Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

The paper claims that resonant axion–photon conversion during the early inspiral of neutron-star binaries occurs on extended, time-evolving peanut-shaped surfaces, producing narrow radio emission whose amplitude is modulated in phase with t

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Axions of mass 50–170 μeV can resonantly convert to GHz-regime photons on evolving peanut-shaped surfaces in early BNS inspirals, producing a narrow signal modulated by the GW frequency.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection The peanut-shaped resonant-surface geometry is a genuinely new idea worth refereeing, but the mass window and detectability claim rest on an unconstrained multiplicity factor in the plasma density, so the headline result is conditional, not robust. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.15065 v1 pith:AC6SXRPN submitted 2026-02-13 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Resonant Axion-Photon Conversion in the Early Inspiral of Neutron Star Binaries

D. Su\'arez-Fontanella , M. \'Angeles P\'erez-Garc\'ia , C. Albertus This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords axion-photon conversionbinary neutron star inspiralmagnetosphereGoldreich-Julian charge densityresonant conversiongravitational wave multimessengerLandau-Zenerradio astronomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

During the early inspiral of two neutron stars, well before merger, their magnetospheres overlap and the combined magnetic field is approximately the sum of two rotating dipoles. The paper argues that in this environment, dark-matter axions can resonantly convert into photons wherever the local plasma frequency equals the axion mass. Because the summed Goldreich–Julian charge density traces the field geometry, the conversion happens on extended, peanut-shaped surfaces whose size and topology change as the binary spirals inward. The total emitted radio power therefore rises and falls in phase with the gravitational-wave frequency, giving a narrow, multimessenger signature that existing and planned radio telescopes could see for axion masses around 50–170 μeV and couplings below 1e-11 GeV⁻¹.

Core claim

At fixed time, axion–photon conversion is resonant on the surfaces where m_a² = ω_p²(x), with the plasma frequency set by an effective Goldreich–Julian charge density built from the two stars' spin–field dot products. The paper shows that these resonant surfaces are extended closed contours in the interbinary region, with total arc length that depends strongly on axion mass; small masses give large connected 'peanut' surfaces spanning both stars, while large masses give compact disconnected loops around each star. Applying a Landau–Zener conversion probability and integrating over the resonant contours yields the total emitted power, which the authors find is modulated as the separation shri

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of resonant conversion surfaces S_res(m_a) defined by the equality of axion mass squared and plasma frequency squared, where the plasma frequency is obtained from the summed Goldreich–Julian charge density. Two machinery pieces carry the argument: the time-sliced superposition of two oblique-rotator dipole fields, valid while the binary separation is far inside the light cylinder, and the Landau–Zener formula for conversion probability written in terms of the transverse magnetic field and the normal gradient of ω_p². The emitted power is the integral of the incident axion flux times this probability over all resonant contours, weighted by the cylindrical measure

Load-bearing premise

The electron density that sets the plasma frequency is taken to be proportional to the summed Goldreich–Julian charge density, with an unspecified multiplicity factor; if the real magnetospheric plasma differs in magnitude or sign, the resonant surfaces shift or disappear.

What would settle it

A targeted search for a narrow spectral line at ν = m_a c²/h from a nearby BNS inspiral, timed with the gravitational-wave signal, that finds no emission at the predicted flux level would rule out the detectability claim; equivalently, a plasma measurement showing n_e differs from n_GJ by orders of magnitude at ~1000 km separation would collapse the resonance geometry.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The signal is spectrally narrow, with photon frequency fixed by the axion mass, while its amplitude is modulated on the gravitational-wave timescale, giving a clean multimessenger discriminant.
  • For axion masses in the 50–170 μeV range and couplings up to about 1e-11 GeV⁻¹, the predicted flux falls within the reach of current and planned radio and millimeter telescopes for a source at 10 kpc.
  • The one-to-one mapping between orbital separation and gravitational-wave frequency during quasi-circular inspiral lets observers predict when the line should appear and how it should evolve, enabling targeted searches rather than blind surveys.
  • The geometric transition from disconnected, star-centered resonant loops at high axion mass to a single extended interbinary surface at lower mass imprints a characteristic band-like structure on the flux–frequency plane.
  • Correlating radio/millimeter observations with gravitational-wave triggers would separate this narrow, phase-locked line from the broadband precursor emission normally expected from neutron-star binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A practical search strategy would be to stack many gravitational-wave-triggered BNS inspirals and look for a narrow line at frequency ν = m_a c²/h whose amplitude tracks the chirp; even a non-detection in one nearby event would strongly constrain the conversion scenario.
  • The sign and magnitude of the effective electron density are uncertain, so the resonance geometry could be tested by comparing the predicted surface locations with simulations that include pair production or environmental plasma; if the real density differs from the Goldreich–Julian value by more than an order of magnitude, the peanut surfaces shift or disappear.
  • The escape fraction of converted photons from the magnetosphere is not computed; if the plasma is opaque at the resonant frequency, the observable flux could be suppressed, so a follow-up radiation-transfer calculation would sharpen the detectability estimate.
  • At the high-mass end of the window, the resonant surfaces are compact and disconnected around each star, implying that individual neutron stars in the binary might emit steady line radiation before the merger, a feature that could be searched for in isolated magnetars as well.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that resonant axion–photon conversion during the early inspiral of a binary neutron star (BNS) system occurs on extended, time-evolving 'peanut-shaped' surfaces in the combined magnetosphere. The authors model the near-zone electromagnetic field as a superposition of two rotating dipoles, approximate the electron density by the Goldreich–Julian charge density, and use the resonance condition m_a^2 = ω_p^2(x) to locate conversion surfaces. A Landau–Zener conversion probability is integrated over these surfaces to obtain the emitted electromagnetic power. They predict a narrow radio/millimeter line whose amplitude is modulated in phase with the gravitational-wave frequency, and claim detectability for m_a in [50,170] μeV and g_aγ ≲ 10^-11 GeV^-1 with existing or planned facilities.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, the proposal offers a novel, time-dependent multimessenger probe of axion physics: the correlation between a narrow spectral line and the GW inspiral chirp is an elegant and falsifiable observable. The paper's conceptual framing—emphasizing the global geometry of resonant surfaces rather than just local conversion—is a useful contribution. However, the central predictions are conditional on an unquantified multiplier relating the electron density to the Goldreich–Julian density, on an arbitrary local axion density, and on a surface-area integration that appears inconsistent with the modeled binary geometry. These issues directly affect the claimed mass window, power normalization, and detectability, so the paper in its present form is a promising framework rather than a robust quantitative prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, after Eq. (2)] The identification n_e = n_GJ 'up to a multiplicity factor' is unquantified. Since Eq. (2) defines the location of all resonant surfaces, this factor is load-bearing. For the reference parameters (B_s = 10^14 G, Ω ~ 100 rad/s), n_GJ yields resonant masses of order a few μeV at the interbinary scales shown in Fig. 4; reaching 50–170 μeV requires a multiplicity of order 10–100 that is never specified. The claim that corotation deviations leave the geometry 'essentially unchanged' is unsupported and sits uneasily with the paper's own caveat that no global corotating frame exists. Please quantify the multiplicity or present results explicitly as a function of it.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (5) and Sec. II / Appendix] The power integral uses dA = 2π r̄ dℓ, which assumes the resonant surface is a surface of revolution. In the model, the companion is displaced along the equatorial direction (Appendix Eq. (19)), so the total Goldreich–Julian density is not axisymmetric. The two-dimensional isocontours of Fig. 4 cannot be converted to three-dimensional areas by multiplying by 2π r sinθ. The emitted power must be obtained by integrating over the actual resonant surface defined by m_a^2 = ω_p^2(x,y,z). This error affects the normalization of P_tot and the predicted band structure in Fig. 5.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5 and Eq. (6)] The flux normalization is set by ρ_a ~ 10^23 GeV cm^-3, but the cited cloud-density model [31,32] gives surface values up to ~10^27 GeV cm^-3 and does not fix the value at the resonant surfaces. Since both P_tot and F_ν scale linearly with ρ_a, the claimed SNR and contrast (Eqs. 7–8) are conditional on an arbitrary choice. Please use a self-consistent axion density profile and state the reference radius at which ρ_a is evaluated.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (4) and trajectory approximation] The 'purely radial' trajectory approximation is not consistent with the adopted gravitationally bound, non-relativistic axion cloud. In a bound population, velocities are quasi-random; the flux through a closed resonant surface is n_a ⟨|v·n|⟩ rather than n_a v⊥, and a single trajectory can cross a closed surface twice. This introduces at least an O(1) normalization uncertainty and changes the relative contribution of different surfaces. An angular average over the axion velocity distribution is needed before quantitative flux predictions can be made.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and text] Typos and formatting errors: 'setg aγ', 'form a ∈[50,170]µeV', 'and it mass' after Eq. (2). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Sec. II] The units of ω are used inconsistently (Hz vs rad/s). The text states 'ω ∈ [0.1,1000] Hz' but elsewhere uses ω ~ 100 rad/s. Please define units in the figure axes and text.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption does not specify the spin frequency, the multiplicity factor, or the surface magnetic field used for the labeled isocontours. Without these parameters the quoted arc lengths and masses cannot be reproduced.
  4. [References] Reference [44] to Wikipedia is not appropriate for a journal article; please replace with a primary ALMA technical document.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central calculation is self-contained given the stated plasma model. The unconstrained 'multiplicity factor' is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) model the magnetic field as a superposition of two near-zone dipole fields (Eqs. (13)-(15), (24)-(27)); (ii) define n_GJ as the additive stellar charge density (Eq. (1)); (iii) impose resonance via m_a^2 = om_p^2 = 4*pi*alpha*n_e/m_e (Eq. (2)); (iv) integrate the standard Landau-Zener probability (Eq. (4)) over the resulting isocontours to obtain P_tot (Eq. (5)). No step fits a parameter to a target observable, and the peanut-surface geometry follows by evaluating the assumed n_GJ contours, not by inverting a measured signal. The inspiral modulation (Fig. 5) is a consequence of the time-sliced binary-dipole geometry plus Eq. (2), so it is not a restatement of an input in disguise. Self-citations [18,19] appear only in the introductory list of possible DM-induced signals and are not load-bearing; the axion-cloud densities are anchored to external refs [31,32], and the delta m_gamma^2(B) correction [41] is stated to be perturbative and not to set resonance locations. The genuine weakness, flagged in Sec. III, is that n_e is identified with n_GJ 'up to a multiplicity factor' with no value given. This leaves the absolute mass window [50,170] micro-eV (Abstract, Conclusions) dependent on an unconstrained normalization: changing the multiplicity shifts every resonant mass, so the window is not robustly predicted. Likewise, the claim that deviations from global corotation leave the resonant geometry 'essentially unchanged' is asserted without derivation. These are model-robustness/underdetermination concerns, not circular reductions of the type where Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a linear superposition of vacuum dipoles and a GJ-density plasma; those are the main domain assumptions. The flux normalization uses a chosen local axion density rather than a self-consistent halo model, and an unspecified multiplicity factor connects n_e to n_GJ.

free parameters (5)
  • Local axion density ρ_a = 1e23 GeV cm^-3 (Fig. 5)
    Sets the overall flux normalization; chosen to represent a dense axion cloud around the NS. The predicted flux scales linearly with this value, and it is not derived from a self-consistent halo model.
  • Electron-density multiplicity factor (n_e vs n_GJ) = unquantified
    Sec. III states n_e is identified with n_GJ 'up to a multiplicity factor'. This factor directly shifts the resonant mass/surfaces and is never set, so the central geometry inherits an unquantified scale.
  • Surface magnetic field B_s = 1e14 G
    Representative magnetar-scale field used in Figs. 4 and 5; sets the magnetic field strength, conversion probability, and GJ density scale.
  • Spin frequency ω = ~100 rad/s
    Sets the GJ charge density scale and therefore the plasma frequency; chosen as a typical NS spin, not measured for the specific systems considered.
  • Radio background efficiency η_R = 1e-5
    Used in Eq. (10) to estimate the precursor radio continuum; affects the contrast estimate δ but not the central conversion calculation.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Near-zone rotating dipole solution for a NS magnetosphere (Deutsch 1955)
    Used in Eqs. (13)-(18) to describe the isolated NS fields; a standard analytic result.
  • domain assumption Linearity and superposition of the two stellar magnetic fields in the binary
    Sec. II: total field is B + B⋆. This assumes weakly distorted magnetospheres in the early inspiral; the paper acknowledges it breaks down in the late inspiral.
  • ad hoc to paper n_e = n_GJ (Goldreich–Julian charge density) up to a multiplicity factor
    Sec. III, Eq. (2): the resonant surfaces are isocontours of the summed GJ density. Real magnetospheric plasma density is not in general equal to GJ density.
  • ad hoc to paper Axion trajectories are purely radial and the flux through a resonant surface is n_a v⊥ dA
    Sec. III after Eq. (4): used to compute P_tot in Eq. (5); ignores the angular distribution of bound axion orbits in a cloud.
  • domain assumption A dense axion cloud with ρ_a ~ 1e23 GeV cm^-3 exists around the BNS
    Imported from refs [31,32] and required for the large flux values in Fig. 5; not all BNS are expected to host such clouds.
  • standard math Landau-Zener formula applies to the resonant two-level axion-photon crossing
    Eq. (4) follows standard quantum adiabatic crossing; parameter-free and well-established.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resonant Axion-Photon Conversion in the Early Inspiral of Neutron Star Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AC6SXRPN

@misc{pith2026260215065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resonant Axion-Photon Conversion in the Early Inspiral of Neutron Star Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AC6SXRPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.15065}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We consider the early binary neutron star inspiral phase as a scenario to probe environmental axion--photon resonant conversion. For this we approximately model the merger site electromagnetic fields as the superposition of two rotating dipolar stellar magnetic fields at the thousand--km scale when both magnetospheres are not largely distorted. We capture the time-sliced near-zone magnetospheric geometry relevant for axion--photon mixing. Plasma effects are incorporated through an effective Goldreich--Julian charge density, used to determine the effective plasma frequency and the location of resonant conversion surfaces. Our results show that axion--photon resonant conversion in binary magnetospheres mostly occurs on extended peanut-shaped surfaces whose global geometry evolves as the binary inspiral evolves. As a consequence, the total electromagnetic power emitted through axion--photon conversion exhibits a characteristic dependence on axion mass and a slow temporal modulation correlated with the gravitational wave frequency emission. This feature is potentially detectable for $m_a \in [50,170] \,\rm \mu eV$ and set $g_{a \gamma} \lesssim 10^{-11}\rm \,GeV^{-1}$ as it lies within the sensitivity limits of current or planned radio observation missions. In light of our results we discuss the opportunity of binary neutron star inspirals as time-dependent, multimessenger probes of axion physics, and motivate coordinated searches combining gravitational wave observations with radio and millimeter wavelength electromagnetic measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15065 by C. Albertus, D. Su\'arez-Fontanella, M. \'Angeles P\'erez-Garc\'ia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Configuration of magnetic field lines in the meridional plane of the binary neutron star system for time-sliced near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Validity region of our model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Gravitational wave frequency as a function of orbital separation for a quasi-circular BNS system. The blue curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Resonant 2D isocontours for a binary system of two NSs with aligned spins and parallel magnetic fields, sharing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Predicted spectral flux density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rep.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Albertus, F

    C. Albertus, F. Chadha-Day, A. de Giorgi, R. H. Dejrah, M. F. Zamoro, C. K¨ ading, L. Merlo, M. ´Angeles P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, X. P. D ´ ıaz, F. Urban, and W. Yin, Wispedia – the wisps encyclopedia (2026), arXiv:2602.09089 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    E. G. Adelberger et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.72, 239 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    G. G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  9. [9]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  10. [10]

    B. P. e. a. Abbott, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Akutsu, M

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, H. Asada, Y. Aso, S. Atsuta, K. Awai, S. Bae, L. Baiotti, M. A. Barton, K. Cannon, E. Capocasa, C.-S. Chen, T.-W. Chiu, K. Cho, Y.-K. Chu, K. Craig, W. Creus, K. Doi, K. Eda, Y. Enomoto, R. Flaminio, Y. Fujii, M.-K. Fujimoto, M. Fukunaga, M. Fukushima, T. Furuhata, S. Haino, K. Hasegawa...

    2019

  12. [12]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    Reitze, R

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Barsotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne, R. Eisenstein, M. Evans, P. Fritschel, E. D. Hall, A. Lazzarini, G. Lovelace, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. Shoemaker, J. Smith, C. Torrie, S. Vitale, R. Weiss, C. Wipf, and M. Zucker, Cosmic explorer: The u.s. contribution to gravitational-wa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 221103 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J.392, L9 (1992)

    1992

  16. [16]

    V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 261 (2017), arXiv:1703.00068 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    B. D. Metzger and E. Berger, Astrophys. J.746, 48 (2012), arXiv:1108.6056 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Su´ arez-Fontanella, D

    D. Su´ arez-Fontanella, D. Barba-Gonz´ alez, C. Albertus, and M.´A. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Physics Letters B862, 139358 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Su´ arez-Fontanella, C

    D. Su´ arez-Fontanella, C. Albertus, and M. ´A. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D112, 083056 (2025), arXiv:2508.09141 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Lai, Astrophys

    D. Lai, Astrophys. J. Lett.757, L3 (2012), arXiv:1206.3723 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    A. L. Piro, Astrophys. J.755, 80 (2012), arXiv:1205.6482 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Skiathas, C

    D. Skiathas, C. Kalapotharakos, Z. Wadiasingh, D. Kazanas, A. K. Harding, and P. T. Kolbeck, The Astrophysical Journal 994, 131 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Palenzuela, L

    C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, M. Ponce, M. Anderson, D. Neilsen, and P. Motl, Phys. Rev. D88, 043011 (2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    Huang and A

    F. Huang and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D98, 115020 (2018), arXiv:1808.07555 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    A. J. Deutsch, Ann. d’Astrophysique18, 1 (1955)

    1955

  26. [26]

    Goldreich and W

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Astrophys. J.157, 869 (1969)

    1969

  27. [27]

    A. A. Philippov and A. Spitkovsky, Astrophys. J.855, 94 (2018), arXiv:1708.07714 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    P´ etri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society450, 714–742 (2015)

    J. P´ etri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society450, 714–742 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Gabler, P

    M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 421, 2054–2078 (2012)

    2054

  30. [30]

    Fields and D

    J. Fields and D. Radice, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.06058 (2025), arXiv:2511.06058 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Noordhuis, A

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, C. Weniger, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. X14, 041015 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Caputo, S

    A. Caputo, S. J. Witte, A. A. Philippov, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 161001 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    ´E. ´E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    L. E. Kidder, Physical Review D52, 821 (1995)

    1995

  35. [35]

    Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity17, 2 (2014)

    L. Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity17, 2 (2014)

    2014

  36. [36]

    L. D. Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  37. [37]

    Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  38. [38]

    B. P. e. a. Abbott, Living Rev. Relativ.23, 3 (2020), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    P. e. a. Amaro-Seoane, arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    S. e. a. Kawamura, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094011 (2011)

    2011

  41. [41]

    M. A. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, A. P´ erez Mart ´ ınez, and E. Rodr ´ ıguez Querts, The European Physical Journal C83, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11902-3 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11902-3 2023

  42. [42]

    Carenza and M

    P. Carenza and M. D. Marsh, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(04), 021

  43. [43]

    SKA Observatory,Anticipated SKA1 Science Performance, Tech. Rep. SKAO-TEL-0000818-V2 (SKAO Technical Docu- ment, 2024) contains projected sensitivity comparisons for VLA, ALMA, and SKA1-Mid/Lowe

    2024

  44. [44]

    Atacama large millimeter/submillimeter array (alma),https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_ Array(2025), overview of ALMA: 66 antennas, high sensitivity up to∼950 GHz

    2025

  45. [45]

    A. D. Team, A primer on alma sensitivity,https://alma.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/_docs/site_tutorials_1/ALMAPrimer2. pdf(n.d.), example continuum sensitivity for ALMA configurations: continuum rms∼1µJy achievable

  46. [46]

    National Radio Astronomy Observatory, What Is the Sensitivity of the VLA?,https://public.nrao.edu/ask/ what-is-the-sensitivity-of-the-vla/(n.d.), example sensitivity of∼60µJy at 1.4 GHz for 1 min integration quoted

  47. [47]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Axionlimits (2020), https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/

    2020

  48. [48]

    D., and et al.134, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac771d (2022)

    ALMA Partnership, Wootten, A., Klaassen, P. D., and et al.134, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac771d (2022)

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac771d 2022

  49. [49]

    2r2 cos3 θcosχ ⋆(d+rsinθ) + cosθcosχ ⋆(d+rsinθ) −d 2 +r 2 −r 2 cos 2θ+rdsinθ + 1 2 (d+rsinθ) −rd(−7 + cos 2θ) + 4(d2 +r 2) sinθ sinχ ⋆ # ,(24) B⋆ θ =ΛB(r, θ)

    M. Lyutikov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society483, 2766 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/483/2/2766/27201523/sty3303.pdf. 12 DET AILS OF THE BNS MAGNETIC FIELD MODEL In this appendix we collect the electromagnetic field expressions used throughout our analysis. We begin by recalling the electromagnetic field generated by ...

    2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.