worm’s internal compass.Elife, 4:e09666, 2015

    2015

  4. [9]

    The symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypothesis: do magnetotactic bacte- ria underlie the magnetic sensing capability of animals? Movement ecology, 5(1):22, 2017

    Eviatar Natan and Yoni Vortman. The symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypothesis: do magnetotactic bacte- ria underlie the magnetic sensing capability of animals? Movement ecology, 5(1):22, 2017

    2017

  5. [10]

    Quantum simulation of the radical pair dynamics of the avian compass.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 14(3):832–837, 2023

    Yiteng Zhang, Zixuan Hu, Yuchen Wang, and Sabre Kais. Quantum simulation of the radical pair dynamics of the avian compass.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 14(3):832–837, 2023

    2023

  6. [11]

    The radical-pair mechanism of magnetoreception.Annual review of bio- physics, 45(1):299–344, 2016

    Peter J Hore and Henrik Mouritsen. The radical-pair mechanism of magnetoreception.Annual review of bio- physics, 45(1):299–344, 2016

    2016

  7. [12]

    Direct interaction of avian cryp- tochrome 4 with a cone specific g-protein.Cells, 11(13): 2043, 2022

    Katharina Görtemaker, Chad Yee, Rabea Bartölke, Heide Behrmann, Jan-Oliver Voß, Jessica Schmidt, Jingjing Xu, Vita Solovyeva, Bo Leberecht, Elmar Behrmann, et al. Direct interaction of avian cryp- tochrome 4 with a cone specific g-protein.Cells, 11(13): 2043, 2022

  8. [13]

    Hogben, and P

    Jiate Luo, Philip Benjamin, Luca Gerhards, Hannah J. Hogben, and P. J. Hore. Orientation of birds in radiofre- quency fields in the absence of the earth’s magnetic field: a possible test for the radical pair mechanism of magne- toreception.Journal of the Royal Society Interfac...

    2024

  9. [14]

    Oscillating magnetic field ef- fects on the yields of radical pair reactions.Chemical Physics Letters, 257(3-4):401–408, 1996

    CR Timmel and PJ Hore. Oscillating magnetic field ef- fects on the yields of radical pair reactions.Chemical Physics Letters, 257(3-4):401–408, 1996

    1996

  10. [15]

    Disruption of magnetic compass orientation in migratory birds by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.Biophysical journal, 113(7):1475– 1484, 2017

    Hamish G Hiscock, Henrik Mouritsen, David E Manolopoulos, and PJ Hore. Disruption of magnetic compass orientation in migratory birds by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.Biophysical journal, 113(7):1475– 1484, 2017

    2017

  11. [16]

    Floquet theory of radical pairs in radiofrequency magnetic fields.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 145(12), 2016

    Hamish G Hiscock, Daniel R Kattnig, David E Manolopoulos, and PJ Hore. Floquet theory of radical pairs in radiofrequency magnetic fields.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 145(12), 2016

    2016

  12. [17]

    Magnetic com- pass of garden warblers is not affected by oscillating mag- netic fields applied to their eyes.Scientific Reports, 10: 3473, 2020

    Julia Bojarinova, Kirill Kavokin, Alexander Pakhomov, Roman Cherbunin, Anna Anashina, Maria Erokhina, Maria Ershova, and Nikita Chernetsov. Magnetic com- pass of garden warblers is not affected by oscillating mag- netic fields applied to their eyes.Scientific Reports, 10: 3473...

    2020 doi

  13. [19]

    Bo Leberecht, Dmitry Kobylkov, Thiemo Karwinkel, Sara Döge, Lars Burnus, Siu Ying Wong, Shamb- havi Apte, Katrin Haase, Isabelle Musielak, Raisa Chetverikova, Glen Dautaj, Marco Bassetto, Michael Winklhofer, P. J. Hore, and Henrik Mouritsen. Broad- band 75–85 mhz radiofrequenc...

    2022 doi

  14. [21]

    A new type of radical-pair-based model for magnetore- ception.Biophysical journal, 102(5):961–968, 2012

    A Marshall Stoneham, Erik M Gauger, Kyriakos Porfyrakis, Simon C Benjamin, and Brendon W Lovett. A new type of radical-pair-based model for magnetore- ception.Biophysical journal, 102(5):961–968, 2012

    2012

  15. [22]

    Quantum modeling of radical pair magnetic sensor based on electric dipole mo- ment.arXiv preprint, 2025

    Mahboobe Sehati, Ali Soltanmanesh, Shabnam Abu- talebi, Abolfazl Bahrampour, Naser Haeri, Sareh Ros- tami, and Alireza Bahrampour. Quantum modeling of radical pair magnetic sensor based on electric dipole mo- ment.arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  16. [23]

    OUP Oxford, 2002

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The the- ory of open quantum systems. OUP Oxford, 2002

    2002

  17. [24]

    An open quantum system approach to the radical pair mechanism.Scientific reports, 8(1):15719, 2018

    Betony Adams, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruc- cione. An open quantum system approach to the radical pair mechanism.Scientific reports, 8(1):15719, 2018

    2018

  18. [25]

    Bao-Ming Xu, Jian Zou, Jun-Gang Li, and Bin Shao. Es- timating the hyperfine coupling parameters of the avian compassbycomprehensivelyconsideringtheavailableex- perimental results.Physical Review E—Statistical, Non- linear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88(3):032703, 2013

    2013

  19. [28]

    Phillips, Roswitha Wiltschko, and Wolfgang Wiltschko

    Thorsten Ritz, Peter Thalau, John B. Phillips, Roswitha Wiltschko, and Wolfgang Wiltschko. Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair mechanism for avian magnetic compass.Nature, 429:177–180, 2004. doi: 10.1038/ nature02534

    2004

  20. [2023]

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46547-5

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.