B-mode Power Spectrum of CMB via Polarized Compton Scattering

Ali Vahedi; Jafar Khodagholizadeh; Mahdi Sadegh; Rohoollah Mohammadi

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

B-mode Power Spectrum of CMB via Polarized Compton Scattering

T0 review · 3 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 Polarized cosmic electrons can generate B-mode CMB polarization from scalar perturbations, overturning the standard rule that scalars make only E-modes.

desk verdict Novel mechanism for B-modes from polarized Compton scattering, but the power-spectrum calculation linearizes a second-order source, so the headline amplitudes and thresholds are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00568 v3 pith:IQAUCN3X submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th

Jafar Khodagholizadeh , Rohoollah Mohammadi , Mahdi Sadegh , Ali Vahedi This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th PACS 13.15.+g98.80.Es98.70.Vc

keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundB-modepolarizationpolarizedComptonscatteringelectronchiralityasymmetrytensor-to-scalarratioscalarperturbationsprimordialmagneticfieldCMB

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

In standard cosmology, scalar density perturbations cannot produce the curl pattern (B-mode) in CMB polarization: ordinary Compton scattering of scalar perturbations yields only E-modes. This paper argues that once a small left-right asymmetry in the cosmic electron population is included, polarized Compton scattering converts scalar perturbations into a B-mode signal, with power proportional to the square of that asymmetry, $\delta_L^2$. The derived spectrum adds to the lensing and tensor B-modes and, for $\delta_L > 10^{-6}$, produces an observable excess on large angular scales ($l < 500$) in future high-resolution surveys. It also mimics or contaminates the primordial tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, lowering the inferred $r$ by about $10^{-6}(\delta_L/10^{-7})^2$, so for $\delta_L > 10^{-5}$ the contamination is comparable to a primordial gravitational-wave signal.

What carries the argument

The key object is the polarization-dependent Compton scattering optical depth, $\dot{\tau}_{PC} = \frac{3}{2}\frac{m v_e(x)}{k_0} \sigma_T \delta_L n_e(x)$, which measures how strongly CMB photons are scattered by electrons with net left-handed polarization. It enters the Boltzmann equation for the Stokes parameters $Q \pm iU$ through new source terms, and the ratio $\dot{\tau}_{PC}/\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}$ appears inside the line-of-sight integral for the polarization perturbations. When the spin-raising operator acts on the integral, the azimuthal symmetry that normally forces the scalar B-mode to vanish is broken by the polarized-scattering term, yielding Eq. (29). The paper then replaces the ratio by its time-averaged value, $10^{-3}(\delta_L/10^{-7})$, to obtain the simple $r$-bias formula.

What would settle it

Compute the line-of-sight integral in Eq. (29) without extracting a constant prefactor, using a redshift-dependent electron polarization $\delta_L(z)$ from the two proposed mechanisms (magnetic-field Landau levels and BBN $\beta$ processes); if the resulting $C_{Bl}^{(S)}$ at $l < 500$ falls below the sensitivity of a future B-mode survey for $\delta_L = 10^{-6}$, the observability claim is falsified. A null measurement of an excess B-mode at $l < 500$ consistent with $\delta_L = 10^{-5}$ would also rule out the large contamination regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard result $\bar{C}_{Bl}^{(S)} = 0$ for scalar perturbations is evaded when the scattering electrons are spin-polarized. Starting from the quantum Boltzmann equation for polarized Compton scattering, the paper derives a B-mode angular power spectrum (Eq. 29), $$C_{Bl}^{(S)} = (4\pi)^2 \frac{(l+2)!}{(l-2)!} \int $K^{2}$ dK\, P_\$\varphi$(K)\, \left(\frac{2}{3}\$int_0^{{\eta_0}}$ d\eta\, g(\eta)\, \frac{\dot{\tau}_{PC}}{\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}} \left[\Delta_{I2}^{(S)} + (4i-1)\Delta_{P2}^{(S)}\right] \frac{j_l(x)}{$x^{2}$}\right)^2,$$ where the new optical-depth ratio $\dot{\tau}_{PC}/\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}$ is proportional to $\delta_L$, so the spectrum scales as $\delta_L^2$. A time-averaged normalization, $\overline{\dot{\tau}_{PC}/\dot{\tau}_{e\gamma}} \simeq 10^{-3}(\delta_L/10^{-7})$, leads to the net tensor-to-scalar ratio $r_* \simeq r - 10^{-6}(\delta_L/10^{-7})^2$. The paper concludes that the effect is observable for $\delta_L > 10^{-6}$ and biases $r$ at a level comparable to a primordial signal for $\delta_L > 10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumed average ratio of polarized to ordinary Compton scattering rates, set to $10^{-3}(\delta_L/10^{-7})$; if that number is wrong, the B-mode amplitude and the claimed shift in the tensor-to-scalar ratio change by the square of the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Scalar perturbations can no longer be treated as B-mode-free if the electron population has any chirality asymmetry; B-mode maps at $l < 500$ must include this contribution.
Estimates of the tensor-to-scalar ratio from observed B-modes are biased low by an amount growing as $\delta_L^2$ unless the polarized-Compton contribution is subtracted.
Future high-resolution B-mode surveys can constrain $\delta_L$: an excess over lensing plus tensor predictions at $l < 500$ would be evidence for polarized electrons at $\delta_L > 10^{-6}$.
For $\delta_L > 10^{-5}$, the scalar-induced B-modes are large enough that ignoring them would misread the B-mode sky as a primordial gravitational-wave signal.
The mechanism generates B-modes at low multipoles, so low-$l$ analyses of B-mode polarization are the natural place to test it.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: if $C_{Bl}^{(S)} \propto \delta_L^2$ holds, the same line-of-sight machinery could be applied to other parity-violating scattering processes, turning B-mode searches into probes of electron polarization.
My inference: the detectability thresholds depend heavily on the assumed time-averaged $10^{-3}$ factor; evaluating Eq. (29) with a redshift-dependent $\delta_L$ could shift the thresholds $\delta_L > 10^{-6}$ and $\delta_L > 10^{-5}$ by orders of magnitude.
My inference: the effect should leave a characteristic scale dependence in B-modes that differs from lensing or tensor signals, so a careful shape analysis at $l < 500$ could separate the contributions even without measuring $\delta_L$ independently.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

Two facts you should have up front. First, the physical idea is genuinely new: polarized Compton scattering off a helicity-asymmetric electron gas (δ_L ≠ 0) is claimed to generate CMB B-modes from scalar perturbations, a channel that vanishes identically for ordinary Thomson scattering. That is worth taking seriously. Second, the quantitative core—the B-mode amplitude, its l-dependence, and the δ_L thresholds in the abstract—rests on a power-spectrum calculation that is not valid as written.

What the paper does well: the collision term is taken from the authors' earlier QED treatment of polarized Compton scattering, and the line-of-sight formalism is standard. The paper is explicit that it modifies the standard C_B^S=0 result to C_B^S ∝ δ_L^2. It also discusses physical motivations for δ_L (primordial magnetic fields, BBN beta processes) and admits it does not model the persistence of δ_L to last scattering. That transparency is good.

The load-bearing problem is in Eq. (29). From Eq. (15), ˙τ_PC/˙τ_eγ is proportional to the electron bulk velocity v_e, which is first-order in scalar perturbations. Δ_I2 and Δ_P2 in the integrand are also first-order. So the source is quadratic in the initial curvature perturbation φ. For Gaussian φ, the ensemble average of the square of the line-of-sight integral is a four-point function—a convolution of two linear power spectra, not the single-P_φ(K) formula of Eq. (29). The replacement in Eq. (33), ˙τ_PC/˙τ_eγ ≃ 10^{-3}(δ_L/10^{-7}), is exactly what turns this second-order effect into a linear-response formula. No derivation of that constant from the visibility functions is supplied. So the plotted spectra, the l < 500 amplification for δ_L > 10^{-6}, and the r-bias claim for δ_L > 10^{-5} are unsupported. The BICEP/Keck comparison is visual only, with no likelihoods.

This is a paper whose underlying mechanism could survive a corrected treatment, but not as it stands. It deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject, because the idea is novel and, if real, would matter for BICEP/Keck, CMB-S4 and LiteBIRD. The referee should require a proper second-order calculation (or a controlled approximation to the convolution) before any quantitative claim can be believed. I would not cite this version, but I might use it in a reading group to illustrate how physical motivation can be undone by an incorrect statistical treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that an asymmetry δ_L between left- and right-handed cosmic electrons makes Compton scattering 'polarized,' generating a B-mode polarization of the CMB even from scalar perturbations. The authors write a Boltzmann equation, integrate it along the line of sight, and obtain an expression C_{Bl}^{(S)} ∝ δ_L^2 (Eqs. (29), (33), (34)). They further claim that for δ_L > 10^{-6} the signal is detectable in future surveys and for δ_L > 10^{-5} it biases the tensor-to-scalar ratio by an amount comparable to a primordial signal.

Significance. The possibility of a scalar-perturbation source of B-mode polarization is of observational interest for upcoming CMB experiments, and the paper connects it to a concrete particle-physics parameter δ_L. The authors correctly note that ordinary Compton scattering in scalar perturbations gives zero B-mode and attempt a first-principles QED calculation. However, the central statistical step—converting a second-order source into a two-point function—is incorrect, and the numerical normalization is inserted ad hoc. If the calculation were redone properly, the amplitude and shape of the spectrum could differ substantially; the present results do not provide a reliable prediction or constraint.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III.B, Eq. (29)] Equation (29) is not a valid power-spectrum expression for the source defined in Eq. (15). From Eq. (15), \dot{\tau}_{PC}/\dot{\tau}_{eγ} is proportional to the first-order electron bulk velocity v_e (times δ_L), and Δ_I2 and Δ_P2 are also first-order quantities in a scalar-perturbation background. The squared bracket in Eq. (29) is therefore the line-of-sight integral of a product of two first-order fields; its ensemble average is a four-point function of the initial curvature perturbation, which for Gaussian initial conditions reduces to a convolution of two linear power spectra, not to P_φ(K) times the square of a transfer integral. The form of Eq. (29) is appropriate only for a linear source, so the B-mode amplitude and l-dependence derived from it are not established.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (33)] The numerical normalization entering the central result is not derived. Equation (33) states that the time-averaged ratio \dot{\tau}_{PC}/\dot{\tau}_{eγ} equals 10^{-3}(δ_L/10^{-7}), but no computation from the visibility functions or from the definitions in Eqs. (15)–(18) is provided to justify this value. Because Eq. (29) and the final r-correction in Eq. (34) scale as the square of this ratio, the thresholds δ_L > 10^{-6} (observability) and δ_L > 10^{-5} (comparable to primordial r) are uncontrolled. The paper needs to derive this constant from the time integrals, not state it as an input.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (34)] The suppression formula r* ≃ r - 10^{-6}(δ_L/10^{-7})^2 does not follow from Eq. (29). Even if Eq. (29) were correct, the ratio C_B^S/C_E^S would be a ratio of two momentum integrals weighted by P_φ(K), with different transfer integrals; it would not reduce to the square of a time-averaged constant without an additional approximation, which is not stated or justified. Equation (34) is essentially a restatement of the assumed input in Eq. (33), so the abstract's claims about an r-parameter bias of observable size are unsupported.

minor comments (6)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'Scatteri ng' should be 'Scattering'.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Lesing' should be 'Lensing'.
[Abstract and Sec. IV] The statement that the effect can 'suppress the tensor-to-scalar ratio' is misleading: an additional scalar B-mode contaminant would shift the inferred r upward, and the paper means that the inferred primordial contribution is reduced after subtracting the contaminant.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (30)] Equation (30) is not the standard r estimator, as the paper acknowledges in footnote 2; the subsequent use of this relation in Eqs. (31)–(32) should be labeled as schematic rather than a quantitative calculation.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (33)] The notation for the time average in Eq. (33) is introduced without an overbar in the surrounding text; please define it consistently with the notation for other averaged quantities.
[Appendix] The Appendix states that 'we neglected to write all of them here' after listing the f and g functions; this prevents the reader from verifying the Boltzmann equation (12) from the appendix, which is especially problematic because the equation is central to the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The r-bias and detectability thresholds in Eqs. (33)-(34) are the squared assumed δ_L normalization; the l-dependent spectrum is an independently computed shape.

other [Section III.B, Eqs. (32)-(34), and the abstract thresholds]
"where τ̇_PC/τ̇_eγ = 1/η0 ∫_0^η0 τ̇_PC/τ̇_eγ ≃ 10^-3 (δ_L/10^-7). Finally, we can estimate the net scalar-to-tensor ratio as follows r* ≃ r − 10^-6 (δ_L/10^-7)^2."

Equation (34) is obtained by substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (32) and squaring; the assumed time-averaged ratio is the entire numerical content of the predicted r-bias. The abstract's thresholds (δ_L > 10^-6 observable, δ_L > 10^-5 comparable to a primordial tensor signal) are levels at which this squared input reaches the assumed lensing/tensor comparison amplitudes. No independent calculation fixes the 10^-3 normalization from the visibility functions, so the prediction is forced by the input constant rather than derived from first principles. The l-dependent projection in Eq. (29) is a separate, non-circular computation, which is why the paper is only partially circular.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the Boltzmann equation for polarized Compton scattering is re-derived in the Appendix, so the self-citation [66] is not load-bearing, and Eq. (29) contains a genuine line-of-sight integral whose j_l(x)/x^2 kernels determine an l-dependent spectral shape. The circular step is the normalization: Eq. (33) asserts the visibility-weighted ratio τ̇_PC/τ̇_eγ ≃ 10^-3 (δ_L/10^-7), and Eq. (34) is exactly that constant squared. The abstract's claims that δ_L > 10^-6 will be observable and δ_L > 10^-5 can mimic a primordial tensor signal are obtained by comparing this squared assumed input with lensing/tensor amplitudes, so those thresholds are restatements of the input rather than independent predictions. The paper itself flags limitations consistent with this reading: footnote 2 calls Eq. (30) 'not precise equation to calculate r−parameter,' and Sec. II.B says 'we do not study these effects exactly ... we just mention it as our motivation,' leaving δ_L as a free input. The additional concern that v_e and the multipoles in Eq. (29) are first-order quantities, so the single-P_phi form needs justification, is a correctness issue rather than circularity and does not raise the score. Score 6 reflects one 'prediction' reducing by construction while the spectral shape has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report's central quantities depend on two free parameters (delta_L and the normalization constant kappa), on the validity of the authors' previous derivation of polarized Compton scattering, on an order-counting assumption, and on the persistence of delta_L until last scattering. None of these are independently established within this paper.

free parameters (2)

delta_L = 10^-7 to 2e-5 (scan)
Fraction of net left-handed polarized electrons; the paper motivates it with magnetic field and BBN estimates but does not measure it; all observable amplitudes scale as delta_L^2.
kappa (time-averaged tau_dot_PC / tau_dot_e_gamma) = 10^-3 * (delta_L/10^-7) (Eq. 33)
This constant controls the overall B-mode amplitude and is introduced as an order-of-magnitude estimate, not derived from the line-of-sight integrals.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The polarized Compton scattering collision term in Eq. (12), taken from the authors' prior paper [66], is correct.
If the collision term normalization is wrong, the B-mode amplitude changes by orders of magnitude.
domain assumption The electron density matrix can be expanded as (qslash+m)(1+gamma5 Sslash(r))/(4m) with no outgoing-electron polarization constraints (Eq. 1).
This is the starting point for the spin-dependent cross section; it is standard QED but not re-derived here.
domain assumption The B-mode source, which is the product of the electron bulk velocity v_e and the intensity/polarization quadrupoles, is treated as a first-order scalar effect without including other second-order metric terms.
The source is formally second order; the paper does not justify dropping the rest of the second-order Boltzmann equation.
domain assumption The electron helicity asymmetry delta_L persists from generation (BBN or magnetic field era) until the last scattering surface.
Section II.B explicitly says depolarization effects are not studied and are only mentioned as motivation.
ad hoc to paper The time-averaged ratio in Eq. (33) equals 10^-3 (delta_L/10^-7).
This value is stated without derivation and directly sets the amplitude in Eqs. (29) and (34).
standard math The line-of-sight integration and spin-raising operator formalism of Zaldarriaga and Seljak applies to the modified Boltzmann equation.
Standard CMB polarization formalism, not questioned.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of B-mode Power Spectrum of CMB via Polarized Compton Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQAUCN3X

@misc{pith2026190900568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: B-mode Power Spectrum of CMB via Polarized Compton Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQAUCN3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00568}
}

abstract

In this work, according to some evidence from being an asymmetry in the number density of left and right-handed electrons, $\delta_L$, in-universe motivate us to calculate the dominated contribution of this asymmetry in the generation of B-mode power spectrum $C_{ B\,l}^{(S)}$. Note, in the standard cosmological scenario, Compton scattering in the presence of scalar matter perturbation can not generate magnetic like pattern in linear polarization while in the case of polarized Compton scattering, we have shown $C_{B\,l}^{(S)}\propto \delta_L^2$. We add up the spectrum of the B-mode generated by the polarized Compton scattering to the spectra produced by weak lensing effects and Compton scattering in the presence of tensor perturbations. The results show a significant amplification in $C_{B\,l}$ in large scale $l<500$ for $\delta_L>10^{-6}$ which will be observable in future high resolution B-mode polarization detection. Finally, we have shown that $C_{ B\,l}^{(S)}$ generated by polarized Compton scattering can suppress the tensor to scalar ratio, $r$ parameter so that this contamination can be comparable to a primordial tensor-to-scalar ratio spatially for $\delta_L>10^{-5}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00568 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. B-mode power spectrum plotted in terms of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. By considering the lensing effects, tensor perturbations a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

W. Zhao, D. Baskaran and P. Coles, Phys. Lett. B 680, 411 (2009). [arXiv:0907.4303 [gr-qc]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[2]

Enhanced polarization of CMB from thermal gravitational waves

K. Bhattacharya, S. Mohanty and A. Nautiyal, Phys. Rev. Lett . 97, 251301 (2006). [astro-ph/0607049]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[3]

Seljak and M

U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2054 (1997). [astro-ph/9609169]

arXiv 1997
[4]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP and Keck Collaborations], [arXiv:1807.02199 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[5]

× 10-4 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 l r=0.05 l(l+1 2 CB l (μK 2 CB l T +CB l L CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=2×10-5 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-5 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-6 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-7 FIG. 3. By considering the lensing eﬀects, tensor perturbations a nd polarized Compton scattering eﬀects in the presence of scalar ...

2018
[6]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [POLARBEAR Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 794, no. 2, 171 (2014). [arXiv:1403.2369 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014
[7]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no. 24, 241101 (2014). [arXiv:1403.3985 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014
[8]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031302 (2016). [arXiv:1510.09217 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2016

Show all 84 references

[9]

Keisler et al

R. Keisler et al. [SPT Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 807, no. 2, 151 (2015). [arXiv:1503.02315 [astro- ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[10]

Poidevin et al

F. Poidevin et al. [QUIJOTE Collaboration], [arXiv:1802.04594 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[11]

J. A. Rubino-Martin. 2016. and the QUIJOTE collaboration, High lights on Spanish Astrophysics IX, Proceedings of the XII Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Spanish Astronomic al Society held on July 18-22, in Bilbao, Spain, p. 99-107

2016
[12]

Gualtieri et al

R. Gualtieri et al. [SPIDER Collaboration], J. Low. Temp. Phys. 193, no. 5-6, 1112 (2018). [arXiv:1711.10596 [astro-ph.CO]]. 14

2018 arXiv
[13]

Kamionkowski and E

M. Kamionkowski and E. D. Kovetz, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrop hys. 54, 227 (2016).[arXiv:1510.06042 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Jeong and M

D. Jeong and M. Kamionkowski, [arXiv:1908.06100 [astro-ph.CO]]

1908 arXiv
[15]

J. L. Weiland, G. E. Addison, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern and G. Hin shaw, [arXiv:1907.02486 [astro- ph.CO]]

1907 arXiv
[16]

D. K. Ramanah, G. Lavaux and B. D. Wandelt, Mon. Not. Roy. As tron. Soc. 468, no. 2, 1782 (2017). [arXiv:1702.08852 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[17]

D. K. Ramanah, G. Lavaux and B. D. Wandelt, Mon. Not. Roy. As tron. Soc. 476, no. 2, 2825 (2018). [arXiv:1801.05358 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[18]

D. K. Ramanah, G. Lavaux and B. D. Wandelt, [arXiv:1906.10704 [a stro-ph.CO]]

1906 arXiv
[19]

Zaldarriaga and U

M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak,Phys. Rev. D 55, 1830 (1997). [astro-ph/9609170]

1997 arXiv
[20]

Zaldarriaga, D

M. Zaldarriaga, D. N. Spergel and U. Seljak, Astrophys. J. 488, 1 (1997).[astro-ph/9702157]

1997 arXiv
[21]

Zaldarriaga and D

M. Zaldarriaga and D. Harari, Phys. Rev. D 52, 3276 (1995)

1995
[22]

Seljak, and M

U. Seljak, and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 469, 437 (1996)

1996
[23]

Hu and M

W. Hu and M. J. White, [arXiv:astro-ph/9706147]

arXiv
[24]

Polnarev, , Sov

A. Polnarev, , Sov. Astron. 29:607 (1986)

1986
[25]

Cabella and M

P. Cabella and M. Kamionkowski, [astro-ph/0403392]

arXiv
[26]

Domnech and M

G. Domnech and M. Kamionkowski, [arXiv:1905.04323 [astro-ph.CO ]]

1905 arXiv
[27]

Inomata and M

K. Inomata and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 4, 043501 (2019). [arXiv:1811.04957 [astro- ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[28]

Inomata and M

K. Inomata and M. Kamionkowski, [arXiv:1811.04959 [astro-ph.CO ]]

arXiv
[29]

Zucca, Y

A. Zucca, Y. Li and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 6, 063506 (2017). [arXiv:1611.00757 [astro- ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[30]

K. N. Abazajian et al. [Topical Conveners: K.N. Abazajian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee Collabo ration], Astropart. Phys. 63, 66 (2015). [arXiv:1309.5383 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[31]

Amendola, G

L. Amendola, G. Ballesteros and V. Pettorino, Phys. Rev. D 90, 043009 (2014). [arXiv:1405.7004 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[32]

Raveri, C

M. Raveri, C. Baccigalupi, A. Silvestri and S. Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev . D 91, no. 6, 061501 (2015). [arXiv:1405.7974 [astro-ph.CO]]

2015 arXiv
[33]

Avgoustidis, E

A. Avgoustidis, E. J. Copeland, A. Moss, L. Pogosian, A. Pourt sidou and D. A. Steer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 121301 (2011). [arXiv:1105.6198 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[34]

Moss and L

A. Moss and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 171302 (2014). [arXiv:1403.6105 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[35]

Lizarraga, J

J. Lizarraga, J. Urrestilla, D. Daverio, M. Hindmarsh and M. Kun z, JCAP 1610, no. 10, 042 (2016). [arXiv:1609.03386 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[36]

K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4 Collaboration], [arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[37]

Kosowsky and A

A. Kosowsky and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 469, 1 (1996). [astro-ph/9601055]. 15

1996 arXiv
[38]

Subramanian, Rept

K. Subramanian, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, no. 7, 076901 (2016) [arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[39]

Motie and S

I. Motie and S. -S. Xue, Europhys. Lett. 100, 17006 (2012) [arXiv:1104.3555[hep-ph]] R. F. Sawyer, [arXiv:1205.4969[astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[40]

Scoccola, D

C. Scoccola, D. Harari and S. Mollerach, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063003 (2004). [astro-ph/0405396]

2004 arXiv
[41]

Campanelli, A

L. Campanelli, A. D. Dolgov, M. Giannotti and F. L. Villante, Astro phys. J. 616, 1 (2004). [astro-ph/0405420]

2004 arXiv
[42]

Kosowsky, T

A. Kosowsky, T. Kahniashvili, G. Lavrelashvili and B. Ratra, Phy s. Rev. D 71, 043006 (2005). [astro-ph/0409767]

2005 arXiv
[43]

Giovannini, Phys

M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 71, 021301 (2005). [hep-ph/0410387]

2005 arXiv
[44]

Bonvin, R

C. Bonvin, R. Durrer and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no. 19, 191303 (2014). [arXiv:1403.6768 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[45]

Giovannini, Phys

M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 4, 041301 (2014). [arXiv:1404.3974 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[46]

Khodagholizadeh, R

J. Khodagholizadeh, R. Mohammadi and S. S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 9, 091301 (2014), [arXiv:1406.6213 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[47]

Mohammadi and M

R. Mohammadi and M. Zarei, [arXiv:1503.05356 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[48]

Tizchang, S

S. Tizchang, S. Batebi, M. Haghighat and R. Mohammadi, Eur. Ph ys. J. C 76, no. 9, 478 (2016). [arXiv:1605.09045 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[49]

Wolfson and R

I. Wolfson and R. Brustein, PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215287 (2019) . [arXiv:1801.07075 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[50]

Wolfson and R

I. Wolfson and R. Brustein, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 4, 043522 (2019). [arXiv:1903.11820 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Pogosian, T

L. Pogosian, T. Vachaspati and A. Yadav, Can. J. Phys. 91, 451 (2013). [arXiv:1210.0308 [astro- ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[52]

T. R. Seshadri and K. Subramanian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 101301 (2001). [astro-ph/0012056]

2001 arXiv
[53]

Kahniashvili, Y

T. Kahniashvili, Y. Maravin and A. Kosowsky, Phys. Rev. D 80, 023009 (2009). [arXiv:0806.1876 [astro-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[54]

Lewis, Phys

A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043011 (2004). [astro-ph/0406096]

2004 arXiv
[55]

G. C. Liu and K. W. Ng, Phys. Dark Univ. 16, 22 (2017). [arXiv:1612.02104 [astro-ph.CO]]

2017 arXiv
[56]

Zaldarriaga and U

M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023003 (1998). [astro-ph/9803150]

1998 arXiv
[57]

Pogosian and M

L. Pogosian and M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083509 (2008). [arXiv:0711.0747 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[58]

F. Nati, M. J. Devlin, M. Gerbino, B. R. Johnson, B. Keating, L. P agano and G. Teply, J. Astron. Inst. 06, no. 02, 1740008 (2017). [arXiv:1704.02704 [astro-ph.IM]]

2017 arXiv
[59]

Mohammadi, J

R. Mohammadi, J. Khodagholizadeh, M. Sadegh and S. S. Xue, Ph ys. Rev. D 93, no. 12, 125029 (2016). [arXiv:1602.00237 [astro-ph.CO]]

2016 arXiv
[60]

Mohammadi, Eur

R. Mohammadi, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 10, 3102 (2014), [arXiv:1312.2199 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[61]

Sadegh, R

M. Sadegh, R. Mohammadi, I. Motie, Phys. Rev. D97 023023 (2018).[arXiv:1711.06997 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[62]

Zarei, E

M. Zarei, E. Bavarsad, M. Haghighat, R. Mohammadi, I. Motie, Z . Rezaei, Phys. Rev. D81, 084035 (2010), [arXiv:hep-th/0912.2993v5]

2010 arXiv
[63]

Mahmoudi, M

S. Mahmoudi, M. Haghighat, S. Modares Vamegh and R. Mohamma di, [arXiv:1805.11172 [hep-ph]]. 16

arXiv
[64]

Bartolo, A

N. Bartolo, A. Hoseinpour, S. Matarrese, G. Orlando and M. Za rei, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 4, 043516 (2019). [arXiv:1903.04578 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[65]

G. W. Pettinari, C. Fidler, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama, and D. Wan ds, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 4 (Apr., 2013) 3, [arXiv:1302.0832]

2013 arXiv
[66]

Fidler, G

C. Fidler, G. W. Pettinari, M. Beneke, R. Crittenden, K. Koyama and D. Wands, JCAP 1407, 011 (2014). [arXiv:1401.3296 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[67]

Vahedi, J

A. Vahedi, J. Khodagholizadeh, R. Mohammadi and M. Sadegh, J CAP 1901, no. 01, 052 (2019) [arXiv:1809.08137 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[68]

Kosowsky, Annals Phys

A. Kosowsky, Annals Phys. 246, 49-85 (1996), [arXiv:astro-ph/9501045]

1996 arXiv
[69]

Kleiss, W

R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling, Nuclear Phys. B 262 (1985) 235; R. Kleiss , Z. Phys. C 33 (1987) 433

1985
[70]

Itzykson, J

C. Itzykson, J. Zuber, Quantum ﬁeld theory, McGraw-Hill 198 0
[71]

Kessler,” Polarized Electrons”, 2nd

J. Kessler,” Polarized Electrons”, 2nd. ed. (Berlin: Springer-V erlag, 1985) 299 pp

1985
[72]

R. L. Long, Jr., W. Raith, and V. W. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett, 1 5, 1(1965)

1965
[73]

M. L. McConnell, and et.al., IEES TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIE NCE, Vol 46, No.4, 1999

1999
[74]

Bell, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 86, 251-256, 1994

F. Bell, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 86, 251-256, 1994

1994
[75]

Maccione, S

L. Maccione, S. Liberati, and A. Celotti, Phys, Rev. D 78, 10300 3 (2008).[arXiv:0809.0220 [astro-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[76]

Durrer and A

R. Durrer and A. Neronov, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 21, 62 (2013) [arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[77]

K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 148, 51 (1967)

1967
[78]

Bhattacharya, [arXiv:0705.4275 [hep-th]]

K. Bhattacharya, [arXiv:0705.4275 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[79]

Cooray, A

A. Cooray, A. Melchiorri and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B 554 (2003) 1 . [astro-ph/0205214]

2003 arXiv
[80]

Ohnishi and N

A. Ohnishi and N. Yamamoto, [arXiv:1402.4760 [astro-ph.HE]]

arXiv
[81]

Adshead and E

P. Adshead and E. I. Sfakianakis, JCAP 1511, 021 (2015) [arXiv:1508.00891 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[82]

Di Dio, F

E. Di Dio, F. Montanari, J. Lesgourgues and R. Durrer, JCAP 1311, 044 (2013), [arXiv:1307.1459 [astro-ph.CO]]

2013 arXiv
[83]

Lewis and S

A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002), [astro-ph/0205436]. APPENDIX: CMB INTERACTIONS WITH POLARIZED ELECTRONS The eﬀects of the external magnetic ﬁeld on a large scale [78], chiral magnetic instability in neutron stars and Magnetars [79], fermion production d...

2002 arXiv
[84]

and doing integration over q and spatial integration over p, the main Stokes parameters take the following form ˙I(k)= 1 2 ( ˙ρ11 + ˙ρ22) = i ˙τPC ∫ dΩ 4π [ fII (ˆk, ˆp)I(k) + fIQ(ˆk, ˆp)Q(k) + fIU (ˆk, ˆp)U (k) + fIV (ˆk, ˆp)V (k) −gII (ˆk, ˆp)I(p) − gIQ (ˆk, ˆp)Q(p) − gIU (ˆ...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

W. Zhao, D. Baskaran and P. Coles, Phys. Lett. B 680, 411 (2009). [arXiv:0907.4303 [gr-qc]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009

[2] [2]

Enhanced polarization of CMB from thermal gravitational waves

K. Bhattacharya, S. Mohanty and A. Nautiyal, Phys. Rev. Lett . 97, 251301 (2006). [astro-ph/0607049]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[3] [3]

Seljak and M

U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2054 (1997). [astro-ph/9609169]

arXiv 1997

[4] [4]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP and Keck Collaborations], [arXiv:1807.02199 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv

[5] [5]

× 10-4 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 l r=0.05 l(l+1 2 CB l (μK 2 CB l T +CB l L CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=2×10-5 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-5 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-6 CB l T +CB l L +CB l S with δL=10-7 FIG. 3. By considering the lensing eﬀects, tensor perturbations a nd polarized Compton scattering eﬀects in the presence of scalar ...

2018

[6] [6]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [POLARBEAR Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 794, no. 2, 171 (2014). [arXiv:1403.2369 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no. 24, 241101 (2014). [arXiv:1403.3985 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

P. A. R. Ade et al. [BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031302 (2016). [arXiv:1510.09217 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2016