Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational Photon Polarization Twist to Probe the Early Universe and the Galactic Center

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A space-based laser pulse can detect gravitational wave backgrounds—including the pulsars possibly responsible for the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess and relics of the early Universe—by counting photons whose polarization is twisted as…

desk verdict A real new detector concept with a load-bearing noise problem: the claimed sensitivity requires polarization purity far beyond anything demonstrated, and the paper never quantifies that requirement. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05347 v1 pith:C7DVLW4H submitted 2025-07-07 hep-ph

Rodolfo Capdevilla This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords gravitationalwavebackgroundphotonpolarizationtwistbirefringentdetectorGalacticCentergamma-rayexcessmillisecondpulsarshigh-frequencywavesspace-basedexperimentearlyUniversecosmology
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

Gravitational wave backgrounds ought to change the polarization state of photons, and this paper asks whether that effect can be made into a detector. The proposal is a space-based experiment: a vertically polarized laser pulse travels a million kilometers, some of its photons are converted to circular polarization by passing gravitational waves, and a birefringent material at the far end routes any horizontally polarized photons to a single-photon counter. With a millisecond pulse, the author estimates one signal photon for a strain of $10^{-23}$, and after a year of observation a sensitivity to strains above $5\times 10^{-28}$, enough to reach the hypothetical pulsar population behind the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess. Because the effect is largest when the pulse length matches the gravitational wave wavelength, changing the pulse duration scans frequency and could open a window to cosmological backgrounds from the early Universe, such as first-order phase transitions.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts. First, the interaction: the linearized Einstein–Maxwell action gives a three-point vertex between a photon, a gravitational wave, and an outgoing photon; the transition amplitude is computed for a Gaussian laser wave packet, and the result is the conversion probability in Eq. (18). Second, the overlap coupling $\eta(b,\epsilon)$, a function of the ratios of pulse length to baseline and gravitational wavelength to pulse length: the conversion is efficient when the gravitational wave wavelength is at least as long as the pulse, and it grows with the baseline $L$. Third, the readout: a birefringent material separates the small fraction of circularly polarized photons so that the horizontally polarized half reach a single-photon detector, with the main beam and space-particle Thomson scattering argued to be negligible background.

What would settle it

Send a polarized pulse of $10^{20}$ photons through the birefringent material with no gravitational wave present and count the horizontally polarized photons at the detector: if the leakage rate exceeds $10^{-4}$ Hz, or if the conversion rate for a known strain does not grow linearly with baseline $L$, the projected sensitivity does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gravitational photon polarization twist—a known coupling between a gravitational wave, an incoming photon, and an outgoing photon with flipped polarization—can be engineered into a practical detector. For a linearly polarized pulse of $N_\gamma$ photons overlapping a gravitational wave of strain $h_0$ over a baseline $L$ and pulse duration $\tau$, the number of signal photons is $$N_s = N_\gamma $h_0^{2}$ \$omega_L^{2}$ s_\$theta^{4}$ \frac{\pi}{2}\,\tau L\,\eta,$$ where $\eta$ is an order-one overlap factor when the pulse length is comparable to the gravitational wave wavelength. The benchmark $N_\gamma=10^{20}$, $h_0=10^{-23}$, $\tau=1$ ms, $L=10^6$ km gives $N_s\sim 1$; one year of observation with a detector dark count rate of $10^{-4}$ Hz yields projected sensitivity $h_0>5\times10^{-28}$ at SNR$>5$. The paper further claims that this reach covers both the optimistic and pessimistic gravitational wave spectra predicted for the pulsars that could explain the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess, and that even a 2 W laser comparable to LISA's would suffice if the pulse is recycled between satellites.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity claim rests on the assumption that the only relevant background is the single-photon detector's dark count rate, even though the extremely bright main beam passes through the same birefringent optics; any polarization leakage, misalignment, or beam imperfection producing more than about one event per three hours would dominate the noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess comes from a population of millisecond pulsars, this experiment can detect their gravitational wave flux at around 1 kHz; a detection would confirm the pulsar explanation, while a null result would strengthen the dark matter interpretation.
  • The projected sensitivity $h_0>5\times10^{-28}$ falls below current interferometer limits and reaches the region of cosmological sources such as first-order phase transitions, so a single experiment could probe early-Universe physics beyond the Standard Model.
  • Varying the pulse duration scans gravitational wave frequency, and the signal should weaken once the pulse grows longer than the target wavelength, giving a built-in test that any observed signal is genuinely gravitational.
  • Because the conversion grows linearly with baseline, a LISA-scale separation of $10^6$ km is sufficient, and longer baselines would extend the reach further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the pulse duration sets the target wavelength, the same satellite pair could act as a tunable high-frequency gravitational wave observatory across frequency regions between the LISA and LIGO bands that no current detector covers.
  • Editorial extension: a shorter-baseline terrestrial test with a calibrated gravitational wave source could measure the conversion rate of Eq. (18) before committing to a space mission, since the predicted signal scales linearly with baseline and could be verified at small scale.
  • Editorial extension: the paper contrasts its scheme with magnet-based graviton-to-photon conversion, and a hybrid design that places a birefringent single-photon readout on an existing laboratory search could in principle extend that program, though this is not proposed here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a space-based gravitational-wave (GW) detection scheme in which a linearly polarized laser pulse propagates over a baseline L, interacts with a gravitational-wave background (GWB), and acquires a circular-polarization component; the circular photons are then split by a birefringent element and counted by a single-photon detector. The central equations give the number of signal photons N_s (Eq. (1)-(2)), an SNR estimate (Eq. (4)-(5)), and a projected strain sensitivity h0 > 5 x 10^-28 after one year (Eq. (6)). The author argues that with a LISA-scale baseline and a millisecond pulse, the setup could detect the GW signal from the hypothetical pulsar population responsible for the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess, and that varying the pulse duration can act as a spectral filter for cosmological GWBs.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism works at the claimed sensitivity, it would provide a new, complementary channel for high-frequency GW detection, with the notable advantage of a spectral filter controlled by the pulse duration. The analytic derivation from the linearized photon action to the overlap integral (Eqs. (7)-(20)) is a clear asset: the parameter scalings are explicit and the predicted N_s proportional to h0^2 omega_L^2 tau L is a falsifiable, quantitative prediction. The application to the Galactic Center excess is well motivated, and the Summary is refreshingly explicit about several technical caveats. The main limitations are not in the core amplitude calculation but in the background model and in the mapping of the monochromatic result to broadband stochastic sources; these currently leave the headline sensitivity estimates quantitatively unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Estimated Sensitivity, Eq. (4)-(5); Summary] The background entering Eq. (5) is only the detector dark count rate, B = 10^-4 Hz. In the proposed geometry, the signal channel is the nominally orthogonal polarization output of the birefringent element; for N_gamma = 10^20 photons per pulse, a leakage fraction epsilon (extinction ratio) sends epsilon N_gamma photons into that channel per pulse. At a 1 Hz repetition rate, keeping this leakage at or below the quoted dark count requires epsilon <~ 10^-24, and even making it comparable to the N_s ~ 1 signal requires epsilon <~ 10^-20. Demonstrated birefringent polarizers have extinction ratios of order 10^-5 to 10^-8, and the manuscript does not quantify how multiple polarizing stages, spatial filtering, or temporal gating would close this 12-20 order-of-magnitude gap. The Summary lists 'uncertainty in the laser polarization' as future work, but this is a load-bearing input to the claimed h0 > 5 x 10^-28 sensitivity, not a marginal technical detail.
  2. [Estimated Sensitivity (paragraph after Eq. (6)); Eqs. (18)-(20); Fig. 4] The derivation of Eq. (1) and Eq. (6) is for a monochromatic plane GW with strain h0, frequency omega_g, and angle theta. The GCE and cosmological backgrounds are broadband and stochastic, yet the paper moves to these sources by introducing a 'collective strain' (quoted as ~10^-26 for the pessimistic GCE curve) without defining it and without performing the required spectral and angular integral. The statement that 'integrating over this spectrum enhances the sensitivity' is not self-evident: because the conversion probability is quadratic in strain and the overlap coupling eta is suppressed for b_epsilon > 1.5 (Fig. 4), a broadband source with a given integrated strain will generally produce fewer signal photons than a monochromatic source with that same strain. The angle average in Eq. (2) is also not shown; for a 1 kHz GW and tau = 1 ms, b_epsilon = omega_g tau (1 - cos theta) reaches about 6 at theta = pi/2, where Fig. 4 indicates strong suppression. To make the central detection claim reproducible, the paper needs to provide the explicit integral over GW frequencies and sky directions that produces the blue sensitivity curves in Fig. 1.
  3. [Signal and Experimental Setup, Eq. (3); Fig. 2; Summary] The headline statement that even a 2 W laser could detect the GCE pulsars relies on the recycling sum in Eq. (3), with epsilon_BM = 0.999 giving a factor of ~10^3. This assumes the pulse can be reflected between satellites for many passes with no loss other than the birefringent material's transmission, and that the beam remains collimated and aligned over the accumulated path. The manuscript does not specify the maximum number of laps ell_tot, mirror reflectivities, or the receiving aperture needed to collect the pulse after 10^6 km of diffraction; the Summary defers 'evolution of the beam profile' to future work. These are not cosmetic issues: for example, a meter-class 800 nm beam would diffract to a radius of order hundreds of meters at 10^6 km, so the collection aperture is a critical parameter that is not given. A modest loss per lap or a reduced collection fraction would lower the effective N_gamma by orders of magnitude and invalidate the 2 W claim as stated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typographical errors: 'mistery' should be 'mystery', 'The later correspond' should be 'The latter correspond', and 'fromearly Universe' is missing a space.
  2. [Estimated Sensitivity, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) and the surrounding sentence are garbled in the typeset version ('SNR = sqrt(t_obs) S sqrt(B)' and 'h0^2 > SNR 10^3 N_gamma omega_L^2 s_theta^4 (pi/2) tau L sqrt(10^-4 / t_obs) Hz'); please provide a clean equation with all factors and units defined.
  3. [Signal and Experimental Setup, Eq. (1)] The notation s_theta^4, omega_L, and the factor pi/2 are not defined at first use; in particular, the text should state that s_theta = sin(theta) and explain how the pi/2 and the eta factor arise when rewriting Eq. (18) as Eq. (1).
  4. [Signal and Experimental Setup, Fig. 2] The text says that as the laser pulse enters the birefringent material, the vertical and horizontal polarizations split; a birefringent plate alone does not spatially separate polarizations. If the intended element is a polarizing beam displacer (e.g., a Glan-Taylor or Wollaston prism), it should be named explicitly.
  5. [Calculation, Fig. 4 and paragraph after Eq. (20)] The statement that suppression occurs 'when the GW wavelength becomes small compared to the pulse length' is imprecise; the suppression is controlled by b_epsilon = (1 - cos theta) omega_g tau, and significant suppression already occurs for b_epsilon > 1.5, which corresponds to tau >~ 0.24 lambda_g / (1 - cos theta), not to lambda_g << tau.
  6. [Signal and Experimental Setup] The phrase 'the mean free path of the pulse' should be 'the mean free path of photons in the pulse' or 'the interaction length for Thomson scattering'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central photon-polarization signal is derived from first principles, and the sensitivity projections use external inputs without fitting the target result.

full rationale

The central formula for the number of signal photons, Eq. (1), is derived from the linearized photon action in Eqs. (7)-(18), using a Gaussian wave-packet description of the laser pulse and standard photon-graviton scattering amplitudes. The normalization E0^2 = N_gamma omega_L / A tau fixes the field amplitude from the photon number, so Eq. (1) is a calculated transition probability, not a fitted relation. No parameter in Eq. (1) is adjusted to make the GCE detection claim come out true. The GCE pulsar spectra in Fig. 1 are taken from external astrophysical references [8-11], the birefringent-material transmission efficiency is taken from external optics references [88-90], and the dark-count rate is taken from external detector references [82-84]; none of these are outputs of this paper nor are they supplied by the author's own prior work. The sensitivity estimate, Eqs. (4)-(6), is arithmetic based on the defined SNR and the derived signal rate; it does not presuppose detection of any particular source. The paper's own Summary identifies unquantified technical backgrounds such as cosmic-ray showers, electronic noise, laser-polarization uncertainty, and satellite misalignment as topics for future study. These are genuine feasibility limitations, but they do not make the derivation circular: the quoted sensitivity assumes an idealized background model, and a more realistic background model would change the numerical reach without changing the structure of the calculation. The author's self-citations [43,45] are contextual references to related work and are not load-bearing for the derivation of Eq. (1) or for the GCE sensitivity claim. The known character of the underlying gravitational-photon polarization effect is acknowledged through refs. [49-51], and this paper independently rederives the effect from the action, so no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the claims do not reduce by construction to their inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it reuses a known effect. Its sensitivity claim rests on the derived conversion formula, external GCE spectra, and an idealized noise model.

free parameters (1)
  • Benchmark experimental parameters (N_gamma, tau, L, omega_L) = N_gamma=10^20, tau=1 ms, L=10^6 km, omega_L=1.55 eV
    Chosen to illustrate the experiment; sensitivity scales with these values and no optimization is performed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The photon action can be expanded to linear order in the metric perturbation h, and the process is described by the tree-level amplitude in Eq. (14).
    Used in the Calculation section to derive Eq. (18).
  • domain assumption The laser pulse is a classical Gaussian wave packet with E0^2 = N_gamma omega_L/(A tau).
    Stated after Eq. (17) in the Calculation section.
  • ad hoc to paper A stochastic GWB can be approximated by a single mode with an integrated 'collective strain' for sensitivity estimates.
    Used in the Estimated Sensitivity section; no explicit derivation of the stochastic spectrum integral is provided.
  • domain assumption The dominant background is the SPD dark count rate of 10^-4 Hz; Thomson scattering from interplanetary plasma is negligible.
    Stated in Signal and Experimental Setup; the Summary defers cosmic-ray and polarization-leakage backgrounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Photon Polarization Twist to Probe the Early Universe and the Galactic Center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7DVLW4H

@misc{pith2026250705347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Photon Polarization Twist to Probe the Early Universe and the Galactic Center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7DVLW4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05347}
}
read the original abstract

It is known that gravitational wave backgrounds (GWBs) change the polarization state of photons. This letter explores the possibility of using this effect to detect GWBs. The proposed experiment features a vertically polarized laser pulse traveling through a GWB before reaching a birefringent material which separates photons by polarization. Photons that emerge the birefringent material horizontally polarized are counted as signal photons. A space-based setup of a million km (comparable to the LISA mission) with a millisecond laser pulse is capable to detect the hypothetical pulsars responsible for the excess of gamma rays from the galactic center. Varying the duration of the pulse can reveal a variety of GWBs from the early Universe as well.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The hypothetical GCE pulsars emit the black (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the proposed experiment: A vertically polarized pulse (satellite 1) interacts with a GWB and some photons in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Feynman diagram of the interaction for an in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Current bounds from interferometers are marked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Overlap coupling for the gravitational photon polar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Whispers from the Early Universe: The Ringdown of Primordial Black Holes

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The stochastic gravitational wave background from primordial black hole ringdown could be observable by future pulsar timing arrays for solar-mass and heavier black holes, with binary merger signals within reach of ne...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    If possible, the recycled pulse could bounce between satellites and increase the number of signal photons

    as horizontally polarized and are read as signal photons by a single photon detector. If possible, the recycled pulse could bounce between satellites and increase the number of signal photons. GCE source. This can be seen in Fig. 1 as the blue lines reach down to the black and red curves. The later cor- respond to the GW spectra by the hypothetical pulsar...

  3. [3]

    (16) FIG

    In the limit of interest the only non-zero tensor products are Tˆx±+ = ∓ 1 2 s2 θ . (16) FIG. 4. Overlap coupling for the gravitational photon polar- ization twist effect defined in Eqs. (19)-(20). To obtain the transition probability one needs to inte- grate over the phase space of the final state photon P = Z d3k2 (2π)3 V2|A1→2|2. (17) Because the initi...

  4. [4]

    Auclair et al

    P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Agarwal, J

    D. Agarwal, J. Suresh, V. Mandic, A. Matas, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043019 (2022), arXiv:2204.08378 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Goodenough and D

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, (2009), arXiv:0910.2998 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    K. N. Abazajian and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083511 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129902 (2013)], arXiv:1207.6047 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Eckner et al

    C. Eckner et al. , Astrophys. J. 862, 79 (2018), arXiv:1711.05127 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Ploeg, The galactic millisecond pulsar population : im- plications for the Galactic Center Excess., Ph.D

    H. Ploeg, The galactic millisecond pulsar population : im- plications for the Galactic Center Excess., Ph.D. thesis, Canterbury U. (2021), arXiv:2109.08439 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Calore, T

    F. Calore, T. Regimbau, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 081103 (2019), arXiv:1812.05094 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. L. Miller and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 081401 (2023), arXiv:2301.10239 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Carleo and B

    A. Carleo and B. Ben-Salem, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124027 (2023), arXiv:2305.08274 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bartel and S

    K. Bartel and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123036 (2024), arXiv:2409.12271 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hooper and T

    D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123005 (2011), arXiv:1110.0006 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gordon and O

    C. Gordon and O. Macias, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083521 6 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 049901 (2014)], arXiv:1306.5725 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Daylan, D

    T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Dark Univ. 12, 1 (2016), arXiv:1402.6703 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ghiglieri and M

    J. Ghiglieri and M. Laine, JCAP 07, 022 (2015), arXiv:1504.02569 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Giovannini, Prog

    M. Giovannini, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112, 103774 (2020), arXiv:1912.07065 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ghiglieri, G

    J. Ghiglieri, G. Jackson, M. Laine, and Y. Zhu, JHEP 07, 092 (2020), arXiv:2004.11392 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cabral and F

    F. Cabral and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 237 (2017), arXiv:1603.08157 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Garg and I

    D. Garg and I. Y. Dodin, JCAP 08, 017 (2022), arXiv:2204.09095 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Garg and I

    D. Garg and I. Y. Dodin, JCAP 02, 045 (2024), arXiv:2307.05844 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Garcia-Cely and A

    C. Garcia-Cely and A. Ringwald, (2024), arXiv:2407.18297 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. I. McDonald and S. A. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103003 (2024), arXiv:2406.18634 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. E. Gertsenshtein, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 41, 113 (1961)

    1961

  18. [26]

    Arvanitaki and A

    A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 071105 (2013), arXiv:1207.5320 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    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), arXiv:2010.13157 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Carney, G

    D. Carney, G. Higgins, G. Marocco, and M. Wentzel, (2024), arXiv:2408.01583 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Goryachev and M

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D 90, 102005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 129901 (2023)], arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096023 (2024), arXiv:2311.17147 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084058 (2023), arXiv:2303.01518 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Schnabel and M

    R. Schnabel and M. Korobko, (2024), arXiv:2409.03019 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ballantini, P

    R. Ballantini, P. Bernard, E. Chiaveri, A. Chincarini, G. Gemme, R. Losito, R. Parodi, and E. Picasso, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 3505 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    J. Q. Quach, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104048 (2016), arXiv:1605.08316 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. Ito, T. Ikeda, K. Miuchi, and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 179 (2020), arXiv:1903.04843 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Domcke, C

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 041101 (2022), arXiv:2202.00695 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bringmann, V

    T. Bringmann, V. Domcke, E. Fuchs, and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D 108, L061303 (2023), arXiv:2304.10579 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Domcke, C

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, S. M. Lee, and N. L. Rodd, JHEP 03, 128 (2024), arXiv:2306.03125 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Navarro, B

    P. Navarro, B. Gimeno, J. Monz´ o-Cabrera, A. D ´ ıaz- Morcillo, and D. Blas, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104048 (2024), arXiv:2312.02270 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ahn, Y.-B

    D. Ahn, Y.-B. Bae, S. H. Im, and C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064061 (2024), arXiv:2312.09550 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gatti, L

    C. Gatti, L. Visinelli, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023018 (2024), arXiv:2403.18610 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Fischer et al., Class

    L. Fischer et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 115015 (2025), arXiv:2411.18346 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Domcke, S

    V. Domcke, S. A. R. Ellis, and J. Kopp, (2024), arXiv:2409.06462 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Capdevilla, G

    R. Capdevilla, G. B. Gelmini, J. Hyman, A. J. Millar, and E. Vitagliano, (2024), arXiv:2412.14450 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ejlli, D

    A. Ejlli, D. Ejlli, A. M. Cruise, G. Pisano, and H. Grote, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1032 (2019), arXiv:1908.00232 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Capdevilla, R

    R. Capdevilla, R. Harnik, T. Kim, and T. Krokotsch, (2025), arXiv:2505.21628 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Krokotsch and G

    T. Krokotsch and G. Moortgat-Pick, PoS ICHEP2024, 686 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    K. M. W. Pappas et al., (2025), arXiv:2505.02821 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fischer, T

    L. Fischer, T. Krokotsch, and G. Moortgat-Pick, (2025), arXiv:2506.20198 [gr-qc]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Iacopini, E

    E. Iacopini, E. Picasso, F. Pegoraro, and L. Radicati, Physics Letters A 73, 140 (1979)

    1979

  44. [52]

    A. M. Cruise, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 204, 485 (1983), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/204/2/485/18521706/mnras204-0485.pdf

    1983

  45. [53]

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

    2000

  46. [54]

    A. D. Dolgov and D. Ejlli, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024028 (2011), arXiv:1105.2303 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Maharana, and F. Muia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103520 (2022), arXiv:2205.02153 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and A. Urbano, JCAP 10, 001 (2016), arXiv:1605.01209 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Landini and A

    G. Landini and A. Strumia, (2025), arXiv:2501.09794 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Kamada, and Y. Nakai, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103501 (2020), arXiv:2002.07548 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Servant and P

    G. Servant and P. Simakachorn, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103538 (2024), arXiv:2312.09281 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    B. Fu, A. Ghoshal, S. F. King, and M. H. Rahat, JHEP 08, 237 (2024), arXiv:2404.16931 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    P. C. M. Delgado, A. Ganz, C. Lin, and R. Th´ eriault, (2025), arXiv:2501.01910 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. A. G. Garcia and M. Pierre, JCAP 09, 054 (2024), arXiv:2404.16932 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Saha and Y

    P. Saha and Y. Urakawa, (2024), arXiv:2412.17359 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063511 (2010), arXiv:1007.1218 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Schwaller, Phys

    P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 181101 (2015), arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kobakhidze, C

    A. Kobakhidze, C. Lagger, A. Manning, and J. Yue, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 570 (2017), arXiv:1703.06552 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Roshan and G

    R. Roshan and G. White, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015001 (2025), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    W.-Z. Feng, J. Li, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015020 (2024), arXiv:2403.09558 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4168 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811437

    1999 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002127. 7

    2000 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043506 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403291

    2004 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Yoshino and H

    H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, PTEP 2014, 043E02 (2014), arXiv:1312.2326 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Abramowicz et al., Eur

    H. Abramowicz et al., Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 2445 (2021), arXiv:2102.02032 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (LUXE), Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, 1709 (2024), arXiv:2308.00515 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Meloni, Private Communication (2025)

    F. Meloni, Private Communication (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    Eviatar and M

    A. Eviatar and M. Schulz, Planetary and Space Science 18, 321 (1970)

    1970

  73. [81]

    L. B. W. III, M. L. Stevens, J. C. Kasper, K. G. Klein, B. A. Maruca, S. D. Bale, T. A. Bowen, M. P. Pulupa, and C. S. Salem, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08585 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    I. Mann, A. Czechowski, N. Meyer-Vernet, A. Zaslavsky, and H. Lamy, arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.1742 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998) Chap. 14

    1998

  76. [84]

    V. B. Verma et al., APL Photon. 6, 056101 (2021), arXiv:2012.09979 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    E. E. Wollman, V. B. Verma, A. D. Beyer, R. M. Briggs, B. Korzh, J. P. Allmaras, F. Marsili, A. E. Lita, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, and M. D. Shaw, Opt. Express 25, 26792 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    S. K. Lamoreaux, K. A. van Bibber, K. W. Lehnert, and G. Carosi, Phys. Rev. D 88, 035020 (2013)

    2013

  79. [87]

    Guoqing, X

    Z. Guoqing, X. Jun, C. Xingda, Z. Heyu, W. Siting, X. Ke, D. Peizhen, and G. Fuxi, Journal of Crystal Growth 191, 517 (1998)

    1998

  80. [88]

    Ghosh, Optics Communications 163, 95 (1999)

    G. Ghosh, Optics Communications 163, 95 (1999)

    1999

  81. [89]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Zhang, W. Jin, S. Han, Z. Yang, and S. Pan, Light: Science & Applications11, 252 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    Sakakura, Y

    M. Sakakura, Y. Lei, L. Wang, Y.-H. Yu, and P. G. Kazansky, Light: Science & Applications 9, 15 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Y. Lei, G. Shayeganrad, H. Wang, M. Sakakura, Y. Yu, L. Wang, D. Kliukin, L. Skuja, Y. Svirko, and P. G. Kazansky, Light: Science & Applications 12, 74 (2023)

    2023

  84. [92]

    Sakakura, Private Communication (2025)

    M. Sakakura, Private Communication (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.