Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Mysterious Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-1) as profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the star-like flashes that appear once in the first Palomar Sky Survey are sub-second spallation flashes of dark-matter axion quark nuggets moving through Earth's atmosphere.

desk verdict Speculative but coherent: argues VASCO transients are AQN spallation flashes, with qualitative appeal but a rate 'consistency' that is largely built in rather than tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10061 v1 pith:FLJZR34Z submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.EPphysics.ao-ph

Ariel Zhitnitsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.EPphysics.ao-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords axionquarknuggetsdarkmatterMysteriousTransientsPalomarSkySurveyspallationballlightningnucleartestcorrelationunidentifiedanomalousphenomena
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 proposes that the star-like objects recorded once and never again on the first Palomar Sky Survey—called Mysterious Transients—are not new astrophysical sources but brief flashes from dark matter in the form of axion quark nuggets. The underlying mechanism is spallation: when a nugget passes through a highly ionized region of the atmosphere, it can shed a small secondary fragment, and the instantaneous release of the phase-energy difference looks like a point-source flash on a photographic plate. With parameters fixed by earlier applications to the Galactic UV excess and ball lightning (parent baryon charge around $10^{25}$, secondary around $10^{15}$), the paper argues that this one framework explains all five observed features: sub-second duration, sharp circular images, aligned multiple events on a single exposure, correlation with nuclear-test days, and correlation with UAP reports. If correct, the proposal converts a puzzling set of archival anomalies into a new observable signature of dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the axion quark nugget (AQN): a nuclear-density composite of standard-model quarks or antiquarks and gluons, stabilized by an axion domain wall, with typical baryon charge $\langle B\rangle\approx 10^{25}$ and mass $\approx 16$ g. The mechanism carrying the argument is spallation triggered by an ionization bootstrap: a highly charged environment increases the nugget's charge and temperature until a fragment with $B\approx 10^{15}$ separates, and the sudden release of the phase-energy difference is the flash. The identity that links the model to the plates is that the observed visible size of the flash is the mean free path of the emitted X-rays in air ($\approx 10$ cm to meters depending on photon energy and altitude), not the microscopic nugget core; this is what makes MT images sharper and more circular than stellar images. The rate estimate then ties the dark-matter flux normalization of Eq. (2) to the 83 aligned MT events through the ionization-sensitive fraction $F_{\rm MT}$ of Eq. (16).

What would settle it

A day-by-day reanalysis of all plates around nuclear-test dates could settle it: the mechanism predicts a sharp rise in transient clusters on the test day and the day after, followed by a decay over the few-day lifetime of fission-product ionization; no excess in that two-day window, or an excess before the test, would break the correlation that sets the rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Proposal (11): spallation of an axion quark nugget—a short-lasting flash—is identical to a Mysterious Transient event. The paper asserts that an AQN normally crosses the atmosphere radiating mostly in X-rays, but in sufficiently ionized air a bootstrap avalanche raises its internal temperature and electric charge until a small secondary chunk with baryon charge of order $10^{15}$ detaches. The energy difference between the quark-matter and nuclear phases, of order 100–1000 J, is released in under a microsecond, and the optical photons recorded on the plates come from a chain beginning with X-ray absorption in air. The visible size is set by the X-ray mean free path, roughly 10 cm at 10 km altitude, which is why the images appear sharp, circular, and only slightly elongated at the few-arcsecond level. The paper further argues that one parent nugget can spall repeatedly along its trajectory, producing the observed aligned clusters, and that ionization from nuclear-test fission products explains why MT events cluster on the day of and the day after tests. The rate estimate built on the dark-matter flux then gives an order-of-magnitude match to the 83 aligned MT events catalogued from the plates.

Load-bearing premise

The rate calculation assumes that a passing dark-matter nugget produces a visible flash in roughly 9 percent of the relevant days, with that percentage set by the pattern of nuclear-test days; if test-induced ionization does not actually control the flash probability at that level, the agreement with the 83 observed events is not a genuine prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the proposal is correct, ball lightning and the Palomar transients are different stages of the same object: the spallation flash is the transient, and the slowed secondary fragment reaching the ground is the ball lightning.
  • The nuclear-test correlation becomes physically meaningful: tests ionize the lower atmosphere for hours to days through beta-decaying fission products, so the model predicts an excess of MT clusters on the test day and the day after, and none before—a directional signature that can be checked day by day.
  • Multiple transients on one plate should be treated as clusters from a single parent nugget; their statistics are non-Poissonian, and the correct comparison to theory is the cluster rate, not the individual-event rate.
  • Because most of the flash energy is carried away by X-rays, axions and heat (only about $10^{-5}$ appears as optical light), the model predicts that MT clusters are accompanied by brief X-ray/UV and acoustic signals detectable with modern instruments.
  • The same flux normalization used in the paper has already been applied in prior work to several other unexplained atmospheric and cosmic-ray events, so confirmation of the MT interpretation would make those previously separate puzzles manifestations of one dark-matter population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Palomar plates preserve a decades-old record, a decisive extension would be to scan other archival plate collections for aligned clusters: the model predicts they should appear wherever a long-exposure survey overlaps a period of nuclear testing.
  • A sharper test of the rate argument would replace the day-counting fraction with a physical model of spallation probability as a function of measured fission-product ionization density, turning the rate estimate from a consistency check into an ab initio prediction.
  • If aligned clusters trace the straight trajectory of the parent nugget, the spread of a multi-flash cluster encodes the nugget's velocity at the roughly 200 km/s scale; measuring that spread from the plates could provide a new, independent probe of the local dark-matter velocity distribution.
  • The model implies that a future real-time MT cluster detection should show simultaneous X-ray/UV and infrasound signatures; an instrument suite combining an all-sky camera with distributed acoustic sensing could test the association directly.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the 'Mysterious Transients' (MT) identified in the POSS-1 plates by the VASCO project are produced by spallation of axion quark nuggets (AQNs) as they cross the Earth's atmosphere. The central proposal, Eq. (11), identifies the spallation flash with the MT itself, making MT a cousin of ball lightning. The paper reviews the AQN framework, explains the observed short duration and circular profiles via X-ray mean free paths, interprets aligned multiple transients as repeated spallation events along one parent AQN trajectory, attributes the nuclear-test correlation to test-induced atmospheric ionization, and estimates the MT cluster rate in Eq. (16). It closes with observational tests involving infrasound/DAS, all-sky cameras, and LHC 'UFO' events.

Significance. If the proposal were substantiated, it would unify MT, ball lightning, pseudo-meteorites, skyquakes, and several other anomalous events under a single dark-matter model with parameters fixed by earlier applications. The proposal has the virtue of being falsifiable: the suggested infrasound, all-sky-camera, and LHC-correlation tests are concrete, and the model connects independent observation classes. However, the quantitative support in the manuscript is at the order-of-magnitude level, and, as detailed below, the principal rate consistency check is partly calibrated by the very correlation it is meant to explain. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code; its contribution is a physical hypothesis with preliminary consistency estimates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (16)] The rate estimate is not an independent consistency test. The suppression factor F_MT is set to 2*124/2718 ≈ 0.092, which is the duty cycle of nuclear-test days (test day plus the day after) extracted from the very correlation the paper is trying to explain. Inserting this factor into Eq. (16) assumes that spallation occurs on every such day, with no calculation of the spallation probability as a function of the ionization level produced by the tests. The agreement with 83 cluster events from [7] is therefore an arithmetic consequence of choosing the test-day window and the area, rather than a prediction of the AQN flux. Moreover, the paper itself cautions in §III.E that assuming 100% spallation efficiency is likely an overestimate in the thunderstorm case; applying the same caution to Eq. (16) would substantially reduce the predicted number and could turn the claimed consistency into a mismatch.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (15)] The effective radius r=30 km in Eq. (15) is a free scale, and N_AQN scales as r^2. For r=10 km the predicted number of clusters under the same F_MT is roughly 9, while for r=60 km it is roughly 300; the claimed '80' sits at the center of this range only by construction. No physical derivation of r from the spallation altitude (10-30 km) or from the lateral extent of the ionized region is given, so the rate comparison does not yet constrain the model.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (12)] The energy budget for the flash is inherited rather than derived. Eq. (12) uses B_AQNs ≈ 10^15, which was itself extracted from the ball-lightning energy estimate in [1], and assumes ΔE = (1-10) MeV per baryon between the quark and nuclear phases. The optical fraction 10^-5 or less in Eq. (13) is likewise an assumption, not the result of a radiative-transfer calculation. These choices do not invalidate the proposal, but they mean the claimed consistency with the observed optical luminosities is a parameter-dependent estimate, not a parameter-free prediction.
  4. [Sec. IV D and Footnote 2] The causal chain for the nuclear-test correlation is only qualitative. The manuscript asserts that fission products ionize the atmosphere for hours to days and that this high ionization triggers spallation, but it does not estimate the ionization density at 10-30 km altitude after a test or compare it with the threshold required for the bootstrap mechanism described in §II.v. In addition, Footnote 2 acknowledges that the VASCO analyses [3,7,10] have been disputed by [37]; since Eq. (16) is compared with the 83 events from [7], the sensitivity of the benchmark to this dispute should be addressed before the rate consistency can be taken as established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and abstract] The abstract and running text alternate between 'VASCO' and 'V ASCO'; please standardize the spelling.
  2. [Eq. (16)] In Eq. (16), 'forF MT' should read 'for F_MT'.
  3. [Eqs. (2) and (10)] The units in Eq. (2), 'events/yr·km2', would be clearer as events yr^{-1} km^{-2}; likewise for Eq. (10).
  4. [Sec. IV B] Section IV.B states that FWHM values of 2.8-8 arcsec are 'consistent' with a 10 cm scale observed from 10-30 km, but the conversion is not shown; a sentence connecting the angular scale to the physical size would help the reader.
  5. [Reference [19]] Reference [19] is missing its journal/volume/page information in the bibliography.
  6. [Notation] The notation 'AQN s' (with a space) appears in several places; 'AQN_s' or 'secondary AQN' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

MT rate 'consistency' is calibrated by the nuclear-test duty cycle and a chosen radius, so Eq. (16) is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eq. (16) and preceding paragraph]
    "We introduce similar suppression factor F_MT for MT events which can be estimated from the argument that MT events strongly correlate with nuclear testing as discussed in Sect. IV D. ... N_MT ∼(N_AQN · F_MT)∼80 events ... for F_MT ∼ 2·124/2718 ≈0.092"

    The rate 'consistency' with 83 MT clusters is constructed as N_AQN (Eq. 15) multiplied by F_MT, and F_MT is set to the duty cycle of nuclear-test days plus the following day, taken from the very nuclear-test correlation (item 4) that the paper claims to explain. No independent calculation of the spallation probability from the bootstrap ionization mechanism is provided; setting F_MT to the test-day duty cycle assumes 100% spallation on those days and 0% otherwise. Since the effective radius r=30 km in Eq. (15) is also a freely chosen scale, the resulting ~80 events is an arithmetic consequence of flux × test-day duty cycle × chosen area, not a prediction that could falsify the proposal. The count agreement therefore partially reduces to the input correlation rather than testing it.

full rationale

The central identification (11) of AQN spallation with Mysterious Transients is a substantive, testable proposal, and most qualitative arguments (short flash duration, sharp circular images, alignment via repeated spallation from one parent AQN, UAP connection) do not reduce to the observations by construction. The AQN flux normalization (2) uses ⟨B⟩≈10^25 fixed by earlier UV-excess work, which is an independent external anchor. The main circular weakness is the quantitative rate estimate: Eq. (16) is not a prediction of the total MT count from the AQN flux alone; it inserts F_MT equal to the nuclear-test-day duty cycle (2×124/2718), i.e., the temporal correlation the paper is trying to explain, together with a selected radius r=30 km. The claimed agreement with 83 events is therefore an input-calibrated consistency rather than a derived prediction. The self-citation of B_AQNs≈10^15 from the author's prior ball-lightning paper [1] is load-bearing for the flash-energy estimate (12), but that value is anchored to observed BL energies, so it is not a fully circular reduction. Overall, partial circularity in the rate argument warrants a score of 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of model assumptions and fitted quantities. The most load-bearing are the existence of AQN dark matter, the spallation mechanism, the fragment baryon charge taken from prior ball-lightning work, and the F_MT factor taken from the nuclear-test correlation. These inputs are not independently derived in this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • parent AQN baryon charge <B> = 10^25
    Used in the flux formula (2) and the MT rate estimates (15)-(16); fixed in prior AQN work by matching the galactic UV excess [19], not independently measured.
  • secondary spallation baryon charge B_AQNs = 10^15
    Extracted from ball-lightning energy estimates in [1] and used to set the total MT flash energy in Eq. (12).
  • phase energy difference Delta E per baryon = 1-10 MeV
    Assumed to be a typical nuclear-physics scale in Eq. (12); no first-principles computation is provided.
  • spallation fraction F_MT = 0.092 (computed as 2*124/2718)
    Set by the number of nuclear-test days in Eq. (16) and used to convert AQN flux into a predicted MT cluster rate; this is a post-hoc choice tied to the target observation.
  • optical energy fraction = about 10^-5
    Assumed fraction of spallation energy emitted in optical bands in Eq. (13); used to relate observed luminosity to total flash energy.
  • effective spallation radius r = 30 km
    Order-of-magnitude choice for the area entering the MT event-rate estimate in Eq. (15).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AQN model is the correct dark matter candidate, with the Universe's dark matter composed of macroscopic quark and antiquark nuggets produced by charge-separation baryogenesis.
    This is the core framework adopted from prior work [16-18]; it is not established by this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Antimatter AQNs propagating in Earth's atmosphere can undergo spallation into smaller fragments with B about 10^15 when atmospheric ionization is high.
    The bootstrap and spallation mechanism is taken from [1] and is the physical trigger for identifying MT flashes; no detailed calculation is given here.
  • domain assumption The VASCO MT detections, including aligned multiple transients and the nuclear-test and UAP correlations, are genuine astrophysical phenomena rather than plate artifacts.
    The paper relies on [2-8,10,11] and, in footnote 2, declines to engage the published critique [37].
  • standard math The local dark matter density and velocity distribution follow the Standard Halo Model used in Eq. (2).
    Standard assumption imported from the dark matter literature for the flux normalization.
invented entities (1)
  • secondary AQN_s spallation fragments
    purpose: Identified as the source of the MT optical flash and, after slowing, of ball lightning and pseudo-meteorite events.
    No direct detection exists; the baryon charge is inferred from the assumed ball-lightning energy budget in [1], and the proposed tests are future.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mysterious Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-1) as profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLJZR34Z

@misc{pith2026260810061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mysterious Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-1) as profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLJZR34Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10061}
}
read the original abstract

Transient star-like objects of unknown origin have been identified in the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-1) as part of the Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations (VASCO) project. The source of the transients recorded by POSS-1 remains unknown, which is the warrant to coin the observed phenomena as Mysterious Transients (MT). We advocate an idea that the dark matter (DM) in form of the axion quark nuggets (AQN) made of standard model quarks (or antiquarks) and gluons, similar to the old idea of the Witten's strangelets, could {\it simultaneously} explain {\it all } the observed MT signals (including very short time scale for flash itself, association with nuclear test timing, observed alignments of several MT events, correlation with UAP reports, etc) collected or recorded for many years. Essentially we argue that the MT is a cousin of Ball Lightning (BL) events, also observed for centuries, without commonly accepted physics explanation. The basic parameters of this model (such as the typical baryon charge of the nuggets) had been fixed long ago by explaining the observed excess of radiation at variety of scales: from galactic to the solar, to local Earth's environments. In this work we use the same framework with the same set of parameters to study the observed MT phenomena. We also suggest several tests which substantiate or refute our proposal. We also present some suggestions on type of instruments required to study this specific (and well defined) type of the UAP events representing the cousins of BL and MT events in the AQN framework.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    K. D. Stephan, R. Krajcik, and R. J. Martin, Fluorescence caused by ionizing radiation from ball lightning: Observation and quantitative analysis, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics148, 32 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [7]

    Exploring nine simultaneously occurring transients on April 12th 1950

    B. Villarroel, G. W. Marcy, S. Geier, A. Streblyanska, E. S. Marquez, V. N. Andruk, M. E. Shultz, A. C. Gupta, and L. Mattsson, Exploring nine simultaneously occurring transients on April 12th 1950, Sci. Rep.11, 12794 (2021), arXiv:2106.11780 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    theoretical expectations From AQN perspective the secondary AQNs when it propagates in atmosphere could be classified as a specific class of the UAP events. If the secondary AQN s has sufficiently small baryon charge (mass) of orderB AQNs <∼ 1015 it could stop before reaching the ground as a result of friction and annihilation processes along its path. Th...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Green Fireballs and Project Twinkle

    some observations We start by quoting several paragraphs from Section 3.3.5 of [43] titled “Green Fireballs and Project Twinkle”, with description of observations which closely resemble the manifestations of the AQN s events as given in previous Sect.IV E 1. In late November of 1948 a number of green fireballs had been reported, see large number of refere...

    work page 1948

  5. [3]

    terrifying

    theoretical prediction confronts the observations We now compare the theoretical expectations as presented in section IV E 1 with small sample of observed events recorded by professionals as briefly described in section IV E 2. Our conclusion is that we find full qualitative con- sistency between theory and observations. Indeed, the observed size of the o...

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    The Vanishing & Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations project: I. USNO objects missing in modern sky surveys and follow-up observations of a "missing star"

    B. Villarroelet al., The Vanishing\& Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations project: I. USNO objects missing in modern sky surveys and follow-up observations of a ”missing star”, Astron. J.159, 8 (2020), arXiv:1911.05068 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    baryogenesis

    in Sect. I A can be naturally explained within AQN framework. In Sect. V we estimate the MT event rate and find it is consistent with observations. In Sect. VI A we briefly mention on possible relation of the MT events with their other cousins (in addition to BL events mentioned earlier) such as well recorded pseudo-meteorites events and sky-quakes, which...

    work page 2008

  8. [6]

    Ball Lightning as a profound manifestation of the Dark Matter physics

    A. Zhitnitsky, Ball Lightning as a Profound Manifestation of Dark Matter Physics, Universe11, 284 (2025), arXiv:2502.02653 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Solano, B

    E. Solano, B. Villarroel, and C. Rodrigo, Discovering vanishing objects in POSS I red images using the Virtual Observatory, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.515, 1380 (2022), arXiv:2206.00907 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Villarroelet al., Launching the V ASCO Citizen Science Project, Universe8, 561 (2022), arXiv:2009.10813 [astro-ph.IM]

    B. Villarroelet al., Launching the V ASCO Citizen Science Project, Universe8, 561 (2022), arXiv:2009.10813 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Solano, G

    E. Solano, G. W. Marcy, B. Villarroel, S. Geier, A. Streblyanska, G. Lombardi, R. E. B¨ ar, and V. N. Andruk, A bright triple transient that vanished within 50 min, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.527, 6312 (2024), arXiv:2310.09035 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Villarroel, E

    B. Villarroel, E. Solano, H. Guergouri, A. Streblyanska, S. Bruehl, V. M. Andruk, L. Mattsson, R. E. B¨ ar, J. Mimouni, S. Geier, A. C. Gupta, V. Okororie, K. Laggoune, M. E. Shultz, and R. A. Freitas, Aligned, multiple-transient events in the first palomar sky survey, Publica...

    2025

  5. [12]

    Villarroel, E

    B. Villarroel, E. Solano, and G. W. Marcy, On the Image Profiles of Transients in the Palomar Sky Survey, (2025), arXiv:2507.15896 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Busko, Searching for Fast Astronomical Transients in Archival Photographic Plates, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.20407 (2026), arXiv:2603.20407 [astro-ph.IM]

    I. Busko, Searching for Fast Astronomical Transients in Archival Photographic Plates, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.20407 (2026), arXiv:2603.20407 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bruehl and B

    S. Bruehl and B. Villarroel, Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) may be associated with nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena, Sci. Rep.15, 34125 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    B. Doherty, Independent Replication of Nuclear Test-Transient Correlations and Earth Shadow Deficit in POSS-I Photo- graphic Plates, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.00056 (2026), arXiv:2604.00056 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026

  9. [16]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984). 16

    1984

  11. [18]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Strange matter, Phys. Rev. D30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  12. [19]

    De Rujula and S

    A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nuclearites - A novel form of cosmic radiation, Nature (London)312, 734 (1984)

    1984

  13. [20]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, ‘Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as baryonic colour superconductor, JCAP10, 010 (2003), hep-ph/0202161

    2003 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets

    A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36, 2130017 (2021), arXiv:2105.08719 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Van Waerbeke, QCD-driven dark matter: AQNs formation and observational tests, inLes Houches Summer School 2025: The Dark Universe(2026) arXiv:2603.15585 [hep-ph]

    L. Van Waerbeke, QCD-driven dark matter: AQNs formation and observational tests, inLes Houches Summer School 2025: The Dark Universe(2026) arXiv:2603.15585 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Sekatchev, X

    M. Sekatchev, X. Liang, F. Majidi, B. Scully, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, The glow of Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter. Part III. The mysteries of the Milky Way UV background, JCAP03, 010, arXiv:2504.15382 [astro-ph.CO]

  17. [24]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Axion field and the quark nugget’s formation at the QCD phase transition, Phys. Rev. D94, 083502 (2016), arXiv:1606.00435 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological C P -odd axion field as the coherent Berry’s phase of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D96, 063514 (2017), arXiv:1702.04354 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological axion and a quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Rev. D97, 043008 (2018), arXiv:1711.06271 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nugget dark matter model: Size distribution and survival pattern, Phys. Rev. D99, 116017 (2019), arXiv:1903.05090 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Lawson, X

    K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Gravitationally trapped axions on the Earth, Phys. Rev. D100, 043531 (2019), arXiv:1905.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Budker, V

    D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Zhitnitsky, Infrasonic, acoustic and seismic waves produced by the Axion Quark Nuggets, Symmetry14, 459 (2022), arXiv:2003.07363 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Boerner, Ball lightning, inBall Lightning(Springer Cham, 2019) pp

    H. Boerner, Ball lightning, inBall Lightning(Springer Cham, 2019) pp. 1–205

    2019

  24. [31]

    Smirnov, Physics of ball lightning, Physics Reports224, 151 (1993)

    B. Smirnov, Physics of ball lightning, Physics Reports224, 151 (1993)

    1993

  25. [32]

    M. L. Shmatov and K. D. Stephan, Advances in ball lightning research, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics195, 105115 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Ball lightning, bead lightning, and other unusual discharges, inLightning: Physics and Effects(Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 656?674

    2003

  27. [34]

    A. G. Keul, A brief history of ball lightning observations by scientists and trained professionals, History of Geo- and Space Sciences12, 43 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    K. D. Stephan, Could Ball Lightning Be Magnetic Monopoles?, (2024), arXiv:2408.10289 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J. P. Ralston, Is Ball Lightning a Signal of Magnetic Monopoles?, (2024), arXiv:2411.00240 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    V. L. Bychkov, A. I. Nikitin, I. P. Ivanenko, T. F. Nikitina, A. M. Velichko, and I. A. Nosikov, Ball lightning passage through a glass without breaking it, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics150-151, 69 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Gurevich and K

    A. Gurevich and K. Zybin, High energy cosmic ray particles and the most powerful new type discharges in thunderstorm atmosphere, Phys. Lett. A329, 341 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0403050

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K. D. Stephan, R. Sonnenfeld, and A. G. Keul, First comparisons of ball-lightning report website data with lightning- location-network data, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics240, 105953 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Andr´ es Watters, L

    W. Andr´ es Watters, L. Domin´ e, S. Little, C. Pratt, K. H. Knuth, and M. Szenher, Critical Evaluation of Studies Al- leging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.21946 (2026), arXiv:2601.21946 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Villarroel, A

    B. Villarroel, A. Streblyanska, S. Bruehl, and S. Geier, A Response to paper Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates by Watters et al. (2026), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2602.15171 (2026), arXiv:2602.15171 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bruehl, B

    S. Bruehl, B. Doherty, A. Streblyanska, and B. Villarroel, Machine Learning Supports Existence of Previously Unrec- ognized Transient Astronomical Phenomena in Historical Observatory Images, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.18799 (2026), arXiv:2604.18799 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. V. Gurevich and K. P. Zybin, Runaway breakdown and electric discharges in thunderstorms, Physics-Uspekhi44, 1119 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Glasstone,The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1962)

    S. Glasstone,The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1962)

    1962

  38. [46]

    Glasstone and P

    S. Glasstone and P. J. Dolan,The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Third edition, Tech. Rep. (Department of Defense, Wash- ington, D.C. (USA); Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. (USA), 1977)

    1977

  39. [47]

    K. H. Knuth, P. Ailleris, H. A. Agrama, E. Ansbro, T. Cai, T. Canuti, M. C. Cifone, W. B. C. Jr., F. Courtade, R. Dolan, L. Domine, L. Dini, B. Friscourt, R. Graves, R. F. Haines, R. Hoffman, H. Kayal, S. Little, G. P. Nolan, R. Powell, M. Rodeghier, E. Russo, P. Skafish, E. S...

    2025

  40. [48]

    W. A. Watters, A. Loeb, F. Laukien, R. Cloete, A. Delacroix, S. Dobroshinsky, B. Horvath, E. Kelderman, S. Little, E. Masson, A. Mead, M. Randall, F. Schultz, M. Szenher, F. Vervelidou, A. White, A. Ahlstr¨ om, C. Cleland, S. Dockal, N. Donahue, M. Elowitz, C. Ezell, A. Gerszn...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Szydagis, K

    M. Szydagis, K. H. Knuth, B. W. Kugielsky, and C. Levy, Initial Results From the First Field Expedition of UAPx to Study Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena 10.1016/j.paerosci.2025.101099 (2024), arXiv:2312.00558 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  42. [50]

    Ol’khovatov, Some comments on events associated with falling terrestrial rocks and iron from the sky, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2012.00686 (2020), arXiv:2012.00686 [physics.geo-ph]

    A. Ol’khovatov, Some comments on events associated with falling terrestrial rocks and iron from the sky, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2012.00686 (2020), arXiv:2012.00686 [physics.geo-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Telescope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Telescope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J. Phys. G48, 065201 (2021), arXiv:2008.04325 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Telescope Array Bursts, Radio Pulses and Axion Quark Nuggets, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 249 (2022), arXiv:2101.01722 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and axion quark nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and axion quark nuggets, J. Phys. G49, 105201 (2022), arXiv:2203.08160 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, ANITA anomalous events and axion quark nuggets, Phys. Rev. D106, 063022 (2022), arXiv:2105.01668 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Skyquake-wikipedia (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Interview with kmvt chief meteorologist brian neudorff (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Nasa comments on alabama skyquake (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Non-meteoric event detected by elfo (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array Project), The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array Project), The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys. Lett. A381, 2565 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high energy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1181, 012067 (2019)

    T. Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high energy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1181, 012067 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoS ICRC2021, 395 (2021)

    P. Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoS ICRC2021, 395 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    R. Colalillo, The observation of lightning-related events with the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 197 (2019) p. 03003

    2019

  55. [63]

    Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoS ICRC2017, 314 (2017)

    R. Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoS ICRC2017, 314 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA), Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1603.05218 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA), Observation of an Unusual Upward-going Cosmic-ray-like Event in the Third Flight of ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161102 (2018), arXiv:1803.05088 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zioutas, A

    K. Zioutas, A. Argiriou, H. Fischer, S. Hofmann, M. Maroudas, A. Pappa, and Y. Semertzidis, Stratospheric temperature anomalies as imprints from the dark universe, Physics of the Dark Universe28, 100497 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Argiriouet al., Novel Dark Matter Signatures (2025) arXiv:2501.15498 [astro-ph.EP]

    A. Argiriouet al., Novel Dark Matter Signatures (2025) arXiv:2501.15498 [astro-ph.EP]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Zioutaset al., Evidence for a month-scale ionospheric precursor to large earthquakes as an outcome of dark matter research, Discover Space130, 13 (2026)

    K. Zioutaset al., Evidence for a month-scale ionospheric precursor to large earthquakes as an outcome of dark matter research, Discover Space130, 13 (2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    Zhitnitsky and M

    A. Zhitnitsky and M. Maroudas, Mysterious anomalies in Earth’s atmosphere and strongly interacting Dark Matter, Symmetry17, 79 (2025), arXiv:2405.04635 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. Cen, P. Yuan, and S. Xue, Observation of the optical and spectral characteristics of ball lightning, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 035001 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Unidentified falling objects in the LHC as dark matter signals, Phys. Rev. D114, 036001 (2026), arXiv:2602.10562 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  64. [72]

    T. Baer, M. Barnes, B. Goddard, E. B. Holzer, J. M. Jimenez, V. Lechner, V. Mertens, E. Nebot Del Busto, A. Nordt, J. Uythoven, B. Velghe, J. Wenninger, and F. Zimmermann,UFOs in the LHC, Tech. Rep. (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    T. Baer, M. J. Barnes, E. Carlier, F. Cerutti, B. Dehning, L. Ducimetiere, A. Ferrari, N. Garrel, A. Gerardin, B. Goddard, E. B. Holzer, S. Jackson, J. M. Jimenez, V. Kain, A. Lechner, V. Mertens, M. Misiowiec, R. Moron Ballester, E. Nebot del Busto, L. Norderhaug Drosdal, A. ...

    2012

  66. [74]

    Baer,Very Fast Losses of the Circulating LHC Beam, their Mitigation and Machine Protection, Ph.D

    T. Baer,Very Fast Losses of the Circulating LHC Beam, their Mitigation and Machine Protection, Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg University (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    P. Belanger,Unidentified falling objects in the large hadron collider: formation, charging mechanisms and dynamics of dust particulates in a high energy proton accelerator, Msc thesis, University of British Columbia (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Lechner, B

    A. Lechner, B. Lindstrom, C. Wiesner, D. Wollmann, G. Iadarola, M. Barnes, P. Belanger, R. Schmidt, and V. Rodin, Dust-induced beam losses in the Large Hadron Collider, JACoWIP AC2024, MOPC10 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.