Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

The gravito-optic effect

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A passing gravitational wave splits a laser beam into two sidebands, and a mirrored cavity can turn that into a high-frequency gravitational-wave detector.

desk verdict A fresh acousto-optic analog for GW detection with a load-bearing validity error: the Fermi-normal expansion is used where LΩ/c > 1, so the sensitivity curves are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21225 v1 pith:ARF5BQNZ submitted 2025-04-29 gr-qc

Eduard Atonga , Ramy Aboushelbaya , Peter A. Norreys This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords gravito-opticeffectgravitationalwavedetectionhigh-frequencywaveslightdiffractionFabry-PerotcavityheterodyneMHz-GHzsub-solar-masscompactbinaries
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 aims to establish that a passing gravitational wave produces a wave-optics effect rather than only a ray-optics one: the gravitational wave adds a spacetime-periodic perturbation to the electromagnetic wave equation, so an incident light beam is diffracted into sidebands at frequencies $\omega_0\pm\Omega$, deflected by angles $\theta_\pm\approx\Omega/\omega_0$. The authors call this gravito-optic diffraction and treat it as the gravitational analogue of acousto-optic diffraction. They then propose a pair of highly reflecting mirrors forming an optical cavity to amplify the tiny sidebands and a heterodyne readout to measure the beat between the carrier and sideband, and they estimate that such a detector could reach strain sensitivities around $10^{-22}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$ in the MHz-GHz band. If the claim holds, this opens an almost unexplored frequency region to gravitational-wave astronomy, including searches for primordial black holes and other beyond-standard-model sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gravito-optic diffraction relation: the gravitational wave, written in the normal coordinates of an inertial observer, enters the electromagnetic wave equation as a space- and time-periodic coefficient, much as an acoustic wave enters through the photoelastic effect in acousto-optic diffraction. The explicit metric components (Eqs. 17-26) supply the coupling functions $Q^{(0)}(r)$ and $P^{(0)}(r)$, and the slowly varying amplitude procedure converts the wave equation into first-order transport equations whose solutions are the sideband amplitudes (Eqs. 38-39). Two further mechanisms carry the detection claim: Fabry-Perot build-up, which multiplies the circulating sideband field by a finesse-dependent factor, and heterodyne readout, which isolates the beat at frequency $\Omega$; their combined effect is encoded in the overlap integrals $\Lambda_j(L)$ and $G_j(w_0,L)$ that enter the spectral noise density. The whole architecture transfers a gravitational-wave strain into a measurable optical frequency shift.

What would settle it

Recompute the sideband amplitudes in Eqs. (38)-(39) keeping the next-order terms in the normal-coordinate metric expansion for a 200 m cavity at 1 MHz, where the cavity length is about four gravitational-wave wavelengths; if the sideband amplitude changes by an order-one amount, the claimed sensitivity curves do not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the low-frequency regime $\omega_0\gg\Omega$, the paper argues that the propagation of an electromagnetic wave through a gravitational plane wave is governed by $(\Box-h^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu)E=0$, with $h^{\mu\nu}$ the normal-coordinate metric perturbation of the gravitational wave in the detector's inertial frame. Because that perturbation is periodic with wave number $K=\Omega/c$, the electric field decomposes into diffraction orders $\omega_q=\omega_0+q\Omega$. Solving the linearized coupled equations for orthogonal propagation, the paper finds two sidebands at $\omega_0\pm\Omega$ whose diffraction angle satisfies $\cos\theta_\pm=\alpha_\pm/k_\pm$, reducing to $\theta_\pm\approx\Omega/\omega_0$. The sideband amplitude scales as $h_+k_0^2K^2\Lambda_\pm(L)/\alpha_\pm$, where $\Lambda_\pm(L)$ is an integral over the interaction region. In the proposed detection scheme, the optical cavity increases the effective field by a finesse-dependent factor, and heterodyne detection of the beat against the carrier gives a shot-noise-limited spectral noise density $S_n^{1/2}(\Omega)=(1-R)k_0^2K^2\sqrt{\hbar/(2P_0)}\sum_{j=\pm}\omega_j\Lambda_j^2(L)G_j(w_0,L)$. For kilometer-scale cavities with high-reflectivity mirrors, the paper estimates $\sim10^{-22}\,\mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$ sensitivity in the MHz-GHz band, far beyond the band of current interferometric detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the simplified way of writing the gravitational-wave field in the detector's local inertial frame stays valid across the entire cavity, even when the cavity is several gravitational-wave wavelengths long.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A kilometer-scale laser cavity with high-reflectivity mirrors could search for gravitational waves from about 1 MHz to 10 GHz, a band current ground-based interferometers do not cover.
  • The sideband deflection angle $\theta_\pm\approx\Omega/\omega_0$ gives the signal a predictable spatial location on a detector, so imaging optics can separate it from the carrier.
  • Sensitivity improves with cavity length and finesse at fixed laser power, but the usable bandwidth shrinks, so detector design involves a direct range-bandwidth trade-off.
  • For coalescing sub-solar-mass compact binaries, the estimated signal-to-noise ratios imply such a detector could probe these mergers out to tens of kiloparsecs, providing a new observational channel for primordial black holes.
  • The upper frequency limit is set by photodetector electronics at about 10 GHz, not by the optical interaction itself, so the same principle could be extended with faster readout.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper only treats orthogonal propagation; a generalization to arbitrary incidence angles would likely introduce angular form factors that could either enhance or suppress the sideband coupling, and this angular dependence is needed to estimate detection volumes.
  • The analysis keeps only first-order sidebands, but the cascading process implies higher orders at $\omega_0\pm q\Omega$; a full multimode treatment could show whether these orders add recoverable signal or set a coherence limit on cavity round trips.
  • Because the sensitivity is expressed as a spectral noise density, the same detector could also constrain stochastic high-frequency gravitational-wave backgrounds, not only resolved transient sources.
  • A laboratory validation could use an acousto-optic modulator as a stand-in for the gravitational wave to test the Fabry-Perot heterodyne chain and the sideband-angle imaging before committing to a gravitational-wave search.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a wave-optics treatment of a linearly polarized electromagnetic plane wave interacting orthogonally with a plane gravitational wave. Working in the low-frequency limit (ω0 ≫ Ω), the authors write a perturbed wave equation for the electric field, expand the gravitational-wave metric in Fermi normal coordinates to lowest order (Eqs 17–26), solve for first-order sidebands at ω0 ± Ω, and identify a diffraction angle θ ≈ Ω/ω0. They then propose a Fabry–Perot cavity with heterodyne readout, derive a spectral strain-noise density (Eq 52), and present sensitivity curves (Fig 3) and projected signal-to-noise ratios for sub-solar-mass compact binaries (Fig 4), claiming potential sensitivity around 10^-22 Hz^-1/2 in the MHz–GHz band. The central technical problem is that the Fermi-normal-coordinate metric used in the calculation is valid only when the interaction-region coordinates satisfy Ω|x^i|/c ≪ 1, whereas the proposed cavity parameters violate this condition by one to two orders of magnitude over most of the advertised frequency range.

Significance. The paper is self-contained in the sense that the sideband amplitudes are derived from a specified metric and wave equation without fitting to data, and the sensitivity projection is obtained directly from those amplitudes. The acousto-optic-like diffraction picture is suggestive, and the explicit parameter table makes the proposal concrete and checkable. However, the headline claim—extending gravitational-wave detection into the MHz–GHz band with 200 m to 20 km cavities—is not supported by the calculation, because the truncated metric expansion is used outside its domain of validity. The conceptual result of sideband generation at θ ≈ Ω/ω0 over short baselines is not in question, but the quantitative detector-reach conclusion rests on invalid numerics and cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Diffraction of light in gravitational waves, Eqs (14)–(26) and Table I] The metric written in Fermi normal coordinates is a lowest-order expansion about the observer worldline and is valid only when all interaction-region coordinates satisfy Ω|x^i|/c ≪ 1. The paper invokes this long-wavelength condition on the interaction-region length immediately before Eq (14), but the only condition enforced later is on the beam width, w0Ω/c ≪ 1 near Eq (43), and never on the half-length L that enters the integrals (35)–(37) and Λ±(L) in Eq (50). For configuration A of Table I, 2L = 200 m, so LΩ/c ≈ 2.1 at 1 MHz and ≈ 21 at 10 MHz; configurations B and C violate the condition by even larger margins at the same frequencies. The metric components (17)–(26), the source functions Q^(0) and P^(0) in Eqs (31)–(32), the sideband amplitudes (38)–(39), and hence the power and strain-noise expressions (49) and (52) and Figure 3 are therefore not consequences of the stated approximation. This is an internal inconsistency between the approximation's domain of validity and the advertised parameter regime.
  2. [Abstract and Figure 3] Because of the validity condition above, the plotted frequency range in Figure 3, which extends to 10 MHz, is not covered by the calculation for any of the proposed cavity lengths. The threshold LΩ/c ≲ 1 corresponds to f ≲ c/(2πL), i.e. roughly 0.5 MHz for the 200 m cavity, 50 kHz for the 2 km cavity, and 5 kHz for the 20 km cavity. The abstract's claim that the scheme can extend gravitational-wave detection 'far beyond the LIGO sensitivity band' is therefore unsupported by the quantitative results as they stand; the sensitivity curves in the MHz range cannot be taken as predictions of the model developed in this paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Summary and Future Work, Ref. [67]] Reference [67] is given as 'XX, ZZZ (2025), placeholder.doi', yet the Summary and Future Work section relies on this companion paper for the statement that 'it was also demonstrated that the proposed detection architecture necessitates the use of a kilometer-scale detector'. The manuscript is formally incomplete until this reference is supplied.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'anazts' appears instead of 'ansatz' (twice), the text before Ref. [47] says 'Minser' instead of 'Manasse and Misner', and 'ehanced' appears in the Discussion. These should be corrected.
  3. [Theory, Eq (9) to Eq (10)] The step from Eq (9) to Eq (10) drops terms involving derivatives of the metric perturbation (∂h ∂F) without comment; a sentence justifying that this omission is consistent with the low-frequency and long-wavelength ordering would improve the derivation.
  4. [Detection scheme, Eq (52)] Equation (52) is presented as S^{1/2}_Ω, but the text does not explicitly define S_n(Ω) or state that it is the amplitude spectral density of strain noise in units of Hz^-1/2. Please define the SNR convention used for Eq (52) and connect it to the preceding shot-noise expression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sideband amplitudes and sensitivities follow from the wave equation and metric without fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from the linearized curved-space wave equation (10) and the Fermi-normal-coordinate metric components (17)-(26) derived in the long-wavelength approximation. The trial solution (11)-(12) is a standard Floquet decomposition, not an empirical fit. The source terms Q^(0) and P^(0) in (31)-(32) are computed from the metric, and the diffracted amplitudes (38)-(39) follow by integration over the interaction region (35)-(37). The detection-scheme power (49) and spectral noise density (52) are obtained algebraically from these amplitudes together with the standard shot-noise S/N relation, with no parameter adjusted to reproduce the claimed sensitivity. The only self-references are [39], a supporting citation for linearization, and [67], a companion-paper pointer; neither carries a load-bearing argument, and [67] is a placeholder entry. The concern that the Fermi-normal expansion is used outside its long-wavelength domain (LΩ/c not small for Table I parameters) is a validity/correctness issue, not a circularity, because the derivation does not assume its conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity claim rests on the validity of the Fermi coordinate metric over the cavity, which is violated at the proposed parameters, plus the scalar wave equation reduction and an optimistic shot-noise-only model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Cavity length 2L = 200 m / 2 km / 20 km (Table I)
    Design parameter for the hypothetical detectors; affects sensitivity projections, chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • Finesse F = 1e6 / 1e5 / 1e4 (Table I)
    Design parameter; chosen to represent current super-mirror technology.
  • Input power P0 = 1 W (Table I)
    Design parameter; modest laser power assumed for the projections.
  • Laser wavelength λ = 1053 nm
    Standard Nd:glass laser wavelength; sets k0 in the sensitivity formula.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The metric perturbation in Fermi normal coordinates (Eqs 17-26) is valid over the entire cavity length for the frequencies of interest.
    The paper uses this metric in the wave equation (Eq 27) and integrates over the cavity. The validity condition L Ω/c << 1 is not stated or checked; it is violated for the proposed parameters.
  • domain assumption The electric field obeys the scalar wave equation (□ - h^{μν}∂μ∂ν)E = 0 in the low-frequency limit (Eq 10).
    This is a reduction of the full tensor wave equation, neglecting curvature couplings and vector polarization effects, assumed decoupled for the chosen geometry.
  • standard math The gravitational wave is a vacuum plane wave satisfying Rμν = 0.
    Used to drop Ricci terms in Eq (7).
  • domain assumption Detector noise is dominated by photon shot noise, with S/N = sqrt(P T / ℏω0) for the heterodyne signal.
    Other noise sources (mirror thermal, seismic, laser frequency noise) are argued away by citing advanced LIGO performance, but not modeled in the sensitivity curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The gravito-optic effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARF5BQNZ

@misc{pith2026250421225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The gravito-optic effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARF5BQNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21225}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves have predominantly been detected using interferometric techniques, with standard approaches limited to 10 kHz and with modern advancements extending this bound to 300 kHz. To explore the largely uncharted higher-frequency gravitational wave spectrum, a general wave optics formalism is presented here, revealing a space-time-periodic correction to the electromagnetic wave equation, along with the emergence of sidebands at characteristic angles in the presence of an incident gravitational wave (analogous to acousto-optic diffraction). Then a Fabry-P\'erot-enhanced heterodyne detection scheme is proposed to amplify and measure this effect. It is demonstrated that such a detection strategy has the potential of extending gravitational wave detection to high-frequency regimes far beyond the LIGO sensitivity band. This novel approach provides a pathway to probing new physics through high-frequency gravitational waves in the MHz-GHz range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21225 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Depiction of the interaction geometry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Depiction of detection scheme geometry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectral noise density curves for hypothetical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Signal to noise ratio curves for transient signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Atonga, R

    E. Atonga, R. Aboushelbaya, and P. Norreys, XX, ZZZ (2025), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.XXXX/ placeholder.doi

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  3. [2]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.064030 2006

  4. [3]

    Danzmann and the LISA study team, Classical and Quantum Gravity 13, A247 (1996), URL https://dx

    K. Danzmann and the LISA study team, Classical and Quantum Gravity 13, A247 (1996), URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/13/11A/033

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/13/11a/033 1996

  5. [4]

    Danzmann and A

    K. Danzmann and A. R¨ udiger, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, S1 (2003), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0264-9381/20/10/301

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    E. D. Hall, K. Kuns, J. R. Smith, Y. Bai, C. Wipf, S. Bis- cans, R. X. Adhikari, K. Arai, S. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 122004 (2021), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.122004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.122004 2021

  7. [6]

    E. D. Hall, Galaxies 10, 90 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Evans, R

    M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Bis- coveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisen- stein, A. Gruson, et al., A horizon study for cosmic ex- plorer: Science, observatories, and community (2021), 2109.09882, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09882

    arXiv 2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Park and D.-H

    C. Park and D.-H. Kim, The European Physical Journal C 81, 1 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Cruise, Classical and Quantum Gravity 17, 2525 (2000)

    A. Cruise, Classical and Quantum Gravity 17, 2525 (2000)

    2000

  3. [10]

    Goryachev, W

    M. Goryachev, W. M. Campbell, I. S. Heng, S. Gal- liou, E. N. Ivanov, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 071102 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.071102

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    W. M. Campbell, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, Scien- tific Reports 13, 10638 (2023), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-023-35670-y

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    A. Ito, T. Ikeda, K. Miuchi, and J. Soda, The European Physical Journal C 80, 1 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Gertsenshtein, Sov Phys JETP 14, 84 (1962)

    M. Gertsenshtein, Sov Phys JETP 14, 84 (1962)

    1962

  7. [14]

    T. Liu, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 131402 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.132.131402

    2024

  8. [15]

    Aggarwal et al., Living Rev

    N. Aggarwal et al., Living Rev. Rel. 24, 4 (2021), 2011.12414

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Raidal, V

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP09, 037 (2017), 1707.01480

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Maharana, and F. Muia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103520 (2022), 2205.02153

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Ireland, S

    A. Ireland, S. Profumo, and J. Scharnhorst, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104021 (2023), 2302.10188

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    R. Dong, W. H. Kinney, and D. Stojkovic, JCAP 10, 034 (2016), 1511.05642

    2016 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 134001 (2015), 1411.0686

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084011 (2015), 1411.2263

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Yoshino and H

    H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, PTEP 2014, 043E02 (2014), 1312.2326

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Sun and Y.-L

    S. Sun and Y.-L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103009 (2021), 2003.10527

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 81.123530

    2010 doi

  18. [25]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.83.044026

    2011

  19. [26]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043001 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.95.043001

    2017

  20. [27]

    Arvanitaki and A

    A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 071105 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.110.071105

    2013

  21. [28]

    Aggarwal, G

    N. Aggarwal, G. P. Winstone, M. Teo, M. Baryakhtar, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111101 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111101

    2022 doi

  22. [29]

    A. K. Ghatak and K. Thyagarajan, Acoustooptlc effect: Raman–Nath diffraction (Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 508–518

    1989

  23. [30]

    M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou, and A. N. Lasenby,Gen- eral relativity: An introduction for physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    2006

  24. [31]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments, Oxford Master Series in Physics (Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-19-857074-5, 978-0- 19-852074-0

    2007

  25. [32]

    S. M. Carroll, Spacetime and geometry (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    C. R. Bunney and G. Gradoni, IEEE Antennas and Prop- agation Magazine 64, 40 (2021)

    2021

  27. [34]

    C. G. Tsagas, Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 393 11 (2004)

    2004

  28. [35]

    P. E. Powers and J. W. Haus, Fundamentals of nonlinear optics (CRC press, 2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    New, Introduction to nonlinear optics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    G. New, Introduction to nonlinear optics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  30. [37]

    E. G. Gelfer, H. Kadlecov´ a, O. Klimo, S. Weber, and G. Korn, Physics of Plasmas 23, 093107 (2016), ISSN 1070-664X, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4962520/16146491/093107 1 online.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962520

    2016 doi

  31. [38]

    Kadlecov´ a, O

    H. Kadlecov´ a, O. Klimo, S. Weber, and G. Korn, The European Physical Journal D 71, 89 (2017), URL https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2017-70586-y

    2017 doi

  32. [39]

    Atonga, K

    E. Atonga, K. Martineau, R. Aboushelbaya, A. Bar- rau, M. von der Leyen, S. Howard, A. James, J. Lee, C. Lin, H. Martin, et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 044023 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.044023

    2024

  33. [40]

    Bauswein, N

    A. Bauswein, N. Stergioulas, and H.-T. Janka, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 56 (2016), 1508.05493

    2016 arXiv

  34. [41]

    C. V. Raman and N. S. Nagendra Nath, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences - Section A3, 119 (1936), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03046242

    1936 doi

  35. [42]

    Kogelnik, Bell System Tech- nical Journal 48, 2909 (1969), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1538- 7305.1969.tb01198.x, URL https://onlinelibrary

    H. Kogelnik, Bell System Tech- nical Journal 48, 2909 (1969), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1538- 7305.1969.tb01198.x, URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1969. tb01198.x

    1969

  36. [43]

    Brooker, Modern classical optics, vol

    G. Brooker, Modern classical optics, vol. 8 (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2003)

    2003

  37. [44]

    S. M. Barnett and L. Allen, Optics Communi- cations 110, 670 (1994), ISSN 0030-4018, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0030401894902690

    1994

  38. [45]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A 45, 8185 (1992), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 45.8185

    1992 doi

  39. [46]

    Pampaloni and J

    F. Pampaloni and J. Enderlein, Gaussian, hermite- gaussian, and laguerre-gaussian beams: A primer (2004), physics/0410021

    2004 arXiv

  40. [47]

    and later generalized to all orders in space-time parameters by Fortini [48]. Given that many Beyond- Standard-Model signals are expected to reside in the sub- THz frequency regime, we consider the long-wavelength limit, where the interaction region of lengthLp along the 5 pro...

  41. [48]

    F. K. Manasse and C. W. Misner, Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics 4, 735 (1963)

    1963

  42. [49]

    P. L. Fortini and C. Gualdi, Nuovo Cimento B Serie 71, 37 (1982)

    1982

  43. [50]

    S. F. Jacobs, American Journal of Physics 56, 235 (1988), ISSN 0002-9505, https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/56/3/235/11951941/235 1 online.pdf, URL https: //doi.org/10.1119/1.15655

    1988 doi

  44. [51]

    Hallal, G

    A. Hallal, G. Messineo, M. D. Ortiz, J. Gleason, H. Hol- lis, D. Tanner, G. Mueller, and A. Spector, Physics of the Dark Universe 35, 100914 (2022), ISSN 2212- 6864, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2212686421001382

    2022

  45. [52]

    Berlin, R

    A. Berlin, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 104, L111701 (2021), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L111701

    2021 doi

  46. [53]

    C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. Berry, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 015014 (2014), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014

    2014 doi

  47. [54]

    B. A. Sones, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1997)

    1997

  48. [55]

    Truong, L

    G.-W. Truong, L. W. Perner, D. M. Bailey, G. Win- kler, S. B. Cata˜ no-Lopez, V. J. Wittwer, T. S¨ udmeyer, C. Nguyen, D. Follman, A. J. Fleisher, et al., Nature Communications 14, 7846 (2023), URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-023-43367-z

    2023 doi

  49. [56]

    Muller, E

    A. Muller, E. B. Flagg, J. R. Lawall, and G. S. Solomon, Opt. Lett. 35, 2293 (2010), URL https://opg.optica. org/ol/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-35-13-2293

    2010

  50. [57]

    L. S. Meng, J. K. Brasseur, and D. K. Neumann, Opt. Express 13, 10085 (2005), URL https://opg.optica. org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-13-25-10085

    2005

  51. [58]

    Izumi, D

    K. Izumi, D. Sigg, and L. Barsotti, Opt. Lett. 39, 5285 (2014), URL https://opg.optica.org/ol/abstract. cfm?URI=ol-39-18-5285

    2014

  52. [59]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 22, 4 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41114-019-0020-4

    2019

  53. [60]

    G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and A. Urbano, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 001 (2016), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2016/10/001

    2016 doi

  54. [61]

    Thaalba, G

    F. Thaalba, G. Ventagli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024034 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024034

    2024 doi

  55. [62]

    Bombaci, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    I. Bombaci, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 305, p. 871 305, 871 (1996)

    1996

  56. [63]

    Kalogera and G

    V. Kalogera and G. Baym, The Astrophysical Journal 470, L61 (1996), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 310296

    1996

  57. [64]

    Pooley, P

    D. Pooley, P. Kumar, J. C. Wheeler, and B. Grossan, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 859, L23 (2018), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d6

    2018 doi

  58. [65]

    Cho, Science 359, 724 (2018), URL https: //www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.359

    A. Cho, Science 359, 724 (2018), URL https: //www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.359. 6377.724

    2018 doi

  59. [66]

    Rezzolla, E

    L. Rezzolla, E. R. Most, and L. R. Weih, The Astro- physical Journal Letters 852, L25 (2018), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.