pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.14217 · v1 · pith:2QDJ7UZInew · submitted 2026-02-15 · ✦ hep-ph · physics.geo-ph

Limits on the Carroll-Field-Jackiw electrodynamics from geomagnetic data

G. F. de Carvalho , M. Fillion , P. C. Malta , C. A. D. Zarro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 12:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph physics.geo-ph
keywords Lorentz symmetry violationCarroll-Field-Jackiw termgeomagnetic fieldmagnetic dipolebounds on k_AFCPT violationSun-centered frame
0
0 comments X

The pith

Solving the Carroll-Field-Jackiw modified field equations for a magnetic dipole and matching to geomagnetic data yields new bounds on k_AF at the level of 4 times 10 to the minus 25 GeV.

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

The paper calculates how a constant vector k_AF that picks out a preferred direction modifies the magnetic field of a static dipole through the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term. It then notes that the resulting corrections must be tiny because standard dipole models already match ground and satellite measurements of Earth's field to high accuracy. A reader would care because the work turns routine geophysical observations into a precise test of whether spacetime itself has a built-in directional preference at extremely small scales.

Core claim

We solve the field equations using the Green's method for a static point-like magnetic dipole and find the k_AF-dependent corrections to the standard dipolar magnetic field that strongly dominates the near-Earth magnetic field. Given the very good agreement between current models and ground- and satellite-based geomagnetic data, our strongest constraints on the components of k_AF in the Sun-centered frame read |(k_AF)_Z| ≲ 4 × 10^{-25} GeV for |(k_AF)_X|, |(k_AF)_Y| ≲ 10^{-24} GeV at the two-sigma level. This represents an improvement of about four orders of magnitude over earlier bounds based on other geophysical phenomena.

What carries the argument

The Green's function solution to the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations modified by the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term, which adds linear corrections in the components of the constant 4-vector k_AF to the usual dipole magnetic field.

If this is right

  • The Z-component of k_AF receives the strongest constraint from the data.
  • The derived limits are stated in the Sun-centered frame standard for Lorentz-violation studies.
  • The same dipole-correction method improves bounds by four orders of magnitude relative to earlier geophysical analyses.
  • Continued agreement between models and data directly tightens the allowed range for k_AF.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Green's-function approach could be applied to the magnetic fields of other planets to search for the identical correction pattern.
  • Detection of a non-zero k_AF would imply a fixed spacetime direction that influences electromagnetic fields everywhere, not only near Earth.
  • Future magnetometer arrays with improved precision could either detect the predicted directional corrections or push the bounds lower still.

Load-bearing premise

Any difference between the observed geomagnetic field and the predictions of ordinary dipole models is assumed to arise solely from the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term rather than from unmodeled internal Earth processes, measurement errors, or imperfections in the baseline models.

What would settle it

A high-resolution global map of the geomagnetic field that exhibits systematic angular deviations matching the exact pattern predicted by a non-zero k_AF at or above the quoted bound, after subtraction of all known geophysical contributions, would support the term; tighter agreement with the uncorrected dipole would reinforce the limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14217 by C. A. D. Zarro, G. F. de Carvalho, M. Fillion, P. C. Malta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From top to bottom: time variation of the radial, polar and azimuthal (only its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time-averaged radial and polar components of the CFJ field for an Earth-bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Locations of the 144 ground observatories contributing to the International Real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the filtered residuals in the non-empty angular patches of size ∆ = 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-sigma bounds on combinations of the CFJ background in the SCF derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial coverage of Swarm A during the years 2018-2020 limited to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the filtered residuals in the non-empty angular patches of size ∆ = 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Co-latitude of the Swarm-A satellite during the first few days of our dataset. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time variation of the first-order term of the CFJ azimuthal field, cf. Eq. (36), during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time variation of the radial, polar and azimuthal (only its quadratic part) compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Averaged coefficients of the components of the CFJ as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Two-sigma bounds on combinations of the CFJ background 4-vector in the SCF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: For ∆t ≈ 210 yr we find ⟨b (φ) ab ⟩ ≲ 4 × 10−3 nT, a couple orders of magnitude smaller than for ∆t ≈ 2.7 yr, cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Projected two-sigma bound on combinations of the CFJ background in the SCF for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Long-term time-averaged coefficients ⟨b (θ) ab ⟩T of the polar component of the CFJ field as a function of the orbital inclination angle ζ relative to the equatorial plane. The red dots mark the values obtained for an orbit similar to that of the Swarm-A satellite with h = 450 km and ζ = 87.3 ◦ , namely, 10 ⟨b (θ) XX⟩T ≈ 10 ⟨b (θ) Y Y ⟩T ≈ ⟨b (θ) ZZ⟩T ≈ −31 nT. See also the discussion in Sec. 6.2. Startin… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spherical coordinates of an orbit similar to that of Swarm A with inclination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Time-dependent coefficients c (u) ab for u = {r, θ, φ} as functions of the ascending node angle α = α0 + ωαTs over one full period τα; for Swarm A this is equivalent to ≈ 2.7 yr. We take α as free variable, so that a variation of α from zero to 2π is equivalent to ≈ 2.7 yr and ψs = (ωs/ωα)α − (ωs/ωα)α0. The fast oscillations have the period of a full revolution of the satellite, τs ≪ τα; for Swarm A we ha… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Lorentz-symmetry violation may be described via the CPT-odd, dimension-3, Carroll-Field-Jackiw term, which couples the electromagnetic fields to a constant 4-vector $k_{\rm AF}$ selecting a preferred direction in spacetime. We solve the field equations using the Green's method for a static point-like magnetic dipole and find the $k_{\rm AF}$-dependent corrections to the standard dipolar magnetic field that strongly dominates the near-Earth magnetic field. Given the very good agreement between current models and ground- and satellite-based geomagnetic data, our strongest constraints on the components of $k_{\rm AF}$ in the Sun-centered frame read $|(k_{\rm AF})_Z| \lesssim 4 \times 10^{-25} \, {\rm GeV}$ for $|(k_{\rm AF})_X|, |(k_{\rm AF})_Y| \lesssim 10^{-24} \, {\rm GeV}$ at the two-sigma level. This represents an improvement of about four orders of magnitude over earlier bounds based on other geophysical phenomena.

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 solves the modified static Maxwell equations including the Carroll-Field-Jackiw (CFJ) term for a point-like magnetic dipole using Green's functions. It obtains k_AF-dependent corrections to the standard dipole field and, citing the close agreement between current geomagnetic models and ground/satellite data, extracts two-sigma bounds |(k_AF)_Z| ≲ 4 × 10^{-25} GeV and |(k_AF)_X|, |(k_AF)_Y| ≲ 10^{-24} GeV in the Sun-centered frame, claiming a four-order-of-magnitude improvement over prior geophysical limits.

Significance. If the central mapping from data-model agreement to k_AF bounds is robust, the result would tighten existing constraints on the CPT-odd dimension-3 Lorentz-violating coefficient by four orders of magnitude using well-established geomagnetic datasets. The explicit Green's-function treatment of the modified dipole field is a technical strength that could be useful for other applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and the section presenting the bounds] The extraction of the quoted bounds assumes that residuals between observed geomagnetic data and standard dipole models can be attributed entirely to the CFJ correction. The manuscript does not provide a quantitative error budget showing that contributions from higher multipoles, secular variation, ionospheric currents, or baseline-model systematics are smaller than the size of the k_AF-induced correction at the claimed 10^{-24}–10^{-25} GeV level.
  2. [Section deriving the Green's-function solution for the modified dipole field] The Green's-function solution is derived for a point-like static dipole. The manuscript does not address how the finite spatial extent of the Earth's core, mantle conductivity, or the distributed nature of the actual current sources modify the k_AF-dependent field corrections, which directly affects the reliability of the mapping to the reported limits.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify the precise definition and normalization of the Sun-centered frame components of k_AF with an explicit reference to the standard conventions used in the Lorentz-violation literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below and outline the revisions we plan to make to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and the section presenting the bounds] The extraction of the quoted bounds assumes that residuals between observed geomagnetic data and standard dipole models can be attributed entirely to the CFJ correction. The manuscript does not provide a quantitative error budget showing that contributions from higher multipoles, secular variation, ionospheric currents, or baseline-model systematics are smaller than the size of the k_AF-induced correction at the claimed 10^{-24}–10^{-25} GeV level.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit discussion of systematic uncertainties would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version we will insert a new paragraph following the presentation of the bounds. There we will quote published residual levels from standard geomagnetic models (typically a few nT for the dipole component at the surface, corresponding to fractional corrections well above our claimed k_AF sensitivity) and note that any unmodeled contribution at that level would produce an apparent k_AF larger than our limit if misinterpreted as Lorentz violation. Because the CFJ correction possesses a unique vectorial structure aligned with the Sun-centered frame, it is distinguishable in principle from isotropic or randomly distributed systematics. We will also state that our limits are conservative upper bounds derived from the observed level of agreement rather than from a direct attribution of all residuals to k_AF. A full global fit separating all contributions lies beyond the present scope but is identified as a natural extension. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section deriving the Green's-function solution for the modified dipole field] The Green's-function solution is derived for a point-like static dipole. The manuscript does not address how the finite spatial extent of the Earth's core, mantle conductivity, or the distributed nature of the actual current sources modify the k_AF-dependent field corrections, which directly affects the reliability of the mapping to the reported limits.

    Authors: The point-dipole source is the standard leading-order description of the geomagnetic field exterior to the Earth, and the Green's-function solution captures the leading k_AF correction to that field. For a distributed current distribution the total correction would be obtained by integrating the same Green's function over the source volume. Because the CFJ term modifies the differential operators uniformly, the relative size of the correction at satellite altitudes remains comparable to the point-source result provided the source region is small compared with the observation distance. We will add a clarifying paragraph in the revised manuscript that makes this superposition argument explicit, cites the core radius (~0.55 Earth radii) versus typical satellite altitudes, and notes that static conductivity screening does not alter the leading-order correction. A complete numerical integration over a realistic core model is computationally demanding and is left for future work; however, we expect it to affect only sub-leading numerical factors and not the order-of-magnitude bounds reported here. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is independent of inputs; bounds from external data agreement

full rationale

The paper solves the modified Maxwell equations with the CFJ term via Green's function for a static point dipole to obtain explicit k_AF-dependent corrections to the standard dipole field. These corrections are then compared against the observed agreement between geomagnetic data and standard models from external sources. No equation reduces to a self-definition, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise relies on a self-citation chain. The result is a constraint derived from the size of allowable corrections being smaller than residuals in independent datasets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis starts from the standard Maxwell equations augmented by the CFJ term and assumes the geomagnetic field is dominated by a static dipole whose corrections are negligible except for the LV contribution.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The electromagnetic field equations are modified by the addition of the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term coupling F to a constant 4-vector k_AF.
    This is the defining modification used to derive the corrected dipole field in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The near-Earth magnetic field is accurately described by a static point-like magnetic dipole plus small corrections.
    Invoked when mapping the theoretical corrections onto geomagnetic data.
invented entities (1)
  • k_AF 4-vector no independent evidence
    purpose: To select a preferred spacetime direction that breaks Lorentz symmetry in the electromagnetic sector.
    Postulated in the Carroll-Field-Jackiw extension; no independent evidence is provided within the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5730 in / 1333 out tokens · 48770 ms · 2026-05-21T12:34:52.941388+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

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mattingly

    D. Mattingly. Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance.Living Reviews in Relativity, 8(1), September 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel. Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory.Phys. Rev. D, 39:683, 1989

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y. CPT violation and the standard model.Phys. Rev. D, 55:6760–6774, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y. Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model. Phys. Rev. D, 58(11), 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell. Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 83(1):11–31, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw. Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrodynamics.Phys. Rev. D, 41:1231, 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Adam and F.R

    C. Adam and F.R. Klinkhamer. Causality and CPT violation from an Abelian Chern–Simons-like term.Nucl. Phys. B, 607(1–2):247–267, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Casana, M

    R. Casana, M. M. Ferreira, and C. E. H. Santos. Classical solutions for the Carroll-Field- Jackiw-Proca electrodynamics.Phys. Rev. D, 78(2), 2008

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    Goldhaber and V

    M. Goldhaber and V. Trimble. Limits on the chirality of interstellar and intergalactic space.J. Astrophys. Astron., 17:17, 1996. 51

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes. Astrophysical Tests of Lorentz and CPT Violation with Photons.Astrophys. J. Lett., 689:L1–L4, 2008

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Pogosian, M

    L. Pogosian, M. Shimon, M. Mewes, and B. Keating. Future CMB constraints on cosmic birefringence and implications for fundamental physics.Phys. Rev. D, 100(2):023507, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    A. D. A. M. Spallicci, G. Sarracino, O. Randriamboarison, J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto, and A. Dib. Testing the Amp` ere–Maxwell law on the photon mass and Lorentz symmetry violation with MMS multi-spacecraft data.The European Physical Journal Plus, 139(6), 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    M. Mewes. Bounds on Lorentz and CPT violation from the Earth-ionosphere cavity. Physical Review D, 78(9), 2008

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Ribeiro, P.D.S

    F.S. Ribeiro, P.D.S. Silva, and M.M. Ferreira. Constraining CPT-odd electromagnetic chiral parameters with pulsar timing.Phys. Rev. D, 112(3), 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Caloni, S

    L. Caloni, S. Giardiello, M. Gerbino M. Lembo, G. Gubitosi, M. Lattanzi, and L. Pagano. Probing Lorentz-violating electrodynamics with CMB polarization.JCAP, 3(018), 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y, N. Russell, and J. D. Tasson. Constraints on Torsion from Bounds on Lorentz Violation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:111102, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting. Gravity from local Lorentz violation.Gen. Rel. Grav., 37:1675–1679, 2005

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecky. Signals for Lorentz violation in post-Newtonian gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 74:045001, 2006

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Y. M. P. Gomes and P. C. Malta. Laboratory-based limits on the Carroll-Field-Jackiw Lorentz-violating electrodynamics.Phys. Rev. D, 94:025031, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    L. H. C. Borges and A. F. Ferrari. External sources in a minimal and nonminimal CPT-odd Lorentz violating Maxwell electrodynamics.Modern Physics Letters A, 37(04), 2022. 52

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Gomes, J.M

    A.H. Gomes, J.M. Fonseca, W.A. Moura-Melo, and A.R. Pereira. Testing CPT- and Lorentz-odd electrodynamics with waveguides.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2010(5), 2010

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Belich, T

    H. Belich, T. Costa-Soares, M. M. Ferreira, and J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto. Classical solutions in a Lorentz violating scenario of Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca electrodynamics.The European Physical Journal C, 42(1):127–137, 2005

    work page 2005

  23. [23]

    Y. Bai, S. Lu, and N. Orlofsky. Searching for Magnetic Monopoles with Earth’s Magnetic Field.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(10), August 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Zheng-Ting, L

    L. Zheng-Ting, L. Jun-Xu, G. Li-Sheng, K. Wei, and W. Ji. Constraining the Fifth Force Using the Earth as a Spin and Mass Source from the Chinese Space Station. 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Hunter and D.G

    L.R. Hunter and D.G. Ang. Using Geoelectrons to Search for Velocity-Dependent Spin- Spin Interactions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(9), March 2014

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Clayburn and L.R

    N.B. Clayburn and L.R. Hunter. Using Earth to search for long-range spin-velocity inter- actions.Phys. Rev. D, 108(5), September 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    A. Arza, M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia. Earth as a transducer for axion dark-matter detection.Phys. Rev. D, 105(9), 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Sulai et al

    I.A. Sulai et al. Hunt for magnetic signatures of hidden-photon and axion dark matter in the wilderness.Phys. Rev. D, 108(9), 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia. Earth as a transducer for dark-photon dark-matter detection.Phys. Rev. D, 104(7), October 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia. Search for dark- photon dark matter in the SuperMAG geomagnetic field dataset.Phys. Rev. D, 104(9), November 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Schr¨ odinger

    E. Schr¨ odinger. The General Unitary Theory of the Physical Fields.Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 49:43–58, 1943. 53

    work page 1943

  32. [32]

    Schr¨ odinger

    E. Schr¨ odinger. The Earth’s and the Sun’s Permanent Magnetic Fields in the Unitary Field Theory.Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 49:135–148, 1943

    work page 1943

  33. [33]

    A. S. Goldhaber and Michael M. Nieto. New geomagnetic limit on the mass of the photon. Phys. Rev. Lett., 21:567–569, 1968

    work page 1968

  34. [34]

    Fischbach, H

    E. Fischbach, H. Kloor, R. A. Langel, A. T. Y. Liu, and M. Peredo. New geomagnetic limits on the photon mass and on long range forces coexisting with electromagnetism. Phys. Rev. Lett., 73:514–517, 1994

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes. Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics.Physical Review D, 66(5), September 2002

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    Bluhm, V.A

    R. Bluhm, V.A. Kosteleck´ y, C.D. Lane, and N. Russell. Probing Lorentz violation with space-based experiments.Phys. Rev. D, 68(12), 2003

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    A. P. Baeta Scarpelli, H. Belich, J. L. Boldo, and J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto. Aspects of causality and unitarity and comments on vortexlike configurations in an Abelian model with a Lorentz-breaking term.Physical Review D, 67(8), April 2003

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Wiley, New York, NY, 3rd ed

    John David Jackson.Classical electrodynamics. Wiley, New York, NY, 3rd ed. edition, 1999

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    D.J. Cross. Resolution of the Mansuripur Paradox. 2012

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Landeau et al

    M. Landeau et al. Sustaining Earth’s magnetic dynamo.Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 3:255–269, 2022

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    B.A. Buffett. Earth’s Core and the Geodynamo.Science, 288(5473):2007–2012, 2000

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Fournier, G

    A. Fournier, G. Hulot, and D. ad others Jault. Data Assimilation and Predictability in Geomagnetism.Space Sci Rev, 155:247–291, 2010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    D. E. Winch, D. J. Ivers, J. P. R. Turner, and R. J. Stening. Geomagnetism and Schmidt quasi-normalization.Geophysical Journal International, 160(2):487–504, 2005. 54

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    T. J. Sabaka, G. Hulot, and N. Olsen.Mathematical Properties Relevant to Geomagnetic Field Modeling. Springer, 2010

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Chulliat et al

    A. Chulliat et al. The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2025-2030: Technical Report. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA, 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Alken et al

    P. Alken et al. International Geomagnetic Reference Field: the thirteenth generation. Earth, Planets and Space, 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Campbell.Introduction to geomagnetic fields

    W.H. Campbell.Introduction to geomagnetic fields. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Laundal and A.D

    K.M. Laundal and A.D. Richmond. Magnetic Coordinate Systems.Space Sci. Rev., 206:27– 59, 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Th´ ebault, G

    E. Th´ ebault, G. Hulot, B. Langlais, and P. Vigneron. A Spherical Harmonic Model of Earth’s Lithospheric Magnetic Field up to Degree 1050.Geophysical Research Letters, 48(21):e2021GL095147, 2021

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Olsen, D

    N. Olsen, D. Ravat, C.C. Finlay, and L.K. Kother. LCS-1: a high-resolution global model of the lithospheric magnetic field derived from CHAMP and Swarm satellite observations. Geophysical Journal International, 211(3):1461–1477, 09 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Thompson

    R. Thompson. Geomagnetic evolution: 400 years of change on planet Earth.Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 36(1):61–77, 1984

    work page 1984

  52. [52]

    Choi et al

    Y. Choi et al. World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map version 2.2. For an interesting visualization, see:https://wdmam.org

    work page

  53. [53]

    Lesur et al

    V. Lesur et al. Building the second version of the World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map (WDMAM).Earth Planet Sp, 68(27):e2021GL095147, 2016

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Maus and H

    S. Maus and H. Luehr. Signature of the quiet-time magnetospheric magnetic field and its electromagnetic induction in the rotating Earth.Geophysical Journal International, 162(3):755–763, 09 2005. 55

    work page 2005

  55. [55]

    S. W. H. Cowley. The Earth’s magnetosphere: A brief beginner’s guide.Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 76(51):525–529, 1995

    work page 1995

  56. [56]

    Yamazaki and A

    Y. Yamazaki and A. Maute. Sq and EEJ—A Review on the Daily Variation of the Ge- omagnetic Field Caused by Ionospheric Dynamo Currents.Space Sci Rev, 206:299–405, 2017

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Richmond

    A.D. Richmond. Ionospheric Wind Dynamo Theory: A Review.Journal of geomagnetism and geoelectricity, 31(3):287–310, 1979

    work page 1979

  58. [58]

    Millan et al

    S.E. Millan et al. Overview of Solar Wind–Magnetosphere–Ionosphere–Atmosphere Cou- pling and the Generation of Magnetospheric Currents.Space Sci Rev, 206:547–573, 2017

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Sabaka et al

    T.J. Sabaka et al. CM6: a comprehensive geomagnetic field model derived from both CHAMP and Swarm satellite observations.Earth Planets Space, 72:80, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    N. Olsen. Accounting for quiet-time magnetospheric field contributions in geomagnetic field modelling.Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 366:107411, 2025

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Finlay et al

    C.C. Finlay et al. The CHAOS-7 geomagnetic field model and observed changes in the South Atlantic Anomaly.Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 2020

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Langel, T.J

    R.A. Langel, T.J. Sabaka, R.T. Baldwin, and J.A. Conrad. The near-Earth magnetic field from magnetospheric and quiet-day ionospheric sources and how it is modeled.Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 98(3):235–267, 1996

    work page 1996

  63. [63]

    Fillion, A

    M. Fillion, A. Chulliat, P. Alken, M. Kruglyakov, A. Kuvshinov, and Neesha Schnepf. A Model of Hourly Variations of the Near-Earth Magnetic Field Generated in the Inner Magnetosphere and Its Induced Counterpart.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128(12):e2023JA031913, 2023

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Alken et al

    P. Alken et al. Evaluation of candidate models for the 13th generation International Geomagnetic Reference Field.Earth Planets Space, 73(48), 2021. 56

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Friis-Christensen, H

    E. Friis-Christensen, H. L¨ uhr, and G. Hulot. Swarm: a constellation to study the Earth’s magnetic field.Earth Planets Space, 58(4), 2006

    work page 2006

  66. [66]

    Magnetic observations from cryosat-2: calibration and processing of satellite platform magnetometer data.Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1):48, April 2020

    Nils Olsen, Giuseppe Albini, Jerome Bouffard, Tommaso Parrinello, and Lars Tøffner- Clausen. Magnetic observations from cryosat-2: calibration and processing of satellite platform magnetometer data.Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1):48, April 2020

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    C.D. Beggan. Evidence-based uncertainty estimates for the International Geomagnetic Reference Field.Earth Planets Space, 74(17), 2022

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    INTERMAGNET, International Real-time Magnetic Observatory Network,https:// intermagnet.org

    work page

  69. [69]

    See here for details:https://wdc.bgs.ac.uk/data.html

    work page

  70. [70]

    Richmond

    A.D. Richmond. Ionospheric Electrodynamics Using Magnetic Apex Coordinates.Journal of geomagnetism and geoelectricity, 47(2):191–212, 1995

    work page 1995

  71. [71]

    Yamazaki, J

    Y. Yamazaki, J. Matzka, C. Stolle, G. Kervalishvili, J. Rauberg, O. Bronkalla, A. Morschhauser, S. Bruinsma, Y. Y. Shprits, and D. R. Jackson. Geomagnetic Activity Index Hpo.Geophysical Research Letters, 49(10):e2022GL098860, 2022

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Kloss, C

    C. Kloss, C. C. Finlay, N. Olsen, L. Tøffner-Clausen, N. Gillet, and A. Grayver. The chaos-8 geomagnetic field model.Earth, Planets and Space, 78(1):21, January 2026

    work page 2026

  73. [73]

    Chulliat, P

    A. Chulliat, P. Vigneron, and G. Hulot. First results from the Swarm Dedicated Ionospheric Field Inversion chain.Earth Planet Sp, 68(104), 2016

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    See here for details:https://zenodo.org/records/15806240

    work page arXiv

  75. [75]

    Olsen and C

    N. Olsen and C. Stolle. Satellite geomagnetism.Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40:441–465, 2012

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    Kloss, C

    C. Kloss, C. C. Finlay, N. Olsen, L. Toffner-Clausen, N. Gillet, and A. Grayver. The DTU geomagnetic field parent model and derived IGRF-14 candidate models. 2024. 57

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    van den IJssel, J

    J. van den IJssel, J. Encarna¸ c˜ ao, E. Doornbos, and P. Visser. Precise science orbits for the Swarm satellite constellation.Advances in Space Research, (6):1042–1055, 2015

    work page 2015

  78. [78]

    Brown.Elements of Spacecraft Design

    C.D. Brown.Elements of Spacecraft Design. American Institute of Aeronautics and As- tronautics, Inc., 2002

    work page 2002

  79. [79]

    Crisp et al

    N.H. Crisp et al. The benefits of very low earth orbit for earth observation missions. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 117:100619, 2020. [80]https://www.ucs.org/resources/satellite-database#.XELwRFxKjIW

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Davis, Jr., A

    L. Davis, Jr., A. S. Goldhaber, and Michael M. Nieto. Limit on the photon mass deduced from Pioneer-10 observations of Jupiter’s magnetic field.Phys. Rev. Lett., 35:1402–1405, 1975

    work page 1975

Showing first 80 references.