Monopoles at Future Neutrino Detectors

Jessica Turner; Pablo M. Candela; Valentin V. Khoze

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Monopoles at Future Neutrino Detectors

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande can probe magnetic monopoles through 900 GeV antiprotons and catalysed proton decay.

desk verdict A genuinely new monopole signature with a clean kinematic result, but the shell target counting ignores the paper's own FLUKA survival fraction and overstates the DUNE sensitivity by a factor of ~1.7. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14918 v2 pith:JIHJYGIX submitted 2025-04-21 hep-ph

Pablo M. Candela , Valentin V. Khoze , Jessica Turner This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords magneticmonopolesCallan-RubakoveffectprotondecaycatalysisantiprotonproductionDUNEHyper-KamiokandeParkerboundmonopolefluxlimits

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 argues that two planned neutrino observatories, DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande, can double as magnetic monopole detectors. The mechanism is the Callan-Rubakov effect, in which a monopole scattering off an electron converts it into an antiproton with at least 861.4 GeV of energy in the laboratory frame, or alternatively catalyses proton decay when the monopole is slow. For relativistic monopoles the authors derive projected flux limits around $\Phi \lesssim 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$, an order of magnitude below the Parker bound, after 15 years of running. For non-relativistic monopoles they recast proton-decay lifetime sensitivities into flux limits of $\Phi \lesssim 2.3\times10^{-23}$ (Hyper-K) and $\Phi \lesssim 1.1\times10^{-22}$ (DUNE) $\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$. The kinematics restrict the relativistic sensitivity to monopole masses between $10^5$ and $10^{11}$ GeV, and the fixed antiproton energy lies far above the atmospheric-neutrino-induced muon background, making the search effectively background-free.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Callan-Rubakov cross-section for antiproton synthesis, Eq. (2.3): $\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} = \frac12 \frac{|\mathbf{p}^{\rm cm}_p|}{|\mathbf{p}^{\rm cm}_e|} \frac{q_J^2}{|\mathbf{p}^{\rm cm}_e|^2} \left[\sin(\theta^{\rm cm}/2)\right]^{4|q_J|-2}$, where $q_J$ is half the monopole magnetic charge in units of $2\pi\hbar/e$. It is IR-dominated, with size set by the GeV strong-interaction scale rather than the GUT scale, and it combines with the kinematic threshold $E_{\rm th}\simeq (m_p/m_e)m_M\simeq 1.8\times10^3 m_M$ to enforce the relativistic condition $\gamma \gtrsim 2000$ and the $10^5$–$10^{11}$ GeV mass window. For slow monopoles, the companion catalysed proton-decay cross-section Eq. (2.5) governs the $M+p\to M+e^++\pi^0$ channel used in the proton-lifetime recast.

What would settle it

Recompute the event rate with the shell's targets weighted by a survival or acceptance factor of 0.41 antiprotons per primary (or 2.02 charged hadrons per primary) rather than 100%, and check whether the 90% C.L. flux limits still sit below the Parker bound. A dedicated simulation that generates 861.4 GeV antiprotons uniformly throughout the 1 m shell and counts those entering the fiducial volume above 30 GeV would settle the point directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a monopole–electron Callan-Rubakov scattering always produces an antiproton of at least 861.4 GeV in the laboratory frame once the reaction is kinematically allowed, regardless of the scattering angle or the monopole mass and energy. This fixed high energy places the signal far above the dominant atmospheric-neutrino muon background, whose energies are at most about 20 GeV. The cross-section, Eq. (2.3), scales as $q_J^2/(\mathrm{GeV}^2)$ and is not suppressed by the GUT scale, so the event rate is governed by the strong-interaction scale. With a 1 m rock shell included as target, DUNE gains 238% in effective electron targets and Hyper-K gains 25%; the projected 90% C.L. sensitivities are $\Phi \lesssim 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ for relativistic monopoles after 15 years, and $\Phi \lesssim 2.3\times10^{-23}$ (Hyper-K) or $1.1\times10^{-22}$ (DUNE) $\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ for non-relativistic monopoles through catalysed proton decay.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every electron in the surrounding 1 m rock shell contributes to the signal with 100% efficiency: the event-rate formula Eq. (3.2) counts the full shell as target, even though the paper's own simulation finds that only 0.41 antiprotons (or 2.02 charged hadrons) per primary actually reach the detector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A null observation of the antiproton signal at DUNE or Hyper-K after 15 years would exclude relativistic monopole fluxes at the level of $\Phi \sim 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$, an order of magnitude below the Parker bound.
The fixed 861.4 GeV antiproton energy separates the signal kinematically from the dominant atmospheric-neutrino background, whose muons peak below about 20 GeV, so a 30 GeV energy cut leaves the search essentially background-free.
For non-relativistic monopoles, non-observation of $p\to e^+\pi^0$ at Hyper-K would constrain fluxes to $\Phi \lesssim 2.3\times10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$, comparable to existing Super-K limits, while DUNE would reach $\Phi \lesssim 1.1\times10^{-22}$.
Monopole-catalysed proton decay, if seen, would present forward-going decay products rather than the back-to-back topology of GUT gauge-boson-mediated decay, providing a kinematic discrimination handle.
The 1 m rock-shell expansion raises the effective target-electron count by 238% at DUNE and 25% at Hyper-K, effectively turning surrounding material into part of the detector for this signature.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's event-rate formula counts every electron in the 1 m shell as a 100%-efficient target, even though its own simulation reports only 0.41 antiprotons (or 2.02 charged hadrons) reaching the detector per primary; applying that survival factor would shrink the shell contribution and push the flux limits upward, by roughly a factor of two for DUNE.
The same simulation method could optimise the shell thickness: a thicker shell adds targets but reduces survival probability, so the effective detection volume is maximised at some intermediate thickness rather than at exactly 1 m.
If the antiproton plateau at 861.4 GeV is confirmed, the energy sideband above about 30 GeV in any large underground detector becomes a monopole search window, extending this analysis to detectors not discussed in the paper.
The recast proton-decay limits scale linearly with the assumed catalysis cross-section; if a more realistic cross-section is smaller than $\sigma = 1.4\times10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, the flux limits degrade proportionally.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper has a real new idea — using Callan-Rubakov antiproton synthesis as a monopole search at DUNE and Hyper-K — and a nice kinematic observation: the outgoing antiproton always carries at least ~861 GeV regardless of scattering angle or monopole energy. That's worth knowing. But the event-rate calculation has a specific internal inconsistency. Section 3.2 uses FLUKA to argue that the 1 m rock shell is a reasonable target expansion, and the simulation finds only 0.41 antiprotons per primary arrive at the detector with E ≥ 30 GeV. Then Eq. (3.2) counts every electron in the shell with 100% acceptance, no survival factor. For DUNE the shell is ~70% of the targets, so the claimed 238% enhancement and the corresponding flux limits are optimistic by roughly a factor of 1.7 if you apply their own 0.41 number. The actual average survival for antiprotons produced uniformly in the shell is probably a bit higher than 0.41, but the qualitative point stands. This doesn't kill the paper — the projected sensitivity would still sit around or below the Parker bound — but the exact limits and the 'enhanced volume' claims need correction.

What's genuinely good: the cross-section they use is from Ref. [23] (Khoze, a co-author), but they show Eq. (2.3) is consistent with the old KYG result and with Csáki et al., so the central physics isn't circular. The ~861 GeV plateau is a clean, new result. The proton-decay catalysis recast is straightforward and reproducible from the quoted proton-lifetime sensitivities. The paper is clearly written and the derivation is transparent.

Soft spots: (1) the missing acceptance factor above; (2) the background-free assumption with 100% efficiency is optimistic, though for a first sensitivity estimate it's a defensible simplifying choice; (3) there are small internal inconsistencies in the text: the intro quotes 1.5e-23 for Hyper-K's proton-decay flux while the abstract and summary say 2.3e-23, and the parenthetical about Super-K's limit (1.1e-23) doesn't match a direct calculation (should be ~1.1e-22). These are minor but should be fixed. The comparison to existing IceCube limits for beta < 0.995 is also worth a sentence, to position the new channel properly.

Bottom line: the central argument holds up qualitatively. The paper deserves a proper referee — it's a serious, well-grounded contribution to monopole searches with a real new channel and a real kinematic insight, but the rate calculation needs to be revised to propagate the survival probability.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that future neutrino detectors DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande can constrain magnetic monopole fluxes through two Callan-Rubakov signatures: high-energy antiproton production by relativistic monopoles (energies near 900 GeV) and monopole-catalysed proton decay by non-relativistic monopoles. Section 2 presents the cross-sections, kinematics, and the result that the outgoing antiproton carries at least 861.4 GeV in the laboratory frame for any allowed scattering angle and energy. Section 3 estimates atmospheric-neutrino backgrounds, introduces a 1 m rock-shell expansion of the target volume, and defines the signal-event formula N = N_target t_run Φ ∫ (dσ/dt) dt. Section 4 derives exclusion regions in the monopole mass-energy plane and recasts proton-decay lifetime sensitivities into flux limits, Φ ≲ 2.3×10^-23 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 for Hyper-K and 1.1×10^-22 for DUNE. The central claim is that these experiments can reach fluxes about an order of magnitude below the Parker bound in the relativistic mass range 10^5–10^11 GeV.

Significance. If the analysis withstands scrutiny, the paper provides a novel and interesting application of Callan-Rubakov processes to large future detectors, with a distinctive high-energy antiproton signature and an explicit kinematic floor at 861.4 GeV. The cross-section input is not purely ad hoc: Eq. (2.3) is consistent with the earlier Kazama-Yang-Goldhaber result and with the relativistic pairwise-helicity formalism, so the central physics is independently grounded. The proton-decay catalysis limits are a simple recast of projected lifetime sensitivities, and the forward-going kinematic difference from GUT proton decay is a useful experimental handle. The paper is generally well structured and the simulations use publicly available tools, which aids reproducibility.

major comments (1)

[Secs. 3.2–3.3, Eq. (3.2)] The shell contribution to N_target is entered with unit weight, but the paper's own FLUKA simulation in Section 3.2 reports that only 0.41 antiprotons per primary (or 2.02 charged hadrons per primary, including secondaries) reach the LAr detector after traversing 1 m of silicon and 2 m of air. Since the 1 m shell supplies about 70% of the DUNE target electrons (2.58×10^34 out of 3.67×10^34), counting all shell targets with weight 1 is not equivalent to assuming a perfect detector: it assumes that every antiproton produced anywhere in the shell enters the active volume with full efficiency. If the signal is a single high-energy antiproton, the DUNE enhancement drops from the claimed 238% to roughly 100% once the 0.41 survival probability is applied; if instead every charged hadron above 30 GeV is counted as a separate signal, the shell weight should be 2.02, and then the background estimate must additionally account for muon-induced hadronic secondaries. In either case Eq. (3.2) must be modified to fold the propagation probability into the shell term, and the exclusion bands and flux limits in Fig. 5 and the abstract need to be recomputed. This is load-bearing for the paper's headline sensitivity claim.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.2, after Eq. (4.2)] The Super-Kamiokande comparison contains an exponent typo: with τ/B > 1.6×10^34 yr, Eq. (4.2) gives a flux limit of order 1.1×10^-22 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1, not 1.1×10^-23 as printed; the sentence is also internally inconsistent with the statement that this is one order of magnitude larger than the Hyper-K limit.
[Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The flux convention is used inconsistently: the abstract quotes limits in cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1, while Section 4.1 fixes Φ = 4π×10^-16 cm^-2 s^-1; the authors should specify clearly in each place whether Φ is per steradian or integrated over the sphere.
[Sec. 3.2] The statement that the Hyper-K case follows from the DUNE FLUKA simulation because 'the same will happen for Hyper-K' is not self-evident, since water, LAr, and the surrounding geometry differ; a separate propagation study for water (or a clear argument for equivalence) would be more convincing.
[Sec. 3.2] The sentence reporting '2.02 charged hadrons/primary' should state explicitly whether all of these charged hadrons satisfy the 30 GeV energy cut, since the preceding sentence appears to say they do but the wording is ambiguous.
[Fig. 5, bottom-right panel] The caption describes bars representing fluxes that produce between 10 and 100 events, but the text does not specify what the vertical extent of each bar means in statistical terms or whether the endpoints are computed with the same target model used in the exclusion contours.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cross-section inputs are independently grounded in KYG and Csaki et al., and the energy and flux results follow from kinematics and external lifetime projections rather than from fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The main theoretical input, the monopole-electron antiproton-synthesis cross-section in Eq. (2.3), is taken from Ref. [23], which is co-authored by one of the present authors, but the text immediately anchors it to independent results: 'Stripping off the branching ratio, the cross-section in Eq. (2.3) agrees with the KYG result ... for the second process in Eq. (2.4)' and 'is also in agreement with the relativistic generalisation of the KYG scattering that was derived in [25].' These are external, parameter-free computations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in the circularity sense. The 861.4 GeV antiproton floor and the gamma about 2000 threshold are pure two-body kinematics from Eqs. (2.6)-(2.8), (A.2), and (A.8), not quantities fitted to the output fluxes. The exclusion bands follow from N = N_target t_run Phi integral (d sigma / dt) dt in Eq. (3.2) with no parameter tuned to make a chosen limit come out; qJ and beta are stated benchmark values rather than fitted inputs. The proton-decay-catalysis limits are a direct recast of external Hyper-K and DUNE lifetime projections through Phi = 1/(4 pi sigma tau) in Eq. (4.2), again algebraic rather than circular. The most significant weakness is an acceptance inconsistency: the FLUKA simulation in Sec. 3.2 reports only 0.41 antiprotons/primary reaching the detector (2.02 charged hadrons/primary), yet Eq. (3.2) counts every electron target in the 1-m shell with 100% efficiency. That is a modeling and sensitivity-validity concern, not a circular definition or a fitted-input-as-prediction step, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on cross-sections from Ref. [23], which is co-authored by one of the present authors; on chosen benchmark values for the monopole magnetic charge qJ = 1/2 and velocity beta = 1e-3; and on a simplified analysis assuming 100% detector efficiency, a background-free environment, and full acceptance of the 1 m rock shell. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Shell thickness around detectors = 1 m
Chosen by hand to expand the target volume; event rate depends linearly on this because all shell targets are counted.
Energy threshold for signal acceptance = 30 GeV
Chosen to reject atmospheric neutrino induced muons with energies up to about 20 GeV; affects whether shell-produced hadrons count.
Monopole velocity for proton decay catalysis benchmark = beta = 1e-3
Chosen within the IR cutoff range 1e-5 to 1e-3; the cross-section scales as 1/beta^2, so the flux limit is very sensitive to this choice.
Monopole magnetic charge benchmark = qJ = 1/2 for main results (scanned up to 3)
Minimal Dirac charge benchmark; cross-sections scale as qJ^2, so limits scale accordingly.
Exposure time = 15 years (relativistic), 10 years (proton decay recast)
Assumed run time for DUNE and HK; event count scales linearly with exposure.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Callan-Rubakov cross-sections for antiproton synthesis (Eq. 2.3) and proton decay catalysis (Eq. 2.5) are valid.
Taken from Refs [22,23]; the present paper does not derive them, and one of those references is co-authored by a member of this study.
domain assumption Monopole flux is isotropic and monoenergetic at the detector; monopoles are accelerated by extragalactic magnetic fields up to ~1e14 GeV.
Section 2.4; used to define the scanned energy range and to impose the isotropic flux.
domain assumption Energy loss rates of monopoles in rock are 100 GeV/cm for relativistic and 10 GeV/cm for non-relativistic monopoles.
Taken from Ref [33]; determines which monopoles reach the detector as a function of zenith angle.
domain assumption The analysis is background-free and detector efficiency is 100%.
Section 3.3; required for the N>2.3 event threshold and the resulting 90% C.L. limits.
domain assumption The 1 meter rock shell contributes targets with full acceptance.
Section 3.2; the event rate formula does not include the FLUKA survival fraction, so this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed enhancement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monopoles at Future Neutrino Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIHJYGIX

@misc{pith2026250414918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monopoles at Future Neutrino Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIHJYGIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14918}
}

abstract

We investigate the potential of future neutrino experiments, DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande, to probe magnetic monopoles via Callan-Rubakov (CR) processes. We consider both relativistic and non-relativistic monopoles and focus on two primary detection signatures: high-energy antiproton production and proton decay catalysis. For relativistic monopoles, our analysis of the CR process indicates antiproton production with energies near 900 GeV and we find that both experiments can provide limits on the fluxes an order of magnitude below the Parker bound (approximately $\Phi \lesssim 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$). For non-relativistic monopoles, we recast the experimental sensitivity to proton decay catalysis and obtain upper limits on the monopole flux of $\Phi \lesssim 2.3 \times 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ for Hyper-Kamiokande and $\Phi \lesssim 1.1 \times 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ for DUNE.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Self-Consistent Parker Bound on Magnetic Monopoles
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A self-consistent Parker bound on magnetic monopoles is derived using the galactic mean-field dynamo eigenmode and turbulent field seeding and acceleration, producing modified flux limits at low and intermediate masse...
Charge quantisation, monopoles and emergent symmetry in the Standard Model and its embeddings
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper maps the global structure of the Standard Model gauge group to 1-form symmetries, derives the allowed electric and magnetic charge lattices for each candidate group, and presents a new anomaly-free model rea...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[23]

Khoze, Monopoles and fermions in the Standard Model, JHEP09 (2024) 146 [2405.18689]

V.V. Khoze, Monopoles and fermions in the Standard Model, JHEP09 (2024) 146 [2405.18689]

arXiv 2024
[1]

Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,, Proc

P.A.M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133 (1931) 60

work page 1931
[2]

’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 276

work page 1974
[3]

Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett.20 (1974) 194

A.M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett.20 (1974) 194

work page 1974
[4]

Zeldovich and M.Y

Y.B. Zeldovich and M.Y. Khlopov, On the Concentration of Relic Magnetic Monopoles in the Universe, Phys. Lett. B79 (1978) 239

work page 1978
[5]

Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles, Phys

J. Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1365

work page 1979
[6]

Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys

A.H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347

work page 1981
[7]

MoEDAL collaboration, Magnetic Monopole Search with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV pp Collisions Interpreted in Photon-Fusion and Drell-Yan Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) 021802 [1903.08491]

arXiv 2019

Show all 41 references

[8]

Gould, I

O. Gould, I. Ostrovskiy and A. Upreti, The next frontiers for magnetic monopole searches, 2409.04552

arXiv
[9]

IceCube collaboration, Search for Relativistic Magnetic Monopoles with Eight Years of IceCube Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 051101 [2109.13719]

2022
[10]

NOvA collaboration, Search for slow magnetic monopoles with the NOvA detector on the surface, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 012007 [2009.04867]

2021 arXiv
[11]

IceCube collaboration, Search for non-relativistic Magnetic Monopoles with IceCube, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2938 [1402.3460]

2014 arXiv
[12]

Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Search for GUT monopoles at Super–Kamiokande, Astropart. Phys. 36 (2012) 131 [1203.0940]

2012 arXiv
[13]

Zhang, S.-H

C. Zhang, S.-H. Zhang, B. Fu, J.-F. Zhang and X. Zhang, On the cosmological abundance of magnetic monopoles, JHEP08 (2024) 220 [2404.04926]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Parker, The Origin of Magnetic Fields, Astrophys

E.N. Parker, The Origin of Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J.160 (1970) 383

1970
[15]

H. Hu, J. Cheng, W.-L. Guo and W. Wang, Exploring neutrinos from proton decays catalyzed by GUT monopoles in the Sun, JCAP06 (2022) 003 [2201.02386]

2022 arXiv
[16]

DUNE collaboration, Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,2002.03005

2002
[17]

Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration, Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,1805.04163

arXiv
[18]

Rubakov, Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles and Proton Decay, JETP Lett.33 (1981) 644

V.A. Rubakov, Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles and Proton Decay, JETP Lett.33 (1981) 644

1981
[19]

Rubakov, Adler-Bell-Jackiw Anomaly and Fermion Number Breaking in the Presence of a Magnetic Monopole, Nucl

V.A. Rubakov, Adler-Bell-Jackiw Anomaly and Fermion Number Breaking in the Presence of a Magnetic Monopole, Nucl. Phys. B203 (1982) 311

1982
[20]

Callan, Jr., Disappearing Dyons, Phys

C.G. Callan, Jr., Disappearing Dyons, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 2141

1982
[21]

Callan, Jr., Dyon-Fermion Dynamics, Phys

C.G. Callan, Jr., Dyon-Fermion Dynamics, Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 2058

1982
[22]

Rubakov, Monopole Catalysis of Proton Decay, Rept

V.A. Rubakov, Monopole Catalysis of Proton Decay, Rept. Prog. Phys.51 (1988) 189. – 19 –

1988
[24]

Kazama, C.N

Y. Kazama, C.N. Yang and A.S. Goldhaber, Scattering of a Dirac Particle with Charge Ze by a Fixed Magnetic Monopole, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2287

1977
[25]

Csáki, S

C. Csáki, S. Hong, Y. Shirman, O. Telem, J. Terning and M. Waterbury, Scattering amplitudes for monopoles: pairwise little group and pairwise helicity, JHEP08 (2021) 029 [2009.14213]

2021 arXiv
[26]

Csáki, Y

C. Csáki, Y. Shirman, O. Telem and J. Terning, Pairwise Multiparticle States and the Monopole Unitarity Puzzle, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 181601 [2109.01145]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Khoze, Scattering amplitudes of fermions on monopoles, JHEP11 (2023) 214 [2308.09401]

V.V. Khoze, Scattering amplitudes of fermions on monopoles, JHEP11 (2023) 214 [2308.09401]

2023 arXiv
[28]

van Beest, P

M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, Z. Komargodski and D. Tong, Monopoles, scattering, and generalized symmetries, JHEP03 (2025) 014 [2306.07318]

2025 arXiv
[29]

van Beest, P

M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, R. Mouland and D. Tong, Fermion-monopole scattering in the Standard Model, JHEP08 (2024) 004 [2312.17746]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Wick, T.W

S.D. Wick, T.W. Kephart, T.J. Weiler and P.L. Biermann, Signatures for a cosmic flux of magnetic monopoles, Astropart. Phys.18 (2003) 663 [astro-ph/0001233]

2003 arXiv
[31]

Perri, K

D. Perri, K. Bondarenko, M. Doro and T. Kobayashi, Monopole acceleration in intergalactic magnetic fields, Phys. Dark Univ.46 (2024) 101704 [2401.00560]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Tompkins, Total energy loss and Čerenkov emission from monopoles, Phys

D.R. Tompkins, Total energy loss and Čerenkov emission from monopoles, Phys. Rev.138 (1965) B248

1965
[33]

Derkaoui, G

J. Derkaoui, G. Giacomelli, T. Lari, A. Margiotta, M. Ouchrif, L. Patrizii et al., Energy losses of magnetic monopoles and of dyons in the earth, Astropart. Phys.9 (1998) 173

1998
[34]

Honda, M

M. Honda, M. Sajjad Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa, Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 023004 [1502.03916]

2015 arXiv
[35]

O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich et al., Transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions, Phys. Rept.512 (2012) 1 [1106.1344]

2012 arXiv
[36]

FLUKA CERN

“FLUKA CERN.” https://fluka.cern
[37]

Ahdida et al., New Capabilities of the FLUKA Multi-Purpose Code, Front

C. Ahdida et al., New Capabilities of the FLUKA Multi-Purpose Code, Front. in Phys.9 (2022) 788253

2022
[38]

Battistoni et al., Overview of the FLUKA code, Annals Nucl

G. Battistoni et al., Overview of the FLUKA code, Annals Nucl. Energy82 (2015) 10

2015
[39]

Donadon, G

A. Donadon, G. Hugo, C. Theis and V. Vlachoudis, FLAIR3 – recasting simulation experiences with the Advanced Interface for FLUKA and other Monte Carlo codes, EPJ Web Conf. 302 (2024) 11005

2024
[40]

DUNE collaboration, Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF,1512.06148
[41]

Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Search for proton decay viap→e+π0 and p→µ+π0 in 0.31 megaton·years exposure of the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 012004 [1610.03597]. – 20 –

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [23]

Khoze, Monopoles and fermions in the Standard Model, JHEP09 (2024) 146 [2405.18689]

V.V. Khoze, Monopoles and fermions in the Standard Model, JHEP09 (2024) 146 [2405.18689]

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,, Proc

P.A.M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field,, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133 (1931) 60

work page 1931

[3] [2]

’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 276

work page 1974

[4] [3]

Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett.20 (1974) 194

A.M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett.20 (1974) 194

work page 1974

[5] [4]

Zeldovich and M.Y

Y.B. Zeldovich and M.Y. Khlopov, On the Concentration of Relic Magnetic Monopoles in the Universe, Phys. Lett. B79 (1978) 239

work page 1978

[6] [5]

Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles, Phys

J. Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1365

work page 1979

[7] [6]

Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys

A.H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347

work page 1981

[8] [7]

MoEDAL collaboration, Magnetic Monopole Search with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV pp Collisions Interpreted in Photon-Fusion and Drell-Yan Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) 021802 [1903.08491]

arXiv 2019