Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Probing Dark Matter and Phantom Field Effects on Neutrino Oscillations around Black Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in a black hole spacetime with dark matter in a phantom-field background, radially escaping neutrinos see no net gravitational phase, while gravitationally deflected neutrinos acquire a dark-matter-dependent phase…

desk verdict Useful first computation of a dark-matter-dependent lensing phase for neutrinos, but the numerical case is undermined by a mixed model: DMPF phase paired with a Schwarzschild lens equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07615 v1 pith:OMZGFHTO submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph gr-qc

Ikrom Ergashov , Bakhtiyor Narzilloev , Ibrar Hussain , Bobomurat Ahmedov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qc PACS 14.60.Pq95.35.+d04.70.-s
keywords neutrinooscillationsblackholesdarkmatterphantomfieldgravitationallensingflavortransitionsdecoherenceweak
topics 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 argues that neutrinos traveling near a black hole surrounded by dark matter in a phantom field acquire flavor-oscillation phases that are sensitive to the dark-sector density parameter. For neutrinos moving straight out along a radius, the gravitational contributions cancel, so the phase grows with distance and mass splitting exactly as in flat spacetime. For neutrinos whose paths are bent by the black hole, the accumulated phase picks up an extra term proportional to the dark-matter parameter plus a logarithmic factor, slightly changing the effective mass-difference coefficient and the total phase. The authors compute the resulting electron-to-muon transition probabilities for lensing by the Sun, Sgr A*, and M87*, and find a degeneracy between lens mass and dark-matter parameter, meaning different mass/dark-matter combinations produce identical probabilities. If correct, the result would make neutrinos from lensed astrophysical sources a potential probe of dark-matter distributions around compact objects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the covariant phase integral $\Phi_k = \int_S^D p^{(k)}_\mu dx^\mu$ evaluated with the conserved momenta obtained from the mass-shell condition $m_k^2 = g^{\mu\nu} p^{(k)}_\mu p^{(k)}_\nu$ in the DMPF line element (4). The argument hinges on the cancellation $AB=1$ for radial paths and on the weak-field expansion of the lensed-path integrand, which yields the compact phase formula Eq. (44) and hence the two-flavor transition probability (52). Those equations carry the dark-sector parameter $a$ into the oscillation curves and into the $M$-$a$ degeneracy shown in Fig. 5.

What would settle it

Compute the null-geodesic deflection angle for metric (4) to first order in $a/M$ and re-solve the lens equation for $b_1,b_2$ with that angle. If the $a$-dependent deflection term changes the impact parameters by an amount comparable to the $a$-term in Eq. (44), the predicted probability curves and the $M$-$a$ degeneracy plot would change measurably; if the $a$-correction to the deflection is negligible at the same order, the calculation is consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that the dark-matter parameter of the DMPF metric leaves an observable imprint on two-flavor neutrino oscillations only for non-radial, lensed trajectories. For pure radial motion the metric factors $A B = 1$ cancel, so the phase reduces to $\Phi_k \simeq m_k^2 (r_D-r_S)/(2E_0)$ and matches flat spacetime. For neutrinos deflected by the black hole, the weak-field phase integral gives Eq. (44), $\Phi_k \simeq \frac{m_k^2}{2E_0}(r_S+r_D)\left[1 - \frac{b^2}{2r_S r_D} + \frac{2M}{r_S+r_D} + \frac{a}{r_S+r_D}\ln\frac{r_S r_D}{M^2}\right]$, so $a$ enters both the coefficient of the mass-difference term and the total phase. Feeding this phase into the two-flavor transition probability produces oscillation curves that depend on $a/M$, and the numerical analysis shows a degeneracy between the lens mass $M$ and $a$: different pairs $(M,a)$ can give the same transition probability. The wave-packet treatment adds the claim that the absolute neutrino mass, not $a$, controls the decoherence length.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical probabilities rest on the premise that the dark-matter parameter $a$ does not change the bending angle of the two lensed neutrino paths, even though the same $a$ enters the phase; if $a$ also bends the trajectories, the computed $b_1$ and $b_2$ and all the probability and degeneracy curves would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For radially moving neutrinos near a black hole, the accumulated oscillation phase is the same as in flat spacetime, so oscillation experiments along radial lines of sight do not need gravitational corrections.
  • For gravitationally deflected neutrinos, the dark-matter parameter $a$ shifts the effective mass-difference coefficient and adds a logarithmic phase, so flavor transition probabilities around black holes depend on the local dark-matter density.
  • The same transition probability can be produced by different combinations of lens mass $M$ and dark-matter parameter $a$, so neutrino oscillation data alone cannot separate the two without independent mass information.
  • Gaussian wave-packet decoherence near a black hole is governed primarily by the absolute neutrino mass; the dark-matter parameter gives at most subdominant corrections to the coherence length.
  • If $a/M$ is as large as the allowed bounds for Sgr A* and M87*, the effect of $a$ on the oscillation probability is in principle large enough to be searched for with high-energy neutrino observations of lensed sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step would be to recompute the impact parameters $b_1,b_2$ from the deflection angle of metric (4) itself; if $a$ also modifies null bending, the quoted probability curves would be quantitatively different, and the degeneracy plot Fig. 5 would shift.
  • Because $a$ enters only the phase of deflected paths, strongly lensed double images of the same astrophysical neutrino source would carry an $a$-dependent phase difference between images; correlating the two images could isolate this dark-matter contribution from the unknown source flux.
  • Independent constraints on $a$ from photon deflection or stellar-orbit precession in the same spacetime would break the $M$-$a$ degeneracy and turn neutrino oscillations into a consistency test of the DMPF geometry.
  • The radial-cancellation result implies that line-of-sight supernova neutrinos are insensitive to the dark-matter parameter, so future dark-matter probes via neutrino astronomy should target off-axis or lensed configurations.
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. The paper investigates the effect of a dark-matter–phantom-field (DMPF) background on two-flavor neutrino oscillations around a Schwarzschild-like black hole. The authors use the Stodolsky covariant phase formula to compute the propagation phase along radial and non-radial (lensed) paths, finding that radial paths reproduce the flat-spacetime phase while deflected paths acquire a correction proportional to the DMPF parameter a. They then construct two-flavor oscillation probabilities, present numerical results for solar-system, Sgr A*, and M87* lensing configurations, and analyze decoherence with Gaussian wave packets. The central analytical claim is that the parameter a enters the phase for deflected neutrinos and hence modifies the oscillation probability and creates an M–a degeneracy.

Significance. If upheld, the analytical part of the paper would establish an interesting avenue: neutrinos lensed by a black hole could in principle probe the dark matter density parameter a through oscillation phase shifts. The paper derives the phase from the metric without fitting parameters, so the prediction is falsifiable. The numerical illustrations, however, are affected by an inconsistent treatment of the lens geometry, and the decoherence section contains a sign error. These issues currently prevent the numerical claims from being accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [VI, Eqs. (54)-(55)] The lens equation used to determine b1 and b2 employs only the Schwarzschild deflection angle δ = -4M/b, but the phase in Eq. (44) is obtained from the DMPF metric in Eq. (4). Since the a-dependent term contributes to null geodesic deflection at the same order, the impact parameters obtained from Eq. (55) do not correspond to geodesics of the claimed spacetime. For the Sgr A* parameters (a/M = 0.15, b ~ 10^5 M), the a-correction to the deflection angle is comparable to 4M/b, so the numerical probabilities in Figures 2-5 and the degeneracy plot in Figure 5 are not predictions of the DMPF model. The lens equation must be derived from the full metric before the numerical results can be interpreted.
  2. [VII, Eq. (61)] The expression for |\vec{X}^p_i|^2 is written with an overall minus sign, so the right-hand side is negative for positive A(r_S), which is impossible for a squared norm. This sign error propagates into Eq. (63) and invalidates the quantitative decoherence analysis. The authors should correct the sign and rederive the damping factor.
  3. [IV.B, Eqs. (37)-(44)] The weak-field expansion used to compute the phase is performed with the zeroth-order term (1 - b^2/r^2)^{-1/2}, but the lower integration limit r_C ≈ b - M lies in the region where this term is imaginary. The paper does not explain how the real part of the integral is extracted, and this affects the M-dependent terms in Eqs. (43)-(44). The authors should justify this step and verify the phase against the known weak-field gravitational time delay, which contains a logarithmic dependence on r_S r_D/b^2.
  4. [Figure 2 caption and Section VI text] The caption for Figure 2 states 'mass M = M_⊙' for the Sgr A* and M87* panels, but Table I and the text give lens masses of 4.3×10^6 M_⊙ and 6.5×10^9 M_⊙, respectively. Since the oscillation probability and phase depend strongly on M, this inconsistency must be resolved to validate the numerical results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VII title] The title 'Neutrion decoharence' should be 'Neutrino decoherence'.
  2. [Eq. (52)] Equation (52) is presented without a derivation; a derivation from Eq. (46) would improve the paper.
  3. [Eq. (63)] The symbol σ̄^2 in Eq. (63) is not defined; it should be σ^2 from Eq. (60).
  4. [Eq. (63)] In Eq. (63), there is a double minus sign before 2m_1^4; please correct.
  5. [Section VI] In Section VI, 'the (Sun/ )–Earth system' should be 'the Sun–Earth system'.
  6. [References] References [16] and [20] are the same paper; please consolidate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DMPF metric and Stodolsky phase formula are external inputs, the a/M values come from independent bounds, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; the Schwarzschild-lens mismatch is an internal-consistency issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation starts from the DMPF line element (Eqs. (4)-(7)), attributed to Refs. [45,46], and the covariant Stodolsky phase (Eq. (14), Ref. [50]). The weak-field expansion leads to the lensed phase (Eqs. (43)-(44)); the two-flavor probability (Eq. (52)) is then an algebraic consequence with no fitted parameter. The a/M values used in Figs. 2-5 come from external Solar-System DM bounds (Ref. [57]) and EHT shadow constraints (Ref. [58]); the paper even notes in Section VI that no dedicated published constraint on a was identified and that Huo & Liu's numerical bounds were inaccessible, so an order-of-magnitude estimate was used. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [9], [35]-[43], [46]) concern prior work on particle dynamics, lensing geometry, or the metric itself, but the metric is also supported by the external Li-Yang paper (Ref. [45]) and the phase formula is external, so no load-bearing conclusion rests on self-citation alone. The most serious weakness is an internal consistency problem rather than circularity: the lens equation (54)-(55) uses only the Schwarzschild deflection angle delta = -4M/b, while the phase Eq. (44) uses the a-dependent metric; at the same order the a-term also changes the null deflection and the closest-approach radius (Eq. (42) omits the a-correction). This means the numerical impact parameters are not those of the DMPF spacetime, but this is not an equation reducing to its own input or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Hence no circular step is exhibitable under the stated standards.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No truly new entities are introduced. The scalar field Φ and the parameter a are inherited from prior work. The principal unstated inputs are the imported metric and the standard phase-integral treatment, plus the geometrical assumption that the lens deflection is the Schwarzschild one.

free parameters (4)
  • a/M (solar system bound) = ≤ 7.5×10^-12
    Taken from the solar-system dark matter density bound at 1 AU, not derived in this paper. Used for the solar-system plot (Fig. 3).
  • a/M (toy model) = 0.05 and 0.1
    Chosen by hand for illustration in Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 7; not constrained by data in this paper.
  • a/M (Sgr A*) = 0.15 (within EHT-derived 1σ to 2σ bounds)
    Taken from Ref. [58], not derived here; used for the Sgr A* panels.
  • a/M (M87*) = 0.335 (within 2σ bound)
    Taken from Ref. [58]; used for M87* panels.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kiselev/Li-Yang metric with f(r)=1-2M/r+(a/r)ln(r/|a|) (Eqs. 4-7) correctly describes a black hole surrounded by phantom-field dark matter.
    The metric is imported from Refs. [44-46] as the starting point; no derivation or observational confirmation specific to black hole environments is given.
  • domain assumption The neutrino phase is given by the Stodolsky integral Φk = ∫ p_μ^(k) dx^μ (Eq. 14), with canonical momenta m_k g_μν dx^ν/ds.
    Standard but nontrivial; it assumes the semiclassical/WKB treatment of neutrino propagation in curved spacetime.
  • domain assumption Ultra-relativistic limit with equal asymptotic energies E_k ≈ E_0 and expansion to first order in m_k^2/E_k^2 (Eqs. 25, 31, 36).
    All oscillation formulas rely on this expansion; corrections are not estimated.
  • domain assumption Weak-field and small-angle assumptions: b ≫ M and b ≪ rS, rD (Eqs. 42, 44), and terms dropped in Eq. (38) are negligible.
    The paper states these are satisfied for the chosen systems, but the Sgr A* and M87* parameters with a/M ~ 0.15-0.335 push the metric away from the Schwarzschild limit, so the weak-field truncation should be checked more carefully.
  • domain assumption Phase effects on oscillations can be described by plane waves, with wave-packet effects added via the formula (56) from Ref. [65].
    The two-flavor probability (52) and the decoherence factor (63) are built on this imported formalism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Dark Matter and Phantom Field Effects on Neutrino Oscillations around Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMZGFHTO

@misc{pith2026260807615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Dark Matter and Phantom Field Effects on Neutrino Oscillations around Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMZGFHTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07615}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates how dark matter in the background of the phantom field (DMPF) near a black hole influences neutrino flavor oscillations using a two-flavor model. It is found that gravitational effects are cancelled for radially moving neutrinos, causing the oscillation phase to increase with distance and mass-splitting, similar to flat spacetime. However, deflected neutrinos experience additional phase shifts due to dark matter, which slightly alters the mass-difference term and the total phase. Numerical analysis supports these findings and reveals a degeneracy between lens mass and dark matter parameters, affecting the transition probability curves based on source angle changes. Neutrinos modeled as Gaussian wave packets show that decoherence in a gravitational field is minimally influenced by dark matter, with the absolute neutrino mass determining the oscillation duration. Our findings imply that curved spacetime and dark matter significantly impact neutrino oscillations, offering potential insights into dark matter through neutrino astronomy in extreme environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of weak lensing of neutrinos in the spacetime of a massive object surrounded by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The neutrino oscillation probability. Black lines indicate the Schwarzschild case ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Neutrino oscillation probability for a solar-system-scale black hole, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The oscillation probability is plotted as a function of the azimuthal angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The damping factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum and minimum transition probability as a function of the detector distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J.Lett.930,L12(2022),arXiv:2311.08680[astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Scripta T85, 210 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9901109

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    D. J. Eisensteinet al.(SDSS), Astrophys. J.633, 560 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501171

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    E. O. Babichev, V. I. Dokuchaev, and Y. N. Eroshenko, Phys. Usp.56, 1155 (2013), arXiv:1406.0841 [gr-qc]. 14

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    S. M. Koushiappas and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041102 (2017), arXiv:1704.01668 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Narzilloev, J

    B. Narzilloev, J. Rayimbaev, S. Shaymatov, A. Abdujab- barov, B. Ahmedov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D102, 104062 (2020), arXiv:2011.06148 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mustafa and I

    G. Mustafa and I. Hussain, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 419 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    For neutrinos propagating non-radially in the presence of a black hole lens, Eq

    The combined width of the momentum distribution is given by σ2 = σ2 Dσ2 S σ2 D +σ 2 S ,(60) whereσ S andσ D denote the standard deviations of the momentum distribution functions at the source and the detector, respectively. For neutrinos propagating non-radially in the presenc...

  4. [12]

    Ditta, X

    A. Ditta, X. Tiecheng, F. Atamurotov, I. Hussain, and G. Mustafa, Commun. Theor. Phys.75, 125404 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Atamurotov, I

    F. Atamurotov, I. Hussain, G. Mustafa, and K. Jusufi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 831 (2022), arXiv:2209.01652 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Singh, A

    A. Singh, A. Ghosh, and C. Bhamidipati, Front. in Phys. 9, 65 (2021), arXiv:2002.08787 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. Jou, M. S. Mongiovi, and M. Sciacca, Phys. Rev. D 83, 043519 (2011)

    2011

  8. [17]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Faraoni, Astrophysics 65, 534 (2022), arXiv:2208.10235 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and F. S. N. Lobo, Astropart. Phys.29, 386 (2008), arXiv:0709.0046 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Matos, F

    T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and D. Nunez, Phys. Rev. D 62, 061301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003398

    2000 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Li and K.-C

    M.-H. Li and K.-C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D86, 123015 (2012), arXiv:1204.3178 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Vukcevic, The Astronomical Journal161, 118 (2021)

    M. Vukcevic, The Astronomical Journal161, 118 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, J. Wang, and Y. Liao, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 2434390 (2019), arXiv:1610.05454 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [23]

    X. Hou, Z. Xu, and J. Wang, JCAP12, 040 (2018), arXiv:1810.06381 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Y. Cao, H. Feng, W. Hong, and J. Tao, Commun. Theor. Phys.73, 095403 (2021), arXiv:2101.08199 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Haroon, M

    S. Haroon, M. Jamil, K. Jusufi, K. Lin, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D99, 044015 (2019), arXiv:1810.04103 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [26]

    G. G. Raffelt, New Astron. Rev.46, 699 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207220

    2002 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Shodikulov, M

    B. Shodikulov, M. Mirov, F. Atamurotov, S. G. Ghosh, and A. Abdujabbarov, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102096 (2025)

    2025

  19. [28]

    Albertet al.(ANTARES), Phys

    A. Albertet al.(ANTARES), Phys. Rept.1121-1124, 1 (2025), arXiv:2504.09473 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Roulet and F

    E. Roulet and F. Vissani,Neutrinos in Physics and As- trophysics(World Scientific, 2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    Chakraborty, JCAP10, 019 (2015), arXiv:1506.02647 [gr-qc]

    S. Chakraborty, JCAP10, 019 (2015), arXiv:1506.02647 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Piriz, M

    D. Piriz, M. Roy, and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D54, 1587 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604403

    1996 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Hernández-Molinero, C

    B. Hernández-Molinero, C. Carbone, R. Jimenez, and C. Peña Garay, JCAP01, 006 (2024), arXiv:2301.12430 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Buoninfante, G

    L. Buoninfante, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello, and L. Smaldone, Phys. Rev. D101, 024016 (2020), arXiv:1906.03131 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Chakrabarty, A

    H. Chakrabarty, A. Chatrabhuti, D. Malafarina, B. Silasan, and T. Tangphati, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/08/018, cited by: 1

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Narzilloev, D

    B. Narzilloev, D. Malafarina, A. Abdujabbarov, and C. Bambi, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 784 (2020), arXiv:2003.11828 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Chakrabarty, D

    H. Chakrabarty, D. Borah, A. Abdujabbarov, D. Malafa- rina, and B. Ahmedov, European Physical Journal C82 (2022), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09982-0, cited by: 16; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open Ac- cess

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    Narzilloev, I

    B. Narzilloev, I. Hussain, A. Abdujabbarov, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 645 (2022), arXiv:2205.11760 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Narzilloev, D

    B. Narzilloev, D. Malafarina, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D104, 064016 (2021), arXiv:2105.09174 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Narzilloev and B

    B. Narzilloev and B. Ahmedov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38, 2350026 (2023)

    2023

  31. [41]

    Narzilloev and B

    B. Narzilloev and B. Ahmedov, New Astron.98, 101922 (2023)

    2023

  32. [42]

    Davlataliev, B

    A. Davlataliev, B. Narzilloev, I. Hussain, A. Abdujab- barov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101340 (2023)

    2023

  33. [43]

    Alibekov, B

    H. Alibekov, B. Narzilloev, A. Abdujab- barov, and B. Ahmedov, Symmetry15(2023), 10.3390/sym15071414

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    V. V. Kiselev, Classical and Quantum Gravity20, 1187 (2003)

    2003

  35. [45]

    Davlataliev, B

    A. Davlataliev, B. Narzilloev, I. Hussain, A. Abdujab- barov, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101569 (2024)

    2024

  36. [46]

    Shaymatov, D

    S. Shaymatov, D. Malafarina, and B. Ahmedov, Physics of the Dark Universe34, 100891 (2021)

    2021

  37. [47]

    Li and K.-C

    M.-H. Li and K.-C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D86, 123015 (2012)

    2012

  38. [48]

    Pontecorvo, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53, 1717 (1967)

    1967

  39. [49]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 172 (1958)

    1958

  40. [50]

    Stodolsky, Phys

    L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D58, 036006 (1998)

    1998

  41. [51]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.28, 870 (1962)

    1962

  42. [52]

    A. Prša, P. Harmanec, G. Torres, E. Mamajek, M. As- plund, N. Capitaine, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, É. De- pagne, M. Haberreiter, S. Hekker,et al., The Astronom- ical Journal152, 41 (2016)

    2016

  43. [53]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Abuteret al.(Gravity), Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(Gravity), Astron. Astrophys.625 (2019), 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656, arXiv:1904.05721 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Kervella, L

    P. Kervella, L. Bigot, A. Gallenne, and F. Thévenin, Astronomy & Astrophysics597, A137 (2017)

    2017

  46. [56]

    Huo and C

    T. Huo and C. Liu, Phys. Dark Univ.52, 102252 (2026)

    2026

  47. [57]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Anjum, M

    A. Anjum, M. Afrin, and S. G. Ghosh, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101195 (2023), arXiv:2301.06373 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [59]

    J. M. Frere, F.-S. Ling, and G. Vertongen, Phys. Rev. D77, 083005 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0701542

    2008 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature587, 577 (2020), arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex]

    M. Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature587, 577 (2020), arXiv:2006.15115 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Agostiniet al.(Borexino), Phys

    M. Agostiniet al.(Borexino), Phys. Rev. D100, 082004 (2019), arXiv:1707.09279 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [62]

    and the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 [63]. At the end of the spectrum (∼0.1-3 EeV), cosmogenic (“GZK”) neutrinos are predicted to form when ultra-high-energy cosmic rays coll ide with cosmic microwave background photons over cosmological distances [64]. Unlike the solar and astroph...

  53. [63]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [64]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- ILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuS- 15 TAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403), Science361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  56. [66]

    Ahlers and F

    M. Ahlers and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D86, 083010 (2012), arXiv:1208.4181 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [67]

    Swami, K

    H. Swami, K. Lochan, and K. M. Patel, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095007 (2021), arXiv:2106.07671 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.